Don’t Hit Me I’m A Girl!

One of the fascinating things about men and women is how often each sex fails entirely to understand the intra sex interactions of the other.  Many of the men commenting on this site were initially baffled by my post Two lists every woman should make before frivolously divorcing.  This is understandable, because men often only see the subtext of Team Woman, which while certainly a factor can blind men to the often more subtle reality of female intra-sexual competition.

As I explained in the comments section of that post, women are extremely competitive and often vicious with each other, which is why they try to trick other women into getting boy haircuts, sabotaging their love lives, etc.  Once the woman has been tricked into sabotaging her own love life, the torment begins.

The torment will often be subtle, something most men would misread as acts of kindness. What looks to us like commiseration or even a compliment can often be pouring salt in the wound: I admire you so much. You are so strong and independent. I’m too weak and always need a man in my life. By the way, did I show you the pictures of my latest (child, vacation, date with her husband, anniversary)? It could even be framed as a complaint about a bad day: Did I tell you that my car broke down? I don’t know what I would have done if my husband hadn’t been able to come fix it for me. Or concern: It’s so good to see you get out of the house! You need to go out and celebrate your independence girlfriend! Again, men don’t see this; this is why it isn’t uncommon for a man to be accused of cruelty by a woman when he was actually trying to help. To a man it really is intended in an understanding way, but women don’t think like men, they think like women, so they interpret it the way it would be meant if they said the same thing.

It isn’t just men who misread women’s interactions though.  Commenter Sean’s misunderstanding of how men interact lead to my post Lets you and him fight:

I call it a manitude. You should be able to exude enough manliness to make other men back down, especially if they know they are in the wrong…

My uncles, and brothers exhibit the same type of manitude, very few men will step to them much less be disrespectful around their families. The few who have tried usually back down quickly once confronted.

This poses a dilemma;  if the average man should be able to make other (average) men back down, then the men backing down are by definition substandard, and therefore, below average.  The reality is very few men have the luxury of going around forcing other men to back down.  This is a combination of apex fallacy and failure to understand the context of the exchange below the surface.  After much discussion Sean offered some further clarification:

Gosh you guys must live in a constant state of fear. For your information, I have never asked the men in my life to put their life in jeopardy for me, they provide protection because that is what they were taught to do. And the situations you guys described is not deadly. Since some of you think it’s a big deal to ask people not curse around your family let me give you what my husband usually says that works fine ” Yo dog, my kids?” or he has said ” can you tone it down? my kids?” to which the answer has always been “aww dog, sorry man” and guess what the foul language stops.

After this the men on the board formed consensus around my assertion that what Sean was describing was something else entirely:

I’m surprised that you characterized this as your husband “making the other man back down”. There is a lot tied up in just those few words, but I would characterize the exchange more as him offering the other men respect and asking for it in return.

The problem is worse for women misunderstanding men’s interactions because it is extremely common in entertainment to present women as interacting as one of the guys.  One example which comes to mind is in the opening episode of a Canadian TV show my wife and I have been netflixing titled Flashpoint.  Early in the episode we meet the lone female member of the team, who looks like a Mighty Morphin Power Ranger dressed in SWAT gear.  In fact, the same actress played Pink Ranger in the 1990s series.  But of course we need to know she is as tough as the guys, so she is busily boasting about her rappelling prowess and calling out other members of the team in one form of challenge or another.

I’ve written previously about the danger this can pose to women who can’t separate this fantasy from fact.  They don’t understand that their aping of male intra-sex challenges resembles the real deal about as much as an English speaking child who mimics speaking Chinese.  Actually it is worse, because along the way they may inadvertently get just enough of the process right to get themselves into a conflict they didn’t anticipate.  The example I shared is of the high school cheerleader and choir girl who joined the Marines and became a Packaging Specialist, and thought this made her one of the guys.  When a member of another service was talking smack about Marines, she followed what many women learn from watching real and imagined male interactions and decided to call him out and make him back down:

Enraged, [she] rushed the sailor. “I’m going to show you what a Marine is!” she shouted, and proceeded to knock the much larger rival to the ground.

As I mentioned in that previous post unfortunately for her this was neither a video game nor a movie, and the man she assaulted had the bad taste to fight back instead of backing down from her imagined display of Alpha Maleness:

the sailor then jumped back to his feet, grabbed [her], and body-slammed her. Her head whip-lashed onto concrete.

The scuffle was broken up by witnesses, and [she] retreated without seeking medical attention. But within a few hours, she complained to commanding officers and fellow Marines of a headache. The next day, she was dead.

Once he learned about this, the woman’s father played the Don’t Hit Me I’m A Girl (DHMIAG) card:

[her] father understands the law. What he doesn’t understand is why the sailor wasn’t held accountable for slamming a much smaller woman to the ground.

Unfortunately this instinct isn’t limited to understandably grieving fathers.  The problem with DHMIAG is it tends to come out at exactly the moment when Team Woman is at its strongest and Team Man is at its weakest.  This happens despite the woman’s often very man like actions which precipitated the event, and despite decades of women exclaiming take me seriously!

The female Marine was an extreme example, but we see the basic misunderstanding play out on a much lower stakes scale.  Women now fairly routinely use the language that one man would use to call another man out, only to be shocked at the response they receive.  In other cases they don’t mimic the language but they still set themselves up as leaders while they or others feel compelled to shelter them as women.  When I called Sheila Gregoire out for claiming that serial marriage was biblically justified if a woman could point to the flimsiest of pretexts, fellow manosphere blogger Morticia felt that this was inappropriate.  She felt that Sheila must have been mislead by someone in authority, and that is whom I should have called out.  However Sheila holds herself out as a Christian leader, referring to her work as a ministry.  If anything I treated Sheila with kid gloves.  Sheila had made the same biblical defense of divorce and remarriage in the case of a husband viewing pornography on her own blog. In my initial rebuttal to the Christian acceptance of Serial Polyandry I had elected to refute the idea without calling Sheila out by name.  At the time I emailed Sheila to let her know I had afforded her this courtesy.  I didn’t receive an email reply from Sheila, but not long thereafter she came to my blog and made the same defense of Christian Serial Polyandry.  Only then did I call Sheila out directly.  In a later blog post I teased Morticia about what I considered to be her expecting me to find a man to blame when a woman was out of line, and inadvertently caused her great distress.  At that point she withdrew the challenge and I removed the teasing note at the end of the blog post.

More recently we saw this same dynamic play out in my post last week titled Is frivolous divorce overstated in the manosphere?  Doug1 had upset Susan Walsh at her blog and she called him out man to man:

Provide stats for this or shut up.

The thing about this kind of challenge is you can’t be sure who will actually pick it up.  We saw this recently with Paul Elam’s challenge to Heartiste in specific and the gamesphere in general with his post Chateau Bullshit.  In that case it was actually blogger Frost who formally replied to the challenge, with as I understand it some assistance in the discussion section from other bloggers.  This is part of the danger of making bold pronouncements like this;  you set yourself up as having to take all comers.  Often times this results in a mismatch where you have much more to lose than your adversary, who has the luxury of deciding he likes the matchup.  A much more serious example of this is evident in perhaps the most famous cautionary tale to men on this topic, the story of David and Goliath.  Goliath made the mistake of challenging the manhood of all Israelites in an effort to make them back down.  The result of his hubris was being killed by a lowly shepherd boy armed only with a sling.

In Susan’s case she actually expanded her challenge at the end of her comment from just Doug1 to the larger manosphere:

I think this theme [wife initiated frivolous divorce] is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

It is the very nature of a challenge like this that news of it travels extremely fast.  Given that I have written extensively on the topic, I doubt there was a man familiar with my blog who saw Susan’s comment and didn’t think I’ll bet Dalrock would be interested in a piece of that.  In fact, given that this is a signature issue for me as a blogger in the manosphere, they could even be forgiven for seeing this as a direct challenge to me.  At any rate, it should have come as no surprise that news of this challenge quickly made its way to me, nor that I chose to respond.

Yet Susan appears to have felt completely blindsided by my response.  Hawaiian Libertarian has convincingly argued that Susan probably felt attacked by my responding to her challenge.  Some of my own readers argued that Susan was likely speaking out of a place of emotion, and shouldn’t be expected to either back up her assertion or withdraw it as we would expect a man to do in the same situation.  I have a problem with this because while Susan is often at odds with feminists, she very much strikes me as the take me seriously! type.

I don’t have an easy answer for all of this.  So long as women demand to be taken seriously, I’ll reserve the right to take them at their word.  If they put themselves in a position of leadership and/or make direct challenges to me or a group I’m part of, I’ll reserve the right to respond.  I’ll do this understanding full well that many will feel that I’m unfairly picking on a poor defenseless girl in doing so.  So be it.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

249 Responses to Don’t Hit Me I’m A Girl!

  1. You are very correct. I and my friends (we are in our 20’s) have noticed lately that the young women are fairly violent and pugnacious towards us.

    What you describe is very spot on: I was engaged to a female Officer in the Navy (in fact her ship made news recently with a first Lesbian kiss,) but all the things you described: hair-trigger separation, being led on by female friends, and work place alienation of affect came into play in our relationship. You are right women will lead other women on to abuse and then leave their men, in the case of my former fiancee it was even her CO who told her “you’ll have to wait until shore duty,” (ironic that his ship made news for being lesbian friendly since from the military’s stand point lesbians are the perfect female personnel as the relationship is by nature sterile.)

    Your observations about tough guy white knights are valid. Most fighters (I have spent several years training in Muay Thai) and men of ability don’t go around starting fights on specious pretenses, it’s dangerous, any resultant fights result in high costs to both parties, and let us admit it: a lot of white knights are really violent sociopaths that engage in anti-social behavior under the pretense of defending some scurrilous woman who has stirred up trouble.

    Of this fact we have quite a few examples from Antiquity, the first off the top of my mind is ‘The Tain’ the Irish Iron Age Epic of Cuchulain in which a woman because of her jealous stirs up a violent war that is staved off by the hero. This type of problem can be noted in a few heroic epics, even the Iliad in which it was the adultery of Helen of Sparta. Needless to say the people of Antiquity did not take the “little woman’s” side and in fact impart her fair share of the blame to her.

  2. greyghost says:

    A couple of women thought they could “punk” a guy at a mcdonalds. he didn’t spare the rod one bit. All of team woman ,maginahood and whiteknight was shocked at that one. But the last bits of remaining common sense and reality no billed the guy.

  3. Rmaxd says:

    Walsh gets bitch-slapped by Dalrock … yet again …

    Everybody on the Walsh bitch-slapping train …

    How many manginas’s are we gonna see crawling out of Walsh’s how to create mangina’s & manipulate statistics & steal concepts from the manosphere & game, try & sell out to feminists & fail miserably blog?

    Walsh I find it fascinating you never ban the women on your site for attacking men …
    or directly attacking your male commentators …

    Or you dont find it necessary to apologise for being misandrist & spouting male hate, & attacking male commentators on your own site, even though you stated on Dalrocks site, you were none-misandrist … ?

    Is ALL of the above also part of your sites mission? Because in all of the 3 to 4 years of your blog, it sure as hell looks like it …

    WE are well aware your comment, on divorce is a tip of the iceberg Walsh, your hatred for men commenting on your site, is a well documented fact

    Or did you think nobody would notice the years of you attacking & banning male commentators ?

    Of course I dont expect you to come clean & actually say something to address all of the above …

    You’ve already proven in the Frivolous Divorce post, you’re disingenous & a pathological liar & denier, typical of a carousel settled for a beta, woman

    I’ll leave you with a quote of Dalrock … his pimphand is strong … you know you love it Walsh … emotionally cheating on your husband & getting your daily fix of emotional porn feels sooo good …. this is why you blog right?

    “Goliath made the mistake of challenging the manhood of all Israelites in an effort to make them back down. The result of his hubris was being killed by a lowly shepherd boy armed only with a sling.

    In Susan’s case she actually expanded her challenge at the end of her comment from just Doug1 to the larger manosphere:

    I think this theme [wife initiated frivolous divorce] is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.”

  4. Ecclesiastes says:

    I think most adult men figure out that other men – no matter how small – are F*&^#$g dangerous. Shoot your mouth off, say the WRONG thing, and the next night you’ll get a taser to your kidney and a hammer to your kneecaps. ( e.g. “I’m gonna come to your house and …” to the father of a toddler )

    Macho and loud, can be ignored and even accommodated. However the first duty of a man is to protect.

    I don’t think women get this at all, so they go about being obnoxious ‘tough guys’ thinking they’re acting like men. Do you take obnoxious ‘tough guys’ seriously? I don’t.

  5. YBM says:

    Obnoxious tough guys have a tendency to stop being invited places rather quickly, if they continue to show up a pool cue to the back will suffice.

    I was having drinks with some of my colleagues and one of them (a woman of course) was waxing poetic about how much “crap” she had taken from guys and she would simply change the locks and “beat the s*it out of him” if he tried to break up with her and told her to move out of his apartment (whether she was on the lease or not). I said she was living in a dream land but couldn’t help but feel as though she probably could do it.

    Unfortunately obnoxious tough “girls” haven’t had their pool cue moment.

  6. Twenty says:

    I think most adult men figure out that other men – no matter how small – are F*&^#$g dangerous.

    Bingo.

    An ex-g/f of mine was given to saying things like: “If I was a man, I’d kick [some random guy who annoyed her]‘s ass!”. (I was able to persuade her that such fantasies would not survive the actual experience of being a man.)

  7. Prof. Woland says:

    This is one reason why if the men’s rights movement ever gets its shit together it will be extremely effective against the feminists. By organizing, men will be able to do and say collectively what they are currently not allowed to individually. This is particularly true with politics and the media. The sort of personal ad hominem attacks women specialize in is utterly useless when men have a buffer (This is also one more good reason not to be your own lawyer in a divorce). Rather than men individually sticking out our necks in court, the workplace, church, etc. only to get it chopped off we can send forth unapologetic advocates to do our business. A well funded MRM is feminism’s worst nightmare no matter what they tell you.

  8. straightright says:

    I really enjoy your blog, have been reading for a while, and find it to be extremely insightful. I thought you were extremely rational and thoughtful when you responded to Susan Walsh. First you responded logically, and then when she tried to change her story, saying you took her out of context, you simply linked to her comment, which proved your point.

    I think the best thing you can do is take someone seriously. Taking someone seriously means treating them like an adult, and not a child. Words have consequences, and Susan Walsh should know that. She does have a professional degree, for crying out loud.

    Regarding the content of the post, every guy knows that when you step up on the playground and challenge someone you basically only give them two options: fight or flight. That’s why you should always try to leave someone a respectable out. Then you can both save face no matter the case. Having this kind of awareness is just basic social grace.

    When you don’t realize the nature of a challenge, how reality works, and what you are doing, you get the case of the Marine. Or you get what happened to the 100 pound New York woman who thought she could hit a small man with impunity:

    http://gothamist.com/2011/03/07/man_who_put_woman_in_coma_over_park.php

    If you search for this story, you find that the single punch by the guy is called road rage, so I’m really happy to report that the man’s jury trial was declared a mistrial by the judge. This woman literally had reality smack her in the head.

  9. Gorbachev says:

    The problem with many women is that they ape the form ans style of male behavior, but none of the substance. Feminists mistake copying the form of male response from its intention or substance.

    They can see much male behavior as outrageously violent (before actual violence flares up), and then they copy this. But they don’t instinctively know what this behavior is FOR.

    It’s often meant to avoid conflict.

    The SCUM women and extreme feminists do have something right. Men and women are profoundly different. These stereotypical male behaviors are designed to moderate, control and focus conflict.

    Much of this comes from *motivation*.

    While males and females are similar, what differs is their motivation. Women are sometimes motivated by different things.

    Male and female dogs are an excellent comparison.

    While largely the same, there are often striking differences.

    Male dogs: If a vacancy opens up, they will hack about for top dog status. Once the hierarchy is established, they assume roles based on it, and may occasionally test positions and rebel, but will work within the framework. Males are naturally highly hierarchical. It’s why communism is doomed to failure: Hierarchy is both natural and inevitable with this species of animal. As one famous commenter said, “Good idea, wrong species.”

    However, females also have complex and convoluted hierarchies, but they’re actually more complex than male ones. They tend to reward savagery much more effectively. Instead of being based on “fairness”, which is quite abstract, they’re based on personal relationships. The alliance corruption in female-majority organizations is a real effect.

    And bitterness leads to more focused and more serious social violence. Female dogs, for example, will fight much less than male dogs. However, they also seem to have more severe reactions when they do react. A female dog can act all friendly and nice and sweet, while remembering a slight. Without warning, it can turn on another female and remove her throat – killing the rival.

    Males will rarely do this. Their fighting is heavily regulated, because it’s more common, and is more goal-focused. Female violence is often merely personal.

    The same two guys who have at each other can turn around and make up and get drinks. I have never, ever seen savage social interaction like that between groups of females. This remains true for almost all mammal species.

    Female-female violence is usually much more fatal than male-male violence, and it’s the females in primate species that often have the toughest time getting along. The males have so much more potential for debilitating conflict that they need to regulate it heavily.

    Women just don’t get it. it’s innocent enough when it’s a case of women not understanding what men are doing, but when women JOIN the Group of Men and proceed to behave, they tend to be *more* gung-ho and aggressive than males. It’s almost as if they don’t get it. It’s not about winning; it’s about posture and testing.

    Most men don’t try to “win”. They’re engaging in bluster and showmanship to score points. When women fight, it’s to win. It’s not to shift the power balance; it’s to crush rivals.

    I’ve seen teenage girls work tirelessly to psychologically destroy other girls. it’s like torture. Boys assault each other like little dogs, scrapping and fighting, but wholesale emotional death isn’t what they’re after.

    Admitting girls into the world of men ends up, usually, causing more serious wars and more serious conflict, because women erroneously take men at face value, when the men may just be putting on a show for the benefit of other men. Instead, they take the threats seriously and may push the whole situation over.

    My brother is in the military, and he tells this story often, of women making social situations pure hell. He’s not alone. Call it useless info because it’s anecdote, but a billion anecdotes starts to smell like conspiracy and suggests reality is not the equal-equal we think it is.

    The rad fems are actually on to something that the mass of equalists can’t admit: that men and women are, from birth, very different. Of course this is obviously true; it’s true for rats and rhesus macaques, it’s true for dogs and cats, it’s absolutely true for humans. In fact, we are even more specialized than some other mammal species: natural human economies nearly segregate males and females.

    In my experience, however, one thing also shows up. I work in the media, and this is one thing I’ve noticed; Lesbian women, especially those heavily male-identified, are almost always identical to males in behavior. Despite their disdain for “males”, they exhibit shockingly similar behavior in institutions, the same psychopathy, the same posturing, the same overall respect for equals, the same ability to manage teamwork and respect hierarchy.

    Straight women are the ones who are half-crazy, by male standards. By and large, lesbians are easy to deal with. Straight women seem to create all the institutional chaos that women cause.

    Men have all kinds of pathologies, and women are largely similar, but there are striking differences between them in certain circmstances.

    BTW,

    I’ve noticed that GAY MEN often behave with the stereotypical sniping, side-launched and vendetta attacks that are typical of straight women.

    I have come to the conclusion through experience that there is a difference between men and women on this score, and it’s developmental or genetic; likely a result of the variable development of the male/female brain. It’s a tendency, not a rule, but it’s governed by hormones or sexual identity (in the brain) somehow. Gay men tend to the female, lesbians to the male.

    It may explain much in the radical feminist movement. Straight and lesbian feminists often differ profoundly not just in the content of their feminism but also their basic approach. This goes beyond having an interest in fucking men, men they need to regulate. It’s a difference in approach. Lesbians are often more direct, more aggressive, have a lot more posturing and their politics tend to be more similar to the politics men engage in.

    Go have a look.

    Lie all things, these things I’ve noticed are tendencies, not absolutes. But I’ll put money on these observations being statistically relevant.

  10. Anon says:

    DHMIAG is an especially hard card to play on the internet. Yeah, you’re a girl, so what? Even if I truly believe you really are a female, why should I defer to you at all in an argument on the internet? You have exactly the same capability to defend yourself as anyone else.

  11. deti says:

    Great post, Dalrock.

    It bears repeating that the intrepid host of this blog in his “Is Frivolous Divorce Overstated in the Manosphere” made clear that he respected Susan Walsh as a blogger; that he thought SW was in error on this issue (AND THIS ISSUE ONLY, for purposes of the discussion) and that this was not an invitation for anyone to attack SW personally.

    It was made clear that the purpose of the discussion was to analyze the issue. That’s all we were going to do. It was not to attack SW, or HUS, or HUS’ “mission”, or female bloggers in the gamesphere. We were to look at the issue, think critically about it, find and analyze the evidence, and assess whether the facts (if there were any) supported or did not support SW’s conclusion or Dalrock’s opposite conclusion. I had (and have) no interest in taking down SW or HUS, nor do I have any personal skin in this issue. I just wanted to find out where the evidence led.

    But in return, I saw many of the usual argumentation techniques I see women use in my profession:

    “That’s not the issue!”
    “That’s not what I said!”
    “That’s not what the original debate was about!”
    “You took what I said out of context!”
    “I was upset and frustrated when I said that!” (which I can actually accept; but it doesn’t lend support to the argument)
    “I understand your position and what you want to argue about, but we need to talk about the REAL issue and what I want to argue about!”
    “You took ONE little comment out of a 1000 + comment thread and blew it all out of proportion!” That’s SO unfair!”

    Double standards (You must provide evidentiary or factual support for every assertion you make; but I can say anything I want with no evidence and you have no right to challenge it).

    Personal, ad hominem attack (“this thread is proof that your blog is an MRA echo chamber, Dalrock”)

    “MRA” cast as pejorative connotation.

    Deflection.

    Non sequiturs.

    Scolding and lecturing.

    Strawmen.

    “After this, therefore because of this” argumentation.

    Moral relativism.

  12. YOHAMI says:

    Absolutely. Women have no clue of what do when their fake cock simulation gets challenged. Whenever a woman attempts the cock-on-cock male domination thing, she´s bluffing. She´ll retreat to cry and play the victim card the minute things get though.

  13. deti says:

    The sole purpose of the “Is Frivolous Divorce Overstated in the Manosphere” thread was to look at this statement by SW:

    “I think this theme [wife initiated frivolous divorce] is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.”

    and assess whether it was true or not. That’s all. All we were going to do was find out where the facts led.

    And what happened was a completely unnecessary attack and blog-skirmish.

  14. TFH says:

    Great post. It describes something many of us have noticed but did not fully comprehend.

    Note that we always see ‘Team Woman’ happen when a woman gets in over her head, often on this blog itself.

    At the same time, manginas/whiteknights, the inobservant dumbshits that they are, fail to notice that no woman EVER defends them. Remember that interminable thread with Escoffier? Or how about the fact that no woman has ever praised anything that manboobz has ever written?

    Yet they think their whiteknighting will someday get women to like them…..if only they just double down one more time, they might be able to break through escape velocity and women will like them……(or so they pigheadedly believe).

    NO woman defends a whiteknight. Ever. They are the lowest of the low on the socio-sexual totem pole.

  15. Gorbachev says:

    I find the safest rule is to always ram equality down women’s throats, especially when they resist.

    Treat them with precisely the same expectations you would use for men for all behavior: Responsibility, financial, social, etc. Make them equals.

    It does two things. It immunizes you from criticism for not being chivalrous: you treat men and women with identical consideration and respect. And it obliges women to be responsible; they can’t have their freedom and eat their traditional cake, too.

    it galls many women, but it’s even more effective when you call them out on “girly” behavior. The moment they use the “DHMIAG” defence, you say:

    You punch men, I’m going to punch you. You slap me hard, I’ll slap you back. You should know the cost of dishing out misbehavior and violence: You goad a lion and you get eaten.”

    I once saw a woman assault a man in an airport in the middle east, and it was relatively violent. I turned around and put my hand up to defend myself, and when she managed to land a blow to my head, and I clocked her hard on the jaw. She went down and tried to get security to arrest him; he elegantly defended himself by showing security his broken glasses and a bruise to his face, and said he’d been very restrained. The security bought his explanation, but chided him for hitting a woman.

    When I was interviewing an official at one point, I was cornered by a female protester and told nto to do the interview; she became physically violent when I peacefully continued, and then elected to film her instead, film her obstructing me. I told her if she ht me I’d hit her back, and she proceeded to slap me hard across the face – not in the You Cad way, but in a very aggressive, Knock Him Down and Smash His Camera way.

    In shock, I open-palmed her in the chest and sent her reeling back about ten feet, on her back, and he immediately started screaming, and she’d fallen pretty badly. But my lens was smashed where she’d knocked the camera out of my hand and my face was obviously impacted.

    I was easily 4x stronger than her and she’d attempted to initiate violence? Was she insane? Of course, she was opersating from the principle that most women use: I can hit you , and use whatever level of violence I deem appropriate, and you can’t do anything to me. Wrong guy to use that with. I was taught that women and men were the same.

    Her friends leapt to the rescue, but the security around my interviewee immediately intervened and sided with me; she had been violent first, and had been very aggressively violent.

    Happily, I was backed up. But I can see that in such situations it’s possible for the man to be punished regardless.

    I’ve also interviewed men who were physically assaulted by girlfriends or wives. The attacks tend to be relatively serious, but the men are expected to simply take it.

    Make sure the attack is public. Make sure you’re defending yourself. But the old idea that women are inviolate is gone.

    If a woman attacks me, or anyone else I know, I treat them like men: Equal and appropriate response. Disarm attacker, prevent continued attacks, finish it.

    When you do this, women usually usher in the tears and plead for chivalry.

    They need to be starved of this. Equality is equality.

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    It is the same old story. Women want to have equal privileges, but not equal responsibilities, far, far too often. They want to be able to demand the right to play at being men when they want, and to be excused from duties on the basis of their sex, when they want. Eat cake, yet still have it. The only thing to do is keep on holding them their word, until they either grow up and act like adults, or give up and accept a different status. The current situation, where far too many women deploy a battleship mouth but actually are paddling around in a rowboat, is just not working. It makes women totally unlikeable (never mind lovable) far too often, it makes men bitter, cynical and increasingly indifferent to women as a group.

