Women’s sacred path to marriage is in danger.

Women crave the commitment of lifelong marriage and will naturally seek it out and hold their marriages together so long as they aren’t tricked into marrying the wrong man.  Young women’s hearts and feelings are like the nose of a bloodhound in this regard.  Their emotions will lead them to their perfect match, the man God intends them to marry.  Once they find this man they will not only marry but stay married.

But while women are gifted in knowing about relationships, men can only screw this up.  Unlike the pure hearts of women which seek out love, the hearts of men are corrupt and seek out lust.  Furthermore, young women need a certain amount of experience to learn how to hone their skills of soulmate tracking.  They need to learn how to follow their heart, and we need to give them this opportunity for the good of all society.  Otherwise women will suffer the fate of being trapped in marriage, after being somehow fooled into marrying the wrong man.  The unwitting woman is then forced against her will to kick the father of her children out of the house and collect cash and prizes.  The wellbeing of our future generations is at stake and we therefore must reorder our entire society to ensure that women’s perfect husband tracking instincts are allowed to function as God designed.

Crucial to this process is to avoid the biggest danger of all, that she marries the first man she has sex with.  The other danger is the risk of men interfering with the woman’s noble quest for love with their own ignoble quest for lust.  These men will not only trick women into being trapped in marriage, but also trick them into having sex without love and commitment.

To stave off these disasters we have created the optimal path for women to marriage.  Few dare to discusses something this sacred, but everyone knows this is what must be done for the good of society.  Women need to sample a series of men in mini marriages otherwise called Long Term Relationships.  In these mini marriages she practices the skill of falling in and out of love and experiencing sex and a romantic relationship with a series of men.  Once she has sampled enough men, her heart will tell her when she is with the man she needs to marry.  There is much mystery in how her heart accomplishes this, and only she and God can know.  Her heart is always right, so if she marries a man whom she later finds she can’t remain married to this is proof that she was somehow tricked by the man.  Her heart is the expert, and we need to ensure that she can follow it.  Our best defense against her heart being overruled is to fortify the young woman with the powerful forces of girlpower and moxie.  Scientists tell us that this is best accomplished by having her complete her college education and have her own career before trusting her heart to make the choice.  Once our noble marriage seeker has found the man she was destined to marry, she then hands him a special card which all women have (it comes from their magic hearts).

Click to see reverse.

It is then the man’s duty to do as the card instructs and man up and marry her.  So long as everyone involved follows this perfect script, all of our problems with unhaaapy marriages, broken homes and fatherless children will be solved!

But some men are tricksters and are threatening the entire sacred process.  These players lay in wait for innocent young women on their noble quest to have sex with a string of men until their heart tells them they have found the man they should marry.  The players are in it for sex, unlike the women who are in it for love and commitment.  Even worse, they have no intention of following instructions should they be handed a man up card.  They care nothing that the woman may have already invested a decade or more of her youth nobly sampling men for marriage potential.  This is downright trickery, and the players are putting the entire process of women finding Holy Matrimony in jeopardy!

About these ads
This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Death of courtship, Denial, Feminine Imperative, Finding a Spouse, Foolishness, Romantic Love, Satire, Serial Monogamy. Bookmark the permalink.

521 Responses to Women’s sacred path to marriage is in danger.

  1. Mojo says:

    Women don’t need men any more. They’re getting married without us.

    I have found women who have married buildings, corporations, fairground rides, cars, and even themselves:
    http://neckbeardchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/dont-need-no-man.html

  2. sunshinemary says:

    Of course, the problem with the script is that now we have this thing called teh internet, and women, being the blabbermouths that they are, keep accidentally letting it slip that they secretly don’t want to follow the marriage-hunting script, they really do just want to f*ck around.

    Here is a specimen I collected in the wild, from a forty-something spinster’s comment to me about early marriage:

    Ideally, if I had my druthers, I would still want to experiment with life in my twenties and then be in that lucky cohort of women who were able to find someone in their thirties. 32 would have been just about perfect. For me, being fully human is the chance to make mistakes and take chances in life in the same way men are allowed to do. Also, the few opportunities I (might have) had to marry in my twenties were not right for me, and I had a pretty big fear of divorce. I’m also a bit alternative, and I’ve never been particularly interested in older men, neither of which helped.

    In other words, effing around in your twenties with hot young men is so freaking fun that even though it has left her a bitter babe with no husband or children, a fact she bemoans daily on her blog, she wouldn’t change a thing.

  3. Eoin MacAodh says:

    A thought occurs to me for more secular interactions…

    Men, being just like women in every way, must also need experience a string of women in order to select the best wife. Since more experience is always better than less experience, it is therefore incumbent on men to get as much experience as possible for the benefit of future wifey. It follows that, since being a player and using player tactics would result in the most experience, every man must do his best to be a player in his youth until the time comes for him to man up and marry a slut. At that point his experience will benefit her the most and he can stop doing all the player things that made it possible to get that experience.

  4. “The unwitting woman is then forced against her will to kick the father of her children out of the house “

    Oh, she has to kick him out, because his behavior is so bad, she has to protect her children from such a bad fellow.

    Comedy gold, D. Well done.

  5. SunshineMary, some people do “discount the future” more than others, as economists say. It is usually considered a sign of low intelligence, but the kind of woman you quote may have made the choice to have her fun while she could. I suppose she will have exciting alpha memories as well as cats.

  6. Ras Al Ghul says:

    I don’t think people realize how very important it is to women to be “princess for a day.”

    Which is why they are “marrying themselves”

    I was out with a bunch of people the other day and a woman about to turn thirty was lamenting that her boyfriend of the last 8 years hadn’t popped the question.

    They live together, as far as I can tell they’ve both been monogamous, they make similar incomes, yet she wants the ceremony.

    When I said to her she just wanted to be princess for a day, some of the men got all over me for that, and she came to my defense and admitted that is exactly what she wants.

    Its like the best birthday party ever, with ponies and everything.

    Simple as that

  7. siquaeris says:

    LOL Dalrock. Funny, but so true. Game (esp. LTR game) is built on the principle that women make decisions based on feelings.

  8. Feminist Hater says:

    Hear hear, these evil men shall pay dearly! Preying upon the innocent and noble hearts of the huss…oh I mean, ‘commitment seekers’! The debasement, by men, of the noble quest of women to find their true soul mates for marriage commitment, via intermediary LTRs and ONSs until their 30ties, must be forthwith, crushed and destroyed via more methods of wealth transference, from evil men to angelic women, to safe guard against such villainy and unscrupulous behaviour in future.

    SSM, how dare you call into question such astute behaviour from such a perfect specimen of women?! How dare you?! I swear… You really need to be sent for some feminist reeducation! On the double!

  9. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Love that the Man Up card has another message on the back.

  10. Feminist Hater says:

    RTP, yep, good as always! Just what use would the ‘man up and marry’ card be if it did not have inbuilt protection for the woman just in case he turned out to be the wrong man? We really wouldn’t want to the woman to honour her vows now, would we? That would be cruel of course. After all, it was the man’s fault anyway for tricking her into giving him her ‘man up’ card and so he must pay… dearly!

  11. deti says:

    Be on the lookout for young women’s usual statements:

    1. All men are pigs.
    2. It’s a man’s world.
    3. It’s an unfair world. Men get better odds than women.
    4. It’s just as easy for a man to get sex as it is for a woman.
    5. If I don’t get married by age 35, my gay best friend promised to f**k me and get me pregnant.
    6. I need to grow and experience life.
    7. I have so much to learn.
    8. I have so many things I want to see and do before I settle down.
    9. I want to travel.
    10. I need to have something for myself before I can share it with you.
    11. I need to find myself.
    12. I’m just out there looking for love, except when I’m just looking for a good time.
    13. There are no good men. There are only players and assholes.
    14. You sleep with the bad boy. You don’t marry him.
    15. I want to do it the right way this time. You’re special, and I want to wait until the time is right.
    16. You’re going to make some really lucky girl a great husband some day!

  12. freebird says:

    Yes, and the %80 of young men lacking aggression in the face of consequences go without,there will be no detrimental effects to society for rewarding aggression over civil responsibility.

  13. Hilarious! A+ Dalrock.

    “there will be no detrimental effects to society for rewarding aggression over civil responsibility”

    Exactly. Let’s let only the most aggressive and inconsiderate men father and raise children for a few generations and see what happens. What’s the worst that could happen?

  14. “Game (esp. LTR game) is built on the principle that women make decisions based on feelings”

    And what is your decision-making based on if it is based on fulfilling someone else’s feelings?

  15. Feminist Hater says:

    Logic and Reason? The mitigation of risk? Profiling good behaviour against bad behaviour? Weighing up the positives and negatives and making a decision based on careful thought and not emotional bliss.

  16. Feminist Hater says:

    The best way to counter a woman’s ability to use emotion is to apply logic and reason. Stand firm in times of trouble. If you are to have a successful relationship with women, whether romantically or professionally, their emotions are going to get in the way at some point and understanding that is crucial to keeping one’s head on straight.

  17. deti says:

    The satire is the way women want this to play out.

    Let’s look at how this really plays out.

    Your typical semi-attractive young woman comes from a home in which her father is either emotionally absent from working his ass off to care for his family; or is hopelessly betaized; or is divorced from her mother. Our heroine lost her virginity at 16 to a 17-year old defensive tackle she’s known since they were both 5 and started kindergarten together. After this she embarks on a journey to find herself.

    She gets a BF in college. After a couple of months she has sex with him to get it over with. She then drops out (essentially flunks out) after deciding she’s in the wrong place and the wrong major. She returns home and to her high school party friends. She becomes a full fledged party girl, experimenting with all kinds of sex and all kinds of chemically-induced altered states. She racks up a few one night stands (because hey, she’s a StrongIndependentWoman (TM) and she’s looking for love and “growing” and “gaining life experience”). She has a few BFs that last 6 months or more; but most of her sexual experiences are blackout-drunk episodes or hookups at the end of long nights of partying. Somewhere in there she finished her college degree after a couple of DUI convictions.

    Then she reaches age 27 and has an N of 20. She’s ready to settle down with Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer, a guy she knew from HS and who used to hang out at the parties. He’s traveling with his band. She’s staying at their shitty apartment, supporting him. He cheats on her whenever she can. He gives her a sexual disease. She has had enough of his maltreatment and finally breaks up with him.

    She’s 29, with a high N and a “I’m a serious bitch who don’t take no shit from any man” and “you go grrrrrl” attitude. She’s now ready to find a provider who can support the child(ren) she wants (whether he actually sires that child is another story). She will play at Happy Homemaker and fake it as long as she can. The real story comes out after the wedding vows are spoken. She then decides she’s in charge.

    Anyone here wanna wife that up?

  18. AJ Miller says:

    A friend of mine is getting married in a few months. Of course they are both Christians. I went out to dinner with him last week and got to meet his future wife for the first time. She is in her 40′s and never been married. During the conversation she made references to having gone out of town sometime in the past to a certain city because she was dating some guy from there long distance. Maybe it is me but I found that to be troubling. Why bring another guy that she dated into the conversation if she is so madly in love with my friend to the point that she will marry him?

    Maybe I am too picky but I find women, even in churches, to not think anything about making references about past boyfriends or even about having engaged in a sinful lifestyle. Many are even proud of such a lifestyle and say that it made them who they are now (implying that God had something to do with it).

    Most men it seems, especially in the churches, don’t seem troubled by this at all. I am for sure.

    I wish my friend the best of luck. He may need it.

  19. Let’s look at how this really plays out (college graduate version).

    Your typical semi-attractive young woman comes from a home in which her father is either emotionally absent from working his ass off to care for his family; or is hopelessly betaized; or is divorced from her mother. Our heroine lost her virginity at 16 to a 17-year old defensive tackle she’s known since they were both 5 and started kindergarten together. After this she embarks on a journey to find herself.

    She enrolls in a decent but expensive university and starts acruing student loan debt. While studying to get a degree in English literature she drunken hook-up sex at least a dozen times and does not get a long-term boyfriend. After graduation, she lands an entry level job in “marketing” for a large SEO company in an expensive city where she finds a tiny apartment in a marginal neighborhood.

    She and her new gal-pal colleagues party a lot on weekends and our heroine continues with drunken hookups with quite a few fellows with confidence and edginess who she meets in nightclubs and at parties. But the student loan payments are huge and the partying bills are not cheap. Oddly, the men she has sex with don’t buy her drinks and the few men who do buy the drinks aren’t confident and edgy, they’re just creepy.

    Then she reaches age 28 and has an N of well over 25. She’s ready to settle down but certainly not with Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer, a guy she met at a nightclub and the one who has sex with her most often. He’s traveling with his band and never pays for anything when they’re together. She’s getting tired of always being hard up for cash. Each time she got a raise, she simply bought more stuff or moved to bigger place. She’s also thinking about babies and families and more “adult” stuff like that.

    Now she’s 29, with a very high N and a “I’m a serious career woman who takes no shit from any man” and “you go grrrrrl” attitude. She’s ready to find a provider who can support the child(ren) she wants (whether he actually sires that child is another story). She will play at Happy Homemaker and fake it as long as she can. The real story comes out after the wedding vows are spoken. She then decides she’s in charge.

    Anyone here wanna wife that up?

  20. Jon says:

    LMAO! Great post. Incidently, when women do marry themselves (taking figures from UK civil partnership breakups) they divorce at the same rate as hetrosexual couples divorce – male couples according to the stats, are more committed.

  21. Anon E Myshkin says:

    DC: I suppose she will have exciting alpha memories as well as cats.

    How Many Cats Should I Have?
    (version for women)

    start at 2
    did you have a pet cat as a child? (add 1)
    did you grow up in a single mom family? (add 1)
    did you lose your virginity while a minor? (add 2)
    were you sodomized while a minor? (add 2)
    are you over 40 years old? (add 1)
    are you post menopausal? (add 1)
    have you ever pulled a train? (add 3)
    have you ever been married? (subtract 1)
    do any of your children live with you? (reset to 2)
    do you cohabitate with a man? (reset to 1)
    are you married? (ask your husband for the answer)
    are you married with no husband? (does not compute)

    How Many Cats Should I Have?
    (version for men)

    start at 0
    do you want a cat? (add 1)

  22. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. How do I buy Dalrock a beer?

  23. Suz says:

    “…have you ever pulled a train? (add 3)”
    Speaking of falling off a chair laughing!

  24. El Bastardo says:

    LOL, the golden year is possibly 2042, marriage will not be around before that probably? Why should men agree to marriage now, it is a guarantee that they will give theirall; women will take their all, and just leave him with the bag.

    His sole consolation is that one day, in a bried respite from riding the carousel, he was temporarily “the one.”

    Good for you, now go weep in your corner.

  25. Starviolet says:

    This was hilarious. I know plenty of women who spent time ” finding themselves”in relationship after relationship. They are all married now. No divorces yet, but college educated people don’t divorce all that often, so it is no surprise to me.

  26. deti says:

    Good point, PM, about the girl’s student loan debt.

    Some advice for any man getting serious with a young college educated woman is to have a private investigator do some digging. He’ll come up with info on her debts and credit history, criminal convictions, defaults on obligations, any court judgments against her, property ownership, residence history, and marital history (if any). All you need is first name, middle initial, last name, current address and approximate age. A birthdate is useful.

    This will keep her honest. Besides, she’s probably done the same with any man she’s getting involved with.

  27. Grit says:

    “For me, being fully human is the chance to make mistakes and take chances in life in the same way men are allowed to do.”

    Men want to succeed. Men fail so that they can learn something from it and succeed next time.

    It seems as though this girl is embracing the path to failure, but she glorifies that? Ah. I understand. She is trying to use a red herring to make you believe that she believes those dozens of “failed relationships” were baaad. But considering that she gets her apparent place in the sexual market from them (i.e. fucked the drummer of that famous indie band, and now thinks she is famous) I GUARANTEE that she doesn’t see them as mistakes.

  28. The players are in it for sex, [ ]. This is downright trickery, and the players are putting the entire process of women finding Holy Matrimony in jeopardy!
    ——————————————————————————————————

    Satire?

    The piece is outstanding. I was let down a little bit by this last part though. Are players responding to these carousel riding women? If women suddenly started marrying the first man they slept with would that create merely a supply side problem for players?
    Would players play with willing married women?

  29. Keoni Galt says:

    People are are all lol at this post…

    …what’s so funny?

    The saddest part of this entire narrative is that this is the script so-called devout Christians actually follow it (offhand, I can think of 10+ families in which they and their daughters are following this trajectory), thinking it’s a right and moral path for their daughters to follow.

    Many Fathers (and Mothers) fool themselves, naively thinking their 20-something year old daughters away at college are steadfast virgins waiting for marriage…but they better get that degree and started on their successful career track first!

    Regardless of the denomination, this is the approved lifestyle of today’s Daughters of Evangelical Churchianity.

  30. Stuff says:

    @Deti: ” It’s just as easy for a man to get sex as it is for a woman” is only true when slut-shaming does not exist.

    Dammit, I can’t find the link to the study anymore, but it basically says that women are still sluts when they get shamed, but they have sex only with highly attractive men to make up for the shame; but when they are not shamed, they agree to sex from an average Joe as easily as he agrees to sex with an average Jane.

    The difficulty which most men face in getting sex is not a problem that you can blame on feminism.

    BTW, college-educated upper-middle class white women do have the highest marriage rates. “Scientists tell us that [marriage] is best accomplished by having her complete her college education” is not satire.

  31. deti says:

    “Ideally, if I had my druthers, I would still want to experiment with life in my twenties and then be in that lucky cohort of women who were able to find someone in their thirties. 32 would have been just about perfect. For me, being fully human is the chance to make mistakes and take chances in life in the same way men are allowed to do. Also, the few opportunities I (might have) had to marry in my twenties were not right for me, and I had a pretty big fear of divorce. I’m also a bit alternative, and I’ve never been particularly interested in older men, neither of which helped.”

    Hamsterlation:

    I wanted to find the hottest alpha men I can find and have them f**k me so hard I can’t see straight. It was fun and it feels great. But most of all, I derived all my worth as a human being from the hot men who wanted to have sex with me. Having that kind of hot sex gave me power that I could never get from being a wife and mother. After having all that great sex I want to make it to age 32 and then find a nice guy who will treat me right. But he’s got to be hot, at least 6 feet tall, and making six figures. He’s got to be able to support me and the children I want.

    See, before I get married I need to do stuff for me. I need the chance to have sex with hot men, get blasted out of my mind, party like hell, and take whatever drugs and chemicals I want. I need the chance to do stupid shit like drive drunk; give blowjobs in bar bathrooms; allow men I just met to use me as a semen receptacle; waste my parents’ money by flunking out of college, and work shitty jobs and get fired from them. I mean, ’cause after all, men get to have sex with whoever they want and be douchbags. So I am entitled to be a bitch if I want.

    All the chances I had to get married in my 20s weren’t right for me. I loved my first BF but he abandoned me after I started talking about getting married. The next guy was so nice and he loved me but I just didn’t feel it. No, I mean his dick was so small I couldn’t feel it. And all the rest, well, you know, they were really nice, and they just didn’t do anything for me. And older guys — eeeeewwwwwww!!!

  32. deti says:

    Stuff:

    I’d like to read that study. I’m not sure I agree that it’s as easy for a man to get sex as it is for his female SMP counterpart. For example, take a man and a woman, both with SMV of 6. She can easily hookup with a male 8 for sex (but not much else). He will struggle to get a 5 or 6 for a date, much less sex.

  33. Starviolet says:

    I think that only unattractive and socially awkward men struggle to get sex. Average men don’t seem to have a very hard time with that.

