As I’ve mentioned in the past the convergence of feminists and conservatives, especially on the issue of marriage, is quite striking. Since conservatives lack an immovable reference point to anchor their views, they inadvertently find themselves conserving the radical changes feminists have wrought on our culture. Feminism is the new social order, and conservatives conserve the social order. Likewise since feminism is the new social order, feminists find themselves less and less pushing for radical change and more and more working to conserve the social order they have created.
Feminist and manosphere tag-along Bodycrimes has a post up which is the latest in a long line of examples of this. In Misogyny makes men poorer, she voices her fear that today’s young men are losing sight of the value of (modern) marriage:
What’s so interesting about the hard-core misogynists is that they believe women divorce men for no other reason than to get “cash and prizes” – an unfair share of the wealth that men have built up. Here’s the thing, though – without their wives, these men wouldn’t have the assets. They would have remained like MajorStyles, pissing their money away in having a good time, and thereby wrecking their financial future.
She of course starts by misrepresenting the problem with frivolous divorce. I don’t know anyone who claims that women only divorce for cash and prizes. With perhaps a few exceptions, women divorce for the same reason men like Roissy avoid marriage and instead maintain a harem; they feel that it is to their benefit to do so, and they aren’t about to be constrained by what they see as outdated rules of sexual morality. For women the most sexually profitable time to eschew marriage is when they are young and beautiful, and as a result we see women not just delaying marriage but showing a marked preference for young divorce. The cash and prizes are merely a reward women receive for not honoring their marriage vows when they feel that not honoring their vows would be to their advantage.
Note that ignoring or denying the problem with paying women cash and prizes as a reward for divorcing is the mainstream conservative view. If men find themselves on the business end of a frivolous divorce, they must have had it coming. Much of this view on the conservative side is due to the contempt for biblical headship modern Christians share with feminists. Without thinking the issue through, modern Christians have thoroughly embraced the idea that women deserve cash and prizes when they break their vows. This is why everyone from FotF to a Catholic priest makes it a point to remind women not to forget their 30 pieces of silver when betraying their marriage vows.
All of this is of course done while denying the shameless obsession modern women have with divorce. Nothing to see here folks, move along…
But dismissing frivolous divorce rewarded by cash and prizes is something Bodycrimes does on the way to making her larger point, that marriage is a wealth generating engine. While this is true, she is ignoring the fact that marriage as currently designed is an engine whereby women can and very often do trick men into creating wealth which (along with his children) they can then take from him. Those who would object to the observation that this is how modern marriage is designed to work are of course welcome to point out what meaningful checks are included in our family court structure to prevent women from abusing this new (sexual morality free) form of marriage. Of course there are no checks against using modern marriage this way, because this truly is how it is designed.
The other part of the denial here is the unspoken premise that men magically “enjoy” a productivity increase when they marry. In this as well she is not alone, in that conservatives have wholeheartedly adopted the same view. This overlooks the obvious, that under a marriage based system men have powerful incentives to work hard to first attract a wife and then to support his wife and children. Academics are dumbfounded as to why men become more productive after marrying, while women become less productive. The answer of course is right there in plain sight but it doesn’t fit the feminist worldview, which of course is the new conservative worldview as well. Certainly every family court judge knows that when you strip a man of his role as husband and take away his children a new mechanism must be employed to keep this man working as hard as he has previously worked.
Bodycrimes herself is at least casually acquainted with the mechanism which makes married men more productive, as she explained in her previous post Did men think up civilization all by themselves?
…this made me realise the truth of the old saying – behind every great man is a woman. Some bloke may well have built the first toilet. But it probably wasn’t his idea. Behind that first design was a woman telling him exactly where the shit should go, and how to redirect the smells, and how comfy the seat needed to be. She probably even sketched it out for him. She certainly nagged him and nagged him until he got up and built the thing. And then once he’d done that she started in on the need for toilet paper.
This is as you might have already recognized the stock argument conservatives have regarding marriage. Having a wife nagging you will make you better, or as Pastor Driscoll likes to say:
Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load.
It is important to remember that while it is true that biblical marriage is profoundly beneficial for men, women, children, and our society, this isn’t what bodycrimes and Pastor Driscoll are selling. Moreover, it isn’t women who civilize men, but marriage which civilizes men and men who civilize women.
That Bodycrimes and Pastor Driscoll both are brooding over the fact that weak men are screwing feminism up should no longer be a surprise to my readers. Both are after all deeply troubled that fewer and fewer men are signing up to marry women once they have attained their feminist merit badge. If we don’t change this course soon, large numbers of women could become trapped working like a man. However, Bodycrimes herself expresses astonishment that she is now a champion of (modern) marriage:
I want to add that I’m kind of amazed to find myself writing this. In my uni days, I was very against marriage, because the traditional institution can be very cruel to women. I’ve revised my thinking for a number of reasons, some of which I want to explore further in this blog. But for the moment, just remember one thing when it comes to marriage: the numbers don’t lie. Marriage is a vehicle for wealth creation.
It really shouldn’t amaze her, since the “marriage” she is championing is a wholly feminist creation. The ones who should be shocked are the conservatives conserving feminism, but so far very few seem to be willing to acknowledge this.
Regardless, feminists like Bodycrimes and her conservative allies are barking up the wrong tree. The decline in marriage rates isn’t due to a marriage strike, at least not in the traditional sense of the word strike. Articles telling men to man up won’t solve this problem, because what we are seeing is the logical cultural response to moving from a rewards based structure to a quota based structure. We are in this sense re-fighting the cold war, but this time on the losing side.
Pingback: Marriage of feminists and conservatives. | Manosphere.com
It’s not surprising to see feminists like ‘bodycrimes’ spin and fret — her article was in part inspired by a “Return of Kings” post warning men about buying suburban homes at female whim. But there’s yet *another* ‘use case’ that neither feminists nor conservative traditionalists really want to think of… the (horrors!) financially successful bachelor. We’re not necessarily talking about Japanese-like ‘herbivore men’…
From an old city-data.com post by ‘Amieko’:
Brilliant post, Dalrock. This is why I love your blog!
Before enjoying a lovely marriage, I always laughed at the “man up” admonition and especially enjoyed how someone like our Bodycrimes writer does not need men.
Like a fish needs a bicycle? Awesome, because this traditional manhood stuff is hard.
As comedian and post postmodern theologian Daniel Tosh observed: “Being a [feminist] is like being a man. You’re gonna have to work.”
Wait, honey, you wanted the benefits of being married to a valuable guy like me, but you want it all for free? How about sex on command? “I’m not a prostitute!” Meh, call yourself what you want, but that’s always been the deal. Thanks to feminism, we guys can also get the milk benefits of having a cow without all that crap to clean up.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say once male birth control is a stable and regular part of our lives, feminism will be thoroughly forgotten.
Off topic
Mrs. Gamer heard David Murrow being interviewed on Christian radio. He is concerned about the feminization of the church.
“I began to wonder what is a man and I began to notice how feminized everything in our churches had become — how women were into it and men weren’t.”
http://www.preaching.com/resources/articles/11550735/page-1/
He has a book out that might be interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Hate-Going-Church/dp/0785260382
Has anyone read it and, if so, could you please review it in a comment?
Not coincidentally, the most times I ever heard “where have all the good men gone” was in church. Part of the reason I no longer attend any church is what I euphemistically call my “bracing honesty” (or as Mrs. TSJ says while rolling her eyes, “you’re such an asshole sometimes”). Where have all the good or great men gone? Well, they’re totally not with you, Bodycrime girl.
(I suspect the great men are out someplace typing lazily as a continuing metaphor, and reading great books for men.)
Behind every great man is a harem.
In my twenties, I worked hard and got ahead because I was working towards the goal of someday having a family. I didn’t blow all my money out having fun, because I had a goal. It was my goal. I owned that goal. No woman nagged me into taking on that goal.
Now in my thirties and still single because I couldn’t find a suitable wife. I’m not sure what to spend my wealth on. One thing I will not do is marry any of these aging feminists.
My motto: No Hymen? No Ring!
WOW! Another one knocked right out of the park.
Three outstanding observations that every conservative and every professing Christian should be made aware of:
1. …conservatives lack an immovable reference point to anchor their views, they inadvertently find themselves conserving the radical changes feminists have wrought on our culture.
2. Likewise since feminism is the new social order, feminists find themselves less and less pushing for radical change and more and more working to conserve the social order they have created.
3. Moreover, it isn’t women who civilize men, but marriage which civilizes men and men who civilize women.
Good job Dalrock!
Liberty, Family, and Masculinity says:
June 29, 2014 at 2:28 pm
My motto: No Hymen? No Ring!
Exactly!
Your motto is reflected in the ‘exception clause’ [Matt.5:32 & 19:9]. The words “except it be for fornication”, can be correctly interpreted as the loss of HER virginity.
Sadly today this same ‘exception clause’ is used by ~conservatives~ to recycle divorcees in churchianity. Your motto is a timeless… “No Hymen? No Ring!”
http://oncemarried.net
Awesome, Dalrock. As always, I greatly appreciate the time you put into thoughtful posts like this one.
Uh, maybe you should consider eliminating the words “cash and prizes” from your vocabulary? Unless if it’s done deliberately as clickbait lol.
No one is being “rewarded” with any cash and prizes, Dalrock. The divorcing spouse receives their share of the marital assets. They didn’t get one dime of *your* money or *your* children.
Enjoy my comment.
I’ve always been bothered by the Driscollism, “Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load…”
… because that’s only true if the cargo stays put.
Trucks only have one set of controls – the cargo doesn’t get to grab the wheel or hit the brakes.
If the cargo is unstable and shifts it can cause the truck to crash no matter what driver does (I lost a friend that way), therefore the driver has the right and the duty to ensure that the cargo is lashed down securely.
George Gilder is a favorite of many conservatives. His book, Men and Marriage, promotes the idea that women and marriage civilize men. This view encourages women to marry bad boys because the woman can “fix” the bad boy – much female heartbreak results. God’s design is that women are not to “fix” or change men, they are to be their helpmeet, support.
Dr. Daniel Amneus devotes a chapter in his book debunking George Gilder:
http://www.fisheaters.com/gb7.html
Amneus calls it the Gilder Fallacy.
damarismarie, you are fugly.
Here’s the thing, though – without their wives, these men wouldn’t have the assets.
They do not have the assets when they get married. How many men buy a house that they do not actually own for the next thirty years to please a woman? How many women control the household spending?
She certainly nagged him and nagged him until he got up and built the thing.
Well, that is a little more honest. Still nothing that most men will want, but that is her problem.
The Shadowed Knight
Lol, marriage oppressive to women… oh she makes me laugh. Couldn’t care anymore, let them have marriage, it provides no benefit to me one way or the other. Soon they will be ordering men to marry, ‘by hook or by crook’ will be their motto.
We live in damnable times.
@Lyn87: Excellent tweak of the Driscollism. Very nice.
If women were always thinking these brilliant and creative ideas, why didn’t they just do it themselves? This piece of shit, Bodycrimes, is full of shit.
Re: “marriage is a vehicle for wealth creation”.
“While this is true, she is ignoring the fact that marriage as currently designed is an engine whereby women can and very often do trick men into creating wealth which (along with his children) they can then take from him.”
Bingo. It is quite facile to observe that married men produce more wealth than single men. But the author of the linked piece seems to think this is by magic or something, instead of a consequence of an institution that links a man to his children and gives him something to live and work for other than himself.
Even Marriage 1.0 was a vehicle, not for “creating more wealth”, but for transferring wealth from men to women in such a way as to make men willingly do so (i.e., permanent ties to his children, lifelong companionship, and an exclusive and lifelong claim to sex). Under marriage 2.x, the institution still transfers wealth from men to women, but with far less incentive for men to participate…which ‘splains all the pretty lies to get men to still sign up for a 50/50 chance at sucess, and all the armed men required to force men to keep transferring wealth to the woman who cashiered them and stole his children.
Re: Marraige civilizing men who in turn civilize women and children.
I prefer “marriage domesticates men, who in turn civilize women and children”, but the above isn’t bad either.
We all understand that feminism has removed the reward structure that incentivised men to marry and become hyper-productive (any man that is able to provide for himself, his family and provide chunk to the State is not merely productive – he is hyper-productive). Result; less marriageable men.
Another aspect that is rarely considered; the growth of red pill has reduced the requirement for already married men to hyper-produce as well. Once the red-pill dynamic has been established demands for frivolous baubles and trinkets can be greatly reduced. Less wealth is squandered. Doesn’t mean the husbands will necessarily slack – just means that they have the option of not pushing so hard. At least at formal work – they will have to maintain game and frame – but that’s more fun than work.
The best bit is the wives will love them for it.
As women, as a group, have withdrawn sex from the majority of men, so men, as a group, are withdrawing provisioning from women.
One man at a time.
And this is what so disturbs both the feminists and the conservatives. The institutions they control were built at a time when it was assumed that most men would be hyper-productive. They are about controlling, enforcing and skimming that productivity. They are rendered impotent when men simply don’t produce, or produce less than they are able. The only tools the fems and cons have are becoming less effective every day.
I have written before how indifference is men’s nuclear option when it comes to women. It should come as no surprise that the same dynamic is at play in the working work.
Kooky “bodycrimes” has already been deconstructed at length by Matt Forney:
http://mattforney.com/2014/02/09/is-feminist-blogger-cynthia-gockley-a-dangerous-stalker/
Note that bodycrimes may be a collective, and the featured individual may only be one of two (or more) founders of the blog (it’s sorta like a feminist Return of Kings, only with a considerable amount of paranoia, and no author names). In any event, it exists only to provide the lulz to sensible folks. Had the chief architect of bodycrimes not been uncovered so adeptly, I’d assume it was some bored manospherian who decided to run a black propaganda, and make feminists look ridiculous. (Apparently they are better at that, even, than their ideological opponents).
Boxer
damarismarie: too funny. Have you been inside a (Sharia) American Family Court lately? All the evidence is to the contrary. Every asset a man has is on the table, and automatically becomes “hers”, once she decides to divorce him, even things he owned years before he knew her (like a home, pension, etc).
Child Support is basically a form of alimony and includes costs NEVER required of parents in “intact” families, has no accounting, and oh by the way, women (custodial moms) who fail to support their children are NEVER imprisoned, even when they have graduate degrees and previously made tons of cash. Nevermind NCP moms are never pursued.
Alimony is a Victorian idea that has no place in modern Western society (although it is still, oddly and ironically, part of Islamic Sharia). And don’t even argue about legal fees. Men are almost uniformly forced to pay all or a portion of their divorcing wife’s “fees”, if the man has ANY kind of moderate income (which is the only cases attorney’s try to really escalate for fees, they aren’t dumb).
If divorce had not become such a cash cow for women, you wouldn’t see it so much, and so often initiated by one gender. The reality is, many kind, decent men have woken up to find themselves subject to draconian forces (as noted in Baskerville’s TAKEN INTO CUSTODY), losing their children, their houses, the income, everything.
Your claim isn’t even given to pretense any longer, women know and SHARE that you can get cash and prizes, and write books like, “MAKE THE JERK PAY”.
Until good women stand up to the system, and as they age and grow older, realize their OWN SONS are subject to such measures, nothing will change, and men will continue to observe the reality around them and chose not to marry.
My guess is one reason we have not seen otherwise decent women stand up to this–like millions of men have and do to rape and “she wore a dress so she deserved it” (it could be our own daughters)–and the reason is simple–you realize you might want to rely upon such inequality in Family Court in your own life at some point. Women are all about protecting the status quo because it serves them. You have become the functional equivalent of men who, thinking THEY may choose to rape someday, rely upon the old cliché “she dressed like a slut, she deserved to be raped”.
What’s interesting is how many women, upon hearing men’s factually based horror stories, and not doubting it, actually say things like that “well, the bottom line is, you/he, probably deserved it!” That is ALWAYS where the conversation ends, once you handle all the objections, matters of proof, it’s: YOUR A GUY AND YOU DESERVE TO LOSE YOUR CHILDREN, HOUSE, MONEY, ETC.
The financial benefits of not being married in this day and age, if you are a man, are pretty clear. My younger brother married his high-school sweetheart and was divorced by his early forties. Not only did he have no assets at that point, he was in debt due to her constant spending. A decade later he has remarried and made some progress financially, but he will never catch up to where he would have been otherwise.
I myself never married and have thus been free to pursue my career as I see fit, which I enjoy greatly. I have my own condo, 401k, brokerage account, car and no debt other than my mortgage. My assets are worth around a quarter million and I have many productive years left in which to keep building that wealth.
On the other hand, one of my coworkers is a childless cat lady. She says that she has money saved, but seems to always be short of funds and lives hand to mouth. By the end of our two week pay period she is typically low on cash. She has no car and takes public transportation to work taking up to 6 hours a day for travel. Constantly focused on concerts, bands and rock stars, she clearly is spending money on entertainment, jewelry and adornments, but if she has significant savings, I see no evidence of it. In my experience single women tend to be poor at managing their money, frequently spending far more than they should and saving less than they need to.
If the cargo is unstable and shifts it can cause the truck to crash no matter what driver does (I lost a friend that way), therefore the driver has the right and the duty to ensure that the cargo is lashed down securely.
Exactly!
And biblical patriarchy gave men at least some means of tying down that cargo so it was less likely to wreck the truck.
@damarismarie: “No one is being “rewarded” with any cash and prizes, Dalrock. The divorcing spouse receives their share of the marital assets. They didn’t get one dime of *your* money or *your* children.”
Beg to differ, from harsh experience. A huge part of my ex-wife’s calculus in leaving me was the cash and prizes. She counted on: (a) primary custody of our daughter and at least equal custody of our son; (b) correspondingly significant child support until both kids were 18; (c) significant alimony for a significant amount of time (her opening demand was for $2,000/month in PERMANENT alimony); (d) half of our accumulated assets (including, paradoxically, her engagement and wedding rings, as well as other expensive jewelry I had given her because she was my wife); and (e) all of this at no expense to her (i.e., sticking me with her attorney’s fees). Unfortunately for her, she had bad timing and she got bad advice, so she ended up with (a) primary custody of our daughter but virtually no custody of our son; (b) consequently, less than 2/3 of the child support she expected, plus the obligation to pay me a small amount of child support for our son’s last year of minority; (c) a small amount of alimony for just 4 years; (d) half of merely our personal property because we were underwater on our $350,000 house; and (e) a big attorney’s fees debt, because I didn’t have to pay hers (though she stiffed both of the two different attorneys she used). To put it mildly, she was not happy with the less-than-expected outcome, which had two consequences: she was (and remains) furious with me, so that she takes every opportunity to be difficult going forward (custody exchanges, etc.), and she abandoned her vaunted “independence” to rush into a remarriage with a less-than-suitable candidate so that she’d have the security of another provider (a false security, I expect she’ll discover one day soon).
If society had informed my ex-wife at the outset that her expected cash and prizes weren’t going to materialize, I doubt seriously that she would have frivorced me. More certainly, if society had informed her at the outset that her maximal outcome would be 50% custody, child support based on that arrangement, and nothing else — she never would have pulled the trigger. Yes, that would have forced the two of us to co-exist for the benefit of the kids (or, more likely, to have worked out improvements in the relationship), but we’d both be better off financially today and, of ultimate importance, our kids would still have an intact home — no split celebrations of holidays, birthdays, graduations, weddings, grandchildren, etc., no extra 400 mile journeys to mom’s new home, etc.
So, contrary to your statement, she did get much more than a dime of my money — she got $900+/month for almost 4 years (child support, only a small percentage of which was actually necessary or used for my daughter) and $300/month for a year (alimony, until she remarried), on top of her $32,000/year salary (plus benefits) from the job that she obtained in the last years of our marriage (with my help).
And those “marital assets” that you think she had a “share” of — how would that be, exactly? She stopped work when our first child was born and never worked again until he was in college. Along the way, she was provided with food, houses, clothing, cars, vacations, medical treatment, and so forth — almost always in excess of what most of her friends had and vastly in excess of what she grew up with.
Speaking of vocabulary, bodyCrimes and damarismarie should add the word SAMMICH to their terminology followed by FOR MY MAN. I like to say, a sammich a day helps keep the hamster at bay.
damarismarie said:
> No one is being “rewarded” with any cash and prizes, Dalrock. The divorcing spouse receives their share of the marital assets. They didn’t get one dime of *your* money or *your* children.
The only women who would say such a blatantly absurd lie are the greedy liars who are exactly “like that”.
Enjoy your cats..
I grew up hearing the claim ‘women civilize men’ when it is readily apparent that women’s nature is feral. This is easily observed watching 20 something women. They are at their most desirable and are having fun. Then, they hit 30 and wonder where ‘all the good men are’. Men are waking up and women are panicking. Meanwhile, conservatives have their heads in the sand and simply say ‘man up’ (and marry that tramp).
In today’s cultural and legal climate, there is simply no good reason for men to marry and plenty of reasons to not marry.
Off Topic: I apologize for going far afield, but as a Catholic who has newly awakened to his faith, can anyone (Cail, Scott) provide me a link some good (read: old, non-modernist) apologetic to counter the modernist interpretations I so often see of Catholicism? I see more promotion of immoral behavior and attempts to restrain those who speak the truth of Christ’s teaching from my fellow Catholics than from atheists and other neo-pagans.
The simple fact is: no other model of marriage other than the State Approved Model of Marriage will be tolerated. Activist Judges willfully ignore Marriage Contracts that were freely and voluntarily agreed to.
Meaning Traditional Marriage is effectively outlawed.
The only type of marriage which is legal is Feminist “Marriage”. When early feminists said that marriage = prostitution, they must have been advocating rather than describing.
A certain Troll here is right. It’s not “cash and prizes”. Instead it’s her fair share that her Pimps in Office had prenegotiated for her. As a Christian, I cannot in good conscience use the services of a State Supplied Prostitute.
@damarismarie
How about all the men I served with, whose ex-wives get 50% of their military retirement pay, for the rest of their lives? What was she doing to deserve what he earned, getting shot at and living/working in oft-terrible conditions?
I don’t believe I’ve done this before: Thank you, Dalrock.
P.S. My original screen name was going to be “immovablereferencepoint”, but it was too cumbersome.
Have y’all seen Divorce Corp
More money flows through the family courts, and into the hands of courthouse insiders, than in all other court systems in America combined – over $50 billion a year and growing. Through extensive research and interviews with the nation’s top divorce lawyers, mediators, judges, politicians, litigants and journalists, this documentary uncovers how children are torn from their homes, unlicensed custody evaluators extort money, and abusive judges play god with people’s lives while enriching their friends. This explosive documentary reveals the family courts as unregulated, extra-constitutional fiefdoms. Rather than assist victims of domestic crimes, these courts often precipitate them. And rather than help parents and children move on, as they are mandated to do, these courts – and their associates – drag out cases for years, sometimes decades, ultimately resulting in a rash of social ills, including home foreclosure, bankruptcy, suicide and violence. Solutions to the crisis are sought out in countries where divorce is handled in a more holistic manner.
I really enjoy your blog. Have you seen this? Do you have any thoughts on it?
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/May/Divorce-Shocker-Most-Marriages-Do-Make-It/
[D: Thanks. I have seen similar articles, and discussed them here. I may still do a separate post debunking the problematic stats.]
Another recent true story. The ‘wife’ after 14 years of marriage and 3 ‘american-born’ children (oldest 12), was ‘unhappy’, because she was Canadian and he was American and she wanted to move back home. The ‘nice-guy-finish-last’ husband granted her wish and relocated back to Canada. 2 weeks later….papers filed for divorce.
She knew well no US judge would allow her to keep her children to be moved to another country, so she manipulated him to move his life. Now he lives in Canada and is homesick, but wants to be close to his children.
How cun(!)ning!
David J,
Nice take-down of damarismarie. Women like her often have no idea how privileged married women usually are: “food, houses, clothing, cars, vacations, medical treatment, and so forth.”
It’s like they don’t realize that those things do not grow on trees, but are made possible by the fact that married men work hard to provide those things for their wives and children. And by that I mean they work much harder than they would have to if they were only providing those things for themselves.
With that sort of “magical thinking” it’s easy to think that a split that gives her primary custody of his children, full-time residency in the house he pays for, at least half of the liquid assets, and an ongoing siphon attached to his future earnings – while sticking him with everything from the bills she ran up to the fees for the lawyer who helped her take his stuff – is “equitable.”
But incentives matter, and the incentives are such that men are not as keen to enter the arrangement. Dalrock is right – there is no Marriage Strike in the sense that most people understand the term. It’s just that feminism was based on the idea that women could jettison their obligations under the old rules while men would agree to maintain their obligations under the status quo ante. What the wall-bangers are beginning to notice is that radically changing one aspect of the equation changed the rest as well.
The “Good Men” they have lost track of (“Where, oh where, have they gone?”), are no longer there in sufficient numbers to meet the demand. In my single days I was willing to do a great deal for a wife, but I fully expected an attractive virgin who was looking for Biblical marriage: which is what I got. What you bring to the table is proportional to what you can walk away with, and with the average American bride sporting more notches in her bed-posts than a log at lumberjack competition, those “Good Men” see few women who are in their league. The corollaries are that 1) such men can be very choosy, and the average woman won’t make the cut, and 2) many men just play the hand they’re dealt and don’t bust their butts to signal “provider” status – why bother? A third factor is that women often have to “put out or get out” early to even stay in the game, and since most of those relationships do not work out, these women are driving up their N and driving down their MMV. Not that they’re just spreading their legs to get commitment, for that matter… feral women need no such incentive, and feminism makes women feral.
“Moreover, it isn’t women who civilize men, but marriage which civilizes men and men who civilize women.”
Great comment Dalrock! That really resonated with me.
Yes, she starts with an obvious strawman: no one claims women divorce for “no other reason” than cash and prizes. Cash and prizes just make it much easier for a unhappy wife to pull the trigger on divorce. We saw a perfect example of that in the CAF article you posted recently, which could be boiled down to: “I want to leave him so badly I’ve convinced myself God is telling me to, but I’m afraid I can’t afford it.”
Maybe it would be easier for them to understand the equivalent for a man. If a man’s wife gets fat and starts limiting sex to one boring monthly session, he may want to leave her. But if there are no other women who show an interest in him, he may figure once a month is better than never, and being alone is rough when you’re not used to it, so he’ll stay. On the other hand, if his pretty 20-year-old secretary has made it clear that she’d like to take his wife’s place, and she talks a lot about how much she loves giving head, he’s much more likely to make a move. Hot flirty secretary == cash and prizes.
Vercingetorix-
I assume you are talking about me. I am Byzantine Catholic. The VERY short explanation of that is “Orthodox in communion with Rome.”
We use the same liturgy, liturgical calendar, and for the most part theology as the Eastern Orthodox churches. Much more “conservative” Christians are comfortable there than in the current RCC, because they are very patriarchal–just like Orthodox. Even my wife, a cradle RCC sees the very big differences and describes Mass as “leaving her flat.”
The Byzantine rite, is just far more spiritually disciplined. There are more fast days, for example. There is more support from clergy if you are trying to maintain what Donal Graeme calls “traditional” marriage.
Anyone can convert to Byzantine Catholic. It is easier if you have an Orthodox background, but it is not closed. You should find Byzantine church and check it out. They are generally in big metro areas though.
With regards to ‘where are all the good men gone’ argument, you have to realize that literally about 80% of the male population is completely invisible to women, and literally I mean they don’t even know they exist.
It’s no surprise, and since we seem to be mimicking play-for-play exactly what happened in the Roman era, the next step will be a bachelor tax of some kind, but back then it wasn’t enough to coax men to marry, and it sure as shit won’t be now.
After that it all burned to the ground.
That’s a great way to put it. I’ve said before that the “women civilize men” meme is one of those sayings that’s almost true and yet completely false. Women, by their existence, inspire men to create civilization. But they don’t “do something” to civilize men, and this nitwit’s idea that a woman probably designed the first toilet and walked a man through the building of it is just bizarre. That’s so weird I don’t even know what to say about it, except this: if you ever want to get a woman to leave you alone, start on some plumbing work. When you crack open the drain pipe and that whiff of sewage comes out, she’ll disappear.
A man builds a house, or a city, or a civilization, so he has a place to keep his woman safe from other men and other dangers. He builds a toilet so she won’t have to go to the outhouse in the middle of winter and possibly get frostbite or bitten by a spider. She does nothing — has no need to do anything — to cause this other than to exist and be desirable.
So marriage (version 1.0), by ensuring the man access to that desirable woman, inspires him to be civilized. Then by building civilization — the buildings and organizations and laws and social mores that restrain human behavior — he in turn civilizes her.
the next step will be a bachelor tax of some kind
Paid by working unmarried women. They’ve become the beta providers they used to marry. Have fun with that. (Them, not you Dimitri).
“Marriage is a vehicle for wealth creation….”
———————————-
“For women”
She conveniently omitted.
“Academics are dumbfounded as to why men become more productive after marrying, while women become less productive.”
———————————–
Dumbfounded because they don’t know or dumbfounded to protect their livelihoods?
More thoughts on this:
Ever notice how ‘freelance’ fems like Bodygrime are quite often an amalgam of what is worst in both leftism and conservatism?
Same went for Lady Pain years ago.
That’s a really interesting point. Both groups are working from a baseline of the 1950s-1960s — feminists in rebellion against it, conservatives in a sort of nostalgia for it (parts of it, anyway). But that was an unusual time, when the war had left the USA as almost the only first-world nation without major damage to its industry, and three decades of low immigration made wages high. The resulting affluence made it seem like we could afford almost any whim, from letting women stay in the workforce when they were no longer needed to fill in for men off at war, to every family owning a house and two-car garage in the suburbs.
So both groups look back and think, “If we could afford our wish-lists then, we ought to be able to afford them now and forever.” Times change, though, and that era was a sort of perfect storm of positive economic factors that aren’t likely to come together often.
Aside from the economics, there was also a store of moral capital at that time, so that strictures could be relaxed without most people immediately jumping into the worst possible behavior. That’s no longer the case either.
“Here’s the thing, though – without their wives, these men wouldn’t have the assets.”
Did she seriously just say that?
I’m not married and God blessed my finances big-time not too long ago. (Think six figures.) I used a portion of it to buy a Mustang convertible and an awesome apartment in a quiet suburb of my hometown. (Worcester, MA.) I wanna keep the money and the peace and quiet, which is why I’m in no hurry to get married.
@asdgamer, David Murrow’s _Church for Men_ book sparked yet another Christian men’s movement that followed the failed Promise Keepers movement. Both movements, CfM and PK, fell apart within years due to the same reason: a majority of Christian men didn’t want to change the feminist status quo. Of course, this perfectly matches the theme of this article.
I’m sure this will sound strange coming from Brother Boxer, but she’s right in many cases. (A busted clock tells correct time, by coincidence, once in a while).
Of all the really successful marriages I’ve heard of, the husband and wife are an actual team, and they work together to build wealth. One partner makes the money, the other invests it — One partner is the homemaker, the other does the job — One partner plans, the other executes in his absence. Basically, this is the biblical headship model, which is discussed on this blog, acted out in the modern world.
The couple, early on, must have taken an honest evaluation of their respective strengths and weaknesses and figured out how to maximize the team potential. Look at really successful men and their wives (there are many of these in every town) and get the picture.
Of course, these are also exactly the types of people who know how to delay gratification, which means that not only do they tend to be successful, but they also don’t end up in the divorce court, giving away 2/3 of their collective fortune to the state and various attorneys. They likely don’t squabble over nonsense in the Wal-Mart parking lot, nor do they do drugs or sleep around. This is where the feminist argument breaks down, because the dysfunctional couples are given the same credit as the successful ones when they can’t keep it together.
Boxer
Longtorso sez, “Paid by working unmarried women. They’ve become the beta providers they used to marry.”
But they’ll have a way out of it. Check out the speech by Rubio that ATC linked yesterday, staring at the 15:10 mark, “As part of our upcoming proposal, the per-child tax credit she (a single mother) currently receives would be raised from $1000 to $2500, so she can keep more of her own money. And that credit would be made refundable up to the total payroll and income tax liability, which means whatever isn’t saved through her reduction in tax liability would be received in the form of a check.”
Apparently “keeping more of her own money” means taking more of mine and giving it to her, because uterus. And this is a so-called conservative rising star in the Republican Party. The Democrats won’t even reach for that much of a fig-leaf: they’d prefer to just mandate blood tests and tax testosterone.
All they have to do is pop out a kid and their taxes will be reduced drastically. And if the reduction is greater than the tax burden, they get a check to make up the difference… so not only are they NOT proposing putting a limit on actively subsidizing bastardy, but each additional one will add to her benefit package. Sure, some women will pay more for a few years, but the bulk of the burden will fall on men – like it always does. No matter what screw-ball, counter-productive caveats they have to write into the law, it will primarily cost productive men and benefit feral women.
The problem with those so-called “Christian men’s movements” is that, in the feminist atmosphere, they’re far too easily turned into “man up” sessions where men are exhorted to be better betas and beasts of burden. A while back, I heard a talk by a guy who’s starting one for Catholic men, and it had the same emphasis: we need to teach men to be better men, because that’s what would fix the problems in our society and in our Church.
Which is a half-truth: men do need to be better men, and a lot of men crave the kind of challenge they can only get from other men. Done right, that can be a good thing. But if it’s done in a vacuum without an equivalent challenge to women, it gives everyone the impression that women are just fine as they are.
The men do get lots of encouragement about being leaders — but of society in general, and perhaps of their families, but not of their wives specifically. The way I related it to a friend is: the guy gets his wife’s permission to go spend his weekend at the men’s conference, and he comes home all pumped up about being a better leader, and she says, “Great, you can start by leading the garbage out to the curb.”
That’s a really interesting point. Both groups are working from a baseline of the 1950s-1960s — feminists in rebellion against it, conservatives in a sort of nostalgia for it (parts of it, anyway).
Perhaps idealistically this is how the two groups approach this, but I don’t think this is so in reality. There were conservatives in the 1960s and 70s who fought against feminism to preserve what they had grown up with in the decades prior to the 1950s, but their efforts were washed away in a flood of lies and societal debauchery.
By the 2000s and possible as early as the 1990s conservatives were trying to conserve something very different than the 1950s or 60s. And now they focus on an even more of a leftist slant then before. I often hear and read conservatives openly mocking the 1950s and 60s. When I was a child male headship and women staying home to raise children and clean house was not even disputed in our circles, and my family wasn’t even Christian at the time.
How many conservatives will get behind the biblical teaching of male headship and wifely submission any more? How many think wives should stay at home anymore? Not many. Not like there was 30 to 50 years ago. Now most conservatives support most of what their own fathers and grandfathers were against.
It’s like Dalrock said, they have no fixed point of reference (although if they are Christian they should). They are moving in the same direction as the progressives, only they are a generation behind.
And feminists all along have wanted all the benefits that successful men have had with out any of the accountability. From the very beginning they have lied about the past and not just the 1950s and 60s. They have lied about all of the past where marriage and patriarchy are concerned.
And now we have conservative women who are full blown feminists. We also have “Christians” that openly argue that feminism and Christianity are not incompatible. One or two generations earlier these women would have been recognized for what they are. Now they just blend in with the crowd.
Regardless of the era, the biblical role model has the best track record for strong stable families and societies, but neither feminists, and now, conservatives can’t or won’t see this.
Just my 2 cents.
Dimitri says:
“the next step will be a bachelor tax of some kind, but back then it wasn’t enough to coax men to marry, and it sure as shit won’t be now.”
Most of the current tax and spend set up is a man tax as it is. 70%+ of government jobs and spending go to women. Social Security, the majority is to old women. The child tax credits go overwhelmingly to women because of the custody situation in the united states.
The most rational choice for men is to do the bare minimum to get by and learn game. Not work hard. Not get married. Not have children, Not go to college.
All of those things are traps, burdens with no reward to them anymore and more and more men are realizing it.
Did it again. The last paragraph should be:
Regardless of the era, the biblical role model has the best track record for strong stable families and societies, but feminists, and now, conservatives can’t or won’t see this.
The problem with those so-called “Christian men’s movements” is that, in the feminist atmosphere, they’re far too easily turned into “man up” sessions where men are exhorted to be better betas and beasts of burden.
Yep! This is exactly what happened to the PK movement. The messages where increasingly about catering to women, although I didn’t get it at the time. Nevertheless, they crossed a line I could see back then. The last time I paid any attention to the PK was when they had a women get up and speak to a gathering of thousands upon thousands of men.
Dalrock, you need a test to distinguish between conservatives and feminists, and I think this may help. The wisdom of conservatism is that whatever we have been doing as a culture, it hasn’t caused the sky to fall, yet. Therefore it is only prudent to be slow and careful to change. As you have rightly pointed out on several occasions, however, so called conservatives are defending institutions that have never existed anywhere until the last few decades, and which have done enormous damage to society in that short time. They will deny that they believe women to be inherently superior to men, but their rationalizations for their stated positions logically entail such a belief.
When faced with a purported conservative/suspected feminist, present them with this scenario and ask their opinion. A man and a woman marry in their early twenties. The woman is not employed. The man works a blue collar job and comes home daily to a clean house and hot meals. They are very happy, but apparently are unable to have children. Both partners publicly express sadness and regret at their infertility. The man pursues formal education that will lead to more remunerative white collar employment. To assist in this, the wife works a few odd entry level part time jobs during her late twenties. In their early thirties, the man is now working his higher status/pay job. The man discovers that his wife has had an abortion. When confronted, she reveals that she has been taking birth control without his knowledge throughout the marriage. He files for divorce. She opposes and seeks alimony.
To understand how this test works, it will be instructive to consider the intellectually and morally bankrupt responses which it will receive from most people. Many will argue with the facts of the hypothetical, wildly inventing new facts of their own to justify the woman’s behavior. Surely there was something about him that she knew would prevent him from being a good father. By engaging in this exercise, they demonstrate their mental unfitness to judge anything. Either they don’t understand what hypothetical means, they are unable to understand that the words you have given them don’t, in fact, contain the new facts they have just invented, or, (most likely) they are tacitly admitting that no matter what facts exist in any situation, they will always choose to believe an alternate set of facts which allows them to side with the party they find to be more sympathetic based on demographic factors.
Others will recite the facts from the scenario which would normally justify an alimony award, and extend them to their logical conclusions. She has a shitty work history, so she won’t be able to get a good job. He makes good money now, in part because she helped pay the bills while he went to school. Of course, this isn’t a question about whether alimony should exist. The question presented is whether any woman should be denied alimony based on her own behavior. If the marriage ended when the man ran away with his mistress, or even when he became unhaaaapy, then his promise to provide for the woman, having been reasonably relied upon by her, should be enforced. But her (shocking, fraudulent, on-going, egregious) conduct denies the man his own reproductive freedom, and one of the primary benefits of the marriage he thought he had.
Next, the most unsophisticated feminist will bring up the “double standard” inherent in holding all people to an identical standard of honesty and fair-dealing with others. No matter what gender-reversed scenario you could apply (high earning woman, vasectomy concealing husband) only women get pregnant, so it is “easier” for men to keep our word to women when we promise not to sabotage their efforts to reproduce. This ignores that it is equally easy for men and women who don’t want to have children to merely say so, and not sucker their partners into relationships that aren’t what they seem. These people are so far over the edge, there is no point engaging them further.
This brings us to the refuge of those closet feminist conservatives, who are desperate to maintain their conservative credentials. They will make this about abortion. She shouldn’t get the alimony because we should discourage abortion, they’ll say, confident that they have taken the truly anti-feminist position. They couldn’t be any more transparent. They’re setting themselves up to pretend that feminism and the sexual revolution never happened. Not receiving alimony isn’t a punishment. Keeping abortion legal for women, while men (husbands and fathers) have no right to compel or forbid it keeps women in the superior position highlighted by the hypothetical in the first place, even if women who hijack their partners’ reproductive choices lose some of the bonuses they might otherwise have received. Moreover, these people would never suggest that the woman should be denied the alimony if the husband consented to the birth control and abortion. But why should it make any difference when his choice is neither sufficient nor necessary for the abortion to occur. They’re just pretending to enforce sexual morality of women to avoid endorsing abortion. The reason they oppose abortion in the first place is because they are uncomfortable with the cognitive dissonance they must hold in their heads in order to insist on the perpetuation of male gender roles in the current age of women’s free reproductive choice.
The right answer, of course, is that this woman should receive nothing, because she has committed fraud and robbed a man of an important part of his life. He’ll need every resource he can earn to try to start over. As to her needs, who cares. She shit on this man and he owes her nothing.
Vercing, what in particular were you looking for? There are a whole host of resources out there, but they are scattered about.
The right answer, of course, is that this woman should receive nothing, because she has committed fraud and robbed a man of an important part of his life.
This may be the correct answer, but it is not necessarily the conservative answer. And if conservatives stay on they same projection they have been on for the last 50 years, it certainly won’t be their answer in another decade or two.
I agree, JDG. I’ve been trying to come up with any nationally prominent conservatives who would get this right. So far, I’ve got Antonin Scalia and (probably) Rush Limbaugh.
To Vercingetorix:
Check out crisismagazine.com. The site is similar to Dalrock’s but tackle a variety of current topics concerning Catholics specifically and Christians generally. The site, also, similar to Dalrock’s contains comments that are as enlightening as the original article. God bless, Michael
Conservatives think women are better than men.
Feminists think men are worse than women.
In other words, they both think women > men. But for feminists, it’s about hating men. They don’t necessarily like women a lot, but they don’t hate them like they hate men, and they’re a useful tool to use against men and the patriarchy. For conservatives, it’s about having women on a pedestal. They don’t hate men, but they don’t see men as being on the same plane as women. They see women as inherently good, if not quite perfect, while men must strive hard just to be decent.
So to tell the difference, look for the focus: is he just tearing down men? Then he’s a feminist. Is he trying to get men to be worthy of women? Then he’s a conservative.
@theadsgamer,
RE: _Why Men Don’t Go to Church_
> Has anyone read it and, if so, could you please review it in a comment?
I read the book after someone referring to it in one of these threads. I can’t remember every last detail now, but I felt he had a reasonable grasp on many issues. I have given a copy to 2 pastors, one of which could REALLY take its message to heart.
He would probably not get welcomed here, but his ideas and concepts are very similar to what you see here.
srsly, I think you are assuming a lot more thought on the part of many “feminist conservatives” or even modern people in general. Few really think through what they believe and adjust their actions or beliefs when they deviate.
Excellent points, Cail, but I was aiming at conservatives who seem more consistent. When they wear their feminism on their sleeves, anyone can see it. I tried to give a difficult case to truly test the judgment of someone living in this feminized culture even if they’ve never considered such issues directly. I think I’ve succeeded in synthesizing a particularly jagged red pill, and I’d suggest bringing it out at parties that get boring enough for you to want to be forcibly removed.
BradA, those are exactly the ones that will argue with the facts or justify institutions like alimony generally, instead of in the particular case. They have no thoughts, and in this culture, they default to vagina wins.
Great post, Dalrock.
lzozozol hey Dalrock!
yes modern conservatives love love love feminissiszmzi!! and so do tradcocnznz and neoccnonszzllzlozozoz butcchtbuztzetxtxzklllzozolz
but chekc out russel kirkaz russelz kirrkz who wrote the CONSERVATIVE MIND long before boxer was born to teahc that marcuse and freud fathered jesusuz!!!
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/50252.Russell_Kirk
KIRK saw conservatismz as a renaisssance and rebirth of traditionz valueesz!
“The twentieth-century conservative is concerned, first of all, for the regeneration of the spirit and character – with the perennial problem of the inner order of the soul, the restoration of the ethical understanding, and the religious sanction upon which any life worth living is founded. This is conservatism at its highest.”
― Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind
“Men cannot improve a society by setting fire to it (fireproof zlzoozl): they must seek out its old virtues, and bring them back into the light.”
― Russell Kirk
“I did not love cold harmony and perfect regularity of organization; what I sought was variety, mystery, tradition, the venerable, the awful. I despised sophisters and calculators; I was groping for faith, honor, and prescriptive loyalties. I would have given any number of neo-classical pediments for one poor battered gargoyle.”
― Russell Kirk
“If you want to have order in the commonwealth, you first have to have order in the individual soul.”
― Russell Kirk
“The conservative “thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the ideologue is merciless.”
― Russell Kirk
“I am a conservative. Quite possibly I am on the losing side; often I think so. Yet, out of a curious perversity I had rather lose with Socrates/da GBFM, let us say, than win with Lenin/Boxer.”
― Russell Kirk
lzozozolzolzozozol
They will definitely argue srsly, even without facts. That is true.
I think I might be being misconstrued here. The test isn’t to discern between feminists who call themselves feminists and feminists who call themselves conservatives. It’s to discern between feminists who call themselves conservatives and conservatives who call themselves conservatives(an exceedingly rare group of people these days).
From Rollo Tomassi’s Rational Male blog…
It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.
