I already offered this as a comment at Instapundit, but since I don’t have a new real post to offer I thought I would put this up to at least allow for new discussion. Instapundit’s post is itself a link to Dr. Helen’s post, which is a rebuttal to the Michael* Walsh’s post: Why Are Millennial Men Such Wimps?
Walsh’s post is yet another “Why am I so much better than other men?” rant. It is a natural crowd pleaser, in that women love being told they deserve better men, and many men love the opportunity to pose alongside Walsh as troubled by their own magnificence in comparison to other men. It is therefore a sure bet to draw clicks and allow Walsh and his followers to bask in their own smugness.
What it fails to do however is:
- Make Walsh and those posing with him more attractive to women. Groveling after all only makes men less attractive to women.
- Offer any meaningful solution to our societal decay. To the extent that it has an impact, it will make things worse since one of the claims being made is that the more feminist/unfeminine a woman becomes, the more she deserves a strong man “who can handle her”.
Walsh quotes the female newscaster:
So whose fault is it? Is it our fault, ladies? Are we getting too strong? Nah, I don’t buy that. See, a real man knows how to handle a strong woman, so this isn’t our problem…
Please teach your sons to be men, because the women of the world are tired of the boys.
To which Walsh replies:
You go, girl!
*Michael Walsh should not be confused with Matt Walsh who also writes on the same theme.
Pingback: Why am I so much better than other men? – Manosphere.com
Proverbs 25:27
It is not good to eat much honey;
So to seek one’s own glory is not glory.
One small but important thing that Dr. Helen caught was that the girl in the original article was complaining that men buy her drinks with their father’s credit card, rather than their own.
That she gets free drinks is not enough, but she has to complain about who earned the money he spent on her. No responsibility on the part of the slut, while in the very next sentence bragging about how ‘strong’ she is. The lack of self awareness is astonishing.
The guy has bad game, though. Buying drinks for a girl decreases your chances of bedding her. Most successful lays had little or no money spent by the man.
Michael Walsh should not be confused with Matt Walsh who also writes on the same theme.
Their writing makes it sound like they’re interchangeable and might as well be the same person.
Walsh’s manginatude is tame compared to this off-the-charts entry by Kevin Drum :
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/marriage-declining-men-pigs
He combines :
*Tradcon ‘man up and marry those sluts’
*All abuse is done by men, and marriage is a bad deal for women
*Men are cowards to not attend highly misandrist colleges so that women can use them
An impressive combination of super-manginatude in one article.
Please teach your sons to be men, because the women of the world are tired of the boys
How cute. Femsplaining.
Again, no agency as an adult human being. “We didn’t create this through our fundamental belief and faith in Feminism. It’s ________’s fault.”
Translation: “My notch count and quality sucks”.
I prefer the term womoaning!
Funny, Vox accepted Matt Walsh’s invitation to “debate any trump supporter” to which Matt promptly bottled out from on Twitter recently.
The fragging headship advice I got from Dalrock has been, without a doubt, the most important thing I have learned here.
It is very easy to spot now and I have made it my life’s mission to never do it. I think it is having an impact in my small circle.
“a real man knows how to handle a strong woman, so this isn’t our problem”
Sorry sweetheart, but it IS your problem. Men are not coming back to the table AS MEN until women shut the fuck up long enough to BE WOMEN. Bring on the fuckbots. Women have made themselves worse than useless- they were always little more than pretty baubles. By age 12 they are dressed as bait sluts and bask in the attention of men simply for existing with a fetid little slot between their legs. Now those pretty baubles are fat and arrogant, and still have nothing to offer except a mouthy attitude, the risk of “abuse” charges and a ruined life at the total discretion of a feckless, amoral woman.
No thanks. Enjoy your kitty cats. When you die alone, estranged from your children, your inflamed skin soaking in urine and feces, just before your eyes close for the last time and you see your cats gather around awaiting a final tasty meal of worthless flesh, perhaps you will have just enough time to repent before you go to meet the Judge.
Personally, I hope not.
Scott,
The fragging headship advice I got from Dalrock has been, without a doubt, the most important thing I have learned here.
You mean when another man interferes and pressures a man to be more of a mangina in his own marriage? Pressure to follow horrible advice? Is that was fragging headship means?
While the economy is not zero sum, social status is. There’s only so much time each day for people to take in messages about who matters and what’s important and thus raising the status of women necessarily lowers the *relative* status of men in the eyes of both men and women (although to be fair the status of men in the west has also be lowered increasing the overall effect).
Dalrock still reppin’ it. Even with the short posts.
Anon-
It’s related. Any time married men contact me on my site, frustrated, angry, trying to lead their families with absolutely no societal, clergy or cultural support–
I try not to ever second guess them or say “you’re doing it wrong.”
If women really want men to “man up” because they are tired of boys, then they would be wise to line up their incentives accordingly.
To be blunt, if they would provide the kind of sex to only men (read: husbands) that they regularly give “boys,” and be as stingy with “boys” as they currently are with men (read husbands), men would be “manning up” overnight.
Seriously, ladies, WTH? You expect to give all your affection and attention to the worst sorts of men, neglect the best sorts of men, yet magically get someone to “man up” and take care of you?
You may be tired of boys, but maybe men are tired of seeing girls line up to service boys while looking for a “man” to waste their life taking care of a twilight-reading nag who won’t touch him.
Interesting
It would seem that both Walshes carry on in an ancient practice that was once noticed and called out by another teacher . . . .
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’”
Luke 18:9-12
An example in a similar vein from my college: my school is conservative by typical standards, especially sexually. Very little open hook-up culture or slutty behavior by most of the women. The flip side, however, is that the dating culture overall is really weak. Few students are in relationships. I had a professor who challenged the men of the college in class to start asking girls out instead of just orbiting. It was good advice but the problem is that nearly every break up I know of in a serious relationship was initiated by the woman.
The root problem of the failure of long term relationships that did exist was not because men weren’t willing to act on romantic attraction but that the women eventually got tired of their beta behavior and dumped them. Lots of guys I know have asked girls on dates but they don’t go anywhere because these men are so sweet and sensitive. But the professor wouldn’t think of telling girls to “woman up” and marry sweet men because it wouldn’t be received well by women, nor is it obvious unless you’re really paying attention.
There simply aren’t enough cultural pressures to keep even moderately attractive young women in relationships with beta men. Actually educating these guys to be more assertive is necessary but difficult. I’ve tried with some friends when they fail with women. They don’t want to hear it. They’re too invested in being “nice guys” and they start pushing back hard when they’re challenged on that point.
“Please teach your sons to be men, because the women of the world are tired of the boys.”
It’s amazing how different this sentence reads between red/blue pill perspectives. Big thanks to Dalrock, Rollo and other Manosphere greats for cluing in those of us who have trouble looking behind the Madonna/Whore curtain!
Now, whenever I hear a woman demanding a man strong enough to “handle” her I have a mental picture of Red Sonja swearing to bed only the men she has tried and failed to destroy followed by a mental picture of Ken in handcuffs telling police it was self-defense.
“See, a real man knows how to handle a strong woman, so this isn’t our problem…”
Whenever I hear this I’m reminded of the great Professor Mentu asking his pops and uncles about how to you handle a strong woman and their responses he thankfully recorded for posterity.
______________________________________________
Uncle 1: “That’s the dumbest question I’ve ever heard. Why are you even thinking about stupid shit like that? You been watching Oprah or something?”
Dad: “Boy, if you’re thinking about stuff like that, you have wrong thinking in your head because you’re giving these girls way too much credit. There’s no such thing as a strong woman. They can’t do a flippin’ thing on their own. I don’t care if she’s a CEO or an astronaut, there’s a man or a rule book or something keeping her in line somewhere. You can write that down and call it gospel.”
Uncle 2: “I agree with your dad. Women can be… uh… resilient in a way I guess, but none of them are strong on their own. You know what? I think they know it too; deep down inside, they know it.”
Uncle 3: “You need some higher thinking. Find a good woman, put her on the program, lead, and she’ll follow. If she doesn’t, bid good riddance and don’t look back. End of story, really. End. Of. Story.”
Let me do some Red Pill translating of the ladyee newcaster’s comment.
“Please teach your sons to be (beta provider) men, because the women of the world (entering their epiphany phase) are tired of (getting pumped and dumped by) the (Harley McBad) boys.
