Dr. Helen has a thoughtful post up asking if the title of her book is an accurate description of men’s response to the changes in the law and culture. While the title of her book is extremely effective in opening the discussion (which is what it needs to do), it isn’t an accurate description of problem we face in the West. A strike can be negotiated with; offer them a bit more and they’ll get back to work. Better yet, offer a few of them a side deal and break the cohesion. True strikes require moral or legal force to avoid this sort of peeling off. The problem for the modern West is far worse. What we are seeing isn’t men throwing a collective temper tantrum, noble or otherwise. What we are seeing is men responding to incentives. Even worse, inertia has delayed the response to incentives, which means much more adjustment is likely on the way.
There was an old joke in the Soviet Union to the effect of:
We pretend to work. They pretend to pay us.
The problem for the Soviets was this wasn’t a movement. They knew how to handle a movement, and Siberia had plenty of room above ground and below. The Soviets were masters at coercion through fear, but the problem wasn’t a rebellion, it was that they had reached the limits of incentive through fear. In the short and even medium term fear is a very effective motivator. But over time if overused it loses some of its power, especially when it comes to the kind of productivity which requires creativity and risk taking. Standing out is risky; you don’t want to be the worst worker on the line in a fear based system, but you also have reason to fear being the best worker on the line. This doesn’t happen so much by conscious choice, but due to the influence of the incentive structure on the culture over time. Conscious choices can be bargained with, and threats of punishment are still effective. The culture itself is far harder to negotiate with. No one is refusing anything. So the Soviets had no choice but to assign quotas, and severely punish those who failed to meet them. But while the quota/coercion system keeps production running, it works against human nature. If you become the best producer you end up being assigned a larger share of the quota burden; from each according to his abilities. Over time the logic of this works its way into the culture, as everyone gets just a little more inclined to go with the flow and not do more than required. The problem is while momentum causes the response to be slow, it also means it is very difficult to deal with once you have enough of it to recognize.
The problem we presently face in the West is similar. While we have a small number of men who have decided to slack off as a form of protest, the far more insidious risk to our economy is the across the board weakening of the incentive that a marriage based social structure creates for men to produce at their full potential. We’ve moved from a mostly reward based incentive structure to a model the Soviets would have been proud of.
You can see this at the micro level with a man whose wife goes Jenny Erikson on him. The courts understand that throwing a man out of the home and taking away his children naturally reduces the man’s normal incentive to work to support his family. How could it not? It isn’t that most men in this situation will stand by and watch their children starve, but they won’t be motivated to produce quite as much. You can confiscate a percentage of his income in the form of child support, but he no longer has the incentive to fight his way quite so high up our progressive tax structure. This is why the courts have to assign the man an income quota he has to meet, Soviet style. Imputation of income isn’t incidental to the child support family model; it is essential to the function of the model. Note that this doesn’t mean the courts have to formally calculate an income quota for each man who ends up in the new child support family structure; in most cases the man has already assigned himself a quota based on past production. All the family courts need to do in most cases is make sure he doesn’t fall below this quota.
As I mentioned above coercion is generally a very effective incentive in the near and medium term. Part of the reason conservatives are so enamored with child support is the threatpoint it provides to keep existing husbands working as hard as possible. While in the long run this will ultimately create a culture where husbands are less inclined to become stand out earners, as Keynes famously put it in the long run we are all dead. The other problem is the changes in the culture in response to over use of coercion are by their very nature difficult to identify and quantify. This isn’t unlike the Laffer Curve; while both liberals and conservatives agree regarding the principle of the curve, the shape of the curve is impossible to get agreement on. Eventually you can raise tax rates so high that you end up with lower revenue, but due to the problems of momentum identifying exactly when you have (or will) hit that point can be very difficult.
The more immediate problem in the West is the reduced incentive young men perceive to compete as breadwinners due to the continuing delay in the age of marriage. Again this isn’t a movement, it is a delayed response by the culture to reality. When the average woman marries in her late teens or even her early twenties, the average young man will see himself as competing with his peers for the job of husband. Not only is he competing to not be left out of the game entirely, but he is jockeying for a better choice of wife. But move the age of marriage out far enough, and eventually young men don’t see themselves so clearly as competing for the job of husband. Extend the age of marriage far enough and eventually the culture of young men will be less focused on competing to signal provider status, and their priorities will shift (on the margin) toward slacking off. The question isn’t if this will happen, but how long you can push the age of marriage out before this starts to happen, how much this will reduce the motivation of young men, and how long between the change in reality and the change in culture. Note also that this doesn’t require men to swear off marriage entirely for this to greatly impact our tax base. Changing the culture of men in their formative years will have a lasting impact. You can’t rewind time and undo a decade of (relative) slacking. Additionally, momentum tends to start working against you at some point. As the expectations of men as providers declines it eventually creates an expectation of decline. As each generation of new husbands come to the table with less to offer as providers, we eventually will start to expect future generations of husbands to offer even less.
As I’ve said before, all of this places our elites in a very difficult bind. Eventually the momentum which initially masked the problem makes it extremely difficult to address. Denial of the problem is a flawed strategy but it has important advantages. Once you acknowledge that the incentive structure is flawed you tend to accelerate the delayed response to the new structure. At the same time, the changes at the core of the problem are very close to the hearts of both liberals and conservatives. However, ignoring the problem will become more and more difficult because of the impact on the bottom line. Because of this, we can expect to see more of what we already see. Feminists will continue their handwringing tentatively asking if perhaps we have gone a bit too far, and conservatives will redouble their efforts to convince men they need to man up and stop sabotaging the glorious feminist progress. Less conspicuously I also expect we will see some dialing back of the worst excesses of the family courts. However, because of the momentum involved and the reluctance to acknowledge the fundamental problem, these changes will at best only slow the problem, and they will always run the risk of initially accelerating it.
I have heard that joke put another way:
This makes the incentive aspect even more pronounced.
Don’t forget that if provider status is “perceived” as a way to NOT get a wife and that slacking does get lots of hot girls in their teens and early 20s, then you’ve created a positive incentive to slack.
Nice post.
I have been advising men to reduce their lifestyles and their income to a minimum amount, at least on the books. In this modern age you cannot trust your wife or the system. By reducing your income to a minimum reported level it helps to mitigate the imputed income if a man was to find himself in divorce court. Another added benefit is the system will be slowly defunded by reduced taxes reduced child support and reduced skilled labor. The best strike is one like John Galt.
Most men wont do this of course because most men pretty much give lip service to these problems and in the end they are afraid of their wives using the nuclear option. I admit i was too.
“Strike” is not the right word.
Imagine if nobody signed up for high school band any more. We wouldn’t call that a “strike.” We might say that people are no longer interested in playing those kinds of instruments or that kind of music.
Apparently many kids are shying away from football these days because of all the attention on long-term brain damage.
Neither of those things are a “strike,” but they are similar to what’s going on with marriage. That is, people are responding to incentives.
The real bottom line is that men are not as motivated to pursue marriage as they used to be. But how do you put that in a book title? Here are some ideas.
+ Why Men Won’t Marry
+ How Feminism Killed Marriage
+ How Bart Simpson Destroyed Marriage
+ Why He Won’t Commit
+ A Man Needs a Wife Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle
As a young man, there is no point to build the provider role any longer. Women have decided to marry the government. Why work so hard for so many years, when all it takes is one phone call to destroy you? “I’m scared is all it takes from your wife. Why work hard for a decade, when all u get is a used women? Women aren’t worth the trouble, better to get laid and have a peaceful home, most young women don’t have the slightest clue how to create a home.
I suppose I should mention that I am one of those young men in the target demographic. My age is very close to the average age of marriage for men these days. If I was less insightful or possessed less forethought I would probably one of the slackers right now. I now them, and frankly, sympathize with them. The system hates them, so why should they support it?
Mind you, I’m not a slacker. I’m working towards building something for myself. Just not what the system necessarily wants. I’m still open to the idea of marriage, unlike many of the wiser of my peers, and might be willing to bring a woman into my life. But only the right kind of woman. I can and will be choosy. Odds are that I will never find one that meets my criteria who is also interested in me. So be it. I’m not building my life for her. Not anymore. No, I’m building my life for the future ahead. Because I’m pretty sure that I will live long enough to see the decline speed up into a Mad Max style collapse as social and governmental functions fall apart. When that days comes, I will be ready. And just like the slackers, I know I’m not the only one preparing for that day.
TL;DR:
What we might be seeing is even worse than a “marriage strike” or “men on strike”. What is likely happening is a slow-motion, more or less permanent reordering of American society and inter-gender relationships. Men underproducing, refusing to work to capacity, and engaging in leisure pursuits when not earning the bare minimum they need for their own survival. Most men are completely cut out of the SMP and MMP because they can’t even buy a ticket to walk in the door, much less compete in the race.
Women having sex with the most attractive men and having those men sire their children. Women having to shoulder the heavier burdens of society, including protection and provision as well as childrearing and housekeeping.
My now ex (quite recently and painfully) wife first threatened me with divorce 3 months into our marriage. Jumping through every churchian hoop imaginable (and a few that were previously unimaginable) kept me married, albeit mostly celibate, for over a decade.
Eventually we had a child (I had a DNA test to confirm I was indeed the father) and she upped the ante with threats of divorce AND taking away my child.
My response? I stayed home with our child during the day so she could pursue her “wonderful” career, and worked nights. I was our child’s primary caregiver throughout the early formative years, and my now ex made the big bucks.
The result? When she (with the help of her friends from our church, of course) finally decided to pull the trigger…. Well, as I write this my child is playing in the next room, my ex wife is hard at work at her “wonderful” career, and I am expecting the next child support check from her in the mailbox today. So if your incentive is to be a black knight, well then…..
If all men went John Galt in the Bill Maher way (make a shit load of money off their skilz, but never marry or support a wife and/or children) the TRUE MGTOW model (I don’t count 26 year old boys sitting in their parent’s basement smoking weed and playing videos games all day as GTOW because no one gives a damn about them) that would be a real “strike.” It would be damaging to this country (would doom it really) and that might truly mark (from a Christian standpoint) our “end of days” as predestined in Revelation. We can’t function, can’t have a stable society without marriage. It is impossible really. Because the Bill Maher’s of the world are creative and inventive enough to find a way to shelter the majority of their earnings from government siezure and (thus) they would not have to worry about supporting ALL the bastards that have been bread by hypergamous women.
Only something that severe would force the White Knighting manginas like your average Tucker Carlson who out and out REFUSED to even acknowledge that Dr Helen’s book was even a problem, only then would they be willing to say “…maybe it’s time we change the rules and give up the Chivalry?” But we are light years away from that happening. Truly. There just aren’t enough meaningful men who are GTOW to pull it off, and there is no real solidarity there (and maybe there shouldn’t be.)
Sit back & enjoy the decline.
I personally will not be having a 2nd child because of this warped system. Here is proof positive of the impact of the punishment based incentive model.
I know all too well the risks to me as a man of fathering a child with any woman. Women have been granted ultimate authority to reign supreme over the household via (what Dalrock accurately coins) the ‘threatpoint’.
Nuts to that, and it saddens me somewhat to have made that choice. I am an excellent father, provider, earner, & marriage material.
BUT,
It is the settlers that take the arrows.
I have taken my arrow for the cause.
Dalrock
You might want to look into the effect called hysteresis for a scientific analogue of the societal effect.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/280201/hysteresis
And specifically into ‘hysteresis loss’ where excess energy is required to reverse a change of state. E.g. Light switches have two stable states, but energy is required to physically flip the switch from on to off and vice versa. Due to friction, noise energy etc some of that forcing energy cannot ever be recovered. There is a cost imposed when one needs to change the state even when the states are otherwise equal.
Just returning marital conditions to those of fifty years ago does not mean that men’s attitudes will return to those of fifty years ago. Trust has been broken, feral female nature revealed, financial costs extracted as well as…what might one call it? I don’t know, maybe…JUSTICE?
@ibb I’m flipping in an apprenticeship learning how to flip houses. Not quite as glitzy as bill Maher, but 5 years from now I will only be paying capital gains taxes. Im gonna starve the system while making sure I’m financially well off.
Just as an aside to my earlier post, I do have a career. I just make sure that my ex’s “fabulous” career pays her more and that the work I do can be scheduled around my child’s day at (private) school. If I do otherwise I risk losing what I have now…. Once again, incentives. If I do what I would have to in order to be a higher producer I would lose custody of my child and give up my earnings to my ex, rather than having the family court force her to send me money. What would any rational man do?
Another incentive to slack: Some of those divorced women are still young and hot. You can enjoy their bodies and the palatial homes they got in the divorce settlement while others work. Lolzzz
I would not expect any significant changes in the courts before it is way too late.
The court system is very slow to the party and very wedded to the way things are. It is inherently a reactive system.
First, almost every judge is a beta white knight and very few of them get replaced and they sit there for six years minimum to decades and they’re usually late thirties or older. So being generous, by the time the cultural mindset of the Ys is there soon enough to influence things, its a decade or two down the road.
What you will see, what I have already seen is more men playing the game in divorce court women have been playing, like okrahead did. The law is written gender neutral after all, even if it has a huge disparate impact. Fascinatingly enough, the mothers of men appear to be the one’s guiding the men into what to do. The domestic violence charges, kicking the woman out of the home, documenting instability (and women are getting more unstable with each year).
If you talk to young men a lot of them will express the sentiment “Never marry them, never let them move in.” You just won’t really notice this drop off, and I believe it will be a huge one except years later.
The handwringing, the proclamations that I’m not like that and I’m not a feminist will grow louder, but the code of the matrix is starting to leak through everywhere.
I’m sorry Dalrock but I did not understand your last sentence. What did you mean by “run the risk of initially accelerating it”? What risk are you talking about here?
IBB
“(I don’t count 26 year old boys sitting in their parent’s basement smoking weed and playing videos games all day as GTOW because no one gives a damn about them)”
Well you should. It’s just as much a fruit of the insane incentives being offered. In fact it’s potentially more damaging because the tax man doesn’t get his dip into profits never made. And may have to fund social care for the kids too.
You do not get to define the rules by which others play.
That is the traditional tradcon failing; not realising that other people do not think like they do. Don’t believe what they believe. Don’t value what they value. Won’t react as they require.
That society is dead. This is war, a war declared on men by society.
Casey says:
“I personally will not be having a 2nd child because of this warped system. Here is proof positive of the impact of the punishment based incentive model.”
I have had women propose and I have declined. I like children and in a sane society I would love to have a multitude but there is no way I would do that.
@ thecivilizationist
Perhaps Dalrock is saying that any effort to fix the system will serve to make its inequity more obvious, thereby helping more men realize what a trap it is and thus compelling them to bow out of the whole process, even though it is technically getting better.
If I may…
….Dalrock correct me if I am wrong but I think what he is saying is that people like Tucker Carlson are forced to REFUSE to acknowledge that men going on strike from marriage is a “problem” because to acknowledge it in ANY manner would give information to men that maybe they should go on strike and thus, speed up what is already happening. That IS the risk (the risk being that resource gathering single men will smarten up before buying that diamond and sharing their resources.) Obviously, Tucker Carlson does NOT want this so his best way to prevent it (best way to be a good White Knight) is to utterly refuse to acknowledge this problem.
Men aren’t on strike, they are starting a new league.
Ever seen what happens to a sport when someone starts drastically changing the rules to favor some and not others (or worse, changing the rules in the middle of the game)? Some players take their ball and go home; others form their own league.
MGTOW are the men taking their ball and going home, which is a reasonable response. If someone else is going to rig the rules of the game against you or change them in the middle of the game, why even play at all?
The largest group of men though are those who have decided to to start a new league. Women are welcome to join the new league, as long as they agree to play by the new league’s rules. The men going this way aren’t interested in playing by the old league’s rules–period.
Unfortunately, this is a sports analogy, which means few women will understand it.
thecivilizationalist,
Lets put it another way, the more Bill Maher’s we have (the more wealthy, skilled, intelligent, alpha males who refuse to marry and never breed) the more f-cked the child support method is, the more f-cked the marry government model becomes. If the highest producing men “opt out” of our current system, the more it must be dramatically altered to find a way to get all of their resources. The smartest MGTOW who produce the most will just find ways to hoard those resources (gold? BitCoins? offshore accounts?) such that government can not confiscate them to support the bastards.
I don’t count 26 year old boys sitting in their parent’s basement smoking weed and playing videos games all day as GTOW because no one gives a damn about them
You’re missing the entire point. What matters is what they’re not doing. In the past those guys might have gotten a high-pressure sales jobs and worked twelve hour days until they had a large enough income to provide for a family.
How many Bill Mahers are there, anyway? The number of truly wealthy people in the US is too small, on a percentage basis, to have any real effect on social dynamics.
“the problem wasn’t a rebellion, it was that they had reached the limits of incentive through fear. In the short and even medium term fear is a very effective motivator. But over time if overused it loses some of its power, especially when it comes to the kind of productivity which requires creativity and risk taking.”
The Churchian church in the US is doing this now.
Motivation through FEAR: “You men need to get married because if you don’t, you’ll probably never find a woman to have sex with and have your children. “
“You’re going to die all alone.”
“If you have premarital sex that’s fornication and you’ll burn in hell.”
“yeah, hubby, if you don’t get down to that bar and tell our son to get back here and get to bed and work a job; I’m leaving you. There’s a nice little trailer park down the road I can move to.”
Motivation through SHAME. The underlying message is: if you don’t get married and have kids and do what we say, you’re not a “real man”.
“MAN UP!”
“Man up and marry the sluts!”
“Man up and quit playing those video games!”
“The true mark of manhood is marriage and fatherhood.”
Same sex “marriage” has completed the process which no-fault divorce began. At this point, marriage is a mockery, a temporary arrangement between any two persons for government benefits. With serious downsides for men.
My two sons, in their twenties, have no interest in women let alone marriage. While I find that remarkable, I understand that is pretty much the situation of their peers as well. Part of it is financial. My older son, now 3 years out of college with a business degree, couldn’t find a job the first year, worked as a stock boy in a big-box store the second, and has only just within the past year found a job with some sort of a future (a cost estimator for a construction company). He still can’t afford a car. Getting his present job, he was shocked he got it, because during the interview process he was competing against two women and assumed one of them would get the job over him because of required preferences in hiring. But he did get it.
I can see why he is disgusted, and obviously he’s not even in a position where women would pay attention to him. This is a kid with a good education, nice personality, works hard, is responsible and is not a jerk. But that doesn’t count for anything any more.
Frankly, I feel sorry for my sons and the country they are now living in. At least my wife and I had the benefit of having seen better days, and I count my blessings that we came of age in the Eighties, before things got so screwed up.
Don’t forget that if provider status is “perceived” as a way to NOT get a wife and that slacking does get lots of hot girls in their teens and early 20s, then you’ve created a positive incentive to slack.
It’s not that you’ve created a powerful incentive to slack, per se. You’ve created a powerful incentive for men to expend all their effort making themselves good “hook up” partners in lieu of good husbands. To put in extra time at they gym instead of extra time at work. To get tattoos, Harleys, and drug habits instead of good jobs and houses.
@deti I another one “man up and fall on that sword for the good of the woman and children”
I don’t see why I should bust my ass if I have no freaking idea whether my wife will still be here one week from now, one year from now, or ten years from now. Why should I invest if no one is going to pretend that commitment and honor and fidelity are required from any other direction than just from the husband to the wife? (She is taught that I have to love her like Christ loved the church whether she stays married to me or not. Me? I gotta earn the privilege to be held in contempt by her.)
I haven’t quit… but there sure has been a work slow down. No one’s managed to convince me that I have anything else to look forward to but the back wheel of a bus as it goes over me.
Eric,
No Eric.
IN the past, those guys would have gotten well formed, high paying, union jobs in manufacturing because that is all they are qualified to do. They do not have enough cognitive ability to do anything else. All those jobs are gone (to China) and they are not going to flip burgers for $8 an hour when they can just live at home (for free) smoke weed and play video games. Why should they>
The young men who CAN do high-pressure jobs, rest assured Eric, they are doing them. The rewards for their efforts are still so high that they cannot resist using their ability, they wont go John Galt. So it is in society’s best interest to get these men (the surplus wealth creators) married. If they go all Bill Maher (and only date/f-ck Playboy bunnies, but never marry them and never-EVER impregnate them) our child support model for raising children is royal and truly ruined. Government will have to find a way to extract more resources from them by way of bachlor taxes. This has already started with the ultimate bachelor tax, the ACA.
“The young men who CAN do high-pressure jobs, rest assured Eric, they are doing them.”
So you’re the guy with the finger on the pulse of young men are you? Give us a break. You haven’t a clue what motivates most men, let alone ones young enough to have been raised under the spectre of feminist society and male-free homes.
I watched you from the start of your presence on this blog, half the time you didn’t even convince us other readers that you were male. But suddenly you’re the authority on how society works for young men? Get a grip.
deti,
…shrugs…
If this bothers you in church, just tell the Pastor that you are doing as Paul recommended and staying single to stay “unencumbered” to more easily spread the Good News of Christ. That is Biblical. Quote chapter and verse. What could the Pastor say? You’ve got the Bible on your side. Which means you have eternal life on your side. How can he shame?
@ Ras Al ghul
My current girlfriend proposed to me as well…..however, she can’t answer one simple question: “Will you take my last name?”
So, in lieu of the answer to that question……my answer is “No”.
In any event, children are out of the question.
If the tradition of taking your husband’s last name is too antiquated, patriarchal, or whatever feminist ‘wordsmithing’ is currently trendy………..I will counter that the tradition of marriage itself is also too antiquated, partriarcal, etc.
Stalemate.
it’s going to be worse than anyone can imagine.
I can’t wait.
IN the past, those guys would have gotten well formed, high paying, union jobs in manufacturing because that is all they are qualified to do. They do not have enough cognitive ability to do anything else.
Intelligence and motivation are not the same thing.
The young men who CAN do high-pressure jobs, rest assured Eric, they are doing them. The rewards for their efforts are still so high that they cannot resist using their ability, they wont go John Galt.
Some of them, probably. But as many as in the past? I seriously doubt it.
Dalrock, I eagerly await the book I know you have in you on these realities.
@Deti
You mention men refusing to “work to capacity”. In my old family albums, my grandparents all came from big families – seven or more children. My parents came from rather smaller families – four children. I had only one sister. Looking strictly from the standard of child bearing, women have been cutting back on production for decades.
@Crowhill
What about _Man Down_
Spawny,
I am no authority. I just listen to what young men tell me where I work. When they say (point black) that they are not getting married because the women they occasionally date have too much debt, I beleive them. What am I supposed to do? I even talked about it at my blog.
I feel real bad for guys who stay at their parent’s home, live in the basement, smoke weed, and play video games. I don’t believe for one second that today’s society gives them much of a chance. Unlike Tarker Carlson, I care. I care what happens to them even if society doesn’t. But these guys may not have had a whole lot of options.
Let me ask you something, what is the last well-formed, decent paying job, you ever worked? Mine was in a warehouse and I was a union picker. I could count one hand the number of co-workers that I worked with that could have a conversation like this at this level.
@ IBB
Even if you are correct (that these men would have otherwise been grunts earning good money on the Ford/GM/Chrysler assembly line), your conclusion is still wrong.
Landing a guy earning good money has always been a pursuit of women. A deficit of men earning good money (or any money) is a HUGE problem, particulary for women on the margins of society.
Ok, I’m a recovering nice guy beta currently going through the angry, cynical stage of readjustment. While I have to accept responsibility for all the decisions that got me here, I can’t help but note I am the product of lies.
I have been told my entire life that by virtue of being white, straight, and male that I am by default a racist, sexist, homophobic, oppressive, entitled, bigot, and potential rapist. I was told I don’t, can’t, and won’t be able to understand the plight of others because of my privilege, and unfair advantages. I was told repeatedly by teachers, clergy, politicians, and cultural elites the my life has no meaning unless it in service to others, the nation, the poor, a wife, my parents, my church, or my community, my employer. Never was it suggested my life was to be in service of myself, any suggestion that I would pursue personal goals not in service to someone or something else it was an indication of selfishness or greed. I was told that I am expendable, disposable, and infinitely replaceable. I am to provide service but never expect it returned to me.
I was taught that boys will be boys, and it would better if they were more like girls. Unless of course manual labor was needed than boys were barely good enough. I was taught to treat women with respect, not as sex objects. I was told not to expect, demand, manipulate, or ask even for sex. I have no right right of entitlement to sex, even from a wife. But should I marry the wife is my highest obligation, to feed, breed, make happy, care for, house, support financially, emotionally and materially. Being the idiot I am I believed it. I was taught women are my equals and deserve to be treated as such. But when I did this I was told they need to be treated as women. My confusion was something for me to work out by myself. Thus to women I am undesirable, unfashionable, too passive, too aggressive, inattentive, clingy, lacking intimacy, untrustworthy, dangerous, too safe, selfish, too generous and worst of all I just don’t get it. But they still value my friendship.
I am too well educated for crap work, to inexperienced for good work, and too old for entry level work. I also fail to meet any sort HR need for a diversity hire. At work I am expected to produce a product or a service. But usually the product I am expected to produce is good feelings amongst my coworkers, as well I am to tell the boss the approved versions of the truth. I must be likable, friendly, and sociable. The amount and quality of work I do is less important than my ability to talk about the work I do. The results are less important than the process. I am employed to serve the egos of bosses, and validate the feelings of my coworkers. I am paid as little as possible since production is not a metric. If I am lucky I will be presented with Certificate of Achievement to further dehumanize me. The economy doesn’t want me but it still values my spending.
If I fall on hard times the government tells me to man up. Since I’m neither woman nor child I am unworthy of assistance. But when I’m making good money the same government is there to collect its share. When I want to start a business the government demands a bribe, license, tax, fee, inspection, or approval of various drones who only exist to suck the life out of the ambitious and industrious. If I show ambition and chase the dollars I arouse the suspicion that I must be defrauding someone, stealing, or cheating. If am successful I am expected to give back, but there is never an explanation of what favor I am repaying.
My anger and cynicism is the result of too long giving sanction to the system that neither encourages me, nor rewards me. For some reason it believes I will continue to play this game. I won’t the game offers me no reason to play.
Casey,
Sadly, this is a problem our country is facing even WITHOUT a marriage strike. I’m not even talking about the guys who DO want to get married, but cant find (or hold for any length of time) a decent job.
@ IBB
“I just listen to what young men tell me where I work. When they say (point blank) that they are not getting married because the women they occasionally date have too much debt, I believe them.”
I believe them too………you are proving everyone’s point.
Men are starting to say “fuck it, why bother”
Men are now looking for a reason to get married BESIDES getting laid.
If all a woman can guarantee a marriage is short-term sex…..that can be had elsewhere for free & no commitment.
While I agree society is best served by an incentive based marriage structure that holds BOTH parties accountable……that is NOT where we are at presently.
&
Men are adjusting their expectations & demands accordingly. (Yes, I said demands…..i.e. OUR threatpoint….of leaving women barren, old, & unmarried)
Ah..understood. You cannot fix something without acknowledging that it is broken, and if you acknowledge that it is broken, everyone becomes aware of the problem, causing an initial worsening of the situation.
What will make it even worse is if some politicians acknowledge that there is a problem with family law and attempt to fix it, but fail to do so, due to political gridlock.
@ Crownhill:
“A Man Needs a Wife Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle”
Very funny and true. Or perhaps, A Man Needs a Wife Like a gecko Needs a Hungry Hawk.
@ Okrahead:
I was the primary care giver to my son from age 3 months to age 4 years. It was a wonderful time for me and my son. We bonded very closely. He said “dad” before “mom”. He cried, “Daddy” at preschool. As me and his mom divorced, I am so thankful that I was able to spend that quality time with him to cement our bond. I won’t go into details about his mom or our “marriage”.
Casey,
Almost.
It is “f-ck it, why bother marrying?” They are still “working” if they have the aptitude to do so in our 21st century, information age based, economy. I’d argue, the live int he parent’s basement, weed smoker, video gamers, do not have that aptitude.
Yes.
…and I’d argue that Bill Maher (and others like him) figured this out more than three decades ago… Dr Helen Smith is way late to their MGTOW party, either that or she wasn’t invited (until now.)
@ IBB
“Sadly, this is a problem our country is facing even WITHOUT a marriage strike.”
Agreed……..and the Marriage Strike is making it more impactful.
Family formation is in a full-on “holding pattern”. 75% of jobs lost in 2008 meltdown were……..(drum roll)…..MEN.
AND
Feminist brat Kate Bolick said as much (in her self-unaware article about being unmarried at 40) that (paraphrasing here) women shouldn’t marry down the economic ladder (her observation of how deeply the economic downdraft had impacted men).
That’s it in a nutshell. Women want to marry UP….while at the same time creating the feminist environment that prevents men from earning more than women.
Beautifully ironic.
Instead of going directly to college out of high school, I played drums in a rock band. I knew the odds of making it big were long, but that’s what I wanted to do with my life. I gave myself till my 21st birthday. If I didn’t make it big by then, I’d hang up the drum sticks and get serious about life.
That was in the 1970’s.
If I was graduating high school this year, my deadline for either making it or hanging up the drum sticks would be my 30th birthday.
In the 1970’s life was about creating a solid foundation, then building upon it the rest of your life.
* You got a job and worked your way up the ladder.
* You married and built a family–children and grandchildren.
* You invested in a starter home; sold it as it went up in value; moved to a larger home.
In 2014:
* A home is more like an albatross than an investment; many people would have been better off renting their entire lives than putting money into a house.
* Marriage isn’t permanent; serial marriages and mixed families are now the norm; a marriage is just as likely to ruin a man’s life today as improve it.
* The good corporate jobs went away; layoffs are common; few people climb the corporate ladder by staying with one company; bouncing from company to company is the way to move up up the ladder.