A major illustration of this can be found in the ‘late-to-the-party’ resurgence of masculine ideals in mainstream evangelical christianity today. Like so much else in christian culture, they’re happy to use the popularity of a secular phenomenon and repackage it as kosher, the manosphere is no exception. Hacks like Mark Driscoll and more than few other “relevant” new order evangelical pastors have co-opted manosphere (MRA?) fundamentals – even ‘purified’ forms of Game – as their particular cause du jour for returning men back into their roles of accountability to the female imperative. …
We are acculturated into a world where the ‘common sense’ is to presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essences everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.
Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.
http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/08/could-a-man-have-written-this/
O/T, here’s an article about an interesting study: Rise of the female ‘relationship terrorists’: Study finds women are more controlling and aggressive towards their partners than men
Lots of juicy quotes in this one, such as, “[Dr. Elizabeth Bates] said scientists may have to think again about the reasons for male violence against women, which previous studies said arose from ‘patriarchal values’ in which men are motivated to seek to control women’s behaviour, using violence if necessary.” And, “‘A contributing factor could be that in the past women have talked about it more,’ she said. ‘The feminist movement made violence towards women something we talk about.'” (Heh, that’s a roundabout way of saying feminism makes women violent.)
Seems like this article would be a good fodder for Dalrock. Obviously it’s not news to any of us, but it’s interesting that some ivory-tower types are starting to connect the dots.
@Lynn87
Trucks only have one set of controls – the cargo doesn’t get to grab the wheel or hit the brakes.
If the cargo is unstable and shifts it can cause the truck to crash no matter what driver does (I lost a friend that way), therefore the driver has the right and the duty to ensure that the cargo is lashed down securely.
Best comment of the day.
Dalrock, great work once again- thank you.
“Some bloke may well have built the first toilet.”
That would be Thomas Crapper. OK, not really, but he did design many improvements, and he really is the reason we call it a crapper.
Side note: on my one deployment to Iraq I developed my Sanitation Theory of Civilization, which basically states that a civilization’s greatness is directly proportional to its handling of raw sewage. It may not be accurate, but when you find yourself thigh deep in what you thought was mud, it sounds reasonable.
@Cail Corishev
“But for feminists, it’s about hating men. They don’t necessarily like women a lot, but they don’t hate them like they hate men, and they’re a useful tool to use against men and the patriarchy.”
I don’t know about that. They seen to reserve their deepest hatred for women who actually live out Biblical marriage.
Actually, that is a pretty good metaphor.
On a related note, bizarre tropical diseases (neti pot amoeba, weird encephalitic bacteria, etc.) are cropping up in places like North Carolina and Louisiana, whereas they had never been seen in the USA before. Our own capacity to clean our public drinking water and process our sewage (which are actually rather complex tasks) is weakening. Third world, here we come!
@theadsgamer
I may do a more thorough review of it in the future on my blog, but here’s the short version: The guy is very astute in terms of observations regarding the feminization of the church and has some wonderful insights on the issue of commercialization in the church, but his suggestions on how to fix it double-down on the big problems of the church. Murrow is very much Churchian in his full outlook of how the Church should be. I’d give it a 6/10 rating because of his Churchianity.
@Dalrock Good post. Just read a passage out of a book that led me to post on the same thing, and hopefully can very soon.
“Here’s the thing, though – without their wives, these men wouldn’t have the assets. ”
Isn’t it odd this little gem is spoke about so often? A handy little meme, no?
Of course it has nothing to do with encouraging marriage, it’s simply the principle behind ‘unjust enrichment’ and ‘opportunity cost’ used in common law marriages or cohabitation break ups to rape men of assets.
Given the future prevalence of increased cohabitation rates it’s important that this little meme becomes common knowledge and an enshrined fact.
Driscoll is oblivious that his “Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load…”, is actually going to be used for providing asset distributions for marriage 3.0 or cohabitation break ups.
Regarding Gilder: His views are perhaps where most of the Churchian types (Driscoll, Mohler, etc) are marching in their feminism. Gilder’s ideas are a lot of the genesis for the current man-up rants, as James Dobson (Focus on the Family) puts it:
Of course, the whole basis of this is the moral argument of feminism, that all men are evil and all women are good, and that the influence of a woman all of a sudden makes him right before her, society, the world, and God.
Sadly, this is an idea that predates feminists, and will be much more difficult to get rid of than they will be. If we want to defeat this poisonous idea, we need to purge ourselves of all our literary romanticism and our neo-Kantian ideas about the political appropriation of sexuality.
See “Domesticating Women, Civilizing Men” by Fermon, Nicole. The Sociological Quarterly: Vol. 35, No. 3, Aug. 1994 for a good synopsis of how this idea permeated every aspect of our culture. It should be available here or perhaps at jstor.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1533-8525
Actually, as I’ve found in studying this stuff, the whole idea is feminism. If you really want to get somewhere in explaining what Dalrock wrote, you really have to come to terms with the fact that what most people call “feminists” are just playing the same old song and dance that has happened over the last 400 years.
What most call “feminists” are doing the same as the tradcons are doing, but just substituting the State for Christ. This becomes apparent in studying some of the feminist actions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (regulation and abolition of certain “vices” such as alcohol) as well as in the realization that modern feminism wouldn’t exist whatsoever without the existence of traditional factors in society that tradcon feminism has built such as female-centric moral authority and male sacrifice (i.e. chivalry).
What most people call “feminism” is really in truth “second verse, same as the first”.
Interesting timing to speak of conservatives. Jonah Goldberg posted “The Importance of Family: There’s a reason that progressives have historically been so hostile to it” at the National Review 2 days ago:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381428/importance-family-jonah-goldberg
I posted an initial comment containing what could be some “red pill wisdom” about the relationship between church, its (lost) monopoly on marriage, and marriage’s (lost) monopoly on licit sex, and was roundly pilloried on that conservative page. I’m not sure anyone here has ever been as rude to lil’ ol’ liberal Blue. Anyway – their arguments and accusations were fairly delightful to respond to in case anyone wants to stop over and look.
@Dalrock – our writing styles are, of course, different, but I want to note that if it was me then where you write:
“Academics are dumbfounded as to why men become more productive after marrying, while women become less productive.”
… were it me I would have separated that by a line from the previous and following text and I’d of probably indented it.
It deserves standout treatment. You really want that one to sit with people because in six days or less every reader will encounter an article talking about exactly that subject, perplexed as it walks all about the matter, unable to turn and face it directly to internalize it for what it is.
As a single father – caring for my children most of the time and oddly enough still paying child support – I’m a living, breathing productivity machine. I don’t think it can be articulated in 3 sentences or less … but it is essential for me to overproduce to keep ahead of the legal and cultural advantages available to my ex-wife but not available to me. The subject deserves its own microscope and its own article.
Interesting timing to speak of conservatives. Jonah Goldberg posted “The Importance of Family: There’s a reason that progressives have historically been so hostile to it” at the National Review 2 days ago:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381428/importance-family-jonah-goldberg
I posted an initial comment containing what could be some “red pill wisdom” about the relationship between church, its (lost) monopoly on marriage, and marriage’s (lost) monopoly on licit sex, and was roundly pilloried on that conservative page. I’m not sure anyone here has ever been as rude to lil’ ol’ liberal Blue. Anyway – their arguments and accusations were fairly delightful to respond to in case anyone wants to stop over and look.
@Dalrock – our writing styles are, of course, different, but I want to note that if it was me then where you write:
“Academics are dumbfounded as to why men become more productive after marrying, while women become less productive.”
… were it me I would have separated that by a line from the previous and following text and I’d of probably indented it.
It deserves standout treatment. You really want that one to sit with people because in six days or less every reader will encounter an article talking about exactly that subject, perplexed as it walks all about the matter, unable to turn and face it directly to internalize it for what it is.
As a single father – caring for my children most of the time and oddly enough still paying child support – I’m a living, breathing productivity machine. I don’t think it can be articulated in 3 sentences or less … but it is essential for me to overproduce to keep ahead of the legal and cultural advantages available to my ex-wife but not available to me. The subject deserves its own microscope and its own article.
This article has me thinking.
About 2 years back I was visiting some friends, a couple, with my kids. They related to me that their brother (by him, brother-in-law to her) was getting a divorce and that his ex-wife had found a “Christian family/divorce counselor” who he agreed to at least see with her, and that this fellow basically laid into him to agree to a divorce that arranges for the kids to live with her, and that arranges for her care to care for the kids, because, I guess in some tortured ethos, that’s the “Christian” thing to do.
They were asking my advise, which I gave: the counselor was (and is) completely full of sh*t. In the state we live in a father can demand entirely equal joint custody and mom will have the devil to fight to get the court to order anything else … but only if he goes in guns blazing demanding that and not one iota less. State first that you demand equal custody – physical and legal – or if your case calls for it then demand superior custody rights even if you don’t stand a chance of getting them.
If you allow any document to be created saying that you equivocated, your case is lost. If you agree to a separation where you leave the house and she doesn’t, you’ve lost. If you agree to a nesting separation … get it in writing with a witness who should be a (trusted) professional like a marriage counselor. My ex – on her divorce response – lied: claiming I had moved out of the house because she understood the advantage this would give her. The court never sanctioned her for this lie, even though it did uncover it.
He was of moderate income. His lifestyle living in an “equal” co-parenting divorce, will be a hard life. Odds are that despite equal custody a child support award was entered against him, and costs are not distributed equally either – so while he has to put up as much food and shelter and provision for schooling as she does, he will be required by the court to pay for a greater share of the kid’s health care and child care. If he and she dispute anything in the divorce the court will make a “parenting coordinator” available to them, and he will have to pay the predominance of the coordinator’s fees. The general setup is usually going to leave the husband with the greater balance of debts from the marriage to repay as well. Secured credit – they’ll give that to her. Unsecured – that’s his job.
Anyone counting these excess costs?
He is, by the way, very blue collar.
But – if he doesn’t get equal custody – the child support award would be crushing while he and more importantly: his kids are left to his ex’s whims – all while his access to them and to parent them would be heavily restricted.
Facing hurdles like this – I have watched fathers go to extraordinary lengths to tread water, let alone stay at parity with their ex-wives: Walter White / Nancy Botwin lengths.
There ain’t nuthin equal about it – this is the kind of thing that inspires the Father and Families folks to stage “super hero” stunts – those would be the stunts David Futrelle claims not to understand.
As hard as it is, in the four years I’ve been divorced I’ll tell you one creature I have not yet encountered: the divorced dad with equal or superior custody rights to his ex, who wishes he could go back and yield his rights back to her.
I guess the Christian counselor never met those men, or their thriving kids.
This certainly is a classic post. Perhaps the best written on the subject, and certainly would be up for best Dalrock post ever (though I still haven’t read all Dalrock’s posts). Well done Dalrock.
Bodycrimes and her assertion that behind every great man is a woman (but obviously that does not apply to all great men – Newton, Beethoven, Tesla, Brahms) puts me in mind of one of my favourite legal precedents, favourite because it was so well written. The name of the case escapes me but these were the facts: A man worked long hours building up his niche business; he had a girlfriend who periodically went Awol, and generally messed him about. Eventually he had had as much of this as he could take. He soon acquired a new girlfriend who was more level headed and was in the process of marrying her. The ex-girlfriend seeing that the relationship which she had continuously sabotaged was over brought proceedings alleging that without her input he would not be the success he was today and demanded a share of the business.
In his judgement The Judge observed that at times throughout the case Counsel for both the Plaintiff and Defendant had given the impression that the fight was over Palimony, but the Judge reminded everyone that this was not California – Palimony was not law in England – and that the only question (under the 1867 Act) was whether the woman had effectively been equally responsible for the success of the business. Plaintiff’s Counsel had argued in describing his client that she was mature [as in sensible] but the Judge wittily observed that he thought that the word Plaintiff’s counsel was searching for was not mature but sophisticated. Judgement for the Defence with costs against the Plaintiff.
Cail Corishev writes:
” For conservatives, it’s about having women on a pedestal. They don’t hate men, but they don’t see men as being on the same plane as women. They see women as inherently good, if not quite perfect, while men must strive hard just to be decent.
So to tell the difference, look for the focus: is he just tearing down men? Then he’s a feminist. Is he trying to get men to be worthy of women? Then he’s a conservative.”
G.K. Chesterton is a good example of the latter. See his arguments against female suffrage in “What’s Wrong With the World”, in which he states that women are inherently generous, industrious, and even chivalrous (!), whereas men tend towards shiftlessness and irresponsibility. Chesterton being Chesterton, there’s a lot of context and subtlety to keep in mind, but he is a classic Victorian pedestalizer of the female sex.
Bodycrimes’ toilet idea is a metaphor for sex. It is a typical feminist (and white knight) idea that men should only want sex when the woman wants it first. The more typical metaphor of a woman’s desires enabling the man’s efforts on her behalf is dogs. “Look at that male dog” they say “he only wants sex after the female comes into heat.”
Oh, Driscoll. This guy is so blind I doubt this guy actually knows what a woman in her 20s is doing.
“And, she’s not alone. For the first time in America’s history there are more single adults than married. Statistically, women are more likely than men to attend college, be working a career-track job, and attend church.
What are the guys doing? Often, they’re acting like boys who can shave, getting drunk, watching porn, attending sporting events, and treating responsibility like Superman does green kryptonite.”
He makes it sound like women are just out there doing everything they can so they can be Mrs. Right to a guy. From experience…let me tell you what most college educated, career-track women who attends church does when a man who has a job and isn’t the porn watching, drunkard every weekend hints at commitment or even a date…they run away. I’ve seen that look enough to know what the hamster is doing. They don’t want to give up their “power” in single life because that would require them to submit to their husband when she is married.
Now this isn’t all women…some have a more content heart and are looking for commitment from a good man. But they are becoming fewer by the day.
Moreover, it isn’t women who civilize men, but marriage which civilizes men and men who civilize women.
Truly worthy of it’s own post
Bluedog, see my above post before yours. Absolutely the case, as you state. Stephen Baskerville really did the seminal work on this with TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, putting, comprehensively, together all the facts and realities not just facing men who are divorcing, but realities that in some quantum way, already exist before he shows up for marriage.
Couple notes:
1. When I first went through my divorce “war”, I used to hang out at Dadsdivorce.com, which certainly has at times, great advice, but I noticed there was lots of blue pill advice still floating around–namely that you stay “in the game” and destroy your life to have even a weekend a year with your kid (for some guys situations). Although I am remarried with three more children (to a nice actual conservative wife), I no longer give that standard “fight with all you have no matter the costs or losts” advice to men. Too many men have permanently damaged their ability to have any joy in life, by fighting a decade against both ex-wife and the system, only to wind up with a snotty 18 year old daughter that hates them anyhow. There may be a middle ground (I’ve achieved some of that), but mostly, unless you have equitable factors from the beginning (and nice judges), its a losing game. My wife and I watched a friend of ours spend hundreds of thousands in actual costs (including buying a new home near his child) only to be dumped permanently when she was around 16. To his credit, he took our advice, stopped fighting, and is now writing his journal from a cruise somewhere, as a single, retired guy.
2. Like most divorced fathers, I gave up years ago even trying to reason with women, or even men, about the realities of divorce (for men, those who had not gone through it), because it always winds up, as my earlier posts notes, with shaming and man-up language akin to the cliché of telling a rape victim “well, honey, you wore a dress to the pool hall, you deserve to be splayed out and raped”. Most of the men who defend divorce or women, in some strategic beta male move, have no idea the same thing will happen to them. BUT…one thing I never will stop preaching if the topic comes up, to ANYONE (especially married folks) is that non-custodial parents are financially required to do and pay for things NO PARENT in an intact family is required to do. You can shame me all day and attempt to dress me down for being a guy who divorced, when the conversation comes up, but you don’t get to pretend for a SECOND that you ever spent $1300 (mandatory a month) on your precious child in “support”, then ANOTHER $600 on afterschool care for that 10 year old. That’s when we have our STFU moment while watching our kids play at the park.
Note to the board: I don’t have the demo and bio info at my hands, but if you work the actuary numbers, expect Driscoll’s wife to serve him around the apex of his earning capacity (which still may be to come). He may get served while frothing in one of his man up sermons, but to be sure, he’ll come back with a new beta theme about how he didn’t live up to the ideal (complete with the Palinesque mysterious “we might reconcile even!” just to keep his image up for a while). If the script goes right, he then comes back new age having learned his lesson, then full Thai red pill, writing from some island in the pacific about what’s “wrong with Christianity”.
Oscar, oddly, I ran into a doctoral candidate a few years ago from India, and that (sewage/human waste) was the focus of his study. Not only has it always been important to human development (like gathering food and war), it is on it’s face, a good predictor of global development status. He mentioned that there’s an actual statistical metric for judging 1st world status based upon toilet facilities, etc.
When I was deployed to Turkey, their pipes could not handle any toilet paper, so everyone wraps the crap paper up in balls and drops it into those metal canisters in the bathroom. In Peru (in semi-urban areas) you might want to have your own roll handy. Otherwise, the kids rules always apply, “go before you go”, in a place comfortable, because you may not see another one for a while that day.
I really wanted to understand Bodycrimes’ claims, so I read its/their essay carefully.
Dalrock, here are some of the other problems and faulty assumptions with Bodycrimes’ ludicrous and ridiculous claims that you didn’t point out.
1. As you point out, the “marriage” BC envisions is for the specific purpose of generating money, specifically for the benefit of the woman. That’s not true marriage at all, which was for the purpose of benefiting CHILDREN. The “marriage” BC wants is wealth generation, specifically to ease the lives of women.
2. BC complains that a man can buy a smaller property on his own without a woman or wife. But hey, that’s not fair, because he should be making and spending more money to benefit a woman.
3. Where are the reasonable assurances that his wife will stay with him so as to preserve and continue generating all that has been earned, generated, created and built up for the specific purpose of benefiting that wife? What assurances does he get in this regard?
4. Let’s assume BC is correct that marriage is better financial planning. Assume BC is right that a confirmed bachelor won’t earn as much; that military men and bureaucrats won’t get promotions or raises and their careers will stall, and that they will die poor and alone. If that’s the case, so what? A man with no wife and children can live on very, very little. He can plan for his own retirement and death, which will not cost much.
5. And what do people like BC care about these men anyway? BC has made it clear that such men aren’t wanted or attractive to women. Now she is demanding that they hitch themselves to plows and jobs? The only reason for all this is to get men to do things to benefit women. Why shouldn’t they earn as little as possible and enjoy their lives without a wife and children, since it’s clear those men either cannot attract a woman; or don’t want to put in the effort anyway.
6. Since when is it “misogynistic” to point out that there are a lot of women who DO divorce for cash and prizes? According to BC, “pointing out facts” is misogynist. Observing reality is misogynist. Refusing one-sided marriage is misogynist.
The other thing that struck me, and which relates to my point 3 above, is that Bodycrimes does not understand incentives.
Men are perfectly willing to do all this work to generate wealth to keep their families going. But they won’t do it if all of it is taken away. And there is a very high chance he will lose everything if he’s in one of the 40 to 45% of marriages that fails.
They won’t do it if they see that they have no chance of attracting a sufficiently attractive woman to share the rest of their lives. And right now, many men are in just that situation, because of their own unattractiveness, the women don’t want them; and the women are themselves declining in quality and marriageability.
They won’t do it if they see that they have no chance of success, or the efforts needed to get there far outweigh the possible benefit. Right now, the effort isn’t worth what he could get and isn’t worth the enormous risk.
They won’t do it if they see the chances of failure are very high. See above. High risk, not worth the effort to manage and control.
They won’t do it if they have no assurances that she will be held to her end of the bargain just as he is willing to be held to his end. And right now there is NOTHING requiring her to do her part, while EVERYTHING requires HIM to do his part.
I always thought that Conservative women were immune from the Feminist virus, until I saw that clip of Elizabeth Hasselbeck belittling Bill Maher on “The View.”
And these male Feminist/mandatory marriage manginas like Mohler and Driscoll are starting to get to me.
Ah, I see. I’ve given up on the term “conservative,” I’m afraid. I didn’t want to, but it’s come to mean “”anyone less liberal than the leading Democrat” in most people’s eyes. Even “arch-conservatives” like Rush Limbaugh are really classic liberals. People who want to “conserve” anything that predates the US Bill of Rights aren’t even on today’s liberal/conservative chart, and need to start using a new term for themselves. I usually go with “traditionalist,” although I’m open to something better.
“without their wives, these men wouldn’t have the assets.”
But, without a wife, a man doesn’t NEED the assets. That’s the whole point of the Return of Kings article Bodycrimes was critiquing – that if a man doesn’t marry, he doesn’t need to earn as much money and can thus spend what he has on his own pursuits rather than caring for children or going into decades of debt purchasing large amounts of real property.
Bodycrimes’ whole point is that men should get married because it will cause them to work harder and get more money.
But the question she hasn’t answered is: why should a man do that if the risks are damn near uncontrollable?
“The next step will be a bachelor tax of some kind.”
Wasn’t that what they were saying about Obamacare?
Well…. Damn Dalrock. Good job on knocking the ball out the park on this one.
Another problem with Bodycrimes’ essay is that it presumes that a marriage is always a tight knit partnership. It is not.
Marriage 2.0 is tight knit ONLY if the female half of the partnership chooses that. Under the current legal regime, there is NOTHING tethering her to that marriage other than her own desires and whims, and her moral character. No laws require her to stay. The man cannot require her to stay. He cannot even threaten to stop working or earning money for the partnership, because if he does, she will simply divorce him, take the children, and get a court order requiring monthly asset transfers from him to her. In fact, everything encourages her to leave her marriage and take half the assets.
Bodycrimes: “It is absolute folly for a site that is supposedly dedicated to the well being of men to be advising its readers to disregard the most tried-and-true path to prosperity ever devised: marriage.”
But this only works if the couple STAYS married. The female is responsible for about 70% of divorces, and most of them are simply because the woman doesn’t want to be married anymore. What should a man do to manage and control that risk? Of course, BC offers no answer to this.
No surprise there – in hate-based religions like Feminism and Islam, heretics are FAR worse than infidels.
________________________________
From Earl,
The former feeds the latter. If guys like Driscoll had the slightest idea how depraved most single young women are, and how broken the Family Law system is, he would stop wondering why guys of that age bracket were less willing to put in the YEARS the hard work that it takes to signal “provider” status… years where they hit the books while their future ex-wives are hitting the bars and frat parties. I wonder… if he could take all the single women in his mega-church and inject them with an infallible truth serum, and ask them how many sexual partners they had, would he be surprised by the results? We KNOW that he would place the bulk of the blame on men for “pressuring” them into such behavior, but what would be the “delta” between what he thinks and what is true?
@ Vercingetorix
I hate to say it this way but “shop” around and find a good church in your town with a good pastor that is a good confessor. I feel the best confessions I went to were the ones where I was properly penitential and the priest took seriously the gravity of my sins. Confirm in yourself the schedule to go frequently on a planned basis, weekly or monthly, say the first Saturday every month or some variation.
Get involved with a church that has a surplus of young men in line with you at the confession. Many parishes that don’t “feed the sheep” will find the sheep scatter so I think that may be a good preliminary barometer.
Schola Cantorums are good places to meet other guys if you are interested. (I never had much time when I lived near an active one.) When I lived in rural Texas a group of young men and I would travel one Sunday a month to go to a latin mass with the encouragement of our pastor. I’m no longer involved in it but I found that spiritually worthwhile, but it may not be the thing for you.
If you are interested in the topic of marriage read the following encyclicals, “Casti Connubbi” (1930).
There are also good websites for intellectual edification.
I can also recommend (with the usual caveats) churchmilitanttv . I’ve been burned by other groups in the past that have billed themselves as “traditional Catholics” but so far a lot of their programming I’ve seen has been good. I recommend their “One True Faith” mp3s on the Archangel Michael.
If women were always thinking these brilliant and creative ideas, why didn’t they just do it themselves? This piece of shit, Bodycrimes, is full of shit.
Exactly. I hereby challenge Mizz Bodycrimes to present historical or archeological evidence that any woman had ANY role whatsoever in the invention of any technology considered fundamental or essential to human civilization.
Proof, please, “dearie,” or forever STFU on the subject.
@TFH
400 years? Try 400,000 years.
You are right about male expendability. But if we say that feminism go back 400,000 years, the concept is not useful anymore. It is not feminism: it is human nature that favors females.
I think that using the “feminism” label obscures the problem, more than it enlightens it. The fact that American women are so awful and so pandered is not because of feminism (which is everywhere in the modern world) but because of pre-feminist patterns of interaction with women.
In America, the pedestalization of women has been way bigger than the biological imperative produces. We are talking about a culture that has always pandered and pedestalized women. When I was learning English, I was surprised that women used to be called “ladies” in the good old times. In all the other languages I know women have always been called “women”. Calling them “ladies” gives them a superior status by default.
Where these patterns of pedestalization come from? It is difficult to say and I have been wondering for years. I guess the scarcity of women in colonial times could have played a role. While Spaniards married and f*cked Indian women in Latin America, the English Puritans were not fond of marrying natives (there were exceptions). This produced a scarcity of women and every woman was coddled and pampered.
The theological developments could have played a role: since there was no veneration to the perfect female (Virgin Mary), the natural worship that men have for women (“women are wonderful” effect) was directed to current females. The feminization of the Church during the XIX century (great awakenings, campaigns about alcohol, etc) was another factor. This produced the Victorian pedestalization of women (“The angel of the house”, etc).
Finally, the structure of the American family, when the wife plays the role of the mother (as Jung observed during the early XX century) is a thing to consider.
When feminism appeared, American men were used to give women everything they wanted, except when female desires were against tradition and religion. Since tradition and religion had declined, there was no limit to the pandering of women. And the rest, as they say, it is history.
Hey Dalrock,
Over the past few years your comments section has regularly belittled the Great Books for Men. Their vitriolic attacks against the Western Canon were more vicious than most feminists. They accused Homer of being a worthless Pagan while falsely teaching that Christ came to abolish the Law of Moses, even going so far as to call the words of Jesus “noise,” while you told them that all they needed was game. Some of your commentators even stated that Freud and Marcuse were the true fathers of Christ.
Now it is noble, Dalrock, that you chronicle the decline and point out the false Driscoll prophets. But yet, the universities, schools, churches, and courts–and thus the home and family–suffer because of the views shared by feminists, Driscoll, your readers, and the gamey side of yourself, which thankfully seems to fading.
Why not point to the true spirit of Conservatism now and then? Quote a Great Book or Classic or two!
“The twentieth-century conservative is concerned, first of all, for the regeneration of the spirit and character – with the perennial problem of the inner order of the soul, the restoration of the ethical understanding, and the religious sanction upon which any life worth living is founded. This is conservatism at its highest.”
― Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind
“Men cannot improve a society by setting fire to it (fireproof zlzoozl): they must seek out its old virtues, and bring them back into the light.”
― Russell Kirk
Bodycrimes is (as she says) a convert to the idea that Marriage might have any viability. Even so, she sees marriage predictably enough through the Apex Fallacy. Consider the photo she provides for her article – a 16th Century chateau in the Loire Valley – from which one must presume that marriage will make such a residence available to all hard-working married-men. The history of the Chateau at Azay-le-Rideau, is however a tale of delay in completion thereof, financial impecuniosity, exile, slaughter (350 soldiers – all men of course – in the Hundred Years War) confiscation, narrowly avoided Arson, sale of its art works and finally purchase by the French State and as all good Marxists will aver, built and maintained with the labour of the working poor. What Bodycrimes really means is that she wants a rich husband – and doubtless a lot of servants. Feminism – on this occasion – indistinguishable from Aristocracy.
When I was learning English, I was surprised that women used to be called “ladies” in the good old times. – Imnobodyoo
It’s not an “old” thing, it is the default even now. The corollary is that it is also normal to refer to men as “gentlemen.” You can ask Opus or one of the other of Her Majesty’s subjects about this, but I suspect it’s more of an American thing, and has to do with the fact that we rejected the notion that one should be deemed worthy of a title simply by being born to certain parents. We have no hereditary titles here: my father is “Reverend” but I am not… I am “Lieutenant Colonel” but he peaked at “Airman Second Class” when he was medically discharged before I was born. All are real titles, but neither of us were born to them – and my brother has no title at all, although he and I both get to put some letters after our names if we want to. The terms lady and gentleman have very specific historical meanings in the U.K. that we do not have in the U.S.. So in the U.K., Prince Charles is considered a “gentleman” while I would not be, while I would posit that the obverse is closer to reality. Likewise his wife, Dutchess Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor, would be considered a “lady” in the U.K. while my wife would not – an even greater absurdity. In the U.S. it would be proper to refer to both Charles and me and “gentlemen” and our wives as “ladies.”
In other words, don’t read anything into it – it’s a linguistic relic.
Opus, excellent point at June 30, 2014 at 10:47 am.
CfM and PK, fell apart within years due to the same reason: a majority of Christian men didn’t want to change the feminist status quo. Of course, this perfectly matches the theme of this article.
This stands to reason because the leadership and most of the members of these organizations were/are married men (read: henpecked, gelded, and with the ever-present Frivorce Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads).
Conclusion: only an organization of single men who are indifferent to the prospect of marriage (at last to a Norte Amerikana) will have the gonadal fortitude or possibility of making any positive impact on men’s lives.
Some truly awesome comments and observations in this thread! I wish I could respond to them all.
TFH @ June 29, 2014 at 7:47 pm:
“That is why democracy has a life-cycle, after which it is followed by a feminist police state + goddess cult. No other outcome is possible from 3-4 generations of full democracy.”
That and the life-cycle of wealth. History shows that very rich societies also tend to fall apart quickly. I believe the reason is because wealth can be used to hold off the consequences of immorality and misconduct long enough for people to lose the cognitive association between cause and effect. That would explain much of modern “conservative” support for feminism.
And, generally, how America could go so wrong so fast. Modern medicine and modern banking are keeping us (or better, them) in the ego bubble.
Bucho @ 9:37 am:
“The next step will be a bachelor tax of some kind.”
Wasn’t that what they were saying about Obamacare?
Oh, puke, don’t get me started. We just changed insurance carriers at work and now I’m in Kalifornia’s Obamacare. The gist of it is I now have two insurance policies, one for my wife and kids (who don’t exist) and a supplemental, not-Obamacare one for me. Does it count as black knighting if I make a point of using my free mammograms? And get this, the Obamacare policy came with a voter registration form. For “the children”, I’m sure.
Had an idea pitched to me, though. It might be possible for me to “sublease” that policy. Not sure if I want to put a single mother on my insurance, however, even if she does pay me for the privilege.
“The theological developments could have played a role: since there was no veneration to the perfect female (Virgin Mary), the natural worship that men have for women (“women are wonderful” effect) was directed to current females.”
I think you’re being too literal about the Madonna/Whore thing.
True. I’ve heard many women (and men) say, with a straight face, that no woman would ever divorce without a very good reason, like abuse or cheating by her husband.
Dimitri,
As Bucho said, that is the affordable care act…
Young single men do not go to the doctor (do not put in health insurance claims.) Young single women need oral contraceptives, pap smears, and breast exams. These women are not married so get men to subsidize their health care through a bachelor tax.
These two items are possibly linked: government tax policy in Italy disincentivizing men from working
“In December 2011, the government attempted to provide limited IRAP relief by allowing companies to deduct the full amount of IRAP paid for new hires of women and youth in 2012. Nevertheless, Italy’s corporate tax rate remains the highest in the EU.”
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2012/191170.htm
and the predictable results
http://www.thelocal.it/20140627/italians-fall-out-of-love-with-marriage
http://www.thelocal.it/20140528/italys-birth-rate-hits-record-low
@Lyn 87
A gentleman or gentlewoman is merely a person of good birth or breeding. It does not denote a position, though it does perhaps imply that the person is of independent means and thus does not work or need to work for a living. It is not a term that can be applied (save with Irony) to a member of the Aristocracy such as the Prince of Wales or his wife The Duchess of Cornwall. Doctor Johnson’s friend Mr Boswell was surely a gentleman. A toast-master would say My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen. The term is used with irony in the expressions Gentleman’s Holiday (i.e. sex touring) or Gentleman and Scholar (a person who holds forth after having consumed too much alcohol). A Gentleman’s Club (e.g. the Atheneum is merely off-limits to females – or used to be).
The term Lady is also problematic: Lady Caroline Lamb or Lady Di were correctly described being daughters of an Earl, but one speaks only of The Honourable Lalla Ward (Mrs Dawkins) a courtesy title as she is the daughter of a Viscount – I am not sure why this is. Shakespeare observed that ‘the lady doth protest too much’ and again the sense is that the woman is no better than she ought to be – and Little Britain’s transvestite claims to be ‘a Lady’.
Do not be concerned about making a faux-pas on your visit to Britain as you are unlikely to meet a member of the Aristocracy, and gaffs of that sort are not merely expected but delighted in from Americans – we would be somewhat put out if you got it right.
Had the Internet been entirely restricted to Britain I suppose we would have had the Gentleman-o-sphere.
Enrique,
Thanks for the reply. Two things:
It might not be obvious from the way I wrote it, but there’s an implication of agreeing with you ahead of time on the “‘fight with all you have no matter the costs or losts’ advice” … where what I learned though experience and I’ve learned through exposure to other divorced fathers and have essentially be advised by a trove of attorneys, that:
The ONLY way you, as a man, come out “equal”, or on top of this game … is if you make the right moves, first.
Do that, and you have a fighting chance. Don’t do that, and you have lost. That’s why I wrote: immediately, up front – DEMAND equal or superior custody rights – both legal and physical – then never back down from your position even if it is being denied to you. Do not move out of the house for a separation. Do a “nesting” separation if necessary, but get it in writing. Fail on these, and you are hosed, and I didn’t say so, so I’m grateful you pointed this out, but if you failed to do these things then you need to consider an alternative strategy because recovery, let alone “victory”, is nearly hopeless – so retrench and take care of yourself – your health and your mind and psyche.
On your #2 – I think your point is interesting for exactly this reason: occupying myself with sites like this and the thoughts and stories of men (and women) here – I think helps me to create a language where such discussions are possible and more fruitful. I would not say that categorically they always are. There are as many as a third of conversations where the ideas I pose – even just facts about some man getting run over in divorce – where those ideas enter the conversation like a lead brick. If that happens I never push it – no reason.
That said – I find what we are doing is helpful. It might help that I really am a “card carrying” liberal. I would raise your taxes. 😉 Point being – I speak the language of the “opposition”, I’m actually more comfortable “there” than “here”, so I may have some faculties for bridging the divide, not sure, but bottom line is I don’t feel its a vanity, you call them one by one.
A truly doctrinaire feminist is distinguishable from Archie Bunker only because she has smaller and less attractive tatas.
Hi Dalrock, there were a couple of comments I specifically hoped to address. Sorry about the clickbait jab-ouch lol.
cynthia;
“How about all the men I served with, whose ex-wives get 50% of their military retirement pay, for the rest of their lives? What was she doing to deserve what he earned, getting shot at and living/working in oft-terrible conditions?”
I must say I am skeptical that you know multiple people who lost a full half of their military retirement pay to their ex spouses. (By military retirement pay you mean pension?) If so I would have to ask: how many years were they married and at what age did they divorce?
Military retirement pensions must be considered a marital asset then, just like other retirement savings plans and inheritances. They should be pro rated – but not necessarily! – upon divorce and split equally. So yes, that IS fair.
Wife was safely at home while husband served in some dangerous third world situation – legally married thus still accruing the financial benefits and security of marriage during that period. If you, as a woman, married and then eventually divorced, I would guess that you, also, would be required to give up a portion of your military retirement pension to ex husband.
There is no “cash and prizes.” It is not a “reward.”
@enrique —
BUT…one thing I never will stop preaching if the topic comes up, to ANYONE (especially married folks) is that non-custodial parents are financially required to do and pay for things NO PARENT in an intact family is required to do. You can shame me all day and attempt to dress me down for being a guy who divorced, when the conversation comes up, but you don’t get to pretend for a SECOND that you ever spent $1300 (mandatory a month) on your precious child in “support”, then ANOTHER $600 on afterschool care for that 10 year old. That’s when we have our STFU moment while watching our kids play at the park.
Of course. But this is considered to be an appropriate “penalty” for divorcing – that is, “if you didn’t want to pay more, you shouldn’t have gotten divorced to begin with”, as if it is the guy’s fault 100% of the time (which is, of course, also assumed in all cases). No-one can say with a straight face that they were spending 1500 a month in cash outlay on their one kid prior to divorcing – it’s bullshit. But, if people are even aware of the level of it (and most are not) it’s considered reasonable after divorce because it’s viewed as a kind of penalty for deserving to be divorced. Other oddities about child support (like the fact that in many places it’s now payable until 21 or 22 and still to the ex and regardless of whether the child lives there or not any longer) and it becomes crystal clear just what child support is: it’s a disguised form of alimony for a context where actual alimony has been phased out or greatly limited in many places due to the realities of women working and earning money. That’s why a phrase like “chilimony” makes sense – that’s what it actually is. It has no bearing whatsoever at all on the proportional share of the cost of supporting a child, nor on the cost of maintaining a home for a child. In fact, the statutes don’t even refer to any of that, but have formulae that are a straight percentage tax on the payor spouse’s income, period. It’s a racket if there ever was one, but credit the divorce lobby and feminists as being clever as always, because attacking “child support” basically earns you a one-way ticket to the “bitter divorced guy deadbeat sympathizer” camp, and the attendant social leprosy. Enjoy your stay on divorced leper island, loser.
====
@Boxer
Of course, these are also exactly the types of people who know how to delay gratification, which means that not only do they tend to be successful, but they also don’t end up in the divorce court, giving away 2/3 of their collective fortune to the state and various attorneys. They likely don’t squabble over nonsense in the Wal-Mart parking lot, nor do they do drugs or sleep around. This is where the feminist argument breaks down, because the dysfunctional couples are given the same credit as the successful ones when they can’t keep it together.
That’s correct.
As I’ve said on this before, that demographic is just highly successful at life. They have characteristics (combination of aptitude, skills, drive, discipline, future time orientation, impulse control, etc.) that makes them disproportionately successful at life, in pretty much all areas: work, money, health, marriage, children. They are just good at the game of life.
That model doesn’t apply very well to people who are less good at the game of life for various reasons. It tends to break down, as we see in the lower economic classes.
Overall, it should not be surprising that the people who have the bag of tricks that is better than everyone else’s outperform everyone else in a system which is basically a free-for-all and which therefore provides maximal benefits to the highest performers. Of course that’s what happens, and it should be expected. The problem is that kind of system doesn’t work well for anyone who isn’t a top performer.
Opus,
It’s a mystery to me – we truly are two peoples divided by a common language. BTW, I have purchased the tickets to norther section of your fine island and the rental accommodation is paid for in advance. Now I’m just trying to get my parents to commit to taking the trip, which they are hemming-and-hawing about due to some relatively minor medical procedures. They’re worried about being bothersome and “slowing us down.” Nonsense, of course, the last time the missus and I were in Europe we took my VERY pregnant niece and her husband. Other than incessant prattling about the inbound first-born, it worked out just fine… on the few occasions when she couldn’t keep up (such as the over-the-mountain trail in Killarney National Park) my wife and I just left her and her husband to their own devices. I suspect my parents aren’t as keen to walk a large section of Hadrian’s Wall as my wife and I are, but they’d like to see it, which won’t happen if they don’t just get on the freakin’ airplane. But I digress.
______________________________
Not to anyone in particular,
I finally read the article Dalrock is referring to. As bad as it was, the comments were worse. This one by Bodycrimes herself stuck out to me, “Marriage is a legal contract, made and executed by the state, which therefore has an interest in it. Most Western governments see marriage as a good thing, and have set up financial and legal protections that make it advantageous to marry.”
Methinks she has either has no idea what the word “contract” means… or she doesn’t know that Family Court does not work like regular Civil Court… or she just doesn’t care. It may well be D) All of the above.
A contract that allows one party to end it without making the other party whole is not a contract in the normal sense of the word. Not only does the law NOT penalize the party that breaks the “contract” but, if that party is female, it typically rewards her for doing so at her husband’s expense, with criminal penalties should he refuse to do so or even lose the ability to pay through no fault of his own. Simply put, a woman has exactly ZERO enforceable obligations under the marriage “contract.” Since we know that BC and some of her minions are reading, I challenge them to provide a counter-example.
David J. – reading your comment saddened me. Rushing into a rebound remarriage doesn’t seem like a wise decision for anyone. I hope everything is okay and I cyber wish you well. Yet participation in the manosphere isn’t the answer – it will damage your recovery causing you great unhappiness and bitterness – I am hoping you stop and eventually put this all behind you.
However, your comment was only one side of the story – it didn’t say what wife’s reason for divorce was. Why were you behind on the mortgage payments. Did you stop making the mortgage payments to be spiteful, David? Or maybe you both stopped and they went by the wayside during the separation, divorce proceedings and arguing?
Great post, Dalrock. And great comments. In the religious sphere I grew up in, women were routinely seen as the more righteous sex. So this is one of the uniting principles between conservatives and feminists, the superiority of women and the vile nature of men. Also, a good point in the comments about how feminists look to attack men while conservatives pedastalize women. Different directions but both result in elevating women.
Somewhat related, I have a new post up today on how the left controls the indoctrination of society and that part of the rise of the left is due to the increased power of women (who are more leftist by nature) and apex leftist males who took advantage of the rise of the female herd.
http://www.justfourguys.com/the-left-controls-the-indoctrination-of-society/
Bluedog and NovaSeeker: Agreed. Both posts, right on target.
And to my original, perhaps too lengthy, point, even when we have generations now of men (arguably two full generations, if not three) screwed over by the Family Court, and plenty of now adult daughters, otherwise reasonable sisters, and at some point, caring, loving grandmothers, have seen all this, WHERE ARE ALL THE WOMEN DEFENDING THE MEN THEY LOVE, WEARING THE “RIBBONS”? ETC.
NOWHERE, because, per the guy that privately hopes to rape a gal in a pool hall someday and thus is totally COOL with the theory that “she dressed that way and deserved it” when he hears/sees the Jodie Foster movie scenario, even your own beloved sister or now adult daughter who admits, “ya, dad/brother really got screwed and his wife/mom was a bitch”, will NEVER argue to end that same social construct because they may intend to rely upon it one day.
They privately are male asset rapists who feel like if their dad, brother, even father (in retrospect) was stupid enough to walk down the marital dark alley dressed like a man with a pension, house and salary: well, he’s stupid and was asking to get asset/custody raped. It’s misandry at it’s ugly core.
What does that tell us? Men actually care about equality more than women. Women could give a crap (it’s Ramadan, I’ll watch my language).
Fortunately, men have developed the “whispers” as well, and the word has gotten around, men are avoiding marriage and women now (even feminists, LOL) are upset about it. They WANT to be taken care of on the front end (late 20s/early 30s) after cock trotting, then divorce for assets and kids, then get back on Match.com for the back end beta who will take care of them–despite their claim that they are “strong, independent, outspoken, self-sufficient” women. At their core, they want to move from one provider to another.
Women’s strategic life plan:
Daddy (0 – 18)> Daddy college (18-22ish)> undeserved, often meaningless job at company/man’s expense, being an overpaid affirmative action baby (20s, 30 tops)> Alpha male (27-35)> The State (CS/Alimony/Assets) (30-45ish)> Beta Male and/or State (40ish onward)> State (old age SS, special programs).
Driscoll’s view —
And, she’s not alone. For the first time in America’s history there are more single adults than married. Statistically, women are more likely than men to attend college, be working a career-track job, and attend church.
Real life —
After fucking dozens of guys I decided to try a virgin. He’s going to be a doctor and already talking about marriage. #jackpot – Maria
damarismarie,
Let me give you a for-instance and you can tell me whether this is “fair.” You see, I actually am a retired military officer. I went to plenty of crappy places and had to do some fairly dangerous things. I had to attend a lot of training and get both a bachelors and masters degrees (partially at my own expense) to be competitive for promotions. During the 25+ years we have been married, my wife has worked for pay for less than half that time, and when she did work it was at comfortable jobs that she found interesting. Only for a brief period of time was her income a significant part of our family income. Oh, and I was already an officer when we met, so she had nothing to do with that.
In the meantime she has enjoyed a lifestyle far better than the one she grew up with, and far higher than what she had when we met. She lives in a nice house, she eats well, she has some of the best doctors in the nation for a condition she has, I take her on foreign vacations, and she has a pretty nice car for her own use.
I do not begrudge her any of that – she is an excellent wife. I’m just stressing those things because we’re talking about financial fairness.
Let’s say that my wife decides that she’s unhaaaaapy being married to me and initiates a divorce. I have not done anything to “deserve” such a thing: I have always treated her well and have certainly upheld my part of our agreement. (In fact, just the other day one of my colleagues said to me, “Lyn87, you may be a misogynistic bastard, but you really do treat your wife well.” – I assume he knows I’m not really a misogynist, but that’s the only word most people have for “red-pill-aware.”)
So, if my wife suddenly went feral – like my brother’s wife did – what should she get? Is she entitled to some portion of my military pension, for example? What about the house? What about the car she drives, which is more expensive than my motorcycle and my old beat-up truck combined?
What would be “fair” in that case?