There. Fixed it!
Let’s say a guy decides to “man up” and meet her exacting standards of what a man should be and what he should offer.
What does he get in return?
You probably can’t cook, and you will insist on him doing half the house work. Of course he will also do all the yard work and all the home repairs and dirty jobs. So what do you offer?
Sex? Is that it? Scintillating conversation?
And the risk a man takes by marrying you…. Don’t get me started. You will always hold the power to destroy him should he ever fail to make you 100% happy 100% of the time.
Let me point out the obvious. At least it’s obvious to any man. Men will do what it takes to get laid. If women are having sex willingly with millennial men who dress like lumberjacks, then men will dress like lumberjacks. In the 70’s, they went to discos for crying out loud. To get laid. Not because they liked disco.
There are tons of these men out there because tons of women are forking over the goods to them.
All you have to offer is sex and they can get it without having to change a tire. No commitment either. You give it away.
I think the reality is this…. These women can’t handle a real man.
The outrage from these delusional twats reminds me of the original story of Goldilocks and the three bears.
In Robert Southey’s original tale:
Three anthropomorphic bears – “a Little, Small, Wee Bear, a Middle-sized Bear, and a Great, Huge Bear” – live together in a house in the woods. Southey describes them as very good-natured, trusting, harmless, tidy, and hospitable. [Edit: you may even call them “soft”]
Each of these “bachelor” bears has his own porridge bowl, chair, and bed. [Edit: the spartan living of men. One may even overlook its simplicity and shunning of materialism or one may see it as living in their mother’s basement]
One day they take a walk in the woods while their porridge cools. A woman approaches the bears’ house. As she has been sent out by her family since she is a disgrace to them. She is described at various points in the story as impudent, bad, foul-mouthed, ugly, dirty and a vagrant deserving of a stint in the House of Correction. [Edit: as evidenced by so many Millennial women, ugliness isn’t limited to just the physical attributes, though the fatty-tatty trends don’t help]
She looks through a window, peeps through the keyhole, and lifts the latch. Assured that no one is home, she walks in. The old woman eats the Wee Bear’s porridge, then settles into his chair and breaks it. [Edit: consuming resources, whilst complaining; destroying comes easy]
Prowling about, she finds the bears’ beds and falls asleep in Wee Bear’s bed. The climax of the tale is reached when the bears return. Wee Bear finds the old woman in his bed and cries, “Somebody has been lying in my bed, – and here she is!” The old woman starts up, jumps from the window , and runs away never to be seen again. [Edit: Eat-Pray-Love? Wild?]
While the modernized version, layered with serial bed hopping interrupted by complaining is probably a more accurate allegory of the current generation, there is something to be said of these wild-eyed women of entitlement with their foul mouths and perverted virtues entering the lives of men; taking, consuming, expecting, and then vacating at their whim.
Led around by the feelz emanating from their twitching hindbrains buffered by in $120k of indoctrination into the various articulations of their victimhood, they wander the forest in search of the perfect softness, the perfect hardness, the perfect hotness, the perfect coldness, perfect size, none of which can ever be ascertained in any other way other than the consumptive brute force of their own hedonism and solipsism.
All while their own value, own motivation, own strength of character remain beyond reproach, tucked away in the multitude of the safe-spaces of a culture destined to burn every last bushel of goodwill in men in order to protect the idea of something from the truth of everything.
So Goldilocks (peroxide), Tomi Lahren, a 23-year-old “political commentator” for The Blaze, complains. I laugh. Would bang. But I’d rather lol.
These manginas are so incredible unable to look in the mirror that it is incredible.
While a married cuckservative who bought what 30 other guys got when she was younger, tighter, and a thousand pounds lighter can still evade by exclaiming “I am married!” as though that is the pinnacle, some incel manginas still think of themselves as the top.
Manboobz Futrelle routinely points out why Game is a fraud, under the premise that HE is the perfect man. That he has no real relationships with women that he can prove somehow does not give him pause.
Pingback: Why am I so much better than other men? | Reaction Times
Scott,
I try not to ever second guess them or say “you’re doing it wrong.”
Then how does one convert them from blue-pill to red-pill? Or are we not to guide them to the correct path at all, as some part of that is fragging (ostensible) headship? What about when the man is the follower, and practices no headship?
Yes, this is the problem, and Dal might be better able to articulate it.
What I am talking about specifically is the guy who is trying something different (ie taking a huge risk that his marriage will be blown up) but might not be doing it perfectly “alpha.”
I am in that group myself.
So, off the record–in the personal emails, etc I get (and give) encouragement and education because face is important to men. When guys come on these sites (especially with no anonymity mask) and talk about what they have tried the last thing they need to hear how horrible their married game is. Especially from, lets face it–the fraternity that has developed here.
I have several followers who lurk but never comment. I also have some through my shared FB page with Mychael whose marriages are markedly different than just a year ago. And we make the mistakes together–holding each other accountable all along the way. No BS tone policing either–that’s not what I mean.
I have determined to never take dating/married life advice from these guys like Walsh or pretty much any woman ever again. But the vacuum that is left means places like this are all that is left.
Not sure if that makes sense. Its clearer in my head.
“Michael Walsh should not be confused with Matt Walsh who also writes on the same theme.”
Not All White Knighting Manginas Are Like That. Unless their last name is Walsh.
I am currently raising a son in this Feminized society.
Any little bit of aggression my boy shows in school is quickly shamed. At the local Elementary there are ZERO male teachers and ZERO male administrators. The only man in the building is a maintenance worker. After 12 grades of Female managed servitude is it a wonder that men are not men in our society?
China recently started a campaign to get more male teachers for this reason.
The thing that REALLY scares me though is the next wave of this. This whole Transgender Gay thing is going to explode in our schools. As of right now it’s a “thing” for about 10 percent of the girls in the local high school to come out “Bi”. And there are a few boys openly admitting they like boys. Our darling lady admins are now drafting guidance for Trans/Gay students in MIDDLE-SCHOOL.
Now get this we are bending over (backwards – I hope) to accommodate this behavior. MEANWHILE rather typical male HETERO aggressive behavior is being SHAMED into oblivion!!!!
This can’t end well… we need a revolution sooner rather than later.
It would be (will be) very interesting to hear what Tomi Lahren has to say for herself
(about all this) once she has hit The Wall in about 7-17 years.
I wonder how many cats she will have then? Addictions?
Pax Christi Vobiscum
One small but important thing that Dr. Helen caught was that the girl in the original article was complaining that men buy her drinks with their father’s credit card, rather than their own.
I see merit in that complaint. There’s no reason for a woman to date a guy who can’t even pay his own bills. Especially a young man in good health. The flip side, of course, is that she shouldn’t get upset when men correspondingly expect femininity in a woman.
I see merit in that complaint. There’s no reason for a woman to date a guy who can’t even pay his own bills.
But those are not HIS OWN BILLS. Those are drinks bought for her.
Remember that in Marriage 1.0 times, since people married at 21 or 22, men from a wealthy family always did a lot better than men from a poorer family. That is still true, but not as overwhelmingly important as before..
He is guilty of bad Game, however.
But those are not HIS OWN BILLS. Those are drinks bought for her.
Sure, I understand that. But when you buy a gift for someone, anyone, with a third party’s money, it’s not a gift from you. She should follow the guy home and thank his dad.
Dear Anon:
Agreed. Never buy a bar skank, like this ho’, a drink. Let the chumps do that.
Ironically these dumb women will take you a lot more seriously if you set yourself apart this way.
Boxer
“Anon” said [March 30, 2016 at 8:33 pm]:
Now, see, I’m not exactly disagreeing with you here, Anon.
Thing is, though, there is another response entirely to the problem of trying to be a sane het. man in our insane Cultural Gynocracy — MGTOW. That’s where you avoid the sugar-coated poo pills like Tomi Lahren (I must say, with make-up on anyway, she looks nice on outside; too bad as to the soul inside), by avoiding “real relationships with women” because, well, why bother.
