Authority always comes with responsibility, whether you accept it or not.

Women in our culture have become incredibly nonchalant about raising children without a father.  We have gone from seeing this as a failure compared to the traditional model (where single mothers are forced to make the best out of a bad situation) to women arguing that this is superior to raising children in an intact family.  From commenter Lisa:

as a divorced mother, I’m deeply offended by this post. You have no idea what went on in my marriage, or why it ended. Nor do you have idea how my daughter has turned out. For every example of a “screwed up” child of divorce, I’ll give you 10 examples of spoiled rotten, entitled children from “normal marriages.”

Keep in mind that the criticism from most on my previous post was that I unfairly claimed that a fraction of a fraction of unwed mothers had responsibility for their own choices. The only excuse that was commonly considered to have an exception was excuse #6, and there seems to be general agreement that the excuse is bogus for either 4 out of 5 or 9 out of 10 women who would claim it.  I’m all for being precise, but there is a larger point here.  Tens of millions of children are being denied the benefit of growing up with their father in the home.  The response from our culture ranges from a collective shrug to blaming the fathers who have been kicked out of their kid’s lives.

This all stems from our overwhelming fear of hurting women’s feelings.  50 years ago a very small percentage of women were subject to the dreaded double standard when it came to shaming unwed mothers.  Our society took pity on them, and rolled back the social disapproval.  Now 40% of all children in the US are born out of wedlock, and this only continues to grow (original post with more info on chart):

We did the same regarding the stigma for divorcées around the same time.  As a result, a large part of the 60% of children fortunate enough to be born to married parents have their fathers kicked out of their lives by the mother some time after birth.  The end result is an unprecedented pandemic of fatherless children (more info on this chart from the US Census):

The chart above actually understates the problem, because there is a lag in the data since the majority of current children were born during the lower out of wedlock birthrates of past years. It also counts children growing up with mommy’s latest man (stepfathers) as being with “both parents”.  Certainly not all stepfathers are created equal, and many do everything in their power to fulfill the role of the man the mother kicked out.

I have a question for each of you.  Which outraged you more, the reality of the charts above or my previous post?  Are you more troubled by my making some adults uncomfortable, or the fact that millions of kids are now growing up without fathers?

More to the original point, women have demanded and been given the ability to make every conceivable choice about how, when, and by whom they become a mother.  Being the one who makes the decisions is called having authority.  Women now have as near total authority on the conception and raising of children as is possible.  This is an incredible amount of authority, and having an incredible amount of authority comes with an incredible amount of responsibility.

Anyone who has been trusted with a very large amount of responsibility knows that it is a very heavy burden if you are taking it seriously.  Yet women don’t feel this burden.  Commenter Chels was outraged at the very concept that she was responsible for picking her future children’s father wisely.  How could she possibly be expected to do that?  Yes, this is an extremely difficult task.  If women were truly embracing their responsibility here it would be a very heavy weight on them.  Young women would feel a solemn sense of duty.

But for the vast majority of women this simply isn’t the case.  The search for the father of their children isn’t undertaken with a solemn sense of responsibility.  It is taken as a time for fun and excitement.  The overriding feeling is no matter what choices they make, if there is a bad outcome it isn’t their fault.  Someone else needs to take responsibility.  One commenter on Reddit captured this sense perfectly.  FlagonOfMead was sure that my insisting that responsibility accompany authority made me a woman hater:

I do believe the author must hate women. He is very judgmental of women and their perfectly normal choices, like the choice to have sex with men, a mutual decision which is both perfectly healthy and acceptable.

“You deserve to be abandoned as a mother because you are a slut who had sex outside of marriage” is ridiculous. Yeah, I’m sure this author loves women.

Actually I do love women.  But I’m not so heartless as to not care about the nearly 2 million innocent children born each year in the US with the disadvantage of not having married parents.

How about you? 

You can try to spin it all day long that these kids really benefit from not being “spoiled” by having a father in the house.  I simply won’t buy it.  Again, we have given women as near total authority on the matter of children as possible.  Where is the feeling of responsibility?

In my post on interviewing a prospective wife, one of the sections was:

Does she see divorce as failure?  Is she willing to make judgments about others who divorce?

Many women today don’t and won’t, as was made painfully clear in the discussion of the last post.  Don’t overlook this when considering a wife.  A woman who doesn’t feel the weight of the burden of her own immense responsibility is simply irresponsible.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Divorce, Feminists, Motherhood, Stantons Heroes. Bookmark the permalink.

227 Responses to Authority always comes with responsibility, whether you accept it or not.

  1. PA says:

    Here is a somewhat unusual, anecdotal point of view on this subject. In my professional millieu, I am around a lot of smart, attractive late 20s / early 30s girls who have long term boyfriends that to my best judgment are greater betas to lesser alphas, but no marriage or children on the horizon. Further, those girls are really wanting to get that ring and start a family. I talk to a few of them, and overhear conversations of others. The boyfriends won’t shit or get off the pot. And I want those girls to have children.

    Now, I understand the legal perils and other things that are causing those guys to hold off on getting married, or having a kid. But somethign must give, or entire crops (LOL at my econ-speak) of smart, beautiful girls will not have children like themselves.

    Seriously, those girls ought to tell their boyfriends that she wants to start a family, and to give him a way out if he is unwilling; And if he doesn’t take the exit door, to just get herself pregnant wiht him. I’d rather those girls have out of wedlock chilren than no children at all, especially knowing that the boyfriends woudl come around to assuming th eresponsibility of fatherhood.

    It’s a tragedy that the “Knocked Up” movie is a model for girls who look like Katherine Heigl to not go extinct.

  2. I take no responsibility for the fact that my ex-husband has been an abusive father who destroyed his relationship with his daughter by saying cruel things to her (i.e., telling her that she’s ugly, fat, and stupid–exact words), stealing her birthday money from her savings account, and basically, just not showing up (or ever really acting like a parent). He has done all of those things on his own, without any assistance from me.

    But, you’re correct. I am 100% responsible for the fact that I chose my kids’ dad so poorly. My kids deserved better.

    On the other hand, he’s a guy who grew up in the church, and regularly claims to be a person of faith who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He’s had every opportunity to do better, he was raised to live better than he does, and on some level, he has to know that he’s created this situation and that she deserves better than she’s gotten from him.

    I understand that I will be responsible for this for my entire life. But, at this point, I have zero control over him. My only recourse is to be the best parent I can be, and ensure that my kids have men in their lives who are good role models and can fill that void. It sucks, but it is what it is. Some mistakes aren’t fixable. You just do the best you can to clean things up afterwards and go on.

  3. Pirran says:

    I was thinking along these lines recently when I absentmindedly had Toy Story on in the background answering my emails.

    Here is a triad; a modern classic by common consent and the main human protagonist, Andy, is growing up in a family without any male role model. It’s not even remarked upon at any point during the series. There just isn’t a man. It’s become so mundane that morality tales such as Toy Story don’t feel the need to comment.

    The irony, of course, is that the only adult male role models are antiquated toys. The heroic archetype of the cowboy and the space ranger have become so archaic that they can only be presented as noble farce. “Good” men, faithfully waiting for their turn to be relegated to the attic.

  4. And, for what it’s worth, I certainly would never say that it is ideal for a kid to grow up with only one parent. Even now that my daughter is 18, she needs her dad. It sucks that she doesn’t have a good relationship with him. I wish I could fix it, but only he can do that, and he has chosen not to do so.

  5. mjay says:

    @ PA: The family law situation has gotten worse, not better for men. Why should the boyfriends of the women you mention put their lives at risk for women for whom there is no downside for divorce? Especially since it is women in the first place who are abusing the system!

    As a man, I no longer care about what’s best for “society”. “Society” has f@cked me over in the marriage department. I’m going to make money, have a lot of fun and enjoy the benefits of as many girlfriends as I see fit. Too late for change, buddy, it’s time to enjoylife, not be a beast of burden for some woman who doesn’t give a rat’s ass.

  6. Dalrock says:

    @Dubious Woman

    I understand that I will be responsible for this for my entire life. But, at this point, I have zero control over him. My only recourse is to be the best parent I can be, and ensure that my kids have men in their lives who are good role models and can fill that void. It sucks, but it is what it is. Some mistakes aren’t fixable. You just do the best you can to clean things up afterwards and go on.

    Absolutely. But this is very much the minority view today.

  7. PA says:

    Mjay, you are right, but those of us with children are invested in the future.

    Dubious Woman, is the father of your children the same race as you? I’m asking because your story is very common in BM/WF interracial marriages.

  8. Joshua says:

    @ PA

    Why do you expect men to be responsible to society but not woman?

  9. Dalrock says:

    PA sees a group of women not taking their search for a husband/father of their children seriously, and suggests that the women be more irresponsible as the solution.

  10. PA says:

    Dalrock, no need for the passive aggressive third-person language. Feel free to address me directly. And with the girls I described, they have all been with their respective boyfriends for quite some time, in LTRs. That to me signaled a good-faith move on the girls’ part. The good-faith move on the boyfriend’s part would be to shit or get of the pot.

  11. Dalrock says:

    PA suggests that women “accidentally” get pregnant against the wishes of their boyfriends to rope them into marriage/fatherhood, then accuses me of being passive aggressive.

  12. Brendan says:

    PA sees a group of women not taking their search for a husband/father of their children seriously, and suggests that the women be more irresponsible as the solution.

    I think it’s more that PA frets about the loss of smart pretty white women — it’s primarily a racial concern for him, I think, in terms of not having enough beautiful and smart white people down the stream if these girls are not reproducing effectively.

    That to me signaled a good-faith move on the girls’ part. The good-faith move on the boyfriend’s part would be to shit or get of the pot.

    Actually, the girls could, you know, set a deadline for the guys or something like that, no? That’s the part of the “choice” that Dalrock is referring to here, I think. That is, it is the choice of these girls to stay with these guys who are precisely not shitting or getting off the pot. Sure, the guys are stringing along, no doubt, but in order for that to work, the girl has to be willing to be strung — that, too, is a choice.

  13. PA says:

    Brendan, a deadline is another reasonable course of action. But when a girl has given one guy her early-thru-late 20s, its understandable that there is a major investment on her part.

    My recommendation for the girl to give the boyfriend an ultimatum gives him a clear way out if he’s not interested in starting a family with her.

  14. PA says:

    “the girl has to be willing to be strung”

    Sure. But women do love their man sometimes, and hope that he comes around, and avoid nagging him over the course if the LTR. Then 23 becomes 28…

  15. Brendan says:

    My recommendation for the girl to give the boyfriend an ultimatum gives him a clear way out if he’s not interested in starting a family with her.

    This I don’t disagree with — I think it’s fair for a woman to do that if she is interested in getting married. I don’t agree on the just getting knocked up to cajole him into becoming her husband thing.

    But, in any case, if she just goes with the flow, she’s enabling the stringing along, probably because she’s getting something out of the relationship that she likes and doesn’t want to give up, regardless of the fact that he isn’t committing.

  16. Brendan says:

    Sure. But women do love their man sometimes, and hope that he comes around, and avoid nagging him over the course if the LTR. Then 23 becomes 28…

    That’s true, but that, too, is a choice. She’s getting something she wants and doesn’t want to upset by choosing to issue an ultimatum which may cost her the relationship she now has. That’s a choice.

  17. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    I think it’s more that PA frets about the loss of smart pretty white women — it’s primarily a racial concern for him, I think, in terms of not having enough beautiful and smart white people down the stream if these girls are not reproducing effectively.

    Ah. I thought he was a feminist, but it turns out that he is just a white knight.

  18. Lavazza says:

    PA: “But when a girl has given one guy her early-thru-late 20s, its understandable that there is a major investment on her part.”

    And what years of their lives have the men given the to the women? Why are those years a smaller investment than the years of the women?

  19. PA says:

    I wouldn’t exacyly say “choice.” I’d say, “betrayed trust.” In the cases I’m talking about, its not that these girls are shooting beyond their sexual market value. The boyfriends tend toward herbliness, though not without attractive qualities to compensate. But were not talking players or rock stars. Just normal guys.

  20. PA says:

    Ok, I haven’t been too familiar with this blogger, but I was under an impression that this is an intelligent alt-right site, given that it’s on the GLP blogroll. My impression was wrong.

  21. Lavazza says:

    PA: Yeah, lets say so.

  22. Joshua says:

    @ PA
    Why do you expect men to be responsible to society but not woman?

    My question still stands unanswered. PA please answer my question.

  23. deti says:

    “Which outraged you more, the reality of the charts above or my previous post? Are you more troubled by my making some adults uncomfortable, or the fact that millions of kids are now growing up without fathers?”

    This is the money quote right here. And it gets to the heart of the matter — many women want all the authority to choose the sexy bad boys to make babies with; then wash their hands of responsibility when the bad boy does what bad boys do.

    The exceptions (Lisa, Chels, Dubious Wonder) prove the rule.

  24. Joshua says:

    @ Deti-“The exceptions (Lisa, Chels, Dubious Wonder) prove the rule.”

    You think Chels and Dubious Wonder are the exceptions. Wow, how the mighty have fallen.

  25. rmaxd says:

    PA: “But when a girl has given one guy her early-thru-late 20s, its understandable that there is a major investment on her part.”

    And what years of their lives have the men given the to the women? Why are those years a smaller investment than the years of the women?”

    Interesting how he misinterprets misandry as alt-right …

  26. Ulysses says:

    I disagree with PA’s suggestion that these women get knocked up, but the deadline idea is good. There are some men who are in situations in which they need to “man up.” (Ducks head.) I’ve got friends who threw away good women because they want to be footloose and fancy free twenty-somethings forever. Despite their desires, though, they continue to age. Having a roommate in a cost-effective but run down rental and going out drinking every Monday takes on a different patina when a man moves from his late twenties to his late thirties.

    As to the original question, making people who exercise poor judgment is highly preferable to the discomfort, and outright pain, that the resulting children, as well as society, experience as a result of the choices those free agents make. Shame is not a pejorative, it’s a corrective. That’s where the deadlines are useful, but it’s not a one-way street. The women are culpable for putting up with men who refuse to make them honest women. They are not victims. We need to expect more of one another than solipsism.

  27. deti says:

    Joshua:

    Lisa, Chels and DW are the exceptions to Dalrock’s #6.

    “The man I chose to father my child is an addict/abusive/irresponsible.”

  28. Joshua says:

    @ Deti

    Um, no. Just no. She picks him shes responsible no exceptions. You had the same POV till you found out about your wife’s history. Don’t act like you didn’t.

  29. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    Actually, the girls could, you know, set a deadline for the guys or something like that, no? That’s the part of the “choice” that Dalrock is referring to here, I think.

    Absolutely. I even made a handy flowchart a while back to help women navigate this process.

  30. Aurini says:

    @PA
    I’d be questioning what those girls are doing to earn the husband; are they practicing ‘girl game’? Do they act sweetly, cook for their men, try and look beautiful even on a Thursday afternoon? Or do they belch, and fart, and aggressively demand that the men give them adventure? If all these guys are refusing to marry these particular girls, we should maybe be looking at the girls.

    @Dalrock “Authority and Responsibility”
    I think our time can best be summed up as the separation of the two; those with authority have no responsibility – Barack Obama will never pay for his mistakes, nor will the banks, nor will the crooked cops, the divorce courts, the feminists, or women in general. Responsibility is exported onto the heads of those without Authority.

    Nature abhors this state. A correction is coming.

  31. deti says:

    Joshua:
    You’re missing the point. Dalrock’s rule 6 is true. There are exceptions to every rule. They in fact prove the rule. DW, at least, says she picked an on paper great guy who later turned out to be abusive and irresponsible. If you take her at her word, she’s an exception. Lisa hinted that she could not predict her ex husband’s behavior. Take her at her word, she’s an exception.

    My wife’s history has nothing to do with this, nor with the larger points of the last post and this one. Personal attacks against me don’t change the facts or the rules.

  32. Mencken says:

    Pa,

    In regards to your first comment, I can resolve the mystery quite simply. It requires looking at a rather ugly truth, however. Still, the relevant facts are right there in your comment. Let us look at the way you characterize these women in greater detail.

    “smart”
    Though this is, arguably, lamentable, the fact of the matter is that “smart” in and of itself is not much of a selling point. Her SAT scores do little to indicate her quality as a wife and mother.

    “attractive”
    That may be the case, but…

    “late 20s / early 30s girls”
    …these girls are past their prime.

    What man worth his stones wants to sign up for life with a woman who has given her best years to her work and other men? Furthermore, if a man really does want the best for his children – including the best embryonic development – then a young woman beyond her early twenties can never be more than a second place choice.

    These men way well be biding their time with these women until superior marriage material presents itself.

  33. Odds says:

    Just as I can’t fault the men in PA’s first example for their behavior, I can’t really fault women who enjoy having the decision-making power but not a care in the world about it. It’s a sweet deal if you can’t swing it.

    Of course, cognitive dissonance kicks in at some point. Like a roommate with herpes, it irritates the hamster no matter what else is going on. Freed from the sense of responsibility for her decisions, a single mother instead gets to reap the consequences of decisions she would have considered with greater care earlier on. A significant fraction of women have decided it is easier to be free of personal concern now than to avoid the damage to herself and others of single motherhood later. Good for them.

    In all seriousness, the “lack” of good men for these princesses is just like the current problems with the economy: it is only going to get worse the longer you ignore it and continue acting like you always have. Hell, on paper I’d make a great husband: Christian, good career, functional understanding of Game, tall, and I’ve never in my life either cheated or knowingly slept with a taken girl. There are more guys like me, including many better examples, who will be happier just dating these princesses and letting them enjoy their reproductive authority without our contributions.

    Now, naturally some women will honestly screw up and choose what looks like a good guy, only to find that later on he turns into an abuser or alcoholic. My heart goes out to them. Happens to the best of us. But most can’t honestly claim they didn’t see it coming (all of them will still try). Desperation born of baby-rabies will cloud your judgment more than the overinflated ego of youth, but even when someone warns girls about that (which I admit is rare, as it’s verboten in the mainstream to bring it up), they don’t listen. Oh well.

  34. Susan says:

    I think fathers are extremely important, and when divorce means a child has less or no contact with a father, it’s a tragedy. If a woman leaves a marriage simply because she’s bored or doesn’t feel butterflies, I absolutely judge that. I know that happens, but this blog can make it seem like that accounts for the vast majority of divorces. Sometimes men leave women though, often for another woman. Sometimes one partner is actually homosexual and that comes out later. Sometimes there is addiction or abuse.

    I think two things would really help. Society (and especially the church) should treat divorce as the tragedy it is, and not act like it’s no big deal. And secondly, parents should be more involved with preparing their children for marriage, and helping them choose well. I would have done a terrible job choosing a husband in my early 20s, based on the men I was dating at the time. I chose well in my late 20s, mostly because I was more mature, as were the men in my peer group. I was strongly motivated not to end up in a marriage like my parents (which ended in divorce) but it could have easily happened if my 22 year old self had married.

  35. Chels says:

    Commenter Chels was outraged at the very concept that she was responsible for picking her future children’s father wisely. How could she possibly be expected to do that?

    Dalrock, that’s not what I said at all! I am not outraged at picking my husband properly at all, that would be just plain stupid.

    However, what I did say in the previous thread was that even if the guy seems excellent today, in X number of years from now, he might decide that he just wants out of the marriage–it’s entirely possible for a supposedly good guy to get up and leave. However, I don’t see this as being my fault because I didn’t pick responsibly; I picked him as well as I could at that time and I have no control over another person’s actions.

    Even you said that it wouldn’t be your fault if your wife decides she’s unhappy and she leaves.

