A reader recently asked if I’ve moved away from my prediction in More ominous than a strike that we will eventually see some dialing back of the worst excesses of the family court:
…ignoring the problem will become more and more difficult because of the impact on the bottom line. Because of this, we can expect to see more of what we already see. Feminists will continue their handwringing tentatively asking if perhaps we have gone a bit too far, and conservatives will redouble their efforts to convince men they need to man up and stop sabotaging the glorious feminist progress. Less conspicuously I also expect we will see some dialing back of the worst excesses of the family courts. However, because of the momentum involved and the reluctance to acknowledge the fundamental problem, these changes will at best only slow the problem, and they will always run the risk of initially accelerating it.
The short answer is I haven’t changed my view on this. However, as I stated previously we should expect a slew of divergent responses to the problem of declining marriage rates, and the dialing back will follow a period of continued denial. In fact, we can see this happening today. On one side we have feminists Claire Cain Miller and Justin Wolfers at the NY Times declaring that fears about high divorce rates are unfounded. It is fear of divorce, not divorce itself, that is the real problem. This is the same set of talking points Shaunti Feldhahn is advancing to the delight of modern Christians.
Yet at the same time we also have periodic bursts of fear that all is not well coming from both liberals and conservatives. The recent Washington Examiner piece Shock study: Marriage rate declines with porn use, threatening economy, society is an excellent example of this. 45 years of policies designed to eject fathers from the home? Boring. But pornography is a problem both conservatives and feminists can get behind! Weak men are screwing feminism up! Pornography must be dealt with because fathers matter:
“stable marriages create substantial welfare improvements for society, especially to the degree that marital stability produces high-quality children.”
The problem is fathers don’t matter enough to challenge our new family structure. We can see this same pattern in quotes from Glenn Stanton in The Atlantic’s Sperm Donor, Life Partner (H/T pavetack). Stanton argues tepidly that fathers matter, but then casts around when trying to explain why marriage is essential but divorce is not that big a deal:
It’s true that sometimes people marry and have children with the best intentions and then split up, but they raise their children “doing the best they can in spite of the curveball life has thrown them,” he said. “The idea of putting yourself intentionally in that situation is a whole other matter.”
To be fair to Stanton it is possible The Atlantic is misrepresenting his stance. But I hope this isn’t the case, because Stanton’s tepid defense of marriage in the article is an improvement over his own writing and speaking on the topic. There is no quote in the article of him declaring single mothers heroic, for example. Stanton also appears to now recognize the possibility that men aren’t always to blame for single motherhood, unlike his framing of the problem in his book:
If women can’t find good men to marry, they will instead compromise themselves by merely living with a make-do man or getting babies from him without marriage. Unfortunately, this describes exactly the new shape of family growth in Western nations by exploding margins…
Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies. But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well… Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.
But even the new and slightly improved Stanton can’t seem to bring himself to call our epidemic of wife initiated divorce evil for the terrible harm it is doing to children. Instead, we learn that sometimes life throws women curveballs. According to Stanton it is better to make a solemn vow and break it than to never make the vow at all.
When Focus on the Family’s Director for Family Formation Studies can’t be relied on to stand up for traditional marriage, it isn’t surprising that secular conservatives aren’t willing to rock the boat as well. The latest conservative conventional wisdom on marriage is that since our new definition of marriage is a disaster for all but the Upper Middle Class (UMC), the solution is to get everyone to become like the UMC. W. Bradford Wilcox, a scholar for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and director of the National Marriage Project, argues that we need to teach everyone to emulate what he has coined the “success sequence” by delaying marriage and children to focus first on education and work. This, along with suggestions on tax incentives is the foundation of the AEI’s advice on how to save marriage in the report For richer, for poorer: How family structures economic success in America
Civic institutions—joined by a range of private and public partners, from businesses to state governments to public schools—should launch a national campaign around a “success sequence” that would encourage young adults to sequence schooling, work, marriage, and then parenthood. This campaign would stress the ways children are more likely to flourish when they are born to married parents with a secure economic foundation.
Willcox is in my opinion the leading public policy figure arguing that marriage is in trouble and if we don’t change course the economic and human costs will be enormous. The problem is, right now making meaningful changes to the legal structure designed to remove fathers from the home (child support and no fault divorce) is unthinkable. This is the case because the true costs of our system are still not evident. So far nearly all White women are still able to marry, and we haven’t seen the full dysfunction large scale multi-generational fatherlessness will cause. But as the costs become more undeniable we will first see more and more calls for men to man up and make our feminist redesigned family structure work, and eventually we will start to see more and more calls to dial back the worst excesses of the family court. But at least at first these will only be half measures, moving from denial to bargaining as reality sets in.
What isn’t clear to me is how much economic and social pain our elites will be willing to bear before starting to acknowledge the problem. It also isn’t clear that when the half measures they then grudgingly propose fail, they will be willing and able to reform the system enough to turn around both the family and the economy. We are squandering an incredible amount of goodwill by men regarding marriage, and the longer we wait to seriously address the issue the harder it will be to turn the problem around.
Pingback: Fathers [sometimes] matter! | Manosphere.com
I think part of the shift will be to (further) separate fatherhood from husband-hood. Fathers matter, even to feminists, because they need to fund the raising of their spawn and be there when Mom can’t handle an incorrigible teen anymore or just wants a break from parenting. But that doesn’t mean we have to go back to the olden days of mothers being forced to live with the fathers of their children. That’d be crazy talk!
There have been PSAs running during NFL games that exhort fathers to invest time in their children. I haven’t paid real close attention to them (so I don’t know whether they come from the NFL or someone else), but I have yet to see a father and mother together with the kids in one of the ads. It’s always Dad reading to the kid, playing with the kid, helping the kid with his homework — with Mom nowhere in sight. So it fits just fine into the child support paradigm, where Dad is pressured to be a good, involved father — whenever Mom and the courts allow the kid to be with him.
Dalrock,
I would argue that the true costs of our system ARE evident but Wilcox (and others leading public policy) CAN’T (under any circumstances) touch child support or unilateral divorce law because…. many of them are in their jobs/positions of authority because of politics. They know what the problem is, but if they truly move to correct it, it will most likely cost them their jobs/livelihood. So OF COURSE they can’t do what must be done. They need a paycheck first.
WHAT?? Men are not always to blame??
Uh, oh, Stanton’s newly updating view is not going to sit will with the Fireproof-Feminized-Neocon-Churchianity crowd. No, that’s not going to tickle their ears at all–and these are people with an ADDICTION to having their ears tickled–so much so, they must have their fix every Sunday from their local licensed hireling shepherd ear tickler.
So it fits just fine into the child support paradigm, where Dad is pressured to be a good, involved father — whenever Mom and the courts allow the kid to be with him.
One simple fix: instead of court ordered visitation by the sperm donor to be allowed, make it mandatory. So now we could have men held in contempt of court because they did not show up at the appointed place and time to take their (alleged) spawn off of Mom’s hands for an afternoon. Then various feminists could sit back with a glass of box wine and a self congratulatory smirk, secure in the knowledge that finally at least some men are doing what they should – being involved in the life of their child. Within reasonable boundaries, of course, boundaries set by feminists.
@JF
I think he is probably safe, since his comments come in the context of an article about gays and lesbians using artificial insemination. This is one area where conservative modern Christians aren’t uncomfortable with biblical sexual morality.
It is already too late to save it.
I was discussing a woman I know with a friend. She’s been married twice and divorced, had a child out of wedlock at an early age. she’s 25. There’s more.
The friend just shrugged. “That just an average girl.”
It is far worse then the numbers indicate yet
Because of keeping the family intact…it led to everyone getting a piece of the pie. The government and elites too. Then some elites got the greedy idea that breaking up what made them powerful so they could be the only game in town would make them more powerful. They will feel it last…but it will get them too.
Breaking up the family isn’t a good idea for anyone…from the super rich to the poor.
Once again, it’s good for society for men to marry, not for men themselves.
Fathers don’t matter. It’s the production of men that matters.
In near future Stanton might make a career of a sonderkommand… ahem… spiritual counselor in FEMA re-education camp for peter-pan-man-boy-pig-slackers. Until he one night accidentally falls on a shovel and cracks his skull open… seven times.
MV,
…heh… lol
I think the majority of men who encourage other men NOT to act in their own self-interest are doing this mostly because of some sense of chivalry towards women. Dr Helen Smith was not going to be able to get Tucker Carlson to understand that maybe society had to change even though he agreed with everything that Smith wrote in her book. Instead, he comment was “who cares!” Men need to man up and marry sluts because… its the right thing to do! End of discussion. Carlson conceeded that all her points in the book were valid, but.. too bad, men should just shut up about it and shame on you Helen for writing a book about it bringing all this to light. When you are at that point any further discussion is pointless because your opponent is agreeing with you but refusing to do anything to fix a problem because they simply refuse to acknowledge it.
I would further say the majority of men who encourage other men NOT to act in their own self-interest are doing this partially because they have daughters. They understand that the rules are stacked against men in marriage but refuse to change those rules because… they want their daughters to have the same future leverage against their husbands that their wives currently have with them. Afterall, if they have to put up with threat point, so should all young men.
We are squandering an incredible amount of goodwill by men regarding marriage
Goodwill from where did it come?
What isn’t clear to me is how much economic and social pain our elites will be willing to bear
Bear it they will?
Or shielded they will be?
Yoda,
Shielded, they are now.
Damage already here.
Ferguson MO has no marriage.
UMC need not live there.
Because of keeping the family intact…it led to everyone getting a piece of the pie.
Modern women multiple pieces they now receive.
Evident in figure it is.
“They [Wilcox, Stanton…] know what the problem is, but if they truly move to correct it, it will most likely cost them their jobs/livelihood. So OF COURSE they can’t do what must be done. They need a paycheck first.”
Ironically they get this paycheck from supporting and perpetuating a legal system which removes fathers from the home, so they can support their wives, children and families.
Even more ironic is these men were bred by women to be man-hating, cut-throat hypocrites ~ and finally the ‘most ironic of ironies’ ~ there’s just not enough of these ‘good men’ to go around anymore; as in “where have all the good men gone?”
One dynamic that I think you may have overlooked is the reaction amongst many young men and girls.
I’m not sure if you have seen the two ‘sexodus’ articles, discussing the the numbers and reasons that young men are disengaging from women;
http://www.breitbart.com/…/The-Sexodus-Part-1-The-Men-Giving-Up-On-Women -And-Checking-Out-Of-Society
http://www.breitbart.com/…/The-Sexodus-Part-2-Dishonest-Feminist-Panics-Leave- Male-Sexuality-In-Crisis
The response has been overwhelming. Tens of thousands of comments from young men articulating their disgust with what modern women have become.
On the other side of the fence I caught this article in the UK’s daily Telegraph – a feminist slating Zoella, a young lady who has blogs for the ‘tween’ market, mostly about make up and fashion, but with an overall theme of teaching girls how to express their femininity in a safe and positive way;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11259853/Zoella-isnt-the-perfect-role-model-teen-girls-think-she-is.html
A smaller response here, but responses none the less, mostly attacking the author.
What do both articles and the reactions tell us. That many men and women are aware that something is wrong, that men are waking up, in large numbers, to the fact that many modern women are somehow ‘broken’. And the Zoella phenomenon speaks to the huge demand amongst young girls for ways to be feminine, rather than just ‘sexy’.
On both sides of the sexual fence these youngsters are breaking from the feminist narrative. And it is all the more powerful because this is an organic dynamic.
Don’t underestimate the youngsters to drive the change you talk of.
@innocentbystanderboston
“Daddy… I have a problem… I have given an interview for Rolling Stone, depicting myself as a victim of a gang rape in some fraternity house… no, no, no, daddy, don’t worry… I was not raped… I just said so to get more likes on Facebook… but now some bad bad journalists have torn my story apart… and my girlfriends from rape survivor support group seem to be mad at me for making them look like a bunch of lying drama queens… and my attorney said that she needs a story that something… anything… happened to me, that caused my PTSD and made me remember things wrongly… so I uncovered my repressed memory of you raping me when I was 7 years old… how could you, daddy… the police is already on their way to our house… daddy, please don’t resist the arrest… they might shoot you… sorry, daddy… I love you, daddy…”
MV,
Because of feminism, things that are sometimes trivial matters to women could be life altering/ending matters for men. To be sociopathic enough as Jackie was to attempt to destroy so many innocent lives, for feminism this is no big deal because… well…. even if these guys are innocent, they can just re-enroll at another university. But we have to preserve for women the ability to destroy men in this way because we live in this “rape culture” don’t you see? It is more important that lying women are believed than honest truth telling rape victims are disbelieved. Keep your eyes on the prize MV.