Actually the problem is the same as any other that comes when women feel compelled to assert themselves into Male Space:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/06/03/male-space/
It doesn’t matter whether women are excluded from a Christian Men’s Retreat (interesting title) the mindset of feminine primacy, and feminine-as-correct default mentality for these men pervades that ‘locker room’. The male space is compromised without a woman even being present.
I have to laugh every time I see a video from one of these conferences or a sermon a pastor is delivering on how to be a better man, gender roles or what wives need as he’s got his ‘bride’ standing next to him to “give men a woman’s perspective”.
It’s not her perspective he needs, it’s his overseer’s permission to speak and her tacit endorsement of whatever he says.
@damarismarie
“However, your comment was only one side of the story – it didn’t say what wife’s reason for divorce was. ”
Yes, the old “he must have had it coming” mantra.
“Why were you behind on the mortgage payments. Did you stop making the mortgage payments to be spiteful, David?”
He didn’t say he was behind on mortgage payments. He said they were “underwater” on the house. This means that, due to a decline in real estate values, the market value of the house no longer exceeded the principal balance of the mortgage. Consequently, they had no remaining equity in the home. I’m surprised that someone who claims to know so much about household finance did not understand that, but perhaps your understanding was clouded by a knee jerk desire to infer bad behavior on his part.
In the religious sphere I grew up in, women were routinely seen as the more righteous sex. So this is one of the uniting principles between conservatives and feminists, the superiority of women and the vile nature of men.
It’s odd that this happened in Christianity, when you take the long view. The mindset of pedestalization is quite alien to mind of the early church. So much so that today many of the more extreme feminist “Christians” and even quite a few of the de facto feminist “conservatives” seem to consider Paul to have been a bitter miogynistic incel, and just write off completely what he wrote about these kinds of things. Leon Podles book is quite good, I think, in helping to understand where things went off the track in Christianity, and it goes back further than what we call feminism, but also not so far back as to taint Christianity — it develops during the Middle Ages. Interesting book, and well worth reading.
On the broader point, I think it isn’t really open to question any longer to anyone with eyes open that conservatives and feminists de facto see many things the same way, even if they get there by very different means.
“Behind every great man is a woman”
Law 7
Get others to do the Work for you, but Always Take the Credit
Use the wisdom, knowledge, and legwork of other people to further your own cause. Not only will such assistance save you valuable time and energy, it will give you a godlike aura of efficiency and speed. In the end your helpers will be forgotten and you will be remembered. Never do yourself what others can do for you.
Funny how it’s every “great” man,…
Lyn87
If guys like Driscoll had the slightest idea how depraved most single young women are, and how broken the Family Law system is, he would stop wondering why guys of that age bracket were less willing to put in the YEARS the hard work that it takes to signal “provider” status… years where they hit the books while their future ex-wives are hitting the bars and frat parties. I wonder… if he could take all the single women in his mega-church and inject them with an infallible truth serum, and ask them how many sexual partners they had, would he be surprised by the results?
Bear in mind that Driscoll’s wife is very likely an Alpha widow, and that he himself is the AMOG of his church. Now, add to that his obvious neo-Victorian pedestalization of women, and what is the result? Cognitive dissonance, which plays out in the usual manUP rants.
At some level, thanks to his own sexual history and the sexual history of his wife, Driscoll has to know that all women have the inherent tendency to be rutting little sexmonkies. AWALT, no exceptions[*]. However, that nasty fact collides with years of pedestalization. So how to resolve it? We know the answer: “Those Evil Men Made Her / Them Do It”.
In order to admit the truth about women, especially the ones in his church, Driscoll would have to give up the pedestalization, he’d have to admit the truth about women, and he apparently can’t do that.
Now, a larger question for the churchgoing: what is it that humans traditionally put onto pedestals above themselves? Idols, isn’t it? So when Driscoll and other churchians put women on pedestals, what is really going on? Aren’t there a few warnings in the Bible about that?
[*] To those who are offended, human art, literature, and history is redolent with examples. Most recently, plesmograph testing of women reveals that they can be aroused by virtually every form of porn, including video of bonobos mating; verbally the test subjects deny arousal, but blood flow and other biological indicators contradict that. From any number of points of view, the best thing for a woman under 25 to do is find a man and mate with him for life, taking her freaky sexmonkey nature and turning it loose on him and only him.
@damarismarie: “David J. – reading your comment saddened me. Rushing into a rebound remarriage doesn’t seem like a wise decision for anyone. I hope everything is okay and I cyber wish you well. Yet participation in the manosphere isn’t the answer – it will damage your recovery causing you great unhappiness and bitterness – I am hoping you stop and eventually put this all behind you.
However, your comment was only one side of the story – it didn’t say what wife’s reason for divorce was. Why were you behind on the mortgage payments. Did you stop making the mortgage payments to be spiteful, David? Or maybe you both stopped and they went by the wayside during the separation, divorce proceedings and arguing?”
Ah, I see. You “cyber wish me well” but you assume that I deserved the divorce and even that I stopped making mortgage payments to be spiteful. Thanks so much. I shall immediately stop participating in the manosphere, where the men generally don’t assume bad things about me, and instead start corresponding with people like you, who do. I’m sure that will promote my recovery and lessen my unhappiness and bitterness.
She had a list of “reasons” a mile long. What matters is that none of those reasons was a biblical ground for divorce (i.e., adultery, abuse, or abandonment). It also matters that it wasn’t just my biased opinion that she didn’t have biblical grounds — that was also the unanimous conclusion of involved pastors and Christian marriage counselors. To put it another way, I was at least 50% responsible for the difficulties in our marriage, but she was 100% responsible for the (unbiblical) divorce.
As for the mortgage, we were underwater due to the housing crash — our mortgage balance exceeded the value of the home. Our monthly mortgage payment also put too much pressure on our budget in other areas (specifically, college tuition for our two oldest sons), so we had decided together that we should attempt to sell and downsize. Unfortunately, the house would not sell. We probably could have continued to limp along, but as part of her gamesmanship (or, as she would put it, her independence) she withdrew her already limited participation in the family budget, making it impossible to continue making the payments. (I only realized after the fact that she was storing up reserves to retain a divorce attorney.) She had been working then for 2+ years, and had insisted throughout that time that her income was hers to do with as she wished, so that she could occasionally contribute to the family budget or not, as she pleased (not an option she extended to my income, for some reason). We lost the house to foreclosure 1-2 months after she ambush filed for divorce.
Bluedog, it’s not just taxes that you’d raise. You adhere to the political philosophy that pushed men’s-fault divorce into law in state after state back in the 1970’s. It is a typical irony that you suffered, and continue to suffer, from the effects of laws that you yourself would doubtlessly have supported 40 years ago. You are your own enemy, and that would be fine with me, except that the effects of policies you support also harm everyone else, as Dalrock has tirelessly documented.
Or, to put it another way, you’ve not only shot your own foot, you’ve made foot-shooting all but mandatory, and now you complain “Hey! My foot hurts!”.
David J,
You are clearly a bastard, and deserve what your saintly wife did to you. HOW DARE YOU not make enough enough money to pay for two college tuitions, a mortgage, and your wife’s divorce fund!
— Channeling my inner Driscoll… —
HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
______________________________
Seriously, man, that sucks. What sucks even worse is that most Churchians will instinctively blame you for “forcing” her to do that… like damarismarie did.
Just imagine the head-popping angst if someone questioned a female rape victim like that… The internet would melt down.
Agreed. a few years back, driving into work, I heard “Dr.” Bill Bennett on his radio show, given about an hours-worth of vomitous shaming to men, replete with man-up challenges and general anti-male bias. Couldn’t believe my ears. I’ve never listened to him or his opinion on anything, again. I’m completely Post Political (like ThinkingApe on youtube) for reasons like this.
Folks, Driscoll’s wife may very well divorce him. I predict it, statistically, and it will come just before his earnings potential seem to max (to lock him in on the best CS/Alimony track). He will HAVE to produce crappy book after another just to keep up with the overproduction demands. Plus, any man in a position of alleged moral superiority, HAS TO KNOW his wife is holding the “he abused me” card, just in case he gets too off the matrix script.
Want to know what a man REALLY thinks of his (and your) relationship with God? Make him Job.
Driscoll’s best work may be ahead of him.
Cail Corishev:
Conservatives think women are better than men.
Feminists think men are worse than women.
This is a useful and easy to understand explanation. It is testable as well: ignoring the words of conservatives and feminists, and focusing on the actions, one finds that conservatives often support just about any feminist policy with the exception of abortion. So by the “actions vs. words” metric, there is effectively no difference between conservatives and feminists, from the point of view of Joe Anyman. The Sword of Frivorce hangs over his head like Damocles sword, and surprise, surprise, both groups are fine with that, including the “Marriage Savers”.
CC again:
Ah, I see. I’ve given up on the term “conservative,” I’m afraid. I didn’t want to, but it’s come to mean “”anyone less liberal than the leading Democrat” in most people’s eyes. Even “arch-conservatives” like Rush Limbaugh are really classic liberals.
An interesting exercise: ask anyone who claims to be “conservative” this question, “What exactly is it that you want to Conserve”? In my experience, you will not get any meaningful answer. In fact, you may get no response at all in an electronic discussion, in face to face you likely will get a blank look, and perhaps a few RNC / Limbaugh / Chamber of Commerce talking points about “free markets” or some such blather. You won’t get a concrete answer. Because most people who define as “conservative” really are doing what Cail described above: “Democrat-NOT”, they define themselves in terms of “I’m not the other guys”. That’s a reactive, not proactive.
[Now I’m musing over the term “Reactionary” and how it may have evolved from the late 18th through the late 20th century….]
People who want to “conserve” anything that predates the US Bill of Rights aren’t even on today’s liberal/conservative chart, and need to start using a new term for themselves. I usually go with “traditionalist,” although I’m open to something better.
The fact that a word does not exist to describe something is interesting in and of itself. I’m put in mind of the goal of Newspeak in 1984, and that was to make CrimeThink impossible because the words necessary would not exist.
PS: I’ve always been a bit ambivalent about the famous liberal/libertarian John Stuart Mill for various reasons, but re-reading some of his writings with my Glasses on, I’m struck by what a huge, pedestalizing, woman-worshpping, beta-orbiting wimp he was. I kind of suspect that it is not possible to think clearly about rights if your view of women is wrong…
An astute guess, but as a (spiritual, if not literal) descendant of Brigham Young, I shall put on my prophet’s beard and disagree, at least as a matter of emphasis.
I predict a very messy scandal featuring Driscoll and possibly other members of his inner-circle(jerk). The scandal may be sexual (ex: Swaggart repeatedly banging prostitutes) but more likely will be financial. Driscoll is probably already “shearing the sheep” a bit too aggressively, hence all his theatrics on stage (the guilty tend to rely on such egomaniacal antics, as they believe it will shield them from scrutiny).
If anyone from Driscoll’s church is following google to these articles, I’d strongly encourage you to take an audit of the church books. All these overblown, theatrical “how dare you” accusations from the pulpit may be closer to reality than the good reverend would like you to believe.
Thus saith the internet’s least qualified psychoanalyst,
Boxer
“Law 7
Get others to do the Work for you, but Always Take the Credit”
You put in the work with others and you can share in the credit. The route above exposes you as a fraud of a leader.
Annnnd, right on cue…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/30/megachurch-star-mark-driscoll-s-publishing-downfall.html
Driscoll’s got a lot more to worry about than ‘mansplaining’ anything. I’ll take the under on that bet, $10 says Driscoll’s wife finds some ‘unreconcilable sin’ in poor Matt and divorces him right before the gravy train pulls out on him.
David J:
Correction: She lost her house to foreclosure. It was never your house, as you’re surely aware by now.
Married men own nothing. They are slaves, who work to build and support the plantation, while their female masters live the easy life in those comfortable digs provided. Take comfort in the fact that she wasn’t able to steal too much from you.
Best, Boxer
The leader gets the credit for guiding the ship…but a good leader also knows he doesn’t get to where he is without the sweat of his brow and others. Otherwise he’ll get the blame for being a bad leader.
Daily Beast is late to the party, I posted links referring to Driscoll’s little book problem last year on this and other sites.
I think he’s already done a self-criticism session before his church leadership and been forgiven.
Probably not going to be the last.
But nonetheless effective.
Feel free to c&p that over on Bodycrimes’ comment thread. It may last half an hour.
http://www.worldmag.com/2014/03/unreal_sales_for_driscoll_s_real_marriage/page1
Still got $10 here.
@ Rollo
I have to laugh every time I see a video from one of these conferences or a sermon a pastor is delivering on how to be a better man, gender roles or what wives need as he’s got his ‘bride’ standing next to him to “give men a woman’s perspective”.
Meanwhile, no one would ever dare suggest how women might make themselves into better wives and mothers, or what young women should do in order to make themselves more marriageable and acceptable to young men.
The inherent worthiness and high value of women — ALL women — is just presumed by default, while men are expected to continually prove their worth to women every hour of every day, with the understanding that they will be punished if they fail in the slightest.
if he is about to get a super audit and any type of asset forfeiture (whether IRS, civil, etc), you can BET she will “seek counsel” as to the best way to preserve cash and prizes. The funniest part (ala Tammy Baker) is as a woman, you can always continue to cash in on the SAME EXACT Christian circuit, but now as the victim. To his credit, Jim Bakker said he actually read the bible in prison and appears to have had Chuck Coulson-esque personal revival of spirit and truth, which may be why we never heard much more from him. Didn’t the Driscolls go on the View? basically a good try out for her (to be the “conservative woman’s” voice).
Anyhow…Driscolls one of those semi-Christian, cool fake-tough guys, tough talking “mavericks” that only a childhood/teenager of the ’90s could produce. If he was born a generation or two earlier, he would have been a potheaded, Woodstock drop out liberal. Credit: He’s found his niche and it was the fellow Gen-Y types that never grew up and were unchurched upon the Northwest.
Whenever the Mark Driscolls of the world DO DIVORCE< and I personally know them and have heard their man-up crap for years, I make sure to nudge them with them "Dude, you need to make sure she is comfortable, her and the kids…you need to do the right thing and give them EVERYTHING…even if you have to take two…no, THREE jobs….do the right thing bro".
If there's any justice, if and when she files, he gets 10,000 emails like that, suggesting he man up and hand over everything he has and work until he's numb.
Dalrock (and everyone),
As the most vocally admitted member of the traditional conservative family here at Dalrock’s forum, I think I am in a better position to explain this “marriage” between conservatives and feminists (at least from the traditional conservative standpoint.) Although the reasons for this marriage are varied depending upon who you ask it is rooted (primarily) to two fundamental principles: #1) fear of being excluded from in-group and #2) having daughters.
Fear of being excluded from “in-group” is exactly what it is: if a man swallows the red pill and sees the world for what it is (as I have done) the “traditional conservative” must be very careful who he shares this information with because the rest of the world (that will not eat the red pill) would label the traditional conservative a misogynist which is WORSE than calling him a bigot/racist since calling someone racist is no longer an effective trump card and is typically ignored. Say that the man hates women, and no one ignores that (least of all women.) So traditional conservatives who have eaten the red pill (such as I have) must choose very carefully who we exchange information with lest we be excluded from other “in-groups” that we commonly associate with (could be just in KEEPING OUR PROFESSIONAL JOBS!!!) because the label of misogynist is not one that can be easily removed from one’s reputation. And it will tarnish you. If you make a career in broadcasting, you CAN’T be red pill. You lose your earning power. It is easier to be a Tucker Carlson, a Pastor Driscoll, a Dr Phil, a Sean Hannity, or a Bill O’Reilly and continue eating blue pills insisting men to man up than to become a pure red pill Ann Coulter who has enough guts to say her own gender should be stripped of its voting rights. Ann Coulter was red pill enough to call out Islam for what it is and her comments got her fired from National Review Online. That is the POWER of the “in group.” Integrity has a price and most traditional conservatives (who have a family to feed) are not willing to pay it.
This next part is a little hard for me to write so bear with me. In the opening 15 minutes of the movie “The Godfather” here you have Don Corleone’s body guard rehearsing the speech he is about to make to his employer on Connie’s wedding day, wishing their marriage be fruitful and that her first child be a masculine child. Now why would he say something like that? Is it because (we have to go back to the time in the late 1940s, time period of that movie) when everyone was wise enough to understand that girl babies are much more troublesome (in the long run) than boy babies? That girls go feral and crazy? That they are impossible to control? That they are a financial sink and not a financial benefit to a family? They understood this thousands of years ago, even insisting that the moment the girl is born dad better start saving for that Dowry to bribe the would be son-in-law of releasing him of her financial burden. Well, we have lose this common sense along the way and traditional conservatives (such as myself) refuse to objectively look at our own daughters as anything other than angels, only capable of good and righteous decisions, nothing feral. But that is far from the truth even if you will NEVER hear a traditional conservative admit that. It is DAMN HARD for them to sit down and objectively analyze why their daughter’s marriage went to shit particularly when the majority of the blame should be laid at her feet and not the fault of the son-in-law. The instinct every dad has toward his daughters is to assume that (since her marriage failed) his Connie MUST have married a Carlo (wife beater) and not a Michael. Dalrock, you are NEVER going to get there with traditional conservatives on this one. I have to ask, do you have a daughter?
@enrique432:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
IBB, the comedy gift that keeps on giving…
No need to be defensive, David J. “As for the mortgage, we were underwater due to the housing crash — our mortgage balance exceeded the value of the home.” I apologize, didn’t consider that.
Lyn87, congrats on your decades long happy marriage. Your comment(s) do not mention kids?
Yes, the hypothetical ex Mrs. Lyn87 would be entitled to a full half of ev-er-y-thing.
Re: the expensive car (assuming it is owned & paid off, not leased.) When you bought it did you put the title in just wife’s name or both of yours? Of course someone should let their soon to be ex keep their car, wouldn’t there be much more terrible problems going on at that point than a car. Or, I guess you could force the sale of the motorcycle, the old truck, the nice car, boats, etc. and split it all!
@IBB
Dalrock has said he has a daughter, maybe two. I don’t recall him ever mentioning sons.
Some arrogant feminist:
No need to be defensive, David J. “As for the mortgage, we were underwater due to the housing crash — our mortgage balance exceeded the value of the home.” I apologize, didn’t consider that.
You didn’t consider that likely because in your knee-jerk, misandric, “men bad women good” world, actually understanding a problem before commenting is not required. If you were as smart as you evidently think you are, you would have known what “underwater” means – its been in the press since the crash of 2008, so you’ve had over 5 years to learn the term.
Have you divorced yet, or is it still in the planning stage, damarismarie ?
Probably the most coherent answer you’ll get is something like “constitutional democracy as it was envisioned by the Founders.” Although if they don’t want to get tagged for slavery, they’ll have to shift to just after the Civil War. As you say, you’ll get a vague answer at best. And that’s in politics; in areas like religion it’s even more nebulous.
Retrenched:
“Meanwhile, no one would ever dare suggest how women might make themselves into better wives and mothers, or what young women should do in order to make themselves more marriageable and acceptable to young men.”
Oh, but they do. Christian sites like FotF, and FamilyLife tell women that to train as wives and moms, they need college, jobs, prayer, and… a kid. If she can’t find a man to be her husband, well, she needs the next best thing –a baby daddy. Because, you see, all women just want to be wives and mothers; and if she can’t be a wife, well… she has to be a mom. After she gets Baby Daddy to impregnate her and then leave, she is then magically transformed into Heroic Single Mom. Wronged by Baby Daddy, but determined to go on, she can Do it All with pluck, spunk and aplomb.
But for those who don’t become Heroic Single Moms, there are those who become Prayer Warriors. They pray and pray, especially for F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer, in the hopes that he will “see the light” and “come to Jesus”.
If she’s not a Prayer Warrior or a Heroic Single Mom, then she’s the Spiritual Married Woman. The SMW is the spiritual thermometer and barometer of her household. She is the ultimate arbiter of whether her husband is “spiritual enough” or “sufficiently holy” for her to submit to, respect, and have sex with. She is specifically trained to examine her husband for his spiritual health and well being. Is he reading his Bible enough? Does he watch movies or TV shows that aren’t “God-honoring”? Is he working hard enough? Does he go to church enough? Does he like church enough? Is he “leading” the house? Is he “leading” her (where she wants to go)? Does he pray enough (in a place where she can see him praying so as to ensure he is praying long enough and in the right way)? Is what he is saying and doing creating a “check in her spirit”? Or does “her Holy Spirit” “like” what he is doing/saying?
@IBB
I do. This gets back to whether one believes that God’s design for marriage is good. Leaving the option open for divorce is cruelty, as even Dennis Rainey understood when talking to his own daughter. What I wrote about here is in my opinion the kindest one can be for a young woman.
Crank.
Dalrock may be willing to admit it, having daughter’s really clouds your rational thinking (sometimes.) I’ve seen it. We’ve all seen it, particularly with the traditional conservative fathers who are MOST prideful toward their daughters. There is no reaching them on any objective level when it comes to the problems brought on by feminism. That may be part of the reason why Mitt Romney was so rational and pragmatic and to-the-point about everything in his run for the Presidency (5 sons, no daughters.) He didn’t have that traditional conservative feminist conflict of interest. And we were (as a country) too stupid not to elect him, guess we don’t deserve him
“The Secret Fifth Horseman”
“damarismarie is so predictable. She is desperately trying to rationalize divorce theft/cash and prizes because she either has done this in the past, or is going to in the future. This of course will destroy her children, but women don’t care about that.” lol, uh, no
“We know a lot more about how women think than damarismarie does. Her being a woman itself precludes here from being able to competently discuss how women think. That is why we in fact know more than she does.”
Au contraire! Only a woman can truly understand how a man thinks. Men do not understand cause and effect very well. Men cannot distinguish between moral and immoral. Men should not be *allowed* to vote – it isn’t sustainable. Men are Herd Beasts.
This is the one and only time I will ever respond to you “TFH” — go tweak your little internet manifesto, Sperm Donor! And stop repeating yourself, it’s tiresome.
. Cail Corishev
As you say, you’ll get a vague answer at best. And that’s in politics; in areas like religion it’s even more nebulous.
Actually, I wrote poorly, because I’m usually trying to be as open-ended in the question as possible, in an attempt to avoid having the answer narrowed to only politics. Some people still identify themselves as “social conservatives” – well, ok, what do you want to conserve in society, in social terms, and so forth, eh? It is possible to be greatly dismayed, or greatly amused, by the responses.
“Return to the 50’s” is not, as you so clearly explicated, an option.
damarismarie says:June 29, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Enjoy my comment.
And people here who (should) know better apparently did, even after a statement like that (which clearly spells A-T-T-E-N-T-I-O-N–W-H-O-R-E), followed by a string of juvenile assertions that a sixth grader could tear apart with simple, observable facts.
Seriously, folks?
A better question to ask bodycrimes is just what am I going to get from feminism? What benefits can I expect, as a man? What reason do I have to care? What reason do I have to marry?
Yeah, I am sure that she has my best interests at heart.
The Shadowed Knight
damarismarietroll,
You have just done an excellent job describing exactly why your gender should not be allowed to vote, why your gender does not understand cause and effect. You rant and scream when you see something red pill and manospherian that you find threatening instead of trying to debate it with logic. This is the standard feminist response that only further strengthens the red pill man’s correct evaluation that your gender is not responsible enough to lead or make any decisions that could affect all our lives.
Best thing I can suggest to you right now, if you are married just submit to your husband. Just do whatever he tells you to do. Believe me, you’ll be much happier. Then you wont feel the need to make ignorant @sshole out of yourself with responses like the one you just gave TFH.
There are a number of people here I never entertain. I used to call them wimminz, but there are a number of (ostensible) men in the crowd, at this point.
This forum is too valuable to me, to be derailed by squabbling matches. These people, who never contribute anything interesting, don’t deserve any of a solid brother’s time or attention. Think about it: Do you guys stop and argue with the crazy person who pushes that rusty shopping cart near the park, or do you merely toss him a quarter (while holding your nose) and go on about the business of more important things?
Best, Boxer
AR, re: “You adhere to the political philosophy that pushed men’s-fault divorce into law in state after state back in the 1970′s.” … really, what do you know about my political philosophy?
There are and always will be two wings. They both stride atop the same substructure of Locke, Hobbes, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Blackstone, Smith, Riccardo. It goes back to the founding and as long as we do not become a communist or fascist state, it will always be so.
Or – really – if your brush is broad enough to paint me, a stranger, what does your one-philosophy one-party red pill utopia state look like? Draw that picture, I’m curious.
Meanwhile – it isn’t whether or not there is an opposition – it is whether the opposition is loyal or not.
I understand that when bullets fly – who I will be in the trenches with – who will be firing at me, and who I won’t be firing back at. That’s a difference between me, for example, and Futrelle. You’ll find, if you look, there’s no shortage of liberals who understand trenches and bullets and enemies and allies and the difference between an enemy, and a loyal opponent. Were it not so, we’d of come apart a long time ago. Most of the words, coming from either direction, are just that, words. We know for whom the bullet is trained. We know who is not our ally.
David J. says:
June 29, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Sounds similar to my situation. My wife envisioned the best case scenario her attorney painted for her and instead got quite a different result. Although the outcome permanently impaired my situation (I will never recover financially, and my children will suffer as a result.), she is ruined and probably for life.
I really believe that had she had a more realistic appraisal of how it’d all turn out that she would have stopped the divorce proceedings.
Dalrock,
Good post. My only quibble with the way your framed your post (and your three bullet points) is that the post should not be intended for the young woman who wants to marry. It should be intended for ANY woman (of any age) who wants to be married. I don’t care if she is widowed (twice) and is 80, just date men who you would want to marry and when you marry him, do whatever that man says.
damismarie has, indeed, tipped her hand: and she somehow holds five jokers.
In the situation I described above, where my wife have received more than a quarter-century of enormous financial benefit simply by being married to me, damismarie has decreed that, if she unilaterally ended our marriage (as is within her legal power), she should be entitled to half of everything we have, plus half of the military pension I earned for literally risking my life, even though I was already a First Lieutenant when we met, and bore 100% the risks along the way.
The fact that she received financial benefits FAR in excess of what she brought to the table is irrelevant in damismarie’s view – I am a man, and therefore I must pay. What if I don’t want to live alone and wish to marry someone else? Her half-share of the marital assets and my pension puts me at a huge disadvantage in seeking a new wife. What does she give me to compensate for that? It is, after all, she who filed on me in this hypothetical situation – which is typical: women file the vast majority of divorces, usually for trivial reasons.
________________________
By the way: we’re comfortable, not rich (there is no boat, much less boats)… and we have no children, since you asked.
________________________
Okay, let’s flip the script. Let’s say that I tire of her and pull the plug on our marriage: no fault of hers, let’s just say that I don’t feel happy in the marriage any more. Should she be required to continue to clean my house, cook my meals, and have sex with me? If not: how is that any different than forcing ME to provide HER with the benefits I provided to her as an explicit condition of our marriage after she divorces me, which is what you said that you consider “fair?” Why is it that only MY contribution is to be “fairly” distributed?
I am a conservative and for marriage. But I’m not supporting it because I am in any way in favor of feminazism. I’m for it because it’s what children need.
With that said, I’m all for removing alimony for a “no fault” divorce. I’m also against removing visitation just on the word of a woman. I’m all for completely dumping no-fault divorces as well.
Let’s make marriage less of a trap for men and more of an opportunity.
> “Moreover, it isn’t women who civilize men, but marriage which civilizes men and men who civilize women.”
I think this is a key thought that can get lost in the backlash against the current messed up system. Women can be a civilizing force if and only if society reinforces that role. It did more under Marriage 1.0. It does not now.
Women are just as fallen as men and both will act on their own impulses if nothing pushes them to do otherwise.
@enrique,
> you don’t get to pretend for a SECOND that you ever spent $1300 (mandatory a month) on your precious child in “support”, then ANOTHER $600 on afterschool care for that 10 year old.
It would be interesting to total all the costs for a child, including the cost for a large enough abode, soft costs, etc. I tend to agree that $1800 a month is more than would be normally spent, but I think we are also not accounting for soft costs when we look at such numbers.
Has anyone (including Dalrock) done such a cost breakdown?
> their pipes could not handle any toilet paper
My grandparents had a septic system and had the same rule, that I regularly ignored, unfortunately.
It would be interesting to total all the costs for a child, including the cost for a large enough abode, soft costs, etc. I tend to agree that $1800 a month is more than would be normally spent, but I think we are also not accounting for soft costs when we look at such numbers.
Keep in mind that in most cases there is an income share, so the 1800 would be only a percentage of the total assumed cost — assuming it was based on cost, which it is not, it is based on income, and it is assumed that kids cost a flat percent of income.
deti,
> The “marriage” BC wants is wealth generation, specifically to ease the lives of women.
She could have that, but she does not want the obligations that would be tied to that. (In regards to her actions toward her husband.)
> He can plan for his own retirement and death, which will not cost much.
That only paints part of the picture. I am thinking about this a LOT now since all my children (adopted) have returned to their birth family and I have no family to take care of me and my wife when we get old. We can put money aside, but things still happen and the modern backup gravy train is highly unlikely to be there when my wife and I would need it. That would be true even if I were alone.
I also suspect very few men really plan for this. The ones you read about that did are the exceptions, as with most people in the modern world. We don’t read books and articles on the failures, except in rare cases.
IBB, would you elaborate on why you think having daughters would have a blue-pill effect on men who understand female nature?
Gunner Q
Men want to protect women. It’s hard wired in us. Fathers are tougher on sons than on daughters.
Modern men (which means, pretty much all men in Western society) also want and expect “escape hatches” for their girls, especially with regard to intimate relationships and sex. “Abortion and divorce are bad. Don’t like them. Want as little of them as possible. But I want them to be there in case my little Princess Muffy needs them.”
That’s pretty much how that works. People are social conservative or “traditional”, until something bad happens to THEM PERSONALLY. And when that bad thing happens, they need an “out”. Traddies and socons want to live by the rules until following the rules becomes “too hard” or will yield a bad result.
Lyn87,
Case in point, God says she is required to continue to have sex with you. Man’s law does not stipulate that condition for marriage. She can get cash and prizes but (while you are married) she can just sit there, eat bon-bons, laugh in your face for requests for sex, and get fat. Marriage 2.0.
I’ve gone on the record before on this blog about a former neighbor of mine who went full red-pill long before people like Dalrock were able to encompass this type of thinking into Biblical teaching, only because it made such perfect sense. He admired men like George Clooney and Bill Maher, wanted to BE them (just on a small scale.) Get this, this guy owns a small 3-bedroom townhome free-and-clear (no mortgage) and he limps along working a silly40-hour-a-week help desk job for a measly $18.50 an hour (not bad pay, but not huge money either.) But he is living great. In his spare time (which is numerous given he is not married, nor does he have children) he works out, lifts weights, runs. He also surfs a lot of websites and he starts to frequent a strip club or two. He then goes full alpha-cad: offers two strippers free a bedroom and free food and free utilities in his home for the price of signing a notarized document that said that they were just guests and he could boot them out at any time, staying thin and pretty, walking around his house naked, and each having sex with him at least once a week. That was the deal. And they went for it. This deal did NOT cost him anything extra (he already owned the house, already had the empty bedrooms, already paying the utilities) and since he did not have any possessions in his house that they could steal and sell for drugs (all his electronics and furniture was old and crappy) he had nothing to lose. He figured this was a better relationship than any marriage contract because neither one of them had any legal rights to his personal property nor were they actual tenants in his home (just guests that he could eject at any moment.) The girls loved it because it meant they have FREE SANCTUARY from all their druggie-ex-boyfriends, they were living with a guy who did NOT do drugs (which meant more stability in their own unstable lives), they were NOT alone with this guy (they had each other BFFs forever!), and best of all they could keep ALL their lap dance money for clothes and booze and drugs and whatever else they did with it (because it was always gone the minute they got it.) It was kind of a symbiotic relationship. He got the young pussy, they got a sort of non-state-or-God-sanctioned-patriarchal dividend. I’d come over for burgers and beer and we’d chat about their living situation, I was amused (impressed and ashamed of him at the same time) but kept my negative comments to myself. Looking back, his situation was one of the few ways a man has to live (if he wants to live with a woman or two) and to protect himself from her threat point.
The following are examples of typical modern dad thinking.
If my little Princess Muffy makes a “mistake” and needs an abortion so she can get back to college, then abortion needs to be there. Abortion is bad, but her not being able to get her feminist merit badge is worse.
If she is pregnant with a baby that will be “too hard” to care for, I want abortion to be there if she decides she wants one. It’s her choice. Abortion is bad, but limiting choices is worse. Abortion is bad, but having to take care of a baby when it will be “hard” is worse.
Divorce needs to be there if Muffy marries a bad man. Divorce can be an option if she is not happy. It’s also an option if Muffy wants to do something that he doesn’t, or he wants to do something that she doesn’t. They’re supposed to be equal, and if that changes, well, she needs to be able to get out. She needs to be able to end a marriage that’s not working for her, or if it turns out she made a mistake, or he changes. Divorce is bad, but being in a hard or tough or bad marriage is worse.
I was trying to find the literal translation of the “weaker vessel” Scripture and came across this blue pill response:
http://ericpazdziora.com/the-myth-of-the-weaker-vessel/
Why is anyone paying particular attention to damarismarietroll? She doesn’t intend to defend her comments really and women like her are impervious to evidence, either as a matter of acceptance per se, or without straining further mitigation to move the goal posts.
Our nation is filled with such women, to where no matter what the scenario, they will always find some loophole, “exception” or whatever is needed, to justify women’s superiority, or benefit of the legal system, etc. It’s like arguing with flat earthers, while we go about building boats.
The discussions are for us, and more men are opting out (“voting with their feet” as we say), on marriage and children. Her voice is part of a shrinking minority in strength, particularly among what white and foreign men entertain or bother to hear. Most manginas are the under 40 crowd of neck bearded PC white men who, thanks to progressive liberal politics, don’t even have the one thing men used to have: stable, steady income. They’re only value is to cheerlead Alpha women in the hopes of getting laid. They can be miserable together (which apparently they are now).
Nobody in my world, male or female, cares what (is most likely) a white woman thinks, particularly as the US continues to be diversified, via Latin American and Middle Eastern immigrants. White women have a very high rate of mental illness, depression, anger, bitterness and everyone sees it. Unless they are a knockout 10, no one really cares what they think any more than manginas. They are invisible.
deti,
Traditional conservatives who eat blue pills (to remain “in group”) might favor unilateral divorce for daughter Muffy, but they do not support daughter Muffy getting an abortion under any circumstances. Only a liberal would do that, not a trad-con. You over-reached.
Retract.
Brad, you are, I think, making a fundamental error though, that is typical. Those “costs” whatever they are, are NOT (to be) ONLY BORNE by one parent. So when I hear people for example, remark “well, your nearly $2k a month is reasonable, for the costs of a child”, set aside I have been a parent two decades and I am remarried with three kids and KNOW what it costs to raise a child: there is another person on the other half of the equation. The mother.
Who says that that final number, reasonable as you may find it (soft costs and all) is supposed to be borne by the father? Then we get the whole “well, the prior standard of living”, which was a complete PC creation of women because that served their financial needs. WHO says the child should get whatever they had before? Why isn’t that the case with custody? It’s only FINANCES that people (women in general) argue that. It’s a shell game and always has been.
However, as feminists would have it, NOTHING is required of the custodial mother. She can have a doctorate and have made 100k a year, but if she wants to do NOTHING, there is no penalty, no license being revoked, no swat team entry, nothing. She can show up and demand money, and increased child care (for her convenience, of course, not the lady down the street to watch your kids, as many intact parents do).
Which makes, ultimately, the whole matter rather humorous for many of us men who have educated, formally white collar ex-wives. They come to court asking for more money (based upon some newly created cost, like horseback lessons or whatever) and the sum of their argument naturally follows, logically:
“My child needs more money per month….but ONLY if it comes from the father”…(not from me actually working, or working to my full potential..by the same metrics used to put men in jail for “voluntary underemployment”.
It’s actually quite a funny thing it how transparent the anti-male bias is. And they wonder why men are opting out?
“We are in this sense re-fighting the cold war, but this time on the losing side.”
Perfectly appropriate, since Feminism is a Communist construct.
David J,
> specifically, college tuition for our two oldest sons
This would be a side issue, but a great deal of modern education cost is completely needless. It may be too late, but you should not sacrifice your life just so any children can get an expensive degree. They can go cheaper, work themselves, etc.
TFH: LOL ” Only indirect commentary, like how Sir David Attenborough would narrate wildlife.”
In Full on British accent, “and here we have your typical, white American female troll…given to hysteria, a lack of accountability, self-control…they are known for jabbering away to any male that will listen, and incredibly, will continue talking even after all the men have left the room”
White women are the joke of the world, no offense to the guys here married to them, but American women (by which we mean white), are viewed, externally, in all the ways you should presume based upon the American male experience: Slutty, mentally ill, mouthy, angry, unhappy.
@BradA, it’s tough to believe anyone would consider Pazdziora’s musings as some fluent ratiocination, least of all himself. He claims all the words in 1 Pet 3:7 are more important than the word “weaker”, and they are all to be understood hyperliterally, except “weaker”, which means, according to him, “not weaker”.
Moreover, after he makes what he believes to be his triumphal point about the verse urging men to *pretend* their wives are weaker, he then urges men to treat their wives as stronger instead anyway.
@d,
> “Yes, the hypothetical ex Mrs. Lyn87 would be entitled to a full half of ev-er-y-thing.”
Are you a sock puppet? She gets full benefits if she blows it up of her own accord? What incentive does she have to not do so? I thought you argued against the “cash and prizes” idea.
IBB,
I will bet he also got a few other “presents” in the form of permanent diseases. Such a deal….
enrique,
I wasn’t saying the costs were reasonable, I just asked if anyone ever did a breakdown on such things, including the soft costs. I can see people going either the direction of counting things that should not be or assuming nothing counts but direct food costs, for example. I would be curious to see the breakdown in the “typical” settlement amount, if such a breakdown exists of course.
TFH,
> Neither side says the woman has any responsibility to control her own pregnancies, nor that the man should have any say in the matter.
That is BS. I have been a strong tradcon in the past (not now) and I would never have said that. My two daughters turned out quite skanky and I am leaving them to their own devices, though they had left me to return to their birth family, so that didn’t have much impact.
I might have helped take care of them more than I should, but I would never sanction killing a child no matter whose error it was.
Have any of you claiming this ever been a tradcon?
jf12,
I wonder if any good exposition of this is on the Internet. I would even prefer a transliteration, though that can leave some things out as well.
@TFH: “Your story is sad but all too common. I guess the only ‘plus’ is that since your home equity was negative, you had little-to-nothing to lose from the asset split in divorce. Also, I hope you don’t have to pay alimony. How old are your kids? What is the CS situation?”
You are correct about the “plus,” and I have taken a fair amount of consolation in the realization that my situation could have been much worse (and her financial situation correspondingly better) if we had had any real net worth at the time. I was subject to criticism during our marriage for focusing more on short term options for income and expenditures (deliberately choosing employment that offered more family time and lower salary, funding the kids’ activities, a few memory-making vacations and visits with my parents & siblings, etc.) than on long-term options (savings, retirement fund, etc.). Between dodging the stock market crash (because I wasn’t invested) and a good bit of the divorce rape (because our net worth was essentially zero), what some viewed as less than “responsible” turned out to be blessing. I didn’t know it at the time, but I could have sported a bumper sticker saying, “I’m spending my soon-to-be-ex-wife’s divorce settlement!”
I paid $300/month alimony for the one year it took her to hook a bad catch second husband (older than me, semi-retired, on his third marriage). Kids are now 24, 22, 20, and almost 18. The two oldest (boys) are out of college and doing well for themselves; coincidentally, both are buying their first houses this summer, and I was able to loan some money to one to assist with the up front costs (which my ex hated). My 20-year old daughter has special needs and lives with her mother most of the time. I would love to have her with me more, but her mother does not hesitate to manipulate and guilt her into limiting her time with me. I paid $952/month in CS for her from our separation in 8/10 through her 20th birthday last month, out of which $600+ had to be used for health insurance for the last year because my idiot ex-wife had to relinquish her solid job (including highly subsidized health insurance) in order to relocate to her new husband’s place out of state. It was much more satisfying to send “only” $300+/month to my ex than the full $952. Beginning last month, my ex now has to pay me $244/month in CS for our youngest son, plus approximately $80 for half of his Obamacare, until next May when he graduates high school. THAT has some deliciousness to it. I suspect (hope?), now that the gravy train of CS has ended (along with the decent salary she used to receive from her now lost job), that inevitable fractures in her new marriage will hasten along.
I spoke to a minister friend the other day: either Evangelical or Charismatic – I forget which. He admitted that is was true that men were staying away from church in greater numbers. “Great for a single guy” says he.
@TFH
imnobody00 gets the response right. Male disposability is not a reflection of nature (as I explained in the linked post there), but of a view of absolute female moral authority (or pedestalization if you want to call it that). Dealings between men and women seismically shifted in that 400 year period I described. Because women were “better beings”, they were owed the “service” of the “lesser”, men…even to the point of death. In essence, man became the unconditional servant of woman (sound like today?) – man is supposed to submit to woman. To wit, Costa Concordia was the norm and not the exception, as many of the feminists want to try to paint it. Men didn’t owe anything to women until 400 years ago when elements of chivalry were put into force by arms.
@damarismarie: “No need to be defensive, David J.” No, of course not. I stated very plainly that we were underwater on our house (which everyone else correctly understood to mean that we had negative equity in the house). Your response was to accuse me of deliberately not paying the mortgage “to be spiteful.” Silly me for being defensive.
@hurting: “Sounds similar to my situation. My wife envisioned the best case scenario her attorney painted for her and instead got quite a different result. Although the outcome permanently impaired my situation (I will never recover financially, and my children will suffer as a result.), she is ruined and probably for life. I really believe that had she had a more realistic appraisal of how it’d all turn out that she would have stopped the divorce proceedings.”
Sorry, man. No winners, only degrees of losers. I agree entirely with you about the difference it would have made to have a realistic expectation about the results ahead of time. The flaw in our current system is at least two-fold: (1) it too often rewards frivorcing women with cash and prizes, and (2) even when the system doesn’t reward them with as much as they expected, it promoted the divorce because it held out the possibility of enough to make it economically worthwhile. The fact that in the latter situation the oath-breaking woman is still dissatisfied is cold comfort in the face of the permanent harm to the kids and to the community.
@BradA, there are a number of online Bible tools to help you sort this out for yourself. Among the best are interlinear Bibles such as this one.
http://www.studylight.org/desk/interlinear.cgi?search_form_type=interlinear&q1=1+Peter+3%3A7&ot=lxx&nt=wh&s=0&t3=str_kjv&ns=0
Short version: weaker means weaker. Also, Pazdziora contradicts himself within the same verse, since he insists “as” means “as” when it’s “as the weaker vessel”, but he insists “as” means “is” when it’s “as being heirs together”.
@IBB
I’m no expert in that area, but I’d be surprised if your buddy’s written acknowledgement of “guest” status by the strippers would hold up once they proved they had been a continual “guest” for a really long time. I also suspect that a judge would look for any reason to invalidate it, given that he was trading their housing for sex (and eye candy). Did they ultimately move out on their own accord, or did he have to ask them to leave? If the latter, did if he have to try to enforce the acknowledgement of guest status?
“I’d come over for burgers and beer and we’d chat about their living situation, ”
And were the girls hanging out naked when you came over?
TFH,
Wait what?
No sir. That is the libertarian’s position on the opposition to abortion. You think S.E.Cupp is a traditional conservative? You must.
A traditional conservative’s opposition to abortion still constitutes a belief that abortion is murder. Anything else you have to say on this is hooey.
Brad A,
In the article you linked, this jumped out at me: “Speaking as a not-at-all wimpy human male, I know women who are more athletic than I am, better educated than I am, more successful than I am, and have emotional and spiritual strength I can only dream of aspiring to. (In fact, I’m married to someone who’s pretty much all of the above, plus much better looking to boot.)”
THAT, gentlemen, is the voice of a guy who should definitely do a DNA check on any children his wife bears… and have a “go bag” in the trunk of his car for when his Paragon of Womanhood realizes what a dweeb she married.
Of course he goes on to talk about Lindsey Vonn, who won an Olympic Gold Medal in Alpine Skiing – but when we use the phrase “Gold Medal” with regard to Women’s events, I’ll quote his favorite movie character, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Simply put, if women had to compete against men, not only would Miss Vonn NOT not have won a Gold Medal, she would not even have been there except as a spectator. If you compare the Women’s Olympic Records for running against the U.S. High School BOYS records, the boys win at every distance. That’s correct, the fastest adult women on the planet, with years of specialized training from the best coaches on Earth, cannot beat the records set by amateur boys in after-school athletic programs in a country that has less than 5% of the world’s population. Don’t take my word for it:
Women’s Olympic and World Records here: (http://records.unitarium.com/athletic-records)
U.S. High School Boys records here: (http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/index.php/records/30-records/277-mens-outdoor-high-school-records)
I’ll grant that Miss Vonn looks pretty athletic, and she’s very easy on the eyes, but even though she won an Olympic Gold Medal, she is not a world class athlete. How odd that Eric Pazdziora would dissect the most technical (and maybe unlikely) possible interpretations of words to deny what seems like a pretty straightforward idea, then pretend that women are as [Fill in the Black] as men because we give them the same accolades (like Olympic Gold Medals) for performances that would not even win an amateur boy a 50-cent blue ribbon in a high school competition.