Today, why not spend your youth doing what you want? Is the guy that doesn’t get serious about life till he’s 30 that much worse off than the guy that went straight to college and got his degree at 22? Which of them arguably will lead the fuller life?
There are no incentives today to start getting serious about life early.
Roy Baumeister said something like, “Men will do almost anything society tells them they have to do to get sex, but – with only rare exceptions – not a bit more.”
It’s the best argument in favor of prohibiting prostitution in civilized areas where there are plenty of young single women needing and wanting to get married. Of course, those times are long gone.
@IBB
A technical domain expert for a series of hi-tech companies (I was THE expert in a domain required to deliver their product expertise). Your point being? I never said I was a basement dwelling kid without hope, just that I wouldn’t condemn some guys for reacting in that way. I am, however, heavily enthused at the idea of minimising any further benefit to the system.
I had a couple of comments related to you up at the top of the post, not sure whether you have seen them so I’m not sure to which points you are replying.
My second comment (1:37pm) was about your slice of compassion
“(I don’t count 26 year old boys sitting in their parent’s basement smoking weed and playing videos games all day as GTOW because no one gives a damn about them)”
Which I find hard to reconcile with your latest comment, with which I am much more in favour.
@ Spawny Get
Agreed………I noticed IBB’s contradiction there as well.
“The young men who CAN do high-pressure jobs, rest assured Eric, they are doing them. The rewards for their efforts are still so high that they cannot resist using their ability, they wont go John Galt.”
For sure, there are still high pressure jobs, but men who can do those jobs do them because they are high paying jobs. It’s all about the money; and those few men doing those jobs are doing them solely for the monetary reward. These kinds of men are not at all agnostic about marriage in my experience. They either want marriage very much (most are already married); or, as a growing number are, they will never marry or father children. These men either want marriage and fatherhood; or are dead set “no marriage, no children, ever”.
Those latter men aren’t going Galt economically, but they are doing so in every other respect.
@crowhill
How about “A Man Needs a Wife Like a Head Needs a Hole”? At least the bicycle doesn’t suck the fish dry and then send it to debtors prison.
Although I’m married, and like having a wife and kids, I don’t think I’ll be able to counsel my sons to take that path. Too much risk and too little reward going forward.
On the other hand, as more and more men slack off and fail to develop earning capacity, the women may have to buck up and just support them. That might be a pretty good deal – stay home, lift weights, take care of the kids. Call up the cops and say “she scares you” if she bitches about the house not being clean enough. lol
Spawny,
That is not what I asked. I asked what was the last well formed job you had. That is a technical job that requires thinking (thinking outside the box) thinking that not all people can do.
Those jobs pay good, they are plentiful, and that is because not everyone can do them. You can’t offshore that job to China or Malaysia for a 13 year old girl to do in a sweatshop the way you CAN with former union manufacturing jobs. And that guys that are living in the basement smoking weed? They can’t do your job. Their jobs went to China.
That’s my point.
I care.
Society doesn’t.
There is nothing to reconcile, no contradiction.
@ Casey:
“If the tradition of taking your husband’s last name is too antiquated, patriarchal, or whatever feminist ‘wordsmithing’ is currently trendy………..I will counter that the tradition of marriage itself is also too antiquated, partriarcal, etc.
Stalemate.”
Not a stalemate; you won! With your wisdom of current societal circumstances you realized that a woman who presents as having difficulty taking your last name in marriage will eventually hamper you with more toxic feminist crap. You got out of marriage without having to get divorced. I say, “Good job young man!” (if you are young??)
deti,
Yes to all of this.
Casey says:
“Men are now looking for a reason to get married BESIDES getting laid.
If all a woman can guarantee a marriage is short-term sex…..that can be had elsewhere for free & no commitment.”
The female answer to that is “love” but again something that can be gotten without it.
There is nothing in it for the man.
IBB,
“I’d argue, the live int he parent’s basement, weed smoker, video gamers, do not have that aptitude.”
The problem is that it is beaten out of them psychologically. They are told that being male is inferior at school, in the church, on television in a million ways directly and indirectly.
They are told if they are white, that they are monsters.
They recognize that for any job the woman has a preference. They recognize they are less likely to get promoted. They recognize that college is just debt and nothing more. The women around them are highly promiscuous, vacant, and sociopathic predators with no future time orientation.
They have watched their fathers get destroyed (sometimes repeatedly) by the matrix.
@Kaehu Re:”My two sons, in their twenties, have no interest in women let alone marriage. While I find that remarkable, I understand that is pretty much the situation of their peers as well.”
My son, now a couple years into a good paying job, is hooked into a large group of mid-20s Christian yuppie dudes in the Dallas area. Since they are average looking, none has ever had a date much less a girlfriend, despite trying hard for eight or ten years. And now that they all found each other, they’ve stopped looking for any girls, and stopped putting forth real effort at work. They golf all day on their days off when they want, go fishing all day when they want, go hunting all day, play video games all day (and night). I’ve met the handful my son is closest with, but there are dozens more: relatively well off young men who already make enough to support a family, but because they aren’t very good looking no girl will even consider them, at all, for anything at all. And consequently they are going their own way.
@donalgraeme
This is it. The status quo is maintained by a combination of denial and exhorting men to stop screwing feminism up by being weak. You can’t reform the system without first acknowledging the problem. This cuts the legs out from under both the deniers (“The system is working fine!”) and the ones claiming the system isn’t working because weak men are screwing it up. Ironically implementing the reform only makes this worse, because who can deny that there was a problem? At the same time, the (early) reforms are almost guaranteed not to address the fundamental problem. Try to find someone in MA who still denies that automatic lifetime alimony is inherently unfair; only the worst crackpot will still claim that. Yet just a few years ago only crackpots were claiming it wasn’t fair.
Discussing the problem to build consensus for reforms and then implementing the reforms tends to unleash the pent up forces in the system. Yet if you do nothing the tax base continues to slowly shrink.
The thing to always keep in mind is the impact of all of this isn’t to take a man who would have made partner in a law firm and turn him into a slacker. It is to slightly lower the incentive to work hard across the curve, with the impact of the downward drift accumulating over many years. Men who would have commuted 30 miles to work 60 hour weeks might keep the same commute and only work 55 hours. Or they might only work 50 and find a job a bit closer to home. The man at the bottom of the economic ladder might go from a job with nearly no social status to taking disability. If he takes mental health disability he might even get powerful protection against child support.
@IBB said: “The young men who CAN do high-pressure jobs, rest assured Eric, they are doing them.”
Some are. Others are (like my drumming example above) deciding to persue lower paying careers they find more satisfying rather than grinding away at high-pressure jobs just for the money.
How many have decided to customize cars for a living (because they love it) rather than live the high-pressure grind? At least 1.
How many have decided to work on a ranch for a living (because they love it) rather than live the high-pressure grind? At least 1.
How many have decided to paint murals for a living (because they love it) rather than live the grind? At least 1.
Men don’t grind away at life for money; they do it for the things money provides (things that satisfy their needs in life). But if they can obtain satisfaction in life without grinding your life away, why do it?
Married men grind their lives away to get money to provide for their families. But if you don’t have a family, then you don’t need the money. And if you don’t need the money, then you don’t need to grind your life away.
“The fact that the mobility of labour required of everyone in a society dominated by unconstrained market institutions is profoundly disruptive of settled communities and imposes severe strains on life in families is neglected or repressed, by those contemporary conservatives – the vast majority – for whom the United States is the tacit or explicit model. It is true enough that in the US case, all other values have been sacrificed for the sake of microeconomic flexibility, productivity and low labour costs. This US model which is unlikely to be replicated as successfully anywhere else, has to its credit that the relentless pursuit of efficiency has renewed economic growth, spurred technological advance and generated millions of new jobs. At the same time, the US model of individualist market institutions has been has been distinguished by levels of family breakdown and fractured community, of criminality and incarceration, that are unknown in other western countries. In addition, the successes in job creation in the United States have necessitated a large-scale casualization of work, a lowering of real income in the middle classes and a revolution of falling expectations in the younger generation that will not be tolerated in any European country.”
John Gray: Enlightenment’s Wake [1995] Routledge p146
I agree with IBB to an extent. I work because I have some ability to enjoy what I do and because I can do some good whilst doing it. However, decided a long time ago that I would prefer to work when I want, taking leisure instead of more pay. So while these men might still work, they might be able to get away with working less and spending their money on leisure instead of government and women.
There’s a price to pay when your business elite betray their countries in pursuit of profits.
8 to 12, Jan 3, 3:09 pm:
Yes. In my experience there are two kinds of men working high paying jobs:
(1) those who do it because they have to, in order to finance a living for a family which either exists or will exist; and
(2) Those who do it because they want to, in order to accumulate as much money as they can for as long as they can for themselves, to enjoy life, toys, vacations, and early retirement.
SSM’s most recent post concerns this “Circular Matrix”.
1.If women are chaste, it pays men to be committed.
2.If men are committed, it pays women to be slutty.
3.If women are slutty, it pays men to be cads.
4.If men are cads, it pays women to be chaste.
Since I can’t post there, I post here. She asks for help in understanding based on this, but the fundamental problem is 4. The vast majority of men can never get to be cads, ever. So 4 never actually happens. In contrast, all women could always be sluts if they wanted to be, and the vast majority could charge for it. So 3 happens fast, and we wind up in our present situation of de facto harems.
The only way to fix the problem is to undo the “reforms” that caused it.
If society re-established the old rules …
+ that marriage is the only legitimate place for sex
+ that children should be raised by a married couple
+ that fatherhood is honorable
+ that the father is the head of the home
… then men would be more interested in marriage. I’m not sure if people want that, so I’m not sure if there’s going to be a fix for the “marriage strike.”
First of all, it’s truly a shame that as men we have to face this fact:
most of us will not produce up to our true potential without some sex as a part of the reward package. That is the first hurdle any male must get past.
Once you do, then whoever mentioned Bill Maher upthread is right…you will see instantly that supporting a corrupt system and/or an overpriced wife isn’t worth your entire life’s strength.
So you have to develop yourself for your own sake….once you do, you will immediately see that the pleasure of sex with a woman isn’t worth what the state says it is. The question then becomes:
Are we going to just sit back and wait for societal collapse? Or are we going to try and change the laws to prevent said collapse, and re-incentivize husbanding and fathering?
crowhill,
Those are nice and all, but they wont break the strike. What society needs to do is something that can NOT be done until the 19th Amendment is overturned because women vote and women would never-EVER give up “no-fault-divorce.”
Feminism (the absence of the Patriarchy) requires a “threatpoint” to properly transfer resources from men to women.
No-fault-divorce is the “threat.” To leave a marriage at any moment for any reason (or no reason) if he doesn’t do as she wants is the cardinal virtue to feminism, or feminism can’t work. Until the “threatpoint” disappears (and divorce becaomes much harder to get, almost impossible to get according to “man’s law”) then there will be no break in the strike.
Also: did we ever get stats on how many men are actually and officially “on strike?”
Opus,
John Gray is right about all of that. But still, from a cultural standpoint, the average US citizen wouldn’t want to trade places with Greece or Spain (where almost 40% of their young adults under age 25 are unemployed) just because the culture there prevents the reducton in pay to the lowest possible dollar figure.
Yes, our shit jobs pay shit because that is ALL the market will bear, but there still is a lot of shit jobs.
@ SomeGuy, Jan 3, 2:06 pm:
“I don’t see why I should bust my ass if I have no freaking idea whether my wife will still be here one week from now, one year from now, or ten years from now. Why should I invest if no one is going to pretend that commitment and honor and fidelity are required from any other direction than just from the husband to the wife?”
This perfectly sums up a lot of married men’s attitudes. If everything I have can be taken away if/when Snookums decides she just doesn’t want to be married anymore, what’s the point?
No matter what, in marriage you’re screwed.
1. He files, her adultery. You have her on video running train on the local university football team: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support.
2. He files, her abandonment/abuse/alcoholism: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support.
3. He files; no fault: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support, and alimony because’s he’s a dick for divorcing her.
4. She files, his fault; he got caught soliciting a hooker: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support, and alimony because he’s a criminal and he deserves it.
5. She files, his fault, his abandonment/abuse/alcoholism: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support, and alimony because he’s an asshole and he deserves it.
6. She files, no fault, she’s just unhaaaaappy: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support, and alimony because it will make her feel better.
Subbed
spelling: sabatoging -> sabotaging
great article btw.
[D: Fixed. Thanks!]
Great work.
“Extend the age of marriage far enough and eventually the culture of young men will be less focused on competing to signal provider status, and their priorities will shift (on the margin) toward slacking off. ”
I agree with the incentive dynamic as well as the fact that an increasing percentage of men are taking their foot off the gas, but I’m not totally on board with the “slacking off” term to characterize the trend. Slacking off implies that there is waste of labour hours; that the utility of those men has no value because it has been withheld from the system or has gone “off book”.
That implies that men are merely vessels of production and consumption. Fine, but many men are not only waking up to the disincentives but also to the failings of the entire system that has created (and destroyed) those incentives. They are investing in ways that are not reflected in those plain economic terms. Sure, some are just spanking it and playing games, but I’d argue that many men are simply investing their time in other areas of their lives. The challenge (threat to the system), however, is not just one one of production.
Since the entire system is constructed on the illusion of ideals like personal freedom, choice, security, and leisure as the rewards of increasing personal productivity, how can it be “slacking off” if one merely reframes/revalues those rewards as he chooses. IOW, our society has been dedicated to the pursuit of leisure via consumption for quite some time. If one exercises their freedom to establish what level of those things are satisfactory and then produces accordingly, they aren’t slacking off as much as they are responding to (gaming) the mechanics of the system as a whole.
Once a man breaks free from those things that tell him what those rewards should look like (“the American Dream”), he can then define them according to his own measures. Does he need a 2,000 SF house? A bigger TV, a nicer car? Dialing back the consumption, especially when most men do not work jobs that they *love*, is a valid way to produce surplus for the individual. But our culture does not value this choice because the surplus is personal, not communal. That’s why I think it is actually about his consumption, or lack of.
When male disposability, the “end of men”, “who needs men” messages become increasingly clear, that “Dream” looks more like a prison. And to me, it makes me think the concern has little to do with men realizing their potential in terms of productivity and everything to do with men realizing their potential as consumers, de facto transferring their consumption choices to women and the government, all while their individual value is nothing more than ballast to be thrown into the voids in order to keep the machine upright.
The incentives to play this role are waning. Women are essentially lowering the value of marriage through their own prioritization (delay until x, y, z) all while keeping the price of sex near zero. So men can get sex without signaling provider, without accumulating those proxy things, and it is no surprise that they are merely absorbing the message from women that marriage is something of a distant achievement, just one more in a long line of status seeking for the self, and far too often a means for women to let off the gas and create options like SAHM for themselves, all while men must steadily increase his investment in the scheme. Its a rigged game and it starts early. The younger men are figuring it out earlier and earlier; they aren’t waiting for the eat-pray-love ripcord to force a reckoning.
I’ve worked in firms where the bosses encouraged the young men to buy nice cars, a house, start a family. Playing right into “what a good man is supposed to do”, but they knew full well a man carrying the full weight of life as early as possible meant he was more likely to come in early, stay late, and keep his nose grinding to serve the firm.
If male and female units of labor were truly equal, it shouldn’t matter that men are letting off the gas, as women would just replace men and produce their own surplus. But the excess production (if any) of women as a whole doesn’t seem to “trickle down” quite like male production is legislated to do and with big daddy gov’t printing money, women as a whole don’t have much of an incentive to work harder either. So why should men keep running at the wall of machine gun fire when they can play poker in the trenches with the boys and stay alive until their two-day pass to the whorehouse. The smart and self-motivated ones will still make something of themselves, as they always have, but it will be a much more personal, much less visible endeavor. Selfish perhaps, but then self-interest is hard-wired into the current system just the same.
The posting is good. However, what it leaves out is the possibility of men being motivated to making lots of money, but not getting married and having kids at all. Many (most?) of the silicon valley entrepreneurs have no wife or kids. This is becoming a common characteristic of successful men.
Another thing to consider is that some men may be motivated to make enough money, but keep living expenses low (e.g. no wife or kids) such that they can “retire” to the beaches of Latin America or South East Asia and live the good life.
A third possibility is where a man is motivated to work hard and make lots of money because of the prospect of radical life extension and an unlimited open personal future. He wants to save up the money to pay for SENS therapies and stem cell rejuvenation.regeneration, say around 2030-2040, and realizes his chances at biological immortality are reduces with the albatross of having a wife and kids. In short, he may be a transhumanist.
There are many more choices in front of us now that were not there even 50 years ago that have increased the opportunity cost of getting married and having kids. The decline of marriage and family life is not solely because of toxic feminism (although it is a factor). Even if feminism disappeared tomorrow and the family courts all became “pro-men”, I believe the decline of marriage/family life due to other life style options is a permanent one and is as irreversible as the industrial and scientific revolutions. I think we should recognize this fact and stop obsessing over it. The genie is out of the bottle and will never be stuffed back in.
Excellent Laszlo. If I could award karma for a post, I would.
Excellent analysis as I’d expect Dal.
Just a couple of issues though. While I agree that men marrying earlier used to have better incentives I’d also point out that women postponing marriage until 27-30 is also an incentivizing factor. This isn’t news to you, but even when you have romantic young men, fed on a steady diet of the soul-mate myth, Disney wishes and feminine conditioning, eager to marry their high school girlfriend you still need a woman equally conditioned and incentivized to participate in that early marriage.
Obviously the incentives for women to postpone marriage up until the zero hour before their SMV and fertility window begin to decline in earnest seems to be optimal for women, however the incentive for a woman to ‘be all she can be’ (preferably before that point) is in direct conflict with men’s incentive to marry earlier. Her incentive is his disincentive and vice versa.
The logical compromise between these conflicting incentives is for men to postpone marriage themselves until such time as women have optimized (or perceive to) their own incentives – or come to the convenient Epiphany Phase when they acknowledge their lessened capacity to compete for the same male attention they enjoyed when they were younger. http://therationalmale.com/2012/12/19/the-epiphany-phase/
The problem with this compromise is that while men are in-waiting for women to reach this point they begin to lose that youthful idealism about marriage. As they approach 27-30 themselves they come to realize the truth about the bill of idealistic goods they’ve been sold. In other words the closer women approach (subjectively) realizing the ends of their own incentives they run the risk of men becoming aware of their own SMV potential. Naturally the FI uses ever tool in its social convention arsenal to suppress this awareness, but the manosphere and increased social connectivity are waking men up to the realities of feminine-primary incentives.
Aunt Giggles will flap her fleshy jowls at my SMV chart, but it represents a useful model here; as men approach their SMV peak their incentive to marry turns into a disincentive by either personal experience, the experiences of other men, or otherwise coming into an awareness of the risks inherent in marrying a woman. In other words the marriage dream decays for men as they approach the phase when women become incentivized to marry.
This is exactly why my SMV graph is such a threat to the Feminine Imperative, it makes young men more aware of what’s to come for them and accelerates their coming to this awareness before women can consolidate upon their incentives and hypergamy.
So I while I agree that there is no concerted ‘movement’ with regards to a ‘marriage strike’ I would argue that it’s really women’s incentives rather than men’s disincentives that are at the root of the ‘strike’.
That is the traditional tradcon failing; not realising that other people do not think like they do. Don’t believe what they believe. Don’t value what they value. Won’t react as they require.
To say that Tradcons don’t realize that other people don’t believe what they believe doesn’t even make sense to me. How could tradcons oppose some of the progressive ideas that they oppose with out understanding that the people they oppose believe something different then what they themselves believe?
The rest I agree with except to say that tradcons aren’t the only people who behave as you are describing.
How could conservatives possibly fail to realize other people don’t necessarily think like they do? You can’t avoid media saturation from the other side.
You can confiscate a percentage of [a man’s] income in the form of child support, but he no longer has the incentive to fight his way quite so high up our progressive tax structure. This is why the courts have to assign the man an income quota he has to meet, Soviet style. Imputation of income isn’t incidental to the child support family model; it is essential to the function of the model.
I eagerly await the day when massive numbers of men, who have awakened and realize that they no longer have anything left to lose, say to the State “F*** you and your ‘imputed income’, your child support, your alimony, and all the rest of your theft at gunpoint. You might as well lock me up RIGHT NOW, because from this moment forward, I am paying not one worthless penny of money in support of anyone other than MYSELF!
“So steal what little material wealth and possessions I now have, and let the recipient of them enjoy them for the VERY short time they last, because there won’t be any more forthcoming!”
Let millions of men with nothing left to lose finally say “NO MORE!” even while threatened at gunpoint, and watch the whole system come instantly crashing down.
So the contemporary Western male is rediscovering the utility of the old “Government Stroke” as a logical response to harsh and brutalizing disincentives?
“… the convicts had an irreducible unit of labor. They called it the “Government stroke”. Doing it kept you out of the hands of the flogger; you were seen to be working, but that was all.
…
Colonial Australia progressed slowly … its worst problem was a labor force with so few incentives to work.” Robert Hughes: The Fatal Shore, 285
Pingback: Dude, Where’s My Marriage? | hyperboleverbally
@Casey
I’m fairly certain I’m the first to use the term in the manosphere, but I didn’t actually coin it. This is a term used very openly in academic research on marriage. They are remarkably candid that no fault divorce and the larger machinery of the family court is a tool being used to “improve” marriage by dramatically weakening the power of husbands. For examples see this paper as well as this one, but I’m guessing MarcusD could pull up a long list of studies touting the benefits of the threatpoint created by no fault divorce.
@JDG
fair enough, perhaps I worded it too strongly. And you are right that they are not the only ideologues. I get annoyed by the endless procession of “I am here to show you idiots the way” types (what I meant by the potentially careless term tradcon. Got a better suggestion for a term to use? Grand Patriarch Wannabes?). Come to think of it I haven’t seen one since the KingA guy got the order of the golden boot, so it’s been a while. Last seen on Heartiste’s site, although pseudonyms are likely. Are we due for another GPW any day now?
deti says:
“No matter what, in marriage you’re screwed.
1. He files, her adultery. You have her on video running train on the local university football team: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support.
2. He files, her abandonment/abuse/alcoholism: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support.
3. He files; no fault: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support, and alimony because’s he’s a dick for divorcing her.
4. She files, his fault; he got caught soliciting a hooker: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support, and alimony because he’s a criminal and he deserves it.
5. She files, his fault, his abandonment/abuse/alcoholism: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support, and alimony because he’s an asshole and he deserves it.
6. She files, no fault, she’s just unhaaaaappy: She gets half of everything plus the kids, child support, and alimony because it will make her feel better.”
Actually this is not entirely true. Guys can win under 2. I’ve seen it happen. The guy has to be sharp as a tack on it, but it can be done. The rest is accurate.
Laszlo:
“If male and female units of labor were truly equal, it shouldn’t matter that men are letting off the gas, as women would just replace men and produce their own surplus. But the excess production (if any) of women as a whole doesn’t seem to “trickle down” quite like male production”
There is no surplus of labor from women and there never has been. In fact women are a net negative. 70% of the government jobs are filled by women. That is not production, but a drag on the economy. 90% of teachers are women, again, this is just out sourcing what women used to do at home. Waitresses, bartenders, lawyers, social workers, day care providers.
All Net negative. All the jobs women fill are SERVICE industry. They produce NOTHING.
Remove all the female workers and the economy continues without a hitch, other than increased wages for the men, less government, more freedom, less taxes, more spending, happier children . . .
Civilization . . the only price is women’s false propped up freedom at the expense of everyone else.
IBB:
“Those are nice and all, but they wont break the strike. What society needs to do is something that can NOT be done until the 19th Amendment is overturned because women vote and women would never-EVER give up “no-fault-divorce.””
And because women vote, you cannot overturn the 19th amendment. It is circular. There is no cure for it without the system collapsing entirely. Once you realize that, your realize there is only one possible end point for the United States.
It cannot be saved.
@redpillsetmefree
No. There is no official strike, and this kind of thing is by its very nature very difficult to measure. What is interesting is the elites do seem convinced that something is very wrong. Feminists are worried that they took things too far, and conservatives are worried that (since feminism never happened) something has suddenly gone wrong with men. Part of the problem is how do you measure the distinction between women intentionally delaying marriage and women ultimately being unable to marry? What if they set out in their 20s to delay marriage, and then were unable to marry in their 30s? Is this a marriage strike by men? I wouldn’t call it that, I’d call it women overplaying their initial SMV hand. But even here women in their 30s do seem to be able to marry. At the same time there is data which suggests this is becoming harder and harder, although it may have leveled off the last year.
Spawny Get says:
January 3, 2014 at 5:53 pm
No sorry I don’t have a better suggestion. I am a recovering traditional conservative myself. One day I realized that most of the conservatives that I know are conserving feminism and other leftist ideologies from 20 years earlier. To the extent that they think about these things they consider themselves conservatives. Even if I call them something else, they will still consider themselves that way.
I guess I’m just a Bible believing Christian. The ideas I would like to preserve are the principles set down in the Bible. But those principles have to be willingly followed or the whole point is lost. One cannot produce a genuine Christian with out the potential Christian’s sincere willingness to become one.
As far as the Grand Patriarch Wannabee, I agree that Mr. King can get on the nerves at times. I suppose we all have our faults and his seems to be sounding like he thinks that he knows more then most.
Speaking of Patriarchy, I would love to see a return of Patriarchy in the biblical sense. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Dalrock,
I don’t believe there’s a marriage strike amongst men. A strike implies that there a process of negotiation at work and that both parties want a resolution. What I think is happening is more like some of the strikers are simply quitting, or opting out as there nothing to negotiate. This is a boycott. Maybe these guys are out for only a short time, or maybe for good. Either way I don’t think they can be brought back by the traditional means.
Also worth considering is that an unorganized boycott of normal societal expectations doesn’t require large numbers to have large noticeable impacts. I think 2-3% of men between 20-45 saying “screw it!” would have a very big effect, especially if they carried that attitude toward working overtime, or consumer spending.
Dalrock,
Here is where I part ways with the manosphere, not because I am a traditional conservative but because our lifespans have increased so much and we live in the Information Age (which requires many more years of training and education for people to create wealth as adults.) Count me among the traditional conservatives who believe that the age for getting social security should be raised from 62 to (say) 72 (because we live to 92) and women might want to get married between 25 to 30 (instead of 20 to 25) because she is going to live much longer, there is better technology for health care (which lengthens her fertile years) and the household might require her income.
“Women having sex with the most attractive men and having those men sire their children. Women having to shoulder the heavier burdens of society, including protection and provision as well as childrearing and housekeeping.”
I can attest to that. I know one woman who fits that cookie-cutter perfectly. She became a cop to get a secure career and to take care of her daughter, and she keeps the house clean and cooks well. Problem is that she goes after married-men (she says there are no good single men – translation: there are no more GORGEOUSLY-HANDSOME single men) while she ignores her child’s schooling because she’s lonely and she’s too busy trying to make money; and she’s only 31 years-old. She became, in essence, a man.
Roland:
Well, one example does not a trend make, and most women aren’t going to take on traditionally masculine occupations to meet the protector-provider role; because they either (1) cannot; or (2) more usually, they don’t have to. An income stream in today’s society meets the protector-provider obligation in most cases today. With money one can purchase sturdy and safe shelter (protection) and food/clothing (provision). All she has to do is make/take enough money for herself and her children, and protection/provision are satisfied.
Also, it’s fascinating how uniform “there are no good men” translates every single time to “there are no attractive alpha men I want to have sex with who also want to have sex with me and commit only to me”.
“If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” –Camille Paglia
We may find out the hard way. (Thanks, Feminism and progressive left/liberals!!)
a big part of the problem here, as dalrock has said is that young men are not getting the marriage signal at an early age. you show me a boy 14-25 who can see more than 6 inches in front of his dick, I’ll show you a slightly more common than normal unicorn. Evolutionarily this makes sense, in highly dangerous environments men getting it in while you can at all costs is the best option. If you live longer then plan for the future, the environment has signaled you’ll be around for a while. So, given these short term incentives, which do these young men choose: work excessively and incur debt and be a celibate engineering major, or work at a bar, start a locally moderately prominent band and get beautiful young women and older sluts on the reg?
A few things:
-I no longer have a clear definition of Conservatism. Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, spiritually conservative…..I just see too many people professing one thing and living another.
-It’s the end game I’m concerned with. The current Feminism driven system is unsustainable….so what’s going to be the long run solution? Or structure?
-For men that want children….I’ve been advocating this for a while…..they need to work on changing the laws in their state. Join a Men’s Rights Group.
There is something far worse.
Since women are “independent”, they should be expected to finance their own dowry. Big Wedding? You (or daddy) pay for it!. The bride can do the downpayment on the McMansion.
It used to be women worked until they were married, and married early. Now they are expected to win part of the bread if not the butter. (You can find my earlier observations on contraception, but marriage at 22 and first child at 28+ leaves her available to be rented out for labor until she is ready for labor).
The equation would be the wife would bear the children, the husband would support them. The coitus interruptus (i.e. Onan) delays and limits the former, so why expect the latter to survive
She became, in essence, a man.
No I could not call this a man. I would say a poor attempt to live like a man. I know, I’m nit-picking.
It’s going to get worse – much, much worse – before it gets better.
We aren’t even close to halfway how bad it is going to have to get before enough people start feeling enough pain to actually want to understand the causes and correctly revise views, actions and entrenched systems instead of just blaming and lashing out at what makes them feel bad.
monkeywerks has it correct:
Dalrock
No. There is no official strike, and this kind of thing is by its very nature very difficult to measure. What is interesting is the elites do seem convinced that something is very wrong.
