Vice.com has a piece up titled How Sad Young Douchebags Took Over Modern Britain (H/T Captain Capitalism). In the piece the author struggles to identify why the culture of young men has changed in recent years:
But while it’s easy to scorn the banality—and the vanity—of the modern British douchebag, they’re only products of their environment. An environment that has very little to offer them anymore, other than gym memberships, intentionally ripped clothes, alcohol, and creatine. The institutions that gave British men a sense of well-being have been ripped apart. Nobody trusts the police any more; nobody wants to join the army because no one believes in its wars; traditional industries have been decimated, and the only thing to replace them are stifling, mind-numbing positions in service and retail.
Because of this, British men have tried to reimagine masculinity, in a hyper-realized, childish, desperate way. A new kind of machismo, built on fake bravado and vanity. British men are looking up to faux-hawked, peacocking, rich maniacs like Mario Balotelli for inspiration, because they really have nowhere else to look.
There is probably a kernel of truth to his suspected causes, but there is a much more fundamental cause which he overlooks entirely; the decline of marriage. Sexual access to the most attractive women is a primary motivator for men. In just a few decades the UK has gone from a society where the best way for a man to get access to an attractive woman was via marriage (or at least signaling husband potential) to the modern hookup culture where douchebags rule.
You can see the full extent of the change in the data on marriage rates from Table A1 in the report Cohabitation and marriage in Britain since the 1970s. In the early 1980s over 70% of British women had married by age 25. By 2004-2007 only 23% of British women had married by the same age.
Men will always compete with each other for access to the most attractive women, but how they compete is determined by the culture and the choices of the women themselves. A young man in the UK who wants to have sex with the most attractive women has a very obvious rational choice, and that is to become the douchebag Britain’s young women crave. This is without even considering the hostility towards husbands and fathers in the family courts, churches, and the culture at large. British society is sending young men a very strong message:
Steddie Eddie need not apply, but douchebags are most welcome.
Don’t feed the animals image by Jim Champion
How charming to see a photo which I recognised immediately as being somewhere on the island known as Great Britain (and obviously in the south); apparently it is Cadnam Common in Hampshire (where my Mother was born); that is to say it is common land: no one owns it and it cannot be built on, but there are laws as to its use, which is why the Deer and Ponies (and I suppose American Squirrels – different from our smaller Red Squirrels) may not be fed as they roam wild. It’s near the New Forest (New in 1100 that is) and the Birch trees are barren and the shadows long so this is a sunny winter’s day. Observe the lack of litter and observe that the financial penalty for feeding has been erased.
Of course Dalrock is correct (how could he not be with those figures) even if the article is one-sided: My friend (married) and I were in the Bar on Tuesday afternoon observing a rather fit looking woman; it was her 40th birthday, as we could tell from the balloons, which read 40th birthday – no sign of a Wedding Band – she was accompanied by two female friends and three Beta orbiters; when I say Beta, I do not mean that they were anything other than swarthy and dangerous but they were happy to attend upon this single cougar – mid-afternoon, obviously nothing better to do. What is a woman like that aged forty doing with men like that. It is not that she was stunningly good-looking but in the land of the beached-whale the tall svelt middle-aged woman is Queen. Even my friend who is becoming increasingly like the retired Colonel’s he mocks and thus not sufficiently Red-Pill commented to me that women like Bad Boys.
“They were the strongest and most fearless, beacons of Northern European masculinity. The descendants of Lord Byron, Lawrence of Arabia, and Geoff Hurst. A great bunch of lads.”
What a steaming load…. outside of the lower working class criminal element, who can indeed be truly frightening ultra violent sociopaths, the British have always been wankers. I will give it to their criminal classes though. Other than (maybe) the Russians, they are far and away the world’s most vile.
I very much doubt anyone at all “looks up” to SuperMario Balotelli, apart from his mama and sis (gushing radio interviews some while back).
He is a notorious but lovable cretin (the training tabard incident) and was excused having burnt his house down when he set off an industrial-strength firework in the bathroom by one ex-coach of his on the grounds that “he has the mind of a child” ( accompanied by an expressive Portuguese shrug speaking volumes more than mere words). As anyone can see.
But he is a hella nice guy, generous to a fault, and honest, and his genial imbecility and lack of diva-ness has endeared him to the English working man and made him a bit of a folk-hero, like Cantona.
Not like that True Jerk, Zlatan Imbrahimovic, who can’t understand why he is not worshipped like a god by all lesser men. Which angers him.
Men will do what it takes to get exclusive access to sex with a woman. If that means dressing well and getting a good job and buying a house with a white picket fence, that’s what we’ll do. If it means building cities and cathedrals and swearing vows, we’ll do that too.
But if it means buying a motorcycle and working part-time so we have more time to spend trawling the bars and working on our lines….well, we’ll do that too, even if it takes us a couple generations to learn the new rules.
” A young man in the UK who wants to have sex with the most attractive women has a very obvious rational choice, and that is to become the douchebag Britain’s young women crave. ”
Just wanted to quote this gem of truth. Does anyone see any reason why “UK/Britain’s” could not be replaced with “USA/America’s” in that statement?
” It’s near the New Forest (New in 1100 that is) ”
Ah, Europe 🙂
I bet most Englishmen earn for the days of old Queen Victoria. Long gone are the days Britain was feared and respected. Ruled now by a bunch of no good, lying wankers! You have my sympathies Opus!
Dear Cail & Dalrock:
I have to point out that it’s not just new rules. If being a badboy asshole ended the same way it did for our grandfathers: with a lifetime companion and the opportunity to father children in a stable family structure, this wouldn’t be that big a deal. It’d just be a cosmetic alteration in the mating dance. The real structural rupture took place in the destination, not the journey.
The endgame now is getting divorced, having your kids kidnapped and traumatized, and being put on the hook for huge payments, along with the likelihood of trumped up felony charges if princess wants to be especially greedy and throw her husband out of the house he bought for the family with the help of the police. Who needs that shit?
Young men are not becoming “douchebags” in order to score women. Most men can score occasionally with no effort whatever. They’re doing this because they have no goals. Everyman is now the man at the end of history, the capitalist consumer in liberal democratic society who has no goals, because all his needs are met, and any attempt to have the traditional life is punished randomly and with extreme prejudice. I don’t really blame them, and would never fault a man for simply dropping out of the rat race under these circumstances.
That should read ‘yearn for the days’…
And with the omegas leading the way
in the way of the lay
And alphas as always
take no heed
to others below
their need
And betas stare at the stars
crying
“where are ours?”
Boxer, you speak to the truth. Without struggle to attain, then value is gone. The pride shown on most job sites I attend daily, in just 25 years has gone from over 80% of the trades to about 15% of the trades. It is a rush to the bottom now, with status bling being the sign of manliness, not pride in the things we accomplish.
Boxer, that’s a great point. Men (most, anyway) aren’t becoming douchebags as a dating strategy; they’re just regressing to a lowest common denominator of behavior because that’s what humans do when they don’t have incentives holding them to higher standards.
It’s long been true that douchebags could get laid, but they generally didn’t get marriage, kids, someone to sit on the porch with in old age, etc. Those are the things that inspired men to work long hours at unpleasant jobs and hold themselves to strict moral standards. Take the sexual exclusivity out of marriage, give mothers ownership of kids, and tell him she’ll probably frivorce him before old age, and all those incentives to meet high standards are gone.
There is probably a kernel of truth to his suspected causes, but there is a much more fundamental cause which he overlooks entirely; the decline of marriage.
More than a kernel, I think, Dalrock.
I make it my thing to read, expose and absorb, spectrum-to-spectrum, and making a career in both debits and credits as well as supply and demand, what I observe is that the striking thing about how people routinely conceptualize political economy is with what seems to be determination, on the part of the majority, to see debits but not credits, or supply but not demand. It’s the same strange kind of error that sees nothing but danger and strength in a rising China and nothing but decrepitude and decline in a waning US – a point of view that lends itself to the poor formation of strategy, incidentally, since excellent strategy coldly calculates strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, of both oneself, and one’s adversary.
Not long ago – just back as far as the 80s and early 90s, when we silly liberals would trump the value and importance of community, conservatives and liberals felt obliged to counter-argue that the free market (and its insipid free trade) were the best systems available to create prosperity and raise everyone’s boats – so we were to understand that somehow a sort of delightful “invisible hand” consequence would be the creation of better community. We find our modern cohort no longer feels so obliged. “Equality? So what?”
All along in the development of the western middle class, from the absence of overseas competition, to the presence of political strength in the working and middle class to counter-balance the hard, ever-present power of capital of the upper classes, to straight-out government give-aways like the Homestead Act … all along there have been forces that do not conform nicely to the free market, libertarian narrative, which have served to grow economy and general prosperity, and which have done so without harming the upper classes.
But as those forces have been decimated, leaving only the free market and a badly gamed political re-distribution system in its wake that wildly favors the wealthiest and most powerful, with one eye firmly closed, our free market ideologues to this day insist, “Nothing to see here. Move on people. Nothing to see here.”
Strangely, we look at the growing bottom, these “douchebags”, and find that the principle problem is poor ethical context and a lack of suitable marriage opportunities? I wouldn’t say you are wrong. It’s just that it’s debits and credits, supply and demand. Nothing but reform of the whole ledger gets the beggar out of his debt-bondage.
Just a quick shout-out that the Vice website is also the source for one of the better (and more R-rated) reports on the Japanese grass-eater phenomenon and the modern Japanese substitutes for sex, dating and marriage (i.e., fetish escorts via the Yakuza, digital girlfriends, anime porn, “hugging” clinics, “host bars” for women to meet up with male hosts for convo only and nothing else, plunging birth and marriage rates).
When women like Katy Perry and Sandra Bullock fall for s**tstains like Jesse James and Russell Brand, it is a signal that women will f**k animals. Then men become animals.
It has been remarked long ago that if, for any reason at all, women suddenly fell for men whose feet were in the air, half the planet would be walking on its hands within 30 days.
The female of the species dictates the behavior of the male. That is why men behave the way the do, and why rape culture is a hilarious, preposterous lie.
” Men (most, anyway) aren’t becoming douchebags as a dating strategy”
I don’t know about that. It sure seems like a lot of work to be a d-bag, and it’s a clear fork in the road from respectable manliness.
“And we’ll never be Alphas” sung to the tune of Royals.
It never fails to impress me that lefties always agree that taxing is done to hurt something you don’t like, subsidizing is done to help things you do like…and then completely disagree that subsidizing laziness and broken homes creates more of them, while taxing hard workers makes them work less.
Their religion truly is a cult.
Rape!
But wait, Dalrock.
You imply that men become douchebags because women like douchebags.
There are some tradcons, though, who ridiculously claim that women like douchebags because lesser men “look up to” douchebags.
So according to tradcons, it’s the non-douchebags’ fault that women like douchebags.
Funny. My parents told me and my sisters that people don’t like douchebags because douchebags are lowlife scum perverts. And then I watched my sisters, and her friends, and their friends, date and screw douchebags.
So which is it? I’m more inclined to go with Cail and Dalrock on this – women like douchebags, therefore the proliferation of douchebags. It’s not the ridiculous “betas like douchebags, therefore women like douchebags.”
Since when has any woman ever listened to betas about anything?
“A young man in the UK who wants to have sex with the most attractive women has a very obvious rational choice, and that is to become the douchebag Britain’s young women crave.” Dalrock’s words of wisdom.
You’re saying that a ‘rational young man’ has no other option but to destroy his character solely for the aim of getting sex with attractive women, his will is completely subverted to his own primacy, which women completely control. That isn’t saying much for the strength of men, luv, or for the virtue of reasoning. How can you expect women to look up to you if this is what you’re telling us?
Its the ultimate of passing the buck of responsibility – suggesting that men can/will only be “good” if women don’t give them incentives to be bad, and yet here you sit telling women that they should be subordinate to their husbands. Why would any woman subordinate to any man, knowing that she may be the only thing standing between him and his own ruin?
How can we respect you, knowing this?
The unfortunate part of this is that the only system reset button is destruction. Those of you who are Christians, take note of the blessings and curses (Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) that God laid out for the people. I’ve asked the question elsewhere and received no real response (as RichardP put it, ‘everyone is simply arguing their catechism’), but the question for Christians should be ‘Is God the same, yesterday today and forever?’ If you can bring yourself to answer yes, perhaps you’ll note that when God decides that it’s time to hit the reset button the result is destruction. Read Isaiah 3 and 4. The money quote:
There is only one result for a society and culture that rejects God, rejects His ordained system of authority and rejects His Law: destruction. What we’re seeing here isn’t anything new and the end result isn’t going to be anything new, just more of the same. The US isn’t the only country that has the ability to cause earthquakes at will and it only takes three good ones to completely destroy the US: The San Andreas fault, the Yellowstone Caldera and Cumbre Vieja. *POOF* No more United States.
Some might say ‘Toad, wait a minute. With the coming of the Holy Spirit, things changed. You can’t apply the old standard to the new covenant.’ To those, I’d say read Romans 1:18-32. It’s a prophesy applied to our times. Turn your back on God often enough and He turns His back on you, removes the restrainer and allows nature to take its course. Ergo, the old rules apply again. Every sign I see points to imminent destruction. Any reasonable person knows the status quo is unsustainable, but for those who know where to look, it’s frightening.
As someone who never was a douchebag and is not willing to become one only because of a p_ssy. (But if I were young, I would give it a thought)
How can you expect women to look up to you if this is what you’re telling us?
Young men don’t give a damn about who women look up to. They see who women sleep with.
Young men are fed up with the entire charade: “You are a nice guy, an outstanding person and I look up to you. Well done! Now I am going to screw some low-life worthless scum”.
If women want good men, they will have to put their pussy where their mouth is.
A snake eating its own tail.
Turn your back on God often enough and He turns His back on you, removes the restrainer and allows nature to take its course.
I’m afraid of what our punishment will be for the tens of millions of infanticides committed in this country. The Germans of the National Socialist era were punished dreadfully and they killed far fewer.
@Livingtree2013
We are talking about culture here. I’m not arguing that this is the moral choice, and I’ve covered that repeatedly in this blog. What you are touching on is the common complaint that weak men are screwing feminism up.
imnobody00 said:
If women want good men, they will have to put their pussy where their mouth is.
No, they have to put their pussy where HIS [fill in the blank] is.
@Marissa
Go to Wikipedia and search for ‘Cumbre Vieja’ and read the entry.
In 1997 Sec. of Defense William Cohen admitted that some nations have the capacity to generate earthquakes and erupt volcano’s. Drill down and read. At that point you’ll know fear.
“An environment that has very little to offer them anymore, other than gym memberships, intentionally ripped clothes, alcohol, and creatine. The institutions that gave British men a sense of well-being have been ripped apart. Nobody trusts the police any more; nobody wants to join the army because no one believes in its wars; traditional industries have been decimated, and the only thing to replace them are stifling, mind-numbing positions in service and retail.
Because of this, British men have tried to reimagine masculinity, in a hyper-realized, childish, desperate way. A new kind of machismo, built on fake bravado and vanity.”
I thought that part was surprisingly accurate for a mainstream magazine like VICE. The rest of it seemed poorly written though, as if the author was trying too hard to be trendy and hip.
No, LT, he’s saying what he said. If the most attractive women in a given population group crave DBs, and a young man wants to have sex with those women, then he must become a DB in order to realize that goal.
The question of the validity or worth of that goal was not addressed by the OP. If one is a believer in religion and morality, then one will of course reject the goal, or at least try to place it in the proper framework (i.e., seek out only those few attractive women—assuming any exist—who are looking for a moral man and try to marry one). But for the non-moral or amoral or immoral men, or the man who holds to some modern version of “morality” which holds that consent is the necessary and sufficient condition for moral sex, then on a purely calculative basis, it makes sense to meet the market’s expectations.
Men SHOULD be good because being good is the right thing to do. But this is only true if one believes in morality, that is to say, pre-modern morality. And even in such a society, some won’t.
However, in society such as ours, which has discarded Biblical and classical/rational morality, the majority of men will choose to pursue pleasure. And since biologically, men are wired to find pleasure in having sex with attractive women, in a society without moral or cultural restraint, men will do what they need to do in order to achieve that end.
And surely you cannot have any moral reservations about casual or pre-marital sex, right? So, how can you “judge” what these men do?
Word is spreading, Dalrock.
Sorry should have made it more obvlous: this Vice piece on sad young British douchebags is complementary to the Vice piece I cited on the collapse of Japanese mating culture and the rise of the grass-eaters: largely due to the same causes, different manifestations of the resulting behaviors.
LivingTree, if respecting us does not appeal to you, consider fearing us. Some men are not willing to degrade themselves to couple with the depraved. Their only option becomes changing the incentives to promote their values. That does not happen peacefully.
Artisinal Toad, burn it to the ground, shoot the survivors, and hunt down any attempt to rebuild for the next couple decades. By the time it is done, they will be in a pliable state, and will have better perspectives. A potent reminder of why it is a poor decision to create men that have no loyalty to their own land and people. Oh, and kill those not of your tribe most fiercely. You owe them nothing but a clean death, and they must be brought to their knees if you are to succeed.
The Shadowed Knight
Bluedog
Your accusation that I let conservatives off the hook is bizarre. Probably a good 80% of this blog is a critique of conservatives and conservative institutions. I do this so often that I’m frequently accused of being liberal. The reason I go after conservative organizations like FotF and not denominations that ordain women is the latter isn’t claiming to support tradition.
While I agree that conservatives have failed miserably to defend the culture, this assertion that liberals have been trying to bolster our sense of community is outright laughable. While the left has made noises about the importance of community, it has at the same time worked tirelessly to uproot everything from patriotism (jingoistic nationalism) to the military (must incorporate gays and women at all levels) to relations between the sexes and the family. As I mentioned above conservatives have failed to protect the culture, but it is liberals who have been leading the charge in destroying all sense of community. Even the famous example of Hillary Clinton’s “It takes a village” was not in support of our sense of community but a way to undermine traditional marriage in favor of the “other” which liberals consistently prefer to our own culture.
“Community” is for the left just an attempt to rebrand redistribution.
For UK women: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/03/age-at-first-marriage-for-women-united.html
@ livingtree2013
Maybe you cant.
Isnt it grand when a societal contract simply breaks down and there is no way to put it back together again?
Women have freed themselves from the unbearable oppression of the patriarchy, now men follow suit….
Bluedog,
Dalrock said it best….
This.
You can’t be in support of “community” when the “community” is Heather has Two Mommies or Heather and John and Stephen and Bill and Erica have only mommy (who never married any of the five different fathers) living in government paid housing and various “uncle-daddies” that stop by at various times to sleep in the same bed as mommy. Under no circumstances would you ever vote to try and change that type of “community” but that is the “community” we are left with because liberals have done their damnedest to destroy everything that was right and good about the concept of “community.”
Men will always compete with each other for access to the most attractive women, but how they compete is determined by the culture and the choices of the women themselves.
Well, it seems instead of competing for those women, they’re basically just waiting for their turn.
—
Dalrymple has plenty to say about the decline of Britain, and I’d recommend his books on it, such as:
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Culture-Whats-Left-Mandarins/dp/1566636434/ref=la_B001HOAFBW_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397148586&sr=1-5
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Bang-But-Whimper-Politics/dp/1566638518/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397148537&sr=1-4
Men will always compete with each other for access to the most attractive women, but how they compete is determined by the culture and the choices of the women themselves.
Well, it seems instead of competing for those women, they’re basically just waiting for their turn.
“So according to tradcons, it’s the non-douchebags’ fault that women like douchebags. ”
Well, this might explain why no one listens to Tradcons any more. At least no one under the age of sixty or so.
@TFH
I am a fan of Capital letters; svelte – I was short of a supply of E; my dealer has raised his prices.
Does anyone see any reason why “UK/Britain’s” could not be replaced with “USA/America’s” in that statement?
Not at all. Britain is, as with so many other dystopian trends, merely the bellwether. In fact, what the article describes is already happening here too, but not on the same scale (yet).
Opus
I was short of a supply of E; my dealer has raised his prices.
Raised his prices? What, on E? It’s the most often used letter — it’s dead common, that’s what it is. You should shop around for a more reliable supplier, wouldn’t surprise me but what you’re being sold used letters as new. Probably from the Guardian…
TFH
As per the scrabble points allocation, ‘e’ is the most common tile, with 12 units per set.
Never mind 20th century board games, refer rather to the work of Samuel F.B. Morse who encoded the letters of the alphabet according to probability in order to keep his code efficient. And how did he encode “e”?
.
I am not the only one: Ernest Wright’s 1939 novel Gadsby was written without a single E, as was George Perec’s 1969 novel A Void. What other plausible explanation for this can there be than a shortage of Es.
I had never thought of myself as being in the forefront of culture, but in 1970s in Britain, I was a student, and I became aware that cohabitation was common among students. Most did not want their parents to know, but lived with their partners anyway. As the decade progressed, the practice became more blatant.
A comment in the Daily Telegraph blogs last week reminded me that this was by design for the Frankfurt school of marxism, whose express intentions,amongst others, were to weaken the family, normalise homosexuality and undermine all sorts of authority. It looks, from my viewpoint, and from the viewpoint of the author of this article that they have succeeded
livingtree2013 asks “How can we respect you, knowing this?” but I’m not sure who “we” are, nor who “your” are, nor what “respect” means here, nor what “knowing” is nor what “this” is. What I think she DOESN’T want to mean is “So what if women make themselves easy for douchebags? Don’t be like the bad boy, be like the nice guy, because then we’ll enjoy showing how much we “respect” (snicker!) you by being a lot more difficult.” But there is in fact no other meaning.
jf12
livingtree2013 asks “How can we respect you, knowing this?” but I’m not sure who “we” are, nor who “your” are, nor what “respect” means here, nor what “knowing” is nor what “this” is
Oh, that’s just the “Royal We” at work. Feminists like to pretend they speak for all women, and so tend to write in the “Royal We” form. There’s also the implied in-group majoritarianism at work – “we won’t like you”, for example, clearly an example of projecting female fears onto men. Never forget that feminists have a fundamental premise that men and women are exactly the same – interchangeable, in fact – except women bear children. It is utter, unscientific, nonsense but it underlies all of feminism, and can be seen not just in the “77 cents” (whatever happened to “60 cents”, eh?) arguments but the “women in combat arms” argument, the “women as CEO’s” argument, and so forth. Never in the job safety argument, strangely enough…
Opus
I am not the only one: Ernest Wright’s 1939 novel Gadsby was written without a single E, as was George Perec’s 1969 novel A Void. What other plausible explanation for this can there be than a shortage of Es.
