Note: I don’t think I’ve ever reposted a previous blog post before, but with the Christian feminist outrage over Lori Alexander’s sensible advice to young Christian women on how to compete for the best husbands I think this post from April of 2011 is worth reposting. The post itself seems to have aged quite well, but I suspect this isn’t the case for some of the links.
————————————— Begin repost ————————————–
Paige commented on the Doomed Harlot is a slut! post that sex positive feminists harm less attractive women by pointing out that the prettiest women don’t pay a price for promiscuity:
Alte has mentioend several times here and at her blog a very important truth when it comes to feminists and the sex-positive.
Not all women are as genetically privileged as other women. Woman A. maybe very pretty, very smart, very charming, and very accomplished. She can 1. be relatively content as a single woman and 2. probably get a man regardless of her behavior.
Woman B. is not very attractive, not very smart, and not very accomplished. Her only hope of a life outside of poverty (because she can only get a job in the service industry) is having a man to help take care of her. If she makes many poor choices it will take her out of the marriage market for all but the lowest quality men.
This is an interesting point, but I think it is even worse. Even a very pretty woman is likely to pay a price for being known as promiscuous. Commenter J mentioned how she met her husband on Susan Walsh’s post The Importance of Location in Relationship Strategy:
I was introduced to my husband in a bar at the b’day party of a friend of a friend. It was really kismet as I had never been in the bar before and hadn’t really wanted to go to the party. My husband checked out my previous history at the bar (or rather my lack thereof) with some of the regulars BEFORE he manuevered an introduction to me.
I mentioned to J on that same thread that had her husband received a different answer, she could well be posting as an unmarried woman fully convinced that her promiscuity had nothing to do with her life’s outcome:
My point was you never know who you might turn away. Had your husband received a different answer, from what he told you you wouldn’t have ever met him. Instead of a happily married mother of two wonderful sons, you could theoretically be another single woman on this board telling young women that men don’t care about your number so they may as well slut while the slutting is good. And if we hooked this alternate universe you up to a lie detector she would pass because she would have no idea that the man of her dreams had joined into another conversation instead of approaching her that otherwise uneventful day all of those years ago.
This is a point that I think nearly all sex positive feminists miss. This same topic came up in another post by Susan Walsh titled I Earned a Denunciation from NOW. Sex positive feminist commenter switchintoglide declared that her promiscuity hadn’t factored in her relationships with men (emphasis mine):
I’ve been with the same man for four years now in a mostly monogamous relationship, and I can tell you that our relationship was built on a negotiation of dreams, goals, lifestyles, cohabiting, non-monogamy/monogamy, sexual orientation/bisexuality, and all sorts of other things that arise in a long term relationship between equals. I don’t however, remember haggling over the price of my sluthood.
To explain the issue to her, I offered the following analogy:
When we bought our house it had really tacky wallpaper in the kitchen and master bath. It had been on the market for a year despite being reduced to a very attractive price compared to similar homes. My wife wouldn’t consider it at first until I explained that we could do what we wanted with those two rooms. Finally she imagined the home how we would change it and she started to really like the house. We got a great deal on the house, but we never haggled on the price of the tacky wallpaper. That would have been unkind of us. A year on the market with no offers forced the seller to first come down on the price all on their own and then accept our offer of a somewhat lower price than asking.
Women who pay a price for being perceived as promiscuous are highly unlikely to recognize that this is even happening. Furthermore, the idea that really beautiful women can get away with taking a hit to their marriage and/or relationship value only makes sense from the point of view of a less attractive woman. No matter how pretty a woman is, she is going to want the most attractive man she can get. A man whom a really pretty woman finds attractive is by definition a man with options. And men with options can afford to be choosy. As we have seen across the manosphere, alpha men are some of the most reluctant to commit to a promiscuous woman. They won’t turn down a pump and dump, but they typically don’t see promiscuous women as marriage material. The problem will seem to her that men are “afraid to commit” and need to man up. Whatever her perceived reason, a pretty woman who can’t attract the kind of man she yearns for is no less unhappy than a woman of average attractiveness in the same boat.
