DC McAllister at PJ Media wrote a post arguing that Special K’s marketing campaign encouraging girls to play football is hurting women. Her first argument is that men, and young men especially, need their own spaces:
While I don’t want to take away from the athletic ability, hard work, and beauty of these young women, I simply cannot celebrate girls playing football. Not only do I refuse to celebrate it, I outright condemn it.
First of all, why in the name of “equality” do women insist on invading man spaces? There is a camaraderie among boys that is necessary for their development as men, and this is fostered in all-boy sports. It’s a kind of initiation into manhood — something that must be done by men in a male-only environment. Injecting females into the mix dilutes the experience, robbing boys of training in masculinity and male bonding that they desperately need.
Instead of tearing down the walls between boys and girls, we need to encourage boys to build more tree houses with signs like “No Girls Allowed” on the door. They need it to develop, grow, and discover what it means to be a man, but as a society we’re taking this from them. It’s not fair to them, and the girls don’t need to take over their space. They have their own tree houses (and their own sports).
Her objection to the invasion of all men’s spaces is extremely uncommon, as both conservatives and liberals as groups view this as merely progress. Besides, noticing the pettiness of women who insist on invading all men’s spaces is considered petty. We expect women to be petty, but for men to mind this pettiness is unacceptable, because we expect more from men. If men would be petty to mind the invasion, who is McAllister to bring such a petty thing up?
Stephen Green at Instapundit linked to McAllister’s piece, and as expected conservative readers objected to McAllister pointing out women’s pettiness:
Lighten up and quit looking for things to be offended by. Some people on the right are starting to sound like the panty waist losers on the left (sounding like that stupid inane daily Vox alert in my cell phone that I am 100% sure I never signed up for and cannot seem to shut off).
…
My daughter and her friends enjoyed the “Powder Puff” flag football game they played the day before Thanksgiving. This faux outrage is a case of “Lighten up, Francis.”
…
Who cares? Stop ramping back up the culture wars with this nonsense. If a school district wants to let girls play football, bfd. Don’t we have enough real problems?
McAllister’s second argument is that as a result of women’s invasion of all men’s spaces, she fears this will lead to young men not learning to protect women:
Sports can have a positive impact on personal development, but this is only when the sport isn’t being perverted into something it’s not meant to be. When you put a girl on a football field, you are training boys to go against their natural (and good) instincts not to hit girls. Part of growing as a man is to learn how to properly treat women, to protect, respect, honor, and cherish them. Not to beat the crap out of them in sports or anywhere else.
This second argument is better tuned to the conservative sensibility. However, it has the problem of blaming women, or at least potentially leading to the terrifying possibility of telling a woman no. Had she framed the problem as one of football playing boys lacking chivalry when tackling kickass gals, she would have been right on target. If she were really good, McCallaster could have gone the extra mile and accused weak young men of insisting that these valiant young women play a dangerous game so the young men could remain safe. But that would be Grand Master level conservative denial, and very few can compete on that level. McCallaster also seems sincere in her objection to women invading men’s spaces.
As it was, conservative Instapundit readers were forced to manually rework the argument themselves.
I’m not offended. But I am deeply concerned that anybody thinks it’s OK for boys to tackle girls.
Pingback: A tough spot for conservatives. | @the_arv
“McAllister’s second argument is that as a result of women’s invasion of all men’s spaces, she fears this will lead to young men not learning to protect women:”
More than likely. Men don’t have an instinct for protecting our competitors. Our instinct is to protect what we own, which was why wives being her husband’s property was a good thing. It tapped our protective instinct instead of our competitive instinct. But women are attracted to the competitive instinct.
The conundrum of the egalitarians…do you want women to be men with tits and compete with them, or do you want men and women to fulfill their proper sex roles and thus go into complementary mode where our strengths help each other. You can’t have both…the cake and eat it too doesn’t exist.
Her post was so good that I feel bad about picking something out and analyzing it, and risking being petty as you discussed.
When you put a girl on a football field, you are training boys to go against their natural (and good) instincts not to hit girls.
I wonder if she means that a man never has any right to use necessary force to defend himself from a woman (and that women are for some reason entitled to go through life without facing physical ramifications for assaulting a man simply by virtue of being women), or if maybe she means boys’ instinct to not hit girls is good because it keeps them from hurting girls too badly.
Though I question that one thing, there is NOTHING she stated that I dislike. I’m glad to see someone go all the way against some feminist issue, and not try to frame it as something men are doing wrong or not doing right
they really are not on the side of men.
Every brick added to the wall is portrayed as petty, and as soon as it is laid they begin working on the next brick without regard to preceding brick.
Yet, if you want to remove or replace even one brick, they act like you are trying to destroy the world. So it is only framed as better when their entire wall is being built, it is framed as a disaster if even one brick is displaced.
The goal isn’t any one brick, it is to build the entire feminist wall with as little resistance as possible.
Cuickservatism Quote of the Week Award goes to…..
“Who cares? Stop ramping back up the culture wars with this nonsense. If a school district wants to let girls play football, bfd. Don’t we have enough real problems?”
“When you put a girl on a football field, you are training boys to go against their natural (and good) instincts not to hit girls.”
Actually, this is an important point. The Violence Against Women Act made that instinct into law. So, does having girls play football with boys make those boys inadvertently violate the VAWA? And if a girl really gets hurt, could her parents sue the boys for violating it? Or the county/team/state for allowing that violation?
So go over there are attack the cuckservatives. Post links of this article.
What GunnerQ said.
If women insist on being dickless men, they should expect to be treated like men, for good, bad, or otherwise.
Cuckservatives of either sex being dickless, they should all instinctively understand this.
When my son played youth (non coed, high school age) soccer they occasionally played a team that had a girl on it. The boys would refuse to go easy on her and would slide tackle her as if she was a boy. The girl would inevitably start crying (slide tackling is rougher than it looks) and be pulled from the field. Sometimes the opposing coach would complain, to which the guys would respond that they were just treating her as one of the guys. The slide tackles (that’s when you slide to strip the ball from an opponent, knocking him down in the process) were legit, they didn’t foul her (say by slamming cleats into her ankle)
So now they want to play American Football? They must be brain dead.
I present as Exhibit A the present spat at the parliament of Westminster where Tory girl members have now revealed that male members have been preying on them. I was shocked: I thought Tory members of Parliament preferred their women young and hot (rather than old and desiccated) but who am I to question the undoubted truth of these shocking accusations.
A tough spot for Conservatives (with a capital C).
‘The girl would inevitably start crying (slide tackling is rougher than it looks) and be pulled from the field. Sometimes the opposing coach would complain, to which the guys would respond that they were just treating her as one of the guys.’
You cant have the cake and eat it too.
My 7th grade daughter plays soccer. One of the girls in her class who also plays soccer is a better player than the other girls in the class. Because of that, my daughter’s classmate wanted to play soccer with the boys at recess (not on the school team). She played several games with the boys at recess, but eventually they asked her to stop.
Why?
The boys were frustrated that they couldn’t play as hard as they wanted for fear of hurting the girl, but she could play as hard as she wanted.
I was pleasantly surprised at how wise the boys were.
Side note: My wife asked our daughter if she ever wanted to play soccer with the boys at recess. My daughter said, “No way! They’re way bigger and stronger than me now!” Testosterone’s a hell of a drug.
It’s about time girls in our society received some encouragement!!!!!
@ Frank K says:
November 3, 2017 at 2:57 pm
“So now they want to play American Football? They must be brain dead.”
Not yet, but they will be. Women suffer TBI much more easily than men do, because their bones (including the skull) are less dense than ours.
The boys are also a lot faster.
Trivia: The much vaunted US Women’s National Soccer team routinely scrimmages with high school aged boys. The boys usually win.
Female tennis players routinely practice with men who are ranked 500 or worse. The men handily beat the women in practice, but the ladies do it because when the face other women it will be easier by comparison.
@ Frank K
It’s also true that no female Olympic gold medalist would win at the high school boys’ national championship track meet.
Not yet, but they will be. Women suffer TBI much more easily than men do, because their bones (including the skull) are less dense than ours.
Unfortunately, an epidemic of such injuries among the snowfwakes will probably be the ONLY thing that has any possibility whatsoever of putting a stop to this egalitarian fantasy nonsense.
And no, telling the men to “be gentle” under pain of dire penalty will not only not solve the problem, but will be guaranteed to make it worse.
Keep in mind that a part of the agenda is to change the “toxically masculine” sport of football by necessity through the inclusion of girls.
My son is a football player (now plays div 3 in college). In HS, one year there was a girl who wanted to be on the team — she was about 5’2″ and thin, and she wanted to be a running back/ kick returner. Now this is a school district which is quite elite white/proggy, so the coach couldn’t simply say “no”. So she suited up and practiced and during the year never played a down. I understand that the parents complained once and the coach lined her up next to the other three RBs on the team (and this was not a great HS team by any means) and they were all 1.5-2x her size — the coach shrugged and explained to the father that she isn’t big enough to take the tackles out there by comparison. The parents disliked this and complained to the school but nothing was done, and she dropped football next year.
What’s coming next is that the next generation of Dads is going to lobby for the rules of football to be changed to eliminate most physical tackles so that girls can play along with boys. This will also be pedded as “enlightened football” or “woke football” due to cutting down on injuries across the board. Of course, it will also be a fundamentally different sport, but that doesn’t matter as long as their lion princesses get to do what they want.
Football is different from most other sports in that because it is inherently ultra-violent, there isn’t a “girls version” — yes there’s the lingerie league and girls will play touch football, but there has never been an institutional girls version of actual football because it’s simply too violent physically, and everyone knows that touch football is not the same sport at all. So football will be the test — you can’t relegate the girls to the “women’s team” — they must either be on the team, or be excluded. And, trust me, they won’t be excluded — the Dads won’t stand for that, not for princess.
When did dads go from protecting their daughters from the dangers of the world to making sure their daughters are able to do any stupid, violent, and potentially harmful thing out there?
Silly DC. Everyone knows that unarmed girls can beat the crap out of any number of trained men at will. Hasn’t she seen a movie or TV show in the last 20 years?
When did dads go from protecting their daughters from the dangers of the world to making sure their daughters are able to do any stupid, violent, and potentially harmful thing out there?
Many of them want their girls to have everything that boys have (and of course, more, because boys can’t be girls and have the advantages socially and sexually and so on that girls do). Many of the biggest feminists walking around are dads of daughters, this is very well known.
When did dads go from protecting their daughters from the dangers of the world to making sure their daughters are able to do any stupid, violent, and potentially harmful thing out there?
When daughters became special, snowflake, princesses who deserve the best in everything because Dad has no son.
Special K (Kellogg’s) is doing this?
Anyone surprised that Big Food is encouraging girls to do anything but learn how to prepare good healthy meals at home?
When you put a girl on a football field, you are training boys to go against their natural (and good) instincts not to hit girls.
While there probably is some nature involved in the form of a reluctance, most of that is trained not inborn. But it won’t matter, because as Novaseeker pointed out we’ll soon be seeing a watered down version of “football” that is female-friendly. This will in turn drive young men out of that sport and into something else; soccer, or lacrosse at a guess.
Plenty of conservatives and tradcons will be all in favor of female friendly football, etc. Because they are ignorant and incapable of learning (stupid).
