Larry Kummer at Fabius Maximus responds to the illogical modern conservative position in Modern women say “follow the rules while we break them”. Kummer points out that the position modern conservatives are trying to conserve (feminism plus chivalry) is inherently unstable, and as a result must eventually fall:
Societies can be disrupted, just like businesses
Marcus’ son went to the heart of the matter when saying that his dad’s rules were not fair. In our system where each individual has agency — making his or her own moral choices — the system must appear fair. If it requires a philosopher or professor of women’s studies to explain the logic of the society’s rules, the rules will not stand for long.
…
What lies ahead?
Change. We have broken the old gender regime. It can no more be restored than toothpaste put back into the tube. But the emerging feminist regime seems irrational, unfair, and unstable. There is no obvious alternative to it now, but …
“Mankind sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.”
— Karl Marx in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
(1859). His economics is mostly bunk, but he was an incisive social analyst.
Kummer notes that the constant bombardment in all forms of media of women hitting and otherwise physically attacking men is working as designed; over time it is changing our views of what is normal. As an example of the change, my wife was talking to a roughly 20 year old man the other day, and he mentioned in conversation that he and his friends have stopped going to parties due to young women trying to start fist fights with the men. This young man’s decision to exit the party scene is an example of women playing by an entirely new set of rules and men continuing to play by the old, but there are already fissures appearing in this new model. The young man described a scenario where after being refused by several white men, a moxie filled feminist was finally obliged by a black man who proceeded to (with minimal effort) knock her across the room. As expected, the complaint from the women present went immediately from taunting “you are too chicken to fight a girl”, to outrage “you hit a girl”!
The reason both conservatives and feminists are so confident that this new arrangement can be maintained is their faith in chivalry as an immutable trait of men. While feminists constantly accuse men of being evil, the foundation of feminism is an unshakable faith in the goodness of men (examples here and here).
Losing chivalry as a (near) universal value by men would be a disaster for the feminist project, as while the domestic violence paradigm is intellectually founded on an attack on past patriarchal values, implementation of the model relies on an extreme sense of chivalry. How else could feminists implement a legal model where wives and girlfriends are free to attack their boyfriends and husbands while enforcing the harshest sanctions against men who fight back or even leave the room before the woman is done? This is why feminist UFC fighter Ronda Rousey refuses to fight a man while at the same time boasts that she could beat up the men in her weight class. If Rousey were to back up her boasting in a sanctioned fight the man would have to be allowed to fight back. This is unthinkable:
They’re not gonna do anything like that. Fights are chaotic. Anything can happen. And there’s no setting in which we should condone a man hitting a woman. I really just don’t think that any athletic commission on Earth would ever condone something like that.
Fights are going to go both ways. You’re going to see both people hitting each other. I don’t think we should celebrate a man hitting a woman in any kind of setting.
It isn’t that Rousey objects to images of women fighting with men. That is something she relishes. But her feminism suddenly becomes conservative when it comes to the idea of men hitting back.
As Kummer notes, chivalry is a vestige of a previous time, and is entirely inconsistent with an age where we are repeatedly told women are as tough as men. Today most people accept the feminist position that not including women in Delta and the SEAL Team 6 is a terrible injustice (because women are as tough as men), while also believing that a husband who hits his wife back is a monster (because men are far stronger than women). This commonly accepted contradiction isn’t a natural position; it is merely an artifact of our transition from a time of different values. Conservatives want to freeze this moment in time, but this simply isn’t possible. Even if feminists immediately stopped pushing for further change, eventually the contradiction would fall of its own weight.
Yet feminists aren’t done pushing for further change. There is another more subtle feminist message in all forms of entertainment that will ultimately prove even more corrosive to the idea of chivalry than showing women regularly beating up men. As if it were enforced by law, all modern action stories follow a very specific pattern. First we see two or more men banding together fighting their enemies. Usually it starts with women in the periphery, in leadership roles (the general ordering the men into battle), and/or in supporting roles (the kickass hacker gal, etc). But once the group of men are established as elite warriors, the stage is set for every feminists’ wet dream; the woman who proves she is one of the guys.
While our heroine (lets call her Mary Sue) is just as tough as the men (if not tougher!), she is different than the men in one very important way. Part of the original scenes establishing the group of men as elite warriors is the depiction of a manly comradery. Each man depends on the other men to have his back, and typically this will be demonstrated by one or more scenes where one man takes out an assailant who is in the process of attacking a comrade who is situationally vulnerable. These moments aren’t incidental, as they demonstrate that the woman is breaking into a bonafide group of fighting men. But once Mary Sue has arrived on the scene and started kicking ass, a different version of this exchange is called for almost immediately. As the men did with one another, one of the men will take out an assailant who has gotten the drop on Mary Sue. But instead of building comradery, this will result in over the top fury by the woman. The man defending her will not be seen as treating her as one of the guys, but as practicing chivalry by defending a woman. This isn’t shown as Mary Sue being irrational, but as a moral lesson for the men (especially the young men) watching. While this message is less noticeable than the trope of the kick ass warrior woman, the assault on the concept of chivalry is even more potent here because the men watching can often rationalize the men fighting the warrior woman as bad guys. But here the object of the lesson is an ostensible good guy, and the moral is clear that defending the woman was an outrageous act of disrespect because it smacks of chivalry. Older men aren’t likely to abandon their chivalry as a result of this conditioning, but younger men will, and eventually all men will have grown up under this new conditioning.
Thanks for the shout out — and excellent analysis. Food for thought.
Question: should this post have a title? Nothing shows at the top.
[D: Thanks. Somehow I overlooked adding a title. Fixed.]
Pingback: Modern women say “follow the rules while we break them”
I don’t go to movies anymore, and no examples of the trope you cite are immediately springing to mind. Do you have any particular movies in mind?
Comment posted at the FM website by StickDude:
Here’s a recent example from our local paper {Modesto, CA).
The headline – “Video shows cop punching a woman in the face as she is ejected from Hard Rock Stadium”
The reality – “Woman being ejected from Hard Rock Stadium hits cop in the face. Cop responds appropriately.”
Pingback: @the_arv
I’ve argued this before, but it’s worth reiterating: What we’re experiencing is a form of state-enforced live action role playing (LARP).
https://anarchistnotebook.com/2016/08/05/statism-and-larping/
“Much of our current culture and society that relies on the state to enforce is itself a form of LARPing. It’s LARPing because it goes against the natural order of things. The difference between statist LARPing and regular LARPing is that, unlike an anachronistic organization, the state puts a gun to someone’s head and say, ‘You will believe what we tell you. You will pretend.’ So we pretend. It’s why people get outraged when we play make believe in ways that threaten state-reliant fantasies. They perceive the vulnerability inherent in their ideologies. Were it not for the state, the coercion that enables their type of LARPing to exist would end.”
Anyone who doubts this is free to explain how feminism would work in a situation without a state agent at some point threatening violence against those who do not comply.
Jabrwok,
I don’t watch much TV or go to many films, either. But even so I have stumbled on four examples.
Two hit TV shows with women repeatedly physically abusing their boyfriends: “Castle” and “NCIS Los Angeles.” And two films with women casually attacking guys (not self-defense): Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” and ““Dukes Of Hazzard.“ See the video clips:
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/06/01/women-hitting-men-97239/
In all of these the women is the heroine. These scenes would be considered quite mad up thru the 1950s. Women attackers became normalized with the rise of the “kick ass” heroine in the early 1960s. I believe the first on US & UK media was Dr. Cathy Gale (actress Honor Blackman) in “The Avengers” (1963-1965) — creating the now-standard model of the brilliant and kick-ass woman. See more about this here:
““Mockingjay” shows us a Revolution in Gender Roles. What’s the next revolution?”
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2014/12/01/73480/
I predict that a new rule of so called ‘chivalry’ will soon emerge, something like a ‘three punch rule’: If a woman strikes a man three times, then he will strike back in a similar manner, slap for slap, kick for kick, punch for punch, etc. There has to be a clear line of provocation, and there must be clear consequences to send a clear message – to pick on someone your own size (and gender). A new era begins…
My post discusses women hitting men as a fault line — because that is the most dramatic and obvious example of feminist wanting men to act unreasonably.
I briefly mention one that is much more common: women dressing provocatively but demanding that men not look at them. The now commonplace taunt of women displaying lavish cleavage demanding that a man “look up here.” Our sheep-like response shows who is running society. The “don’t look” rule was paired with the “nice girls dress modestly” rule.
My guess is that the first sign of the social revolution will be when men reply “Honey, I’ll look at what I want to look at.” Women talk about the right to control their own bodies. Eventually men will demand the same right. Freedom and all that.
Revolutions begin with small changes. William Tell refused to bow to the governor’s hat, and so began the Swiss war of independence in the early 14th Century. They are still independent 700 years later.
Straight forward, this is a conundrum. After all, a man can’t deal with a ‘crazy woman’ because in the end, men solve verbal conflicts much sooner with physcial conflict. And given the disparity of strenght, a man can’t hit a woman and win the peace (he can win the fight/war, but not the peace).
Men are competative with men to place in the heirarchy and be as high as possible to gain mates. A man’s fears are that he is weak or that he is a traitor to his group. Women fear being outsiders, ostrication. This is why slut shaming worked on women. It put a woman on the outside. A man can’t do that because he isn’t in her group (other women). So in the end a man has no meanss to deal with a crazy woman who will not abid by social mores.
The example of the party with girl hits man “what are you affraid to hit a girl” followed by man hitting girl back “you hit a girl.” Notice the play, she is trying to ostricise – put out from the group – the man. But again, the man can’t win the peace
We as men let it work because we want access to the women.
Solution? I’ve no idea. We’ can’t go back, that egg has fallen and broken, and the kings men won’t unscramble it. We can’t stay where we are, it is unstable, like a bolder in the middle of a slope.
I have come to the thought recently that if there are ‘unicorn NAWLTs’ then they are MADE, not born. And they are maintained by the men about them enforcing standards, and getting women to do the same. I’ve got probably another entry on that whole idea there after I work it out some.
“As an example of the change, my wife was talking to a roughly 20 year old man the other day, and he mentioned in conversation that he and his friends have stopped going to parties due to young women trying to start fist fights with the men. This young man’s decision to exit the party scene is an example of women playing by an entirely new set of rules and men continuing to play by the old, but there are already fissures appearing in this new model.”
This is going to create a real societal crisis. What happens when these young men as a collective whole don’t show up to the night clubs, bars, or house parties? What happens when they avoid unnecessary interactions with women their age? What happens when they just check out or have male-only hangouts at their bachelor pad? Forced association, for now, only exists with business and public institutions.
What are feminists going to do? Force men to attend these events when the women complain about it? Require that men invite women to their homes when they have informal gatherings?
women dressing provocatively but demanding that men not look at them. The now commonplace taunt of women displaying lavish cleavage demanding that a man “look up here.”
Said demands are issued only to unattractive men (i.e. the vast majority of men). If the man is attractive, the plaintive cry is “HERE!!! HERE!!! OVER HERE! Please look at me!!!”
The taunt of “look up here” and “my eyes are up here” is reserved only for unattractive men. For attractive men, the coy reply is “well. Like what you see?”
The reeducation of society is about directing, controlling, regulating and restricting the sexuality of unattractive men – the men who, 50 years ago, were husbands and fathers going to jobs every day and essentially making Western society work.
This is going to create a real societal crisis.
I disagree. No it won’t. More and more average guys dropping out of the social scene and GTOW (without, of course, calling it that) won’t change much of anything. It will just go the way it’s still going. More and more men aren’t marrying anyway, and the ones who do are marrying later and later. We can easily go another 50, 75 years sliding in this same general direction as long as the government can continue borrowing and spending, and as long as men have free internet porn. And as much as everyone rails against and hates internet porn, they don’t, really – everyone knows that that’s pretty much what’s keeping the lid on the boiling cauldron of pent up male sexuality. Porn is the current SMP safety valve. Everyone hates that valve, but everyone also knows they desperately need that valve to be there and to work properly.
From Dalrock: “Older men aren’t likely to abandon their chivalry as a result of this conditioning, but younger men will, and eventually all men will have grown up under this new conditioning.”
I think it is going to be worse than new generation men simply not upholding principles of chivalry in military type engagements. My two sons ( a Millennial & a GenZ) , as well as many of their male peers, will frag the Mary Sue’s who may endanger them. How that attitude will play out in more benign social settings is unknown to me, but the unsustainable hypocricy of the new norms will push towards polarized responses, one of which will be very unpleasant for everyone.
There is one area where they overwhelmingly endorse men hitting women. A man just has to be a trans women and then he can win in MMA fights against women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallon_Fox
During Fox’s fight against Tamikka Brents, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head in the 1st round. After her loss, Brents took to social media to convey her thoughts on the experience of fighting Fox: “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right,” she stated. “Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch…”
One loss: On October 12, 2013, Evans-Smith made it to the finals of the CFA 12 tournament, entering as a heavy underdog because Fallon Fox was born a biological male, reaching +425 in the bookmakers odds. After being dominated in the first round, she started taking over in the second round. The round ended in controversy because while Evans-Smith was applying punches from the top position, the referee failed to hear the signal announcing the end of the round, so she continued to beat on Fallon Fox. The referee called the fight a TKO in her favor when the round should have already been over. As Ashlee, her corner and the crowd celebrated, the referee informed her that he had made a mistake, and the fight would go to a third round. In the 3rd, Ashlee was able to get the top position again, and managed to hit a wave of punches, until the referee intervened and stopped the fight, giving her the win by TKO in the third round.
I can’t defend a woman that hits a man. I can’t take her seriously. Even if there’s a rule, I don’t see any sense in enforcing it. When women realize they are no longer going to be protected in their tantrums, they will stop throwing them. Just like a child.
@thedeti
“We can easily go another 50, 75 years sliding in this same general direction as long as the government can continue borrowing and spending.”
At that point what does the culture and society look like, considering the accelerated degradation occurring right now? They’re on the cusp of normalizing pedophilia; what’s beyond that?
Even if the government could borrow for that long, a culture that sick will collapse well before then.
I could be wrong, but I think what can’t continue won’t for much longer.
Good! It’s about time men actually fought the battle of the sexes rather than letting women just run over them. That’s what you do when war as been declared on you, you fight your enemy and you crush them.
When did “don’t hit a woman” become a thing?
Because women in relationships abuse men just as often as the other way around; and are more likely to be the instigators. Yet it was not all that many generations ago men were allowed, expected even, to put an end to such foolishness; and using corporal punishment if that is what it took.
I think the movie Sicario (masterpiece in its own right) examines the female (Emily Blunt) dropped into an ultra-masculine environment (naive newb in with Delta Team 6 going after drug cartels). She is portrayed as idealistic and is slapped down with hard truths by various characters when her feelz get in the way of the big boys’ work. And she was inserted basically due to politics, completely unrelated to her potential contribution.
why shouldn’t he get to hit her back just because she’s a girl? I had to concede the point that it wasn’t fair, but I told him that fairness is not always how we should measure our actions.
“He didn’t seem very convinced. So I asked my wife to come over. I told my son and my wife to make a fist and hold them out, then I did, and we all held our fists side by side. Even though he’s only 8, his fist was closer in size to his mother’s than hers was to mine. I asked him which he thought would hurt more, mom’s or mine? He answered, ‘Yours, by a lot.’ He got the point.”
Can someone tell me what the point was? I’m guessing the girl was also 8, so I bet there wasn’t a big disparity between the boy’s fist and the girl’s. But I don’t see what fist size has to do with “fairness” in any case. Retaliating against an aggressor shouldn’t take fairness into account, only effectiveness.
We have broken the old gender regime. It can no more be restored than toothpaste put back into the tube. That is incorrect. It could be restored, but only after a serious societal “correction” occurs. Lucifer’s Hammer, anyone?
N.B. some guys at MIT or Cal Tech or the like did put the toothpaste back in the tube.
I agree with Deti on this — the current system is more durable than many think. As long as the government can keep providing bread and circuses through debt and printing money, the current scenario will continue. In fact, automation waves coming will further marginalize men even more than they are today. Men are going down, folks, at least in the short to medium term, for most men outside the top 10-20%. Just is.
The current “contradiction” here between women being able to do what they want and men being restricted is also durable, and isn’t going away anytime soon. The overt reason is that generally society, and people, want, in any case, to support what favors the woman. One can argue that this is biologically based, one can argue that it is ideologically based, one can argue that it is inculcated by education or what have you, but the end state is that in general society, and people, want to support what favors the woman in any given scenario. So does it favor the woman to allow her to hit men? Yes, it does, so she should be allowed. Does it favor the woman for men to be completely disallowed from hitting back? Yes, it does, so that should be the rule. Does it favor women to be able to dress how they want? Yes, so that should be allowed. Does it favor women for men to be restricted in terms of what they look at (at least certain men)? Yes, it does, so certain men should be disallowed from looking. And so on. These contradictions only seem to be contradictions on the surface level — on a deeper level, they aren’t contradictory, because whatever favors the woman is what is chosen in each case, and that is the unifying factor behind what would otherwise appear to be contradictory things.
As for most men “not putting up with this for much longer”, I’ll believe that when I see it. Men’s achilles heel is their libido, their sex drive. This determines pretty much everything most men do, either directly or indirectly. Men will not stand up to women on this issue any more than any other, because they want access to the women for sex, period. Women win because men want them more than vice versa, due to the higher libido men have. Free up sex and you enslave most men to women almost immediately because men have the higher sex drive and that will enslave them to whatever women want (most men, apart from outliers). C’est la vie, gentlemen.
@thedeti – “Porn is the current SMP safety valve. Everyone hates that valve, but everyone also knows they desperately need that valve to be there and to work properly.”
Your quote reminds me of St. Augustine’s quote, “If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.” De ordine, 2.4
Pingback: The only step left is to make the lies reality. – Adam Piggott
The point is that they are holding boys to a higher moral standard. What they are in fact preaching is that men are to be in control of themselves more, to have more ability to conduct themselves without the use of violence. What they are indeed saying, if one actually digs deeper, is that men and women are not equal. And that’s the point. Men are held to a higher standard. It’s always been this way, except men used to gain authority over women as a means to balance this expectation.
It works until it doesn’t. This is why MGTOW is tops. Don’t spend your time wishing for change, just learn to enjoy the peace and quiet not dealing with women brings. And when it all comes crashing down, who cares. Not me.
Only a black guy could get away with hitting a girl at that party.
Why?
Same reason feminists say nothing about Islam.
I think a reasonable man sees that there’s no winning fights with a woman. If you lose you’re weak, if you win you’re a bully.
The idea of never hitting a woman while obvious in it’s face is in some ways, a metaphor. You’re being accused of sexual impropriety, have lost your job and reputation? Don’t get a lawyer and threaten to sue everyone involved – that would be hitting back. Your wife wants to leave you and take the kids? Don’t get a good lawyer, just roll over – don’t hit back.
And if, you gaze upon the current #MeToo frenzy, and decide that leaving women alone in the interests of survival is a good idea, then you’re still wrong because you’re not man enough to patiently wait your turn to be hit by the freight train of having your life destroyed.
Which is why there is no point in debating or fighting a feminist.
The feminists are getting what they wanted…men are leaving, they are either spinsters with cats or lesbians. Hopefully the return of male only spaces return because hanging out with other men (blue pill cuckservatives exempt) is more often a pleasant experience than what the modern woman brings with her bad attitude and aggressive behavior.
The key is to stop caring what they think. Is it better to be hit by that freight train and have your life destroyed or to have your life, your freedom but be thought of as ‘not man enough’ by the same dipshits that would put you in front of a freight train to prove your worth?
2 Thoughts:
1. Everyone thought Joey Buttafuoco was a low-class guy for getting involved with a 16 year old, Amy Fisher, who then tried to shoot Joey’s wife. But after that notoriety, a female wrestler named Chynna offered to box him as a celebrity boxing fight. Joey, despite not having much experience, cleaned her clock. (you can find the fight on YouTube). He was then castigated for hitting a girl… ?!?!
2. That men are more often held to a higher standard, sometimes backfires: they go to other countries, whether Asian or Eastern European, and are seen as higher-quality by the attractive women in those countries.
@Jabrwok
If you have either Cinemax or Amazon Prime, you could check out the first three episodes of season 2 of Strike Back. However, this series is essentially a mash up of soft core porn and action (not an exaggeration), so beware. Episodes 1 and 2 revolve around introducing the two male leads (Sgt. Michael Stonebridge & Sgt. Damien Scott) members of two different Tier 1 units (SAS and Delta). After the comradery is established between the men, episode 3 features the kickass gal (Capt. Kate Marshall) in one of the opening battle scenes. One of the Sgts shoots a villain who has the drop on Capt Marshall, and she is not only ungrateful, but furious. Sgt Stonebridge is married but banging Capt Marshall on the side, and I think it is Stonebridge that commits the chivalrous offense.
The thing is, after you’ve seen it once, you will see it all the time. It is a staple for a reason. The men must be shown saving one another both for the sake of dramatic effect and (even more importantly) to show that the woman is breaking into a bonafide boys club*. But if the men save the kickass gal, her character risks instantly falling into the damsel in distress. So she has to be furious that the men assumed she needed to be saved. There is no other way if she is going to keep her feminist cred.
*This can be shown with a simple “thanks brother” kind of moment, or a more chickified and painful one upsmanship between the men (eg the Hawaii Five O remake). But either way for the men there will be a message that trusting one another with their very lives is a fundamental part of their bond.
I’m an older guy, 63 to be exact, raised by a WWII generation Marine father and a southern belle mother. Chivalry was instilled and expected. I lived it for decades.
My chivalry died, more accurately was murdered, in 2012. I now do not treat women like I treat other men. I treat women like they treat each other. If looks could kill I would have been a dead man long ago from the icicles shot from female eyes through my heart when I treated them without the kowtowing chivalry they think is their birthright but rather with the callous indifference they show for everyone except themselves.
I have much to thank third, and now fourth wave, feminism for. The curtain hiding the Wizardess of Oz has been pulled back exposing innate female nature in all its hideous glory. I am now freed from the myths of the past and live a peaceful and serene life. Thank you ladies for my freedom from you.
W older guys can change and hopefully lead the younger ones away from the brutal mistakes we made in believing the myths. The way forward is clear and easily understood. Minimalist MGTOW ghost monk is the only sane answer for a man with a brain to think and eyes to see. Solitude is the ultimate fate of all males of all mammal species, if they live long enough. Accept this early, live it, and your life will be infinitely better. Cheers.
Responding to Kentucky Headhunter’s comment —
Re: “We have broken the old gender regime. It can no more be restored than toothpaste put back into the tube.”
“That is incorrect. It could be restored, but only after a serious societal “correction” occurs. Lucifer’s Hammer, anyone?”
Disaster porn is popular on the Left and Right, where something sweeps away the old social regime — leaving just the faithful to build a new ideological pure world. It’s fantasy. Technological change (e.g. contraception, devaluing physical labor) has vaporized the old gender regime, and the social revolution has tossed dirt on its grave. If we get a period of counter-revolution, it will build a new order. Build on new values. Perhaps according to Hegel schema: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
“some guys at MIT or Cal Tech or the like did put the toothpaste back in the tube.”
Many things can be done in the lab — with sufficient effort — that don’t happen in the wild.
@Novaseeker
This is true, but this is why Game is so threatening to the feminist/chivalrous system. Chivalry not only doesn’t lead to sex, it is the sex killer.
@Dalrock
One can see this in a much older movie: GI Jane
[D: Thanks. It has been a long time, but I think I recall it.]
Yeah I’ve always thought being a ‘friend’ with a woman is worse than having a man who is my mortal enemy.
That’s the only emotion to a woman that works. Being sweet to them, being angry, feeling pity…they are still emotions. The one they can’t stand is indifference.
Marry-that-slut, Neocon style:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/happy-valentines-day.-now-go-get-married./article/2011578
Main Quote –
“Any return to marriage norms, however, must take into account the feminist critique. Two generations ago, wives were often subordinate to their husbands or blindly deferred to them. Most advocates of marriage today recognize that the institution can be rebuilt only if it is done so on more egalitarian lines. Husbands and wives must be partners, without either ruling over the other. This does assume, however, that the spouses can work out differences more openly than they often did in the past.”
We already had a great flood (just imagine how bad people were before that happened)…several decadent societies eventually fell for similar reasons…but it seems like this ethos is orchestrated to be global-wide. Could possibly be the end times.
It hasn’t worked so far what with the divorce and broken families…but let’s keep trying it. Insanity is…
@feministhater
I’m not sure how you got the higher moral standard notion out of that fist-size comparison, but I do think that is the case in a broader sense, which is weird because aren’t women our natural moral superiors?
As for alternatives for the larger problem, I’ve been thinking of some that are functional, but not optimal. Dalrock’s forum is NOT the place for me to elucidate them, though.
You have bigger fists and therefore are not expected to use them against someone with smaller fists in the same way that they would use them against you. That is expecting you to have a higher moral standard than the person with the smaller fists.
That’s the big tell though. If women are our moral superiors, why are men the ones expected to control our anger? Women, as superior moral beings, should know that you don’t go poking a big bear and not expect to be hit and mauled.
No one who is serious demands more from the lesser being than they would of the greater one. That is why more is expected of men, they are the greater being and always have been.
Don’t forget the scene at the beginning of Star Wars: the Force awakens when Finn tries to help Rey get away from stormtroopers by leading her away by the hand, and she pulls away and tells him she don’t need no man.
Will never, ever watch that movie. Not even a trailer.
Don’t forget the scene at the beginning of Star Wars: the Force awakens when Finn tries to help Rey get away from stormtroopers by leading her away by the hand, and she pulls away and tells him she don’t need no man.
Correct, but Rey also embodies the other side of the movie trope. She has the kickass side and the furious indignation part. But the other key element is that, in addition to being as kickass (or more) than much bigger and stronger male figures, the woman in this kind of role is *also* emotionally superior, introspective, intuitive and so on in a way that the “brute” male figures are not, and which they need in order to succeed.
So the overall trope is that the woman is just as competent, if not moreso, in the core male area of strength/physical, but she also brings “woman game” of emotion/intuitiveness/etc, and the overall package is just a superior animal to the male one.
Mockingjay is another perfect example of this. Not just physically superior, but combined with emotion, intuition and so on, just a superior version of homo sapiens as compared with all men who are, by comparison, limited and therefore less effective.
THAT is the real message, and it is indeed being imbibed by younger men through entertainment media.
@Novaseeker
“I agree with Deti on this — the current system is more durable than many think. As long as the government can keep providing bread and circuses through debt and printing money, the current scenario will continue.”
The key to that is “as long as.” They might be able to do that for another 50 years, but that assumes nothing undermines this ability. And the internal fragility in a system is not always evident.
I have a feeling things will come to a head well before that; what exactly that involves is impossible to say.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/14/tinder-to-adopt-bumbles-ladies-first-feature-in-a-future-update/
So, how are women going to get their attention-whoring fix if they have to make the first move?
Or, to put it another way, this is a prime example of the continued demonization of male sexuality, and all this male. Unless of course, you were born with a vagina, and take lots of hormones in order to facilitate your perverse insanity.
I don’t go to the movies. I don’t watch television. What’s the point? It’s all filled with misantric fluff that anyone with a tiny measure of experience in the world can see is insanity. It’s not entertaining.
Boys, learn Mandarin, and teach your kids. They’re screwed up too, but unless we get lizard overlords first, the future is going to belong to the Chinese. Probably.
Don’t forget the Jedi-level mastery of the Force with ZERO training…
@ Dalrock:
This is true, but this is why Game is so threatening to the feminist/chivalrous system. Chivalry not only doesn’t lead to sex, it is the sex killer.
I know this comment wasn’t directed to me, but I’d like to address it. I’m not sure Game is going to be the threat later that it is now. Women will compete more and more for the most attractive men. We’re clearly headed to societal approval of polyandry. Whereas it’s the top 20% who are doing great now; as time goes on that percentage will winnow down to top 15%, top 10%, etc. So the competition for those top men will become ever fiercer with more and more men squeezed out of the running. I think more and more women won’t get married, or if they do, they won’t be monogamous, and there will be more open cheating, I think.
It won’t matter how much game you have when the only thing that your game gets you is “not taken advantage of” and “not trapped in a polyandrous marriage where you’re the beta cuck who pays the bills”. It will likely get to the point where the less attractive men’s Game will be geared not toward getting sex from women, but toward not getting screwed over. So the only thing that Game will do for most men, and how it will probably threaten the feminist/chivalrous paradigm, is simply that “you won’t have those men to kick around anymore”.
So, how are women going to get their attention-whoring fix if they have to make the first move?
Well that’s not how it works.
They get attention whoring either way. Men can express interest (swipe), they just cannot contact (on Bumble). So women are informed of which men have swiped them right, and then the women get to choose which, if any, to contact. Bumble doesn’t remove attention whoring, it just keeps the unattractive men from messaging women — women get the attention from the men, but the men can’t act on that attention without the woman acting first. It’s a win/win scenario for women — they get both attention and control.
Tinder is doing this because lots and lots of women moved to Bumble, for obvious reasons — it is an ideal situation for women. Drink in all the attention from thirsty betas, but forbid them from approaching, and let the women have 100% control over that. Women’s preferred set up all the way. If they could make the workplace like that, they would (they’re clearly trying hard to do that right now, in fact).
And the “you won’t have those men to kick around anymore” depends on whether they completely drop out of skirtchasing. Because like Nova, I’m skeptical they will. Most men want women, and sex, so badly they are willing to get kicked around at least a little bit. It has long amazed me how much crap many married men have put up with, how much mistreatment and abuse men have endured from their girlfriends, and the emotional and financial gymnastics they’ll execute, so they can keep the woman/women they have.
that assumes nothing undermines this ability. And the internal fragility in a system is not always evident.
I have a feeling things will come to a head well before that; what exactly that involves is impossible to say.
Right. At this point the only things I can see causing a “hard reset” would be either total world war, mass state secession followed by a second civil war, or total economic collapse leading to widespread civil unrest that government cannot quell. A SHTF or TEOTWAWKI scenario.
@Nova, gotcha. I’ve not used either one, so I was obviously confused.
So the overall trope is that the woman is just as competent, if not moreso, in the core male area of strength/physical, but she also brings “woman game” of emotion/intuitiveness/etc, and the overall package is just a superior animal to the male one.
Same with the DCEU version of Wonder Woman. She’s depicted in the movie as the perfect combination of strength and femininity. She’s proficient in martial arts, is a warrior, has superhuman strength, and displays far more military valor than even the accomplished spies and infantrymen do. She’s also all woman. She is physically very attractive. She is in tip top physical shape. She is childlike in her curiosity about the outside world and her naivete about the world is presented as endearing, charming and idealistic. She shares a passionate night with Steve Trevor and displays womanly vulnerability to him. She also, at times, defers to Trevor and does what he says (sometimes). So Wonder Woman is presented as embodying the best of masculinity and femininity, and yes, “just a superior animal” to men.
@Deti
Just to clarify, this (the bolded part) isn’t my view. Kummer can of course speak for himself, but I don’t think it is what he had in mind either. The analogy both Kummer and I are drawing is to a market bubble. Keyns is famously quoted as saying “Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent.” Similarly, the title of my post is a take off on another economist (Herbert Stein) who said “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” The fact that bubbles can prove astoundingly resilient doesn’t change the fact that they can’t go on forever. Trying to predict the timing of the peak is a fool’s errand, but the fact remains that the peak is coming. Likewise, it is obvious that the conservative position of 100% feminism with 100% chivalry isn’t sustainable. Exactly how that contradiction finally gives, and when it gives is another matter.
Also, even when an anticipated event comes to pass, it can feel very different than the prediction, even if the prediction is spot on. If someone had told you 5 years ago that millions of Muslims would invade Europe to fill the void left by decades of feminist inspired low birth rates, would you have thought they were right? And would the reality of the invasion feel like you expected it would at the time?