Clouding the issue further is the widespread misunderstanding of what drives attraction for women. The promiscuous pretty woman may ultimately settle for a guy who on paper looks perfect. He might be tall, handsome, have a great job… and be very beta. The fact that her mother and aunts all think she found a great catch doesn’t make the fact that she isn’t attracted to him any less painful. Even worse, by riding the alpha carousel she raised her required threshold for alpha much higher than it would have been. Where greater beta might have been sufficient for a woman of her beauty, she now has developed a taste for full alpha.
I thought about the phenomenon of the perfect on paper only man when reading the WSJ piece My Perfect Honeymoon (That I Spent Alone) (H/T Welmer). In that article author and feminist Jennifer Belle smugly brags about leaving her husband behind on their honeymoon:
But my passport wasn’t missing. I had wedding money and an airplane ticket. So while he stayed home and called his mother to see if she had his birth certificate and made desperate plans to join me as soon as possible, I flew to Venice.
Doing just a bit of research, I found that Ms. Belle was writing about an event which occurred nine years ago when she was 34. On paper her husband would have seemed to be a perfect catch. He had a high status job as an entertainment lawyer. Their combined status as a couple lead to the New York Times writing a two page article about their wedding. Her mother and aunts must have been proud! However, Mr. Kent’s faults from an attractiveness point of view are featured prominently in that same wedding announcement. They open the piece by poking fun at his height. He’s 5-foot-4, even when he’s claiming to be an inch taller, which he sometimes does. Even Aunt Edna must have cringed at that one. But still, a short man can do quite well if he has good enough game.
This is where it gets worse; the wedding announcement goes into detail about how he failed her shit testing on their very first date:
But when a playwright came by and offered ”money” for her to kiss his ear, she negotiated for less money to kiss the writer’s neck — and did. ”To make Andy jealous,” she said.
Mr. Krents, who friends say has always acted 20 years older than his age, became slightly unglued. ”Here we were just getting to know each other,” he said, ”and you don’t know if you’re even going to get to a second date, and here are people doing unspeakable things that you do on the fourth or fifth dates.”
That can’t have done anything good for her tingle, but it would seem she didn’t have any better options. They continued dating and then she brought him into her world:
A year later, Mr. Krents moved into Ms. Belle’s Greenwich Village apartment, where she freed the child within him, the boy who always wanted his own bulldog. They bought Sammy, a French bulldog.
I’m sure if you asked Ms. Belle, she would swear neither her sluthood nor her bitchy feminism had cost her anything when it came time to marry.
I’m also guessing she would change the subject and plug her new novel, The Seven Year Bitch.
Well now this just goes against everything Pretty Woman taught us, man, and that’s just wrong. /s
Pingback: The cost of sluthood. | @the_arv
What’s the appropriate response? I’m pretty sure i’d just leave.
Dead link to roissy.wordpress.com
Is it this article?
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/spin-spin-hamster/
[D: Good catch. Fixed. Here is the correct link.]
I see no connection how “game” gets itself involved in this. A loose woman is liked by alphas to pump n’ dump but not to marry.
That is until some ‘patriarchal oppressor’ starts judging them out loud.
IOW, “opportunity cost” in relationships.
@SirHamster,
I was mistaken. There were two dead links to Roissy’s old site. Both are now fixed.
I sometimes watch a comedy podcast and the other day they had on a popular female comedienne in her thirties who is a perfect demonstration of a woman who’s open about only wanting hawt guys and demonstrates one red pill truth after another. Though she is above average in looks she has so many red flags that a guy refused an invitation to have sex with her and they are trying to hamster an explanation as to why. The relevant part goes from 49:00 to 1:15:00.
Good job of recycling. There’s nothing that needs a rewrite, the issue is if anything sharper now. This conservative feminist screeching “Jesus loves her as she is, why can’t you?” surely results in large part from female solipsism and female in-group preference .