  36. greyghost says:

    I have a good suggestion for PA or anybody else that has smart white women or any other well educated women in LTR that are with men that don’t seem to want to “shit”. First inform these smart women they are irresponsible stupid cunts. Use cunts it is a very inflammatory term that will get their emotions flowing. Inform the dumb asses that they are being very stupid again by playing house. If they are so mature and committed to making a family then why are the finding men that are good to fuck and not good for building a family. Each and every one of those women are completely worthless and deserved to be pumped and dumped gina tingles and all.
    My oldest daughter is 10. If my daughter ever said some crap to me like PA just described i would say exactly waht I just posted to her to her face. Some dumb ass please tell me I’m wrong.

  37. “Does she see divorce as failure? Is she willing to make judgments about others who divorce?”

    “Many women today don’t and won’t, as was made painfully clear in the discussion of the last post. Don’t overlook this when considering a wife. A woman who doesn’t feel the weight of the burden of her own immense responsibility is simply irresponsible.”

    As evidenced here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristin-tennant/how-not-to-respond-to-new_b_1032735.html

    The author suggests that people, especially Christians, take the judgmental or enlightened approach to responding to a divorce. With “enlightened” the attitude is taken that the person has wisdom that could have saved the other person from divorce, if only they would have listened. One suggestion she thinks is “over simplified” is that “Love isn’t a feeling, it’s a decision.” Really?? I think most readers here would agree such a statement is common sense, but to others that is “over simplified” or maybe makes too much sense to be true. Frivolous divorces are due to the feeling of the woman falling in and out of love.

    This comment sums up the PC appropriate response to divorce:
    “Divorce like marriage is an opportunit­y. Make the most of it” and is probably what women want to hear because it makes them feel good.

    Really though, for women, marriage is the action that makes divorce an opportunity. Divorce didn’t use to be seen foremost as opportunity, but as failure, and that is where the line is drawn between the two types of women. Some women may take both views and see it as failure on the man’s part, but an opportunity for her part.

  38. greyghost says:

    @Laura Grace Robins
    I herd in a video from Bernard Chapin from one of his “inferno’s’ him quoting a woman as refering to divorce as “cashing out” I believe it was on the starter marriage thing that was a popular subject at the time..

  39. One suggestion she thinks is “over simplified” is that “Love isn’t a feeling, it’s a decision.” Really?? I think most readers here would agree such a statement is common sense, but to others that is “over simplified” or maybe makes too much sense to be true. Frivolous divorces are due to the feeling of the woman falling in and out of love.

    I do think that people spend way too much time pursuing the “feeling” of love. I’m a mother. Let me be blunt: There are times when I don’t “feel” like getting up at 6:30 a.m. on a Saturday morning to take my son to practice. I don’t EVER “feel” like getting up at 3 a.m. and cleaning up my child’s vomit. I do it anyway, because love isn’t a feeling. Love is something you do–It’s an action. It isn’t always pleasant to discipline my children (in fact, such discipline often results in me having to curtail something I want to do), but I do it because I love them. Love is sacrifice and service and ethics, it’s not a gooey feeling that comes and goes depending on how romantic my partner is that particular evening.

    There is this culture of entitlement in the U.S. right now where people believe that they are entitled to feel a certain way all of the time, and if they feel vaguely unhappy, that must mean that love is over. I don’t agree with that. Love is an action. When I don’t feel particularly loving, I can behave in a loving way, and that action will often bring my feelings into line. People–of both genders–aren’t taught how to manage their feelings via ethical behavior.

    Divorce is a bad thing. Sometimes, it is necessary, but it is never a positive. There are tangible actions that may force the issue of divorce, but I don’t think people should divorce because they don’t “feel” a certain way. Feelings can be managed and controlled.

    In my opinion, one of my jobs as a parent is to teach my kids to do that.

  40. sean says:

    Dalrock,
    I’m glad you have addressed these topics. The sympathy that society had for single mothers has turned into this roaring message that simply being a single mother makes you a superior woman. Believe it or not the meme that single mothers are so much stronger and superior than other women is being replaced by an equally insidious meme that “strong, confident, successful women,” can expect to not get married. Because if you are a successful woman, men will be too intimated to marry you or stay married to you. Of course, that leaves the impression that those of us (women) who took the responsibility to get married and pick a good father for our children, are not strong, successful, or independent. It gotten so bad in the black community, I openly mock that I must be weak, and unsuccessful, b/c I was married before I had children, and have managed to keep my husband happy for 14 years.

  41. Desiderius says:

    Dal,

    PA’s scenario is exactly what I’m talking about vis-a-vis stringing along the stepford herb. These women have likely rejected hundreds of more suitable men with IHAB’s while remaining “faithful” to these emasculated herbs. If the Ro’s are to be believed, that faithfulness involves periodically banging alphas who plow through that IHAB shit test.

    Once a woman is past 25, exclusivity without a ring is a sucker’s game.

  42. Desiderius says:

    As a child of divorce, I’ll say you’ve never been more on point than this post.

    I hope you continue to hammer it, hard, in the future. Our indigenous culture is now the one being mauled by the cosmopolitan juggernaut. I’m not going down without a fight.

  43. Mencken says:

    Desiderius, I could not agree more emphatically. I find it startling how much the modern world at large denies the grave importance of a woman’s age. This denial is such an affront to reality that it surely will not sustain itself – but its ride into the sunset will probably not be glamorous.

  44. Eric says:

    PA:

    “A good faith move on the woman’s part’—hardly. These bitches deliberately choose males on the basis of their unfitness as fathers/husbands. A real man is too threatening to the ‘independence’ and ‘not needing a man’ and ‘the strong woman’ garbage preached by our feminist culture. Then, of course, after hooking up with these losers, they can play the victim card and pretend that they ‘didn’t know any better’, ‘they loved him’, ‘they didn’t know he was like that’ &c.; and after all, ‘all men are pigs anyway’, so what did she expect?

    As a collorary to Dalrock’s advice on choosing a wife: Don’t take anybody from our culture.

  45. PA says:

    I didn’t wanna come back to this thread because the host comforted himself in a way that diminished my regard for him. But for the sake of the topic, which generated a lot if responses, let me clarify a few things.

    One: some of you didn’t even read what I wrote, and just made noise. Those boyfriends were with those girls since the girls’ early twenties. Hence “shit or get off the pot.”

    Two: some if you come across as though women figured in your life as an abstraction. Believe it or not, women are human too. Not all are evil viragos scheming to cuckold-divorce ass-rape her husband. Have you even had a girlfriend ever?

    In the cases I described, the girls are smart, pleasant, good looking, and have good personalities. The boyfriends are defacto family, spending holidays at with each others’ parents, etc. Hence, again, shit or get off the pot.

  46. hurpadurp says:

    Have you even had a girlfriend ever?

    Arguably, the easiest way for a man to be convinced that women are inhuman harpies is having a girlfriend or wife. You do know that there are a bunch of guys here who have been absolutely devastated by nasty divorces, false rape accusations, and all that, right? I haven’t, personally, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to start claiming that the other guys here don’t have their reasons for the distrust of the “fairer sex.”

  47. PA says:

    “comported,” not “comforted.” As to my shaking language, suggesting some of you sounding like you never had a girlfriend: if it hit close to home, sorry bout that. Advice: more Game, less MRA. You’re welcome.

    Or just come the fuck out of the closet.

  48. cd says:

    We have a very nice gal at work, now over 40, had a kid. Her story is that the father wanted nothing to do with the child. Well in Canada, this never happens and child support is the cudgel used at will. So we figured out she went turkey baster. No problems, except that the tax payer gives her subsidized daycare, she makes $85,000 a year. Her child is beautiful, and it will have about 20 uncles from her co workers and we give her a hand with home maintenance and other projects, but really, isnt that the duty of a husband? She has embraced all of the power of producing a child, but at every turn, wants someone else to sort out her problems. At least she didnt hose some loser down for his dna and then his wallet, but I dont think that the public at large should be paying for the day orphanage.

  49. Brendan says:

    Or just come the fuck out of the closet.

    This is a meme that is making the rounds that I frankly find rather puzzling. The suggestion seems to be that the at times over the top rhetoric criticizing women on MRA sites is indicative of a kind of latent or suppressed homosexuality. That seems quite odd to me, as the gay men I have known in life have all pretty much loved women (in a different way than straight men do), perhaps precisely because the sexual issue is off the table for them. I have never gotten a strong anti-woman vibe from a gay guy, really.

  50. greyghost says:

    Well PA my first comment after you clarifide yourself still stands as apt for the girls your are refering to.
    Your point one: says I got it right on who I’m talking to.
    Your point two: This is not something you say to a girlfriend.It is something you tell a friend or daughter
    “In the cases I described, the girls are smart, pleasant, good looking, and have good personalities. The boyfriends are defacto family, spending holidays at with each others’ parents, etc. Hence, again, shit or get off the pot.”
    You are letting some good pussy go to waste allowing them to throw their youth away being happy with gina tingles. You already know better with the shit or get off the pot line. Get hard and tell them the truth,hell one of those prized pussies maybe yours for showing some guts and not just going along and not hurting her feelings.

  51. Lavazza says:

    PA: If marriage is beneficial to men in general and these men in particular, the women should woman up and propose to them, to take them out of their misery. Your talk is implying that marriage is bad for men, but something that they should do anyway.

  52. whiskey says:

    PA — the women want kids, and marriage, but the guys are not willing? That to me says “market failure.” There must be a reason why the guys do not want kids and marriage. There is usually in these cases a short term cost/disadvantage when the market fails to clear, so to speak.

    My guess would be, that for most of these women, their boyfriends do not see them as marriage/mother material. That for most of the men, they see family formation as something to be avoided. That is not very natural, so I would assume it is fear of divorce. The fear that, given modern society and views on faithfulness (i.e. men only owe to wives/girlfriends, not the reverse) they fear someone better coming along. One of the costs of sexual freedom is guys on the greater beta/lesser Alpha role knowing quite well that commitment by women is conditional to nothing better on the horizon. Marriage is not lock-down, it’s a short-term lease, at best. High divorce rates tend to promote that sort of thing.

    Family is now, a single mother and a kid; or perhaps two by different guys. The women bear responsibility too. They could if they wished have selected a more beta guy willing to jump into marriage and kids regardless of divorce risk, but those guys would not have been as sexy. The women traded off marriage-friendliness and reliability for sexiness, and are now complaining. They don’t REALLY want marriage and family, if they had they would have made those choices. They’d rather have steady-sexy.

  53. PA says:

    Brendan, open “fabulouth” homosexuality and the closeted, conflicted kind are two very different birds. Where does the meme come from? Possibly from a tiny but loud handful of MRAs who come off as so angry with women, it makes others wonder, fair or not.

  54. Lavazza says:

    Brendan: The only gay guy I have talked about these things with is close to MRAs in his views, i.e. women do their best to avoid pulling their weight and use easily duped men as often as they can. I guess his lack of sexual interest in women explains his view.

    Its funny all the shaming talk that is heaped on men who are not under the spell of the pussy: Gay, player, manboy, Peter Pan, bitter, loser, cynic etc.

  55. Brendan says:

    Yeah, I guess I’ve just never known a gay guy, even one who came out “late”, if you will, to be hostile to women in the ways that some MRAs can be. I guess it’s possible, but it seems like an odd assumption to me, as I have never seen it in real life. They would be very odd gay guys, even if closeted/conflicted.

  56. Arguably, the easiest way for a man to be convinced that women are inhuman harpies is having a girlfriend or wife. You do know that there are a bunch of guys here who have been absolutely devastated by nasty divorces, false rape accusations, and all that, right? I haven’t, personally, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to start claiming that the other guys here don’t have their reasons for the distrust of the “fairer sex.”

    Lots of us have been through some nasty shit. Labeling an entire gender on the basis of the actions of individuals is illogical and short-sighted.

    Are all men cheaters because the petulant man-child I was married to couldn’t keep his dick out of other women? I don’t think so. In fact, after my divorce, I looked around me and found many men who were loyal husbands and good fathers. I looked at them, and learned to choose a better level of person by looking for their positive attributes in the people I dated.

    Being cheated on sucks, but the sort of negativity expressed in your post has a tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. You think women suck (aka: inhuman harpies). When you express yourself in these terms, what healthy woman is going to want to spend more than 5 minutes in the same room with you? Any woman with any sense of self-respect, at all, will be repulsed….they will subsequently avoid you. The only women who will respond to this negativity are the scary/sad/broken ones, which serves to reinforce your negative stereotypes.

    I’m sorry that some chick stepped on your dick and hurt your feelings, but your bitterness makes you an object of pity.

  57. hurpadurp says:

    Whoah now, Ms. Wonder, who says I’m the bitter one? I explicitly said “I haven’t personally,” i.e I haven’t been reamed in divorce court or falsely accused of rape. I was simply saying that unlike PA, I’m simply acknowledging that other men have their reasons. Seeing where they’re coming from doesn’t mean agreeing with them. Not necessarily, at least.

  58. Anonymous says:

    Really, her complaint is: Waahh, you made me feel bad!

  59. greyghost says:

    That is that team woman thing showing itself.

  60. Lavazza says:

    PA: Why would a gay man be angry with women? Judging or cynical, yes, but to be angry with women I think you have to be straight enough to have let your sexual interest get the better of your judgment.

  61. Legion says:

    PA says:
    October 29, 2011 at 12:02 pm
    ” And if he doesn’t take the exit door, to just get herself pregnant wiht him.”

    Aahh, you’re proposing some kind of pregnancy fraud. So if a man knows he’s is getting defrauded and leaves the country, then at the the child will be raised by a criminal.

    PA says:
    October 29, 2011 at 5:32 pm
    “Or just come the fuck out of the closet.”

    Now shaming language. Why do you hate gays so much you use their lifestyle as a tactic to force other men to do your will.

    You are so hate filled I could never believe a word you say.

  62. PA says:

    I didn’t make up the gay mysogynist meme. I just use it to shame omegas straight.

    Still, some MRAs do go on so much about “men this, men that,” it make one wonder. It just seems like it’s not really cuckold-alimony-divorce-add-rape that gets them so animated. Whoa – go back to that “ass-rape” part again.

  63. Lavazza says:

    PA: Ah, you are just trolling. Good effort.

  64. PA says:

    I wouldn’t call it trolling. I’ve been a well regarded alt-right commenter under the “PA” handle for something like five years now. Granted, my comment quality swings between extremely insightful and off the wall. But anyway,

    I don’t recall commenting on this blog before, until I left a somewhat controversial first comment here this morning, with an honest intention of taking a nuanced look at a social problem, embodied in a handful of individuals I know personally.

    Some commenters responded thoughtfully, others like idiots. The blog host himself, to my surprise, responded the way he did.

    So subsequently, I came back here half-serious, half- “just fuckin with ya.”

  65. greyghost says:

    You just described your style of trolling here.

  66. Ellimist says:

    The “team woman” reaction is pretty automatic.

    My mom has three sons, (24(myself), 22, and 18), and I assumed she’d be able to sympathize with issues such as these. I have a lot of respect for her, but in the battle of the sexes she is 100% team woman.

  67. Dalrock says:

    @PA
    You lead with a mangina/white knight suggestion that women use “oops pregnacies” to snare men into marriage. Which blogger or even respected commenter in the alt/right sphere would agree with that? I’d appreciate a link so I can do a post on it. You mentioned GLP, but I’m pretty certain he is no mangina; if you prefer I can email him just to make sure.

    Then you pivoted from white knight/mangina to better than everyone else with women alpha, and accused those who wouldn’t be white knights of being gay. But true alphas don’t say the kind of stupid mangina stuff you lead with. No one was fooled.

    You are just pissed because you embarrassed yourself and we called you on it. At this point your best option is to quit digging. But my question in the beginning of this comment stands. Which alt-right blogger would ever back such a white knight proposal?

  68. Fourmyle of Ceres says:

    Maybe someone has already brought up this point. I haven’t read all the comments from this post and last. 

    All women are “like that” to a degree, but it IS a sliding scale. Some are more; some are less. Even in today’s world, steeped in feminism, there are women who (by nature or luck) do want to be in a steady relationship with one man and have a family with him, not to ride the carousel and party on. These are the “good” ones.

    But the good ones live in the world feminism has made, where feminists have done everything in their power to devalue sex and give it away for free. The reality of the dating market is that if a women doesn’t put out, she’s frozen out of the dating market. She can’t get married because she can’t get a boyfriend. Guys who are willing to wait are exceedingly rare; damn near mythological in my experience. 

    So here’s the good one. She wants to get married. So she has to date. So she has to put out before marriage (seriously – that’s just how it is today. You can hold out for a month or two at most). She can be careful in picking her boyfriends, and careful in the use of birth control, but neither human judgment nor condoms are perfect filters. Both have a rate of error, and sometimes they both fail at the same time. 

    This brings us to my Mom. (And Dalrock, I like you, but if you reply this to post with anything less than respect for my Mother, there will be consequences in the incredibly unlikely event we ever meet in person). At 26 she was in a long-term monogamous relationship with a man that was mature, steadily employed, a home owner, a church-goer, etc. He seemed like a good bet. After a year or so the birth control failed, and he bailed. Just poof, he was gone like a fart in the wind.

    At that point she had a choice, and she chose life. Seeing how that’s my life, I’m incredibly grateful for that. Being raised without a Dad wasn’t as good as having a good father figure in the home, I’m sure, but it beats being dead. 

    Did my Mom choose to be a single mom? In a sense, but not really. She did the best she could in the dating market she found herself in. She made a bad choice, but it was only known to be bad after the fact -and not before. No one is omniscient; no one can know whether a reliable-appearing person will fail them on a moment of need. 

    Anyway, my main point is that you’re being overly harsh, and stupidly unrealistic with your points 5/6 in the previous post. Women desire relationships. It’s a basic human need. To deny them this is just evil (and pointlessly unrealistic – you might as well blame people for “choosing” to breathe). And in the feminist created world, that means sex with imperfect men (and imperfect knowledge of the ways in which some men are imperfect) and imperfect birth control. It would be better if we lived in a world of chivalry, chastity and monogamy, but we don’t. We live in this world. There actually are some excuses besides being a widow that are valid.

  69. Desiderius says:

    whiskey,

    “They could if they wished have selected a more beta guy willing to jump into marriage and kids regardless of divorce risk, but those guys would not have been as sexy. The women traded off marriage-friendliness and reliability for sexiness, and are now complaining.”

    They don’t choose the herb because he’s sexy, they choose the herb because they can utterly dominate him. He starts out as her validation buddy (the female equivalent of fuck buddy) and does so well at it that she has a hard time giving him up for a man closer to her SMV rank. The herb gains a weird sort of power over her that way, but being utterly passive, he never gets around to proposing.

  70. PA says:

    You lead with a mangina/white knight suggestion that women use “oops pregnacies” to snare men into marriage.

    Yes – men who took their youth, and who are given a fair way out. Agree or disagree wiht my proposition. Ulysses and one or two other people made excellent cases contra mine. You failed in that regard, instead sputtering fifth-rate commenter taunts “white knight,” and shifting into a bitchy passive-aggressive third person, ala Auster, who at least has first-rate brains to compensate for his occasional cuntiness.

    Which blogger or even respected commenter in the alt/right sphere would agree with that?

    Maybe a few, maybe none. What’s your point?

    You mentioned GLP, but I’m pretty certain he is no mangina; if you prefer I can email him just to make sure.

    Yeah, I mentioned him because he is probably the best 30’ish blogger in the sphere, possibly headed for bigger things, and has a cool personality. So I figured your bein gon his blogroll speaks well of you… But – but – where the hell does the “mangina” thing come from and why are you getting him pulled into this anyway? Shit, you sound like that screwball commenter Jerry, who kept crying to Roissy whenever I gave him shit.

    Then you pivoted from white knight/mangina …

    LOL at your eloquence, your diction, your originality.

    … to better than everyone else with women alpha,

    Don’t be jealous. Less MRA blogs, more Game blogs will help you out.

