James Taranto has an outstanding opinion piece up on the Wall Street Journal titled Are Boys Irrational?* Taranto responds to the same quote by MIT economics professor Michael Greenstone that I responded to back in March in my post Why aren’t men responding to economic signals?
I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not, and it’s very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It’s a fact in need of an explanation.
– Michael Greenstone, M.I.T. economics professor
Taranto comes to the same obvious conclusion I did, that men are in fact reacting quite rationally to our radical redesign of the family from a marriage based model to a child support based model. Taranto asks why men should strive to become the “reliable husbands and fathers” Kay Hymowitz laments they are no longer striving to be (emphasis mine):
Well, why should men? Except perhaps in very conservative communities, men with sufficient social skills can find sex and companionship without need of a matrimonial commitment (and for those who lack social skills, a willingness to marry is unlikely to provide much compensation). The culture’s unrelenting message–repeated in Hymowitz’s article–is that women are doing fine on their own. If a woman doesn’t need a man, there’s little reason for him to devote his life to her service. Further, in the age of no-fault divorce, “reliable husbands and fathers” not infrequently find themselves impoverished by child support and restricted by court order from spending time with their children.
Taranto closes the piece with:
Boys and young men are no less rational, or capable of adapting to incentives, than girls and young women are. They are, in fact, adapting very well to the incentives for female power and independence–which inevitably also serve as disincentives to male reliability and self-sacrifice.
As simple and obvious as all of this is, it is uncommon to see this kind of clarity in the mainstream media. However, while Taranto lays the basic problem out with clarity, he doesn’t make the next logical step and tie this back to the larger economic implications of men rationally responding to the new incentives. My guess is he is already thinking this, but understands that his audience and his peers in the media aren’t ready to take the next step. However, as the reality of the incentives to men under the new social and family structure become accepted sooner or later the question will inevitably turn to:
Then whom shall we tax?
This is when the penny will really drop, and the full cost of our radical experiment will start to become obvious. The tax question is critical, because the elites see tax revenues as their funds to spend to better our society and the world at large. Given our welfare state and progressive tax structure we need high earners to pay for the system, but women (married or otherwise) and unmarried men aren’t going to replace the tax base we are forfeiting by destroying marriage:
As our elites begin to understand this they will eventually have to rethink their love of child support over marriage and their commitment to the threatpoint as a way to improve marriage. We are probably many years if not several decades off from the day that this is fully accepted by our elites, but once they accept this reality I’m convinced we will start to see low profile efforts to slowly roll back the worst excesses of the family courts and a higher profile push in the media and entertainment industry selling marriage and fatherhood to men. However, in the meantime the cultural impact of our husband/father hostile society will continue to greatly harm the institution of marriage and the economic and human costs will continue to add up.
*H/T Don Riefstahl (see a summary of Riefstahl’s book here)
Who’s going to stick that genie back in the bottle? My guess is no one on this blog will be alive by then.
Don’t worry about suffocating. We’ll freeze to death long before we run out of air.
As far as I understand it, and as GBFM points out at numerous times, the plan for the destruction of marriage was a plan to steal wealth from the middle class and distribute it upwards to the elites. I would say their plan is going off without a hitch. They’ve sucked the wealth clean out. Now, why would they want to make things like they were?
Dalrock
We are probably many years if not several decades off from the day that this is fully accepted by our elites, but once they accept this reality I’m convinced we will start to see low profile efforts to slowly roll back the worst excesses of the family courts and a higher profile push in the media and entertainment industry selling marriage and fatherhood to men.
You think that a more sophisticated version of “manUP” will work better in 2020 than it does now? An entire generation of men is growing up under the load of misandry. Even if they do not explicitly put on the glasses, from what I hear when I listen to young men’s conversation (and they don’t realize I’m listening), they are getting dialed in on a few of the basic concepts.
“Watch what they do, forget what they say” is something I’m hearing from men under 30 in various contexts. That includes government…
Oh, and kudos to James Taranto, who has been sliding bits and pieces of the truth into his articles for some period of time. It’s been two or more years now, perhaps beginning with the comment explosion to a WSJ article by Hymowitz, that he’s been doing this.
A journalist who actually does research. A rare avis, indeed.
They can increase taxes on Jezebel employees one hundred fold.
Yes the man tax is inevitable, and partly implemented as such in Obamacare.
@Anon Reader
I don’t. But it is human nature to try the easy low cost approach before being willing to entertain more expensive measures. The elite is deeply wedded to the idea of child support, both for children born out of wedlock and as a way to simultaneously free women from unwanted marriages and “improve” existing marriages (via the threatpoint). These are things both liberals and conservatives are deeply invested in. They won’t consider rolling them back until they are convinced there is no other option. The problem I think you are alluding to is that the same inertia in the system which now makes it seem like the No Fault/child support model isn’t destroying marriage will be working against the elites as they try to restore marriage.
They can’t undo it. To undo the damage that they have done means to take away voting from women. That can’t happen without Amending the Constitution. Fat chance that ever happens now with female voters outnumbering men. Pandora’s Box has already been opened and we are already screwed…
….its over. As a resident with a severe case of short man’s syndrome wrote in his book, Enjoy the Decline.
Yes. That is exactly what it is.
ACA = Young Male Bachelor Tax
That is what it is because young male bachelors never go to the doctor. So why pay for health insurance you will never use? You don’t put in health insurance claims for condoms the way young women do for oral contraceptives, pap smears, and breast exams.
Third excerpt from: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/10/double-standards-and-changing-standards.html
What can’t last forever, won’t. I won’t live to see it myself, but misandric liberalism is as doomed to fall as Soviet communism was.
I’m Catholic so extramarital sex is not an option. Officially, the Church condemns divorce but in practice Catholics divorce and remarry at about the same rate as the general population. The practicing Catholic man thus has two options: take his chances with marriage if he wants sex, or embracing chaste celibacy as a priest or monk. It’s not a coincidence that the radical decline in numbers of priests and religious has paralleled the crisis of marriage.
“The problem I think you are alluding to is that the same inertia in the system which now makes it seem like the No Fault/child support model isn’t destroying marriage will be working against the elites as they try to restore marriage.”
They’re trying to restore marriage? That’s news to me.
Sorry to shamelessly promote my blog, but this post is related to preserving the sanctity of marriage and deals with the benefits of socially enforced monogamy: http://humancivilizations.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/the-benefits-of-socially-enforced-monogamy/
I am new to the Manosphere (I am a conservative though, not a PUA) and it gets pretty lonely blogging for an empty audience.
The practicing Catholic man thus has two options: take his chances with marriage if he wants sex, or embracing chaste celibacy as a priest or monk.
A man can be single, too.
It’s not a coincidence that the radical decline in numbers of priests and religious has paralleled the crisis of marriage.
The vocation crisis is reversing in the US, from what I’ve read.
@thecivilizationalist
Welcome. You should fit right in.
Worth mentioning: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/12/17/ny-judge-rules-against-government-on-hhs-mandate/
Dalrock,
We just had our Christmas Party here at work (oh I’m sorry HOLIDAY party.) The Wednesday before, I’m having lunch in the cafeteria with a few of my coworkers, one of them a single woman in her early 40s. They started chatting about the party and this woman volunteers that she is not going to the party because it seems kind of silly to go without a husband and then (smiling in a feminine way) she asks her next question (of the two men at the table, both of us married) “… why can’t women find husbands anymore?”
I turn to the other guy and he tells me “…why don’t you take this one…” so I do.
(me) “I could tell you but I don’t want to turn that question into an HR issue for you or any woman at this table who go screaming to them because of what I said. I don’t need any crap in my life right now.”
(her) “Oh no, I’m actually serious, I wouldn’t go screaming to HR, I am generally curious. None of us would.” They are all nodding now, I only half believe them.
Now all the women are looking at me, one of them married, the rest not. Curious.
(me) “With no-fault-divorce, there is a huge disincentive for men to marry. Why marry women if you can just divorce us at any moment and take half our earning and half our accumulated wealth for any reason, or no reason?”
(her) “Well I support that because most men are abusive @ssholes. What if he hits me, I have to stay in that marriage? I could die!”
(me) “That is fault based divorce. That existed long before no-fault. But more to the point, if most men are @ssholes, why do women want to marry us?”
pindrop quiet
….
nothing
….
still quiet, all the women, ONLY the married one is smiling, the others frowning
….
(me) “Moreover, no-fault-divorce allows women to divorce us and live with with their new boy friends in houses that we have to pay for. A woman can no-fault-divorce us and run to court and get a restraining order (fo rno reason) that separates us from our children whom we are forced to support so our former wives can have sex with their new boyfriends whom they now live with.”
….
still quiet
I turn back to my lunch. “That’s why you can’t find husbands.”
The one who asked the question got all beat red in the face. “Well, look not all guys are @ssholes, just most of them. And I beleive in no-fault-divorce so… guys are just going to have to come around and marry us anyway or…”
(me) “Or what?”
(her) “Or…. I don’t know.”
That is just it, they don’t know, and they don’t care. They are going to get theirs no matter what and it will happen somehow.
@feministhater
“Now, why would they want to make things like they were?”
One reason would be that the internet allows men to gather wisdom and insight into something of a hive mind, greater than the sum of it’s parts and that this wisdom might throw a light upon that same elite you say has sucked out the wealth of the middle class. This elite does not live on the moon and so they’re vulnerable to a pissed off populace acting lawfully, or vigilantes acting unlawfully against them. That might be their reason to make things like they were, instead of shouting ‘Let them eat cake.’ Personally, I don’t think they will wise up though. I’m not sure why intelligent people think ‘This time it will be different.’ when history shows this pattern occuring over and over again and it usually ends up with heads on spikes.
IBB,
Your comment about the Christmas party should be a post on your blog. It carries a lot of sentiment.
@thecivilizationist
Nice blog. The discussion of constrained female choice has exceptional clarity. One point I’d like to add about monogamy. The only times of exponential population growth were during times of moving into new resource-rich areas. In all cases, the most efficient way to produce population was monogamous settlers: a pioneer couple has children to help exploit local resources, and some of the children pair off with children of other pioneer couples and move away slighter further into the frontier.
ar10308,
I just hope I don’t get in HR trouble for what I said. I gave a verbal disclaimer and there were lots of witnesses so I’m pretty sure I’m safe. But it goes hand in hand here.
Note: my three Anti-Dowry coworkers on my blog, obviously these guys were not sitting at the table as none of them are married.
Dalrock
The elite is deeply wedded to the idea of child support, both for children born out of wedlock and as a way to simultaneously free women from unwanted marriages and “improve” existing marriages (via the threatpoint). These are things both liberals and conservatives are deeply invested in. They won’t consider rolling them back until they are convinced there is no other option.
Then it won’t happen at all. Because too many clients of the governmental elite would squeal. More likely, the elite will decide that marriage is for their class only. In which case, the current industrial society won’t be sustainable on a large scale.
One possible future economically is the “thumbtack”. Place a thumbtack on a desk, base down. Now look at it. That is the economic and social model for huge swaths of humanity over history.
Think of parts of the world where a tiny leadership is served by a tiny elite, with a tiny middle class, tiny skilled labor class, and huge mass of illiterates. Who marries in that society? Not the majority.
The child support model is a form of socialism – privatize profits to the babymomma, publicly socialize costs to the rest of us. Works great until you run out of other people’s money.
The Hymowitz article, and the comments by “elizabeth” are in line with elite thinking – men as utilities, fashion accessories, and sperm vending machines. That’s not sustainable in the long run, either.
80% of Federally Institutionalized Inmates in our penitentiaries in Canada are the “product of single mothers”……..You Go Grrllzz!
@ibb “Or what?” That question motivates my presence here, i.e. to try to get a handle on what may be happening to us all because of the destruction of marriage.
“… guys are just going to have to come around and marry us anyway or…”
(me) “Or what?”
(her) “Or…. I don’t know.”
Or she’ll be sitting at the lunch table wondering why she can’t find a husband.
Interestingly enough this dovetails into my most recent post:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/12/17/pre-whipped
It’s no secret to the manosphere that Game and red pill awareness are the logical contingencies men in the age of connectivity have evolved to counter the blatant social feminine-primacy that’s developed since the sexual revolution. Taranto won’t take that next step because under that feminine-primacy only women (Hymowitz, Rosin, Dr. Helen) are allowed to take that step without the risk of “losing their bread”; yet another rational internalization men acknowledge.
In a prior comment thread, my token feminist stalker, LivingTree2013 had a series of comments that really exposed the real agenda underneath feminism, and it basically coincides with Taranto’s quote here.
@IBB
“”why can’t women find husbands anymore?”””
Great call!………..and great response!…….I have had this happen to me countless times.The best thing is to be polite and honest.The problem?……”Do the women understand it”????……..Not a chance!….as your friend commented….””And I beleive in no-fault-divorce so… guys are just going to have to come around and marry us anyway or…”””……….or what?………go home to my nice peaceful home alone?……rent a “callgirl”…..have a “bootycall” come over?…What?…What?….”tell me what I have to do”????…..LOL!…..I DON’T have to do anything! I see these same sort of Clusterf***s everyday.They make no sense and are delusional beyond belief!…..YOU GO GRRRLLL!……L*……”and good luck….you useless used up skank”…..L*
If you are a feminist woman and you operate from the absolute root principle that ALL men are eventually going to become abusers who hit their wives, then of course, feminism and marriage 2.0 makes perfect sense since women want to breed and they need others to bring them resources to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate their children. With that principle in mind they have no alternative than Marriage 2.0. They have to get resources and they don’t want to be beaten to death and they (irrationally) believe that all men are monsters. So, they want to f-ck the monster and use government to extract wealth/resources from said monster (now wage slave) to support the children the monster sired while also using government to keep them alive and away from the monster.
It’s kind of like the reverse of the male Black Widow. He is COMPELLED to f-ck the female Black Widow. He MUST! He MUST the way a male Praying Mantis MUST f-ck the female only to have his head bitten off in sexual cannibalism. The male Black Widow locks down her legs with web to give him a few seconds head start, mates with her, then RUNS as fas as he can after inserting his seed or he’ll be LUNCH! This is kind of how feminist women who desire babies and marriage see themselves, as male Black Widows who used government to protect them after mating with a monster.
The very fact that one has to hesitate when the question of “Why can’t a woman find a husband anymore?” is asked is proof that the hostile-to-men environment we’re constantly navigating in is real.
What’s even more telling is that clearly women expect to be married anyway. When enough men have opted out and gone their own way, that’s when the shift will occur….but no telling how long it will take for that to happen.
@Dalrock
“Hymowitz”
Care to take an educated guess as to which ‘tribe’ she is from?….L*
We are there already.
I wonder if her hymenwitz was broken before she got married or after?
“As our elites begin to understand this they will eventually have to rethink their love of child support over marriage and their commitment to the threatpoint as a way to improve marriage.”
The threatpoint Dalrock writes of is the pressure point women use which essentially says: “do what I want, give me what I want, I get to lead this family. If not, I will divorce you, you will never get any sex, you’ll never see your children, and I’ll take all the money.”
This leads to the only rational response that can be offered from a husband, which is:
“If you even so much as make a move toward divorce, you’ll be setting in motion a chain of events which cannot be stopped. If you really want a divorce, we can end this marriage. If you decide you want divorce, I will take you through the nastiest, longest, most expensive divorce you’ve ever seen. I will publicize the reasons for the divorce, no matter how frivolous or sordid. We will fight over everything — the house, child custody, alimony, property division. I’ll never agree to give you custody. I will force it to hearing and force a judge to make a decision. I will present all my evidence against you in court, in public, and make it all public record. I will bankrupt us both in legal fees. There won’t be anything left to divide because it will all be consumed in attorney fees and expenses. If I’m going down financially, I’m taking you with me.”
My son seems to have figured out the situation by himself. He can work part time low end, rent a room and take it easy. He doesn’t make enough money to really tax, but it’s enough for him to get by just fine. He’s shy and has a speech impediment, so is invisible to females. Yeah, he’s not supporting a woman and children, or the government, and sees no reason to do so. Why not coast?
@Deti
“”I will bankrupt us both in legal fees. There won’t be anything left to divide because it will all be consumed in attorney fees and expenses. If I’m going down financially, I’m taking you with me.”””
Bravo!……I am with you 100%…….But,they will not understand it!
deti,
It wont get to that point. By the time she had decided to frivorce you, the bank accounts will be empty and the restraining order will be signed by the judge. You’ll come home and find the police there to watch as you pack your things into a bag as they escort you out of the building that you are forced to pay for and the next thing will be a phone call from her lawyer telling you where to meet for the divorce proceedings. You wont be able to sell the house nor will you be able to clean out the retirement accounts as a Judge will most likely put a restraining order on all of that as well. She will get her resources. Over 100 years of legaleze has been built into the system to protect those assets that YOU accumulated for HER consumption. That is the main reason why Jenny was so upset, the Pastor took away her power to surprise Leif by warnign him that she was already involving the government in their marrital demise.
@IBB
We have our Xmas party coming this Friday!………Yeah!……The funny thing is,in commenting on your posts.When I go to the Xmas party….If I have to sit with women…..it is the married ones.Let me explain.If your wife worked in our Office Tower I would be more inclined to buy her a drink and sit down with her and her friends….”How is IBB”…..how are the kids doing”…etc…etc.If I sit with the “single women” all I hear is nonsense!…Same as you posted!…….If the wimminz asked me the same question that they gave you….I would respond in the same way.Except,I have no worry of the HR Dept…..my father owns the office tower….which makes me the “son of the landlord”…and I will say what I want! but,it would be very polite and be exactly along the lines of your response!…..The thing that blows me away the most?…………………….the wimminz just don’t get it!……and they never will!
Elites see tax revenue as something to trickle down to buy votes an transfer the rest to themselves in all manner of scams. Bank bail outs, PBS, dumb ass think tanks etc and everything else the government funds.
No fault divorce, child support, alimony etc it’s part of those peoples religion and they will not give up on those ideas
IBB:
There are ways to handle that. Most of the time, men are told to “settle, resolve everything, you’re going to lose on the merits anyway”.
Most men in this situation are primary breadwinners with wives who are either SAHMs or earn far less. These guys are royally screwed anyway. They might as well go down swinging.
One strategy is to contest everything and force it all to evidentiary hearings. Don’t agree to property division or to maternal child custody. Take depositions, gather evidence, and force it all to hearings so that a judge is forced to publicly make a decision. Another is to never leave the house. Tell the judge and your STBX that you’re not going to agree to leave the house and that you’re not going to agree to sign it over to her. You’re going to fight for it because you want it. The only compromise you’re willing to accept on the house is that she buys out your half of the equity AND takes over the payments. Child custody will be contested as well.
Still another is to simply record everything. The moment a disagreement escalates, whip out a phone and photograph her. Or a videocamcorder and shoot video. Get a PI to start gathering evidence on her.
Anot
@feministhater said: “Now, why would they want to make things like they were?”
For the same reason that patriarchal monogamy became the standard in virtually every ancient culture: it’s the only system under which the male worker bees (the men who produce most of a society’s wealth and allow the elites to live like kings) are willing to work.
I’m convinced that alpha based polygamy was man’s initial marriage model (not God’s, but fallen man’s). A subset of alpha males having multiple wives and a majority of beta men having zero wives. Eventually those beta men just gave up. Why work if there’s no benefit to themselves? I’m sure slavery was used as an “incentive” to force men to work, but that isn’t a long term widespread solution. The solution is to give the worker bee beta men a reason to want to work. Patriarchal monogamy was that reason. The elites had to give this to the worker bees in order to provide them with an incentive to produce.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that every advanced culture in the world has patriarchal monogamy as its marriage model from ancient times, and that polygamy is associated with non-advanced cultures.
Now patriarchal monogamy is being taken away from beta men. And what is the result? They are refusing to fulfill their worker bee function. Without which the elite minority can’t maintain their status/lifestyle. I’m sure they’ll try some “incentives” to force the betas to work (maybe not outright slavery, but certainly gearing the tax system to make the lives of non-producing men miserable), but in the end they’ll have to provide a positive incentive for men. And there’s one (and only one) historical model that causes beta men to become worker bees and sacrifice their lives for the greater good: patriarchal monogamous marriage.
@tweell “Why not coast?”. To be, or not to be, that is the question that a man must be enabled to struggle to answer. If his ability to choose to answer is taken away, then his only rational option is to coast. Hence, coasting is capitulation. It is surrender, the opposite of victory.
Mark,
They get it, in their own way. That is what they get. In their own way what they get is that you are a man and (as a result) you have the physical power to hurt and kill them. That is what they get. BUT, they also get that they need resources (for themselves and their children) provided by those with the physical power to hurt and kill. That puts women in a conundrum.
Their solution? Government. Laws. No-fault-divorce. Child support. Restraining orders. Mandate that ONLY law enforcement have the right to carry fire arms. All of it, feminism. It makes perfect sense when they ASSUME that you (as a husband) are going to (eventually) hurt them.
This is called self-preservation. Women (particularly feminists) FEAR men. They are afraid of us Mark. Men do not fear women killing them (not usually.) The Jodi Arias situations are not all that common. What is more the case is men beating their wives to death (if it happens at all.) Probably less than 0.001% of all marriages or whatever it is (I’ll let Dalrock crunch the numbers if he cares.) But that is what they see, men hit women. Women are risk averse and running to government to create laws and hire law enforcement to enforce those laws (which are mostly around protecting women and extracting resources from men) reduces the risk of marriage to the point where even feminists WANT marriage.
There is something in marriage for them. They are just not willing to remove the feminist protections they have been given by government. They are not willing to take risks to make themselves vulnerable to their husbands. And now they don’t have to… and even if it means, no more marriage, they will still find a way to get the resources Mark. Here in the United States, that is already starting with ACA.
@8to12
You are most correct. Men going Galt, or at least little g galtish, is the fear. The. Fear. That fear is what made the Russian communists reinstate marriage, at gunpoint forcing crying women away from their vodka partying in the cities back to the abhorred peasant boys who had staged a giant hoe-down walk-off from the potato fields.
Matriarchy’s never give up power willingly. When they collapse, it’s the men who do most of the rebuilding, which of course over time it turns into a patriarchy. Rinse, repeat. Of course I believe we are in the end times, so this cycle will come to and end fortunately.
@IBB
“”Their solution? Government. Laws. No-fault-divorce. Child support. Restraining orders.””
Yes!…I agree!….this they get!…….But,when you have a conversation with them along these points…..they DO NOT UNDERSTAND!…..L*….They don’t! They figure is “it is owed to them”??????…..Wtf?………L*……I have stood by this…and will again……”The most dangerous thing a man can do in North America….is get involved with a ‘single woman’ in North America!……and I have a lot of ‘divorced’ single men who will abide with my statement!…..as do you….Dalrock…Deti..etc…etc.
Mark,
That is all they need to get. Everything else is just noise.
They are not even remotely interested to understand anything about you. This is not about you and your reasons Mark. They don’t care how you feel. They don’t care if you wont marry them. They will marry government. They have no fear that the US, UK, or Canadian government, is going to beat them to death. Government is there to protect them (from you), give them education, give them housing, and give them a check. They don’t give a d-mn where that money comes from (much of it comes from you) so long as they get it.
Do you know anything about the Vagina Monologues? A young mangina-white-knight was interviewed by either Bill O’Reily or Sean Hannity on Fox News about the Vagina Monologues (in an effort to defend them) and the little segment the little coochie snorcher. The mangina agreed to the inverview which I can’t believe but he gets perfectly the understanding of feminism. Anyway, either Bill or Sean started quoting from the Vagina Monologues about the 24 year old “pretty lady” who gave wine to the 16 year old girl and had her way with her in the bedroom and they wanted to know how this type of behavior could be defended? And what did this mangina say?
That is the point. The feminst women are not interested in understanding any logic that you are going to put before them. It means NOTHING to them. They are dealing from EMOTIONS Mark. They are emotional, they are NOT going to think logically beyond the simplest of logic:
Men = lifelong resources + potential violence of death
Thats it. That is all they are interested in understanding. That is all they have to understand because they are not moral agents.
IBB’s ‘dialogue’ quite chills me, and really I am shocked that so many presumably reasonably intelligent females should see men as abusive. Why would this be? I am also shocked that it was too dangerous for IBB to give a straight reply to the simple question posed – and this at a party!!!. Can IBB tell us the age of the other single women in that group and what they are like (I mean attractive or what). Does IBB know why they are unable to marry? Is there a shortage of men in Boston?
Perhaps it is different here, but as I often think, I have never met a woman whom I was interested in, who signalled availability for marriage, combined with suitability thereto. Most women play impossibly hard to get and think they are out of one’s league no matter their occupation or background. When they are not doing that they would by any historical standards be regarded as whores and thus in the endless game of Prisoner’s Dilemma I long ago decided to always play Hawk.
The problem isn’t men are seen as abusive, it’s that men are not abusive. Chicks dig abusive men, and hate nice guys. When a woman says she fears xyz about a man or men she is saying she wants xyz
@Opus
“”IBB’s ‘dialogue’ quite chills me, and really I am shocked that so many presumably reasonably intelligent females should see men as abusive”‘
I see it.I hired a new receptionist back in the summer.The most ugly receptionist you could imagine……..He is “A MAN”…..L*….that is correct! I had 77 women apps for the job.I hired a 26 year old stockbroker(That I begged to come and work for me)……L* No need to worry about “false sexual assault” accusations……or “women’s BS” every month…..The women were …”you hired a man”???…………my response……”Yes I did….no sexual assault problems….no ‘wimminz BS’…etc…etc……best business move I ever made!……in fact,if I did hire a womyn…I would hire the most ‘butt-ugly’ pig I could find.When I go to court over a “false sexual assaut chrge” the Judge will look at the woman and agree with me…….UGH!….I would never touch that””!
@Dalrock,
Is that graph on salaries normalized by inflation? Because $75,000 today is something like $54,000 in 1999 – or a shocking -28%.
[D: Unfortunately no, those are all nominal dollars.]
The reverse, $75,000 in 1999, is a bit over $100,000 today. i wonder how many people are earning $100,000, and what the graph would look like if it was normalized. I suspect it’d be flat, or slowly declining.
With the way today’s laws are set up I honestly don’t know any other option for guys other than doing his mission, winning, and then taking a knee to run out the clock.
Women priced themselves out of his mission. So they could have their own.
And the elites don’t care about anything that would bring back the family, government, or any hierarchies. They want all the power, money, and control…with all of us getting enough to stay alive to be their slaves.
Besides whom will they tax…women. The whole point of getting women into the workplace was to tax them and indoctrinate their children. Both of which have worked well.
“Boys and young men are no less rational, or capable of adapting to incentives, than girls and young women are. They are, in fact, adapting very well to the incentives for female power and independence–which inevitably also serve as disincentives to male reliability and self-sacrifice.”
So women are adapting very well to the incentives for female power and independence by going to college and trying to corner the job market. OK. My question is, why aren’t men adapting very well for male power and independence by doing the same? Its not like married men with kids (or divorced men with kids) don’t need to pay rent and eat. We all have to do those things and that requires working. Young men should not rely on women to motivate them to work and pay their rent and other expenses.
Don’t worry, left/libtards will eventually deem any man who looks at a woman is liable for any children she has whether or not he fathered any of them based upon, of course, if he has a paying job enabling him to live more than hand-to-mouth. (Cha-ching!)
Will fixing marriage fix this problem? Technology has and will continue to render an increasing percentage of the population superfluous to the economic engine of our society. Sort of like the fast food workers who want $15/hour to flip burgers and who will soon enough find themselves automated out of their jobs – they will serve no economic purpose whether they are married or not. Handle has written about this recently:
(source: http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/contracting-but-corruscating-elysia/)
Re: Progress + “Why not coast?”. My son, who was a B+ scholarship engineering student, has been working full time for a couple of years now at the company he interned for. He has advanced so that he is making nearly half of what I do (not quite the 75K of the article), but he is under the comfortable delusion that his corporation is papa and that he can now coast in place so long as he does enough to get by and doesn’t rock the boat. He recently paid cash for a brand new car, after hemming and hawing about buying himself a fishing boat to impress his buddies. He’ll probably buy a new boat for himself in cash by the summer. He cannot find a girlfriend, has never been on any sort of date in his life, and after somewhat recently getting turned down, just to go out, with yet another a nice young woman with whom he had become familiar conversationally but friendzoned, he decided it isn’t worth his bother any more. There are vast levels of giving up, a veritable pyramid of coasting.
@Beefy Levinson: “…misandric liberalism is as doomed to fall as Soviet communism was…”
It took 74 years and a solid push from Ronald Reagan to collapse Communism. I’m not holding my breath.
remember there are men and victims, women and her abuser. until that changes, thats the game we play.
survival means recognizing reality and navigating it.
@sunshinemary
Fixing marriage isn’t the whole answer to getting more effort from men, but fixing women is the whole answer.
SSM,
It will help! Unfortunately your point is correct, it will not fix it.
Increasingly, marriage is becoming an institution only for smarter people.
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/030745343X
It is already an institution only for white (and Asian) people, sadly. There have been books written about this.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007K4FRA2
For those who were born smart (the highest level of cognitive ability) they will find work, plenty of it, and with excellent pay. That is because they are the ones who write the code and define all the business processes to automate everything. And almost everything can be automated (even legalzoom.com automates legal services!) They are the ones who make our lives easier and make business run cheaper by automating out of existance, all the mundane, well-formed, jobs. As a result, those born with an IQ below 100, pretty much there is less and less opportunity to earn a self-supporting income and (thus) less opportunity to get married. And for men who want a SAHW to raise his children, he needs to be very smart. There are fewer and fewer labourous jobs with sufficent earning power to keep her home, (not unless he wants to move to North Dakota and start working oil shale.)
Mary, we had a very tiny window in our nation’s short history with families NOT living on a farm and having one income households: from 1946 to about 1973. It’s been all downhill economically since 1973 and OPEC. And this may have added to the disinstegration of marriage.
Deti said:
The threatpoint Dalrock writes of is the pressure point women use which essentially says: “do what I want, give me what I want, I get to lead this family. If not, I will divorce you, you will never get any sex, you’ll never see your children, and I’ll take all the money.”
This leads to the only rational response that can be offered from a husband, which is:
“If you even so much as make a move toward divorce,
you’ll be setting in motion a chain of events which cannot be stopped.
If you really want a divorce, we can end this marriage.
If you decide you want divorce, I will take you through the nastiest, longest, most expensive divorce you’ve ever seen.
I will publicize the reasons for the divorce, no matter how frivolous or sordid.
We will fight over everything — the house, child custody, alimony, property division.
I’ll never agree to give you custody.
I will force it to hearing and force a judge to make a decision.
I will present all my evidence against you in court, in public, and make it all public record.
I will bankrupt us both in legal fees.
There won’t be anything left to divide because it will all be consumed in attorney fees and expenses.
If I’m going down financially, I’m taking you with me.”
NUCLEAR!
It’s the only way to fly!
@opus
“I am also shocked that it was too dangerous for IBB to give a straight reply to the simple question posed – and this at a party!!!.”
No, it was in the cafeteria at work. He said they were discussing the party when it came up.
The problem with his answer is that women who don’t want to believe it can find ways to falsify it to their satisfaction, because it’s not like there are a ton of men out there in a position to be the husband they want but who are on a marriage strike. Although many marriageable men may have affirmatively chosen not to marry, from where I sit, it’s more that men aren’t bothering to lay the groundwork over a course of years (starting even in high school) to become the prospects these women seek. They didn’t bother to get to that position, because the perceived benefit wasn’t there. They may not have even consciously made that choice, but rather just lacked sufficient motivation, especially when the young guys who were laying that ground work were actually less likely to get laid in their late teens/early twenties.
But as TFH points out (A LOT!), cause and effect is something that most women struggle with, at least when it’s at all complicated and especially if it’s something they don’t want to be true.
Of course, the other problem with the professor’s presumption of “irrationality” is that it totally ignores the fact that most college graduates are underemployed with crushing student loan debt. In fact, I would bet the overwhelming majority of those who are unable to keep up with their loan payments are young women, so the implication of male economic irrationality is questionable at best, even without factoring in the perverse incentives created by the familiy law and related societal changes.
Of course, this is also why there is such a push to forgive or reduce student loan debt (at taxpayer expense). If the debtors were overwhelmingly male, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. So, if that happens, I guess all these women were rational, in a perverse sense, in assuming that things would somehow work out and/or somebody would bail them out.
Crank,
Well that may be true, but it wasn’t true in the situation I mentioned. She heard the answer and accepted it as a valid reason (more or less) but said that MEN were in the wrong to HAVE that as a reason and that single men have to change their thinking…
…or else.
And really, its or else women will find another way to get resources from men even if they refuse to marry them. They will find a way. One way is ACA.
“Fixing marriage isn’t the whole answer to getting more effort from men, but fixing women is the whole answer.”
Why is it important to “fix” anyone or anything? Why do we need “more effort from men?” As long as they can pay for their rent, food and own way in life, why does it matter?
“And really, its or else women will find another way to get resources from men even if they refuse to marry them. They will find a way. One way is ACA.”
ACA won’t be enough. There will probably also be a batchelor tax, or some disguised version of it. This will create more disincentive for young men to prepare for careers, and so forth.
C4C
So women are adapting very well to the incentives for female power and independence by going to college and trying to corner the job market. OK. My question is, why aren’t men adapting very well for male power and independence by doing the same?
Your question answers itself, if you can actually look at the modern job market and higher ed bubble with open eyes. Women generally can’t do that.
“Your question answers itself, if you can actually look at the modern job market and higher ed bubble with open eyes. Women generally can’t do that.”
So there’s nothing to fuss about then.
Redpillsetmefree, the problem with deti’s monologue is that it does not take into account the many men who desire to divorce their wives.
@John Galt:
I doubt that I’ll live long enough to see the fall of misandry and progressivism as established social principles. I’m still confident they will fall because they’re ultimately incoherent and unsustainable. In the mean time, we have a duty to fight them according to our talents and station in life. Progressives and feminists toiled for decades to get us where we are now. Surely we can do the same to roll it back, even though we won’t live to see the payoff.
My question wasn’t “How will we get more effort from men?” My question was “Will we really need more effort from (most) men?” Or women, for that matter. We don’t need them to work harder if we don’t need them to work at all, right? It is at least theoretically possible that marriage as an economic force will no longer be necessary because people as an economic force will (by and large) no longer be necessary.
Certainly there is nothing for you to fuss about, but that generally doesn’t stop women from fussing.