But I can’t help wondering if some of it also arises from the whole “Jesus is my besty boyfriend” mindset that permeates a lot of modern church, especially modern music.
Classic example supporting exactly what Dalrock has described in the OP:
I remember reading some years ago about how the actor Michael Keaton had started dating some hottie. Then, he found out she had a history of doing porn. (We’re talking she was in a movie with a scence of 6+ nude black guys, standing side by side, while she goes down the line on her knees, taking full care of each one.) Keaton dumped her with as much immediacy and finality as if he’d seen a lab report showing she was positive for Hepatitis, genital herpes, and HI
Saw this on Twitter –
The dating pool for young men is literally:
-fat chicks
-hoes on Tinder
-career women
-women past their prime
-hoes on Instagram who call themselves models
-horse lovers
-chicks with daddy issues
-chicks with tattoos/weird colored hair
-bipolar/depressed chicks
These are the women men are told to marry up. No wonder the Christian Churches are going full Gay Episcopalian:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/07/25/the-gayest-church-in-the-world/
Past promiscuity doesn’t matter to women. It matters to men, and it’s only the arrogance of women that negates that concern.
Another very very large problem that women will never see is just how terribly demotivating it is to be a young man just beginning his college career and realize that most of the women want to happily bang away the few alpha guys and then settle down with you later.
Really just demoralizes you to incredible degrees and causes many men to make very different choices. I know it did for me. Once I realized that my fellow women college students were busy getting railed by drug dealers and professors and the few alpha guys around but would tell me basically keep it up I’ll be a great catch in a decade I decided it was in my best interest to shift my focus from getting a better degree and a head start in my career to engaging in the $hitbaggery that women love. And it worked as well.
Also see the general trend of men checking out from society. Why bother working hard to get some busted up $lut when she’s 29 and about to lose all of her beauty?
snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:
July 26, 2018 at 7:04 pm
“Another very very large problem that women will never see is just how terribly demotivating it is to be a young man just beginning his college career and realize that most of the women want to happily bang away the few alpha guys and then settle down with you later.”
Agreed completely, snowden. You have summarized why I believe that (if he’s not going to emigrate) an American man’s most adaptive approach is to self-improve, and bang what he can get*, while NEVER idiotically making himself vulnerable via cohabitation, marriage, adoption, impregnation, or paying for anyone else’s debts or living expenses. Then, if one day he elects fatherhood, he spends the 100 grand for a fertility clinic, egg donor, gestational surrogate, and obstetric hospital to produce a (genetically his and screened) child, hiring what expertise and labor he needs.
*Marriage no longer existing is a get-out-of-hell-free card for men designed by God to be noncelibate, since they can no longer obey the commandment to marry before having sex.
Pingback: The cost of sluthood. | Reaction Times
@Anonymous Reader
This conservative feminist screeching “Jesus loves her as she is, why can’t you?” surely results in large part from female solipsism and female in-group preference.
It’s probably even worse than that. I’ll just make a prediction here and say that once the evangelical femosphere has gotten the “Jesus loves her just as she is” dictum solidly established as church policy they’ll move on to saying that evil deeds can be pleasing to God . . . so long as they’re committed by women.
Here’s one already where they’re doing it for abortion: https://stream.org/religious-lefts-top-5-distorted-teachings-wild-goose/
And another where they’re doing it for . . . witchcraft. Remember that Old Testament story about how King Saul sought out a medium to summon the spirit of the dead priest Samuel so that he could find out what sort of future he had? It turns out that she only engaged in sorcery because she was being obedient to God! http://gospelcenteredwoman.com/the-gospel-and-the-witch-of-endor/
As sad as this is, I can’t say that it’s not a logical progression for either them or the church. They’ve already given up on saying that women are capable of sin, so how long was it going to be before they started saying that their sins themselves deserved to be praised?
No it still exists as that. Just because women wanted to go slutty doesn’t change what God instituted.