    One of the things that bothers me about blog world is hyperbole. I’m no historian, but I am a student of history. I’ve read enough about various revolutions to know what a real firing squad looked like, for example. I’ve read enough about various dictators to know what real torture involves. Look, these are just electrons in arrangements on various bits of silicon, metal oxide. No one is going to be mutilated or killed by words on a blog post, however annoying, or offensive, or enraging, or hurtful said words may be. So referring to blog comments as if they were some form of mortal combat, some form of excruciating torture, some sort of method of execution – it is just way, way over the top. I find it diminishes my respect for a person when they use this sort of hyperbole in a serious argument. it is too much like a child who has been told to pick up their toys and go to bed suddenly standing up, screaming “You hate me! You want me suffer! You never loved me!” and so forth. There are many responses to that, but taking them seriously is not and option.

    People who wish to be taken seriously, should consistently act like serious people. That is the simple truth. Unfortunately, it appears to be far from simple in practice.

  17. YOHAMI says:

    Gorbachev,

    That comment linking animals and sexual deviations was awesome. This:

    “When women fight, it’s to win. It’s not to shift the power balance; it’s to crush rivals.”

    Yes. Men form hierarchies and the fight is about occupying predefined slots in that ladder. A guy knows when he has been defeated, a guy knows his place, lets the best man win, etc. The fight is not personal.

    Women form nets around resources and the fight is about inclusion and exclusion. Its “us vs them”. The winner takes it all and the loser gets expelled from the tribe or becomes food.

    Men play fight in infinite shades of gray. The fight is diverse and positional. Women fight in black and white, and its about life and death.

    The moment you engage in a fight with a woman, you are “the enemy”. Talking them out if it is hard stuff. Having them recognize they are in the wrong, for them, is losing, thus death. So they fight till the last breath. And when they lose, they feel like they have lost not just an argument but *everything*, which is obviously so unfair.

  18. A few thoughts.

    Like Yohami, love the dog comparisons. Then love the reaction he had to it.

    “Yes. Men form hierarchies and the fight is about occupying predefined slots in that ladder. A guy knows when he has been defeated, a guy knows his place, lets the best man win, etc. The fight is not personal.”

    Made me think about it. As men we create a hierarchy so that we can find our place and operate to our maximum efficiency at our level. Our bravado, manliness, and inter-man challenges to each other are to specifically avoid fights when we can, because its not productive. Atleast, in regularly society its like that. I’m guessing on the streets its more cut throat, fights happen more often, but the stakes and competition for resources are higher.

    Also, I think it’s sad that feminism has deluded women to thinking they can do anything just as well as a man can. Without that delusion you wouldn’t see women going off half cocked against men with 40 lbs of muscles on them and much more experience with how to use it. Combined with a DHMIAG its no surprise you see the sad situations like the marine going off on the sailor.

    Good job feminism, whats your body count at today?

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    Yohami
    The moment you engage in a fight with a woman, you are “the enemy”. Talking them out if it is hard stuff. Having them recognize they are in the wrong, for them, is losing, thus death. So they fight till the last breath. And when they lose, they feel like they have lost not just an argument but *everything*, which is obviously so unfair.

    One thing for women to bear in mind: in the course of a fight such as Yohami describes, women from time to time will say things or do things that move them into the classification of “enemy” in a man’s mind. For some men, once an enemy, always an enemy. That battleship mouth /rowboat reality can lead to this. Fairness has nothing to do with it, it is all about who is enemy and who is not.

  20. Dalrock says:

    @Ecclesiastes

    I think most adult men figure out that other men – no matter how small – are F*&^#$g dangerous.

    This reminded me of a farcical article from The Good Men Project. Their resident female to male tranny talked about how “he” now perceived other men when walking down the street:

    Now I feel safer, because I am not seen as a rape target. I size other guys up, thinking, Yeah, I could take him.

    How utterly clueless (s)he is.

  21. Dex says:

    re: men fighting men vs women fighting women: I’ve noticed that when men argue and it turns physical, very often there is a period of time that the fight is just a continuation of the argument by other means. They are fighting to win, but are holding themselves back. This minimizes the damage they inflict and sustain. If this is where the fight ends, you may have that situation where they dust themselves off and buy some beers together.

    However, there comes a point if the fight goes on long enough, that two men fighting are absolutely focused on hurting, maiming, crushing the other. This point happens when one of them really gets hurt or becomes afraid or angry enough to no longer care about the consequences. If this is when the fight ends, future violence gets real likely. As in, going home or to the car to get a gun/knife.

    I saw more than a few girl fights growing up. Always more vicious than two guys. I think women reach this “pull out all the stops” point sooner than men. This may be because women are more easily hurt than men or because they haven’t been socialized to still control themselves once the line has been crossed into a physical fight. I’ve seen stats that female LEOs are quicker to use deadly force than males, for the same reasons.

  22. YOHAMI says:

    Anonymous,

    Sure, some men are like that. But you know, when a man gets in a fight and makes it too personal, gets all worked up and cannot let it go… everyone perceives he´s not “man” enough. He´s letting his feminine side take control. And what follows, if people manage to contain him, is to man him up and make him control his anger. That, or the dude gets killed / banned from the tribe / cut out of resources, like in proper female / female fighting style.

  23. Ran across a great quote on this subject while I was bouncing around articles over at A Voice for Men
    “Zeta Masculinity entails no more acceptance of personal violence.. . . . For men alert to the social reality that they are despised as human beings, and only valued as disposable human-appliances, a total refusal to accept and absorb violence, or to dispense violence for any reason except personal protection is likely startling to socially conforming men and women.”

    @ Dalrock
    That article you linked was hilarious. I loved the last bit.
    “And I’ve learned that being open to learning, trying to fix things to empower myself, and helping others is one of the manliest things I can do.

    Which is why, even though I bristle at the request when I know she’s only asking because I’m male, I help the female commuter student with her printer connectivity problem. Even if it means reading the user’s manual. As a last resort, of course.”

    Glad she likes being a sucker beta male now. She can take my spot, I’m done with that.

  24. Anonymous Reader says:

    Yohami
    Sure, some men are like that. But you know, when a man gets in a fight and makes it too personal, gets all worked up and cannot let it go… everyone perceives he´s not “man” enough.

    I think you are misunderstanding me. I am referring to boundaries, to lines that a man cannot allow to be crossed without losing his self respect. People whom one doesn’t much care about, strangers, in whom one doesn’t place a lot of trust, can say all sorts of things and eh, it’s just words. People that one allows to be close have to be worthy of trust, that is what “trustworthy” means. Someone who is close enough to know you, and to use that knowledge in deploying words to cause emotional harm, is no longer worth trusting. Done often enough, they become a stranger – someone of no importance. Beyond that, they can become an enemy. That’s my point. Words do mean things, and once said they cannot be unsaid.

    Women would do well to bear that in mind.

  25. jack says:

    TFH said:
    Yet they think their whiteknighting will someday get women to like them…..if only they just double down one more time, they might be able to break through escape velocity and women will like them……(or so they pigheadedly believe).

    The Sexual Martingale?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29

  26. Jennifer says:

    Good points, AR. Sounds fair to me, Dalrock. Personally, if I said something to someone, I would prefer that they personally respond, and others don’t jump in. But you provided a good cautionary note here by warning, or reminding us, that this simply isn’t always what happens.

  27. jack says:

    With regard to women and vioence:

    Women do not really understand violence that well. For most women, given their physical limitations, REAL violence is the last resort. Therefore, women generally reach the point where they have lost most internal controls BEFORE they reach the point of applied violence. That is why women are such vicious, but terrible fighters.

    For MOST men, violence can be eased into, in gradual, deliberate, and finely calibrated amounts.
    A man who gets emotional and “fights like a girl” has demonstrated his loss of control.

    Many women may give intellectual assent to the measured use of violence by soldiers, policemen, etc. But they don’t really understand it. For many women, the criminal running from the crime and the cop wrestling him to the ground are both examples of scary male violence.

    This may partially explain women who seek out these kind of men. The innate fear of male violence causes them to try and corral it and control it with their most powerful weapon – sexuality.
    This probably explains the occasional coupling of a total hottie with a real thug. It is two specimens of high-octane human power locking horns.

  28. umslopogaas says:

    Great post, Big D.

    I believe there is an added angle to this: a.) individual pain treshhold</b and b.) level of emotional affectation

    a.) I would say that – on average – womens’ individual pain threshhold (for physical as well as psychological pain/pressure) is *lower* than mens’. Maybe this is biologically determined, maybe it is because women get treated with ‘kiddy gloves’ for most of their lives, and men do not. In any case, women’s tendency to take things personal / get personal is thus, imo, a consequence of this lower pain tolerance.

    A man, I believe, is better suited to accept critique, and accept it on a professional basis. Sure, there are ruffled male egos as well…but the tendency to explode into personal attacks is, imo, more limited to the fringe of men, rather than the core (and it’s also far less tolerated).

    Oh and man is usually also far more experienced in *direct* confrontations/contests (notice how male conflict is generally *direct* while female conflict is *indirect*).

    b.) Higher female emotional affectation is evidently connected to their lower pain threshhold (as well as, perhaps, to biological differences of the sexes). Regardless, what I usually see happening is that a woman might *start a debate using logic/common sense…but as soon as she receives some serious flak (which she cannot deal with due to aforementioned lower pain threshhold) her emotions take over and she departs the sphere of common sense and defaults to standard female fighting techniques (ad hominems, shaming language, reframing etc.).

    Bottomline:

    It is splendid to analyze things. With every fight & debate our comprehension of women grows. We are charting out the female psyche…and I believe the day is not far away where we will have a complete and holistic understand of how they tick.

    This is good on many levels. We will be able to better predict their actions and adapt our own tactics etc. All in all I call the ‘Doug-Gate Affair’ a clear cut victory for the Manosphere.

  29. Jennifer says:

    Jack, that’s fascinating.

    I just watched an interview with Angry Harry, in which he expounded on the “don’t hit me, I’ll crumble” or “don’t hit me, I’ll kill you” mentality that certain women show, in regards to feminists; he expressed how so many declared that people couldn’t even show disagreement with feminism, or the women listening might be “hurt” by it.

  30. YBM says:

    It really is unfortunate that pacifism is considered such an “effeminate” trait because I think defending yours and your enemies right to live is about as masculine as you can get,

    St. Augustine of Hippo, a good writer.

  31. TimP says:

    It seems strange to me that women would interpret:
    “Provide stats for this or shut up. … I think this theme [wife initiated frivolous divorce] is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.”

    As anything other than a direct challenge to doug1 is specific and the entire “group who think wife initiated frivolous divorce is a common and serious problem”/manosphere in general. It’s essentially a “lets you and I fight”. As a [new] member of this group I felt attacked when I read that statement.

    An interesting thing to note is that dalrock would have lost status by not responding. When the group is challenged like this, someone needs to step up to the plate. If the groups champions don’t they lose status, unless the challenger is beneath them. The very fact that dalrock respects [considers to be an equal or a superior] Susan Walsh means that he needs to respond to her if no one else does. Also the fact that he responded is a sign of his respect; you can only ignore challenges from inferiors, and you can’t ignore a challenge from peers (since she challenged the group dalrock could ignore it if some other member of the group responded).

    If someone challenges me personally I only have three options:
    1) Submit/back down if they are my superiors
    2) Ignore them if they are my inferiors
    3) Respond to the challenge if they are roughly my peers

    If they challenge my group instead I get a forth option:
    4) Ignore them if someone else responds.

    Note that the supposed “civilized response” of just ignoring the slight, letting it slide, or tolerating weird emotions among females is really just option 2.

  32. Mike C says:

    Great comments there Gorbachev and Yohami.

    I worked as a bouncer for a year about 6 years ago, and I can definitely attest to the difference between male conflict/violence and female confict/violence.

    One thing this post made me think of (perhaps tangentially connected) is that I’ve read or heard this attack on you Dalrock now more then a few times from a variety of women commenters, and it is basically along the lines of “why is a happily married father so passionate about blogging about divorce, etc.”. I’ve always thought this was a bizarre comment/attack, but it really is very telling. I think most men have a strong inclination towards abstract principles of justice, fairness, what is right, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE HAVE ANY PERSONAL INTEREST OR CONNECTION. It almost seems to me that some?/most? women are not wired that way. A particular cause/concept/calling ONLY MATTERS if there is some personal connection she has. Otherwise, it isn’t important. Almost as if if you don’t have any personal connection, then it is something obviously NOT worth fighting for/arguing for passionately. If you think back to some of the troll Kathy’s comments they were clearly along these lines.

  33. namae nanka says:

    “There is a lot tied up in just those few words, but I would characterize the exchange more as him offering the other men respect and asking for it in return.”

    Read somewhere of the men of wild west stopping their cussing and foul language when “ladies are present”.

    Regarding women hitting men, manginas are a big problem:

    starts at 9:45

    “the sailor then jumped back to his feet, grabbed [her], and body-slammed her. Her head whip-lashed onto concrete.”

    sounds similar to what happened here. Everyone cheered for overcoming the bully, even though the bully is a sickly looking kid and not a marine.

    and these fathers of daughters who want the world for them.

    “[her] father understands the law. What he doesn’t understand is why the sailor wasn’t held accountable for slamming a much smaller woman to the ground.”

    The biggest irony for them would be when their daughters have a son who finds himself on the opposite end of another father’s pampered daughter. It’s hard to see it coming when the moral exhortations for one’s women-folk on men don’t turn into “for your men-folk” but into “why do you want women to do something for you?”.

  34. namae nanka says:

    “It’s hard to see it coming when the moral exhortations for one’s women-folk on men don’t turn into “for your men-folk” but into “why do you want women to do something for you?”.”

    of course it’s all pointless when then daughter in question will likely be childless for the actualization of her ambition.

  35. Ecclesiastes says:

    As happy as I am to have struck a chord with my first sentence, I seem to have buried my point in the middle.

    It’s a thing I tell my kids: the first duty of a man is to protect. I imply that if a male isn’t protecting something, he’s not a man. He’s still a boy.

    Amongst men, we may deride the White Knight in action. He is a fool and a tool, but he is still a man. We can dismiss with irritation the manners of a ‘tough guy’, because he’s still a boy, dangerous but un-serious.

    Talking to women … they seem to get the ‘protect’ idea, kind of, but it’s still an add-on rather than core. Women get the idea of ‘protect’, but not the *imperative*.

  36. Thayer Martin says:

    Here’s another “me too” on women not wanting/not expecting to be taken seriously.

    My wife and I had been having a rocky stretch in our marriage, and during one of our drunken rages one evening, I told her that I thought it would be best for me to spend the nite in a motel. “If you do that,” she said, “I’ll throw all your belongings out into the yard.” Keeping that in mind, I waited until she was out of town visiting family, and moved my stuff out into an apartment.

    “Why did you deceive me and sneak out of the house?” she asked. I replied that I didn’t want all my stuff on the ground in the yard, and I wanted to avoid a situation which could escalate to where the police would be called.

    “But you know I’d never do that [throw the belongings out into the yard].”

    Actually, I knew nothing of the sort. She told me how to expect her to behave, and I planned accordingly, and then she was surprised and offended when I took her threat seriously.

    The denouement of this is that she seemed to take this as a wake up call to clean up her act, and in return for my agreeing to move back, she has been attending Mass and 12-step meetings daily for the past month. All the same, I’m keeping my stuff at the new apartment until I’m sure the change in her attitude sticks.

  37. PT Barnum says:

    For MOST men, violence can be eased into, in gradual, deliberate, and finely calibrated amounts.

    Like when the Officer puts his hand on his gun, when the perp motorists fails to comply within two second!

    Or, even better, when the doctor has a male nurse stand threateningly behind you when you fail to comply with his order that you get a completely useless vaccine…. when you came there to have a cut treated and were forced to wait four hours(which they didn’t tell you) for treatment.

    That’s cause they are doing their best to see you get the worlds best treatment! Cause ya knose that four hour wait had no effect on treatment quality at all! And if you were psychic you would know the wait time even if they refused to tell you!

    And besides, calmly refusing to have a vaccine, is one step away from killing the doctor with a scalpel! Everyone knows that!

    I love America’s “measured” “gradual” “deliberate” “finely calibrated” violence. As finely calibrated as the most bat-shit crazy harlots it is.

  38. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Before I start discussing the issue, I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas!

    Ecclesiastes said:

    It’s a thing I tell my kids: the first duty of a man is to protect. I imply that if a male isn’t protecting something, he’s not a man. He’s still a boy.

    Amongst men, we may deride the White Knight in action. He is a fool and a tool, but he is still a man. We can dismiss with irritation the manners of a ‘tough guy’, because he’s still a boy, dangerous but un-serious.

    I agree to an extent, protecting is a part of being a man. However, as a man, you shouldn’t just be protecting at every little girls whims. Any Whiteknight and Mangina who does that isn’t actually defending, he is promoting abuse against men and the eventual destruction of society, i.e. he’s being an idiot, a useful idiot but an idiot nonetheless.

    For me a man is something different, he isn’t just a strong physical animal. He is intelligent and responsible enough to determine who is worthy of his defense and protection and who is not. A real man doesn’t just go around hitting those he disagrees with. A real man knows that showing dominance in every circumstance can get you into more trouble than it’s worth. Choosing you’re battles and choosing who and what to defend are, to me at least, what make a real man.

  39. Curious Feminist Hater, who and what would you defend?

    I’ve been thinking since reading this article of Dalrock’s, the ones linked within it I hadn’t already, and one on AVfM called The Silence of Men. I don’t think I would bother defending anything/one other than myself, my male friends, and females that have proven to me they don’t see me in the typical female view point of an accessory, a wallet, a status symbol.

    If they provoke an argument or a fight, I probably wouldn’t have hesitated to defend them before. Now I’m not so sure. And I have to include intellectual arguments too, especially after looking at this thing with Susan and Dalrock. That’s there thing and, unless Susan’s people come out of the woodworks to attack commenters and Dalrock here, I don’t think I’ll get involved and probably already got more involved with a few comments than I would have now after considering those viewpoints.

  40. Suz says:

    “Bottomline:

    It is splendid to analyze things. With every fight & debate our comprehension of women grows. We are charting out the female psyche…and I believe the day is not far away where we will have a complete and holistic understand of how they tick.

    This is good on many levels. We will be able to better predict their actions and adapt our own tactics etc. All in all I call the ‘Doug-Gate Affair’ a clear cut victory for the Manosphere.”

    Hear! Hear! – from the gallery. Game is manipulation. Please use it wisely, but for God’s sake, use it. In the long run you have everything to gain. Women have been using it to steal men’s power for centuries, and men have allowed it, but only where basic resources (food, shelter, safety) are plentiful. Apparently, emasculation is your reward for success; you provide a surplus of security, we take it for granted and play with it. Like children: “Thanks for the lovely toy dishes, Daddy. Now come to my tea party, but bring your chivalry. It’s ‘my’ table so I get to make up the rules.”

    Women who lack safety nets are rarely feminists.

  41. 7man says:

    I spent some time analyzing this and wrote a post:
    Hamster Droppings: The SW example of Frivolous Divorce Denial

  42. Buck says:

    After 30 years in LE, I can tell you, this “laura Croft” ” G. I. Jane” fantasy crap is down right dangerous to the gals in LE. Alas, it is amazing how many women believe it though. (until their first ass whoop’n)
    I recall from my academy days, the boxing segment (now no longer used in training…too hard on the gals). We had a girl boxer (reportedly a college girl-boxing champ) in my cadet class who talked endlessly about how badass she was. We were paired off by similar size and a male recruit knocked her out in 30 seconds with 3-4 punches, he wasn’t a big guy, and he knew nothing about boxing;
    I had a baton instructor, black female, who liked to talk shit. When I finished putting the hurt to her, after she called “stop play” , she had major contusions, even through a “Red-Man” padded suit. I had longer arms, extended by the baton, she never got close enough to land a blow, when I parried, even trying to pull my strikes, again, pure physics…longer the lever, the greater the momentum…pow! I admit, she took a pretty good beating before she called it quits, but I was not going 100% either. The more I beat her, the more emotional she got…once emotion kicked in, it was no contest, I beat her ass as she made crazed charges and flailed around, getting angrier by the second.
    I think the whole logic/emotion debate would kick in here…perhaps another stream.
    I’ve seen a bunch of cop gals get their asses kicked. Some of the black and Puetro-Rican gangqueens are pretty tough…with other women.
    This is no editorial on a woman’s tenacity, it’s pure physics…guys on average have more muscle mass than women do…duh!

    The people commenting on the silent but deadly thing are right on too. The loud mouth types are usually compensating for their lack of ability, the true bad asses usually never say a word.

  43. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Leap of Beta. I defend three things. My culture, my ethnic nation and those that are respectful and caring towards me, i.e. my family, friends and hopefully, one day, my wife and children. That’s pretty much it.

    My work involves me defending others, but that’s more of a job, not a calling to defend poor wimmenz. I don’t defend them because I feel I have a duty. I defend them because someone above me on the ladder of hierarchy in the firm, told me I have to and they pay me, which in turn allows me some freedom and the ability to take care of those that do matter to me.

    I choose my battles, I realise you cannot defeat feminists and all the other multiculturalists in a normal pitched battle but instead we have to fight a type of small scale conflict. With small victories here and there. Their eventual failure will not come from us but instead from their system failing them. My duty is to prepare for that eventual collapse and have a safety net amongst those of my community and culture who are ready for what comes next. Whatever that might be.

    I’m not invested in the current system quite literally because the current system is not invested in me. If that makes any sense at all.

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    Given the various comments above culminating with Buck’s experience, we can see a number of anecdotes in which women make claims that they can’t back up logically (or physiologically, in the case of cops ‘n bouncers). Accepting that the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, I still have a question.

    Is this innate behavior, learned behavior, or a combination? That is, is this “just how women are”, and natural variation will mean that some women seldom do stuff like this, others do it quite often, and the “average” woman is somewhere in between? Or is this something that women have learned from 2nd wave / 3rd wave “You Go, Grrl! Any woman can do any thing any man can! Show your moxie and you’ll succeed!” feminism? Or a combination of both factors? (We do not have to point to specific genes to be able to discuss innate traits. We do not have to bog down in feminist scholasticism of the which subwave-of-a-wave-actually-is-less-obnoxious-than-other-feminisms type to discuss learned behavior, either).

    Why does my question matter? Because Game has taught us that some behaviors are innate to women, and they do not necessarily know this about themselves. On the other hand, as we see from the growing number of unhappy women on various “attitude adjustment” medications, the slogans of feminism have been quite strong in moving women to act, think, and thus live in ways that clearly do not benefit them in the long run. So if this DHMIAG phenomenon is innate, it cannot go away, it must be lived with. If it is learned, then it can go away. If a combination, well, hmm.

  45. Feminist Hater
    Thanks for that really well written response and satisfying my curiosity. It stands pretty much where I think I’ll land when I figure out my thoughts and values. And those that would ask me to defend them and then shame me for not being a real man for defending them in a verbal or physical fight they started.

    Admittedly a new concept for me. I would have done exactly what they wanted and rushed to the defense before.

  46. Anonymous Reader says:

    Leap of a Beta, you might find the “Let’s You And Him Fight” thread on this site to be useful to read. It is important to bear in mind that in any physical fight involving two or more men (I don’t mean fistfights between schoolboys) there is a chance someone could get maimed or killed. The more a man knows about fighting, the safer he can be in a fight. It can be knowledge learned on the street, taught in a classroom / boxing ring / dojo, some combination of all the above. If we let someone else pick our fights for us, then they better be willing to back us up in some way – physical, legal, etc. Yes, legal. In the modern world, stepping into someone else’s fight can land a man in big and expensive legal trouble. So choose fights with care, and don’t bite off more than can be chewed up.

    This brings up something else. People with not much confidence in their abilities, whether debating abilities, or presentation abilities, or defensive tactics, etc. may tend to perceive “threats” differently – as in “seeing a threat that is not really there”. Overconfidence can and will do a different thing – inspire one to take on more than can be handled (see Buck’s comments for one example).

  47. AR – I actually already checked that out, and you’re right it was incredibly helpful. I went through all the links Dalrock embedded in this post earlier today and a couple on A Voice for Men on the subject. It was really helpful in making me think about a part of me that got embedded in my feminist based upbringing.

    Now I’ll have to just work on changing what was a reflexive action into one that honestly appraises a situation and reacts rationally to it.

  48. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    This brings up something else. People with not much confidence in their abilities, whether debating abilities, or presentation abilities, or defensive tactics, etc. may tend to perceive “threats” differently – as in “seeing a threat that is not really there”. Overconfidence can and will do a different thing – inspire one to take on more than can be handled (see Buck’s comments for one example).

    Very true. Choose your battles wisely, it just might save your life as well as your pride.

  49. van Rooinek says:

    In our modern sheltered society, where machines do so much work for us and the manual labor that keeps it all going, is “invisible” to a lot of people, it’s very easy to forget what our peasant or pioneer forefathers all knew: Men are stronger. Even “weakling” men, in my experience, tend to be a lot stronger than all but freak-strong women.

    Fred Reed writes on this topic:

    My friend Catherine Aspy.. enlisted in the Army in 1995… She told me the following about her experiences: “I was stunned….. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn’t. It wasn’t even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from training injuries….”

    http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml

  50. Joe Blow says:

    I get a sense that the people who have never really been in a fight are the ones who talk the most shit about it. This includes a lot of women and a lot of phony bad boys.

    As a young guy, I got in a good number of fights. I was a successful contact sports guy – hockey, rugby – but generally of the cerebral “clean hit” kind, generally very hard but not hotheaded. I was also the enforcer in both sports, usually enforced by way of a super hard clean hit, legal fringe-type of play (hitting a guy with his head down; raking the boots on a cheater in rugby). There were a few fistfights, but it was mostly positional. One landed me in the hospital but that was unusual. I also served in the Army, and there wasn’t a lot of dog-posing fighting there, it was accepted, and a little dangerous. You’d argue, talk smack, and either laugh it off, or go at it. No rituals, it was serious or not serious, and the fight settled differences, you shut up, made up, then went on as if it hadn’t happened. I remember dropping a guy who didn’t like me while doing hand-to-hand training… our relationship improved after that, he started respecting me. On the battlefield, it was pure lethality, no arguing just working with an armor team to kill, or take prisoners if required. Those were all controlled situations though, played within rules. You knew what to expect.