@Deti
This isn’t why Game is threatening to the feminist/chivalrous paradigm. Up until fairly recently, nearly everyone believed that taking women seriously, and chivalry were the keys to winning women over, and therefore getting laid. As Novaseeker pointed out, men will do pretty much anything that they think will get them laid. But as a result of the sexual revolution, a new more accurate understanding of what attracts women is slowly seeping in. In this new understanding, taking women seriously, and being chivalrous are the very last things you should do. It doesn’t matter if most men practice the more accurate model and still fail. What matters is the whole incentive to go along with feminism (Take me seriously!) and chivalry is now turned into a disincentive. Men getting laid (or not) isn’t the threat.
ugh
our country is trying to gender neutralize all our farming competitions
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/101445968/rural-bachelor-contest-revamped-to-become-battle-of-sexes
Women will have to compete with men doing physical work
I guess they will win because they are girls.
Men are so weak I am starting to think they deserve to get smacked by women….
@Damn Crackers
Hilarious. Clearly there is nothing wrong with marriage that a good lecture won’t solve:
Thanks Dalrock. I’ll have to look those up.
Novaseeker: Tinder is doing this because lots and lots of women moved to Bumble, for obvious reasons — it is an ideal situation for women. Drink in all the attention from thirsty betas, but forbid them from approaching, and let the women have 100% control over that.
No woman worth marrying uses dating apps like Tinder or Bumble, so the obvious answer is to simply ignore those apps.
Deti: Most men want women, and sex, so badly they are willing to get kicked around at least a little bit.
Dalrock: men will do pretty much anything that they think will get them laid
I’m skeptical, to be honest. I think around 70% of men are led around by their sexual desires, and 30% are not. That percentage comes from a few facts: studies on the number of men who have turned down sex from a woman (36%), the number of men who prefer monogamy over casual sex (27%), the number of men who hold to traditional gender norms (24%), and several other areas. They are still a minority, and they go unnoticed for that reason. Ironically, self-control actually helps men more than a lack of control, and there are plenty of men who know that and at least try to practice it.
@Detim
Dalrock’s posts, imo, give a good summary of the situation. My guess is that the actual outcomes will be more extreme. I say this reluctantly since people usually exaggerate the effects of trends, ignoring the “return to the mean” mechanisms that maintain a society’s stability (like homeostasis in our bodies).
But technology and ideology have radically changed gender relations in America, and I believe the results will be slow but revolutionary. My posts examine what might change, guessing about the possible specifics.
“depends on whether they completely drop out of skirtchasing.”
That’s not going to happen because socializing and mating are hard-wired into both men and women. It’s in our BIOS (to use a computer metaphor). But the specific dynamics of men-women relationships varied a lot during western history — and vary even more across all of human history around the world.
Do we want to bring back traditional marriage? What is traditional marriage?
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/04/03/same-sex-marriage-49734/
Whatever happens, I doubt a return to “traditional” relations is likely. Marriage in its present form does not even make sense, imo — and will have to change to survive. New patterns, even new values will emerge as needed. Neither us nor feminists might not like them. Lighting a fuse is exciting, but one never really knows what will happen.
Fundamentalist Islam has shown that with sufficient effort the role of women can be changed a lot – very fast. That’s something feminists should keep in mind. Here are some before-and-after pictures of women in Afghanistan. Similar photos can be found for Iran, Egypt, and other nations.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/04/25/girls-of-afghanistan-show-america-at-work/
Liberalism is a cancer on Christianity. Christian chivalry is cell-zero.
@Larry, thanks for the suggestions. I’ll have to take a look at them.
@ Dalrock
The fact that bubbles can prove astoundingly resilient doesn’t change the fact that they can’t go on forever. Trying to predict the timing of the peak is a fool’s errand, but the fact remains that the peak is coming.
May you be a prophet, but the normalization of all this makes the peak seem decades out as both Deti and Nova have elaborated. There are easily as many young men buying in as cashing out. They are being raised from pups to accept total equalism, and going along with all of it in the hopes of negotiating some action for themselves.
Look at this young staff sergeant. He is positively giddy about his chance to hang with the actress/super heroine and tell her about the airplane he actually works on but she will pretend to fly. His wing commander is a woman general (Air Force’s first female fighter pilot, so it says). He is totally sucked in, and there are many others with him and coming along behind.
I have noticed women being belligerent and aggressive in the stores,outright taunting men with insults.
It’s a result of overall dissatisfaction.
Ya see it’s the 80/20 principle.
Back in my day religion and a marriage contract provided safe shelter for the %80 “beta’s”
Now those protections are gone,Chad,Lavonne and Tyrone are now doing triple duty and the lower %40 of women are often going DRY rather than settle,so they are pissed off and feeding that hunger-maw as fast as they can stuff McDoubles in there,and watching The View about how all men are crap.
What makes this worse is in the top %20 of men are the men with power who tend to abuse it.
Big daddy boss getting sex from all the sexertarys.
Tennis pro Chad banging all his clients.
Lawyers,Pigs,and Judges who are above the Law and white knighting in an effort to Increase The Police State and thus their own personal power,fortunes,and harems whilst Joe Beta gets shit on once again.
With no protections or provision for the beta,the society becomes unstable in the main body,not just the fringe sniping of feminism itself unaided by Self aggrandizing male power.
The solution seems to be either MGTOW or expat out of this cuckserative nightmare.
Meanwhile the liberalist left can bring in the muslim masses to satisfy their secret rape desires
which also brings in more *stabilizing* Police Presence.
Just be glad your every orifice will soon be check for weapons on a regular basis.
I suppose putting a razor up there would be an “attack on an officer.”
I forgot the link:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/01/23/captain-marvel-meets-the-air-force-actress-brie-larson-visits-nellis-for-superhero-movie/?
Marlow
No woman worth marrying uses dating apps like Tinder or Bumble, so the obvious answer is to simply ignore those apps.
Those apps are telling us something about women’s preferences, just as the big data from OKCupid did a few years back. Ignoring the apps means ignoring an aspect of reality.
Ironically, self-control actually helps men more than a lack of control, and there are plenty of men who know that and at least try to practice it.
You are missing the larger point that Deti and Nova were making.
Pingback: Reaction Times
I’ve seen videos where Ronda Rousey spars with unranked MMA men, and gets her head handed to her on a platter. The men she spars with seem amused and they are clearly holding back, yet handily beat her.
Of course Rousy has been dethroned by other bull dikes, so her personal narrative that she can beat any man has fallen to the wayside. Of course, no serious fighter accepted her challenge as they knew vert well that it was a lose/lose proposition. If he slipped on a banana peel and lost he would be disgraced and if he KO’d her 30 seconds into the first round he would be shamed for “hitting a girl”
’m skeptical, to be honest. I think around 70% of men are led around by their sexual desires, and 30% are not.
70% is still “most”.
“The more you scream for equality, the more your unconscious is going to admire dominance.” — Jordan Peterson
Anonymous Reader: Those apps are telling us something about women’s preferences, just as the big data from OKCupid did a few years back. Ignoring the apps means ignoring an aspect of reality.
They are telling us the preferences of those women who use them. In the same way that pornography may reveal the preferences of some men, it does not mean that those preferences that exist in one particular male subset are universal preferences. The OKCupid data is similar in nature to that of the dating apps – there is a selection effect. In other words, it is not (and cannot be) representative of the general population. If you apply the same rule to clubs and churches (two largely distinct environments), the mating strategies on display are different. Clubs say more about the mating strategies of the women present than they do of the men, but not much. This is not saying that masculinity (the major factor of “women’s preferences” that you allude to) is something that should not be aspired to, rather, it is saying that the factors are being confused. It is a mix of masculinity and mating strategy that explains the current situation. Even if Christian men were all the most masculine men around, the determining factor would still be mating strategy (monogamy versus non-monogamy).
Anonymous Reader: You are missing the larger point that Deti and Nova were making.
They are making a few points; I was introducing nuance to one of them.
‘Follow The Rules While We Break Them” applies most cruelly to Christian men.
In any church in the western world on a given Sunday, there will be a representation of ethnically Anglo-Saxon / European men. Also present will be women of various ages and colors: ethnically Indian and Asian.
The demographic most under-represented is the Anglo-Saxon / European woman. She may be present when she is in her 50s, but while she is young and of marriageable age, she is away from church, too busy having sex with her boyfriend(s), practicing lesbianism, or both, while ”focusing on her career”. She does, however, expect to marry a man with ”traditional” (Christian) values when she has her epiphany. She will expect him to uphold his values, and will expect him not to ”judge her for her past”, which she doesn’t regret. It’s diabolical.
Novaseeker: 70% is still “most”.
I never said otherwise. What you say is true linguistically, but “most” is still 50% + 1 to 99.999…%. There is a need for nuance.
Absolutely. The recent CNN “article” about why being cucked is a good thing is proof of that. They are winding up that narrative and it isn’t going away anytime soon. Expect to read more articles quotes from “experts” on why it’s good to have other men drill your wife, even impregnate her, because that shows you’re “confident” or something, and it’ll make your marriage stronger. Expecting your wife to be faithful will be touted as an example of “toxic masculinity”
And as you pointed out, there will be different husbands for different roles. Chad will provide the DNA for her offspring, but since he can’t hold down a job there will be one or more beta providers who will be rewarded with very occasional sex, like once every few months (but no children of their own) for handing over their paycheck to the wifey, who will spend a lot of it on Chad, who needs a new Harley. Your car is old and constantly breaking down and you need to replace it? You’d better get a second job. Oh, and if she kicks you out of her harem, you still have to pay.
It makes one wonder at what point will the majority of Betas finally say “eff that” and go their own way.
But as a result of the sexual revolution, a new more accurate understanding of what attracts women is slowly seeping in. In this new understanding, taking women seriously, and being chivalrous are the very last things you should do. It doesn’t matter if most men practice the more accurate model and still fail. What matters is the whole incentive to go along with feminism (Take me seriously!) and chivalry is now turned into a disincentive. Men getting laid (or not) isn’t the threat.
That’s a good point — it’s probably true that as we see more and more open hypergamy, men will become less chivalrous over time, because it isn’t what gets them laid. We’re in early stages there (most young men are still very blue pill really), but over time it’s possible that this gets eroded. Feminism itself isn’t really undermined in total — these guys won’t care whether a woman is a “ball busting DC lawyerette”, to use Roissy’s old phraseology, by day as long as they can game her into bed by night — and the fact that she is self-supporting and doesn’t expect a relationship from a tinder/bumble/bar meet is a bonus, and directly results from feminism. Some aspects of feminism, though — like you say, the taking women seriously outside of professional settings — would be undermined by this clearly, I agree, but “core” feminism would remain intact, I think, and actually be buttressed by this.
Women won’t be happy, I suppose, but are they ever? They seem to chafe under whatever system we have, frankly.
Women desire to control men (especially their husbands), and yet they also desire to be controlled by men (ruled by their husbands). It’ll always be fried ice with them.
I never said otherwise. What you say is true linguistically, but “most” is still 50% + 1 to 99.999…%. There is a need for nuance.
That’s fair enough, but 70% is more than enough to create social trends that make life difficult for people pursuing the 30% strategy — which is the point. I agree that you can’t say categorically “all people are X” — really for any characteristic. But at some point a wire is tripped where enough people are behaving in a way such that the social trend moves that way, and people who are not behaving that way are disadvantaged by that.
because that shows you’re “confident” or something, and it’ll make your marriage stronger. Expecting your wife to be faithful will be touted as an example of “toxic masculinity”
The argument is already out there, couched in the mores of the current age — it runs like this: No one person is able to be everything for any other person. Realizing this, it is not loving to restrict someone you love from being fulfilled in their life by forcing them to only look to you for satisfaction in every aspect of their lives — something you have to realize that you can’t provide, because no-one can. Therefore, allowing your spouse to be satisfied sexually and/or emotionally with someone else, while they remain committed to you as the core of their family, is loving and life giving to your spouse. You have to also realize, of course, that the loving commitment of marriage is much bigger than sex, and sex is only a small part of the relationship. If you are troubled by this, it is probably an indication of either (1) insecurity and fear of loss on your part (which is your own issue, which you should deal with in therapy but not use to restrain your partner from pursuing life fulfillment), (2) jealousy (dealt with in same way), or (3) an atavistic desire to “own” or control your spouse’s sexuality, something which does not belong in contemporary marriage and is deeply misogynistic and toxic.
That’s the case. It’s already been made and it will keep being made.
Now, I don’t expect we will get there very soon, to be honest, because most women today actually don’t want open polyandrous relationships. They cheat (at least many do today), but a part of the thrill of that is having it be secret, having the husband not know, having it be risky and sub rosa and so on, that all adds to the emotional thrill for the women involved. So I don’t expect we will have massive adoption of the de facto polyandry model in the near future. I *do* think, though, that over time it’s possible that a slice of the married population moves into open de facto polyandry (it won’t be peddled that way, it will be peddled as open with limits for both spouses, but due to the way sexual access works, we know any such arrangement is almost always skewed towards the woman). Again, I don’t expect it will be a majority of couples doing it, because I doubt most women will actually want to do it, but a minority slice will, and it will be pushed to legitimate what they are doing and not think of them as “weird” or “abnormal” (the one cardinal sin of postmodernity, really).
This present feminist status quo in the West, and trend of females into Morlocks and males into Eloi, is going to crumble. It is an artificially maintained unnatural construct that will normalize.
In fact, the seeds of its demise are already present and some have sprouted pushing through the dirt in search of the sun.
Feminists, all genders, will find the sand growing softer and softer as they trudge on toward “greater progress.” Eventually, it will turn to quicksand and devour them. It’s but a matter of time.
Certainly a national debt-crisis resulting in sweeping welfare reform, world war or calamity resulting in scarcity, etc… will hasten its end but make no mistake; whether slowly or quickly it’s coming to an end as surely as the earth orbits the sun. God wills it, nature demands it.
Dalrock: But as a result of the sexual revolution, a new more accurate understanding of what attracts women is slowly seeping in. In this new understanding, taking women seriously, and being chivalrous are the very last things you should do. It doesn’t matter if most men practice the more accurate model and still fail. What matters is the whole incentive to go along with feminism (Take me seriously!) and chivalry is now turned into a disincentive. Men getting laid (or not) isn’t the threat.
There is nothing inherently wrong with chivalry, only that it’s counterpart in women is now a fair amount rarer. (I understand that you are not stating that chivalry is inherently bad.) That said, chivalry is a feature of a much different world than our own, so its current practice is less than ideal.
Novaseeker
These contradictions only seem to be contradictions on the surface level — on a deeper level, they aren’t contradictory, because whatever favors the woman is what is chosen in each case, and that is the unifying factor behind what would otherwise appear to be contradictory things.
I hate saying this, but both you and Deti are probably right. There really is one overriding rule that seems to hang over today’s modern society and it’s that whatever the scenario may be, the woman never deserves the blame for it. But I don’t think this can’t be just reduced down to just a utilitarian explanation where women are more valuable biologically and men’s contributions are being replaced though technology. What’s really telling isn’t how far the rule gets pushed by the mainstream culture in the name of “progress,” it’s how much moral and religious systems that existed for hundreds of years now adopt it as well and pretend there’s no inconsistency. The American church is an easy example of this; I recently heard a podcast from a women’s ministry that featured an interview with the sociologist Mark Regnerus, who’s written about the changes in the sexual marketplace. Remember how Christian leaders used to tell young men that they should save sex for marriage, and get a job and establish themselves before taking responsibility for a wife? Turns out that if that ends up putting women at a disadvantage then they’ll be happy to start scolding you for following their orders:
What’d the young man do wrong? He contributed to the anxiety of a great deal of women. That was all it took for him to be wrong for doing what his church had spent years telling him to do, just as that was also all it took to grant the woman a pass for her choosing not to obey. Fornication is bad, but you know, we need to understand that the woman was feeling anxious.
Regnerus has studied sexual trends for years, even focused on how they plays out in religious contexts, and he’s a (supposed) practicing Catholic himself. He has no excuse for being ignorant of the religious or scientific facts that would deem the woman responsible for the state of the sexual marketplace. He even gave a recent interview to the Southern Baptist Convention where he explained to then that women are the gatekeepers of sex(they were incredulous), and there have even been a few hints that he’s read Dalrock with his references to a “sex cartel” among women. And yet he still takes care to bow like a good worshipper before modern society’s One True Rule. The title of his new book says it all; Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage & Monogamy. It would never have occurred to him to consider that women could also have changed for the worse in the last fifty years.
In spite of this, I still suspect that our current system may not be too long for this world. Nova’s right that men’s libido is their Achilles heel, but if he’s arguing that women win because men want them more than vice versa, that’s still going to depend on women being smart enough to give a sufficient amount of men just enough so that they don’t lose or interest or give up hope and go looking for other options. Right now, most of the indications are that they can’t manage a feat like that. The millennial generation is reportedly having less sex than their grandparents, and expressing less desire for it as well. Male suicide is hitting new highs. Just about every institution that wants to use sex to indenture men into marital servitude is shooting itself in the foot; Just witness how the modern church scolds men for keeping the Billy Graham rule two seconds before shaming them for being perverts in a bid to show some #MeToo solidarity. It’s true that automation is pushing more men out of the workforce, but it’s also true that very few women left inside know how to run the technology that makes it operate. That leaves a work system that only keeps running due to a smaller and smaller few, and when that’s all you have to get rid if you’re in the mood to launch some chaos then does that make things less fragile? Or more so? And as for the part about men not standing up to women on the issue of sex or any other . . . . . Right now there’s a religious system that’s become the fastest growing in the world, is particularly good at attracting young men, and (for now, at least) has far fewer qualms about giving women orders or putting limits on its men. It’s called Islam.
There will be a comeuppance for women. I just think of it as being like Judgement Day in Terminator: Can’t be eliminated, only postponed. The question now is whether we get there without setting fire to a good chunk of all of the modern luxuries that made up the Western world along the way. And once we’ve gotten there, let’s also hope we can avoid having some fool ruin everything further by saying, “You know, none of this would have happened if only MEN HAD BEEN MEN!”
Link to the Regnerus podcast is here: https://www.authenticintimacy.com/resources/5633/171-dating-in-2017?source=blog
Novaseeker: That’s fair enough, but 70% is more than enough to create social trends that make life difficult for people pursuing the 30% strategy — which is the point. I agree that you can’t say categorically “all people are X” — really for any characteristic. But at some point a wire is tripped where enough people are behaving in a way such that the social trend moves that way, and people who are not behaving that way are disadvantaged by that.
Yes, I would agree with that. Christian society makes alternate mating strategies, like monogamy in men, both possible and attractive. When societies break down, men don’t have the resources to invest (nor necessarily the incentive), and women are attracted to someone who is (more) capable of self-preservation (e.g. destroying threats) without necessarily having surplus resources. The reality remains that Christians are required to behave in a certain way, regardless of the state of the world. That means that if a mating strategy is to be employed, it must be one that is considered an alternate mating strategy (monogamy).
I don’t see it as being 100% negative, though. In a society where monogamy is the norm, alternate mating strategies (serial monogamy, short-term relationships, casual sex) are minimized (both in actuality and visibility), but the desire for them still exists (and the expressions of them, e.g. cheating, do too). In a society with fewer constraints, it is possible to see who is serious about monogamy and who isn’t. It’s like finding out a person’s online identity, under which they believe they are anonymous – you see how they really are (or at least get a much better idea). Fulton Sheen is credited with the following quote: “If you want your children to fight for their faith, send them to public school. If you want them to lose their faith, send them to Catholic school.” I think a similar idea exists here: it takes less than ideal circumstances to learn who someone really is and what they consider important. According to a poster on an Orthosphere blog, the divorce rate for women who marry as virgins has gone down again. What is really happening is that only the most serious women are waiting nowadays, whereas in the past, there was more outside social pressure rather than reliance on one’s own moral compass.
Pingback: Marriage and Puppies. | Dark Brightness
Marlow
They are telling us the preferences of those women who use them.
“Not All Women Are Like That” is not a logical argument.
The preferences that are clearly on display in data from OKCupid, Tindr, Bumbl also exist iin women who do not use those apps. Just not so obviously. For example, the 80/20 rule of attraction exists in all groups of any size.
In the same way that pornography may reveal the preferences of some men, it does not mean that those preferences that exist in one particular male subset are universal preferences.
Yet all non-homosexual men are attracted to pretty women, is that not so? Therefore some truth can be found in whatever data sites such as PornHub care to offer (including the increasing number of female subscribers.)
Plus Women’s attraction triggers as a set tend to be narrower than men’s.
The OKCupid data is similar in nature to that of the dating apps – there is a selection effect. In other words, it is not (and cannot be) representative of the general population.
Why does the Law of Large Numbers not apply here? I doubt you have a clue what the demographics of sites such as OKCupid really are.
If you apply the same rule to clubs and churches (two largely distinct environments), the mating strategies on display are different.
Do you wish to argue that women in clubs and churches are not attracted to confident men? That men in clubs and churches are not attracted to pretty women?
Clubs say more about the mating strategies of the women present than they do of the men, but not much. This is not saying that masculinity (the major factor of “women’s preferences” that you allude to) is something that should not be aspired to, rather, it is saying that the factors are being confused.
What is confused here? You are, because of that Madonna / Whore mindset scrambling to show Not All Women Are Like That.
It is a mix of masculinity and mating strategy that explains the current situation.
How does this explain any piece of the current situation?
Even if Christian men were all the most masculine men around, the determining factor would still be mating strategy (monogamy versus non-monogamy).
No, the determining factors would start with “female autonomy” and proceed on to “white knights” then beyond to other factors.
But thanks for laying all the blame for “the current situation” on men. Feminists and tradcons often agree on that point.
Marlow
There is a need for nuance.
“Nuance” is not a synonym of “obfuscation”.
^^
it is men’s fault
men allowed this to happen
all the complementarian women are sharing this
http://blogs.bible.org/engage/sandra_glahn/staying_home_with_kids_vs._second_income
what kind of man allows his wife to read such drivel
( she actually thinks those patriarchal agrarian societies were gender neutral and women had no unique home/child care responsibilities….)
tomorrow if all Christian men decided to really lead so much feminism would end, and the women could not run to the church because the men int he church all decided to lead, if any divorce we know they really did not believe in God anyway
men allow this nonsense
men raise their daughters to find their calling instead of understanding their calling is to support a man…
@Damn Crackers @Dalrock
Posted the link to that Weekly Standard article by the NYU prof in the previous thread. This paper is another example of tradcons always fighting the last war they already lost. It might have been a reasonably daring statement back 25 to 30 years ago, but now it’s just a nostalgia piece by a conservative feminist (stage 2).
The key paragraph is this one:
As I said in the feminist/chivalry thread, it’s like reading a treatise from an alcoholic “how to restore health” that mentions in passing the great idea of drinking a quart of vodka every day.
Dalrock is absolutely correct, this bubble will pop and it will pop soon I think. Over the last 20 years I’ve somehow managed to identify each bubble in advance -internet stocks/housing market/finance sector (in fact when I worked for a bank I was the only one I knew of in the entire organisation who was concerned that everything was so over leveraged it was going to collapse, we survived as we didnt start using CDO’s) and felt the same kinda subconcious anxiety about each that I cant quite put my finger on, and this feels very much the same.
Just the fact the changes have been so utterly vast over the last 20 years in every western country, things will correct, even when it looks like totally impossible, then something starts the unwinding and it gathers pace and dosnt stop.
As dalrock stated before, for feminism to collapse you just run out of funds to propagate it. The costs to education\goverment\welfare\pensions\police\companies to fund this ideology is going to bankrupt the west, the UK used to be solvent, till the one-eyed scottish idiot known as Gordon Brown who was the chancellor introduced the feminist lie of “child tax credits” – now that amount that they have paid out since its inception in just 2002 is maybe most of the UK the national debt and its growing every year.
The UK has gone from effectively zero debt (it rolled over £200b/y in bonds just to keep its hand in) in 2002 to almost £2 trillion in just 16 years. Its starting to look like the monty python sketch involving the parrot. As they still borrowing to pay child tax credit – in another 20 years the UK “will cease to be”.
They women who campaigned for this “benefit” dont seem to understand at all they are spending their grandchildrens futures, if the women think its tough now and they do, just wait till the UK is forced to pay down the loan. Cause at some point that will happen. And its a very worrying scenario indeed.
Darwinian Arminian
The title of his new book says it all; Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage & Monogamy. It would never have occurred to him to consider that women could also have changed for the worse in the last fifty years.
The more I read from that work the worse it gets. Regnarus’s entire premise is a category error; flawed premise leads to no meaningful conclusion. There’s more to say (the ubiquity of porn in America is not a result of contraception, for example) but not right now.
Regnarus is a UT Austin. If he had the ability to learn by watching, he could update his entire view of men and women just by spending a few weekends on east Sixth street, accompanied by a couple of red-pill men wearing The Glasses. Reality is right there, if he cares to see it.
Regnarus is a UT Austin. If he had the ability to learn by watching, he could update his entire view of men and women just by spending a few weekends on east Sixth street, accompanied by a couple of red-pill men wearing The Glasses. Reality is right there, if he cares to see it.
Yeah, it’s really crazy how you can be at a university like that and still be ignorant of the behavior of young women. It’s a willing desire not to see, I think.
@minesweeper
do not underestimate the power of the church to keep men submitting to women and entering marriages where they are the helpmeets
if they are unhappy the church will discipline the man
the church will keep this bubble lasting
Larry Kummer, Editor @ 4:36 pm:
“Fundamentalist Islam has shown that with sufficient effort the role of women can be changed a lot – very fast. That’s something feminists should keep in mind.”
Fundamentalist Islam is the endgame of feminists. Why else do you think the most feminized countries of Europe can’t import Muzzies fast enough? It isn’t a coincidence.
If a woman slapped me, she would get exactly a slap right back. I was raised to not hit a woman. My father NEVER laid a hand on my mom.
I am a gentleman. Women are no longer women. Fine, I would go to jail. No one would take my side. My record with working with women, and women in church is SPOTLESS. If a riot gurl or “a modern independant woman” threw a slap at me, she would get one right back.
She throws a drink on me? She gets one thrown right back at her.
I know I would be in DEEP doo-doo but if it CAME to that, I would. I have plentyu of character references that at least would make my jail term a little lighter
@bdash77
True. Where it will break down is not with men refusing to marry, but with fewer young men preparing in their teens and twenties to be ready to marry in their 30s. We already see a bit of this, and we should only expect more. A woman who spent her teens and twenties riding the cock carousel will be able to find a man willing to marry once she turns 30ish. But she can’t make him go back in time and focus on education and career, any more than she can undo her decade + of slutting it up.
I’m not sure if MGTOW was ever thought of when this feminist train kept happening. Really they needed men either by funding, protection, or law passing/enforcement to make their dreams come true. If more men start pulling out that’s really going to hamper a lot of what they want to do.
I don’t know how long it will take…there’s still plenty of white knights, cuckservatives, tradcucks, and male feminists out there.
right and because he did not invest in his life he would make a perfect godly servant leading house husband for the wife
every Christian man gets desperate for sex at some point
the church will and already is training women to lead, take charge and encourage husbands to be feminine and domestic ( of course she will have sex on the side….)
Pastors are quite smart they seem to know men are not getting ready for marriage hence they are now encouraging men to be the helpmeet!
I do not think the bubble will burst
I think foreign cultures will take over
The West is already seeing their population being replaced with immigrants.
I can’t wait for the Gospel coalition to release an article encouraging men to truly sacrifice for their wife like Christ by injecting themselves with female hormones so that they can lactate and breast feed the baby thus freeing the wife to do as she wishes
real genuine foot washing sacrifice….
and it would not surprise me if Christian men started doing it
@bdash “do not underestimate the power of the church to keep men submitting to women and entering marriages where they are the helpmeets if they are unhappy the church will discipline the man the church will keep this bubble lasting”
the church isnt at the forefront of the culture, its like a museum that captured what was happening 20 years ago and encapsulated it. most male Christians I know arnt going to church meetings anymore. it tends to be full of stomach churning male feminists as well.
from speaking to millennials and GenZ-rs I can tell you, something quite strange is going on, I myself am GenX and I had a stream of women after my divorce desperate to settle down with me, some only met me minutes before they came out with an offer. So something very strange is going on, the guy millennials I know state that the women they are dating of their age are unable to form lasting relationships and are just going from guy to guy with no lasting happiness. The GenZ’s are hardly dating at all, at that age all we did was chase girls, but those guys are wise to the game now and they aint chasing anyone. Which leads interestingly enough to anxiety problems in the girls who seem to be far more mentally disturbed than I remember. The thing is for the GenZ guys, you cant make a mistake anymore, pick the wrong girl, and your up for a sex assault charge or social ostracization.
In our day, we made nothing but mistakes with women and no-one was the wiser, now a running commentary will be on snapchat while the date is in progress.
with a million women marching wearing either pussy hats or a full blown vagina outfit, ##grassyourbossup – so you will never be employed again, and a flurry of false rape charges in the UK anyway being prosecuted, men are certainly getting the message that most women are now utterly toxic.
Novaseeker
Yeah, it’s really crazy how you can be at a university like that and still be ignorant of the behavior of young women. It’s a willing desire not to see, I think.
Mark Regnerus is in his mid 40’s
https://infogalactic.com/info/Mark_Regnerus
and comes from a culturally conservative background. Not every researcher is able to go wherever the data points, and of course an academic is always going to be reticent to pay attention to non-academic sources.
We all carry around our own experiences in our heads; someone who got married in 1980 and stayed married will unconsciously use that as a reference experience to the modern social scene, which leads to a lot of error. Seems to me most people over 40 have no clue what the 20-something social scene looks like and it’s work for them to grasp it. It’s like a retired Boomer telling a 22 year old engineering student “Just go to work for iBM! Spend 25 years there and get a pension! Worked great for me!“, ignoring the facts on the ground is just ignorant and foolish.
One more thing: in addition to ignoring much of the social and legal change of the last 30 years, tradcons cannot seem to grasp that the rate of change has increased. “Gay marriage” went from a joke to an issue to a reality in fewer than 20 years. Some amorphous blob of “rights” for transvestites is growing in a shorter time than that. Open hypergamy is cropping up in trail balloon articles, entertainments, advertising, etc. Yet tradcons still address issues as if President Reagan’s next speech will surely settle the issue….
All that babbled, at some point it’s going to become clear that tradcons who can’t see what’s right in front of them don’t want to see it and are deliberately “not looking”. The day is coming when chin-pulling academics will be so far out of touch that most people will dismiss their meandering texts out of hand as irrelevant. We may be close to that right now.
@Dalrock says:
“do not underestimate the power of the church to keep men submitting to women and entering marriages where they are the helpmeets if they are unhappy the church will discipline the man the church will keep this bubble lasting
True. Where it will break down is not with men refusing to marry, but with fewer young men preparing in their teens and twenties to be ready to marry in their 30s. We already see a bit of this, and we should only expect more”
Oh im seeing ALOT of this, and it really is difficult for these guys to get back into things, as at that point they want a relationship and she wants money. Im seeing strange breakdowns in education tracks that I wouldnt expect. Almost like they have been sold the lie of unless your career\education is some form of fluffy fulfilment, then keep searching for it. We didnt get into school\uni etc with that attitude, it was competition, and the best one won.
They have removed all competition from school, so the guys are so demotivated, and the girls are getting ALL the prizes as they flourish in a non competitive environment. You wouldnt believe the disparity im seeing amongst boys and girls achievements atm, the gap is unfathomable. We really are going to end up with a gigantic problem with this alone.
That’s probably how the bubble will burst…just how much of the male population will need to be demotivated for it to happen.
And the promise of sex can’t work forever. Japan is the current example…most of those men seem to be even demotivated to have sex with those women.
@Darwinian Armenian
What’d the young man do wrong? He contributed to the anxiety of a great deal of women.