  34. Feminist Hater says:

    Stuffs, thanks for the laugh. Don’t shame slutty women, they won’t sleep with you….

    Fucking hell, haha! Can you also pull a rabbit from your arse, mate?

  35. MarcoP says:

    LZOZOZLOLOLOZLZO @ Myshkin’s Cat Calculator

  36. Feminist Hater says:

    MarcoP

    Myshkin forgot to add the cats for each LTR a women racks up. Probably add a couple for divorce too. Oh, and one for each baby daddy.

    Dogs > cats anyway.

  37. furiousferret says:

    It seems that these posts just reiteriate the issues that everybody kind of agrees on by now. That women today are not being brought up in an environment that doesn’t foster accountibility nor responsibilty and due to this they are just going crazy with hedonistic fun.

    I fully believe that men given the same opporunities are just as evil and would live in an endless orgy with hot girls if they could. It’s just that most men have no such options and that women are using up all their rocket fuel in their 20s.

    My question is what can be done about this? Church today is a sham. A political hypocritical bs party. Secural culture sure it’s going to turn back on the fun, think about the money and fun to be lost. I refuse to attend anymore, since it’s so syrupy and feminist lite that it would put me into a coma.

    I mean look at Mark Discroll. I researched about this guy and his counter culture church. I sounded interesting until I heard him speak. Dude’s just as bad if not worse than any other modernist church. Instead of beach retreats it’s just MMA classes. It’s like faux masculity. It’s just is the aesthetics of masculine mentality without any teeth to it.

    I for one think it would be the best if church culture just went back say 60 years or something like that. Why can’t the secular world be the secular world and the church be the church and they don’t mix. Why does there have to be ‘Rock’ songs at church? They suck. All church rock is a cheap fascilime of the real thing and I can’t stand to listen to it. I’d rather just have hymns even if I personally don’t particarly like hymns. At least they are honest and I respect them.

    That’s just one minor example. The major ones like feminisim and everybody gets a medal mentality are probably far worse.

    Could there just be a ‘common sense’ church movement where it just goes back to some kind of sanity?

  38. MarcoP says:

    Feminist Hater
    Dogs > cats anyway.

    Men are ambipetsterous.

  39. Pingback: Should Marriage Be Easy? « Things that We have Heard and Known

  40. An honest and brilliant perspective.

  41. furiousferret says:

    Side Track:

    Nah, cats are 10 times better.

    A cat is a majestic independent animal. People should love cats in the manosphere. They are the ulitmate sigma. They simply don’t give a flying fuck. They rebel against the ‘Man’ and the human’s society. Hell, they are the ones that kind of domiscate US. They trick us into taking them in and treating them like little emperors. Cats FTW!!!! baby.

  42. koevoet says:

    Dog > Cats for men because we want something that is obedient and loyal that is low maintenance. Women want cats because it has all the alpha/sigma that she wants in a man but ultimately she knows she is in charge. (If she didn’t need to be in charge in the relationship she would have been married years ago.)

  43. Feminist Hater says:

    Yet a dog will hunt for you and kill for you. A dog will die for you. A dog will protect you and your possessions. A well trained dog is man’s greatest friend. The only other animal on this Earth that shares a bond like that, is a horse. Both these animals have given humans their best, far more than cats could ever muster and have earned their reputations.

    I stand by my statement.

  44. Lad says:

    @Stuff, re: College education and marriage stability.

    It’s not clear there’s a causal relationship, there. I think that to the extent education improves relationship stability, it’s the “defeminizing” aspect which reducers her options. I think that for the most part, people going to college are also people who grew up in stable 2-parent homes with positive male and female role models.

    @ Starviolet

    I think that only unattractive and socially awkward men struggle to get sex. Average men don’t seem to have a very hard time with that.

    What’s your sample of “average men?” Men who are dating, have dated, or are married to other women you know? That creates a huge sample bias.

    The bar for being “not socially awkward” is being set increasingly high, and often restricted to decidedly suboptimal venues for gauging relationship suitability.

    Roosh recently summed up his “game for western women” as “put out a cocky vibe and maintain nonsexual witty banter until going for the kill with a subtle weasel move.”

    I have a bunch of male friends, with varying degrees of game. The best of the bunch has been in and out of relationships for the 3 years I’ve know him. The longest was a year (they were a mismatch in terms of energy and motivation). He’s not a player, he just can’t find a girl who is attractive and doesn’t have serious problems. The rest have all been involuntarily celibate for about 50%-75% of the time I’ve known them. The most gameless have been 100% celibate. These are regular guys, not the life of the party but they can hold their own in a conversation. They are not socially awkward by any measure except the one that really means “is too shy to approach random women in public” and “is not good at pursuing sex aggressively with plausible deniability.”

  45. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    ff,
    While I cna understand your point, I don’t want a pet that’s like me. I want a pet that goes bonkers when I come through the door. Come to think of it, that’s why I don’t want to date a woman with mannish qualities (independent, opinionated, etc.).

  46. Dalrock says:

    @Stuff

    BTW, college-educated upper-middle class white women do have the highest marriage rates. “Scientists tell us that [marriage] is best accomplished by having her complete her college education” is not satire.

    There was a study that came out a year or so ago that sparked a number of giddy headlines by feminists which claimed to make this case. If you look at the study you will find that 1) It looked at women born from 1958 to 1964. 2) Nearly all women in that cohort married whether they went to college or not (90%). I shared some of the headlines for that study at the bottom half of this post. However, what happened for women born in the 50s and 60s has very little bearing for the much younger women who were so heartened by the headlines. Someone may do a study in a decade or so confirming that today’s 20 somethings and early 30s women with degrees married at higher rates than their non college educated peers, but we will need to wait and see.

  47. highwasp says:

    Stuff: you seem to presume sexuality is a social construct – slut shaming forcing women to yada yada – maybe it’s actually just as simple to flip what Starviolet wrote: I think that only ugly and socially awkward women struggle to get sex. Average women don’t seem to have a very hard time with that…

  48. Jon says:

    Cats have that cat parasite that makes women more promiscuous and men more stupid/accident prone….

  49. Dalrock says:

    @Lad says:

    @Stuff, re: College education and marriage stability.

    It’s not clear there’s a causal relationship, there. I think that to the extent education improves relationship stability, it’s the “defeminizing” aspect which reducers her options. I think that for the most part, people going to college are also people who grew up in stable 2-parent homes with positive male and female role models.

    Women with college degrees do divorce at much lower rates than those who never attended college, but as you point out college itself doesn’t seem to be what is driving this. A quote I shared from The Bell Curve in a recent post:

    Holding some critical other things equal–IQ, socioeconomic status, age, and date of marriage–the divorce rate for the high school graduates in the first five years of marriage was lower than for college graduates.

    That college itself actually makes divorce rates higher is corroborated by the fact that college dropouts divorce at higher rates than even high school dropouts (post pending). But this doesn’t change the fact that college grads are overall a much lower divorce risk than those who never attended college.

  50. Feminist Hater says:

    Cat’s pee also stinks to high heaven. I’ll take a pass thanks…

  51. electricangel says:

    @Dalrock,

    Some things are beyond satire. I sent you the link to the mathematical “proof” that sleeping around gets you the optimal mate. I won’t link directly, but it can be found at: http://manboobz^dot^com/2012/08/17/patriactionary-women-who-hit-the-age-of-40-without-a-husband-or-kids-deserve-to-be-alone-and-miserable-the-rest-of-their-lives/comment-page-9/#comment-194396

    Here’s the “logic” in brief:

    The “job interview problem” is a well-known game theoretic problem defined thus: you have a set of random applicants for a job (marriage) that we assume you can rank using some sort of ranking function. They arrive in a completely random order and you cannot know of their ranking until you’ve interviewed (dated, had sex with) them. Once you pick a candidate, you are stuck with it (monogamous marriage till death do us part). If you don’t pick any before they run out, you get the worst possible outcome (spinsterhood). The optimal strategy has mathematically been proven to be the following: you interview (date) a predetermined number of candidates X. You then *throw all these candidatures away* after ranking (fucking) them. THEN you continue dating and fucking until you find the first candidate that is better than all the previous ones, and you pick that one. This gives you the best possible odds of finding the best candidate of the lot.
    See. It’s math. You can’t beat math.

    If only men were “elementary particles,” this would work!

  52. Keoni Galt says:

    I’m a dog man for sure. I hunt with them.

    But when it comes to cats, I have one simple statement as to why I will always have a pet cat running around my place: Better A Cat, than mice and rats.

  53. Cane Caldo says:

    @KG

    Better a cat,
    than mouse or rat.

    It’s all about presentation, man!

  54. Feminist Hater says:

    Dalrock, you need to add a ‘Mark Driscoll Approved’ to your ‘Man up and Marry’ Card. All adds to the authenticity you understand?

  55. b166er says:

    furiousferret says:
    August 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm
    Side Track:

    Nah, cats are 10 times better.

    A cat is a majestic independent animal. People should love cats in the manosphere. They are the ulitmate sigma. They simply don’t give a flying fuck. They rebel against the ‘Man’ and the human’s society. Hell, they are the ones that kind of domiscate US. They trick us into taking them in and treating them like little emperors. Cats FTW!!!! baby.
    ————————————————————————————————————————–

    True, and If you don’t understand why cats rock,

    Read this thing by Kipling:

    http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_catwalked1.htm

    Mine sleeps all day and stays out all night. When I ask him “when are you coming back?”
    He says, (cue Samuel L Jackson) “when Im hungry, thats when, motherf—er!!”

  56. deti says:

    “But this doesn’t change the fact that college grads are overall a much lower divorce risk than those who never attended college.”

    And what probably accounts for this is a college student’s demonstrated ability to make a commitment and follow through with it; better understanding of realistic and unrealistic goals and outcomes; better understanding of the nature of commitment; ability to adhere to a long range plan despite setbacks, problems and the ebb and flow of emotions and feelings; and future time orientation.

    [D: You would think that, except HS dropouts have lower divorce rates than those who had "some college". So being able to set and complete long terms goals seems to be very important, but college itself seems to be a big negative.]

  57. Keoni Galt says:

    I see your point Cane, but as one whose endured some pretty bad infestations of mice and rats when my cat died a couple of years ago, I HAD to use the plural forms for both rodents. I despise those pestilent creatures. After setting, and re-setting and laying out poison day after day…killing them in droves but never making a dent in their population, I went and adopted another Cat to take care of the problem. It only takes ONE cat…just make sure it likes to hunt and eat it’s kills. That’s why I prefer the Gray Tiger breed of cat. They make great mousers.

  58. whatever says:

    You know why “college graduated women” either DO NOT MARRY or DO NOT DIVORCE. Because little Miss I-Am-So-Wonderful will only marry an “equal”… that is someone of higher social status than her.

    Means guy is already in the top 20% SMV… probably higher. Also, she is marrying later. So the point at which her SMV plunges while his continues to rise is much closer.

    She doesn’t divorce cause no matter how many times she watches Eat, Pray, Love she KNOWS, KNOWS WITH A GNAWING FEAR, that SHE WILL NOT DO BETTER. PERIOD.

    The top 20% SMV Male can achieve the same results by marrying a high school drop out.

  59. greyghost says:

    The best thing about this is that the women out there sampling the dick will never try out some dick that is attatched to a man that will follow the instructions on the card. I guess that is a good time to become christian and found some spiritual churchian leader to order some blue piller with blue balls to offer himself up so some skank can settle.

  60. furiousferret says:

    @whatever

    I think you giving women way too much credit in the logical thinking dept.

  61. deti says:

    “HS dropouts have lower divorce rates than those who had “some college”. So being able to set and complete long terms goals seems to be very important, but college itself seems to be a big negative.”

    This must be because HS dropouts have the fewest options of all – and they surely are aware of it. Those with restricted options tend to stick with what they have.

    I suppose college attendance is associated with higher divorce rates (even if they divorce less often overall) because it expands options. A woman at college has access to a wider variety of men, a higher caliber of men. She has sexual access (perhaps for the first time). Having had a smorgasbord, she bristles at being restricted later by marriage.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    Stuff
    @Deti: ” It’s just as easy for a man to get sex as it is for a woman” is only true when slut-shaming does not exist.

    Nope. Apex fallacy. Rewritten properly: “It is just as easy for some men to get sex as it is for a woman”.

    Dammit, I can’t find the link to the study anymore, but it basically says that women are still sluts when they get shamed, but they have sex only with highly attractive men to make up for the shame; but when they are not shamed, they agree to sex from an average Joe as easily as he agrees to sex with an average Jane.

    Yeah, well, if you find it post the link. I’m guessing it’s either 30 years old or older, or it’s got a really small N and was taken in some unusual cultural niche. Go onto any college campus and talk with the ordinary beta man – odds are he’s a virgin.

    The difficulty which most men face in getting sex is not a problem that you can blame on feminism.

    Non sequitur. Please spend some time researching Game. Try Rationa Male, roissy/heartiste, Badger, Athol – pick any of them.

    BTW, college-educated upper-middle class white women do have the highest marriage rates. “Scientists tell us that [marriage] is best accomplished by having her complete her college education” is not satire.

    Sure, and wet pavement often causes rain to fall.

    HINT: There is a correlation at this time in history between “IQ” and “probability of getting married”.
    There is also a correlation between “IQ” and “probability of going to college”.
    PS: Not all degrees are the same. An upper middle class white woman with a double degree in “wimmens studies” and, oh, “literature” is not as likely to get married as an UMC-WW with a degree in accounting. Guess which one rode the carousel of alpha cock while “finding herself”, just for a start?

  63. greyghost says:

    All this talk about college women and marriage is just women follow the feminist herd on the 8 step plan. the reason college women have a higher stay married rate is that by the time they get married and get the I’m bored itch with the longer for a new LTR there sex market Value has coincidently started its decline. She will know because she gets less attention from the guys she wants and she can see the young women that she will be up against. other than that college educated former carousell riders are much more virtuous or smart enough to know life as an old spinster is not as it is in the movies.

  64. Anonymous Reader says:

    whatever
    You know why “college graduated women” either DO NOT MARRY or DO NOT DIVORCE. Because little Miss I-Am-So-Wonderful will only marry an “equal”… that is someone of higher social status than her.

    Hypergamy at work. Maybe I should post a like to Rollo’s posting on what hypergamy cares about…
    or maybe not.

    Now look 5 years into the future, when 60% of new graduates are women and 40% are men. What effect will this have on marriage rates, even among those women who aren’t planning to party their 20′s away? If the trend on college enrollment continues, at that time 65% of undergrads will be women (and if Title IX is applied to STEM the number of men enrolled will drop faster). What then?

    As trends continue, forget about 30- year old women hitting the wall finding a man they can marry, the 25 year olds will have to either “settle” or forget it. This might happen within the next 8 or so years (TFH, that’s your cue, sir).

  65. Paul says:

    To anyone tempted to buy the whole college educated woman and marriage thing, repeat after me: “correlation does not indicate causation”, “correlation does not indicate causation”, “correlation does not indicate causation”, until you have disabused yourself of this notion.

  66. Joshua says:

    I cosign Paul.

  67. Pirran says:

    @Deti

    “Be on the lookout for young women’s usual statements:”

    So, 1 – 16 can be summarized as Sex AND Travel…..who’d have thunk?

  68. Cane Caldo says:

    “HS dropouts have lower divorce rates than those who had “some college”. So being able to set and complete long terms goals seems to be very important, but college itself seems to be a big negative.”

    This must be because HS dropouts have the fewest options of all – and they surely are aware of it. Those with restricted options tend to stick with what they have.

    If we deduce from the correlation of “completes college” and “lower divorce rate” that those people demonstrate a competence in completing long-term goals, then why shouldn’t we deduce from “HS dropout” and “lower divorce” rates that there is success in adopting an early focus on achieving what you ultimately want?

    I don’t think you meant it this way, but it feeds into the “long-haired-prairie-skirt girls are losers” mentality. It’s true that they’re restricting their options, but that can be a very good thing. I want my wife to restrict her options!

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    Keoni Galt
    The saddest part of this entire narrative is that this is the script so-called devout Christians actually follow it (offhand, I can think of 10+ families in which they and their daughters are following this trajectory), thinking it’s a right and moral path for their daughters to follow.

    Yes. In fact, this is a kind of analogy to the trad-con expectation that men will continue to be chivalrous to women who kick them in the ‘nads over and over again (figuratively speaking).
    Sending a young woman off to major in a foreign language, or literature, education, etc. and pick up her MRS degree as well made sense 50 years ago. It probably made some sense in the 1970′s. In some areas it made sense in the 1980′s, but only some. I don’t know when college became the 5-year-long “best years of your life” party-time, but that is what a lot of students expect now. Line up the shots on the bar…

    Many Fathers (and Mothers) fool themselves, naively thinking their 20-something year old daughters away at college are steadfast virgins waiting for marriage…but they better get that degree and started on their successful career track first!

    The Darwaii explicitly suggest that. Well, it worked for them, in a very selective and unusual environment. The average 19 year old coed who gets parachuted in to Huge State U. during sexual orientation orientation week, on the other hand, is going to wind up in too many hookups way too fast. Dalrock’s suggestion of marriage during college makes more sense. It’s not like anyone is going to college as it was back in parents/grandparents day, there’s no fraternity singers doing 4-part harmony serenades under the bay window of the Women’s Dormitory anymore.

    And there’s another mini rant I feel bubbling: how many people here actually have A Career? That is, a planned out professional trajectory? Medical doctors and some, but not all, lawyers do. Some high end financial types do. Some academics to. Most people have a series of jobs – they may well be quite well paying jobs, I know a very wealthy plumber who dropped out of college back in the 70′s, he’s retiring now to be close to his grandchildren, but he doesn’t claim to have had a “career”.

    So what’s all this “career” talk for women really about? I say, it’s about keeping her options open if she decides to dump the chump. It’s not about being a team player, it’s about keeping a back door getaway available. Please discuss, anyone who cares to do so.

  70. Pirran says:

    @Dalrock

    Your uncanny channeling of Glenn Stanton sent shivers down my spine. I felt a neat little goatee growing as I sat at the PC.

    This post should be the preface to his latest book “The Ring Makes All the Difference”. Why, oh why can’t we all just get a clue and marry those slu…..sacred hearts?? I pity our shallow souls.

  71. Dalrock says:

    @Pirran

    I felt a neat little goatee growing as I sat at the PC.

    Well done!

  72. Dalrock says:

    @Keoni Galt

    People are are all lol at this post…

    …what’s so funny?

    The saddest part of this entire narrative is that this is the script so-called devout Christians actually follow it (offhand, I can think of 10+ families in which they and their daughters are following this trajectory), thinking it’s a right and moral path for their daughters to follow.

    As you point out, through some combination of denial and foolishness this really is the narrative for Christian and secular parents alike.

  73. She doesn’t divorce cause no matter how many times she watches Eat, Pray, Love she KNOWS, KNOWS WITH A GNAWING FEAR, that SHE WILL NOT DO BETTER. PERIOD.

    Let’s see if embedding works (new around here):

  74. Oh well. Link works. Words of the Prophet Eddie Vedder.

  75. furiousferret says:

    Putting all the Churchian rhethoric aside, I think that most modern Christians want to be accepted by society.

    They pay lip service that we are to be different and set apart but at the end of the day, most Christians, especially the young, want to be accepted and not to be thought of as weird and abnormal. A lot of the Christians in their 20s that I know will do everything and up to blantant sin.

    They simply want to ‘Christianize’ the fun stuff. This goes with everything and it’s so annoying. They will watch movies that are extremely violent but not if there are topless women. They will have LTR but on the surface act like they are chaste when I know damn well they are fooling around. If I say a curse word, they act like I have kicked a kitten. ‘Christian’ Rock is ridiclously horrible.