    Social situation fights around people who didn’t ‘get’ violence was a different context and very dangerous. I’ve seen the spectrum of violence from humans and view men and women like that ape that bit the woman’s face off – maybe congenial and attractive to some but given to fits of irrational and lethal violence for no real good reason. In bar fights (and fights in similar social contexts) there is a lot of posing, and drunk people would throw punches at guys they shouldn’t have even thought about fighting, including women getting men to play in the ‘let’s you and him fight’ scenario. Big guys get weak when they are drunk. Little guys want to punch the biggest guy in the room. Everybody gets stupid. So I got into my share of fights. There were a lot of scuffles, but the actual fights I remember are fights where I was able to use the threat of violence – which carries with it the implicit chance I may be killed – to reason my way out of it; and the fights where I did wind up beating the crap out of some guy for one reason or another, good or bad. You’ll notice I don’t mention getting my ass whipped in a fight; that’s because a smart fighter doesn’t get sucked into fights that are at least winnable. There is luck in that too, because every bar fight or mere argument is just 15 seconds away from a guy going to his car and returning with a pistol.

    I can’t remember ever engaging in a fight I couldn’t plausibly contend in, though I can remember backing down from fighting on many occasions, where I felt I had even odds or worse of landing in the hospital or dead. Memorably, I talked down a group of several that was going to kick my ass along with two friends’, by basically saying we weren’t looking for a fight in that little rural town, we were just looking for a quiet beer, you guys want to drink with us and watch the game? They didn’t want to fight, it was just their patch, and they wanted us to respect that and not try to take over their little joint, and they were cool after we did the mututal sniffing thing. That’s where real world violence and threats of violence fit in the world of men – something in a hip pocket, that *could* be whipped out but is really only there as a restraint on behavior and not to be whipped out lightly. Violence is there to establish or maintain order, to (sometimes) help define a role in a pecking order, and to accomplish specific things (like securing a path to help you exit a bar where the situation is going south fast). It’s not an end in and of itself.

    My anecdotal experience makes me believe that the real problem with chicks doing tough talk is that with their belief in winning being based in politics and movie fantasy, not reality, they haven’t experienced actual violence. Thus they don’t have any clue what fights are winnable, or likely to be lost by a longshot, why you should or should not fight, or even why to engage or disengage. You see, it’s about fighting to win to achieve some end (which may be self defense but often isn’t), not fighting for fighting’s sake to get it out of your system or express your deeply repressed rage or whatever. Whether it’s winnable is the calculus that *must* inform your decision to get involved. It’s like using a chainsaw or any other dangerous tool – you don’t break the damn thing out on a whim, you only do it when you really need to for a reason, and then you be careful about how you use it because the potential consequences of bad judgment are life-altering, or life-ending. Getting into a fight because “I’m so damn angry at you” is really the wrong reason, and somebody thinking that way ought to consider yoga or TM or something.

  51. Anonymous Reader says:

    Another point needs to be stressed. There is a difference between a debate and a fight. Both may involve some degree of conflict and emotion, but the purpose of a fight is not the same as the purpose of a debate.

    Fights generally involve Person A and Person B sorting out who is going to dominate whom. That may be too bald a statement for some, but that’s what it boils down to in my opinion – who is going to submit, and who is not. The morality of submission /dominance (please, no links to X-rated sites, ok?) is independent of the actual fight. It could be that Joe is a real nice guy most all the time, until he’s had one boilermaker too many but that doesn’t matter when he’s asked to leave the bar politely due to his unpleasant change in attitude making him a PITA to be around – and if he decides to go a couple of rounds with the bouncer, then the issue becomes “who is in charge in this here bar?” and it ain’t gonna be Joe at the end of the night. He will submit to the authority of the bar owner one way or another. Ditto Buck making an arrest – if he’s got a warrant issued by a judge for Bubba to come in and explain his 3rd degree mopery, then Bubba’s going to submit to the authority vested in Buck and go to appear before the judge. Maybe the easy way, maybe the hard way with a detour through the ER and jail, but he’s gonna submit – if not to Buck alone, then to Buck and some of his many uniformed associates. It’s about who dominates, and who submits. This is true throughout the animal kingdom, and as other posters have noted there are various ways to signal submission in a fight before it gets to the lethal stage – for all sorts of critters, from canines to primates.

    A debate is supposed to be about sorting out the truth. Deti’s points up close to the beginning of the thread make this very clear. It is facts that are supposed to dominate. Now, some people may take a fierce delight in stacking up a wall of facts that they are confident cannot be broken, yep. But in the end, a debate is supposed to be a pursuit of the truth, not about who is the biggest and baddest dog in the yard. This is why all the logical fallacies are scorned, because they don’t lead to the truth, they lead to blind alleys of various sorts. Ditto blinding levels of emotion. DHMIAG is therefore not going to be part of a search for truth, and has no place in a debate.

    The first step to wisdom is to call things by their right names. A debate may get heated and full of emotion but it still is supposed to be a different thing from a fight. It is important to be aware of the difference, and to note when debating has stopped and fighting has begun.

    [D: Great points.]

  52. I would like to leave some anecdotes here about the difference between male vs male and the changes the involvement of females makes.

    in the late 1950’s (giving my age away there) we lived in a tenement with a back yard which was about 100 yards away from the local dance hall. Most weekends we would have one or two cases of a couple of young men going into our backyard to sort out who was taking home a particular young woman. The women always stayed in the dance hall. After one or the other had been knocked to the ground enough, one would borrow a comb from the other to smarten up before they went back to the dance hall. ?hierarchical positioning.

    In the late 1960’s we had moved to the other side of town, and late one Saturday evening one of the neighbours was knocking lumps out of his wife. Other male neighbours went out and stopped him on the grounds that a ‘real man’ does not hit a woman, but when it was made known that she had been out with her bit on the side, everyone, including the women who had gone to help the woman who was being assaulted, basically left them to get on with it because a wife did not do the dirty on her husband.

    Then in the 1970’s, as feminism began to rear its ugly head in the UK, an associate of a firm I worked for had a female coach driver whose bad driving caused another coach to have to brake sharply. At the recognised coach stop the driver who had had to brake sharply asked who had been driving coach no XXX from ABC company. When the woman said she was the driver the other guy was taken aback and said if you had been a man I would have floored you. She said ‘Treat me like one of the lads’ and there were two hits in it; he hit her and she hit the deck on her butt about 6 feet away.

    Now I avoid going into our local town centre on Christmas eve, because I get tired of having to make emergency stops or swerves to avoid stupidly drunken youngsters, women as much as lads, who step out into the road in front of cars, or even worse keel over with no warning.

    All I see is the blind acceptance of behaviour that was considered unacceptable 40 years ago and the people whose behaviour has become worst are the females. And our politicians wonder why society is broken,

  53. Suz says:

    Great question, AR. I think DHMIAG is primarily learned and reinforced. IMO, it seems to be mostly a matter of arrested development, like a curious or rebellious child testing its boundaries while learning how tough it is. We just never have to outgrow it. However, I firmly believe the tendency is greatly aggravated by our innate hair-trigger emotions. While even the most masculine of women can have a hard time “reining in” our emotions, (thank you, estrogen) as we mature we learn to channel those emotions appropriately and productively. Western society doesn’t require us to mature because it protects us from the consequences of childish behavior. This give us the luxury of wasting our time and energy flopping around on the floor, pitching hissy-fits. Most of us like this luxury because it’s way more fun than accountability.

    I also think that the most primal reason men tolerate and perpetuate it is status: That a society can afford to support non-productive people, and even be merciful to counterproductive people, is a sign of great wealth. I think our culture subtlely encourages men to take pride in the excess resources they have created.

    And here’s a weird thought. Men and women are biologically designed to complement each other. Anthropologically speaking, a woman’s role is not only to bear more dependents, but to actively support a man’s quest for dominance and wealth (primarily by managing his household.) That’s not the weird part, this is: In primitive societies that never codified female dependency, men were not required to to support non-productive women, so women had to produce (and usually submit to men) to survive. Men may have written the ancient laws requiring them to protect all women, but I’ll bet my last dollar that women influenced their decisions to do so. For thousands of years, women have demanded more protection than we have been willing to earn. I have a theory that true “dependence” is no more a female trait than a male trait, biologically. Both genders depend on each others strengths and abilities to survive as a society – to ensure the society’s survival through reproduction, but strong and intelligent INDIVIDUALS of both genders have the inborn ability to survive alone and in single-gender groups.

    I think it’s the inborn survival instinct that causes women to choose dependency when it’s available, and plenty of men choose it as well. I wonder if bad behavior among non-productive “dependents” is triggered by shame from the conscience. ( a shame which they don’t even recognize.) Most people feel a very deep need to “work” even if they don’t need to earn anything. So does dependency itself go against human nature? Perhaps Western Woman’s choice to be more dependent than productive is near the root of her ridiculous behavior.

  54. Prof. Woland says:

    In theory at least, the State monopolizes the violence. If there is to be hitting or executions, only they can do it irrespective of whether it is retaliatory or not (self defense is another matter). The problem is that the state only enforces the rules on men while women get a free pass. Any time one side has a legal advantage over another you have to expect have to expect them to take full advantage. And if the person with the upper hand does not use it their lawyer certainly will.

    If men can ever figure out a way to get the state to start enforcing female on male violence we will actually begin to see positive changes in not just women’s behavior but in the population at large. There is an entire cottage industry that has sprung up to cater to this bigotry starting with the family court system. The State’s constant need to strip money from men to pay for women’s bad behavior is “empowered” (there is that word again) by the leverage that can be applied to men who refuse to give up custody or property to appease women, the new client of the state. The number of false DV claims skyrockets at this time although this seems to go under the radar of both feminists and the white knights.

    By tolerating female on male violence it allows the legal system to inflate the penalties and lower the threshold for what is considered violence. The VAWA law is set up in such a way that it almost insures that only men will be arrested and once arrested go to prison whereas the women who often started to conflict or lied, end up getting off Scott free while their partners lives are ruined. This includes the Primary aggressor clause, no drop rule, and mandatory arrest provisions. Women tolerate this basic inequality and lack of due process because it benefits them only. Rember this next time a feminist complains about equality.

    A real irony of this is that the cycle of violence can never be broken until we deal with female on male violence. No one just wakes up one day and beats the shit out of their partner. Most children learn to hit from their parents and they are just as likely to learn to hit from their moms as they are their dads. By tolerating such behavior we are insuring that DV and violence in general will continue as a social epidemic. We will only see real changes in DV / false DV when women start going to prison in large numbers and spending real time behind bars.

  55. Elspeth says:

    I get a sense that the people who have never really been in a fight are the ones who talk the most shit about it.

    Intersting, and I’ve heard this before. Apparently before I met my husband and before he came to faith in Christ, he was quite the hot head. People who “knew him when” shared stories with me about how he was never one much for trash talk. Some guy would be in mid-rant and he would haul off and knock on is butt. He is a man of few words even today and he doesn’t suffer a lot of foolish talk of that nature. Say what you mean and mean what you say is his perspective on all of it. Even what I know about that part of his nature I heard first from others and then he confirmed it. He really doesn’t think it’s becoming to run about bragging on who you’ve beaten up or who you set straight, etc. Sure sign that you’re all bark and no bite. Men (or women) of action don’t spend a lot of time talking about it.

  56. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    All I see is the blind acceptance of behaviour that was considered unacceptable 40 years ago and the people whose behaviour has become worst are the females. And our politicians wonder why society is broken.

    Well, to call them out on their bad behaviour would be to shame them, and you cannot do that because you would be ‘blaming the victim’ and that’s not allowed, especially if it’s a women. Don’t get me started on the ‘youth’ who cause all manner of riots and destruction because I guess they didn’t get enough welfare.

    In simple terms, and I really wish feminists would understand this, equality means you are equally responsible for your actions as any other human being would be. That means, no special treatment for being a women, enough with the protection. Women gave that up when they got equality. Therefore, if a women gets herself into a fight, she is responsible and no one need come to her rescue anymore.

    That’s why, when some slutty broad complains about being told not to wear slutty clothes because it increases their chances of getting raped, and she decides to go on a ‘slut walk’ to show how sexually free she is, leave them be. They chose to dismiss the advice and mock it and when they finally do get raped. It ain’t your problem. With equality, you can only advise and once having done that, the other person is responsible for their actions. Equality truly should bring freedom for men, no longer should we be required to defend the wimmenz. However, that’s not how it works and quite clearly the only way to maintain equality is to declare being a ‘man’ illegal. Sex is just a social construct, it’s not as if the penis really exists, is it?!

    Now, that’s modern day women but, and this is my opinion, if a women shows you respect, kindness and understands that she isn’t as strong as a man and thus admits that ‘equality’ is a dream and can never really be obtained, then she is worthy of the effort it takes for society to protect her.

    There is no equality because to obtain ‘equality’ between man and woman, more laws than ever to drag men down have come into existence. It’s the same story with the ‘academic gap’, you cannot get rid of a genetic component and thus the only way to achieve your goal of ‘equality’ is to dumb down, place restrictions on one group and introduce Affirmative Action policies. In fact, all these laws, affirmative action policies and special treatment given to women over men is an admission that there is no such thing as equality.

  57. Opus says:

    I am tempted, here, to blame the Equality Theorists, who insist – and without being able to give any reason for their assertion – that neither mentally nor physically is there any difference between men and women. Young women are encouraged in this belief (“You go Girl”) so it is not entirely surprising that they accept the premise. The results of this idea are there for all to see, and incidents like one in the Harlem MacDonalds reveal both the lack of mental and physical capacity of the young ladies.

  58. deti says:

    I would commend once again this thread at Sheila Gregoire’s blog:

    http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2011/10/do-women-expect-endless-courtship/#comment-8035

    and especially her exchange with Dalrock. It’s worth another read. All the argumentation techniques are there:

    shaming

    deflection

    conflation of pornography (watching other adults on a screen fornicating) with adultery (actually engaging in extramarital sex with a real live, flesh and blood human being)

    denial

    insisting that the man in a marriage has nearly all the obligations while the woman has next to none.

  59. Suz says:

    Novice request: could somebody please suggest links to discussions on the definitions of “equality?” Specifically the distinction between “the same,” and “of equal value.” I think I’m missing some subtleties here.

  60. Carnivore says:

    @Buck says:
    “After 30 years in LE, I can tell you, this “laura Croft” ” G. I. Jane” fantasy crap is down right dangerous to the gals in LE.”

    The fantasy crap goes beyond hollywood. Consider the Olympics – the commentary leaves out how a given sport doesn’t have the same standards (distance, time, speed, etc.) for men and women. Sure, the sexes are not competing directly but viewers get the impression that it’s the same and if the sexes did compete, the women would win at least 50% of the time.

    When it does happen, though, we see this:
    Boy’s High School Hockey team wins against US Women’s Olympic Hockey team

    http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2281644

  61. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Suz, I would think a quite common theme in the broader meaning of ‘equality’ is the relationship between equality with respect to rights, privileges, obligations and responsibilities and then the theme of equality of ability. The real problem, in my opinion, is when the two overlap.

    Take an example, if sex is just a social construct it would hold true that both a man or woman of similar IQ and age would preform exactly the same, given everything else is equal, upbringing, wealth and so on. However, in practice this is not what happens, therefore, to reconcile the Politically Correct belief that “everyone is equal” myth, it would follow that someone is to blame for one sex doing better than the other sex. Therefore, the mainstream PC cult will blame “Racism” or “Sexism” or any other “ism” for people’s failure or lack of equality/ability.

    For you see, if the truth that not everyone is equal with respect to ability were hold as mainstream among the populace than males being better at doing certain things wouldn’t be a major problem. Men would be promoted in those ventures because it would benefit all mankind. It would just be a genetic truth. There would be nothing sinister about men holding those positions. However, because that genetic truth overlaps with women’s rights and privileges, the sexism of men must be responsible and hence laws are created to combat the myth of male privilege based on the doctrine of “everyone is equal”.

    Women and men are of equal value when we as different sexes are allowed to achieve in those ventures that we are the strongest at. When men and women are not allowed to do that and in fact are encouraged or shamed into doing the opposite, society faces a major obstacle.

  62. Pingback: Yohami on women playing the victim « Rivelino in Spain

  63. Omnipitron says:

    “He really doesn’t think it’s becoming to run about bragging on who you’ve beaten up or who you set straight, etc. Sure sign that you’re all bark and no bite.”

    Agreed. In the years I’ve worked at a bar, the most ‘effective’ men I’ve ever worked with where rarely heard from, they where heard ABOUT. You got the impression that they knew what they could do so they could literally care less about proving it to anyone.

  64. Rivelino says:

    dalrock,

    don’t forget, susan did something very similar just a few weeks before.

    she gave some pretty bad dating advice to a man named richard here:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/11/29/relationshipstrategies/is-she-into-me/

    and when male bloggers respectfully disagreed with her advice, she got pissed and wrote angry, emotional comments that (a) didn’t make sense, (b) cast herself as the victim, and (c) scolded us as if we were children.

    FFY wrote about the richard thing on his blog:

    http://flyfreshandyoung.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/advice-to-richard/

    “while I appreciate what Susan Walsh is doing, in particular the way she tries to open girl’s eyes to the reality of the sexual marketplace we live in, going to HUS is like getting only half of the advice you need. As Rollo Tomassi said, Susan wants to build a “better beta”. A nice guy that is also really good with girls, or if you live in reality, a near impossibility. I’m not trying to diss her, it’s just the way it is. She would rather you end up happily ever after with girl #1 while avoiding some of the possibly asshole or “playerish” behaviors that would actually increase your chances of getting girl #1.”

    and susan replied in the comments:

    http://flyfreshandyoung.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/advice-to-richard/#comment-929

    “Not cool. I would have been fine with your saying this on my blog, but I don’t appreciate being linked to in this manner. The last thing I want to do is build a better playa. Talk about noize. More importantly, Richard has expressed no desire to become one. He loves someone. Remember what that was like?”

    of course, if you read richard’s actual letter, he didn’t mentioned being in “love”, he just said he had a “crush”.

    i also wrote about the richard thing on my blog:

    http://rivelinoinspain.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/susans-fundamental-flaw/

    “overall, susan, your FEMALE advice to this MAN is not just a zero, it is worse than a zero, because it “appears” to be hip and happening because it references male game bloggers, and so you therefore give richard a false sense of security that he is getting a sharp, “insider” view from a woman who can think like a PUA too. TERRIBLE. this only proves that WOMEN SHOULD NOT GIVE ADVICE TO MEN. it makes sense. it would take a really bitchy and egotistical female blogger to advise a man to use two women sexually and emotionally, in order to further his own pleasure. that’s okay, though, susan. all this means is that you are a nice, kindhearted person. so, you should actually feel GOOD about yourself for giving richard BAD advice.”

    and this was susan’s reply in the comments:

    http://rivelinoinspain.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/susans-fundamental-flaw/#comment-495

    “I have a strategic suggestion for you. It would get you a ton of new readers and provide some sort of structure to your aimless meanderings. Shut down this self-indulgent, sadistic blog (shudder, never a good combo!) and start a new blog: SUSAN SUX. You would get tons of comments, not just Milf here, and my posts would provide endless fodder for your shameless navel gazing.”

    so, susan’s strategy of bullying and attacking those who disagree with her isn’t isolated to the “frivolous divorce” debate. it seems to be her MO when other people — men, usually — contradict her point of view.

    and these are just the two specific examples that i know about.

  65. Pingback: The Richard thing will not die « Rivelino in Spain

  66. Suz says:

    Thanks, Feminist Hater, that’s the kind of perspective I’m curious about.

  67. - AR, great comment. The difference between a verbal fight and a debate are a great distinction to know. I think I was kind of getting at it in my last comment, but I don’t think I realized the distinction or that there was one in my past comments. I was reflexively leaping to Walsh’s defense as a person instead of looking at her ideas. Then letting her handle the arguments, insults, and fight she brought upon herself.

  68. imnobody says:

    Sad seeing Susan becoming a parody of her former self. But we’ll get over it.

    Not every person who is against our enemies is with us. Susan is not a so-con woman, but many so-con women are far worse than feminists.

  69. imnobody says:

    She would rather you end up happily ever after with girl #1 while avoiding some of the possibly asshole or “playerish” behaviors that would actually increase your chances of getting girl #1.

    Today’s men have to face a a no-win situation. You can’t help choosing between two evils.

    When I was a 27 y.o. virgin, I had to make a decision. Was I going to keep my ideals and wait for a good woman to be my gf (a strategy that has been an unmitigated disaster until then)? Or was I going to become a player so I could have skills with women and, then, I could win a good woman with these skills.

    I chose the latter. I don’t regret it. It was the right choice. The only choice with today’s woman. But it turned out not to be the thing I was expecting.

    Every time you f*ck a new girl, every time you know a bit more about the twisted nature of females (hypergamy, etc), you lose something. You lose a bit of innocence and a bit of ability to love women with a big L. You become a bit more jaded. Nothing is free: everything has a catch.

    When you see the unbearable shallowness of women, it’s difficult to love them the way you loved before you knew the truth. Ignorance is bliss.

    You have to choose: blue pill or red pill?

    Blue pill? You will keep your innocence, your illusions. Life will be meaningful and the universe will be good. But you will be alone and miserable, you will be the nice guy women love to use. Much heartbreak will be waiting for you. You will get praise and your conscience will be clean. You will be the honorable man who Kipling refers to in his poem “If”. But you won’t know love and your life will be a hell. While women are banging the bad boys, you will only have the crumbs..

    Red pill? You will see the truth. You will have lots of women and will have all the sex you want…and more. You won’t have any heartbreak, because you see woman the way they are. But you will become jaded, unable to love a woman with all your heart, so you will have lose some of the most beautiful things in the world: your innocence, your illusions and the ability to love a woman the way a man can love a woman.

    Honestly, I would have preferred not to have to choose. My forefathers didn’t have to choose. Women were brainwashed to be good wives and mothers and men were brainwashed to believe the blue pill.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. My gf is a fantastic woman and she has me on a pedestal (I game her constantly). But I envy her innocence, her ability to love me completely. I once had the same, but I had to learn about women. Otherwise, I would be alone now.

    She would rather you end up happily ever after with girl #1 while avoiding some of the possibly asshole or “playerish” behaviors that would actually increase your chances of getting girl #1.

    The problem is that to get playerish behaviors, you will need to have at least 20 woman. And girl #20 doesn’t taste as sweet as girl #1. You lose your ability to get happiness from a woman.

  70. Anonymous says:

    On the blog Fathers & Families…
    “Action Alert: Write, Call to Defeat Michigan Legislation Targeting Husbands, Boyfriends”

    http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=21896

    Bill “makes it a crime for a man to ‘change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement’ with a pregnant significant other, to ‘file or attempt to file for a divorce’ from his pregnant wife, or to ‘withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support’ from a woman who he has been supporting”… tough luck if it ain’t yours, homie.

  71. locard says:

    This reminds me of my youth attending Airborne School. One chickie wanted to be airborne. Trouble is that it is hard to jump out of a plane with 50lbs of parachute and a 50lb pack between your legs…..GI Jane couldn’t get far away enough from the airplane during exit and caught her helmet on the side of door….

    Helmet and 4 point strap harness pulled so tight you couldn’t open your mouth came off…..along with a chunk of her neck.

  72. Wow. Talk about incentive to move to Michigan, get a woman pregnant, move in with them, and support them.

    Its not like women already had enough incentive to find a way to get pregnant if they’re concerned you’re going to leave them…. Nope.

    /end sarcasm

  73. greyghost says:

    Ecclesiastes
    To just protect because that is what a man does is blue pill type reasoning. White knighting is something to be derided and mocked as foolish. Refusing to play the traditional role and making a value judgement on effort and action taken is manly. As soon as enough men get off the blue pill and stop playing the traditional role for a society that doesn’t exist the sooner we will have that society. A video game playing “peter pan” is maybe the most masculine man we have and is doing more to save western society than any preacher, political leader or social conservative shaming men with the man up stuff. .

  74. On the one hand, women should not attempt to exercise authority over men: Recollect any female boss – they are disasters.

    On the other hand, women have as much right to blog as anyone, and the blog owner has to be in charge of her blog. But I have never attempted to exercise authority over my comments section, in the way Susan exercises authority over her comments section, and would think it quite wrong for me to do so. It is even more wrong for Susan to do it.

  75. pb says:

    Yes, the function of protecting people other than one’s own presupposes a community with mutual obligations.

  76. Ray Manta says:

    Buck wrote:
    We had a girl boxer (reportedly a college girl-boxing champ) in my cadet class who talked endlessly about how badass she was. We were paired off by similar size and a male recruit knocked her out in 30 seconds with 3-4 punches, he wasn’t a big guy, and he knew nothing about boxing;

    Muay Thai boxer Lucia Rijker learned the hard way how mismatched men and women are when she decided to box a man. To her credit she made it through one round and was knocked out in the second. This is a woman who stood head and shoulders above her competitors, yet she was crushed by a no-name Thai guy.

    Joanie Laurer also learned the hard way when she boxed Joey Buttafuoco in Celebrity Boxing and he tossed her around like a rag doll.

  77. van Rooinek says:

    imnobody says: Today’s men have to face a a no-win situation. You can’t help choosing between two evils. When I was a 27 y.o. virgin, I had to make a decision. Was I going to keep my ideals and wait for a good woman to be my gf (a strategy that has been an unmitigated disaster until then)? Or was I going to become a player so I could have skills with women and, then, I could win a good woman with these skills. I chose the latter….

    I understand exactly what you’re saying, as I faced the same choice with awful clarity when I was in my mid 30s – and still a virgin. I had empirically observed since college that women seemed to gravitate toward jerks — but for a long time I foolishly assumed that they just kept making the same “mistake” over and over, that if I could just get a chance, just once, I could prove what a good guy I was, wedding bells would ring…. *sigh*.

    God damn the sexual revolution

    One would hope that being in church, being a Christian, and pursuing only Christian women, would mitigate the situation. One would hope in vain. Christian women, despite bitter protestations to the contrary, are very little different: the weak ones consistently LJBF the good guys and eventually break down and fall into the arms (and beds) of the jerks, either fornicating hypocrites or downright nonbelievers. The spiritually strong ones have the sense to avoid the jerks, but they still can’t find it in their hearts to be attracted to the good guys, so they mostly end up never marrying. And, they blame “men” for their singleness — yet, the ones I know, had strong Christian men practically lined up around the block wanting to date them — but none were “good enough” for them, so boundless was their hypergamy! (It has been discussed in other contexts, how even a few premarital sexual encounters with uncatchable “alphas” can cause women to overvalue themselves in the romantic market, exaggerating their hypergamy… likely this applies here, too, but that’s a whole ‘nuther subject.)

