In response to my post Vagina worship, Neguy came to George Gilder’s defense:
Men and Marriage is actually a re-released second edition of Gilder’s 1973 book Sexual Suicide, which was interestingly published by New York Times Books. It’s easy to sit here in 2018 and criticize Gilder, but writing back in the early 1970s (no fault divorce only began in 1969) he was actually one of the most prescient critics of the sexual revolution, one who foresaw a lot of what came to pass. He also understood the implications of things like government provided universal day care, which he strongly opposed. Yes, Gilder got some important things wrong, but his work needs to be seen in the context of when he originally wrote it and developed the ideas and the many things he got right. We also need to have the humility to realize that future generations, if they take notice of what we’re writing here at all, will be judging us for our blind spots.
There are two main weaknesses to this defense. First, Gilder’s response to the feminist arson against fathers was to break out the gasoline. Instead of calling out the evil of a system designed to destroy families, he praised the system as natural and right. On the same page as the quotes I provided yesterday, Gilder explains why fathers are and must be expendable. If fathers aren’t expendable, women can’t tame men the way civilization requires:
The female responsibility for civilization cannot be granted or assigned to men. Unlike a woman, a man has no civilized role or agenda inscribed in his body. Although his relationship to specific children can give him a sense of futurity resembling the woman’s, it always must come through her body and her choices. The child can never be his unless a woman allows him to claim it with her or unless he so controls her and so restricts her sexual activity that he can be sure he is the father. He cannot merely come back nine months later with grand claims. He must make a durable commitment.
Even then he is dependent on the woman to love and nurture his child. Even in the context of the family, he is sexually inferior. If he leaves, the family may survive without him. If she leaves, it goes with her. He is readily replaceable; she is not. He can have a child only if she acknowledges his paternity; her child is inexorably hers. His position must be maintained by continuous performance, sexual and worldly, with the woman as the judge. The woman’s position, on the other hand, requires essentially a receptive sexuality and is naturally validated by the child that cannot ordinarily be taken away. The man’s role in the family is thus reversible; the woman’s is unimpeachable and continues even if the man departs.
The man’s participation in the chain of nature, his access to social immortality, the very meaning of his potency, of his life energy, are all inexorably contingent on a woman’s durable love and on her sexual discipline. Only she can free the man of his exile from the chain of nature; only she can give significance to his most powerful drives.
The essential pattern is clear. Women manipulate male sexual desire in order to teach men the long-term cycles of female sexuality and biology on which civilization is based.
Again, Gilder isn’t sounding the alarm about the terrible destruction of the family courts. He is providing the philosophical foundation for them. He is explaining that fathers need to be expendable for civilization to work. This matters all the more because as other readers have noted, Gilder is highly influential among conservatives, and has been for decades.
The second problem with Neguy’s defense of Gilder is that Gilder, now 78, has had over forty years to observe reality since he first wrote Sexual Suicide. If he had learned and corrected his error, this would be one thing. The quote I included above and the quotes in my previous post were from the re-release of Sexual Suicide (renamed Men and Marriage) in 1992. By the early nineties the evil of decades of family destruction were obvious, but Gilder was still pushing his destructive line that mothers need to be able to kick out fathers in order to perform their civilizing role of men.
In 2010 Gilder doubled down on this message in an interview he did with Religion & Liberty:
R&L: What are the differences between the genders as articulated in your book Men and Marriage and what impact does this have on the social order?
Gilder: The key difference is that the woman holds in her very body a link to the long term future of the race. Her sexuality determines her long term goals. As a very physiological consciousness, she knows she can bear and nurture children. She has a central role in the very perpetuation of the species. The man is estranged from this process; his sexuality arises merely as a compulsive drive to pleasure. It’s short term by nature. It’s predatory and quickly gratified. The Women’s Movement tragically reduces female sexuality to the terms of male sexuality. When this happens, she reduces herself to the male level of recreational sex. Paradoxically, when that happens the woman loses all her power over men and the reverence and respect toward the procreative potential of woman is lost. And that really destroys the family. But if the power of “choice” is given up, the woman actually ascends to a higher level of sexuality and her body attains an almost mystical power over men.
The interviewer asked Gilder about divorce, but Gilder was all but uninterested in divorce:
R&L: How does the divorce rate affect economic life and the number of poor?
