Beta orbiting blogger James Russell Lingerfelt’s latest post is a republication of a post by Roger Sterling Jr titled 5 benefits of having a smart and successful wife. Sterling was deeply troubled after reading a study which found that men took a self esteem hit when told their partner scored in the top 12% of university students:
If you needed any further proof that the current state of masculinity has decayed to a skinny jeans-wearing, over-emotional, self-esteem lacking embarrassment, there it is. There are few things more “beta male” in this world than taking an emotional hit when the person you supposedly care about most knocks it out of the park.
It isn’t clear to me whether Sterling is a feminist or a traditional conservative, but this is part of the point. Since feminism is now the established order feminists are finding themselves the new conservatives, and many conservatives can be found unwittingly conserving feminism.
However they arrive at the new conservative position, the idea that feminism would work if it weren’t for weak men screwing everything up is extremely common. This argument only makes sense if you take feminism as a given, as the new, natural, and permanent order. Under this paradigm, men who aren’t living up to feminist women’s expectations are defective, and need to “grow a pair”.
The “grow a pair” argument is of course compelling because this is the masculine way to look at the world. Advising men to grow a pair is excellent advice, but the question is why they should “man up”, and what form men’s self improvement should take. Should men improve themselves to facilitate the delusional dreams of feminists, or should men improve themselves because excellence and overcoming adversity is inherent in being a man? The reason men choose to “grow a pair” will instruct the form of said growth. Growing a pair under the new feminist/conservative order means manning up and marrying a career woman to prove that you are strong enough to handle her, so much so that you are willing to overlook more attractive women to prove your strength in supporting feminism.
Conservative feminist to men: “Just grow a pair, already!”
Men to conservative feminist: “Why? So they’ll take up more space in her designer purse?”
Oh gosh,it’s like that line at the end of Animal Farm about not being able to tell the pigs from the men nor the men from the pigs.
Manboobs of various stripes can keep yakking, but nature and reality will rule.
It seems like feminists are always saying that people’s natural feelings are wrong and must be changed.
But why? Why must we expend so much effort to change people’s natural inclinations? It would be so much easier and so much less struggle just to accept those inclinations.
Of course, if a man is the one knocking it out of the park, then he’s just keeping his wife down…
I don’t care anymore, have at it ladies, suck as many dicks as you like and sexy up as many thugs as you like, spend all your fertile years studying useless junk; just please fucking stop it with the ‘man up’ junk, I’m sick of it. You’re so bloody superior to men in every single damn way, so go do the shit yourself.
Grow a fucking pair, you bitches!
I am puzzled…. Is that due to possible insecurity about their partner abandoning them for a smarter man?
Although the flip side of that might be – I wonder if women would take a self esteem hit in a similar study that found that their partner was ranked in the top 12% of attractiveness for male university students….
> “Why? So they’ll take up more space in her designer purse?”
Heh.
Feminazis: “Man up and appease me!”
“It isn’t clear to me whether Sterling is a feminist or a traditional conservative, but this is part of the point.”
Trad con = the other feminism. And it always has.
Man up for feminists. I don’t want to go back to jail.
No thanks…I realized someday I’m going to die, I’m giving up, and living life free of their shackles.
Lol Earl, we agree on something! Whoop! Giving up on their dream is the new free!
Feminism is really just the vehicle for the State’s war on husbands, which is why it has become accepted throughout much of the bureaucracy. I detail this here: http://swiftfoxmark2.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-war-on-husbands.html
It also explains why it has come to be accepted throughout many churches. Women are more likely than men to attend church. As such, anything that enables them to grow the number of women is something church leadership will latch on to. With women in the workforce more and more, it benefits the churches even more as those women will tithe their own income.
It is natural then for a church to hold up feminism as an ideal, even if they publicly oppose it. They do not want to risk alienating their own congregation. Because having the courage of Archbishop Janani Luwum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janani_Luwum) isn’t what Jesus was about.
A near death experience will do that for you.
Now manning up with stuff I like instead of their prescribed thoughts…that is fun.
Jen,
This is what I was wondering. If that is the case, why is this a problem for the manosphere? That is a problem for that one man.
Dalrock, I do not follow the point you are making here. All I see are men who’s self-esteem can’t handle the fact that their wife is successful at something. I take great PRIDE at my wife’s accomplishments. The better she does, the better I feel about it because I know that she knows how good she is (at something) and I’m a part of that because she is a part of my life. That isn’t feminism.
I believe it goes something like this. Man and women get married. Women did crazy well in college but doesn’t do well it life. Blames husband as being the cause of her ill fate and states her success in college as proof of her brilliance and the cause of her downfall the sabotage of her jealous, underachieving, poor, little boy, husband.
Simple fix, don’t get married women, really, don’t do it.
Or perhaps the wife uses her success in college to demand that she leads and he follows. That she is the success and he’s the failure.
Well as we know “grow a pair” and “man up” are signals for you to act the opposite of masculine, but saying you did “act masculine” by being the beta SNAG.
I find this blogger’s paradigm offensive too: why would my gonads shrink because I have a smart lady? Part of that being smart – truly smart – is also being pleasant, pliable, physically fit, supportive, etc. Yes I admit I am being a little cute here: there is smart, and there is YOUGOGRRL.
And of course you can’t promote YOUGOGRRL smart while ignoring the built-in hypergamy: if she’s “hitting out of the park” the way he says, what does she need her gonad-less non-cis-gendered creature for?
I posted this over at the story site. Awaiting moderation. We’ll see if it goes through.
The reality is it’s WOMEN who can’t deal with having a husband that is less successful and less intelligent than themselves.
I’ve never seen a marriage where the wife “married down” work out over the long run. Inevitably, the wife becomes resentful over marrying a less than worthy husband; her attraction and respect for him wanes; and the marriage falls apart.
If Joe Blue-Collar (high school grad making $50k) marries Jane Professional (college grad making $80k), he’ll end up in a world of hurt. She’ll end up divorcing him. Not because he has done he has done anything wrong (he could be the perfect husband), but because eventually she won’t be able to stand the fact that she is the breadwinner/successful-one.
Wives have an innate need to look up to their husbands; to be married to a man that is more successful, smarter, and accomplished than they are. It may not be PC to say it, but it’s the truth.
Hypergamy is the word that describes this.
And IBB, that’s the exact comment a Tradcon would make. Thus proving Dalrock’s point. You’re saying the exact same thing, that if it weren’t for these weak men, who can’t sort out their issues, everything would work. Once again, blame the man.
FH,
You lost me too. Let me go step by step….
So far so good.
That is also good…
…that happens all the time. Girl who graduated 3rd in our class in high school is still a waitress.
Okay now you just lost me. This has nothing to do with what Dalrock is talking about, nothing. I don’t see her blaming him for anything. All I see is his pride being hurt that his wife was so successful at something. That should make him feel PROUD.
But are we sure that this is happening here? I don’t see that? You are making assumptions.
Yes, a feminist might say that she is worth so much more than what her husband has given her (look at my accomplishments, you are not worthy of me) that kind of thing. But we don’t know that this is the case. All we know for sure is that some men (not all, just some) take a self-esteem hit when they find out how smart their wives are. That is THEIR problem. This is not a problem caused by feminism.
No, I’m giving examples where this might come up. No one knows the story here, but to think that some man feels shame at a woman doing well is silly. A man who has it shoved in his face though, just might.
“I am puzzled…. Is that due to possible insecurity about their partner abandoning them for a smarter man?”
Isn’t also possible that by the partner abandoning them…leads to insecurity?
Actions seem to have more impact on what causes an emotion.
It isn’t clear to me whether Sterling is a feminist or a traditional conservative…
You mean there’s a difference?
FH,
No.
Dalrock is saying that what these men are feeling (and why that is wrong according to Lingerfelt) is somehow (someway) related to feminism. I am saying it isn’t. This isn’t even about feminism. This is about some men and their pride, that’s all.
@innocentbystanderboston:
Would you be proud if your wife was better than you at things you pride yourself in being good at? Because it’s not just any achievement they tested, it’s specifically academic achievement, and money earning capabilities, which is what makes men feel useful and like men. I’ll second Jen on this one: ask your wife how she’d feel if you were better than her at things that make her feel proud to be a woman. For instance, cooking, or your appearance, sense of fashion, artistic skills, nurturing ability. You’ll probably soon find that what makes each sex worried is that we aren’t needed (and therefore desired) by the other.
It could also be a completely natural feeling for a man. He wants to naturally lead a woman; but she’s smarter than him, at least apparently – looking at universities today who knows…. , and therefore is not in need of his leadership.
Yep. The problem isn’t “Man up and …”; it is the content after the “and”.
And how is it related to feminism? Well, feminism is the notion that women are identical to men in function and ability, and the reason we don’t see it in the real world is because men hold them down. But these principles preclude the idea that each member of the partnership is good at something different, and it’s the complementarity that makes it work. In a feminist world, men and women are interchangeable, but in reality, they are complementary, and if one does not feel like they’re living up to their expectations, that they aren’t fulfilling their side, of course they will take a hit in their self-esteem.
IBB, the article is blaming men for not manning up and accepting their wives/partners as superior to them. What part of feminism are you not getting?
Man up and don’t marry a slut.
And the turbocharging of a million hamsters have commenced.
Man up and don’t get married.
Zykos,
YES!!!! Absolutely. That is MY WIFE who is able to do those things, that would make me feel great!
It makes me feel great because I asked her to marry me, she said yes. She KNOWS how much she brings to the table, how much value she can add to our marriage, and even if she is better at something that I do, she STILL wants to be MY WIFE!
This is not a problem. This is not feminism. This is great, fantastic.
No.
These problems only become issues for him (or her) if there is already a lack of self-esteem. If one spouse (or the other) doesn’t feel a sense of purpose in the marriage, a sense that they contribute in someway to the marriage, then this becomes an issue. But it will only become an issue for that one person. This has nothing to do with feminism.
We all know what feminism is and what it isn’t, I fail to see how feminism relates at all to this situation.
IBB, why would you need to do those things if your wife were better than you? Obviously you shouldn’t do them because your wife should, she’s better than you.
@IBB,
It isn’t that men are more attracted to dumb women or feel threatened by smart women.
It’s that even the most blue-pill guy knows in his gut the problems that ALWAYS occur when a man marries a woman who is higher than him on the social/economic ladder.
She’ll become discontent that her husband can’t keep up with her socially or economically. She’ll become frustrated that she can’t be a stay at home mom, because they can’t live off the husband’s income (even if she doesn’t want to be a SAHM, she’ll be frustrated over not having the choice). She’ll become the dominant partner in the marriage (because eventually she’ll determine her husband isn’t as competent has she is), and turn into a bossy harpy. Eventually, she’ll dump her (now loser) husband for someone better.
And this pattern will play out even if the husband makes $500k a year, because if she makes $800k then in her mind she married down.
FH,
Because that is not feminism. And the whole concept of wives/partners as “superior to them” that really isn’t part of that article FH.
There are few things more “beta male” in this world than taking an emotional hit when the person you supposedly care about most knocks it out of the park.
Really not an issue, as VERY FEW women (too few statistically to even bother with, in fact) will commit themselves in earnest to a man they see as being less powerful/successful/success-oriented than they are. Most success-oriented (“Type A”) women who achieve are committed to men who are at least as successful as they are, if not more so. After all, it has been quite clearly established that women feel attracted to (and readily SUBMIT TO) men more powerful than they are. They generally feel NO serious attraction to men who lack such power or who are less successful/success-oriented than they are. (Why would they feel any such attraction? They’re hardwired, biologically and psychologically, to seek out men who are “strong,” “leaders,” “providers,” “defenders against danger,” etc., traits that THEY don’t have.)
Ask yourselves this: how many prominent, successful women in positions of power and authority do you know of (in your workplace, in social settings, within your families, or otherwise) who are committed/married to men who are beneath their own abilities or social stations?
Any answer other than “none” is one that I’m going to label as a lie. Sure, women might keep such men around on a temporary basis (the guy has something specific that she needs that she can’t get from any other man – for the time being), but she is NOT going to hang onto him as a long-term relationship or as a spouse (the dowager millionairess doesn’t marry her high school dropout pool boy; she keeps him around for the sex and the muscle, but she will NOT commit to him and will toss him aside in a heartbeat as soon as she finds any man of her own socioeconomic station who can do the same things or better things for her).
Oh my gosh IBB, can you really be that willfully blind? Feminism isn’t equality, even if it were in the past, it surely is not so now.
This would only hurt their self-esteem if they weren’t in the top 12% themselves, i.e. inferior to their partners…
How proud of your wife will you be when she becomes so good…she’ll divorce you because she needs a man to look up to or you don’t inspire her. After all…marriage isn’t really a binding contract anymore and male insecurity does have a justification when it comes to this.
That’s the pattern happening out there because of the system in place.
I don’t buy it IBB. Women want a man they can look up to, and men (so I’ve been told) want their women to need them.
What I’ve witnessed anecdotally coupled with many of the studies and stories written on the subject clearly indicate that “woman in command” upends the natural order.
And make no mistake sir: No woman is going to submit to a man she is convinced she is better than.
How proud of his wife will he be when she successfully scores a better man than him? Say in the top 12% of men in his social circle..
8-to-12,
This, all of this, only becomes a problem if she didn’t love and respect her husband in the first place.
If she was nothing more than a gold-digger, and married her husband for status and lifestyle, then your argument would hold water. In this case, not only should they NOT have gotten married, but she is also a b-tch and a destroyer. Thank God not ALL women are gold-diggers. 🙂
Women detest men who are inferior. Inferior in looks, ability and anything else besides nurturing. She can put off the disgust she feels while he is still somewhat alluring to her on an attraction scale. Once that fades, well… this inferior man becomes nothing but a drain on her, his weakness rubs off on her and she needs to find a real man.
This story is just so easy, it writes itself…
Pretty much all women are gold diggers.
Intelligent women factor in their intelligence and thus expect to get more bang for their buck.
A women thinks she loves and respects her husband until the point when she knows she doesn’t. All down hill from there, matey! Try being the inferior man at that point?!
Briffault’s Law in action is what that is.
Did anyone click on the jamesrussell.org link on the page and read the quotes?
“Keep your eye on this kid and mark it on your calendar. He’s going to be the next Max Lucado.”
-John Mount. Senior Pastor, St. Aldersgate Church
“Lingerfelt is where Nicholas Sparks and CS Lewis intersect. I can’t wait to watch his movie.”
-Lee Wilson, author of The Real Heaven and The Last Hybrid: Bloodline of Angels
The guy compares himself to not only Max Lucado but CS Lewis! Talk about being full of yourself.
But of course, he didn’t actually say these things. He’s just repeating what others have said (strangely, there are no quotes for his detractors to even things out).
This, all of this, only becomes a problem if she didn’t love and respect her husband in the first place.
Right. Because women never talk themselves and each other out of a right attitude towards their husbands.
@FeministHater
“I believe it goes something like this. Man and women get married. Women did crazy well in college but doesn’t do well it life. Blames husband as being the cause of her ill fate and states her success in college as proof of her brilliance and the cause of her downfall the sabotage of her jealous, underachieving, poor, little boy, husband.”
This was my Ex. Great in school, lousy at life. Couldn’t hold a job because she had a knack for making enemies. Spent me into debt slavery. Of course her failure was my fault for working evenings and weekends to keep our heads above water
Elspeth,
It does upset the natural order. But I’m not sure that what you are saying applies in this case.
@IBB,
If she was nothing more than a gold-digger, and married her husband for status and lifestyle, then your argument would hold water.
Wrong term. Gold-diggers don’t marry beneath them on the economic ladder to begin with. Maybe we need another term for women that do so. How about settlers, as most of these women have decided to settle for a lesser man. Oh, I’m sure they convinced themselves they married for love, but the reality is they settled for what they could get at the time.
The 30+ year old carousel-rider that married the beta-provider would be a perfect example of a settler (not in the economic sense, but as an example of a woman who married beneath herself on the social ladder). And we all know how those marriages tend to work out.
In this case, not only should they NOT have gotten married, but she is also a b-tch and a destroyer. Thank God not ALL women are gold-diggers.
You actually pulled out the NAWALT argument? Saying not all women are like that, doesn’t lead the to conclusion that NOT ANY women are like that.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. ― G.K. Chesterton
Elspeth,
Of course they do. But this spills over into the belief that women lack moral agency (as I’ve said repeatedly.)
In the end, the man needs to know the woman he is marrying. If he KNOWS that the moment she thinks she can do BETTER without him that it will create a problem FOR HER to remain married TO HIM (because soemthing changed, and she doesn’t NEED HIM anymore), then DON’T MARRY HER. This needs to be figured out ahead of time, long before she starts running on her hamster wheel.
Oh yes IBB, it certainly does apply in this case. Let’s see. You said this in response to a question regarding your wife being better a things you take pride at excelling in:
And I say you’re wrong. Far be it for me to sound like Senor Deti here but the truth is that a woman marrying a man she is markedly better than at most things is a woman trying to hurry up and get married before her eggs dry up.
When a woman marries down (and knows it), it is not good for the man she marries. I stand by that. And yes, the scnario you describe amounts to a woman marrying down. If her husband doesn’t have some serious attributes in other areas where she can look up to him, he is in for a hard way to go.
If he KNOWS that the moment she thinks she can do BETTER without him that it will create a problem FOR HER to remain married TO HIM (because soemthing changed, and she doesn’t NEED HIM anymore), then DON’T MARRY HER. This needs to be figured out ahead of time, long before she starts running on her hamster wheel.
How is he supposed to know that when she doesn’t even know it?
Elspeth,
I’m not saying he doesn’t have serious attributes in other areas. Perhaps he does?
In almost every single case that I know of (where a man is happily married to a wife that submits) he has openly told me that he believes that his wife married down. These are the HAPPY marriages Elspeth from HIS perspective where he feels she NEEDS him. And this isn’t feminism and these guys aren’t TradCons. These are just men who adore their wives and I don’t see anything wrong with that. And you shouldn’t either. No one here should.
These are individual problems men have when they lack self-esteem. And if they married their wives with the belief that their wives WOULD LEAVE THEM the moment their wives became self-aware, their problems are either their own, or they never should have gotten married in the first place. Again, not feminism.
Elspeth,
She doesn’t know herself?
Well if that is the case, then not only is she not worthy of him, she is not worthy of anyone. How the hell can you make a lifetime commitment to someone (for better for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health) if you don’t eve n know what you want?
We’re talking past each other and you’re changing the subject. My husband loves me. He’s even admitted to “needing” me. But I am fully aware that he could do far better on his own without me than I could on my own without him. But that is not what we are talking about here.
The way the wife sees it is what matters because she’s the one most likely to bail. His admiration of her talents and awe of her accomplishments means zero, zilch, nada if she doesn’t look at him and feel the same way. And when he is beneath her (especially from a provider standpoint) she usually can’t feel the same way no matter how much she wants to. And it isn’t just in the upper income levels that this is true.
This is a universal truism, really. Everyone knows it but no one wants to admit it because it entrenches us in those icky “gender roles” tat we’ve worked so hard to liberate ourselves from.
She doesn’t know herself?
Well if that is the case, then not only is she not worthy of him, she is not worthy of anyone. How the hell can you make a lifetime commitment to someone (for better for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health) if you don’t eve n know what you want?
I generally enjoy your comments IBB, but your obtuseness here is starting to annoy me. I am the most feminine minded woman I know (I like me quite a lot too), and even I can see that what you’re saying demonstrates a complete denail of everything we know to be true from divorce statistics and relationship studies in and outside of the church.
You seem to be stuck parroting what should be. And in some cases, you’re right. A woman can rise above her hard wired nature and honor her commitment to her husband. Life happens. Injuries, sickness, economic downturns. A woman of caliber-rare as we are- can get through that with her man. But 9 times out of 10, actually starting out from the beginning with a man beneath her is not a healthy start.
And all this stuff about “knowing yourself”? That’s feminine language. I’m a woman and that kind of talk makes me cringe. We all change as we live. Sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. If you live by solid principles, “knowing yourself” isn’t a stumbling block. But how many people do that?
I think I’ll leave this to a much more articulate man who might agree with me to argue my point. I fear I’m not making much sense.
Its about hypergamy; if she is smarter then him, she’ll be an even bigger shrew and bolt sooner, plan her exit better to increase the damage done to her ex husband etc etc. Men know this stuff in their soul and have to be conditioned out of it via public schools, churches, main stream media etc etc.
Self esteem has nothing to do with it. Nor does pride. Its a survival instinct
Women want men who are taller, stronger, and smarter than themselves. Men know this instinctively, even if they’ve had the conscious knowledge of it trained out of them.
So if a man suddenly learns that his “partner” is smarter than him, naturally he’s going to feel a bit less confident in the relationship. If she’s smarter than him, maybe she’ll get bored with his stupid face and start walking out with her professor instead.
It’d be like having your fiancee win a million dollars in the lottery. Your first thought might be, “Will she still want me now that she doesn’t need to marry me for my income?”
Elspeth:
And all this stuff about “knowing yourself”? That’s feminine language.
But IBB is Alpha. We know that because he has said so himself repeatedly, and you can tell the Alpha by the name tag he puts on himself. It’s a chick magnet, that name tag, and the t-shirt that says “be Alpha like me”. Plus the funny hats, and the tattoos, and the ability to collect the sexual garbage in a society so filthy that the trash and excrement is piled high in the streets.
Patriarchy would work if we didn’t have all these feminist cunts and white knighting manboobs fucking everything up.
Elspeth,
That is correct. Entirely. No argument. But she is ONLY able to “bail” if she rejects her VOWS. If she has a willingness to do this, then the marriage should not have been created in the first place. Simple as that.
This is only a problem if she rejects her VOWS.
All you are saying is that (at a certain point in the marriage) there is a chance that she might not be HAAAAPPPPPY anymore. She realizes that she is smarter than him and (all of a sudden) she loses “respect” for her husband and she doesn’t feel the same way about him anymore.
Too bad.
Marriage is bigger than HER FEELINGS. We’re f-cked in society because of feminism saying that her feelings are bigger than marriage and that she can “opt out” at any moment. But that isn’t the problem here. The problem here, is (as you’ve described it) a logical decision on her part to instantly lose respect and love for her husband and want out of the marriage the instant she becomes aware that she can do better. This is only a problem if she rejects her VOWS.
Elspeth, you love your husband? You think he can do better? You have just said as much. Tomorrow (God Forbid) he is diagnosed with some dread disease that will prevent him from ever working for a living. His income (outside disability) is reduced to ZERO. He is now instantly beneath you. Yes he is. You now have to go to work outside the home (maybe two jobs) to support the family. And you know what? YOU WILL. Because you love him and you love your family. You would NEVER reject and dishonor your marriage and your VOWS.
All of this shit, this is not about feminism. This is about his lack of self-esteem (on his part) because he foolishly married a woman whom he thinks would reject her VOWS and might leave him the moment she realizes that she thinks she can do better.
Dalrock:
I think you’re correct about the issue raised in the Lingefelt post and the “what do you mean by ‘man up’” question you posit.
I have a different take on it.
What we’re seeing is one of the unintended consequences of feminism. Feminism theorizes that all we have to do is make everything equal for men and women, and it will all be OK. The key is that feminists believed that even though all this change would be wrought on Western society, men would still do all the things they had been doing, only on women’s timetables and on women’s command. Men would still:
1. Earn the money and pay the taxes.
2. Move the heavy stuff.
3. Have sex with them (the good looking hot ones)
4. Marry them (on their command and when they’re damn good and ready to)
5. Father their children
6. Do all the things that make their societies run: Haul away the trash, fix the cars, deliver the pizzas, build the houses, grow and process the food, invent and manufacture cool techno-shit, repair the electrical/mechanical/plumbing in their homes; and otherwise make the trains run on time.
Like the communists and socialists before them, the feministas forgot one thing:
INCENTIVE.
Why should I earn money, pay taxes and father your children? Why should I carry the heavy loads, buy her a house and then obligate myself to fix the shit in that house?
For middle-class men, high physical attractiveness can render women desirable for dating, sexual relationships, and even marriage regardless of their occupation, income, and education — provided that they do not exhibit the obvious trappings of a lower-class status and lifestyle. In comparison, women appear unwilling to date, marry, or have sexual relations with low-income, uneducated males regardless of the men’s physiognomies and physiques.
Women with higher SES have higher socioeconomic standards for their male partners (Townsend 1989, 1998; Wiederman and Allgeier 1992). Higher-status women may shift their economic standards because they judge their own mate value to be higher — even though their income and occupational prestige are relatively unimportant to men. Alternatively, they may simply believe that men with inferior status and earning power offer few advantages and therefore do not merit their (the women’s) investment. These explanations are not mutually exclusive (Townsend 1998).