I think that despite the Hollywood fantasy nonsense of a petite woman taking out a brigade of Russian commandos, most women understand that they can’t do that.
My daughter used to practice Taw Kwon Do, and was good at it (for a girl). She even medaled at AAU nationals. One of her friends ask her if she could beat up a guy. My daughter flat out said “No way”.
That said, there will always be a group of nutters who think women are physically equal to men.
When daughters became special, snowflake, princesses who deserve the best in everything because Dad has no son.
It’s deeper than that, because it also impacts Dads who have sons and daughters alike. The problem? The Dads have no clue how to raise a boy in today’s climate, whereas the climate makes it MUCH easier to raise a girl (the entire culture bends over backwards for them, and it’s obvious what they are supposed to do — everything, basically). For boys, lots of Dads are clueless about what to do with them, and so they don’t flourish like the daughters do. The the Dads blame the sons for being lazy, liking video games, lacking motivation and so on, when their daughters have a social cheerleading section of hundreds of millions while boys are supposed to just get on with things naturally seemingly (the opposite of how it really works, but anyway). So they end up favoring the daughters. Not in every case, but I’ve seen too many cases for it to be uncommon.
In other words American Football will be another pussy sport. All hail the mighty pussy!
David
So go over there are attack the cuckservatives. Post links of this article.
A good idea, for those who are willing to deal with Disqus. Since that service is getting more and more SJW in outlook, I choose to avoid it and can certainly understand why others would also.
Novaseeker
The Dads have no clue how to raise a boy in today’s climate,
Since most “Dads” are betaized AFC’s who have no clue how to be men themselves, I guess that’s only to be expected.
Since most “Dads” are betaized AFC’s who have no clue how to be men themselves, I guess that’s only to be expected.
True, but they raise the girls to be masculine, moreso than the boys. It’s a bizarre result of a culture which is heavily girl focused. The dads know this, even if they don’t or can’t articulate it. It’s like they raise their girls to be masculine but raising their boys that way … just feels wrong. It’s all backwards. The FI has poisoned so many wells by this point, really.
For boys, lots of Dads are clueless about what to do with them, and so they don’t flourish like the daughters do.
What are the ramifications? I’ve wondered how it might play out but really can’t tell. I seem to recall a time, but maybe it is selective memory, when infiltration of girls into boy’s arenas would drive boys away. The concept was that if you found something that seemed manly but girls do it too, then who cares to do that anymore? It has lost its panache. Boy Scouts, football, wrestling, motocross, airborne ranger, etc.; girls do all that now. No problems I’m told. “Oh, you’re a fighter pilot? That’s cool, so’s my sister.” It’s not like the boy can change it. He either accepts this new reality and plays along or quits the activity.
However, given our feminine primary social order, into which most boys are fully indoctrinated from birth onward, will this notion disappear? Will it come to seem normal and not even a thing to be questioned by these boys? “Dads don’t know what to do with them”. Women, from day care to at least high school are their influences during most of a day. In TV, movies, comic books, even some video games I’ve heard; they see 50/50 teams of bad-ass men and women getting the job done, and the women may be in command of it all. Maybe modern boys will just accept all this at face value. Everything will be watered down to a level where it can be done with at least half the participants being women, and the boys won’t notice or care.
It’s hard to tell how it will end, because I’m beginning to see both camps among the 20ish year old males around me.
“It’s like they raise their girls to be masculine”
the critical problem being that “masculine” to females only involves being aggressive. actual positive masculine traits are ignored, or incorrectly judged to be feminine (and therefor obsolete). discipline is utterly ignored, these faggots won’t even say no to their own daughters.
Maybe modern boys will just accept all this at face value. Everything will be watered down to a level where it can be done with at least half the participants being women, and the boys won’t notice or care.
They largely are doing that, but they don’t thrive when they do that. Boys thrive in intense competition, as do most men. Adding women waters it down just enough so women can compete, and they compete well in that context, but boys know they can’t put the metal down, so they participate but don’t thrive. Hence what was said upthread about the soccer game where the boys all held back. That kind of thing.
There are contexts where it doesn’t matter much (say, video games), but in most contexts like sports or work or academics it matters a lot and boys are just not thriving at all in equalist settings. Girls are kicking them in the ass for the most part — in part because the rules are tilted towards them, in part because they are drowning in encouragement specifically directed at their achievement and success because they are girls (and which is not directed at boys) and, yes, in part because many dads push their girls along with that general cultural thrust, but don’t know what to do with their sons in this culture, so they flounder along as do the sons. Yes, kids spend most of the time with women while growing up but the dad’s influence on a boy, especially as he starts to grow beyond the tender years, is huge — either good or bad.
Pingback: A tough spot for conservatives. | Reaction Times
Ramp up the culture war? Apparently this is only done when opposing progress and capitulation is the only acceptable position for anyone not labeled progressive.
but the dad’s influence on a boy, especially as he starts to grow beyond the tender years, is huge — either good or bad.
And our FP society sees it as a toxic thing, thus seeking to eliminate it.
Lost Patrol
I seem to recall a time, but maybe it is selective memory, when infiltration of girls into boy’s arenas would drive boys away.
Still true, because that’s nature. Even though the Female Imperative labors to nurture that away.
It’s hard to tell how it will end, because I’m beginning to see both camps among the 20ish year old males around me.
It probably won’t end well. Because fighting against biology is a loser in the long run.
GIL
Apparently this is only done when opposing progress and capitulation is the only acceptable position for anyone not labeled progressive.
They are tradcons. Capitulation is what they do best. Just as long as it’s slow enough to not be too obvious, they’re happy. Because they’re tradcons.
@ Novaseeker says:
November 3, 2017 at 4:03 pm
“Football is different from most other sports in that because it is inherently ultra-violent, there isn’t a ‘girls version’ — yes there’s the lingerie league and girls will play touch football, but there has never been an institutional girls version of actual football because it’s simply too violent physically, and everyone knows that touch football is not the same sport at all. So football will be the test — you can’t relegate the girls to the ‘women’s team’ — they must either be on the team, or be excluded.”
I suspect there’s more to it than that. Women’s rugby has been around for years. They even have their own World Cup.
https://www.rwcwomens.com/?lang=en
And yes, the New Zealand chicks win all the time. This is their fifth World Cup.
https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/210a7cc179c0fd007c838e1b179d2c8a
Anyway, the destruction of American football looks deliberate. I suspect SJWs are targeting it specifically because it’s the most popular American sport.
Basketball will be next, and then allowing to softball pitch in the MLB is coming
Lost Patrol-
I am inclined to agree with the manosphere conventional wisdom re: your observations at 5:11PM.
That is, the entire things is a simulated reality made possible by shaming, white knighting, entertainment, technology, etc.
And that conventional wisdom suggests that a correction will come because of some huge game changer. LIke an existential threat, SHTF, economic collapse.
In other words, a paradim shift will force a correction.
It’s the proverbial “if something can’t go on forever, it won’t.”
Problem is, no one can really say how long it will be until the correction.
Those “conservative” comments you posted are great examples of what spineless weenies tradcon normies are. Every single time their responses are the same: “why do you care, it’s none of your business, as long as they’re happy, blah blah blah”. The left never acts this way. They are obdurate and uncompromising on every point, every issue, and that’s why they run circles around conservatives who can’t even conserve restrooms. Screw them.
@AR
”When daughters became special, snowflake, princesses who deserve the best in everything because Dad has no son.”
They could have more children to make it more likely beforehand. Or they could have a son-in-law provided their daughters have worthy Husbands.
@Novaseeker
”the Dads won’t stand for that, not for princess.”
The problem is treating them like princesses in the 1st place. The worst thing they can do is spoiling their children and making monsters out of them. Even though I believe that girls should have a more sheltered life comparatively to boys.
@AR
”They are tradcons”
Cuckcons rebelling against God.Rather than being actual men. Cuckery is tantamount to rebellion by so called men against God.
1 Corinthians 6:9
”Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate”
Maybe the word ”effeminate” as the earlier bible translations is not really about homosexuality but actual effeminacy.
Maybe some KJVonlyist preachers are right about “Effeminacy is a sin”:
I’ve seen this preacher before. This man has the truth.
@ info
Yes, effeminate behavior is sinful.
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-sin-of-soft.html
Another ‘male feminist’ exposed for being a predator :
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/280057/
A ‘male feminist’ is always a creepy predator in disguise. This has been proven countless times.
Info
They could have more children to make it more likely beforehand.
In theory. Average age of women in the US at first marriage is closing in on 29 for a start.
@Info
Not in the mood for No True Tradcon right now, sorry.
When did dads go from protecting their daughters from the dangers of the world to making sure their daughters are able to do any stupid, violent, and potentially harmful thing out there?
Many of them want their girls to have everything that boys have (and of course, more, because boys can’t be girls and have the advantages socially and sexually and so on that girls do). Many of the biggest feminists walking around are dads of daughters, this is very well known.
Mom gelded Dad decades ago. She carries his dried, shriveled balls around in her purse at all times, occasionally showing them to him as a taunting reminder of her power – and that she’ll do much worse to him next time if he ever again gets out of line.
“Getting out of line” would include applying discipline to Wittle Pwincess, whom Mom is determined to mould into a feminist harpy in her own image. God help any son in the family, especially if he is the only boy. Gelded Dad has no choice but to make him the target of “discipline,” usually on Mom’s orders. Son then grows up to become one of two things: an even bigger henpecked, sackless wuss than his father, or a badboy playah who resents and despises his father for being Mom’s castrato bitch.
Pwincess, of course, grows up to be a feminist carousel rider.
Where is IBB? He used to claim that Bill Maher was the supreme candidate to lead an uprising against misandry.
Well, maybe 20 years ago, but now, he is all-in for crude misandry :
This is the crudest ‘women are better than men’ pandering.
@info
Possibly the only time “man up” is used Biblically. Good video.
Not long ago, some girl playing quarterback at a high school game threw a touchdown and everyone (except me) lost their marbles. Now I posted this over at Heartiste, but given the topic, here ya go. Notice in the video the defensive line doesn’t even bother rushing her for the sack. I suspect that with the whole controversy surrounding concussions on male high school players, letting that girl gets one would be a PR nightmare. Also, she did struggle to throw a 40 yard pass. And the receiver didn’t get enough credit.
https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Lifestyle/female-high-school-quarterback-throws-td-1st-pass/story%3fid=49564020
I always thought that was the case…Romans specifically talks about the error of homosexuality, when it comes to being effeminate the man in the video is right…it’s about men not acting like they are the image and likeness of God, but acting feminine.
And the other important thing he pointed out, a woman acting feminine isn’t a sin…that’s how she’s made. Feminists seem to make it out like a woman acting feminine is a worse fate than death.
@info
Good video. He pointed out a lot of things I wasn’t aware of that I need to clean up.
‘Women be feminine, men don’t be feminine. It’s as simple as that.’
@ rocko
That link is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if some of the current crop of young men aren’t being totally sucked in to the narrative.
Graham told ABC News. “There is something about her that is so inspiring for her teammates. They want to follow her.”