@TFH You actually make my case yourself:
Now think on WHY this is? Feminism has two main tenets expressed here. Since women are assumed to have absolute moral authority, therefore they are inerrant. They are not failed. They’re perfect. To keep this view intact, men by contrast have to be absolutely morally depraved. Hence, what you write, it’s not the woman’s fault ever…it’s a man that pushed her into it. Therefore the man (any man) must be there to service the woman in the situation. She shouldn’t have to abort because a man (again any man) failed to man up or step up or whatever the case may be and raise this child and support this woman as his own without any reservations. By virtue of his moral depravity, he (any individual man) is supposed to do this unconditionally. Not if he wants to, he HAS to. Because he’s a man.
Of course, the government (or the Church before about 1960) steps in and MAKES this happen. The welfare system, alimony, child support, the family courts. Taxes. A whole litany of things. These things exist because women were deemed above reproach, above criticism and by their virtue of being a woman, deemed entitled to men to bear her rightful responsibilities.
By her moral authority, she is deemed entitled to dictate her moral values upon men who must follow her because she is a woman (sound familiar again?). If a woman says something it goes, no questions asked. “If mamma ain’t happy, nobody’s happy” and “Happy wife happy life” comes from this.
In short in the world of feminism (both modern and tradcon feminism, i.e. what’s happened over the last 400 years), I’m a dirty disgusting perverted piece of garbage because I’m single and haven’t run right out to marry the first carousel rider that would graciously have me.
Now where you err is that there is such a thing as noble self-sacrifice. In most all of those cases, men are making these free will choices outside of any perverted influences such as the ones that feminism has presented. They aren’t out to preserve the woman, but the community. There is a big difference. You have to account for the targets of these self-sacrifice. To sacrifice for a noble cause is a greater thing than to have to assume sacrifice for another simply because she was born a woman.
Go back in Dalrock’s blog for the relevant posts – people weren’t whining about the Costa Concordia because men weren’t sacrificing for the greater good. It was because it wasn’t “women and children first”. You see men are supposed to line up and die for women in this feminism of the last 400 years.
It’s a huge difference.
I’d be interested in a debate with the Bodycrimes folks about BC’s claims and Dalrock’s response. But if they came over here, “Dalrock and his commenters are misogynist poopyheads” wouldn’t pass for debate. So don’t come over unless you’re interested in talking about the merits.
@BradA: “This would be a side issue, but a great deal of modern education cost is completely needless. It may be too late, but you should not sacrifice your life just so any children can get an expensive degree. They can go cheaper, work themselves, etc.”
Caution is definitely advised. In our case, however, each was attending a (different) Christian college that we had vetted carefully and with a clear idea of what they were going to do with their respective degrees. The oldest secured a 60% merit scholarship, plus perks. The younger secured lesser scholarships, but his tuition was less anyway and, as it turned out, he did the last 2-3 years online while he worked full-time to support himself, saving me even more. If the marriage had continued, we had it covered — my wife’s income would have allowed us to pay all or most of the tuition on a current basis and my income was sufficient to cover all other expenses. I got shafted the last year of our marriage when my wife withdrew her financial participation entirely, and then by the divorce, so I resorted to parent loans (and student loans that I have committed to my sons to pay for them). Overall, the total debt will be manageable and worthwhile. The oldest will be starting his third year of teaching with his degree, is halfway through a M.Ed. (which he is paying for), and is buying a house this summer. The younger just graduated and will not be working in his degree field in the foreseeable future because he is continuing his full-time position as a well-paid/highly valued/award-winning assistant manager/sales manager at a retail store franchise (and two other businesses owned by the franchisee). He is likewise buying a house this summer — the house he has shared for the last 3 years with other college students, and which he will now rent out for a profit over the mortgage payment. I’m satisfied.
In other words, men were sacrificing for the greater good of the community. In the last 400 years, feminism changed that and defined the greater good to be the life of any individual woman.
Why is anyone paying particular attention to damarismarietroll? She doesn’t intend to defend her comments really and women like her are impervious to evidence, either as a matter of acceptance per se, or without straining further mitigation to move the goal posts.
That’s what I was trying to make clear in my previous post on this subject. I don’t object to feministas who come to manosphere blogs to debate against our points in good faith. What I personally have no use for are creatures like the aforementioned, who make it known with their first post that they’re here to troll and have nothing but juvenile nonsense to offer.
Crank
I sold my own townhouse and moved away from him (and his “guests”) before their relationship ended. To be perfectly honest, I don’t know what became of the three of them. It appeared to me that things were working out well enough (well in the sense that the police were not there trying to solve domestic disturbances the way they did my other white-trash neighbors, lol!)
I’d come over for burgers and beer and we’d chat about their living situation…
In his house? Usually. Not always but usually. Yes I’ve seen both of them naked (multiple times, I was the one neighbor that was allowed since the strippers were my age and I wasn’t married or judgmental.) They would work out mostly nude in this living room (Taebo, just wearing sneakers) with the shades pulled. If they were outside with him and they were helping him with grill/burgers and the four of us were chit-chatting with other neighbors, then no, of course not. They’d have a t-shirt on or whatever they wore that day (or what they planned on wearing that evening) to the eXtacy or wherever they were dancing. No public indecency.
This was all pre-tattoo days, they didn’t have any tattoos that I could see. They were very pretty girls. They would have been even MORE pretty if they could have stayed away from the drugs but that is part of the stripper lifestyle. They were not shy/modest about their bodies. They were very proud of them, constantly working out. And they got to the point that they were so comfortable being naked all the time (since that is what they did for a living) that they were a peace and comfortable being that way where they were away from the “office” as it were. I was just the neighbor from two doors down that hung out with them (sometimes) for dinner and took in the mail when the three of them got away for a couple of days. I have no idea where they would go, but they would go “mid-week” as the girls wanted to work weekends since they made more money then. Odd lifestyle. Certainly not the least bit Christian, but they did what they did.
IBB sez, … opposition to abortion still constitutes a belief that abortion only happens because some callous man left the helpless woman is the libertarian’s position on the opposition to abortion. [Paraphrased for clarity.]
You, sir, are full of it. There is nothing close to a unified libertarian position on abortion, and even if there was one, “callous men” would not figure into it.
To the extent that libertarians opine on this, there are two general schools of thought:
Left libertarian: The woman own her body, and thus makes the choice, but the responsibility follows the authority.
Right libertarian: the fetus have the right to live without violence, and that trumps the convenience of anyone else. Parenthood confers obligations, and both parents should have responsibility commensurate with their authority.
Since the law favors the “Woman has the choice” option, the libertarian position is that a woman who elects to bear a child should be wholly responsible for it – since the man had no say, he has no responsibility other than what he chooses to accept of his own free will.
Obviously I am a right libertarian.
Bluedog
AR, re: “You adhere to the political philosophy that pushed men’s-fault divorce into law in state after state back in the 1970′s.” … really, what do you know about my political philosophy?
Enough to make the above statement, thanks to your various postings here over a few years.
I stand by the statement above. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that a real push to repeal divorce ever gets started, I expect you’ll equivocate rather than support or oppose it – it’s the Blue Dog way, doncha know, to try to split the difference between different flavors of statism.
There are and always will be two wings. They both stride atop the same substructure of Locke, Hobbes, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Blackstone, Smith, Riccardo. It goes back to the founding and as long as we do not become a communist or fascist state, it will always be so.
You might have a point, were it not for the Alinskyization of that party over the last 20 years. In my experience, people under 30 generally don’t know who those dead white males above are, and don’t much care.
Or – really – if your brush is broad enough to paint me, a stranger, what does your one-philosophy one-party red pill utopia state look like? Draw that picture, I’m curious.
What, in the end, difference would that make?
Meanwhile – it isn’t whether or not there is an opposition – it is whether the opposition is loyal or not.
Loyal to what? What was Saul Alinsky loyal to? What were Cloward and Piven loyal to? What is the anti-Family court system, the so-called “courts of equity”, loyal to? “Fairness”, sure, but whose definition? Shulamith Firestone, perhaps?
I understand that when bullets fly – who I will be in the trenches with – who will be firing at me, and who I won’t be firing back at. That’s a difference between me, for example, and Futrelle.
What difference is that, please? Be specific, and something more than “I’m divorced and he’s not”. So far as I can tell, based on your writing at this site, any diff between you and Manbooby is purely a matter of degree; “teal blue” vs. “pale sky blue”.
You’ll find, if you look, there’s no shortage of liberals who understand trenches and bullets and enemies and allies and the difference between an enemy, and a loyal opponent.
I’ve looked, and generally I’ve not found that, and I’ll be a tiny bit specific: if liberals realllllly believed the stuff they peddle, then Al Gore would have been President – in 1995, right after Clinton was impeached and removed from office. That’s as far as I care to go for now, because it’s Dalrock’s blog, not mine.
Were it not so, we’d of come apart a long time ago.
In a sense, “we” have been coming apart since the 1970’s. It’s just that the bureaucratic state has a lot of inertia.
Most of the words, coming from either direction, are just that, words. We know for whom the bullet is trained. We know who is not our ally.
How much ammo has your Department of Homeland Security bought in the last 5 years, Bluedog? Who is it intended for?
@TFH You’re missing my point. The issue is not with the idea of male expendability in general (and I don’t disagree with you that it exists), but the reasons behind it. What you were saying is irrelevant to what I originally wrote for that very reason. In my definition of principles, instead of using the word “expendability” I used the phrase “absolute male servanthood to disposability to women” as it pulls out the exact “expendability” expected out of men in feminism. All men exist for the service of women to any degree that she feels fit with marriage as the primary vehicle, for anything up to and including being “expended”.
Truthfully to make such an argument smoke screens this facet of feminism. In a just world, a woman has no right to demand any of my resources, and a woman especially has no right to demand my life to serve her wishes.
@TFH
> Your situation is uncommon.
Perhaps, but my wife and I have both thought this way for as long as I have known either of us. (I didn’t know my wife’s thoughts before I met her of course, but her views on abortion were founded before we met.
I might have held the man more accountable at one point in my life, but I no longer see the man as normally the primary responsible party. That said, I think many abortions are definitely pushed by those other than the women, even though it always gets framed as a women’s rights issue. (Ignoring the right of unborn women of course.)
I suspect my oldest daughter was pushed into one by the family of the boy she was seeing after she left our house. We were and are quite alienated, so I doubt I will ever know that truth.
White women are the joke of the world, no offense to the guys here married to them,
AWs of other races/ethnicities are no improvement over the white model (speaking from more than two and a half decades of experience here).
jf12, thanks for the link, but I am looking for that with a transliteration of the words under the Greek. I don’t read Greek myself…. Though I suppose I probably have that on my shelf someplace. I haven’t studied a dead tree book in this area for quite a while.
Lynn87 and others,
Good points on the article. I seem to have skimmed it too fast and only caught a few of the problems.
I know my father claimed that meant “like fine china” and waved it away, but his second wife (my step-mother) left him when he went full time into the ministry. She had a solid attitude that God would forgive her of sinful moves. She still cared about him as she was somewhat around when he was dying of prostrate cancer and I was able to stay with her when I came into town to see him during that time, but I have a very distant relationship with her now.
On the one hand, she sacrificed the year I lived with them as a teen to drive me across town so I could attend the smaller Boy Scout troop I was a part of, so the fact I earned Eagle was enabled by that. But I cannot support her dumping my dad, especially as my youngest daughter almost talked my wife into doing that a few years ago. I definitely see things very differently now due to all I have walked through.
@TFH
You aren’t really discussing what I am saying. I am saying that it is not just the last 400 years, but for FAR, FAR longer than that. In all cultures and all centuries, men are expendable.
Yes, but this happens in all societies. However, there is something specific to contemporary American culture. For example, the fact that women are to be protected against the consequence of their own actions. Abortion, divorce, etc. In a traditional culture (for example, the one I was born in), if a woman became a slut, there were negative consequences.
There is something that distinguishes our society from every other society in the history of the world, even if male expendability is a property of every society. This is the outcome of the last centuries. So yes, I am with ballista.
I’ve run the numbers and in the six years since my ex moved out of the house, I’ve paid out somewhere between $300K and $350K in straight up cash transfers. We had no appreciable level of assets.
This is with 50/50 custody of our three kids.
David J,
It sounds like the education worked out well for you. I just know that that area is shifting hugely now and the idea that parents should just pony up for tuition is no longer the good idea it may have once been. You can accomplish the same in other ways.
Though an M. Ed may not be the best key to the future it once was. The entire education field is facing a huge upheaval. I have an M.S., but I was on my own for grad school and my degree is in C.S. and has proven reasonably lucrative.
In case anyone cares:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/3-7.htm
@TFH: “At least your kids are a) old enough, and b) enough in number, that they cannot be brainwashed into the misandric narrative of you being a bad father. How many of them see the situation for what it really is (i.e. the selfish mother)? How many of your sons are wary of marriage themselves? As Dalrock has noted, the next generation of men just might not be preparing to be family men. They need not be well-versed in every red-pill topic, but rather are just not orienting their lives in that direction, making them unsuitable candidates for beta bux.”
Short answer: I don’t know. The college graduates are old enough to have an opinion about her selfishness, but they’ve not volunteered it and I’ve not figured out a way to ask without at least indirectly impugning their mother, which I try hard not to do unless necessary. A complicating factor is that she bent their ears about the upcoming divorce even before I was aware it was coming and refused to have a joint conversation with me and them (as she had previously promised to do and as our marriage counselor had endorsed). So they’ve been the subjects of unilateral spin and manipulation, the effectiveness of which I can’t gauge. It might be different if we had daily contact, but they’ve both lived out of state since the divorce was filed. I can only take comfort in the extent to which we do still have seemingly solid relationships with each other. Our special needs daughter sees no fault in either of her parents and simply makes do. Our youngest does see his mother’s selfishness, but he sees it directly in her dealings with him so he doesn’t need to analyze its presence in the divorce or her dealings with me. The older boys’ attitudes toward marriage are also unstated so far. By their actions, however, it seems to me that they are at least cautious, if not leery. The oldest does not date at all and never has. He socializes in groups of both guys and gals. The younger has not had a girlfriend since high school, though he has dated widely in college, in addition to a lot of group “hanging out.” Interestingly, he is bringing a girl with him to an upcoming beach vacation with me and the other kids. It remains to be seen whether he is bringing her because he is interested in her or because neither of them is romantically interested and she is therefore “safe.” I both dread and look forward to future conversations about marriage and what they should look for, and look out for, in a prospective mate.
Lyn87 says:June 30, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Thank you. I was going to point out IBB’s septic tank attributes, but was sure you would beat me to it.
IBB, I’m going to simplify this for you (and anyone else similarly confused) just this once. That should be enough, given that it’s a very simple explanation.
Very simply, libertarianism is this: adherence to the Non-aggression Principle (NAP). The NAP itself is simply abstaining from committing acts of aggressive [i.e., unprovoked] violence against another person or their property.
In other words, the only justifiable use of force is in self-defense.
It is from the NAP that all other concepts of individual liberty flow.
So does this mean that all libertarians are anti-abortion? No, alas, it doesn’t. As Lyn pointed out, there are points of debate amongst libertarians as to when life begins, and thus at one point the unborn becomes a person to whom the NAP applies. However, the flip side of the NAP is that each individual is responsible for their own behavior. Thus if a woman who calls herself libertarian decides to abort her unborn child, the consequences of that choice are hers to suffer. To add the Christian compatibility “plug-in,” God will judge this woman for her decision and her actions in making it happen (i.e., as a Christian libertarian, I am cognizant of both my free will and my obligation to obey Scripture. These are not mutually exclusive at all).
Thus endeth the lesson. Carry on.
BradA
Women can be a civilizing force if and only if society reinforces that role.
No. Women can at best be a socializing force. They can enforce rules set by others.
They are not a civilizing force, they cannot create the systems of rules needed.
Put your pedestal away. It’s a bad thing.
TFH @ 4:26 pm:
“Male expendability is as old as humanity itself, and is seen in great apes as well.”
ballista74 @ 5:02 pm:
“@TFH You’re missing my point. The issue is not with the idea of male expendability in general (and I don’t disagree with you that it exists)…”
It’s about time for this lie of evolutionary psychology to be put down. Men have never been more expendable than women. If 90% of a village’s men die, you don’t get a minor blip in the fertility rate. You get mass starvation and predation because ten men cannot raise 100 families. The reason societies send only the men to fight and die in wars is because we’re twenty times better at war than women, not because our wives were done with us after baby #3. The idea that men are more expendable than women because the village only needs a single stud alpha for breeding is a dehumanizing, cruel, feminism-justifying lie from Hell.
I’ll put up with evopsych from the pickup artists because they’re ignorant of our Creator. We Christians know better.
feeriker,
Then its not that simple. There was nothing “simple” about your rhetoric. You are all over the place.
Traditional conservatives are against abortion in all cases. And why? Because its murder. You see, that is simple. You (and Lyn) just did the feminist-girl-thing and jumped on the hamster wheel to defend that which in indefensible. But I really do not want to get into what you think libertarians believe or don’t believe about abortion. I don’t really care what libertarians think about abortion. The only thing I was trying to do was correct TFH’s irrational thinking about traditional conservatives supporting abortion. He was wrong, and I explained why (very simply.)
@TFH
France’s democracy is old but there is not the degree of pedestalization that exists in the USA.
Scandinavian countries are very feminist but there is not the degree of pedestalization that exists in the USA (see laws about divorce).
The fact that American treatment of women only affects to English-speaking countries requires an explanation. I tend to think that English speaking countries went through the Victorian ideology. Or that they are more vulnerable to American media.
In no country that doesn’t speak English, you will see landwhales thinking they are hot princesses and deserve the best of the best.
innocentbystanderboston says:
June 30, 2014 at 2:20 pm
Dalrock, “innocent bystander boston” has resorted to name calling in the above comment. I have not engaged him, nor have I used any curse words. Can you please finally ban him? I have observed that he argues with everyone on here. If you can’t or won’t do that, will you please delete his comment? You must be concerned about security and it is so obvious, even to me, that IBB is a Mole, to what purpose I am not sure.
Ballista74:
I finally got ’round to reading your lengthy and well-researched article. Excellent work!
Boxer
At June 30, 2014 at 4:38 pm
But when two actual libertarians corrected his not-even-close-to-the-truth statement, he responded at June 30, 2014 at 5:55 pm with the following at June 30, 2014 at 5:55 p.m.:
Which is it? You begin by impugning the libertarian position (which you made up – libertarians don’t believe what you say we do), then when we both call you on it you accuse us of doing the feminist-girl-thing and jumpe[ing] on the hamster wheel. Geez, you argue like a chick.
I and others have speculated that IBB is actually a husband-and-wife team that shares a screen-name, and this adds further credence to it – because the IBB who wrote at 5:55 p.m. directly contradicted the IBB who wrote at 4:38 p.m.. And both MR. IBB and MRS. IBB are wrong about what libertarians believe. Neither left-libertarians nor right-libertarians believe that people should be forced to pay for the choices of others.
I assume the missus has taken over the keyboard in the IBB household for the night – proceed with caution, gentlemen.
Actually looking back TFH, my original consternation was not with you. It was with deti.
Then YOU irrationally corrected my position thusly…
Wrong. 1000 times wrong. A traditional conservative’s opposition to abortion still constitutes a belief that abortion is murder. It has nothing to do with when it happens, the circumstances, or how callous the man was who impregnated her. A traditional conservative’s position on abortion has nothing to do with men. It is instead stipulating what is murder and what needs to be instantly criminalized.
The blue pill eating traditional conservative (who is most interested in remaining “in group”) will callously say that when an abortion occurs there are two victims, the child and the mother. That sounds nice. That sounds almost sympathetic. Its f-cking ridiculous and a total lie (told on their part) but it does fit within a nicer feminist narrative….
…but its still murder.
The reason why you haven’t seen that is because too many traditional conservatives (pretty much ALL of them not named Ann Coulter) are still eating blue pills and are more concerned with being “in group” than saying what they know to be true. There is not public outcry against you when you denigrate men. You only hear the public outcry when you tell women that they must be responsible.
That said, please tell me that you don’t think that the fathers bear some responsibility here. Unless a woman sneaks into a man’s home in the middle of the night, jerks him off while he’s sleeping, collects the semen, inserts it into herself (turkey baster style) and thus becomes pregnant, then the man was a willing participant in her situation and should be financially responsible for bringing a child into the world. If he didn’t f-ck her, she would not be pregnant. Do you know how many children I sired out of wedlock TFH? Zero. Do you know how much court ordered child support I have paid in my life to support bastards? Zero.
The traditional conservative is going to say to men, if you don’t want to pay child support, don’t have sex. That is their position. They take that position because the traditional conservative believes that women are (or at least, might be) irresponsible about birth control. Look out for your own interests by making sure you understand that every single time you have sex, there might be a pregnancy. Don’t assume anything about her.
Stop trying to combine two different issues (abortion vs child support) and link them to be the same thing for traditional conservatives. Don’t do that.
I strongly suspect our “special visitor” fully comprehends that she is the (potential) beneficiary of a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose system. Her *only* reason for refraining from gloating over it is that it would jeopardize the stability of her herd’s advantage. That and da tinglolzzlz that accompany pseudo denial. Stick that in your reframe and hang it.
Hi Lyn87 – “damismarie has, indeed, tipped her hand: and she somehow holds five jokers.” Not sure why you think I am holding five jokers lol.
“Should she be required to continue to clean my house, cook my meals, and have sex with me?” No, because you wouldn’t be married and still living together.
Re: flipping the script – it does go both ways if, for instance you were the stay at home or working only part time. Whether or not you feel you would be at a financial disadvantage to remarry is irrelevant: those were still joint marital assets legally protected and meant to be divided equally.
@ballista & TFH
I get what you’re saying, and this’ll probably piss off GunnerQ, but male self-sacrifice for women (and by association, potential offspring) is part of our evolved firmware.
If we’re presented with a survival situation where we have the time to consider the moral and pragmatic implications of that sacrifice in the context of what society “expects”, then your sacrificial results may vary (e.g the Titanic vs. the Costa Concordia sinkings)
However, if we’re presented with an immediate lethal threat, men will reactively, instinctually sacrifice themselves for the lives of women. Consider the number of only men who put themselves bodily in front of women during the James Holmes shooting in the theater in Aurora, Colorado.
To my knowledge, there was no feminist outrage about women not laying themselves across the bodies of men to be ‘equalist’ bullet catchers in that incident.
It takes a lifetime of conditioning to make men contemplate and doubt it, but men are instinctually hardwired to lay down their lives for women because it’s served as a valuable survival adaptation for the species.
Roosh wrote about how swiftly Poland and Brazil are going into feminism. India, a poor country with thousands of years of history, has nonetheless been a democracy for longer than all but 5-6 countries. Hence, the level of US/UK-style laws being enacted in India is quite surprising.
International leftist NGOs are trying to remake the native Brazilian feminists into their own mirror, but most Brazilian feminists strike me as women who want to have relations with feminist Scandinavian men.
That’s the kind of impression I got from observing and analyzing Brazilian feminist gatherings. It’s Brazilian Prostitution with a feminist twist, except that the customer isn’t just any normal white guy from Europe (or an Asian man) but has to be Mr. Thor with feminist cred.
Of course, when I point this out some think that I’m imagining stuff (or even projecting), but turns out that I was right about my instincts on that issue and that the prostitution business in Brazil is not just huge, but present in all regions (affecting the lowly populated areas the most though).
It kind of makes sense, since a predominant percentage of Brazilian DNA and looks was given by white fathers (colonizers, immigrants, etc). Roosh has also observed the increased amount of pale blonde men in Brazil, so that will be the end result of “Brazilian feminist style”.
Scandinavian men going to Brazil to get laid with Brazilian feminist (prostitutes).
Just wait until the Scandinavian women find out how they have been duped by Brazilian feminists. When that happens, perhaps some would have listened to my warnings about feminist Scandinavian men in Brazil.
IBB (I think Mr IBB is back on for now),
Most of us agree that abortion is murder. I certainly do. But when we talk about “fault” there can be only one answer: the woman. Why? Because only the woman has authority, and with authority comes responsibility. If a man had a method of vetoing an abortion decision, then he could share in the blame – but NO man in the western world has that ability (except judges in certain rare cases).
Having said that, authority matters a lot, since the law allows a woman to hold a man personally responsible for a child when he had no say in whether or not that child would be carried to term… because despite the fact that abortion is murder, it is also legal. FWIW, I also was a premarital celibate, so I don’t worry about bastard children, either: but to separate na act from its consequences is to deny that many misguided TradCons (and I consider myself one) have decided to combat abortion by forcing men to pay women enough to NOT kill their babies. And many – not all – TradCons hold men to a higher standard than women, and say “If you don’t want kids don’t have sex!” — to men. To women they say, “Don’t abort, because that creates two victims – you and your baby“. If they were intellectually honest they would say “If you don’t want babies don’t have sex!” — to everyone. And then add, “Don’t have an abortion because you and your “doctor” will be hanged from a lamp-post in the town square for first -degree murder.”
I am not addressing the topic of contraceptive use by married couples – that’s another topic and beyond the scope of my post. I hope nobody opens that can of worms again.
So…if I am an “Attention Whore” only here for the “Gina Tingles” does that mean you guys are only here for the Angry Boner Tingles?!
Really, can you not see how offensive and unacceptable it is to say “Gina Tingles”?
Or what about “Cupcake”? Would you like it if a strange woman you didn’t know called you Cupcake?
Have you ever been commanded by a stranger out in public to “Smile”? IMO when a man accosts someone, telling them Smile, they should be slapped in the face for their insolence and then arrested.
iamnobody00
France’s democracy is old but there is not the degree of pedestalization that exists in the USA.
Eh? The last two (or is it three?) French Republics date to 1945. Prior to that for several years France wasn’t even a country per se, but zone of occupation (I do not wish to argue about the Vichy regime, sorry).
And French culture has been changing along with the rest of the West for the last 40-odd years, although I will agree that generally le Francais are more realistic about their women than Americans.
TFH,
Not even remotely true. But I can see where you are getting into the mud thinking that child support and abortion are linked. Where you are wrong is your belief that child support is a traditional conservative’s only bribe they offer women not to abort. There is an alternative bribe that the traditional conservative will ALWAYS mention first:
….adoption.
damarismarie has once again stepped into a trap laid for her.
If my wife hypothetically dumps me damarismarie has decreed that I owe her half of the thing I agreed to share with her as a condition of our marriage (provision)… even though we are no longer married. However…
Damarismarie has also decree that my wife owes me none of what she agreed to share with me as a condition of our marriage (housekeeping, cooking, and sex)… because we are no longer married.
How convenient for her… Good thing for me that my wife has more integrity than damarismarie does.
The last two (or is it three?) French Republics date to 1945
To be specific, the current (Fifth) French Republic began in 1958, when De Gaulle overthrew the previous Fourth Republic (1945-1958). France’s last attempted military coup (it failed) was in 1961. France’s last attempted general insurrection (it failed) was in 1968. The Fifth Republic has 14 more years to go before it achieves the 70 years of France’s most stable political system since the French Revolution, the Third Republic (1870-1940), which ended ignominously with defeat.
Rollo, a similar hypothesis that agrees with what you are saying:
http://useyourfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/a-grand-unified-theory-of-everything/
Lyn87,
The fact that the mother is the only one to decide if she wants to lawfully murder her own child (or should I say legally pay a “doctor” to murder her own child) makes her (and the “doctor”) the only two people who are responsible for the murder of the child. That’s it. But that has nothing to do with child support.
If the mother is going to the father of the child (a man who may be against abortion for whatever reason) and saying “…you need to give me $500 a month for the next 18 years or I will abort this child…” then this woman who has already sold her soul to the devil is extorting the father into child support. She can do that. But you know what? She doesn’t HAVE to do that. Extortion is not necessary. The way the law is written she can do that with or without abortion being legal. And that is the whole point for traditional conservatives (like myself.) In this sense, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference if abortion is legal or illegal, we have DNA testing and we are going to know EXACTLY which man is going to pay a check to her (for the next 18 years) because (for very momentary pleasure) he put his penis into a vagina that he most certainly should not have entered.
That is the law. That is what the traditional conservative will say. That is why traditional conservatives support child support in this manner, it is about assigning responsibility. She (and the “doctor”) would have been responsible for the abortion had it happened. But if it does not happen, he is still at least half responsible that there is a bastard coming into this world in the first place.
IBB,
if only that were true, the world would be a better place. Look, as a right-libertarian Christian I sympathize with what you’re saying, but you’re not sufficiently taking incentives and authority into account. Without the authority that the law gives women, the extortion you refer to would not be possible. If the law recognized abortion as murder (as we do), “You need to give me $500 a month for the next 18 years or I will abort this child” could be met with, “if you do that you will die on a scaffold,” so your assertion that she can do that with or without abortion being legal is exactly the opposite of being true. A woman can only do that because abortion is entirely her legal prerogative, along with the state’s assurance that they will make him pay… HER.
The problem TFH and I have with you is that you don’t consider that abortion is something that women – and only women – can do. Nobody can make them get one and nobody can prevent them from getting one. Nobody else has any say at all. That is where the responsibility lies, and it cannot logically lie anywhere else.
Both men and women must answer to God for fornication, but as long as they hold all the cards, only women will answer for abortion. The law has de-linked pregnancy from child-birth for women but not for men. For women, sex that results in pregnancy, whether planned or not = whatever she wants it to mean for her: from a trip to the clinic to a lifetime of motherhood. For men, sex that results in pregnancy, whether planned or not = whatever the woman wants it to mean for him: from nothing, to 18 years of indentured servitude and/or gang-rape in prison, to a lifetime of fatherhood.
No responsibility without authority – THAT’S what libertarians believe. Funny, that seems pretty consistent with Christianity too. Too bad so many of our fellow TradCons don’t accept that… when it comes to women, that is.
imnobody, careful there, there is massive pedestelization of women in Scandinavia. I will give it to you that they aren’t as crazy as American and Canadian girls, in the way that a false rape accusation is very very unlikely to happen there, but the way everyone talks they go on about the same nonsense like 73 cents to the dollar there too.
In a way the men are a bit like a domestically abused spouse ie feel they have no value, if things go wrong it’s their fault, constantly walking on eggshells incase they offend her precious sensibilities.
“That is the law. That is what the traditional conservative will say. That is why traditional conservatives support child support in this manner, it is about assigning responsibility. ”
It’s a good thing we have traditionalists around to uphold basic principles that have never existed anywhere until very recently and which have done unspeakable harm to civilization. One parent has custody and control of the child, and the other has to pay for it. Show me a civilization built on that. You can’t. I can show you one falling apart from it.
Live births in U.S. 3.9 million per year (40% are out of wedlock)
Abortions in U.S. about 1 million per year.
Don’t worry, guys. The traditionalists are on this.
“IMO when a man accosts someone, telling them Smile, they should be slapped in the face for their insolence and then arrested.”
Locking someone in a cage for suggesting to a woman that she smile?
What a lovely brave new world that would be! How wonderfully progressive!
The funny thing is…. that probably has a better chance of becoming law than e.g., presumption of 50/50 custody, outlawing the murder of unborn children or penalties for paternity fraud.
I’m kind of glad I’m only going to live another 20 years even though the U.S. should be well on it’s way to 3d world matriarchal hellhole status by then.
@srsly
Sorry for the delayed reply. I disagree on the test that you propose. The first problem it has is it is very complex. This will make it difficult to put into practice in real life exchanges. The other problem I have with it is more fundamental, in that it cedes the frame to those defending our current family court system.
The primary test I would propose is whether the person you are discussing the issue with believes that lifetime marriage is key to sexual morality. The vast majority of people today do not, at least not seriously. The closest most come to believing in the sexual morality view of marriage is that one needs to marry a woman once she hands you the man up card. If the person you are discussing the issue with is in this frame, blow this nonsense out of the water and don’t be distracted by attempts to reframe the issue to “fairness”. If they don’t (truly) believe in sexual morality, then there is no compelling moral argument for men to marry. They will want to talk about how the existing no fault divorce system is only “fair”, and will try to rope you into that discussion. While they are wrong (see below), it is much cleaner to stay out of that frame, and simply point out that if marriage isn’t required for sexual morality, who are they to complain about men who decide never to marry? Those men who don’t believe in sexual morality but feel that modern marriage is “fair” are of course free to marry, and those who don’t believe it is fair are free to not marry and have sex in the relationship definitions which they find most enjoyable. Hold them here, and don’t let them wiggle out. Call them on it when they try to equate romantic love or serial monogamy with sexual morality. If marriage has no moral meaning (and for nearly everyone today it does not), then men who find the system unfair should rationally avoid marriage. There is no point in arguing whether the system is “fair” or not, since the people taking the risks should be the ones who get to decide in this morality free frame of mind. This frame/argument is logically bulletproof, so the only two options if you don’t get distracted and chase them down a rabbit hole is for them to acknowledge that it isn’t their place to urge men to marry, or to acknowledge that lifetime marriage is required for sexual morality.
Having said this, if you must engage in an argument about “fairness” of the current system, there are some things you should keep in mind. The first is that almost all will simultaneously assert that the division of assets (including the children) under our current system is only “fair”, while also arguing that the men who are punished with this outcome have it coming. Don’t let this slip past you. Lock in on this, and don’t let them distract you away from it. When you do so they will be bewildered, because no one calls them on this. In fact, no one sees the logical fallacy here because they are distracted by the emotion of the issue. In one sentence they will tell you that the system is fair because x% of men deserve what happens to them in the family courts, because the man was a cheater/drunk/abusive/etc. Then they will switch to explaining that what happens in the family courts isn’t a punishment at all, because no one is to blame when a marriage “just ends” (which is why they oppose fault based divorce), and all the family courts are doing is giving the woman what she has coming to her as part of an equitable dissolution of the partnership. These two arguments are mutually exclusive, yet I’ve never found someone who supports no fault divorce who didn’t argue both simultaneously.
A related point is the fact that the system is designed to treat men the same way whether they are the perpetrator or the victim. Men who cheat on their wives deserve to lose their kids and get soaked in divorce court, they will argue. But what about the man whose wife cheats on him? The system is designed to do the same thing every time (punish the man) and explicitly doesn’t take fault into account.
Another thing to keep in mind is as I’ve shown the shameless obsession women have with divorce and divorce fantasies. There really is no defense against this except for denial, which is therefore what you will get. Another thing to look for is the claim that divorce is driven by men trading in aging wives for a younger model. The stats prove that the opposite is true, and that divorce is most common when the wife is young and divorce rates decline dramatically as the wife ages. This is important not just because of the refutation of what “everyone knows” with actual data, but also because they have already made the case for the immorality of divorce theft. They can see the moral problem with divorce theft when done by a man, so this gives you an opening to point out that while this is despicable, it is statistically quite rare (or the divorce rate curve would slope up as wives age). At the same time, the opportunity for wives to commit divorce theft is when they are young, which is exactly when we see families being blown up with the greatest frequency.
There is more to consider, including how open academics are that no fault divorce is being used to redistribute power within marriage away from men (who want to stay married), to women (who are more inclined to entertain divorce). Tie this all into the undeniable pain this causes innocent children, and you might have a chance of breaking through every now and then. But mostly, what you will get back from your logical arguments is pure emotion, because the investment in the current system is far deeper than most would ever suspect.
At any rate, the best bet is the first part I offered, because there is no point arguing that men should marry if marriage isn’t core to sexual morality.
And both MR. IBB and MRS. IBB are wrong about what libertarians believe. Neither left-libertarians nor right-libertarians believe that people should be forced to pay for the choices of others.
And like most cons, of the neo or trad sort, they’re not about to let truth get in the way of their ideology.
“These two arguments are mutually exclusive, yet I’ve never found someone who supports no fault divorce who didn’t argue both simultaneously.”
Neither have I, and I’m a lawyer.
I’ve been racking my brain since Cail replied to come up with a simpler fact pattern with all the same elements. (obvious case for a traditional women’s protective measure, blatant evil conduct by the woman destroying the man’s individual autonomy, a mainstream conservative issue to bait them away from recognizing that evil) I’m almost embarrassed to admit that I hadn’t thought about their hatred of evil, unmarried men such as myself, who mind our own business, keep our own money, and let those sluts keep their own problems. I’ll be thinking this over again from the top.
However,
“it cedes the frame to those defending frivolous divorce.”
I don’t think I did that. There was no frivolous divorce in my example. Infanticide is grounds for divorce.
@Dimitri
imnobody, careful there, there is massive pedestelization of women in Scandinavia. I will give it to you that they aren’t as crazy as American and Canadian girls, in the way that a false rape accusation is very very unlikely to happen there, but the way everyone talks they go on about the same nonsense like 73 cents to the dollar there too.
This is feminism not pedestalization.
@Anonymous Reader
Eh? The last two (or is it three?) French Republics date to 1945. Prior to that for several years France wasn’t even a country per se, but zone of occupation (I do not wish to argue about the Vichy regime, sorry).
First Republic 1792–1804
Second Republic 1848–1852
Third Republic 1870–1940
Vichy France and Free France 1940–1944
Provisional Government 1944–1946
Fourth Republic 1946–1958
Fifth Republic 1958–present
In short, French people have had 154 years of Republic. Except an intermission of 6 years, France has been a Republic from 1870 on.
There is not public outcry against you when you denigrate men. You only hear the public outcry when you tell women that they must be responsible.
It’s more than that.
It feels good to put other men down. It does. It’s a hierarchy thing. If you can do it successfully, you gain, and they lose. Win.
Not only does it not feel good to put women down, but it actually undermines your own status in the male hierarchy (i.e., among men) and opens you up to some other man putting *you* down, and leaping past you in the hierarchy.
The male social dynamic works very well in almost all situations where men need to bond together to accomplish things. In the face of women/feminism it fails miserably. In deep history, the counterweight was that, unlike (most) other primates, males were not itinerant in our species, but rather lived in groups of kin-bonded males, and non kin-bonded women were imported/traded with other groups of kin-bonded men (or captured from them in war) to serve as the wives. In other words, the men had powerful pre-existing bonds which swayed the dynamic in their favor, while the women had weak bonds (at first). Over time, women developed stronger bonds to non-kin bonded women as a needed counterweight to the reality of living among pre-bonded males. And in the last few hundred years, trends have been massively towards men no longer living in kin-bonded communities, but towards more individualism, and in an individualist context, men do not cooperate when it comes to the women. The deep history has not trained them for this (unlike what it has done with women), and so men living in autonomous life without kin-bonds as the basis will have weaker ties to each other than women do (the present situation), and that dynamic will take a long time to overcome, if ever.
As a result, men have very little trust and in-group preference on the basis of sex, whereas women have loads of that due to the history making them develop that (as compared to men, who developed in-group preference on their actual kin in-group, rather than with strangers). In a world full of strangers, as we have today, the female social dynamic is stronger, and men end up being their own worst enemies. And the best part? It feels *good* to do so, because it feels like you are flaying an outsider to the in-group (something which I am sure kin bonded men always reveled in), since everyone is an outsider now.
Off topic, but I think creating and building a wiki for the manosphere or red pill knowledge would be a great idea. With a wiki, us red pill types can sort of explain the lingo unique in the context of the manosphere like MGTOW, riding the carousel, threatpoint, alpha widow etc. in a fashion that can be more easily consumed by men just being exposed to the red pill reality.
It looks like someone has already started a MGTOW wikia here http://mgtow.wikia.com/wiki/MGTOW_Wiki but with little material it really hasn’t taken off. I propose we start a new wikia titled “Manosphere wikia” or “Red Pill wikia”. Here the page for creating a new wikia http://www.wikia.com/Special:CreateNewWiki I’m letting the more knowledgeable types here, if they are willing, to have the first go at it. Let us know whoever wants to start the “Manosphere wikia” so we can start writing articles explaining red pill concepts.
@ChrisP
Great idea. So muh useful information buried in old posts. A wiki would structure all this information for newbies
Dalrock, “innocent bystander boston” has resorted to name calling in the above comment. I have not engaged him, nor have I used any curse words. Can you please finally ban him?
LOL!!! What a hoot. WHAAAAA!!! I’m telling Dalrock.
Can the trolling feminist at least make sammiches for the guys she’s trolling?
In short, French people have had 154 years of Republic. Except an intermission of 6 years, France has been a Republic from 1870 on.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Novaseeker
As a result, men have very little trust and in-group preference on the basis of sex, whereas women have loads of that due to the history making them develop that (as compared to men, who developed in-group preference on their actual kin in-group, rather than with strangers). In a world full of strangers, as we have today, the female social dynamic is stronger, and men end up being their own worst enemies. And the best part? It feels *good* to do so, because it feels like you are flaying an outsider to the in-group (something which I am sure kin bonded men always reveled in), since everyone is an outsider now.
Insights such as this are the reason for reading this weblog.
I can only add an example: the “Duck Dynasty” group. View this and watch the interactions between men and women, all the women are from outside the clan, all the men are kin. And from my limited viewing, it plays out much as Nova describes above, to the fascination of viewers. The Duck clan are an anachronism.
Awesome article as usual. Well, I lie. This one’s exceptional.
Oh, and I know I’m late, but that book Why men Hate Going to Church is somewhat red pill. Diluted. Written by a guy who’s still mostly blue pill, or he was trying to not make too big of waves. It doesn’t really touch on how feminized church preaches women good/men bad, but touches on more like how men don’t like sitting around praying and women do, and men like DOING things. Basically, he says how church is feminine all over, and doing feminine activities doesn’t appeal to men.
My mom fucking hated that book, lmao.
JDG,
Can the trolling feminist at least make sammiches for the guys she’s trolling?
Do you really want to eat a sandwich made by this creature? Do you have that much blind faith in her culinary skills?
TFH you make a good point. I nominate IBB to sample them first (if he doesn’t mind).
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Right, but I proved my point that democracy in France is old and way earlier than 1945, which was the point you were replying to me.
AR,
I don’t see the start difference between civilizing and socializing. I suppose you could argue points, but I would say it is the same basic pot. Accuse me of pedestalizing all you want, but women do have merit, in God’s proper balance. Just as men have merit in that same balance. Both are capable of very bad things, but they are also both capable of good things. I don’t buy the idea that women are better OR worse than men. They are what they are. We get too much of the “they suck” message here because of the idiocy of those Dalrock highlights and the experiences of many here?
I don’t put women on a pedestal, nor do I put them in the trash. They are what they are.
I also fail to see how this core statement is different from the other one, that men will often act civilized when they marry a good woman. They are not doing it for nothing, they are doing it for their wife and children.
This would not mean I support a woman making a man into anything. It is her existence and desirability that drives things, not her pushing, nagging, cajoling, etc. I note that in case you are seeing that in my statement.
TFH, I am still not sure I buy your “conservatives pin abortion on the man” statement. It just doesn’t fit with my reality and past as you note it. Perhaps it is true, but you need more support if you are going to make that radical of a claim.
Blue pill conservatives may pin more responsibility on men, but that is a completely different issue. It may impact abortion, but not in the direct manner you assert.
Can you provide more support for your statement other than a couple of anecdotal stories? Mine are anecdotal too, but they also fit with the proclaimed opposition to abortion so it would seem the side disagreeing has more to prove.
I lean far more right-libertarian, but I think the anarchy focus of many libertarians will fail as well. I also think their backing for things like special deviant rights fails to take into account that pushing for that also shoves it down the throats of others since you can’t separate rights from the current legal climate.
Note that even the maligned Dobson (IIRC) lamented that we shouldn’t be applauding teen mothers who graduate with their class, for example. He may have lots of flaws, but I recall hearing from him or perhaps someone else in that circle that such an example was bad, even though it appeared to prevent abortion.
I am coming to the view that providing lots of support ends up making more abortions since it may lower the rate, but increase the amount of fooling around. This will ultimately end up increasing the total number of abortions, if not the rate.
Supporting CS does not necessarily mean men are put at fault for abortion. It means they incorrectly pin more blame on men for life than they should.
Rollo, you don’t have to believe evolutionary BS to believe we contain (created or not) certain core drives. I would argue what you credit to evolution is rather from our Creator. I can’t speak for Gunner Q, but I suspect I am firmer at these things than possibly even him and even most here (being a young earth creationist) and I have no problem with the idea.
It reminds me of all the crap with the Primal Diet. I like the concept and I am trying to shift with that, but I don’t buy the made up backstory.
Lyn87,
> Because only the woman has authority, and with authority comes responsibility.