But not “very wrong” enough for them to do anything beyond publishing various screeds, handwringing, etc. in combination with denial. Watching what they are doing (nothing) makes it clear their words are empty.
The biggest problem for elites and feminists is this: there are no leaders for them to seek out and destroy. There’s no one man, or group of men, who can be publicly humiliated and punished in some sort of modern auto da fe’, pour encoureger les autres. The androsphere is too diffuse, like fog or gelatin – neither of which can be nailed to the wall. Just walking away is leaderless, and let’s face it, there isn’t much that can be done at this time to 30 year old men who choose to spend their extra income and time on themselves, rather than on women.
IMO the elites are not really all that concerned. Not yet. But the processes that have been set in motion by the divorce industry alone (men’s fault divorce 1970’s, Bradley deadbeat-dad-debtor’s-prison 1986, VAWA automatic-ejection-one-phone-call-away) are vast, and have effects far beyond the imagination of the typical “elite” Deep Thinker. Add in the new Kampus Kangaroo Kourts mandated last year, and young men can now learn about the nature of feral women long before they are even likely to consider marriage.
The self-annointed have created a monster. When it begins to really gnaw on them, as much as it does on middle class and working class people, perhaps then we shall see some genuine concern, or fear, on their part.
Badpainter, your first comment was sheer poetry. If I’d heard it as a speech in person, I’d give you a standing ovation.
One thing about women delaying marriage (which is what’s driving all this) is that even if a woman eventually gets married at an older age, she doesn’t bring as much value to the marriage, so men aren’t going to feel driven to bring as much either. A 30-year-old isn’t nearly as sexually attractive as her 20-year-old self. But even if she works very hard to stay in great shape and be almost as attractive, the simple math is that she’s offering 10 fewer years of fertility, and 10 fewer years of providing comfort and “helpmeet” service to a husband. At best, she’s like a product that’s been sitting on the shelf in a store for ten years; no one is going to expect to pay full price for it. At worst, if she’s been on the carousel, she’s a product that was bought ten years ago, well-used since then, and is now for sale at the pawn shop.
So a man considering marrying a 30-year-old is just not going to feel that he has to bring as much to the table as he would have if she’d been sending him the marry-me signals ten years earlier. After all, she probably makes some money, so that’s some he doesn’t have to make. He also doesn’t expect to have to support her as long, or to support as many children, before those years are over. It’s basic economics.
@ redpillsetmefree:
“-For men that want children….I’ve been advocating this for a while…..they need to work on changing the laws in their state. Join a Men’s Rights Group.”
I am not aware of any men’s rights groups. Are you able to provide some examples and their associated websites.
The book, Our Dance Has Turned to Death, was published in 1979 and was at that point noting the decline in marriage and the subsequent effect on society. He said that if the country doesn’t turn back to God and tradition, that the country could fall.
Following is a comparison to life in Russia [my comments in brackets]:
The communist government under Lenin gave women almost complete freedom from home requirements and allowed divorce by one partner’s registering with the authorities [no-fault divorce]. Soon there were more divorces in Moscow than marriages. The result was a rapid breakdown of marriage and morality, and within a few short years (in the 1920s and 1930s) gangs of several million youth – illegitimate and rejected children – roamed the streets and countrysides, stealing, pillaging, and killing [sound familiar?]. It soon became evident that social order was in jeopardy. Sorokin [from book: The American Sex Revolution] points out that the whole decay of society occurred under a single regime, and authorities quickly saw it was unworkable.
When Stalin came to power he used his iron fist to restore the family to dignity. On May 8, 1935, he announced, “The existence of the family must be recognized and provided for.” He and the Communist Party made divorce almost impossible, and immorality was looked upon with disfavor. A.S. Makarenko and a dedicated staff were assigned to bring about a pattern of mutual trust and cooperation among the children. Family life was restored.
In the back of his book he has covenants for all people, married and single, men and women, to sign, reaffirming their commitment to the family.
While Stalin changed the laws to become pro-family, I can’t see that happening here. It seems that most, including those within the church, say that they can’t legislate morality. And the churches in general appear to be moving away from orthodox theology requiring responsible living according to the Bible.
After all, she probably makes some money, so that’s some he doesn’t have to make.
Heh. Checking around at work what I see is wives who brought five figure debt to the marriage and a volunteer job at the local animal hospital (turns out there isn’t a big demand for people with a BA in environmental studies). I know there must be women who take their careers seriously, but from what I can see most of these 30 year old brides are net negative, financially speaking.
@SpawnyGet
IBB is the White Knight father of a daughter scared to death of her prospects – as he should be.
It’s likely she will never get married, and if she does, will have at best one grandkid for him. If she does manage to marry the UMC husband he wants her to, she’ll have to put up with him cheating and having dozens of other women.
Too bad, so sad.
Bed made, lie in it.
Another reason they aren’t worth marrying, especially now that sex is virtually free for any half-decent looking guy, and once you do marry them, their real husband – the state – very well might take your kids.
The result? UMC men are rolling in p*ssy and kids – if they want them – and regular average Jane is a pump and dump.
Your move, fathers. Double down on your empowered wimminz cr*p for your daughters. How is that working out? Once they hit 30 – no one of any worth will touch them with a ten foot pole.
Any unmarried woman over about 25 is a pump and dump now. Hey – there is a class of prostitutes in every society. Surprised?
@pathfinder
Fascinating about how the apex alpha males in the Soviet Union set the tone for the rest of society there. First, Lenin, probably more in tune with true communism than the more totalitarian Stalin, freed women of their responsibilities and divorces and OOW births went wild. Then things get bad and the apex alphas see that the nation they’re ruling is falling so out of their own self-interest they (by they, I mean Stalin) change course and clamp down on things.
Strike is not the correct term. I read the book. It’s good (flawed in a number of ways), but what I like most about it is that it’s intellectually honest. It is the first book of its kind to honestly address the subject. The antithesis of The End of Men (a pile of self-serving lies that seethes with desperation).
Men are not striking. We are leaving the plantation. I’m 53 and never married. I haven’t a molecule of interest in it. It is a stupid risk I do not need to take.
The women’s movement made women whores (obviously, not all of them). This is the land of Milk and Honey. Honey’s gonna cost you an arm and a leg, but the milk is free here.
@THF:
If you haven’t yet read the Misandry Bubble, check out the timeline presented there. The critical mass of awareness will happen very late in the decade.
Yes, I have, and IMO he’s early, for the following reasons.
Currently, our group is growing in number, so we will win.
Yes, the number is growing, but this is still an exaggerated perception because it is a view from inside the manosphere. We post, we comment, we discuss, and it seems like there are so many of us compared to just a few short years ago, and we are even getting more attention from the rabid feminists. But in terms of total population we are still small and insignificant. Furthermore, the unaware and uncaring masses are still so brainwashed that they are overwhelmingly shocked and repulsed by red pill truths when exposed to them.
Anyone who has tried to expose others to the red pill knows that even among men who could most benefit from it, six out of ten will outright refuse and deny it, another two will see some truth but be so repulsed that they will not want to admit it, another one will admit the truths but only grudgingly accept them without real action, and -maybe- the last one will accept, understand and integrate it. And those figures may be generous.
The only question is of how much time it takes.
Longer than one would expect.
Just because something is inevitable, does not make it imminent.
Again, the uncaring masses are only barely aware that there is even a problem yet, and when exposed to it they will recoil in tradcon/FI/whatever fashion. Then, when things start to get bad they will look for scapegoats instead of true causes, and you can guess who the scapegoats of preference will be. Only when things get so bad that there is literally no other choice will things change. That is to say…
Women don’t understand cause and effect very well, so don’t count on them. This, ultimately, is a battle between red-pill men and manginas.
When it gets so bad that at least a plurality of women are looking for real solutions, things will start to change, but not likely before. And I think we still have a ways to go further down the slope before that starts to happen.
man Dalrock you should send this to the AG of Texas. Think of one state that put in subtle incentives to boost families. The one thing I would love to see would be to make it an elective course for graduation to teach boys the laws of misandry. From there make something like grandarusa commonly available. (pot is ok in Colorado so screw the FDA) have the women in Texas vote out the laws of misandry or leave them in place but either way it is publicly spoken about truthfully.
BC
Involuntary Childless Spinsterhood helps it along. Keep telling young men the truth, encourage the PUA and the pump and dump, encourage long term shacking up. get male birth control pill on market and use it. As the PUA ages teach and encourage MGTOW type lifestyle as women age the MGTOW types can use as booty calls as their fertility is gone they are left for younger cock riders. A male birth control pill means a man cannot even be lied to. Only have fertile sex with a wife and only marry a worthy women (with full knowledge of the laws of misandry). The laws of misandry are all you need to sell male birth control pills
That’s the reality. But the typical blue-pill guy raised on egalitarianism, who’s looking at the current crop of 30-year-old women who have finally decided they’re willing to marry, doesn’t realize that. He’s been taught that they’re self-sufficient and will be contributing financially to the marriage, just as he will be expected to help with the housework.
Agreed, greyghost. As commented above, monkeywerks has the right of it.
The more slaves leave the plantation, the sooner the fields go fallow.
That said, based on site traffic stats posted at alphagameplan and elsewhere, fewer than one in a thousand people are even occasional visitors or passive readers of the manosphere, and the numbers undoubtedly include a lot of have visits from the jezebel and manboobz crowd.
So, it’s going to take a lot longer, and it’s going to get a lot worse. Be prepared.
When the average woman marries in her late teens or even her early twenties, the average young man will see himself as competing with his peers for the job of husband.
Uh, no. The average man has always been reluctantly willing to accept the job of husband if it was the only way he could get laid.
But over time if overused it loses some of its power
Like the word “fascism” (Cf. Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” – regarding misuse of words (ironically): ‘Since you don’t know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism?’), words like “misogyny” have become the feminist equivalent of “I don’t like what you said” or “that’s not funny.”
whose wife goes Jenny Erickson on him
To ‘”Jenny Erikson” a husband,’ or, ‘”Jenny Erikson-ing” has become more popular’. A new verb is in order.
Related re-post: “Wouldn’t threatpoint make every married woman a rapist (using feminist definitions)?”
@deti
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Mouse_experiments
@BC
Actual manosphere regular numbers are growing nicely these days, but the other phenomenon worth noting is the manosphere type attitudes in the comments section of online newspapers and magazines. The tone of comments ridiculing solipsistic female thought and countering man bashing is a delight to see. It’s a whole new world out there, so different to just a few years ago.
But you are right that things will be getting a lot worse. Too many scumbags make their bread from misandry in its various forms. And normal women are going to have to start hurting before they’ll vote for change. Their interests never seem to extend beyond the immediate and the personal. They won’t care about men until it’s relevant to them in the right here and right now.
@Badpainter (January 3, 2014 at 2:26 pm)
I read that in a slightly annoyed Joe Friday/Jack Webb voice, actually (a la http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMc3RS_afSE).
“The social and cultural effects of market liberalism are, virtually without exception, inimical to the values traditional conservatives hold dear. Communities are scattered to the winds by the gale of creative destruction. Endless ‘downsizing’ and ‘flattening’ of enterprises fosters ubiquitous insecurity and makes loyalty to the company a cruel joke. The celebration of consumer choice, as the only undisputed value in market societies, devalues commitment and stability in personal relationships and encourages the view of marriage and the family as vehicles of self-realization. The dynamism of market processes dissolves social hierarchies and overturns established expectations . Status is ephemeral, trust frail and contract sovereign.”
ibid p149
On a few topics going along:
@BadPainter:
The first comment is easily one of the best “intro”/”realization” comments I’ve seen. Dalrock should probably make that its own Thread. It’s that good. Keep on keeping on. Once you get *through* the Anger, you’ll realize you’re on the other side and at an advantage. Truth is, at first, scary & infuriating, but with Understanding comes Clarity. Clarity allows for action. Solomon’s Wisdom never failed him, remember that.
On the 19th Amendment:
As long as the US Constitution is extent, it’s not going away. However, like all things, Systems can be diverted to your own ends. Women should be expected to play for “Team Women”, however they will play for Team “Me” and Team “My Pocketbook” at a much, much higher level than we like to remember.
Most of the attendant disasters that came with the 19th Amendment had to do with a shift from Property Ownership-required voting to “Registered” voting. There’s a reason Taxes & Government used to be significantly smaller. The people that could vote would have to pay for everything. Remember, even in most very Liberal states, they vote for the “Rich” to pay more taxes to cover problems. They only go for full-scale changes when the budget is really tight. (Because raising Taxes is easier than cutting a few worthless departments)
On TFH & the Misandry Bubble:
Do not underestimate Preference Cascades and what has been going on inside the Male-teenager demographic. With cellphone cameras, social media and selfies now ubiquitous, the “truth” of Women is being sent around among guys at a rapid rate. One actually illegal child-porn picture at a time. It’s to the point that any guy under 22 (or so) on the Internet now knows how to use “Alpha” & “Beta” properly. Heck, I watched an ESPN anchor barely avoid using a flat-termed “Alpha” not long ago. (“Alpha Dog” is acceptable, and on the main channel too, but that wasn’t the context he was using) So that is seeping in, very rapidly.
And things only need to happen at the margins. This also goes along with “Gay Marriage”. Once it’s in full effect, the total marriage rate will decline even further, just as it has in any country that has passed it previously. (Except the few that pretty much didn’t do Marriage in the first place) So, once the information starts creeping in along the side (which it is; just watch any of the comments sections on major stories involving the topic on Major news sites; it’s hilarious), it won’t take too long to go “Main Stream”.
Further, I think the one part of the Misandry Bubble that’s hard to judge is actually the outcome of the *response* to Gay Marriage. If enough of the Religious realize the Trojan Horse aspect to it, they’ll move to completely blow up “legal” Marriage. That would be the best for all involved. Sure, there would be a lot of havoc, but it would forcibly eliminate the ThreatPoint. Granted, I’m not sure anyone with the power to actually effect change will truly go down that path for a while. But, hey, 2020 is a long ways off.
I have never liked the term “strike” used to describe MGTOW. Strikes are temporary, strikes are short, strikes come and go.
We have embarked upon a “DISENGAGEMENT” from the government-enabled feminist matriarchy and from women.
The term “strike” does not do the movement justice and it gives women and politicians the false impression that simply waiting it out is the solution. Dead wrong they are.
And, as if you utterly randomly prove my point, I came across this article:
http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/18/sorry-camille-paglia-feminism-is-the-best-thing-that-ever-happened-to-men/#comments
Note the comments thread. All of them go like that. The Atlantic’s comments get hilarious, if you have an hour to laugh your socks off.
There’s still a long ways to go, but things are very different from a decade ago.
You’re wrongly assuming that society will see the errors of its ways once they realize that it isn’t raking in taxes or birthing more taxpayers like it would if society was traditional. Why? Because Satan is the ruler of this world (Ephesians 2:2).
Destroy the family, destroy society.
Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44) (you can find happiness in frivorce or pump and dump) and is here to steal, kill and destroy. (John 10:10)
God created women because God saw that it was not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18) and also commanded us to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 9:7).
For every guy who has become disillusioned and decided he doesn’t need a woman because it is too much of a risk or low ROI, you have bought into Satan’s lies that your plight is hopeless and that trusting in God to bring a suitable mate into your path is wishful thinking. So will I believe Satan’s lies or trust that if God commands something, that He’ll make a proper way for me to be able to be faithful and obedient?
God loves us and knows that families are the strongest foundation for society. Satan has done an effective job at chipping away at the foundation and it won’t get better (until Jesus comes back) but I’m not going to throw in the towel. I’m not going to let Satan keep me segregated and alone, without a partner and from birthing and bringing up Christian children. No matter how bad society gets, I won’t let Satan steal my potential for joy within a marriage.
Feminism and society won’t get better, but I won’t let that hold me back. (Ephesians 6:12 )
Marriage and starting a family now makes about as much sense as a citizen of the dying Western Roman Empire attempting to do so in circa 450 AD.
The twat who wrote that Time article is a typical sufferer from the apex fallacy. ’nuff said.
Pingback: Looking for Men’s Rights Groups? | RedPillPushers
@vascularity777 says:
I am not aware of any men’s rights groups. Are you able to provide some examples and their associated websites.
I made a listing of them here:
http://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/looking-for-mens-rights-groups/
BC, Spawny Get
I comment on yahoo articles hard and the responses with a few thumbs up here and there are good. Those comments are getting out there and the effect is that a man or even some cunt will be on the margin and it will affirm what he thought and was all alone in his thinking. For a woman it brings fear and a demand for a double down on misandry. For other women they start to see the light and jump ship.(anti feminist for their own selfish good) Notice the change in Shell’s comments over the last few days the concern for self is still there but a lot less shit talking. Do not think women and men reading through the comments here have not seen the responses to Elspeth’s and Augustine’s comments. Most importantly the pride and joy they speak of with in themselves.
Look at how the people stood up to GLAAD on the Duck Dynasty thing, all good signs. There is also a powerful speaker and Youtube blogger named Tommy Sotomayor that is openly going against the African American liberal mantra and openly speaking the truth about feminism and black culture in general. He has never seen or heard of the manosphere but the truth sounds the same. And it is being spoken and heard.
greyghost, I respond brusquely to Twitter tweets and Facebook statuses I dislike. For example, if some fat acceptance nonsense comes through, I just comment that the girl is fat. And so on.
Badpainter
Your story is a story I want told by our military men. The biggest concern I have at this time is to double down on the misandry from here is going to have to require a brutal government that will use the military on it’s citizens. I am a marine vet and as I got the red pill I realized that the gays in the military and the women in all fields double standards is actually a good thing. What you described in your first post is what it is like for a military man including black men. It has got to be worse now with the high suicide rate as an indicator. The next step for the military is to make all males into rapist. Not going to get a motivated and skilled man to give his all for that as his foundation.
My “tweet” at the time of the Duck Dynasty defeat of GLAAD was that it was a major defeat for “Big Gay”. A friend posted a status tonight on facebook showing a gay couple cuddling. My comment was that I didn’t like the picture.
Rollo: “This is exactly why my SMV graph is such a threat to the Feminine Imperative, it makes young men more aware of what’s to come for them and accelerates their coming to this awareness before women can consolidate upon their incentives and hypergamy.”
Yes, and I agree with the basic curves of the graph. But there is one problem, which Dalrock is highlighting, I think. For men to hit their highest peak, they need to have gained mastery of something. Men become more attractive not just because women like the weathered look, but because that weathering represents, to us, all the other attributes of manliness that we enjoy.
I know a number of men in the age range of 35-40 who essentially failed to launch. Unemployed or lightly employed, dependent on other people, caught up in emotional dramas that strike women as frankly being too feminine to take seriously. None of them ever hit their expected peak, and now that it’s clear who they are, they all have a lot less success with women than they did in their 20s. It’s bleak and lonely for them, and they only seem to be deteriorating with age.
Are women to blame here? Sure–although one of these men married young and has a lot of children with his wife. I don’t think he has any excuse. The others, though, might have bothered pulling themselves together more if women hadn’t been so available so easily.
My worry is, given the incentives that you and Dalrock describe, combined with the increasing awareness young men have that they can expect to improve their SMV as they age, are men also running the risk of deluding themselves? Women hit their peak without having to do much of anything except some basic self care and not being horrible. The male peak requires more effort and can’t be counted on in quite the same way.
Or am I misunderstanding something?
“You’re going to die all alone.”
I think dying alone gets a bad wrap. I’ve never understood the argument that dying alone is worse than leaving behind a grieving, suffering family. Doesn’t the death of loved ones bring pain to those left behind? Doesn’t dying alone mean that no one will suffer as a result of someone’s death. Furthermore, doesn’t dying alone mean that one can die with the peace of mind that they’re not bringing suffering to the lives of their family through their death? Death, to me, is a very private experience. I personally don’t want people crying by my bedside when it’s my time to go. That would suck.
Mulier, there is also the point that, simply put, being any kind of serious husband is hard work. Women are hard work, even the good ones. A lot of men may have opted for a slacker lifestyle because it is fun. Society is richer and a man, even on a modest income, can buy more wonderful toys than ever before. I have argued against the rise of virtual sex and fembots and sexbots as a real option, but I am not so sure now. A lot of porn seems to be POV and interactive these days. And the girl never says NO.
“Government will have to find a way to extract more resources from them by way of bachelor taxes. This has already started with the ultimate bachelor tax, the ACA.”
This sounds about right to me. Women have married the state and extract resources from the remaining, producing men through legislation such as the ACA and other, similarly named hidden taxes on men. The feminists and white knights don’t care about the basement slackers because there’s no wealth to extract. In fact, to feminists and white nights, the more basement slackers, the better (they don’t learn from history). This model will fail of course – but when has anyone ever learned anything from history?
Things will only change when women wake up and realize that they have more to lose than gain from feminism. To women, your only value is in what you can provide to them.
Below is a link to an interview with a progressive, lesbian feminist. I expect to see more and more articles like these to pop up as women realize that they need men to protect themselves from the rest of the world. I laughed when I read this article. It’s a warning to women that men are still needed to fight wars and build bridges (lest society collapse). It’s sexist and filled with hypocrisy from start to finish, yet I’ll bet the interviewee couldn’t see that at all. To me, the article has female superiority written all over it. “Men need to keep their masculine values – cause that benefits we females.” Disgusting.
Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579240022857012920
Mulier says: January 4, 2014 at 7:29 am I agree with the basic curves of the graph. But there is one problem… For men to hit their highest peak, they need to have gained mastery of something. …I know a number of men in the age range of 35-40 who essentially failed to launch… None of them ever hit their expected peak… The male peak requires more effort…
…am I misunderstanding something?
Yes, you are missing the paradigm shift from marriage 2.0 to red pill.
The underlying assumption of your post is that men should preparing themselves to one day become husbands and fathers. That their lives should be geared towards (1) landing a woman and (2) becoming (over)productive members of society so they can take care of that woman for the rest of their lives. That’s marriage 2.0 thinking.
The men you are describing aren’t interested in having a wife (or if they are, it’s nowhere near the top of their priority list). They’ve decided acquiring a woman isn’t worth the effort, so they are instead focused on their own lives. This is the pattern of most MGTOW men. They aren’t making a grand political or social statement. They simply following a path that benefits them personally.
These men don’t need to be fixed. They don’t need to taught how to “man up” so they can enter the marriage/divorce meat grinder. They’ve rejected the old system (either consciously or unconsciously) and gone their own way–they have gone red pill in their thinking.
“I don’t see why I should bust my ass if I have no freaking idea whether my wife will still be here one week from now, one year from now, or ten years from now.”
I read that grey divorce is the fastest growing divorce segment. We’re talking divorce after 30-40 something years of marriage. After I thought about it, it makes sense. Cash out at the very end and you get the biggest financial reward. From my standpoint, this is one more reason to see the positives in “dying all alone”. Can’t imagine dying a few years after the woman I dedicated my life to pulled a Bernard Madoff on me. That would suck.
Article: Baby Boomers: Poorer in Old Age Than Their Parents
“She started a commercial construction company in 1986 with $150,000 from a divorce settlement.”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/baby-boomers–poorer-in-old-age-than-their-parents-162653066.html
Cash & prizes doesn’t = financial security.
Mulier has a point, though, about the men who “failed to launch.” Even if you don’t intend ever to marry and have kids, being happy with yourself as a man in the long run requires that you conquer some challenges in life, have some successes. Providing for yourself in old age (since you won’t have kids to do it) requires that too. Now, some MGTOW may be out there conquering the world, setting and achieving goals, being all they can be. More power to them.
But I suspect a larger number, and the ones Mulier is talking about, just sort of wandered in the weeds through their 20s because that was easy and comfortable and there didn’t seem to be a reason to do anything else. Now they’re 35 or so and don’t really have much to show for their lives except a series of unimpressive jobs and a strong command of 21st century video game history. No war stories, no anecdotes about world travel, no body of work to pass on, no wealth to show off. They’re not bad guys; they were just never pushed to become men; so they strike others as aged boys, much the way that cougars seem like old-age teenage girls. If they do turn family-oriented — let’s face it, most people do by 40, men and women both — they’re extremely unequipped for the process of finding a decent woman and capturing her.
” What if they set out in their 20s to delay marriage, and then were unable to marry in their 30s?”
Sundown at the fish market. Somehow the air ain’t that good any more, time to move on.
Mulier
Being an undesirable man has the same effect as MGTOW. And is as much a part of the marriage strike as a desirable man that refuses to marry. One of the questions and an issue that causes the most conflict with manosphere is your purpose to live as best as you can in misandry or to change the world for your son or future generations. I’m of changing the course of history and will do what it takes. I fully support the PUA fellas and encourage the pump and dump and have no problem with selling a male birth control pill. I see no problem with gat marriage and adoption it makes it easier for a man to have his own child. I’m a big supporter of single men using surrogacy as a way to father his child rather than feed the beast. MGTOW is a good reward for a cock carousel rider at the end of her ride to go with her lost fertility. She has her career and education so she is not on the entitled list. They vote so they are responsible no doubt and women suffer enough as shown by their actions 120 percent increase in the suicide rate maybe we will see a change in voting patterns. Lonely women dying alone in misery is a good thing in a world of the female voted in misandry. Because the women willing to submit and live biblically die in peace with family there holding her hand. Think of the old woman with her great grand child coming into the living room with her medication asking her “is this the one you wanted grandma?” Contrast that to old crazy lady that died and nobody knew about it until the land lord open the door for the cops because of a complaint of the odor due a partially consumed by pets decomposing body. This is good and necessary to make a shift
Any body have a better idea to make a shift good place to voice it.
. .
Re: Mulier
“I know a number of men in the age range of 35-40 who essentially failed to launch. Unemployed or lightly employed, dependent on other people, caught up in emotional dramas that strike women as frankly being too feminine to take seriously.”
I suppose they belong to the bottom 40-50% of men in terms of intellectual ability. The kind of jobs they traditionally used to perform have now disappeared due to automatization, or have been outsourced, or are now performed by immigrants. They have effectively become economic ballast through no fault of their own because current employers have no way to employ them in a profitable way. This development isn’t much connected to the changing SMP, although it’s true that they have no incentives to become potential husbands because no woman wants to marry them.
“None of them ever hit their expected peak, and now that it’s clear who they are, they all have a lot less success with women than they did in their 20s…The others, though, might have bothered pulling themselves together more if women hadn’t been so available so easily.”
If women has been available to them easily, it basically means they are lower-class alpha louts with bad habits. Nothing new.
Re: Cail
“Now they’re 35 or so and don’t really have much to show for their lives except a series of unimpressive jobs and a strong command of 21st century video game history. No war stories, no anecdotes about world travel, no body of work to pass on, no wealth to show off. They’re not bad guys; they were just never pushed to become men; so they strike others as aged boys, much the way that cougars seem like old-age teenage girls. ”
But that’s nothing new, historically speaking. Most average men throughout history had no war stories, no anecdotes about world travel, no body of work to pass on, no wealth to show off by the time they were 35, whether they were married or not.
Marriage 2.0: “The only winning move is not to play.”
@jf12
My son, now a couple years into a good paying job, is hooked into a large group of mid-20s Christian yuppie dudes in the Dallas area. Since they are average looking, none has ever had a date much less a girlfriend, despite trying hard for eight or ten years. And now that they all found each other, they’ve stopped looking for any girls, and stopped putting forth real effort at work. They golf all day on their days off when they want, go fishing all day when they want, go hunting all day, play video games all day (and night). I’ve met the handful my son is closest with, but there are dozens more: relatively well off young men who already make enough to support a family, but because they aren’t very good looking no girl will even consider them, at all, for anything at all. And consequently they are going their own way.
This is just so incredibly sad.
Heartiste recently posted “When Women Stop Loving Beta Males”.
You don’t need to cast afar to see what a free love society that caters entirely to women’s sexual prerogatives means. Just listen for the sound of gunshots in the ghetto and the silence of empty playgrounds in the suburbs.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/when-women-stop-loving-beta-males/
@Spawny Get
That is the traditional tradcon failing; not realising that other people do not think like they do. Don’t believe what they believe. Don’t value what they value. Won’t react as they require.
Others have pointed out the problems with this statement. I think the failing of all political activists, tradcon or otherwise, is this: the belief that if other people knew what we know, they would think how we think.
You can tell other people what you know, and usually they don’t give a damn; the reason is often that it is in their interests not to give a damn. Often they appear not even to understand.
Really interesting comments.
You’re right, 8to12, that I was being normative. I didn’t think I was, but yes. I had the image in my mind that MGTOW are the kinds of men you really want to set your sister up with: independent, achieving, and uber-rational. These guys I’m thinking of are the opposite—dependent, undistinguished, and emotional. No one is trying to set them up with their “fabulous” 30-year-old sister.
And Julian O’Dea, you’re absolutely right that being a husband is really hard. I think that in Marriage 1.0, the miseries of human life were equally distributed between men and women. I say that because pregnancy is not easy, especially when you have other children to take care of, and childbirth is scary and terrible. My labors have been not so bad, but in the midst of them I still felt sorry for the women throughout time who have died while trying to give birth. To be pregnant every other year or so and then to face the possibility of dying in childbirth agony was not an easy road for pre-modern women.
To have Marriage 1.0 plus epidurals and enormously reduced odds of dying in childbirth (not to mention birth control, if you choose to use it) suddenly swings everything dramatically in favor of women. That’s where I’d like my marriage and our culture to be in general: Marriage 1.0 plus modern medicine, so that a woman doesn’t face her own mortality every time she gives birth. On the other hand, that probably sobers women up, so I might have to rethink this. Perhaps modern women have become so infantile because the experience that made us grow up has become so much easier.
And then of course you add Marriage 2.0 and it all just gets silly.
Hoellenhund2: My first response to reading your comment was: “But they all went to top universities!” But then I realized that of course we can’t assume that means anything in terms of intellectual abilities… Still, at age 22 they seemed full of promise.