They want to follow their female leader, coach says…
http://www.mpcdot.com/forums/topic/7218-a-compendium-of-shitlib-inanities/page__st__4160#entry270711
Trust wrote (November 3, 2017 at 2:24 pm):
I don’t really disagree with Trust about this, but he raises a point that I think needs elaboration: in the case of the “feminist wall”, we are actually dealing with a process, not a “thing” — as we all understand, from numerous posts here and elsewhere (i.e., other blogs) along the lines of the OP here. So, maybe “wall” is a bad metaphor or analogy — in some respects, at least.
And this matters because, the metaphoric things done in opposition to a “wall” are restricted to “wall-related” metaphors in their own turn. Including metaphors for “resistance”, whatever it is we are trying to express by that word.
In the case of a “wall” (or, if you prefer, the process of putting up the wall), the metaphorically “fitting” (if you prefer, “rhetorically apt”) forms of resistance involve, say, “tear down that wall” (as someone said to someone, back in the 1980s — gosh, I forget who and where exactly), or I guess maybe interfering with the brick-laying, or with the manufacture of bricks or of mortar — whatever the analogizer will metaphorically mean by “bricks” and “mortar”, in their analysis of of all this.
In other words, because we don’t like mixing or mangling our metaphors when we write and speak, we tend to channel our thoughts and limit our ideas so they will conform to whatever given analogy or metaphor is in play.
I know of a Guy (maybe you do, too) who, long ago, spoke in parables. He exhibited what one might be tempted to call a divinely inspired ability to chose for His parables, metaphors and analogies which exactly fit the matter at hand. As I recall, His skill level often confounded his debating opponents, to the point that often, they would just STFU and wander off, probably in embarrassment. My point here being simply, that it is probably important to choose your analogies and metaphors well, with an eye to how they might trip you up (or limit your grasp of the full details of what is being analogized), later.
All of which brings me to this: there is MGTOW, and then there is MGTOW, as has been discussed before many times in this forum (and others). Abandoning the male space that has been invaded, “going your own way” (with like minded brothers) and setting up a new male space elsewhere, in an approach that no metaphoric reference to bricks or walls can capture. It, too, is “resistance”, however. This matters because, the alternatives are necessarily acquiescence (pretty much the cultural history of the West for the last 60 if not 120 years), or confrontation.
Acquiescence is just the Cultural Feminist rot spreading (as it has done). Confrontation, by way of contrast, is dramatic and exciting and gets attention. Gosh, almost a tailor fit to the needs of the Attention Whores who are at the forefront of the Feminist movement: if you cannot get male attention by being feminine (without being a doormat), then get male attention by being a harridan. I am pretty sure that female Deep Psychology, whether you want to pry its secrets loose by means of Genesis 1, or by means of evolutionary psychology, is founded on the rock of “get male attention or die / get male attention or fail to reproduce”. So, there is nothing that men can do about that fact. What we *can* do, is decide which sorts of female behaviors we will reward with our attention, and which ones we will no reward with our attention.
There is a problem here: once married, once we have daughters — once we’ve made those choices as men — we are obliged to give those wives and daughters our attention. If it is a Sin to not love your wife & your kids (and I don’t have to work that hard to convince the core readership of this blog that it is). So, we can’t resort to the option of abandonment (sinlessly). And this raises moral and tactical complications that are of a complexity well beyond the problem under discussion, which is that of getting the feminists to hell out of the (male) locker room.
So, I argue that the correct strategy is to walk away from the wall entirely. Leave before it encloses your life completely. There still exist private spaces out there, where men can go, and women do not yet have (and never will have) the means to induce government-enforced access. Go to them.
MGTOW, baby. MGTOW.
Pax Christi Vobiscum
“[…] we will not reward […]
And, the “. So […]” before the “[…], we can’t resort […]” should be deleted, so the comma comes right after the bracket.
Plus, I left out a sentence in that last paragraph, but I can’t recall what it was.
A former West Point professor reveals that West Point is in the toilet: http://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/10/exclusive-former-west-point-professors-letter-exposes-corruption-cheating-and-failing-standards-full-letter/
standards at West Point are nonexistent. They exist on paper, but nowhere else….
The Superintendent refuses to enforce admissions standards or the cadet Honor Code, the Dean refuses to enforce academic standards, and the Commandant refuses to enforce standards of conduct and discipline.
The end result is a sort of malaise that pervades the entire institution. Nothing matters anymore. Cadets know this, and it has given rise to a level of cadet arrogance and entitlement the likes of which West Point has never seen in its history….
The cadet honor code has become a laughingstock. Cadets know they will not be separated for violating it, and thus they do so on a daily basis….
Academic standards are also nonexistent. … Cadets routinely fail multiple classes and they are not separated at the end-of-semester Academic Boards. Their professors recommend “Definitely Separate,” but those recommendations are totally disregarded. I recently taught a cadet who failed four classes in one semester (including mine), in addition to several she had failed in previous semesters, and she was retained at the Academy….
Speaking of someone who isn’t here, Anon sez:
Bill Maher is the classic CONservative, who tickles the ears of the gullible with big talk, in order to get their money, while never actually follows through with any of his promises. He should run for office in some state full of these rubes (Idaho, Texas, West Virginia) who live to be sold down the river by smarter people than they. He would be elected easily.
Red Pill Latecomer says:
November 4, 2017 at 9:49 am
This has obviously been going on for a least the last three decades – at ALL of the service acadamies. The academy graduates I encountered while on active duty were walking jokes. The ones I’ve encountered since then in the private sector couldn’t even spell “L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P”, let alone exercise it.
If I had to pinpoint the start of the decline, it would be 1976, the first year that women were admitted to both West Point and Annapolis.
“McCallaster could have gone the extra mile and accused weak young men of insisting that these valiant young women play a dangerous game so the young men could remain safe.”
That would be crossing the line. She would lose all credibility if she went that far. I respect her for the fact that she knows the line between doubt and falsehood.
I doubt Maher would do well in politics in Texas. Perhaps in Austin or one of the large cities, but that would not fit your narrative.
How long do you think this current trend will last…if we determine the decline started in the 70s and we are almost 50 years into it?
I give it another 50 years. Communism couldn’t survive 100 years and most of the modern problems we have is from the brainchild of Communism.
Anyway, the destruction of American football looks deliberate. I suspect SJWs are targeting it specifically because it’s the most popular American sport.
The are targeting it because it is a MASCULINE sport.
They have already set the demise of wrestling in motion. They are simply moving on to destroy the next masculine sport.
If Division I collegiate wrestling was an animal, it would be on the endangered species list…101 men’s wrestling programs have been dropped since 1988-89…the number of wrestlers has declined 26% from 3,428 to 2,520 in Division I…”Title IX compliance is probably the number one excuse large D1 schools use that are dropping wrestling,”…”Equality in opportunity is all you hear about these days…even established programs with a history of alumni support have been on the chopping block.
Wrestling isn’t an expensive sport to sponsor…”A wrestling mat is $10,000 and lasts 15 years,” said Moyer. “All you need is a couple of wrestling mats and another $10,000 or so in gear, and that’s it.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2016/03/17/the-future-of-collegiate-wrestling-isnt-at-division-i-level/#8d8e04e2fcc0
Even the Olympics tried to nix wrestling. It took the Russians pitching a fit to keep it in.
Judging from the jersey numbers and their size, which is petite, these girls are likely bench warmers (mascots), or at best punters/kickers. Maybe a wide receiver.
But I cannot see a girl that size playing running back or corner back or safety or linebacker without getting repeatedly outright murdered on the field with jarring hits and tackles.
Football is a violent sport and you are going to get injured. Lower leg and knee are the most common.
There are some plus sized girls (fat) who could probably get away with playing offensive guard or maybe even center (if she loves the game and can make line calls), but she would be susceptible to getting mauled by bigger and stronger guys with more leverage and mass.
It depends on the division in which the high school plays football.
Male high school football players today are in better physical condition that most of us when we played as kids. Some of these teams have guys who are 6 foot 2 plus, 260 lbs playing defensive end and outside linebacker, and even running back. They have great speed and endurance.
Mere physics does not bode well for these ladies.
And physics doesn’t care about your feelings.
It’s going to put a dent in her ribcage as well as your feminist triumphalism.
Never been a “football” fan. I am forced at times to watch a game because “every Christian man must love, watch and talk about football or he should be wearing a dress”
Look, it’s a rough sport but considering this game to be just a “man’s” sport is now silly. More talk is about the half-time show during the Superbowl than the actual game. Check out the commercials during football. Viagra, beer, fantasy football with huge jackpots, high end luxury cars / luxury trucks, lots of men playing golf advertising some sort of medication that you have no idea what it does, PSA messages about “diversity / tolerance / helping inner-city-kids” the other messages about “treating women with respect” and EVERY locker room reporter is now a chick in heat asking dumb questions. I doubt a male reporter could get into the female “paul mitchell” beach volleyball team locker room for the “tough” questions. During halftime always a woman in a short dress, pole swinger shoes on giving her take, and she’s clueless reading off a teleprompter but she;s taken seriously….the men all in “softer” colors (especially the ties). Men forced to wear “pink” for breast cancer awareness………….despite the FACT that prostate cancer kills three times as many men than breast cancer does today.
The “tampax” commercials, diapers and baby toy commercials are coming soon to the NFL.
But if you don’t like “football” you are a closet homosexual, and are not a “real man” according to most men in church today….they’re calling in your “man card” and they snicker about you to your face because you are not “tough” men like they are. What a joke.
But if you don’t like “football” you are a closet homosexual, and are not a “real man” according to most men in church today….they’re calling in your “man card” and they snicker about you to your face because you are not “tough” men like they are. What a joke.
Funny. I thought I was the only who had run into this. It is pretty weird.
My dislike of professional sports is moral, not anything else. I find it very difficult to follow crybaby psychopathic millionaires who are never held accountable for their off the field behavior, and then call myself Christian. I actually lettered in two sports in high school, and I still stay in shape, run 5ks, etc.
Its why I always look for the minor league baseball team in any new town. Those games tend to be a lot more kid friendly. I don’t usually have the drunken foul mouth fan screaming obscenities into my kids ear from 6 rows back.
Look……back in the 1970’s / 1980’s I could at least admire a football reporter……look at Howard Cosell……he would walk up to a player…he’s covered in sweat, dirty, took a beating for over 60 minutes, his team lost and he’s gonna get a berating in the locker room……what does Cosell ask?
“Hey, you guys looked pretty bad out there. How do you expect to win games when you got bozo’s as teammates who don’t understand the first application of defense?”
It will be interesting to see if the “pansies don’t watch/like football” canard will hold up after it is completely infiltrated by women. The statement wouldn’t make any sense then.
I lettered in “alpine / giant slalom” (my high school had a ski team). I was on the ski team “men’s alpine / racing” during my college years.
When I moved to California in 1995, I slowly dropped skiing. It became so expensive. It was fun and at times I do miss it. I kept up my skateboarding and now that is starting to taper off….I took a nasty spill at the large skate park about a year ago………it’s a younger cats’ sport…..I still hop on it to go to the post office……….I can still hop curbs, kick turn, olly….but its now an activity that is fading. It’s backpacking and hiking and camping now that has slowly gained more and more popularity with me over the past ten years.
I am going to coach a little league baseball team next year.