Gilder: The real source of poverty is not divorce, although it does spread poverty, and bitterness, and feminism, and other problems. The key culprit is illegitimacy. Among the poor, the welfare state has legitimized children born out of wedlock and de-legitimized marriage. Even conservatives who want workfare want to further enrich the welfare state. To them, it’s not enough to give mothers of illegitimate children all sorts of supports and special pregnancy services, housing, special educational and training programs. You now have to give them jobs and daycare centers on top of it.
This constant enrichment of the welfare state ignores the victims of the real problem who are not on welfare. They are unmarried men and they have rendered many of our big cities unlivable. They have reduced the real-estate values in American cities by trillions of dollars. It is single men who commit the violent crimes.
Gilder said these things in 2010, despite understanding full well the evil being unleashed in order to ensure that women could have the power over men that Gilder argued was essential. Gilder is quoted by Stephen Baskerville:
During the debate leading up to welfare reform, George Gilder warned of the bipartisan bandwagon being marshaled to punish private citizens who had been pronounced guilty by general acclaim:
The president wants to take away their driver’s licenses and occupational accreditations. Texas Governor George W. Bush wants to lift their hunting licenses as well. Moving to create a generation of American boat people, Senator Bill Bradley is leading a group of senators seeking to seize their passports. Congressman Henry Hyde wants to expand the powers of the IRS to confiscate their assets. Running for president, Lamar Alexander wants to give them “jail time,” presumably so they won’t vote. Also running for president, Alan Keyes suggests caning, recommending “a trip to Singapore to learn how to administer a civil beating.” Governor William Weld in Massachusetts wants to subpoena their DNA, put liens on their houses, and hound them through the bureaucracies of 50 states. (1995, 24)
And it isn’t that no one has pointed out Gilder’s error. In 1990 Dr. Daniel Amnéus dedicated a chapter of his book The Garbage Generation to correcting this very error*. From Chapter 7, titled The Gilder Fallacy:
Precisely the opposite of Gilder’s view that “civilization evolved through the subordination of male sexual patterns–the short-term cycles of tension and release–to the long-term female patterns.” “In creating civilization,” says Gilder,
women transform male lust into love; channel male wanderlust into jobs, homes, and families; link men to specific children; rear children into citizens; change hunters into fathers, divert male will to power into a drive to create. Women conceive the future that men tend to fell; they feed the children that men ignore.
Why, if so, didn’t civilization precede patriarchy and the regulation of female sexuality? This regulation was the precondition enabling males to create stable families from which they could not be expelled. The earlier matriarchal pattern is this: “The women are not obliged to live with their husbands any longer than suits their pleasure or conscience….” In such a society women, including married women, are sexually autonomous and the men can do nothing about it. That’s the way women prefer things.
*H/T Bee
George Gilder is the epitome of the ‘militantly clueless’ man. Especially since he is very brilliant and articulate in many other subjects (this in fact makes his militant blue-pillism even worse). For that reason, I regret spending $26 + tax on ‘Telecosm’, even though that is a very good book about fiber optics and internet technology. Even in there, he manages to virtue-signal one or two sentences about how he his ‘against feminism’ and feminists attack him.
Age is not an excuse. Thomas Sowell is 87, and is more red-pill than most.
I don’t blame someone for being delusional in 1992, as that was before the Internet, and before the normalization of both the carousel and AF/BB. It happened only in certain urban circles that were not visible to the mainstream.
If we truly want to put a timeline on when a certain level of cultural demise via the FI reached a level of visible threshold :
2007 : By this time, anyone purportedly against ‘feminism’ should be fully red pill.
end-of-2015 : By this time, even an ordinary many who willingly enters a marriage or other situation where the FI can harm him, no longer deserves sympathy. There has been enough cumulative content out there for enough years that he should have a clue.
@Dalrock,
“dedicated a chapter of his book Garbage Eaters…”
Book is titled, “The Garbage Generation.” Book is available for free on the Fish Eaters website:
https://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html
The garbage generation are the dysfunctional children raised by single mothers (the matriarchy model).
[D: Good catch. Thank you. Fixed.]
“He is readily replaceable. She is not.”
Wow.
Somehow my dad (at a time when it wasn’s a foregone conclusion or even normal for widowed men to do it) kept his family together and moving forward. People actually remarked about how “wonderful it is that he kept all you kids together”.
Gilder’s remarks are ludicrous and an affront to every man who has raised his kids alone; whether through widowhood or because his wife walked off and left. And there are women who sometimes that.