Townsend, John Marshall, and Timothy Wasserman. “Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria.” Evolution and Human Behavior 19.3 (1998): 171-191.
Elspeth said: but the truth is that a woman marrying a man she is markedly better than at most things is a woman trying to hurry up and get married before her eggs dry up.
When a woman marries down (and knows it), it is not good for the man she marries. I stand by that.
YES.
One would think that this would have become obvious to most men centuries ago. Then again, maybe most didn’t need to pay any real attention to it because, as has been pointed out endlessly here and elsewhere:
1. Most women are not only not attracted to, but are actually repelled by men who are their inferiors in social status, wealth, and ability, and
2. Most men are equally repelled/intimidated by/feel no attraction for women who are above them in such terms (“gold-digging” by certain opportunistic, rakish, impecunious men notwithstanding) and do not consider them marriage material.
Do circumstances change? Of course. Do some women, married to “ordinary” men without any more wealth, fame, or social standing than they have find themselves catapulted into such and thus find that their husbands “cramp their style” and become eager to kick them to the curb for something better? Absolutely. (One example that comes quickly to mind is Olympic soccer star Mia Hamm, who, after being catapulted into her fifteen months of fame, divorced her Marine Corps officer husband, later marrying baseball bad boy Nomar Garcia-Parra, someone with comparable “alpha value” to her own new-found fame.)
The best thing any man can do is to 1) gauge VERY CAREFULLY the woman you intend to marry (if she’s a Harvard Law School grad champing at the bit to land a job at a Wall Street Fortune 10 firm and you’re a business major with a BA from Podunk U who is working in his daddy’s mom-and-pop accounting firm, you might want to re-evaluate the wisdom of pursuing this particular piece of skirt as a wife) and 2) prepare yourself in advance for a “soft landing” in the event that the Cinderella you married suddenly finds herself being elevated to Princess status. She won’t need you anymore and won’t want to keep you around, so be sure you have a survival kit (figuratively speaking) ready when the worst-case scenario happens.
Oh, speaking of success: http://bonjoviwalkmedowntheaisle.com/
Elspeth,
What you have said makes sense. I only part ways with your thinking because I don’t think you’ve dug deep enough yet to the root of the problem.
@IBB,
In almost every single case that I know of (where a man is happily married to a wife that submits) he has openly told me that he believes that his wife married down.
These are the HAPPY marriages Elspeth from HIS perspective where he feels she NEEDS him.
These are contradictory statements.
Does the rich person need the poor person? Does the prom queen need the class geek?
Elspeth, you love your husband? You think he can do better? You have just said as much. Tomorrow (God Forbid) he is diagnosed with some dread disease that will prevent him from ever working for a living. His income (outside disability) is reduced to ZERO. He is now instantly beneath you. Yes he is. You now have to go to work outside the home (maybe two jobs) to support the family. And you know what? YOU WILL. Because you love him and you love your family. You would NEVER reject and dishonor your marriage and your VOWS.
Reading comprehension please. I already addressed this. That life happens and that there are people who keep their vows even in such cases. Maybe you missed it, but I addressed that. You’re right. I love him and I’ll do whatever I have to do to be a good wife to him. Different subject from marrying someone from that position at the start.
And yeah, my husband could do better than me. I know that full well. Recognizing that is not an expression of low self-esteem.The advantage to me -thank you GOD!- is that he doesn’t think so. That’s what matters. Love goggles do a marvelous job of idealizing our mates in our view. I know my strengths. I know my weaknesses. I have worked hard to develop a rightwous and balanced view of myself, which mostly means thinking less about me.
I’m at a total loss with resepct to your harping on the self-esteem angle. Completely irrelevant in my view. You seem to have a problem with general truths about men and women. NAWALT is all you know. NAWALT is fine as it goes I guess but these conversations tend to deal with the state of things “in general”.
Given my propensity to take stuff too personally, I can forgive you that tendency.
Tally up the number of women who uphold their vows vs those who don’t…. The math won’t go well for team woman
@IBB,
All of this shit, this is not about feminism. This is about his lack of self-esteem (on his part) because he foolishly married a woman whom he thinks would reject her VOWS and might leave him the moment she realizes that she thinks she can do better.
The premise of your statement is that it’s the man’s fault for marrying a woman that wouldn’t keep her vows.
The divorce rate is freaking 50%. The divorce rate for hard-core Christians is not much better (40%). How in Hades can any man predict if any woman will keep her vows when even a woman’s religious dedication has no bearing on her keeping her vows?
How?
8-to-12
That depends. See below.
No not usually. But the rich person does need a security guard (who is typically a poor person) to watch all his stuff that he has acquired (stuff he is too busy to look after himself, stuff he would like to see when he comes home at night after creating more wealth.) The rich person of this country quite often needs the poor soldier putting his life on the line to make this world a safer place for Democracy. This has been true since the creation of the United States.
No. She doesn’t need any boys really because she is 17 and prom queen. And the boys don’t need her because they are all still kids. When she is 24 she might need someone (might be the geek, might be the former football captain) for whatever reason, or she might not need anyone. As Elspeth has said, circumstances change.
But what you have said has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am saying all of this takes care of itself in marriage if both parties keep their VOWS. Those men who are happily married, I mean truly HAPPY, yes they know their wives need them. But that doesn’t mean that these men settled for women that were beneath them? They are saying that their wives could have done better but chose to be with them. You get to that point, you have a very happy marriage.
@IBB
“In almost every single case that I know of (where a man is happily married to a wife that submits) he has openly told me that he believes that his wife married down.”
That sounds more like grateful praise for one’s wife rather than a literal belief that one’s wife made a poor match. What really matters here is what the wife thinks, though, and you can be pretty certain that their happily married wives does not think they took husbands who were beneath them.
Well David, you raise a good point. I have no idea what their wives think. And I’m going to know. I only know the men.
@IBB
“”The better she does, the better I feel about it because I know that she knows how good she is (at something) and I’m a part of that because she is a part of my life. That isn’t feminism””
Bravo!!!!!!
I think IBB has been replaced by a pod person from planet TradConia.
How in Hades can any man predict if any woman will keep her vows when even a woman’s religious dedication has no bearing on her keeping her vows?
Behavioural and family history (e.g. promiscuity, novelty-seeking, family intactness) are much better predictors of whether a woman (or a man) will keep their vows.
Thank you Mark. It appears you might be the only one with the compliments at this moment.
No Cail I haven’t be replaced. I just take feminism very seriously as a serious danger to society. I don’t think the problem here in this instance, is feminism.
@IBB
There is nothing wrong with being proud of your wife and her accomplishments. The author of the post I quoted is complaining that men reacted the way they did in the study. If his point was simply that he really values a woman with a feminist pedigree, then the logical response would be “Great! Less competition for me!”. But this isn’t his response, it is to bemoan some deficiency in modern manhood which is harming his feminist sisters. It is also a clumsy attempt at a feminist AMOG:
The other issue involved here which I didn’t go into (but I think is touched on in the comments above) is that there are some legitimate reasons why men might have responded the way they did. Hypergamy being what it is, women need to look up to their mates to feel and retain attraction for them. It is very likely that the men in the study intuitively understood this and were reacting at a subconscious level. When you drill down into the issue of women earning more money for example, it turns out that it is women who are the most disturbed and men are reflecting that reality in their reaction. But feminists frame it as wimpy men whose manhood is easily challenged. Vox Day has done a number of posts addressing this particular fallacy.
But all of this leads back to my point in the OP; a study shows men tend to be a certain way which doesn’t comport with feminist ideology, and up jump feminists and conservatives alike to bemoan the deficiency in manhood for not being “strong enough” to make feminism workable. Feminism is running into hard limits of human nature, and feminism’s supporters respond by pretending that something suddenly went wrong with men. The idea is ridiculous when examined, but is almost never examined.
Honestly when I’m told to “grow a pair” I’m reminded of the movie “Changing Lanes” where one of the characters bribes his father-in-law into getting his way. His wife, who had earlier told him to find his “line” to walk on, stared at him perplexed as he looked at her and said, “I’ve found my line, will you walk it with me?”
Sure I’ll “grow a pair”. But you won’t like it when I do…
I think IBB and I are making the assumption that the man in this scenario has great qualities himself. Therefore, why should he care if his partner did better at university than himself (assuming the guy was NOT in the top 12%)? Steve Jobs was not a successful college student, but he was certainly a successful businessman.
Does the rich person need the poor person? Does the prom queen need the class geek?
The answer to both is yes. The rich person needs the poor person to do their “scut work” for them. The prom queen needs the class geek as a target for her scorn and as a means of bolstering her own feelings of superiority.
@Jen
But does a man like Steve Jobs have an obligation to choose a woman with a suitable feminist merit badge? If instead he prefers a feminine, pretty, and traditional woman, is this a sign that he lacks manhood? Of course not. Men get to choose what they find attractive in women, and all of the feminist shaming ultimately can’t change that.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/10/20131016-194351.html
IBB
What you have said makes sense. I only part ways with your thinking because I don’t think you’ve dug deep enough yet to the root of the problem.
Irony…
@IBB
“”The rich person of this country quite often needs the poor soldier putting his life on the line to make this world a safer place for Democracy. This has been true since the creation of the United States.””
I assume that you have seen the movie Platoon?…..remember at the beginning when Chris Taylor(Charlie Sheen) is sitting in the jungle on an all night ambush speaking about his comrades in arms…and he says….”….they have nothing,they are the poor….the unwanted,they have nothing,maybe a factory job waiting for them at home.They are the bottom of the barrel and they know it.But,here they are fighting for our society and freedom.Maybe that is why they call themselves “Grunts”…because a Grunt can take it…a Grunt can take anything”(Not quoted verbatim)……..I first saw this movie in 1986 when it came out.I never forgot that speech by Sheen…as it made so much sense to me!
Why should I earn money, pay taxes and father your children? Why should I carry the heavy loads, buy her a house and then obligate myself to fix the shit in that house?
What many women, self-described “feminists” or simply EPs, will tell you in response is just this, point blank: “Because you’re a man. It’s what you’re SUPPOSED to do.”
Dalrock,
As I read the following, I am reminded of a scene from the sitcom Roseanne where Roseanne’s daugher Becky, (who was married and living in a trailer with her auto mechanic husband Mark at the time) wants to go to medical school, and Mark tells Roseanne he doesn’t want her to because there is no such thing as a female medical doctor married to a male auto mechanical. In essence, her education would instantly end their marriage.
I grant you ALL OF THIS. But Dalrock, grant me this, all of this (her immediate happiness) is ONLY A PROBLEM if the wife actually rejects her VOWS.
Making the world safe for democracy… Did we step into the twilight zone or is that lady really this far removed from reality?
@Dalrock
But does a man like Steve Jobs have an obligation to choose a woman with a suitable feminist merit badge?
Absolutely NOT!…….in fact,a man like Jobs has the obligation and responsibility to guard his accumulated wealth from the government…law suits……and Wimminz at all costs!!!! He owes them NOTHING! The accumulated wealth that he possesses will compound astronomically and has to be re-invested in other growing industries as well as used for philanthropic issues of his choice…….Now we are in my world Dalrock.I deal with these same issues everyday.
She can up hold her vows and still make his life hell because she is unhappy
[D: Exactly.]
Yea, seriously Marcus. Don’t help women and don’t get involved with them, just let them crash and burn all on their own. Get some blinkers on and walk the straight and narrow path.
I laugh, the more success a woman seems to get from the bureaucratic monster called ‘University’, the less likely she is to be happy; and boy does it make me smile.
MarcusD – so, what are the odds of Sara Nicole Ruff, 25, being invited to any more parties in Edmonton, eh?
Although I’d back her in an “all you can eat” contest at next year’s Calgary Stampede…
When you have a system that used to be a God and legal binding contract…and now it isn’t…you are going to have all sorts of problems.
Even if I found the best woman I can find and marry her…I’ll always have that invisible gun pointed at my head. It’s going to take as much fortitude as God can give me if I ever get married in this current system.
Dalrock,
You asked Jen, you didn’t ask me. But if I may, let me answer the question.
The late Steve Jobs did not have any obligation to choose ANY women of any set of characteristics. If he wanted feminist, he could have had one If he wanted traditional, he could have had that. Far be it for you or I to sit there and tell him what he wants. He knew what he wanted. And Steve Jobs does not lack manhood for choosing or not choosing to marry a feminist.
Dalrock, is Mary Matilin a feminist? She is probably as conservative as Ann Coulter. She may not be “traditional” but BECAUSE she is so conservative is she a true feminist? I would say NO. Okay, so would feminists give James Carvile (the most pro-feminist man on this planet) a hard time for marrying a woman like Mary? Probably not. Does that mean James Carvile lacks manhood? Maybe, but not for marrying Mary Matilin. And they have been married for 20 years (and I’m guessing quite happily) even though neither one of them has ANY RESPECT for the other’s political beliefs. 20 years or marriage Dalrock. No, it works for the two of them simply because they both put their marriage first, they respect their VOWS, and they don’t worry about what the other thinks (if they are respected or not.)
If you think women should vote, you are a feminists
Past that your point is pointless. One random example doesn’t make it a good bet
IBB,
I think you are missing the point of my criticism of the post in question. Again, he isn’t saying “I like feminist women”. He is saying “Men who don’t want feminist women are pathetic, and I’m better than them”. He is also framing feminism running into hard limits of human nature as a sudden deficiency in manhood. This isn’t about criticizing a man who wants to marry a feminist. It is pointing out how incredibly ridiculous this argument is that men need to man up and prefer what feminists want them to prefer.
@Dalrock
While we are on the subject of Steven jobs.Allow me to introduce you to a close personal friend of mine….The most eligible billionaire bachelor in the world….Calvin Ayre…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Ayre…………..Now let me introduce you to some of the problems that he deals with everyday………..http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0327/112.html. As Ayres states his biggest hero in the world was his father(same as myself).We have done numerous investment deals together as well as combined his Foundation Grants with our Family Foundation Grants to pursue our philanthropic endeavors.Would you care to take a guess why his single?….like myself?…….L*
It depends on the demographics. I’ve heard of some atrocious behaviour on the part of women that was overlooked within a week. What at first glance appears to be attempted cannibalism will just be a joke to tell friends a few weeks later (a la: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/07/26/mirth-in-the-mutilation-of-men/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Osbourne#The_Talk_.282010.E2.80.93present.29).
@Anon Reader
“”MarcusD – so, what are the odds of Sara Nicole Ruff, 25, being invited to any more parties in Edmonton, eh?
Although I’d back her in an “all you can eat” contest at next year’s Calgary Stampede…””
I assume from your post that you are a fellow Canuck?
Ton,
I (and Ann Coulter) want the 19th Amendment to the Constitution repealed immediately.
Dalrock,
Okay now THIS I agree with you totally. But what he is doing by saying that, isn’t championing feminism or any feminist narrative. That is just him being a f-cking idiot.
Surprised no one applies the “solipsistic” adjective to IBB’s ramblings. His wife may have worked out for him, but for most men in this situation, that’s not the way it goes. Yet he tries to apply to all based on his own precious experience and refuses to believe that any other experience can take place outside of his frame of reference … do I detect a certain refusal to see Dalrock’s point? Perhaps wedded to his concept of how he’s justifying his life to us?
This entire debate can be settled by reading this article from The New Yorker Magazine (hardly a bastion of traditionalism) which profiles several marriages where the woman is smarter, has more education, and is the primary breadwinner:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/
A few quotes:
Well into feminism’s second generation, there are finally a significant number of women reaching parity with the men in their fields—not to mention surpassing them—and winning the salary, bonuses, and perks that signify their arrival.
As the wives grow more powerful and confident, their husbands often seem to diminish in direct proportion to their success.
For women, the shift in economic power gives them new choices, not least among them the ability to reappraise their partner…According to psychologists (and divorce lawyers) who see couples struggling with such changes, many relationships follow the same pattern. First, the wife starts to lose respect for her husband, then he begins to feel emasculated, and then sex dwindles to a full stop.
Sexuality is based on respect and admiration and desire,” says Anna. “If you’ve lost respect for somebody, it’s very hard to have it work. And our relationship initially had been very sexual, at the expense of other things.
“Sex was not a problem for him,” she goes on. “It was a problem for me. When someone seems like a child, it’s not that attractive. In the end, it felt like I had three children.”
“It was the artist thing I thought I was getting,” says Anna, who met her husband when she hired him to design her company’s Website. “Sexy was part of it. There was a huge physical thing. I’m not the kind of person to be attracted to a lawyer—maybe next time I will be.
“An academic person might get a ‘waiver,’ ” he adds. “Or a serious, published writer. A primary-school teacher wouldn’t get a waiver. We may think, What a great thing we have men teaching! However, we’re not giving waivers yet for men teaching primary school.”
When it works, it tends to be when the wife’s respect for her husband remains intact. “Women need to admire their partner,” says psychologist Harriette Podhoretz.
When Emily comes home, she doesn’t always want to be the boss. But she says her husband no longer has the authority to take over. “I want somebody to take that power role away from me,” she explains. “Ultimately, it gets down to pretty basic stuff. It’s hard to be the power broker every day and then be the femme fatale. I’m not going to pay the bills…and then come home and suck his dick.”
Once Anna sought a divorce—“You know what my lawyer called him? A parasite”
“The wife’s idea is, ‘You’re not going to ask for alimony, are you? It’s bad enough I was making more than you.’ ”
A man married to a woman a few rungs below him on the ladder and you have a long happy marriage.
A woman married to a man a few rungs below her on the ladder and you get a complete disaster for both the husband and wife.
I only know who Ann Coulter is because I meet her once. She’s some chick writes books. Cannot imagine they are worth reading.
@IBB
While the two aren’t mutually exclusive, you are still missing the point. He doesn’t need to be advancing a feminist narrative. He is outraged that men aren’t facilitating feminism, and declares this a deficiency in modern men. Feminism is hitting a limit due to human nature, and he re-frames this as a sudden failure of men. If you reread the OP, you will see that I pointed out that he could be doing this from either a feminist or a conservative perspective.
http://www.uh.edu/~cldue/texts/aphrodite.html
Lines 145 to 154. Sounds terribly familiar. Quite a number of aphorisms are applicable, too.
IBB it is important that you understand “conservatism” as a sea anchor, or a sliding window. Many people who call themselves conservative merely wish to conserve the conditions of their childhood. Feminism has been part of the US culture more and more for 35+ years, it is no surprise that there are men who think of themselves as “conservative”, who have in their own mental premises any number of feminist ideas.
It should be clear from the OP that this man Dalrock points to has fully accepted the false premise that “men and women are the same / interchangeable (except for that ‘birthing babies’ part)”. That accounts for his emotion. I have known men like this who pushed their daughters to be more like sons in many ways, even as they insisted how much of a “traditional conservative” father they happened to be. Think of, say, the elder of a bible based church whose two oldest children (daughters) are pushed through a BS in engineering. He may not consider himself “feminist” but he sure is going to take a gynocentric view in many cases.
You really need to look deeper.
@8to12,
“The divorce rate is freaking 50%. The divorce rate for hard-core Christians is not much better (40%). How in Hades can any man predict if any woman will keep her vows when even a woman’s religious dedication has no bearing on her keeping her vows?
How?”
Vet hard for submission. Submission to you as family leader. Hold a dominant frame in dating.
I agree with you that similar Christian faith or same church attendance is not a good indicator anymore.
@RandomAngeleno
“”IBB’s ramblings. His wife may have worked out for him, but for most men in this situation, that’s not the way it goes. “”
I do not believe that IBB is rambling.I am happy for him that his marriage is working out for him.I believe that the bigger issue for him is that he has a daughter(as I read in previous posts).He sees the way society is going…he sees the MRA & MGTOW and it scares the hell out of him in relation to his daughter.I can relate to this as I have a niece about the same age as his daughter…and it scares the hell out of me…….PUA’s…MGTOWS….etc…etc.But,I do not blame the men…..they are just playing the cards that they are dealt! I have no kids….but,I worry more for my niece than I do for my nephew! I see the way things are going also…..and I would not want to be a woman in today’s world…..”BackLash” is not on it’s way……..it is already happening! Thanks.
Yup.
Dalrock,
FYP.
That doesn’t explain it IBB. Other men are leaving what he thinks are the best choices in wives all for him, and this makes him angry…
RA,
All of that could be true. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that this is a result of feminism. He is just one man that is attracted to feminist women. Why he is attracted to them is not important. What is important is the message he is sending, “…hey guys, what is wrong with you, these feminist women are great.” Now, if he wants to go and write an article to try and shame other men for not valuing in women what he values, that just makes him an idiot. Feminism is going to go on or not go on no matter what he thinks of men and their deficiencies. He is not going to change anything.
I believe I have.
Dalrock,
Yes. That’s correct.
Yes. That’s correct.
So? Let him be angry. You said it best Dalrock, Feminism is hitting a limit due to human nature. Your words and you are entirely correct. Lingerfelt will have absolutely no impact on any of that. And I believe that he thinks he will which is why I am saying he is an idiot.
http://vultureofcritique.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/feminism.png?w=538&h=354
I don’t understand how cultivating Bosc, D’Anjou, or Bartletts will help. It is not Appearant to me.
As far as having orchids (preferably two, but at least one functioning), Buy a Harley, accompanying leathers, and drive off into the sunset. Ignore the first three texts from your paramour, but respond tersely to the fourth.
IBB
All of that could be true. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that this is a result of feminism.
So a man who supports feminism is not a result of feminism? Explain how that works.
He is just one man that is attracted to feminist women. Why he is attracted to them is not important. What is important is the message he is sending, “…hey guys, what is wrong with you, these feminist women are great.”
So he’s promoting feminism to other men. He’s promoting a gynocentric view that actively harms men, to other men. And you don’t see a problem with this?
Now, if he wants to go and write an article to try and shame other men for not valuing in women what he values, that just makes him an idiot.
It makes him a conservative feminist. So I guess we agree on one point…
Feminism is going to go on or not go on no matter what he thinks of men and their deficiencies. He is not going to change anything.
But, Mr. Tabla Rasa, he’s contributing to the culture in a way that protects feminism, thereby helping feminism to brainwash more humans, and thus perpetuate injustice.
You really need to look deeper.
I believe I have.
I’m sure you believe that, and like the Red Queen no doubt you can believe 20 impossible things before breakfast. Your belief does not make it so.
Wow. You guys largely agree with IBB? Well okay then. I stand corrected. I still think this guys point is that since he likes feminist women, all men should. But that’s just my take.
I said something earlier that was misrepresented. I said that my husband thinks I’m the best he could do. That’s not true even though I am feeling kind of cocky today.
The reality is that if he were the kind of man to contemplate that sort of thing, he knows objectively that he could do better. He just isn’t the kind of man to spend time thinking about that. He is more the kind to be content to work with what he’s got.
Oh, and IBB. I’ve been pondering this the past few hours and wondered: Are you in a marriage where your wife is more accomplished than you are?
@Elspeth
Who largely agrees with IBB?
My mistake, Dalrock. I misread a few of the comment exchanges. Skimming instead of reading carefully.
As for Ann Coulter, Mary Matilin, Sarah Palin, etc. Of course they’re feminists. I read Coulter’s columns from time to time because she’s entertaining.
But at the end of the day, she’s a feminist. I do however, have more respect for feminists who go all the way with it 9like Coulter who has never married or had children) rather than try to have it both ways like the Sarah Palin types.
Elspeth,
Well….
(thinking carefully, try and formulate the correct words)
…I think if she and I had to list 20 different things we brought to the marriage before we got married, she was way out ahead of me in 10 things, and I was way out ahead of her in 10 other things. Our lives were going forward (as singletons) but the progress each of us was making was very different than the other. We had different priorities and we had to reorganize those priorities in order to make the marriage work.
And even today more than 10 years of marriage later (children together), there are some things in which she is much more accomplished, and there are some things in which I am much more accomplished. I don’t know if I would say it is 50-50, but there are definately some areas where she has achieved great accomplishments and vice-versa. Ours is a marriage, not a competition.
(nodding)
I’d say we compliment each other pretty well.
Elspeth,
No, no way.
Ann Coulter wants to repeal the 19th Amendment. She does not want women anywhere NEAR a voting booth. She said she would gladly give up her “right” to vote, if every other woman did the same. In a second. She feels that way because she admits her own gender is functionally incapable of understanding government spending and limiting their own desires to want to expand government. Here is a youtube you might like, she explains why…
Here is another.
So no, no way is she feminist. She is the ANTI-feminist. If I had not met my wife, I would have married Ann Coulter if she would have had me.
Ours is a marriage, not a competition.
Huh. No healthy marriage is competitve, but show me a noncompetitive feminist and I’ll show you a flying rainbow colored unicorn.