I think this also varies by region. I live in the Centennial State, and we have a state Church here: the Denver Broncos. My brother lives in North Carolina. He tells me that when the Panthers played the Broncos in the Souperbowl, that no one in his neck of the woods cared. No office banter, no people wearing Panthers’ jerseys, no Souperbowl party invites, etc.
The last time he visited us, which was last fall, he was stunned. He went into the local WalMart, which had a whole section dedicated to the Broncos. On the weekend, he saw lots of people at the grocery store and even going to church wearing Broncos jerseys. When I told him that people at the office wear them every Friday before a game he was amazed.
Anyway, to say that you’re not a Bronco’s fan out here is heresy. I can only imaging how hard it is for the true believers given how wretched the team is this year.
I attend a “men’s fellowship” at a large AG church on Tuesday nights. The praise is terrible but the pastor for the men……..and his message / preaching is actually pretty decent. That is why I still go. Anyway, a few times during “football” season we men are told “to come to fellowship next week in your teams’ jersey”
I don’t own one. I show up in my usual white shirt, skinny rayon tie, slacks and shoes.
One “guy” one week mentioned offhand before the fellowship as I was walking in “Funny the pastor told everyone to come in a jersey and this guy thinks he’s better than us, being on a team for Jesus means not setting yourself apart”
I smiled and said with no malice “My man, I’ll be on my knees praying for every man here tonight long, long after you are asleep” and it was a true statement. The sermons on these nights are about being “guys” and “manhood” and “a band of brothers”
Did Jesus play tackle football? No? This needs to be stopped being fobbed off as “biblical manhood”
Instapundits libertarian readers get offended by the cultural wars – gay marriage and trans is great- who cares about playing football?
The conservative readers get offended that maybe men will not be raised to protect women. Something to annoy everyone.
This is a problem in lots of ways but one way is also just abuse to the girls in having them engage in a sport that they will suck at relative to boys by mid puberty. Like all feminist ploys it hurts everyone.
“some state full of these rubes (Idaho, Texas, West Virginia)”
Who are you calling rubes, jerkoff? We know Maher is an self-involved asshole, and who (besides you) ever said he was a “conservative”? At best he was one of those childish libtardarians, and that’s quite close to having no values at all.
Football is manly? Check out the 2017 Super Bowl’s Kiss Cam. With a focus on gay lovers.
My mistake. It was the Pro Bowl. Not the Super Bowl. I don’t know much about football.
Same difference. It’s the “manly” NFL.
I can’ help but wonder what Christians outside of North America must think of “NFL == Christianity”
The NFL is only about money and appeasing the highest bidder. Watching guys hit each other doesn’t make you any more manly than the next guy.
Many of the commenters of that article, as per usual, make it all about the girls. How will this affect the girls? How it will affect the boys is totally irrelevant. But that’s how it is in our modern society at large.
@AR
”Not in the mood for No True Tradcon right now, sorry.”
Really Saint Paul and the rest of the saints are included in that as well? Come on. They are bullshit artists. Their fruits show that. Heretics and Apostates demonstrate this behavior always.
@AR
”In theory. Average age of women in the US at first marriage is closing in on 29 for a start.”
That’s why marrying young women is important.
Signs of the correction starting… I was headed to breakfast with relatives this morning. On the radio was a fund raising speel about the homeless in LA county. The rep from the Rescue Mission mentioned specifically that the majority of the homeless he is seeing are single women. Now, that could have been simply a manipulation to get single women listening to put a donation on their credit card. But, if it isn’t, the correction will happen as soon as women realize that their choices are marriage or eat, pray, homelessness.
@Seventies Jason
”Look, it’s a rough sport but considering this game to be just a “man’s” sport is now silly. ”
Is it really manly to wear another man’s name on their jersey? Vacarious masculinity through sportsball. Whilst in real life wifey walks all over them. Act tough around other men and be a sweetie submissive cupcake when dealing with his wife and a few others in his life.
Being muscular and tattooed doesn’t mean a man is not a pussy I am sure people are aware of men like that. Clean the inside of the cup and the outside largely takes care of itself.
I am forced at times to watch a game because “every Christian man must love, watch and talk about football or he should be wearing a dress”
But if you don’t like “football” you are a closet homosexual, and are not a “real man” according to most men in church today….they’re calling in your “man card” and they snicker about you to your face because you are not “tough” men like they are. What a joke.
It seems that this pattern is emerging everywhere, from what others have said. The church cuckservatives are so de-balled and whipped, that they have to overcompensate in the only area where it is safe to do so.
Last I checked, nothing in the Bible mandated the viewing of NFL Football (which emerged thousands of years later).
I can’ help but wonder what Christians outside of North America must think of “NFL == Christianity”
There is a tendancy among American Christians, especially evangelitards, to label any institution as “Christian” if even one person associated with it claims (or claimed, past tense) to be a Christian.
Millions of evangelitards who are not Texans LOVE them some Dallas Cowboys and consider it to be a “Christian” NFL team. Why? Because decades ago it was coached by Tom Landry and had among its superstar players Roger Staubach – both of whom proclaimed themselves “Christians ” That no one affiliated with the team today makes any such claim, and that the team’s current crop of indulged and overpaid criminal hoodrats are just as douchebaggy and pagan as any other NFL team means nothing to deluded churchians who are desperate to gain the World’s acceptance.
Heck, millions of them even consider the current president to be a Christian just because he’s said nice things about them – even though he has NEVER ONCE made a public declaration of faith, or done anything whatsoever in public to indicate that he lives in accordance with scriptural principles.
Earl: “‘Women be feminine, men don’t be feminine. It’s as simple as that.”
Wifey and I are raising our daughters to be feminine, with the specific goal of making good wives and mothers out of them.
As a result, people consider us “extremist”. Think about that.
Info
@AR
”Not in the mood for No True Tradcon right now, sorry.”
Really Saint Paul and the rest of the saints are included in that as well?
Moving the goalposts so soon?
@AR
”In theory. Average age of women in the US at first marriage is closing in on 29 for a start.”
That’s why marrying young women is important.
Changing the subject is a form of goalpost moving.
Moving the goalposts is dishonest.
Do you have some point to make?
I find it odd that tradcon pastors praise football as Christian. I remember some past hysteria about “football widows.” About “selfish” husbands who “abandon” their wives by watching football every weekend, instead of helping her clean the house.
Many YouTube items on football widows. Here’s a “funny” skit, in which the man is (once again) portrayed as an overgrown, immature boy. This time, because he loves football and ignores his wife:
Feminism is the ‘norm’…and hence anyone straying from the herd is an extremist. We live in dark times.
@red pill Latecomer:
This is no longer 100% accurate. While far and wide football is still a male oriented sport, women are watching it more and more, but I suspect that is partly because they get their jollies off watching Aaron Rodgers. Or maybe that’s why I’ve noticed why lots of them support the whole kneeling before playing the National Anthem thing, maybe because they wish they could be kneeling in front of Kolin Kaepernick. And of course, women use this as an excuse to act like idiots themselves, by overeating, drinking too much, and being vulgar, not to mention they also look like morons when they wear too much NFL gear. The difference is, they don’t get judged like men. As you mentioned, men are treated like manchildren, but women are treated like strong mature women.
No male rites of passage.
Participation in sports acted as a substitute for ancient rites of passage from boy to man. Even if there was a girls team (as with basketball, un-American football, and baseball) they were separate teams, so they boys played at a different difficulty level. Persisting and finally breaking through and becoming a starter after a year of being a benchwarmer was an actual accomplishment for boys.
But, if girls are also on the team and doing the same thing as the boys, it’s not much of a male right of passage anymore.
The same can be said for the Boy Scouts and the military. They are no longer useful tools for developing masculine pride, as women no do all the same things as the boys (at least that is the story being told).
At what point can boys declare themselves to be a man? For males, simply growing to adulthood has never been enough.
Marriage and family usually helped that process too…but we all know what happened to that too.
Feminism is destroying everything about our sex roles in the name of equality…which can never be achieved.
@AR
You made the fallacious argument of no true tradcon. All who are faithful to Christ would be classified as tradcon. And you lump the faithful with those cucks. I call bullshit. They are cucks plain and simple as their fruits show.
As for women marrying older to those cucks. Its on them for marrying such old women hence the dearth of sons. They should have married young women if they wanted sons.
Yet another reason why women should get married younger…the longer they wait, the greater chance the only guy they’ll find willing be that.
However from my recent experience of listening to them talk…the majority of Catholic ladies aren’t getting it.
@Otto Lamp
The effectiveness of a rite of passage I think is not only the physical fitness that results but the psychological strength and attitude that is recognizable as masculine. Whether in front of other men or dealing with their wife and others in private a confident assertive personality should be the result without needing to prove anything yet projecting an Aura of strength.
The story I cited from a person I know indicates that getting a tattoo or lifting weights is no initation into manhood since that man is still a pussy who lets others walk all over him. If the inside of the cup isn’t clean then that person is merely a white washed tomb.
@they call me Tom
I am a boots on the ground Salvationist. All the politicians, and feel good reports (even from the Salvation Army) especially during the Christmas season 😉
“Did you know that most of the homeless are women and children????”
This is a LIE. Straight up lie. Social Justice type of reports, womens groups, DemocraticParty stalwarts, and large “evangelical” churches that cater to women purport this lie to garner SYMAPTHY. It’s as if it’s a Charles Dickens story come to life.
Most of the homeless are mentally ill men. Men with severe / chronic substance abuse problems.
I work with the homeless. Volunteer frequently at Rescue Mission, and have done field studies here in Fresno with Catholic Charities.
I have never seen homeless women and children huddled up on the streets. I lived in San Francisco for over ten years, never saw children begging for money. Most of the homeless are mentally ill men. Men with chronic substance abuse problems
Case. Match. Set. Point.
This post was on Slate, I thought it would be a good idea to write a critique of this post sometime in the future
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/10/27/let_s_ban_men_from_workplaces.html
At what point can boys declare themselves to be a man?
At the point when they can do EVERYTHING for themselves –including everything that women used to do in their now-defunct role as wives/helpmeets– and thus prove themselves capable of fully independent and productive living.
Feminism is destroying everything about our sex roles in the name of equality…which can never be achieved.
The one silver lining to this dark and destructive storm cloud is that feminism has led women into demonstrating just how superfluous to humanity they are when they don’t adhere to their God-ordained roles as wives and mothers to children. When they attempt to exercise any other role, they merely prove that they are fifth-rate (at best) versions of men, unable to do anything groundbreaking or original, and unable to do anything derivative without extension help from the very men they claim not to need. As Anon is so fond of pointing out, by not living up to their full reproductive capacity and by not playing the role of nurturing helpmeet, they have rendered themselves obsolete as well as superfluous. In the coming times of civilizational collapse and thus scarceity of resources, there will be no way to justify wasting these precious resources on women who are not fulfilling the role of wife and mother. It will be a luxury that human civilization can no longer afford.
In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!”
But according to Slate we need men out of the workplace. I bet that business wouldn’t last 6 months.
A fully matriarchal society would only last long enough until the next oil change.
On the surface this article seems tongue in cheek, but given it’s source I hesitate to say it was just a joke.