Pingback: Sorry, Popehat, it’s going to be really hard to burn down either a nuclear-armed state or an international capitalist conspiracy | vulture of critique
@IBB
“That is not what I asked. I asked what was the last well formed job you had. That is a technical job that requires thinking (thinking outside the box) thinking that not all people can do.
Those jobs pay good, they are plentiful, and that is because not everyone can do them. You can’t offshore that job to China or Malaysia.”
Nonsense, Lots of technical jobs have been offshored.
Pingback: Men in Revolt
Tom H says:
“Article: Baby Boomers: Poorer in Old Age Than Their Parents
“She started a commercial construction company in 1986 with $150,000 from a divorce settlement.”
Cash & prizes doesn’t = financial security.”
There is that saying. When you give a poor person a million dollars, all you have is a poor person with a million dollars.
Women as a group are short time frame thinkers so money goes through them like water. That is why, no matter how much is spent on the war on poverty or on them, it is never enough.
“My first response to reading your comment was: “But they all went to top universities!””
That used to mean a lot. Today, with educational standards dropping, not so much.
Another possibility is that they were introverted STEM guys with low social skills and personalities that weren’t easygoing, smooth and “fun”. It’s easy to end up in poverty in the current economy with such attributes.
As a general rule, when modern technology didn’t exist, it was demanded of every man to serve his community as a laborer or soldier, and to become a responsible husband (unless he’s a psychological and emotional cripple). It didn’t matter how ugly, dumb or short he was, a role was expected of him. This has disappeared. In the current American economy, those occupying roughly the bottom third of the cognitive hierarchy are, by and large, unemployable – they won’t find employment even if they want to. Simply put, there’s no use of them that is profitable. And this applies to many other economies.
“If enough of the Religious realize the Trojan Horse aspect to it, they’ll move to completely blow up “legal” Marriage. That would be the best for all involved. Sure, there would be a lot of havoc, but it would forcibly eliminate the ThreatPoint. Granted, I’m not sure anyone with the power to actually effect change will truly go down that path for a while. But, hey, 2020 is a long ways off.”
The day there is no “legal marriage” is a good day. I don’t see it happening until the whole thing collapses, but I can dream.
Cail Corishev says: Mulier has a point, though, about the men who “failed to launch.”
IMHO, “failed to launch” is nothing more than shaming language designed to get men to “man up” and serve the female imperative.
We all came at this with out cultural biases about what it means to be a man and what it means to lead a wasted life, but those cultural biases are just that: biases. A cultural bias is not necessarily the truth.
Which of the following men wasted their lives?
1) The “slacker” who spent his life doing his own thing and living for his own pleasure.
2) The responsible man who did all the “right” things; got dumped by his wife; was separated from his children by divorce; was burdened financially by child support and alimony payments; and who lived the latter half of his life in a one room apartment.
I also think the slacker stereotype is overblown. Every man who is failing to meet society’s standards for men is accused of being a slacker–a basement dwelling, video game playing, pot smoking bum. That’s far from the truth. After all, we live in an era where the cards are stacked against men being successful in a traditional manner.
1) Education at all levels is either biased against boys or just doesn’t give a damn about boys.
2) The cost of a college education has reached the level that if you aren’t from a well to do family you are faced with the stark choice of going deeply into debt or avoiding college.
3) Thanks to HR departments and government anti-discrimination laws (hire a qualified male without a degree over a female with a degree and you’ll get sued for discrimination, even if the male had experience in the field and the female didn’t) the lack of a degree closes the door on career advancement.
4) Men are now the last hired and first fired in the corporate world. @Kaehu told the story earlier in this thread about how surprised her son was to get hired for a job, because he was competing against a female for the position.
5) The economy is in the dumps. The official unemployment rate is 7%, but if you include people who have given up looking for a job (you only get counted in the official rate if you are looking for work) then the actual unemployment rate is closer to 15%. And since young men are at the bottom of the work ladder, they’re more likely to be underemployed. That “slacker” may have the brain power to be a manager at a retail store, but he may be stuck stocking shelves because that was the only job available.
6) The blue-collar jobs men used to rely on (factory, construction, mechanical, etc.) have dried up–they’ve either gone overseas or the wage has been suppressed due to an influx of cheap labor (it will be interesting to see if men start moving into traditional female “blue-collar” jobs such as nursing, secretarial, and teaching).
7) Every young man knows a Leif Erickson–a man who did all the right things and still got screwed. Men used to whistle in the dark and say “That won’t happen to me.” Now they forget the whistling and say “That won’t happen to me, because I’m not getting married–ever!”
Due to no fault of their own these young men are without an education, without a job, and without marriage prospects. So what do we call them? Slackers; men who have failed to launch. Despite the fact that most are doing the best they can given the circumstances. It’s pretty hard to launch a boat when there is no water in the lake.
Nice observation 8to12
BC:
“Anyone who has tried to expose others to the red pill knows that even among men who could most benefit from it, six out of ten will outright refuse and deny it, another two will see some truth but be so repulsed that they will not want to admit it, another one will admit the truths but only grudgingly accept them without real action, and -maybe- the last one will accept, understand and integrate it. And those figures may be generous.”
When you discover you’re whole life has been a lie, becoming violently ill is the usual result.
It doesn’t take a huge percentage of the population for sweeping changes in attitude to occur. It just has to be enough that people get exposed to it.
There are blue pill men that jokingly refer to some of what I say as “laws” or “maxims” regarding women. Usually their statement is that a particular woman fits my maxims to a T (NAWALT) but that is the beginning of accepting the reality of the red pill. They may not be ready to accept their special snowflake is not so special, but the graound is tilled, the soil is ready and when something bad happens they will remember. In variably it will happen these days.
Cail Corishev says:
January 4, 2014 at 1:41 am
“”from what I can see most of these 30 year old brides are net negative, financially speaking.”
That’s the reality. But the typical blue-pill guy raised on egalitarianism, who’s looking at the current crop of 30-year-old women who have finally decided they’re willing to marry, doesn’t realize that. He’s been taught that they’re self-sufficient and will be contributing financially to the marriage, just as he will be expected to help with the housework.”
There is something that must always be remembered. While five minutes of alpha to a woman may be worth a life time of beta there is a corrollary:
For a lot of Beta men five minutes of pussy is worth a lifetime of child support. (at least at the moment they get it)
There are so many thirsty men out there that there is an unending parade of men willing to be victimized just for a shot at the prize.
8to12 on men who “failed to launch”
2) The responsible man who did all the “right” things; got dumped by his wife; was separated from his children by divorce; was burdened financially by child support and alimony payments; and who lived the latter half of his life in a one room apartment.
Or who, while being ground up by the divorce machine, put a .45 in their mouth and a thumb on the trigger. Where do those men show up in Mulier’s analysis? Nowhere. Dead men don’t count.
HR:
“Any unmarried woman over about 25 is a pump and dump now. Hey – there is a class of prostitutes in every society. Surprised?”
I was talking about this with another redpiller. 25 is the cut off point for women. Any decent woman is married by this point and I wish them all the best.
Any woman over 25 is damaged goods. Period. They are not marriage material, they are questionable girlfriend material (yes I know the feminist push for this).
@Mulier says: I had the image in my mind that MGTOW are the kinds of men you really want to set your sister up with: independent, achieving, and uber-rational.
I forget where I saw the article (it may have even been here), but it described the phenomenon of older men (35 or so) who make the conscious decision to go their own way. This is an entirely different class of MGTOW than most men under 30.
These are often the guys who where late bloomers. The guys who went to college, worked hard, and got ahead in life, but who were mostly ignored by women for most of their lives. That is, until their SMV started to shoot up in their 30’s. The stereotypical beta-provider.
But, instead of thinking to themselves “finally I’m starting to attract women; guess it’s time to get married” they decided they liked the life they were already living. They were successful and they had established a lifestyle for themselves that made them happy. Marriage would simply disrupt their life, so they have made a conscious decision to remain single.
Those MGTOW are the ones that are the real danger to women’s plans, because they are the ones women plan on eventually marrying. They are not slackers; they are not men who have failed to launch; they are men who have made a rational decision.
So yes, I can see how it’s shaming, and yes, I do honestly think that adults who take more than they contribute (the vast majority of which are women) are vulnerable to being shamed if we ever as a culture decide to stop being non-judgmental. And the point that there are larger economic shifts underway that may make it impossible for some people to contribute is perfectly fair and sad.
But, my bigger point was this. As our society continues to morph, under all of these pressures, Rollo’s graph may also change, at least for some not insignificant minority of men. I don’t think a young man can just assume his value will continue to rise unless he works at it.
Rollo posits that the graph helps young men. I’m sure it does in most cases, but in a smaller number of cases it might lead to unreasonable expectations. The chart is invaluable to young women, however. I intuitively understood the graph before it ever existed, so I made sure to ensnare, I mean marry, a good young man when I was at my peak. And I push the “red pill” at all the young women I have serious conversations with. Perversely, a woman who understands the red pill when young can set herself up for life pretty easily. I know that’s not nice.
Anonymous Reader: fair enough. I’m not denying that Marriage 2.0, whether embraced or avoided, can have terrible consequences for men.
Ras Al Ghul
I told my daughter that the cut off age for a woman unworthy of marriage was 24
Mulier,
What exactly are these guys’ peak? Who are you or anyone else to determine what they “should” be doing? Also, can you please be specific when you say they’re dependent?
A guy who can pull women in his 20’s but doesn’t have women in his 30’s is like this by choice, at this point they’re probably sick of women’s shit and don’t need them around. I would be willing to bet they have sex but they’re just more discriminate about it.
“A guy who can pull women in his 20′s but doesn’t have women in his 30′s is like this by choice”
Or he has some sort of health complication and is thus physically deteriorating rapidly.
By peak I mean the quality of woman they can get. And they are all getting poorer quality women (older, less attractive, and more histrionic), or none at all, than they got in their 20s. I would have expected them to be getting better and more women at this point in their lives instead. Most get infusions of money from their parents, except for the one who is married, whose wife works. One is on disability payments, but he is not disabled in any recognizable way.
I didn’t use the word “should.” 8to12 is correct that I have normative assumptions, but these assumptions are not that men need to line up to throw themselves into Marriage 2.0. I have no idea what men “should” do, given the impossible circumstances. I’m not abandoning the concept of virtue for men and women, so that is normative. But you’re all right that virtue won’t necessarily get you anywhere today in secular terms.
To be more clear: if a young woman takes the red pill, it is all to her advantage. She will make better choices and have a happier life. The blue pill has been a disaster for women.
If a young man takes the red pill, I’m not sure that it will always be to his advantage. Often, yes, but it all looks kind of grim for men to me. And if a young man who doesn’t fully understand the red pill looks around in his 20s and sees how easy women are and assumes they will only get easier as he ages, he might be wrong.
Basically, even the red pill, in the current paradigm, might serve women best, if they can take it before the men in their cohort do. That’s just speculation, of course.
The Obamacare fiasco depends on young people(mainly men) to support it. Most of the money will be spent on women and is used for abortion and birth control (ie morning after). Better off to pay the fine than feed the beast. The White House is concerned that young people will just pay the fine. As far as a strike, even if 5% drop out it is causing a ripple effect. You can’t negotiate with feminists. You got to do what the Allies did in WWII. Unconditional surrender, but that won’t happen under this system. As I feel we are in the last days, the new system will be Patriarchal. Jesus as ruler has no room or need for feminists.
Pajama-Boy, will you come to this thread and play?
Mulier if you are married be good to your husband and make sure he has bragging rights on how pleasant and helpful his wife is. Make sure to speak about the wonderful ways you are pleasant and helpful to your husband and how happy you are and at peace insde because of it to your female friends. That will work huge wonders.
Well, seeing how the comment section is going, I’ll throw in my $.02.
The whole thing is kind of like playing the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes. It always seems like you are one magazine subscription from the prize.
“You need to get a degree to get a good job.” they say. So after you graduate, well guess what…. You are still unemployable. Keep in mind that during this time, not many people are really learning how to work and support themselves on their own. So they say “The Bachelors Degree is the new HS degree. Better get your Masters!” Then you get the Masters, but the economy has tanked, so you take a job waiting tables to keep from defaulting on your massive loans you have accumulated.
Then they say “You need to Network better!” So you go out and network, but in the end, you’ve networked with people who hate their jobs as much as you do. Back to square one.
Then… they say, “If only more young men were learning trades. You can make good money in the trades and not accrue a massive amount of debt by going to the vocational school!”
All this time the women have been sponging off the spoils of society. Getting one herb after another to buy them drinks and other meaningless garbage. Wasting their youth on the hedonist culture of the times. By the time you get to the point were you can support a meaningful relationship, they don’t appreciate the environment that you have made sacrifices for and built up out of nothing. Why even bother at this point when most of the women out there are caricatures of their teenage selves.
And then they are surprised at the guy still living in his parents basement…..
Interesting article also in my local paper this AM, which may be indirectly related to the OP:
What will 2050 be like? Americans say gloomy: Fewer expect better times over next several decades
@greyghost. Very interesting advice. I do try to make sure that I keep up my end of a Marriage 1.0 deal with my husband, and I love it when I catch him bragging about it. I don’t talk much about it with women for fear of arousing their anger. Women can be vicious to each other when we think one of us is suggesting that she does something better than the others. I should be braver though.
I do always treat him respectfully, especially in public (no matter what I might actually be thinking). I’ve never understood the appeal of the public displays of castration that some wives like to pull. But that does seem to be too subtle for women. I notice that men notice the respectful treatment of my husband a lot more than women do.
Mulier,
Pussy is Pussy and until you’ve chased it, you cant understand the cost/benefit analysis it takes to get it. So if they are lesser quality, which quality? If he doesn’t want a relationship or a wife, Pussy is Pussy.
Do you understand now?
My point was not about their motivations. Maybe they are opting out, or maybe they struck out. Either way, their SMV is lower than it could have been.
Everyone has an SMV, whether they like it or not. I’m in my mid-30s with three children. My SMV is terrible. I choose to confront myself with that fact every day in order to motivate me to counter all of the cultural forces that would otherwise blow up everything I’ve helped to build in my family. This is why I read Dalrock, to look realistically at the world.
And these men I’ve described, who are not the norm of men aged 35-40, also have an SMV. Even if they are rationally choosing not to maximize their SMV, as you suggest, they still have it. We all basically have a number stuck to our foreheads whether we like it or not.
I didn’t say men ought to maximize their SMV. Are the guys I describe victims of a system, as Cail and others have suggested? Yes. Maybe there was no possible better outcome for them.
But I still think my original point holds. Women hit their peak with hardly any effort at all. Men have to put more work in. They can choose not to, but then they won’t hit their peak.
It’s not all bleak though. Any one of these men could suddenly improve his SMV by getting a better job. My SMV by contrast is permanently sunk no matter what!
@Greyghost (January 4, 2014 at 7:03 am)
Yes the MSM worm is turning, good times. I have watched TNN and found him a huge breath of fresh air regarding race and sex relations.
@Mulier
“and yes, I do honestly think that adults who take more than they contribute (the vast majority of which are women) are vulnerable to being shamed if we ever as a culture decide to stop being non-judgmental.”
Good luck shaming MGTOWs, they love a good shaming attempt; they’ll laugh in your face.
Pingback: Dark Brightness
That wasn’t your original point Mulier. You said “Failure to launch”, not they didn’t hit there peak. Those aren’t the same. Either you don’t know what failure to launch means or, more likely, your doing what all women do moving the goal posts once your original point is attacked. Either way you say their SMV is lower not based on the girls they themselves chose, but rather how people evaluate them for relationships that lead to marriage. I agree everyone has a number and it is the opposite sex that determines it. But it seems these guys don’t want marriage so peaking in the smv is pointless. Pussy is Pussy
[quote]But I still think my original point holds. Women hit their peak with hardly any effort at all. Men have to put more work in. They can choose not to, but then they won’t hit their peak.[/quote]
You’ve mentioned several times the “quality of women” these men can get as if pre-selection and the feminine imperative are the metrics of men. Quality in a woman only matters if he is looking for a relationship that leads to marriage. Your either projecting or being solipsistic as a married woman. Everything that has been said here about the system being stacked against us is true. So please tell me, why should men try to peak?
@ Spawny Get. But as I explained, I didn’t think of these men as MGTOW, because I have a certain (terrified) respect for MGTOW. But it’s been interesting to see MGTOW as a more all-embracing concept than I had thought. A big tent MGTOW.
So is the premise of MGTOW that because there is injustice in the world, we all can and should try to destroy the existing order by almost any means necessary? That in current circumstances no man can be held accountable for screwing up and there is no wrong? I can see the case for this, but it’s not what I’m going to tell my sons.
What I should tell my sons instead though, I have absolutely no clue, and of course they’re going to respond to the world as it is anyway.
@Mulier
“Any one of these men could suddenly improve his SMV by getting a better job. My SMV by contrast is permanently sunk no matter what!”
What planet do youlive on? A better job when there no jobs, and precious few open positions of any quality? Really? Finding, and securing good job is becoming very similar in difficulty to finding a good woman.
A man’s job allows him to survive. Most jobs that MEN do are repulsive to women. There is no status, in the eyes of women, in being a plumber. Income alone is not sufficient to improve SMV. We no longer live in 1950s when being a good provider was enough to gain entry, now we have to be able to provide not just economic/financial resources but social resources as well.
@Joshua. I wrote: “For men to hit their highest peak, they need to have gained mastery of something. Men become more attractive not just because women like the weathered look, but because that weathering represents, to us, all the other attributes of manliness that we enjoy.
I know a number of men in the age range of 35-40 who essentially failed to launch.”
I thought it was obvious from that statement that I meant that by failing to launch, they didn’t hit their peak.
I did explain what I meant by quality: “older, less attractive, and more histrionic” is lower quality. You could well be right that there just isn’t any motivation for them to bother with younger, more attractive, less histrionic women.
If these men want to get married, then they still have more options than equivalent women their age, yes. I’m not saying they should get married.
So what exactly are you saying? You keep trying to rewrite what you put upthread and changing your meaning, Failure to launch has a scientific meaning, you cant repurpose it for what you want. Failure to launch /= not hitting peak. To have hit anything means he launched at some point. Understand? Ostensibly this must just be another shaming and blaming of the MGTOW. Of course we knew this from the start.
[Quote]So is the premise of MGTOW that because there is injustice in the world, we all can and should try to destroy the existing order by almost any means necessary? That in current circumstances no man can be held accountable for screwing up and there is no wrong?
No its to do whats best for you. Where to you equivocate MGTOW with abdicating responsibility, thats the realm of the female. Nice try to reframe. You failed.
I knew an engineer who lived in the People’s Republic of Poland from birth (c. 1960) to age five. His father always took the most menial jobs he could find, shirked hard, and petitioned for permission to emigrate. Finally the Communists decided he was a useless eater and let him go. Once in America, “Lo and behold, Dad became a productive citizen!”
@Rex Little
“The average man has always been reluctantly willing to accept the job of husband if it was the only way he could get laid.”
I agree. Therefore (I will connect the dots here), I completely disagree with SSM’s exposition of the Circular Matrix theory
http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/another-turn-in-the-circular-matrix-of-socio-sexual-behavior/
especially her #4, which I contend never happens.
4. If men are promiscuous, it pays women to be monogamous.
Her problem, universal to women, is to only see those men who are successful with women, and to ignore men who are unsuccessful with women. Since the vast majority of men are NEVER allowed by women to be promiscuous, it follows that women will continue to reward, with the women’s promiscuity, the few men who are promiscuous. Society will NEVER get to her #4 state unless the women are forced en masse, probably at gunpoint as in the old Soviet Union, back into practically universal monogamy. An easy way to do that would be to re-outlaw sex outside marriage, which would please most men but would displease apex men and the vast majority of women.
The conversation has moved around a lot. My original point was that because men’s SMV peak is dependent on their effort, the screwed up incentive system we have created, and which Dalrock and Rollo so excellently describe, may mean that not all men hit their SMV peak. In a few cases, some men may do much less well than one would have anticipated.
And then I went off on all other kinds of tangents from there, so I promise I’ll shut up.
@Badpainter. See, that’s stupidity on women’s part. I’ll never understand why a woman wouldn’t rather be married to a plumber than be single. But you’re right that it’s lousy and extremely short-sighted by women.
Ah! Okay Joshua, I see your point. What I should have written is: “not all men hit their _potential_ SMV peak.” They do all hit some peak or another.
@Mulier Re: “What I should tell my sons instead though, I have absolutely no clue, and of course they’re going to respond to the world as it is anyway.”
This is the question of the hour: What should we tell our sons?
I raised a nice-guy son, now in his mid 20s with a good job. He enjoys a lot of activities with other nice-guy mid 20s yuppie young men, none of whom have ever had a date much less a girlfriend despite trying. He goes to church four times a week, playing guitar in the congregation’s contemporary ensemble, plays bass in a locally travelling (Dallas area) evangelizing Christian band, and is active in men’s groups and men’s activities, but because of women’s universal lack of sexual/romantic interest in him (he isn’t good looking; he looks like me), he has given up trying with women and THEREFORE has given up exerting himself at work. He is coasting, and will coast, until, I suppose, women change or the end of the world. When he was in his teens my wife and I would always tell him there is a special girl out there who will recognize his qualities. In other words he should have hope for a unicorn.
What should I tell him? That women might change? I no longer believe it. I no longer believe in his unicorn. I still have hopes for getting some grandkids, but nowadays it is no longer a given.
Mulier
Yes thats what the manosphere and the MRM has been saying from day one. Why do you think its some new epiphany?
@ jf12
Do you have any idea of what a whiny bitch you come across as by constantly complaining here on Dalrock’s blog for getting banned from my blog? Do you imagine that you are impressing the men here with your endlessly bitching about getting banned from a girl’s blog? Seriously, what kind of man gets this upset and emotional about not being able to post comments on some chick’s blog, a chick with whom he has interacted online all of three times? Get a grip. I run a blog, and a fairly minor one; you will recover and manage to move on with your life at some point, I hope.
Second, I have kept completely silent as you have repeatedly mischaracterized my words because I know most readers here have the reading comprehension skills to look at my blog and see that nothing you say actually matches anything I wrote.
Third, the circular matrix example is not mine, as you say it is. I am quoting Dawkins and presenting it as the theoretical model that it is. So you aren’t “disagreeing with me”, you are disagreeing with Dawkins. Take it up with him if you like.
I won’t be addressing you directly again ever, so you needn’t even reply to this comment in hopes of goading me into a fight with you, which is what you’ve been trying to manipulate me into doing for a couple of weeks now.
“A male birth control pill means a man cannot even be lied to.”
I have impression that this really does not exists. Yes, that is written about a long time.
/ Kari Hurtta
@Mulier
“So is the premise of MGTOW that because there is injustice in the world, we all can and should try to destroy the existing order by almost any means necessary?”
No, MGTOW is each man clearly looking at the deal on offer, evaluating realistic options and choosing for their own benefit. Existing order, if it cares, should look to improve the options it offers because consequences for it are not a matter for MGTOWs.
Educate your sons properly about reality and set them free to choose.
This site is great on marriage. I would recommend avoiceformen.com regarding college realities for men.
I wish your sons luck.
“To be more clear: if a young woman takes the red pill, it is all to her advantage. She will make better choices and have a happier life. The blue pill has been a disaster for women.
“If a young man takes the red pill, I’m not sure that it will always be to his advantage”
This is projection, Mulier. First, all women are red pill – it’s just a matter of getting them to see it and admit it. All women understand the unwritten rules of this game –it’s just that women don’t generally talk about those rules; and if they do talk about them; they are unable to articulate them in a simple manner.
Second, I think you have it exactly backwards. It’s always to a young man’s advantage now to understand SMP/MMP dynamics. With that knowledge a world of choices open to him. It’s women who will be most disadvantaged if more men become aware of the true nature of this game. For a woman over 25, red pill knowledge means the clock is winding down, she has to get serious about finding a husband NOW, she’s probably burned through her best choices already, and her choices become more constricted and limited by the day.
Hi Kari
Google ganderusa (as far as I recollect) it does exist. It’s not a pill, it’s non hormonal. Looks good. Looks like a game changer for oops pregnancies. Truly will change the world.
Mulier:
“Any one of these men could suddenly improve his SMV by getting a better job.”
No. Best case scenario, a man improves his MMV (NOT his SMV) by getting a better job.
Moreover, MMV only improves with a “better” job if you mean a higher status job. Louie Lawyer earning $50K at his first year associate job at a law firm has higher status than Paul Plumber who owns his own business and takes home $80K after taxes.
Re: MMV. Keep in mind that by merely imporving his MMV, a beta inevitably merely enlarges the pool of AFBB women. So it is much more than merely no real reward for most men to try to succeed in our current society, there are actual negatives to his getting slightly ahead.
“Any woman over 25 is damaged goods. Period. They are not marriage material, they are questionable girlfriend material (yes I know the feminist push for this).”
Compare to Finnish statistics:
* Woman’s mean age at first marriage at 2012: 30,8
* Man’s mean age at first marriage at 2012: 33,1
In other hand
* Mother’s mean age by first live birth at 2012: 28,5
* Mother’s mean age by all live births at 2012: 30,3
( Family type figures are on here:
* Married couple with children at 2012: 439 194
* Cohabiting couple with children at 2012: 118 136
* Mother and children: 149 143
* Father and children: 30 714 )
How these are on United States ?
I guess that I have posted similar comment also on some other time on here.
/ Kari Hurtta
@SSM Re: “the circular matrix example is not mine” vs “Please consider these ideas in the framework I posited”
I think the reason you banned me is based on two reasons. One is that I introduced myself as a man to whom women are antagonistic, which therefore caused you to be antagonistic. If I had said “I don’ know why the wimminz like me so much, but I sho’ am glad they do!” then you would have been all nice. The second reason, I think, is that you were horrified to recognize that “alpha male primates are groomed by females and do no grooming themselves” somewhow applied.
Even in complaining I try to stay on topic and try to be Biblical and try to be correct.
@Ras Al Ghul
“”There is that saying. When you give a poor person a million dollars, all you have is a poor person with a million dollars.””
Correct!…..and there is another saying that compliments your quote……”Being broke is only a temporary situation….being poor is a frame of mind”…….96% of people that become millionaires in lotteries….within in 5 years…are either dead,broke…or dead broke!…..Shalom!
It is certainly true that I am probably too sheltered to understand the dating market today. What I read shocks me. And you’re right that I don’t really understand disparities between a man’s SMV and his MMV, since when I was young and on the market, I was only paying attention to MMV. I never understood the appeal of bad boys. I did understand that status and money = tingles, but for my own husband I tried to be very sober about who I chose in order to maximize long-term success at the expense of money. That is, I chose a nice man over other men with more money-making potential that I thought would not be faithful to me. I do think that if a woman keeps her mind on her own man and avoids erotica, tv, romance novels, and movies, then he can generate tingles for her even as a beta male. At least, my husband is pretty beta and still rocks my world. (Submitting to his direction helps here.) But our garbage culture ruins that overall.
My husband wants me to work, so I work with 18-21 year olds at a college. I know it’s not real work. It seems to me that these young men I work with have a dim red-pill understanding. They know girls are easy and superficial, and they seem to expect that they will be so in the future. Many of them are not very motivated in general, but they like that I’m sympathetic to the difficulties of being a man today and that I don’t spout nonsense at them, usually. Still, sometimes I wonder if they’ve had enough red pill to expect the quality of women they draw to improve, but not enough red pill to understand that this isn’t magic.
Many of the young women I work with seem indoctrinated. If they are red pill they hide it very well. So many tell me that they won’t ever settle and that it’s dumb to marry before 30. I protest, and they don’t back down, so I don’t think they are just parroting a party line.
@jf12. The story about your son breaks my heart. I am more optimistic for my daughter, who if she is smart I think can marry well without trouble, than for my sons.
@James K
Wow. (not Waw). Heartiste is too correct about “When Women Stop Loving Beta Males”. I try to avoid reading him because he is of the dark side of the force, but maybe I’ll have to dip in there more.
The question is becoming more focused because more urgent: What should we tell our sons?
“Google ganderusa (as far as I recollect) it does exist.”
Well, looks like it does not be on market.
So it does not exists. There is plenty stories about male birth control pill, but these always refer to some future time when they are on market.
/ Kari Hurtta
@Joshua
“”A guy who can pull women in his 20′s but doesn’t have women in his 30′s is like this by choice, at this point they’re probably sick of women’s shit and don’t need them around. I would be willing to bet they have sex but they’re just more discriminate about it.””
Truer words have never been spoken!…..I have women all the time.At the ripe age of 48 I have learned a long time ago that they are not worth my time.I do not date them,pander to them,listen to them….I only f*** them!……and life is GOOD!….Shalom!
@Mulier. I can’t in good conscience advise any young man that he ought to be badder. So I am becoming more silent instead.
I have two older daughters (late 30s, early 40s). Neither of them followed my advice either. The older nicer one played around a lot when younger then decided to become an old cat lady already ten years ago. The younger meaner one married young to a nice beta guy, who looks like me and that she treats horribly, and my two teen grandaughters from her are turning out quite, eh, modern.
@8to12
“”Those MGTOW are the ones that are the real danger to women’s plans, because they are the ones women plan on eventually marrying. They are not slackers; they are not men who have failed to launch; they are men who have made a rational decision””
Great comment!…….I agree!….the wimminz think…”He will eventually come around”…..NO!…….I do not see that…..I know many MGTOW(most unconscious) that say “Forget It”….getting married or shacking up with a womyn is a “SUCKERS DEAL”…….and they are 100% correct!
@jf12. Exactly. We have to care about their souls more than their success, as painful as that is. But what advice can we give them? No idea.
