The Chicago Tribune/AP has a new article up titled: With girls joining the ranks, Boy Scouts plan a name change. Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh explains that moving forward there won’t be “girl” scouts and “boy” scouts, just scouts:
Surbaugh predicted that both boys and girls in Scouts BSA would refer to themselves simply as scouts, rather than adding “boy” or “girl.”
But in the very next paragraph, the article explains that boys and girls will be separated in order to advantage the girls.
The program for the older boys and girls will largely be divided along gender-lines, with single-sex units pursuing the same types of activities, earning the same array of merit badges and potentially having the same pathway to the coveted Eagle Scout award.
Surbaugh said that having separate units for boys and girls should alleviate concerns that girls joining the BSA for the first time might be at a disadvantage in seeking leadership opportunities.
The Girl Scouts aren’t taking the BSA intrusion into their territory lying down; they are counterattacking with the power of STEM:
Girl Scout leaders said they were blindsided by the move, and they are gearing up an aggressive campaign to recruit and retain girls as members.
Among the initiatives is creation of numerous new badges that girls can earn, focusing on outdoor activities and on science, engineering, technology and math.
H/T Instapundit
Pingback: I propose a soon-to-be coveted moxie badge. | @the_arv
Probably the only male-only space I’ve experienced in years is at the church I now attend that has a male-only apologetics/public speaking course. It gets a good group of like minded guys together working on speaking and writing and I’ve been honestly surprised not to have heard any women at church clamoring to join the party even though they talk about it withadmiration.
Cub scouts was a complete waste of time. The kids liked the camp outs, but you don’t need (formerly)BSA to go camping.
They get a “going where you’re not wanted” merit badge the second they join
Maybe a “I strangled a masculine space” badge would be more appropriate.
@SnapperTrx
Indeed. If not a badge, then at least a T Shirt.
Sadly, this will finish off the Scouts.
Scouting’s primary appeal was its ability to form boys into men. Once it becomes coed, any kind of challenging activities or potential physical discomfort will be eliminated for the sake of not upsetting the girls. And once the element of risk is gone, boys will not find it interesting.
Worse, the new group dynamic will reinforce the alienation and discrimination boys already get from our cesspool culture. Scout leaders currently teach boys leadership and initiative, and yet they also teach the quaint throwback ethos wherein young men should be courteous and kind to the female sex. (The latter, while well-intentioned, sets the boys up to be exploited as ‘white knights’.) But it will be absolutely impossible to teach both the former and the latter, once girls are right there in the troop competing with the boys for leadership.
It is already clear that Scouting intends to emphasize leadership and ‘moxie’ to attract the girls. The result of this will be that troops will gradually stop emphasizing leadership and initiative to the boys, and will shift this attention toward the girls. The boys will get a double helping of emphasis on chivalry toward the girls, and be taught to subordinate their own ambitions to girls’ — exactly as has happened throughout churchianity. Just as in church and school and workplace, girls will always be put first out of political correctness, and for boys Scouting will be no refuge from anything. Boys will loathe what Scouting is becoming.
Shame. Earning my Eagle in 1988 was some of the best birth control available at the time. Even the guys who only made it to Life scout avoided knocking up any cheerleaders.
Even back then my unconscious mind could sense the coming darkness as my accomplishments as a BOY scout felt a bit too cozy up against the ‘some day she will realize how great you are’ build a better beta cultural programming.
Sure enough, eagle scouts are hot like dad bods and sensible toyotas are hot. Good thing i was a jock and grew up to became a rich assh*le. At least long enough to see it all evaporate during my redpill life lesson.
I’d still do it all over again. I learned real life skills. And back then it may have been nerdy but it was still at least manly. Not so sure anymore.
But at least now Daddy’s little IVF princess is going to get her scout on. Based on what ive seen in combat sports, whats left of the actual men will vacate with haste.
In other countries mixed scout groups are already common for many years. These still exist.
Has anyone heard of any male-only organizations popping up to fill the void left by the Boy Scouts vacating the male arena? It seems like this is a great opportunity for some enterprising people to start a red-pill, boys/young man organization similar to what the Boy Scouts used to be decades ago.
@Gage
Inner city gangs lean heavily male and try to build men out of boys through relentless exposure to risky activities. There are also ample opportunities for real world leadership experience. The vacuum of male leadership in the inner city is filled maybe they can expand into the suburbs?
The fall of the separate set of books for women:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-rise-and-fall-of-elizabeth-holmes-who-started-theranos-and-became-the-worlds-youngest-female-billionaire-before-it-all-came-crashing-down/ss-AAw9NT9?ocid=spartandhp
Going co-ed will not kill Scouts. There are 40 million kids in Scouting around the world. The US is one of the few that is boy-only (BSA has a few small exceptions). The other boy-only Scouts in are African and/or Islamic nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Organization_of_the_Scout_Movement_members
Other nations have gone to co-ed Scouting and had their programs survive. The usual example cited is the UK. I’ve seen different stories, but it does not seem to have affected the numbers either way (Scout organizations tend to be cagey about membership numbers).
How the organization will change is a more useful question. The change in BSA is partially a result of pressure, both internal and external. My guess is that money is a far more important reason.
BSA survives because the Eagle Scout designation has great prestige. Increasingly troops are becoming “eagle factories”, where moving the kids through the process (more or less honestly) is the key. GSA’s “Gold” badge never got the same level of public respect. Opening BSA (now Scouting) to girls will, its leaders hope, produce floods of new members. They’re probably right — many of whom would otherwise have gone into GSA. A large number (imo, most) of those will be seeking the credential for their daughters to increase their odds of getting into a good college.
The latest press release suggests that Scouting HQ hasn’t figured out how to do this, beyond reaching for the money. It will be difficult to integrate large numbers of girls without turning Scouting into just another children’s program (which is what it is in most nations) — losing the transformative nature its program has when the local unit runs it well (being a volunteer org, unit quality varies wildly).
A moxie badge. Good.
To be followed by the Annie Oakley Memorial Award.
You know, “Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better” from Annie Get Your Gun.
Isn’t this going to mean that the scouts will become a great place for young alphas to get laid?
Larry Kummer:
I don’t think BSA National has thought this all the way through. At all. This was rolled out last summer with NO warning at all to local councils or volunteers. Even the local Unit Serving Executives and Council Executive were caught off guard, telling us they had no idea this was coming. Rolling out a fundamental change in your program without even notifying your local pro-staff is insane. Worse, National didn’t have protocols in place. They just rolled it out and essentially said “we’ll figure out the details later.”
Though girls will be in separate boy scout troops, girls will be in cub scout packs with boys, albeit in separate dens. So we’ll have girl troops at summer camp with boy troops. Which will lead to boys trying to have sex with the girl troops. Which will lead to adult leaders trying to have sex with the girls. Which will lead to sex assault charges and pregnancies. Which will lead to lawsuits and criminal charges and scandals. We’ll have boys and girls trying to get sex instead of learning and advancing and earning badges and doing things with boys, building camaraderie and friendship with other boys. This isn’t going to work, folks.
@Gaza:
Shame. Earning my Eagle in 1988 was some of the best birth control available at the time. Even the guys who only made it to Life scout avoided knocking up any cheerleaders.
Yeah. IN my little town, I was one of about 8 boy scouts in my troop. I got to Life Scout in 1983 at age 15 and stalled out, but was in the OA. And yeah, no better birth control than being a nerdy, goody two shoes Boy Scout. Even in the 1980s it was “Boy Scouts? Boring. Gay. Wussies.”
I would have done it again too, for the camaraderie and lifelong friendships I made, and for the skills. I had little idea at the time and it wasn’t sinking in, but girls were not impressed at all with achievement or distinction in the boy scouts (though everyone else claimed to be). Yeah. Girls are not impressed one bit because your BSA uniform has an eagle on it and a full merit badge sash. Means absolutely NOTHING in terms of your attractiveness.
Gaza:
Same experience here. Girls are not the least bit impressed by BSA achievement or distinction.
@Paul
Scouts Canada is losing membership. Back in my day, before every group had to allow girls, one of the largest groups; Beavers, Wolf Cubs, Scouts, Venturers, Rovers, was sponsored by a mosque near Toronto. I got to know some of the leaders.
The whole group up and left when girls became compulsory. I can’t figure out Wahabi radicalisation, when integrating Muslims are slapped in the face like that.
P.S. The boys in the mosque sponsored group had no problem with promising to do their duty to God and the Queen.
Bi-Scouts of America.
Mourning the Boy Scouts is fine, but keep in mind that alternatives exist.
https://www.traillifeusa.com
https://alertacademy.com/cadet/
thedeti: There are about 160 countries with co-ed programs, so I doubt hysteria is warranted about the switch. The programs will change. How and how much is the question.
What might happen to a fully co-ed Scouting of America?
My guess (guess) is that the big changes will be a decrease in high adventure programs (radical change needed to make those co-ed, plus co-ed troops might have less interest in HA) and an overall increase in discipline and supervision. The last might be the biggie. Every gen of boys is more tightly regulated, with no end in sight to this trend. BSA was a refuge from that.
There are lots of stories about national organizations losing membership after going co-ed. Most are bogus. Membership in the US is down by (from memory) half from the peak in the early 1970s. Going co-ed is a response to that decline, as BSA membership is nearing the minimum needed to support its infrastructure.
@ Larry Kumer
“BSA survives because the Eagle Scout designation has great prestige.”
For now. It’s already diminishing, because…
“Increasingly troops are becoming ‘eagle factories’, where moving the kids through the process (more or less honestly) is the key.”
Including girls will end it.
Pingback: I propose a soon-to-be coveted moxie badge. | Reaction Times
The Boy Scouts lost my respect back when they decided it was OK for homosexual deviants to take packs of young boys off into the wilderness by themselves. Although I and my brother were scouts, my son’s will not be encouraged to participate, and my brother’s kids are not in scouting either.
Moxie badge and STEM programs giving incentives to aggressive attitudes with feralness being the real result. No scouts for my son because of the homo rollover, so this doesn’t change anything for me. Can the conservative churches be far behind?
The Boy Scouts, now the fem-boy/girly girly scouts, is a cuck training center. Pull your boys out ASAP and put them in Trail Life USA instead: http://www.traillifeusa.com/
Trump picked Tillerson to be Secretary of State. Tillerson pushed homosexuality into scouting.
Larry K….”BSA survives because the Eagle Scout designation has great prestige. Increasingly troops are becoming “eagle factories”, where moving the kids through the process (more or less honestly) is the key.”
If correct, that is very sad…it would mean that Scouting is becoming (or has already become) just one more way to acquire Credentials, rather than to acquire skills and experiences that are valuable in their own right.
@LarryKummer:
“My guess (guess) is that the big changes will be a decrease in high adventure programs (radical change needed to make those co-ed, plus co-ed troops might have less interest in HA) and an overall increase in discipline and supervision. The last might be the biggie. Every gen of boys is more tightly regulated, with no end in sight to this trend. BSA was a refuge from that.”
Actually I live in Minnesota and the HA co-ed programs generally work pretty well. They’re growing and active in different areas: scuba diving, rock climbing, etc. I made Eagle in 1979, then did nothing in Boy Scouting until 30+ years. The difference from my era in the 1970s to today was enormous and speaks directly to your point. Massive helicoptering by mothers, really quite smothering. Not enough male leaders active, so women filled the roles. Gentleman, we lost the battle years ago. Letting girls into Boy Scouts is not the problem: the problem was letting helicopter mothers into Boy Scouts.
What we really need is some kind of Christian, Red Pill boy-to-man transition experience that involves absolutely NO WOMEN AT ALL, has legal protection so boys can be injured or killed in the process (although that should be rare), and that is physically demanding and competitive so that pushy broads can’t invade the space without getting seriously injured.
and women take over more male spaces in the west.
Boys already have so many issues and they want to further malign them
Keep in mind, women did not push for this
MALE leaders are pushing for this
Good question. The YMCA is a good answer. The Young Men’s Christian Association was founded in the 1800’s to meet the needs of men for “body, mind and spirit” development in urban areas in a Christian context, and expressly to expand the Kingdom of God. The “Y” now largely serves the children and fitness needs of the affluent. The moral underpinnings were abandoned decades ago. One should expect the BSA to likewise lose whatever is left of its identity as a builder of moral young men, including the distinct honor that comes with Eagle Scout. It is a loss to society as a whole, and like the Y, few will understand it as the canary in the coal mine that it is.
Interestingly, there used to be a YWCA. It folded when women . Perhaps that is what is troubling GSA right now… db
For the life of me, I can’t even imagine a girl trying to earn lifesaving merit badge at Camp Squanto in Plymouth Massachusetts in the early 1980s where the instructor giving the test is instructed to pull the scout down and hold them underwater, to actually stand on top of them. More to the point, the instructors that do this are always the biggest, heaviest, and most challenging instructors in camp. I can’t even imagine this because I can’t imagine a girl being subject to this much physical abuse and punishment without screaming or getting seriously hurt (or even drowned.) Of course, the instructors would never-EVER do to a girl in that pond what they did to me at the ripe old age of 12, Thus, the leniency in earning the badge (a required badge I might add) further diminishes what is truly earned for the recipient of the Eagle Award.
Sounds like the point this article makes at the chateau. Scientific study shows women eliminate the competition, men dominate the competition. Eliminating “boy” from Boy Scouts is competition on a feminine level.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/the-myth-of-female-cooperativeness/
Adam never understood the folly that listening to the voice of his wife was until God the Father kicked them both out and established order. Out of female cooperation chaos.
innocentbystanderinboston-
Man, that brought some memories I had forgotten. I am a terrible swimmer and I remember the livesaving badge being my biggest challenge because of it.
Having to jump in, fully clothed, (Including boots) treading water for what seemed like an eternity, having to drag someone else with one arm. Then taking it all off, making a floating device out of your jeans, etc. It was one of the toughest things I ever did, but I got it done. As you said, it was a required badge, and they older boys were hard asses about the standards.
Do they still do stuff like that in scouts?
@Bdash77
”MALE leaders are pushing for this”
I think its those kinds of males:
https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-61910.html
Very enlightening.
I suspect a lot of cuckservatism is due to fathers not screening out effeminate sneaky males to be married to their daughters.
Being a nice good provider doesn’t qualify males as husband material. He must have a solid core of masculinity that enables him to be a competent leader.
The failure of masculinity by those males manifests in cuckservatism and the dysfunction of their sons and daughters.
Traits of this male from his own perspective:
•In the past year you can’t recall a single serious online discussion you were wrong about anything.
•In the past two years you can’t recall one discussion with any friends or family in which you were wrong about anything.
•When you are having an argument with someone and it appears you are wrong, the most common belief and defense is the other person simply doesn’t understand what you are saying.
•When discussing matters with someone and you think you are maybe, possibly being shown to be wrong you start to get snarky, crack lame jokes, and immediately try to change the subject.
•If someone holds an opinion contrary to yours, and you don’t think you have a good defense immediately to hand you start to look for unrelated ways to disqualify the other person as at least knowledgeable about the subject, and even going so far as to disqualify them as a good person or even a person at all.
•Definitions are tenuous for you and words can be redefined at leisure during a discussion. If someone quotes the dictionary and it disagrees with your definition they are arguing unfairly and the dictionary is wrong.
•When finally shown you are wrong about something it is devastating, you remember it for months or years, avoid that place or people, and consider your time there a failure as a person.
•You can’t even take a mild ribbing about anything outside of a few harmless topics from other guys, and immediately fly into a barely controlled rage and seek some sort of vengeance if you are lampooned by anyone. This isn’t upping the competition, but hatred of the other and you will avoid that person or speak badly of them.
•In contrast you’ll sit idly by as a woman openly mocks you as you are just being “nice”.
•Now that you think about it, in this last year or two you can recall several women cracking jokes at your expense, mocking you, degrading you to their friends, and otherwise holding you in low regard without any fear of consequences.
•The thought of being at the center of a comedy roast fills you with dread.
•You think width of knowledge is more important than depth of knowledge.
•You are an expert on everything and always ready to give your opinion even when you aren’t sure—then again a Gamma is always sure of his knowledge so you probably give your opinion on most everything all of the time.
•If someone says they aren’t interested in your opinion you take it as a personal slight, they aren’t interested in you, and probably hate you as well.
•If someone tells a story you immediately have to follow up that story with one of your own, which may or may not be related to the topic, and of course is more interesting, more important and longer. If you don’t have a good story you’ll say something snarky afterwards to diminish the other story.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/are-you-gamma-1-of-2.html
The state has a horrible record of intervening in, and undermining, the traditional parent-child relationship. Schools push their propaganda and father authority is rarely, if ever, prioritized.
So we have many broken homes, single mothers, absent fathers. How would the children of these homes be received at the Scouts? Would they reinforce the state reality, not to mention the extreme possibility of them being grooming fodder for pedophiles?
I think the answer is pretty clear – strong father-child relationships would likely be turned off or their views second-guessed by the growing leftist anti-family ideology. A house divided means it won’t be possible to create a perfect balance of activities that appeal to the masculine and the feminine. One wins out.
Or maybe not. Perhaps these examples would serve to break the conditioning of these broken children and make them begin to question how their families became so damaged.
Some more good posts on this subject:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/winning-redefined.html
I felt compelled to look in the appropriate drawer and pull-out my Scouting memorabilia. To wit:
one green beret (now much too small and somewhat eaten into by one or more moths), one toggle, one scarf – navy blue and red – , one badge inscribed with the words Boy Scouts and Be Prepared, and two badges for my achievements namely a badge for Diving and one for Cricket – I bet Jason doesn’t have that one. There was another in green felt but the moths have got at it so much that I have to rely upon memory that it merely indicated that I was part of the 19th troop in the town.
I am surprised that Scouting should be popular in America and indeed anywhere. Boy Scouting was merely even in my boyhood seen as preparation for being stuck at Rourke’s Drift awaiting the next spear-throwing assault by the Zulus. No Empire to rule or unruly natives to subdue: No need for Boy Scouts.
@Craig
Isn’t that the point? Now there will be TWO organizations to push women. It’s a hostile takeover. Don’t let the fake war between the forces fool you. That’s just a strategy to distract you from the fact that it’s women on both sides solidifying women’s groups.
Another day, another sell out by white knights.
I was at a faculty/board meeting for a university Mech Eng dept. One board member asked how many women they had in the program. Estimate 15%.
“How do we ‘improve’ that?”
“I’m not sure, it’s a real ‘problem.'”