Pingback: With friends like Gilder, married fathers don’t need enemies. | @the_arv
Gilder explains why fathers are and must be expendable. If fathers aren’t expendable, women can’t tame men the way civilization requires:
Incredible. The mental acrobatics one has to go through to believe that…
Observing women today, there is not doubt that men did not merely create 100% of civilization. Men created 110-120% of it, as civilization only advanced sporadically when episodes of patriarchy were dominant.
The more a subject advances civilization, the less women are interested in it. Look no further than the reaction women have to the tech industry for proof.
George Gilder, in fact, writes books about fiber optics and wireless technology. The gender breakdown of the people who attend his book signings and conference keynotes should give the old fool a clue.
I hate to say this, I really do, but it seems like there’s not a lot of options left for traditional men interested in actual marriage and a family. Even if Western men actually had the balls to do a collective marriage strike and force the issue, Western women would simply vote for open border politicians and/or marry non-Western men – who of course would not be held to the same expectations and legal standards as Western men regarding marriage. Rights for thee, but not for me!
There’s no scenario in which Western women would be compelled or persuaded to change the way laws are today or adopt traditional norms. Only a sudden and abrupt economic collapse would potentially change things, and even then Western men are so weak I think most would actually push for maintaining the status quo.
Traditional western men have no power and no control over their civilization, their culture, and their nation. The most prudent option is to avoid any institution that gives the state power and control over their lives and avoid as much as possible contributing to or financially supporting these entities responsible for the situation we have today. I can’t stop what’s happening, but I refuse to enable it, either.
Yeah this man hates fathers. He’s basically a feminist without saying he’s a feminist.
A good friend of mine, now deceased, tried to warn me about George Gilder 20 years ago. He said that Gilder had connections to the Rockefellers, and was a tool of the Globalist Insiders. I should have taken him more seriously. Actually, I did, but it has taken 2 decades and help from Dalrock to get a full load of what’s up with the guy.
I remember in my blue pill days reading Gilder’s “Men and Marriage” and being impressed by the thesis: the woman’s job is to settle down and civilize the man. It appealed to me that I was untamed and wild, and needed to be domesticated. And subjecting myself to it would ultimately make things better for me.
In large part, under marriage 1.0, that is what happened to me. But I realized in some inchoate way that I dared not be fully domesticated. And so I pushed back and held off from full domesticity, ahd it kept our marriage alive and fun. It wasn’t until I took up reading in the manosphere a while ago that I understood.
Great critique. I read Men and Marriage in 1993 and thought it was a great book. Read it again a decade later and wasn’t so sure anymore. Regarding Gilder’s comments like “He is readily replaceable. She is not.” If this were said in terms of denouncing this state of affairs, I could see how this would be true. It is true according to Marriage 2.0, isn’t it? But if he’s advocating that is the way it is and that men need women to tame them and that men really don’t bring much of anything of value to the table (or not until after the women has repurposed it and channeled it into proper use), then he’s just defending the blue pill worldview.
The book The Garbage Generation is much better. It’s a recommended read, or at least skim the chapters that interest you.
Biblically speaking if the child is not his, either she is an adulteress (capital offense) or an fornicator and some other guy owes her father the bride price, 2 years wages. Not much leverage for the harlot when God’s law guides a society.
Wow! I guess Christ came for nothing, we already had women for saviors.
And then men fail to obey God and start acquiescing to the women’s deception.
Beautiful Badasses In and Out of Uniform: https://thechive.com/2018/01/13/beautiful-badasses-in-and-out-of-uniform-41-photos/
It seems a lot of Attention Whores are joining the military and police.
From what I could tell in those photos.
“…the woman actually ascends to a higher level of sexuality and her body attains an almost mystical power over men.”
Again, whenever there is an academic/philosophical discussion of gender power dynamics…..PRESTO. All of a sudden every female has become a 20 year old Sofia Vergara for all intents and purposes.
Women do not civilize men. Eve did not civilize Adam; Adam’s choice to follow Eve’s lead led to the fall. Moses’ wife opposed his mission to free the slaves from Egypt. Solomon’s wives led to his downfall when he sought to placate them. Jezebel provoked Ahab to sin, even when he was on the cusp of repentance. Any churchian who preaches that women civilize men is a heretic.