As for critiques, two come immediately to mind:
1) Women CEOs being better: Carly Fiorina (fired from HP), Marissa Mayer (fired from Yahoo), Meg Whitman (driving what’s left of HP in the ground) come to mind. I remember when Carly was appointed CEO at HP. The media had a collective orgasm. They were much quieter later when she was later fired for gross incompetence, though people at HP ran out and brought kegs backs to the office to celebrate her firing. Unfortunately the damage was done and HP never recovered. It’s a shadow of it’s former self.
2) Without men in the workforce, the lights would go out and civilization would collapse.
When you read between the lines in the article, what it’s really saying is that women should be in charge. They don’t really want to do the actual hard labor that keeps civilization humming. Corporate America bends over backwards to encourage and reward women into STEM careers, yet the majority avoid STEM careers like the plague, so they aren’t interested in developing the next iPhone, they just want one handed to them. And the backbreaking manual labor that keeps the streets paved, the water and electricity flowing, etc.? They might break a nail if they did that.
Oleaginous Outrager outrages:
Seems like I struck a nerve. Good. The shoe clearly fits.
You CONservatives keep electing barely closeted homosexuals (Rick Perry, Lindsey Graham), champions of VAWA (Mike Crapo) and funders of planned parenthood (Mitt Romney, Greg Walden) and the predictable result for the rest of us is the state we’re in today. You phaggots can’t even “conserve” the girl’s public toilet. Pathetic.
Boxer
It’s the same mindset a lot have with marriage and family.
Frank K brings up:
This sad lawsuit suggests that part of the job description for junior executives in Mayer’s yahoo! was allegedly servicing the sexual needs of one’s immediate superior.
Shi filed her sexual harassment lawsuit [July 11], naming Yahoo as a defendant and charging Zhang with sexual-harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful termination. . . .
Shi moved into Yahoo temporary housing (under orders from Zhang, she says), and Zhang soon moved in with her, the attorney said. It was then that the alleged harassment took place.
“While staying with Plaintiff, Zhang coerced Plaintiff to have oral and digital sex with her on multiple occasions against her will, even after Plaintiff told her she did not want to have sex,” the complaint alleges.
“Zhang told Plaintiff she would have a bright future at Yahoo if she had sex with her. She also stated she could take away everything from her including her job, stocks, and future if she did not do what she wanted.”
Much more at:
http://theothermccain.com/2014/07/29/lesbian-sexual-harassment-lawsuit/
Sure, boss, I’ll move into your house and be available to you for that… that’s all totally normal.
Boxer
I sometimes wonder if this article was pure projection and/or female solipsism?
In his recent talk with Camila, Jordan B Peterson pointed out that men can’t really control crazy women.
Women invading male spaces screws up the young males learning how to resolve problems.
Weird, the youtube link seems to have been eaten. Here it is again:
Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman both dabbled in Republican Party politics, in California.
Fiorina was the GOP’s 2010 Senate candidate in California. She lost to Boxer. She later ran for President and lost to Trump.
Whitman was the GOP’s 2010 candidate for Governor in California. She lost to Brown.
2010 was a big year for California Republicans. Two women candidates, one for Senate, one for Governor. Alas, running women didn’t help them win.
In his recent talk with Camila, Jordan B Peterson pointed out that men can’t really control crazy women.
https://fredoneverything.org/training-neutered-poodles/
Men protect women? After manipulating laws Women are competing with men in education, jobs, everywhere. The largest voting block, women are pushing every imaginable liberal, socialist agenda that will force men to work harder and pay more taxes. Routinely using the corrupt court system women are stealing men’s children, assets, lives.
Why would men protect women? Increasingly men see women for what they have become, our enemies.
@nate…
There’s only two things a man can do when it comes to dealing with a crazy woman…leave or submit.
There’s always the physical retaliation route…but we know how that story usually ends.
Dealing with crazy women, leave or submit? I think the kids call the MGTOW these days..
…what it’s really saying is that women should be in charge. They don’t really want to do the actual hard labor that keeps civilization humming.
95% of all jobs are grunt work. This is true even in STEM. Much of it is analogous to sitting at a desk all day by yourself doing math problems.
I’ve said it here before, but I’ve been involved in several layoffs. As the women being laid off are escorted out of the building, you wonder if they are thinking “I put off marriage and children for THIS!”
This sad lawsuit suggests that part of the job description for junior executives in Mayer’s yahoo! was allegedly servicing the sexual needs of one’s immediate superior.
15% Of Women Have Slept With Their Bosses — And 37% Of Them Got Promoted For It
http://www.businessinsider.com/sex-is-killing-the-workplace-2010-8
1 in 6 female in management have slept with their boss. That’s enough to make it routine, so it’s going on at a lot more places than Yahoo.
Now, were these women coerced or did they initiate? The truth is there is probably some of both.
Layoffs are a way of life in Corporate America. I’ve been laid off twice and survived a few. My kids saw all that I went through during those awful times and decided they wanted no part of it. One is self employed and the other two work for .gov. When I graduated from college 30+ years ago, I was approached by .gov for employment and turned it down, thinking I could do better. Now that was a bad decision.
I was amazed that she nominated to the Senate race. This is the woman who said “Americans don’t have a right to a job” in response to questioning over HP’s heavy offshoring and US layoffs. Did she really think that statement wouldn’t come back to haunt her? Maybe she thought she would get a pass because she was a woman.
“Why would men protect women? Increasingly men see women for what they have become, our competition and our enemies.”
Fixed. Otherwise, BINGO.
Maybe she thought she would get a pass because she was a woman.
That, and she was stupid and deluded enough to think that there are still a sufficient number of blue-blood Republicans in California to have gotten her elected because of her elitist, fuck-the-working class attitude. Remember:
1. They don’t call the Republicans “The Stupid Party” for no reason.
2. California Republicans have shown themselves to be a unique breed of stupid/cowardly/arrogant.
3. Fiorina is not just a Republican, but a woman. Remember that truism about women and cause and effect (and long-term thinking)?
4. Fiorina’s political competition (i.e., Boxer and Feinstein) are women firmly and clearly part of the Plantation Establishment (i.e., certain to uphold and defend Prog values and agendas), whereas Fiorina is seen as a sell-out, even though she’s every bit the feminist as the other two.
Californians no longer “do” non-Prog. It’s really that simple.
Ummmm……Carly had ZERO cred even in the Silicon Valley. She was made CEO of HP. A LOCAL Silicon Valley company. She immediately gutted it, bought Compa
info
You made the fallacious argument of no true tradcon.
No, that’s your pet logical fallacy. I do not find it interesting to play with the No True Scotsman fallacy.
All who are faithful to Christ would be classified as tradcon.
For what definition of “faithful to Christ”? Jeff Strand has one definition. Earl has a somewhat different one. The arguments over that definition have been swirling here for years.
Did you just start reading here, or are you just trolling?
And you lump the faithful with those cucks. I call bullshit. They are cucks plain and simple as their fruits show.
I do not lump anyone in with anyone. That’s your job.
As for women marrying older to those cucks. Its on them for marrying such old women hence the dearth of sons. They should have married young women if they wanted sons.
Ok. So? Do you think your little bit of goalpost moving means anything?
Do you have a point to make or are you just another anklebiter trolling for flames?
Continued…..Bought ‘Compaq” computers for an OUTRAGEOUS price only to briefly boost the stock of HP. She began the internal gutting of the company, destroying an established company, outsourcing, and then after the damage was done. She left unscathed. Hailed by women / feminists as “an innovator” and “a no nonsense business woman”
Until…………………………………she decided to run for Senator. Now she was a “right wing extremist” and toady for “W Bush” and she now was an “evil, terrible CEO of HP”
Thanks SeventiesJohn. I always suspect what I hear from fundraisers on radio, in the press, in mailers, because most charities put funds ahead of being honest. That said, most people I know hold the Salvation Army in high regard when compared to the likes of the Red Cross. So you’re with the good guys.
seventiesjason
Most of the homeless are mentally ill men. Men with severe / chronic substance abuse problems.
Can confirm from various experiences, plus what men I trust have told me (cops meet with homeless). The substance abuse is often a form of self-medication for chronic mental problems.
There is another category, although they probably don’t show up in jail or at shelters:
Frivorced men who got too far behind on child support.
Given a choice between jail and living behind a dumpster or under a freeway onramp, some men choose the latter. Don’t expect any mainstream media reporter to ever discover this.
How does this surprise you? That’s a typical CONservative republican position. See the CONservative Kevin Williamson (a typical barely closeted gay man: a typical CONservative republican) who writes over at National Review for more on this.
Open borders and destroying the founding stock of the USA, in order to boost corporate profits with cheap labor, is a plank in the republican party and has been for decades.
Boxer
@they call me Tom
The Salvation Army is not perfect. However, with donations we do what we say, and over 95 cents of every dollar goes to action to help. Not administrative costs. It’s one area of integrity that we so have a solid claim on.
I hit the streets here in Fresno two nights a week in uniform. One to “pub boom” (going into bars, and talking to people. Not evangelize. Just to talk) and the other night I head over to the lareg homeless camps and do basic first aid (change dressings on wounds, pass out bus tokens, talk to people, pray with them, and guide them to city, county and state services and other non-profits like us, Catholic Charities, The Rescue Mission and our Adult Rehab Center).
I have been spit on. I have been yelled at. I have helped. I have been thanked. I have been hugged and cried on. I take no credit for my service. It is a gift of mine from God. I take my duties seriously as a Salvationist and frankly, if more did…….many of the problems we do have would indeed be mitigated and would actually help change the course so many cities are blighted with today
There is also another segment of homeless that is never spoken of………….
The accused / convicted child molester. Monsters right? They should all be taken out back and shot right? I agree that their actions have made me sick. They are even “excluded” from the street justice of homeless camps……….usually off by themselves. Many have been beaten so bad by the “street justice” metered out to them………..
Good right? I in theory agree with you.
One man. I got his name and SSN. His name is Jake. Age 39. I met him by himself under an abandoned overpass here in downtown Fresno. Blackened and bruised from being beat up so many times……rotting, broken teeth. Now addicted to heroin. Convicted of “rape” when he was nineteen. His girlfriend at the time was sixteen. They were boyfriend and girlfriend. He was convicted of rape / sex with a minor and sent to prison, did his time……15 years…..released and now is a registered “sex offender”
He cannot get a job anywhere. He could not live outside the prison in Soledad. He cannot go near a school, a public park, on streets during school hours. He cannot be within 120 feet of a minor. He cannot apply for HUD / Section 8 housing because he is a registered sex offender. He cannot even go to a clinic to get medical help because “children” may be present. He has to always check in of where he is staying on the streets. He has lost all hope……all for consensual sex with a sixteen year old girl who had low self esteem / got buyers remorse. yes, I am sure the girl had “no idea” what she was doing…………(sarcasm)
This is becoming more of a problem on the streets now because registering as a sex offender is probably worse than the death penalty, and IF he is FALSELY accused????? It could happen. It has happened, the man may NEVER get it fully erased from the systems, society and generalities. If he is a father he will never see his children again. Nobody knows what to do. I was called once to speak in Fresno City Hall concerning “what” to do with these folks. Build a housing complex for them? No. Live on the streets? No. Have them be able to move near the prison? No. Help them in some way, even for the fact they served their debt to society in prison…..now what?