Wright had a curious way of putting his thoughts down onto wood pulp, but in 1930’s Florida many things got odd.
Perec was French…
Who are the douchebags? These kids or the folks who created the situation?
jf12,
Yes to all of this.
Livingtree,
The entire premise of Dalrock’s post here is not in anyway to validate or champion the behavior of douchebags and how they treat women. It is instead to demonstrate that men respond to both incentives and disincentives. There are disincentives to being a nice guy in England. There are incentives to being a douchebag. So, they do what they do….
Seems like herbivore men are a good population for Catholics to draw ranks from. Seeds of recovery being planted for future generations
I know a writer at returnofthekings left for the spiritual path in India
Unfortunately, I don’t believe any of this will get rectified in my lifetime.
The system is functioning as designed, to destroy the family……….and make the middleclass into serfs dependent on the government for everything.
A child never knowing an intact family, and not having the stronghold of a father.
Just an otherwise meaningless paycheck is what men are seen to provide, nothing more.
Men becoming total douchebags as a natural course of action to cope with the disincentives to becoming upstanding men, provided by women, is a sad…..sad….state of affairs.
As long as the system allows for the gaming thereof: It will continue.
Until men are a necessity to women for survival……nothing will change.
I do note that women have done an excellent job of enslaving themselves to the machinery that is capitalism.
Got Happy?
Decline of marriage is itself a symptom and marker rather than a cultural driver.
Look again. Feminism. The rise of feminism is the cause that bears all mentioned ill fruit.
Feminism is a culture of gender hatred.
@ livingtree2013
“You’re saying that a ‘rational young man’ has no other option but to destroy his character solely for the aim of getting sex with attractive women, his will is completely subverted to his own primacy, which women completely control.”
Rational young man you say. Well accurate reasoning requires the ability to use logic to solve problems. Logically if method A does not work but method B works the reason would dictate that success is based on method B. In today’s society character is not of importance only instant gratification. So by your statement a rational young man of today’s society will be a fool not to follow the parameters of society. However a “moral young man” who does not follow society will have no desire to destroy his character in such a manner.
“That isn’t saying much for the strength of men, luv, or for the virtue of reasoning. How can you expect women to look up to you if this is what you’re telling us?”
You confuse boys who find their male role models in movies, music and sport with those who’s male role models are their dads, granddads and men of renown in history. Strength of men love and virtue of reasoning are for latter men, those men who haven’t succumbed to the whims of what women want. The same men today’s western society reviles and women today do not look up to men like that because they actually see the real power of men and it scares them.
“Its the ultimate of passing the buck of responsibility – suggesting that men can/will only be “good” if women don’t give them incentives to be bad, and yet here you sit telling women that they should be subordinate to their husbands.”
And what responsibility would that be? A man only has responsibility for himself and his own. Unless a woman submits to the man she isn’t his and he will have no responsibility towards her. The prefix *in* of today’s independent woman means *no* dependence. So if she does not submit then she has no dependence on him. So she keeps the responsibility for herself. So no passing the buck of responsibility. It is merely giving it back to the person claiming it.
“Why would any woman subordinate to any man, knowing that she may be the only thing standing between him and his own ruin?”
Why would any man lead any woman knowing that she will not submit and may be the only thing that might lead him to ruin?
livingtree2013 asks “How can we respect you, knowing this?”
I forgot to add that, when I was young, I placed great importance to the respect that women gave me (this was my mistake). I guess that men are trained to get mommy’s approval. Women use this to manipulate men to their convenience.
After seeing how women behave, I couldn’t keep believing in any kind of female authority or female good judgement. After seeing how women give approval, I couldn’t keep believing that this approval had any value.
On the contrary, seeing the shallowness of women’s opinions, decisions and judgments is an eye-opening experience.
Now, I don’t give a damn about women’s respect or opinion. They cannot manipulate me this way. I am free. I do things my own way and they can bitch everything they want. As if I cared.
“How can you expect women to look up to you if this is what you’re telling us? ”
I am the farthest thing from a douchebag, and women don’t look up to me.
UKFred (and he ought to know) raises a matter which is perhaps hidden behind the dismal marriage rate, and that of course is cohabitation. I am thus reminded of a couple of movies I have recently seen: in the first from 1969 Roger Moore and young woman go to an hotel and check in as Mr and Mrs Jones, even though the characters have only just met, a point is made of this even though it hardly affects the plot; and then from five years later Simon Ward checks in likewise with Hayley Mills: the concierge is suspicious but Ward is able to satisfy the concierge that they are married – but they aren’t. I have no doubt that in those days if one turned up at an hotel with bird-in-tow and expected a double-room for the night without pretending marriage one would be turned away, indeed my friend (the would-be retired colonel) said that had happened to him. These days no one would bother with deception: do they want the business or don’t they? Indeed to reject a same-sex couple on the basis of ones Christian beliefs will end one in the Criminal as well as the Civil Courts.
Is it just possible that Marriage is a bigger thing in America than England? It is, of course, women, who are driving this.
Orion:
“Maybe you cant. Isnt it grand when a societal contract simply breaks down and there is no way to put it back together again? Women have freed themselves from the unbearable oppression of the patriarchy, now men follow suit…”
When, exactly, did that happen?
Oh you mean how women got sick of being told it was their fault when “society” told them that when their husbands beat them and became alcoholics and cheated on them with prostitutes, it was their fault because they failed to protect their men from their own weakness? Like that?
The “social contract” has been broken for thousands of years, Orion. New contract please. One that is actually based on personal responsibility. Women have been charged with protecting men from their gratuitous desires since the Garden of Eden – and have failed consistently. No matter how many centuries you spend reinforcing this fallacy, no matter how many articles you write, no matter how much influence the church has in trying to make it our job, you will consistently fail. Why? Because its not up to us.
What I meant by my question is this: how can you realistically expect women to respect and look up to men who BELIEVE that there is a contract in place, where women have agreed to be responsible for protecting men from their own depravity? Any man who actually does believe this makes me immediately disrespect him as a man. Thankfully, there are less and less men (and women) who believe that men are inherently wild, flawed in moral character and only superficially civilized, and need women to make them stay tame. These are the men who are going to be advancing civilization, not the douchebags, and probably not anyone here who hovers around a belief in the mythical “social contract.”
Honestly, I admire you for attempting to protect and preserve what you think are still the traditions of your culture, even though there are clearly so many people in the western world (and elsewhere) who violently want to break them down. But moaning over the state of marriage is only making you seem kind of irrelevant.
LT, is it possible to state your point more clearly? I sort of want to engage it, but I can’t figure out what it is.
Livingtree does not deserve all the responses. She does not deserve to be treated with reason. Her actions were in bad faith. The tell:
Dalrock said, ” A young man in the UK who wants to have sex with the most attractive women has a very obvious rational choice…”
Livingtree said, *directly after quoting Dalrock* “You’re saying that a ‘rational young man’…”
The first thing she does is rearrange Dalrock’s words so as to mean something completely different from what he actually said. This isn’t someone who just disagrees with Dalrock, or disagrees and is trying to twist things into a cheap, irrelevant shot about ‘respect’. This is someone knowingly lying, a deliberate slanderer, a newspeaker whose nastiness is only nullified by her personal insignificance.
We must learn this. Our ideological opponents have this down pat – whenever some obstacle crosses their path, no matter how outrageous or blatantly true – they simply shrug and ignore, at most roll their eyes and make a snarky jab.
We don’t need the passive-aggression, but we can stop feeling the need to offer a legitimate response to every halfwit accusation projectiled into the conversation (or even worse, *apologize*).
Cicero – exactly the point!
Western women have collectively washed our hands of responsibility for men’s behavior, and the consequence of that is men have three choices: 1) wash yours of responsibility for women’s behavior while still remaining irresponsible for your own, 2) continue trying to make yourselves responsible for women’s behavior while they refuse to reciprocate, and be taken in the process, or 3) take responsibility for your own actions and let women be responsible for theirs. Believe it or not, there are women who are not whores. You just don’t see them because they aren’t the “attractive” ones that are out flashing their tits at spring break, or cock-rustling at the douchbag-filled nightclubs.
Now don’t get me wrong, even though I deem myself an ardent feminist, humans seem pretty colossally moronic to me, feminists included, with limited exceptions, so you wont get me going on about the great things going on in the world. I do say that the process of tearing down tradition is quite revealing of what people are truly made of, and I think over the next 20 or so years we will see a new reality emerge. What that is going to look like, I haven’t a clue, but I do know that there are enough people sick to death with the deceit and oppressiveness behind said traditions and social contracts, that even though the end goal may have been noble it is not enough to justify the means required to get there. And I, for one, think that is pretty excellent.
Agreed. Kooky “livingtree2013” may be new to Dalrock blog, but s/h/it is rather well known elsewhere as being a time-wasting lunatic. S/h/it’s greatest aspiration is to get people to pay attention to s/h/it. I often find responses to time-wasters, by the heavy hitters here, to be very interesting and content-rich, so I wouldn’t want to discourage anyone from playing with this nutter, but I won’t be paying such a dishonest lunatic any attention myself.
@ livingtree2013
“Cicero – exactly the point!”
I made several points. Are you agreeing with all of them or only some. If it is the latter then please indicate the ones you don‘t.
Other than that all you did was have a severe case of incoherent verbal diarrhea sewing out a plethora of ideology however no substance.
Oh and as for “You just don’t see them because they aren’t the “attractive” ones that are out flashing their tits at spring break, or cock-rustling at the douchbag-filled nightclubs.” It is usually these “unattractive” woman, as *you* view them, who more readily display these attributes.
lzolozozozoz
yah! MEn iz douchebags because if you read da GRETA BOOKSZ FOR MENZ and exalt Homer, Moses, and Jeuss Christ, ye will be attaakced, catsigagedz and iompugnedz in da dalrockianz forumsz zlzolozozozozozozo
as Dalrock
teaches that
Men need game
and that
Jesus cam to abolish the Law of Moses
and that the exalted Honor of Homer is worthless
while da butt and gina tinzgzlzloozzo is worth all.
lzozozozoozoz omzgzzlzlzozo
LyingTree2013
Western women have collectively washed our hands of responsibility for men’s behavior
And you’ve washed your hands collectively of responsibility for women’s behavior, plus as a bonus in a manifestaion of the Female Imperative you’ve individually washed your hands of responsibility for your own behavior more often than not.
LyingTree2013 is here for two purposes: to attempt to prop up the dying ideology of feminism, by diverting attention away from the increasingly feral behavior of women, and to garner attention for herself from men.
Peddling misandry while whoring for attention. Not exactly a new thing for a feminist, and it should be trivial for any thinking man to see through her smoke screen, but I’ll lay out one of her games. Feigned / meaningless “agreement” followed by a reframe into feminist terms. See her reply to Cicero for an example, where “exactly!” means nothing at all.
LyingTree2013, men in the UK are acting as they are because that’s the behavior a lot of women want. The men who act that way are rewarded by women for that behavior.
All your feminist dribblings do not change the facts by even a tiny bit.
Livingtree does not deserve all the responses
Indeed. I can see no good reason for anyone here giving LyingTroll the time of day.
livingtree,
Then come up with one. There is no “social contract” at all, feminism ended that.
The “social contract” we had before was “marriage.” That was the “social contract” that used to bind society and give us functioning communities. Feminism had to come along and nullify that contract with “no-fault-divorce” (thus turning something that could not be ended without fault or death into an “at-will” arrangement that could be terminated at any time for no reason.)
Now you are bitching that we need a new contract. That’s fine but here is the problem:
Feminists will not contract.
One of the cardinal virtues of feminism is that there would be no binding contract on the feminist. Her happiness is her imperative. No contract should ever invalidate that. So what you are asking for, by the virture of you being a feminism, you would never ever actually agree to it.
The “social contract” is an invention of modernity. Accepting it or assuming it is real mean to buy into modernity on a subconcious, unwitting level.
LivTree, and those like her, tend to disrupt manosphere threads by getting men to fall all over themselves while trying vainly to reason with irrational and deliberately obtuse. Maybe that’s why ROK bans responses to such commenters.
Did anyone else notice that the women in the first pic (in the linked article) we’re no better than the men? The author appears to suffer from sloot blindness.
I for one find the term ‘douchebag’ highly offensive to the brave womyn liberators. It makes a mockery of a natural function that is, by Gaia herself(!), proof of the superiority of the feminine and her unique ability to create and sustain the parasitic male. Patriarch rapists of course delight in a social construct that not only disrupts the flow of womenhood, but cannot stop there: then they must mock and degrade with the name of the very instrument the phalic-nazis have imposed!
And social contracts are a slavery mechanism designed by the rich, white, male to force obligations upon his ‘lowers’ in exchange for their rightful daily bread, provided by our Mother Earth in her bounty and not obligated to a rapacious patriarch. Shame on you, livingtree (totes GREAT name btw, I luv the allusion to harmony w/nature <3) for subconsciously assimilating the language of our enslaver. New of the old is still slavery. NO CONTRACTS! TO EACH HER OWN!
Escoffier, does not the concept of a “social contract” derive from natural law? Surely you would not argue that natural law is an invention of modernity.
No, the “social contract” proper originates with Hobbes, though the precise term is not used until Rousseau (whose most famous book carries that title). I would actually say that the seeds of the social contract are in Machiavelli, but he is very coy about the whole thing.
The underlying idea beneath the “social contract” is that man is not—as he is for Aristotle and all the classics and medievals—a naturally social and political animal. Man is radically selfish and all society, justice, morality and law are conventional, i.e., made up. Whereas for Aristotle, these things are natural—part of the nature of man and the nature of the whole of which man is a part.
“Natural law” is a bit of a fraught question. It really traces to the Christian medieval and originates and attempt to harmonize Biblical Christianity with Aristotelian political science. The Classics did not have a notion of natural law but rather of natural right, which is a fine but important distinction.
In any case, you are definitely right that natural law predates modernity. On this most important question (as on many others) the Christian medievals and the Classics are on one side and modernity is on the other.
The reason I think it’s important is that when you dispense with the natural sociality of man, you also dispense with a rational grounding for morality. Hence, for Aristotle, the family itself is natural—not in the sense that it will simply grow like a weed without any guidance. Human sexual behavior of course responds to incentives and the environment and so on. It is natural in the sense of “higher nature,” that is, for man to fulfill his potential and to be fully a man, to have the virtues characteristic of man, there must be families. The family is the essential human community, out of which the polis, or the political or architectonic community, is formed, in which alone the development and practice of all the virtues is possible. The family is a necessary if insufficient condition for virtue. Which is to say, for Aristotle, as for the medeivals, human nature is teleological.
The early moderns try to preserve the family for the sake of its utility but their own premises make this impossible as the contradictions in their argument are worked out over time. And you get to where we are today, when it’s just a “lifestyle choice” at best and evil patriarchy at worst. But certainly not natural or inherently moral.
Escoffier. Thank you for sharing. Very interesting your take on the social contract. Do you know some books about that for the beginner?
No, the “social contract” proper originates with Hobbes, though the precise term is not used until Rousseau (whose most famous book carries that title). I would actually say that the seeds of the social contract are in Machiavelli, but he is very coy about the whole thing.
Machiavelli wrote in a somewhat clouded fashion I will agree, although it is interesting to compare his book war with “The Prince”, because there are a number of unstated or implied premises within his book on war that IMO contradict the cynical side of “Prince”.
The underlying idea beneath the “social contract” is that man is not—as he is for Aristotle and all the classics and medievals—a naturally social and political animal. Man is radically selfish and all society, justice, morality and law are conventional, i.e., made up. Whereas for Aristotle, these things are natural—part of the nature of man and the nature of the whole of which man is a part.
This is the Hobbesian / Rousseauian view, but it is not the only view.
Locke’s “Two Treatises on Government” was written prior to Rousseau, and in response to Filmer’s defense of the divine right of kings. If I recall correctly the first treatise is an extensive argument against Filmer’s point of view, and the second is a descriptive & proscriptive discourse on what can be called a social contract. Locke’s view of man in the “state of nature” is not at all the same as Hobbes, and it is worth pointing out that Lockean thinking can be seen clearly in both the US Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. IMO it can also be seen in the writings of Edmund Burke, whom I believe you would agree was no Rousseauian nor Hobbesian thinker.
Part of the muddle is that in the mid to late 19th century a lot of utilitarianism was grafted onto the whole idea of the social contract, with the unfortunate but not really surprising effect of transforming social contract thinking into just another flavor of ultilitarianism….in my opinion. The US Progressive era being one almost immediate result, and the four ugly Amendments of just about a century ago as longer term damage done.
In any case, you are definitely right that natural law predates modernity. On this most important question (as on many others) the Christian medievals and the Classics are on one side and modernity is on the other.
Which modernity?
The reason I think it’s important is that when you dispense with the natural sociality of man, you also dispense with a rational grounding for morality. Hence, for Aristotle, the family itself is natural—not in the sense that it will simply grow like a weed without any guidance.
Yes, and if you read Locke’s 2nd Treatise I believe that the same thinking is quite clearly there. So there are forms of social contract thinking that do not necessarily contradict Aristotle, IMO, although certainly in the 21st century increasingly we see a “social contract” that looks rather a lot like modern marriage – it’s permanent until a certified victim claims feelbad, and “I’m not HAAAPY” trumps everything else in the moment.
“You just don’t see them because they aren’t the “attractive” ones”
Right, it’s MEN who don’t see most of the opposite sex. Sure.
Please, will you people stop being ridiculous. You’re intelligent people, I wish you would stay that way instead of degrading yourselves whenever a divergent point of view shows up. When have I ever criticized men without following it immediately with an equally harsh criticism of women? It annoys me most of all that you people will crowd around a presumed enemy at the slightest hint of a threat to your vulnerable position. Anyway…
Cicero – I agree with all the points you made in that post, but one:
“Strength of men love and virtue of reasoning are for latter men, those men who haven’t succumbed to the whims of what women want. The same men today’s western society reviles and women today do not look up to men like that because they actually see the real power of men and it scares them.”
Strength of men, love, and virtue of reasoning are for men who have not succumbed to their own weakness. Read some Marcus Aurelius. Some men’s weakness is giving women what they want, this is true, but that can’t be said in every case. Some men’s weakness lies in a hedonistic self-delusion of their own impressiveness, and in the state of pure hedonism (aka douchebag), the freedom and confidence of it attracts many followers, men and women alike.
Has such at time existed when hideous people did not exist? When the noble masses would rightfully slay a tyrant who raped and pillaged? No, it has never existed, ever, and why not? Because the raping, pillaging tyrant unconcerned for what is right, the hideous person, is viewed by weak minds as a leader, and the leader is what all followers want to be. Having followers improves the perceived value of the leader. As the perceived value increases, so increases the booty. In other times, we called them pirates. Now, the pirates are called douchebags, the difference is that the booty doesn’t have to be stolen, it comes willingly.
You should be glad of it, too, because looking at the pictures in that Vice article, and the captured decadence of nightclubs and spring break, even though some might be “hot”, it looks pretty apparent to me that these are not women you want. Its more than obvious that they could look up to no man. Can you not see that?
Men will start being Nice when Nice guys start getting laid.
I don’t see how this article is in any way revelatory for anyone in the manosphere. Feminine hypergamy demands a dualistic sexual strategy, Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. When the former social / cultural restraints that used to keep hypergamy in check are removed, and extrinsic social and legal measures are in place to assure women can satisfy the Beta Bucks side of the hypergamic equation, the only thing left is Alpha Fucks.
I was listening to a talk radio show this morning and the topic was some Forbes poll of men rating where they ranked different aspects of their lives. For the first time since they started this poll men ranked ‘personal appearance’ above ‘career’ as their #1 priority and the hosts were genuinely dumbstruck as to why. Of course the predictable reasonings about how this generation of men are ‘kidults’ and need to ‘man up’, and the predictable feminist comeuppance about how it’s now men’s turn to be insecure about their appearances like women have been for so long – while simultaneously accusing them of vanity.
The truth of the matter that never occurred to the hosts is that when the provisioning aspects of feminine hypergamy are largely satisfied by binding men, individually and collectively, to the Feminine Imperative. So when the Beta Bucks are a given, the only thing left are the physical and personal dominance aspects of Alpha Fucks.
livingtree2013 has also written long feminist posts at M3’s site(whoism3 wordpress dot com). She is just here to promote feminism. Trying to show her the error of her views won’t work. She is just here to derail the comments section. She is a die hard ideologue. She will never change .
And Escoffier, great commentary on the differences between classical ethics and modern ethics! Very timely… I was going to write about it myself, but there are always so many balls being lobbed at my head whenever I come around here.
A new social contract? Love to make one, and I am steadfastly churning away at this in my spare time, but first I think we have to rid ourselves of belief that the old contract can be rebuilt. That contract, regardless of whether your view is classical or modern, is predicated on the belief that it is our mutual responsibility to hold each other to a singular moral standard, and to do that we first need to understand why that process of disassembling the old contract is valuable. This is proving very difficult, even though many know intuitively that this process is vital for the species to develop and flourish.
Rollo shows there is no Gordian knot, “there is no spoon”: “Men will start being Nice when Nice guys start getting laid.” How hard is it, really, for women (and enablers), to admit knowing that simple fact?
@The Real Peterman re: “I am the farthest thing from a douchebag, and women don’t look up to me.” The obvious fembot rebuttal is “Yeah, well, the only reason women don’t look up to you is because you’re a bitter loser who can’t get laid, etc.”
I fully expect women to start complaining about all the Nice Guys’ existence. “Why are there so many Nice Guys that disprove that women want Nice Guys? Why is wrong with Nice Guys that they aren’t helping women prove women would like Nice Guys if they could?”