There was a reason I asked about that, and your answer touches on it a bit. It comes down to what we value, suppose.
I am much more well read than my husband. He reads tech stuff, work related journals, etc. It has however been a good while since he read anything strictly for leisure that isn’t Bible related. He also never went to college, although I have a degree. Husband is a network engineer, so he’s no slouch. He just didn’t go to college.
He appreciates that I am versed in Chesterton, Lewis, etc. That I enjoy Tolkien, Jane Austen, Bronte, etc. He finds me very intelligent and enjoyable to converse with. Although he doesn’t hand wring over the state of things, he is thinking, principled and ethical enough that the answers on a personal level are very clear to him and mirror much of what is presented in these debate forums. Just without the debate.
With all that, there is a clear delineation between the way people approach me (the “smart one”) and the way they approach him. If you want to philosophize about politics and what’s wrong with the world, you talk to El.
If however, you want a practical problem solved, you talk to SAM. You want someone who is resourceful enough to get things done right and efficiently, you talk to SAM. Wife completely out of control? They call SAM and ask how he does it while being too afraid to bite the bullet, do what he suggests, and stand up to their wife.
All my “intelligence” serves me well in forums like this, and my husband is very pleased with the education I am giving our children. But when we walk out the front door of this place, in the real world where actions matter more than pontifications, I know the score. I need him more than he needs me. It’s just the truth. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with my saying that.
I marvel that you are so insistent on equality being the standard when no two people are equal. That I acknowledge his superior strength, resourcefulness and capability simply serves to motivate him to protect me more.
I am not interested in being his equal. I am his wife.
…and, not to White Knight you (but I’m going to anyway) that is what makes you so wonderful and why he is so lucky to have you.
Deti – Your point about INCENTIVE is excellent. It made me think:
The trouble with Feminism is eventually you run out of compliant men. (I hope Margaret Thatcher doesn’t mind having her famous quote hijacked….)
” I see the way things are going also…..and I would not want to be a woman in today’s world…..”BackLash” is not on it’s way……..it is already happening!”
That backlash upon women is justified…the way things are going is because of the way things are. Women couldn’t expect to continue to live a sinful lifestyle and have every consequence swept under the rug or have all the burdens and blame placed upon men. Something has got to give.
Women said they didn’t need a man despite knowing deep in their subconscious they were wrong…we were bicycles to their fish. The doubled and tripled down on the lie. Well they are going to see what life is like without a man when the government finally collapses and it isn’t going to be pretty.
http://www.themostselfishwomaninamerica.com/about/
My name is Christia Sale, and I was just like you. I stayed in an ugly marriage too long. I had been spending most of my life taking care of everyone else at the expense of my own health and happiness. But once I learned the seven SELFISH Steps for a positive recovery and reinvention after divorce, I changed my life in amazing and magical ways.
I forgave myself for the failure of my marriage.
I released the power that my past had over me.
I searched my soul for my purpose and passion.
I listened honestly to the answers.
I reconnected with the power of the Universe.
I found my inner peace.
I visualized my Dream Life, and made it my reality.
That’s why people call me the leading Women’s Life-After-Divorce Expert.
I’ve reached midlife, and I have children who are sprouting their wings. But what I have to teach you comes from what I learned from surviving a rough marriage and an even rougher divorce.
It was HELL!
And I’m here to tell you that you do not have to be miserable anymore!
I was raised in an environment where family was the most important thing. So it was sad when I realized, at the beginning of my marriage mind you, that I had made a big mistake. But by then I was already pregnant. I was also raised to believe that I should do everything possible to make a marriage work when there were children involved. So, I thought that if I tried hard enough, he would come around to realize how lucky he was to have a loving family. But he wasn’t used to that dynamic. Can you say dysfunctional childhood? I thought that I could “love” him to health. What was I thinking? I didn’t know any better. I’m a hopeless romantic.
How similar is this story to your story? Crazy, right?
I got so caught up in trying to make my marriage work that I totally lost myself in the process. Then I finally realized that nothing was going to save the relationship that I spent 17 years giving CPR to.
I woke up one morning and had an epiphany. “Screw this! Life is too short to be so unhappy. I don’t deserve to be treated this way. No one does! I am SO out of here!”
And that was all I needed. I was done. I was finished putting an egocentric, passive-aggressive (stop me now before I really get started!) husband’s needs above my own, and I was tired of living in a one-sided relationship. The thought of staying in this situation for the rest of my life made my skin crawl. My time here was over! I deserved better! It was my turn, dammit!
Aren’t you the guy who says women have no moral agency? And now you expect them to keep vows?
You’re just pulling our legs now, aren’t you?
I forgot the spam alert. Sorry Ed.
“Screw this! Life is too short to be so unhappy. I don’t deserve to be treated this way. No one does! I am SO out of here!”
That poor snowflake.
Cail Corishev to IBB
You’re just pulling our legs now, aren’t you?
Ketchup…
Solipsism at its finest.
It’s real simple you tell your daughter to be better than the other girls on the market, an to bring more to the table then a wet slit.
Worked for my beloved but you also have to define better than of society will fill her head full of feminist bull$hit.
There is no shortage of dumbasses who will marry despite th legal an cultural battles ground
Dalrock you are so right! “Man up” is a tool that the feminists use to try to manipulate men. They think you should be attracted to what they (feminists) tell you to be attracted to. And if not then you are not a real man.
This man–the origional writer of the article, is just his wives boy-puppet.
This is just like how communists would blame all their failures on capitalist encirclement or capitalist sabotage instead of the deficiencies in their system.
Feeriker
That is exactly right. Men are supposed to just feel the way feminists tell them. And many men do. That was the same line I was getting from the 35-year-old doctorate holding, single mother to 2 kids in my Sunday school class. A perfect man should just volunteer himself to love her, raise her kids and disagreeing is judgemental.
After all, far less worthy women (by feminist standards) are married.
Now she wants a man.
Who has the right to deny her the man of her dreams?
…I think if she and I had to list 20 different things we brought to the marriage before we got married, she was way out ahead of me in 10 things, and I was way out ahead of her in 10 other things. Our lives were going forward (as singletons) but the progress each of us was making was very different than the other. We had different priorities and we had to reorganize those priorities in order to make the marriage work.
And even today more than 10 years of marriage later (children together), there are some things in which she is much more accomplished, and there are some things in which I am much more accomplished. I don’t know if I would say it is 50-50, but there are definately some areas where she has achieved great accomplishments and vice-versa. Ours is a marriage, not a competition..
IBB has just written Chapter 5 of Ephesians for the new bible paraphrase, “The Femessage”. This is referred to as the “mutual submission” section, knowing they have coined other section titles like “the have-attitudes”.
DOES ANYONE HAVE THE COMPLETE INTERVIEW FOR THIS:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/women-battle-online-anti-women-hate-manosphere/story?id=20579038
Anyone read this article? It just came out. The media is selectively controlling the information in this article and distorting message of the manosphere.
Cail Corishev:
Aren’t you [IBB] the guy who says women have no moral agency? And now you expect them to keep vows?
You’re just pulling our legs now, aren’t you?
Pwned.
http://judgybitch.com/2013/10/17/well-the-2020-piece-on-the-manosphere-is-obviously-gonna-be-a-trainwreck/
Is it just me or does ‘smart and successful’ go hand in hand with over 30, single and fabulous?
The thing is once women get over 30, the number of men chasing her reduces, not because of some nebulous fear but the number of men in the cohorts above her becomes smaller as she gets older.
These monkeys see the ‘plight’ of these ‘successful’ women and wonder why the men aren’t approaching, so their approach is to shame men as being inadequate (excellent Social Marketing strategy).
The problem is there is no one to listen to the message.
A manosphere statistician should crunch the numbers and show the number of ‘marriageable men’ (not raw sex ratios) by age cohort, that would frighten the daylights out of a lot of women in their mid 30s.
Women who are smarter than me are plenty cool.
Problem is, I’m yet to meet a girl who is both pretty enough I’d want to date and is as sharp as I am.
“Problem is, I’m yet to meet a girl who is both pretty enough I’d want to date and is as sharp as I am.”
-Sharp comes in many different forms my friend. Everyone’s different. You take that kind of egotistical stance and you’re going to limit your options. You have to be open and willing to feel the other person out before you take that kind of position.
Wait wait sorry bro
You said “pretty AND I’d want to date”. Ok ok I see now. I think an apology is in order from me. I’m alone and unmarried and drinking. Sorry about that!
@ MarcusD
Where is the entire interview? Does anyone have it?
@Michael
Thanks for the link. Reading it now.Seems that the manosphere is getting a lot larger than most people think.I believe that the problem will be with the mainstream media as they will be “pro femi-nazi” and anti-male.Thanks again!
@Michael
“”Jaclyn Friedman, founder of Women, Action & the Media, told “20/20.””
Friedman?……..guess what tribe she belongs to? Another Jewish c*** troublemaker….I assure you! I know many women of her ilk…..and they are to be avoided like the plague! I have said it before and I will say it again….”Stay the hell away from Jewish wimmin”.It is a sad state of affairs when guys like myself bash their own people and advise other men to run like hell from them!
“Sterling was deeply troubled after reading a study which found that men took a self esteem hit when told their partner scored in the top 12% of university students….”
12% based on what studies? And what universities? (Or degree mill if you want to go down that road.) I just read an article lamenting that there are still meager numbers of women in STEM curriculums. Are we talking about guys who are just looking for reasons to be upset? Surely one should take inventory of his skills that he brings to the relationship.
“Advising men to grow a pair is excellent advice, but the question is why they should “man up”, and what form men’s self improvement should take.”
Well, given these situations, “man up” really means “suck it up.” But I’m sure most of us here have realized that by now….
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=830973
@Michael
I haven’t come across the full interview. I would imagine that it will find its way onto the Internet at some point, but until that time, we wait.
Isn’t he on the marriage tour? I believe he had been married before; sometime between when he was some woman lawyer’s kitchen bitch, and the current deca-dominatrix.
@Cail
Daaaaaaaamn!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yK4lxBarpE (NSFW)
Beauty. Brains. Sanity. Pick two.
As for the 20/20 hit piece on the manosphere, did anyone really think it would be otherwise? Unless one believes that “There is no such thing as bad publicity” and is guaranteed links to quoted sites, etc., then there is no reason at all to talk to the mainstream media.
The first rule of Fight Club is…
Feeriker: “Ask yourselves this: how many prominent, successful women in positions of power and authority do you know of (in your workplace, in social settings, within your families, or otherwise) who are committed/married to men who are beneath their own abilities or social stations?
Any answer other than “none” is one that I’m going to label as a lie. Sure, women might keep such men around on a temporary basis (the guy has something specific that she needs that she can’t get from any other man – for the time being), but she is NOT going to hang onto him as a long-term relationship or as a spouse (the dowager millionairess doesn’t marry her high school dropout pool boy; she keeps him around for the sex and the muscle, but she will NOT commit to him and will toss him aside in a heartbeat as soon as she finds any man of her own socioeconomic station who can do the same things or better things for her).”
Google translate this article about a Swedish female top politician married to a foreman. It’s quite open about what has been the problems but also what has kept her marriage together for 30 years.
http://www.hemmetsjournal.se/Manniskor/reportage/Margot-Wallstrom-Nu-ar-det-Hakan-och-jag-som-galler/
No, no way.
Ann Coulter wants to repeal the 19th Amendment. She does not want women anywhere NEAR a voting booth. She said she would gladly give up her “right” to vote, if every other woman did the same. In a second. She feels that way because she admits her own gender is functionally incapable of understanding government spending and limiting their own desires to want to expand government.
Ann Coulter is so full of s**t it’s a wonder she can still keep her hair blonde (it’s probably dye anyway).
Understand this: the ONLY reason Coulter “doesn’t want women anywhere near a voting booth” is very simple, and also very partisan: Coulter is a Reich-wing Rethuglican; most Amoricon women voters are liberal Dummycraps (let these pejoratives put to rest, lest anyone entertain them, any ideas that I have one dead shred of respect for either artificial half of the Amerikan uniparty). If the majority of Amoricon women were Reich-wing Rethuglicans like herself, Coulter would be chartering whole fleets of buses in every Amerikan metro area on election day to transport as many women to the polls as she could scrape up.
What a hit piece. If that 1:10 is any indication of how things go…their propaganda is going down in flames.
Elizabeth Vargas in her short feminist hairdo staring down her inferior because he is spouting out nonsense about how marriage is dangerous for men.
You can literally see the “that can’t possibly be true he just hates women” look coming from her face.
Innocent by standard–
That is a good point, but it made me think of this: why does he care what other men are attracted to?
I have always thought that northern Italians were the most attractive segment of men, but I never felt the need to belittle other women for not feeling the same way.
I would imagine, from an evolutionary standpoint, we are better off if smart women procreate. But are women who spend years in college learning why they should hate men and racking up 100k in debt so much smarter than women who start working and saving money right away? How do we know these women are smarter? The poor hateful one is the smart one; the rich happy one is the dumb one.
Perhaps he doesn’t think that bitchy, old, women’s study’s women are attractive at all and he is trying to prove (to himself?) that he does. Therefore, a real man.
His article is strange and nonsensical. I understand what he is talking about but not why. Namely, why is he taking it personally what men are attracted to.
The deal with smarts is, if she is smarter then the man and thinks being smart is the be all and end all of value, the dude/ marriage etc is doomed
I don’t see any additional risk if she doesn’t place an inordinately high value on brain power and the dude brings alternate alpha cred in whatever form that satisfies her hypergamy.
Jonnycomelately-
That is the same feeling I get. By smart they mean over 30 and single– but if she was really smart and wanted marriage and babies why is she over 30 and looking?
Why aren’t men attracted to her women’s studies degree? Doesn’t that show she is superior (at least by feminist standards)
From men’s instincts: smart (yes that will give my babies an edge) has 100 k in debt from a degree where she learned that men are evil (she is not smart).
What feminists don’t understand is that men instinctively know what women bring to the table reproductively speaking.
There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom.
Most women might have some intelligence because they wasted their lives and money on a garbage degree that gave them indoctrination. But the wise ones would have noticed that strategy didn’t work out well nabbed a husband early, had some kids, and actually stays loyal to him. They don’t give out degrees for wisdom.
The deal with smarts is, if she is smarter then the man and thinks being smart is the be all and end all of value, the dude/ marriage etc is doomed
I don’t see any additional risk if she doesn’t place an inordinately high value on brain power and the dude brings alternate alpha cred in whatever form that satisfies her hypergamy.
But that’s the thing, Ton. There are different kinds of smarts. The middle class university graduate woman with her master’s degree only values the kind of intelligence that can be measured on paper and with words.
Despite the “progress” and upward mobility we’ve enjoyed as a result of my husband’s hard work and intelligence, I’m still so prole that I think a man who can fix an engine or make his woman feel safe if they wander into the wrong side of town is worth a whole lot more than a man who can do no more than sound smart.
The truth is that we live in a relatively safe world where most women (me included) don’t really have to consider these kinds of things. But it’s kind of hard-wired into me. Talk is cheap. What can you do?
20/20 Manosphere segment –
Ah! The Establishment will try to quell the insurgency – it sounds like this piece is using Alinsky’s Rule 12 – Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Oh well, at this point, you have to take the “any publicity is GOOD publicity” approach. New readers will come to the Manosphere out of curiosity. Now, most of the women, like myself, will initially be shocked but, if they stay, will find that they actually agree with some areas of discussion.
Pingback: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place
Pingback: Feminists Emasculate Men, Then Wonder Why Men Are Weak
As far as the “20/20 Incident” goes…
A number of years ago, I ran an independent website in support of a long-shot presidential candidate (no, not that guy you’re thinking about; it was someone else–probably the 18th guy that would come to mind). I repeatedly got e-mails from a New York Times reporter that wanted to do a story on the site. It was obvious from the initial questions he sent (and the fact that the NYT had never said a kind word about the candidate) that their goal was a hit-piece that would portray anyone that supported this candidate as a lunatic.
I declined to be interviewed. The site was (in my opinion) a success, despite missing out on all the “publicity” of being featured in the NYT.
I hope the “20/20 Incident” will cause people to realize that you don’t need to agree to every interview request that comes you way–especially if it comes from the MSM. It’s OK to say “thanks, but no thanks” even if the request is coming from the NYT or ABC.
There is such a thing as bad publicity, when that publicity is such a poisoned first-impression that it causes someone to never give you a second look. And, that’s what the MSM wants to do: poison the well so badly that nobody dares come back for a second drink.
The Manosphere won’t grow via exposure in the MSM. It will grow via guerrilla marketing. Just say no to the MSM.
The manosphere will grow as long as we have a corrupt legal system, a government that favors women in almost every scenerio, and the guys doing the right thing continue to get punished or shut out.
The real word and not a creation of an alternate universe from the media will be the reason why it grows.
Well dear l, my experience with UMC chicks is that kind of thing speaks to a goodly number of them. Masculinity is in rare supply, particularly with the schooled, and mostly appeals to women who grew up in more humble settings ( which is dirt common in the UMC down here) but as you imply, that isn’t so all the time either. A mans caution is pure wisdom these days
I’m not the marrying kind anymore so maybe they’re slumming it for awhile.
Great article the reference to “Man Up” is to say that if a man is a dominant alpha man and still knows how to reach you emotionally that the isn’t all man? Give me some clarification on that.
Re: ABC 20/20, check out Matt Forney’s screening interview here:
http://mattforney.com/2013/10/18/when-abc-met-the-manosphere-and-me/
And then remember that when you grant an interview, you concede editorial control to the point that they can cut and splice (and add cutaway shots of shocked, SHOCKED interviewers even recorded after the interview when you are no longer there) to make you appear as a monster saying things that you did not even intend.
Folks want to do interviews and the like because they think the other side might see reason, might change their mind etc ( & ego stroking I’m sure)
Reality is the other side doesn’t care and has a winner take all losers pay the price mentality( & the loser cannot pay enough to satisfy them)
We must also adopt the win at all cost mind set, or prepare for the worse. There is no middle ground and there is no prize for second place
GIving interviews to the press is stupid. All they are going to do is use the power of editing to craft whatever message they want to convey. The idea that part of reality outside of the Overton window will break through is naive.
Zippy, Cail, BC, (everyone),
Part of the reason why I like the manosphere is here, we are allowed to think critically. This is a world of logic and reality, not feelings and ideals. If I want feelings and ideals I can get that from any feminist. And if I want meaningless, rhetorical snark, I can also get that from any feminist. I was under the impression that we were above that here.
Women do not have moral agency. Now that is a very subjective term. So what exactly do I mean by that when I say it, objectively?
Women who are not led by men whom they submit to, tend to make decisions for themselves NOT based on whether they should or shouldn’t, but instead, if they can or can’t.
To me, that is a lack of moral agency. Women (not led by men) are generally Amoral in their decision process. Example? I just got a new credit card in the mail and I have a week off from my job next week. I am not happy right now in my life because all my other cards are maxed out, I guess I’ll fly first class to Jamaica, get a hotel room, eat out every night, f-ck all the natives who want to bone pretty, liberated, American girls on vacation anyway, and put it all on the card. I won’t worry about the bills because that will just take care of itself. And I wont worry about any unwanted pregnancies as I can just take the morning after pill or abort it later. And DON’T YOU DARE give me a hard time for deciding I want to do this.
That is a lack of moral agency. It is also something that none of us would ever expect a single man to do even if he could afford it.
Now a few of you think you might have me trapped in a little “logic box” with my belief system about a lack of moral agency coupled with my belief that every married person needs to follow their VOWS. They must be mutually exclusive. Absent from this belief system is that one of the VOWS that a woman must say if she wants to marry a man (whom she must submit to) is OBEY.
OBEY.
Even people with NO MORAL COMPASS have the capacity to obey. If she obeys, if she does whatever her husband tells her to do (which is what she should be doing) then her lack of moral agency is neutralized by his desire for property rights. She is his property. Her body is his. He is responsible. When you are an owner of something, you have pride of ownership. You take care of it. Everything will be just fine in their marriage so long as she submits to him. He will take care of her (take BETTER care of her than he will himself in fact) because HE KNOWS that she is Submitting to him, becoming his property. And as his Property she KNOWS it is HIS responsibility to give her unlimited back rubs, HIS responsibility to fulfill all her sexual needs, HIS responsibility to hold her at night (all night if necessary), HIS responsibility to do all the nasty distasteful things that need to be done with her body as they get older (to take care of her because her body is HIS as she is HIS property.) That is part of the deal guys.
And as his property, he knows she will not frivorce him, f-ck other men, nor would she ever leave him if something terrible were to happen to him and he couldn’t care for her anymore. She is still supposed to submit, to OBEY. Society put that vow OBEY in there for the women because society knew (way back when) that women lacked moral agency.
It was feminism that went and f-cked all this up…
are we clear? Please don’t make me go through all this again….
IBB:
are we clear?
What is clear to me is that your views are an incoherent train wreck.
I fully expect horror type music behind the scenes where Elam is in his home…looking human.
This was comedy in the 90s…because it’s true.
More snark.
Oh well, I tried.
@ IBB:
“Women do not have moral agency. Now that is a very subjective term. So what exactly do I mean by that when I say it, objectively?
“Women who are not led by men whom they submit to, tend to make decisions for themselves NOT based on whether they should or shouldn’t, but instead, if they can or can’t.”
I think the problem is the semantics and the phrasing you use.
You’re saying “women know and understand morality; but choose immorality” and then call that “women have no moral agency”.
I agree with the first part but disagree with your misleading labeling.
The phrase “women have no moral agency” means they’re unable to understand right and wrong, moral and immoral. Not that they understand it and choose wrong; but that they are fundamentally incapable of grasping the concept. I strongly disagree with this, religiously and as it plays out naturally.
Eve was created with full agency. She knew and understood God’s command not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but she went ahead and did it anyway. God imposed consequences on Eve for her sin; and on Adam for his. Eve’s sin was eating; Adam’s sin was listening to Eve and doing what she said (“Because you have hearkened unto the voice of your wife….”)
Eve did her sin; she got her consequence (pain in childbirth, having to submit to Adam). Adam did his sin; he got his consequence (now he will have to work to eat).
Women understand very, very well what they are doing. They have sex with the most attractive dickbags they can find, knowing full well that sex is probably about the only thing that’s going to come (heh) of it. They don’t care, because marriage will always be there for the taking once they’re ready; and because approval from their friends (The Herd) matters more than leaving mom and dad and cleaving to a good man. Umm, does anyone think for a minute Delilah didn’t know what she was doing with Samson? Delilah got Samson to do pretty much what she wanted, so long as she got his noodle wet.
They know this. They KNOW this. Observe the videos of the girls asked about whether men and women can be friends. They KNOW their beta orbiters want to have sex with them. They KNOW they’re abusing these men. Deep, deep down, they KNOW that the hot alpha men they’re having sex with will not call them tomorrow. And they don’t care about any of it. Certain female bloggers KNOW they’re using the system when they talk about loving their husbands but if they ever found out their husbands cheated, they would divorce those men, take them to the divorce cleaners, extract every penny they can, and obliterate their ex husbands’ lives.
“Women have no moral agency” does NOT mean “women understand right and wrong and choose wrong”.
Hell, by the standard IBB is talking about, no one has moral agency.
Every single person on earth has the capacity to understand morality and immorality.
Every single person on earth chooses immorality. Every single person on earth, in unregenerate state, is depraved. Hell, even in regenerate state, people can, and do, choose immorality. Happens every single day.
the idea that feminism would work if it weren’t for weak men screwing everything up is extremely common.
But of course the real situation is that weak men are what make feminism possible in the first place. A society of masculine men has no place for, or much tolerance of, feminism or it’s gamma-boy enablers. And frankly, the majority of females don’t have much need for feminism if they are surrounded by masculine men. The success of feminism in our culture shows that that isn’t true.
Right is always right even if nobody does it.
Wrong is always wrong even if everybody does it.
Moral agency is just having common sense and realizing doing wrong things will probably not end up well for you. So you better have a clue of what is a sin and what isn’t.
Today sin is celebrated and righteousness is boring…and the lionshare of women go with what is celebrated by the herd. But if you hear all the stuff about anti-slut defense, them saying no before the deed, regret after the fact…they know fornication is wrong, but they need a serpent to tell them (or blame) what they desire to do.
IBB, how do you even propose that the superior women be led by the inferior man?
However, I get what you say, although I don’t entirely agree with the premise. For men, our moral compass includes good and bad, wrong and right, legal or illegal and some others. For women, you’re saying it is simply has two poles, can or can’t. And thus, they can make decisions and can even be forced, within their own compass dynamic, to make the right decision but they will not be making that decision because it is right but because they’re not allowed to make the wrong decision by whatever authority is held over them…
However, for this article, it’s impossible for a smart women to be led by a inferior man, she doesn’t want it or need it. These men know that and thus feel dread at the prospect.