    I would much rather just do the sin instead of trying to play ‘not step on the lava’. If you’re going to sin you should sin boldly.

    These are just minor example too. The dangerous stuff is do what the modern culture does in terms of life decesions such as marriage and education. How the proper inter gender relationships are to be taught. All have be subverted by churchianity to help people fit into modern day society.

  76. locard says:

    Made the big leagues with a Mark Driscoll quest post!!!!!

  77. Jimbo says:

    “Many Fathers (and Mothers) fool themselves, naively thinking their 20-something year old daughters away at college are steadfast virgins waiting for marriage…but they better get that degree and started on their successful career track first!”

    Sending your kids to college isn’t the Biblical imperative. It is the reality that women need to find work. Education acts as an inhibitor to long-term relationships. It is also true that not every college aged kid is engaging in hooking up culture. The statistics are quite low that women are engaging in short-term hookups.

    Not sure where all this fingerpointing at the Church has come to this. The Church has done a bad job of describing what is marriage, but the public is doing a fine job is lessening its influence nonetheless. It still does emphasize virginity; however, telling women you can’t do certain things is similar to daring her to do it. Some women will just do it, while many others are not. Let’s focus on reality. Everyone has fallen. This is just evidence that you can’t have heaven on earth.

  78. Lively satire.*

    So now what?

    We have adequately diagnosed the disease. We’ve done the PET scans and the CAT scans and x-rays. We have isolated the cause.

    What is the cure?

    For all the mockery of Mark Driscoll, he is talking about solutions. Yes, barbaric solutions that will kill the patient like blood-letting and leeches, but nevertheless his misguided mind is facing the proper direction of action.

    How do we get from A to B — or to C or D or Z? We are surrounded by ash and ruin. Upon what plot do we begin to rebuild? Where shall we be in ten years, and how do we advance the mission adequately enough to say at that time, “The mission has begun to yield assets”? What is the project to round out this year? How do we act this month? What do we do this day? What is the very next step when you turn the computer aside?

    Continue online ministry, yes. Build and reinforce the communion you have achieved among the far-flung and like-minded here. But also: begin to establish the habits of action. Mere persuasion is not enough. Indeed, an emphasis on persuasion, on the very human propensity for gathering allies, can be contrary to the project. It satisfies our “to do” muscle, falsely giving us satisfaction for having achieved something today, when in fact we may have drifted backwards. Catharsis is the enemy. We are pilgrims in the kingdom of this world, we will find no rest, and should expect none, “until we rest in Thee.”

    First order of business is to put the rhetorical/persuasive arts in perspective. We will not convince this generation to accept the means of its salvation. Their hearts are hardened like Pharaoh’s. Their modi vivendi are set in concrete. A jackhammer may liberate them, but they are useless as holy partners, much less leaders.

    If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor’rah than for that town.

    Cease directing your speech at skeptical peers, no matter how much you enjoy the back-and-forth, and turn to those who retain the possibility of a hope of union and metanoia. Focus on the young. They thirst for the living water as we all once did; however, unlike their parents, they are not yet resigned to an eternal return to the Samaritan well.

    The young do not understand your frustrations with the infiltrations of feminism into the church. They are born without a past, a tabula rasa lacquered in original concupiscence — they never knew a world of payphones or compact discs. You must make a practical, one-on-one, face-to-face, soul-to-soul case; first by example, and then by rhetoric.

    You must redirect your habits to negatively define the mission: while taking one’s measure against the prevailing regime is an important first step to revolution, eventually seeking common cause becomes a hindrance, especially as we age, because the frame of reference against which one first establishes his critique has withered away, has become invisible/intrinsic/undetectable, or has become sacred and irreproachable.

    Define yourself positively. Begin with John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, and if that is too heavy duty to translate into practical terms, try this fellow’s interpretation. We have millennia of treasure to share, we have God’s own life (“and abundantly”) to advertise. It is powerful in its essence. It practically “sells itself” once the right frame is adopted regarding its worth, especially in the face of the sweet-turning-bitter snake oil of the enemy. We are the counterculture, as Christianity must always be. We possess the secret alternative.

    Don’t be fooled by the graying advocates for the moribund sexual revolution. The generation coming up is as bewildered by the anomie as anyone. They are starving for guidance out of bondage. A negatively-defined agenda will not –and by definition, cannot — deliver them from their confusion. They already intuit the damage of hypergamy. They have an instinct for positive order and structure. Young girls want it, young men want to give it to them. Their souls have already died a little the morning after a debauch. They are still innocent enough to know that further down that path lies madness, disappointment, pain, and death. Tailor a positive case to them.

    Finally, consider the eventual deployment of force. Yes, yes of course, the church “proposes, never imposes.” No man can save himself, no man can alone be the agent of his own deliverance. Consent with one’s own salvation is key. But in our lily-livered era we shy away from even contemplating stern measures that fathers only twenty years ago would have been ashamed not to use. Dad’s shotgun on the table focuses a suitor’s mind. (“Daddy, what’s a ‘suitor’?”)

    And yet the mere citation of a weapon of death makes today’s Christian beta tremble and cringe and rush to disclaim. This is the feminized instinct that must be weaned completely from us so that we do not transmit cowardice to the generations. Our progeny must eventually see sissified Christianity as a quaint relic, difficult even to comprehend in the context of their contemporary mores, like the thought of dressing your five-year-old in a bikini once would have baffled a previous generation. A teenage girl and even a young woman cannot manage her hypergamy on her own. She has no receptors of persuasion to provide a defense to avail her in the face of acute temptation. The primal urge of hypergamy can only be met by the superior force of deliberate paternal will. Instinct will otherwise win every time.

    Do not underestimate the challenge ahead of us. Theoretical talk and lamentations are necessary, but it can also become a vice, a vehicle for cowardice that keeps us from mustering the resources to do the necessary dirty work ahead. One of those resources is game. If you do not master it or bend it to righteous ends, your prodigal sons will append it to the demonic, and your daughters will be voluntary victims of its excess. And unlike the repentant man who returned to his father and to great rejoicing, your children may never find their way back. There are no guarantees once an ill-prepared young soul ventures out into the χώραν μακράν (chōran makran, “far country,” or literally “the big emptiness”; Luke 15:13). Have we prepared them?

    Make the transition to leadership. We are under-organized guerrillas, Indians but no chiefs, soldiers without NCO’s, and sergeants without officers.

    All the world’s a stage,
    And all the men and women merely players;
    They have their exits and their entrances,
    And one man in his time plays many parts ….

    [T]he lover,
    Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
    Made to his mistress’ eyebrow.

    Then a soldier,
    Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
    Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
    Seeking the bubble reputation
    Even in the cannon’s mouth.

    And then the justice,
    In fair round belly with good capon lined,
    With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
    Full of wise saws and modern instances… .

    Which are you? Lover, soldier, or justice? A nostalgia for passing stages arrests us in an immaturity destructive of the mission. The youthful lovers need to see their fulfillment in a soldierly life, to put aside gross gratification and unite themselves to a cause greater than self. The soldiers in turn require guidance, direction of attack, strategy and wisdom from above their pay grade. And the justices must embrace the part, consciously and conscientiously keeping the exodus on track to the promised land.

    There is a time for opinionating, and indeed, a real need for it. But the theorizing all must conform to the main chance, a “bias for action,” always in mind for how the words exchanged here will effect a real movement up and down the ranks. Today.

    Matt

    ——————–
    * One should eschew irony and especially sarcasm; they are the authorial emblems of the weak. Earnestness requires a true proficient to pull off.

  79. furiousferret says:

    Jimbo,

    What some people want is for women to wife up from 18+ to men that can support them and have a family.

    Basically they want marriage 1.0 back. They want the working father with the wife at home raising a family. In my opinion this actually is the ideal since it offers stability and nuturing for the family unit and most fits in line with biological gender roles.

    Also, I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news but if your daughter is single and in college and semi-attractive she is having sex. Most women are not going to let their prime assets go to waste when they are at their very highest. The very big problem with the Church’s view on sexuality is their disneyisque view on the before marriage part. They want the world’s way for marriage: Wait until late 20s with finances hammered out and God’s way for sex: Wait until marriage. Somethings got to give there big guy.

  80. Jimbo says:

    “I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news but if your daughter is single and in college and semi-attractive she is having sex.”

    So she is? So she is probably did it in high school too.

  81. an observer says:

    Hi Keoni,

    There is nothing funny. Many of us have experienced the good church girls (gcgs) decrying the church guys for Harley McRockbanddrummer. My first serious gf decided she wanted a career, not a husband. Yet men are the ones lacking commitment! Go figure.

    Then there are the gcgs that mysteriously get pregnant, others fall out of love with their husbands, whilst others seduce the worship leader.

    Too often, women get a free pass. It has to stop and it will. But the change will be messy. Unplugging from the cult that is feminism is itself an awkward process. If satire helps, then use it. Surely anything might at least be better than the nations of zombies we have now, as you recently noted.

  82. Jimbo says:

    According to this, women are not hooking up as much as you think.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/08/06/hookinguprealities/the-definitive-survey-of-college-students-sexual-behavior-by-gender/

    See Section II, Distribution of Sexual Partners, 2010.
    34% of women have 0 partner.
    38% of women have 1 partner.
    10% of women ahve 2 partners.

    This amounts to 82% of women have low to no sexual partners.

  83. furiousferret says:

    @Matt

    I asked that exact question earlier and I think I was starting to think the same thing.

    Churchanity will just have to dissolve under it’s own weight. It’s unsustainable. Men are dropping out like flies and it’s just a mess.

    The next generation is the one that will bring us out of our feminist hell hole. They are not going to want to end up like Mom or Dad and will be the most willing to not believe in crap that doesn’t work for anybody but unattractive people wanting to make themselves more attractive through ideology and the consequences that come with it. At least I have hope the next generation can having a functioning family society.

  84. furiousferret says:

    Susan Walsh, she kind has her own agenda on these things. You should look up the std stats. Women aren’t that forthcoming and honest as you think about the whole how many people have I banged.

    They have this imaginary hamster that lets them get away with stuff.

  85. Jimbo says:

    “You should look up the std stats. Women aren’t that forthcoming and honest as you think about the whole how many people have I banged.”

    Huh? Look up stats that are lies anyways. I thought you might have something else to offer.

  86. furiousferret says:

    Dude, your daughter has sex. Get over it.

    I’d paint you a more graphic picture if you were at Heartiste.

  87. Jimbo says:

    I’m sure you’re draw in your face as braggin’ rights.

  88. (R)Evoluzione says:

    I’d be curious what Dalrock, Deti, Keoni Galt & some of the usual suspects have to say on the matter of religion as a handicap to sexually selected behaviors in men, but not women. Essentially they’re saying that religion sexually defangs men but not women.
    http://www.ehbonline.org/article/PIIS1090513812000219/abstract?rss=yes

  89. furiousferret says:

    Yo Jimbo,

    I’m apologize. I’m not sure if your daughter is having sex or not but the thing is that a lot of women ( religious or not) are and it’s because of extremelly stupid policies by the Church and popular ideology that enable women to become for lack of a better word, sluts.

    Again man, I don’t know her exact situation but the thing is she should probably start looking to get married in college or as soon as she gets out.

  90. deti says:

    (r)Ev:

    My experience is that religion defangs women only if they:

    1. internalize preconceived notions about their sexual behavior/desire, and
    2. really, truly practice and believe what they claim to believe.

    1. Many women get the message from Churchianity that certain sex practices are immoral or wrong or harmful. I suspect many of them used to engage in those practices before coming to religion. Other women are steeped in “religion” their whole lives and get educated on “right” and “wrong” sexual practices. These women carry those messages into their married sex lives. Many of those women never come to enjoy sex because they’ve heard “sex is bad” and “Keep your pants on!” and “don’t have sex before you’re married” their whole lives. Athol Kay has written about this very recently.

    2. I think it’s also a function of the sincerity of the beliefs as well. Many women attend church but aren’t really believers and aren’t religious. So one’s church attendance doesn’t tell us much. It’s about whether they really practice what they have been told is “truth”.

  91. highwasp says:

    ya’ll seem to have a problem with drummers for some reason… drummers get redeemed every time they play. How long ya’ll been waiting on the ‘Second Coming’ now? 2500/3000 years? Yeah I’d be jealous of drummers too if I had to wait that long for my redemption knowing they are getting theirs right now. Hey you know how to tell if the stage is level? The drummer is drooling from both sides of his mouth!

    And what was Jesus if not a hippy? long hair, beard, sandals, he hung around with 12 other guys with no visible means of support, wrote poetry and spoke in parables… They could have been the world’s first rock band, just without guitars or electricity… Which takes us back to drums… “I got the cure for your blindness.”

  92. Starviolet says:

    @ furious ferret

    Where are all of these men looking to get married during college? Isn’t the average age of marriage 28 for men? Are you suggesting that women marry men who are significantly older or that men get married younger?

  93. Starviolet says:

    Anonymous reader- for a lot of women planning for a career is being able to earn a living at something that interests them. Women can’t necessary count on finding a husband who can and will support the family alone. It takes two incomes for most American families.

  94. Feminist Hater says:

    Oh gosh Starviolet, where have you been? This has all been discussed before. Do we really have to rehash what feminism has caused to the family by both delaying the age of marriage and destroying the one salary household?

  95. Suz says:

    AR:
    ” It’s not about being a team player, it’s about keeping a back door getaway available.”
    That’s very often true, but it gets to hide behind the reality that most women need to be able to earn a living.

    The people here advocating young marriage for women, are breaking the traditional mold, but offering the most workable solution. Try this scenario: Young Woman starts college or tech school. At age 18-20 she marries a man 5-15 years her senior, and has children immediately (if his financial stability permits – something she should consider in her choice of husband.) She finishes her education and/or works part-time as necessary while raising her children. THEN she pursues a career, probably starting in her early to mid 40′s. Her income should not be hers alone of course; it should go toward things like retirement, kids’ college, paying off the mortgage (and ideally a few “Couple Time” vacations to keep the spouses focused on each other.) Having an education prepares her to support her children in the event of her husband’s death or a disability, but not establishing a career prior to childrearing, allows her to make motherhood her “career.” In truth it should be treated more like a vocation, although these days, treating it like a career would be a step up for many women. Not having an established career also leaves that back door merely ajar, instead of wide open with a view of the green grass on the other side of the fence.

    Welcome to Fantasy Island.

  96. Feminist Hater says:

    Suz, that’s exactly what my mother did. I would say it worked out rather well. Marrying young doesn’t really mean having no career, it means putting family formation first and foremost. And to me, that’s exactly where it should be.

  97. furiousferret says:

    Starviolet,

    Jimbo is obviously in a devout Christian household and I responding to him.

    Christian beta males would crawl through the Sahara to get married to an HB 6+. I tell you the truth. Strike that, BETA MALES would crawl through the Sahara to get married to an HB 6+.

    For fundie Christians marriage should be between 18 – 22 ideally. That is the absolute top end for virgin marriage. People with options will not wait on average.

    For secular people, I still think marriage should be done while young due to the biological processes which cement bonding. I really really hate the idea of an alpha widow. It’s just damn depressing.

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/blueprint-for-an-alpha-widow/

    You can’t tell me that is good for anyone. When I read that, ‘I just thought to myself, fuck everything about that’.

  98. Starviolet says:

    @ feminist hater

    I’m new here. I don’t think that feminism is to blame for all of world’s problems, but even if it is all the fault of feminism what are women supposed to do about it now?

  99. furiousferret says:

    Stop believing in communist non-sense that hurts most women and men and go back to sane biological gender roles.

    THE HORROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  100. Lad says:

    Jimbo,

    First thing about those stats is that you quoted the male numbers, not the female numbers. Though that actually aids your point since the main difference that 42% of women had a single partner.

    The main thing I’d say against those statistics is that women are more likely to lie about having a lower partner count and men are more likely to lie about having a higher one. The other main issue is that the study included a mix of freshman through seniors, and naturally freshmen are less likely to have higher partner counts. I think that the n>=20 scenarios described by deti and theprivateman aren’t representative of the average, despite their being plausible and real narratives.

    Anecdotes aren’t data, but my personal experience confirms the data in the survey. Many women I know either had one or two boyfriends through college, dated but did not have sex, or they were shy/awkward/ugly/fat, ignored by even decent men, and spent most of their time focused on education and career (which is a smart move for an unattractive woman). Granted, many of these women became promiscuous (serial monogamy, alpha-chasing, same-night bangs) after moving to a big city for their career (and alphas). But had they been polled in college they’d have showed up as n<=2.

    The other important thing to consider is that "partner count" hardly tells the whole story. 38% of men show up with 1 partner. 42% of women show up with 1 partner. How many of those men just managed to get lucky one night at garbage hour with a drunken slut, versus how many of those women spent their entire college career as a member of an alphas soft harem? His partner count shows up as one, because he had sex once. Her partner count shows up as one, despite having spent 4 years regularly fucking a guy who was never going to commit and also banging several other girls at the same time. (Also, how many of the 35% of sexless men do you think are involuntary celibates, versus the 35% women with no partners?)

    There's selection bias in the manosphere. Anecdotes from players of course are likely to be more heavily slut-biased. Yes, it's true that game may work quite well on your wife/girlfriend/daughter, but that doesn't mean that every woman sorts into one of Sex And The City, Jersey Shore, or Eat Pray Love.

  101. Graham says:

    “Define yourself positively.”

    As much as that sounds like a self-help slogan, the lack of positive definition seems to be one of the main faults haunting the counterculture. Look at the essential negativity and vagueness of that word, counterculture. Who knows what it means ? All we know is that it’s against the preponderant culture.

    Even Joseph de Maistre, way back in 1796, noted how simple it would be to stem the spread of the Revolution, if only its opponents would act. Today the fault has become an abyss in that our ‘counterculture’ is democratic and, far from merely disagreeing on method, seems not to possess any common principles. For French royalists there was the House of Bourbon and the ancien regime. For us there’s – what, exactly ? Or who ?

  102. Matt says:

    I was an undergrad not long ago, and am still in college for grad school. While I don’t have x-ray vision, my strong impression is that not all attractive girls are having sex. This seems to be borne out by STD data and what passes for data in the social sciences.

    These girls are very, very solidly in the minority, but they do exist.

  103. Starviolet says:

    @suz

    So the solution is for women to marry older men? Lol. I’m betting that some man came up with that. I don’t see being married to an older man benefits the woman when she can marry someone her own age later. Most young women won’t be interested in marrying some old (to them) man.

  104. Joshua says:

    *Starts the countdown on Starviolet’s exit.

  105. deti says:

    highwasp:

    Here is the alpha cast of characters I use. There’s some humor, but an element of truth.

    Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer: This douchebag is an attractive alpha and swims in pu**y because he is a musician — albeit a shitty garage band musician. Has delusions of grandeur that someday he’ll get a recording contract and make it big. For now he plies his musical trade with his buddies. Sings or plays with his band, girls tingle. Gets the occasional local bar gig and works odd jobs here and there to make ends meet, but is otherwise unemployed and impoverished. Has no marketable skills other than singing or playing a guitar, keys or drums. Lives by mooching off family, friends and GFs. Examples: every guy you know in every small town to large city who ever joined a band.

    Alpha McGorgeous: The good looking, smooth player/cad. Suave, urbane, well-spoken, exudes confidence, very skilled, very tight game. Usually employed, has a good job and earns good money. Better than average in physical appearance. He might or might not be a douchebag. Examples: Roissy, Professor Mentu, Roosh.

    Harley McBadboy: The brooding, tattooed, silent man. Edgy, dangerous, shady, mysterious. Usually rides a motorcycle, but not always. Seems to show up out of nowhere. Has few friends or associates. No one seems to know much about his past. Examples: Wolverine. The character Clint Eastwood plays in all his Westerns.