    But true alphas don’t say the kind of stupid mangina stuff you lead with.

    Who made you the alpha pageant judge? And what he fuck is a mangina anyway? is it anything like a mandarine or a papaya?

    you are just pissed because you embarrassed yourself and we called you on it.

    You are the one who sounds butthurt.

    Which alt-right blogger would ever back such a white knight proposal?

    Dunno buddy, you wanna know, you ask them.

  71. greyghost says:

    Desiderius
    interesting take but I’m more inclined to go with whiskey’s idea on the subject i think a woman will allow her high value years to be consumed out of ignorance of the fleeting nature of female attractiveness combined with the state of the tingle. Also if the guy is getting regular ass off his girl and does not want kids why in the hell get married. Even a guy mostly ignorant of mens red pill knowledge will not marry under that circumstance.

  72. Looking Glass says:

    @Fourmyle of Ceres:

    I think I address the question before Dalrock gets to it:
    – Your mother should be praised for caring for you, something you’re eternally grateful for, I’m sure.
    – Making the *right* choice AFTER making a chain of risky and sinful choices in *no way* abrogates her responsibility for the choices that lead to your birth.

    And, please, don’t give me that shit about having to sleep around to get a guy. It’s called self-control. She was more than capable of not having sex with the man. She *chose* to do it, and there are consequences to choices. You are that consequence.

    There are no do-overs in life. Screwing up badly can never be “fixed”, only dealt with.

    @PA:

    For all of the shifting of points you keep doing, you’ve completely missed the single most important point: why *should* a guy marry a girl when he gets all of the benefits without the larger chunks of work, that make a marriage work? The women have sold themselves short, so that they can’t get their boyfriends to fully commit is the logical position for the guys. *That* is their problem.

  73. grerp says:

    The problem with women in their late twenties wanting to squeeze a commitment out of their long-term boyfriends is that they are negotiating just when their SMV is fading, and probably their boyfriends know the situation and know also that they don’t want to be alone or go through that Mr. Right search again. Essentially the men are already getting everything they want, unless they want children, without the considerable risk of marriage. So they probably won’t commit, and if the women force the issue, they’ll probably walk. Because they can. Or maybe they will commit, but it’s not at all certain. The time to push for commitment is much earlier when women are fond of keeping their options open, but I’m not sure how easy it is to nail down a commitment in the present SMP. The consensus is that it’s brutal, but maybe not if you choose a more nurturing sort of man who is still young enough to appreciate being deliberately chosen.

    The pregnancy trap is not advisable, though – a major trust killer, and you absolutely need trust for a successful relationship. The music at shotgun weddings is decidedly dirge-like.

  74. Adiah says:

    To answer Dalrock’s original question, I think one of the most pernicious problems we have in U.S. culture today is selfishness and a general refusal to delay or restrict our own gratification. Human nature wants what it wants, when it wants it, and exactly the way it wants it. Our culture has a nasty habit of encouraging it these days instead of encouraging the harder, more responsible path of taking a hard look at ourselves and admitting that what we want isn’t the most important thing in the world. Here are some examples of how this can play out:

    – Don’t like your job or job prospects? Go spend some time finding your dream! Who cares if you don’t pay back those pesky loans, the bankers are all greedy devils anyway. (Better to take a deep breath, admit that you perhaps didn’t choose your college major or career path wisely, and look for some way to be productive even if it’s in a job you don’t like. You can work hard now, live off less than you earn, and save the rest so that one day you can freely leave that job. But for now, you have obligations to meet.)

    – Don’t like your (currently) boring marriage? Go find someone better. The kids will be fine, they’re better off anyway when their parents are happy. Or tell your spouse about how “the spark is gone” and what they need to change so you can be happy. (Wiser societies knew & hopefully taught their kids that there will be emotional ups & downs in life, but you don’t make long-term decisions based on them, especially in a marriage. There’s a reason the wedding vows include “for better or for worse.” If you tough it out and deliberately choose to look for and celebrate the positives in your spouse & your life, odds are things will swing back to the “better” side emotionally before too long.)

    – Don’t like how women have treated men these days? Learn Game so you can get the sex you want without much investment. Women are usually hypergamous sluts anyway and will put out for anyone sufficiently alpha. If a woman you’re seeing won’t, dump her. She’s obviously not attracted to you. Ignore the possibility that there are women who don’t want to be sexually involved without being married – they’re just prudes. (A wise society knows there are shallow women and scheming women and there are honest women, and men need to consider where they’re more likely to find one or the other. If you can’t find an honest woman, review where you’re looking. There might very well be a better place to search. Look for a woman who thinks commitment is worth more than a few climaxes. They exist, and if you treat them with affection, friendship & admiration and use Game judiciously to spark their attraction, you’ll likely end up with someone who makes the rest of your life joyful.)

    – Don’t like that beta men (the loyal, honest, good providers) aren’t as fascinating and attractive as alphas? Think they’re nice, but kinda boring and dull and just don’t cause a “spark”? Keep them as friends but go have fun, you’re young, there will be other fish in the sea when you’re ready to settle down! (Wisdom for women: Your attractiveness to men is a diminishing asset that is severely reduced if you squander it on sexual involvement with men who aren’t interested in a lifelong commitment. Invest that attractiveness in a good man early in your 20s, treat him with respect, friendship & admiration, and you will likely have a best friend the rest of your life.)

    – Want to have an exciting career, fascinating romances & fun times with your friends during your 20s? Put off marriage – your career is more important right now. Don’t settle on someone, or get married too young, and date around a lot. You’ll miss out on the best years of your life if you settle down now! There will be plenty of time for marriage & kids later if you decide you want them. (Biology alert: A woman’s peak fertile years are in her 20s. If you put off marriage & kids, you may very well get neither. Not to mention, taking care of kids is a tiring process. The more natural energy you have the better! Trust me, sleep deprivation while caring for an infant is a lot easier in your 20s than your 30s, or heaven help you, your 40s.)

    – Didn’t choose someone to marry when you could have and now you really want a family but can’t find a man you want to marry? Have a child by yourself! You don’t need a man to complete you, and you can raise a child perfectly well by yourself. You can get childcare deductions on your taxes, and kids develop perfectly well when they’re in day care until you finish your work day. They’ll be fine with male role models from the men you know. And you can even get prenatal screenings to make sure the fetus is normal & healthy. If it’s not, well, you have to consider its quality of life. It wouldn’t be fair to have a child that’s going to be disabled all its life. Better to try again. Women at all ages can have healthy children! (The unfaced truths: Children deserve better. They deserve both parents, and it’s damn hard raising them with only one parent. And why should life be all about what makes us happy, anyway? It’s 25% of your life (even less if you give up a child for adoption). Can’t you make some sacrifices for the child’s benefit? You have the rest of your life to be happy. They don’t have a way to create a better childhood for themselves. They’re stuck with what you choose for them.)

    {sigh} Much of adulthood means living up to your responsibilities even when (especially when!) it’s not what you want to do on your own. If you live your life solely by what you want, you’re going to leave injured people in your wake. And they matter just as much as you do.

  75. PA says:

    The pregnancy trap is not advisable, though – a major trust killer, and you absolutely need trust for a successful relationship

    Excellent point. But not so fast – the boyfriends already breached the girs’ trust (as I alluded to earlier) by taking their best years with an implicit understanding that the LTR will lead into more. At least Roosh dumps all his girls at month-three, not after six years of wasting their time and trust.

  76. Adiah says:

    Sorry, I should have said “I think two of the most pernicious problems we have in U.S. culture today are selfishness and a general refusal…” Grammar fail! My fault entirely.

  77. grerp says:

    the boyfriends already breached the girs’ trust (as I alluded to earlier) by taking their best years with an implicit understanding that the LTR will lead into more.

    Perhaps. Do you feel that if they proposed today and these couples did marry, that these women would feel they could not trust their men? Or would they feel that they had simply dragged their feet too long as men are wont to do? I don’t think it’s comparable. Yes, unplanned pregnancies do happen, but if they do and the women really love and respect their men, they don’t use them as cudgels to get what they want.

    Maybe that’s a dream.

  78. Fourmyle of Ceres says:

    I see that Looking Glass is unable to distinguish between “self control” and SMP realities. It’s not about self control. It’s about choosing between unwed sex and loneliness. Those are the only two meaningful options on the table today. Maybe it’s less “sinful” to be lonely, but that’s pretty cruel of you to insist on it.

  79. A Lady says:

    There is not one SMP, nor even one MMP (marriage marketplace). It is still possible to be in a marketplace that rewards chastity and waiting until marriage for the sexins. It’s harder, but not mythical.

  80. Anacaona says:

    Great post Dalrock. You should add it to the labels so it can be visited as often as it needs to.
    I really hope by the time i have grown children this will be mainstream. Nothing more pitiful that an child with license to do adult things.

    Also feminists should read more comic books ‘with great power comes great responsibility” is a known fact among the nerd crowd.

  81. Legion says:

    PA says:
    October 29, 2011 at 6:19 pm
    “I didn’t make up the gay mysogynist meme. I just use it to shame omegas straight. ”

    As I said, hateful, shaming language. It’s not acceptable here for you to talk like a feminist.

    PA says:
    October 29, 2011 at 6:33 pm
    “I wouldn’t call it trolling. I’ve been a well regarded alt-right commenter under the “PA” handle for something like five years now. Granted, my comment quality swings between extremely insightful and off the wall…” or hateful and downright ignorant.

    I understand how you won’t admit to the last two, but we all recognize it.

    PA says:
    October 29, 2011 at 9:28 pm
    “You are the one who sounds butthurt.”

    More gay references? At a married man? You know, I have never heard a straight man focus so much on gays before.

  82. whiskey says:

    I still fail to see how the guys “stole the best years of their lives” so to speak. Since a woman CAN and WILL walk out the moment she’s not happy, and there’s a better deal around, something must be missing from PA’s tale. Either he’s not seeing something, or mis-seeing it, or has left something out.

    Yes, being White and Straight, I do not look forward to being a discriminated against, third-class human in the New America. I don’t want to lord over other people, and don’t want to be lorded over. I’d like to see lots more White babies (it is in my self-interest) BUT I don’t see it happening. I’d rather focus on the margins of more happy, stable and productive marriages than a vain and failed hope in massive increases in fertility.

    My alternative take on PA’s women is that they find the guys the best option, but they themselves as grerp notes are not the hottest ticket out there, they are fading. If the women were hot like most Hollywood starlets, I’d bet the guys would have married them already. Very likely the women are not playing from a position of strength, their looks faded, weight put on, etc. Quite likely the women are surrounded in their daily work lives by all sorts of men, presumably they have better offers if they are hot. To me this says they’re not.

    This would be my take — the failure of the guys to marry them is indicative of the women being fairly FAT. Which PA has just missed. [I’d say Lawrence Auster would echo PA’s call to marriage action, and would also be wrong.]

    As for hostility to women, I see that all the time. Big Hollywood contributor John Nolte was appalled at young men watching the screening of the Daniel Craig James Bond movie Casino Royale, where the young men urge Craig to run over Eva Green’s character in the road. There is a hostility, one that I’ve not seen before. It seems to be uniformly from straight guys who are marketplace losers. And it includes IMHO most of the guys. You won’t be hostile if you’re banging lots of women. You won’t be hostile if you’re not nailing 10’s either, and you can look yourself in the mirror and not see Clooney or Brad Pitt, but you are doing around your looks/status/power combination in terms of female companionship. IMHO, hostility arises (see Susan Walsh) from most straight White men occupying the lowest possible status position, in society, and being screwed over for resources, particularly in competition with White women, and denied sex/love.

    Nothing comes for free, the cost of those fabulous Alphas and careening from one to the other is the crude, bitter, and lasting resentment of the losers in the marketplace. If you were gay, would care one way or another about women? Heck gay men are higher up the status pole PC-wise than women. Or Black guys, just ask Tracy Morgan. It is non-Alpha White guys who are the lowest, and don’t like it much.

  83. Jason says:

    @PA,

    Leaving aside the reality that marriage is a fairly bad deal for menw ith many attendant risks, even if it wasn’t and a more sane/traditional model existed if it went south. I really have only one thing to say that nobody else seems ton have mentioned yet.

    Why would those guys buy the cow when they are already getting the milk for free?

    Jason

  84. Jason says:

    It is strange to watch how casually women regard this serious authority they has sought to be granted as well.

    Especially as the known provable harm single printing does to kids.

    I have noticed also, being one of those crazy pro lifers (actually I am an abortion abolitionist in the current parlance) that women are extremely jealous of choosing the circumstances under which they have kids refusing to see them as anything more than a mere accessory and not really treating them as human beings at all.

    They claim the right to kill their unborn kids if they don’t want them (or if they are not suitably perfect) and this is seen as a right. Even going so far as to demand that consenting to sex is not consenting to any new life that results from it.

    I guess given it is people who embrace this sort of extreme choice oriented lunacy that make up the “vanguard” in the women’s movement we shouldn’t be all the surpassed that they adopt an extreme no responsibility, all authority mindset about basically everything regarding what women do and how they act and why so much of this insane thinking infects even seemingly sane women and some men.

    I seem to be coming around to the “women need more civilizing than men” way of thinking that someone (grey ghost or zed?) mentioned in another thread. I guess it was inevitable as I just needed to move my thinking a bit to get in line with it as a paradigm as the examples were already there.

  85. Miss_Fu says:

    I can also attest that PA is not a troll as I see his comments on Heartiste and OneSTDV. Honestly I am a little surprised at the aggressiveness in the responses towards his comment, though I don’t agree with it myself. “Accidental” pregnancies break a trust that can’t easily be rebuilt.

    PA, as a young woman I appreciate your concern towards other young women, but I must ask: Do you notice mannerisms in these young women that would dissuade their boyfriends from marrying them? A lot of women behave very differently when alone with their men.

  86. Twenty says:

    It’s about choosing between unwed sex and loneliness. Those are the only two meaningful options on the table today. Maybe it’s less “sinful” to be lonely, but that’s pretty cruel of you to insist on it.

    Boo-fucking-hoo.

    Plenty of boring ol’ Betas are lonely as hell, and no one sheds any tears for them. Are we supposed to regard loneliness as this unbearable burden for women, despite the fact that it’s borne manfully by millions of Betas everyday? If so, you might want to clarify that point before using “but they’re lonnnnnnnnnely” to excuse women from responsibility for their promiscuity.

  87. corey ashcraft says:

    I just want to echo whiskey’s comment. He is right on the bitterness that guys feel if there not banging chicks say…..6.5-9. They don’t have to be super models but cute and thin and perhaps most important kind with a little bit of humility and grace. However, most girls, and I’m purposefully saying girls, are down right cruel and unforgiving to non alpha men. If you get past, say 23 and are not alpha in some way life is quite lonely and it is easy to give up and go your own way. unless your lucky with some ONS.

    Whiskey approaches the alpha-beta question from being white but I wonder if he has considered it from being Black. Especially if your below the height of 5’9″, and do not have a high status job, you stand almost nochance of meeting a woman’s expectations. Every societal role, i.e. pop culture, portrays black men as either Denzel Washington or Will Smith types. If your not near that, have naturally strong game, its a lonely tedious life.

    In addition to being short, at least, by pop culture standards, I’m legally deaf. It’s given me quite unique perspective on the Christian wait until marriage teachings of the Church. When I was 18 my ears were better,I was more alpha as result and had several girlfriends. If I could go back in time and tell my self just how hard it now is to get a girl with these bad ears of mine, I would stress, that as a man, not turn away offers of sex or to delay until later. In my case, I went from decent hearing to deaf in roughly 10 years and over that time I’ve found its gotten harder. I would encourage any man not to turn down sex because whats easy when your young can become quite difficult for a number of reasons, not just physical disabilities, 10 years later.

    I’m not bitter, I’m not mad, it is what is, but I am learning game to compensate (thank god) and at times it is like learning to walk again but boy I tell you: it’s worth it. Besides, I only need to be right once, at my age, I know that’s unlikely, but that’s my goal. Just to be right once.

    P.S:

    I also wish I could tell my younger self about the manosphere, starting with Roissy, then Dalrock, Athol, Baderhut, and Susan Walsh (for the female point of view). I envy how much time the young bucks are saving in breaking the feminist brainwashing coming to this knowledge while young. It certainly will give them an edge in both the SMV and the MMV.

  88. ruddyturnstone says:

    Dalrock:

    “Which outraged you more, the reality of the charts above or my previous post?”

    The reality that the charts describe, of course. And I wasn’t “outraged” at all by your post. But that doesn’t mean your post was, IMHO, without flaws either.

    “Are you more troubled by my making some adults uncomfortable, or the fact that millions of kids are now growing up without fathers?”

    Again, the latter, of course. And, frankly, I’m not at all “troubled” merely because someone has been made “uncomfortable,” as many people should be made to feel uncomfortable. But, again, I don’t think that should immunize your post from any and all criticism.

    I believe you have set up a bit of a strawman here. Surely, “Lisa” does not represent anything more than a small minority of the posters here, nor was the specific quotation you cite endorsed by anyone else, IIRC. Moreover, you know that almost everyone here, including folks like myself, who criticized certain, specific aspects of your post, views the increase of kids growing up without fathers to be a disaster. But should that fact “immunize” your post from criticism entirely?

    I also agree with Chels that you misrepresented what she said. She did not disavow all responsiblity for picking her chldren’s father wisely, rather, as she repeats here, she said:

    “I am not outraged at picking my husband properly at all, that would be just plain stupid.

    “However, what I did say in the previous thread was that even if the guy seems excellent today, in X number of years from now, he might decide that he just wants out of the marriage–it’s entirely possible for a supposedly good guy to get up and leave. However, I don’t see this as being my fault because I didn’t pick responsibly; I picked him as well as I could at that time and I have no control over another person’s actions.”

    And the possibility of that scenario was denied in your original post, and some subsequent ones, and only fairly late in the game did you admit that your absolute denial of its possibility was an overstatement.

    Also, as was pointed out in the previous thread by Lily, and as Chels now alludes to, this was your formulation of how you would feel, if, hypothetically, your wife, at some point down the road, were to go EPL on you or cheat:

    “Yes my wife could cheat or get unhaaaaapy. It happens. It wouldn’t be my fault if she did this. But I would have failed my children in an important way. I think nearly all men feel this way about divorce, even when the wife was textbook EPL and frivolously divorced him. I wouldn’t spend the rest of my life tormenting myself for it, but I would look for what signs I might have missed in order to try to help other men (and their future children).”

    Frankly, and as I mentioned in the last thread, I think you would going too far in blaiming yourself, But, be that as it may, judged on your own terms, you would be letting yourself off too easily, becuase, as Lily pointed out, when a woman’s choice, way down the road, turns out to be have been “wrong,” well then, you say to her::

    “….you have no excuses…No, I don’t mean you can blame feminism for the fact that you have failed as a mother by severely disadvantaging your children. As I wrote above, you have no excuses for that.”

    So, if your choice turns out badly, “it wouldn’t be your fault,” but if a woman’s choice turns out badly, she “has no excuses.”

    That seems like a double standard.

    And it leads to a larger double standard. Yes, women have ulitmate control over having children. But men, in almost every case, have a veto power. They can keep it in their pants (or, at a minimum, out of a vagina). They can use a condom. They can get a vasectomy. Except in the very rare cases of men who are raped and that leads to pregnancy or when a woman somehow steals a man’s semen (eg, out of a used condom), no man fathers kids without his active complicity. But where is your outrage for all the men who chose the mother of their children casually, stupidly, and completely without regard for anything but what makes their dicks hard, to go along with all the outrage you have for women who chose the father of their children casually, stupidly, and completely without regard for anything but what makes their ginnies tingle? Yes, women often, very often, all too often, choose to have sex with men whom it is obvious will make bad fathers, they fail to use contraceptives when having sex with those men, and then they fail to get abortions when unprotected sex with those men lead to pregnancies. They even marry such men. But don’t men choose to have sex with women whom it is obvious will make bad mothers, and choose to have to have sex with those women without contraception, and even marry such women? The only difference is the abortion option. And, while that is an option, it is not one which, as far as I can tell, is very popular in the manosphere.