OT.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=870532
This guys wife cheated on him and is now pregnant with a black mans child and he wants to raise it as his own. WTF? It seems obvious to me that he should push her to have an abortion and then dump his cheating slut of a wife and find a hotter, tighter, and younger model.
livingtree2013 says:
How can we respect you, knowing this?
Ummm…respect decent, nice guys?
When did that happen?
Hasn’t been true for decades at a minimum.
You have no respect for men beyond what utilitarian value they have to you. The demented sisterhood of feminism is busy destroying the foundations of western civilization and are bleating in shock about the types of men that the destruction is bringing about. You don’t get to determine the consequences of feminist victory. The boys now growing to manhood don’t have the cultural restraints that existed in previous generations. A generation of douche-bags is hardly the worst possible outcome. Outright savagery is all too likely as civilization recedes.
You seem to want the freedom of feminism while retaining the gentlemanly respect for the weaker sex. It was never a possibly outcome.
“Young men are fed up with the entire charade: “You are a nice guy, an outstanding person and I look up to you. Well done! Now I am going to screw some low-life worthless scum”.”
No, I think middle-aged men are fed up. Young ‘unattractive’ beta-men still hang around with hot young women. Want proof? Just talk to any of your hot young daughters, hot nieces and their hot friends and ask them why they are still single and why they don’t date the young men that surrounds them. ANSWER: “they are boring”. I heard that one.
LT,
🙄
I understand now.
There are no “Nice Guys” only assholes. Douchebags are just honest about it. Women can clearly see this. So women are doing everything they can sell the “Nice Guys” into a modern version of slavery where a class of parasitic apex alphas redistribute their resources to women so they can buy shoes and chase after the “bad boys with hearts of gold.” With proper laws protecting women from any unwanted male attention the world will be happy place where the few “real men” can best serve the needs of women without the distraction of competing with lesser men. Women will be freed to pursue whatever the hell it is they want without risk of starvation or out of date fashion. The apex alphas get power. The “nice guys” weren’t worth shit anyways so they get death. All very efficient. Everyone who counts wins. Peace and Joy will abound.
Escoffier, something like this?
http://www.gifsforum.com/gif/33217
Escoffier represents the kind of drivel that Dalrock loves and promotes, as part of his MArxist march of deconstruction through the cathedral of Western Civilization:
Escoffier ejaculates,”“Natural law” is a bit of a fraught question. It really traces to the Christian medieval and originates and attempt to harmonize Biblical Christianity with Aristotelian political science. The Classics did not have a notion of natural law but rather of natural right, which is a fine but important distinction.”
Escoffier obviously never read Homer’s Iliad nor Odyssey, which exalt Natural Law (And the Will of Zeus was Done).
Luckily Thomas Jefferson–the poet author of the Declaration of Independence–did read the classics, writing, “As we advance in life, they all fall off, one by one, until we are left with Virgil and Homer, and perhaps Homer alone.”
Had Escoffier & Dalrock penned the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, they would have been filled with game, churchian buttehxtz ramblingz, butt and gina tinzgzlzlzoozo, and marcuse/freud worship lzlzozozlzzzloozlzlzoz
Are these the guys LT has so much respect for?
@ Sharrukin
>A generation of douche-bags is hardly the worst possible outcome. Outright savagery is all too likely as civilization recedes.
You seem to want the freedom of feminism while retaining the gentlemanly respect for the weaker sex. It was never a possibly outcome.<
Thats the red pill, red in tooth and claw…
If social dominance lies at the core of female sexual attraction, there are far more effective ways than "AMOGing the situational alpha" and whatnot, kick him in the bolloks….
Of course. the only way is to escalate from there…
Get a knife, get a gun, bring friends and allies….
it’s often hard to tell who the churchians hate more–christ, moses, c.s. lewis, or virgil.
C. S. Lewis, in A Preface to Paradise Lost, wrote:
“It is the nature of a vocation to appear to men in the double character of a duty and a desire, and Virgil does justice to both…. On the one had we have Aeneas, who suffers but obeys…. On the other hand, we have the women, who have heard the call, and live long in painful obedience, and yet desert at last. Virgil sees their tragedy very clearly. To follow the vocation does not mean happiness: but once it has been heard, there is no happiness for those who do not follow.”
The only thing more tragic than all the women following their butt and gina tinzgzlzlolzoz is all the men that Dalrock is telling to do the same–to learn game instead of Virgil and Homer.
John Adams wrote his old friend, Dr. Benjamin Rush on June 19, 1789, “I should as soon think of closing all my window shutters to enable me to see as of banishing the Classicks to improve Republican ideas.”
Today, Dalrock et al. writes the manosphere, “I should as soon think of closing all my window shutters to enable me to see as of banishing buththetx gamez to improve Republican ideas.”
lzoozozoz
orion2 says:
Thats the red pill, red in tooth and claw…
If social dominance lies at the core of female sexual attraction, there are far more effective ways than “AMOGing the situational alpha” and whatnot, kick him in the bolloks….
Of course. the only way is to escalate from there…
Get a knife, get a gun, bring friends and allies….
That is what the entire marriage deal was designed to avoid. It was arranged as a means to avoid violence between the average male and the elites.
If young men have no loyalty, and nothing to gain from maintaining the public order, they won’t maintain that order. It won’t turn into a Mad Max sort of world because someone will take advantage of that undirected anger to establish a new order that promises them what they have no hope of acquiring under the old regime.
Islam, fascism, or something else entirely, but something will sweep away what cannot be sustained.
Sharrukin says “That is what the entire marriage deal was designed to avoid. It was arranged as a means to avoid violence between the average male and the elites.” and is correct. It seems obvious once you see it.
I am reminded of a book written by a couple of Long Island Yentas that advocated for the social interaction between beta males and feminist women for the sole purpose of achieving this goal (in marriage 2.0)
http://www.amazon.com/All-Rules-Time-tested-Secrets-Capturing/dp/0446618799/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397174463&sr=8-1&keywords=the+rules
Incidentally, Escoffier, wayyyy back when in this thread, you asked me how I could “judge” these douchebags for their sexually immoral behavior. I don’t, and I never said I did. They are doing what seems rational in a seriously depraved world, focusing all their effort on the one need that they feel they actually have the power to get met, and I totally get that. I see them coming a mile away though, and I wouldn’t sleep with a single one of them (though no angel, I certainly have better taste than that – and there are more than two “types” of men in the world, incidentally), but I wasn’t referring to douchebags in my comment.
I was referring to Dalrock’s proposition, “A young man in the UK who wants to have sex with the most attractive women has a very obvious rational choice, and that is to become the douchebag Britain’s young women crave.”
Sure, this is a rational conclusion to draw, if your starting point for reasoning is “how do I best go about getting sex?” But that isn’t even a point of concern for me. My concern is the sentiment that is embedded within this sentence: 1) serving the most basic impulse is somehow the driving motivator for men’s behavior, 2) that it is an entirely understandable motivation to have, 3) that the manner in which it is met is entirely women’s responsibility to dictate, and 4) that any action that a man takes to get 1) is not his fault, because 2) and 3).
And that, in my estimation, makes for the most contemptible variety of person in existence, the very worst sort of role model. In fact, there is nothing that makes a man any less attractive to me than this. Not even bad breath.
@ livingtree2013
>Sure, this is a rational conclusion to draw, if your starting point for reasoning is “how do I best go about getting sex?” But that isn’t even a point of concern for me. My concern is the sentiment that is embedded within this sentence: 1) serving the most basic impulse is somehow the driving motivator for men’s behavior, 2) that it is an entirely understandable motivation to have, 3) that the manner in which it is met is entirely women’s responsibility to dictate, and 4) that any action that a man takes to get 1) is not his fault, because 2) and 3). <
to 1,2,3 yes….
I do not agree with 4, simply because "fault" has nothing to do with it.
As Baumeister put it, and I am paraphrasing here "99% of all men will do as much as they need to to get laid" and thats that.
Now, you can take that into account and build an incentive system that works with that or you can tell young men to "man up" and work long and hard so that one day he can support a wife that in this exact moment is rogered in the bathroom of the local watering hole by a tatted out douchebag.
What you also miss is that not only shows an utter lack of respect for said potential provider types, but that the final act of humiliation would be done to himself, by himself, when he "mans up" and marries an aging sloot.
Contemptible according to what standard? God’s? Nature’s? Or yours?
And how can you in one breath say you don’t judge and then in the next call them “contemptible”? Is that not a judgment?
livingtree2013 says:
1) serving the most basic impulse is somehow the driving motivator for men’s behavior,
How exactly could one of the most basic human impulses NOT be a primary motivator of behavior?
3) that the manner in which it is met is entirely women’s responsibility to dictate
Since we are not talking about rape, how is it not entirely up to the woman to determine to dictate who sleeps with them? They decide what sort of man, douchebag, or decent, gets to have sex with them.
livingtree,
So what? Dalrock’s point is not about you. All things in this world are not about you. Dalrock was making a point about what British women are (largely) attracted to enough to the point where they are willing to have pre-marital sex. You should comment on that, not what concerns you.
If the young unmarried British man who must f-ck at all costs doesn’t want to be a criminal, 3) is all that matters. These women have dictated to the men around them what they value in men by spreading their legs for that behavior. That is the carrot, the incentive where all that matters is getting their dick wet.
So what? The men here don’t care what kind of man you are willing to spread your legs for livingtree. Don’t you understand that? They don’t care about your pussy. They care about pussy in general, not yours speficially. Dalrock’s post is evidence based for the general population of Britian, not for livingtree to decide if she agrees with what the average British girl values in British men enough that she would be willing to f-ck.
No one here cares what you find contemptable.
No one here cares who you might regard as a role model.
No one here cares what you find attractive.
Least of all, no one cares how you regard bad breath.
AR, take this for what it’s worth because what I am going to say is definitely not the conventional or mainstream view amongst most intellectuals, historians, professors and so on, but it is what I believe and what I have been taught by (I think) most excellent teachers and a lot of books. I’m not going to repeat “I believe” or “in my opinion” over and over because that would get tedious (for both of us), however those caveats should be assumed at every point, so treat what follows with appropriate caution.
I will say, first, re: Machiavelli, that differences between his books are more apparent than real. First we have to divide his books into two categories: The Prince and the Discourses and then all the others. The reason the first two stand in a class by themselves is that in those two books, and only in those two, Machiavelli says in each premise that he has included therein “everything he knows.” Those are, then, his two fundamental philosophic books. The Art of War and the Florentine Histories, his other two “major works,” are more addressed to specific problems of his time and not really to permanent problems.
Machiavelli’s cynicism is part real, part affected, and each traces to the same reason. He wanted to defeat and dispel both classical idealism and (especially) Biblical religion, because he thought both were false, and that the former gave way to or surrendered to the latter. In order to do that, as a rhetorical strategy, he thought it was useful to “brutalize” both Renaissance humanists (in thrall to the classics and especially Cicero) and the religious believers by overstating various uncomfortable truths known to both the Classics and the Bible and overemphasizing them as the whole truth. In other words, every nasty thing in Machiavelli is already in Plato or Xenophon (Machiavelli’s favorite writer) or Aristotle or Cicero, but sufficiently couched and qualified. He chooses to emphasize the low over the high in order to combat what he perceives as the softness of his times.
But it’s all of a piece. Whatever differences one detects in “doctrine” among the books (and in his other writings such as his plays) can be ascribed to the “audience” and to context, the same way that Plato’s dialogues all seem to contradict one another, until one starts to sort through the various dramatic contexts and settings and the participants, etc. So, for instance, Machiavelli never mentions the word “tyrant” ever in The Prince, which is dedicated to a sitting prince whom one might plausibly call a tyrant, but he says it without hesitation in the Discourses, which is ostensibly about republics.
Regarding Locke, this is another fraught question. You are right about the two treatises and Filmer. Think, however, it is wrong to say that Locke’s state of nature is fundamentally different from Hobbes’. Locke is a much more sober writer than Hobbes and far less shocking, but the underlying premises are the same. However, Locke makes a key change to Hobbes’ scheme. Hobbes’ teaching is to ground political right in the passion of fear of violent death. Locke elevates mere self-preservation to comfortable self-preservation. And he takes the thymos or spiritedness that Hobbes tried to simply quash in mankind and argues that it be channeled in an economic direction (here Locke is expanding on some ideas of Bacon, who in turn was a follower of Machiavelli).
Now, it has been argued that Locke was really “updating Aristotle” for wholly new circumstances. One of my beloved teachers spent 60 or 70 years trying to establish this. I sympathize. I want to believe. But in the end, I agree with those who find a subterranean radicalism in Locke. Because Locke still implicitly rejects both classic natural right and medieval natural law and builds up from modern premises.
Locke is still (along with Montesquieu) the best and soberest of the moderns. Also, I don’t think the American Founders had any idea of the deeper radicalism within Locke’s teaching, and I am sure they would have rejected it had they saw it. They took Locke effectively at his word. And since nearly all of them were sincere Christians, whatever the deeper strata of Locke’s argument was not so dangerous to them (unlike people who come to the table without a deep well of faith).
By “modernity” I mean the philosophic movement that began at about the same time as the historical period which professional historians refer to as “the modern era” but which is not identical with that period, which in fact shaped that period far more than the period shaped it. There are many varieties and tangents and stages but they all begin from the same premises: the classics were wrong and the Bible is made up. Everything starts from there.
“And since nearly all of them were sincere Christians”
Not in the sense of my namesake, save perhaps Adams and Witherspoon. Early modernism had already begun its work by then.
Jefferson and his scissors were very much on to Locke’s radicalism, and sympathetic.
Escoffier:
Ever read Althusser’s *Machiavelli and Us*? It has been years since I’ve cracked it, but as I remember, Uncle Louis’ contention was that Althusser predated guys like Hegel and Marx in positing history as a primal force and setting up a sort of praxis philosophy (the point is to change it, and all that). I’ve already forgotten *The Prince* and *The Art of War* though I know they’re in my library, and Althusser’s summary is all I’ve got left in my skullstuffing at the moment. Check it out if you haven’t.
Man is a wolf to man…
Boxer
“Man is a wolf to man…”
…and wolf became dog.
The Real Peterman says:
April 10, 2014 at 1:41 pm
[{“How can you expect women to look up to you if this is what you’re telling us? ”
I am the farthest thing from a douchebag, and women don’t look up to me.}]
ha ha well I AM a ‘douchebag’ and women don’t look up to me … come to think of it, women defined me as such and then used their definition to look down on me. That was after they go to know me… prior to familiarity and contempt I was not seen as a ‘douchebag’ and the women still didn’t look up to me… hmmm – There’s something about being a ‘douchebag’ that just doesn’t seem to matter.
but it’s headline discussion here at Dalrock’s… more male bashing ladies? You are all a bunch of Douchebags – or not – the women still don’t look up to you.
livingtree2013 is a manipulator
“My concern is the sentiment that is embedded within this sentence 1) serving the most basic impulse is somehow the driving motivator for men’s behavior”
Excrement! This is a cheap and obvious fraud. The “sentiment” was plainly spelled out. Dalrock specified in his piece the simple fact we all know to be true “Sexual access to the most attractive women is (A) primary motivator for men.”
*** (A) primary motivator *** It’s one, and no one ever said it was the only one, not even the only motivator for men to interact with women. Increasingly however women aren’t offering much more. Thats not men’s fault.
Sex is a basic driver for all living creatures, the notion that is contemptible is to have contempt for the existence of the human species. Do you hate yourself livingtree? Do you resent the fact that men, like women, are naturally attracted to the most healthy and therefore attractive members of the opposite sex?
“2) that it is an entirely understandable motivation to have,” Yes, the entirely understandable motivation in *sexual* relationships with women is *sex*. Not with female relatives, friends or with other males but sexual access in sexual relationships with women is a motivator. Why would it not be? You offer absolutely no reason why this should be seen as contemptible.
“3) that the manner in which it is met is entirely women’s responsibility to dictate” Dalrock and the article literally labels the men in question “douchebags” that women are rewarding with access to sex. Again douchbags! Women were given sexual freedom by men and women rewarded the worst of men with sex. Never does he excuse douchbags! Should women not be more responsible for their own wombs than men who do not have wombs?
“4) that any action that a man takes to get 1) is not his fault, because 2) and 3).” Never does he excuse douchbags! Nowhere on his site can you provide a quote that men are not also to blame.
As a feminist you are aware that the old system of controlling this involved men controlling men by controlling women’s sexual freedom. Preceded by a stronger system, Biblically, both men and women could be killed by the law for sex outside of marriage, not just women, call it -equality-. The sexual revolution, a flagship accomplishment of feminism, freed women from social/cultural even legal pressures and now we have a complete disaster. Feminism has caused our current impending doom by taking the old imperfect system and replacing it with complete insanity. Then attempting to justify it with;
“their husbands beat them and became alcoholics and cheated on them with prostitutes, it was their fault because they failed to protect their men from their own weakness?”
You’re telling us that this was the norm of male/female interaction in the age proceeding feminism? not the exception, not the norm in the shady part of town but the norm everywhere? You’re telling me that the elderly women in my family and the many women of the older generations I know lived this out in the majority and therefore thats why we needed feminism?
Thats what you’re saying?
I will quote you once more “Please, will you people stop being ridiculous.” Will you?
Feminist and your movement have destroyed western society. Millions suffer and millions, billions more will suffer and die because of people like you. You are destroyers.
This is seriously off-topic, but I had a really interesting week and was able to observe a lot of red-pill truths in action. Fair warning – it involves three attractive women, and I did not exchange bodily fluids with any of them. Proceed with caution – or just skip it.
Just last week my work took me to a tropical paradise, where I ended up having quite a lot of time to do whatever I felt like. It happens that an attractive woman I know (from two years of our desks being eight feet apart), is on an unaccompanied assignment there – she is what we military-types call a “geographical bachelor.” Since we’ve known each other for a long time – and my wife is not the jealous type – we ended up spending a couple of days together, along with a very attractive Latina friend of hers who is young enough to be my daughter. I’ll start by saying that they are both delightful company, but it was fascinating to watch the truths of the red pill play out in their lives.
My friend: My friend is the older of the two, although 15 years younger than me – with a husband and two smallish boys. She chose the “traditional” life for herself, as a good Catholic girl, but she had married a guy with little ambition. (She’s a bit of a wild child, like a lot of “good Catholic girls,” naturally. She could drink me under the table with ease.) But when she took the job where we met she saw a lot of accomplished men who didn’t think “drink beer and hunt deer” was the only way to amuse themselves. (Nothing wrong with either – I’ve done both, but there’s more to life than that.) And now she’s thinking of pulling the plug on the whole thing. She didn’t ask for my advice, but I felt compelled to give it to her anyway… I tried to shame her a bit by pointing out that, in all the time I’ve known her, she has never said anything nice about her husband in my presence. I just let that sink in and reminded her that, for good Catholic girls like her, divorce is not an option. It’s like Jenny Erickson before she went over the cliff, except that I’m friends with this woman. Her husband is a good guy, and by my observation an excellent father to the boys – he is the same perfectly nice, normal redneck she married. But when she got out of her small town and spent most of her time around much higher-status men, she felt unfulfilled. Unfulfilled enough to tell him (and me) that their marriage was doomed. She was well into her second “pounder” when she spilled her guts to me, and I don’t know what influence I might have, but I at least tried to get her to see some reason, or at least better options. Red-pill lesson #1 – Hypergamy is a dangerous drug, and married men would be wise to ensure their wives don’t spend most of their waking hours in a building full of men with much higher status for 24 straight months. Even though none of us went for her, she was mesmerized by “a better way.”
My Friend’s Friend: She’s 25 and single, and is absurdly cute. She also drinks like a fish. She’s definitely a party girl, and loads of fun to be around. She has some vestiges of her Catholic upbringing, though, and wants to settle down soon. I imagine her n-count is low by “party girl” standards, although she’s certainly no virgin. She can still “win” at life if she plays her cards well: at 25 and cute she can marry well if she wants to. She has expressed a desire to meet serious men in their 30’s for marriage. She works as an au pair, and intends to go back to college next year, which will probably not work out well for her, as she is likely to end up on the carousel for a couple of years – and a couple of years is all she has before she ages out of the competition. Red-pill lessons #2 and 3 – Men’s willingness to “marry down” is useful to hot young women with few accomplishments who want to settle down before their looks fade, while choice addiction and/or pursuing credentials can lead them to spinsterhood (or at least vastly reduced choices)… in a hurry.
The woman on the airplane home: I got bumped into first class for the last leg of my trip and my seat-mate was a very attractive single 35-year-old professional woman. All I really wanted to do was sleep, but she was so engaging and eager to chat that I ended up talking to her the entire flight – gate to gate, in fact. Very intelligent (did I mention very attractive?), well-educated, well-read, and a remarkably good conversationalist. What struck me most about her was that she hit me with a three-hour barrage of IOI’s (seriously: she must have flicked her hair at least 200 times). Leaning in, smiling, flicking… flicking… flicking. She was a have-it-all type: the kind of woman who creates a great career and looks great doing it. She had had some bad experiences with dating and swore it off, but some nice guy was REALLY persistent, and her girlfriends brow-beat her until she gave in and gave him her number. Then he wore her down until they started dating. Then he wore her down until she accepted a one-year “trial marriage.” She VERY MUCH doesn’t want marriage, and he does – badly. But she seems resigned to it: she said that, “He’ll win. He always does.” And, “I love him, but…” The BUT is that she spent solid three hours sending a barrage of IOI’s to a married guy who was in college when she was in kindergarten. Poor schmuck. Red pill lesson #4 – Don’t be the guy who wears down an “independent” woman’s resistance until she gives in – the guys she flirts with may not be “as married” as I am. It was all good for me, though – it’s not often that a good-looking and much younger woman unconsciously gives me three straight hours of affirmation of my desirability. Naturally I told my wife about it post-haste – something like that is too good to keep secret, which leads to Red pill lesson #5 – pre-selection is useful, and it’s okay for wives to know that their husbands are desirable to other attractive women… as long as they know that they won’t stray. My wife asked what her name was, and was surprised when I said that I didn’t know… it’s not like I was going to call her, so why bother?
I now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread.
“Do you hate yourself livingtree? Do you resent the fact that men, like women, are naturally attracted to the most healthy and therefore attractive members of the opposite sex?”