No one had a solution.
However, weekly now I read about women molesting boys / having sex with underage boys…..and sure, many do go to prison or jail (for a MUCH shorter sentence than their male counterparts) but read the articles fully. Just about all of them DON’T have to register as “sex offenders”
I would say that she left in disgrace, while HP Employees celebrated and Walter Hewlett said “I told you so” (he was opposed to the Compaq acquisition). She was not offered another comparable job since her firing. She also tried to win sympathy as a cancer survivor, but that fell flat.
And she was indeed mocked by many in Silicon Valley. Here is a parody of her “HP Garage” commercial, made by Sun Microsystems
Jason, thank you. It’s actually good to hear of a helper like you. Seriously, I mean it. For all the bad stories we get here, it’s good to hear that someone actually cares, even for those on the bottom of the trash heap of society.
Bought ‘Compaq” computers for an OUTRAGEOUS price only to briefly boost the stock of HP. She began the internal gutting of the company, destroying an established company, outsourcing, and then after the damage was done. She left unscathed. Hailed by women / feminists as “an innovator” and “a no nonsense business woman
Women can be hailed as experts in something they have completely failed at.
One more form of female privilege.
“At what point can boys declare themselves to be a man?”
Never. The whole point of rites of passage is that other men, preferably his father, declare the boy to be a man, and tell him that he now assumes manly responsibilities.
In the Jewish bar-mitzvah, the 13-year-old was told, “Today you have become a man.” That meant he was fully answerable to the Law. But for most boys, there is no such formal rite, and there are often no fathers either available or willing to tell them that they have grown up. So boys get this assurance from other boys – sleeping with their first girl (or getting them pregnant), or from their fellow gang members (their first drug deal or first kill). But many go through life without such assurance, and it hurts them.
My own father never told me this, and never really treated me like a man until some almost imperceptible change when I was in my late thirties. So for me, my rite of passage was getting through Navy boot camp, and assuming a man’s responsibility aboard ship. But it was weak soup.
@FH
It is what I promised to do in my calling when I became a Soldier in the Salvation Army. It was what our protestant denomination was “called” to do. Clothe the naked, feed the hungry, comfort the broken…..the least of these among you………..in His name, and His name only.
I took my vow before God seriously. It’s hard. There are days when I have to remind myself of “why” I do this. I could have just as easily joined a standard “mega church” and told myself how bold I am for Christ every week.
I was one step from being on the streets myself. My end in San Francisco was turning into a very sad story of addiction, desperation, no hope and futility. I do what I can. I get annoyed at fellow Salvationists who “do nothing” except come to weekly Holiness meetings. I rail at times at the upper officers of The Salvation Army who get pensions, pay, health care, and have not “been on the street” since 1965.
So, I don’t think myself as better…I just have accepted my call and gift.
My father never directly told me this…but I had that too around 30.
Although he did recently reveal to me it was always his intention to raise us in a patriarchal household…and that he told me I have to do the same if I ever got married. That was big.
Boxer, the most pathetic part of the elitist Republican attitude is they could easily scoop up the working class, particularly the white working class with not much effort. The Democrats pretty openly hate the white working class but occasionally make noises about how much they love workers. In a few states such as Alaska and Ohio the Republicans decided they love Labor, private sector unions are great etc. and they can’t lose. But for Republicans in California to do this they would have to embrace the great unwashed masses, which they are not willing to do.
Dalrock, please check in! I would hate to think that you or anyone you know where in that church in Texas this morning.
It’s one of the reasons why Trump won.
I don’t know if the story is true…but I read that Bill tried to convince Hillary to focus more on the economy and workers on her campaign but she wouldn’t hear it.
Dalrock, please check in! I would hate to think that you or anyone you know where in that church in Texas this morning.
That was in San Antonio, not Dallas.
I am a Californian, and a member of the Republican til 1996 (been voting Libertarian since). The California Republicans are the following:
*The check-pants wearin’ old golfer types who can’t convey what they stand for. They are very quick to say what they are against.
*They only seem to live in Los Gatos, Orange County, or parts of San Diego
*They get more upset over “causes” like the “Chick-Filet” thing. The “holiday” cups at Starbucks, useless causes that might make the news for a blip, but makes them look really petty and silly.
*Even in the 1990’s when Governor Wilson was in (a popular governor) they could not do what they say they stood for. They could not balance a budget. They used the excuses “well, we’re spending less than the other party would have”
*They don’t even stand up for gun rights. Now, at election time they will all tell you differently but when legislation is being debated, all you hear from them are crickets.
*The Mayor of Fresno is a Republican. The majority of our city council is Republican. Rare for a large California city. Smaller government. Balanced books. Crooks in jail right? Wrong. They go to the state / federal government for EVERY project. They smile and say “look what we did, and it didn’t cost the taxpayers of Fresno anything” but it did cost the state taxpayers and folks from every other state. They spent two months “fighting” to get “In God We Trust” on the wall in the City Council chambers. Oh, you would have thought they found a cure for cancer. They were all so proud of themselves for “standing up for our country’s principles”
Meanwhile, traffic lights are not working (wire theft). The pension system is flat broke for the retired city workers. Crime is ticking up. It is still voted one of the worst places to live in California, and the red tape and regulations have increased for businesses to come and work here……..and that’s just the tip of the problems……..and they spent another three weeks “debating” the new “mission” statement for the City of Fresno. It didn’t mention the word “children” in it, so we had to waste time putting a sentence in that we are about “children and families first” and debate the Placement of this sentence for another month. That’s the modern Republican party in the State of California. The state that gave the nation strong Republicans like Hoover, Nixon, and Reagan
It would certainly go against the narrative, which these days is about crossdressers, homosexuals, “undocumented immigrants” and Muslims. Pedophiles will soon be added, once the Hollyweird purge is completed.
It would certainly go against the narrative, which these days is about crossdressers, homosexuals, “undocumented immigrants” and Muslims. Pedophiles will soon be added, once the Hollyweird purge is completed.
The strategy of appealing to the coalition of the disenfranchised/victims/aggreived will work next time. They won’t make the same electoral mistakes next time. They have the demographics on their side.
Jason, thank you. It’s actually good to hear of a helper like you. Seriously, I mean it. For all the bad stories we get here, it’s good to hear that someone actually cares, even for those on the bottom of the trash heap of society.
I have to agree. Jason’s actions are what makes it legit for the SA to call itself an army and men like him soldiers. That’s front line duty right there.
@LP
We are not alone. The Sally Army does get credit, and should where it is due, however…there are countless Christians in large and small churches from all denominations that do help, do make a difference in their particular ministries. We just happen to have that as our first calling. Yes, we have internal squabbles. Yes, we have made mistakes. Yes, I do believe that we don’t tell the world enough about our Christian Holiness tradition and mission (oh we wouldn’t want to ‘offend’ anyone…rolls eyes).
Thank you. Look, I don’t like talking about myself in these manners too often………I am on the street. I took my vows before God seriously at my “swearing in” as a Soldier (you would think a Sally Army woman would think…..wow, he is upholding his promise to God, he would probably uphold a promise to a woman). It’s not for everybody, and I know everyone could not do what I do, but I know for a fact….I could not do what many of you all do 😉
They won’t make the same electoral mistakes next time. They have the demographics on their side.
I have to think this is right. I had convinced myself hillary had it in the bag for this very reason, with the backing of all special interest groups, and I assumed most women because SIW power, I could not see how the math wasn’t in her favor; but it turns out there were just enough women that do not like her as a person. You have to think they will adjust at the margins next time.
Maybe not, especially if they welcome pedos into their tent, or if the left has an intramural civil war with the Clintons. But in the long term I do fear you will be right. At this point I am thinking of going ex-pat when I retire, and watch in fascinated horror as the US burns to the ground.
I would say McAllister is sincere in her efforts to condemn women in football. It IS men’s space, and it will harm women. She, like many commentators of the Red Pill sphere, won’t get her argument completely right. Then again, the enemy of my enemy is my friend….
In Commonwealth countries, various forms of Rugby are played. Both Union and League are tough, brutal contests. Many high schools have a proud tradition of fielding the toughest teams that win tough competitions.
Oh well….women HAD to have THEIR piece of that pie as well:
http://www.rugbyaustralia.com.au/communityrugby/playrugby/Women.aspx
For men, broken noses, fingers and other bones is arguably acceptable. We have the testosterone and the genetics to recover from injuries and still be functional later in life.
When it comes to women though, once the ”sporting career” comes to a close and she decides to ”settle down and have a family”, her husband will have to contend with the painful joints, premature onset of arthritis, and other complications.
Yuck.
My final thoughts on the topic of The Sally Army, my holiness tradition in this thread. This is the founder of The Salvation Army shortly before his death in 1912. A recorded message. I strive to live this and I could not have done it as well as I have without Christ.
Frank,
This gets me so disgusted. The same push was in place when I graduated in the mid 1980s. You think some people would realize the effort is wasted. You can’t make people love what they don’t love. But it sure does help the ones who like it or at least can go with the flow.
Thanks for the concern IBB. We are pretty far away.
“This is becoming more of a problem on the streets now because registering as a sex offender is probably worse than the death penalty,”
It’s also unjust. Once a convict serves his sentence, society owes him a chance to reintegrate into society. If society doesn’t want to give him that chance then just execute the poor sod; don’t tell him “you’re free to go but not allowed to go anywhere”. Nothing good will come of that.
Care-based morality doesn’t go far past the voter’s feelings.
…
Jew613 @ 3:29 pm:
“But for Republicans in California to do this they would have to embrace the great unwashed masses, which they are not willing to do.”
The Republican election strategy can be summed as follows: Assume everybody to the right of Joseph Stalin will vote for you because they have no choice. Focus on.convincing leftists that you’ll betray the right for their benefit. Reassure the rightists who notice that you’re only ‘reaching across the aisle’ in order to win votes. When you get elected, remember it was the leftists who made the difference when it comes time to dispense favors.
Cynical as heck but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Corporate America bends over backwards to encourage and reward women into STEM careers, yet the majority avoid STEM careers like the plague, so they aren’t interested in developing the next iPhone, they just want one handed to them.
Of the VERY few women I’ve worked with (or for) in the IT field over the last 18 years who actually had degrees in a STEM subject, almost NONE actually did any technical work that leveraged the knowledge behind their degrees. Nearly all of them were “supervisors,” “project managers,” “policy analysts,” etc., tasks that required no major technical skills or abilities. More than a few of these women were from “preferred” minority groups and doubtless were given special treatment in college because of this. Indeed, most of the ones I worked were unable to carry on any sort of in-depth technical conversation whatsoever, despite the fact that some of the had BSes in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science. When a guy with an undergrad major in Business and with only a minor in CompSci is able to outperform these women in technical tasks, you know that something is rotten somewhere.
Cynical as heck but that doesn’t make it wrong.
It’s also impossible to feel sorry anymore for any rube who votes for either of these two (?) parties thinking that they’re going to keep any of their campaign promises. Anybody who believes that and votes accordingly shouldn’t be allowed to live unsupervised in the real adult world, for their and everyone else’s safety.
Corporate America bends over backwards to encourage and reward women into STEM careers, yet the majority avoid STEM careers like the plague,
The video game industry keeps trying to remedy the “problem” that not as many girls play video games as do boys.