I knew I recognized the name Brad Wilcox from somewhere. Over at The Federalist blog, he recently posted an article idiotically extolling the need for more subsidized wages and child tax credits. His proposals got beaten up in the comments. I pointed out in the comments there that, unless these were explicitly reserved for men (the likelihood of that being nil), they would serve only to reduce the number of intact families, because — guess what? — single mothers would be the majority of recipients! It would incentivize more single motherhood (and more wife-initiated divorce too). Why ‘buy’ the husband when you can get his wages for free from the government?
@innocentbystanderboston
The scenario I described actually really happened in Yugoslav Communist Reeducation Camp “Goli Otok” (“Barren Island”) back in the fifties. Prisoners there were mostly communist who fell out of grace for not wearing the correct shade of red and random village idiots who joked about the government too loudly. The inmates were regularly interrogated, starved and beaten until they proved their loyalty to the Party, by accusing another “enemy of the people” from their circle of friends and acquaintances. And there was one guy who, almost killed by regular beatings, decided to accuse his father. After his father too arrived to the island, he said to him “Please, forgive me, father. I accused you, because I knew you are the only one who will be able to forgive me my false accusation.”
Story has a happy end, though. They both survived the re-education, and son even lived long enough to see the collapse of communism.
Great work!
On a lighter note–as a psychologist I enjoyed this Kubler-Ross reference:
“But at least at first these will only be half measures, moving from denial to bargaining as reality sets in.”
Scott
Even if the institution of marriage was reformed from the ground up, in tandem with divorce and family law reforms, transmuting the whole enterprise into something semi palatable, or at least less onerous on men. Who would these men marry? They would still get a “sequenced” blown out carousel rider.
I find it hard to imagine society implementing all the changes necessary to reinstate some semblance of equilibrium between the sexes regarding commitment. If guys are figuring out the game even at a snails pace, I imagine they’ll be well ahead of any top down reforms, which would really have to be a total overhaul, ten thousand cultural reforms blossoming all at once to even have a chance, (each one more horrifying to the shitlib hive mind than the last) and they can’t even manage one anyways. The future will be interesting.
Here’s a radical idea for a “success sequence.” Instead of fighting an uphill battle against biology by trying to convince young adults to delay everything until they’re thirty without checking out in frustration– how about figuring out how to accomplish that sequence in a shorter time frame?
“even if these guys are innocent, they can just re-enroll at another university”
Actually, typically, they can’t. They now have “sexual assault” at some such on their records and no other school will admit them.
Cadders:
“What do both articles and the reactions tell us. That many men and women are aware that something is wrong, that men are waking up, in large numbers, to the fact that many modern women are somehow ‘broken’. And the Zoella phenomenon speaks to the huge demand amongst young girls for ways to be feminine, rather than just ‘sexy’.
On both sides of the sexual fence these youngsters are breaking from the feminist narrative. And it is all the more powerful because this is an organic dynamic.
Don’t underestimate the youngsters to drive the change you talk of.”
Don’t expect the change to be toward marriage, that’s not where its headed. The women are broken, desouled as GBFM would say. They see their happiness as the one and only primary goal for their lives.
Does anyone honestly think that they are going to eliminate no fault divorce or give men primary custody?
Because that’s the only two things that could possibly fix this.
Fathers matter, to the children. But, children don’t matter to radical feminists. A society is based on a balance between the sexes. Civilizations fail when things go too far awry. At the most basic level, a society has to be worth fighting for. Men have to have a reason to fight and die. Anyone with a sense of history knows that we are headed for a collapse. Moral degenerates are calling the shots. Are you aware that young boys are being drugged in school because they are too rowdy? One of the things boys pick up quick is that they’re not wanted. These are much more serious problems than marriage. Men have effectively lost their civil rights. False accusation can ruin a man. Why would a young man fight for such people? There’s no reason. American women are stupid and foolish. They are in the process of destroying this country. All for rich white women’s feelings. Men are wising up quickly. This is going to get really bad. You see, men and women used to have a social contract. Until feminists worked really hard for a long time to destroy that. We didn’t fight a land war here in the USA during the Second World War. So, our women are coddled, spoiled, with little contact with reality. They don’t understand that women really can’t fight and win in combat. They actually believe that they can do anything. So, here we are…..Think about this scenario for a minute, please….Islamic terrorists have seized a local school. You know that the women who run that school have been drugging the young boys there. You’ve actually spoken to the principal there and realize that she’s a radical feminist. The terrorists threaten to behead all the women if their demands aren’t met. I say hold off the assault until the women have met their fate. It’s in the best interest of the boys. Before you scoff, think about it. Men know that feminists hate us. Their souls are warped and twisted. Women in America are not worth marriage. Too risky.
Escoffier,
I know. I was being fascetious. I was making a feminist argument. We both know that feminism makes no sense. My point was to show men how feminists justify this horrible behavior on that hamsterwheel.
DavidTheGnome,
With articles like these (and there will be more) we are seeing lots of evidence that society acknowledges that in the absence of marriage, society has a major problem. Things are NOT working. And even if the correct diagnosis as to what is causing the problem is made (hypergamous women being very fussy and men opting out and going MGTOW) we are not likely to get any semblance of equilibrium between the sexes regarding commitment. Instead, I’d argue we’ll just get many more bachelor taxes like the Affordable Care Act.
There are two ways to change a person’s behavior should their behavior being causing a problem: positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement. You get the carrot or the stick. I think we’d all prefer a carrot to a stick in the eye, but our society treats men like dogs with sticks. I’d agree that the correct diagnosis regarding the damage to society will be made but instead of offering men any incentives to marry, I expect we will all see many more DISincentives created to punish men who remain bachelors. There is zero chance our lawmakers will repair in marriage what took feminism so many decades to destroy. There will only be a greater penalites given to those men who choose NOT to indulge in something that is increasingly foolish.
How bad is the situation when Islam has a better family court system than the west? How dark is the darkness when the lost can lead the found? What is the future of such a society?
OT and 4TehLulz
I should add… Thy will be done, Thy kingdom come…..its gunna get ugly
I think part of the shift will be to (further) separate fatherhood from husband-hood.
Yes, this is *exactly* what I see coming next as well. We are sliding that way currently and I don’t think anything can be done to stop that right now.
In some cases, this is just institutionalized AF/BB sequencing. Because the other half of AF/BB (normally the manosphere focuses on the BB getting the ex-carouseler etc.) is the woman not wanting AF as a husband because he isn’t suitable as a husband for whatever reason, so she has the mindblowing alpha sex, gets the sed she wants, but knows that he isn’t a man she wants as a husband, so she cuts him loose. BB is the next step — he will be the husband and day-to-day father, while bio dad will have financial obligations and some visits with the kid. Apart from finding AF and BB in the same man (which is still the optima of the female strategy), this sequencing, which separates fatherhood (biological) from husband-hood or “daddy-hood”, is probably the next best for many women below the UMC, and I expect we will see a lot more of it. We’re also going to see the single mother rate gradually keep rising for white women. Some of these will marry a BB and get the second level optima I describe above, whereas others will opt for single motherhood because the quality of BB is not available. But below the UMC, I see this separation of fatherhood from husband-hood becoming more of the norm than the exception. Basically sequenced cuckolding.
Yeah, Islam is better for intact families. They control their women. We don’t. You know, stoning doesn’t seem so radical a solution when you see the trouble we have. History teaches that strong civilizations overwhelm degenerate ones. Try this on for size….speak to a moslem about abortion. That’ll teach you a lot if you’re perceptive. We’re fixing to be in a fight for the survival of our society. We aren’t the good guys this time around. Sickening, isn’t it? You see, degenerates destroy. Stout hearts are what is needed to win. Our boys are being drugged. Men are mocked and ridiculed. Just how is this society worth fighting for?
Innocentbystanderboston
“but instead of offering men any incentives to marry, I expect we will all see many more DISincentives created to punish men who remain bachelors.”
An astute observation. I think they tried stuff like that in Rome at one point. I do wonder though, how much economic energy can be sapped from men over the long hall in this manner. Forcing people to steadily increase their participation as a punishment for being markedly disinclined to do so, seems like a tenuous short term strategy at best. After all, these men are in a sense the stick itself.
“but instead of offering men any incentives to marry, I expect we will all see many more DISincentives created to punish men who remain bachelors.”
Definitely. They won’t fix the current problem…they’ll punish men for opting out of the problem.
@easttexasfatboy
A culture where women are considered goddesses who deserve everything and are never at fault and a culture where girls get acid in the face for going to school aren’t the only two options. How about we repeal some of the ridiculous gender discrimination laws, reform the family courts, reform divorce law, and start charging women who make their husbands a cuckold with fraud, WITHOUT going back to the stone age?
The “success sequence” has been pushed for several decades now. Tough to figure if it’s an outgrowth of feminism or a proud enabler. Perhaps both depending on the circumstance.
Anyway, it’s been a real bane to marriage for most of that time. It’s simply a camouflage for the real issue that this version of marriage isn’t sustainable. And how long is it going to be for people to figure out that this good intention is actually part of the spiral down? For example, what happens if “school” doesn’t lead you to lucrative enough work (especially if you have debt) and you’re always too poor to afford marriage?
In short, this path hasn’t benefitted the UMC, rather the UMC has had enough resources to avoid being too scarred from this path. At least overtly.
After my divorce, I was somewhat involved in the Father’s Rights movement, to include heaving posting and sharing on DadsDivorce.com (kinda the “go to” place at that time), and I contributed financially to Fathers & Family (Now the National Parents Org). I even spoke to Glenn Sacks and had some other dealings.
First: places like Dadsdivorce had some very good, red pill advice, early on…BUT, I concluded that for some men (as with other guys I knew personally), it simply wasn’t logical to throw EVERYTHING in, to often 10 year battles, $100k in legal fees etc, to get that “one more day”, so the place was full of accidental White Knightedry “But it’s your kids, man….you spend every last penny, etc”. I found that ultimately, given the system, this was harmful advice to many, if not most men (particularly out of state NCPs fighting major uphill battles). Most of the kids by the time they are teens, could give a crap about their fathers and how much money/time they spent, etc. It simply not good advice, and most men would do better to be alone or have a g/f and move on (as bad as that sounds), given the alienation the kids endure and use, the courts destroying the fathers financially, the mothers games, etc.
Second: Groups like F&F (now NPO), have, despite what they claim, won almost NO major victories, even with financial and academic support. Legislatures (and Judges) are FULL of White Knights, and as I always say to those who question MY doubts about the FRM, “we live in a country where a man can be forced to pay CS for a child everyone agrees is not his…how do you expect any type of justice to come from that same culture, for fathers?” The bottom line is, with a few exceptions (such as my late, second marriage to a foreign woman, whom I’m still happily with ten years later, with our intact family)…MGTOW is the best choice for many men. The courts are NOT going to change much. Even the hopes I had for lesbian divorces “proving a point” (removing the gender issue, and causing liberal cognitive dissonance when women viciously attacked other women)…the courts and legislatures will just do work-arounds, just like they do in not forcing single moms to work, or adhere to agreements, custody, etc.
While MGTOW is good, do know, as most of you do, our culture so strongly wants women taken care of, that we are moving (as I predicted a decade ago) to forcing men to pay for women in other ways…through civil litigation over false rape claims, to Obama’s health care law (forcing essentially white male taxpayers to fund women’s health), to some rulings in some states regarding “common law” when a guy had a woman live in his apartment, etc etc. I even think eventually the “yes means yes” law will become somewhat contractual, and THAT will be used to extort money from men…”you slept with her, you even signed that you did so…you owe her money to make her whole” (in other words, prostitution, feminist style).