Your account of your daughters is really depressing. I worry that no matter what we do as parents, the culture will win. I hate to think of my daughter turning into a young woman of today. I hate it because it’s stupid and not in her long-term interests, and I hate it because it’s wrong. Being an attractive young woman is still a winning hand today, but our culture seems bent on persuading women to try to draw something better.
@Spawny Get
“”MGTOW is each man clearly looking at the deal””
As a businessman I can attest to this.There are 3 types of deals in the business world.A Good Deal…A Bad Deal…and a Sucker’s Deal!……Any man that that gets married in the USA/Canada….is getting a “SUCKER’S DEAL”….you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.All you have to do is read the laws!………but,as you have heard before…”there is one born every minute”….I do not envy them…nor do I feel sorry for them! Any man that does not read the LAWS before he gets involved in “Holy Matrimony” ……..deserves no respect!….and deserves what he has coming to him!
It may be used that way, but that’s not how I was hearing it. Look, I was one of those guys. High IQ — high enough that I never had trouble getting a job in the Information Age to pay the bills — but low ambition. I came of age at a time when you didn’t enter the military unless you had no other options. Smart guys were expected to go to college, but I really wasn’t interested in more school and some sort of white-collar degree job. So I dropped out, bummed around for a decade through various jobs that barely/almost kept the bill collectors at bay, and spent plenty of time on hobbies that mean nothing to me now. I wanted a woman, so I wasn’t MGTOW in the positive sense of focusing on myself and developing my mission; but the one woman I married didn’t really want to be (not to me, anyway), and the rest of the time I was just in a holding pattern waiting for lightning to strike with someone. I had some fun, but I wouldn’t say I was “happy” or fulfilled in a meaningful sense.
So I’d say “failed to launch” describes me perfectly. I’m not accusing all MGTOW guys of being like me, but I see a lot of guys like me out there.
In a different era, I would have gone off to war for a couple years, or had to get a physical job in my late teens and develop some self-discipline working long hours. My family and society would have pushed me (and the girls around me) to marry early and get on with being a grownup. I would have been a far better man much sooner for all that — not because I would have been serving the FI, but because I would have been a stronger, more virtuous man for the sake of myself and the people I care about.
So while more guys following in my shiftless footsteps might be good in the sense that it will help crash the current unfair system, it’s not good for the guys themselves, so I don’t see it as a very positive overall solution. I’m not sure there’s a better one, though.
“I thought it was obvious from that statement that I meant that by failing to launch, they didn’t hit their peak.”
No, that would be “failure to land on target” (determined by someone else).
“Failure to launch” means it stays in the silo /mom’s basement.
I see you’re in need of a lengthy spell on the Xbox to clarify the ol’ missile metaphors.
@Deti
“So while more guys following in my shiftless footsteps might be good in the sense that it will help crash the current unfair system, it’s not good for the guys themselves”
You might be right. But in the current system there is enough safety, for now, that there is no need for these shiftless young men to change. A sudden collapse, or upheaval of the existing order is a tremendous opportunity for those who have nothing to lose.If the young men can’t rise to the occasion in those circumstances we’re ultimately screwed anyway.
It’s those with investments in the status quo, even bad investments, who will resist the most. In many ways this is a generational conflict. Generation X was too small, and now too old, to challenge the boomers and ended going along. There’s little in the status quo for the men of Gen Y and the millenials. Hopefully they will be able to embrace the chaos and find themselves.
Mulier, thanks for your remarks. That public humiliation of a husband thing always shocks me too. Why do they do it? All the woman is doing is making them both look bad.
My wife seemed also to intuitively understand the market and “ensnared” me with her youthful charms. That was years ago and in a different country though. Good advice from her mum?
Introverted STEM types are often just suffering from a lack of a bit of polish. I think of a man I knew in my last job. Very “herby” and with a rather unappealing wife. But, in reality, a very handsome man. Apparently he had never noticed.
SSM, I love it when chicks call themselves chicks.
As for women shaming women, I was briefly in America in 1982 and I remember a panel of mothers on TV, with the married women abusing the single mothers. Perhaps in those days they saw single mothers as increasing their husbands’ taxes. Follow the money? Women will shame other women. Viciously in the right situation.
Greyghost said Contrast that to old crazy lady that died and nobody knew about it until the land lord open the door for the cops because of a complaint of the odor due a partially consumed by pets decomposing body.
Exactly such a case made the local news here a few months ago. A 69-year-old woman was found in a state of near mummification after having been dead for nearly two months.
Here’s the “best” (read: most tragicomical) part: the local TV news interviewied a member of this woman’s church(!!!!) who said on camera what basically amounted to “Gosh, we were all kinda wondering what happened to her. We hadn’t seen her for a while.”
I don’t know if this woman was a cat-owning spinster (the news didn’t mentioned anything about her being survivied by her cats), but the fact that NO ONE noticed her death speaks volumes.
@jf12
Please ignore SSM:s latest attempts at shaming you. Your posts are valuable. (and yes, this includes when you reference SSM and her blog) @SSM Please keep true to your promise to “I won’t be addressing you directly again ever”. You can widen that circle conciderably.
Pingback: Links: Modern sex dynamics, making American literature, journalism, morality, ideology, and more | The Story's Story
Men and women need each other, if only for sex at this point. There is no strike on that and never will be.
@Mulier, and everyone else.
There’s something to be mindful of on these types of discussions. The Feminine Mindset doesn’t handle “past the post” or “hard qualification” thinking very well. For a Woman, practically everything is relativistic to their current State. (There’s very good reasons *why* Women are Solipsistic, it’s just a matter of understanding they will be.) So “failure to launch” is always shaming, but it can work because it plays on something Men do understand.
Men do understand there used to be a hard & fast “This is a Man” post to get through. Think about it like Functional Literacy that we spend massively to enforce on our society. We used to have fairly solid proxies for what “A Man” was, what you should work towards and, roughly, ways to get there. It was important to Fathers & Mothers that their sons become “Men”.
The issue is that “A Man” has shifted so violently & erratically that the old setup doesn’t signal the same things (even if it signals those in anything but a decadent Modern society). Most Men that “fail to launch” haven’t. Straight up, if they work, don’t kill people, don’t get in fights all the time and aren’t addicted to drugs, they haven’t “failed” anything. Take a trip to the 3rd World if you want to see what crushing failure looks like.
What has changed is that Beta Provider signaling means nothing to 95% of Women. Since no one tells Women about Reality anymore (and enforces that), they have no reason to think past the absolute basics. No necessity to control the Hypergamy enough to make a decent choice & no one can enforce control on them either. That’s simply the stark truth.
So a Man can still be a failure, but the “Modern Man” isn’t. He just has no incentive to improve his standing past the old, necessary aspects. But he’s lost the “social teaching” of old, which is how Men “just knew”. Society shouldn’t be built with only those of exceptional Drive in mind. That’s destructive to everyone.
“In a different era, I would have gone off to war for a couple years, or had to get a physical job in my late teens and develop some self-discipline working long hours. My family and society would have pushed me (and the girls around me) to marry early and get on with being a grownup. I would have been a far better man much sooner for all that — not because I would have been serving the FI, but because I would have been a stronger, more virtuous man for the sake of myself and the people I care about.
So while more guys following in my shiftless footsteps might be good in the sense that it will help crash the current unfair system, it’s not good for the guys themselves, so I don’t see it as a very positive overall solution. I’m not sure there’s a better one, though.”
There is a creative impulse, a drive for self expression, in every sentient being. Replication of our DNA in the form of sexual reproduction, offspring, is one example of that. It comes from within. But there is also the outer expression that comes from things we create with our hands, with our minds. These are the two paths by which sentient beings, particularly humans, fulfill our life imperative. So if you have slacked off and not created anything, have not sought to express yourself to the fullest extent possible, that cannot be blamed on women. Sure, you can blame women for not inspiring you to sexually reproduce. But what about your outer expression?
Reformed hippie:
“So, given these short term incentives, which do these young men choose: work excessively and incur debt and be a celibate engineering major, or work at a bar, start a locally moderately prominent band and get beautiful young women and older sluts on the reg?”
I laughed. Me and two of my closest friends are involuntarily celibate; a pilot, a carpenter and a civil engineer. I just quit my job with a small airline and am now applying to work in bars.
Julian O’Dea says:
“Introverted STEM types are often just suffering from a lack of a bit of polish. I think of a man I knew in my last job. Very “herby” and with a rather unappealing wife. But, in reality, a very handsome man. Apparently he had never noticed.”
Dear Julian, Would you consider “STEM types” Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos “lacking polish” and “herby?”
Do you claim to have more sexual marketplace value?
The question is becoming more focused because more urgent: What should we tell our sons?
We have to tell them the truth: http://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/red-pill-rules-post-3-the-bottom-line/
That’s the only way they’ll know how to find the right path for their lives, if they understand the landscape from the beginning.
Otherwise, they get shocked by the ingestion of the Red Pill: http://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/shocked-bitter-angry-men/
and that can literally throw a man’s whole life off track. Your father is supposed to tell you the deal as a youth, so you can figure out how you’re going to live your life.
GBFM, I think you misunderstand my point. I am a STEM bloke myself. All we need is a bit of polish and confidence. Engineers had a macho reputation here in Australia when I was at university.
Here are the figures on the non-existent marriage strike, or whatever you want to call it, I don’t care. For you non-STEM or marginally STEM guys it looks very slow. For STEM guys the handwriting is on the wall and the enemy creeps under the city wall.
Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:
1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
2009 36 (UVA 2010; project moved from Rutgers)
2010 32.9 State of our unions data
2011 31.1 (http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/family_profiles/file131529.pdf)
I can appreciate that given how hostile our culture is to men, a woman suggesting that men, even just a few of them, have not done well enough is extremely aggravating. And it’s true that almost none of us is as fantastic as we might have been, for all kinds of reasons, some within our control and some not.
But the men I’m worried about are not single successful bachelors. They’re friends and relatives that just seem lost and unhappy. For two of them I worry that they might give up and kill themselves, not because their lives are meaningless without women, but because they don’t seem to feel that they serve any purpose. I want them to feel like they’re leaving a posterity behind them, of whatever kind. Cail Corishev and Sant Mat describe it better than I can.
Also, I’ll lay off the imprecise usage of nautical and aeronautical metaphors.
I knew an engineer who lived in the People’s Republic of Poland from birth (c. 1960) to age five. His father always took the most menial jobs he could find, shirked hard, and petitioned for permission to emigrate. Finally the Communists decided he was a useless eater and let him go. Once in America, “Lo and behold, Dad became a productive citizen!”
I would dare say that this story would be confusing to the current president.
And his wife.
“Why would somebody want to come to a country that was downright mean”?
Re: “What has changed is that Beta Provider signaling means nothing to 95% of Women.” Yes, this is the crux of the change. Alphas or cads or other men with high SMV no longer have to bother to exert themselves as providers to impregnate women, and betas and other men with low SMV have negative incentive to increase their MMV by being better providers because of the AFBB single mom phenomenon.
So, what should we tell our sons?
“So, what should we tell our sons?”
Tell them the truth. Tell them their highest purposes is their own pursuit of happiness. Tell them that the only opinion of their worth that matters is their own. Tell them their lives are finite. Tell them Only God cares about the morality of their behavior. Tell the only thing they owe society is to follow the letter of law, but they can abuse the spirit of the law all they wish. Tell to be civil and polite on first contact and be ready to go full asshole if the need arises. Tell them there is no loyalty amongst women nor amongst employers. Tell them material goods are burden on their back, wallets, and souls. Tell them money can’t buy happiness but can sure as hell rent it.
More than a few here opine that they look forward to our current pathological feminist system crashing for the purpose of a new system arising out of the ashes. I have a son also and worry about his future. But is it feasible to believe any new system built upon the ashes would be better? Historically revolutionaries are not successful in guiding a terminal system into something better. If a revolution were to occur, what would be the aftermath? Fascism again like Germany. A Soviet system? These thoughts of wanting a new system that include the respecting of men are admirable, but perhaps not thoroughly thought out.
If not a revolution, then how can we who care about our civilization effect the change we desire?? Are there any MRA organizations that one could participate in?
Considering ever chick in my rotation is better looking then Bill Gate’s wife, yea my value is higher.
Which isn’t saying much
Vascularity, they read too many post apocalyptic novels maybe. (I confess, I love that genre). We have no rebuild better option coming. The bible is clear that the slope is negative, even if its a slope arrived by regression and there are points above and below the line across time, the regressed slope is negative and that ain’t gonna change. A man may rebuild something of himself, something of his family, but a man may do that now, as we speak, not dependent upon any system collapse or whatever.
Generally speaking, you don’t want to win the revolution. You want to save your strength and win the counter revolution
There are other options besides Mad Max’s Thunderdome followed by dark-ages tribalism.
Socialism and feminism are intertwined – feminism is replacing the role of men with the government. That’s one reason that I’m personally hoping that we just gradually reduce the role of the federal government and increasingly rely on state-level government. It’s not impossible to imagine that actually happening, though it’s hard to imagine right now, history teaches that things can change a lot in a decade (as we’ve seen).
I think the keys are
1) Pry feminism’s claws out of the tender flesh of the next generation. Home school / get the worst feminists away from kids.
2) Move to red states, keep them red.
3) Actively speak out against PC, feminism, and socialism. Since they are the dominant position, our silence helps them and hurts us.
4) Oppose amnesty/immigration, because the fence-jumpers are socialists.
I honestly think the pendulum is swinging back. It’s always darkest before the dawn and all those cliches.
@ Okrahead:
It’s always good to hear how things are going with you, Okrahead. You have my utmost admiration for how you have handled this situation. You are an excellent father. I have been keeping both you and your son in my prayers.
Oh, one more thing. Our greatest weapon of all is that have the power of life, and they are emissaries of death.
http://www.isteve.com/babygap.htm
Sant Mat
Men and women need each other, if only for sex at this point. There is no strike on that and never will be.
Thanks for the Hallmark card. Now, run along, the adults are discussing something serious.
Re: “Tell them the truth.” The Truth, with Capital T, says
Matthew 19:10-11 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
1 Corinthians 7: 8-9 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
I think basically all men, all men let me repeat, see that it is currently not good for the vast majority of men to marry, specifically because all men, all men, see how the vast majority of men are treated by their own wives. And yet “It is better to marry than to burn.” is probably the advice I will stick with, unless someone has better.
@jf12: You could abide even as Jesus. I think that’s in there.
Also, maybe someone could fill me in on scripture. It is my understanding that if you take a woman into your house and sleep with her, you’re married. Doesn’t matter if she’s Christian, doesn’t matter about the ceremony. If she’s Christian, then you can’t get divorced except in limited circumstances. But if she’s not Christian, and she leaves you, then you’re divorced and can remarry. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but scripturally, as long as you treat her as a wife and don’t send her from your house, the state’s seal of approval is not required.
Is that true?
@ Virtue:
As with many biblical issues there are differing opinions. Many say that since it is the law (government law) to have a marriage license to be considered married, then it is necessary to get the license because Scriptures indicate that we are to follow the laws of worldly government because those in power were placed in power by God. I believe that explanation is taken to extremes. I believe if a man and woman were to pray and ask Jesus to bless their union by considering them husband and wife, then Jesus would consider them married with all the biblical expectations of each gender in the union. We here tend to be much more libertarian. The churches, I believe, tend to be more not willing to go against any government sanctioning.
What do you tell a son?
Well I have a son he is 7 now. tell him the truth of the laws of misandry. My son is too young but he does know not to let a girl get away with hitting him for any reason. My daughter (oldest) has already been told and reinforced that there is no such thing as cheating on a girl friend. If you are not good enough to marry you are just something to stick your dick in. My son will be getting that when he is old enough. The cut off age for boys is twelve from a battered bitch shelter he goes to jail while mom and the daughters get shelter. So twelve it is. Let a son know there is no wife and MGTOW as a stud is a better route. the failure to launch types are a reaction to societal stimulus and those men see no reason to produce on a subconscious level. I would encourage my son to be a bad ass producer of selfish wealth with a PUA/MGTOW frame based on there not being a wife to be had. using a surrogate for a child would be the move for the child thing. Enjoy the pussy and lots of it and never marry anyone older than 24 on the wedding day ever. A PUA with red pill manosphere game will see and understand women so well it will be hard to marry when he gets to thirty. He damn sure will be MGTOW for a thirty something slut. PUA has the same societal effect with the added bonus of depleting the sluts of their fertility years. (doing the lords work) Single moms are booty calls, not even good enough to be girl friends. single women over 30 are just sluts and are just for booty calls. Divorced women are just for booty calls always. The point is no investment in women period. I talk like this to every young man I meet. I also always encourage young men to be as educated and skilled as possible
Grey Ghost: None of my business, but your son can do much better than just PUA/MGTOW. Get him started now, studying literature, mathematics and maybe French or Spanish. You are a smart guy, and if there’s something you can’t teach him, hire a broke-ass Ph.D. candidate from the local college.
When he is 16 he can go someplace else. There are lots of places in Latin America, East Africa and Eastern Europe where a smart young man can make some bucks, plus he has a better chance to find a normal life with a sane woman who was raised by a stand-up father in these other places.
(Off Topic.)
Joshua:
I think that wordpress takes html.
My guess is that following works:
That was:
<blockquote>But I still think my original point holds. Women hit</blockquote>Because wordpress do not have real preview, using html is risky.
/ Kari Hurtta
I’m in my early 30s, former military, ivy-business educated, 6-fig income, reasonably personable and attractive, and would love to get married to someone who is attractive, smart, and–unlike the first wife in my early 20s, who banged a couple other guys during a 3-month stateside deployment during the first year hitched–a good wife, or at least faithful. I’m no MG(M)OW (yet) but I don’t see it happening for many of the reasons detailed on this and CH’s blog. The mutual exclusivity inherent in finding marriageable women who actually want to marry has been a huge barrier. Very depressing. Might have to expatriate. Or move to a bigger city. (cue violin)
Pingback: More ominous than a strike. | Truth and contrad...
[ Continuing Finnish statistics ]
“( Family type figures are on here:”
I’m unable to found births by family type table (at least on free tables).
There is table for births by marital status of mother however:
* Live births at 2012, mother married: 34,798
* Live births at 2012, mother not married: 24,695
Woman’s mean age at first marriage is much higher than mother’s mean age by first live birth and woman’s mean age at first marriage is higher than mother’s mean age by all live births. So many marry after they have children, I guess.
Is this marrying after fertility is proven ?
On other hand
* Married couple without children at 2012: 523 221
* Cohabiting couple no children at 2012: 203 334
How these are on United States ?
/ Kari Hurtta
Re: Boxer
You can pretty much forget about Eastern Europe. As far as feminist influence/lifestyle is concerned, there is objectively less and less difference between American and Eastern European women. I might add that fatherless households are very common in Eastern Europe. Good luck trying to find a sane woman there raised by a patriarchal-minded father.
As far as Eastern Africa is concerned, the problem is that it’s a craphole, and as a “white devil” you’ll turn into dead meat as soon as there’s the slightest social upheaval.
Boxer
Just what I had in mind a very highly educated and capable man. One of the things we all need o understand is we are all in a state of war. Not by our choice it just is. This is what has caused the term churchian, and the disdain for conservative types with the man up responsible marry her shit. Those “great men” are parroting traditions for living in a society created by men greater than them. They have no foundation on why the chivalry and masculine traditions were good in the first place. The goal is to me a solid society to raise strong healthy men period. The rest is just filler. Wartime is unsustainable yes but it has to be done. We as men today don’t get to have marriage and maybe our 4-8 year old sons don’t either. Our job is to make a shift. We are the warriors like it or not. We have two choices to make one is to both involve surviving the war. And the other also involves defeating the beast. the beast each day passes a new law of misandry to close off the sources of survival. They have even null and voided the constitution. They have flipped even our traditional warriors the Christian church and made them the churchians. Now we have to let go and do battle. I used to be an against gay marriage guy, against abortion guy, don’t care for the cultural issues of homosexual norming type of guy. Fuck the one you marry, marry the one you fuck, etc. etc. I’m still that guy, but I’m not stupid.
Remember the goal is to make strong healthy men period. That is all that matters. PUA/MGTOW strong healthy men ( warriors with red pill truth) . Look at like that. Starve the beast and live as a man. The Ultimate warrior is a fully Christian man that knows he is human has game and actual faith. The story of jt12 I think it was of his son in the Dallas area is what happens to good reliable productive men. A sane society does not have that story. Women are not changing and men are not changing the society is. And that is what great men do.
@Kari
so the Ganderusa is scheduled to start US trials in 2014 and is already in trials in India.
Not the same as ‘does not exist’…
Gandarusa can be bought on Ebay now. The trick is a reliable way to test if it is working. I figure that out I would be a gandarusa dealer FDA approved or not. Red pill sales pitch with free copy of Rational Male with purchase of 10 or more. Would be a hit with college men helping them get to graduation with out a legal lean on them. Look at the never married pro athletes with the 30 k month CS payments etc. Easy sale there.
Dear liberals, without marriage, it’s harder to screw a man in divorce court, unless your goal is to make it easier by opening men up to divorce court w/o the hassle of them having to make an explicit decision to take that risk themselves….
We need to have a frank discussion about marriage
…The “sanctity” of marriage – whatever that really means – has long been undermined for conservatives by: high divorce rates, polyandry and polygamy, gay marriage, recognition that there’s no “one” way marriage has always been, and so on. But, aside from these, we should wonder at marriage’s necessity….
@GreyGhost
at my advanced age (probably about the same as you) I find the thought of kids to be alarming but I don’t fancy getting me ‘nads chopped…I’d buy it. Even if the potential side-effects include permanent sterility, I’d go for it. I find it impossible to believe that politics and gynocentrism aren’t a large part of the delay in it coming to market. Everyone knows that the end of oops pregnancies will be a fundamental game changer in society, everyone. We’ll see some women bleating when men have a decent, safe option as well.
This is how it is for men. One of the bad things about red states are they are some whiteknighting blue pill traditionalist and will kill for chivalry. This goes with my reply to Boxer earlier. Look at the results as it is played out on actual lives.
This man is not an MRA. He is a black man shouting out the truth. The “ism’s” over lap and can become confused but the point is there and the destruction has much room to work into the middle class white community.
Dear Dalrock,
A major theme of yours is, “Feminists will continue their handwringing tentatively asking if perhaps we have gone a bit too far.”
Could you please cite just one sample of a feminist asking if we have gone too far?
Over 50,000,000 babies have been aborted since Roe vs. Wade. Since no feminist has asked if the murder of 50,000,000 babies is “going too far,” what in the world makes you think that feminists are wringing their hands at the growth of the welfare state and the augmentation of their salaries at the expense of others?
Marry and get ripped-off? You must be high!
Hey Grey Ghost and Hollenhund:
I feel you, and you are right on all counts. I have two young brothers in my family who live close by. Their mother is my cousin (skank-ho single mom). I’m trying this with them. Their mom is a Canadian citizen in the U.S.A. on a visa (she doesn’t even have the green card) so she has to behave herself better than most skanks. I have some hope for those boys that they will make something more of their life than the average fatherless white trash who is in and out of jail and has an aimless life.
In many areas that is true, and in many areas it isn’t. Not to get into lots of detail, but in many parts of Tanzania and Kenya there are towns full of white people, and also towns full of East Indian people and other Asians. It’s quite different there, in that race is openly acknowledged but nobody cares too much if you have a skill and are productive. I wouldn’t go to Rwanda or Zimbabwe for anything. Most importantly, no matter where you go, you have to be able to support yourself and provide a necessary skill to the community. Parasitism may be tolerated in the USA but in other places it will get you a kick in the ass and a jail sentence.
Same goes for Hungary and Poland. Of course it is not all good, but there are places a young man can go. I don’t know about the rest of E. Europe but in many smaller towns in Hungary there are still good values and expectations. If I were a Catholic kid I would seriously consider emigrating. In many of these places, citizenship can be bought or acquired through residency. The Hungarian language is quite difficult to learn (it’s not an Indo-European language) but in some ways this is a benefit. It keeps the most harmful aspects of our culture from taking over.
In any case, when I travel I end up wondering what my life would have been like had I just bugged out to one of these places in my teenage years. I am fairly sure I’d have made out better, and I’d advise any of the younger guys to keep an open mind about going someplace else. It’s tough to start over in a brand new place, but with the right skills and hard work I think it might be worth the trouble.
Best, Boxer.
@greyghost
Great post!
“”I would encourage my son to be a bad ass producer of selfish wealth with a PUA/MGTOW frame based on there not being a wife to be had. “”
I have a 15 year old nephew.I explain this to him.
“”A PUA with red pill manosphere game will see and understand women so well it will be hard to marry when he gets to thirty””
Yes sir!
“”Single moms are booty calls, not even good enough to be girl friends. single women over 30 are just sluts and are just for booty calls. Divorced women are just for booty calls always. The point is no investment in women period””
You know it!……..my sentiments exactly!
@Boxer
“”Their mother is my cousin (skank-ho single mom). I’m trying this with them. Their mom is a Canadian citizen in the U.S.A. on a visa (she doesn’t even have the green card) so she has to behave herself better than most skanks.””
L*…..A Canadian woman that is a skank?…………the country is full of them!….as you know from living here!…..L*……That is the one thing I like about Canadian women….they spread easier than butter on warm toast…..and I don’t even have to buy them a coffee….let alone dinner!
My story. I’m 37 & never married. Thought I’d eventually find a virgin wife because i am. Didn’t happen. Waited and didn’t try to get ahead and wasted my 20s because I wanted to do things in the “right order”. I thought get married first, THEN get a house. THEN focus on a career. At thirty years old, realized that wasn’t happening, and was disappointed in where my life was. In the intervening 7 years, after giving up the dream of family, my success has skyrocketed. I’m way better off than my peers. I feel bad that my success is only enabling the system…income tax redistribution. Seriously thinking of moving overseas where any money i spend won’t be income for an American. Take my money out of American circulation where it would be taxed over and over. Lately I’ve been cutting back my production. Later this year, I may go into early retirement. There’s no point in storing up a bunch of wealth, because there will be no one to leave it to. When i die, the gooberment gets it? I could live comfortably but spartanly if i retire this year. But i may work a little longer so that I can funnel even more assets overseas and out of American circulation, plus it will allow me to do more when i’m there.
I think it’d be nice to become a capitalist in a foreign country and help to raise their standard of living. Americans hate capitalists, but I’m sure they would love progress overseas. I’m thinking India or maybe a Latin American country without a history of nationalizing private property.
In the next few years, I plan on building wealth and researching foreign countries. I will travel this year. And hope to make the big move before i’m 40.
Also I’d like to warn up and coming countries of the mistakes that Americans made, before it’s too late for them. Feminists are already trying to infiltrate India, so i’m leaning towards that country. There are also some pro-patriarchy groups there. I could be a source of real life experience for them, and show some real life horror stories about what happened here in American.
Hopefully if American society collapses, they will pay close attention to not repeat the mistakes we made.
Greyghost, with the disaparity between the values you are teaching your son and the values you are teaching your daughter, and with a growing percentage of fathers (perhaps even mothers) teaching their sons those same values, by the time your daughter is of marriageable age she may only be able to find men that share you and your son’s values. In that case she will have no other choice but to catapult to her male peers insistence upon sex without commitment, open relationships or whatever it may be. Either that or go her own way as a lifelong celibate, which is not very likely.
Liberty etc etc
You cannot do that in India. one of the chief reasons the Indian economy softened was the fact that the government is double minded on allowing money to be taken out of the country, if made there, without massive penalty. they attracted huge investment by promising companies could take their profits out, then they changed governments and have flirted with the idea of penalizing money that foreigners take out. Now they are vacillating back the other way. Its schizo. besides, and wonderful as the people are its not a good place to live. Its just not very nice generally for Americans, or westerners generally. Ive known 2 expats there, one American and one Swedish, and have been there many times. Both expats never found traction locally, socially or otherwise. Its very complicated and bureaucratic.
Conversely, I knew some young guys who set up a basic computer biz in Bucharest. They were doing basic networks and office type installations and were coining money very easily. The Romanian people are fantastic, the women gorgeous, and the county interesting and beautiful. I was there few times in the mid 2000’s when I met them.
Thailand still works.
@vascularity777, re: January 3, 2014 at 10:32 pm
“I am not aware of any men’s rights groups”.
I think the two biggies that come up over and over again are:
1) National Coalition for Men
2) National Parent’s Organization (formerly Fathers and Families)
@Rollo, re: January 3, 2014 at 4:15 pm
“So I while I agree that there is no concerted ‘movement’ with regards to a ‘marriage strike’ I would argue that it’s really women’s incentives rather than men’s disincentives that are at the root of the ‘strike’.”
Ok – so what do you suggest? I mean the question respectfully. Does it change the diagnosis or the prognosis any?
Several things can serve to improve the overall state of things:
1) Application of laws affirming “strict liability and rights of parenthood” which I would envision having several affects, a) men and women’s rights to decline their parental rights and responsibilities are equalized, so men may decline any rights or responsibilities to parenthood in the same way that women may presently under “Safe Haven” laws, (b) on the other hand a parent affirming his or her parental rights also assumes 100% responsibility for the wellbeing of the child – i.e.: while parenting schedules may be assigned by courts and negotiation facilities may be made available or ordered to unmarried spouses sharing legal custody, neither parent may decline 100% care for the child if it is needed and neither parent may invoke state-ordered child support (private agreements enforceable by contract are another matter).
2) Things like reconsideration of no-fault divorce. Well covered ground here. Ditto that birth control.
That all said:
While I think these would constitute improvements in the state of family law that would be pro-family, it’s just not enough.
The longer I am unmarried, the more I am simply not seeing marriage working, for damn near anyone. There’s exceptions, just like there are zebras. More common than unicorns, indeed.