    Frank Fratboy: The good looking college student or recent college graduate. Might be good looking, but doesn’t have to be. Has good game but not as tight as Alpha McGorgeous. Gets most girls through high status (athletics, fraternity membership, good looks, good job or some other status-builder). Usually in a fraternity but not always. Examples: The football team captain. The fraternity president. The basketball player. The student government president.

  106. furiousferret says:

    Star,

    The manosphere’s national pastime is to make fun of 30+ women scrambling to get married.

    I mean sure, she can marry someone her own age later BUT and here is the bigass BUT, the dude is going to be a beta. An unsatisfactory beta who she will later hate because she is a ‘Alpha Widow’ (She rode alpha cock and now can’t get off on sub par beta cock)

  107. Revoluzione, using your faith in dead-end epistemologies to examine our faith simply does not wash. These “scientific” studies of human behavior are the equivalent of folk fairy tales, only expressed in impenetrable jargon to avoid the scrutiny that would expose them as the fabrications they are.

    At the heart of the scientific method is reproducible result. Human behavior cannot be catalogued like the behavior of celestial objects. This faulty process is only attempted because your priests have declared, as a matter of holy dogma, that free will is an impossibility, or at worst, a positivist puzzle yet to be examined minutely enough.

    Take your examination one level further. It will not do to simply declare you know a thing, and then bury its sources under mountains of chaff which only specialists can excavate. That sophistry tends toward obscurantist, interpretive magic, like reading tea leaves. But instead of the dregs in a cup, you draw your conclusions from a glut of jargon in an “Abstract” link (“Reproductive Religiosity Model”?), expecting more learned thinkers to imitate your credulity and forget elementary skepticism.

    Who exactly told you this was the proper means of attaining knowledge, now? Did you ever question the truth of the teacher(s) who told you of the proper path to truth? Yes, this philosophical malpractice is possible (indeed probable, given their arrogance) with men in white coats who cogitate in laboratories. While you and The Nutty Professor are declaring laws of human behavior like Moses on Sinai, the rest of us have earned our authority in the hard work of examining how we know what we know. For some daft reason, you think you can just skip that round and go right to the finals. Why, because “everyone just knows” these guys are legit? Nope. Try again, dupe.

    Substantiate the authority of your claims, or GTFO.

    Matt

  108. furiousferret says:

    Deti,

    I have a special place in my heart for Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer. All the other three have sort of a natural genetic lottery type of thing going. They are born to just be better than others.

    Not so with Fuckbuddy. He’s usually bullied and beaten down in his youth for not fitting in and most of the time he’s not muscled and is kind on the skinny side. He’s an underdog man. He uses some ingeniuty to get laid. He puts in the work to at least sort of learn an instrument and then knows that chicks love artsy type and makes the most of it.

    Life gives him lemons, he makes lemonade. Is that so bad?

  109. Anonymous Reader says:

    Starviolet
    Anonymous reader- for a lot of women planning for a career is being able to earn a living at something that interests them.

    That’s fine with me. Those women should be aware that they are reducing their chances of a successful marriage in the process. That’s one of the points Dalrock makes over and over again.

    Women can’t necessary count on finding a husband who can and will support the family alone. It takes two incomes for most American families.

    That depends a lot on how much money it takes to make her haaaapy, doesn’t it?

  110. Starviolet says:

    Furiousferret

    I don’t think that women should wait until 30 something, but most people are done with college by 22. I don’t think that sleeping around is as common as it is made out to be.

  111. Feminist Hater says:

    Starviolent. Any such action that causes an introduction of more labour into the market, whether it be immigration, visas or female workforce participation, will inevitably decrease the working wage. In a way, feminism and other ‘isms are indeed to blame for the 2 income household situation. I don’t begrudge women the means to work, if that is what they fancy, but seriously, there’s a choice to be had here, no one can have it all, not men and not women. The choice is between having a family or having a career.

    Quite frankly, the women I have best got on with don’t really mind marrying a man 10 years older than them. Where I come from it was rather natural, some women even married men 15 to 20 years older.

    Also, I agree that women would choose to marry a man later at the same age, which is why you can blame feminism and women for delaying marriage to ages close to 30. The problem is starting to manifest though, men don’t really want to marry women past their prime. It’s a waste of time. Better to try your luck finding an attractive younger woman willing to settle down and start a real family than to bother with some feminist college know-it-all.

    Women always go, ‘oh older men, ewwwww!’ and then go on to promptly date them because they find a man with stature to actually be quite hot. A thirty + year old man is in his prime, a thirty year old women has past it by about 2 to 3 years already and has a baggage train fit for royalty.

  112. Jimbo says:

    @Lad: I’m not sure what your point is. If the statistics are accurate, then there is no reason to worry about the availability of virgins or low partner count women. Since you provided no post-college anecdotal evidence, you cannot further the debate. Certainly, it is possible for the statistics to be a lie, yet if that is true, the polls should vary each time, but it appears to be consistent. You seem to support the survey from your own anecdotes.

    I can certainly provide my own anecdotal evidence. My story seems to follow Dalrock’s various posts. I married a virgin (she was 30) for my first marriage at age 30. She wanted out when I was age 35. (She was trapped and wanted out. She made the marry unhappy with her various demands. She was a Christian that converted me into the religion and suddenly decided she didn’t want to be married anymore. The worst has happened with her weak Christian devotion.)

    I remarried at age 44 to a virgin (she was 34). So I am twice married to virgins who were 30 and over.

    If it is important for the man to marry virgins, it isn’t that hard to find them. I wasn’t looking for that specifically, but it happened to me by looking for certain qualities. Of course, this doesn’t mean a marriage will work out, but my second marriage is lasting longer than the first. Knock on wood.

  113. furiousferret says:

    I don’t actually know what the point of a feminist coming to these sites and then asking questions that she already is conviced she knows the correct answer is?

    Look, you’re not going to get it. It’s like arguing what religion is correct. It’s just pointless. In fact when presented with emperical evidence the natural human reaction is to immediately dig into our beliefs even further. It’s an instinct to resist indoctrination by rival tribes.

    It’s said that the only way for old paradigms is that the old guard simply passes away and the new guard was brainwashed by them.

    At the end of day, feminism will fall under it’s own weight. That will be the test. If it stands. Beyond that, it’s just yak.

  114. Lad says:

    Haha Roosh is not Alpha McGorgeous, he is the unassuming regular guy with balls of steel and expert game.

  115. Feminist Hater says:

    FF, you’re right, it’s like Doomed Harlot all over again. Perhaps it is DH under a new pseudonym? Who knows?

  116. b-166er says:

    The comedian needs a catagory all his own because despite being so good at making people laugh, many if not most of the good ones are extremly angry because beta was never an option for them because it required too much “stuff”.

  117. Lad says:

    @Lad: I’m not sure what your point is.

    Yeah sorry, that was a little confused. I should have reviewed it before submitting.

    Mostly I was agreeing with you, but also making the point that low partner counts among college girls doesn’t really tell us that much about sexual behavior overall. There are still too many unknowns.

  118. Graham wrote:

    For us there’s – what, exactly ? Or who ?

    We have an ancien regime of our own, one that predates the barnacle of feminism by more than a century, and in some ways, by millennia.

    It always appears chaotic and hopeless in the dust of ground-combat. Which is why I counsel the leaders of this effort to begin elevating themselves and mustering their resources more deliberately. Hand-to-hand street fighting wears a soul down. And the men of a new generation are, as always, energetic mobs seeking a cause. Who will lead them?

    Right now, the enervated crones are leading them for lack of an alternative, and in the many places where the harpies fail them, men are led by their animal nature into their own impotence and destruction, cheered on by untutored, reformed-beta PUA’s with a mind for revenge. The game community has made itself a key player in this struggle because they are the only ones with the honesty (and the courage) to see the need and to fill the vacuum! You and I both know that their thinly-justified hedonism can only end in a new Reign of Terror, the first signs of that consequence revealing itself in the worship of narcissism and sociopathy. But to where else shall we go? The choice between feminist nihilism and hedonist nihilism is no choice at all for a man, and a rapidly deteriorating choice for women.

    I agree with you, let’s drop the idea of a “counter-” anything. The content of the PUA’s cause is childish in the extreme, but their courage is the model for men everywhere. They have stumbled across the means, now they require the mind. It will be a tough slog, to be sure, just as any attempt to submit passion to the service reason must be, and indeed, they have generated much of their courage through the promise of sexual reward. That’s what young men (and old men jealous of youth) do. But great revolutions find a way to sublimate this impulse and direct it to salutary ends. Men like to f*ck. But they like to fight just as much.

    Matt

    (Was my comment filtered/eliminated because I failed to strategically convert my trucker language into an asterisk palimpsest? What delicate consciences we have here.)

    [D: Nope. It was flagged as spam by askimet. It seems to happen somewhat randomly.]

  119. furiousferret says:

    I do have one question for Starviolet.

    Just do me a solid and explain how in the world an ‘Alpha Widow’ can be a good thing? Read Rollo’s post and tell me how sleeping with multiple partners wouldn’t fuck you mentally? I know you have some type of explanation but I’m geninuely curious what it is?

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/blueprint-for-an-alpha-widow/

    How anyone can argue that having some emotionally scarred woman that pines away for someone that pumped and dumped her like a cum dumpster is good for any part of society is beyond me.

  120. sunshinemary says:

    @ Suz
    I really liked the timeline you laid out upthread of marriage–>kids–>part-time school/work–>”career” or something like it in middle age. This is much healthier than the current model.

    Young ladies need better advice so badly! Everyone from their high school guidance counselor to Barbie is telling them You Go Grrl! and pushing them in the direction of high-intensity careers which are incompatible with marriage and motherhood, but once they get that education and land the career, they aren’t happy, and they are stuck with mounds of student loans.

    I, along with some readers on my blog, created a list of good “careers” for family-minded girls. The list itself isn’t important, but we laid out the details of how a young girls should go about making such a decision. She needs to think about things she’s good at, then look at potential jobs, see how much education is required, learn about how flexible the working schedules can be (i.e. can a mother of young children work just a day or two a week?), and so on. Why is no one telling realistic information to girls? I’ve started talking with my eldest daughter (almost 13) about these things so that she has it in mind from a young age. I’ve already told her that if she is hoping to marry some day, she needs to make that a priority.

    Girls should marry between 18 and 20. Given the right young man, we would allow our daughters to marry at 18, possibly younger in exactly the right circumstances. Many girls begin to be sexually active around 15-16; why shouldn’t they marry then or at least become engaged? Christians need to change their attitude toward early marriage.

  121. Pingback: Funny, TiC piece from Dalrock « God's Own Crunk

  122. Feminist Hater says:

    I don’t know if Christians would have a major issue with women marrying at 16 SSM. I sure as hell know that the State would. Here, as long as the parents or guardian agrees, a minor can marry as long as they’re a certain age. I forget if it was 14 or 16. I’ll have to check.

  123. Retrenched says:

    Re:

    Stuff
    @Deti: ” It’s just as easy for a man to get sex as it is for a woman” is only true when slut-shaming does not exist.

    Nope. Apex fallacy. Rewritten properly: “It is just as easy for some men to get sex as it is for a woman”.

    Sure, apex fallacy explains a lot of it, but don’t forget male dishonesty re: sexual success and failure. After all, it’s not like a guy who’s struggling to get action is going to be forthcoming with that particular bit of personal information – certainly not around his female acquaintances in any case.

    A lot of women would be surprised to find just how many of their male friends and acquaintances who brag about their supposed weekend exploits have actually been celibate for months.

  124. greyghost says:

    Suz
    you got that life cycle for women right. fuck star she is just some feminist bitch. Take care of your kids. It is the most effective. tell your daughter all she needs to do is smile and fuck her husband and live the best she can with what you have. What is good for her husband is good for her and the family. Don’t waste good emotional calories competing with your husband.

  125. Lad says:

    Women should plan for a career. Comments from men in the manosphere on this issue often annoy me a great deal for their carelessness. There are a few common patterns:

    - Men don’t find a woman’s career sexually attractive. This doesn’t mean a career isn’t important for her emotional and mental well-being. It’s one thing to help women understand this. It’s another thing to extrapolate from this that women should sacrifice careers entirely so they can learn how to cook, walk sexy, and give proper blowjobs. (Not that women shouldn’t do those things, of course)

    - Applying UMC arguments on average women (apex fallacy). High-end upper middle class women sometimes frivolously get their Feminist merit badge. As Dalrock mentions in that post, this does not apply to women who work because they must– which is most women and has been for most of history.

    - Ignoring low SMV women. Careers allow unattractive women to take care of herself and make something of her life even if she’ll never get a high-value man or possibly even a decent one. A “spinster” who is actually a “surgeon” is a lot more valuable to society than personal housewife for a worthless omega male husband, even if she lives with cats. I recognize that not every comment can include this caveat, but it’s quite obvious many men don’t consider it and seem to think that these women should woman-up and marry complete losers.

    The problem for men isn’t that women pursue careers, it’s the extent to which pursuit of a career replaces or inhibits the pursuit of healthy sexual relationships(marriage*), and stunts development of relationship skills. Female status-climbing instinct and hypergamy are also problems, but despite popular opinion those are only indirectly related to pursuit of careers.

    * I’m not as bullish on marriage as Dalrock but I do believe in 2-parent families and marriage is the foundation for that.

  126. greyghost says:

    sunshine
    Christians need to change their attitude toward early marriage.

    The churchian view on marriage is the view feminist have. See stars comment to suz. The christian church in name is full of christian men (mangina’s) too afraid of upsetting the true object of their worship. You get to be an actual courageous mother and advise your child in the truth and not herd popularity.

  127. greyghost says:

    Lad
    you have a healthy way of looking at it.

  128. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lad
    Women should plan for a career.

    Define “career”.

  129. sunshinemary says:

    FH
    Marriage laws are by state in the U.S. and vary widely. Most states allow marriage for 16 and 17- year-olds with parental consent, and a few such as Alabama allow marriage beginning at 14 with parental consent. Some states, such as the one in which I live, have no stated minimum age and allow for younger marriage with a court order, which is usually only granted if the girl is pregnant. Many girls married at younger than 18 in my mother’s generation; my mother was 16 and her best friend was 15 when they each married. My father was 19 or 20 I think. It wasn’t considered all that odd. This was only one generation ago. It seems beyond strange to people now.

  130. Starviolet says:

    @ Furious ferret

    I don’t think that there is any benefit to the scenario described at the link. I just don’t think that most women are choosing between promiscuity and getting emotionally wrecked and getting married at 18 to some significantly older man. You can marry after college. In fact college graduates have the lowest divorce rate overall. The divorce rate for teens who marry is dismal. The idea of marrying an 18 year old girl to a man who is 10 or 15 her senior is disgusting. And some here are talking about marrying them off even younger. 16 really? I don’t think that is at all healthy.

  131. sunshinemary says:

    @greyghost
    You are right, it does take nerve to go against the prevailing model (even among Christians) of shipping your daughters off to university. Our daughters will attend college while still living at home or with (God willing) their husbands.

  132. Starviolet says:

    Lad- I agree completely. Career at the expense of family is a foolish choice, but so is being unable to support yourself if need be. You made sme excellent points.

  133. Lad says:

    @Sunshinemary

    Girls should marry between 18 and 20. Given the right young man, we would allow our daughters to marry at 18, possibly younger in exactly the right circumstances. Many girls begin to be sexually active around 15-16; why shouldn’t they marry then or at least become engaged? Christians need to change their attitude toward early marriage.

    I agree that girls are technically able to marry at 18-20. But I also think that given the current conditions in society, it’s not reasonable to expect most girls to be able to identify quality men at that age, because we don’t have the proper framework for it. We don’t have a matchmaking/yenta culture, nor do we have a good way of helping girls understand what they should look for in a man versus what they will naturally want and how they should cope with messages from media and popular culture. Good luck with your blog, but I think there will have to be some very momentous changes before 18-20 will be a practical age for marriage. (Early 20s is much more reasonable)

  134. sunshinemary says:

    @ Starviolet
    It worked out for my mother. She was pregnant (with me) and back then, pregnant girls married the baby’s father. She was 16 and my father was 19. She dropped out of high school (which also was not so odd in 1969) but went back for her GED later. When we children were a little older, she worked part-time as a grocery store clerk. After all her children were grown, she went to business college and then got a job at the corporate office of the grocery store where she had worked. We were rather poor when I was a child but it was okay. I am happy that my parents got married and I am happy that I have siblings, and she has gotten to have a little career even. Why is this not a good thing?

  135. sunshinemary says:

    @ Lad
    I respectfully disagree with you. You can read more about families that have helped their children navigate young courtship at blogs like In a Shoe and The Modest Mom. Many Christian families, especially the large-family types, do this and it seems to work well.

  136. Starviolet says:

    Sunshinemary

    Times have changed. Today a high school drop would have a hard time finding any sort of employment. A job in a grocery store would not pay enough to meet basic living expenses and the type of man who would marry a high school drop out probably wouldn’t be the type who could support a family. Poor neighborhoods used to be somewhat safe, unlike today. Also in your mother’s situation she wasn’t marrying some much older man. Today’s 18 year olds are not ready for marriage. Today’s high school drop outs end up being a burden to the tax payers.

  137. furiousferret says:

    Where are you getting older man stuff from? I never said older men. Young women and young men should be getting married if they are fundie christian types. It’s stupid to have the world’s standard for marriage and God’s standard for sex. Something has to give and it’s more then not that the young women fall into being sluts.

  138. Lad says:

    Define “career”.

    I mean an economically valuable trade or profession. It’s true I’m not talking about common reckless over-credentialing and assuming thousands of dollars of debt which you’ll never be able to pay off, just to chase your dreams.

    But you don’t want a lazy woman. Many paths lead to divorce theft, but marrying a woman with absolutely no earning potential is one of the most dangerous.

  139. Dalrock says:

    @Lad

    I agree that girls are technically able to marry at 18-20. But I also think that given the current conditions in society, it’s not reasonable to expect most girls to be able to identify quality men at that age, because we don’t have the proper framework for it. We don’t have a matchmaking/yenta culture, nor do we have a good way of helping girls understand what they should look for in a man versus what they will naturally want and how they should cope with messages from media and popular culture.

    If they aren’t qualified to identify quality men for marriage, then they aren’t mature enough to be seeking out men. This is one of the big failures in the current paradigm. The men she seeks out when immature will tend to influence her future tastes in men. This was less of a problem 25 years ago because most women still married in their early 20s. The culture tended to constrain the choices young women made when finding the boyfriends our culture considers training wheels for marriage, and even then I don’t think the process was a good idea. Over the decades the age of marriage has slowly creeped up, to the point where what once was the odd college boyfriend followed quickly by marriage (often right after college graduation) is now a decade of sexual experience before she “gets serious”. The experience of 25-40 years ago was an illusion because it was a transition period and not a stable state.

    FYI, I wrote my own take on young marriage here: How young should a woman marry? (Part 1)

    I have in mind a closer age match than others here, with young women marrying a man roughly 2-6 years older than her and them building a life together. I know larger spreads can work, but then you also are expecting the man to wait a very long time prior to marriage.