Dear Dalrock,
Happy Holidays & Thanks for Your Service! HHEartiste is taking notesz!! zlzozozizloz:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/wives-should-submit-to-their-husbands/
Dalrock, as wise and insightful as you are, I think you oft tend to underestimate the enemy. They are *not* rational, unless you think that the destruction of Christianity is rational. The destruction of Christianity is their goal, and they are succeeding.
Above Dalrock writes, “But it is human nature to try the easy low cost approach before being willing to entertain more expensive measures. The elite is deeply wedded to the idea of child support, both for children born out of wedlock and as a way to simultaneously free women from unwanted marriages and “improve” existing marriages (via the threatpoint). These are things both liberals and conservatives are deeply invested in. They won’t consider rolling them back until they are convinced there is no other option.”
Dear Dalrock, if it is just a matter of “rolling things back,” when are they going to roll back abortion and resurrect all the fetuses? When are they going to “roll back” all the child support that was seized and return it to the men? When are they going to reunite all the families they enticed women to blow up?
Dalrock writes, “The problem I think you are alluding to is that the same inertia in the system which now makes it seem like the No Fault/child support model isn’t destroying marriage will be working against the elites as they try to restore marriage.”
Dear Dalrock, as the abolition of marriage and the family is a central plank of the elite’s communist aspirations, why would they want to give up their goal?
And as far as collecting taxes go, I am not sure that you have heard of the Fed which allows them to fund the destruction of Western Civilization without taxing by taking money and property (Which they also do), but via the inflation tax.
I’m not sure the elites are bothered by the destruction the culture and currency, as once they’re done here and in the West, they can head to China.
That said, your blog rockszzlzozloz!!! Keeep up teh aweosme work!!! DA GBFM Zllozol
Long time lurker , first time commenter
“Then whom shall we tax? ”
Immigrants.
As a far from white guy in Europe currently finishing my Masters in a STEM field, it is surprising to see everyone , from govt. officials , university staff and even some employers coming up and asking me to stay post my studies. Thanks to your blog I know the true reason why. Its easy to connect the dots when you see the falling birth rate and massive labour shortage in the highly skilled sector. I enjoy my stay in here and love the country, but I will NOT work and subsidize bad boys and sluts fucking while I spend weekends in labs trying to make something of my self.
While popularity and glamour associated with US will prevent such mass shortages , expect lax immigration laws and ever more pores borders for STEM people. Look at Obamas new bill which is said to “staples a green card to every STEM Post Graduate from US universities”
Dalrock,
Your good friend JAMES TARANTO writes, “Purely as a biological matter, individual male lives are expendable: A man’s biological capacity to reproduce is easily replaceable, unlike a woman’s; and it is in society’s interest–in this context meaning the interest of the reproductive enterprise as a whole–for men to take risks in the defense of women and children.” –http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304403804579262291294720488?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
Actually, this is not true at all.
A man has reproductive power from puberty to his death, whereas women only have it a decade or so, until they start producing auatatsistizlzzlzo spergszlzlzozizlzo like da GBFM zlzozoz. Thus, a woman is biologically useless by her mid-thirties, and according to JAMES TARANTO, should be placed on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq so that all the fertile men, capable of fathering children, can be sent home.
By JAMES TARANTO’s logic and reason, high-risk jobs such as firemen and bridge builders and skyscraper welders should feature primarily biologically-useless women 35 and above.
Society needs to reorganize colleges and universities, so that in addition to being buttcocked and beernrnakfieexdz, women can also learn welding and how to jump on grenades for when they hit 35.
zlzozozo
Christians 4 Christ! said:
Redpillsetmefree, the problem with deti’s monologue is that it does not take into account the many men who desire to divorce their wives.
The “many” men? And where is your data for that?
Every record we have shows that 70% of divorces are initiated by women. So what men are you talking about?
redpillsetmefree says to C4C
The “many” men? And where is your data for that?
She doesn’t “do” data.
Anonymous Reader said:
redpillsetmefree says to C4C
The “many” men? And where is your data for that?
She doesn’t “do” data.
Oh, I see. Didn’t know that was a she. It’ll be interesting to see her solipsistic response, which will be based on, “I feel” and “if I don’t see it, it can’t be true.”
From the Kay Hymowitz article:
MIT’s Michael Greenstone (an economist) told the New York Times. If boys were as rational as their sisters, he implied, they would be staying in school, getting degrees, and going on to buff their Florsheim shoes on weekdays at 7:30 AM. Instead, the rational sex…is shrugging off school and resigning itself to a life of shelf stocking.
This shows the bias in their worldview. White collar job good; blue collar job bad.
Where have all the good men gone? They’re in blue collar jobs (just like they’ve always been). Oh, but those are the elite’s definition of good men .They are little more than non-men in their eyes– invisible.
redpillsetmefree
Oh, I see. Didn’t know that was a she.
I”m not positive, but recent responses point that way.
“So women are adapting very well to the incentives for female power and independence by going to college and trying to corner the job market. OK. My question is, why aren’t men adapting very well for male power and independence by doing the same?”
They don’t give affirmative action to men.
“I enjoy my stay in here and love the country, but I will NOT work and subsidize bad boys and sluts fucking while I spend weekends in labs trying to make something of my self.”
Nor should you. Take the money and run back to your country to support your family there. Or at least give back to the people and culture that raised you in some way.
“We don’t need them to work harder if we don’t need them to work at all, right? It is at least theoretically possible that marriage as an economic force will no longer be necessary because people as an economic force will (by and large) no longer be necessary.”
And so what?
“When I go to court over a “false sexual assaut chrge” the Judge will look at the woman and agree with me…….UGH!….I would never touch that””!
Judges have incentive to always side with the woman…no matter how butt ugly or demonic she is.
There was a movie in 1976 that eerily resembles Obamacare. Logan’s Run.
I believe a major reason for the rise of monogamy was warfare . Tribal chiefs found out the have not men had little incentive to fight for the big mans harem.
I reckon folks missread access to sex; seems to me whores where dirt common and most men had to bust ads just to eat.
Speaking of Obamacare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL9itreYkkc
“If you like your [marriage/assets/children], you can keep your [marriage/assets/children].”*
* Offer not available to certain demographics
@ galloper6
Not only did the have not men have little if any incentive to fight for the big mans harem, it was more in their interest to kill the big man and take from his harem. That’s where this alpha fux beta bux road leads; zero sum game.
Do we really need more education, more credentials? Another thing possibly going on is the schools are just upset that men aren’t falling for the debt trap that is higher education like the women are. Here too men are responding rationally. And more education would not be needed if the market wasn’t flooded with bachelor’s degrees thus making the degree worthless. So, to be competitive now you need to have a masters which is the new bachelors. Women, being slow learners, sign up again for more debt in hopes that more education will be the magic ticket to make them stand out in this economy. Men are more like “screw that” and more likely to go out and find a way to make it on their own.
“There are vast levels of giving up, a veritable pyramid of coasting.”
My child support obligation from my wife’s frivorce ends in less than 6 months. I am already ramping up my income and will use the increased gross and increased net to retire my significant debt (including my divorce attorney’s fees, which were pretty well earned). In 2-3 years, as my youngest is well-ensconced in college or trade school (but out of the house), my version of “coasting” will be to have relocated to the mid-sized city where live my parents, siblings, and extended family — genuinely nice people (and where housing is cheaper); to be renting a smaller but nicer place, where there will always be a guest room for any of my four kids; to continue my work (which I can do from home); and to be driving the new Corvette Stingray convertible (because it’s a fantastic car, not to prove anything to anyone). Any woman/women in my life at that point will be icing and, because I’ll already have the cake, that icing will have to be on my terms.
Here’s “progress” for ya. A court has annulled a five-year jail term for a 60-year-old man who was caught in bed with an 11-year-old-girl on the grounds they have a ‘romantic relationship’.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/11/man-found-in-bed-with-11-year-old-girl-freed-on-grounds-they-had-romantic-relationship-4226602/
I knew it was just a matter of time before pedophilia became accepted as an “alternative sexuality”. Remember NAMBLA? They’ve not gone away. Keep your babies close.
“Women, being slow learners, sign up again for more debt in hopes that more education will be the magic ticket to make them stand out in this economy. Men are more like “screw that” and more likely to go out and find a way to make it on their own.”
In the US at least the majority of entreprenurial start ups and small business are created by women. That doesn’t mean though that they skipped college. I suppose some did and some didn’t. If I was a young man in my late teens again I’d just live at home with mom and dad, deliver pizzas for a few years, stack my cash and then take off to discover the world, network and make connections abroad. Mom and pop resorts are always looking for steady on site help. Greece is a beautiful country.
@IBB “That is what it is because young male bachelors never go to the doctor. So why pay for health insurance you will never use? You don’t put in health insurance claims for condoms the way young women do for oral contraceptives, pap smears, and breast exams.”
OK so let’s up the ante. Any guy under say 35 has to get involved with (shhh!) Fight Club, and turn up of a Monday morning on crutches, with a drip bag wired to his shoulder. And scream for the attorney when they try to fire his broken ass for getting hisself into a condition where he’s dam’ near as useless as a wimminz. Could put the whole company under, that sort of irresponsibility ..
“In the US at least the majority of entreprenurial start ups and small business are created by women.”
I’ve heard that too. Created though–wonder how many started by women last and are thriving and of those are solely women, not ones with a man behinds scenes really running things. Also, I think there are some gov funds available for women to start up business. Perks not available to men.
lgrobins, I think women do better being the queens of their own domains (small businesses) than trying to fit into a large corporate entity.
@galloper6 “.. eerily resembles Obamacare. Logan’s Run.”
Ohhhhnnnnnnuuu.. if Jenny Agutter was playing Matron, I’d be right there, rigid, in one of Barry’s Free Beds. Screw selfrespect, socialism wins again. Bastards.
@sunshinemary
“Will fixing marriage fix this problem? Technology has and will continue to render an increasing percentage of the population superfluous to the economic engine of our society. Sort of like the fast food workers who want $15/hour to flip burgers and who will soon enough find themselves automated out of their jobs – they will serve no economic purpose whether they are married or not. Handle has written about this recently:”
Technology doesn’t render a certain percentage of the population useless. Sure it was tough for the typewriting industry when the computer came along, but the additional jobs created by new computer industry (and related industries) far surpassed anything lost with the typewriter. Same applies to fast food. Someone will still need to design, manufacture, market, and operate the new machines (and sue the other machine-making guys that try to steal your idea).
“My question wasn’t “How will we get more effort from men?” My question was “Will we really need more effort from (most) men?” Or women, for that matter. We don’t need them to work harder if we don’t need them to work at all, right? It is at least theoretically possible that marriage as an economic force will no longer be necessary because people as an economic force will (by and large) no longer be necessary.”
You’re taken it as a given that technology will continue to advance regardless of the behaviour of Beta men. But technology depends almost entirely on Betas inventing and continuing to put forth the manpower and skills to operate it. And that they continue to play by the rules that make the advancement of technology possible (i.e court of law, police, rules against theft). But will Betas continue to do so in the absence of marriage as an “economic force”? Will the alternate system of taxing, jailing and shaming Beta men be enough to strong-arm them into continuing to advance society (i.e. holding Point Dexter at gunpoint)? I guess time will tell but I think you already know the answer.
Well, in the book Carrosel was for anyone over the age of 21. In the movie, they turned you into Soilent Green at age 30 (a little bit more believable.) And if you ran, they sent a Sandman (Michael York or Richard Jordan) after you, so much for being “renewed.” But I am not sure I agree with your point as the ACA is exactly the opposite.
The ACA is all about extracting wealth from the youngest and most fit males by forcing them to buy something they don’t want or need (health insurance) to thereby add young healthy men to the insurance risk pool so that old people (and women) can get their insurance cheaper. Ideally, the government would not be getting ANY money from anyone (any ACA taxes) if we all had an acceptable health insurance policy (one that fits within that 2000 page monstrocity that we had to approve before we read) that properly subsidizes our ever growing glut of old, childless people.
ACA is all about subsidizing the Bill Maher’s of the world, the Michael Moore’s, the Paul Krugman’s. the liberal people getting older who didn’t produce children or the Sanda Flukes, the young women who don’t want to do ANYTHING other than get their government subsidy.
Feminism is an attempt to transfer the costs of women’s immoral behaviour onto men. Ironically enough it depends almost entirely on men to do so. At some point, men will inevitably change their behaviour such that women must bear the cost of their own choices. At this point it won’t be pretty.
Either
a) women will need to adjust their behaviour to respond to the new system
b) Western society will continue to slide into the Abyss
I often wonder if feminists would prefer b) to a). But my concern is that even if a) begins to happen, it won’t happen soon enough to prevent b).
@sunshinemary Re: “no economic purpose”. puffyjacket answered it well. There are always plenty of possible real jobs, but there is no possibility of greatly extending the fakework makework busywork paperwork (now digital paperwork) jobs that make up the vast majority of jobs created since the sexual revolution. One real job is fixing machines, if nothing else, exactly like auto repair is still a source of regular employment. More importantly, any one smartypants beta could keep armies of people employed if unshackled. For example, about five million “tech” jobs would be needed, just in unskilled contruction workers installing sensors etc, to make our roadways ready for driverless robot cars.
@puffyjacket42 Re: “Poindexter at gunpoint”. Yes, that is how it has been since about 1946, with security clearances and etc. And etc. Most are protected for their own good, so to speak.
@David J. I like your coasting plan. My current plan is to work full time pedal to the metal until I’m 77 and the house is paid off, and then coast on fumes into the sunset.
@jf12
don’t encourage him to buy no boat. Encourage him to visit SE Asia. Just visiting is enough.
>>>> In the US at least the majority of entreprenurial start ups and small business are created by women
Opening another new gourmet baked-cat-treats store or another new concierge-shopping-assistant business is NOT the same as creating actual new wealth for society.
@IGR
“”wonder how many started by women last and are thriving and of those are solely women, not ones with a man behinds scenes really running things””
I have seen women start businesses before.They have a 98% failure rate.The only reason that they survive is because of government grants.Remember,62% of government employees are women…..yet,women owned and run businesses contribute only 5% to the GDP.There is the odd Martha Stewart…but,they are so rare they are not even worth the mention.
@C4C
“Here’s “progress” for ya. A court has annulled a five-year jail term for a 60-year-old man who was caught in bed with an 11-year-old-girl on the grounds they have a ‘romantic relationship’.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/11/man-found-in-bed-with-11-year-old-girl-freed-on-grounds-they-had-romantic-relationship-4226602/
I knew it was just a matter of time before pedophilia became accepted as an “alternative sexuality”. Remember NAMBLA? They’ve not gone away. Keep your babies close.”
There was a time not too long ago (I think late 19th century England) when 13 years old was the age of consent. Interestingly enough the age of first menache has fallen about 2 years over that same time. So the average 11-year old today (in terms of sexual maturity) is equivalent to the average 13-year old at the turn of the century. If anything, age of consent laws continue to go in the wrong direction. This is primarily a push by older feminists to make younger competition illegal. Imagine a marriage market where 13-17 year olds are once again fair game. The 30-something year olds holding out for marriage would be royally, royally screwed. Women instinctually know this and fear it terribly. So much so that they’re willing to destroy the lives of innocent men for doing what (by most historical accounts) they have always done. By the way, there’s absolutely nothing in the Bible to support the position that marrying an 11-year old is sinful. This recent addition to “Christian” morality is feminist claptrap and not even remotely Christian dogma.
I think there’s a legitimate discussion to have about where to draw the line on age of consent. But 18 is clearly ridiculous, and if anything we have been moving the line in the wrong direction. Not to mention the fact I find it disgusting that society is willing to destroy the lives of such men, merely to satisfy the envy of bitter feminists.
@C4C
“”I think women do better being the queens of their own domains (small businesses) than trying to fit into a large corporate entity””
Yes they do…..from my own experience.3 years ago I targeted a publicly traded Real Estate holdings company in Montreal with approximately 2 billion in corporate assets.After a lengthy stock accumulation process where I had control of 12% of the companies stock.I demanded a seat on the board if directors(as the second largest shareholder next to the CEO and founder of the company).There were 3 women directors,8 males directors and the CEO. I had all the women FIRED! The CEO was upset as he was worried about repercussions because they are wimminz…..he did not want any law suits.Which is understandable.All the male directors stood behind my decision and told the CEO point blank…”We have been trying to figure out for the last 2 years what it is that they do around here” My position….”We need movers & shakers in the board room….of which they are not”…Sorry ladies here is your pink slip.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/12/18 | Free Northerner
f anything, age of consent laws continue to go in the wrong direction. This is primarily a push by older feminists to make younger competition illegal. Imagine a marriage market where 13-17 year olds are once again fair game.
Depends where you go. In some countries, the Left is pushing for a reduced age of consent (however, that could very well be the pedophile wing doing so).
CAF stuff:
1) http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=845499
2) http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=845680
@MarcusD
“Depends where you go. In some countries, the Left is pushing for a reduced age of consent (however, that could very well be the pedophile wing doing so).”
Sure. But nearly everywhere they’ve been losing the battle to feminists that want to increase it. That’s the bottom line. Take any country’s age of consent 20-30 years ago, compare it to what is now. Are there any examples where age of consent has actually decreased over the same time?
Western feminists also have pushed hard to increase age of consent in countries abroad. Because young girls in other countries are competition too.
Lots here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
Northern Ireland lowered AoC from 17 to 16 a few years ago. That said, your point is accepted that feminists are generally trying to raise the age, and have generally been successful.
Related stuff on my blog: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/10/19th-century-purity-campaigns.html
Have you jokers even seen an 11-year old little kid? They aren’t developed yet, and wouldn’t be attractive to any normal person. I’m sure I couldn’t get my dick hard for one, any more than I could get my dick hard for Rosie O’Donnell, or the average 60-year old granny, or a non-human animal.
Regards, Boxer
The raising of the age of consent is less a conspiracy than a reaction to the march of history through time.
Back in the day, people often got married at 17-19, and even occasionally at 15-16 (particularly in cases where the kids were fucking anyway, and the families had to move to legitimate their defacto union — quaintly described in historical literature as the “shotgun wedding”).
This caused no real problems, because back in those days, human beings lived in agrarian communities where education, beyond the basics, wasn’t really necessary for the average Joe and Jane. You ought to be able to read, and count, and write a letter to your friend in Cleveland, and all those things were taught to kids by the age of 14-16, at which point they left the schoolhouse and started pulling the plow or maybe working the sawmill.
Today, people are expected to know technical stuff. Calculus, the operation of motor vehicles and computers, and perhaps some basic communication skills in Spanish or French… these are the tickets to success in modern life. It takes a bit longer for people to acquire these skills (and in many cases, fully functional adults never require them, though they are the losers and we’re not concerned with them here).
The average 14-year old is expected to control his/her libido and attempt to learn this stuff. Those who succeed, get the good stuff in adulthood. Those who fail get to go on welfare, enjoy their babymama drama, and live in the projects. The age of consent is the collective hopes of the moderns that their kids will find the strength to channel their impulses into something more meaningful than casual rutting. It’s rough, but there it is.
Regards, Boxer
As some have already pointed out, elites know what’s going on and what implications it will have on society.
Elites will rather live as untouchable in Haiti-like remnant of civilization than work hard and risk every generation to earn and keep their status.
Very rational and effective from their perspective, (a bit) sociopathic otherwise.
Pingback: Progress | Truth and contradictions | Scoop.it
> The one who asked the question got all beat red in the face. “Well, look not all guys are @ssholes, just most of them. And I beleive in no-fault-divorce so… guys are just going to have to come around and marry us anyway or…”
What a moron. There isn’t really anything else to say.
You know it’s interesting because what this is talking about is pretty much where I find myself. I’m single with no prospects on the horizon, 30 years old, and have a degree in the STEM fields. However for a variety off reasons I’m currently working in a blue collar manufacturing position. Now my current job pays decent, enough for a fairly comfortable life as a single man. For a family though it would likely be tight, especially if she was a SAHM. I’ve considered a masters program that is of interest to me that would most likely enable me to get a job that would make supporting a family easier. It would though be more work and the jobs I would get would probably be more demanding than the jobs I would get continuing on with my present employer and the possible promotions I could get there without further education.
So, in short, I can keep working at my current job, take whatever minor promotions naturally come my way and live a comfortable as a bachelor OR I can push for a job/education that I would like as a married man… But, truth is I have never been very successful at dating and I haven’t even tried in years to get a date and I really don’t see either changing because I just don’t have much motivation. Wife and kids sound nice but generally the positives aren’t enough to overcome the combination of the negatives and my lack of motivation to try. All that said, I really see a strong likelihood that I’ll continue on the easier path and most likely only switch to the path really pushing for a financially better job if a woman surprisingly enters my life in a serious way. After all, why push for the harder job when I can live comfortably as a single guy in the simpler job?
“So women are adapting very well to the incentives for female power and independence by going to college and trying to corner the job market. OK. My question is, why aren’t men adapting very well for male power and independence by doing the same”
Because colleges and workplaces are now structured around women’s needs and wants, which means both are practically minefields for men. If they enter, they are routinely discriminated, ridiculed and victimized. I’m probably not the first commenter to say this, but I don’t care.
“Why is it important to “fix” anyone or anything? Why do we need “more effort from men?” As long as they can pay for their rent, food and own way in life, why does it matter?”
Because women and children either get to consume the surplus wealth created by men or they starve/freeze to death.
“ACA won’t be enough. There will probably also be a batchelor tax, or some disguised version of it.”
Yes, it will obviously be the latter. The legislature will enact a tax on all single people, or a tax on all households with just one member. The BS reasoning will be that the law is needed to incentivize young people to marry, to combat social parasitism, or something like that. However, they will be all sorts of things that make one eligible for a tax break. And 80-90% of those who get that tax break will happen to be women.
“By JAMES TARANTO’s logic and reason, high-risk jobs such as firemen and bridge builders and skyscraper welders should feature primarily biologically-useless women 35 and above.”
They couldn’t perform those tasks even if they actually wanted to. They are physically and psychologically incapable of that.
@Dalrock
James Taranto has a deal as Matt Walsh and Jenny Erikson have deals. They are funded to represent certain sets of views some people will agree with, while at the same time, they are branding illusions that keep people from opening their eyes to the real truth.
Why is James Taranto allowed to write some truth about marriage and men opting out of prepping for supporting a family, etc? It’s simple. He’s assigned to agree with a lot of obvious issues as long as he writes with the assumption that ‘elites’ care about that revenue. The obvious truth, however, is that tax (and debt) come in other forms, like inflation.
Taranto isn’t pushing the limits of his career. He’s acting out the ‘tax revenues are used to fund the welfare state and the system’ narrative. His writing keeps people from educating themselves on where the taxes really go. He keeps people from thinking about the definition of money in general, and what’s actually going on. His writing is a pacifier… for adult WSJ readers. He’s assigned to put the whole tax issue into your mind because of what’s coming in 2014. Like Tarantino, Taranto’s work has a lot of truth in it.
The readers will say, “This Taranto is not like any other writer in the mainstream media, his work has a lot of real-life truth in it.” They’ll miss the deeper meaning behind the articles. In the conversation, the talking points will maintain the illusion that tax revenues actually pay for the system. Tax revenues do not. What about that >70% tax bracket?
I know nothing about Northern Ireland (and can barely understand the accent) but in my part of the only-just United Kingdom the age of consent for both sexual intercourse and marriage has all my life been sixteen. It is not compulsory of course so some remain single and virgins. Obviously I am one of Boxer’s losers for I assumed that losing ones virginity at sixteen was compulsory and acted accordingly (at the same time as sitting ‘O’ levels). Personally, I found that women used the age of consent as a cock-block – to resist my evil advances until they reached that age, and then promptly gave up the goodies.
Of course, these days, I prefer my women to be a little older. The ages of consent are surely currently incoherent in their arbitrariness.
Recluse
Don’t date. men today should never date. Hook up is the way to go. Hook up and call back for seconds. Do not ever date or court. Make as much money as you like and save it for yourself. Doesn’t cost more than the gas in your car to go over to a booty calls house at 2 am to hit that ass. Lookup gandarusa and find a way to test sperm. (my new years resolution is to be a gandarusa dealer in the hood) Enjoy yourself and stay hard.
Yeh I move to second Mr Opus. Sixteen. Always needed some sort of special dispensation from the church authorities.
That’s why you can occasionally see “Married by Licence” instead of “Of Full Age” (=18) in parish records. Everybody, just about, got married at 18 till maybe WWI, couldn’t keep the baby in any longer I suppose. Then they invented French Letters, made of gutta percha and bits of army surplus mackintoshes, at least what that’s old boys told me it felt and looked like).
My own favorite cousine was up the duff with her first babby age 16+1 month or summat. Parents deceased, her and he sis lived with grandparents, strictly old skool (actual (i)Victorians, just), very rural. Just a bit of a StareDad look from the old boy (probably fretting more about his hens being out of sorts) over the top of the paper and an extravigorous chew of the pipe stem, back up goes the paper, “right then Our Jenny, wensta getten wed t’ Mick?” (BF since puberty or near as, but he’d been running his own fish&grocer biz out the back of a van since he was 17, absolute grafter, in the English sense, i.e. doing very well indeed ta very much. Very handsome lad, 1/2 gypsy, looked like the young Georgie Best). Did wed, in proper Church (bells&smells, vicar in a frock, large crowd), 3 sons by 20, been a grandma since I don’t know when. Excessively religious (went from nominal RC, to “devout” RC (ie. made an unnecessary show of it all, Mass nineteen times a day or something, like a jihadi doing salawat, bloody staues everwhere) to some kind of extreme Anglican, if such a thing can be imagined, all her kids are heavily involved with various protestant church outfits.
Then went to Uni when kids went, English degree (her ma was a teacher), library job. Separated shortly thereafter, the guy had turned into a little old man broken down by decades of frenzied toil. Bo-o-o-ring, off she ran to one of the Outer Isles with a fellow rock-climber (a sparkie to trade I think). At least she only took her boots, frocks and hard-hat, wouldn’t hear of even the train fare. Very stubborn woman, proud as Lucifer. And still very good-looking, and fit as a flea, considering.
The move to 16 in NornIron that Marcus mentions is only sanctioned by “The Left” in the sense that “the Nationalist Community” (=Tims/Fenians/Papes/Cathlicks) is represented by SinnFein/IRA, who in their latest manifestation have gone from Eoin O’Duffy type falangism complete with black jodphurs (c.f. Oswald Moseley, both became unpopular after WWII, for some reason that escapes me 🙂 ) to Guevara-esque socialist revolutionaries in the 60s/70s, and still to some extent spout the PC guff just to get up the noses of the reactionary Prod side of the equation, making out they’re foreign colonialist oppressors from faraway errrr .. Scotland. Although nowadays even though they “haven’t gone away, you know” they have shapeshifted yet again, to enthusiastic Eurocrats, to align with the Republic down south (multa wonga, shubshidies, see? Also it’s a longtime part of the Plan by the former Axis powers (who set up and run the EEC/EU) to balkanize the UK under the cover of “freedom for small nations”. Pisses the Spanish off no end too, even though they were on the Irish side in the last war).
You can see it at football, Celtic fans wave Palestinian flags, and Rangers (before they got the chain pulled on them ha ha) fly giant Israeli ones. There are infinite layers of historical and agitprop subtext to that, too tedious even for me to contemplate.
Long story short, it’s about getting the Catholic pop’n to demographically and therefore hopefully electorally swamp the Orangemen, voiding their 1921 gerrymander of the Six Counties, and leading to the rainless, palm-tree-filled and fertile Nirvana of a United Ireland huzzah huzzah. “Only another 1000 years to go now lads. stick in there, we’re that close ….”
O hai, anyone still awake in here … anyone ..
Full age used to be twenty-one (rather than eighteen).
“why can’t women find husbands anymore?”
@IBB….your statements and the subsquent reactions is why MGTOW will be one of those things women won’t get. They don’t see the men because most men know what is going on and are silently leaving the exits. We are visible to these women…yet invisible at the same time.
Since women can’t see this physically because most MGTOW don’t boast about it (they just do the things they normally like to do and don’t involve women in anything unless they want them to)…it is unknown to women what is going on.
It’s like an unorganized men’s club that women will have no way of finding in.
Right you are then. 21. Always assumed it meant 18
Women view men as safety nets. When the infatuation hormones wear off, you are only as good as what you can provide to them. Why do women marry up? Why do women divorce men when they no longer need them as a safety net? When they reach the point where they no longer need you as a safety net, they will discard you. Why? Hypergamy, when she gets a big raise at work, a wealthier man takes an interest in her, you lose your job or a substantial amount of money through economic downturns, or so that they can live a financially secure life (off of your money) and then do as they please with their affair partner or future lovers.
Divorce in and of itself is seen by women as a positive safety net if they can gain substantially from it. Federal and state welfare programs as viable alternatives to husbands. Purposefully getting pregnant by a gullible man and then collecting child support is a viable alternative as well. Marrying a man with resources and then getting pregnant by a man they perceive to have better genes is becoming more and more common.
I’ve had women tell me that women seek out the man with the most resources. I’ve had women tell me they will marry a man they don’t love for financial security, knowing that they will at some future point divorce them. These men are not loved husbands. Rather, they are walking ATMs with dildos who will at some point in their future be destroyed.
No-fault divorce has destroyed tens upon tens of millions of families. The costs to society of no-fault divorce can not be understated.
What’s next? The social values and societal constructs that made marriage and family a positive life choice have been erased. Through marriage and family, your worst nightmares can be realized. Marriage, thanks to the incentives and fraud inherent in no-fault divorce, will die a slow death.
Feminism, unrestrained hypergamy, the sexual revolution and no-fault divorce are incompatible with marriage and family. What does this mean? The steady decline and eventual death of marriage.
Pingback: The Death of Marriage and the Collapse of the Federal Budget Are Linked
Dalrock, OT, but of interest to your blog and its focus. I have to agree that the content of the article is good – one can find men like this who have this dynamic; though the article title is over the top. http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/42121-why-divorce-is-higher-among-christians
Opus says:
December 17, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Abuse and violence in the lexicon of the divorce industry constitutes any behavior, almost exclusively on the part of the man, that causes a woman to feel uncomfortable, and the vast majority of it falls far short of anything that could reasonably be inferred as such from say, a pre-1960 worldview.
@Christians 4 Christ! says: “In the US at least the majority of entreprenurial start ups and small business are created by women.”
When I started my own business a while back, my accountant advised that I start it under my wife’s name, because all kinds of government benefits would became available if it was technically a minority/female owned business.
I’ll think you’ll find that a lot (if not most) of those women are merely figureheads so the company can secure government benefits.
“Young men should not rely on women to motivate them to work and pay their rent and other expenses.”
This sounds like women’s objections. This is what they want to change…or else…
Regarding coasting vs. working hard argument…
It sounds like the narrative is, men are motivated to do well professionally, and in life I suppose, from an internal source, but women have derailed this motivation and therefore men have bowed out. I feel I’ve missed something here. Why do women have this much power?
@sunshinemary
I understand your side point about economic obsolescence, but a majority of men’s work is not the sort of busywork governmental stuff that doesn’t actually need doing, so your point is in reality a minor diversion from Dalrock’s main point about marital obsolesence. Read the testimony of Recluse here, for yet another example.
Even if by 2023 robots overproduce everything so consumers have to be paid to consume, unmarried young men are still not gonna bother themselves to consume as much as they would if married.
“Technology has and WILL CONTINUE to render an increasing percentage of the population superfluous to the economic engine of our society.”
We can’t take this for granted. There are any number of reasons, many hashed out in this thread, plus many others, why it is plausible that “progress” will cease, and possible even regress, as society becomes more dysfunctional.
@hoellenhund2 says: “…There will probably also be a batchelor tax, or some disguised version of it.” … “Yes, it will obviously be the latter. The legislature will enact a tax on all single people, or a tax on all households with just one member. The BS reasoning will be that the law is needed to incentivize young people to marry,…”
Consider that in the US we still have the marriage penalty. The way taxes are calculated, a married couple pays more than the same couple would if they were single and living together. Conservatives have railed against this for decades; plenty of Republican candidates have promised to get rid of it; but neither party has ever made any serious move to eliminate it.
My point is, the lefts/feminist’s hatred of traditional-marriage/family will override any need to push men into marriage.
A tax to “incentivize young people to marry” would be framed by the left as a tax to push young women into marrying, which would conflict with the left’s goals of delaying women’s marriage age so she can get an education, start a career, and become a “strong independent woman.”
A more likely scenario is we’ll see more subsidies for things that women tend to pay someone to do and that men tend to do themselves. Home maintenance, auto repairs, etc…
The Hymowitz column is VERY worth reading.
“Liberals often assume that these kinds of social problems result from our stingy support system for single mothers and their children. Provide more maternity leave, quality day care, and health care, goes the thinking, and a lot of the disadvantages of single-parent homes would vanish. But the link between criminality and fatherlessness holds even in countries with lavish social-welfare systems. A 2006 Finnish study of 2,700 boys, for instance, concluded that living in a non-intact family at age eight predicted a variety of criminal offenses. ”
Some very interesting points from years of studies, showing that ALL children do better with an intact family structure.
@Anon Reader
I’m not saying they will dump the whole thing, but that they will slowly start to roll back the worst excesses. So they could leave 80% to 90% of the current rulings untouched, but (mostly) stop jailing men for child support on children they didn’t father, or be more hesitant to jail men for exorbitant amounts of child support after the father loses his high paying job to no fault of his own. Or, (a few years further down the road when that isn’t enough) they might decide to give men primary custody (and little or no child support) an extra 10 or 20% of the time. Note that this wouldn’t remove the threatpoint, and it wouldn’t return us to a fault based divorce or even place significant incentives on the Elizabeth Gilberts and Jenny Eriksons of the world to honor their vows. Women would still be free to openly celebrate frivolous divorce while berating men for being “afraid of commitment”, but some women on the margins would just get a little less “empowerment” than they would have gotten before, and a few less innocent children and fathers would have their lives shredded in the name of said empowerment.
Also note that this wouldn’t require any formal change in family law. The only change required would be a small change in the attitudes of the judges. After reading enough times about how their favorite government program was going bust because some men were enjoying the decline instead of manning up, and after seeing their very profession blamed repeatedly in their favorite elite publications, they would be inclined to throw one less innocent man in jail here or there, or give the father custody one out of every 5 cases where the best choice for the children is clearly to be with the father.
“A tax to “incentivize young people to marry” would be framed by the left as a tax to push young women into marrying, which would conflict with the left’s goals of delaying women’s marriage age so she can get an education, start a career, and become a “strong independent woman.””