It grew very chilly when I suggested it wasn’t a problem. Turns out board member has daughter in college engineering program. She does STEM demos for grade schoolers. She identifies w/ the 1-2 girls who show up compared to the 8-10 boys. Also, getting women in the workforce grows our GDP.
College professor states the only path forward they can conceive of is to hire more women as faculty, so that female college students will have someone they can identify with to go to for advisement. (Same for POC)
So, despite being PhDs in engineering these guys can’t figure out:
1. Girls just aren’t that interested in mech engineering.
2. They are struggling against reality. Although I guess in some ways engineering is trying to overcome the untouched natural order.
3. The department is explicitly discriminating against white males, despite the fact that they built the discipline, they built the industry, they built this country, they built this university (even named in honor of a white male) and they continue to pay the taxes that support the university.
4. If young women need a face that looks like their own in order to study Mech Eng, then how will they manage to work at jobs when there aren’t many others? That whole logic is fallacious.
5. The GDP argument is flawed in many ways, not the least of which are
– Many women in the workforce are taking care of other people’s kids, or fixing meals. IOW, they’re doing the same tasks as in previous generations, but now instead of doing it for their families, they’re doing it for others and it gets added into the GDP, and generates tax dollars.
– Thus the GDP is really an ill-suited metric in this instance.
– Every survey conducted paints women as unhappier after trying to do it all.
“Has anyone heard of any male-only organizations popping up to fill the void left by the Boy Scouts vacating the male arena? ”
If you’re Catholic there’s Troops of St. George.
“Also, getting women in the workforce grows our GDP.”
They make this argument wrt immigration too. It’s GDP per capita (and other quality of life factors – some non quantifiable) that matter. Not GDP. John Derbyshire recently pointed out how
Bangladesh has a larger GDP than Luxemborg – I’ll take Luxemborg.
Our corporate masters dream of the good ol’ days when they owned the people who worked for them lock stock and barrel. Oh, for the heady days of fiefdom!
@ Gage says:
May 2, 2018 at 4:57 pm
“Has anyone heard of any male-only organizations popping up to fill the void left by the Boy Scouts vacating the male arena?”
I know of two.
https://www.traillifeusa.com
https://alertacademy.com/cadet/
The Babylon Bee comes through, as you knew they would!
http://babylonbee.com/news/bigoted-boy-scouts-welcome-girls-but-still-exclude-all-49247-other-genders/
“In a bold move designed to garner praise from the nation’s progressives, the Boy Scouts of America finally admitted girls into their ranks, but were discovered to be hopelessly bigoted upon the revelation that they are still excluding the 49,247 other genders that have been scientifically identified.
…
The Scouts quickly apologized for their decision and attempted to make things right by introducing a barrage of new social justice-oriented merit badges, including a Woke Badge, a Marginalized Badge, and a Help, Help, I’m Being Repressed Badge.”
Return of Kings weighs in:
http://www.returnofkings.com/172753/the-boy-scouts-is-removing-boy-from-its-name-to-accommodate-more-female-members
Other nations have gone to co-ed Scouting and had their programs survive.
True, but is this the standard? After all, the Anglican church “survives” in England to this day.
Off Topic: American University orders students to agree women can revoke consent after sex.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/44566/
“Ultimately my problem with the whole thing is it’s creating a culture on campus that it’s okay to re-write history and rescind your consent when you’re not happy with the outcome. People are scared to hook up without facing repercussions that aren’t warranted.” ~ Former AU student Sydney Jacobs (female type)
OT: German man ordered to pay child support after ex-wife forges signature for IVF pregnancy
http://www.dw.com/en/german-man-ordered-to-pay-child-support-after-ex-wife-forges-signature-for-ivf-pregnancy/a-43629011
Not binding according to the article, but a bad indication of our current trend.
Oscar,
It is funny how the “conservatives” were the prudes when I was in college. Now it is really the progressives.
Sex outside marriage is dangerous, even if society changes to embrace it, sometimes.
@Billy
There’s plenty of cases in the U.S. where a woman claimed a man was the father without consent and the state started charging him for child support and prosecuted him after he’d been definitively proven to not be the father.
That is true Squid, though this is a further slide down the slope. We are headed for some kind of train wreck. I don’t look forward to it, but I would like to get to it, and then past it, as soon as possible.
I’m of the opinion one good ground war would resolve a lot of these issues. Women don’t appear to be as tough when there’s actual danger.
@DrTorch – “How do we ‘improve’ that?”
“I dunno. How do we improve kindergarten teaching by getting more men into the field?”
“Isn’t this going to mean that the scouts will become a great place for young alphas to get laid?”
Herein lies another problem. It won’t take long for these girls to start claiming #metoo.
squid_hunt
I’m of the opinion one good ground war would resolve a lot of these issues.
Women don’t appear to be as tough when there’s actual danger.
Great!
So we’ll list you and all your male relatives of any age for the front line of this “good ground war”!
@Anonymous Reader
Ah, yes. The proverbial “chicken hawk” defense.
Women pretend they don’t need men.
Men console women that since they’re so strong and brave, of course they don’t need men.
Disenfranchised men sit around the internet bemoaning their fate impotently.
What solution do you suggest? Because the invasion is coming whether you and your male relatives sign up or not. Chances are it’s going to be our own military and police leading the charge.
As Larry Kummer and Deti point out, the real focus should be the process by which the Boy Scout board came to this pass, which as noted was a desperate marketing decision sprung quickly and clumsily. It was not a triumph of the FI pounding on the door and demanding entry to the all-boys club. Quite the contrary, the Girl Scouts are hopping mad over it.
The BSA board fumbled more than a few things. In the Bush years, theBoard was mostly hard-core Texans and Mormons who went out of their way to stamp out faggotry, even fighting a case to the US Supreme Court to win the right as a private organization to turn out gay scouts, even Eagles, who despite their preference, nevertheless professed to the Boy Scout oath of being “Morally straight”, as in, not acting it out publicly, just as a straight Scout would at least not be caught plowing a deep furrow through the ladies whilst in uniform.
They won that fight. But that rigid stance became a PR disaster as parents pulled their boys out of the BSA. In New Jersey, where the court fight was, the local troops survived by essentially adopting a version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and playing up their embrace of their members who were willing to keep at it. Then some highers-up in the BSA pushed back, demanding obedience to the bugger banishment policy nevertheless. That didn’t help.
The kicker, of course, was that these same churchian Guardians of the Galaxy were shown as blissfully ignorant of pedophiliac sex abuse by various scoutmasters over the years. That turned out to be costly too, not to mention a drag on recruitment.
And keep in mind that, due to helicopter parenting, in both Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, the rugged training like backwoods hiking, climbing and camping, mapping and orientation, survival skills, employment of camp tools like knives and axes, and even learning to shoot were all cut back or phased out. All of these I did as a Boy Scout, and even the Girl Scouts in my day did some scaled back versions of them, though not the shooting part.
The Right Rev. Kummer may be right, and the whole thing may smooth out over time as it has elsewhere if membership rebounds or stabilizes, but the clumsiness of the change and rollout is telling.
I suspect a lot of cuckservatism is due to fathers not screening out effeminate sneaky males to be married to their daughters.
…
The failure of masculinity by those males manifests in cuckservatism and the dysfunction of their sons and daughters.
For all of our lamenting of the lack of masculinity in men these days, we need to also admit that we men have a tendency as a sex to feel threatened by other men who we perceive as “more masculine” than we are. It’s survival-related hardwiring that’s probably an anachronism from our earliest days as humans. It would explain why a protective father of a daughter on the one hand wants a masculine provider for a SiL, but at the same time often succumbs to the temptation to chase off such a man for fear that he’ll be more manly than he (Dad) is and will thus “show him up.” Fathers also do this to their own sons more often than any of us would care to admit.
@feeriker
Do you think that it’s survival or a result of some ridiculous social programming? I’m not much of a Western fan, but the ones I have watched, there’s a ridiculous amount of shameless cuckholding going on in those movies. In Pale Horse, even the preacher gets in on the act. In Shane, the wife is practically rubbing herself on Shane who is a self destructive, nihilistic weenie.
It doesn’t make sense to me either through logic or as a father to beat the crap out of your son and emasculate him, but that seems to be something that the last generation had to deal with. The question is why? And I don’t think it’s just about survival of the species. I think culture and the warmongering of the previous generation have a lot to do with it. What was good for training marines to go into a world war and die in a hail of gunfire is not what is good for raising good, godly families by God-fearing men.
I also think that a big part of the reason women are marrying the cuckservative type is more because men have stepped back from their roles as adjudicator. The hands off approach is not working. I want my daughters to know what my standards are ahead of time so when they go to make their decisions, my opinions are in the back of their mind. You want to piss off a feminist, tell her that.
If you think for a moment that I’m going to walk my daughter down the aisle and give her to a guy she’s already shacking up with who wants to haul her off to somewhere else and never let me see my daughter or grandkids, you’re nuts. I can’t stop her from making the mistakes, but she needs to believe that I will not give my stamp of approval to someone I disapprove of.
I think this is a two part failure. And our part is abdication.
I know of two.
https://www.traillifeusa.com
https://alertacademy.com/cadet/
And how long will it be before a panel of black-robed criminal tyrants forces these two organizations to compromise their core beliefs in the name of the reigning prog agenda?
I’m beginning to believe that the only groups through which masculinity will be able to survive in our coming-soon-to-a-society-near-you dystopian future will be those that operate along the lines of criminal gangs.
For more about this subject, see …
Why Boy Scouts went co-ed. What America will lose.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/05/03/effects-of-boy-scouts-admitting-girls/
Summary: Boy Scouts are in the news again. As usual, journalists get the story wrong. The real story shows the trends that are molding a new America
@ feeriker says:
May 3, 2018 at 10:51 am
“It would explain why a protective father of a daughter on the one hand wants a masculine provider for a SiL, but at the same time often succumbs to the temptation to chase off such a man for fear that he’ll be more manly than he (Dad) is and will thus ‘show him up’. Fathers also do this to their own sons more often than any of us would care to admit.”
Screw that. I want my sons and future sons-in-law to show me up. If they’re more successful than I am, that’ll be good for my children and future grandchildren.
@ feeriker says:
May 3, 2018 at 11:04 am
“And how long will it be before a panel of black-robed criminal tyrants forces these two organizations to compromise their core beliefs in the name of the reigning prog agenda?”
I don’t know, and neither do you. What I do know is that they are compromised now, and that supporting them now, while they are uncompromised, is important.
I meant to write: What I do know is that they are UNcompromised now, and that supporting them now, while they are uncompromised, is important.
I think culture and the warmongering of the previous generation have a lot to do with it. What was good for training marines to go into a world war and die in a hail of gunfire is not what is good for raising good, godly families by God-fearing men.
Related to this, we also need to admit that the last five or six generations have been lazy, rest-on-our(parents’)-laurels generations. Playing the badass and beating your son into either becoming a badass himself or becoming a shattered whimp is easy. Exercising the spiritual and emotional discipline, time, patience, and wisdom to instill appropriate, Godly behavior and character into one’s son(s) is just “too haaaaard” (insert girly whine here) and requires a spiritual discipline and maturity that far too few have (we’re all familiar with the contents of today’s churches, which serve as evidence of this). I fear that this won’t turn around until we’re well past the point of no return.
They’ll give out the Game merit badge. It’ll be a picture of a fuzzy hat.
How convenient an OP. I’d been following the (excellent) discussions here concerning the latest fem-takeover target: Boy Scouts. Yesterday I happened to see a few minutes of some ‘conservative’ journalist at FOX, one Martha MacCallum. She interviewed (in reality, controlled) Gov. Mike Huckabee concerning the Scouts’ destruction by Team Woman.
Here’s the clip, start at the 37 minute mark, and see the ‘fair and balanced’ and ‘alternative’ network’s position. FOX News has a whole stable of these tight-skirted feminists, pretending to be ‘fair’ anchors and commentators, ‘opposing’ the FeMarxist Left.
ow convenient. I’d been following the (excellent) discussion here concerning the latest fem-takeover target: Boy Scouts. Yesterday I happened to see a few minutes of some ‘conservative’ journalist at FOX, one Martha MacCallum. She interviewed (in reality, controlled) Gov. Mike Huckabee concerning the Scouts destruction by Team Woman.
Here’s the clip, start at the 37 minute mark, and see the ‘fair and balanced’ and ‘alternative’ network’s position. FOX News has a whole stable of these tight-skirted feminists, pretending to be ‘fair’ anchors and commentators, ‘opposing’ the FeMarxist Left.
MacCallum is A-OK with girls taking ove . . . uh I mean joining the Scouts (sans ‘Boy’). Her ONLY concern with the whole travesty is that the Pore, At-Risk Grrls might be (gasp! shudder!) sexually harassed or raped on those co-ed campouts! lol
MacCallum leads Huckabee around like a leashed poodle, steering the conversation to . . . why! would you look at that . . . Huckabee’s OWN precious princess daughter. This to subtly remind him — and the viewers — of his protective responsibilities towards his own ‘girl’. The whole ‘interview’ was just another sad whitewash, another sellout of God and country.
With Martha MacCallum and the FOXES on their side, the FeMarxists have successfully covered both ‘sides’ of the political spectrum. This is what ‘conservative’ American men are watching, and nodding their heads to.
Satan is cunning.
MacCallum is A-OK with girls taking ove . . . uh I mean joining the Scouts (sans ‘Boy’). Her ONLY concern with the whole travesty is that the Pore, At-Risk Grrls might be (gasp! shudder!) sexually harassed or raped on those co-ed campouts! lol
MacCallum leads Huckabee around like a leashed poodle, steering the conversation to . . . why! would you look at that . . . Huckabee’s OWN precious princess daughter. This to subtly remind him — and the viewers — of his protective responsibilities towards his own ‘girl’. The whole ‘interview’ was just another sad whitewash, another sellout of God and country.
With Martha MacCallum and the FOXES on their side, the FeMarxists have successfully covered both ‘sides’ of the political spectrum. This is what ‘conservative’ American men are watching, and nodding their heads to.
Satan is cunning.
MacCallum/Huckabee clip —
Dalrock — looks like my post got garbled, feel free to edit if you wish.
@purge187
“Isn’t this going to mean that the scouts will become a great place for young alphas to get laid?”
Herein lies another problem. It won’t take long for these girls to start claiming #metoo.
No doubt. This also ties into what Scott and innocentbystanderinboston were talking about with the lifesaving course. I’d guess that I’m a bit younger than either man because my experience in getting that merit badge was a bit watered down from what they described. I didn’t have any instructors pull me underwater and then stand on top of me, but I do remember that when they first taught us the holds to use on someone who was drowning I was told to swim out to the deepest section of the pool, start treading water, and wait. The instructor — who had been a championship-winning swim coach — dove in without warning, zipped in behind me from underwater, then made a backwards grab with his left arm across my chest and shoulder and said, “Now try getting yourself free from that.” I couldn’t, which thus demonstrated how effective his approach would be when I used it myself on someone who wasn’t able to swim. Lesson learned.
So now that we have the prospect of adult males performing similar moves on teenage girls in the lifesaving course, do you think the girls will learn the lesson too? Or is it possible that more than a few of them will go home afterwards and tell their friends and family how creeped out they were by an older man grabbing them during swim instruction and then daring them to try and break free? I’m putting my money on the second option — which is also why I’d never consider going back to the Scouts to serve as an instructor now that they’re bringing in females. Somewhere, Gloria Allred is already smelling blood in the water.
Can’t wait for the IUD merit badge.
With this all really comes down to for *MEN* and *PARENTS* of these children is to simply *WITHDRAW YOUR KIDS FROM ALL THESE PROGRAMS* being infiltrated with this wickedness.
Get all your married friends with kids and *MAKE YOUR OWN BOYS-ONLY, GIRLS-ONLY NEIGHBORHOOD CLUBS & GROUNPS*!
Take *INITIATIVE* here men: too many guys talking on-and-on “browbeaten” *WEAK & EFFEMINATE* and not being *BOLD & MASCULINE*.
Strategize, attack and *DEFEAT* your adversaries. Be on the *OFFENSIVE* gents…
Enough “complaining” like mewling betas with no direction or *VISION*. Amen!
~ Bro. Jed
Why is it that the churchians gladly relinquished the English departments, Pulpits, and Humanities departments to the feminsishzttz, but then they feign outrage when women join the boy scouts?
Is it just for show?
I hereby propose the #METOO badge!
@ Jed Mask says:
May 3, 2018 at 11:55 am
“Get all your married friends with kids and *MAKE YOUR OWN BOYS-ONLY, GIRLS-ONLY NEIGHBORHOOD CLUBS & GROUNPS*!”
No need to reinvent the wheel.
https://www.traillifeusa.com
https://alertacademy.com/cadet/
I don’t know, and neither do you. What I do know is that they are uncompromised now, and that supporting them now, while they are uncompromised, is important.
Agreed. And may those who support them now continue to support them in resisting convergence in the future.
Screw that. I want my sons and future sons-in-law to show me up. If they’re more successful than I am, that’ll be good for my children and future grandchildren.
Good to know. I sincerely hope that the majority of men feel the same way you do.
DrTorch@ 7:39 am:
“Another day, another sell out by white knights.
I was at a faculty/board meeting for a university Mech Eng dept. One board member asked how many women they had in the program. Estimate 15%.
“How do we ‘improve’ that?”
“I’m not sure, it’s a real ‘problem.’”
It grew very chilly when I suggested it wasn’t a problem.”
You are not alone. The Baby Boomer’s instinctive hatred of white men must be seen to be believed.
http://gunnerq.com/2018/05/01/hiring-rant/
squid_hunt
@Anonymous Reader
Ah, yes. The proverbial “chicken hawk” defense.
Just suggesting you put your own skin in the game. Do you have only daughters, no sons? Just asking. Now, how about some details?
Where should your good war happen? Against China? Sure, “Land War In Asia” has always been a great idea. Or maybe against Russia in Syria? Take Ukraine’s side? Sure, because “Land War Against Russia” has worked out so well multiple times.
C’mon, you want a hundreds of thousands of Americans from the South, the Midwest and the Rocky Mountains to get killed “just to show women something”, the least you can do is offer up some details.
Women pretend they don’t need men.
Yeah so? Women were like that 100 years ago.
Did killing off a lot of men in World War 1.0 change that?
Maybe you are just ignorant of history. What effect did the Order of the White Feather in England circa 1914 – 1918 have in your opinion? Read and learn:
https://infogalactic.com/info/White_feather
Notice that feminists such as Pankhurst were in favor of this. For myself, I find Private Earnest Atkins to have had the right approach.