God civilizes man. Man was created for the purpose of fearing God and keeping His commandments. This is the whole reason for man’s existence. Woman was created to be man’s helper in this endeavor. To be man’s helper in his service to God is the whole reason for her existence. Whatever else he may do, a man who does not fear and obey God is a failure; whatever else she may do a woman who does not act as man’s helper in serving God is a failure.
‘ He said that Gilder had connections to the Rockefellers, and was a tool of the Globalist Insiders. ‘
It appears so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gilder
Gildner: The man’s participation in the chain of nature., his access to social immortality, the very meaning of his potency, of his life energy, are all inexorably contingent on a woman’s durable love and on her sexual discipline. Only she can free the man of his exile from the chain of nature; only she can give significance to his most powerful drives.
Ecclesiastes: Fear God, and keep His commandments, for this is the whole (duty) of man.
Choose whom you will serve.
@The Question
While that’s possible, the instances where that takes place are still governed by the usual rules – things like status, power, wealth, height, strength, etc are still required (and typically in excess of the female). Western women may (increasingly) engage in short-term sexual pairings with non-Western men, but will still not marry those men. The level of entitlement that has been fostered in women will be very hard to overcome.
Gilder is also a “techno-utopian.” Utopians are always dangerous and end up wrecking society in their attempts to make it over into the image they imagine will be better. And no utopian really believes that, “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before the fall.”
Something hit me when looking at that quote from Stephen Baskerville where he listed the suggested punishments that politicians had for “deadbeat dads,” and it’s this: Even if you accept Gilder’s notion that the sexual nature of men is “inferior” unless subordinated to the higher consciousness of women (and I don’t), the only way that our leaders and institutions can think of to make sure this happens is through fear and intimidation. No punishment can be considered too outlandish in order to bring about this end, all the way up to Keyes’ endorsement of public flogging.
But if modern leaders really want to get men to build lasting families with women, is it possible for them to encourage that behavior through incentives? It certainly seems to be an approach that they believe works in other areas of life. Every politician Baskerville named was a Republican, and that party is somewhat famous for believing that a government can get its citizens to start and grow businesses by lowering the amount they pay in taxes. Or consider how pastors today will tell men to deal with their wives. On a few rare occasions, you can still find a pastor pause to acknowledge that the verse saying “All have sinned,” technically has to include women as well. But how will you see these pastors address men who have to deal with a wife who sins against them? They certainly won’t tell them to issue punish or act harshly towards them in order to correct an offense. Instead, you’re probably going to hear a message advising you to “woo” your wife like Christ does the church, so that by your kind behavior she’ll be drawn to you. Matt Chandler has even outlined such an approach and offered it his heartiest recommendation:
Pastor Justin Buzzard took it even further in his book “Date Your Wife” where he recommended his book’s title as a prescription for curing a wife’s misbehavior, even to the point of circling back to punishment for the husband when his wife sins:
Pastors, politicians and modern leaders of all stripes seem to have no problem with the idea that you can incentivize the good behavior of individuals through positive reinforcement. Unless we’re talking about fathers, in which case the very first tool they will reach for is a spiked baseball bat.
Something I recently heard Stefan Molyneux say seems apropos here: “If you want to know who truly rules a society, ask who you’re not allowed to criticize. And if you want to know who a society truly oppresses, ask who’s not allowed to get angry.”
@Darwinian
Matt Chandler essentially wants men to be house husband slaves to their wives- aka exactly what the feminists want.
Buzzard is no different.
The fact remains thought that men still go an attend these churches, christians think this is the godly way
At my church a man proves himself by looking after the creche kids, cooking dinner and cleaning houses….
women do not have to prove their worth at all
Children civilize men therefore etc etc.
Pingback: With friends like Gilder, married fathers don’t need enemies. | Reaction Times
Just saw a documentary on the growing influence of the Orthodox Church in Russia. Since Putin came to power some 25000 churches have been build to accomodate the growing interest in a conservative, nationalist version of Christianity. The government has already changed laws to protect traditional family values. I saw a priest who was married and had 18 (!) children, and who was celebrated as a national hero. I’m getting suspicious that all criticism against Russia are largely motivated by criticism against traditional family values. Of course threats to liberty by the Russian government are very serious and should be opposed, but we can praise them for upholding family values. They rightly see the West as a threat to these values and fully understand that the West tries to export and impose its leftist worldview upon the rest of the world. Ironically, this is happening in Russia, the land where marxism and communism were born and raised.