You could justify this. Many of my friends that married young still went to school. Just because a woman marries after college at 21 or 22, they can still go to school, get a master’s, doctorate, etc and still become “strong, independent woman.” Well, strong at least, maybe not so independent. A lot of couples now may marry early, but will have children around 30. So they’ll be married for around 7 years. I have never understood this. What is your husband, a built-in date? If they have plans for getting a master’s and working wherever, women will still do that married. They just marry their college boo so they can be done with all that dating stuff and they still travel with their boo and get their career on and then when the baby rabies catches on around 30, they have a kid. Maybe one more after that if they are so inclined. Perhaps this way they don’t have to feel bad for stringing a guy along by dating him on and off after college for 7 or 8 years and then marrying him, finally, at 30.
@ Hopeful
“Why do women have this much power”
Because women have repeatedly pried it out of the state. Women have demanded power, so they can abuse it. The state in turn gets a ‘checkmark’ from women voters.
The true puppeteers, the elites, LOVE this model. They get to put a yoke on the male gender, to pull the plow. Keep men down, and tax the shit out of them (this includes child support, etc) to keep them anxious to produce so they can keep 20% of their earnings to eek out a living.
Men are producers. Women are consumers. It’s a match made in f@cking heaven…..if you redefine heaven as hell.
@Dalrock “After reading enough times about how their favorite government program was going bust because some men were enjoying the decline instead of manning up, and after seeing their very profession blamed repeatedly in their favorite elite publications, they would be inclined to” do nothing. We have the example of welfare. The welfare queens were/are supporting the welfare kings aka “All Ourz Babiez Daddehz”, for at least four entire decades.
@Boxer “Today, people are expected to know technical stuff. Calculus, the operation of motor vehicles and computers, and perhaps some basic communication skills in Spanish or French… these are the tickets to success in modern life. It takes a bit longer for people to acquire these skills (and in many cases, fully functional adults never require them, though they are the losers and we’re not concerned with them here).”
I would imagine most people have their “basic communication skills” in English and can operate a motor vehicle or computer by the age of 16. You’ve lost me on why calculus is important to a woman’s ability to to be an upstanding wife and mother. I know mothers that have raised doctors/lawyers and never even bothered to take a class in calculus. Crazy eh?
Bottom line is that if you’re old enough to have sex, you’re old enough to be married. Morally speaking, it’s the only acceptable way to have sex as a Christian. Practically speaking, if teenage girls are going to be having sex anyways (and the evidence says most of them will), it’s far preferable she do so in the context of a loving marriage than be running train in her high school/college days. Convincing modern-day families that traditional morality is good for young women is admittedly a pretty tough sell nowadays. But most Christians would rather put their fingers in their ears and go on pretending that young “innocent” girls aren’t having sex at that age. Or that if they do, it’s only because evil men forced them to do it.
Dalrock
I’m not saying they will dump the whole thing, but that they will slowly start to roll back the worst excesses.
You could be right, but this would simply demonstrate that the self-anointed “elite” do not understand nonlinear feedback in a large system. Rolling back the worst excesses might have been a useful thing to do 10, 15 or 20 years ago. With the 40% bastardy rate and the 40% divorce rate, there will come a time when the majority of men under 30 will be the son of either a babymomma or a divorced woman. Will those men respond to tiny, marginal, all but invisible incentives such as you describe? I do not know, but the young men in the here and now whose parents are divorced tend to be reticent about marriage. Couple that with hypergamy and the ongoing active discrimination against men, where does it lead?
It’s like driving on ice. When the car starts sliding to the left, making a tiny correction to the right has no effect at all. Either the driver cranks the wheel full over very quickly, or the car continues to slide in a demonstration of Newton’s laws of motion until something stops it. That “something” most likely will be solid, and the stop sudden. Right now, Western society has been sliding for a while on the ice of feminism, and the elites are responding how? With “more of the same”, no correction needed, just pedal to the metal and more left turn.
I hope there is a guardrail somewhere out there, rather than the edge of a cliff.
@DeNihilist
Yes, Hymowitz often makes many good points. Her summarizing observation is worth repeating: “Boys see that men have become extras in the lives of many families and communities, and it can’t help but depress their aspirations. Solving that problem will take something much bigger than a good literacy program.” And I’ll add it will take a lot more than fiddling around with marginal tax changes.
@ Deti,
Some of your comments are laughable. The only option is to ALWAYS hide your assets where she can’t find them.
Any women hellbent on getting you out of the house will have NO problem in getting that task done. All she has to do is lift her finger and dial 9-1-1 and SAY that you hit her.
The police will show up sirens blaring, and escort the male party out of the house….all on someone’s say-so. No REAL proof need be visible. They will escort you away if she says she FEELS threatened. Total bullshit……but it happens.
A house is easily found…….I say RENT.
No joint bank accounts……at least not where your MAIN money gets deposited.
A 401k is easily found……..I say pay your tax as you go, buy gold 1 oz bars……and hide them where she & the government can NEVER find them.
All of these counter-actions undermines trust, which is in short supply……courtesy of FEMINISM.
So, with all these counter-points……the real underlying analysis is WHY should men try to enter the coliseum to face the lions in the first place?
Why not just walk by the coliseum, and just not play the Games? Stroll down the street to a nice Cat House, and pay as you go.
That is where men are at today. “Why Play?”
@Anonymous Reader
You oughta know that in the US over 50% of babies were born to unwed mothers last year, and slightly over 50% of adults were unmarried.
@jf12 Even if by 2023 robots overproduce everything so consumers have to be paid to consume
A. Robot worker army or not, IF the ‘U S’ has regained any sovereignty by that time (extremely unlikely), industrial production will be outsourced. Men that aren’t following the one specific blog I constantly link them to will have no way to earn money or resources. The notion of a ‘job’ (for men) is going bye bye in this land mass known as the lower 48 states.
B. MOST jobs in the U S (with some obvious exceptions… doctor, manual labor, truck driver, etc) would already be outsourced if the so-called ‘elites’ weren’t inventing money to fund the jobs people have. Sure, we outsource thousands of tasks each year, but don’t take my word for it, hire some folks to dig deeper so you can know the truth. TURN OFF YOUR NORMAL NEWS SOURCES including the online ones you BELIEVE are on your side. Like sports and politics, sources of information are like tribes. It’s human nature to identify with tribes. Of course people deny it and then yell at the screen because of a bad play made by the team. Like James Taranto, the alternative ‘news’ sources you think you can trust have some truth mixed in so you’ll buy the less obvious lies they’re feeding you.
Many of the comments here assume a long and slow decline. Yet, history shows that often collapses occur so fast no one sees it coming. Except a few outriders like us, of course.
I do not recommend hanging around 13 year olds nor 15 year olds. And, in the US, 30 year olds, heh, heh. Young women are still changing very fast, and you have no idea what you are getting until they are older. By which time we can hope you have learned marriage is a bad idea.
Here in Mexico, contrary to an article by the NYT, AOC is 18. But, the big difference is what happens to a man who bangs a younger woman? Well, it is up to the girl and her family. It is often here the shotgun wedding is much preferred to the unwed mother. And, after age 12 (varies a bit by state) the police can do nothing unless the girl or her parents or guardians press charges. Which is why the NYT idiot assumed that meant age of consent.
Mexican parents aren’t stupid like US parents. They know very well the 12-16 year old libido. Which is why those girls are dogged day and night. As someone said above, people in the US assume girls that age know nothing about sex. Parents in other nations aren’t that stupid.
@Anon Reader
I think you are mistaking me for the elite, or at least mistaking me for being their advocate. My point is until now the premise has been the whole feminist enterprise has been not only cost free, but paid a dividend. Moreover, the inertia from the old system has been very strong.
MostNearly all men still will marry if given the option, and we see this clearly in the data. To the extent that men’s choices have changed, they seem to have primarily changed by not knocking themselves out in their 20s to signal provider status. As we can see the elite are already starting to get concerned, although they don’t really have much hard data to point to (but the Hymowitz article as mentioned above is surprisingly good). It is wrong to assume the elites don’t care about any of the costs of the feminist enterprise and reorg of the family. It is true that they couldn’t care less if innocent men are imprisoned or otherwise crushed by the system. It is true that they only cry crocodile tears for the devastation this is causing children. But they do care about keeping the economic gravy train running. Conservatives have that tax money already spent in their mind on the military and exercising US power around the world, etc. Liberals have the money already spent in their minds on transfer programs both domestic and foreign.Once the reality of the cost in terms of tax dollars and GNP starts to sink in, the elite will start trying to find a way to bargain their way out of the problem without actually addressing the core changes they have made to our family structure. How quickly and how aggressively they make this change will be driven largely by the available data and how the elite process it emotionally. The effect this has on men’s choices is difficult to estimate. Men have remained surprisingly willing to marry even in the most husband hostile states. To the extent that this is inertia it is very likely the same inertia on the flipside will cause very little response to even dramatic improvements in the system. To the extent that we are seeing an immutable desire by beta men to marry then changes on the margin along with a PR campaign could help a good deal.
@ Hopeful
You are underestimating the elites ability to f@ck with the tax code.
They won’t come right out with a ‘tax on single people’, because women & men would have to pay that tax. No, the objective here is to just get MEN to pay a bachelor tax.
So…….a tax credit system will be implemented, for married families, single mothers. The ‘FAMIILY TAX CREDIT’
AND
A tax credit of a different name aimed at the ‘betterment of single women’. Actually, that’s a perfect name for it. ‘BETTERMENT OF SINGLE WOMEN TAX CREDIT’
Leaving single men to pay through the @ss.
That is the way in which it will be couched.
@Dalrock:
There’s a lot of angles to the issue as well. One is that if the remarriage market completely disappears (which it seems to be approaching already, though the data is hard on that topic), the changes are going to be severe & fast. TFH is probably right on the timing. We’re 1 preference cascade from massive changes.
The issue is “what” is going to change? We know Europe is toast, it’s just a matter of “when”. If some other major ball drops (a semi-major currency collapse? functional fusion power? magnitude 11 earthquake on the New Madrid fault line?), the adjustments could come swiftly, in ways we don’t think about yet.
Then there’s the possibility of Judicial Havoc. Something important to understand about Dr. Helen. Her husband, Glenn Reynolds, while being a high-volume and well known blogger, also happens to be an insanely important Law Professor. His legal scholarship would become the basis for the Heller decision (i.e. your Gun Rights). Those two have seen the effects of that type of work, but we’ve all seen the results of terrible legal decisions. Well, judges are also victims of the Law of Unintended Consequences. In a few years, in an effort to “help”, a very liberal judge could cause some very strange responses from a State government. Then everyone is shifting.
But we’re already seeing this stuff break into the main stream. Sure, it’s being derided, but TFH is quite correct that the ground is shifting. Things will be very different by 2020. I just wish I knew exactly how & in what ways.
Puffyjacket, who upthread was talking about the acceptability of sex with 11-year old little kids, writes:
I believe the pedants would call this either a straw man or a red herring. Incidentally, could you name me the jurisdiction, anywhere in North America, that will imprison a 16-year old or his/her partner for having sex? I thought not. No such place exists, provided parties aren’t related, familially or professionally.
The age of consent in the place I’m in now is 12, according to the code I just looked up; with the caveat that the 12-year old needs to be having sex with someone under the age of 19. If one party is an adult, the age of consent jumps to 14. Sorry you find this “repressive”. I think it’s perfectly reasonable that adults not distract 13-year old kids with sex. Those kids should be putting on dresses and going to dances, and studying chemistry.
Incidentally: Even when I was 14, I didn’t find 14-year old girls particularly attractive (I thought the senior chicks at my high school, age 17-18, were pretty juicy, and was pretty resentful about the fact that most of them didn’t give me the time of day — though my fantasies ranged from the neighbor’s wife to my drama teacher, aged about 25).
Fruit is best when it’s ripe.
You are right about one minor, irrelevant point. The practicality of things like a foreign language and basic math skills are disputed. Calculus is not “higher math”, and any idiot who studies can master that shit. I am the living proof of that. Females included. As we have both now alluded, many people don’t bother. Our bleeding heart society will usually give these lazy ones a monthly pittance as a consolation prize, along with a sliding-scale apartment in the ghetto, a cell phone, and free medical care, provided these lazy and shiftless types know their place, and don’t get in the way of those of us who enjoy a place in civilized society.
Women in the modern world ought to know the basics of math and language so that they can help their kids with homework and communicate with their husbands. Suggest you read Captain Capitalism’s great books, for more on the importance of a basic education, if you’re still curious.
Regards, Boxer
@Casey,
Thanks for your answer. Is this true historically as well? Back in the day when women and the state did incentivize marriage, did men marry because of women’s power? Were they motivated to marry because of women? So why when women change have the men now changed their motivations? That was the basis of my question. Why do women have the power to change men’s actions?
Anyone can answer that.
“A tax to “incentivize young people to marry” would be framed by the left as a tax to push young women into marrying, which would conflict with the left’s goals of delaying women’s marriage age so she can get an education, start a career, and become a “strong independent woman.””
Yes, on second thought, I think you’re right. There will be a different justification, but nevertheless it’ll be BS. One-member households will probably be portrayed as environmentally wasteful and energy-inefficient, or something like that.
So, with all these counter-points……the real underlying analysis is WHY should men try to enter the coliseum to face the lions in the first place?
Deti can speak for himself, but I’ll point out that my perspective is of someone who didn’t wake up until after marrying. As a result, my focus is on how to deal with a marriage that hasn’t yet detonated.
I wouldn’t advise any men to get married, but the ones that most need that advice aren’t going to listen to it. Once they sign on the dotted line, the advice switches from ‘Don’t get married,’ to ‘Here’s your best shot at getting through this.’
jf12
You oughta know that in the US over 50% of babies were born to unwed mothers last year, and slightly over 50% of adults were unmarried.
Source?
LG,
It doesn’t even have to be that catastrophic to be catastrophic for Europe at this point. They were on the tipping point in the late 1990s with Milosovich. Every single European nation knew that what was happening, was wrong. But every single European nation knew that they were militarily powerless to stop it and their people lacked the political will to care. Tony Blair kept defering to President Clinton. And that is really what happened, all the nations of Europe waited eagerly for the United States to make a move because only the United States could have fixed the problem.
If another Milosovich happens in Europe (anywhere) and this time the United States chooses to sit it out (which they won’t, but if they do) then that would be it for Europe. It would start small, someplace very remote with a small number of people, and it would spread unabated. Right now the continent is a gigantic old age home filled with old houses and museum pieces. Old childless people who are more concerned with their pension and healthcare than they are their children they didn’t have, aren’t remotely interested in fighting for anything because there is nothing worth fighting for…..
Dear Hopeful:
Back in the day, men married because society offered them no other reasonable choice to individuate, unless they were born with a fabulous inheritance (which was a tiny fraction of one percent of the male population).
This is largely hidden today; but, one doesn’t need a history degree to see this in action. Literary characters like Tom Hamilton and Boo Radley illustrate what life was like for unmarried men. One can also peruse the want ads in any newspaper. Even as temporally “close” as the 1960s, the reader will see all the good jobs listed openly as “for married men only”. This includes even service positions, like physicians, druggists, and managers at the local market.
In short, if you weren’t married, you were denied home loans, employment, membership in the Lions/Masons/Kiwanis, and condemned to life in your father or brothers home as a servant, to be seen by outsiders as “that weird uncle” nobody likes, etc.
Even in the exceptional cases, where a man is left a huge fortune by his granddaddy, if he didn’t marry, he was seen as a weirdo, a libertine, and probably gay. He wasn’t taken seriously as a perpetual bachelor and was treated as though he had something wrong with him.
In short, other men compelled men to marry back in the day. Women had very little to do with it. It was always thus, and when shit turns around, it will be other men who drive it again.
MGTOW guys and playas really don’t know how good they’ve got it. I would hate being married, but I’m sure I’d be married if the old rules were back in force, because that’s the only way to get ahead in a traditional society.
Best, Boxer
@Boxer “Puffyjacket, who upthread was talking about the acceptability of sex with 11-year old little kids, writes:”
No. That was clearly a response to what you wrote about the necessary skill set women need to be successful wifes and mothers, regardless of age. I even quoted what I responded to. You literally just created an entire strawman, beat it down, and then ironically enough called me out on creating one. Go back and read what I wrote.
@Boxer “Incidentally, could you name me the jurisdiction, anywhere in North America, that will imprison a 16-year old or his/her partner for having sex? I thought not. No such place exists, provided parties aren’t related, familially or professionally”
There are plenty, in the United States alone. Just wikipedia “Age of Consent”,
@Boxer
“Suggest you read Captain Capitalism’s great books, for more on the importance of a basic education, if you’re still curious.”
I’m actually a huge fan of his blog and have a pretty solid concept of the economics behind the higher education bubble, thank you.
hoell,
She is not a moron. She is making a valid point, a point that you miss at your own peril.
Women vote. Women vote in what is in the best interest of women. If women didn’t vote, there would be no President Obama nor would there be the ACA (a bachelor tax.) If we look at the data and the ages for men and women’s first marriage continues to go up (now at 28 and 26.1, respectively) one could conclude that the marriage strike is working. If it continues to work and the ages trend higher and higher (and that current trend upwards in age is non-linear), women will vote in politicians who will find a way to get resources from men in other ways if they choose NOT to marry them.
That is her point. She is going to get hers one way or the other. If she gets baby rabies (and can’t catch a husband), she will “forget” to take her pill and get pregnant with her boyfriend and send him the bill for 18 years. That IS the LAW. If she can’t get laid, she will buy sperm and find a way to get government (or the sperm donator) to support the child she needed to have. There is already legislation in the works for this to happen.
Feminists are NOT going to change their behavior NOR are they going to give an inch on “threatpoint.” They operate from the cardinal rule that men are abusive and batterers so “threatpoint” is essencial to tame married men into behavingwith their wives, accordingly. But at the same time, feminists know that women are net wealth consumers. They NEED the resources created by men that they ASSUME are all abusive. So every action they take (in government) is all about accomidating the “threatpoint” while at the same time, trying to extract resources from men who refuse to engage in behavior that puts them at risk from “threatpoint.”
Puffyjacket42 writes:
But you can’t name any cases where a 16-year old was imprisoned for having consensual sex? That’s pretty odd. If it’s happening all the time, I’d imagine you’d be able to find an example.
16 year olds consent to sex all over North America, and get married too (with the permission of their parents). Normal adult men don’t find 16-year olds worthy of their time, for the most part, not because of some nonexistent law you insist exists, which never seems to be enforced; but rather because 16-year olds are, for the most part, idiots. None of us wants to hear incessant yapping about the merits of Justin Beiber, or the drama on the varsity football team. We’d rather bang a hot 22-year old who knows how to keep her mouth shut.
Furthermore, your comments about the permissibility of sex with 11-year old little kids, leads me to suspect you’re some sort of feminist looking to stir up some traffic for Man boobz. I’ve never seen your username before, which adds to my suspicions. By all means, keep ranting. It’s cheap entertainment, if nothing else.
Boxer
@Dalrock PR campaign could help a good deal
Yes, but I’ve never met a ‘christian’ that has any concept of the depth of such campaigns. It’s not called PR, but it’s good that most people are unaware of the hidden industries that shift mass thought. Some entities pull the strings, and then armies implement the magic that guarantees the fame of people – the mass acceptance of concepts and ideas. The ones pulling the strings (nope, not referring to what people call ‘elites’) would never waste time trying to rear any ‘christian’ in the world of PR magic. It wouldn’t be worth the investment since ‘christians’ are universally perceived as lazy and generally foolish by the entities that are actually in charge. Since ‘christians’ are afraid to understand that this is a spiritual world, they do not tap into the power of God. That’s too bad.
Everyone should continue to hash out proposed solutions to all of this since it’s the stuff of laughter to the entities in charge. That’s why they fund all the tribes, charades like left-right-other. To them, it’s all pitiful since they can’t believe that ‘christians’ fail to tap into the power they have as explained in Mark Five Thirteen. Don’t take my word for it, I just work here.
@Anonymous Reader “source?” Easiest is Hymowitz’s Knot Yet
http://twentysomethingmarriage.org/summary/
although her figures of 48% aren’t quite correct, e.g. using first births to stand in for all births. We are already well past her crossover point, because the median age of (first!) marriage exceeds the median age of first birth by a full year now. You may also recall from a couple years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?_r=0
Although barely 51% of adults were married in 2011
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/20/no-reversal-in-decline-of-marriage/
the trend of that data is slightly below 50% now (end of 2013). Other data and/or trends agree, but I would have to exert myself to dig them out.
“They are, in fact, adapting very well to the incentives for female power”
Yes, and the “man tax” has already come into being via Obama-care – where young men (the group that least uses healthcare) is on the hook to pay for women – the group that most uses it, and pay for all of the things they use and men do not.
I learned long ago that the deck was stacked against me and proceeded to change the rules of the game in my favor. I have businesses that qualify as minority handicapped owned, and I am neither but it puts money in my pocket. So the more they stack the deck against me, the more I turn it to my advantage while sticking it to them. I doubt I will ever get back as much as I’ve pumped into the “system” over the years, but I’m giving it my best shot.
Men are VERY good at learning how to use a system to their own benefits – so most of them have gone to the grey-market of bartering rather than using money. And the government can’t tax money that never changed hands, or that there is no record of. When those in charge – Congress and the President – game the system (and exempt themselves from the laws), why shouldn’t we?
I see this as part and parcel to my use and enjoyment of women – they distorted the system for their own benefit – so I’ll distort it to benefit me and use women just as they would have liked to use me – it’s just that I’m smarter and better at it. That is what annoys them the most… Hey, WE (men) created the system – we can destroy it and use it to our benefit, and we are doing just that. That is why the women and leeches complain so much – when the money and blood drys up, they can’t suck off of the productive members of society any more. Typical fate of all socialists and communists – you run out of other people’s money…
Dalrock
I think you are mistaking me for the elite, or at least mistaking me for being their advocate.
Nope. But I am increasingly skeptical of the “elite” having any ability to actually solve a real problem. This skepticism sometimes manifests in the form of questioning premises, bluntly. Don’t take it personally, it isn’t intended that way.
My point is until now the premise has been the whole feminist enterprise has been not only cost free, but paid a dividend.
Paid a dividend for some, please note.
Moreover, the inertia from the old system has been very strong. Most Nearly all men still will marry if given the option, and we see this clearly in the data.
Except as I keep pointing out to you, the data you look at is backwards looking. Just because most women at the age of 40 are in the category of “ever been married” it does not mean the same going forward. It means that most women who wanted to get married in 1998 or so got married. Economists routinely use backward looking data to make predictions that turn out to be wrong – shall we discuss the housing bubble, and the legion of economists who totally missed it, for example?
I repeat: what marriage trends were in 2003, 1998, 1993 does not predict what they are in 2013, or will be in 2018, 2023, etc.
To the extent that men’s choices have changed, they seem to have primarily changed by not knocking themselves out in their 20s to signal provider status.
And given the reality of hypergamy, what does that suggest the marriage rate will look like 5 years from now? Does it suggest that the ongoing downturn in marriage outside of the UMC will reverse, or continue, or perhaps even accelerate? C’mon, Dalrock, this is not a purely economic exercise. Women’s mating preferences are no secret here, and it is clear that modern American women would rather remain single than marry “down” for any perception of “down”.
Once the reality of the cost in terms of tax dollars and GNP starts to sink in, the elite will start trying to find a way to bargain their way out of the problem without actually addressing the core changes they have made to our family structure.
Two points: First, the lower class / working class and middle class men most affected by feminist misandry don’t contribute much in the way of taxes. So as far as the elites are concerned, there’s no reason to care.
Second, increasingly it isn’t tax dollars that fund the US government, it is debt.
And increasingly that debt is not held overseas by China, it is being bought by guess who?
So long as the US Dollar is the world reserve currency, this can continue no matter what the tax revenues collected by the IRS look like. What matters is this process outlined here:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/tot_operation_schedule.html
Taxes from most men just don’t matter in the big picture anymore.
Men have remained surprisingly willing to marry even in the most husband hostile states. To the extent that this is inertia it is very likely the same inertia on the flipside will cause very little response to even dramatic improvements in the system.
With regard to inertia, that’s what I’m saying. At the micro level, when a man has had enough contempt from his rude, feminist wife, he’s done and all the tears, bogus promises of “change”, etc. will not move him from his position. He wants to care for any children as best he can, and that’s that.
At the macro level, when a sufficient number of men decide they will never marry, but rather will go their own way – celibate, or player, makes no difference – then all the PR in the world won’t affect them. And at that point, Kay Hymowitz and all the other mule-drivers will really have something to wail about, and it will possibly take the form of demonizing the PUA community.
To the extent that we are seeing an immutable desire by beta men to marry then changes on the margin along with a PR campaign could help a good deal.
You are assuming an immutable desire to marry in 2018 based on data from 1998. The men who married in 1998 were born, what, 27 years earlier, in 1971? So they grew up under Stage 2 feminism, right? The hypothetical men marrying in 2018 were born 30 years earlier, in 1988. Jail for “deadbeat dads” has always been part of their life. VAWA has always been part of their life. They are 23 year old men right now, ignoring the fainter and fainter “signal”. Five years from now, 7 years from now, will they suddenly be more visible to women’s hypergamic nature, or will they be still invisible? And oh yeah, what do they think of women now, and what will they think of women then?
Remember, Monica Lewinsky is a figure from their childhood…
There’s an immutable desire for sex, in men, and some desire for children. Neither of those translates automatically to a desire for marriage, that is a cultural artifact. Want evidence? I point to our black brothers, and what has happened in their community since 1968. It was obvious by 1971 that the black family was being demolished. The same thing is happening to lower class whites.
I’m sorry that this is off-topic and I know the results will not surprise most of the folks on this blog, but I believe we need to share as broadly as we can the results of this Auckland study onj marital happiness. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10524035/Happy-marriage-study-abandoned-as-husband-becomes-depressed.html
Now we evenb have empirical evidence to backup what Dalrock, Rollo and others have been saying for years.
[D: Good find. Vox did a post today on the same study.]
Thanks, Boxer.
I have no knowledge of a 16 year old guy imprisoned for sex, but I do have a nephew who spent several years in prison, and the rest of his life on the child molester list, for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. This was when he was 18. The AOC law here is 16 for girls, but only if the guy is within 24 months of her age. After 18 the age gap restrictions are gone. My nephew was 25 months older than his girlfriend. She testified that the sex was totally consensual, but that made no difference. To the courts and her parents he was a child molester. He did go to prison, and for years not months. Now he is middle aged, long married with two daughters, and is still on the child molester list, and always will be.
I have 6 children, all over 18 now, but I can tell you from witnessing the goings on in middle school for many years that these days that these young sluts in training are fully physically mature, and dress to make sure everyone knows this even from 1000 yards on a rainy day. If you think a man is abnormal for having sexual thoughts about these young harlots, then you know nothing of biology. These 13 and 14 year old girls are signaling they are ready for sex and babies. Society and culture doesn’t stand for it, but they are raring to go. They have the sense of their sexual power and they love it. They are just not as subtle in its use as their older sisters.
@Boxer “But you can’t name any cases where a 16-year old was imprisoned for having consensual sex? That’s pretty odd. If it’s happening all the time, I’d imagine you’d be able to find an example.”
Don’t want to lawyer chop you, but what you originally said was “16 year-old OR his/her partner”. Yes there are places where a man over the age of 25 for example, can be jailed for having sex with his 16-year old partner. It goes without saying that the 16-year old having sex doesn’t get jailed as she’s considered the “innocent victim” under the law.
One example? Sure. In Wisconsin the age of consent is 18 with no close-in-age exception.
@Boxer “Furthermore, your comments about the permissibility of sex with 11-year old little kids, leads me to suspect you’re some sort of feminist looking to stir up some traffic for Man boobz. I’ve never seen your username before, which adds to my suspicions. By all means, keep ranting. It’s cheap entertainment, if nothing else.”
If you’ve read my other comments on this page it should be pretty clear I’m in no way, shape or form a feminist. Yes, I am new commenter. Nowhere during this conversation have I “ranted”. I’ll let others be the judge of whether I’m a feminist plant. Over time you will see that I’m not. I’ve made my arguments in good faith and I would prefer you debate on the merits, rather than constantly trying to AMOG me.
Reliable wife and mother? What’s that? I’ve never seen such a thing. Oh, wait, you must be talking about my grandmother’s generation, or at least, some of them.
@ukfred. thx for the lols. My hooting laughter drew the attention of a couple of my women employees. The funniest part is that the dismal failure of men’s yes-dearing their wives has always been asserted by men, but there is still a reluctance to even try to see if a woman yes-dearing her husband would work.
jf12, the most recent numbers I have seen from the CDC are for 2012, that 40.7% of children were born to unmarried women. Please note that “women under 30” is a subset of all child bearing women, and thus while it is suggestive of future trends it is not the whole picture. I don’t trust any of Hymowitz’s research, to be blunt, because like some female bloggers who claim “Science!” she seems unable to actually understand what she reads.
I don’t think we are “there” yet, but I agree we will be “there” soon. When a majority of marriage-aged men grew up with a single woman as Mom either by babymomma choice or frivorce, I do not expect them to be all that motivated to marry. Because their own, personal, experience will have taught them that marriage is either not necessary to raise children, or actively harmful to fathers.
@Anonymous Reader
I hope you realize I’m merely amplifying your points. Re: “obvious by 1971″. Actually by 1965, with Moynihan’s The Negro Family: The Case for National Action”. See another by Hymowitz, again. She’s zehr hot today.
http://www.city-journal.org/2013/special-issue_welfare.html
I think that most men didn’t create surplus wealth because they enjoyed busting their ass to do so. Rather, they knew that was the price they had to pay to get a woman or a better woman and so they did it.
As Dave Chappelle said, “If a man could fuck a woman in a cardboard box, he wouldn’t buy a house.”
But if you take away the reward for having the “nice house” then men won’t get as nice of a house as they would otherwise. IOW, for most men, the economic surplus was not the reward itself but a means to the end they desired, namely having a better woman and the respect that society offered for being a stable provider and family man.
The MIT professor doesn’t understand why men aren’t responding to the labor market.
It goes to show that many/most men aren’t motivated so much by earning extra money unless it provides the reward of getting one or many women.
So you have to understand what incentives are most valued by most men. And just having money for its own sake isn’t as big of a motivator to most men.
I’ll make this simple, and ask a third time: Give me the name of someone who was arrested (doesn’t even have to be convicted) for having consensual sex with a 16-year old. There should be a blurb in the local paper about it. Since you mentioned Wisconsin, you can start there.
Here’s the news: There is no feminist conspiracy to jail men for having sex with 16-year olds. Speaking for me and my friends, we don’t like 16-year old girls because they’re morons. Most of us probably wouldn’t have sex with a 16-year old girl, no matter how hot she was, even if there was a cash reward for doing so. Marriage to a 16-year old? LOLOLOL! Please. A sentence to prison would be more palatable.
16-year olds *and their partners* don’t get arrested for having sex in Wisconsin, nor anywhere else, unless there is a blood or professional relationship. Provided nobody is banging their brother or sister or teacher or student, it’s really a non-issue.
And, since you keep claiming that I’m quoting you out-of-context, here’s exactly what you typed up:
Again, I fully expect that Manboobz blog would have lampooned this with “DALROCK READERS SUPPORT SEX WITH KIDS” had you kept going. That wouldn’t have bothered me, but I did feel the need to add some perspective.
Regards, Boxer
ukFred, I saw that study last night via Drudge, and larfed out loud as I read it. The best part for me was the wife refusing to report her state of mind by day 12…
“It goes to show that many/most men aren’t motivated so much by earning extra money unless it provides the reward of getting one or many women.
So what’s the real motivator for male professional/economic success–other men providing economic incentive to marry (Boxer), or getting a woman (Han Solo)?
Jeremy, exactly. Hymowitz and other aging, 2nd stage feminists who now want grandchildren still think in terms such as reliable husbands and fathers, the mule-driver / walking ATM model. We are not actual human beings to them, we are objects. Remember when women like Hymowitz used to rant about the “objectification of women”?
it was projection, that’s all. Just projection of their own attitude / mindset about men, onto us, assuming that we were just like them (only defective). I’ll glance over her newer article, but frankly do not expect much. She can’t understand the issues without walking back 40 years of her own history, just for a start.
SSM, now you understand why you will see the utter decimation of the population in the coming years. The elites don’t care a damn about marriage and tax rates and all that. Their plan is total domination of all resources and the work will be done for them by automation with a few blue collar people filling in the gaps. The useful idiots have served their purpose as cheap vote fodder and now will become cannon fodder for the elites in the coming rioting and chaos caused by the scarcity of food, water, electricity and medical care.
I don’t get Dalrock’s whole point that the elites will come around.. they won’t, this is their plan and it’s working to a ‘T’.
Re: state of The Family in general. I think the most revealing statistic would be the percentage of children living in stable nuclear families, whose parents were married prior to any birth and stayed married until the empty nest or death do us part, and how that has changed. Maybe MarcusD could point us in the right direction. I think probably the easiest demographic handle on that statistic would be the percent of 17 yr olds currently living with their still-married parents. I’m going to guess it’s probably 30%. Maybe. If that.
“It sounds like the narrative is, men are motivated to do well professionally, and in life I suppose, from an internal source, but women have derailed this motivation and therefore men have bowed out.”
Yes, replacing God and man with stuff derailed a lot of this. Women are here as a person man can share these experiences with externally….but they would prefer just having the stuff and not the man.
@anon
The greatest gift that redpill/Manosphere ever gave me was the realization that I was thinking/operating under the burden of female expectations of men while being told that my expectations of women were evil.
“MGTOW guys and playas really don’t know how good they’ve got it. I would hate being married, but I’m sure I’d be married if the old rules were back in force, because that’s the only way to get ahead in a traditional society.”
Exactly…I think most men would want to be married if the system was a traditional patriarch. In a matriarchal system…marriage is the last thing any man should consider.
@Boxer “I’ll make this simple, and ask a third time: Give me the name of someone who was arrested (doesn’t even have to be convicted) for having consensual sex with a 16-year old. There should be a blurb in the local paper about it. Since you mentioned Wisconsin, you can start there.”
You originally asked me to “name a jurisdiction” where it can happen. I did. In fact there are many. Can I name a specific example? No. Maybe someone else will. The law is unfair, regardless of how often it is utilized- that’s my underlying point. The threatpoint enough serves as a deterrent.