I listened to that segment of that Regnarus podcast (its near the beginning) to try and understand what the podcaster was trying to express here. The gist of it is, he said that that man had no right to criticize that woman for not being a virgin because there are simply no Christian men in their 20s interested in waiting until marriage for sex, and who are also pursuing marriage. So a girl’s going to get anxious she’s never going to find someone, and she’s going to “put out” to try and find a husband.
Young men like the one he was addressing, who are interested in marriage and willing to wait for sex, are contributing to her anxiety by not pursing women in their 20s. Yes, of course he spent his 20s in his mom’s basement or something never talking to a girl. All these young-ish women saying they can never find any Christian men willing to wait for marriage before having sex can’t be lying, right? If he’d just put himself out there he would have been snapped up fast, right?
The truth is of course, these women are misrepresenting the truth. There are quite a few traditional Christian young men interested in waiting for marriage until sex. But they if they aren’t exceptionally attractive, exciting or wealthy, they are simply invisible to these young women. I bet this young man did try and find a Christian wife in his 20s, but met with no luck.
@earl says:”That’s probably how the bubble will burst…just how much of the male population will need to be demotivated for it to happen.
And the promise of sex can’t work forever. Japan is the current example…most of those men seem to be even demotivated to have sex with those women.”
i totally agree – I think sex is no longer a huge driving factor, sex is available on your smartphone if your desperate. every variety of free movie pron and fleshlights are available, simulating at least 60% of the experience ? and then VR pron is appearing, maybe some will go for sex bots too.
also, the T level of males is much lower in the last 30 years, that pressure to have sex just isnt there anymore. small changes can cause big effects, a small drop in male sex drive can cause an entire gen to just drop out of the sex market, this leads to its value dropping sharply and then becoming an optional extra but not required..
@ Minesweeper
Why do you think the bubble will pop soon? Is it just a gut feeling? I don’t have any useful data that’s for sure, only local observations but that encompasses a few dozen men in their 20s. Most of them (this is the US midwest, a different case than coastal large urban areas) are still playing by whatever rules women and white knights deem to be extant. They do not challenge the status quo nor any new feminist advances. They have been raised entirely within a feminine primary social order that is bizarrely labeled as the patriarchy.
They are marrying in their mid to late 20s, to women of similar age (the women all have careers or at least their own jobs and funds), and into de facto egalitarian situations at best. Most are clearly seen by an outside observer wearing the glasses as woman-in-command marriages. These are good, beta men of the kind you might want with you in a tight spot but by no means the type that excite a woman’s attention over the long haul. I would not change places with any of them as I feel their future is akin to that of a rented mule. A small minority of the young men are bucking this system but nowhere near the numbers that would be felt.
As for inadequate money to keep feminism running, from the perspective of one who has no expertise in such things, it has so far only been a matter of printing more. When does this collapse?
It may be that these observations are regional, as many things are, and the situation is quite different elsewhere. I’m ready for the bubble to pop but have seen no evidence around here that the time is near.
@Lost Patrol says:”@ Minesweeper
Why do you think the bubble will pop soon? Is it just a gut feeling? ”
yeah, its a gut feeling, one that has proved reliable before ! which is strange for a man who makes decisions only by thinking and never emotion.
but the market can stay irrational longer than our generations can survive, it could be in rural areas things are just different or maybe some pockets of goodness still exist in the world. im still seeing people get married as well, its just weird things are going on. women being utterly desperate to settle down and not finding takers, and these are good looking women as well, 20 years ago they would have had no end of offers. guys not taking any advantage of great education opportunities or really pushing into a career, its like their internal drive is gone.
In the UK there has been a big scandal with 1000’s of rape prosecutions being screwed up as the police didnt weed out the false accusations. but Crown prosecution service made it goal to vastly increase the prosecutions for rape, and they have been mostly been found to be false accusations – of course no females will face charges.
im not seeing cats and dogs mating either, but I myself have had quite a few young women try to hit me up – which i ve turned down, as they have told me they cant get anyone so they are going for guys double their age, which you have to admit is pretty friggin weird.
the black box of social culture has has too many inputs changed so fast, that those changes have not fully settled down yet into the system. so no one knows really whats happening, apart from feminism making ever further strides while at the same time the % of the female pop that identifies as that is falling fast.
a christian friend of mine recently got a marriage offer from a woman 25 years younger than him 😀 and he still said no 🙂
thats what I mean, things are weird…………
hmm
most of the men and young men I know already know that they will be supporting a wife with her career and are fine with it
most of the men and young men I know already know that they will be supporting a wife with her career and are fine with it
What I have seen as well.
I dunno about GenZ though, they are still too young to have a read as to how they will pan out around 30.
Anonymous Reader: “Not All Women Are Like That” is not a logical argument.
It’s logical when you consider the correct premises. If your starting point is wrong, you are practically guaranteed to arrive at an errant conclusion.
Anonymous Reader: The preferences that are clearly on display in data from OKCupid, Tindr, Bumbl also exist iin women who do not use those apps. Just not so obviously. For example, the 80/20 rule of attraction exists in all groups of any size.
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Observation_selection_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias (http://archive.is/m4XA4)
Anonymous Reader: Yet all non-homosexual men are attracted to pretty women, is that not so? Therefore some truth can be found in whatever data sites such as PornHub care to offer (including the increasing number of female subscribers.)
You didn’t read what I wrote. It is the case that men are attracted to various markers (i.e. beauty) in women, but there is considerable variation. Attractiveness is a continuum, but not just more or less, but also different kinds. How about this: look at the winners of each country’s largest beauty pageant (where they exist, of course). Those women are all considered amongst the most attractive in that country, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a man who would readily consider all of them attractive enough to him personally.
Anonymous Reader: Plus Women’s attraction triggers as a set tend to be narrower than men’s.
Female attraction to males is multifactorial. Male attraction to females is monofactorial.
Anonymous Reader: Why does the Law of Large Numbers not apply here?
Because it’s not a random sample.
Anonymous Reader: I doubt you have a clue what the demographics of sites such as OKCupid really are.
OKCupid has a clue, and they demonstrate as much in their analyses about user traits, behaviors, and trends.
Anonymous Reader: Do you wish to argue that women in clubs and churches are not attracted to confident men? That men in clubs and churches are not attracted to pretty women?
Mating strategies. Mating. Strategies.
Anonymous Reader: What is confused here? You are, because of that Madonna / Whore mindset scrambling to show Not All Women Are Like That.
No idea what you’re going on about. Also, the Madonna/Whore complex does not correspond to the male desire for female sexual exclusivity.
Anonymous Reader: How does this explain any piece of the current situation?
I should have written “a mix of gender/sex norms and mating strategy” (e.g. femininity and masculinity).
Anonymous Reader: No, the determining factors would start with “female autonomy” and proceed on to “white knights” then beyond to other factors.
Female autonomy means that destructive/dyscivilizational mating strategies are not constrained. White knights are men who wish to exchange their autonomy for sexual access.
Anonymous Reader: But thanks for laying all the blame for “the current situation” on men. Feminists and tradcons often agree on that point.
?
@LP, it could just be all the effects of toxic feminism are now having a significant impact on men, before it was just men in divorce with kids who got the bullet. now its insidious effects are now affecting the younger males so much its having an impact on females and they are in panic mode.
single digit % changes in demand can have big effects on fluid pricing. i guess women arnt prepared for a world where men have little demand for them, a huge part of a womans security and happiness is based upon men desiring them, as that effectively decided in the outback who succeeded and who perished alone.
when I was still dating, when I went out with my gf, about a dozen permanently single women would sometimes accompany us, all were baffled as to why men werent chasing them and couldnt get a man for love nor money and they had money!!
the same thing is happening on some campuses all the young women go out but no men are there. there was a few articles on this along with “all the single ladies” ones etc..
If you want a good laugh, check out this article in the WaPo. It’s about feminst, career women who end up old maids…so they freeze their eggs. But, whooops! Turns out that the process fails pretty often and these poor women aren’t able to have a child once they’re “ready” at 40 to 45 years old.
Must be the men’s fault!
Btw, needless to say there is ZERO shaming of these women for engaging in IVF, which basically invovles multiple abortions. Which makes these women mass murderers of their own children! Talk about monsters! Nor is there any shaming of their decision to have a child without a father in the picture, via a sperm donor. What child needs a father, right?
Just sick. Anyway, here’s the article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/01/27/feature/she-championed-the-idea-that-freezing-your-eggs-would-free-your-career-but-things-didnt-quite-work-out/?utm_term=.058dcb74acd9
@LP “As for inadequate money to keep feminism running, from the perspective of one who has no expertise in such things, it has so far only been a matter of printing more. When does this collapse?”
when no one longer buys your bonds, you cant just print money as you end up with hyper inflation – as you devalue the currency. and they stop buying your bonds when you cant pay them back, eventually you will be paying too much interest to pay back the capital. see Greece for an example.
@Jeff, lena durham has also lost her ability to have natural kids as well with her hysterectomy at just 30. would it be cruel to say humanity breathed a sigh of relief at this news? probably so I wont say that.
Have they already thought that they are the helpmate in the marriage and the woman is the head?
I think it helps what mindset the guy has before getting married. More of the guys who truly want to lead the marriage are seeing the state of it now and thinking ‘no thanks’ (unless they happen to find a woman closer to the unicorn) or going MGTOW, Men who don’t mind being bossed around by a woman and being the help…will eventually get married.
Darwinian Arminian: (quoting) “I got an e-mail from one fellow who I did write back, saying he was thirty-ish, had just gotten in a relationship. He was a virgin and had just gotten in a relationship with a woman that he very much liked, but he was struggling over the fact that she had had one sexual partner years prior, and he was just like, ‘Why couldn’t she have waited for me?’ I upbraided him pretty good, I thought. Not because I felt compelled to, but because he’s not seeing that his delay contributes to the anxiety of a great deal of women.”
Regnerus is largely an idiot when it comes to analyzing what he has found. I say that having met and discussed with him some of these topics. Anyway: he actually said the above? That’s astonishing, even for him.
If you punish men for not following the rules, that’s one thing. If you punish them when they do follow the rules, that generates a fair amount of resentment (amongst other consequences). I think that explains some of the negative sentiment that young men direct towards churches. It is “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” (irony notwithstanding).
Besides that, Regnerus already knows that prior sexual partners increases the likelihood of divorce. If the guy who Regnerus “upbraided” has any sense, he’ll next his girlfriend and find someone with a modicum of self-control.
i guess women arnt prepared for a world where men have little demand for them
I think this must vary by region. In the US, there is no lack of demand for women. There is robust demand, whether on the coasts or in the interior. The issue is women don’t like the quality of the demand, so the robust demand that exists “doesn’t count as demand” in their view, just as when they walk into a room of 50 guys, only 5 register as “eligible men” in their eyes, and the rest are “background males”, greyed out sexually.
Yo, just don’t “fall for the women’s lust traps” y’all.
Alotta women on Facebook be trying to “friend me” on friend requests but I’ve learned from my “mistakes” of “accepting their friend requests” as a “legit request” instead of a “fitness-test” of screening for sex-hungry beta male orbiters from the men who will “reject” their friend requests and call them out for their sneaky “whorish behaviour” and after doing so, I’ve had these same women be my “followers” on Facebook instead of seeing me as one of their connived “beta male orbiters” they won’t “give a piece” for the time of day.
Reject “friend requests” from sexually-provocative women on Facebook and message them “calling them” out as being “whores” and/or “sluts” but do it with a cool twist of sophisticated “class” than just “name-calling” them and they won’t message you back but can be sure they at least “spy back” on the message you’ve sent them. I use this as opportunities to tell these “harlots” about *JESUS CHRIST* and pivot the *GOD PERSPECTIVE* of life on these women to get them thinking of their wicked actions.
I don’t give these sorry women any true respect other than as fellow “human-beings” since they only out to manipulate and scheme me *if* I let them that is…
The difference is *IGNORANCE*: men of experience with women know the deal with how to deal with them. Men of inexperience usually suffer many “trials & errors” until they figure out how women operate and live.
As a man, if women hit you, let them know you don’t condone it by verbally telling them they are out of line and disrespecting you and cut off all contact with them if they continue to try to play you like that.
Avoid being in their company: women hate being alone; especially if it’s an attractive man she really wants rejecting her rightfully. I know this… Hard way. Amen.
~ Bro. Jed
@ Minesweeper
It’s good that you see some women actually showing signs of unease because they think men are losing interest, as far as I’m concerned. They usually aren’t aware or accepting that a lot of that is down to their own behavior but it’s a start.
things are weird…………
And how. It’s the F’ing Twilight Zone compared to the 1980s.
Marlow
Anonymous Reader: “Not All Women Are Like That” is not a logical argument.
It’s logical when you consider the correct premises.
Factual premises based on reality contradict NAWALT as “logic”. What are your premises based on?
If your starting point is wrong, you are practically guaranteed to arrive at an errant conclusion.
There’s your problem: examine your premises. Tabula rasa doesn’t exist. Neither do unicorns.
Dalrock
A woman who spent her teens and twenties riding the cock carousel will be able to find a man willing to marry once she turns 30ish. But she can’t make him go back in time and focus on education and career, any more than she can undo her decade + of slutting it up.
Which means she’ll most likely be earning the larger paycheck. That implies “Mr. Mom” if they have a child. Plenty of choreplay for him. Continual betaization of him leading to declining attraction.
It’s like a step-by-step checklist on “how to detonate a marriage”.
If I had the time I was going to do a census of women on tv who routinely dominate men physically. Offhand, there are dozens in various cop, action, adventure type shows.
Then I was going to take census of real life women that could be identified in media reports or history who physically dominanted men.
My working hypothesis is that the fictional women would vastly out number real women.
@LP,nova
I guess its good that you are still seeing females in demand, but i guess its a problem for them if there are still no suitable men. Remember Mark (I think) from toronto who popped his head into a dating evening, there were 100 females and like 2 guys. Thats the kind of thing im seeing too. And im really seeing alot of attractive women who are very single indeed. Could defo be what nova was alluding too that they just cant get any ones that fit their perceived value and spend years looking to find just one. I am also seeing lots of men who just arnt interested anymore ones who would be suitable as well. A man has no need for a woman nowadays, unless he wants kids.
he young man described a scenario where after being refused by several white men, a moxie filled feminist was finally obliged by a black man who proceeded to (with minimal effort) knock her across the room.
Good for him.
We need to start using cuckservatives and manginas as human shields. This will hasten their eradication, which is the most important step in the path to normalcy.
“The “don’t look” rule was paired with the “nice girls dress modestly” rule….”
And the “boys never hit girls” rule was paired with the “girls never do things that would get them hit if they were boys…and if they do, all bets are off” rule.
Dalrock said :
. The analogy both Kummer and I are drawing is to a market bubble.
This was always the cycle that this very artificial arrangement was under :
The Misandry Bubble.
Trying to predict the timing of the peak is a fool’s errand, but the fact remains that the peak is coming.
Maybe not. The timeline predicted in the article seems to be on track. The big disruptor is VR Sex, which is not even mainstream yet, but almost every man who uses it says “Why I am still wasting time with that 6 I was seeing?”.
Anon says:
“The big disruptor is VR Sex, which is not even mainstream yet, but almost every man who uses it says “Why I am still wasting time with that 6 I was seeing?”.”
ive tried vr before (not that tho) always found it fairly disappointing. you sure the effects are that strong ?
Anonymous Reader: Factual premises based on reality contradict NAWALT as “logic”. What are your premises based on?
NAWALT requires a definition for the “That” part. Of course, to say that NAWALT cannot be argued while arguing AWALT, does appear contradictory.
Regardless, my point is that there is variation in mating strategies in both men and women and that this plays a part in the behavior of both. For example: female hypogamy is a thing. It will become more of a thing, given that men are not incentivized to improve themselves (in work, education, fitness), but will still want to be married, and women will still want children. How much more of a thing remains to be seen, but it is an increasing trend.
Anonymous Reader: There’s your problem: examine your premises. Tabula rasa doesn’t exist. Neither do unicorns.
I never said “Tabula Rasa” exists. Whether unicorns exist depends on your definition. I’ve met men and women who I think would qualify; it outright astounds me that they exist. Now, is their existence going to have a major effect on the considerations at hand? No, not really. (Besides being a warning against making absolute statements.)
Anon, thanks for that link, its the only place ive found the 90% female initiated divorce figure, which correlates to my own personal experience of almost 30 divorces. Its a figure that men really should be fully aware of by now.
“Helpfully, in Sexual Utopia Devlin puts some numbers to the suspicion by men that the divorce industry is mostly a female-run enterprise:
Women formally initiate divorce about two thirds of the time. Most observers agree, however, that this understates matters: In many cases where the husband formally initiates, it is because his wife wants out of the marriage. Exact data are elusive, but close observers tend to estimate that women are responsible for about nine-tenths of the divorcing and breakingup: Men do not love them and leave them, but love them and get left by them. Many young women, indeed, believe they want marriage when all they really want is a wedding (think of bridal magazines). The common pattern is that women are the first to want into marriage and the first to want out.
Devlin goes on to describe the horror show that is the legal process when wives file for divorce and husbands and fathers take it up the ass as they are mercilessly ground to a pulp in the machinery of the state. “
Our debt-fuelled consumerist society depends upon, as Dalrock has often alluded to, a massive ‘pumping operation’ of resources from men to women. Every man who refuses marriage/LTR is another pump turned off. The government can only take so much from men without being overtly discriminatory about it. Women on their own will borrow and spend lavishly until they can’t. Then, their vaunted 80% of spending power will evaporate.
Yes, this could go on quite a while longer. But the tensions, frustrations and unhappiness also compound like negative interest. It will go hockey-stick one day, out of the blue, like all panics and manias. Not all alpha males will consent to polyamory if it means their mate threatens them with divorce-rape; women mate-guard too. Not all betas will accept making a lifetime commitment to be #200 in a 10 year serial gangbang. The collapse will begin on the margins, and it is underway already.
ive tried vr before (not that tho) always found it fairly disappointing. you sure the effects are that strong ?
Surely you know that technology progresses.
Here are some reviews of VR Sex from 2016 (embedded in the article). As the years pass, it gets more precise :
http://www.antifeministtech.info/2016/05/the-missing-uncanny-valley-in-vr-sex/
Remember, it does not have to be better than a 10, since most men never get a 10. Since most men are stuck with sporadic access to 5s, 6s, and 7s (not to mention the risk of violence, false accusations, costs, etc.). It just becomes an easier way to check out of the tedious game.
Marlow
NAWALT requires a definition for the “That” part. Of course, to say that NAWALT cannot be argued while arguing AWALT, does appear contradictory.
What are your premises based on? You’ve ruled out observable reality, correct?
Regardless, my point is that there is variation in mating strategies in both men and women and that this plays a part in the behavior of both. For example: female hypogamy is a thing.
There is no such thing as female hypogamy. Perhaps you meant to write female hypergamy?
It will become more of a thing, given that men are not incentivized to improve themselves (in work, education, fitness), but will still want to be married, and women will still want children.
Actually there is one place in the world where men are urged to improve themselves: the androsphere / manosphere corner of the web. Doing the job that churches and schools not only won’t do, but actively work against. Sites such as this one tell truths that won’t be heard in classrooms or church events.
The issue of female hypergamy is well known in the androsphere, the future effects are still being debated, you can see a brief comment of mine on that topic in this very thread. It is not new to us. Furthermore hypergamy is a key factor in the 80 / 20 attraction issue. Perhaps you do not understand all the implications of hypergamy?
Now, why do you assume men will still want to be married? How many men under 30 have you listened to on this topic? Not talked at, listened to.
Women still want children, eventually. What does that have to do with marriage?
HINT: What percentage of births in the US in 2016 were to unmarried women?
Dalrock, my comments aren’t always getting through.
Meanwhile the liberalist left can bring in the muslim masses to satisfy their secret rape desires
I hear this a lot from the Manosphere and even Jordan Peterson mentioned this sometime ago. I ask, where’s the proof? I don’t see muslims cleaning up on Tinder and I have some muslims in my circle and I just don’t see it. Very few white women convert to Islam but it seems like a lot since they are given lavish attention to boost publicity for the Islamic missionary cause.
The reason feminists don’t criticize Islam is because the people who are importing third world immigrants are the same people who are paying feminists their salaries – the Rockerfellers, the Fords, the Gates, Soros etc… That explanation makes more sense than some half baked theory about rape fantasies.
@minesweeper
the churches might not be a a major influence
but they are among the % who get married
Church men are significantly more likely to get married and submit to a wife
as this nitwit teaches
men are the bondservants and the woman is the master…. ( I guess this is why my youth pastor would change diapers while preaching- his wife is his master so diapers are below her)
most Christian men are training other men to submit
Sheryl Sandberg is training secular women to find men who will submit
it is a perfect match
the bubble won’t burst
“Men are competative with men to place in the heirarchy and be as high as possible to gain mates. A man’s fears are that he is weak or that he is a traitor to his group. Women fear being outsiders, ostrication. This is why slut shaming worked on women. It put a woman on the outside. A man can’t do that because he isn’t in her group (other women). So in the end a man has no meanss to deal with a crazy woman who will not abid by social mores.”
A man can do that in conjunction with other men since they will tell their wives to ignore her, or exile the woman in question if she behaves badly. So yes, there are options for men to deal with an immoral woman, in a justly ordered society.
Let’s use Marxist NewSpeak to understand and reconcile this:
Males are bad and violent. Females are good and peaceful. If a female-appearing person uses violence against you, you should know that that person, because they are using violence, are actually identifying as male. Ergo, if you defend yourself, you are not actually hitting a female. If you believe otherwise, or if you don’t hit back, then you are being transphobic.
Solved using DoubleThink!
“But if the men save the kickass gal, her character risks instantly falling into the damsel in distress. So she has to be furious that the men assumed she needed to be saved. There is no other way if she is going to keep her feminist cred.”
Plenty of that when black stormtrooper first meets Rey in The Force Awakens.
“You have bigger fists and therefore are not expected to use them against someone with smaller fists in the same way that they would use them against you. That is expecting you to have a higher moral standard than the person with the smaller fists. ”
Against a woman, hitting with an open hand (slap) was permissible when appropriate.
The modern situation can’t continue forever any more than deficit spending can continue forever. Something has to stop eventually, though things can clearly be manipulated far longer than many thought possible.
The idea that polyandry will ever be acceptable to most is dumb as well. Men accept the situation now because they expect their case will beat the odds, whether that is realistic or not. Very few would sign up for it knowing that was the planned situation.
And a society that pushes a large pool of men completely out of the pool of having a wife and children will reap a strong backlash at some point. Some men may go the grasseater route, but having a hostile malcontent group grow will not be a good thing and things will eventually come to a head.
Perhaps VR porn will sap that off, but I am not convinced. No past society lasted long with a large male group that never connected with a woman. Many did because lots of men died in wars and such, but they weren’t standing idly by.
Change seems impossible until it happens. We will come back to some norm. That is how life works, no matter how much others struggle against it.
As a Christian I also believe God has ultimate control of things and won’t let us completely ruin ourselves, though he may let us go through quite the mess along the way.
@bdash 77
do not underestimate the power of the church to keep men submitting to women and entering marriages where they are the helpmeets
I wouldn’t dispute that the modern church is a terrible influence on young men and has long acted as a silent partner for the radical feminists, but I think you’re greatly overestimating their reach. The American church has had a fairly wide sex gap for years. A lot of pollsters put it a 60/40 ratio of women to men, and even that might be generous. What’s interesting is that not only is this an open secret among the pastorate, but a lot of them have also made it clear that they’re not even interested in doing anything to turn it around. There’s a book by David Murrow titled Why Men Hate Going to Church that came out a few years back and it does a decent job breaking down the reasons why men don’t attend (no, it’s not because they’re more sinful than the women), and how pastors can work to change that. But it didn’t get even get much attention in Christian circles, and the author himself even reports that he hasn’t gotten much response on his work or requests to speak from church leaders. Pastors who have dealt with the problems he brings up tend to prefer shaming men even more, like this one in Washington who accuses church-averse men of being guilty of the same sin that doomed Cain:
So in short: When men aren’t coming, the response of pastors like this is going to be to blame the men for being evil. That’s an interesting approach that I somehow don’t think will result in attracting too many more of them. But if the church hates the men, the men for their part already seem to hate them right back. Just from my own experience, I work in a location where I can’t even think of one man in my extended department who I know is a Christian believer. A few know that I am, and while they haven’t treated me badly because of it I’ve heard most of them express a disgust with the Christian church, and usually always for the same reason: It’s a woman’s activity, and they don’t ever want to be like the kind of men who run things like that. From their perspective I can’t say that I disagree; If I were a young man I know that I can’t quite imagine seeing the likes of Matt Chandler, John Piper or Perry Noble and hoping that one day I might end up being just like them.
Add to this that for the men already inside, you probably won’t find a lot of new marriages when the church is almost notoriously hostile to single men with an interest in romance. These are the same people who pre-emptively nuked an generation of future Christian families by convincing teenagers in church that God wanted them to “Kiss Dating Goodbye.” It’s true that you’re more likely to find married couples in the United States among those professing Christian belief, but even their numbers are dropping. I’ve personally spoken to pastors of large congregations who were mystified at how they found themselves officiating fewer wedding ceremonies each year, but would still enjoy entertaining their Sunday morning flock by reading the famous threat list for young suitors known as “10 Simple Rules for Dating My Daughter.”
The modern church is good at neither attracting new men, nor keeping the ones it has. I don’t see that changing anytime soon, especially with the way that family trends are going; Mothers who attend church without their childrens’ father rank among the least likely to have their children to adopt their faith, so with more boys than ever growing up in single-parent households it’s an ominous sign for any influence the church will have with the next generation. Is it possible that other institutions will have influence in convincing men to tie the knot? Maybe; There are a few who have more power, but most lack the will or interest to do so. The Education establishment encourages both men and women to put it off, and the government tends to have more tools to punish married men through taxes and divorce laws while largely holding off on targeting single men with things like bachelor taxes (so far, at least). The church is a waning power with no reinforcements on the horizon. I don’t see them increasing their pull with anyone in the near future, especially men.
Link for the attached pastor’s screed is here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/evangelicalpulpit/2014/10/the-masculinity-myth-the-real-reason-men-dont-go-to-church/
Game of Thrones began as a patriarchal, Machiavellian medieval drama, with a touch of fantasy. It eventually mutated into a full-blown fantasy show, full of kick-ass warrior women and bad-ass warrior queens.
Penny Dreadful began as a mash-up of classic monster tales, set in Victorian London. It eventually mutated into full blown feminism, including a kick-ass warrior woman in the final season, who had nothing to do with the original premise. She ruined the show. The vampires, initially terrifying, suddenly looked silly as Catriona Hartdegan fought off whole swarms of the undead with nonchalant, James Bondian cool.
All TV shows, no matter how good the original premise or first season, eventually become polluted with hordes of kick-ass warrior women. They’re everywhere. (Except in real life.)
The reason feminists don’t criticize Islam is because the people who are importing third world immigrants are the same people who are paying feminists their salaries…
Its simpler than that. Feminists, particularly the modern 4th wave intersectionalist ones, believe White Men, specifically Christian or Secular ones, are the source of all evil and the enemy of humanity. So with Muslims, the thinking goes “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
It really only takes a simple adjustment to the standard translation of old-school chivalry (itself of sullied origin, though nobler by several orders of magnitude than today’s feminism): clarify that an honorable man does not strike a LADY. And no Lady known as such attacks a man without cause. (But every woman is a Lady until proven otherwise.)
Thus the boy-baiting idiots are disqualified from the exemption by their own actions, and those actions may be addressed appropriately.
**NOTE: The above is NOT meant as a blanket justification for striking women. It is meant, rather, as an explicit Self-Defense loophole and endorsement of not-putting-up-with-[fecal behavior] from the vulgaria of the weaker sex. There are MANY ways to address a woman who has shown herself unladylike WITHOUT physical violence, and some of them are more effective, overall.**
After watching the ads during the Olympics I’d like to see Mikaela Shiffrin either ski against elite men or stop talking about always beating “the boys”. Why are women never actually required to back their BS. Mouths consistently overrun their posteriors.
@bdash 77
the churches might not be a a major influence
but they are among the % who get married
Church men are significantly more likely to get married and submit to a wife
as this nitwit teaches
Interesting that you posted the Every Man’s Marriage book by Stephen Arterburn because he’s a brilliant example of why the church today is so empty and has pretty much nothing to offer men. He’s actually written a whole series of those books; The best known among them is probably the abstinence-themed Every Man’s Battle. If you were a millennial who grew up in the evangelical church (as I did), then there’s a pretty good chance that at some point you got herded off into a men’s group or retreat where you were made to read this book, then follow up with a round of “purity pledges” in which you promise to kill your sense of sexual desire in anticipation of how much better it’ll make your future marriage. It’s pretty much the standard lust-is-as-bad-as-adultery message that gets preached to young men and then winds up keeping them single for years afterward. The most memorable section of the book I recall was a part where the author detailed how many women he’d met with during his research who didn’t enjoy sex with their Christian husbands and wanted to quit it entirely, which he pointed to as an example of why young men shouldn’t consider going without sex to be such a big deal.
I bring all this up because the message of Stephen Arterburn’s books tends to ring a bit hollow once you find out that he doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches. For some reason GQ magazine featured an interview with him for a story in its April 2006 issue, and it contained a surprising revelation of which I suspect most of his readers were unaware:
That’s right, he’s had three marriages. The first you might excuse since the divorce came when he was relatively young and happened before his ministry began, but the second came after he’d been hitched for over 20 years and had been selling his “sexual responsibility” message for almost as long.
Oh, and that seminar that he might his hot third wife at? That’s actually the other thing Stephen Arterburn’s best known for: He’s the man who launched the Women of Faith conference tours in which evangelical women leaders sell their Christian brand of feminism to “empower” female attendees. At one point it was the highest attended Christian conference series in the United States.
So there’s Stephen Arterburn for you. A Christian leader who sells a feel-good message of encouragement to women at packed-crowd meetings where he enjoys (and apparently indulges in) some rock-star status before returning home to scold the men as innate degenerates. If you wanted to pick an example of why today’s church is so repellent to men, I’d have a hard time doing better than this. They can look at him and be dazzled by the fabulous life of a “pastor” that was made possible by failing to live by the orders that he pushed on them, while simultaneously selling a more attractive version with better benefits to their “sisters in Christ.”
I have a theory as to why young women are as Mrs Dalrock learned picking fights with men. This: In an age when courting is seen as harassment and men thus evade making first contact, women will but with plausible deniability interact physically; hence fighting. Not that this has never happened before and when (and I speak from fairly recent experience ) I was most recently manhandled by a woman my instinctive reaction was to regard it as a form of sexual attraction on her part and thus to treat the physical attack on myself as if she were a flea on the back of an elephant – even though she was the same height as me, and my back is not good. If a man so much as touches me – even accidentally – my instinct is to pull away, unamused.
Taking my thoughts in a slightly different direction: when I was young the go-to insult was Wanker. I once overheard whilst at school a chap in the form above me saying that his mother had told him that jerking-off was not acceptable and that if he could not restrain himself he should go and find a woman. I long thought that he must have been fabricating and amoging but now I am not so sure. In those days men married young and most men would do anything to have a girlfriend for being girlfriend-less was a sign that one truly was a loser and probably thus a wanker. ‘I suppose you’ll be seeing your girlfriends this weekend ‘ said to me and another young aspiring lawyer one spring evening at work by my clueless though kindly middle-aged married employer. I wanted the ground to swallow me for I had no girlfriend nor so far as I could see any means of acquiring one and certainly not be the end of the weekend. I cannot see that any one now would say anything so crass or that any one now would feel as I did.