So, with effectively no women to marry, how do men called to marry do that en masse?
Shall I also go join the Prussian Army (Prussia ceased to exist in 1945) to serve out the remainder of the term of army service an ancestor of mine skipped out on? Shall I apply to become an Etruscan or Carthaginian? Does your kid’s aquarium contain any Trilobites? Tell us what most men in American can so, short of suicide or immediately beginning violent insurrection, and I’ll be all ears.
Your solution to the problem is creating more sluts….which will keep the problem going if not make it worse.
For starters how about we quit with the selective churchian gender morality…men can’t be the ones to wait until marriage and women get to fornicate while calling it virtuous.
Second…stop promoting the single independent career girl over wife and motherhood for women.
Third…men need to get their balls back, put the foot down and quit with letting their thirst and wimminz emotions control them.
And to add…if there was some way to ban the pill, I’d do it yesterday.
the solution….and its hard, and may would argue futile…………….
Here goes……..
Have to walk away from them, and focus on your conformity to Christ. Your career. Your hobbies. Your prayer life.
It is not a requirement to be married in the Christian faith. “mgtow” in this sense I reluctantly have to agree with. it’s really the only choice left for a man who is just “average” in this world.
Though there are adventures to be had…..
Earl, you say: “Your solution to the problem is creating more sluts….which will keep the problem going if not make it worse.”
Even Roissy and Tucker Max are clear that they go after women who are ALREADY sluts.
I can’t imagine now taking a virgin that I didn’t intend for marriage. (That said, in my age range, there are hardly any virgin women, and those that are, are likely either lesbians, less attractive than the Western end of an East-bound mule with a lethal case of cholera, or utterly opposed to having sex.)
Tell us what most men in American can so, short of suicide or immediately beginning violent insurrection, and I’ll be all ears.
I don’t know about “most” (since that would statistically include a lot of 35-40+ year old dudes at this point) but how about we collectively lose the taboo on marrying girls just out of high school?
Historically, a man would be a good bit older than his spouse. That way he’d have a few extra years before marrying to get his affairs set up to host a wife and their brood. A man’s “prime” for attracting a woman is when he is still young and virile, but has had time to procure some coin; a woman’s “prime” is shortly after she has entered the fertility window, but old enough that she can bear a child healthily, and care for the resultant offspring in a mature way.
Nowadays there’s an unspoken unease around the subject of, say, a 26 year old man marrying an 18 year old woman (as my wife and I did). Obviously the women hate it because it means the ones who partied away their younger years have to compete with the “unspoiled” that are fresh on the scene (my wife easily outmaneuvered the women in my age bracket, and I heard through the grapevine later that not a few were embittered by this). As for the men, many of them have been conditioned to believe that marrying younger means they are “weak” for “not being able to handle a ‘mature’ woman their own age.” As status is rightfully important to a man, this fear is very visceral.
Men should ignore this shaming, however, and recognize it for what it is: an attempt to ensure a ready pool of beta hubbies, dutifully waiting around until the girls their age have had their fun so they can come when called. Young(ish) men en masse breaking the taboo and reaching down 5-10 years takes away any leverage or power that the girls in your peer group have to try to force you to “settle” for less than a virgin/debtless/tattoo woman.
TLDR: the millennial girls have pretty much poured gasoline on themselves and lit the match. It’s sad, but I think we’re gonna have to report that one a total loss.
Gen Z girls are already graduating high school though. If you are in your 20s or young thirties, this is your opportunity.
But don’t anyone dare mis-interpret this to mean that a wife should be obedient in submission to her husband.
Well good for Roissy and Tucker Max.
Even sluts had to start somewhere…and that’s the problem. Almost nobody mainstream is giving women some counter argument to saving it for marriage.
Tom Lemke
<how about we collectively lose the taboo on marrying girls just out of high school?
No such taboo exists. Who is this “we” you write of?