@Boxer And, since you keep claiming that I’m quoting you out-of-context, here’s exactly what you typed up”
No. I responded specifically to something else you wrote about the necessary skills women need to be successful wifes and mothers. I even quoted what I was responding to so the context should have been clear. As for my earlier comments about jailing a man for marrying an 11-year old, I still stand by them. In that regard, I am no more “sick” then our ancestors that married 13-year olds over a century ago.
“Again, I fully expect that Manboobz blog would have lampooned this with “DALROCK READERS SUPPORT SEX WITH KIDS” had you kept going. That wouldn’t have bothered me, but I did feel the need to add some perspective.”
No one cares what Manboobz thinks. Regardless, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here as this clearly isn’t go anywhere. Moving on…
@FH this is their plan and it’s working to a ‘T’ Yes, exactly. Why? There’s no opposition except that which has been invented by the entities that rule the power of the air. The notion of ‘elites’ is another culture created ‘reality’ (magic trick) played on those that will accept such notions as truth.
Wait what people? Um, the people going round and round about this stuff as if human logic will solve it. The talking points here can be compared to sports (pacifier for adult humans) people waste life watching. It’s simple tribalism, and it’s easier than ever to get people to believe they’re powerless against invented groups of people.
Humans focus on other humans they’ve never met in person. The real battles are invisible. What persons are these ‘elites’ everyone is referring to? I laugh every time a name of someone I know is mentioned. They would tell you they aren’t in control. They’re actually not. The ‘elites’ are not the demons they script makes them out to be. However, the entities that rule the power of the air remain baffled to see ‘christians’ ignore the power depicted in Mark Five Thirteen. Good job. Stay distracted! Keep ignoring it, and keep ignoring existing technologies that are demonstrated for you in IMAX 3D. It’s in a movie, so it can’t be real, right?
So ‘livefearless’, you believe that the bankers are really just doing it ‘for the people’, right? That they’re printing like never before to help you and me and everyone in between…
There are elite people in this society, elite by wealth, intelligence, beauty and power.
“Humans focus on other humans they’ve never met in person. The real battles are invisible.”
Spiritual warfare…and many people are losing badly. That’s why there are elites…they are the ones that know what makes people stupid and are captalizing on human misery. This information was given to them by someone. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was Satan.
Remember Satan knows about human behavior as much as God does….Satan just twists it to lead to a person’s doom.
“So ‘livefearless’, you believe that the bankers are really just doing it ‘for the people’, right? That they’re printing like never before to help you and me and everyone in between…
There are elite people in this society, elite by wealth, intelligence, beauty and power.”
I think he’s saying the that elite are Satan and that humans are the elite.
Dalrock says:
December 18, 2013 at 9:22 am
Regarding your theory that change could come about without major movements in the ‘letter’ of family law…
Theoretically this is indeed very true. Judges already can excercise wide discretion in the custody decision already and can make adjustments to even the formula allocations for child support if they deem it in the best interest of the child. They have even more latitude in the arena of alimony. Yet they routinely choose to perpetuate the injustices toward men. Why? Because it’s easy to campaign against straw men like ‘deadbat’ dads and get women and blue pill conservative men (who think it’ll never happen to them) to support you.
I’d attribute it to a simple case of moral hazard wherein the obvious, near-term benefits are concentrated among the divorce law apparatchiks themselves (judges, attorneys, counselors, bureaucrats) and then to the divorcing women while the benefits are diffuse (and the long term costs of family break-up are either not fully recognized or again, absorbed by society).
@Anon Reader
I’m not taking it personal, it is just tedious to have arguments/statements which I haven’t made challenged as if I had made them. By all means disagree with me, but allow me to agree when we don’t disagree. In the quote above, you respond as if I claimed the elite would be able to solve the problem. I didn’t accuse the elite of competency; I’m making a very different argument. The same goes for me saying to the extent that A is true, B is likely to happen, and to the extent that X is true, Y is going to happen; this is then spun that I claimed X is true. Likewise when I stated that we can’t yet prove what we think is happening with the available data, and you claim I’m using backward looking data to predict the future. Saying the data doesn’t (yet) prove something is happening is something very different than saying the data proves it won’t happen.
From that Institute of Studies and Biscuits paper
““The availability of unbridled power adversely affects the quality of life of those on the receiving end. “
No! Say it ain’t so, Joe.
Does it get called “Temujin’s Law” or something?
hurting
I’d attribute it to a simple case of moral hazard wherein the obvious, near-term benefits are concentrated among the divorce law apparatchiks themselves (judges, attorneys, counselors, bureaucrats) and then to the divorcing women while the benefits are diffuse (and the long term costs of family break-up are either not fully recognized or again, absorbed by society).
I think you mean “costs are diffuse”, and agree with you. So long as the divorce machine continues to make money for participants, it will continue to operate. Men not marrying means fewer marriages to destroy for profit…
Fine, Dalrock, I’ll read more carefully prior to posting. Just bear in mind when examining data, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Also consider a brief look into Rene Thom’s mathematics of complex systems known as “Catastrophe Theory”. Some systems in the natural world have linear inputs and nonlinear outputs, a simple example is the Sigmoid function. And some systems have phase changes that are not immediately reversed.
That’s part of what I’m saying.
Anonymous Reader says:
December 18, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Good catch and correction. Yes, that is what I meant.
I posted the above and stopped at ‘divorcing women’ as the the outer ring of those who benefit near term from divorce and was tempted to add more outside rings of beneficiaries to include, in descending order of benefit: non-divorcing women and alpha men. Technically if all women and a portion of men benefit, it’s not necessarily moral hazard per se as the beneficiary groups comprise the majority of the population. A full cost analysis over the long-term, I think, would defintely show that the benefits are indeed very concentrated to the inner circle and even to a sizable portion of the divorcing women circle, but every succeeding circle would at some point realize a net cost of the current arrangement.
Unfortunately most people don’t think that far ahead.
One of the catholic bishops pointing out the decline in marriage trend.
http://blog.adw.org/2013/12/some-sober-reflection-on-matrimony-sexuality-and-the-family-a-call-to-prayer-for-the-upcoming-synod/
@FH wealth, intelligence, beauty and power Each can be acquired by almost anyone regardless of background or connections. I was 86 lbs overweight. How did I lose that body fat and keep it off without any drug? I sought out and intentionally got to know some elites that I didn’t know and thought I had no access to. They had figured out to get from poverty to getting in shape, becoming handsome and powerful. I’ve continued to learn from them, and they enjoy seeing how their advice has helped me.
Now I know where they get their inspiration to do what they do. Do I agree with everything they do? No. Has knowing them opened doors that have brought influence to change some of what they do? Yes.
Watching from the stadium seat does nothing to change the outcome. It’s easier to change the plays the coach is calling when you’re someone that coach comes to for advice because you’ve proven you can be trusted. Being one of 100,000 people screaming in the stadium keeps the game interesting, but it usually does not change the fixed outcome. The fixed outcome can be changed, it can be delayed and the plays can be adjusted. Why does that matter? Ask Brandon Miree. He’s retired, but #42 can still walk and run despite being critically injured on the field.
How many ‘elites’ have you chosen to get to know? What’s up with Matthew five, forty one anyway? Whoever said those words must be crazy! It’s like, “I mean c’mon, doing some free work for an elite & choosing to spend extra time to make life easier for that ‘elite’ – that’s wayyy outta bounds. I mean, if I did that, I might learn what makes ’em tick, and that’s wrong because I’ve been told they’re bad, bad, bad…” Getting to know these folks leads to getting to know more of them, and eventually they’re open to other truth. They’re open to letting your ideas go viral.
I find John Two intriguing, a Man had the audacity to make high quality alcohol for a bunch of elites for free! How evil of Him to do that for those ‘elite’ people back then. Anyway, that water into wine thing kind of made Him the Life of the party. Word got out…
Who are the ‘bankers’? They all are involved in stuff you can find common ground with them on. Want to shift the fixed plans? Get to know the ones you find most appalling, do something to lighten their load on their journey, learn from them where they get their inspiration from… influence.
@Earl
The judge will not convict, just like the Scottish sobriety Test gets the man arrested?
@Tam the Bam
What triggered my own giggles was “However, more research is needed to see whether our results hold if it is the male who is always right.”
Pingback: #FightFatTalk Sunshine Mary Shines Light on Kelloggs Special K Campaign - LiveFearless
@Dalrock
I predict the elites will reach a more dark and cynical conclusion that there is a surplus of men. Then I think we could see a re-emergence of explicit slavery. While this is unconscionable to mention among nice people, in human history slavery is well-represented as a viable and even noble solution. Freedom is the exception.
Livefearless, do you believe that the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, or basically any central reserve bank around the world, is doing what they’re doing to help people or to steal their wealth by devaluing the currency?I don’t care to know the elites, I just want them to butt out of our lives and leave us alone. That’s what Boers have wanted for over a hundred years.
If you want your elites, you can keep them.
Boxer, how’s this?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/Lovey-R-Love-arrested-587902
Folks, there’s winning and then there’s winning. It’s said so often it’s a truism, but no one on their deathbed wishes that they had spent more time at work. You can accumulate resources, but why burn time doing so if you don’t have to? My son works for what he needs, then spends more time doing what makes him happy (writing books). Starve the system! It’s not like they listen to us, so why support them?
Well, that’s the thing, even in days gone by, the only things the elites needed the common man for was to till the fields, mine the ore and fight in his armies to score him more wealth.
I can’t see either of these things happening, quite frankly. For anything GOOD to happen, would be society (in general) legitimizing that men have been wronged (and something has to happen to make amends) OR (more bad things) that men (as a gender) are not human beings and that they are property of women (ala the movie Planet Earth.)
Uh, no. Neither will happen IMHO.
What I think will happen is women will run to government to elect politicians who will do their d-mndest to make them “whole” at the expense of “the other.” And they will mask this form of legislation as “affordable-blah-blah” and say it is FOR THE CHILDREN. And 50.1% of the voting public will buy-in on this because to NOT do so means you get called a bigot or a racist or a woman hater or whatever. We wont be able to have a critical and logical discussion on whatever it is because no one will be allowed to have that level of understanding before we can vote on it.
The problem exists for women now. As long as men have free agency not marry, the system (although working as it is designed) is starting to break down. That is not “Progress.” We are not rolling back so long as we have leaders whose mottos are FORWARD. That is HOPE AND CHANGE. So they will have to find another way to get what is needed from men and mask it such that just enough men go along with it. That shouldn’t be too hard.
The wrong kind of break a man gets: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/puerto-rican-accused-of-hiring-hitman-to-kill-wealthy-canadian-husband-claims-innocence/article16026807/
@FH Livefearless, do you believe
Like I mentioned, I do not believe that excess body fat, the fat that came over my waist line, the fat on the back of my thighs, that fat that covered up my jawbone or basically any other fat around my body was doing what it was doing to help me or anyone else. It was stealing my future wealth by devaluing my career which was reducing currency earning potential. I don’t care about obesity, I just wanted it to leave my butt and and my life alone. That’s what obese people have wanted for more than a hundred years.
If you want your obesity, you can keep it.
Instead, I followed the Matthew Five 41 principle and got to know some people that had gone from poverty, morbid obesity, not being handsome to enjoy an amazing life of positive influence, with super functional fitness and becoming handsome, or, beautiful.
I don’t drink alcohol, it’s unnecessary, but again, I find John Two intriguing, a Man had the audacity to make high quality alcohol for a bunch of elites for free! How evil of Him to do that for those ‘elite’ people back then. Anyway, that water into wine thing kind of made Him the Life of the party. Word got out…
When Word gets out about you among those that kind of run things, they come to you asking how they can help you do something else you set out to accomplish. They like to be a part of your path to succeeding in doing something GOOD. They like it when you have and excitement or obsession with something they can help make happen. It’s a lot more fun than banking. That’s boring.
You could try to wait another 100 years, but the petro dollar won’t be around much longer.
Sure, whatever, go play with your elites.
Re: progress. From olde timey shotgun weddings, to modern shotgun divorces, to postmodern shotgun … what? Will it really be shotgun courting? “You guys have to man up, stop slacking, cease coasting, get productive, find gumption, get a fire in your belly, and get the girl.”
This whole debate on whether or not we can do anything may be moot.
Free Northerner has a link on his site to a pdf that essentially says that due to demographic trends (the higher your IQ, the greater your chance to gain education in modern society; the more educated you are the fewer children you are likely to have) that (1) the worlds average IQ is in decline and (2) we’re past the tipping point of being able to do anything about it.
The paper predicts an eventual world wide catastrophe and ensuing dark age. Scary to read, but the author does lay out a logical case.
Population Cycle Drives Human History
@Rollo
It takes a village to optimize hypergamy, but more pointedly it takes a shotgun to force men to do things they don’t wanna.
Dear Puffy Jacket:
I have to assume you don’t have any idea what 11-year old girls and boys actually are, then. Let me elaborate, briefly:
acne
flat chests
extreme uncoordination
propensity to get into screaming fights
lack of underarm deodorant
proclivity to throw bubble gum at the kid two desks ahead….
I could elaborate, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Go to any grade 6 class and see for yourself.
I don’t want to bash them. At times they can be sort of endearing in their nerdy, hesitant, obnoxious behavior. We were all 11 once, and I’m sure I was as ridiculous as the next 11-year old. I wasn’t ready to become a grown man and husband, though, and neither were my female classmates ready for marriage.
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I took some time today to try to find any ancestor of mine who married someone 13 years old. As a Mormon dude, I have access to a rather incredible database, going almost back to the mythical adam, at least for the maternal side of my tree.
I do have a fifth grandmother who was married at 15, to a husband who was 17. As a realist, I suspect these two were fucking already. I would bet that their families moved to get them hitched, post haste, so that the extended families weren’t saddled with supporting a bunch of bastard kids. They stayed married until death, so it worked out OK. Everyone else got married between 17-22.
The only guy in contemporary culture I can think of who married a girl of 13 was Jerry Lee Lewis. There was no law against this, though he was roundly mocked and laughed at by damn near everyone. A man who would marry a 13-year old girl is seen as a sort of backwoodsy loser.
Men with options get hot women, not flat chested, screechy teenagers.
Regards, Boxer
@ IBB @ 12/18 @ 2:45PM:
After you finished “mansplaining” the obvious to your coworker, you could have added “but most of all, the reason men don’t want to marry is because most women are dumber thsn dogs..t. How else would one describe someone who laments not being able to marry someone they describe as an “asshole?”
I think that would’ve been worth an HR complaint.
MGTOW have followed the grim trigger strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grim_trigger
But this is a poorly performing strategy, even (or especially!) compared with tit-for-tat or any other kneejerk simpleton strategies. Unfortunately I suppose the appeal to the idea that “this is necessarily underperforming” is unpersuasive to someone who is grimly determined to underperform.
Somewhat more interesting, though, is the question: What was the trigger? 2013 is clearly the year that mgtow were started to be taken seriously because of a sharp uptick in numbers. What happened in 2013 (or 2012 …) to trigger those numbers?
She actually asked me a follow up question today. She wants to know what is more important to men, that she be thin or that she be pretty?
I didn’t touch that one.
“MGTOW have followed the grim trigger strategy.”
All nations fall. Many use Rome as an example. The rise and fall of nations has been documented extensively.
8to12 that is an interesting site / paper, although it gets a bit thin in places. The issue of r/K reproduction strategies is not easy to discuss because it quickly offends modern sensibilities, but it is part of that issue. Cochran’s pop-sci book The 10,000 year explosion brings up some topics along the same lines, as does The Bell Curve from the 1990’s. I do wonder if above average intelligence in humans comes with some sort of self-extinguishing aspect.
Also the link reminds me of Sir John Glubb’s “Fate of Empires” document which can still be found here and there on the web, although his family has had it taken down from a website or two on copyright grounds – so I won’t be posting any links. I was thinking about the decline of the Islamic world earlier today and there are two factors that may be huge – the rise of European naval abilities on the one hand made slave raiding into southern Europe a bit more difficult, but more critically Vasco da Gama found a way to trade with India and China directly, cutting out the Middle Eastern middlemen. Faced with a decline in revenues, the various parts of the North African and MIddle Eastern Moslem empire didn’t adapt very quickly, and slowly tipped into decline. A solid plurality of the US population now depends upon Uncle Sugar’s checkbook. Current trends may make that a majority. All’s well so long as Treasury can peddle its paper…
Arguably the document
LiveFearless, I agree that alpha behavior serves the gospel better as well as suceeding everywhere else.
A major problem with churches today is “while Christians are raising Poindexter, heathen are raising Fonzie. The results are predictible.
Re: Don Riefstahl’s book. If it really is as he says a Christian field guide to the manosphere then I need to get it, being such a newbie myself. Don’s “Wanted” poster made me sniffle. Anyway, Dalrock, thanks for the opportunity for my (renewed) giggling and sniffling. I think I’ve made a couple of good comments already, and I’m just getting warmed up.
Dear Tweell:
Thanks for coming through for Puffy Jacket. Have to agree that it’s a ridiculous charge, given that the perp was invited in and his partner never complained. When I was 16, I was already sexually active, but could never score with a 20something woman in those days, so no police were ever bothered about my bad behavior.
Astute readers have already noted that the girls mom is insisting that charges be pressed, but there is no mention of a father. I’m coming to suspect that many single moms see their daughters as competitors, and this one is likely jealous that her daughter can pull men that won’t look at her. A note to the young bros: Avoid single mothers, and the daughters of single mothers too. You don’t need the hassles.
Best, Boxer
I can’t understand why it is so difficult for the talking heads to understand just how little a single man needs to live comfortably.
It’s funny because most of Western popular culture idolized this fact not long ago, Cowboys, Rambo, Dirty Harry, Kung Fu etc. All a man needed was a rucksack and a square meal for which he was willing to work.
As cultural restraints are eroded and women are allowed to pursue innate drives, so too men will revert to their natural inclinations of rugged independence.
I predict the elites will reach a more dark and cynical conclusion that there is a surplus of men. Then I think we could see a re-emergence of explicit slavery.
Why not war?
“Why not war?”
Great point. With the call to replace the dollar as the worlds reserve currency and communist countries testing our resolve regularly, I personally believe war (a large one) comes next. Any nation that has experienced a recent rise of the middle class will rail against the US. There’s a reason why the US spends more on its military than all other nations combined. It’s called the petrodollar. Wag the dog.
We’ve been at war since Wednesday, September 12, 2001. And we will remain “at war” so long as there is Islam (because a tiny percentage of Islam is Fundamental Islam.) And I’m of the opinion that we might have buried less soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen (collectively) in over 12 years of “war” than we buried in just 12 hours on a beach in Normandy France in early June of 1944.
We do war differently. Ask any veteran here on the Manosphere and he will tell you…. its just different. We are much more technical now. Night vision with full kevlar for our soldiers, robot drones in the air, GPS guided smart bombs, absolutely brutal and lethal for all our enemies, systematic for our military. Moreover, our medical people are brilliant. They are extremely good at saving the lives of our troops (some with horrible things that have happened to their bodies.)
One thing is clear to me, through our war these are our best men. Our best. If the goal is to remove the excess men (and I’m not sure that is any goal for anyone in this country) war may not exactly be the best way to achieve that. We have 12 years of data on this.
“It takes a village to optimize hypergamy, but more pointedly it takes a shotgun to force men to do things they don’t wanna.”
Indeed, jf12, still pondering on the Greatest Mongol Of Them All … it takes a man to burn a village.
“We have 12 years of data on this.”
But we have a couple of centuries that prove that men are expendable. When I say “expendable”, I mean those guys that go off to war to sacrifice their lives and limbs for women and children. Hence the reason we discuss feminism and equality in such stark terms.
BTW, I’m a vet.
jf12 says:
“MGTOW have followed the grim trigger strategy.
But this is a poorly performing strategy, even (or especially!) compared with tit-for-tat or any other kneejerk simpleton strategies. Unfortunately I suppose the appeal to the idea that “this is necessarily underperforming” is unpersuasive to someone who is grimly determined to underperform.”
But it isn’t a “grim trigger strategy” A grim trigger means that as soon as trust is broken one time, the individual reacts punatively and remains in that position regardless of changes in the strategy of the other player
In order for this to be grim trigger the MGTOW people have to:
1) have their trust broken one time
2) Immediately go MGTOW to punish the system
3) The system has to try a different strategy to regain trust, which the MGTOW ignores.
The idea this is grim trigger breaks down at all three levels.
First, I guarantee the MGTOW don’t experience or observe one act of broken trust. The witness it ALL THE TIME. We witness it all time. I submit there is not one person in this country that does not know at least one man that has been screwed over in divorce court, or cheated on or betrayed by the system, cuckold, it doesn’t matter. I submit that if you take any random person from the country that half the men they know have been betrayed.
Second, Men want to believe they will not be betrayed (the bible and observation to the countrary). They want to believe in Love, they want to believe all the bullshit they have been taught. It is only after being burned repeatedly or seen it repeatedly that they MGTOW. It is amazing so many men don’t go actually. It is amazing they don’t become more violent, honestly if it was not for the concept that a hero struggles and suffers, I suspect they would be more violent. Most men see themselves as heroes.
Finally, there has never been an honest attempt by the system or women to right any of the wrongs done by men. The strategy remains the same. Until such time as there is a change, it can not be seen as a grim trigger to react to continuing injustice.
“Why not war?”
The end of WWII brought about a significant increase in birth rates and a major increase in quality of life. Some believe that the period between the end of WWII and 1970 were the most prosperous in American history. Hmmm.
feeriker says:
“but most of all, the reason men don’t want to marry is because most women are dumber thsn dogs.”
If women were as loyal as dogs, it wouldn’t matter.
Most men would destroy the world for a woman that loved him and was loyal.
“It is amazing so many men don’t go actually.”
It takes a great deal of time and pain to swallow the red pill and undo a lifetime of social engineering.
A little late to the party, but as someone pointed out all the “woman owned businesses” are usually just fronts because of the taxes and benefits that come that way.
The sad result though is when she divorces him, the business is “hers” and she runs it into the ground and the guy has to pay child support and no longer has a business to do it. I have seen this happen, as I have seen other shell games like this.
Strangely enough I have had vehement arguments with women about this because they see the loss of his business as “serving him right” for trying to game a system. A system so unjhust, so unholy, so tilted that they have been reduced to these games.
It is like getting mad for someone trying to cheat the house when all the games are rigged to begin with.
“It takes a great deal of time and pain to swallow the red pill and undo a lifetime of social engineering.”
True, but the sands are shifting on the ground. I strangely have hope for the youngest among us (not for western civilization or the travesty that is current christianity).
Orwell said if there is hope it is with the proles, I think if there is hope is among the young men misshappened by current society realizing that if I am to be a monster, so be it.
As for what they elites will do, at some point they debt will be defaulted. It is inevitable sometime in the next twenty years.
Not after assorted games are used that destroy everything first, but it will come and the party will be over.
I fully expect applebee’s tablet experiement to replace waiters will work and will spread, I expect it to spread to all the clerk jobs in the government, you don’t need a woman to process your payment for car tabs, license renews, to register to vote, to pay fines or fees. It will take longer, but a lot of the female jobs at the bottom of governement will disappear in the next ten years.
“I think if there is hope is among the young men misshappened by current society realizing that if I am to be a monster, so be it.”
There’s no shame in opting out of a corrupted system. Those that fight the corruption are not monsters. Instead, stories and songs are written on their behalf. History always judges.
“I fully expect applebee’s tablet experiement to replace waiters will work and will spread, I expect it to spread to all the clerk jobs in the government, …”
Technology replaces people. It will continue to do so. Robot technology is rapidly advancing. The efforts to export jobs to cheaper labor markets and import workers willing to accept lower pay has been going on for decades. Those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
There are other, non-economic, signals.
White boys are nearly absent in college advertising, even though this is not true of real campuses. The constant whining about our supposed suppression of women and minorities makes it clear that white male achievement is an embarrassment; in fact, everybody else would be a lot happier if we would just go away.
The present generation of boys is giving the femcunts what they say they want – to let them have the stressful, unpleasant jobs as managers, lawyers and engineers.
It is also giving them what they want in a different way. They don’t want a reliable, hard-working man if he is also a beta: they want to pick up badboys in bars. Such men don’t need to acquire a demanding education and a mountain of student debt.
The endgame can be seen in Japan, where the men who are too beta to be badboys are “herbivores” who stay at home playing computer games; and many women have given up on sex, and even dating, at least in part because there is not enough alpha cock to go around.
We cannot turn the clock back 60 years. Our civilization has a trajectory that is unstoppable and, noting our falling birth rate, it is a trajectory that leads inevitably to replacement by a more virile culture. Probably that culture will be Latino in the US, and Muslim in Europe. The thing that is surprising is the timescale: on present trends, we have rather less than 100 years left.
@Boxer “I have to assume you don’t have any idea what 11-year old girls and boys actually are, then. Let me elaborate, briefly:”
You need to distinguish between averages and the tails of the distribution. Obviously most look and behave as you just described. But sexual activity and precociousness in teens follows a normal distribution like any other. This may come as a shock to you, but there are no doubt teenagers in the 11-13 age range in this country who have already hit puberty and have been engaging in sexual activity.
It’s a legitimate question: If teens are maturally sexually faster than ever (the evidence clearly suggests this) and a sizeable percentage are having sex at an age younger than 16 (the standard AOC), why are we continuing to raise the legal age of consent. 13 used to be standard, then it was 16, now it is moving towards 18. One can argue in good faith about whether you want to draw the line at 11 or draw it at 18. (Personally I think 13-15 range is a more reasonable realistic AOC and that the criminal charges should be lessened for an infraction.) But I would not be the least bit suprised when a push is made to raise the AOC to 21. Who is the push designed to help?
Not sure how old you are Boxer, but I have to say it’s insane how much more sexualized very young women are then even a decade ago. I say this as a 25 year-old and I remember thinking it was pretty bad as a 15-year old.
“We cannot turn the clock back 60 years. Our civilization has a trajectory that is unstoppable and, noting our falling birth rate, it is a trajectory that leads inevitably to replacement by a more virile culture. Probably that culture will be Latino in the US, and Muslim in Europe. The thing that is surprising is the timescale: on present trends, we have rather less than 100 years left.”
I’m interested to see how China and Russia play into this. Personally, I think both Latin and Muslim communities will be decimated by communists. I think both China and Russia are loving what’s happening in America.
“The thing that is surprising is the timescale: on present trends, we have rather less than 100 years left.”
Relatively speaking, 100 years doesn’t even qualify as a blink of the eye. When one studies all of history, 100 years becomes pretty insignificant. Look at all that has taken place between 1913 and 2013. 100 years is an incredibly insignificant period of time. Massive changes can take place in such a short period. Talk to people that are in their 80s if you don’t believe me. They’ll explain it to you.
@Boxer “Men with options get hot women, not flat chested, screechy teenagers.”
Clearly. I’m also not arguing that men should pursue 11-year olds. I’m grappling with the question of whether it’s morally right to toss men in jail for having sex with young, but sexually mature women by historical standards (already at menarche, and for some, possibly a year or two past by that date).
I shouldn’t have to say it, but just for the record I have no interest in women in that age range. But individual preferences are irrelevant to the fundamental moral question here.
“Why not war?”
Why war?
Anyone who signs up to fight so some corporate billionaires can become trillionaires is the worst type of fool. That is why not war.
”A little late to the party, but as someone pointed out all the “woman owned businesses” are usually just fronts because of the taxes and benefits that come that way.”
Any stats on that?
“I’m grappling with the question of whether it’s morally right to toss men in jail for having sex with young, but sexually mature women by historical standards (already at menarche, and for some, possibly a year or two past by that date).”
There’s a reason why we protect the young from adult issues. We want them to have a period of time in their lives that is free from adult insanity. There’s no reason whatsoever to break this tradition. As time progresses, more and more women will become pedophiles. We already see this happening. It is the responsibility of all adults to protect children from the harm adults do. Those that break this tradition will always be deemed the lowest of low (even amongst murderers).
It is good that we don’t want children to witness the dysfunction of adults. Why? They’re naive and gullible. Don’t take that from them until they’re ready to deal with it. If a child feels that he/she is ready to indulge at too young an age, it is the responsibility of the adult not to take advantage of that misguided, opportunistic moment.
“The only guy in contemporary culture I can think of who married a girl of 13 was Jerry Lee Lewis. There was no law against this, though he was roundly mocked and laughed at by damn near everyone. A man who would marry a 13-year old girl is seen as a sort of backwoodsy loser. ”
She was 14, and his cousin. If any man, what to speak of one old enough to be a great grandfather, so much as looked sideways at my 11 year old daughter, he wouldn’t live to see the next day.
“Opening another new gourmet baked-cat-treats store or another new concierge-shopping-assistant business is NOT the same as creating actual new wealth for society.”
Its small scale. We need to get back to small communities, local business and slow food. I can tell you that today’s generation of young people aren’t buying into the big is better hype. That’s one of the reasons they are turning their back on the American dream/nightmare. This generation just isn’t as materialistic as their now 40 something predecessors. They’d rather upcycle last years Christmas gifts than buy new ones. And that’s precisely what we all should be doing.
@ InnocentBystanderBoston https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/progress/#comment-102288
What you’re witnessing here with these women is an extension of holding a different philosophical first principle. Let’s look at the asker’s final statement because it’s a goldmine of information.
      “Well, look not all guys are @ssholes, just most of them. “
Hamsterlation: All guys I am sexually attracted to are assholes, though I recognize the existence of men whom I find sexually repulsive.
      “And I beleive in no-fault-divorce…”
Hamsterlation: A woman must be able to divorce a man willy nilly so that she can marry the abuser she’s attracted to rather than making an intelligent decision.
      “…so… guys are just going to have to come around and marry us anyway or…”
Hamsterlation: Therefore the aforementioned abusive men I find attractive must meet my demands to have a relationship with me where I have all the power.
Lastly, in response to your final prod of: “Or what?”
      “or…. I don’t know.”
Hamsterlation: Or else I will unleash my instinct to use the power of the state or social pressure to force said men into marrying me, but I cannot admit to this in polite company.
The “or…” part statement is quite telling. All men recognize this as a variation of “OR ELSE”, perhaps the gold standard indication of a threat. This woman who questioned about where the good men are didn’t like the answer that she had to give up hand in a relationship because the average man views women as having too much destructive potential. She is trapped, whether she realizes it or not. She knows what she’s doing isn’t working for her, but doesn’t have the social sanction to actively force herself on men. Red Pill wisdom teaches us that even if she did, she would soon tire of said man that she would have conquered by force.
This trap isn’t a cultural one that can be solved by pushing forward, trying to control others. It’s made of human nature. Our job as people is to sort out which parts of human nature are good for us, and which are bad for us.
“She actually asked me a follow up question today. She wants to know what is more important to men, that she be thin or that she be pretty?
I didn’t touch that one.”
Ouch! You were wise to skirt that issue. How’d you get out of answering? It depends on the man. Some men have zero tolerance for butterfaces (but her face) would rather a pretty face to gaze at and can overlook the body, while for others the body is of upmost importance. It really varies so to cover all bases she could work on both her face and her body. There was some study that showed for long term the face is more important and for short term the body. Don’t know how “true” that would be because studies like that are often too small to draw any absolute conclusions, but for what its worth, its out there.
Re: Obamacare and men:
http://twitchy.com/2013/12/18/twitter-gold-the-obama-pajamaboy-selfie-and-other-must-see-mash-ups-and-memes-photoshops/
As for forcing/coercing men to marry, I predict a return of the Order of the White Feather (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather#World_War_I)
I’m sorry that this is off-topic and I know the results will not surprise most of the folks on this blog, but I believe we need to share as broadly as we can the results of this Auckland study onj marital happiness.
I don’t want to bash the “study,” but that really isn’t a study. It’s a failed study based on one couple and another person. To be meaningful there would have to be a few hundred couples (then that would really shake things up).
“Astute readers have already noted that the girls mom is insisting that charges be pressed, but there is no mention of a father. I’m coming to suspect that many single moms see their daughters as competitors, and this one is likely jealous that her daughter can pull men that won’t look at her.”
Might be missing something but if you’re referring to the 60 year old geezer, no mother of an 11 year old wants one. Unless she was one of those rare women who had her in her late 40s/early 50s, but even that’s pushing it.
Its clearly a case of pedophilia and as a parent myself would definitely hurt, and might go so far as to kill any man that came sniffing around my pre-pubescent to pubescent little girl, no doubt about it. That’s parental instinct, not any sort of “jealousy”.
“That is just it, they don’t know, and they don’t care. They are going to get theirs no matter what and it will happen somehow.”
Hopefully, you now understand why American society is collapsing. Women want what they want when they want it. It is up to men to give them what they want when they want it. If men don’t subscribe to women’s wants, needs, desires or beliefs, then all of society will suffer. This is why men should seriously consider jacking off with razor blades prior to getting married. The razor blades will hurt less.
Marcus, as for white feather; a bribe or a threat must have some credibility to work. As more and more men realize that we are not going to get sex or even approval from most of the women we want, where is her power? To use an extreme example, if Kate Beckinsale called me on the phone and said she would give me a week of wild sex if I would go fight a bear bare handed and be displeased if I did not, I aint doing it. Because bear or no bear she is NOT coming to my house.
Historically the courage of men has been directly proportional to the loyalty of women.
“As for forcing/coercing men to marry, I predict a return of the Order of the White Feather”
The White Feather – The ultimate in emasculation and male shaming. “If you don’t man up/suck up, then you’re not a man.” However, if you reject your normative female role, expect men to be women, displace men in the workforce and cuckold your husband, then you’re just showing that you are equal to or better than, stronger than, smarter than and more independent than any man. That is, until there’s a major war. There are painfully few feminists in foxholes. Wonder why that is?
Begin: History of Women in the American Military
Get sick or develop an illness to claim a lifetime pension and free healthcare (paid for by men).
If a man touches you, claim rape. You get to claim a lifetime pension and free healthcare.
Demand positions where you can be in charge of a lot of men. You’ll get a lot of D!CK thanks to your rank.
End: History of Women in the American Military
Historically the courage of men has been directly proportional to the loyalty of women.
This is where I think many men make a large mistake.
There is no such thing as loyalty from women.
Women are attracted to you in proportion to how many resources they think they can obtain from you…but loyalty must be enforced.
If a father wants to keep his daughter pure, he has to isolate her until marriage.
It’s the reason chastity belts were invented.
If a woman with children can’t do any better economically on her own, she will stay with either the father, or find a beta husband to support her and the children. Once she gets guaranteed state sanctioned or enforced aid, she frivorces and/or cheats as much as possible. As evidenced by today’s marriage stats.