“His position must be maintained by continuous performance, sexual and worldly, with the woman as the judge. ”
Indeed, this is correct.
Gilder is simply repeating Briffault’s Law:
“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”
Can that Briffaultesque, inner evolutionary “judge” within a human female then ever really “submit” to her husband as Peter instructs? (1 Peter 3:1-6).
The answer is a decisive no.
Gilder can eat the peanuts out of my .
How odd that his father and his stepfather were both named “Gilder.” Could his mother’s second marriage have been to a cousin of his biological father?
Gilder says in the 2010 interview: “This constant enrichment of the welfare state ignores the victims of the real problem who are not on welfare. They are unmarried men and they have rendered many of our big cities unlivable. They have reduced the real-estate values in American cities by trillions of dollars. It is single men who commit the violent crimes.”
That paragraph is odd both in its phrasing and its content. In the second sentence, the initial “They” seems to refer back to “the victims of the real problem who are not welfare”; so he seems to be saying “the victims of the real problem…are unmarried men.” As an unmarried man who is not on welfare, I would agree that unmarried men are victims of the welfare state. Moreover, as an unmarried man who works two jobs and has fathered no children, I would particularly say that men such as myself are constantly being victimized as the money that we earn is taken from us by the state and transferred to single mothers who are raising children who are not ours. Gilder, though, seems to consider unmarried men victims in quite another sense, which rather makes them victimizers, who cause society’s problems. This attempt to cast shame on unmarried men needs to stop. Remaining single is a perfectly rational choice for man, due to the consequences of divorce. Moreover, anyone who’s Christian should keep in mind that real Christianity considers the single state more honorable and a surer path to holiness than marriage. It is instructive to compare Gilder with St. Paul, who says the complete opposite of what Gilder says; for whereas Gilder thinks that women make men morally better, St. Paul presents women as a distraction from God: “I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I….He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.” (1 Corinthians 7.8, 32-33). Nor does St. Paul envision women having a positive influence on men; he envisions the opposite, that women can be distracted from God by their men: “the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord…But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” (1 Corinthians 34). Of course, our culture today is so bad that the situation which worries St. Paul, namely that married women divide their attention between their husbands and God, would be an improvement over our culture, in which some women seem to care about pleasing neither their husbands nor God.
The Question-
I think a true catastrophe would topple the idols. Until such a thing, there’s little chance of a reset.
Then again, maybe, just maybe, there will eventually be such a number of slothful old cat ladies that young women won’t be able to turn a corner without seeing one. The young women will be revulsed at the sight of these corpulent old women, and perhaps even humbled to see what will become of them if they don’t turn from socially sanctioned narcissism. Or perhaps, said corpulance starts shortening the life span of these women, reducing their burden on society, while also again possibly introducing young women in a way that only widespread mortality can. Then again, maybe I just have an optimistic imagination.
*introducing women to humility that is.
@Okrahead,
“Women do not civilize men. Eve did not civilize Adam; Adam’s choice to follow Eve’s lead led to the fall. Moses’ wife opposed his mission to free the slaves from Egypt. Solomon’s wives led to his downfall when he sought to placate them. …..”
Great comment, Thank you.
Typical Rockefeller Marxist policy/philosophy.
Gain political power by destroying the nuclear family,and by promoting miscegenation.
Downside: “In race” blue collar workers are the engine in his GDP machine,which feeds his stock profit.
So he’s whining about the cost of his own policies,not being able to walk one of his many mistresses
through the flower laden Town park because he’s created a violent class of social outlaws.
(The one’s he outlaw,banned,and disenfranchised.)
Promotes the false premise men are not “civilized.”
Give a man his freedom from oppressive government,give his lawful authority over his own family
and the man is civil because his hierarchy of needs are being met.
Usurp his God given rights and suddenly you find the Old Testament animal.
Which he’s not really into being of (((The Race)))
Oh he knows exactly what he’s doing,and it’s a big thumb in the eye to profit by selling books to those he’s pooched.
He’s got the God of this world,MONEY and lot’s of it.
He knows there is no afterlife,so need to be contrite.
Destroy and conquer are the motivators.
Money is just the way of keeping score.
Sad that the lawful inheritors of this “civilization” will not Rise Up and take what is theirs from
The Usurpers acting under colour of “Law.”