    Men actually have some “authority” here too, and with that should come some responsibility. To be fair, to be consistent, you should be telling men, nearly as often and as vociferously as you tell women, not to have sex with anyone they do not think will make a good parent, or at least not unprotected sex. And certainly not to marry any such person. I realize that you do give men such, or similar, advice. But not with the level of vitrual that you give it to women. And not, as far as I can tell, with the addenda that, if they fail to follow that advice, that they are “at fault” for the rise in one parent families, and that they have “no excuse” for that. No, to the men, your advice comes across as kindly, helpful guidance, like the words of a father or a big brother. To the women, your advice sounds more like a jeremiad or even an attack.

  89. G.L. Piggy says:

    Not to act like I’m a voice of reason here, but I did have a lot to drink tonight so maybe I can help sort this out…

    I see what PA was doing. He got his “I’ll-just-throw-this-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks” hat on. I agree with the thrust of his point – women have a right and probably should take more interest in setting limits on their men. As a man who has been in two relationships with women who were less-than forceful with their long-term hopes and dreams, I can add my testimony to the pile of men who will take free milk from the cow instead of buying. I will testify that a lot of men will say a lot of things in order to push off marriage and children, and will really only bite if they have to. Hell, over half of marriages from the so-called “Golden Age” were shotgun marriages. Men have forever pushed off marriage whever they could – the only difference is that there are ways to avoid pregnancy i.e. the pill, condoms, etc.

    However, I have to disagree with PA’s point that these women should just take matters into their own hands and get knocked up just to fulfill this desire. Even if these women are choice white women who should reproduce, how long will their pedigree last if they are encouraged to spurt out bastard kids? The two major problems with that is that the justice system will still be at her back and that the government will still support this woman which creates a cycle of bastards and debased families.

    I think it is best to support families with fathers above all else, and everything will follow from that.

    For whatever it’s worth here, and again I don’t want to act like I’m someone that anyone should listen to, I think both PA and Dalrock are valuable to this loosely-defined Manosphere.

  90. greyghost says:

    ruddyturnstone
    Who do you think you are talking to about responsibility for a man. This is a sample of mans world.

    http://dadshousedocs.org/StatutoryRapeVictimsMustPayChildSupport.pdf

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0209/p01s01-usju.html

    http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2009/07/21/family_court_injustices_to_men/page/full/

    Men know a little something about responsibility. The ones that seem to have the most emotional problem and become suicidal and violent are the ones that forget and unwisely assume every one lives under the same rule of law. But the word is getting out and the biggest problem is denial to avoid the initial horror and depressing shock of why they are second class citizens under the law.

  91. ruddyturnstone says:

    Fourmyle of Ceres:

    “This brings us to my Mom. (And Dalrock, I like you, but if you reply this to post with anything less than respect for my Mother, there will be consequences in the incredibly unlikely event we ever meet in person). At 26 she was in a long-term monogamous relationship with a man that was mature, steadily employed, a home owner, a church-goer, etc. He seemed like a good bet. After a year or so the birth control failed, and he bailed. Just poof, he was gone like a fart in the wind.”

    Looking Glass:

    “Making the *right* choice AFTER making a chain of risky and sinful choices in *no way* abrogates her responsibility for the choices that lead to your birth.

    “And, please, don’t give me that shit about having to sleep around to get a guy. It’s called self-control. She was more than capable of not having sex with the man. She *chose* to do it, and there are consequences to choices. You are that consequence.”

    But supposing F of Ceres’ mother and father had been married? Do you really think that in any way gurantees that her father would not have “bailed” anyway? Back in the day, before feminism, before pre marital sex was seen as “OK,” the most likely scenario is that they would have been married, seeing as how the mother was twenty six and they were in a long term relationship. Well, back in the day, it was not exactly unheard of for fathers, married fathers, to do exactly what F of Ceres’ father did, ie abandon his child and his child’s mother. The way you put it, the mere fact that there was no marriage licence is the key factor. In reality, the “risk” of a guy, even a seemingly good guy such as F of Ceres’ father appeared to be, going AWOL is always there. Marriage or no marriage. “Sin” or no sin.

    As for the part about not having to have sex to get a boyfriend, and not being able to get married if you don’t have a boyfriend, and so on, the same reasoning applies. Back in the day, F of Ceres’ mother, presumably, would have said, when her father wanted sex…”No, I’m a good girl, we have to wait until we’re married….” And what would have happened then? He would have married her, right? But that just takes us back to the same place, because, again, he could have left them after the marriage, just as he did before.

    Whether a woman today really has to “put out” to get a boyfriend is an open question. Certainly, MOST guys beyond high school are not going to want a girlfriend who insists on maintaining her virignity. But, I suppose, there are niches and subcultures and so on where it is possible to meet such a guy. And, of course, one can always do without a boyfriend, just like, as Twenty points out, beta guys have to do without girlfriends. But I really do think that is neither here nor there. Because the key isn’t sex before or after marriage, the key is trying to determine if one’s partner will flake, somewhere down the road. From what it sounds like, F of Ceres’ mother chose the same kind of guy for a sexually active, LTR boyfriend as a hypthetical version of her back in the day would have chosen for a husband (ie “mature, steadily employed, a home owner, a church-goer, etc.” who “seemed like a good bet”), but he flaked anyway.

    So, was the bad “consequence” (ie a fatherless child) really the result of the “sin” and “risk,” or was it because, to repeat ad nuasium, that it is just damn difficult to determine ahead of time what another person will do in the future, no matter how good, moral, upright, forthright, four-square, four-buttoned, breakfast-eating, etc, etc, they appear in the present..

  92. ruddyturnstone says:

    GL Piggy:

    “I see what PA was doing. He got his ‘I’ll-just-throw-this-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks’ hat on. I agree with the thrust of his point – women have a right and probably should take more interest in setting limits on their men. As a man who has been in two relationships with women who were less-than forceful with their long-term hopes and dreams, I can add my testimony to the pile of men who will take free milk from the cow instead of buying. I will testify that a lot of men will say a lot of things in order to push off marriage and children, and will really only bite if they have to. Hell, over half of marriages from the so-called ‘Golden Age’ were shotgun marriages. Men have forever pushed off marriage whever they could – the only difference is that there are ways to avoid pregnancy i.e. the pill, condoms, etc”

    If that’s all PA had said, I doubt anyone would have gotten on his case. Basically, that is the standard line around here….that a young woman should not be in or stay in a sexually active LTR with a guy who won’t marry her. The cow and milk thing is so SOP as to be a cliche..

    “However, I have to disagree with PA’s point that these women should just take matters into their own hands and get knocked up just to fulfill this desire.”

    It was this, this encouragement of women to be decietful, supposedly in response to men who “used” them, plus his shaming language nonsense, that got him batted around. These women were free to dump these guys at any time, as you just mentioned. Nobody “took” anything from them. They freely gave away the milk, and that does not obligate the guy who drank it to buy the cow.

    “Even if these women are choice white women who should reproduce, how long will their pedigree last if they are encouraged to spurt out bastard kids? The two major problems with that is that the justice system will still be at her back and that the government will still support this woman which creates a cycle of bastards and debased families.”

    Whatever. The real problem with it is that it’s dishonest. It’s tricknig a man into being a father. And that really, really stinks. And what is it with this “white women who should reproduce” crap? Is this kind of casual racism really necessary or appropriate?

    “For whatever it’s worth here, and again I don’t want to act like I’m someone that anyone should listen to, I think both PA and Dalrock are valuable to this loosely-defined Manosphere.”

    I’m no authority either, but IMHO you are only half right.

  93. G.L. Piggy says:

    ruddyturnstone:

    i think it goes without saying that it is not “right” for a woman to trick a man into impregnating her. but the main reason that is isn’t right is that the state will force said man to provide for the child that he didn’t really want to have a part in producing. i mean, if the man could just freely leave without fear of any consequence, right and wrong wouldn’t even be an issue. it would be just another seed spread around. if the woman were to have the child and would have been forced to provide on her own then the man could then freely choose to do what he wanted without any financial or legal consequences.

    I can’t speak for PA, but i think he really wanted to get across the point that some men tell women what they want to hear and make vague promises about marriage and future plans just to placate the woman but never come through. i’m only saying this as someone who has kind of done the same thing. my GF wants to get married and i tell her that we will, but i dodge these questions and really want to push it off as long as i can. there is something to be said for all of this. something to be said about the lack of communication in these relationships. i know for a fact that a lot of guys in their twenties soak up a lot of womens’ time with these vagueries. i’m always down for harping on feminism, but isn’t this also part of the fall-out from the sexual revolution? that men don’t have to commit, so they won’t, so women who do want commitment are being screwed by the same sexual revolution that many of their ancestor-sisters value so much?

  94. jack says:

    Divorce is always a failure of some sort or other.

    What too many women want is the ability to select a man for maximum gina-tingle effect and then claim innocence when he turns out to be a prick.

    There is no one more unqualified to select a marriage partner for a young woman than the young woman herself.

  95. Bah says:

    “Yes – men who took their youth, and who are given a fair way out.”

    Oh bullshit. Did these men lock them in the basement, Fritzl-style? Nope. Those women freely chose to be with those men. Those men did not “take” the youth of those women; those women gave their youth to the men, and this free choice confers no obligation upon the man.

    If I date a woman for a few years in my 20s, does she owe me marriage and children? No? But… but… she took my youth!

  96. Lara says:

    My suggestion, which PA joked about once, is for him to offer these women pregnant. PA is likely more alpha than all their boyfriends anyway.

  97. et says:

    Jack nails it …

    Ruddyturnstone,
    Like most manginas & women excusers, you’re missing the point, the main reason we have literally hordes of single mothers, is PRECISELY because women are CHOOSING men who do NOT want a relationship, or marriage, or children

    Women CHOOSE alpha’s, biologically, statistically & discussed widely, proven in plenty of studies on this site & other gender sites

    It has nothing to do with the lack of a crystal ball, or the scenarios played out by the not all the women are like that crowd

    If you look at Walsh’s site, she uses, admittedly ridiculously poor statistics, Real BETA men do want relationships & the likely hood of a beta staying with a woman is pretty high

    Which is why the VAST majority of elasticated bloblike women AND hot women in general, settle down with beta’s

    The fact is there are no guarantee’s in life, even with a beta, he could be struck by lightening, or turn to steroids & turn into a liberated masculine womanising natural PUA, which is what most natural pua’s are, elevated high levels of testosterone

    Ask deti, or any of the women on this site, how many good decent beta’s they overlooked, before they found the troublesome, problems with my relationship, im not like that, i DONT choose alphas or assholes,

    hence my problems in my relationships are not because of the guy YOU CHOSE, with enough ALPHA traits to make you attractive to him in the first place

    This is what most women especially in manospheres have a problem, especially the my problems are special snowflake crowd

    For EVERY alpha trait, you are attracted to, in a male, the more likely he is to have EQUAL alpha traits which make a poor candidate for a relationship

    Also as jack in the post above points out, women have virtually NO biological filters to filter out alpha’s

    If you want a guaranteed relationship, do what Roissy & MOST PUA’s have been telling women for decades, marry a none gina tingling beta, the 9 to 5 bring home the bacon, & then screw him over for your inbred mexican poolboy ,,, the modern day feminist american dream …

    What i find hilarious, is how serious the pity parade of women in this thread, take their excuses, ie the lack of a crystal ball, lifes not fair,

    Trying to use the there are no guarantees in life as an excuse the poor choice of relationship partner

    The fact is, the guy you chose had enough alpha traits to cause you problems in your relationship, yes there are extenuating circumstances, as long as YOU kept your deal of the relationship, ie excercising, keeping yourself HOT & tight, HIGHLY unlikely, lol & genuinely had a meaningful connection … most betas would stick with you

    The truth is a good man is easy to find, trying to find a man who will put up with an out of shape, entitled over the age of 30 feminist, im not like that, & my problems are special snowflakes, woman is nigh on impossible

    Also the general truth is as you get older, the more men will flake on you in relationships & cause you problems in relationships, it will not get easier

    You can thank feminism & feminists everywhere for freeing men, from being obligated to look after women & children

    Oh btw women, count yourselves lucky, at least you get to KEEP your houses & children & economy if you’re not haaapy, or have problems

    Women have NO comparison, when it comes to the problems men face in todays societies, your problems arent even a fraction of the prosecution, legalised trauma, LACK of healthcare & gruelling work most men go through in the courts & at work to make our society function

    Women can complain all they want about their special snowflake problems, & relationships & marriage & guys who flake on them, you still have a cosy protected by law existence compared to most men

  98. Eileen says:

    When I first came to this site, maybe two weeks ago?, I was amazed at what I was finding here: A site that understood the damage women are doing to themselves, and not afraid to call them out on it. I understand that the underlying perspective here is the unfairness to men wrought by feminism and the resulting laws that codify that unfairness; Dalrock seems to have a unique understanding here though, that it’s everyone who loses under these circumstances, and that women, currently holding most of the keys, need to wake up and start making better choices.

    While I find some of the responses on this thread –er, less than helpful to that end, I have to say that my reaction to this site overall is surprising me. I spent more time than most in the dating world, fast becoming a casualty of the very system this site seeks to overcome. I can tell you that most women are absolutely clueless about why their lives are turning out differently than they had hoped. They really do see themselves as innocent victims, in a world where “good men are hard to find.” Even though I thought I had come to terms with most of the mistakes I’d made along the way prior to (thank God!) finding my husband, I am struck by the level of denial even in my own interpretation of my own story. I honestly thought that my problem was primarily the circles I’d travelled in, the choices I’d made regarding school and work, and the fact that I’d moved pretty much every two years during my 20s. When I’d ask others, “What am I doing wrong here?” the only response I ever got was, “You just haven’t met the right guy yet.” (Sadly, I even tried therapy at one point, and ended up actually paying someone to give me that useless feedback! In other words, not only are women clueless about themselves, they’re clueless in the advice they give each other, even professionally.)

    The concept that women are blind to a large portion of the men they could happily consider as marriage partners is the one that interests me most. As I look back, I think this is true. Some of the guys I picked back then, I have to admit in retrospect, were pretty creepy, and would have made awful marriage partners and fathers. I congratulated myself for not falling into that trap long term, and, at the time, I saw it as a problem of the pool of available men. But in truth, there were at least two guys I dated who were actually pretty nice guys, fairly good-looking and up and coming in their careers, who I rejected early on due to the fact that I didn’t feel “attracted” enough to them. I can only imagine how many others there may have been, who I never even looked at in the first place. (You can’t imagine the degree to which this realization is blowing my mind, by the way. Two weeks ago, I don’t think I’d have even heard you say it. In fact, if I were still single today, that message would have been way too threatening, and the regret upon its realization too overwheming to bear.)

    So, yeah, Dalrock is being pretty hard on women here. But, wow, look what he has to overcome, even in women who are sympathetic to his cause. A little dynamite is obviously in order here. We’re soft enough on ourselves already.

  99. Dalrock says:

    @G.L. Piggy

    I can’t speak for PA, but i think he really wanted to get across the point that some men tell women what they want to hear and make vague promises about marriage and future plans just to placate the woman but never come through. i’m only saying this as someone who has kind of done the same thing. my GF wants to get married and i tell her that we will, but i dodge these questions and really want to push it off as long as i can. there is something to be said for all of this. something to be said about the lack of communication in these relationships. i know for a fact that a lot of guys in their twenties soak up a lot of womens’ time with these vagueries.

    I’m surprised you are so nonchalant about another man advocating women using oops pregnancies to trap men into marriage. To me this is a very bright line, not that far off from advocating women use false rape accusations to get what they want. Only the most craven white knight would suggest this. Edit: I know you haven’t suggested this, but this is what set me off about PA’s initial post and his decision to double down on it once challenged.

    As for the point about men having an obligation to either break off the relationship or propose marriage, the assumption that women aren’t responsible for their own choices is exactly what is wrong right now. These women have coasted into a situation where because they squandered their own youth the window of opportunity is closing. It is true that they should take this seriously. But they absolutely must take responsibility for their own choices. PA came in on the second post of a very heated discussion on just this point, suggesting it is really men who are to blame when women don’t take their husband hunt seriously. It may well be true that the men they are with are immoral assholes who are stringing them along. But now the question becomes should women be choosing immoral assholes to father their children. PA says yes, and they are justified in using deceit and manipulation to do so.

    Feminists aren’t our biggest problem; white knights are.

  100. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    The incredibly Orwellian concept of Political Correctness has done much to damage free and honest conversation and discussion. As seen in the last few posts, it has helped to corrupt and blur definitions that we use to express our ideas, such as “responsibility”, “fault”, and “blame”. We are fighting “NewSpeak” as well as a host of other ills in our present society. This makes the SMP problems much more difficult to solve for all concerned.

    Thanks for taking on this challenging task in a very able manner, Dalrock. Great job and I’ll keep reading!

    [D: Thank you, and welcome to the blog.]

  101. Dalrock says:

    @Lara

    My suggestion, which PA joked about once, is for him to offer these women pregnant. PA is likely more alpha than all their boyfriends anyway.

    Are you suggesting he turn these women into unwed mothers, that he should marry them all, or that the men should be tricked into marriage with cuckoldry?

  102. That is that team woman thing showing itself.

    There is no team woman thing, for me at least. If someone’s a bitch, she’s a bitch. But generalizing that all wives and girlfriends are “inhuman harpies” is simply stupid.

  103. krakonos says:

    @et

    … the main reason we have literally hordes of single mothers, is PRECISELY because women are CHOOSING men who do NOT want a relationship, or marriage, or children

    Women CHOOSE alpha’s, biologically, statistically & discussed widely, proven in plenty of studies on this site & other gender sites
    The last time me and others tried to deliver similar message, Dalrock created a post to prove otherwise Do women want to get married?. I still say they do not.

    [D: The post you linked to explains it. You may say women don’t want to get married, but their actions (as proven by the Census stats) disagree. Men aren’t kidnapping women and taking them to the alter. The part that is confusing people is that women who can’t get the whole package from the alpha often will mix and match.]

  104. Brendan says:

    The concept that women are blind to a large portion of the men they could happily consider as marriage partners is the one that interests me most. As I look back, I think this is true. Some of the guys I picked back then, I have to admit in retrospect, were pretty creepy, and would have made awful marriage partners and fathers. I congratulated myself for not falling into that trap long term, and, at the time, I saw it as a problem of the pool of available men. But in truth, there were at least two guys I dated who were actually pretty nice guys, fairly good-looking and up and coming in their careers, who I rejected early on due to the fact that I didn’t feel “attracted” enough to them. I can only imagine how many others there may have been, who I never even looked at in the first place.

    Interesting to see your candor in this — thanks for that.

    To me, though, the interesting question is this: even if you had understood this then, would it have made a difference for your choices? What I mean is, I don’t believe people can will or think themselves into attraction, or “getting past” a lackluster level of attraction, even if they understand that this would result in a better relationship in other areas. It’s tough, I think. A large part of the issue is that there are not, in fact, enough men who are otherwise suitable mates who are showing up as attractive to women. There are a lot of reasons for this, and this comment is not the place to go into them all (some men’s doing, some feminism’s doing, some the culture’s doing and so on), but I think it’s also the reality. I don’t think this is going to be fixed easily, in a broad sense, unfortunately.

  105. Brendan says:

    i’m always down for harping on feminism, but isn’t this also part of the fall-out from the sexual revolution? that men don’t have to commit, so they won’t, so women who do want commitment are being screwed by the same sexual revolution that many of their ancestor-sisters value so much?