There is no expectation of chastity from girls without strong father protection, and slut shaming, along with shaming women bearing children out of wedlock. If you take all that away, as we have today, what will women do? They could care less about any future husband, or what he might want in a wife.
So men need to get that in their heads. There is no such thing as loyalty from women. The best you can hope for is rented allegiance.
Oh and, don’t let the older women who have long since hit the wall and have no chance of improving their current situation fool you. They are not loyal. They simply have very few options.
8to12
I read the paper, thanks for posting. The Iq litmus of the paper seems extremely logical. btw, have you seen the movie idiocracy?
@8to12 (December 18, 2013 at 3:58 pm)
I’ve read much of the same, though mainly via Jaymans blog (http://jaymans.wordpress.com/). The irony that he notes is that liberalism/feminism/etc will guarantee its own destruction by not producing enough new liberals/feminists/etc (rather, aborting them). (That is his concern.) He notes also that conservatives, while generally more fertile, also see a decline due to creeping feminism, but also stigma directed towards (large-ish) families.
It is well beyond my ability to summarize all of his points over many years, and thus I will simply recommend his blog.
@IBB
She wants to know what is more important to men, that she be thin or that she be pretty?
Well, I think it would be prettiness, since that would likely include thinness as a constituent quality.
For those interested in reading the first part of “The Fate of Empires”: http://32-72.hostmonster.com/Public/Miscellaneous/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf
Some interesting commentary (points #1 and #2 on page 3 are relevant to our discussion here): http://www.lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticspdf/The%20Life%20Cycle%20of%20Empires%20and%20America%20040904%202nd%20draft%2008.pdf
And: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/14/john-bagot-glubb/
Most men would destroy the world for a woman that loved him and was loyal.
That might explain the harems of the great conquerors.
(Slightly kidding about causation.)
Anonymous Reader says:
December 18, 2013 at 11:06 am
>>Except as I keep pointing out to you, the data you look at is backwards looking. Just because most women at the age of 40 are in the category of “ever been married” it does not mean the same going forward. It means that most women who wanted to get married in 1998 or so got married.
AR nails it. Dalrock is by far the best blogger on the manosphere. But, he does not understand math very well. He thinks he does, then said one cannot apply calculus principles to human beings. If you can graph something, you can analyze it with calculus, and most of his blogs involve graphs. You don’t have to wait until 2028 to see what the reduced marriage rates will produce.
Here for the zillionth time are the marriage rates. One cannot change the rates of any formula without changing the results:
1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
2009 36 (UVA 2010; project moved from Rutgers)
2010 32.9 State of our unions data
2011 31.1 (http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/family_profiles/file131529.pdf)
Yet, today’s graphs are based on what happened up to 15 years ago. Even Dalrock’s own graphs have shown the beginning of dramatic change in number of people married.
Calculus allows you to predict the track of any value if you know where it is; how fast it is going; and what acceleration forces (rate changes) are applied to it. And, if the rates change, calculus will also allow you to change to follow those changes.
Just for the record, I think first menstruation is called menarche, not menache.
innocentbystanderboston says:
December 18, 2013 at 4:33 pm
>>She actually asked me a follow up question today. She wants to know what is more important to men, that she be thin or that she be pretty?
>>I didn’t touch that one.
I would have. To be sane comes first. A totally sane 6 will marry before a pretty 8 who is not sane. And, “pretty fat woman” is an oxymoron.
Historically the courage of men has been directly proportional to the loyalty of women.
Funny you should say that. I recall a post from Slumlord relating to that: http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2013/06/herman-is-hottie-whilst-dagfin-is-dud.html
I’ve noticed a few comments getting cut off at a seemingly random point. One of Deti’s comments and one of AR’s. Anyone else notice that?
Msgr. Charles Pope is a monsignor, not a bishop. Still, seeing a priest who is (I presume) close to a bishop make such points publicly is a bit of welcome news. The first step toward recovery is recognizing there is a problem.
Alas, I have little reason to hope that the bishop of the Diocese of Washington (District of Colombia and occupied portions of Maryland) is about to speak publicly from the pulpit on such matters anytime soon. Sigh.
Thanks for the link, Earl.
Very interesting discussions, especially regarding the loyalty of women, and how men view that loyalty. I am free to suppose some women are reading. Once again men are to women as women are to children; the woman is bone of his bone, like the child is bone of her bone.
Re White Feather. I would bet it is because chicken was idiomatic for cowardice.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=chicken
Agreed. To a first approximation, females collectively are net tax eaters. And females generally are not only not as ambitious as men they’re quicker to drop out of the workforce entirely if their job isn’t pleasant. When females feel the pain of income taxes on their employment income, many of them (if not most) will decide to reduce their work hours and all that lovely income the Welfare Statists were expecting to grab just won’t be there. (Live by the progressive income tax, die by the progressive income tax.)
That’s a perceptive observation. The common man isn’t recruited to be a talking head.
So now we’re back to Dalrock’s question for the tax eaters: Whom shall we tax?
@Ras Al Ghul
For one thing you’re taking the analogy too finely. It is NOT the case that in this application that the straw that breaks the camel’s back be the very first straw: a trespassing of any thresholding operation suffices to be a trigger. For another thing you’re not taking mgtow at their own word: the whole idea is not that they’ve merely given up on hoping women might change but that they have decided it cannot matter to them even if some women do try to change. The decision to take your ball and go home has to be irrevocable or else it has no value.
The usual recycling of the usual material by someone who follows the Catholic Hipster trends: http://catholicgentleman.net/2013/12/17/get-married-young-man-dating-to-marry/
What’s new?
deti said There are ways to handle that. Most of the time, men are told to “settle, resolve everything, you’re going to lose on the merits anyway”.
Most men in this situation are primary breadwinners with wives who are either SAHMs or earn far less. These guys are royally screwed anyway. They might as well go down swinging.
Yep, exactly. Perhaps another appropriately euphemistic name for “dread game” is “murder/suicide game” (figuratively speaking, of course).
I have, on several past occasions when she has made threats about it, warned my wife that if she ever moves toward divorce, her husband will be the first to walk away – from his home, his job, his commitments, and everything else that provides her with a middle class lifestyle (she does not work, has not worked in years, and has few marketable skills). She will get no cash and prizes, because her husband will no longer have a job that provides them. She won’t keep the house because the mortgage won’t be paid and it will be foreclosed on. She won’t be able to pay her outstanding household debt either for the same reason she won’t get cash and prizes or keep the house. Her husband, meanwhile, will be voluntarily homeless, probably camping out in the wild somewhere in another state or in jail for contempt of family court. Any way it plays out, she gains NOTHING and loses EVERYTHING. If she takes her husband down, he takes her down with him.
Ladies, for those of you not familiar with the term, grab a dictionary or go to Google and look up “pyrrhic victory.”
Worth mentioning: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-rules-parts-of-utah-anti-polygamy-law-unconstitutional/
“Historically the courage of men has been directly proportional to the loyalty of women.
Funny you should say that. I recall a post from Slumlord relating to that: http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2013/06/herman-is-hottie-whilst-dagfin-is-dud.html”
That post is the usual tradcon nonsense. He proposes that the Danish army should have hurled itself into bloody slaughter in a completely and predictably futile attempt to stop the German invasion in 1940 so as to make the few surviving Danish betas seem sufficiently sexy in the eyes of Danish women. Because, you know, beta blood is utterly worthless, therefore it’s right to shed it for the victory of the Feminine Imperative.
You know what? The Danes did exactly the right thing by giving up the fight in 1940, just as the French did the right thing by surrendering after the bulk of their mechanized forces was encircled and neutralized by the Germans in Belgium. The Poles, on the other hand, did as stupid white knight betas normally do and ended up getting massacred in a hopeless, pointless defensive war in 1939. The reason I say this is that women have no sense of loyalty – they always side with the winner males at the drop of the hat. The average Danish/French beta soldier boy in 1940 knew perfectly well that any resistance against the Germans is futile, so he normally surrendered. Did he have any other rational option that ensures his survival? What else was he supposed to do? Get himself killed pointlessly so that he gets a nice tombstone, his female relatives throw themselves into the arms of the victorious enemy, and decades later his sacrifice will be honored by some memorial where politicans annually gather to act as if they are actually paying their respects?
Defy the Feminine Imperative if you want to live! That should be the motto of every beta dude.
Hollenhund2
It gets worse, my teenage Grandfather carried on a relationship with a German bird while he was held in a concentration camp (Dachau) as laborers were used outside the camps to repair infrastructure and mingled with the locals.
So while Herman the Aryan super soldier was fighting for the father land on the Eastern front his girlfriend was banging a prisoner of war. Go figure.
@boxer
Stop picking on fluffyjacket. Your “proof” that men aren’t breaking the law because they don’t want to break the law, is laughable. You really believe that the threat of jail has nothing to do with it. Try to catch the point being made instead of picking apart little details and bulldozing your way through.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/17/should-plural-marriage-be-legal?smid=fb-share
Well well well…
” .. expect applebee’s tablet experiment to replace waiters will work and will spread, I expect it to spread to all the clerk jobs in the government ..”
Great. Because they’ll have to re-hire them to sit in all the restaurants and such to make them look busy.
(Justifies the volume of money being laundered through the tills in urban cash businesses, and the revenue don’t mind, as long as they get their cut. The crimelords accept the (fierce) haircut as just another cost of doing business with the gubmint. Who will eventually get greedy and force them to all go creditcard > mass closure of ethnic eateries, hairdressers, nailbars, auto shops, tailors, cellphone places > commercial property takes a bit of a bath etc.).
“Most men would destroy the world for a woman that loved him and was loyal.”
The flip side is that most men would also destroy the world if no women loved him or was loyal.
Get to destroying because women can neither love or be loyal.
Most men don’t have the brass to break the law.
I’ll make this simple, and ask a third time: Give me the name of someone who was arrested (doesn’t even have to be convicted) for having consensual sex with a 16-year old. There should be a blurb in the local paper about it. Since you mentioned Wisconsin, you can start there.
I won’t give the name because he is the nephew of a close personal friend, but in Pennsylvania there is a a young man who just recently did six years for statutory rape even though it was consensual, and she was pregnant with a different man’s child at the time of his trial.
“The average Danish/French beta soldier boy in 1940 knew perfectly well that any resistance against the Germans is futile, so he normally surrendered. Did he have any other rational option that ensures his survival? ”
Danish ex-neighbor of mine (we were propping up the bar round the corner delaying a return to our respective shrews and just talking about any old thing) told me that some of his family found their Slesvig farms invaded and “occupied” by Wehrmacht troops recruited, as luck would have it, from just over the border. They were very careful not to break anything, and wipe their Knobelbecher before coming in.
And when the tide turned, the farmers ended up getting PoW labourers, so they managed to swing it so that some of those “German” boys who also happened to be actual cousins of various sorts lodged with them on the farm for the duration of the postwar cleanup, as long as they guaranteed their good behavior.
Treble snaps/akvavit all round!
The world is a passing strange place, my masters.
“Get to destroying because women can neither love or be loyal.
Most men don’t have the brass to break the law.”
Who said anything about breaking the law? You can also destroy your inner world just as well.
If men weren’t duped about women…you can bet they would life life a lot differently.
I was watching this music video…a pretty good sci fi example of what happens when you live blue pill most of your life and the end is what finally happens when you accept the red pill. Plus I like AIC.
“Most men would destroy the world for a woman that loved him and was loyal.”
No, it’s the other way round. Women offer their love and loyalty (to the extent they ever do) to the men who destroy the world.
Hee, hee, what can I say?
Dalrock – OT but if you haven’t happened across it by other means here’s some red meat to share with the gallery:
http://www.earnthenecklace.com/what-my-sugar-daddy-did-to-change-my-mind-about-having-kids-with-my-husband-part-1/
The OP is very interesting and I’ve been tempted to chime in but holiday + working on another project. That said, as I’ve said before folks, “warp and woof”, yin and yang, up and down, right and left, the number pi and the fundamental secret of the universe:
sine wave
So pillory me if you must but I can see evidence all over the manosphere you are all thinking about it.
Yes, there is individual.
and yes, there is collective.
There is the man and there is the tribe. The man owes something to the tribe and the tribe owes something to the man.
“Strike” against marriage, or MGTOW if you must, but do it to reform the tribe, not to repudiate its existence. Stop being manicheans and accusing everyone who notices the conspicuous existence of the society of being a communist and notice that the exercise of Dalrock, SSM and AVfM is one of society, not individuation, nor even of capital. And while your at it, actually trouble yourself to read The Communist Manifesto so you know what you’re talking about. Reading comprehension tip when you read the Manifesto: bourgeouis means “capitalist” and “capitalist” means you’ve got so much money you don’t need to work and that means you, reader, are not one.
Think about that when you talk about “elites” and the “thumb tack” model and all the ways the Texan economy is eerily similar to Mexico’s and when you feel the inner chill of “there but for the grace of God…”. Think about it when you listen to Stardusk’s latest on collectivism and when you think about his observation that women seem less connected to the collective than men, think then about Ayn Rand who too many of you read before and without reading Adam Smith. And when you read the Communist Manifesto for the first time after having opined about Marxism all these decades, consider that “free trade” as Marx uses the term is really a “free market” in modern parlance and then try, really hard, to understand what Eucken understood when crafting the modern German economy:
Yes, free market is a thing, but it really means that capitalists don’t just own their capital, it means they own the marketplace too.
There is another thing and much is done to prevent you from understanding it: there is the public market. The public market is what happens when people realize the capitalists may have a right to their capital, but not to your market. The public market, a thing, different from the free market, is also different from communism.
Right behind me will be someone to tell you to keep your manichean sunshades on, and if that doesn’t work, they’ll try whipping up your tribal instincts so you stay distracted. It’s the thumbtack friends, and it is the one way to make that thumbtack turn back into a sine wavying fat centered gyroscope and all manner of forces are arrayed to prevent you from understanding it, including your own inertia that keeps you from actually READING the Manifesto and the Wealth of Nations.
About the public market: make the capitalists pay for entry. Decide we’re in it together and use your collective power to demand capitalists pay fare for entry to the market.
If you are a worker, you shall not eat if you do not work.
If you are a capital holder, you shall not eat if you do not spread the wealth. Keep your capital if you must but leave because if you do not spread it, it is worse than useless.
Man and tribe.
Individual and collective.
They want to keep you automatons, you are weaker that way. They want to keep you riled up about other tribes, you are weaker that way.
Listen to Stardusk’s latest on Youtube then ask yourself if we should take our cues from a basement dwelling single childless adult gamer who is clear on female prurient weaknesses but deaf to men’s, or to productive taxpaying fathers hard at work on adult formation of the next generation and vested in our common, collective future.
Thank you for sitting us poor unwashed dummies straight on so much important.
Re: personal progress. I have been ruminating (no major methane production yet) on women’s loyalty, and although I will not be shining my hobnailed boots of destruction anytime soon,that ruminating prompts me to hereby disavow a previous belief I once held dear: I had considered the true measure of a man qua man to be his capacity for taking unwarranted guff from women qua women. I had promulgated the manbot concept, in which men exist to service women, for which I now apologize. Presumably this disavowal is the major component of becoming unplugged.
So now what? Alpha-up to become a man whom women service? Or give-up? To be, or not to be? Methane to be forthcoming, no doubt.
bluedog, stop.
@hoellenhund2
That post is the usual tradcon nonsense.
My point in linking that post was as a demonstration of what you said – “they always side with the winner males at the drop of the hat” (though, slightly more relevant than just that).
stupid white knight betas normally do and ended up getting massacred in a hopeless, pointless defensive war in 1939
They did conduct a cavalry charge against a line of German panzers, so I think we have to give credit where credit is due. It was suicidal, undoubtedly, but still courageous in my mind.
Balancing a man’s need with those of his clan cannot be achieved in massive multi ethnic nation states.
Dear Bluedog:
Setting aside Anonymous age 71’s nonsense (he claims to be the translator of Marx’s corpus, but doesn’t know what Marx wrote, ya know), please see inside text:
A better definition of the bourgeois, in its original context, means “bought off”. Most of the bourgeois weren’t rich. Their critical instincts have just been sublimated due to structural forces.
Example: Most of the guys who kept mistresses back in the day (the sort of “bourgeois marriages” Marx pointed to as decadent and trashy) weren’t fabulously wealthy, and these fellows didn’t usually own a direct share in the means of production. Most of them were part of the manager class, and their “bourgeois marriages” were a part of their enslavement. When you are dependent upon capital to keep your harem, you make sure to toe the line at your job and you don’t make waves. It is this conformity that makes a man bourgeois.
As the funny old refrain from the 1940s goes: “the working class can kiss my ass, I’ve got the foreman’s job”.
LOL! I wondered when this would come out. Rand was an idealist but she was also a Marxian revisionist. All her pie-in-the-sky freedom-without-responsibility stuff she learned in Leningrad where she grew up in the pioneer camp. Most of these guys don’t bother to read her any more than they read Marx.
One more little thing: It’s capital, in Marx, that’s the issue. His book is called Das Kapital, rather than Der Kapitalismus. Capitalists are merely guys like us, who are responding to forces to make the best lives they can make in present circumstances. If you’re a Marxist, you should realize that these guys aren’t your personal enemies.
Capital distorts, and it ain’t personal. It’s just the way things go. Unfortunately, Marx’s prescriptions for cleansing our consciousness largely turned out to be wrong, but there’s much to learn in there. If you have the time and patience (my god this crap is boring) read Althusser’s book *Reading Capital* and then read an abridged version of Capital, with liner notes.
Best, Boxer
“Who is sticking the genie back in the bottle?”
I Am.
That’s why I work out here. There’s one place on earth the ‘genie’ has chosen to control the whole world from, to control lives from… And for a century, that place has been here in the Los Angeles area. You want to push the genie back into the bottle? Go where the genie stays and tap into the only source that the genie will listen to. Seems no one else here has chosen to figure out the obvious. The ones doing the work of the genie can change, and they want sincere friends, but who reaches out to them to be that without expecting anything from them? I do. That dude that died a twenty centuries ago explained it, and it’s weird nobody else is out here.
“Whom shall we tax?”
It’s already beyond that. It’s unfortunate that the majority do not know that most of life in the states is a life where you’re fed pacifiers all day all night. Most jobs people have in the U S are funded to pacify people until some weird stuff happens. I have nothing to do with any of that, and if I tried to explain it you wouldn’t believe it anyway.
‘They’ will blame it on groups that some people believe exist, but those groups do not exist. As I have written before even in this thread, we hire thousands of people not in the U S each year, and we’ve proven that most jobs in the U S can easily be outsourced or automated. So the whole notion of having more workers because of a need for a larger tax base is nonsense considering that most working jobs are a massive expense! Do you really think it’s all about profit? It’s not anymore. It’s about pacifying until the time comes. It’s about affecting everything about life including DNA. When you sip your coffee or water or tea or cola or milk or juice or _______ remember that it has been affected in ways that are changing the building blocks of what makes you human. It’s the same with food.
Federal income Tax dollars pay for nothing inside the lower 48 states. That’s an illusion, and your sports, your entertainment of all kinds, everything you can think of including the machine that feeds your screen … The one in your hand, the one on the wall… Every song that’s popular, everything published that’s popular, every chunk of vomit taught in education (which teachers do not have much choice about what they’re teaching) – even the soap and shampoo and products you consume when your sipping liquid or eating food. Nothing that’s popular is untouched by what I’ve called “the script” …
At great risk, in this comment section, I’ve tried to explain in words that (Life in the U S) is like a collective “The Truman Show” – it’s fine for you as long as everything funded to pacify the folks in the U S keep coming.
As for the ‘elites’ not many are ‘evil’ since they are collectively stuck. I’ve written at length about Miley Cyrus not having any freedom to make any decision on anything you’ve been told she chose to do. Every word is scripted, every photo is staged including those and the videos of others on TMZ – nothing appears on there without purpose already planned and approved by the magicians. The performances on stage are planned and choreographed with thousands of people, and when Sinead O’Connor supposedly wrote the open letter to Miley Cyrus, did you or the person that mentioned it to you really believe that wasn’t written by some of the most inspired screenwriters? The world is a stage and on that stage some mind altering stuff has been planned but not by the elites and bankers you call evil. It depends on what they’re taking orders from. They are like Miley Cyrus, they have almost no free will. They take orders from something beyond that, and there’s a leverage over them most people would not believe if it were revealed to you. They say a lot of the bankers have committed suicide, and when you hear that understand that stuff happens to them if they attempt to depart from the forced script. They have orders and they cannot swerve away from them. Like Miley Cyrus, they are actors that are the walking flesh, but there are some others inside.
Remember the movie “Ghost” with the one used as the ultimate cougar narrative icon Demi Moore? Patrick Swayze was the ghost but of course when you see a ghost it’s not the person you think it is, it’s an imitator that knows enough to make you think it’s that person. In “Ghost” which also starred Whoopi Goldberg, remember how the villain died? A ghost caused his death. Of course the movie fed the fantasy that dead people are here watching over us. Dead people aren’t doing anything right now. Think you communicated with your dead relative? You communicated with something else. Since it is assumed that people on this site say they are ‘Christians’ try to understand that you’re surrounded by ‘ghosts’ (not former humans) at all times. Those ghosts that serve the one that’s running the world, the ruler of the air, they’re are afraid of what you’re supposed to have a relationship with if you are as you say, a ‘Christian’ – but how many understand that all of this animosity toward people says there’s no understanding of what they think they’re fighting.
If one if these people you call ‘evil’ loses the position of power and influence, do you not realize that the ones inside that person will just find another person to work magic through?
So you’ve been given James Taranto (not to be confused with Quentin Tarantino, writer/director/producer that has let some amazing works of art be channeled through him to the big screen). You feel he’s on your side since he wrote some logical stuff that agrees with your feelings. He’s a pacifier, like a nice baby-sitter for you that is brave enough to tell your parents that interrupting you to take out the trash breaks your concentration… And that’s why you didn’t get an A in (teacher spouting boring nonsense) class.
Scripts like those from Taranto are the soothing break from feeling you’ve no control. Just when you’re about to sell the car that’s paid for so you can fund a “PR” campaign to force that official to understand why he/she is wrong and change course, you get James Taranto.
The woman that actually felt “Fireproof” is good for the health of ‘Christian’ marriage that’s on the verge of going Jenny Erikson on her marriage, she was frustrated that no Christian man was saying what she feels. She’s gained weight, she’s had an affair her husband doesn’t know about (what he doesn’t know won’t hurt him-she’s convinced herself), but she’s about to make-A-scene that she can’t find a man to agree that the one porn photo of that 30 year old stranger in his computer is cheating. She’s been given a pacifier in the Matt Walsh. Matt Walsh was given an offer in exchange for his soul. Yes, literally. He took the offer.
But since this all appears to be just how things happen so you go round and round discussing it. That’s the purpose. It sucks your most precious resource: Time. It sucks life from you in this life , keeping you from opening your eyes to see the invisible armies surrounding you. They’re counting on you not knowing the power you have if you are as you claim. But, don’t take my word for it. I see the magic happening everywhere all of the time. I know what it is and I am aware of the source of it.
The people carrying out the intentions of what rules the air are just following orders, sometimes they person inside is on hold while they do whatever they’re doing.
You want to change things, understand the power you have and ASK. Then when you’re given power believe it is there and take action.
The elites and the bankers have some free will. And just calling them evil is flawed. You say you’re a ‘Christian’ yet the ones you call evil are never amazed by people that call themselves ‘Christians’ because ‘Christians’ avoid them – keep avoiding them if you want things to keep spinning out of control. Or, make friends with them. That’s what those scriptures say you’re supposed to do. Works for me in this life and work out here, but what do I know, I just work here.
Speaking of Marxism, one of my frequented sites: http://thepeoplescube.com/
Slightly veering OT, game theory on HUS.
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/12/18/hookinguprealities/sexual-attraction-game-theory
I disagree with Shepard’s third escalation of signals of attraction
“3. Signs of nervousness and being speechless.”
Although many men are aw-shucks shoes-starers, this is NOT a technique, nor do any women do this, especially to men they are attracted to. For men that women wish to put off, the women will glare and barrage with complaints. For men that women are wishing to appeal to, the women will stare and barrage with compliments.
Dear Dalrock,
Do you agree that the goal of the elites is the destruction of Fatherhood and the family? If so, then how can you impute that as they further their goal and succeed, they will then become pro-family and pro-Fatherhood?
Dalrock writes, “We are probably many years if not several decades off from the day that this is fully accepted by our elites, but once they accept this reality I’m convinced we will start to see low profile efforts to slowly roll back the worst excesses of the family courts and a higher profile push in the media and entertainment industry selling marriage and fatherhood to men. However, in the meantime the cultural impact of our husband/father hostile society will continue to greatly harm the institution of marriage and the economic and human costs will continue to add up.”
Dalrock, why does the present media and entertainment industry wish to destroy fatherhood and the family, and why will they all of a sudden wish to support it, when its destruction is their goal?
Why do you think that the “elites” will want to support the family while they oppose it and wish to see it destroyed as the abolition of the family is a central part of communism?
Requesting a little help here. Having had my eyes opened, I am still rubbing them. I thought I had Liz at JFG pegged as an ok gal
http://www.justfourguys.com/the-mgtow-mystique%e2%80%8f/
but in comment #105 telling some things about herself she says
“I pay the bills, run our finances, do the income taxes. He doesn’t make financial decisions without my input…or basically any big decisions. We discuss. I’m a military wife, I’ve had to make do on my own quite a lot through a lot of difficulties and responsibilities. But he is still the head of the household, and I do defer to him ultimately.”
I now feel I must demote her from ok gal to some form of these:
http://no-maam.blogspot.ca/2012/06/guide-to-birdwatching-in-manosphere.html
but I’m unused to such classifications, and indeed uncertain of the necessity of demoting her. Any guidelines from any mentors out there, from what she can possibly mean by “ultimately” other than “he’ll have the last word only after my dying breath”?
I never comment on another man’s marriage, and that rule has served me well. It’s possible that man is married to a CPA and has delegated the financials to her. It’s a risk, but I have seen this sort of arrangement work. None of my biz what goes on in another house.
Boxer
“I never comment on another man’s marriage, and that rule has served me well.” Ok, but does that exclude catching his eye and sharing a rueful smile with him?
You can do anything you like mate. The farthest I go is to send a brother one link to relevant page. There are some good ones on this blog. Something mild for a married blue pill bro, talking about increasing attraction or staying fit, would probably work well. I don’t elaborate and let him come to his own conclusions, pro or con. As I am not married, I’m not a good judge of what a married bro should do. I just try to be supportive.
@IBB
Interesting points re “Coming Apart” etc.
those born with an IQ below 100, pretty much there is less and less opportunity to earn a self-supporting income and (thus) less opportunity to get married
When resources are scarce, there is all the more need to have two adults rather than one running a family. The reason why this doesn’t happen for first-world people with limited earning power is, alas, that welfare has outbid the man on minimum wage.
A lot of the pathology of the underclass arises from structures that have been created by and for UMC feminists. They do not understand how precarious the family position of the low-earning husband is; they do not realise that a single-parent family without UMC financial resources is a disaster area. While they are looking up at the glass ceiling, and bemoaning the scarcity of female CEOs, they do not even notice the war zone that their own policies have created beneath the UMC glass floor.
Why not coast?
What if they do not allow a man to coast?
jf12 says:
@Ras Al Ghul
“For one thing you’re taking the analogy too finely. It is NOT the case that in this application that the straw that breaks the camel’s back be the very first straw: a trespassing of any thresholding operation suffices to be a trigger. For another thing you’re not taking mgtow at their own word: the whole idea is not that they’ve merely given up on hoping women might change but that they have decided it cannot matter to them even if some women do try to change. The decision to take your ball and go home has to be irrevocable or else it has no value.”
You made an assertion, and I pointed out that it really isn’t what you claimed.
If you point is merely that at some point opting out is a bad strategy that’s fine, but it isn’t a grim trigger if you’ve been playing the game for years and decide after countless cheats by the other player. “Screw this, I’m out.”
That’s not a grim trigger. A grim trigger is immediate upon the first foul.
Second, why does a MGTOW have to be permanently wedded to that if the situation changes. You’re placing them in a box and saying once you decide something, you can’t change your mind no matter what.
That’s unrealistic.
craig says:
No, it’s the other way round. Women offer their love and loyalty (to the extent they ever do) to the men who destroy the world.
The caveat “to the extent they ever do is important there.”
@Ras Al Ghul
Again, actually, no. In game theory ANY irrevocable threshold (e.g. straw that broke the camel’s back) produces identical outcomes to “first foul”. It is NOT the firstness that matters, at all.
If mgtow and take their balls home only until some woman decides to play nice (and how does she do that with him, anyway, her being ballless (three lll’s?) and alone on the playing field?), then it is not a case of him opting out merely him going home to eat a sandwich or nap, and again, taking a short break is the exact opposite of leaving forever in game theory.
Re: ohh! [slaps own head] I coulda had a W9! (souped-up V8)
I apologize for being slow sometimes. So, seriously, some guys think that mgtow is a Technique that might actually work to get the laydees to want to play?
It is not necessary to imagine that “the elites” are deliberately manipulating society. It is not necessary to believe that they sustain our GNP in order to tax us.
In elections, people vote for economic growth. A government that does not deliver economic growth, or worse still, creates a recession, will be removed from office by the voters.
Anything that increases the workforce will add to growth. If women want to spend more years in paid work, in the deluded belief that this constitutes liberation, governments will (not) say “thank you very much” but will claim credit for the increase in GNP. More to the point, there will never be government support for SAHM because this would decrease the GNP and lead to the election of a different government.
For the same reason, while politicians talk tough about immigration, none of them will actually stop it: it would have an adverse effect on GNP.
The elites are an illusion. What we are seeing is purely a consequence of democracy. Unless people are willing to say “I will accept a 10% decrease in GNP, even if I am one of the unfortunates who loses his job”, we will see the progressive transformation of the developed democratic nations into nothing more than effective money-making schemes that also happen to be population sinks. It doesn’t matter if “empowered” women have no children; it doesn’t matter if the men are “poolside”. We can import laborers from anywhere in the world, and STEM students from Asia, and the money-making scheme can continue forever.
Western Europe is already a long way down this path, and some countries will be majority Muslim before the end of the century.
The (real or imaginary) elites take notice if the GNP cannot be sustained. This is the point. If men stop working harder than is needed to support themselves, the GNP is threatened, and the government has to pay attention.
@jf12
Re: Grim Trigger. I think it’s not an accurate way of looking at it, you’re confusing the MGTOW as reacting to the trigger itself (i.e., betrayal). They aren’t. The refusal to engage comes from understanding the true nature of the game.
The actual rules.
That’s why it may look like it’s a reactionary thing – i.e., a Grim Trigger reaction to betrayal. A man who goes through the paces of family court/false DV/what have you, learns very quickly how little he matters to the system. In a sense, it’s like being invited to what you think was a repeated prisoner’s dilema game, only to find out later you are punished no matter who does the betrayal. If you had known the rules from the beginning, you wouldn’t have engaged in the first place.
You can see this in the younger MGTOWs. They never had any misunderstandings about the naute of the game (i.e., they were never “blue pill”), yet they are refusing to engage – they know the rules, and they ain’t playing.
James K, increasing the workforce without increasing jobs is unsustainable. I do not care who wants to enter the workforce
“We can import laborers from anywhere in the world, and STEM students from Asia, “
.. just as long as everything remains hunky-dory and tickety-boo, particularly here in Western Yoorp. Unless they’re happy to walk/swim here after the intricate transport-management systems and infrastructure start to get even more crappy at the edges, and don’t mind the lack of central heating (or any heating at all, never mind hot water and flush toilets) and electric light during the multi-month epi-polar winter.
Like when I was a kid. It ain’t been that long, my kids think I’m a freak, like something out of the history channel.
“Aye, that’s right son, no telly, no radio, no cars, just bikes and tractors, paraffin (kerosene) lamps, hard bog-paper in an outside winter shithouse, frost on the inside of the window and all the coats piled on the bed”.
If the chanty (chamberpot) froze you were bang out of luck, because the window would be iced shut too, but the good thing was no school until the roads got dug out. And even a boy could get ten bob a week howkin’ tatties and flinging them in the cart, even better if you got the job of holding the horse’s head to stop him backing up or bolting, because you didn’t get quite so soaked. Which was very dangerous.
Oh and you got to smoke as much as you could manage. Ace! The doctors encouraged it (“productive”, and a sovereign remedy for the ubiquitous lung and sinus complaints, they said).
Great! It could all be back in the blink of an eye, if everybody with ambition moves here and plays their Entitlement Cards viv-a-vis the everlovin’ welfare state right. I mean there’s any amount of the purest, freshest, coldest water, for a start, and it’s all free bar the gathering. Fill yer boots lads.
@RMM
I’m trying to convince myself mgtow isn’t a rational strategy, not least because I’d like my son to have children.
Suppose the game is rigged against you so that no matter what you do you will lose. Then if you know the game is thus rigged, then certainly it seems rational to cease playing immediately. Unless, and this is where I’m pinning my hopes, playing is winning, and therefore losing is ceasing to play. Maybe an example will help.
Consider ordinary gambling. It is rigged: the house will win, and you will lose. Except for rarely lucky individuals, every guy who enters the casino will eventually lose any amount he cares to bet. But suppose he enters with $100 and plays the cheap slots. He might win “big” a few times, $20 say, and splurge his “winnings” on a drink for the girl on the neighboring machine. With any luck, he can stretch his time several hours, and with the right attitude have some fun, bells, whistles, a few laughs with new friends, even knowing he is wasting his money.
Granted a horrible analogy for a Christian life. But an analogy nonetheless.
Re: Liz. She has clarified in #113 she is an Elusive Wife.
jf12: nil desperandum, old thing. Remember the “house always wins” is posited on the surprise attacks from small groups of tuxedoed fat-boys held in reserve by “The Management”.
Once you know that, we’re back to the old standbys in response. “Can’t run a business if it’s a pile of cinders. Don’t hit me, better go and stop my halfwit cousins who’re in the carpark taking bats to your deutschmarque cars, and, best of all .. we know where you live/kids go to school”.
Tam: There is surprisingly (to me) deep stuff everywhere around the red-pill idea. I just spent a few minutes reading a discussion between deti and other on J4G from a month ago in which a *minor* side issue was the then-deserved sustenance of blue-pill by the Church through the centuries, deserved until the sexual revolution. But, as right here right now, a lot of this deep stuff is muck and worse, i.e. exactly what you *don’t* want to fill your boots.