The only TRUE hope, ultimately, is MGTOW, ala Gault’s Gulch, probably…that and bombs in the sky–wither feminism, when heads are on the chopping block. What we have now is simply not tenable.
Dalrock, ever hopeful. But name a big government that was overturned.
Abuse is here to stay till the collapse
http://www.flyheight.com/mplayer/player.php?post=64924
DavidTheGnome,
“but instead of offering men any incentives to marry, I expect we will all see many more DISincentives created to punish men who remain bachelors.”
An astute observation.
Thank you.
As much as they produce, if anything. 3 years ago, this administration instituted the first of what will be many bachelor taxes, the Affordable Care Act. Sandra Fluke lives the Life of Julia. She wants YOU to pay for her birth control pills but she will not f-ck you because you are not AMOG. You just have to make her financially whole. So she ran to government and created a tax (penalty imposed solely on bachelor men) to force them to buy-in to the risk pool of some legitimate health insurance plan. YOU have to buy health insurance even though YOU will never go to the doctor and put in a claim so that Sandra Fluke can get her health insurance to cover HER claims for birth control pills.
See how that works? Expect more of that.
All income must be reported to the IRS. Unless you want to live like a criminal, they WILL get their pound of flesh from you for not marrying a slut. Someone must support the slut. That someone is you.
The stick is government authority. Government is elected by “the mob.” That is Democracy in action. “The mob” is influenced by feminism. Feminism IS popular public opinion because the majority of women believe in it. So whatever is good for feminism, “the mob” supports it by voting for candidates who support popular public opinion. So those people (the UMC elected by “the mob”) create the tax laws (such as ACA) to “punish” men for not “manning up” and marrying the sluts.
As long as women have the vote, women will continue eating the apple of which God commanded they are not to eat.
Enrique, there really isn’t anyway to stop this short of violent revolution. Islam is coming. I will not protect any woman that I do not know. Period. Our civil rights have been stolen. So, if I’m alerted to an Islamic attack, I’ll send women into the ambush. You see, this society is dying. Our only hope is our young men. Young women are feral, and are just as worthless as their mothers. As for pressure to marry up a land whale, think most young guys will pass. Here’s a thing about normal men. They have a sense of fairness. Islam uses pinprick attacks to weaken a society. Just how much acid do they have to use to terrify feminists? We as men will shake our heads, but some will collaborate to make sure the women don’t escape. History repeats itself.
Pingback: The scoffers at the end of the hippie cycle. | Dark Brightness
Progressives do not make concessions, ever, and if they make any conciliatory gesture it’s usually a sucker punch. They give with one hand while taking with the other. If they extol the value of fathers it is only a veiled attack on men. Those cowardly, deadbeat, loser men need to get their shit together and Father Up (because fathers are important, maybe)!
“All income must be reported to the IRS. Unless you want to live like a criminal, they WILL get their pound of flesh from you for not marrying a slut. Someone must support the slut. That someone is you.”
@innocent
This is false. Make sub 30k and you pay nothing in taxes. The guy who would of made 80k because of a wife and family now works part time paying no taxes. Collapse is coming
IBB says:
Exposure to the manosphere has lead me to doubt the utility of universal suffrage. It is clear that women having the vote–and voting as a unified group within each political party–forces our government to yield to the demands of the feminine imperative and this has been incredibly destructive on individual and civilizational levels. Unfortunately, short of WW3, there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle.
Currently there are only two conditions that can bar an individual from voting: age and felony conviction. (Are there others I don’t know about?) The age restriction expires and the felon restriction can be appealed. So we’re pretty darn close to universal suffrage. As a thought experiment, if you could declare voting restrictions, what groups would you restrict or, more succinctly, what groups would be allowed to vote?
The old colonial laws restricted it to white, land-owning males. It’s wise that too vote you should have some skin in the game. Perhaps today we should limit voting to individuals who are net tax payers. This would eliminate a lot of moochers and baby-mommas from having a say in my governance.
Ah, one can dream.
The One says:
And there’s the ol’ “Earned Income Tax Credit” which is essentially a reverse tax.
Notice the people of the underclass, around April, suddenly have new clothes and new rims on their cars.
MGTOW/family the focus needs to shift to men and solutions men can choose. (this is for those that want a role back of the misandry we have to bearable levels) Marriage is dead and more and more men that get married and have misandry applied to them will not be seen as victims but as irresponsible fools that deserved what happened to them.
Marriage is dead by law. More can be accomplished to restore marriage with a male birth control pill and surrogacy and adoption options for men. That is coming with gay marriage. The ideal would be to laws of misandry remain to consume the manginas and keep the female vote happy. MGTOW and MGTOW/family so society can enjoy mens labor to provide for his. Any society depending on female cooperation is lost. A healthy society never looks to woman for shit A healthy society has well behaved women because that is the behavior a normal selfish unloving bitch will display to get the best. She treats her child well because you will love and respect her as a good mother. No love and virtue required.
easttexasfatboy:
In the interest of disclosure, I am one of I believe two Muslims that post here. I’m a long time “revert” as we are called, to Islam (Sufi path).
While I concede much to the criticism of Islam as practiced in much of the Arab world (more particularly, than Indonesia), I will say this: If you have been in, through, and around the regular Muslim culture–meaning, like you see/saw in Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, etc…you learn quickly that Islam sees women for what they are–thus they are largely restrained.
Women have no business voting, or making any major decisions that effect young girls or boys, or families in general, or a society. Islam, for all it’s faults, recognizes this. Although it is true that the Prophet (saws) made pronouncements about what is essentially soft alimony under Sharia law in divorces, the fact is most American Family Law courts put Sharia law to shame-only in the other direction.
So when I hear White Knights and feminists all up in arms about “Sharia”, just remember, your average Muslimah in Turkey has more rights than your average man in the United States. American “Family Law” is Feminist Sharia, where women almost NEVER can “lose”, no matter what the facts or circumstances are.
I predict there will be MORE and MORE white MEN converting in the UK, and eventually the US.
Destruction of the family was the goal in my opinion. It was not just some stupid blunder. They knew exactly what would happen. They know from tests going back to the 1920s at orphanage boarding schools that early sexual intercourse destroys bonding for life. They knew about the destruction that feminism and the change in legal structure of marriage would wreak. The human being is the best studied specimen on earth. They experimented with sexual liberation in France in the 1890s, then in the US and Europe in the 1920s – also in the early Soviet Union in the 1920s. It resulted in a massive rise in orphans due to lack of birth control and lack of social security. The early Soviet marriage destruction was even worse.
The end goal is a Brave New world kind of structure – it just has to come about more or less gradually. There won’t be a resurgence of the old order – next in line will come the communal raising of the children, soon after maybe even mothers “outsourcing” most of their motherly duties to the new comrades. The new UN policies like rights of the child (thus lack of right for parents to decide) & constant supervision from birth (GIRFEC Scotland testbed) – they are all designed to now cut the bond between the mother and child. Alienating men and women from each other was just the first step. Next point on the agenda is to alienate the child from their mother.
So far I don’t see anything happening contrary to that. The few Red Pill men will remain a minority – never mind the women, they hardly count at all in that regard. The plutocracy could change it, but why should they? Money? Don’t flatter yourselves. Our economic structure is changing anyway and in 20 years constant higher unemployment will be the norm, because of ever greater technological unemployment.
“What isn’t clear to me is how much economic and social pain our elites will be willing to MAKE US bear before starting to acknowledge the problem.”
Fixed it.
…
enrique432 @ 5:16 pm:
“I predict there will be MORE and MORE white MEN converting in the UK, and eventually the US.”
UK men have been converting to Islam just to marry under Sharia law. It’s the only way they can have any power within marriage… Islam is the only religion respected by the Communists.
Meanwhile, Christian men are learning to hate Christianity because of how we’re treated by the apostate Church. I myself have stopped attending entirely. Every church in my area is fallen. The Bible studies are focused on worthless trivia, the only two ministries are childcare and marriage counseling, there’s no reasoning with the ordained clergy and even the worship songs are like sandpaper on my ears because of the hypocrisy. Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done… unless we have to call out the homosexual child molesters in Sacramento or force bored women to respect their husbands or teach the moral perils of the welfare state or tell illegal immigrants they’re lawbreakers who need to go home.
Brookes: How about we repeal some of the ridiculous gender discrimination laws, reform the family courts, reform divorce law, and start charging women who make their husbands a cuckold with fraud, WITHOUT going back to the stone age?
I think most of us would prefer peaceful and civilized reform. But we just don’t think such reform is possible without an initial trip through the stone age.
Some societies reform themselves. Others have reform thrust upon them by wars, revolutions, or economic collapses.
There was inertia from men reacting to the biased laws in marriage against them. Wait until the laws are fixed and we have a new generation of women wondering why men still will not marry – inertia.
We are doomed.
enrique432 says:
Thanks Enrique, as a christian I have to agree with what you have said. I have made that exact point to other christians and their first reaction is often shock. Then, as the truth slowly sinks in it becomes a great introduction for more red pills. May God have mercy on our souls.
Enrique, that’s great. I was raised as a religious Christian, but what I see practiced nowadays ain’t even close. I reckon I’m just waiting for the collapse. Historically, degeneracy always proceeds collapse. One of the major principles of the Bible is that the land must always pay for the innocent blood that has been spilled. Think about abortion. So, folks who accept abortion for any reason aren’t Christian. Plain and simple. So, we are under the curse of God. He specifically says that women who rule will be an absolute disaster. As for family discipline, the oldest male sets the tone in a moslem family. He’s also the one who must throw the first stone. Yeah, Enrique, I’ve spoken at length to various moslems from the local mosque. Abortion is considered heinous murder, straight up. The problem here in the US is that there’s no real restraint on radical feminism. And the young girls are raised feral. That means that they are savages. They don’t consider men to be human, so they try to treat us as beasts. And what is worse, the law is in their corner. I truly understand the attraction to Islam. Who knows? Women are in open rebellion here. So, there’s no telling what insanity they will come up with next. The idea of marriage with an American woman is repulsive.
@enrique 432
I predict there will be MORE and MORE white MEN converting in the UK, and eventually the US.
Religion – and especially the major world religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism – is, in a secular sense, the vehicle through which knowledge of human nature is passed down through the centuries. I understand what you’re saying about Islam having a bead on how women are, but America doesn’t need Islam. What America needs is for its churches to get their shit together, stop catering to the emotionally driven, quasi-pagan, New Age, female attendees, and actually teach the faith that founded this country. Our problem is that we feel that we can throw out the accumulated wisdom of the ages. We need that back, but we need it back in a way that makes sense, culturally, to the majority.
From what I can see from Islam it is violent and cruel and rife with death. !40 kids in school killed. Years of war and terrorism. I don’t see converting to Islam for pussy. Trading one master for another. I would much rather fight a civil war in my own country than enable an Islamic take over. If you men think it is bad now under misandry wait until you live under Islam.
Pingback: Churchianity will fail [quotage] | Dark Brightness
What is needed is severe social situations that eliminate feminists. You know, like house to house combat. That’s a coming attraction, btw. You see, the strong independent woman here in the US actually depends on men to protect her. I’m not interested in howls of protest. When the easy food runs out, who will feed a starving feminist? I won’t. I won’t let a dog bite me either. Will I step out of cover to warn of a possible ambush? Nope. Most of the wo.en who are friends of my ex are feminists. Will I help them? No. You see, I learned a long time ago to watch your enemies die. Starvation kills a lot of people in a civil war. Most of the people here don’t really understand what I’m talking about. Say you help a feminist….sooner or later she’s going to betray you. That’s what a feminist is….A lying treacherous woman who will do you in if you don’t go your own way. As the good book says….Jealousy is rottenous to the bone. That means that feminists aren’t ever to be trusted. NEVER. In a civil war, that .ears that they get to meet their maker sooner than us.
We need that back, but we need it back in a way that makes sense, culturally, to the majority.
How is this even possible? The majority of this culture laughs and scoffs at sound doctrine. Even most of those claiming to be Christian turn a blind eye to unpopular yet pivotal teachings in scripture. Nothing righteous, virtuous, or holy makes sense to the majority any more.