  140. Here is a quote from a great read @ http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2012/03/feminism-and-christian-man/

    “Why start a family if your “wife” can get up and smash it to pieces any time she likes through the family court system? Why work hard and become “marriage material” when most of the women around are totally unworthy, rather like little 5 year olds in women’s bodies who view men’s principal responsibilities as a husband revolving around keeping them entertained? Who have laid with too many men, and are thus chemically unable to pair bond or in many cases, so utterly spent that they no longer feel love? Better to sit back, live the best life you can, and help your family and friends rather than hope for winning the lottery. The problem of course is that as men start to realize this, and start to back out of the rat race, the tax base that the takers rely on becomes unsustainable – ergo the fiscal situation much of the west finds itself in. God willing, we are witnessing the last gasps of the ongoing attempt to destroy the greatest gift bestowed unto mankind ever known to human history. Illegitimi Non Carborundum!”

  141. sunshinemary says:

    Oh Dalrock, that old post you linked to was wonderful! I don’t know how I missed it when I’ve been digging through your archives. It’s exactly the model we have in mind for our daughters, but stated so very well.

    Our feeling: “practicing for marriage” relationships are really just “practicing for divorce” relationships. We expect our girls to have zero of such relationships.

    I wish I had known that at 18 or 19. I’m grateful that the Lord was gracious enough to send a husband to me at 22 even though we were not believers, or I’m sure I would have continued to be an idiot. I don’t want that for any girl, and especially not my own.

  142. Anonymous Reader says:

    I asked:
    Define “career”.

    I mean an economically valuable trade or profession.

    Be more specific. I know a woman who sells various crafts at the local farmer’s market. Some years back I knew an unmarried couple in an LTR who broke up when she pursued her biology PhD as part of her medical school career plans. I know a woman with five children who has been teaching in a grade school since her youngest child went into the first grade. I know a woman who has had a career for over 20 years in college teaching and research, she is married but they are childless by choice. Some of the above can be considered “career” choices, others are not, in my opinion.

    Please be more specific about what you mean by “career”.

    It’s true I’m not talking about common reckless over-credentialing and assuming thousands of dollars of debt which you’ll never be able to pay off, just to chase your dreams.

    That may or may not be part of a career.

    But you don’t want a lazy woman. Many paths lead to divorce theft, but marrying a woman with absolutely no earning potential is one of the most dangerous.

    That’s culturally dependent. There is a difference between being employable as skilled labor, and having a career.

  143. allamagoosa says:

    @Lad
    “We don’t have a matchmaking/yenta culture.”

    You can have one if you want it. My mother and brother have agreed to do some “modern Japanese style” matchmaking for me, since my college is a terrible place to find a husband (4 to 1 ratio of women to men). So they have put together a short, sensible list of parameters and will be asking acquaintances about men of the proper age (22 to 26, though I’m fine with older). After they’ve done some screening, they’ll pass them on to me as a candidate.

    Though obviously the person being matched has to be willing, which most wouldn’t be I suppose. Women aren’t exactly known for their logic are they?

  144. pb says:

    “But you don’t want a lazy woman. Many paths lead to divorce theft, but marrying a woman with absolutely no earning potential is one of the most dangerous.”

    I would like a woman with some familiarity with the domestic arts and is interested in establishing a domestic economy.

  145. Alex says:

    Great article, and quite accurate – but what’s with all this cat bashing?
    I’ve got one because I find dogs too needy, always getting into my business and too high maintenance. My cat and I wake up, I pour some food into her bowl and we eat breakfast. Then I’m off to work, and she goes in the backyard to suntan, hunt( she’s a great mouser), patrol the neighborhood. When I get home she comes inside, we hang together or with my friends and when night comes we hit the sack where she sleeps cuddled up to me. She’s a great buddy, & a considerate roommate – I even broke up with a girl I was dating who said she was allergic to cats and gave me an ultimatum. When Sammy saw that hoe leaving my place with her crap in a plastic bag, she gave me a nod, like “I appreciate your loyalty” and I nodded back, “No problem.” That’s a true, low-maintenance friendship.

  146. I’ve also seen many churches go along with women’s agenda here. If men aren’t married, especially if they are relatively attractive and possess wealth (in other words, they have options), the screaming message to them is GET MARRIED TO ONE OF THESE [used] WOMEN. I am unfortunately not familiar with how the secular world is in this area, but Christians, sadly, don’t get a pass.

  147. x2d4d says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    More specific on career: a career is a trade or profession that builds on natural skills and improves over the course of one’s life, leading to increased economic power, self-actualization, and personal satisfaction. Selling crafts at a farmer’s market may or may not be a career, it depends on the approach. If it’s just a hobby that happens to make a little extra cash, it’s not a career. If it’s a serious pursuit with potential to develop and grow into a viable business, then it is. A SAHM that sells crafts at a farmers market for a little extra cash, volunteers at a local charity, and tends a nice garden might be quite happy with her life. But many women are not going to be able to find a man who can afford to support a lifestyle like that. They may be forced by circumstance to work for money, and if that happens they will be much better off if they have developed useful skills.

    Generic skilled labor (or even unskilled/semi-skilled labor like waitressing or cashier) may or may not be a career. Going from McDonalds cashier, to supervisor, to manager– that counts as a career. Treading water as a waitress is probably not a career, although it can be depending on the approach.

    Many if not most women will interrupt their career to have children. How long an interruption makes sense or is required depends on the woman, the career, and the circumstances including the availability of childcare and other lifestyle support. Some women will have to choose between career optimization and a man. Something like whether a woman should choose to break up with a man to pursue a PhD– that is not a question with an easy answer, the key is that the decision be made sensibly and without blinded by feminism and unduly influenced by misguided cultural pressures.

    Once last thing on semantics– although you requested that I be more specific, the general “anti-career” mentality I tend to see isn’t specific either.

  148. Suz says:

    Starviolet:
    “Times have changed. Today a high school drop would have a hard time finding any sort of employment.”
    This is one of several reasons why a young woman should marry an older man – he will be more established. Another reason, which as always been valid, but is critical these days, is his emotional influence on her. Grrrlz grow up with too little supervision and guidance. When the turn 18 (!!!) they think they’re adults and strive for even more independence. The last thing an 18 year old woman needs is the influence of her slutty peers, and free access to randy young men exploring their own sexuality. It’s a recipe for disaster. An older husband has enough built-in Alpha to be appealing, and his influence can guide her through the most emotionally dangerous years of her life – without making her feeeel repressed. Indeed an older husband with a real job in the real world will make her friends wild with jealousy, even though they’ll die before admitting it. A high-status husband is some seriously high status for a college-age girl. Young women need leadership if they are going to succeed in any way, and an established husband can be an ideal leader. I’m not talking about a middle-aged or elderly man, I’m talking about a still-young man who has finished (or nearly finished) his career training, and has his personal and financial ducks in a row – a man who is ready to support a family.

    A woman who spends her prime reproductive years going to college and working, should plan on not marrying and having children. A woman who wants a husband and children, should give them her best years, not her leftovers. There is NO SUCH THING as having it all, all at the same time. If you think it’s OK to “compromise” one’s family so one can have a career too, look around you. Our dissolving society is a direct result of a few million (or billion) mothers who don’t put their children’s needs (including the need to be raised within a healthy marriage) FIRST.

    SSM, I think your list of family-friendly “careers” is a wonderful idea! I hope you are sharing it at every opportunity.

  149. Lad says:

    ps x2d4d is me. Wasn’t trying to confuse anyone, I just happened to log in with different names on different computers a long time ago and never bothered to change the defaults.

  150. Lad says:

    @pb

    I would like a woman with some familiarity with the domestic arts and is interested in establishing a domestic economy.

    Certainly, but how much work does that really require, in a modern western technological society?

    Are you planning to have a half a dozen or more children?

    Are you planning to homeschool your children?

    Will your children be involved in group activities like sports?

    How much time does it take to keep your house clean? If it’s that much of a problem, might a maid service worth it?

    If men can learn to cook, clean, and make an apartment livable and still have a career, so can women.

  151. pb says:

    Modern western technological society isn’t sustainable, that’s what I was getting at.

  152. nugganu says:

    I’m not a good Christian. I’m a 41 y.o. promiscuous male and I have a child out of wedlock. Starviolet, you better tell all those women in their 20′s to stop coming home with me. The 23 y.o. who asked me to take her home back in may was particularly enjoyable, but then, they aren’t marrying me now, are they? Please starviolet, make them stop, I is tired.

  153. Pingback: How do prostitutes stay in business in an era of hook-up sex? « Wintery Knight

  154. Lad says:

    @Suz

    A woman who spends her prime reproductive years going to college and working, should plan on not marrying and having children.

    A woman will usually have to make career sacrifices for children (and women tend to be fine with this, despite feminist frustration at its impact on crusade to destroy the glass ceiling ).

    But a career, marriage, and children are all possible. Lots of women do it. What tends to separate them from the 30+ never married career women is that they take their husband search seriously from an early age (by 18/19 they should have started, even if they won’t be ready to marry for several more years). They probably weren’t as mercurial about it as somebody like Dalrock might recommend, but I wouldn’t be surprised. At least one (college-educated) woman I dated briefly (she was 22 iirc) was married to another guy I knew very shortly after we broke it off (we did not have sex).

    The 30+ never-marrieds are neglecting husband search during their 20s as much as they are focusing on education and career. Their anti-beta shields are at full strength 24/7 and they have plenty of time after work for girl’s nights, yoga, zumba, shopping, walking the dog, weekend excursions, european vacations, and of course sex with a variety of bad boys, players, D-list celebrities, and otherwise unattainable men. That’s a much bigger problem.

  155. Lad says:

    @pb

    Fair enough.

  156. 3rd Millenium Men says:

    Haha spot on Deti. 5 and 15 are the best for their sheer ridiculousness.

  157. 3rd Millenium Men says:

    IF she doesn’t have a kid from all that screwing around. And leaves the poor kids vulnerable and open to abuse while she’s out being ridiculous.

  158. koevoet says:

    @ allamagoosa – that’s great that some people are trying to do things the way that we as humans have for millennia! Just might work! May God be with you.

  159. 3rd Millenium Men says:

    Spot on. Except they hit their late 20′s, life gives them a walloping and they realize they let their best chance at lasting happiness go straight by. Summarised the best of the thoughts of the manosphere on that here: http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/manosphere-female-age-and-sexual-market-value/

  160. Suz says:

    Lad:
    “But a career, marriage, and children are all possible. Lots of women do it.”

    Sure they do. They just don’t do it well. The children are raised by strangers, and the husband’s role devolves into “supermom’s assistant” and primary breadwinner. Maintaining a solid marriage takes time. Raising children takes time. Building and maintaining a career takes time. When all three are done at once, all three are done half-assed in the vast majority of cases, and everyone is miserable.

  161. Lad says:

    @allamagoosa

    Yes, qualified matchmakers is only half the battle. The other half is that people actually have to respect and accept their work, and there are lots of cultural forces working against that. Good matchmakers need to have taken the red pill, be ruthlessly practical, and do what’s right by the matches (even if that means telling a girl that she needs to lose weight or that a man needs to go buy some decent clothes)

  162. CedarFever says:

    Dalrock – I hope this is a sign that I have significantly awakened from out of my Blue Pill stupor, but this post is so dry that, had I read it three years ago, I could have mistaken it as being sincere.

  163. whatever says:


    I agree that girls are technically able to marry at 18-20. But I also think that given the current conditions in society, it’s not reasonable to expect most girls to be able to identify quality men at that age, because we don’t have the proper framework for it.

    Let’s say this is true. Do you think the person will magically become a better judge as they get older? Older people like to worship themselves with all the “experience” they have gained. But most are pretty much the people they were 10 years ago. Only with, maybe, more money and more mistakes that they never learn from under the bridge.

    Cause here is the thing, Americans like to talk about “what they’ve learned” yet most people absolutely refuse to learn from past mistakes. Or successes. Or much of anything.

    So yeah. That experience really don’t matter at all. Unless, like a woman, you mistake social status and money for “depth”.

  164. Lad says:

    Suz,

    Yes, it’s true that you can’t have “all of it, all the time,” and I’ve been getting on feminists case for years about their treatment of pay statistics and the glass ceiling, and their attempts to to fire up women to abandon their families for the sake of the sisterhood vs patriarchy.

    But I still maintain for individuals even if you spend a few years away from full-time work to raise your children, putting a career on the back burner temporarily is much different from not having one at all. Even even say, taking classes two nights a week while your husband does something else with the kids is better than nothing.

  165. okrahead says:

    No, they can’t make the decision at 18-20… That’s why they need a strong father to pick a few worthy suitors for her from which she is allowed to choose. The real man up… tell a woman “NO”.

  166. I agree that the cat-bashing is unfortunate. I comfort myself that the cats are purely notional and no cats were harmed in the making of this post.

  167. Lad says:

    Whatever,

    People do learn from experience and grow as they age. Certain aspects of personality never change, and some people have had all the major developmental experiences by the time they are 18. But to ignore experience entirely is simply absurd. If you can’t find any examples of this you are simply not trying.

  168. Anonymous Reader says:

    More specific on career: a career is a trade or profession that builds on natural skills and improves over the course of one’s life, leading to increased economic power, self-actualization, and personal satisfaction.

    This seems to me to be too broad. You are including a whole lot of jobs in with careers. It’s like the current trend to lump everything from community college attendance to complete the GED to PhD chemists in to the category of “people in college”.

    I have known two people who entered medical school, and the son of a friend of mine just started. I have known a few men and women who earned tenure in technical fields. I knew a man in industry, who worked up from the shop floor. All of these careers have one thing in common: they are the first priority of the man or woman pursuing them. 50 hour weeks are often normal, and 60 to 80 hour weeks happen from time to time. There is no time to raise children when both parents are putting in 50+ hour weeks, so someone has to be hired to raise them, with results that at best can be described as “mixed”.

    There are a number of other issues involving “career” that you likely have not thought of. It is very, very straining on a marriage to have a two career family where both have careers at the same time. It is possible to have two careers in a family if they are more or less sequential. That can be negotiated, if a married couple wants to do so.

    The fertility window for women, however, is not negotiable. It’s biology, and it doesn’t care about “fulfillment” or “empowerment” or any other buzzword. You need to think this through more.

  169. Anon E Myshkin says:

    It’s too bad the Census is so restrictive in what demographic info they choose to publish. They provide first birth ages broken down by race, and they provide birth numbers out of wedlock broken down by race. But it would be nice to know how the age of first birth looks when broken down into those whose first birth was before every marrying and those who had married. Then we could make a better assessment of the arguments put forth in, e.g., http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SDD-2011-Final.pdf

  170. TFH says:

    Women being ‘trapped in marriage’ is such a terrible thing, that leaving (with cash and prizes from the man, of course, even if HE didn’t want the marriage to end) is justifiable….

    Yet, if a man wants to leave a marriage, and if the woman were required by law to PAY THE MAN, just about any woman would call this the greatest injustice ever.

    Bottom line : Women CANNOT ever accept that the rules they want for themselves could ever be extended to men.

    That alone tells us why women having the right to vote has dire consequences for any society. I mean, the very basic rights in the Constitutions of any first-world country are inherently opposed to the base desires of what women want society to deliver to them : benefits for ME but not for HIM…

  171. Suz says:

    Lad,
    Working or going to school part time very rarely constitutes a “career,” even if it’s in a field one loves. I’m not saying that it’s awful to work for a couple of years before having children, because often it’s financially necessary. However, most women who “work for a couple of years” stretch those years out until they’re past their prime, and most such women don’t invest their income toward the need to stay home with their children, the spend it on fun and pretty stuff. I would applaud a 19 year old wife who spent the first five years of he marriage working and finishing school, if at the end of those five years she had earned enough money to put 30-50% down on a house. But how often does that happen? Not often enough; we girls get distracted by our status among our peers. We need to compete with their wardrobes and their lifestyles. And most of us don’t stop striving for peer status when our children are born.

    It may sound limiting, but the less a young woman is exposed to feminist commercialism, the better her chances of developing and maintaining family-oriented habits as a mother. She’s not likely to resent interrupting her career if she never had one to begin with. If naivete and sheltering make for better mothers, then more women should remain naive and sheltered. We like to assume that they’re missing something special and rewarding, but look around you. What are they REALLY missing? Most career women are striving for fulfillment, but few of them are fulfilled. Women who chose motherhood and devote themselves to it the way others devote themselves to their careers, are almost always fulfilled. Motherhood should be a mother’s career, until her children are grown.

  172. JoeS says:

    Countries with the highest rates of college education of women have the lowest fertility. The more higher education a woman has, the the lower her fertility is likely to be. See James Franklin’s paper on this/

    Don’t buy the feminist BS that college and advanced is good for marriage and motherhood. College graduates tend to be relatively higher in class and status, so they tend to avoid divorce for class reasons, for the same reason they tend to avoid single motherhood, but in fact the birth rate is collapsing, meaning that marriage is not fulfilling its intended function, whether these women divorce or not.

    I have two college educated sisters who are spinsters. Don’t believe the feminist BS. These slut whores are fully committed to their delusions – but they’re going to have to deal with the consequences of what has happened to society since the college education of women became the norm. And they’re going to have to accept responsibility.

  173. Mark Minter says:

    @electricangel

    I had followed a link on the MGTOW page to a series of papers on Evolutionary and Social Psychology. It looks like MGTOW Forums has a different site now and I can’t find the previous link. It was a link to some college professor with a ton of papers. I can’t find the paper that made the reference. If anybody has a any reference to this study I refer to below then I would love to read more.

    One of the papers made mention to a study that proved that animals are better off considering fewer partners rather than many. The female that considered too many partners ran the risk that the best partner might have already been passed by and also that the she might run of time during the mating period.

    I guess that would be the complete opposite to your proof. Yet choosing a mate and interviewing are similar yet a little different. I find the Evo Psych study to be more believable than the proof, in that it pertains specifically to mating and mating options that might wander off if not chosen. Also the proof assumes that you will find a candidate after interviewing all in the pool that is actually better than the pool. A job interview process has a smaller time frame than a selection of a human mate. The job might be something many people would wish to take today but 5 years from now, it might not be so popular. If you offered a job selling iPad 2 tablets and keeping 25% of what you sold, you would have a lot of takers today. But 5 years from now, there might be fewer people that want that job selling iPad 2 tablets.

    I was contemplating this study relative the cock carousel meme, a woman with more than 15+ lovers has a 46% chance of the marriage lasting 10 years, etc.

    So I wonder if the variable in this study of “time” could be connoted mean both 1) Time, meaning she should realize that her best chance of find the optimum mate probably will occur before 27 years of age and (2) N, the partner count.

    Sometimes I wonder about this meme. I always make this analogy for jumping to a data conclusion. I get up every morning and flush the toilet and then the sun comes up. It might be convenient for us to jump to a conclusion about partner count. Or is it better just not to worry about other contributing factors and just exclude based on partner count.

    I had to read the Dalrock post for a minute to figure out it was satirical. But the reality is that is only satirical to this audience of manosphere readers. We are a far more cynical and bitter group. It isn’t far from what is commonly held belief for most people. It certainly was the basic idea behind the sexual revolution. It was deemed a mistake to marry the first person you slept with and probably broke up many a young couple. I still hold that our issue with the cock carousel meme is anger about the actions of women after marriage and that is what is driving the hostility towards high premarital sexual activity. So I continue hold the this meme has power to cause social change provided women will actually value marriage and family.

    But I would continue to note to Dalrock that this meme is important and further research and data is necessary. It was noted in New York Times about a month ago that college educated couples divorced less and the women with that education level WITH MARRIAGE are more prone to happiness. So a good question becomes “why?”. It is that they tend to marry a more affluent man and leads to more contentment, options, and less better alternatives to him.

    There is one question that is burning at me and I wonder if there would be any way to get data about this.

    How does female attractiveness play into divorce across all education and income levels? Is she more prone to cheat?

    Are better looking women more prone to divorce? The Bible advises against marrying a woman that is “fine of figure”. So are you better off picking a plain woman with a college degree?