Re: The red-pill idea. And there is One. I tried to express it elsewhere descriptively thusly:
A nice guy (beta) is a man to whom women find it easy to say no. A bad boy (alpha) is a man to whom women find it difficult to say no.
I was unsatisfied with the descriptive approach, having clearly bottomed it out robustly with those definitions but feeling I could get in deeper from another angle. Prescriptive doesn’t work at all: “cruel to be kind”, “bad is good”, etc are all contradictory nonsense. But a metaphysical pill, of sorts, not compounded quite right yet (sorry) may provide me satisfaction. Something along the lines of:
Women are wrong to try to make men feel wrong.
I’m pleased you brought this up, tweell. Hey everybody, want to know who has the power that matters? Just look around you. See who is stuck spending more time at work and who gets more time with his kids. See whose education is considered good if it yields a higher pay packet and whose education is considered good if it yields a higher fulfillment.
Typical CAF:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=846042
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=846194
We are probably many years if not several decades off from the day that this is fully accepted by our elites, but once they accept this reality I’m convinced we will start to see low profile efforts to slowly roll back the worst excesses of the family courts and a higher profile push in the media and entertainment industry selling marriage and fatherhood to men.
Not going to happen.
‘Elites’ are people, and they have some free will. Even collectively, they do not have the power or authority to roll back and sell M & F to men. It’s not about tax revenue or money.
DNA is priceless.
@empathologism
James K, increasing the workforce without increasing jobs is unsustainable. I do not care who wants to enter the workforce
Surprisingly, the number of jobs has increased steadily:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PAYEMS
All off topic but…
Behold Slut Shaming by a pastor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsPe2RGkA50
(Not every church accepts whores even though we all know a vast majority of them do).
Behold Child Support Get Rich Schemes called out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsPe2RGkA50
Behold Judge Gets Woman In Child Support Case Pregnant While Helping With Counseling To Fuck Over A Father: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOwwzvcS4pU
(SIMPS will be SIMPS)!
OT, but some here might find this interesting:
http://nationalreview.com/article/366790/daughters-and-sex-mona-charen
One counter point to consider: with married men making considerably more money than unmarried in the 45-54 group, even with the obvious disincentives to marry, many men will still pursue marriage the way people play the lottery. If there’s money to be had, there will be no shortage of players.
Re: Mona Charen’s article. Moneyshot: “Most women don’t want what the worst men have always wanted — sex with no strings attached. Women are all about strings.” So it’s not totally OT. But I think here’s the red-pill thingie: in current climes a man who cannot get sex w/o strings is beta. Therefore contra Charen, it is absolutely false that women are “all about sex with betas”. The COMPLETE OPPOSITE is true in reality as we ALL know, all men AND all women, but reality is completely opposite from how things ought to be.
Re: Try, try, again. Ok, so, another attempt at pressing The red-pill idea into its most compressed form:
Women cannot speak truth about sex to save their souls.
Yeah, my first impression of that article was that there was some quasi-red pill truth in there, but it was heavily obfuscated by the usual “women are nicer than men and only want commitment” thing.
Roadside DNA tests:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/12/18/1924248/police-pull-over-more-drivers-for-dna-tests
Supreme Court strikes down Canada’s anti-prostitution laws as Charter breach:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Supreme+Court+rules+validity+Canadas+antiprostitution/9308689/story.html
“Most women don’t want what the worst men have always wanted — sex with no strings attached. Women are all about strings.”
The “worst” men want sex with no strings attached…but are also the most desired by women. Women reinforce these feedback loops: man becomes desirable (game, status, etc.), women are willing to have no-strings sex, man is seen as more desirable due to women chasing him, more women are willing….etc. Celebrities are an extreme example.
The above quote could actually be made into a red-pill statement:
Most women don’t want what the worst men have always wanted — sex with no strings attached. Women are all about strings. But many women are still more than willing to give these worst men what they want–sex with no strings attached–even though the women know they have a borderline nonexistent chance to attach strings.
It sounds like this lady is whining about the power differential between desirable men and the women who desire them.
“Most women don’t want what the worst men have always wanted — sex with no strings attached.”
That’s an interesting way to put it. I thought the worst men want rape, murder, physical assault and that sort of stuff, siring children and then abandoning them etc. Normal, everyday men want sex with no string attached, even if only occasionally.
By the way, am I the only one unable to open that article?
Couplea related points about this topic, which I’ll cartoon as “Why have all the good men gone?” Over at Rollo’s, Badpainter relates the instant classic, new to me:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to her need.”
Then if (I say if) you bother heading over to goodmenproject you’ll see it has been completely taken over by women’s needs.
In elections, people vote for economic growth
If only this was true..
Pingback: Best Links of the Week | Modern Pensées
James,
I’m going to echo Farm Boy here, this is so not true. If it were true Romney wins in a landslide and Netflix doesn’t do that horrible “documentary” hit piece on him next month.
Right now, women control the elections in the United States and they most certainly do not vote for economic growth. They vote their lady parts and welfare. Welfare spending is not economic growth for it it were, I pay $2000 to my neighbor to dig a hole and I pay another $2000 to my other neighbor to fill in that hole, the government says I have created $4000 of economic growth.
Don’t forget about this oldie but goodie …
“Right now, many men are obsessed with that age old question: “how can I earn major brownie points this Christmas?” … who better than those we now call “The Three Wise Men”, all because they mightily impressed an important woman that long ago Christmas.
What did they do that was so wise? First, they brought gifts.
No matter what your wife says, a package under the tree is non-negotiable.”
http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2013/12/seeking-wise-man/
LOL! The story has been rewritten. The three wise men will now be known as the three clueless simps, who show us how to grovel for sex with expensive gifts. Thank you so much!
innocentbystanderboston says:
December 20, 2013 at 12:00 pm
100% spot on. Government can not cause economic growth, although it can retard it by way of onerous taxation and/or regulation. Precious few people are truly fiscally conservative overall; rather self-identified conservatives tend to be very selective about their issues.
They vote their lady parts and welfare.
I must take issue with this. IMHO these women are not ladies and therefore do not have lady parts.
In elections, people vote for economic growth
It’s interesting that this is not the case in the USA – it is most definitely so in Britain. Even though the Conservatives tend to be pro-tax-cuts and Labour are pro-spending, the parties fight head-to-head over economic growth.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2519163/The-day-Ed-Balls-career-imploded-Labours-bruiser-finally-sank.html
“Culture wars” are rarely election issues, and the Conservatives tend to be more fiscally prudent.
“I must take issue with this. IMHO these women are not ladies and therefore do not have lady parts.”
They have the parts…they just don’t have the software anymore.
from the PA highway DNA assay
“DNA samples for a project that determines what percentage of drivers are operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol ”
Wow science sure has changed since I last studied it [*cough*].
Brilliant loophole though. “Ish olrigh’ orsifer, I-i-‘mma .. genetically intoxicated. Aren’t touched a drop, shee?”
jf12 says:
“Unless, and this is where I’m pinning my hopes, playing is winning, and therefore losing is ceasing to play.”
Since Paul seemed to think marriage was an answer to a problem and it was better to be unmarried and chaste I think the idea that playing the marriage game is winning just by playing is erroneous. There is more to life than sex, procreation and grandchildren.
There is only one way to win the game: It is not to play which means either: Game and hedonism or MGTOW.
“There is only one way to win the game: It is not to play which means either: Game and hedonism or MGTOW.”
I’ll state now that you won’t win going the hedonism route.
jf12 says:
@Ras Al Ghul
“Again, actually, no. In game theory ANY irrevocable threshold (e.g. straw that broke the camel’s back) produces identical outcomes to “first foul”. It is NOT the firstness that matters, at all.
If mgtow and take their balls home only until some woman decides to play nice (and how does she do that with him, anyway, her being ballless (three lll’s?) and alone on the playing field?), then it is not a case of him opting out merely him going home to eat a sandwich or nap, and again, taking a short break is the exact opposite of leaving forever in game theory.”
Several things though, we are not dealing with one player but multiple players and there are always new players coming on board. so while one man may leave, the question will the next player engage. If the females change their behavior then the next round of players may react differently.
Second, you are in fact advocating that men should not have a threshold at all in terms of tolerating or not bad behavior with women. Boundaries and thresholds are absolutely essential with women. You are basically advocating that no matter how intolerable, how badly a man loses and gets enslaved it is better for him to play that game. That is the logical application of your argument that this is a bad strategy.
And again you are defining men going their own way as hermitage. And there are all sorts of flavors. Captain Capitalisms version is only help female friends and family. Don’t have kids don’t get married.
@Ras Al Ghul
Yes, marriage is the prescription solution to the problem of concupiscence. Paul prescribed marriage to EVERY man to avoid fornication, as you must know, and Jesus said that ALL men would have the problem unless they were eunuchs.
@Ras Al Ghul
“You are basically advocating that no matter how intolerable, how badly a man loses and gets enslaved it is better for him to play that game.” Yes, that is how I was raised, and I’m asking help in getting free of that view. I turn the other cheek (for women) and turn and turn. The Christian red-pill message I think I’m hearing is that alphaing up WILL make women stop smiting me, instead of me simply ceasing to turn the other cheek for them while they still smite.
They have the parts…they just don’t have the software anymore.
I stand corrected.
Romney? Economic growth? LOL. Neither party will address what is limiting economic growth.
Pingback: Why We Hate Feminism | Hipster Racist
Surprisingly, the number of jobs has increased steadily:
The increasing number of jobs hasnt a wit to do with women entering the workforce other than where that is a bad thing, meaning hiring four administrators at the school district, or cutting men’s pay to add more women to a company, etc.
A’ight Ton, I’ll bite, what is really limiting growth
Ton,
Neither part is supposed to address that. One party’s goal is supposed to be, get the f-ck out of the way and let the economy grow like gangbusters and whoever prospers is whoever it is (GOP way) and the other party’s goal is to get just barely enough in the way to siphon off just enough of that economic growth to make those who can not (or will not) participate in said growth, “whole” (Democrat way.) Both parties are failing. The GOP is failing because they can’t win anymore and (even if they did) we need a candidate more like Calvin Coolidge than Ronald (Keynsian) Reagan. The Democrats have no idea what “just barely enough in the way” is because the majority of their voting base has never earned a dollar in their lives and now, they don’t have to. So we are f-cked either way.
I actually believed that Mitt Romney would have been more like Coolidge than he would a Reagan. When Romney said that the sole determinor as to government spending, is that is the program the government funding worth borrowing even one dollar from the Chinese simply because we must have it? That is the PERFECT question to ask, a question that no Democrat would EVER ask, a question that immediately ends pretty much the ENTIRE Great Soceity experiment of the mid 1960s and LBJ….
…alas we were too stupid for our own good Ton. We have given the vote to entirely too many people.
80% of the time our government works every time
Labor law, environmental law, all the regulations which kill actual competion, affirmation action bull$hit, flooding the national with additional labor etc.etc. the over all cost of doing business in the usa is crazy high. Want to invent a new battery? That takes about 250k in licences just to get started.
One of the best ancient philosophers who will back this up is the original hedonist.
http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html
My brother Epicurus gets a bad rap in popular culture, and was largely reviled by ancient Christians and Jews (his name is an insult in Yiddish and Hebrew, denoting someone who is godless and utterly lost to the faith, lol).
Hedonism, in its Epicurean form, idealizes what is known as “the cheerful poverty”. Being happy with little is much better than being overindulgent all the time.
Sure, a brother could take up permanent residence in Chateau Heartiste, where he’d overeat every day, indulge in all the alcohol and narcotics he could handle, and bang a new hot woman every night. The philosopher warns that in doing so, the man would actually get less pleasure out of life than his wiser bro, who saves these indulgences for special occasions. Great wealth is also not necessary for happiness, as it often brings with it stresses that overshadow the benefits.
Real hedonism, then, maximizes pleasure by moderating carnal indulgences. You fellas (you’re rare, but you do exist) who have happy relationships with a wife, and kids, and a job that isn’t tedious, and who discipline yourselves… you are the real hedonists. The guys who overindulge all the time get bored and tired of life, succumb to alcoholism and diabetes, and are objectively less happy than the man who knows the value of moderation.
Regards, Boxer
Romney would have done jack and $hit to turn things around supported most of what Obama supported.
No. False.
He would have VETOED almost EVERYTHING this congress has done.
What we need from government is less government.
Well, well, it looks like someone forwarded Dal’s age-of-marriage chronological stats to Driscoll finally: http://marshill.com/2013/12/19/two-mistakes-singles-make
Of course, he’s still asking the wrong questions.
innocentbystanderboston says:
December 20, 2013 at 3:45 pm
90% of Americans don’t want any less government. They just want their kind to be in charge of said government.
Which is what Romney would have never delivered.
@Marrisa
“”The “worst” men want sex with no strings attached…but are also the most desired by women. Women reinforce these feedback loops: man becomes desirable (game, status, etc.), women are willing to have no-strings sex, man is seen as more desirable due to women chasing him, more women are willing””
So true! ….and great post! This happens to myself quite often.In fact 2 weeks ago I ran into a women I have not seen for 25 years.46,nice looking etc.here is the conversation……
Her:HI Mark….how are you?….I have not seen you in ages!
Me:Nice to see you…I am sorry…I cannot remember your name.
Her:Laura
Me:So where do you work?
Her:Family Services……so….are you married?
Me:Nope!
Her:Girlfriend?
Me:Nope
Her:Well GOOD!…….that gives US a chance to get together.
Me:Sorry……..I can’t
Her:………..*gives me an evil look….turns and walks away*
Me:Oh Well!
This has happened to me countless times.I don’t have the heart to tell her that “I am unavailable…but,she is 46(I can get a 36 year old……30 year old…etc…etc….)…I assume divorced or never married(has yard apes)…..what is in this for me?……nothing but BULLSHIT! I don’t have the time…or the ambition….I already have “booty calls” on the side….I am not looking for another(at this time)…..L*…the truth of the matter is….”Besides Sex….I have no use for her”…..and again,I can get a much younger and hotter BOOTY CALL than her….in fact,I would rather rent a Call Girl!…..”If it flies,floats or fucks?…it is much cheaper to rent”!!!!!!!……Shalom!
“Most women don’t want what the worst men have always wanted — sex with no strings attached. Women are all about strings. But many women are still more than willing to give these worst men what they want–sex with no strings attached–even though the women know they have a borderline nonexistent chance to attach strings.
It sounds like this lady is whining about the power differential between desirable men and the women who desire them.”
Women don’t desire beta males. They’re nice, boring, loyal, trustworthy, good fathers, good husbands, reliable, pliable, subservient, etc. Instead, women want dangerous hunks that will use them, abuse them and throw them away like yesterdays news. For women, chasing alpha males is akin to playing the lottery. Lay your soul on the line for the possibility of landing on the winning number. Who in their right mind doesn’t play the lottery? You might win! If you lose, there’s a new beta sucker born every few seconds (plan B).
Men do the same thing women do (they hunt down the alpha female); hence, the ever declining marriage rates. Women have been taught, because of idiotic men, not to depend on men. In this regard, they’re 100% correct. Bad men beget angry, vengeful women. Bad women beget angry, vengeful men. The result? Societal collapse. As modern American ideals spread to other countries (Japan, Korea, blah, blah, blah), those societies collapse as well.
Right around 1970, things started to spiral downwards rapidly for Americans. Why? The social values and societal constructs that made for a healthy society were erased. Free love! Live long enough to spend your kids inheritance! Drugs aren’t harmful – they make you smarter! Greed is good! Buy on credit! Live beyond your means! Deregulate banks and roll the dice with customer money! No-fault divorce! Kids aren’t harmed by divorce or single parenthood! Do what makes you feel good! He who dies with the most assets wins! Where did this lead us? One need only analyze all current statistics that measure the health of society to find the answer.
All nations fall.
Never ceases to amuse and entertain when this happens. Most of these battered old empty shells walk around with the delusion that they are somehow worth all the trouble they bring to a man, and they are absolutely amazed when they get laughed off and turned down.
I bet Jenny Erikson is experiencing this now. I’m sure she actually believed that all the guys who fucked her on the dl while she was married would jump at the chance to play the part of chump number two, and be down on bended knee with a ring as soon as she detonated her marriage. Too late…
Mark, nice bullet duck. As a family service vampire she was looking at you like a butcher looks at a steer, measuring how to cut up, figuring weather to broill barbeque or roast.
@Boxer
“”Never ceases to amuse and entertain when this happens. Most of these battered old empty shells walk around with the delusion that they are somehow worth all the trouble they bring to a man, and they are absolutely amazed when they get laughed off and turned down.””
Thanks.This happens to my brother(age 43) also…..and lots of business associates and friends of mine.I try not to be RUDE to them.But,besides a “booty call”…..what good are they? If I was serious about “a wife”…I would be looking at 30 to 34…and I am 48.These wimminz don’t get it! The other thing that I have noticed.These types of wimminz bring two things to the table….”their pussy & debt”(and both are VERY used up)…they don’t own their own house…they have massive credit card debt….and they look at me like I am the ‘whackjob’?…..as I cannot live without them?….Ya Right!….I have lived without them for years!…I will continue to do so!….and THRIVE!
@Galloper
“”she was looking at you like a butcher looks at a steer””
Great analogy!!!……..L*……..like taking a walk in in the woods wearing a set of antlers on your head during Deer season?…..L*
“Most women don’t want what the worst men have always wanted — sex with no strings attached. Women are all about strings. They want intimacy, tenderness, and commitment — all of which have been placed further out of reach by feminism’s conquest of the culture.”
Well, not ALL women want intimacy, tenderness and commitment, and even if we believe its what the majority want, they don’t all want it at the same time and at the same juncture in their lives. Young people like to sow their wild oats between 18 and 23. Extremely few women are looking for commitment during that time. But if it helps the old marm Ms. Mona Charen sleep better at night to believe that they are, so be it.
Hollen, “That’s an interesting way to put it. I thought the worst men want rape, murder, physical assault and that sort of stuff, siring children and then abandoning them etc. Normal, everyday men want sex with no string attached, even if only occasionally.”
She’s sorely out of touch. I’d even say backwards.
jf12, I followed your link. My sisters all got extremely shy around boys, and later men as they grew older, they were attracted to. One said she didn’t want it to appear obvious that she was attracted while the others say they were just stumped in the presence of attractive males. My own wife was the opposite. When we first met she chattered nervously, and endlessly. None of it was compliments though 😦
I’ve heard a lot of women say they go speechless around men they find attractive. Sometimes even otherwise gregarious women do this. My theory is that they are “shocked” but the sudden attraction and stunned into silence, temporarily.
“by” the sudden attraction
@jf12
Re: Rationality.
I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that MGTOW is, actually, a very rational choice. Sure, there is emotion mixed in (what doesn’t have emotion mixed in these matters?), but for the most part, you find discussions about the realities of the law, divorce, child support and alimony, and the realities of post-feminism women. While there is emotion n the discussions, they center around very logical realities.
What you have to remember is that, ultimately, the objective is to have a good life. And men can achieve that without wife and kids – despite what the post-carousel used-up sluts would like to believe. You read the posts here about how good bachelors have it compared to the old days, and it’s true. Society had to very actively discourage the bachelor lifestyle, because it’s extremely attractive compared to the married and kids one. So much so that, if you ask the MGTOW today, many will tell you they wouldn’t even want Marriage 1.0 – that’s not reactionary, that’s having full knowledge of the nature of what they would be going into.
Of course, winding the clock back is a pipedream. It won’t happen without a massive collapse. As far as discouraging the bachelor lifestyle, there’s too much money being made off bachelors by several big players, so I don’t see it happening either.
Going back to your analogy with the casino, there are a couple of key elements it doesn’t cover. For one, you don’t just bet a limited amount of resources, marriage means you bet everything you have. Not only that, but you cannot quit while you’re ahead, or to limit your losses – the ones who are given the cash and prizes when anyone quits are the women. You only know if you “won” when you’re at your deathbed. It’s a casino where you have to bet everything you have, are forced to keep betting everything you have even if you win, and lose everything if you try to quit or you roll snake eyes. On top of that, you’re also betting your future on it – if you lose, your losses will keep piling up in the form of child support and vagimony until the judge says so.
That’s very different from making a bet to bad odds where you know said odds, and you can limit your exposure and your losses.
The good news – silver lining, if you will – is that for some (many? Who knows?) men, having children is actually something they desire. That’s why there is so much talk about foreign brides.
However, the key here is not the “foreign bride” route, but rather, the system. As someone more knowledgeable than me said, feminism didn’t change women, merely unmasked them. A man who has knowledge of the nature of women who won’t engage with them under the current ruleset _may_ consider it under a different set of rules – if children are important. Which is why the thing to do is not to bring a woman from another country, but to expat to that country – to live under a different set of rules.
Now, this may look pretty grim if you want grandchildren, but it’s not a Grim Trigger strategy. It’s all about having acquired knowledge – knowledge that the people who get the benefits from your bets would rather you didn’t acquire. As a parent you’re going to have to ponder whether your son or your possible grandchildren are more important to you. The chances of acquiring the latter without destroying the former are vanishingly small.
Re: “Now, this may look pretty grim if you want grandchildren, but it’s not a Grim Trigger strategy.” assuming he doesn’t literally castrate himself. He seems content to go his own way for now, but it is indeed a reaction to being 100% dismissed by girls/women. It definitely needs no explaining to any man, but in case any women read this, it is true of a huge fraction of men, maybe the majority of young men at this point, maybe “only” 35%, that they have encountered nothing but 100% rejection from all women their entire lives. Yes, AWALT.
@C4C “they were just stumped in the presence of attractive males” I’ve actually assumed one of the reasons women converse with me easily is that they aren’t attracted. But to attractive guys, they are virtually 100% signalling all the time. They aren’t stumped or astonished, just saying it in other ways maybe (blushing etc) but usually quite forthrightly.
@Ton “Want to invent a new battery? That takes about 250k in licences just to get started.”
Ah. Rent-seeking. The harbinger of the guillotine, once upon a time.
Like the man said :-
“Mancur Olson traced the historic consequences of rent seeking in The Rise and Decline of Nations. As a country becomes increasingly dominated by organized interest groups, it loses economic vitality and falls into decline. Olson argued that countries that have a collapse of the political regime and the interest groups that have coalesced around it can radically improve productivity and increase national income because they start with a clean slate in the aftermath of the collapse.”
@jf12
“He seems content to go his own way for now, but it is indeed a reaction to being 100% dismissed by girls/women”
There are, of course, others like him. In fact, you could say that 100% rejection leaves a man with no choice than to GHOW – there is no other way, after all.
The real “danger” (for those who’d like his economic output) is that, since he’s been given so much time to find his own way, he will likely not want to come back once he finds it. In fact, perhaps you should ponder whether the 100% rejection is what forced him to GHOW, or whether he just doesn’t put much effort trying to find a relationship because he’s happy going his own way.
JF12, I agree that maybe one third of all young men a completely locked out of the market. As the players get ever more sucessful, more men are locked out to make up for it.
But remember now that historically young men with no future are the most destructive social force.
“@C4C “they were just stumped in the presence of attractive males” I’ve actually assumed one of the reasons women converse with me easily is that they aren’t attracted. But to attractive guys, they are virtually 100% signalling all the time. They aren’t stumped or astonished, just saying it in other ways maybe (blushing etc) but usually quite forthrightly.”
I’m probably not a man you would consider an “attractive guy” as I’m not conventionally handsome, but there have been a handful of females over years who have fancied me. Many were awkward, shy and nervous around me at first. Later after we began dating they admitted they were like that because they were attracted. I don’t think its common for women to fawn all over a man at first meeting, even a conventionally handsome man or alpha. I do think however that women feel more relaxed around men they are not attracted to, as we men tend to feel more natural and relaxed around women we don’t fancy because we are not trying to make an impression.
@C4C yes, you’re right, I should have distinguished “guys they are attracted to” instead of “attractive guys”, somehow. I do think it is very common for virtually all women to fawn (or fan themselves) all over “attractive guys”, especially in public with the ONS guy or the One Guy In The Whole Office that has slept with multiple women there, building up the very egos that do not need building up, but maybe acting coy/shy around “guys they are attacted to” that they could see themselves with long term. I don’t know; I really do not see the coy/shy thing in real life; maybe it happens in private and I did not experience it myself.
Re: “young men with no future” The best revenge is living poorly, eh?
If young men in materialistic, consumerist societies are opting out and going their own way by living at or below their means, then I’m all for it. Our greed and materialism needs to be scaled back, way back. If even 10% of men can set this good example, the world will be better off for it.
@C4C: If young men in materialistic, consumerist societies are opting out and going their own way by living at or below their means, then I’m all for it. Our greed and materialism needs to be scaled back, way back. If even 10% of men can set this good example, the world will be better off for it.
That same materialism, consumerism, greed, etc., is largely what is driving so many of the attitudes in women that we are decrying here. There are still cultures where most people place a high priority on love and family, but in the U.S., at least, virtually everything (Facebook, blogging, selfies on Instagram, etc.) seems to be driving women (and no small number of men) further down the road to narcissism and other forms of me, me, me, want, want, want,…and farther and farther away from a world view that acknowledges a higher power, higher laws (and attendant morality), and the error of viewing the world as revolving around oneself.
When Facebook or your blog give you the opportunity to post all about you and then to “curate” the responses so that only the sycophants and other admirers are allowed to be shown on the page, you are well on your way to believing the world really does revolve around you! What worries me, especially, are all the teen girls on Instagram, usually innocently (but maybe not always) posting daily pictures of their fashion choices to an audience of tens of thousands of men around the world, and receiving, every day, 100 or more comments on each one, about how cute, hot, or beautiful they are.
Nothing against teaching children they are loved and worthy of love, but this thing of having thousands of “followers” and curating a “virtual” life is bound to do some real damage. Similar forces were certainly at play in the destruction of my own marriage (as were many other forces often discussed here, as well).
Yes, less materialism, less egotism, more spirituality; definitely the better way to go.
I do think however that women feel more relaxed around men they are not attracted to, as we men tend to feel more natural and relaxed around women we don’t fancy because we are not trying to make an impression.
You must be a very young man, or very naive. The comment about the materialism….same….now if there was music playing, you’d say you dislike it because its too commercial….and the circle is now complete
“That same materialism, consumerism, greed, etc., is largely what is driving so many of the attitudes in women that we are decrying here. There are still cultures where most people place a high priority on love and family, but in the U.S., at least, virtually everything (Facebook, blogging, selfies on Instagram, etc.) seems to be driving women (and no small number of men) further down the road to narcissism and other forms of me, me, me, want, want, want,…and farther and farther away from a world view that acknowledges a higher power, higher laws (and attendant morality), and the error of viewing the world as revolving around oneself. ”
Right. And like I said if MEN can set the good example and go their own way, they have my full support.
“Yes, less materialism, less egotism, more spirituality; definitely the better way to go.”
Even without the spirituality, less materialism and less egotism are the way to go. I have a few honorable, ethical and simple living, non-materialistic atheists in my family. What boggles me is the equation of wealth with godliness as preached by Joel Osteen and others of the “prosperity gospel” variety. American right-wing politics seem to be particularly rife with the worship of wealth, god and country. Those 3 don’t mix but somehow the conservative Christian vote bank have made them their Holy Grail.
(Facebook, blogging, selfies on Instagram, etc.) seems to be driving women (and no small number of men) further down the road to narcissism and other forms of me, me, me, want, want, want,…and farther and farther away from a world view that acknowledges a higher power, higher laws (and attendant morality), and the error of viewing the world as revolving around oneself.
This is backwards. Unrestrained feminization of society created the need/want for those platforms, which are now being used to further feminize society. Who knows what will be next. materialism and narcissism are in the chronology, but not where you place them.
@empathologism: This is backwards. Unrestrained feminization of society created the need/want for those platforms…
You make a good point. The self-absorption was already there to begin with. These technologies just allow it to run ever more rampant, to the point where I see it taking people who in the past would have been somewhat self-centered (but were checked in that view by having to deal with reality) and turning them into flaming narcissists with no hope of escape or redemption, these technologies having removed reality as a brake and, worse, having added fuel—and matches.
Pingback: Financial Frame | The Reinvention of Man
Narcissism was once a psychological dysfunction associated almost exclusively with men. I read recently that women are catching up and being diagnosed with it almost at the same rate, or perhaps the exact same rate. Who knows, by now they may be surpassing us.
A few weeks ago we were discussing the Botkin sisters and other Vision Forum homeschooled women that were pushing 30 unmarried and wondering “why?” Seems the same issues that prevent the young ladies from getting married always prevent the young men. I just found this article by googling “doug phillips, homeschool, marriage prevention”.
http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/12/20/a-young-womans-relationship-with-her-boyfriend-is-shattered-by-christian-patriarchy/
@C4C
A few major issues with the article and people’s responses, namely: sample size (e.g. N=1), and a complete disregard for confounds (e.g. the guy has a mental illness).
Beyond that, just an open thread for people to vent about pet peeves.
Its a recurring theme in that particular sub-culture/religious cult, Marcus D. Dating and choosing one’s own spouse goes against the cult rules. Courtships arranged by the parents, to young men and women who belong to the same cult, are the norm. I’ve been reading the blogs of people who managed to escape that insular world, and now of course because of the Doug Phillips controversy, even more people are leaving and writing about their experiences. There must be hundreds of such blogs by now.
Love the “superposition” of viewpoints within a single person (though, I’d prefer to call it duplicity if I were to be cynical about it).
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=845680
@C4C
Okay, I’d have to know more about this cult/sub-culture, then.
Besides that, a general rule of the Internet is that you’ll hear more complaints than you will praise. If people have a bad experience in some movement, without accounting for confounds (e.g. personal flaws of human elements in the movement they have contact with), there will undoubtedly be false conclusions drawn (e.g. via association fallacy).
And, of course, you don’t know who is who on the Internet. I recall reading on several occasions of individuals who created upwards of hundreds of accounts to disparage a company they had (unsuccessful/bad) dealings with. One must keep that in mind.
@December 21, 2013 at 12:11 am
E.g.: waiting until marriage is extremely important, but don’t worry if the person you marry hasn’t.
“E.g.: waiting until marriage is extremely important, but don’t worry if the person you marry hasn’t.”
While it is perfectly values-congruent to expect a virgin if you are a virgin, it is foolish to think it will be easy to find another virgin. As a parent if I told my kids to wait until marriage and that it will be easy for them to find other virgins to marry, I’d be a fool making my kids into fools. Either that or purposely deceptive simply because I wanted my kids to not have sex before marriage.
At best I can tell them realistically that they can wait for marriage but not to expect to meet a whole helluva lot of other people doing the same. If these means they want to adjust their own standards accordingly, both in regards to other people and themselves as well, so be it.
it is foolish to think it will be easy to find another virgin
Define “easy.”
Anyhow, my comment was mainly focused on the importance placed on waiting, not necessarily the ease of waiting or related endeavours.
And there are consequences for their choices, cf. The Erikson Saga.
And: wtm.org
@ innocentbystanderboston
She actually asked me a follow up question today. She wants to know what is more important to men, that she be thin or that she be pretty?
Let me touch it for you.
The answer is “Yes”.
Sorry, Marky Driscoll poo, this chap doesn’t have a problem at all, he avoids marriage because he has see the damage it causes in the modern set-up. And please Marky, give us those reasons he uses, we might find them pretty close to the reasons we give for not marrying and staying single.
“Her:Family Services……so….are you married?
Me:Nope!
Her:Girlfriend?
Me:Nope
Her:Well GOOD!…….that gives US a chance to get together.
Me:Sorry……..I can’t
Her:………..*gives me an evil look….turns and walks away*
Me:Oh Well!”
Channeling your inner Eastwood?
“One of the best ancient philosophers who will back this up is the original hedonist.”
That’s why Christians shouldn’t be so self righteous when it comes to the sinners. They might not be wise in some matters…but they are in others. I’d rather be a sinner in need of a savior than a self-righteous man who thinks I can get by on my own merit. A hypocrite over being a solipsist.
There’s a hedonist in all of us. The wise ones know to keep that stuff in moderation…else we grow bored with every pleasure. You learn that pain and discipline is actually what keeps you alive, motivated, and awake and pleasure is a just nice reward from time to time. Not the other way around.
OT: further signs that online anonymity will eventually be legally dismantled:
paidcontent.org/2013/10/11/anonymous-comments-could-suffer-under-european-court-of-human-rights-ruling/
forbes.com/sites/michaelhumphrey/2013/11/14/you-can-still-be-anonymous-on-youtube-but-when-you-comment/
@C4C Our greed and materialism needs to be scaled back, way back. If even 10% of men can set this good example, the world will be better off for it.
What are you talking about? Speak for yourself. It’s difficult to find research that wasn’t funded (and skewed) by an agenda, but please try to open your eyes. Clearly you’re learning from sources you think you can trust, but they’re ultimately funded by the same entities that have masterfully deceived the masses with scripted narrative Duck DNA on A&E. Most men I know, including myself, are setting that example.
“Anyhow, my comment was mainly focused on the importance placed on waiting”
Do you feel its important? If so, why?
“placed” not “I place”
That said, I do feel it is important.
Again, please define “easy.”
@Earl
“”Channeling your inner Eastwood?””
L*……Great call!….I love Eastwood.My favorite movie of his “Kelly’s Heroes”…In fact,I love the whole cast!..Especially Donald Sutherland(Oddball)…and a U of T graduate.Another good one for you concerning my previous post.Went to many Xmas parties yesterday from 4pm to 11pm….L*
Started on the 35th Floor and worked my way down to the front door.My brother came with me and we dragged our reluctant father along.Had a nice babe I know invite me to the party on the 16th Floor all week….”make sure that you are there as I have your Xmas present for you”….is all she has been saying for the last 2 weeks.She gave me my Xmas present alrighty!…..She “blew me under the mistletoe”……L*…..damn,I love a good slut!
Give it up, Boxer The Communist Manifesto is very clear to those who want clearness. Inherent in their plans was the destruction of the family. Period.
And, as far as I can tell every nation that went socialist/Marxist did destroy the family structure, including the USA.