And, frankly, I have problems with MGTOW — I remember reading an opinion column on a matter entirely unrelated to what we discuss here, written by a Rabbi who was trying to suggest how to identify the moral vs. the immoral possible responses any person could have to the Evils in the world. He wrote (I paraphrase):
Now, I’m not Jewish, but I take wisdom where I find it, and that comment always struck me as being wise. And in the light of it, MGTOW strikes me as being the acceptance of the current Legal, Political & Cultural Madness as being something like final, or at least inevitable (within the span of the current generation, anyway), and therefore, at least in the sense the Rabbi meant, “Evil”.
Problem is, I have no awareness of a more moral response than MGTOW for which I personally can articulate any invincible arguments. (That’s why I keep coming back to sites like this: looking for a solution, a strategy, a glimmer of hope …)
And so, I would hesitate to use, as you apparently did there, “real relationships with women” as the yardstick of having solved this Cultural Problem, at least at a personal level.
Not to belabor a point frequently made in this forum by miscellaneous commenters, and from time to time by our gracious host, but — in a sort of mirror image of the complaint made endlessly these days by the Tomi Lahrens of the world — it is nigh on impossible for young men to find real women [from within the relevant age-cohort] with whom to have the “real relationships”. More precisely: you can have all the sex you want, provided you ditch the pretence of effort at trying to induce/start/create any real relationships — i.e., you can go the PUA route — or, well, go Beta and have a (probably sexless) marriage within which no “real relationship” is likely to be found either — or, well, MGTOW.
Basically, all you can do is take Captain Capitalism’s advice and “enjoy the decline,” even though what the Rabbi said (I am farily certain) remains true.
Pax Christi Vobiscum
“You go, girl!”
???
Mr. Manly chose to express himself in these three words, which make him sound like a flaming homosexual.
How did she know it was his father’s credit card ? who admits to that, unless it has cool and or exciting backstory.
Mr. Manly chose to express himself in these three words, which make him sound like a flaming homosexual.
What do you think a mangina is? A ‘male’ who would be much happier gay.
It does not occur to him that the women he is extolling are NOT attracted to a man who ever says “You go girl!”
Dalrock, some possible fodder for here for future posts…
ASDgamer often talks about how Song of Solomon teaches game so I decided to reread the book through that lens and then look at what a few commentators had to say about it through the ages.
I can’t say that I view it much differently now than I would have in my teens. It still reads about the same as it did when I last read through it about 3-4 years ago, pre red pill.
What did catch my eye in looking at various commentaries and dissections available on the web is that a relatively new theory (i.e., in the last 100 years) claims the book actually describes not the dialog between two people but instead three people – a love triangle between Solomon, a poor shepherd, and the Shulamite. Solomon is portrayed as the ancient equivalent of The Bachelor with only sex on his mind and the enticements of riches and good looks, the shepherd as a lowly and poor beta without much to offer besides “true love” for the Shulamite (as opposed to Solomon’s lust), and the Shulamite as torn between her shepherd “soulmate” and all the alpha stuff that Solomon brings to the party.
This interpretation is a page right out of the blue pill playbook.
For a readthrough from one of the most vocal proponents of the “love triangle” theory you can visit this website (which is where I think Dalrock could get some excellent fodder for a post or three).
P.S. I thought the gal’s name was some type of southern belle thing, like “Daisy Sue” or “Sally Mae”. Turns out its just one of those two last name things without the hyphen. Her maiden name was “Rae”.
It seems women of today only have one tired, old trick: To bemoan the fact that they are unpleasant in most ways, they tell everyone who can hear that “real” men only can handle “strong” women.
I’m yet to see a “strong” woman. What I see are always damaged women with bad attitudes who don’t get introspective about why their interpersonal skills are so bad that they fail at relationships with men. Rather than use introspection, they double down on their stupidity and claim they are “strong”.
The laugh of the article is the original writer asking “Whose fault is it”? This is hilarious, because it displays cognitive ignorance of the social revolutions run for the past 50 years. You wanted men to be kinder, gentler, in touch with their feminine sides, more fashion -oriented and more sensitive.She literally has the men her sisters have been demanding for 50+ years.Should she want to find out whose fault it is, she need only look in a mirror.
Walsh’s post is yet another “Why am I so much better than other men?” rant
Oh, what’s a man like him supposed to do
With all that
Extra savoir-faire?
I’m yet to see a “strong” woman. What I see are always damaged women with bad attitudes who don’t get introspective about why their interpersonal skills are so bad that they fail at relationships with men. Rather than use introspection, they double down on their stupidity and claim they are “strong”.
Expecting introspection out of a woman is like expecting flight out of an ostrich: they’re just not built for it.
But ostriches are birds, so why shouldn’t they be able to fly? Because, either through evolution, mutation, or adaptation, they never developed the physiology to do it like most other birds did.
Although women are human beings like men are and thus should be capable of introspection, through evolution, mutation, adaption, or, most likely, intelligent design, they never developed the psychological mechanisms nedded to do it.
It’s funny how females somehow thought liberation would lead to better male servants, little did they know freedom from responsibilities is a two way street.
Read “adaptation” in that last paragraph.
Pregnant, unmarried, & confused
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1005392
Inside an oligarch’s multi-million-pound wedding: Performances from J Lo, Sting and Enrique Iglesias, a £18,000 haute couture gown and fleet of Rolls-Royces as Kazakh billionaire gets married
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3514779/Inside-oligarch-s-multi-million-pound-wedding.html
“chosen after a lengthy search for a woman to fit ‘all the strict demands, to be beautiful, a virgin, shy and not public’”
See, a real man knows how to handle a strong woman
This has already been said in one form or another, both here and on other manosphere sites, but it bears endless repeating:
[SARCASM]”Ladies”[/SARCASM], it’s past time you realized that the term “strong,” when women apply it to themselves, does NOT mean you think it means. When self-applied by women, the term “strong” means some subset of
– antisocial
– arrogant
– bitchy
– coarse
– contentious
– crass
– crude
– dangerous (to others, especially men, due to her arrogance and recklessness)
– egotistical
– entitled
– lewd
– loud/mouthy (i.e., spewing the same crass nonsense as the douchebag men she
complains about)
– manipulative
– narcissistic
– obstinate
– petty
– self-centered/selfish
– sociopathic
– solipsistic
– tactless
– unaccountable
– unfeminine (this one pretty much includes every other adjective on this list)
– vain
– violent
– wasteful
There are many others that apply, but you get the idea.
The point is that none of these attributes is positive in either a man or a woman, and that when they aggregate they are infinitely more toxic than when they stand on their own.
Given this definition of “strong,” it corresponds to “douchebag,” “asshole,” or “lowlife,” in a man. However, unlike women, who tingle with lust over men with these traits, men find them repulsive in women just as men generally find them repulsive in each other.
As to how men would “handle” a “strong” woman, ideally we would handle them in the same way we would handle their male counterparts (i.e., worthless, loudmouthed doucbebag losers). The most mild solution (and moat preferable) is to avoid them altogether as we would the plague or Facebook. If that’s not possible and we absolutely HAVE to interact with them, we scold, correct, chide, and mock them. If THAT and all else fails, we beat the living shit out of them until they open their eyes to the fact that there are limits to antisocial behavior that civilized men will tolerate.
Still want be “strong,” “ladies?”
Plenty of stray cats out there waiting to be adopted.
Pregnant, unmarried, & confused
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1005392
I still wonder when women will become wise. When a man clearly tells her that she is not good enough to become his wife, then she decided to give him the most intimate gift she has, and to permanently brand herself with his offspring.
My contempt for many of my confused co religionists grows daily.
A lot of men aren’t checking out because they have a choice; they’re checking out because they don’t. Not really.
The economy is brutal in many parts of the country and your “reward” for being a stand up guy is terminal underemployment and you’re supposed to date and marry women who basically resent you and don’t feel the need to give you even the base level of support or encouragement one receives from male friends let alone that of a potential wife. I’ve heard one female acquaintance (Christian) excoriate men for not “growing up” and making “real money” in order to be worthy of dating her. It took a lot of strength not to yell at this trust funder about what a cow she was being. Perhaps I should have, but what good would have come of it?
But I suppose that’s the problem. As a man if you say that you can’t make bricks without straw, you’re “making excuses”. They want a 50s experience in a 70s economy while being a 90s woman. I’m through being told its my fault because this I know:
If you give a man a real shot at decent money and a the prospect of a wife who will be loving and supportive, there’s not much he won’t do. Long hours, risk of injury or death, you name it, if there’s a real shot he’ll do it. But why break your back for nothing?