Anonymous,
I do not know your experience; but I can tell you that among evangelicals there is a VERY prevalent taboo against young women marrying before completing college. My personal experience from talking with friends, family and assorted church-goers through the years is that a woman should NEVER marry until she had at least a four year college degree and a career of her own… and this was at a minimum. Since I’m old enough that I’m of the same general age as fathers of late millenials/ early gen Z, what I hear most is that young women need college degrees and careers before marriage because men are just too untrustworthy. It’s generational amoging, and it seems the Boomers are the absolute worst about this.
Anon,
To clarify: the taboo against late 20s early 30s men marrying girls straight out of high school.
Either way though, the taboo certainly exists. Try talking to your average 18 year old girl about it and you’ll get the horrified expression of one who is being asked to give up the next decade of carousel. Talk to her mom and dad and they’ll tell you that dear daughter needs to get a degree first to be self sufficient and have options in case you turn out to be a dirtbag (which you probably are for going after someone a decade younger; every ful kno that younger women are easier to manipulate than their worldly older counterparts, so that must be your game).
The taboo is diminished in the manosphere, true, but I still see guys passively letting it control their decisions.
One common refrain I have heard from middle aged and older women in the church when suggesting that a young woman who had finished high school and was 18 should consider marriage to a young Christian man is that she needs “more experience” first. “Experience” at what is never specified, but as most of the young women in question are headed to state colleges several hours from home I think I can guess.
I read and wrote poorly.
First, I read Lemke as saying there is a taboo against men in their mid 20’s marrying. Then I wrote based on that incorrect assumption, and with the unspoken assumption that Lemke was blaming later marriage on men.
As okrahead notes, the social disapproval is against women marrying at all before the age of 27 or so. As I’ve pointed out here and elsewhere the standard narrative that is pushed on teenaged girls and early 20-‘s women is “degree first, career second, marriage later”. This leads to carousel riding or at least carousel watching, plus the current average age of US women at first marriage of 27.
It is often the fathers of daughters who don’t want their little princesses to marry “too early”, preferring them to have that degree and first job at least “just in case”. All that said, in my tiny sample of more conservative (theologically, culturally) there is less of this, and at least tacit approval of couples marrying before 25. Perhaps Hmm can address this from his perspective.
My apologies for my poor reading and lack of clarity.
These are the women men are told to marry up. No wonder the Christian Churches are going full Gay Episcopalian:
It’s also why, among other misandry-related reasons, record numbers of unbelieving men want nothing whatsoever to do with churches and why ever-growing numbers of believing, born-again men are also abandoning them for alternative forms of worship and fellowship.
Let these churchian business franchises become the money-changing, apostate estrogen centers that their “pastors” prefer them to be. Let real men be no part of them when they face judgment.
https://abstrusegoose.com/50
I am currently vacationing in the Seattle area. The hotel room has a complimentary copy of a magazine called Sip Northwest, a magazine about “celebrating wines, beers, spirits & ciders.”
One of the featured articles on the cover is: “Drinks for Female Empowerment”. Inside, the article is titled, “Empowered Imbibing” and is subtitled: “Drink producers contribute to gender equality.”
The article profiles Meg Murray, founder of Nasty Women Wines. It also covers other women in wine making, and how one male owned beer company in Seattle held an event to raise funds for Planned Parenthood, and … well, all sort of other feminist sh*t.
Jason is right. You can’t get away from it.
I couldn’t find that article on their website. But they do have one about beers for Pride Month: https://sipnorthwest.com/6-beers-to-swig-this-pride-month/
Then, if one day he elects fatherhood, he spends the 100 grand for a fertility clinic, egg donor, gestational surrogate, and obstetric hospital to produce a (genetically his and screened) child, hiring what expertise and labor he needs.
Even here, the child risks possessing the epigenetic results from either the egg donor or the gestational surrogate if either one of them were sluts, married, or previously pregnant.
@Earl – “No it still exists as that. Just because women wanted to go slutty doesn’t change what God instituted.”