@IBB candidates are supposedly elected. What you’re missing is the understanding that before they’re elected they’re SELECTED. Do you have the power to select the ones that ‘run’ for ‘office’? At the top levels: NO! If I were to reveal how that really works, you wouldn’t believe it. Put “Grug” from “The Croods” in instead of the ones you voted for. The master plans would still race ahead. My work slows or shifts those plans. Imagine that there’s a meteor shower that we all know will destroy everything. We use the best technology to stop most of the smaller meteors before the biggest ones come. Why? Because there’s more time to spread truth, more time for doing ones purpose. This changes the course of human events. But it’s fine for you to keep following the herd, life probably seems easier that way. Have you spent time in person getting to know MR? You say such nice things about him. The definition of government that most people with similar views have, sadly, has not existed in our lifetime.
I notice in the Mark Driscoll article linked above, he makes the same mistake made on this blog. Since in the past 90% of all people eventually married once, in the future 90% of all people will still marry even though the marriage rates are in the cellar and still sinking. Beam me up, Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here.
By the way, that 90% figure is already obsolete. I have seen stats which say it is as low as 85%.
@Anonymous age 71 Make no mistake… Mark Driscoll is not making mistakes. He is doing what he made a permanent deal to do. He is carrying out a collective and imminent plan. Indeed what you hear from these people is from intelligence, and it takes a certain kind of strength to be able to handle what’s required of people that have done the process of accepting that kind of deal. Did Mark Driscoll write the words credited to his name? Where’s the proof of it? How is it that he’s so ‘famous’ when so many others speak on a stage at a church? Why him? Where are the words coming from as he speaks?
Driscoll reminds me far too much of an angryJack Dee to have any traction. There’s a little voice in my head muttering “aw g’wan Jack, you miserable sod, you’re just ‘avin; a bubble innit”.
LiveFearless,
Yes. Yes I know Willard Mitt Romney. I am not going to get into any details as to how I know him but I did grow up in Massachusetts (so that gives you a start.) We (as a nation) completely and totally f-cked that one up not once, but twice. We could have had him in 2008 but we had to go with the war hero and many who frivorced his first wife. We could have had him in 2012 but far too large a percentage of our population now depends on government largess. Voting in Romney would be voting away their sustained checks that they are getting (stealing from the future earnings of my own children.) Apparently, we (as a nation) are not entitled to a man of his character.
Here is the best thing that Governor Romney ever said in my presence, “I was raised with the belief that politics should not be a career. You go into business, work hard, accumulate as many assets for your family as humanly possible, and only after they are cared for financially, you give back to the country that has been so good to you serving in politics.” I don’t know about you LiveFearless, but that is EXACTLY what I was looking for in a politician (if we had to have any of them.) And I hate politcians.
He gets it. And we aren’t getting him because we aren’t deserving of him. Only a brain dead person would have voted for President Obama over Governor Romney in 2012. Too much of our country is functionally brain dead. You want to know how I know? Spend 30 seconds in any inner-city ghetto, and all you see are stoned zombies walking around ready to get their government checks and eat your brains.
Pastor Driscoll,
If you read this board, please Pastor idenitfy the part of the Bible that commands good Christian men to be chivalrous? Where is the Bible does it say that men are all sh-t and women have no sin and are not responsible for anything?
We both know Pastor that women are not moral agents. The whole world knows that Pastor which is exactly why we hold women to such low standards in legal matters, why all of man’s laws are about empowering and enriching women. A woman’s lack of moral agency also means we don’t hold women accountable for their financial stupidity. But please explain that reasoning in God’s law. Because God created Eve to be Adam’s helpmate. He did not create Eve to be Adam’s financal burden while she goes and has sex with another man. That is the world that you and I live in today, the world that these men here in the manosphere must deal with every second of their lives.
Every single man here loves women (to one degree or another.) They pretty much all wanted to be good husbands and fathers but ALL of the cards are stacked against them Pastor. YOU sir are NOT doing these men any good by trying to SHAME THEM for looking out for their own self-preservation. That isn’t spiritual sir. You are NOT doing what Christ commands of you and you sir, you are gravely misled by chivalry.
Give up the chivalry Pastor.
Driscoll deliberately signalled that he is no man of God and indeed no Christian by cussing from the pulpit repeatedly even when ordered not to. Even besides his deliberate and repeated public demonstrations of personal power, lording it over his fellow ministers, thereby knowingly Biblically disqualifying himself from leadership but daring anybody to do anything, his speech bewrayeth him. He chose the exact same method that Peter chose to signal that he was not a follower of Christ (Matthew 26:73-74).
Driscoll is making it all about him instead of God. There’s all the proof you need.
@Earl Driscoll is making it all about him instead of God.
The world would be a better place if that were true.
The ‘him’ in Mark Driscoll has been sold. Mark Five 13 explains what entities are running The Mark Driscoll.
Mitt was my stake president for about a year. His dad lived, as a child, in Colonia Dublan (Mexico), and was neighbors with my grandmother. I wouldn’t claim to “know” him, though I know he was pro-choice, and the original author of “Obamacare” which went bust in Massachussets and will go bust nationally the same way.
I think you’re giving him way too much credit. He’s a sleazy political type who will follow orders just like Obama, Clinton, or Bush (and these are all the same president, really, in my book). Sure, he’ll tickle your ear with some allusions to being different while campaigning, but in the end, he’ll be more of the same.
The only real shot AmeriKKKa had was electing Ron Paul, and you conservative republicans threw him under the bus. I’m not saying Ron Paul would reverse anything, but at least he would have slowed down the slide into third-world status some. Mitt Romney’s machine ran Ron Paul out of town, as I recall. That’s more than enough reason to hate his ass.
Regards, Boxer
Simpl solution , find and then nominate the candidate the media machine HATES the most. Bounce the one the MM loves.
The “hands off” morality of CAF:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=846583
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=846703
“Driscoll deliberately signalled that he is no man of God and indeed no Christian by cussing from the pulpit repeatedly even when ordered not to. ”
Same guy who preaches oral sex from the pulpit? Doesn’t surprise me.
And now I hear he’s preaching anal sex too. What next, choking?
“For awhile now, my sixteen year old sister has been on birth control. She says it is just to make her period lighter, but I’m worried that this isn’t the full reason.”
Ah the old health reason trick.
Women are on birth control for one reason and one reason only…….cock.
Just so that I might understand more of this and many other threads what exactly is the difference between Obamacare and our much beloved and totally awful National Health Service (AttleeCare) – and what ever happened to Medicare and Medicade? I throw this open to the floor.
I think folks should vote for Ron Paul. Cannot think of a better way to achieve
the rapid destruction of the union then libertarianism
“… guys are just going to have to come around and marry us anyway or…”
(me) “Or what?”
I can’t help but think of the all-purpose retort from Vietnam draftees…
“What are you going to do, send me to ‘Nam? Make me a grunt?”
Opus, allow me to answer/duck the question
Medicade and Medicare first. Medicare is an entitlement to all who have worked and paid into the social security system. It is Federal, and we have some options as to what age to opt in to it after retirement IF one’s employer does not offer post retirement medical
Medicade is a state level administered health care insurance, funded by state funds and federal funds given to the states, and it is for low income families, or, it adds as a supplement for low income seniors who are on medicare (which is insufficient by design, especially for certain tests and for medications)
These still exist
Then the private insurance like I have through my job
First Obama care changed the way the private insurers could insure. It forced coverage of children until age 26, so, my now 22 year old is safely insured on my employer based plan until 26. it limited or eliminates insurance companies ability to refuse insurance based on pre-existing issues. This is actuarial mendacity.
We had this alleged, say 40 million folks with no insurance. The theory that started the ball rolling was, many of those are young healthy people choosing to not get insurance. The law forces them to either buy insurance privately…through work…..directly from an insurance company…..OR….from newly created government insurance exchanges. If they do not buy it, they get fined as an add on to their income tax bill. This money flowing in from all these healthy ones will then cover the cost for the subsidized or free insurance that the others will get, after being means tested (cough)
Supposedly thats pretty much it, and we with good plans can keep them. But, now the insidious parts. The cram down of what private insurers must do has forced them to raise rates. i am a corporate officer of my employer, on the executive team that gets to fuss over this stuff. Our rate increased, for 2014, by 35%. Those folks who are just individuals buying from an insurance company (as opposed to my employer based one which is called “group” insurance and has different laws and rules) got cancelled in mass and offered new policies at double or more cost. these are the self employed. A man i know who is well to do, Owns car selling dealerships so is not in a group plan, 2 kids, was paying 1200/month and had $10,000 deductible for the family, after which 100% coverage. Now, $2000/mo and $10,000 PER PERSON deductible before that person is covered 100%. So he is forced to buy his insurance from the government exchanges to get a better price. Eventually my company will yield to the cost and have to do the same. We are halfway down the slippery slope to what will likely be called the FHS to match your NHS because we like the word “federal”.
We really do not know how it will ultimately be distinguishable from NHS.
@Empath
..and I am sure that was the simplified version – my head is spinning.
The difference between Obamacare and Attleecare is that Attleecare is entirely free (but is paid for in taxes, and N.I.) The more you earn the more tax you pay (unless you are Mega-rich of course). The worst thing about the NHS is that most of the staff are not comprehensible in English, and I pray I may never have the misfortune to experience or observe medical care in an English Hospital.
Oh yes, the cost of ones local G.P. is included so that is free too (and ones Dentist if you can find one who is prepared to be paid by the State) – and medicines are subsidised or free depending.
Which would you prefer?
LiveFearless says:
December 21, 2013 at 3:48 pm
>>@Anonymous age 71 Make no mistake… Mark Driscoll is not making mistakes.
An interesting take, LF. I have no basis for disagreeing, so let me restate what I said about making a mistake. It is not true that because in the past 90% of all people married, in the future 90% of all people will marry. In fact, last time I checked one source said it is already approaching 85%, and at current marriage rates, that number is going to sink year by year. I think he fell for the bad math that is found at times on this blog, thus I called it a mistake.
Of course, if he is part of the propaganda machine to shut down MRA’s and MGTOW’s, well, okay, that would imply a deliberate lie. I sure don’t know any better nor have any possible way to know better. And, any propaganda machine does simply repeat bogus statistics and tempting lies until everyone believes them. And, do their best to squelch any dissent.
An example is this climate change, global warming invention/hoax, a desperate attempt to impose a world government since Communism failed to do so. CC or GW has been totally debunked in every possible way. But, a major California newspaper and Reddit both simply prohibit any dissent whatsoever.
The problem is, it can’t work. Just as the probable mini Ice age will forever stop GW and CC, too many men have been harmed too badly by the modern AW to go back because some motor-mouth idiot tells them God is going to strike them dead if they don’t apologize to their wives and girl-friends for, um, er, being God’s Sons and not God’s wonderful sainted daughters.
Also, my viewpoint of Driscoll is affected by knowing my stupid son-in-law and his wife, my daughter. My SIL is a Baptist deacon in northern Texas, I am told. I haven’t been back to visit them since 2005 and if I live a hundred years that will still be the case.
I have tried to tell him that effective male leadership does not initiate effective female submission. And, that it’s not a man’s fault if his wife sins or commits adultery. Which is preached in a majority of Churchianity organizations today. I first heard it in 1984 when counseling divorced men. At that time, I did not believe my ears when a divorced man told me what his pastor had said. You see, I had been reading the Bible for a very long time and knew what it said.
Anyway, when I try to tell my SIL what the Bible really says, he gets all red in the face and screams as loud as he can, pointing where Satan wants him to point, down in Ephesians where it is easy to get lost if you haven’t read Genesis. Especially if you are part of a tremendous heresy support group. In Baptist deacon circles, this red-faced screaming at your FIL is called, “RESPECT YOUR ELDERS.”
I want to make a point on the health care issue. I realize the plural of anecdote is not data. Yet, in my own circles, every person who has started taking multi-vitamins + minerals virtually stops needing to go to the doctor. This includes my wife and others, and myself.
Recently, there was a desperate attempt to discredit multi-vitamins with a bogus study which claims they not only don’t help but may harm those who take them. (The harm apparently comes in when the slugs include things like green tea with multi-vitamins without saying so.)
And, yesterday, a study which says that supplements are responsible for 20% of all liver damage. Woe to those who take supplements. The alert writer did include a note that nearly 80% of liver damage comes from MEDICINES PRESCRIBED BY DOCTORS! Hee hee ho ho ha ha.
Also, people who go on low carb diets have dramatically reduced need for doctors. I know a doctor who says use for doctors would be reduced by at least half if everyone went on low carb, high fat diets and took multi-vitamins with minerals. And, yes, there are plenty of studies to prove it.
Anon….do what you want, vitamins, militant homeopathy , be an organophile
You will still need a Dr. maybe less, (maybe more) but its not germane to the question of how to manage healthcare per se.
Opus, I’m barely literate on that behemoth. My GP tells me he will retire because of it. he has resisted getting affiliation with what we have as large branded hospital groups where they have departments of accountants and lawyers to administer this, and pay the docs a salary. he runs and office, has some nurses, and his wife handles admin. She is flummoxed. He will have about one more year then its over.
We also pay a progressive tax, that was already there for medicare. Plus the age of eligibility changes remind me of the Pink Floyd lyric “you run and you run to catch up with the sun but its sinking”.
My view of the NHS comes mainly from Theodore Dalrymple, who admittedly is jaded but indeed was an insider.
I offer my encouragement to live and eat healthy. I haven’t had a sickness in about 6 years, other than a case of food poisoning about 3 years ago. That was due to me not cooking some fish enough. I buy Cytosport protein powder from Costco, which has quality protein, quality carbs, and vitamins and minerals. I mix it with soy milk I also get at Costco. Abstain from the supplement Creatine, as that results in elevated creatinine levels which appears to be kidney disease. Exercise daily for at least one hour, even if is only a brisk walk.
My two cents for this month……
Pingback: Where are the women who are trying to be reliable wives and mothers? | Crowhill Weblog
Boxer,
Yes I am one of those conservative Republicans who threw (and continues to throw) Dr Paul under the bus. Why do I do that?
I very much like Congressman Paul. I think Dr Paul was a fantastic Congressman and (by all accounts) an exceptional obstetrician. That said, Dr Paul is disqualified from EVER being the GOP Presidential candidate. Why do I say that? Why he not allowed to ever EVER be OUR guy? There is a very good reason for this Boxer (a reason Ron Paul supporters simply REFUSE to legitimize.)
“For awhile now, my sixteen year old sister has been on birth control. She says it is just to make her period lighter, but I’m worried that this isn’t the full reason.”
“Women are on birth control for one reason and one reason only…….cock.”
Dermatologists prescribe bc pills to teens for acne, and other doctors do prescribe it for dysmenorrhea.
“There is a very good reason for this Boxer (a reason Ron Paul supporters simply REFUSE to legitimize.)”
OK spill the beans. What’s the reason?
“Dermatologists prescribe bc pills to teens for acne, and other doctors do prescribe it for dysmenorrhea.”
I’m aware of that…but surely there are better means to treat those than using pills that a young lady can also use to prevent pregnancy.
Plausible deniability 101. I’m on these for my period…while she goes around and bangs alpha McRockDaddy.
Parents need to learn about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with_good_intentions
“I’m aware of that…but surely there are better means to treat those than using pills that a young lady can also use to prevent pregnancy.”
There are many products for acne but bc pills are amongst the most effective.
“Plausible deniability 101. I’m on these for my period…while she goes around and bangs alpha McRockDaddy.”
While there are some countries where girls and women would need plausible deniability in such a circumstance, nobody commenting here lives in one. Plausible deniability for what exactly? Consensual sex is not only legal but thoroughly culturally acceptable.
@ IBB:
I am curious what your reason is that Ron Paul shouldn’t be the candidate.
Re: failures of leadership vs followership. In the Great Example of marriage, between God and His people, it is evident that He did not fail to be a good leader and yet His people failed to be good followers.
C4C, you seem to be either disingenuous or completely missing the point.
Anyway, you still haven’t defined “easy,” and I’d appreciate it if you would do so.
Dear IBB/Opus:
Responding to both of you fellas here, to save space…
There are a few different reasons that motivate different conservative republican types. Ultimately, I see you guys as the ultimate white knights. You’re basically white knighting for big corporations that have destroyed your nation and its organic culture. You think that if you kiss enough ass, you might get some recognition from the super-rich and establishment types that you seek to ingratiate yourselves with.
Interesting to note that after the farce which was the republican convention, where the democratically expressed will of the people was trampled by the Romney machine, the main people who were speaking out about this in my area were a (mostly Jewish) group of free speech lawyers, and a (mixed race, with a sizeable Black minority) student group which saw him as the least warlike option. The white Christian types were perfectly fine with the corporate shills Barack Obama and Mitt Romney leading the fraudulent puppet show. I point this out only because white dudes in the manosphere spend much time talking about how they’re being railroaded by the government, which they see as funnelling their tax dollars to minorities. They certainly don’t seem to mind being taken to the cleaners when the rubber hits the road, by a government which funnels their tax money to millionaires.
Labelling it as “entirely free… but paid for in taxes” is sort of a contradiction. In any event… The USA had the opportunity to go with the UK model, they’d have simply had to open up the federal “Indian Health Service” and “Veterans Affairs” hospitals to everyone. They also had the option to copy Canada, and mandate a state-level expansion of medicaid, requiring admission to the Medical societies to include the responsibility to accept the state’s insurance plans. This would have allowed for private hospitals. All they’d have had to do is introduce sliding scale premiums for people who made more than minimum wage.
Obamacare (which was begun as Romneycare in Massachussetts, years earlier) is the worst of all possible worlds. It requires all of us Americanos (I have lived in the USA since 2009, and feel that I can call myself that now) to purchase private health insurance from private companies. This does nothing to alleviate current problems and serves to funnel money into the pockets of the same people who started all the healthcare problems, decades ago, by jacking up costs and increasing bureaucracy to levels which would be humorous, if they weren’t so annoying.
I spent much of my life in Canada, and don’t have a problem with a single-payer insurer. It has its limitations, but worked well when I used it. Obamacare isn’t going to work, for all the same reasons Romneycare didn’t work.
Regards, Boxer
IBB said She actually asked me a follow up question today. She wants to know what is more important to men, that she be thin or that she be pretty?
I didn’t touch that one.
The appropriate answer would have been “Thin and pretty are added bennies, but the most important traits men look for in a woman are traits that we want the inverses of. In other.words, DON’T BE A BITCH AND DON’T BE A CONNIVING HYPERGAMIST.
“Of course it’s pointless advice, because asking women not to be these things is akin to asking them not to breathe (or not to be women).”
C4C, Vascularity, & Boxer,
No Boxer. 1000 times no. Ron Paul is not disqualified to be President because Big Business owns me or Willard Mitt Romney. You are NOT thinking critically. Unfortunately, your response does not surprise me in the least. You are trying to overthink something that is very simple.
Dr Paul is not permitted to be President because the POTUS is also the Commander-in-Chief. Dr Ron Paul does not recognize Islam. That false religion simply does not exist for Dr Paul. Dr Paul has yet to figure out that just because something is wrong, it doesn’t mean that it is not a threat.
This is Islam, for the United States it is a military issue.
http://rs194.pbsrc.com/albums/z296/minstrel_blue/Cities/TheTwinTowers_911.jpg~c200
If you show this to Ron Paul he’ll just say we deserved it/had-it-coming because out troops were in the Middle East. He refuses REFUSES to accept what is an absolutely certainty, a reality, that this was done because of WHO WE ARE in the United States. Those men who hijacked those planes, they believed with their heart and soul and mind that what they were doing would give them paradise for all eternity. Dr Ron Paul will not even have that discussion. And his resistance to pure reality would threaten MILLIONS of American lives if he became the Commander-in-Chief.
He can not be President Boxer. He’s a nice guy. He’s been a very good Congressman. He’s probably an excellent Obstetrician. And by all accounts, an outstanding Christian man….
…not a President. Never. I agree with ALL of his domestic policies. His foreign policies give him a ZERO.
Any one can call themselves american. That’s the major problem and one that cannot be resolved. It’s a word without meaning theses days but y’all can have it. If you want it.
Hey Boxer. Maybe you could explain exactly how men can have rights, without having property rights. What exactly would this look like? How would YOU structure a government that would
1. allow men to be masters of their own lives, property, and family.
AND
2. Force them to give their lives and property for the benefit of others.
What would a socialist country that respected ALL MEN look like?
I’m interpreting this crypto-speak as an admission that Ron Paul would have:
1. Quit sending nice Americano boys to die in the shithole countries of the Middle East (like Afghanistan and Iraq) on behalf of the wealthy people who want to plunder those countries of their natural resources.
2. Quit supporting our so-called “allies,” like Saudi Arabia and Israel, to the tune of tens of billions per year, for which the average Americano gets absolutely nothing in return.
You are right on both counts, but this is secondary to the fact that Ron Paul, by any resonable estimate, either won the nomination or presented a serious possibility of winning it. We don’t know because the nomination was handled with all the ethical and legal restraint of a rigged election in ZImbabwe. As you don’t believe in legitimate democracy, I suppose you’re an outlier, but most of us expect that the system will follow its own rules. The last primary was a good example of bad faith in politics, and should serve as evidence for anyone who wants to suggest that America is a rigged game.
As others have pointed out, when the establishment and its media officially turn on the “two minutes hate” for a man, as they did for Ron Paul, you know he might be halfway honest.
Regards, Boxer
@Anon71
“”nearly 80% of liver damage comes from MEDICINES PRESCRIBED BY DOCTORS!””
Thank you!…..that is what my Doctor tells me.Look at the shit they prescribe? It is no secret that Doctors are the biggest “drug dealers” around….and they will prescribe ‘opiates’ for a sore throat! Just look at all the ‘junk’ on the streets. Percs,Oxyies…etc..etc……”HillBilly Heroin”…..and these are medical professionals?…..they are “DEALERS”…..nothing else!
“”people who go on low carb diets have dramatically reduced need for doctors. I know a doctor who says use for doctors would be reduced by at least half if everyone went on low carb, high fat diets and took multi-vitamins with minerals””
Thanks again!…………this is the way that I go……..But,if you listen to the media they say stay away from “fat”……and do not endorse vitamins?……what a crock!…..and as far as carbs go….steamed brown rice.
Boxer, you just proved my point.
Your entire response ignored my point. My point is valid, it matters. In your response, you never mentioned the word “Islam” or “Muslim.” You devotion to Ron Paul forces you to live in a world that is all your own. You had to reframe everything I said because you simply refuse to acknowledge anything I said.
“Consensual sex is not only legal but thoroughly culturally acceptable.”
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-12.htm
Brother Boxer was born a Mormon, just like Mitt Romney. From his perspective, Islam is as “false” as Christianity, and just as foreign.
The Muslim-bashing that often erupts here is, from my perspective, pretty silly. There are, what, a billion Muslims in the world? The ones I know are generally nice people. They have never been involved with terrorism or radical politics; and, unlike Mormons, they never preach themselves into my face about how I should pray and such.
Presenting “Islam” as some sort of inherently dangerous thing is much like the kooks who believe that there is some communist conspiracy, led by the moldy old corpse of Lenin, when all the communists have been pretty much laughed out of existence. It’s a conspiracy theory that doesn’t have much basis in fact. (I expect “Liberty Family Masculinity” and “Anonymous age 71” to begin ranting any minute now, about how I’m part of the conspiracy…)
There are, what, a billion Muslims in the world? If they all were an inherent threat, they could take over anything, just based on numbers. Obviously that isn’t happening.
People who take themselves too seriously and become real terrorists ought to be thrown in prison, but this isn’t due to Islam, that’s just their excuse to cause trouble. Ron Paul took that general attitude, and I agree with him on that too.
Hope this helps,
Boxer
@Boxer
“”I spent much of my life in Canada, and don’t have a problem with a single-payer insurer. It has its limitations, but worked well when I used it. Obamacare isn’t going to work,””
I think we conversed about this in a prior thread….you lived in Mississauga?……which is a cab ride from where I live. I do not even have a doctor in Toronto.My doctor is a Jewish friend of mine from Public School….who lives and practices in Buffalo,NY…….so is my Dentist!…..They moved away years ago due to OHIP…….now they are thinking of moving back due to Obamacare?….L*…WTF?…I don’t blame them….and you are correct…Obamacare will never work in the USA.Another point to add to your post…..Why is it that Canadian Doctors have their own personal doctors in the USA?…..because USA healthcare is much better than Canuck healthcare.Another point,I watched Sarah Palin on Fox News admit that her and her family used to drive from their home in Alaska over the border to the Yukon Territory for a doctor…..because it was free?….and she is a die hard combatant against Obamacare?…….WTF?
PS…..if you do not live in Canada now?…where did you relocate?…..just curious….I assume the USA?
@IBB
“”This is Islam, for the United States it is a military issue””
When the USSR collapsed…..the USA needed another enemy to keep up it’s military budget by creating a new enemy…….TERRORISM!……got to keep the Military-Industrial Complex in business….and making money!…….the problem I have with this is all the dead soldiers that are sent home to the USA & Canada……for PROFIT!……I like money!…..but,not this much!
Dear Mark:
I actually moved to the USA from BC, but lived in Alberta off and on also. I spent several months in Toronto and Quebec in my early adulthood.
I probably mentioned this on one of the game type blogs (Return of Kings or Heartiste, perhaps?)
It has been my experience that women from Toronto are a special breed of nasty, even compared to other North American cities (L.A., Houston, Seattle, etc.) Women in Vancouver are somewhat more “butch” but much easier to approach than in other places; in contrast. Women in Calgary are difficult to approach, but once you get through their sheilds, they’re perfectly nice — unless their from my tribe (lots of Mormon girls in Alberta), at which point they’ll tell you with a straight face that they’re better than you (it’s our custom to tell girls they are much cooler than boys, pretty much from birth).
In any event, BC’s health plan is called the MSP, and we all get care cards at birth. It is hard to find a family doctor there if you’re a new arrival, so your issues aren’t unique to Ontario.
There’s a sliding scale that keeps changing, which isn’t that expensive, but is hard to plan for. It’s a mistake that Americanos think that health care in Canada is “free”. It’s not. We share the cost. That said, it’s much cheaper than in the USA, because we only have one layer of bureaucracy, rather than several, and we don’t often have nice art and recessed lighting in our clinics, lol.
Regards, Boxer
“Anyway, you still haven’t defined “easy,” and I’d appreciate it if you would do so.”
Marcus D, please refresh my memory as to what I claimed was easy and then I can define it.
Nice art? Ha! Maybe bland, insipid, inoffensive, dull, but I’ve never yet seen nice.
At least it matches the music—and the magazine selection.
@Boxer
“”It has been my experience that women from Toronto are a special breed of nasty””
LOL!…….I can introduce to my oldest sister?…..and you would run for Alberta again!….L* …..or China!
“”lots of Mormon girls in Alberta””
Never met a Mormon in AL……only BC….and the ones that knock on my door here.Interesting!
“”we all get care cards at birth. “”
Same here……OHIP
“”It’s a mistake that Americanos think that health care in Canada is “free”. It’s not. We share the cost””
Do we ever!……look at our tax rates.Also,look at our “welfare”…..Mother’s allowance”…..disability…..baby bonus…..etc….etc…..no country in the history of the world has prospered by paying it’s population not to work!…….72% of welfare recipients in Canada are single mothers…which also get free medical and dental….bus passes…etc…etc…..Sometimes I wish I was a woman with a bastard!…..L*
Boxer,
Its false to me as well. But just because it is false, it doesn’t mean that those who believe it to be true, and follow the Koran fundamentally, aren’t a threat to the United States. Romney gets this. You don’t. Neither does Dr Paul.
On September 10th, 2001, I would have agreed with you.
Irrelevant. The Fundamentalist Muslims are commanded to kill you. Thank God that is a tiny percentage of the Muslims, but those who follow that faith and that infernal book Fundamentally, they are the ones who threaten our lives. Ron Paul refuses to acknowledge that. So do you. Because Ron Paul refuses to acknowledge that, he does not get to be President.
9-11 was no conspiracy. It happened. And the motives were very easy to see. Just read the Koran. We’ve always had problems with Islam. Lookie here, and learn history….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
Thomas Jefferson learned this about Islam in 1785. It is right there in the Koran, NOT one of those 25 Great Books for Men. So, after being sick and tired of just cutting them a check (a check equal to one sixth of our budget) to NOT to enslave our merchants, in 1801, President Jefferson sent our Navy and Marines to sack Tripoli.
Without Islam, there is no United States Marine Corps. “From the halls of Montazuma, to the shores of Tripoli…” The Marines are leathernecks sir because in 1805 (or whenever it was) they had to wear leather around their neck to help keep them from being beheaded in hand-to-hand combat with said Muslims.
In the Koran, Muslims are promised the planet. That is their scripture. And they are inheriting it in Europe by being the only ones to reproduce themselves. Alas, the United States is still their Great Satan and will always be until we submit to Islam. That isn’t happening so 9-11 happened, Allah Akbar.
I don’t believe in Islam. The Koran is as false as the BoM, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. But that doesn’t matter Boxer because the Fundamentalist Muslims, they believe it. And to kill you (as a non-believer) guarantees them a spot in Paradise. That is their motive. Mitt Romney gets this. You don’t. Neither does Ron Paul…
…that is why he does not get to be President.
Earl, we don’t live in a first Corinthians 6-12 culture. The overwhelming majority of us do not associate consensual sex with any sort of shame.
” The overwhelming majority of us do not associate consensual sex with any sort of shame.”
There is no shame of consensual sex in marriage.
It’s every other place it happens that needs to be shamed.
Marcus D, please refresh my memory as to what I claimed was easy and then I can define it.
Review your comments on this thread, particularly those on December 21st.
First IBB writes:
Then he writes:
So, first you’ve said “Islam” and “Muslims” are a threat, but later you changed your story, and now you say “Fundamentalist Muslims” are a threat. Well, which is it?
Furthermore, you have no business idolizing that greasy old sockpuppet-of-the-elite, Mitt Romney, if you’re worried about fundamentalism. Romney’s granddaddy, as I alluded before, was neighbours with my grandmother. All those people believed that Christians were in league with Satan, and they also believed in something called “blood atonement”. Google this to get the idea.
So, since all one billion Muslims, in IBB’s reckoning, ought to be held accountable for Muslim fundamentalists, Mitt Romney (and Boxer himself) ought to share the blame for the Lafferty Brothers, Ervil LeBaron’s gang, and all the other nutters who use their Mormon religion/ethnicity as an excuse to cause trouble. Gotcha.
Violent headjobs often use their own interpretation of scripture to excuse their excesses. Certainly Christians and Jews do this too. Even Buddhists do this sometimes (it’s happening in Sri Lanka right now). It’s not exclusive to any one group.
Best, Boxer
Boxer says:
December 22, 2013 at 4:06 pm
>>(I expect “Liberty Family Masculinity” and “Anonymous age 71″ to begin ranting any minute now, about how I’m part of the conspiracy…)
Since as you well know I have not ever accused you of any conspiracy, that was nothing but a cheap and childish shot.
I do understand where you come from on the Communist Manifesto thing. I believe from your writings that you did indeed do a major study of the books you mention. an in depth analysis, until you had formed a strong knowledge of them, and what they mean to you.
But, you then went the next step and assumed you “own” those books. So, no one is allowed to express any opinion which differs from your own without facing an aggressive attack and gratuitous insults from you, like the one quoted above. This is a common event in academic circles for that exact reason. Which is also why so many academics are such ornery people.
There is no topic on this planet which will not be interpreted differently by many people. I actually preferred not to waste time re-reading the Communist Manifesto, but when I finally went and reviewed the Second Chapter, the one which refers to the destruction of the family, I remembered it in the end. I have no idea how old you are, only how old you often act. But, I am guessing I read those books before most men on this blog were born. That part of my life is past, and I do not need to read them again every time someone tries to ‘own’ the debate on them.
I live in Mexico which still has mostly strong families. I see what the family can do for mutual support in times of need. The families in the USA are already mostly broken, and there are many people who believe it was part of the Marxist goals. Plus wherever socialism and Marxism take any control, the families inevitably collapse, which certainly does not contradict the opinion that it was part of the plan as stated in Chapter II of the Manifesto.
You have your opinion, and you obviously have a reason you formed that opinion based on your personal views. However, Boxer, it is time to grow up and accept different views from people whose personal views and life history are different from your. And, thus form views different from yours.
empathologism says:
December 22, 2013 at 10:43 am
>>Anon….do what you want, vitamins, militant homeopathy , be an organophile
Did you mean me by Anon? I wasn’t talking about what I wanted, or don’t view my comment that way. I thought I was talking about what could eliminate half the need for doctors. Are people going to to that? No! The only people whose life I have changed involved people who knew they were going to die, and soon, and thus were willing to try low carb, high fat. This is all part of the collapse without hope of change of a once great civilization built by the sweat and blood of men.
“It’s every other place it happens that needs to be shamed.”
Why?
“Even Buddhists do this sometimes (it’s happening in Sri Lanka right now).”
They may be justifying their violent actions somehow, but I doubt they are citing their scriptures as a defense. If so, which ones?
“While it is perfectly values-congruent to expect a virgin if you are a virgin, it is foolish to think it will be easy to find another virgin. ”
I see. By “easy” I meant its not common in the wider population past a certain age.
By “easy” I meant its not common in the wider population past a certain age.
Define “common.” Besides that, how do you know your statement is true? What data have you looked at?
Dear C4C:
In early September, a mosque in Colombo was set on fire by Buddhist terrorists and the people who ran out of the building were attacked by the mob. These same nut jobs have also attacked Christians and others over the years. My point is that the average Buddhist isn’t supportive of this gangsterism, and shouldn’t be held morally responsible for the actions of a few crazies. Same with Muslims or any other group.
You’ve not seen islam until you have lived in islamic nations.
“Define “common.” Besides that, how do you know your statement is true? What data have you looked at?”
Can’t recall the specifics, but the data I have looked at in years past reflect the general sexual attitudes of the cultures the data has been pulled from at the time. Here in the USofA the attitude is that consensual sex between adults not only holds no stigma but is encouraged as “healthy”. It is assumed that if you are dating someone that you are having sex with her. There was a link in the comments section of this site that showed graphs of STD rates in various countries. USA was high. Surprisingly, so was Turkey. Then I remembered Turkey is a sex tourist hot spot for British cougars.
“In early September, a mosque in Colombo was set on fire by Buddhist terrorists and the people who ran out of the building were attacked by the mob. These same nut jobs have also attacked Christians and others over the years. My point is that the average Buddhist isn’t supportive of this gangsterism, and shouldn’t be held morally responsible for the actions of a few crazies. Same with Muslims or any other group.”
I agree with you. Where I disagree is the assumption that the conflict in Sri Lanka is religiously based.
@C4C
You didn’t answer my first question.
As for the latter questions, your answers are not surprising. Basically, you don’t really know.