Then again you never know:
Dem bones dem dones dem dry bones Oh Hear The Word of The Lord.
Rise up,put meat on those bones,take what is yours from the thieves.
Paul “I’m getting suspicious that all criticism against Russia are largely motivated by criticism against traditional family values.”
Hollywood and the news media loved Russia when it was Communist. Now that Russia is nationalist (pro its own people and its own church) Hollywood and the media hate Russia.
Indeed, Hollywood and the media hate any nationalist, pro-Christian movement in the West. How terrible for the West to take care of its own, rather than transferring all its land and resources to the world.
Its obvious that Gilder has never been called to task on his irrational positions. I don’t think he is worldly enough to be able to argue with any of the people posting here. If any of you made any of these comments to him in any kind of public setting where his position was seriously challenged with logic, instead of trying to argue with you he’d shame you and walk. As far as the man Gilder is concerned, none of us “get it” and that is the end of it.
When you are a very old person and you think you understand some aspect of the world perfectly, you are pretty much lost. That is where I hold Gilder. I feel sorry for him. His brain is calcifying.
Samson lost his Godly strength because of a woman, Job’s wife told him to ‘curse God and die’, David went off the rails because he saw a woman bathing…the list of how it really is goes on.
Exactly.
Could perhaps be a Rockefeller type projection. How civilized can the rich elite be? If you believe some of those mansion drug fuel orgy stories…they are the epitome of uncivilized.
Don’t be fooled, nothing Christian about Orthodoxy, a daughter harlot branch of the mother harlot, Vaticanism.
Russia’s Ban on Evangelism Is Now in Effect
Putin signs the law that bans evangelism
Revelation has been clear, the 7th and final church age will be lukewarm, will not stand up, and will fall to idolatry and spiritual fornication under the Great Whore.
Putin and Jesuit Bergoglio
Putin is simply another secret society member controlled by the Jesuits, playing the other side of the chess board towards global control under the Beast system of Rome.
These old timers recognized the blatant deception of feminism in the younger generations but were blind to the deception of their own generation and the generations before. Falling back on notions they hold in their silly heads regarding women were other, older lies. It’s a lie that women are morally superior to men on average. “His sexuality arises as merely a compulsive drive to pleasure”.. Women also have lust and sexual desires that compel them, like men, to sin! How deep is the denial in sentimental, chivalrous women worshippers like Gilder, Stanton and millions more when the sexual revolution, started by the women’s movement, is 50 years old now? Besides the growing number of sexual partners we know single women have behind closed doors there’s other obvious evidence. Women, driven by lust, consume vast quantities of illicit novels, movies, television, internet. What women desire is in plain sight to any man paying attention. These false teachers are trying to sell us stupid outdated myths.
IBB,
When you are a very old person and you think you understand some aspect of the world perfectly, you are pretty much lost. That is where I hold Gilder. I feel sorry for him. His brain is calcifying.
Age is no excuse in Gilder’s case. Plenty of men older than him are more red-pill. Plus, he is a Futurist on other subjects, and is quite brilliant on aspects of fiber optics and wireless technology. Such a person should be able to ‘red pill’ on a variety of other areas quickly.
Rather, the reason for his cluelessness is that he was born into extreme privilege among the inbred old money upper classes (the closest thing in America to the European royal houses). In those circles and in that era, divorce was rare and not for reasons that cause divorce among proles.
From there, be joined up with cuckservatives at the National Review, and since he is routinely attacked by feminists, he thinks he is against feminism (like all cuckservatives do).
But the notion that women innately know what is ‘good for society’ is so incredibly wrong-headed that it is astonishing. Everything we see about unrestricted female behavior today proves that civilization only happened while women were tightly controlled. ‘Feminism’ is directly opposed to any and all true pillars of civilization.
The elitists are trying to replace morality from God to ‘morality from women’. One is objective morality…the other is relative. Relative morality isn’t good for civilization.
”Pastor Justin Buzzard took it even further in his book “Date Your Wife” where he recommended his book’s title as a prescription for curing a wife’s misbehavior, even to the point of circling back to punishment for the husband when his wife sins”
This must be the heretical headship theology where the husband is responsible for everything even his wife’s sin. The results are tyranny on the part of the man since there is a strong incentive to do so.
@ Son of Liberty.