Next up: study who the “Lost Generation” were, and what they were like in the 1920’s. Women who handed out white feathers in London in 1916 were unable to get married 5 years later due to a shortage of men in their age group. Well, women don’t understand cause and effect when it comes to relationships, but I expect more of you.
Question: are you really this ignorant of women?
Men console women that since they’re so strong and brave, of course they don’t need men.
Betaized men do that. Cuckservatives specialize in it. A good first step would be for men to stop doing that. Do you console your daughters by tellling them they don’t need no man?
Disenfranchised men sit around the internet bemoaning their fate impotently.
So? You want them all dead why?
What solution do you suggest?
Resist feminism. You could start with your family.
Because the invasion is coming whether you and your male relatives sign up or not. Chances are it’s going to be our own military and police leading the charge.
Not only have you dug yourself into a hole, you are down there slamming black pills. Might be time to stop both.
@Jed
I agree 100% It’s up to men to stop expecting outside organizations to help them. We’re going to have to do organize ourselves. Specifically without women’s assistance.
Darwinian,
“The instructor …dove in without warning, zipped in behind me from underwater, then made a backwards grab with his left arm across my chest…”
Wow. That’s a cause for immediate termination of instructor privileges in Boy Scouts, for multiple violations of Safe Scouting rules. I’ve trained both lifeguards and lifeguard trainers – and such drama is not necessary for teaching.
Almost every accident and lawsuit in Scouting results from violations of the Safe Scouting rules. Almost every rule results from a story – and a lesson learned.
When people talk about starting new organizations they usually ignore the massive and invaluable institutional memory of organizations like Scouting. It can’t be easily or cheaply reproduced. That’s why institutions should not be treated like Dixie Cups, abandoned casually. They have to be fought for. Every generation.
@Anonymous Reader
I have five sons, Buttercup.
The general culture is encouraging women to act this way. You can say it’s only the betas, but you’re ignoring the fact that you’re overrun. It’s all-pervasive and you have no defense against it. Women are already crowing on national television that men should be culled down to a 1 out of 10 ratio and locked up in cages. You think it’s going to be women that do that? Do you assume they’re joking? What is the key word in police state, anyway?
Just look at what’s going on in Europe right now. I’m not a smart man, but I think it’s going to get darker before it gets lighter.
Resist feminism isn’t going to work in the generic sense. Give me specifics.
Dread isn’t just for marriage or keeping girlfriends in line. Women operate on fear. They can crow all they want about patriarchy. Give them some legitimate patriarchs to do battle with and they’ll go running to hide behind their men. This time, get it on film to remind them in 50 years what they were so scared of.
“[H]ow long will it be before a panel of black-robed criminal tyrants forces these . . . organizations to compromise their core beliefs in the name of the reigning prog agenda?”
Ironically, the BSA already won that fight for them, so there’s only one panel of black-robed tyrants to worry about. And I don’t believe they’re ready to repeal the 1st Amendment just yet.
squid_hunt
@Anonymous Reader
I have five sons, Buttercup.
How many do you want to get killed in your “good war”? All of them, or just some?
The general culture is encouraging women to act this way.
Yeah, we know that. It’s been a topic of discussion here and other places in the Androsphere for years. No war will change that, because it has to do with resources. See Glubb’s little monograph on Fate of Empires for past examples such as Rome and the Arab empires.
You can say it’s only the betas, but you’re ignoring the fact that you’re overrun. It’s all-pervasive and you have no defense against it.
Alphas don’t comfort women the same way betas do. That’s axiomatic. I’m not overrun in my mind or my own quarters. If your wife and daughters run your household, there’s your problem and your task.
Women are already crowing on national television that men should be culled down to a 1 out of 10 ratio and locked up in cages.
Where and when did you see this? LInk to video or it didn’t happen.
Either way it’s not new. Do a search on Mary Daly, late feminist prof at a Catholic uni in Boston. Then take her little idea and connect it up with Hypergamy via the 80/20 rule. See why this does not surprise any man with The Glasses.
Also stop blackpilling. It’s not a good example for your sons.
Now, back to your “good war”: how would your war fix this, again? How would your “good war” that got a lot of men killed affect women’s hypergamy in any way at all?
You think it’s going to be women that do that? Do you assume they’re joking? What is the key word in police state, anyway?
Women say stuff all the time. Only a blue pill beta takes their words seriously. A man who understands women appends “right now” to any words a woman says, from “I wish men would die!” to “I love you!”.
Again, how would your war fix this?
Just look at what’s going on in Europe right now. I’m not a smart man, but I think it’s going to get darker before it gets lighter.
Ok. So? You think a “good land war” would solve this? How would that work? You want NATO to get involved in Eastern Europe so that a bunch of native Europeans kill each other to solve some immigrtation problem ? Are you really that far out of touch with reality? Or is this just your blackpilling again?
Resist feminism isn’t going to work in the generic sense. Give me specifics.
Start inside your own mind, since you’ve obviously surrendered to the Female Imperative there. Then extend that out to areas under your control, such as your family. Begin with your wife: stop being afraid of her. Then your daughters. Be a good model of male leadership for your sons. Work out from there.
Dont’ expect other men to do your job for you, especially the whole “dying in a pointless war” part.
Dread isn’t just for marriage or keeping girlfriends in line. Women operate on fear. They can crow all they want about patriarchy. Give them some legitimate patriarchs to do battle with and they’ll go running to hide behind their men. This time, get it on film to remind them in 50 years what they were so scared of.
Do you take prescription medications, by any chance? Just asking.
Back to work for me.
@Anonymous Reader
“Do some stuff. Fight feminism.”
Thanks, guy. I’ll file that right with the complaints from the wife about being bored.
I have always been rather skeptical as to the existence or at least extent of the Suffragette campaign of the White Feather. I seem to recall that something like four million British males were in the armed forces but not all would and would always have been in Uniform and then of course the majority of the male population were not so involved. Even were one handed a feather (the Suffragettes one should recall were small in number and unpopular) one could immediately discard it. So far as I can tell the war was in any event extremely popular (though not with all sections of the country) such that conscription into the services only commenced in Nineteen Seventeen and even then was unnecessary.
My paternal Grandfather for instance who would at the commencement in 1914 been only thirty-two was not so far as I am aware involved and would thus have been one who might have been the target of Suffragism. His civility however did not prevent what appears to have been his enthusiasm for the conflict.
@ Larry Kummer, Editor says:
May 3, 2018 at 1:06 pm
“When people talk about starting new organizations they usually ignore the massive and invaluable institutional memory of organizations like Scouting. It can’t be easily or cheaply reproduced.”
Again, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
https://www.traillifeusa.com
https://alertacademy.com/cadet/
“That’s why institutions should not be treated like Dixie Cups, abandoned casually. They have to be fought for. Every generation.”
The BSA fought the good fight for a while, but they lost. Fighting for a skin suit is a waste of time, effort, and resources that are better allocated to organizations that are alive, well, and growing.
@ Anonymous Reader says:
May 3, 2018 at 1:00 pm
“Sure, because ‘Land War Against Russia’ has worked out so well multiple times.”
Russians are formidable on their home turf because of the topography and weather of their home turf. They don’t fare so well when they fight elsewhere.
@ squid_hunt says:
May 3, 2018 at 10:32 am
“… the invasion is coming whether you and your male relatives sign up or not. Chances are it’s going to be our own military and police leading the charge.”
Not I, McFly!
This may change in the future, but right now, if a president were to turn the US military against the people of the US, the US military would suddenly cease to be combat effective. Whatever force followed it would end up facing the most numerous, best armed, best led insurgency in history.
@Oscar
I’d really like to believe that. I think we’re ok right now with the military. Cops, I sincerely doubt. But longterm, history isn’t on your side. The military tends to side with the biggest authoritarian.
@Larry Kummer, Editor
Wow. That’s a cause for immediate termination of instructor privileges in Boy Scouts, for multiple violations of Safe Scouting rules. I’ve trained both lifeguards and lifeguard trainers – and such drama is not necessary for teaching.
Maybe I did a poor job of communicating my experiences here, and if so, my apologies — but I really can’t square with this. I knew what I joined the lifesaving course for, as did the other members of my troop: To learn lifesaving skills. Our instructors had this knowledge, we didn’t. That’s why we started the course with situations in which the scouts played the part of the drowner, and the instructors the part of the rescuer. They taught us what they knew by demonstrating it on us before we advanced to practicing it on them, because as they said at the time: “You’ll need to be able to handle yourself with a person who knows how to swim if you want to have any success with a person who doesn’t and is thrashing in every direction.”
My lifesaving skills are limited, but I never could have learned what I did if I hadn’t had instructors who were willing to both teach me and test me. This is precisely why I think bringing the girls in is a disaster waiting to happen. Gaining new skills and increasing one’s abilities is almost always going to involve submitting yourself to some risk and some pressure. So when men are the ones applying that pressure, what happens when the Scouts’ new members decide to try calling that “harassment?” How will we decide if it really is, especially when a large swath of the public will be happy to believe them without questions asked? Will instructors change their teaching to leave themselves less open to any accusations by eliminating any possible touching or stress, and in doing so leave their students less prepared to use what they learn in real life? I read your piece that you linked to back at your website, and I don’t think there’s too much disagreement between us on this. Men will change themselves to accommodate the women, and in doing so they’ll sentence another institution to death by slow bleed.
Off Topic: NFL cheerleaders are shocked – SHOCKED! – to learn that their only purpose is to serve as sex objects.
“For the photo shoot, at the adults-only Occidental Grand Papagayo resort on Culebra Bay, some of the cheerleaders said they were required to be topless, though the photographs used for the calendar would not show nudity. Others wore nothing but body paint. Given the resort’s secluded setting, such revealing poses would not have been a concern for the women — except that the Redskins had invited spectators.
A contingent of sponsors and FedExField suite holders — all men — were granted up-close access to the photo shoots.
One evening, at the end of a 14-hour day that included posing and dance practices, the squad’s director told nine of the 36 cheerleaders that their work was not done. They had a special assignment for the night. Some of the male sponsors had picked them to be personal escorts at a nightclub.”
@Oscar
I have zero empathy or sympathy for women who take off their clothes for money. That’s exactly what I thought while reading about that.
@ squid_hunt
What about women who take off their clothes for free? Remember Girls Gone Wild?
“I know I used my sexuality and body to get the job, I didn’t know I was going to have to keep using them to KEEP my job!”
Feminine logic at its finest.
da GBFM is in comment purgatory! 🙂
dat is cool with me!
keep up the great work dalrockasz!
i’m here if/when you need me!
lzozozlzlz
“better to be in dalrock comment purgatory dan
the front page of a churchian blog!” –da gbfm lzozlzo
And girl Eagle Scouts will be just as good as boy Eagle Scouts (except for all that physical stuff with reduced standards, but who cares about that?)!!
They didn’t want to be under the oppressive patriarchy…so they get to see what it’s like to be liberated.
OT but Beth Moore is on an anti men crusade at the moment
Her latest article is spreading like wild fire
https://blog.lproof.org/2018/05/a-letter-to-my-brothers.html
I cut my teeth in Royal Rangers during the height of the AG scandal years, Jim Bakker et al. I learned many skills I still use today, the most important was distrust of women. This experience parallels much of this blog’s content.
I thought if I was Christian enough the girls would like me. Didn’t work. The RRs were mocked by the “church” girls we chased. A couple of us hit growth spurts and testosterone combined with track and weightlifting got the better of us and we quit RR. Suddenly the girls wanted the edgy rebellious guys. I landed the cream of the crop, she proceeded at 16 years old to start banging the alpha youth pastor who had a red Chrysler Conquest.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
churchians craving for female leadership
Scunts BSA will not only teach them to be Churchian leaders, but also prep them to “compete” for cushy government jobs. They’ll use their genitalia as promotion tools (as they always have), and learn more quickly to use PC buzzwords, shaming, and “We gotta right the wrongs of the past!!” SJ language to carve out territory and create redundant and/or useless civil service positions and waste taxpayer $$.
@bdash 77
“OT but Beth Moore is on an anti men crusade at the moment
Her latest article is spreading like wild fire
https://blog.lproof.org/2018/05/a-letter-to-my-brothers.html”
Beth’s daughter would be a fantastic Scunt BSA troop leader. She can help staff our seminaries.
The usual feminist churchian drivel doublespeak nonsense. Triple stamp.
“Other nations have gone to co-ed Scouting and had their programs survive. The usual example cited is the UK. I’ve seen different stories, but it does not seem to have affected the numbers either way (Scout organizations tend to be cagey about membership numbers).”
But do these co-ed scounting groups prevent the feminization of boys or contribute to it?
I live on one of those nations
lets just say none of the Masculine boys did scouts….
and most people avoid scouts groups
I don’t think this will finish off the BOY Scouts. It will definitely finish off it’s sister organization, the Girl Guides / Girl Scouts, since such an organization has now been made redundant.
What will happen next: girls will enter, take it over. Boys will move out. Men who help the organization will move out as well. Then the Alphabet Soup of sexual perversions (TM – not my expression, but a good one) will move in, as well as the ”Sneaky F*ckers”, manipulative males who realize there is a lot of vulnerable girlhood there.Roll on the scandals, lawsuits, trauma, and social media hand-wrings, perhaps ”#Scoutstoo”.
As usual, men will be blamed, because none of them were there ”to be Role Models” for the brats of single moms.
Strong, independent British woman, 39, falls in love with migrant drug dealer on Facebook. What could go wrong?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5650293/British-woman-held-sex-slave-two-weeks-Italy.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
A British woman allegedly held as a sex slave in Italy and raped repeatedly by three men managed to escape after calling her family for help, police say.
The woman, from the north of England, originally met Mamadou Jallow, a migrant from Burkina Faso, on Facebook and travelled with him to Rosarno, south-west Italy.
But when she arrived, she was allegedly held her against her will, raped repeatedly and had her mobile phone taken away. Two more men, from Mali, also abused her at the house, it has been claimed.
The woman, 39, was only able to escape when she managed to get access to her phone and made a secret call to her family for help. Eventually she escaped through a window and made her way to safety with the help of police.
The woman met Jallow, 37, through Facebook and travelled to Germany to live with him.
But she claimed that he was forced to flee the country after knifing a rival during a drugs dispute and they ended up in Italy, local media reports.
When they arrived, it is claimed that Jallow emptied her bank account and forced her into a room at an isolated house and subjected her to sex attacks. …
Because all women want is a Godly man.
“Because all women want is a Godly man.”
But….God wants me to be happy!
Hammer-on-nail response to Beth Moore’s attentionfest here.
OT but Beth Moore is on an anti men crusade at the moment
And in other earth-shattering news, the sun rose in the east this morning.
Keep hookers on retainer?
@freeiker yeah touche!
It is just hilarious
https://2018.thegospelcoalition.org/speakers-all/
The complementarians are all travelling to preach and sell their books while their husband stay at home and care for the kids and support them
( one of them lives in Dubai and spends more time preaching around America)
This may be a parody but this may be based on truth:
But in reality the guy who ”donates to church” is not a suitable suitor either. Because he is most likely a gamma male.
Who submits to his wife and plays househusband in the modern day.
The Churchian cucks have responded
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/apology-beth-moore-sisters/
openly admitting that the feminist terms and definitions of “sexism” and “Misogyny” is sin…
EVERY big man in the Evangelical Industrial Complex, Chandler , Moore etc has retweeted Beth Moore today.
Do they read their bible?
Where is Sexism seen as sin?
A lot of comments here lament on the disappearance of one of the last man-o-spheres, but what’s most worrying me is the part about the leadership. The Eagle Scout badge is sought after for it own reward to prepare for leadership positions in society, but the prestige has until now be reserved for men only. (Wikipedia mentions it will be open for girls in 2019)
“Surbaugh said that having separate units for boys and girls should alleviate concerns that girls joining the BSA for the first time might be at a disadvantage in seeking leadership opportunities.”
Classic feminist combo: talking about equality, pushing for female participation, but when the shit hits the fan, girls get special privileges. And the goal: to prepare yet more girls to usurp leadership. But of course it’s a skewed competition, as girls are required to only fulfill lower standards.
Remember: the first push was in 1988 to allow women to function as role models for boys (before that already 50% of volunteers were women). And don’t forget that many churches are involved.
Feminism has become the dominant religion.
Feminism is the religion
that is why Christians are preaching against the sins of “misogyny” and “sexism”
oh also if a man asks his wife where she was, that is called “emotional bruising”
They are now justifying grabbing your kids and wife for simply leading your family
https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2018/may-web-exclusives/4-myths-about-responding-to-spousal-abuse.html
I am almost tempted to read the TGC response, but I will keep my self-imposed decision to not read anything from there going. It’s so dependably spiritually discouraging. So it sounds like they are renouncing themselves to make themselves clean and acceptable for feminists?
Stop listening to women. When they complain, tell them to fuck off. That is all.
Beth Moore… fuck off ya cunt!
See? If they don’t like it, they can leave. You don’t negotiate with them. The time for speaking to women is over, they declared war with feminism and went into scorched earth mode with #metoo. You are at war gents. Women are not your helpmeets anymore, they are your enemy, time to treat them as such.
@feministhater
We are not at war with women. Christians know we are at war with spiritual forces behind ideologies such as feminism, are wrestling with sin, but are called to love everyone. That includes women.
Paul. You can keep trying to negotiate with them and things will keep getting worse. You are at war whether you want to be or not. Women know they are destroying men. They know. They all know. Are they stopping? Yes or no. Are they stopping their destruction of men?
@feministhater
There are lots of things that are both wrong and destructive, but that is not limited to women, nor does it include all women. There are bigger and lesser evils. I have no problem trying to withstand or overcome evil, but will not declare war. You cannot fight ideologies but with truth.
Just when you think that our society has reached peak stupidity, some libtard says “hold muh dunce cap”
You don’t have to declare war. It has already been declared on you.
Women have had ample time to put a stop to the madness. Ample. They will not do it. They revel in the power that has been given to them by the state. They revel and boast about the destruction of men. Women do this Paul.
You’re still trying to convince women to change. LOL! It won’t work. Good luck wasting your energy though. I treat them as they treat me.
She should look on the bright side…she wasn’t under the thumb of an evil oppressive patriarchy. Now that she was liberated she had the freedom to go with a man she didn’t know from a different country and get raped by his friends.
Yeah love the sinner and hate the sinful ideology that brainwashes them.
Then just change your handle to womenhater. I hate feminism and love God fearing women.
Don’t you ever tell me what to do Earl.
Are women doing these things Earl or not? Do they know what they are doing or not?