    Yes, indeed. It is a sword that cuts both ways.

    As we’ve often said in the manosphere, the laissez-faire SMP created by feminism’s sexual revolution has primarily benefited the most sexually attractive men who have a lot of options, because these guys are under less pressure to commit than they likely have ever been in the history of the species. That trickles down to the lesser alphas and higher betas to a lesser extent as well, because they still have a fair number of options (although less than the silverbacks do). The is not a benefit to women who are interested in commitments from these guys, because it makes it harder to come by. The secondary beneficiaries are the smallish group of women who are naturally promiscuous — they get to have as much sex as they want, pretty much with any guys they want (if they are over a middling threshold of attraction, at least), with the least level of social censure that likely has ever been the case in the history of the species.

    Everyone else — most women, most men — are being hurt to some degree by the laissez-faire/anything-goes/non-judgmental SMP that has been erected by the feminist sexual revolution.

  106. just visiting says:

    Thank you DW.
    I think being in the manosphere creates bubble thinking. Out in the real world, if you start talking about alphas and betas there are more than a few people who would wonder what the hell you’re talking about. Even more so 25 years ago before the internet. So, yeah you can talk your face off about how women should just marry a beta, but its meaningless. It also doesn’t take into account that men can have a mix of alpha and beta traits. So what would that make them? Greater betas? If so, it didn’t stop the destruction of my marriage.

    We can wag a finger at women for not marrying men with only beta traits. (“Cause by the sounds of the last two threads even one alpha trait will heap scorn on women if the marriage fails.) But then, that’s like asking men to only marry fat chicks. And scorning them if their marriage to a slender chick fails.

  107. PA says:

    Dalrock is operating under false premises because he’s in his blinked angry-MRA mode. In his snarky first and second response to me and in his use of omega-MRA taunts, he diminished himself and thus informed my subsequent comments.

    As I already wrote, the boyfriends are each a specie of high-performing herb, by no means players, cads, or bad-boys. The one guy I know best, the girl is the second woman he ever had sex with. By my estimation the girls played their cards safely, hitching their star to normal guys.

    And Whiskey, no, the girls are not fat. GLP, no, a pregnancy would not create badtard spawn because in this social class these guys would step up into fatherhood. To answer other commenters’ questions, the girls I’m talking about are, as far as I can tell, good girlfriends with feminine personalities.

    It’s easy to say that the girls should be more vigilant about finding a guy who wants to commit. But reality is not so clean. Your with someone long enough, you become bonded with him unless he’s a complete beta.

    While I am in agreement with most MRA goals, I am not a partisan MRA. I see both sides in the war of the sexes, and thus I recognize it when men do a male-equivalent of cuckoldry — robbing a woman who trusts him of her genetic destiny — by squandering her fertile period.

  108. Dalrock says:

    @G.L. Piggy

    i think it goes without saying that it is not “right” for a woman to trick a man into impregnating her. but the main reason that is isn’t right is that the state will force said man to provide for the child that he didn’t really want to have a part in producing. i mean, if the man could just freely leave without fear of any consequence, right and wrong wouldn’t even be an issue. it would be just another seed spread around. if the woman were to have the child and would have been forced to provide on her own then the man could then freely choose to do what he wanted without any financial or legal consequences.

    This is a post about the pandemic of fatherless children and the responsibility mothers have in creating this disaster. Even if there weren’t the question of child support there is still the question of the great harm he is suggesting these women do to their own children. The other option would be to assume that the unwilling father becomes an unwilling husband as well. Furthermore, a woman who begins her marriage with this kind of conniving isn’t likely to keep her marriage vows. So the dupe very likely ends up getting a free trip through the family court meat grinder as well.

    Meanwhile the woman gets the child and the financial support she wanted, plus additional cash and prices from the divorce. She can justify all of this without even engaging her own rationalization hamster, because men like PA are doing the rationalizing for her.

  109. Lisa says:

    I never said, nor do I think, that my way of doing things is “superior.” Thanks for putting words in my mouth, Dalrock. I’m disappointed.

    [D: I quoted you directly, and I didn’t take it out of context. The only text I left out was “I normally like your blog, but” at the beginning.]

  110. Legion says:

    Eileen says:
    October 30, 2011 at 8:48 am

    That was a very enlightened post about this site and the issues men are challeged with today. Some of us may not be making helpful posts because we understand that women and white knights broke the dating and marriage systems and they are responsible for repairing them so that every adult carries out their own responsiblities along with enjoying their own privileges. We also feel that this will not be done in our lifetime and there is a likely chance that no effort to correct the situation will be made. Possibly women and white knights might get together and make matters worse for most men to punish us for not behaving in a manner they want us to.

    With that situation we prefer the system collapse then its continued persecution of good men. No more marriages and no more children. Honestly it is easy for me to feel this way because I have son in college. If the laws and conditions do not change, I fear he will be imprisoned by some women falsely accusing him of rape or domestic violence. I fear the white knights will make tougher laws against him in their twisted hatred of men not bending to their will.

    I hope my son stays out of the marriage market because I don’t want him to end up as I have: in my 50’s, divorced and nearly broke. I will not waste my time or money on women or the terrible society they have developed. I would prefer a collapse so that something could be rebuilt in my son’s lifetime.

    Or women take responsibility for the society they created and change it to be fair to both sexes. Women also must realize how terrible their natural judgement about men are and recognize good men and not the bad boys. I’m not going to bet this will happen.

  111. Dalrock says:

    @PA
    You are suggesting men owe women marriage or at the very least children out of wedlock (with the attendant hefty annuity). This kind of entitled thinking is at the core of our problem today. It is the reason literally millions of kids are growing up without fathers. Check out the charts above. This is what you are advocating.

    The reason why the men the women are with don’t propose isn’t the issue. Marriage must be voluntary. If he isn’t proposing marriage, she needs to find a man who will. If no man is willing to marry her (which is what you are suggesting), then she should remain unmarried. This is after all what we say to men no women want to marry.

    The rest of this is simply a rant of “But I want! I want! I want!”. In your case it is more white babies. In the woman’s case it is a better proposal than what she can get.

  112. Brendan says:

    The rest of this is simply a rant of “But I want! I want! I want!”. In your case it is more white babies. In the woman’s case it is a better proposal than what she can get.

    I think, however, that this is how his perspective needs to be understood. I’ve watched PA’s comments for a few years now, and he’s fairly consistent in his views in terms of what is of hierarchical importance to him. The top of the hierarchy appears to be the creation, not of more “white babies”, but of more “smart and attractive” white babies. Viewed in that light, with that as the top of the hierarchy problem, the situation of smart/attractive white women in their fertile years not having those babies because their boyfriends are stringing them along is a significant issue for him, because it interferes with the top of the hierarchy goal — therefore even an “oops” pregnancy designed to shame these guys into marrying these girls under pressure is preferable to continuing to be strung along, because at least it serves the top/primary goal of more smart/attractive white babies. He would prefer, of course, that the guys simply “man up” and marry these girls or leave them, but in lieu of that the gotcha route is preferable to reduced fertility for smart/attractive whites.

    It’s just a question of what the primary goal in one’s hierarchy of importance is. For PA, that is preventing the pool of smart/attractive whites (especially smart/attractive white females) from dwindling in future generations. He also has a lot of sympathy for MRA goals as well, to the extent they don’t run at odds with that primary goal. When they do, however, they give way to the primary goal. Yes, it’s a kind of white-knighting, to be sure, but it’s being done because it serves what he sees as the primary goal of preventing this population pool from dwindling.

  113. Brendan says:

    With proper formatting this time!

    The rest of this is simply a rant of “But I want! I want! I want!”. In your case it is more white babies. In the woman’s case it is a better proposal than what she can get.

    I think, however, that this is how his perspective needs to be understood. I’ve watched PA’s comments for a few years now, and he’s fairly consistent in his views in terms of what is of hierarchical importance to him. The top of the hierarchy appears to be the creation, not of more “white babies”, but of more “smart and attractive” white babies. Viewed in that light, with that as the top of the hierarchy problem, the situation of smart/attractive white women in their fertile years not having those babies because their boyfriends are stringing them along is a significant issue for him, because it interferes with the top of the hierarchy goal — therefore even an “oops” pregnancy designed to shame these guys into marrying these girls under pressure is preferable to continuing to be strung along, because at least it serves the top/primary goal of more smart/attractive white babies. He would prefer, of course, that the guys simply “man up” and marry these girls or leave them, but in lieu of that the gotcha route is preferable to reduced fertility for smart/attractive whites.
    It’s just a question of what the primary goal in one’s hierarchy of importance is. For PA, that is preventing the pool of smart/attractive whites (especially smart/attractive white females) from dwindling in future generations. He also has a lot of sympathy for MRA goals as well, to the extent they don’t run at odds with that primary goal. When they do, however, they give way to the primary goal. Yes, it’s a kind of white-knighting, to be sure, but it’s being done because it serves what he sees as the primary goal of preventing this population pool from dwindling.

  114. TikkTok says:

    Every time I come and read a new post, my thoughts of “thank God I am not single” are reinforced. If this is as good as it gets out there, you can count me as being in the “don’t want any part of it” camp. ‘Course, I’m past my prime, too, since I’m nearing 40…..

    Truthfully, I wasn’t surprised or outraged at either the post or the graph. It all makes me incredibly sad, though.

    How much would be different if, for example, welfare didn’t give women more money for each child they had? It’s no surprise that a single woman can often “make” more on welfare than she can by being married and working a minimum wage job.

    Society has made it easy- and in many cases profitable- for single women to become baby factories.

    To answer the question: children should be entitled to both a father and a mother who love them. Easier said than done, eh? Ask any child who grew up without a father- if they are honest, they will tell you it hurt. They will probably also tell you that they wished they had an involved, loving father.

    Is not having a parent better than having a parent who despised you?

    For the better part of a decade, I was actively involved with an organization that (used to) champion the child. Core beliefs included a child having a need for its mother’s presence in its early years which was as basic as its need for food as well as also having a need for the relationship with its father from early infancy on. Obviously, I believe that a father’s presence is just as important as the mother’s, and that BOTH parents need to be elementally involved in the child’s life from the beginning.

    It’s no secret that in generations past, children were not well regarded by their fathers, if at all (since many believed that the areas of care and attention to the child were the mother’s domain), and that the mantra of “children should be seen and not heard” was mainstream for a really long time. Children have long been commodities, so it’s no surprise now that this kind of thinking has another manifestation (this makes me think of India, where it’s not legal to reveal the sex of unborn children because infanticide and abortion of females is so rampant).

    I am more troubled by children growing up without fathers than I am about making some adults uncomfortable. Really, I could care less about that- in theory, adults are more evolved and have means at their disposal, unlike children, who are literally at the mercy of the adults that are responsible for them.

    One issue is parents staying together “for the sake of the child.” I think in many cases, it’s absolutely harming for the child in that situation. In a perfect world, people who really loved each other would get married, have children, raise the children together, and be a happy, loving family. The reality is way different, though.

    I do think people should be free not to have children, especially women, without catching crap from overbearing mothers, friends, society, etc etc etc. At the core of this is responsibility, I suppose, although wealthy families have always had the option of cranking out kids and having the nanny/nurse/governess raise them while they went on their merry way in society.

    I don’t think there is any shame in saying “I am not cut out to have children and raise them the way they deserve to be raised and loved” and then take steps to make that a reality. Be honest. Be an adult. Don’t play games. Why do we feel we have the right to give our judgmental two cents whether a person has asked for it or not?

    But society gives all kinds of options and choices, most of which are not good/ideal for the child.

    I’ve long said that real love is taking out the trash and changing diapers. I don’t know, though, that love is just action. It’s not just action; it’s not just feeling. It’s also about friendship and priority- from both people. The love we feel for a partner is not the same as what we feel for a child (obviously) although there are overlapping actions and manifestations.

    Life isn’t fair. Get over it. Step up to the plate and honor your responsibilities with actual effort, particularly where the children are concerned (and that doesn’t mean don’t discipline them). Maybe if more people (men and women both) started taking their responsibilities more seriously we could actually start evolving as a society and start to undo some of the damage that’s been done…..

  115. Lisa says:

    You said that women argue that this way is “superior.” So you implied it. I don’t think my way is superior. I wish my marriage could have worked out and I don’t feel “empowered.” And I know there are many women who feel the same way I do.

  116. PA says:

    “The top of the hierarchy appears to be the creation, not of more “white babies”, but of more “smart and attractive” white babies.”

    I laughed at this one. But no. I am not an HBD’er in the Half Sigma vein. If I talk about smart and attractive women, it’s because attractive women, duh, inspire me to write.

  117. Krakonos says:

    @Dalrock
    [D: The post you linked to explains it. You may say women don’t want to get married, but their actions (as proven by the Census stats) disagree. Men aren’t kidnapping women and taking them to the alter. The part that is confusing people is that women who can’t get the whole package from the alpha often will mix and match.]
    1) If you mean census of married women over certain age, it proves that women born 40+ years ago, growing 40-20 years ago in a different environment, still placing some restrains on them due to cultural momentum, and dating during 80s to 90s. Yes, most of them married (and then divorced). For those in 20s now, it is not the case. We are just in the middle of profound cultural changes. Not seen for millennia.
    2) If you mean they would like to marry (marry != stay married) a super duper alpha but nothing less then you are definitely right. But my definition of “wanting to get married” means marrying someone of the same value or reasonably higher – female 4s marrying male 6s to 7s*. Then no. Of course, some women want to marry even their equals and accept betaness. I estimate it to 20% to 30%. The rest no. Put no restraints, no stigma and peers doing the same and the result will be (in several generations) majority of women being single mothers jumping from one sexual “relationship” to another.
    If you think that collapse of economy and state stops the changes then remember that many societies had fallen from civilisation to tribal levels. Or were overthrown by less “liberated”.

    * That’s the deal for contemporary young women who marry. This disparity is transient as more men conform to market changes and/or will not even know what marriage means having no examples around.

  118. Höllenhund says:

    I think the fundamental thing that needs to be relentlessly hammered into the heads of women – especially young women – is that they cannot have it both ways. Either we create a society where men’s average social status is elevated above women’s (either through the imposition of hard patriarchy or the complete dismantling of the structures of modern civilization), in which case women will be surrounded by men they find attractive,

    OR we can have the Western status quo i.e. coddling women in every conceivable way (AA, female-friendly legislation, female-friendly education system etc.) through the marginalization and demasculinization of men (it isn’t possible in any other way), in which case they will be surrounded by masses of unattractive, harmless, polite, domesticated „men”.

    There is no third option. NONE. Women either understand and accept this, or they will always remain miserable.

  119. anonymouse-1 says:

    OT: Thought you might like this.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ea_1319909803

  120. Lara says:

    Dalrock,
    I think it would be preferable if the men these women were already with would marry them and have children with them. However, I do think if one of these men had the threat of losing his woman he might realize she’s not bad and he isn’t going to do any better.

  121. Lara says:

    Being willing to have a man’s child is something a man should appreciate. These guys can have their herb genes live on.

  122. Lara says:

    They should be thankful she isn’t breeding with some thug.

  123. Anonymous says:

    “comported,” not “comforted.” As to my shaking language, suggesting some of you sounding like you never had a girlfriend: if it hit close to home, sorry bout that. Advice: more Game, less MRA. You’re welcome.”

    This is shaming language. If you really want to hear bad opinions of women, try talking to some of the men who are actually successful with women…

  124. Desiderius says:

    Lara,

    Decent chance she’s planning to do just that once she gets the ring, or already is on the side. She rationalizes it to herself as just eliminating an unfair double standard since everyone knows men will get some action on the side with women they don’t really love. She doesn’t love the alpha, she just wants the genes/hot sex.

    I’m constantly amazed how often I get hit on by hot women with huge rocks. They don’t play around with wimpy little IOI’s either.

  125. Will says:

    “Being willing to have a man’s child is something a man should appreciate. ”

    Not in the current legal environment, where she can kick his ass to the curb at any time, extract child support and even deny access/visitation to the child.

  126. Desiderius says:

    “Quite likely the women are surrounded in their daily work lives by all sorts of men, presumably they have better offers if they are hot. To me this says they’re not.”

    Nope. Hot women will stick with the herb sure thing at home, while shit testing those presenting the better offer with the casual IHAB. This screens out the men she would have paired with if the marriage market were functioning properly (i.e. monogamously), as a worthwhile man isn’t interested in a woman who looks to trade up and will “fail” the shit test. The hot alpha cock will pass (plowing through), and get the sex, but not the commitment, from her.

    The herb is her security blanket/validation buddy. I think this can also come from efforts to mirror (switching the gender roles) the traditional (and often mythical) dominant husband/subservient wife in typical feminist fashion.

    There are two roles to play for men in the lives of post-monogamous women (they may seek to marry eventually, but that often doesn’t mean monogamy to her) the herb doormat that caters to her every emotional need, or the hot (i.e. sexy son producing, by definition not into commitment – committed sons are not sexy enough) alpha stud who caters to her emotional needs.

    The man looking to provide for both, or expecting his needs be met, need not apply.

  127. Desiderius says:

    that second emotional should read sexual.

  128. Doug1 says:

    PA–

    Seriously, those girls ought to tell their boyfriends that she wants to start a family, and to give him a way out if he is unwilling; And if he doesn’t take the exit door, to just get herself pregnant wiht him.

    You mean deceive him by having a birth “control accident” such as “forgetting” to take her bc pills conscientiously? And then collect child support=also stealth alimony for 18-21 years?

    If so I find that sockingly immoral, and hereby challenge you to a duel.

    It for reasons like this that i don’t think men should have to pay child support to women they never married if they don ‘t want to.

  129. Doug1 says:

    PA–

    And if he doesn’t take the exit door, to just get herself pregnant wiht him. I’d rather those girls have out of wedlock chilren than no children at all, especially knowing that the boyfriends woudl come around to assuming th eresponsibility of fatherhood.

    I can promise you I’d never marry a girl that did that. I might live with her but I’d be damned if I’d put half my accumulating assets and the possibility of alimony after ten year post child support=also stealth alimony on the line for her.

    I’d also screw other girls on occasion.

  130. PA says:

    I didn’t say anything about alimony or child support. The particular situations I was describing would have most likely resulted in… no change other than a kid sire by those same guys coming into the picture.

    Duel? For real? Meet me in NJ. Wait until you see a car pull up, and a life-sized formation of pixels shaped like a P and an A step out.

  131. Doug1 says:

    PA

    Ok, I haven’t been too familiar with this blogger, but I was under an impression that this is an intelligent alt-right site, given that it’s on the GLP blogroll. My impression was wrong.

    No you’re not wrong. That’s roughly where Dalrock is coming from. More religious than most alt right sites, but with lots of non whiney happily married MRA type objections to most religious communities. Never heard much HBD stuff from him, but tons of anti feminism, in a pro marriage anti divorce and divorce laws sort of way.

  132. Doug1 says:

    Susan–

    If a woman leaves a marriage simply because she’s bored or doesn’t feel butterflies, I absolutely judge that. I know that happens, but this blog can make it seem like that accounts for the vast majority of divorces.

    I think that and variations on it, as well as she caught him cheating on her but not neglecting her in any serious way while still loving her, do account for the large majority of white both partners college educated divorces. Of course it’s a feminist media meme for women to claim emotional abuse these days at the drop of a hat or argument, even when they’re the ones doing by far the most of it in the relationship.

  133. Doug1 says:

    Brendan–

    That seems quite odd to me, as the gay men I have known in life have all pretty much loved women (in a different way than straight men do), perhaps precisely because the sexual issue is off the table for them. I have never gotten a strong anti-woman vibe from a gay guy, really.

    Yeah, I agree. Which is very different from exclusively lesbian lesbians, who often hate or have tons of animosity for all but the most bend over backwards in their direction straight males.