And thus we’re back to the reason for this man pushing inferior men to marry superior women…
I believe what deti says but I also see how his interpretation includes IBB’s as well. Women know damn well what they’re doing is wrong but because no one holds that authority over them to make them feel consequences, their inner compass takes over and determines that they indeed CAN do these things; and then they simply refer you to McHamster for the rationalisation.
Read your Bible:
Adam and Eve
Solomon and his hundreds of women
David and Bathsheba
Samson and Delilah
Women CAN do a lot of things virtuously or sinful with their free will…men get in trouble themselves and then in the larger scope, society, when they don’t exercise good judgement on what a woman is selling.
FH,
Yes. To a feminist, the only authority held over them is government and laws (laws they largely lobbied for and created.) It is never a man or husband.
mmmmmmm… well, mostly Yes. Yes.
FH has got it.
With today’s internet, I’m surprised that, if someone grants an interview to the MSM, they don’t record the entire interview, and put it up on the internet. It wouldn’t be difficult nor costly, and would go a LONG way towards showing how the MSM bends stories to suit an agenda. That’s what I would do, where I ever in that position.
InnocentBystanderBoston, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that a woman’s vow is equal to a man’s vow. The second your wife’s vagina doesn’t tingle for you, you are going to find out exactly how much her “vows” are actually worth.
You all miss the point on hypergamy. Or rather, you view it through a very simplistic lens. Hypergamy isnt solely about MONEY. There are many, many forms of status. I have totally dominated women in every way that made more money than I did. I have had them submit fully to me, cook for me, clean for me, do whatever I say. Money these days is common. Alpha, alpha is far less common. So, if you truly have an alpha frame with your woman, if you have social charisma, if you’re dominant, money is far less critical. than you think. In fact, paradoxically we can thank feminisism for this. Because of the career BS and a woman’s abilitiy to provision for herself financially, to a successful woman, a man’s money becomes secondary in her search for gina tingles, and makes beta providers all the more mundane and useless.
Now, I do think if you make 100k and your wife makes 500k, it might get tough at times. Do I think as the man you might have moments of insecurity? Sure. However, with the proper frame, and demonstrating the proper value, that financial discrepency wont matter at all to the woman. If she loves you, submits to you, and yearns for your approval…nothing else will matter to her.
Alphas profit.
Deti,
Unfortunately no, no they don’t always. Have you ever tried to have a rational discussion with a feminst in trying to use logic to talk her out of aborting her own baby? That is an effort in futility specifically because she does NOT know what she is really doing, does NOT know right from wrong, particularly in this circumstance. And she is NEVER going to get it because (as a woman) she is emotional. What she FEELS is more important than right or wrong even if she is hamster-wheeling all day, she WILL justify those feelings. And since abortion is law of the land (and the only authority she has is government, not a husband) she can murder her unborn child. The fact that she shouldn’t isnt even a factor.
That is why male headship is so important in these matters. A husband (whom she must submit to) who has property rights (ownership) over her body could simply say to her “…your life is not in jeapordy with this pregnancy, you are not murdering our unborn child. End of story.” Her feelings do not matter in this instance, she MUST obey and he MUST lead. That is his responsibility. Lead.
There are a myriad of issues that are very simple, moral distinctions for men, distinctions that women are functionally incapable of making. I’ll give you another one, a financial one that has impacted all of us over the last 5 years: a woman sits down at a bank and is offered 3 different mortgage products on a house she wants to buy:
a 30-year fixed rate mortgage with 3.5% down,
a 15-year mortgage with an even LOWER interest rate but it would require 10% down and the payments are just a tiny bit larger than the 30-year payments (because there are only half as many payments),
OR a 5 year, adjustable-rate, interest only mortgage (an interest rate the LOWEST of all three products for the moment), with no money down (where the payments are the LOWEST since you never pay off a penny of principle.)
Three completely different products, completely different options. The man might sit there and analyze these three products and make moral distinctions on whether or not it is smart to never pay off the debt or have a fixed small rate of interest. The woman? She’ll take door number three because SHE CAN! All she sees is the smallest monthly payment which leaves her more money in her pocket to buy things she doesn’t need. Moreover, she figures the house will go up in value and she’ll be able to take a home equity loan later and go to Jamaica. And if the house is ever worth LESS than the loan amount on her interest-only mortgage? She can just turns the keys into the bank and walk away from the house because SHE CAN! And as we’ve seen over the last 5 years, SHE DID. Morality plays no part here. Right and wrong plays no part here. It is all about what she CAN do and how she FEELS.
See the distinctions? They are sometimes subtle, but they do exist. No, women do not always know right from wrong.
“Have you ever tried to have a rational discussion with a feminst in trying to use logic….”
Stop talking right there.
Have you ever tried to have a rational discussion with a child in trying to use logic? Let me know how that works out for you.
My father never used logic with me as a kid, he swatted my ass or made me do hard labor…I didn’t get the logic privlidge until I started acting like an adult.
@IBB
Of all the things that hinder you, logic is not one of them.
Deti,
Women understand very, very well what they are doing.
“Unfortunately no, no they don’t always.”
Whoa. When I said that to you, you dismissed using the argument that if a woman “knows herself” this wouldn’t be a problem.
Huh.
IBB:
are we clear?
Clear as ketchup…
LOL @ AR and Elspeth. 🙂
As I understand it, the generational curse for sin, & sin being losed on all of us through out history is based on Adam’s sin, not Eve’s. If Eve only ate what was forbidden, only Eve would have paid the price. Since Adam also sinned, we are all cursed and sin rule. Which to my reckoning means women are limited in their moral agency
IBB
You are dealing with a different moral system, not an inability to view morals.
Male Muslim Terrorists can justify killing lots of innocent people and logical talking isn’t going to stop them, because they can and believe they SHOULD. That doesn’t mean men are not moral agents. The same way a feminist thinks that she SHOULD do things to make her happy (female happiness ranks higher on the moral hierarchy then children or men). It might be a broken system but they still operate on should and should not, the way feminists tell other women what they really SHOULD be doing (not submitting).
Do they know deep down? Scripture says everyone is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (including tons of men).
What you should be arguing for is that women are more vulnerable to incoherent world views (New Age, telling themselves their Beta Orbiters aren’t interested etc…). I would say that men are more vulnerable to nihilism. More male atheists can face the Nietzsche conclusion of nihilism while female atheists always want goodies from everything even when they are contradictory.
I still don’t understand… if I’ve got her earning more, wouldn’t that lighten my load?
What do I need to “mule up” for?
@Earl.
“Have you ever tried to have a rational discussion with a child in trying to use logic? Let me know how that works out for you.”
Us dads do this all the time. :p
Herbie,
I’m surprised you bothered to respond to such a foolish statement. I gave up on Earl a while ago…
I still don’t understand… if I’ve got her earning more, wouldn’t that lighten my load?
What do I need to “mule up” for?
Why, for the State to be able to confiscate all that “excess” money you, the Oppressive Patriarch[TM] are earning now that you don’t have anyone but yourself to support. That’s what for.
Even if she doesn’t need your money, now that she’s an independent, I-don’t-need-no-stinkin-man, empowered grrrrllll, “The Children”[TM} still do – because she says so (and how DARE you suggest that, now that she’s empowered and earning her own money, that SHE take care of, or at least shoulder the lions share of taking care of “The Children”).
And of course she would NEVER co-opt “The Children” or their needs for her own selfish ends, oh nosiree, not ever. How dare you even allow the thought…
One more thing to keep in mind…
> Sterling was deeply troubled after reading a study which found that men took a
> self esteem hit when told their partner scored in the top 12% of university students
Psychotherapists have been lying to us for 100 years. They tell us we are born without an ego and need to spend our lives building it up. For them empowerment is a matter of bolstering the ego, building self-esteem. This is straight-on feminist, materialist philosophy, and indeed this is the diametric opposite of the truth.
– Rich Zubaty
My fragile, weak, decimated ego/self-esteem is one of my best qualities!
A swat on the behind taught me more than logically discussing why I shouldn’t do things when I was a kid.
Funny how women seem to respond to that tactic as well.
“They tell us we are born without an ego and need to spend our lives building it up. For them empowerment is a matter of bolstering the ego, building self-esteem.”
what we need is a new incurable STD to close the legs and access to the ladybits for about 20 years and make a woman’s whoring too painful and stigma filed. Mama Nature where r u?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101041141
But, a few days later:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-treatment-for-gonorrhea
Frankly, a virus like HPV that doesn’t do much, but still marks those who have had sex is surprisingly useful. It doesn’t do much to stop people from having sex, but it still shows that they have. That to me would be better.
what we need is a new incurable STD to close the legs and access to the ladybits for about 20 years and make a woman’s whoring too painful and stigma filed. Mama Nature where r u?
I guess that’s what genital herpes and AIDS were for. Notice, though, that the panic over both was pretty short-lived and that neither one of them stopped the Sexual Revolution dead in its tracks.
What Mama Nature would have to cook up is some type of hyper-virus that penetrates any and every known contraceptive device and that has lethal symptoms more powerful and faster acting than the most virulent known form of cancer.
“what we need is a new incurable STD to close the legs and access to the ladybits for about 20 years and make a woman’s whoring too painful and stigma filed. Mama Nature where r u?”
That’s what HIV/AIDS was. However now all HIV/AIDS “victims” are kept alive in indefinitely by expensive powerful retro-viral drugs provided by the taxpayer during which time they can continue to spread the disease over 20-30+ years. How long has Magic Johnson been alive again?
When HIV/AIDS was first discovered in the early 1980’s the most sensible, logical thing to do was to quarantine the victims. But the government (who is supposed to protect the populace which we all know is a lie) refused because gay rights groups considered it “discrimination”. There were also thousands of illegal Haitian immigrants released into society in the 1980’s and 1990’s who tested positive by INS for HIV. No gay rights groups championed their cause yet they were also released into society to receive taxpayer funded care.
I would guess the disease would somehow evolve over time in response to large numbers of people flooding their systems with these drugs over decades. It would certainly seem a possibility.
Supposedly there is some kind of “super Ghonorrea strain in Europe but I have only seen rumors on the internet. Nothing more.
Speaking of viruses, it appears that a WordPress site, “Word of a Woman”, has issued pingbacks to a lot of androsphere sites. Each pingback is associated with a Trojan virus.
How interesting…
I mean, HIV kills a lot of people by their own suicides – they get tired of paying upwards of $30,000/year for treatment (and dealing with other nasty side-effects).
@Anonymous Reader
Trojans are bit harder to spread than that. By definition, something must be installed (and in Chrome, agreed to be installed).
Talk to SSM about it. She claims her machine now has
HEUR:Trojan.Script.Iframer
from the site “Word of a Woman”, due to investigating a pingback issued by that site.
Re: topics further up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_disengagement
Dalrock this is right up your alley, you gotta do a post on this.
Why are we single?
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/why-are-we-single-finding-a-new-partner-can-be-much-harder-for-a-woman-than-a-man-linda-grant-reports-1509849.html
@Johnycomelately:
That article is a fantastic find. Almost every single paragraph graphically illustrates a fundamental truth discussed here or at Rollo’s, Heartiste’s or another blog.
“Why are we single?”
Because, cupcake, everything happens for a reason…
… and sometimes the reason is that you are stupid, selfish and made bad decisions.
“Single women will ask you, with bewilderment, why all the men they meet are married or gay.”
Solipsism is bewildering.
Note to self…when a single woman who makes poor choices tries to run her game on me…I’m married or gay.
Johnycomelately:
That article is classic. There are too many manosphere cliches to count them all, and the feminist shaming – the suggestion that there is just something weak and unmanly about the men, while the women are victims – ties back into the OP here:
Men seem less able to cope with single life and tend to move more quickly into a new relationship.
Let’s rephrase that: nature leaves (at least secular) men in a better position to start over, while women end up in a cat infested EPL cul-de-sac of their own making.
Everyone has to read Johncomelately’s article. It is a laugh riot. My favorite is early in the article:
“Paula Carter, … is 40, and split up with her husband last year after 15 years of marriage… She has two children by the marriage who live with her… I’ve yet to meet a man mature enough to want me for me.”
Too many ‘me’s woman. Any man seeing how you mindlessly wreck a long term relationship won’t bother with you.
lolzzlolzzlolzzlolzzz
The funniest thing about the article is the date: 1993.
Nothing has changed.
lol 1993, who cares, it never changes. I just love this part.
The cheek of this husband!
“If you’re going to be single, make sure you’re a man.”
Other than a few bouts of loneliness…I have yet to find a downside to it.
“Since feminism is now the established order feminists are finding themselves the new conservatives, and many conservatives can be found unwittingly conserving feminism.”
I haven’t finished the post yet, nor have I read through the comments. I just wanted to comment on the above due to its significance to understanding the feminist/conservative dynamic.
This took me a while to except. A couple of years ago I still believed that conservatives were traditional and against feminism. This was well after I began to have a “red pill” understanding. I could not understand why so many of my fellow Christians adhered to feminist standards and maintained feminist beliefs. It was here at Dalrock’s that I first saw conservatism questioned, and I (like others) objected to conservatives (especially traditionalists) being thrown in with feminists as marriage destroyers.
But, Dalrock made points I could not bring an argument against. And my own life experiences repeatedly demonstrated that most people I knew (including Christians) were anything but what I understood to be traditionally conservative (biblical). And in the media it is the same. At first I (like others) wanted to take back the conservative title. But as Dalrock pointed out so many people that promoted feminist ideas were self identifying as conservative.
I remember a couple of decades or so ago conservatives were talking about whether or not women should work outside the home. Before this a woman could do this if she wanted, and no one made a big deal out of it. But most seemed content to raise children and take care of the home. But during the big feminist shove it became a huge issue and the conservatives defended the traditional view. Also shows on TV were trying to introduce the idea that a woman could do anything a man could do. They began to criticized male headship and leadership. They really pushed the “you don’t own me” mantra. There were conservatives of that time who stood against the rising tide of feminism and were engulfed in a tsunami of PC and legal / social sanctions. No one even remembers the fight.
Presently conservatives are perpetuating ideas that their predecessors fought against. Male headship / leadership, the differences between the sexes. male only spaces, difficult divorce, default male custody, all these and more are long gone in conservative circles. I realize that there are exceptions here and there. But I also realize that if things continue as they have been, in 20 years the majority of conservatives will be perpetuating what their opponents are promoting today. And as a Christian who believes all of the Bible, I cannot identify myself as part of that group.
I have been able to make small strides in the church I attend, as the points I make are are backed up with scripture. So there is common ground there. And most of the opposition I have encountered is from those who don’t even know what is written in the Bible concerning these topics. However, others with more biblical knowledge often consider these points much less important, and so they do not oppose the encroaching feminism except in certain taboo areas, or they have taken the road of biblical criticism. They make arguments about the meaning of the word “head” and take scripture out of context to make their point.
I have been promoting the radical idea that in the U. S. marriage is already all but destroyed and we Christians need to defend it and attempt to repair it. Most conservatives are focused on the dangers of “gay marriage” (another hole in the wall) while the house is burning down around them. I explain how the government, the media, academia, and sadly many churches endorse and promote feminism and divorce. Almost everyone I explained this to had never given these ideas any thought.
The popular “woman good / man bad” view mixed with egalitarianism has produced disastrous results when forged into law. We are indeed steeped in feminism. I’ve read someone on these parts (sorry I don’t recall the name) who has often reminded us that feminism is all around us. If we aren’t actively fighting against it, we are promoting it.
This was supposed to be a short comment. My apologies.
Sorry! Except = accept!
@JDG
The Chesterton quote seems oddly appropriate.
@JDG,
Conservatives embrace feminism because women vote. In the voting arena they think they can not afford to alientate 50% of the voters. Probably true.
Evangelical Christians embrace or tolerate feminism because they think they will not win the lost around them if they teach what the Bible says about gender roles, authority and marriage.
Almost all Evangelical Christians neglect the church growth they could achieve by encouraging large families raised in the church by SAHM’s and a dominant husband.
“Dalrock, I do not follow the point you are making here. All I see are men who’s self-esteem can’t handle the fact that their wife is successful at something. I take great PRIDE at my wife’s accomplishments. The better she does, the better I feel about it because I know that she knows how good she is (at something) and I’m a part of that because she is a part of my life. That isn’t feminism.”
Is it not feminism when the wife’s accomplishments are promoting feminism? Isn’t feminism at the very core of the idea that a woman can do everything a man can do, and does it not normalize the idea that there should be no traditionally male spaces?
“Wives have an innate need to look up to their husbands; to be married to a man that is more successful, smarter, and accomplished than they are. It may not be PC to say it, but it’s the truth.
Hypergamy is the word that describes this.”
Yep!
“No healthy marriage is competitve, but show me a noncompetitive feminist and I’ll show you a flying rainbow colored unicorn.”
LOL
I’m borrowing this.
“The trouble with Feminism is eventually you run out of compliant men”.
Another one to borrow!
@Earl
“”Note to self…when a single woman who makes poor choices tries to run her game on me…I’m married or gay””
A very good friend of mine takes this position…..and it is funny as hell to watch him. He is wealthy very good looking Jewish businessman,drives a Lamborghini Gallardo,wears designer suits and a gold Rolex watch….etc…etc…..He is 50,never married and thinks women are tools!……L* A woman will approach him and here is the typical conversation.
Her& Him…..*introductions*
Her:So what do you do?
Him:I am unemployed
Her:Oh!…..Do you live around here?
Him:Yes I do…..I live with my mother.
Her:Oh!….so I assume that you are not married?
Him:Married?……HELL NO!….I”M GAY!
Then the woman FREAKS OUT!……I have seen this first hand…..it is hilarious.The only thing that we cannot figure out is why they “freak out”?……..try it sometime…..you will get results!…..and you will get a good laugh!
@johnycomelately
Great find!………I assume Dalrock can make a few great posts out of this!
This is an adjunct to the previous article, a must read for women as it shows the stark demographic realities of dating for women over 30. Although it is a shaming piece its statistical work is exceptional.
The Case for Older Women
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-case-for-an-older-woman/
This is what happens to ‘intimidating’ women.
@johnycomelately
Again!….great post…..I will comment to you about it later……here is two for you that compliments the one that you posted
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/sex_is_cheap.html
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/17/shock-claim-40000-public-school-teachers-moonlight-on-sugar-daddy-website/
I posted the “school teacher” article on a previous thread……but,it seems appropriate to post it again here.Thanks!
@Mark
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve linked that Slate article. It’s an excellent expression of the collision between reality and feminism.
The matter is (as has been observed by many others on this thread and elsewhere) quite simple.
Even in an unfallen state, I doesn’t seem as though God did not intended women to be independent, existing outside submission to a male relation (her father in her maiden years, husband after that).
And especially when you factor in her fallen state (solipsism, irrationality, proneness to hysteria, resistance to male authority, ease by which she can be manipulated and controlled by those who don’t have her best interests in mind), the only solution that has *ever* worked has been male authority, both locally at the family level and at the civilization level as well working in concert to protect women from themselves, for the benefit of everyone.
As was brought up here, male authority, both in the household and in all of society has been totally destroyed, and in fact, female authority set up in its’ place.
So unless those things are dealt with there really is no solution.
I would love to marry, but in a culture and environment like the modern west, totally toxic to a good marriage and the proper, Godly rearing of children? I don’t think so!
I doesn’t seem as though God did not intended women to be independent,
Talk about typos…i meant to say ‘it doesn’t seem as though God intended women to be independent
Sorry!
Evangelical Christians embrace or tolerate feminism because they think they will not win the lost around them if they teach what the Bible says about gender roles, authority and marriage.
Nope. they embrace it because of “the lift”. It is basic, fundamental.
Empathologism please explain the lift. I feel as if I should already know, yet its meaning eludes me.
So, a journal entry from 1901:
“The day & night before school started in 1901, I worked one hundred buttonholes and sewed on one hundred buttons, trying to finish up the children’s school clothes. I was still sewing at dawn. I milked the cows and fixed breakfast. I worked all morning about the house and cooked dinner. Then that afternoon I gave birth to my tenth child.”
“The lift” is simple. The literal; lift is sexual, when a young man is attempting sex with a young woman and she finally lifts up for the removal of her lower garments.
“The lift” is how the same tactic he used to get the literal lift is driving him for this other platonic kind of lift. men love positive female feedback. Be it online where men in mixed forums love it when women call them courageous for standing up to those nasty men, or in ministry when letters and emails come pouring in on how the brave preacher changed her husband, to hearing even from his own wife that Mrs so and so said he was a good man, and he had guts to tell it how it is to the men.
The lift informs the secular male feminist as well.
Its part of the big secret. The big secret is…..,men want to please women. Simple as that. If women would figure that out lots of issues would fade away.
I read the okcupid article it made me think this: if women in their 30s are better than in their 20s, and a man chooses a woman in her 20s, she will be in her 30s in 10 years. So he can have her in her fertility peak and “okcupid” peak. Why try to get men to change their natural preference?
The links were a bit of venting on my behalf as I got a visit from the local priest, according to him (being single at 37) I am living a life of luxury and irresponsibility and had to man up and sacrifice my life in service for others.
MarcusD
There is not one woman alive today that can touch that chick. And every one of todays artificially empowered sluts will speak of women of those times as weak doormats oppressed and helpless and not strong and educated like todays women. Compare that women to this uber intelligent broad here
empathologism says:
October 19, 2013 at 8:27 pm
Yes I see it now. This is amazingly true. And looking back I can see how this was me once upon a time. I don’t suppose the desire to please a woman is bad in and of itself in the proper context with the right limitations. Sadly now I see that it is all to often a motivator for bad behavior and defending the inexcusable. Thank you for explaining.
What is interesting is their definition of mature which is tied to a woman, easing another man’s get. So a fella working as an ER doc, saving 10 limbs and 3 lives a week isn’t a mature man unless he is shackled to a woman. Same for a single guy entrusted with hundreds of lives flying passenger jets across the ocean.
Evangelicals embrace feminism because #1 they’d don’t know any better and #2 don’t want to lose out on the collection plate cash. Which makes them no different then any other group of Christians.
It’s not a man’s job to please a woman. It’s her job to please him
@johnycomelately
“”(being single at 37) I am living a life of luxury and irresponsibility and had to man up and sacrifice my life in service for others””
I have been told the same thing by my Rabbi and a Pastor friend of mine…..more than once! Then all I do is switch the conversation to the “Legal” aspects of what they are asking me to do.They have no recourse when I start spewing the modern day laws to them and comment that a deal like that is a “sucker’s game”…and I am no one’s sucker…especially a womyns!
@johnycomelately
The link “Why are we single” is great.I have seen this first hand.In the office tower that I work in there is a Dating Agency on the 9th floor.The woman that runs the business has told myself and friends that the biggest problem that she has is finding men to sign-up.She is constantly emailing myself and business associates profiles from women that join her agency and wants to know if we would like to meet them.I respond back to her that “I would f*** her and that is it”…or “where does she want to take me on a date”?….L* Not too long ago she had a single’s night for all the single men & women in the office tower.Over 100 single women showed up…..and THREE men! Three spineless manginas who couldn’t get laid in a whorehouse with a fistful of $100 bills!!!!!. Of course,she was very embarrassed and blamed it all on the men! She asked me why I did not attend? I replied ..”I have no need to…I am not looking for a relationship and have my ‘booty-calls’ on the side when I want..so it would be a waste of time”.She is always trying to get myself and friends to join her agency,in fact,she has offered to waive the $1000 sign-up fee.I have explained to her several times(which she has yet to comprehend) that if I dated one of her clients it would be for sex only…NOTHING ELSE!
@Mark: Do the women also have to pay $1000 to sign up?
@BC
Yes they do.But,they do get their money’s worth from what I have seen.The introductions are personal and face to face.They get to date as many men as they choose until they find “Mr.Right”. I think it is a joke really.I have seen a lot of the women’s profiles.I see them as just too damn lazy to go and meet men themselves so they resort to the Dating Agency.Also,after seeing many of the profiles they are all the same.I was outside having a cigar one day and the owner was with a client of which she introduced to me.The owner said ..”I want to ask you a question as a man.Do you think that this woman(client) needs breast enhancement surgery? She thinks she does and is determined to do so”…..My reply….”You don’t need breast enhancement surgery.Just take some toilet paper and rub it between your breasts, after all it has done wonders for your ass”
“The links were a bit of venting on my behalf as I got a visit from the local priest, according to him (being single at 37) I am living a life of luxury and irresponsibility and had to man up and sacrifice my life in service for others.”
Because you aren’t sacrificing for a woman…or people in general?