Didn’t even state I hated women but they have declared war on men. All these things destroying men, just calling it as I see it. Oh… but let’s just forget about the damage caused by feminism, divorce, #metoo, loss of male spaces, loss of male authority, let’s just forget about that, shall we…
At the end of the day, feminism is just an ideology, i.e. nothing but a belief system, it is those who continue to use it for their benefit that are destroying men.
What about including male feminists and feminist run states and courts? It’s the ideology not the sex.
Who’s doing that?
Calm down.
What about them? You don’t get it, do you? The only reason any of them do this is because women ask them to. None of this happened just because. Male feminists exist for exactly the same reason white knights exist. They believe it will earn them favour with women. Do you believe your actions will get you any favour with women, Earl? They won’t and haven’t. Ever.
Nope.
Just who Earl? Women’s nature is doing it Earl. Feminism released Women’s nature and now it seeks to destroy men and the institutions that men built.
#metoo is being used by women daily. It’s not brainwashing, it’s a power trip by women.
I read the #bethtoo article. It seems there are some weak men screwing up religious feminism.
Are women doing these things Earl or not? Do they know what they are doing or not?
It may surprise you: it’s not just the women. The elites (who are mostly men) are the real power behind feminism. Women feminists are just the “faces” of evil. It’s like the Deep State. The elected leaders are just the “face” of power; the real power brokers are behind the scenes.
If you would dig even deeper, the real power behind it all is satanic. The devil is the ultimate deep state, using these misguided humans to advance his destructive agenda upon the human race.
You might like to know that many women are as much victims of feminism as the men. If you doubt that, recall how conservative women are often treated by the feminists.
I know it’s cliche, but not all women are evil. As a matter of fact, there are far more good women than bad. The few bad women are very vocal, and they work tirelessly to recruit the good women, by convincing them from the cradle to the grave that they need no man; that they are strong and independent; that they can do anything with their bodies, etc. These evil women also work to advance evil laws in society, hurting both men and women in the process.
The men, not the women, are ultimately responsible for the rot that exists among western women. The men tolerated it, enforced it, and are maintaining it, for reasons best known to them.
How come there are no crazy feminists in Saudi Arabia? Or Afghanistan? Or in many African countries? Well, the short answer is, the men in those lands will not tolerate the excesses of their women.
You can demonize women all you want. As long as you leave the real culprits off the hook, you are only wasting your time.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3268172/Scouts-appoint-female-leader-108-years-says-priority-girls-join-up.html
A war has been declared on Western men, we can quibble about who all day long, but it makes no difference. You, your countries, your institutions, your churches are all under attack. By coddling women as they, knowingly or unknowingly, use feminism to destroy men will not help you.
It’s up to you dingleberries to come up with a solution that doesn’t involve taking women to task. I’m all ears because I realised awhile ago that women are center stage to all of feminism, all of it. They will not let go of their power and thus it will have to be taken away by us or by someone else.
You guys can chose. If Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia don’t have a feminism problem because they don’t tolerate excesses of women, perhaps we should stop tolerating the excesses of women, just another thought.. just realise that doing so will be considered an act of war..
yeah there is a war
but it is so weird to see Christians being part of it.
Instead of Christian women complaining about metoo and trying to get men to change how about they serve God by being Godly wives and moms instead of doing “ministry”
OT, but right up Dalrock alley.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/295902/
CEOs of big tech companies: You almost certainly have incels as employees. What are you going to do about it?
@Dave
“I know it’s cliche, but not all women are evil. As a matter of fact, there are far more good women than bad. ”
My wife was the best mom to our kids that I could have ever hoped for. She was a stay at home mom, dinner on the table every night when I got home, even China and cloth napkins with napkin rings. No TV and talked about the day. We limited the kids to one extra curricular activity so we could have dinner together every night and the kids had time to be kids.
Got up at night with the babies, showered and makeup and nice clothes no matter what. Fixed my lunch for me every day for work. Helped manage a baby sitting co-op so we could have nights out without paying out the wazoo for a sitter (all the members were moms that we went to Church with). She was and is still such a hard worker, great friend and enthusiastic lover. She knew that her family and husband was her ministry.
And all this after having such a rough childhood. No dad, dysfunctional household. It was very bad. But Christ got a hold of her and made her a new person. I met her a few moths later.
Empty nest now, and we still prefer each others company. She says “It’s me and you against the world” and “we make a great team”.
I just had to brag on her a bit. She’s one of the good ones.
Going to leave you guys a challenge. Try and persuade this lady to drop her standards. Lost cause is my guess. It’s amazingly funny to watch them say that God sets their standards for men but that any standard a man sets for them is not merciful or forgiving.
Try and remind her as much as possible that she is no longer a virgin and therefore isn’t up to the standard for a Godly man. Do it!
“Instead of Christian women complaining about metoo and trying to get men to change how about they serve God by being Godly wives and moms instead of doing “ministry” ”
This root of bitterness has existed since the fall. A prime example was A.W. Tozer’s contentious unhappy wife. She arguably placed her own happiness above God’s work. When Tozer died and she remarried, she was quoted in Lyle Dorsett’s biography of Tozer,
“I have never been happier in my life,” Ada Ceclia Tozer Odam observed, “Aiden [Tozer] loved Jesus Christ, but Leonard Odam loves me”.
The difference then vs now perhaps is she waited until he was in the ground to emasculate the man. The modern woman won’t.
John Piper, MacDonald, and their ilk trumpeted this example of the poor holy neglected woman by her mean husband from their pulpits. Sound familiar?
@feministhater: “Women do this Paul.”
I know. We know.
@FH: “You’re still trying to convince women to change.”
Actually, personally I first want to change myself, then I will try to change my wife, then the men around me, then the local church, and maybe then I’ll try to convince women.
Then do that. You’ll spend all your time on point two though. LOL!
“Don’t you ever tell me what to do Earl.” ~ feministhater
“Stop listening to women. When they complain, tell them to fuck off. That is all.” ~ feministhater
“You don’t negotiate with them. The time for speaking to women is over, they declared war with feminism and went into scorched earth mode with #metoo. You are at war gents. Women are not your helpmeets anymore, they are your enemy, time to treat them as such.” ~ feministhater
“Try and remind her as much as possible that she is no longer a virgin and therefore isn’t up to the standard for a Godly man. Do it!” ~ feministhater
Funny how that works.
General advice vs a command to specific person to do something. Earl gave me a specific command as an insult.
It’s funny though, you guys will still be complaining about the same shit next year once another one of your beloved institutions falls to them and then what, huh…. another fucking pity party.
Well done!
so what do you suggest is to be done?
Dave,
The problem is that society reward women who use feminism for their goals, even ones who claim to oppose feminism. My exwife was strongly anti-feminism, or so she thought/claimed. Yet she followed its core principles to get a single life again at my expense.
Eve is the prototype woman, and that includes strong sin tendencies to attempt to rule over their husband, whether we like that or not.
Joe,
Congrats to you, though your wife could blow that all up tomorrow and you could do nothing about it. That is why the modern system puts all women at risk. I don’t share FH’s complete skepticism, but it is foolish to not recognize what the pressure is.
feministhater says:
May 4, 2018 at 11:02 am
“It’s funny though, you guys will still be complaining about the same shit next year once another one of your beloved institutions falls to them and then what, huh…. another fucking pity party.”
And you’ll still be here telling others what do do, then whining and playing the victim when others tell you what to do. Well done.
I’ve already given my advice. Men here are still in the bargaining phase but don’t realise that they cannot negotiate with women at all. They do not have the social capital or authority to do so. It is out of their hands.
Probably Oscar. I’m one man who has realised that the only option one has is to not exchange that which causes him harm. Women are now directly causing men harm in unheard of ways with the #metoo movement. This is not some proxy feminist weaseling their ways into the courts and legislature, although it will get there obviously, but a direct and non-defensible attack on men who pursue women. Women use it to further their careers, to remove men they don’t like or who are in their way.
There is no way around this. I’m sorry. It was a step too far for me. When the #metoo movement started and women went outside the procedure of the courts and system of justice, all bets were off.
Great. But if you insist on whining and playing the victim when others tell you what to do, then you probably shouldn’t tell others what to do.
Oscar. He made a direct command to me as an insult. If you can’t learn the difference between that and a general piece of advice, I can’t help you.
You just need to be contentious for the sake of being so. Tedious.
I don’t like you, you don’t like me, I asked you once before not to comment to me but you can’t hold your tongue.
It’s up to you dingleberries to come up with a solution that doesn’t involve taking women to task. I’m all ears because I realised awhile ago that women are center stage to all of feminism, all of it.
Believe it or not, the solution to this mess is pretty simple. Once the men decide that they’ve had enough, they will act, and things will begin to change. From the look of things, men are still taking it in the rear though. They might bitch and moan about it all day long, but when they are asked, they are ever ready to lie down and take it yet again.
Case in point: when was the last time men made the so-called family court injustice a political issue? Imagine if men were to highlight specific cases of family court abuses, and demand that political office aspirants to do something specific about it. Yes, the same way the NRA would extract a commitment from the politicians. Or as Grover Norquist would force the “No tax pledge” on political office seekers.
And don’t say men are outnumbered; they are not. I’d say western men are cowards, to a great extent. Once the men take a stand, you will see millions of women who will come out and be emboldened to support their cause, because the women are also suffering under the heavy yoke of feminism.
When men decide that they want a change, change will come. The only people responsible for the status quo are the men, not the women.
One of the reasons Trump won was his unabashed masculine approach to everything. The thirst for male energy in politics was real and deep all over the country. Even when he was outed as boasting about his ability to grab women by their female parts, many women didn’t care. Some women would even say “I don’t care if he grabs me by the p****, I just want an able man to lead the country”.
BillyS
“Congrats to you, though your wife could blow that all up tomorrow and you could do nothing about it. That is why the modern system puts all women at risk. I don’t share FH’s complete skepticism, but it is foolish to not recognize what the pressure is.”
I could blow up tomorrow too.
At least that’s what feminism (and the world) would teach. “Watch out for men. Don’t trust men. Men can blow up at any time and leave. Have a backup plan. Submission is oppressive. He can blow up at any moment”. etc etc.
Some of what I see here sometimes is sort of reverse feminism (mascunism?) “women are bad. Watch out for women. Never trust women. Women will blow up at a moments notice.”
We are both keenly aware that Satan roams about like a lion, seeking whom he may devour. We stay grounded in the Bible. She is up without fail, Monday – Friday at 5:00AM to pray. She’s done this for decades. She’s always in that Bible, she is.
“Be sober-minded and alert. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour”
1 Peter 5:8
“Who can find a virtuous and capable wife? She is more precious than rubies.”
Proverbs 31:10
I did. And she is. Does she have faults? Of Course. But: “Above all, love one another deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins”.
1 Peter 4:8
And we both have lots of that.
@ Dave
but the Church leaders have been campaigning to mocking men for standing up for themselves ( or voting for Trump)
Going to say that such men are misogynists and not even saved…
The Church is the leader in the cucking of men
What protection do men have when things go tits up? What protection do women have when things go tits up?
The answer to your dilemma is in the questions. Yes, both men and women can’t be trusted, that’s why we developed certain protections. We did away with those for men but not for women.
That’s been the problem. Your wife can destroy your life on a whim, she has that power. What power do you have?
The risk is staggering and there is not one area of support that men have. So sure, your life is perfect, bravo for you, bucko. Now that means that some other chap got royally screwed over so you didn’t have to. 50% means just that. I’m not rolling those odds.
The world is yours to save. I don’t give a fuck about it.
@JRob
This root of bitterness has existed since the fall. A prime example was A.W. Tozer’s contentious unhappy wife. She arguably placed her own happiness above God’s work. When Tozer died and she remarried, she was quoted in Lyle Dorsett’s biography of Tozer, “I have never been happier in my life,” Ada Ceclia Tozer Odam observed, “Aiden [Tozer] loved Jesus Christ, but Leonard Odam loves me”.
I’ve heard that story as well. I don’t know quite where you’d find this, but back in his Mars Hill days Mark Driscoll gave a sermon to a crowd largely composed of pastors that was pretty much entirely about how many notable Christian leaders of the past were also men that Driscoll claimed should be regarded as shit husbands and/or fathers. Tozer’s name got mentioned in scorn because his will left most of his considerable earnings to the church rather than his wife, and I do remember that he also berated David Livingstone because his missionary work to Africa often separated him from his family and his wife eventually succumbed to malaria when she joined him there. The message he seemed to end on was that if the wives of Christian men are living in circumstances that are uncomfortable or unhappy then those men deserve to be regarded as false believers.
If that’s true, then why do so many pastors (including Driscoll and his friend John Piper) talk about how Christians need to sacrifice and be willing to endure pain and hardship for the Gospel? Piper has even written entire books (“Don’t Waste Your Life” and “Rethinking Retirement” are two examples) where he’s derided believers who spend their autumn years resting and vacationing after a long life of hard work. If they were truly committed to God, he claims, they’d continue earning monies to give to the Kingdom and working to spread the Word until they dropped dead. Yet for some reason, he has no problem with also saying that Christian wives deserve to be living their lives pampered and comfortable, and men need to be chastised if they are not.
It seems that all the commands given by the modern church come with a clause attached that renders them null and void if they cause any sort of discomfort to women. Or maybe that’s just a roundabout way for the church to avoid telling men that they no longer have anything to offer them but a list of rules and punishments.
I often refer, on my own blog, to the time I watched the movie In the Heart of the Sea, which chronicles the tale that inspired Moby Dick. The main character, shortly into the film, informs his wife that he is headed back out to sea: For 2 years. Oh, and she’s actually pregnant with their first child to boot (if I remember right).
The whole concept of men making their wives lives easier because they can do the dishes or help with the kids is so new to history its a joke that pastors would consider it a failure of duty to not do so. Modern travel has made what was once a great luxury into something that is considered not only normal, but some kind of requirement! The number one item on a husbands list should be to ensure his family has what they need to live. Don’t pastors remember that “anyone who does not provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever”? Those provisions include food, clothing, shelter and protection. They do not include weekend getaways, nightly trips with the ladies to Starbucks or “easy living”. Those things are nice, but like anything else that becomes readily available, Western women have gotten so used to these extras they expect them as standard fare.
And don’t say men are outnumbered; they are not. I’d say western men are cowards, to a great extent. Once the men take a stand, you will see millions of women who will come out and be emboldened to support their cause, because the women are also suffering under the heavy yoke of feminism.
When men decide that they want a change, change will come. The only people responsible for the status quo are the men, not the women.
Exactly. A great deal of women hate the hookup culture. It exists in current form mostly because the ratios favor men on college campus etc and so men call the shots. Its the same with marriage age-women spend their twenties riding the carousel because a large swath of men also want to ride the carousel and in order for them to do this they can’t slut shame women as it would deteriorate the supply.
If you went to the average college campus and tried to instill slut-shaming and early marriage, the young men there would likely be more vocal than the women, not because they are ‘allies’ but because the current system benefits them.
@DA
Very well said sir. The mentioned Pulpit Celebs facilitate the systematic abuse of the largesse shown by the normal schmuck trying to do what’s right. “What’s right” gets one nowhere in current society, I believe this is scriptural, Isaiah 5:20. “What’s right” changes day to day at the whim of protected class du jour.
The worst part is to realize the church subsidizes if not encourages this behavior out of self interest. See: Russell Moore’s body of work.
@Laura
You made a valid argument, I’d counter with leadership are cowards to a large extent, not most men. Men who stand up are tarred and feathered. Think of it this way. A man stands up to the BS with truth. Picture this unabashed truth as an animal. You loose this animal into a hen house. This stirs up the hens. The rooster with all the hens behind him attacks the animal. So, it becomes too much trouble to grab some eggs, the hens are let be. The animal isn’t a coward, he can stand and fight and probably win; the process just proves a waste of energy.
Apply the 80/20 rule to your campus carousel argument, the 80/20 rule is real. I don’t see men screaming “strong and independent, you can’t tell me what to do with my body!!!” louder than the women. They’d run to the faculty to tar and feather anyone involved.
Pingback: About the Boy Scouts | I Heard The Old Man Say
Joe,
FH has a good reply. The risk of you doing so is a lot lower, contrary to incorrect common wisdom.
Women also have many more protections and it is highly likely for them to ever be frivorced.
I thought I was safe too. Not as good as your marriage, but we were both committed Christians, though I learned that my exwife’s commitment to some things was a lot lower than I thought and even the church I went to that supposedly had a stance of “divorce is not an option” managed to do nothing to help prevent it in my case. The pastor’s wife focused on how my wife needed to stay away from home because of the false claims she made, noting nothing about divorce being wrong.
Laura,
I don’t believe that. Women get what they want in this area. All don’t get alphas, but the get men they are willing to settle with. Most men go dry, even in college.
DA,
Retiring and doing nothing but seek your own pleasure for many years is inappropriate as a Christian. Enjoying that time while still doing something to further God’s Kingdom is fine, but exclusively relaxing is selfish and a purely modern invention.
I think of my ex-father-in-law. He retired at 55 and has done nothing since then. He is now 90 or so. What a waste of life. He is not a Christian, but doing very little in that time is a stupid sign of our age.
I think of my ex-father-in-law. He retired at 55 and has done nothing since then. He is now 90 or so. What a waste of life.
I continue to believe that “retirement” by healthy people is an ungodly practice. Or at least, there is no biblical basis for it. Throughout scripture, there is not a single example of a godly man who retired just because he had “enough” to live on. It can even be argued that God expect His children to continue to be productive as long as they have the ability to do so.
Psalm 92: 12-14
The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing;
(Note: to be “fat” in biblical term was a sign of prosperity and health).
Joe,
Many of us here have wanted what you have, and many of us thought that was what we were getting when we married. I’m glad somebody Actually got it.
Dave says: (Note: to be “fat” in biblical term was a sign of prosperity and health).
How times have changed! Today it shows a dereliction of one’s health, and slovenliness of diet.
Right now some fat fugly feminist on Food Stamps is trying to decide between buttering another Twinkie, or spraying Cheez Whiz directly in her mouth, while I work my six pack abs off paying taxes for her “entitlement”, plus my own spousal support, and child support, and wonder if our society cares she is becoming more entitled every day. Some day her ilk will likely sue me for anything I have left because toxic masculinity drove them to overeat. Come quickly Lord Jesus! Before my sons have to decide between marrying her miscreant spawn or abstention.