Of course she hates herself. She is at war with reality, with creation and indeed, with God himself.
That is why she is a feminist.
There is nothing to be gained by casting pearls before swine. They are indeed destroyers and in love with death.
They should be shunned by the living. Period.
Pingback: The Great Douchebag Mystery | Truth and contrad...
A different take on the bra that opens itself: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/this-bra-that-only-unhooks-for-true-love-is-basically-a-chas
—
Let’s talk about forgiveness
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=874387
Not carping, 8oxer, just confused, by “Althusser predated” did you mean Master Niccolo? Brainfart?
Lyn87, without wanting any gory details or potential plot-spoilers, and changing the names to protect the innocent, I’m quite keen to know more detail of your remarks to the two lasses from work, in the sense of the ‘spirit’ or tone of the thing.
I couldn’t pull a stunt like that even with my bestest frendz from ladyland, and not provoke either an epic blubbing meltdown or shrieks of indignation and possible assault. IME when “attached” women spill their guts it’s a red flag, as they are doing it with a definite “here’s looking at you, kid” angle.
For instance when you pointed out to his wife that Check-Shirt Billy was a stand-up guy and salt of the earth, which he patently is, I kind of expected the Hamster to translate that to her as “Go back to your village, woman, and do not seek to rise above your station”, i.e. you’d be basically telling her she wasn’t good enough for the likes of the Guys in the Building. Cue 20 MT airburst in five ..
Also I understand although there are somewhat varying (cough) cultural definitions of what constitutes “a hard drinker” between your nation and mine, even so, catholic girls who don’t mind a glass or ten either as “responsible wives and mothers” or husband°ree-seeking hopefuls, in public, with non-related males, no matter how matey the work environment, well, again a Red-Square-parade sized flag. Tip of the iceberg is usually what you’re seeing. It’s always more, never less. Is the young lass her boozing-buddy?
Don’t apologize for the assumed thread derail, I’m still coming to grips with it not being a thunderous denunciation of a certain fuzzy-hat-supporting artiste. Brought here under false pretences, so I was ..
MarcusD, I’d like to see that bra-thing crossbred with a Tazer to have true “chastity-belt” effectiveness.
Useless device. It’s not like I’m going to fuck her tits. Leave that sort of thing to the French.
@Lyn87, useful field report. I can see it now: The sequel to “Lean In” for success is “Smile and Flick”.
livingtree’s reasoning boils down to.
1. Don’t be that guy. Son’t be a douchebag to get chicks, because NAWALT.
2. “In fact, there is nothing that makes a man any less attractive to me than this.” “I am the kind of girl who is attracted to nice guys, dorks, and nerds, completely unlike the 100% of other women who also claim the exact same thing. Don’t believe your lying eyes. The fact that all of my previous boyfriends were jerks proves that I’ve learned my lesson now.”
Just quick link to study that’s relevant to this discussion “The puzzle of monogamous marriage” http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657.full.pdf . It’s good paper on hypothesis that monogamous societies win over polygamous in cultural selection, because of better incentives for males to be productive in monogamous societies.
Lyn87, great read, enjoyed it much. One thing I am realizing, as I read more of these blogs, is that my take on women and their smv is quite skewed. I think it is where I reside, the weather here is quite mild and moist. The city is known for its outdoor activities and desire by most citizens to stay in shape.
I have always found Rollo’s famous chart hard to grasp, as I see beautiful women in their 40’s and early 50’s almost every day!
My wife, who turned 51 this year, is just starting to get the slack skin on her face. Hard to notice unless you look at her laying down. And she is not an anomaly.
Good for you that you can still turn heads and use that to hopefully help these woman mature.
Lyn87, in a thread last year a woman observed her relatives at family gatherings and one unhappy marriage stood out – a beta man marred to an average woman, but the average woman worked as an assistant of some sort in a law office. Hence her unhaaaapiness and a sexless marriage. Hypergamy at work, in both a figurative and literal sense.
As the economic crisis grinds on we can expect to see more of this, not less. Although in some scenarios the man who can deliver meat to a kitchen from the countryside with consistency will become quite valuable.
Alpha is often situational. Ironically, those “high powered” men in the government building your friend works with may well be hen-pecked betas at home, with wives who hypergamously look upward at some other even more “high powered” man. Good job on reminding her of her vows.
Life is more interesting when we know more and see more, isn’t it?
Did anyone else look at the photo at the link in the OP? I did last night and those women did not look like the most attractive ones being discussed. They did not seem thin, nor that attractive. Perhaps they look better after several drinks….
Dear Tam:
Althusser’s idea was that Machiavelli was an example of a praxis philosopher, predating Marx/Hegel. In part, Althusser might have been motivated by contempt for the kooky Marxists of his era who tended to pedestalize Uncle Karl and promote the idea that he was some sort of religious prophet who came up with all sorts of new stuff as though given a divine revelation. That’s my current theory, anyway. All great thinkers are revisionists who build upon the work done by others, and Althusser made a career out of laughing at the herd-thinker Marxists, so if this was his motivation, it wouldn’t be new to this particular lecture.
I think there’s something to that. The Prince is a manual for changing the world, rather than an attempt to explain it.
Anyway, good conversations lately. Thanks also to my fellow member of the Frankfurt School, GBFM, for reminding us to read the classics.
http://www.institute.freudians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Adorno-and-Horkheimer-Odysseus-and-myth.pdf
Regards, Boxer
How women, and LT, hope their argumentation will work:
Pingback: The Appetites | Something Fishy
Tam,
In answer to your queries (but not in the order you asked)… The single young Latina is, indeed, drinking buddies with my married friend. I suspect that one of Her Majesty’s Loyal Subjects such as yourself would not consider either one to be hard drinkers compared to the slatterns I occasionally see in The Guardian, but I’ve seen my friend drink enough to put me into a stupor and remain coherent (she’s a cocky drunk), and the little Latina (barely half my body weight), sat two feet from me and downed a quantity of tropical hootch that would have made me have to think about each step while walking in order to avoid tripping over a curb. It had no discernible effects on her as the two of us took a walk and had a conversation along the way. Then again, I’m a fairly conservative Protestant and only drink alcohol in small quantities – when I drink at all. I certainly do not have the tolerance I had as a young Cadet or Lieutenant.
My relationship with my friend is… complicated. She’s a senior Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) in our reserve component, but when we worked together she did so in a civilian capacity. I, on the other hand, was in uniform as a field-grade officer at the time (since retired). She came to work in civilian clothes, while the unit she drilled with (once a month) with was four hours away. In fact, I never saw her in uniform before last week. Still… rank is rank whether on duty or not, and I am far above her in the hierarchy. In the U.S. we don’t have nearly as much separation between officers and non-coms as you do in the U.K.. What you might consider fraternization in your country would be hanging out with the people I work with here. The place where we worked was something of a brain-trust, and the coin of the realm was intelligence rather than rank: as a Major at the time I had three Lieutenant-Colonels who answered to me. But I was an outlier even among the outliers there. My I.Q. has been measured at 0.5 StDev above the estimated I.Q. of a certain Mr. Einstein – I say that without any sense of pride: I have no more control over that than I have over my eye color… it’s just the way God made me. There are numerous corollaries associated with such giftedness – and several of them are distinctly unpleasant – but one thing that is not is that I get to speak in plain English without the people who know me getting offended. It’s sort-of like the exchange in the movie “No Way Out” when Lt. Cmdr. Farrell makes a comment on the lack of social graces of the Secretary of Defense. His aide’s response is,” He’s a genius. The normal rules don’t apply.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GyAcr1BrNA). When I pointed out that my friend’s marriage was not something she had the right to throw away, I did so in terms of her professed Catholicism. She may not be a very devout Catholic at present, but as a senior NCO she understands the serious nature of oaths. I wasn’t abrasive, but I was unambiguous. I also couched it in terms of the fact that I care enough about her to lay it on the line. I knew she would not get offended – our relationship has not place for histrionics. I scaled my initial response back – not because I was afraid of a melt-down, but because I didn’t want to overplay my hand. What I wanted to say was, “Your husband is a decent man and a good father, and you took an oath before God, and if you turn your sons into divorce-orphans I’ll hunt you down myself.”… but the time didn’t seem right for that. The day to say that may come, but it hasn’t yet.
As for the possibility that she may have been signaling availability – I didn’t see that at all. She likes my wife, we have several mutual friends, and she knows how seriously I take my marriage vows, so it’s not like it would go anywhere anyway. If we were both single it might have played out differently, I suppose – but since we are not… even if she was interested she knows that I’m off limits to her. Overall, we have great fun together (marriage-counseling episode excepted, of course), and we greatly enjoy each other’s company, but we do not flirt with each other at all. Other than the fact that she tends to wear very low-cut blouses (which may well mean nothing), I did not notice any IOI’s, even when she’d been drinking.
Holy crap, that is SO true. All the people I work with are relatively high-ranking military retirees, and all of them unashamedly acknowledge their subordination to their wives. I was blown away when one of them said something like this the other day (paraphrased), “Every guy I know who thought he was in charge is divorced. Every guy I know who is still married realizes that his wife is in charge.”
Wow. So it’s come to this.
I was going to mention that I and my wife acknowledge my headship – and we’ve been married more than a quarter-century – but it seemed pointless to argue the point at the time.
Thank you.
@Lyn87
Perhaps the lack of male initiation rituals results in the male’s incomplete separation from mother of which he sought approval all his life:
http://no-maam.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/philalethes-6-in-womens-image.html
Hence despite all efforts to be alpha he is easily flattened by his wife. Those men deep down are still boys.
Escoffier, I’ll give this another try, though by the general responses to my last attempt I assume it will again result in an acute case of “see no evil.”
But first, I swear to you that I am not trying to lecture anyone, or blame men for the worlds problems, or divert the conversation. Though I know many of you are taking my words that way, that could be because of my tone or my gender or because I told you that I’m a feminist and you have all sorts of assumptions about what that means. But it is not my intention. I am trying to discuss with you, an group of people who are clearly capable of depth of thought and consideration, the thought process behind behavioral rationalization.
I see this particular form of rationalization repeated so often, as I’m sure you do as well, that it makes my head hurt, considering how untouchable it is, and frankly it surprises me how resistant you folks are to addressing it with me.
The thing I find contemptible is NOT the of douchebags, as you suggested, NOR do I take issue with the fact that men are interested in obtaining sex. Its normal, its lovely, and yes, mostly everyone wants it. But I think its pretty clear that douchebags have transmuted getting sex into their singular value, at the cost of everything else they may have valued in life. Vice article in question articulated point this well. What is contemptible is the rationalizing that so-called “good men” (pre-douchebag) do when observing said douchebags obtain the booty by whatever means.
Those “good men,” are observed here quite as a matter of routine, are using rationalizations 1, 2, 3, and 4 (which were couched within Dalrock’s statement) mentioned above to justify obtaining something of value at the expense of all other values. And that is where the red flag goes up. There is no self-awareness in it, only acceptance of a flawed acquisition strategy with considerable cost. It is the justification for the greedy opportunism which defines our modern culture, the same ones which you claim to despise in women.
The rationalizations are perfectly rational, and maybe even true (that’s debatable of course). But dangerously reactive.
Of course this statement is equally applicable to women, on women’s rights forums, about women’s behaviors, just as it is here, to you, about men’s behaviors. For today, I’m talking to you, men (since you are the majority here), about the oft-repeated and ill-founded words that are printed here in black and white, every single day. I know from reading your words that you understand intrinsically where the problem rests, it just seems that the legacy of gender-based dialogue is to blame the other team, divide and conquer, while overlooking the same problem in ourselves. Dalrock is no different. Rationalization #3 and #4 are common themes here, at Rollo’s site, and pretty well a common thread all through the manosphere.
Sorry I didn’t proof read my choppy sentences before I posted that.
@Lyn87
The faux-patriarchy of America is an old problem:
http://gynocentrism.com/2013/09/04/gynarchy-in-america/
“My husband is the head of the household but I am the neck that turns the head”
-an american housewife.
So, it’s OK when the genuine or born or natural DBs act douchey to get sex, but when NiceGuys adjust to market reality, they are contemptible? Where have I heard this before …
In any case, I would of course agree that a man who makes the pursuit of pussy the overarching goal of his life is contemptible, but that is because I believe in God, morality, natural right, the virtues, and the value of tradition. On what basis do you find them contemptible?
@ livingtree2013
“Strength of men, love, and virtue of reasoning are for men who have not succumbed to their own weakness. Read some Marcus Aurelius. Some men’s weakness is giving women what they want, this is true, but that can’t be said in every case. Some men’s weakness lies in a hedonistic self-delusion of their own impressiveness, and in the state of pure hedonism (aka douchebag), the freedom and confidence of it attracts many followers, men and women alike.”
You seem to forget that my post specifically included dads, granddads, and men of renown in history as the benchmark to aspire to. These are the men of your “Strength of men, love and virtue of reasoning“. Do you really think that the men you are referring to in their hedonistic lifestyle aspire to be like the men I mentioned? Because the men I mentioned have set out to understand themselves first, including understanding their weaknesses and making them strengths. Your version of men in their “freedom and confidence” is nothing than a self delusion that they feed themselves and that society feeds them. Example of the man you are referring to is Oscar Pistorius. The bad boy for the women and darling to society when everything goes right and a crying little helpless baby when it matters.
“You should be glad of it, too, because looking at the pictures in that Vice article, and the captured decadence of nightclubs and spring break, even though some might be “hot”, it looks pretty apparent to me that these are not women you want. Its more than obvious that they could look up to *no man*. Can you not see that?”
And why should I care what any of these women do? If they are under the illusion that they are independent and don’t need a mans leadership in a relationship then it is their problem not mine. I take care of me and mine and if she is not mine (aka submit) I have no responsibility for what she does. And that is the why women today are scared of your *Strength* men . Because their conquests differ from what most men aspire and they don’t know how to act like proper women in that situation and it makes them uncomfortable.
Well I better call up the professional kidnapping service for LT on a one way trip to Afghanistan. 😀
The Difference Between Dalrock / Vox (Christianity=butt & gina tingzlzoozoz not Moses/Jesus) and Heartistes (Christianity requires women to act in a Christian manner) & Great Men on the Great Books for Men!
The Difference Between Dalrock and Heartistes & Great Men on the Great Books for Men!
While Heartiste understands that the true Christian context hath been destroyed and that game is one of the only ways to survive with women until things change, Dalrock wants to replace the true Christian context with gamey gamezlzlzozo, which is why he stipulates that “Christians need game,” as opposed to stating, “Christians need Christ who came to Fulfill the Law of Moses (Which Dalrock falsely teaches that Christ came to abolish).” Because women have violated the Christian contract by leading with their butt and gina tinzgzlzlzozz and fornicatiinzg instead of following God, Man, and Honor, Dalrock commands all the men to man up, get in line, and learn to serve those butt and gina tinzgzlzlzo so as to keep the women from stealing the children and their assets. In the name of Churchianity, Dalrock has thrown in the towel on Natural Law, God, Christ, and Moses, and placed his faith in gaming da tinzgzzlzo butztz zztzzonzzlzl.
Heartiste does not state that “Christians need game,” but rather he points out that with all the butetehxtxing fiuckcingz suckingz going oionz zlzlozoz with women fornicatingz forniiciatzing and acting on butt and ginata tainzgzlzzoozo, women are simply not behaving in a Christian manner. While Dalrock wishes to rewrite the Christian contract, so that it includes and exalts his gamey gamezlzozo and sevresz butt and gingz itnglzlzoz, Heartsiste sees that women have broken the Christian contract, and thus, all bets are off. Rahther than teaching the Law of Moses which Jesus Came to Fulfill, Dalrock teaches da law of da butt and gina tingzlzolzozo, while teaching that Jesus came to abolish the Law of Moses, to make way for da rule of da dalorckkain tinzgzlzlozoz.
Long story short, while HEartistse sees that for men and women to kneel before god, women must also kneel before god, Dalrock stipulates that it is OK for women to rise and follow thier butt and gina tainzgzlzlzlzoz, but then men must stay kneeling, not only before god, but before the womenz butt and ginz tingzlzozoz tinzgzzlozoozozlzooz omgz zlzozolzolzoozz.
And while Dalrock continues his long march ogf deconstruction and destruction through the halls of westerrn civilizationz, exalting in his purple robe and gamey bathoils and chainsz in the midstz of his flock of fatherless franakfartian followers who have flocked to Dalrock to learn of glorious da butt and gina tingzlzlzozo which replaced the law of moses which dalrock tells them jesus came to abolish, here is what the GReat Menz said abdout da Great Booksz for Mensz:
http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/the-difference-between-dalrock-christianitybutt-gina-tingzlzoozoz-not-mosesjesus-and-heartistes-christianity-requires-women-to-act-in-a-christian-manner-great-men-on-the-great-books/
lzozozozozozoz
livingtree2013 says:
Those “good men,” are observed here quite as a matter of routine, are using rationalizations
Maybe the “good men” are getting sick and tired of being played for fools, and what you call rationalization is simply a recognition of the reality that they have painfully accepted.
One of a woman’s greatest fears must be that she will fall for a man and sleep with him — even marry him — and then find out he was faking the cool and was really just a Nice Guy all along.
Des:
I assume you mean this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
and not this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius
Correct?
Cail, I recall reading elsewhere several ladies all agreeing that one of the worst things about our contemporary SMP is how so many truly nice guys act like DBs because they mistakenly think the have to. The conversation went on to share tips on how to see the true niceness underneath so that girls could find those guys and avoid the true DBs.
Brad, you’re spot on there. With my ethnographic hat on, quick upsum of first pic.
Holiday venue, almost certainly in the Baleares, in a mega-club of some sort (i.e. tourist containment dome, where the Englishmen and mad dogs can suffer the after-effects of midday sun without grossing-out the fiercely proud and easily offended locals too much, while relieving them of their dole-money or minimum-wage savings). The girls on the rail, in fact all visible females, are basically total heifers, the excessive blonditude whether au naturel or aided indicating a more south-easterly origin within the island, otherwise I’d have said Tees-side or south Wales. Everyone is fantastically tanned for a Brit who in general, like middle blondie (just off the RyanAir) and myself, tan about as well as earthworms.
They’ve been there for months. The boys are bang-to-rights chavs, i.e. what used to be called the upper-ish working-class, before every job of that sort in the land was exported or migrant-ised. I doubt there’s a tertiary education cert. among the lot, apart from BTECs in car-repair and cat-grooming. And the lads fill their days with probably excessive-for-their-age-and-size lifting, for which they will pay an achey-breakey price when they’re an old fossil like me. For Brits (if that is what they are) they’re astoundingly knobbly and ripped.
The second pic is more recognisable as average young Brits in a venue, with the girl and the check-shirt photo-bomber on the right looking very much normal for kids I know. This lot are about a half-notch of class above the Ibizan beast-people in #1, university material and possibly even lower-middle-class. Morrisey and his lantern-jawed mestizo mate on the left may or may not be ghey, not just acting up for the camera. Advanced age and tattoos says yes, scruffiness says no.
Photo 3? ‘Nuff said.
And the last. Just London pub/club people. Don’t know nuffink abaht ’em. They can’t help it, they’re just like that. It’s a Lahndan Fing. Again obvious proles, or plebs, as our politicians call us in heated moments.
TBH I think “Clive Martin” is talking out of his myopic metrosexual hipster arse, but then I would say that, wouldn’t I?
@Cail, “faking the cool” is my new goal.
Well, yes. Women have this right to say ‘No’ Livingtree, you might be familiar with the concept, being an avowed feminist and all.
Men also have the right to say ‘No’ too, however the deployment of this ‘No’ is apparently something that needs ‘correcting’ in society, since it’s generally responsible for ‘objectification’, eating disorders, and spinsters wondering where all the good men have gone.
Cail Corishev
One of a woman’s greatest fears must be that she will fall for a man and sleep with him — even marry him — and then find out he was faking the cool and was really just a Nice Guy all along.
Therefore, the more of a jerk he acts even after they start sharing quarters, the more of a real man he is. Not bothering to work for money would be a big step in that direction. So women could have househusbands, as long as they are caddish enough. Plus as a bonus, a man who doesn’t have anything for her to steal is pretty much frivorce-proof.
Of course teh wimmenz will stamp their feet and insist that some penniless, layabout man who sponges off of them is not what they want, yet he’s a logical conclusion of many common female choices. Clearly giving too many choices to women is not a good idea, in the long run.
@Dalrock
Are all comments when submitted under moderation or is moderation a one time event?
[D: With some exceptions (caught by the askimet spam filter, on the moderation list or meets the threshold for links) it is a one time event.]
http://life.nationalpost.com/2014/04/10/faked-sexual-satification-is-equally-evident-to-both-men-and-women-study/
So much for the [exclusively] “repressed women” myth.
Jesus have mercy, Escoffier, are you deliberately trying to be antagonistic to provoke me? Please, you are smarter than that, I know you know that’s not what I said.
“On what basis do you find them contemptible?” On the basis that rationalization of behavior creates the “market reality”, its a personal choice to see this market and place a higher value on that one thing over all other ‘things” in all other “markets”. The high price of gold does not mean that grain is worthless, only that every one wants the gold. Where will they be with all their gold when there is no grain producers left (metaphorically speaking, of course)?
THAT is the message. Priorities. You don’t need to be a believer in God, or a moral champion, to understand the value of grain.
Women still want Steady Eddie. They want him to show up for work every day and keep the economy going. They want him to pay his taxes to provide the welfare safety net that catches women when they make stupid choices. They want him to do all this while at the same time giving him no incentive to do this. Not every female is like this but enough are to form a major part of the leftist coalition in all the advanced industrial countries. What every part of this leftist coalition has in common is the irrational belief that people will do the right things without rewarding them.
LT2013,
You just moved the goalposts, probably unintentionally, and Escoffier’s question remains unanswered. Let me re-phrase it with the goalposts back where they started:
The economic analogy doesn’t work here, because the word “contemptible” is not a measure of utility – it is a statement of morality. You cannot compare a scale based on a continuum (economic value) with one that is based on a dichotomy (moral value). So if you reject the concept that fornication is a sin, then why would the feverish pursuit of it be contemptible, rather than simply lacking in societal utility?