Thrice in my life — in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s — I saw a TV news report about some new video or computer game that was marketed to girls. Each time, some simpering female executive was being interviewed. Each time, she said, “They say that girls just aren’t interested in video games. But the fact is, girls aren’t interested in video games aimed at boys. But girls are interested in video games if we offer them games that are tailored to girls’ unique interests. Such as the new X game…”
It seems every decade, some video game company develops a game for girls. Each time, they think they are doing something new. Like no one’s ever developed a video game for girls. Each time, the game fails. The industry forgets. And they try again a decade later.
Video game companies are burning money trying to target a market that just isn’t there. But they can’t say that. They have to pretend that it’s their fault that girls aren’t playing video games in large numbers. And that this is some societal problem that must be corrected, partially by hiring female executives, marketers, and developers.
Boys are mocked for playing video games. Yet gaming companies are derided for failing to appeal to girls.
most of the [women] I worked were unable to carry on any sort of in-depth technical conversation whatsoever, despite the fact that some of the had BSes in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science.
Yet Hollywood movies not only feature kick-ass warrior women. They are also full of brainy female hackers who can penetrate the Pentagon, CIA, NSA computers within minutes. Angelina Jolie and Lori Singer played brilliant hackers, in Hackers and VR.5, respectively.
Regarding gaming, STEM, etc.
Feminism teaches that men and women are exactly the same and even interchangeable except for “women have babies”. It is a total blank-slate, nurture-is-all viewpoint. Therefore any different outcome in anything must be Teh Patriarchal Sexism! at work. It couldn’t be anything else.
Girls ought to be interested in computer games, therefore by golly Things Must Be Done to lead to the Correct outcome. Ditto STEM. Ditto football, to return to the OP.
Another version of the “is” vs. “ought” problem that requires a large amount of cognitive dissonance to support. Or as Dalrock once noted, “the pumps” must be cranking all the time to keep people believing such anti-reality nonsense. This goes double for churchgoing people, who not only must believe nonsense but must bend their Bible into a Mobius strip in order to keep congruence.
The only difference between the parties is whether you enjoy being lied to. Compare Harry Reid with Mitt Romney, for a good example. Both of these men are devout Mormons, by the way. Both support Planned Parenthood, freebies for single mothers, and easy divorce. One of these men (Harry Reid) will tell you the truth, that he hates traditional families and celebrates aborting children. The other will lie to you, pretending to be against all of the above, until it comes time to vote on the floor, at which point he betrays you.
Another Mormon CONservative republican, Mike Crapo (from Idaho), worked tirelessly to save funding for VAWA. CONservative republicans are the most pathetic fools imaginable. I have no pity for them. That goes double for my own people. The revolutionary spirit and pride of the early Mormons disappeared along with our communist collective farms. Now we’re all a lot of sheep.
@Frank
Well Sun Microsystems is gone too. Scott McNealy even came crawling to his former rival and competitor, IBM to see if they would buy / merge his company. IBM smirked and said “no” and I have to admit ad a former IBMer for 12 grueling years I smirked too.
Sun lives on in Oracle. In hindsight, it was better for Sun to be acquired by Oracle than IBM, which is also doing poorly these days. IBM would have killed Solaris and Sparc a long time ago.
Anyway, had it not been for Fiorina, HP might still be a contender in Enterprise computing.
@Frank
IBM might have done that, but more than likely would have “held” on to it until another buyer and sold the specific technology off or licensed it.
From 1999 till I left. I was on our ESS (shark) project. I wrote three manuals for it and was one of the lead developer s for the “help” screens and the horrid task of illustrations / artwork for most of the whole “suite” of manuals that was used to install, maintain and configure that insane piece of hardware.
Spent many a day in building 50 of the now gone San Jose campus on Cottle Road climbing inside the framework of the server at various points on the manufacturing line taking photos in a clean room suit….going back. Working with engineers…sketching and converting. Doing over. Testing my artwork with storage administrators at Walmart, Pennys, and a heartbreakingly beautiful gal from GAP Corp…..man I was stuck on her…..fun times but sad too. Drug and drinking problem still secret but steadily growing
IBM would have killed Solaris and Sparc a long time ago.
Linux has already done that (years ago, in fact). For some bizarre reason Oracle still hasn’t figured that out, even though nobody is buying Solaris anymore, or using it at all except to maintain it in legacy systems.
@Anonymous Reader
Read the bible and see for yourself. Do you see Cuckery in the Apostolic church? In the teachings thereof. See how much the actions of people line up with that and see for yourself the frauds and those who are true.
”For what definition of “faithful to Christ”? Jeff Strand has one definition. Earl has a somewhat different one. The arguments over that definition have been swirling here for years.”
If your argument of no true scotsman is true. Then there is no such thing as a Christian but those who claim to be.
All of them liars. All of them bullshit artists.
But what can you do to bust through that cognitive dissonance…if it’s even possible? I mean this isn’t like trying to save someone from drowning…these are people willfully believing a lie. The only discourse I could think of is prayer because a conversion comes from within.
Related to the topic at hand:
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/11/06/who-do-you-trust/
OT, but not for the blog as a whole:
An interesting recent post on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/7b31li/percentage_of_us_women_never_married_by_age_1980/
It relates to this rather interesting chart:
I’ve heard that Solaris/Sparc still generates over 1 billion/year profit for Oracle.But yeah, the future belongs to Linux and the cloud.
Pingback: A Trebling Delay | Things that We have Heard and Known
Regarding the chart from Novaseeker:
It amazes me that, in spite of the acceptance of cohabitation, changes in sexual behavior, etc., about 85% of women have married by age 45. It seems most men are more desperate to marry than I would have thought.
They would have been born in 1970. I’d like to see what those numbers are when the women who were born from 1990 on make it to 45. But we have to wait another 20 years.
Great find Novaseeker. Thanks.
@OKRickety
Indeed. This came through every time I looked at the data as well. It is a paradox, as the data both shows that delayed marriage is leaving far more women unmarried than in the past while also showing that nearly all women still marry. On that second point, it shows how important marriage still is to both men and women. Don’t underestimate the number of really thirsty men out there, and don’t believe feminists when they claim that women don’t covet the status of wife anymore. The women marrying at the tail end of the curve are settling, hard.
Also re the chart from Nova:
OKRickety: In contrast to your point: in 1980, only 5% of women had never married by age 45. That’s not a big number.
In 35 years, in 2015, that number had risen to 15%. And people are noticing it, and it’s causing consternation and concern and handwringing amongst Christian Protestant “family ministries”, as well as people like Glenn Stanton, James Dobson, Dennis Rainey and Bob LaPine, and Brad Wilcox.
But where the number differences are most pronounced is women from ages 18-35. These are prime carousel years, and this graph absolutely supports the notion of women either riding the carousel, or just “Dating Around” (wink wink nudge nudge), or getting their “careers” going.
For example, in 1980, for women at age 25, only 29% of women of that age had never been married. In 2015, that percentage skyrocketed to 70%. At age 30, in 1980 the number of never married women was 13%. In 2015 the number is 41 or 42%. Those are huge percentage spreads. We all knew this was going on, but it’s quite another matter to see it expressed graphically, and it points up what’s going on with marriage now.
I didn’t see this either until just now:
Note that in 1980, during women’s 20s, there is a rapid decline in the percentage of never married women from 88% at age 18 to 13% at age 30. But in 2015 the decline slope is much gentler: In 2015 at 18, it’s 98% never married; at 30 it’s still 41%.
And in 1980 there’s a very rapid falloff in never marrieds from age 16 to age 23: at 16 it’s 97% never married; at age 23 it’s 41% – telling us that fully half those women who weren’t married 7 years earlier, had now married by age 23. Twenty-three is still young; it’s 5 years after high school graduation, which is plenty of time to grow up and find someone to get married to. But now, fully 82% of 23 year old women have never married. Those differences are just huge, folks.
Doug Wilson on the sexual harassment apocalypse
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/year-of-the-pig.html
Pretty much nails the thinking of the Christian compromisers.
@deti
Which is why I told OKRickety…we won’t see the full effects of what he’s saying until 20 years down the road.
I happen to think OK is on to something…but we have to wait for it to manifest.
Exactly. This is the tsunami that’s coming, Another related data point: about half of all children today are born to single mothers, and that number is growing. This is the new normal, especially in the welfare and lower middle classes and is steadily creeping upward.
This is going to be huge and is reshaping society as we speak. In the not too distant future, school children whose parents were married when they were born and are still together will be, except in higher income zip codes, a small minority in their classes. The majority of their classmates are going to be feral, not having had a proper father figure in their lives. Most boys will aspire to be like the violent thugs that give mom the tingles. Not having the same father as any of your siblings will also become the norm.
At this point I’m just happy it’s them and not me. Look at the comments. There is high praise for delayed marriage, plus an increase in education, leading to a further erosion in family formation. There is no fixing this, just be glad you don’t have to enter into the mad house. Unfortunately, the mad house will still continue and only increase in pace.
I’ve interacted with quite a few teachers in the town I live in…this is already the case. It’s more about trying to control the out of control children than actually educating them.
There are a lot of things going on in those numbers and dalrock has pointed to all of them.
–women riding the carousel.
–serial monogamy
–women prioritizing career over marriage.
–cohabitation without marriage.
–men avoiding marriage because they’ve seen their mothers take their fathers through the divorce meat grinder, or seen a man close to them go through it
–men avoiding marriage because they see nothing in it for them
–the weakened marriage signals being sent to men
–unattractive men unable to attract women even for dating, much less marriage, and unable/unwilling to do much to change it
–thirsty men being settled for later in life (a substantial percentage of whom will find themselves divorced within 10 years)
–desperate women with bio-clocks roaring like freight trains settling for unattractive men as sperm donors/walking wallets
what surprises me too is in 1980, 12% of women already married at age 18. And a full 41% of women had been married by age 21.
That’s very , very different now, where being married at 21 is almost an aberration. It’s weird, it’s countercultural.
I turned 12 years old in 1980. I remember a few, a very few, girls getting married right after high school around that time in the early 80s, hearing about it and going to some of their weddings as a young teen. But it was not many, and at least among people I knew, getting married right out of high school was strongly discouraged.
I just can’t believe these numbers:
in 1980, percent married at 21: 41%
In 2015, percent married at 21: 9%
My take on the chart.
The 85% married figure by age 45 is interesting. On the one hand, it looks like a high number in a vacuum, but on the other hand (1) it’s 3x the number in 1980 (which is a large variance) and (2) it looks like it flattens more or less in the mid-40s, such that, both then and now, the chances of marrying thereafter are small — probably due to being a bad candidate, having bad candidates available as potential suitors, or both. But the threefold increase there is just huge.
Another interesting point. The 50/50 tipping point in 1980 is around age 22, whereas in 2015 it’s between 28 and 29. This does reflect what we all knew about marriage being delayed, but it’s really dramatic how much it has changed over the space of 35 years — a 7-8 year spike is dramatic. What has been happening in those years is, as we know, the carousel and the other factors mentioned by deti and elsewhere. And that differential widens as you down the percentages: in 1980, 70% had married by 25, in 2015, you don’t reach that figure until age 34. That’s massive. And you don’t get to 80% married until age 40 (in 1980 that was reached at age 27!!!