I don’t understand why women and white knights are so confused as to why men living in the current matriarchal hypergamous society aren’t behaving as they did when it was a patriarchal monogamous one.
To change the rules of any game is to change how the players play the game. Shun losers and provide respect and romance in marriage, and more men will aspire to be husbands. Berate and pile more on husbands while providing respect and sex to douchebags, and more men will aspire to be douchebags.
Women love to blame men, but it is women that control the reward system. Men will emulate who women do, not who they berate.
I bristle, too, when I hear people (and it’s not just women) malign young men as worthless and needing to clean up their act. I always want to come back with horror stories about the entitlement princesses that constitute the majority in my classes and how glad I am that I’m not at a dating age in this toxic environment. But that’s just my reaction to trite feminist blather, whether it comes from the mouths of women or of men. My true feelings are this: I worry deeply about our young men. I don’t worry so much about our young women. They’re full of confidence, they can say whatever the hell they please, and they will always win in the court of public opinion, whether or not the facts are on their side. But our young men are more hobbled, more straitjacketed, than any previous generation of men. And I worry that a lot of them are, in fact, sort of “dropping out” of things and never rising to their potential (and no, I’m NOT talking about making themselves acceptable to women, as if that were the ultimate criterion). I worry when I grade an assignment, and the very best work comes from the women while the men turn in something half-baked. Then I want to shake them by the shoulders and shout “Come on guys, they’re walking all over us, and you don’t seem to care!” (In fairness, I should mention that there have been more men than women among the very brightest students I’ve seen over the years, but I see way too many men who are bright but squander their abilities.) In earlier generations, men had more motivation to do their best, and I worry that now too many have unconsciously bought into the narrative that tells them they’re lesser creatures for having been born male. Just one example of how this narrative operates: I recall a woman (feminist, I should add) who was hired into my department who said at her interview that she wanted to get into teaching because she felt a passionate desire to motivate young women. Well, what about the men in her classes? She won’t do anything to motivate them? But that’s not an issue if a female job candidate says such a thing. If I had said: “I want to get into teaching because I feel a passionate desire to motivate young men,” I’m sure no one would ever hire me. But the fact is, we need people who have the interests of young men at heart, even if they have to keep it a secret in the present environment.
It’s been said (by many) but here goes:
1. I don’t have the time, or inclination, to force women to be women. And any “go grrrl” would freak the frack out if it was even suggested. Though that seems to be what they are suggesting.
2. As I was scanning out-of-town radio stations yesterday, the “Fields Situation” was being beaten again, and the obligatory go grrrl was saying, “I feel like women only have half a voice right now because even when she says she was assaulted, there are men who say that she was not.” The cognitive dissonance is endemic, I understand that, but when coupled with solipsism, conversations with women are equivalent to raking leaves in a windstorm.
Dear Dave:
There’s a book floating around entitled All About Women by Simon Sheppard.
http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2012/02/all-about-women-what-big-sister-doesnt-want-you-to-know/
It sheds some light on the phenomenon you describe.
Boxer
Tomi Lahren, a 23-year-old “political commentator” for The Blaze, complains. I laugh.
We have to ask the obvious question whether she differs substantially from 23-year-old political commentators on the Left, female contributors to sites like Jezebel, Raw Story etc., people she supposedly opposes. According to her Wikipedia page, she has a college degree in media, journalism and political science, which is something I’d expect from a standard leftist agitator. She worked as an intern in some vibrant city as a single woman. Is she actually different from the average, college-educated leftist woman? Is she less promiscuous? Is she more religious? Is she more likely to marry early and have children? Is she less misandric? Is she less likely to get drunk in bars and clubs with her girlfriends? Does she have different prejudices towards men?
The fundamental situation is simple.
Men will man up when women man down.
Women will man down when men man up.
In other words, it’s a deadlock.
Problem is, I have no awareness of a more moral response than MGTOW for which I personally can articulate any invincible arguments
It’s because there aren’t any. The alternative anti-feminist responses advocated throughout the Manosphere – namely PUA, MRA and traditionalism – either lack morality or a chance of success.
Scott,
Interesting challenge. A man who is that frustrated does not need to be slammed, but he does need the same motivation to do the right things all of us need. Timing and having a word spoken in season is the most important thing. That is why wisdom is different than knowledge in the Scriptures.
I pray you keep finding the proper balance in that. You will be sought out since you have made yourself a source and many men are desperate today.
Hoyos,
It is tough. Men need to advance things as a good steward of what they are given, not just because they can get a solid wife out of the deal. It is not as simple as the lack of a potential wife, but that certainly plays a role.
A man will work hard without the financial prospects however if he thinks he can have a supportive wife. I would argue that is far more important than the money. The money certainly helps, but support makes many rough things far more tolerable.
Roger,
I am not sure women are better at assignments today than men. Most seem to be way off track. I haven’t kept stats, but I know that I rarely give out really good grades as assignments rarely do a great job hitting the target. I would see this as an overall societal problem rather than a male-female one.
Though the “more women in engineering” (or whatever related area) meme is getting awfully old. I was watching the video for the keynote at the Microsoft Build developer conference yesterday and I noticed how few women were in the audience. They had a tough job highlighting the relatively few that were there, or so I assume. (1 woman per 10 men or less I would guess, likely much less.)
unsigma,
The Fields issue is idiotic. Huge amount of white knighting there. Lots of idiots really want to kill the Republican party, for example. They don’t look at all the choices, they just look at one they hate and have a deathwish against him. Amazing.
I would also ask who would want to marry a hard driving woman like her? She is unlikely to ever be satisfied with domestic life and I would want a wife to raise children and keep the home, not to compete with me in the workforce.
Income can be nice and even necessary today for some, but it is very important to consider the cost of such income. Hers comes with a pile of problems, even if it is in the so-called conservative media.
@MRteebs: “the shepherd as a lowly and poor beta without much to offer besides “true love” for the Shulamite (as opposed to Solomon’s lust), and the Shulamite as torn between her shepherd “soulmate” and all the alpha stuff that Solomon brings to the party.”
A LOVE triangle between the King, a lowly shepherd boy and a hot young thing. What could possibly go wrong? There is no possible chance the SOS is a love triangle. The idea of a virgin pledged to the King would “cheat” with a lower class person is ridiculous in that time. The idea that this would be the subject of song is specious.
That would be almost as bad as retelling the resurrection on the Walking Dead. A total mutilation of the clear meaning of scripture.
The following 5 comments together form an excellent synthesis of the ‘state of the union’ for men:
bpp: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/why-am-i-so-much-better-than-other-men/#comment-205793
Yac Yac: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/why-am-i-so-much-better-than-other-men/#comment-205825
Hoyos: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/why-am-i-so-much-better-than-other-men/#comment-205843
Roger: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/why-am-i-so-much-better-than-other-men/#comment-205845
Hells Hound: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/why-am-i-so-much-better-than-other-men/#comment-205851
Excellently and succinctly said, gentlemen, and thank you.
These comments are a timely reminder, at least to me, that no man is an island. I do not claim to speak for all men. However, as has been pointed out by some of the more astute commenters on Dalrock’s blog, men have a capacity for introspection that women do not have. As such, we (read I) have a tendency to look within for inner resources to solve problems that lie outside of ourselves and beyond our immediate influence. We’re quick to blame ourselves. We’re quick to look at ourselves as the problem; the problem that needs to change – whether ‘man-up’, ‘game’, PUA, MRA, MGTOW…whatever.
We’re bombarded from all sides by the paradigm that we’re just not good enough; that on a personal level we have to do something to change; that nothing external to us needs to change; that it’s all up to us, and in us, individually and personally; that there are no external forces or conditions at play; that we, as individual men, are to be the change; that we, as individual men, are bulletproof; that we, as individual men, need to effect change that always needs to be within.
There are even some commenters on this blog who need to take a step outside of themselves and start looking at the bigger picture and balance the dialectic with their mere individual, personal-level subjective ‘change’ of ‘man-up’, ‘game’, PUA, MRA, MGTOW…???.
The comments linked here are a great help in balancing the dialectic. Thank you gentlemen.
This bitch is hitting the wall and is now indulging in some thinly disguised whining.