The insult moved on form Wanker, first to Homo (which that now being politically unacceptable) now to Pedo (which is an attack principally on heterosexual attraction). How could Wanker remain an insult when we live in an age when so far as I can tell every young woman has a collection of Dildos and Buttplugs. Women now even play games like Rugby although that seems to me to be merely an excuse to produce a naked calendar. “They don’t do it very well but one is surprised they can do it at all” is pretty much how I feel about any female endeavour in what once were traditionally male preserves.
kinda ot
found the new complementarian definitions of manhood and womanhood
Biblical men are those who resist retaliation, choose mercy over vengeance, and love their neighbors and their enemies. Whether you are an outdoorsman or an indoorsman, artsy or athletic, skinny or buff, a violinist or a quarterback, you are real man if you love Jesus and are a humble servant to all. Biblical women display wisdom in their decisions, radiate modesty in this oversexualized culture, and manifest strength against the challenges life throws their way. Most of all, a biblical woman is not incomplete without a husband, but fully radiates the powerful image of God in her singleness, widowhood, or infertility. Whether you are a homeschool mom or the CEO of a construction company, if you love Jesus then you can live out your femininity to its fullest potential.
aka no real difference between men and women
note the FEMALE CEO
men will yield to this, no bubble
after all they have been taught since kids to never confront a girl
@Darwinian
yeah it is sad
https://www.prestonsprinkle.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/12/put-homophobia-to-death
they are trying to destroy anything male
yes some stereotypes are wrong – but some are demanded by God!
your link he assumes SEXISM is a sin
sorry
but where in the bible does it say SEXISM is a sin?!!
the bible itself is SEXIST
Jesus was SEXIST, the all powerful God could use anyone to spread his word ( he is God!)
yet he chose to come down as a man ( don’t say people those days would never follow women- female cults existed back then)
he CHOSE 12 male disciples
MEN wrote the bible his word
where do they get this nonsense
http://blogs.bible.org/engage/sandra_glahn/staying_home_with_kids_vs._second_income
when will women be told that their dissatisfaction in being a wife and mom is sinful?
when will they be instructed to trust God and submit
ridiculous
Christians should evaluate this differently:
We all know that feminism is wreaking havoc on modern (western) culture by promoting a cleverly disguised hate for men and has become a major ideology driving society. Similar forces exist from the homosexual community in driving culture to further break down man-woman relationships in marriage. And don’t forget the forces that have been breaking marriages by easy divorce. We should have no questions where these forces are driving society; it will NOT be an improvement.
The Church should not be surprised by this, we all know there’s a constant battle against God-given structures, both to destroy the inherent benefits to society, as well as to make it harder for people to follow God and conform to a godly lifestyle. The attack on the male and on “patriarchy”, the break-up of marriages, the redefinition of “marriage”, all contribute to people becoming more alienated from seeing the meaning of having God as a loving Father, and alienated from the meaning of marriage as the relationship between Christ and His Church.
What is shocking is that many churches are blind to this and are instead followers of dominant culture, rather than opposing these forces. Changes should start there. That’s the only long-term hope for both Christian men as well as society as a whole for things to change in this area. (Although it could be that a temporary backlash might drive a superficial re-balance in male-female relationships). We can only repeat what the apostle Paul already advised: it is better not to marry if you can control your sexual passions. Else marry a wife who wants to obey God and submit to you, and lead and love her as a man.
Oh, and about toothpaste; it’s easy to put it back, just use the same way it was put in there in the first place. This will probably work easiest on metal tubes.
talking about men opting out
this guy does not even believe there is a crisis in masculinity
as I thought – he reckons men need to be like Jesus and abandon traditional stereotypes and become servant house daddies supporting women ( even talks about house daddies at the back of the book)
Jesus can’t return soon enough, and when He does, his purging of the “church” (for, among many other reasons, its endorsement and amplification of the nonsense described in OP) is going to make his father’s punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah seem like a toddler spanking and banishment to a time-out corner.
And, just in time, Twitchy promoting “Conservative Feminist”.
https://twitchy.com/bethb-313034/2018/02/15/sex-drugs-and-rock-and-roll-conservative-feminist-christina-sommers-has-a-word-of-advice-for-millennials-and-their-moral-panics/
Seems like establishment conservatives are ready to make the leap to open progressive.
RPL,
That YouTube clip from Penny Dreadful was just nuts. I’d never heard of the show, nor seen it. But they really went overboard with the girlpower thing there, to say the least!
DA,
I know the book must have assaulted you in some way, but I Kissed Dating Goodbye did not create the modern trouble, inside our outside the church. You sound like many cuckservatives in wanting to have “safe dating”. Dating is a corrupt system, even though a generation grew up with it. It is not what happened throughout history and it makes emotions and temporary attachments the norm.
A likely problem with the church application of skipping dating was that the desire to do our own thing still reigned supreme, and thus people just did what they were already doing and called it something else.
Are you really advocating modern dating as a good thing for the church to promote?
It will never look the same and an amount of toothpaste will be lost in the process. The principle remains.
I have not watched a video on this process that I can recall, but I would bet the insert it into the other end and then seal that. I doubt they insert it through the tiny end. That is not how such things generally work.
Though modern toothpaste tubes don’t deform like they did when the saying was more common. I think the one I am using now doesn’t seem to show the same indentations the old tubes did, but it might not be able to get as smooth as it was when I first opened it without basically remanufacturing it, which would really just be making a new tube.
It will never look the same …
well, that was not a requirement …
… and an amount of toothpaste will be lost in the process.
… and similar to any restoration it will never be 100% identical to where you started from
It’s the best we can do. To stay in the analogy; we must look upon this problem from first principles and reapply them, but we cannot revert all damage done.
About infiltration of feminism in popular culture: whereas in the past Star Wars has been predominantly male territory, the last installment (Star Wars: The Last Jedi) was a nauseating glorification of feminist delusions.
Question wrote Anyone who doubts this is free to explain how feminism would work in a situation without a state agent at some point threatening violence against those who do not comply.
Exactly right. True of all leftism. There’s a reason they infiltrate the power positions first.
Paul wrote What is shocking is that many churches are blind to this and are instead followers of dominant culture, rather than opposing these forces.
Yes, it’s a bit shocking, but go back to my first comment, and understand that seminaries and christian colleges were infiltrated some decades ago. Most pastors don’t have a clue that there are other lines of thinking available. They’re convinced that anything but this feminism, is either liberal hedonism or a return to brutality. They have no sense of history, and the media houses reinforce that w/ the books published and radio shows broadcast.
But after that notoriety, a female wrestler named Chynna offered to box him as a celebrity boxing fight. Joey, despite not having much experience, cleaned her clock. (you can find the fight on YouTube).
I believe I posted that on a thread here just yesterday.
“As an example of the change, my wife was talking to a roughly 20 year old man the other day, and he mentioned in conversation that he and his friends have stopped going to parties due to young women trying to start fist fights with the men.”
Yikes!
Dota @ February 14, 2018 at 11:49 pm:
“Meanwhile the liberalist left can bring in the muslim masses to satisfy their secret rape desires”
“I hear this a lot from the Manosphere and even Jordan Peterson mentioned this sometime ago. I ask, where’s the proof? I don’t see muslims cleaning up on Tinder and I have some muslims in my circle and I just don’t see it.”
The proof is Islamic harems, warlords, Koranic incitement towards humiliating one’s enemies and endless casual violence. Rotherham. Rapefugee centers in Sweden & Germany. All chick-crack. Of course, hypergamy means ordinary Muslims still don’t get female approval. One Muzzie with four wives still means three Muzzies have to kill themselves to get laid. Sometimes literally.
We don’t have Muslims in California. Instead, women go to our prisons for “conjugal visits” with our society’s most violent thugs. Prison officials allow it because it keeps the thugs quiet. AWALT.
“Not all betas will accept making a lifetime commitment to be #200 in a 10 year serial gangbang.”
Cynic. Where is your sense of romance? Of chivalry?
“Number oneneignteenine! I have one hundred and ninety nine here. Anybody with one ninety nine? You? Anyone? Okay… Number two hundred! Next up, number two hundred.”
I wonder what the new Doctor Who will be like, now that the reversal of the polarity has regenerated the Doctor as a white, middle-class, wall-banging female. Kick-ass or nauseatingly know-it-all? Never exterminate a girl, man-spread or man-splain.
Novaseeker says:
February 14, 2018 at 1:43 pm
“In fact, automation waves coming will further marginalize men even more than they are today. Men are going down, folks, at least in the short to medium term, for most men outside the top 10-20%. Just is.”
True, but automation is going to off many female heavy industries as well: not much use for paper pushing in the future.
That reminds me of an old joke about boat owners. “The two happiest days in the life of a boat owner are the day he buys it and the day he sells it.”
A classic! Thanks for providing it.
I spoke to one complentarian pastor recently, he said any man that expects his wife to cook him dinner is a sinner and that is evidence that he is not saved.
I pointed out that his wife keeps telling him to make dinner
he said yes he is expected to make dinner by the time his wife gets home form work because that is what a real servant who loves his wife does… he then went on to say how he raised his sons to be domestic so that they could be better servants
trust me
women are going to be fine,soon their will be mega promise keeper like events teaching men to be homemakers
it won’t collapse
The proof is Islamic harems, warlords, Koranic incitement towards humiliating one’s enemies and endless casual violence.
I lived in Dubai for 10 years and polygamy is far from the norm, even among Arabs. Didn’t see much violence either.
Rotherham. Rapefugee centers in Sweden & Germany. All chick-crack.
Muslims behave pretty badly in Europe, but you’ve yet to prove that women want it.
We don’t have Muslims in California. Instead, women go to our prisons for “conjugal visits” with our society’s most violent thugs.
There’s a massive difference between women seeking out sociopaths on their own terms (which they do all the time as you pointed out) versus getting raped. Besides, studies have shown that white women have an overwhelming preference for white men and not non whites. Statistics show that miscegenation rates are still pretty low. You’ve provided no solid evidence, just a lot of conjecture.
“As Kummer notes, chivalry is a vestige of a previous time, and is entirely inconsistent with an age where we are repeatedly told women are as tough as men.”
Chivalry died alongside feminine virtue.
Women of the modern day are no longer feminine nor virtuous. They have no honor for men to defend. This is what gave chivalry its oxygen.
But as long as men will seek sexual favor from women, and as long as men will believe that they need to earn moral favor and approval of women in order to obtain sex, then you will still find men behaving gallantly toward women, protecting women and serving them.
This is an important perception by many men who refuse to acknowledge they live in a world that has an overt and growing level of disdain for, and distrust of, men and boys in general. They do notice that it’s becoming increasingly difficult to remain chivalrous and deferential to women when you are regarded with open hostility as the enemy.
Yet you will still see older men, hell even men age 25+ right now, who still have the sword of chivalry in their scabbards.
On airplanes these men will stand up and go out of their way to lift up (and down) the overweight luggage of women into the overhead compartments, often times with the woman not bothering to mention him any thanks. You will still these men give up their seats on buses or their place in the queue at restaurants, stores and service centers. They will even admonish other men and boys for not behaving chivalrous enough toward other female strangers, who also would not thank them for the trouble.
So chivalrous interventionism is now decaying. What is the point when the returns for your actions are dismissal, hatred, attitude and ingratitude?
The amusing thing is that women believe they are not requiring chivalry of men, and that they need to demand it. This is a fundamental lack of understanding of what chivalry is, its initial purpose and the role of the feminine.
Dota,
The reason feminists don’t criticize Islam is because the people who are importing third world immigrants are the same people who are paying feminists their salaries
Notice how seamlessly you conflate Islam with ‘third world’.
Are you aware that Asians have a higher household income in the US than whites?
White Trashionalists like you are a large part of the problem, since you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You can’t even grasp the difference between a Muslim terrorist and a Filipino nurse or Chinese PhD.
There are lots of things I do not believe and one of those things is Rotherham. Ask yourself why just Rotherham and not everywhere else? I once calculated and will repeat the figure that if Rotherham were replicated throughout England then the number of young females giving it up to Muslims would total at 280,000 well over a quarter of a million. My Muslim Bangla neighbour has yet to bring back any white or indeed any female to his apartment.
“I spoke to one complentarian pastor recently, he said any man that expects his wife to cook him dinner is a sinner and that is evidence that he is not saved.
I pointed out that his wife keeps telling him to make dinner
he said yes he is expected to make dinner by the time his wife gets home form work because that is what a real servant who loves his wife does… he then went on to say how he raised his sons to be domestic so that they could be better servants”
Wow, you couldn’t make that up. He must be pastor of the Church of Cuck.
Things aren’t much better on the Catholic (Novus Ordo) side of the aisle. Recently, a priest “came out” in his sermon, in the middle of Mass. Flat-out declared he’s gay (though he was careful not to admit to actual homosexual acts). The response of the congregation? They gave him a standing ovation. I’m not even kidding.
Even more recently (just this past week), was an incident down in Miami. At a Catholic school, a female first grade teacher “married” another chick in a civil ceremony, and openly published it (with pics!) on Facebook. She was immediately terminated (and rightly so) for violating the morals clause of her employment contract. The response? A protest by the very parents who are working so hard to pay tuition so that their kids can get a “Catholic education”! The protests were led mostly by moms, you’ll be unsurprised to hear. “Oh, this is discriminatory! Oh, she’s such a good teacher! Oh, Jesus wouldn’t want us to judge! Oh, can love ever be wrong?” And on and on…
We are plummeting towards the abyss at light speed. With apologies to the late Judge Bork, we are not “slouching towards Gomorrah”, we’re flat-out sprinting towards it!
I wonder if these mothers have a ‘father was unavailable for comment’ situation or ‘egalitarian marriage’ situation.
Isn’t that city a little more secular than the hardcore Islamic countries?
I’ve seen friends on both sides of that boat (pun intended)…and that statement is very true.
Remember the girls who used to charge the stage to get to a rock band, like back in the 70s?
Often they would get there then start beating on the band since they didn’t know what to do and weren’t getting any response.
“Stop ignoring me, stop ignoring me”
David says:
February 15, 2018 at 12:00 pm
Dota,
The reason feminists don’t criticize Islam is because the people who are importing third world immigrants are the same people who are paying feminists their salaries
Notice how seamlessly you conflate Islam with ‘third world’.
Are you aware that Asians have a higher household income in the US than whites?
White Trashionalists like you are a large part of the problem, since you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You can’t even grasp the difference between a Muslim terrorist and a Filipino nurse or Chinese PhD.
“White Trashionalists” eh? And what are you David, what kind of thing are you?
@Minsweeper Women formally initiate divorce about two thirds of the time. Most observers agree, however, that this understates matters: In many cases where the husband formally initiates, it is because his wife wants out of the marriage.
BINGO!!!
I filed the paperwork, but she had decided we weren’t going to be married any longer, and went out whoring around.
Incidentally, are you in a large metropolitan area in the US?? How about a general location? NW/SW/NE/SE?? Your experience of young women in desperation seeking out older men hasn’t seemed to translate into the intermountain West where the ratios are heavily skewed in their favor.
I look on OKStupid, and see overweight, homely, SJWs looking for men way above their pay grade.
@Paul,
The amusing thing is that the first Star Wars Episode IV released back in 1977 was a simple story about a group of men on a mission to help a Princess, stumbling into a lion’s den of danger, rescuing the very Princess they intended to help, and escaping from the clutches of an evil dark knight.
The heroes succeeded and conquered evil, paying a heavy price in the process.
They were rewarded with a public recognition ceremony with military honors and with gold medals for bravery around their necks, placed their by the rescued Princess herself.
Chivalry wins and is rewarded.
Perfectly simple, relatable human fantasy. A story of the ages that could have been told around a campfire in 1488, 1888 or 1978 with the same appeal.
Yet such a film could not possibly be made in current day Hollywood without howls from feminists and outrage from identity politics shills.
Fast forward 40 years to release of The Last Jedi (2017), and the response to the purposeful injection of feminist and social justice themes, and well, frankly a film with a story, climax or any meaningful character development, and we see the outcome. The reviews of the film in social media have been predictably brutal. The sales of the female action figures – Rey, Rose, Admiral Holdo, Paige and even Captain Phasma have been poor.
But this horrible Disney film still made $1.7 billion – the top boxoffice smash of 2017, which was the worst year in movie ticket sales matching 1995’s units sold.
Besides, studies have shown that white women have an overwhelming preference for white men and not non whites. Statistics show that miscegenation rates are still pretty low.
That’s changing at warp speed currently, at least where I live (major east coast metro). In the last 5-6 years or so, and more each year, the number of couplings of white women with non-white men (especially black guys to be honest) that you see when out and about has gone through the roof. As recently as, say, 10 years ago these couplings were quite rare. You would see them now and then but not very often and it was therefore noticeable. It’s no longer rare. I wouldn’t say it’s “common”, in the sense that it’s true that most couplings are intra-racial, for all races, but it isn’t rare any longer. I think the further down in age you go the stronger the trend is, at least as far as my eyes can tell based on what I am seeing — the couplings in question are 80% millenial aged.
@Nova, a white male acquaintance who lives in another major metropolitan city on the East coast is married to a very attractive black woman, and they seem very happy. I would say that he definitely did better than he would have if he’d married a white woman.
What does that mean? No clue. It’s just another data point that supports your observation.
Dota @ 11:29 am:
“There’s a massive difference between women seeking out sociopaths on their own terms (which they do all the time as you pointed out) versus getting raped.”
There’s ZERO difference. Women only claim it was “rape” in order to duck the consequences. Actual rape-rape is nearly a dead crime in the West.
“Muslims behave pretty badly in Europe, but you’ve yet to prove that women want it.”
Women covered up the atrocities. They refused to alert police or family. They kept exposing themselves to dangerous situations. Either women have the self-awareness of compost or they’re participants in their own destruction.
“I lived in Dubai for 10 years and polygamy is far from the norm, even among Arabs. Didn’t see much violence either.”
Of course most Muslims aren’t violent sociopaths with dungeons full of slave-chicks, especially in a comfortable land of petrodollars. But here’s the thing, Islam preaches it. You can’t measure a religion’s teachings by how well the average believer practices it. Most humans are sheep and happy enough to be ordered about regardless of what they think. The margins are always where one finds the True Believers.
@ Earl. “The two happiest days in the life of a boat owner are the day he buys it and the day he sells it.”
I’ve seen friends on both sides of that boat (pun intended)…and that statement is very true.
I used to be a boat owner. Sold it and joined a boat club, best decision I could’ve made. I can now choose from a fleet of boats, of different types from offshore capable center consoles, to bowriders for boating and tubing with the family, to deckboats, to pontoon boats. None more than 3 years old, nor will they ever be (any boat that gets to be over 3 years old is sold and replaced with new, right from the factory)
All professionally maintained. I pay a set price every month for unlimited boating (only extra cost is the fuel I burn), and that price is locked in for my lifetime. I have 120 cities around the country that have franchises of my club, so when in those towns I can use one of their boats at no cost.
And the part I really love – no boat maintenance for me to do (ever!), no storing or trailering the thing, no waiting in line at a public boat launch at the beginning or end of the day, no wondering if it will start if I haven’t used it in awhile, etc.
I’ll never own my own boat again. The boat club is just too convenient.
Yes…I think most rape cases are the result of consensual sex at first (and many times it seems like she initiates it) and then she got bad feelz after the fact (guy yelled at her, didn’t call back, cheated, etc.)…so suddenly it was rape.
Now I’m sure rape-rape still occurs in the west (seems like a certain group does that in Europe)…but most women don’t know the difference between regret after fornication and rape anymore.
Paul,
Yes it is. The whole point is that you cannot restore things as they were. You can never restore a toothpaste tube back to exactly as it was before you squeezed the toothpaste out, not that you cannot do something to reinsert most of the toothpaste back in. It is a valid consideration and remains valid as a general point. It is not perfect, like any analogy, but it is still very close to being a good way to state things.
Bdash,
I doubt it. Most men will just do something else. They can’t compel men to stay for such idiocy. Some may, but most will ultimately not follow the script.
Here in a mid-sized metro area in flyover country, it also seems there has been an increase in coupling of white women to black men. In the case of the older ones, my guess is often white trailer trash. For the younger ones, I think the women are primarily motivated by attraction to his physical appearance (hypergamy I suppose).
Has anyone done any research on the miscegenation rates in the US and/or elsewhere? I presume the data is available.
Some men won’t choose to take that role…other times the woman will eventually resent and divorce a man who does take that role. (unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapy)
‘The curse of the breadwinner wife’
https://breadwinnerwife.blog/2018/02/14/the-curse-of-the-breadwinner-wife/
@Opus – “Ask yourself why just Rotherham and not everywhere else? “
Rochdale, Telford, Derby, Oxford, Keighley come to mind off the top of the head.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/09/grooming-gangs-muslim-men-failed-integrate-british-society/
OKRickety:
“I saw a segment last night where, in some reality TV show, one of the US Olympic speed skaters raced her husband, a Dutch speed skater. He won easily. Her response? “I don’t know why, but I thought it would be a close race.”
I saw that last nite and was shocked they aired it since it went against the whole “anything you can do i can do better” narrative NBC has been shoving down it viewers throats. To her credit, she seemed to accept that reality humbly instead of complaining about how the race was unfair or some nonsense like that.
Maybe this is normal for them, but NBC has been shameless in their worship and promotion of the female athletes this go round. Every hour there seems to be some segment on how great the women athletes are and how we need to encourage more young girls to pursue their dreams, etc., etc., etc. Between this overt propaganda and the equally awful commercials, I don’t see how anyone can stomach watching regular tv anymore.
Slightly OT, but last nite they showed the trailer for The Incredibles 2 and it looks like the premise is the wife/mom is the superhero while the dad has to support her superhero career by staying home and doing a terrible job of watching the kids and keeping the home in order. Disappointing, but not really surprising.
Here in a mid-sized metro area in flyover country, it also seems there has been an increase in coupling of white women to black men. In the case of the older ones, my guess is often white trailer trash. For the younger ones, I think the women are primarily motivated by attraction to his physical appearance (hypergamy I suppose).
Yes I have noticed the split in ages as well. It’s less common among older women and when it’s there it’s more the old stereotype of lower quality women. Among the younger women, though, often it’s a very hot, HQ white girl involved, not low quality. The behavior shifted generationally it would appear.
Has anyone done any research on the miscegenation rates in the US and/or elsewhere? I presume the data is available.
The data says that the rates are low, but the data is a little stale, because at least here this trend is likely too recent to show up in the data, yet, and it may also still be the case that many of these interracial parings do not result in marriage (which is what is generally tracked).
It was a shock, including her placid acceptance of the reality, because it is completely opposite to the whole go-grrl narrative. I wonder how many complaints NBC has received because they aired it?
a white male acquaintance who lives in another major metropolitan city on the East coast is married to a very attractive black woman, and they seem very happy. I would say that he definitely did better than he would have if he’d married a white woman.
What does that mean? No clue. It’s just another data point that supports your observation.
Yes, that is also becoming more common, I have noticed, too, although it’s still quite a bit less common than the white female/black male pairing. For white guys the asian pairing and latina pairings are quite a bit more common than the black one, although, again, the black pairing is more common than it was until recently.
I think overall it just means that interracial pairings are becoming more common overall, and particularly with younger (under 35) people. It’s still much less common than intra-racial pairing, but a lot more common than it was until quite recently, which suggests it’s a generational change.
Maybe this is normal for them, but NBC has been shameless in their worship and promotion of the female athletes this go round. Every hour there seems to be some segment on how great the women athletes are and how we need to encourage more young girls to pursue their dreams, etc., etc., etc. Between this overt propaganda and the equally awful commercials, I don’t see how anyone can stomach watching regular tv anymore.
Interesting. I haven’t watched the Olympics pretty much at all. I don’t watch much TV in general, but I think it was pretty predictable that the Olympics this year would be a feminist celebration, given #metoo, and the fact that the Olympics has so many women’s sports, which allows the network to show more women’s sports than they can with the more popular professional sports here — so I guess I’m not surprised to hear that.
Chivalry died alongside feminine virtue.
Women of the modern day are no longer feminine nor virtuous. They have no honor for men to defend. This is what gave chivalry its oxygen.
The modern, feminist definition of “chivalry” is “catering to women because vagina.”
Honor, virtue, and merit have bugger-all to do with it.
He must be pastor of the Church of Cuck.
The fastest growing “Christian” denomination in the Western world today
@Gage : Jorrit Bergsma and Heather RIchardson?
What will be interesting is to see the permanence of the WF/BM couplings. Given past data, the female will have a 98% chance of not receiving any support from the male upon the birth of a child.
It’ll take another 10 years or so, but behavior will shift again to compensate. The toll will remain paid, though.
Same here. And from what I read, the trend of endless unsold seats at the venues is as bad as ever. Only two cities bid on the next winter games. The Olympics have turned into money pits that bankrupt their host cities.
And they’re mostly boring. I could see the appeal they had decades ago when the world was much bigger and foreign locales felt exotic, even if you only got to see them on TV. But now there are many other things to do and sitting in front of the TV watching arrogant athletes ski or skate is not my idea of a good time. The Feminist Cheerleading makes it even less interesting.
Paul,
Yes, Jorrit Bergsma and Heather Richardson are the speed skating couple who raced each other.
JD says: Not all betas will accept making a lifetime commitment to be #200 in a 10 year serial gangbang.
brilliant.
particiularly when he knows he has come all but last and ended up with the alpha widow with wooden dried out dusty ovaries.
@Frank K, good point about foreign places being more exotic 20 years ago.
@Paul: Yes, that is the couple they showed. He beat her soundly at one of her strongest event. It was the equivalent of a marathoner beating a sprinter in the 200M dash.
I can’t believe it
i just watched the trailer as well
they made the main Character a house husband
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/14/16972004/incredibles-2-trailer
at least the Christians will love it
White men who marry black women have a reduced divorce rate, compared to marrying white or Asian women.
White women who marry black men have an elevated divorce rate.
@ Earl,
I read that article you linked, “The Curse of the Breadwinner Wife”. The content was very blah, but this sentence got my attention:
“Statistics suggest that around 40% of women in heterosexual relationships in the UK are now the primary breadwinner”
I had to read it three times to make sure it said what I thought it did. That can’t be right, can it? Are things really so different across the pond? Cause I don’t believe that stat is anywhere near correct here in the States.
Anecdotally, I work in a very high paying career field (top 5% income, nationally). Majority of my peers are men, maybe ten to twenty percent are women. Virtually all the men are married, and almost all of those are supporting a wife and kids. Meaning, either the wife is a housewife and stay at home mom (like my wife), or the wife works a traditional, female kind of job that has good flexibility but doesn’t pay huge bucks. Things like physical therapist, substitute teacher, x-ray tech, dental hygienist, etc…you get the picture. Point is, either way it’s clearly the man who is the breadwinner and is supporting the family.
Of my female peers, first of all a much greater percentage is single. I’d say about 70 to 80 percent of the females are married, compared to about 95 percent of the men. Obviously the single ones sure aren’t supporting a family! But even looking at the married ones, I ALMOST NEVER see a case of the women supporting a family. They simply refuse to, even when they make the kind of money I do. Instead, they “double dip” by marrying a man who has an equally prestigious job and income.
What this means in practice is that if you give a high paying job like mine to a man, you are supporting an entire family with that job (the vast majority of the time). But if you give it to a woman, you are VIRTUALLY NEVER supporting a family with it.
This being the case, isn’t it in society’s interest to prioritize giving the jobs to the men? But the opposite is true! I know at my job we have all these affirmation action programs, designed to increase the hiring of women and minorities. And you dare not say a word about it in this PC climate.
Summing up all the above, the real question is “What is it about women, that makes them so incredibly selfish, that they absolutely refuse to use their high paying job to support a family?” And the corollary: “What is it about men, that makes them so incredibly SELFLESS, that when they have such a high paying job they take it as a matter of course that they will use it to support a wife and children?”
I posed that exact question some time back on Aunt Giggles’ site. Her response was to permanently ban me immediately, about as fast as Fabius Maximus banned me for daring to make the outrageous claim that there might be two sides to the story when it comes to WWII. So you see, I get banned a lot. Like the time I got banned from Catholic Answers Forum for daring to suggest that both the Bible and Church teachings (esp the encyclical by Pope Pius XI titled “Casti Connubi”) require a wife to submit to her husband’s headship.
People don’t like to hear the truth. And you know it’s the truth when they ban you like that – otherwise, they would just ignore your post. But I will never stopping saying the truth, regardless. Those who cannot stand to hear it, and want to live in denial, are the ones with the problem.
9767, it all comes back to hypergamy and the fact that women are the instigators of divorce. The perceived higher social status of whites is a Dread Game asset to white men married to black women, but a liability to black men married to white women.
‘I can’t believe it
i just watched the trailer as well
they made the main Character a house husband’
Sigh. I’m not even surprised anymore.
Disney/Pixar came out with “Inside Out” a few years back. Main character was a girl, about 12 or 13 years old. She came from a cold climate (Minnesota) and her favorite sport there, naturally, was…wait for it…CO-ED ICE HOCKEY! Are you even kidding me? They even showed her body checking the boys on the team!
Now, I also grew up in the North. I’m a Gen Xer, so it was a few decades back, but it’s not like it was back in the Fifties! Anyway, when I was a kid, winter sports were big for us too. But guess what? The boys all played ice hockey…and the girls did figure skating! I don’t recall a single girl playing hockey, and if you suggested it people would have thought you were nuts. But really, it wouldn’t even occur to anyone to suggest it. As an idea, it was so “out there” that it didn’t even exist as a thought. Boys played ice hockey, and girls did figure skating, and that was that.
The Left, in their ongoing attempt to destroy the family, has put the pedal all the way down to the floor. And cut the brake lines. They are now going all-out to masculinize the girls in this society…while at the same time, doing all they can to feminine the boys, encourage them to go “trans”, become grass eaters or hipster manginas, etc. And, via feminism, me-tooism, affirmative action, “gender studies”, crooked divorce and domestic violence laws, etc, to start an actual war between the sexes.
Their goal is the destruction of our culture and civilization. It’s mind boggling that people can be so evil. They’ve also pushed us to a place where 1 out of 3 women will murder her own child (via abortion) at some time in her lifetime. Which means one out of every three women you pass on the street is an absolute monster, a child killer. Think about that.
How much longer can the Lord let this go on before He intervenes? How much longer can the Blessed Mother restrain the arm of her divine Son, bringing much-deserved judgment and condemnation on this world?
No way to know. But I have a feeling we are reaching a breaking point,
at Jeff
yeah
My pastor says no where in the bible does it say a man cannot be a house husband, in fact it is one of the most noble sacrificial things to do…
I just do not think God created Adam to look after babies while Eve worked and sourced food
I found the money part to that encyclical which would put feminists, egalitarians, and cuckservatives up in arms.
’26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”
27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact . (ed…don’t go a divorcin’ because you’re not haaaaaaaaaaaaaaapy)
29. With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”
” For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.”
I used to accept this but now I question it — a virtuous man may actually surpass his wife in love, but not in emotion, as he will have right reason and will coupled together, while the wife can only participate in the right reason through obedience..
My pastor says no where in the bible does it say a man cannot be a house husband, in fact it is one of the most noble sacrificial things to do…
““I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.” – 1 Cor 10:23
The protests were led mostly by moms, you’ll be unsurprised to hear.
I wonder if these mothers have a ‘father was unavailable for comment’ situation or ‘egalitarian marriage’ situation.
A horrifying number of kids attending Christian (Catholic and Protestant) schools today come not only from single-parent (read: single mother-headed) homes, but homes where the parent is overtly and professedly non-Christian. The latter would be fine if said parents were made aware –and agreed– upon matriculating their children that the schools’ core values and curricula were non-negotiables. Unfortunately, many of these pagan parents attempt to force secular worldliness on the Christian schools – and too many mammon-chasing school administrators roll over and let them do it.
Here in a mid-sized metro area in flyover country, it also seems there has been an increase in coupling of white women to black men. In the case of the older ones, my guess is often white trailer trash. For the younger ones, I think the women are primarily motivated by attraction to his physical appearance (hypergamy I suppose).
Everywhere I’ve ever lived, whenever I’ve seen a BM/WW interracial couple, the white woman has almost ALWAYS been fat-fugly with a visibly unpleasant personality. I used to wonder WTF???, but after having been one half of an inverse pairing (WM/BW) for 25 years, I realized that no matter how fat/fugly/foul these white trash skanks were, they were probably a noticeable step up from the cadre of black women available. THAT should horrify men of both races.
what is a good refute to that?