I’m beginning to believe that Biblical marriage has gone the way of the Temple of Jerusalem. There is a lot the Bible has to say about the Temple, but it doesn’t matter since it doesn’t exist anymore.
I think it’s probably possible for people to recreate an authentic marriage, with or without the benefit of state recognition. Just make the traditional promises to each other in front of a few witnesses. If you want to get truly old school about it all, here’s the protestant service from the 16th century…
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1559/Marriage_1559.htm
The state doesn’t enforce traditional values any longer. That doesn’t mean that you brothers need to descend into the pits of harlotry. (Ya boy Boxer has already done it. You can take his word for the fact that it gets tedious quickly.)
@Boxer – IIRC, marriage was just assumed by the family before the sacramental rites of it existed in the Church. In other words, couples who just shacked up were considered married in the first few centuries of Christianity. Likewise,
“Before the eleventh century there was no such thing as a Christian wedding ceremony in the Latin church, and throughout the Middle Ages there was no single church ritual for solemnizing marriage between Christians.” – Church Historian Joseph Martos
If there is anyone thinks this Church history is wrong, I’d love to hear your points on this subject.
“If there is anyone thinks this Church history is wrong, I’d love to hear your points on this subject.”
– I mean this. I don’t want to sound snarky or know-it-all.
That’s because a guy by the name of Jesus came onto the scene.
Talk about how a biblical marriage is constructed was brought to further clarity by St. Paul, using Jesus and the church as THE model.
And with a lot of churches going pozzed and promoting things that destroy marriage like homo/no-fault/the pill…this model is becoming harder to recognize.
That’s why I’ll say how God constructed marriage is still true today as it was when He first constructed it and we are messing it up. Many people are doing it the wrong way or presenting themselves as unmarriageable through their actions combined on top of that the state and some churches promoting the destruction of marriage and that’s why marriage gets a bad rap.
The solution to this marriage problem lies with men. My 19 year old son is on the cusp of looking for a wife in the next few years. He’s not happy about his prospects. But I can point him towards a dozen godly fathers of possible chaste young women. And he can approach those men and ask them about seeing their daughters. Find out how they’ve been raised. Qualify himself to those men as a worthy Christian suitor, one who is celibate and is working on a career. This is the only way its going to work. Not looking around for girls in clubs or even church pews.
I refer to my three earlier comments – it seems like only yesterday that I…
Yet what was I saying: who was the most eligible bachelor in the world until his recent nuptials. Why, Prince Harry of course and yet he married a woman who has more red flags than an aspiring matador and then there was unobservant motorcyclist George Clooney who married that aging LawyerCunt and she was certainly not Irish. Of course they may not last and that will be the schadenfreude we all devoutly wish for yet is there any wonder someone like the young Gregoire gets her knickers in a twist when misogynists explain that men will not marry paid-up sluts. They clearly will; not of course that anyone thinks that either Wales or Clooney have more intelligence than the local pond-life but then neither do most people. Consider all the women who at some time I have lost my heart to. I shudder.
DC,
The analogy fails. Sexual purity still exists.
I agree that the modern intervention in marriage by the State is reprehensible, but I do wonder exactly what happened in the case of the woman Jesus met at the well. Jesus noted she had 5 husbands, but was now living with someone who was not her husband. How could he not be her husband if shacking up made marriage?
That’s why the ‘intercourse only’ idea some have denotes a marriage is obviously not Biblically sound. There has to be some sort of public witness(es) to the marriage.
Dalrock’s piece refers to novelist Jennifer Belle.
The diminutive Belle Married the only slightly less diminutive Mr. Krents in 2002. She was 34; he was 32. She gave birth to a son at about age 38, and had another son a couple years later.
This article from 2008 describes their “separate” married lives. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/fashion/weddings/17unions.html
I suppose if you have to marry a radical feminist, this is how you do it.
According to Wikipedia, novelist Belle’s last published work was The Seven Year Bitch in 2010, shortly before Dalrock published the original post the first time in early 2011.