Well, just to address the many posts about this:
I follow the Sufi Path (for 15 years now), and do not claim to have all the answers. I was raised Christian and know the bible (and Gnostic texts) quite well. So bear that in mind:
1. Christianity has some of the New Age stuff because it was largely (as most religions) foisted upon Pagan Celts, Jutes, Angles and Saxons…notwithstanding the Iberian Peninsula and Rome of course, because our US Culture is largely Anglo-Celtic, with a bit of German and French influence, it was bound to happen.
2. Islam, like the OT, operates under the premises that humans have not really changed in 10,000 years. Humans are tribal and warlike, but are drawn to worship God (or “Gods”). So, yes, when the Banu Qurayza betrayed their treaty with the Prophet (saws), they got OT style punishment–execution. When a woman sluts around, at it’s extreme, they get stoned. Period. You steal, you lose a hand (this is not in all Islamic countries of course).
But because of the European influence on Christianity, and pedestalization of women, you see 10 year old girls roaming American malls wearing “Pink” on their sweat pants’ butt…and we as Muslims are told WE are backwards. That same girl is wearing $200 of clothing to school every day, and then sweats to Church, with flip flops–but Isa (Jesus, pbuh) forgives her, versus our belief, that GOD (Allah, swt) will judge her and all of us, on judgment day. She’ll be pregnant or carousel riding by 15, 17, or 21, given certain family realities, and all she will advance above men in the work place and demand her father, boyfriend, brother, etc, give her money. In Islam, she would be slapped silly, and then shamed out of the community. Her MOM would slap her, just like in the US 50 year ago, for slutting around.
It’s not just women though. If a guy tried to rape your sister, he’ll be shot 22 times and thrown in a ditch.
It’s an Alpha versus Beta worldview. I’m American and love this country, but I have been saying for years, this is A vs. B team, and guess which team we are? The world cannot operate the way things are going here. The UK (see birthrates) are the PERFECT microcosm of what’s coming to the US.
Sorry, but for the Bible (all of it) believing Christian, Islam is not the answer. Maybe some of the secularists and CINO’s will try it, but the true believer knows where to place his trust.
Perhaps Islam will rush in to fill the religious voids in the UK and the US, but maybe instead secularism and feminism will infiltrate Islam and turn it into a fem-centric caliphate.
Dude, you don’t leave someone you love because they have cancer. You fight. If you think Christians are going to convert Islam, you are in fantasy land. Go read some Vox, he basically has the historical pattern nailed
Given the cultural Arab Inferiority complex, Muslim cultures simply can’t produce a modern army. It would probably take another 200 years to unwind how insanely effective a Western Military simply is. Not that they’re not trying, but there’s several economic collapses between then and now. Plus, eventually, someone is going to study enough History to copy what the West has done. It’s not that hard: Christianity & Self-Control. Goes a long ways.
Two things to keep in mind, though.
1) We’re in the middle of a massively fraying Ruling Class, across all of the major Powers. It’s one of those little background issues from 2008 and the Global Financial Panic. They don’t know what to do; they’re only shoveling water out of the boat; and they’re all trying to figure out their own lifeboat before the next crash.
And that crash is going to be UGLY. The World is sitting at a net of roughly 300% Debt to GDP (total) and a total value of Derivatives close to 700% Value to World GDP. All because Boomers voted themselves Money and didn’t have Children. No one alive has been through a period like what is about to be on the horizon. What we really need to think about is for preparing to deal with what a “modern Dark Ages” looks like. (If you haven’t gotten the hint, get your finances in Order and get out of all of your Debt. You have a few years, but the Piper will be Paid. Fair Warning.)
2) The upcoming young generation is cynical beyond anything to ever come before it. Do not underestimate that. All power structures fade when they lose control, so someone will eventually be the divergent voice from the mainstream. This is where the Red Pill will start to go mainstream.
It’s just a matter of who that voice actually ends up being. If it’s someone that cares about having a functioning society, there is hope. If it’s more degenerates, then it’ll just be more of the same. The world waiting for someone to speak the Truth and keep speaking it. But also knowing not to play by the “rules” of the current game.
Reject the thinking imposed on you and blow up the Frame. It takes very little to light wood that is that’s all ready to burn.
Looking Glass, the debt we have has been run up without any intention of paying it. Going to be interesting to see who wins the next world war. Modern dark ages, yeah…..but there really won’t be money, per se, imo. Gold and slaves. That’s historical. Question is who is gonna be who.
Why Breaking Mr. Nice Guy’s Heart May Be The Best Decision Of Your Life — There’s a reason he never gets the girl and why he always finishes last.
https://archive.today/3JYyf (http://elitedaily.com/dating/nice-guys-heart-broken/871973/)
In the past, federal economic policy was always there to “bail out” feminism and declining male participation in the labor force (look at a 40 year graph of both the 10 year interest rate and debt/gdp).
In other words, the antidote to replacing highly productive men in manufacturing with lower productive women in service jobs is cheaper money.
Now that money is basically free (i.e. interest rates near zero) and debt/gdp is approaching 100%, there is little else the federal government can do to conceal the cost and associated pain (i.e. jumpstart the economy) caused by feminism.
The next decade will be interesting…
@Don Quixote:
That’s not the ONLY thing Islam does better than secular Western Civ and Churchianity White Knight, Inc., Don.
Islam also, unlike Churchianity, has held firm on USURY STILL BEING A CRIME.
Read Nehemiah.
Read what Jesus did to the moneychangers (and how quickly he was crucified right after)–lesson? Don’t mess with the Banksters.
Oh, but if you go to a modern 501c3/State Incorporated Churchianity Seminary, Inc., you can take out massive student loans to finance your education and enslave you for the rest of your years. They’ll help you fill out the forms.
And then, when you graduate and open up your own 501c3 corporation and call it a “church,” you can counsel couples who have problems–but by God, do NOT ever suggest that the wife is at fault, no matter WHAT the hell she is doing in violation of Scripture. Feminism is public policy now, and public policy is the law, and remember: you’re now indebted to the Banksters for the usurious loans you took out for seminary, and you’ve got to keep your job and make your school loan payments.
From the Atlantic article,
““Throughout history, the model that has worked for humankind was extended family—a village, a tribe,” Hope told me. “It’s only recently that we’ve started doing the nuclear family, with one mom and one dad, and it’s really a failed experiment.”
More evidence of how the matriarchy destroys Western Civilization and pull us back to a tribe filled with grass huts.
debt/gdp is approaching 100%
Apparently the US government has 106.525% debt/GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt).
@Bee
From the Atlantic article,
““Throughout history, the model that has worked for humankind was extended family—a village, a tribe,” Hope told me. “It’s only recently that we’ve started doing the nuclear family, with one mom and one dad, and it’s really a failed experiment.”
JF: What these communists are villifying as a “failed experiment” are the SUCCESSES of the Patriarchs of Old Testament Scripture. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, etc.
You know, back when fathers held real property and had rights and authority over the fruit of their own loins. Had Social Lady tried butting in on that, Social Lady would have been stoned to death by males and females alike.
If that’s failure, I want some of that.
All of Modern Society is built upon the Nuclear Family. Without it, you don’t get consistently running electricity and you have to worry about starving. It’s a necessary pre-condition.
But that’s the Atlantic. They’re stupid like that.
@Looking Glass
Why the nuclear family and not the extended family? Isn’t the nuclear nature of the family why it is so easy to break apart and destroy in the 1st place?
“Nuclear Family” is Newspeak.
If you want a return to rationalism and liberty, you need to be talking about a return to PATRIARCHY.
Oh, don’t worry. I’m not expecting too many to be rational and liberty-loving. Not in practice, at least. So for all of you “the Patriarchy is dead, you can’t bring it back” responses, that means YOU.
You’re the problem.
Yes, you.
” “It’s only recently that we’ve started doing the nuclear family, with one mom and one dad, and it’s really a failed experiment.””
LOL! Yes, the years of the nuclear family were times of such poverty and depredation!
“Make sub 30k and you pay nothing in taxes. ”
Other than sales tax, gasoline tax, etc.
“And, in time, he will realize that although he loved you, you didn’t make his toes curl or take his breath away, either.”
Well isn’t that convenient!
Bro you guys need to be careful. Don’t be overconfident. There are feminists infiltrating your masjids right now.
Best thing you guys can do is call out any preacher who allows the women to be taught anything by a secular or “progressive” teacher. Also, stop your Muslim preachers from pedestalizing the sisters. I hear a lot about this. The preacher will get up and heap praise on Muslim women, and then talk about the duty of the Muslim men, but not heap any praise on them, only shame and “man up” type nonsense.
You think you’ve got a good system with healthy families, but the sort of rot that is happening now to American Muslims is the same old business that happened to Catholics and Protestants and Jews, just a few generations ago. Don’t cut these assholes any slack.
Boxer
I second the return to patriarchy suggestion.
Why are traditional men so “weird” around women?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926116
Toxic Family Situation (multiple points on the conventional abuse checklist, but instead: “She is a lost soul”)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=930191
Is it ok to approach a girl after mass and how to do?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=930139
The One says:
Please understand that the attraction to Islam is based on the way they manage/control women, not for religious appeal. If the churches only bothered to teach what is written in the bible then the churches would lead the way, but they don’t. When in darkness people look for light. Islam is doing a better job than the church on family matters and family law.
This reminds me of an Australian news story from the late 1990s. There was a
bitchwoman who divorced her husband and was granted custody, cash and prizes etc. etc. She remarried a guy who worked in the media [camerman?] and changed the children’s names to that of the new husband [Gillespie if I recall correctly]. These children were from her previous marriage to an Indonesian muslim man who was very well connected. After the divorce the Indonesian muslim man went back to Indonesia without his children but was granted visiting rights by the Australiankangaroofamily court.Anyway, one day when he was visiting his children he took them back to Indonesia by private plane and boat. The mother never saw them for years afterwards. The Indonesian courts don’t care for stupid Australian family law….well the media ran story after story about how the “Gillespie” children were “abducted” and taken to Indonesia. I laughed and laughed every time I heard their BS.
Sorry, I made a mistake. It was a Malaysian dude. Not Indonesian. And the events occurred in 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Pascarl
Ras al Ghul
“Don’t expect the change to be toward marriage, that’s not where its headed. The women are broken, desouled as GBFM would say. They see their happiness as the one and only primary goal for their lives.
Does anyone honestly think that they are going to eliminate no fault divorce or give men primary custody?”
I agree you you. I should perhaps have articulated the way I feel that the balance of power between the sexes will correct. Everyone tends to talk about it in terms of a pendulum swinging backwards and forwards – in a sometimes disorderly but generally progressive (small p) fashion.
However, we already understand that the sexes engage with each other, and the world in general in a broadly different way, women relentlessly picking away over time to get what they want – mostly from men, and men taking fewer, but bolder and deeper actions – and directed at other men, women and the world itself.
Given the nature of male and female agency, I see the ‘cycle of power’ not as a pendulum but more akin to a dam. Men form a dam (patriarchy) which constrains female behaviour and choices in such as way as to protect society and allow it to flourish. But female nature continually pushes against this dam, slowly filling the reservoir of the female imperative. At first men try to strengthen the dam, but the pressure continues to build. More and more men are sucked from society to try and maintain the dam until almost all of men’s efforts are being used just for this purpose. Soon the dam stops being strengthened – some men are still plugging the weaknesses, but now some are leaving, and more still never even bother. A tipping point is reached. The dam crumbles – it does not break, there is no ‘battle of the sexes’ – a critical mass of men simply walk away. Female nature floods society, destroying everything in it’s path.
Whenever women, as a group, ‘win’ the ‘battle of the sexes’ they are always faced with the same dilemma. With their primary agency rooted in manipulating men, men who are no longer engaged, the ‘win’ is empty. They are clueless as to what to do with their ‘victory’.
So, in short order women soon start impeaching men for help, and sooner or later the men start forming another dam.
In my comment I was pointing out that we are already in the ‘crumbling’ phase. We happen to live in one of these ‘end times’. It does not mean that we cannot survive or thrive – it does mean that men who follow the a traditional / biblical / red pill path are far more likely to be a winner in the years to come.