My pastor says no where in the bible does it say a man cannot be a house husband, in fact it is one of the most noble sacrificial things to do…
These guys just can’t stop laying traps then falling into them.
Here’s what happens if there is a full time married mom and dad in the traditional sense, but with their roles reversed. The children bond with dad and tell mom stories about what they did together when she comes home from whatever. Already innately drawn to dad, because it is in their nature initially at least to look up to him, they now see him as their closest confidant, that also feeds them and directs their day. Mom, frankly, begins to look a bit superfluous, never mind that she is bringing home the bacon; they don’t really understand that part when they’re young. They just know that dad is really all they seem to need. So even if he is a milquetoast and mom is the boss, the kids are going to be imprinted with dad.
You think a normal woman is going to be unaffected by this? Oh, but she has her fulfilling career and her work friends or something like that. Nope. She is supporting the husband, and he has the loyalty and affection of the children. This will drive them around the bend.
(I’m starting to hate wordpress)
@ Gunner Q
Women covered up the atrocities. They refused to alert police or family. They kept exposing themselves to dangerous situations.
This is factually incorrect. Reports were made and the cops were more than aware. It was they that covered this up alongside certain politicians that gave them political cover. Rotherham was a scandal not because of what these Pakis did (one can expect nothing less from them) but because the system blatantly protected the perps with zero consideration for the victims who were children.
Again, I don’t dispute that women like criminals. But there is a big difference between wanting the white biker serving time for assault vs Ahmed the delinquent goat fucker from Kabul. I want to see empirical evidence. I want to see dating site statistics that prove that women want muslims. heck, I’ll even accept the presence of groupies hanging around mosques as empirical evidence. You pointed to conjugal visits as proof that women like criminals and I can accept that because that those visits are documented and the evidence can be verified. I want to see evidence like that to support the claim that women want muslim men.
The margins are always where one finds the True Believers.
Not sure I agree, I prefer to gauge behavior by observing the majority. Looking at the tail end of the distribution curve makes no statistical sense.
@ Earl
Isn’t that city a little more secular than the hardcore Islamic countries?
Nope. They may not behead people on the street but their laws are based on sharia. For example, pre-marital sex (zinna) is illegal. Men always get child custody. These laws are based on Sharia. The point I’m trying to make is that middle eastern countries aren’t what the manosphere have in mind – a place where 10% of men monopolize 80% of the women while the rest become jihadi fodder. Sometimes an idea sounds so appealing in theory that people hold onto it, despite empirical evidence to the contrary.
That’s why how God sets up marriage is best. The woman’s ‘fried ice’ idea on the matter certainly isn’t working.
Novaseeker,
I think overall it just means that interracial pairings are becoming more common overall, and particularly with younger (under 35) people. It’s still much less common than intra-racial pairing, but a lot more common than it was until quite recently, which suggests it’s a generational change.
In California, it is a plurality, but the biggest group of all is no pairing.
In other words, if you go out in a big CA metro on Friday or Saturday night and look at the 20-somethings.
One fourth are with a person of the same race.
One fourth are with a person of a different race.
Half are in no serious relationship at all (i.e. they hang out in a same-gender group of friends).
The reason interracial pairings are as common as intra-racial is that the West Coast has very few blacks. Blacks have a lot of historical baggage, and the socio-economic gap is distinct. When the only three groups are whites, Asians, and Hispanics, then the boundaries are a lot fewer. Particularly since there are many varieties of Asians. Even more so because Asians (Chinese and Indians) are over half of the upper class in CA.
@minesweeper
“”Remember Mark (I think) from toronto who popped his head into a dating evening, there were 100 females and like 2 guys. Thats the kind of thing im seeing too.””
You have a good memory my friend. We have a “dating agency” on the 8th floor as a tenant that is run by women(who are always late with the rent).It was 110 women and 6 men.It is funny that you mention that in your post as the “dating agency” had another “meetup” the other day for Valentine’s.There was about 120 women and less than 10 men.I know as I popped my head in to have a look.3 of the men were guys that I sent.They are about 26 years of age and “players”. They idolize myself and my friends…..and we are teaching them all about “modern wimminz”.They are great students.They f*** them like champs and NEVER get involved with them.I sent them down to the event telling them beforehand ……..”do not waste your time with these career skanks…’do you want to get a case of beer and go screw?…or don’t you like beer?’.'” No?….NEXT!……..They each found an older career skank that likes beer.Imagine that?…..They took them home and treated them like the pigs that they are.Mission Accomplished!
@Opus
**Sorry to go off topic Dalrock**
A few threads back you asked me about the Shermans that were found murdered in Toronto and I told you that we are VERY good friends of the family and have been for many years. The Toronto Police have found nothing.Really?…no surprise there! Anyways,from my sources Barry Sherman was on his way to Washington to be interviewed by the Office of The Inspector General.During the Haiti earthquake disaster a few years ago his pharmaceutical firms gave millions of dollars in badly needed drugs and large amounts of cash…..via the Clinton Foundation.The money and drugs never reached Haiti.Starting to get the picture? There are also a couple of other murders that are associated with this situation.From what I know the Inspector General will be releasing a report next month that is going to rock US politics and the Clintons like nothing else in the history of the US Republic.Stayed Tuned!
Welp. Time to go.The jet is on the tarmac,fired up and awaiting my arrival.It is on to Stanstead and then to Canary Wharf.Time to “tip a few pints”.
@Mark
I am duly authorised by Her Britannic Majesty to extend her best wishes to you for your arrival at London’s Stanstead Airport and for the duration of your visit she has thus banished the rain for the weather is now – at long last – bright and sunny and the temperature at Stanstead approximately Fifty degrees on the scale of Fahrenheit. Please obey our laws, viz. do not harass our females, be respectful to our Muslims (both are easily identifiable) and return to Her Majesty’s North American Dominion before the expiry of your visa.
The reason interracial pairings are as common as intra-racial is that the West Coast has very few blacks. Blacks have a lot of historical baggage, and the socio-economic gap is distinct. When the only three groups are whites, Asians, and Hispanics, then the boundaries are a lot fewer. Particularly since there are many varieties of Asians. Even more so because Asians (Chinese and Indians) are over half of the upper class in CA.
Yes, California is different because it has very different demographics than most of the rest of the country.
Just taking the example of the DC region, where I live, we have a LOT of relatively recent immigrants from Asia here (both East — Korea, mostly, some from China but very few — Southeast — Viet, mostly — and South — South India, mostly), but there’s quite little inter-racial dating between these groups and whites of either sex. The Koreans and the Viets are also now here long enough that the kids generation, many in 20s now, were born here and are not “foreign” in any way, but they still almost all date other East Asians. There is some limited out-dating by the women, mostly with white guys, but it’s limited. The guys don’t seem to out-date at all. The Indians haven’t been here long enough generally to see the first born generation behavior — it’s mostly H1-Bs who have immigrated with their wives (who mostly SAHM, even if they live in apartments) and they generally have a very tight-knit, very Indian community of more upscale immigrants. It will be interesting to see how their American-born children, especially daughters, end up behaving a couple of decades from now … if they stay (a former paralegal of mine who had been here with her H for about 18 years or so actually moved back to India when the daughters reached 14-15 because she and H didn’t want them growing up like American girls … uprooted long-standing careers here and everything else, was interesting to watch).
We also have a fair amount of Latinos, but they are almost all very poor recent migrants from Central America, most of whom barely speak English and live packed into group houses in very distinct neighborhoods. They are a subculture all their own and there is virtually no outdating there due to linguistic and socio-economic barriers. The remaining Latinos who are not like that (mostly 2nd or 3rd generation) date like whites — that is, as if they are white, if they are attractive (men and women alike) because they are generally very well integrated — so that is similar in some ways to 2nd and 3rd generation Latinos in CA, but we just obviously have a lot fewer of them.
lots of Indians are going back to India as the high tech/medical economy is just exploding and many Indian men do not want their daughters to be raised like American girls are
however those that do stay form my experience Indian girls are the biggest sluts, most desperate for as much white D
at all the bars in town men get groped by Indian girls
Everywhere I’ve ever lived, whenever I’ve seen a BM/WW interracial couple, the white woman has almost ALWAYS been fat-fugly with a visibly unpleasant personality.
That used to be the case here, too. I think it still is the case for women over 35-40 for the most part. But for women younger than that, at least around here, it isn’t the case. I now see young hot white women with black guys often enough. It isn’t often enough to be “common”, but it’s often enough to not be “uncommon” as well, and the notable difference is that the women in question are not the stereotype of lower quality that we all know from the past — this is different. This is quality young white hotties in their prime dating black guys. This is new, which is why it’s so noticeable, and, as I said, it appears to me at least to be a generational change in that women under 35 are just a lot more open to it than older generations of quality women were.
I remember in 1986 watching Aliens, there were 3 women among the Colonial Marines sent to liberate LV 426, one of which was named Vasquez. All 3 of these women were as tough as nails (one a medic, one a pilot, and Vasquez was infantry, always on point.) And all of the other Marines wanted to f— them. Massive sexual tension. But NONE of the men treated the women with kid gloves. They treated them as equals. Everyone had everyone else’s back. That was well done by James Cameron.
All 3 women died in the movie. All 3. None of them were put into situations where they couldn’t fend for themselves and they all perished. I didn’t really notice the feminist imperative + chivalry rearing its ugly head, of course this was 3 decades ago…
Aliens was extremely politically incorrect in that Vazquez, a Latina, was portrayed by the fair-skinned Jewish actress, Jenette Goldstein, in brownface and dark contact lens. Do that today and you can imagine the SJW outrage.
Some commentary on the browning of Goldstein: http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3388753/talk-vasquez-aliens-casting-problematic/
What most did not realize at that time, and what many still haven’t figured out, is that Vasquez, a Latino woman, was played in Aliens by Jenette Goldstein, a freckle-faced white actress. It’s a testament to Goldstein’s acting abilities, to say the very least, that most never caught on to the fact that Vasquez was not played by a Latina actress, but what’s worth discussing here is that Vasquez was, well, not played by a Latina actress. In an effort to appear less white, Goldstein was outfitted with dark contact lenses to hide her blue eyes and yes, she was even covered in full face-and-body makeup to cover her white skin.
however those that do stay form my experience Indian girls are the biggest sluts, most desperate for as much white D
at all the bars in town men get groped by Indian girls
Indian women, with no exceptions that I’ve ever encountered, are dick-shriveling man repellant. I’ve observed no other demographic of women as arrogant and unpleasant to interact with (not even the keishas of America’s ghettos). I’m also no longer amazed at the fact that most Indian marriages are arranged: no self-respecting Indian man would otherwise ever want anything to do with these women.
bdash 77:
Re the “Every Man’s” series by Steve Arterburn and Fred Stoeker:
No man should listen to anything that thrice married, twice-divorced Steve Arterburn has to say about marriage or about Christian morality. His inability to make his relationships with his wives work or to select women appropriately disqualifies him from ministering in God’s name or from any moral authority on the subject.
I am done listening to divorced men lecture me about successful marriages in God’s name from behind a pulpit or a microphone. They have about as much authority on it as 53 year old, never married Wendy Griffith has on how young single women should find men for marriage.
And by the way, before anyone says anything about divorced men talking here about marriage, or about me:
Neither I nor any of the divorced men here are ordained ministers, or have mass media ministries. Neither I nor they claim to speak with God’s authority on the subject.
@ Dota
” I want to see evidence like that to support the claim that women want muslim men.”
Well, loads of teenage girls developed sick crushes on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a terrorist muslim bomber:
https://nypost.com/2013/05/12/smitten-teen-girls-stir-up-freejahar-mania-for-boston-marathon-bombings-suspect/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323342/Dzhokhar-Tsarnaev-The-teen-girls-crush-Boston-bomber.html
Check out the picture on this one:
http://bloodsox.blogspot.com/2013/05/i-dont-mind-all-crazy-girls-who-have.html
@ Dota:
I want to see evidence like that to support the claim that women want muslim men.
Women want masculine men. Doesn’t matter if they’re white, black, Muslim, or even Nazis. (see how women flocked to the soldiers of their Nazi occupying armies in France, Poland, the Sudetenland, etc.) Women will have sex with the most masculine men they can find.
See also Rollo’s “War Brides” series. https://therationalmale.com/?s=war+brides
On a prior subject:
Further evidence for the proposition that we can continue sliding in the same general direction we’re going for another several decades, two or three generations, and that the system is more durable than anyone thinks:
Consider the US federal government’s budget deficits and the national debt. For those who don’t know, the basics are these: Pretty much every year for about the last 40 or so years, the federal government budgets itself to spend more money than it takes in. To do that spending, the government borrows what it doesn’t take in. So the US takes out loans from private banks and even banks in other countries, and promises to pay them back with interest. So there’s not only a national debt including amounts borrowed, it includes interest on that debt. Currently the national debt is around $17 trillion and counting. It’s nearing 100% of American annual GDP which is unprecedented. The amounts paid on interest every year (called “servicing the debt”) is around $200 billion or more. EVERY YEAR. Folks, these are just incomprehensibly large amounts of money. These are amounts that cannot possibly be paid back without experiencing a lot – A LOT – of pain.
The point is that as far back as 35 years ago, when Ronald Reagan was president, people were talking about this in very dire terms. “This can’t go on. It’s going to collapse. It’s a house of cards. We are in VERY BIG TROUBLE, you see. We cannot just keep kicking this can down the road.” Walter Cronkite and John Chancellor were talking about “the deficit” and quoting old pols like Hubert Humphrey and Jesse Helms and Alan Cranston and Chuck Grassley (he’s been around that long) freaking out about “the budget deficit”.
Well, um, it’s been going on for a long time, since I was in high school. We’re bankrupt, we have been for 35 years, and yet it continues to go on. Various forces here and around the world are propping that system up.
The point is that the current system, the sexual and marriage marketplaces, women’s “superiority”, and men’s just being squeezed out, have been going on a long time. It’s just that now, in the last 15 years or so, people are talking about it much more openly. But human nature being what it is, and male and female sexual nature being what they are, talking about it isn’t going to change it very much. It has gone on a long time, a lot of legal, social, cultural, educational, and corporate forces are propping it up, and it can continue to go on a long time. A very long time.
I believe there is a strong, evolutionary component to seeing women brutalized as opposed to men. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive, and from an evolved, survival-adaptation perspective it would follow that men who instinctively and reflexively defended women (and by extension their children or potential children) would not only breed better but also ensure his genetic legacy.
Men are disposable, women are invaluable in this paradigm. Thus we have differing gut reactions to seeing men brutalized as opposed to women. Consider this experiment:
If a woman is seen beating up a man it is far less likely that casual observers would intervene. The presumption is “he must’ve deserved it” for doing something he oughtn’t to enrage her so. The assumptions is that a woman hitting a man (and a man taking it) implies his complicit guilt in whatever he did. When a man is seen even verbally berating a woman the police are immediately called to intervene.
This is an intentional, deliberate design of the Feminine Imperative. The FI understands this evolved instinct in men and has exploited it for centuries actually. It’s the basis of the ‘lets you and him fight’ dynamic women will use to further their ends – and often unconsciously. Exploiting this instinct in men and developing a social convention around it creates a de facto condition of powerlessness in men that is then used to further the FI’s social engineering.
The problem today is that it’s beginning to backfire on women. So confident of their own security have women become today that they take risks and presume a confidence in their own safety that will be enforced by men. They get cocky in that assurance so much that they start fights that they expect men to resolve for them if things get out of hand. Women’s overinflated egos are reinforced every time they instigate potentially hostile situations and are never held to account. That is until such a time that this hubristic confidence get them a real ass kicking. However, even then, the real consequences are ALWAYS paid by the men involved or even as bystanders.
That is until such a time that this hubristic confidence get them a real ass kicking. However, even then, the real consequences are ALWAYS paid by the men involved or even as bystanders.
Not if she gets her ass killed. Then she is one hundred percent footing the bill for her recklessness and irresponsibility. It’s just that this hasn’t happened often enough to serve as a deterrent.
What Rollo observes fits neatly into a design argument (for a progressive creationist design explanation see RTB). One doesn’t have to accept general evolutionary theory for a reputable scientific explanation regarding the actuality. One need not accept the speciation of general evolutionary theory to accept microevolution either.
Rollo Tomassi @ 12:29 pm:
“Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive, and from an evolved, survival-adaptation perspective it would follow that men who instinctively and reflexively defended women (and by extension their children or potential children) would not only breed better but also ensure his genetic legacy.”
A man only breeds better if the woman he’s protecting is having his kids. A man protecting an unknown woman who is NOT having his kids is acting against the principles of evolution. Therefore, evolution doesn’t explain this behavior.
I appreciate the contributions from Deti and Novaseeker.
We can see other societies further along this path than we are – though none are identical. The world does not end people just adapt. Outcomes are probably worse for most people and less happiness. But humanity limps along.
I would love to see where things are in a hundred years when no one is having kids. What will marriage mean then? Will some ethnicities still be having children and will they adopt this madness or develop something seperate.
Rollo,
I believe there is a strong, evolutionary component to seeing women brutalized as opposed to men. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive, and from an evolved, survival-adaptation perspective it would follow that men who instinctively and reflexively defended women (and by extension their children or potential children) would not only breed better but also ensure his genetic legacy.
Men are disposable, women are invaluable in this paradigm. Thus we have differing gut reactions to seeing men brutalized as opposed to women. Consider this experiment:
Well, this has been a central androsphere truth for a long time. That is why such an extreme double standard is not opposed.
Similarly, even the ‘sphere has a number of people who wrongly think that ‘feminism’ only began in 1858, or due to some 20th century events in just one country, or due to a group that is just 2% of the population. All are false, and anyone who thinks this, or obsesses over various ‘waves’ of US feminism, is not really red pill. There is an innate biological reason for one female life being worth more than 50 male lives.
BUT..
For the first time, this FI is become obsolete. All the useful work advancing society forward is done by men, while women are precisely uninterested in any subject that advances society. The inverse correlation is exact. Hence, women are becoming obsolete. Manginas and cuckservatives are too, but mainly, it is women who are going to be unequipped to cope with a high-tech society, and the rise of artificial intelligence that is NOT hardwired to favor women (nor can it be, contrary to what those with no AI understanding think).
From the above-linked ‘Misandry Bubble’ article :
The Fabric of Humanity Will Tear
Humans like ourselves have been around for about 100,000 years, and earlier hominids similar to us for another 1-3 million years before that. For the first 99.99% of humanoid existence, the primary purpose of our species was the same as that of every other species that ever existed – to reproduce. Females are the scarcer reproductive resource, since the number of babies that can be produced does not fall even if most men die, but it does fall for each woman that dies (humans did not live much past age 40-45 in the past, as mentioned earlier). For this reason, the human brain continued the evolutionary hardwiring of our ancestors, placing female well-being at a premium while males remain expendable. Since funneling any and all resources to women closely correlated with the survival of children, both men and women evolved to see this status quo as normal. The Female Imperative (FI) was the human imperative.
As human society progressed, priorities adjusted. For one thing, advances in technology and prosperity ensured that child mortality fell from about 50% to very low levels, so 12 births were no longer needed to produce 6 children who reach adulthood. Secondly, as humans moved away from agriculture into a knowledge-based economy, the number of children desired fell, and almost all high and middle-income countries have birth rates lower than 2 as of today, with many women producing zero children. Thirdly, it has become evident that humans are now the first species to produce something more than just offspring; humans now produce technology. As a result, the former direct correlation between funneling resources to women and the survival of children, which was true for 99.99% of our existence, now no longer is.
Yet, our hardwired brains have not adapted to this very recent transformation, and perhaps cannot adapt. Women are programmed to extract resources endlessly, and most men are programmed to oblige. For this once-valid but now obsolete biological reason, society still unquestioningly funnels the vast majority of resources to women. But instead of reaching children, this money now finds its way into consumer products geared towards women, and a shadow state designed to transfer all costs and consequences away from women. Most people consider our existing society to be normal, but they have failed to observe how diverting money to women is now obsolete. In the 21st century, there is no reason for any resource distribution, if there must be one at all, to be distributed in any manner other than 50-50.
Go to any department store or mall. At least 90% of the products present there are ones no ordinary man would consider buying. Yet, they occupy valuable shelf space, which is evidence that those products do sell in volume. Who buys them? Look around in any prosperous country, and we see products geared towards women, paid for by money that society diverted to women. From department store products, to the proliferation of take-out restaurants, to mortgage interest, to a court system rigged to subsidize female hypergamy, all represent the end product of resources funneled to women, for a function women have greatly scaled back. This is the greatest resource misallocation ever, and such malinvestment always results in a correction as the bubble pops.
This is not to suggest that we should go back to birth rates of 12, for that is neither desirable nor necessary. The bigger picture here is that a major aspect of the human psyche is quite obsolete, with men and women both culpable. When this situation corrects, it will be the most disruptive event humanity has ever faced. Some call this a variant of the ‘Technological Singularity’, which will happen much later than 2020 (more like 2060-65), but even prominent thinkers steer clear of any mention of the obvious correction in gender-tilted resource flows that will occur.
Here’s a perfect example of the leftist media twisting an event to fit their ideological narrative: http://myfox8.com/2018/02/14/charlotte-mother-gets-7-days-in-jail-for-baptizing-daughter/
Media presents the story as if the mother was wronged by the justice system for baptizing her daughter when, in fact, the mother wronged the father. The court documents said that “the mother has acted selfishly by depriving the father of the ability to be present at an event that was extraordinarily important to him” and she was found in contempt of court and sentenced to seven days in jail.
It’s not inconceivable; however, that the contemptible mother may still receive more positive assistance in denuding the father of his natural rights by the media and assorted leftist feminist organizations who will call her selfish contemptible act “brave” and “progressive,” of course.
I’m a little surprised by the comments from Christians concerning the perpetuity of the United Sisterhood and the Feminist Churches of America.
The OP is correct. Can’t and won’t continue. It’s human nature to think that because a system continues for so long, it can’t or won’t change, fast. But this one’s already on death-bed.
Some of you should be able to hear the King’s footsteps, by this time. Because He is close now.
Re the “Every Man’s” series by Steve Arterburn
I read “Every Mans Battle” 10-12 years ago. Part of the Baptist men’s recOmmended reading. I spent a few weeks going over it in print and audio. Really trying to internalize it. Then………I shared it with my wife. (Of course thinking I’d get an attaboy or something) She proceeded to “get scared” because she didn’t realize I struggled with it and now that she knows she “can’t trust” anymore.
Unfortunately it was a major factor in the “damned if I do and damned if I don’t” mentality that I developed. Courses like these and the way they are presented are marriage KILLERS!!
That piece from the “Misandry Bubble” makes some good points. Although throughout history the average number of children per woman to ensure population stability was never 12, but more like 5-7, with maybe 3-4 surviving to adulthood on average.
@Ray
Sounds like “normalcy bias”:
The normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a belief people hold when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the likelihood of a disaster and its possible effects, because people believe that things will always function the way things normally have functioned. This may result in situations where people fail to adequately prepare themselves for disasters, and on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations. About 70% of people reportedly display normalcy bias in disasters. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias)
CSI,
Although throughout history the average number of children per woman to ensure population stability was never 12, but more like 5-7, with maybe 3-4 surviving to adulthood on average.
Stability is not growth. Population grew quickly after the death rate fell but birth rate stayed higher for a bit longer. Quite often, 12 were born, with 6 surviving. This is documented in 17th and 18th century America.
At any rate, that is hardly the point.
thedeti,
Women want masculine men. Doesn’t matter if they’re white, black, Muslim, or even Nazis.
Bingo.
White Nationalists (which is a very feminist, woman-pedestalizing group) have this fantasy that believes otherwise (mostly as a pain avoidance mechanism for themselves as bottom-ranking men that completely lose out in a society of female hypergamy), but women ultimately want outright masculinity and Game. Period.
do women really want masculinity?
this is what women want
http://www.jennieallen.com/husbands-who-unleash-their-wives/
they want husbands who will servant lead and care for the home and kids as this couple discovered
this enables the woman to be unleashed and achieve her dreams
her teaching business is the fastest growing and reaches 1 million women
women want men who will lead them by taking charge of the house and supporting them in their calling/dreams
I don’t see woman wanting masculinity
the husband is happy with himself, he is enlightened- this week his wife goes on a 10 day speaking tour while he cooks and cares for the home and 4 kids…
At any rate, that is hardly the point.
You’re right of course, the population exploded because people persisted with high fertility strategies when the death rate dropped (and still are in parts of Africa). But I think you’ll find the situation in 17th-19th North America, where large families were commonplace, was exceptional in historical terms. A wide open frontier, easily cultivated, where competing humans had been largely removed by disease. The great majority of societies throughout history have tended to optimize their fertility towards stability rather than explosive growth.
what is especially breathtaking is the rate of acceleration of the depravity. I don’t think that God even needs to intervene, all He has to do is remove his protection and this cesspool will destroy itself, it won’t need any help. And if we tell Him to take a hike (which is what is happening) then the consequences will be near. We are in great need of His mercy.
I don’t buy the “your X so you can’t write a book, preach or talk about X.” I think Arteburn’s problem is that he doesn’t make his background clear. He AMoGs it and pretends he has all the answers.
I expect to speak out about the modern idiocy that marriage has become, even though I am divorced. I would tend to argue that my experience makes me more qualified to speak about it than someone who has not been through these problems.
I would question any book I would write that would talk about how to overcome drug addiction, since I have never deal with that however. I might have ideas and some Biblical principles I could note, but that would be the limits to my ability to provide input.
Exactly Frank. Note the first part of Romans. The depravity came when they stopped glorifying the Creator, not because He did something specific to them. He gave them over to their own sin.
Christians really need to open their eyes to these or they will get swept along with the idiocy. I don’t expect many to do that however, unfortunately.
the husband is happy with himself, he is enlightened
Yeah. The counselor probably helped with that. Jennie thinks every marriage needs its own counselor, presumably to team up with the wife and make sure her ministry is unencumbered by a resisting hubby.
http://www.jennieallen.com/why-i-think-everyone-should-have-a-counselor/
Don’t marry these chicks. They are some kind of Protestant version of a nun, and should be encouraged in their calling; but same as a good nun, there need not and really should not be a husband involved. Just tell her good job and see you on the other side.
At 02.09 on the fifteenth Gage was talking about the coverage of the Winter Olympics and how the talk was of allowing young girls to achieve their dreams and today at 05.19 bdash is talking of women and their dreams. The problem with all this is of course that, to take the Olympics, for every Gold Medalist there will be a far larger number of also-rans – dream not achieved, but even the Gold Medalist is merely, like Federer, going to want to extend the dream by adding to the tally and that always assuming that the achievement is not as achievement is so often anti-climactic.
Teaching girls that entering into male-domains, that their reach will not exceed their grasp and that they are going to achieve the fame and greatness of a Bach or a Beatle is a very cruel form of abuse especially when as in the case of Bach the greater fame for that Kappelmeister has been Post Mortem.
There is living locally a Summer Gold Medalist: Dame Kelly may be fit but she is not (either on the TV or close-up) I am afraid to have to say, fanciable, so from the point of view at least of this male what was the point of running faster than another girl? Oh the money – I forgot – but as Dalrock so rightly describes in Intrasexual Competition and the Strong Independent Woman on 08/10/13 wealth is all the more regarded and only really valuable to a woman when provided by a man.
Dreams, even the American Dream are will-o-the-wisp. Being awake is a better state to which to aspire.
Bdash77
do women really want masculinity?
this is what women want
What women say they want and what their hindbrain actually wants are not the same thing. This dichotomy leads to the neverending demand for fried ice…
Lost Patrol
Don’t marry these chicks. They are some kind of Protestant version of a nun,
Tip toeing past a potential theological issue raised by “nun”, got to agree. These women do not actually want a husband in any sense beyond a trophy, or perhaps a fashion accessory. They are careerists with a Jesus-fish glued on. Trying to normalize “counselling” is pretty obviously the power play Lost Patrol points out – and is another indicator that she’s not serious about being married.
‘MARRIAGE IS DANG HARD. And being in ministry for most of our married life- I can tell you that marriage gets difficult for almost everyone.
I believe this fact occurred to me soon after coming home from our honeymoon- it was our first huge fight. Huge as in…. complete with me throwing something, slamming the door, and driving away.’
Yeah marriage is hard when somebody acts childish in it.
@ lost yup
but the Churchians are training men to marry these kind of women
women who do not want masculine men
2 of the skills are
SUBMIT
and Serve
men are to submit to their wives… they use ephesians 5 : 21 to justify
his wife says that men should serve their wives how they want to be served not what he thinks or the bible thinks they should be served.
this kind of teaching is really popular it makes me doubt the vast majority of women want a masculine man or the vast majority of men want a woman…
he literally says
https://ftc.co/blog/posts/5-ways-to-love-your-wife
submit and follow her lead….
we were recommended this book at church
this is what christian women influenced by Jesus want
The desire of women is to control their husband. God set up marriage that the husband rules it. It’s no surprise you are seeing this desire of women in plain sight.
yes but men are wanting it
men are leading it
this guy is teaching young men and newlyweds to have their husbands submit to her lead…
Just a little clarification to the up-thread comments about Steve Arterburn. He is a psychologist, and not a pastor. He is a prolific writer, a popular conference speaker, and a minor christian “celebrity”, but he is not ordained clergy (though even that designation is completely meaningless from a Biblical/spiritual standpoint).
I had the displeasure of being very peripherally associated with Arterburn back in the ’80’s, and the one thing he is VERY good at is self-promotion. He is not a person of character, and should not be addressing Christians on ANY topic, let alone dispensing marriage advice.
@bdash 77
You’re getting into theskyisfalllingtheskyisfallingtheskyisfalling Chicken Little territory. Take a deep, slow breath.
1. Stop blackpilling.
2. Take a chill pill.
3. Get the Glasses / red pill.
If you look at a lot of these “servant leader” types, most of them are Baby Boomers like Rick Warren, Tim Keller, John Piper, etc. They’ve peaked and are now starting into “emeritus” territory, I suspect that only other Boomers and GenX’rs pay much attention to them. So stop fretting about them. In fact, stop fretting, period. It’s not useful and wastes time & energy.
Also consider learning to use the “shift” key.
most of the millennials at my church love them, the boomers are more traditional. millennials have male domestication classes.
the young men get together to learn how to cook for their wives and care for a home to be an effective servant leader
But you are correct
no use
panicking
Masculine guys for sex but the beta providers must be trained to be good servants.
But you are correct
no use
panicking
AR is right. There are going to be casualties but you won’t be one of them now. And you may be able to throw a lifeline to some others along the way.
yup
I guess because some of these people are my friends it makes it awkward.
One of the youth leaders now house husband posted on facebook apologizing to his wife for handing the kids over to her as soon as she came home from work as that was selfish…
like… yeah
Anonymous Reader @ 7:44 pm:
“If you look at a lot of these “servant leader” types, most of them are Baby Boomers like Rick Warren, Tim Keller, John Piper, etc. They’ve peaked and are now starting into “emeritus” territory…”
And being Baby Boomers, they never trained their replacements. They only wrote a bunch of books that they expect everybody will replace their Bibles with. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a massive social shift in America when a bunch of big names from Glenn Stanton to Hillary Clinton die over the span of a year or two.
Heck, if a natural disaster like a bad flu synchronizes it, we could literally wake up one morning to find the entire Cathedral & Deep State dead with no heirs. That’s what can happen when all the powerbrokers in society graduated high school before the Moon Landing.
Yesterday I saw a tranny emerge from a Starbucks restroom. He looked like a 40ish, homeless beach bum. Scruffy denim jacket, backpack, sunglasses, and a very short skirt, exposing his hairy legs. And workboots.