For a Christian (devout), there is – according to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), the General Social Survey (GSS), the Journal of Sexual Medicine, etc – a 50% chance that a man could meet a women (under 25) who is waiting until marriage. Over 25, the chances start to decrease for never-marrieds, but are still generally okay (~25% chance if under 30). In the general population it is lower, about a 15% chance under 25. Having said that, there are a variety of indicators of whether a woman isn’t waiting, e.g.: drug use, divorced parents, friends who are sexually active, smokes, left-leaning politics, types of media consumed, military service, etc. If you avoid those, the chances can actually be higher than 50% (especially for rural areas).
Correction: “[…] meet a woman […]”
An oldie, but apropos here… “I remember the letter I got from my wife while I was in Iraq. She said she wasn’t happy. …”
Boxer, stop. You are digging yourself into a deep hole.
I never said it was just Islam that was the problem. The problem has always been Fundamental Islam. You asked why I believe that Ron Paul must be instantly disqualified from the highest office. The answer (of course) is that he disregards the existance of Islam. By that nature, he is also disregarding Fundamental Islam. The man may be a really nice guy and he’s right about every single domestic issue, but with foreign policy he sticks his head up his own @ss (or in the sand like and ostrich.) If you can’t get this, you are beyond being able to reason.
I don’t care about LDS blood attonements. I don’t care because Fundamental Mormon’s are not a threat to the security of this nation. All Fundamentalist Mormon’s want to do is have plural marriage. I don’t care about the Meadow Massacre. I don’t care because Fundamentalist Mormons are not a threat to anyone, certainly not the United States.
I AM a Fundamentalist Christian. I believe in the literal interpretation of the King James Bible. I’m in for all of it, Genesis through Revelation. But my Fundamentalism on that spiritual aspect does not make me a security threat to anyone because Christ never commanded me to Kill anyone.
Stop errecting straw men because I got you stuck in a logic box. Ron Paul is disqualified from being President. I have told you why. My logic is sound. And because you can’t dispute it (and that hurts your pride) now you are acting like a woman. Stop it. I’m not going to tell you again…
Earl, we don’t live in a first Corinthians 6-12 culture. The overwhelming majority of us do not associate consensual sex with any sort of shame.
Is this out-of-wedlock consensual sex? The overwhelming majority of who?
“Is this out-of-wedlock consensual sex? The overwhelming majority of who?”
Americans citizens.
“For a Christian (devout), there is – according to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), the General Social Survey (GSS), the Journal of Sexual Medicine, etc – a 50% chance that a man could meet a women (under 25) who is waiting until marriage.”
Devout Christians are a slim minority in the USA.
There is no shame of consensual sex in marriage.
It’s every other place it happens that needs to be shamed.
Especially for anyone who “bears the name of brother” in Christ. It really doesn’t matter what century or culture you live in. God is not mocked and a man will reap what he sows.
1 Cor 6:
“9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Devout Christians are a slim minority in the USA.
Yes we have known that for some time now. Every where we go we are reminded daily of the miserable plight of our nation. However part of the mission is to make disciples. And so we endeavor in spite of the overwhelming opposition.
Dear IBB:
This is a very interesting debate, thanks for continuing.
You’ve used this phrase a couple of times now. I think it’s safe to say that Ron Paul doesn’t “disregard the existance [sic] of Islam”. He understands that there is such a religious movement. He has commented upon it. He just doesn’t see it as any of his business, as I don’t.
As I grew up with what you might call fundamentalist Mormons, I can assure you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
We had our own state once. It was called Deseret. It was invaded by Albert Sidney Johnston and subsequently annexed by the United States. Fundamentalist Mormons consider the USA to be their number one enemy, an occupying power, and a partner with Satan. Read some history and do some research.
Fortunately, for the rest of you, when our kooks pop off, they usually enjoy killing other Mormons, particularly unobservant ones (like my own bad self). We’re also not as smart or well-organized as the Muslims, so you’re right in part, that they don’t pose much of a serious threat to the rest of y’all.
If this were true, then why would you be wasting your time slurping the crusty old anus of a huckster like Mitt Romney?
As a totally secular non-Christian who has read the bible, I think the Jesus character was wrong about many things. He was much too nice to people who didn’t deserve it, for one. One of the things that he did get right was calling the political bread-and-circuses of his day what they were.
The King James Bible is the best guide to forgetting about temporal politics, and in many cases it correctly points out that these elections and intrigues which you are so concerned about are socially engineered frauds (as then, so now, just ask Ron Paul). Titus chapter 3 is a good place to start for more on this.
Regards, Boxer
“However part of the mission is to make disciples. ”
My mission is not to make people Biblical literalists. Nor is it to mislead them to believe that the Christ took a stance on pre-ceremonial sex.
Boxer, the Mormon theory that we can all become gods has infiltrated evangelical Christianity. Benny Hinn and a number of other preachers are preaching this now.
If the elite are wedded to the idea of child support… is it perhaps because they are still wedded to the idea of eugenics? I know that when I read G.K. Chesterton’s ‘Eugenics and Other Evils’ it opened my eyes a little more as to why Abortion Clinics have billboards in poor neighborhoods and not in the affluent ones… even though Chesterton was writing well before the existence of billboards.
Devout Christians are a slim minority in the USA.
I should note that those sources consider people who attend Mass/service weekly as devout.
Beyond that, why do you care so much about the culture at large?
Nor is it to mislead them to believe that the Christ took a stance on pre-ceremonial sex.
Ah. This statement of yours explains a few things.
—-
More of the same from CAF:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=846882
Although I agree with government getting way to large, strong and cumbersome, I would still not vote for Ron Paul over most other Republicans. I believe Ron Paul to be naive regarding the Islamic threat which seems to be increasing every year.
I do believe we should continue to support Israel and maintain our alliances with semi-cooperative countries like Saudi Arabia. Our planet continues to be more of a global neighborhood. We cannot ignore that fact. For our own safety we must be very involved; I wish that were not the case.
Fornication is sin just as not controlling anger and not being honest and abortion and so on. For this reason I disagree with that Duck Dynasty dude. But I defend his right to voice his opinion. I also staunchly defend his right to quote the bible, even if his interpretation is flawed. I am more of a grace person. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy. My personal opinion that homosexuality is disgusting does not trump scripture.
Private ownership was brought up above as well. I will fight to prevent private ownership from being taken away from us. No human government should be permitted to ruin that! If we permit an Aristocracy of Socialists to take over, coupled with our current technology, we may never be able to regain any freedoms back.
My mission is not to make people Biblical literalists. Nor is it to mislead them to believe that the Christ took a stance on pre-ceremonial sex.
The Bible is very clear that when it comes to sex there is only one context where it is holy, and that is marriage. And yes Jesus took a very serious stance on this. The marriage does not have to even have a ceremony, but it does entail a life long commitment. A man and a woman for life.
Who do you appeal to for the final say? It sounds to me like you think that you can just make it up as you go along. What ever is popular is what is right. If you don’t believe what is in the Bible then why waste time pretending your a Christian. Or are you even claiming to be a Christian?
…or else.
You will never be married, have children or a devoted husband and be happy
That’s the ….or else to give them
Boxer you’ve gone off the rails. I have no dog in the fight about Marxism etc, but, you must be a relatively young man, either still steeped in or recently steeped in academia. It seems you are a third-way kinda guy insofar as it relates to religious extremism. Sure, I can point to Hindus attacking Muslims in Gujarat 10 years ago and draw some conclusion about Hindus because of that train that was set fire. (Funny aside the guy likely to be next PM in India was governor of Gujarat when that happened and the US will not give him a visa to visit here….why? because the state department is populated with some kumbaya types as well and… it was fine that the Hindus were attacked, visa would not have been refused, but the retaliation on the Muslims….we cant have that)
I can then show the Pakistanis coming into South Mumbai by the Gateway to India and striking the Taj hotel and the nearby train station as well as the Jewish center, and we could say they all, Hindu and Muslim alike are murderous. These are false conclusions. These are conclusions by dilution. This way of making moral judgements can be used to pin blame on any group or to exonerate any group. And this way is flawed. There is no contemporary comparison, except in the mind that tends to Shangi La type thinking, between Christians and Muslims, or Hindus or Buddhists and Muslims. It makes the person making those conclusions seem above the fray, which is the motive behind third-way type beliefs. Id have been right there with you when i was 20-25 years old.because I would have wanted folks to know I was globally informed and that the younger generation could solve the intractable problems that the oldsters could not.
All folly. I understand the thinking, and I understand it is folly.
There is no fact that can sway this debate in your favor Boxer because, while there are myriad tidbits, there is nothing sweeping, or global (in the data sense and the geographical sense) that makes your case compelling and there is so much that makes the other case compelling. You sir are allowing some kind of altruism urge to over ride what you see. Your eyes aint lyin’
Dear Empath:
Snip a bunch of extraneous, passive-aggressive personal stuff, which doesn’t make much sense to me, and was probably meant to be insulting.
Dear Empath:
Snip a bunch of extraneous, passive-aggressive personal stuff, which doesn’t make much sense to me, and was probably meant to be insulting.
In years 2010-2012 I taught formal and informal logic. It was an intro class, and particularly interesting, because it was required both by computer science/mathematics/statistics and philosophy majors.
I have to tellya, I have never heard of the “conclusions by dilution” fallacy. Do you have a source for this, or did you just make it up, like Anon 71′s creative “new translations” of Marx, and other such stuff that erupts here?
So, in other words, you are also fine with the fact that the 2012 Republican Convention was a rigged puppet show, because, well, something about Islam, and something about Marxism, and because “myriad tidbits” and the lack of anything “sweeping, or global”.
Fair enough! 🙂
http://rt.com/usa/gop-paul-supporters-convention-323/
Boxer
“Nor is it to mislead them to believe that the Christ took a stance on pre-ceremonial sex.”
Oh really?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:%207-26&version=NASB
@Anonymous
“An oldie, but apropos here… “I remember the letter I got from my wife while I was in Iraq. She said she wasn’t happy. …””
Thanks for sharing that video. Men have always been disposable. Men have always been the oppressed. “A major element of fascism is its goal to promote the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements.” Feminism is fascism. It is not a movement for equality and never was. Feminism is all about manipulation, hypocrisy, superiority and fascism. I can’t find where I read this, but it has been written that all women are narcissistic sociopaths and will bleed a man dry when given the opportunity to do so. With the advent of no-fault divorce, unrestrained hypergamy, VAWA, feminism and the sexual revolution, through marriage and family, your worst nightmares can be realized. In today’s society, men that try to live up to the socially engineered vision of ‘a good man’ will pay with his blood, sweat and tears.
If you’re in Iraq,your woman is whoring. 100%certainly.
“I should note that those sources consider people who attend Mass/service weekly as devout.
Beyond that, why do you care so much about the culture at large?”
Those that attend weekly as well as those that take every word of the Bible literally. Those groups sometimes overlap and sometimes don’t.
I don’t care “so much” about the culture at large in that I don’t obsess over it. But I am a part of American culture because I am an American. Its hard not to notice trends.
“If you don’t believe what is in the Bible then why waste time pretending your a Christian. Or are you even claiming to be a Christian?”
There are many interpretations of the Bible. I said before its wise to learn some Hebrew and Greek and study under Jewish Rabbis rather than rely on poorly translated English versions.
“If you’re in Iraq,your woman is whoring. 100%certainly.”
The last woman that seriously hit on me had a husband serving overseas. She did everything she could to get me into the sack. Had I given her positive feedback, she would have gladly unzipped my fly and done the deed. I made up a story that I had lost my job and was going into foreclosure. Never heard from her again after that. HA!
“USA was high. Surprisingly, so was Turkey. Then I remembered Turkey is a sex tourist hot spot for British cougars.”
I had to look that one up. Too funny. Here’s what I found:
“Turkey Vulture
A cougar past her prime, still on the hunt, but unable to bring down faster and wilier prey like the cubs she hunted during her prime. The turkey vulture is more reliant on incapacitated prey, akin to carrion, to feed her hunger for meat.”
There are many interpretations of the Bible. I said before its wise to learn some Hebrew and Greek and study under Jewish Rabbis rather than rely on poorly translated English versions.
The above statement is misleading. You do know that there are lexicons to aid anyone in translating from the original languages right? And there are some very accurate Bible translations out there (NAS, ESV) that were translated directly from the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek).
Could you please give an example using the original language to substantiate your claims about the stance that Jesus takes on pre-ceremonial sex? Again to whom do you appeal to for moral authority? Is it the Jewish Rabbi?
Show me any Biblical verse in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek that equates pre-ceremonial sex with “sin”.
The Red Pill necessitates swallowing the whole thing, not just half. That means the entire pill on the Council of Nicea, organized religion and the whole nine yards.
Turkey vulture is just too apropos! Turkey and Morocco are the go-to destinations for British and European cougars while the Caribbean is flooded with American and Canadian ones.
Our troops over seas who are getting cheated on, well that’s part of the job. A man needs to consider that before going into the military. I’m sure some troops are doing their fare share of cheating while deployed overseas as well. I suppose sometimes the cheating overlaps and justice is served in a tit for tat sort of karmic balance, while sometimes it doesn’t. Either way, it is something couples to consider before marrying and before going into the military.
“Show me any Biblical verse in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek that equates pre-ceremonial sex with “sin”.”
No.
But I will show you the STDs, bastard children, single mothers, mental disorders, divorces, and general downfall of civilization when pre-ceremonial sex is allowed to run rampant. All that disorder in my eyes is a pretty good representation of what sin does.
“No.”
Because you can’t.
“But I will show you the STDs, bastard children, single mothers, mental disorders, divorces, and general downfall of civilization when pre-ceremonial sex is allowed to run rampant.”
Nowhere did I argue for careless promiscuity. Every action contains a reaction. That is not limited to sexuality.
@C4C:
You’re getting off the rails on Theology. You might want to look up the basis for the insult “Bastard” in English, then look up *why* it exists.
And you’re getting off the rails on Bastardry. I had premarital sex with more than one woman even and not a single conception took place from any incident. Is it all or nothing? There are gray areas and such a thing as “safe sex”. Didn’t this crowd just a while ago argue that men who had not been preselected by other women first would fail to attract a wife? That men who were 30 year old virgins fail miserably in the marriage market?
“But I will show you the STDs, bastard children, single mothers, mental disorders, divorces, and general downfall of civilization when pre-ceremonial sex is allowed to run rampant. All that disorder in my eyes is a pretty good representation of what sin does.”
Since 1970s, here’s the score.
A continued decline in the marriage rate (60% decline since 1970). Lowest marriage rate in a century. Destruction of family working.
Massive effort to move high paying jobs to cheaper foreign markets.
A rapid, massive increase in cohabitation (households headed by married adults almost in the minority).
Increasing number of misandrist laws fraught with fraud (VAWA).
Laws that provide privilege to women in employment, business and education when they are no longer needed.
Ever increasing numbers of single adult households.
More and more out of wedlock births (40% average, 72% for African Americans).
Ever high divorce rates.
Increasing gender based tensions.
More men in prison (record number of men in prison). Mostly from single parent and divorce households.
Massive effort to import cheap labor from foreign labor markets.
Misandric treatment of boys and men at all levels of education.
Increased suicide rates (suicide is now the #1 cause of injury related death – mostly affects men, so no emphasis on solving problem).
Rapid spread of incurable STDs (1 in 4 or 5).
Ever increasing need for antidepressants.
Rapid increase in poverty levels (many tens of millions now living in poverty, many tens of millions more living paycheck to paycheck).
Transfer of wealth from the lower 90% to the top 10%.
Ever declining fertility rates.
Continually shrinking middle class.
Massive, ever increasing income inequality.
Shocking increases in narcissism and entitlement.
Shocking decreases in empathy and compassion.
Increasing government surveillance of it’s own citizens (used to destroy political enemies).
Ever increasing blocks of voters voting for gains in their own entitlements and wealth while simultaneously destroying future generations and smaller voting blocks.
Ever decreasing male participation in the work force and higher education.
Ever increasing dependence on welfare.
Ever increasing infidelity and promiscuity (from what I’ve seen, women are the worst in this regard).
Less and less savings for retirement (1/2 of 77 million baby boomers can not retire).
Increased oligarchical power over government.
General, overall societal decline.
Eventual economic collapse (now 17T in debt, with trillion dollar yearly deficits).
All nations fall.
I forgot massively underfunded entitlements and skyrocketing taxes. The individual mandate is a massive tax on wage earners (mostly middle class folks) , as are all the other carefully disguised, middle class destroying taxes that don’t get much attention.
“Because you can’t.”
Why do you think I said “No.”
“Nowhere did I argue for careless promiscuity. Every action contains a reaction. That is not limited to sexuality.”
” I had premarital sex with more than one woman even and not a single conception took place from any incident. Is it all or nothing?”
Promiscuity is nothing but carelessness…just because birth control is involved and a kid didn’t result doesn’t mean a careless incident didn’t happen. There is more to sex than physical…it is mental, emotional, and spiritual. But with today’s societial brainwashing they make people think they can divorce those parts and turn it into nothing more than a handshake. Women should know more about how important this is and guard their virginity…and men should know the importance of what their actions do to their fellow man.
Those women have your cock on their brain for the rest of their lives and the subsequent men they go with will be compared to you. Even Jenny Erikson finally admitted the alpha cock she had which was probably a big part in why she divorced her husband.
I had premarital sex with more than one woman
Why you’ve said what you’ve said is becoming clearer.
I’m sure I’d be lambasted if I posted this anywhere else, but constant promiscuity is also not good for men. It makes a brother jaded and fills him with ennui.
Jack Donovan wrote about this. He specifically compared the PUA culture to the gay movement of the 1980s. Dudes who “came out of the closet” back then started having as much sex as they could handle. They got sick with STDs in large numbers, and in the end it created a low-trust society of people who were just looking to use one another.
PUAs who make “notch counts” a priority and “do it for the numbers” are going down the same road. It’s tempting to do this, because in our society, having lots of sex is the only way many younger bros are allowed to “feel like a man”, but in the end it warps a man’s perception of other people, and tends to harm him psychologically.
Boxer
“I’m sure I’d be lambasted if I posted this anywhere else, but constant promiscuity is also not good for men. It makes a brother jaded and fills him with ennui. ”
I agree. I was never promiscuous. The first time I had sex had been with a young lady who had been my girlfriend or a solid year already. And we were not teenagers. We were adults in our twenties.
Why Islam is violent and Jainism and Buddhism is not.
. I had premarital sex with more than one woman even and not a single conception took place from any incident.
All forms of hormonal birth control as well as the copper IUD work by preventing implantation. Thus conception could have happened multiple times with none the wiser because the embryo did not implant. Most women don’t even think of this but they’ve probably ended the lives of many of their children when using hormonal birth control. It’s quite sad.
“Why Islam is violent and Jainism and Buddhism is not.”
This video represents all of modern discourse. One must be politically correct. One must only speak words that represent political correctness. If one speaks out honestly on their beliefs, they might, heaven forbid, be in disagreement with the politically correct. One that speaks out on their own beliefs, if it offends the politically correct grammar laws of the current regime, might be targeted for physical, psychological, financial, legal or spiritual death.
Such is the PC way. Hitler approves.
“All forms of hormonal birth control as well as the copper IUD work by preventing implantation. ”
I used condoms.
“This video represents all of modern discourse. One must be politically correct. ”
Sam Harris makes that point in the video by saying all religions are not equal although there is a pc tendency to either equally praise or equally condemn them. Each must be examined separately in its own right and each religion’s values must be evaluated in isolation first. He explains how Jainism’s highest value is the principle of non-aggression and therefore a fundamentalist Jain and a fundamentalist Muslim will naturally result in different outcomes.
Whereas one could not at all twist Jain literature to justify violence against innocent people or non-Jains, Islamic literature does not even have to be twisted in order to justify violence against kafir.
Its not a politically correct stance but it is an accurate one.
Re: progress. Apparently I’ve been banned from SSM for daring to point up that she was asking for it, after she called for men to “man up” and force women to do stuff.
Marissa,
I don’t know anything about IUDs of anykind but it was my understanding that with the Combined oral contraceptive pill (the woman taking the pill every day, same time each day) no egg could drop. That is because the hormones in that pill is tricking her body into thinking that she is already pregnant. If no egg drops, no ovulation, and therefore, conception is impossible. (The sperm have no egg to enter. After ejaculation, they just float around her body and eventually die like so many millions do every time a man and woman have sex.)
The morning-after-pill could most certainly be, abortion. That is designed to prevent a “zygote” (fertilized egg) from attaching to the wall. That is very different than typical oral contraceptives.
“Its not a politically correct stance but it is an accurate one.”
In each of us exists the ability to see the difference between right and wrong. Within each of us exists the ability to determine what works for and against humanity. The evidence against unrestrained Capitalism, Socialism, Catholicism, Marxism, Materialism, Feminism, Buddhism, Islamism or any other ‘ism’ is clear. All the “isms” have created are enormous destruction and inconceivable pain for tortured billions of the supposed disenfranchised at the hands of the supposed powers that be. Each “ism”, after reaching its apex, betrays itself, its people and subsequently implodes. Power corrupts.
The United States is not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. The constitution and bill of rights were carefully crafted to prohibit the mob rule mentality (i.e, our current PC culture). The mob must never rule. The mob will self-destruct. Our founders, after witnessing centuries of senseless, horrifying destruction, figured this one out.
Those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Destroy the basic social constructs and societal values enshrined in the constitution and bill of rights and expect chaos to follow.
“The evidence against unrestrained Capitalism, Socialism, Catholicism, Marxism, Materialism, Feminism, Buddhism, Islamism or any other ‘ism’ is clear. All the “isms” have created are enormous destruction and inconceivable pain for tortured billions of the supposed disenfranchised at the hands of the supposed powers that be.”
Ah well, maybe Jainism is the one ism that’s different. I’ll have to check it out. Don’t know much about it but am intrigued with what I’ve heard so far about its highly developed sense of morality and compassion. I had an H1B colleague who’s last name was Jain but I didn’t make the connection at the time or I probably would have asked him about it.
I talked to someone who knew something about Jainism once. It led me to believe that maybe Diogenes the Cynic traveled to the subcontinent. In the account I heard, it’s a pretty strict discipline of self-denial… a sort of radical self-mastery. The adherent fasts, goes without sex and even denies himself water for long periods of time. I imagine this leads to a strong will.
The really devout types will carry a broom around, to sweep away insects lest they step on one. Killing a housefly is an injustice. It’s carrying the point a bit far, but they do what makes them happy, which is as much as anyone can do, I suppose.
I imagine a conclusion by delusion, is just another name for The Hamster. A lot of men have Hamsters too, when they look out at the world, see the monsters, and only have the courage to make believe there aren’t any monsters, when men should instead have the courage to slay monsters instead. (‘nough said?)
Show me any Biblical verse in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek that equates pre-ceremonial sex with “sin”.
Based on your other posts I take your meaning of “pre-ceremonial sex” to be sex out side of a life long commitment with your partner. So here goes:
E ouk oidate hoti adikoi basileian theou ou klEronomEsousin mE planasthe oute pornoi oute eidOlolatrai oute moichoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai oute kleptai oute pleonektai oute methusoi ou loidoroi ouch harpages basileian theou hou klEronomEsousin
The key word being pornoi. Sorry I was unable to use actual greek characters, but this should suffice.
Again who do you appeal to for a higher authority? Are you your own God?
@Boxer
“”having lots of sex is the only way many younger bros are allowed to “feel like a man”, but in the end it warps a man’s perception of other people, and tends to harm him psychologically.””
I have banged more women than I care to even count.I don’t believe that it has warped my perception of other people or even hurt me psychologically.What it does do is hamper your “ability to commit”.If someone told me this when I was 25 I would not have believed them but,I see it in myself at 48.In fact,I couldn’t commit to a woman if I tried. I have not tried for over 15 years…..so I am a little out of touch with what I need to do as far as a “commitment” entails……L*
@Mark,
a hammer only sees things it can nail.
@jf12
Exactly!
Jainism sounds like a type of religious-source life pacifism. I consider military pacifists (for legitimate wars, e.g, defense against invasion) to be free riders, only existing due to the sufferance and exertions/sacrifices of their betters. As animal-rights/environut types are arguably traitors to our entire species, so logically would Jainist types be at the very least shirkers at defending their own flesh and blood. To not be willing to kill pest insects (flies, mosquitoes, gnats, roaches, etc.), let alone rodents, to guard one’s property and family, is to be unadapted to life, fundamentally despicable in a mentally-ill way IMO.
Other subject: I don’t believe that a male version of “alpha widow” is nearly as strong of a force as is the female’s version. If a wife (originally at least reasonable in appearance) is keeping her weight under control, is pleasant (sweet) to him, responsible, industrious, is not a detriment for him socially or professionally, does not put significant barriers in the way of her husband having enough of the type of sex he wants from her (sex with her has what I call “a low b*llshit factor”), he’s already very unlikely to leave her. Add in being useful professionally, or (best of all) gives him multiple first-rate children she raises well, and the odds of any but a bad-boy/homo/druggie ever divorcing her approach nil. (Yeah, some men might one day boff a younger chick on the side some, but when done by men, that’s not a betrayal of the most fundamental basis of the marriage, as divorcing and expelling her would be, unlike cuckoldry.)
“I don’t believe that it has warped my perception of other people or even hurt me psychologically.What it does do is hamper your “ability to commit”.”
How is that not warping a perception of other people?
The ability to commit is key for all men. Now it may not be women per se…but you have to commit to something. Or you’ll fall for anything.
Vasculairity777- I mix it with soy milk
You may want to avoid soy as it has many estrogen mimicking effects and most of it now is gmo.
I use it only when I have rice but very sparingly. You may want to try almond milk instead.
I will try out the protein powder you mentioned.
JDG says: December 23, 2013 at 10:54 pm
Great comment. In my head I added another sentence that ended with “. . .and the horse you rode in on.”
Has it hampered my ability to commit or has success removed the sexual need to commit and exposed me to the truth of what a bad idea committing to a woman is?
I don’t feel any inability to commit to a woman, what I find is now are worthy for such a thing and that I don’t need to take such a foolish risk to have my sexual needs meet.
@ Norm:
I’m glad I noticed your comment. I’ve been too busy lately to read all the comments on my favorite blogs. I did not know that about soy milk. I will research further. I do like almond mild also. Thanx much for the info!!!!!
I just want to say to all the men and women here in Dalrock’s piece of the manosphere, Merry Christmas!
Yes, Merry Christmas.
—-
Don’t get the flu: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/20/1321060111.abstract?sid=2eccead1-7c63-4ea3-84e1-06c485e4c2bc
“Jainism sounds like a type of religious-source life pacifism. I consider military pacifists (for legitimate wars, e.g, defense against invasion) to be free riders, only existing due to the sufferance and exertions/sacrifices of their betters. As animal-rights/environut types are arguably traitors to our entire species, so logically would Jainist types be at the very least shirkers at defending their own flesh and blood. To not be willing to kill pest insects (flies, mosquitoes, gnats, roaches, etc.), let alone rodents, to guard one’s property and family, is to be unadapted to life, fundamentally despicable in a mentally-ill way IMO.”
Luke, I’ve been doing some online research and there are several Jains in the Indian military so self defense is allowed in their culture. The rules for monks and rules for what is called “householders” are different. Jain monks and nuns follow strict, sometimes extreme rules while regular Jains do not. Like most other Indians, Jains are extremely family oriented. One would expect them to be vegans considering their extreme non-aggression principle but they are lacto-vegetarians like many Hindus.
Thanks IBB: Merry Christmas to you and your family also. Thanks for the interesting convos.
Happy and prosperous 2014 to everybody.
A special message to the single doodz: For best results, stay away from chicks like this. (nsfw)
Boxer says:
December 23, 2013 at 7:42 am
>>Do you have a source for this, or did you just make it up, like Anon 71′s creative “new translations” of Marx, and other such stuff that erupts here?
When I seriously read the Communist Manifesto, probably 50 or 55 years ago, it made it clear the plan involved the destruction of the family as an integral part of the Communist program.
In that 50+ years, every other person I knew personally who read it came to the same conclusion. Magazines; text books, commentaries; many writers virtually all interpreted it the same way I did.
So, there is nothing new and creative about my interpretation of the Manifest.
So, what is Boxer doing? Well, it took me a while, but it soon enough became apparent that it is a really childish and cheap debating technique. Simply put a negative name on my entire opinion, and keep repeating it, hoping to fool the great unwashed, just as feminists make stuff up to mislead the gullible. It doesn’t have to be true. Just negative and repeated over and over.
In this case, to beat the dead horse, call it a new and creative translation, to make it sound as if I simply made it up. Grow up, Boxer. The new and creative translation has come from you.
@Earl
“”The ability to commit is key for all men. Now it may not be women per se…but you have to commit to something. Or you’ll fall for anything.””
L*…..I do commit to something!……FAMILY BUSINESS!….I am a very committed person in what ever I do.Just look at how committed I am in to replying to your posts!……L*…….Merry Xmas Earl…..I wish you luck always!…..and the best of everything in the New Year…….Shalom!
@ALL here at Dalrocks
Dalrock,Deti,IBB,Earl,feeriker,Rollo,SSm,Elspeth,Marcus,Boxer,……and to everyone else!(that I missed)…..Have yourselves a great Xmas and a very happy NEW YEAR….I always appreciate conversing with you people and reading your posts……take care of your families!…and we will get together in the New Year…….Shalom!
Thanks Mark.
C4C, ROTLMAO. and for macDonalds food.
If anyone is on twitter they should show Kay Hymowtis the relevant posts at Dalrocks and Justforguys about changes in marriage stats and desire to marry:
http://www.city-journal.org/2013/eon1223kh.html#.Urntc0pHyw8.twitter
Why the hell are you engaging C4C, who’s now trolling as a fake male? It’s plain Jane again. Aka, T or aishwaryayeryayryeya.
“Wow” or “yikes” – from CAF:
Marriage crumbling:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=847188
“Are catholic virgins in a minority?” [the usual superpositioning]
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=847311
“When to get married.”
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=847186
“I’ll make this simple, and ask a third time: Give me the name of someone who was arrested (doesn’t even have to be convicted) for having consensual sex with a 16-year old.”
This guy just got sentenced to 12 years in prison for having consensual sex with a 17 year old female.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/jack-schaap-sentenced-ind_n_2918139.htm
This teacher in the Dallas-Fort Worth area just got 20 years in prison for having sex with four female students, age 14-18.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11/13/5334601/former-arlington-teacher-sentenced.html
Some will say that it’s because he abused his authority, and the sex wasn’t consensual, because he was an authority figure, creating a “power imbalance.’ Well, if that’s the case, then why did this female teacher in another suburb of Fort Worth, get nothing but probation for having sex with several of her male students?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/02/tonya-flink-teacher-sex-marries-student_n_4031904.htmll
Not sure why the first link doesn’t work. But here are the first two paragraphs: The sentencing took place in March 2013.
The former pastor of a northwest Indiana megachurch on Wednesday was sentenced to 12 years in prison for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old parishioner.
Last summer, Schaap, 55, was fired from First Baptist Church of Hammond, the 40,000-member congregation of which he had led for 11 years. Upon his firing, Schaap admitted that he had a sexual relationship with the young member of his church.
No IBB you’re only partly right. One can “hope” that hormonal birth control is preventing ovulation every month but that is not the only mechanism at play. This website shows the birth control methods that have the potential to be abortofacient by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg: http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/which_birth_control_methods_cause_abortion/
I’d prefer not to take the risk of aborting my child.
Watch this thread explode:
Is she too young for me?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=847425
The Disposable Male
Psychology of White Knights, Manginas and Male Feminists
MGTOW – Dangerous Waters
“I’m sure I’d be lambasted if I posted this anywhere else, but constant promiscuity is also not good for men. It makes a brother jaded and fills him with ennui.”
I have a couple ex-girlfriends that are still good friends, and their husbands have been friends for decades (and I’m only in my 30’s). I doubt any of that would have been possible if I’d taken advantage of the opening, rather than considering the consequences with relationships that weren’t going to be saved by a tumble in the sack.
I do kind of wonder if life would’ve been different if I’d sunk myself into every available opening, but I also know that all things considered, life’s benefited as much, if not more, from my discretion as it has lost for not indulging more indiscretions than I have.
Out of Wedlock Births in the UK Soon the Majority
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10172627/Most-children-will-be-born-out-of-wedlock-by-2016.html
Disillusioned with Feminism
Grinding America Down
Grinding America Down (Hi Def)
http://vimeo.com/63749370
sunshinemary :
I guess that company’s net sales will be taxed when they not need workers (which have salary which can be taxed).
But what fill then form the economic engine ?
Pingback: More ominous than a strike. | Dalrock
“Not sure why the first link doesn’t work.”
Cut and paste error. Add ‘l’ to end.
/ Kari Hurtta
Pingback: Winning the lottery. | Dalrock
Pingback: Fathers [sometimes] matter! | Dalrock
good articles here.
but I think the reaction time will be shorter, as these social issues are only
a part of the over all problem burden of modern society.
I suspect business howling for more education is in fact them begging for more of the same instead of understanding that excessive time wasted on education is part of what has created the real problem which is lack of practical knowledge
and practical ability..
we use less than 10% of what took 12-16 years to teach us…. sitting on our asses instead of having any real experiences….
no experiences, no experience.
all people know now is
some stuff from school, and a bunch of crap from TV sitcoms (shit-calms) which teach what ever our social engineering wannabees decide…
personally I dont see a seamless bell curve back to marriages, I see the end of the human stupidity conveyor ahead, with the technocult dropped off the end into the midden of civilizations…
women and society will only wake up
when its already too late…
so a wise man might act accordingly…
the post mgtow phase will be
pretty much road warrior in aspect…
and I doubt the roles of females will be too glorious….. it will mostly be survival by chance, and procreate inadvertantly. and probably with zero choice in the matter.
basically what happens to post divorce male psychology is an adaptation towards a mercenary like mindset.
thinking goes fundamental,
guy things take priority, and one goes off the edge of the flat earth by minimizing materialism and maximizing mobility and thinking in a post apocalyptic style.
guys have always been into weapons and tools, and fundamentals.
meanwhile the society rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic,
and considers rubber caps on the chair legs due to increasing deck
angle…
meanwhile the mgtows are paddling off
on the rafts they built out of the shambles and furnishings of their lives.
and they will soon sit quietly on the cold waters, in the full moon light, and watch the bow go under,
and the stern to follow…
then they will all paddle off in their own direction.
free at last!