    God damn the sexual revolution

    Anyway…. to the red pill moment. In the late 90s, I encountered some early versions of game theory on the net (although it wasn’t called “game theory” yet) as well as the early Leykis 101 shows…. and it all made sense, to my horror. Though I never used it to get sex, I did test some of those theories out in a small way, in one case quite by accident, and was deeply shocked at how well it worked in changing the way women responded to me. It was then that I faced the same terrible choice that you did. Become a gamer/player, and get the good Christian women into bed (and later, perhaps, the altar), or, remain a good Christian and keep on getting rejected by them!

    God damn the sexual revolution

    I decided to stay righteous whatever the cost, for 2 reasons. One, I really believe in God, and heaven and hell and judgement day and all that. Two, I knew that if I engaged in gaming/alpha mimicry/whatever you call it, I’d be getting a woman (or legions of women) who were attracted to, or even fell in love with, a false image — not the real me. My true nice-guy inner self would have to hide FOREVER, and would never be truly loved, indeed, would never even be known. I can’t think of anything lonelier than marrying, having a family, growing old, with someone who doesn’t really know you, and from whom you have to hide your true nature. One early game theorist on the net, wrote of this exact phenomenon — he and other guys deeply wished they could be nice guys, and grieved inwardly that they couldn’t. And at some level, they bitterly resented women for forcing them to become bad boys as the price of their company. I couldn’t do it. I knew if I got a woman by being bad, I’d secretly hate her for the fact that she forced me to be bad to win her. I’d blame her for the “murder” of my former niceguy self.

    So… I stood on my integrity and kept on getting one vicious rejection after another. Eventually, somehow, I found a good oldfashioned woman — a rare “NAWALT” exception to all the above trends — and married… at 38. All has been well since then. But getting married shouldn’t have taken so long, and it shouldn’t have hurt so much.

    God damn the sexual revolution

    Every time you f*ck a new girl, every time you know a bit more about the twisted nature of females (hypergamy, etc), you lose something. You lose a bit of innocence and a bit of ability to love women with a big L. You become a bit more jaded. Nothing is free: everything has a catch.

    It’s not necessary to actually have sex with them, for this to happen. Falling deeply in love and getting burned over and over, can have the same result, even if you never kissed her. How many times can you find a true soul mate, get rejected for frivolous reasons, die a thousand inward deaths, before you lose the ability to truly, deeply bond? Actually, it really only takes once. I have to say, my heart is permanently damaged. I’m not the same person that I was before those heartbreaks. But if I hadn’t kept putting my heart at risk, I’d still be single. CFW.

    God damn the sexual revolution

    I would have preferred not to have to choose. My forefathers didn’t have to choose. Women were brainwashed to be good wives and mothers and men were brainwashed to believe the blue pill.

    Amen to that, brother. I would only add, that when women were “brainwashed” to be good wives and mothers, the “blue pill” version of reality was true, or at least close enough to the truth to do little harm. Although I have to say, my Dad did get burned very badly by a “modern” woman shortly after World War 2 — but her behavior was a freakish exception back then. Since the 60s that aberrant skank’s behavior has become the norm.

    God damn the sexual revolution.

  78. Carnivore says:

    van Rooinek says: I had empirically observed since college that women seemed to gravitate toward jerks — but for a long time I foolishly assumed that they just kept making the same “mistake” over and over, that if I could just get a chance, just once, I could prove what a good guy I was, wedding bells would ring…. *sigh*.

    A little help from Cyrano de Bergerac :)

  79. Suz says:

    van Rooinek and imnobody:
    You are awesome men. You epitomize the honor and integrity that most women are too stupid and spoiled to appreciate (or even recognize) until it’s too late, if ever. Twenty-four years ago this week, I ended a brief but degrading carousel ride, only because I knew I didn’t want to continue going in circles. What I didn’t know was how to recognize the qualities that I was sure I wanted in a man. I would not have recognized those qualities in you. Like all women, I had been trained to mistake flashy displays of power for genuine strength. I’ve since learned that real strength is subtle (“…the most ‘effective’ men I’ve ever worked with where rarely heard from, they where heard ABOUT.”) I took a huge risk, (God forbid I should “settle”) stepped off of the carousel and into the compact pickup truck of a man like you. It took only a few weeks for me to realize he was an alpha, the like of which I had simply never imagined. (Six months later we were married and I never looked back.) He didn’t treat me poorly to show his dominance; his dominance was so completely ingrained that he sacrificed nothing, no power whatsoever, in treating me well. Though I had been a “sweet person” who didn’t play LBJF and was not intentionally cruel, dating him made me wonder how many strong men I had quietly overlooked in the past, due to my own inability and unwillingness to see what was behind their subtlety.

    I’m a fairly unusual woman. At age 23 I managed to figure out something that most women NEVER learn, and all these years later I STILL DON’T KNOW what induced me to say yes to him (after having politely said no five months previously.) It may even have been blind luck and primal instinct. **It was counter to all of my social training.** By not offering a viable alternative, feminism has “empowered” (forced) women to believe that we are entitled to be the princess in a juvenile fairy-tale, and the all-pervasive media has trained us to absorb a very narrow, one-dimensional picture of fairy-tale happiness. The sexual revolution has utterly obliterated truth.

  80. Ian Ironwood says:

    @ James A Donald: “On the one hand, women should not attempt to exercise authority over men: Recollect any female boss – they are disasters.”

    Actually, I’ve had several female bosses who had no trouble making good and efficient decisions and enacting policy as or more adeptly than a male counterpart. But then I’ve worked in several female-dominated industries over the years, and the good managers tend to rise to the top regardless of gender.

    I had no trouble accepting orders from a woman, when it was part of the job. I started getting into trouble when I started objecting to being the only temp in the office of twelve temps to get assigned to move ten boxes of copier paper up four flights of stairs when the elevator was broken. Of course I was the only male, and my direct supervisor couldn’t bring herself to say that when I challenged her on the work assignment. So I bumped it upstairs to her supervisor (also a woman) who took one look at me, one look at the rest of the temporary clerical pool, and said “If those prissy little girls don’t go down there and each grab a box of paper and hustle their little asses up to the fourth floor storage room, they can sleep in tomorrow because they won’t have a job.”

    She resented any time her male employees were unfairly treated by the female majority, and it happened repeatedly. We never said anything about it (at least I didn’t) but she saw, she knew, and she acted to protect “her boys”. She was also a sterling example of corporate leadership and ended up doing exceedingly well before she retired. She also thought that “sisterhood” and “empowerment” and feminism in general was a lot of crap, and if you actually did the damn job you were hired to do, you deserved the full support of the company management.

    Men and women can be leaders with equal effectiveness. But much depends upon context and the individuals involved.

  81. Ian Ironwood says:
    “Actually, I’ve had several female bosses who had no trouble making good and efficient decisions”

    “the only temp in the office of twelve temps to get assigned to move ten boxes of copier paper up four flights of stairs when the elevator was broken. Of course I was the only male”

    So the man whose personal experience is that women can be as effective bosses as men is also the man whose personal experience is that women have comparable upper body strength to men.

  82. Ian Ironwood says:

    Oh, the little cupcakes struggled mightily, took frequent breaks, and bitched to high heaven. And I only had to take the one box upstairs, not all ten. Took me all of five minutes. They didn’t get back for half an hour, and then got yelled at for taking too long. Good times . . .

  83. Kai says:

    You don’t need to have women with comparable upper body strength to men. You just need people with sufficient strength to move a box of paper. That box of paper may be easy for a man to move, and much higher to a woman’s strength limit, but it’s a rare person, who’s truly so fragile as to be unable to carry a box of paper up some stairs.
    If it were truly difficult for the women, they could take one box between two women, while the men (/man) carried one alone, but a lower maximal strength is not an excuse for ‘men do all the lifting’.

  84. Eric says:

    Dalrock;
    Does it surprise anybody that Susan Walsh would rush to the defense of the Sisterhood?

    Of course these divorces are frivolous; because the marriages were frivolous in the first place. Women, in our culture at least, are educated from girlhood to despise and depreciate men; to treat them as inferiors and unnecessary; and consider us of no value other than sperm donors and bill-payers. Is it any wonder that with that attitude that they rush into divorce court as soon as it is opportune?

    I don’t care what these bitches retort: the majority marry with the intention of divorcing later on. If Susie-Girl wants a statistic: give her the one you mention here frequently—that 38% of Christian marriages end in divorce (the percentage of men trapped in a marriage by a domineering wife is unknown).

    Whatever one thinks of Evangelical Christianity, it can’t be denied that women educated under that system of thought has the strongest resistance to divorce and the strongest encouragement to monogamous marriage. Therefore, even under the most optimal conditioning, the BEST American women can offer men is a 2 out of 3 success rate! Does anyone seriously want to argue that women DON’T intend to divorce as soon as they marry?

  85. Kai says:

    I’ll argue that. They don’t *intend* to divorce, because they *intend* very little. Very few women marry with the *intention* of divorcing him afterwards, but they fail to intend not to divorce him. By which I mean they fail to take the steps to ensure that they are truly marrying a man with whom they want to spend the rest of their lives, and they fail to set up their mindset and behaviours to work towards a life of marriage.
    An appalling number of women don’t intend anything at all towards marriage – they intend to have a wonderful wedding which will be their ‘MY day’, and which will be perfect. The after part? That will be dealt with after. And then they realize that they don’t actually care for the guy all that much. And then the excuses set in. And for most, divorce is never truly an off-the-table non-option, just something they don’t think about. so when the inevitable issues arise, divorce becomes a possibility.
    Women don’t usually marry with the intention of divorcing. The frivolosity of the marriage is indicative of the fact that they marry with no further intentions at all.

  86. Rivelino says:

    now she asks,

    “Ask me any question about my views, actions, or mission. What do you want to know?”

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/12/28/hookinguprealities/how-to-attack-a-blogger/

    i have two questions:

    1. susan, do you believe that you were wrong about the frivolous divorce thing?

    2. susan, do you believe that you gave richard bad advice?

  87. CL says:

    In her How to Attack a Blogger (also know as, Still Digging), SW forgot about making a careful examination of her Hamster Droppings.

    I think I know all I need to know at this point, so no, no questions from me. She already didn’t answer my question of whether she thinks there is no absolute truth.

  88. ruddytunstone says:

    “The torment will often be subtle, something most men would misread as acts of kindness. What looks to us like commiseration or even a compliment can often be pouring salt in the wound: I admire you so much. You are so strong and independent. I’m too weak and always need a man in my life. By the way, did I show you the pictures of my latest (child, vacation, date with her husband, anniversary)? It could even be framed as a complaint about a bad day: Did I tell you that my car broke down? I don’t know what I would have done if my husband hadn’t been able to come fix it for me. Or concern: It’s so good to see you get out of the house! You need to go out and celebrate your independence girlfriend! Again, men don’t see this; this is why it isn’t uncommon for a man to be accused of cruelty by a woman when he was actually trying to help.”

    Really? Do you really think men are so dense? Apparently, you can see what is going on here, so what makes you think most other men can’t? I guess I find it a little bit ridiculous, not to say insulting, when people make out as if men are incapable of understanding subtleties. Men are not unthinking brutes, who are incapable of detecting hidden barbs in seemingly “supportive” statements. Men are portrayed, in the stereotype you are perpetuating, as simple, sub or semi literate beings, who can only express themselves in short, declarative sentences, and as being unable to see hidden meanings, double intendres, and the like, in the statements of others.

    Bullshit! When men want to, usually when there is some reason to, they are quite capable of using complicated language patterns, and doing so at least as well as women. Men are the real writers, men are the best speakers. Men are even the best bullshit artists, con men, PR writers, creators of weasely, “lawyer” language, “non denial” denials, left handed compliments, and so on. Men are quite capable of “damning with faint praise,” and quite capable of recognizing when others are doing so. They just don’t do it as often.

    “It isn’t just men who misread women’s interactions though. Commenter Sean’s misunderstanding of how men interact lead to my post Lets you and him fight:

    “I call it a manitude. You should be able to exude enough manliness to make other men back down, especially if they know they are in the wrong…

    “My uncles, and brothers exhibit the same type of manitude, very few men will step to them much less be disrespectful around their families. The few who have tried usually back down quickly once confronted.

    “This poses a dilemma; if the average man should be able to make other (average) men back down, then the men backing down are by definition substandard, and therefore, below average. The reality is very few men have the luxury of going around forcing other men to back down. This is a combination of apex fallacy and failure to understand the context of the exchange below the surface.”

    Again, is it a genderized lack of understanding that is really going on here, or is it something else? My view is that most women understand perfectly well that most men CAN’T go around acting like apemen, picking fights, starting shit, getting other men to “back down” and so on. They know it, but they don’t care. Because what they WANT is for “you and him to fight,” especially if the fighting is somehow “over her.” Really, I think most guys understand that “their” woman gets off on him “having” to “fight for her,” either in the sense of a simple square off with a rival, or the more complicated situation where another guy, supposedly, “disrespected” her by staring at her, making a comment, etc. This is simple manipulation, and most men get that reasonably well

    Notice too the common trope that Sean used…that of comparing men who are somehow coming up short in her estimation with men from her family. Typically, it’s the father, but brothers and uncles work just as well. Kathy usually uses her husband as the putative example of what a man “should do.” It all comes to the same thing….you, as a man, in her estimation, are supposedly lacking in some way, typically involving risk taking, machismo, and the like, and the female points to her dad or brothers or uncles or husband or former husband or boyfriend or whomever, as an example of what a “real man” would do under the circumstances. And men are not so stupid as to not “get” this either.

    As for Susan, she too knows damn well what she is doing. She wants to be taken seriously, but then acts like a wounded, picked on little girl when she is confronted with the consequences of her own statements. As was discussed in the comments to the last thread about Susan, this is simply another female trick….talk the talk of equality and feminism, but then fall back on chivalry and white knighting when she can’t walk the walk. It’s not that Susan doesn’t “get it,” it’s not she really was “blindsided” when, in the rough and tumble of the blogosphere, her comment was called out and challenged. Rather, playing the victim is simply another tactic, another arrow in the female quiver, to be taken out and used when necessary.

    In all three cases, and in general, I think you overemphasize the supposed differences in male and female patterns of cognition and “framing” and communication. Women “get” men, they simply prefer to manipulate them, when possible, for their own advantage. And men “get” women, they just don’t always have an easy way of responding to their manipulative bullshit. This is particularly so when, as a society, we are schizophrenic about relations between the genders. On the one hand, there is the paradign of feminism and equality, on the other there are lingering notions of chivalry and white knighting. Combine the two, and add the fact that most men are more or less the supplicants in romantic relationships, and it is quite easy for women to play a double game, to play both sides against the middle, to speak out of both sides of their mouths, to act in an ad hoc manner, adopting and playing to whichever paradign seems to be most advantageous at the time, and to generally behave in a completely inconsistent manner when it comes to how they want to be “taken.” “Seriously” and as creatures capable of logic when that is in their interests, but as little girls who need protections and special treatment, who are ruled by their emotions, who have to resort to manipulation, and so on and so forth when that seems to better serve their interests.

  89. The reason women are given credit for verbal skills is because they are weak in so many areas. They are actually not that good verbally either. The best writers are men.

  90. Rmaxd says:

    This quote by JMF sums up Walsh’s retardness perfectly …

    Walsh – “If you don’t believe in monogamy, fine. If you want to advise men to never marry, that is your right. You may even be right. But I don’t want to hear about it …”

    JMF “If Aunt Susan did say that, she’s basically saying “I’m a crazy zealot who doesn’t care about reality.”

    I’m glad that she showed her hand and made it absolutely explicit.”

  91. ray says:

    Women don’t usually marry with the intention of divorcing. The frivolosity of the marriage is indicative of the fact that they marry with no further intentions at all.

    competely agree

    if it’s one thing i cannot STAND it is frivilosity

  92. Kai says:

    frivolity, I apologize. I went with standard structure rather than checking if there’s already a word.

  93. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    “Frivolosity” rolls off the tongue so much more easily than “frivolity”. Recommend an “add” to the dictionary, if only for the frivolosity of it all. ;-)

  94. imnobody says:

    I don’t care what these bitches retort: the majority marry with the intention of divorcing later on.

    I don’t think that’s the case. I think they usually American women think that they will be married forever and marriage will be full of rainbows and unicorns. Marriage will be like in the movies: always happy, without problems and with a husband who is an alpha but has some beta characteristics (loyal, good father).

    So when problems appear, it is easy to blame the man (“he is not the one. if he was the one, everything will be rainbows and unicorns”), divorce him, cash the check and go in search of the alpha.

    But it’s not that it was a plan conceived beforehand. In fact, American women are unable to conceive such long-term plans. They live in the present, in a culture of immediate gratification. This is why they find themselves single in their late thirties.

  95. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    imnobody, you’re 100 % right and this is why Susan should not be getting away with enticing men into her trap. The only women I will truly believe are the ones who admit they are wrong, work with men to sort out the marriage contract and start to fully realise once more that marriage is a life contract with no outs but a few extreme exceptions.

    This is one reason I cannot understand women, surely they know, with a divorce rate above 50%, that marriage is NOT rainbows and unicorns?! I mean surely? That’s common sense, right? However, for some unknown reason they believe they will somehow be the exception to the modern day common rule of divorce after 5 to 10 years of marriage.

    Simply amazing!

  96. Just1X says:

    “Simply amazing!”

    I’m not sure it’s amazing, I think that deep down they’re sure that they are special princesses and that, once again, someone (some man / gubmint) will step in and prevent any nasty consequences…as has happened throughout their lives.

    And the tragic part (for men and society at large) is that they are largely right.

    And until teh spshul princessesses start suffering consequences there will be no change in them. In fact it’s worse, they will need to understand that the consequences ARE consequences – good luck with whoever is teaching the entitled bitches that truth.

    The only way I can see it happening is via a marriage strike, probably a permanent one because men will need to find marriage 3.0 acceptable AND trust that it will remain so for as long as they want to be married.

    IF they change marriage 2.0 to 3.0, how long will you take to trust that they won’t later change 3.0 to 4.0? We’d have to be talking decades here, wouldn’t we?

  97. Kai says:

    “However, for some unknown reason they believe they will somehow be the exception to the modern day common rule of divorce after 5 to 10 years of marriage.”

    Because again, you’re assuming a thought process that isn’t there. It might be that the odd person looks at divorce statistics, and the reasons behind divorce, and then analyzes their own relationship, and can give reasons why they are not likely to wind up in the same pitfalls as the common divorcees. In fact, I’d suggest this be an important thought process before marrying for any couple.
    But it’s not that most women do that and think they will be the exception. It’s that most women simply don’t think about it. They think “I’m in love, and that’s all you need!” and if confronted with the stats, they refuse to think any deeper, and suggest that the divorced weren’t ‘truly in love’ or not with ‘the one’. Spectacularly, this seems to be just as easy for a woman to do even after a divorce.
    Though to be fair, it seems the average man isn’t giving it that necessary thought either. It’s not as absurd to be the one ending up screwed than the one serving the papers, but I think a problematic amount of men are still also going in with rose-coloured glasses instead of a solid explanation as to why their relationship is truly part of the rare few.

    Hanlon’s razor seems particularly apt here. I don’t mean that as an excuse. Stupidity or ineptitude or ignorance where one could easily have self-educated is as problematic as malice – but when trying to treat the issue, it works a lot better when accurately assessing the cause.

  98. ray says:

    “Frivolosity” rolls off the tongue so much more easily than “frivolity”. Recommend an “add” to the dictionary, if only for the frivolosity of it all.

    seconded

  99. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Though to be fair, it seems the average man isn’t giving it that necessary thought either. It’s not as absurd to be the one ending up screwed than the one serving the papers, but I think a problematic amount of men are still also going in with rose-coloured glasses instead of a solid explanation as to why their relationship is truly part of the rare few.

    This is the exact reason why I cannot agree with Susan at all. She’s trying to convince us about marriage without taking a real, solid look at the majority outcome of modern marriage. She’s being delusional and ignorant at best and deceiving and cruel at worst.

    Susan must provide ONE, just one solid reason, for a man to marry. Not, “it’s good for society, it’s good for the children, it’s still a good deal for men”. No, none of that crap! Provide one, solid and real tangible reason for men to marry or, for that matter, to stay in a monogamous long-term relationship. I honestly don’t think she can provide that.

    It’s seems quite obvious to me, women want long-term monogamous relationships because it provides them with a provider, protector and lover until such a stage as they are ready to move on. The benefits are tangible for them. However, for a man, the benefits are not tangible. You, as a man, are being sucked in, to be with only one woman, to take care of her, provide for her until she is bored of you and has found someone better.

    Please Susan, I implore you, give us some real reasons for men to be interested in the current form of marriage and long-term monogamous relationships. And no, sex is not it, why pay for the cow when you get the milk for free? Come on, Susan, a reason if you will?!

  100. Curtis C. Montelbomm says:

    “For your information, I have never asked the men in my life to put their life in jeopardy for me, they provide protection because that is what they were taught to do.”

    And who teaches them that? Their mommy, I would reckon. And why does she teach them that? So that her and other women will benefit from their protections. No, you didn’t ask the men in your life to protect you, their mother did on your behalf, you just shame them and tell them they aren’t “real men” if mommy’s brainwashing didn’t do the trick. It’s a lot like the supposed way that CIA specialists train assassins, the CIA trains them to kill when a certain word is uttered,by various means, and then someone else calls them on their cellphone and says “chocolate sprinkles” and then they kill the target. The person on the phone could be anybody, and they never issue a command to kill anybody, but they know what’s gonna happen when they say the codeword,and they get a paycheck (reward) when the brainwashed guy kills.

    On a side note, I’m not a tinfoil hat-wearer. I don’t think the CIA really trains brainwashed assassins, you mostly see it in the movies. All I’m saying is the principle is the same. If you honestly believe that women have no part to play in the process, then don’t brainwash your own sons to protect women. I guarantee the only women he’ll put his life on the line for are the ones he’s thinking about/is banging if mommy doesn’t tell him “a real man doesn’t let people hit/insult/disrespect women”. Women are involved in every stage of the creation of a white knight, women provide the supply, and women reap the rewards by uttering the secret code phrase “If you were a real man,you’d….”. If a man preemptively makes himself a meat shield for a woman, it’s because he doesn’t want to hear this phrase,nonetheless, a woman has taught him to feel shame at allowing a woman to be harmed or disrespected in any way and if you do not ask for assistance, someone of your gender has provided it for you in the form of a white knight anyway..

  101. Rivelino says:

    i figured it out. women live in their own alternate reality.

    from her comments:

    “Dalrock dragged a woman (no cock) into the gladiator’s ring. I didn’t ask for that fight, and I didn’t provoke it.”

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/12/28/hookinguprealities/how-to-attack-a-blogger/#comment-85998

    [D: Wow, breathtaking. I highly recommend following the link and viewing her whole comment there.]

  102. Joseph says:

    I think susan’s lack of response is telling.

    [D: Susan has responded on her own site with this post.]

  103. Suz says:

    “Just1X ….I think that deep down they’re sure that they are special princesses and that, once again, someone (some man / gubmint) will step in and prevent any nasty consequences…as has happened throughout their lives.”

    Bingo!
    Not only are we Disney Princesses, we are Smart Modern Disney Princesses(!) as well. We are destined to marry Prince Charming, and we’re magically empowered to transform any man into Prince Charming. (That’s the “kissing a frog” part of the story.) We forge a suit of armor during our childhood, and as adults we go down to central casting and grab a guy who looks the part, then cram him into that armor. We kiss and kiss and kiss for a while, but the frog never becomes a prince. When the seams start to tear out because the armor doesn’t fit, we discard the man (excuse me, the “frog who hoodwinked us”), keep the suit of armor, and go looking for the REAL Prince Charming. Oh, and by the way, this process takes work, patience and dedication, which (hello!) are Virtues! And Gosh! This IS the real world, after all. Life can be hard! How can you begrudge us a roof over our heads while we are on this epic quest to fulfill our destiny? I mean, SOMEBODY has to do it, right?

    A surplus of survival resources + feminism + mass media + the emotion-dominated female brain = a sheltered fairy-tale existence for approximately 50% of the population.

  104. Rivelino says:

    @dalrock

    “Wow, breathtaking.”

    EXACTLY.

    that is exactly how i feel.

    here i was getting excited to find rational, sensible, down to earth women like hope and olive, and then this whole susangate thing happens.

    makes me think of bill burr’s “psycho robots” bit.

  105. Suz says:

    “Kai…I think a problematic amount of men are still also going in with rose-coloured glasses instead of a solid explanation as to why their relationship is truly part of the rare few.”

    Amen. This is not a matter of blaming the victim, it’s a matter of the potential victim preventing the crime. Women, either predatory or careless, are rarely punished for our lack of foresight, so we aren’t the victims (until all the resources are used up.) You men are on your own (like *that’s* news.) Protect yourselves and band together, teaching other men how. And thank you; when you are unshackled, everybody wins. (Don’t bother trying to explain this to most women – we’ve convinced ourselves that “We’ve got ours!” and we’re going to fight desperately to keep it.) Go around us, go over us, go through us, but GO. Take with you ONLY the tiny minority of us who have faith in your wisdom.

    Cheering from the gallery again…

  106. slwerner says:

    [D: Susan has responded on her own site with this post.]

    In which she’s attempted to re-cast the whole kerfluffel, or so it seems to me (I haven’t read all the comments either here nor there yet).

    Seems to me that it’s probably time to declare victory and move on.

    Susan’s misguided notions were quickly dispatched, and IMHO, the whole matter should have ended there.

    You’re never going to get her to admit to any disingenuous acts or motives, and she now loath to give up the “pound of flesh” (or so it must seem to her) demanded of her.

    She does seem to be back-peddling a bit, but it may also be that she’s given the issues a deeper consideration. I’d bet that she won’t be making claims about “frivolous divorce” being overstated, even if she does seem to be trying to refocus argument as to just what constitutes such. I also doubt she’ll as carelessly try to toss-in the “men cheat, and that’s the reason for divorce” meme anytime soon. She may play for team woman, but I bet she’s a lot quicker to recognize a strategy that doesn’t work (unlike coach John Fox of the Denver Broncos, who has apparently still NOT figured out that the other teams have already figured out how to defense the Tebow run option plays [/sour grapes]).