I would agree the women has the authority, but will you really argue that only the rare women is pushed toward abortion today? I would have no idea the exact numbers, but I am sure a great many parents, boyfriends, etc. push women toward abortions. The woman is guilty because she pulled the trigger, but those who pushed her there are also guilty. I don’t think this is what you and others are thinking though, so it might be good to clarify the exact point there. I have only been quickly skimming IBB’s arguments, so it is possible I am not taking something he said into account.
It doesn’t really touch on how feminized church preaches women good/men bad, but touches on more like how men don’t like sitting around praying and women do, and men like DOING things. Basically, he says how church is feminine all over, and doing feminine activities doesn’t appeal to men
Which is disappointing, if that is what he says (I have not read the book).
Classical orthodox male Christianity involved both doing and praying in abundance (because praying, in an active, liturgical, sense, is very much a “doing”. Monks are a leading example of this. The guys on Athos are not effeminate at all, and they do lots of practical work, and lots of prayer work. I tend to think that this isn’t the issue, but rather how the non-monastic church has couched its own praxis in a way that is decidedly feminine that is the issue.
This is one area where we have somewhat less of an issue in Orthodoxy (and Scott will have the same situation in the EC church), because we don’t have nearly the same separation between monastical praxis (which marries work and prayer in a masculine note) and parochial praxis. Protestantism is probably the other extreme, with no real monasticism (yes I know there are Anglican monastics, but as a whole Protestantism has been hostile to monasticism from the beginning), with contemporary Latin-rite Catholicism maintaining monasticism, but having a rather large gap between parochial praxis and monastical praxis (to the point where monasticism is seen as being “fringe”). Getting too far away from our friends the monks is not a great thing for non-monastical men’s involvement in the church.
Lyn87,
> No responsibility without authority – THAT’S what libertarians believe.
I seem to recall making and hearing that statement many times when I was more into the tradcon area of thinking. Maybe I was really just a libertarian since no true tradcon thinks that….
(Note that I would say it now as well. That has been my consistent view for years.)
Eesh. Okay, next time anyone feels the face-palm urge to respond to Damarismarie, just take a quick break and knock out 50 push-ups.
Now, is it still worth your time to pursue a dog-bites-man commenter? The System/Matrix/Churchianity needs her. Remember, if this person did not exist, she absolutely would have been invented.
She exists to assist you in resisting positive personal change. She helps reinforce the Matrix; she’s a blue-pill pharma rep, etc., I’m all out of metaphors.
Done with the push-ups, time to move on.
“will you really argue that only the rare women is pushed toward abortion today?”
This is a rather bizarre way of saying, “some women making their legally enshrined choice in which others are forbidden from any attempt to control or coerce, might know someone who agrees with their choice.”
“How many conservatives will get behind the biblical teaching of male headship and wifely submission any more?”
I am one of the few, from the male side. This is probably the reason I may never marry though I’m only in my late 20’s. I’ll put any woman who may be potential marriage material through a series of reverse shit tests to see how she well she takes being submissive to me. If not, I’ll next her. The closest I’ve found thus far is the friend of a friend: she wasn’t American (she was white though) but enjoyed my company, very submissive. Nothing blossomed long term out of it though, unfortunately.
“And now we have conservative women who are full blown feminists. We also have “Christians” that openly argue that feminism and Christianity are not incompatible.” One of my siblings is a case in point. She may not be a full blown feminist and may not really be a conservative. Nonetheless, she has no point in trotting out facts on how women are supposedly superior to men (for example having a higher pain tolerance, scientifically, than men; this flies in the face of what an OBGYN, who is a woman to boot, said) while at the same time insisting that she doesn’t want women in combat positions because they can’t hack it.
“now, conservatives can’t or won’t see this.” It reminds me of what Tomassi said in The Rational Male about how many people come to depend on the current order of things, alluding to it (quite right in my opinion) by, using an allusion from The Matrix.
I’m not sure if conservative even describes me accurately politically anymore. What is there to conserve morally from this epoch? I am for a limited federal government, very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, practicing Catholic (I like the Tridentine Mass and Maronite Mass on occasion), in favor of low taxes and a moratorium on immigration. Traditionalist? Conservative?
Re: Srsly’s test (though I saw the spolier alert on to see how this test works, the first sentence thereof), the wife should have to pay the husband for mental pain and anguish for using birth control without his consent. Additionally, she should lose residence in his house due to having an abortion and being a liar. Of course, we know this isn’t how the system works. A man can dream though.
“She has a shitty work history, so she won’t be able to get a good job.” Tough shit, you a) lied to your husband who is your spouse till death do you part by using birth control b) murder your joint child with him which is gravely wrong and c) want money from him because you’re afraid of losing your sole source of income (whom you screwed over).
While we’re on the topic, I want this made crystal clear: abortion is murder.
“The right answer, of course, is that this woman should receive nothing, because she has committed fraud and robbed a man of an important part of his life. He’ll need every resource he can earn to try to start over. As to her needs, who cares. She shit on this man and he owes her nothing.” Bingo!
@Oscar Re: your Sanitation Theory of Civilization, that reminds me of an acquaintance who blogged back in the day. He was with the Marines in Iraq for a tour or two and posted a video of (I think it was) new IA soldiers crapping on a brand new cement slab for their base instead of in slit trenches.
@Dlarock, thanks for the post and I’ll say it’s amazing how deluded feminists are (like the one you linked to).
“Statistically, women are more likely than men to attend college, be working a career-track job, and attend church.” I laughed inside at that. They may be doing two of the three but usually not all three. Also just because they attend church ≠ a moral woman. Furthermore, are they willing to drop said career track and be willing to be a true wife? Doubtful.
@enrique432 I had a similar situation when I used to go down to Ecuador (wasn’t in the military, btw). The idea of taking soiled toilet paper and throwing it in a wastebasket in retrospect seems disgusting but I just viewed it as is at the time.
“Another problem with Bodycrimes’ essay is that it presumes that a marriage is always a tight knit partnership. It is not.” I’ve seen a close friend of the family’s marriage dissolve into divorce for no apparent reason. It’s truly amazing how fast it can happen. To this day I still don’t know why that happened. I may, if I get the courage, ask the ex-husband of that relationship about it over dinner in a few days’ time.
@ Everyone who gave Vercingetorix advice
Much appreciated from appreciated from another Catholic
“This stands to reason because the leadership and most of the members of these organizations were/are married men (read: henpecked, gelded, and with the ever-present Frivorce Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads).
Conclusion: only an organization of single men who are indifferent to the prospect of marriage (at last to a Norte Amerikana) will have the gonadal fortitude or possibility of making any positive impact on men’s lives.” That may be ending up what happens. It stuns me how men I know just allow themselves become so henpecked once married. I hope (and am working towards the end) that my wife, if I ever do get married, will be submissive.
Until men decide to boycott marriage 2.0 nothing will change. All the “good Christian men” who still get married are only prolonging the life span of marriage 2.0. In my opinion, the “good Christian men” who still get married only do so for two reasons. 1.) To ensure a sex partner.
2.) Because their significant other pressures them and peer pressure in general. Neither of these are honorable reasons to get married. It seems to me “modern marriage” is simply a giant shit test, because most “good Christian men” are pussies, they fail miserably and tie the knot; only to get raped in court. Modern marriage is clearly not biblical….
http://www.mercurynews.com/entertainment/ci_26062912/elton-john-says-jesus-would-support-gay-marriage
A Visitor, exactly, but I figure that the woman, anywhere in western civilization has a 50% chance, roughly, of recovering alimony on top of ” equitable division”. (she’s got at least an 80%chance of equitable division)
Equitable division, btw, starts with a presumption of a 50/50 split of “marital assets” (the produce of the labor of either spouse during the marriage) and from there moves in favor of whichever spouse has a vagina.
“Behind every great man is a great woman!”
We’ve heard it a lot, maybe even said it ourselves. But is it really true?
In my profession – science – it definitely isn’t. Consider these examples:
-Albert Einstein: Had a Serbian wife and an intolerable marriage. He even told her that when he will be successful in writing his scientific theories and he gets fame and money, he will use that to divorce her. That he did.
-J. Robert Oppenheimer: In charge of the Los Alamos part of the Manhattan Project, the most complex ever scientific and military project ever devised, Oppenheimer always had to come home to a manic depressive, alcoholic suicidal wife. You go, grrrrl!
-Fritz Haber: fair enough, he was making poison gas, and I’m not arguing ethics. He was doing his part for his country, just as Oppenheimer did, and was working on the premiere technology of WWI days. His wife nagged him intolerably and decided she would help by committing suicide.
-Howard Florey: remembered for his purification and industrialization of the antibiotic Penicillin, Florey had an intolerable time with a vicious harpie wife that was drunken, violent and loud-mouthed. Everyone saw the value in Florey, the Australian who saved thousands of lives, except his wife.
That’s a few I can think of off the top of my head. It isn’t a good omen if a bit of research is applied.
Brad asks me:
… will you really argue that only the rare women is pushed toward abortion today? No, I would not argue that at all. That is certainly true. Although a great many women are “pro-choice,” year after year, in poll after poll, men are more “pro-choice” than women are. Surely pregnant women find themselves getting all manner of “advice” about what to do about their condition. Since the Roe decision in 1971, U.S. women have voluntarily murdered more than 50,000,000 children. Whatever words one would use to describe the women who choose to do that and the people who encourage it, rare is not among them.
I would have no idea the exact numbers, but I am sure a great many parents, boyfriends, etc. push women toward abortions. That is certainly true. As stated, men are more “pro-choice” than women are. However…
The woman is guilty because she pulled the trigger, but those who pushed her there are also guilty. Those who encourage evil bear guilt – those who commit the evil, though…
The bottom line is that, no matter what, any pregnant woman may choose to get an abortion or carry the child to term, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. She has 100% authority to make the choice and carry it out. She may have bad counselors, but ultimately the choice – and thus the responsibility – resides solely with her. A boyfriend who talks her into abortion is guilty of incitement, while the woman herself is guilty of premeditated murder. (Over to you, Opus.)
As for this: “No responsibility without authority – THAT’S what libertarians believe”… that position is not unique to libertarians, of course. I wrote it because one of the IBB’s implied that libertarians believe the exact opposite (that the state should force men to subsidize the decisions of women over which they have no control – which is absurd).
I’m not sure if conservative even describes me accurately politically anymore. What is there to conserve morally from this epoch?M
Welcome to Club Reality. I finally realized that I am a bible believing Christian of the biblical literalist flavor who has had a soul saving encounter with God’s only begotten Son. All political, social, and spiritual aspects of my life are informed and tested through this paradigm.
As to finding a submissive wife, I found one but not in this country. Even then I was very prayerful and careful while considering marriage.
This is absolutely true, and I wrote about it some months ago, here and elsewhere. As a totally secular Mormon guy, a non-Catholic, who saw some Catholic priests in action, I got a totally red-pill view of the world long before I found the manosphere.
The Catholic priest, having taken a vow of celibacy, is the only man other than a woman’s father who is completely capable of not being manipulated by a woman who starts crying, showing her tits, or otherwise trying to weasel out of whatever shitty behavior she is being called to account for. They laugh at the attempts to manipulate, and scoff at the woman who promises them sex in exchange for forgiveness. This dynamic was wholly unexpected and something I am still, all these years later, wrapping my mind around.
In the old days, I’m sure it was even more pronounced, and the priest caste was equally effective with men (i.e. most of them could knock you on your ass if you tried the masculine version of manipulation, and even if they couldn’t, they weren’t afraid of death, as they had faith in something greater than worldly punishment).
Boxer
Dear Lyn:
This is shocking but I don’t doubt it.
When I was younger, I was “pro-choice”. I think it’s easier for men to sign on to this silly idea, particularly if we are careful with our behaviors. Had there been the prospect of one of my biological kids getting hacked to pieces and sucked into the garbage disposal, I bet I would have seen the matter very differently, much earlier on.
I only appreciated the real gravity of the matter after finding you guys. The mechanics of abortion are not something most people find easy to contemplate, and I’m grateful for you guys who talk about it. It’s a hideous, immoral travesty.
Forgetting the religious view for a moment, secular people should contemplate the level of irresponsibility it must take, to use such a procedure as a form of “birth control”. Surely people who would stoop to killing their children as a matter of convenience aren’t to be lauded or emulated. I think we’ll look back in a hundred years and marvel at our own barbarity.
I’ve taken a break from CAF, so now for something different (well, sort of…):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2673629/Woman-37-GUILTY-killing-autistic-stepdaughter-duct-taping-mouth-tying-wooden-board-used-role-play-sexual-bondage-fantasies.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2669234/Former-escort-sex-10-000-men-pens-book-industry.html
MarcusD
To have sex with 10091 men if it was based on one a day with out missing one day would take 27.66 years. She was doing a few 2 and 3 a days. She does not look that good either. I would never have even talked to that woman at all.
Feeriker
“Very simply, libertarianism is this: adherence to the Non-aggression Principle (NAP). The NAP itself is simply abstaining from committing acts of aggressive [i.e., unprovoked] violence against another person or their property”
Under this definition you have justified all acts of feminism which you abhor because they are not violent and are enforced by the state non-violently i.e. you are not physically tortured (but spiritually tortured).
”God will judge this woman for her decision and her actions in making it happen”
Then you must by definition allow all forms of violent aggression and violations of NAP because God will judge. You cannot allow one form of violent aggression to be judged by God and others punished on earth.
I have much respect for your coherent arguments against feminism (which is an appeal to Natural Law) but you totally undermine them by your foundational adherence to the Libertarian principle.
This moral theory is just as incoherent and irrational as those who espouse rational self-interest. ONLY Judeo-Christian philosophy and religion ALONE have the rational foundation for everything you stand against.
Are not the horrors of feminism spiritual violence? Are they not spiritual crimes? Should these go unpunished? Should prostitution be legalized because it is non violent?
What am I politically? I answer Christian. This is the most precise description. Anything other than this becomes foundational making Christianity secondary.
God Bless
Pingback: Marriage of feminists and conservatives. | Trut...
What am I politically? I answer Christian. This is the most precise description.
Precisely.
And well stated, by the way.
TFH: “Notice how wars between major nations stopped once the airplane ensured that casualties could not be restricted only to lower-class men.”
Been sayin’ this for years, per the Alabama chain gang “experiment” with women. 10 years ago I predicted that if and when gay marriage (and thus divorce) was legalized, lesbian divorce would be the best thing that ever happened to Fathers’ Rights.
Once women become part of your “victim” group (NCP fathers), your stock goes up. Once there are an appreciable numbers of women who are getting screwed in custody, alimony, CS, etc, they will gain the sympathy of the legislatures. CS, of all the matters, is the most “objective” (in theory), despite it’s inherent unfairness and over reaching assumptions as to costs, but it is the ONE area that lots of professional dykes are going to get screwed in.
The only way I could see this NOT helping fathers (as more and more women complain, and judges have to sort out the same issues, but between women) is if the codes are written the a caveat like,
” Nothing in this FC38.14 shall be construed to apply to matters in which a woman is divorcing a woman”.
I could almost see the fem-dykes making the claim, as women are wanton to do, that “this is different…the codes should be written differently for our unique situation”.
Abortion and Child Support ARE linked, as far as constitutional matters as far as I am concerned. Given her sole choice to abort, or assume custody (90 percent of the time) and receive child support, EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT women have used to abort (Not ready to be a parent, can’t afford it, don’t want to bring a child into this world, etc) could be argued by a father. Therefore, the libertarian in me argues “constructive abortion” should be a legitimate legal option for men.
It was attempted most recently in Michigan, with actual “pregnancy fraud” (yes, there is such a thing, and no, it’s not far-fetched). The guy in Texas, “Cum rag-to-artificial-insemination” situation, I believe also tested “constructive abortion” in theory, and failed. Judges will find a man to pay, even if it’s not the father, so we should not be surprised by anything.
The judge’s argument, as I recall, was rather interesting because of it’s long term possibilities. If a man does not “own” his own semen as a reproductive matter, AFTER he ejaculates, then he would not only be responsible (as the judge claimed) for the ONE child conceived after she artificially (and fraudulently) inseminated herself, if she had shared it with spinster friends, the man would be responsible for CS for ALL OF THE children conceived without his knowledge or volition.
Can you IMAGINE such a violation of body and choice were the roles reversed?
@A Visitor, re: ” It stuns me how men I know just allow themselves become so henpecked once married. I hope (and am working towards the end) that my wife, if I ever do get married, will be submissive.”
It stuns me how naïve so many men are, and how every single one *always* beats up the same straw men interminably. There is no such *allowing*. She just does it and there is absolutely *nothing* the husband can do about it these days short of threatening divorce. Nothing else works at all in any way.
Goodkid43 wrote,
“Under this definition you have justified all acts of feminism which you abhor because they are not violent and are enforced by the state non-violently i.e. you are not physically tortured (but spiritually tortured).”
You are grossly misrepresenting the libertarian Non-aggression Principle (NAP). Non-aggression does not only deal with the use of aggressive force, but also includes the threat of aggressive force. That is Libertarianism 101, and you show your ignorance of the topic when you write otherwise. This quote is attributed to George Washington (it’s not certain that he was the original source, but it illustrates the point anyway): Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master…
Every law and every judicial ruling has the threat of force behind it, because the state – by definition – has force at its disposal. In fact, a reasonably good definition of “the state” is this: the person or group that has a legal monopoly on the initiation of force. If a judge declares that a man has to pay CS to an ex-wife who bore her lover’s child (which the man should never have to do, yet it happens all the time), the judge has violated the NAP. Why? Because if the innocent man does not pay then the boys in blue will initiate physical aggression against him.
jf12
It is “allowed” because the government will send over a police officer to mess you up. What she wants is enforced at government gun point. Every body knows it. It is ignored so as to allow “love” to blossom freely.
Lyn87
That is how it is done. Number one reason for the feminine imperative and also why gun sales are through the roof. Technically the government doesn’t have a monopoly on force here in America. That governed by consent thing.
[I]Conclusion: only an organization of single men who are indifferent to the prospect of marriage (at last to a Norte Amerikana) will have the gonadal fortitude or possibility of making any positive impact on men’s lives.[/I]
I’ve always prided myself on being one of the minority who thinks with the bigger of his two heads. I know that God made us to be the more aggressive gender sexually, but so many men have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the “fairer sex” as a result. Having your hormones on a leash affords a clarity that few men will enjoy, and I think any man in that position is almost obligated to contribute something towards Mens’ Rights of some sort. We may not all be Warren Farrell, but we can all help.
“For I wish that all men were even as I myself.” – St. Paul
True. We Catholics do have third orders and other societies that give laypeople a way to take on a limited version of the ora et labora (St. Benedict’s motto, “pray and work”) of monastic life, but those are only just starting to grow again.
Really? No man is obliged to deal with the extreme vicious personal attacks, mostly from other men, he faces if he wishes to share his accumulated knowledge from his lifetime.
@srsly
My first wording was incorrect, and as soon as I hit publish I saw the problem and did a quick edit. My mistake. The edited version is:
The reason I say that is in the example:
1) Divorce is framed as a good thing.
2) Cash and prizes are framed as a good thing.
Divorce is a terrible thing, a horrible act of destruction. It is as I’ve argued before the equivalent to remodeling with dynamite. It is the death of a family. We need to start from this frame. From here there are either no exceptions, or very few and extreme corner cases which justify using such a destructive method. Cash and prizes are problematic because they reward this terrible destruction. Even when there is a case presented to justify the destruction, cash and prizes muddy the water because it is a corrupting agent. It encourages people to do what God hates. This should be something we approach with great trepidation. At best these two things are necessary evils. At worst, they are just plain evil. Since our system is deliberately designed not to make any distinction between necessary and otherwise, the system is evil.
enrique432 says:
June 30, 2014 at 8:43 am
(re: toilet filth in Third World)
It is that way in much of Mexico. Same cause. They put in small drain pipes, and t.p. won’t flush. I am more used to it, but still find it disgusting.
When our house was built, I told the builder, “All stools must take t.p.” He used 4 inch pipes and all stools take t.p.
When I teach English classes, I take the students into the bathroom, and flush some t.p. And, tell them in the US there are no stools which do not take t.p.
The other day, a student needed to use the bathroom. After she left, I went in and she had flushed it.
When we get older visitors, no matter what we tell them, the waste basket is filthy when they leave. A lifetime of habit is hard to break.
AW mostly have no idea what AM have done for them as far as health and hygiene. Or, I guess, anything else. They apparently give themselves credit for anything good.
Yes. To continue my analogy from the other day, where a hot, willing younger woman offering herself as a replacement wife is the male equivalent of cash and prizes, imagine that a man considering divorce were told by his family, his friends, his pastor, and random advice columnists online: “Look, we know this is really hard, and you really don’t want to do this. But if you decide it’s really necessary, console yourself with the fact that at least the judge usually provides the ex-husband with a new wife so he doesn’t have to be alone. In fact, a friend of mine got divorced and the judge gave him a hotter wife and a mistress, and the judge ordered his ex-wife to pay them a lingerie allowance!”
That would be the equivalent of the pro-divorce counsel women get today.
Right, but I proved my point that democracy in France is old and way earlier than 1945, which was the point you were replying to me.
That was not the point you attempted to make the first time, however.
Thanks again, Lyn. Well said!
It’s becoming clearer to me with passage of time that the ignorance of libertarianism displayed by so many is willful obtuseness. I can only attribute this to the idea of both non-aggression and full responsibilty for oneself being concepts so alien and so terrifying (once the full implications for the individual are thought through, particularly the realization that one cannot coercively appropriate what one “needs” from others) to the average person who has been part of a collective, based on implied or actual coersion, that eschews critical thought that it engenders cognitive avoidance.
I’m not going to derail the thread any further with this topic except to say that the ideological hamsterization and semantic gymnastics of those who have attempted to obscure and distort language has been both amusing and revealing.
BradA
I don’t see the start difference between civilizing and socializing.
It’s in the comment. Read more carefully.
One brief observation:
Socialization is the process of training a person or group of persons to follow group norms.
Civilization is the process of creating the group norms.
It is the difference between a mother and a father. It is the difference between making children obey the rules of the house, and setting the rules of the house.
It’s the difference between the First Officer and the Captain, as well.
I suppose you could argue points, but I would say it is the same basic pot.
If that is the case then men and women are totally interchangeable. I doubt you accept that feminist premise, but I’ve been wrong before.
@Cail, re: ” hot, willing younger”.
My comment is building from Rollo’s post about Trophies. Would it shock or dismay women readers here to think that men KNOW that younger *means* willinger? Or are women content to think men are deceived?
Or to put it even more basically:
The act of building reliable water supplies and sewage systems is a mark of civilization.
Teaching people not to defecate in the middle of the living room is an act of socialization.
The legal issue you address is one that feminists and white-knights have taken from the realm of civil law – the concept of Strict Liability. The gist of it is that some things are so inherently hazardous, that the person doing them (or using them, etc) has an ABSOLUTE duty to ensure they do not cause harm. Even extraordinary precautions are not enough in those cases – ANY damage caused is treated as if it were willful for liability purposes.
For example, in most jurisdictions if your pet Schnauzer escapes the fence around your yard and bites the punk kids who were poking it with sticks, you would not be liable for the kid’s medical bills – you took normal precautions and the kids were inciting the dog to bite them. On the other hand, if you have a black mamba that gets loose despite extraordinary precautions on your part, you probably would be considered liable if it bites someone, since the fact that you decided to keep a deadly snake in your house means that you have an ABSOLUTE duty to ensure it causes no harm. You would probably be liable for damages even if the cage had a hidden manufacturer’s defect that you did not know about.
The law treats sperm as if it is even more inherently hazardous than a black mamba. Not only is normal caution not enough to avoid the form of liability known as Child Support (condoms, for example), but neither are extraordinary ones (such as multiple forms of contraception and a written statement from the woman that she will not bring any resultant pregnancy to term). Nope, even that isn’t good enough. A man may have his sperm taken by trickery, fraud, or even rape, and – no matter what – he will be held liable for any child his sperm produces.
Pardon me while I bask in my male privilege.
I cannot completely align my self to Libertarian thought because I prefer a government that is righteous as well as small, upholding good and thwarting evil. Sodomy, adultery and abortion are evil. I can’t get behind a political philosophy that would allow such things to flourish.
Rollo Tomassi @ June 30, 2014 at 6:36 pm:
“…male self-sacrifice for women (and by association, potential offspring) is part of our evolved firmware.”
… Is it? Honest question; I’ve never felt any particular urge to protect and sacrifice for women. Always thought of it as a civilization/Christian morality thing. Am I missing some natural instinct? My last post was addressing the concept of men being more expendable than women, not really men being WILLING to be more expendable. Perhaps I have a blind spot here.
A Visitor @ July 1, 2014 at 12:02 am:
“I am for a limited federal government, very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, practicing Catholic (I like the Tridentine Mass and Maronite Mass on occasion), in favor of low taxes and a moratorium on immigration. Traditionalist? Conservative?”
You should consider the Constitution Party. We stand for all the things that made America great, from limited government to property rights, and our leaders won’t betray your trust. Political success, not so much, but that’s the price of integrity these days.
Lyn87 says:July 1, 2014 at 11:08 am
Yes, it really has reached the point where a man’s sperm is on a level with toxic waste as a HAZMAT. Clearly the lesson here goes beyond “keep your DNA to yourself” and is now in the nadir of “pre-emptively have your nuts cut off as soon as you reach puberty so as to avoid any future reproductive liability.” (Admittedly this would have the spillover benefit of denying posterity to a civilization clearly undeserving of one.)
Time to search for another planet to live on, one preferably at the opposite end of the universe from this one. I’ve had quite enough of it.
Lyn, As a law enforcement officer (professional ranks), I’ve wondered if in these cases, semen could be argued under the same doctrine as abandoned property, or at least forcing a judge to decide whether its still within the bodily fluids/personal zone of privacy (esp when resulting from a sex act) or if it is truly “abandoned” meaning, no different than a cum towel left in a hotel, the man has no further relationship to it, or what happens with it.
Part of this, like all things, there are no great analogies per se (we cannot have women’s eggs laying around for the taking), and first and foremost, there is no incentive for a judge to ever side against misandry. On the contrary. Someone has to pay, and women are always the victims, so any man will do, as we have seen in cases where ALL PARTIES stipulate the child does not belong to the “father” (the husband, etc). Which begs the question, if the child has to be paid for, why not just any old man…like the richest in town, or…the judge himself? The only difference between a non-father and the judge is, the non-father, presumably had sex with the gal (petitioner) once…or in the case of the “blow job-cum-rag-turned-lab-insemination” case in Texas, the unwilling father did not have intercourse with the mother. It seems there is absolutely NO scenario in which a man could claim fraud.
Which makes the whole issue of the male birth control pill and the like, more interesting. The once rhetorical question of feminists “And why DON’T we have a male pill, why is it all on the woman”, could easily be posited with a different meaning now…ending in, “why is it all UP to the woman?”
JDG,
I assume we agree that government should be able to initiate force against people who initiate force or fraud themselves (which is the libertarian principle of government – we’re not anarchists as many like to claim).
Many libertarians agree that abortion should be banned because it violates the NAP with regard to the unborn child, so the only question is, “When does an unborn child acquire the right to be covered by the NAP?” Of course, since both major parties favor the status quo, that issue is largely moot either way.
Beyond that, where do you draw the line? Men’s lives and freedoms are at stake here, so draw carefully. And what happens when others disagree with you? The guys who frequent this site are a far less heterogeneous group than the general population, and yet we fight among ourselves ALL THE TIME. Whose version of the word “evil” gets to be enforced by machine guns? Yours? Mine? IBB’s? FrenzyJen’s? Dalrock’s? Mark Driscoll’s? Only those who pay taxes? Only those who have served in the military? Barrack Obama’s? If we’re going to use the force of the state to outlaw sodomy, who gets to define sodomy? I’ve heard lots of conflicting definitions for it (including things commonly done by Christian married couples), and it’s a near-certainty that everyone here has done something that someone, somewhere would define as sodomy. What about adultery? Oh uh – lots of people take Matthew 5:28 to literally mean that feeling attraction for a woman within your range of vision is adultery. What about defining nearly all marriages by divorcees as adulterous unions, as Matthew 19:9 strongly suggests? Should the state force those couples to separate? What about alcohol prohibition? That didn’t work out all that well. What about other drugs? The track record for that is even worse.
How far do you take this? If you don’t stop at “The government has the duty and authority to initiate force ONLY against those who initiate force and fraud themselves,” everything else is just an opinion backed by a gun. The rejection of that principle is how we got where we are – where men are tossed into a legal meat-grinder to avoid what someone, somewhere thinks is an “evil” outcome.
Libertarianism does not say that “Bad things are not bad.” That would be absurd. we don’t even say, “Doing bad things is nobody else’s business”… right-libertarians like me are big proponents of social stigma and other non-forceful incentives. What we DO say is this: “As long as you’re not hurting anyone else, it is not the business of the state to force you to conform at gunpoint.”
For the life if me I do not understand why that is controversial in the least. Curbing the state’s tendencies toward “fixing things” IS a men’s rights issue… arguably THE men’s rights issue of our day.
enrique432,
I see where you’re going with that. Sadly, all of our analogies fall short, because although (most) abandoned property may be legally acquired by the finder, the finder may not then willfully harm himself with it and then successfully sue the person who abandoned it for damages. Yet sperm can be – and has been – treated just that way.
The way the law treats sperm is absolutely surreal. What other substance can be stolen from you (even when the theft itself is in the form of a sexual assault), and then deliberately used by the thief to harm herself (in the sense of incurring a liability), and then have the perpetrator be able to successfully sue the victim for full “damages” and more, payable under threat of imprisonment?
Non-hormonal and non-surgical male BC will be a huge game-changer if it is ever allowed on the market. Anybody want to go halvsies on a Gendarussa farm?
A teacher banging a 12-13 year old student gets her self pregnant the boy (rape victim) gets a CS bill.
I will. The trick is to develop a cheap test kit to sell with it so a guy can check is “stuff” Once that is done I’m a drug dealer. Should make a killing in the “hood” and on colleges selling to the future draft picks.
GG,
Shall we call our enterprise “Heisenberg and Oppenheimer” or something simple, like, say, “Gray Matter?”
Lyn & Grey Ghost:
I’ll buy your first franchise. Once the word gets out, it’ll be easy money.
The one thing I do predict is that a lot of these dopes will suddenly come down with HPV, HSV, HIV, and all the other diseases (drug resistant gonorrhea sounds particularly unpleasant) that these ho’s serve as a natural reservoir for. Better birth control, to them, will merely mean that: “yay! I can bareback in the public toilet of the seedy bar.”
Boxer
“The reason I say that is in the example:
1) Divorce is framed as a good thing.
2) Cash and prizes are framed as a good thing.”
I see, now. My example is aimed at the ultimate legal end because it is designed to test the moral and logical consistency of John Q. Blue Pill Public (conservative/republican model). My hypothetical couple needs encouragement and support to reconcile. The financial disincentive for a man to use what may be his last tool to regain his autonomy is wrong, but a far greater evil is the foolishness a couple like this one will likely find if they seek wisdom and guidance. I know that if they go to a couple’s therapist, or even to their church, the woman will likely be encouraged to suddenly realize how abused she has always been. What I don’t know is what I should tell these people to try to bring them back together.
It’s strangely empowering to have the limits of your own knowledge and wisdom set in sharp relief before your own eyes. You’ve shown me a great many things, here. There’s a hole in my heart. I’ve been filling it by worshiping my own intelligence and building justifications to cut myself off from a world I am afraid of.
@Cail Corishev: “Yes. To continue my analogy from the other day, where a hot, willing younger woman offering herself as a replacement wife is the male equivalent of cash and prizes, imagine that a man considering divorce were told by his family, his friends, his pastor, and random advice columnists online: “Look, we know this is really hard, and you really don’t want to do this. But if you decide it’s really necessary, console yourself with the fact that at least the judge usually provides the ex-husband with a new wife so he doesn’t have to be alone. In fact, a friend of mine got divorced and the judge gave him a hotter wife and a mistress, and the judge ordered his ex-wife to pay them a lingerie allowance!”
That would be the equivalent of the pro-divorce counsel women get today.”
Beautiful.
@Cupcake (Damarismie): “So…if I am an “Attention Whore” only here for the “Gina Tingles” does that mean you guys are only here for the Angry Boner Tingles?!
Answer: We don’t usually get boners reading posts like this. To men this is an intellectual exercise but to women who just want to provoke and aren’t interested in the debate we assume, rightly, you are here for the feelz, not the discussion.
“Really, can you not see how offensive and unacceptable it is to say “Gina Tingles”?”
Answer: You can’t stand it that we know your secret. You are acting like a woman when the dog shoves his nose down there during your period.
Or what about “Cupcake”? Would you like it if a strange woman you didn’t know called you Cupcake?
Answer: Depends, is she at least a HB7?
Have you ever been commanded by a stranger out in public to “Smile”? IMO when a man accosts someone, telling them Smile, they should be slapped in the face for their insolence and then arrested.
Answer: AND NOW SHE FALLS INTO THE TRAP AGAIN!!! Like fish in a barrel.
**When a man says something insolent to a woman he should be physically assaulted and then thrown in jail.** This is more fun than I have had in a while.
@Rollo: Yes: The instinct to protect women even at the cost of your own life, and even when they are not copulating with the women is seen in every culture and even in monkeys.
@ Dalrock: “how open academics are that no fault divorce is being used to redistribute power within marriage away from men (who want to stay married), to women (who are more inclined to entertain divorce). ”
I can confirm this was the plan from the very beginning. Feminisms has always been about power and the neo-Marxist vision to take power away from the haves (i.e. men and the patriarchy) to the have nots (i.e. the long oppressed women). They brag about it in almost every publication about no-fault divorce and crow how it is such a good thing and how the kids aren’t really hurt at all compared to the horrors of forcing women to behave and not blow up their families (cuz 1 in 1,000 was abused and therefore all women get a divorce for cash prizes card).
Lyn87:
I was looking at the Libertarian Party website and trying to evaluate whether or not I could get behind their principles. Most of it I wouldn’t have a problem with. I think a small bureaucracy is essential for effective governing. However, when I read the “Personal Liberty” category I could not agree with 1.3 and 1.4. Abortion, adultery, and homosexuality are non-negotiable for me.
This country had a much smaller government then it has now for almost 200 years during which time the above three were illegal. The folks in those times were able to come to an agreement on what that should look like on the books without infringing too much on our personal liberties in those areas.
Ideally, I believe that at a basic level government is supposed to be a punisher of evil and a rewarder of good.
Rom 13: 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
Because of the corruption in human hearts, no form of man made government can remain corruption free for long (if at all). This includes one based on Libertarianism. And sin is like cancer. If you don’t kill it, it will spread and take over it’s host.
I think libertarianism is a great idea for fiscal policy, free markets, energy, and even education, but I also think it allows the cancer of sexual depravity to spread much like progressives do. How will libertarianism keep such things in check when it is designed to do the very opposite?
If I am going to put my time, energy, and resources into a political movement, I would rather get behind one that at least will stand for the basic principles of righteousness that are at the roots of Christianity as well as minimum governmental power.
I ran into an article which explains why the men’s movement has totally failed over 45 years.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/netapp/2014/05/22/how-to-fail/
The team which had the best expert failed, because they didn’t trust him. Everyone wanted to be the instant expert, whether they actually knew anything or not.
Yep.
JDG,
Me as well. Non-negotiable. That is why I am a traditional conservative. That is where my politics takes me because there is no “Christian” political party.
Some videos from the AVFM/ICMI conference in Detroit (via Dr. Helen):
IBB conservatives are just conserving feminism. I suspect traditional conservatives are preserving traditional feminism. No thank you. Been there, done that.
Oh, and this amusing image: http://en.webfail.com/469d7b048f7
@JDG and IBB
A bit of helpful advice inre the LP: do not mistake it for genuine libertarianism. Once one fully understands what libertarianism (“small ‘l'”) is (see my previous explanation upthread), partisan politics quickly and obviously becomes anathema. Think about it for a brief moment: how does a partisan political organization that seeks to take the reins of State power, even for ostensible good, do so without violating the NAP in practice? The answer is that it can’t. The LP has proved this, in highly embarrassing ways, over the last fifteen years by drafting political candidates who are/were very obviously NOT adherents of the NAP (Bob Barr in ’08 being the most egregious example, and for many members the final straw) for expediency’s sake and by modifying the party platform to accommodate domestic realpolitik to the point where it has abandoned all real principle (like a certain other party that comes quickly to mind, one that the LP seems hellbent on turning itself into a “lite” version of).
This is why the LP continues to slide into well-deserved irrelevance and why those who truly believe in both the NAP and individual liberty want nothing to do with it or the system within which it operates. Many of us were card-carrying members until we realized this fundamental truth and walked away.
TFH,
I already went over this. This is about remaining “in group.” Marriage should be seen as an inherit good (against divorce) but they are afraid to take that position because “the group” has deemed our gender as abusive.
already went over this. This is about remaining “in group.” Marriage should be seen as an inherit good (against divorce) but they are afraid to take that position because “the group” has deemed our gender as abusive.
More succinctly (and honestly) stated: tradcons are cowards.
Glad we got that out of the way.
Most traditional conservatives are cowards (in the sense that they can’t resist the “in group.”) To do so quite often costs them MONEY (as they would be ex-communicated, a leper in their own community.) I happen to be a traditional conservative who is NOT cowardly (or else I wouldn’t be able to put up with the scrutiny I hear on this board from so many of you.) But I AM a traditional conservative. I am just one that does not get any money/resources from remaining “in group.”
“How far do you take this? If you don’t stop at “The government has the duty and authority to initiate force ONLY against those who initiate force and fraud themselves,” everything else is just an opinion backed by a gun.”
This is why American law was based upon the Bible. Actual wording of the law could be debated so long as the law followed Biblical principles. That created a time-tested, unchanging foundation for our Constitution and subsequent legislation… and was also how the Church was able to exercise moral supervision of our political leaders without actually having political authority.
Partly because of this, the Constitution Party is so close to a ‘Christian Party’ that the difference hardly matters.
In addition to being about how attitudes depend on dependence, this paper “Female Economic Dependence and the Morality of Promiscuity”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-014-0320-4
makes the intriguing conjecture “It is plausible that conservative and religious ideologies tend to oppose promiscuity because they themselves developed in environments with high female economic dependence on males.”, probably getting the causality right (for evo-psych purposes), instead of the usual feminist bellowing about conservative and religious ideologies causing female dependence.
I already went over this. This is about remaining “in group.” Marriage should be seen as an inherit good (against divorce) but they are afraid to take that position because “the group” has deemed our gender as abusive.
Basically what this means is that they are about respectability more than truth. This is kind of like the cult of nice, really. It also will be the way tradcons are about gay marriage within 10-20 years for the same reason — it won’t be respectable to be against it (already fast becoming that way).
Again, this just raises flags about how fundamentally useless conservatism is, really.
feeriker – I remember Lyn87 mentioning the small l on a previous thread. I couldn’t remember what the differences where. I should probably readup on it more.
IBB – Please define the word gender.
Lyn, as a tag along to the argument, there have been cases where teen boys were ordered to pay CS to their female rapists. I believe, if I recall correctly, that includes a 14 year old in Oregon or Washington State, and the woman was actually charged–which makes it all the more bizarre.
It is my hope, and I privately attempt my own change on this issue–that men stop kidding about boys being raped as teens (e.g. “Where were all these teachers when I was growing up?”). Thing is, I do not pretend for a minute that a 16 year old boy is completely messed up from sex with his 30 year old teacher–but if he knocks her up, OR if the teacher has an STD, he is living proof of what they age of consent (reason) matters. And how taking advantage of the naïve is clearly at issue. JUST LIKE it is for girls.
Every guy that has ever kidded about 13, 14, 17 year old boys, etc, having sex with their teacher, had better know that if she becomes pregnant, he may very well be required to pay CS (and if he is 13, you’ll be on the hook for 5 years). The courts DO NOT CARE about male victims. Only that the child gets the money it “deserves”. (which goes to his rapist).
Gunner Q – I think I will look into the constitutional party. If they are feminist free and would like a pre-civil war type of government, I might find them agreeable.
MarcusD,
That was very funny. Thanx!
Wow… went to lie down for a little while and woke up in a stupor three hours later. Paying back some sleep-debt, it seems.
In my absence I see that JDG mentioned looking at the Libertarian Party website for information about libertarianism, and feeriker wisely pointed out that the LP (big-L) is a political party, while libertarianism (small-l) is an idea, or philosophy. If anyone cares to check, you will see that I always used a small l up-thread. Like feeriker, I no longer carry the card of the LP, although I used to as well.
GunnerQ writes, “This is why American law was based upon the Bible. Actual wording of the law could be debated so long as the law followed Biblical principles. That created a time-tested, unchanging foundation for our Constitution and subsequent legislation… and was also how the Church was able to exercise moral supervision of our political leaders without actually having political authority.”
But there’s the rub – people don’t have SWAT teams breaking down their doors and shooting them because of Biblical principles written into law: that happens when we get down to the “actual wording” of a particular law. I’ll re-ask the same questions that nobody answered earlier, “Who gets to define sodomy? Who gets to define adultery“? Those are just two examples among potentially thousands, and both JDG and whichever IBB was writing at 4:00 p.m. seem to want laws against both of those – which means that they think the state has a compelling interest in stopping those activities by force. If you and your wife have ever done anything in the oral or analcategories, there are those who would call you a sodomite, for example. That was the law in quite a few states for many years, by the way, although married couples were rarely prosecuted for it, despite those activities being in clear-cut violation of black-letter law. So… are you going to turn yourself in, or should I just send the SWAT team over now? Nobody else’s business, you say? Cool, howzabout we just extend that to everybody who isn’t harming anyone else and avoid the slippery slope altogether? kthx.
This is not a trivial point: it is primarily men and their children who are harmed by run-amok laws. A majority of religious people have decided that the Biblical principle of caring for those less fortunate means that we need to forceably extract tax dollars to subsidize baby-mommas, for example. Just semantics, since we’re all starting from a Biblical world-view? Hardly. A majority of religious people also agree with presumptive mother-custody and viciously pursuing “Deadbeat Dads” – with all the horror that has created. What compelling argument can you make that their interpretations of “Biblical principles” are incorrect, while yours is not?
Look, neither feeriker nor I is saying that sexual deviance is good – we’re just saying that legalized aggressive force is not the best way to handle it. And a few tidbits about the Constitution Party since GunnerQ brought it up – they seem to be in favor of legalizing all drugs. I’m cool with that, but I’m guessing that GunnerQ isn’t – correct me if I’m wrong. They’re also okay with states legalizing polygamy. Personally, I don’t think the government should regulate the sacrament of marriage at all, but what do I know? I’m just a Christian who happens to think that libertarianism is the best way to preserve our God-given liberties. Since I’m among the fortunate few in history to whom God has granted that gift, I’d like to conserve that.
So what do we label ourselves now? Perhaps Post-Traditional-Conservative-Conservative.
enrique432,
It was the case of the male statutory rape victim who was ordered to pay CS to his rapist (in California, I think) that I had in mind when I wrote my earlier comment. I’m under the impression that it has since happened in other states as well. Not only does she, a convicted pedophile, get to keep and raise another child – but the boy she raped has to write his own rapist a check every month, or he goes to jail.
All because we treat sperm as being more inherently hazardous than anything on Earth.
Not only does she, a convicted pedophile, get to keep and raise another child – but the boy she raped has to write his own rapist a check every month, or he goes to jail.
Again, any takers for joining me in a quest for another planet to colonize, preferably on the other end of the universe, one where sanity has a chance of thriving?
There’s nothing to conserve. We’re revolutionaries. George Washington, V.I. Lenin, Che Guevara. That’s us.
Consider yourself dropped over enemy territory, with the mission to carve out a passable life for yourself and your kids, by whatever means are expedient. Consider yourself a colonist in a hostile country. Whatever. Just do it man. Make your own life a beautiful thing.
Boxer
I’m just a Christian who happens to think that libertarianism is the best way to preserve our God-given liberties.
This statement (one with which I of course heartily concur) prompts a question: what does it say about the strength of faith of Christian believers who think God needs a temporal political party (and its armed enforcers once it gains power) to ensure that His will be done?
feeriker,
Just as sex is the sine-qua-non of marriage, the ability to legally initiate violence is the sine-qua-non of government.
Guys who are concerned about legalized misandry ought to remember that before they clamor for government to have the authority to police every action they dislike. Once unsheathed, the sword cuts both ways. I would think that a 10-second review of the way men are treated by the government’s “Family Courts” would be enough to end their fascination with statism. Apparently I would be wrong to think that, though.
You just got dropped on planet Earth. The natives are hostile, but fairly stupid, and entirely preoccupied with their own narcissistic pursuits (alcohol-fueled escapism, buying stuff they don’t need, having sex with strangers, eating too much, etc. etc.) They won’t notice you, for the most part, provided you keep a low profile.
Everything you need to survive and thrive is right here. You just have to take a space for yourself. Don’t worry about the state, that is (as Jack Donovan points out) a pursuit for men of the state.