LyingTree2013: so is the grain contemptible or is it mispriced? It’s cute the way you try to mix your ignorance of economics with your ever-shifting situational ethics, but not novel.
The grain is neither contemptible nor mis-priced. The gold is mispriced, and the desire to over-price the gold is contemptible. Was that not completely obvious? Why is this so confusing for you?
@MarcusD re: nationalpost article. I’m reading between the lines, and it seems obvious that men can feel it, so to speak, even if they can’t enunciate it. But apparently that wasn’t obvious to the women, thus making the study relevant in a way that the researchers didn’t want. What the researchers would have been satisfied with is clear from the fake conclusion they want to draw “The fact that quality of Communication was not important to the outcome therefore shows the importance of quality of Communication.”
I have to agree with Tam-the-Bam – now that he has pointed it out:
1. Low class land-whales being serenaded by local Gigolo types (Ibiza or Tenerife-Las Americas)
2. Lady Boy wannabe and friend (and two who wandered into photo)
3. Vain Poser – probably still a virgin, in fact a complete tosser
4. Progressive we-ain’t-waacist wanna-be Chugger Uni types either very Lower Middle or Upper Working
No sign of anyone called Emily or Chloe or Jeremy or Tarquin
No mistaking them for other than English. I would be very interested however to know whether this would be obvious to Americans.
lyingtree2013
The grain is neither contemptible nor mis-priced. The gold is mispriced,
Why do you believe this to be true? Perhaps because in your solipsism, you insist that everyone should be just like you, hmm?
and the desire to over-price the gold is contemptible.
What if the price of gold is determined by what people are willing to pay for it, from their own pocket, without being ordered to do so?
Or to put it another way, is the law of supply and demand also contemptible, to you?
Was that not completely obvious?
It is obvious that you do not understand price mechanisms or morality. But you do like the attention…
Why is this so confusing for you?
Oh, the irony…
I would pick out the people in photos 1, 2, and 4 as Brits, but the guy in photo #3 could easily be an American frat boy as far as I can tell. As for the classes: we don’t have the same fine gradations on this side of the pond. When we think of “class” we tend to think more of behavior than the economic position of their families, and certainly more than anything inherited at birth. So… from my late boomer / early Gen X perspective: basically, all of them are pretty low on the “class” continuum, although the poser could easily come from a family in the top economic quartile. The others? Not so much. Rich American kids are getting ink, but usually by the square inch rather than by the square yard.
Boxer, I’ve not read that book.
I did a little skim and it sounds to me like Althusser is on to something. I would certainly agree about Machiavelli being a “praxis philosopher” and would go even further. Machiavelli is the first philosopher who argues for breaking the ancient taboo against philosophy getting directly involved in human affairs (see Plutarch’s Marcellus on this point). Machiavelli argues that philosophy should rule, not as philosopher-kings a la Plato, but as the rationalist-scientist “legislators” who set the terms and build the institutions and then let statesmen do the work (and believe they are acting independently).
Regarding “history,” I see the germ of Hegel in Machiavelli but there are several steps in between. Machiavelli’s denial of the natural sociality of man, and his insistence that all societies—that is, all particular societies and society in general—are founded on crime, these are the twin roots of the “state of nature,” which in turn becomes the root of “history” after Rousseau transforms the state of nature.
So, I think there is something there. I haven’t read Hegel in a long time and it’s not by my bed these days …
I mostly agree with Livingtree’s comment at 11:36 am, except for:
” What is contemptible is the rationalizing that so-called “good men” (pre-douchebag) do when observing said douchebags obtain the booty by whatever means. ”
It’s hard to condemn a starving man for stealing bread. Even the best of men can be worn down by life.
“we don’t have the same fine gradations on this side of the pond. When we think of “class” we tend to think more of behavior than the economic position of their families, and certainly more than anything inherited at birth” Mmm, right enough. It’s more than likely that a couple of hitchhiking heritable factors are at work here (Airstrip One).
First is that the small scale of the various nationlets marooned, for the sake of humanity, on the Outer European Reef means they are basically a series of not-particularly-interconnected, enormously extended families. Let’s take the latest date of say, the Black Death, as a cutoff or bottleneck, although the genetic isolation of the various provinces extends as far back as one might fancy. Mainly due to uncompromising and bitter mutual hatred, as well as language difficulties.
Therefore it is a basic and unconscious reflex, indeed survival skill, that even the dimmest can sense whether or not a face is of one group or another, due to inbred family resemblances as much as anything. I can tell not only Irish and Scots apart, walking down the street, but also Catholic and Protestant. Same with Welsh, East Anglians whatever.
Obviously the NuBrits from wherever and Jews form their own sub-tribes. Eastern Euros (the last deluge) stand out like turnips at a cabbage-festival, and it’s not just their very dubious taste in clothes, and chainsmoking. They of course can’t understand it, and complain mightily “But how? We are White, like you! Not like (wait for it ..!) all these Immigrants!”. LOL
Second is that economic success (and until very recently, consequent reproductive success) is still very much predicated on social class which is highly heritable, just not in a biological way. And minutely bound up with landownership since the Legions evac’ed, probably.
So certain kingroups tend to settle in almost caste-like hereditary social strata dependent on military fortune, mental aptitude and just plain dumb luck. Over generations and generations.
‘Er Indoors was startled (not for the first time, nor the last) when looking at old Victorian photos of local agricultural shows (don’t ask!).
She was decrying in run-of-the-mill Guardianesque tropes about the local aristo showing up in a shitty old tweed number and no hat even then, plainly disrespecting the beaming yokels all done up in their finery. “Same as he does now”, I said. Grabbed the local paper “Look, here’s the same event 130 years later, and still a crappy old Norfolk jacket, gumboots and ripped corduroys. It may be the g-g-grandson of the geezer in the Daguerotype, but it wouldn’t matter if he turned up in a pink tutu or a shellsuit. Every time he gets out of bed in the morning, he’s always got the Duke of ******’s head on.” And folded the paper to compare with the old sepia thing. “Same guy. Must be a 200-y.o. vampire, eh? Or maybe, just maybe, men look like their fathers?”
And the same applies to bankers, or binmen.
So between inherited and difficult to shake local accents, odd inbred familial traits that slip into one’s awareness subliminally, and social standing determined by ability, legacies and acceptable religious brands, it is even now still possible to pull a Henry Higgins or a Holmes, and pinpoint someone as (initially) HibernoBrit/unHibernoBrit, posh/unposh, Celt/unCelt, and then so on down the fractal microhierarchies of The Septic Isle.
Oh my gosh quelle derive. Pardon.
Tam,
I was at a party some years ago and met a young woman from the commonwealth. As we were chatting I asked her where she was from. She insisted that I take a guess first. I ruled out, Irish, Scottish, Aussie and Kiwi right away, but English didn’t seem quite right, either. I thereby pronounced her to be Welsh, at which point she looked surprised. She was English, after all, but lived near the Welsh border. I was pretty proud of myself, but I have to bow before your more discerning eye. Not bad for a colonist, though, eh?
Anyway, it turns out that I may be over there this fall. I went to a Scottish fest with the women I mentioned up-thread, and my wife feigned jealousy when I sent her photos from my phone. Since we have been kicking the idea around for about two years, I suggested that we just buy the tickets and go already. I plan to see the battlefields at Stirling (where you guys were stymied), Falkirk (where you did much better), and Bannockburn (where you got your heads handed to you). My wife also proposed a trip to Hadrian’s Wall, and maybe the home of a famous writer or two. I’d also like to see Runnymede and, of course Hastings, if it won’t take up too much time. How long is it from Edinburgh to London, anyway?
@Deti,
But wait, Dalrock.
You imply that men become douchebags because women like douchebags.
There are some tradcons, though, who ridiculously claim that women like douchebags because lesser men “look up to” douchebags.
AKA Zippy.
So according to tradcons, it’s the non-douchebags’ fault that women like douchebags.
“Tradcons” meaning Zippy, and possibly some of his readers.
But anyway, why do you act like this is such a ridiculous notion? Women like status and power, and if men put douchebags on a pedestal it gives them status and power. It’s a pretty straightforward and eminently defensible correlation.
I don’t know if it’s TRUE, but it’s certainly worth some exploration.
@Lyn87
No, you do NOT want to see ‘astings, you really don’t (nor do you want to meet the people who live there). Neither will you find that the home of the late John Logie Baird – the man who invented Telly – has been turned into a Museum; it’s owned by the Council, utterly run down and inhabited by benefit claimants (trust me, I know) nor that Greyowl chap either. If you mean that you want to see the scene of the famous Battle, then make for Battle (obviously that was why William the Bastard chose the place – but of a giveaway really). Not that there is anything to see other than rolling hills and the Abbey built there.
I’d recommend Culloden.
Allow me to translate from feminism to red-pill manosphere.
For the guys who just want to get laid…
Livingtree is a fat girl. Or an ugly girl. Or both. And as a result, guys don’t put all that much effort into pursuing her because they don’t want to f-ck her.
Livingtree is saying that sex with her is equal to sex with a skinny, beautiful, woman. Men overvalue the sex with the skinny beautiful woman and alter their behavior much too much in pursuit of the skinny beautiful woman. Men overvalue that sex over the sex they can get with average or even ugly women.
For the Christian men who are waiting for sex within the bonds of Holy Matrimony 2.0….
Livingtree is a fat girl. Or an ugly girl. Or a fat girl who isn’t virgin. Or an ugly girl who isn’t virgin. Or a divorced fat girl. Or a divorced ugly girl. Or a fat girl who doesn’t worship God or believe Christ is her Savior. Or an ugly girl who doesn’t worship God or believe that Christ is her Savior. Or all of those. And as a result, Christian guys don’t put all that much effort into pursuing her because they don’t want to marry her.
Livingtree is saying that marriage to her (because she is so smart and educated even if she is fat, ugly, financially broke, and possibly divorced or at least not virgin) is equal to marriage with a skinny, beautiful, virginal, never-married-Christian, woman. Christian men overvalue the marriage with the skinny, beautiful, virginal, never-married-Christian, woman and alter their behavior much too much in pursuit of the skinny, beautiful, virginal, never-married-Christian, woman. Christian men overvalue that marriage over the marriage they can get with average or even ugly women or born-again-virgin-and-former-fat-slut.
It is not obvious and is very confusing because you have not properly defined the MOTIVES of the douchebags in being douchebags, nor have you properly defined just how important those motives are to them. It is quite obvious they are not important to you. But once again, all of this is about you. You can’t put that part down because you are feminist and to a feminist, only your own personal comforts matter.
“Not bad for a colonist, though, eh?”Well Lyn, that was either (i) dead lucky or (ii) as good as I could do. As I said it does take a lot of rigorously enforced practise. Rather like the war-bow. Nothing like skittering down a back close age thirteen with the Y M Team and their malkies on yer tail to sharpen up one’s social scanners for the next round.
I don’t know which way to cop for it on the various battles you listed. Y’see, despite being an irredentist ScotchJockKiltie-man, I’m not a Gael, by all that’s clean and decent and thanks be to on high. Technically I’m mixed-race, i.e. Anglo-Norman on both sides in the paternals. Like Walter the Steward, John Balliol, Robert Brus and all the others. But not William le Waleys/Wallace, he’s CambroNorman and Scots on his mother’s side (I.e. Inglis-Scots, translocated Englanders, like his outraged sweetheart Marion Bradefute/Broadfoot (not uncommon local name, when I was in junior school, one girl in my year same entire name. Deliberately). In fact Wallace’s grandpa was from Oswestry, like ‘Er Indoors’es grandpa, as I pointed out after she’d been on the end of some mild office-based anti-English taunting. Anyway, yer orright, Scousers ain’t English, I consoled her. Or even human.
And at the time of the Wars of Independence my entire family on both sides was (mostly) based south of The Wall (some in Aberdeenshire, Lauderdale and Galloway though) in fact until after Flodden (a very remote maternal relative *allegedly* cough cough slew the Earl of Huntly there (a Gordon, like limpy Byron sort of wasn’t), and carried off his banner to hang in his chapel. Amazing what you can find lying about unattended in a war, eh?).
The last I heard the Walter Scott place wasn’t too shabby, Burn’s House used be a near fallen-down toilet when I was a kid but it’s apparently been spruced up marvellously, there’s “Wicked Uncle Gavin” (his nephew apprised me, the mind boggled) Maxwell’s place, you can even stay there I believe (Mochrum, I think Elrig is a bit ruinous now), I don’t know if James Hogg even has a memorial.
Then, ‘doon bye’ there’s, er .. er, Beatrix Potter at the back of Windermere, and Wordsworth I suppose.
E’burg to That London? How long’s a piece of string? Technically it’s 350 miles and maybe eight hours (and a tank of gas exactly) in my dear departed Mk1 Astra of yore, before there were a lot of GATSO cameras. Yes I know what it says on bastard Google maps and the AA etc. Lies and fantasy. Like the trains. Loads of stuff is either speed-controlled (with aggressive CCTV and copcar enforcement) for alleged repairs and public safety as the infrastructure continues to crumble, or diverted, or plain non-existent. Rich folks get the scheduled helicopter from the Thames to Turnhouse. Don’t even think about the airports, you could die of old age and famine just waiting.
Personally I’d get a hire car with Dutch plates if you can swing it, left-hand drive like you lot so no wild excursions into the door-pocket in a fraught situation, people are used to them tooling around on vaction here, know they’re cool drivers/people generally, and give them plenty of room, with none of the mad panic-stricken maneouvres to OhShitMustGetT/FOutTheWayBeforeWeDie! that say French or Eastern Euro plates trigger among the natives. And you won’t be suspected of rustling swans or sheep.
And for deffo get a SatNav, the roads are an illogical mediaeval nightmare and loads of old rural signage/streetnames were either removed or worse, deliberately mis-sited to confuse German paratroopers or something, and never got put back, you’ll end up knocking on the door of “The Slaughtered Lamb” in the middle of the night . On t’moors, in a rainstorm. With an owl! OWWWoooooOOOOOOOOOoooo!
Just an old Tomtom with a UK card off of Ebay UK or the like, maybe twenty thirty notes sterling if sent to a UKanian poste-restante should do, things don’t change around much, SD card can be as old as you like. Absolute life and mind-saver. And try to stay off the “motorways” [lol, linear carparks more like]. I do, for safety and sanity. And because I like to be able to take a piss or have a pint when I feel like it.
Oh dear, am I rambling, nurse?
I’d better just give up on the style tags, eh?
“I’m not like other girls.”
—All girls
@Lyn87
I have to contradict Tam the Bam not on the distance between Edinburgh and London (he’s probably right not that I would know as I have never ventured beyond the Watford Gap) but because you do NOT want to use Sat Nav. Sat Nav may take you the shortest way (that is all it knows) but it does not know that it will be taking you down the narrowest, windiest, worst-maintained slowest roads, probably blocked with sheep or cows and probably across or into rivers and streams which weren’t there in summer when it was mapped. Neither does Sat Nav know about the charges for driving in or through London, and if it does it will doubtless re-route you through Much-binding-in-the-Marsh, and places like Trottiscliffe which when you get lost will be of no use to you as the natives pronounce it Trosley and will not know what you are talking about, even if they understand your accent. I’d follow the signs though they tend to be confusing; I was once stopped by a trucker in London asking directions to Dover – I ask you, any road south will do. Stick to the trains; there is a station at Battle (on the way to SLOS and Hastings and Ore).
I would also add that despite Dr Beechings best efforts England is still criss-crossed with a rail network considerably more extensive than you would be used to in Texas. Let the train take the strain.
Dalrock,
GBFM just posts here to attack you. Just the same thing over and over and over again. Telling Christians to follow the jewish law of moses. Strange.
Just ban GBFM already. He has his own blog. GBFM can attack Dalrock all he wants on his own blog, but he shouldn’t be allowed to post his nonsense on Dalrock’s own blog.
You asked so nicely, Lyn87, it almost seems like you’re interested in a real dialogue rather than waiting for an opportunity to go defend a position I didn’t question, so I will graciously comply!
Economics is a study of the measurable outcomes of the relationship between supply and demand. Supply and demand create scarcity, and scarcity is the driver of valuation. There is nothing contemptible about this. However, scarcity is, surprisingly often, created by psychological/sociological factors (which is why economics is a social science) such as perceived value, which has nothing to do with rationality.
http://blogs.technet.com/b/bizspark_group_blog/archive/2013/06/14/consumer-decisions-through-scarcity-and-the-perception-of-value-by-yu-kai-chou.aspx
You with me so far?
As has been said more than once here, it is man’s primal need to have sex (rationalization #1), which is totally acceptable and understandable (rationalization #2), but it is not acceptable for women, since women set the price (rationalization #3). Successfully managing to accomplish said goal has no bearing whatsoever on men’s character (rationalization #4) no matter how he accomplishes it, because… rationalization #1. An infinite loop, and a pretty brilliant strategy, actually.
It works so well that pretty much any sexual behavior at all by men is justifiable by this rationalization process (except non-participation), and I see this justification being used daily in the manosphere. The clincher is that when women behave the same way that men do, this whole rationalization process falls to pieces because… devaluing sex somehow devalues men. The whole process hinges on rationalization #3 – the value that service provider places on the commodity. The rationalization is entirely predicated on the irrational belief that the future of civilization rests upon women making men perform for sex like circus animals, in order to an artificially valued abundant commodity that has NO intrinsic worth, and to do so we need women to uphold the sanctity of something that you know full well is primal.
The rationalization process is what creates this artificial value. It is “rationalizing” an irrational behavior choice, satisfaction of an addictive compulsion which we are prepared to sacrifice everything to get, while avoiding the fact that the predicate of the rationalization is a false premise. And yes, I find this contemptible. Not only contemptible, but illogical, to the point of being stupid. It is the thing I find most contemptible about the human race.
You’re angry with me for that, I can tell. 🙂
Meanwhile it seems, by articles like this fear-inducing Vice one (among thousands of others) that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but in reality, it looks as though the people who are fucking like animals are in the small minority, and apparently nowhere near as rampantly as the morality brigade tends to fear. http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/13/the-truth-about-college-hookups/
Fair shout, Opus. It’s just that it works well enough in Caledonia. Mainly on the grounds that there aren’t many roads at all, and even those don’t go anywhere in particular. There is a railway, I believe. Somewhere.
Ha, there you go, I looked it up, and it’s 400 miles to The City of Perdition. Seemed a hella lot shorter in the ol’ battlewagon with the windows down and metal on the cassette player.
Thanks, Gents. I’ll need a “British English to American English” translator to sort all that out, but I got the gist of it. I think Google has a translation function, eh, what?
The first sites I listed are within a stone’s throw of where we plan to stay, so that’s easy. Even Hadrian’s Wall isn’t all that far. The places farther south are on my bucket list, but may have to wait until another time. I can drive on the left side of the street and shift with my left hand well enough, but eight hours (each way!) on winding British cow paths is more than I care to contemplate. I didn’t realize it was so bad, but maybe that’s because all I really know of your road system comes from watching Top Gear on BBC America. I was thinking more along the lines of taking a train, but I get the impression that’s a bad idea as well. Oh well… like the Deanna Durbin song says, “There’ll always be an England” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhUFVrdsd2A). (Funny that Ms. Durbin was Canadian… but, seriously, hubba-freakin’-hubba.)
Anywhoo… I’ve derailed this thread for long enough as it is.
LT, your 3rd paragraph falls apart completely.
First of all, there is a primal need (or want or drive) to have sex, but it exists for both sexes. You mention only the man’s, implying that the same does apply to women, because you want to disparage the male drive but exempt the female. Also, you apparently aren’t aware of the differences (most women aren’t) and so don’t understand what it’s like to have a male sex drive. Hence, since—as a woman—it’s easy for you to turn off or ignore yours when there is no male sufficiently attractive or high status in your field of vision, you assume it must be the same for men; but in fact it is not.
You don’t even attempt to explain how your point 2 is a rationalization, we are just to accept that as stipulated.
#3 does not make any sense at all. What is the “it” that is not acceptable for women? Wanting to have sex? If that’s what you mean, then you still don’t understand the issue at hand. Which is: what are the current criteria demanded by women in this market in exchange for sex? Husbandly hardworking decency? Or douchebaggery? The post argues the latter. That’s what you apparently object to: the argument that women have had any hand in this fiasco at all. You prefer to blame the men for responding to the market than blame the market for setting the terms.
And, no one has said 4. Insofar as this is a religious blog with commenters who believe in traditional morality (in the older, truer sense), nobody here believes that. We’re, again, just pointing out that the population of non-traditional, non-religious men (and some who are or think they are religious and traditional) will respond to market incentives, Which, again, are set by women.
I would go further and say that in an SMP like this, where douchebaggery is richly rewarded and homespun virtue is mocked and jeered, it takes high character and an iron will to stick to principle and not try for a personality downgrade in order to taste a little success. Especially when you see it working so well all around you.
@Malcomthecynic
As I’ve mentioned on Zippy’s site the notion isn’t entirely ridiculous. However, it isn’t a matter of good men mysteriously holding bad boys up as the men women should prefer over men like themselves. The part which is correct is that the continuous tearing down of the common good (but flawed) man has the result of further assisting bad boys. When Pastor Driscoll, Stanton, the Kendrick brothers, Dennis Rainey, etc. tear down the ordinary churchgoing family man they destroy the sense of status women would otherwise perceive with locking down a good man. Since there is no esteem for good men by our moral leaders, the bad men win by default. This isn’t about elevating bad boys though, it is about a male self loathing/self flagellation by the men in cultural leadership.
LT 2013,
Yes, yes, yes… nobody has perfect information and psychological factors come into play. I’m familiar with the concept – you might be surprised at how much that mirrors some aspects of Military Deception and Psychological Operations. But less Marx and more Hayek, please.
In the SMP / MMP both men and women are simultaneously both sellers and buyers… to different degrees, and with different currencies, but simultaneous buyers and sellers nonetheless. Your construct focuses on one aspect of the exchange – the things a man have to “give” to get a woman to open her legs for him. To say that human sexual relationships are more complex than that would be the understatement of the year.
