Brad Wilcox of the Marriage Project made a video for Prager University that along with a rebuttal by MGTOW Turd Flinging Monkey has been getting a good deal of attention. Be a man. Get married.
From the title alone you should be able to guess what Prager and Wilcox are selling here. They are selling marriage and fatherhood as a rite of passage into manhood, and specifically a vehicle for men to attain respect.
Less obvious at first glance is what they are not selling. They are not encouraging marriage to promote sexual morality. Wilcox is the head of a secular academic organization, and Prager argues that no fault divorce is good for society and has improved marriage:
Most Americans believe that for the past generation, America has been in a moral decline. And whenever conservatives describe this decline, they include the high divorce rate, along with crime and out-of-wedlock births, as a prime example. I believe conservatives are wrong here…
…a truly bad marriage is akin to life imprisonment, and innocent people do not deserve such a punishment. Second, it only takes one person to divorce. Assuming that all divorced people sought their divorce is as untrue as it is unfair. Third, when there are no children involved, a divorce’s social costs to society are minimal and therefore unworthy of our attention. Furthermore, as a rule, it is far better for society to have people marry and divorce than never to marry. When people marry, they begin to grow up, and society needs grownups. Fourth, regarding children and divorce, the effects of divorce usually depend on what happens after a couple divorces.
This is important, because this view of marriage is really just a state certified version of boyfriend and girlfriend, where the only thing remotely resembling sexual morality is a loose ethic of one at a time. One at a time is a strategy to avoid sexual traffic jams, not anything morally meaningful, so it is understandable why neither Wilcox nor Prager want to stress morality as a benefit of marriage.
This leaves them with potential financial benefits of marriage, along with the status of husband and father, which from a marketing perspective boils down to respect. Wisely, Prager and Wilcox zero in on respect, and even when they are discussing financial benefits the implication is that married men, and especially married fathers, are respected. Respect is a primary motivator for men, more powerful than money and sex. This is why the series can sell responsibility and having to work much harder as a benefit:
This works because in a healthy society responsibility is accompanied by both authority and respect. Men understand this in their guts. The only problem with the implication is that as a society we are painstakingly careful not to offer either authority or respect to married men, especially married fathers. Husbands and fathers are at times respected and honored, but this is despite the best efforts of the law and our moral and cultural leaders. This is, incidentally, why this kind of promotional video is needed. To the extent that men are the ones avoiding marriage (which is to say only minimally), the problem is that young men are responding to reality and are less likely to believe that marriage is a path to respect.
In his rebuttal Turd Flinging Monkey points out the cruelty of the family courts, but it is important to remember that the family courts are merely the formal governmental expression of our societal attitude towards married fathers.
But while as a society we see husbands and fathers as at best fools and buffoons, and at worst evil and dangerous, there is still the hope by many men that they will be viewed differently. Either way, this is as I pointed out above the best benefit Wilcox and Prager have to sell, so it makes sense for them to carry on in this direction. The video explains that a man who marries is transformed from a bar crawling single man to a respectable family man and member of the local church. This is ironic because contempt for married fathers isn’t a purely secular phenomenon; in fact modern Christian culture takes contempt for married fathers so far that even secular observers are taken aback. While secular culture begrudgingly accepts Father’s Day as a day to honor fathers, modern Christians can’t abide the idea of a day to honor fathers and have transformed it into a day to tear down fathers.
The video makes the claim marriage is the only path to this new and respected status:
And a critical rite of passage:
It gives men a new, respected status in the world:
Why is it that marriage can turn a boy into a man when nothing else can? Marriage comes with a woman to teach you how to be a man:
This is about as effective as a video promoting modern marriage can be, but it won’t have the kind of impact its creators are hoping for. As Wilcox points out, the median age of marriage for men has gone from 23 to 29. If this were due to a movement by men to delay marriage, the video would be an effective response. However, the social change we are seeing around delayed marriage is being driven not by men, but by women. Most of the young men who will watch this video live in a world where very few women their age are interested in marriage, and they don’t see the men a few years older than themselves getting married. Signaling provider status is no longer an effective path to sexual success for young men, as most young women in our hookup culture far prefer exciting bad boys to boring loyal dudes. By the time the women in their generation tire of chasing after bad boys, many of the would be steady eddies have coasted through the better part of their 20s. The problem isn’t so much that young men don’t want to marry, but that once marriage is suddenly on the table many young men won’t have prepared for it as previous generations of men had.
This is a cultural problem that can’t be fixed by having young men watch a video, because the young men aren’t the ones driving the cultural change. Moreover, one lesson that men are slowly learning is the very lesson that Prager has been teaching; marriage doesn’t have any moral meaning. If this is true, and given the deliberate assault on the status of husbands and fathers, then Turd Flinging Monkey’s response is the most rational perspective. Of course it isn’t true, but acknowledging sexual morality would upset the feminist apple cart that conservative elites like Prager and Wilcox are so careful not to upset.
Pingback: What Prager and Wilcox are selling. | Neoreactive
Lots of questionable ideas in that small piece by Prager, to wit:
Third, when there are no children involved, a divorce’s social costs to society are minimal and therefore unworthy of our attention.
Eh, except for the ethic of serial monogamy, which is reinforced strongly by this kind of “no harm, no foul” type of thinking, and which has a huge social impact on all male/female relationships in the culture by reinforcing serial monogamy as a cultural norm.
Fourth, regarding children and divorce, the effects of divorce usually depend on what happens after a couple divorces.
Which begs the question of what usually happens. Prager is writing in 2002 and suggesting joint physical should be the norm — well it’s 2016 and it still isn’t the norm. Why? Lots of reasons, and most of them relate to no-one – neither the men nor the women — wanting to be physically tied to one location that is physically proximate to their ex-spouse for two or more decades. Even if there were a massive legislative push in favor of joint physical/residential custody (which there ins’t), the practical issues are such that in many cases, perhaps in most of them, it simply isn’t workable over the longer term, and therefore doesn’t happen. And in such cases, you get all of the negative impact on the kids that is typical for a divorce. Shoving this actual reality under the rug by citing an arrangement that only a minority of actual divorces have is neither convincing nor appropriate.
—–
In general, I think what’s at play here are two things (1) the hedonic redefinition of marriage and (2) the need for men to be married to be socially productive. According to both, divorce is a minor matter. Why?
In the hedonic marriage world, marriage exists to make both spouses happy and fulfilled. If it is doing this, it is a good marriage. If it isn’t, it is a bad or unhealthy marriage. If the bad marriage is terminally bad, it makes eminent sense to allow it to be fairly freely terminated so that each spouse can find another relationship which makes them happy and fulfilled. In other words, such a marriage has ceased to fulfill it’s raison d’etre, and therefore can, and should, be terminable fairly easily. This is what underlies Prager’s first point, I think.
Coupled with this is the idea that marriage makes men responsible and productive members of society by loading them up with responsibilities to people other than themselves. The important element to this, however, is that it more or less works regardless of whether a divorce ensues, because the divorce does not unburden a man of these responsibilities. So you can keep a man socially enslaved, or trapped in a lifestyle that benefits others much more than it does himself in concrete terms, once he is married, even if he gets divorced later, because he will still have the same responsibility-driven impetus after the divorce, to a large degree, under our laws. This is what Prager is getting at when he says it’s better for people to get married even if they get divorced — well, sure, because the guys are already strapped into the system in an irrevocable way once they marry, and the desired “social benefits” accrue, under the laws and legal system, regardless of whether a divorce ensues. So the key is getting men *into* the system to begin with — once they get into the system, they can’t easily get out of it under the legal system, and this is what Prager et al want: that men are forced to be socially productive in a way that Prager et al want.
Pingback: What Prager and Wilcox are selling. – Manosphere.org
” The reason marriage is different is marriage comes with a woman to teach you how to be a man…”
(((Prager))), who boasts that the great contribution to civilization and the world is monotheism and the (((Law))), is rather quick to disregard said Law and God when it comes to the goy; so much for Talmudic “laws” and “morals.”
How long would Prager and Wilcox last if they also declared ” The reason marriage is different is marriage comes with a man to teach you how to be a woman?” Not long.
“However, the social change we are seeing around delayed marriage is being driven not by men, but by women. Most of the young men who will watch this video live in a world where very few women their age are interested in marriage, and they don’t see the men a few years older than themselves getting married. Signaling provider status is no longer an effective path to sexual success for young men, as most young women in our hookup culture far prefer exciting bad boys to boring loyal dudes. By the time the women in their generation tire of chasing after bad boys, many of the would be steady eddies have coasted through the better part of their 20s. The problem isn’t so much that young men don’t want to marry, but that once marriage is suddenly on the table many young men won’t have prepared for it as previous generations of men had.”
Dalrock, you’ve written about this before. What’s striking about this is that no one in our society sees any of this as a problem, or even as part of the problem.
It’s women who don’t want to get married, and the reason they don’t want to get married is because they don’t want to and don’t need to. Now, admittedly, young men in their late teens and early 20s don’t want to marry and really aren’t all that ready to. But men in their late 20s and early 30s who are getting started on their careers mostly are willing to get married if they’re going to get something out of it, namely regular, enthusiastic sex at reasonable intervals that doesn’t involve herculean amounts of effort and work.
Getting to the nub of it, and it’s been said before, young pre-Wall women are willing to marry if, and only if, the man involved is absolutely perfect in every way. He has to be hot, fit, sexy, exciting, monogamous minded, with a good job and money in the bank, and his own living arrangements. He has to be ready made, off the shelf perfect, with no added input and no assembly required. He can’t be a diamond in the rough or a work in progress. He can’t be a young guy just starting out, he needs to be established and earning very good money, and he has to have all these things first, before he’ll be anywhere close to worthy of consideration.
That’s what’s driving the marriage delay.
If the juice were worth the squeeze, they would not be needed to shame men into it. Still, most everybody gets married. It seems to me that they are a bit worried about what might happen in the future if current trends continue and if men continue to earn less and less and thus society gets less and less. Which is what I truly think this is all about.
Marriage brings with it a premium that helps uplift society, if marriage is taken less seriously by men, that marriage premium is lost. It’s all about getting men to work more for less, for the benefit of them. If they could use whips, they would.
“the reason they don’t want to get married is because they don’t want to and don’t need to.”
The reason women don’t want to marry is because they enjoy chasing bad boys during their 20s for excitement and sex. They don’t have to marry because other people are footing the bill and protecting them against the life pitfalls they’d otherwise run up against. They are being bombarded with cultural messages (even from their religious and spiritual leaders) that they need to work, earn money, and have fun while they’re young, and marriage and babies can and will wait until their 30s and beyond. It doesn’t help when Janet Jackson gets pregnant at 49. Never mind that Janet Jackson at 49 is in better physical shape than 98% of 24 year old women, and is by every objective measure more attractive than 90+% of 24 year old women. So women get the message that “if Janet can do it, I can do it!”
Last week I was in a church service where a woman was preaching (I know, I know). She is 39 years old, never married, and at least 75 pounds overweight. She kept talking about her desire to marry and have children someday. I kept thinking “it is never going to happen for you. Marriage maybe; children, never. You’re too old to have biological children.” But women — even Christian women — absolutely will not hear this message, and will not accept factual reality.
Deti, society doesn’t see late marriage as a problem, it would not see women getting married at sixty as a problem. As long as the men worked as hard as if they were married. That is the key here, it’s all a drive to keep men working harder than men need to in order to survive. That marriage premium is being lost by late marriage and they cannot even suggest to women to get married earlier or to be submissive to their husbands and thus the only target left is men. It’s the dying breath of a decaying society.
These days there are so many things to consider (pitfalls, red flags, hypergamy, solopsism, etc), that it would take a man of 25 or older to intelligently screen any woman. The other problem is that any marriage-minded young woman is scooped up by the late-20’s males who have better provisioning. Young men are have to have the money, the looks and most importantly, game knowledge to compete or be lonely, but really good at Overwatch.
Many celebrity women have babies, and younger boyfriends, into their 40s.
Eva Mendes is in her 40s, and has an out-of-wedlock baby with the younger Ryan Gosling.
Jennifer Lopez famously has a 20-years-younger boy-toy, and kids from her ex-husband.
Lena Headey (Queen Cearsei of Game of Thrones) gave birth to a baby at age 41 (father still a secret). She’s dating a younger guy, and has a previous child from her ex-husband (a rock musician that she divorced when her fame rose higher than his).
Angelina Jolie — well, she’s got her own United Nations of a brood, along with a husband she stole from another woman.
The news if full of “You go girl!” femme celebrities having babies with younger boyfriends, well into their 40s.
@Fem Hater
Yes. It is interesting how worried they are given the fact that nearly every woman still manages to marry. Wilcox’s stats focus on the percent of people married over 18 (I think). The change to this metric is almost entirely driven by delayed marriage and a strong decline in remarriage rates. This is a weakening of marriage, but it isn’t a marriage strike (although perhaps a remarriage strike). If Prager and Wilcox feel their highly modified version of marriage is at risk now, imagine their panic if men were to actually start eschewing marriage in meaningful numbers.
They keep claiming that men working harder to support their families is simply a benefit for men, adopting the feminist term “marriage premium”. But they clearly understand that the benefit is to society, not the man working more hours at a more stressful job with a longer commute. Men do these things because this is the responsibility they took on. But Prager and Wilcox don’t respect these men enough to acknowledge the noble sacrifice the men are making, nor the injustice of a system which stands forever ready to crush such a man should his wife give the order.
The news if full of “You go girl!” femme celebrities having babies with younger boyfriends, well into their 40s.
Sure. It’s the combination of healthier lifestyles, excellent personal trainers, surgery, advances in fertility medicine, and the ability to dedicate time and effort to looking great at that age. These resources are much more available generally speaking to two kinds of women: celebrities and very wealthy wives (i.e., not the “working rich” who have highly lucrative day jobs, because they are mostly too busy, but the non-working wives of rich guys). Most other women are too busy to avail themselves of all of these resources, even if they have the cash to do so. A larger percentage of women is looking better at 45 than was the case 20 years ago, of course (due mostly to healthier lifestyles), but not at the level of famous celebrities.
There are exceptions — I know of a couple who are women who are divorced in this age range and who are being well-compensated by ex-husbands and who spend a lot of time and effort on appearance, and compete well with women 10-15 years younger. They still don’t look like celebrities (I think that the surgery/med procedures are the biggest difference), but they look good and pull younger men who are good looking. They also stick out like sore thumbs in my office environment which has many women in this age range, with virtually none of them being like these women. The impact isn’t on these women — they mostly know better — but on younger women, who think they will be the exceptional non-celeb non-rich-wife woman who looks like that at 45.
Dalrock: It is interesting how worried they are given the fact that nearly every woman still manages to marry.
Perhaps the current worry is not that women aren’t marrying, but that women aren’t marrying men to their liking. Men in their 30s aren’t earning as much as they would if they’d married younger (as others have noted).
Society not only owes every woman a husband. Society owes every woman a high-income husband.
This works because in a healthy society responsibility is accompanied by both authority and respect. Men understand this in their guts. The only problem with the implication is that as a society we are painstakingly careful not to offer either authority or respect to married men, especially married fathers.
The call is to responsibility with the promises of authority and respect. But then once the yoke of responsibility has been chained to a man’s shoulders, the authority and respect are given to their wives. This is false advertising to lure men into an unjust arrangement. In the end, men who are pulled in may appear to be responsible when in reality they are merely resigned to inescapable fate.
I like how the focus of the video is solely on men. There is no listing of the benefits of women getting married, especially if they remain virgins until they are married. Or a list of benefits of women staying home and taking care of home, hearth, and the kids.
And where’s the video that scolds women for divorcing men because they aren’t happy?
Great post as usual, Dalrock. I don’t see anyone getting close to the root of our societal problems except you. I can’t begin to count the number of problems that stem from a legal system that supports and encourages mothers to kick fathers out of their family. One ( of many ) problem is that secular folks have convinced religious folks to switch the definitions of love and marriage, something you’ve pointed out before. Instead of love happening inside the stable commitment of marriage, we now have marriage happening inside the unstable emotion of love. Look at the way he describes marriage as ceasing to be relevant if one person is not in love, it would be akin to a life sentence no one deserves. Except they weren’t sentenced to it, they willingly entered into it. Does he forget that point? If I buy a house I no longer like, should I be able to ask the bank for all my money back?
Now, the marriage he is selling isn’t based on respect, it’s based on husband servitude. Respect is just one possible side effect. We really have a situation where marriage is at will, and divorce is forever. He mentions the former as though it’s a feature. You can end the obligations to your wife with divorce, but you can never end the obligations to your ex wife. As an example, I recently lost $500 in income, enough of a hit for me to ask for a child support reduction. The judges decision? He raised my child support by $250. This must be a mistake, right? No this is the system working AS DESIGNED. You see, in that same time my ex wife voluntarily took a lower paying job and lost $1,000 in income. I had to pay more support on less money, to subsidize her losses. She’s remarried and doesn’t have to work, so her wages will stagnate in part time jobs while I climb the corporate ladder. And the court says she deserves a little peace of every step forward I take. I was married to her for 9 years, I will be supporting her lifestyle after she filed for divorce for 14 years, assuming she doesn’t take me to court and force me to pay college costs. Normally a father would get to decide under what circumstances he would help pay for college, school, major, etc. A divorced father can be forced to pay for a Women’s Studies degree from University of Pheonix.
A simple counter argument to Man up and marry her, is Man up and pay for that ex wife.
“It’s just a piece of paper”
The fact that in 2016 these guys are using the same contrived memes that the Baby Boom generation used 50 years ago as a reason not to marry illustrates what hacks they really are.
What’s funny is I remember as a teenager Evangelical pastors using this same argumentation while deriding the hippies in the mid 80s.
This is what you get in a society when gammas and omegas are given the microphone. They spew out their failed theology on the rest of us.
Did anyone notice how they pretended that men marrying today are getting the same quality of women that marrying men got in the 50s and 60s? It’s like someone telling you it is smart to buy Enron stocks after it has gone bust.
I like how the focus of the video is solely on men. There is no listing of the benefits of women getting married, especially if they remain virgins until they are married. Or a list of benefits of women staying home and taking care of home, hearth, and the kids.
And where’s the video that scolds women for divorcing men because they aren’t happy?
My thoughts exactly. But the good part of this whole sick joke is that men are now generally aware of this treachery, and are speaking up about it.
The women are panicking, trying to deny being part of the feminist collective, and claiming they “don’t need feminism”. But it is already too late. Men have woken up and are not signing up for this new slavery by another name.
@Rollo
The funniest part is that their best response to this very old challenge is essentially “Yes, but this is a magic piece of paper.” Anon Reader would be forgiven for accusing them of engaging in cargo cult thinking.
Take away sexual morality, and marriage indeed becomes just a piece of paper. It is a way to certify that this romantic relationship is really really special, until it isn’t. Once it isn’t really really special, we have an entire industry devoted to revoking said certificate and doling out cash and prizes.
If we’re talking about core economics, let’s keep in mind that 18-35 year old Men are what produce nearly all productivity growth inside the economy. (Women are almost wholly worthless in this regard.) Beyond 35, they’ve generally acquired enough experience to get compensated properly for their productivity.
If you follow Professional Sports, this is the “Rookie Contract” effect. No one knows how productive the Rookie will be, and some out-perform their contract so much they win you championships. When a team has to pay the Going-Rate for the player, they’re suddenly less valuable.
Delayed Marriage limits the “spike” in a Man’s career built by the instincts to provide for his family. Big dislocations in a Man’s early career drastically limits his eventual productivity & income in his later life. (Most upper 20s/lower 30s “professional” Women complaining about a lack of Men have, quite directly, taken the job they wanted their potential Husband to have.)
I’m getting married this Saturday and this video does nothing to give me any assurance at all about my future. My hope should be in the Lord but when I see the tons of men who were badly burnt by marriage (and their rebellious wives), I worry.
I’m getting married this Saturday
Uh oh….
What should be a joyous occasion in a healthy society is now cause of worry for a fellow man….
“specifically a vehicle for men to attain respect”
farther wasn’t respected.
“The problem isn’t so much that young men don’t want to marry, but that once marriage is suddenly on the table many young men won’t have prepared for it as previous generations of men had.”
Hang out with children as a child. Doing hard things everyday keeps me in checkX
Dalrock, thanks for this. You and your commenters make good points… but I also want to re-mention something you’ve written before about womens’ role in delaying marriage: Feminist envy and resentment.
One of the most painful realizations my frivorced male peers faced, is that their wives didn’t necessarily *appreciate* the hard work the men did to support their families… rather, they were jealous and resentful. One wife told her husband flat out he “was holding her back from what she truly wanted to do”. Another complained that because she was “stuck” raising the kids, she couldn’t do “fun and exciting” things her single friends were doing, such as living in an apartment in a big city, rather than their (quite big, actually) suburban home. The fellow was especially hurt because he was very successful, his wife could work or not work as *she* chose, their kids lacked for nothing, and he got her everything she said she wanted — car, vacation, you name it. I was able to “talk the men off the ledge” to some degree, helped by the fact they truly and deeply loved their children. And to the kids’ credit, once the immediate turmoil passed, they saw the truth and loved their fathers back even more. So there was “hope”, as it turned out. Still, a rough row to hoe for all.
“I’m getting married this Saturday” by username ‘chokingonredpills’.
Buddy, if both those statements are true, you may want to delay this event until you can clear your throat from the choking you have been getting from reality.
Be well and stay safe. Marriage can be done well, even in 2016, but it also must be managed well.
From a churchian perspective, the message here is simply that the secular culture matters above all else. When the Word of God clashes with the culture, when it causes the Feelbadz, especially in women, who are now the arbiters of the economic resource allocation upon which churchianity depends for its existence, then the Word gets the boot forthwith.
When it comes to threatpoint, no one trusts God to do the right thing. The immediate effects of executed threatpoint in the temporal world are enough to turn “male” “Christian” spines to peanut butter and the whole “trust in the Lord” theme goes right out the window.
Once again: “Christian” men fear women more than they fear (or trust in) God.
The fellow was especially hurt because he was very successful, his wife could work or not work as *she* chose, their kids lacked for nothing, and he got her everything she said she wanted — car, vacation, you name it.
This, IME, is a VERY big part of the problem: women in the western world today are too comfortable, too spoiled, too pampered, too soft, too selfish. The good news, however, is that the coming collapse will “thin the herd” and put an end to such indulgence.
Quite honestly, if I were in your shoes at the time, I would have told your friend that he was lucky to be rid of that whiny, spoiled, self-centered bitch. When TSHTF, she’d be nothing but a hindrance, a burden, and a danger.
“This is what you get in a society when gammas and omegas are given the microphone. They spew out their failed theology on the rest of us.”
It’s not so much a failed theology as it is a failure, inability, or unwillingness to see that the world has changed. Theology (Christian or otherwise) hasn’t failed. People have. It’s much easier to look at problems and blame men. It’s hard to call out women for their sin and their failures. If Prager and Wilcox produced a video saying something like “Be a Woman, get Married”, and told women that they are the ones not getting married because they don’t want to, and because they are working and chasing bad boys for sex, and because they are putting off getting married until the last possible minute, the hue and cry would be deafening. They’d be denounced as misogynists, chauvinists, and sexists. They’d be accused of “attacking” women and “hating” women.
The other problem is that everyone is looking at all this change, and has pronounced it a good thing, but things still have to get done, work still has to get done, the trains must still be made to run on time, the oil must still get changed, food must still get to the supermarkets, and fathers must still pay the bills for children who might or might not be theirs. Men are still being expected to do all these things, despite the fact that they’re being rewarded less and less for it.
No thought was given to the idea that if women marry later after riding the carousel, and if women are marrying men they just aren’t all that attracted to, and if women are divorcing these men because they’re just not haaaappy — no thought was given to how men might react to all of this. The facile, easy response is to shame men — to tell them “well, it’s hard, but you still have to do all this, because society (women) need it, and that’s what you’re supposed to do.” It’s not working, it’s really just kicking the can down the road. What’s happening is slow change – more men not marrying, more men refusing to have kids, and men marrying (if they do marry), they marry much, much later, well into their 30s.
All of society sees all this as a very good thing, too. Because women are “More equal” and bad marriages need not continue. You can end a bad marriage. Men will still have to pay, and theoretically they’re freed up to find women who can and will make good marriages with them. But it’s clearly not a good thing, because it’s not working well at all.
The worst thing you can say about men is that they aren’t all that sexually attractive, and many, many of them don’t have much at all to offer women. This is no surprise — we’re on our second generation now of listening to women tell everyone what they say they want (nice, kind, good hearted men who are willing to stay home and take care of children) while we see women show everyone what they want (good looking, muscular, masculine men who don’t take their shit and who do what they want). The answer, at least for now and the foreseeable future, is for men to improve themselves and to forego marriage until they are attractive enough to attract what they want – if they marry at all. The answer is for men to insist on wives who are willing to follow the biblical model — if they marry at all.
rather, they were jealous and resentful. One wife told her husband flat out he “was holding her back from what she truly wanted to do”. Another complained that because she was “stuck” raising the kids, she couldn’t do “fun and exciting” things her single friends were doing, such as living in an apartment in a big city, rather than their (quite big, actually) suburban home.
Yes.
Interestingly you can see this crop up in the post-divorce lives of some divorcees as well.
I know a few of these situations through acquaintances. In each case, ex-w got the suburban home and remained in it until youngest kid was in college, at which point she moved out of suburban home, pocketing the cash, and into posh apartment in urban core so that she could have more fun. Basically trying to recreate the party years, only in the mid to late 40s. These are both women with advanced degrees who have special gigs where they earn fairly decent coin but are able to work mostly from home(ish) and, coupled with the alimony and cs, this affords a more than comfortable lifestyle. The suburbs are seen as a boring jail, really, and the ex-husband was the jailer, apparently. There are more women like this than you think, and the trend of older divorced women moving back into the city to take a stab at the cougar lifestyle is a thing now.
When Darren shot this he was married to Rachel who later divorced him.
She was pregnant with their child.
I saw this in my deep blue pill faze with my first girlfriend none of the inner meaning impacted her as much as me. We both grow up in the lds faith with marriage being the proper way to ignite a relationship.
It’s all losing traction…
“Third, when there are no children involved, a divorce’s social costs to society are minimal and therefore unworthy of our attention.”
Seriously?
I’m willing to bet that there are at least a handful of men who were fortunate enough to not have had kids in their failed marriages who’d say that the costs were anything but minimal.
“The suburbs are seen as a boring jail, really, and the ex-husband was the jailer, apparently.”
That reminds me of this recent thread in Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Marriage/comments/4k2q6u/i_didnt_think_i_would_be_in_this_situationany/
“the problem is my wife wants to move and doesn’t care that the job that might be available will pay me less, give me less vacation time, and i will work longer hours….she says she needs to be closer to more shopping and restaurants…”
Unfortunately even if he does give in to her vague ill-formed longings there’ll be less money and she’ll still be unhaappy.
But anyhow the clip from the video above “honey you’re so much better than this”. Is this the middle class prejudice against manual work? Or merely against semi-skilled manual work? And not a great way to make men want to get married – showing the wife nagging him into submission.
OFF TOPIC:
I used to read Haley’s Halo (haleyshalo.wordpress.com). She hasn’t updated her blog in almost 2 years. But, I ran across this comment, left in January 2016
https://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/tough-luck-old-virgins/#comment-15841
asserting that Haley had been killed in an auto accident over Fourth of July weekend 2014, almost 2 years ago.
Toward the end of the blog Haley posted much less frequently and didn’t participate nearly as much in the comments, so it wasn’t surprising she left the last post and didn’t comment on it much at all, if at all. I, like most people, had just assumed she had had enough of blogging and hung it up.
Anyone know anything about the truth of the linked comment?
Men and the journey.
A profession and frame women fall into. Marriage and meaning coming internally or externally?
What meaning is faith to the none faithful who at times stay in union longer?
http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/marriage-and-divorce/
“Third, when there are no children involved, a divorce’s social costs to society are minimal and therefore unworthy of our attention.”
That’s a typical Prager-esque statement. His writings were always much less about morality than personal empowerment and maintaining appearances. Your wife broke her vow before God and betrayed your trust & investment? That’s okay because you are no loss to society.
…
“Less obvious at first glance is what they are not selling. They are not encouraging marriage to promote sexual morality.”
This was my first glitch in the Matrix. As a young man, I naturally wanted sex. Per the Bible, marriage was the only moral way to get sex. I made the mistake of being honest about that with asked by fellow guys and leaders. Why not? I want sex and loyalty, she wants protection and provision, let’s deal. But every single Christian father, happy or miserable, clergy or layman, told me getting married just for sex was a bad idea. Every father I ever asked told me marriage was a hard, burdensome duty to be endured because there’s no other source of children. I get that attitude even from some Red Pill guys today.
Nobody taught marriage was supposed to be FUN for a guy. Not a single time. Until you, Dalrock, when you said if marriage Game wasn’t fun then you’re doing it wrong.
@thedeti says: Last week I was in a church service where a woman was preaching (I know, I know). She is 39 years old, never married, and at least 75 pounds overweight. She kept talking about her desire to marry and have children someday.
———————
If you really want something, you develop the discipline to get it.
I bet she had no problem developing the discipline to get a college degree; I bet she had no problem developing the discipline to go to work every day; so why does she have a problem developing the discipline to lose weight to make her attractive enough to land a husband?
She doesn’t really want it.
Off-topic a bit. A slight breath of fresh air from the Evangelical blogosphere:
http://thecripplegate.com/how-wives-can-get-their-husbands-to-resent-them/
@Gunner Q:
When you don’t know the Rules but still have the Play the Game, it’s always going to be brutal. When you know the Rules and how to use them to your advantage, it’s like nothing else in the world.
I’m not married, but the understanding applies to nearly everything, especially our faith in Jesus Christ. Everything takes energy, but life brings a lot of peace when you’re neither fighting the Lord nor acting like a petulant child telling Him to “do the work”. Take up our mats and walk. The Lord can cut through all of it.
chokingonredpills, you should change your handle to chokingonbluepills. You do not have to get married. Chances are you will regret it most grievously if you do get married. Even if you don’t get divorce-raped, you will still likely be miserable in a situation where you have no rights and no respect and no alternatives and no escape. Like the guy above said, you can end your obligation to
your wife but NEVER can you escape your obligations to your ex-wife!!!!
What Prager and Wilcox are selling is the age old myth cloaked in tradcon BS that, thanks to 3rd wave feminism, any man with the ability to read and think can confirm for himself that not only are tradcons BS but the myth itself is BS. Any man who marries in the 21st century West is an absolute fool. And the facts prove it. Feminism isn’t the true enemy of men, it’s cucks like Wilcox that do the true damage.
@chokingonredpills: I am getting married.
I hope you have read the sidebar on Married Red Pill.
Watch for the 5 pounds a year trick (and 20 pounds for each baby) along withthe slow and (I believe) very deliberate, and almost immediate (as in, ON THE HONEYMOON OR SHORTLY AFTER) reigning in of your sex life.
Keep your friends. Spend a couple nights a week away from home. Ignore her for 24 hours the first time she breaks the marriage vows (and turns you down for sex).
Pray.
Pingback: What Prager and Wilcox are selling. | Reaction Times
“Wisely, Prager and Wilcox zero in on respect, and even when they are discussing financial benefits the implication is that married men, and especially married fathers, are respected.”
So, this is the reason we should celebrate gay marriage?
Me: 45. Never married. No children. No relationships ever. Somehow, I feel like I’m the winner in this new age.
The whole discussion really comes down to the big question: What is marriage?
What society sells as marriage and what it actually offers upon purchase are stark opposites. If it were a private product sold by some company instead of a government license the sellers would be in federal prison for fraud, theft, kidnapping and extortion.
Now, I just ask people what marriage is. Once they give a definition I point out how how that’s not what marriage is as our society has it. Then you hear the rationalizations follow. At that point I just say it still isn’t marriage and if it is marriage then I don’t want to get married.
Society can’t be honest about what it sells young men so it has to lie to them, plain and simple.
feeriker @ May 25, 2016 at 10:19 am
That was part of how I talked those fellows “off the ledge”, though I had to phrase it more diplomatically since they were still hurting and venting to me. Interestingly, one later told me he appreciated that I listened to him and didn’t judge things right away — i.e. I wasn’t a married guy who said, “She’s leaving you? What did *you* do wrong?” Nor was I a “bitter loser” who was living in someone’s basement — he knew me from work and other settings, so regularly saw what I could do.
He’s now doing better, and he did tell me that while he regretted how things went, the love and success of his kids “was worth the pain” and he’s close to them. He and a couple of other frivorced men are now out dating, another reason they have a new respect for never-married me. One guy asked me, “has it always been like this? I’ve been married so long, I didn’t know…” But that’s a whole separate topic unto itself!
Another question that these “man up and marry” chumps never explain is what makes a person married. Is it a government license? If so why do we need a government license? Again, it goes back to the definition of marriage. What is it? Does the government make it so or is it something outside of their purview?
I might or may not get married in the biblical sense but I certainly won’t ever marry in the statist sense.
Every time I’m at a wedding and the pastor says “by the power vested in me by the state of (fill in the blank) I now pronounce you husband and wife” I cringe.
@Choking
Good for you man. I really hope it works out. If your username is accurate, you know the risks, and if not the tricks, you at least know where to find them.
Marriage should bring respectability, and whether it’s a choice I would recommend or not isn’t the point. I respect the risk you’re taking.
Just my own piece of advice: the first time the bitch threatens to call the police for “domestic abuse”, grab a knife and cut yourself on your torso, or give yourself a large bruise on your head with a blunt object. Then ask in a low tone “Where’s your mark? I have mine”. She won’t call the police, and she’ll be afraid to even threaten it again. At least that was my experience.
chokingonredpills, you should carefully evaluate your fiancee, and pronto.
Right now you have the best negotiating position relative to her that you will ever have; you are like the car buyer who hasn’t signed anything yet. That doesn’t mean you should start introducing new terms and conditions, but it does mean that anything you are dissatisfied with now is likely to be permanently entrenched, or even grow worse with time. Once married, she won’t need to keep you happy as Daddy State now serves as her enforcer against you. So the question becomes, does she want to keep you happy of her own accord? Does she respect your judgment and follow your lead? Does she respect your time and your independent interests? Is she genuinely attracted to you, or are you her consolation prize for the one that got away? Does she want to be ‘your woman’, or does she want to be married and you’ll do?
But if these “serious men” proclaim marriage to fundamentally be a moral endeavor, that will naturally bring into question the morality of the parties involved–and it makes moral demands upon them. We can’t have that. Mommy gets offended if you you make moral demands.
Seriously, though: Prager is a douche. If his body of work has a center it is the concept of maximizing personal happiness. In his book “Happiness is a Serious Problem”, gratitude is mentioned many times, but to him it is a hurdle to contentment rather than a moral imperative. It’s an unsexy Game.
I’m looking at you, Rollo! There is no danger of Game being co-opted and “sanitized” by a pseudo-Christian author. Willow Creek, Rick Warren, Dennis Prager…Basically the whole Moral Majority Christian Conservative “Religion is Good for You” movement going back to the 80s developed the formula that Game uses.
I was curious in the light of The Question cringing at 11.57 as to – and I had to remind myself as I have heard it frequently enough – what the wording is in The Church of England.
Firstly the couple respectively give their consent and make vows. They then declare that they are husband and wife. Finally the Minister proclaims that they are man and wife and warns that those whom God hath brought together no man should put asunder.
I offer congratulations to Choking on his upcoming nuptials. All Brides are Radiant; all Grooms nervous.
This is, of course, one of the advantages in not separating Church and State, and no one in England has any problem with this.
cjokingonredpills,
Red Flags are:
1) Abortions
2) Debt, I don’t care how “justified” by her (i.e. I took out additional loans during college)
3) Bad/No relationship with her father
4) # of sex partners. Take the number she admits and double it. Not a joke.
5) Body piercings, tattoos, “trouble glasses,” and off-color hair
6) Position on no-fault divorce. Don’t listen to words, watch how she reacts to divorces that happen.
Good luck. If there are three or more red flags, buddy, cancel the wedding. You are saving yourself and your future children misery. If there are 1-2, you have work to do and probably should postpone the wedding. Again, you are risking a lifetime of misery and wrecked lives of future children.
It’s less that than they simply aren’t as attracted to guys who’ve slowed down their lives and lost the 20 something abs.
Understand, the post-wall woman will marry a garage-band drummer if he’s hot and agrees to it, even if he doesn’t make a nickel. They consider the boring, “traditional” guy a concession often times, and eventually begin to show teir feelings – shortly after the first year or so.
@Cane, Dal,
What I see evolving is the Relevant movement embracing feminism and social justice causes to redefine their interpretation of christianity, while the post-modern trad-cons (Prager, Warren, Driscoll, etc.) will adopt the same imperatives but make their delivery sound like it’s founded in the ‘old set of books’. One reason there’s not much infighting between these two elements is because they both share the same imperative – locking men into subservience while ensuring a female revenue base is never offended.
@Dalrock
“Yes, but this is a magic piece of paper.”
I actually like that. Because when you start to think about it, the marriage license really is a magic piece of paper. How so? Look at it this way: That “piece of paper” is a legally binding document that requires certain duties and loyalties from each party towards the other for the duration of their mortal lifetimes . . . But when the day comes that one of those parties realizes that they’re unhaaappy (and maybe even abused!) then POOF! Their obligations detailed in that paper will mysteriously disappear, even as those same obligations will also remain intact (and state-enforced!) for the other party. Who never even saw it coming. Magic!
In fact, give that a whole lot of “Christian” pastors push the paper and perform the ceremony granting it . . . it might even be more appropriate to call it a miracle.
I’m also curious on the status of Haley too. Anyone know?
Re Haley, I have no idea, but I would say this. If what was written there is not true, then Haley would have a reason for wanting people to believe it is true, anyway, I think.
Nova, re Haley: If what is written there is not true, then I would presume Haley would correct it, unless she wants people to believe it is true. And yet, if it were untrue, and she simply wants to stop blogging, there are much less maudlin ways to end a blogging career.
Chris, don’t know. Haley slowed down a lot after the first of 2014. Her last tweet on Twitter was in April 2014. She posted that last post in June 2014 right after the Eliot Rodger incident, and vanished.
People stop blogging all the time. Most of the time it’s clear they don’t want to do it anymore, and they either shutter their blogs with or without an announcement, or just disappear and leave the blog dormant.
It’s not every day a commenter leaves a comment on a dormant blog with specific information on the blogger and claiming the blogger’s death. We’ll probably never know. I wouldn’t have brought it up except the commenter claims to have specific knowledge of manner and date of death, if it’s even true that Haley has died.
OK, my derail is over.
Dalrock, you’ve written about this before. What’s striking about this is that no one in our society sees any of this as a problem, or even as part of the problem.
I don’t see anything striking about it. Society no longer needs average Steady Eddies as farmers, soldiers, miners, factory workers and so on, so the notion that they should be incentivized through marriage to fill these roles doesn’t even appear on society’s radar. Of course they don’t see it as a problem. It’s, of course, true that women generally like to whine about the supposed lack of eligible men, and like to blame all problems on men, and the Pragers and Wilcoxes of society will want to pander to them, but that’s a different issue.
I thought the video was interesting. I noticed that he didn’t necessarily call out the problem as stemming from men, just that not marrying causes problems for men (apparently). But to watch that video, you could just as easily conclude that this problem stems from women, which I think it does to a large extent.
It’s obviously Biblical to say that being married to a woman of poor character is much more of a curse than a blessing. But I’ve often wondered about this, because I don’t see how we can stop mainstream culture from ending up like black culture as long as marriage is in decline. I think we may have already entered the possibly unstoppable feedback cycle that black men and women are trapped in… hardened women –> drive away men –> raise children alone –> children grow up hardened.
@Hells Hound
The problem for the elites is not a lack of manpower for any given job, but a lack of income to tax in our progressive tax system. Men who aren’t married work (earn) like women. They don’t tend to fight their way up to the main tax brackets, or at least not as far. They don’t need to. The reason we don’t see much carping (yet) about this is because nearly all men still marry, and the exceptions aren’t seen (rightly or wrongly) as likely candidates to produce enough to be worth taxing.
But the flip side is that even without a meaningful shift we are already seeing panic. It is the same issue as the “Marry him!” carping, only regarding tax receipts instead of beta provider “commitment”. Should the trend continue and we start to see even a sizable minority of men with otherwise good earnings potential shrug off marriage, we will see real panic.
If Prager and Wilcox produced a video saying something like “Be a Woman, get Married”, and told women that they are the ones not getting married because they don’t want to, and because they are working and chasing bad boys for sex, and because they are putting off getting married until the last possible minute, the hue and cry would be deafening. They’d be denounced as misogynists, chauvinists, and sexists. They’d be accused of “attacking” women and “hating” women.
I must admit that I’ve been waiting for one of the “red pill” women who frequent these parts to put out exactly such a video. If anyone could get away with doing so, it would be one of them. I certainly wouldn’t expect the reaction to it to be anything other than the raw outrage and hatred that you describe, but it seems only fair that women and their mangina/white knight enablers get a taste of their own bitter medicine.
@Rollo
Yes, with minor quibbles. We are well-into the Relevant era. Dalrock’s blog title contains the phrase “post-feminist”, but it’s also a “post-Cultural-Christian” one.
This is wrong, though, and I it’s important for you and others to stop saying this because it distracts from understanding. Women give money more often, but men give much more absolutely. Women dig in their pocketbooks to throw a couple dollars every time the plate is passed. Men, usually married, give checks and CC transactions of hundreds of dollars a month. It is the absolute truth that if you want a church to survive financially you need a core group of married men who tithe on a regular basis.
What your average chump gets out of this arrangement is a pepped-up wife. She gets to socialize. She gets to be involved in functions and pretend they are important (unlike her home life; which she believes is a hassle). She gets to feel morally superior; both to the non-churched, and on “special days” to everyone who is not a woman. Depending on the church she either gets to get dressed-up (and get her husbands and kids dressed-up) or she gets to revel further in her interior moral superiority for dressing trendier than other women. For some women, that’s star-spangled asses and rhinestone flip-flops; for others it is a mantilla. These things are related under the Venn diagram of “vanity”. Most men prefer vain wives (even as they suffer at their hands), and churches provide. The preference is inexplicable unless one accepts the truth of a sin nature.
Because it “makes them happy”.
Another question that these “man up and marry” chumps never explain is what makes a person married. Is it a government license? If so why do we need a government license? Again, it goes back to the definition of marriage. What is it? Does the government make it so or is it something outside of their purview?
Ask any random TradCuck if marriage requires a state-issued piece of paper, and I guarantee you that every last one of them will give an unqualified and vociferous yes.
TradCucks love/worship/respect/fear the State far more than they’ve ever loved/worshiped/respected/feared God or the Natural Law.
Prager is an ultimate respectable/color-blind CUCKSERVATIVE blue-piller
His whole career has been about rationalizing his own life to himself (divorced 2 times). For all his gooey “Mr. Nice Guy” shtick, Dennis is only out for Dennis. And he has done well for himself (blonde wife, lots of commercial sponsors, every dopey yenta thinking he is Mr. Morality).
He doesn’t know or care that for the rest of men who work a real job don’t get money for talking and there aint enough trim blonde women out there for them. He acknowledges sex-differences, but doesn’t take it very far nor understand the female dominated hook-up/hypergamy/divorce rape culture.
Prager, Medved, Hewitt, etc are fat & happy Republican dinosaurs who simply won’t step aside despite their time passing. They need to be pushed aside.
Society will always blame men for societal ills such as low marriage rates, and then insist men give in and accept today’s societal norms.
In a word manhood is sacrifice but men should use discretion in life choices as in selecting a wife. Staying single may be the right choice in the world we live in today.
Prager, Medved, Hewitt, etc are fat & happy Republican dinosaurs who simply won’t step aside despite their time passing. They need to be pushed aside.
I would say the rise of Trump has already accomplished that. It does not matter nearly as much what Trump’s actual positions are. The main goal of sweeping out the old detritus is already accomplished. Now, let the chips fall where they may.
Ask any random TradCuck if marriage requires a state-issued piece of paper, and I guarantee you that every last one of them will give an unqualified and vociferous yes.
TradCucks love/worship/respect/fear the State far more than they’ve ever loved/worshiped/respected/feared God or the Natural Law.
Funny how the same cucks are ready to explain (correctly) why the government should not be involved in any other aspect of society. But when between a man and a woman, a forcible Soviet-style state is highly desirable.
They worship the Threatpoint far more than any legitimate god. Cuckservatives are a feminist cult, at this point.
@ Anon @ feeriker
I’m going to do a bit of speculating why they do this.
One possible reason is probably the most likely. They do not want to consider the possibility that they failed. The same way a parent might try to avoid confronting the fact that they didn’t do their job and their child is suffering as a result, TradCons & Co. don’t want to accept that they made the situation worse, not better, for the next generation.
They’re stuck in an old way of thinking because if they acknowledged how bad things are it would require them to change their ways. It would force them to reject the reality they’ve invested much of their ego in for decades.
It’s related to a lot of other issues TradCons are in denial over. They don’t want to admit things are as bad as they are because if they did that knowledge would require action. And the only practical action left that is also peaceful is being limited day by day.
It reminds me of that quote from the 2000 film The Patriot. “If your conscience dictates independence, then war is the only way. It has come to that.”
TradCons and others are trying to starve off the inevitable reaction to 40 years of feminism so they don’t have to deal with it.
TheQuestion,
TradCons & Co. don’t want to accept that they made the situation worse, not better, for the next generation.
That is part of it, but the degree of their denial is so broad and deep that it goes further than that.
*Every* principle that conservatives claim to believe (personal responsibility, small govt., contract enforcement, the inseparability of authority and accountability) is happily tossed out when the prospect of groveling to a woman arises. Hence, cuckservatives really have no consistent morals of any sort, as when a woman shows up, they jump to out-left the leftists.
Their beliefs are so unshakeable, and the inconsistency so untroubling for them, across SO many conservatives that cuckservatives really are a feminist cult. That is not too harsh of an assessment. If the rot was not this deep, then the red-pill faction would be much larger. Instead, Dalrock points out how there are extremely few churches in America that are willing to still follow the Bible. That is astonishing when you think about it. Meanwhile, Mosques have no problem following the Quran…
@ Dalrock
So on one hand Prager & Co. tell men to man up and get married feminists like this shrill put out videos like this saying marriage is still horribly oppressive to women.
This is the kind of social/cultural schizophrenia bachelors like me have to deal with. We hear TradCons tells us to man up and get married while the women are taught this garbage in schools, so when they finally do decide to get married they’ve subconsciously embraced this propaganda most likely made life choices accordingly to “prove” they’re not a doormat.
My bad I don’t think the video posted on my last comment.
Weird, it’s not posting the facebook video. Let’s try this.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/may/25/women-face-it-marriage-can-never-be-feminist-video
According to PEW, there are more 18-34 year olds living with their parents than there are living alone or with a spouse/partner. This is a first in American history. Like most things that are good for the environment, this is considered “bad for the economy”. Our particular type of economic system anyway (buy! buy! buy! consume! consume! consume! stuff! stuff! stuff!) Anyway, this will either increase over the next few decades or there will be a swing back to moving out and coupling up. My bet is on the former. I look forward to cleaner air and a more peaceful neighborhood. 🙂
One must keep these things in perspective: The (Manchester) Guardian – the paper of choice for teachers – is of the dozen or so English Daily papers the least read with a daily circulation of only about 150,000. Can it survive? The Sun – the best selling paper – sells about 2,000,000 copies each day, and The Daily Mail – traditionally read by women – the only paper which does not seem appreciably to be losing readers, a little less. I don’t think I have ever picked up even an abandoned copy of The Guardian. Lawyers read The (London) Times as it contains citable law reports.
It is true that marriage is horribly oppressive to the female sex and thus as I have no wish to increase their misery I will signal my virtue, by remaining single in my all-mod-con love-pad.
A buddy of mine in Mexico actually turned around a frivorce recently. 37, 3 kids, wife wanted to Eat Pray Love.
He only accomplished this by 1) being the first to move out, before she got her ducks in a row, and 2) RUTHLESSLY controlling the finances as the main breadwinner. (Exactly why feminism considers male stewardship of the family budget to be “abuse.”) The day after he left, he reminded her that her car payment was due. His money had always been for paying the bills, while hers was the “fun money.” She couldn’t make the payment.
On Day 3, she capitulated and asked him to return.
@ The Question: That video should be posted on r/nottheonion. The bitter old whelaphant didn’t say a word about marriage, she just shit on the parts of a wedding that pretty young girls without daddy issues look forward to. Obviously, this woman missed out and I think it’s clear why.
Her last line was especially good, “Marriage is a fine institution, if you like living in an institution.” I have some news for the old bat: Thanks to no-fault divorce, marriage isn’t an institution in any sense of the word. Divorce on the other hand is a lifetime commitment.
Men who aren’t married work (earn) like women. They don’t tend to fight their way up to the main tax brackets, or at least not as far. They don’t need to.
Could they, though? Marriage 1.0 was the norm in a society where average men, i.e. even men without college degrees and specialized skills, could find relatively well-paying jobs to support nuclear families, where social mobility was high. That’s not the case anymore.
Dalrock once again well done.
Hence, cuckservatives really have no consistent morals of any sort, as when a woman shows up, they jump to out-left the leftists.
That’s true not only when women are the subject of discussion, but also when anything else appeals to their vanity and greed as well. War, economics, foreign relations, you name it; TradCucks have no definable or consistent principles where any of them are concerned.
Just looking at one aspect – sex – you can see marriage and feminism are incompatible. Since men swear complete sexual fidelity to their wives, it is only logical that women should in turn consider their their husband’s sexual desires and endeavour to satisfy them if reasonably possible. Yet for most feminists unless both partners are completely 100% extremely desirous for one another, sex should be off the cards. In fact for many feminists, anything else is rape.
Of course, in that video, she gave the credit for the last quote to a woman. But the original came from Groucho Marx: “Marriage is a wonderful institution…but who wants to live in an institution?”
A find feminist source, indeed.
Men are going to be forced to grow up by taking on a responsibility which they are free to terminate at any moment? The funny things people are forced to think when they sign on to the sexual revolution.
Actually, on further research, that quote predated Marx’s films, from which I thought it came. The sentiment (but not the exact quote) was first printed in 1916. Mea culpa.
It’s not just that average bachelors sail through their 20’s without basic sexual outlets of marriage to their respective counterparts as their forefathers had, but also the fact that 28-33 year old women are naturally bitter and resentful toward the man she must ultimately settle for. Youth is not just about looks, but attitude and a fun spirit.
These hard-ridden women also want to have babies asap – gee, awesome. In other words, they want as little to do with their chump as possible. No sexual years together. Just babies and a mortgage.
This is not the wife of your youth you were promised. Age 23 and under or bust.
I must also say that I disagree about the respect factor of marriage, at least when it comes to Christian men who actually live biblically. Sex would be more motivating for those betas actually trying to live in a godly way. Nowadays though, any Christian man who follows the old rules is going to be seen as a fool by the evangelical women he dates and separated into the chump box to be called upon in 5 years. If you don’t escalate, they rightfully think something is wrong with you – even inexperienced Christian girls. Plus, once you leave college, it’s really a joke to play by the rules. Many men may wish to, but they will be rejected and learn quickly to escalate with even pure patty.
thedeti
If Prager and Wilcox produced a video saying something like “Be a Woman, get Married”, and told women that they are the ones not getting married because they don’t want to, and because they are working and chasing bad boys for sex, and because they are putting off getting married until the last possible minute, the hue and cry would be deafening. They’d be denounced as misogynists, chauvinists, and sexists. They’d be accused of “attacking” women and “hating” women.
Indeed, I’ve been reading some old boundless articles like this one: http://www.boundless.org/relationships/2007/biblical-dating-men-initiate-women-respond, as well as some other “man up” blog posts, and the impetus for these articles seems to be that Christian women write to or speak with the authors of such posts, complaining that the Christian men in their lives aren’t interested in dating or marrying them. Then, these authors turn around and write blog posts about the “problems they’re seeing” with young men not wanting to commit to marriage or ask women on dates, but the problems these writers are seeing don’t seem to include the fact that women’s behavior is a major part of the problem. I’m not even just talking about sexual behavior, either but also the fact Christian women, at least in my experience, don’t follow the advice in this article: http://www.boundless.org/relationships/2010/how-to-respond-to-a-mans-pursuit. That is, they don’t usually “decide” if they want to date a guy when after he asks. Their minds have been made up well in advance of such encounters, and their actions toward him have already shown what the answer will be before he even asks.
Also, as LeeLee rightly pointed out in another thread, there’s a significant cohort of Christian women who simply aren’t sexy, probably because no one’s ever taught them how to be, and becoming so doesn’t seem to be a priority for them, maybe because they consider it worldly or just too much work. I’ve observed that these same unsexy women almost seem afraid to engage men in conversation, but the ones who do, at least the ones who aren’t significantly overweight, eventually do tend to land husbands while they’re still in their 20s, so obviously, someone finds them sexy. They just had to be open to interacting with enough men to find out which ones did.
Anyway, as we know, these pastors and writers who write “man up” blogs are unlikely to tell these complaining women to take a look at themselves, and I kind of understand why, as they know doing so might be offensive to women and the feminized church, but if they did, it would go a long way to actually addressing the problems.
“Youth is not just about looks, but attitude and a fun spirit.”
And that is the truth of it. With how bitter and entitled women are trained to be by their twenties…imagine how ugly most of them will be by the time forty comes around.
If there is any grand social plan, any circle of secret oligarchs plotting the course of humanity, it can be relied upon that the current membership are much lower in both foresight and IQ. Trying to get women to put off their humanity for a decade, so that they too might somehow get the life squeezed out of them the same way it’s happened to young men through history, it has failed. Not only because women who abandon their humanity have a hard time coming back to it; not only because women aren’t as willing to work to their last breath (save for their offspring) as men were (the home fire something constantly worth protection until it cease to exist), but because women without humanity has reduced the productivity of young men… and an unproductive man doesn’t come back to productivity so easily either (what’s the point?).
By the way, the above paragraph is pure imagination. It takes imagination to figure out what the leaders and ‘thinkers’ of the world really expected to accomplish when they first started down the road. Likewise, in figuring out what they really expect to come from doubling, tripling, quadrupling down.
thedeti
It’s not every day a commenter leaves a comment on a dormant blog with specific information on the blogger and claiming the blogger’s death. We’ll probably never know. I wouldn’t have brought it up except the commenter claims to have specific knowledge of manner and date of death, if it’s even true that Haley has died.
As usual, I’m skeptical. I think it’s most likely that someone just thought it would be funny to make such a claim, kind of like how people do by spreading those celeb death hoaxes around the Internet, periodically. Maybe we could get Snopes to look into it for us. 🙂
I should add, though, that I’m not trying to be flippant if Haley really has passed, only that I find the idea of someone playing that kind of prank distasteful but most definitely not out of the realm of possibility.
Relevant :
Teacher has sex with teen student on the night of her fiancee’s bachelor party.
There are few incidents that display all the things wrong with modern marriage/women/culture at once.
Anyway, as we know, these pastors and writers who write “man up” blogs are unlikely to tell these complaining women to take a look at themselves, and I kind of understand why, as they know doing so might be offensive to women and the feminized church, but if they did, it would go a long way to actually addressing the problems.
You are of course correct; no pastor is EVER going to tell a frustrated, single young Christian woman that a big part of her problem is the woman in the mirror. Not only would that hurt her feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings, but even worse, in the event that she actually took that statement as advice and improved herself, leading to a relationship and ultimately marriage, she robs the pastor of mud and muck to sling at the men of his congregation, making it much harder for him to AMOG. We certainly cannot have THAT, now can we?
Prager University?
:O)
Mr. Prager’s ego is too big for just one selfage. For the longest time, he could not figure out how to resolve that injustice. But eventually Dennis saw the light, and founded Prager University! Because he deserved it. For starters.
Which one of these backstabbing little cucks is the ‘christian’ again? Wait don’t tell me leave it a surprise for later.
Clever way to deal in the souls of men.
Prager and Wilcox are cucks; all men must be cucks therewith. But not quite as good cucks as themselves. Meantime, they shall write books and found Universities, witnessing to the superiority of their own king cuckiness.
Jeshua saw them (Rev. 18) and sure enough, here they all are right on time. Sellin’ souls in the temple.
@ thedeti
After spending way too much time on this as a lark, this report seems unlikely to be true. Road conditions were good on that day in the location she would have been expected be and I was unable to locate an accident report that matched that description. So unless dasheththylittleonesagainstthestones wants to cough up some real details (like city the accident occurred & name), I would write this off as BSing.
“Indeed, I’ve been reading some old boundless articles like this one: http://www.boundless.org/relationships/2007/biblical-dating-men-initiate-women-respond,”
I looked at that article and I see a lot of nonsense, even from the perspective of a traditional Christian. Look at this quote:
> This is not initiation. Initiation is not manipulating the situation so that while you’re officially “asking her out” there’s no actual risk of rejection or embarrassment.
Seriously? Of course the “nice guy” routine of befriending and hanging around a woman for a long time before asking her out is a bad idea. However in the real world there’s normally a brief period of banter and maybe light flirting which gives the guy a decent idea (not a certainty) if his advances are welcome. This is normal. But Scott says this is unmanly and unchristian. A Real Man marches straight up to the object of his desire and asks him out without any precursors.
I see a lot of posts from young women who claim they have never been asked out. Perhaps some are exaggerating. However for those telling the truth, attitudes like this could be the fault. They aren’t signalling they are available and interested in dating by their behaviour and body language. They are closed off and aloof, and men are responding accordingly. But people like Scott are assuring her she’s doing the right thing, that to be willing to banter with and act friendly towards young men she is interested in is unchristian and unfeminine. If men aren’t lining up to ask her out its because it is something wrong with them.
Thank you, Jason K, for this information.
I prefer to imagine Haley happy and uninterested in blogging. The comment describing her death made me sad.
gdgm: “One of the most painful realizations my frivorced male peers faced, is that their wives didn’t necessarily *appreciate* the hard work the men did to support their families… rather, they were jealous and resentful. One wife told her husband flat out he “was holding her back from what she truly wanted to do”. Another complained that because she was “stuck” raising the kids, she couldn’t do “fun and exciting” things her single friends were doing,
This relates to all the celebrities in the news. Everyone’s a potential celebrity now, not just actors. You have celebrity chefs, psychologists, CEOs, all with their books and TV shows. So every woman can now imagine that she has some skill that would propel her to celebrity status, were it not for her “boring” husband “holding her back.”
Facebook is a false mirror, reflecting a distorted image of the user. Women paint false pictures of their lives on Facebook. Their “Facebook Friends” tell them how “awesome” and “amazing” they are — and the women come to believe it.
So they frivorce their husband, then expect him to continue subsidizing her while she pursues her dreams.
From Prager’s article: “Third, when there are no children involved, a divorce’s social costs to society are minimal and therefore unworthy of our attention.”
Then why complain about men not wanting to get married? Does he think that single men don’t see the financial ruin and parental alienation of divorced men and consider it in their decision to marry? Or maybe he means that what happens to those divorced men is unworthy of our attention.
Okay, sorry, I just realized that there would be no parental alienation if there were no children involved. Duh.
Novaseeker: ex-w got the suburban home and remained in it until youngest kid was in college, at which point she moved out of suburban home, pocketing the cash, and into posh apartment in urban core so that she could have more fun. Basically trying to recreate the party years, only in the mid to late 40s. … There are more women like this than you think, and the trend of older divorced women moving back into the city to take a stab at the cougar lifestyle is a thing now.
I see their ads on Craigslist. Hilarious. Women in their 40s and even 50s, with children, often seeking younger men. They brag about how “I own my own house.” (Yeah, I wonder how that happened).
The hilarious part is these “cougars” don’t look like fortysomething movie stars. They look old and worn and often tattooed. Their “coquettish” smiles look hideous. A middle-aged woman should not flirt like a teenager. Such a woman might be beautiful if she cultivates an air of class and sophistication, if she dresses and comports herself with dignity. But these women imagine they’re hot cougars, and they strike “sexy” poses for their selfies. It doesn’t work.
Otto Lamp: If you really want something, you develop the discipline to get it. I bet she had no problem developing the discipline to get a college degree; I bet she had no problem developing the discipline to go to work every day; so why does she have a problem developing the discipline to lose weight to make her attractive enough to land a husband? She doesn’t really want it.
She might really want a husband. The difference is, she might feel so entitled to a husband, the very thought that she should do anything to obtain one would strike her as bizarre. If she even thought of it at all.
The notion that women should expend any effort to attract a man is increasingly seen as Neanderthal. Barbaric. Misogynistic. Women are perfect as they are (hence, the “fat acceptance” movement).
Only a barbarian would tell a woman how he wanted her to dress, when to have sex, what she should eat, or study in college, what careers to pursue, or that it was unacceptable for his wife to have male friends. That’s so “controlling.”
This woman pastor likely sees herself as a real prize, a catch, a gift from the Lord. Why would such a perfect being change herself to please a creature so lowly as a man? Her problem is that none of the Peter Pans are willing to “man up” and marry Her Royal Awesomeness.
chokingonredpills, no man with any doubts should marry. If you have doubts this early, it might mean that your subconscious has picked up on some red flag warnings.
Marriage places a ton of legal obligations on the man, none on the woman. A woman can afford to make a mistake, a man cannot. You can walk away now, and marry some other day or year. But once you’re married, it’s too late. The law won’t allow a man to just walk away from a bad marriage.
I had a lady at church tell me she couldn’t understand why her husband’s sons did not want to get married. She is attractive and has been married to her husband for some time and felt that should show them that a Christian marriage could work. Both were previously married. I don’t know the background of hers, but his was a nasty divorce from what she said.
It is quite clear to me why the sons would not want to marry, but she could not see it. This was not willful ignorance, but she is clearly not connecting the dots.
Anon: *Every* principle that conservatives claim to believe (personal responsibility, small govt., contract enforcement, the inseparability of authority and accountability) is happily tossed out when the prospect of groveling to a woman arises. Hence, cuckservatives really have no consistent morals of any sort, as when a woman shows up, they jump to out-left the leftists.
KFI-AM’s John and Ken Show are an example of this. These Los Angeles shock jocks tend to lean right-populist (big Trump supporters). But a few months ago they had a men’s rights activist as a guest. The MRA was trying to promote a ballot proposition to end alimony. He said it was an archaic system.
John and Ken were horrified. They said “You mean if a woman stays at home to raise a family, and a man divorces her for a younger mistress, the wife should be left out in the cold?”
John and Ken spoke as if this example — men initiating the divorce from loyal wives — was the norm. The MRA wasn’t very good at presenting alternative scenarios, and the interview soon descended into shock jock chaos (with the female news reporter throwing snide, snarky comments at the MRA along the way).
I thought it might be useful to say a few more things about English Newspapers – since The Mail is much referred to in this blog, and now, above, The Grauniad (famous for its misspellings).
As I understand it – America being a very large country – each American Town and certainly City has its own paper and columnists are syndiicted, so that whether one is in Los Angeles or New York one can read Ann Landers and Miss Manners though one would not read The NY Times in Los Angeles or the LA Times in New York.
England being a much smaller country there are national rather than City newspapers (even though they are all printed in London – it is only American that refer to the ‘London’ Times) and by reason – even after the Beeching cuts of the 1960s – of England’s more extensive and intensive rail network it was possible to ensure that wherever one lives all the dozen or so Daily papers printed at or after midnight are available wherever one lives first thing in the morning – thus no syndication of columnists and the possibility for each paper – all competing against each other – to have its own very distinctive style and message. I am not certain that the English are greater consumers of newsprint than anyone else – though I never saw my own Father read anything else – but until recently everyone took one – if not more than one – paper a day . I have never cared for the rags and I do not seem to be the only one with that attitude as circulations are now far lower than once they were..
Off topic, but might be of interest: Apparently women post 50% of misogynistic tweets on twitter according to no less an authority than the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36380247
@Red Pill Latecomer
She might really want a husband. The difference is, she might feel so entitled to a husband, the very thought that she should do anything to obtain one would strike her as bizarre. If she even thought of it at all.
Another aspect is that she sees college and work as fundamentally different endeavors when compared to husband-hunting. The necessary sacrifices are clearly defined, really not that heavy, and have a limited timeframe. The payoffs are obvious, and seen by her as absolutely worth the cost. She gets to have lots of fun at college, and gets money and attention at the workplace. Plus she probably thinks she’ll also find some suitable husband at college or the office, so she’ll hit two birds with one stone. Plus she thinks that getting a degree and a job aren’t really optional – they’re absolutely necessary.
On the other hand, transforming herself into a good wife candidate is something she probably doesn’t even know how to do, it’s very difficult, it might erode her social status because she loses free-time and comes across as a needy, weak woman, and the payoff isn’t clear and assured.
I love how they quote stay at home house daddy Akerlof who basically looked after the home and kids so his wife could work…
mature men lol…
unless men behave like women and run the home so their wives become men these so called conservatives wont be happy.
As I understand it – America being a very large country – each American Town and certainly City has its own paper and columnists are syndiicted, so that whether one is in Los Angeles or New York one can read Ann Landers and Miss Manners though one would not read The NY Times in Los Angeles or the LA Times in New York.
Used to be when more people read print papers. Now, very few people do any longer. As a result, the main papers have gone digital, with some becoming national, like the NYT, the WSJ, and others being regional like the Boston Globe, LA Times, etc. People get their news from diverse places and mostly online today, but print papers are going the way of the dodo-bird quickly here, as are local papers. Digital didn’t kill newspapers entirely, but it killed many of them and led to a national/regional consolidation on the digital level.
@Novaseeker:
Newspapers killed newspaper. Well over half of all of their income & profit was simply from running Classified ads. No one in the industry bothered to pay attention to the economic reality of their actual business, so Craigslist destroyed them. (There’s a classic joke about putting the incompetent brother as the CEO of the rich man’s family paper. The industry has always been like that.)
I find the idea of someone playing that kind of prank distasteful but most definitely not out of the realm of possibility.
Not necessarily a prank. It could be Haley herself. People do fake deaths on the internet with their virtual personae at times for various reasons — perhaps she had a virtual stalker or something. I do think that if it is not true, and if she is in fact alive and well, she’s aware of the comment and has not rebutted it, which means even if she didn’t place it herself, she’s happy enough with it — and that could be for any number of reasons. Obviously, I hope she’s alive and well, but if she is I think she wants to be left quite alone from this part of the internet (which is kind of consistent with the last post she made, in any case).
Men are going to be forced to grow up by taking on a responsibility which they are free to terminate at any moment?
But, Bonald, the typical man doesn’t get to terminate his responsibility upon divorce — not unless he is a househusband who gets custody of the kids. That’s the point. Marriage creates ongoing responsibilities for men but ongoing benefits for women, most of the time barring outlier cases.
Jason K, all:
Thanks. We now know as much as we will probably ever know about the conclusion of Haley’s blogging career.
@Opus, Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian’s previous editor, aggressively pursued a digital first strategy on the assumption that print was going away. He also refused to paywall. The result was a huge spike in traffic using a clickbait strategy, but one that is on track to bankrupt the company. They have basically paid zero attention to the print edition, and with the entire contents online free there’s no reason to buy it. There are plenty of major articles about problems at the Guardian.
Pingback: An honest assessment and a not so honest one. | Morally Contextualized Romance
CSI
I looked at that article and I see a lot of nonsense, even from the perspective of a traditional Christian.
Yeah, my favorite part is where he states that scripture assumes that seeking marriage is a part of growing into biblical manhood, not just something scripture encourages (or merely allows, as I believe):
“Scripture seems not just to encourage, but to assume that part of the growth into biblical manhood is to seek marriage, so this is a biblical goal;”
As I said, in the Bible, marriage and family are considered a natural stage of progression toward manhood. The command in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply is a general command. When Paul extols singleness in 1 Corinthians 7 (which is an often-misused passage in this area of life), it is singleness for the purpose of enhanced ministry (discipleship, teaching, missionary work).
If you are floating around staying single because you enjoy social flexibility or having time to yourself or hanging out with the guys or because you have worldly ideas about the perfect woman or how to approach marriage, consider: Are you approaching manhood and marriage biblically?
Notice, though, that while he keeps using the term “biblical” to describe the idea of manhood he has in mind, the other scriptures he uses to back up his argument (Genesis 2, 1 Corinthians 11: 7-9, and Ephesians 5 in that piece and Genesis 1:27-28 and 2:23-24, Matthew 24:38-41, Luke 20:34-36 in the Part 3) do not command or even advise men on individual levels to seek spouses as part of their masculine identities. All of those scriptures simply recognize that marriage is a part of society and that biblically, there are certain principles to follow once one already is married. Also, I don’t know of any place in scripture in which Israelites or Christians are generally commanded to be fruitful and multiply, particularly if they’re not even married yet. As far as I know, Noah and his sons were all already married.
Croft reveals his true motivation for his piece and his argument idea of biblical masculinity here:
easily the biggest complaint that I and others who advocate this approach get from godly Christian women is that men don’t initiate.
Again, it goes back to the women and what they want (or claim they want) men to do, not what scripture actually commands or even encourages men to do on individual bases as part of their responsibilities as godly men.
You’ll see the same phenomenon of pastors and writers stating men have the biblical responsibility to pursue women in this article, which I’m pretty sure has been discussed on this blog before:
http://cbmw.org/topics/leadership-2/were-just-talking/
Under the section, “Shirking Responsibility,” a title which alone tells you quite a bit, the author, Gunter, states:
John Piper defines biblical masculinity as, “a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships.” It is the responsibility of the man to take a leadership role in relationships, to be forthright, honest, and clear about his intentions. This “talking” phase normalizes relationship without responsibility; closeness without clarity; cultural manhood, not biblical manhood.
The young ladies I’ve spoken to share this frustration. They are left in a state of relational limbo, where they are unsure of the young man’s intentions and the purpose of the relationship.
As in the Croft piece, we again see the term “biblical manhood” being used without actual scripture specific to the subject being cited as evidence to prove the author’s assertions. Also, we again see the author’s admission that women share their frustrations with him regarding men, indicating that this is coming from a place of serving the feminine imperative.
Opus @ 3:59 am:
“As I understand it – America being a very large country – each American Town and certainly City has its own paper and columnists are syndiicted, so that whether one is in Los Angeles or New York one can read Ann Landers and Miss Manners though one would not read The NY Times in Los Angeles or the LA Times in New York.”
Basically, but you don’t know the half of syndication. America has many newspapers but they all sing the same note. The EXACT same note. It isn’t uncommon to see four newspapers in a row–NYT, LAT and two locals for example–all with the same headline story (but with different wording). The Associated Press is our true national newspaper. The industry is in decline is because most local rags are only the AP with obituaries and coupons.
[rant] An example of this is California’s water drought. I’m naturally very interested in how the powers that be are handling this and water issues in the western U.S. are very complicated, so I started buying the local paper to keep me informed. It didn’t help. A typical story was “The water board held a meeting last night. Bob made comments on a proposal. Jane rebutted it”. And that’s all. No analysis, no timeline, no contextual information, no notice of upcoming events or discussions, not even a list of players, nothing that would help me understand what was going on or give me a chance to participate. Just the bare minimum effort from a local reporter with a college degree in Changing The World. Why would anybody pay for that? The Internet isn’t killing journalism, laziness is! [/rant]
Along the same lines as Croft and Gunter’s assertions that men should “be intentional” in regards to women, the Christian author / speaker / professor / blogger of this piece http://www.critiquebycreating.com/2011/04/the-most-eligible-christian-bachelor/ basically said the same thing as they did in that respect when he wrote, If you like a girl, tell her. If you do not and she asks, tell her, despite the fact that he recognized that No amount of good intentions or “dtr: defining the relationship” conversations are going to help – in fact, it probably just kills the romance and ruins the whole charade to begin with. In the comments, I even asked him if the second quote proved why the first one was a bad idea, but of course, he didn’t publish my comment, whereas he did publish subsequent comments praising his piece.
Odd side note to the OP, heh: Out of idle curiosity, I looked up info on the economist George Akerlof (shown in one of the screen captures above). Wikipedia says he is married to Janet Yellen, the current USA Fed chief. Not sure what to make of this — just an odd little tidbit.
While these authors fail to see the reality of the problems men face and reasons women delay marriage, they also see how this tradgedy impacts men and women. Men who do not get the awesome benefits of marriage in a healthy society (a lifelong companion, children, sure even sex), and many women who do not get these benefits. One of my female coworkers who I know little about was discussing the current dating environment of dating, and tears almost welled up in her eyes because she had not been able to get married. She wants to be a mother, but in a sick society she does not even realize how she has been taught nonsense and contributes to the problems. In the current set up, everyone loses out on the rich blessing of a healthy marriage. In exchange some young men get casual sex (yawn), lots of women have casual sex, and tons of people live in disappointment.
But these guys are trying to sell marriage to men as if men collectively got bored of being men and fathers, instead of the culture collectively saying we don’t need you. Men will get married younger when the culture changes, until then the marriage age will keep tracking up.
@Hells Hound
This works both ways though. It is true that it has gotten more difficult for most men to earn enough to support a family. But this doesn’t mean the lost incentive doesn’t matter. In fact, we need the incentive even more now.
@Cane, I get your line of reasoning, but I’d also consider that the Husbands writing the tithe checks are beholden to the opinions of their wives about the message that church delivers. This is especially so of men who’ve been acculturated and raised in a fem-centric Christianity that both casually debases his masculinity and blatantly blames his gender for not being beholden to women/wives.
Men make more money than women, but women account for more than 80% of the purchasing power. This is a primary reason we have the feminine-centric entertainment and advertising we in westernizing cultures now, men earn, women spend – they are the primary consumer base so if the messaging isn’t complimentary to feminine “sensibilities” the revenue flows where it does.
Statistically, men become involved in church culture for two reasons. They were raised and acculturated in church culture and it’s their way of life, or they came to, or came back to, the church at their wives’ (or returning girlfriends) insistences. They may write the checks, but it’s church women who decide to whom the spice will flow.
Re: the conversation between Rollo and Cane.
Fascinating. I need to think about a couple of things–
This is especially so of men who’ve been acculturated and raised in a fem-centric Christianity that both casually debases his masculinity and blatantly blames his gender for not being beholden to women/wives.
As the dynamic in my own marriage is changing (and continues to change in the “red-pill” direction) I can look back and see that what Rollo says here is true. Once in a while, this crashes into us and it sometimes Mychael who resists it. Not because I am not strong enough to, but because I barely notice it. I’ll think of some examples later and maybe write a post.
They were raised and acculturated in church culture and it’s their way of life, or they came to, or came back to, the church at their wives’ (or returning girlfriends) insistences.
I am part of group one here, and when we (me and Mychael) met, it was me dragging her, a nominal Catholic at the time to church. But I was “acculturated and raised in a fem-centric Christianity that both casually debases his masculinity and blatantly blames his gender…” at that time.
I am inclined to agree with Canes original point (that you are responding to) way up thread and its difficult to reconcile the two. I am not sure they are entirely mutually exclusive when, and if a marriage is infiltrated by the red pill and begins to change.
Mychael regularly states that now that she see it, she cannot unsee it, and it is almost embarrassing to her (for womankind).
@thedeti: this is what men have to deal with: fat, entitled, cantankerous, unattractive women, with old ovaries, who’ve been gassed up by the FI & thirsty betas (who they raised)…HA! No.Thanks.
Not sure I would agree with you Rollo, but perhaps I am really a special snowflake in that I decide the giving direction. My current church is not perfect, but I would not be here if it was too far off. We would not be giving there if I didn’t approve it. I have reigned in some giving desires of my wife over the years.
Though I have generally been a fan of giving and such, so I may not be the best example case and could fit more in your “raised in that culture” bin even though I didn’t come to it until an older teenager.
@RPlatecomer: on late pregnancies – that may be so, but those women have money and can afford expensive fertility treatment.
This is not 90+% of women….they’ve drank the koolaid and so have unsuspecting pedestalizers…
1. Have not watched video
2. Have given some of the comments a read, and considered a bit
Prager and Wilcox have confused cause and effect. The title is “Be a man get married” and yet their data and presentation is “Getting married makes you a man.”
And I think it takes a man to get married (and also a red pilled woman to stay there). Being married won’t make a male a man. He gets married because he is a man, he doesn’t get married as a boy and become a man. Cart horse or something.
@ACThinker
It’s all tied to the concept of innate masculinity. Tradcons are in love with that concept. They think it’s some sort of magic potion that could heal all social ills. The obvious problem is that innate masculinity is, well, innate. You’re either born with it, or you’ll never have it. But the reality is that what we call masculinity has normally been conditional. In most men, it exists only if it’s incentivized, indoctrinated and nourished. Boys have been trained and incentivized to prepare themselves for marriage, and getting married was seen as a rite of passage into proper, socially accepted manhood. But tradcons hate that concept. They believe that if you present as masculine only because you want something out of it, or because you were basically trained to do so, you aren’t a real man, and you don’t deserve any respect.
“Could they, though? Marriage 1.0 was the norm in a society where average men, i.e. even men without college degrees and specialized skills, could find relatively well-paying jobs to support nuclear families, where social mobility was high. That’s not the case anymore.”
It sure as heck ain’t.
The New Deal, Unions, the GI bill, Social Security, these all made it possible for my poor, not very highly educated grandfather to provide a solid middle class lifestyle and education for himself, his wife and his kids on only one blue collar income. I’m white collar but it takes me, my wife and even our two kids who work part time to maintain a middle class lifestyle in a decent, safe middle class neighborhood with charter schools. If either myself or my wife quit working, we’d have to move into a lower class neighborhood with higher crime rate and schools with poor ratings.
@Rollo
Either the men are the ones writing the checks, or they are not. Either men are choosing to go to church, or they are not. We’re talking about those who do.
You are observing correctly that men are serving the interests of women. Where you go wrong is:
1) The implication that they are controlling the men.
2) Failing to separate those who give incidentally versus those who give institutionally. Women tend to be the former, and men the latter. (Again: We’re talking about those who give at all. Many don’t.)
Most church-going and tithing men are choosing to do these things because they think it will “work” for them. By “work” I mean sort of clean themselves by their “good deed for the week”, make their wives happy (they believe happy wives will automagically be good wives) and make their children good. Concerning children, men (mothers, too) tend to think: “What these kids need is some kind of program to keep them safe and teach them stuff…like school!”
Let’s go back to my comparison of the way women give versus the way men give and tackle the question of who controls a church’s income. There are married couples who go to church simply because the wife wants to. In those couples, the wife is much more likely to be the tither, but she tithes incidentally; $2-$20 from her purse. She will tithe just like a church-going single woman. Churches cannot fulfill a budget on that. They depend on the married fathers who have chosen to be there. That is the cohort who write monthly checks for $200-$1000, and it is upon them which church budgets rely.
I’d be interested in the questions which generated those statistics. I am willing to believe that women bring up the idea of returning to church in a majority of cases, but I also believe that the man responds affirmatively because–despite no such promise from his–he believes that he can make her happy and that if she’s happy she’ll be good and then she’ll do what he wants. This is because he (naturally, but stupidly) believes that what he wants is good.
You could say it this way: Those men WANT the spice to flow to their wives. Allow yourself to believe your lying eyes when you see men voluntarily walking into church under their own power to be belittled and suffer indignation. They are not spellbound. They are not animated. They are just wrong.
@Hells Hound
I think it is something different. They don’t want a defined standard, because this would make it too difficult to frame themselves as the only real man in the room. This is about being miserly with respect. As the only real man in the room, only they understand what it takes to be a real man. So, boy over there, start by doing what I’ve done, and then I’ll think about considering the idea of respecting you.
Yeah these bozos would be better off trying to sell ice makers to Eskimos. Respect is sweet but you don’t earn respect with ceremonies and government documents man. If you want women to respect you, you have to keep the dominant position and the upper hand and that’s damn near impossible with this kangaroo court system run by man hating gynosupremacists and loons.
Marriage is just a bad deal for men. Irregardless of claims of former “discrimination” of women and abandoned old wife sob stories, the modern marriage is a one way street that involves all sorts of duties and expenses for men and absolutely nothing from women at all. Women who become wives are not expected to cook, clean, have babies, remain faithful or even live with their husbands! They must be joking. On the other hand, men are expected to remain faithful, support, indulge and never hit their wives even if they get hit first.
This isn’t marriage, its virtual indentured servitude or a legalised form of slavery. Women have absolutely no risk and all rewards and men have all the risk and no expected benefits. Fuck you, no really, FUCK YOU. Bad deals are not God’s will. One sided bargains are what you expect from the Devil, man.
Feminists teach women to hate and mistrust men. Tradcons shame men to embrace slavery (modern marriage), and they block efforts to make things better.
Exibit A: http://floridapolitics.com/archives/207143-rick-scott-vetoes-contentious-alimony-bill
“This bill has the potential to upend that policy in favor of putting the wants of a parent before the child’s best interest by creating a premise of equal time sharing.”
With the way the divorce courts are, the ‘best interests of the child’ is synonymous with the ‘best interests of the mother’. Nowhere in this equation is the ‘best interests of the father’….or any consideration what so ever. No more.
And we see yet again why social conservatives are the sworn enemies of men. The Florida bill would have created a presumption of shared custody, which the judge could overrule. Even that is not acceptable to social conservatives.
Useless mangina faggot cucks all of them. They deserve our scorn and derision and blocking at every single turn.
Pingback: Should Mormon Men get Married? | Mormon Red Pill
“Ah, well, of course you need to get skills and a job to prove the ability to provide for a family first. Want help with that? Buzz off. It’s not my fault your grandparents didn’t have enough kids to give you an uncle or older cousin to function as a mentor.”
Novaseeker,
And we see yet again why social conservatives are the sworn enemies of men. The Florida bill would have created a presumption of shared custody, which the judge could overrule. Even that is not acceptable to social conservatives.
That is why Cuckservatives seem even more obsessed with inventing new ways to enslave and impute men than the blue-haired feminists are. The blue-haired femtrolls are torn between wanting men to die vs. wanting to take from men. This confusion prevents them from focusing.
Cuckservatives, on the other hand, are consistent and singularly focused on slavery. The CS system is so well-designed precisely because cuckservatives were the architects. Lefty feminists could not have devised a machinery so precise and efficient.
Vektor,
With the way the divorce courts are, the ‘best interests of the child’ is synonymous with the ‘best interests of the mother’. Nowhere in this equation is the ‘best interests of the father’….or any consideration what so ever.
You are too generous. Cuckservatives don’t care about the interests of the children at all. The best interests of children would be met if :
a) Divorce is very hard to get, ensuring that both biological parents have to stay together (the way most functioning societies have worked for centuries).
b) Abortion carries consequences. A cuckservative will never say women are wrong to get an abortion. They only want to oppose abortion to the extent that someone other than the mother bears the cost (the child or the father).
Cuckservatives are very, very far from caring about children.
The comments left regarding the Florida bill are overwhelmingly derisive. The fact that the judges could still ultimately decide in “the best interests of the child” and he still vetoed the bill says a lot. It looked like most Floridians were in favor of the bill and yet the governor ignored the will of the people. There is no perfect law that will protect everyone in any and all circumstances, but the proposal would have made things much better by assuming the best of both parents going through a “no fault” divorce. Clearly, it isn’t just the feminists who are influencing politicians. They just don’t have enough power on their own to create the havoc we see today in the legal system. The love of money really is the root of all evil.
@Dalrock: “So, boy over there, start by doing what I’ve done, and then I’ll think about considering the idea of respecting you.”
_________
I’ve seen an attitude like that in a lot of men with good wives. They take full credit for positive results from their action, as if all women will react the same. In a way, they are miserly with credit for their wives. The Bible tells women to respect their husbands specifically because of their disinclination to do so. If women naturally followed godly men, the command would be for men to be respectable and lead.
Examples of this are otherwise decent men like Dave “Women are Better with Money” Ramsey and Rabbi Shmuley “Unleash Your Inner Gamma” Boteach. Dave will tell women to give their husbands a “swift kick in the behind” and tell husbands facing the same dilemma to “take her by the hand, look her deep in the eyes, tell her how much you love her, and explain your concern”… he thinks women will respond to that like his wife does, but in reality it groveling annoys and frustrates wives.
Boteach vehemently argues that women are morally superior to men. Man cheats… he’s a self hating scoundrel and has no excuse because he had has his wife to cater to his desire for sex, because women are never too tired for sex if men put them first. Woman cheats… an inattentive husband is almost always the culprit. He must have a great wife to believe his sermons. He even written a book called “The Broken American Male: And How to Fix Him” which should be subtitled “ensuring Roissy is more likely to bang your wife than you are.”
There is hope for Prager. He has written about how it’s a shame we teach men to keep their physicality in check, but not women to keep their emotionality in check… and how female emotionality wreaks havoc on those in her life and society at large. He also said that if women ruled the world, it would be a worse place because their political views are for more emotionally based that logic based.
If you get a chance, look up Shmuley/Prager debate about man/woman relations. It’s entertaining and depressing. Not surprising, women side with Shmuley since he assigns them no accountability or responsibility…. but I’m sure more women fantasize about serial killers than he.
Clearly, it isn’t just the feminists who are influencing politicians. They just don’t have enough power on their own to create the havoc we see today in the legal system. The love of money really is the root of all evil.
Yup. You can safely bet a year’s wages that the Florida State Bar Association had much more influence on the governor’s decision to veto this bill than did any organization of women’s interests. Any legislation that threatens the contents of shysters’ wallets prompts an immediate and massively aggressive lobbying effort to nip it in the bud and shut it down. Since the Divorce and Family Law practice is a particularly lucrative one, any attempt to reform the law in this area is seen as particularly life threatening.
Third, when there are no children involved, a divorce’s social costs to society are minimal and therefore unworthy of our attention.
Third, when there are no children involved by intent, there is really no marriage to begin with, so why bother with it? It is both cheaper financially and socially to just never have gotten married at all.
[Boteach] must have a great wife to believe his sermons.
If that’s really what he thinks of his wife, he’d be the first Jewish man I’ve ever heard of who thinks that his Jewish wife is anything other than God’s ultimate punishment served up from the very bowels of hell itself.
@Novaseeker
The only way this will change is when the fiscal/economic pain felt by the elite is high enough. The elite see tax revenues as their own money for pet social (or whatever) projects. As women continue to delay marriage, and the incentives for men to push their way up the tax brackets continue to decline, at some point our elites will sound the alarm bell. Interestingly, they are already sounding the bell despite us (so far) only seeing a very small change. They are either extremely sensitive to even small losses in elite play money, or can read the writing on the wall. Most likely it is both. Efforts like the Prager video and Wilcox’s yearly marriage project reports are the opening bids in their attempt to right the listing ship while avoiding discussion of the gaping hole in the hull. The Florida bill is the next reluctant baby step, a small patch in the large hole, but it was too much too soon; too many of the elites are still holding out hope that marriage is just fine, but we may need to up the voltage to the aging bilge pumps (Feldhan, Stanton, Stevenson/Wolfers, etc).
So far the group of elites arguing to stay the course (or double down) are winning. But as the pain and panic grows, we will see more proposals by the elites to dial back the worst insanity of the family courts. This is still a “conservative” effort, in that the goal is to shore up the new model of marriage so more radical concessions aren’t required later on. I think they all also understand at least in their guts that talking about the problem risks accelerating it, since their chief tool for decades has been denial.
It’s women that delay marriage not men. By the time women start to seriously consider marriage (late twenties) men in that age bracket will have had their eyes opened by the crap they’ve witnessed in their twenties: carousel riders, corrupt court system, hostile gynocentric environment etc. The honest truth is women you’ll meet at that age are almost all damaged goods; physically, mentally and emtionally. By that time a woman isn’t fit to be a wife of mother.
As I looked again at the Prager video, the argument harked back to a book from 30 or so years ago – George Gilder’s “Men and Marriage”, in which he expressed his worry that modern women were too easy. They didn’t demand anymore that the man get a job and provide a home before they married them (or slept with them). Gilder saw in this the downfall of the civilization built on the backs of men trying to please (really, earn) the approval of their wives. After all, if sex was free, why bother? To him, women were the real builders of civilization by holding their husbands’ feet to the fire.
@Hmm:
I’m pretty sure that’s been a “more common than people want to admit” view going back into the early 1800s among the West. We’re not seeing anything new, just the rot fully at the surface.
Trust on May 27, 2016 at 10:01 am
Yes.
Prager considers himself an amature marriage therapist and has bought, hook line and sinker the idea that women are “more emotionally sophisticated than men.” (His words).
This is where the conventional wisdom comes from. Namely, that by the time a women FINALLY cheats on her husband, it’s only after months or years of trying to communicate with him that something is wrong. She then, and only then begins to seperate herself emotionally from him and “divorces him in her mind.”
This creates a situation where it is understandable, almost moral even for her to have a physical affair.
What it really means is, women can f$&@ whomever they want, regardless of the moral implications or commitment made, because women.
As a psychologist, this was my own operating framework for many years. It’s also how I convinced myself that in my own case I “chased my wife into another mans arms.” (Also his words).
Heh, this is just a pseudo-intellectual way of saying she’s a childish pain in the ass.
Boteach vehemently argues that women are morally superior to men. Man cheats… he’s a self hating scoundrel and has no excuse because he had has his wife to cater to his desire for sex, because women are never too tired for sex if men put them first. Woman cheats… an inattentive husband is almost always the culprit. He must have a great wife to believe his sermons. He even written a book called “The Broken American Male: And How to Fix Him” which should be subtitled “ensuring Roissy is more likely to bang your wife than you are.”
Yeah, I remember seeing that dude on the Internet. Total shitbag, and a rabid neocon as well. He’s practically a beta instructor, probably responsible for many divorces.
It’s obviously Biblical to say that being married to a woman of poor character is much more of a curse than a blessing. But I’ve often wondered about this, because I don’t see how we can stop mainstream culture from ending up like black culture as long as marriage is in decline. I think we may have already entered the possibly unstoppable feedback cycle that black men and women are trapped in… hardened women –> drive away men –> raise children alone –> children grow up hardened.
The feedback can be stopped by demographic implosion. Women basically stop reproducing when affordable and reliable contraception is on the table, but assured and stable marriage isn’t, which is the situation we have today. Mothers in relatively stable, prosperous marriages have 2, maybe 3 children, single mothers have fewer than that, on average. The fertility rate of African-Americans is barely enough for demographic replacement. People who don’t breed will inevitably be displaced by people who do, and those people tend to have larger, more stable families.
It is true that it has gotten more difficult for most men to earn enough to support a family. But this doesn’t mean the lost incentive doesn’t matter. In fact, we need the incentive even more now.
Are you sure? The economic reality today is that only a fraction of the male workforce can be profitably employed in lucrative, stable jobs, and those men still tend to marry at a high rate. As far as the rest are concerned, either their labor isn’t needed by anyone, or it’s needed only in crummy, mediocre, unstable jobs, mostly in the service sector. They will fill those jobs whether they want to marry or not. Why would anyone make a serious attempt to incentivize *these* men to marry? They’re basically seen as ballast. That’s the reality in any post-industrial, hollowed-out economy.
Thank you HH for putting to death the ever popular myth around the right sphere that black women are breeding bastards like rabbits.
The dismal black OOW birth rate is in large part due to the fact that married black women have so few babies but
neither married (about 2 kids)nor single black women (around 1 kid) are having many at all.
@Feeriker
>Once again: “Christian” men fear women more than they fear (or trust in) God.
You are right, although maybe not how you intended. A wise Christian man will take his wisdom from God’s word, instead of from culture or the hireling at the front of the church (Prov 3:5-7). He will recognize that the type of marriage available, and the type of woman available, are not godly. (Or, “are Satanic” if we are being blunt.)
The man will therefore want to have nothing to do with evil — just as Psalm 101:1-8 repeatedly declares. Josh 24:14-15 is similar — “but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”
“And where’s the video that scolds women for divorcing men because they aren’t happy?”
That video is propped up right in the very dead center of the center fountain in the central square of the central plaza in downtown Neverland.
@Anon,
“Cuckservatives, on the other hand, are consistent and singularly focused on slavery. The CS system is so well-designed precisely because cuckservatives were the architects. Lefty feminists could not have devised a machinery so precise and efficient.”
Great comment and not just the portion I quoted. My redpill evolution has gotten me to the point in which I actually respect feminist’s honesty and open aggression in stating their demands/pursuing their imperatives. They’re inspirational, in a way. Yeah, it’s often insane and incoherent but at least there’s no real subterfuge. Given the sexual zombiehood of a man’s youth, the women have had to behave extraordinarily poorly in order to wake men up to what a horrible deal marriage is. They did exactly that and it’s been an incredible feat. Their monstrousness actually outpaced male sex drive. Do you know how impossible that is to do? But they pulled it off and I can only thank them, frankly, because it set me free to pursue my own imperatives, not cultural ones.
95% of Western females are so alarmingly unattractive in one way or another (or in every way) that, at this point, the vibe they’re giving off, both individually and collectively, is about as admonitory as a Mojave rattlesnake—A pissed off one, a that. A guy who stumbles off into marriage in 2016 is just not on my team anymore. Not my people.
It’s the cucks using single men’s lives as fodder, not only economically, but as sacrificial fodder for their own cognitive balance. They are yoked to monsters 98 times out of a 100, in a life of work, sacrifice, and bonerlessness. How much do you think guys like that HATE a free, 38 year old man who’s cashed up and free to carouse worldwide? The option of ducking marriage simply can’t be acknowledged by cucks or else the regret would level their entire life’s narrative. So for them to basically insist (via shaming) that marriage is the ONLY option, is just a case of them doing a serious job of maintenance on their own life narratives: staving off enormous regret. It is the highest degree of selfishness. More selfish than the childish feminists who are merely saying, “I want this. I want that. I want to feel this way. I want to feel that way.” Trad-cons are far more wicked and more cowardly as well. They’re luring other men into hell just so they don’t have to face up to what they’ve done to themselves. That is flat evil.
I brought up Rabbi Shmuley Boteach as one of those who exhaults women and shames men. Ironically, he last decade wrote this, the irony that it describes him to a T escaped him:
***Quote***
“Those like Mr. Kerry and Mr. Carter subscribe to what I call the ‘always root for the underdog’ school of morality. Rather than developing any real understanding of a conflict, they side immediately with the weaker party, however wicked or immoral.
“Israel has tanks and F-16’s. The Palestinians don’t. Therefore, the Palestinians are being oppressed. Never mind that the Palestinians have rejected every offer to live side by side with Israel in peace, and have just formed a “unity” government pledged to Israel’s annihilation. Their poverty dictates the righteousness of their cause even if their actions speak otherwise.
“As a marital counselor, I have met many well-meaning arbitrators who always take the side of the wife in an ugly dispute in the belief that a woman is always the innocent and aggrieved party. Even where the evidence pointed to the wife being violent and unreasonable, the arbitrator could not conceive of the husband as anything but oppressor. Such arbitrators cause more harm than good, which is why Jimmy Carter would make an even worse marital counselor than he was president.
“No, Jimmy Carter is not anti-Semitic so much as a man whose lack of judgment and shallowness renders him incapable of telling right from wrong.
http://observer.com/2014/05/kerry-carter-and-the-muddled-morality-of-equating-israel-and-apartheid/
***Unquote***
Even he recognizes just how women aren’t held accountable, but it also goes to show just how bad their behavior has to be before there is serious considerations to their contributions to the problem.
“low skilled low wage job – military – 6 figure salary”
Shows you how far removed this “academic” is from reality.
About upward mobiity
” According to Chetty, “Social mobility is low and has been for at least thirty or forty years.” This is most obvious when you look at the prospects of the poor. Seventy per cent of people born into the bottom quintile of income distribution never make it into the middle class, and fewer than ten per cent get into the top quintile. Forty per cent are still poor as adults. What the political scientist Michael Harrington wrote back in 1962 is still true: most people who are poor are poor because “they made the mistake of being born to the wrong parents.” The middle class isn’t all that mobile, either: only twenty per cent of people born into the middle quintile ever make it into the top one. And although we think of U.S. society as archetypally open, mobility here is lower than in most European countries.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/03/the-mobility-myth
“That video is propped up right in the very dead center of the center fountain in the central square of the central plaza in downtown Neverland.”
On a Beta videotape.
@ace:
Those studies are functionally worthless, before even how notoriously goal-seeked they are. Any post-WW2 studies are going to rather different between the USA and Europe. One is a country that massively opened immigration (and it’s immigrants that make up much of the poor class) and the other are countries that lost massive amounts of the young Men of a generation. There’s no way to normalize data between a society where a significant portion will take another 2-3 generations to integrate (if possible) and one where anyone with a willingness to work is going to be found something to do.
Then there’s cost-of-living, which makes most things practically impossible to compare between the USA and Europe.
ace says:
May 28, 2016 at 8:45 am
Ad to that the fact that the first two demographics (poor folks) are highly divorce prone.
Wages have not increased in past 30-40 years while cost of living has sky rocketed. There’d be no need to raise minimum wage to 15 now if over the past 30 years it was going up incrementally.
“As I looked again at the Prager video, the argument harked back to a book from 30 or so years ago – George Gilder’s “Men and Marriage”, in which he expressed his worry that modern women were too easy. They didn’t demand anymore that the man get a job and provide a home before they married them (or slept with them). Gilder saw in this the downfall of the civilization built on the backs of men trying to please (really, earn) the approval of their wives. After all, if sex was free, why bother? ”
This is how civilization works. The bedrock of any civilization is family, not single people who never reproduce. American culture started to hate families because of their hated concept of sharing. Sharing homes, sharing cars, sharing refrigerators etc. They thought if they could autonomize everyone early (move out when you hit 18 otherwise you’re a loser) that it would be “good for the economy” (the only “American value”), and it worked for a bit. Young people moved out and started consuming as much and more as entire families decades prior, but its backfiring now. GOOD.
The Minimum Wage should be $1.00 per hour, as an anti-slavery/cheating measure. Beyond that, it’s an explicitly racist measure to cut minorities and the low-class out of jobs so that the “socially conscious” class can hire labor under the table for cheaper.
Socialism always needs a slave class, so they have to produce it, one way or another.
@Joshua: “a legalized form of slavery. Women have absolutely no risk and all rewards and men have all the risk and no expected benefits. Fuck you, no really, FUCK YOU. Bad deals are not God’s will. One sided bargains are what you expect from the Devil, man.”
Joshua takes the Red Pill. Welcome, to he REAL world, LOL.
@Kaminsky: “My redpill evolution has gotten me to the point in which I actually respect feminist’s honesty and open aggression in stating their demands/pursuing their imperatives. They’re inspirational, in a way. ”
Indeed. The feminists changed the entire culture deliberately and broadcast what they were doing to the masses. They won the argument because men did not want to fight them and winning is always “admirable.” However after the victory, they immediately set about immortalizing their theories about he patriarchy and the historical oppression of women- and branching to the broader cultural Marxist goals. Soon instead of heroic WWII victories in History class it was smallpox blankets, slavery, and genocide from Elementary School to Post Graduate.
However, I don’t get how taking “inspiration” from the feminists categorical victory helps us reverse it. Sure, if learning what they did could help us win the next argument it could be inspirational- but it won’t, and so it isn’t. Responsibility, risk and consequences always wither in the face of shrieks for equality and liberty.
The ‘inspiration’ I take is simply for my own life, not to reverse things culturally. I don’t really look to them for inspiration actually, but just for that glancing moment when I thought about it in my post. They are ruthlessly self-interested and make themselves the primary concerns of their own lives (understated). For a guy who gave over 3 full decades to the blue pill, there is something to see there.
We can hope that once EVERYONE in the cultural is an oppressed shrieker, then it will just fade.
Prager and Wilcox can go pound sand. There is no way I’m ceding away my individual liberty and voluntarily place myself under a punishing body of law. Forget it.
I’m not hiring lawyer, visiting courts, paying a female who’s left me and is off having sex with other people a percentage of my income or face jail and a life long criminal record, or anything else. It’s never going to happen. I just say no to liability. The best solution to a problem is never to have it.
I don’t need Prager and Wilcox’s approval. I am a man. They can go pound sand.
Prager: “Furthermore, as a rule, it is far better for society to have people marry and divorce than never to marry”.
The way I translate the above, as I’m always referring to how the biblical picture of marriage resembles the relationship of Christ and The Church, is this: “It is far better for all people to accept Christ and commit apostasy by ending your commitment to Christ, than to never have known Christ at all”.
“It is far better for all people to accept Christ and commit apostasy by ending your commitment to Christ, than to never have known Christ at all”.
Prager, being a Jew, would never grasp the analogy (to be honest, neither would most of today’s “Christians”), but yes, that is essentially the argument he’s making, if unintentionally.
“Given the sexual zombiehood of a man’s youth, the women have had to behave extraordinarily poorly in order to wake men up to what a horrible deal marriage is. They did exactly that and it’s been an incredible feat. Their monstrousness actually outpaced male sex drive. Do you know how impossible that is to do?”
That is actually the most amazing part. They found the breaking point of the male sex drive, a male praying mantis is willing to die for sex, and similarly most males of most species would do the same… so whatever feminism has turned most women into, it is something worse than death.
One more thing. In regards to what’s wrong with Prager, Wilcox, and The Church, I still believe it is spelled out right in Revelation 2 of the Bible. In one of the letters to the Churches, Jesus states, “Nevertheless, I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching, she misleads my servants into sexual immorality.”
Sounds like feminism to me.
This garbage is cultural appropriation of true Christian mirage.
“They found the breaking point of the male sex drive,”
Agree that women have acted monstrously, but don’t agree that it’s outpaced the male sex drive or that the male sex drive has reached a breaking point.
First, men are so thirsty they’ll do whatever it takes to get sex, including waiting. Most men get married, and a lot of those men wait a long time for sex and for marriage.
Second, you’ve ignored the advent of online pornography. Men who can use online porn for a sexual release can stave off the male sex drive breaking point a long, long way and for a long, long time.
Men who can use online porn for a sexual release can stave off the male sex drive breaking point a long, long way and for a long, long time.
I really think this proves Greg’s and Tom’s point. As has been discussed here ad infinitum recently, more and more men are substituting virtual porn for flesh-and-blood women, porn being much more readily available, less hassle, and arguably more pleasurable (i.e., missing the “bitch factor” attendant in relationships with real women). In this sense women have indeed exceeded the breaking point of the male sex drive.
“It’s the cucks using single men’s lives as fodder, not only economically…”
You give them too much credit. Their motivation, in my estimation, is entirely “economic.”
Cuckservatives understand that unmarried men are not as firmly wedded to the status quo– the provisioning of security, social certainty, and material abundance they and their daughters benefit from– as they would wish.
This is a potentially serious problem for them. Fine. Perfectly understandable. So they act… by taking a big shot of estrogen, sucking down some Enfamil or something, and by proceeding to do their best impression of a screechy premenstrual Gorgon.
From what I gather: if a young man isn’t eager to selflessly meet the cuckservative’s every material need and those of his clan– beta-providering a slut daughter, taking a bullet, maybe underwriting a bastard or two through subsidized daycare, funding a sinecure for him or a relative, whatever– that young man is a bad, bad, baddie.
That’s all it is. It’s all about entitled indignation and sunk cost fallacies. You, Kaminsky, aren’t even on their radar. You don’t exist to them until you fail to meet their needs.
Just like a woman.
Or an infant.
The sharper ones perceive incipient disorder caused by fifty years of incompetent leadership. Their trepidation is the panic Dalrock describes.
None of these cucks will ever step up, lead, and properly re-incentivise marriage. Even if they cared, they are far too frightened of their own women to act like men.
They will undoubtedly continue to do a tremendous amount of cultural damage on their way out, though.
Ironically, the cuckserves’ saving grace is the astonishing degree of dissipation, the anesthetization of youthful vigor, caused by the very new media distractions they hate.
Prager is reckless. A more discerning cuck would shut up, take his retirement shekels, and invest them in EA, Disney and smut.
Prager has said many times on his radio show that the problem with liberals is that they’re still fighting the battles of the 1960s. It’s one of his best lines.
What he fails to realize is that conservative are still living as if it’s the 1950s. This video shows he needs to wake up and realize it’s no longer the Eisenhower Era.
Pingback: The mysterious male marriage premium. | Dalrock
“Women in their early 20s don´t want to marry men like me, I blame the cock carousel, the sexual revolution is why I cannot into gf!”
“Young men today won´t man up, stop playing video games and be Providers! I blame porn and video game, anime depiction of women!”
Where you really ready for marriage before 24, anon? rethorical question, we know the answer to that, you weren’t! 😀
Far too many men and women in their 20s are immature, coddled twats with little to no social skills, not much critical thinking and realism either. Too much unwarranted-self importance and special snowflakism. Put them together and the likely result is going to be drama, not a stable relationship, that isn´t rocket science!
Military service for both or at least the realization that yes, you do suck, is a better cure than marriage could ever be.
To say that marriage (in itself) has a moral meaning is false, that is why so many doesn´t buy that argument. -)
Sexual morality is just BS, a mean of control, part of a trick to enslave men to the service of other men. Today it gets in the way of other, newer means of control for a different agenda.
Is having a broken arm good because amputation is worst? Nope! Both supporters of the old ways and new ways point to the other as evil but in truth both are evil.
Tradcucks are advocating their “morality” of slavery and weakness a the only way. I can´t say I blame women for not wanting to marry these “nice guys” and “boring, loyal dudes”.
Pingback: Will Wilcox and the men of National Review respect you in the morning? | Dalrock
Pingback: Prager’s next lesson? | Dalrock
Pingback: The coming crash as men and women go their own way
Pingback: Marriage reforms are slowing the economy
Pingback: The Lone Wanderers’ solutions to feminism
Pingback: An expert looks at the gender wars & sees wonders ahead!
Pingback: The Consequences of Feminism – v5k2c2.com