    Is the more attractive woman more prone to cheat? If so, by how much?

    In speaking about divorce fantasy a few posts ago, Dalrock noted the desire to return to that state of being a “Classy and Fabulous” single woman with men fawning over her again only that women find out it isn’t happening.

    So is a more attractive woman more prone to act on that fantasy and the lesser attractive women more prone to hunker down with romance novels?

  174. JoeS says:

    It was pointed out that it’s not the college degree that leads to the stable marriage, but the higher IQ. Use common sense folks: a degree from Hook-up U in affirmative action career studies doesn’t make anyone more suitable for marriage.

    A major reason for the decline of fertility of intelligent women IS higher education.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

  175. I’m big time blessed about the daughters thing. My 21 year old lives at home and is entering Jr year at uni. She has changed her major to nursing, she is enrolled in the Bachelors of Nursing program. I cannot claim that she has never done anything I wouldn’t approve of. I do take great comfort that she lays her head in the bed I supply in the room I supply each night. She works for a veterinarian part time when school is in session and full time otherwise and is an outstanding citizen. There have been 2 BF’s over 4 years, and I am not naive. One I liked a lot, the other not so much.
    Im not allowing perfect to combat good in my home.

  176. LongLostFriend says:

    A woman who wants a husband and children, should give them her best years, not her leftovers.

    Suz wins the comments thread with a single sentence.

  177. freebird says:

    Very easy to get peace from the war on marriage:
    1.Stop the hateful propaganda (Wymyns studies,feminism affirmative action)
    2.Take away the weaponry:VAWA,no-fault divorce,presumption of guilt if male,loss of father custody.

    Bingo! fix-ed

  178. (R)Evoluzione, read that article on religious cognition. I see that St. Thomas Aquinas here saw the word ‘evolution’ at the top of the page and c&p’d his standard boilerplate disqualification, but I thought I’d give you my take.

    I think the study of the reproductive religiosity model is valid, however, I don’t think their parameters are really broad enough to account for “religion” on whole as opposed to “religiosity”. Most times studies like this are focused on a western neo-evangelical sexual repressiveness and how it translates into a sexual strategy, and doesn’t really account for more sexually permissive religions (Hinduism) or more sexually repressive religions (Islam).

    However, within the given western christian context, there’s a lot that’s been postulated about how the rise of christian monogamy evolved as a buffer against judaic polygamy. The socialized mating strategies of today are just the result of an evolved social environment. Read the old testament – polygamy used to be the norm. Marriage, even in biblical times, has never been a constant, social contract of monogamy between a man and a woman. In the old testament there are many instances where “men of god” could not only take multiple wives, but could also bang their maid-servants – and often at the willing behest of their wives (Sarah to Abraham, or Jacob’s wives offering their maid-servants to him for instance). All of this polygamy was common practice right up until the middle ages in Europe, where the feminine advent of courtly love and monogamy in marriage took precedent.

    Since then, monogamous marriage has been a feminine imperative to the point that any prior iteration of polygamous marriage had to be erased from history. And the best way to do that has always been to infer that God willed it to be that way. Father Abraham be damned, and King David – remember, the man of god who had the husband of a hot piece of ass he wanted to bang put to death after he saw her bathing? – that King David, the polygamist, was one of the sires of Christ.

    So, to put things into perspective, we need to understand that marriage is a social institution that’s subject to cultural and societal shifts. The importance of commitment, trust and mutual respect was probably lost on many of the most powerful men of god in biblical times. However, then as now, the importance of tapping a LOT of ass in as socially acceptable a manner as possible was a very high priority for them. All that is easily demonstrable by the many tribes of Judah.

    I think it’s more realistic to acknowledge that marriage was a social institution amongst many human cultures that pre-dated the Jews wandering in the desert by thousands of years.

    I’m not trying to make a religious statement, but rather put marriage into the proper perspective as being a social construct that has changed and evolved with religion(s) over time. Being the Sultan with a harem of many wives, or a Chinese Emperor in the forbidden city may seem “perverted” by today’s sensibilities, but they were highly respected during their time. Having many wives was an acceptable form of what we’d consider ‘conspicuous consumption’ today – it was a respected evidence of prosperity. Marriage has changed over the course of history (and probably will again). Polygamy used to be a very respectable norm, not a perversion, so to say that one form of marriage is the “correct” form is disingenuous.

    I’m not going to debate the merits and meanings of biblical teaching moments, that’s not the point; the point is that even the heros of the bible lived under a different definition of marriage than what it’s evolved into today. That evolution was due in no small part to women transitioning from a man’s property into autonomy, and then into feminine priority. So what’s perceived to be the “right” way of marriage is really the result of thousands of years of socialization redefining it into what we’re comfortable with now. If you lived in, say, 200 B.C. you’d probably be more comfortable with polygamy.

    As it’s evolved into today, and as evidenced in this study, monogamy from a neo-christian perspective is socially engineered to serve the feminine imperative. All the one-sided legal issues of marriage aside, “christian marriage” is a social recipe for optimizing feminine hypergamy. Under the present social conditions, the more a man internalizes metaphysical concepts like divine purpose (ONEitis), christian forgiveness (marry those sluts), Biblically masculine responsibility (the male double standard), and draws his identity based on a pseudo-pride that develops from his ‘playing by the rules’ in spite of the lack of reward, makes for the perfected Beta Provider that the feminine imperative needs to ensure it’s posterity.

    Don’t get me wrong, in and of themselves those concepts have merit, but the feminine imperative has taken those previously noble ideals and socialized them into the christian thumbscrews they are today.

  179. Lad says:

    To elaborate a bit on my point about the optimal age of marriage being 18-20 for women:

    If they aren’t qualified to identify quality men for marriage, then they aren’t mature enough to be seeking out men. This is one of the big failures in the current paradigm. The men she seeks out when immature will tend to influence her future tastes in men. This was less of a problem 25 years ago because most women still married in their early 20s. The culture tended to constrain the choices young women made when finding the boyfriends our culture considers training wheels for marriage, and even then I don’t think the process was a good idea. Over the decades the age of marriage has slowly creeped up, to the point where what once was the odd college boyfriend followed quickly by marriage (often right after college graduation) is now a decade of sexual experience before she “gets serious”. The experience of 25-40 years ago was an illusion because it was a transition period and not a stable state.

    FYI, I wrote my own take on young marriage here: How young should a woman marry? (Part 1)

    I have in mind a closer age match than others here, with young women marrying a man roughly 2-6 years older than her and them building a life together. I know larger spreads can work, but then you also are expecting the man to wait a very long time prior to marriage.

    I mostly agree with this, and definitely don’t mean to suggest that waiting until a few years after college to commit to marriage and build a life together means delaying the search for a marriage partner.

    Basically, my primary concern with college-aged couples marrying is that in many cases neither of them (boy or girl) have been tested by the real world at all. I don’t even mean something serious like being laid off or expensive surgery, I mean simple things like finding an apartment and paying all your bills by yourself with money you earn. Girls will have been constrained in their available contexts to evaluate men, and boys will have been performing in contrived environments; or the boys will simply not be mature enough yet, either because they have not been prepared for marriage, or because those who are preparing for marriage haven’t figured out how to court a woman for marriage under the modern paradigm.

    So I think at least two delaying scenarios are reasonable. One, the person (male or female) engages in a legitimate search for a partner and fails find a suitable one during the 17-21 timeframe. Two, a good match is found, but the couple decides to delay closing options until they have some real-world experience and have some idea about how they should orient themselves to face the rest of their life together. But then they close options and commit as soon as possible after that (eg by age 23).

    It’s certainly possible that some women will be prepared to marry by age 18. But I think it’s wise to advise some caution here because many women who marry at that age, especially those who aren’t going the college route, will be a divorced possibly a single mother within a few years. No matter who you want to blame for it, the situation on the ground is that if a someone makes a poor choice in spouse because they are an immature, inexperienced teenager, divorce is the result.

  180. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Rollo Tomassi 8:26 am

    We shouldn’t fall for an apex fallacy of our own. Whenever and wherever institutionalized polygamy existed, it was reserved for the men on the top of the social hierarchy. We can safely judge that the common men in those societies lived in lifelong monogamy.

  181. sunshinemary says:

    Suz wrote:

    It may sound limiting, but the less a young woman is exposed to feminist commercialism, the better her chances of developing and maintaining family-oriented habits as a mother. She’s not likely to resent interrupting her career if she never had one to begin with. If naivete and sheltering make for better mothers, then more women should remain naive and sheltered. We like to assume that they’re missing something special and rewarding, but look around you. What are they REALLY missing? Most career women are striving for fulfillment, but few of them are fulfilled. Women who chose motherhood and devote themselves to it the way others devote themselves to their careers, are almost always fulfilled. Motherhood should be a mother’s career, until her children are grown.

    Such a good point; I cosign this! Now Suz, please find a couple of blogs aimed at young Christian girls and drop that comment there. They need to hear what no one else is telling them.

  182. Dalrock says:

    @Lad

    I mostly agree with this, and definitely don’t mean to suggest that waiting until a few years after college to commit to marriage and build a life together means delaying the search for a marriage partner.

    Yes, it does.

    So I think at least two delaying scenarios are reasonable. One, the person (male or female) engages in a legitimate search for a partner and fails find a suitable one during the 17-21 timeframe.

    This is much more difficult for a man that age than a woman that age. However, it can happen, and the fact that finding a suitable spouse can be so difficult when a woman has everything in her favor (peak looks and fertility, surrounded by unmarried men who are slightly older than her) points out that the process is difficult and shouldn’t be put off.

    Two, a good match is found, but the couple decides to delay closing options until they have some real-world experience and have some idea about how they should orient themselves to face the rest of their life together. But then they close options and commit as soon as possible after that (eg by age 23).

    No. This is part of the mistake that got us here. Blurring the line between boyfriend/girlfriend and marriage doesn’t end well. It leads to the kinds of bizarre expectations we see today where women see it as their right to keep their options open, and then cry foul when the man they finally decide they want to marry turns out to have “commitment issues”. Why won’t he man up! I wouldn’t advise any man to stick around in such a scenario, and certainly not to offer such a woman marriage. He should instead find a woman who is ready for marriage. Perhaps the vacillating woman has a younger, prettier friend?

  183. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hollenhund to Rollo Tomassi
    We shouldn’t fall for an apex fallacy of our own. Whenever and wherever institutionalized polygamy existed, it was reserved for the men on the top of the social hierarchy.

    Some of the Chinese civilizations explicitly rewarded successful men with extra women. A young man who read the classics and passed tests to become an administrator might be allowed enough money for one wife. If he performed his duties well, and was promoted to a low level of the mandarinate (“mandarin” being a title ) he would in due time be awarded a second wife. Further up the hierarchy were men with three wives. The Emperor of China, of course, got a harem.Those men who served the state well were directly rewarded with the opportunity to have more sons. This had the side effect of encouraging more intelligent men to have more children,while allowing some children to the average men.

    Contrast that with the Western practice, of paying for the children of the the poorest men who do no work…to give them state supported harems, in essence.

    We can safely judge that the common men in those societies lived in lifelong monogamy.

    For some common men. For others, there were always some form of prostitution. If a man could not afford to buy a wife, he could rent one by the hour. It is no accident that the same Christian purity movement of 100 years ago that sought to prohibit the sale of alcohol also pushed to prohibit prostitution, and give women the vote as well.

    Rollo Tomassi’s insight into the feminine imperative has a lot of deep implications.

  184. Jimbo says:

    I think women should marry earlier, but that does not mean 18 to 20 years old. This is ridiculous advice. Certainly, we should tell women to not forgo motherhood for careers, yet it would be ridiculous for a women for find the right one who is at the same age or slightly older. Neither would have the maturity to keep the marriage intact.

    Since this website is sympathetic to males, it should also be aware of the risks men have in getting married. As such, I strongly urge men to weigh the risks. He wouldn’t be able to understand the risks when marrying at a young age.

    If both are eager to marry, waiting until 25 is the best course. By then, both have achieved their college degrees if they graduated at 23 and worked a minimum of 2 years. The woman is at her peak fertility and can decide to have kids soon after. Certainly, not working longer might be an impediment since she has college loans. These decisions must be made carefully.

    The reason I advise finishing school before marriage is school is best for fresh minds. Going back to it later after 40 is impossible for most especially if resources are tight and it might compete with your own kids who are expected to graduate from high school.

  185. Marriage is “a social construct,” and it is more than a social construct. It is a sacrament that creates one flesh.

    Go to mass Sunday, the second reading will be from Ephesians 5, a favorite passage around here, that of the famous “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord” line (though a section conveniently left optional in our gawdawful missalettes according to parish political taste):

    So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it,
    even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. …

    This is a great mystery ….

    The sacrament of matrimony is the proper end to which the sexual impulse must strive. We are far from that understanding, and, indeed, our culture actively militates against it. But it is the worthy goal, not to be concealed or altered by the present era’s self-destructive exigencies which pretend there can be another sexual terminus if we wish it so.

    This, by the way, is where the Church of Darwin fails her congregation. In accounting for the mere biological, she discounts man’s will and therefore dismisses any extrabiological prerogatives, regarding them as unworthy, impossible, or worst, actively pernicious.

    Not only does my church account for biology, she essentially invented the broad discipline as modernity has come to understand it. Irrational haters presume that our act of recognizing human life as more-than-merely-biological requires us to reject the biological rather than building upon it. It is an error that non-systematic thinkers make in their search to find a club, any club, to beat the church with. Ulterior motives justify their short-shrift analyses of concepts they have not bothered to understand.

    Matt

  186. Anonymous Reader says:

    Everyone needs to bear in mind that even today, only a minority of adult men and women over 18 go to a 4- year college. The majority of Americans do not go to a four year college; some go to work right out of high school, others go into the military for a while, others go to various 2-year technical training schools. So making assumptions about marriage that include “after college” means that one is ignoring the majority of American men and women. It is a premise that cannot support anything, because it is false.

    And echoing Dalrock, encouraging women to spend 4 years in some degree, then spend some more years “getting established” is exactly how we got here as far as the middle and upper middle class is concerned.

  187. Cane Caldo says:

    The reason I advise finishing school before marriage is school is best for fresh minds.

    That’s right: don’t waste that mind learning how to be the best spouse you can be to the one spouse you’re going have; spend it learning to be an accountant, or a womyn’s theorist!

  188. deti says:

    On the question of young women delaying marriage, some of this is a result of fathers observing the changes around them and encouraging their daughters into careers. Brendan has pointed this out before. He noted rightly that some college educated fathers see potential in their daughters and encourage them to careers, college and grad school. The attitude is that, well, she is smart and has potential. One never knows what can happen. Things happen, divorce happens, 2 income households are the norm.

    Some other girls get the short end of the parenting stick. Their moms and dads don’t quite know how to steer their daughter or encourage her to anything. She gets left to her own devices. She goes into a college program that is not a good fit for her and she fails. Or she gets steered into a job she hates because she has nothing else and no other skills. Either way, she becomes aimless and directionless, and just hangs out with her friends and lives a party lifestyle.

    Either way, daughters many times aren’t encouraged to be serious about their lives — serious about marriage or motherhood, or about learning any sorts of skills. They certainly aren’t encouraged to avoid sex. Or if they are, their friends are all having sex and they join in.

  189. Jimbo says:

    “And echoing Dalrock, encouraging women to spend 4 years in some degree, then spend some more years “getting established” is exactly how we got here as far as the middle and upper middle class is concerned.”

    Learning is the least of their problems. I think the possibility that many women are sleeping around is a major problem although it is a fact that these women are in the minority.

    It is more a problem that many women are delaying marriage until well beyond 30, which forces men to delay marriage or bow out since they can’t or won’t wait for women to wake up.

    The bigger problem is divorce. Despite the low marriage rates, marriages are regularly destroyed by women.

    College isn’t the root cause. Not even close.

  190. Lad says:

    @Dalrock,

    No. This is part of the mistake that got us here. Blurring the line between boyfriend/girlfriend and marriage doesn’t end well. It leads to the kinds of bizarre expectations we see today where women see it as their right to keep their options open, and then cry foul when the man they finally decide they want to marry turns out to have “commitment issues”.

    I don’t believe I am blurring the line, nor do I believe the level of prudence I recommend is what got us to the current state. I don’t think it’s always a slippery slope. The recently graduated boyfriend/girlfriend should understand very well that they are on a marriage track, they are not delaying because maintaining options is the important part, they’re delaying to minimize the potential for a dramatic misalignment that couldn’t have been predicted. Their decisions should reflect this– they should decide on career plans and children together, they should probably avoid adventures to big cities with lots of singles. The details will vary by couple. But there should be an understanding that they’ll work to build the life together and that it will be hard at first. They won’t wait for everything to be perfect nor should they be treating the final phase of courtship as a sample or trial marriage. The idea is to make an adult decision as an adult rather than as an adolescent under pressure from society that hasn’t properly prepared you.

  191. Dalrock says:

    @Jimbo

    Learning is the least of their problems. I think the possibility that many women are sleeping around is a major problem although it is a fact that these women are in the minority.

    It is more a problem that many women are delaying marriage until well beyond 30, which forces men to delay marriage or bow out since they can’t or won’t wait for women to wake up.

    The bigger problem is divorce. Despite the low marriage rates, marriages are regularly destroyed by women.

    College isn’t the root cause. Not even close.

    Keep in mind that the divorce data for college grads is based on marriages which occured 15-20 years ago, when women were marrying younger. It is likely that it will continue to correlate with lower divorce rates moving forward, but what little data there is attempting to tease out the root cause suggests that college only correlates with the underlying factors driving down divorce rates, and once those are accounted for college actually increases divorce rates. What I think you are suggesting is we simply go back to what was happening 20 years ago. The problem is cultural inertia has slowly taken us to where we are. Those who want to snap out of it can’t try the old method and hope cultural pressures save the woman from becoming a lifelong serial monogamists (with a few flings that don’t count). By the time she starts getting serious about marriage the best husbands have already been picked and she isn’t as attractive as she was 7 years and 15 men prior. In the meantime, a generation of young men aren’t getting the same signal that working hard will pay off with a wife or even a girlfriend. These are the “peter pan men” the press is wringing its hands over.

  192. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jimbo
    Learning is the least of their problems. I think the possibility that many women are sleeping around is a major problem although it is a fact that these women are in the minority.

    Hooking up and riding the carousel is what the high status women do. Other women notice. For every carouse rider, there is some number of women who may not be riding, but who are watching, and tuning their attraction to whatever hot Alpha man is popular. It’s like reading endless romance-porn fiction.

    It is more a problem that many women are delaying marriage until well beyond 30, which forces men to delay marriage or bow out since they can’t or won’t wait for women to wake up.

    For which demographic? College women are doing this. Other women just are not marrying at all, as the birth numbers for mothers under 30 clearly show.

    The bigger problem is divorce. Despite the low marriage rates, marriages are regularly destroyed by women.

    Hypergamy, plus “5 minutes of alpha” (real or even imagined) plus financial rewards for betrayal all play into this. Women who go to college are exposed to a toxic mix of entitlement and random sex that makes it much more difficult for them to bond to one man by the age of 30.

    Dalrock, we really need a permalink to Social Pathologists analysis that includes the graph indicating probability of divorce as a function of the number of different sex partners a woman has prior to marriage.

    College isn’t the root cause. Not even close.

    Unleashed hypergamy is the root cause to a large extent, and college certainly can do a bang up job of that.

  193. Lad says:

    AR,

    The point of my post was specifically to highlight the distinction between pursuing a career and a “careerist” mentality. It’s the latter which tends to cause problems, not practical pursuit of a career in itself.