If he is talking marriage…you could also inform him that being single doesn’t mean you still can’t sacrifice for others of your own volition. In fact is it really sacrifice if you are being forced into it?
I’m intrigued by the suggestion in the comments that anyone who thinks women should vote counts as a feminist. A while ago, I asked Dalrock how much of the feminist shift since the nineteenth century needed to be rolled back, and I got the impression most people wanted to go back to about 1950 England in legal and social terms: strict divorce laws as a constraint on both sexes, strong social norms in favour of marriage and gender roles, but theoretical equality before the law for men and women in almost all respects. There seems to have been a change in thinking since then. I wonder how many of you think that the only legal remedy is rolling back everything since the Married Women’s Property Act 1888 and its American analogues? That would be a return to a system where married women couldn’t hold property or contract in their own capacity; most universities refused to award degrees to women and there was nothing illegal about it (no discrimination legislation – of course, that comes later than 1950 in England anyway); and women couldn’t vote. If there is a good argument for denying women the vote, surely it applies equally to reintroducing coverture so that a married woman is legally absorbed into her husband and can’t hold property or contract apart from him? I assume the argument for denying women the vote remains either that we are fundamentally incapable of acting for the public good (irrational or rational in the wrong way) or that husbands and fathers may exercise the vote in their women’s interests anyway so allowing women to vote is a kind of unfair double-counting. Both require the reintroduction of coverture to be coherent.
I also wonder what that means in terms of age of consent laws and girl’s education being treated as a fundamental right by groups like the UN. If women are incapable of acting in the common good, and their social function is to be obedient wives and affectionate mothers, why should states like Taliban-controlled Pakistan and Afghanistan be treated as violators of human rights when they insist that girls marry as soon as they reach puberty and forbid them an irrelevant education on matters like science and maths? What I want to know is how far people here are committed to the old-fashioned view that women’s natural inequality must be entrenched in law and how far you are modern conservatives who think institutions like the family are social ones and the norms protecting them should be purely social, within a framework of formal equality before the law? I can never get a clear sense of this from reading the discussion here but, as I said, there seems to be have been a drift in favour of legal entrenchment.
@Gwen
I believe you will find that the Married Women’s Property Act was 1882.
Gwen, the men folk here, for the most part, are full of soft, silly modern, progressive etc all type thinking and I doubt cotton to the idea.
As for me, I’d repeal all such laws written after 1820 or there abouts. I think, if your kin didn’t fit the British in the war of independence you shouldn’t be here and shouldn’t vote
I think the same about the South. If your kin didn’t fight the damnyankees you shouldn’t be here and shouldn’t be allowed to vote
All them new commers did nothing but back the feds power play
Gwen:
I think liberal democracy is a load of crap and should be scrapped in general: voting is a public ritual celebrating equal rights and inevitably leads to expansion of the franchise to be as universal as possible within unprincipled constraints like “common sense”. That way everyone is ritualistically trained to think like a liberal and to feel a part of liberal society, despite its obvious incoherence and conflicts with nature.
So while I have argued that there is a connection between women’s suffrage and social disaster, I suppose I am ironically more ‘equalist’ than some of my fellow reactionaries: I don’t think anyone should vote.
We already live in an oligarchy disguised as a democracy. Problem is you don’t know the names or see the faces.
Lol Gwen, can you just imagine the squeals from the wimmenz?! I’d pay to see that!
Gwen, ending voting by unmarried women (especially ones with children born outside of marriage) would be the top change most well-informed men in the manosphere would want IMO, other than ending no-fault/mother custody divorce. It doesn’t really matter much if married women vote, as they will tend not to want their husbands taxed at 101% to fund socialist cr*p that doesn’t help them.
Coverture is a bad idea without draconian control options over wives (think Roman Republic power of life and death); many blameless men back when had their lives ruined by faithless estranged wives misusing its provisions.
Gwen
The only change that needs to be made is no more lies. Just have public service announcements informing men on the laws and how certain laws are ignored to ensure a feminist outcome. Have an elective course in high school for boys to be taught the application of misandry in culture and law. And Gandarusa available
Yea, I think there’s entirely more freedom for men in the lack of authoritarian control over women. Women need and eventually must learn how to be and act like moral agents. To both keep their vows – both marriage and other – and chastity within and outside of marriage.
The biggest problem is turning back those laws which give women free rein, to do to themselves, their husbands and their children, damage that no authority, besides God, can repair. Such as ‘no fault’ and Custody of children to the mother; thus eroding the link between father and children.
Voting? Well, don’t believe much in democracy. Especially here in South Africa; letting the majority rule…. is a one way ticket to the toilet bowl.
Gwen-
Every jewelry store that sells engagement and wedding rings should be required by law before a sale can be made to provide a full disclosure,
1) informing men on how laws and courts ensure a feminist outcome to divorce,
2) requiring that men understand the application of misandry in society,
3) providing all necessary pre-nuptial agreement forms (with attorney referrals), and
4) administering a written examination that demonstrates men have an understanding of the risks.
The above disclosure would be a good starting place.
Most of this depends on who makes the majority and the size of a nation. The larger the nation and the more “diverse” the population the more government required/ the more likely folks are going to want lots of laws.
That and equality. You can have liberty or equality but never both.
FH
You don’t need to roll back anything just make sure it is all up front. What we have now are lies. Even when laws are ignored for certain groups for political reason that is fine as long as it is spoken out loud for all to see.
Personally I do not want a roll back of anything I would rather have the insulation females get from the effects of the current system women voted in removed. Leave it as it is until all men get the red pill. There will be no blissful ignorance or delusional romance. Sluts will be sluts and women that behave with virtue will receive the benefits of virtuous behavior. No need for any change of tendencies just the truth and consequences.
@MarcusD
Here is a great article that I found.I see the same thing happening here in Canada.I see women wanting the relationships and marriage and men running as fast as they can away from the women!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex
Same shit, different day. Always blaming the men…
Listen women, don’t get married. Really, I can’t say this often enough, don’t do it.
Another one on Japan:
Married or single, Japan is a desolate country
@FH
“”Same shit, different day. Always blaming the men…””
Agreed!
I’m trying to think of an advantage to getting married……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… wait for it……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… still thinking………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………any day now……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… okay, my finger hurts now but you get the point……………………………… ouch!
Ah, yes, the grass-eaters. My understanding is that the Japanese government is freaking out over it because the Japanese birthrate is plummeting as it is (and their economy will take a hit over it).
I’m wondering if there is a Japanese MGTOW movement.
It also reminds me of Russian men who almost entirely avoid marriage, and Russian women who are extremely tolerant of bad behaviour because of the shortage of men (“Oh, he cheated for the tenth time? When will he ever learn? Oh well.”)
As the Slate article states: “Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy.”
The MGTOW Haiku:
do not get married
if you want a decent life
or to save money
Regarding what to do, its all mental masturbation as folks won’t do a damn thing any which way
@MarcusD
“”I’m wondering if there is a Japanese MGTOW movement.””
I am assuming that there is!…..a VERY large one! I could not do this.I need my “booty-calls”…..and there is NO shortage of them!
@MarcusD
Here is another good one that I found.
http://nationalreport.net/miley-cyrus-krokodil-abscess/
Poor Miley!…..it is tough work being a skank in today’s world!……L*
h4y hey hey dalrockas!!! speaking of growing a pair, my pair came up in my ABD 20/20 inteivew regaridng da manospherez!!!
zlozozozzozo
GBFM MANOSHERE INTERVIEWWSZ !!! ABC 20/20 interveiews da GBFM about da MANOSPHERE ZZlzozozozoz
lzlozozozozoz
someebeody calleedz and said dey was from ABC 20/20 TV Show or somebody and asked da GBFM if he wwnwtased to 2 do an inetevreiwsz about da MANOSPHERES!!!
so da GBFM said yes i wann help you udneretdtsnad da MAONSPEHEREZ!
so igetz da addressz studio addresszz and i put on my sunday best which is a semi-clean t-rshsit dat passed da smaell ytes tetszt.
and when i get teheree tehy put hair and makeup on mez, and den someone pointsz out dat as da MANOPSEHERE is a WANTED group tdat dey would coencela my idientyytztz zlziz concel my identiety and disguiuse my voiceszz zlzozii
den i went on da set and i swaer it did not feel like ABC 20/20 but more like ABC 69/69 zlzozo so maybe i got da message wrongz!!
anywho da pretty hot hot reproetretette says, “SO TELL me GBFM about da manospheres. what is it and why should we carez?” loooozz
so da GBFM leansz back in his chair and says:
“DA FIRST THING DAT U MUST KNOW about da MANOSPHERE is dat there are TWO MANOSPHEREZ.”
she goes, “yah ayah yah, and they are?”
“DER ARE TWO MANOPSHERES, and den der is da ONE ENTITY TO LEAD THEM ALL.”
she goes, “yah yah yah and so? please do tell!” She wanted da GBFM so babsda lzlzozozoz
DA GBFM SAY, “DA FIRST MANOPHERE IS DA GBFM’S LEFT NUT,” And i shows her, “DA SECOND MANOPHERE IS DA GBFM’S RIHT NUT, and da TITULAR HEAD OF IT ALL IS DA GBFM’S LOTSAS COCKAS so let me put my head in yout titulars NOW zlzozlzozozoozozozozoz! lzozozlz”
zlzlzozozozolzlzo
and da GBFM was escorted out by two big unifomred menz,
but later dat nightz she texted mez of coursez
for she had seen da size and scope of
da GBFM MANOSPHEREZ zlziz
lzzuzkzlziuzlzlzzlzoozoz
p.s. as da two big uniformed men escorte dme out, da GBFM yelled,
“MEGAN KELLY! I WANNA SEE MEGAN KEELLY I WANNNA EET MEGGAN KELLY I THOUGHT I WAS GONNA GETSZ @ MEET MEGAN KELLYZ!: :” as dey threw me on tda pavementz zlzozozozo
I’m wondering if there is a Japanese MGTOW movement
Inasmuch as (to quote Zed, the original coiner of the term “MGTOW”) MGTOW is a “non movement”, there certianly seems to be the same sort of organic outgrowth of men going galt in Japan as elsewhere. Check out this article.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/27/japan-grass-eaters-salaryman-macho
Society and the prevailing culture expects everyman to work himself to death for the benefit of an ungrateful woman, and it certainly makes sense to say no to that proposition.
Regards, Boxer
This is the way “movements” usually start. It’s almost never as it’s romanticized (with George Washington, Lenin and Che Guevara planning things out beforehand, etc.) Movements start out as broad based dissatisfaction. Eventually, a “leader” or three emerges when the time is right. After the “movement” achieves (some of) its goals, history gets rewritten and the “leaders” are deified as the people who started the movement and got it off the ground. Before the groundswell, the “leader” just looks like a crackpot or conspiracy theorist.
Well, an intellectual revolution (which I believe is in progress) requires the shift from private to public and it must see a change in prevailing modes of thought. Men are slowly shifting to public (as opposed to private) recognition of issues which (hopefully) will lead to a shift in how we think about things (marriage and relationships to start).
@Mark
Thanks for the links. It just boggles my mind that people can idolize Cyrus. On that topic: I have advised men in the past to assess a woman’s marriageability (in part) by observing what level and types of media consumption she partakes in.
@8oxer
Society and the prevailing culture expects everyman to work himself to death for the benefit of an ungrateful woman, and it certainly makes sense to say no to that proposition.
Part of me thinks that that attitude has some biological basis considering how ingrained it is in all cultures throughout history. The fact that women assess men on their status (e.g. SES) seems to reinforce that (even if they have no need for money – I refer to long-term relationships, of course). I linked some poetry above (October 17, 2013 at 4:37 pm) that highlights that attitude. As depicted in medieval literature, a (high-ranking) female had a chivalric prerogative in which she could blithely reject the most monumental efforts made for her benefit.
I don’t think you should bother arguing with the hardcore feminists, but the so called “conservatives” and especially the Churchianity crowd are where you should argue. Granted you’ll probably still be called names and even banned from message boards for doing it, but still take the fight to them. Here’s a thread where I tried to explain to some Churchianity people why young men don’t want to get married.
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/22618
I think there are quite a few doubtful Democrats (government not party) here. I think I’ll pretty much side with Zippy’s comment.
The Bechtloff: You handled that exchange masterfully, taking the high road and letting your opponents wallow in the shit they sling. You maintained frame, as they say. Good work.
Well 8oxer, after a few months of personal attacks the moderator Gina finally banned me for a month after I called her on it. But hey, maybe a few red-pill Christians from here will take my place lol.
Arguing with “conservatives” & Christains is unlikely to succeed. One thinks he/she has 1000’s of yes a of tradition behind them, the other believe they speak with the full weight of God behind them.
Well Ton I never thought it would be easy, but I’m pretty convinced that if the church would just get a little more red pill in its system if might actually be able to save western civilization. It’s why I love this blog so much.
We’re you go wrong my friend is thinking the church has actuall God fearing Christains in them.
Earl those oligarchs are not at all faceless or nameless, but when you name them proper folk call you words and way to many are afraid of powerless words
@MarcusD
Only 1993? I can go back a decade more.
William Novak’s book The Great American Man Shortage turned 30 this year. It reads as though it pretty much could have been written yesterday.
The response by men to the feminist/sexual revolutions of the ’60s and ’70s was pretty immediate, and it was to back off from women.
This is why “Game” is really part of the feminist conspiracy, to get/keep men in traditional roles that benefit women. (heh, heh…)
Anyway, women’s total combined problem solving skills, or lack thereof, is illustrated by the fact that they still haven’t figured it out. Even with us screaming out the answers! I really think they just want to be woe-men.
Whoring is the only biz (besides gubmint) where the customer is always wrong.
Is your comment directed at FH?
This is your Spinster report coming to you from Las Vegas, NV. (I’m actually in LA but reporting on my trip to Vegas last week.
1) 30ish spinster talks and rubs legs at Blackjack table while I’m trying count cards (I watched Holy Rollers on Netflix and was trying my luck).
-She starts judging me telling me to relax. Well you dumb bitch I’m trying to count cards and your bothering me. Left table at break even. 30is spinster looked like she knew why I was leaving. Yes, that’s right, look down, I’m leaving because your bothering me (and I’m trying to count cards). 30ish women, talking then rubbing my leg. Didn’t have to do that when you were 21 did ya? Or maybe it was the $50-$100 bets I was making that got her attention?
2) 30ish spinster at club desperately trys to dance with me.
– I went to a club called LAX at Luxor. I hate clubs and had no intention of waiting in line. But it was a Tuesday night and there was no line. I told them I just wanted to see what it looks like (since Paris Hilton went there) and they waived me with no cover. I meandered around eying the young 20 somethings who looked hot as hell. I was eying a good looking skinny short haired 30 something women (until I realized her age). That was all it took. She walks right over and starts initiating dance with me holding her arms out like come on come on. I started laughing in her face and I walked out of the club. I just wanted to see what it looked like. By the way – amazing for a guy my age to get into a “hot” club like that. Only on a Tuesday night. Hate clubs and bars (lounges are exempted) but was curious what it looked like.
3) Spinster at Art Gallery starts heavily flirting. I go with it and start recipricating trying to test the “game” I’ve been reading about but also trying to be “me” if that makes since. Too much to talk about here and my fingers are tired of typing. She asks my occupation I tell her and she asks me to go into a private viewing room where the most expensive art is. She says:
“Don’t worry I don’t bite – Well it DEPENDS ON THE DICK” and starts laughing and apologizing saying “I don’t know what’s got into me” and “I’m so full of it” (whatever that means). Then flirting grabbing my arm. I can her you all right now saying “BS”. It’s not. She was not a hooker. She was working in retail. In any case – I was just “practising” game with her and look what happened. Zero intention of having “drinks” with a 30ish past her prime God knows where she has been women but it was good for practice none the less. Talk about easy pickings.
30ish = easy.
Stay tuned for future Spinster reports …
@Earl
Yes, just about every hetero single guy should consider learning how to pass as gay, or as ambiguous, just in case.
How about a Gubmint/Church Issued Wife, anybody?:
“If your bored and horny, keep looking. not my prob”
– a 34 yo single mom of 2 (her “whole world”) looking for male friends on a singles site; too hideous to have a picture. Eunuch/slave types are encouraged to reply. (I made that part up.)
On second thought, she’s probably not the one for you, Earl. lolzz
It is a pretty good all-purpose response to women’s numerous complaints: not my prob
Gwen, what happens is, a guy takes the red pill, and his first thought is that we need to go back to the 1950s. Wives were staying home, a blue-collar job could earn enough to support a large family, and life was good. But then someone points out to him that the 1960s didn’t happen in a vacuum; the seeds were already sown by the 1950s. So he looks deeper, and sees that, yes, things were already going wrong before that but just hadn’t come to the surface yet. Far-seeing people like G.K. Chesterton and Pope St. Pius X were already warning about modernism at the turn of the century (read some of Chesterton’s stuff and you’d swear it was far newer than that). Communist revolutions swept the globe in the first half of the 20th century, and though they didn’t conquer the USA outright, they gained significant influence. Women voting and birth control also began in that era and had a big influence. So he starts to think, well, maybe we need to roll things back to the 1800s.
Then he studies a little more, and he realizes that the classical liberalism on which the US was founded actually laid the foundation for modern liberalism. Even though the founders would have been aghast at what has been wrought, it’s the inevitable consequence of enshrining freedom and equality as your highest ideals. As he learns more about that, he discovers that it goes back to the Enlightenment, when it first became common to think that you could run a society on pure reason without religious authority. (At this point he becomes at least a little bit of a monarchist.) People could still be religious, but each man would be his own ultimate authority. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, wrote his own bible, taking out stuff he didn’t like such as the resurrection and angels.
It doesn’t take our guy long to see that the Enlightenment grew out of the Reformation, by saying that if it was good to break away from the authority of Rome, it was better to bow to no religious authority at all. If our student goes back even further, he can find other seeds in the various Gnostic heresies that sprang up over the years, like the Albigensians. An essential part of Gnosticism (which underlies much mainstream religious belief today) is that you can discover all truth directly, either by accessing your own internal divinity or by having a special connection to God, but without needing any external authority.
That’s a very over-simplified overview, but depending on how deep a guy is in red-pill land, he will be somewhere along this journey. If you talk to guys who are still in the mainstream but are frustrated with feminism and know things aren’t right but don’t really know where it came from yet, you’ll get the first impression: we just need to go back to the 1950s, get rid of no-fault divorce, make the laws apply equally to men and women, and we’ll be fine. Get out of the mainstream and talk to guys who have dug deeper (like some here), and you’ll get a different story: those things are symptoms, not causes, and even if we could eliminate them, they’d just come back because we haven’t fixed the cause yet — which is why we can’t eliminate them. Those are the guys who will say you have to go back well before women’s suffrage — and before democracy, individual “rights,” Americanism (the heresy of separation of church and state), and so on. It’s a long series of dominoes, and just standing the last three back up won’t work if all the previous ones are still leaning on them.
@Cail: In other words, since the beta man can’t sit around waiting for societal resolution to be dropped into his hands, it’s still thrown back on him that in order to function better in this chaotic and disordered world, he has to ramp himself up somehow, work on self-improvement in areas that matter. Athol Kay at MMSL writes about this on the married man side while the original Roissy material is considered a good starting point for single or divorced men. But only a starting point, imo, especially if he is Christian. Yes women have to improve themselves too, but I don’t have the patience to sit around and wait for that. Might as well be waiting for Godot.
Easier to wear slippers than to carpet the whole world.
@ Cail,
I would say that one who is aware of history and reasonably enlightened wouldn’t present any kind of ‘we should go back to’ supposition. To say “These laws, or even, laws from this period need to be repealed” is not trying to ‘go back to that time’. Rather it’s correcting errors from that time on a going forward basis. It would take an incredibly foolish person to look at any time as ‘the ideal’, unless that time was in the far-flung future of the Kingdom of God or such. Certainly he would not look for it in the past.
That said, if we’re talking about times the pioneer era west has many charms. It had many, many difficulties but the ridiculous level of independence and autonomy is very seductive.
Anyway, its our job to ask ourselves how can we improve the future (or save, a the case may be), not to look back with real longing.
And wait for it…….
THERE it is…….
I have broached the topic of ‘last name’ with the woman in my life.
She is looking for a proposal……I am looking for an answer to a simple question:
“Will you take my last name?” (no hyphenating, or other bullshit).
She says she doesn’t know if she’ll take my name…..and it shouldn’t be a requisite of my proposing to her.
I say “Bullshit…..and no proposal will be forthcoming.”
STALEMATE.
@ Gwen
I feel the only change necessary is the halt of subsidies to women for all their terrible decision making.
If the cost of debt accumulation was borne solely by the person who’s name it is in, then men could protect themselves from a ‘spendthrift’ spouse.
If child support payments were voluntary, then women would truly think twice about ‘frivorce’.
If the cost of a ‘bastard’ child was born solely by a woman, then women may think twice about copulating with a near stranger in the back seat of a car.
BUT, the cost of such actions previously fell on the state & the church to provide for women who made such bad decisions.
This fully explains why these two institutions are in bed together when it comes to the current ‘man-shaming’ regime. The ‘man-up’ rhetoric just keeps getting more shrill & nauseating.
In a truly equal society, men and women would BOTH be held accountable for their actions; rather than the current (& convenient) ‘screw men’ ideology.
In a truly
“Yes, just about every hetero single guy should consider learning how to pass as gay, or as ambiguous, just in case.”
I live in an area that has a lot of them. I’ve watched their mannerisms and put it into the brainbox…just in case one of those harpies comes by looking for an atm. Heck any guy can act gay for 5 minutes…just have feelings and really like them.
“She says she doesn’t know if she’ll take my name…..and it shouldn’t be a requisite of my proposing to her.”
Silly ladies…thinking they have the penis privilege.
Feeriker made it look pretty bad, but it’s worse than that. Ms. Success-Oriented’s expectation that a man must out-earn her grows even faster than her own earnings. The bigger her paycheck gets, the larger the percentage she expects the man to out-earn her by before she considers him ‘eligible’. Female hypergamy is an ever more steeply rising curve.
@Cali
Just maybe the best post ever. Indeed the roots of our modern troubles go back *way* far and since today’s conservatives have ever been yesterday’s liberals post protestant reformation. Even if we turned the clock back to 1950, or 1750, we would still go hurtling back to where we are today.
OMFG LOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Been there, done that man!!!
My first wife, that left me as soon as the going got tough, (my income dropped a lot due to the bad economy) has a 132 IQ and a PhD. Maybe she was always looking to “better deal” me, who knows what goes on in those devious minds?
My second wife will be dumb as a bag of rocks. Maybe just smart enough to tend the garden.
STALEMATE.
For me that ended any further advancement. We were done.
IMHO you can’t talk a woman into being wife material. She is or she isn’t.
CC
It doesn’t take our guy long to see that the Enlightenment grew out of the Reformation, by saying that if it was good to break away from the authority of Rome, it was better to bow to no religious authority at all. If our student goes back even further, he can find other seeds in the various Gnostic heresies that sprang up over the years, like the Albigensians.
And if one goes back further still, one finds a huge split between the Constantinople Eastern church and the Roman Western church due to…what? Some little misunderstanding or other, I’m sure. One also finds that many of the abuses within the Roman Western church have their taproot in the 4th century, when a Roman general named Constantine kept his word (“If I win this battle in a civil war, I’ll become a Christian”) and then proceeded to re-form the Christian church into something along the lines of the Roman Army, starting at Nicea. Hardly a surprise, but a bit of a disappointment that so much of the church went along. The church structure of the 200’s that Paul would have recognized changed to something entirely different by the end of the 300’s.
So Constantine set in motion the forces that led to the Reformation, and modernism, and clean water with out typhoid, et cetera, et cetera, It’s all his fault…
The split between Greek and Latin orthodoxies was due to the calculation of Passover and the date of Easter. People get really hung up on dates when you start messing around with translating calenders, esp where Holy days are concerned. I see it even today when people work on calculating things like lunar Sabbaths ect…
Constantine didn’t really do that much, he made the Edict of Toleration (or Edict of Milan) that stopped the persecution of Christians, and ordered a council (Nicea, yeah) to settle some things relating to core doctrines. Also he did the Sunday thing.
His sons did a lot more, but they where (what we’d consider today) anti-orthodox, so its hard to say what their legacy did to the mainstream church. Their time did mark when ‘christians’ started persecuting pagans and like and looting them instead of the other way around.
People say ‘Constantine did this’ or ‘Constantine did that’ but really the thing he did was stop persecution. The church itself once no longer persecuted did the rest. It was left safe, successful, and powerful, and thus naturally prone to decadence and corruption.