  134. G.L. Piggy says:

    Dalrock:

    I’m surprised you are so nonchalant about another man advocating women using oops pregnancies to trap men into marriage. To me this is a very bright line, not that far off from advocating women use false rape accusations to get what they want. Only the most craven white knight would suggest this. Edit: I know you haven’t suggested this, but this is what set me off about PA’s initial post and his decision to double down on it once challenged.

    I don’t think I’m being nonchalant about it. I had just kind of assumed that PA was tossing out an argument to see what stuck. I think that what PA suggests is immoral.

    As for the point about men having an obligation to either break off the relationship or propose marriage, the assumption that women aren’t responsible for their own choices is exactly what is wrong right now. These women have coasted into a situation where because they squandered their own youth the window of opportunity is closing. It is true that they should take this seriously. But they absolutely must take responsibility for their own choices.

    First, I don’t think anyone (or at least me) said that men have an “obligation” to do anything. Men have an obligation to act only if they want a specific behavior from women. If a man wants to keep a woman he would have an obligation to give her what she wants (of course, he should have a list of wants and values to to which the woman should try to accomodate). Second, the Manosphere is partly about teaching men to make certain better choices. So to say that we can’t discuss women and the choices that they make because they are grown adults doesn’t match the entire notion of the Manosphere which isn’t just allowing men to make their choices without an honest critique.

    Women should learn that if they want a man to commit that they should let the man in their life know that he needs to commit – an ultimatum. The woman shouldn’t trap the man through pregnancy or coercion, but it is perfectly reasonable for her to be able to make her wishes known to which the man can make a decision about what he wants to do – keep the girl or move on. I’m arguing that many men take advantage of the fact that their woman won’t go anywhere and accept a less-than-ideal life because they’ve already committed so much time to this one man that they don’t want to give up on him now. It’s a sunk cost thing.

  135. OR we can have the Western status quo i.e. coddling women in every conceivable way (AA, female-friendly legislation, female-friendly education system etc.) through the marginalization and demasculinization of men (it isn’t possible in any other way), in which case they will be surrounded by masses of unattractive, harmless, polite, domesticated „men”.

    There is no third option. NONE. Women either understand and accept this, or they will always remain miserable.

    This reads like a weak-sauce admission that some men can’t hang in a fair competition with women. Your reasoning is logically fallacious (a false dichotomy, to be precise). These are perhaps the only options YOU can see, but certainly other options exist. Men and women could compete on an equal playing field with zero special standards for either. Technology has made this possible, because most work no longer requires brute force, but rather specialized knowledge and verbal acumen. I compete every day in the work force without requiring coddling. I’m marrying a man who is the epitomy of masculinity (has rehabbed his home from top to bottom; serves as an officer in the military). It’s entirely possible for some men to maintain their masculine identity without having a delicate little flower fawning at his feet.

    in which case they will be surrounded by masses of unattractive, harmless, polite, domesticated „men”.

    Betas, in other words?

  136. Doug1 says:

    Yeah, PA is definitely not a troll. Posts all that time as GL Piggy’s, OneSTD and at Heartiste (especially did in the heyday of the place under it’s former name in the 2008-2009 period). Was and is definitely well respected.

    I really take exception with his opps pregnancy suggestion to young women who’ve be “strung along” by their boyfriends for years as I say above by that’s very atypical of him — and it greatly surprised me. Brendan by the way I think nailed the main reason for PA’s musing and I’d guess tentative view on that subject. But PA’s definitely a gender realist and an anti-feminist. He’s also fairly recently married with a kid that’s maybe 1.5 years old or so now.

    Actually I think PA’s and Dalrock’s views on marriage and divorce are pretty similar. Things just got off to a bad start.

  137. G.L. Piggy says:

    To jump in on Brendand’s point about MRAs not resembling gay men in their attitude towards women: women are inconsequential to gay men thus there is none of the animosity or the feeling of rejection some men feel towards women which metastasizes into bitterness. There is nothing about MRAs that resembles gay men. some are embittered. some rightly so, some without less stable grounds.

    you won’t find a cohort within the gay community that holds the same attitude towards men as MRAs hold towards women because a.) men aren’t discerning about sex. Anger at one rejection is often assuaged by solace in the arms of another dude. b.) the guys who would be bitter have a support network of other bitter guys. you can guess what happens from there. Imagine straight men having a support network of women who aren’t turned off by dumped men!

  138. Doug1 says:

    PA–

    Excellent point. But not so fast – the boyfriends already breached the girs’ trust (as I alluded to earlier) by taking their best years with an implicit understanding that the LTR will lead into more. At least Roosh dumps all his girls at month-three, not after six years of wasting their time and trust.

    He only took what she gave. No force involved. You haven’t described any binding agreement that’ he’s breached. Not remotely sufficient to stick him with 18-21 years of child support=also stealth alimony. I violently disagree with that.

  139. FWIW, I compete daily on the job. I don’t compete at home. My guy and I play on the same team, and we are equal partners. Sometimes, he’s more equal than me. There are definitely areas where he has superior knowledge or experience, and I happily bow to his leadership. There are other areas where I’m more skilled, and he lets me take the lead in those areas. We both honor competence. Whoever is best at a particular task decides how things will be done. So, when we’re rehabbing the house, he’s the work site boss. When we’re making meals for the next week, or planning a trip, I tend to take the lead, because I’m a better at those things. I think we’ve had 2 fights in 4 years. Neither of us really cares who is in charge. He’s a good leader, but so am I. Neither of us is diminished by the other person’s competence and skill.

    That’s one thing I’ve never really understood about traditionalists. What if the man really is a better cook, or is better at being with the children all day? What if the woman is better at making or managing the money? Roles shouldn’t be assigned by an outdated sense of what is “woman’s work” or “man’s work,” but rather, on the basis of skill and efficacy. Isn’t the primary thing that the family be as functional as possible?

  140. Lara says:

    This might be a class issue. I was conceived when my parents were young and not married and my mom told me my dad was happier about it than she was. That’s why I say if these nice guys don’t do it there are plenty of less responsible men who are more than up for the task.

  141. Lara says:

    Deterious,
    I flirt with men plenty while wearing my wedding ring, so far I haven’t jumped in bed with any of them.

  142. Ya Boy Matt says:

    So far.

    That about says it all.

  143. Doug1 says:

    rudyturnstone–

    I believe you have set up a bit of a strawman here. Surely, “Lisa” does not represent anything more than a small minority of the posters here, nor was the specific quotation you cite endorsed by anyone else, IIRC.

    Lisa may represent a minority of women who post here but the views she expressed represent the large majority of those expressed by women in our MSM and media entertainment culture.

  144. PA says:

    Doug1 “Things just got off to a bad start.”

    This is a good place to meet halfway. Also, GLP, you’re right in that I kind of threw it out there in my first comment. While as Doug1 correctly describes me as anti-feminist, MRA/antifemnism isn’t really my thing and I don’t give it as much thought as I do to other alt-right subjects.

    But you’re wring in calling my position immoral. I don’t have time right now to go into in in detail but as I note above and at your blog, I equate cuckoldry and “stringing along” as equivalent wrongs.

  145. Eileen says:

    @Brendan, 10:40 — “To me, though, the interesting question is this: even if you had understood this then, would it have made a difference for your choices? What I mean is, I don’t believe people can will or think themselves into attraction, or “getting past” a lackluster level of attraction, even if they understand that this would result in a better relationship in other areas. It’s tough, I think.”

    That really is an interesting question, and it does very much apply in my case. I actually almost turned down my husband very early on in our relationship, because I thought he was calling me too often. This wasn’t really a conscious rejection on my part, though it takes my breath away to consider what I could have lost by listening to that stupid reservation — I can’t imagine being with a man more perfect for me. What saved me was the thought, “What if he just really … likes me?” I don’t really know how to explain what that meant to me exactly, but somehow, in that moment, a new door opened up in my head, and I was surprised, and ultimately deeply grateful, to discover that it went directly to my heart (and, well, other places). :)

    It seems to me that guys have a much more direct connection to their sexual feelings than women do. I think women get all up in their heads about stuff very quickly, and, for people famous for being emotional, I don’t think most of us really understand our emotions very well, when it comes right down to it. Layer that with confusing, destructive social messages and a lack of connection to the wisdom of the past, and, well, this is what you get. (I’m not sure, yet, that I buy the alpha/beta stuff completely, at least not at face value. Obviously, many here have seen a side of life which I have not had the -er, pleasure, to experience myself, and maybe I’m just too naive to “get” your point of view. Stay with me, though. The reason alpha types are more successful, I’d guess, is that they can break through a woman’s barriers more easily before she has a chance to think about it too much. And I think there’s an element of fear there, too, that can be confused with an addictive-like “thrill” — alpha guys, I think, are kind of scary; and beta guys aren’t, which in turn gets confused with “boring.” But that’s just my way of thinking about it, for what it’s worth.)

    Compared to the comments I read here, though, I think I’m generally much more hopeful that things can work out, if only people, especially women, can begin to shift their vision and adjust their behavior accordingly. But maybe that’s only because, against the odds, that’s how it worked out for me.

  146. Doug1 says:

    rudyturnstone–

    But don’t men choose to have sex with women whom it is obvious will make bad mothers, and choose to have to have sex with those women without contraception, and even marry such women? The only difference is the abortion option. And, while that is an option, it is not one which, as far as I can tell, is very popular in the manosphere.

    The abortion difference is hella big. I fully support abortion rights for women even though I’m also thoroughly anti-feminist. That is however HARDLY the only difference. Women can also chose to Plan B or give the child up for adoption after having unprotected sex; men don’t have those options either. Further only one of the ten or so methods of reversible birth control is under the direct knowledge and control of the man. That method greatly diminishes the pleasure from intercourse, particularly for men, such that by far most LTR couples chose another, female controlled method of birth control. Many of those however are subject to resulting in oops pregnancies of the kind that PA very unfortunately recommended under some circumstances.

    Men should have abortion rights as well. That is the right to abort their responsibilites as well as rights as a parent so long as they inform the women in plenty of time for her to have an abortion if she wishes to do so, if she won’t be getting child support=also stealth alimony and direct help in raising the child.

  147. Desiderius says:

    Lara,

    “I flirt with men plenty while wearing my wedding ring, so far I haven’t jumped in bed with any of them.”

    Stop it.

  148. Lily says:

    @Doug1
    “I can promise you I’d never marry a girl that did that. I might live with her but I’d be damned if I’d put half my accumulating assets and the possibility of alimony after ten year post child support=also stealth alimony on the line for her…I’d also screw other girls on occasion.”
    To be fair, you’re not likely to marry a girl not like that or act differently regardless :-) ;-)

  149. Doug1 says:

    ruddyturnstone–

    And what is it with this “white women who should reproduce” crap? Is this kind of casual racism really necessary or appropriate?

    Racist, racist, racist. What poppycock.

    Why the hell shouldn’t white people what to keep their percentage of the population at the same level more or less. Other racial groups sure look out for their racial group’s self interest.

  150. Brian says:

    I do find it interesting how every single woman who comments only knows divorced women whose husbands abandoned them. I work at a company with over 5000 employees. There are over 500 in my building alone. Over half of the engineers there are divorced and, with few exceptions, their wives left them. When dating, they focused on the money my coworkers made (and my ex-wife was right in that camp). After marriage, they’d complain that the husband works so much, get “unhaaaaapy”, and ask for a divorce.

  151. Doug1 says:

    Brendan—

    A large part of the issue is that there are not, in fact, enough men who are otherwise suitable mates who are showing up as attractive to women. There are a lot of reasons for this, and this comment is not the place to go into them all (some men’s doing, some feminism’s doing, some the culture’s doing and so on), but I think it’s also the reality. I don’t think this is going to be fixed easily, in a broad sense, unfortunately.

    Yeah I think a considerably higher proportion of men were alphas or attractive enough greater betas to be quite sexually attractive to women before guys coming of age in the 1990s and especially before they came of age in the 1970s.

    I think it’s almost all feminism. The men’s doing was largely men’s falling in line with feminism’s messages, esp. men in the media, schools and universities.

    There are three principal reasons when a lot fewer white guys are quite sexually attractive (some kind of alpha) to white girls these days.

    One is the strong feminist pressure on white guys to not be in any way macho, dominant over girls, or even too masculine as they are growing up, and the other is the strong urgings of girls to act and be more mannish, entitled and liberated. In this way the dominance of most males over most females which used to emotionally prevail does so far, far less now in the US. Part of this is female (and also to an extent male) delusion (female super fighters in so many movies come to mind), and partly it’s more real, but nonetheless unfortunate.

    The second is that females competing with men for most of the most glamorous and high status jobs, except at the highest levels, removes another area of psychological dominance which e.g. the average man in society used to have over average women. It’s not just that male provisioning has become less a necessity for the average woman than it used to be, it’s also that the average and somewhat above average man (betas) have lost the large status edge from their jobs that they used to have over most women.

    The third is that the greatly lessened taboos against casual sex, fling sex, and short relationship sex, and for that matter any sort of sex before marriage if we go back to the fifties and earlier in at least all parts of the middle class, has meant that lots of sixes can and do slut around with lesser alphas and even sometimes alphas, with it not even being necessarily considered all that slutty by many if there’s at least some duration of relationship involved. This too has reduced the perceived attractive of betas and greater betas by same sex ranked cute female 6’s and pretty 7’s.

  152. greyghost says:

    This reads like a weak-sauce admission that some men can’t hang in a fair competition with women

    in which case they will be surrounded by masses of unattractive, harmless, polite, domesticated „men”.

    Betas, in other words?
    Lucky guy to be fortunate to find this one to marry.

  153. Lily says:

    “I do find it interesting how every single woman who comments only knows divorced women whose husbands abandoned them.”
    Can’t speak for the others but I certainly know divorced women whose husbands did not abandon them. Mixture of women who ended up being the ones to file though they feel their husband did something intolerable to them e.g. through adultery (though they typically would not file on that basis but file based on 2 year separation in which case you don’t need to state a reason, after all who wants to air their dirty linen in public – that said I also know marriages where one partner did commit adultery and the other doesn’t know and divorced based on the other ‘checking out’, but I think it was the latter which triggered the end of the marriage) and women who divorced for other reasons including being unhaaaapy as spelt around here.

    That working lots of hours one is a bind. I think both genders need to accept there are tradeoffs if one set of characteristics are attractive to you, you have to accept that there are other characteristics which you are not keen on which go along with it.

  154. Doug1 says:

    Lily–

    To me the issue of getting divorced when there aren’t children involved, especially if it’s not been too large a marriage and there isn’t a lot of divorce theft involved, is WAY less serious that divorce when those things don’t pertain. I mean if you’ve been married two years and have lost interest in having sex with your spouse, I don’t think it’s necessarily immoral to simply want to cut losses quickly and get a divorce.

  155. @PA

    You must hate me because I’m one of those guys that isn’t marrying his smart pretty white girlfriends. And I have two smart pretty white girlfriends with another smart pretty white woman who is in the process of becoming my third girlfriend.

  156. Twenty says:

    I do think people should be free not to have children, especially women …

    It just never stops, does it?

  157. I do find it interesting how every single woman who comments only knows divorced women whose husbands abandoned them

    Lol, wut? I talked in a thread below about my friend Brian, whose wife cheated on him and has denied him sex or even physical contact for years. There are a lot of women out there who do shitty things. In no way do I think women are somehow better behaved than men. At all.

  158. Lucky guy to be fortunate to find this one to marry.

    Don’t pout because I I pointed out that you and your pal were being illogical.

  159. Twenty says:

    Men and women could compete on an equal playing field with zero special standards for either. Technology has made this possible, because most work no longer requires brute force, but rather specialized knowledge and verbal acumen. I compete every day in the work force without requiring coddling.

    You’re like a fish in water that doesn’t realize it’s wet. Actually, I take that back: Fish probably have more awareness of their environment that you do. Trust me: If you’re a woman employed in a Western economy, you’re coddled.

    And if you think that the difference between today and the days of yore is that in yo olden times work required “brute force”, but today it’s all about “specialized knowledge” and “verbal acumen” (implication: stuff women aren’t disadvantaged at), you’re nuts. Most work — even most traditional work — doesn’t require tremendous physical strength. That why almost all men can do it, despite falling along the normal distribution of physical ability. Carpentry isn’t a power-lifting competition, you know.

  160. Dalrock says:

    @Eileen

    It seems to me that guys have a much more direct connection to their sexual feelings than women do. I think women get all up in their heads about stuff very quickly, and, for people famous for being emotional, I don’t think most of us really understand our emotions very well, when it comes right down to it. Layer that with confusing, destructive social messages and a lack of connection to the wisdom of the past, and, well, this is what you get. (I’m not sure, yet, that I buy the alpha/beta stuff completely, at least not at face value. Obviously, many here have seen a side of life which I have not had the -er, pleasure, to experience myself, and maybe I’m just too naive to “get” your point of view. Stay with me, though. The reason alpha types are more successful, I’d guess, is that they can break through a woman’s barriers more easily before she has a chance to think about it too much. And I think there’s an element of fear there, too, that can be confused with an addictive-like “thrill” — alpha guys, I think, are kind of scary; and beta guys aren’t, which in turn gets confused with “boring.” But that’s just my way of thinking about it, for what it’s worth.)

    Compared to the comments I read here, though, I think I’m generally much more hopeful that things can work out, if only people, especially women, can begin to shift their vision and adjust their behavior accordingly. But maybe that’s only because, against the odds, that’s how it worked out for me.

    Great insight, and thanks for your kind words in a previous comment.

    I share your basic optimism, to a degree. Individual men and women who figure this stuff out have a great opportunity. I say this without downplaying the very real problems both legal and social with our society. As for the whole Alpha/Beta thing, you are right to keep an open mind. Some of it is of course simplified, but this is for obvious reasons. It isn’t always helpful to try to catalog or even communicate every possible nuance. I have personally witnessed much of this by observing a natural pickup artist roommate in college 20 years ago. Only recently after learning game did I begin to really grasp why he had the effect on women that he had, but I was fortunate enough to have intuitively picked up enough to be of practical value at the time nonetheless.

    The broad brush of what game teaches us is correct in my own experience, and this leaves a great deal of room for both men and women to tune to match their specific experiences. Not surprisingly once you get past the broad brush generalizations the experts on game will at times differ on the nuances. What I think you will find however (and may have already found) is that having the paradigm will make much of what has always been a mystery (or impossibly complex) make sense in a fairly simple and straightforward way. Much more often than not, a rudimentary understanding of game will allow you to predict the behavior of others which otherwise would have been entirely unpredictable. From a pragmatic point of view, keep it so long as it is helpful (and give it a chance first), and disregard what is not.

  161. Doug1 says:

    Twenty

    Yeah I most definitely noticed her especially women comment re: feeling free to not have kids and thought it equally outrageous. You’re absolutely right. It’s so much a part of our women deserve to be especially entitled feminist culture, under cover of claim of being somehow disadvantaged, that it comes up even in a thread that’s mocking this attitude in women.

  162. TikkTok says:

    @ Twenty and @ Doug- I think you forgot to read the rest and read it in context…….

    Men don’t get hammered to have children. If a man chooses to remain childless, it’s no big deal.

    And let’s face it- women still have the lion’s share of caretaking- it’s called biology. :) (for example, men aren’t pregnant for 40 weeks; men don’t have 4 weeks + of postpartum goo; men don’t breastfeed, etc etc) Past that- who’s up at night during illness? Staying home when a child is sick? (in my case, that’s me, because being the wife and the mother is my job)

    This isn’t about feminism- this is about the rights of the child. Women are often coerced into having children that they are unwilling to give full effort to, and it’s the *child* that suffers- which was the point of Dalrock’s post. Plus, because a woman’s age is relevant to child-bearing, she has a finite amount of time in which to have a child (with optimum results) and even if she is not in a place where she actually mentally DOES want to have a child, the issue gets forced because her clock is ticking.