Boxer
Just as a side note: Interesting to see the otherwise “liberal” (or not paying attention) white women are getting vocal about these illegals. Granted, it’s in a more conservative area of CA (Orange Co), but as to one of my general laws of life:
:::That which is harmful to white women will not be tolerated::
The US and Western World revolves around pleasing white women, which means, intuitively, like the canaries in the coal mine, “they” (WW) must be worrying about any number of status changes that large numbers of Latinos (and Latinas) will bring–perhaps to their children, if not just themselves.
Just as progressive attitudes (negative ones, which are also restrictive, and selective) are often first propositioned by white women, they are also at the forefront of xenophobia when their quality of life is in danger (see Margaret Sanger who was all but saying this).
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Immigrants-Headed-to-Murrieta-Despite-Opposition-265381911.html
Read the comments, have you seen white women come out so forcefully on anything as of late, like this?
That which is harmful to upper middle and upper classwhite women will not be tolerated.
FIFY. And yup.
Pingback: The Culture Warriors Fight For The Same Goals | The Society of Phineas
Lyn87 – Abortion, adultery, and homosexuality were illegal in this country for most of it’s existence. No one was breaking down doors and hauling people away for those crimes while these things were against the law. That government was small but upheld some basic moral principles that I believe were critical to it’s existence.
Also, I understand what you are saying about who gets to define the meanings of terms, and I get that laws passed today can be used against those who passed the laws tomorrow. Still, the government has an obligation to God to be moral and just. If I get a say in how that government is run, my input needs to be a moral one. Even if it is turned against me later when wicked men (or women) come into power.
Although many of the founding principles seems to be addressed with libertarianism, not all of them are. At least not that I have seen thus far. I believe the Founding Fathers of these United States would be outraged at the idea of public acceptance of abortion, adultery, homosexuality, easy divorce, single mothers, and a host of other perversions that we endure these days. I think they understood that acceptance of wickedness would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization.
I suppose none of this matters anyhow. Our constitution was for a moral and religious people, and we are way past that now. I’m sure there is no returning to what we once had.
feeriker – It’s not that I think God needs the help of man in any endeavor, be it politics or any other. It is that I believe a government has a responsibility towards God to uphold good and thwart evil. That’s how a understand the following passage:
Rom 13: 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
Of course those governed are the main focus of the message here, but it also implies that the government needs to be able to make moral and just decisions in order to uphold good conduct and punish wickedness.
I’m just a Christian who happens to think that libertarianism is the best way to preserve our God-given liberties.
I have to disagree because I believe an openly wicked nation will quickly loose their liberties, which is exactly what we are seeing now. I think for libertarianism to work, the populace would need to be moral and just. I don’t think a moral and just populace would have a problem with laws against wickedness.
Lyn87,
> but ultimately the choice – and thus the responsibility – resides solely with her.
That is true in principle, but real life is not so similar. People feel constrained all the time, whether they truly are or not. All women may not have the ability or support to not abort, especially not if she has limited her input to those pushing that option. Perhaps they are already providing her the money to survive. She may not realize all the other resources to “exploit” and thus feel she has to take the action.
We should return to the idea that it is henious to kill your own child, period, but we should not only focus on one part of the problem. Holding the woman accountable would be a step in the right direction, but we must hold the others as well or we will not change things.
I did miss one guilty party as well, the one providing the abortion, whether it is the doctor of the maker of the morning-after pill.
I hold no hope that any of this will change any time soon however. It is even likely economics will ultimately drive it more than morality, as disgusting as it is.
====
I will admit to some mixed feelings about a man spawning lots of children and then walking away. Even one “assured” pregnancy is impossible is an idiot since he is ignoring basic biology to get his sex fill. Though it is a practical matter that you can never stop willing men from coming forward. You can make women less likely to participate in the same way reducing the fertility of female cats in the wild is the only thing that can truly keep down the population. (Though even that is hard since one or two in heat can quickly fill any niche left by those not reproducing.
We face some really harsh results to our murder spree, even without God lifting a finger to do anything. We will reap what we sow. (As a culture)
All of this mess, and I mean ALL of it, can be traced back to the assumption that women are “naturally” better parents than men. Repeal “tender years” and its aftermath, and I GUARANTEE you the rate of frivorce just plummeted into a negligible range. This, even though the woman might still get a little “cash and prizes”, but it is more on the order of a door prize, not the grand prize. (FTR, I’m a custodial father. With only two more alimony payments to go.) And just WHERE WERE the tradcons of yesteryear fighting tender years? No, they were whiteknighting and supporting it. And that right there is why tradcons will never get anything but my deepest contempt. The essential difference between a patriarchy and a matriarchy is who gets control and custody of the children. Once you admit the matriarchal principle, everything else that you bemoan on this forum logically follows.
Boxer,
> Had there been the prospect of one of my biological kids getting hacked to pieces and sucked into the garbage disposal, I bet I would have seen the matter very differently, much earlier on.
I would bet you wouldn’t have had the same concern about your offspring if you had not had restraint already. How many men give absolutely no thought to what their seed produces? They are not the cause of our modern troubles, but I would argue that those who are willing to freely take advantage of those troubles are unlikely to give a hoot about much more than themselves, even if it was their seed.
Goodkid43,
So who do you trust to decide what you can and cannot do? You seem willing to judge, but please demonstrate whatever political view you hold would constrain the behavior you decry.
Note that we won’t have the earthly reign of The King of Kings until He returns. We must muddle through until then.
@BradA:
Really??? You’re into serious whiteknighting territory. You’d make those same excuses for a father who killed his 2-year old, because “People feel constrained all the time, whether they truly are or not” because he perhaps did not “have the ability or support to not kill”???
In most states, including mine (PA), a mother can drop off a newborn at a hospital, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. She can also arrange an adoption. Or (GASP!!!!) the father could take custody. And you expect me to roll over with sympathy about how “constrained” she “feels”??? Really???
AR, that should have said “stark” btw, not “start”.
> If that is the case then men and women are totally interchangeable. I doubt you accept that feminist premise, but I’ve been wrong before.
Where did I say that? Having a valid social culture is part of having a civilized one and vice versa. How can you have one without the other?
A valid social and civilized culture requires both men and women. Are you arguing that only men civilize things? What proof do you have of that? They provide a key part and I believe have provided the primary foundation for that, but most did have a wife to help with raising their children so that the next generation could exist to use what they have created. Some exceptions certainly exist, but an Albert Einstein would not have built much civilization all by himself, no matter how smart he was.
Those who are not at the top of the heap do more to build a civilization than the few that are at the apex. You have to have participants to have a civilization, not just a leader.
How could we have a civilization without socialization? Note that success doesn’t equal civilization. Long term success tends to, but that is a different thing.
Repeal “tender years” and its aftermath, and I GUARANTEE you the rate of frivorce just plummeted into a negligible range.
I never thought I would find myself agreeing with you about anything, but there it is.
AR,
Civilization does not equal good sanitation. It may benefit greatly from it or even require it, but the sanitation is not the civilization. The social behavior makes the civilization such. We wouldn’t have such an uncivilized world now if sanitation was all it was.
Those who argue a man should allow his sperm to go out of his control is not liable for that are arguing that a man who put some bomb materials safely in his trash should not be liable if someone breaks into it and blows themselves up. The idiots who broke in should be held accountable (even if children), but he should have properly disposed of it, not just threw it someplace he “thought” was safe.
We know what causes pregnancy and doing those things that cause that and then complaining about consequences is inane.
That said, CS from the abused boy was ludicrous and I would tend to lean the same way on a woman who got herself pregnant outside vaginal intercourse or by grabbing a used condom. It is just like the idea of saying that a woman is an idiot for not watching her surroundings and dressing and behaving appropriately. You can strongly oppose rape and still argue women should be responsible. Or do you argue against that too?
JDG, the problem with many modern libertarians is that they push individual sinful behavior more than they push small and limited government. The former is much more likely to happen and it is just as corrupting as a huge government.
So who do you trust to decide what you can and cannot do? You seem willing to judge, but please demonstrate whatever political view you hold would constrain the behavior you decry.
Brad – I would trust righteous God fearing men more than men that are “morally neutral”. I would not trust women at all for this.
By the way, I emailed you a few days ago concerning adoption info. Thanks again for the offer.
IBB, the modern Republican party won’t do squat to limit the core issues you stand for. They will mouth their support (at times at least), but quickly back away from any strong action on them. That is why being a “conservative” is just as bad as being a “libertarian” today.
> This is about remaining “in group.”
I must never have been a tradcon then, since I never went with something just because the group supported it. Some certainly do, but many (most?) of those are called RINOs, though that seems to be most of the Republican party today. Look at how hard the fight even the squishy Tea Party, yet whine if you don’t back the moderate that works out a primary win.
Their treatment of Ron Paul was horrid. And yet that is who you say is best? Right….
A core problem you seem to have, along with many conservatives (neo and trad) is a belief in the positive power of government. It certainly has power, but it cannot enforce righteousness. In needs to enable it mostly by getting out of the way.
The tough things is that a moral people is required and we don’t have that now, so ANY form will fail.
So… your argument is essentially this: “We need tough laws – but don’t worry about the threat to liberty, because we won’t enforce them.”
That’s an interesting argument, to say the least.
____________________________________________________
Anyway, historians beg to differ:
Abortion: Although abortionists were rarely prosecuted prior to Roe – feminist myth-making notwithstanding – such prosecutions DID occur, and more than a few abortionists went to prison. (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97may/abortion.htm)
Homosexuality: I’m surprised you’ve never heard of the Stonewall Riots – usually credited with being the start of the modern “Gay Rights” movement. It stared with police harassment and ended with the NYPD Riot Squad attempting to clear the streets with batons (http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2009/06/449-stonewall.html). Or how about prosecutions for…
Sodomy: including a felony conviction of a married man for having consensual oral sex with his own wife… in 1989(!) (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex14.htm)
I could go on all night, but I assume you get the point by now. Your assertion that No one was being hauled away is simply not true.
__________________________________________________
Anyway, back to my original point: since your point is that such laws are not draconian because you believe that they aren’t going to be enforced (or enforced only rarely) why bother to have them in the first place? It is better to not have a law than to have one and not enforce it – arbitrary enforcement breeds disrespect for the law in general.
Anyway, I’m still waiting for you to tell me whose definitions of sodomy and adultery get to be legally enforced by men with guns. This is the third time I’ve asked, by the way. You’re the one advocating for those laws: will you at least do us the courtesy of saying precisely what you think they ought to prohibit? And then why your interpretations deserve to be backed up by the force of the state. If you’re proposing to imprison married Christian men for having “unapproved” sex with their own wives, I, for one, would like to know your reasoning behind it.
The former is much more likely to happen and it is just as corrupting as a huge government.
Brad I would even go so far as to say that pushing sinful behavior causes bigger government.
Lyn87, while I agree that the government of the US started much smaller, read about things like the Whiskey Rebellion to see that the foundation for a strong harmful central government has been around since the start.
Men control things and someone will always seek to be in control, which is why it take vigilance to keep that at bay, something that is easy to lose with prosperity.
Brad A writes, “It (the government) certainly has power, but it cannot enforce righteousness. In needs to enable it mostly by getting out of the way.”
Brad, that is THE quintessential libertarian position. Why are you spending so much time arguing against a philosophy that you clearly believe in?
LDG, that is twice now that you have claimed that those of us who wish to apply the NAP to government are pushing sinful behavior. I have yet to see any evidence of that. Refraining from using the blunt force of the state to enforce a ban something is NOT the same thing as condoning it… and it is certainly not the same as advocating for it.
TFH,
> They have to know what harms them, and ever upper-class women don’t understand cause and effect very well.
I would agree with that TFH. My wife sees scads of poor non-whites in her work and they are one of the worst abusers of the modern system. Rich white women are being foolish encouraging that behavior, but I doubt they think that far on it.
BrainyOne,
> You’d make those same excuses for a father who killed his 2-year old
Your brain seems to have failed you. People do things when they feel they have no choice. Few would not do something wrong if a gun was held to their head. Yet that is the feeling with some here. I am sure some will claim “forced” when it was really their choice, but most who are dependent on another for all their financial needs will do some pretty stupid things. That doesn’t make those things right, it can just why they are made. Understanding the why is important because you don’t solve a problem if you focus only on the symptom.
The woman who could drop of a child “no questions asked” would still have to go to term, possibly with no place to live, no money, no car, etc. Getting from “I’m pregnant” to that point takes some surviving in many cases, not the Pollyanna world you live in.
Please demonstrate where I said the woman was not accountable for her actions in this case?
Thanks for the reminder JDG, I really need to trim and watch my email better. I rarely intentionally ignore someone, but I had missed your note.
Brad asks BrainyOne, “Please demonstrate where I said the woman was not accountable for her actions in this case?”
I can’t speak for BrainyOne, but I’ll challenge your frame – you wish to apportion responsibility where there is no authority. This is 2014 in the U.S. – any pregnant woman can abort her child… period. No man: no husband, no father, no boyfriend, no Senator, no judge, may force her to carry it to term. N.O.N.E..
Such a woman may feel financial pressure, or some other sort of pressure, but she cannot legally be coerced to abort. This country is positively awash with resources to assist her no matter what choice she makes, so if there is a gun to her head, it is only because she put it there herself and wishes it to remain.
There are levels of coercion, too. To use extreme examples to make my point: I would steal $5 to keep someone from harming my cat. I would not disassemble a live human baby to prevent it, though. There is no amount of coercion applied to any pregnant woman that would justify premeditated murder of her own child.
Worrying about how much blame to ascribe to people who pressure pregnant women to get abortions seems a bit like “straining at gnats and swallowing camels” to me.
So… your argument is essentially this: “We need tough laws – but don’t worry about the threat to liberty, because we won’t enforce them.”
No its more like “We need a small but righteous government, because it will know better how to enforce righteous laws and preserve liberty.”
You cannot preserve liberty by allowing wickedness to reign supreme.
Anyway, historians beg to differ:
I was unaware of all of these. No surprise there as I’m ignorant of a lot of things. Perhaps I am draconian, because I don’t have a problem with abortionists being hauled of to jail, and I think public displays of homosexual behavior should be discouraged. However, using lethal force would not be my method of choice.
Do you really believe that a nation that permits wickedness is better off than one that doesn’t? Our founding fathers believed that these things should be illegal. Shouldn’t we not stop and consider why?
Also, I looked using the link you provided but could not find the example of the felony conviction of a married man for engaging in oral sex with his wife. I want to see the details that led to such a conviction. If you could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.
I could go on all night, but I assume you get the point by now. Your assertion that No one was being hauled away is simply not true.
For the record what I said was “No one was breaking down doors and hauling people away for those crimes while these things were against the law.” My meaning was that the government wasn’t looking into your bedroom to see what kinds of sex you were up to. And they weren’t. An odd occurrence here and there does not make a pattern.
This is the third time I’ve asked, by the way. You’re the one advocating for those laws: will you at least do us the courtesy of saying precisely what you think they ought to prohibit? And then why your interpretations deserve to be backed up by the force of the state.
I haven’t answered because I thought it was obvious that the laws I am advocating are the very same ones that “liberal” supreme court justices struck down in their crusades to promote wickedness across this nation. I think we would all be better off if the same interpretations, the same understandings, and the same prohibitions, were reinstated as they were before the insanity of this new “morality” took root.
LDG, that is twice now that you have claimed that those of us who wish to apply the NAP to government are pushing sinful behavior
No that was not my meaning. Apologies if that was how I came off. There are people actively pushing sin, I was referring to those. However, I do believe that by not doing anything to oppose wickedness, people allow wickedness to grow strong.
Also, I looked using the link you provided but could not find the example of the felony conviction of a married man for engaging in oral sex with his wife. I want to see the details that led to such a conviction. If you could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.
I just looked at that link myself. It’s the second & third paragraph, the case of James Moseley in Georgia. I haven’t tried to chase down the case beyond that, but that should be enough to let you get more details if you want to chase them down.
Thank you Robin.
JDG, not sure how you missed it, it’s right near the top of the article. Here’s the money quote,
Mr. Moseley was charged for sexual assault and found to be not guilty. But in his defense he said that he and his wife had consensual oral sex. He, a married man, was then convicted of Felony Sodomy based on his “confession” of getting consensual oral sex from his own wife, and spent a year-and-a-half in prison for it. Needless to say, his wife faced no charges herself.
When you and others demand laws against “sodomy” THIS is the kind of thing that you get. Most people just ignore it, including the cops, and contempt for the law mounts… and a few men (it’s almost always men) have their lives destroyed. THAT is why I keep asking (four times now) for you to precisely define what the crime of Sodomy should consist of.
You said, “You cannot preserve liberty by allowing wickedness to reign supreme.” Fair enough, and there are plenty of ways to do that without using the power of the state to regulate private conduct. I’m all for them. I will, however, counter that “You also cannot preserve liberty while using the power of the state to enforce conformity.”
And you’re still trying to have it both ways – either the laws are needed so we can prosecute all the people who break them, or we can have the laws and not enforce them. My view – the libertarian view – is that we ought to use non-violent means to persuade people to do the right thing (like, you know, witnessing), rather than empower a Leviathan-like state that will turn on us all in the end.
I found this:
August 30, 1989 | From Times Wire Services
A judge today ordered state officials to release a carpenter who has been jailed for 18 months under the state’s 156-year-old sodomy law after he admitted having oral sex with his wife. DeKalb County Superior Judge Robert Castellani ordered the state to free James Moseley on his own recognizance until it can be determined if he should have a new trial or if his conviction should be overturned.
and this:
In 1988 James Moseley went through a bitter divorce in his home state of Georgia. His estranged wife, Bette Roberts had accused him of rape in an attempt to secure custody of their two children. At the trial, the jury found the wife’s claim not to be credible, her ex-husband was acquitted. However when Moseley took the witness stand, as part of his testimony he admitted to performing consensual oral sex on his then wife.
And this is what I figured. No one battering down the door. Just another ploy to gain the upper hand in a corrupt family court.
My mistake, not a corrupt family court. Nevertheless brought to public attention through the underhanded means.
s/b “through underhanded means.”
Rather than make laws that use force to morality. Set up your laws so that morality gives the best outcome. Most of feminism laws of misandry are like that. We have some thinkers here the conversation needs to be one that takes into account male and female nature. Men naturally sniff after tail, women naturally selfish hypergamy. Wasting an unborn child is normal for a woman to do with unchecked hypergamy. Take every thing we know make a few changes in the law that will direct hypergamy to a virtuous behavior. Never forget the motivation and intent to virtue was the same motivation to suck out that fetus. Horrible photo http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/images/08.jpg Next time you see a woman that says she had an abortion super impose that photo. Remember this is normal for women. Knowing that how do we get virtue? It is possible.
Lyn87,
> you wish to apportion responsibility where there is no authority
Did the man have sex? If so, he had involvement. Abortion should be illegal and should not be allowed at all (except in the rare case where the mother’s life is truly threatened, in reality not in claim). Thus he is responsible for doing what it took. He could have kept his seed to himself if he did not wish involvement.
I do not think the current system is fair, as it allows the woman to kill the child or hold the man in tow for 18+ years, but that does not negate his responsibility in having sex. (With the exceptions I noted for those who were coerced into it, though I would mostly limit that to the mentally disabled and underage.) Are you saying the man did not chose to have sex?
> but she cannot legally be coerced to abort
Are you really arguing that people cannot be coerced into doing things they would not normally do? That would be a hard position to support.
Though I noted that her blame remains, but so does the blame of those doing the coercing.
Is an individual completely responsible for kicking your door in if I am holding a gun to his head (or nearby of course) if he did not do so? That is not as bad of a crime as abortion, but it illustrates the principle. Does every pregnant female know all the options available to her? Really?
> that would justify premeditated murder
I never said there was. I said it could explain why it happened and that it was not solely her fulfilling her desires, but it would not justify it no matter what.
[Pro 6:30-31 KJV] 30 [Men] do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; 31 But [if] he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.
Note that the thief couldn’t avoid the consequences, but was not deserving the same scorn if it was due to hunger.
Murder is worse, but the principle remains.
> Worrying about how much blame to ascribe to people who pressure pregnant women to get abortions seems a bit like “straining at gnats and swallowing camels” to me.
I am not the one claiming I am a white knight because I dispute the core claim that it was all the woman’s fault way back when this started. We must deal with all the causes to end abortion, not just one cause. That cause might be a good first step, but I find a holistic approach to be much more Biblical and appropriate. Scorn those who support and push it as well, even if they are supposedly tradcons.
Robin,
> if you want to chase them down
You know that could be taken several ways? Thanks for the laugh even if no one else gets the humor.
And sorry for the rapid fire responses. I had a long day and will tomorrow, so little replies during the day tomorrow as well. Please let me know if anyone really wants a response since I may try to skip a lot of things and let whoever have the last word.
Lyn87 – I didn’t see your post until after I posted the above.
THAT is why I keep asking (four times now) for you to precisely define what the crime of Sodomy should consist of.
Haven’t I answered this yet? I am advocating are the very same laws (and understandings of those laws) that “liberal” supreme court justices struck down in their crusades to promote wickedness across this nation.
And you’re still trying to have it both ways
No, I just want it the way it was before. It’s better than what we have now. Yes injustices have occurred under those laws, but I believe they will happen under a morally neutral libertarian government as well. People are fallen. We are evil and selfish. Mankind (as in all humans) will not do good of his own accord.
I believe what ever laws we have, they will be selectively enforced. I’m just not as concerned for my personal liberty as I am for my advocating what is right over what is wrong. I know you get hung up on everybody agreeing with what is right and what is wrong, but our founding fathers managed to work something out. I think I could get behind something like what they had.
Brad,
we’re not all that far apart. I understand that you blame women for abortions, but you seem eager to mitigate the guilt of women who procure abortions by positing coercion or pressure where none exists that would come anywhere close to excusing premeditated murder. But you still wish to assign enormous responsibility to the men they had sex with – even though the decision to carry a pregnancy to term or to kill the baby is entirely, 100%, in the hands of the woman. He has no say: I don’t know how to state that any more clearly.
Sure, people who encourage or pressure women to abort are guilty of incitement, but that’s a far cry from committing cold-blooded, premeditated murder, especially in a nation brimming with resources to help her no matter what she – and she alone – decides. If she “doesn’t know about them,” that’s on her unless she’s been forced to live in a cave her whole life.
On to some of your particular critiques:
You wrote, “Are you really arguing that people cannot be coerced into doing things they would not normally do?” My response is this: did you read what I wrote? I specifically said that, “I would steal $5 to keep someone from harming my cat. I would not disassemble a live human baby to prevent it, though.”
Your “hungry thief” analogy breaks down immediately, by the way. A man cannot help becoming hungry if he has nothing to eat. A woman can absolutely prevent getting pregnant by keeping her legs together.
In the end, we’re not that far apart, as I stated. I’m just concerned that you are a little quick to assign responsibility to a man that is incommensurate with his authority, and equally quick to point out mitigating factors in favor of women who murder their own children. Perhaps if you assigned responsibility to women that is commensurate with their authority, we’d be closer still.
Anyway, it’s late and time for bed. See ya’
Although to my understanding, the “tender years” doctrine (written by a White Knight judge at some point) was cast away years ago, “officially”, it still exists in practice. The very WORST situation you can get into (as I did) is a stay at home mom, even if she had a juris doctorate and a $300k job five minutes before going into labor, once she establishes no income and SAH status, you are screwed. It’s especially prevalent here in “ex-burb” territory around DC (and I assume NYC, SF, etc).
Just knew a gal the other day, that I’ve been quietly and attentively listening to complaint about her marriage, her husband and parenting, and she advised she was going to go on leave without pay from her federal job…to which I responded tongue and cheek, “does your husband know the narrative your seeking to establish?” She got mad…which for both of us, ensured any pretense of her innocence was dropped between us. She is now a “SAHM”.
I’ll go you one further: If we got rid of CS, you would see a HUGE drop in women fighting for custody. You’d get a “who REALLY cares” test immediately. if the courts said, whoever wants the kids, takes them “all in”, and does it all, you’d see how little women actually care. The best “proof” I have is of single moms that try to dump their pain in the ass teens back on dad after years of fighting him over what color socks they wore to a soccer game on his weekend.
Awake again… sigh. My circadian rhythm is a mess. Anyway: In answer to my:
JDG responded with:
No, JDG, you haven’t answered, which is why I keep asking. My understanding is that English is not your first language and that you didn’t grow up here, so I’ll assume good-faith ignorance rather than evasion on your part. That’s easy enough to fix… There U.S. consists of 50 states and four territories, and every one has some laws regarding consensual sexual conduct between adults. Plus the federal government has laws that only apply to military personnel – they are part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). That means that there are 55 different sets of such laws in the U.S., and most or all of them have changed over time, so when I ask for the specific wording you want to see enforced by state violence, your statement of “the way it was before” is – literally – meaningless.
So now I will ask a fifth time, “Which of the 55-plus different sets of laws do you wish to apply?” Specifics like this matter, because in some states certain acts are perfectly legal and in other states those same acts are felonies. The difference can send a man to prison for having an “unauthorized” type of sex with his own wife – which is rage-worthy in my view. So, like I wrote above, “If you’re proposing to imprison married Christian men for having “unapproved” sex with their own wives, I, for one, would like to know your reasoning behind it.” You still have not stated that reason, which you are obligated to do in a case where you advocate using the power of the state to enforce your views.
The legality of “Sodomy” (however defined) isn’t your only beef with libertarianism, either. You also mentioned “Adultery” – which also requires definition. Matthew 19:9 seems pretty clear that most second marriages are, in fact, adulterous unions. May I assume that you would declare such unions to be felonious? Would you dissolve those unions that already exist? What would be the penalty for that crime? What if a person gets divorced and subsequently shares an apartment with someone of the opposite sex? Felony or Free Pass?
THESE THINGS MATTER, and a vague sense of nostalgia for days-gone-by just won’t do. Words mean things, and the precise wording of laws determines whether people go to prison or just go on about their lives. Never forget that the very essence of government is “the ability to initiate violence with legal impunity.” Every single thing the government does – every law, every judicial ruling – is based on the fact that disobedience may be met with violence, and effective resistance to that violence may result in death. Never, EVER, forget that. When you advocate that something become illegal – THAT is the tool you are reaching for… and that tool is a deadly weapon.
That deadly weapon was used to kill tens of million of people in the 20th Century alone. The libertarian principle of government is that that tool should only be used against those who initiate violence or fraud against others. That leaves social sanctions and non-violent pressures to be used to deal with anti-social behavior, like drug use and buggery. It is simple, and not nearly as prone to abuse as sanctioning violence “for our own good,” which is what you and the other anti-libertarians are actually advocating. It also dovetails nicely with John 18:36 (ESV), “Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.””
Was it Reason magazine that published the numbers a few years ago (Perhaps from the Rand Corp) that the most dangerous gang in the history of mankind, has been governments, which have killed more of their own people than anyone could imagine.
The state has FORCE, and not only will resistance not be permitted, the threshold for “triggering” force against your “resistance” is being lowered daily. It evolves in the following manner: Don’t follow some town ordinance, get a ticket in the mail, refuse to pay, get another, refuse to pay, get a court date, don’t go, get a bench warrant, go for a drive, get stopped, get locked up, considered “dangerous”, lose your kids, hire a lawyer, spend thousands…
that’s a bit of an aggressive analogy, but these things are happening more and more often (library dues, watering lawns, or here in VA, taking your kids to school late too many times). And the state has so many arms, you had better consider it a “gun” at your door, regardless of whether or not they are in uniform, or simply a social worker or child services.
They will destroy you, and like the Soviets, you risk not only losing everything, but being forced into some kind of mental “evaluation”, and treatment for a disorder. Fascist liberals (and their Tradcons) are not playing around. You had better do as your masters say, or else.
<iWe need a small but righteous government, because it will know better how to enforce righteous laws and preserve liberty.”
“Righteous government,” in reference to any of the temporal kind, is among the egregious of oxymorons. You cannot seriously believe, I dare hope, that any government of man will ever come close to that standard (8,000 years of human history screams that it’s a fool’s wager to believe this). The only “righteous government” that will ever exist will be the thousand-year one that Jesus Himself establishes here after his return. And PLEASE don’t tell us that you seriously believe any American civil government will ever get the job done. I know that you know better.
As for your Romans 13 citation, I’m not going to debate you on that here. Let me just say, however, that it appears to put you amongst the warvangelical churchian crowd that believes the message to be “temporal government is God on earth and is to be blindly obeyed at all costs, even if its commands and deeds are ungodly.” To see what a gross distortion this interpretation is, read the rest of Romans that precedes this chapter – especially Romans 12 (context is everything).
Rather than have a government enforce righteousness the government should leave people to suffer their unrighteousness. Immoral behavior comes from being bailed out for immoral behavior. The baby momma and the black community is one case. See Detroit , Chicago, World Star Hip Hop, and You tube’s Tommy Sotomayor and others to see what it looks like in practice. Lyn87 has it right.
Those laws of morality of yesteryear were there and on the surface were not enforced. They were not enforced because the immorality was practiced with responsibility because it was illegal. And most importantly there was no bail out. An example would be the illegal alien as long as it was a crime they worked how else are they going to eat. imagine the work ethic if all americans were made illegal aliens.
enrique432
The founders of this nation more and more can be seen as extraordinary in how they structured the society. The weakness was the incredible wealth the nation developed that allowed the foundation to seem unnecessary. Think about what you are asking for men far more versed in human nature have already done the work. Have faith and the word will be followed with out the use of a government thug.
@BradA:
Those “who are dependent on another for all their financial needs” are children. I’m certainly not holding a 15-year-old or 16-year-old to the same level of accountability as an adult, and neither does the law. But I’m talking about adults here, who are expected to responsibly provide for their own financial needs. And “because Dad might yank my BMW driving privileges while I’m in college if he finds out I’m pregnant” simply doesn’t cut it as being “dependent” for “needs”.
The red-pill test about abortion is this: if you believe abortion is murder, but you don’t believe women who have abortions should be prosecuted for murder, you are either a white knight (rushing in to save the “damsels in distress” whose “distress” was mostly caused by everyone else), a pedestalizer (since No True Morally Pure Woman would ever want to kill her child, it must be society driving her to it), or one who really doesn’t believe abortion is murder to begin with (and many tradcons don’t, actually, since despite claiming to believe in an inalienable “right to life” they support a “rape or incest” exception which means they don’t actually believe in an inalienable “right to life”).
JDG,
Male or female
Brainyone
Your comment is screaming out loud what the simple loving thing of removing agency from women will get you. BradA wants to believe as he speaks so for all of his stances on Christian faith he has wiped it out with the original sin of pleasing a woman over all else. jf12 clung to niceness to a fault these are how roads paved with good intensions are made. being a man requires real faith.
@enrique432:
Yes, “tender years” has been legally repealed but its presumption still remains. And feminists are trying to backdoor its equivalent through primary caretaker presumption and fighting presumptive joint custody legislation tooth and nail.
You’ve correctly identified this selfishness in modern women: not wanting to be equally responsible for paying the bills (liking the luxury of being a SAH in the ‘burbs) but not actually having any obligations to a husband; thus, it’s still all about the money when it comes to the children. Now it’s up to men to beat women at their own game. The current reality is that men should never, ever consent to be the sole wage-earner, and in a divorce situation, be willing to spend every penny of accumulated assets in litigation unless she agrees to at least 50-50 shared parenting.
This is normal for women not just the modern ones.
Got a neighbor in my ‘burb who said this very thing (as to why he lives in our neighborhood as a never married man.) At our block party he went on the record to tell the wrong neighbor that he would NEVER get married because he has too many assets to lose now (too many things that she could take from him unilaterally in divorce proceedings) and this white knight guy told his wife who told ALL the women in the neighborhood and now, he is officially uninvited to any block parties. Basically, people don’t even look at him when he leaves for work, comes home from work, or works in his yard. He is shunned from “the group” because he has acknowledged the problem and was vocal enough to tell the wrong person what he has done to protect himself.
I’ll still stop by from time to time. He tells me he is bothered that they exiled him from their events but he loses no sleep over it. I guess it’s only a matter of time before all the wives in the neighborhood ex-communicate me for keeping the neighborhood misogynist creep (as they refer to him) in the loop. Fortunately for me that collective shunning is the only authority/power-of-force “the group” has to take vengeance out on me for not playing by their rules.
Speaking as that guy, I can tell you that I appreciate not having the attention of the local gossips and married sluts directed my way. My comments were designed for maximum effectiveness, and achieved my goals of being left alone by all the married ho’s with a minimum of ongoing effort. The last thing I need is one of them coming on to me (and you married bros don’t know this, but many, many of your wives do this, when your backs are turned) and then playing “lets you and him fight” when I laugh in her face.
Yep, the drama-free life is good for me.
Boxer
The black community is only the avant garde. There are tons of stupid white kids (who live not far away from me) who have no discipline and no motivation to do anything. In these neighborhoods are meth, crack, high-school dropout as the norm, nazi skinheads, and many other forms of unhealthy matriarchal scum. Religious background is irrelevant (Protestant, Jew, Catholic and Mormon alike are represented here).
Give white people in North America a couple of generations and then see the fruits of feminism and the child support model of family. It’s not going to be pretty, or pleasant.
Boxer
Boxer,
This guy has a girlfriend. So he didn’t even have to worry about the drama. He was just miffed that they exiled him for protecting himself. He didn’t think women were organized enough to pull that off, but so far they have. I seriously doubt that this will carry over to next summer (they will probably just let it go by then) but for right now, it is too raw on their nerves because his evaluation of SAHMs and the money was too “on the nose” and they can’t deal with that kind of reality. They especially don’t want other people talking about it and thinking that maybe he was on to something. That might in turn kill the golden goose for some other woman who hadn’t yet caught her man.
Again, speaking as that guy, taking your latest fling/girlfriend to one of these block parties is a disaster, as it leads to demands of marriage by said fling/girlfriend, as she will be looked down upon openly by all the married sluts, and will be encouraged by them to hassle you for commitment. I learned this early on. It is in my interest never to hang out with a married woman for any reason, and certainly not to hang out with a married woman who lives in my neighborhood. I don’t usually say two words to married women unless I have to (for work purposes, on projects, etc.) and certainly don’t want to socialize with them.
Best, Boxer
Boxer
The black community was easy because it was masked as racism. More and more white people are being affected as seen in the marriage rates. At present the image is white family stability so it will have a slower creep. In the black community the broken family fit in nicely with the victim slave thing. What is really funny when blacks actually lived with real racism the black family was tight out of necessity and out of wed lock children was a white girl thing. Liberalism destroys that is why libertarianism works
TFH,
The man is not helpless. It is not a nightmare scenario for him. The only thing he lost (that might have been ANY value to him) was interaction with all the neighbors. That is all the SAHWs in the neighborhood COULD take from him. So they took it. But that does not add all that much value. And losing it did not cost him all that much.
Dear TFH:
Well, you’re smarter than I am (or was). I learned the hard way that this is a very bad idea. It’s that thing about the herd spreading memes… We talk about it in the manosphere, and I’ve seen it in action. 🙂
Boxer
BradA
A valid social and civilized culture requires both men and women.
Yes. But they are not interchangeable. Because men civilize, and women socialize. These two words are not synonyms, no matter how hard you try to pretend they are.
Are you arguing that only men civilize things?
Yes.
What proof do you have of that?
Everything man-made around you, for a start. Or you could find an industrial civilization that was built from the ground up by women, and point to it. Good luck on that.
They provide a key part and I believe have provided the primary foundation for that, but most did have a wife to help with raising their children so that the next generation could exist to use what they have created.
Exactly, men create civilization, and women socialize children to that civilization. Both are needed, but there is a clear and obvious hierarchy: men create the water and sewer system, women teach children to use the toilet. Why this is a mystery to you, why you keep wanting to make men and women co-equals, I cannot fathom but the easiest explanation is pedestalization.
It appears you are really offended by the idea that there are things women as a group can’t do.
Also, I note that when you reply to me, you generally cut out all of my points save one that you can take out of context and argue against. Why do you do that?
TFH,
I understand what you are saying perfectly, but I still think you are missing it.
The married cows do not care (at all) if multiple young women enter the house of the neighborhood misogynist creep. What they care about is that they want his ABSENCE from the events that THEY hosted. The type of things that he was willing to talk about (and the side he took on those things) threatened their sense of self and that was a total non-starter. They know they can’t brainwash him into believing their way NOR can they influence any woman to brainwash him (as no woman in his life has the leverage of threat point) so they wanted him GONE. If they had it their way, he would be GONE from the neighborhood. But they don’t have that kind of power (obviously.)
Dear TFH:
In theory you are right on all counts, but as a dude who does live in a hi-rise apartment with a good view (I’m not a millionaire, but by any standard mine could be called a luxury apartment) there are a few hidden details I can go into.
Not really true. I pass my neighbors in the hall every day, often multiple times per day. The walls between the apartments are filled with concrete, so I don’t hear them, but I do know when they’re home, and they me (we can hear the sliding doors open and shut to get to our balconies, etc.)
My complex has a very well-established social structure, and there are monthly (in the summer its closer to weekly) social gatherings in the park-like area out front. Families generally can’t afford to live here, so with a few exceptions, it’s working professionals and nearly all of them are married. Attendance is optional, of course, but I like to stop by so people don’t think I’m an asshole.
In the early days there were a lot of women who came in and out of my apartment (of the young and pretty sort). These days I try to be a bit more discreet.
In a suburban house, the life of a libertine could be hidden much more effectively, with attached garages and privacy fences, no one would see anything. I’ve lived here for four years now, and have to live here for at least one more, so I try to balance my social life with women and my social life as a member of this little micro-community — but I am looking forward to moving, and the next place I get will probably be a small home (though I would rather have it closer to the core of the city than in the suburbs).
Boxer
@IBB
Did your wife want him banned?
IBB,
The idea of a block party is strange to me. I didn’t pick my neighbors, they are random, so I have no interest in partying with them. And I’m sure the 80 y/o woman next door doesn’t want to party with me!
Being uninvited to a block party is not much of a punishment. But it should be noted that voicing pro-male, anti-misandric ideas is risky. I take the cowardly way out and keep my opinions to myself IRL…. don’t want to screw up my career.
The internet is great for finding like-minded people to converse with (IBB, tell that shunned guy about the internets!). IRL friends are cost drivers that I consider “social entanglements.” They’re OK if you don’t see them too often, like if they live in another city.
IRL = in real life (meaning not online). Do people still use this one or am I dating myself?
BradA
Civilization does not equal good sanitation.
It’s a marker, and an example that holds up well over the last 2000+ years of history.
It may benefit greatly from it or even require it, but the sanitation is not the civilization.
Sanitation is part of any civilization above the level of mud huts. Women as a group do not build sanitation systems, men do that. Women as a group teach children to use the sanitation system that men created. That’s socialization. However, women could just as easily teach their children to use the hole dug in the ground behind the grass hut, that would also be socialization. For that matter, women could also teach children to walk 5 paces away from the grass hut. That would also be socialization.
Women are good at socializing children and other women to adhere to group norms.
Setting those group norms, however, they are not very good at. That is a civilizing job for men. Both the civilizing and the socializing tasks need to be done. However, the claim that “women civilize men ” is simply false. Men civilize each other, as well as women. This matters because pedestalizing manginae routinely claim that women are a “civilizing” influence, as part of their “women are better than men” insanity. It also matters because feminists,with their “men are worse than women” ideology also insist that women are a “civilizing” influence.
They. Are. Not. Socialization to a group norm is not the same thing as defining those group norms.
Do you understand, now?
No. She thinks the whole thing is pretty silly. Of course my wife is not a SAHW. She doesn’t have the time to dawdle on the silly nonsense.
Boxer,
Families generally can’t afford to live here, so with a few exceptions, it’s working professionals and nearly all of them are married.
These married couples are at high risk of becoming families if a wily sperm cell sneaks past the IUD! So there potentially be an outbreak of families.
(Please no one tell me about how IUDs work)
Brad,
Actually that is a very good marker, and excellent one (particularly in this day an age.)
Brad have you ever taken a cruise? Ever been on a big cruise ship (big = greater than 50,000 tons of water displacement.) They make them over 200,000 tons now but you don’t have to be THAT big to be a big cruise ship. The reason why I ask is because so many of these floating cities we call cruise ships have very serious problems with Norovirus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norovirus
And why? Because in an effort to make cruising as affordable as possible, the cruise lines employ mostly 3rd world labor to cook your food, clean the dishes, wait the tables, and clean your cabin. And these are people who come from parts of the world that are NOT civilized. True mud huts. It should come as no surprise that people who aren’t even sophisticated enough to wash and clean the sh-t off their own hands after wiping their own @ss are going to be the perfect transmitters of nonsense epidemics (that could be so easily controlled with a little sanitation) like Norovirus. This is a big problem in the cruising industry because even if they show these people how to clean up after themselves, it doesn’t mean that they will instinctively do that.
As every other guy has said on this thread, they were never socialized into living that way (wash your hands) because they don’t come from a civilized part of the world. Their moms did not tell them what your mom told you. I know that seems incredibly hard to believe, but its true.
He tells me he is bothered that they exiled him from their events but he loses no sleep over it.</i
I assume that your neighborhood, like most in the burbs these days, is governed by a HOA (i.e., a satanic quasi-governmental dictatorship). If so, he needs to be aware that the busybody bitches might very well lèverage this body to make trouble for him. NEVER forget that drama, for a spoiled suburban SAHW without a purpose in life, is like booze to a chronic alcoholic.
No HOA. We wouldn’t live in a neighborhood with that.
They are not (currently) interested in making trouble for him. This is not him against them. They just don’t want him around things they organize because his values (what he believes in and how he chooses to live his life) hurts their self-esteem.
Lyn87 – No, JDG, you haven’t answered, which is why I keep asking. My understanding is that English is not your first language and that you didn’t grow up here, so I’ll assume good-faith ignorance rather than evasion on your part.
Sadly I did grow up here, but I am not deliberately being evasive. I suppose it’s just that I’m not very good at communicating. I realize that each state and territories can have different laws and different slants on laws that carry different penalties that change state to state.
I’ll use sodomy as an example, but I think the same principle can be applied to abortion and adultery. Prior to 1962 sodomy was illegal in every state. I don’t have to know each state’s particular slant on this to believe that the status quo concerning sodomy was better in 1962 then what we have now.
My particular slant on the meaning of sodomy is “a man lying with another man”, but that really doesn’t matter. What matters is that God says it is wrong and that the governing entity agrees that it is wrong.
In years past men in each state may or may not have agreed on what the exact definition was, but they all seem to have agreed that sodomy was bad and that such things should not be given free reign. Therefore I wouldn’t care if one state said it was only anal sex and another said it was oral and anal.
That may be draconian, but I’d prefer such laws in a nation rather than remove all such laws and enable and/or promote the advancement of wickedness (like we have now).
Regarding adultery, the biblical definition is “sex with another man’s wife”. It’s theft plain and simple.
Each state may have a different opinion on what constitutes adultery, and as you say that would be an odd situation due to so many re-marriages these days. Nevertheless, I could support a political movement that at least acknowledged that it is wrong for a woman to give away what belongs to her husband or another man to take what belongs to another man (his wife).
Abortion is murder. What more needs to be said about it?
The libertarian principle of government is that that tool should only be used against those who initiate violence or fraud against others.
Yes, but what is the biblical position on what government should be used for?
What I stated that began this conversation is that I could not get behind a party that gives free reign to abortion, adultery, and sodomy. And I ‘m sorry, but as it stands I still cannot.
feeriker – “Righteous government,” in reference to any of the temporal kind, is among the egregious of oxymorons. You cannot seriously believe, I dare hope, that any government of man will ever come close to that standard
I was attempting to use the term “righteous government” as a goal for to strive towards or a standard to maintain. I suppose it was another poor choice of words on my part. I know that this goal cannot be achieved by man. Man is fallen and corrupt. That is why some form of government is needed in the first place.
Jesus tells us in scripture that we must be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect. This can only be achieved through His redemptive work. We could never do it on our own, but it is something we strive towards. That is how I meant to infer the idea of a righteous government.
As for your Romans 13 citation, I’m not going to debate you on that here.
I wish you would, because it is probably the crux of my position. It is why I believe that a government should strive to be righteous. If you can show me that I am misunderstanding this scripture, I might be persuaded to rethink my position.
Let me just say, however, that it appears to put you amongst the warvangelical churchian crowd that believes the message to be “temporal government is God on earth and is to be blindly obeyed at all costs, even if its commands and deeds are ungodly.”
Again apologies for poorly describing my position. I believe that if the government commands a Christian to disobey God, I believe as the apostles did that the Christian must obey God rather than man.
When a government becomes representative of wickedness (like the one we have now), I think obeying the government becomes less possible or even practical.
I place little faith in government or any institution made up of men. It is because I trust what the Bible says that I believe that a government should try to represent justice and righteousness.
Re: Sanitation and Civilization.