Here in the garden of England, it is a beautiful Saturday and having a letter to post and rather than trust to The Royal Mail I walked across town to do so by-hand and not observing on my perambulations though there were many milling-about so much as one dark-skinned face. Ambling back, via The Common, looking at the grass, listening to the birds and merely following my steps as I consumed my mint and chip ice-cream (£2/10/- for one scoop – that’s rip-off Britain for you) I passed a building unusual in design and with turrets such that it looks like a small castle; now divided into apartments one of which I entered many decades ago with another acquaintance as we knew someone who lived there and collected him on our way to the pub. On the wall outside I noticed that there was now a burgundy coloured plaque – there are many such plaques in the town commemorating such as Queen Victoria, The Rev. Bayes, Arthur Wellesley and so on but here was one I had not seen previously. It read as close I can recall: “ROBERT BADEN POWELL 1757-1941 founder of the Boy Scouts, hero of Mafeking attended such-and-such school formerly situated on this site”. Far too Imperialist and far too Sexist for today’s snowflake sensibilities and even though it has been up for only a decade they will have to take it down that is unless they can – as some have tried – successfully out Baden Powell.
@Dave
By that same logic flying airoplanes is ungodly too.
@Laura: I’d say western men are cowards, to a great extent.
So first men are chivalrous enough to follow women in their feminism, and now they’re cowards not willing to fight feminism? Where are the women fighting feminism?
@ray: “In Biblical times females commonly gave birth and went back to regular duties a few hours thereafter.”
Not so, laws were given that made these women unclean, meaning they had to remain separate for some time (interestingly enough, they were twice as long unclean for a daughter as for a son).
@ JRob
“You made a valid argument, I’d counter with leadership are cowards to a large extent, not most men. Men who stand up are tarred and feathered”
I think its too benign to say those in leadership are cowards. Those in leadership are benefiting from the system, that’s why they don’t change it. If 20% of men are getting what they want and those 20% of men are also the most politically/corporately/socially powerful men in society. I’m not sure we can conclude that ‘men have it worse.’ But rather as it has always been, men in power are hoarding resources and maintaining a system that benefits them, so certain (most)men have it badly and certain (fewer) men are living like kings. This seems like a it has always been before feminism came on the scene and a classic case of the haves-and-the-have-nots
@Billys
“I don’t believe that. Women get what they want in this area. All don’t get alphas, but the get men they are willing to settle with. Most men go dry, even in college.”
Everyone gets someone they are willing to settle for if you go far enough down the line. The point is men/women both don’t want to date or hook up with just anymore. I guarantee 95%+ of men on colleges campus could have sex if they had no/very low standards as well.
Most men go dry not because they couldn’t convince a single solitary girl to go home with them, but because they can’t convince the woman they want to go home with them. Huge difference.
And even of the men who are going dry, do you think they would be happy if the practical marriage age was lowered and they were married at 20? Because I think even the guys who aren’t getting laid *want to get laid, and wouldn’t be willing to take themselves off the market at such a young age before trying.
Essentially, I think if you went to a college campus and pitched the idea that all students should be married by the time they graduate, I think many of the men, even the 80% would resist that.
@Paul
So first men are chivalrous enough to follow women in their feminism, and now they’re cowards not willing to fight feminism? Where are the women fighting feminism?
It’s not about women fighting feminism, it’s about women not leading it. All of our institutions are feminist–but none of them are run by women. The people with decision-making capacity at our institutions aren’t women. So how did women who lead nothing, make every institution in America feminist? They didn’t, men did. Because some men like feminism because it benefits them.
Our social issues seem to be more class-based then gender based. Poor men are doing terribly post-feminism, but so are poor women who don’t have fancy careers and whose ‘sexual liberation’ has just left them with broken families.
Whereas wealthy attractive women have benefited from feminism, but so have their male counterparts who enjoy way more sexual options and whose lives are marred by divorce/broken families much less.
Stop debating her guys. I told you before. It will lead nowhere.
Women are never culpable for anything and that is why they must have their rights revoked.
Laura
I guarantee 95%+ of men on colleges campus could have sex if they had no/very low standards as well.
Based on what? Your years of living as a man? Or something else?
@Laura,
—–Most men go dry not because they couldn’t convince a single solitary girl to go home with them, but because they can’t convince the woman they want to go home with them. Huge difference.—-
‘Huge.’ Excellent word choice given the topic of men trying to navigate our fatopia. Consider fat women as sexually appealing as a dysenteric homeless man in a humid climate and you’ll have some understanding of the situation men are in. Since you’ve decided that YOU are the one to speak for men, you should at least have some understanding of our sexual imperatives. And no it’s not me being shallow or a pig or something. It’s hardwiring. It’s our version of hypergamy. And this young generation of men are not ‘Peter Pan Manboys’ as much as they are quietly refusing to give their lives over to a fat girl (the overwhelming majority).
Our social issues seem to be more class-based then gender based. Poor men are doing terribly post-feminism, but so are poor women who don’t have fancy careers and whose ‘sexual liberation’ has just left them with broken families.
Very true. I agree wholeheartedly.
America is far more divided along class than along race, gender, ethnicity or even sexual orientation. To go even a bit further, I’d say that this has been how the world has been, historically.
When I encounter feminists who argue that “women were oppressed by men for Centuries”, I usually ask them to mention which Centuries those were.
The world has always been divided along class lines. Both men and women in the higher socio-economic class have always oppressed, controlled, and marginalized the poorer and less powerful men and women. It was never about gender.
@Dave
By that same logic flying aeroplanes is ungodly too.
Apples and oranges. Means of transportation have always been in existence, and they tend to get faster, safer and more comfortable.
But I’d like to believe that God did not give us life and health so that we may do nothing all day, everyday, when there is so much to do to help preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ in many parts of the world.
Based on what? Your years of living as a man? Or something else?
Based on going to college and witnessing social interactions. The 80/20 might exist in the general population but 4-year college is a pseudo selective and so the men and woman are more equally matched/similar than they are in any other real-world environment.
Is it your belief that 80% of men at Georgetown would rather be married at 19 than at least try to party with girls?
——but so are poor women who don’t have fancy careers and whose ‘sexual liberation’ has just left them with broken families (and 50-70k a year in gov’t entitlements/child support on top of their easy, chatty girls’ club 25-35 hour a week job that a ten year old could handle that they go to in order to fund their cigarette/latte/clothing expenditures)—-
Quit trying to explain life to us as if we’re visiting aliens Laura. We are here. We see these things. I work with a half-dozen single moms who all drive SUV’s, have the latest phones, have all kinds of fun on the weekends, call in sick once a week, drink two 6$ grandes a day and spend 3 hours a day smoking in the parking lot during their ‘breaks’ without the slightest fear of EVER being called out for their behavior. They cannot be fired under any circumstances. Don’t try to equate their easy, coddled lives with men’s.
@JohnJames
‘Huge.’ Excellent word choice given the topic of men trying to navigate our fatopia. Consider fat women as sexually appealing as a dysenteric homeless man in a humid climate and you’ll have some understanding of the situation men are in. Since you’ve decided that YOU are the one to speak for men, you should at least have some understanding of our sexual imperatives. And no it’s not me being shallow or a pig or something. It’s hardwiring. It’s our version of hypergamy. And this young generation of men are not ‘Peter Pan Manboys’ as much as they are quietly refusing to give their lives over to a fat girl (the overwhelming majority)
I don’t think young men are PeterPan man-boys nor am I trying to speak for men. Of course, men shouldn’t be sleeping with and wifing women they aren’t sexually attracted to. But you seem to think that women should be dating/marrying men they aren’t attracted to?
In our current climate–everyone–men and women–seems to want/think they deserve someone who believes they are out of that person’s league. Ie the fatopia woman wants the guy on the bottom of the social totem pole who wants the super hot girl who wants the alpha. Everyone seems to think they deserve a level up while refusing to go down. Not sure what we do about that.
Been to college. You are dealing with a feminist, credentialed party girl. Why do you guys bother?
Just fuck off ya cunt!
Its the same with marriage age-women spend their twenties riding the carousel because a large swath of men also want to ride the carousel and in order for them to do this they can’t slut shame women as it would deteriorate the supply.
Of the man at the top of the pyramid, yes. That’s what the carousel is: women having sex with men who won’t commit them, not at 24 nor 34, because the men are “higher” than they are on the SMV scale. Men will have sex “down” 1-2 SMV points, women will not, and that is what makes the carousel what it is: 20% of men having sex with 40-50% of women, and the men in the middle there getting shut out of “peer” SMV women during that period because said women are all chasing men “higher” than they are in an effort to get one to commit to them — this is what hypergamy is.
It’s only once that strategy fails that women turn to their SMV peers and “settle” sometime in the early 30s, which is what we call “lane changing” or the “epiphany phase”.
So regardless of what is happening in college with sex ratios (and it’s overstated, because plenty of men are going empty in college for the same hypergamous reason when it comes to their SMV peers — ie, they are all chasing the same top boys due to hypergamy and lack of pressure to “settle” for their SMV peers), by the time you get to the post-college carousel, that’s entirely a creature of women jockeying with each other, and deploying sex, to try to get one of the top guys to commit to them, rather than dating their SMV peers. This is driven primarily by female hypergamy, full stop. Just as the “settling” that magically happens at 30 is driven by women seeking out dates with different kinds of men than they did when they were 25.
Heck, this is even what is now being openly advised to young educated women by older, established successful women like Sheryl Sandberg — it isn’t hiding at all, it’s being openly advised.
@Laura: “It’s not about women fighting feminism, it’s about women not leading it.”
Oh yes, we all know all too well how willing women are to follow men! If only these men would lead, those millions of women would follow willingly!
Yeah, right….
Thanks Noava, appreciate you explaining that. It’s not something many people would have noticed but it makes perfect sense now that you’ve pointed it out. Clearly the men on this forum take issue with hypergamy but women are attracted to high-status men in the same way that men are attracted to hot fertile women so there’s a certain futility to trying to dissuade it.
It seems like trying to get women to sleep with/ marry men they flat out aren’t interested in wouldn’t work any more than trying to get a man to sleep with a ‘landwhale would.
It seems like trying to get women to sleep with/ marry men they flat out aren’t interested in wouldn’t work…
It naturally happens after they hit 30+ when they think it is time to settle down and marry a reasonable man.
What is being proposed is that women not be taught to selfishly burn up their most fertile and valuable years chasing self and sin, and then bear their Beta husbands autistic and down’s syndrome children, which are often just by themselves trying on marriages.
Once upon a time, people who didn’t get married until 25 were stuck sifting through the weird leftovers that others didn’t want. As a result, back then women would get desperate to get married around 22-23, and “settle” for a reasonable guy while they were still offering him many of their best years. So in effect they gave their best years to their God given husbands, instead of to Satan. We just want to cut out the decade and a half of self-destructive sexual self indulgence, that women are told they’re entitled to, before they get to destroy some good man’s life with their entitled and selfish mindset. We at least want “the wall” moved back 15 years worth of screwing around, for the greater benefit of all of society.
Apt: (was already reposted in its entirety, so being sued over copyright shouldn’t be an issue):
From the pro-Christian women’s blog
http://www.boundless.org/relationships/2005/the-cost-of-delaying-marriage
by Danielle Crittenden:
“Whether we know it or not, we have a season of life when we’re more apt to find a mate. Some things just won’t wait.
Our grandmothers, we are told, took husbands the way we might choose our first apartment. There was a scheduled viewing, a quick turn about the interior, a glance inside the closets, a nervous intake of breath as one read the terms of the lease, and then the signing — or not. You either felt a man’s charms right away or you didn’t. If you didn’t, you entertained a few more prospects until you found one who better suited you. If you love him, really loved him, all the better. But you also expected to make compromises. The view may not be great, but it’s sunny and spacious (translation: he’s not that handsome, but he’s sweet-natured and will be a good provider).
Whether you accepted or rejected him, however, you didn’t dawdle. My late mother-in-law, who married at 20, told me that in her college circles in the mid-1950s, a man who took a woman out for more than three dates without intending marriage was considered a cad. Today, the man who considered marriage so rashly would be thought a fool. Likewise, a woman.
Instead, like lords or sailors of yore, a young woman is encouraged to embark upon the world, seek her fortune and sow her oats, and only much later — closer to 30 than 20 — consider the possibility of settling down. Even religious conservatives, who disapprove of sex outside of marriage, accept the now-common wisdom that it is better to put off marriage than do it too early. The popular radio host, Laura Schlessinger, traditional in so many of her views, constantly tells her listeners not to consider going to the altar much before 30. In 1965, nearly 90 percent of women aged 25 to 29 were married; by 1996, only 56 percent of women in this age group were. Indeed, the more educated and ambitious a woman is the more likely she is to delay marriage and children, the Census Bureau reports. And if she doesn’t — if such a young woman decides to get married, say, before she is 25 — she risks being regarded by her friends as a tragic figure, spoken of the way wartime generations once mourned the young man killed in battle: “How unfortunate, with all that promise, to be cut down so early in life!”
I remember congratulating a young woman upon her recent marriage to a friend of mine and commenting perfunctorily that both of them must be very happy. She was 24 at the time. She grabbed my hand, held it, and said with emotion, “Thank you!” As it turned out, I’d been the only woman to offer her congratulations without immediately expressing worry that she’d done the wrong thing. Her single female friends had greeted her wedding announcement as a kind of betrayal. A few had managed to stammer some grudging best wishes. Her best friend nearly refused to be a bridesmaid. They simply couldn’t fathom why she’d tossed away her freedom when she was barely out of college. And she, in turn, couldn’t convince them that she really had met the man she wanted to marry, that she didn’t want to keep going out to bars in the evenings and clubs on the weekends, postponing her marriage for half a decade until she reached an age that her friends would consider more suitable.
In this sense, we lead lives that are exactly the inverse of our grandmothers’. If previous generations of women were raised to believe that they could only realize themselves within the roles of wife and mother, now the opposite is thought true: It’s only outside these roles that we are able to realize our full potential and worth as human beings. A 20-year-old bride is considered as pitiable as a 30-year-old spinster used to be. Once a husband and children were thought to be essential to a woman’s identity, the source of purpose in her life; today, they are seen as peripherals, accessories that we attach only after our full identities are up and running.
And how are we supposed to create these identities? They are to be forged by ourselves, through experience and work and “trial” relationships. The more experience we have, the more we accomplish independently, the stronger we expect our character to grow. Not until we’ve reached full maturity — toward the close of our third decade of life — is it considered safe for a woman to take on the added responsibilities of marriage and family without having to pay the price her grandmother did for domestic security, by surrendering her dreams to soap powders, screaming infants, and frying pans. But here is a price to be paid for postponing commitment, too. It is a price that is rarely stated honestly, not the least because the women who are paying it don’t realize how onerous it will be until it’s too late.
I remember having, in my early 20s, long and passionate conversations with my female friends about our need to be strong, to stand alone, to retain our independence and never compromise our souls by succumbing to domesticity. And yet at the same time, we constantly felt the need to shore each other up. We’d come across passages in books — paeans to the autonomy of the individual, replete with metaphors of lighthouses, mountains, the sea, etc. — copy them out carefully (in purple ink, on arty cards), and mail them to each other. It was as if despite our passion for independence, despite our confidence in ourselves as independent women, we somehow feared that even a gentle gust of wind blowing from the opposite direction would send us spiraling back into the 1950s, a decade none of us had experienced first-hand but one that could induce shudders all the same.
Our skittishness was all the more surprising given that most of my friends’ mothers, as well as my own, worked at interesting jobs and had absorbed as deeply as we had the cultural messages of the time. When I look back upon it, I think our youthful yearning to fall in love must have been enormously strong and at war with our equally fierce determination to stay free. We were fighting as much a battle against ourselves as against the snares of domesticity. And if one of us were to give way, the rest would feel weakened in our own inner struggles, betrayed by our friend’s abandonment of the supposedly happy, autonomous life. For the truth is, once you have ceased being single, you suddenly discover that all that energy you spent propelling yourself toward an independent existence was only going to be useful if you were planning to spend the rest of your life as a nun or a philosopher on a mountaintop or maybe a Hollywood-style adventuress who winds up staring into her empty bourbon glass four years later wondering if it was all d— worth it. In preparation for a life spent with someone else, it wasn’t going to be helpful.
And this is the revelation that greets the woman who has made almost a religion out of her personal autonomy. She finds out, on the cusp of 30, that independence is not all it’s cracked up to be. “Seen from the outside, my life is the model of modern female independence,” wrote Katie Roiphe in a 1997 article for Esquire entitled “The Independent Woman (and Other Lies).” “I live alone, pay my own bills, and fix my stereo when it breaks down. But it sometimes seems like my independence is in part an elaborately constructed façade that hides a more traditional feminine desire to be protected and provided for: I admitted this once to my mother, an ardent 70s feminist … and she was shocked …. I rushed to reassure her that I wouldn’t dream of giving up my career, and it’s true that I wouldn’t.”
Roiphe then goes on to puzzle over how a modern woman like herself could wish for a man upon whom she could depend. “It may be one of the bad jokes that history occasionally plays on us,” she concluded, “that the independence my mother’s generation wanted so much for their daughters was something we could not entirely appreciate or want.”
Unfortunately, this is a bit of wisdom that almost always arrives too late. The drawbacks of the independent life, which dawned upon Roiphe in her late 20s, are not so readily apparent to a woman in her early 20s. And how can they be? When a woman is young and reasonably attractive, men will pass through her life with the regularity of subway trains; even when the platform is empty, she’ll expect another to be coming along soon. No woman in her right mind would want to commit herself to marriage so early. Time stretches luxuriously out before her. Her body is still silent on the question of children. She’ll be aware, too, of the risk of divorce today, and may tell herself how important it is to be exposed to a wide variety of men before deciding upon just one. When dating a man, she’ll be constantly alert to the possibilities of others. Even if she falls in love with someone, she may ultimately put him off because she feels just “too young” for anything “serious.” Mentally, she has postponed all these critical questions to some arbitrary, older age.
But if a woman remains single until her age creeps up past 30, she may find herself tapping at her watch and staring down the now mysteriously empty tunnel, wondering if there hasn’t been a derailment or accident somewhere along the line. When a train does finally pull in, it is filled with misfits and crazy men — like a New York City subway car after hours; immature, elusive Peter Pans who won’t commit themselves to a second cup of coffee, let along a second date; neurotic bachelors with strange habits; sexual predators who hit on every woman they meet; newly divorced men taking pleasure wherever they can; embittered, scorned men who still feel vengeful toward their last girlfriend; men who are too preoccupied with their careers to think about anyone else from one week to the next; men who are simply too weak, or odd, to have attracted any other woman’s interest. The sensible, decent, not-bad-looking men a woman rejected at 24 because she wasn’t ready to settle down all seem to have gotten off at other stations.