The split between Greek and Latin orthodoxies was due to the calculation of Passover and the date of Easter.
Might it be that the disaster known as the 4th Crusade, around 1205, was also a factor?
It is also worth noting that the Christian church existed for several centuries apart from the state – in fact, often opposed by the state – and so Cail Corishev’s claim that severing church from state is “heresy” would seem to be inaccurate at best…
Interesting stuff on the churches history. I have never read much about it. Thanks.
Eh, what I’m talking about happened pre 325 AD… Its the first time Eastern churches resisted Rome. By 330 there was a see of Rome and see of Constantinople vieing for power. The schism existed long before the sacking of Constantinople.
But I guess like the fall of Rome it isn’t possible to attribute it to any single event, as the split itself happened over the course of centuries.
But it is well noted that the church existed separate from any given state at a number of times, esp during its infancy. Yes, that does seem to be an inaccurate statement on his part.
Your semi-occasional report from CAF:
Sexless Marriage?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=831699
Should I leave my marriage?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=831835
@ IBB
“I won’t worry about the bills because that will just take care of itself.”
– Because a man will pay it off right? By the way where is there a single women today who “saves” for a major vacation/party expenditure?
All those parties, vacations and outings you see on TV etc are funded by student loan debts. It’s no coincidence the rise in college enrollment and all things associated therein have risen in direct proportion to student loans.
Unless the government bails them out – there will be hell to pay. Debts of $40,000 are quickly turning into $150,000.00+ while women search for jobs that pay $40,000.00 with there Psychology and Liberal Arts Degrees. Wages are garnished and they turn into slaves.
“And DON’T YOU DARE give me a hard time for deciding I want to do this.”
-That’s been the attitude of nearly every one of these entitled, follow the crowd “have it all’s” I ever encountered.
UMC women are the worst. I was working with one recently and she was unbelievably entitled. She grew up in a posh area, went to a private school, referred to lower middle class people as ‘white trash'(seriously!), then complained about how men aren’t good looking enough in her area. What’s funny is that without makeup this woman is a 5.5 at best, but makeup totally transforms her. She knows how to highlight her features, and i would be willing to bet that she would be able to sleep with male 7-8’s very easily providing she left it on–she looks quite attractive made up–but no man will commit to her. She even complained that older men won’t commit–she is 24, and by older she means early to mid 30’s–and that they just want sex. She still hasn’t figured it out yet. I told her that she should just go for a rich geek instead and she scrunched up her face: she wants it all. And not only does she want it all, she believe she is entitled to it.
The problem is that this attitude isn’t just found in UMC women. It’s middle class women as a whole that think this way, and there is really no satisfying them. I know an Italian man in his mid 30’s that married a mid 30’s Australian career women who owned 3 properties. He brought nothing to the table financially basically, and is not that great looking, but she married him because he was available and willing and wouldn’t cause her any problems like her previous partners did. She bosses him around and treats him like shit basically. That is the fate of almost every man that gets involved with a woman that is ‘higher’ up the social ladder than they are.
Getting most people to accept that it’s women, not men, that a problem with these kind of relationships is the real challenge.
Heh, I was married to a smart M.A. once, and I know what you mean. A woman recently commented somewhere that a man obviously wouldn’t marry a woman who was a perfect 10 but had nothing to offer but sex. My response, though I didn’t get around to following up later, was, “Are you sure about that?” Now, if she had red flags in other areas, like say 5 kids by two different fathers who come and go at the courtesy of the state, perhaps I wouldn’t. But if she were simply neutral on everything else, but was legitimately a perfect 10 in my eyes and fully on board where sex is concerned, she would be hard to pass up. I think I’d look long and hard at how much I thought she’d be able to learn about things like housekeeping, and whether I’d be able to handle the kids’ education and things like that myself, to make it work. A lot would depend on her character, because low IQ doesn’t keep you from being virtuous, caring, and loyal. I’ll take a chance at those, combined with complete satisfaction in the bedroom, over great conversational skills or the ability to do our taxes any day.
I keep saying this, but women have no idea how meaningful regular, enthusiastic sex with a woman he finds attractive is to a man.
Status is a relative good.
For you to have high status someone else needs to have lower status. The idea that “men” can “man up” by increases their status is a contradiction in terms. For any man to rise up the ladder another must fall.
If the question is men relative to women I see no reason to believe men are slacking off. They earn more. The do the more dangerous and difficult jobs. Those with the IQ for it enter STEM at a much higher rate then equivalent women. Top professions are dominated by men, with female doctors and lawyers frequently scaling back and dropping out despite the degree. Men do go the mediocre college -> mediocre white collar job (HR department, etc) less often even as rewards for this have increased relative to falling blue collar prospects, but I wouldn’t hold this against them for a number of reasons.
Where divorce has really skyrocketed amongst the lower classes its because the government is a better provider then lower class men. Since most of these men are lower class because of IQ rather then anything in particular they do I fail to see what they are supposed to do about it.
So as far as man’s status relative to women they appear to be doing everything they can, especially in light of a tilted affirmative action playing field. There are hard (genetic) limits to men doing any better then they are today. Additional status whoring would largely be zero sum jockeying (which women love, but which is worthless from a societal perspective).
I didn’t feel like arguing it out at the time either… but if I remember correctly, RPSMF said no man would marry a perfect wife if he couldn’t get sex. I said that no man would marry a perfect 10 who had nothing to offer but sex. Maybe I should have worded that better, because what I meant is perfect 10 minus all of those perfect wife criteria. All she had to offer was sex. No character, no companionship, no mind, no child rearing skills, etc. Kind of like an escort- a trainwreck, but she will look good and give you lots of sex. Men timeshare women like that; they don’t marry them. My point was that “all women are good for is sex” is not the complete picture. Men want women for more than that- if the woman has it in her to give.
The Elusive Wapiti has an interesting article up regarding D*I*V*O*R*S*E, it seems that results in European homogony-marriages show a curious trend: women who “marry” women are about 2 X more likely to divorce than men who “marry” men. Something similar to heterosexual marriages, it seems. He ponders the common bond between these two facts…
http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2013/10/like-straight-women-lesbians-2x-more.html
“Vet hard for submission. Submission to you as family leader. Hold a dominant frame in dating.
I agree with you that similar Christian faith or same church attendance is not a good indicator anymore.”
—————————————
But it was a good indicator at some point…and now it’s not.
Which means any indicator you use today may not be a good one in 5 years.
At some point you have to realize this is a futile enterprise.
It doesn’t matter who the woman is, it matters what the laws and society are.
Very few women would leave if they got nothing and were scorned thereafter.
Ellie,
Unfortunately Ellie, for some men, that is ALL they see women for from a usefulness perspective. Now that certainly isn’t the Christian perspective of how men should look at women (its not my perspective), but if you are talking to a jaded man who had no women in his life (not because he disliked them but because no woman would give him the time of day) and as a result, learned to do everything for himself without any help from a woman, then to him all he sees of value in women is the sex. It is learned behavior. He has had to adapt to his limitations and as a result, sees less value in the gender that sees NO value in him.
Isn’t that the truth IBB! Thinking about it though, it’s rather weird, all these women who see no value in men other than being work horses and ripping to shreds as being ugly, useless, inferior, small dicks and whatever else, who then demand that men see them as more than sex objects, even though, it was their feminism that has turned them into nothing but sex objects. The irony, killing me it is!
@ IBB
Jesus IBB, this wouldn’t have anything to do with women abdicating their role, now would it?
Women pretending to be a man leave a big HOLE in the social tapestry. If men have learned to perform feminine roles, it is because women walked away from the social contract.
Women competing with men on their playing field results in a competing rather than complimentary partner.
Stop talking out of your ass.
FH and Casey,
I think (from the toles persepctive) there is a lot of things going on here. Much of it has to do with women, but some of it has to do with men. But it isn’t good. It is just our brains responding to seeing the world for what it is in the world of reality.
Lets put it this way, any woman who lives on her own for a while and if she succeeds in society (pays all her bills, can save a little something, is planning for the future, maybe even buys a house on her own) right off the bat, she is not going to see much value in men being breadwinners. She is already doing it all for herself therefore your “role” is diminished. And the longer she lives without being married to a man, the less value she will see in having a husband. So of course, she will start to naturally defer to feminism. As a woman I need a man the way a fish needs a bicycle, all I need is my jackrabbit vibrator. The fact that there may be something that she is doing WRONG that prevented a man from coming into her life as her husband is beside the point. Roles are changing in her mind because they drastically changed for her. So what does she see in a man other than a walking wallet to give her things?
On the other end, any man who has had to live on his own for a while (even just a short while) and makes his own meals, cleans his own house, washes his clothes, pays his bills, does his own yardwork, AND holds down a full time job (and maybe even a part-time job just for the social interaction) he’s going to look down on homemakers. This is just learned behavior. He is now fully aware that the hard work that a home maker does for the home, to him, is no longer work. He is already doing ALL OF THAT (in the evening) plus holding down a full time job. So in his eyes, home making loses value. How could it not? So what does he see in a woman other than an object for sex?
As people, we are not meant to live alone like that. It isn’t good for us. It shortens our lifespans, it makes us jaded, it frustrates us, and it warps our sense of the other gender. When you take raising your own children out of the equation, it really messes up the roles. And largely, that is what I see happening for so many young people nowadays. And there isn’t much I can do about that.
@ IBB
Agreed………but which gender ‘threw down’ first?
IBB, if a man has close encounters with too many women who really have nothing else to offer, it makes sense that he thinks that.
I don’t want women to be discouraged into thinking that all they have to offer is sex, but to be motivated to obtain and then offer what they have not been- femininity, gentleness, kindness, humility, self-control, caring service…
I am afraid I don’t think IBB is quite right here – nearly but not quite. Women of the sort he described – which for short hand I will call the Corporate Cubicle Bitch will not need men for money – she has that. She will merely see men as preferable to her Vibrator – indeed I have seen women (on line) boasting they don’t need a Vibrator, and why.
Their interest in men is reduced to exactly the same interest as men have in women, sex. The only question is (with such a desirable commodity) who is going to be paying and who supplying. The number of Gigolos in London – easy to check – is burgeoning all the time, because women do not want any man and neither do they want the complication of relationship. They want anonymous sex, they can afford it, and it is available. Feminism has thus turned successful women into whores for I maintain that whichever way the money is moving it is the woman who is the whore. Of course if money is tight she can join swingers clubs where there is always a shortage of single women. Germany seems to have hundreds of such establishments. What is it like in The U.S.A.?
@ Ellie
Ellie said:
“……..but to be motivated to obtain and then offer what they have not been- femininity, gentleness, kindness, humility, self-control, caring service…”
Spot on, and a total contradiction to the feminst claptrap offered to young women as relationship advice.
Ellie,
I don’t think you fully understand what we are talking about here.
For the man who sees ONLY sex as anything of value from women, it isn’t even about that. It is instead, learned behavior. He learned that women do not value him. Women do not care if he lives or dies. It has nothing to do with how many close encounters he has with women. It is instead that those women whom he has close encounters, wont give him the time of day. They work with him. Attend church with him. See him in their neighborhood. See him at the grocery store. And they want nothing at all to do with him. His presence actually bothers them, annoys them that he even exists to the point where she must share the same breath of air. If this type of thing happens to a man (and I’m going to guess it has happened repeatedly to FH) then of course, outside of sex, why should he care about her? And whats worse, the longer this goes on, even the sex means less and less. The rejected man, the alienated man, the man who feels no value in life to women, just get up in the morning, go to work, do your job, go back to your lonely empty home, go to the internet, get the vaseline, and surf free pr(o)n. I mean what difference does it make Ellie? Seriously. No woman will have him so he might as well be a MGHOW.
That is really what we are talking about. The femininity, gentleness, and kindness do not help the men who have been told by society that their only purpose in life is to be a wallet from which government extracts income taxes.
Opus,
Women do not pay. Certainly not for sex. Even if she is feminist, even if she makes big bucks, she doesn’t pay. The feminists here get it both ways (equality in the work place for pay but gentlemen must pay for dates.) Before I was married, I had quite a few girlfriends who made real big bucks (in one case, double my salary) and double-salary-girl never offered to pay. She just had lots of shoes and clothes and crap in her apartment.
For American women, if she wants sex, on-line dating is the easiest way to handle those tingles. But they don’t pay unless they are hideously ugly (in which case they are paying on a date with a man to have sex with them who would much rather not.)
@IBB
I understand your point, but – what can I say – I am afraid they (some) do and will pay. They did not invent the expression Canadian Secretaries Syndrome for nothing.
@John South,
“But it was a good indicator at some point…and now it’s not.
Which means any indicator you use today may not be a good one in 5 years.”
A submissive spirit has always been a great indicator. It will be a great indicator 5 years from now. Just because it is rare and will still be rare in 5 years does not mean it is not the best indicator to vet for.
You are confusing the root with the fruit. The root is submission to a man. The fruit is what church girls are taught. Churches used to teach wifey submission, now most teach mutual submission or ignore the topic. Therefore the church girl indicator is flawed and never was a deep indicator.
“A submissive spirit has always been a great indicator. It will be a great indicator 5 years from now.”
They can adjust tactics and shape shift to appear to be what you want until they get the ring and enough time in.
Many a man has noted this phenomenon.
Women are reading this blog right now saying hmmm.
Yes they would do that.
Also, any woman can change once she marries you if she has bad influences.
At the end of the day she holds all the cards and will face no consequences.
@ Opus
IBB is correct……women DO NOT pay for either sex or dates..
It is not uncommon for woman to talk out of both sides of their mouths…..1st about pay equity & equal rights, and 2nd about how men should pay for dinner on a date.
Utter bullshit, and really quite tiring.
By the time men have the requisite experience to deal with this shit….they are in their 40s or 50s.
By the time women figure it out….they are of a comparable age and unattractive (and no longer sought after by men of any age).
Bee,
Makes sense when you understand the female-churchian-imperative.
Feminism > Christianity
That is basically the imperative. If the Pastor tells a feminist (in church) that she must wifely submit to her husband, this creates a moral paradox for the feminist. It puts her in a bind as that runs contrary to the church of feminism. So on the hamster wheel she goes and round-and-round she gets that wheel going until she comes to her rationalization that she presents to her husband…
“Honey, I think we need to find a new church.”
…and so they leave the church and take their tithing dollars with them. So of course there will be no more churches teaching wifely submission.
IBB
Women do not pay. Certainly not for sex. Even if she is feminist, even if she makes big bucks, she doesn’t pay.
Opus
I understand your point, but – what can I say – I am afraid they (some) do and will pay. They did not invent the expression Canadian Secretaries Syndrome for nothing.
A man I once knew who was more cynical than I am, possibly even more so than Opus, once observed “One doesn’t actually pay an escort for sexual favours, one pays her to leave when it’s done”. I daresay that the high income women in London who use the services Opus describes are similar – they are actually paying their gigolo to go away “afterwards”.
innocentbystanderboston says:
October 22, 2013 at 12:08 pm
To paraphrase Cail, ‘I’ll keep saying it…’
Men who don’t value the ‘hard’ work a homemaker provides do so validly for modern day homemaking (other than childrearing, which is a separate topic) because it is, quite observably, not hard at all. Yes, it may be mundane, repetitive and otherwise uninteresting, but it is not hard in the way that most well-compensated paid employment is (e.g., cognitively/technically demanding, stressful and/or dangerous). It takes a fraction of the time to perform most household tasks vis-a-vis even a couple of generations ago.
Modern women have squandered the technology dividend by focusing too much attention on their too few kids. Self-indulgence leading to more self-indulgence.
Men should not overvalue homemaking. It can readily and morally be outsourced, if necessary.
hurting,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-15/how-wonder-bread-fed-the-women-s-movement.html
Megan said it best.
So there it is.
Gentlemen, if you want to eat super healthy and you can not afford a chef to cook every meal from scratch (and none of us can) get a SAHW who will spend the 30+ hours a week baking bread from scratch. If you can’t (or won’t) do that (because you can’t find that woman, or you aren’t willing to make that kind of investment) its no surprise men think less and less of homemaking (sorry SAH wives.)
@Anonymous Reader
In one sense you are correct in that they are paying for the men to go away afterwards because these are not men they want to form a relationship with or more to the point, support. The last thing they want to do is marry these men for what job might their ex-gigolo lover then do other than stack shelves and being the selfish bitches they are the last thing they want to do is support someone else.
I can’t believe that some here seem to be oblivious to the increasing trade of Male Prostitutes. North Africa (£35.00 an afternoon £50.00 for the night) and the Caribbean are crawling with them – good looking young guys in their mid-twenties otherwise unemployed and thus unable to marry. They need not advertise on-line, merely offer their services as guide but in London, there are a fair number plying their trade, as I observe from the net.
It is more expensive here and so a cost-effective solution to those women seeking anonymous sex is to join a swingers club. Single women are always welcome and they do not have to pay, or if they do, at merely a fraction of the normal fee. Then there is dogging, though of course when it comes to that the quality of the women is pretty poor – fat old, cheap – but consider the excitement of semi-public sex with complete strangers.
Perhaps it is different in America’s Bible belt.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/154000-fewer-women-held-jobs-september-female-participation-labor
Opus,
Its not really that way here. I have never known a woman who had to pay for sex, not one. That is not to say it doesn’t happen, but I’ve never heard of them. What they will do is what my older, lawyer GF did with me, just kept me around as her boytoy. She never gave me money (or gifts, or even dinner) and I didn’t ask for any. I also didnt have to pay for any of her law firm’s “events” that I attended, but then again, neither did she.
If they are that hard up, quite often they just default to their Magic Wand or Jackrabbit BOB (BOB = Battery Operated Boyfriend.) That is some what common place. And if they crave the real thing, they are certainly not going to pay a giggalo. They will instead plan a vacation to the Caribbean (cheaper for us than for you) and bang all the natives by picking them up at the beach bars. I suppose that is (in someways) paying for it since they have to GO where they ARE, but no money will change hands. So your figures (£35.00 an afternoon £50.00 for the night) I have a hard time imagining American women paying for something they can get anytime they want (at home) for free.
IBB, I’ve never personally known anyone who has been struck by lightning. Does that prove that never happens? Or does it simply make a small statement about the sample space of “people I personally know”?
By the way, I doubt that women who do pay for sexual activity are in the habit of talking about it. So it could be that you actually do know some woman who pays to be serviced, and yet strangely enough she’s never told you – and therefore, you don’t know about it.
Have you ever spent time reading the “personals” section of your local, alternative, street sheet?
Make me own bread twice a week, and brew me own beer and cider. Absolute doddle. A monkey could do it. Bulling me boots takes longer.
Bread, fruit pies etc., no time at all, apart from the ten minutes or so bashing the fuck out of it while the oven is cranking up. Ferocious electric usage mind, I’m saving for a Rayburn (coal), that’ll stay in while I’m out. Just whack the dough in after the post-commute beer, and don’t eat it too hot or you’ll be on the bog for a week with gut-cramps.
Women IME think ANYTHING & EVERYTHING is difficult and a burden foisted on them by teh Patriarchy, and take zero pleasure in any sort of “menuel laybah (spit)” of even the most lackadaisical and trivial kind. No sense of achievement, just intense victimhood.
Do me own sewing (sails and tents mainly, but can do shirts and pants) darning, ironing, toilet-cleaning, floor-mopping you name it. Because the women I’ve lived with have all been utterly handless and bone-idle, without exception. So it’s either that or live in a shitheap.
But they did have degrees in literature, archaeology, law and so on. And weren’t so ugly that they appeared deformed by the devil as a joke, unlike 90% (I guess) of Brit women. (It’s the inbreeding. Shhh!)
I don’t think there are any women still alive, of my nation and class, who can even cook from fresh. When they were young, “a little woman(or man) from the village” did it all. Because Mummy was “indisposed, dahhling” (i.e. hammered).
Too posh to wash. The bane of my life. Ewww. But it’s either that, or go ghey.
AR,
Granted. Your point is valid.
That is why I said
It probably does happen, but I have never heard of it. And we both know in our country, for single women who want to get laid, they generally hold the majority of the power.
Tam the Bam said I don’t think there are any women still alive, of my nation and class, who can even cook from fresh.
There aren’t very many women on this side of the Big Pond who do it anymore either, though not because they can’t, but because they WON’T (it’s “beneath” them, they’re too busy cubicling, clubbing, etc). My wife and I just roll our eyes at the number of people, especially women, who tell us “I can’t believe you go to all that trouble to cook from scratch!” Then they taste our food and are ALMOST converted; they love the freshness and flavor, but you can see by their body language and hear by the tone of their voices that it’s just too much effort for them to ever do for themselves. The most hilarious (and pathetic) encounter was the 30-something childless attorney neighbor woman who lived across the street from us when we lived in the Washington, D.C. area who, along with her attorney husband, worked 50-hour weeks and who literally begged my wife to cook fresh meals for her and her husband for pay during the week. I wish I had had a camcorder on hand to record the encounter. So much revealed in so few minutes…
“I mean, HIV kills a lot of people by their own suicides – they get tired of paying upwards of $30,000/year for treatment (and dealing with other nasty side-effects).”
– Not here in CA. Their treatments are paid for by the taxpayers. There are signs advertising for it. Free assistance etc. I would imagine the persons income would have to be low to qualify because low income seems consistent with every other kind of public assistance program in CA. When you subsidize behavior you get more of it. CA is a nut case state.
I was reading about Ben Bernanke’s butt hole from Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) then I started reading about what would happen in SoCal if there is a USD collapse. Now I’m trying to get a gun for home defense. The shop is telling me I have to study a handgun exam guide. Then take an examination. Then pay fees, state and Federal background checks fees, then wait 30 days. Then I can only buy 1 gun every 30 days and limited ammo. Anything over 10 rounds is illegal .Gun has to be locked in a safe (you only have seconds to react during a break in). Semi Autos are 10 rounds and require the clip to be locked. This state is nuts.
Are you chaps permitted grenades and mines? You could cover your gaff with those nasty chinese plastic ones. Personally, I loves me a grenade. Or three.
Hey, I can dream, innit?
And then there’s this: http://elitedaily.com/dating/sex/why-chivalry-is-dead-from-a-mans-perspective/
TtB,
No.
Our Federal government can’t let us have land mines because people would just buy them all and start planting them in the ground all over the place down on the Rio Grande.
@Michael
Yes, in some states, and in certain cases, treatment is paid for, but in most cases in isn’t. I personally think consequences of one’s own actions should not be palliated by the state.
Canada has more liberal guns laws than California.
@bios
“”She bosses him around and treats him like shit basically. That is the fate of almost every man that gets involved with a woman that is ‘higher’ up the social ladder than they are””
L*…..You must know my sister? You are correct my friend! I have seen it first hand in my own family.My sister had the greatest guy she will ever meet.All she did was boss him around….he was never good enough..etc..etc…..finally,he got his his balls and said…”ENOUGH”…….now she wishes she had him back?(Because she has no other prospects)….WTF?…..how retarded can someone be!!!!!
IBB
And we both know in our country, for single women who want to get laid, they generally hold the majority of the power.
Do you believe that to be true for all age groups?
AR,
Well now that depends on what she looks like doesn’t it? Did you see Christie Brinkley on tv yesterday? I mean I have no respect for her (given what she did to Bill Joel and her other three frivorces) but man, she kept her almost 60 year old body smoking hot good.
@bios
“”UMC women are the worst. I was working with one recently and she was unbelievably entitled. She grew up in a posh area, went to a private school, “”
My sister grew up in a VERY WEALTHY JEWISH FAMILY!……….She was not raised like that….I assure you….either was I.She “learned” that bullshit in University!….and it is to her detriment! She is 45,divorced,2 kids(boy-15,girl-14)……(and very attractive!)….and wants to get married again?….To whom?…..a plumber?….a contractor?…..she is delusional! The men with money that she wants run from her like the plague!….and I don’t blame them!!! She lives in a condo which is supplied by her father….her father cuts her a cheque every month….drives a Mercedes…and Mom kicks in some extra cash(due to the kids)….who the hell would want a woman like that????………UGH!
@Anon
IBB
“”And we both know in our country, for single women who want to get laid, they generally hold the majority of the power.
Do you believe that to be true for all age groups?””
No way!…..not all age groups! In my experience once a women hits 40…..the men hold all the power!…..I was told by a friend when I was 35….”Men chase women until they are 35….after that age the women chase the men”….(I gave the wimminz an extra 5 years…cuz I am a nice guy)….I see this myself…and so does my un-married younger brother(43). Desperation sets in….and LOOK OUT!….This is why I like reading Michael’s “Spinster Reports”…..L*…….I assume he is 32(from his posts)…..in the next 3 to 5 years he is going to have to barricade himself in his house!…L*….and I am not kidding!……just look at internet dating sites and read the profiles of women over 35….and then count the number of women to men…..WHOA!….and the 35 to 40 year old men don’t want women their own age….they want younger!!!!!!!! ……and not quite so desperate!