I see nothing wrong with Russia banning the Christian Manginas preaching their Satanic Gospel to the russians…
I always support the banning of Christian overseas evangelism- one less country corrupted by feminism
I always support the banning of Christian overseas evangelism- one less country corrupted by feminism
If you’re referring to American missionaries, that’s assuming that they even impart that much influence. The ones I’ve witnessed in action are so clownishly inept and clueless that no one takes them seriously. It’s truly a shame, because rarely ever do they 1) seriously prepare themselves in rigorous apologetics or 2) do anything whatsoever to learn the language or culture of the people they intend to proselytize to. If they impart anything at all, it’s usually by accident.
“If he leaves, the family may survive without him. If she leaves, it goes with her.”
My dad had to drive my mom out of our lives. It’s probably the only thing that saved my brother, sister, and me. Once he got her to move out of state, he had to work overtime to keep her family off our backs. Destructive, church-backed feminists to the woman. Taught me a lot about destructive behaviors in women.
Squid_hunt, how did he manage to accomplish that? My children would be way better off if I could do the same, but I can’t figure out how.
Luke,
Squid_hunt, how did he manage to accomplish that? My children would be way better off if I could do the same, but I can’t figure out how.
Well, duh! The answer is simple – find a greater fool.
Your ex-wife has to find another husband. Alimony ends, and you might get full custody of your children (thereby ending ‘childimony’ as well).
The other man doesn’t want your kids around, so he indirectly wants you to have custody too.
How can you help your ex-wife find a new husband?
Well, if she is involved in a church, find some way to help the pastor line up more marks for slavery.
No matter how misandric modern society is, there are many ways in which a red-pill man can transfer costs onto some cuck/mangina. You just have to find your own Jim Gay-ratty, who thinks marrying a single mother is heroic.
No chance of that, Anon. She’s 60, quite overweight, keeps a dirty house, is not particularly careful with money, quite unhelpful to anyone not her blood family (e.g., a man) and has become VERY anti-sex.
Meanwhile, her hypergamy is unabated. No man that would look twice at her, would she deem worthy of breathing her air.
She’s 60, quite overweight
Encourage her to eat more, especially junk food. Getting her to start chain smoking would also help.
@Luke
My mom was her own worst enemy. The key to winning the divorce war is to keep a calm head and let them play out their own damage. Half the laws are meant to goad men into overreacting in a panic at losing control so the woman wins by default.
He hired a P.I. to go to all of her parties and then told her he would bring us into court while the P.I. read off all the debaucheries she and her friends had been committing and why she was unfit to have custody. She signed off custody and fled the state. He never even went after her for child support.
It was brutal, but I’m very thankful. My mom is not a bad person, she’s just useless and I can promise you that at four and five years old, I was already outmaneuvering her. Another 15 years of that and I’d have been done.
Squid,
My exwife seems to have had a poor lawyer (to my relative benefit) since she didn’t bother to try to find any work while waiting for our mediation. She had expected to get twice the monthly alimony she got, likely for a longer period.
Fortunately some sideline income had somewhat dried up just before her action or I could have been paying for more “extra work” so she could just relax and do her own thing even more.
She certainly did not think things through well, but I am glad for that in retrospect.
@BillyS
Alimony is the most ridiculous part of divorce. I can’t go back and ask for sex when I need it, can I? Then why do you get to ask for me to support you? The divorce is over. Go live your life the way you wanted to.
She is, at least to a point, with my money. Fortunately it is only for about 2 years more.
You are fully right that it is completely immoral when she is the one that initiated this for no valid reason other than her desire to be single again. (She will claim things were intolerable, I only cut her down, etc.; but those claims and the truth are in different universes.)
Yeah I never understood alimony for that reason.
Guess women love the money in the marriage and could care less about the man.
The objections to alimony are precisely on target IMO. I believe that equally often in the event of divorce (and universally for female-filed or -caused frivorce), there should be what I call “wife alimony”. That is, she gets to spend 40% of HER days cleaning his house, doing laundry, cooking, etc., and 40% of her nights taking care of his sexual needs, at least as long as “husband alimony” is typical for in that state. Of course, in more than one state, husband alimony can still be for life. The idea is that, he, too, should be maintained post-divorce in the manner in which he has been accustomed (from a wife, that would be WRT domestic work and sexual access, calculated from when she provided those things at peak).