    What’s wrong with being a spinster? What’s wrong with being married without children?

    As I recall, it was this particular attitude that got the whole thing started- women didn’t want to be forced to spew out kids and have a single place in the world (meaning, at home with their kids, in a world where women had no say or control over what happened in their lives) and have their lives dominated and dictated to them.

    I think it’s FAR better for a woman to remain childless than to have children she has no interest in. Same with fathers. I think it’s FAR better for men not to have children if they have no interest in having them. If you aren’t going to do it with full effort- don’t do it at all. In the end, it’s the child that suffers.

    It’s a total double standard- if a father is absent in a child’s life, he usually doesn’t get the riot act read to him, and let’s be realistic- society has far different expectations of a father’s role in a child’s life than it has of a mother’s role in a child’s life. I’m not saying it’s right- BOTH parents should be responsible and engaged; BOTH parents have an obligation not to be deadbeat parents.

    What that looks like to society, however, is usually vastly different. Some women are just not cut out to be domestic and mothers; that should be ok, just the same as it is for men who have no interest in being fathers. The point is- don’t try force them into it; don’t give them grief because they are honest enough to admit their feelings on the issue; don’t try to guilt them into it.

    Ftr, I don’t think at all it makes the mother disadvantaged (although she may feel this way)- it does, however, make for a bad situation for the child; being in a home where any parent resents/ignores his/her existence….. having no child is a better option than scarring a child because it’s resented/ignored.

    So you are saying that because women are biologically programmed to have children that it’s outrageous that they don’t want to? What about breastfeeding? What exactly are you trying to say?

  163. Twenty says:

    Women are often coerced into having children that they are unwilling to give full effort to …

    Citations please.

  164. Eric says:

    PA:
    Regarding your Shaming Language: Yes, I have had girlfriends, both American ones and REAL women from other cultures. My experience with the first group: someday I promise to stop holding back and really tell everyone what they’re like. As for the second group: maybe if you met a few women from outside the Amerosphere, you’d realize how worthless American females really are.

  165. Eric says:

    Lara:
    ‘ I flirt with plenty of men while wearing my wedding ring but haven’t jumped into bed with any of them.’

    Because you haven’t found one yet who’s scummy enough to do it. As soon as you can find a lowlife—one bad enough that you can throw it back in your husband’s face as a humiliation to him—flirtation will change to action. After all, why the flirtation in the first place if not just to emasculate your husband? Hmmmm…..

  166. hurpadurp says:

    if a father is absent in a child’s life, he usually doesn’t get the riot act read to him, and let’s be realistic- society has far different expectations of a father’s role in a child’s life than it has of a mother’s role in a child’s life.

    You’re kidding, right? You’ve never heard of anybody being called a “deadbeat dad” before? Man, I envy you if that’s the case.

    That said, in reference to this,

    Carpentry isn’t a power-lifting competition, you know.

    No, but it does require good hand-eye coordination, a high degree of spatial intelligence, and a variety of other things which men have either aptitude or affinity for, which is why it’s primarily men who do carpentry and other similar “works with your hands” type jobs. Same thing with other male-dominated fields like math and engineering; they may not make use of male physical strengths, but they are reliant on both male mental strengths and male preferences (they rely on ‘spatial intelligence,’ for the first part, and many men find them engaging and exciting for the second).

    That said, though, in reference to “traditional” work, while I very much doubt you’ll find any society in which women were primarily “STEMers” or any other kind of “nerdy” field requiring abstract mathematical/logical thought, you can find plenty where they were laborers or construction workers. The Trummerfrau of Germany come to mind, for instance. On that note, while we’re on a WWII kick, there were also the tank drivers and airplane pilots of the Soviet Union’s female forces; the latter in particular were certainly no “Amelia Earhearts,” given that the 588th Night Bombers managed to cause the Germans enough trouble to be given the name of “Night Witches.” Women may certainly not appear to be particularly capable in the modern West, but whether this is due to their innate inferiority or the fact that our society doesn’t require them to excel (as in the case of both the German and the Russian examples above; women were forced to do these things because there weren’t many men left around) is perhaps debatable.

  167. Twenty says:

    Women may certainly not appear to be particularly capable in the modern West, but whether this is due to their innate inferiority or the fact that our society doesn’t require them to excel … is perhaps debatable.

    Of course it’s debatable. The feminist position is that that women and men are just as capable as one another (except for all the stuff that women are better at) and that if the facts on the ground don’t reflect this, that’s prima facie evidence of terrible discrimination that must be redressed by any means necessary.

    The anti-feminist position is that men and women are different, and that those differences mean that men are better suited for the majority of large-scale productive enterprises that require sustained effort, diligence, sacrifice, and teamwork (in addition to brains and brawn).

    The 588th is a cute story, but it’s not exactly the 8th Air Force, is it?

  168. dhurka says:

    “This reads like a weak-sauce admission that some men can’t hang in a fair competition with women”

    Actually I think of it more like the opposite. Women can’t hang in equal competition with men and will vote themselves advantages. Happens every time. Men have now realized this and so the sensible middle ground you envision is not seen as an option by men here.

    After the electoral betrayal of men by women over the last fifty years that chance is lost. Destroyed by women. When this is over men won’t trust women for a long, long time. See Russia where this same shit was tried in the first half of last century. How are Russian women doing nowdays with Russian men? Where do you think traditional wisdom came from? It came from the times when women were unrestrained and men got see what they are (generally) like. Women are like the hun. Either at your feet or at your throat.

  169. Lara says:

    @Eric
    “someday I promise to stop holding back and really tell everyone what they’re like.”

    That’s what these websites are for, tell us now.

    “After all, why the flirtation in the first place if not just to emasculate your husband?”

    I was trying to make the point that every time a married woman is friendly it doesn’t mean she is trying to sleep with you.

  170. Lara says:

    @Brendan
    “as the gay men I have known in life have all pretty much loved women”

    Gay men who are out of the closet are free to enjoy friendships with women, although I wouldn’t say they love us. Gay man who are still in the closet and also active in the MRM truly seem to despise women. I usually get along with men especially ones who aren’t the least bit conflicted about being men. I once worked with a man who clearly had it in for me and I’m pretty sure he was a closeted gay man.

  171. Lara says:

    I can tell pretty easily even just from writing style how masculine or heterosexual a man is. There are a lot of effeminate men and homosexuals in the MRM.

  172. Lara says:

    @Mencken
    “These men way well be biding their time with these women until superior marriage material presents itself.”

    And that is very wrong.

  173. Lara says:

    @Mencken
    “then a young woman beyond her early twenties can never be more than a second place choice.”

    And marrying a beta is never more than a second place choice also. But as The Rolling Stones said…

  174. Lara says:

    @Mencken
    “What man worth his stones wants to sign up for life with a woman who has given her best years to her work and other men? Furthermore, if a man really does want the best for his children – including the best embryonic development – then a young woman beyond her early twenties can never be more than a second place choice.”

    And if a woman really wants what is best for her children she would never get pregnant by a man who wasn’t super good looking, athletic, smart, tall, rich and very alpha. And yet many of us have children with men who are merely average.

  175. No, but it does require good hand-eye coordination, a high degree of spatial intelligence, and a variety of other things which men have either aptitude or affinity for, which is why it’s primarily men who do carpentry and other similar “works with your hands” type jobs. Same thing with other male-dominated fields like math and engineering; they may not make use of male physical strengths, but they are reliant on both male mental strengths and male preferences (they rely on ‘spatial intelligence,’ for the first part, and many men find them engaging and exciting for the second).

    Electrical work is a good example of a construction trade that women can do quite well. They tend to have smaller, more agile hands and smaller bodies, which means that they can get into places that would be challenging for most men. I worked at a trade school which trained high risk kids with vocational skills. Most of the girls chose traditional fields (certified nursing assistants, etc.), but the ones who chose non-traditional fields like electrical or auto mechanics did very well. A lot of women don’t want to get dirty or wear ugly clothes to work (I’d attribute this to social norms), but if they break through that barrier, they can be just as successful as a man at the same work.

    I personally work in a non-traditional field (criminal justice). Women don’t usually choose it, but we bring different skill sets to the job. Women are less likely to start a physical confrontation or use force, though when they do use force, they are more likely to use deadly force. I didn’t see a lot of favoritism for women on the force, they might ask for and receive special privileges, but by doing so, they forfeit a lot of respect from their peers, and most women are aware of this trade-off. Most of the women I saw in the department earned their rank the hard way–they worked for it, and were as hard or harder than any of the guys when it came to personal character.

    Personally, I just wanted to be one of the guys. I didn’t expect them to act differently around me. I like men being men. They did act differently at first, but over time, if you work hard and earn respect, your gender becomes something like having big ears or red hair…a physical characteristic that sometimes invites good-natured ribbing, but isn’t a particularly big deal.

    I would never suggest that all women need to do what I did. It isn’t for everyone. We are all individuals, and I was never particularly good at being a girly girl. It is what it is. I never wanted special treatment, that sets you apart from your peers in a negative way. I just wanted the chance to show that I could do the job, and do it well. And, I did (and do).

  176. TikkTok says:

    @ hurpadurp- of course, everyone has heard of deadbeat dads. I’m not talking about child support payment. I’m talking about interaction and involvement- investment of time and interest. There is a lot of thinking that paying child support = involvement; and that the lack thereof implies non-involvement. I don’t know about you, but I know plenty of parents (male and female) paying child support who do nothing else.

    This is the kind of situation I’m talking about. Women are far more likely to be subjected to social pressure if/when they turn their backs on their children, even if they are paying support, than men. The expectation of direct involvement- not child support- is societaly different for men than it is for women.

    If you look up the definition of deadbeat parent, the definition has to do with finances: “Deadbeat parent is a term referring to obligor parents of either gender that have freely chosen not to be a financially supportive parent in their children’s lives” Also known as “does not provide for the family he created.”

    Fwiw, putting in money does not make any parent “involved” any more than sperm makes a father or a uterus a mother. Paying child support does not make a person present or “involved” in a child’s life.

    Children are entitled to *both.*

  177. hurpadurp says:

    The anti-feminist position is that men and women are different, and that those differences mean that men are better suited for the majority of large-scale productive enterprises that require sustained effort, diligence, sacrifice, and teamwork (in addition to brains and brawn).

    *shrugs* You can take this position, if you wish, and I wouldn’t argue with it overmuch. I would point out, though, that it seems to undermine some of the other points other MRAs often make. I’m thinking in particular of the lament that men get drafted and die on the job. If you’re right in saying that women are incapable and inferior, the expendability of men is an example of simple necessity, not “gynocentrism” or “misandry” or whatever. There’s no point forcing women to sign up for the draft and ensuring 50% of combat deaths are women because women are inferior, crappy fighters who’ll just lose wars. There’s no point getting women to die on the job digging ditches or building buildings because we’ll just have a bunch of poorly-made ditches and buildings (though the Trummerfrau apparently didn’t do too badly. They’re just cute, though, we can disregard them). You agree with this, I presume? In that case, you might tell that to many of your fellow MRAs, such as Paul Elam, who once said, we need to put shovels in their [women]’s hands and put them to work in ditches, digging their way to self sufficiency.

    A true anti-feminist, of course, would realize that the incompetent, parasitical gender is incapable of self-sufficiency–at least unless your views on the matter are less rigid than your posts give the impression of. Thus, it seems that folks like me aren’t the only people who need to be convinced of the absolute inferiority and incompetency of the ‘fairer gender’–a few prominent “good guys” don’t seem to have internalized all the implications of this quite yet.

  178. Dalrock says:

    @Tikktok

    I’m talking about interaction and involvement- investment of time and interest. There is a lot of thinking that paying child support = involvement; and that the lack thereof implies non-involvement. I don’t know about you, but I know plenty of parents (male and female) paying child support who do nothing else.

    I think you have drunk the conventional (feminist) wisdom on this issue. While I would agree that the parent who has been kicked out of their child’s life (spelled father 85% of the time) should try to minimize the damage this decision has caused, the bulk of the damage is unavoidable (see final quote in this post). The fantasy that you can kick another parent out of the home but not the child’s life is largely just that, a fantasy. But this fantasy is essential to sustain the moral underpinning for the feminist system of using divorce as a sort of neutron bomb for men. In this popular fantasy, women get to avoid the hassle of having obligations and accountability to a husband, but can still reap the financial and child rearing investment benefits which a husband and father for their children would provide.

  179. TikkTok says:

    @ Dalrock-no, I think we totally agree on this point. Absolutely I agree that when location (for either parent) changes, there is going to be unavoidable damage and change. Divorce doesn’t automatically mean a complete absence of the parent without custody, but it often does. While it is true that there are cases where the mother actively campaigns to limit the father’s involvement to $$$, society by in large thinks that the $$$ from the father is the only thing that is really important. That is wrong.

    I have seen cases where (the children were older) co-parenting seemed to work relatively well.
    In one case, the non-custodial parent (who, in this case, was the mother) eventually moved away, which made the daily interaction completely different, of course. Initially, when they split, they lived down the street together, so that getting the kids to and from school and other activities wasn’t hugely problematic. They also had dinner together as a family (and sometimes with the significant others) several times a week, fwiw. As it is now, the family is separated by the continental US; one parent and one child on one coast; the other parent and child on the other coast. Both kids (teenagers) made the choice of where to live; initially both went with the father and one returned to live with the mother mid-moving trip.

    I think in many cases, the father is a better parent than the mother. The way society is wired though, mothers are the “default” parent much of the time, and the societal expectation of “who wants to be with the kids” centers around pressure for the mother more so than pressure for the father.

    The whole system is without accountability, imo. For example, for the parent getting child support payment, there isn’t any accounting for what the money was spent on. That’s just wrong, imo. Custodial parents (who are usually women) should never get a blank check for them to spend without documentation. Period.

    I’m making generalizations here (which of course, there are always going to be exceptions to), but generally speaking, divorced women are expected (pressured, berated, etc etc) to want custody and to be engaged and involved in their children’s lives. Divorced men are supposed to sign the check and that’s about the extent of what they get pressured to do.

    This is what I think is wrong. That’s my point- I’m not saying I agree with it (because I don’t) or that it is right- I’m saying it *is.* There is more pressure from society for women to be involved with their children than there is for men (and again, that is wrong).

    I wonder what would happen if, during custody hearings, both parents were subjected to intense scrutiny and had to prove their ability to parent well (finances aside) and then custody was awarded based on those measures….. I know that’s ludicrous of course, because it’s never a good idea to give anyone that kind of power of others.

    Maybe it should be a straight 50/50, with the parent at fault having the burden of additional financial responsibility. I have no answers- I just think people give up on marriage way too easily, and it’s usually the kids that get the short end of the stick….

    There is a misnomer in society (and call that what you will) that a single mother is just as good as a mother/father parenting. I am saying that’s just wrong; that’s not the case at all. A child is going to suffer without a mother or without a father. Sometimes it’s unavoidable (like when death is involved), but in the case of divorce, society makes it entirely too easy to walk away from marriage and responsibility in general.

    People in general often only live up to expectations; when expectations are minimal or removed entirely, we see what we see. Clear as mud? :lol:

  180. imnobody says:

    “To me, though, the interesting question is this: even if you had understood this then, would it have made a difference for your choices? What I mean is, I don’t believe people can will or think themselves into attraction, or “getting past” a lackluster level of attraction, even if they understand that this would result in a better relationship in other areas. It’s tough, I think.”

    Well, I don’t think this could work if the other part is physically repulsive but I’m experimenting about it right now. The jury is still out but, if I had to decide right now, I would say that you are wrong.

    I am a man and I have found an amazing woman (of course, I don’t live in the States): hard-working, affectionate, intelligent, beautiful, thin, selfless, family-oriented, 11 years my junior, she solves problems, is always happy and treats me like a king. But the thing is that the chemistry is not here (for me: she is very much sexually attracted to me). The thing is that I have a thing for petite, big-breasted girls and she is tall and with small tits.

    I decided to give her a chance, because I thought “it’s very hard for me to find such an amazing package again and love can grow over time”. I read a study that the level of love in Western marriages was 70 during the first year and 40 after 20 years. In Eastern arranged marriages, after 20 years, it was 69. Love can grow over time, but is it possible in the West?

    So we are together for some time and things are going better and better. Now, I am feeling chemistry for her. But it’s not over. I will keep reporting how things done

  181. imnobody says:

    If you think that collapse of economy and state stops the changes then remember that many societies had fallen from civilisation to tribal levels. Or were overthrown by less “liberated”.

    Once the decline has started, it’s almost impossible to turn the clock back. When Augustus tried to reestablish the Roman patriarchy to the Ancient Rome (so the Roman elite could build new families), he failed miserably. Fast forward some emperors and the bachelors paid a “bachelor tax”. The goal was to make these bachelor to marry: men paid the tax and remained single.

    At the end of the Roman empire, there was a saying “Rome rules the world and women rule Rome”. Too bad, women could not do anything where barbarians got into the Empire.

    In Europe, the patriarchy has a name: Islam. I am an European and my hometown (which was 100% European ten years ago) seems a MIddle Eastern town with all these beards, veils and imams. It hurts but it’s our fault. Muslims are only filling the void we created with our decadence.

  182. Eric says:

    Lara:
    ‘That’s what these websites are for; tell us what you really think {of American women}.

    OK. They’re mostly self-serving, narcissistic bitches who fundamentally hate men and use men whenever possible for their own selfish advantage. They lack any sense of empathy or responsibility, and have no capacity for feeling love or any positive feeling for anyone other than themselves. They use sex as a weapon or leverage to serve their own ends. They think that men are subhumans; and no more than a ‘necessary evil’ at best. They consider all men as utterly expendable in the ruthless pursuit of their own gratification.

    They resent the fact that they have to bear children and see children as a burden; only requiring either a trip to the abortion clinic; or—if circumstances favor giving birth—as sources of child-support and welfare handouts. Or, often, as way of controlling the hated father of these children.

    They see relationships with men as a threat to their independence and superiority; and use relationships to disempower and denigrate men whenever possible. They end relationships as soon as the man is of no further use to them.

    I think that about sums it up as concisely as possible.

  183. Eric says:

    Lara:
    ‘I was trying to make the point that every woman who is friendly isn’t trying to sleep with you.’

    You didn’t say ‘friendly’ you said ‘flirting’. I do realize that whenever an average American female actually is being nice to a man, he’s liable to get the wrong impression (we see so little niceness or politeness out of any women, typically). It’s usually either that she’s out to scalp him somehow.

    I know lots of married women who flirt flirt with other men; they do it either because their on the make; or to show Hubby how little use she has for him; or usually both.

  184. Doug1 says:

    imnobody–

    I am a man and I have found an amazing woman (of course, I don’t live in the States): hard-working, affectionate, intelligent, beautiful, thin, selfless, family-oriented, 11 years my junior, she solves problems, is always happy and treats me like a king. But the thing is that the chemistry is not here (for me: she is very much sexually attracted to me). The thing is that I have a thing for petite, big-breasted girls and she is tall and with small tits.

    Get her a high quality boob job if you can afford one. She’ll still be tall, but …

  185. deti says:

    I don’t share Eric’s view of all American women, but I appreciate his florid description.

    It was difficult for me to reach my conclusions about American women, but I have reached some similar conclusions as Eric did, though not quite as stark or pessimistic. My criticisms are directed more to society than to women because I think our current culture and society have made women what they are.

    I think our culture has lied to both men and women. It is not true that women are more empathetic and more romantic. On the contrary, men have these characteristics more than women do. It’s also not true that women are more in tune with their emotions. Rather, I think many women use their emotions to manipulate the people around them. American women are mostly shallow and act in their own self-interests. Many women seem to think they don’t have to do anything to get a man or be in a relationship — all she has to do is bring herself and her body. She expects the man to do everything else. She conceitedly views herself as the prize to be won in a relationship and expects the man to prove himself over and over again.