For the record, a classmate, High School Class of 1960, was killed by lightning while bow hunting in the Rocky Mountains.
Just curious, Tam. What is “bulling me boots”? I will try to look it up online if I remember before posting this. I have my electronics disconnected, because here in the mountains I get major sympathy pulses on my phone lines, and when it is raining hard, I have to disconnect the phone from the electronics and connect an old Sony phone.
Got it. As I suspected, it means spit shining your boots.
Deformed by the devil: I have seen pictures of my Irish ancestors in the 19th Century. I am sure the women were good women, but that is a good physical description of them. Incest was never a problem in my family. Well, except a certain cousin. All her sisters looked alike the Irish ancestors, but she looked both face and form almost exactly like Raquel Welch. My brother said she still does well into her 50’s. We all wanted her, heh, heh.
My daughter had no choice. She was going to learn to cook and thus she did. When she left home to teach in Texas, she stopped cooking. Her apartment was the center of the church youth group. At least once a week, the Singles came in. She did nothing. They brought food and after the usual board games and singing hymns while she banged away on her piano, they went to the kitchen. They cooked, all ate, then they washed dishes while she sat happily watching.
She had told them, “I don’t cook.” They took this to mean “I cannot cook.” I asked her once, “You mean they have never tasted your fantastic pizza sauce?” She said, “SHHHH!”
This sounds bad, but it was good. No one else would let them have their Singles parties in their place, because it was too much work. She figured out a scheme where there was no work at all for her, so they had lots of singles meetings there. Every year at Christmas they’d give her another CO0KING FOR DUMMIES cookbook.
Because of those wholesome, sinless Singles parties in her house, (seriously) all her room-mates got married, even the 50 year old, excellent Christian woman, married a 29 year old man whom she had worked with at the library before retirement. It was an intellectual marriage, the best possible cougar marriage, and they are still married.
Well, one did not. She was in her 30’s, chubby, and was determined to marry a man her age, an athletic, handsome man. She is now close to 50 and I assume owns cats. I asked my sister if that woman had no one interested in her. She said, “Yes, several! But, they weren’t handsome enough for her.” Same old story.
When my daughter got married her husband said we need to cook, she does, and since he likes to cook, they take turns depending on what is happening work wise.
My daughter is one of six submissive Christian wives I know, and the others are her friends. When she was a teen, I bought her a copy of ME? OBEY HIM? by Elizabeth Handford, available again from Amazon, I think. She read it and understood it. She told me after she had been married that when a decision had to be made, she and her husband discuss it. In MOST CASES, they agree right away. In the rare case when they do not, she announces, “You are the head of the family. We are going to do it your way.” She said in MOST CASES, it turns out he was right. The male brain picked up on something she missed. And, in the rare case where he was wrong, the cost of the error was trivial. And, she said, (emphasis mine), “IN EXCHANGE FOR THIS I HAVE PEACE IN MY HOUSE.” She refers to the well known fact that most women, including most “Christian” women, argue and quarrel until the man gives in. Nothing but fighting and feuding in most families, unless the husband submits, which is very common.
Here in rural Mexico, almost all cooking is done from scratch. I mean if they want a salsa, they get the various plants and start slicing and dicing. Ditto for all other food items. Some prepared foods are available, but in many cases they simply cost too much for the family budgets. I do not know an adult or older teen woman who cannot cook from scratch. It is a different world here.
As I told Stingray, every thing that makes life easier for a stay at home mom, makes life easier for single men. There are also services that can be hired out. I’ve hired maids and once an outfit that prepare meals for me left them in the fridge twice a week. With cooking instructions and wine/ beer pairings on the label. It is incredibly easy to be a bachelor these days. I’m more domestically inclined then most bachelor’s. Many of us are happy with cold pizza,.colder beer and the NFL ticket from direct TV.
Well why guess about why a man would view women as only good for sex when you could actually ask a man why he views women as only good for sex? Believing women have more to offer is a kin to believing in rainbow farting unicorns. Or maybe it’s about frame; all women have to offer strong and happy men is sex. Maybe women have more to offer needy betas. I simply cannot understand the blathering about companionship and what not.
Folks say it’s not good to be alone, I say bullshit. And so would millions of married men. Want to add divorced men to that total? It’s also better to live on the roof top then with an argumentative woman. How many women are not argumentative theses days?
If you have the money, hit one of the larger gun shows in the usa and do a face to face purchase. Or ebang and drive/ fly out of state to pick it up. The airlines won’t hassle you when you put it on the plane ( does require paper work). The down side is, smaller selection of firearms but you could do it legally and easier out of state.
Good catch on the argumentative woman thing. The Bible has three verses on living with “contentious” wives. One says what you did, it is better to live on a roof top. Another one says it is better to live in the desert. And, one, though it varies by version, says he who can control a contentious woman can control the wind. It makes it very clear that Churchianity is full of last week’s frijoles when it says a woman can’t sin if her husband is doing his job.
AR,
Do you believe that to be true for all age groups?
Well now that depends on what she looks like doesn’t it?
So?
Did you see Christie Brinkley on tv yesterday?
No. Do you believe her to be typical of US women in her age group?
IBB, have you ever studied any logic, or probability? Just curious…
@MarcusD
Excellent link about chivalry!
@Mark
Look at the comments.
Remember, chivalry is sexist now (except for when it’s convenient).
A la: http://justmytype.ca/the-11-differences-between-dating-a-girl-vs-a-woman/
I’m at the age where most of my friends are already married, and there is a small but growing subset of these who are divorced. Every single element in both groups seems to envy me, for my lack of attachment. By the same token, I would not trade places with any of these fellas.
There are decent women out there, don’t get me wrong… but I’m convinced chicks like Elspeth and Mrs. Dalrock are outliers. The vast majority (at least in North America, that I’ve experienced) are selfish, spoiled, angry and mentally unstable. Marriage seems only to make them more ungrateful for all their husbands do for them.
Your increasingly less semi-occasional report on CAF:
Marriage and family crisis – wife divorcing
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=832047
Cohabitation without sex — sin or not? –Hamsterlator?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=832061
How to encourage a stay at home mom? –I can already imagine what will be said
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=832078
“Folks say it’s not good to be alone, I say bullshit.”
Well God said that…but that was before women decided to go after their wants.
But I’d rather converse with good male friends than listen to a woman blather on about what she thinks she deserves. I’d rather cook my own meals alone and eat what I like…than have an argumentative wife who cooks. Children are the main reason why women even have value…and they’ve done a good job of ruining that.
In fact as a man…we can make friends anytime we want. We aren’t ever really alone.
God said that when Adam is the Garden; Adam and Eve and not fallen and sin was not let loose on the world. The Almighty’ s Book tells us it’s better to live on a roof top or in the wild post fall.
“She lives in a condo which is supplied by her father….her father cuts her a cheque every month….drives a Mercedes…and Mom kicks in some extra cash(due to the kids)….who the hell would want a woman like that????”
Apparently only her father.
who the hell would want a woman like that????
Define “want”. I had sex with tons of women like this, albeit when I was a younger and less picky chap. It was nice at the time to get my needs met by divorcees and career chicks who didn’t want me to spend my dough on them.
Sex? Sure, if they’re marginally hot. For marriage though, forget it.
Boxer
To those doubters of women hiring male prostitutes in the Carribean, I am an eye witness. In several dive trips to the Dominican Republic I saw a large number of large pale women being escorted around by young fit dark men that knew how to dance very well. I am positive that if you asked these women if they had engaged in prostitution they would have denied with their last breath. And i think they are self deluded enough that they would be telling the truth, as they see it. The fact that the truth as they see it is miles from reality is beside the point. These women just want “romance” not sex, and are giving gifts to men that were nice to them, not paying for services. You will never talk to a woman and have her say she paid for sex.
@MikeDiver
I am indebted.
It is a mistake to assume that all these women are old, fat, or ugly.
It is an inevitable consequence of female empowerment.
The women merely pay for quality time – not sex – although sex is expected.
They ‘spend’ time with their ‘friends’, which is ‘priceless’.
@MikeDiver, and I have personal knowledge that some of these “tour guides” are hoping to meet their soulmates/get married/get a green card. I’m not entirely sure they are aware they’re prostitutes, either.
The sad reality is that every man who has sex free of emotionall attachment has turned himself into nothing more than a male prostitute: “Or do you not know that anyone who is united with a prostitute is one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.'” Men provide sex that is pleasing to a woman (accompanied by solid game to induce appropriate tingles); they are then paid with a woman’s company. If they’re really good little boys, they might even get to find out if they have a quality enough woman for marriage or an LTR.
Men are as deluded about the state of affairs as women trafficked into brothels are who thought they were going to get jobs as waitresses: there are few men indeed who want a lifetime of meaningless sex with no children and no family. The most common complaint I hear is that “I want a woman to love me.” The price for love now is providing good sex–and providing tingles is no different than a female prostitute wearing make-up and alluring outfits. The transaction is just a bit more honest.
Read the first comment at http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/10/slate-explains-why-telling-women-not-drink-best-rape-prevention/70693/ :
“If you are a frat boy at a part where one of your “bros” is dragging a girl
so drunk she can’t even walk on her own power off to another room & you
*know* what will happen next, do something !!!!”
There seems to be a general call for chivalry in response to Emily Yoffe’s recent article. Yoffe proposed young women exercising their agency to avoid becoming intoxicated to the point of passing out. The response is that men should make other men stop being rapists.
I have no doubt that these men are seeking their soul mate, to get married and acquire a Green Card. It is the icing on the cake. The problem for them (and I have seen some) is that arriving in the West with their new bride – frequently menopausal – they are like fish out of water, doubtless attractive and attracted to women closer to their own age and objects of amusement and private derision. They are out of one frying pan and into another.
I take the view that Male Prostitution is far more abusive to a man than Female Prostitution is to a woman and from my handwritten notes to my self on these topics, I now transcribe one of them:
“There is a dynamic between the 1st and the 3rd world: Power (violence) caused by an imbalance in monetary power; thus we buy them and they sell what we cannot (i.e. themselves).The relationship is therefore inherently abusive and controlling, where we seek physical pleasure and they try to snatch back some of our ‘jouisance’. (joy).
Where the 1st worlder is female and the 3rd worlder male the imbalance is greater because of the inherently more macho 3rd world culture. The 3rd worlder must therefore seek ever greater degradation of the 1st worlder whilst appearing to do her bidding.”
And from another note:
“Tourists (solo) suffer from loneliness, boredom, inability to maintain a relationship, lack of sexual fulfilment, a need to be admired and catered to, a desire to dominate and control others. Whether a payment is made or not when a woman asks for sex without first testing to see whether the guy is sufficiently interested, there is an imbalance. This cannot apply to a man unless he is making the payment or unless he is an alpha male.
Female prostitution is always going to be unsatisfactory to a man because the woman will only do what she is prepared to do and the man just wants to cum, whereas with Male prostitution the woman wants to be seduced, fully, which is what all men are happy to do (and what they really want from female prostitution – which is why male prostitution is essentially so different) because all men want to feel they are scoring rather than just being relieved.”
Perhaps Immanuel Kant put it better: ” So act as to treat humanity whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only” – the Categorical Imperative.
Opus,
My sister in law married a man from the 3rd World. Their relationship is (IMHO) ridiculous. Even with his 3rd world degree, he lacks any training to do ANYTHING of value in the first world. Moreover, there is almost nothing I can talk to him about regarding the modern world given his completely false understanding of basic civics, economics, or history. The things he was taught and repeats to me, its no wonder his nation is 3rd world and will remain so.
I am of the opinion he didn’t want her. He wanted the Green Card and now he has it. Moreover, he has a wife who gives him money to send back home to his family in the 3rd world because there is zero chance he will ever be able to earn for himself. I wouldn’t hire him to work a register at a 7-11.
Opus,
We in the 1st world have to constantly remind ourselves why so much of the 3rd world ecomomy is based on tourism and trying to flim-flam 1st world tourists who come off the boat for a visit. They can’t really do anything else in the 3rd world outside trading this for that “…you give my your Euros or Pounds or Dollars for this trinket that I bought for one-tenth the price at a Wal-Mart around the corner from my shack.”. They are not going to build anything of value unless the 1st World management steps in and tells them how to do everything and constantly manages/monitors their progress (be it a factory in Malaysia or a General Motors plant in Mexico that was built with 1st World dollars.) Otherwise, they send their kids to sell us Chicklets at the cruise terminal port, very sad.
As far as using your 1st world citizenship as an asset to get an attractive 3rd worlder to marry you, I just can’t see marriages in these situations working unless the “ordinary” 1st World person is marrying one of the “ruling class” of the 3rd World. It is only those people who have sufficent resources to afford to send their children to the Western world for a proper, meaningful education, and then have the capacity to do something professionally outside the 3rd World borders. Even the ugly virgin beta nerds who import a sexy Russian bride, I don’t see how that can work for a lifetime, the cultural gap is just too large. Eventually, she is going to be Americanized and when that happens, she is going to learn about no-fault-divorce and she will bolt.
@Boxer
“”I had sex with tons of women like this, albeit when I was a younger and less picky chap. It was nice at the time to get my needs met by divorcees and career chicks who didn’t want me to spend my dough on them””
I still have sex with women like this.This is all I find that I want from them.In fact,the pickings are not slim either! As far a marrying them?…L* that is for retards…of which I am not!
@Earl
“”Apparently only her father.””
My father looks after her because it is his daughter.but,he was against her divorce.He liked his son-in-law very much…..and still does! She has discovered that it was a mistake.She even tried to get back together with him a year ago….and he said “NO WAY”….smart guy! The irony about her is the “entitlement mentality”.She is a high school English teacher by profession.Apparently,she has retired as she has not worked in 5 years at least.Her “job” is that she is a “housewife”??…..L*…and she is busy raising her children.She gets the kids off to school in the morning and then goes out shopping,has lunch with her friends..etc..etc. Rough life!
@MikeDiver
“”To those doubters of women hiring male prostitutes in the Carribean, I am an eye witness””
No doubt here! What you are describing is called the “Canadian Secretary Syndrome”. I have never seen it myself but,know friends who have.The Dominican is a hot spot for that,as well as Costa Rica and those Cruises for singles.Also,in our local papers in the Classifieds there are ads for “male companionship”.
Back to the original post…
The rampant male shaming remains absurd.
That said, it really is up to a man to extract submission from a woman. A man can certainly command such submission more easily from a naturally or temperamentally submissive woman.
But even a woman without a submissive temperament desires to submit to a man. A man must, if he (perhaps foolishly) accepts this challenge, extract this submission. Isn’t that the nature of submission – to comply with demand? Without demand, there can be no submission.
Socioeconomic status (SES) in favor of a man can certainly help obtain submission from a woman. As we observe from our many thrice-burned friends on Dalrock’s site, however, higher SES alone cannot ensure submission. Higher SES may even hurt a man, when his woman comes to understand that she may wrest that status from the man through unjust marriage laws. Higher SES in a man may also function as a crutch, ostensibly obviating the need for other manifestations of dominance.
A man simply must exhibit additional dominant qualities other than SES in most cases to overcome the hostility of the state and women’s hypergamous nature.
@IBB
I am happy to read what your write – music to my ears.
I see that Mark also refers (as I did) to Canadian Secretary Syndrome, and it really does seem that this is a peccadillo of Canadian women – of the Secretary and upgraded Secretary type. Cuba is popular too but I believe that Americans are forbidden from that socialist Paradise. Anyone read Houllebecq’s Atomised?
For background: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?id=6f1d0124-af59-431a-b9eb-f75a5aa47882
And another: http://www.tourism-master.nl/2010/11/01/romance-tourism-%E2%80%98beach-boys-and-milk-bottles%E2%80%99/
(with plenty of rationalization)
Opus,
We still have a full “embargo” on Cuba. There are NO international flights from any US airport to Cuba. There are NO Cruise lines (no matter what flag they sail) that sail out of Florida that are permitted to stop in Cuba. Everything we do with Cuba (be it plane or ship), we go “around” them. As far as I know, only US military personnel (and our Illegal Combatants we grabbed in the Middle East) are allowed to touch Cuban soil.
Now if I wanted to take my passport, go to Montreal, I could (as a US citizen I believe) fly from Montreal to Havana on a Canadian International Flight (and maybe from Mexico as well.) I don’t think our US State Department could press any kind of “charges” against me if I did that, not that they would anyway. But as a US citizen I shouldn’t. Going to Cuba is beyond moronic. It is certifiably insane. If I get held against my will, the US Navy will NOT be able to go into Cuba (the way they went into Greneda) and rescue my ass.
Opus,
This says it better than I ever could.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Americans_in_Cuba
Basically, US citizens have NO BUSINESS touring that country. If you don’t have familly member there (and you are staying with them for their protections) STAY THE F-CK OUT! None of our credit cards will work. None of our bank cards will work. They will probably take our cash currency, but that is only because of the black market in Cuba has a use for those dollars in illegal transport of cigars to our country.
IBB: I don’t want to be rude; but: You don’t know what you’re talking about.
When I went to Havana I felt much safer than I do in the average North American city. USD/CAD are accepted everywhere, and tourists are welcome.
It’s hardly a paradise. Most people there are poor, to our standards, but it’s clean and people seem happy. The Cubans I met were educated to the nines (it amazed me how many people knew both English and French, and could hold basic conversations with me in either), and most of them grow up listening to North American music, so they’re not very different from the people you’ll meet in Miami or New York City. The food is generally better than you’ll find in the USA (most restaurants seemed to get most of their food from local farmers, and microwave ovens were not a feature).
American citizens can visit Cuba as tourists. The border cops will give you a tourist visa on a separate document and paperclip this into your passport if you need it. IBB is right that you’ll have to connect from some third country (Canada, Mexico, Bahamas, etc.)
I don’t know why one would want to go there when he could go to, say, Nassau, with less hassles, but there it is.
Regards, Boxer
Cuban cigars kicks ass. Hard not to enjoy a Cuban cigar, with Cuban rum in Cuba. and isn’t hard to get there either. There are outfits that will plan the whole trip for you
Every man should ingore usa’s laws at every level
8oxer,
I am not sure there is much of what you said that disputes what I have said. In fact, I don’t see any disputes.
Of course touorists are welcome. Toursits bring USD. I did say USD are accepted. I am saying bank cards and credit cards are not accepted and with good reason. I assume when you said CAD you are taking Canadian dollars.
I never said it was a paradise. Opus said that “in jest.” If you are “touring” Cuba you must go through another country (as I said) and the border cops in those other countries (givng you the tourist Visa) probably aren’t concerned with our tourist laws here in the States. You are touring Cuba without a license.
I’m glad you felt safe there. I would not feel safe there because I have a lot to lose. Of course I wouldn’t feel safe in inner-city Detroit either. Did you stay over night or fly in and out from Nassau on the same day? Did you stay with family in Cuba? You can go to Nassau for free on a puddle jumper airplane from some smaller airports in Florida, you just need to promise to spend money somewhere in the bahamas to get your plane ticket.
The restaurants MUST get their food from local farmers as they can’t import from the United States (against the law) and the other Caribbean island countries don’t exactly have large farming production or a real 1st world food manufacturing supply chain.
Dear IBB:
I’m pretty sure I have more to lose than you do. In any event, you’re partly right. I was responding to your tone, amply illustrated by your comparison to Havana with “inner-city Detroit”, to which it can not be reasonably compared (LOL!).
None of my family lives in or is from Cuba.
Cuba is not a “third world” country. Again, you’re simply talking out your ass. Most of its residents are as well educated as either of us, and it’s been fully industrialized since the 1960s. The fact that they don’t have 500 channels on their color televisions or a starbucks on every corner doesn’t really change that. The street crime you’re so terrified of is about at the same level as what I’ve seen in Edmonton or Winnipeg. If you doubt me, go and see.
@IBB
“”Now if I wanted to take my passport, go to Montreal, I could (as a US citizen I believe) fly from Montreal to Havana on a Canadian International Flight””
You are correct.You are able to do that.If you got into trouble in Cuba you would have contact the Canadian Embassy there….and they would help you.Some Americans do go to Cuba…..why??… I do not know.I went there in 1992 to see what it was like.It is a dive! There is no shopping,no golf,no night life…nothing! You lay on the beach and drink and watch a Cuban guard with a AK-47 walk up and down the beach.Loads of Canucks go to Cuba…..you know why?…..because they are CHEAP! I would never go back,especially when I could go to the Bahamas or Jamaica! I get really pissed off when Canadians tell me how AWESOME Cuba is….I laugh at them…and reply..”If if it is so great why do Cubans build homemade rafts,risk their lives on the high seas to make it to Florida”????….they never have an answer!…..
@MarcusD
Great link from the Ottawa Citizen.
“”And it is Quebec women — with reputations for being financially generous and uninhibited — who are among the best established in the island flesh trade””
This is so easy to believe!!!!!…….I go to Montreal once a week……Quebec is the most corrupt Province in Canada!…..as far as the French women?……they spread easier than warm butter on toast!!!!
@MarcusD
From your article:
“”THE SEX TRADE IN THE ISLANDS IS BOOMING, BUT IT’S WOMEN WHO ARE LOOKING TO SCORE””
Why do you think this is?……because maybe Canadian men are avoiding Canadian women?…..I will assure you that is the reason! I know! I am Canadian and myself and friends avoid Canadian women!…..Sex Only!…..other than that….GO AWAY!
8oxer,
Again, what you are saying does not dispute (in anyway) with what I am saying.
As far as I know, the ONLY Caribbean island that is “1st World” is Puerto Rico. The rest (with the exception of Cuba) are considered “3rd World.” Cuba would still be considered “2nd World.”
But that is ONLY because we needed a different name for Communist nations. That does not mean that a 2nd World lifestyle is better than a 3rd World lifestyle. The actual lifestyle in Cuba, I don’t know if the average Cuban would trade places with the average Hatian. But I do know, they would ALL come to Florida (Hatians and Cubans both) if given a chance. The rafts float in only one direction.
Really? As either of us? Their residents are educated enough to work in an US business office working with modern systems, applications, and information technology?
Okay now we are in “dispute.” Tell me 8oxer, why do they still drive cars from the 1950s in Cuba? Is that because they are nostalgic and they like pretty old cars? Or is it because, there are no other cars to drive? I might have a mint condition 1955 Chevy Bel Air, but I am sure not going to drive it. All I might do is leave sitting in my living room where I can show my friends and gloat as I wipe it with a diaper, Ferris Bueller Style.
I mean we don’t have to measure a nation being fully “industrialized” (your word) simply because they can build their own cars, but they DO need to build SOMETHING so they can trade with other industrializes nations to get THEIR cars. What do they build in Cuba outside of cigars? Do you call them “industrialized” because they now have cigar manufacturing plants? Or run manufacturing plants? That is “industrialization?” They trade rum and cigars for iPads and cell phones? Do they even have a cell phone tower?
I don’t doubt you on the crime but I’m not going to go see because I am an American and my country doesn’t really want me there. I have no business going there. I could only get myself in trouble there. And if I get apprehended (or arrested, for anything or well…. nothing) my country will do absolutely NOTHING to get me out. I’d be f-cked. But their lack of 500 channels on their color television (are their color televisions from the 1950s too? lol!) does not interest me enough to make me visit. And I never patronize Starbucks.
I have been to several Caribbean island nations. I know the Cuban climate. I know humidity, been to Florida literally 25+ times. I think its great that their restaurants serve wonderful food and they dress to the nines, that is what they did in the late 1950s in Cuba when that country had the 9th highest standard of living in the entire world. Of course, Fidel and Communism came in and well….
Mark,
They have an answer, the correct answer, but they can’t say it because to do so means you win the argument.
@Ton
“”Cuban cigars kicks ass.””
We can buy Cuban cigars here.Canada is Cuba’s largest trading partner(which is a joke).When my American friends or business associates arrive I always have Cuban cigars for them….they love them.When I go to Pittsburgh or Cleveland(twice a month)…I always bring them with me.I have had them confiscated a few times by US Customs(so the motherf*****s can keep them for themselves)….but,usually do not have a problem.They range here from $15 to $100 per cigar….all TAX! Personally,as a cigar smoker I do not like them….they are too strong…last time I smoked one I turned green!….L*……This is what I smoke!
http://www.cigar.com/cigars/viewcigar.asp?brand=20
Now I have to go have one!….L*
@Boxer
If you do a search….you will find that there are quite a few Canadian people in Cuban prisons.The reason I post this is because I have been reading about it in the Toronto Star and Globe & Mail. Again,as you stated in an above post.You will be safe there…I assure you! From what I know you have a bit more freedom to travel around the areas where you are staying.If I had to give advice to anyone wanting to go there I would tell them to go to the Bahamas or Jamaica,US or British Virgin Ils….etc……The only reason Canadians go there is because they are CHEAP! They tell of how educated the Cuban peole are…how they have “Universal Healthcare” like we have……Yadda…Yadda!……THEY ARE CHEAP!….We should be following the US and don’t trade with them! Do you realize how may Cubans die every year at the hands of Castro?….I have met many Cubans in Florida.My father owns a winter home in Palm Beach…..the Cubans that I have conversed in Florida with are astonished at how STUPID Canadian are to support that regime…..and I agree with them!