He’d spent much time in the restroom. As he walked past me, he cast me a giggly smile, as though he’s just done something naughty in there. Or maybe he was smiling because he knew nobody would dare comment on his skirt or say he wasn’t a woman.
Los Angeles is a real sewer. When I was a kid in the 1970s, I saw L.A. on all those TV shows, and it looked like paradise. I wanted to live here someday. Now I keep wondering where to move. I don’t want to grow old here.
“Now I keep wondering where to move.”
I’ve been around a lot of California. Want to give me some criteria? Because anywhere is better than Los Angeles.
I like cold, rainy weather, with seasons. So I’ve been considering Portland or Seattle. But they’re very liberal too.
I don’t want to be in the middle of nowhere. I want urban amenities. Good hospitals. A nearby airport. Sidewalks. Walkability. Low crime rate. Quiet, tree-lined streets, but near an urban hub.
You should consider the Monterey Peninsula. It’s not as liberal an area as one would expect, probably because it has a large military presence–the Defense Language Institute and Naval Postgraduate School. I like visiting the fairgrounds and racetrack there; it’s very touristy so plenty of amenities and being squeezed onto a peninsula, centralized. Rent is probably expensive but when I asked, they said it’s no worse than L.A. Often foggy even in early summer from what I’ve seen; there’s a huge offshore canyon that moderates the temperature.
I have some family in Eureka and that’s the best place in California for cold & rain. It definitely has an outdoorsman vibe. Crime used to be low but homelessness is becoming an issue. (Kinda like everywhere now.) It’s not a big city but is on Hwy 101 and the gateway to just about everywhere north of Santa Rosa so not nowhere, either.
@ 9767
OK, that’s a start, but that still represents a small minority of women. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but merely that there is a paucity of data. Formulating an entire theory in the absence of reliable data is not logical. I’d say that statistically black men do quite well but there is a paucity of data regarding the attractiveness of muslim men.
I don’t want to be in the middle of nowhere. I want urban amenities. Good hospitals. A nearby airport. Sidewalks. Walkability. Low crime rate. Quiet, tree-lined streets, but near an urban hub….
Sounds like Nashville….or some cities in Florida.
Test
For some reason wordpress did not post the comment which I just wrote, hence that ^ “Test” was to see if you had banned me.
I have a proposition. I have an idea, that we as men start using a form of guerrilla warfare against feminism. Winning over the younger generation of men to the truth is the key to changing things for the better in society. The first stage of this plan would simply involve printing out stickers which contain a QR code to a website + the name of the website printed on the sticker + a redpilled catchphrase/slogan. We could all start printing out these stickers and placing them out in public were men congregate or spend time. A good place would be in mens bathrooms.
The site could either be an existing site, or maybe we could create a new site for this purpose.
Bonhoeffer said that “silence in the face of evil is itself evil.”
So every little thing that we can do to redpill men will get the ball rolling, and if enough men are awakened to the truth then it will reach a tipping point.
Thoughts?
^ Just to clarify, I’m not advocating physical violence.
RPL-
Helena has all that stuff. Urban amenities, 1 university, 1 community college, 1 trade school. 2 hospitals, a quaint downtown area, walking and biking trails, an airport. 4 seasons.
They even have a Greek restaurant!
There are less than 30,000 people there, and less than 80,000 in the two counties that make up the Helena micropolis.
The people there are very religious. (Mostly Catholic). The enormous and beautiful St. Helena Cathedral has 2 services on Sundays and they are both packed. I am not Catholic, but I will be very satisfied living surrounded by folks like that.
Unemployment rate: 1.2%
@rugby11 , great interview, he just has that face (and attitude behind it) i wanted to punch repeatedly.
The shitlib incarnate.
@Mark, Welcome to the UK !
Remember any woman you have over here can slash open your scrotum with impunity, sharia law exists in half of london, the other half (yardies+africans) carry bottles of acid to throw at each other.
Frequent islamic planned terrorist attacks – ie stay off public transport – they are intercepting 1 per month just before its initiated according to Mi5, the ones they miss are the ones that get through. The underage girls they don’t blow up in concerts are picked up by their comrade gangs for consumption in almost every town – price of entry is as low as a kebab. If nothing else muslim men at some point will start to make “white Christian hetro patriarchal men”(tm) look good !
Oh and a comedy vid of your pug doing nazi salutes just might give you a year in jail.
Be careful of investing here, our nation debt has gone from effectively zero to almost 100% of GDP in just 16 years (thanks single moms!) , but until the coming crash investing in certain property sectors in london esp ones coveted by oil rich arabs can produce big returns as they aint building any more of it.
Try and stay out of trouble !
@Mark, Welcome to the UK !
***Redacted***
Try and stay out of trouble ! (dont say or do anything to anyone, nor comment on any internet)
To the authorities.
I’ve withdrawn my comment above due to very scary UK laws regarding the suppression of free speech and those we are unable to criticise. Even though I dont live there (anymore) Im sure they could extradite me with enough man power.
Poor Julian Assange, holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy for what 7 years now over false rape charges that the women dropped in Sweden (and all they really wanted was his HIV status anyway), thats the UK for ya !
I think atm in the UK you can be jailed for offending anyone with anything. Im sure Opus has a greater understanding of the threat-point to speech and conversation that exists now. I do wonder just how far its gone. Oh yeah and a man got jailed for “looking with intent” at a girl through a shop window. Essentially its now a feminist\islamic totalitarian state.The feminists have imposed their laws on everyone and within 2 generations, sharia will do the same. And only then will they fight each other. Unless all the feminists convert to islam which is a possibility as both come from the same spoiled tree.
Its sad to see what was once a great country collapse under its own delusions, but thats what happens when you abandon God, not only will he leave you to your fate, he will encourage it and in fact even engineer it. Its not for shits and giggles that Israel was always invaded and sacked when they turned from God. Its Gods way of starting again with those who want him and getting rid of everyone else who dosn’t !
Those in the west regard God as having as much anger and vengeance in him as a little girls fluffy bunny toy. Strange how the bible says entirely the opposite.
The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions – compounded upon one another.
This actually fits the OP in many ways.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/11/marine-corps-quietly-drops-major-obstacle-female-infantry-officers.html
I hope Dalrock will allow me to briefly admire myself on his blog for having accurately predicted this years ago. In keeping with the idea of “changing our views of what is normal”, the ethos of the Marines is being modified from a punch in the face to a pat on the head.
Remember, the standards will never be lowered; only modified and enhanced to more accurately reflect the realities of the ever changing face of war, or something like that. But never lowered. That word will not appear.
More girls. Bring us more girls.
@Lost Patrol – well colour me amazed !
I just hope that we insist on female units only to show us all just how superior they are to the menz. In fact, maybe they should just disband all the male units and have a female only military, then there will be peace on earth.
Minesweeper, it’s sad to imagine what’s become of England. I grew up on Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Hammer horror films, and images of London, the Thames, red phone booths, Bobbies, the English moors and Scottish highlands.
I’d always hoped to visit England some day. But I fear the England of my youth no longer exists. Just as the Los Angeles of my youth no longer exists. Sad to see how far the West has fallen.
@RPL
I know, its amazing how fast the rot sets in, once the camel has poked its nose in the tent, so to speak.
people dont understand at all that civilisation runs over just 3 generations alone, within 3 generations everyone is dead, with 3 generations the entire population can be replaced with another who is totally alien to the hosts values.
if all women stopped breading now, the entire human civilisation would be gone in 3 generations, with just nuclear waste and buildings being the only evidence we existed at all eventually.
life today , looks about right:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/02/17/the-post-america-sexual-market-in-a-photo/
“All is proceeding as i have foreseen. The military’s journey to the Dark Side is complete.”
In the endless porn debate do we consider how being raised from childhood in a pornified society has effected us? Hyper sexualization is not natural. It’s common because of the bombardment of sexual images of every kind our entire lives. Imagine being alive before the age of photography. Imagine women who were compelled by society to dress modestly. Imagine there was no makeup. Sex, is it the primary way we are enslaved by the matrix? it’s still a choice. Sexual desire does not control me because I choose not to let it, choose to see through it.
Chivalry was part of the Patriarchy.
Pity they have sought to demolish the latter, without understanding that it will demolish the former.
It really is true, women can’t equate cause with effect.
Roll on the regime of anti-chivalry to complement the anti-patriarchy.
I guess Sweden is currently the poster child for this. They are spearheading the change!
I salut them. Better they fall than the entire western civilisation. Interestingly the former USSR who put into practise all of this insane Marxist madness, has completely rejected PC culture+feminism. It may be the last place that survives.
@Red Pill Latecomer
Mark, now that his Lear Jet has arrived at Stanstead and is ensconsed in Canary Wharf will be just fine as will you when you finally pluck up courage and visit these shores. All ages have their bad and their good sides and life was not always so wonderful back then which is why the Pythons spent so much time mocking the then establishment. Hammer’s movies were then considered at the cutting edge of what might be acceptable and then there were the Mods and the Rockers forever fighting though what everyone feared was either running out of food or Russia sending us their nukes; the cars were terrible, the buildings in London were filthy, only three Radio stations across the entire FM band and two television stations for the entire country and you could not find anywhere or anywhere decent to rent should you be in need of accommodation. I could go on. Red Phone Boxes (and Blue Police Boxes) were, however, nice as are Black Cabs and Red double-decker Buses without back doors.
What I have never understood is how or why or when the country which used to be called Gt Britain once simply known as England became the United Kingdom – presumably about the same time its disunity became only too apparent.
MarcusD —
Normalcy-bias, yes, a good term for this strong tendency. Some of that ‘innate conservatism’ is wise; people function poorly when confronted by constant fear. The body, obviously, operates best under routine and repetition.
Also, folks with kids rightly plan and hope for their futures, and thus shun information which suggests that severe and/or immanent change is necessary. Most folks just want to paddle forward smoothly, or tread water.
People with kids shouldn’t fear the changes ahead. Just get as close to God as possible, and let the chips fall.
Cheers.
@opus, because “great britain” implied superiority, so it had to be abolished.
The reason women are fighting men is not due to lack of contact, its due to be told that they can finally take men on and win. Even when reality tells them otherwise.
Its like abortion, its not killing your unborn at 5 months, its just a bag of cells. These people are so easily led into the cult, it beggars belief.
Pingback: You Want Drama, White Knight Faggot? I Denounce and Disavow “The Night Wind,” Fake Anti-Feminist Blogger – The Daily Antifeminist
No they are not bdash. Some have been misled to take it in, but those are only the ones sticking in your church and not saying anything. Most are not even coming to church and some like me only speak up when it is appropriate.
Applying Eph 5:21 to marriage is completely ignoring that it applies to activity in the church. It also negates the pattern (Husband -> Wife is like Christ -> Church) that is noted just after, so it is not a valid interpretation, no matter how many idiot preachers say it is the guiding principle. Christ never submits to the Church, so the idea of mutual submission in marriage remains a stupidly believed heresy.
Though note how those who preach that always take it to the extreme of the husband submitting to the wife with no submission on the part of the wife. That is another way to tell they are whacked. The mutual part is then gone, only used to negate the clear command for wives to submit to their husbands given in Eph 5:22.
So.
The great thing about everyone is they are entitled to their opinion. The other great thing is you don’t have to listen to it.
@BillyS
Exactly, how anyone could be so deluded as to follow 5:21 with the exclusion of 5:22-33.
Ephesians 5
21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives and Husbands
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Its one or the other, you either have a peer relationship amongst believers, or you have a marriage.
you cant have both.
And if you really want a peer relationship…what’s the point of getting married?
I can have a peer relationship with men in Christ just as easily and probably be challenged much more.
Husbands submit to your wives if Christ submits to the church.
And that aint happening any time soon.
@earl says: “Its one or the other, you either have a peer relationship amongst believers, or you have a marriage.
And if you really want a peer relationship…what’s the point of getting married?”
correct, its also impossible utterly with a woman, she will always try to establish absolute control over her “husband” unless she chooses to give up that right. any peer relationship with your wife will lead to her utterly dominating every aspect of you life. speaking from experience they just cant help it.
we are required to do the opposite with each other with intent from what we would do naturally and easily.
women will naturally and easily give up their life for their spouse
men will naturally and easily submit to their spouse
God requires us to “intentionally” do the opposite of this for each other.
‘speaking from experience they just cant help it.’
Not only experience…God flat out said it was her desire.
So really what women want is detrimental to both men and themselves.
Unlike the churchian thought…giving up your life for your spouse isnt so she can do whatever she wants. It’s meant to be for her salvation.
@earl, correct. Husbands are meant to be towards their wife’s like Jesus is to towards husbands, and like God is towards him, and let me tell you, he aint no fluffy bunny.
God->Jesus->Husbands->Wives->Children->rest of creation….
earl says:”So really what women want is detrimental to both men and themselves.”
its as if they were designed that way.
@earl says:”Not only experience…God flat out said it was her desire.”
God said her desire\longing was for her husband nothing in Gen3:16 says she will try to rule over him, what are you seeing and where ?
‘The NLT translation makes it more evident: “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”
‘God is saying that Eve would desire to rule over her husband, but her husband would instead rule over her. Replacing the mutually interdependent relationship the Lord had created was a desire for one spouse to lead the other. Sin had wrought discord. The battle of the sexes had begun. Both man and woman would now seek the upper hand in marriage. The man who was to lovingly care for and nurture his wife would now seek to rule her, and the wife would desire to wrest control from her husband.’
‘How is a woman’s desire for her husband a curse (Genesis 3:16)?’
https://www.gotquestions.org/desire-husband-rule.html
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h8669
Lexicon :: Strong’s H8669 – tĕshuwqah
תְּשׁוּקָה
Transliteration
tĕshuwqah
Pronunciation
tesh·ü·kä’ (Key)
Part of Speech
feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From שׁוּק (H7783) in the original sense of stretching out after
Dictionary Aids
TWOT Reference: 2352a
KJV Translation Count — Total: 3x
The KJV translates Strong’s H8669 in the following manner: desire (3x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
desire, longing, craving
of man for woman
of woman for man
of beast to devour
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
תְּשׁוּקָה tᵉshûwqâh, tesh-oo-kaw’; from H7783 in the original sense of stretching out after; a longing:—desire.
Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon [?]
Concordance Results Using KJV
Strong’s Number H8669 matches the Hebrew תְּשׁוּקָה (tĕshuwqah),
which occurs 3 times in 3 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV
Click here to view results using the NASB Hebrew concordance
Gen 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire H8669 shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, H8669 and thou shalt rule over him.
Sng 7:10
I am my beloved’s, and his desire H8669 is toward me.
Earl, only in gen4:7 would it indicate that his desire for sin, would cause it to rule over him, nothing in gen 3:16 says she wants to rule over him.
I’ve never met any man who would want to rule over his wife, although every wife I’ve met would want to rule over her husband with abandon. The curse to have your husband rule over her bears heavy on both parties I guess neither would want, but the wife even after being the bull in the china shop assumes that the husband is always responsible for the mess that she made.
It didn’t say rule…it said control.
With this subject, its amazing to watch adverts on TV, its always the wife who is confident, secure, capable, able to withstand lifes slings and arrows, and always the husband who is childlike, needing assistance and who operates like a 2 year old.
I’ve never seen this IRL, always the other way round. Always.
“The NLT translation makes it more evident: “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.””
“It didn’t say rule…it said control.”
The problem is the hebrew dosnt say that – at all. Although wives do want to do that, so maybe the NLT wanted to reflect their reality instead of the hebrew text. This is a problem that all the translations face they want to adapt the text to culture.
Someone has FINALLY produced a video that compresses all female super-privileges into one 4-minute clip :
Looks like another MGTOW article
And for the record, “All scientific evidence indicates that gender identity disorders result principally from cultural causes and moreover, modern society is facilitating them.”
Article: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/02/16/transgenderism-semantic-contagion-or-biological-fact/
Article: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/17/report-modern-culture-is-not-just-revealing-transgenders-it-is-creating-them/
“Looks like another MGTOW article”
For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.” – Isaiah 56:4-5
David says:
February 15, 2018 at 12:00 pm
“White Trashionalists like you are a large part of the problem, since you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You can’t even grasp the difference between a Muslim terrorist and a Filipino nurse or Chinese PhD.”
I can certainly tell the difference. The Muslim terrorist behaves exactly as he portrays himself. The Filipino and the Chinese (if not native-born American) typically involve much fraud in both their education and in their work. The Indians (call center not casino ones) are of course much worse than the Chinese in this regard, but you didn’t mention them.
P.S. This is why the wise person doesn’t recognize ANY graduate degrees from even the Second World, and generally even bachelor’s degree from the Third World.
Gunner Q says:
February 16, 2018 at 9:47 pm
Anonymous Reader @ 7:44 pm:
“If you look at a lot of these “servant leader” types, most of them are Baby Boomers like Rick Warren, Tim Keller, John Piper, etc. They’ve peaked and are now starting into “emeritus” territory…”
“And being Baby Boomers, they never trained their replacements. They only wrote a bunch of books that they expect everybody will replace their Bibles with. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a massive social shift in America when a bunch of big names from Glenn Stanton to Hillary Clinton die over the span of a year or two.
Heck, if a natural disaster like a bad flu synchronizes it, we could literally wake up one morning to find the entire Cathedral & Deep State dead with no heirs. That’s what can happen when all the powerbrokers in society graduated high school before the Moon Landing.”
I believe I understand where you are coming from, Gunner. And, I think you and I mostly want the same things, share some crucial values, etc. However, I am more pessimistic about the future (near to mid) than you seem. The libtard Boomer leaders not replacing themselves? Like homos, they have substantially relied upon recruitment over bearing AND raising their own children as they would have them be. Just read anything recent about political positions among U.S. college students; the ONLY significant exception to widespread PC profession is white males. Those are 1) declining proportionately there, and 2) it’s only very recent. Just watch any of the videos showing liberal shock among liberal college students on Hillary Clinton losing the election back in November 2016, any NE/West Coast college period, or students in any foo-foo major; no shortage of young libtards in those places, sadly.
Oh, and the huge #s of nonwhite immigrants/colonists pouring in every year into the U.S. are mostly statists and socialists.
PSA on Eastern Orthodox Lent
EO Lent starts Sunday, sundown, 19 Feb this year. This year I will be abstaining from internet commenting from tomorrow night through Orthodox Pascha (which is April 8), in addition to the regular, physical, fast.
I wish you all well during this time. I will be reading from time to time during the fast, but not frequently, and will not be commenting after tomorrow evening, Sunday 19 Feb.
I wish you all well during this time.
Luke said,
Oh, and the huge #s of nonwhite immigrants/colonists pouring in every year into the U.S. are mostly statists and socialists.
Not the men, really. Then again, American women (including white women) certainly are statists and socialists. So are White Nationalist men (who really just want intra-white socialism because they are far less talented than successful whites).
The Filipino and the Chinese (if not native-born American) typically involve much fraud in both their education and in their work.
That is pretty ignorant. You have to prove that their incidence of crime is higher than for whites (hint : it isn’t). Plus, their graduate degrees are from US universities, and Asians don’t get affirmative action the way blacks, Hispanics, and white women do.
Asians have a higher household income than whites, in the US. You probably think the entire community (all 22 million of them) are based on fraud rather than their own merit.
Minesweeper,
Part of it is because they start by taking Eph 5:21 out of context, jumping right into the previous coverage. They do this to undermine the following commands, to the detriment of Christians everywhere.
On Genesis: Note that God told Cain that sin desired to rule him, the exact same words from what I understand that Eve was told she would want to do to Adam. That makes the curse and evil desire clear. A woman may want to rule her husband, but she should not do so.
Anon, here’s some evidence for you:
https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016
https://www.vox.com/2015/3/20/8260201/india-education-exams-cheating
Picture that speaks 1000 words: http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6338558-3×2-700×467.jpg
You really need to learn more about the world.
I posted a rebuttal of part of Anon’s canned talking points from the DNC, but due to links, it disappeared into moderation. Sigh. It contained a link to the Corruption Index map put out annually by Transparency International, and an example article on numerous people in India climbing up the sides of classroom buildings to give their family members taking tests answers.
Oh, and alt-right people (as I am) are mostly among the least socialist people on the planet. We also proportionally have WAY more STEM degrees and careers than do all the libtards, who typically majored in Fuzzy Studies. (Hint: if your major didn’t either involve Calculus, hand-on medical care, or using tools in non-climate-controlled environments, and/or if it was mostly dependent post-graduation for government mandates outside of the DoD, it’s probably FS, e.g., bogus). Oh, and I have a hard-science STEM graduate degree.
@Red Pill Latecomer
I just wanted to add to mine of 01.00pm on the 17th that in that idyllic period for Great Britain to which your referred we suffered from 1970 until the mid 1990s regular terrorism albeit not Islamic.
Dear Luke:
I wrote a quick riposte over on my site, so as not to derail the conversation here on Dalrock.
https://v5k2c2.com/2018/02/18/priority-no-1/
Regards,
Boxer
Pingback: Priority No. 1 – v5k2c2.com
Chivalry was always an entirely male thing.
The Arthurian slit fiction presented the feminist twisted dream of male chivalry toward women.
Entirety fictional.
But we bought it, hook line and sinker.
^^
exactly
this male submission modern model both i culture and in churches is also entirely male driven
I do not see things getting better
I only see the decline of the west + a take over of foreign powers who funnily do not attack men
BillyS says:”Minesweeper,
On Genesis: Note that God told Cain that sin desired to rule him, the exact same words from what I understand that Eve was told she would want to do to Adam. ”
Yes sin was crouching at his door both the action and its consequences, this was warning, no punishment had been dealt because the sin hadnt occurred. God was telling him to master it before it overcame him.
With Eve the sin had occurred, the penalty was Adam to rule over Eve.
I know they look similar but I really can’t see how they directly connect. If God had wanted to declare as part of his curse to Eve that she will always want to rule over him while he rules over her, he would have declared it and it would be thus.
But he didnt.
But generally, anything you really desire you want to have control over. You got a $500k lambo you want it in your protected garage, not in a place where you could lose it or it could be damaged. Women can suppress the desire to control every aspect of their husbands and childrens lives, but it has to be a concious desire. They seem to drop down into desperation to control their entire family (not just the husband) almost immediately and usually with dreadful results. As we all hate being controlled, even wives.
this pastor Garret Kell ( complementarian) – wife keeps praising his domesticity on twitter
just blogged about how beautiful the biblical roles of men and women were shown in the new movie WANAKADA…
yes a female head of your military is very biblical…
these men claim to be saved, have spent years studying the bible, even showcase how God has changed their life
yet come out with so much stupidity
sorry Wakanda
I really am a bit speechless.
Out with my friend last night – the chap who previously after having had a long talk with his mistress (nearly thirty years younger than him) had said that he just could not see himself – a late boomer – starting a new family and so, though it had been fun and though it had wrecked his marriage, there it was, they would have to go their own way and besides he could not afford it.
Now, there is a new woman, two decades younger than he though older somewhat than the previous mistress, yet now he sings a very different tune. Her story is that she had married and then divorced – no offspring being produced, but then (if she had not already) she he took up with *drum roll * Deti’s friend [fuckbuddy] RockDrummer with whom she produced a child. She then became pregnant again by said RockDrummer but although the second child is yet to be born (expected fairly soon) – the relationship with RockDrummer is over such is the way with RockDrummers. My friend is now saying and with copious virtue signalling that he would not object to bringing up another man’s offspring. She I might add is an almost famous person and has clearly had nothing but affirmative action throughout her life though her talents appear to be mediocre or less and her abilities somewhat limited – her good looks (as I could see from Google images) not harming her opportunities. This is all Manosphere cliche with my friend volunteering for beta cuckdom. He thinks he is a Christian of the Calvinist type. I’ll have to again read him the Riot Act but I do not see that having any more effect now than the last time I read it to him.
Why would you bother doing that? Most people (women and men alike) love being miserable. They find meaning in needless suffering, and (as the old song goes) happiness in slavery.
Your buddy will take one skank-ho single mom out of the pool, and give her the opportunity to live a dignified life. His foolishness has the potential of changing a couple of bastards into productive citizens. Why he would stoop to this, I don’t know; but his loss is a boon to civilization, so if he’s intent on self-destruction, I say let him try it out.
Boxer
FWIW, most millennial men I encounter are unchurched.
And don’t get me started on the whole Wakanda nonsense. Wakanda exists, and has many names: Zimbabwe, South Africa. etc. And none of the real world Wakandas even remotely resembles the one on the movie. They are, as President Trump might say, s***holes.
Sometimes I think that people get what they deserve
I know
All the Churchians are pissed off for Trump’s S….. comment
it is simple really
White people left Africa in the 60’s
China had its revolution
China is busy colonizing Africa now… it is clear which culture is backward..
I’d agree with Boxer…the days of trying to get through to those men are futile if he really wants to do that. This isn’t like trying to save him from drowning…he has every right to choose whichever woman he thinks should be the mother of his (or Chad’s) kids.
Luke@ February 17, 2018 at 11:15 pm:
“The libtard Boomer leaders not replacing themselves? Like homos, they have substantially relied upon recruitment over bearing AND raising their own children as they would have them be.”
They recruited nobody, as evidenced by the curious desperation with which they hold onto power. From Quorum.us:
I see similar demographics in the workplace and Church. Also, Boomers are being replaced by Sodomites and cannibals but they themselves are neither. That’s evidence of opportunism, not deliberation. The wicked whisper lies to the deluded, who are angry their children could not advance the feminist Utopia they built with their childrens’ inheritance. What a mess.
…
“I’d agree with Boxer…the days of trying to get through to those men are futile if he really wants to do that.”
Yes but friendship means one has to try. It probably won’t work but say your piece while there’s a chance of it doing good, and then enjoy a clean conscience afterward.
He already said his piece from what I read.
Luke,
You embarrassed yourself far more than than anyone else has.
Anon, here’s some evidence for you:
We are talking about corruption rates of those people IN THE US. Not in their home countries. Russia and Ukraine are among the highest corruption rates in the world. The fact that you don’t even understand what is being discussed reveals your extremely low intellect.
Asian crime rates in the US are lower than whites. Period.
Secondly, White Nationalism (or ‘Trashionalism’ as David correct calls it) is a pure left-wing, feminist ideology. It attracts the bottom 20% of white men, and virtually zero white women (for reasons that are obvious to anyone of average intellect). PM/AFT correctly describes it as a goddess cult.
Read here for reasons WN failed, and will continue to fail :
It failed, and future incarnations will fail too, simply because :
1) 99% of it is bitter omega males who can’t get laid. The ideology is the biggest sausage-fest ever, even though it is wholly dependent on white women producing more babies.
ii) It is a goddess cult, that is entirely pre-occupied with worshipping white women rather than elevating white nationalists (underachievers within the white population) into competence. This also reinforces 1) above, as women hate needy, pedestalizing men.
iii) It fails to distinguish between illegal/legal immigration, and unskilled/skilled immigration.
iv) Whites have an unusually high variance in quality (talents, looks, etc.). That is why white nationalists tend to be the lower-ranking white men who have zero in common with successful white men other than shared ancestry from Europe, centuries ago. Sort of how a chihuahua is not a German Shepherd, even if it insists is is on.
v) Economic leftism : The economic views of untalented people tend to be left-wing. WNs are no exception. They want intra-white socialism, despite how little they have in common with successful whites. Successful whites know this, and thus ensure that WNs are kept outside of respectable society.
It failed, and future incarnations will fail too, simply because : 1) 99% of it is bitter omega males who can’t get laid. The ideology is the biggest sausage-fest ever, even though it is wholly dependent on white women producing more babies. ii) It is a goddess cult, that is entirely pre-occupied with worshipping white women rather than elevating white nationalists (underachievers within the white population) into competence. This also reinforces 1) above, as women hate needy, pedestalizing men. iii) It fails to distinguish between illegal/legal immigration, and unskilled/skilled immigration. iv) Whites have an unusually high variance in quality (talents, looks, etc.). That is why white nationalists tend to be the lower-ranking white men who have zero in common with successful white men other than shared ancestry from Europe, centuries ago. Sort of how a chihuahua is not a German Shepherd, even if it insists is is on. v) Economic leftism : The economic views of untalented people tend to be left-wing. WNs are no exception. They want intra-white socialism, despite how little they have in common with successful whites. Successful whites know this, and thus ensure that WNs are kept outside of respectable society.
The part below the link was meant to be italicized and blockquoted, as it is an excerpt from what the other person wrote.
Anyway, the point I (and Boxer) are making is that outside of the most preliminary superficialities, being a race nationalist (of any race) is wholly incompatible with being a red-pilled man who opposes the FI.
Race nationalism has almost total overlap with cuckservative-style feminism. That white nationalism is 99% male is evidence of this. It also explains why White Nationalists attract a disproportionate share of gay men, as Jack Donovan has pointed out. This is what Luke is proud to be a part of.
Dear Anon:
That’s correct. Most Stormfront goons are covert feminists, who endlessly displace blame for the misbehavior of the white goddesses they worship to men (usually Black and Jewish men, etc.) They fool nobody who takes a moment to think about the underlying premises.
The whole notion of “White Nationalism” is an antinomy. White people are not a nation. I scoff at idiots like Richard Spencer, who goes to Germany, and tries to convince Germans (who actually are a nation, with an ancient culture, religion and language) that they should donate money and time to benefit American WASPs like him. Why should Germans care? They have their own problems.
Stormfront goons should additionally ponder the fact that Spencer is allowed to go to Germany to give neo-Hitlerian speeches like this. Why is he given free access there, where that sort of thing carries a prison sentence? Hmmm. Very interesting.
Regards,
Boxer
Neighbor across the street is living (at home with his widowed mother.) He is in his late 50s. He can’t do anything. Nothing. He has no skills, no education, at best a 90 IQ. Poor bastard. Anyway, he is patiently waiting for a government “patronage job.” He just wants to work for the Post Office or some government agency and do well formed work because… we doesn’t want to do anything ‘for the man.’ He has a real problem with authority.
He is “white” but he thinks “the man” has it in for him because he is a “dark skinned Italian.” He uses his darker skin color and his Italian heritage as an excuse for everything in his failed life. At this point, he is just waiting for his mom to die so he can inherit the house. Of course I don’t know what he’ll do with it without her social security check.
The way he looks at it, socialism is all he’s got. He can’t do anything. He can’t start a business. His 3rd wife left him. I think he has a criminal record. He doesn’t know anything about the information age economy. Without the hope of a well formed, unionized, government job, he really can’t earn a paycheck.
If you look at a lot of these “servant leader” types, most of them are Baby Boomers like Rick Warren, Tim Keller, John Piper, etc. They’ve peaked
Sorry, but they have heavily influenced at least the next generation. I’ve seen and heard pastors younger than myself (and I’m Gen X) preaching these same things.
Luke, isn’t it amazing how threatened your “allies” get over the tiniest expression of pride in your own heritage? Totally impermissible. You don’t even exist, probably. Except for those census forms. And how everyone else identifies you. And the epithets. And the agitprop. Wait a sec… “Whatever, no noticing! Back to the plantation to do [what it is I want], [however I want it] on [whatever terms I dictate, dumb, loser, atomized basement-dweller wypipo]. Shut up, gimmedat.”
Despite regurgitating the usual tired manifesto excerpts and the wanker-cuckhold-motif projection, Anon (PBUH) hit upon an interesting point with respect to the gay occultist Nazi-larp crew that I thought was important enough to comment on.
Stay away from them if you are Christian.
Despite having some very ardent defenders right here, these guys, the authors and activists, are pozitively brimming with evil. Do your homework. Hint: It starts with pathetic Crowleyist gang-signs and goes downhill from there. Waaaaaaay downhill. You don’t have to look very hard– that’s kind of the point with the devil.
For whatever reason, and perhaps by design, modern mainstream christianity is blind to, even accepting of, occultism. “A few rainbow-festooned priests here, a bit of frank apostasy there, some massive child abuse cover-ups over here… how about some Tolerance for Satanists?”
“No judgement, you know? We’re nice people. We’re good people.” (Unless you ask Jesus.)