    Also, yes my comments about college and marriage do apply to a minority, but it’s a minority with a decent (but falling) marriage rate and a very low divorce rate. But it also seems to me that careerism is much less a problem for those who skip college. Never married single mothers and male unemployment seem to be far more pressing issues there.

  194. Jimbo says:

    @Dalrock: “In the meantime, a generation of young men aren’t getting the same signal that working hard will pay off with a wife or even a girlfriend. These are the “peter pan men” the press is wringing its hands over.”

    The press is concerned about two pools of men and women that will never meet.

    The Peter Pan men are usually not accomplished stable men. These men still living at home playing X-Box, and working at Best Buy. They will not date 30-40 years old spinster college graduate women. They are not aligned.

    “Those who want to snap out of it can’t try the old method and hope cultural pressures save the woman from becoming a lifelong serial monogamists (with a few flings that don’t count). By the time she starts getting serious about marriage the best husbands have already been picked and she isn’t as attractive as she was 7 years and 15 men prior.”

    No one should feel the least shame about this; however, women should be open to dating older men (10 years older) to somewhat alleviate the situation.

  195. Very thought-provoking post, thanks! Hope it sets some young people straight.

  196. Suz says:

    Emp:
    “Im not allowing perfect to combat good in my home.”

    Christian principles applied in the real world. I love it.

  197. Lad says:

    The problem is cultural inertia has slowly taken us to where we are. Those who want to snap out of it can’t try the old method and hope cultural pressures save the woman from becoming a lifelong serial monogamists (with a few flings that don’t count). By the time she starts getting serious about marriage the best husbands have already been picked and she isn’t as attractive as she was 7 years and 15 men prior. In the meantime, a generation of young men aren’t getting the same signal that working hard will pay off with a wife or even a girlfriend. These are the “peter pan men” the press is wringing its hands over.

    For the record I agree with all of this. My personal story is that I was raised oriented towards marriage but not given tools (ie game) or understanding of how to play by the new rules. I was following the “prepare a career and life and the right woman will come along” script, even though I really wanted to play the hook-up game. The right woman never ‘came along’ (I’d say that there was at least one woman I should have gamed aggressively when I was in college, but that was it). I was a classic beta provider, tall and good-looking too timid to approach strangers consistently (though I did make some effort even before I learned game) and too traditional to initiate sex with any woman who I did not consider marriage material which was virtually all the women I was able to date before I discovered game. So yeah, I reached 30 with no sign that marriage was anywhere in my future, and have long abandoned any notion that I should bear personal responsibility or feel guilt for for adding to a woman’s partner count (so long as I’m not deliberately deceptive).

  198. Gustavo says:

    “8. I have so many things I want to see and do before I settle down.”

  199. at the risk of being vilified, I have to point out something that I don’t see being addressed here in the comment thread- women’s available choices today.

    People here are advocating women get married on the early side, and I fully agree. The comment above that if a woman wants a family and children, she should give them her best years, not her leftovers- All good, all gold. Fully agree.

    The problem with women who might elect to go along with that outlook, or have people teaching it to them, is that they do not have much to chose from anymore. They have the Alphas that will NOT wife her, and they have the Betas and Omegas. Sure, there are plenty of fine betas out there who are worthy prospects, but the problem isn’t just that women are often too damn stupid to see the merits of the “logical choice”, the problem is that these guys exist this way to begin with.

    Absentee fathers (forced or bailed), single moms, feminism, blue-pill, churchianity and general wussification has created a class of guys that are totally unpalatable. I can’t fault women for passing these men up, because they aren’t much of men at all, because they have been denied their birthright of being taught how to be a MAN by their fathers and local leaders, and have been smacked down by feminist laws and culture.

    Sure, women should marry younger and not wait, but to whom? Alpha cads? Fearful betas? Clueless Omegas? Seriously, their choices of good, legit prospects is very thin.

    I think the solution, in the end, lies in building up the younger generations of men, which could potentially inspire women to want to be wifed to begin with. It’s great that we have the manosphere to help in that regard, and there are good fathers who make strong efforts (even red-pill fathers whose efforts are more valuable since they teach truth instead of feminism) but most red-pill men that have what our young men need to turn the tide- their main advice is not to marry!

    I don’t argue this advice- Marriage 2.0 is a bad deal for all men and I tell my 2 sons straight on these matters… but this isn’t going to help the problem of women delaying marriage- it perpetuates it. It’s a catch-22.

    I see a lot of talk here about what women should do, about what a slut is and how the N count factors into things, but I don’t see solutions being offered.

    Are there not any? Or do we just have to wait until the collapse and the return to the honest barbarianism we came from, before we can vanquish feminism and restore ‘order’?

    Women rail against patriarchy, but I say that it treats women a lot better than they treat each other when they get the power they have now. Sadly, even the women who WANT patriarchy- marrying younger, having kids, being a non-mutinous and dedicated wife… they have no suitable patriarchs to choose from, and perhaps some of the women who end up on the carousel are reluctant participants, who wish there was a better way, and either realizes the ‘real men’ are not to be found, or doesn’t know what she doesn’t know.

    Please, spare me the beta-mangina-white knight-Driscoll-man up commentary. I’m not trying to disagree. I’m just wondering if there are solutions to this, and offering the concept that maybe SOME young women delaying marriage today aren’t just doing it to be depraved whores, but because they have been sorely lied to, and there is no truth they can find, and no MEN to set them straight and lead them to a better approach. (fathers or suitors)

  200. The Continental Op says:

    Gustavo: why would she say “yes” when she can just buy a CR-V to help her do all these things she wants to do!

    I just bought a new car last year, and I’m glad it’s not a Honda, their commercials are embarrassing.

  201. The Continental Op says:

    And just in case it’s not clear enough, Toyota goes straight for the cat-women:

  202. The Continental Op says:

    Are there not any? Or do we just have to wait until the collapse and the return to the honest barbarianism we came from, before we can vanquish feminism and restore ‘order’?

    The feminism is so embedded in our society that society would have to change fundamentally that it would indistinguishable from a collapse. Removing feminism (really, equality, which means not just man-woman equality but all races-equality) would cause a huge upheaval in people. It’s almost like asking people to stop breathing. That’s not happening voluntarily in our society, it has to be imposed by a harsh reality.

    Meanwhile, I tell anyone who will listen that I am in favor of taking the vote away from women. That’s enough to freak out most people.

  203. Suz says:

    “I think the solution, in the end, lies in building up the younger generations of men, which could potentially inspire women to want to be wifed to begin with.”

    Yup. Take them out of public school and teach them to be men. The path is full of obstacles, legal and social, but a man who CAN do it, should try. (Speaking of risking being vilified) a few good men’s rights lawyers pushing for fathers’ custody, and the election of some fair judges at the local level, would be a good start in overcoming some of those obstacles. If it happens, it will be a long slow process.

    There are many angles from which to attack the feminist status quo, because there’s no aspect of society unsaturated by feminism. What you suggest, Samuel, is one of those angles. MRAs should be looking for the angles that best suit their abilities, and do what they can.

  204. greyghost says:

    What is the “right” person. It really makes no difference who you marry. a solid foundation is a solid foundation. Arranged marriages work when it is cultural. Think about the “so long boring dude” divorce or the I wish he would cheat divorce. Now how bad for a 16 year old girl would it have been for her to have married that guy. Alternative is for that 16 year old to fuck everbody she can until she hits 28 to 32 and marry that guy so she can cut him off and then act violated because after a few months or years he is seen looking at dirty pictures on the internet. The whole reason for this blog and the manosphere is the fact that perfectly good and honorable men are criminalized for the fact that they are good and honorable.
    College is nothing but a hook up market so women can slut it up in a controlled environment. “i want to get an education before I marry and have children” Sure you do.

  205. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Samuel Solomon at 1:18 pm

    You’re forgetting that the decline in male quality has been paralleled by an equal decline in female quality, and these create a vicious circle. This usually goes unmentioned even in the Manosphere.

    Feminist ideology cannot be vanquished, since it has always existed everywhere. What can be achieved is the destruction of the economic foundation of the current feminist order. However, this doesn’t guarantee a return to old patriarchal norms – far from it.

  206. Buck says:

    @ Samuel Solomon says:
    August 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    Thanks for this comment, Cheers!

  207. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Suz at 1:47 pm

    You’re aware of Einstein’s definition of insanity, aren’t you? What you repeated is simply another manifestation of the mentality that got us into this mess in the first place, namely that men need to be “fixed” and properly trained, that they need to change in order to give women what they want.

  208. Lad says:

    Samuel Solomon

    I think it has to be a multi-pronged strategy. Yes, there may be a “vacuum of manliness” or at least a problem of gameless betas. But addressing them is only half the battle, because ultimately young attractive women still have the lion’s share of sexual capital and men will always respond to their choices.

  209. Höllenhund says:

    Another thing that always goes unmentioned is that China and India are chock-full of patriarchal-minded, well-earning young betas who want to get married but currently cannot do so because of the lopsided local sex ratio. Why aren’t young Western women moving there instead of endlessly complaining about the dearth of “good men”?

  210. Feminist Hater says:

    Samuel, I like your point, Its got merit. My POV? Society, as we know it, has to collapse, at least to a point. The collapse creates a power vacuum that something closer to normal traditional society could fill. At this point in time there is too much power within the State, any dissension can be quickly curtailed, if not entirely put out of its misery.

    My ideal is to start local, start small and do the best one can. Teach your children wrong from right, teach your children to value honest work, commitments and God. Begin speaking to those around you and build up networks, get their children and your children to build strong bonds. If such communities grow, your children’s prospects for proper marriage life grows too.

    For the current generation? Quite frankly, I think we’re royally screwed. 10 foot poll up the arse sort of screwed. I don’t hold much hope for myself or others in similar situations. Hopefully enough good and decent people still have families and can carry on building on something better. For their sakes…

  211. Feminist Hater says:

    Grrrr! That should be “right from wrong”. Please be a good man Dalrock and fix that… Thank you.

  212. Some Guy says:

    Idealists, radicals, and dropouts are the least likely form a functioning community or subculture. However… the trailblazers can fight key battles, provide examples, and be a valuable resource twenty years later when the second wave comes along. This is what happened with home schooling anyway.

  213. asdf says:

    Dalrock,

    One big problem is that careers today require you to spend a lot of your 20s, at best your early 20s, moving around. Once to college. Then again for your first job. Often again for your second. And that is the lucky scenerio.

    Two people that are serious about one another often end up breaking up because they have to move to different cities.

  214. sunshinemary says:

    Samuel wrote:

    Absentee fathers (forced or bailed), single moms, feminism, blue-pill, churchianity and general wussification has created a class of guys that are totally unpalatable. I can’t fault women for passing these men up, because they aren’t much of men at all, because they have been denied their birthright of being taught how to be a MAN by their fathers and local leaders, and have been smacked down by feminist laws and culture.

    I go back and forth in my mind as to whether men are contributing to the problem or whether it really is all the fault of rebellious women. The ways in which young men are instructed to show their wives that they love them as Christ loved the church are yucky and will only make their wives’ sex drive go into hibernation. But then again, the Bible doesn’t promise women that they’re always going to be feeling groovy about their husbands…think about how Michal watched David dancing when they were bringing the ark and she despised him in her heart. She ultimately was responsible and bore the consequences of her lack of respect, so presumably it was her fault, not his, even if was acting dorky and unpalatable.

  215. deti says:

    FH: When was the last time American society collapsed “to a point”? It was probably the 1930s and the Great Depression, agree?

    Fun to speculate on what a collapse would look like now. I suspect it will look a little like the great depression. We’re already in a 4-year long recession now that, despite reports to the contrary, is not improving. Declining marriage rates, reduced male employment and male earning power isn’t helping.

  216. sunshinemary says:

    that should read, “even if he was acting dorky and unpalatable”.

  217. greyghost says:

    Lad,Samuel Solomon
    I’m very happy to see the comment you made Solomon. You have come to the end of the road and are now ready to take real action. It is the laws of misandry at the root of all of this. All of the rest of this talk of waiting,finding the right person,even game is just a survival technique for surviving in madness. Women have the vote and voted this in period. for most if not all of the shit women do is only something to pay attention to due to the laws of misandry with the guns, tasers,and prisons to back it up. Nothing is based on any logic or benefit to society. So we come up with all of this to survive, it is all a big lie.
    It is a multifront battle and is actually not as hard and impossible as it seems. The hard part is getting enough men to where you all are. Then it is actually easy and very quick almost over night. Victory will not be a change in women they will be just as self centered as always. The behavior will be better them children and society as a whole out of pure wicked selfishness hypergamy and all fully in command of their hamster. If enough men understand that it is over, for that understanding not only checks the behavior we have now it gives them some way to go. Women do not change they can’t, the behavior in the name of hypergamy does change. (the hamster)

  218. greyghost says:

    hollenhund
    It is not men that need to be fixed it is the law and culture. Suz is here looking for answers that are not there. So we will have to put them there.

  219. Feminist Hater says:

    Deti, I would agree with that, yes.

    The Great Depression was a collapse of the economy only though. The global economy also wasn’t connected like it is now and yet the Great Depression was felt all the way around the world. A collapse in the Japanese economy today will hit America tomorrow, there won’t be time for the American State to even try and prepare for the after shocks. The domino effect will be huge. The 2007/8 recession will be like a blip on the radar screen compare to what I think is coming. And yet look at the debt racked up just to keep everything afloat awhile longer?

    I’m thinking more than just the collapse of the economy of a country or two but of the entire world. World collapse is something no one has ever seen before. Also, people in 1930 probably had more reason to stick together and help each other in America. Not so today, violence and rioting could become daily occurrences and military usage to stop them could become the norm.

    Then there is the technology aspect to think of. Think what it takes to keep New York city running and people there happy with their lives? Imagine if suddenly there was no power, no running water, no police protection and the courts shut down? Total anarchy in a city that size? Rather gruesome if you ask me…

    A bit pessimistic, even for myself, but I’ve always been one to hope for the best but plan for the worst.

  220. Suz says:

    Hollenhund:
    “What you repeated is simply another manifestation of the mentality that got us into this mess in the first place, namely that men need to be “fixed” and properly trained, that they need to change in order to give women what they want.”

    I’m saying quite the opposite – that men need to be UN”fixed,” so they are free to behave like men. Women can follow if they choose, and I predict that most women WILL follow.

    What I am proposing is the model that has served our species pretty well for millennia.

  221. deti says:

    FH, I don’t like doom and gloom, but I reluctantly have to agree. I think all these problems, of which feminism and its unintended consequences are a part, are going to culminate in some very painful times ahead. We aren’t anywhere close to ready for it either — economically, monetarily, militarily or otherwise.

  222. deti says:

    FH:

    “Imagine if suddenly there was no power, no running water, no police protection and the courts shut down? Total anarchy in a city that size? Rather gruesome if you ask me…”

    New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina. That’s a small amount of what it would look like.

  223. greyghost says:

    feminist hater
    http://shtfschool.com/security/survival-of-women-during-shtf/
    when It gets real it gets horrible beyond anything that can be imagined by most people here.

  224. By the end of this week, I will release my contribution to the solution.

    Dalrock has a (raw) copy.

  225. Suz says:

    greyghost:

    Great link. Especially the woman’s statement:

    “I was helpless and just like a leaf in a storm.”

    We all are; we just don’t know it. We think our structured civilization will protect us, and to a degree it does. We’re not ready to admit that this protection is not guaranteed. If the SHTF, a woman will have NOTHING but her family. Without a man, her family probably won’t survive.

  226. Russia knows how to handle their radical feminists,..uh,..sort of,..?

    http://boingboing.net/2012/08/21/pussy-riot-solidarity-protests.html

  227. Suz says:

    Solomon,
    Several of us must be on the same wavelength; I’ve seen it touched on in a few discussions, and I’m currently mulling over a post emphasizing the need for a “multi-pronged assault.” Nothing will change overnight, but we didn’t come to where we are “overnight.” I look forward to reading your contribution.
    (off topic, I loved “The Violet Collar.” Your prose is beautiful.)

  228. Thanks Suz. I’d sure love it if you would leave me a review on Amazon. It really helps.

    And oh my goodness, you are gonna like the new book.

  229. Höllenhund says:

    The main problem isn’t that further economic shocks are inevitable, it’s that Western people are slowly turning into physically and psychologically inept, unskilled, atomized bags of shit completely unprepared to deal with any sort of unforeseen shock, let alone something like the Great Depression.

  230. Elspeth says:

    “even if he was acting dorky and unpalatable”.

    See, this is the point I was making on your thread, Sunshine Mary. If David, who was as alpha as they come, who killed thousands of me with a sword, a king who led his armies of misfits and outlaws into battle, and who’d had his share of women, could look “dorky and unpalatable” in the eyes of his wife, what man stands a chance simply by learning to manipulate his wife in a few ways that make her tingle?

    Just as David threw off the bravado to praise God, or to grieve his friend, or whatever else you can think of in Scripture, men far less manly than David will have their times of vulnerability. Wifely submission is commanded to be given, and frame is valuable for more than just keeping a wife in line. If she’s rebellious to the core, all the game in the world natural or otherwise, isn’t going to change her.

    That’s not me saying that a man shouldn’t develop his own internal frame; of course he should. It’s just an observation based on Mary’s description of Michal’s reaction to David’s praise. You can find that in 2 Samuel chapter 6 for those interested in the story.

    I wonder if the harshness of the punishment God meted out to Michal can tell us something about the way views a wife who rebels and disrespects a her husband, especially a godly husband who is trying to lead her in the right way.

  231. Feminist Hater says:

    By the end of this week, I will release my contribution to the solution.

    Look forward to it Samuel.

  232. Buck says:

    @ RE anarchy and the plight of women,

    Isaiah 4:1: “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. “

  233. Dalrock says:

    @Samuel Solomon

    Absentee fathers (forced or bailed), single moms, feminism, blue-pill, churchianity and general wussification has created a class of guys that are totally unpalatable. I can’t fault women for passing these men up, because they aren’t much of men at all, because they have been denied their birthright of being taught how to be a MAN by their fathers and local leaders, and have been smacked down by feminist laws and culture.

    Sure, women should marry younger and not wait, but to whom? Alpha cads? Fearful betas? Clueless Omegas? Seriously, their choices of good, legit prospects is very thin.

    I don’t know what the ratio is of women who want to marry young vs manly enough men who want to marry (young or not). It could turn out that a young attractive woman who wants to marry has plenty of manly enough young men (maybe 4 years older than her) available to choose from. This is my gut estimate. However, if it is the other way around, and manly enough marriage minded men are in such a shortage that even a young woman would have to compete for one, this is all the more reason not to wait until she is less attractive. Either way waiting longer means she picks last, negotiates when her MMV is lower, and her taste for alpha has increased. Also, if the assumption is that it will take some time to find the right man, all the more reason to start looking seriously ASAP.

  234. Feminist Hater says:

    Yep Hollenhund, I agree. Which is why I don’t hold much hope for this generation. I just hope that enough do have the necessary skills, intelligence and forethought to build stronger connections between their communities and raise their children correctly to value the parts of life that really matter, not the flimsy culture that the West is based on today.

    It always good to note that economic change is inevitable, it’s a part of the system, being based in debt. Eventually it has to be paid back. However, the skills and work ethic needed to get society out of the doldrums, after such a collapse, is being squandered on useless tertiary education, such as HR, Wimmenz Studies, African Studies and other such emo-tampon bullcrap instead of STEM subjects, trade skills and business acumen. We need production and efficiency, not another remake of some 1950s movie…

  235. Lad says:

    Greyghost,

    Believe me, I’m very anti-feminist. I just don’t feel the need to repeat points that have been made many times by writers much better than myself. Not on a blog like this where it is safe to assume most readers have at least a passing familiarity with them.