Or, as it may be, a woman might find herself caught in a relationship that doesn’t seem to be going anywhere or living with a man she doesn’t want to marry. Whatever her circumstances, the single woman will suddenly feel trapped — trapped by her own past words and actions — at the same moment other desires begin to thrust themselves upon her.
So much has been written about a woman’s “biological clock” that it has become a joke of television sitcoms: career women who, without warning, wake up one morning after 30 with alarm bells ringing in their wombs. Actually, the urge for children and everything that goes with them — not just a husband, but also a home and family life — often comes on so gradually that it’s at first easily brushed away. What a woman is aware of, at around the age of 26 or 27, is a growing, inchoate dissatisfaction, a yearning for more, even if her life is already quite full. Her apartment feels too quiet, her work, no matter how exciting or interesting, is less absorbing, and her spare time, unless packed with frenetic activities, almost echoes with loneliness: Think of an endless wintry Sunday afternoon unbroken by the sound of another voice.
She starts noticing the mothers all around her — especially young, attractive mothers — pushing strollers down the street, cooing at their babies in supermarkets, and loading up their shopping carts with enormous quantities of meat, vegetables, cans, jars, boxes of detergent, and packages of diapers, as she purchases a few meager items for her own dinner. All the horrors she once connected with babies — their noise and messiness, their garish plastic toys, their constant crying and demands that wear down and dull even the most strong-minded of women — are eclipsed by their previously underestimated virtues; their cuteness, their tiny shoes and mittens, their love and wonder, and, perhaps most enviable of all, the change of life they cause, pulling a woman out of herself and distracting her from her own familiar problems.
Alas, it’s usually at precisely this moment — when a single woman looks up from her work and realizes she’s ready to take on family life — that men make themselves most absent. This is when the cruelty of her singleness really sets in, when she becomes aware of the fine print in the unwritten bargain she has cut with the opposite sex. Men will outlast her. Men, particularly successful men, will be attractive and virile into their 50s. They can start families whenever they feel like it. So long as a woman was willing to play a man’s game at dating — playing the field, holding men to no expectations of permanent commitment — men would be around, they would even live with her! But the moment she began exuding that desire for something more permanent, they’d vanish. I suspect that few things are more off-putting to a man eating dinner than to notice that the woman across the table is looking at him more hungrily than at the food on her plate — and she is not hungry for his body but for his whole life.
So the single woman is reduced to performing the romantic equivalent of a dance over hot coals. She must pretend that she is totally unaware of the burning rocks beneath her feet and behave in a way that will convince a man that the one thing she really wants is the furthest thing from her mind. She might feign indifference to his phone calls and insist she’s busy when she’s not. When visiting friends who have small children, she might smile at them or politely bat them away or ask questions about them as if they’re a species of plant and she’s not someone particularly interested in botany. Whatever she does, though, she cannot be blamed for believing, at this point in her life, that it is men who have benefited most from women’s determination to remain independent. I often think that moderately attractive bachelors in their 30s now possess the sexual power that once belonged only to models and millionaires. They have their pick of companions, and may callously disregard the increasingly desperate 30-ish single women around them, or move on when their current love becomes to cloying. As for the single woman over 30, she may be in every other aspect of her life a paragon of female achievement; but in her romantic life, she must force herself to be as eager to please and accommodate male desire as any 1920s cotillion debutante.
A woman’s decision to delay marriage and children has other consequences-less obvious than the biological ones and therefore harder to foresee. It is not simply the pressure of wanting a baby that turns those confident 25-year-old single career women you see striding through busy intersections at lunch hour, wearing sleek suits and carrying take-out salads to eat at their desks, into the morose, white-wine-drinking 35-year-old executives huddled around restaurant tables, frantically analyzing every quality about themselves that might be contributing to their stubbornly unsuccessful romantic lives.
By spending years and years living entirely for yourself, thinking only about yourself, and having responsibility to no one but yourself, you end up inadvertently extending the introverted existence of a teenager deep into middle age. The woman who avoids permanent commitment because she fears it will stunt her development as an individual may be surprised to realize in her 30s that having essentially the same life as she did at 18 — the same dating problems, the same solitary habits, the same anxieties about her future, and the same sense that her life has not yet fully begun — is stunting too.
For when a woman postpones marriage and motherhood, she does not end up thinking about love less as she gets older but more and more, sometimes to the point of obsession. Why am I still alone? she wonders. Why can’t I find someone? What is wrong with me? Her friends who have married are getting on with their lives — they are putting down payments on cars and homes; babies are arriving. She may not like some of their marriages — she may think her best friend’s husband is a bit of a jerk or that another one of her friends has changed for the worse since her marriage — but nonetheless, she will think that at least their lives are going forward while her gearshift remains stuck in neutral. The more time that passes, the more the gearshift rattles, the more preoccupied the woman becomes with herself and all her possible shortcomings in the eyes of men until she can think about little else.
This may be the joke that history has actually played upon us — and a nasty one it is. The disparity in sexual staying power is something feminists rather recklessly overlooked when they urged women to abandon marriage and domesticity in favor of autonomy and self-fulfillment outside the home. The generation of women that embraced the feminist idealization of independence may have caused havoc by walking away from their marriages and families, but they could do so having established in their own minds that these were not the lives they wanted to lead: Those women at least had marriages and families from which to walk away. The 33-year-old single woman who decides she wants more from life than her career cannot so readily walk into marriage and children; by postponing them, all she has done is to push them ahead to a point in her life when she has less sexual power to attain them.
Instead, she must confront the sad possibility that she might never have what was the birthright of every previous generation of women: children, a family life and a husband who — however dull or oppressive he might have appeared to feminist eyes — at least was there. As this older single woman’s life stretches out before her, she’ll wonder if she’ll ever meet someone she could plausibly love and who will love her in return or whether she’s condemned to making the rest of her journey on the train alone. She might have to forgo her hope of youthful marriage and the pleasure of starting out fresh in life with a husband at the same stage of the journey as herself. She may have to consider looking at men who are much older than she is, men on their second and third marriages who arrive with an assortment of heavy baggage and former traveling companions. These men may already have children and be uninterested in having more, or she’ll have to patch together a new family out of broken ones. Or, as time passes and still no one comes along, this woman might join the other older single women in the waiting rooms of fertility clinics, the ones who hope science will provide them with the babies that the pursuit of independence did not.
From a feminist view, it would be nice, I suppose — or at the very least handy — if we were able to derive total satisfaction from our solitude, to be entirely self-contained organisms, like earthworms or amoebas, having relations with the opposite sex whenever we felt a need for it but otherwise being entirely contented with our own company. Every woman’s apartment could be her Walden Pond. She’d be free of the romantic fuss and interaction that has defined, and given meaning to, human existence since its creation. She could spend her evenings happily ensconced with a book or a rented video, not having to deal with some bozo’s desire to watch football or play mindless video games. How children would fit into this vision of autonomy, I’m not sure, but surely they would infringe upon it; perhaps she could simply farm them out.
If this seems a rather chilling outcome to the quest for independence, well, it is. If no man is an island, then no woman can be, either. And it’s why most human beings fall in love, and continue to take on all the commitments and responsibilities of family life. We want the noise and embrace of family around us; we want, at the end of our lives, to look back and see that what we have done amounts to more than a pile of pay stubs, that we have loved and been loved, and brought into this world life that will outlast us.
We strengthen a muscle by using it, and that is true of the heart and mind, too. By waiting and waiting and waiting to commit to someone, our capacity for love shrinks and withers. This doesn’t mean that women or men should marry the first reasonable person to come along, or someone with whom they are not in love. But we should, at a much earlier age than we do now, take a serious attitude toward dating and begin preparing ourselves to settle down. For it’s in the act of taking up the roles we’ve been taught to avoid or postpone — wife, husband, mother, father — that we build our identities, expand our lives, and achieve the fullness of character we desire.
Still, critics may argue that the old way was no better; that the risk of loss women assume by delaying marriage and motherhood overbalances the certain loss we’d suffer by marrying to early. The habit of viewing marriage as a raw deal for women is now so entrenched, even among women who don’t call themselves feminists, that I’ve seen brides who otherwise appear completely happy apologize to their wedding guests for their surrender to convention, as if a part of them still feels there is something embarrassing and weak about an intelligent and ambitious woman consenting to marry. But is this true? Or is it just an alibi we’ve been handed by the previous generation of women in order to justify the sad, lonely outcomes of so many lives?
What we rarely hear — or perhaps are too fearful to admit — is how liberating marriage can actually be. As nerve-wracking as making the decision can be, it is also an enormous relief once it is made. The moment we say, “I do,” we have answered one of the great crucial questions of our lives: We now know with whom we’ll be spending the rest of our years, who will be the father of our children, who will be our family. That our marriages may not work, that we will have to accommodate ourselves to the habits and personality of someone else — these are, and always have been, the risks of commitment, of love itself.
What is important is that our lives have been thrust forward. The negative — that we are no longer able to live entirely for ourselves — is also the positive: We no longer have to live entirely for ourselves! We may go on to do any number of interesting things, but we are free of the growing wonder of with whom we will do them. We have ceased to look down the tunnel, waiting for a train.
The pull between the desire to love and be loved and the desire to be free is an old, fierce one. If the error our grandmothers made was to have surrendered too much of themselves for others, this was perhaps better than not being prepared to surrender anything at all. The fear of losing oneself can, in the end, simply become an excuse for not giving any of oneself away. Generations of women may have had no choice but to commit themselves to marriage early and then to feel imprisoned by their lifelong domesticity. So many of our generation have decided to put it off until it is too late, not foreseeing that lifelong independence can be its own kind of prison, too.”
@Dave
” Once the men take a stand, you will see millions of women who will come out and be emboldened to support their cause, because the women are also suffering under the heavy yoke of feminism. ”
They are benefiting in the short term but God lets them reap what they sow in the long term. Such is sin.
When men take a stand what we will see is polarization. Many feminists will come out and be more fervent. And women who are redeemed by God will stand by their man.
@Feministhater
Women aren’t irredeemable. Otherwise we wouldn’t have women like Hannah, Abigail, Mary, Ruth and Esther as examples as Godly women.
@Luke,
I believe the passage was taken from the author’s book, What our mothers didn’t tell us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman
I sense a hamster “gone to plaid” somewhere out there.
Clearly the men on this forum take issue with hypergamy but women are attracted to high-status men in the same way that men are attracted to hot fertile women so there’s a certain futility to trying to dissuade it.
It seems like trying to get women to sleep with/ marry men they flat out aren’t interested in wouldn’t work any more than trying to get a man to sleep with a ‘landwhale would.
But in both cases it’s a question of numbers. Not all men can have a 9+ superhottie ,and not all women can have a master of the universe. But since women control the mating market overall (the actual pecking order is this: masters of the universe –> superhotties –> regular women –> regular men –> unattractive women –> unattractive men), the “blame” for the situation where women are all chasing the masters of the universe until the clock starts to run out lies with both the large group of regular women because while they outnumber the masters of the universe by a large amount, they still insist on keeping that carousel running throughout the 20s and shunning their male peers.
Hypergamy isn’t going away, we all agree with you there. But in the past it was hemmed in by a market that hemmed it in — it did this by expecting early marriage (or at least earlier marriage) and really shaming divorce such that most people got one good shot and an early one, and that discouraged carousel riding from 21-30. The market we have today is not because of hypergamy and how women are attracted, it’s because that aspect of female attraction has no limit placed on it other than the bio clock, and that limit comes late, meaning lots of men are shut out during their own 20s, and become various shades of jaded about women due to observing this behavior for years.
@Novaseeker,
While I agree with you that women tend to ride the carousel in their 20s, chasing men that are least likely to ever marry them, only to come settle down in their latter years with Mr. Boring but Stable, I’m surprised you did not highlight the roles that the stable but boring dudes play in maintaining this arrangement.
Imagine a world where the post-carousel women try to settle down, and they are roundly and uniformly rejected by marrying men, because of their slutty past. What do you think that younger women who are about to embark on their carousel riding career will do?
I am not trying to claim that women have no agency, but to highlight that one of the primary reasons they play the carousel roulette is because they know there is a boring but stable dude at the end of the line who will accept them, and “put a ring” on their used up behinds, warts and all.
If a used car salesman knows he can sell you a used car for the price of new, you can bet he’ll do so.
The solution to the western women lie with the men.
That is why the MGTOW movement will be found, in the long run, to be very powerful in curbing some of the excesses of not only western women, but of women all over the world.
If a used car salesman knows he can sell you a used car for the price of new, you can bet he’ll do so.
Sure, but you will never ever get a substantial percentage of such men to choose the voluntary celibacy of MGTOW over having sex/marriage with a physically attractive ex-carouseler. Why? Libido, full stop. Trying to get men en masse to boycott lane changing women is a fool’s errand — it will never succeed. Too many very thirsty, horny men who will be more than happy to be their BB.
Novaseeker,
Thank you for your comment. In terms of the systematic oppression that men face in terms of divorce, prison reform etc, that should be fixed no question. Many women don’t know its as bad as I’ve learned it is and will follow your lead stuff because injustice should be rectified
But the other stuff is social. You want to rework society to make other people miserable so you can be happy. I get the desire to do that, but it’s hardly noble and no more entitled than what we have now. Communism and socialism are bad and sexual communism is the same. There will always be winners and losers in the free market. I appreciate the honesty of men who openly say that they wish women were compelled to pick them but in the same breathe they worry that their wives will cuck them or starfish them during sex as if pushing women into marriages with men they don’t want to be in married to won’t make these things worst.
I had a moment to reflect at a funeral a couple days ago. My ex-mother in law passed away. Born in the 1920s. She was an unselfish, kind, caring true Christian LADY.
I gazed across the huge room at her family. Her siblings, cousins. Her children. Five boys, three girls; their children and grandchildren. Of course one of her girls happens to be the Baptiskank I was delusional enough to marry two decades ago.
The behavior in this family has included, not limited to: multiple divorces; homosexuality; prison time; prostitution as in real pimp ho prostitution; felony theft; elder abuse; rampant infidelity to include with local celebrities; promiscuity to the extreme; rampant obesity; gubment troughing; alcoholism; intravenous illicit drug use; etc etc.
100% of this is from the females. 100%. Daugters, granddaughters, nieces. Men in the family have jobs, are stable believers. I watch these men time and time again step into the shredder and apparently “force women to marry men they’re not attracted to.”
The deceased lady could not wrap her mind around any of this.
Laura,
I have to disagree Laura. I think women are aware. I just think they don’t care. You are an outlier, the unicorn in that sense. But its not just women that don’t care. Men don’t care either.
Fathers and mothers look at their daughters in a very different way than they look at their sons. All things being equal, parents that embraced feminism as their primary religion value their daughters more than they value their sons. And with that kind of thinking (and I believe it is mainstream) we get these two extremely faulty logical premises that exist for mothers and fathers:
Moms value no-fault-divorce because they believe that their daughter’s need a “do over” if they pick wrong. Their daughter’s aren’t accountable if they marry the alpha-cad and breed with him.
Dads value the entirely irrational belief that their daughters are too good for anyone and (worse) that there exists an infinite number of great looking, tall, super-intelligent, medical doctors just waiting in the wings the opportunity to marry their daughters and support all her existing children when she is done with her “starter marriage.”
If you operate from these two guiding principles, no-fault-divorce is going nowhere. Its here to stay.
Sure, but you will never ever get a substantial percentage of such men to choose the voluntary celibacy of MGTOW over having sex/marriage with a physically attractive ex-carouseler. Why? Libido, full stop. Trying to get men en masse to boycott lane changing women is a fool’s errand — it will never succeed. Too many very thirsty, horny men who will be more than happy to be their BB.
Again, I agree with you. But two quick points:
1. American women constitute less than 4% of all women in the world. So, the men who can’t stand them have other options (which may be understandably less desirable).
2. You do agree that it’s the men who are ultimately responsible for maintaining the carousel because they are just too thirsty to say no to those used up women when they decide to jump off the carousel.
That was then. This is now. You can waste your time trying to redeem the skanks. I just don’t care about that anymore. All I want to get across to women now is that I don’t want anything to do with them.
Who are you trying to convince? Yourself or the millions of women who will not listen to you. If they did, we would not be in the situation we are in.
They simply do not care about men. Their days in college turn them into indoctrinated whores and they are simply not worth the effort any longer.
Put it to the test. Convince Laura that she is wrong and you gents are right. Convince her to state that she and other women are utterly in the wrong, have overstated their case with respect to feminism; that they need to submit to their husbands, get married early, maintain their virginity before marriage, back away from male spaces, respect men’s authority, obey the Bible and generally treat men well.
I’ll be waiting.
Young men in the US are falling behind economically so the Bucks part of the BB lifeplan isn’t going to be there for a lot of carousel riders. They will have have to marry a guy making less or not get married. I don’t think most women’s ego will allow them to marry a guy making less but we’ll see.
Show where it is that someone stated that women must be forced to choose them.
Again, show where someone said this.
You know who did do this? Feminists.
@JRob
I claim part of it on the dominant message to Christian women of the protestant persuasion that “faith” is all that matters, and works don’t count at all. Too little attention being given to the need to live a holy life.
“You want to rework society to make other people miserable so you can be happy.
You know who did do this? Feminists.”
Well, they tried. Always remember, “Not haaapppyyyy!”. Or the Churchian “God wants me to be haaappppyyyy.” Either or, the result is the destruction of altruistic men with jobs who want to raise children properly whilst the ever-changing **stated** end-all-be-all feminist requirement of happiness is chased, instead of biblical contentment. The Western church is eaten up with and failing because of it, I no longer care.
@Paul
You are 100% correct. I forgot to add commentary in the funeral reflection story above on the slutty dress of many of them; almost all claim the faith. My red pill friends and I call them “Baptiskanks.” If that phrase was coined before somewhere, we didn’t try to steal it.
ultimately responsible
No, not really. They are responsible for marrying those women, but the women themselves are responsible for riding the carousel in the first place. If men weren’t waiting at the end of the ride, they would still mostly ride because they (1) can, (2) want to and (3) would want to take the chance that one of the masters of the universe would commit to them.
The effort to blame men for women’s acts of their own agency, taken in their own interest, is not strong.
Communism and socialism are bad and sexual communism is the same. There will always be winners and losers in the free market.