Both men and women ask for and offer sex, commitment, resources, and a host of intangibles. What a man offers a woman sexually is different than what she offers him, while commitment means different things to different people as well. The exchange of resources is done using entirely different, non-convertible currencies, since a woman’s primary long-term resource is the use of her uterus. And don’t even get me started on the intangibles like love and status.
But the overall trend still holds: when it comes to sex, men are the primary pursuers and women are the ones pursued. With the advent of reliable birth control methods and the rejection of Judeo-Christian sexual mores, most women can now have all the sex they want as long as their standards are not too high for their SMV. As the ones pursued, that part of the market is dominated by female supply and male demand. Since demand far outstrips supply, women can charge pretty much whatever they like. If they demand commitment, steady jobs, picket fences, and mini-vans for guys to get in their pants, guys will procure and offer those things. But if they take those guys to the cleaners and offer it up to unemployed, preening douchebags with tattoos, fuzzy hats, and eye patches, they’ll find themselves surrounded by unemployed, preening douchebags with tattoos, fuzzy hats, and eye patches.
And if some high-quality Christian women don’t fall for the crap of that culture and demand high-quality Christian men, those people are likely to find each other. But a woman may not get away with being a whore in her 20’s and a sudden saint at 30. And a high-quality guy is not to be blamed or shamed for passing up a girl who’s been passed around.
Lyn87 to LyingTree2013
But less Marx and more Hayek, please.
She’s a 2nd stage Canadian feminist, I doubt she’s ever read Hayek or Marx, but top-down “do it because I say so” tyranny is intrinsic to her mindset. Combine that with a dogmatic ignorance of the differences between men and women and it becomes obvious that she is not here to debate or discuss, she’s here to try to shore up the rotting timbers under her bankrupt ideology.
And get attention from men, of course. She luvs her some attention.
The change in Britain over the last 35 years has indeed been dramatic. It used to be common to hear 22-year-old women talking about their forthcoming weddings. This is rare nowadays, as the graphs of marriage rates show.
The mention of gym membership is appropriate. 35 years ago gym membership was only for sportsmen and preening homosexuals. Now it is mainstream.
@livingtree2013
April 10, 2014 at 10:54 am
The strategy of the rational and capable, but moral, man is to fake some of the badboy attributes that women find attractive. If he is good at switching badboy behaviour on and off as required by the situation, he will be able to deliver extra tingles to women by letting them feel they can tame him.
@livingtree2013
April 10, 2014 at 2:19 pm
“New [social] contract please. One that is actually based on personal responsibility.”
If you look back through the archives you will see that this is what most of us are asking for. Why don’t we just haggle over the terms?
@Lyn87
April 11, 2014 at 10:53 am
“As for the possibility that she may have been signaling availability – I didn’t see that at all. She likes my wife, we have several mutual friends, and she knows how seriously I take my marriage vows, so it’s not like it would go anywhere anyway.”
This is one of the great benefits of taking marriage vows seriously. It is possible to have friendships that are much closer – dare I say “intimate” – because all parties know that certain lines will never be crossed.
Escoffier, I am re-reading the 2nd of Locke’s Two Treatises and with all respect, I ain’t seeing what you claim to be seeing. What Hobbes called “state of nature” Locke refers to as a “state of war” that is distinct from a state of nature, just for a start. In chapter III there is a section on self defense that I highlighted back in the 90’s and there is a clearly stated premise of a natural law that can be enforced either by a man or by magistrates, depending on the urgency of the issue.
If you are going to assert that Locke’s moral compass is bolluxed because of what happened to the US Constitution starting in the late 19th century, I’m going to find the rooster that brings up the sun every morning. If you are arguing that monarchy is the only workable government for humans, I have many, many, many failed kings to point to – how about Iturbide the Emperor? and if you wish to argue in favor of theocracy, there is a long record of dramatic failure there as well.
Locke and Burke have much to offer in terms of practical philosophy, and while I’m certainly unqualified to follow the footsteps of your teacher there would seem to be merit in the notion of Locke as a follower of Aristotle in modern terms.
Of course all of this is to some degree moot, as we are heading towards a narrower concentration of power, not a broadening of it. We are like sparrows nesting in a downspout.
To the extent that “lesser” men look up to douchebags, the main reason is that they see women loving the douchebags. So maybe that starts a bit of a feedback mechanism, but it starts with women being attracted to bad boys.
Consider it this way: if all other men stopped admiring douchebags, would women stop being attracted to them? Maybe a little, but not much. On the other hand, if women treated douchebags the way they currently treat nerdy video game players, other men would likewise treat them like losers.
The main reason the Fonz was cool was that he could snap his fingers and a girl would fall into his arms. Take that away, leave him unable to get a date for years, and suddenly the leather jacket and motorcycle don’t seem cool at all.
The surface of Locke contradicts Hobbes. This can be accounted for in part by the fact that Hobbes had a bad reputation which Locke sought to avoid. Locke in effect sought to sanitize Hobbes’ teaching and make it respectable and acceptable. And improve on it.
But down below, he is more in agreement. Locke at first seems to posit a state of nature much like Rousseau’s, one in which men are free and equal and don’t interfere with one another. But compare what he says in Sec. 14 with 19 and later 87 and 89. The definition evolves. Basically, Locke takes back the equation of the state of nature with a pre-political state of war in stages. First, he subtly admits that the state of nature is purely pre-political. It can exist at any time, and even exists right at the time of his writing. At one point he mirrors Hobbes exactly when he says that all princes or rulers are in the state of nature with respect to each other. Then he defines the state of nature as any state between two or more men who lack a common, acknowledged superior authority. This is the root of Hobbes’ definition. Finally, the direct opposition of state war v. state of nature is subtly withdrawn (155, 181, 232). He does not outright assert they are the same. Rather, he indicates that they are different in kind; they can be, and sometimes are, coexistent, but sometimes not.
As to Locke and the Progressive movement, no, no way was I asserting that. We can blame that on Hegel. Progressivism is a pestilence for which Locke bears no blame that I can see.
I am not trying to trash Locke. I love Locke. Locke is miles better than any thinker of the last 200 years. If we had stayed with Locke, despite whatever deep theoretical problems are down there in the trenches, we would not have these problems. No doubt we would have different problems, but IMO they would be much less bad. If we could simply have preserved what the Founders built, we’d be fine. Great even. That had, as I have said, four key intellectual sources: the best of the early moderns (Locke, Montesquieu, Sidney); the Bible; ancient philosophy; and the study of history. It’s a huge question how it all went wrong. I have my own hypotheses. But it comes down to modernity being a juggernaut that could not or at any rate was not overcome. And in the final analysis, Locke is a modern. And the pre-modern elements of the Founding in the end prove insufficient to withstand the tidal wave of modernity.
Or, I could put it this way. If modernity had stopped with Locke—this far and no further—we’d be fine. But it didn’t. And Locke’s own principle and foundations proved insufficient to withstanding further “modernization.”
Nor am I suggesting that monarchy is the only way. I am, following the ancients, a small “r” republican, but also like the ancients, I believe that republicanism—being the highest and rarest form of politics—depends fundamentally on circumstances, matter, and to some extent chance. It’s not possible in all times and places nor for all peoples. There are some instances when monarchy is the best that can be done. And when it is preferable to all practicable alternatives.
Another one of my teacher–a Machiavelli, Burke and Tocqueville scholar, principally–was once asked by a student, “Which philosopher is the wisest, whom should we follow or believe?” And he answered, “Locke in the short run, Aristotle in the long run.”
@Dalrock
The part which is correct is that the continuous tearing down of the common good (but flawed) man has the result of further assisting bad boys. When Pastor Driscoll, Stanton, the Kendrick brothers, Dennis Rainey, etc. tear down the ordinary churchgoing family man they destroy the sense of status women would otherwise perceive with locking down a good man. Since there is no esteem for good men by our moral leaders, the bad men win by default. This isn’t about elevating bad boys though, it is about a male self loathing/self flagellation by the men in cultural leadership.
Okay, so you’d say that you agree that good men being torn down is decreasing their MMV, but nothing is necessarily increasing the douchebag’s MMV?
“Correct?”
Yes, but that’s quite a story.
“Which philosopher is the wisest, whom should we follow or believe?” And he answered, “Locke in the short run, Aristotle in the long run.”
Let’s hope the student wasn’t a Keynesian.
“This isn’t about elevating bad boys though, it is about a male self loathing/self flagellation by the men in cultural leadership.”
When the day comes that enough men (and women!) recognize that its not themselves these assholes are flagellating, then shit will change. Not sooner.
One would hope that Dalrock of all people wouldn’t need that pointed out.
“Okay, so you’d say that you agree that good men being torn down is decreasing their MMV, but nothing is necessarily increasing the douchebag’s MMV?”
Women have been using SMV as a masculinity screen to make sure they don’t end up married to an emasculated schlub.
Only in that sense has the DB’s MMV increased. Likewise the MMV for sluts. If the “good” girrls aren’t feminine, they never make it to first base in the first place.
Olly,
“GBFM just posts here to attack you. Just the same thing over and over and over again. Telling Christians to follow the jewish law of moses. Strange.”
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…”
– Matthew 5:17-18
That Jesus, what a crazy Jew!
Check back with us when you can go two whole lines without proving GBFM’s point.
It’s a zero-sum game in a sense. We’ve all heard the joke about the two campers who see a bear moving toward them. One of them starts to change into running shoes. The other says, “You can’t outrun a bear.” The first guy says, “I don’t have to outrun the bear – I just have to outrun you!”
When guys like Driscoll, et al, tear down steady Christian men, it creates all sorts of bad because it makes them less desirable, relative to the douchebags. It blurs the distinctions that women see between the cads and the dads.
At the margins, more women will end up going to bed with douchebags, which incentivizes douchebaggery, disincentivizes good behavior, means that fewer women are suitable for marriage, and shifts the norms for the female “herd” away from the good men and toward the bad ones. Since men do what works, the cycle is complete… rinse, repeat. Or more appropriately, circle the drain one more time, since fornication is a sin, and this diabolical death-spiral de-links sex from marriage.
Not that the douchebags give a crap about their MMV anyway. All they care about is their SMV, which is what gets them laid. If women rewarded MMV with sex, guys would worry about that, but when all that matters is SMV – while guys with high MMV are ridiculed and betrayed – the result is nearly inevitable. That result is a race to the bottom, because that’s where the women are waiting with open arms and open legs.
Eventually we get to where we are now, with a critical mass of women who have ridden the carousel to the point of being unmarriageable.
Pingback: Dalrockasz Churchian Frnkfurt School Hard at Work in Destroying Western Civilization During Their Long March of Deconstruction Through The Soul. | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglz
@malcolmthecynic. Rhetorical questions aren’t for cynical purposes, especially when they are so answerable. You know what increases a douchebag’s sexual attractiveness to women” The douchebag’s sexual attractiveness to other women. NOTHING other men say or do about him really matters to women’s preferences; only what women say and do. In fact, the more other men tell women “You better stay away from him,” the more women will go after him. It doesn’t matter that you feign ignorance of this phenomenon: e.g. women seeking conjugal visits with serial killers. We know you know.
I might have been tempted to observe what an amazing blog is Dalrock: a blog which on this thread alone can shift between discussion of the finer points of John Locke (Grammar school educated i.e. not Upper Class or even Upper Middle, de-facto Patron Saint of America and a bachelor with some very strange ideas about child-upbringing) and the pertinent logistic features prevailing in the British Isles (so as to facilitate a Scottish American – as I take Lyn87 to be in his search for his roots – Root Searching being an entirely American and frequently imaginary preoccupation); but what I really observe (no matter how much it may be unpalatable to any number of commenters) is how so much written here seems to have a starting point in England. I certainly cannot and do not claim any credit for that but it seems to me that Anglo expansionism, aggressiveness and ingenuity (as well as its endless victories over the Scots) and the unusually high status and regard which it affords to the female sex (not that they either notice, acknowledge or appreciate that glaringly obviously fact) underlies the world we live in.
Political Correctness – often and understandably seen as being unfair to White Heteronormative Males – effectively underlines that Anglo domination and superiority over all it touches.
I’ll say one thing for sure Opus. Your dick is hard for England.
I think article channeled Whisky’s chav devolution prediction he made some 5 years ago.
That got me thinking: the tradcon position seems to work like this: women are going to find someone attractive. So if women are drawn to the “wrong” kind of men, the solution is to get rid of those kind of men or keep them away from women somehow. If we can just get rid of douchebags or legislate things in such a way that douchebags have to stop being douchebags, then women will go for nice guy accountants and shy computer programmers. That way we can make women pick the “right” guys without blaming women or holding them responsible for their own choices.
The logic there is okay — women do tend to go for dominant men, and dominance is somewhat relative — but it’s not absolute. Consider the opposite: if all the hot chicks start getting fat, some men will settle for fatter women. But they won’t all bother, and they won’t be happy about it. And the more fat women there are, the more competition there will be for the remaining hot ones.
So once again we see the parallel between the tradcon and the feminist: “get rid of douchebags” is the equivalent of “fat acceptance.” Help the nice guy/fat chick get a mate by getting rid of those who keep beating them in the marketplace.
Opus,
I am not Scottish, and neither is my wife. She is of Norse / Germanic descent (3rd generation American and no connection to her ancestral homelands). I am a mulatto in the original sense of the word: the first-generation offspring of a mixed-race couple. My father’s side of the family is itself a mix of Germans and Englishmen, while my mother’s side consists of a long line of Mexican peasants (technically Amerinds, I suppose). I, too, am 3rd generation American with no connection to my ancestral homelands. I am – culturally – a product of Western Civilization, so when we visited Greece to tour the battlefields of the Greco-Persian Wars, my first words to my wife upon landing in Athens were that I had finally arrived at my homeland. England holds a similar – if lesser – place of cultural prominence for me: as much of what came to be American culture was the result of British influence (Blackstone, for example). We like to visit the British Isles because they are interesting, picturesque, and we can muddle about on our own without a significant language barrier. We’ve been to Ireland twice – Scotland is next on the list. Sorry for the confusion.
As for Cail’s observation: that’s one way to look at things… if your goal is to always portray traditionalists in the worse possible light. Since male headship (in other words – patriarchy) is both Biblically-mandated, and the only system that has ever worked well, I think it deserves better treatment. Abandon that and feminist hegemony becomes (dare I say?) – inevitable. While feminism may have retained some aspects of traditionalism because it is in their benefit to do so (more on that later), that hardly makes them allies. It was the rejection of traditionalism that provided the soil in which feminism grew.
But yes, women are going to find someone attractive – just as men are, but the analogy to “fat acceptance” breaks down immediately, because female obesity is a turn-off for normal men, while male strength is a turn-on for normal women. Traditional patriarchs are strong (it’s practically in the definition), and women find that attractive. But sexual libertines are feminism’s natural allies among men, because women’s attraction triggers cannot easily discriminate between men who posses strength and men who only pretend to possess it. Women are, after all, the weaker vessel. Men fall for the obverse to a lesser degree, which is attributing generalized virtue to women whose only desirable attribute is physical beauty. We’ve all seen guys throw themselves into the wood-chipper for a pretty face – I know I have.
Patriarchy benefits everyone, and since feminism is an attempt to have everything good for women right now, regardless of what it means for anyone else or even for future women, it makes sense that feminists would retain some aspects of patriarchy. That’s why, for example, they cling to anything that lessens female responsibility. The traditional understanding was that women were less capable and forward-thinking than men, so they had less responsibility for their actions – but they compensated for that by limiting the spheres in which women had freedoms. Feminism keeps the “lessened responsibility” part because it enhances women’s abilities to make (bad) choices in the short term, while utterly rejecting the compensating constraints that traditionalists placed upon women’s authority. Some people call themselves traditionalists while – like feminists – only keeping parts of it. But the two sides are inextricably linked: agency must correspond to responsibility. I will join in mocking such people, but I will not accept that traditionalism (patriarchy) is the problem… it is manifestly not. There is little room in traditional thought for either cads or sluts, except insofar as they may find each other and pair off as best they can.
Traditionalism demands things of both men and women. Feminists choose the parts they like and reject the rest, as do male sexual libertines. Both hate traditional patriarchy – that should tell us something.
“Both hate traditional patriarchy – that should tell us something.”
And that is this: the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. The utter ignorance most tradcons display for the very traditions they claim to be conserving speaks volumes.
The bullshitter is worse than the liar in that at least the liar believes that truth exists enough to pretend to it. To the bullshitter, its irrelevant.
If this doesn’t apply to you, good; now turn down the solipsism long enough to ask yourself how well the Osteens and Driscolls stack up to the men and women who made you a tradcon in the first place. For that matter, as much as Dalrock’s work here is valuable, GBFM has a point in its lack of grounding in those traditions.
If you haven’t done your homework, well its the Modern condition in a nutshell – welcome to the club. Never too late to start.
@Lyn. Mulatto? Unless I am missing something, I don’t think so. Mexicans who are a mixture of European and Indian are known as mestizoes. I am surrounded by them.
Mulatto specifically, and has for centuries, referred to African / white mix. My best friend in the States is step-dad to mulattoes, and he calls them that. He is correct, but it always seems strange when he says it.
Since when do normal men look up to douchebags? “Why do jerkoffs get all the girls?” is miles away from “Wow, those jerkoffs sure are cool!”
TRP, good point. Sometimes normal men look up to a douchebag, but it’s incidental to his douchebaggery, as in the case of pro athletes. Guys admire them for their skills, and if it turns out that they’re also douchebags, sometimes the admiration sticks anyway, but they’d be just as admired just as much without it.
But in the case of, say, the guy who’s never held a job longer than six months and just got out of his second stint in jail, and the girl you have a crush on keeps going back to him and loaning him money and fighting other girls for him even though he smacks her around, men don’t look up to him. They might envy him in the sense of, “I wish I could get away with as much as he does,” but they don’t want to be like him except for his success with women. So again, any admiration men have for douchebags is a result of women loving them, not the other way around.
I’d love to see a whole post devoted to the concept of “Don’t Be Like Him”. All of the comments have to be written from the viewpoint of a bruised woman trying to make her beta orbiter fwend not beat up her alpha boyfriend sleeping off his violent drunk in her bed.
Just to be clear, I was talking about “tradcons” in the sense that Dalrock uses the term (as I understand it): people who call themselves traditional and conservative, but really only want to conserve the traditions that date approximately from their childhood. Much of what they want to conserve, therefore, is shot through with feminism, liberalism, and various other ills of modernity. A tradcon, for instance, will want his daughter to marry and have children — but he’ll also want her to get an education and prepare for a career first “just in case,” because his “tradition” includes things like a firm belief in equality and the moral superiority of women over men.
As Dalrock has shown, many pastors today claim to be in favor of traditional marriage, and even throw around terms like headship and submission, but when you scratch the surface you find them talking about how wives should “let” their husbands be in charge sometimes. It’s as if they recognize the forms of tradition, but not the meaning behind them. In Catholic terms, it’s like someone who goes to a traditional Mass and recognizes that the Latin and the chanting and the incense and all are beautiful, but then he says, “That’s awesome, but why aren’t there any women up around the altar? That doesn’t seem fair.” He sees the surface goodness of the traditions, but instead of reverting to them wholesale, he wants to import the surface forms into the modern ways that he’s comfortable with.
Pingback: Wheras the Churchian Dalrock Wishes Ye To Kneel Before Butt and Gina Tingzzlzlozlzozo, DA GBFM asks you to Stand Like a MAN Before God, Join The Fellowship, and Come Ride with the GReat Books For Men–with Odysseus, Achilles, Moses, Christ, Einstein,
Re: the term mulatto: I specified that I was using the term in its original sense, which is the first generation off-spring of an inter-racial couple. Here’s an example from 1705, although the term obviously predates that (http://books.google.com/books?id=R8nvkAIulFIC&pg=PA19&dq=%22forced,+in+a+measure%22+%22The+mulatto+label%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NQaTT62AG6u26QHv1rD-Aw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22forced%2C%20in%20a%20measure%22%20%22The%20mulatto%20label%22&f=false). It was only later that the term generally came to denote specifically black-and-something-else. Thus the reason I refer to myself as a mulatto. By that definition, mestizoes comprise a subset of mulattos, and I fit into both categories. The fact that it’s a very un-P.C. term – and I can get away with using it because I am one – is a bonus.
Cail: fair enough. I’m as hard on the Driscoll’s and Osteens of the world as anyone here, but too many guys in the manosphere are nothing more than sexual anarchists and cultural nihilists who heap as much scorn on traditionalists as the most radical feminists, and for much the same reason. Nobody should get a pass for spreading falsehood. As for Desiderius: look to your own solipsism, pard’ner, and welcome to the big kid’s table – better late than never, I guess. And for heaven’s sake, man, stop carrying water for GBFM – he’s a buffoon.
The nice guy is sadly mistaken that women appreciate “in phase” cooperativeness and agreeableness and appeasment aka “yes, dear”. In fact, women go out of their way to be combative, disagreeable, ball-and-chain, and rebellious, aka “No! You moron!”, but internally women view it as “anti-phase” “cooperating”. That’ one reason women prefer douchebags.
http://spr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/05/0265407513481864.abstract
GBFM writes a lot like my brother talked when drunk-calling.
mulatto (n.)
1590s, “offspring of a European and a black African,” from Spanish or Portuguese mulato “of mixed breed,” literally “young mule,” from mulo “mule,” from Latin mulus (fem. mula) “mule” (see mule (n.1)); possibly in reference to hybrid origin of mules. As an adjective from 1670s. Fem. mulatta is attested from 1620s; mulattress from 1805.
Old English had sunderboren “born of disparate parents.”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mulatto&allowed_in_frame=0
Cail,
Well said.
“reverting to them”
That’s giving in to their frame. Earlier today I burned my hand picking up a hot skillet. Would you say I was reverting when I let it go? The Progs mistake cyclical things for linear things. Although it was 3:24 yesterday, one would not say it just reverted to 3:24 today, it still progressed.
Lyn34,
“As for Desiderius: look to your own solipsism, pard’ner, and welcome to the big kid’s table – better late than never, I guess. And for heaven’s sake, man, stop carrying water for GBFM – he’s a buffoon.”
You can shove your big kids table up your ass.While your up there, ask your head how it got the idea I was being solipsistic, I’m curious.