    If Susan wants to drag things out, and try to find a way to diminish her role in the dust-up, maybe it’s best to just let her keep digging.

    I don’t think there’s really any way to say it so that it will not seem sexist, but… the whole thing about honor and owning up to ones mistakes, well, that’s more of a “Man Thing” anyway. Woman have long been used to getting a pass, and they will continue to expect to be given one. It seems to be something of a fools errand to expect women to “Man up” (in the original sense of appealing to a man’s sense of personal honor and dignity, rather than some imagined duty to women, that is).

  107. umslopogaas says:

    Ah well, let’s look at the bright side: We certainly have learned something from this experience.

    The female rationalization hamster makes for poor argumentation but excellent evasive manouvering capabilities (reframe, shame, blame, play the victim, distort, abort, qualify and then have another try). Essentially, a slippery hamster on the fly, defying intellectual gravity and boldly spinning where now woman has spun before.

    Possibly that was how the paradigms of public discourse (media, politics etc.) also shifted once women entered the arena in force.

    Oh and Suz:

    Excellent analogy, truly outstanding.

  108. van Rooinek says:

    Susan must provide ONE, just one solid reason, for a man to marry. Not, “it’s good for society, it’s good for the children, it’s still a good deal for men”. No, none of that crap! Provide one, solid and real tangible reason for men to marry or, for that matter, to stay in a monogamous long-term relationship.

    In today’s cultural climate, there are a great many reasons to AVOID all that like the plague, and there is, in the final analysis, one and only one reason to follow that path in spite of all the negative cultural and legal incentives. Simply put, God commands us to live that way. Marriage is the only divinely approved context for sexuality.

    That said, MGTOW is also biblical, provided you are celibate. Indeed some of history’s holiest men avoided relationships with women entirely. However, to paraphrase, “not all men can accept MGTOW, but only those to whom it is given.”

    The one thing you CAN’T do, is the one thing our current culture wants most: ie, to shun or delay marriage and yet seek sexual gratification without it.

    I honestly don’t think [SUSAN] can provide that [reason]

    No, she can’t. Without God, all things are permitted. In a saner culture, secular incentives would be powerful inducements — “it’s good for society, it’s good for the children, it’s still a good deal for men — but when women mostly can’t be trusted, these incentives don’t have much crediblity more. They are, of course, still true IF the marriage lasts, but the chances of the marriage lasting are unacceptably low, and the consequences of it not lasting are truly terrible.

    I repeat, without God, in this degraded society, there is no case for marriage/monogamy.

  109. Looking Glass says:

    Yeah, Susan hasn’t learned the first rule of Holes: stop digging.

    She threw out a challenge without realizing it, so just own up to the fact you were “shooting from the hip” and move on. I know people that pretty much have to do it daily. There’s nothing wrong with disengaging from a fight. Mr. Miyagi should have taught us all that point.

    And she really needs to learn this point. She’s pretty much breached into the legal definition of “public figure”, which means actual attacks will get a whole lot worse in the future. This is the reality of the internet. It gets really fun when lawyers get involved!

  110. tweell says:

    Ah, but with a good marriage, there is so much more! No, neither of you have much free time, but it is truly amazing what two loving people can accomplish together. Each brings their own strengths, and draws out strength that would never be seen otherwise. Happiness is magnified and grief diminished by sharing with each other. Enjoying the highs together and pulling each other through the lows together, that’s what a good marriage is. It’s never finished, always needs work, but there’s nothing better on earth.
    I am sorry that it’s so hard to get today.

  111. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Yeah, Susan hasn’t learned the first rule of Holes: stop digging.

    Maybe she was a coal miner in a past life?

  112. deti says:

    Suz, Kai:

    Suz explains really well what many women enter marriage with: a beginning with MY SPECIAL DAY, after which all will be rose petals and rainbows, happily ever after, breakfast in bed, and endless sex in which you and your six-pack abdomen husband orgasm together, every time.

    Too many beta men believe they must cater to the woman’s whim every time, or risk losing her. They don’t realize the options they have, and the power they wield. They don’t view themselves as prizes; rather they see themselves as contestants vying for the prize. This leads those men to hesitate; to fail to stand up for themselves. They think anything they say or do will cause her to leave him. She knows this, and uses it to her advantage. She wants him to assert himself, but he won’t for fear of angering her. She’ll leave him, and then he’ll be alone; forced into involuntary celibacy. This is what many men believe women hold over them. By doing so they play into women’s frames and into the female imperative to secure resources for herself.

    A single man must discard the notion that he must continually prove himself to a woman in order to secure her charms or her exclusivity. No. He must reject that frame and adopt his own. He should adopt the attitude:

    “I am a prize. I do not have to prove my worth, my good faith or my abilities to any woman. I am not required to expend time, money or resources before she has expressed attraction and interest in me. I do not have to show her that I can provide before she shows me attraction and interest. My worth and value as a man is in no way dependent on a woman’s opinion of me; whether a woman shows sexual interest in me, or my relationship or marital status. My value as a man has nothing to do with how much money I can spend on a date with her, or even if she will go on a date with me. Rather, she must demonstrate her value and worth to me. She must show me why I should expend valuable and scarce time, money and resources on her. She must demonstrate to me what she brings to the table and what’s in it for me.”

  113. straightright says:

    van Rooinek says:

    “Simply put, God commands us to live that way. Marriage is the only divinely approved context for sexuality … The one thing you CAN’T do, is the one thing our current culture wants most: ie, to shun or delay marriage and yet seek sexual gratification without it.”

    Thank you for writing this. This is the most important thing, applies equally to men and women, and not following these ideals represents a crisis of faith. If people really did value God’s word, they wouldn’t frivolously divorce, would seek to please one another, and would try to be faithful to the ideals of marriage in the Bible. In the end, men and women will be judged equally, though we try to evade that in society, which is a big source of our problems – siding with one side over the other. We exchange the eternal for short term gains and pleasure, and then end up losing the eternal and screwing up the time we have.

  114. slwerner says:

    tweell – “Ah, but with a good marriage, there is so much more!…Enjoying the highs together and pulling each other through the lows together, that’s what a good marriage is. It’s never finished, always needs work, but there’s nothing better on earth.
    I am sorry that it’s so hard to get today.”

    Agreed.

    I’d like to make note of what I believe is a truly telling observation proffered by Kai (December 28, 2011 at 5:10 pm):

    “Very few women marry with the *intention* of divorcing him afterwards, but they fail to intend not to divorce him.

    An appalling number of women don’t intend anything at all towards marriage – they intend to have a wonderful wedding which will be their ‘MY day’, and which will be perfect. The after part? That will be dealt with after.”

    I cannot pretend to read the mind of Susan Walsh, but it often seems that her primary intention is only to get women to the point of having their own ’MY day”, without the need to develop the character to be able to deal with the “after part”.

    Anyone and everyone can repudiate the misandry and injustice of Divorce 2.0 and even acknowledge it’s role in the demise of Marriage 2.0. But very few are actually trying to encourage young women (especially) to take the steps necessary to avoid Divorce 2.0, nor to put an end to the laws governing it.

    It’s not that I think Susan is some nefarious actor in all this, trying to dupe men into marriage, but just the typical “Team Woman” player, who intuitively understand that the odds of young women having the opportunity to marry are better if the subject is downplayed.

  115. imnobody says:

    It’s a lot like the supposed way that CIA specialists train assassins, the CIA trains them to kill when a certain word is uttered,by various means, and then someone else calls them on their cellphone and says “chocolate sprinkles” and then they kill the target

    In America, this world is “man up!”. It’s really funny seeing how the last year has been uttered many times by women and white knights in the media and they are shocked to death that it doesn’t work.

    Shaming language is losing its effectiveness. As someone said, it is like a knife. It’s effective if you use rarely and by surprise, not if you are using once and again for every trivial reason.

    So what are you doing reading this instead of working hard to support and please a strong and independent American cow, eh, I mean, an American woman? MAN UP!

  116. ybm says:

    “She’ll leave him, and then he’ll be alone; forced into involuntary celibacy”

    This is the idea that must be exterminated from the minds of men, alpha, beta, omega, whoever. This is why Game must be for men, by men, to build self-esteem and self worth (true game not the diluted fem-speak some bloggers advocate and magical thinking.) One of the fundamental writings of Roissy is abundance. Women are everywhere, and men are only restricted in their own minds how many of them they can bed/love/marry whatever the goal.

    Thanks to you, I finally have a niche to write about from this point on.

  117. van Rooinek says:

    I have to believe that all these horrible truths we’re now learning in the Manosphere, were discovered before. We can’t be the first people in history to figure this out. Almost certainly, the whole reason for traditional values is because our forefathers of every culture learned this stuff thousands of years ago, either by divine revelation or bitter experience. And they wrote it down in sacred books to spare us all that grief! Even if you don’t believe in God (for the record, I do), you have to respect the ancient teachings based on the fact that they represent many thousands of years worth of accumulated human experience.

    But we ignored their ancient books — and look what happened. Maybe it’s time to write a new one…The book of Game. “And Saint Roissy uploaded the 16 commandments unto his website, saying, “O L-RD, bless this Thy commandments of Game, that with it Thou mayest smite the wenches out of their wickedness, in Thy mercy.” And the L-RD did grin and the people did feast upon pizza and burgers and sushi and….”

    More seriously…. Where do you think the once universal institution of arranged marriage came from? Long ago, I hypothesize, frustrated Betas banded together, overthrew and killed the Alphas, and then distributed the women among themselves. (If you are on the left, think, “We are the 80%”; if you are on the right, think of it as a “T&A Party” rebellion). At first the women hated it, but after being treated decently by their new masters for a while, they realized that they were better off — that their own choices in men had been downright horrible and the men they’d been assigned to, were much nicer. So, when their own daughters grew up, they willingly collaborated with their husbands in assigning their daughters to good men, rather than letting them go feral after bad boys. And thus the system of arranged marriage did propogate itself and stayed stable for thousands of years in a lot of cultures.

    I have a coworker who is in an arranged marriage. His family and hers, carefully selected them as a good match. After thorough vetting, they were set up on their first and only “date”, which amounted to a 15 minute conversation, after which they were asked, “Do you like him/her?” Both answered yes, so the wedding date was set. They are very happy together. Thousands of years of tradition, and it works great — the non-working alternative lifestyles having been discarded ages ago. And I have to assume that this culture understands sexuality because they are the people who wrote the Kama Sutra after all. (Yes, another ancient book….)

  118. imnobody says:

    @van Roinek

    Agreed. Without God, there is no point in marriage and everything is permitted. But the marriage the Bible refers to is MARRIAGE 1.0. This marriage is not available anymore. Marriage, as God intended, is a sacred and eternal union. Marriage 1.0 did not entail the risk of divorce. You were free to enter but you were not free to get out from it. The Apostle Peter did not have to face the possibility that his wife would take his kids and his assets and would make him poor.

    You cannot have this marriage anymore. Even if you are a Christian and your spouse is, you can end up divorced (38% of marriages between Christian people end up in divorce).

    Now we have a temporal arrangement: a glorified version of “living in sin”. This cohabitation is called “marriage” but it is like cats being called dogs. They are not dogs.

    We live in decadent times and you can’t marry anymore. This renders all the biblical arguments in favor of marriage null and void in our age. Sad.

  119. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    imnobody, exactly, I’m a Christian and I recognise this. Marriage 2.0 is a dead end. It was not what God intended. Any person, group or Church promoting today’s marriage, is the enemy. It’s that simple.

  120. van Rooinek says:

    We live in decadent times and you can’t marry anymore.

    Well, I’m married. I am accountable to God for my actions. The State of Californication allows me to divorce and remarry, but God does not.

    A while ago, a group of homosexuals who got upset at the California gay marriage ban, tried to get a proposition on the ballot that would ban DIVORCE in the state, using all the same family values arguments that conservatives (correctly) cited as arguments against gay marriage. ( http://rescuemarriage.org/ ) It’s a damn shame the church in California didn’t take them by surprise by massively SUPPORTING this initiative. It would have shown the world that we are serious and consistent, and intend to actually live by the values that we preach to everyone else. Oh, wait…. never mind…

  121. deti says:

    slwerner:

    Agreed with both of your posts at 1116 and 1203 above. I still respect SW as a blogger, but she admitted she made the “exaggerated and overblown” statement/opinion out of frustration with the ongoing discussion with Doug1. That’s the closest you’ll get to an acknowledgment that her opinion wasn’t factually supported. And with all respect to SW, her reaction to all this is disproportionate. Everyone has had their say. Dalrock had the better argument. Time to declare victory, everyone go home, and we’ll all live to debate another day.

  122. imnobody says:

    I have to believe that all these horrible truths we’re now learning in the Manosphere, were discovered before. We can’t be the first people in history to figure this out

    This is the problem of our age. We disregard the ancient wisdom. This is the problem that lies in the root of feminism but it is bigger than that. It is the cause of the eventual demise of our civilization.

    All modern thought starts from scratch and jettisons all previous thought. Feminism? The last millenia were an oppression of men to women. Ayn Randism? No civilization before us has enabled freedom. Christian thought? 2000 years of fairy tales about the Great Spaghetti Monster. Family? Family is not what has considered family for the last ten thousands years but a single mom with a bad boy’s son receiving welfare. Men and women? Unlike previous thought, which considered them as complementary, they are equal but women are better.

    Historical reasons have made that most people (especially, the intellectual elite) believes RADICALLY in the Myth of Progress, that is, “everything old is bad or outdated, everything new is good”. So we have to change anything that has been given to us to build a new reality from scratch.

    What would you think if, every time you find something wrong in your house, you recur to tear down the house and build a new house FROM SCRATCH (instead of fixing the problem and keeping the things that work well). Wouldn’t it be foolish? This is our world.

    Tradition is the result of the learning that human societies have made for millenia. Some of this learning is conscious (so, for example, you see some ancient Romans, some biblical texts and some intellectuals of the old Europe writing pages who could have been written by Roissy). But most of this learning is unconscious. The societies that didn’t behave in a way compatible to human nature simply didn’t make it (the way our society is not going to make it). They disappeared and the traditional societies are the result of this process of selection.

    The author that has described better this process is Tom Wolfe in his BRILLIANT essay “The Great Relearning”. We have jettison everything that our society had learned for millennia and now, we are going to learn everything from scratch, with all the pain that it entails.

  123. Kai says:

    van Rooinek says:
    “And Saint Roissy uploaded the 16 commandments unto his website, saying, “O L-RD, bless this Thy commandments of Game, that with it Thou mayest smite the wenches out of their wickedness, in Thy mercy.” And the L-RD did grin and the people did feast upon pizza and burgers and sushi and….”

    This is awesome.

  124. Rmaxd says:

    lmao @ deti still mangina’ing for walsh …

    Walsh did alot more then wail like a banshee out of frustration, she spewed her batshittery like a pro twat

    She still hasnt addressed her comments, after getting bitch slapped by pretty much everyone in the thread,

    Now we see her Mangina’s such as deti, crying dont rape her with your words, walsh as always asked for it … she walked & talked the part of a typical american skank, no doubt about it

    The threads still there, deti, proving walsh did ALOT more then cry rape, she perpertrated it, walk & talk like a pathological liar & you get treated like one

    Deti, i suggest you start doing the same, your pathological lying & mangina’ing for walsh needs to stop, asap

  125. Pingback: Authority is integral to the church. | Dark Brightness

  126. imnobody says:

    It’s a damn shame the church in California didn’t take them by surprise by massively SUPPORTING this initiative.

    The Church is part of the problem. When you stop preaching the Christian message and start accomodating to the modern sexual mores and to feminism, you are well into apostasy.

    There are Churches that have stood their ground, like the Orthodox Church. But most Churches pick and choose the parts of Christianity they want to enforce. This is “Cafeteria Christianity”, a sign of our decadent times.

    Well, I’m married.

    Marriage 2.0. Not the Marriage the Bible talks about. Same name, different concept.

    I am accountable to God for my actions. The State of Californication allows me to divorce and remarry, but God does not.

    I agree. But that’s the point. Nothing prevents your wife from divorcing you. I get that she is a fantastic Christian woman and this will never happen. I am happy for you. But there is an ocean of difference between an institution that relies on both people behaving well (Marriage 2.0) and an institution that relies on the commitment of the society to enforce it (Marriage 1.0). Compulsary and voluntary institutions are not the same institution. Paying taxes so the government can fund charities is compulsory. Giving money to charities is voluntary. It’s another institution.

    When you read Paul’s writings about marriage, you have to take into account that they were meant to be enforced IN A COMMUNITY (for example, Christian community in Corinth in the case of 1st Corinthians). This community could enforce the rules beyond husband’s will or wife’s will. So it was not only about how one stood before God but how the community enforced this rules. So, for example, when Paul talks about the Corinthians about a man living with his father’s wife as immorality, he says (1 Corinthians 5,1-2):

    It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?

    Paul does not mean: “This is bad but he will respond before God “. But he urges the community to stop allowing that, by excommunicating the man, because (1 Corinthians 5,7)

    Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch

    In summary, marriage 1.0 is not only a personal concept before God. It is also a social concept that has to be enforced by community, which churches don’t do now. Today we have another institution: marriage 2.0

  127. Suz says:

    @ van Rooinek:
    You are correct in terms of religious tradition, but biology supersedes religion. Religious law was intended to protect and increase the tribe, and if frankly marginalizes non-reproductive but very real purposes of sexuality, such as gratification/release and the formation of deep personal bonds. Granted, those “sub-tribal” personal bonds are Biblically valued for how they contribute to child-rearing. However, at this point in history, it’s reasonable to believe that our fractured tribe simply should not be increased. In light of that view, and under the Biblical model of sex (reproduction being primary or even exclusive) the majority of the population would be required to ignore its sexuality, its biology. Bad idea. This is not to defend promiscuity. Promiscuity can be viewed as inherently immoral because in the long run it damages the seducer as well as the seduced, by preventing the development of deep love and valuable loyalty. Promiscuity is Biblically immoral because it means using sex for purposes other than increasing the tribe.

    There is another option: pure, rational morality. So I disagree with the statements: “… without God, in this degraded society, there is no case for marriage/monogamy,” and “…Without God, all things are permitted.” With or without God, there is a strong anthropological case for monogamy/marriage. Modern secular law has bastardized monogamy and beaten the crap out of its inherent benefits, and religious doctrine has been used as a tool to excuse this bastardization. The problem is not the secular nature of the law, it is the irrational application of the law. For instance serial marriage can fit quite nicely within religious doctrine, even though it is immoral and harmful. This brings into question the absolute virtue of “God” as defined by Biblical tradition. Disobeying religion didn’t cause this problem. The greedy, childish and ultimately unsustainable way we redistribute our surplus resources caused it.

    As I’ve said before, please don’t hesitate to criticize my logic or tell me if I completely missed the point.

  128. umslopogaas says:

    @Suz:

    Religious law was intended to protect and increase the tribe, and if frankly marginalizes non-reproductive but very real purposes of sexuality, such as gratification/release and the formation of deep personal bonds. Granted, those “sub-tribal” personal bonds are Biblically valued for how they contribute to child-rearing. However, at this point in history, it’s reasonable to believe that our fractured tribe simply should not be increased. In light of that view, and under the Biblical model of sex (reproduction being primary or even exclusive) the majority of the population would be required to ignore its sexuality, its biology. Bad idea.

    Actually, according to Sir Charles Unwin’s “Sex And Culture” (1934) sexual supression is a good idea. It’s been a while since I delved into it but afaik he sampled and compared different cultures and tribes…empirically…and came to the conclusion that there exists a definite correlation between sexual suppression and the level of civilisation.

    Cultures that practiced no sexual restraint (say Polynesians) stagnated on a low, quasi-tribal level and did not advance whereas civilizations that restrained sexuality (the West during that time) prospered and developed. According to him it had something to do sexual diffusion in a Freudian sense, i.e. with redirecting individual energies away from sexual motivation towards worldly matters.

    Not altogether sure, however. It’s been a while.

  129. van Rooinek says:

    Suz: at this point in history, it’s reasonable to believe that our fractured tribe simply should not be increased.

    Speak for yourself. I want my tribe to grow as large as possible. Globally, we are dwindling, and we are already a minority here in Californistan.

    There is another option: pure, rational morality. So I disagree with the statements: “… without God, in this degraded society, there is no case for marriage/monogamy,” and “…Without God, all things are permitted.” With or without God, there is a strong anthropological case for monogamy/marriage.

    Yes, there is a strong secular case for the benefits of marriage, in a culture where marriage is normally permanent. In such a society, and only in such a society, it looks like a pretty good deal on purely secular grounds. But, as you concede:

    Modern secular law has bastardized monogamy and beaten the crap out of its inherent benefits

    However I take issue with this —

    …and religious doctrine has been used as a tool to excuse this bastardization.

    Actually, no. Religious doctrine has been ignored to facilitate the bastardization.

    The problem is not the secular nature of the law, it is the irrational application of the law.

    True. A policy that is actually in accord with human needs and human nature, will work — whether it recieves religious sanction or not. As it happens, however, most or all the ancient books where this stuff was codified thousands of years ago, are religious.

    For instance serial marriage can fit quite nicely within religious doctrine

    No, it actually doesn’t. You need to ignore, nay, trample on, religious doctrine in order to arrive at the present “serial marriage” situation. All traditional religious either forbid, or very strongly discourage, divorce.

  130. van Rooinek says:

    serial marriage can fit quite nicely within religious doctrine, even though it is immoral and harmful

    CROWD: Burn her! Witch! Witch! Burn her!
    BEDEMIR: Did you dress her up like this?
    CROWD: No, no… no … yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
    VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.
    BEDEMIR: What makes you think she is a witch?
    VILLAGER #3: Well, she turned me into a Newt.
    BEDEMIR: A Newt?
    VILLAGER #3: I got better.

  131. Rmaxd says:

    The bible forbids divorce …

  132. Suz says:

    umslopogaas,
    Thanks for the reference, I’ll look it up. Now I’m wondering if there’s an optimum percentage of the population that ideally should be sexually suppressed.

  133. slwerner says:

    Rmaxd – ”Deti, i suggest you start doing the same, your pathological lying & mangina’ing for walsh needs to stop, asap”

    First, I must say I’m a bit offended. You attack Deti for agreeing with me (or, at least that’s the only post of his where I can see this coming from) yet you totally ignore me. What the F^&* do I have to do to get you to call me names and accuse me of lying too? (Come on, hit me! I’m a guy COHMIAG)

    Secondly, I’m not sure just exactly what you consider “ pathological lying & mangina’ing for walsh”? What did Deti state that was either a lie or that was acting like a mangina in support of her?

    And, really, if she hasn’t owned up to her words by this time, she’s never going to. That horse is dead. It’s been dead for a while now. You’re wasting time whipping it. It isn’t going to move for you.

    There is so much else to deal with that it seems an utter waste of time to dwell so excessively on one woman’s (stray) words. She wasn’t allowed to graciously slip away. She was rebuffed and refuted. It’s high time to realize that this was the only “victory” to be had in this particular battle. It’s time for the men to take the lead and show how NOT to get bogged down in petty inanities over a few words. She’s not going to recant, nor even try to rationally resolve the matter. That’s her loss, despite her on-going efforts to reframe the arguments.

    If you wish to continue to do battle with her in the hopes that she’ll give you the words you want to hear, then you should go to her blog, where she appears to be actively involved, and confront her directly. Trying to shame other men for not attacking her “enough” isn’t going to accomplish anything.

    Mark Knoffler put in well in the final stamza of the 1985 song “Brothers In Arms””

    But it’s written in the starlight
    And every line on your palm
    We’re fools to make war
    On our brothers in arms

  134. van Rooinek says:

    Suz: umslopogaas, Thanks for the reference, I’ll look it up. Now I’m wondering if there’s an optimum percentage of the population that ideally should be sexually suppressed.

    The optimum is 100%. But, as a practical matter, that’s already the case, to at least some extent. Civilization would not last 10 minutes if we all gave into every sexual impulse that crosses our minds. Imagine if every time you experienced mutual attraction with someone — at work, at the gym, in the supermarket — you immediately stripped down and went for it on the spot. And who says the desire has to be mutual? The mythical “rape culture” meme that feminists invented to falsely implicate the innocent majority of men, would very quickly become the horrible truth — no remotely attractive woman could set foot outdoors unarmed.

    Unwin’s point, however, is that cultures that allow more or less unrestrained (albeit consensual) sex, don’t advance. His cross cultural surveys showed that only when sex is channeled to marriage, does cultural progress occur. In large part, this is likely due to the man’s confidence of paternity; if he’s pretty darned sure the kids are his, he’ll work very hard to secure their future.

  135. Buck says:

    RE: van Rooinek

    Arranged marriages…
    I spent this morning in Domestic Violence Court…OMG!!!
    All of the lawyers, Public Defenders, Counselors, Judges…women…vagina village!
    The time wasted, the hand wringing, the absurd rituals.

    BUT, to Van Rooinek’s point.
    My case today was a VERY attractive gal (20) who has one kid (3) and is expecting another by a scrawney little twirp, gangbanger, shithead, no job, tattoos, pot smoker, cheater and chick beater (18, shorter, skinny, punk) ( thus why we are in court ). This is his 4th DV case against her…he steals her money ( she has the job and pays the bills…him, he bangs his girl-friend”s and gets high) and when she tries to stop him from taking the milk money, he slaps the crap out of her and leaves with his gangster friends to buy booze and drugs.
    She told the State today that she “loves” him and will not press charges…case dismissed!

    If I were her father I’d love to have arranged marriages. She is simply not capable of making a proper choice and should not even be given the opportunity.

    This gal looks like Selma Hayek… smoking hot…good god, she could be a super high dollar escort or pole dancer or anything but a spooge bucket for this lowlife scumbag.

    Unfortunately at 20 she has wrecked herself…permanently

  136. ybm says:

    Plenty more where that came from.

    Western Women hate hate hate betas. They would rather do ANYTHING than willingly mate with a good beta man. The abortion of beta offspring is the driver of white and asian abortion rates. Soon betas will not exist at all.

    Natural Selection will do its part. We fall, to be conquered and exterminated by a people more in tune with the old ways. Do not mourn it. Theirs is a superior way of life than our fallen horror.

  137. Suz says:

    Thank you, van Rooinek. I was lumping modern Christian justifications in with ancient Biblical teachings. My mistake.

    “Religious doctrine has been ignored to facilitate the bastardization.”
    Yes, ignored by the church as well as everybody else. I believe that modern Christianity gives lip service to discouraging divorce, while too casually justifying it, and therefore supporting it.

    I don’t want to give the impression that I dismiss religion as contrary to secular anthropology, since most early religious traditions are very much in accord with it.

    Sadly, the tribe of which I was speaking, the one that should slow its growth, is the greater tribe of entitled Western civilization, in which you are a minority.

    Rmaxd, God hated divorce, yet Biblical law allows it.

  138. Ian Ironwood says:

    Actually, I think going back to the Church’s idea of marriage is just as bad as capitulating to the current situation. The Church already did Marriage 2.0, when it codified and legitimized the Agricultural Age Marriage. This was a big departure from the Hunter-Gatherer Age Marriage (1.0). And it did pretty well . . . when 90% of humanity were subsistence farmers.

    We aren’t, now. We have a different economy, different society, different culture, different literacy rate, more cash, longer life-spans, and better food security, and all of those factors affect how we perceive marriage. We’re building Marriage 3.0, like it or not, and the traditional Christian idea of marriage grafted on to our current culture (aka: Marriage 3.1) is of dubious utility. You can’t expect Agricultural-age mems and traditions to still have the same value in a post-industrial society. And since the Church’s ideas about marriage were cemented at the height of the Agricultural Age, they just won’t work today unless you are Amish.

    Try if you want. I’ve got plenty of people in my community who are trying it, to the extent of pulling their kids out of school and home-schooling, going to church constantly, etc., but from a practical perspective they invite more problems than they cause that way, and their kids suffer accordingly in the temporal world, regardless of the spiritual benefits. Plus when these marriages do break, they can break ugly. You aren’t going to be able to wish away the “decadence” of our modern society by hiding behind a Bible, or in a reinvigorated Church. Christianity lost the moral high-ground after the last century, and is enjoying a profound retreat in both numbers and influence from our society while it figures out whether it will adapt to survive the change in economy.

    Face facts, gentlemen: the sexual genie isn’t going back into the bottle. It must be dealt with, and relying on a 5000 year old poorly-recorded oral tradition from semi-nomadic desert-dwelling barbarians for guidance, while colorful, is unlikely to be particularly useful.

  139. van Rooinek says:

    Rmaxd, God hated divorce, yet Biblical law allows it.

    In the Old Covenant, it was allowed. Grudgingly. As with all the Old Testament laws, you have to realize that, in the original cultural context in which they were promulgated, they represented humanizing limitations on much more barbaric practices that were common then… ie.. ONLY an eye for and eye…ONLY a tooth for a tooth, no more. And slavery was allowed for debt, but ONLY for a limited time, not forever. And so on. Even the practice of forcing a rapist to marry his unbetrothed victim and care for her all her life, which seems horrifying to us, is an act of humanity in a culture where so-called “honor killings” of rape victims were common, and indeed such “honor killings” are still common in the Middle East to this very day. (Why it isn’t an “honor” to kill the perpetrator, I’ll never understand. Islamic “logic”… *sigh*.)

    Now, as to divorce…. as it happens, in preindustrial cultures women are dependent on men, so if a woman got divorced, in order to avoid starving she’d normally have to either remarry or become a prostitute. I heard long ago (from a pulpit IIRC), that back then, it wasn’t unknown for a spiteful husband to kick out a wife, and then wait for her to either move in with someone else, or start turning tricks — and then accuse her of adultery to get her executed. The Mosaic requirement for the man to give her a “bill of divorcement” — to put the divorce IN WRITING — was not an endorsement of divorce at all, it was intended as a legal protection against this form of brutality. The divorce paper could literally save her life.

    Today, of course, it’s men that are usually the victims of divorce brutality. But back then, it was different.

  140. Suz says:

    Yes, the Bible has allowed for legitimate circumstances for divorce. Unfortunately most of modern Christianity has gone along with the sexual revolution, and blown them out of proportion.

  141. van Rooinek says:

    Sadly, the tribe of which I was speaking, the one that should slow its growth, is the greater tribe of entitled Western civilization…

    But… Western Civilization ISN’T growing, precisely because of the problems being discussed on this thread — which lead, inescapably, to a fertility crash. Marriage 2.0, 2.1, 3.0. 3.1. etc., are self-dooming in this regard — only 1.0 actually sustains itself long term.

    For a short whole Western Civ. can prop itself up with immigrants but if those immigrants do not embrace the values of that civilization — (and how could they? from whom could they possibly learn them, since Westerners themselves have abandoned them?!?!?) — the civilization will indeed crash.

  142. Rmaxd says:

    @slwerner ….

    Rmaxd – ”Deti, i suggest you start doing the same, your pathological lying & mangina’ing for walsh needs to stop, asap”

    “First, I must say I’m a bit offended. You attack Deti for agreeing with me (or, at least that’s the only post of his where I can see this coming from) yet you totally ignore me. What the F^&* do I have to do to get you to call me names and accuse me of lying too? (Come on, hit me! I’m a guy COHMIAG)”

    Nope I was addressing Deti directly, I have no idea where you came into this debate …

    As for not whipping a dead horse … it’s actually going to get alot worse ….

    Walsh’s behaviour on her site towards her readers, especially the male commentators has been steadily getting worse over the past few years

    It’s no surprise people now hate her & her ideology as much as they do now

    As I’ve stated before Walsh hates men, her own comments & attitude & behaviour reads like a radical extremist feminist

    Also Walsh has repeatedly demonstrated she has little respect for her husband on her own site

    Also Walsh has repeatedly demonstrated she has little respect for men, & what they have to say by the recent banning of long time commentators

    Also Walsh is more then capable of answering on Dalrocks blog, Walsh has made it known she reads Dalrocks blog & comments quite frequently

    & for the record i’d love to comment on walsh’s sorry excuse for a blog, but i’m obviously banned from there

    Her loss obviously & Dalrocks gain …

  143. ybm says:

    Its been pointed out numerous times but never stops being horrible: the complete nullification of her son from any thought at all. This is a woman who waxes poetic on the internet about alphas, how to get them, how to move on to the next one. Endless advice for girls, while her loser son likely sits as an incel and will for the remainder of his life (not even his own mother wants him. I’m sure it was a flip of a coin whether she kept her beta-husbands son to begin with, since women RARELY keep the sons of betas to term.)

    Woe to that poor boy. Especially considering the radfems Walsh has been inviting would rather give him a double-tap to the back of the head than give him any advice. Maybe his mother feels the same way, on account of his broken, undesireable, inadequate genetic material.

  144. imnobody says:

    Yes, there is a strong secular case for the benefits of marriage, in a culture where marriage is normally permanent. In such a society, and only in such a society, it looks like a pretty good deal on purely secular grounds.

    Without God, why bother with the society in the first place? I will do whatever I want and to the hell with the culture, the society and everything else. When I’m dead, the society won’t care about me. The only rational action is to make the most of the little time I have and to the non-existent hell with everything else.

    This is why, although marriage and morality do not require religiosity in theory, they decline IN AVERAGE with the loss of religion (of course, with exceptions). When the Roman religion was dying, women were given the right to divorce in the Ancient Rome.

    But I accept this is not the blog to discuss these topics.

  145. Rmaxd says:

    “Marriage 2.0, 2.1, 3.0. 3.1. etc., are self-dooming in this regard — only 1.0 actually sustains itself long term. ”

    Actually Marriage 1.0 sustained itself, by turning men into walking wallets & chattle for women, as women sat at home, protected from the need of earning a living

    Marriage only works in agarian cultures, in self sustainable cultures like the Amish, everywhere else monogamy is a disaster, especially for men, as they destroy their own future & livelihood for a woman & her children

    Marriage has always been a disaster for men financially & economically, its ability to enslave men to the point they have no future is a nightmarish reality for most men, in countries with functioning marriage 1.0 marriages

  146. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Marriage has always been a disaster for men financially & economically, its ability to enslave men to the point they have no future is a nightmarish reality for most men, in countries with functioning marriage 1.0 marriages

    For Alpha men, yes, of course. For beta and upper beta, not so much. Marriage 1.0 actually gave them a chance to reproduce and have their bloodline continue. It also made society and civilisation possible. No future for married men, I don’t know, I think my father had a future. I would not be here, if he didn’t get married to my mother, nor would my sister and all my other family members had my uncles and aunts not married either. It’s all relative, I wholly disagree with marriage 2.0 because it IS slavery of men, we don’t get a choice. We have to dish out money to women whether we are married to them and get divorced, i.e alimony theft, or the government taxes us and pays it to them anyway, i.e. welfare.

    I don’t mind getting married to a real women, but I must have the choice given to me to do that, it must not be forced on me and the women must meet certain criterion beforehand. Technically we are all slaves, slaves to our desires, slaves to each other and slaves to those we love. I would just prefer to choose who I am going to be slaving away for.

  147. Rmaxd says:

    YBM – “ts been pointed out numerous times but never stops being horrible: the complete nullification of her son from any thought at all.”

    Her even admitting she has a son, would mean admitting she has a responsibility to men

    Walsh feeds on dramatic proses of denial & self victimisation, nothing is more dramatic then her own daughter about to be turned into carousel riding fodder, or the denial of her own failings to her own daughter

    Her son is beta, his future is insured, a guaranteed life of beta, theres no dramatic prose or gina tingles from his betatude, to women like walsh, only wails of why cant you be alpha like the guys i rode the carousel with …

    Walsh as you point out, doesnt mention her son, because he isnt alpha …

    Beta’s dont exist for women, unless they have a carousel to get off …

    A persons worth to a woman like walsh is always dictated by the emotional & sociological feedback they receive from that person, irrespective of its morality or ethics

    Feedback & neurological sociologically correct networks is all that matters to the carousel rider, as the carousel is simply a stimulus generator, it conditions you & the stimulus it generates dictates your reasoning & morality

    Carousel riders seek stimulus, not morality, reason or self accountability, as that is all the carousel & promiscuity is capable of generating

  148. slwerner says:

    Rmaxd – ”As for not whipping a dead horse … it’s actually going to get alot worse ….
    Walsh’s behaviour on her site towards her readers, especially the male commentators has been steadily getting worse over the past few years”

    What Walsh does on her site is one matter, but it doesn’t explain your attack on Deti here.
    If Walsh chooses to drive men away, and turn her blog into a female perspective only echo-chamber (as Deti himself alluded to earlier on this very thread), That’s her business, and her loss.

    But this bit of attacking another guy here just because he doesn’t attack her as vociferously as you do seems entirely pointless to me – just as “debating” with Walsh on this forum, where she might not ever return, seems to have no value. Personally, I don’t get the point of grousing on and on about Walsh here either. Her arguments/claims were without merit and easily refuted, her evasiveness and failure to address what Dalrock called her out on made her appear weak.

    The real battle was won right at the start. She can go on and on claiming “tis but a flesh wound”, even though she no longer has legs to stand on, but it remains not only pointless, but also a complete waste of good time to try to force her to admit something she refuses to admit to. Ride on (er, skip along clapping coconut shells together) and leave her lying on the ground screaming that she was won the battle. There are still killer rabbits to be dealt with.

  149. Rmaxd says:

    @ Feminist hater with quite possibly the best nick on this blog … lol

    “For beta and upper beta, not so much. Marriage 1.0 actually gave them a chance to reproduce and have their bloodline continue.”

    If these beta’s & upper beta’s had never married, they would’ve gone onto become alpha, through the corporations & ventures they create, & they would’ve gone onto have greater kids, with far more satisfying relationships then simply marrying as early as possible

    Beta’s need to be given time & opportunity to become alpha, before they marry, otherwise marriage simply destroys the male, through insane emasculation, & destroys the female through insane entitlement & lack of opposition to her irrational batshittery … ie lack of an alpha to stabilise her …

    Essentially a beta should never marry, unless he’s had the opportunity to become alpha, nothings more beta to a female then settling for a carousel rider …

  150. Rmaxd says:

    @slwerner

    “What Walsh does on her site is one matter, but it doesn’t explain your attack on Deti here.”

    I attack all mangina’s equally … is that clear enough of an explanation, or should i elaborate ? lol

    [D: I don't see why you would think Deti is a mangina.]

  151. ray says:

    Kai — frivolity, I apologize. I went with standard structure rather than checking if there’s already a word.

    hey thx for letting me have a little fun, dunno what tickled me about ‘frivilosity’ — obviously people with my limited mental capacities are easily amused! [mops up drool]

    Suz — Not only are we Disney Princesses, we are Smart Modern Disney Princesses(!) as well. We are destined to marry Prince Charming, and we’re magically empowered to transform any man into Prince Charming. [plus balance of comment]

    spot-on

    on the brit “Royal” Wedding day, many women in my small u.s. town were full-decked in chiffon bridesmaid gowns as psychodrama “participants”

    MY SPECIAL DAY times half-a-billion, yeah that’s a real solid foundation for marriage

    indeed, the wedding’s actual principals and bridesmaids wore clothing IDENTICAL to that featured in disney’s “Cinderella”

    graphic here —

    http://thisneedstostop.com/2011/05/13/royal-wedding-photo-coincidence-i-think-not/

    not all mass psychological conditioning need be overt, nor extend from N.O.W., the A.A.U.W., etc

    very effective, wouldnt you say?

    western females in their FIFTIES still cling to this Empowered Princess nonsense — fervently! and with the cultural and legal weapons to enforce their delusions

    womens’ requirements are impossible to fulfill, and so remain always unfulfilled, which is very useful for our social engineers

  152. Rmaxd says:

    Btw Slwerner you can call it as much of a waste of time as you want …

    Walsh picked this fight, the consequences are hers to face, & people like me are the consequence of her actions …

    No amount of white knighting changes the basic laws of cause & effect, it is her own fault, & it’s about time entitled princess ameriskank women like her got a taste of cause & effect in action

  153. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Beta’s need to be given time & opportunity to become alpha, before they marry, otherwise marriage simply destroys the male, through insane emasculation, & destroys the female through insane entitlement & lack of opposition to her irrational batshittery … ie lack of an alpha to stabilise her …

    This I can agree with. However, it still entails that marriage 1.0 is what is required, not marriage 2.0. You are just mentioning that the male needs time to become his own man, which I cannot disagree with. It’s one of the reasons most successful marriages have an older man and a younger woman. The age differences doesn’t have to be huge but it does help a lot. A family does provide a place for children to grow up and it provides a method to keep a woman’s hypergamy in check. Which I believe you mentioned in a previous post. If a woman doesn’t have a strong community around her, that guides and protects her, she will let loose her hypergamy, destroying her chances of finding a decent guy with a mix of alpha and beta traits.

  154. slwerner says:

    Rmaxd – ” I attack all mangina’s equally … is that clear enough of an explanation, or should i elaborate”

    As it stands, it’s a shallow, superficial and meaningless “explanation”. Perhaps you could explain your definition of “mangina” and show how Deti fits that definition.

    I haven’t seen anything from him that suggests “mangina” to me, so yeah, you should definitely elaborate.

    Refusing to waste time and effort attacking a strawman (and that’s exactly what the issue of Walsh not recanting on this blog has become) doesn’t seem in any way “manginaly” to me. Yet, flailing about at something so insignificant (in the scope of all the Manosphere aims to address) doesn’t exactly strike me as “manly” either.

    Hell, in your eyes, I’m probably a mangina as well. Why spare me your hate. I’m not going to bash Walsh for not recanting. I’m going to simply write it off as the way woman usually are in such matters. So, attack me for not attacking her, too. I’m feeling left out of your wrath.

  155. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    My personal feelings on the Walsh saga. Well…it has served its purpose. We now have a much clearer understanding of Susan’s ideas and what she promotes. I don’t agree with her at all, I have voiced that. I got reprimanded by Clarence but I can live with it, haha. I believe Susan was trying to pull a bluff on Doug. Doug might not have answered her directly with statistics but I believe her statement about frivolous divorce being overblown in the manosphere entitled Dalrock to take her up on the offer she gave Doug. She bluffed, her bluffed was called and Dalrock had the winning hand.

    Anyway, what’s done is done. I have tried here and on her blog to get her to understand one important truth, she still can’t by the way. That truth is that with a ‘no fault’ divorce system, there is no such thing as a non-frivolous reason for divorce. Why? Well, since you don’t have to provide any proof for divorce, there is no standard upon which to base what is frivolous and what is not. A frivolous divorce system implies that most divorces would be frivolous, common sense actually. It’s also human nature. If you are given the opportunity to do something without having to explain yourself and that doing this would entail you getting something for nothing, would you do it? With respect to divorce and women, you can well say that over 50 % of them would. Food for thought!

  156. TFH says:

    I have to believe that all these horrible truths we’re now learning in the Manosphere, were discovered before. We can’t be the first people in history to figure this out.

    Of course. I can tell you for a fact that Indian scriptures from 3000 years ago explain a lot about female psychology in impressive detail.

    As well as in Ancient Rome. As well as in the Shakespearean era. As well as in medieval China.

    Furthermore, *any* society that survived for over a century, and did not have polygamy, maintained Marriage 1.0 in a way that ensured that it did not become too bad of a deal for men.

  157. Pingback: What to do with your broken Pedestal « stagedreality

  158. Suz says:

    “Rmaxd:…Beta’s need to be given time & opportunity to become alpha, before they marry, otherwise marriage simply destroys the male, through insane emasculation, & destroys the female through insane entitlement & lack of opposition to her irrational batshittery … ie lack of an alpha to stabilise her …”

    Perfect.

    Since the dawn of mankind, right up to this minute, this has held to be true.

  159. Rmaxd says:

    @Slwerner

    “So, attack me for not attacking her, too. I’m feeling left out of your wrath.”

    I’m not attacking anyone for not attacking asshat walsh, I called Deti a mangina because he’s been spamming this same crap over a few blogs now …

    “she admitted she made the “exaggerated and overblown” statement/opinion out of frustration with the ongoing discussion with Doug1″

    When we all know Walsh has in fact never admitted to anything … typical mangina marginalising

    Plenty of ppl in this thread’ve said they cant be assed to attack walsh, including you, notice im not attacking any of them, including you? … jeez

  160. TFH says:

    Rmaxed,

    AlekNovy is acting up on that thread at PM/AFT’s. You may want to drop in there and respond to him.

  161. Rmaxd says:

    “Perfect.

    Since the dawn of mankind, right up to this minute, this has held to be true.”

    Thanks suz, im an equal opportunist, when it comes to the realisation of destruction in gender realism …

    Beta men are just as bad as batshit crazy women … biologically & in gender realism terms …

    Men need to be given enough time to get out of the fatality of bonding with their mothers, & interacting in female dominated powerplays as enacted by their mother, aunts, grandmothers etc

    Mothers & female domination are a poison to a growing boys masculinity, they need to learn how to function outside of a social network of women & discover their masculinity

    It is this masculinity & their revelling in their masculinity through video-games, & socialising with their friends, through smoking dope & beer, which is being attacked by these man up articles

    Nothing teaches a man about masculinity more then the team co-ordinated combat of a good video game, bonding with their pals …

  162. Rmaxd says:

    Cheers TFH, gawd AlekNovy’s a fruitcake …

  163. slwerner says:

    Rmaxd – “I called Deti a mangina because he’s been spamming this same crap over a few blogs now …

    “she admitted she made the “exaggerated and overblown” statement/opinion out of frustration with the ongoing discussion with Doug1″

    When we all know Walsh has in fact never admitted to anything … typical mangina marginalising”

    I’ll have to take your word for it that Susan hasn’t admitted anything (I don’t feel like reading through hundreds of comments to try to establish this as fact for myself), but with all that’s been written over this, I wouldn’t be surprised if she had posted some remark that could easily have been (mistakenly) interpreted as an admission. Thus, I found the your calling Deti out as a “pathologial liar” and Walsh-supporting “mangina” (especially without any stated explanation for your doing so) to be both of-base and off-putting.

    Personally, I tend to given most other men (and certain women) the benefit of the doubt. I don’t necessarily agree with then in all situations, but I don’t tend to see there seemingly opposing views as a sign that they are lying nor being supplicating to a woman. It is possible that they have a sincerely held position that I’m just not clearly understanding.

    I would hope that rather than just turning on one another, we would at least extend the person we disagree with a chance to explain/clarify/justify their views (I don’t know if you actually ever asked of Deti if his intent was to support Walsh (frankly, his other comments that I’ve read seemed to indicate that he was opposed to what Walsh had said, and her continuing actions).

    If you haven’t asked him directly, then how can you be sure what his goal is. Perhaps he merely misunderstood Susan to be admitting to something. That could be a matter of an honest mistake rather than “pathological lying” and acting as a mangina.

    I don’t think the heated rhetoric such as you launched on this thread against another poster is at all helpful in the long run. Hot-heads tend to weaken coalitions rather than strengthen them.

    I’m not saying that we will not have points of disagreement amongst ourselves, but rather than we don’t need to aggressively turn on one another at the seeming “drop of a hat”.

  164. Rmaxd says:

    @Slwerner

    Walsh has destroyed any benefit of doubt she may have had, on her own … she made it clear she was never going to address her own remark, & evaded it for over 20+ comments on this site alone … & on her own site, as well Riv’s etc …

    As for Deti, he acted like a mangina, I called him out for being a mangina, his intent has no bearing, he got called out for his actions nothing more

    I actually like Deti’s posts, but the guys from Walsh’s site have a tendency to engage in mangina tactics, whenever Walsh gets called out on her inane comments in the comments section

    Nobodies turning on Walsh, Walsh brought this on herself, she has a long history of attacking MRA & PUA concepts, the frivolous divorce being an extreme example of her deliberately mindlessly defending women regardless of the benefits to women from game & MGTOW

    Also none of this was done at the drop of a hat, Walsh has had this a long time coming …

  165. PT Barnum says:

    Some idiot said:

    I have a coworker who is in an arranged marriage. His family and hers, carefully selected them as a good match. After thorough vetting, they were set up on their first and only “date”, which amounted to a 15 minute conversation, after which they were asked, “Do you like him/her?” Both answered yes, so the wedding date was set. They are very happy together. Thousands of years of tradition, and it works great — the non-working alternative lifestyles having been discarded ages ago. And I have to assume that this culture understands sexuality because they are the people who wrote the Kama Sutra after all. (Yes, another ancient book….)

    The failure points of this “plan” are legion, and reflected in the fail cultures of those who practice it.

    But who needs theory or extensive testing when we have the remarkable fact that people forced into something and too cowardly to tell their parents to stuff it claim that it was a great thing!

    What exactly does Some Idiot expect? This guy to admit that it was a huge mistake but his mommy told him to and he was to much of a little girl to say no?

    Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard it all before.

  166. Eric says:

    Kai:
    That’s an interesting insight onto the problem—the lack of any intention at all. But whether they intend to divorce or have no intentions at all: both stem from the same source. That is the narcissicism endemic in a majority of American women. They simply act on whatever serves their interest at the time, with no thought or concern of how their present/future actions effect anyone else (e.g., men, children, extended families).

    The other characteristic I’ve observed in a majority of American women is complete lack of either empathy or remorse whenever their actions DO hurt others. Instead, they take no responsibility and blame everyone except themselves. I think that you’re probably partly right here; some women are completely predatory; others just don’t care one way or another whom they hurt. Both types are completely amoral. This is why a lot of us men no longer believe that women feel love, in reality they do feel it, but only for themselves to the exclusion of everyone else.

  167. Rmaxd says:

    @ Feminist hater with quite possibly the best nick on this blog …

    “However, it still entails that marriage 1.0 is what is required, not marriage 2.0. You are just mentioning that the male needs time to become his own man, which I cannot disagree with. It’s one of the reasons most successful marriages have an older man and a younger woman.”

    Marriage 1.0 if that definition includes a stayathome mom, turns the man into a walking wallet & basically a slave to a weaker female

    Marriage 1.0 only works in agarian, self sustainable communities, like the Amish, where the women play essential roles in the running of the family, & the community

    Marriage outside of the confines of a supporting social network, is highly destructive for a male, even an alpha

    One of the best things to come out of feminism, is the fact it allows men to mature & become alpha

    The carousel is a godsend to young men, as the pressure to marry & destroy their lives before is no longer there …

    The 80/20 rule is a godsend for young men, even though they dont like it … the alpha’s who monopolise the sluts, prevent the sluts from manipulating & destroying the lives of millions of young men, it also allows men to concentrate on eventually becoming an alpha through their ventures etc

    An important social construct of Alpha’s especially cads, is to centralise the damage sluts & rampant hypergamy do to society as a whole …

    While punishing beta’s with worn out vagina’s, basically taking both beta’s & sluts out of the gene pool, as beta’s who settle for carousel riding sluts, dont really procreate, a two child family is not a family …

  168. Kai says:

    “Eric says:
    …both stem from the same source. That is the narcissicism endemic in a majority of American women.”

    I agree with your point regarding the narcissism. I think it’s rampant in western culture as a whole, and I think it’s a large underpinning of the tendency for women to just go after what feels good right now with no concern for the future or the rest of the world.
    I would note that the action is on what they think serves their interest right now. Frequently the action taken isn’t even beneficial to the woman – further demonstrating a tendency to act upon emotion without thought rather than even a sociopathic benefit to self rather than anyone else.
    The rationalisation is the worst part, and the part that allows it to go on. The standard belief is that nothing is ever ‘my’ fault. If anything goes wrong, it must be because someone else screwed it up – perhaps it’s the parents. Doubtless it’s the husband’s fault. Maybe friends didn’t help. Maybe it’s the whole system. It certainly couldn’t be *me*.
    I think the infantalizing litigious American culture encourages this – children these days (at least the last 20 years) are not encouraged to take responsibility, but to find the ‘root causes’ of their behaviour (ie. other people).
    Remorse would require a woman to recognise her own part in the problem. and since she never does anything wrong, it couldn’t possibly be her fault. Why should she feel remorse for circumstances she couldn’t control?
    I think the idea of looking to one’s past and one culture for influences is valuable, and can help a person to understand what made them. But once you reach a certain age, none of it is an ‘excuse’ any longer. I think our culture encourages women to blame others.
    This is why I believe firmly in treating women as adults. They already get the privileges, so I hold them to the responsibilities. I have come to understand the reasons for just treating many women as though they were children with the accordant laxity but lack of respect, but I think the only way things could possibly get any better is if society as a whole starts to demand responsibility.

  169. Mitchell says:

    “Her even admitting she has a son, would mean admitting she has a responsibility to men

    Walsh feeds on dramatic proses of denial & self victimisation, nothing is more dramatic then her own daughter about to be turned into carousel riding fodder, or the denial of her own failings to her own daughter

    Her son is beta, his future is insured, a guaranteed life of beta, theres no dramatic prose or gina tingles from his betatude, to women like walsh, only wails of why cant you be alpha like the guys i rode the carousel with …

    Walsh as you point out, doesnt mention her son, because he isnt alpha …

    Beta’s dont exist for women, unless they have a carousel to get off … ”

    So we’ve gone from Susan Walsh throwing down a poorly thought out challenge, doubling down when her challenge was answered, and then acting like a typical woman after that, all the way to this kind of speculation and, uh, commentary.

    And here I thought that alphas did things like focus on the idea, not the person. I guess to be an internet alpha, you have to be able to foam at the keyboard as well.

    It’s completely clear to anyone who read even a little bit of this dispute that Dalrock’s presentation of the facts thoroughly trashed Walshs’ assertions. This followup posting, contrasted against Mrs. Walshs’ “How to attack a blogger” post is just extra proof from both sides that Dalrock was correct, and Walsh is a female, and acting accordingly.

    The type of commentary quoted above by Rmaxd serves no useful purpose, other than to let people know that the commenter is angry, bitter, and completely un-serious. Step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself further, dude.

  170. Rmaxd says:

    lol@ mitchell … how many mangina’s is walsh going to send over from her blog …

    FYI I was agreeing with YBM’s comment on walsh never mentioning her son, how exactly does that me bitter in anyway ? … lol

    You’ve been hanging around HUS way too long, if you’re going to spout inane shaming gibberish …

  171. Rum says:

    Guys, get hold of yourself. Maybe S. Walsh does not ever mention her son because he is an innocent child who does not deserve the slightest breach of his privacy. For a start; I can easily imagine a raft of other reasons.
    Cannot you guys respect courage when you see it? She is out there fighting in the internet slime-pits for something she clearly believes in and she is doing it in her real name!!!
    Balls are balls. You diminish yourselves when you try to deny it.

  172. Gorbachev says:

    People,

    Walsh is defending female traditional privilege in traditional sexual and marital mores. Her positions are internally consistent.

    It’s obvious that while she understands the current climate, she still wants to defend tradition, though from a female perspective. All the invective is unnecessary. Tons of white knights think by protecting female interests they’re propping up traditional values, too.

    This whole discussion sounds womanish: You’re taking it too personally.

    Walsh is reasonably professional – and not anonymous – as a blogger. She’s consistent. She ot called out on a few things, but she’s not the devil.

    Get a grip.

  173. TFH says:

    van rooinek and PT Barnum are both wrong, as follows :

    Van Rooinek,

    It is not that the system in India is ideal, it is just that the basic truth of women needing to be virgins at marriage in order to bond with their husbands, is adhered to. The West pretty much enforced pre-marital virginity until recently as well, so this was normal in any society where marriage was a functioning institution.

    The reason the divorce rate in India is low for the same reason that the divorce rate in America was low prior to 1960 : Easy divorces are not legally possible, and the woman has no financial incentives. It is amazing how the divorce rate drops when women cannot profit from it. There is nothing inherently ‘Indian’ about that. Christians in India also have low divorce rates.

    The institution of marriage only works when women are kept to 0-1 sexual partners before marriage (thus necessitating marriage no later than age 22-24). Period, end of story.

    But the happiness levels of these marriages is about the same as it would have been in American marriages in the early 20th century. There is no wondrous magic beyond that.

    And where did you get this ‘one meeting’ thing? It is often several meetings (but still very fast).

    PT Barnum,

    A culture that ensures that 95+% of children grow up living with both biological parents can hardly be called a ‘fail’ relative to a culture where over 50% of children do not spend their entire childhood with both biological parents.

    You cannot condemn Indian marriage without also condemning pre-1960 Western marriage. The European nobility, in particular, paired up in virtually identically ‘arranged’ fashion.

    Also, both India and China were over 20% of World GDP each, all the way from 5000 BC to 1820. From 1820-present (2020?) was the only time ever that they were not the two largest economies in the world.

    The West would do well to study how India/China declined, so as not to repeat the same mistakes (it may already be too late).

  174. Rmaxd says:

    @Gorbachev

    “She ot called out on a few things, but she’s not the devil.”

    To qoute Walsh “prove it with facts, or else” … Any chance of some white knights & mangina’s to defend Dalrock? I think Dalrock needs to do an article on mangina hogging by walsh …

  175. TFH says:

    Kai,

    This is why I believe firmly in treating women as adults.

    I also believe in this ideal. But in practice, I think it is not possible.

    There are too many manginas/whiteknights willing to absorb the costs of female misbehavior, and pass it onto other men as well.

    Manginas/whiteknights are the single biggest reason women misbehave today.

    As a woman, the BEST thing you can do is to shame manginas/whiteknights for treating women better than they would treat a man. This will confuse them, since they are now getting contradictory messages from different women, about what their orders are.

  176. Rmaxd says:

    @ PT

    TFH is right …

    I covered arranged marriages here …

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/well-behaved-women-seldom-make-history/#comment-19110

    Quoting myself ..

    “The underage betrothal of under age brides, is only practised in backward primitive villages & tribes, & the odd ridiculously traditional family in more developed areas

    Also the same applies to compulsary arranged marriages …

    I have NEVER seen compulsary or underage betrothal ever practised in the hundreds of relatives i know, or their hundreds of families”

    “I genuinely find western cultures of mating highly damaging for women & their relationships, due to the biological nature & the genuine frailties of women,

    Marriage should be vetted as much possible to GUARANTEE a future a for the couple & their children

    The fact sexist feminists & women such as dubiouswoman would even support western cultures of sluts & whores, shows how sexist & biased & evil in nature they are towards women”

  177. TFH says:

    I would also add two other points on Indian-style marriage :

    1) It is virtually identical to the process via which Western men go to Russia and find a Russian woman, except with much less risk, since all the relatives of the girl are known, so a ‘background check’ is built in. One spouse just cannot hide major negatives from the other.

    2) The risks are not more, just distributed differently. Sure, in India, some people get married and find they have no sexual chemistry. Or that they have annoying habits that the other can stand.

    But there is virtually zero chance of i) cuckolding, ii) a man losing his kids on a ‘no fault’ basis, iii) the woman taking all of a man’s money on a no-fault basis even if she had the affair, iv) a man being jailed just for raising his voice, etc.

    So the risks are not more, just different. Ask a man who has been dealt inhumane treatment by American courts (like WF Price) if the tradeoffs I described above seem all that bad.

  178. Gorbachev says:

    Dalrock clearly owned her; her silence and refusal to acknowledge criticism is typical of conservative women. She has the moral authority of the convinced yet without the introspection of liberals; her failing is being female. She sees through a conservative lens: It’s a man’s job to serve. If marriage generally fucks men over, this is the fault of the system and not of marriage; we don’t need to worry about it because THE FAMILY needs to be protected an preserved, not MEN’S INTERESTS. Who cares if men get nailed? Protect the family.

    She’s a conservative woman. It’s ridiculous for you to expect her to take a different position. The priority for her is a decent social order, not an equitable one. Her concern is family and children. All conservative positions since the 1850’s have privileged women over men as the protectors and engineers of the family; they bind it together.
    This is the conservative stance. It always has been. The idea of “mother” plays to this.

    The interests of self-interested rogue males doesn’t figure.

    Dalrock owned her by pointing this out. She refuses to admit it. She wants to groom proper Mates for Women; this serves society. She knows she got owned. She clearly said the last thing she wants is more effective cads.
    I’m not going to defend cads – not from my position – but I know who not to go after. I’d advise men to seek their own selfish interests in the face of female expectations, but I have NO illusions that this is good for society. Social orders are built on the self-sacrifice of men and the selfish narcissism of women. It has always been thus. Women have uteruses; men do not. This basic fact prescribes this.

    To the young man looking for answers, I’d give different advice than Walsh.

    But Walsh is entirely consistent within her worldview, unlike feminists, and she is able to admit it when cornered.

    Dalrock is able to marshal facts like bullets; it’s no wonder Walsh is resentful of having to admit anything. I’m not surprised.

    Her model privileges women because her concern isn’t men’s rights – it’s the family.

    Anyone who asks her for advice expecting her to be an MRA or a player’s advocate is a fool.

  179. Rmaxd says:

    Also, Women usually date men, or get to know each other, in arranged for a minimum of 6 months, with a year being the norm, before they decide to marry

    Arranged marriages are very rarely shotgun marriages …

  180. Rmaxd says:

    @gorbachev

    Nobodies expecting walsh to be an MRA, just be truthful & take responsibility for her comments, which as she’s stated clearly she will NEVER do …

    IF you guys are SO concerned about walsh, why dont you ASK WALSH to admit she was wrong & basically spent 20+ comments wasting everyones time by evading responsibility for her actions … ? & then crying about it on her blog …

  181. YBM says:

    “Arranged” marriages are pretty common in farming communities around here one family brought their son in from Nebraska to marry the spinster daughter of another family. Lots of parents “introduce” their kids together with the express understanding (to both them and the parents) that they should see if they like each other.

    My parents even do it to me and I live 2 hours away. I had to turn down some daughter of a friend of my mom for New Years because I already had plans.

    But ooooooh patriarchy I forgot.

  182. PT Barnum says:

    A culture that ensures that 95+% of children grow up living with both biological parents can hardly be called a ‘fail’ relative to a culture where over 50% of children do not spend their entire childhood with both biological parents.

    You cannot condemn Indian marriage without also condemning pre-1960 Western marriage. The European nobility, in particular, paired up in virtually identically ‘arranged’ fashion.

    Wow, did ya know that the Roman Republic was pretty dysfunctional the year before Caesar crossed the Rubicon?

    I’d have to be a real idiot to call India fail compared to the Roman Republic!

    As has been repeatedly pointed out, the super rich and nobility can do all sorts of completely tarded things that would totally destroy ordinary people if the ordinary people did it.

  183. Rum says:

    I was raised to have automatic and inveterate respect for anyone went into a fight they believed in and stood their ground. It was, per se, where I came from, the highest form of virtue.
    Yeah, Susan impulsively mouthed off and got roughly handled as a result. So what. We all win some and lose some. Even I have occasionally sent crazed bullshit off into the interwebs, that in the sober light of day did not make as much sense as it did at the time.
    We are all Gods children.
    Besides, I suspect Susan is a natural red-head. Res Ipsa Loquitor.

  184. Rmaxd says:

    @Rum

    There was nothing virtous about Walsh’s response, & wth has Walsh being a freaking red head got to with anything … lol

  185. PT Barnum says:

    “Arranged” marriages are pretty common in farming communities around here one family brought their son in from Nebraska to marry the spinster daughter of another family. Lots of parents “introduce” their kids together with the express understanding (to both them and the parents) that they should see if they like each other.

    Non-binding matchmaking = Arranged Marriages?

    No? In any case, America has always been a poor example of European civilization, so I am not at all surprised to see degenerate practices like Arranged Marriages struggling to form. Weakened, no doubt, by the difficulty the parents have giving their child-animals any sort of bribe to go along with it.

  186. TFH says:

    PT Barnum,

    You went off on an irrelevant tangent while ignoring the other 95% of both my and Rmaxd’s comments.

    The point is, Indian-style marriages are no different than how most people paired up in America pre-1960.

    Your characterization is just wrong, period. You can’t condemn Indian-style marriage without also condemning Western marriages pre-1960.

    Unless, of course, you don’t think that fathers should have a guarantee that their children will not be taken from them on a no-fault basis, as well as a guarantee against cuckolding, as well as that a virgin bride is much more likely to bond to her husband.

  187. PT Barnum says:

    Then again, I imagine “farming communities” parents can utilize the threat of disinheriting the worthless child animal from the farm if the child-animal fails to comply. So I guess that would be the “grease” that would get things going there.

  188. YBM says:

    @PT barnum

    “Non-binding matchmaking = Arranged Marriages?”

    A forced marriage is not an arranged marriage. Please investigate the distinction if you were unaware of the difference before now.

  189. TFH says:

    The word ‘arranged’ is not the right one, and never was.

    PT Barnum is taking that one word too literally, and building an entire skyscraper of assumptions around that, without factual basis.

    In India, while the engagement is fast, the marriage is about 6 months later, which, as Rmaxd mentions, means there are a full 6 months to back out.

    That is the reality.

    Now, if PT Barnum saw some documentary somewhere about child brides in the tribal regions of India, that could be the basis of the misconception.

  190. PT Barnum says:

    The point is, Indian-style marriages are no different than how most people paired up in America pre-1960.

    So, most people in pre-1960 America met their spouse like this:

    After thorough vetting, they were set up on their first and only “date”, which amounted to a 15 minute conversation, after which they were asked, “Do you like him/her?” Both answered yes, so the wedding date was set.

    That’s nice.

    I knew most people were totally corrupt, but this is exciting!

    Maybe I’ll start posting “Looking for Light Skinned Man of Caste X” ads from Hindu websites if you keep this up!

  191. Rum says:

    I am a natural red-head. There are some things that cannot be taught. Or imagined- for that matter unless you have the Gift…
    Winston S. Churchill
    William Barret Travis
    Alexander the Great
    Davy Crockett
    A naked 12 year old Susan Walsh

    How can I get up any hatred towards her?.

  192. TFH says:

    PT Barnum,

    I already wrote that Van Rooinek was wrong about that. But you ignored that as well as comments from Rmaxd and YBM, as it did not fit your fictitious narrative.

    You are deliberately being dishonest and evasive, and are more interested in fiction than facts.

    Again, it seems you don’t value a system that protects men from :
    i) Cuckolding
    ii) Divorce theft and alimony through no fault of his own.
    iii) Loss of children

    ..as well as ensures that children grow up with both biological parents.

    What type of anti-feminist does not value such protections? What type of anti-feminist thinks it is terrible when the risks are more evenly distributed between the man and woman (vs. entirely on the man, like in 2011 America?).

    On planet Earth, Indian marriages are done much like early 20th-century Western marriages were. Now, in the fictitious world you are imagining, something else appears to be going on.

  193. PT Barnum says:

    A forced marriage is not an arranged marriage. Please investigate the distinction if you were unaware of the difference before now.

    In India, while the engagement is fast, the marriage is about 6 months later, which, as Rmaxd mentions, means there are a full 6 months to back out.

    One then wonders why they couldn’t wait a week before setting the wedding date! Oh yeah, because, and let’s sing it together:
    “Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies”

    Amusing that all the posters either are so foolish as to be unaware of, or deliberately ignoring, the massive and extreme levels of social force required to make “Arranged Marriages” work in those sections of the world that practice them.

    I’ll start with the Middle East, cause that’s easy, and then move along to the land of Caste, India, with exciting lists of the amounts of extreme force required to get this *bleep* to work!

  194. PT Barnum says:

    For the “America had Arranged Marriages:
    Read “Bernice Gets A Bob” by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

    One will discover a surprising thing about European “courtship”. It is NOTHING like Arranged Marriages!

  195. TFH says:

    I suppose PT Barnum would like it if people in Asia assumed that Jerry Springer and Jersey Shore were fully accurate representations of HIS culture, and corrected HIM about what the reality was, despite not having direct exposure themselves.

  196. TFH says:

    PT Barnum is now in “La La La La I Refuse to Hear You” mode…..
    _____________________________________

    He does not value a system that protects men from :
    i) Cuckolding
    ii) Divorce theft and alimony through no fault of his own.
    iii) Loss of children

    ..as well as ensures that children grow up with both biological parents.

    What type of anti-feminist does not value such protections? What type of anti-feminist thinks it is terrible when the risks are more evenly distributed between the man and woman (vs. entirely on the man, like in 2011 America?).
    ______________________________________

    What is funny is that even people who are not from India know that the system is not like what PT Barnum describes (an opinion itself formed with no direct experience in the society he condemns).

  197. YBM says:

    For most North Americans the limits of their exposure to arranged marriage is probably that episode of the Simpsons with Apu getting forcibly married to his wife. I am not Indian so I will have to leave it to Indians to describe it.

  198. Kai says:

    “TFH says:
    Kai,
    This is why I believe firmly in treating women as adults.
    I also believe in this ideal. But in practice, I think it is not possible…”

    Granted, what I believe in is not always possible. I *do* think that it is worthwhile to work that way even when it is undermined by others. Someone needs to start. Even if the woman in question might have impenetrable armour of rationalization, others might think on the display. Or perhaps I’m just being stubborn in my principle, even in futility? I can admit the possibility.
    I am not a very traditional person – just a fan of logic and rationality. I have made clear that I expect to be treated as an equal in both rights and responsibilities, and call out female friends on their double standard expectations*. I call out men who try to afford me privilege they would not a man, and recommend that women who demand special treatment aren’t worth it. But I feel for the guy who just wants a girl to date and is horribly lost as to how to treat her. I find myself rather glad to be not a man, sometimes, because I’d be very very alone. Women are just not worth it.

    *I think a woman can expect to be picked up and have dinner paid for, and get a jacket – as long as also expects to be a lesser who needs to be taken care of, and whose opinion is unimportant, and who will expect to have kids and take care of them and the home. I think there are enough different people out there that those who prefer traditional roles and those interested in less traditional lifestyles can find each other – but you can’t pick and choose the rights of one without its responsibilities.

  199. PT Barnum says:

    But before our tour of Massive and Extreme Force Used To Make Arranged Marriages Work over the weekend, let’s have a short interlude where only the most obvious failure points of Arranged Marriages are listed:

    1.Bio-chemical compatibility is “automatically” handled by any system that gives young people face time with members of the opposite sex and gives them some part in choosing. Church Mixers, family get togethers, deliberate Social Mixers and whatever. The parents apparently achieve this by… well they don’t. Period.

    2.Visual preferences of the man is “automatically” handled by the systems given the young some choice. It is within the realm of possibility that high-end parents could do a reasonably well job at this. But it is certain that they will mis-rank at least somewhat. And complete fail is easy to achieve.

    3.Mommy choosing a “good family” because the increased status makes her status monkey happy. Well, at least SOMEONE is getting happiness from the marriage, eh? Maybe a little problem with a few very good mothers, all the way to “only factored considered” with a few bad ones.

    4.Daddy choosing “big dowry” or “makes connections in business world” or whatever other advantage he is grasping for. Well, at least SOMEONE is getting happiness from the marriage, eh? Maybe a little problem with a few very good fathers, all the way to “only factored considered” with a few bad ones.

    5.Parents have to use their vast and detailed knowledge of the human mind in order “model” how their child(who they may not know so well at all) and the other person(who they DO NOT know so well) will get along. I have no doubt the father who is a janitor and the mother who cleans homes for a living will knock this out of the park. Da Vinci himself would be humbled before their detailed and vast understanding of the human mind!

    This is the “Hee-Hee” item, in case you aren’t paying attention.

    6.As the free-marketers who never stop screaming in our face like to point out, people are more interested in items that directly effect them. It is easy to focus the young to seriously consider their options for marriage with a focus and attention that only the best parents can copy. Copy that is. Yes, yes, I know that today’s culture screams in the young’s face not to take such choices seriously. And why is that necessary? Well, the Free Market tells us why! Cultures which haven’t fully degenerated knock this out of the park by making sure that young people know choosing a mate FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES is important. It really isn’t all that hard.

    That’s the short list.

  200. Rmaxd says:

    @PT

    “So I am not at all surprised to see degenerate practices like Arranged Marriages struggling to form”

    Erm what makes you think arranged marriages are degenerate? Apart from a racial perspective?

    Do you really want me to post some stats before arranged marriages are consumated or something ?

    If you have a point PT state it …

  201. Rmaxd says:

    @Rum


    A naked 12 year old Susan Walsh

    How can I get up any hatred towards her?.”

    Wtf …

  202. TFH says:

    What is funny is that in the West, the men who are most attracted to the idea of Indian-style marriages are those who know the most about female psychology (the Game crowd) or those who were brutalized in divorce court.

    The men who know the full psychology behind sluts riding the carousel before harvesting a beta, women who like ‘eat, pray, love’, women who think single motherhood is empowering, etc., are the men who fully appreciate the protections of traditional systems like India or pre-1960s America.

    Roissy even wrote about ‘these are the customs a culture SHOULD have if they want to prevent A, B, C, D, and E types of feral female dysfunction.’ The ideas he had looked remarkably familiar.
    _____________________________________________

    It is sad that PT Barnum can take an episode of The Simpsons so literally, and build a skyscraper of patently false beliefs about the real world from a television cartoon.

    Additionally, his hatred of the Indian system seems indistinguishable from the way a feminist would rail against ‘the patriarchy’. He can’t possibly think the system is oppressive to men given what happens to men in US Marriage 2.0, so his revulsion must be based on some perceived oppression of women, and his need to whiteknight them.

    I mean, why else would he hate a system that is clearly much safer for men?

  203. Rmaxd says:

    @TFH

    I really like PT Barnums posts, but I really dont know what to make of his response here … lol

    Bring back the regular PT Barnum pls … thnx

  204. PA says:

    PT Barnum used to comment as “Comment_Whatever” at Roissy, IMF, and other places. He once attacked my out of the blue with words along the lines of “PA controls his male animals with threats and constant humiliation.”

    I have no idea what he meant, but it sounds pretty cool.

  205. Rmaxd says:

    lol …

  206. Kai says:

    This really sounds like two completely separate arguments.
    PT is arguing against a system (real or otherwise) in which young people, both male and female, have their partners chosen primarily by their parents, and have little agency. He seems opposed to this completely separate from how the system works out for men afterward.

    TFH is arguing in favour of a system in which men have at least equal rights to women in marriage, and the society strongly enforces strong marriages, with no concern for who chooses the partnerings.

    Unless we are to suggest that the only possible way to get a pro-marriage / anti-feminist society is through arranged marriage, which seems an assertion (that no-one has made) of questionable validity, (Correlation is certainly there, but causation is not obvious), there is no clear question between good for men and arranged vs. bad for men and non-arranged. What’s the value of trying to debate such completely different issues in one point?

    Whether or not actual arranged marriage work as PT suggests, it isn’t necessarily feminist/whiteknight to disagree with that theoretical method. One could strongly support a society in which divorce is very difficult to get or non-existent, with unmarrieds shunned, and strong support from everyone for intact marriages… but where people still choose their own partner. Just because societies with arranged marriage tend to be fairly patriarchal doesn’t mean it’s the alternative to western ‘marriage’ 2.0.

  207. TFH says:

    PT is arguing against a system (real or otherwise) in which young people, both male and female, have their partners chosen primarily by their parents, and have little agency.

    I know of no such examples of this in India more recent than 1930, and surely does not go on outside of the most isolated tribes and subsistence farmers.

    PT Barnum’s pretense is that this is predominant, an belief he has formed based on watching an episode of The Simpsons, a television cartoon.

    Rmaxd,

    I really like PT Barnums posts, but I really dont know what to make of his response here …

    Yeah, until today he seemed cool.

  208. Kai says:

    “TFH says:
    December 30, 2011 at 3:27 am
    PT is arguing against a system (real or otherwise) in which young people, both male and female, have their partners chosen primarily by their parents, and have little agency.
    I know of no such examples of this in India more recent than 1930, and surely does not go on outside of the most isolated tribes and subsistence farmers.”

    Sure. I’m not saying he’s right. I haven’t done the research myself and make no claims either way as to the veracity of his premise. But even if he’s completely deluded, it seems a lot more plain ignorance than feminism or white-knighting.
    Even if this hypothetical system exists only on the Simpsons, it’s possible to believe in it or oppose it for reasons other than its patriarchality – which he hasn’t addressed as part of any of his points.

  209. imnobody says:

    @Gorbachev

    Social orders are built on the self-sacrifice of men and the selfish narcissism of women. It has always been thus. Women have uteruses; men do not.

    Correct. Men have always had been the mules of civilization. Women have always benefited from civilization. There have never been equality.

    But having said that, men have always had some considerations in return for their sacrifice:

    1. Being the head of the family (so he could take the decisions he thought convenient for the family and fight his wife’s hypergamy). Wife and kids respected it (“Father knows best”) and loved it.
    2. Having an honorable place in society (he was a “respectable family man”, not a “deadbeat dad”). Having her wife to respect this honor instead of bitching constantly about him.
    3. Having a higher salary as a married man and a better security in the workplace. Employers paid more to married men, because they knew that the money was going to be devoted to support a family. When an employer had to fire people, single men and women were the first ones to go.
    4. Having the security of seeing their kids grow in the same house.
    5. Having the security that your house and your money won’t be taken from you and you won’t be reduce to the status of a slave that works for paying a woman that hates you and kids that you barely see.
    6. Having a wife who cooked and made household chores. Not having to do these chores himself.
    7. Having a regular supply of sex without having to beg for it (there was no “marital rape” but a “wifely duty”).
    8. Being allowed a time to share with the male friends (think about male clubs, cigars, etc).
    9. Some escapades (prostitutes, etc.) were overlooked as long as they were discreet (for example, in Victorian England).

    All these things have disappeared and now men barely get some consideration from marriage.

    All conservative positions since the 1850′s have privileged women over men as the protectors and engineers of the family; they bind it together.
    This is the conservative stance. It always has been

    Right but misleading. The conservative stance is that men have to sacrifice for women but that men are entitled to the considerations I have mentioned earlier.

    So-con people now want men to sacrifice for women WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION IN RETURN. They cover this con with “man up!”, “be a real man!” and shaming language, but they want to make men slaves for women and kids. It is working less and less.

    So the stance of old times conservatives is not the same as to that of today’s so-cons. The first ones recognized that men bear the burden of a family and social policy was designed with this is mind. The second ones will never admit that men bear the burden of a family and social policy is designed with the benefit of women in mind. The first ones wanted a honorable father who sacrifices for his family. The second ones want a chump who is his wife’s slave.

    An old time conservative would have been horrified about the idea of a wife divorcing his man if there was no physical abuse. In fact, it was forbidden: in early XX century England, a man could divorce his wife on the grounds of adultery. A wife could divorce his man on the grounds of adultery and cruelty (adultery was not enough). He would have condemned the woman.