Eh, no, Laura. The previous system wasn’t “sexual communism”. It was a market that was free choice within bounds, where the choice was exercised within bounds. A totally free and large market for anything — sex, mating, jobs — will always benefit primarily the strongest hands in the large market, while everyone else does worse off than they would in a regulated, smaller market (again, other than the strong hands, who are capped at how well they can do).
Women are being pigs in the current market, full stop, because they can be. A day of reckoning will come for this piggishness, trust me. Pray that you are not alive to witness it.
Show where it is that someone stated that women must be forced to choose them.
The market we have today is not because of hypergamy and how women are attracted, it’s because that aspect of female attraction has no limit placed on it other than the bio clock, and that limit comes late, meaning lots of men are shut out during their own 20s, and become various shades of jaded about women due to observing this behavior for years.
Wanting to redesign society so that women have less power and less options so they choose men the current free market shows us they don’t want to choose, has been stated over and over
Eh, no, Laura. The previous system wasn’t “sexual communism”. It was a market that was free choice within bounds, where the choice was exercised within bounds. A totally free and large market for anything — sex, mating, jobs — will always benefit primarily the strongest hands in the large market, while everyone else does worse off than they would in a regulated, smaller market (again, other than the strong hands, who are capped at how well they can do).
I just don’t understand why you would want to marry a woman who would rather if she could be with someone else. I’m engaged and though I would have loved to get married earlier, I don’t wish I could have made my fiance pick me sooner or forced him against his every will and desire to be celibate prior to meeting me. People want to be sexually active and married but they also want to be *picked*
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/rebuilding-the-mound/
Laura isn’t really listening, but I will note that neither men nor women should marry someone they aren’t attracted to. However, men are very flexible in their attraction. Men will accept almost any woman in his attractive range. Women, on the other hand, all want far higher than their own traits and looks qualify for. Thus women are being completely unrealistic and are the ones pushing off marriage. Many men would be glad to marry a faithful reasonably attractive wife in their early 20s. Far more than women in the same category. But the media and other factors have set female expectations far too high.
I don’t expect Laura to ever admit that since it would blow a hole in her logic.
They hate it so much that most of them are engaging in it over and over again. Women have a weird idea what to do when they hate something. You could cut down the hookup culture quite a bit if hormonal contraception was banned and women didn’t give it up to strange men.
Laura is just pointing out how cause and effect are ideas foreign to most women.
It is no coincidence that the “sexual revolution”, the anti-conception pill, feminism. no-fault divorce, women abandoning their role as housewives, women riding the carousel, rebellion against authority, and the disintegration of the family all go together.
Re “starter marriages”, I’d love to see a switch in terminology related to them.
A “starter house” is understood not just to a FIRST house, one that you’re not in very long.
It’s also understood to be an INFERIOR house, compared to what one moves into later in life, when one has more money.
Women in more cases than not seem to actually do worse in who they get for husbands in later marriages than they do in their first ones, as almost everyone here knows full well. (Dumping a husband who is drug addict or regularly pounds her into the hospital, or just some unfortunate (if probably faithful and hardworking) sap who gets injured on the job and is permanently disabled would be exceptions.)
This is of course due (as again most everyone here understands) that the time between when she got married the first time, to when she’s trying to remarry, practically NOTHING about her from a prospective husband’s POV will have improved, and probably declined. Meanwhile, of course, any degrees, at all decent-paying jobs, drunken Alpha parking lot bangs at 2:00 A.M., 200 messages a day on Plenty of Fish/OK Cupid, etc., will all likely up her expectations to even higher than they were when she was younger, prettier, less F’ed-out, less in debt, and with more fertility.
SO, I would find apt a switch in terminology, from “starter marriage” to “peak marriage”, or some other term indicating that she’ll more likely than not, never have as good a husband as she did in her first marriage. Remember that her husband (or just sex partners’) status and income aren’t the whole story in making that assessment. How much he loves her, how much “hand” she has in the marriage, how much of a family she will have had, all those matter, hugely. (I’d have taken a bullet for the first two women I was in love with, whereas my current wife, if she got hit by a truck, I’d say “How about that?”, and EVENTUALLY call for an ambulance.) Oh, and her first husband? If she doesn’t destroy him in frivorce court and its predictable aftermath, odds are good he’ll continue to improve in attractiveness from a woman’s POV, where he can possibly do better than her, certainly higher odds than her improving on him.
@ feministhater says:
May 4, 2018 at 12:21 pm
“Oscar. He made a direct command to me as an insult.”
And now you’re whining about insults, in which you also engage.
@ feministhater says:
May 6, 2018 at 1:57 pm
“All I want to get across to women now is that I don’t want anything to do with them.”
Why would you need to get that across to them? Aren’t you going your own way? Are they trying to prevent you from doing so? Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective to ignore them, rather than trying to get anything across to them?
And women who are redeemed by God will stand by their man.
Sure. All six of them.
Agreed, feeriker. Not to mention, four of them are over 70 years old, and the other two are Amish.
Women aren’t irredeemable. Otherwise we wouldn’t have women like Hannah, Abigail, Mary, Ruth and Esther as examples as Godly women.
That was then. This is now.
EXACTLY. Hannah, Abigail, Mary, Ruth, and Esther lived under Patriarchy, in which certain core behaviors and attitudes were not only expected of women, but enforced – with often dire consequences for violating them. Needless to say, no such strictures (or social structures) exist today. More importantly, the religious authority at the time held women under very strict discipline.
None of that exists today. In fact, “religious authority” indulges women’s most egregious behavior and nearly defecates itself in fear of even mentioning the word “discipline” where women are concerned. Women have no incentive whatsoever today to behave in a Godly manner. Ergo, few do.
@Dave
—–1. American women constitute less than 4% of all women in the world. So, the men who can’t stand them have other options (which may be understandably less desirable).—-
Less desirable?
This is what I have been seeing: women in their 20’sride the carousel. Women in their 30’s marry the beta sucks and get access to their wealth. They then produce two babies. Women in the their late 40’s divorce the beta dude when the kids are in high school or older and they collect prices. Before their beauty fades, they enter the 2nd phase of the carousel except this time it is forever with no desire of getting married again. Widows are in the same boat. A young widow won’t marry UNLESS she has young kids. If her kids are older, she will claim how great her late husband was while banging everyone she always wanted to but couldn’t.
It’s a sad day when the Onion tries to be satirical but can’t because it’s absolutely true…
https://www.theonion.com/girls-scouts-announces-they-ll-never-ever-let-gross-fuc-1825752568
Sure, until they decide to take money from me and invade male spaces. Duh.
Which is the whole point, Oscar. I don’t go out of my way to find women and then bitch at them. They come here to look for it and then get it. I also don’t go out of my way to enter spaces for women and then complain they don’t want me there. I also don’t go around expecting women to pay for my free shit. I have gone my own way. All of these things your petty angels do though… “but, but, but, feministhater said mean things, mom! Waaaaaaah!”
It also doesn’t mean I don’t get to see the damage being caused to men by the #metoo movement or the changes in laws or the forceful destruction of male spaces that have been around for hundreds of years to benefit men but that will now completely change to benefit women. If women were truly independent, they would leave men alone, they wouldn’t try to enter male spaces, they would simply create their own. They wouldn’t need the money of men not their husbands either, they wouldn’t need men to subsidise their health care, they wouldn’t need affirmative action or preferential hiring. They would respect men’s need to have a space of our own. To have places where boys can be boys and learn from the men around then in a controlled manner.
They would know that when they enter a male space, their very presence adjusts male behaviour and that they should limit such incursions to an absolute minimum.
None of these things do they do though. So sure, keep doing what you’re doing, it sure is working well trying to convince unicorn snowflakes to do the right thing. That should work right about……..
These two things are not the same. You stated the men here openly wish women would be compelled to pick them.. you should admit that you over stated your case or I will be forced to call you a liar.
John James R says:
May 6, 2018 at 11:50 pm
—–1. American women constitute less than 4% of all women in the world. So, the men who can’t stand them have other options (which may be understandably less desirable).—-
Less desirable?
Yes. Aside from the Green Card hunters, Third World women taken as wives by Western men are more likely to surreptitiously divert nontrivial percentages of household income (usually mostly or completely earned by him) to their distant families and extended relatives, about whom her husbands understandably doesn’t give a rat’s posterior, certainly not enough to send them money.
Second, most foreign women either (if European/Japanese) increasingly suffer from the same uber-hypergamy/feminist/deadbedding/post-Christian mental disorder, or if not European, are not going to be white, not even close. IMO, a white spending one’s life producing (breeding + providing for + raising) a generation of nonwhites is being a voluntary victim of what in birds is called “brood parasitism”. It’s what magpies, whydahs, cowbirds, and cuckoos. It’s really nasty, worse than being cuckolded by a man who is at least a fellow white.
Ah, so when feminists do the reworking, things must be left as in or we’re being ‘meanies’ but when men want to rework current destructive social trends, we’re going against the free market?? In a true free market, there would be no welfare, no alimony, no child support, no duluth model, no divorce, no family court and no preferential treatment at universities leading to a highly screwed head count in favour of women. In a true free market, women would be paying for their bad decisions and not men. Remove the controls placed on your system first before you dare to criticise ours.
Please gents, carry on trying to grovel to this snowflake.
@Laura: “There will always be winners and losers in the free market”
There is no such thing as a free market. Society sets the boundaries on acceptable behavior, resulting in what you perceive as a free market. Currently, government law and social pressure are aiding women and working against men. I don’t need to repeat that here. Let me just say that one word is enough to call in the big guns : “abuse”. And you are aware of the recent rules on campuses where consent to sex can be retracted AFTER intercourse?
Paul is correct. See here:
https://clashdaily.com/2018/05/colleges-required-sex-ed-training-teaches-women-can-revoke-consent-next-day/
Ah, so when feminists do the reworking, things must be left as in or we’re being ‘meanies’ but when men want to rework current destructive social trends, we’re going against the free market??
Nope, not saying things should be left the way they are. When feminists tried to make their lives better at the expense of yours, its only natural you would fight back. What you propose is the exact same thing and, its only natural that they fight back. Any group that subverts others will to their own should expect resistance. Any group and I’m very much including feminists here, who thinks that the group should just sit down and happily allow their own disenfranchisement is nuts.
Already explained to you that we are at war. What do you expect? You had 60 years to sit down and be fair to men.
Now negotiations are over.
Your ‘will.’ as it were, rests on the shoulders of men, that is what you forget consistently here. Your entire world rests on the shoulders of the men that provide it for you. You would not have what you have now were it not for men. Your ‘free market’ isn’t free, the ability of women to selfishly sleep around in their twenties with the top tier men rests on the fact that the state subsidised their choices. Without that subsidisation, women would be living a version of hell, being single mothers with no choice but to grovel at the feet of men.
When there is no welfare, women have to bargain with men at the table and a deal where both got something used to be bargained fairly. With the introduction of feminism, family courts, welfare, preferential treatment, child support, child custody laws and a myriad of other benefits and laws, this is no longer the case.
The state provides your power, it does not come from women themselves. Never forget that.
There is no such thing as a free market. Society sets the boundaries on acceptable behavior, resulting in what you perceive as a free market. Currently, government law and social pressure are aiding women and working against men.
There is a general free market in terms of attraction and pairing. We ought not dictate to men what they should be attracted to, dumb buzzfeed-like articles try to pretend that men *should be attracted to fat girls etc. They should be attracted to whatever the hell they like. The cultural advice du jour that men should ‘man up’ and marry women that don’t offer what they want in a wife is absurd–but it’s also* absurd for women to do this too.
People deserve the partners they can attract and get. This means hotter girls had more to pick from than me. I don’t wish high-status men were socially engineered to pick me. They had a right to pursue whoever they wanted.
Nobody is arguing against this, only that, as with all things, constraints be placed on it.
Quite frankly, this should be more than enough to convince anyone here that you simply do not read what men have written for you. I will no longer waste anytime on you.
You merely want the ability to have your cake and eat it too.
Laura and FH,
It’s been useful for me to see the back and forth so far. I agree from a natiral law perspective that people will recoil from having something they like taken from them. I hate it enough that God had to crucify, not improve, my inner man. So with that in mind, could it be that both of you could examine the “loss” of a feminist with the idea of the crucifixion in mind?
I think Dalrock gets at that when he says avoiding female rebellion robs them of an opportunity to repent ( he doesn’t say it that way, but that is how I think of it).
Could it be that FH is thinking of restrictions so that women act in repentance while Laura is writing about a different aspect, of the flesh?
Don’t know what you’re on about. Women can repent anytime. This is merely Laura conflating the freedom of choice with the freedom from consequences. Feminists have worked overtime for over 100 years to remove all consequences for female bad behaviour and replace it on men, of course women will not allow anyone to remove this, they get the freedom to do whatever they want and someone else pays the bill.
If women had to feel the consequences of their flagrant sexual exploitation first hand, they would make changes but quickly and choose men that tend to be better marriage prospects. The natural world at work. Feminism has create an unnatural market that Laura seeks to convey has the ‘free market’. It is not.
It is as natural to restrict women’s sexuality and it is to restrict the ability of men to forcibly obtain it. Let that sink in.
“It is as natural to restrict women’s sexuality and it is to restrict the ability of men to forcibly obtain it. Let that sink in.”
Exactly. The entire scope of the debate to the exclusion of the pedantic “I deserve pick me” selfishness is to argue folks properly procreate and raise the next generation to benefit society. This *should* mean put selfish wants aside to chose the best long term mate. We’ve walked away from God’s will for the nuclear family. Everyone here sees the result. Marxist feminism is the #1 vector of all things anti-family. Scunts BSA, 57 genders, etc.
It’s taken the western church over by attrition. There are mid 30s women in my church who have all had miles of pipe.run through them, frivorce their husbands (in a couple cases, 2 or 3), and nobody cares. End result: societal decay.
I still believe my exwife was redeemed by God, but she didn’t stand by her man, even though she had a clear word from God to marry me.
Laura, suggest you learn how to quote other people. You can use italics or
but right now it is difficult to see which words are your and which words are someone else’s. That makes communication difficult. You need to fix that.
Meta: women’s hypergamy has been unleashed for over a generation. The effects are already showing up at the margins, where fewer men are willing to spend their 20’s preparing to be a husband and father. The cycle is accelerating at the college level, where women outnumber men 60 / 40 or so, and it is worsening.
Women now 20 may find it very difficult to land a Beta man in 2028. Marriage may well become something that only religious people and the Upper Middle Class to Upper Class engage in, with many negative effects on just about everyone. Even the rich…
Laura,
Ah, so you favor overturning all the things tilting the table for women, including no-fault divorce?
I suspect not. You think what women have now is just great, even though they have things men don’t.
Maybe I’m twisting Laura’s words to keep my interest, but I thought she was saying men were in control and allowed the slide to take place and the hurdle to restoring sanity probably can’t take place because both sexes have powerful incentives to keep the system in place for themselves individually even though the negative consequences to society are plain to see. Then she is adding a question about the wisdom of turning back if it means more unhappy sexless marriages because women will be feeling like they are marrying down.
I think her conclusion is similar to Friedan’s complaint and I don’t think Christians have a good polished answer for it yet. At least my pastor’s have never strongly addressed “the problem with no name,” and in my eyes either agree with it or disregard it.
I think the Bible answers it, and we can too, more persuasively than before, because our response will not be mixed with the destructive tendencies of chivalry.
I acnkowledge that my response that says women should learn contentment and will do so as a wife and mother probably sounds to them, like a Muslim saying a burka protects a woman. But their inability to grasp the differences between the two is something pastors should help with educating them with, instead of pandering to their feelings.
@SR: “more unhappy sexless marriages because women will be feeling like they are marrying down”
Yet again women are treated as agents without moral choice which are only driven by emotions. It’s extremely tiring.
If you marry you have sexual responsibilities, it’s part of marriage. Stop whining, deal with it.
I am dealing with it. I want a sharp, well-practiced response for women who are trotting out the Friedan complaint. The marriages don’t need to be sexless agreements, but whether women are content or not, that is up to them. My aim isn’t their contentment but my success at demolishing strongholds.
@SR
Well why would Christianity convince women?
I am dealing with it. I want a sharp, well-practiced response for women who are trotting out the Friedan complaint.
Why? Seems like a waste of time, unless you wish to practice certain management techniques (“Bratty little sister” and “agree & amplify” for example).
Wouldn’t it be more useful to talk to the men in these arrangements, hand them a pair of The Glasses, teach them what fitness tests are all about and how to deal with them; the whole notion of leading via actions rather than words, etc. ?
Swanny River
I think her conclusion is similar to Friedan’s complaint and I don’t think Christians have a good polished answer for it yet.
Within the confines of the cult of courtly love, there is no answer. That’s why Dalrock’s series of articles on that topic are so very important, because the whole ridiculous notion of pedestalizing women, regarding them as special, stems from that cult.
At least my pastor’s have never strongly addressed “the problem with no name,” and in my eyes either agree with it or disregard it.
Most likely they don’t understand it. Fuzzy vision due to excessive Blue Pill thinking. So of course they have no answer beyond the usual appeasement that Beta men resort to when dealing with a woman who is unhaaaaapy.
Doubly so for those who belong to the churches that have rather edited versions of the BIble – where “submission” really means “mutual submission AKA Female Dominance”, etc. Really hard to even explain the “Problem with no name” to someone who allows women to preach.
” Your ‘free market’ isn’t free, the ability of women to selfishly sleep around in their twenties with the top tier men rests on the fact that the state-subsidized their choices. Without that subsidization, women would be living a version of hell, being single mothers with no choice but to grovel at the feet of men.”
You’re conflating demographics here. The college/career carouselers you spoke of before aren’t subsidized. They sleep around during their twenties in search of high-status men because of birth control—not welfare. Their out-of-wedlock birth is very low and they wouldn’t notice if you cut welfare and child support, let alone would they change their habits.
The welfare queens you speak of don’t have access to successful men, their marriage rates are super low so they never get a betabux at the end of it and I imagine if you took away their welfare, aka incentive to procreate, their birthrates would just drop too.
Laura
The college/career carouselers you spoke of before aren’t subsidized.
Yes, they are, but not in the manner you are thinking of. 20-something women in the US are catered to and subsidized to a degree not seen since the French aristocracy of the 17th and 18th centuries. However I don’t expect you to be able to see this, any more than I expect a fish to be able to discuss the concept of “water”.
Thanks for using quotation marks. That is helpful.
I give to you Exhibit A for why arguing with a woman will get you nowhere.
You can no more correct the situation by convincing women of their errors than you can trying to teach a dog to speak.