All of the best women I know devoted their 20s to raising kids. When their kids got old enough to leave the house, these chicks went back to school for the MA or Ph.D. and now have serious careers. In their 40s they have a family, husband who loves them, successful children, and respect at work too. This is the way smart women do things. The stupid ones can’t compete.
Boxer
“I would want a wife to raise children and keep the home, not to compete with me in all aspects of life.”
FIFY. YouGoGrrrrllll career women will fight you for TOTAL dominance of the marriage. This is why self-respecting men avoid them like they avoid genital herpes (which they stand a better-than-average chance of contracting should they decide to get horizontal with the typical “I-can-have-and-do-it-all” empowered skank).
OT, but watch NYMag’s millennial, highly educated staffer-ettes spiral into a hamsterball of confusion and solipsism about a State Department tweet quite clearly warning men not to be lured into buying overpriced drinks abroad.
Truly epic.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/03/state-department-tweet.html#
HH,
We have to ask the obvious question whether she differs substantially from 23-year-old political commentators on the Left, female contributors to sites like Jezebel, Raw Story etc., people she supposedly opposes.
She does not, except in the fact that she wants a man-slave rather than to be a single mother (maybe).
Cuckservative men jump to out-pedestalize each other when any young woman calls herself a ‘Republican’ and ends it at that. Hence, cuckservatives have no real values other than cartoonish pedestalization.
So whose fault is it? Is it our fault, ladies? Are we getting too strong? Nah, I don’t buy that. See, a real man knows how to handle a strong woman
Perhaps be able to handle, true this might be.
Want to bother to handle, different story this might be
Woman says she poisoned her son because he was a significant burden to her.
The sister was in on it too.
“Hells Hound says:
March 31, 2016 at 8:48 am
Tomi Lahren, a 23-year-old “political commentator” for The Blaze, complains. I laugh.”
You could pretty much stop reading at ’23-year-old’. GTF out of my face and come back in about fifteen years, when maybe you’ll know something. What wisdom or insight do you think you could offer me, KID?
All of these “men are not men anymore” articles are gross attempts to be the only real man in the room, and the fact that all the articles are written by bitter women or beta male duds who, if they were able to think about the subject for 10 seconds, would realize that men are prohibited by being “real men.” You want to be a real man and be in charge of your household? That’s abuse- you’re making your wife be a doormat and society puts you on the same moral plane as someone who gives his wife a black eye for burning his steak.
That said, I think there is a conversation that needs to be had about how men are less manly than they were yesterday. It IS a bad thing, but not because women deserve a real man. They don’t. At least not until they can be ladies. But men today, at least the ones that I’m around, seem to be stuck in junior high. They play video games all the time and every conversation they have is about Game of Thrones. It’s just sad.
*forgot to add “makes it all the more frustrating” at the end of my first sentence.
Scott,
Good on you. I like your approach. A lot of guys in the manosphere come across as fundamentally insecure guys trying to AMOG everybody, like they’re trying to convince themselves they are something they aren’t, or maybe they’re trying to be a peacock specializing in PUA game, while missing the larger point about the ties between game and becoming a better and more successful man overall. Shaming a guy who lives deep in dread and shame doesn’t help him. He needs the opposite of that, building up and encouragement, mild correction, a steady pull in the right direction. If he’s blowing it, maybe it gets to a point where he needs a boot in the ass. But leadership isn’t about dragging people along by fear and shame – that’s nuclear tactics right there – it’s about being unceasingly strong and confident in your beliefs and portraying that in a way that convinces your audience, rationally and in their heart, that you know the way and should be followed. There’s a place for peacocking in some social contexts, but not when a buddy comes to you for an assist.
Once he’s turned the corner, of course, feel free to bust his balls about it a little. That’s encouraged under Man Rule #2(a).
Mission accomplished. There are some great comments here, men.
I would also ask who would want to marry a hard driving woman like her? She is unlikely to ever be satisfied with domestic life and I would want a wife to raise children and keep the home, not to compete with me in the workforce.
A surprising number of execs, lawyers and docs generally marry other women who are execs, lawyers and docs. The reason is that in the professional class it has become unacceptable socially to be married to someone “beneath” you. Feminism did this. Remember, feminism was always much stronger the higher you get on the socio-economic totem pole, with the leaders and standard bearers all being upper middle class or wealthier. In that segment, the feminist pressures are intense and overpowering. Assortative mating is fairly rigidly socially enforced on the basis of appearance, education and, to a lesser extent, earnings — lawyer/professor couples, for example, are not uncommon, and are accepted because even though the professor earns hugely less than the lawyer, the professor is highly educated and “empowered” and so it is still seen as acceptably assortative.
This is new, because in previous generations it wasn’t uncommon for lawyers to marry secretaries and for doctors to marry nurses and so on. Now that’s very uncommon and kind of frowned upon. The lawyers and doctors screw the secretaries and the nurses, but they don’t marry them — the secretaries and the nurses, if they do marry, marry tradesmen and similar types. Among other impacts, this has led to a much more strict segregation, socially, between the haves and have nots, and has made it pretty much impossible for women who are not in that set themselves to marry into it. You see that among movie stars and rock stars and so on, who can basically do what they like. But among the “working rich”, it’s very segregated and rather strictly socially enforced.
Boxer,
I agree with your last point to a point.
The real women will have and raise kids early, then practice sucking golf balls through 10 feet of garden hose with their husbands. They will make their husbands passions their own and do it with abandonment.
I know a woman who has rubbed her husbands shoulder every night she could for decades… He is passionate about NASCAR and she allows all of his collectibles to be shown all over the house without resentment or comment.
I left a comment over on Matt Walsh’s pjmedia blog. Naturally, it wasn’t approved.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/you-go-girl/
@Hells Hound
“We have to ask the obvious question whether she differs substantially from 23-year-old political commentators on the Left, female contributors to sites like Jezebel, Raw Story etc., people she supposedly opposes.”
A few things. First, college campuses are so far into the lefty tall grass that a women only needs to be selectively moderate regarding one or two issues to align herself with what ever constitutes the middle or the “right.” Outside of religious beliefs I rarely encounter a woman of her generation that is in any way holding, practicing, and propagating conservative beliefs on their own accord.
Second, even a religious woman may not be slutting it up but she is most likely giving it up, just for a marginally higher price. She may not be attending the pro-choice rally, but she is probably not attending the pro-life rally either. She’s the progressive, non-judgemental christian who would never dare to force her beliefs on other people. Unless, of course, she is being paid to tacitly message some cheap conservative foundation, while simultaneously plucking the hammer of shaming and the chisel of moral superiority from the toolbag of liberal feminism.
If she is the rare secular conservative, she is likely from a strong patriarchal agrarian or working class family who has a good relationship with her father. So she desires to conserve some portions of what she was raised to believe, but is similarly “open-minded” when it comes to collecting the same kinds of *experiences* as her lefty BFF’s, thus she is probably a throwback to the old “Fiscally conservative, socially liberal” typecast. Which is really just a more expensive version of her loose liberal sisters. Hence the attachment to the “millennial men are soft” trope. She only sluts it up with Real Men(TM). Where are all the Real/Good/Manly/Christian/Strong/Nice Men?
Third, women of her generation needn’t *identify* as Feminists – or leftists, which frees them up to drift according to the opportunities and/or path of least resistance. The culture is so deeply gynocentric and systemically aligned to cultivate and favor the progressive that the benefits of both overlapping ideologies accrue to her regardless of her outward disposition to the mother ship.
So she is free to wander over to the middle – even to the right, without having to sacrifice or surrender any of those benefits. To steal a phrase, she can “lean in [to the right]” but it does not require the same principled, zero-sum, higher-order alignment that it would if she actually had to foreclose any of the benefits of the ideology she supposedly is at odds with.
On the margin, she may risk social capital from the Herd, but there are a multitude of ways in which this can be buffered. She can tie her conservative beliefs to her Religious upbringing. She can be an “open-minded” conservative who doesn’t prosthelytize; her values are actually secular. Or she can still champion for the same equalist, diversity is strength, cult of multi-culti, identity politics subsidiaries of the left under the churchian doctrine of God Loves All Children.
Whatever risk from the herd comes with deviating from the leftist camp is likely no different than the bitter backstabbery that would come her way anyhow because she is attractive and is achieving in the look-at-me sphere within the media (even if it is on the “wrong” side.)
And “Conservative” attractive women lose very little ground in terms of attracting high status men. So unlike conservative men on campus and in their early 20’s (especially in working in media) being a conservative does not impair her mating prospects or her career trajectory.
Finally, one central differentiation between the left and right is that the right allows for a much greater latitude between one’s personal beliefs and how they (expect to) see those manifesting in the public sphere; the who-when-where-why the individual beliefs are deployed. E.g., the prevailing sentiment is that she can personally hold conservative “values” but she will never be expected to press those beliefs onto others beyond lip service or take principled stands that would put her at odds with the overarching power structures that unite the so-called left and right.
The left, however, seems to require that those personal beliefs be perpetually agitated for in the public sphere; to be codified into the kulture across a variety of legal, social, political, and economic frontiers. Everyone must conform or face the full force of these mechanisms. This is part of why they regularly eat their own but also why it is not enough to simply hold progressive/leftist beliefs as an individual choice but that the beliefs must be vested in a movement to extinguish competing beliefs. This movement expects its believers to agitate such that their personal beliefs become the premise from which all societal agreements must flow. And they can neither question the premise nor be caught watching the grass grow while the forwards are moving the goal posts or else face sanctions.
The ambiguity of these so called conservative hairdo’s is demonstrable of just how aligned these supposed opposing ideologies are in practice and how different it is for a woman to embody one side or the other than for a man. While I doubt she consciously made the decision, it is certainly one way to differentiate as a young woman in terms of career ambitions. The right is quite thirsty for their own prettyhot “conservative” young women. Whether or not she sticks around is different matter. I’d say the attrition is similar to the christian musicians. The attractive ones with production value will go mainstream pop asap, the “baby” lyrics will drift from the literal “my baby [child]” to “my baby [lover]” lol.
As a lefty hairdo, however, she gets lost in the noise, she is just one more media whore pandering to the angry feminists and hysterical narcissists of the jezzabel cohort – or even the mainstream channels. She is too pretty for the fattyfeminzis to relate to and girls like her are a dime-a-dozen in the mainstream. But the prettyblonde “conservative” types only come along every so often.
cuckservatives have no real values other than cartoonish pedestalization
See the latest Trump abortion row for Exhibit A.
Reluctantly “pro-life” Trump suggested women who have abortions should be punished. You’ll never guess which group was the most outraged (Hint: it wasn’t feminists).
Hey Puffy Jacket, do you have a twitter account? Seems like you’d be a good addition to the Dalrock crew. Join us as we poke fun at pseudoconservatives and virtue-signallers in the finest Menckenite tradition! The resta yous guys should sock up and join the fun too. Gonna be yuge!
https://twitter.com/Ni12124
Novaseeker
A surprising number of execs, lawyers and docs generally marry other women who are execs, lawyers and docs. The reason is that in the professional class it has become unacceptable socially to be married to someone “beneath” you. Feminism did this.
When women can be their own beta, hypergamy demands more. And status-signalling matters a lot in the UMC, I doubt that men consciously look for women with multiple letters after their names anymore, it’s normalized.
Tangentially, I read some years back a fragment of an interview with Margaret Thatcher in which she admitted that during her years as Prime Minister she made her husband miserable. Norway has mandated 50-50 mixes on Board of Directors, wonder what the divorce rate is going to look like for those women? Of course, it could be that Norway is following Sweden in softly abandoning marriage altogether.
A surprising number of execs, lawyers and docs generally marry other women who are execs, lawyers and docs. The reason is that in the professional class it has become unacceptable socially to be married to someone “beneath” you. Feminism did this. Remember, feminism was always much stronger the higher you get on the socio-economic totem pole, with the leaders and standard bearers all being upper middle class or wealthier
But these aren’t the women who complain about Peter Pan men, manchildren, the lack of good men etc. It’s women on lower levels of the social hierarchy who do this, the ones affected by the hypergamy crunch.
You could pretty much stop reading at ’23-year-old’. GTF out of my face and come back in about fifteen years, when maybe you’ll know something. What wisdom or insight do you think you could offer me, KID?
Nobody expects wisdom or insight from her, and she probably knows it. She was obviously hired to pander to the older white right-wing male demographic as eye candy. That’s how the media works. Just look at her comments. It’s the kind of shit tradcon men like to hear.
Hmmm… I agree with elder brother Dalrock’s article.
As for as commenting… as a Christian I first PRAY* and then hope women of the wicked feminist mindset *REPENT* and turn to JESUS CHRIST and are SAVED.
It’s clear to any “red pill” man as it’s called on the “manosphere” that today’s modern woman is mostly toxic to your soul. You… STAY AWAY…
If she ain’t family, close friends, sisters in church or some sort, all my social interactions with women is just for the “daily business” and I stay to myself doing God’s Work.
If a man is married, he has to deal with, overcome and even dominate and/or lead; guide the women in his life as best he can by God’s Good Grace and Help in prayer…
For single, young Christian men like me, we are to stay chaste and abstinent from wicked fornication and premarital sex.
Just work and live on our own, with family or however best we can survive until we can do better in the Lord. Amen.
Thanks for this read elder brother Dalrock. I don’t really post at all, though I occasionally browse through and read some stuff. Amen.
~ Sincerely,
Bro. Jed
@ Anon
Then how does one convert them from blue-pill to red-pill? Or are we not to guide them to the correct path at all, as some part of that is fragging (ostensible) headship? What about when the man is the follower, and practices no headship?
First, the Blue Pill men have to realize that what they have been doing doesn’t work. Second, they must ask for help. You can leave breadcrumbs, but nothing overt without an overt request for help.
I begin by explaining that they have been plugged in to the Matrix. That they have some hostile programs running in their heads that they have to learn to recognize, then learn to combat. Programs that create Oneitis and Pedestalize women. Explain that music is probably the avenue that uploads the most hostile programming into men, but that there is some beneficial music that contains truth, too. We men have to test the music for hostile programs.
Some of the programming is simply leftover from chivalry and the 1950s. Stuff like “Married men aren’t allowed to go out alone.” I open doors for Mrs. Gamer and she responds with “Thank you, Sir.” So, I treat her with helpful courtesy, and she responds with courteous respect. It took a while for Mrs. Gamer to get on board.
Probably the biggest lesson is to learn to enforce your boundaries as an magnanimous despot. Even when rebuking someone, bring value: a joyous, kindly demeanor that is as playful and comforting as circumstances will allow. Of course, be clear, insistent, persistent, etc.–std. dog-training. Reassert your fondness/love/whatever for the other person before you rebuke and also reassert that again after the rebuke. If you are dealing with a woman with whom it’s appropriate, flirting is often helpful. Again, this is likely the most difficult lesson for us men to learn. I am still working on it myself. It’s so easy for me to fall into anger/butthurt/whatever after someone has crossed my boundaries. I have to remind myself that the Butthurt Program was uploaded into me by hostile agents.
I’ll tell you what my reaction already is to these horrible abusive cunts. I fully reject the social contract and I’ve become a bandit. I take what I want and can get away with. I do not care about anyone around me, as they do not care about me. Church included.
Oh hey I probably just deserve everything that has happened to me, right? Probably beat my “wife”. Lol I wish. Maybe she would have fucked me had I been beating her.
Now? Oh hey yesterday I got an email from some cuck whose wife I’ve been fucking. Lol he told me that he’s happy, HAPPY, that she’s finally found someone who understands her soul and what a special snowflake she is. Lmfao!
Sure I’ll fuck married girls. Why not? Marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore. It just means you owe her money. So pay up so she can pay for our dates asshole.
Whose a better man? Whose a worse man? Who cares? None of this means anything.
Honestly I was hoping that stupid cuck was going to write to me about how he was coming to kill me. Yes… Violence. That’s what I want. I want death.
I have nothing left to lose.
And hell I can’t even remember the last time a girl was actually nice to me. Just nice. I guess some other guy just has too much privilege for anyone to ever be nice to me. Hey maybe I can go back to church and get married to some pathetic used up cum dumpster and pay for all her shit! Lol. I’d rather eat a bullet.
Join us as we poke fun at pseudoconservatives and virtue-signallers in the finest Menckenite tradition! The resta yous guys should sock up and join the fun too. Gonna be yuge!
Boxer : Doing the work that MRAs won’t do…
One can point out that these “Why am I so much better than other men?” rants by low-SMV manginas are highly, highly similar to when a very ugly fembeast complains about the ‘rape culture’; a complaint you never see from women 7 or higher in looks (who presumably would be at the most risk in such a culture).
People exasperated with their low rank on the SMV totem pole will default to certain tactics.
Christians are not so much in danger when they are persecuted as when they are admired.
Why I am better than you is because I don’t care what you or anyone else things of me. All my life the only question I’ve concerned myself with is, “Is this what God wants me to do?” Any and all confusion caused by not having a clear answer has never made me a weak or indecisive man because I was 100% committed to doing exactly what I discovered was God’s will, not some woman’s will or some other man’s will.
I think under Vox Day’s sicio-sexual hierarchy that qualifies as sigma-type behavior (“I’m not participating in your little dick-measuring game), but that’s ultimately irrelevant. I have lived by this standard for nearly 40 years and in spite of MY flaws there’s no better standard to live by.
This witch should speak with her mother and their feminist masters about why men are so soft starting with Alan Alda onward. And besides, who wants to handle a weak ass broad that thinks she’s strong? There are no strong women. There are women that are unconscionable cunts that think they are strong of course, but those have been around forever, just like Tomi Lahren. Handle them roughly and they fall in love. Fact is, women have been spoon fed the strong and smart bullshit for so long that they believe it. And the shock when they get out in the world (college) to discover the truth is so brutal that they demand safe spaces. In the end, they usually hook up with a biker or some such that tolerates none of their cuntishness and learn they love strong men. Megyn Kelly finally ran up against a man so strong (Trump) she fell in love and shaved her head.
But there are few strong men in the 25-40 age range around and they don’t settle down, so here’s Tomi pushing 30 looking for a strongman and instead finding pussies-with-peni. Too bad for her. She’s on my “got no sympathy for” list. In the end, she’ll find a wimp, bang out a kid or two and dump him 7 years and 10 of her affairs later for the house, child support and other cash and prizes. At 50, she’ll be post-wall, friendless, invisible to men and her kids won’t be speaking to her, it will be just her and her cats forever. Ah, but just look at her now, she thinks the pre-wall party goes on forever. I’ve known a million of them and nearly every one of them is at post-wall cat terminus and a well-deserved terminus at that. Smugness does that to women. Snowflakes fallen turn to side-of-the-road icy sludge in no time. May Tomi get a taste of that.
Dalrock,
This is also similar to an earlier article of yours about Ming Na, who says men are wusses for not picking up the check. As a cuckservative, she blames ‘leftism’.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/ms-chivalry/
The woman in this article, while younger, is similar. Getting free drinks from beta males with bad game is not enough, but she complains that the credit card is his father’s. *This* is her complaint.
This ‘men should pay’ meme is prominent amongst Republo-feminists :
Exhibit 3 : Michelle Fields and some other Republican chick angling for beta orbiters.
“It is an act of Evil, to accept Evil outcomes as either inevitable, or as final.”
It’s hardly an act of Evil to recognize there are some things about life that one cannot change with any realistic effort. Am I committing Evil by not trying to work enough billable hours to stop the American economy’s collapse?
…
Novaseeker @ 12:52 pm:
“This is new, because in previous generations it wasn’t uncommon for lawyers to marry secretaries and for doctors to marry nurses and so on. Now that’s very uncommon and kind of frowned upon.”
It’s now a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen. Wealthy businessmen and professionals know very well they’re the favorite target for such litigation. When your work demands insane hours and you cannot safely date the hired help then you’re probably dating at the professional association meetings. Also, the women there are pre-screened to not be gold-diggers.
Low-ranking women used to be grateful for high-ranking male interest. Now those women leverage such interest with a predatory ruthlessness the devil would be ashamed of. Small wonder if high-ranking men now marry women with small threat profiles over women with large fertility indicators.
…
Rollo Tomassi @ 4:24 pm:
“Christians are not so much in danger when they are persecuted as when they are admired.”
A long-standing truism. Sadly, it means the situation will only start improving when we Christians start being persecuted. Yet another reason I try to Enjoy the Decline. There’ll be no water slide parks in the ghettos and gulags.
On the upside, it’s also why I don’t worry about having a well-funded retirement.
It was noted on another blog regarding how Fields posted a photo on Twitter of her arm, with bruises – however, the arm in the photo has a birthmark, which Fields apparently lacks. An interesting detail, to say the least.
I commented on Walsh’s article and said:
“On what moral authority do women lecture me? How do they even have time between all the abortions they’re busy having? Michael Walsh, you’re a cuck and right now your daughter (who doesn’t even look like you) is getting reamed in the butt by a drug dealing degenerate.”
A few of the comments there deflected blame for men’s shortcomings (which are so obvious in the face of modern women’s perfection) onto whichever liberal institution they are butthurt about today, but almost everyone commenting on the article was critical of Walsh and Lahren.
Sadly, it means the situation will only start improving when we Christians start being persecuted.
This. Even a cursory look at the history of the church from its very beginnings shows that the only healthy church has ever been a persecuted church.
Remember 15, 20 or so years ago, when you’d actually see articles or get the sense that women sometimes told women how to “woman up” and treat men? Cooking, sex, dressing better, losing weight. Country songs with women singing about men, men they loved, or respected.
Is there ANY part of our culture at all, in which women show love or respect for men, or encourage women to be good to men?
It is astonishing to see the cuckservatives show their true colors through the ‘Michelle Fields was assaulted’ bogus meme.
This is the same thing as Mike/Matt Walsh doing their ‘Why are other men inferior to me?’ schtick. They hate Trump because he reminds them that ‘chicks dig jerks/ZFG alphas’ rather than cartoonish cuckservatives. This hysteria over nothing exposes them as wishing to change rules to favor manginas and disfavor non-manginas.
Note how quickly the cuckservatives adopted the strategies of the left.
Women/Wives
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1005580
Dating a non-virgin: Yes or no.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1005559
Is there ANY part of our culture at all, in which women show love or respect for men, or encourage women to be good to men?
Any part of the dominant American culture? No. Even if it did exist the media would never expose it to the public, so it would might as well be non-existent.
As for women showing love or respect to men, you’ll find at least the respect part alive and well in certain isolated fundamentalist religious communities in North America and in some (non-European) immigrant communities. The “love” part? All I can say about even having a faint chance at finding that is “get a passport and start learning some foreign languages.”
A surprising number of execs, lawyers and docs generally marry other women who are execs, lawyers and docs. The reason is that in the professional class it has become unacceptable socially to be married to someone “beneath” you.
I’m not sure I buy that. The execs, lawyers, and docs I know marry high-earning women because 1) They don’t need someone to keep house. They have gardeners, house cleaners, and nannies. 2) A wife like that doesn’t do nearly as well in a divorce, which is pretty much his biggest realistic financial risk.
Is there ANY part of our culture at all, in which women show love or respect for men, or encourage women to be good to men?
On FB, there is currently this “challenge” making the rounds:
Come on ladies, the challenge is on!
If you have a man in your life who helps bring balance to your world, who isn’t perfect but he’s perfect for you, who works hard and would do anything for you, who makes you laugh but drives you crazy, who is your best friend and sometimes your only friend, who you want to grow old with, who you are thankful for and truly adore.
Let him have a moment and put this as your status. (Copy paste this status and add a picture! )
This is what passes for what you are asking today. One day of recognition that your man is sometimes not a total idiot.
The bar is set pretty low.
…continued.
The other 364 days of the year are pretty much devoted to reminding us that all of the “real men” are gone, about the death of chivalry, about how strong women don’t take a crap from wormy men, ad infinitum.
Scott, even that will probably be bashed, or come with downward mitigation about said man “well, I can KINDA give him credit..but…”
Par for the course, I supposed, given that every Fathers’ Day, we get to hear the same copyrighted “sermon” from all corners of our culture (church, synagogue, media, famous people, etc) that, “yet, far too many men shirk their responsibilities…”
It’s beyond cliche…like strumming (mauling) the first few chords of Stairway to Heaven by every 13 year old in a music store.
Par for the course, I supposed, given that every Fathers’ Day, we get to hear the same copyrighted “sermon” from all corners of our culture (church, synagogue, media, famous people, etc) that, “yet, far too many men shirk their responsibilities…”
Unless he attends that rarest of churches that ignores all secular holidays, I sincerely hope that every self-respecting man will make it a practice to stay home on both Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. While the odds of it ever happening are probably somewhere south of zero (as well as of it having any lasting effect even if it were to happen), imagine the message it would send to pussy-worshiping pastors if they found themselves without any targets in their congregations on those two Sundays.
Dear MarcusD:
Whenever good Catholics (or, I assume, other Christians and Jews) talk about “dating” they ought to be talking about marriage. Serious people date to find a worthy partner, no?
From the thread:
I obviously don’t think that anyone is “entitled” to be considered for a date. I just think that ruling out a whole bunch of people because of a past mistake doesn’t take into account how a person can change and repent and be healed by Jesus.
LOL! So much rationalization in one place… it makes the head spin. Someone ought to post the Teachman study over there. (If only to watch Xanthippe go nuts obfuscating.)
It seems a no-brainer that a lifetime marriage requires self-discipline and the ability to delay gratification. Sluts and playas who have had lots of casual partners are clear examples of people who have not disciplined themselves. If you’re going to marry someone, you may as well hedge your bets in this regard. Past performance is often indicative of future (mis-)behavior.
Boxer
I suppose when they strong men, they have this in mind:
I suppose when they strong men, they have this in mind:
Hmmmm, so their idea of strong men = gay men?
That figures.
Boxer @ 9:19 am:
“Whenever good Catholics (or, I assume, other Christians and Jews) talk about “dating” they ought to be talking about marriage. Serious people date to find a worthy partner, no?”
These days, good idea to date for practicing Game or establishing social circles for unicorn hunting. Maybe when the Church insists the girls be inexperienced and innocent instead of the boys we can talk about the way courtship “should” work.
Love the Catholic link. If only they could be harvested, the one-true-religioun hamsters of Catholic (feminist) answers could power our civilization for 10,000,000 years.
@Boxer
LOL! So much rationalization in one place… it makes the head spin. Someone ought to post the Teachman study over there. (If only to watch Xanthippe go nuts obfuscating.)
That study has been posted there many times, and it has largely been ignored (e.g. by BlueEyedLady, Xantippe, and many others). In fact, BEL, when presented with 10 studies on the subject (Teachman included) outright refused to believe them, saying that she’d never heard of such studies and thus they must be false.
One of my favorite responses (on hand; saved from a deleted thread*), from a guy who found out his fiance had multiple sexual partners, regarding the Teachman study (and a few others): “These are interesting, but I guess what interests me the most is whether Catholics who are dating would consider someone if they had a sexual past but had completely repented and accepted all the tenets of the faith now. I tend to think that one can get bogged down in statistics but the best formula for a successful marriage is two people who believe and are set on their goal to reach sainthood together, regardless of history.”
I think some people just refuse to accept reality.
—-
*Some threads with a large amount of information that debunks the “Forgiveness Cures AIDs” mentality popular in Christian/Catholic circles, regarding (past) promiscuity in a (female) partner, end up deleted. I’ve never quite understood why (thread deletion is quite inconsistent), but I suspect that the mods have similar views as the guy above.
Dal,
Here is another one to add to the Journal Of Manginal Folly.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/marriage-declining-men-pigs
Spike, feeriker, Hoyos Trust, Hells Hound, Gaza, Jim Christian, Boxer (and others):
— thank you all for your excellent commentary. That’s the stuff that draws me here.
Gaza says [March 31, 2016 at 1:20 pm]:
==========
Just sayin’.
Honestly I was hoping that stupid cuck was going to write to me about how he was coming to kill me. Yes… Violence. That’s what I want. I want death.
Lighten up, Francis. No one here is impressed.
Gunner Q says [March 31, 2016 at 6:44 pm]:
Gunner Q, you are right.
In fairness to the Rabbi who wrote the essay I’m paraphrasing that from, he was talking about (and denouncing) a refusal to accept individual moral agency out of fear, laziness and/or despair, and in particular he very much was talking things one could avert/change by individual effort.
So, you’re not really disagreeing with him; I’m just sort of parphrasing him out of context.
The problem here with this as I see it, though, is: the overall societal problem(s) we are discussing here — that is, the big intractable Sociological Mess, Family-Law Legal Shambles, Moral Horror Show, etc. — is made up of many individual instances of precisely the sorts of incidents (and moral failure) the Rabbi was talking about.
I mean, let’s just take the “Don’t Blame The Victim” meme. In fact, we live in a society that is absolutely awash in self-destructive behaviours & related consequences (promiscuity, addiction, obesity), and the whole point about self-destructive, is that the “victim” very f*cking well is to blame, as they are the very self- in the self-destruction.
[Here, I gloss over all the damage they also inflict on others. It’s not an important topic, it’s just not mine at the moment.]
But, being “A Victim” and “suffering” (sometimes synonymized as “being a Survivor”) somehow obviates all moral responsibility/culpability. F*ck a couple of hundred men in your twenties, got chlamydia, have scars on your fallopian tubes? Oh, a “victim of infertility”. So sad. And so on. And not just the wimminz.
An objective might be raised here that I am conflating false and true “Victims”, self-inflicted & non-self-inflicted “suffering”, and “being a Survivor” of genuine attacks/suffering of some kind. No. My precise point is that, since maybe as long ago as (SFAICT anyway) 1980 or even 1965, our society and its political, religious an media leaders have been doing that, and with at first increasing shamelessness, and now with increasing comprehension that there ever was a difference.
Orwell wrote repeatedly that sloppy use of language leads to sloppy thinking, and that deliberately sloppy language use for the purpose of confounding others’ clear thinking, is malicious & evil.
Now, our entire society is built on intentionally sloppy language intended principally to obscure Truth. (Sometimes rather than being by equivocation & confusion, this is accomplished by deliberate omission , e.g., “a woman’s right to choose” vs. “a woman’s right to choose to murder her own children”).
And so, critical words like “moral” and “true” and “marriage” have been hunted down and killed (and the hunting and killing of meaningful words continues, e.g. even “man” and “woman”, with all this “trans-” cr@p being pushed by the progressives).
Anyway: back the Rabbi’s observation — if the sort of social, moral and intellectual decay I touch on above is a big intractable mess — then what you said. But if it’s a big intractable mess made up of small individual acts of moral treason and despair, etc. — well, maybe the Rabbi is talking about the big mess, too.
Not that that provides us with an overall solution; I don’t know where my copy of that essay is, but I imagine it would suggest we have to respond to The Big Gynocratic Mess by not letting its sheer magnitude (~ a century long; an entire civilization wide; and, — at least many of us here would agree — abyssally, hellishly deep) make us give up on individual moral responses to the parts of it that confront us in our individual daily lives (such as seems to have happened with ‘Francis’, if he isn’t sock-puppet Troll).
================
Pax Christi Vobiscum
Typo:
“[…] It’s not an UNimportant topic, it’s just not mine at the moment. […]”
Typo: “objective” –> “objection”
Sorry. :^(
Typo: “[…] increasing INcomprehension […]
(sigh)
No such thing as a strong woman. That’s Orwell speak for Bratty bitch.
There is no such thing as a ” strong woman ” . That’s basically Orwell speak for loud mouthed brat. Needing to marry a strong woman is like needing a frozen turkey with your new car purchase. …
Pound sand Walsh. I will allow you zero power over my life or decision-making.
I at one time like some of Matt Walsh’s musings……………here and there I thought he had the right idea. He’s basically a guy who was blessed with a “freakshow” of good-hipster-millennial-looks. He is a pretty self-righteous guy, and he would tell us all that is “confidence” but the Bible would call that arrogance.
If you’ve seen one pussy-licking woman pedestalizer you’ve seen them all. Don’t worry. When the Muslims take over these cunts are going to be sex slaves at best or without heads at worst. They’re so stupid they don’t even realize what’s coming their way.
What else would you expect from a coward?
Pingback: Assortive Mating in the UMC | Spawny's Space
Til this day I don’t understand what a strong woman is. Most women that claimed to be strong have been nothing less than a spoiled brat mad because she doesn’t get her way or one in a prestige position on the job. If these are strong women than I have no idea what a ‘real’ woman is these days.
@bluepillprofessor, March 30, 2016 at 5:38 pm: I laughed for ten minutes after reading your post. How do we shrink that down into a meme I wondered.