IBB,
He just wants to work for the Post Office or some government agency and do well formed work because… we doesn’t want to do anything ‘for the man.’
It is amazing that he thinks the Government is not ‘the man’. That is the biggest and most ensconsed authority figure around.
He is “white” but he thinks “the man” has it in for him because he is a “dark skinned Italian.” He uses his darker skin color and his Italian heritage as an excuse for everything in his failed life.
That is amazing. In 1955, he might have had a point. But now?
The funny thing is that White Nationalists like Luke (i.e. bottom 20% white men) will insist he is ‘white’ and never was considered non-white, just in order to increase their numbers, only to ditch the Italians, Irish, and Poles when they are no longer needed.
His 3rd wife left him.
Well, at least he has Game if he got married a second and third time, without any money. So the divorce won’t cost him anything.
Boxer says:
February 18, 2018 at 10:51 am
I’ll have to again read him the Riot Act but I do not see that having any more effect now than the last time I read it to him.
Why would you bother doing that? Most people (women and men alike) love being miserable. They find meaning in needless suffering, and (as the old song goes) happiness in slavery.
Your buddy will take one skank-ho single mom out of the pool, and give her the opportunity to live a dignified life. His foolishness has the potential of changing a couple of bastards into productive citizens. Why he would stoop to this, I don’t know; but his loss is a boon to civilization, so if he’s intent on self-destruction, I say let him try it out.
Boxer
I’ll second your advice to Opus’ friend, Boxer.
My father did exactly what is described above when my mother died. he married a childed woman, outwardly rich but inwardly destitute and ”gave her a chance at a dignified life” against the reservations of his family.
Seven years down the track and suddenly he’s pissing blood. Since I work in medical research, I send him to all sorts of doctors and specialists to look for some horrible cancer.
Nothing.
Send him to more specialists. Still nothing.
Finally a techie at a Path lab did an STI test on him. Lo and behold, there you are. Who was he with? No one – except her.
She gets tested. Same strain of bug.
For her adultery, she got rewarded with a quarter of my father’s assets. Were it not for a very astute lawyer, she would have gotten more – she wanted half – and my father would have been destitute.
There is a temptation to run out the end of your life with someone when your life partner either dies or moves on. Men should not do it. If you want to die with dignity, leave your assets to your biological children and not strangers.
Got the urge? Visit a brothel. I know it isn’t Christian, but it’s the safest and most moral option for men now.
A quote from someone (Joy Behar, co-host of the ABC show “The View”) disparaging hearing from God. It reminds me of the discussion we had here a while back that said the same thing, from some who supposedly support Christianity.
Might want to watch who you make yourself a bedfellow with. Some of us do hear from God and we are not mentally unstable, except in the eyes of the same modern system that brings us the Duluth Model.
Minesweeper,
Some complain that the first verse (noting the curse on Eve) doesn’t mean “rule over”. That is why using the other one, about Cain, is appropriate. It explains the saying, as sin was attempting to rule over him as well, as the curse noted Eve would try to do with Adam.
Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a key principle and that would be my point. I am not trying to argue anything otherwise with you, just noting the consistency, even in the same area.
He just wants an extremely good paying, well formed job with pension and tenure. He wants a contact, a collective bargaining agreement so any boss that gives him a hard time, he can point to the contract and say “..see I did it the way the contract said, go to hell.” That is really what he wants and he’ll never get that. Sad really.
He says he has had 3 wives. But I have no proof other than his word. His mom laughed once when I mentioned her grandson from one of his previous marriages. I got the impression from her that maybe he was never actually “married” to that mom. So who knows how many of these three “wives” were actually wives? All I know is that his mom told me (back 12 years ago) when her son moved back home, “wife” number 3 called the police, went full Duluth on him, get the judge to sign the restraining order, and the police dropped him off at the bus station with 32 dollars in his pocket. His parents had to pay to get him to move back home. I have not seen that man smile in 12 years.
@Spike, so for 7 years of putting up with her shit and presumably paying all the bills he gets rewarded with a STI and the robbery of 1/4 of his assets by the state.
Its a shit way to get red pilled towards the end of your life. Sorry to hear that man.
@Spike, just don’t get him to divide the costs by the no of times he screwed her to get PPF, it will prob make even high class hookers look cheap, it certainly did in my case 🙂 i really would have been better off with a “seeking arrangement” arrangement.
@BillyS
”Might want to watch who you make yourself a bedfellow with. Some of us do hear from God and we are not mentally unstable, except in the eyes of the same modern system that brings us the Duluth Model.”
It does seem worthy to note that hearing from God is very obvious to the recipient. There is no vagueness involved.
Just read this article: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/18/desperate-cry-americas-boys.html
While it only partially addresses the root cause, the basic premise, if not stated as such, is “What have we done to boys that leads to such destructive behavior?”
Perhaps more instructive questions would be: “Given the constant pouring of excrement on boys, why is this behavior not more common, and what do we need to do to solve the underlying problems?” But of course that would require too much introspection.
@Minesweeper:
”@Spike, so for 7 years of putting up with her shit and presumably paying all the bills he gets rewarded with a STI and the robbery of 1/4 of his assets by the state.
Its a shit way to get red pilled towards the end of your life. Sorry to hear that man”
This is EXACTLY what put me onto the Red Pill, MS.
It was terrible: She convinced him to move away from the city to the coast, after asking him to spend $120K renovating the family home to what she liked.
When they separated, she saw his car at the shopping center and simply drove off with it. On Christmas day, she got a bunch of ”removalists” (read: thugs. I don’t know where she got them from, but they were probably friends of her evil spawn) to basically break in to my father’s house to try taking the furniture. My father was lucky in this case: he had sawn off rods and placed them in the windows to prevent break-ins and was in the process when an ugly hand came through the door. He stuck the saw above the hand and pulled it back, sawing the hand and leading to a hasty withdrawal. He locked himself in, called the police and myself.
I asked the police to intervene, and they refused to. The sergeant on duty even went so far as to say that he would only intervene if SHE was threatened!
I realized at this point that a man can work for his whole life, pay taxes, be compassionate, caring and doing everything right – everything The Blue Pill conditioning tells him is right – and he will get raped by The State.I even asked friends who were cops and lawyers. They told me the same, leading me to the Duluth Model. I had also been getting massive amounts of disrespect from my wife prior to this, expressed as incel and disrespect-by-proxy through my kids. This led me further toward the Manosphere and on to Dalrock, where I am today.
Eventually my father was able to move closer to us in the city and I was able to visit him more often. He got a small place in the outer suburbs that he could afford. Not content with being burned like this, he found another live-in ”girlfriend” for himself, that he willed a third of his assets to when he died. Some people never learn.
This is why I think the ”PPF” value of a hooker is better. At least the price is negotiated upfront, your assets are safe so they can go to your kids, and she’s paid to leave. As a Christian, it’s a dilemma for me and I don’t want to find myself in that situation, but I think it’s the most honest option.
@ Spike
“This is why I think the ‘PPF’ value of a hooker is better.”
Not if you count the spiritual cost. A Christian man has two legitimate options; marriage or celibacy. If the risk incurred in marriage is too great – and that may well be the case – then the only legitimate option a Christian man has left to him is celibacy.
Good luck and God bless.
@Spike, oh man what can I say, Im so sorry, there is very little left thats good in this world atm.
“This is why I think the ”PPF” value of a hooker is better. At least the price is negotiated upfront, your assets are safe so they can go to your kids, and she’s paid to leave. As a Christian, it’s a dilemma for me and I don’t want to find myself in that situation, but I think it’s the most honest option.”
God see’s all, and in this insane day and age whereby a new relationship with a woman even a short term marriage is equivalent to being robbed at gunpoint, really what is the difference between using hookers ? At least they are honest and the terms are known up front. Its prob the only time a woman will be respectful and submit to your reeds. As in its the only time you will find a woman behaving like a wife.
Im pretty sure God will be telling some men to use hookers to keep them sane – out of billions of believers I couldnt say he wouldnt, you could go down the islamic route and get married then divorced with each turn :D, almost all Christians rail against porn, but men have a great need to see attractive naked females without that you can feel like you are going stark raving mad.
Ive had a few relationships as well that I didnt expect he would allow to my surprise and they were great, significantly better than any ive had with Christian women, who seem to be particularly(even significantly) more deranged than those who arn’t believers, you really would expect it the other way round.
People dont want God to behave in a way they dont understand. There is what the bible says about sex and what Christians believe it says and they barely intersect. Ive never used a hooker – (yet), I dont fancy it either, but I wouldnt condemn someone who did. Some OT patriarchs used prostitutes. And God made a Prophet marry one !
If you do venture outside of the standard Christian sex experience, you will discover that they care about nothing more strongly, hell you could be in 4 bits at the side of the road and they will pass you by, but my goodness get caught with a pirelli calendar in your basement – well thats grounds for ostracization, an intimate chat with the “pastor”, a fortnights deprogramming in the woods somewhere and a public repentance.
@oscar, define “marriage”.
@ Minesweeper
Pretty much everyone on this blog already played this tiresome game back when Artisinal Toad was here, so I’m not going to rehash it. If you want to abuse the scriptures by claiming that Jacob having sex with a prostitute that turned out to be his former daughter-in-law, or that Sampson having sex with a prostitute, are given to us as examples to follow (when in fact they’re just the opposite), then feel free to do so. You’ve been warned. The consequences will fall on your head.
Ezekiel 33:4 then he who hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, and a sword comes and takes him away, his blood will be on his own head. 5 He heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning; his blood will be on himself. But had he taken warning, he would have delivered his life.
There is a program here in California called HEAP. It’s for senior citizens who get a “refund” from the county / state to help alleviate the “burden” of their gas and electric bill. All the seniors qualify for it in the property I work in…….even though their cost of the gas and electric is figured / included in their rent (which the Salvation Army covers 80% of……evil Christians that we are…..)
They don’t even “pay” a monthly gas / electric bill at this property
On average, each resident gets over $1,000.00 once a year for this. I work full time at minumum wage, no children or wife and I get less than a $1,000.00 back on my return. Where do these low income seniors spend their wealth-redistribution check at????
They ALL go to the local “indian” (cough) “native american” casino….casinos are not built on “winners” as you know. The old lady with one arm and a cigarette in her mouth blowing this money at a casino; and this money she should not even qualify for.
They also have another program for seniors to get “tax money” back from the State of California to help “pay for the outrageous cost of food” because the “advocates” will again tell us “did you know most seniors in California go hungry every day?”
Another 300 – 500 each given to them every year………no one is starving in my building……in fact 40% of tyhe seniors who live in the property I work at are considered “obese”
The State is evil. Low income people….no matter the age are not held accountable and what saddens me the most, they all vote
innocentbystanderboston: He can’t do anything. He can’t start a business. His 3rd wife left him. I think he has a criminal record. He doesn’t know anything about the information age economy.
Yet he was married three times?
I’m also in my 50s. Financially comfortable. Computer literate. No criminal record. And I’ve not been able to land a single wife.
If only I’d committed some crimes, I might have given more women the tingles.
@Oscar, it was Judah Genesis 38:15-16, but no biggie.
New International Version Proverbs 6:26
For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread, but another man’s wife preys on your very life.
One seems defo better than the other. Not that I partake in either. I doubt using hookers is beneficial for most men, but its definitely not the song and dance the church makes about it.
And as for AT, I truly had no idea what he was going on about most of the time, it was too insane to even engage with and wrong on so many levels.
OT: “There’s a Way to Stop Mass Shootings, and You Won’t Like It.”
https://mystudentapt.com/2015/10/06/theres-a-way-to-stop-mass-shootings-and-you-wont-like-it/
“You’re not going to like it because it’s going to require you to do something personally, as opposed to shouting for the government, or anyone to ‘do something!’
You ready? Here it is:
‘Notice those around you who seem isolated, and engage them.’
If every one of us did this we’d have a culture that was deeply committed to ensuring no one was left lonely. And make no mistake, as I’ve written before loneliness is what causes these shooters to lash out. People with solid connections to other people don’t indiscriminately fire guns at strangers.
….
Holding a sign isn’t going to do anything. And writing your congressman will do even less. But you can do something today, this week, this month. The people you engage may not become life-long friends, and they don’t need to be, but it could be enough to keep someone away from the darkness and isolation needed to eventually think lashing out is an effective strategy for dealing with their pain.”
The article is pretty good, but it leaves out a very important detail. One reason that most people won’t like this proposed solution is that it requires engaging “creepy” young men.
@ Minesweeper says:
“it was Judah Genesis 38:15-16, but no biggie.”
Correct. My mistake.
“New International Version Proverbs 6:26
For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread, but another man’s wife preys on your very life.
One seems defo better than the other.”
Yes, some sins are more immediately destructive than others, and the wages for all of them is death. Murder is more immediately destructive than theft. That doesn’t make theft acceptable.
“And as for AT, I truly had no idea what he was going on about most of the time, it was too insane to even engage with and wrong on so many levels.”
One of AT’s pet subjects was that Christian men should use prostitutes, and yes, that was wrong on many levels.
I thought he was all about the “if you have sex with a virgin” your married to her, even if undiscovered.
I kinda gave up after that, along with his polygamy.
it requires engaging “creepy” young men.
There’s a big difference between a socially awkward, aka “creepy”, young man, and one who’s mentally ill, psychopathic/evil, or using psychotropic drugs (illegal or legal). The latter is dangerous, and it’s ridiculous to believe that “just be nice” is going to save him.
Off topic, but relevant to the overall board, Lutheran church in NJ celebrates pastor’s sex change.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/02/when-is-a-lutheran-not-a-lutheran
@Red Pill Latecomer says: “Yet he was married three times?
I’m also in my 50s. Financially comfortable.
And I’ve not been able to land a single wife.”
Thats why your “Financially comfortable” 🙂
One more off-topic gem (I apologize if this is annoying). (Sometimes I have to reload this site 1x to get it to show up properly)
https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/how-to-deal-with-a-narcissist-5-secrets-backed-by-research
From The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement:
In data from 37,000 college students, narcissistic personality traits rose just as fast as obesity from the 1980s to the present, with the shift especially pronounced for women.
BLUF, there is NO good way to deal w/ a narcissist. MGTOW gets some cred.
Jason, senior citizens are old and growing older which puts them at a disadvantage for various reasons in competing with younger workers in our uber-competitive labor market. Additionally, a large percentage of them have real age-related health issues that often result in material non-covered out-of-pocket costs.
Now these feminist “gems,” on the other hand, have no such valid reason for the non-entitlement social services welfare and divorce court awards they gorge on as they spend their time doing everything under the sun to avoid growing up and paying their own way through life: https://youtu.be/-j0Sedp4924
Wonderful review of the movie Three Billboards. Some of the plot is given away if you have not seen this movie yet.
https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/three-billboards-surprising-meditation-gods-grace/
Oscar says:
February 18, 2018 at 8:19 pm
@ Spike
“This is why I think the ‘PPF’ value of a hooker is better.”
Not if you count the spiritual cost. A Christian man has two legitimate options; marriage or celibacy. If the risk incurred in marriage is too great – and that may well be the case – then the only legitimate option a Christian man has left to him is celibacy.
Good luck and God bless.
@ Oscar , @Minesweeper:
Keep in mind here, come this Friday I celebrate 27 years married to the same woman. In my Blue Pill days I had a great deal of trouble with my wife as well as my father’s wife (not my mother). Part of the Blue Pill for me also was a deep ambivalence about my Christian beliefs. This came from a ‘modern evangelical’ view that I could sit astride secularism and the Bible and get the best of both. I was wrong. I had to re-evaluate everything, and I did it hard.
The first truth I had to bitterly swallow was that I didn’t commit to God as He had to me in His Son. Second, because I was shifty, I didn’t have a moral frame to call out my wife’s ”Christian-lite” approach to life but gradually became part of it. Bit by bit, you lose your faith and one day, you’re an atheist. That’s how I lived for a decade
According to Ephesians, it’s my fault. I remember from my Catholic childhood, that confession was, “I acknowledge to you Lord, and to you here present, that I have sinned through my own faults, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do”. That was what I did. I did that in a time my children needed me to be the spiritual head of the house more than anything.
I had to re-build my beliefs, step by step, lesson by bitter lesson. I found that truth was the absolute hardest thing to face up to. But face it you must. Once you know it, you have to live it and tell it and to borrow a phrase from Jordan Peterson, you have let go of the consequences of saying it and living it.
So, I have no desire to do what I have said above. I am simply saying that I would not re-marry knowing what I now know about Marriage 2.0, because it is Russian roulette with 3 or more loaded chambers. In sheer cold calculating terms, a prostitute is better value.
Perhaps I won’t need to: Perhaps I’ll get to the age where the sex urge dies off. Perhaps my wife will out-live me. Perhaps I might even be able to do celibacy in the future – I don’t know. I do know that involuntary celibacy was hell. I would definitely not put my children through what I went through because of my father.
Thank you both for your replies. I can read real empathy from you both.
This is so good, watch it through, the last 2 catergories are spot on and laugh out loud!
@ Minesweeper
“I thought he was all about the ‘if you have sex with a virgin’ your married to her, even if undiscovered.
I kinda gave up after that, along with his polygamy.”
AT had a whole stable of hobby horses. Probably still does.
@ Spike
“I am simply saying that I would not re-marry knowing what I now know about Marriage 2.0, because it is Russian roulette with 3 or more loaded chambers.”
Each man has to evaluate the risk/reward ratio for himself. If a man decides that the risk/reward ratio is too unfavorable, I won’t argue with him. It’s a difficult road to travel either way, but Jesus did warn us that in this world we’d have trouble. Fortunately, He also told us to be encouraged by the fact that He overcame the world.
“Thank you both for your replies. I can read real empathy from you both.”
You’re welcome. Pretty much all of us are here because we were looking for answers we didn’t find anywhere else, particularly the Church. Unfortunately, the answers are often harsh and unpleasant, but like you said, we have to face the truth no matter how ugly it might be.
God bless. If you need a place to vent, or if you need some prayer, there are brothers here who’ll provide either or both. Ideally, you’ll find at least one brother to talk and pray with in person, but if you can’t, we’ll be here as long as our host continues to host.
Intoning his name will bring him back here. I like the guy, despite the fact that he threatened to have one of his wives murder me with an icepick. Even so, he’s pretty disruptive (even by my standards).
He has a blog out in the hinterlands, with occasional articles on it. You can argue with him there.
Best,
Boxer
Well arguing with AT is a mixed experience at best.
Minesweeper @ February 18, 2018 at 9:12 pm:
“God see’s all, and in this insane day and age whereby a new relationship with a woman even a short term marriage is equivalent to being robbed at gunpoint, really what is the difference between using hookers?”
Your voluntary participation. Acting like an unbeliever so you don’t have to suffer for being Christian is not something God will wink at.
@Gunner Q , well I was being fictitious, I wouldn’t recommend guys start using heroin\opium either, but there may be a time and place for both due to extreme pain or emotion being involved. Not in a business as usual situation, if some guy is out of his mind with lust instead of doing something very very stupid I would suggest rent a hooker to lance the boil.
You think God couldnt forgive after the act ?
I’ve known him to forgive women who have had abortions you know, and that is utterly heinous.
@Boxer ” I like the guy, despite the fact that he threatened to have one of his wives murder me with an icepick” – now thats grace and the thread winner right there !
@ Spike
I understand completely your frustrations in everything you wrote. I’d wager plenty of us here can relate at some level. Life can be a long journey for such a short trip.
“Shifty”. Good word.
Because women and non-binary gendered people are underrepresented among music composers, they now have a contest to promote their works: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/arts/music/national-sawdust-female-composers.html
National Sawdust, the performance space in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, announced the winners of its first Hildegard Competition for rising female and non-binary composers. …
On June 12, their works will be performed by the Refugee Orchestra, along with pieces by five runners-up.
Since National Sawdust opened in 2015, it has been committed to presenting work by female composers and other underrepresented voices. …
Because women and non-binary gendered people are underrepresented among music composers
translation: they’re not good enough at writing music to compete against male composers, so let’s give them their own competition, based on sexist criteria (no heterosexual men allowed!)
Im single never married, no kids, 47, financially quite comfortable. I’m currently dating a “good” Christian women 7 years younger, single never married, no kids and like me she doesn’t want any. Fit, attractive for her age, looks early 30s with smooth skin. She makes 75k a year. She constantly test me as to where this 6 month relationship is going, she wants me to marry her of course. Now what?
This is probably as good a match as I’ll ever find. For whatever reason I can easily meet women like her online. I’m good at meeting women online but rarely quite as good of a match. Yet I don’t know if I even want marriage at this point. I’m afraid the juice just won’t be worth the squeeze. How can it be? The risks, responsibilities, obligations, potential burdens.
Point being, any single man anywhere who only has 99 problems doesn’t really need 100 more. Even if sexual desire is overwhelming (it’s not for me, at all) marrying might not help that problem anyway. Sure, some men have good marriages but not very damn many. In 2018, for most men, why bother?
@Embracing Reality “Im single never married, no kids, 47, financially quite comfortable. I’m currently dating a “good” Christian women 7 years younger, single never married, no kids and like me she doesn’t want any. Fit, attractive for her age, looks early 30s with smooth skin. She makes 75k a year. She constantly test me as to where this 6 month relationship is going, she wants me to marry her of course. Now what?
This is probably as good a match as I’ll ever find. For whatever reason I can easily meet women like her online. I’m good at meeting women online but rarely quite as good of a match. Yet I don’t know if I even want marriage at this point. I’m afraid the juice just won’t be worth the squeeze. How can it be? The risks, responsibilities, obligations, potential burdens.
Point being, any single man anywhere who only has 99 problems doesn’t really need 100 more. Even if sexual desire is overwhelming (it’s not for me, at all) marrying might not help that problem anyway. Sure, some men have good marriages but not very damn many. In 2018, for most men, why bother?”
Great comment, we are around the same age, if you want to marry what you need to do is find a very good red pill lawyer who will be able to tell you all the legal and financial ramifications of signing a marriage contract for a man.
You could always go down the personal marriage route – as in NOT a government contract that allows them to dictate the terms and even more worryingly the gov are allowed to alter the terms of the contract mid flight without your approval.
As Opus has said – the marriage contract is illegal under every single law of the land as it changes frequently on the fly and you are NOT told nor will you be made aware the terms of ending the contract until sometimes even after 20 years of legal wrangling.
I mean, it really is, a lesson in insanity.
watch divorce corp.
and thats just the legal system getting into your wallet, by giving her a “contract” she suddenly becomes a supreme victor over you with armed men at her disposal 24/7, now things werent so bad when women didnt know the full extent of the law was at their whim, but now they do. If you want to be ejected from your house in 10 mins at any time, by all means have her move in or get married.
ask your lawyer to give you the worst case scenario, as its often what will come upon you unfortunately.
@ER. to any man I would say plan for the worst.
So get cost of separation after marriage of (particularly without her earning):
1 weekend
1 week
1 month
1 year
5 years
10 years
you will be gob-smacked at the cost of a divorce after a month of marriage, even if she makes the same as you, women are well known to pull the trick of resigning from their job (not telling you) and suddenly being with out any income (I’m speaking from experience), you would not believe how often this happens. If she wants to maximise your financial pain there is no end that she wont go to. Consider out right lies as well in the divorce, its encouraged by their lawyers.
@ER, “Even if sexual desire is overwhelming” – PPF can end up being unbelievably high as their is no limits to her refusing sex nor making herself utterly un-bangable though obesity. Again you would be amezed as to how fast women can chuck in the gym\fitness when they reached their goal (marriage contract) and become morbidly obese within the year.
Its almost incredible.
@ER, I would really ask her what she plans to get out of this. What you can hold her too. If she is hot\well off financially at 40, thats a really rare combo, why has she not got married so far and had a family ?
what benefit does a marriage contract give her ? you just might find what it gives her, it removes from you.
If there’s no prospect of children then there’s no point in marriage. The sexual restrictions on married couples serve to ensure that the husband can be confident he’s the father of his wife’s children. No children = no paternity = no marriage. Just live-in-lovers.
It behooves civilized societies to encourage confidence in paternity so men (who otherwise have no biological investment in the society beyond their own lifetimes) will work to better the conditions their children will inhabit. Recognizing childless relations is simply a waste of society’s resources, regardless of the emotional commitment or intensity the parties to the relationship feel.
That’s my take on it anyway.
In case it wasn’t obvious, my comment was intended as a reply to Embracing Reality’s comment.
“the collective rage”, “I can tap into that rage like this (snaps fingers)”, “I really feel there is this collective subconcious rage that’s just boiling in women”,”this un-owned rage tat is coming up in many different ways….what we do as women in our manipulation, our seduction, our control, ”
Its rare to hear a woman express the sociopathic that exists in women nowadays. I tip my hat to her, good vid all in and essential watching y’all.
ER, I wouldn’t marry in your shoes.
* She says she doesn’t want kids, but maybe she’s only saying that because she knows you don’t. Beware of her getting pregnant and suing for child support. Women in their 40s still can and do get pregnant.
* Lots of women her age want to be married, if only to get divorced. Women want marriage status, followed by the “strong, liberated, divorced woman” status. The joy of a big wedding, then the joy of blogging about her liberating divorce.
* Lots of women, after marriage, start packing on the pounds, and shortening the hair.
Were I in your shoes …
* I’d tell her there is no marriage or children in the future, but that I’d be happy to keep seeing her.
* I’d keep finances and housing separate. She must keep her own place.
* I’d be wary of getting her pregnant.
* Don’t make any promises to “take care of her.” That could have legal ramifications.
It’s great to grow old with someone. But you don’t need to surrender your assets (which is what a husband does in marriage) to grow old with someone. Let there be mutual trust. She can leave you at any time (with or without marriage), so there’s no reason for you to surrender that same freedom.
@RPL, very good advice, I would just add, never ever ***ever*** trust a woman with her contraception even if you are “married” and agree not to have kids, means nothing to her if she takes a whim 1 day and she will lie through her teeth over what she regards as the “greater good” – he will be glad when it happens etc.
This happens alot too.
When I was younger there were few and not especially brilliant female composers – I have known two. Now, however, females are given special privilege when studying music and so it is no surprise that most orchestras are now majority female. If organisations want government hand-outs for new compositions then they must tick the equality box and ensure that half of all commissions go to girls. The results are there for all to hear – mediocrity.
A useful test of the ability of females when it comes to writing music is to go to the Discogs website and type in the name of a composer. If say, you type in the words Bach or Beethoven or Mozart you will see that over ten thousand discs of their respective music has been issued since the time when music was issued on shellac and cylinders. Other top composers have lower though still impressive numbers of issued discs. I typed in the names of certain British females and not one had more than ten discs; even the present Mistress of the Queen’s music has precisely three, as has Suffragette battle-axe Ethel Smyth. It will of course be argued that record companies are just misogynist, but given that record companies are not subsidised and rely entirely on record sales that idea would be stupid.
Men are now avoiding (even assuming they could get started) a career in music. Expect ever more modified standards and ever prettier composers – and empty concert-hall seats. Don’t get me on the subject of female stick-wavers.
American…….
The senior population I work with…..and many are decent, were just working-class men and women. They don’t and never did have a lot.
With that said…………the majority of the seniors in my building have *never* held a job. Most have been on “the county / state / feds” since birth and are very vocal and very entitled to what they believe they deserve. Most of the people living my building make more than me in their Social Security
@RPL, its a strange thing when they push for marriage, you have to ask, ok well why do you want this and what will it change ? It will give her security, ok, well how does that happen ? It means you pay for me if we ever get divorced, ok, well I wont do that as it will cost me a small fortune. Her (at every turn) : I think we should get a divorce (you knowing how much it will costs try to talk her down) until she has had enough of you and wants to cash her chips in.
I have to say, its devastating for us all that women have created this scenario and play it out everyday/ smh.
Minesweeper says: “…Not in a business as usual situation, if some guy is out of his mind with lust instead of doing something very very stupid I would suggest rent a hooker to lance the boil. You think God couldn’t forgive after the act ?”
Beware the sin of presumption: there is a difference between sins committed in weakness and sins committed in arrogance. If one sins with the expectation of forgiveness later, the expectation is itself an additional sin. He will not forgive false contrition, and cannot be fooled.
@Embracing Reality : well, you have to make the decision yourself, and there are no guarantees. The best thing you can do is judge her character; is she making following God her first priority? Does she agree divorce is not an option in marriage? Does she agree she willingly submit to you? Does she agree to give authority over her body to you?
Jason, acknowledged. Thank you for the explanation.
Minesweeper @ 10:52 am:
“You think God couldn’t forgive after the act?”
Not without repentance.
Trying to imagine standing there at the alter, looking over the cliff… I don’t think I could do it.
Thanks, Gentlemen, for the thoughts.
@ER, wise choice. If you ever drop some $$$ on a lawyer and get those costs it would be great to know just how expensive things are these days, dont forget to include the your lawyers costs and possibly hers too. Now that really will drive a man crazy, paying for both sets of lawyers, almost broke spacex, telsa and elon musk in the process.
you’d think he would have learned by now though, he is going through his 3rd divorce and his costs for the 3 so far exceed $100M !!!
@GunnerQ, true, but repentance is probably easier outside of jail.
I actually did consult an attorney, about the last girl… Seems what you bring to a marriage is “generally” yours to keep in the event of a divorce. The amount of time a marriage endures however can effect this. Alimony varies by state how long it lasts. My assets are commercial real estate primarily, income properties. Rather than a pre-nup, which the attorney considered unnecessary, he suggested a trust. LLC’s in series owned by a parent LLC. Income from this would still be subject to division for a time in the event of a divorce but not the assets. This all needs to be done well in advance of a marriage also, intent. Sale of a property after a marriage would be a little tricky, any assets acquired and jointly owned are subject to division in a divorce. This advice was free. A LLC series was priced at about $1000 plus the filing fees on each property, quick claim deeds.
Women tell me I’m “so suspicious”.. Yeah, I wonder why? My nerves, trust and even appetite for them is just about shot at this point. The only reason I even consider marriage is because I’m morally restricted as a believer. I’ve enjoyed some very good relationships with a few of the women I’ve dated. If I wasn’t a believer however I would find the idea of marriage laughable. In my present state of mind I find it frightening. It’s an icy cold pale of water on the desire I once had. Like in The Wizard of Oz I see behind the curtain. Levers and switches.. Sex for money, resources, security. Mix in with silly romantic notions from stupid love songs and ideas only made up in my head. But the sad harsh truth has penetrated deep into my intellect for awhile. Now it sees through the base impulse, through the emotion. That dumb, naive 20 something me was happy, optimistic. Now my inner child is a disillusioned old man and he is not amused. Too many Harsh truths to face now. Can never go back I guess.
I heard about a court case where a man’s house was in a trust prior to marriage. At the time of divorce, the judge agreed the man could keep the house. So instead, he ordered the man to buy a house of equal value for the ex-wife.
The law is always changing. Look at “palimony.” No sooner do men find a legal solution to keep their assets, than some judge invents an excuse to disregard that law.
It’s not just about me. I never ever wanted to break a heart. Now I feel she’s going to be another one, the third time I’ve had to do this. It’s a terrible feeling if you actually care about a woman. Makes me feel worthless. God help me, this will probably be the last time for me.
I asked you awhile back why you were dating a 41 year old woman. I didn’t understand then and I still don’t understand now. You’re asking for trouble. Cut the cord. You’re almost fifty, learn to live without or one day you’ll make a mistake you cannot make right.
@Embracing Reality
You say you want to follow God and you have two options: marriage or celibacy, which I agree with. You apparently have been able to live celibate for a long time, but still have a desire to marry a woman. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you can have a Christian marriage. But be aware that it is impossible to avoid any suffering, whatever choice you make. And let’s be real; it is possible to somewhat guard against financial losses, but you have no other guarantees against other losses but the vow of your future wife. Hence, the only thing you should ask yourself is: do you trust her enough to take the risk of future hurt against future benefits? Why don’t you discuss this with her?