In short – hoping the society will swing back in an orderly fashion is pointless imo. There will be a disruptive event in the not too distant future and there will not be enough men left who are invested enough, to contain it. It’s unlikely to be a world-ending cataclysm but it will most likely not be pleasant for anyone – I am not looking forward to it. It will destroy feminism and ‘female empowerment’ in a nano-second.
Our job, as men, is to be aware if it, plan for it, and make sure we have the skills and frame to prosper as things start to fall apart. Spend your efforts working on yourself rather than asking that women start draining the dam. They never have and they never will.
JF says:
You’re ahead of me on this one. I live in Australia and we don’t have the 501c3 thing. But that doesn’t mean our churches aren’t endeared to money. Hell no! They are up to their eyeballs in debt and always looking for more money. From my limited experience its seems that political correctness and feminism go hand-in-hand. So the churches here are choking in debt, feminism and political correctness. There are the odd exceptions though.
Honest question:
I have had very good success in *not* getting friends of mine to leave their husbands (mix of who the @$%$ wants two baby daddies and no man will ever love your kids as much as their dad and you don’t have the @##$!#$! money). BUT! The I-will-have-a-baby-my-own-damn-self-with-donated-sperm is quite intransigent.
I’ve already tried, the no man wants to raise someone else’s bastard, it’s too hard to do alone full time and work, pay for daycare etc. I’m not sure what else to say really. I’m pushing for egg freezing for at least the chance it will delay the desperation for a bit but yeah… Very frustrating.
The 106.5% debt/gdp ratio for the US is a gross figure.
Using gross debt does not reflect the assets that the country also has and so does not give a complete picture of this country’s true fiscal situation. In addition, using gross debt has shades of confirmation bias if one is trying to make the point that the US fiscal position is worsening.
For example, if I argued that Bill Gates was poor (I.e. in a weak fiscal position) because he had $20 million in debt, we know that this argument is incorrect because only focusing on his debt but does not take into account the billions that he has in assets.
The net debt, which adjusts gross debt for assets thereby illustrating the ultimate fiscal position, for the US is 87.9% as of 2012 from the wikipedia link.
Well, I am sure everyone here is moderately versed in Islamic principles and tenants, enough to know that we do not believe Jesus Isa (pbuh) is “GOD”, which we consider idolatry, or as we say, the association of partners with the Creator. Not to get into deep theological discussions, but it’s primarily the Book of John which makes these assertions.
Anyhow, when you force Christianity on a bunch of Celts and Angles/Saxons and Jutes, who believe essentially in what we could call “New Age” beliefs today (and thus many of the Celtic concepts are incorporated into NA), and when those same peoples go on to conquer much of the world, particularly the West…don’t be surprised when they simply switch “Idols” and swap out Jesus for “Mother GOD” and feminism in general as the centuries go by.
They never served the one Creator per se, they don’t pray to him five times a day, and for Catholics, they spend time with little prayer cards, Saints, etc, all that. If you don’t make GOD your focus, you focus on other things. I make no special claim that all Muslims live up to this, btw, but you tell me if you could get a billion Christians to fast for 30 days a year?
As to the Arab world, armies, etc…true, the west has produced better military structures, and technology. However, feminism is destroying that as well. If you look at human society on continuum (tortoise and hare stuff), I think you’ll see the West will get the collapse it probably earned, ala K Theory, Guns, Germs, Steel, and all that good stuff.
Feminism is DEEPLY embedded into Christianity–just ask Christians. Blue pill language, super-pro woman comments, shaming men/fathers, praising single moms, New Age, “Mother God”, calling Episcopal female “priests” “Mother” (WTF?). Just wait, there will be a female pope within 25 years.
It will get a lot worse before it gets any better.
I do not expect to see any improvement in my lifetime, and I am in my mid 40s. So for all intents and purpose….. no change will occur.
There are laws in the works to change yet again the meaning of a committed relationship. From marriage….. to common law….to now living together apart.
In the UK there is policy in the works to legitimize the relationships of couples who are merely dating and maintaining separate residences.
In other words…. if you are dating and have no kids, you would still be treated as married under the law.
There will be no roll back of the gross injustices men face from the courts. There will just be better snaretraps built.
“Most white women are still able to marry”
Totally amazing. Last year, a friend of an acquaintance got married to some gravelly voiced, leather faced, former beach bunny in her mid thirties (as he is). I was thinking how clueless and thirsty a guy has to be to go there. And then I remembered – I went there too before I discovered the ‘sphere. The system works because most men are kept clueless and thirsty – apparently by design.
I have recently been reading a paper by David de la Croix and Fabio Mariani both of the Catholic University of Louvain which (this being Tuesday) is in Belgium entitled From Polygyny to Serial Monogamy: a unified theory of Marriage Institutions, which, to quote from its Abstract, states that in Marriage, “the dynamics of income distribution are the driving force” of institutional change and “The introduction of serial monogamy follows from a further rise in the proportion of either rich females or rich males”. For those interested, it is available in PDF form on-line and runs to near seventy pages and with a fair amount of Mathematics.
Pornography is merely advertisement for the real thing; Islam has, in Great Britain – amongst the natives – and despite the appointment this week of the first female Bishop, but little appeal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158490/Mothers-deny-fathers-access-couple-s-children-break-jailed.html
The system works because most men are kept clueless and thirsty – apparently by design.
Yes, this does seem to be the case. But how is it perpetuated?
From my limited experience its seems that political correctness and feminism go hand-in-hand. So the churches here are choking in debt, feminism and political correctness.
Though you don’t explicitly say it, it is implied that feminism causes debt.
It would seem that women like to spend money unfettered in all institutions,
@Don Quixote
That story is a function of dual citizenship, not Islam. If I took my (future) children to a south american Christian/Catholic country of which I was an citizen, the American courts would also be powerless.
Anyway it’s really simple if you aren’t Christian
1. Adopt/Surrogate for full custody
2. Male BC or Vasectomy
3. Live in girlfriend. (no sharing of bank account, cell phone bills, etc)
4. a)No house, beater/leased car. With negative interest rates go mattress+shotgun+gold
b) Make sure you don’t live in a common law state
@enrique432
As a woman who grew up with a bunch of friends who were steeped in this New Age bullshit… you’re wrong.
There is a mild pagan influence in the Catholic Church for the reasons you described, due to the blending of holidays during the early centuries as the Church expanded out from Rome into the northern Celtic areas, but historical Celtic beliefs are a far cry from the shit New Ageism peddles today. Too, there are Celtic Reconstructionists, but Wicca is a product of the 1960s.
New Age beliefs are syncretic in nature, incorporating quite a few different pagan traditions, but they bear about as much resemblance to those old practices as D&D does. At the core, New Ageism is not about worshiping trees in an effort to gain a semblance of control over the natural world for the sake of survival, but rather, changing the world so that mankind reaches new spiritual awareness or higher levels of consciousness, in essence, deifying the individual. All people carry divine power within them and can shape the world to their will; there is no need or place for God in such a worldview. In my experience, this also means a refusal to recognize evil, to the point where beings like Lucifer are worshiped unironically, practicing magic is a-okay, and anything that warns about the inherent dangers of this is loathed. I’ve had the displeasure to work with some of these people; one was a witch who could barely stand to be in the same room with me. The two things are fundamentally incompatible.
The Catholic Church is staunchly against New Age beliefs, and the Vatican has a really great encyclical on the subject. I don’t know what Islam’s views on the subject are, but it is something that Catholics are supposed to be guarded against. It’s not supposed to be incorporated into the Church (I was looking at marriage prep classes/marriage applications, and quite a few parishes outright ban certain New-Agey wedding ceremony fads), but of course there are cultural traditions that have been incorporated along the way. Can you really say that Islam carries no heritage of its Arab, desert roots?
If you want a Christian tradition that fully embraces New Ageism (or at least, it’s predecessor, the New Thought movement of the late 1800s), that would be the Christian Scientists.
The Real Petermen said
“Make sub 30k and you pay nothing in taxes. ”
“”Other than sales tax, gasoline tax, etc.””
Yes, was referring to income taxes which is the primary wealth transfer driver. Happy to pay gasoline taxes for roads, sales taxes support state, not federal programs. There are five states without any sales tax, always can move. I did
Alaska
Delaware
Montana
New Hampshire
Oregon
Casey, agreed. Work-arounds will be created to accommodate women’s demands, regardless of men “dropping out”. That’s why I am concerned about this “Yes Means Yes”, because we have ALL seen how a cottage industry develops around any institution, with “developing areas of law and legal theory”. YMY may eventually lead to a signed document by both parties to agree to sex. It may seem far-fetched but if you are 40 or older, you’ve already seen how such things have developed in our society with “legal waivers” of every sort, for kids’ field trips, etc.
About five minutes after the first guy signs a doc purported to “protect him” (both parties), it will be used as a legal tool to attach economic liability that he “make her whole”, with the attendant legal theories that she thought this meant they’d be together “forever” and all that. Pick your claim…maybe that he has to “now pay for the maintenance of her birth control”, etc. It will be a form, as it were (ironically) of prostitution. Set parameters of sex, the expectations afterwards, deepening levels of commitment, etc. You may ask, “well, wouldn’t this lock her in, too, if such arrangements make demands of the parties having sex?” NOPE, there will be a work-around clause to every single invention of feminists in this area. A man may be locked in/down for having sex with a 22 year old on campus, but she will have a clause in whatever contracts that develop, to let her out of any obligations, due to things like, “emotional dis-attachment”.
Remember, abortion laws let women murder their babies and say, smugly, as a legal claim “I just wasn’t ready to bring a baby into the world” as if 99 percent of the men from one-night stands who are paying child support wouldn’t LOVE to claim the same thing and have constructive abortions. Women are free to do whatever they want and have the system protect and defend their “rights” to not be bothered with consequences.
MEN are going to PAY for sex or even interactions with women, and the White Knightedry that exists in every single state legislature and court will ensure that is the case.
Work-arounds will be created to accommodate women’s demands, regardless of men “dropping out”.
Much cost there will be.
Bear it who will?
>> Islam also, unlike Churchianity, has held firm on USURY STILL BEING A CRIME
Nice try, but not exactly so. Islam forbids ALL interest-taking. One is not allowed to operate an economy on the basis that money has a time value.
I have studied “Islamic Finance” quite extensively. Islamic Finance (as it is practiced in the real world) is the study of ways to DENY the fact that the time-value-of-money is being capitalized upon…. without calling it such. The Malaysian government has turned this charade into a lucrative sector of their economy
Islamic insurance gets even more interesting. The Quran forbids gambling – fine with me. But, the unwashed masses – to include high-ranking Sharia experts – have trouble comprehending that MEASURING existing hazards, then PRICING and TRADING the risks appurtenant thereto – is NOT the same as creating new risks.
It’s really fairly curious. Islam in general is VERY supportive of capitalism and free trade. Now, any merchant who buys some inventory faces a commercial risk that he will not be able to re-sell it a profit. We can even view his merchandising as being the mere POOLING and TRANSFER of the risks that the individual manufacturers originally had. Every Islamic jurist has the highest praise for merchants…. yet indemnification – which is just another flavor of pooling-and disseminating commercial risk – has MUCH dis-respect amongst Sharia authorities.
It’s as if they imagine that banning life insurance, will create immortality.
Kindly note that I am NOT expressing any opinion about Islamic views (note the plural…. there ARE at least 4 major schools of Islamic Jurisprudence) towards women.
PS: can you offer your definition of usury? Is it merely “a higher rate of interest than I hamster myself into imagining that I am entitled to, because I am so wonderful!”
@enrique433
Sorry, but herbivores + virtual reality sex is the end of women. Does yes mean yes inside oculus rift?
Robert What? says: ” Most white women are still able to marry”
Totally amazing. Last year, a friend of an acquaintance got married to some gravelly voiced, leather faced, former beach bunny in her mid thirties (as he is). I was thinking how clueless and thirsty a guy has to be to go there. And then I remembered – I went there too before I discovered the ‘sphere. The system works because most men are kept clueless and thirsty – apparently by design.