One of my colleagues spent a couple of years in Saudi Arabia. One of the things that he marvels at it how the people there, who are filthy rich from Petrodollars, are unable to grasp the simple concept of using toilet paper – they just wipe their @$$e$ with their left hands, and rinse them off. That’s why they do everything important with their right hands – when they speak of their left hands being unclean, it is not merely a religious affectation, they really mean it.
This is a society where people drive absurdly expensive cars, but do not obey traffic laws. A society where you have to speak to military officers like 8-year-olds who wilt under the faintest criticism…
… And everything nice they have was designed and built in the West, or East Asia. When their oil is gone or displaced by other energy sources, they will be back to throwing dung at each other from camel-back within a generation.
When I was in Afghanistan we (the U.S.) built new facilities for the Afghan National Army (ANA) on our camp. They kept breaking the pipes because they wouldn’t use the toilets the way they were designed to be used – they would wrap a towel around the exposed pipes for leverage, then stand on the lip and squat over the bowl. And don’t get me started on the showers: a drain-hole in the middle of the floor with running water nearby? Time to drop a deuce!
Anyway… sanitation may not EQUAL civilization, but as AR and IBB noted, it is an excellent marker.
IBB – Please define the word gender.
Male or female
Sex refers to male or female, while gender refers to masculine or feminine. Feminists started miss using the term gender to more effectively sell their “sex is a social construct” delusion in mass. This may be another example of a traditional conservative conserving traditional feminism.
Oh there are a couple divorce’s (no single moms) but those women who do have the house that are divorced, that do bother to attend the block party events, they work. They don’t stay home. So they are not the least bit bothered by this guy’s lifestyle. They are too busy trying to bring home a check (not from their ex-husbands) to be bothered worrying about what he thinks.
Honestly, its just the SAHWs who flipped out when he said to the white knight that he would never marry because he has too much to lose. I am going venture to guess that the divorced women (particularly those who work for a living, which is the two divorced women in my neighborhood) don’t care if their children learn from how this guy lives. Yes he has wisdom.
If anything, the divorced women, I think they may be attracted to him. (shrugs)
Man is fallen and corrupt. That is why some form of government is needed in the first place.
I do hope that you’ll read your statement again so that the following “blinding flash of the obvious” strikes:
Given that man is “fallen and corrupt,” how can a government consisting entirely of those same “fallen and corrupt” men possibly be expected to preserve godly values?
I can think of no plain of reasoning upon which such an assumption can be considered anything other than patently absurd.
In the same spirit as the previous Pantene post, advertising to women is based (like L’Oreal) on the concept “I’m Worth It.” Each woman is convinced She’s Worth It, but this idea is not bought by men, in large part because men are not as susceptible to advertising. Feminists and aligned conservatives try different selling points, but the fundamental idea is that She’s Worth It, all appearances to the contrary and all reasoning to the contrary aside.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/mark-saunders/2014/04/18-things-females-seem-to-not-understand-because-female-privilege/
“men are not as susceptible to advertising”
The entire history of human race, and more specifically (if we adhere to the sensu stricto definition of advertising) the existence of American capitalism, flies in the face of this statement. See ads for and sales of the latest gizmos / video games / cars / beers / etc., for examples.
@el, yes but no. Most (is it still 89%?) of consumer spending is controlled by women, so most advertising is with a female audience in mind. Gizmo/game/cars/ etc “advertising” towards men tend to be in the form of giant infomercial-type things like product rollouts, announcements and reviews (all of E3, for example), Computer Shopper (I guess people still read that), Car & Driver roadtests, Guns & Ammo roadtests, Field & Stream roadtests (hmm, maybe males like ampersands).
As an exception, I’ll consider beer commercials. Although I don’t see them and don’t buy beer (if you’re you you may remember I claim also to have trained myself to not see advertisements per se in newspapers, magazines, and billboards; but for this point the fact that I don’t watch tv suffices), I imagine it’s one or two commercials per week advertising one or two brands out of the 192 brands of beer, compared to the 192 commercials advertising the one or two brands of tampons. I don’t think that’s because women require *more* convincing, but that men respond to an advertisement generically “oh yeah, we’re out of beer” and not brand-ly.
Also, how much of ostensibly male advertising (I’m thinking like Chuck Norris for Bowflex or whatever) is actually for *women* anyway?
el,
It is in a woman’s nature to submit. Therefore, women are susceptible to advertising. Men, not so much.
Men don’t buy gizmos and video games because the see them advertised. They buy them because they are interesting and they want to play with them. Things that are not interesting, they don’t buy them. All the advertising in the world did not motivate men to buy this crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial_(video_game)
Men don’t buy cars because they are advertised. Men buy cars because cars are cool. They buy small, cheapie, fuel efficient cars to get them to work easier so they can make (and save) more money. Expensive sports cars impress women which can get them laid. SUVs are fun to play with and can haul things. Men do NOT buy cars because of the advertising.
Men don’t buy beer because it is advertised. Men buy beer because it either tastes very good (microbrews are more flavorful) or it is cheap (Bud, Miller, Keystone, Schlitz, Busch, PBR, etc.) The Superbowl commercials have essentially no impact on whether or not men choose to drink beer (or which beers they drink.) They already know the ones they want. They don’t need advertising for that.
Advertising is basically to influence women’s decision making process in purchasing.
@el, if you would, I’d like your thoughts about this comment I left elsewhere:
“Lactation suppresses ovulation, especially in primates. Most tellingly, the suppression effect is MUCH stronger in younger females.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1255935/
Concealed ovulation is one clue that human females are evolved, assuming selection, to dodge the impregnating attentions of strange males. The fact of boobs is a second clue to the same effect: by making it difficult for strange males to quickly assess the lactation state of a group of women.
I have to say, the more I think about evo-psych and what it explains, the more ashamed I am of our proto-ancestors’ evidently extremely rapey behavior.”
The fact of boobs had never made evo sense to me, and all of the previous explanations I’ve encountered “it’s like a rear end, only backwards” seemed incredibly contrived *and* inconsistent with other aspects of female behavior. But my current explanation, i.e. postpubescent women appear like they are all lactating in order to make it more difficult to tell which ones really are lactating, seems simplest. The tie-in to concealed ovulation is only speculative, but Occam’s razor sez I’mright.
Some observations, in no particular order:
1. JDG, you have identified the teaching function of the law. All law expresses normative behavior by what it says and does not say. Statutes against e.g. adultery may never be enforced with trials and punishments, but their existence on the books makes it impossible for the law to simultaneously claim that such behavior is not scandalous. (This would not be such an issue were it not for how the recent proliferation of anti-discrimination laws has destroyed freedom of association in the private sphere; if there is no law against someone’s behavior then it’s often now illegal to refuse doing business with them on grounds of that behavior.)
2. Lyn87, has no-one in the U.S. Army ever seen a Japanese squat toilet? Would have made a whole lot more sense to install these for the Afghans.
3. feeriker, ordering government to cope with human corruption was a primary theme of Madison and Hamilton in The Federalist.
jf12 says:
I have to say, the more I think about evo-psych and what it explains, the more ashamed I am of our proto-ancestors’ evidently extremely rapey behavior.”
That’s because in evolution the only thing that matters is passing on your genes to the next generation. Morals, feelings, right, wrong, none of that matters in evolution.
@IBB
“Men don’t buy gizmos and video games because the see them advertised. They buy them because they are interesting and they want to play with them.”
“Men don’t buy cars because they are advertised. Men buy cars because cars are cool. They buy small, cheapie, fuel efficient cars to get them to work easier so they can make (and save) more money.”
“Men don’t buy beer because it is advertised. Men buy beer because it either tastes very good (microbrews are more flavorful) or it is cheap.”
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read today, IBB. Thanks for the laughs.
P.S. Madison Ave is proud of you and shall therefore name you its Most Valuable Customer. It (the insidious reach of its influences) just does not get any better (or clearer) than that. Kudos.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2014/07/02/mark-driscolls-un-brotherly-behavior-catches-up-to-mars-hill/
jf12 says:
“@el, yes but no. Most (is it still 89%?) of consumer spending is controlled by women, so most advertising is with a female audience in mind. Gizmo/game/cars/ etc “advertising” towards men tend to be in the form of giant infomercial-type things like product rollouts, announcements and reviews (all of E3, for example), Computer Shopper (I guess people still read that), Car & Driver roadtests, Guns & Ammo roadtests, Field & Stream roadtests (hmm, maybe males like ampersands).”
While it is true that women comprise the greater number of spenders, having been tasked with household and family running, for one, I fail to see the diff between the susceptibility to advertising as it relates to gender in your example. It is simply different strokes for different folks, but the mechanism is essentially the same.
“As an exception, I’ll consider beer commercials. Although I don’t see them and don’t buy beer (if you’re you you may remember I claim also to have trained myself to not see advertisements per se in newspapers, magazines, and billboards; but for this point the fact that I don’t watch tv suffices), I imagine it’s one or two commercials per week advertising one or two brands out of the 192 brands of beer, compared to the 192 commercials advertising the one or two brands of tampons. I don’t think that’s because women require *more* convincing, but that men respond to an advertisement generically “oh yeah, we’re out of beer” and not brand-ly.”
It is your blind spot, I’m afraid. The consumerist version of capitalism works so well because people of both genders are deeply susceptible to the nuanced propaganda of advertising. The nuance is important, since we as consumers have become somewhat more sophisticated and tend to pride ourselves, usually erroneously, on our resistance to propaganda.
Marketeers create in us entirely superfluous needs and make us buy crap we don’t need every day. It works. The proof is in the pudding — i.e., the crap we accumulate, whether we realize it or not. While women tend to go for fashion, make-up, foods, etc. and other gender-specific implements that reflect their interests in beauty (generally speaking) and relationships (attractiveness to men, family relationships, etc.); men go for objects signifying power and status (again generally speaking), as well as those that would increase their sexual attractiveness to women (and those do overlap with power and status). Plus, of course, robots et al,, especially of the exploding kind.
“Also, how much of ostensibly male advertising (I’m thinking like Chuck Norris for Bowflex or whatever) is actually for *women* anyway?”
I’d say that male-directed advertising — gizmos and gadgets, cars, beer, fitness equipment, testosterone-replacement, Viagra, etc. — goes almost unnoticed by women, other than perhaps as frivolity / vanity, and/or annoyance, the same way women-directed commercials are perceived by men. The exceptions would be women who have a personal interest in the male-advertising products (e.g., testosterone treatment, etc. for their husbands, etc.) — they would pay attention to those specific ads. But other than that, your newest gizmo is as attractive and important to her as her newest hair conditioner is to you.
Some years ago, Desmond Morris wrote a book on the evolutionary reasons for nudity (lack of fur) in humans, including the advantages of big boobs. The book: THE NAKED APE. Probably available cheap on Amazon, as a guess.
Rather amusing (11m 31s):
craig says:
July 2, 2014 at 5:26 pm
On 1 & 3 – Agreed and thank you.
Outstanding post Dalrock, wish I’d seen it sooner during the core comments phase. I hate to change the subject but wanted to challenge the simplicity of the throw away claim that conservatives want to “conserve the social order”, namely as you say, the “one they created”.
At 20 +/- a few years, I would use the argument, -what is it they want to conserve?- when I’d ideologically head butt conservatives (in my opinion). I am not alleging that you are coming from a position of blissful social and ideological ignorance as I was back then, clearly I know you are not, but one of the key notions I had to choke down as I matured was that its too simple by half to suggest conservatism is about conserving a social order, one that is dynamic and therefore each iteration in social order over time necessarily has a group of conservatives wanting it as the norm. I believe you have overstated your characterization. I also believe (you would never have guessed this about me) that i think it is not only incorrect if only in the margins, the effect of this incorrect assertion is to offer succor to all manner of things even worse than this group of conservatives that are ushering is the age of Mars needs women.
Craig,
Some guy finally figured it out. I understand that a couple of Guardsmen at Mazar-i-Sharif were plumbers in their civilian jobs before they were mobilized, and they built the Afghans squat-toilets. I’m not sure what eventually happened in my neck of the woods – I wasn’t there long enough to find out.
And as much as I hate to agree with El, she’s right this time. Madison Avenue has all of our numbers to some degree. As I noted in the thread about the Pantene commercial, products for men are advertized somewhat differently than products to women, but if you know what to look for, you can pick out the manipulative aspects of ads. The thing is, most people are so constantly bombarded with imagery that nobody has the time to sort through more than a small fraction of it consciously, so the subliminal messaging sails right on through, unanalyzed.
jf12 says:
“Concealed ovulation is one clue that human females are evolved, assuming selection, to dodge the impregnating attentions of strange males. The fact of boobs is a second clue to the same effect: by making it difficult for strange males to quickly assess the lactation state of a group of women.”
Not sure what you’re saying / asking here. Lactation prevents ovulation, but it does not prevent sex. The mechanism of lactation preventing ovulation would not evolve as a signal for males to mate or not, since they would pretty much disregard any such signals as they please(d), but rather as a protection of our offspring.
A young mother immediately pregnant with another child would be at a greater risk of physical complications and death, and so would be her existing, very young child(ren).
It helps to look at our sexual behaviors / characteristics from the POV of supporting the survival of our species — i.e., creation, protection and nurture of our young — since this is the reason for sex in the first place.
Well conservatives in the US generally try to hold onto, or perhaps bring back, whatever they think the ‘good old days’ were. To the Reagan era conservatives, the good old days were the 50s to early 60s. To today’s conservatives, ‘the good old days’ are the mid 80s to early or mid 90s. And in 30 years the ‘good old days’ will be… today, and the conservatives of the 2040s will be fighting to protect the sanctity of gay marriage from polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, or whatever else the progressives of the 2040s will be trying to make ‘mainstream’ by then.
Men don’t buy beer because it is advertised.
Real beer is almost never advertised anyway. Samuel Adams, Heineken, and Stella Artois [**Blecchhh! Walloon urine. Stick with Flemish brews**] are the only exceptions I can think of, and these ads are rarely shown when compared to the number of and frequency of ads for formaldehyde-treated soda water originating from basically just three major vendors.
You are correct, though, in stating that these ads probably have very little market impact on men’s actual preferences. We either drink beer (usually a regional craft brew that doesn’t advertise nationally) or we drink a preferred brand of formaldewater from one of the prominent Big Three vendors, one that no marketing campaign will change our minds about. To the extent that such ads target women, it seems to be more about convincing them that pickling their insides with a certain brand of formaldewater will make them appealing to a certain class of Alpha men.
3. feeriker, ordering government to cope with human corruption was a primary theme of Madison and Hamilton in The Federalist.
Yes. Now fast-forward 225 years and let’s see how successful that noble idea has been in practice.
Behind every great man is a great woman
Because it’s safer there – and also easier to pick his pocket.
Did men think up civilization all by themselves?
Umm… let me think a long time .. YES. That’s exactly how it happened. Get used to it “ladies” – facts are facts.
Miller genuine draft.
That debate earlier in this thread about the tie in (or lack of) between abortion and child support bothered me for awhile… IBB strenuously insisting that the one had nothing to do with the other. But … incentives matter as we like to say and it is well known that subsidizing the results of certain behaviors will bring on more of those behaviors.
Tradcons desire to punish men for out of wedlock births by assigning them with child support. Thinking in vain that this will reduce the number of men who do this. But wait, the woman gets cash from her baby’s father, why wouldn’t she worry less about such outcomes? The short answer is that as Dalrock says that the family is now organized around child support instead of marriage, we have the spectacle of the woman being incentivized to keep the baby because she can stick the man with the bill.
It’s as if women had no responsibility in the matter. At all. That brings us to the critical question: where the heck is the incentive to keep her legs closed? How should we draw up incentives that serve to motivate more women to keep their legs closed? How much hue and cry must we suffer over accusations of misogyny that will most certainly accompany such proposals?
So the thing to do is to say no to child support for babies born to unmarried women. Yes it will be cruel to the children involved. Unless she gives them up for adoption. There used to a huge degree of shame involved in pregnancy and child bearing out of wedlock. That shame served as a powerful incentive to women to keep their legs together. Didn’t always work, that is true, but the 50’s rates of out of wedlock births are known to be well below today’s rates.
The traditional model is to apply societal pressure to make this happen. Modern welfare states have a number of options. The Soviet model would take the children of such a woman away and put them in orphanages, often throwing the unmarried mother in jail for wasting social services/vagrancy. The Chinese model is a single mother tax, to help pay for the offspring she irresponsibly brings into society, and all the social problems fatherless children inevitably fall prey to. I understand that multiple babymammas are occasionally rounded up in random Chinese towns, taken to the local clinic in handcuffs, en masse, and sterilized, assembly-line style. This seems inhumane, but it is a plausible solution, since these women have proven to be expensive attention seekers who clearly can’t be trusted to control their own sexual behavior.
I think a return to the American model of the 1930s is impossible, though we can probably find some uniquely American solution to the problem. Cutting welfare monies for unmarried women would be a good first start. Single, empowered, feminist Americano chicks, who want to have a fatherless kid, should “woman up” and support the kids they bring into the world through their own girl power. Child support should only follow marriage, and for that matter, so should visitation for non-custodial fathers. Giving marriage this important social function would bring us back a lot of sanity. Single moms get nothing, and neither do single fathers (if you’re not married to the mother, you’re really not the kid’s father…)
> you seem eager to mitigate the guilt of women who procure abortions by positing coercion
I am sorry if it seems that way. I would in no way mitigate the guilt any more than I would hold a thief innocent if they stole to keep from starving. Both are wrong, period.
But ignoring the fact that most people really are idiots, including women, and do not always know their options can create a huge hole in responsibility. I am convinced abortion is far more of a problem than just killing the mother who did that would solve, for example. We have to deal with all parties playing a role and will only then change it.
I suspect many have very hard hearts and don’t see abortion as worse than stealing the $5 you mentioned. That is horrid, but it is what it is. My own step mother (a professed Christian) said she would have an abortion if she was raped and got pregnant. That floored me because it showed so little value for life in one who seemed to have proper values otherwise. Though she was a strong enough feminist that it was not as shocking as it could be. I have been wondering if she might even have had her own abortions if she got pregnant as she did not want any children with my dad. I will never know that on this earth though.
BrainyOne,
I was not referring to a child, though it could apply to that as well. I am thinking more of someone in their late teens or early 20s that had little idea how life really works and were in a situation where they thought someone was their only support. It may not be true, but perception is always more important than reality in life.
We probably really aren’t that far apart Lyn87, which is why it makes me laugh when people here call me a white knight. Few of those really read what I post. Some may be my lack of communication, but being “soft and tender” is generally not one of my big problems. Being too blunt and considering more than I should are often a challenge at times.
> “you are either a white knight (rushing in to save the “damsels in distress” whose “distress” was mostly caused by everyone else), a pedestalizer (since No True Morally Pure Woman would ever want to kill her child, it must be society driving her to it), or one who really doesn’t believe abortion is murder to begin with”
Where did I ever say that or the other straw men you raised? I said it is more than just the woman’s responsibility for the pressure to do that. Perhaps you need to stop projecting so much.
====
I am having trouble finding the original statement that started me down this path, but I recall that being along the lines of “it is only because of the woman” that we have abortion. That is much too myopic and ignore the elephant in the room that is support for murdering children that those who benefit from such, including men and even parents, get from the current situation.
greyghost,
> BradA wants to believe as he speaks so for all of his stances on Christian faith he has wiped it out with the original sin of pleasing a woman over all else.
Where did I say that? Please back up your assertion.
IBB,
He was an idiot if he slammed all SAHMs. They were idiots for their little campaign, but it may be that he really is an idiot as well.
AR, men may have invented things, but most did so for more than just the vague idea of “civilization”. I did add a qualifier to socialization, just as we should to civilization. The Aztec had a civilization, but it had HUGE flaws. So did Ghengis Kahn for that matter.
God made a man and a woman, not just one or the other. Cutting either out of the plan is idiotic, but go ahead and believe that if you wish.
> men create civilization, and women socialize children to that civilization.
Though you seem to be taking both sides now. That socialization couldn’t happen without the civilization, nor could the civilization without that socialization of the next generation. Argue which was the prime mover, though I doubt that is really as clear as some might think, but both are needed.
One of the reasons for our current problems is because we stopped that socialization and replaced it with a different one, which goes back to my original point that it is the societal structure that is the most important.
> Do you understand, now?
I believe I always did. I just disagree with your complete separation. They are more gears on a cog rather than different things.
====
> Civilization does not equal good sanitation.
I will stand behind this statement, though perhaps rewording it is better:
Good sanitation may be necessary, but it is not sufficient for a civilization. Many other factors are required for a good civilization. I would tend to argue that the rule of law is a key one, but that could be a debatable issue and I would have to think about that more. I do think that is necessary (at some level) for a prosperous civilization.
IBB,
> Their moms did not tell them what your mom told you.
What exactly did my mom tell me? I don’t recall discussing that here. She had her flaws, as did my father, but I took what I wanted and ignored other things as has been my bent since I was a young child. I have steered away from many things as I went through my own time of getting some of what my father surely got, but I remain married and reasonably happily so now.
Or are you just trying to pile on as you have in the past?
jf12,
Or Someone really did just create an attractive feature….
Clearly this thread needs these links:
And this:
Ok, I know I should stop now:
One more
@el, given my blind spot, what are the male consumer items “that would increase their sexual attractiveness to women”? I’ve got some money burning a hole in my pocket.
re: “It helps to look at our sexual behaviors / characteristics from the POV of supporting the survival of our species — i.e., creation, protection and nurture of our young — since this is the reason for sex in the first place.”
Yes, that’s why I asked your help. I’m trying to do that, and drawing a blank on the nurturing purpose of proto-human females developing permanent state of pretending lactation. But I’m drawing a non-blank on visualizing a different purpose – nonlactaters *needing* to look like they are lactating. I don’t think I’m drifting into spherical cow territtory with this simplification.
@Anonymous72 re: “the advantages of big boobs”.
Yes, the ol’ “it’s like a rear end, only backwards”. I consider myself to already have thoroughly discredited that entire train of thought by my single throwaway disparagement of it.
@BradA:
Maybe this is the crux of our disagreement right here. If you don’t think circumstantial factors can either mitigate or aggravate guilt then you are at odds both with Christian moral theology and with a basic tenet in our legal system. A woman truly coerced into abortion (say a 16-year-old whose parents threaten to throw her out on the street) is much less guilty than one who makes a truly free choice (e.g. a woman who doesn’t want a child to interfere with her career or her boyfriend threatened to dump her, even though white knights will try to say she was also “coerced”.) Someone truly on the verge of starvation may, in fact, take the basic necessities of life from someone else without the moral guilt of being a thief. He does have the future obligation to repay the owner when and if able. That is because “theft” is the appropriation of property against the reasonable will of the owner.
BrainyOne beat me to it. With this statement, “I would in no way mitigate the guilt (of a woman who murdered her child for the sake of convenience) any more than I would hold a thief innocent if they stole to keep from starving. Both are wrong, period,” BradA has staked out a position that is at odds with 34 centuries of Judea-Christianity. His last sentence is correct in the most technical sense – theft and murder are both wrong – but to posit equality between stealing just enough food to prevent a horrible death by starvation and tearing a living child apart with metal instruments so the mother looks better in a mini-dress, is…
… actually, I have no words for that.
Of course starving in not a voluntary condition, while pregnancy usually is (bit of a difference there). To equate the two is to pretend that pregnancy is something that “just happens” to women without their volition. The idea that women are “acted upon” whenever something bad happens, rather than adults with free will, is a very feminist and/or white-knight position. BradA will certain deny this, claiming that he has said that he considers these women to be wrong, but as a practical matter he treats them as if their underlying condition was forced upon them rather than one they acquired due to their own choices, and that the trivial pressures pregnant women face mitigated their guilt in committing one of the most serious crimes imaginable – murder-by-mutilation of a helpless innocent in their care.
The Bible highlights at least four cases of people who were not criticized (and in one case they were actually praised) for doing something that was forbidden to prevent something worse: the Hebrew midwives chose to lie to Pharaoh rather than commit murder (Exodus 1), David ate consecrated bread rather than go hungry (1 Samuel 21), Jesus and his disciples did the same (Matthew 12), and the apostles in Acts chose to disobey the civil authorities rather than stop preaching (Acts 5). I will add that neither David, not Jesus and the disciples, were apparently starving – they were hungry. Yet BradA has declared that premeditated murder for no reason at all is no worse than stealing a sandwich to prevent a horrible death.
Again… loss for words here.
I couldn’t find a contact email for our host, so I’ll post this here. This has been making the rounds on Facebook, and even though I’m just a lurker and occasional commenter here (and still learning a lot from our host and the commenters), this particular link really struck me as to how one-sided it is:
http://socialmeems.com/2014/06/03/beautiful-advice-from-a-divorced-man-after-16-years-of-marriage/?COLLCC=3617494598&COLLCC=3614838067
Any thoughts?
[D: Welcome. I commented on that article in this post.]
@Empath
Help me understand your disagreement. Are you asserting that the conservative view hasn’t drifted over time, or that it has drifted but that there is a different mechanism in play than a simple drift?
Sorry Dalrock, didn’t see that. Thanks!
BradA
AR, men may have invented things,
No. Look around you, at your computer, at the lights over head, at the chair upon which you sit, and everything that supports it from the remote power generating station and the extensive electrical distribution infrastructure that brings it to your desk, to the system of paved roads that enables line crews to service the electrical mains, to the oil fields, pipelines, refineries and distribution systems that enable the line crews trucks to roll…all of it, all of it was invented and developed and put into use by men. All of it.
Again I challenge you, show me an industrial civilization built by women (you cannot do so, and therefore you will not even attempt to meet the challenge, but rather you will delete this challenge and childishly pretend it was never issued. That is your modus operandi, BradA, to avoid any hard questions that might undermine the pedestal you obviously put women upon).
but most did so for more than just the vague idea of “civilization”. I did add a qualifier to socialization, just as we should to civilization.
Nonsense. You continue to insist that socialization and civilization are the same thing, when clearly they are not, and therefore you cling to the mangina/feminist position that women civilize men. They. Do. Not.
The Aztec had a civilization, but it had HUGE flaws. So did Ghengis Kahn for that matter.
Red herring.
God made a man and a woman, not just one or the other.
In your scheme, woman was made superior to man, and therefore men are to obey women.
Cutting either out of the plan is idiotic, but go ahead and believe that if you wish.
Strawman. It is you who wish to denegrate men and exalt women into goddesses.
> men create civilization, and women socialize children to that civilization.
Though you seem to be taking both sides now.
No. My position is exactly the same as it was from the start.
That socialization couldn’t happen without the civilization,
NO, as I pointed out and you deleted, women will socialize their children to whatever norms are extant. If the norms are to use the extensive sewage system, i.e. “the toilet”, that is what they will do. On the other hand, if the norms are those of a matriarchal grass-hut society, then women will socialize children to those norms, i.e. “walk five paces away from the hut before you defecate”.
Women will socialize other women and children, it is in their nature. The question is, to what norms? And that leads us to men, and to civilization.
nor could the civilization without that socialization of the next generation.
Socialization is simply adhering to norms. Those norms could be pretty ugly, as parts of the third world and now the US clearly demonstrate.
Argue which was the prime mover, though I doubt that is really as clear as some might think, but both are needed.
The prime mover in socializtion is women, herding other women and children.
The prime mover in civilization is men, establishing norms for women.
You can’t admit this, therefore you reject the idea that men should lead women, therefore you are an equalitarian. You are either a feminist or a mangina, and you want women to lead men.
One of the reasons for our current problems is because we stopped that socialization and replaced it with a different one, which goes back to my original point that it is the societal structure that is the most important.
One of the reasons for our current problems is that, folllowing the desires of pedestalizing manginas like you, we took authority away from men and gave it to women. But we insisted that men were still responsible for the outcome.
> Do you understand, now?
I believe I always did.
Clearly you believe all manner of false things.
I just disagree with your complete separation.
You do not understand, obviously. There is no complete separation, rather there are two complimentary roles: men civilize via establishment of social norms, women socialize by teaching / enforcing those norms to other women and to children. You reject that notion, apparently it offends your belief that women are superior to men.
They are more gears on a cog rather than different things.
So? That’s not what you’ve been claiming, you’ve been claiming that men and women are interchangeable cogs in the machine of civilziation, a feminist position.
Give up your pedestal, BradA, it is a bad thing.
The words “Conservative” and “Liberal” were invented in Spain during the XIX century and they have retained their meaning since then.
Liberal -> The most radical elements of Modernity (ideology born from the Enlightnement and the French Revolution). The vanguard of Modernity.
Conservative -> The most moderate elements of Modernity. The rearguard of Modernity. (Back and then)
Reactionary -> The ones that reject Modernity.
The story of the last two centuries is the story of the logical development of the ideas of Modernity. This has been slow because the society has its own inertia and attitudes of the Ancien Regime were lingering. For example, if you believe in equality of all men, gay marriage will eventually arrive, even if it takes some centuries. If it has not arrived before, it was because society still haven’t accepted the ideas of Modernity ideas fully.
This is why the Overton window always move to the left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window). If you accept the ideas of Modernity (liberty, equality, a secular society), the logical development if these ideas will take you to the left more and more. This is why both Liberals and Conservatives move to the Left, and today’s Conservative ideas are yesterday’s Liberal ideas.
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man.
Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Maintaining the frame of the pedestal. Will always lead to doom. No matter how biblical you speak it will come through and kill your arguments.
Civilization is more than the “things” it is the ideas and philosophy that goes with seeing the need for technical advance. The concepts of right and wrong and long term sustainability and survival. The idea of all individuals seeking and enjoying happiness as a foundation of a civil society was men building a nation. Civilization and order would exist if no women at all were present.
The failings in civilization are ………. when those same types of men start using their abilities and talents to please women. We have the madness we have today feminism, socialism, debt from a welfare state designed to insulate women from the consequences of personal decisions made.
Even women themselves gina tingle for men that don’t pedestal them. (imagine that) Make sure Christian men never know this lest they become PUA, pimps and players (dumb)
Brad,
He didn’t slam all SAHMs. I think he might have slammed all SAHWs. Basically his opinion was that if she is NOT a mom (or perhaps her kids are all grown and out of the house) and she stays home all day…. what-the-f-ck is she doing? I mean its really none of his business if she doesn’t want to do anything but at the same time, it was only his opinion on the matter.
Lyn87 and BrainyOne,
One minute you are chastising me for not holding the woman accountable enough for abortion and the next you are saying I need to mitigate her responsibility? Do you really like changing the goalposts so frequently?
Murder is murder, period. I may understand why someone committed it and I may even let that mitigate what consequence I would personally enforce, but I would not ever try to mitigate the fact it was murder.
But argue with the straw man if you want to do so.
Lyn87,
> Yet BradA has declared that premeditated murder for no reason at all is no worse than stealing a sandwich to prevent a horrible death.
Please quote where I said that or retract it. I will admit I stated things poorly if you can find an accurate quote as that is not what I am attempting to say. Though I find this method of discussion to be very dishonest when you have to shove words into my mouth to make your point and not deal with what I have written.
AR,
> That is your modus operandi, BradA, to avoid any hard questions that might undermine the pedestal you obviously put women upon
Please validate that as well. What “hard question” have I avoided? A specific inventory may make a specific invention (though it is often a bunch of them doing the same at the nearly the same time, with a single one getting credit), but they don’t do so in a vacuum. Other factors, including stable families, play a role in setting the environment for such breakthroughs happening and then spreading through society.
Or are you claiming women are nothing in life other than breeding stock?
> Nonsense. You continue to insist that socialization and civilization are the same thing
Which part of “both gears on the same cog” did you not grasp. They are not the same, but both are required parts. Which part of that is so hard for you to understand? Or are you really claiming you can have a strong civilization without a strong social order?
> In your scheme, woman was made superior to man, and therefore men are to obey women.
Why do you keep making things up? I never said that, though perhaps you are projecting again. Or you can’t help making up straw men. I do not believe that. A specific woman was made to be a specific helpmeet to a specific man and that is God’s proper order of things. Exactly where does that place women as superior to men? Where does it claim that women are superior other than in your own paranoid mind?
> In your scheme, woman was made superior to man, and therefore men are to obey women.
Funny that you accuse me of raising a strawman when you have done so. Though perhaps that is your projection showing through.
> Give up your pedestal, BradA, it is a bad thing.
The strawman (strawmen?) you make are bad, but that is not what I believe nor have said. You clearly don’t read what I write if you believe I am pedestalizing anyone.
@BradA,
“My own step mother (a professed Christian) said she would have an abortion if she was raped and got pregnant. That floored me because it showed so little value for life in one who seemed to have proper values otherwise. Though she was a strong enough feminist that it was not as shocking as it could be. I have been wondering if she might even have had her own abortions if she got pregnant as she did not want any children with my dad.”
How old were they when they married?
Was your dad divorced or widowed from his first wife?
Why did your dad marry this woman?
IBB I get what you were saying It is really strange to me to see you have to explain neighborhood SAHM to men here.
Ah IBB, I didn’t see the difference between SAHM and SAHW. I find many in the red pill sphere making sweeping generalizations that were not true and I read that as saying something it was almost certainly not saying.
My wife wasn’t perfect, but she did a lot in our division of labor decision to have her stay at home. She is working now as we can use the money and she has little reason to be at home 24×7. I would be content with even that if she added enough value that I could make more, for example, since my income is a lot more lucrative, but that is not likely to happen since she doesn’t have the strong domestic drive some have, nor do those on your block you mention seem to have that either.
I should have noted that my wife was at home and homeschooling our children when they were in the house.
Bee, my mom divorced my dad when I was about 12, largely because she wasn’t happy. (He was cheating outside at the time per his own confession since then, but she did not know that.)
My stepmother married my dad several years after this. Though she did not like it when he went from worldly sinner to passionate Christian. (He was always passionate about things for a time, but he got reborn during their marriage.) I think he was about 35 or so when they are married and she was 30 or so. She was 7 years younger than he was IIRC. She was prettier than my mom, but similar in thoughts, views and such.
She ended up filing for divorce years later when he decided to go into full time ministry, something he had wanted to do for a long while. She cared about him, even to the end. He died of prostrate cancer long after they were divorced and around 15 years ago, as she helped with some of his funeral costs and saw during the time near his death. I stayed with her at the time as well.
Really sad and shows me the power of feminism to mess up even a Christian. I greatly appreciate some good things she did, but find her leaving my dad as completely unacceptable for a Christian. We have contact twice a year in general (Christmas and my birthday) with the former possibly being a phone call, though mostly with my wife. We are unlikely to ever be closer.
BradA said
Bee, my mom divorced my dad when I was about 12, largely because she wasn’t happy. (He was cheating outside at the time per his own confession since then, but she did not know that.)
Brad, I wonder if your dad’s “straying” was the direct result of your mother’s “unhaaaaaaaappiness,” which manifested itself in her denying him sex (you don’t have to confirm or deny this; I’m just thinking out loud). This is the one thing that more often than anything else leads otherwise faithful men to cheat on their wives.
BradA Says,
Lyn87 and BrainyOne,
One minute you are chastising me for not holding the woman accountable enough for abortion and the next you are saying I need to mitigate her responsibility? Do you really like changing the goalposts so frequently?
I did not move the goalpost one iota. I never said that you need to mitigate her responsibility. At all. Not even once. I’m not sure who you’re arguing against, but it isn’t me.
I’m glad you’re willing to admit that along with the rest of us. Congratulations on not being a monster.
I’m not arguing against a straw man: I’m arguing against what you wrote. In case your memory needs refreshing, these are your exact words [Emphasis added], “I would in no way mitigate the guilt any more than I would hold a thief innocent if they stole to keep from starving.”
Even God excused hungry people eating bread that was not theirs to eat (Exodus 1 and Acts 12, as noted above), so clearly it is not a big deal. Even under the Levitical Law, when the guy stole bread for his hunger he wasn’t really punished – he just had to pay it back “with interest” when he could.
In that quote, in your own words, you equated the guilt associated with a hungry man stealing bread with the guilt of murdering a child if the mother was slightly pressured (no significant pressure is ever brought to bear). Those are your words – if you wish to retract them, go ahead. If your words do not convey your thoughts accurately, then amend them. But do not pretend that I am arguing against anything that you did not write in plain English. which bring me to this…
As I have shown, I have no need to retract it, since I was responding to the direct quote I reproduced above. It was you who equated the guilt of stealing food to stave off starvation with the guilt of murdering a child for some trivial reason. Again, if the words you typed do not accurately convey your thoughts, fine – it happens to all of us – you should amend them rather than accusing me and others of moving goalposts or fighting straw men.
@BradA,
Sad story.
Glad your marriage has been better (has perservered without divorce).
@IBB
“”At our block party he went on the record to tell the wrong neighbor that he would NEVER get married because he has too many assets to lose now (too many things that she could take from him unilaterally in divorce proceedings)””
WOW!….I am late to this thread.I know exactly how this guy feels.I live on a cul-du-sac.I am the only ‘single man’ on the block.When we have a “block party” as we did last weekend July 1rst(Your July 4th)….I went,but,I would have rather stayed home.I am known to the wives as the “The woman hating Jew”…L*.The irony is that the husbands cannot wait to come over to my house to see me and have a beer.When they see me,usually washing and waxing one of my babies,they run over to hang out in my driveway,and it is not to drink my beer.It is to get away from their “ol’ladies”.I know this as they have told me this many times.I have been asked by the wives(and friends of the wives) many times…”How come you are not married”?….My reply…”do I look like I need to get ripped off for half of everything that I have worked for”?……The other thing that the husbands have confided to me is that “we cannot afford to live in this neighborhood”…..I have been living in this hood for about 20 years.My house was a gift from my father upon graduation from the U of T. When I move into the hood the house prices were about 300K….now they are well over 1Million.The husbands have admitted to me more than once that they cannot afford to live here…..but their wives insist that they “keep up with the Jones’s”…it is absurd!.I know what their mortgage payments are,taxes,utilities..etc…..these guys are living ‘hand to mouth’ all because of their wives….and they are good solid hard working men that I have the utmost respect for.I feel sorry for these guys.If they got rid of these “leeches” they would have the world by the ass….and then some!!!!
@Dalrock & all the American Posters:
Have yourselves a great Independence Day weekend!
re: ” she doesn’t have the strong domestic drive some have”
Some *supposedly* have. I’ve never met one irl that actually did have.
jf12 says:
“@el, given my blind spot, what are the male consumer items “that would increase their sexual attractiveness to women”? I’ve got some money burning a hole in my pocket.”
I’d say save that money, or go on a nice vacation with your wife.
“Yes, that’s why I asked your help. I’m trying to do that, and drawing a blank on the nurturing purpose of proto-human females developing permanent state of pretending lactation. But I’m drawing a non-blank on visualizing a different purpose – nonlactaters *needing* to look like they are lactating. I don’t think I’m drifting into spherical cow territtory with this simplification.”
I don’t follow. One cannot “pretend” lactation. The “tell” of lactation, for observers, are wet stains caused on clothing by leaking breasts (if we must be so graphically specific). That’s why nursing mothers wear special pads in their bras to prevent that from happening. Women who do not lactate do not look as though they do.
@el, “Women who do not lactate do not look as though they do.”
Actually yes, humans are the only ones whose females do *look* like they have milk-swollen teats when they do not. Milk leaking is another thing entirely, and, having rubbed, er, shoulders with women all my life I happen to know that leaking is not inevitable. One good friend who was rather nonchalant about breastfeeding her daughter all the time whenever, had what one might call extremely competent nipples and did not even wear a bra at age 37.
Anyway, that’s why I specified strange men doing quick once-overs. A familiar man would know whether she was lactating, and a determined man doing a slower more thorough inspection would easily get milk out or not. Hence, it follows that women’s deceptively swollen breasts cannot be designed to deceive familiar men. Q.E.D.
@el, anyway from the standpoint of nurturing a baby, what would be the nurturing purpose of a (young, btw, maybe important caveat) *looking* like she could give milk when she could not?
I’ve alrindicated I’m leaning to a sexual purpose so so looking, for which I think such deception can help in various ways, rather than nurturing purpose. I can think why decpetion helps nurturing but maybe you can think of something I can’t.
Well that was a typing fail. I forgot my main point in the followup comment: If we don’t think that deceptively milk-swollen teats are that way to deceive babies, then the remaining relevant possibilities are to deceive strange men or strange women. The strange women explanation falls short to me, so I don’t feel like running with that ball.
The strange man concept is pretty easy to describe. After rapacious invaders kill all the males and babies in a village, the fertile (and soon-to-be fertile) females are herded together (important for this concept), and then doled out. I can think of several ways in which it would pay for a young female, probably virginal if not already having given birth, to blend in with the crowd of other females who had already given birth.
I am even more confuseder now (and that’s apart from trying to absorb the enticing vision of human relationships you paint here). Your use of the word deception suggests that you believe there is a conspiracy afoot, or abreast, as it were. Are you saying that women can make their breasts look swollen, as if lactating? And that the purpose of this deception would be to avoid sex — or to attract it?
No, women cannot make their breasts look swollen (and we are not talking implants or push-up bras, etc.) or lactating. Women’s breasts swell naturally pre-menstruation, sometimes during ovulation, and during pregnancy and post, when nursing. The monthly (non-pregnant) changes in breast tissue are related to natural fluctuations of hormones and they have nothing to do with lactation. It is abnormal for a woman who is not pregnant or nursing to lactate. If that happens, she should see her doctor ASAP. It can be a possible result of medications she takes, but it could also signal a much more serious issue, like a pituitary tumor, for example.
So, to repeat, women cannot make their breasts look swollen at will (or even subconsciously), much less lactate. There is no conspiracy going on, not even of the unconscious biological kind (if that’s what you were suggesting, and I’m not sure of that). There is nothing deceptive about the natural (and sometimes not, as in the case of hormonal and other disorders) changes in breast tissue — i.e., nothing to do with the hidden sexually-related purpose.
I wrote:
> That is your modus operandi, BradA, to avoid any hard questions that might undermine the pedestal you obviously put women upon
BradA
Please validate that as well. What “hard question” have I avoided?
For the third time, show me an industrial civilization built from the ground up by women.
I’m beginning to think you are just another tradcon troll, here to waste men’s time and energy. But I could be wrong. We’ll see, by your own words, what you are.
BradA, this is the statement you made that is wrong:
Women can be a civilizing force if and only if society reinforces that role.
I’ve pointed out multiple times why that is wrong, and you keep moving the goalposts, ignoring facts, refusting to deal with simple questions.
Women are not a civilizing force. They are a socializing one.
Dalrock should thank you for providing a clear example of what he was writing about in the OP: the marriage of feminism and conservatism.
Having re-read my last post to BradA, I realized that I did not state my point very clearly, and the quote I used did not support my thesis as well as a couple of others I might have chosen. For clarification, I went back and re-looked at what he wrote up-thread to find the relevant quotes. Looking at them all in the context of the duration of this discussion, I realized that I over-stated my case by focusing on a relatively small area of disagreement.
@ Brad,
I withdraw my objection – I’m still not 100% on board with you, but looking at the context of the entirety of the thread, I see now that our differences in this matter are too trivial to fret over. Apologies for making a mountain out of a molehill.
@el, deceptively swollen doesn’t imply intent. Think like a lizard for a change. Like a frilled lizard whose frill deploys to make it look deceptively bigger without intent; it just happens.
The uniqueness of human females’ unwillfully swollen breasts requires some kind of explanation. The simplest explanation is that they are swollen in order to appear like there is some *reason* for them to be swollen.
So, what do you say that reason is?
I can confine my rage to master, in part by dealing with things like ancient evolutionary history so it is imposible for me to perform experiments, and in part by asking for help. And it’s fun to speculate about stuff, but you have to really try.
Dear Mark:
There’s an old Bill Maher skit, comparing contented bachelors with runaway slaves, who appear at the border of the plantation, to talk over the fence to those still in bondage. Sorta crude, but very accurate in my experience. Married wimminz *hate* for unleashed rascals, like us, to be hanging out with their husbands.
Best,
Boxer
CAF:
Marriage Reservations
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=894225
Sexual Abstinence Concerns; Marriage, Sex
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=894201
I watched a teenage show with my niece
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=894194
—
BEL usually disappears when proven wrong, by the way.
@jf12
The simplest reason women’s breasts are “swollen” — and I think I finally understand that by “swollen” you mean roundish (more or less) and protruding, which is a standard secondary sexual characteristic in our species, rather than unnaturally enlarged in individual women for whatever reason — is that this kind of shape makes it easier for an infant to latch on.
There is an almost perfect match between the shape of a mother’s breast and that of her infant’s face (mouth and cheeks). The breasts’ placement in humans also facilitates eye contact and reading facial expressions, thus fostering emotional bonding and communication between mother and child.
Breasts are made for babies, first and foremost. Their appeal to men is a bonus, perhaps because they signal sexual maturity.
Does that help answer your question(s)?
@Anonymous Reader
Case in point:
http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html
Patriarchy the male invention and the engine of civilization. Couple that with agriculture and civilization begins in the fertile cresent.
Married wimminz *hate* for unleashed rascals, like us, to be hanging out with their husbands.
Yup.