    A today’s so-con will always find an excuse to absolved the woman (“he watched porn”, “he was emotionally absent”) or deny the problem (“the subject of frivolous divorce is overblown in the manosphere”). If you present him data, he will deny it, will recur to ad-hominem attacks. Everything except acknowledging the problem.

    So no, there are not the same. So-con are not traditional conservatives. So-cons have more things in common with feminists than with traditional conservatives. So-cons are the right part of Team Woman and feminists the left part of Team Woman.

  210. PT Barnum says:

    Additionally, his hatred of the Indian system seems indistinguishable from the way a feminist would rail against ‘the patriarchy’. He can’t possibly think the system is oppressive to men given what happens to men in US Marriage 2.0, so his revulsion must be based on some perceived oppression of women, and his need to whiteknight them.

    I mean, why else would he hate a system that is clearly much safer for men?

    In their zeal to punish young women, men here are perhaps forgetting one thing.

    The young MALE has almost all his choices taken away as well.

    As for reigning in rabid females. First, what is necessary to make young women behave better than today is take away all their government cash. It’s perfectly possible to prevent a single mother and child from starving to death while still assuring that she SUFFER. That she is HUMILIATED. That her Status Monkey is VERY VERY VERY VERY unhappy indeed.

    Child Support in the event of NO MARRIAGE can also be made lower. In fact, it should be reduced to the “woman and child won’t die” level. Notice I didn’t say suffer. We are looking for suffering. We want suffering. Just not death.

    This is all fair, because after all the single mother isn’t actually paying for any of it, she is demanding our stuff and creating problems for us and has put us in the bad position of either coughing up cash or having a dead baby on our conscience. She should suffer for that.

    And I am referring to the Indian AND Muslim system. Indian AND Muslim. In order to make it work in the Middle East, and keep all their Clan Groups from breaking apart when Ali gets the hots for a Capulet looker from the wrong clan they had to put all young women in burkahs. And they allow “choice” at least somewhat within Clan and Family. And THAT required a complete lock down on “women being seen in public”.

    To get a man to accept his one and only choice……. I mean what, are you claiming a rejection rate of +50%? cause it would have to be if the MALE is given any agency at all?

    I accept that a percentage of time the ONE AND ONLY selected person will have a sufficient level of compatibility that the marriage won’t be very unpleasant. Whether this percentage is 20% or 60% is irrelevant. None of the people claiming the greatness of Arranged Marriages has claimed a “bride rejection” rate of nearly 1 in 2. Notice I said “bride rejection”. As in the MAN rejects the WOMAN.

    So, in the case of complete lack of compatibility, what makes the young people agree?

    I posit force, my detractors posit nothing.

  211. If Aunt Sue was a regular writer for Jezebel or Feministe, very few Men in the manosphere would pay her ramblings a passing notice. In that arena she’s just another mediocre writer on a BlogHer blogroll. Susan knows that the only real way to generate the attention she craves is by writing under the pretense that she (at least partially) agrees with some of the tenets of the manosphere. Thus, Men in the ‘community’ take notice and she has some relevancy.

    Only now is she coming to terms with the conflict she’s created for herself. She can only ‘false flag’ blog insofar as her dedication to the feminine imperative will allow her conscience to deviate. So when she encounters manosphere ideas that directly challenge this, then she reverts to the Team Woman claptrap that would never have gotten her noticed (or outright rejected) in the femosphere, and looks for solace from her ‘girlfriends’ (both male and female).

  212. Legion says:

    Rmaxd and TFh:

    Just catching up on articles and comments, thanks for your good words.

  213. van Rooinek says:

    PT Barnum —

    If arranged marriage is so horrible, it wouldn’t have lasted a generation, let alone centuries. The fathers would long ago have said to themselves, “hey, I wasn’t happy, I don’t want to inflict that on my son”, and would subvert the system. As for the biochemistry, yes the couple does meet, briefly — enough time to assess waist/hip ratio and smell the pheromones and MHC compatibility — and they do have the option to back out, at least in the Hindu culture. (Brutal Islam is another story.)

    Hindu culture celebrates sexuality and the traditional dress of the women hugs the hip curves and shows off the bare midriff, which can be quite sexy. They don’t need purdah to keep most people monogamous. And my coworker has been in the US for 20 years, they have had plenty of time and freedom to divorce under the laws of Californistan if they wish. They have not done so. In fairness, however, I must concede this: I’ve met his wife at corporate functions, and even in her 40s she’s smokin’ hot. Maybe not all men in arranged marriages are so happy!

    Imnbody —

    Men have always had been the mules of civilization. Women have always benefited from civilization. There have never been equality. But having said that, men have always had some considerations in return for their sacrifice:
    1. Being the head of the family…
    2. Having an honorable place in society…

    I love your list, except for Item 9 which is unscriptural.

    So-con people now want men to sacrifice for women WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION IN RETURN. They cover this con with “man up!”, “be a real man!”……old times conservatives … recognized that men bear the burden of a family and social policy was designed with this is mind. The second ones will never admit that men bear the burden of a family and social policy is designed with the benefit of women in mind. The first ones wanted a honorable father who sacrifices for his family. The second ones want a chump who is his wife’s slave.

    There are indeed plenty of people who think this way, but none that I know are so-cons. To the extent that you do hear the “man up” nonsense from socons (eg, Rev Mohler of the So Baptist Convention), it’s less about wanting to enslave men, and more about (a) compassion for lonely single women, women who want to marry, particularly in their congregations, combined with (b) an apparent IGNORANCE of what’s really going on in the sexual marketplace and especially the divorce courts.

    Whence this ignorance? Most pastors are “alphas” — if only by virtue of their pastoral office and attendant status — who easily marry the hottest chick in church at age 21. This is probably why they seem to have no clue how incredibly difficult it is for the average Christian guy to get married, or to stay married. Case in point: I once attended a church of over 1000 people, 70% single, with a fairly even sex ratio. You’d think that a lot of marriages would be happening, but no. Part of the problem was that horrible “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” madness that made the rounds in the late 90’s, but there was more to it than that.

    One time, the leader of the women’s ministry showed up at the men’s ministry meeting, and gave a scathing “man up” speech to the men, blaming them for the fact that all these lonely lovely young women were still single, and exhorting them to get off their lazy @$$es and ask the girls out. From what I hear, a lot of the guys took this to heart, and a lot of invitations for dates were extended over the next several weeks…. and just about all of them were turned down. And listening to the women I know why: This was Malibu…. the Malibu Vineyard Church (which, BTW, no longer exists), and all of these girls were holding out for Malibu millionaires, preferably actors or rock stars who happened to be good Christians… Simply put, the problem was runaway hypergamy. There were plenty of good solid Christian men, willing to date, willing to marry… but the women found almost all of them unacceptable, mostly for bogus reasons.

    In other words, the so cons correctly lament the decline of marriage but they are blaming the wrong sex. It’s mostly the unavailable, overentitled, pathologically hypergamous WOMEN that are creating the marriage deficit. So-cons are often blinded to this by their hereditary chivalry. But this doesn’t make them feminists by any stretch; if anything the alliance is accidental, and is repudiated as soon as it is understood.

  214. van Rooinek says:

    PS…

    all of these girls were holding out for Malibu millionaires, preferably actors or rock stars who happened to be good Christians…

    There actually really were a FEW such men in that church… names you’d know… so the women’s desire for such a guy was not totally impossible. But there weren’t enough to go around, nowhere near. Most of the women would have to “settle” for ordinary guys with normal jobsif they wanted to get married.

    As it happened, many of these women decided it was better to stay single for life….

  215. Ray Manta says:

    P. T. Barnum wrote:
    In their zeal to punish young women, men here are perhaps forgetting one thing.
    The young MALE has almost all his choices taken away as well.

    It could be you’re missing something else – that choice isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. I see no reason it should be considered an end in itself.

    Under an arranged marriage system, it was feasible for a man to get a wife who didn’t have a double-digit count of previous sex partners. There are also other advantages, which include vetting by family members, who probably have his best interests at heart.

    I’d like to know what you suggest as an alternative.

  216. Rmaxd says:

    @PT

    We’re not your detractors lol …

    We’re just trying to make sense of what you’re saying, re arranged marriages

    If your arguing arranged marriages are a bad deal for men, if the male married in the west then yes

    If the male married in places like india or rural china, then it’s not that bad, as they dont have frivolous divorce etc

    Yes there are Bride rejection rates, but it still doesnt prove arranged marriages are worse then none arranged marriage

    In a modern day arranged marriage the man & woman choose who they want, parents & relatives simply introduce the man & woman

    It’s interesting you brought up bride rejection rates, as arranged marriages benefit women more, as the parents relatives etc., filter out badboys & other bad prospects, the bride would otherwise settle for

    Parents very RARELY filter out bad women, as they presume all women are puritan virgins … lol

    Hence the high bride rejection rate for men …

  217. van Rooinek says:

    It’s interesting you brought up bride rejection rates, as arranged marriages benefit women more, as the parents relatives etc., filter out badboys & other bad prospects, the bride would otherwise settle for

    It would seem that this would work to the benefit of good men, by filtering out their competition.

  218. Hepatitus says:

    Dalrock,

    By all means, if Susan Walsh is mistaken correct her, if she has overreacted call her on it. But to mock her with “Don’t Hit me I’m a Girl” is cheap.

    [D: Not at all. She even said essentially the same thing in her reply. See Rivelino's comment above.]

  219. Kai says:

    I wonder if there might be some correlation between support for arranged marriage and trust in one’s own parents. I could see people being influenced by their thoughts on whether their parents would have chosen a good partner. i would suspect that those with closer families would be more supportive, while those with poor relationships with their parents shudder at the thought of marrying someone the parent pick out.
    I might also expect correlation with age and family – people still thinking in terms of getting married might not like the idea of having their partner chosen for them, while older people with older children start to think in terms of their children marrying, and love the thought of doing the choosing, and think less about being in the to-be-married situation.

    There is definitely a big difference between being married off after a brief meeting compared to family having an active role in introducing compatible young people to each other then letting them make decisions.
    I think the biggest difference we see in that society is that people don’t date to have fun. They ‘date’ with the express intention of assessing compatibility with each other for a long, happy marriage. Then they expect to stay in the marriage for their whole lives. This difference of mind going in makes a huge change in how they get to know each other, and how long it takes to find a suitable partner. But it is possible for young people to meet each other with no parental guidance under the same ‘all dating is intended to be a straight check of marital compatibility or move on and find someone who is’ mindset. We had this once upon a time, often with parental involvement of some sort, but the change in intent to ‘dating is having fun with no plans for marriage anytime soon’ is a huge killer.

  220. Rmaxd says:

    @Kai

    Yes there is a correlation, but modern day arranged marriages, are simply dating services run by parents & relatives …

    Remember all of the above occurs in nuclear families

    Outside of a nuclear family, not many westernised indian families use arranged marriages

  221. Rmaxd says:

    @rooinek

    “It would seem that this would work to the benefit of good men, by filtering out their competition.”

    Yes for filtering out cads & badboys, but not for filtering out bad women … due to presumed puritan virginal nonsense

    My own quote …

    “Parents very RARELY filter out bad women, as they presume all women are puritan virgins … lol

    Hence the high bride rejection rate for men …”

  222. Rmaxd says:

    @Kai

    “but the change in intent to ‘dating is having fun with no plans for marriage anytime soon’ is a huge killer.”

    Yes, with modern day westernism, its apathy & intent with no goal, which is devestating relationships

    Preferring an addiction in place of substance, one of the major problems with western consumerism & materialism

  223. culdesachero says:

    I haven’t read the comments, but this little skirmish is more evidence for my punch-in-the-nose theory.
    Women just don’t fight like men. Growing up, girls usually back-down from open conflict and move into cold-war mode – playing politics and trying to undermine the social status of the adversary. Boys fight openly, settle the dispute, adjust heirarchical standings, apologize where necessary and move on. Boys know that to challenge another boy could result in a punch in the nose which is a painful correction of aggressive behaviour. Girls rarely get this lesson, so, aggressive females don’t understand the true nature and risks of fighting and don’t take their challenges as seriously.

  224. PT Barnum says:

    It could be you’re missing something else – that choice isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. I see no reason it should be considered an end in itself.

    Then it is fortunate that I have made a six point list of obvious failure points in having parents choose a young persons spouse. This list is by no means exhaustive, it is simply something I made up without trying to hard.

    “but the change in intent to ‘dating is having fun with no plans for marriage anytime soon’ is a huge killer.”

    Yes, with modern day westernism, its apathy & intent with no goal, which is devestating relationships

    Which is why comparing degenerate courtship in a country with laws designed to destroy any marriage that does form with Arranged Marriage is a poor idea.

  225. Rmaxd says:

    @PT
    “Which is why comparing degenerate courtship in a country with laws designed to destroy any marriage that does form with Arranged Marriage is a poor idea.”

    We werent referring to arranged marriages in countries with no fault divorce, we were referring to countries with functioning traditionalism, ie india

  226. Rmaxd says:

    @PT

    Then it is fortunate that I have made a six point list of obvious failure points in having parents choose a young persons spouse. This list is by no means exhaustive, it is simply something I made up without trying to hard.”

    Also your list is absolutely wrong, as we’ve been trying to tell you for the last 10 posts or so

    Modern day arranged marriages are simply dating services by families & relatives, there is no forced marriage or shotgun weddings

    There are the odd highly traditional family who still practise forced marriages, but they’re ridiculously rare …

  227. TFH says:

    Rmaxd,

    Also your list is absolutely wrong, as we’ve been trying to tell you for the last 10 posts or so.

    You can’t reason with someone who thinks an episode of the Simpsons is sufficient material upon which to become *such* an expert on a culture as to correct people from that culture.

    Plus, even the non-Indians know enough about India to know he is mischaracterizing it.

    People with a grasp of Game and male/female dynamics can judge pretty quickly whether a married couple is happy or not. One could go to any Indian gathering in the US, and observe the couples, and then do the same at an SWPL Marriage 2.0 gathering. The average Indian marital happiness will be slightly higher.

    But in PT Barnum’s world, since *some* of the Indians are unhappy, the entire system must be bad! The Simpson’s episode said so!

    Ray Manta,

    I’d like to know what you suggest as an alternative.

    It is unlikely he will answer this question, and if he does, it will be with a hypothetical rather than a system that exists in any actual country.

    A variant of Dalrock’s Law is evident from this display :

    The more obvious of a reality that a person is in denial of, the more they will dodge logical points presented to them, avoid simple questions, and double down on disproved beliefs.

  228. Kai says:

    “TFH says:
    People with a grasp of Game and male/female dynamics can judge pretty quickly whether a married couple is happy or not. One could go to any Indian gathering in the US, and observe the couples, and then do the same at an SWPL Marriage 2.0 gathering. The average Indian marital happiness will be slightly higher.”

    Part of the happiness might be the expectations. When you go into a marriage planning to care for your spouse, and work together to build a family and a society, you’re a lot more likely to wind up satisfied than a western woman planning her fairytale with a passionate prince charming who is madly in love from the beginning and never argues. This isn’t a matter of how the partners met so much as what the society around them teaches, but listening to expectations people have for marriage being nothing but awesome makes it pretty obvious why problems begin when reality shows up.

  229. Susan’s mission is getting love for girls, as Roissy’s mission is getting sex for guys.

    Of course, when the official lies favor girls, this means that Roissy’s mission is to spread the truth, while Susan’s mission requires her to be rather selective about what truths are mentioned on her blog.

  230. DukesD says:

    Reading some of these comments, I’m reminded of a story from a couple months ago. Background – I’m not a huge dude, but I’m 6’2 180, and played a D1 sport in college. Decent size.

    At a not-too-crowded bar playing darts with a girl I’m casually seeing, and while I’m standing still a girl in 3″ heels steps on my feet and says nothing. I tell her to “Watch where you step” in a perhaps not very nice tone, and turn back to my game. My date informs me a minute later that the girl is now trying to get her male friend to fight me over it. The guy is about my size, probably same weight but a couple inches shorter. He approaches me, and right away I can tell that he isn’t looking for a fight, but is being put up to this by this girl. I look them in the eye, don’t back down but am also not confrontational and he departs no problem.

    If me and the guy had fought, what is the likely outcome? Cops come, one of us ends up moderately hurt, the other with cuts and bruises. And it could be a lot worse. All because a girl wanted to not appear like she let some guy tell her what to do.

  231. Ecclesiastes says:

    @greyghost 27Dec

    You are inferring that I mean to protect a woman. I understand your inclination, but I didn’t say that on purpose. Men also protect ideas. Men also protect their friends.

    My point, more completely, is that men fight ( contend ) for something other than themselves.

    “Blue Pill” thinking is to let someone else chose that thing. Someone who probably has little concern what the cost to a man is for giving that protection. Someone like … oh … tradcons? I think that is the term used here. I ridicule White Knights as I find them.

    RooshV is working to protect something, he is fighting for something. I say this only as recognition of fact, devoid of moral judgement.

    Dalrock is working to protect something, he is fighting for something. I say this only as recognition of fact, devoid of moral judgement.

    I haven’t run into enough to form a conclusion, but manginas don’t seem to protecting anything. It looks like they’re just doing what they’ve been told. They scurry away too quickly for me to think they’re committed to anything.

    A pussyhound on the hunt isn’t a dangerous thing. Being “Alpha” has nothing to do with being a man.

    Women don’t get this … at all. They mimic the males that prey on them and think themselves “just like men”. They stride forth shouting that players ought to man up and marry them. They cry in confusion when they get what “brave” boys have always gotten: a farmer’s shotgun load of rock salt in their rears.

  232. Pingback: Updates | The Black Pill

  233. TikkTok says:

    Interesting. At a recent birthday party, my 10 yr old dd was on the trampoline with a gaggle of boys of similar ages. They were all pushing each other down; playing, just having fun. She, being considerably smaller than the boys (and all other kids her age- seriously- she just got out of a car seat) was really getting bopped around. One father went and told the boys to be gentlemen, and to stop pushing her around because boys don’t do that to girls. I told him he should have said no pushing in general, and his {quite shocking} response was- “It’s fine if she hits them.” :shock: I told him “Well, it’s not ok for ANYONE to be doing that to anyone else. Period.” And then I went and told her that that rule applied to her- just because she is a girl doesn’t mean she can push around boys who were told they couldn’t touch her.

    Sheeesh, people. This man is in his mid 50s, fwiw.

  234. A lot of commenters are arguing that women should be equal to men, and treated the same as men.

    But that is stupid. Women are not equal. They need protection and privileges that men do not need, and they need supervision and restriction that men do not need. Because they really do need special protection and privilege, removing their special supervision and restriction is disastrous. “Equality” necessarily and unavoidably requires privilege, because reality is that women are not equal.

  235. PT Barnum says:

    You know, I could mock this idiocy about how “that’s not the way it really is”, but the dishonest will just keep up their lies. So let’s just smack it down for all reasonable people and leave it at that. India had child marriages in the past. Those were 100% Parent Controlled. In fact, that is my example of excessive force for India. Ambush the child-animal when it can’t fight back! Try to force him into a totally insane marriage when he is fifteen… well you know, he might hurt his poor daddy!

    Mommy and Daddy sure were class acts in India!

    But it is so very very different now!

    Let’s repeat the same old song,

    “Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie,Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie”

  236. PT Barnum says:

    Oh by the way, I await the silence of all the “people” who said “I don’t know what I’m talking about”.

    Cause I’m just not getting the infinite complexities of a system that has to ambush little kids into life time commitments in order to “work”.

    I said massive force, and I meant massive force. And what does Mommy and Daddy do when kiddie is 17, hates his wife, and realizes he was ambushed when he had no chance to defend himself?

    Well, I imagine the answer involves force.

  237. Sweet As says:

    In reading this post stream, I am struck by something. By that, I have more to think about. :)

    I run my own business, and my offices are rented from a very successful business man. He is about 25 years my senior, and we really enjoy each other’s company — professionally and otherwise.

    Anyone on the outside with second-wave feminist ears would consider him a misogynist. But, he’s really a gentleman in every way.

    In our chats, I have expressed frustration with female business women. They make no sense. They don’t make business decisions, they make emotional decisions. They use all kinds of nasty tactics (like gossip) to try and destroy people’s business (luckily, business actually functions under men’s rules, so if you don’t worry about gossip, and keep doing right and hewing toward your values and following through, you’ll be able to out-last). And, for the most part (in my experience) they fail at business because it’s hard and they get bored when they don’t get immediate results. Their expectations tend to be ridiculous as well.

    Not to say that there aren’t good business women.

    But, the other thing that he brought up is that good business women 1. understand the needs of business; and 2. are still women. He noted that a lot of women in business not only do not understand business, but mistake “acting like a man” or in a faux-manly way (posturing/aping as you are calling it) for “business.” And when they ridiculously posture like that — even if violence isn’t at play — all you need to do is run a business, and you’ll win (male or female) because the rules of business are. . .well, masculine.

    BUt he pointed out that — as a woman — my best assets are to be a woman in business. Follow the rules of business *as a woman* and the best attributes of both sides come to play. He loves that I dress in a feminine manner, that I will flirt and such with him and any man. He likes that I have good manners — such as please, and thank you — and that while I have no obligation to do so, I make his coffee and often will ask if he wants me to grab his lunch while I”m out on an errand or some such. For him, these “womanly” attributes make me a better business person.

    Why?

    There’s no faking in it. And there’s no “trying to be a guy, but reverting to being a gal” such as the ad hominem attacks, etc.

    Business is, largely, about personal responsibility. It’s also about understanding your responsibility to the whole. I have several people who work with me, and their livelihoods depend on me. If i do not follow through on my responsibilities (paying rent, etc), then they loose their livelihoods. If they mess up in their work, it affects their coworkers, and it affects our brand, and this affects everyone’s livelihood.

    This understanding — as I see it — is largely a “masculine” idea. That is to say, it’s not that women are incapable of it, but a lot of “business women” ape at business, and expect that by male-posturing, they’ll succeed, rather than simply *running a business*.

    And the women whom I know who run the most successful businesses? These women are determined, hard working, and above all, take the responsibility of the business seriously.

    What my landlord sees in me is that I am still myself — still female and feminine — but I take my business seriously. This is unlike most women he knows (and he includes his daughter, whom apparently doesn’t want to work at all), and he says it is a great loss to everyone for it. I think he’s seeing the degeneration of women, but doesn’t exactly know why it’s happening. No doubt, he doesn’t think about it much.

    But he likes that he can call me “chicky” and “chick” — and honestly, I like that he calls me that. I know he respects me and my business. He knows that I follow through on my responsibility to him, and work hard to succeed for myself and those who work with me.

    Anyway, I don’t have a point. I’ve just been thinking about this lately.

  238. Sweet As says:

    please note that by “otherwise” — i mean that his family has been to a bbq at my house, and my family has been to a bbq at his house. nothing untoward. LOL i just read it and thought to my self, uh oh, those dirty minds will take that all out of context! LOL

  239. Herc Stormsailor says:

    Just to say there is so much gold in all these comments it makes my heart sing and wither….the truth feels invigorating but the bitter aftertaste of its ostracizing effect in today’s society is hard to swallow.

    Today I watched a great youtube documentary on consciousness and the fabric of reality by Thomas Campbell, listened a vinyl record of Shostakovich, had some excellent bitter black tea, and read a cool book of interviews with Isaac Asimov.

    Sometimes I think it’d be nice to have a worthy girlfriend to share some of this cool stuff but all the girls seem to be trapped in battles with social mores (real and perceived), trying to constantly upgrade their (real and perceived) ranking in the morass of vicious xx chromosome homo-serpentes, and devoting all their intellectual and spiritual runtime to justifying their appalling decision making processes.

    Campbell describes how a quantum computer works: replication/mirroring/creating,utilising,dissolving parallel (fictional) copies of themselves a well as the problems under consideration. It struck me reading the discussion above and the excellent Dalrock blog itself that we me will always have trouble dealing with women off the leash because women can host the complexity power of stuff that doesn’t actually exist. Men are like overworked silicon-chip computers dealing with unstable primordial chaos-computing.

    Women respond to sabotage, abuse, and repression (i.e. ‘alpha’ relationship management) because they want someone to short-circuit this hair-trigger from complexity, instability, and fictional reasoning (the engine of the rationalisation hamster)… they want a man who’s stronger than the way the universe works. Stronger than nature but grounded in it as it were.

    Not a topic-specific comment, just some musings.

  240. Pingback: Love and light versus darkness and snark. | Dark Brightness

  241. LD says:

    Sort of reminds me of an incident at a small gathering at a friend of a friend’s house about 2 years ago. It was just like 8-10 guys and one girl hanging out listening to Yes and Duran Duran and playing Ludo. Anyway there was this girl and she started flirting with me for about 2 hours and stroking my hair and shit- I was kinda embarrassed but played a long kinda taking the piss but one of the guys siting on her other side sprung up ran out of the room and went upstairs slamming loads of doors and sending violent texts to his other housemates who were chilling playing Ludo etc…

    Turns out it was the girl’s boyfriend…so right in front of him shed been being ridiculously horny with me,and I played a long somewhat as I thought it was just bullshit banter… but STILL two years later, I’m the bad guy despite being only the prop to make her bf jealous.

    Women do a lot of crazy shit, but no-one ever judges them and the guy is always wrong, and you can’t punch them in the head for being troublemaking bitches. Life’s a bit fucked yo.

  242. Pingback: Furor Feministae – Female Discourse Culture & the Pointlessness of Debating Women « UMSLOPOGAAS

  243. Pingback: SMV in Girl-World «

  244. Pingback: Inter-gender conflict in the workplace, part 2: Physical aggression between male and female employees. | Sunshine Mary

  245. Pingback: Boys against girls. | Sunshine Mary

  246. Pingback: From Hamster to Shrew | Alpha Is Assumed

  247. Wild Man says:

    When I was in Army basic training my (female) drill sergeant ordered me to fight (in pugle bouts) one of my fellow (female) recruits. I’d never had an easier fight in my life. You should have seen the looks of outrage and fury this provoked on her helpless face. She lost her temper and came charging at me as angry as could be, and still couldn’t overpower me when I stopped her. It was a perfect illustration of the silliness of integrating women into military service alongside men, especially in the context of combat. But guess who got blamed because she lost all judgment and had to be escorted off the field in an emotional meltdown?

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