An example of how this is done in the media is the show “The Glades.” A show about an off-beat Florida cop. I haven’t watched the latter shows, but in the early shows he falls for a woman who:
1) Has a son (looks to be about 13)
2) Is married (her husband is a career criminal in prison for armed robbery)
3) Must already be close to 35 given her son’s age (she was at least 19 before getting pregnant according to one episode)
4) Who “always went for the bad boys” according to one of her old friends
5) Is studying to be a doctor (and has already talked about him using too much of her time and preventing her from studying–in other words her career comes first)
The cop has a serious case of oneitis, to the point that he is ignoring obvious interest from other women. He is trying to get into the mom’s good graces by becoming friends with the kid. He is the classic beta orbiter.
I haven’t seen all of the show, but my guess there will be some kind of confrontation involving the thug husband in the future that will allow the cop to swoop in and save her from her past mistakes. The perfect white-knight scenario.
The woman in this show is the kind men should run like hell away from, but instead she is portrayed as some kind of prize he would be lucky to get.
“What isn’t clear to me is how much economic and social pain our elites will be willing to bear before starting to acknowledge the problem.”
—————————-
They don’t currently equate the two.
The economic situation in Japan is a good example of this – the on-going recession and lack of recovery there is (correctly) highlighted as one reason so many young men are unemployed. However, it is socially taboo for the MSM to posit that perhaps the recovery is stagnating because our most productive and creative workers (men) are purposely disengaging with traditional social roles such as husband, father and provider.
Lack of innovation and creativity is a death sentence for a post-industrial society. Much of the West is coasting on accumulated wealth and knowledge, which is now sliding into growing debt and the outsourcing of know-how to places like China and India.
I help coach my son’s grade school basketball team. 10 boys are on the team ages 8-10. I have met all the mothers, but only a few of the fathers. Two boys are children of divorce. They are both broken, but in different ways. One is a horrible brat, who basically refuses to listen to the coaches, and whose father (who does come to some of the practices) has no influence over. He won’t instruct or discipline his son, which I will do as necessary (laps or being benched). It’s possible the father is scared of losing his son’s love or whatever, but he is doing the boy no favors as is. The other boy seems even worse off in my opinion. I have never met his father. His mother always seems nervous and somewhat discombobulated. He is often late for practice and games. He is completely lost during practice and games, though I make an effort to give him so extra help each practice. I don’t think he touches a ball the rest of the week or gets much exercise otherwise.
I’m far from perfect, but I’m only staying with my wife for the sake of my children. She’s a mostly useless wife to me, a lousy daughter to her parents, and a do-the-least-amount-possible mother for our kids. Her mother complains about her to my mother. It is immensely hard and I struggle with anger and depression on a daily basis, but seeing these other boys and how they are struggling tells me I am doing the right thing for my sons. And I know I can’t do it as well from the distance that divorce would impose between me and my boys. I believe even 50/50 custody would be ruinous. Damn, it is hard though. I fantasize daily about my wife dying (This is Forty style) and how much happier I’d be if she was run over by a Fedex truck. A nice wrongful death payout to me and the three of us manage to survive and thrive comforted by several million dollars (converted to gold and buried under a rock somewhere on our expansive land-holdings). Unless or until I’m delivered by some miracle, I’ll just have to keep my shoulder to the wheel and keep being the best father I can be.
Don’t you think this hand-wringing is a bit late? And completely ignores the changes in family law that have occurred over the past few decades and is going to continue?
“Emotional abuse” (whatever that is) is now illegal in the UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30098611). The same “law” is being pushed here in the US, and I’ll bet will be codified as a federal or multi-state statute(s) within the next 5 years.
Marriage? Game over. You might as well try to bring back steam engines or gaslamps.
@ The One;
I agree, most commentators here are too pessimistic imo.
My work has, unexpectedly, brought me into contact with a number of early to mid thirties women. All are average to decent looking, slim to slightly overweight and all are graduates. All are working less than stellar jobs and all bemoan the lack of men worthy of ‘dating’.
I have no way to know if they rode the carousel in their younger years but the thing that all of them have in common is that they sacrificed their beauty years at the alter of education and career. They followed the feminist script.
It simply never entered their head that there would not be a man waiting for them ‘when they were ready’. And yet that is what increasing numbers of them are finding. It is sometimes heartbreaking to see how desperate they are for any sort of decent male attention.
At the other end of the scale I see many of my son’s peers (early twenties). Many are having a horrible time with women – I see much of what the younger men in the ‘sphere report. But here’s the thing, many of my son’s friends are becoming unceasingly ‘meh’ about girls. That would like one but are becoming ever more disillusioned about what they have to offer over and above a warm wet hole. The most common comment is that they just ‘can’t be bothered’ with girls.
This matters. Because all the laws and feminist social mores mean nothing if a man chooses not to interact with a woman. Men’s thirst is starting to be diluted with indifference. In the culture war, this is where the rubber is meeting the road.
We’ve read about how for centuries immigrants have left their homes to seek a better life on US soil. The time may be coming when large numbers of people, especially men, will leave the US for the same reasons. I say maybe because the US is exporting feminism to the point that in the future there may not be anywhere to go that’s livable.
“What isn’t clear to me is how much economic and social pain our elites will be willing to bear before starting to acknowledge the problem.”
I can’t believe you think that way. Our elites will *never* acknowledge this problem they have created. Never. Ever. Doesn’t matter what pain is inflicted on them. To the extent they think there’s a problem, they think it’s with us plebs, not with them. The only thing they will accept is a fresh fiddle, to continue playing as The New Rome burns.
It does pity me to have to see what a young woman goes through. Her natural urges telling her one thing and the world telling her to get a degree and education while at the same time hating men and children.
But a lot of them have made their decision and will live with the consequences.
“Fathers don’t matter. It’s the production of men that matters.”
The Japanese government realizes this and is expressing concern. Unlike our government, they at least admit that their male workers are basically cogs.
You better hope those fake valuations hold up, for like… I don’t know… the next 100 years…
You live in a fake economy, where devaluation, while great for those not in debt, is a country killer for just about every state in the world….
That should read ‘deflation’ not devaluation, but it works nonetheless.
Marriage rate declining due to porn
http://mangans.blogspot.ca/2014/12/marriage-rate-declining-due-to-porn.html
Assuming that this is true, it comes down to a simple cost/benefit analysis: to the extent that men get married in order to have a steady sex partner, porn is a whole lot cheaper. It doesn’t cook dinner, but then most women don’t do that either nowadays. Also, porn actresses aren’t fat and don’t talk back.
Even in the best of all possible worlds, namely one in which all the young, marriageable women were attractive and feminine, porn would still put a dent in marriage rates, in my opinion. As I’ve noted before, broadband internet porn is something genuinely new under the sun, and it’s plausible that it functions partly as a substitute for marriage.
@MarcusD,
Your headline should read: Marriage rate declining due to men finding alternatives to women.”
As @Cadders said a few posts above: …many of my son’s friends are becoming unceasingly ‘meh’ about girls. That would like one but are becoming ever more disillusioned about what they have to offer over and above a warm wet hole. The most common comment is that they just ‘can’t be bothered’ with girls.
Maybe women need to ask why so many men consider porn to be an adequate enough substitute for a real woman, that those men feel they can do without a real woman?
If the only thing women are bringing to a relationship (from a man’s standpoint) is sexual release for the man, then anything that also provides a sexual release for men (such as porn) will reduce their need for women.
@Lieff,
“She’s a mostly useless wife to me, a lousy daughter to her parents, and a do-the-least-amount-possible mother for our kids.”
What could you have done to discern this while dating? How could other men avoid picking a woman like this?
For some idea where this is going, read about the Abbasid Caliphate in the words of Sir John Glubb:
“Many women practiced law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_at_Samarra], and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”
Say what??? How did a land ruled by Islam for over 200 years ever get a “feminist movement” in the first place?
Apparently, Islam prevents feminism only insofar as it prevents civilization. We care not what our sacred scripture says about women’s rights; we only know that when bandits roam freely in the streets, our women must be kept out of sight. Any civilization that achieves two or three generations of physical and nutritional security finds some excuse to liberate its women, thus denying non-apex men the chance to marry and raise children. These rejected men either wallow in hedonism (e.g. porn and video games) or team up with foreign invaders to tear down the whole society, kill the feminist hags, and take their daughters as concubines.
For some idea where this is going, read about the Abbasid Caliphate in the words of Sir John Glubb:
“Many women practiced law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_at_Samarra], and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”
Say what??? How did a land ruled by Islam for over 200 years ever get a “feminist movement” in the first place?
Apparently, Islam prevents feminism only insofar as it prevents civilization. We care not what our sacred scripture says about women’s rights; we only know that when bandits roam freely in the streets, our women must be kept out of sight. Any civilization that achieves two or three generations of physical and nutritional security finds some excuse to liberate its women, thus denying non-apex men the chance to marry and raise children. These rejected men either wallow in hedonism (e.g. porn and video games) or team up with foreign invaders to tear down the whole society, kill the feminist hags, and take their daughters as concubines.
lzzozo merry xmas from beyondz!!!
Dalrock writes, “What isn’t clear to me is how much economic and social pain our elites will be willing to bear before starting to acknowledge the problem.”
Dear Dalrock,
When the goal of the elites is the destruction of marriage and abolition of the family, they will never “acknowledge the problem,” as technically speaking, accomplishing a goal is “not a problem.”
Dear Dalrock,
If you have internet access, you may wish to peruse this at some point:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
“Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.”
Dear Dalrock, do you still maintain “What isn’t clear to me is how much economic and social pain our elites will be willing to bear before starting to acknowledge the problem.”?
Best,
Da Ghost of GBFM lzozozozoozozzo zhhoooo hooooooo whoooooooooooo(ghost noises I have learned how to use from jim morrisionz up here in heavenz zlzlzo) whoooooolzozozozozozoozoz hoooooooooo whooooooooozlloozlzoozolzoozoz
Lieff says:
Hang in there bro. The hardest thing I remember when my wife divorced me was watching the damage to my son!!! Nothing hurts like that does. Your boys are worth the struggle.
enrique432 @ 7:31 am:
“you tell me if you could get a billion Christians to fast for 30 days a year?”
Why would we? Islam endures because it is strong, Christianity endures because it is true. We complain about the disobedience of the Church but Christ is not harmed in any way by it. He isn’t even losing believers. Show me the strength of a united Caliphate and I’ll show you the strength of one man who was willingly crucified for honesty.
“Feminism is DEEPLY embedded into Christianity–just ask Christians.”
It isn’t. The Bible is clearly patriarchal, warning against female leadership from Genesis 3 on. How the North American Church is able to deny this so thoroughly is a very good question but it doesn’t change Christianity. Nothing ever has, from Constantine to the Gnostics to the Communists.
…
@actuary in the house,
Good points. Islamic banking is doing better than Western banking simply by the fact that, at the moment, they don’t have criminals designing and operating their systems.
…
Lieff @ 11:18 am:
“Unless or until I’m delivered by some miracle, I’ll just have to keep my shoulder to the wheel and keep being the best father I can be.”
Stay the course! God knows what you’re going through and approves of your tenacity. All of God’s favorite people suffer.
@Cadders
That’s great men feel that way because there is a strong opportunity for Catholics to pick up disillusioned single men and turn them into priests. Already the seeds of arrival are being planted. I never meet a pastor without a wife, the Protestants should really have some type of leadership positions for single men.
“There are two ways to change a person’s behavior should their behavior being causing a problem: positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement. You get the carrot or the stick. I think we’d all prefer a carrot to a stick in the eye, but our society treats men like dogs with sticks. I’d agree that the correct diagnosis regarding the damage to society will be made but instead of offering men any incentives to marry, I expect we will all see many more DISincentives created to punish men who remain bachelors.”
—-
And thus the men will increasingly follow Diogenes, pursuing happiness as they see it, no doubt working for cash under the table, contributing nothing, and most likely drawing benefits as they’ll be paupers on paper.
However, it is socially taboo for the MSM to posit that perhaps the recovery is stagnating because our most productive and creative workers (men) are purposely disengaging with traditional social roles such as husband, father and provider.
It’s not taboo at all. In fact, mainstream media outlets are pushing this argument to an increasing degree. What is indeed taboo is to admit that men are behaving this way simply because there aren’t incentives for them to fill these roles. To put it in ever simpler terms, their female peers just aren’t worth all that hassle. On the other hand, it’s politically correct and acceptable to argue that single white men are purposely disengaging because they’re all just opportunistic, materialistic, hedonistic, slacking, pampered dipshits with an outrageous sense of entitlement and an inability to deal with strong, independent, fantastic womyn. It’s no surprise both feminists and tradcons are making this exact “argument”.
Someone actually mentioned Goli Otok? That’s a nice surprise.
Dalrock if you by chance see this comment, would you mind taking a listen to John Piper on wifely submission -https://soundcloud.com/askpastorjohn/what-will-submission-to-my-husband-look-like-episode-495 (12 mins.)?
I am newly married, but I have found that your advice on marriage has been much more helpful than most veteran pastors. Since most pastors tend to get squeamish when the subject of submission is broached and never give a clear answer (see example above), would you be able to distill the the main points of wifely submission and the duty of the husband?
Thanks
The great achievement of this blog, and most of the people who comment on it, is to expose the faggot “conservatives” who successfully fly under the radar on other red pill sites. Reading a few of the articles here is a wonderful awakening as to how bankrupt these jackasses are, morally as well as financially. They live to run interference for their feminist sisters, and have quite successfully distracted otherwise intelligent people from getting back to an authentic traditionalism.
“Family Formation Studies”? Someone was actually paid to invent such nonsense, and someone else is getting paid to be its “director”? It’s hilarious when you think about it.
OT
2014 feminist freak show overview
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-top-10-feminist-fiascoes-of-2014-20141219-story.html#page=1
And it’s not even Christmas yet!
‘Maybe women need to ask why so many men consider porn to be an adequate enough substitute for a real woman, that those men feel they can do without a real woman?’
The majority of real women are the ones not putting out in marriage, gaining weight, outright hating men, rejecting men, or deeming them ‘not dateworthy’. Will they change this attitude?…probably not in this lifetime
Granted I’m not a supporter of porn as a subsitute…but I can understand where even a fantasy can seem like a pleasant delusion to an otherwise dim reality.
nearly all White women are still able to marry
Only because most men don’t know there are better alternatives because they’ve never been out of the US. And if they do meet foreign women, the mistake many of the men make is to bring the women back to the US, where they become corrupt. Better to keep them where you find them. As I’ve gotten older I’ve found more and more US women to either be disgustingly fat or have a personality like a slug. One of the reasons I took to performing, and stacking the deck for the type of women I like is I got tired of all of the low-quality women out there. If anything, the percentage of women in the US that are worth more than a second glance is in the single digits as far as percentages – and the numbers drop as they age. And of those, most are good to use – but that’s about it. Men are much better served, having services come in to clean, and do the things they need, and use women only for sex. It’s a lot cheaper, and more satisfying in the long run.
It’s sad – but I can’t change reality. I just do what works for me. I can say that I have been floored by the number, and quality of women in some other countries. The old USSR have women that are incredible – but tend to be cold. Lots of fun but they want OUT of that country. So go for fun, but nothing more. After all of the filtering, I have to say that Asian women in, and around China, tend to be the best. American women don’t even make the top 50 – on par with many European women.
So while I enjoy American women – that’s all they are good for, and then only when they are young. By the time they are over 25, they are pretty much ready to be put out to pasture – too much baggage to even have fun with… That’s why when women married before they were 25, things worked – they hadn’t been out enough to start to rot on the inside and start to blame men, for all of their stupid decisions. And I’m probably one of them… But hey, I know that women are stupid, and enjoy using them for my own means – of course, they think they are using me too. When they find out they aren’t – they get bitter. But such is life…
Thank you all for the kind words and encouragement. I think the loneliness is the hardest part.
Bee asks:
What could you have done to discern this while dating? How could other men avoid picking a woman like this?
If I had the same red pill knowledge I have now when I was dating my wife, I think I would still have married her because at the time she did not present any serious red flags. We never disagreed on anything serious enough to be problematic, so I was never put in a situation where I had to lead her. She never challenged me in any serious way, so I mistakenly thought that was the way it would be going forward. I think the real issue is people are mutable and that none of us live in a vacuum. The red pill could have helped me to see what was happening and I could possibly have been able to avoid catastrophe, but frankly I did not have enough social or financial leverage/capital to make my opinion the decisive one early enough in our marriage. In her mind if I am right 90% and the time, and she is right 60% of the time, then each opinion should be equally valued because we are both right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Also, I am the only one who can be held accountable for any errors. If I think about it, knowing this would have kept me from getting married.
tl,dr
While I have basically just become even more the “me” I was when we got married, she has become someone I would not recognize as the same person. Someone I would never have been interested in.
While I believe that red pill can be a great help to some young men, I also believe that the only way to totally protect yourself against this is to not get married. For that reason, I am going to tell my sons not to marry. But if they do go against my advice and there are serious problems, I will be there for them and for any grandchildren. And I will be ruthless in their defense.
“If the only thing women are bringing to a relationship (from a man’s standpoint) is sexual release for the man, then anything that also provides a sexual release for men (such as porn) will reduce their need for women.”
Hence the reason many members of La Feminista despise it so. They know that many men can be manipulated via their endocrine systems to get what they want, so any “alternatives” are threats.
Feminists aren’t worried about being objectified. They’re worried about being replaced.
Off topic but interesting:
This single mom stabbed to death 7 of her children, and 1 other child. There are five different fathers to these children.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-20/cairns-mother-of-children-arrested-for-murder/5980826
Is feminism the great whore of Revelations 17 and 18?
I know this sounds rather like a radical thought, but I think it’s worth looking into. The whore used to be thought to represent the apostate church, but a closer look makes this unlikely. The apostate church is located worldwide; the whore is limited to the West, at least in the book of Revelations (the “beast with seven heads” is the Old Roman Empire).
MGTOW/family adoption surrogate
Male birth control (gandarusa)
Red pill foundation of character and man hood. Red pill includes “game” and the nature of women and why “game” is effective. How feminism plays out in politics and law and its relationship to the nature of women and how the combination of the nature of women and law make it impossible for a woman to “love” (no such thing from a woman) and respect her husband and father of her children.
Full participation in the manosphere to speak to other red pill and pass information on new laws of misandry
Live debt free and as off grid as possible.
own a rifle and have some prepping for independent survival.
Influence other men to red pill truth, from direct conversation to commenting on line articles.
That is my suggestion for men today. I have an 8 year old son and that is how I will teach him to survive misandry, with a full red pill explanation on each point.
Lieff,
I am not sure if you are a Christian, but I would highly recommend becoming one and leaning on the power of prayer to get you through the situation. God will not manipulate your wife as some might like, but it is possible that He can develop her more into what she can and should be. He can also change the needed things in you that way and give you much more peace even in tough situations.
My wife has always been quite challenging, but I looked past that and my own strong will and recent more optimal application of that will has helped both of us tremendously. I suspect she could have been like her own mother had God not been controlling her. Her mother sounds a lot like your wife, or seems to based on things I am piecing together finding about how my wife’s mother was when my wife was young.
No quick and easy solutions, but God can certainly work in many angles if you will let Him do so, mostly on your own heart and mind.
When dad is nothing more than a babysitter of convenience so mom can whore around, it removes a lot of incentive for the dad to be involved with their kids.
Yet a dad who doesn’t want to play that game is low life scum.
It doesn’t matter what the mom does post divorce or did to initiate the divorce, the husband will almost always be the bad guy.
In case anyone cares: I have been away for quite a while since my own mother died about a week and a half ago and I have been resolving things related to that. Kind of odd being the only immediate family member alive.
I did get back in contact with my youngest estranged son and that looks like it may grow into something. I am also in a bumpy spot with my oldest son, but hopefully that can work out too.
The future is not certain, but it does look better than it did a month or two ago. My mother is now in a better place (Heaven), so I am quite at peace. She had cancer for quite a while it seems and hid it from everyone. She divorced my dad, mostly because she was unhappy, years ago, but didn’t get the cash and prizes most do today.
She had her flaws, but she tried and she was my mother. I will miss her just like I now miss my dad (gone for over a decade), but I am at peace about things.
On a side note on this and other similar posts. Has anyone seen the Salvation Army gift commercial with the Spiderman toy? I did tonight and my first thought was “why is this mother raising a child by herself?” I have definitely lost a lot of “sorrow” for such women. A few are widows indeed (as noted in the Scriptures), but many have caused their own problems. Quite a nasty situation to be in.
Dear Brad:
Sorry to hear about your mom’s passing, but glad to think that your kids are coming around.
No, I didn’t, but it doesn’t surprise me.
On a related note: Last night I was without female company, and didn’t want hassles. I turned my phone off and shut down the computers. Retiring to the living room, I flipped on my new tee-vee (a/k/a “the electric feminist”) and found a supposedly *uplifting, family-friendly* film to watch with a holiday theme.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156400/
Neil Patrick Harris plays a materialistic wall-street playboy who returns home after the death of his grandfather, to tend to the estate, with plans to return to normal life when business is concluded. The film is not terrible, until the end, when the protagonist decides to marry a (fairly attractive) skank-ho single mom, who divorced her husband. In the end, the film alludes to the fact that our hero is going to adopt her kid, and quit his high powered career to take a low paying wage-slave job in order to support the skank and the victim of her state-sponsored kidnapping.
It is, I suppose, what passes for the “Christmas spirit” these days. Simultaneously hilarious and pathetic.
Regards, Boxer
Is this wrong? (“I was wondering if sexting is wrong if you send it to your boyfriend?”)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=929858
Girlfriend advice and prayers needed
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=929843
Terrible is it not: The Home Office have now made it illegal for a husband to control his wife [PJay at 11.25am on the 20th](say with regard to her desire to run-up massive credit-card bills) because that would be abusive; yet uncontrolled ex-wives fall prey to scammers to the tune of £170,000 and there is nothing anyone in England can do either to stop it or to punish the Nigerians [TFH at 8.09pm on the same day].
On another note: if you are a woman and you have surgery for cancer, that is considered a huge contribution to science, and you deserve recognition for your awesomeness.
GeminiXcX says:
December 21, 2014 at 4:44 am
Revelation 17:1 does mention that the whore is found/rules on “many waters”. I interpret this to mean spread out globally, not limited to the West.
It’s all possible. Or not. I began to question my earlier beliefs about the identity of the whore just this week, after listening again to the passage.
1. While the woman may be “sitting on many waters” (i.e. has influence on many peoples, since waters often represent different types of peoples, Revelation 17:1; 17:15), she literally “rode the seven-headed beast (i.e. controlled the governments of those nations—something that is limited to the West, as no other countries on earth have feminism controlling their governments).
2. She was described as being preoccupied with shiny but useless things (gold, precious stones and pearls—things with which women are naturally preoccupied with).
3. When God judged her, He focused on taking away these shiny things: “gold, silver, precious stones, pearls, fine linen, purple,silk, scarlet, thyine wood, all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,” etc. (Revelation 18:12-14).
Or could it be modern day Israel?
1. Israel is the only country in the Bible represented by a woman (Lamentations 1:1, a sorrowful widow). Note that the whore denied being sorrowful, or being a widow (Revelation 18:7).
2. Moreover, Israel has considerable influence on western countries, including the US, and through this, is able to influence the whole world. Most influential rulers in the world are either israelis or are considerably vulnerable to the influences of israelis.
3. Israel’s sins, (like the whore’s), were repeatedly described as sexual sins throughout the bible (adultery before Israel got “divorced”–Jeremiah 3:8; fornication thereafter–Revelation 18:9, etc).
All these are nothing but conjectures, of course. I believe that we’ll know the truth as time goes on.
BradA says:
December 21, 2014 at 12:25 am
In case anyone cares: I have been away for quite a while since my own mother died about a week and a half ago and I have been resolving things related to that. Kind of odd being the only immediate family member alive.
Brad, sure we do. Welcome back! My condolences, and sorry for your loss. I hope and pray that you and your children find common ground, and the hearts of these children are turned to their father. And, no, you are not alone; God is and will always be with you.
Stay strong, brother!
>> Islamic banking is doing better than Western banking
I don’t disagree and I do not agree. I can tell you that if you look at from the point of view of someone who desires to earn maximal returns from each dollar of capital…. opening an islamic bank is not the way to do it. Otherwise, we’d see Citibank and the others doing it.
The government of Malaysia has found a niche market of customers (many in the Gulf) who weren’t ever going to give much business to Citibank or the like. The money that’s made by Islamic finance institutions in Kuala Lampur looks good….. compared to Kuala Lampur. But not compared to New York or Basel. In Basel, they call an Islamic bank a 5 out of 10 in terms of size and return-on-capital. It’s out there, just google for it.
And it ===is=== a niche market. Judging by coffee-shop talk overheard in K.L., it’s quite likely that – let’s choose our words carefully here – folks similarly situated to enrique432, ===did=== sign an interest-bearing note in order to buy a house.
Islamic finance is not bullet-proof. The national-government-sponsored Islamic bank in the Philippines WENT BANKRUPT through bad management; about 15 years later, the government was able to unload the corpse onto a normal commercial bank….. by taking an 85% haircut on the assets.
Now we COULD observe that such is typical for ALL ethnic-Malayan operated enterprises. Some would even claim that anything above the size of a street-vendor-cart… if it’s successfull, look around for the Chinese family which owns it.
As to whether the CUSTOMERS are well served…. well, Islamic banks are allowed (both in civil law AND in Sharia) to lend to anyone. How many Christians in (say for example) Singapore, which is VERY close, have chosen to run their mortgage through a Islamic-finance house in K.L.? More or less none. So, even though I don’t have specific comparative numbers about effective-interest-rate outcomes, I do see a shortage of Christians voting with their feet.
Wasn’t it Sherlock Holmes who taught us to pay attention to the dog who DIDN’T bark?
It’s vaguely like a generation of young men who aren’t interested in wife’ing up their female contemporaries……
The Whore of Revelations is indeed the apostate (Catholic) church, IMS.
Brad my condolences.
>> you tell me if you could get a billion Christians to fast for 30 days a year?
Come on my friend, enrique – quit with the hamstering. Ramadan fastees endure about 12 hours at a time without food. Then they pig out at night. Maybe you thought none of kuffirs can read? Maybe you thought that none of us have spent months living in working-class neighborhoods of Abu Dhabi, and have lived through Ramadan? Maybe you thought that none of us, noticed that all those clothes being purchased for Eid…. were not in smaller sizes than what the recipients already had in their closets?
Many of us – MANY of us – admire the way that Islam keeps (on paper, though not always in fact in the West) your women on the appropriate-length leash. (Although let it be noted that “arranged marriages” in most of the current Islamic world are ALSO charades, in which the girl’s parents ACTUALLY only get a veto on the guy selected by the daughter). But don’t run hog-wild.
Don’t start to imagine that we pedalstal-ize Islam. It’s nothing special. It has severe punishments EXACTLY BECAUSE there’s nothing within it which magically breeds a better category of human beings.
Both the (south asian) Indians and the Israelis have made CONSIDERABLE amounts of military advantage out of the fact that MANY muslims have psychosis-level bad reactions to being around police dogs. Yep, they found one of your weak spots !!
‘The Whore of Revelations is indeed the apostate (Catholic) church, IMS.’
What basis do you have for that claim?
I think that Enrique and the Christians would benefit from reading the works of Osho and Neville Goddard.
The only time the “excesses of the family court” will be changed in any way is when they start biting “married” gays in the ass. Outside of that, never. Never. And even then, the reforms will be specifically tailored to exclude normal, hetero males. There is no provision in any law in any jurisdiction in america that recognizes any form of gay discrimination against non-gays. The US supreme court made that clear in 2012 in the Windsor decision. This extends to legislation. Vis-a-vis gays, non gays have no rights at all.
http://www.raptureforums.com/RomanCatholicism/whoreofbabylon.cfm
Lieff,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experience.
‘The Whore of Revelations is indeed the apostate (Catholic) church, IMS.’
This is what I was taught too, many years ago. But I doubt it these days. If anything, the Roman Catholic church is no longer as influential as it once was. This whore literally “rode” the seven-headed beast right into the book of Revelation.
That’s what observant/religious Mormons believe. (see also: venerating saints is idolatry, it’s the church of the devil, with Pope as chief antichrist, etc.) When I was a kid, there was a Mormon game called “assassinate the Pope” that the others came up with. Nice, huh?
The Catholic church is pretty silly in places, but no moreso than my religion, or yours. A thousand years from now, people will likely look back on us and find all our traditions to be quaint and cute and sorta backward. No doubt they’ll have something new they came up with in the interim, which they take to be the “one true way”. This is a function of humanity.
One thing I will say is that at least Catholics have the balls to say “no” to skanky wimminz who slice and dice their unborn kids, because they’re obviously too stupid to use any one of the five hundred other methods of birth control on the market. If you ask Protestants or Jews or Mormons about this, you get a bunch of mealy mouthed excuses and calls for “sympathy” (but only for the wimminz, not for the kid).
Regards, Boxer
I see it’s another one of those split the difference arguments. It’s not one and the other…it’s both.
The whole faith-works thing. Catholics don’t believe you are saved by your works alone. Rather the works come as an extension of faith. It’s in the book of James.
James 2: 14-26
Faith and Deeds
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Some obscure iforgothisname philosopher tried to solve this faith-deeds dilemma with a compromise:
Faith is your ticket into Heavenly Father’s house. Deeds, however, will define the luxury-level of your room in that house.
And as far as Mary…when it comes to the best description on how she should be viewed, nobody does better than St. Louis de Monfort.
https://www.fisheaters.com/totalconsecrationbook2.html
Speaking of RCC. New latino pope Francis I. seems to be quite red pilled. His doctrine
“In the time of economic crisis, feeding the poor is more important then preaching about bedroom morality”
can be vaticanesque-to-english translated into
“I have no time to listen to the complaints from sexually-frustrated fat lesbian north-american professors. I have economically-frustrated hungry straight south-american prostitutes to feed. That’s what Jesus would do. So, please, feminists, take your number and step in line. Or, even better, put your money where your mouth is, and donate some of your wealth to some catholic charity helping your less-priviliged sisters in the southern hemisphere. Thank you, that would be all. Go in peace, dear daughters.”
Hey Dalrock – have you seen this?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/census-bureau-proposes-dropping-some-marriage-and-divorce-questions/
Seems relevant to your (excellent) data driven approach.
One thing I will say is that at least Catholics have the balls to say “no” to skanky wimminz…
So true, and it is very surprising. I once followed political events in Nigeria. As the government became more corrupt by the day, only the nonevangelical organizations (Roman Catholics, the Methodists, and Anglicans, etc) had the balls to stand up to the government, and make public pronouncements against them. The evangelicals were “praying” for the corrupt government, hehe.
DangerZone,
I think Dalrock has seen the publication. He alluded to it in one of his recent writings, if I am not mistaken.
‘The evangelicals were “praying” for the corrupt government, hehe.’
The evangelicals are like the conservatives…they don’t try to stop the mistakes or call them out…they only try to conserve them after they’ve been unleashed.
Pingback: The unworkable bachelor tax. | Dalrock
@BradA,
Welcome back.
@hoellenhund2:
“What is indeed taboo is to admit that men are behaving this way simply because there aren’t incentives for them to fill these roles.”
——————————
Yes this is what I meant – the MSM doesn’t see this as the reason men are opting out. Rather, men are for some nefarious reason (lets say, oh, porn) deciding to just live in their parent’s basement and play video games.
Thanks everyone.
All you guys singing Islam’s praises are absolutely right. Islam is definitely the reason Muslim countries are such wonderful places to live. I’m sure you’ll all be moving there to bask in Islam’s beatific glow.
INteresting to hear from Lieff, who is staying with his wife because of his kids.
Would that more wives would remain with their husbands “for the children”.
It’s fascinating to hear all these claims that women are just “more caring” and are automatically better suited to have primary custody of the kids, because they just “know more” and are “better” at caring for children. It’s just not true, not even close.
@Farm Boy
“Yes, this does seem to be the case. But how is it perpetuated?
Others have alluded to it as well, but there are many factors: The mass media, the political class, and the courts are completely on-board with the Feminine Imperative (FI). Public Education has been taken over by radical feminists (both of the male and female variety) – so young boys are indoctrinated with the FI every school day. Finally, there is the proliferation and glorification of Heroic Single Mothers™. It would be an extremely rare single mother who would be anything but a feminizing influence on their sons. (Excluding for the rare widow who actually honored and supported her late husband.) In fact, that Red Pill thought is making any impact at all is amazing and totally against the odds.
@new anon
“An example of how this is done in the media is the show ‘The Glades.’”
Thanks for the heads up. “The Glades” sounds like your typical modern emasculating television drama.
In reality, I watch almost no television these days, except for the occasional movie. Once you become “red pill aware”, you suddenly start noticing all the dreadful messages in today’s television shows.
@Lieff
“I’m far from perfect, but I’m only staying with my wife for the sake of my children.”
Your comment really spoke to me. I am in a very similar situation. However, unfortunately, for most of my son’s formative years I was firmly in the Blue Pill camp. I only came to the ‘sphere a couple of years ago, after my son was already a young man. It is to my everlasting regret that I was so firmly entrenched in the FI for so many of those formative years, but I just didn’t know any better. On a gut / instinctual level I knew something was very wrong, but I couldn’t put my finger on it until I found sites like this one.
thedeti,
Plenty of men will not stay “for the children” either, so I would be cautious pushing that line of thought too far either. A relative who would not do so is now paying for it as his 2 daughters both ruin the lives of their children.
I do agree completely that more women should truly consider the children before taking foolish actions, but I think that applies to adults in general, not just to women. I have argued that a MGTOW having children is just as selfish. Children can survive with one parent, but the two that birthed them is the ideal and we ultimately need to come back to that.
The main difference in that area is that society (media, churches, family) encourages fathers to stay for the sake of the children, while quite often encouraging mothers to leave for the sake of the children. In fact, many people see a wife leaving her husband as proof that he was a terrible father and husband, because they’re sure that no woman ever divorces without a very good reason. So when a woman starts talking about leaving her marriage, many people will be halfway to encouraging her to do it “for the children,” before even hearing any details.
This is really something the ideal is mother and father. Yet it is fathers that know to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the children. Women make shitty mothers and always have. But they make excellent selfish bitches. I have been paying attention. Women have the rep for being necessary they are not fathers are. Women can’t love and only concern themselves with themselves. The only reason women do anything for a child is so she will be seen as a good mother. That is why abortion is legal. She is not needed and women that know that are always better behaved at all levels.
MGTOW/family best thing to happen to Americas children. A woman with out leverage against a man always treats that man well. A girlfriend will always do more than a wife. And a wife/mother will do nothing for her husband or his kids especially if he loves his kids. Children to todays women and yesterday are a title of virtue and meal ticket.
“What isn’t clear to me is how much economic and social pain our elites will be willing to bear before starting to acknowledge the problem.”
A lot. If you know any elites then you would know: the solipsism, the narcissism, the incapacity to cogitate that you are different from they,…it is a typical and constitutional defect.
If you are not elite then it is incumbent upon you to stand together with your peers and affirm your own existence, there is no alternative. It is the only thing that overcomes elitist solipsism. Otherwise if you choose to wait on their compassion yours will be a long wait.
Our bones and our guts tell us otherwise but in America we have inculturated ourselves to believe that UC, if it exists at all, has nothing to do with nobility of character and so we find ourselves surprised that we have the elites we deserve.
@Young Married,
I am not Dalrock but here is my two cents.
For submission from a wife’s point of view there is a lot of good info and experience here:
http://sarahsdaughterblog.blogspot.com/search?q=submission
I was talking to several younger men today and told them of the recent Pew Research findings that the rate of males who will NEVER marry in their lifetimes has reached 1 in 4 males for the U.S. when one of them looked at me and said bluntly, “In my social circle, 3 out of 4 males will never marry.”
That dang pornography destroying marriages and driving down the marriage rate! (Um, no… for cheap thrills, it doesn’t take the house, the kids and half one’s income to shack-up with somebody else. Cheaper than a hooker and legal in more places than Nevada, too.)
Pingback: Lightning Round -2014/12/24
Pingback: What about the fathers? | Dalrock