I think that folks like us – fathers – we have INFINITELY more to contribute to this discussion than say, MGTOW philosopher king Stardusk. We have experiences that his many videos make it clear, he simply doesn’t understand.
I personally suspect that deeper than changes to family law, there are two **profound** changes required … these are essentially like crusades in terms of their overwhelming level of change.
1) Character – we have to full-court press the creation and cultivation of much, much greater character in the ordinary American … male and female.
This, by the way, is why I’m here. I am a Democrat – an I-will-raise-your-taxes (!) liberal … it is clear I am not in good company at this or similar sites. But I intuit that if there is going to be a character-building project, you folks … it is among your minds and hearts where we need to build this.
But the character-building has to be on the male and female side. One of the greatest areas of dismay for me following Dalrock, SSM, Rollo has been the lack of faith among readers that women’s character can be challenged and built. Nothing in my experience – NOTHING – justifies this belief.
2) Economics – German model guys. Another writer here on Dalrock described the emerging social economic state as a thumb-tack. Flipping brilliant. The answer isn’t Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand is just the Karl Marxist description of Kapitalism, with Ayn Rand saying “Ja!” instead of “Nyet!”
Good economics is something our black/white, psychologically splitting borderline personality disordered politics in the U.S. simply won’t let you see. It has literally framed it out of the picture. But this is what it is: if you work, then you must work to access capital. If you have capital, you must follow the rules to have your capital access the markets. The rules spread capital around the markets, keeping the middle bulging.
If you are a worker, or if you are a capitalist, and you don’t follow the rules, “you do not eat in Hamburg, you do not eat in Frankfurt, you do not eat in Munich”. You work, or you spread capital. Workers have no RIGHT to capital, and capitalists have no RIGHT to the market. Both earn their rights. The resulting mix is the alchemy of capitalism. It is what made America great in the first place, and it is the reason why Germany powers the $18 trillion E.U. economy.
I raise it hear – because if you don’t do something for these middle-families, if you don’t beat back the natural tendency of capital to concentrate (upwards), then this whole exercise is naught. May as well go preach family values in the favelas.
Off-topic (or justifying it, either way) but…
“Single Moms Should Use TV & iPads as Babysitters Even If It’s Bad for the Kids,” by Jenny Erikson, The Stir, 1 Jan 2014
http://thestir.cafemom.com/technology/166169/single_moms_should_use_tv
You can’t make this up.
“Men and women need each other, if only for sex at this point. There is no strike on that and never will be.”
Anonymous Reader, “Thanks for the Hallmark card. Now, run along, the adults are discussing something serious.”
OK Big Guy, at what point in time to you foresee humans becoming asexual and hermaphroditic?
“You cannot do that in India. one of the chief reasons the Indian economy softened was the fact that the government is double minded on allowing money to be taken out of the country, if made there, without massive penalty. they attracted huge investment by promising companies could take their profits out, then they changed governments and have flirted with the idea of penalizing money that foreigners take out. ”
Liberty said he wanted to expat and invest in the new homeland of his choice, not send his money back to the United States.
*cough* 🙂
Sant Mat
“Men and women need each other, if only for sex at this point. There is no strike on that and never will be.”
Anonymous Reader, “Thanks for the Hallmark card. Now, run along, the adults are discussing something serious.”
OK Big Guy, at what point in time to you foresee humans becoming asexual and hermaphroditic?
In fact, plenty of men are involuntarily celibate right now, and many of them won’t reproduce at all. Plus, and this may be a shock to you, not all sex results in reproduction.
Your ignorance of the topics can be remedied only if you are willing to learn.
“My current girlfriend proposed to me as well…..however, she can’t answer one simple question: “Will you take my last name?”
So, in lieu of the answer to that question……my answer is “No”.
In any event, children are out of the question.”
This is the most effective marriage cock-block ever.
Dear liberals, without marriage, it’s harder to screw a man in divorce court, unless your goal is to make it easier by opening men up to divorce court w/o the hassle of them having to make an explicit decision to take that risk themselves….
They’re way ahead of you. The idea is to turn the US into into a sort of super-Scandinavia, where people don’t get married to each other and all women are married to the state. A little bit at a time, to be sure, starting with single-payer health care, free childcare, waaaaaaaay extended paid maternity leave, and yet more tinkering with workplace laws to make it easier for women to stay employed without actually working very much. They won’t need to take you to divorce court, because alimony and child support are baked into the tax code regardless of your access to sex or paternity.
Personally, I think they’ll succeed. Married women are part of the political bulwark that has kept this sort of thing from happening, and as fewer women get married (and more divorced) the obvious thing for all those single women to do is vote themselves a part of your paycheck. The nuclear family has always been a check on state power, so don’t kid yourself into thinking you’re going to be wealthier or happier with its disappearance just because you won’t see the inside of divorce court.
” The man at the bottom of the economic ladder might go from a job with nearly no social status to taking disability. If he takes mental health disability he might even get powerful protection against child support. ”
Dalrock is correct, SSI checks cannot be garnished in any way. To do so is to bump up against the American Disabilities Act. Even though a feminist wants to throw a male cripple onto the street, because they aren’t disabled enough to keep paying her (in her mind), the judges will rule you actually -cannot- throw a cripple onto the street and still say you live in a first world country. Want to keep your money? Get broke, get disabled. End of story.
Re: more ominous. Old news, but relevant to turns of this discussion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/us/census-benchmark-for-white-americans-more-deaths-than-births.html
A huge percentage of the white middle class population is underreproductive. It’s a very small step, maybe even the same step, to being underproductive.
And our gracious host hits another one out of the ball park. I can only add that the attack on marriage is just part of the war that has been waged on ordinary productive male Americans over the last 50 years, a war that includes desegregation/civil rights/forced integration, mass immigration from the Third World, affirmative action, technology and jobs shipped to China, demonization of the white male, Griggs v. Duke Power, and crashing our entire economy in an effort to encourage minority home ownership. You’d almost think someone really wants to take down Western Civilization.
“In fact, plenty of men are involuntarily celibate right now, and many of them won’t reproduce at all. Plus, and this may be a shock to you, not all sex results in reproduction.”
And yet the world presses on, with most adults having sex and plenty of people having babies, perhaps too many.
Keenan McGregor
Bruchmuller he was an artillery officer in world war 1 with the German army. Artillery then was a big deal along with the machine gun. But this man was an artist with artillery. His barrages were short and sweet and were extremely effective. One characteristics of his barrages was that they didn’t destroy every thing. And that was as much a part of his attack as the explosive artillery shells. As the infantry closely followed his barrage the surviving troops alive and well would see the advance and report what they saw which cause confusion and panic among the defenders.
Not all marriages fail. One to 1.5 wives out of 10 actually give a damn about their husbands in todays world. I have faith a good woman will find a beta male that will love her even a red pill one with game. I will teach my daughter the truth when a loving man comes her way and she decides that he doesn’t do any thing for her (gina tingle) then she is choosing to be unworthy. This part of the father daughter hasn’t come up yet. The best I can do is to influence the herd status women have. In a sane society women did marry good men. So it is possible. Men and women need to hear the training and advice men are given. She will know everything I tell my son. Single mothers are just worthy of booty calls. They have already shown they only care about what’s in it for them. So just use them for pleasure no need to waste good love respect and commitment on them. look at the series Sex in the City women think it is glamorous and empowering to be a penis warmer and cum dumpster. That is how you talk to your kids. (mine are way to young for that) remove the romance and cause as much doubt as possible in feral behavior. Normal female behavior is rebellious and sinful described as empowering and good. My son will know the truth. (I’m on my gandarusa she can have this dick until I get tired of fucking her) How empowering would it be for a young lady to behave that way with out the delusions of sexual empowerment. What if a girl chose a path to be pleasant rather than sexual. some things don’t have to be taught human nature takes over and love happens even feminist and MRA’s get married red pill and all.
greyghost:
Original content was:
greyghost:
Note that this requires that it is working and there is no doubt about it.
Spawny Get:
I interpreted this that it is not tested.
/ Kari Hurtta
Gander USA? Was that on purpose? What’s sauce for the goose…..
Actually, white women have been having insufficient babies to maintain the white race. They have been having 1.8 babies per woman for a couple of decades.
Longtorso:
When cohabitation in common, then new laws are introduced.
(on Finland at 2012:
* Married couple without children: 523 221
* Married couple with children: 439 194
* Cohabiting couple no children: 203 334
* Cohabiting couple with children: 118 136 )
There is “Laki avopuolisoiden yhteistalouden purkamisesta” (Act on the Dissolution of the Household of Cohabiting Partners) on Finland.
/ Kari Hurtta
Uggh: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/181596/
Then the comments support double standards (seemingly in favour of women). So apparently certain kinds of double standards are okay, as long as other kinds still take place.
Sant Mat:
I guess that this is on purpose. Real name seems to be “Gandarusa” or “Justicia gendarussa” for plant.
Indonesian pill (Gandarusa)
Justicia gendarussa
/ Kari Hurtta
@Kari
A language thing? No problem, friend.
Pingback: The Psychology Behind Men’s Disincentive to Marry :: The Damned Olde Man
A male contraceptive Vasalgel just started animal studies,
http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/
It is looking for donations, so heres your chance to change the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/01/01/thinking-beyond-the-birth-control-pill/men-deserve-birth-control-options-too
Re: “Dear liberals, without marriage, it’s harder to screw a man in divorce court, unless your goal is to make it easier by opening men up to divorce court”
You are conflating identity politics with liberalism, and a specifically toxic misandric identity politics with liberalism. I have kept the company of liberals for over 20 years, not many that are that committed to identity politics. People become liberal because of injustices they see and that they refuse to stick their heads into holes in the ground on account of.
What few liberals I encounter who have been taken in by identity politics are at least 50:50 prone to easy antidote, if you speak their language.
You are of course free to reject my assessment and keep your own judgment on the matter but I counsel, that is the business of making enemies where you really have none. Your real adversaries – those truly committed to identity politics, they want you to do this.
Sort of OP Sunday Church rant (Catholic edition):
Excuse me… I’m not especially comfortable with men teaching other men. Do you have any classes for men being taught by women?
Certainly! Our intro to Catholicism class is just what you need!
Great. And I’m not sure why it would come up in a class on the Trinity, but could you tell me what that teacher thinks the two prime examples of broken families are?
Don’t worry, sir! It will be coming up! The two prime examples are “parents” getting divorced, and fathers leaving their children.
Excellent! And I’m in the mood to watch a man being shamed by his woman in front of strangers.
Certainly, sir! This table right here! This morning’s 2 minutes of shame will be from this woman shaming her man over playing video games. I do hope you enjoy it!
—
Note to catholics and anti-catholics, this is the catholic edition because I went to a catholic church yesterday. I could write this after visiting any christian denomination (and have on occassion).
[ Your comment is awaiting moderation. — wrong address filled automatically — forget that post. ]
[ Continuing ]
Tom H:
That seems to be same number on Finland:
/ Kari Hurtta
Question for Dalrock and the group here.
My wife and I learned a lot of valuable lessons from church-sponsored marriage seminars. The thing is, most of the practical lessons (forgiveness, men’s vs. women’s needs, male vs. female roles, getting over yourself, being a servant, working on the relationship, etc.) don’t depend on a religious worldview. Or, IOW, an atheist or a non-religious person can believe in traditional marriage and get a lot of valuable advice from this sort of instruction.
So would it be sensible to start marriage conferences that promote traditional marriage values, but leave religion out of it?
My initial thought is that it’s conceptually possible, but that it wouldn’t work in the long term because there wouldn’t be enough of a founding principle / dogma / philosophy to hold off the inevitable attempts to weaken the message and make it more politically correct.
@Mulier have a read of The Curse of Potential:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/09/19/the-curse-of-potential/
@GBFM
Dr. Helen has been tracking this for some time. Most recently she pointed to the WSJ piece with Camille Paglia.
@crowhill re: January 6, 2014 at 9:25 am,
“So would it be sensible to start marriage conferences that promote traditional marriage values, but leave religion out of it?”
If this is a question of “whether?” then it is a civilizational question. In other words, the manosphere is excessively apocalyptic, but if we can’t shift values to a post-religious dialog, then the apocalypsism (yes I made that word up) may be warranted.
Otherwise it is a question of “when?” and “how?”
There’s a hunger for this out there. I think there’s hope for constructing it around a humanistic ethos which has been well explored and developed, so not too much reinventing the wheel required.
We are doing the same exercise as the Greeks, and even more so as the Romans, who contended with forces in the prosperity and entitlement of empire that withered and chipped away at the virtues that made empire possible to start with.
Good reading for Dalrock, SSM, Rollo followers in this vein includes:
Dio Chrysostom, Marcus Aurelius, Philo and Epictetus.
We’ll have to stand on their shoulders and do better than they did, but it may be helpful to know: our forebearers have been here before.
Sant Mat,
This nonsense has nothing to do with anything. Stop trying to reframe everything and stay on topic.
Of course men and women need each other and will continue to have sex. They might simply stop getting married. This is already happening.
What is worse, we are deluding ourselves, lying to ourselves about everything. Look at this front page article in the Sunday Arizona Republic:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140105more-moms-skip-marriage.html
Instead of mom’s skipping marriage, they could have just as easily retitled the article more acurately: more baby dadies refuse to marry the women that had their bastards. At least that would have made sense given the laws around no-fault-divorce. Better just to cut a child support check for 18 years than be frivorced by a selfish bitch who wants to continue sleeping with lots of different men.
Post-religous?
If there is no God, why is it immoral to murder?
If there is no God, why is it immoral to steal?
If there is no God, why is it immoral for a stronger man to simply kill a weaker man and rape his wife into submission? If there is no God, why is it immoral to rape? If there is no God, why is it immoral for a man to kill the children his woman bore if he knows that he did not sire them? (this happens in the animal kingdom all the time.)
There is no post religious dialog in the manosphere. That is because there IS a God and He set up very specific laws. These laws define morality. Morality is there to because women can be ruined. God understands all of this which is why we must follow His laws. When we start making up our OWN laws (no-fault-divorce) that mock God’s laws, it is because man is spending too much time being immoral by listening to the inane screeds from women who don’t believe in God.
Try this and leave out the marriage seminar middleman:
The woman is to submit. The man can spank her if she misbehaves. What more is needed?
@ibb
“it is because man is spending too much time being immoral by listening to the inane screeds from women who don’t believe in God.” I think you mean “feminists” rather than “women.” Many feminists are men.
Blue dog,
Please describe in detail your vision of this “humanistic ethos which has been well explored and developed.”
Further please explain its costs to the individual. How does this help the disappointed, the disenfranchised, the cynical, and the hopeless? How much government does this require?Are there real, immediate, and tangible benefits? Or is this yet another of those ideas one has to invest in, pay dues, and at some unspecified point in the future there will be an equally unspecified payoff? How does the new ethos bring back the active participation of those of us who have heard this a thousand times before only to suffer an existential kick in the balls? What’s in it for me? Does this new ethos create or add to the idea that existence of need is a valid claim against another’s life? How about enforcement? Is there a threat of violence for those who don’t comply, or maybe loss of liberty or property, for those who imperfectly comply? What are the obligations, and expectations of women under this ethos? Will men be liberated from the current expectation of being the only rational, moral, and responsible agents in society? Will men be free to a pursuit of happiness as defined by the individual? How much additional paperwork is involved? Does this ethos do anything for men left out of the current system (or are we merely a sacrificial oops) or does it simply protect the investments of those fortunate enough to have a stake in the status quo?
IBB
Instead of mom’s skipping marriage, they could have just as easily retitled the article more acurately: more baby dadies refuse to marry the women that had their bastards
In fact, I expect that kind of White Knighting headline to show up soon. For now, babymommas can be portrayed as strong, independent wimmen, but as the costs become more obvious it will become Imperative (heh) to blame it all on Teh Menz, while doubling down on legal punishment of maleness. This, in turn, will all but certainly push more men into GTOW- mode in various forms.
After having slept on this thread for a day, I realized there is a common–but undefined–fallacy running through many of the comments.
It’s sort of a variant of the Apex fallacy. For the moment I’m going label it the Omega fallacy.
We saw this in @Mulier’s early comments, where she stereotyped all non-apex males as slackers–basement dwelling, pot smoking, video game playing losers. She has backed off this statement, but I’m convinced it’s a common thinking pattern for women. Heck, the phrase “I bet you live in your mom’s basement” is part of virtually any nuclear rejection.
You see this fallacy in Mark Driscoll’s calls for men to man up. Man up in this instance means for a man to live his life according to Driscoll’s personal/cultural definition of what it means to be a man.
Even @Cail Corishev fell into the trap by trying to defend the phrase “failure to launch.” But the examples he gave of what it means to be a man are his personal/cultural standards, and the conclusion he presents is that men are somehow defective if they don’t meet these standards.
Cultural standards though, are not absolute standards. Not only do they vary from culture to culture, but from decade to decade within the same culture.
Are there any absolute standards for men? Yes, but they are set by God, because only the God has the authority to do so. The Bible is full of advice and standards for men, but it rarely matches up with a particular culture’s definition of masculinity (Pastor Driscoll, for example, preaches a definition of manhood that is at odds with the Bible).
Crowhill
So would it be sensible to start marriage conferences that promote traditional marriage values, but leave religion out of it?
Seems to me at this time, it would be like pissing upwind at a forest fire. The self-proclaimed e-lites would get in the way as much as possible, because “traditional marriage values” oppress women due to teh Patriarchy.
Do that kind of thing one-on-one: you with a man, your wife with his wife, it stays under the radar. Rather the way men are passing The Glasses / red pill around, in fact.
Re: Omega fallacy. Yes, you’re absolutely right. This is undoubtedly an even more unconscious reflex fallacy for women than the apex fallacy! I view the apex fallacy as merely a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy, in which of a group only the best exemplars count. It’s literally as stupid as saying “The average American makes over a billion dollars, if you only count billionaires.” But the Omega fallacy is more insidious, because it applies to a LOT more of the group. It seems not quite as stupid to say that “The average unwanted male is a Cheetos-eating Mom’s-basement dweller.”
Crowhill,
There is no point to marriage outside of religion. You can not separate one from the other. In all the atheist marriages I have known (personally) they have all eventually ended in divorce.
@Bluedog, good thoughts. I do think it is only a matter of when because I don’t believe civilization can continue on its current path.
@11:18 anonymous, churches manage to have marriage seminars despite the attacks of the elites. Cato continues to have political meetings despite the hatred of the mainstream media. Manosphere blogs continue to operate despite their enemies. I think it’s possible to have a counter-cultural movement that the elite hate.
@innocentbystanderboston, the philosophical origin of ethics is a very thorny problem. Whether they are ultimately justified in doing so, non-believers still cling to a system of ethics — of some sort of other. I don’t see any reason why they can’t cling to a system of ethics that supports traditional values.
“I guess that this is on purpose. Real name seems to be “Gandarusa” or “Justicia gendarussa” for plant.”
Justice gender? This just keeps getting better, and more accurate.
crowhill,
Because it would make no sense to follow those “traditions” if that is all that they are. Explain to a woman in 1910 who supports Women’s Suffrage that man’s law is supposed to be trumped by God’s law, and God’s law stipulates that she must obey her husband (in all things) so she absolutely should not be given the right to vote (on man’s laws) and she’d tell you that you were mad to follow that tradition. To those who ONLY see these laws and “traditions” (nothign more) it means that they can be changed because (after all) they are ONLY traditional.
What good is marriage to an atheist? He or she needn’t worry about marriage to determine who is to financially support the children, man has discovered DNA. Just take a DNA test and now there is no mistake. Now those who brought those children into the world (that weren’t aborted) can just cut a check (or have government step in and sieze part of their earnings.) And the children needn’t worry about mom and dad being married because mom takes headship ONLY from government, not from dad. Only a government of men and women matters, not God since there is no God.
To a non-believer, their system of “ethics” is one of animals. Man is no different than an animal. Full stop. Man is not in God’s image because there is no God. And in the animal kingdom, the only laws there are, are laws of survival. You can not have a ethical (your word) civilization where the only law you follow is one where you must survive.
Why do you think that women (particularly atheist women) are so quick to mention (in a public park with a pond that has swans) that “swans mate for life!” They always say that, why? Because (as animals) that is so unusual for one animal of either gender to be monogamous to another animal. It is the excpetion, not the rule. And this is the exception that women WANT from men (even if they themselves are not willing to adhere to this rule) so they are quick to mention it to men (particularly those men who are not religious as monogamy is merely an ethical tradition and nothing more.
You can’t have marriage and functioning familes in the information age without a belief in God. Because eventually, the parents (and especially their non-believing children) are going to default to their more basic instincts, survival. And that animal instinct trumps civilization. It doesn’t matter who you hurt (or how you hurt them) so long as you survive. We don’t live in caves anymore,hunt-gather-repeat doesn’t work anymore, we must live among each other.
Crowhill
@11:18 anonymous, churches manage to have marriage seminars despite the attacks of the elites.
The self-annointed elites have no problem with repeated showings of Fireproof I’m sure. So you don’t really understand what I just wrote, it appears. You need to read more Rational Male.
Cato continues to have political meetings despite the hatred of the mainstream media. Manosphere blogs continue to operate despite their enemies. I think it’s possible to have a counter-cultural movement that the elite hate.
If you think that the marriage seminars of Churchianity are counter-cultural, you are grossly mistaken.
“Apex fallacy: when an observer stereotypes all man as having the same attributes and experiences as those men the observer defines apex males.
“Omega fallacy: when an observer stereotypes all non-apex males (as defined by the observer) as being failures as men–omega men.”
Novaseeker has talked about this before, and he’s right. Society is becoming more and more stratified into “winners” and “losers”. You’re one, or the other. It’s no longer “good enough” to be “Richie Cunningham”, the “normal guy in the broad middle”. You can’t just go to school and get a good job and make a decent living. Guys who do that are losers and chumps. If you don’t have an education or a decent job, you have to do something to stand out. You have to be ripped, like “The Situation”. You have to be an edgy punk with “I don’t give a shit” attitude, like every piece of white trash currently populating our cities and towns. You have to be good with the ladies. If you aren’t one of these things, you’re a “loser”.
AR,
Our Help Desk “lead” here at the office is a Born Again Christian. He and I were talking about the movie Fireproof and how he loved it. Apparently they use it in their men’s single’s group at his church (of which, he is a member.) I started quoting Scripture to him about how the movie was not Scripture and was against advocating things that were not God’s law (particularly the wife threating divorce and not taking headship.) The smiling Help Desk guy got real quiet, his smile disappaeared (the moment I told him I knew about the movie) he stopped looking me in the eye, turned his eyes towards the ground, shrugged his sholders, and said “…you are allowed to have your own opinion, I have mine.” I asked him how he could defend that movie scripturally, and he just walked away to think about it. I have not heard from him since on this matter, and expect never to hear from him again on this matter. He knows he was beat.
@Anonymous Reader, unless you’ve been to just about every church-sponsored marriage seminar, your comment is irrelevant. I didn’t say that they are all good, but that some are good.
If one thing of type A is bad, that does not mean that all things of type A are bad.
But if 5 things of type are bad then being sceptical of all things type A would seem would be advised.
crowhill
What is this, NACSMSALT?
If the marriage seminar doesn’t go like this: “Wives, go home and submit to your husbands. That means do whatever he tells you to do. The end.” Then they are no good. You know how long a church would actually remain a church if they did that? They can’t, this is political.
Deti, I believe comes from fathers no longer controling access to the young women. In the old system fathers controlled who dated their daughters, and if a boy got the reputation of being trouble, his dating opputunities in the community evaporated. In that system character and resume’ matered more than game. Mr Harley new some girls were off limits and he could get a real beating if he crosserd the wrong father.
Crowhill, the seminars you refer to are pretty evident by virtue of what you say your take-aways were. No, Ive not been to every flavor of marriage seminar, but I have been to a bunch, and I am literate in the top 5 (based on how prolific they are), maybe more.
The things you took away should not have to be framed as marriage seminars in the first place. There is no news in that news, no no new info in that info. And what you seem to be missing is not how you and your wife may have received a good word, but how the majority of people in attendance. You must be particularly aware of how women hear these things to understand why they are bad.
The words as spoken may literally be helpful, or at least harmless, but the way the female mind absorbs them is through a series of filters that leave all sense of female accountability stuck in the mole sieve, and allow all manner of male accountability through, even managing to use some unknown catalyst to actually change female accountability INTO male accountability. You have going in one end what, if literally taken, could be a decent balanced set or pro and prescriptions. But even the intention of the presenter will be skewed because he or she have taken on board training that went through the same sieve and catalyst bed. So they are bent to double speak.
It ends up simply concentrating the focus on fixing men. You have to break free of …..something….to be able to even discern this. Ive had this debate with many decent Christian men, some really close friends and if given enough time and patience from them most of them will eventually at least concede that what Im saying is very possible, even while insisting the seminar changed their own marriage.
Ive been a bit OCD about this for 10 years plus. It is my opinion that there are only really 2, maybe 3 marriage seminars, topically, and they all have derivative presentations repackaged, no different from self help generally where the one self help book written 50 years ago keeps being rewritten.
It is impossible to frame, for example, His Needs her Needs as anything but Christian based. The secular world would disagree with the very premise that men and women even have differing needs. More than half the Christian women in attendance disagree with that so steeped in snowflake thinking and so statistically illiterate they are.
Better just to cut a child support check for 18 years than be frivorced by a selfish bitch who wants to continue sleeping with lots of different men.
I don’t know about other states, but here in California they’ve essentially rolled alimony into child support. It’s a woman’s dream – unlike alimony, child support is tax free (or, more accurately, the ex-husband pays the taxes) and there’s a whole extra layer of bureaucracy in place to torment “deadbeat dads”.
Or, he just didn’t realize people had the audacity to question the prevailing opinion on something.
@IBB, that is
If one thing of type A is bad, that does not mean that all things of type A are bad.
True, but the ones that are good are sitting on dusty shelves. Ive written about the Christian psychologist I know, PhD in theology and psychology, he used to give marriage seminars. They were bold and real. People kept quitting at the wife’s insistence. he stopped dealing in marriage counseling altogether.
Forget seminars and A and B. You cannot present any idea, not one, that tugs the comfy chair out from under the evangelical feminists spotty behind lest said woman goes histrionic. Its not even about the seminars in that case. So, the seminar givers, they know this. A fellow who did prison ministry with me was a Baptist preacher of a church w/ several hundred folks. he flat told me in his circle of pastor friends they are not free to speak plainly on scripture about marriage because their wives get bad mail from the other ladies, and the wives themselves dislike the topic too.
Unless you live amongst an enclave of Mennonites, there is no reason why the women around you are any different. And even then it may be a problem.
NACSMSALT
YES, thank you, that particular salt is what is used to make the catalyst that changes male accountability into female accountability. And here I was digging in my kinetics text books.
Eric,
That is all true. But the ultimate difference is that child support terminates when the child is 18. Alimony could go on until death. I now live in a community property state. My beta brother-in-law lives in the same state. His wife frivorced his @ss so she could live with their alpha-cock 24-7 and beta BIL is now commanded by the court to pay $3500 a month in child support plus $2500 a month in alimony. The youngest is 15 so that child support goes away in 2.5 years but she will get the $2500 a month from him forever because her new lover that she lives with doesn’t earn very much money. She has a financial disincentive to remarry since that would negate the forever alimony check.
Crowhill
@Anonymous Reader, unless you’ve been to just about every church-sponsored marriage seminar, your comment is irrelevant. I didn’t say that they are all good, but that some are good.
You wrote this: anonymous, churches manage to have marriage seminars despite the attacks of the elites. Please show me the word “some” in your statement. I cannot find it, and therefore the word “all” is implied. Words mean things.
For several years, men have reported here and on other sites what they have seen and heard at “marriage seminars”, and none – none – have reported anything other than the Sheila Gregoire, blue-pill, crockpot nonsense or variations on that theme. The same old White Knighting – women’s bad behavior is the fault of the nearest man, appeasement and supplication are the keys to a happy marriage, men and women should submit to each other in a co-equal arrangement, and so forth. All this junk thought, this feminism with a Jesus fish glued onto it, serves the Female Imperative just fine because it props up the status quo.
Please tell us where a real seminar, that teaches the facts, can be found within any church. I do not think you can do so, frankly.
I’m on a manosphere detox atm, getting the stink of leftwing morons & the constant reminders of how fucked up feminism’s screwing over society, out of my skin …
I havent read dalrock or any manosphere blogs for over two months … lol
Anyway going cold turkey from the manosphere’s given me the shakes & i’m jonesing to post something …
Enjoy …
“In fact, plenty of men are involuntarily celibate right now, and many of them won’t reproduce at all. Plus, and this may be a shock to you, not all sex results in reproduction.” ‘-anon reader
This is true … as everyone knows, 60-70% of men dont reproduce, making 60-70% of men asexual, basically over half of all men dont reproduce
Note this is historically
In shorter periods of time, the situation for men is hundreds of times worse
In most cities only around 0.2% of men reproduce every year, (check the birthrate per 1,000 per year, in any city for the stats) ….
Historically women reproduce 80%
Women dont need to produce jack shit, or work in coal mines or die in battlefields to reproduce
Women today’ve been so privileged for so insanely long, no woman today gives a crap about their children or their husband
Logistically womens refusal to work, prevents 60-70% of men from reproducing
This is because …
The average unmarried bastard spewing slut, consumes societal resources like crazy, as women are incapable of saving & planning long term
The same also applies to married women,
Marriage doesnt protect society from the insane consumer & buying crap culture of women
Marriage just buffers the effects of women on society, through debt
Monogamous marriage is unsustainable, as monogamous marriage without a traditional framework is just as fucked up as unmarried bastard spewing sluts
Millions of reformed whores & sluts & leeches & parasites, calling themselves christian women is a disastrous way to create families
Which is why whores like Sunshinemary are doomed to failure, a society of cum dumpster filled sluts are too damaged & dysfunctional to create a family in the first place
How can a woman bond to her husband, if she spends her prime years, being a cum dumpster welfare whore … sunshinemary is nuttier then fruityloops with her extolling the cum dumpster women on her blog to marry ….