As for GBFM, of course he’s a buffoon, and Roissy’s an evil asshole. Pretty sad when it falls to buffoons and evil assholes to speak the truth that wise men and Good Christians fear to.
“anti-phase” “cooperating”
JF12, would you expand on that? The article appears to be behind a wall.
Peterman, try this URL :
http://spr.sagepub.com/content/30/8/1072.full
Desiderius,
ask your head how it got the idea I was being solipsistic, I’m curious.
Since you called me solipsistic first – based on nothing more than whatever is bouncing around in your imagination – it seemed appropriate to demonstrate to you what solipsism is… by holding up a mirror for you to see yourself. See how that works?
You can have all the hissy-fits you want… you can defend all the buffoons, heretics, fornicators, and infidels you want – no skin off my nose: I’ve been at this for forty years against people who actually know how to express a cogent thought – but if you want serious people to take you seriously, a little less name-calling and a little more reasoning might get you the effect you’re after.
And based on your little outburst: “You can shove your big kids table up your ass” (Really? That’s what you came up with?) you’re not ready for the big kid’s table anyway. Perhaps you ought to try Reddit.
________________________
@ Marcus… Agreed: a person with one black and one white parent is, indeed, a mulatto. But that is not the only category of person to whom the label applies. When the Spanish came to the new world and interbred with local women, the children were half European and half Native American. They referred to those children as mulatto. It comes from the Galacian / Portuguese word mulu – which means mule: a cross between a horse and a donkey. Mulu itself derives from the Latin mūlus. To wit:
“In early American history, the term mulatto was also used to refer to persons of Native American and European ancestry.” * (Emphasis added.)
* “Mulato Indians | The Handbook of Texas Online| Texas State Historical Association (TSHA)”. Tshaonline.org. Retrieved 2013-01-07
Others trace the term even farther back to the old Arabic term muwallad, which means, simply, a person of mixed ancestry. **
** Jack D. Forbes (1993). Africans and Native Americans: the language of race and the evolution of Red-Black peoples. University of Illinois Press. p. 145.
What is certain is that I used the word correctly in describing myself, although admittedly not according to the most common current usage.
@ Lyn87
“And for heaven’s sake, man, stop carrying water for GBFM – he’s a buffoon.”
I think a wise man would see how he does things and apply discernment to his Modus Operandi. Try changing “buffoon” to “eccentric.” Then you might just see what he is saying and what you are not seeing. The buffoon he is highlighting might be the one in your mirror and you don’t even know it.
Cicero,
I would like to give GBFM the benefit of the doubt. Truly, I would. But he and I have a history that you are not aware of because it played out on a different blog. He eventually got banned there for repeatedly bearing false witness against myself and other commentators.
He’s occasionally okay in those few instances when he comes “out of character” – but his buffoon persona just seems like an excuse to write things that more properly belong on a subway wall or a sign carried by a street-corner lunatic.
@everyone:
Da GBFM may be grating and repetitive, but he’s a wise fool.
I tend to hear “Poor Tom’s a’cold” in his Ornette Colmanesque exhibitionism.
And I personally find him As Funny As Fuck, but then that’s just me.
His alter-ego is quite remarkably lucid, and well-read. There’s history behind the transmogrification into the Adderall-jacked drivel-lord.
Does your mouse have a wheel in between the buttons? Use it. I do.
Tone-trolling. Auntie Susan does that.
Living tree said: “cock-rustling”. Love it, and plan on using it in the future. Does it involve her wearing stirrups?
LivingTree personifies the self-serving comments of “feminist” anti-intellectualism when she says:
“Please, will you people stop being ridiculous. You’re intelligent people, I wish you would stay that way instead of degrading yourselves whenever a divergent point of view shows up. When have I ever criticized men without following it immediately with an equally harsh criticism of women? It annoys me most of all that you people will crowd around a presumed enemy at the slightest hint of a threat to your vulnerable position.”
The gratuitous and insincere compliment that we (meaning “men on here”) are “intelligent people”…and that she so sincerely wishes we would “stay that way”, instead of “degrading” ourselves when a “divergent” point of view shows up (hers).
1. Notice the attempt to be clever. She doesn’t really think (or know) if anyone, or the aggregate is intelligent (actually she probably thinks she is smarter than all of us. Yet she pretends to compliment in order to set up the criticism, the frame it , patronizingly as an attempt to “help”.
2. Wishing we would “Stay that way” is the negative implication that if ONLY we would see things her way, then we could remain “intelligent” as she pretends she thinks we are. (My guess is she is one of those patronizing middle-aged white women).
3. To disagree with her is thus, “degrading” ourselves. And we do so, according to her, when a “divergent” point shows up.
In other words, she wants to load an entire sentence with patronizing and FALSE assertions, masked as her allegedly sincere wish to have open communication. This tactic is common with, particularly, white women in the US.
Here, let me return the favor: LivingTree, I am sure you are a really smart single woman who’s been around a lot of women and knows about everything from one-nighters to abortion, but don’t (please, pretty please) make yourself out to be such an angry bitter, ugly, ignorant bitch by humiliating yourself and playing to your worst insecurities by coming into our space to spread your hate-speech. It makes the baby Jesus cry and is exactly what we are trying to prevent our young sons from encountering as they defend themselves from the violent, terroristic hate-spewing diatribes of unattractive women as they grow up. I mean, if that fits you, generally.
If not, sorry…if you perceived it that way.
Enrique,
Perhaps if LT2013 gave up some hint of the new relationship construct she has in mind, it might be useful. She doesn’t like what we used to have (Marriage1.0), nor does she like what we have now (Marriage 2.0), and she is repulsed by what many guys are doing in response to the current incentive structure (douchebaggery), and obviously MGTOW seeks to avoid the whole sordid mess. What’s her idea of how to make something different that works for everyone?
LT 2013, what does your utopia look like (Marriage 3.0)? Tell us so we can all have a constructive discussion on the merits.
@The Real Peterman good question. What cooperating means, of course is co-operating. With in-phase emotional cooperating, the cooperator helps the happy person be happier by being happy. In contrast, “anti-phase cooperating” is, of course, exactly what I said: the “cooperator” is being contrary instead of co-operating. But since the WOMEN were contrary, but didn’t want to be called contrary, they called it “anti-phase cooperating” instead.
I’m with Lyn on this one. GBFM (who I call “Cr*ppy TV For Poufters”) needs to either write in standard English, or GTFO. Tolerance of this clown is the most d*mning indicator (of which I’m aware) about Dalrock as a person to be taken seriously, his main black mark.
Note that I overall have quite high regard for Dalrock, but for this one thing, this putting up with CTVFP, is IMO akin to a fit, handsome, bright, logical, Christian man that’s a submissive Delta to a noncontributory nonChristian warpig shrew to whom he’s not even married. That is, it’s wrong, unhealthy, and needs to end, ideally RTFN.
While y’all slept, time passed. This is not 1590, and today mulatto refers to African / white mix, and has for several hundred years. As I plainly said.
This is why I use the term pissing contest to describe much on the comments on this blog.
While you prattle, men are losing and losing and losing. Please carry on.
“write in standard English” avoiding the substitution of symbolic diacritical marks for ordinary vowels in a pharisaical show of anti-profanity, and impenetrable 1337-style acronyms. And so say all of us. Hurrah hurrah!
loozozllozozlllll02111200100112
Exactly, Tam. Dalrock putting in a filter (or a policy, also good enough) that when a word has over 3 “z”s in it, the whole post is deleted, no notice, would be a good start at squelching “sand in the gears of the forum” types such as CTVFP.
A72,
Then why do you continue to argue the point rather than letting it go? I like ya’, but seriously, what did you do that was beneficial to men between 3:30 P.M. and 7:32 P.M. – between the time I settled the inconsequential question and the time you resurrected it?
Be thou drawn not into this petty fray, Good Sir! Go forth and slay the she-hydra! For tonight we’re gonna’ party like it’s 1599!
I’m a 24 year old woman who has just started reading this blog, and i would like to know where and how do i meet men who are looking for marriage? I’m going to start college soon (I know that i’m starting late i have been dealing with: depression and anxiety), so i would be very grateful for advice on meeting and marrying a good man.
Questions welcome:)
The Greatest Commandment
(Deuteronomy 6:1-19; Mark 12:28-34)
34But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. 35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
lzozozozzozozozozo
Kris says:
so i would be very grateful for advice on meeting and marrying a good man.
What do you see as a good man, and what do you have to offer him?
Pingback: Ed Driscoll » The War on Dangerous Men
@ Kris
“I’m a 24 year old woman who has just started reading this blog, and i would like to know where and how do i meet men who are looking for marriage? I’m going to start college soon (I know that i’m starting late i have been dealing with: depression and anxiety), so i would be very grateful for advice on meeting and marrying a good man.
Questions welcome:)”
Well first of you need to know that there are no “good” men. Just like there are no “good” women. There are however God fearing men and there are God fearing women. If you are the latter then you can start with the following.
You will first have to stop looking for a “good” man and start looking for a God fearing one. The best place to start would be where Christian men are. From there you will need to start looking for a Christ following man. He is different from those who are Christian in name only. This can be done by looking at the man who does not make the political correct statements that make everybody “feel” good but speaks the truth from the Word of God. And most important of all pray and support that God fearing man.
@ Luke
“I’m with Lyn on this one. GBFM (who I call “Cr*ppy TV For Poufters”) needs to either write in standard English, or GTFO. Tolerance of this clown is the most d*mning indicator (of which I’m aware) about Dalrock as a person to be taken seriously, his main black mark.
Note that I overall have quite high regard for Dalrock, but for this one thing, this putting up with CTVFP, is IMO akin to a fit, handsome, bright, logical, Christian man that’s a submissive Delta to a noncontributory nonChristian warpig shrew to whom he’s not even married. That is, it’s wrong, unhealthy, and needs to end, ideally RTFN.”
Does “standard English” always contain so many abbreviations and * fillers?
Kris says: April 12, 2014 at 10:33 pm
“I’m a 24 year old woman who has just started reading this blog, and i would like to know where and how do i meet men who are looking for marriage? I’m going to start college soon (I know that i’m starting late i have been dealing with: depression and anxiety), so i would be very grateful for advice on meeting and marrying a good man.
Questions welcome:)”
First, look for men over 30. Ones with STEM degrees AND careers, or in the trades would be good places to start. Skip the ones with tattoos, long hair, herpes, violent criminal records, illegal drug habits, no real careers, major debt problems, or that are more attractive in physical appearance (as men) than you are physically attractive as a woman.
If you have any cats, tattoos, connections to feminist groups, or weird pagan/occult beliefs, get rid of them now. Likewise, get debt-free, grow out your hair, dehoard your dwelling, and get your weight under control. (Look at a Playboy or Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition to see what level of weight is preferred by men.)
Likewise, stay away from women who frivolously divorced husbands (that’s ~90% of divorced women), unfaithful women, women with short hair/serious obesity problems/poor personal hygiene, and loud/unpleasant women, and homosexuals of either sex.
Learn domestic skills — that’s not just laundry and cooking, but shopping, budgeting, dealing with home repair workers, all that.
Go to places men congregate. That could be classic car clubs, hunting/fishing groups, hard science/engineering group meetings, do-it-yourself classes, etc. Conservative churches are a possiblity (hint: women or open gays as pastors = a liberal, dying church); Eastern Orthodox/Greek Orthodox are among the better ones.
Move to Alaska (ideally NOT the SE part), or an oil-boom town (western ND has lots of these, say, Dickinson or Williston). Stay AWAY from large liberal cities, or (ideally) liberal states.
Make it clear to men that you might want to know better that you won’t pull the standard sex deprivation/spendthriftiness/unpleasant & difficult personality change/blimp up post-wedding.
Oh, and that you WANT children (otherwise, why would any man marry), and that you want to breastfeed, stay at home with them (no dumping them in wetback daycare), and ideally homeschool. Throw in that you’d LOVE to move to Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, or the like, and you’ll be keeping them away with a stick.
Here’s a start. Other posters can give you more.
Cicero. I was posting in a hurry from work. I also was trying to be polite by avoiding being explicit in using profanity. If you found my post unclear, I regret that.
P.S. to Kris: also, avoid men with piercings, and get rid of any you have (besides normal-position one-to-an-ear).
“Common”
Broaching the subject of sex
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=874793
Assuming you’re serious, here’s a practical set of tips that can be accomplished by any determined woman:
1. Laser off the skanky tats, if any.
2. Quit smoking and drinking alcohol.
3. Start wearing dresses, grow your hair long.
4. Cultivate a sort of quietism about you. Be calm.
5. Refuse to be the center of attention. Put yourself back into the ground, as Heidegger would say.
6. If you have skanky, loud, obnoxious bitch friends, quit hanging out with them. Surround yourself with women who are married, or serious women who are looking to be married.
7. 24 isn’t necessarily late to start school. It’s good to educate yourself, but study something worthwhile. Math, Natural Science and Writing are all good things to study. Don’t bother with “women’s studies” or “sociology”. That’s a waste of time. Take out as few loans as possible. Excess student loans will put a damper on your chances of being married. Go to community college or a public university to save dough.
8. Stay away from people at school who are constantly “partying” and “having fun”.
Another thing. I know it’s a tall order, but try to can the “depression and anxiety” stuff. When you’re young, you think your problems are insurmountable, but you’re old enough now to put them into context. Once you’re married, your man will be depressed and anxious for the both of you, so this is especially important when you meet your fella.
Good tips are always available from older women with successful marriages. Watch how they act and respectfully ask your grandmother or some other old lady how she snagged her husband. It’s an almost forgotten art, and it ought to be studied seriously.
@ Luke
“If you found my post unclear, I regret that.”
I did not ask for clarification of the post message. I merely asked the following. Does “standard English” always contain so many abbreviations and * fillers?
Boxer’s list is good.
I’d further add to my advice to Kris to obtain and read a copy of Debi Pearl’s book “Created To Be His Helpmeet”.
(Your willingness to behave as it advises for a wife in a marriage is directly proportional to your ability to sustain a marriage IMO.)
What is your “N”? (That’s ALL sexual partners during your life so far.) If it’s over 3, your prospects of making a marriage work (and why else enter one?) are a bit dinged; if double-digit, I suggest giving up the idea, and just going “Sex and the City” til you age out of having any man you’d look at twice, looking twice at you. That could be mid-30s or around age 50, depending on your looks and personality. Then, start accumulating your ten cats.
==================================================================
P.P.S. to Cicero: I made lavish use (in my post you found annoying) of acronyms, not of abbreviations.
Laser off the skanky tats, if any.
Yes, it’s a signalling thing: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/07/tattoos-and-body-modifications-links.html
—
Don’t bother with “women’s studies” or “sociology”.
Quite true. The half-life of those fields makes them a waste of time to study (that is, what is found in those fields, not what they borrow from elsewhere). Pure mathematics has an infinite half-life – the closer you are to pure mathematics, the better off you’ll be (e.g. STEM fields, generally).
—
Excess student loans will put a damper on your chances of being married.
According to the 2012 Singles in America survey (http://blog.match.com/category/singles-in-america/):
What is your “N”? (That’s ALL sexual partners during your life so far.) If it’s over 3, your prospects of making a marriage work (and why else enter one?) are a bit dinged; if double-digit, I suggest giving up the idea, and just going “Sex and the City” til you age out of having any man you’d look at twice, looking twice at you.
The Social Pathologist has a series of posts on the subject, including:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2010/09/virgin-bride.html
http://socialpathology.blogspot.ca/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html
@ Luke
Thank you for the clarification on the difference between your use of acronyms and abbreviations. So is the use of so many acronyms and * fillers considered “standard English”? Seeing as my mother tongue is not English.
And can you please indicate where I stated that I found it “annoying”?
Cicero, when someone repeatedly criticizes the form of a post, it’s a cinch that they found that post annoying. Yes, it’s common (if not universal) to use acronyms on internet fora (that’s the plural of “forum”). Particularly common is using acronyms (and abbreviations) on such fora that express concepts frequently used there. Does that help you any?
P.S. again to Kris: do you have any children (that you’ve not adopted out, so sleep at your place even occasionally)? If so, that will hurt your marriage prospects a lot, like gaining 60 pounds and getting a crewcut would.
@ Luke
You made the claim to should not be regarded as “standard English”. You have now stated that acronyms and abbreviations do form part of “standard English” though you did not clarify the * fillers.
1.Well where did I criticize you post?
2.Where did I claim it to be annoying?
Or does asking a question for clarification mean the other person is automatically being criticized?
Des,
Christians are not told to keep the Law anymore. Jesus didn’t do away with it, He fulfilled it. Any attempt on our part to keep it as many require is just parading filthy rags. Note that failing in one tiny part of it is failing in all of it, per what Paul wrote.
We should still live righteously, but aiming at the Law is a horrible target and has huge flaws. Though those who claim that often arbitrarily decide what is an what isn’t included.
How many of you who think the Law is the guiding principle now don’t travel after sundown on Friday nor do any work until the next sundown?
This is only part of the problem. There are so many facets of society that have changed to demonize men and glorify women without prejudice. It’s sad. We’re not the same, as is being pounded into our children. We, meaning men and women, have different roles to play in society. Those lines are blurred now and neither side is handling it well.
“BradA”, you sound badly catechised… There is no hope for you until you join a more traditional church.
I am late to this discussion but something Boxer said early on really stuck out to me:
“any attempt to have the traditional life is punished RANDOMLY ” (capitalization mine)
The completely random prospect of 50/50 chance of divorce is the scariest part. Its like signing up to live the rest of your life under the sword of Damocles.
Hi thank you so much for the advice!
I have never dated or had intimacy with any one since i am very conservative and have been dealing with my emotional health. When i start college, i wanted to study biology and work in science. If i get married i want to stay at home with my childeren. I was wondering what exactly would attract a God fearing man? How should i dress? I’m very reserved, and quiet. Once i feel comfortable though i can be talkative. Would being a more introverted intellectual turn off a guy?
BradA,
The six antitheses are a good place to start.
Alan, chances are he learned that nonsense at a church that considers itself, and that he considers, traditional. Religion done badly is, too, a human tradition, and one very much alive and well these days.
“Tone-trolling. Auntie Susan does that.”
Heh, that she does, and she’s far from alone. Good times.
I recall reading elsewhere several ladies all agreeing that one of the worst things about our contemporary SMP is how so many truly nice guys act like DBs because they mistakenly think the have to. The conversation went on to share tips on how to see the true niceness underneath so that girls could find those guys and avoid the true DBs.
What you refer to here is estrogen-speak for “look at that dweeb trying to act like a douchebag! Who does he think he’s fooling? He’s making himself look even more pathetic than he already is.”
In other words, nothing earns a man more contempt from the female herd than faking douchebaggery. Woman are as annoyed by it as they are addicted to the real thing.
Agreed re the randomness of the 50/50 risk, jg. As I read on another mens’ issues site, “what man would knowingly take a cruise on a ship that had a 50/50 chance of sinking, especially when he would not be allowed to get on one of the lifeboats?”
Pingback: Dark Brightness
Pingback: Seek wisdom, for the times are foolish | Dark Brightness
Rollo hits it pretty square with “Men will be Nice, when Nice guys get laid.”
Douchebaggery is a dating strategy in response to what women respond to. It provides a semblance of the cocky, confident, pretty boy / bad boy suite of characteristics that women are demanding, while at the same time, providing an exit strategy. It’s not designed to be a complementary strategy to find a partner. In fact, It’s the opposite of a reproductive or life-partner seeking strategy, because it has the rational understanding that any partnership that *does* result, regardless of dating strategy or sincerity of attempt, would not have any permanence, nor would it protect any investment of time and resources, including children. Since those protections are not possible, consideration of those goals and the integrity required are not part of the male response.
The other half of that equation, which Rollo covers with “Beta Bucks” is this: Men will develop themselves and invest in themselves when it stops being punished with higher taxes and wealth transfer schemes like Obozo-care, welfare and social security. Women take it upon themselves, *especially feminists* to demand the government rob men to provide them with security and goodies, while providing nothing in return to the people they’ve stolen from. Well, save nice warm fuzzy feelings that we’ve helped some woman past her selfish and stupid decision making process. “Think of teh chidrenz.”
For the most part, a life-partner strategy has been rendered pointless – that partnership is highly exploitative of men, and rational men are realizing that. There’s no small amount of resentment for the force and theft that we’ve been subjected to. Let alone the sinking pit feeling of realizing you’ve been played by someone who hates your guts and has no intention of reciprocating in any capacity.
I think to understand this pathology, you should take a look at asset confiscation. It used to be something used to take drug dealer’s assets. They responded by not having any assets to take. Anything not easily replaced was rented or stolen. The government has applied this model outside of narcotics enforcement to help itself, and cronies, to other people’s stuff via forfeiture as a massive new business model.
Similar issues started cropping up in divorce courts – rather than build up piles of assets only to have them taken away, men left everything leveraged to the hilt. Family courts have gone from an allegedly just role in protecting women and children, to enriching lawyers and ancillary agencies (counselors, guardians ad litems, meeting centers, drug testing labs, etc).
Then that self defense has transferred to avoiding child support obligations – women started getting huge payoffs by having children with successful men that could be obliged to pay a woman for 2 decades, based on her unilateral reproductive decisions. Her body, her choice, someone else’s responsibility to subsidize that choice. The rational response is to not be worth the effort to pursue for child support, either.
Now, why bother? the state will pay out tons of money for kids she can’t raise, and all of those industries that supply that, including those agents that work on determining eligibility as well as hand it out and spend it on her behalf, get a kick back for her making selfish, stupid, self destructive decisions. Yaaay, feminism. Yaaay liberalism. Half of the money taken doesn’t even make it to the people it’s supposed to help, but those government workers have nice cushy pensions, don’t they? Where did that money come from? Men. Well, those that get themselves above the poverty line and don’t put their d!ck in it.
The open misandry in K-12, and the blindingly hostile environment on college campuses just makes it easier to swear off of that path as well. The drivers of men who do are coming from asian cultures that don’t buy into feminism in large parts, and where men are still significant members of families.
I’ve read feminsts’ work, like MacKinnon and Dworkin, who are openly misandrist, feminist marxists, (to the point of saying “yes, feminism *requires* marxism”) and what we have is *exactly* what they’re looking for. Well, shy of the open executions, forced sterilization, concentration and re-education camps, and reducing male population down to ‘manageable and necessary levels’.