Here endeth the lesson.
“Yes, they are, but not in the manner you are thinking of. 20-something women in the US are catered to and subsidized to a degree not seen since the French aristocracy of the 17th and 18th centuries.”
You’re very welcome 🙂
Indulged and catered to absolutely. But how are they subsidized?
By being indulged and catered to….
@feministhater
Women CAN be redeemed. I have seen it happen. To suggest that they cannot be denies what God can do in a womans, or anyones life.
But how are they subsidized?
Heavily.
Title IX subsidizes womens’ choices in college sport at the expense of men’s sports.
Affirmative Action subsidizes women’s employment at the expense of men’s employment; in the military the effects are bad and worse.
The Duluth Wheel as used by the divorce industry subsidizes women’s feelings at the expense of men’s very lives.
In K-12 the learning style of girls is favored and has in fact been established as the norm, at the expense of boys who all too often wind up being drugged into copliance; female subsidy, male cost-bearing.
Just off the top of my head. I won’t even start on what colleges do…
Joe, God can do all he wishes. He can do it, I cannot. The risks are simply too high for me.
You’re free to wait whilst he does it, I’m going to enjoy my time free of such.
You can try and redeem Laura here but in the end, you’ll probably be banging your head against the wall.
I mean, at least I got Laura to accept that lower to middle class women are subsidised by the state directly through tax monies; but surely Hi-class sluts with all that affirmative action, federal funding, preferential placement, Title IX courts, women only scholarships, business bursaries specifically catering women in STEM and other courses, definitely aren’t being subsidised in any way…. not to the detriment of men, I mean, surely not?!
Free birth control to cater to their whims of free sex, oh sorry, I mean, looking for a “Hi-status” men. LOL! Is this fucking real?
You guys can spend all your time saving the wimmenz from themselves, for all the good it will do you.
@Dave
—–1. American women constitute less than 4% of all women in the world. So, the men who can’t stand them have other options (which may be understandably less desirable).—-
Less desirable?
I was referring to the extra trouble of having to either move to other countries, or travel outside the US to go look for a spouse. Other than that, non-American women are actually more desirable.
Women CAN be redeemed. I have seen it happen. To suggest that they cannot be denies what God can do in a womans, or anyones life.
Anyone can be redeemed, but they have to want to be redeemed. Most women today are so saturated by the church and society with the idea that they’re flawless goddesses that they don’t believe they need “redemption” from anything. Indeed, to the extent that they even truly believe in a redeeming God at all, their prevailing attitude is “who is this ‘God’ guy to tell me that I need redemption? HOW DARE HE!”
After all, their Personal Jesus[TM] has already told them that they’re just fine as is.
Agree that it is possible. There are past and present commenters who humblebrag about turning the ho’ into a dutiful housewife, and I have no reason to disbelieve that it happened; however, I doubt it was through the sheer force of husband’s will, that the woman changed her ways.
Whenever I dig deeper into the narrative told by this men, I always note that aside from marrying a reformed harlot, said husband removed her from all her ho’ friends, and transported her into a new female social-circle, where said woman knew that she couldn’t pull any of her old ho’ tricks. Whether the new social milieu was his mother and sisters, or the female auxiliary of the Orthodox Church, it inevitably happened. This leads me to suspect that few women care at all what any man thinks. The woman only responds to the social pressures of other women.
Also, not wishing any of these men ill, but this is a very risky proposition. The minute a reformed harlot finds it convenient, she tends to revert to type, and there’s no place in North America where being a ho’ is not explicitly encouraged by the culture at large. Islands of decency and sanity tend to be temporally transient.
Boxer
Yeah. Lots of marriageable women in latin america. Go there, and wife up a prize catch of a wimminz like one of these…
Sorry to be a spoilsport, but there’s really no way to avoid the risks.
AR,
Good points. Listen, I agree about casting pearls before swine, such as Grudem obsessively did with feminists and his 15- year hundred page effort. I do hope God would bless any of my efforts that fall upon female ears or that I say directly to them, but the strongholds I am thinking of are with the men of the church who just accepted the 70s and the gains made by Friedan’s without a fight. The battle is still waiting to be fought, Norman Lear, Maude, Meathead and Edith yelling at Archie, didn’t end it, though it did seem to silence Christian leaders. Why they decided to just move on is a heart-burner to me, but today’s pastors could still fight, “The problem with no name” on a spiritual front, but they don’t. And their complacency and apparent ignorance of it is a stronghold. They tried to combat Norman Lear and Hollywood with cartoonish chivalry, such as with James Dobson or ridiculously happy looking families (Osmonds) but never addressed the motivating premises behind those cultural enemies.
And now we have Xhe Scouts and not half-jokingly,”moxie badges.”
Except they didn’t make their lives better…women have become more unhappy, alone, and stressed out because of feminism. Usually when your life is better you don’t need to take anxiety medication, anti-depressants, drink a bottle of wine every night, or need a ‘mental day off’ from work. You know what did work to make the lives of women better at the expense of men (at least before the no-fault corrupt state got involved)…marriage.
See what women don’t get when you debate them is that they think the fantasy of feminism is real where they are free to do whatever they want while completely overlooking the actual reality of feminism which is they are boxed into a career often at the expense of marriage and motherhood.
Boxer says:
May 7, 2018 at 6:40 pm
“The minute a reformed harlot finds it convenient, she tends to revert to type, and there’s no place in North America where being a ho’ is not explicitly encouraged by the culture at large. Islands of decency and sanity tend to be temporally transient.”
Exactly so with the transience for any place, social group, or organization not getting converged or worse. I am put in mind of the definition of a racially-integrated neighborhood as a temporary feature, lasting only from when the first black moves in, to when the last white moves out.
It doesn’t make sense to talk about wives in general; good luck trying to find one who will listen to a higher authority than her girlfriends.
As a Christian, look for a dedicated follower of Christ who accepts higher authority. Preferably from a church that adheres to the same values as you do. Make sure you agree on the the main points in marriage: till-death-do-us-part, sex-on-demand, respect, submission in everything.
Paul, re finding that type of chick in the U.S. now, we’ve been over this.
She’s either Amish, over 70, 300+ pounds, taken, or holding out for an uber-Alpha.
What’s your strategy for landing any of those as a wife?
We need to start raising those…
@ feministhater says:
May 7, 2018 at 1:21 am
“Sure, until they decide to take money from me and invade male spaces.”
And how will “get[ting] across to them” that you “want nothing to do with them” change that?
What’s your strategy for landing any of those as a wife?
Sounds like any strategy starts with a harpoon.
We need to start raising those…
Not very likely, or very helpful to decent Christian men seeking wives today.
The Mormons, who currently make up about 19% of Boy Scouts, are severing their ties and starting thier own group.
@Josh
Long in the works. In fact, since they have a longstanding and intimate relationship the Boy Scouts are probably making some of these changes because they have known for a long time the Mormons were leaving and they have been looking for ways to maintain their numbers after the Mormons leave. The Mormons only do scouts in US and Canada and want a uniform experience world wide.
They are not going to make a scouts lite. Unfortunately I worry they are going to repackage the girl stuff for the boys which will further drive the young men away. Or masculinize the girls. Sadly could go either way.
So the now the newly remade “Fem-Boy Scouts” are now going to send a bunch of young boys and young girls into the woods for camping, supervised by 1 or 2 adults (who are out numbered by the kids 12:1) trips overnight? Hummm… what could POSSIBLY go wrong with that, in an oversexualized, un-purposeful, responsibility-averse society of today? 🙄 *roll eyes*
They will soon be called the Abortion-Supporting Scouts of Amerika (ASSA).
But then again, the Marxists and the FemiNazis on the Left see a win-win here. They ruin one of the few male-only social support structures to help teach/strengthen boys into be men, they ruin young girls with an early abortion, and they promote abortion after the inevitable happens.
What is next after that? Male Scout Masters falsely accused of rape and having their life ruined? Life-destroying permanent sexual offender registration for young boys, further ruining young boy’s lives…? I guess we need more of that since western feminism alone has not done enough damage yet.
*sigh*
Ps. There ARE already been MANY viable alternatives to (Soy)Boy Scouts anyway. Seek them out and boycott the former Boy Scouts at all costs, folks. 🙂
Nova:
Correction: Women control only the INITIAL part of relationship, where she can say yes or no and make herself sexually available to the man or not. She controls the gateway to sex, because men will almost never say “no” to a chance to have quick sex with a woman, free, no strings attached. In the initial part, the man seeks out the woman and she decides if they go further or not. Fair enough.
Men control the SECOND PART of this equation, which is whether to commit to the said woman or not. This is why we have endless supply of books, talk shows, advice columns, etc all trying to teach women how to get a man to commit or marry them. How many books have been written or men to “get a woman to commit” to him? After the sex phase (which now is almost immediately at the start of any male-female interaction), the man holds the commitment card.
Modern women do not understand this very simple concept. I know some harpies will say “many women just want quick (unfulfilling) sex with a bunch of random guys they never met before”. That may be true, but it STILL does not change the fact that men have almost complete control of the post-coital “commit” decision when dealing with a woman. Yes, I acknowledge that an 8 or 9 Female would be endless pursued by a 2 or 3 beta Male for commitment (role reversal) , but how often does that ever happen in real life? This ain’t the Big Bang Theory, you know. 🙄
Women control access to sex, men control the decision on whether to commit or not to the said woman. These loose broads jump in bed with endless number of guys who walk away as soon as they bang these loose women. This is why you have “confused women” as to why they cannot have a man to take them seriously or even take them out on a date (i.e. Dinner, movie, drinks). 🙄 Why would any guy do that when women are putting out freely and at record speed these days? Makes no sense. Go on Tinder, invite some random girl to come over to your place to “come over and watch Netflix”, go for bang, she leaves later and you sleep soundly and do not even have to change out of your t-shirt and boxers. 😀
How is this not perfect for a single man? If we put aside the religious and moral conundrum of the concept, for a man, this is perfect. get the sexual relief we physically need, no cost, no effort, no headaches. Her pleasure if not even a consideration in these situations anyway. Why would any man even care about such a loose woman?She is as disposable as a piece of gum he uses up for a few minutes.
Funny real story: I recently overheard a woman in my office complain that she cannot understand, despite literally screwing over 100 random dudes on the same-day on Tinder, why NONE of them ever call her back, why they do not show any interest in her (after the bang), and why she cannot get these guys to meet them for dinner or a fun activity. The shock!!! LOL 🙄 I am there listening to that, then I have to pretend to wipe my face with moist paper towels, to cover up the fact I was laughing and smiling deeply when I heard that.
Why would any sensible, sane man, want to “commit” any of his time, energy, resources, sanity, or his very life to a woman who will allow themselves to be banged by a guy they met 20 minutes earlier on Tinder? LOL
We seem to live in a time of great delusion and self-loathing. I am gonna invest some real cash in stocks of the makers of anti-depressant pills marketed to women. This will be an industry that will never go out of business, as long as our society continues to self-delude itself into misery. Might as well profit from it. *shrug*
LAURA:
I really do think you are well-intentioned, I really do. But please understand that most women have known about the systemic injustices that Western societies impose on men for decades. That is because women and this white knight clowns in media, education, and govt stealthily created and designed this system from scratch starting in the late 1960s. They worked slowly into the system we have today. By the time we all realized it, it was too late. But think about where we are today as a society.
How many times have you watched the news or looked at news website and you have a female 30-something to 40-something year old female teacher banging one of her 10-year old male students? Check the punishment she receives, it is always probation or “counseling”. Now think about how many times you have seen a 21-year old male teacher having a consensual relationship with a 17-year old female student. This guy goes to prison for a decade or more and lifetime registration as a “sex offender”. He is forever barred from any jobs, he is shunned by women who can easily find him online, his life is effectively over.
This is not all. You hear talk shows like Oprah and The View openly discussing divorce-raping men… you have articles on every single feminist website, from Yahoo Relationships to MSN to YourTango, Elle, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, The New Yorker… you name it, discussing how easy, fun, and painless it is to divorce rape a man. They have “how to” guides online how to make false accusations against men to gain leverage on divorce and steal his kids.
The whole thing that women claim they “did not know” just how unfair the system is against men is a ruse. This is like Germans claiming post-WWII they had nooooooo idea the Holocaust was happening in that huge prison camp right next to their cities. 🙄 It is “willful ignorance”. Because women benefit SO MUCH from this system, they have kids reason to worry about it or see what is happening right in front of them.
I think women, even ones that believe in fairness, will ultimately refuse to allow legislatures to reform the current misandrist, divorce-rape laws to be fixed or to end things like the “Duluth Model of policing”, or the current welfare system, where women receive 90% of benefits. Why? Because women see this unfair system as a “safety net”, one that only benefits them. Women are naturally Solipsistic, they have this “natural tendency” because that has been a survival mechanism to survive a world that has not existed in over 200+ years. The War Bride Syndrome, for example, has vanished from all of the Earth, except in Muslim hellholes in Africa and Middle East. In Western world, women have been the privileged class since before Revolutionary War times.
(For more on War Bride: https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/ )
The problem is that modern women today have privileges, legal protections, and welfare benefits that simply outshine even of oligarchs of 400 years ago. And yet, modern Western women continue to behave as if they are the oppressed Muslim women of Tehran or war brides resulted as local tribal warfare of 6,000 years ago. The world has changed, but a woman’s worst instincts continue to be the same. Women’s Solipsism has not evolved at all, and they have been living off a system of privilege men have created for them, for their own benefit.
Funny you mentioned “women having to marry”, like Communism, Laura. Communism was an economic and governmental “experiment” forced upon the people of Eastern Europe, to disastrous consequences to them. Radical western Feminism is a social experiment forced upon the West by subterfuge and manipulation. It will crashed and burn like Communism did, and it will be ugly, but will happen in our lifetimes, just as we saw that happen to Communism.
Whether or not women like you are willing to help (or choose not block) changes to this unfair system are basically irrelevant at this point of the game. Men will fix that once we get marriage rates below 10% of the population and create a “crisis”, because that is only way our stupid and lazy Legislators do anything. Men also should “Go Galt” in large enough numbers that the current system becomes unsustainable. Work only for oneself and never marry is the way to do it. We are already past 70% of men ages 20-34 being “never married”, and in a few years, I am hopeful we will be above 85%-90%. The only way to reset this system is to opt out of it completely.
(Reference: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachelor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married )
The reset of Feminist system of oppression WILL happen in our lifetime, I can assure you of that. Millennial males are already engaged in this Galt mentality (main,t due to laziness and helicopter parenting), as they live with their parents forever, get free bangs off of Tinder, and never get a real job. Their money goes into “experiences” like vacations or fun activities. They do not buy homes or save for the future. They spend any cash they get their hands on, live at home, and are by most standards, losers. These millennial men are the semi-incels of tomorrow (I saw a news report the average age of incel Millennial males of today is 26! 26!!). Yeah these clowns may get some Hipster girls from Tinder once in a rare while, but so what? They have free HD porn on demand, weed, and social media to distract them. Society does not like the, does not want the, they consider them rapist and useless anyway, they have zero expectation of getting married, go to college or join the workforce, so why bother?
This reset will not be pretty, but it will happen in our lifetimes, I am certain of that. It has already started and the ONLY reason we do not yet have legislative changes is because we have coward Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell-type leaders, that soil their pants the moment a “mean Tweet” hits their accounts. If we had more Trump type leaders across our State legislatures, this Soviet Kholkoz/Gulag system of male oppression (via divorce, child support imprisonment, and wage garnishment) would have been reformed over a decade ago.
This 3 minute video explains it best:
Anyone with even a basic understanding of stock markets and finance cannot simply deny the actual, quantitative signs this reset will EVENTUALLY happen, given the trends that are all around us in America. Have you been to a shopping mall lately? The malls are largely EMPTY, stores are closing, and new mall construction has been halted in many cities. Many malls in Midwest have shut down completely. Why? Is it only because of online shopping? Surely not!! Most women WANT to go to malls, that is a place they go to hang out with her friends, to eat and have a latte, and to shop. Women want to fit into clothes, they like to touch the fabric, they like the smell the perfumes they want to buy. Women cannot do that online. American malls are almost totally designed with women in mind. It is like the Cosmopolitan hotel in Vegas, it is a woman’s hotel and casino (go inside the Cosmo and in 10 seconds, you will understand). The American malls are made and catered for females in mind. And yet these malls are dying. WHY?
Because marriage rates are down so much. Most women now have to work soul-crushing jobs 60+ hours a week. They are not stay-at-home moms anymore, where they send kids off to school, husband is at work killing himself 60h-80h of slave labor a week, so the stay-at-home mom can go out shopping middle of the day and buy tons of stuff. These days are over, because the sheer number of men who WANT to marry AND can AFFORD to support a family on his own are waaaaaaaaay down. Simply put, the “mom shopper” who can spend her time “keeping up with the Joneses next door” are coming to an end.
Economics controls everything in life and for men, supply and demand, cost-benefit, and reason prevail over everything else in a man’s life. If it ain’t worth it, we don’t do it. Call these men Peter Pan or whatever, it will not work. Men are checking out in such large numbers in GenX and Millennial generations that the FemiNazis will not be able to keep this ruse going much longer. We are already hearing ramblings of “men are not doing their part” from FemiNazis on TV. “THEIR” part? I thought men were as needed as a bicycle was needed by a fish? 🙄
Laura, do not trouble yourself too much about whether you can or want to help end the legislated and codified system of male oppression or not. This system will be completely unsustainable in a few years anyway. We do not have enough Indentured Servant males in America to continue slaving away to keep up this charade going. Men are checking out of marriage, checking out of commitment, checking out of universities that treat them as criminals, and checking out of the workforce in such large numbers this system has become unstable and unsustainable. American govt simply cannot continue to tax, borrow, and print its way into funding the welfare system, the Gulag system of child support/alimony, and the “free this and that” to make Feminism work.
As great economist Ben Steyn always says, “when something in the economics of life cannot go forward, it stops”.
Enjoy the privileges now while you can and simply do not try to block any coming changes to this system once a crisis occurs, is my advice, if you truly want to help make things better. 🙂
My .02 cents.
Whatever happened to Camp Fire Girls USA? They went co-ed in 1975.
Or, in these times, a tattoo.
The concern is not whether scouting lives it dies, but whether boys and men will be allowed any space to themselves, when girls and women have infiltrated all their spaces while simultaneously insisting on maintaining their own female only spaces.
Not long now before we find ourselves in Brave New World, where promiscuity is compulsory for everyone, including small children.