I think what that data is saying supports Dalrock’s comment. The women who miss the first sweep of marriages in the later 20s are really holding out for longer than they ever were — in other words, they are waiting and waiting and waiting because there aren’t that many suitable men around, and then when they do marry (or if, it looks like 15% or so will never marry at all) they must be settling hard by that point. Moral of the story for women is that the musical chairs machine has just moved up in age a little, but is just as real: in 1980 the music was playing loudest from around age 20 to age 26, whereas in 2015 it’s playing loudest from around age 24 to around age 32 or so — if you’re still not married by around then, it’s going to be really hard to find a suitable mate.
Of course, these ages are also continuing to increase, so that timeframe of the musical chairs could get bumped a bit as well. The other problem, though, that will impact these numbers is the coming massive change in the sexual distribution of college grads. When those cohorts of women in the 60/40 graduate ratio groups start hitting their 30s, I am guessing we’re going to see that curve stretch even more to the right because there will be even fewer suitable men.
That’s very , very different now, where being married at 21 is almost an aberration. It’s weird, it’s countercultural.
Yes. If you look at the chart, that’s the single biggest difference. It’s become taboo to marry at 25 or younger for a woman. In 2015, 70% of 25yo are never married, whereas in 1980 it’s a complete flip, where 70% of 25yo had been married. After that the marriages start to come along, but you don’t pass 50% until you get to 29yo. You don’t hit 70% married until age 34 for 2015, but in 1980 that was hit between ages 24 and 25 — it’s pretty much a decade pushback that has happened over the space of 35 years. It’s colossal shift.
@Deti @Nova
Do not forget the effects of Title IX and Affirmative Action: making it very easy for the average woman to obtain a college degree AND get a middle class job afterwards results in women who are their own Beta. They do not need a man to live in a middle class lifestyle. That probably was not so much the case back in 1980.
I can see this in my social circle. A pretty 20-something who got training in a field that meets a requirement in the K-12 world is now 27 years old, unmarried, and has put on about 15 pounds. She’s living in her own apartment with her own car, etc. and can binge on Netflix whenever she wants, as long as she shows up for work. Her work isn’t that demanding but it pays well. The last time I chatted with her she was completely dismissive of getting married anytime other than “someday”, although her friends from high school / college are slowly marrying off.
She’s more of a carousel watcher than a carousel rider, I’m pretty sure, but it isn’t making much difference. Most likely she’ll settle in about 3 to 5 years. But she might wait, because she’s got all her material needs met thanks to her own job.
The implications of this steep decline in marriage rate are huge.
Coupled with this problem is a below-replacement fertility level in America (1.87), when the replacement level is considered to be 2.1.
Well, thank goodness for divorce insurance:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/marriage-insurance-take-sting-divorce-174714877.html
http://www.safeguardguaranty.com/
The waters are hereby declared safe, fellas, amirite?
We can go ahead and dive in now.
You first!
OT: I know the guy in the south Texas shooting was a whack job, but I wonder what role the modern divorce climate played in what happened. I don’t expect to see a discussion of that, but it would be interesting to know as it may have helped push him over the edge.
Novaseeker
Yes. If you look at the chart, that’s the single biggest difference. It’s become taboo to marry at 25 or younger for a woman.
Yes. It’s the standard narrative pushed in the media (Teen Vogue, now gone), in the high schools, in the larger feminist culture. The girl herd in college tends to police each other to “not settle!” i.e. marry while in college. That’s pretty ironic considering how hard most women outside the UMC must settle once they are north of 30. Churchgoing girls in their 20’s can be as bad, encouraging each other to “go on mission”, or work for some parachurch org rather than marry. Sending a 22 year old in her most fertile years halfway around the planet to live with strangers seems odd when you think on it abstractly.
Women who self-label as “settling” are surely more likely to cheat after marriage, too.
@BillyS
Some hints that he picked on the church his ex-wife’s family attends. If that’s true it is suggestive.
@Constrainedlocus
Well, thank goodness for divorce insurance:
Having read the short description…….It doesn’t sound like a bad financial product as it pays out 100% after 25years of marriage, and only pays out 10% in case of divorce, (yes it grows annually). Its a bit like buying “whole life” life insurance. So a couple decides to purchase this when they get married. It costs $180/yr/unit. If they dont get divorced in the first five years, they will see a return on investment even if the NEVER get divorced. At year 5 they would have paid in $900/unit and would receive $1000/unit if they divorce. year 6 would be $1080/unit with a payout of $1250/unit, year 7 would be $1360/unit with a payout of $1500, Year 24 would have paid $4120/unit with a payout of $5750. So far its just a savings account. but in year 25 the couple would have paid in $4300/unit and WILL receive a payout (without a divorce) of $10,000/unit. Thats not too shabby.
I see this catching on because the payout for staying married is WAY better than the divorce payout.
The downside I see is that couples will have more money to use for lawyers, which will just make things worse. They already make the process much harder, more expensive and way more painful than it has to be.
@AR
Churchgoing girls in their 20’s can be as bad, encouraging each other to “go on mission”, or work for some parachurch org rather than marry.
Its coming from the pulpit as well. The Southern Baptist church I attend has cautioned the young ladies in the service to “slow down” and “not be in a rush” while always celebrating who’s going to what college or going on what mission trip after high school.
I tell my kids constantly…..”Pay attention who is sending what messages. If the world is sending the same message as the church, look out. It is usually the church who is being worldly and not the world being biblical.”
Maybe this explains the push for women in football:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/11/06/roger-goodell-deliberately-pushing-nfl-leftward
A close relative teaches second grade in North Carolina and she tells me that she spends more than half of her classroom time controlling the kids. She also tells me that attempting to get them to not speak Ebonics is a lost cause. When I visited her I was surprised at the number of people i encountered in public who would say “I be ….”
At my kids’ old parochial school some years ago on back to school night we met a teacher (who came from a public school) who told us how much easier it was to teach at our school simply because the kids would not be disruptive. I suspect that it also helped that their IQs were much higher than the typical public school kid.
Football is different from most other sports in that because it is inherently ultra-violent, there isn’t a “girls version” — yes there’s the lingerie league and girls will play touch football, but there has never been an institutional girls version of actual football because it’s simply too violent physically, and everyone knows that touch football is not the same sport at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Football_Alliance
Apparently, there are three women’s tackle football leagues.
@earl – that was Jordan’s conclusion too. 😉
If jordan and fred both agree on something, seems a sign of hard truth.
In our culture today, men don’t need to learn to protect women. They need to learn how to hit (metaphorically) women where it matters in order to stop their society destroying antisocial behavior.
@ earl says:
November 6, 2017 at 11:18 am
“I’ve interacted with quite a few teachers in the town I live in…this is already the case. It’s more about trying to control the out of control children than actually educating them.”
Voddie Baucham says that Christian parents owe their children a Christian education – whether home schooling or at a Christian school. I came to that conclusion a long time ago, but he explains it a lot better than I do.
@ Otto Lamp says:
November 4, 2017 at 12:28 pm
“The are targeting it because it is a MASCULINE sport.
They have already set the demise of wrestling in motion. They are simply moving on to destroy the next masculine sport.”
No, there’s more to it than that. Yes, football is a masculine sport, and SJWs hate all things masculine. But Rugby is just as masculine as football, and instead of shoehorning women into men’s rugby (as they’re trying to do with football), they created a separate rugby league for women with its own World Cup and Olympic event.
The same is true for wrestling, by the way. There is now women’s wrestling in the Olympics.
Creating a separate women’s league does not destroy a masculine sport. Shoehorning women into the men’s league does. Why? Because, after claiming that “everything you can do, I can do better”, women predictably behave like damsels in distress when hit by a man. The sport then becomes diluted and boring, which drives people away from the sport.
That’s what they’re doing to football, but they’re NOT doing that to rugby, or wrestling, even though those two sports are equally masculine. Why not? I suspect that’s because football is American.
Side note: I remember signing a petition to keep wrestling in the Olympics, not because I’m a wrestler (I’m not), but because it’s one of the original Olympic sports, and every culture has a form of wrestling, and it requires very little equipment, which means people from even the poorest countries can – and do – win medals. It’s a about the purest form of physical competition possible, other than running.
That’s what they’re doing to football, but they’re NOT doing that to rugby, or wrestling, even though those two sports are equally masculine. Why not? I suspect that’s because football is American.
I would say it’s due to its popularity in America, especially among American conservatives.
But Rugby is just as masculine as football, and instead of shoehorning women into men’s rugby (as they’re trying to do with football), they created a separate rugby league for women with its own World Cup and Olympic event.
I have to believe that these women’s leagues are subsidized by the men’s pro leagues (like the WNBA is subsidized by the NBA).
Novaseeker
I would say it’s due to its popularity in America, especially among American conservatives.
The SJW’s in the NFL appears to be putting that hypothesis to the test.
@ Novaseeker says:
November 6, 2017 at 6:09 pm
“I would say it’s due to its popularity in America, especially among American conservatives.”
That’s the way it looks to me.
@ feeriker says:
November 6, 2017 at 6:48 pm
“I have to believe that these women’s leagues are subsidized by the men’s pro leagues (like the WNBA is subsidized by the NBA).”
That wouldn’t surprise me at all. In fact, it’s a certainty at American universities, most of which have women’s rugby teams. The most popular university men’s sports (football, basketball, baseball) subsidize the less popular women’s sports. Universities also subsidize women’s sports by eliminating men’s sports to make room for women’s sports.
Thanks, Title IX!
Oscar @ November 6, 2017 at 5:52 pm:
“There is now women’s wrestling in the Olympics.”
With mud and bikinis? Please?
Because a feminine primary social order that demands complete control men must have overseers in the locker room until men can be trusted to police themselves with regard to the Feminine Imperative:
https://therationalmale.com/2014/06/03/male-space/
@ Gunner Q says:
November 7, 2017 at 10:32 am
“With mud and bikinis? Please?”
Uhhhhh….. sure…..
Eww. More mud, less testosterone. Is that a ‘roid vein on the left one’s bicep? And the right one is either shedding her skin or already in elbow braces. What did the Olympic Commission do, establish cis-men’s wrestling and trans-men’s wrestling?
Look on the bright side. After four Olympic games that featured women’s wrestling, one American woman finally earned a gold medal in Rio.
“I said over and over that Christ is in me and I am enough. That is one of the most freeing things I have ever said. I said I don’t need to be perfect. Leading up in training camp, people would ask me how I feel about practice. I had no answer. I was looking for perfection everywhere. I realized I was not going to find it. I trusted God that what I have is enough.” ~ Helen Maroulis
https://www.teamusa.org/USA-Wrestling/Features/2016/August/18/Maroulis-wins-historic-Olympic-gold-medal-with-win-over-Yoshida
Rollo…..one of the last barriers of a “man only space” seems to be the traditional barber shop, and that is even now being infiltrated.
Jason,
True. Finding a good, old fashioned barber shop is difficult. It took months for me to find one when I moved to my current city, and it’s in the “heartland”. Fortunately, I have four boys, so we give them lots of business.
Pingback: Everything Or Nothing | The Anarchist Notebook
Pingback: Militantly clueless | Dalrock