The “celibacy or marriage, those are the only choices for Christians” advocates forget two crucial things:
1) We live in a time when marriage is essentially unavailable for most men. There is something CALLED marriage, but it is a pyrite compared to what our great-grandfathers knew. Expecting a man in America to marry now is as unrealistic as having expected a man who lived 100 years before Jesus walked the Earth to have specifically given his heart to Him.
2) Most men do not have the gift of celibacy. Without the alternative, that gets them out of that choice.
I don’t accept the validity of Catch-22s. If someone says “pee in the corner”, and I’m in a round room, my attitude is “FU, I’m out of here”.
Thus, that forced choice is not applicable now, outside of perhaps Amish and some expats.
The Scriptures really don’t care what you like Luke. Do as you wish, but don’t claim to be walking as a Christian while doing it if you are going to ignore clear commands.
Pingback: On Embracing Reality – v5k2c2.com
@ Luke
“The ‘celibacy or marriage, those are the only choices for Christians’ advocates… ”
Chief among whom is God.
“… forget two crucial things:”
No one is forgetting the problems with marriage today. That’s the reason most of us are here. In fact, several of us (myself included) mentioned that very fact. As the Apostle Paul wrote…
1 Cor 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is: 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.
If “the present distress” convinces a man that remaining unmarried is best, let him do so. No one here is telling him otherwise. But, the Apostle Paul also wrote in THE SAME CHAPTER…
1 Cor 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
That leaves only two options: marriage or celibacy. You may not like those options, but you don’t get to rewrite the Scriptures because you don’t like what the Scriptures say.
Your argument isn’t with me, anyone else here, or even the Apostle Paul. Your argument is with the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Apostle Paul to write what he wrote. Take it up with Him.
Minesweeper says:
February 18, 2018 at 9:16 pm
@oscar, define “marriage
Thanks again for the opinions. As for accepting suffering, I’ve done that long ago. Like most men I’ve fought a war in this life. I can’t shake the voice in my head though that says the single life will be much less sacrifice overall. The single life doesn’t feel like much suffering anymore, I’m afraid of losing my freedom. I’m definitely not “burning with passion” That voice could be wrong but it would take a truly exceptional woman at this point to convince me to ignore that voice. I’ve not met a truly exceptional woman, certainly never dated one. I don’t think there are any. I think I know too much now, see too much now. The naive 20 something me would have married an attractive idiot girl but I wasn’t good with women then. I can meet them easily now but I see right through them.
@ Minesweeper
Suppose I do define marriage for you (as if you actually need me to). How does that change the words the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle Paul to write?
I completely agree that “marriage” as defined by the government has become but a distortion of marriage as it has been understood traditionally. That does not invalidate marriage as defined in God’s Word, it show how far (democratic) government has wandered from it.
@oscar, marriage is a mystery,
1 Corinthians 7 New International Version (NIV)
14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
So you can sanctify unbelievers through marriage. Its a mysterious thing indeed. Even in our current culture there are several forms of marriage civil, church, common-law, in OT/NT times, marriage would have again been quite different to now.
Also the Corinthians were in distress, so its unknown whether these laws apply to those not in distress.
Strangely enough it contains a #MeToo warning in verse 1
“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman\wife.”
Note the greek says “touch” , the next verse talks about fornication so its not that, looks like its saying its good to have zero contact with woman\wives.
I doubt that would make a good marriage. Im just throwing a cat amongst the pigeons really, we think its all crystal clear and often there is alot we just dont understand, that has to be explained by the Holy Spirit and interactively applied to your life at that time. The letter to the Corinthians was a reply to another letter and contained instructions from God and Paul – not I but the Lord, not the Lord but I.
@Paul, thats my point too, a legal government marriage can be almost the opposite of a Godly marriage the only point of intersect of both is the word “marriage”.
And it is currently the opposite, with high divorce threatpoints, armed men on standby to enter your home for when the call comes, fathers being deliberately excluded, men being jailed, alimony\child support, no guarantee of sex or fidelity or even the child is yours, rewarding the woman particularly if she sins, I could go on, same sex marriages, women marrying themselves, men marrying pizzas……
The explanation for the last part, as I understand it, is that all of the passage is from God. The “not I but the Lord” means that he is repeating what God has already said, and “not the Lord but I” is a new revelation from God through him.
If I wasn’t a believer however I would find the idea of marriage laughable.
We all know that the “church” today has assisted the culture in sustaining and amplifying said laughability.
I never ever wanted to break a heart. Now I feel she’s going to be another one, the third time I’ve had to do this. It’s a terrible feeling if you actually care about a woman. Makes me feel worthless. God help me, this will probably be the last time for me.
PLEASE don’t beat yourself up over this. Today’s women –especially those who hide behind “Christianity”– need to have their heart’s broken in greater numbers than ever. That is the ONLY way that they will ever start getting the message that 1) men no longer trust them AT ALL because of their entitled, selfish, reckless, hypergamous behavior, and ergo that 2) they cannot adopt the attitudes and goals of the culture and expect to enjoy a stable, fruitful Christian marriqge.
It’s a terrible shame that the lesson has to be driven home so painfully to so many. But since women are hopeless at being able to connect cause and effect on their own, pain and privation are the only effective teachers.
@ Embracing Reality:
I never ever wanted to break a heart. Now I feel she’s going to be another one, the third time I’ve had to do this. It’s a terrible feeling if you actually care about a woman. Makes me feel worthless. God help me, this will probably be the last time for me.
Feeriker is right. It does you no good to feel badly over putting your own interests first. And you should put your own interests first. If you really aren’t interested in marriage, but are interested in continuing a relationship without marriage, you should tell her that. If you are interested in marriage, you should tell her on what terms you would marry her.
But whatever you do, make no mistake about this: She is putting her own interests first. And she will not hesitate to break your heart if doing so serves her interests. She won’t think twice about it and she won’t lose a second’s sleep over it. Look out for yourself, no matter the cost, because you can be sure she is looking out for herself and will have no compunction about doing whatever she believes she needs to, regardless of its consequences to you.
@feeriker
The concept of marriage has existed in all cultures around the world for over 5 millennia, in one form or another. That is because the concept originated as a God-given idea and all people took this very basic concept with them as they spread out and migrated all around the world.
The idea of marriage itself is a good one: two people who need each other (men desiring sex, companionship, and children and women desiring resources, protection, and security) stay together for life. They help meet each other’s needs. They raise kids which they BOTH have a vested interest that they succeed. This system has worked extremely well (given its complexities and difficulties) for over 6,000 years all around the world.
The problem is that modern radical Western Feminism, corrupt trial lawyers and biased courts, and the welfare state have single-handedly changed this in less then 30 years time. They raise women in the West to hate men and to see men as dangerous, evil, and worthy of their mockery and contempt.
Caldo and Fabius Maximus have both also discussed this matter at length, from either a religious, ethical, and financial points of view. Since Dalrock is focused much more on Christianity and its applications to marriage and society, I will focus on that as well.
Marriage will undoubtedly become an exclusivity of the rich (who marry each other to keep their wealth protected and concentrated) and orthodox-type Christians (Mormons, truly conservative Baptists, etc) will continue to marry. The rest of society will go down the 70%+ unmarried rate situation.
Today’s women are both unable to marry and to stay married. How often do you hear some moxie-loudmouth “Christian woman” say “you don’t tell me what to do!” or “you do not tell me no!”. They do not have the ability to engage in the give-and-take that is necessary for a marriage to work. I was married over 12 years very successfully before becoming widower. But I see in almost every other couple I know – women in the West are not agreeable and that is required for a marriage to work.
The modern “Christian” church does not stand up for any absolute moral principles. They do not stand up against frivolous divorce, they do not stand up against gay marriage, they do not stand up against abortion, they do not condemn any behavior. They offer no moral clarity. That is why we see the rise of Islam, not only through immigration, but also due to offering moral clarity.
I said this in another comment: if I had to re-marry again, I would NOT do it in 2018 America. The risks are too great, the rewards are simply too small.
And that is sad…. but sadness does not alter reality and marriage today IS legal suicide. Capisci?
@Red Pill Latecomer
Unfortunately, you are right.
Women want to be the center of attention, to show their friends a man loves her so much he will go into debt to give her this Disney-fantasy wedding, to plan the whole thing. They want a wedding, not marriage.
Marriage is hard work, it is compromising, and it takes a special type of person in today’s broken society. We live in a world filled with too many temptations and low morals: free HD online porn, women jumping in bed with virtually any random men at record speed, and virtually everyone has a handheld tool to make cheating fast, free, and easy (Tinder, FaceBook, etc).
There is no downside for a woman to marry: fancy man-financed wedding, she can cheat easily if she wants to without your knowledge, and she can divorce r@pe you anytime she wants. For her a marriage is a win-win every time. For a man, he gets basically nothing. The social contract is broken and will need to be reset or become irrelevant as more and more men abstain from marriage.
One Law School Professor said to me: “Men have all the duties and obligations. Women have all the rights and privileges”. A truer statement cannot be made.
I was happily married for 12 years and we had no kids because I was working on my career. My advice (short of the hellish recovery of a vasectomy) is NEVER ever trust her about “not wanting kids” and the good ole’ “I am on the pill” lie. LOL! *roll eyes*
ALWAYS use your own condoms with Nonoxynol-9 spermicidal lubricant (also my fav lubricant liquid had that ingredient too) and flush all condoms down the toilet. I went 12 years without impregnating the wife, so this is 100% doable, just put condoms on before climaxing. This is a man’s obligation, not a woman’s. Be smart!
Do not allow a woman to receive mail at your residence or change her driver’s license to your address (that legally makes her a “resident”. No joint anything (no joint lease, no joint house bills, no joint finances/bank accounts). Watch out for “common law marriage”/cohabitation obscure laws, such as in Colorado or Kentucky (and other States).
Just be honest and tell any woman these days “I love you and want to spend my life with you. But I do not need the permission of the State to do so; that is why I do not want to get married”. Get an lawyer-prepared cohabitation agreement if need be, if you must live together.
The whole thing has become a huge legal trap, and only the foolish of men fall into it. There is no excuse for it now. Years ago, many unsuspecting men fell into the marriage trap.
Now we have the Internet, MGTOW, TV shows…. all discussing and exposing the legal scam that is modern American “family courts” and legal system. There are “no excuses for not knowing”. Just do not get trapped with “Marriage 2.0”!
Yes, you are all right. Thank you. Women nearly always put themselves first in their relationships with men. And no, these women late 30’s or 40 never want a relationship that isn’t possibly heading towards marriage. They know, now, that time isn’t on their side. These things usually go about 6 months before the questioning becomes insistent. Sigh… I can hear the sobbing now.
Dear Embracing Reality:
I wrote this especially for you, several months ago. (I’m a prophet, like Brigham Young himself.)
https://v5k2c2.com/2017/08/27/the-eternal-return/
Warning to all, it’s crass and not suitable for many Dalrock readers.
Regards,
Boxer
And no, these women late 30’s or 40 never want a relationship that isn’t possibly heading towards marriage. They know, now, that time isn’t on their side. These things usually go about 6 months before the questioning becomes insistent.
I’m glad I’m not in your shoes right now for the sole reason that I would be the ruthless a**hole to come right out and tell her:
“You don’t love me, or any other man. In fact, you’re wholly incapable of any such thing. What you are is desperate, panicking, suddenly aware of what growing old alone is going to be like, and grasping for the first tolerable man who will risk putting up with you for the rest of his life, despite a socio-economic environment so toxic to men that it would make him a moron if he did so. And there’s no way any woman will respect a self-destructive moron.
“I’ve also always been bothered by the fact that you’re over 40 and have never married. EVERY SINGLE such woman I’ve ever known has had “issues” of one sort or another, which I’ve concluded makes her unmarriageable. Explain to me in detail how you are the exception to this general reality.
“Bottom line: the fact that an attractive woman like you has never married tells me that you have always been either 1) a completely self-centered narcissist, 2) mentally ill, even if not immediately obvious to the men in your life; or 3) flagrantly irresponsible in some major way that makes you unfit as wife material.
“Whatever the case, you waited too long, you squandered the youth God gave you, and now you are past your expiration date. WHY WOULD ANY MAN FEEL THE NEED OR DESIRE TO “WIFE YOU UP?”<
Sigh… I can hear the sobbing now.
After that rejoinder, sobbing would probably be the mildest of her reactions. She might just go Jody Arias on you. Whatever. She should be sobbing at the thought of her impending lonely life, the inevitable result of foolishly thinking for all her younger years that she could “have it all.”
@ Minesweeper
“Strangely enough it contains a #MeToo warning in verse 1
‘Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman\wife’.
Note the greek says ‘touch’ , the next verse talks about fornication so its not that, looks like its saying its good to have zero contact with woman\wives.
I doubt that would make a good marriage. Im just throwing a cat amongst the pigeons really, we think its all crystal clear and often there is alot we just dont understand, that has to be explained by the Holy Spirit and interactively applied to your life at that time.”
No, it’s pretty clear. You just don’t want to obey, so you obfuscate. So much so, that you don’t even bother to read the next few verses.
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
@oscar, your casting aspersions in my direction, I hold fast to 1 Cor 7:1 . Do you ??? (If not your a no good worthless sinner obviously) (I say in jest).
again, you can’t answer the question I’ve asked so I’ll give up on that – no need to reply on that one. Clearly your understanding of everything exists inside a well formed box and all is settled and nothing new is to be gained.
@feeriker, you offer a reverse coupling service I see, you should consider being available for a fee to drop some truth bombs when the need arises.
@ER, yes, its a very common experience with women 35+ to nail down some form of “commitment”, once they hit 45 they tend to give up.
I’m really not sure what they are after though, as they don’t want to be tied down at all, the divorce initiating rates for 45+ women is still very high compared to men 9:1 probably. And considering women DO know their rights in marriage – backwards and forwards – and also how easy it is to get out of it (after all they engineered this whole thing). Apart from the ring and the day and the divorce payout, is it a status thing ? Do they always need to have someone recently that they have ruined in divorce to feel satisfied ?
Feeriker, not a good idea to be “mean” to a woman, either verbally or through textual evidence. Women can be insanely vindictive (i.e., Hell hath no fury …) and have the law and an army of maginas on their side. Women can lie with impunity. Say you tried to rape her, or hit her, or abused her, or made all sorts of promises, then dumped her.
Best to simply “ghost.” To fade away, not return phone calls.
Or tell her politely, in a safe public space, that “It’s not you, it’s me. I’m just too broken a man to ever marry. You’re so much better than me. I know God has an amazing plan for you. God has an awesome man in your future. I’m sorry it can’t be me. Let’s just be friends.”
It’s rather Beta, but it’s safe.
@Minesweeper: … not to touch a woman …
This is clearly understood by a majority to be a response to a question of the Corinthians who seemed to go into the direction of forsaking all sexual contact as the only option (“not to touch” also excludes any sexual contact). The response of Paul?
it is good for a man not to touch a woman. *BUT* because of sexual immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
I.e. celibacy is preferred, but in many cases marriage is advised.
Note that also strongly suggests monogamy (his own wife, her own husband, NOT his wives, her husbands. And one is enough against sexual immorality)
Funny how they make it seem like you are the problem when they create the majority of the divorce scenerios.
It’s rather Beta, but it’s safe.
That’ss the problem; too many men take the “safe, beta” path, which only serves to perpetuate the current state of affairs. Unless women suffer and feel real pain from their life choices, nothing will ever change.
@feeriker, you offer a reverse coupling service I see, you should consider being available for a fee to drop some truth bombs when the need arises.
Alas, I would probably work myself to an early grave with all the demand. Also, powerful and bitter medicine like that really has to be deivered with “loving correction” in mind. I’m not only not sure that that’s possible, but that I could deliver it in such a vein even if it was.
@Red Pill Latecomer says:” Feeriker, not a good idea to be “mean” to a woman, either verbally or through textual evidence. Women can be insanely vindictive (i.e., Hell hath no fury …) and have the law and an army of maginas on their side. Women can lie with impunity. Say you tried to rape her, or hit her, or abused her, or made all sorts of promises, then dumped her.
Best to simply “ghost.” To fade away, not return phone calls.
Or tell her politely, in a safe public space, that “It’s not you, it’s me. I’m just too broken a man to ever marry. You’re so much better than me. I know God has an amazing plan for you. God has an awesome man in your future. I’m sorry it can’t be me. Let’s just be friends.”
It’s rather Beta, but it’s safe.”
that is great advice, she can get very aggrieved if she has felt that she has “paid out” somehow during your time together, and she will extract payment in that case any way she can.
Women want to be paid in any relationship, and insist on being paid after too !
@feeriker says:”That’ss the problem; too many men take the “safe, beta” path, which only serves to perpetuate the current state of affairs. Unless women suffer and feel real pain from their life choices, nothing will ever change.”
The issue being is that men with guns will appear to carry you away if “women suffer and feel real pain”, a single accusation can easily cost you everything, thats a price men should not be paying.
@RPL or the classic “I’ve got some big issues from my childhood that have recent;y surfaced that I need to work out. I will need some time on my own to process this”.
Women hate hate hate needy men, she will be running for the hills as soon as you tell her.
@ChristianCool says:” One Law School Professor said to me: “Men have all the duties and obligations. Women have all the rights and privileges”. A truer statement cannot be made.”
In other words – Men have all the costs, women have all the benefits.
“The risks are too great, the rewards are simply too small. And that is sad…. but sadness does not alter reality and marriage today IS legal suicide.”
As Rollo says, in marriage nowadays, if your lucky you can win small, or unlucky you lose BIG.
They still suffer and feel pain from their life choices…you can tell by how they live their lives, what is not changing is that they blame men for it or making the state (white knights) force men to pay for it.
The issue being is that men with guns will appear to carry you away if “women suffer and feel real pain”
Then obviously it’s time ro start making the practice of whiteknighting for women an unacceptably costly proposition for the manginas that are inclined to do it.
With all respect to Minesweeper, he is absolutely wrong.
It is absolutely not safe. Women know exactly what “Let’s just be friends!” means. If a woman who is interested in you hears these words, rage is inevitable.
Now, I have done this, because I am an asshole, and I did it in a location and situation which provided the maximum amount of both safety and amusement, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
Regards,
Boxer
@Boxer says:”With all respect to Minesweeper, he is absolutely wrong.
Or tell her politely, in a safe public space, that “It’s not you, it’s me. I’m just too broken a man to ever marry. You’re so much better than me. I know God has an amazing plan for you. God has an awesome man in your future. I’m sorry it can’t be me. Let’s just be friends.”
It’s rather Beta, but it’s safe.”
I’d love to claim credit for the above but it belongs to Red Pill Latecomer.
“It is absolutely not safe. Women know exactly what “Let’s just be friends!” means. If a woman who is interested in you hears these words, rage is inevitable.
Now, I have done this, because I am an asshole, and I did it in a location and situation which provided the maximum amount of both safety and amusement, but I wouldn’t recommend it.”
indeed, face to face with a women being dumped is usually a recipe for rage -make sure she isnt holding any liquids(!. over the phone is a great idea – my personal favourite, hanging up is alot easier than making for the exit !
Sorry Minesweeper. My mistake.
Yeah, it can be fun(ny) to do this, but make sure you’ve got multiple escape routes, and lots of witnesses when you pull the LJBF move with a chick who’s in love with you.
@boxer, best done from a safe distance in my experience. A safe and cowardly way out.
Feeriker, being cruel to women won’t change anything. It won’t educate them.
If you coldly state your reasons for dumping her — the terrible deal that marriage is for men, and that she is old and spent and isn’t worth the risk — then she will become enraged and regard you as an abusive, unGodly, Peter Pan, porn addict, who hurt her terribly and unjustly. And she will seek revenge.
She will learn nothing. She won’t understand that marriage laws must change, or that women must stop fornicating until their 30s and 40s. She will not become red-pilled.
Best to “ghost” and let her figure it out on her own. Or not.
I never liked drama in my youth. I like it less in my 50s. At this point in my life, I want peace and quiet, financial and physical security, and a good night’s sleep. I don’t want any crazy ex-girlfriend plastering my image all over social media, slandering me, tweeting lies.
Signs it cant continue.
Head of FORD ousted within the day after an Anonymous tip on the internal complaint line.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/ford-north-america-president-leaving-company-after-reports-of-inappropriate-behaviour/article38055335/
ER…you still gonna trust a fourty year old with your lifes work and savings??
Anyone else see the return of male secretaries coming?
The proud tradition of officer’s batman in the british army?
Minesweeper says: Women hate hate hate needy men, she will be running for the hills as soon as you tell her.
That might work on a young woman who’s seeking Alphas. But a 40-year-old woman is seeking a Beta Provider.
Many older women marry men that they find bland or even unattractive. They want the wedding and the money. If the man is too repulsive, they can always divorce him after a few years.
@RPL, yep you got me ! add emotionally disturbed and financially broke to the mix = winner.
Of course their is always the other canard – you just let yourself go completely, dont shower for weeks, stay permanently drunk, swear constantly, say your never working again etc….
The ideal solution really is for her to break up with you. Very low trauma.
Of course their is always the other canard – you just let yourself go completely, dont shower for weeks, stay permanently drunk, swear constantly, say your never working again etc….
The ideal solution really is for her to break up with you. Very low trauma.
Or tell her that she’s too young that it’s women her grandmothers’ age that really turn you on. Then ask her if either of her grandmothers (or even her mother) are still alive and available.
That’ll get her gone in a hurry.
Hopefully it works out in the end, but it’s something you will not be looking forward to but know it has to be done. You can go all out Victorian. Start sending flowers, gifts, opening doors etc. But this only works (if you want her to avoid you) early in a relationship before marriage is even brought up. She would go along with it until she got married. She isn’t too far from menopause either.
@feeriker
Or tell her that she’s too young that it’s women her grandmothers’ age that really turn you on. Then ask her if either of her grandmothers (or even her mother) are still alive and available.
Hmmm. nice. Yep, going full omega as well being so supplicating as to be suffocating.
(p.s. how did you know my personal preference ?)
@MineSweeper is 100% right. Please hear me out on this as well, RedPill Latecomer!!!
I was been a Paralegal for 6 years (worked mainly Criminal and Immigration law) and I am currently a first year law student. Women DO lie constantly and they falsely accuse men on a regular basis, for even trivial reasons. It is so common now, when we did the part on “sexual crimes litigation” (criminal law), the FEMALE Professor started by saying “before you roll your eyes, you might want to hear out that young man sitting in your law office someday, saying he is being falsely accused of rape. He is probably telling you the truth”. Even the law schools know this is happening on a regular basis.
When we did Family Law 101, they are openly teaching that women will “make out like a bandit” in any divorce and that the system is completely rigged against men. They say this so no one is shocked or surprised. The law schools teaching “legal realism” are teaching the stuff openly now. The days of “the law is blind” are far behind us.
Consider this how it is standard procedure for most divorce lawyers to “subtly advise” their female clients that the opening chess move in any divorce is to do the following:
1) accuse the husband of domestic violence, despite no evidence, so Family Law judge will remove husband from house! This court order makes YOUR house HER “primary residence”, which is almost a lock for her to steal from you in a divorce and;
2) accuse husband of child molestation (no evidence), which almost guarantees her child custody and between 18 and 24 years of guaranteed child support (depending on State, monthly child support = 1/3 of your GROSS pre-tax monthly income).
Here is a basic online tutorial on the topic: http://www.realworlddivorce.com/DomesticViolence
And women are almost never punished or held legally liable for making a false accusations of rape, violence, child molestation, or domestic violence. They lie to judges and get caught doing so and NOTHING happens. Women routinely physically attack men while men have to cower in fear (not of her, but fear of her calling cops and you, the victim being accused of DV, a criminal CHARGE that can bar you from gun ownership and many govt jobs FOR LIFE).
It does not matter whether or not you “have evidence” it did not happen. It does not matter if you show the cops a video of her beating you, while you cower on the floor. It does not matter if you have a video of her riding you on top while you lay with your arms behind your head. The cops will arrest a man no matter what. If you have a knife stuck in your chest, are covered in blood, and she is 100% unharmed, you will be cuffed to a bed inside hospital, while she provides a “victim’s statement” to the cops. The consequences for a MAN of an unfair arrest are lifelong.
Even if charges are EVENTUALLY dismissed, you will go through jail booking process (hell), have your name, mugshot, and filed charges on almost every “instant online background check” websites FOR LIFE. You will have to explain this to every employer, future apartment rental companies, and future girlfriend for the rest of your natural life. You will never be free from the humiliation of the arrest record (no conviction) for life (even if a judge later “seals your records”, because thousands of websites worldwide will already have the info on your arrest).
Even when women are “punished” for a crime, their sentencing is purposely reduced by mangina or FemiNazi judges (which is roughly about 85% of American judiciary), to the point a “slap on the wrist” is too hard for a woman. The legal system and the odds are heavily skewed against you. This happened by design. Progressive icon FDR said “if anything happened in politics, it happened that way by design, not by happenstance”. Feminism’s effect on the law was to make laws that are openly and brutally one-sided and beneficial to women only.
Do not believe me? Just take a look at “student sexual predator teachers”. The male teachers get decades in prison for consensual relations with a 17 year old girl and women teachers get probation (if that) for relations with a 10 year old. How about college feminists that falsely accuse men of rape and are never prosecuted or held civilly liable? How about Andrea Yates, who got “mental care” for murdering her 5 children? How about this college man who was passed out drunk, he was sexually assaulted by some girl, she admits on text message to assaulting the guy, and then she accuses HIM of rape and HE gets expelled from college (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/man-receives-sex-act-while-blacked-out-gets-accused-of-sexual-assault/article/2565978 )?
I can go on and on.
Western women are pathological and congenital liars. You need to be careful when dealing with them. Lying is their standard form of communication. I hate it as much as the next guy, but that is reality.
Avoid by all costs to “be mean” to a woman in a Western country. First, it is useless, as women never ever learn. Advice is useless to them, if it contradicts years of feminist delusion. Secondly, you are opening yourself to be falsely accused of a crime (rape is their favorite choice in the era of #MeToo hysteria. While apologizing is not the best way, Ghosting is the way to do it. PUA expert Roosh does not advise “apologizing” for a woman “regretting consensual sex” the next day; he says to be nice, mature, and end the situation “as adults” (see: http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-avoid-a-false-rape-accusation ) .
I cannot provide legal advice as a law student, but I would strongly suggest you consider “slow ghosting” as a way to end it with belligerent entitled woman. Slowly stop retuning calls and texts, be vague, and slowly fade away. Do not just disappear all of a sudden, as FemiNazis are now inculcating women to think “not returning a woman’s texts within 2 hours” is = rape.
Be nice, is all I can say. America has become a legal hellhole for men, not only in divorce court, but also in criminal courts as well.
You can complain about it, risk ruining your life, or “be beta” getting rid of her and stay out of handcuffs. Your choice.
@ChristianCool says: “@MineSweeper is 100% right.”
what did I say ??
great posts btw. so far I would mark you as 100% !
@CC, my posts are just ramblings, yours are reference quality. Consider a permanent posting for these somewhere.
@Dalrock
As Novaseeker pointed out, men will do pretty much anything that they think will get them laid.
This is not, strictly speaking, correct. The Japanese herbivores (and similar examples around the world) demonstrate that, given a largely un-sexualized public culture, men do not in fact “do pretty much anything that they think will get them laid.” It is currently 67% of Japanese men between 18 and 30 – that’s a very huge exception. In Western countries men act in response to the culture, which promotes and pushes sexual immorality (beyond simple sexual behaviors that may be allowed by Christian morality). Overall, “most” is a better qualifier for the statement that “men will do pretty much anything that they think will get them laid”. Believing (and espousing the belief) that men cannot resist sex reinforces what comes across as desperation.
Somewhat relevant, and I thought astute, was this post from Feb. 2, 2016 over at The Rational Male, “The War Brides of Europe”. (I have learned the hard way that posting even ONE hyperlink is likely to result in my post being permanently lost in Dalrock’s spam box, hence the full post of what is a comment, not the OP.)
Ollie
February 3, 2016 at 4:15 pm
“The War Bride dynamic is, I think for many men, a rather terrifying thing to discover at first. The idea that women have the ability to immediately cut emotional ties to the men of their country and assume the role of loving wife/partner to the hated invader (provided they win) is an extraordinarily unsettling prospect – especially to the man who still entertains some blue pill notions of feminine nobility, loyalty and character. A lot of men who fall into protective roles, especially in western society, are driven by the idea that they are fighting on behalf of people who care about and love them. Even when their faith in their country’s leadership is shaken, they find strong motivation within the desire to protect their families.
The War Bride dynamic, once discovered and actually observed, effectively shatters this foundational illusion of a woman being truly, unshakably loyal to her man. Unfortunately for women, the shattering of this belief in men has two extremely negative knock on effects for women.
First, it destroys motivation in men to take on the role of protector. The opportunistic woman has never inspired any reciprocal loyalty. This, in the aggregate, could have grave consequences for a woman’s security situation. Remember, while the conquered women may be able to flip a mental switch allowing them to easily defect to the other side, the invaders might have other, less amenable, ideas. Sometimes the conquering hordes are looking for good wives and maidservants, other times they just want something to gang rape and then use for target practice.
Second, it has a terrible dehumanizing effect on men’s perception of women. In the mental framework most men are raised with (and instinctively gravitate to), the bad guy may have the upper hand at some point, but he never wins the heart of the fair maiden. The maiden is fair and worthy of saving precisely because of her steadfast loyalty and noble character. Imagine a Superman movie in which, upon seeing the Man of Steel’s darkest hour, Lois Lane simply says, “well, you’re no good anymore”, and runs off to marry Lex Luthor with open arms and zero regrets. Does the audience have any reason to care about Lois anymore? I hate to use a simplistic comic book scenario here, but it illustrates an important point. Simply put, feminine solipsism has a nasty tendency to sap masculine empathy. Sadly, when the pattern repeats itself enough, men lose the ability to connect to women on an emotional, trusting level. When emotional connection and trust is gone, what remains is the the conception of women as objects.
While feminists attribute the dehumanization of women in third world cultures to the nebulous concept of “toxic masculinity” as a prima facie cause, I believe it has more to do with the effects outlined above. What they refer to as “toxic masculinity” is, in essence, nothing more than masculine adaptation to the raw solipsism inherent in the War Bride dynamic – a dynamic constantly on display withing the conflict ridden third world.
Conversely, the relative peace of the first world within the past 70 years or so has led to a generational amnesia of sorts, in which men’s attitudes toward women, having never been tempered by exposure to the War Bride dynamic, have considerably softened. However, I would be remiss if I didn’t also place some of the blame for this softness on years of cultural programming and decay, coupled with the decreased need for masculine violence in peacetime. Nevertheless, the idea here is that the rise of feminine primacy in culture is actually owed in large part, to abundance and relative peace of the past seven decades.”
I’m a teacher in a middle school. Watching the dynamic play out where the girls grow before the boys. In grade 5-6 the girls are sometimes a bit bigger and use it to physically push around and intimidate the boys. By grades 7-8 the tables have begun to turn and the bits have often caught up or even surpassed the girls in size and strength. The girls that were pushing around the biys with little fear in 5-6 are now getting pushed back in 7-8. When I see this happening I tell the boys don’t let a girl push you around.” When the boys start pushing back and the girls don’t like it and simply say “it’s 2018 and its all about the joys of equality. We’re all equal right? Isn’t it wonderful?” They can’t have it both ways and I think that they need to learn this from a young age. Now I step in if things start to get a bit too serious but if its just the usual pushing and shoving of youth then I enforce the rules they wish to live by. Often they don’t like it but reality is like that. I do feel though that it is important to set limits on the boys if only because later in life society will gladly chew them up and spit them out if they violate the feminist paradigm that our culture clings to like a noose around its neck.
Pingback: Fake Knights and Phony Princesses | Σ Frame
Pingback: An expert looks at the gender wars & sees wonders ahead!
Pingback: Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?
Pingback: A Historical Contrast: Western and Asian Women | Σ Frame