“Guess women love the money in the marriage and could care less about the man”
This is the creeping feeling I have as a single man about my dating relationships, I can’t seem to shake it. No matter how much they tell me they “love” me I can’t get past the fact that I would be solving a potential wife’s financial problems. She, however, would become my financial problem. I don’t doubt that they genuinely feel love, whatever that means or is really worth. I just wonder how much ’love’ they would have ever developed for me in the first place if I lived in a van. We’re told that real love is sacrificial. Seems men are always the ones to do the sacrificing.
Female companionship is not unpleasant in moderate amounts. That’s always available, especially if I’m paying for stuff… Biblically sex is restricted to marriage. Setting aside for a moment the reality that sex may not even be available to a married man because the wife can’t be bothered. Just exactly how much should I be willing to sacrifice, for sex? In my late 40’s it’s starting to seem laughably overpriced.
Embracing Reality, here are two thoughts/proposals I believe would boil down your situation to ultimate clarity:
1) IMO, a heck of a case can be made that marriage no longer exists as a realistic (e.g., nonlottery-level) likelihood for American men not uber-Alphas. As I don’t believe in accepting Catch-22s, I see that as removing the Biblical commandment for Christian men here to marry before having sex. (Not so for women, as they can certainly marry IF they want, e.g., while in their 20s to similar-MMV nonAlphas.)
2) I believe that you can very easily separate the would-be golddiggers (ones going for more than just paid dates, but being supported first as cohabs or wives, then via alimony) from those women who genuinely just want to be around you. All you have to do is never cohabitate (eliminates common-law marriage risk, too), Marriage 2.0, or impregnating an American woman/woman in America (outside of a paid gestational surrogate arrangement, of course, which I favor). The ones that like being with you, will be, and the ones that just wanted your wallet (seeing you as just an obstacle between them and your money), will soon enough fade away, and good riddance.
WHEN you tell women you are/are considering dating that dating $$ is all any woman will ever get from you, of course, is the big question. Any player would tell you first to delay, answering, then to be vague, and perhaps finally to lie, so as to prolong any worthwhile (but inevitably temporary, in a post-marriage country) relationship. I advocate at least the first, could see the second, and would personally oppose the third. (If the woman is a proven gold-digger/frivorcee, then perhaps I could shrug at someone doing the third…)
Female companionship is not unpleasant in moderate amounts
That depends on the female. Given what’s available in the Anglosphere today, especially in North America, the idea of more than five involuntary milliseconds in the presence of any random woman is simply intolerable.
Men and Marriage originally came out in 1986, not in 1992, and wasn’t really a revised edition, but a rewrite of Sexual Suicide, which came out in 1973. The earlier book contained, for instance, a lengthy critique of “Open Marriage,” a fad that didn’t catch on as Mr. Gilder thought it might, so he left all that out of the later book. Mr. Gilder was a “Ripon Republican” at the time of Sexual Suicide.
Mr. Gilder was interviewed by James Dobson on Focus on the Family in 1987 about Men and Marriage, and said that he became a Christian in his mid-late 30s. He quoted Margaret Mead in that interview about how the woman’s role is biologically determined, while the man’s role has to be determined by society.
Mr. Gilder was single until he was at least 38, and wrote his book Naked Nomads (1974) about the plight of single men.
@Luke
“The objections to alimony are precisely on target IMO. I believe that equally often in the event of divorce (and universally for female-filed or -caused frivorce), there should be what I call ‘wife alimony’.”
I think a lot of the problem is that these laws were created during a time when marriage was intended and viewed to be for life and women did not have the resources they do currently. Who struck first is immaterial at this point and I believe the truth is lost to history and politics. But that being said, to continue the concept of alimony while extending and encouraging no-fault divorce is another example of women’s double-standard goofiness. If a woman wants to be independent, then the man should be under no obligation to support her.
I think we are seeing with a lot of women…their definition of independent is saying they are but are still being supported by a man in some way. It’s more emotional feels than reality.
I could never say I’m independent of women logically. For one…I was carried for nine months and born of one.
And many women are not logical enough to realize the errors in their thinking, wanting a man’s provisions but not his control.
@earl
“their definition of independent is saying they are but are still being supported by a man in some way.”
Typical Marxism. The best thing to do is laugh at these brave social heroes that are finally living their dream of four cats, two counsellors, and a box of psychotropic drugs to quiet their screams.
Pingback: Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying.
Pingback: Some Christian conservatives bow down for feminists