Mark,
Exactly. It is a joke. The fact that the Cubans probably could technically “trade” with Canada and “import” a 2013 Honda Civic (made in Ohio, shipped to Ontario) does not mean that will ever happen. The average Cuban could never afford that. Do Canadains open up car dealerships in Havana? LOL!!!!! How many bottles of rum and cigars do the Cubans have to trade with Canada to get a Honda Civic loaded on a boat and shipped to Havana? And since they are supposed to be Communist (heh) the average is supposed to be “everyone” (all Cubans equal, therefore all Cubans drive shitty 60 year old cars, equally.)
I could go to St Johns, St Thomas, or Nassau, and be sitting in a 2014 Chevy Suburban for a “tour” just 5 minutes after I get off the cruise ship or plane. Of course, that is 3rd World and Cuba is better because (well) it isn’t 3rd World. 🙂
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/22/groom-jailed-wedding-day-bomb-hoax
The future of North America: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex
http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/22/fecundophobia-growing-fear-children-fertile-women/
@IBB
My advice for anyone that wants to visit Cuba……Bring a suitcase full of “SOAP”….that is correct….Ivory,Zest,Dial….whatever…..to use for barter with the “compound workers”…and you will get whatever you want!
@IBB
Watching Fox News…”THE FIVE” in my office…about how unhappy Wimminz are in the work place?…..Tell me something I don’t know! I see these miserable c***s everyday!….all the power to them! F*** them!…don’t get “involved” with them!
@MarcusD
Great post from the Federalist!………it shows how delusional “modern wimminz” are!……YouGoGrrrrl!…..Whackjobs!……pump them and dump them!…..don’t knock them up….don’t incur expenses…..just f*** them!…….and if you do it right…they will be calling you for seconds…thirds..etc…etc……..you get the picture!
Marcus,
The Phillip Rivers story was quite inspiring actually. He could have answered like an @sshole to the ridiculous question that was asked of him, but he didn’t. Instead, he treated the question about his six and soon to be seventh child(ren) with dignity and pride. He totally reframed the question in a way where a question that was asked in a manner to attack him was in fact a compliment to his wife. Kudos to you sir, I would not have treated that reporter with even half as much dignity.
The Phillip River’s and Duggar’s of the world (a brood of children with ONE wife) are not the problem. The Cromarties are. 12 kids with 8 different women? Antonio, get the vascetomy, you are DONE. Your reproductive privlieges are hereby, revoked.
innocentbystanderboston says:
October 23, 2013 at 11:56 am
>>a sexy Russian bride, I don’t see how that can work for a lifetime, the cultural gap is just too large. Eventually, she is going to be Americanized and when that happens, she is going to learn about no-fault-divorce and she will bolt.
Amen, brother!
My only disagreement is informed Russian brides already know about no-fault divorce before they come here. Just saying.
I have always recommended moving to the other nation, rather than moving a woman to the States, and watching her turn bad very fast.
The personality types of women seem to be the same in all nations. The difference is how it is implemented by the rewards or punishments a given society dishes out. The same percentage of women of women would have the same evil tendencies in Mexico as in the US. But, if they are raised with severe punishments in mind, they are less likely to act those tendencies out. If you keep them here.
And, in places similar to Mexico, they are very unlikely to act out in an evil way in front of their parents; siblings; and other family members.
If they do, in many places the parents may well take action to help your side. Not guaranteed, but it does happen. Someone told me a story about a man working in the States. A woman in his wife’s family called him and told him his wife was banging someone else. He did nothing, except stop sending the checks, period. That her own kinfolk telling him would never happen in the States.
I can’t say it’s the same in other countries. I can only go by what I know. What I know is women here don’t act like women in the States, even Mexican women in the States. And, not long ago, a Mexican woman who lived several years in Madison agreed with me on this.
There are people who do say women in different nations do act differently, and I cannot state an opinion. Many men have said country women in Ukraine are totally different from Russian women.
But, no matter where you go, you will never find a nation with a zero divorce rate (except the Philippines where divorce does not exist) nor a zero rate of bad women. You still gotta’ do your best to sort it out.
Here in Mexico they have what I call private marriages. A man need not get involved with the government at all, and it is socially accepted if you really believe you are married.
innocentbystanderboston says:
October 23, 2013 at 1:54 pm
My first wife was Cuban. I am not up to date for 2013 and this administration. But, in past years, if the US found solid evidence that a US citizen visited Cuba, they would get a notice of a large fine, thousands of dollars. I am told Cuban officials may avoid stamping the passport. Though there are provisions for individuals with links to agencies to obtain humanitarian permission to Cuba.
On Lonely Planet forums, many people report what 8oxer says. Just be very careful hanging around Cuban woman or they may accuse you of participating in prostitution.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=832317
I read somewhere that there are “educational” tours sanctioned by the US State Dept, this is the only way ordinary US citizens are allowed to visit Cuba. This requires nearly full-time spent in “cultural exchange” activities, can only go to certain places and spots are limited. Don’t participate in that, then US citizens must do the “get around” thing to go there. Closest I’ve been is Miami and I’ve seen all the Cubans and eaten all the Cuban food I ever needed to. My understanding from those I know who have spent time offshore there is that there are many better destinations than Cuba. One friend did say he felt much safer in Havana than in Tijuana.
Regarding 3rd world brides, I can’t speak for eastern Europeans or Hispanics brought here, but I do know a few Filipina and Thai girls who were bright here by their usually much older husbands. Very few of these marriages lasted long, I can tell you that. Best marriage I know about involves an age difference of 9 years which is really not that big a deal here. It works because the guy isn’t the usual lower class beta dweeb; he actually has balls to go with a low tolerance attitude regarding her crap. After spending a lot of time in various European and Asian countries, I figured out the great truth that women the world over are far more similar than they are culturally different. Biology rules…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24614830
Another article on the Japanese situation which has a lot of parallels with mgtow.. These seem to be increasing in frequency as an interested section of the UK media try to connect the dots. I wonder if they will get it in time.
Perhaps a glacially slow awareness is occuring that despite best efforts the slaves won’t be shamed back onto the plantation for normal service to be resumed and the situation actually warrants further investigating?
I still love the fact that most of these dimwits still think massive immigration is the answer. The dilemma though, is that to keep the ponzi scheme going, immigration is the only answer in the short term. However, if there wasn’t the stupid ponzi scheme of debt and death, the population would fall, space would open up, government intervention would dissolve and normal incentive between men and women would pick up and there would be a correction.
I cheer every time another man goes his own way. The population needs to fall. And this is the most humane way of doing it. No children means no abortion needed and no children brought into a world they can’t thrive in means less suffering.
If Japan even lost well over half of its population, it would still be able to correct and maintain its identity, not so for Europe or America…
I have been married to a Filippina for over 5 years. There is a 27 year age difference. In her neck of the Philippines a 20 year difference was pretty much the norm. Her family said I looked younger than my age, 52, and she was about to become unmarriageable at 25, so perfect, and that is a quote. I agree with several points made above. My wife is from the upper class of her area. Her father was the barangay captain (ward healer is the Chicago equivalent) and head of the city council. She and her family are educated professionals for the most part. All her family speaks excellent English. Some times that is a problem. Do you really want to talk with every one of her third cousins? She was a virgin and all our dating was chaperoned; as would be true with any well brought up, religious, and upper class young lady. Don’t demand less than a local man would demand of a bride if you want any respect. Don’t be a Captain-save-a-ho.
The other aspect is that at my age I am not willing to put up with one speck of sh*t from any woman. This resulted in a stormy first year or so. She was frequently shown to the door and told she could leave anytime she so desired. Her response was you will never find another woman like me. My response was no, the mnext one will be completely different. You have to maintain fframe or all is lost with any woman.
As to the cultural difference, the difference between any man and any woman is greater than any cultural difference.
FH,
One of the many things Mitt Romney said during his campaign for President is that for immigration we need to do two things: #1) Build a towering fence on the border with Mexico from San Diego to the Gulf of Mexico, and have that fence go 20+ feet below ground so you can’t tunnel under and #2) staple a Green Card to every PhD in computer science earned by a foreign national who studied here in the United States.
#1) really destroyed Romney with the Hispanic community
#2) did NOT win him any votes. However, #2 fixes the ponzi scheme problem by selectively importing the best and the brightest young people the world has to offer to get them working here and paying ALL their Federal Income taxes here. And a young PhD in Comp Sci is going to pay many many thousands of dollars in income taxes and social security taxes for many decades.
Illegal Mexican labour is NOT going to fix our government ponzi scheme problem. Illegal labour will never-EVER be able to produce any labor such that the person doing that work would ever justify their own existance of being here. The value of their labor does not warant their illegal presence. We do not need more landscapers, pool cleaners, cooks, dish washers, nannies, whores, house cleaners, or roofers here if it means we must break the law to import them. Better we mow our own lawns, cook our own meals, vacuum our own floors, clean our own pools, and jerk our own dicks. Because if we have to do it because THEY are not here to do it for us (which means it is more expensive to do that meaningless brain-dead labor) they THEY are not here to fill our hospitasl, our schools, our court rooms, and our prisons with their children who will NOT do what they must to better themselves one generation to the next. This is proven. The Hispanic community contributed far more to our nations growth in the fifties and sixties when there were less of them but they got (and stayed) married and forced their kids to speak English. That is now all gone.
Governor Mitt Romney could not win the Presidential election by speaking truth to power. No one wanted to hear the REALITY that came out of his mouth because REALITY is far less forgiving, far too hurtful to face. Better to stick our heads in the sand and live in the world of DENIAL until math fixes everything and we are all forever screwed (ala Greece.) I’m of the opinion FH that we (as a nation) are probably not responsible enough for our own self-rule. This is what I am learning because our Demographics are our Destiny. Too many people have the vote. Our Constitution is only fit for a moral people. We are not moral enough for it.
Marcus,
The more government does for us, the more subsidies that are created for people the government calls the most needy, the more opportunity that is instantly created for the cold, crafty, and calculating, who are Amoral enough to fully “game the system”
while in college I knew a young man whose parents did far worse that steal healthcare via ACA. Get this. They had 4 sons all within 6 years of each other in age. They wanted their 4 sons to attend the best private universities but they didn’t want to pay for it NOR will they willing to save. So they “gamed the system.” One year before the oldest was a Senior in High School, the family took ALL their resources (took out as many mortgages and loans as they could) and bought several delapitated properties that were in ruin and decay for purposes of “renting them out.” But hold, none of them were rent worthy. So the family operated this “business” at a loss for over a decade (showing how the homes were worth less than what they paid for them after they had to start spending money to fix them, even tough they never fixed them) just to get their 4 boys the MAXIMUM amount of aid that could be given to them on the Financial Aid Form. 4 boys, 16 years of higher education, to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars subsidized back to the family simply because they were bright, Amoral liberals, who knew the law.
We are going to get more of this.
bright, Amoral liberals, who knew the law
The irony is that they voted for Obama, and yet they will be more than happy (as usual) to let others pay or to avoid their responsibilities (e.g. gaming the system).
Romney spoke truth to power? You need to lay off the pcp. Romney was rated a poorly as Obama by every immigration control group I know of. That’s why he lost. Hell he even said he wish he was Hispanic
Ton,
Which groups are these? You got quotes?
Numbers usa and Vdare. Romney’s ok rating dropped like a rock when be started campaigning. Same same.with gun owners america and everything damn thing else. Romeny=Obama. Obama= Romeny
Not a spits worth a difference between the two
And the two are related: http://blog.genealogybank.com/obama-romney-are-family-genealogy-infographic.html
I could cite all sorts of examples as to why I learned long ago to not play by the rules and do what benefits me, but it boils down to one thing. Do what causes the system to fail – not what supports it. Others have called it “enjoying the decline” – there are a LOT of ways to do that which allows you to live VERY WELL… Make the system fail.
That is the thing that most men have to learn – stop thinking it’s something you can challenge and win. You can’t. Subvert the “system” to work for you – let it succeed, and in succeeding it fails since it is unsustainable. The “GAME” is walking away with the prize that they have excluded you from being able to win.
It’s a battle of the wits against unarmed opponents, and they are too dumb to know it. That is what drives them crazy. We (the productive) created this world – we know how it works, and can subvert it to meet our needs and whims. So I enjoy young women that are available to me (thank you Feminism), as I use all of the programs meant to exclude me (thank you Liberals for all of the tax incentives and set-asides which are meant to harm me) and tax me to death (thanks Socialism for all of the subsidies for your “pet” projects). In a fair fight I would win, but the battle-field is fixed so I cannot win if I fight fair – so why waste time trying? Fight dirty, and enjoy. They will reward you for using their own policies/teachings against them.
THAT is what men are learning. I’m just older and sneakier than most of them. That is what the MRM guys don’t get – they cannot win and are wasting their time – they provide a convenient target – nothing more. Use the system as it is against the idiots that play by the rules – make it so obviously skewed to one side, that everyone hates it.
So if you want to change the system – make it fail. Make it so that more and more see it failing for them. (I see these hit pieces against men as notices of success.) That is the way to win against a parasite – cut off it’s food supply. Men that play by the rules, will perpetuate injustice and fail – those that thwart the system while benefiting and hurry it’s destruction, are the ones that will ultimately win…
Ton,
Please tell me you are kidding.
Like this?
http://www.vdare.com/articles/romney-vs-obama-if-america-is-to-endure-as-a-nation
Yeah you are right no difference. Or how about this?
http://www.vdare.com/articles/slippery-six-mid-west-states-doom-romney-because-of-low-white-share
VDare biggest complaint is that Romney didn’t give “working class whites” a reason to vote for him. Alas, a larger percentage of white people voted for Mitt Romney than voted for Reagan in 1980. Yes that is true Ton. Romney lost because of Demographics (we have too many people voting who shuld NOT be voting.)
Numbers USA?
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/mitt-romney.html
Yeah, no difference there either, right Ton?
Ton, next time you quote something, check your sources because I promise you, I will check them. On Mitt Romney sir, you do NOT know what the hell you are talking about.
Dig deeper. His ratings fell by numbers usa. Vdare tracked it pretty well during the election.
Romney’s words and his actions as governor don’t add up. His actions match Obama’s. Deeds not words. Many voters agree with me as many repubs sat out the election.
Judge men by what they have done or are doing, not by their words. By that standard, Romney and Obama were not far apart at all.
The test if flawed men feel bad because they know women are attracted to successful men and the test leads them to believe they performed badly.
Women do not care how well they did even though the test leads them to believe they performed badly, they know the only thing that matters is how good they look.
Essentially what tests do prove is what we already know, both men and women are fundamentally sexist, and no amount of ‘feminism’ will ever change that.
Another 2 billion year of evolution might change that, but we will all be dead by then so I would not worry about it.
(reposted with correct email address)
The test if flawed men feel bad because they know women are attracted to successful men and the test leads them to believe they performed badly.
Women do not care how well they did even though the test leads them to believe they performed badly, they know the only thing that matters is how good they look.
Essentially what tests do prove is what we already know, both men and women are fundamentally sexist, and no amount of ‘feminism’ will ever change that.
Another 2 billion year of evolution might change that, but we will all be dead by then so I would not worry about it.
Just a reply to
—–
“Jen says: October 17, 2013 at 11:24 am
I am puzzled…. Is that due to possible insecurity about their partner abandoning them for a smarter man?”
Although the flip side of that might be – I wonder if women would take a self esteem hit in a similar study that found that their partner was ranked in the top 12% of attractiveness for male university students….”
——
Yes I thought the same, I actually wrote exactly the same thing re attractiveness too, unfortunately I lost the post and posted a briefer summary so I can’t prove it.
I also wrote some other stuff (jokingly) about the research being by a woman, showing how stupid they were and how clever I, as a man, was being the first to spot the flaw.
Obviously I was not the first ( I had not read any replies at that point) however I must say that my self esteem is on the floor (I’m a man unfortunately) knowing a woman is almost ;O) as clever as me!!
But further to that there is another flaw, had a man been told his male friend did better you would get the same result, probably an even greater lowering of esteem, same for a woman told her female friend was rate as one of the prettiest.
The whole thing is massively flawed, it is not research, it’s garbage with an agenda.
What surprises me after having a quick scan thought the comments is that it seems to be the women who can easily spot the flawed research(as I did)!! (I am a man by the way at least I though I was, now I think I am probably really gay!!).
So many women really are smarter, and I am just really intelligent too (and not gay lol).
(no offensive intended to anyone who is gay by the way!!! I actually quite like gay men, but I am not gay lol, I REPEAT I AM NOT GAY!!)
(sounds like I’m in denial!! lol).
[I]…the idea that feminism would work if it weren’t for weak men screwing everything up is extremely common.[/I]
You had me lost there for a second; and then I read the next few sentences and was like “Oh, okay, now it makes sense.”
[I]Since feminism is now the established order feminists are finding themselves the new conservatives, and many conservatives can be found unwittingly conserving feminism.[/I]
“Evil” has been defeated, only to return in a different form.
[I]Advising men to grow a pair is excellent advice, but the question is why they should “man up”, and what form men’s self improvement should take.[/I]
The Gettier problem (philosophy) comes to mind. We get the right answer, but the answer is right for reasons different from the one we gave.
> The whole thing is massively flawed, it is not research,
> it’s garbage with an agenda. (Breno the Great)
Yes, no women actually succeeded in real life in this “experiment”, nor were the reactions of any of their actual partners studied.
Instead, the researchers simply had people imagine different scenarios in their heads. Then, with the power of their magic psychic x-ray equipment, they looked inside men’s minds and located the defect in their thinking within their self-esteem. Junk science like this is a massive hoax at best.
Notice the phrase “men took a self esteem hit when told their partner…” — emphasis mine, to emphasize the inherent very problematical nature of being told something important about your putative “partner” by someone else. How would it have played out if instead the successful woman partner told her male partner herself about her success, as if he were the first to know, rather than him having to hear about it through the grapevine of people who are closer to her than he is? Being told something about someone else is hardly ever a good thing, and almost always carries an implied warning.
But the swindle gets worse… Several people have asked what the women’s reaction would be in the gender-reversed scenario, where it’s the guy partner who is the successful one. They actually did run this hypothetical scenario, and the result was that women were neutral. The spin put on this was that women didn’t suffer a self-esteem hit, making them better than the men. The implicit double standard is that men are supposed to be celebratory about their woman partner’s success, but she’s privileged to just go “nyah” because a guy gets no points for meeting her expectations. There is no scenario where she’s happy for his success — even though they’re partners.
Here’s yet another example of ‘magical thinking’, related to the subject of the OP:
Men Need Have No Fear That Feminists Are Near: How men benefit from relationships with feminist women
@gdgm+
She uses rather lame sources. Fairly typical for feminists, though (e.g. sample size of 12 in one study). As always, the feminist says “ipse dixit”.
I’m not sure I have benefited from any relationship with any woman ever. (besides sexual release). I’m fair certain one with a feminist would be even worse
OMG! This was so hi-freakin-larious… [see #8]
Now even the hos are complaining about the demise of pimps — that their pimps aren’t acting like “real pimps” anymore.
We have truly hit the omega point. Notice where the author is… you can’t even escape feminist hegemony by going to Wyoming.
Gonna have to re-title this one, D:
Feminism would work if we didn’t have weak pimps screwing everything up!
Pingback: Why men are withdrawing from courtship. | Dalrock
I always got a perfect score on those tests and consider anyone who didn’t annoyingly stupid. The reason to marry a career woman is to work together to accomplish strategic objectives through the resulting economic and political alliance. By definition, women who have proven themselves capable of such things are always more attractive.
Very good points here..nicely written
Pingback: More ominous than a strike. | Dalrock
Pingback: Anonymous
So…..the local paper ran a Section 2 front page story about young women being ‘at home’ on the gun range.
There were 2 separate pictures of 3 sisters…..aged 10, 13, & 16 holding their .22 calibre rifles (one was pink) and wearing their pink ear protection,
The whole story was one big feminist ‘girrrrrrrl power’ advertisement. There was even the customary ‘nod’ to the feminist camp that women are better marksmen than men….it comes more easily to them…..better hand/eye coordination.
P-U-K-E
What would have happened if the paper showed 3 brothers aged 10, 13, & 16 on the gun range? Why an outroar by the public of course.
What a shameful display that would have been….encouraging boys to anything that could be perceived as aggressive, or manly.
But…..put 3 young girls on the cover, and it’s sanctioned by the femi-nazi police that occupy every corner of the western world.
Its ok to grow the most I can, but not to be with a feminist, its ridiculious and even dangerous.
Pingback: Fathers [sometimes] matter! | Dalrock
I know I said I would not reply on this blog again, but I have this to say, and it has been coming more apparent to me even before my little fight on the more recent articles here.
So feminists say, “Feminism would work if it were not for weak men screwing it up.”
I have noticed a similar behavior with a lot of men on the manosphere, the ones who have been taking the “red pill.” There is a much resentment and disgust with and attacks on single, unmarried, male virgins in the manosphere. It is as if the manosphere believes that feminism would cease to exist if weak men ceased to exist. They believe weak men are screwing up the destruction of feminism.
Have you seen this obese guy on YouTube?
I have heard he is married. (You’ll also notice he is what appears to be a wedding ring on his ring finger) He was featured on TV on some obesity show and YouTube pays him. I wonder if his wife truly loves me. I wonder if she is only with him for his fame and recognition. Maybe she does. I don’t know. If it is true, good for them.
So tell me, manosphere, should he go to the gym and lose weight. If he wants to get a girlfriend/wife, he needs to lose weight, build muscle, and…Oh wait, he is married, nevermind. He is a man now. He does not need to man up and prove anything, right? I wonder if he even has a job? But that is okay, right? Since he has a woman on his arm, he is a champion of life, right?
I bet if he didn’t have a girlfriend/wife/woman on his arm, most of the manosphere would be screaming at him to man the f*** up, go to the gym, lose weight, what a defeatist he is. he is a big, fat Eeyore, he is not trying at all to get a woman, and so many more insults. 🙂
P.S. Yeah, the obese guy is married. He commented on his own video that his wife made this sketch for him. I believe he is talking to his wife on this video.
The reason to marry a career woman is to work together to accomplish strategic objectives through the resulting economic and political alliance. By definition, women who have proven themselves capable of such things are always more attractive.
Perhaps attractive in an ak57 sort of way. As a wife and mother? Nope. Also, how does forming an economic and political alliance with someone who is around 37.5 percent* likely to sabotage that alliance even make sense?
*Around 75% of 50% of marriages are ended by the woman filing.
Sorry I just realized I commented on a two year old comment.
@JDG:
Don’t worry, a clueless poster bumped this. I thought I had missed a post at first, as it’s been a while.
And it’s a good reminder that MarcusD does the Lord’s work.
“Grow a pair, Manning up, Stop being intimidated…..” Sounds like the same evil sh!t my football coach used to scream at all of us. Females are disgusting misogynists. What happened to talking about our feelz? Hahahahahaha…..go be wage slaves stupid…..I can find much better things to do with my time than fretting about serving the interests of women. I’m sure Tyrone can bang away your tears. Good luck with the Herpes. White women make the best LOL COWS. I could care less about your tears. Go hiking in Morocco. I hear Scandinavian women love the sex tourism there. Mmmmmm exotic brown pleasures with swarthy men of peace. https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/two-female-backpackers-found-killed-at-morocco-hot-spot/news-story/ee3ece874cc646a77d9aad6e938a92d6
WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO: said to be of one of the murders. NOT MY VIDEO…it is being spread around the net. https://streamable.com/hlw17
GOOD LUCK WHITE WOMEN….you are going to need it. You vote for open borders. You vote against the wall. You vote to take our guns. You vote to kick us out of school and work. Then you expect us to man up and protect you and provide for you and cheer you on as you destroy everything white men have built through your insipid narcissism????? Yeah…I won’t be doing that. I won’t be getting #metoo’d. White women are psychos that think they know the world. Well ladies…don’t let me stand in your way and please….don’t come running to me either. I’m gone.
By grow a pair this fool means to be a slave on the everlasting plantation to marriage and “yes dear” pathetic.