    Our culture has gone to exceedingly great lengths to conceal women’s true natures. When unrestrained, they are relentlessly hypergamous. They don’t want monogamy. They seek to nab top men by having sex with them, then can’t figure it out when all they get is sex. Every woman –including women married for years — has the capacity to cheat. (This was a bitter pill to swallow — the knowledge that a wife very well could and would cheat on her husband in circumstances she deemed favorable to her.) It is not true that women are naturally monogamous. Rather, they want serial monogamy — if her man is not sufficiently alpha, she will dump him and seek out a new man. It really is true that once a woman’s love for a man is gone, it can never be retrieved and the relationship is beyond salvation. She will hate, hate, HATE the man she no longer loves.

  186. MAX a writer says:

    I agree that with out of wedlock births, the mother is 99% responsible for not vetting her mate beforehand and getting a commitment out of him. But what about in cases of divorce? There are clearly some instances where husbands are violently abusive, addicted to drugs or gambling, seriel adulterers etc. In these cases everyone would say that the woman is 100% right for divorcing, as would be the man in cases where the wife was wayward and doing all these things.

    But what about grey areas, like in the case a spouse cheats one time and feels remorse? Or in the case where a spouse wants to open up the marriage, but has not done so yet because he or she wants the consent and participation of the other spouse?

    [D: See rule #6 in the previous post and the discussion on the few exceptions to it in this post.]

  187. Lara says:

    Eric,
    Try Russian women. However, only deal with her in cash and pay for services already rendered. My friend just got ripped off $4300. She never showed up at the airport.

  188. rmaxd says:

    Dubious woman the only reason you dont use physical force, is because you cant …

    & if a cop has to resort to deadly force more frequently as a result, they are poor candidates to handle physical escalations in the first place & a liability to both the police force & a menace to the general public as a result

  189. jack says:

    Lara-

    Stop being foolish.

    You equated men not wanting some woman who gave her best to other men as being equal to a woman not wanting to settle for less than an alpha.

    You are wrong and quite facile in your analogy. First, most women cannot get an alpha – simple math. Most men COULD get their equivalent in a woman, if she was not spending her 20s spreading her legs for bad boys.

    Women want to bide their time waiting for the betas to demonstrate their earning power, while whiling away the time being a f–k toy for other men.

    Personally, I’ll let those women die a lonely death in a room full of cats before I will let them anywhere near my resources or assistance.

    The most delicious part of the whole deal is that sooner or later, every woman hits the wall and becomes, well – AN OLD woman. Grey. Wrinkled. Sagging. Smelly. And then good luck getting a man to take care of you. Better, women live longer, giving them many years of unaided old age.

  190. Anonymous Reader says:

    Eric, please don’t feed the troll.

  191. MIX says:

    Dalrock,

    “The man I chose to father my child is an addict/abusive/irresponsible. See above. You are the one who chose him. As with the excuse that women didn’t know how babies are made, feminism has been very successful in removing all plausible deniability from this excuse as well. If you didn’t know that some men are like this, and that they posed a great risk to you and your children you simply weren’t listening. Feminism accidentally made this even worse. Pickup artists are a natural byproduct of the feminist war on the stigma against sluts (see pathetic excuse #5 above). Thanks to pickup artists, we now know that women are actually sexually attracted to men with these negative traits. Before you could blame a bad relationship with your father, or just men in general and no one would know your secret. Now everyone knows you were actually just thinking with your genitals. Ouch. ”

    People change. People develop bad habits and addictions years into a marriage. People become angry and abusive years into a marriage. People become philanderers years into marriage. If the above were the only way it happened, that everything a person would become is shown up front before they get married, then you could tell all the men here complaining about their nagging, sexless, harpy wives that “YOU CHOSE HER. YOU MADE YOUR BED, NOW GO LIE IN IT”

    The fact is that demons often come out of the woodwork years later.

  192. Eric says:

    Lara:
    I know several men who’ve married foreign women. One has been divorced. I know several men who’ve married American women. ALL of them have been divorced. In fact, US women lead everybody else in the world in initiating divorces. They’re also highest in voluntary abortions and among the highest in out-of-wedlock births (which would likely be higher if the US had the child-welfare systems other countries have and didn’t incentivise abortion). If you can think of one reason why any man should pursue American women, I’d like to hear it!

  193. Eric says:

    Anon 929:

    I don’t post these things for trolls’ benefit. LOL. Usually, though, what they write are what men hear on a regular basis from society at large. It’s for their benefit, because I think we all need some positive reinforcement these days!

  194. Eric says:

    Deti:
    There’s a lot of truth in what you say: in fact, there’s historical precedent for it. Our culture encourages all of the most negative aspects of female nature.

    The historical precedent happened during the Roman Republic. Because of a demographic anomoly, which no one has ever explained, there was a huge shortage of women (about a 17-1 MTF ratio by some estimates). Women had no political power, but their social power was enormous. Roman women in that period were legendary for their abusive, callous, behavior toward men; their serial philandering, abominable attitudes and behaviors. The senator, Cato, once exclaimed in Senate session that “Roman men rule the world and our women rule us!”

    Things reached such a point that, when the Caesars consolidated power, they declared the state of gender-relations a national emergency. Caesar outlawed their version of no-fault divorce; banned abortions and adultery (any of this sound familiar? LOL). He also paid subsidies to families which had three or more children by the same parents; lifted restrictions on marrying foreign and plebian women; and liberalized adoption laws. The result? Rome lasted another 500 years.

    Where’s a good Caesar when we need one? LOL

  195. Anacaona says:

    @Eric
    As foreign bride myself I feel a bit shy of talking too good about my country women I really don’t think the competition is good in the sense that many men would never leave their countries to seek wives so they will still deal with the brutal conditions here regardless how many willing women theoretically exists elsewhere I also think is a bit hypocritical since I am going to become a citizen of this country and my children will be raised here, which was my choice. But then there are things I know about third world and women that might be of use of anyone thinking to this choice. Do you think that in my future blog should I try to help guys make our their minds about it? I know slut tells that might be applicable to our cultures only as other tips about the “mating rituals” so maybe it would be good, I’m on the fence if that would make things worst of better for gender relationships in general in USA, what do you “and anyone that wants to chime in” thinks?

  196. Twenty says:

    @Mencken
    “then a young woman beyond her early twenties can never be more than a second place choice.”

    And marrying a beta is never more than a second place choice also. But as The Rolling Stones said…

    Ahh … “I can’t get no satisfaction?” “The time has come for violent revolution?” “I wanna see the sun, blotted out from the sky?”

    Not sure where you’re going with this …

  197. Anonymous Reader says:

    I don’t post these things for trolls’ benefit.

    Eric, the troll feeds off of attention. Any attention.

  198. Pingback: White Nationalists Want White Women To Trap White Women With Oops Pregnancies » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

  199. Lara says:

    jack,
    Mencken’s comment was in response to PA’s so go read that first.
    Then why are these men PA talked about even going out with these women? These women want to get married and have children and they know that. If they want to marry a virgin they should do what men who do marry virgins do and get married young themselves to a girl they grew up with often from their church.
    Based on what PA said, it sounds like these guys are bidding their time until someone better comes along or just unwilling to grow up and when you’re with a woman whose fertile years are dwindling that is wrong.
    I stand by my original solution of PA offering to father their children.

  200. Lara says:

    Most of these guys are milquetoast anyway and it might be good to keep them out of the gene pool.

  201. Lara says:

    Eric,
    I’m not going to defend American women. I just wanted to point out that all women have the same nature and that foreign women can be trouble also.

  202. Dalrock, asking females to accept responsibility flies directly in the face of biology. We are all slaves to evolution’s invisible hand. You are a wise, rational man and this is what you expect of another rational human being. Females are designed to maximize their reproductive utility. Every gene in their genome and synapse in their brain compels them to this singular purpose of extracting the maximum possible resource from naive males, while collecting the seed of dominant males.

    It is time to accept the wisdom of the ancients, and understand why human civilization was consistently patriarchal throughout history. Men had no choice but to restrain female nature; failure to do so would result in swift and painful societal collapse. We see this same trend playing out before our eyes as the birthrates of western nations plummet worldwide.

    While tempering fragile hearts with hope is a noble cause, one’s dreams must always be quenched with the cold truth.

  203. Eric says:

    Anacoana:
    Thanks for your note. Just to clear up one common misunderstanding about what I say regarding foreign women: I don’t believe that pursuing them is a panacea; nor do I believe that they are perfect. But if an American man wants a serious relationship with a genuine woman, his probabilities of finding one outside the US are MUCH higher than finding one among American women—the probabilities among my own countrywomen are nearly nonexistant.

    That being said; as Dalrock as mentioned himself, there are ways to meet foreign women that don’t necessarily involve travel to the Third World; although some men really like that option. (For example, I’ve never been to the Phillipine Islands or even dated a Filipina; but the men I know who have never want anybody else LOL!)

    There are many cities in the US with large immigrant populations; and, although the competition is a bit stiff, it’s a worthwhile endeavor to look there. Another option, although for some reason a lot of men never do this, is to visit countries which have little or no immigration restrictions with the US (e.g. Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore and about 20 others). Even from the Third World countries, the immigration issue can be avoided with a little creativity.

    But the bottom line is; pursuing relationships with American women doesn’t work. It’s up to men to find a way out of this relationship dead-end and find happiness without them.

  204. Lara says:

    Eric,
    I agree completely. There are so many men in this world who are willing to work harder than American men, I think we should give them a chance and stop favoring American men.

  205. Lara says:

    If American women have become spoiled it is only because the prosperity of the country has allowed them to be. Once that changes they will become less demanding.

  206. J.M. says:

    Hahahaha, and they say Lara has no sense of humor, “Eric,
    I agree completely. There are so many men in this world …………, I think we should give them a chance and stop favoring American men.” No gracias, I don`t think many of us want to be so favoured with your “women”, hahahaha

    P.S. this comes from someone who loves female body as sexually as possible

  207. rmaxd says:

    “I take no responsibility for the fact that my ex-husband has been an abusive father who destroyed his relationship with his daughter by saying cruel things to her (i.e., telling her that she’s ugly, fat, and stupid–exact words), stealing her birthday money from her savings account, and basically, just not showing up (or ever really acting like a parent). He has done all of those things on his own, without any assistance from me.

    But, you’re correct. I am 100% responsible for the fact that I chose my kids’ dad so poorly. My kids deserved better.”

    Ever question why you were attracted to this guy in the first place? Assholish behaviour isnt limited to the vacuum of a single event …

    Also you’re misusing the word abusive, what you’re describing is basic assholish behaviour by most alphas or lowlifes, hardly abusive

  208. rmaxd says:

    Oh btw i was referring to @dubiouswoman in case the post scrolled too far down to reference …

  209. Pingback: Boundless is their foolishness. | Dalrock

  210. Pingback: The quest for a kinder, gentler carousel | Dalrock

  211. Charm says:

    Dalrock:

    Re: Woman responsible for picking a childs father,

    (I didn’t read any other comments so I apologize if this has been mentioned but this part of your post stood out the most.)

    I find that apparently its not “sexy” to think about these thing when looking for a potential mate. Im only in my early 20s and in college, and don’t plan to marry until my later 20s but I already have a plan laid for a potential mate. I have pretty much what Im looking for but I often read about how people feel like the initial stages of dating is a “interview”. I would like to say…it IS an interview. There are a million questions people should be asking themselves when they meet and court someone. The consensus seems to be that you should meet, if you like each other date, get serious, get married. The end. No one asks questions. Is it weird that I have a ton, already?

    Do you want children?
    How many?
    Have you chosen a career to support children? Is your job stable?
    Do you have an addictions?
    Do you have a criminal record?
    Is this person abusive in anyway?
    Whats your parenting style?
    What kind of father do you want to be?
    Would you work put more energy into the family once children came along?
    Who is going to stay at home to raise them?
    Are we going to hire a nanny?
    Do you want to send them to school or homeschool them?

    I call being uber responsible, others call it jumping the gun.

    I actively think about this. I find that a lot of people don’t consider these things until they are staring them in the face after marriage. Its really a shame. I realize sometimes bad things do happen, and people do make mistakes. But there is a very VERY fine line. Having sex with a man who has no job and doesn’t plan on getting one is NOT a good idea for a baby. Period. No excuse. Your husband or long term partner suddenly leaving your or dying is more understandable. More often than not its simply women who don’t want to take responsibility for their actions. Im going to say it: They should be shamed. If tax payers are going to be responsible for raising these kids, I think they should be shamed. It would discourage the behavior. People are getting too comfortable with the idea of not only single mothers, but teen mothers. Public judgement will stop people from engaging in the behavior because people do not like to be judged.

    My parents were never married. So I guess I don’t have a model to go off of. That being said I don’t use that as an excuse to be irresponsible either. I know what a commitment is. I am not a child and I think regardless of a persons parents decisions, they can choose to make better ones. Hiding behind the old “But my parents are divorced” excuse is getting really old. That doesn’t give you the right to make horrible decisions and then bail because you’re not happy.

    In the case of my mother, she had 3 children back to back by the age of 22, under the poverty line, with a man that beat her up. She was pregnant with me and my dad drunkenly slapped her in the face and guess what? She had another kid with him a year later. So I’ve seen people make blatantly bad decisions when it comes to selecting a father for their children. Women literally follow their vaginas. I hate saying that but from what I’ve observed its true. A man might not take care of this kid you’re about to create, but its okay because he turns you on. Just the fact that this person is a loser would turn me off. Instantly. I think we need to stop feeling sorry for them and giving them handouts. Imagine what would happen if women were no longer eligible for welfare, medicaid, food stamps, or high percentage of child support? What do you think they would do? All of a sudden no one would have unwanted children. I’ve known people to keep having kids so they could stay on welfare. Welfare is a huge safety net. Ive known women to actually have kids because they could go on down to the welfare office and get everything they needed and all they have to do is enjoy this baby and wear it like an accessory with their friends.

    I wish I had two stable parents growing up. People take it for granted. They really do. I don’t have daddy issues just because my dad was a dead beat. But a lot of women do. A lot of men and women are screwed because their mothers choose horrible fathers or kick out perfectly good ones. I resent my mother for picking such a bad person to be my dad. It was selfish. She did it for her. Not for us, her children. We suffered because of that. We really did. Though, I can say I’m glad for that. I’m glad for all those horrible people and bad experiences. They gave me a complete outline of what not to be as a mother.

    I will also say that I feel like less stigma has been put on men as well. They just get to walk away scott free(meaning not being a father). I’ve heard men brag that they had kids they didn’t take care of. What is this okay? How is it that he “wins” because he isnt stuck with the kid? This whole system is a shame. Its disgusting. Can we bring back shaming please? People used to be ostracized and shunned for doing stuff like this. Not any more.

    Im not saying that kids can’t be raised just fine without both parents. Obviously they can. I think that if that happens the sole parent has to really step it up. But I think that people should take some many measures to ensure that doesn’t happen. What ever happened to minimizing risks? I actually think that my standards for a mate might actually scare men away they’re so high. LOL. Im gonna be single forever.

    Good post.

  212. YBM says:

    @Charm

    for what reason do you not want to marry until your late twenties. And in the meantime what is your vetting process for the men you are not interviewing for marriage?

    If any exist, how many on average per year do you engage in sex with knowing that you have no intention of putting these men through the vetting process you reserve for your potential husband?

    Lastly, would you consider it wrong for a man in his late twenties to reject you for marriage and marry a woman in her early twenties instead, citing the above as reasons?

  213. Rmaxd says:

    lol Charm this is basically an anti-fem site, you’re so going to get your ass kicked … lol

  214. Rmaxd says:

    @Charm
    Im not saying that kids can’t be raised just fine without both parents. Obviously they can.”

    Erm no, they cant …

  215. Pingback: Newspeak: scrubbing the English language. | Dalrock

  216. Paul Murray says:

    PA is reading the situation at work completely wrong. I guarantee you that when one of the girls at PA’s work gets engaged, they all will.

    First: women control relationships with betas, not the betas. If they are not married, it’s because they (the women) don’t want to be.

    Second, they are herd creatures. These discussions about how the guys are not popping the question are actually discussion amongst themselves as to whether it’s time for them all to stop playing musical chairs and all sit down with the ones they have.

    When the girls as a group decide that its wedding time, then all the various guys will be issued their ultimatums and most will fall into line. Until then, the guys will carry on in blissful ignorance.

    (oh: and they’ll all get their divorces at around the same time, too)

  217. Pingback: The weakened signal | Dalrock

  218. Pingback: One Pill, Two Pill, Red Pill, Blue Pill « Elephants & Trees

  219. Pingback: Why so many wives wish their husbands would cheat. | Dalrock

  220. John Q Galt says:

    PA: “I equate cuckoldry and “stringing along” as equivalent wrongs.”

    Then you’re a fool. Compare this to your job (which is just another kind of mutuallly beneficial transaction): If your employer is promising you raises, promotions, etc. and they never come through, eventually you will find another job, assuming you’re not already overpaid/iunmarketable, or give an ultimatum and get what you want. Either way, the exploitation only goes on as long as you want it to.

    I can’t think of any employment situation that compares to cuckoldry – perhaps drafting people during time of war. Perhaps something like this: You’re doing your job, getting regular raises and thinking it’s a good situation, when suddenly, your employer fires you, draws 5 years salary from your bank account, and compels you to work 1/4 time for free for the next 10 years.

  221. Paul Murray says:

    “I can’t think of any employment situation that compares to cuckoldry”
    That’s easy: the equvalent is when an employee spends company time and resources working on their own business, or on someone else’s. Person owns an online origami business, spends all day at their job taking orders and doing paperwork for their own business.

  222. Pingback: Godly unashamed unwed mothers. | Dalrock

  223. Anon7 says:

    “PA is reading the situation at work completely wrong. I guarantee you that when one of the girls at PA’s work gets engaged, they all will.”
    – Paul Murray

    It’s incredible, but true. I was a member of a small group of singles, men and women, starting in our late twenties. Lots of group activities, lots of dating.

    Then, at age 35, I showed up one day at a group gathering at the bar with the woman I was going to marry. We were engaged, then married, within a year. And what happened in our little group looked exactly like what happens in musical chairs when the music stops.

    Three of the remaining women grabbed guys in the group, got married and had kids right away. Things crystallized for the others as well. One came out as a lesbian, another of the women bought a house and entered academic spinsterhood. The other guy in the group stayed single, and still is.

    No divorces yet, though. This all happened thirty years ago, in a different era of commitment.

  224. Pingback: Is there a “shortage” of single fathers? | Dalrock

  225. Dohn Joe says:

    Dalrock, I married a cheating slut who claimed unhaaapiness as her excuse. I wish your blog was available as a resource for me when I was making the decision to propose!

  226. Pingback: Duality | Amerika: New Right, Conservationist, Traditionalist, Deep Ecology and Conservative Thought

  227. Mae Ridgeway says:

    Darlock,
    I am confused, are you a Christian? In the OT marriages were often arranged so the responsibility for picking a good man fell on the father of the daughter to be married. If you are an actual Christian I would be suprised. What you are spouting here sounds like Islam which essentially was based on OT style legalism. I thought Christians were interested in winning souls. Just what is it you are trying to do here, keep people away from Jesus? In Islam every action of a man can an must be blamed on the fault of a woman. They get raped an then they are beheaded not the rapist. Even though they are totally covered, they did something to deserve it. No person can control the actions of another. What do you think of cases where women stay with husbands that go to church yet these men are still chronic cheaters and end up giving unborn babies STD’s. This of course in your view is the womans fault for choosing the wrong man. So what do you suggest, beheading?? Are you saying salvation is only for in-tact families? Have you even read the NT???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s