Empath,
Well you said it best, all church sponsored marriage seminars revolve around the concept that HE needs fixing, HE needs to change. Rubbish. To make a Christian marriage work, SHE needs to do whatever HE tells her to do. HE loves his wife the way he loves Christ. SHE obeys her husband. HE takes his orders from Christ. SHE takes her orders from her husband. Simple. There. That is all you need to say in a church sponsored marriage seminar. Do that and there would be no seminar because there is no conflict.
It isn’t about attacks of elites anyway. That a red herring. The attacks are from inside, sometimes inside as in inside individual couples.
The mga churches offer the big pre-packages seminars. They also offer the big packaged mens seminars like 33-The series, and Stepping Up. They fill the seats! No elites are gonna crow about that, they put men right where the elites and the rest want them.
Meanwhile they offer the packaged women’s seminars with Beth Moore and the crew telling women they are special princesses of God and therefore do not worry if they are fat or lazy or disorganized or argumentative or even dumb as a dish cloth in terms of common sense.
rmax,
GO AWAY rmax!!!!!! Do not come back until you change your attitude. You have NO IDEA what you just said.
Go away.
personal/cultural definition of what it means to be a man
Which is a concept that is so regularly abused so as to be outright annoying.
Hey Rmax:
Good to see you again. I wondered where you went off to.
I never post on SSM’s blog (it’s more for chicks, ya know) but I read it quite often. Her take on things relevant to Dalrock blog is interesting, and often will be from an entirely different perspective than what I find here.
Funny thing, I almost never see her doing what you’re accusing her of doing. When she talks to her crew of (mostly Christian) ladies, it’s generally in the tone of: “here’s what I’m doing to make my marriage better, and here is why it works”.
I think there’s a temptation to make perfect an enemy of the good, too. If you have Christian women who have been “sluts” in their early years, then you want to reinforce the idea of putting that behind them, and moving on to be respectable wives and mothers. Bear in mind that most of the women participating in SSM blog are already married, and many have been married for many years, so it’s better that they have a place to go where they feel good about being upstanding women, rather than being told they are irredeemable because they banged their college boyfriend, and encouraged to divorce a good man and ride the carousel. There are enough Jenny Eriksons in the world already. No need to make any more.
Regards, Boxer
Re: what it means to be a man.
What it doesn’t mean:
1) Be part of the apex. Non-apex men are men.
2) Be the kind of man who forces women to submit. This kind is a monster, plain and simple, not a man.
@Boxer,
You are correct about SSM and women there. She is trying to be a good wife and example, and commendably so. Her two big problem areas, or blind spots, or whatever (possibly (not definitely) related to her earlier lifestyle) are
1) Suffering from the apex fallacy. Apparently she landed a very desirable man, and she seems to think that should be the norm.
2) Thinking that women should be forced to submit.
That’s horrible. Almost like a life sentence to prison.
I know in my state, after a man is married for 10-15 years, alimony (we call it maintenance) is customary. With child support, there is a cutoff based upon a man’s income, but with maintenance, everything is at the “judge’s discretion”. You’d better believe that those manginas will be just as generous as they like with your money, too.
It’s also possible here for women to haul their ex back into court every year or so, to force him to divulge his income, so that alimony can be raised. Think of that, my boys, as a regular part of the rest of your life, before you decide to get married…
SSM is THE BEST. Period. She and Elspeth have been touched by God. Yes, SSM flies off the handle sometimes. No, I will never post on her forum. But is she a cum dumpster whore? NFW. RMax, you are not deserving of a woman like SSM because even if you got her, you would not know how good she is. The good women out there, we cultivate them. We do not denigrate them. There are enough bad women out there, we don’t need to denigrate the good ones as well.
A famous surgeon in London has expressed alarm at the number of young women medical students who are converting to Islam. These are not the children of immigrants. What an educated women would see in Islam is a mystery to all of us.
e.g.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/11/islam-converts-british-women-prejudice
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343954/100-000-Islam-converts-living-UK-White-women-keen-embrace-Muslim-faith.html
The average convert is a 27 year old white woman (yes, you read correctly). That’s in the UK where anything Christian has almost entirely vacated the public sphere. I suppose if women are looking for the “married with children, at home” lifestyle, they’d be better to look for Christianity.
The irony of it all…
innocentbystanderboston says: He and I were talking about the movie Fireproof… …they use it in their men’s single’s group at his church… I started quoting Scripture to him about how the movie… I asked him how he could defend that movie scripturally, and he just walked away…”
The reason he walked away (and will never reply to you) is that he can’t wrap his head around the idea that the leadership in his church–his pastor and his denomination–would deliberately lie to him.
I wrote about one example here: When Pastors Lie, which is based on the fact that surveys show that 58% of evangelical pastors DO NOT believe that tithing is required of Christians. What percentage of evangelical churches teach that tithing is required? It a lot dang more than 42%. As far as I can tell, tithing is almost universally taught in evangelical circles.
Churches do lie to the members. Although IMHO, they rationalize it as being for the member’s or the greater good. The tithing rationalizations from the survey include: (1) it provides the member a guideline so they won’t fall into the sin of not being generous, (2) It’s a good tradition, and (3) local churches would go broke without the teaching.
The point (because I don’t want to get side tracked on tithing) is that churches can and do lie to their own members.Sadly, we’ve reached a day when you can’t even trust your own pastor not to lie to your face.
It may be lying, but I think it is more the cafeteria Christianity more than anything else (pick and choose what parts of the Gospel apply to you, reject those that make you uncomfortable.) Such as it is with Fireproof. It is not a movie about Christian marriage. It is a movie about marriage with threatpoint that (deluded Christians) seem to think is a way to turn a secular marriage into a Christian one. To be perfectly honest, I’m surprised that Kirk Cameron agreed to be a part of it. Shame on him. He knows better.
Marcus,
That’s terrible.
A truly useful marriage seminar would contain elements of “His Needs, Her Needs” and/or “For Women Only” plus “For Men Only”. It would look like part Dalrock, part SSM, part Elspeth. But it would discuss hypergamy explicitly, so part Rational Male as well. For churchgoing audiences, a straight-out reading of appropriate Bible verses would be crucial. For non-churchgoing audiences, a discussion of evolution…
The problem is obvious: all of this attacks the false notion that men and women are exactly the same (except women can have babies and are more moral). Since this underlying premise of feminism is in the air we breathe and the water we drink, a great deal of time would have to be spent pounding this fact home, and likely some percentage of the attendees would get up and leave.
Plus it would not be long before infiltrators from feminist sites such as Jezebel, HuffPo, Good Mangina Project, and other manboobies & harpies would show up. Then the accusations – “Hate Speech! Anti-Science! Misogyny!” would fly. No doubt the SPLC would list anyone involved on their “Usual Suspects” roster sent monthly to Homeland Security and other law enforcers.
See the problem? Nobody in the media-infotainment complex had a problem with “Promise Keepers”, because there was no attack on pet shibboliths & other stories. A real marriage seminar, on the other hand, would be a subversive act.
Joseph of Jackson can discuss how that works out..
MarcusD
A famous surgeon in London has expressed alarm at the number of young women medical students who are converting to Islam. These are not the children of immigrants. What an educated women would see in Islam is a mystery to all of us.
Yeah, that’s a real mystery. [roll eyes] Who would have expected women to exhibit hypergamy in that particular fashion, eh?
What an educated women would see in Islam is a mystery to all of us.
Dominant men.
Women in their place.
75% of western converts to Islam are female. So much for Islam being the woman hating patriarchal religion. Or could it be that many women prefer patriarchy?
@Anonymous Reader
Looking at the criticism of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promise_Keepers, I’m not sure.
@FB, Mikediver
I guess if they can’t find it in Christianity/Christian men, they’ll find it elsewhere. In this case, another Abrahamic faith, but one protected from much criticism for a variety of reasons.
Re: IBB
On a different note, I think it’s fair to say that SSM and Elspeth are pushing the Red Pill because they can afford it, basically. For all intents and purposes, they have left the sexual/mating marketplace and they don’t realistically have to worry about getting divorced or cheated on. They’re all set. It’s easy for a woman to face the unpleasant truth of the Red Pill if her hamster is calm. Have you ever seen a so-called Red Pill woman that was plain-looking, single and never-married? There are very few, aren’t there? Such women rarely have the stomach for the Red Pill.
Re: converts. I don’t think the described phenomenon has anything to do with patriarchy, or anything to do male behaviors at all. I think women are merely much more susceptible to proselytism of any kind. For example essentially all JW converts are women, and the vast majority of Joseph Smith’s followers were women. The sad fact is that Christian proselytism is practically dead in the UK.
“Apex fallacy: when an observer stereotypes all man as having the same attributes and experiences as those men the observer defines apex males.
“Omega fallacy: when an observer stereotypes all non-apex males (as defined by the observer) as being failures as men–omega men.”
Women only notice men who dare defy accepted norms and step out of the line, so to speak. Only alphas and gammas do that. The former elicits female attraction, the latter elicits boundless revulsion. Betas only generate female indifference and scorn.
hoellen,
No, never.
To admit that your life is going to suck (and you’ll probably never be married, never have legitimate children, and will never have a man’s resources supporting you) because you aren’t born beautiful (the way SSM and Elspeth were) is…. yes… too much for ordinary women to handle. And yes, beautiful women (like SSM and Elspeth) couldn’t possibly understand what it is like to be a woman born ugly. Remember what Rush Limbaugh said…
He’s right. How can ugly women submit to… no one?
The reverse is also true. Stupid/ugly/short/physically weak men, their lives are going to suck. They just don’t have an “ism” (yet, the way ugly women do) to make them “whole” at the expense of the other gender.
Re: child support extensions. The Kolmetz case is not exceptional.
http://www.albo-oblon.com/2013/05/20/does-obamacare-extend-fathers-child-support-obligation/
The majority of support agreements in all states (“voluntary”, mind you) continue full child support payments until age 22 or getting a college degree, and enable providing health insurance beyond that if the grown adult child is still considered a dependent for the formerly custodial parent. It is assumed, but I think that since it only just this week took effect, that the age 26 mandate of the ACA will be found through litigation to be court-orderable. Other states already have even higher age limits, New York’s famous “Age 29 Law”, and Ohio is 28 for example.
“God save you, my dear fellow-man, from the conceited woman who cannot do wrong! You will find that you cannot live up to that. If the day after you are married you discover that your wife is perfect, run away for your life. Perfection in a woman ought to be a cause for divorce. In fact, never have anything to do with angels this side of the grave.”
–Max O’dell, 1903
lgrobbins,
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife.
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you.
[Chorus]
A pretty woman makes her husband look small,
And very often causes his downfall.
As soon as he marries her, then she starts,
To do the things that will break his heart.
But if you make an ugly woman your wife,
You’ll be happy for the rest of your life.
An ugly woman cooks meals all the time,
She’ll always give you peace of mind.
[Chorus]
Don’t let your friends say you have no taste,
Go ahead and marry anyway.
Her face is ugly, her eyes don’t match.
Take it from me, she’s a better catch.
“Have you ever seen a so-called Red Pill woman that was plain-looking, single and never-married?”
Or one that doesn’t have an alpha husband?
If anyone should be admired, it should be Augustina, someone married to a man who is not an alpha, where her submission is not easy peazy.
@Anonymous Reader
Nobody in the media-infotainment complex had a problem with “Promise Keepers”, because there was no attack on pet shibboliths & other stories.
From what I can remember, media coverage of Promise Keepers tended to be negative.
That does, however, surprise me a bit at this point since what I remember of the rallies I went to was a whole lot of “Wife not sexing you up? You just need to try harder to love her!”
No a truly useful marriage seminar would be Pimp Hand 101.
“The reverse is also true. Stupid/ugly/short/physically weak men, their lives are going to suck.”
There’s a fundamental difference. What does the Red Pill say to, say, the average 25-year-old man?
“Everything you think you know about women is pretty much wrong, and there’s small chance of you pulling the kind of women you find attractive. Your entire legal, economic and cultural environment is stacked against you. You’re mostly seen as worthless and pointless, and your career chances are lame because your college degree is crap. But you have options. You can improve your social skills and your chances with women if you study and implement Game. You can work out, learn new skills and find a new hobby. Your attractiveness has still not peaked. You can expatriate and find better-quality women and a new home that is less anti-men. You can go your own way. You don’t have to marry, or even put up with low-quality women at all, and still lead a decent life. There are men willing to help you out and give advice that works.”
And what does it say to his female counterpart?
“You have a hamster for a brain and your solipsism will always keep you from seeing the truth. Your attractiveness and fertility is disappearing at an accelerating rate, and there’s little you can do about it. You’ll never be able to pull the kind of men you could pull 4-5 years ago. There’s very small chance of you eliciting commitment from a man that you’re attracted to. Your mind has been filled with feminist nonsense and you know nothing about men. If no wealthy man marries you, which is probably the case, you’ll probably live in relative poverty until death. In 10-12 years, you will hit the Wall and become completely unwanted by the men you want. If you want to be a mother, you’ll have to seriously consider doing it alone.”
There’s no wonder women are repulsed by the Red Pill.
Red Pill Women who blog also tend to be married to alpha men; and are strongly sexually attracted to their husbands. They push the red pill because it worked out for them very well; they married attractive men. As hoellenhund pointed out, their hamsters are calm and their hypergamy alarms are not constantly sounding.
But, in my opinion, as I’ve said before, all women are Red Pill. They all understand the unwritten rules of attraction. They all know how this game is played. They aren’t going to explain it to men, though, because they want men to “Just Get It”. A man who becomes dominant and attractive because someone told him to be dominant and attractive isn’t going to be viewed as such; because he doesn’t “Just Get It”. It isn’t authentic, it isn’t real, it isn’t “good enough”.
Truth is harsh. Denial makes it worse.
See this woman….
http://redpillwoman.com/about-rpw/about-the-author/
She says:
“I am anti-feminist, anti-white knight, and anti-beta/omega (really anything not Alpha) male.”
IOW, she is against most of the men here…..
“I am a woman, desired and loved by her Traditional Alpha husband, who has taken the red pill and lives life to its fullest.”
Have you seen a blog yet from a woman who says she is desired and loved by her traditional omega husband?
innocentbystanderboston says:
January 6, 2014 at 3:59 pm
This advice was given to me when I was a young man of 20 years by a manager whom I worked with at the time.
@innocentbystanderboston
But if you make an ugly woman your wife,
You’ll be happy for the rest of your life.
An ugly woman cooks meals all the time,
She’ll always give you peace of mind.
[Chorus]
Don’t let your friends say you have no taste,
Go ahead and marry anyway.
Her face is ugly, her eyes don’t match.
Take it from me, she’s a better catch.
Sorry. Ugliness generally means bad genes. Not gonna want to have my kids inherit that.
I wonder that if all women were 10’s that they start competing with each other character-wise. Because since every woman is beautiful what is more important will then be character. But I guess they will all be monopolized by the 20% of men sigh*
[Women] all know how this game is played. They aren’t going to explain it to men, though, because they want men to “Just Get It”.
I’m not convinced that many women know the rules. I think they instinctively follow the rules, but they aren’t consciously aware of what they are.
It’s like asking a woman what kind of man she’s attracted to. Most will tell you how they want that man to behave, but won’t really be able to answer the question otherwise.
hoellen,
All of these options are available to red pill women who are ugly. Consider:
But you have options. You can improve your social skills and your chances with men if you study and implement femininity (NOT feminism.) You can work out, learn new skills and find a new hobby. And a hobby does not mean get more cats. Give your sister or brother a break and take your niece or nephew to lunch or to the park. Your attractiveness may have peaked, but you were never attractive to begin with so what-the-f-ck difference does it make? You can expatriate and find better-quality men (perhaps only as friends, if you are still deluded enough to think men and women can just be friends) and a new home that is less You Go Grrrlll. You can go your own way. You SHOULD go your own way and that doesn’t mean marrying Uncle Sam for his resources. You don’t have to marry (you aren’t going to find anyone anyway, after all, you are ugly), or even put up with low-quality men at all, and still lead a decent life. There are women willing to help you out and give advice that works. Go to SSM’s blog. Get much more involved at church. Start a business on the side. Mentor younger women on how you may have screwed up your most fertile years and tell them what NOT to do so you can offer some real help.
Of course we come full circle because living like this (if are an ugly woman) is haaaarrrrd and thankless. Why choose the path less travelled? Easier just to keep chewing blue pills and keep a rock solid alliance with feminism.
Re: anti-beta. I’m thinking. Seriously, I try to think, at least sometimes. I think, waveringly still, that the distilled essence of the Red Pill is conscious admission of knowing that “Women dislike betas.” Hence as deti says, all women are Red Pill, even though many won’t verbally admit it.
The Blue Pill, then, is anything that tries to promote “Women like betas.” which INCLUDES “Women would like betas, if they simply added some more alpha qualities.” i.e. “Man up!” There is no “simply adding” anything; the two-ladder model is correct.
.. dig, dig .. oh look. Justicia is a whole genus of weeds named after James Justice, ma homeboy.
Never heard of him, unlike his mates the Fletchers of Saltoun. Seems he was a big swinging dick lawyer who detested his work, and would rather go on gardening leave.
“.. This passion for gardening, botanical experimentation, buying and breeding bulbs in great quantity and giving them away to relatives and friends led ultimately to his downfall, which with his debts, led to his divorce “ LOL top lawyer gets the heave-ho from the old trouble’n’strife because .. hobbies.
Pretty hardcore for the mid-eighteenth century, an actual D.I.V.O. etc., must have been really out of order, spending “her” money (even tho’ he was the heritor of the estates).
Usually they just separated, like his son eventually did (the old galoot Sir Jimmy remarried!).
A toast! Sir James Justice, of Crichton and Justicehall!
(Although of course he didn’t actually discover the plant or its qualities).
That’s why I hang around Dalrock’s gaff. Very edumacational. I’d never have known these interesting local factettes otherwise.
There ARE congenitally ugly women (eg. Margaret Mead, check out the pictures) but most YOUNG women are at least passable. Good skin, good muscle tone, clear eyes – in other words youth – will be on their side.
@ IBB:
“All of these options are available to red pill women who are ugly. Consider:
“But you have options.”
No. Your paragraph suggesting how an “ugly” red pill woman can “have options” is quite silly, really. A 25 year old “ugly” red pill woman should be told:
“You’re getting older, you’re really not all that pretty, and you are wasting time. Your best bet is to find a man you have some attraction for, one you can love and respect, and get married to him as soon as you can. Learn to cook, clean, and take care of a man. If you sleep around, stop now. Eliminate the “I’ll never settle” mentality and words from your mindset and vocabulary. Get with a few older women and make clear you want a husband as soon as possible. Go to your nearest church and find men you’re attracted to, and give them clear IOIs that even an idiot would never miss. Offer yourself and your services and abilities to them as a wife. Get one of those men to wife you up as soon as possible. After you get married, make it your life’s mission to take care of that man, stay with him, love him, and respect him to the best of your ability, no matter what. “
And I have known some rather plain or homely girls who are just plain sexy. Earthy. Hard to explain why, but they just are. I remember a perfectly ordinary girl who once did a cute hip waggle to illustrate some point, and I still remember it and her after thirty years.
Julian:
Yes, very true . If she’s 25 or under, she’s probably passable because she has good skin and hair, and she’s not yet started putting on a lot of weight. There aren’t a lot of truly ugly women out there who really aren’t able to attract ANYONE. I’ve seen this many times. A number of quite plain women have done just fine for themselves if they’ve put their minds to attracting and searching for a husband.
Re: Pill women. Off on a tangent. The Pill, you know the one, changed everything, and its easy availability was the small-arms ammunition for the army that won the Sexual Revolution (there was only one in history). We’re here discussing the Red Pill. But soon, yea very soon, there WILL be a female libido pill that works, and we’ll call it the Pink Pill. So if they choose, women for whom the Pink Pill is available will be nearly as horny all through the month as they are at their most horny i.e. around natural ovulation.
All of the many (many!) years-long backroom boardroom fights around the Pink Pill are elite women against elite men, the women wanting heavy restrictions on availability, supposedly to avoid date r-ape uses, while the men were most concerned about marketing and manufacturer liability issues. The Pink Pill has been touted more recently as the Monogamy Pill
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shameless-woman/201305/is-there-pill-keeping-desire-alive-in-monogamy
and many of the elite men are more than willing to restrict sales to married women, but the elite women refuse to consider THAT particular restriction.
Somewhat coincidentally, Sheri McCoy was forced out at J&J, but landed heavily at Avon. Maybe it’ll be Pink Cream after all.
Not in the least bit fussed about it , Marcus, from the Grauniad piece it seems to be the usual suspects, batty ill-favoured posh gels that convert in their herds (after a certain age koff koff) to various wacky ‘religions’ like Hare Krishna, those ones that hop around crosslegged and meditate whatever that is, and of course the 57 varieties of Buddhism, who at a guess (personal toe in the water here based on numbers encountered, vs. the other sorts of moon-yodellers) far far outweigh the other cults.
And the Mail, well .. it’s the Mail, innit. Say no more, chief .. (thought the specs poking out of the firing-loop in the burkas was just inspired, all the same; menacing, yet utterly mental-looking).
jdg and infowarrior,
That was somewhat tongue-in-cheek when I wrote it (just quoted Harry Bellefonte verabtim) but there is some truth to it…
…the truthful part that Harry is speaking being that if you are better looking than she is (or if she is really ugly) as a girl friend she will submit totally to you, beta, gamma, omega, whatever you are, because she had a genuine dread of losing you. She will worship you as YOU will hold all the cards since the one who has the power in the relationship (notice I did not say marriage, relationship) is the one who cares the least. In that sense, with an ugly woman, all men have instant built-in Game.
I have a little personal experience here. Long before I got married, I did a lot of dating. Some of these women were drop dead gorgeous. Most of them, were ugly. I mean REAL ugly. The ugly ones, there was absolutely no effort on my part to make the relationship work. I just had to be a nice guy and… everything fell into place. One of the real ugly ones, she would use her mom’s flight benefits and fly across the country just to see me every other weekend just to make sure she could keep it going as long as she could. I could spend all my remaining times with my friends, it was great. No work. The drop dead gorgeous ones? I had to bend over backwards to accomidate their every need (oftentimes at the expense of all my friendships.) So when the relationship ended, I had to work so very hard to get those friends back!
The very first woman I met in my life that was interested in me, that was attractive, AND required no real effort on my part to make the relationship work, I married her. Still married. I just didn’t find her until I was 30.
If you get married, all bets are off. You better be willing to give 100% to her regardless of her appearance. If not, if you just can’t give 100% because you are so disgusted by her outward appearance, don’t marry her.
LOL. Beautiful, I am not. Pretty enough for all normal purposes is what I usually say, and the man who married me could have had and has had women far more lovely (physically at least).
As for the notion that “red pill” women are all married to alphas, I call hogwash on that. We can not know this for sure of course, but the very nature of men who are attractive to women makes them rare to some degree. As much as we all hate to deal with this inconvenient truth, “above average” is by definition a minority position to be in. For the record:
If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife.
You know IBB, there is a version of this advice given to women as well. About handsome men, I mean. I have not found it to be true however. A handsome man can make an excellent husband, in my experience.
The idea that I am only concerned for Alpha men’s plight is quite the presumption. Given that I have men in my family who have been frivorced, cuckolded, child supported into poverty, and the likes, I take exception to that.
deti,
My options (much that they are) aren’t marrital options at all. I am making the assumption that no man would marry her and that there is nothing that she can do. Nothing. Zilch. Zero.
Okay, so what is she to do? How can she swallow the red pill in this lifetime (avoild feminism at all costs), if she is 35 (or 45) or whatever, lonely, and will never marry? That’s a tough one isn’t it?
If you are average or below in looks as a girl, and you want to marry, use your youth (being under 25) to attract a decent guy a few years older. Make it clear you want to be a good, traditional wife. Men respond to flattery, and a bit of a suggestion that you will be easily led is not a bad idea.
Swallow your pride.
This is good advice for any girl really. Really gorgeous girls have a few more options, but I have seen such girls gradually fade into their forties, having rejected too many suitors.
Elspeth,
If your previous avatar is your image then you are beautiful.
Yes, as for pretty girls, I always say it is the same as keeping a cat. If you are going to live with one, you might as well choose an attractive specimen.
Looks are important. But so is virtue and the prospect of being a good housewife.
Julian, the much-married Ms Mead doesn’t so much look ugly to me as just downright .. odd. Could almost be French. Fine hint of a monobrow (plucked?) along with the gypsy prizefighter’s jaw there.
Have you ever seen a so-called Red Pill woman that was plain-looking, single and never-married? There are very few, aren’t there? Such women rarely have the stomach for the Red Pill.
There are actually quite a number of single women who comment at Sunshine’s. It’s true that they don’t seem plain-looking from what photos they use, but single and never married? Not uncommon.
If your previous avatar is your image then you are beautiful.
Yes, that’s me. A quite recent photo in fact. I still say you have generous standards, sir.
“There ARE congenitally ugly women (eg. Margaret Mead, check out the pictures) ”
Heh, Margaret was an absolute stunner compare to Ayn.
“Have you ever seen a so-called Red Pill woman that was plain-looking, single and never-married?”
Girl Writes What? Camille Paglia? The Feminine Masculinist? I’m sure there are more. You’ll notice that most don’t show their faces on the web. Just a foot, or their hair, or an eye, or a pixelated half face or profile.
“Which is why whores like Sunshinemary are doomed to failure, a society of cum dumpster filled sluts are too damaged & dysfunctional to create a family in the first place
How can a woman bond to her husband, if she spends her prime years, being a cum dumpster welfare whore ”
“GO AWAY rmax!!!!!! Do not come back until you change your attitude. You have NO IDEA what you just said.”
Boy, I’ll say. SSM has made a large family for herself and was raised by a conservative, traditional set of parents herself. IIRC (and correct me if I’m wrong) it is her husband who strayed after they married, not her. Out of the Christian spirit of her heart she forgave him and didn’t divorce him, though she would have been well within legal and Biblical rights to do so.
Greyghost, sorry man, I have to disagree with your approach of teaching two different sets of values to your two different children. You teach your son to use women sexually while teaching your daughter not to be used sexually, nor to use men sexually. Not only are you teaching your son that but you are exhorting other men to teach their sons the same. So when all the men have taken the red pill and won’t commit to women, where does that leave all the women who were taught no sex before commitment? They will be forced to catapult to their male peers or forego relationships with them altogether.
You simply are not thinking long term. Civilization depends on long term vision.
Elspeth,
Be that as it may, to me, you are beautiful
GirlWritesWhat looks OK to me. I wouldn’t have kicked her out of bed.
That is a flattering photo of Margaret Mead. Try this:
And you have to remember she came of WASP stock, and she would have stood out as unattractive in that social group.
On the other hand, she did marry a few times, so she must have had skills of some kind.
Trying again.
Mead was very proud of being a WASP and once really let a woman have it on Australian TV for sneering at WASPs.
Dear Keenan:
I read Grey Ghost’s explanation in a completely different context than you did, I think. I don’t need to speak on his behalf, but it’s interesting.
If I had both a boy and a girl, I’d do the same thing he is doing. For example, I would probably pressure my girl strongly to marry a beta who has a high earning potential, and I’d tell my son never to marry any woman, and would hope he would beat his feet to a better part of the world.
This isn’t hypocrisy. It’s being pragmatic, acknowledging that different scenarios are in play based upon sex, and urging all of one’s own descendants to look out for number one. By teaching them different things, I’d be being consistent with the main message: Men and women are being treated very differently…
Boxer
“And you have to remember she came of WASP stock, and she would have stood out as unattractive in that social group.”
Well anglos were never renowned for their looks.
” I would probably pressure my girl strongly to marry a beta who has a high earning potential”
That’s my point. You can pressure her all you like but if other fathers do as you have and teach their sons to be non-committal then that will be the only type of man your daughter will find. She’ll catapult or go her own way (celibacy or lesbianism). End of. You also can’t berate and degrade beta status and then push such status onto your daughter as something to be prized. You are also making a fool of that beta son-in-law when you do. Even using him and taking undue advantage of his ignorance.
Keenan, you still don’t get it, but you’re coming close.
That’s it. See, he isn’t one of my descendants. If he’s lucky, then he and I will share descendants. She will be in charge of things in the house, under the law, and her foot will be on his neck.
Sucks to be him, but I am not his dad, in this hypothetical scenario. I’m hers. His dad ought to be telling him what I tell my son.
Do you understand now?
If people are going to have kids in this sicko society, they have to play for keeps. Anything else is a castle in the sky, idealism which goes nowhere…
Boxer
What an educated women would see in Islam is a mystery to all of us.
I suspect these are women looking for structure in a society that doesn’t provide it. Particularly in the UK, having abandoned much of their own doctrine over the years the Christian Churches are having trouble even articulating what they believe. The Muslims don’t have this problem – they’re not afraid to point to a group of people and say “what they’re doing is against God’s teachings.” A young woman feeling lost in society is going to be very receptive to a man telling her “This is your role, and there’s no room for argument”, particularly as it might be the first unabashedly masculine organization she’s encountered.
Eric et.al.:
Can’t speak for British converters to Islam, but I have a lot of Muslim friends here in North America, and have seen this trend on my side.
The vast majority of the American white and black chicks who convert to Islam, convert away from it to something else within a very short time. Usually after they get told that nice Muslim ladies don’t whore around at the club on Friday night, or pass out drunk.
“What? How dare you judge me! Fuck you all!” type outbursts are an occasional result, though more often the women just ghost away from the mosque, and all the regular Muslims are happy to see them go.
Women don’t see religion like men do. For most of them, the idea is “exotic” and “interesting” just because they will be different and will be able to stand out. It’s a status thing they get to talk about with their friends, in many cases. Once in the religion, they realize that it, actually, like, takes work not to be trashy…. All that clean living and studying Qur’an and such. Then it loses all its appeal.
You and your short-haired women. 🙂
I’m average looking, nothing special at all. My husband is my alpha, but he’s really just a normal person like any of the men here I would guess. He’s extremely hot to me and he has wife goggle for me, but we aren’t special in any way at all.
Contentment is a choice, not a gift from the gods. Disagree if you like, but my position squares with the Bible.
For an average-looking girl like me, I will confirm that youth is your best attractor. My advice to single girls: marry young (and by young, I mean 18-22, not 29) and marry for the long haul, no matter what. No Jenny Erikson-ing.
infowarrior1 says:
January 6, 2014 at 4:42 pm
LOL!
But is it true that ugliness = bad genes?
Bad dreams I can see, but bad genes?
Boy the girls are fishing for the compliments! LOL!
SSM, average is a 5. That is average, nothing special at all. I’ve seen your picture. The Human Hand Grenade married a 7 or maybe even an 8.
“Sucks to be him, but I am not his dad, in this hypothetical scenario. I’m hers. His dad ought to be telling him what I tell my son.
Do you understand now? ”
I understand alright. That’s why I said if other fathers teach their sons the same, what goes around will come back around and bite you and your daughter in the ass.
“My husband is my alpha, but he’s really just a normal person like any of the men here I would guess.”
Oy. We’ve had this discussion before. SSM. HHG’s N puts him in the top 1% of men. He is an apex alpha compared to most of the men here.
Keenan:
Greyghost and Boxer are exactly right. Their advice is sound in the current SMP. I have a daughter and a son and will be advising them exactly as GG advises his children.
SSM,
Also, anyone that is a graduate from the University of Michigan, that person (regardless of their gender or their looks) is automatically pretty special. For the record Mary, that the 3rd most prestigous state university in the country (behind only Cal and UVa.)
” A young woman feeling lost in society is going to be very receptive to a man telling her “This is your role, and there’s no room for argument”, particularly as it might be the first unabashedly masculine organization she’s encountered.”
He specifically said British medical students. Med students tend to be smart and solidly middle class if not upper middle class. These types of young people are not usually “lost”. What happens is that they meet Muslim medical students and start hanging out with them, dating them, falling in love and marrying. I’ve read that Muslims have a huge divorce rate so factor that in somewhere down the line as well. Across the Atlantic it might be more of the seeker or adventurous type of American woman that Boxer writes about. She’s attracted to the exotic. Again you can factor divorce in somewhere down the line. Its inevitable.
Keenan:
So, your main concern is that Grey Ghost’s son might not be sufficiently socialized to “man up” and sacrifice himself for the civilization that has done men dirty for generations. That’s nice of you to volunteer him for slavery, but I am hoping he’ll decline your generous offer.
Young men owe nothing but contempt to this society, which has robbed them of a relationship with their fathers, had them killed in meaningless foreign wars, and taxed them to support the women who hate them.
Best, Boxer
Looks are important. But so is virtue and the prospect of being a good housewife.
And I’ve found that the latter is better than the former, though both together would be ideal (but so rare).
Either way, the sammiches must be made!
“Greyghost and Boxer are exactly right. Their advice is sound in the current SMP. I have a daughter and a son and will be advising them exactly as GG advises his children.”
Fair enough. Expect the results I outlined above.
“So, your main concern is that Grey Ghost’s son might not be sufficiently socialized to “man up” and sacrifice himself for the civilization that has done men dirty for generations.”
Not really. Just preparing for him for his daughter’s inevitable future. Her three options will be: cock carousel, celibacy, lesbianism.
I dunno. If she plays her cards right, she might be able to do really well. Cail Corishev has posts on this over at his blog.
Women who have a low partner count and are serious about being wives and homemakers get snapped up pretty quickly. Girls who grow up with fathers seem to predominate in this class. Dad tells them how to get what they want, and they get it quite often. The trick, of course, is instilling a healthy fear of pulling a Jenny Erikson.
Best, Boxer
Yeah, knock it off, SSM, you are cute.
So, yes girls, marry young, stay thin – his “wife goggle” as SSM puts it will do the rest.
I have now given GirlWritesWhat an entry at my blog.
Keenan;
“Her three options will be: cock carousel, celibacy, lesbianism.”
Nope. Her fourth, and best, option is to marry a good beta provider. You see, the thing GG, Boxer and I understand is that this society is still pumping out beta worker bees/drones by the hundreds of thousands. GG’s daughter will have no trouble at all finding a suitable one willing to marry her if she looks carefully for him.
Re:seminars.
Truth has always been available.
Giving seminars of any kind would result in a Dr. Phil/Oprah/Tony Robbins type response & atmosphere; people only show up for the drama, or the cameras, with the hope that somebody famous would tell them the common sense things they already know.
Paying money for someone to tell you what you want to hear, or things you already know is The American Way.
If you actually want truth, how much money does it cost to join the Manosphere and read the various blogs?
Oh yeah…..no money at all.
“this society is still pumping out beta worker bees/drones by the hundreds of thousands. GG’s daughter will have no trouble at all finding a suitable one willing to marry her if she looks carefully for him.”
There are beta drones by the hundreds of thousands NOW (mostly 35 and older). Will there be 20 something drones for your daughters 5 and 10 years from now? Don’t count on it. 20 years from now? Forgettaboutit.
“If you are average or below in looks as a girl, and you want to marry, use your youth (being under 25) to attract a decent guy a few years older. Make it clear you want to be a good, traditional wife. Men respond to flattery, and a bit of a suggestion that you will be easily led is not a bad idea.”
Its not a good idea to suggest you are easy to lead if you are not. I’ve seen too many physically unattractive women trying to play up their character and inner quality traits and when push comes to shove, they are no more advanced inwardly than their prettier sisters. Fake it til you make it is no life strategy. Authenticity is key when trying to get a man. That way we will know exactly what we’ve got coming. No surprises.
Keenan, it is a choice. My wife told me quite truthfully her views on a wife’s role. She was as good as her word.
At first I thought you sounded like a CONservative, but the LIEbrals do this too. They’re always accusing people who make positive changes in their lives of being “in the closet” and hypocrisy.
If you weigh 500 lbs, you’re not going to be buff all at once. You have to start working out and acting like the guys who are cut in order to start to see positive changes. If you are a raggedy slut, you aren’t going to clean up your life overnight. You have to get all those tattoos lasered off, take a shower, buy some respectable clothes, and quit banging random dudes. The point is that positive changes take time. Fake it ’til you make it is an excellent strategy for self-improvement. We all have to start somewhere.
This has been a most excellent conversation, and very thought provoking. I don’t have a daughter, but if I did, what I’d be most frightened of is having her nuke her family after it was functional, a la Jenny Erikson. I’ll admit I don’t know how Grey Ghost or Deti are going to prevent this. I suppose I could do a sober reading of Ovid and Shakespeare, but that’s all I can think of.
http://www.vmi.edu/WorkArea/downloadasset.aspx?id=33881
In the end, your daughter has her foot on your neck too. She can ruin the lives of your grandchildren at her whim. I don’t envy you fellas.
Boxer
” I don’t have a daughter, but if I did, what I’d be most frightened of is having her nuke her family after it was functional, a la Jenny Erikson. I’ll admit I don’t know how Grey Ghost or Deti are going to prevent this. ”
They don’t have to do anything to prevent it because marriage won’t be an option, hence nuking a marriage won’t be an option either.
Red pill women do not have to be beautiful. As seen in a photograph. Red pill women are beautiful and extremely attractive for other reasons. I have never seen Elspeth as most have here just based on what we know of her character as she as displayed here she is extremely attractive and physically beautiful. Men want to see women as beautiful and will fill in the blanks for a red pill woman as the brain fills in a series of photographs to make a movie. The only men that look purely at physical beauty are the very cads and players (the20%) that women want. (makes you say hmm about the feminism for ugly women huh)
Keenan McGregor
Have faith in the 80 percentile of human nature. Above I just described a red pill woman. (beautiful isn’t she) I would like to make a red pill daughter in a world that tells her to hate me and fuck everything that moves to empower herself. Worst of all women are encouraged and cheered on by how little they do for anybody at all. A man will love a red pill woman without being asked to. God has it covered have faith in it. My son all sons were condemned to death the day they were born. his role and all men’s role today is to shift the society Gods already doing it on his own just will take a few hundred years. Nothing makes a red pill woman like a wasted used up slut shown to a young girl for who she is fucking cads and players. No one loves a red pill woman like a beta male that has been taught and understands game. (a red pill man) I have full faith in a beta with game to love a red pill woman , my kind of guy for my little pumpkin. A natural is a defective man he can’t love anything but his self (the 20%) a true blue pill player. Most stupid ass churchians and righteous Christians see “game” in that light. One of the most educated and confident Christian men Lyn87 as adamantly against the idea of game. This is coming from a 24 year army officer. I am a veteran and the military is killing and destroying lives and culture. Intelligent, creative and physically capable men trained and equipped at huge expensive to out wit and overwhelm other people to destroy them that is what it is. Such a man can be christian? yes. Same man has the red pill and understands the sexual and psychological nature of women (lets call it “game”) he is a sinner. A Christian man with game is evil and wrong. I have faith in the truth. That beta chump with game can find and love a red pill women as pleasing to god as any thing else a righteous man can do. Just as he can fuck a slut out of her fertile years as a million dollar aircrew in a 2 billion dollar plane ripple of cluster bombs on the “bad guys”. We are getting a sample of the affection shown red pill women just from the comments on this blog. Nothing is a sure thing but then life would be boring and there would be no joy living. This conversation and expressing these ideas is better to me now than fucking so whore in a hotel somewhere. greyghost is talking about changing the world and raising a daughter. The hardest thing any man can do.
” Men want to see women as beautiful and will fill in the blanks for a red pill woman as the brain fills in a series of photographs to make a movie.”
Its largely women, and gay men, who oppose plus sized models. We straight men don’t notice or care who’s on the magazines in the grocery aisle.
I think you missed the point. The point I was trying to make is that a pleasant woman adds to her attractiveness
I have never seen Elspeth as most have here just based on what we know of her character as she as displayed here she is extremely attractive and physically beautiful.
You’re always very kind Greyghost. Thank you. Truth is, I wasn’t used anyone ever considering me very pretty until my husband decided I was a rose worth picking. The sudden change was rather startling, really. But I am average +, which must be good enough since we can’t really choose what we look like can we?
We can however, make an effort to do the best we can with what we’ve been given and cultivate solid character. In the current cultural climate, making an effort to be feminine and as attractive as your genes allow is enough to catapult you to “above average”.
We straight men don’t notice or care who’s on the magazines in the grocery aisle.
True.
And if the +sizer is in the aisle, we don’t get in a huff about having to go round the long way, by another aisle. Just is. None o’ mine.
So, let’s see… marriage was the institution which most oppressed women, so we had to liberate women from it.
But, seeing as how it’s a hetero system, you liberate one man for every woman liberated, so the whole project backfires, since it was based on a lie, and it ends up liberating men from marriage instead.
There’s a problem? What problem?
I have had a daughter and a son marry in 2013. The son was 34, and married a 31 year old single (divorced) mother. I did not give him the advice I would have liked to as it would not have been appreciated or accepted. My daughter is 29, and is marrying a good friend and long time partner. He seems nice. She is not very attractive, but she does have a good head on her shoulders and is not overly proud. My other daughter is 27 and twiced divorced. The first was a teenager marrying a 30+ guy who was trouble. Good ridance to bad rubbish. The second guy was a a solid guy that was making my daughter be a better person and produced a sweet granddaughter. She was infected by her feminist mother that no man was good enough and all men are the enemy.
I have other sons that I have given the advice that if they wish to marry they should spend a considerable time outside the US and outside the west as a whole. I entirely understand the need in this sick culture to advise our sons differtently than our daughters; for their own survival.
What an educated women would see in Islam is a mystery to all of us.
Usually it’s an exotic alpha male who knows how to treat a laydee. The outcome is not always BDSM bliss. Sharia courts in Britain (sadly, these exist) grant many divorces to women on grounds of desertion. If wifey becomes uncooperative, her Muslim husband will sometimes take the children to Pakistan and never come back.
“We can however, make an effort to do the best we can with what we’ve been given and cultivate solid character. In the current cultural climate, making an effort to be feminine and as attractive as your genes allow is enough to catapult you to “above average”.
Sometimes it takes someone to see our potential for us to live up to it. Same goes for us men. I hear a lot of women say, “don’t fall in love with a man’s potential”. Never understood that meme and still don’t. Why not? Why not fall in love with a woman’s potential also? Sometimes all people need is a little appreciation and encouragement and they blossom.
Keenan, you have two ears and one mouth, you should know the rest.
I have other sons that I have given the advice that if they wish to marry they should spend a considerable time outside the US and outside the west as a whole.
————————————————————————————————————————-
But you still must help them understand what they are “seeing” because if you don’t they will just assume its “primitive” or the evil patriarchy…
Good read. I guess the question is, where will that energy be turned if not to raising a family? That’s the scary part in my opinion. That was the scary thing in late 2008, seeing talented people put out of work altogether. If the talent’s there and the work isn’t, you have to expect they’ll find something else to apply their talents to. For the good of society, or not. The withering away of marriage, it gives you feral women, and likely feral men too. Loss of ambition to be productive probably isn’t the worst of concerns in the end.
” That was the scary thing in late 2008, seeing talented people put out of work altogether. If the talent’s there and the work isn’t, you have to expect they’ll find something else to apply their talents to. For the good of society, or not. The withering away of marriage, it gives you feral women, and likely feral men too. ”
If they are truly talented they will be driven from within to create, pay check or not.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/01/08 | Free Northerner
Pingback: On the natural order. | Dark Brightness
Pingback: Premature Aging | Alpha Is Assumed
Honestly, I am not seeing many signs of a strike by marriageable White or Asian men. Marriage is now far from the norm in the black community and the so called Hispanic community is far too racially, culturally and economically diverse to categorize. However, more Hispanic children are being born out of wedlock.
It seems to me that middle income White and Asian American women who want a husband will most likely get one…. The phenomenon of the starter husband and the bridzila show no sign of abating. Even a divorced white woman still expects and often enough finds a second marriage or at least a long term relationship where she can still milk the alimony cow. White Women may marry later, but that is by choice. I know of women in 40s who found the Lord after dating cads since their teens and snagged good Christian men with the help of church ladies. A few rounds on invetro and they have it all. I would have assumed that men in their 40s who had little success with women all of their adult lives would be immune to the marriage trap, but not that I have seen. If you are a high earner and saver and a good christian to boot, expect the church to wear down your resistance unless you have real steel inside, and few betas do. The men who are safe from women are those who have little that women would want in looks, social skills, and earnings. Even the dorkiest trust fund guy will have women trying to drag him to the alter to clean him out. I am not sure the size of the MGTOW trend, but as of yet I do not see signs that it is making much social impact on White or Asian American women.
I worked in several hi-tech company with many White and Asian men who are well educated, nice and earn good salaries. Although many had a hard time with little to no success in the dating scene, they still manged to eventually marry.
Pingback: Talking about boys | Jaskology
Being a black man, I live in a community of ‘canaries’ in a large coal mine. This reality was ours starting in the ’80’s and has taken a complete toll on our community. Our folks now live in a reality of male-female trench warfare where we take shots at each other over our prospective barricades. There is a 20 year lag between you (the dominant society) and us (the black sub culture). Look at the numbers and observe. You have been warned…
Mikko Tamko says:
January 12, 2014 at 5:42 pm
“White Women may marry later, but that is by choice. I know of women in 40s who found the Lord after dating cads since their teens and snagged good Christian men with the help of church ladies. A few rounds on invetro and they have it all.”
Not with their own ova are they “having it all” (the 2.15 trophy children not conceived until the genetic mother’s in her 40s). Ones who try that are more likely to spend $200K over 2 miserable years with nothing but a miscarriage to show for it (or a special needs child). Now, if they use a donor’s eggs, and probably a gestational surrogate (latter especially if much at all past 40), then, yes, they can reliably still have a family. But, in that case, their husband hardly needed them reproductively except for child care (IF they go SAHM), and that can be purchased even more cheaply by an UMC man than IVF/gestational surrogacy.
How do I know this? I have 18-month old twin children, the result of modern fertility medicine, and researched the subject fairly well beforehand.
@Luke,
http://www.socalfertility.com/age-and-fertility/
One of the few fertility doctors telling the truth about fertility and aging (the video at the site is particularly good; the doctor is upfront and matter of fact about the options and risks). I wish I could drill this information into every person (boy and girl) in high school.
Instead, society drills in the “you can wait, nooooo problem” message. Even fertility doctors do this (of course they make money from women waiting).
The reddit post referenced here recently (about the 32 Indian girl that had “only” been with 18 guys) had a response on it from someone saying “don’t worry about your age; it’s common today for women to have babies in their 40’s and 50’s.” Yes, they actually said 50’s. AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGG! Why would someone condemn a person to a life of frustration by telling them age doesn’t matter; that they can wait till they are int heir 40’s to start having children? It really is evil to give women that advice.
Luke,
Darkness here.
12 years ago, I saw the reverse of this. It made me sad. A woman I knew (blue pill days) wanted desperately to get married. She was a 41 year old Jewish attorney, never once had a marriage offer, not once. Her (then) boyfriend would never go down on bended knee, just f-cked her is all. She used to call me at weird hours of the night asking why her boyfriend wouldn’t “man up” and of course I knew the reason but didn’t have the heart to tell her…
…but she wanted to get married because she wanted a baby. She needed a baby. And d-mn it, since she was feminist and the only thing that mattered to her was her own needs, she would have one. So she took a trip to the sperm bank and consulted a fertility specialist and (with the help of a turkey baster) she was pregnant. Sure enough, the now 42 year old mother gave birth to a Down’s Syndrome boy.
Darkness.
She openly admitted on the forum that we both posted that she wasn’t giving up on marriage. She still very much wanted to be married. But because of her age she couldn’t wait any longer to have kids the old fashoned way. I’d argue that her son’s unfortunate disability proved that she did infact wait too long.
Now maybe there was nothing she could do about that because she was always going to be ugly. Maybe, (not in this lifetime at least) there would be no marriage offer for her no matter what she did. She could make herself thin by starving herself down to 1500 calories a day or whatever, but even as a younger woman, she still would have been horribly ugly. But to me (and to God) marriage matters for kids. I’d say what she did was entirely selfish, the absolute perfect example of giving in to your free will dictated by feminism.
Point is this, although she admitted she wasn’t giving up on finding a husband, she freely admitted that she was entirely responsible for the support of her child. She had no intention of going on government benefits for anything. She didn’t want to be the only one to foot the bill but was (at that moment) perfectly willing to do so. A man was not a necessity for her.
Spawny Get:
Sure.
Thank you.
/ Kari Hurtta
Do they make a kosher red pill?
I just read this: It should be read by anyone thinking of getting married.
http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Getting-A-Divorce/3851802?utm_campaign=newsletter344&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&email_id=82183414
Pingback: Links and Comments #20 | The Society of Phineas
It is possible to go Galt without going anywhere.
@Galloper6 Yep. I’m Jewish.
Pingback: How men could make themselves useful to Katarina Kroslakova. | Dalrock
To be married before ones 25th birthday, one should be on the glide path to marriage some time in ones 23rd year. That means one should be discerning suitable potential spouses (and speedily nexting the unsuitable ones) before ones 22nd year, and almost certainly earlier. Or one could trust to dumb luck.
“Less conspicuously I also expect we will see some dialing back of the worst excesses of the family courts”
I doubt it, at least in the short term. Women are a most-favored constituency in government, which the family courts will cater to by doubling-down on draconian child support and asset transfer orders.
Interesting article, and comments section. I would say there is no organized strike among men. There are influences – I had Dave Sim and Gerhard’s “Cerebus,” for example – but there is no possibility of organization among men for going on strike. Even John Galt pointed out that there were men who had never heard of him withdrawing from society for exactly the reasons he pointed out. Just because they never heard of him doesn’t make his argument invalid, nor does their strike become invalid because they’re doing it for their own reasons which may not coincide with his.
I turn 38 next month. I’ve only vaguely had girlfriends, and although I’m somewhat attractive, intelligent and conversational, I have no social skills, no dress sense, and no interest in improving myself in those areas. I couldn’t get laid if my life depended on it and the best successes with women I’ve ever had was in picking up underage chicks on the internet back when it was first becoming popular, and I’m a little too old for that now. I went to my high-school 5-year reunion, and the hottest girl in the class yanked me out on the dance floor, told me I was too drunk to drive and insisted I spend the night at her place. I was completely oblivious to any of that. It simply didn’t occur to me that she had any interest, or that I might bang someone who starred in my masturbation fantasies. I had similar experiences while attending college in my teens and twenties.
When I look at my twenties, what I see is the thousands of pages I’ve written, because I am fundamentally a writer, and that’s what I do. I wrote a novel and a ton of short stories, I filled up half-a-dozen notebooks as a journal, I wrote (and drew) a couple thousand pages of comic books, I wrote (and recorded) several albums of original songs and an equal number of cover songs. I also wrote an incredible amount of material (good or bad) on the new Information Superhighway I’d been hearing about, all while working long hours at a low-paying manual labor job.
I’ve honestly never taken the red pill (to the extent I even know what that means) but I have no interest in a wife-and-kids, and beyond hoping/praying I can live a life of modest comfort, I have no interest in contributing to the decaying society I see before me.
When I was pushing 30, I joined the military. It hasn’t changed me either, but I am more assured of modest comfort so long as I work hard and stay straight. I’ve deployed multiple times, recorded several more albums, drawn more comics (not enough, alas) self-published two books, periodically get told I have to jump out of a perfectly good plane, and am expected to live up to numerous masculine standards, and that’s fine. I am not and will never be an Alpha (to the extent I even know what that means.) I have no interest in trying to be an Alpha. Other than looking at sexy girls, and sometimes paying for them, I have literally never found a good reason to pursue women, and it’s never worked out when I’ve pursued them for a bad reason. The guys I work or live with bring home hot babes, and once or twice they’ve mentioned later that they were trying to hook me up in the process. How was I supposed to know? I’m focused on what is most interesting to me. Currently, I’m most interested in supporting my unit and finishing my next book. Other than serving God and supporting better men than myself, what higher purpose is there?
So basically, I agree with the article. Men are going on strike. Because I so rarely deal with women, liberals or feminists, most of my arguments are conducted in my own mind, but they come down to ‘what incentive is there to pick a woman and promise to love/honor/cherish’ when homosexuals have the same rights? I’m not homosexual, and won’t swear the oath for someone who demands equality to homosexuals. We lost the battle, marriage is for homosexuals. Avoid! Women want better men than me, and I won’t lift a finger to get laid. Avoid! I have words I want to write and publish, and pursuing women distract me from my goal. Avoid! I’ll grow old, single and alone, which gives me more time to pursue my goals.
Fun thought, Hooters has failed (or been chased out) in my home town, but on leave last Christmas, I found there was a Tilted Kilt, so I showed up in uniform. I brought comics and books to read, because that’s what I wanted to do, aside from drinking beer and oggling the girls. All of the hottest girls made a point of approaching me, talking, asking questions, feigning interest in whatever I was reading at the moment. For the last one, I said I was just here to look at the girls, and she responded “We’re looking at you too. You know how girls are.” Didn’t even get to first base, but I took it as the best compliment of my masculinity as I’ve ever had, and I didn’t have to lift a finger.
Excuse me, I’ve just realized I haven’t worked on my next book for two hours.
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/tangents.html
Pingback: How to Give to Your Man | Return of Queens
Reblogged this on Chastisement 2013 and commented:
Great Post!
Pingback: Defending the Lie That Is Marriage | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Marriage of feminists and conservatives. | Dalrock
Pingback: Single men with jobs are becoming a scarce commodity. | Dalrock
Pingback: Fewer men are working, and marriage is dying. | Dalrock
Gamergate scandal seems to be like Gorbatschow’s Alcohol Prohibition. Soviets believed that they only have to deprive working class of vodka and soviet economy will miraculously become more productive than western economy. Feminists believe they only have to deprive young men of videogames and they will miraculously come out of their mothers’ basements, man up, marry sluts and spent the rest of their lives slaving for alimony payments and IRS. First policy backfired magnificently (giant loss of alcohol tax revenue and explosion of moonshine black market) and the second is going down the drain as we speak.
Emma Watson’s #HeForShe project (sponsored by J.P.Chase&Morgan, hosted by United Nations and signed by both Clinton and Obama) seems to be like the “Glasnost & Perestroika” moment of feminist regime. It was supposed to replace old bitter hag guard with newer models and soften western feminism a little to make it more attractive to global humanity. (Like a virus which mutates into less lethal form in order to spread before it kills the host). But, instead, it backfired and caused a split in western feminism itself (between softline pro-Watson feminists and hardline anti-Watson feminists).
Finally, fiasco of leftist feminist propaganda on US midterm elections 2014 (when DNC could no longer scare women into submission with threats of abortion deprivation if GOP wins) can be compared to first Soviet Union’s (partially) free elections of new Congress of Peoples Deputies in 1989 (when people of SU could choose between hard-red option and soft-red option – and voted for the latter).
Now, according to Soviet template, all we need is some bunch of radical feminist hardliners to stage an “August putsch” in Washington DC and fail miserably… and feminism will be no more? (not holding breath here but one has a right to dream http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4RjJKxsamQ )
What is missing in this discussion, granted the study above deals with economics, is the benefits of not being used as a utility that are not economics based. Being able not to depend on one employer (due to low incentives one does not value one job over another), don’t like something at one job=you leave to work for the same pay at a better place. A man who does not have much has less to lose vs. the man who lives in fear of losing so much. By not marrying or cohabiting, not having children, not owning/paying for a home and filling that home with garbage you/wife don’t need you drop a lot of stress out of your life. Do you value time or money more? Your value system becomes clearer when you leave the rat race. Anyways, all society and women want is you labor and your capital at employers who offer low incentives to produce. The difference nowadays is it hit people with degrees, not just the usual unskilled labor classes and skilled (trades) classes.
Pingback: Fathers [sometimes] matter! | Dalrock
Pingback: Stanton’s wake-up call. | Dalrock
Pingback: 2014 Never Married Data | Dalrock
Pingback: NY Times The Divorce Surge is Over but… | Honor Dads
Pingback: How to Give to Your Man | Kings & Queens
Pingback: Rabble rousers | Dalrock
@deti – “yeah, hubby, if you don’t get down to that bar and tell our son to get back here and get to bed and work a job; I’m leaving you. There’s a nice little trailer park down the road I can move to.” —— with a woman like that there would be two men at the bar and one calling the lawyer – never put up with any woman who threatens like that – call it mental abuse in the courts if you want but do not give her another day of your life as she already has the mindset to screw you over.
Mind…Blown, Dalrock. Relating the Laffer curve to intergenerational gender dynamics and the social incentive structure is no mean feat.
I see no evidence the feminists are backing away from a “flawed strategy” or that there is any type of movement for gender equity in family and divorce courts.
Pingback: Debtors prisons are an essential tool of our new public policy. | Dalrock
Pingback: Emasculated | Spawny's Space
MGTOW and happy here!
Pingback: Commitment issues | Dalrock
Pingback: Our slow drift away from marriage. | Dalrock
Pingback: We need to focus on respect instead of fairness. | Dalrock
Excellent analysis! However, there is one other component to consider when we break the family. I think it was a Rollo blog post that described a Hollywood party with Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Warren Beatty, and Jack Nicholson in attendance. It was reported that the women at the party were overwhelmingly attracted to only one of these stars. When asked which of these stars women were overwhelmingly attracted to, most women will answer without hesitation that it was Jack. Let that sink in for a while. No one will ever describe Jack’s characters as emotionally stable or good father material. What does this mean for society? Take a look at our inner cities. There are young men with a dozen babies and many more young men with none. The young men with the most babies tend to be physically and socially dominant aka thugs or jerks. Young men need to acquire these traits just to have a shot at reproduction.
Pingback: The mysterious male marriage premium. | Dalrock
Pingback: Honor Dads
Pingback: Our Fates Are Bound—And Some Good News « Calculated Bravery
Pingback: Will more sex save Spain? | Dalrock
Pingback: Warum Familienväter so produktiv sind – Scheidende Geister
I only wish I had known about the option to be single. There was no MGTOW when I was 25, and no one ever told me about the down side of marriage.
Pingback: Headship makes all the difference. | Dalrock
Pingback: Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying.
Pingback: Marriage reforms are slowing the economy
MGTOW has been around during all of human history. The problem is that few realized the true danger of feminism and how much it has penetrated even churches that speak against it.
I wish I had known the depth of female willingness to follow their own way over God’s way, even while proclaiming otherwise as well, but I am not sure I would have paid attention. The signs were present with my exwife, but I did not see them.
We need to preach the truth and let it push away the false. Some will still follow the false, but make them know they area actively choosing to ignore the Word of God!
Pingback: An expert looks at the gender wars & sees wonders ahead!
Pingback: Peak Feminism? | Spawny's Space
Pingback: Raising boys to live in the coming matriarchy - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: Calculated Bravery
Pingback: Weak men will screw feminism up. | Dalrock
Its like an old joke in the Army, the reward for hard work is more hard work.