I’ve been a nice guy. I’m still an ethical, responsible and self reliant, successful man. Let me tell you it does not work. Women do not respect it, beyond an interest in exploiting it and plundering it – feminism has made that message painfully clear to any man with a pulse. Actions matter more than words, and women’s actions AND words show us that you think we’re all rapists who deserve the screwing we’re going to get in family court.
I’ve seen less vitriol for condemned Nazi war criminals, than for what feminists show men.
Ladies, you have the douchebags you deserve. Enjoy.
Hi,
Thank you so much for the advice! I have never been intimate with a man or dated, so having a low N is not a problem. I have been working on my emotional health and i am doing much better. I am now ready to look for my one and only life partner. I am a very idealistic and conservative person so that has helped keep me out of trouble. I am wondering how do i attract a god fearing man? Is there a certain way i need to act or dress? I am also a very reserved person until i am comfortable with someone. Would being an introvert and intellectual work against me? In college i want to study and work in biology until i have children. Again thank you for the help 🙂
@jf12
Rhetorical questions aren’t for cynical purposes, especially when they are so answerable. You know what increases a douchebag’s sexual attractiveness to women” The douchebag’s sexual attractiveness to other women. NOTHING other men say or do about him really matters to women’s preferences; only what women say and do. In fact, the more other men tell women “You better stay away from him,” the more women will go after him. It doesn’t matter that you feign ignorance of this phenomenon: e.g. women seeking conjugal visits with serial killers. We know you know.
Okay, leaving aside your weird assumptions about my motives, knowledge, or lack thereof…
You actually just contradicted yourself, and pretty obviously. You said:
NOTHING other men say or do about him really matters to women’s preferences…
But then you said,
In fact, the more other men tell women “You better stay away from him,” the more women will go after him.
CONCLUSION: Stop pretending cads are important.
Kris, You mentioned you have depression and anxiety. Don’t take any drugs like Prozac or any of the other drugs as the make things worse. Look at all the school shootings, road rage and suicides caused by these demonic drugs. Not taking these will make you a better prospect.
I remember in the 90s, I gave this woman a ride home and I was interested in her and when I cleaned out the car later that day I saw a pill that fell out of her purse and it said Prozac on it. Never bothered going back.
Marriage has never looked so fragile, you are right. No-one should feel bad about not wanting to take a chance on that degree of chaos. There are plenty of things that a person can do to help his people out besides having children… Quite a lot of things, surely.
A.J.P.
Not a great mystery at all. Since the incentive for men to marry has been obliterated, bad boy alpha players rule the roost with their harems. Others go MGTOW leaving the SMP altogether. Enjoy the decline you created ladies.
I agree toptally with jg at 9:42, in that the comment about any attempt to have a traditional life is punished randomly, with the random being the most disheartening aspect. He did delete off the rest of the comment that emphasiized the harshness of the punishment. Anonymous 72 has made the point many times that any man that tells you how to “keep” a wife based on the fact that he is not yet divorced is a fool. Women have been given an automatic pistol to point at their husbands temple and play russina roulette at any time they choose. Women are A-Okay with this as they think it makeds them secure. What they don’t seem to grasp is that as this reality gets to be understood by men, many fewer of them are willing to play the husband game. We men have strong biological drives to create families and have children of our own, but we are not suicidal.
I am a bad typist with an over reliance on auto correct in my usual work. The absence of automatic spell check and grammer check reemoves my usual crutches.
@Alan,
““BradA”, you sound badly catechised… There is no hope for you until you join a more traditional church.”
No thanks. I will stick with the Scriptures. Read Hebrews and the rest of the NT sometime for that matter. It might open your eyes.
Though you still didn’t answer my question if you truly keep the Sabbath, a key part of the Law.
Concur with jg’s comment above about marriage “Its like signing up to live the rest of your life under the sword of Damocles.” The old ‘wives are horrible shrews’ is a broken record around these parts but thats really not my song. Reasonable women who make reasonable wives do exist, which ones are those exactly? The problem boils down to the simple fact that 50/50 are abysmal odds and truthfully the odds aren’t even that good. I fully realize it is possible to marry and have a decent marriage but ‘gaming’ a wife as my only chance at avoiding divorce rape or possibly worse, growing old in a miserable marriage? Thats what’s being offered? Seriously? I just don’t see how I can invest in that.
True story; I know a Christian business man, we’ll call him ‘Bob’. He worked hard, like an animal, built a business he could eventually rely on as a source of income. Bob later married a Churchian woman, we’ll call her ‘the whore’ and they had a few kids. Once the kids were in school the whore decided she needed right in the middle of Bob business, sticking her nose, and various other anatomy where it didn’t belong. One day Bob found out the whore and one of his employees were screwing. Nothing like two knives in your back at once eh’?
Long story short; The courts gave the whore primary custody of the kids, the home, the business. Now the whore and Bob’s former employee run the business he formerly owned. Read it again.
I have more stories, so do you. How can I possibly be expected to consider marriage and especially family under the current legal circumstances. How?
Pingback: Links: Drunk idiots, helping guys with sex and women, the great douchebag non-mystery, Japan, and more | The Story's Story
@Lyn87 says:
April 12, 2014 at 9:18 pm
What did I do beneficial to men between XXX and XXX?
Interesting thought. So, I owe minute by minute accounts of my performance, after over 35 years of activism, and 10,000 hours counseling divorced men and suicide counseling? Really?
Or, I cannot comment on the incessant and useless pissing contests on what could be the best blog on the Web? Really? You have no idea how trivial those p.c. are until you were involved with them for decades as men lose and lose and lose, and at times young men today insult my generation for not having done anything about it.
The only original feminist goal from the 60’s not yet achieved is to kill 90+% of all men on the planet, and they are still talking about it at times.Though the leadership tries to shush it until the time is ripe. They are no more joking about that than anything else they have done. You don’t have time to engage in infinite and meaningless p.c.
If anything comes from men today, it will be the (Dalrock says nonexistent) marriage strike. The 50% reduction in marriage rates is working, no matter how the feminists; modern women; divorce judges; law firms; mixed up fathers of undesirable daughters; and Churchian pastors who are badly frightened by it, try to claim it is women who are backing off marriage to worthless, stupid men.
What brings change will not be p.c. on blogs.
But, of course, that also means any changes other than MGTOW or expatting will not come from men. Actually, I think dropping out of the system, whether expat or inpat, is the only real solution, since men can’t cooperate in any useful way.
@Kris You got a lot of good advice. The problem is the best men are not having a good life right now with the disturbing behavior of young women. So, you need to make it clear there is something different about you. Even then, it is a hard job to find a man who is not messed up by a sick society and also sees you as Miss Right. Slim; trim; decent; clean, honest. (Learn the Boy Scout law and apply it.)
Those emotional problems you have are a big problem. Try EFT (i.e. Gary Craig)
If you are also overweight, oops! Get the book THE NEW ATKINS FOR THE NEW YOU. Or, start shopping for a small dog…
@? Someone on a recent thread commented we will never go back to the sex roles of the past. Actually, sure we will. We may not be speaking English, is the rub.
You only see the downhill part of the cycle and don’t understand it is a cycle and has been all through history.
It is common for young people to assume what is happening right now will happen forever.
Around 1960, we had a very cold winter or two. All the young scientists said the Ice Age is coming back. A few years passed, and we had a long, hot, dry spell and the same experts said we are going to burn up. We are now on the second bogus cycle.
In the 60’s or 70’s, I forget, housing was still modestly priced. A man could support his family and buy a small family home on his income. A buddy bought a 3 BR house on a small lot for $18,000. A few weeks later, the Supreme Court ruled mortgage companies could no longer refuse to count a working wife’s income when establishing loan limits. So, they started adding 50% loan capacity on top of the man’s income, if the woman worked.
Within 90 days of his purchase, the house across the street, identical but mirror reverse, sold for %27,000. Instantly, men couldn’t buy a new house any more on normal male income.
As women demanded more and more house, prices of houses soared. Realtors and many more people said, “Housing will always go up! People need a place to live.” I am not going to bother telling the rest of the story; y’all know it well. And, it’s not done yet.
Back around 1980, interest rates soared, to nearly 20%. Money markets were paying very well. Everyone I knew took every penny they could get to nab that 20%. My wife came home one day and told me she wanted in on that easy money. I had her buy dividend paying stocks, paring around 10% dividend. Boy, did her p.c. working companions really trash me out. “Why did he do something stupid like that when he could get 20% on money markets?”
I told her to tell them because I knew what I was doing. While she would pass on their insults to me, she would not return them.
Within weeks the interest bubble burst, and came down into single digits. Her dividend paying stocks ‘whip-lashed’ to a selling price reflecting the new interest rate. I think the next 3 years, she averaged 35% A YEAR on those stocks. Not one of those studly heroes who so enthusiastically trashed me out to my own wife issued an apology.
That was the only time in my life when I knew exactly what was going to happen.
Dr. Unwin, author of Sex And Culture, early 20th Century, analyzed a large number of societies, and how they changed as women’s sexual practices change.
I think it was Athens, at least a Greek city/state which in the B.C. era at times changed almost century by century. The rich folks at one time had strict sexual code for women, and the City prospered. With continued prosperity the rich women became licentious and the City deteriorated. Then, the middle class folks gained political power as the upper crust lost it. The middle class women for a time followed a strict moral code, and they prospered.
Until the middle class women became dissolute in their turn.
Back and forth for a number of centuries. I can’t remember, but I think the next cycle was a large influx of foreigners with strict moral codes.
So, do not assume the direction we are going will always be the same. That is not true.
One of my sons and I discuss this a lot.
Historically, no nation that let its women have total sexual liberty ever survived in its present form. Think Roman Empire (he claims Gibbons blames the Christians who put women above God as they are doing today, I keep trying to read those books, and it is taking forever), Babylon, and more.
Yet, hypothetically, some major natural or military disaster (asteroid or nuke?) could force the nation back to survival mode with women grasping Nice Guys again.
Feminism and misandry cannot survive in a nation with no substitute husband in the form of a welfare check. So, even with many feminist laws, feminism has little control in Mexico and the poor nations of Central America, for example.
So, if the US economy completely collapses, those relatively few still alive after a year will be well back into patriarchy.
On the other hand, in the Old Testament is a tale of an invasion of a nation which practiced large scale infanticide. When the Hebrews invaded, they were ordered to KILL EVERY LIVING THING. That meant men; women; children; canary birds in cages; dog; cats; horses. Look it up. We are not more righteous than that nation was. I don’t predict that end. I just point out one never knows what the future holds. Except it is sure it will not be pleasant.
More young women choosing dogs over motherhood:
http://nypost.com/2014/04/10/more-young-women-choosing-dogs-over-motherhood/
“The federal data behind the report show that over the past seven years, the number of live births per 1,000 women between ages 15 and 29 in America has plunged 9 percent.
At the same time, research by the American Pet Products Association shows the number of small dogs — under 25 pounds — in the United States has skyrocketed, from 34. 1 million in 2008 to 40.8 million in 2012.”
Nobody can afford a family at 25 anymore. Most people at that age don’t even have a full time job and a huge debt burden from their years at university. University has really crippled young people’s ability to start a life outside of the home. Even for traditionally minded, hardworking youth, it’s an uphill struggle to get to the point where they could provide a good environment for raising children. It’s not because everybody is spending all their time partying and having casual sex.
I just discovered this blog and am impressed; the discussion is top shelf.
I first thought Living Tree had to be a troll but am convinced it is mostly genuine and it is a she because, God the hamster, the mighty hamster.
Dalroc’s main point has been restated by Rollo and others several times already- when women stop sleeping with douchebags men will stop acting like douchebags.
Doesn’t this cede all power to the women? What can we as men do about this social dynamic besides the obvious (learn it and get laid)?
Pingback: A comment on Machiavelli | disaffected purveyor
So, Kubrik’s A Clockwork Orange was prophetic…
Pingback: Ignore the Cads | Malcolm the Cynic
Pingback: Yes, modern men really do love bad boys | Zippy Catholic
Would being a more introverted intellectual turn off a guy?
It wouldn’t turn him off, per se; it just wouldn’t signal anything. He would have to know that you are interested, beyond some subjective threshold of his, that his risks (etc) will pay off.
Seriously, you’re the one who started going on about how we were “wasting our time” instead of helping men (however you define that) – and when I simply held you to the same standard you got butt-hurt. (Check your post of April 12, 2014 at 7:32 pm to see where you started this pointless discussion.) You don’t get to attack someone for failure to do something to your satisfaction and then express indignation when that person asks if you have met the same standard yourself.
So I guess it’s my turn to say, “REALLY?”
@Bluepillprofessor, “What can we as men do about this social dynamic besides the obvious (learn it and get laid)?”
Basically
1) Don’t get laid.
The other alternate is taking away the option of ferality for women, by force of course.
The problem boils down to the simple fact that 50/50 are abysmal odds and truthfully the odds aren’t even that good.
As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, if your odds of dying in a plane crash were 50/50, would ANYONE in their right mind ever fly?
Also, feeriker, if men knew in advance that only women and children would be allowed access to oxygen masks or life preservers, who among them would ever want to fly? (This is the airline equivalent of the divorce analogy I’ve seen elsewhere, where a MRA asks how many men would want to take a cruise, if they knew there was a 50% chance of sinking, with lifeboat access for all women, some children, and no men.)
“Doesn’t this cede all power to the women? What can we as men do about this social dynamic besides the obvious (learn it and get laid)?”
Good question. No, never cede the power to women. Create the evidence (that you are personally powerful in all your social circles and interactions) until you believe it. Here’s how:
Learn the social dynamics anyway for the knowledge base it provides you. Then you can choose to emulate certain behaviors of the ‘douchebag’ while eschewing all the behaviors you find incongruent to you (or revolting to your sensibilities/who you choose to be in the world).
The result being- building a better ‘you’. You be the best man you can be, in accordance with your values, but you cherry pick a few of the social skills from the PUA/’douchebag’ and reach a higher level in terms of your social/outer work.
We are always responsible for keeping abreast of transitioning social dynamics and changing cultural phenomena. Everyone’s responsible for that.
Ultimately, when you focus on creating abundance above all, everything takes care of itself.
Why would a man want to get married to one woman, who may or may not give him the sexual favors he wants, when he can “marry the universe”? And why would the ladies-in-waiting, who seem to like pinning wedding dresses and so on, want to have casual sex with an alpha-in-training? It seems like they’d prefer the hottie.
FYI, Red, “ladies” don’t have casual sex. They’re as uncommon these days as lords.
Thank you for the help!
I’m trying to go out and volunteer more, while i wait for the admission decisions from the colleges i applied to. Thats why it has taken me time to reply. Is there certain women out there you can name that i should emulate? I will work more on dressing more feminine and have a more positive outlook on life. I am so glad i stumbled on this site. I wanted an outside opinion on finding my future husband, and i thank you all for the brutal honesty. Pray that i build a long lasting marriage and loving family.
“I’m trying to go out and volunteer more, while i wait for the admission decisions from the colleges i applied to.”
Entering college is great but the most important thing is that you finish and get your degree. Statistics show that university degreed and professionally employed upper middle class Americans stay married the longest. Are you American? If so, remember that when the temptation to quit school strikes you.
One thing I noticed in the US is a big deal is made about getting people “enrolled” in college but you hear less about who actually stays in it for the long haul and graduates. Particularly who graduates in something useful and employable and how and why they made that choice, stuck with it and succeeded.
“Is there certain women out there you can name that i should emulate?”
My mom.
” I will work more on dressing more feminine and have a more positive outlook on life.”
Positive attitude is good but a realistic one is better.
” Pray that i build a long lasting marriage and loving family.”
I sincerely wish you the best.
Here are some bits of advice for you, Kris:
1) Do NOT get any schooling that requires you to go into debt. (Usually means no private colleges.) Debt makes you much less marriageable, and likely to have to work years past when you would have been best to have married. Looks and fertility go down with age fast for women. Debt for college usually only makes sense for 1) engineering and med school, and 2) for men (who will likely use their degree their whole working lives). Women certain they will never want to marry (asexuals/unfeminine women like most lesbians) or have children can reasonably pursue those fields, if they have the talent and inclination (few do), but you’ve already said you want marriage and family, so that’s not for you.
2) Don’t go into a major that has little chance of paying off economically. That means almost no liberal arts majors, no gender/sexuality/ethnicity/advocacy “studies”, no art/music/drama/literature/sociology /psychology/early Childhood Education, etc. majors. Hard science (means need Calculus for the degree), engineering, the harder medical technician/nursing degrees (i.e., no Medical Assistant/Transcriptionist), those can do okay. Among teachers, math/science and special Ed are the most in demand most places. Law degrees, real estate agent, interior design/decorator, hair cutter, cosmetologist, archeology, anthropology, public relations, environmental anything, marine biology, and oceanography are losers, too. Aaron Cleary’s book “Worthless” is one of the better works on this subject.
3) Fields that require very long hours, tend to make your personality less pleasant, or require much out-of-town travel (time away + frequent easy opportunity to have ONS sex) can be bad choices for would-be wives and mothers. What wise man who wants a pleasant wife unlikely to frivolously divorce him would marry a cop, lawyer, process server, paralegal, or collection agency worker?
4) Live at home with your parents if at all possible when you go to college. Keeps down your expenses, keeps you emotionally grounded, and less likely to fall into boyfriend’s beds.
5) Avoid booze, tobacco, multipiercings, tattoos, sex, feminist and other extreme belief groups, and people into those things while in college. (Every sex partner you have, of any type, makes you much less able to bond long-term with a husband.) You are judged by the company you keep, with some justice.
6) If you truly want marriage and family, consider fields that would be useful to a prospective husband with a successful career. Many of these can be learned in just 2 years at a cheap, local junior college. Accounting/bookkeeping, LPN, cooking, sewing, gardening/horticulture, anything that helps with running a house or caring for children should get more than a casual look from you.
7) Marry early (like before age 24 at the latest), and look primarily at older men (late 20s to mid 30s).
Good luck to you!
“Accounting/bookkeeping, LPN, cooking, sewing, gardening/horticulture, anything that helps with running a house or caring for children should get more than a casual look from you.”
Don’t pay to take cooking, sewing or gardening in college for Christ sake. You can learn those for free on your own.
Kris, medical and engineering are lucrative and that area, the STEM field, is where you will meet a lot of stable, grounded middle-middle to upper-middle class men from good family backgrounds. There’s ethnic and cultural diversity in those fields too as a lot of foreign students major in STEM so being one of only a handful of women STEM majors, you’ll have plenty of options.
Keep in mind though you might have to be the one to make the initial approach with these guys as STEM guys can sometimes be the shy types.
@Luke, I’m trying to keep it respectful. Change my gender-tags to “males/ females homosapiens americans.”
Pingback: Recoiling from Resounding Resentment | Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: A modern day Cyrano for a modern day Roxane. | Dalrock
This might come out as strange-sounding, but if guys are making themselves out to be barbarians because they are competing, becoming douchebags, or what not to attract the most beautiful women.. then men on the whole aren’t worth much. I’m a man in my late 20s. I went back to college. The vast majority of the student body is female. Many, many of the women are very attractive and most of the women are attractive. The young men aren’t beating each other’s face off to attract attention.
There is no such thing as ”the vast majority of men being barred from sexual access and only the most good-looking men have sex.” Heh, if you only see the most attractive of women, as women, and disregard all of the rest, of course you aren’t going to get sex.
We don’t live on a world where the vast majority of women are obese and the vast majority of men have the proper weight for their height. Truth of the matter is that the absolute majority of the male population is obese, quite obese, and somehow you people think these guys are still entitled to 22 year old Claudia Schiffers just because.
I’m not an attractive man. I’m 5’6” I have messed-up teeth, I’m white, I don’t have ”game” and I’m skinny. I live in Germany. The majority of the men are at least 5’11” and I see quite a lot of 6’2” giants with broad-shoulders and handsome faces. Yet, I always get glances and ”come talk to me” behaviors from average to attractive natural blondes. I don’t use ”Alpha male body posture” as I have scoliosis anyway, and I act like a douchebag. I’ve dated attractive blondes and redheads whose ages ranged from 18 to 25. They dated me and slept with me because they were attractive to me. I’ve also been with women of completely average-looks, but there was something about them that made me hot for them. Oh and have I mentioned that all of the women I’ve dated were taller than me? I’m currently seeing a 6 feet tall woman(when she’s on flat shoes).
Stop making excuses for you guys lack of success with women, or that you guys have great jobs and degrees from good colleges but can’t find any woman because ”the vast majority of women want men with great looks.”
Grow-up a bit. You’re middle-aged men, not 21 year old men who’ve let go of their parents leash for the first time.Attraction is not set-on stone. People are attracted to mannerisms, glances, the way you hold your book, the way you smile and so forth. Start seeing women as more than ”hypergamous sluts who want to globber-up Alpha male penis and then marry a sucker for his cash.” I would also avoid Roissy, Roosh and Rollo Tomasso, for they are a bunch of old guys who think they are young surfer dudes.
Oh, and spare me the nonsense that ”white American women are terrible!” Meh I have no patience for children.
”and I act like a douchebag”
And I don’t act like a douchebag. Really, talk to women like you are interested in them and in what they are saying instead of creeping on them trying to get laid.
“I’m a man in my late 20s”
Really? You don’t sound like one. Your concerns are remarkably congruent with “inner-beauty-lissen-to-tha-wimminz” feminism.
You are Baron Hardwiggs, and I claim my five pounds. Or euros. Not fussed either way.
Pingback: Stanton’s wake-up call. | Dalrock
@ Tam the Bam, Yea I just said out loud when reading “TheMansphereisAmusing”, “that’s a chick”. But.. these days, who knows? In addition to the plague of douchebags unleashed on Western societies inspired by the enlightened nature of the fairer sex there’s also the Generation Wuss phenomenon. Whatever TheMansphereisAmusing is it is a Frustrated Feminist or one of their gelded pawns, not regular guy wanting to help men with his honest reflections on his experiences. The shaming and finger waging at men, it Is Amusing.