I’ve shared these posts and the feminist meltdown video with my 14 year old daughter so she can learn how not to behave, and how not to damage herself, and her marriage prospects. They were all well-received.
@BillyS – “The analogy fails. Sexual purity still exists.”
Never said it didn’t. But if some here are called for celibacy, maybe they can do something useful with it, like join a monastery or take orders.
@Earl – “That’s why the ‘intercourse only’ idea some have denotes a marriage is obviously not Biblically sound. There has to be some sort of public witness(es) to the marriage.”
Be careful. You’re destroying Artisanal Toad’s main argument of being married to the first woman you bedded.
That was my point entirely.
Let’s see how quick he calls it a marriage if any woman he bedded decided to take him to divorce court.
Let’s see how quick he calls it a marriage if any woman he bedded decided to take him to divorce court.
Perhaps one of his three deadly Ninja wives has also passed the bar exam?
earl is right. Marriage in the Bible is not just “shacking up.” There as a payment to the parents, a marriage contract and ceremony before consummation. Remember Jesus attending the wedding at Cana?
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/
@9767 – “earl is right. Marriage in the Bible is not just “shacking up.” There as a payment to the parents, a marriage contract and ceremony before consummation. Remember Jesus attending the wedding at Cana?”
Right – but I think things were different for the different tribes that adopted Christianity in the 5th, 6th, and 7th Centuries. Like the historian said who I referenced, they priests and bishops were happy as long as these tribe members weren’t marrying their cousins or had more than one wife.
I’m now 60, never married (thank God), and I’ve put the women dating thing in my rear view mirror. I remember bizarre experiences in my 20s and 30s, but what I faced as a younger man back in the day pales to what young men are facing today. God help young Christian and/or traditionalist men today. If I was a father of a so, or sons, I’d be very concerned for them today. This is off the subject, but I’ve been with my current employer for 5 years now. The place is toxic and spinning around the drain. I’ve been discreetly job hunting and interviewing, but I’ve never seen anything quite like today’s workplace. I see a parallel with employers and modern western women. Both are incredibly picky, but bring nothing to the table. Employers I interview with are rude, disrespectful, degrading, offer substandard wages, and are down right contentious. I’ve had bad employers and job interviews in the past, but nothing like today. Any insight from commentators here?
My understanding is that marriage is considered a Sacrament in all of the ancient apostolic churches, many which went their own way (schism) in the first centuries. If marriage as a sacrament was a medieval Latin innovation, then the others would not have it.
Tubalcain@ 2:15 pm
“Any insight from commentators here?”
Workplace dynamics change when a business reaches a threshold of female employees (and/or entryists). The business refocuses from its purpose to emotional blather, #MeToo fear-mongering, hookup culture, virtue-signaling and too few men fixing the mistakes of too many women until the environment is toxic. Most senior management are still hopelessly blue-pilled dolts who don’t see the problem with bringing women into male spaces until they’re too scared to confront the problem.
Human Resources is the worst offender. HR departments are notorious henhouses who think “qualified candidate” means “not a creepy straight white male”. Feral women prefer weak men that they can manipulate so HR fills the cube farms with thin-skinned freak jobs instead of healthy men with no tolerance for drama or incompetence. Do anything you can to bypass HR during your job search. They are not your friends.
Many clued-in men have started their own companies as the easiest alternative to life in those shark tanks. Great if you can; otherwise, you must learn the art of the Red Pill Ninja–being emotionally invisible in the workplace, finding contentment in hobbies and living cheap to build up fuck-you money.
A tiny bit of good news, it’s not your age that’s making employers nasty. We’re all in this together.
You might enjoy the book “Behind the Housing Crash” by Aaron Clarey. His employment nightmares will give you comfort that you aren’t alone. You might also enjoy this post on my blog:
https://gunnerq.com/2018/06/26/radioactive-barbie/
How could he not be her husband if shacking up made marriage?
Perhaps he couldn’t be her husband, because he was somebody else’s husband.