I’m sure I probably don’t need to tell anyone how wives react when the sexual script is flipped and husbands make it known that they are less than thrilled at the amount of time their wives spend with their single, immature, slutty, “whispering” girlfriends.
Boxer says:
Married wimminz *hate* for unleashed rascals, like us, to be hanging out with their husbands.
Married women make about 80% of purchasing decisions. Although men earn more money, their wives spend it. After years of observation I think the explanation of this is simple – women hate their husbands to spend their own money on anyone except their wives. They want to control every penny. So they don’t want their husbands hanging out with *any* of their friends. Especially if any significant expense is involved. They always demand that they do things together, that is, they do things she likes, such as shopping. Ideally the husband is working, doing chores or sleeping. Not wasting what she sees as her money.
Speaking to men who have the time and money to do whatever they want to is a serious no-no.
Western men have become the most pathetic and hen pecked in the world. Where they are begging for a “man cave”, usually a shed, in a house they paid for on land they bought.
The shape of the human head evolved for speech. Note the protruding mouth of the chimpanzee in the picture:
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/2322/20130607/human-chimpanzee-babies-show-similar-gestures.htm
Women have prominent breasts, unlike female chimpanzees, so that while an infant suckles, it can breathe through the nose without being suffocated.
Interesting. Why do men prefer conical breasts over “Pluto’s ears” floppy ones? Both shapes prevent suffocating the infant.
@el, no, that doesn’t help because I’m specifically talking about the unusual fact of swollenness without milk. I can see that you don’t want to address that fact, which makes me feel sad.
Women have prominent breasts, unlike female chimpanzees, so that while an infant suckles, it can breathe through the nose without being suffocated.
I don’t know but Desmond Morris, in “The Naked Ape” claims otherwise. He says that human breasts are designed for sexual attraction not for usefulness to the infant. When you have something useful for breast feeding, you end up with the breast of a monkey. In fact, baby bottles are designed to imitate monkey’s breasts and not human breasts. Or so Desmond Morris says.
@jf12
And I can see that you want me to say something I didn’t — but I don’t even know what it is! It sounds as though you want me to agree with your hypothesis, but, as I said, I don’t understand it. You’ve brought up this particular issue from another discussion, to which I am not privy, and, additionally, related it to “rapey” behavior of our “proto-ancestors,” a correlation that’s also unclear to me, but, I assume, must have had some relevance to that other discussion and probably provides the context that’s unclear to me.
But anyway, to recap (what I seem to glean from following your train of thought), you believe that the round shape of women’s breasts is designed to “fool” men somehow (that deception you mentioned) — is that correct? Since you related it to lactation*, which suppresses ovulation, is the purpose of that deception, as you see it, to make men believe that a woman is temporarily infertile? If so, would that lead to a greater desire engage in sex on the part of the man, or to avoid it, in your hypothesis?
I would have to understand what you are saying first to see whether I agree with it or not, but I still don’t. So instead of getting sad, spell it out for the glorious make-benefit of the dense.
*It has to be pointed out (possible pun notwithstanding) that non-lactating normal woman’s breasts look very different from lactating ones. Roughly speaking (in both senses of the phrase), think about the difference between a flaccid and erect penis. Non-lactating breasts, even if as round as they may naturally get, are soft, squishy, and always have some gravity-induced sag in their bra-less state, even when young and firm; while the lactating ones are visibly engorged and hard (and painful), seeming — correctly — ready to burst.
The large cruder implants — a demand apparently driven by men’s preferences, a fact which would possibly support your thinking (if I understand it) — approximate that look to some extent; but natural non-lactating breasts, if not squeezed into super-duper support and/or push-up bras throwing them in your face, look very different and are difficult to mistake for the lactating ones (for those who know what’s what).
@el re: “look very different and are difficult to mistake”. No, they don’t. Individual variation is too large so a quick glance by a strange man will be unable to assess the lactation state of an individual breast. Only a before/after comparison e.g. by a familiar person could *visually* assess with any degree of reliable discrimination.
re: “spell it out”
I did. I think the evo reason for a *young* woman to naturally develop such fakery is to make it difficult for *someone* to reliably discriminate her lactation state. There is no point going any further in the speculation train if you going to deny the obvious: human females are the *only* ones who develop large breasts naturally without actually lactating. And the tendency is so very strongly embedded that human males will also develop fake non-lactating breasts when given female hormones. No other primates’ bodies behave like this.
I agree that there is no point to continue this, as we seem to disagree on the basics (and you refuse to specify your hypothesis re: how this lactation “fakery” affects male sexual behavior — which you seem to insist that it does, but do not say how).
So let’s just leave it at that.
@el re: “we seem to disagree on the basics”
We can’t *actually* disagree about the fact that human females are the only ones who develop large breasts naturally without actually lactating since that is an observed truth. So, what you are doing is *seeming* to disagree with it anyway because you’re suspicious of where it might lead.
I already gave my speculation: that the evo reason for a *young* nonmaternal female to develop was to blend in with the females who already had been mothers. Apparently, reasoning backwards fallaciously here but I got nothing else to go on, it’s because her failure to blend in decreased her survival. It’s possible but not as likely that the other females would have murdered her for not blending in. It’s more likely, I think, that the males caused her decreased survival.
The Querl Xoralundra says:
July 4, 2014 at 3:36 am
>>Western men have become the most pathetic and hen pecked in the world. Where they are begging for a “man cave”, usually a shed, in a house they paid for on land they bought.
Exactly! The first time I spoke out to a group of people was at work around 1970 or so. There was a discussion on the MSM about who was the head of the family. Most men and women I worked with insisted the man was.
I told my fellow men workers at coffee break that when I came to visit them, the first thing they would show me the beautiful living room with thousands of 2014 dollars in carpet; drapes; and furniture.
Then, the beautiful kitchen with thousands of 2014 dollars in cabinets and sinks and appliances.
Then, the bedrooms with thousands of 2014 dollars in carpet; drapes; and beds.
Then, they would tell me, “Um, lets go down to my workshop.”
And, we’d go down the bare stairs, pass the washer and drier and smelly furnace and leaky water pipes.
And, the work table would be made of pieces of lumber extracted from the neighbor’s garbage. The stools would be busted up chairs with pieces of wood screwed on for missing legs.
The oscilloscope looked like it was salvaged from the ARIZONA or something like that. Ditto for the voltmeter.
And, to run the oscilloscope, one had to unplug the meter first.
And, then they announce publicly they are the head of their family???? You cannot make up stuff like this!
Well-needed post Dalrock. It just doesn’t get any more simpler than that: BIBLICAL MARRIAGE is needed to be FOLLOWED and OBEYED UNDER GOD’S LAW.
feeriker,
> Brad, I wonder if your dad’s “straying” was the direct result of your mother’s “unhaaaaaaaappiness,” which manifested itself in her denying him sex (you don’t have to confirm or deny this; I’m just thinking out loud).
I suspect the very same thing. I would not hold my dad blameless in that situation, but I am almost certain her behavior added to the problem. She had a rough relationship with her own father as she was the oldest and he wanted a son, so she had/has big daddy issues. Her father died when I was young, so I know very little about him directly.
I think my mom cause herself far more trouble than she realized, though she didn’t get the “cash and prizes” part, just the divorce. My father was still around, though he never knew how to be a good father either, so we had a bumpy relationship even though I faithfully saw him almost every other weekend until I was an adult. I have gone through some similar things he did (I believe) so I think I understand some of what he experienced.
He was fairly blue pill, though a more natural alpha in many ways. I was stuck on restoration with my step mother that never came. She cam by a lot when he was in the care center with prostrate cancer, but they were still apart.
I am trying to find ways to get my mother to evaluate her life to see that she caused a lot of her own pain, but I am not sure that effort is really productive now. She has provided enough that she is definitely not a burden on anyone, though I am still trying to get her to move in or near my wife and I, even though that would raise some discussions that could get quite unpleasant. I want to care for my only remaining parent (and family outside of her mother and cousins I don’t know), but she is still independent enough that she remains distant.
More than you wanted to know, but hopefully it gives context. I am sure some will use it to “explain” why I am “such a white knight” when those involved in my life would not agree in the slightest. I have been force feeding my wife the red pill for the last couple of months/years and she laughed at the idea.
Lyn87, You have not shown your point. I have been consistent in what I have presented, but whatever. Enjoy labeling me if you want.
Bee,
> Glad your marriage has been better (has perservered without divorce).
I have always been strong willed, even when I was more blue pill, so that probably kept us going. We have found a lot more feminism in my wife than we thought, in spite of her being a committed Christian for years.
I am not flawless, but my hard edge kept our family from imploding when all 4 of our adopted children (sibling group) reject us for a dysfunctional birth family when they became adults. I am also convinced it was a key factor in keeping us together in spite of a parting shot from the youngest to talk my wife into leaving.
I have a “whatever the heck you want to do, I won’t change” attitude ingrained in me. I was quite horrid when processing the pain of having 4 of my children reject me, but I am mostly over that stage now (not the pain though, unfortunately), so I am walking in a much better frame.
My wife has admitted the path I am pushing us is good, though swallowing the pill is hard. We will work it out and by God’s grace we will continue along. God has held us together for 26 years this August, so He can do so more. We have our role to play, but His help has enabled us to weather the bumps that would destroy others. Most marriages fall apart when dealing with situations like we faced with our adopted children.
Prayers that I have the wisdom to know how to proceed are greatly appreciated, especially as we try to figure out exactly what our purpose of being on this earth is. Family was high on my list, but that is effectively gone, so I have to figure out the rest.
jf12,
> Some *supposedly* have. I’ve never met one irl that actually did have.
Could be. I have heard enough stories of grandparents and farther back that had the proper focus here to know it is possible, if not likely now. My grandmother could cook, for example.
AR,
> For the third time, show me an industrial civilization built from the ground up by women.
I never made that claim, show I will not validate it.
I merely say that women are a key part of building a civilization, not that they are the prime movers. What industrial civilization has been built without strong input from women (likely indirect)?
You are telling me that a clock can run with missing gear teeth. Nope. It needs all the teeth to run properly. The shaft may be the productive men, but the gear teeth are the softer factors and are also required. The gear shaft can spin all it wants without the proper structure to transfer that action to valuable output.
You are arguing against points I didn’t make.
AR,
I said:
> Women can be a civilizing force if and only if society reinforces that role.
You noted:
> Dalrock should thank you for providing a clear example of what he was writing about in the OP: the marriage of feminism and conservatism.
I will let Dalrock tell me if I am an example of what he posits. He is capable of saying what he wants.
> Women are not a civilizing force. They are a socializing one.
I continue to argue that your distinction is irrelevant. They are not two different things. Building a sewage system is a necessary part of a modern society, but it does not civilize in and of itself.
Can you have a civilization without a strong social underpinning?
Lyn87,
> I withdraw my objection – I’m still not 100% on board with you, but looking at the context of the entirety of the thread, I see now that our differences in this matter are too trivial to fret over. Apologies for making a mountain out of a molehill.
No problem. I am so glad I would never do that myself…. /humor
That would be one of my challenges, not arguing a point into the ground. Hit that dead horse a few more times!
AR,
I think the only thing worth discussing at this point is the final question: Can you have a civilization without a strong social underpinning?
Believe what you want about me otherwise.
el,
> Breasts are made for babies, first and foremost. Their appeal to men is a bonus, perhaps because they signal sexual maturity.
Can’t something have multiple functions? This probably depends on whether you think they somehow evolved of ages or they were rather a product of a smart designer. I will go for the latter. The things we use today can have multiple purposes, including a nice appearance. Why not something made by a smart Creator?
General comment:
I am fully onboard with the idea that men are the ones who make the breakthroughs in science, engineering, etc. (for most of the cases at least). I believe God made society to be a certain way and going against that is idiotic. I just cannot buy the idea that women are useless cogs that only have value on the edges. That may not be exactly what anyone is arguing, but that is the context of my statements on the issue.
I do find that many in the red pill sphere are quite hostile to women and look down upon them. I can certainly see why, given what many have experienced, but I think it is being far too short sighted. Those here are like most humans in that we have what we believe and anyone that doesn’t toe the line is ___your insult here____.
A few of you could probably benefit from realizing that everyone who doesn’t follow your exact line is not your mortal enemy. I could learn how to make my point more clearly I suspect, though that is one of the reasons I participate here to help refine that skill.
Jumping to ad homenim (sp?) attacks so quickly is not very productive.
BradA says:
I merely say that women are a key part of building a civilization, not that they are the prime movers. What industrial civilization has been built without strong input from women (likely indirect)?
The problem comes with that “indirect”. We cannot measure any female input to the modern industrial world. At least not much. Windscreen wipers. Perhaps. That is it. No doubt women made the sandwiches. But the over-whelming majority of inventions and innovations in the modern world have been the work of men. In so far as we can measure it.
You are telling me that a clock can run with missing gear teeth. Nope. It needs all the teeth to run properly. The shaft may be the productive men, but the gear teeth are the softer factors and are also required. The gear shaft can spin all it wants without the proper structure to transfer that action to valuable output.
But you would have to show how the teeth work. Because clocks can run without gilt on the outside or a picture in the background or a vase of flowers in front of it. You have not shown – and to be honest you probably cannot show – that women, any women, have ever played a role of teeth.
Building a sewage system is a necessary part of a modern society, but it does not civilize in and of itself.
Goes quite a long way actually.
Can you have a civilization without a strong social underpinning?
What has that got to do with women – unless you think women are uniquely moral beings. Which is nonsense.
I just cannot buy the idea that women are useless cogs that only have value on the edges.
OK. So this is an argument from incredulity. But that is not important. What matters is your evidence. Why do you believe what you believe? What role did any woman play in the life of Sir Isaac Newton? Or Alexander Grahame Bell?
I do find that many in the red pill sphere are quite hostile to women and look down upon them. I can certainly see why, given what many have experienced, but I think it is being far too short sighted. .
I have no past to make me bitter. Nor do I respect arguments that are hidden shaming tactics. But I do have respect for the historical evidence. Which provides no basis for thinking women have done much in modern society except to provide sex, food and children.
Jumping to ad homenim (sp?) attacks so quickly is not very productive.
That I agree with. The comments here are too often boring and childish.
TQX,
Are you arguing that the only influential factors are the ones we can easily measure?
What exact role do you see women as having in civilization?
Are they only to provide:
> Which provides no basis for thinking women have done much in modern society except to provide sex, food and children.
So then they will be unnecessary if we develop artificial wombs or even just keep them in breeding groups use to produce children. They have no value raising said children and passing along values?
I said:
> Building a sewage system is a necessary part of a modern society, but it does not civilize in and of itself.
You noted:
> Goes quite a long way actually.
Then we have a great civilization now since our sewage is processed better than ever before, right? It seems like the decline is happening in spite of a good sewage system, unless you think the civilization is great now of course.
Are you really arguing that women are only useful if they are kept “barefoot and pregnant” in the kitchen, to caricature a common idea. I can see why some might think that, but I remain to be convinced, even though I refuse to pedestalize them either. They have value in the proper role, just as men do. Society must enforce roles that enforce society or we will end up in a situation like in the Book of Judges where “everyone did what is right in their own eyes” and society is a mess and in bondage.
jf12 says:
“We can’t *actually* disagree about the fact that human females are the only ones who develop large breasts naturally without actually lactating since that is an observed truth. So, what you are doing is *seeming* to disagree with it anyway because you’re suspicious of where it might lead.”
You are erroneously diving what I think, accusing me of being suspicious of whatever outcome of this discussion may be, while I have repeatedly said that I cannot yet grasp the basic premise of your argument, i.e., your hypothesis about the evolutionary purpose of this particular breast development. Your suspicions are unwarranted. Now that we / I have established common language (i.e., what you mean specifically by swollen, which is not what I would have understood it to mean), what I am trying to discern are the basics of your reasoning, without any preconceived notions of its outcome.
“I already gave my speculation: that the evo reason for a *young* nonmaternal female to develop was to blend in with the females who already had been mothers.”
The question, however, is why? Why specifically would it be beneficial for a woman to blend in this way? What dangers would this blending in help her avoid? This is where you seemed reluctant to take the next step and be specific in hypothesizing as to how those big, lactating-looking breasts help increase a woman’s survival.
“Apparently, reasoning backwards fallaciously here but I got nothing else to go on, it’s because her failure to blend in decreased her survival. It’s possible but not as likely that the other females would have murdered her for not blending in. It’s more likely, I think, that the males caused her decreased survival.”
Alright, but how? IOW, how having the lactating-looking breasts in a woman would lead males to cause her increased survival? Again, this is where a clearly stated hypothesis is needed, so we can have something to debate (and so I can understand where you’re coming from and where you’re going).
But OK, let me take a speculative stab at your so far unstated hypothesis, and see whether you agree with my interpretation of your reasoning. If I am wrong it is not because I’m operating from some pre-conceived idea as to where this debate should end, but because I’m simply trying to understand what you are saying and I may be failing at it.
Your initial statement was the following:
“Concealed ovulation is one clue that human females are evolved, assuming selection, to dodge the impregnating attentions of strange males. The fact of boobs is a second clue to the same effect: by making it difficult for strange males to quickly assess the lactation state of a group of women.”
You are saying then — and please correct me if I’m wrong — that having big, lactating-looking breasts, which suggest temporary infertility, protects women from unwanted sexual advances of men (because why bother if she is infertile) — is that right?
if so, this is an intriguing hypothesis, but without much evidence to support it. On the contrary — it appears that big breasts attract, rather than repel men. If women were to evolve those big lactating-looking breasts as a means of defense against unwanted sex, then this would constitute an epic evolutionary fail, as the effects of this particular adaptation have turned out to be exactly the opposite of those “intended” (or selected for).
Similarly with concealed ovulation, BTW: uncoupling sexual desire from this specific physiological event has had the effect of increasing the frequency of sexual activity among humans. We desire to mate much more often than our ovulationary imperative would compel us. So it appears that concealed ovulation, like big, lactating-looking breasts, leads to attracting rather than dodging the impregnating attention of strange (and not) males.
@BradA says:
“Can’t something have multiple functions?”
Yes, it can and it clearly does in this and many other cases.
Correction:
“You are erroneously *divining*”
I have no opinion of your diving skills and predilections.
“I just cannot buy the idea that women are useless cogs that only have value on the edges.”
Why not? It is similar to how Christ sees his Church. We can’t do anything for him that he cannot do better for himself, we’re largely incompetent at every spiritual discipline and then there’s our hardwired, rebellious instincts. Despite all that, Christ wants us around badly enough to pay in blood.
A lot of men would be perfectly happy with functionally useless wives if only they would be physically and emotionally appreciative. We like to be needed, wanted and trusted.
Gunner Q says:
July 4, 2014 at 10:14 pm
Why not? It is similar to how Christ sees his Church. We can’t do anything for him that he cannot do better for himself, we’re largely incompetent at every spiritual discipline and then there’s our hardwired, rebellious instincts. Despite all that, Christ wants us around badly enough to pay in blood.
A lot of men would be perfectly happy with functionally useless wives if only they would be physically and emotionally appreciative. We like to be needed, wanted and trusted.
Great thoughts Gunner, are you reformed [Calvinist]?
http://chastityproject.com/2014/07/men-purpose-one-knee/
BradA says:
July 4, 2014 at 5:04 pm
“Prayers that I have the wisdom to know how to proceed are greatly appreciated, especially as we try to figure out exactly what our purpose of being on this earth is. Family was high on my list, but that is effectively gone, so I have to figure out the rest.”
That’s a heart-wrenching story, Brad. I hope things will work out for all of you as well as it is possible (or better, God willing).
Why not? It is similar to how Christ sees his Church. We can’t do anything for him that he cannot do better for himself, we’re largely incompetent at every spiritual discipline and then there’s our hardwired, rebellious instincts. Despite all that, Christ wants us around badly enough to pay in blood.
Insightful!
I’m in the “barefoot and pregnant” camp myself. I equate the phrase with the term domestic.
A lot of men would be perfectly happy with functionally useless wives if only they would be physically and emotionally appreciative. We like to be needed, wanted and trusted.
This is certainly true for me.
“Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load.”
Without a weighted load most men would prefer to be sports cars and enjoy the twists and turns possible with better handling.
BradA
As soon as you stop denying the truth you are clearly aware of you are going to be one kick ass motha fucka especially with your Christian foundation. You are almost a stud
Not sure what truth I am not acknowledging grey ghost, but you would probably have to prove it to me more than is possible here now.
Gunner Q,
> Why not
Because it doesn’t fit with the story of how/why God made Eve for Adam.
It also doesn’t fit with the idea of Christ and the Church which marriage is directly connected to. The Church is not a “useless cog” for Christ. Neither should a wife be for her husband.
el,
Thanks, though I wouldn’t play down the thoughts you must fight off when you find out you really were a foster parent for many years in spite of purposefully not following that route. I am not stupid enough to malign the Potter because he didn’t make my clay the way I want, but that doesn’t make it easy. Still, the fact He has kept me throughout my life helps me have a more relaxed and cheerful attitude most of the time.
I believe having a family is one of the most important things a man can do in this life and I will never have that. Sucks, but living in complaining is not productive, even though it can seem easy at times.
@el, my diving skills aren’t as good as my divining. I’m glad you see where I’ve partially connected the steps in my hypothesis that concealed ovulation and non-lactating swollen breast tissue were sexually-selected for, for similar reasons. And perhaps the most fertile principle in gender asymmetry in sexual selection is the idea that of war: the reason for the sexual characteristics of one gender are that they are supposed to attack or defend against the sexual strategies of the other. Again, strategy doesn’t imply volition, but a process series towards goals. Ants have strategies, for example.
“Why specifically would it be beneficial for a woman to blend in this way? What dangers would this blending in help her avoid? This is where you seemed reluctant to take the next step and be specific in hypothesizing as to how those big, lactating-looking breasts help increase a woman’s survival.”
Exactly why I wanted your help. How does one “test” a hypothesis like this other than thinking about it and discussing it? You think differently from me so it’s like having a second brain.
Concealed ovulation is the bigger fish, and when I think about it I run into a brick wall, like I’m not supposed to think about it. Why does it help one particular ovulating woman survive to blend in with non-ovulating women, and what male strategy is concealed-ovulation countering? My reluctant answer is that concealed ovulation would have made *strange* males less likely to specially pick her, out of the group of women, for “special” sexual activities. And I think lactating-looking breasts were for the same purpose, so evidently those males (the bad guys) would have preferred an overtly ovulating and clearly non-lactating (young) female for their nefarious special purpose which decreased her survival rate.
I think that special purpose didn’t involve tossing her into a volcano to appease the gods. I think probably the violence was of a more sexual nature. But I could be wrong.
I realize this is about as crude a cartoon as anyone could make. I feel like I’m cavepainting with my own excrement. But although there are definite gaps, I think the overall picture is clear, albeit clearly ugly.
” are you reformed [Calvinist]?”
Yes but only for the last two months. My spiritual life plays like a Mad Max movie. I wander between pockets of Biblical civilization with the forces of chaos and ‘progress’ coming on my heels. Been through almost every denomination except the mainlines and the RCC. It’s not that I bring the darkness; it’s that I float on its crest because I refuse to go under.
The Calvinists seem okay so far.
Dalrock, delay in response
Both, and neither. If I read your comment correctly, you are suggesting that each generation/cohort/decade/socially-defined-period/ of conservatives wishes to conserve their coming of age type of society as the better choice. Generally, in terms of over arching all aspects of society, no, conservatives would in the main harken to some golden age when things were juuuust right. Even this is not really correct. It is one of the charges from the left used to make caricatures of conservatives. But less correct is the notion that each group has a target societal system fixed in chronology by their age.
As to drift, eh, maybe. Issue by issue, sure. Especially when it comes to the meat of the issues you deal with because without a doubt so called socons would once have vehemently opposed the marital situation of the last 50 years. That part has drifted. Same sex marriage would even be included now in some self defined conservatives world view.
It was your statement that “conservatives conserve the social order” that I took exception to. To say that conservatives seek to conserve today’s social order, that the mission is to just lock it down as it is today, is absurd. But maybe you didn’t mean that. Your statement is not so specific that I can be confident in my read. I imagine you didn’t really put that much thought into that little sentence, so I’m likely nit picking. If so, leave it.
The reality of the premise of your post is unquestionable, but still needs disclaimers lest it, by momentum transfer, help advance things that are worse.
What role did any woman play in the life of Sir Isaac Newton? Or Alexander Grahame Bell?
Maybe both had women who made them sammiches so that they could spend more time focused on their groundbreaking scientific work.
BradA
I merely say that women are a key part of building a civilization, not that they are the prime movers.
Here is what you actually said:
Women can be a civilizing force if and only if society reinforces that role.
You are clearly stating here that women can build civilization with no men at all, given the proper social setup. That’s bunk.
Or:
You are clearly stating that an all-female civilization is possible, provided that society reinforces the right roles for women. This is fully in keeping with 1970’s feminist thought – Mary Daly would be pleased with you.
In any event, if you won’t own your words, if you insist on twisting your own words rather than admit that maybe, possibly, you might be wrong, then there is no point in attempting to debate you.
What industrial civilization has been built without strong input from women (likely indirect)?
Yet another red herring. The only claim I have made in this thread is simple:
Men civilize and women socialize. YOU, BradA, are the person who made a claim that women, all by themselves, can be a “civiilzing factor”, a claim you keep running away from.
You are telling me that a clock can run with missing gear teeth.
Strawman. Show me where I made such a claim or withdraw it.
You are arguing against points I didn’t make.
Oh, the irony. I am arguing exactly against your clear words, and requesting over and over that you support those words. You keep dancing around avoiding your own words, making up strawmen to bash, and generally arguing like a feminist.
Why are you here, Brad? What’s your real motive and purpose?
BradA
I continue to argue that your distinction is irrelevant.
Then you are wrong. And since you continue to argue that women, all by themselves, can be a civilizing force, i.e. build a civilization with no aid from men at all, if they have the “right” society, you are doubly wrong.
Why are you here, Brad? What is your real purpose? Isn’t it to drag pointless No True Scotsman arguments through the comments in order to distract away from real, useful, discussion?
BradA
I think the only thing worth discussing at this point is the final question: Can you have a civilization without a strong social underpinning?
Moving the goalposts again, I see. I’ve already given the answer to this little, feminist, question multiple times. Maybe, BradA, if you ever actually attempt to read other people’s words for meaning, rather than just to find something to argue about / score points agains, you could have an adult discussion. However, that would require you to be able to admit error, and I don’t see you has having that ability at all.
One more time, for any lurkers: men civilize, women socialize. Men establish social norms, women enforce those social norms against other women, and teach them to children. BradA’s little question is thus answered. Meanwhile, his absurd claim that women can build civilization alone, if only “society” is ordered properly, is pure 1970’s feminism, the sort of thing Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin liked to shout.
BradA, think for a minute: you are peddling the same lie as two mentally ill 1970’s second stage feminism. Is that what you want to do, really?
BradA
I am fully onboard with the idea that men are the ones who make the breakthroughs in science, engineering, etc. (for most of the cases at least). I believe God made society to be a certain way and going against that is idiotic. I just cannot buy the idea that women are useless cogs that only have value on the edges.
Whether you are comfortable or not with your private strawman really doesn’t matter much.
That may not be exactly what anyone is arguing,
Since it is not what anyone is arguing, why bring it up, if you are really interested in adult discussion? On the other hand, if you are here to disrupt, then bringing up strawmen like that makes perfect sense.
Now, why are you here, again?
but that is the context of my statements on the issue
Thanks for admitting that you are fully engaged in bashing your strawman. Please take that hobby somewhere else.
“Anonymous” kookfarted, in a series of obsessive suckup responses to Brad A., pages and pages long…
Your demeanor suggests that if you had the authority to ban people from this blog, it would have died a long time ago. By all means, though, keep up the impotent orders from nowhere. It’s all quite entertaining.
Regards, Boxer
The view being promulgated here seems to be that conservatives are merely liberals with a longer lag time, specifically a single generation longer. I think that is both an oversimplication and a straw man, since sexual liberalization dates from the 1960s, not e.g. from the 1990s.
Dear TFH:
I was a conservative in my high-school/college years too. It seems the natural choice for a healthy person, provided you believe the hype and take the rhetoric at face value. Unfortunately, the fraud was too transparent, even for me, in those naïve years of my childhood.
In a fair and reasonable America, we’d have a Republican candidate like Ron Paul, running against a Democratic candidate like Ralph Nader, and whoever won, we’d at least have a president who had a bit of character. As it is, we have a one-party state, which fosters the illusion of a “choice” upon people which serves to reproduce the deception into another cycle. In the mean time, people are free to keep drinking beer, pursuing sex with strangers, watching football, etc. All these things are specifically engineered to be time-wasting distractions. Herbert Marcuse called this “repressive desublimation”.
Best, Boxer
BradA says:
Are you arguing that the only influential factors are the ones we can easily measure?
That is a poor argument verging on the dishonest. Because that is not what I said. And I say this from a position of love, driven by the desire to improve your arguing skills. You hold a position for which you have no evidence at all. It doesn’t matter if it is easily measured or not. It matters that you hold it with no evidence at all.
What exact role do you see women as having in civilization?
What they should have is irrelevant. What they have done is … make the sandwiches.
So then they will be unnecessary if we develop artificial wombs or even just keep them in breeding groups use to produce children. They have no value raising said children and passing along values?
I expect that when artificial wombs and sexbots come along, a lot of women will be in serious trouble as they will be surplus to requirements. Do they have any value in raising children and passing on values? In theory. Some times in practice. I am not sure that is their main role today. Either way, it is something they have been doing for a long time – before Newton at any rate. So it is not a cause of civilization.
Then we have a great civilization now since our sewage is processed better than ever before, right?
Again, verging on dishonesty.
Are you really arguing that women are only useful if they are kept “barefoot and pregnant” in the kitchen, to caricature a common idea.
I am not arguing anything. I am pointing out that historically their main role has been bare foot, pregnant and in the kitchen. They have largely opted out of being pregnant. And Jimmy Choo has made a fortune out of their desire not to be bare foot. But their role in the modern economy is no different from their role in the past. They continue to clean, to cook, to care for the elderly. It is just that the tax system forces a lot of them to do it for other men and get paid for it.
They have value in the proper role, just as men do. Society must enforce roles that enforce society or we will end up in a situation like in the Book of Judges where “everyone did what is right in their own eyes” and society is a mess and in bondage.
And what is their proper role? They do actually continue to choose their Biblical role – to be helpers for their men. It is just that they prefer to do it for their boss than their husband. It doesn’t seem you are all that far away from anyone else here. We are agreed that civilization depends on women fulfilling their proper role – that is to say, men encouraging women to fulfill their proper role.
But either way, the bottom line remains, women have played no significant role in civilization. They made the sandwiches. They had children. They provided sex. As they did and do for the Yanomamo in the Upper Amazon, just as they did for the people of Edinburgh during the Scottish Enlightenment or the scientists who ran the Manhattan project.
jf12 says:
“@el, my diving skills aren’t as good as my divining. I’m glad you see where I’ve partially connected the steps in my hypothesis that concealed ovulation and non-lactating swollen breast tissue were sexually-selected for, for similar reasons.”
Right; except this hypothesis is apparently incorrect, given that the existing evidence supports its opposite: men are attracted to and not repelled by lactating-looking breasts.
“And perhaps the most fertile principle in gender asymmetry in sexual selection is the idea that of war: the reason for the sexual characteristics of one gender are that they are supposed to attack or defend against the sexual strategies of the other. Again, strategy doesn’t imply volition, but a process series towards goals. Ants have strategies, for example.”
It is a popular principle, especially in certain circles, but not the most fertile. Struggle for survival and competition for resources are facts of biological life, but if war were the overriding principle, on the micro and macro levels, we would have died out as a species a while ago. Yet we continue to survive and even evolve, suggesting that some other principle, a more powerful (or more fertile) one, is at work. It is the one of cooperation and altruism, or even love sometimes.
The fact that the principle of cooperation and altruism (love) is more powerful is not only evidenced by the continued survival of our species, in spite of our own tendencies toward self-destruction, but also by the process of emotional and social (and one could say also spiritual) evolution we observe in individuals and on a large social scale, as in, for example, our increased awareness of and efforts to eradicate various inequalities and injustices.
Additionally, the war principle, when you look at it closely, applies to the phenomena observed on the most primitive level of biological, individual and social development, and itself can be seen as a reflection of the human impulse toward self-transcendence and desire to raise to the level of reality exemplified by the better angels of our nature. E.g., the biological war you see at the level of sexual / reproductive behavior has to do with devising strategies that would prevent or minimize behaviors that are injurious to individuals and our species (rape, in the case we discuss). The fact that we think that even our basic biological adaptations may have evolved for this purpose — of preventing and minimizing injuries and injustices (yes) — suggests that evolution, far from being about crude survival of the strongest, is favoring adaptations suggestive of the primacy of cooperation and altruism after all.
“Exactly why I wanted your help. How does one “test” a hypothesis like this other than thinking about it and discussing it?”
One does not, and that’s why so much evo-psych is idle speculation — interesting, but ultimately untestable. It is fun, and useful too, to speculate in the company of informed and critical thinkers, but not so much when surrounded by self-serving ideologues, which is what unfortunately happens too often in discussions broaching this area of inquiry.
“Concealed ovulation is the bigger fish, and when I think about it I run into a brick wall, like I’m not supposed to think about it. Why does it help one particular ovulating woman survive to blend in with non-ovulating women, and what male strategy is concealed-ovulation countering?”
Again, when looking through the war lens, you will see war-like reality. Consider that far from “countering” any male strategy, concealed ovulation may have evolved as a mechanism to strengthen pair-bonding (via more frequent sex and thus growing commitment between the mates) and therefore to promote the welfare of their offspring, which, after all, requires long-term care from the involved parents. One-time copulation deal during ovulation may not have created a similar bond.
“My reluctant answer is that concealed ovulation would have made *strange* males less likely to specially pick her, out of the group of women, for “special” sexual activities. And I think lactating-looking breasts were for the same purpose, so evidently those males (the bad guys) would have preferred an overtly ovulating and clearly non-lactating (young) female for their nefarious special purpose which decreased her survival rate.”
I know, but, as I said, evidence, with breasts, proves something contrary. With respect to concealed ovulation, there are others who expressed views similar to yours (e.g., Geoffrey Miller in “The Mating Mind”) and I will concede that one of the possible purposes of concealed ovulation could have been “fooling” the rapist(s); but given what we know about prevalence and victimology of rape, this particular adaptation does not seem to be any significant factor in deterring rape.
BTW, you do not have to dwell in excrement-filled caves. There are better alternatives to choose.
@el, re: “the principle of cooperation and altruism (love) is more powerful”
Yes, but not asymmetrically in gender.
“evidence, with breasts, proves something contrary”
Actually, in conjunction with the war principle, it IS compatible with what I’m trying to say. I’m assuming the fake breast thing only affected the survival of young presumably virginal-ish females. After that, they’re the happy fun bags we come to know and love and prefer to see rather than the absence thereof. If women sprouted fun-dots on their elbows, men would come to desire elbows.
@jf12,
Here, as always, we don’t see things as they are, but as we are.
@el, men’s fun-dots aren’t desired by women. There is much that is gender asymmetric, and uncooperative, about sex.
…but as we are.
A human being may want to be desired for more than her fun-dots, or “fun bags,” or functions she might perform — to be desired for the person she is. Alas.
You are right, there is much that is gender asymmetric, and uncooperative, about love and sex.
El, could you translate your lengthy comment into a form that is at least in part falsifiable?
In the meantime, remember that the doctrine of Lysenko was also all about cooperation. Sadly, no experiment confirmed its predictions.
The purpose for existence of two-sex system of reproduction and its general dominance over any other alternative (barring Prokaryota and asexual reproduction, while taking into account non-reproductive methods of horizontal gene transfer largely absent from the normal life-cycle of eukaryotes) still remains inadequately explained. From the perspective of a geneticist, the crossing-over phase (when Holliday junctions are formed between sister chromatids) allows for an additional mode of DNA repair that strengthens “intra-species cohesion” instead of its divergence into largely unrelated clonal lines that is a feature of any asexual prokaryotic species (well, that calls many definitions of “species” into question). Having a common gene pool seems to have a positive value that compensates for the need for twice as much offspring necessary for propagating the population successfully in comparison to asexual ones.
Apologies for the poorly articulated paragraph above. English isn’t my first (nor a second) language.
@el, so what would YOU like to discuss? What fun-dots have sprouted in the person you are, lately?
I’m overseeing a student doing PyCUDA GPU preprocessing to do geometrical pattern recognition of chemical process models visualizations. Which might interest someone. What makes it amusing is that the visualization i.e. cartoon is itself a simplification of course, a computer-generated cartoon intended to illustrate features we taught it to recognize in legacy software simulations, most of which I wrote decades ago and have forgotten what exactly they did.
@Exfernal, the sex theory of mixing for cohesion that you mention has been largely abandoned as a reasonable alternative to the theory of more general adaptability.
http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/40333/title/The-Sex-Paradox/
@el, re: deterring rape. You realize, of course, I’m alluding to a hypothetical type of systemization of intertribal war rape, not the opportunistic type probably most common today. It’s certainly possible the youngest nonmaternal women tribal war captives were given and/or sold to especially vicious tribesmen as special war prizes, while the rest of the captured women and infants were herded together with the new tribe’s women and children.
Judging by observed rates of such things in primitive cultures today, as well as historical accounts from thousands of years ago in e.g. the Bible, it’s not merely possible, but depending on the culture, actually more likely than not that an individual maternal woman would have experienced this two or more times during her fertile years in her nonsolitary and extremely poor, nasty, brutish, but not-very-short life. After her husband was killed by an Amalekite marauder, a Hittite carried her and her children away for slaves and really enjoyed her relatively camel-hair-free sandwiches.
Here is a good starting point for anyone interested in the issue.
Jf12, it depends how you view intra-species cohesion. If there are two beneficial mutations that happen in two unrelated branches, then for an asexual species to have them coexist in a single organism it requires an occurrence of non-reproductive gene transfer between both lines. For a sexual species the penetration of the gene pool by mutated alleles is much faster. So a two-sex species is more adaptable than an asexual one.
^ All else being equal, of course.
I’m pretty lax on policing comments for being on topic, especially after a few hundred comments. But there is off topic, and then there is:
@Exfernal, I’m starting to wonder about the cohesiveness of species genetic transfer topology for adaptability. Is it most beneficial to have a diversity of connected branches, reaching into various ecological niches? Maybe it’s better to be easily *disconnected*, like worm segments regrowing after being snipped. And one thought later now I’m wondering whether it’s best for an entire species to be *able* to self-destruct in a kind of sporulation: an environmental trigger event would activate an explosion point of genetic topology disconnect, essentially spawning many species from one.
TQH,
I am not sure why responding to what you said is dishonest, but whatever.
The same would apply to AR.
I don’t claim women are the be all end all of civilization as some do, but I also don’t see them as just competent to “make sandwiches.”
Proverbs 31 would show a high standard for women that would go far beyond making sandwiches.
I have been thinking over
[1Pe 3:7 KJV] 7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
the past few days. Note that it indicates both the “weaker vessel” and the “heirs together” aspect. This seems somewhat contradictory, so bears more consideration than most give it.
Jf12:
“One species, one gene pool, one ecological niche. ” 😉
It’s not the place to discuss this in length.
All your niche are belong to us.
The term you are after is “clade”, not “species”. It has a far more loose meaning.
This stop-gap animation illustrates possible outcomes in crossing over/crossover events, depending how you cut adjacent Holliday junctions.
As an apology for hijacking the thread, I offer a link to this study. Its conclusions might come handy if one wants to demolish feminist talking points about delaying marriage and maternity as a viable path to pursue.
@el re: as we are, and wanting to be desired for more than fun.
Yes, but. The fun part should be the easiest part. It’s the entry-level part of the relationship job, and if she can’t be bothered to be good at the easy part, then I consider that additional evidence that she is unwilling to be good at the more difficult parts (in addition to her actually lousy performance in those parts).
Her and her Sycophant Eddie are so far gone as to be indistinguishable from being mentally ill. They consider themselves to be female royalty and/or little goddesses causing them to hopelessly confuse “disagreeing with them” and “hating all women” (misogyny). Their arrogance in constantly implying that they speak for ALL women is breathtaking.
I don’t understand why would you engage with such an obvious purveyor of male self hatred.
@Lyn87:
“Every law and every judicial ruling has the threat of force behind it, because the state – by definition – has force at its disposal. In fact, a reasonably good definition of “the state” is this: the person or group that has a legal monopoly on the initiation of force.”
Was that from H. L. Mencken? I have used that definition for many years but am not sure who first stated it.
@Anonymous age 72:
“When I teach English classes, I take the students into the bathroom, and flush some t.p. And, tell them in the US there are no stools which do not take t.p.”
The latter statement is false. There are areas in Texas that have that same restriction, from Odessa to Terlingua and possibly others.
@feeriker:
“Again, any takers for joining me in a quest for another planet to colonize, preferably on the other end of the universe, one where sanity has a chance of thriving?”
I’m in.
It would be corrupted over time too. Prosperity lets many idiotic and foolish things flourish until everything comes crashing down.
technovelist asks:
It was not a quote, if that’s what you mean – I made it up as I was typing it. I cannot claim credit for the general thought behind the words, of course. Were I to give credit to any one person for my reaching that particular bit of understanding, it would go to Ayn Rand in “Atlas Shrugged.” Of course she was not the only, nor the first, to put that sentiment into words… she’s just the one whose thoughts on the matter stuck with me the most.
Too bad she was such a loon in so many other ways.
@Lyn87:
‘THESE THINGS MATTER, and a vague sense of nostalgia for days-gone-by just won’t do. Words mean things, and the precise wording of laws determines whether people go to prison or just go on about their lives. Never forget that the very essence of government is “the ability to initiate violence with legal impunity.” Every single thing the government does – every law, every judicial ruling – is based on the fact that disobedience may be met with violence, and effective resistance to that violence may result in death. Never, EVER, forget that. When you advocate that something become illegal – THAT is the tool you are reaching for… and that tool is a deadly weapon.’
Sometimes I wonder what Robert Heinlein would say about a topic. Assuming that topic isn’t primarily religious in essence (as he was an atheist as far as I can tell), from now on I’ll just ask you.
@feeriker:
‘”Man is fallen and corrupt. That is why some form of government is needed in the first place.”
I do hope that you’ll read your statement again so that the following “blinding flash of the obvious” strikes:
Given that man is “fallen and corrupt,” how can a government consisting entirely of those same “fallen and corrupt” men possibly be expected to preserve godly values?
I can think of no plain of reasoning upon which such an assumption can be considered anything other than patently absurd.’
This is exactly the same nonsensical “reasoning” that all statist “progressives” use: people are too stupid to run their own lives, so the government has to run their lives for them. What exactly is “government”? The same stupid people, only with guns.
So anarchy is better? Hardly. Any arrangement has problems. An aggressively limited government is the best. It is hard to maintain, but it is the only way to balance everything out.
Read the Book of Judges if you think it works well if everyone does “what is right in their own eyes.”
@ technovelist
“Given that man is “fallen and corrupt,” how can a government consisting entirely of those same “fallen and corrupt” men possibly be expected to preserve godly values?
I can think of no plain of reasoning upon which such an assumption can be considered anything other than patently absurd.”
This is exactly the same nonsensical “reasoning” that all statist “progressives” use: people are too stupid to run their own lives, so the government has to run their lives for them. What exactly is “government”? The same stupid people, only with guns.
No, it’s not the same reasoning at all. “Fallen and corrupt” =/= “stupid”
“Fallen and corrupt” means that a person cannot keep God’s law. That in no way prevents man from enforcing man’s law on someone else.
Pingback: Time for a Bodycrimes kickstarter project? | bodycrimes
Pingback: Repackaging feminism as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock
Hey Dalrock – here’s another example of feminism being in bed with conservatism – this time it’s about porn:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/09/conservative-mp-radical-feminist-and-evangelical-christian-come-together-to-block-online-porn-in-canada/
Scripture reinterpreted for the year of Our Lord 2014:
Rom 13:3 “For the police are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the cop who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 he is God’s servant ‘for your own good’. But if you do wrong, be afraid, ‘be very afraid’, for he does not ‘wear a gun’ in vain. For the cop is the servant of the Judge, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” ~ engraved in stone outside the local sheriffs office next to the jail.
[1Pe 3:7 KJV] 7 “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to ignorance, giving honor unto the wife, as unto God, she being heiress to the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” ~ the Goddess Wife.
[Pro 6:30-31 KJV] 30 “[Men] do not despise a thief, if she steal to satisfy her soul when she is hungry; 31 But [if] she be found, she shall neglect sevenfold; She shall give all the substance of your house.” ~ so keep her controlled or forgo marriage altogether.
Pingback: Christians Excitement over Trivialities | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: Reads Healing the Masculine Soul In his groundbreaking… | Honor Dads
Pingback: How Conservatives Helped Ruin the “Sanctity of Marriage” | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy