The New York Times has made a stir with How Did Marriage Become a Mark of Privilege?
Marriage, which used to be the default way to form a family in the United States, regardless of income or education, has become yet another part of American life reserved for those who are most privileged.
After blaming a lack of good paying jobs for working class men*, the Times then offers a second solution. Those who are not privileged should simply become privileged, so that the new form of marriage designed for and by the privileged will work as well for them as it works for our elite. The non privileged need to learn to become privileged by relying on birth control, abortion, delayed marriage, high levels of education, and high incomes:
People with college degrees seem to operate with more of a long-term perspective, social scientists say. They are more likely to take on family responsibilities slowly, and they often benefit from parental resources to do so — like help paying for education, birth control or rent to live on their own. In turn, the young adults prioritize waiting to have children until they are more able to give their children similar opportunities.
“The cultural reinforcement, people relying on contraception and abortion, reinforces a norm, that you don’t have the kid with the wrong guy,” Ms. Carbone said.
The Times closes the article with a quote from W. Bradford Wilcox explaining his “success sequence” thesis:
Mr. Wilcox suggests a bigger emphasis in high schools and pop culture on what’s known as the success sequence: degree, job, marriage, baby. “The idea is that if people follow that sequence, their odds of landing in poverty are much lower,” he said.
Wilcox has been selling his “success sequence” thesis for many years. From the 2010 State of Our Unions report:
…highly educated Americans (and their children) adhere devoutly to a “success sequence” norm that puts education, work, marriage, and childbearing in sequence, one after another, in ways that maximize their odds of making good on the American Dream and obtaining a successful family life.
The callous elitism on display here is astounding. Both the Times (on the left) and Wilcox (on the right) are observing that the new family model is creating massive human misery, and both respond by asking why the peasants don’t simply eat cake.
This is a problem Herrnstein and Murray described in detail in their much maligned book The Bell Curve. In Chapter 8 (Family Matters), they explain that the reason college graduates and the UMC have lower divorce rates is because these things correlate positively with IQ, not because high socioeconomic status (SES) and higher education themselves reduce divorce rates. In fact, both of these factors increases divorce rates once IQ is controlled for (emphasis mine):
The consistent finding, represented fairly by the figure, was that higher IQ was still associated with a lower probability of divorce after extracting the effects of other variables, and parental SES had a significant positive relationship to divorce–that is, IQ being equal, children of higher-status families were more likely to get divorced than children of lower-status families.
It is clear to all researchers who examine the data that higher education is associated with lower levels of divorce. This was certainly true of the NLSY, where the college sample (persons with a bachelor’s degree, no more and no less) had a divorce rate in the first five years of marriage that was less than half that of the high school sample: 7 percent compared to 19 percent. But this raw outcome is deceptive. Holding some critical other things equal–IQ, socioeconomic status, age, and date of marriage–the divorce rate for the high school graduates in the first five years of marriage was lower than for college graduates.
In their closing chapter, A Place for Everyone, Herrnstein and Murray explain the reason thinking honestly about IQ is so important. If we are honest about IQ, we can be compassionate towards those who aren’t on the right hand side of the bell curve:
Our central concern since we began writing this book is how people might live together harmoniously despite fundamental individual differences. The answer lies outside economics.
The initial purpose of this chapter is to present for your consideration another way of thinking about equality and inequality. It represents an older intellectual tradition than social democracy or even socialism. In our view, it is also a wiser tradition, more attuned to the way in which individuals go about living satisfying lives and to the ways in which societies thrive.
They argue that public policy is currently being made by the elite, for the elite, without regard for the needs of everyone else:
SIMPLIFYING RULES
The thesis of this section may be summarized quickly. As of the end of the twentieth century, the United States is run by rules that are congenial to people with high IQs and that make life more difficult to everyone else. This is true in the areas of criminal justice, marriage and divorce, welfare and tax policy, and business law, among others…
The systems have been created, bit by bit, over decades, by people who think that complicated, sophisticated operationalizations of fairness, justice, and right and wrong are ethically superior to simple, black-and-white versions.
The new elite focused systems of course include the new model of the family. Herrnstein and Murray take it as a given that our new view of sexual morality can’t, and shouldn’t, be changed. This leaves the legal definition of the family. Their proposal is to jettison the family structure that we have used to replace marriage (the child support model):
Repeatedly, the prerogatives and responsibilities that used to be limited to marriage have spilled over into nonmarital relationships, whether it is the rights and responsibilities of an unmarried father, medial coverage for same sex partners, or palimony cases. Once the law says, “Well, in a legal sense, living together is the same,” what is the point of getting married?
For most people, there are still answers to that question. Even given the diminished legal stature of marriage, marriage continues to have unique value. But to see those values takes forethought about the long term differences between living together and being married, sensitivity to many intangibles, and an appreciation of second-hand and third-hand consequences. As Chapter 8’s evidence about marriage rates implies, people low on the intelligence distribution are less likely to think through those issues than others.
Our policy prescription in this instance is to return marriage to its formerly unique legal status. If you are married, you take on obligations. If you are not married, you don’t. In particular, we urge that marriage once again become the sole legal institution through which rights and responsibilities regarding children are exercised. If you are an unmarried mother, you have no legal basis for demanding that the father of the child provide support. If you are an unmarried father, you have no legal standing regarding the child–not even a right to see the child, let alone any basis honored by society for claiming he or she is “yours” or that you are a “father.”
The reality is that to our elites on both the right and the left, such a proposal is unthinkable. Both would rather have millions of innocent children suffer than switch to a model that is not optimized specifically for the elites. At some point down the road, the profound economic cost of this new family model will eventually make at least some of our elites more open to reconsidering this. But for now, expect to see ever louder calls from the elites on the left and the right for weak men to stop screwing feminism up, and for non elites to simply become elites so our dysfunctional family system won’t be so obviously dysfunctional.
See Also: Will Wilcox and the men of National Review respect you in the morning?
*While it is true that men without good earnings are far less likely to marry, it is also true that weakening marriage as an institution greatly reduces men’s incentives to have high earnings. This isn’t a problem of uni-directional causation, but a vicious cycle.
Pingback: Let them become elite. | @the_arv
Nailed it. Continuing to promote sexual immorality as normal will continue to decimate marriage and family. I think most elites want that.
@earlthomas786
I should have clarified* that Herrnstein and Murray take this as a given, although as you note the elites do as well. Herrnstein and Murray at least want to move back to a marriage based family structure, even though they don’t want to move back to a marriage based view of sexual morality.
*I will do so now.
Pingback: Marriage a mark of privilege? | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: Against tolerating evil | Dark Brightness
Completely off-topic, but absolutely brilliant!
http://babylonbee.com/news/amazing-took-years-tebowing-finally-taken-nfl/
I’d said this on the prior post thread where this NYT article came up so I provide it as irritating redundancy here with some adds. The part I fixated on was this:
“A big reason for the decline: Unemployed men are less likely to be seen as marriage material.
“Women don’t want to take a risk on somebody who’s not going to be able to provide anything,” said Sharon Sassler, a sociologist at Cornell who published “Cohabitation Nation: Gender, Class, and the Remaking of Relationships” with Amanda Jayne Miller last month.”
To which my take is: isn’t this distilled hypergamy? So pure it gets its own listing on the periodic elements table?
It’s certainly the case in China and Japan. women don’t want to hitch their wagon to an up-and-comer who’s not at her level, for him to qualify he has to be already THERE. Really also true anywhere there’s something like a UMC, i.e., Western Europe. Show me the Danish woman’s studies professor happily married to the Christianburg-dwelling bus driver.
This has been bubbling up for years among the poorer population too. The entire book “Promises I Can Keep” is all about how marriage is not only revered, it is to be saved for the right man. But the right man just isn’t there now, but the women can’t wait to have a baby, but hope someday to find a worthy man to marry up and father their kids. The follow up book “The Best I Can Do” interviews the fathers in that same stratum who are trying (or failing) to hold their fatherhood together.
Both books are the most recent canary in the coalmine; certainly not the first. The “why marry just anyone” attitude chronicled there has percolated upward to the UMC and infected not only young women’s views of their prospects, but the young men who a decade ago would be collgrads by now. Except they aren’t, more and more they won’t bother. And why should they? So they can get their teeth knocked in “whiteknighting” and intervening in other men’s bro-casting? To win the gratitude of who exactly? The schoolmarm USA Today screedstress demanding it of us? The young woman in the couple who may well not want your help and certainly won’t date you out of gratitude? Because she’s Strong and Independent? Maybe you get a participation trophy declaring you a Weiner?
The UMC is just the last bastion of marriage as we know it for now. No guarantee it will not become subject to the same social forces that have doomed it among “regular” middle class or WC folk. My magic 8-ball predicts the most stable couplings will be temporary Swedish-style temporary POSSLQ units in which sprogs may or may not be generated, and in which one or more of the sprog generators may or may not put in full tenure. (Y’know, surrogates, caregivers ‘n’ stuff)
I would take care using IQ as the indicator for UMC normative behavior, only because it is nowhere as reliable as some might like to think. It is no secret that high IQ is no measure of success, or even potential success. Those who succeed at one part of their lives could be masters of disaster in others. Such as the brilliant software developer who can’t balance a checkbook or is three-times divorced for God-knows-why reasons. Or MENSA members who flail about and can’t get unstuck from the feedback loops in their copious capacity heads.
Not to mention people who presumably are high IQ but go off the rails anyhoo. Anthony Weiner comes to mind.
The timing of this is fortunate, as just today I listened to Dennis Prager (whose Prager University hosted Wilcox’s “Be A Man: Get Married) interview Lori Gottlieb (whose book was “Marry Him: the Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough”). The interview is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qXLub99wQ
Listening to the interview, the frustrating thing is both Dennis and Lori are reasonable. Unfortunately, the title of the book (and the interview) plant the seeds of failure from the start. Since the book calls respectable men “Good Enough” and marrying them “settling,” disrespect and dissatisfaction are inevitable.
If the book was titled “Marry Him: the Case for Recognizing Mr. Right,” it may have done some good. The problem isn’t that men aren’t good enough or women have to settle, the problem is women do not respect the proper qualities in men. In fact, I know many wives who have excellent husbands yet think they married beneath them.
This NY Times article follows the same them. Marriage is literally being attached from the left and the right, the government and the courts, education and entertainment, from the pulpit and
the devil himself. The only places where full truth can be found are the Bible and God himself, and we’re using every tool to legislate and preach against it.
Would anyone dream of writing a book titled “Marry Her: the Case for Settling for Ms. Good Enough?” They would be outraged that we’d say a man is settling for his wife.
Would Prager U do a video titled “Be a Woman: Stay Married” ? Perhaps, Prager does possess a rare courage. But he really has a blind spot here.
It takes two they say (at least when they are talking about making men pay child support). They need to focus on both people in marriage.
I think this is a case where we are not being destroyed just by lies, but by half truths. The devil does not want to destroy marriage, he wants to destroy marriages. He’d rather see people enticed into marriage and parenthood and the family destroyed than never created at all.
Like my wife’s (thankfully former) bible study used to say: the devil is whispering in ears. Too bad we’re listening.
Fred, “Not All Intelligent People Are Like That” is rather a failure when stacked up against large numbers. The SAT and ACT are basically IQ tests. Succes in college is strongly correlated with those test scores. Stop chasing that rabbit; leave ‘g” alone for now.
Dalrock is correct, the liberal and cuckservative elites are doubling down on “Just be like us!” as a solution to all social problems, and it’s very much a cake-eating contest. Seeing marriage as a capstone-cherry on top of a perfect life rather than a foundational element is a huge inversion. But that’s where more and more working class people are in their thinking, it’s a pale imitation of the standard “degree / post degree / job with carousel riding / THEN marriage at 29.999” model pushed on young women.
The irony of seeing Brad Wilcox pushing the traditional model when his own wife clearly spent some time on the artist carousel is rich. Because that means he’s saying “Just be like us!” with one side of his mouth, and “do as we say, not as we do” out of the other.
A gem from the Prager/Gottlieb interview I linked to above.
Lori said that men may notice gorgeous women (Angelia Jolie was the example), but men are good at separating fantasy from reality.
She further said that women also notice famous men (Brad Pitt was the example), but are terrible at separating fantasy from reality and actually think what they see in entertainment is attainable.
Too bad she frames it that women who chose well are settling, and that high quality men are just “Mr. Good Enough.”
Trust,
“Marry Him; Give Up on the Unrealistic Expectations” would probably be better.
I should have concluded “yet which gender is told to pursue their fantasies and which is shamed for theirs?”
I’ve posted enough. I promise I’m done this time. : )
God bless.
Well. yes. That is the entire point of contemporary social policy.
When one critiques it to their faces, the normal response is this: “well, I fornicated with x number of people from 15-28, but I turned out fine. I went to H/Y/S, grad school, prof school, and everyone was doing the same thing and they are also all a-ok. So the issue isn’t fornicating around in your 20s, it’s that everyone else doesn’t have the benefits of H/Y/S.”
And so on.
I went to HYS myself. I know these people. I know how they think, I know how they live, I have lived among them since college. And, yes, they honestly and sincerely believe that the only problem with the country socially is that not everyone is like them. They honestly and sincerely believe that.
From that one can understand the entirety of American politics, economics and social structure, if one has keen enough eyes.
@Trust
Nitpicking, “gender” is properly a term from language (German has three genders, Der, Die and Das), “sex” refers to mammals including humans. Feminists have substituted “gender” for “sex” because it’s much easier to claim “Gender is a social construct” while saying “sex is a social construct” is rather silly. Chromosomes are not social constructs.
I’ve trained myself out of using the word “gender” as in “the male gender” when what I really mean is “sex”, as in “the male sex”. That little bit of precision makes a difference in thinking, plus it sometimes ticks off a feminist – bonus!
@Anonymous Roadkill
I have no issue with your bigger point about the trend toward a Harrison Bergeron “Just Be Like Us” mindset. No I don’t have a ready cure either. Just a hangover I don’t deserve. And I am quite familiar with what the SAT and ACT do and don’t measure (again: Never Mind How I Know). I merely caution not to put all our “g”‘s in one basket relying on IQ as the bestest and onliest litmus test across all classes and societies.
[Found my way here via a link at HAPPY ACRES]
Yeah, that whole “Mr. Wilcox suggests a bigger emphasis in high schools and pop culture on what’s known as the success sequence: degree, job, marriage, baby” thing IS a teeny weeny bit F’ed Up, eh?!? Right up the Leftist urban utopian alley, so to say….
Better would be marriage,
(MAYBE “degree,” if necessary, depending on discipline…electricians earn just fine, thank you very much),
job,
baby.
After all, it’s all about the “anchors” in life, ain’t it, that provide the stability for a healthy family/life/culture?!
[D: Welcome.]
Trust said: “Lori said that men may notice gorgeous women (Angelia Jolie was the example), but men are good at separating fantasy from reality. She further said that women also notice famous men (Brad Pitt was the example), but are terrible at separating fantasy from reality and actually think what they see in entertainment is attainable.”
This is spot on. I remember back in 2000 when the movie “Gladiator” came out. I loved the movie and saw it in theaters several times. I also went to some online discussion boards about the movie (I had dial-up AOL internet at the time, LOL)
I was purple pill at the time, but right away I noticed something that shocked me. The female commenters on the board were going on and on about Russell Crowe. Now if they were talking about a physical attraction, that I would understand. Men would do the same thing with a star like Scarlett Johansson or Mena Suvari. But no, they were equating Russell Crowe, the actor, with the character of Maximus that he played in the movie!
They were going on and on about Crowe’s courage, honor, integrity, masculine sense of duty, stoicism, devotion to his family, etc…and saying things like “God bless the woman who has won or will win his heart” (funny I remember that comment after all these years). Now, she wasn’t talking about winning Maximus’ heart (who is fictitious and doesn’t exist), she was talking about Russell Crowe’s heart!
Of course, the reality is that these women had no idea if Crowe, as a person, was anything like the character he played. And sure enough, we now know Crowe committed adultery with Meg Ryan (she was married to Dennis Quaid at the time) and helped break up that family with young kids in the picture, he’s a drunk, he’s got an anger mgmt problem, he’s a playboy and party boy, and so on.
But reading that message board back in 2000, even my purple pill self was astounded. I recall thinking, “Oh my God, these goofy broads actually have no ability to separate the actor Russell Crowe from his character in the movie. They cannot tell fantasy from reality. Women are truly like children!”
Insights like that ended up being part of my journey to redpill land. Nice to see Lori Gottleib agrees with me.
They are certainly more easily deceived. The one show I know of many women thought was a viable lifestyle in reality is Sex and the City.
Trust: the title of the book (and the interview) plant the seeds of failure from the start. Since the book calls respectable men “Good Enough” and marrying them “settling,” disrespect and dissatisfaction are inevitable.
True. What happens if, five years after the wedding, the woman meets her Soul Mate. The man who is not merely “good enough,” but the man she really wanted from the start. The man that she deserves to be with. The only man who can make her happy.
Is it fair to shackle this woman to her “good enough” husband, as if this were the Dark Ages? As if women were the property of men? Isn’t she entitled to her freedom? To pursue her own happiness with a man that was meant to be?
Fred Reed wrote in one of his early columns about how the beltway folks have no concept of what life is like for those with less natural talent. He uses as an example that an UMC woman doesn’t wonder if she can learn to be fluent in Italian, only wonders how long it will take.
I figure there’s a similar effect at work here.
And even though they may have higher marriage rates, I’d bet they still have high divorce rates, high infidelity rates, and all the other garbage the poorer people have to go through when sexual immorality happens before or during the marriage. They’re only upside is they have more funds to cover it up.
Fred Flange and his dog Spot
I merely caution not to put all our “g”‘s in one basket relying on IQ as the bestest and onliest litmus test across all classes and societies.
No argument. But that’s not what Bell Curve and the succeeding book Coming Apart was even remotely about. The only people who made that “IQ forever!” didn’t read the books. Dalrock’s point stands well on its own: the social leadership has remade US society into something more like a private club with rules only insiders can understand, and it’s hurting everyone else.
Churches that still hold to the Bible have an uphill fight against the culture, because the norm is now “baby, job, stuff, maybe marriage” for all sorts of poor, and working class, and increasingly middle class folks.
It is the mirror image of women as their own betas, of fathers pushing daughters to get a career “just in case”, and it’s a mess.
For example see: Zuck and his Faceborg. Or the now-fired Google engineer. Or a lot of other examples.
PS: Zuck is very high IQ, and arguably extremely Betaized. Look at pictures of him with his East Asian wife and you can see it. He’s the guy you’re talking about – borderline Aspergers maybe.
The callous elitism on display here is astounding.
That they’re now so overt about it is astounding, yes, but not the attitude itself. It’s been their modus operandi all along. It merely took the internet age to bring it out in the open for it to rubbed in everyone’s noses.
But for now, expect to see ever louder calls from the elites on the left and the right for … non elites to simply become elites
Sadly, I see a lot of evidence that plenty of sheeple aspire to exactly that. Most will never attain it (the old saw “you can’t turn a plow horse into a race horse” is the prevalent attitude among the elite), but they still seem to want to become that which is keeping them down. Sad.
“Marry Him; Give Up on the Unrealistic Expectations” would probably be better.
How about, “You Don’t Deserve Any Better.”
Jeff Strand: “Oh my God, these goofy broads actually have no ability to separate the actor Russell Crowe from his character in the movie. They cannot tell fantasy from reality. Women are truly like children!”
Yeah, I used to think only teenyboppers thought like that. That when they got older, they became mature, intelligent women. I was wrong.
Zuckerberg might be called an Apex Beta.
A great provider, thus many women want to marry him. But take away Zuckerberg’s money and status, and all those women would lose interest.
@RPL
Better yet, “Marry Him if he’ll settle for you!”
@anonymous_ng
I remember that Fred Reed column – he was absolutely right.
@Dalrock
“If we are honest about IQ, we can be compassionate towards those who aren’t on the right hand side of the bell curve:”
We can’t be honest about it, because egalitarianism is a central theological belief in modern Western society.
Funny, though, that discrepancies among some groups regarding these issues is chalked up to institutional discrimination, while differences among other groups is the fault of that group. Yet at the same time, we’re all the same in capacities and abilities.
The belief has zero consistency, and is merely a means to an end of controlling people’s lives.
I’d start them from the beginning…with this title:
‘Everything you know is wrong.’
Yes, be a Sucker: Get Married. Damn, this cuck again? No thanks pal, I’ll skip having my life destroyed by the court at the behest of some cunt. If men want this “traditional” thing you’re going to have to put the women back in their place, and I mean in a legal sense too. Do that and it will end very quickly.
Is he married? I did a quick google search and nowhere in any of his bios, pages, twitter feed, or pictures did I see any indication that he is or was married.
Because I was about to point out how delicious it is him calling out other men’s masculinity for not being married if he himself is not.
@ Dalrock
“While it is true that men without good earnings are far less likely to marry, it is also true that weakening marriage as an institution greatly reduces men’s incentives to have high earnings. This isn’t a problem of uni-directional causation, but a vicious cycle.”
More like a death spiral.
Fred Reed wrote in one of his early columns about how the beltway folks have no concept of what life is like for those with less natural talent.
He used to make sense, back then. That’s probably back when I used to try to discuss economics with Libertarians, before I realized they had no clue what life is like for the normal, 100 IQ average person. Not everyone wants to play the market in a 401K, for example, and a defined-benefit pension plus savings is something that ordinary people can get their mind around: “this much money per month plus this much for emergencies? Ok.”
It is, again, one of the themes in the much maligned “Bell Curve” – not everyone is capable of learning how to do differential calculus, so don’t build a society on the false premise that it’s just a matter of “10,000 hours to calculus mastery”.
“Marry Him; Give Up on the Unrealistic Expectations” would probably be better.
Red Pill Latecomer
How about, “You Don’t Deserve Any Better.”
Turn it around: “He’s better than you deserve”.
Seriously, a good social neg.
Pingback: Let them become elite. | Reaction Times
Yeah, I used to think only teenyboppers thought like that. That when they got older, they became mature, intelligent women. I was wrong.
See: all the churchgoing women who flocked to Twilight a few years ago.
Earl
Is he married? I did a quick google search and nowhere in any of his bios, pages, twitter feed, or pictures did I see any indication that he is or was married.
Bradford Wilcox keeps his family out of social media exposure. Can’t fault that. We had a video here months ago featuring him and his blonde wife giving a team-lecture at some Eastern US college campus on marriage.
Oh no. Not Wilcox again.
If the elites, Wilcox included, had some semblance of commonsense – that much-derided form of ”lower intelligence” that academics seem to lack, they would have plenty of time to observe that their ”formulas for success” – degree, job, marriage, baby – has been a demographic disaster for Western civilizations and the whole world, since Western countries are the drivers of technology, problem solving and poverty eradication. The elites’ solution to the demographic problem of low fertility – filibustering the labor shortage by importing migrants – is rapidly making the Western world impossible to manage without draconian control (the elite’s agenda).
Regarding this policy making of elites by elites, Theodore Dalrymple makes similar arguments in his essays. He observes the erosion of the social fabric in what once were working- class towns: The rise of drugs, violence, drunkenness, sexual anarchy, the normalization of inter-generational sexual relationships – and attributes it to the musings of the British elites, who eroded moral values and codes because they themselves broke them.
Just one criticism that I’d like you to consider Dalrock: These days, there is no Right and Left. There hasn’t been since Thatcher.
There is just Insiders and Outsiders. Those Insiders pay the dregs of society via your tax dollars to erode the Middle, also known as the Outsiders. It’s a diabolical plan (literally) to enslave us all.
How about, “You Don’t Deserve Any Better.”
THREAD WINNER. (Or “You’re Lucky To Have Him – or ANY Man at All”).
“People with college degrees seem to operate with more of a long-term perspective, social scientists say.”
These people were likely farsighted and disciplined before their education, which means “people with college degrees” is a bad descriptor. A better one would probably be “white men”. Unless these college degrees really do alter one’s DNA?
“Mr. Wilcox suggests a bigger emphasis in high schools and pop culture on what’s known as the success sequence: degree, job, marriage, baby.”
What fun. Compete for a job, endure your career of becoming fiscally solvent despite progressive taxation and then, at the end of a long, full life when you can no longer enjoy sex, jerk off in a test tube so a laboratory can gestate your replacement. Wilcox is channeling Aldous Huxley.
Men used to be proud to train the next generation of men. What changed to make the new success sequence “bootstrap yourself until Barbie wants you to pay for her baby”?
Widespread acceptance and promotion of female sexual immorality…combining with widespread condemnation of those who ever pointed it out or shifting the blame onto men when the predictable bad consequences happened to those women.
I know someone, who proudly proclaims to be a Christian, who used this very rationale to justify his daughter’s choice to nuke her marriage and divide her family, just so that she could remarry and “be happy”.
I reminded him of what the Scriptures have to say about that and he shrugged it off. Her “happiness” mattered more than her soul,
Plus they are more likely to stick the remarriage landing than your average flyover schlubette, though it is becoming harder.
I remember a gal in college. IIRC her mother, who was attractive and UMC, was on her third marriage. Drove a Benz and lived in Newport Beach. Of course that was 30 years ago, and her mom was a looker.
I seem to recall reading study after study showing that the below average and poor believe that someday they will be rich.
But it sure seems odd that the elite would trumpet such a canard, especially when from my anecdotal experience they really believe they are superior in every way to the unwashed.
And the worst part, which the PTB don’t like to mention, is that the bar keeps getting raised. Or that in the next 40 years or so advances in AI will decimate the labor force, and not just menial jobs.
Interesting that IQ matters when talking about (I assume) white people and marriage, but not when talking about race.
True. What happens if, five years after the wedding, the woman meets her Soul Mate. The man who is not merely “good enough,” but the man she really wanted from the start. The man that she deserves to be with. The only man who can make her happy.
This happened to me at 6 years in. Staying married to me was described as a “life prison sentence.”
In the end, the guy went back to his wife and kids, I made lemonade out of lemons and now have a much better life than I ever imagined was possible.
Compete for a job, endure your career of becoming fiscally solvent despite progressive taxation and crippling levels of student loan debt and then, at the end of a long, full life when you can no longer enjoy sex, jerk off in a test tube so a laboratory can gestate your replacement.
I identify with the “white working class” but that could probably include the black and latino one as well…..I notice Christianity seems to tear down color barriers quickly when it gets understood that all must and will submit to The Cross with zero favortism from God ….with this said, I can say with confidence that the “white working class” probably doesn’t identify with me.
I was an elite. I had a corporate jobby-job. I lived in San Francisco. I had the luxury of a private high school (boarding), private college, and private grad school. I made a good living….I got into drugs. I knew better. I was “smarter” than that. My IQ is nothing to brag about. It’s just slightly above the average. My older brother has Downs Syndrome, his IQ is under 70, and he has at times made “better” decisions than many blow-hard elites with a supposed high IQ.
The problem with this article, it makes it out to us “average” folks: Work hard, dress better, go to college and voila! you will be an investment banker in a short time! Same in church….just love Jesus, show up to church, move out of mommy’s basement and an amazing, beautiful, awesome woman of God is waiting here for you!!!!!
As for divorce rates? I don’t believe it. I came from a notch above the “middle class” and when I was in college, and grad school…..everyone I went to college and grad school with came from a “high class” of white, or “higher in the white social order” than where I came from. All their parents were divorced. All of them. They just had the money, connections and means to recover in the eyes of The American Dream.
Most working class blokes don’t get a chance to mess up (and that’s any color). One slip up will cost them dearly in family court, at the factory / plant, in their marriage, an angry wife / gf with one call to the “police” about abuse, even if made up destroys men in this class…..and many do mess up and the results are strewn throughout my neighborhood (downtown Fresno). Men who have lost everything in the divorce and family courts, jail time for false charges of abuse, and most didn’t have the means to break out and recover. How do you get a job now with no degree, a police record, and any money you do make is garnished away in ‘arrears’ for child support / alimony. Where does this leave the “working class man in 2017”? On edge, cautious, a mess….or the ones like me…..clinging harder to the Cross, prayer and self-defensive.
A large segment of never married men, and childfree men too….many my age (mid forties) livfe in my hood. It doesn’t take a high IQ to see a raw deal.
And what of The Disciples???? Many were fishermen (not a high-wage Union job with benefits, vacation and dental plan included). They were married, and I don’t think any of these men were ready to serve as a scribe or teacher in the Temple, or the court of Herod.
The elites so to speak play this relational game with guys like me, and I know it because I was once one of them. Thankfully I got over that.
Let them become elite.
Becoming elite really is the best call, and not only for marriage but for other life challenges as well.
“Student Who Stabbed Boyfriend Has Jail Time Suspended Because Of ‘Promising Career’.”
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/26/student-who-stabbed-boyfriend-has-jail-time-suspended-because-of-promising-career/
P.S. Accrue bonus hamster points to use for contingencies if you’re an elite woman.
“The Oxford med student claimed she was battling a drug addiction that began during an abusive relationship with a previous boyfriend,”
The post and comments are very similar to the path of some comments at this post, also from today: http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2017/09/elsewhere-247.html
Specifically when “Reynolds’ Law” is mentioned: Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them
Cheap mortgages. Cheap college. Education & career (money) before babies (especially for women). Social shaming: man up and get married! All financially and socially subsidizing the outward signs of success. All part of a westernized cargo cult for the lower & middle classes.
What no one in the OP will reference at all, or anyone here AFAIK is that being a member of the “elite” is a zero-sum game. Actually, with the average decline in all of IQ, education (a B.A. today requires less learning than a HS degree did 50 years ago), the ever-increasing percent of the GNP going to debt service and corruption, affirmative action, etc., the # of potential elite spots for a white male is steadily shrinking. Also, as any longtime reader here knows, virtues are now routinely met with severe punishment (Marriage 2.0 for U.S. men is Exhibit A).
So, what current member of the economic elite referenced in the OP would volunteer to give up their seat in the lifeboat, I mean, elite slot, so one of the oppressed they feel so deeply for can finally, deservedly, move up?
***crickets***
Technically, Brad Wilcucks did not write anything new. Rather, others are using his existing material, so he may not deserve incremental bashing.
But it is certainly time to remind everyone what we concluded about Brad Wilcucks. He is married, but his wife’s entire family work to make his wife want him. He was also being mentored by the wife’s father and sister (since he was too afraid to escalate with his wife). Deti found this out.
But most importantly, no discussion of H. Bradford Wilcucks is complete without posting his photo. If beta blue-pillers have a look, it is hard to imagine a more exact stereotypical beta look than H. Bradford Wilcucks.
Physiognomy is real.
(Repost of previous comment since people are talking about student loan debt)
I note that the University has wrecked at least two major economies, by getting to the ‘victims’ first.
1) Getting $200,000 of debt for a useless degree is a very new thing in America. College was not that expensive even 20 years ago, and SJW indoctrination was not a feature. While not everyone with $200,000 of debt for a useless degree is female, the vast majority are. Many have no concept of how much debt that is relative to their future earnings, and the supply of cuckservatives willing to swoop in to pay off her debt are too few, and the number of women with liability too many.
2) Tacking on so much debt to young people surely delays their home-buying, and there will be far too few buyers relative to the number of baby boomers who have to sell when they get old, or just die. So the student loan scam got to the marks before the mortgage scam did. Too bad they both can’t lose.
At the moment, both universities and US real estate are being propped up by Chinese money. This is delaying the just desserts that many participants in both industries deserve to receive. But Chinese money is NOT saving young women, who have taken almost every imaginable action to reduce their suitability for marriage.
Take a couple of hypothetical examples :
1) Girl #1 with $200K in debt for a Bachelor’s Degree is Sociology. She wasn’t smart enough for higher education anyway, but got suckered into the deal. A government make-work job is the only thing that can pay enough to get her out of it. Barring that, she either has to be a debt slave for 20 year, or marry a cuckservative (both are equally appalling prospects to the girl).
2) Girl #2 was smarter and more assertive. She got scholarships, and decided to pursue law. So at 25 she is a JD from a school ranked in the 20-25 range, and has $300,000 in debt. But she did not get the BigLaw job. So at 33, she is earning $120K/year doing document review at a firm, and is unaware the AI software for eDiscovery is rapidly swallowing up jobs like hers. What will she do? Her N is also around 33 (the same as her age), so she can’t really bond with a man for marriage, and she is not attracted to the cuckservatives and manginas who are the only men who still want her.
What are the futures of both of these women?
Or that in the next 40 years or so advances in AI will decimate the labor force, and not just menial jobs.
Oh, women have FAR more to worry about in this regard, relative to men. Take my word for it.
They will take a 3rd option. They will just vote for whatever politician promises to enact a bill in congress that forces the taxpayers to pay off their student loan debts.
Trust,
Would Prager U do a video titled “Be a Woman: Stay Married” ? Perhaps, Prager does possess a rare courage. But he really has a blind spot here.
There is just as much chance of that as of some women become brilliant economists and astronomers (i.e. zero).
IBB,
They will take a 3rd option. They will just vote for whatever politician promises to enact a bill in congress that forces the taxpayers to pay off their student loan debts.
Yes, but they still cannot marry anything above a mangina/cuckservative who they are completely repulsed by. Relief from the debt will not be in time to turn the clock back on their wall-collision.
It is interesting that technological productivity has enabled even a $21T National Debt (i.e. the govt. spending in excess of taxes, or in other words, a portion of the resource misallocation towards women) to not be a problem at this point. That such an amazing bounty was wasted on this least worthy of all imaginable goals, is truly stunning.
Self congratulation as a basis for social policy.
I cannot claim the thought as my own as it is the subtitle to Thomas Sowell’s Visions of the Annointed and though that is an excellent book frankly the title and sub-title tell you all you need to know or at least point you in the right direction. It would thus seem that Wilcox who we sent to the long grass* on an earlier thread has ignored our strictures. I presume that likewise he failed to receive the memo that judges Matrimony to be Patriarchal Oppression where all Sexual Intercourse is Rape and male responsibility (manning-up) is Abuse.
I write, sexual intercourse, which is a mouthful but is more accurate than the more common ‘sex’ and likewise I chime-in to support Anonymous Reader in the correct use of the word Sex when most say Gender: Gender relates to language; Sex to person.
The elite strike me as Janus faced; at one time basking in their matrimonial superiority but also seeing it as oppressive, indulging the LGBT Ts and their ever expanding Baskins Robbins flavours of Gender and yet recently a form for completion from one of Her Majesty’s Britannic Government’s Departments required from me a simple either/or as to my sex giving me the choice as to whether I was male or female.
… and then what exactly is marriage: my friend’s daughter was, according to Facebook ‘in a relationship’ but I see that both she and the Rapist no longer claim that status on the said Facebook. It was perhaps one thing to break up with a boyfriend but to have publicly declared some sort of commitment for the whole world to see (which after all is what a ceremony of marriage does) must mean that the removal of the tag is a public announcement of Divorce. She is now at Conservatoire and will now to overcome her abusive broken relationship climb aboard the carousel.
* A metaphor from Cricket where you would say, I suppose, the less felicitous, knocked it out of the park.
iQ didn’t matter much under the old system … marriage was desired, and divorce difficult to obtain for the most part. Marriage had rights and responsibilities. Now, marriage is legally destroyed, and Christians and others who would like to choose a real marriage cannot legally do so.
“The cultural reinforcement, people relying on contraception and abortion, reinforces a norm, that you don’t have the kid with the wrong guy,” Ms. Carbone said.
I’m pretty sure many women from prosperous middle/upper class families bear the biological children of “wrong guys”, though. The average cuckoldry rate is somewhere around 10-20%, or so I’ve heard, but I’m sure it’s higher among this demographic. Women like these select husbands mostly according to beta traits, but I just can’t see them getting excited by the opportunity to actually get impregnated by these guys.
Mr. Wilcox suggests a bigger emphasis in high schools and pop culture on what’s known as the success sequence: degree, job, marriage, baby.
…highly educated Americans (and their children) adhere devoutly to a “success sequence” norm that puts education, work, marriage, and childbearing in sequence, one after another, in ways that maximize their odds of making good on the American Dream and obtaining a successful family life.
To be fair, he is, strictly speaking, not incorrect. The sequence has normally indeed applied to men. The path to success was to properly finish an education, in the broad sense of the word, that was actually useful – high school, trade school, or just being some sort of apprentice, and, in a small minority of cases, college -, get a job, find a wife, and have children.
@Dalrock, I got a bit confused by the acronym SES. I eventually figured out that (I think) it means socio-economic status. Your article would be clearer if you spelled it out the first time you used it.
[D: Good point. Edited.]
Regarding this policy making of elites by elites, Theodore Dalrymple makes similar arguments in his essays. He observes the erosion of the social fabric in what once were working- class towns: The rise of drugs, violence, drunkenness, sexual anarchy, the normalization of inter-generational sexual relationships – and attributes it to the musings of the British elites, who eroded moral values and codes because they themselves broke them.
Yes. Average people of average intelligence cannot be expected to realize their long-term interests and then act with the necessary self-restraint and foresight to act accordingly. Conservatives have always known that. In this case, the main deciding factor seems to be that the contributions of indigenous working class men are no longer seen as necessary. There was a time when they were needed as laborers, farmers, heads of families, soldiers etc. for society to prosper. No more.
The Times article is not a truly serious piece of writing. It’s virtue-signalling of the most disingenuous sort: they don’t really care, the elites they worship don’t care, and taking their suggestions in the same egregiously cynical vein as they offered, the only real possible outcome, for which these self-appointed “elites” pine most lustfully, is fewer proles less focused their own silly wants and aspirations and merely content piss away the best part of their lives toiling away to build someone else’s wealth, and, of course, not popping out so many mewling little cabbages that just clutter up the place taking instead of making.
… and then what exactly is marriage: my friend’s daughter was, according to Facebook ‘in a relationship’ but I see that both she and the Rapist no longer claim that status on the said Facebook.
This is actually a pretty good point, but since I have now left FB, I can’t act on the instinct it provides me.
Namely, it would be interesting, when you see that status pop up on your feed to write “what does ‘in a relationship’ mean, exactly?”
Unfortunately, in the age of peak subjectivity, it means whatever the poster intends it to mean, and the ensuing conversation, should one chose to pursue it would probably result in an “un-friending” to the coup d’ etat farewell comment “who are you to judge me?”
…and all the virtual onlookers would have the cognition “she showed him.”
If that’s the case, that’s actually an oddity. Most families (fathers in particular) now-a-days want their princess to be happy rather than be shackled to a guy they don’t like, aren’t attracted to, or respect.
Is he rich or something?
Curious if that look is because the man is emasculated (by his wife or other outside forces) or he chooses to be more effeminate.
I think a lot of these women are just repulsed by marriage in general because it doesn’t jive with their rebellious heart, but they do it for the status or to quit hearing the ‘why aren’t you married’ question for the millionth time. Even if they were able to stick the landing of the stud chad of their lustful dreams…who’s to say somewhere down the road they may be turned on by another stud chad they aren’t married to.
Funny how having passionate feels as adulterous mistress to a married man doesn’t end up as a happy ending. Then again do women ever get that going the rebellious route will end in failure no matter how much pastors, government, and white knights blame men.
Italy woman marries herself in ‘fairytale without prince’
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41413297
“Proponents of such ceremonies say it is about self-love and acceptance, and claiming the social affirmation normally reserved for couples who wed.”
I would also like to say that I deprecate the increasingly frequent use of the word Privilege (used in the first of the above quotes) as applied to anyone person perceived as being even slightly better off than another and as if that person is somehow wrongly or unfairly living the life that he leads. Put simply, America did not get to be as it is because its citizens had what might be termed a form of aristocricy or had from some unnamed source been recipients of affirmative action, but because through the generations of its citizens they had overall worked to build up the country (and frequently at great sacrifice and personal cost) – and remember that in the Seventeenth Century the northern part of the Americas was regarded as the least desirable (no gold).
Whenever I read the word privilege I sense that someone wants to steal something. It is frequently used by or on behalf of the less capable who are then, being perceived as victims, supposed to have in some unspecified way been robbed. .
We have a saying to express the mutability of fortune which is I think self-explanatory: ‘ rags to rags in three generations’.
Lost Patrol: Italy woman marries herself in ‘fairytale without prince’ … “Proponents of such ceremonies say it is about self-love and acceptance, and claiming the social affirmation normally reserved for couples who wed.”
If I declare myself to be a brain surgeon, war hero, or astronaut, can I too “claim the social affirmation normally reserved for” men who actually do those things?
@earlthomas786 says:
I think a lot of these women are just repulsed by marriage in general because it doesn’t jive with their rebellious heart, but they do it for the status or to quit hearing the ‘why aren’t you married’ question for the millionth time. Even if they were able to stick the landing of the stud chad of their lustful dreams…who’s to say somewhere down the road they may be turned on by another stud chad they aren’t married to.
_________________
I think the root problem is marriage (and divorce) is a financially lucrative investment for women. I mean, if an employer provided its new hires a house and 20 years of monthly income even after they resigned after a few years, people would be lined up to join the team.
A corollary: no one would see this arrangement as a benefit to the employer. (Make sense Mr. Wilcox?)
I checked the photo of that Italian “self-wedder” (an actual term, apparently). She’s one of those women with the crazy eyes.
You’d have to be crazy to believe you can marry yourself. It’s another delusion a single woman does to convince herself she isn’t alone.
We’re circling now, Dalrock. Too much déjà vu.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4919208/The-women-clever-boyfriend.html
Whenever I read the word privilege I sense that someone wants to steal something. It is frequently used by or on behalf of the less capable who are then, being perceived as victims, supposed to have in some unspecified way been robbed.
By the time I got to graduate school, already mired in nearly 70k in student loan debt, surrounded by a plurality of students who were rich white girls whose daddies had a spare 250k to spend on their princesses PhD, I was having a hard time internalizing with a straight face the idea that I was benefiting from “white/male privilege.”
At 46, I am still digging out of that student loan debt.
@RPL
You really don’t get it do you. You may not be an astronaut, or brain surgeon but it is your right to have been one and as those surgeons and astronauts receive public recognition for their achievements – achievements that they achieved only because of their privilege then you too are entitled to the same respect. Those who think otherwise are Nazis.
In the same manner I now request that everyone reading here accepts that I truly am God’s gift to the opposite sex (with an N in excess of 2045*) in fact the ultimate Alpha and that but for an accident of fate it is I who would have been married to Melania rather than that other guy – who is obviously Fake. Women cannot resist me and so I changing my name to Austin Powers.
2045 being the N indeed the final N of Don Giovanni
@ Dalrock
“At some point down the road, the profound economic cost of this new family model will eventually make at least some of our elites more open to reconsidering this.”
I am currently in my late 40s and expect to live well into my 80’s, (sadly) don’t expect I will live to see such a revelation materialize. The only caveat that would intercede to force this upon the masses sooner is some sort of societal collapse or financial / natural / manmade (womanmade) disaster.
Only when the TRUE benefits of having a man by a woman’s side is needed will feminists be told to have a big hot cup of ‘shut the fuck up’.
“But for now, expect to see ever louder calls from the elites on the left and the right for weak men to stop screwing feminism up, and for non elites to simply become elites so our dysfunctional family system won’t be so obviously dysfunctional.”
Agreed, the bloviating of feminists have been dialing up to 11 for decades; the most recent 10 years being the most shrill.
Posted over at Chateau-
“Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal… If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters.”
Cato the Elder
Also, a number of minority movements, deemed heretical by the wider church, gave a more prominent place to the ministry of women and in some cases allowed them to participate in the priestly ministry. These include Montanism in the 2nd and 3rd century, the Quintillians and Collyridians in the 4th century, and Priscillianism in the 4th century.
@anon
Are you talking about the Wilcox quote in the article? Or are you talking about the new research brief by Wilcox that prompted the NYT article?
Dalrock,
Or are you talking about the new research brief by Wilcox that prompted the NYT article?
Oh, in that case he DID write something new. He is continuing to peddle his false narrative.
Spike (September 26, 2017 at 7:00 pm) wrote — excerpted here, of course, and emphases added:
@Scott – I hear you. I’m your age and still paying for my Ph.D. I call my student loan payments my “academic alimony.” It’s a big reason I never seriously considered marriage among other reasons.
He’s rather invested in it and gets paid to come to the same conclusions again and again. The beat down he received last time around should have made rethink his past conclusions or revisit his overriding premise but instead, like all good cucks, he doubles down.
Marriage is now only for the elite and even then, it boggles the mind why any ‘elite’ man who actually ‘gets it’ would want to be married. It provides no benefit to an elite man, only a benefit to the woman he marries and any children he might have. That’s it.
Wilcucks is notorious for his apex fallacy. Over here, he says everyone should become elite.
Elsewhere, he assumed that ‘six-pack-craig’ was the average single guy, (and still insisted that six-pack-craig should get married despite having an extremely satisfying life as a single guy).
FH,
He’s rather invested in it and gets paid to come to the same conclusions again and again. The beat down he received last time around should have made rethink his past conclusions or revisit his overriding premise but instead,
It is possible that Wilcucks secretly knows the truth, but is required by his employer to push a narrative. His lack of courage and integrity means he is not bothered by selling a lie.
This is in contrast with Jim Gay-ratty, who really is a true believer in the most laughably disprovable blue-pill myths.
I think there are a couple more gems worth sharing from the Prager/Gottlieb interview I linked to above:
* Most women that divorced their husbands said they were unhaaapy in their marriages. On a scale of 1 to 10, they rated them 7s. Most men who rated their marriage a 7 said they were happy.
* When asked if they would consider marry someone who was 80% of what they wanted, most men said yes because 80% is a great catch, and women said no because 80% would be settling.
* Men generally had three items that disqualified women from a second date. Women had 300, literally, mostly superficial things like his belt didn’t match his shoes.
So, in a nutshell, if a woman who is 80% of a man’s ideal and makes him happy to a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 is a catch, but a man who is 80% of a woman’s ideal and makes her happy to a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 is simply good enough and settling.
This Times article is hardly surprising given that it was written by the author of “How to Raise a Feminist Son” which caused a minor stir a few months back.
This is probably behind the moderate moral panic of the liberal elite. If you don’t have stable, elite marriage, how can you raise more feminist sons? How can you sustain the building blocks of the progressive utopia without it? The ugly hints of social breakdown that are appearing in the wake of the feminist imperative must be doubled down with Moar Feminist Marriage, Moar Feminist Sons. Red pilling is merely the last gasp of the old, patriarchal order, not young men seeing through the glorious and inexorable right side of Herstory.
They can hold onto the illusion for a while longer. The barbarians won’t be at the gated communities for a few decades yet.
@Pirran,
You make a good point. These movements are destined to collapse because they depend on the very thing that they vilify and attack.
Socialists love to rail against the wealthy and corporate profits, but depend on them to fund their vision of government. As Dennis Prager said in response to Elizabeth Warren’s anti oil company profits rant, Warren should be praying for more profits because that is how her big government programs get funded.
Likewise, feminists love to rail against the dread patriarchy, but their supposed “independence” depends on the forcible transfer of wealth from men who are told to act like patriarchs (i.e., man up).
The problem with all systems like this is when you make people responsible for things someone else gets to benefit from, you destroy the incentive to be responsible and create an incentive to be a parasite.
And let’s not forget this the next time an article about these great single females who can’t seem to find a man who will commit to them….blames it on Peter Pan syndrome and men being afraid of commitment.
You were very lucky. Had there been children involved you might have ended up sucking on lemons: handing over 50+% of your paycheck to your ex, seeing your children every other weekend and listening to them tell you awesome mommy’s live in boyfriend is (he has a motorcycle and tattoos!)
My parents graduated from HS 60 years ago. They were not “learned” in any way, and my Bachelor’s degree, under which I studied Calculus and Physics, was way beyond anything they learned. They weren’t well read or well spoken either, contrary to popular myth.
I made sure my kids understood what a millstone student loan debt could become. Between scholarships, P/T jobs and dad chipping in by supplying a car and cash, they graduated with only 20K of debt. This of course was because they attended the local State U and not some pricey 50K per year private school.
It is mind boggling that the Fed conjuring all that money into existence hasn’t created an inflationary economy (except for asset inflation, like housing).
Frank K @ 12:38 pm:
“It is mind boggling that the Fed conjuring all that money into existence hasn’t created an inflationary economy (except for asset inflation, like housing).”
It has but so far, the inflation has been confined to overseas. This is why the American dollar being the “world’s reserve currency” is such a big, big deal amongst the talking heads. It’s the monetary equivalent of Zero Point Energy. Once the dollar ceases to be the zero point for the global economy, all the Elites’ chickens will come home to roost.
Even then, we wouldn’t get away with hyperinflating everybody else except for the dollar being tied to the price of oil to give it real value. This is likely how the Saudis achieved their massive influence in our halls of power, and why fracking is such a politically sensitive topic. If America went oil-independent then the dollar wouldn’t be tied to foreign oil anymore and what’s happening in Venezuela would happen across the globe.
Cluing in to female hidden agendas and deceitful hysterics has helped me follow politics much better. Politicians aren’t lying to us specifically; they barely notice or care that we exist. They just play games of power and ego with each other in total ignorance of 1. unintended consequences and 2. Truth is always the last man standing. Exactly like women do.
It’s fascinating. Men who reject God behave exactly like women who reject unsexy men.
Gunner Q,
That is why the US must continue is overseas empire efforts. Letting go there would bring the whole house of cards down as well.
OT: Here’s the latest “winner” in the SMP.
An 8-year-old boy in California was beaten to death by his mother’s boyfriend for attempting to protect his little sister from the boyfriend, who was trying to rape her.
http://fox59.com/2017/09/25/boy-dies-after-being-beaten-with-hammer-while-protecting-sister-from-sex-abuse/
“Dante Daniels was brutally beaten with a hammer on Sept. 1. He died six days later.
According to a criminal complaint, 23-year-old Deandre Chaney Jr. was performing a criminal lewd act on Dante’s 7-year-old sister when the child stepped in to help.”
But wait, it gets worse. Check out the perp’s criminal record.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/21563/pure-evil-man-beats-8-year-old-boy-death-hammer-hank-berrien#
“In October 2016, he pleaded no contest to a charge of failing to register as a sex offender. In 2014, he pleaded no contest to a charge of felony battery with serious bodily injury. In 2011, he pleaded no contest to a charge of assault with a deadly weapon, Sacramento Superior Court records show. The record stretches for years before that, court documents show: charges of second-degree robbery in 2007; rape and forced oral copulation in 2007; forced oral copulation in 2008; lewd acts with a dependent adult as a caretaker in 2009… ”
The person most likely to physically abuse a child is that child’s single mom. The person most likely to sexually abuse a child, is that child’s single mom’s shack-up boyfriend. In fact, sex predators specifically target single moms’ children.
But married fathers are the real problem.
Oscar says:
September 27, 2017 at 2:45 pm
And of course the ghetto-ho mom will get off scot-free, even though she exposed her children to the PoS boyfriend, effectively serving them up to him on a silver platter with all the trimmings.
Missing the obvious:
I’m a Marxist-Feminist Slut — How Do I Find an Open Relationship?
http://archive.is/7UB0R (https://www.thenation.com/article/im-a-marxist-feminist-slut-how-do-i-find-an-open-relationship/)
Pingback: In which Dalrock and Deep Strength reject the reality of the College Funnel | The Practical Conservative
This is truly amusing. Marxists make the worst Marxists, I sweartagawd.
Feminism is perfectly congruent to capitalism, as both reduce everything to bare commodity. A ho’ sells her cunt in exactly the same way she sells her labor. It’s a completely alienated and reified exchange which negates the immanent material relations between two people, who become more than the sum of their parts when they properly couple up.
As Uncle Karl said…
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
And this ho’ is truly “having it all” as a laissez-faire member of capitalist society. A shame she’s never actually read any of the work she pretends to admire.
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Oscar:
Yet another horrible end to an innocent child’s life, thanks to some black-robed faggot who separated him from his father. I’ve been following these harrowing tales for a while. There’s no shortage of them.
What I find most interesting is the complete lack of acknowledgement that such little children had biological fathers someplace. In your example, the father has been totally erased. Why is this cuck of a journalist not giving a statement from dad? I don’t even see him mentioned.
When these men are mentioned, they’re usually alluded to knowing about the situation and approving of it. It’s really pathetic.
https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/another-heroic-single-mom/
RIP little brother.
Boxer
Maybe I’m just stating the obvious here, but:
The beauty of marriage 1.0 and Murray and Herrnstein’s suggestion to return to marriage’s unique legal status, is that it’s really simple for everyone to understand. In 1900, people who had no education beyond 8th grade could understand the rights, privileges and obligations that accompanied marriage. It was very easy to comprehend.
If you’re a man and you marry, then:
Rights/privileges: Legally sanctioned sex at reasonable intervals, the ultimate authority over your family, live with wife and children, ability to raise, train up, and educate your children in the manner you see fit
Obligations: Financial support of wife and children, legal responsibility for wife/children’s provisioning and education, legal responsibility for debts/conduct/torts/crimes of wife and children, first line of physical defense of wife, children, and property, sexual fidelity to wife
If you’re a woman and you marry, then:
Rights/privileges: Legal right to husband’s financial support, expectation of husband’s use of strength and brute force as physical defense/protection, authority over children (subject to husband), live with husband and children, ability to raise, train up, and educate your children in the manner you see fit
Obligations: Sex with husband exclusively and on demand (ooh, the hens over at you-know-where will really hate THAT one), guarantee husband’s paternity of her children, make and provide home/housekeeping, raise, rear, educate and train children, sexual fidelity to husband
These obligations are really quite simple and easy to understand. It is not at all difficult for the average man and the average woman with little education to do these things. It is not at all difficult for them to understand what they will get out of marriage, and what their duties to each other, their children, and to society, if they do decide to marry. Millions of average men and women with not much education or training could do these things, and did do these things, and did them well enough to make the society work. Of course there was unhaaaaaappiness, sometimes, but most of the time, it was OK.
I wrote this somewhere else, but it bears repeating: Marriage was OK for most people. Everyone knew it was hard work, and that they weren’t going to get everything they wanted. And it wasn’t about “making people happy all the time”.
Sure, the average guy wasn’t all that much, most of the time. He got out of 8th grade or high school and learned a trade, and he started earning some money. And he married a girl he knew from school or through friends, maybe from his town or the next town over. And she wasn’t awesome or the prettiest girl, but she was OK. She was nice to him, she wasn’t a total bitch all the time. They had sex a few times a month, and it was pretty good sex because they knew each other really well and cared about each other, and she didn’t cheat on him. She didn’t complain about sex because she hadn’t had sex with 15 different guys before she had met him. She wasn’t seething with disappointment because she didn’t get to marry Biff Quarterback or Stan Studly or Chad Thundercockington IV.
She did her level best to look good. She didn’t gain 100 pounds, she kept the house in good shape and cooked reasonably well, she worked sometimes to bring in some extra money, they got along well, she took good care of the kids, and they shared the same basic beliefs. He didn’t get Lauren Bacall or Rita Heyworth. But she was OK, and he was happy to have her.
And the average girl wasn’t all that much, most of the time. She finished 8th grade or high school and started making it plain when she was 18 or 19, that she was looking to get married pretty soon. Maybe she worked at the local factory or at her uncle’s shoe store. and she married a man she had met while out with her friends, or she knew from high school, maybe from her town or the next town over. And he wasn’t the “dreamiest” man, he wasn’t rich or granite-jawed, but he was OK. He wasn’t an asshole. He worked hard and earned for the family. He didn’t drink a lot, and he took care of the money. He could be gruff and tight lipped, but he treated her well. He didn’t beat her up, he didn’t get drunk every weekend, he wasn’t wasting money on drugs or whores, and he didn’t demand sex when she was tired or projectile vomiting. He did the “heavy lifting” around the house, he knew his way around a gun to protect the family, and he did a lot to raise her sons. He didn’t talk about his feelings much, but that was OK because most of the time, he was on an even keel and he handled what needed to be handled.
He wasn’t a total idiot when it came to girls. He had a dad, uncles and older brothers who showed him the ropes. He had had a couple of girlfriends, and had had sex with a couple of them. Once or twice he had had a couple of one nighters after a weekend of fun with his friends, but this was sowing wild oats and just a rite of passage. It wasn’t something he was super ashamed of; but he wasn’t really all that proud of it either. He didn’t have women blaring in his ears 24/7/365 about “just be nice, just be yourself, give her whatever she wants. He didn’t have a nonstop feminist campaign calling him a racist sexist homophobic pig rapist all the time. She didn’t get Cary Grant or Steve McQueen. But he was OK, and she was happy to have him.
____
Looking over this list, we can definitely see why Marriage 1.0 is no longer in force. Take a look at husband’s rights (sex with wife) and wife’s obligations (sex with H and ONLY with H, guarantee H’s paternity). The bottom line is that women didn’t want to be limited to sex with one man, or to have to depend on that man for financial support. Too many girls growing up in the post-war period in the late 40s to the early 60s saw Mom married to a man she was “eh, meh” about, and was unhaaaaappy, and said “nope, not doing that”.
And over time, wives’ obligations have been reduced to near-nothing; while husbands’ obligations remain unchanged. Husbands are STILL expected to do everything under their “obligations”, while their rights/privileges have been reduced to near-nothing. Wives want all the rights and privileges, with no obligations; while demanding that husband take on ever-increasing burdens and obligations and at the same time removing all their husbandly privileges.
And once artificial birth control came on the horizon it gave them the false sense of security they could have sex with rockdrummer bad boy without becoming pregnant. They could also have a career too now that they weren’t ‘shackled’ down by having sex = children. Sexual immorality aided by contraception, abortion, and no fault for the most part killed traditional marriage and the roles.
Earl:
Yes. But the point is how simple and uncomplicated Marriage 1.0 was. Anyone could do it. (Note I said simple. I didn’t say “easy”.) That’s just not the case now.
Marriage 2.0 made it much more complicated. Marriage now requires a college degree just so you can support a wife. You are navigating a minefield, and not getting blown up depends more on luck than it does on diligence, perseverance, care or commitment.
Deti,
I would question whether this was really accurate for most of them. It would also mean most of the women marrying did the same, which would not be nearly as acceptable.
It may have been more true in the time of transition from 1.0 to 2.0, but that is a much different time and does not mean it was a core principle for Marriage 1.0.
Billy:
Could be. Maybe a few went in with N=2 or 3. I’d suggest that back then, a lot of women were N=1 or 2 because they had sex with one “serious boyfriend”. And more than a few men had been that “serious boyfriend”, or had had sex with a “loose woman” or a prostitute.
I don’t think by any means that the vast majority of men or women were total virgins. We’ve always had cads and sluts with us.
Even back in those days there were shotgun weddings…which I think is a viable option. You made the choice to fornicate and have a child…you should be married for that child.
You want to marry the woman of your own free will…don’t impregnate a chick.
@ Boxer says:
September 27, 2017 at 4:05 pm
“RIP little brother.”
You know what the worst part is? Despite his atrocious upbringing, little Dante possessed the raw material to make a good man. He died protecting his little sister from a rapist, for goodness sake! I’ve served three combat tours and never done anything that heroic!
But now we’ll never know what kind of man little Dante would’ve grown into, because his “mother” served him and his little sister on a platter to a psychopathic rapist because the rapist gave her the tingles.
Story said his heart was transplanted into a 4 year old….so at least that part of him will live on.
We should know by now that most single mothers are terrible decision makers…they’re single mothers. A life filled with poverty, often drugs and promiscuity and nothing but stress. I’d bet they are the prime group that is big into the ‘dark triad’ men.
I don’t often go back to Heartiste…however here’s an interesting post about another type of divorce that is on the increase. ‘The Fleece Marriage’ If this is true…that’s an even bigger death knell for women waiting through their 30s trying to get married. Thoughts? Ever see it in meatspace?
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/the-fleece-marriage/
@Frank K
My parents live in a nice neighborhood. I was talking to their next door neighbors a couple of months ago. They are sending their very bright son to the local junior college. Good looking and sociable kid, not nerdy. But the university costs scared off the parents. Turns out the JC is in walking distance and that is exactly what he is doing now: walking. I told the boy, look on the bright side, your parents are doing their best to see you through without debt, that is the best gift they could give you at this point in your life. So put in the work, make something of yourself. And oh by the way, don’t get a girl pregnant… he laughed and told me he knew how the girls were and there was no way he was getting trapped any time soon. Yes he used that word.
@earl
Not that common, but I have seen it happen.
I concur that higher IQ is (probably) the main reason why those people tend to get (and stay) married. But that just further reinforces the concept of hypergamy and especially, Briffault’s Law. After all, if you are woman, you are going to want to marry UP and marry smart, and if nailed a smart one down with marriage, why divorce it if you can’t instantly trade up on IQ?
Okay, so now, low IQ men are f-cked for life. They are done. What chance do they have for a stable marriage in a 1st world, information age based society? None that I can see. That is probably reason #1 why our opiod crisis is so rampant and why so many young men are dying by overdosing or outright suicide. They were born with a low IQ and (as such) have no reason to live.
God is weeping.
The “fleece” marriage fits into the child-support model perfectly.
Anecdotes on websites are not data.
They’re working the system the way they should. The Community College doesn’t teach an inferior form of French. Carbon doesn’t behave any differently in their labs than it does down at the Jesuit U. Moreover, there are fewer temptations to drink all night at the frat house, or start banging the skeezers at the mixers they don’t have.
If little Johnny plays it right: rides the bus, turns in work on time, doesn’t waste time with hoes or smoking dope, and keeps his grades up, he can get a scholarship to the big U anyway. He will be way ahead.
Unless you attend one of the top five schools, it doesn’t matter which university you attend.
For example, I’m an engineer. Unless you attend MIT, or Cal Polytech, where you earned your engineering degree has negligible bearing on your success. Go to community college, then finish your engineering degree at the least expensive state school you can (or the one that offers you the biggest scholarship), get good grades, work an internship, and you’re set.
The same is true – to my knowledge – of most other professions that actually require a college degree.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Oscar, at the non-elite level, yes you are correct.
I have no idea where any of my colleagues went to graduate school. I had a supervisor when I was in my 3rd year practicum who went to Yale. This was significant because, well, nobody goes to Yale.
But in order to be a licensed clinical psychologist, the APA dictates the minimum requirements, the subjects that have to be covered, the hours spent on each subject, in order to standardize what it means to have a PhD in Clinical Psychology. All the programs have comps (competency exams) at each level. They all have original data requirements for dissertations, etc. Then, in order to obtain the license piece, you have to go to an internship with a certain number of clinical contact hours with specific types of patients, populations, evaluations, therapy, etc. THEN you have the post internship/post doctoral hours piece–all supervised by senior licensed clinical psychologists. THEN you have to take the EPPP–another standardized test and you must obtain a scaled score of 500 or better in most states to get licensed. The term “psychologist” is actually a legally protected term in all 50 states–it is unlawful to identify yourself as such unless you have done all the previous.
So if someone comes in to my AO and calls themselves a psychologist, I know they have at least been through all that.
So the name of the school on the degree itself? Negligible, unless you are top-tier researcher/producer of academic literature.
So if someone comes in to my AO and calls themselves a psychologist, I know they have at least been through all that.
I’ll add to this–or they have committed an enormous amount of academic fraud.
That is mostly true IMO Oscar, but only because most degrees are worthless to the point that the major might as well be left off the diploma, as well as leaving off the school name. I don’t even consider non-STEM/non-trades schooling to count as actual degrees. That is, if a degree didn’t involve Calculus, hands-on medical, or using tools in a non-climate controlled environment, I don’t consider someone with one to be anything more than a HS graduate.
Further, any degree put out by a College of Education not only does not count, IMO it negates one degree on a 1-1 basis. Graduate from HS, get a B.A. in Early Childhood Watching, I mean, Education, and IMO you dropped out in 9th grade BC it was too challenging.
And, I don’t recognize any degrees at all from the Third World, or Second World degree past the Bachelor’s degree level. (M.D.s from Russia commonly have no more on the ball than do the better R.N.s here, tops.)
Luke-
Interesting approach. I’m not sure though. For example, if a patient tells me they have lost vision in a particular quadrant of their field of view, I can be pretty precise about where the lesion is putting pressure on the optic nerve–before they ever get an MRI. This can be very useful and even life saving.
I had to go school for a long time to learn stuff like that, and I never used calculus there.
Dear Fellas:
Scott sez:
I have an undergrad math degree, and I’ve taught the calculus series at community college — which takes a full 18 months to do properly. People who claim it’s the prerequisite to being educated simply don’t know what they’re talking about. Very few people need to know the calculus of the real numbers to succeed in adulthood.
A bit of a counterexample: Spanish, Portuguese and French are spoken as first languages by tens of millions of people in the Americas. They’re arguably just as useful as multivariable calculus, but Luke doesn’t seem to be insisting that people need to demonstrate proficiency in one of those areas before he takes them seriously. Why not? It’s a mystery. I’m guessing because Luke had to take calculus, and now he likes to pretend superiority to everyone who didn’t need to study it.
A successful person can hire one person who speaks French, in the same way he can hire one engineer, and those people can do what work those technical skills require for his firm.
A minor concession: I do wish everyone would at least take a basic survey course (one semester – perhaps at the end of high school) of limit laws, differentiation and integration. Such people wouldn’t need to learn Cauchy’s epsilon-delta definition or anything like that. Just the basic ideas.
The precalculus math (higher algebra and trigonometry) is very difficult, and required to get a high school diploma. Calculus is the culmination of this required knowledge. It’s much easier to understand than algebra or trigonometry, and more elegant. People say they hate mathematics, because they were force-fed a bunch of stuff that turns out to be pointless, only because it’s not capped off with the philosophical end result. If students did this, they’d at least see what engineers and technical types do with the stuff we all had to slog through.
Luke sez:
I don’t have an education degree, but I’ve talked to tons of high school math teachers. There’s actually a ton of theory behind properly teaching kids how to do their algebra homework, and those degrees are useful. tl;dr, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Quit preening.
Regards,
Boxer
We kept my daughter in our community college until she decided what she wanted to do, then she worked through to an Associates’ degree there. No debt at that point, and with an Associates’, there’s no struggle over which credits will transfer or not. Then two more years at a second-tier state school for her Med Tech, and a third year of internship at a highly rated hospital associated with the school. By age 22 she was married, working full time in a hospital lab, and paying into Social Security (which I am up for in a couple of years). A total of $30K of debt, of which I paid $10K before she was married, and they paid off the other $20K in three years.
He did college on G.I. Bill, and took out no loans.
Now they’re enjoying the freedom of having good salaries and no lingering college debt at age 30.
I got my MS at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. A few months before graduating in 1995, IBM, General Electric, Dow Chemical, and Chrysler Corporation all called me. It was tj connections and reputation my grad school has and I had a needed degree and skill at the time.
Connections help, the prestige of the school can help….but after five / ten years it really doesn’t matter where you went….future growth in your professional life depends on you after that to an extent.
The draconian consequences of divorce on men and their children is such that the best solution is never to have the problem.
The “fleece” marriage fits into the child-support model perfectly.
Anecdotes on websites are not data.
My sympathy for any new men who get suckered in this way as of 2017 is limited to zero. Remember, I set the deadline of 12/31/2015 (long before the actual date) after which men who make these mistakes bear culpability for not reading androsphere content. Many are manginas or cuckservatives who fully deserve it anyway. Some don’t deserve it, but if they are still blue pill as of 2017 and upvoting Prager U videos, this is a necessary purging of idiots.
A man’s tax rate should be precisely inversely correlated to how red pill he is. This is effectively an imprecise form of that.
Our policy prescription in this instance is to return marriage to its formerly unique legal status. If you are married, you take on obligations. If you are not married, you don’t. In particular, we urge that marriage once again become the sole legal institution through which rights and responsibilities regarding children are exercised. If you are an unmarried mother, you have no legal basis for demanding that the father of the child provide support. If you are an unmarried father, you have no legal standing regarding the child–not even a right to see the child, let alone any basis honored by society for claiming he or she is “yours” or that you are a “father.”
I don’t know about other common law countries, but in Australia, the legal discrimination against ex-nuptial children (“bastards”, in the truest sense of the word) was removed from the law. What forms did this discrimination take? The most important one related to inheritance – a bastard could only take a share after legitimate children (if at all). The relative ease or ability to be granted citizenship was another, as was eligibility for certain government benefits and pensions etc.
It’s quite obvious that most Western countries have removed the impact of negative consequences from making poor choices. So what is there to stop an idiot from making a mistake if the idiot knows that nothing bad can happen?
It is quite obvious that once full democracy begins, marriage will swiftly be destroyed. It is truly unavoidable, since the FI will see the role of elections as modifying marriage to such an extent as to destroy it.
People still think that marriage can coexist with democracy. Over time, it cannot.
Marriage is now only for the elite and even then, it boggles the mind why any ‘elite’ man who actually ‘gets it’ would want to be married. It provides no benefit to an elite man, only a benefit to the woman he marries and any children he might have.
The one potential benefit is raised social status. It opens doors, so to speak, helps establish lucrative connections, as long as your new father-in-law is some big shot. Remaining a bachelor is sort of frowned upon in the upper class, unless you’re some sort of notorious womanizer and adventurer, or some similar type of outlier.
Oscar: Unless you attend one of the top five schools, it doesn’t matter which university you attend.
The benefits of attending Harvard derive not from the quality of their education, but from the status of their students. The sons and daughters of celebrities, media barons, foreign leaders, corporate CEOs, and leaders in the fields of law, medicine, politics, finance, journalism etc. Harvard is a place to make social connections, so you have a great, high-paying, high-status job lined up for when you graduate.
FWIW, I attended NYU in the 1980s. Total cost of my tuition, upon graduation, was $12,000. I lived at home, taking the subway to school, so there were no dormitory costs.
I majored in the arts (no Calculus or Physics), so the courses were easy. I actually took a class in The Horror Film. I watched horror movies. No tests. Just one paper at the end of the course.
For the love of God, enough with people like Lori Gottleib. Even an ID analyst sees through her fake words and claim to fame (link above is old, but very relative):
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/dont_settle_for_the_man_you_wa.html
If that’s the game the man wants to play, then let him play. Being a bachelor has always been a tricky position, however, now the shoe is on the other foot in that being a married man is also a tricky position and he could lose half his wealth in a flash and fall down in social status just because his wife decides she needs to go find herself.
I just wanted to add a very brief addendum to mine at 01.19 yesterday, where I quote Thomas Sowell and his phrase ‘self-congratulation as a basis for social policy’. I see that one of Heartiste’s commenters has effectively reduced this tendency of the elite to just one perceptive word: Auto-Deification.
Went to a JUCO for 2 years, state University for 3…graduated 13K in debt in the mid 2000s which has since been paid off. I was pretty lucky considering the numbers I’ve heard people coming out with since then.
Academic alimony is a perfect term for what it is. Upside is unlike actual alimony you eventually stop paying it.
The anecdotes were more to see if there are women actually scheming this idea. Given how many of them are going long into their 30s without a child and the subsequent divorce support…it wouldn’t surprise me if they try to trick a sucker into it, get one child and then divorce him quickly when the child isn’t an infant anymore to get the cash. I didn’t know if they are being that brazen yet.
The matter of Fees for Tertiary education understandably is meat for the Manosphere.
America is more advanced than anywhere else and so creates new problems for resolution. When I was of that age most boys left school at fifteen, only a very small percentage went on (even assuming they took O’levels and then went on to A’levels) to Tertiary education. Aged sixteen therefore with a clutch of O’levels to ones name and assuming one did not then leave school as many (such as my Father) had done one would make a final choice between Arts subjects and Science subjects and the two were seen as equally valid. Eng Lit was NOT seen as just another soft option – I have always noticed by-the-way that when it comes to Literature and Music, the scientifically literate are largely so-to-say tone-deaf. A grasp of such things is no more innate than kicking a ball (something which I found did not come naturally to Americans who had never played Soccer – a great surprise that). There were at that time I was young only a dozen or so Universities in the country and much smaller than they now are.
Although my parents had paid for my Secondary education, when I embarked on Tertiary education – and I studied not once but twice (Law; Music in that order) – I never paid nor owed one penny; Tertiary education was free or rather funded entirely by Her Majesty’s local government. I don’t think writing a Fugue is exactly a soft option. Few females attended.
Word of warning: should you ever be in London and need to use a public phone-box you will see card advertising both O’ and A’ levels. If it is knowledge that you are after please disregard these cards – unless the knowledge you seek is Carnal.
The fruits of sexual immorality…I believe Jason eluded to it going on in Fresno. Boxer might want to quit the cad ways for his own health. I used to live in a leftist wing city not in California and every year the stats kept going up with this too.
‘California STD Rates At All-Time High’
http://www.dailywire.com/news/21607/california-std-rates-all-time-high-paul-bois?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=091817-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Speaking of forethought and an appreciation of second-hand and third-hand consequences, has Murray ever taken a right/wrong stance on contraception, abortion, or no-fault divorce or is he all just, ‘hey, I’m just the messenger here’, or something else?
Deti,
You are equated 2 different things and probably not going back far enough. Think back 100-200 years ago. Cads and sluts certainly existed then, but they were not as socially acceptable and thus were in the minority.
Though even the ideas of girlfriends and boyfriends was a very recent invention. Dating is a recent invention contrary to the thoughts of many who think it was instituted at Creation.
Earl,
I caused my parents to marry. I could easily have been a statistic, given the year that happened, but the “old ways” were still governing many then.
@Earl – ‘California STD Rates At All-Time High’
When you read a lot of the articles about the increase in STDs recently, you realize most of the increase comes from male-to-male increases in gonorrhea and syphilis. But, the media will never let you know this unless you read to the bottom of the articles.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2017/09/27/stds-hit-record-high-in-us-2m-cases-reported-in-2016.html
Nevertheless, I’m sure another Slutwalk will bring those rates down.
Billy S gives me the chance to reprise something I was thinking about this afternoon and so as to show the change in female behaviour in the last half century. Cads are of course entirely dependent on female willingness to facilitate and otherwise will not exist.
I mentioned Law College. In my class there were thirty sex males and four females. This seemed perfectly normal. Of the four females, one, a rather non-descript girl was already married and to one of the male students. They sat together up-front. Of the other three, one was less attractive and made up for that by an outspoken quickness of wit. This left the two hawt chicks, one blonde, the other brunette; both tallish and slim, mini-skirted, though always demur in their behaviour. They always sat together towards the back; myself and the other really-bad boys sitting behind them in the back row. Of the two, the brunette married shortly thereafter and moved to the Bahamas. The last time I saw the blonde a group of us were in a public house when she felt the need to pour a full pint of beer over my head. What a waste of beer as much as a signal (I say) for my attention. I sexually preferred the brunette so perhaps that had something to do with it. She had as some of the English do a surname which was spelt in an entirely different manner to its pronunciation.
With such a small cohort of females (on a campus of no more than one hundred and sixty) they perforce remained aloofly unavailable; no chance for ‘Rape Culture’.
As for Conservatoire, all my lessons were one-on-one with my Professor. and so I was largely unaware of the females save for the sounds of Sopranos practicing and usually singing Carmen coming from the non sound-proofed rooms.
Okay, so now, low IQ men are f-cked for life. They are done. What chance do they have for a stable marriage in a 1st world, information age based society? None that I can see. That is probably reason #1 why our opiod crisis is so rampant and why so many young men are dying by overdosing or outright suicide. They were born with a low IQ and (as such) have no reason to live.
Well, if you ask Kevin Williamson, he’d inform you that their plight is their own fault, because they mulishly refuse to move anywhere and anywhere in America there may be jobs.
The benefits of attending Harvard derive not from the quality of their education, but from the status of their students. The sons and daughters of celebrities, media barons, foreign leaders, corporate CEOs, and leaders in the fields of law, medicine, politics, finance, journalism etc. Harvard is a place to make social connections, so you have a great, high-paying, high-status job lined up for when you graduate.
Yes, which is why it is known as “credentialing,” not “education.” Education is available from many, many institutions; credentialing, only a select few.
@ Red Pill Latecomer says:
September 28, 2017 at 3:08 am
“The benefits of attending Harvard derive not from the quality of their education, but from the status of their students.”
That is correct. The kinds of connections one can make an Ivy League snob factory are priceless. For most of us, that’s out of the question. But, fortunately for most of us, it doesn’t matter.
‘Nevertheless, I’m sure another Slutwalk will bring those rates down.’
Yes homosexual activity will certainly increase the STDs…and let’s not forget the type of woman who hangs out with that crowd. They are certainly in the more sexually immoral side.
‘Nevertheless, I’m sure another Slutwalk will bring those rates down.’
Yes homosexual activity will certainly increase the STDs…and let’s not forget the type of woman who hangs out with that crowd. They are certainly in the more sexually immoral side.
innocentbystanderboston @ September 27, 2017 at 7:13 pm:
Okay, so now, low IQ men are f-cked for life. They are done. What chance do they have for a stable marriage in a 1st world, information age based society?
It’s illegal immigration and factory outsourcing that has done for the lower half. Humanity will never achieve a world in which there’s little highly physical, routine-yet-unsuitable-for-automation work. Anybody who thinks otherwise has been hanging out in an Internet cafe for too long.
…
earlthomas786 @ 6:51 am:
“California STD Rates At All-Time High”
This is why I let my First Aid/CPR certifications lapse. I’m not touching a stranger’s blood even with gloves, not in today’s urban California. It’s a bad time to be a hero.
My wife used to work at the local public library in our town. The library has a decent sized computer lab (about 80 PCs) which people mostly use to for surfing the web (the library also has free WIFI, so you can also bring your laptop in and use it).
What was interesting about the computer lab was that it was used by young men from out of town to look for work in our little burg, usually by using Craigslist. From what was learned these men would arrive in town, couch surf or stay at homeless shelter and look for work, those who failed to find one (and most would fail) would then move on to the next town, and try again.
It really is hopeless for them,
And factory automation too. And in other fields as well. Today is trash collection day in my neighborhood. The garbage truck that comes by has a large pincer that grabs the city issued bin, lifts it and empties it into the truck. There is only a driver now. The second guy, who would empty your trash can, is gone. I’m sure some geeks at google are working on eliminating the driver too.
Illegal immigration has certainly hurt the trades, especially construction.
And if you are a “knowledge worker” there is the flood of H1-Bs to make life interesting.
A reminder from Paul:
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
Galations 6:7-8
One of the last bastions of the “male working class” in California are janitors and truck drivers. California is pushing the driverless car thing hard-core, and “drones” have started delivering some packages in test markets (Fresno included). It will be only a matter of time before many of these jobs downsize (cough) “rightsize” and not as many drivers will be needed. The ones that are left in the short haul sector, the pay will go down significantly to stay competitive. I don’t see the long haul sector being hit as hard, but that too will be affected once the technology gets better.
Not as many janitors will be needed either. It was never a job for the most part that paid well, but it was stable and steady work for many. The saving grace was that a man could get 40 hours a week. The future of this thankless field is going to be combined into “maintenance” as well. A janitor that can fix things, basic repairs will be combined into his duties. Also, with the “office” building slowly becoming the fixture of the 20th century…….not as many janitors will be needed, or it will continued to be contracted out. Some automation will also reduce hours and keep pay low. School districts, county and state facilities, and hospitals are already squeezing janitorial staff hard, and there will be more work to do with less room for growth and a still growing HR / administrative segment run mostly by women that love telling a man “what to do”
In the housekeeping side, maid service / domestic servant type of thing….this area is still dominated by women, usually immigrant, usually under the table and treated pretty shabbily by the housewives / women who supervise them. A man who wants to break into this area for work should have his head examined.
I can’t remember the last big place I worked where the janitorial work wasn’t contracted out and performed by Hispanics. Ditto with security, the cafeteria, landscaping, etc. Heck, a big chunk of the “knowledge workers” are often temps. Welcome to the “gig economy”.
At the smaller places it seemed that janitorial duties would fall on the secretary/receptionist or someone else at the bottom of the food chain.
Yeah this is why I see the merit of chastity and only marrying a virgin woman. There’s plenty of sodomites out there who don’t just keep the death intercourse confined to homosexuals. I can’t imagine your average thot is that discerning when it comes to men she has sex with.
@ Frank K says:
September 28, 2017 at 12:28 pm
“I can’t remember the last big place I worked where the janitorial work wasn’t contracted out and performed by Hispanics. Ditto with security, the cafeteria, landscaping, etc. Heck, a big chunk of the “knowledge workers” are often temps. Welcome to the ‘gig economy’.”
At the manufacturing plant where I work, the janitorial staff is all contracted out to another company, as are the cafeteria staff, the security force and the facility engineering staff. The facility engineering contractor subcontracts the maintenance work on a per-job basis.
Frank K @ 10:21 am:
“And factory automation too.”
No, automation has done a great deal of good. Futurists can’t understand the difference between “tech that makes our lives easier” and “tech that replaces us”. The two forms rarely overlap.
“The garbage truck that comes by has a large pincer that grabs the city issued bin, lifts it and empties it into the truck. There is only a driver now.”
A case in point. The trash guys in my area still work in pairs because the pincers can’t always grab containers without bumping stuff and the truck itself can’t fit through every turn and driveway. The major consequence of “The Claw” is the second guy doesn’t have a damaged spine after fifteen years of very heavy lifting. This is good.
The trash companies that do field one-man teams, I bet that one man is either working more hours than he used to (additional duties) or super-picky about the spacing of trash containers or hitting cars parked too close to the containers… inefficiencies that aren’t always visible. Or, it’s a two-person team and the female person couldn’t work because she’s on her second year of paid maternity leave.
By contrast, driverless cars are worthless. Many people enjoy driving, the tech that makes it possible is incredibly complex/fragile/expensive and the natural world is simply not predictable enough for this to ever become a smart idea. Even modern trains are rarely driverless and those literally run on rails.
And drones carrying potentially valuable packages? They’ll just get shot down by dindus playing an entire new kind of “ghetto lottery”. If TPTB double down then we’ll have drones dropping sectional sofas over downtown because pigeons got blendered in the propellers. By the way, where are these drones going to land their cargoes? Are we going to start banning trees in the name of drone safety? Sounds like those unemployed deliverymen will be quickly rehired to work air traffic control… to make deliveries.
Listen to the futurists and you’ll hear them say that tech will improve until all humanity is obsolete except for the futurists. Hmm. Me, I think if the Industrial Revolution was going to cause mass unemployment then it would have happened before 1965 when our Elites convinced people there weren’t enough workers in North America.
Gunner Q: Many people enjoy driving,
Really? You must not live in a high traffic area. The freeways in Los Angeles are rightly reputed to be a parking lot: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-worst-traffic-20160314-story.html
L.A. freeways inspire frustration and road rage. Millions would rather spend their driving time sleeping, reading, or watching TV while the car drives automatically.
Traffic would also move a lot faster. One big reason for traffic jams are people disobeying traffic laws. Always changing lanes, trying to cut ahead of other cars on the exit ramps, etc.
One reason I keep thinking of moving out of California is to avoid the traffic.
Nope, it’s just been the driver for years, on the garbage truck, the recycling truck and the yard waste truck.
We are instructed to space the containers. I’ve seen the claw fail a few times over the years and the driver had to jump out and align the trash can. I think the claw also works better now than before, as I’ve seen it wiggle the trash cans to align them right and the driver no longer hops out. It’s impressive to watch, not sure how much of that improvement is automation vs, the driver using a joystick, but it’s fast. But I could see the automation not working so well in tight urban settings.
I don’t know about the truck taking longer since there is no second dude on board. It whisks down the street rather quickly. The trucks also double as neighborhood snow plows in the winter. Give it time.
As for two year maternity leave … not in our little town. As I mentioned before, my wife used to work for the public library and was thus a city employee. We have this thing in Colorado called TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights). TABOR keeps .gov spending in check here (the leftist Dems hate it). My wife’s benefits at the library were not splendid. No pension plan, just a 403B. Bennies were fairly in line with the private sector. Health Insurance was a meager HD policy and we would have had to fully pay the premiums for mine and the kids coverage. Fortunately my private sector insurance was much better, so we used that instead.
As for people liking driving, your mileage may vary. Out where we live, kids can’t wait to get their license, but it is my understanding that in other parts of the country it’s not like that and parents have to nag their kids into getting a DL. From what I have also read, millennials like to live and work downtown (even in Denver) because that way they don’t have to drive. If it’s close they walk or ride their bike, otherwise there’s the bus or Uber.
As for automation making life better, well, it does … as long as your job doesn’t go away. What I have read about automation in factories is not only does it require fewer workers, it requires smarter workers. Workers who are computer literate and have decent math and problem solving skills. A lot of oldsters and more than a few youngsters don’t have the chops to work the new factory jobs.
Think about the biggest employer in the US: Walmart. That is an operation that is ripe for AI automation in the coming decades. Currently, about 1.5 million people work there. Imagine if just 50% of them are replaced by AI based automation. What will they do? Go work at Target? It’s going to be the same there. Those people won’t have the aptitude to retrain for higher level work, so they’ll be going on Welfare.
Yes, there are jobs that won’t get automated away, at least not right away. Building trades come to mind. I don’t see a droid repairing my car anytime soon, though I could see tasks like oil changes or tire rotations being automated. This isn’t going to happen all at once, just like how factories weren’t offshored all at once.
I agree that flying drones are not a great idea. But the UPS truck has been getting automated, mostly to make the driver more efficient. But I could see the truck becoming self driving and the human would simply deliver the packages, again increasing efficiency and requiring fewer employees. We know that Amazon is looking forward to the day when goods are packaged for shipping entirely by automation, and are working on it.
This can’t be stopped.
Poke,
I read ALL of Kevin Williamson’s “U-Haul” essays. Absent from the logical position that he was arguing was an actual destination where these marginal-IQ-men could settle and build their lives. I’m not even sure they are still hiring in Baakan oil fields of North Dakota.
RPL,
One reason I keep thinking of moving out of California is to avoid the traffic.
It would be far more logical to get a job that allows occasional working from home, or flexible presence in the office to avoid rush hour traffic.
It makes no sense to leave California to go to a place that probably has similar traffic. California’s population is not rising faster than the national average, given their unchanged count of electoral votes over the last two censuses.
GunnerQ,
Futurists can’t understand the difference between “tech that makes our lives easier” and “tech that replaces us”.
False. You are confusing the fraudulent wannabees with actual Futurists (of which there are onoly 6-10 in the whole world, with demonstrably accurate time-stamped track records going back 10 years or more).
To call the frauds you are describing Futurists is just as big of an error as to assume that ‘male feminists’ are attractive to women.
@ earlthomas786, September 28, 2017 at 6:51 am: “Gonorrhea may become resistant to all antibiotics sooner than anticipated.” https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/gonorrhea-antibiotic-resistance/
haven’t been here in a while. This is an outstanding article with great comments. Dalrock you need to be on Ben Carson’s staff. If not that in Austin working with the legislature
Outstanding.
OT but within the spirit of the OP:
So much of what I’ve learned at Dalrock written between the lines of this article. Heroic single moms just keep playing to stereotype.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2017/09/28/mom-arrested-after-leaving-kids-home-go-trip-germany/714984001/
I think we can safely predict three developments: married men will become an increasingly homogeneous and socially isolated demographic; their percentage among the male population will keep dropping; there will be less and less empathy and understanding between married men and single men.
One can wonder about the probable social implications of emerging antibiotic-resistant i.e. untreatable venereal diseases, and the rising rate of venereal disease in general. (The politically correct definition is “sexually transmitted infection” or so I’ve heard.) One recurring argument in the Red Pill world is that frequent sexual activity is pretty much concentrated in clearly defined demographics – homosexual/bisexual men, chads, alpha thugs and slutty women, basically. There’s a clearer and clearer boundary between sexually successful and sexually unsuccessful men, between romantically successful (if that’s even a word) and romantically unsuccessful women. The majority of women and an even bigger majority of men face no real risk of getting an STI. I don’t think they’ll have much sympathy for infected people (although women tend not to be vocal about such opinions), and this will become yet another source of social strife and division as STIs are increasingly portrayed as a national health crisis.
Hey Gents,
Did you know that Jesus was a BIGOT? It’s true! Just let this lesbian “bishop” explain it to you!
https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/09/26/lesbian-bishop-calls-jesus-bigot/
“If Jesus can change, if he can give up his bigotries and prejudices, if he can realize that he had made his life too small, and if, in this realization, he grew closer to others and closer to God, than so can we.” ~ United Methodist Church lesbishop Dr. Karen Oliveto
Did you further know that it’s possible to make Jesus an idol? No, seriously!
“Too many folks want to box Jesus in, carve him in stone, create an idol out of him. But this story cracks the pedestal we’ve put him on.” ~ United Methodist Church lesbishop Dr. Karen Oliveto
Here’s the full sermon.
United Methodist Church lesbishop Dr. Karen Oliveto
Anybody out there still need convincing that “Methodist” no longer = Christian?
METHodism: Not even once!
Oh, man! If you think Lesbishop Oliveto’s sermon is bad, you should read the Facebook comments!
There’s traffic and there’s LA traffic. Denver has traffic jams, with a few notorious bottlenecks, but nothing like I’ve seen in LA. And for many, telecommuting is not an option. Heck, even as a SW Engineer, I have found that most employers want you in your (as Dilbert would call it) cloth covered box every day of the work week.
I envision the Wesley brothers apologizing to the Lord.
This reminds me of an anecdote, where I was telling a woman about how Jesus saved an adulteress from being stoned and instructed her to go and sin no more. When she heard this the woman became livid and said “Who is he to tell her that?”
After I recovered from my shock I told her “He is your Lord and God, that’s who He is.”
She didn’t seem terribly impressed. She was raised Anglican, so I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised. Many are called, but few are chosen.
California traffic? Some of it is frankly bad driving. When I did have a car (mid 1990’s) you have people cruising at 35-40 mph on a merge lane trying to get into traffic that is moving 65-75 mph…and the nonsense of Highway 17 coming out of Santa Cruz into Los Gatos / San Jose basin…….and don’t get me started on Asians. It’s a joke here in California when someone from east Asia arrives in California, they are issued a drivers license upon arrival.
I was one of those folks who wanted cameras set up in the 1990’s as the highway came into Los Gatos / San Jose basin. The first wave of folks driving in would put on their brakes for zero reason, backing up traffic almost 20 miles back into Santa Cruz every day. A twenty minute drive turned into an hour and a half……..After I moved to San Francisco in late 1996, I sold the car (a 1994 Plymouth Neon) three months later. I got tired of coming back from San Jose (a murderous drive up the peninsula) and then driving another hour around my neighborhood trying to find a parking spot on the street. The place I rented back then only had one parking spot in the driveway. I was renting a room in a large Victorian in the lower Haight-Ashbury. I took the train to San Jose after that, and IBM had a shuttle at the San Jose Diridon Station downtown.
Even after living in San Francisco for ten years, I still could not believe how many San Franciscans OWN a car in that city. It’s mid boggling. You don’t need a car in San Francisco. You don’t. “Oh but I have kids…” take the bus. Uber / Lyft. Take a cab. You can get around town pretty easily at all hours at a decent cost. You need to leave town to visit Yosemite? Wine country? RENT A CAR for the day. Better yet? MOVE to San Jose. Move to Oakland. Move to Palo Alto where there is plenty of parking
Driverless cars won’t solve San Francisco’s traffic issues. Smug liberalism is the problem, you know “Public transportation is a great idea! For somebody else!!” is the mentality there 🙂
Red Pill Latecomer @ September 28, 2017 at 7:03 pm:
“Many people enjoy driving,”
“Really? You must not live in a high traffic area.”
I do and I enjoy driving despite the traffic. Plenty of guys I know also like being “on the go”. The record is a friend of mine who had a three-hour daily commute round-trip. He bought a motorcycle to thread the lanes and the bike paid for itself in two years of reduced fuel/maintenance.
The wind in the hair, the bugs in the teeth and the Elites fuming because he didn’t ask permission before going where he wanted.
Or why female clergy…not even once.
@Hollenhund
“…and this will become yet another source of social strife and division as STIs are increasingly portrayed as a national health crisis.”
I’m in the unfortunate genX cohort who came of age, sexually speaking, right when the powers that be turned the AIDS propaganda machine up to 11. I can still remember clear as day, as a sophomore in college on the team bus returning from a game hearing the news on the radio: Magic Johnson was HIV Pozz.
This was the shock-and-awe that struck fear into our loins. You could (and probably would!) die from having sex. That fear that would linger through grad school and then – just as mysteriously, melt away. In just a handful of years, guys would be pounding out co-eds in the bathroom stalls, or somesuch, with only mild anxiety in those with long-time preference.
Of course, the younger lads got a bigger dose of “Rape Culture”, which would pick up where AIDS left off and pretty much finish the job of condensing the 80/20 into the 90/10.
Fast forward, and there are pharma quasi-cures for AIDS and young people just seem to have a vague idea that something nasty lurks but are more concerned – which is to say not really concerned, about an annoying rash getting in the way of their next Tindr “date”.
Interestingly, as you note, during all of this time we’ve also seen the devolution of the Venereal Disease stigma, e.g. VD –> STD –> STI –> if you have ever had sex, you already have HPV.
So now we have: everybody gets “infections”. NBD. Most vag doctors don’t even test women for herpes anymore unless it is specifically asked for because nothing can be done, it is not a “serious health threat” and the “stigma is worse than the disease”, I mean “infection”. Plus you can get a shot that prevents the “bad” kinds of HPV, so pound away!
I only know this because of the remarkable % of strong independent women who have told me – at some point or the other, that they have Herpes or HPV. These aren’t even hardcore carousel birds. Just the usual attractive ones playing out the script. You see, everyone is on Tindr.
Of course, my assumption is that they all have it, so I approach accordingly. But it has been interesting to watch as the rate of “infections” in the empowered you-go-girls have forced the stigma downward as a greater % of them are coming up POZZ.
In some sick irony, the bar in terms of sexual health has returned to HIV, as in, “I have been tested and I don’t have HIV”. Great. You’ve managed to rack-up a high N without catching AIDS, which not that long ago (in my head) was lurking around every corner, but apparently was rather particular in who it pounced upon. And this coming from the few women who even go as far as knowing their status.
While I wouldn’t be surprised that, when sliced, the STD stats will bleed out the same thing as the AIDS business did, there is still the reality that when carousel riding is protracted (delayed marriage) and the velocity is increased greatly (Hey Tindr!), that unholy intersection of sex pozz and STD pozz probably produces more rash. Regardless, the causality has to be cleansed through the public sphere via some kind of reverse osmosis bullshit in order to preserve the more important narrative of sex pozz, female optionality optimization, and female divorce from poor outcomes.
The AIDS propaganda baked this in. I.e., AIDS was not a gay/IV Drug/prostitute/NBA road warrior disease, but anyone could get it! Even virgins doing it for the first time. Something must be done! So It will be interesting to watch how they manage to jam the dissonant marriage of sex pozz female sexual empowerment and antibiotic resistant clap through the narrative this time around.
Its no big deal, she just has an infection so don’t judge her. But wait, it is a big deal, we’re all gonna die from some formerly simple infection turned deadly. We need to take this seriously so…. we need to remove the stigma (WTF?). But we can’t touch the third rail of slut shaming. So the obvious underlying moral proposition and subsequent behavioral choices must be paved over with something else… TBD.
However they do it, the average guy is gonna pay, one way or the other. So man-up and marry that (pozzed-up) slut. It’s just an “infection” after all. We all have it already or something. Plus all those other guys weren’t marriage material anyhow. And unlike the virus, they weren’t her forever guy. You are her forever (mr good enough for now) guy. Congrats.
Just wait until the downstream impact of Teen Vogue “how to have anal sex” hits. Generation prolapse is coming. Future Mr. settle down guy is going to be cleaning up an even bigger mess.
My Enjoy the Decline portfolio is already heavily weighted in cat litter, pet accessories, psychotropics, and boxed wine, but I recently diversified into adult diapers for the “active woman.”
American,
Kill off all the strains that can’t resist the drugs and only the strains that can remain. It is basic science, the kind no one really understands while hugging their globally warmed trees.
Oh yeah I forgot about the Cosmo article teaching women about engaging sodomy. Nothing like death intercourse to wreck your digestive system and your reproductive system.
There’s another dynamic here too. On one side, smarter men with less means don’t really settle-down: they typically learn to girlfriend-hop, because they can only achieve low-value women. They don’t expect women to be wife-material, because, due to hypergamy, they only run-into women who are not. Also, men don’t marry down economically anymore, due to their modern “values”. I hear a lot of red pill guys say that men are attracted to women who are physically good-looking with a good temperament and that “money doesn’t matter”. She can have any kind of a job, as long as those two points are met.
The caveat here is that even these men subconsciously end up betraying themselves. They also want a girl to be well-rounded with hobbies. They want a wife to have a certain level of independence, with her own car, who is able to “live on her own before she lives with someone else”. This is expensive. For a woman to live comfortably on her own, afford the essentials, and have hobbies and a few friendships, she needs to be making >35k-45k a year. That can be difficult for a woman without a college degree, because a lot of grunt-labor is physically off-limits.
The leftist prescription for the perfect wife is ingrained into even the red pill man’s subconscious. It’s the script they were raised with and the script that was perpetuated by their culture, so shaking it is very difficult. Who here would marry a woman in her early- to mid-twenties who still lives with her parents and works part-time at Target? What about a woman who didn’t have a lot of hobbies ? I’m sure a lot of you would be fine with that, but a surprising amount would say, “well, she should AT LEAST have more going on than that,” and have her own identity, or some other bullcrap.
In Roosh’s recent article https://www.returnofkings.com/129792/the-problems-with-teaching-men-how-to-find-a-wife , commenter “Captain Morningwood” writes:
“Today when men brag about their wife or girlfriend, they go straight to the girl power/career woman attributes, “she’s got a great job, she’s the head of….” I can’t remember the last time I heard a man say their girl is sweet and traditional. Also, “she’s really into guns.” So called “conservative republicans” are really missing the point. They still fully support girl power and undermine the traditional woman.”
@Gaza
Indeed, as the rates of venereal disease rise and untreatable venereal diseases spread, we can expect feminists and much of the mainstream media to double down on their usual narrative about the stigma being worse than the disease, the scourge of slut shaming and other nonsense. That’s a given. And it’ll end up alienating non-feminist, non-promiscuous men (and, to a smaller degree, women) even more, which, in turn, will make feminists even angrier. Good times.
In Roosh’s recent article https://www.returnofkings.com/129792/the-problems-with-teaching-men-how-to-find-a-wife , commenter “Captain Morningwood” writes:
“Today when men brag about their wife or girlfriend, they go straight to the girl power/career woman attributes, “she’s got a great job, she’s the head of….” I can’t remember the last time I heard a man say their girl is sweet and traditional. Also, “she’s really into guns.” So called “conservative republicans” are really missing the point. They still fully support girl power and undermine the traditional woman.”
Well, what else are they supposed to brag about? Her hot body, what a great sex partner she is, her blowjob skills, knitting/sewing/cooking skills, her submissiveness, her feminine traits? All those are taboo in current society.
Below is an extract from “Cheap Sex and the Decline of Marriage” by Mark Regnerus (Wall Street Journal, September 30th).
Of course not…because it’s about widespread promotion and celebration of sexual immorality (especially for women), contraception, abortion, and no-fault. And these intelligent folks either don’t get it or don’t want to get it.
A May 2017 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, focusing on regions enriched by the fracking boom, found that increased wages in those places did nothing to boost marriage rates.
Anyone who isn’t a dumbass understands that economic booms never last. Once the boom is over, most of those fracking jobs disappear. Of course booms don’t boost marriage rates. That wouldn’t happen even in the old world of Marriage 1.0.
The business side of “weddings” (wedding gown, diamonds, catering, photography, hotels, honeymoon-travel-destinations-packages-tourism, registries for marriage at stores like Nordstroms, Dillards and Macy’s, limo, DJ’s / live band, gifts, flowers, taxes, fees, and other items that I have not mentioned) is a huge cottage industry. This is a country that can still support three monthly bridal magazines……even with marriage rates the way they are still sinking like a stone………it’s astounding!
People still forget after “MacWorld / Apple Expo” in San Francisco, the largest “convention” in San Francisco is the annual “Bridal Fair” at the Moscone Convention Center. This is San Francisco. San Francisco where no one is married. No one seems to be “getting” married and its ground zero for the (cough) “hip young set” that is rejecting marriage, and weddings.
Weddings have become (and they have been this for awhile)……All. About. Her.
It’s the highest fulfillment of the “Disney Princess” thing. They cost a ton of money. Even an “average” wedding now breaks the bank of over 35K.
That is is almost 3x my annual salary (I work for non-profit, but I live quite well. Zero debt, no children, and low cost of living for the dump, I mean “city” I live in 🙂 anyone on the “make” stays away from Fresno).
Is it no wonder that weddings are on the decline? Even a young man who is doing well straight out of college or in a solid trade…….how can he afford this??? Family probably helps. Sure. But taking on debt is the only way to do this, and not just the ring which is WAY more than three months salary mind you…………..
Weddings have become the most self-centered base level of crass-materialism. A thumping bore as well. Men had NOTHING to do with this. Women caused this. Even in my Holiness tradition. I mentioned once that if I ever got married, it would be a strict Victorian “Salvation Army” wedding. We would both be in uniform. A hearty, but good pot-luck meal would be held in the social hall. Our honeymoon would just be a “long, modest weekend on the coast like Monterey or Carmel” and photographs would be of us as a couple. A few shots. As for a ring? Forever usually sits in a jewelry box.
I got blank stares from the women present. One said “well, that’s why you’re single.”
The Disney Princess mentality with women is only going to get worse with time I’ve noticed. Almost any young attention seeking parent on socialmediagrambook refers to their daughter as a princess. They are puffing up their egos at a younger and younger age…and it’s no wonder a lot of daughters have tons of emotional outbursts the one time they don’t get what they want.
Scott. Last year (2016) I closed and paid off my student loans from grad school. It was 72K I borrowed from 1993-1995. I also had the low interest rate from 1993 when I took them out at 6.2% 🙂
I can understand why marriage has become for the elite only. In the UK where my daughter married this year, one of the venues she looked at wanted a minimum spend of £14,500 (US$ 17,500 approx) between the reception, the bar and guest bedrooms before they would even entertain holding the wedding. So many of the younger generation seem determined to out-do their friends with the ostentation of the wedding that the venues can do this. Thankfully, our never-been- to-university-but-got-a-professional-qualification daughter had too much commonsense to go down that blind alley.
I got blank stares from the women present. One said “well, that’s why you’re single.”
How nice of them, Jason, to open their mouths like that and disqualify themselves as Christian wife material.
Also, my own retort to such a response would have been “No, that’s why most of YOU are still single and will forever remain that way. No reasonable man who is husband material is ever going to agree to spend such an obscene amount of money on a ceremony to handcuff himself to an entitled bitch like you – a ceremony in which he’s treated like nothing other than a disposable prop.”
@ girlfielf,
Yes, Increasingly red pill men want women who earn money for a variety of reasons. Life is expensive and society has changed. Why does a wife/mother need to sit and live a life of leisure while a man lives as a wage slave his whole life? Babies and toddlers are a handful for a stay-at-home mother, does that last for 40 years? Most men will work until they aren’t able or die at their sorry job. Younger generations of men aren’t interested in being a lazy wife’s slave.
Then there’s women’s reputation of using marriage as a means of enslaving a man through divorce. If a woman earns and has her own financial provision the risk is somewhat mitigated. Still very risky in my view if there are children involved.
Finally, women who want marriage are up against the option of MGTOW. A woman is going to have to offer a man who’s considered opting out a very sweet deal as a marriage prospect. A lot of successful, accomplished men just won’t give a damn otherwise.why should they? Women’s reputation as wives in the west has been trashed.
Jason @ 10:11 am:
“anyone on the “make” stays away from Fresno”
I’d rather live in Los Banos than that cesspool.
“I got blank stares from the women present. One said “well, that’s why you’re single.””
Aw, no fainting. A honeymoon in Carmel was probably too $$$ for full effect. Try “camping in Big Sur” next time and see if anybody hits the floor. That’s still nice enough to be plausible.
Jason said,
I got blank stares from the women present. One said “well, that’s why you’re single.”
Again, a vastly off-base accusation from anyone is always projection on the part of the accuser.
Those twats don’t even know the difference between ‘wedding carnival’ and ‘marriage’. The notion that this is how you qualify yourselves to THEM is absurd. They still assume that you have more to gain from it than them (to be fair, cuckservative men certainly say the same thing).
Don’t you just love it when they reveal they are searching for the Beta Bucks.
September 30, 2017 at 1:11 pm, Embracing Reality observed (replying to girlfielf:
Exactly.
It is an observation that doesn’t seem to have yet dawned in the consciousness of the culture broadly, and of women in particular: increasingly, for many “marriageable” men, women aren’t competing for husbands, as against other women; women aren’t competing for husbands, as against pronography; women aren’t competing for husbands, as against “his career”; and women aren’t competing for husbands, as against “his hobbies”.
Women are competing for husbands, as against nothing whatsoever at all. And, increasingly, for many “marriageable” men, women come in second in that competition.
I have pondered this, for much the same sort of reasons many of the commenters and lurkers here ponder this, because it is probably the single most pressing political problem of our age.
And I have come to the (tentative) conclusion, that it simply doesn’t cross the mind of the modern Western woman, that she might be bringing less than nothing to the prospective marriage.
Less than nothing: no capacity to bond, due to high N; no net wealth, because student debt, credit card debt, and plain old stupid debt-debt; no home-making skills whatsoever at all (which is why the husband cooks the meals, or grabs take-out at Piggly-Wiggly on the way home from work) — no physical health, no beauty, no youth, no fertility, and nothing even remotely close to pleasant company.
Just a sense of entitlement, three ugly tattoos, a cigarette addiction, and a lack of personal hygiene.
Yes, the explanation is economic: no sane, intelligent adult human male of means can run a personal cost/benefit on that, and decide to put a ring on it. But it’s hardly about money or his job prospects, at all.
Economists who can’t see this, are contemptible ignorant fools.
September 30, 2017 at 10:11 am, Jason wrote:
Well, really, that’s it in a nutshell, innit?
Men have a wedding day in order to get married.
Women get married in order to have a wedding day.
A big, splashy, Oooh! I’m the Centre Of The Universe Today!, capital-W Wedding, with 1,200 guests, two DJs, $20,000 for matching silk dresses for the bridesmaids, an awesome, 8-tier cake with white icing and a Black-Forest cherry-cake interior, 5,000 balloons in her three favorite colors, and … um … something, something, something … Oh, yes: a groom.
Poor, poor fool, that groom.
Pax Christi Vobiscum
Several of you posted some great comments about the CDC report on rising rates of gonorrhea.
Really, really great comments. I wanted to clap. 😉 I’m here all week, folks. Try the veal.
But, srsly: Antibiotic resistance means, the disease will run its course, right? So, I got to wondering, what happens when gonorrhea runs its course? That is, if this happens to a lot of people, what sort of social problems arise? I mean, most people know that syphillis ends up rotting your bones and joints, and eventually your brain. So, what about gonorrhea?
So, I went over to a Series of Tubes, in order to find out.
This sentence from that Wikipedia entry poked me in the eye, straight up, because you’re hardly past the introductory paragraph when they toss this at you:
WTF?!?
Gosh, “all women”, and gay men. Pretty comprehensive list there. Wonder if the left anyone out?
Hmmm. No: I think they’ve covered all the bases. </deep sarcasm>
So, what’s the point here: straight men don’t get gonorrhea? Ever? If so, wouldn’t any competent epidemiologist or Medical Officer of Public Health be right on that, trying to figure out what that cohort is doing, that immunizes them? ✨ Oh, hang on! ✨
Tsk! Silly me: I forgot! That’s not it, at all: straight men do, too get gonorrhea — it’s just that straight men don’t count. Totally unimportant in our society.
Glad I finally got that, um … straight!
@ Jason says:
September 30, 2017 at 10:11 am
“Even an ‘average’ wedding now breaks the bank of over 35K.
…
Even a young man who is doing well straight out of college or in a solid trade…….how can he afford this???”
They don’t have to. My wife and I married in 2004 when I was a recently-minted 2nd Lieutenant. I spent just under $5,000. Her parents paid for the food, and my mom made the dress.
“Weddings have become the most self-centered base level of crass-materialism. A thumping bore as well. Men had NOTHING to do with this.”
False. Men have A LOT to do with this. Whom do you think pays for most of little princess’s dream wedding? Daddy does.
Men need to learn to say “no” to women again. That includes their daughters.
I got blank stares from the women present. One said “well, that’s why you’re single.”
That is just one of the oldest types of shaming language. Women cannot ‘debate’ anything outside of the 3-4 easiest types of shaming language.
Also, the premise is that the woman is the prize to be won. In the past, this was not the case (since 10-20% of men always died in wars and occupational accidents). Dowry was the norm, since there were fewer able-bodied men than women. The dowry was also a security bond against misbehavior by the woman. Sure, there were dowry abuses on occasion, but nowhere near the scale of divorce court Dachau abuses that women inflict on men nowadays. Men tend to be responsible adults.
A lawyer of my acquaintance married and after the civil ceremony the Register office he and his bride went back to their respective jobs: now I think that is going just a wee bit far. At weddings the Groom always looks awkward or nervous and the Bride radiant – for the day, even the dowdiest of 4s miraculously turns into a 7.
Single
Childless
Ugly
Wuss
Although their shaming language is more toward what shames women…but you get the point. They try to run that game on men too.
This must belong here:
“Grace Hays Holcomb du Pont was married Sept. 30 to Conor Jackson Sutherland in Manhattan. The Rev. J. Donald Waring performed the ceremony at Grace Episcopal Church.
The bride and groom both graduated from Princeton, she cum laude and he magna cum laude”
Are the elites and the one percenters the same people?
@ LP
“Are the elites and the one percenters the same people?”
There’s certainly a lot of overlap.
Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/09/30) - Social Matter
Pingback: More bad news for marriage is baked in. | Dalrock
Pingback: More bad news for marriage is baked in. - Top
Pingback: Tucker Carlson’s dangerous wedge. | Dalrock
Pingback: Tucker Carlson finds populism. Can he set America ablaze? - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: Scott’s conclusions on courtship and marriage incubation | Σ Frame
Pingback: Reforming Divorce Laws | The Lexet Blog
Pingback: "An Apologetic Against Dating in High School" — how conservative Christians encourage the marriage crisis they bemoan - The Chi Files
Pingback: Marriage and children were always her priority. | Dalrock