    One of the main flaws with feminism is their constant failure to maintain perspective and see the big picture, to see beyond their own idea of “equality” which is often merely the feminine imperative. They dwell on gender pay equality but ignore total family income, which is ultimately what matters to actual people. They dwell on representation of women in a target space without consideration of whether that space will benefit from increased female representation. They dwell on the plight of single mothers but ignore the consequences to society. They pressure women to pursue careers because it’s their duty to stick it to the man, instead of pursuing careers for practical economic reasons and a sensible understanding that your children won’t need a full-time mother forever. All this is failure to maintain perspective and adapt to legitimate criticism.

    I think rampant, unthinking discouragement of women pursuing careers, simply because feminists do the opposite, fails the perspective check in exactly the same way. It’s latching on to a scapegoat instead of directly addressing the issues that arise when a career comes into conflict with family. I post because I would rather see progress towards helping people resolve conflicts between career and family, rather than a lopsided push to solve those problems by banishing women from careers altogether– which comes with a whole host of new problems that haven’t been considered.

  236. Lad says:

    I don’t know what the ratio is of women who want to marry young vs manly enough men who want to marry (young or not). It could turn out that a young attractive woman who wants to marry has plenty of manly enough young men (maybe 4 years older than her) available to choose from. This is my gut estimate. However, if it is the other way around, and manly enough marriage minded men are in such a shortage that even a young woman would have to compete for one, this is all the more reason not to wait until she is less attractive. Either way waiting longer means she picks last, negotiates when her MMV is lower, and her taste for alpha has increased. Also, if the assumption is that it will take some time to find the right man, all the more reason to start looking seriously ASAP.

    There’s also the issue that in a society with a healthy perspective on marriage (in other words not unilateral Marriage 2.0 with a twice daily dose of the blue pill) a married man becomes more manly. His young pretty wife boosts his confidence, and he’s inspired to perform for her and their children.

  237. Jimbo says:

    I don’t get these recent posts. Who am I supposed to feel sorry about?

    Certainly, not CADS and not SLUTS. I’m not sorry about immature Peter Pans.

    That leaves responsible Beta men and aging educated virgins. Just about everyone else has married and/or divorced and are probably in no condition to revisit the dating market.

    The comments here don’t exactly address how to pair up these virgins and Beta men. They are the best marriage candidates. They need help to recognize their potential. Maybe the women need to lower their standards and stop raising cats. The men probably need to improve their game for courtship. I know it hard with decreased expectations.

  238. Feminist Hater says:

    Don’t feel sorry for anyone Jimmy Jimbo. Some are firmly into enjoying such a decline with the perks such an arrangement brings. Others, like myself, have stronger ties to communities of people who don’t subscribe to modern nonsense and have means to get by.

    As to your ‘pairing up’. You ain’t going to get beta men to marry old virgins, even if they do exist, it’s a waste of time. The virgins are virgins because they were probably waiting for Mr Perfect, who never arrived, and the Betas are too beta to be close to Mr Perfect. This blog and most readers and posters don’t subscribe to the idea of women settling for someone they ain’t head of heals for. Especially with divorce being so prevalent.

    However, if you really want my opinion on these matters and the coming collapse. I can tell you one thing. I don’t subscribe to saving the current status quo, in fact, I will be joyous to see it go. The way society treats its builders, creators and inventors today makes me sick. I’ll be happy to see that disrespect be given the finger by droves of men…

  239. deti says:

    Jimbo:

    You’re right that virgin women and responsible beta men are (at least at first glance) the best marriage candidates. The problems are manifold, though. First, sexual power has shifted from men to women. Hypergamy is completely unrestrained and there are no societal or other sanctions against premarital sex. So many of these virgins don’t stay virgins. SEcond, even the virgins repeatedly shout loud and clear that responsible betas aren’t attractive to them. This is largely a function of societal and media pressures, I think. It used to be that mothers and grandmothers and other women in a young girl’s life dissuaded her from holding out for the alpha studs. The older women understood very well the pitfalls of her chasing Harley McBadboy or Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer or Alpha McGorgeous. With the help of her father, she was steered away from them and encouraged to marry early. She was given good, sound instruction on the domestic arts.

    Third, men in general are getting the message that women are holding out and delaying marriage. So as D says, these men are being told they need to prepare for marriage, but they don’t get signals that there is any profit in it or point to it. They are getting the opposite signal now — that getting education and lucrative employment is not at all a guarantee that they’ll be able to find a wife. They look around and see thugs, bad boys and douchebags getting the quality women. So they see no point to breaking their asses for a slut with N >20 who at age 29 decides she’s finally ready to settle down with Eddie Steadyman.

  240. deti says:

    what Feminist Hater said.

  241. koevoet says:

    @ Hollenhund – “What you [Suz] repeated is simply another manifestation of the mentality that got us into this mess in the first place, namely that men need to be “fixed” and properly trained, that they need to change in order to give women what they want.”

    There is a wide gulf of difference between shaming men (Man up!) to get them to change their behavior to benefit a third party – i.e. manipulation – and telling men to unfuck themselves for their own sakes. Look at the “Shame the Beta” posts over at UMan some time. This is what we need. The manginas are not only hurting themselves but every other man around them. Let’s face it, shaming women isn’t going to do it. Their hamsters can run on their wheels faster than you could ever hope to outrun, even with the best PCP known to man. Men are going to have to learn game. They are going to have to learn to be ‘alpha’…just like their grandfathers were before them. They are going to have to stop ‘marrying those sluts’, telling them they are just fine. They are going to have to stop blaming other men for the problems caused by women. Until the manginas are stopped, the femifascists will have the initiative.

  242. koevoet says:

    Ah yes, societal collapse. When women stop wanting men with 6, 6, 6, and settle for the guy with the 7,62.

  243. Suz says:

    Samuel,
    I already reviewed it, about a month ago.

  244. imnobody says:

    @Solomon

    I think the solution, in the end, lies in building up the younger generations of men, which could potentially inspire women to want to be wifed to begin with.

    No.

    As Devlin says, men are the ones who primarily support the costs of marriage so women are the ones who have to prove that they are commitment material . And men are gatekeepers of commitment.

    So the solution, in the end, lies in building the younger generations of women, which could potentially inspire men to want to wife them to begin with.

    Fixed for you.

  245. Suz says:

    Imnobody.

    Ain’t gonna happen without SERIOUS motivation (positive or negative) for women. Men are designed to lead; Women. Are, Not. Females with no male leadership are why we’re in the mess we are. Nothing will make women shape up, except male leadership combined with the threat of losing access to men’s resources. NOTHING.

  246. imnobody says:

    @Suz.

    Of course, it is not going to happen with serious motivation for women. Men are designed to lead. Women are designed to decide. When women wanted patriarchy, men gave them patriarchy. When women wanted feminism, men gave them feminism. Men lead by doing what women want. It’s depressing, it’s pathetic, it’s the truth. We are biologically wired this way.

    NO SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS EVER BEEN DIFFERENT THAN THE SOCIETY WOMEN WANTED TO BE. Include Middle East and all patriarchal societies.

    Nothing will make women shape up, except male leadership combined with the threat of losing access to men’s resources. NOTHING.

    Men’s leadership dance to the tune women sing. You should say:

    Nothing will make women shape up, except the threat of losing access to men’s resources. NOTHING.

    This is why the marriage strike is the only way to do. Women are trying to marry the State, but this is not sustainable, like the economy show.

  247. farm boy says:

    Women don’t need men any more. They’re getting married without us.

    They still need the work done by men, stuff they can’t do (e.g. invent, lift heavy things). They also need the tax dollars of men.

    Women are so dependent on the system. They just do not understand this. As Dirty Harry said, “A women has got to know her limitations”.

  248. farm boy says:

    Nothing will make women shape up, except the threat of losing access to men’s resources. NOTHING.

    And these days, so many of those resources are channeled through the government. For many women, the money comes from “Washington”, not from men. In reality, lots of comes from China. The time may come when China says “no more”. Then what will women do?

  249. JoeS says:

    Women didn’t want the old legal penalties for adultery and the social penalties for promiscuity. The old patriarchy was not imposed by women. As has been pointed out – only the domination of feminist police state can maintain this situation. When women have to depend on men again for protection and support, then this system will begin to break down. That might be a very long time from now. In the interim it seems evident that most men are going to respond to the psychopathic behavior of modern western women by themselves resorting to similar callous behaviors. This will cause a continual degradation of society, but the top levels of society will maintain some semblance of order for some time yet.

    It’s not until the average professional no longer marries and has children that society will be on its last legs. Once you start destroying the family lives of professionals, you’re on your way to anarchy or tyranny. The feminists might well intend to go to Stalinist lengths to preserve their system

  250. farm boy says:

    Dalrock,

    Perhaps you could do a column on the how young females mistake SMV for MMV. They are young and most don’t know any better. This problem seems to be at the root of so many issues. Cover the causes, the manifestations,, and possible cures.

  251. imnobody says:

    Women didn’t want the old legal penalties for adultery and the social penalties for promiscuity

    Oh. They did. They really did. Back then, women divided the world between “good women” (non-promiscuous women) and “bad women” (promiscuous women).

    “Good women” wanted “bad women” not to lower the price of sex. When the prerequisite of sex was marriage, women were the first interested in punishing girls who gave up for free whether it was by social shaming, religion or the law. I know it. I have lived it in my country.

    Things changed with the pill and the women’s entrance to the workplace. Some women (correctly) reached the conclusion that they could have a better deal by being promiscuous with alpha men. These were the original feminists. They were fought by traditional women (for example, by STOP, which meant “Stop Taking Our Privileges”)

  252. JoeS says:

    There was a point when if a woman committed adultery her husband could kill her. Women didn’t want that, they had to put up with it. In order to marry, a dowry had to be supplied to the husband. The husband had to be paid to take responsibility for the wife. And prostitution was legal in the middle ages.

    No, feminism is the result of totalitarian protestant/enlightenment ideology that developed in Great Britain.

  253. farm boy says:

    Oh. They did. They really did. Back then, women divided the world between “good women” (non-promiscuous women) and “bad women” (promiscuous women).

    There was a societal cost when women are sluts. That is why they were shamed so heavily in the olden days. If your society was slutty, then it was less efficient, and the tribe next door might just take advantage of that and enslave you.

  254. imnobody says:

    There was a point when if a woman committed adultery her husband could kill her. Women didn’t want that, they had to put up with it.

    No, you don’t understand the patriarchy. Of course, if a woman had a sister or a daughter who was killed by her husband because of adultery, she obviously was not happy with that.

    But women (in general) didn’t oppose that because it was supposed that this was the husband’s right. The husband owned his wife’s sexuality and has all the right to kill his wife and her lover in case of adultery. This was a punishment accepted by society, whether by men or women.

    In fact, when you see all the causes women fought during these centuries, this was not an issue.

    If we go back to the centuries when the woman could be killed by adultery, we go back to the times that they have the concept of honor, which does not exist anymore, but whose influence was overwhelming during the patriarchy. People preferred to lose the life than to lose the family’s honor (this is why duels were so frequent, even when forbidden by the law).

    If a woman had commited adultery, the honor was broken and there were two way to restore it (depending on the society). The first way was to kill the woman. The second way was having a duel with the lover and killing him.

    Of course, we are not talking about the recent Western patriarchy, but about the patriarchy of yore and the Muslim variety.

    Some years ago, a Muslim immigrant girl was killed in Italy because of having an Italian boyfriend and having sex with him. The family was responsible for the killing. When the mother was asked, she said that it was the only way for the family to restore the honor so the girl’s sisters could marry (no one wanted to marry a girl of a family without honor).

    Patriarchy was, in reality, older women’s rule.

  255. greyghost says:

    Think Involuntary Childless Spinsterhood. 40 year old woman childless and working until death with no entitlement. Now think 32 year old same women willing to settle and no takers. now think 35 year old same women trying to get pregnant mother nature says too late. 42 now and can’t even get back on the carousel. Maybe sunshine can post up a few links to the spinster blogosphere to see what it lives like.

  256. farm boy says:

    Patriarchy was, in reality, older women’s rule.

    They were a part of it. But it really was a system that organized society in a synergistic manner that benefited most individuals and society as a whole. No one group exploited any other group, all gave up some things and gained some things as a result. It did not work out awesomely for everybody, but on average it was pretty good.

  257. farm boy says:

    Maybe sunshine can post up a few links to the spinster blogosphere to see what it lives like.

    In the bad old days, criminals were hung in the town square with signs on them that said things like, “This is what happens to murders”. Yes, indeed, we need something similar. Of course, the self-esteem of girls would be hurt, so it won’t happen. Besides, men are to blame anyway, so lets pass new laws and tax them more.

  258. imnobody says:

    @farm boy

    It was better than the awful system we have now, this is obvious. But this was not a paradise. It was better for society, for children. Not for men, who slaved themselves to support this grand building. Now men are better (if they don’t marry but this is optional) but the price is the destruction of the whole society.

  259. farm boy says:

    @imnobody

    Nope. Not a paradise, but a reasonably fair system that was strong enough (usually) to keep the neighboring barbarians at bay.

  260. imnobody says:

    @farm boy

    Agreed. The patriarchy is the best system possible for society (although not for men). But it is jettisoned once and again when prosperity comes. See the ancient Greece, the ancient Rome… In Europe, the patriarchal Muslim society is taking over.

    Matriarchy (feminism) is the suicide of the culture.

  261. MaMu1977 says:

    How women extrapolate their number of partners/”boyfriends”

    Male
    Functional genitalia (of proper size) that has been inside of her own genitalia
    Physically attractve (or incredibly mentally/socially/sociologically/biochemically attractive)
    Has met friends from most if not all peer groups (childhood, college and work/activity groups)
    Has met parents (or regularly has contact with parents)
    Is “better” than her (as with looks, social standing is variable)
    Was met while living (not visiting) in a specific area/on a consistently visited website

    Anyone else is a “life experience”, not a partner.
    *His penis was “so small”/”way too big”? Not a partner, even if they did everything *but* penis in vagina. And by “everything”, I mean *everything*.
    *She met him on vacation? Not a partner.
    *She dated him for three years, but their circles never intersected? Not a partner.
    *Her parents introduced him to her and her childhood friends *loved* him, but he pronounced soda as “soder” and his haircut wasn’t as “cool” as the guys in the city, so he was hot enough to sleep with but to *marry*, no way! Not a partner.
    *That smoking hot guy who she blew in the bar? Doesn’t count, not a partner.
    *That time she “met” John Mayer/Justin Timberlake/Michael Ealy/hot celebrity? Doesn’t count not a partner, even *if* they were photographed together, unless there’s an actual sex tape.
    *That time she ran into those bench players for the college basketball team after they failed to get entered into March Madness, then she “convinced” 3 or more of them to “let her make them feel better.”? Doesn’t count, they weren’t partners.
    *Enrique? Julio? Deng, the Sudanese goatherder (“But my Christian name is Patrick.”)? Nigel, with his clipped and cultured accent? Tsutomu, the surprisingly tall fisherman she met in Okinawa? Horst, who she met at the Kit Kat Club, with his steely grey eyes and studded paddle? Qung Qieg, that Thai guy with the 9-inch cock? The awesome Aussie? The cool Canadian? Hell, that guy she met when she crossed the Mason-Dixon line and learned that all Yankees are “dirty”, but some of them are “good-dirty”? Doesn’t count, not a partner.

    If the guy doesn’t fit almost (if not all) of the specific criteria, he isn’t going to be considered a “partner”. Not even in an anonymous poll (unless the woman in question is especially unattractive and/or has incredibly low self-esteem.) It ties into the “LTRs are just marriage-lite!”, mindset that Dalrock espouses on his site. When a woman is in “fun mode”, bragging about cocks past may just give her the edge over a different girl (if her bragging makes her look like a better ONS candidate, why not do it?) But when it *counts* (when its time to tie down that provider Beta, when the doctor wants to know the information for health reasons, when the preacher/priest/minister/researcher/ etc. is trying to get proper results), the criteria jump into place.

  262. greyghost says:

    feminism will die but it will be a few generations before there is a patriarchy. The men that end it will be in no mood for love. The mangina and supplicaters will be who they are. If it takes a civil war to end this madness women will pay for generations. You’ll see women marrying at 16 to the first man with a gun. And has i saw in a comment on the spearhead the women will cling to their husband like a life perserver. BTW the death of feminism isn’t when women get virtue the death of feminism is when the laws of misandry are gone or cannot be enforced. (that last part is pretty scary)

  263. furiousferret says:

    MaMu197 is exactly right.

    Those polls are extremely off when it comes to sex.

    Guys even in an anon survery will be like yeah I banged like 50 chicks.

    I think women are even worse, the hamster will come out in full force with super hero cape and blue tights to save the day and the partner count will be 2-3.

    That’s why said look up the STD stats. STD’s don’t have hamsters.

  264. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/08/22 « Free Northerner

  265. krakonos says:

    @imnobody
    Of course, we are not talking about the recent Western patriarchy, but about the patriarchy of yore and the Muslim variety.

    I am not sure what you mean by “recent Western patriarchy”. I remember that recently I read an article about a late 17th century court with an adulterous woman (in my country). She was sentenced to death. But on her husband’s intervention she got lifelong probation. Still she could not enter church on masses and was generally disrespected.

    Harsh punishment for adultery existed around Europe (up to 18th-19th century).

  266. Stuff says:

    @Anonymous Reader:

    “Go onto any college campus and talk with the ordinary beta man – odds are he’s a virgin.”

    You think girls on campus haven’t grown up on Cinderella stories? You think their first insult to each other in middle school wasn’t “slut” or “whore”? You think those insults weren’t amplified a hundredfold at girls dating betas?

    You think their girlfriends wouldn’t spit on them for dating/sleeping with “such a loser” and sniffing, saying behind her back “I guess she couldn’t do any better…she must sleep with just anyone, what a slut”?

    They simultaneously reward each other for sleeping with the same guy while saying in the same breath “what an a**hole.”

    Even if guys aren’t shaming sluts at college, the girls are shaming each other.

  267. Stuff says:

    Conversely, when she’s dating an alpha, the college girl’s girlfriends say, “wow, lucky her.”

    So, yes, slut-shaming leads to hypergamy because girls get points for sleeping with alphas and lose points for sleeping with betas (aka most men).

    It’s not necessarily an instinctive thing-the study showed that, but, as I can’t find it, I suggest people find out what fairy tales little girls are reading. Cinderella (hypergamy for marrying the PRINCE)…Little Red Riding Hood (slut-shaming for getting into the wolf’s bed)…even Disney princesses like Belle from Beauty and the Beast advocate picking the most alpha man out there and trying to ‘tame’ him for marriage. Sure, the princess might be special, but ALL the little girls think that they too can be a Disney princess.

    Those fairy tales and all the socialization that surrounds them are designed to affect girls’ behavior.

    In the age of birth control, picking different bedtime stories won’t lead to virginity, but they can at least prevent the raw deal that beta males get.

  268. dannyfrom504 says:

    sorry, but i’m still not giving in to marriage. the family court system is a beast, seen it first hand.

    no thanks.

  269. Stuff says:

    Sorry; I should add: “but they can at least prevent the raw deal that beta males get…” in college and beyond.

  270. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Big Old Feminist Vaginas Edition « Patriactionary

  271. JoeS says:

    “Even if guys aren’t shaming sluts at college, the girls are shaming each other.”

    What you described isn’t slut-shaming. It’s about contempt for betas, it has nothing to do with promiscuity being stigmatized.

  272. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Anonymous Reader at 9:54 am

    Point taken. I’m not sure what it has to do with my comment, though.

  273. imnobody says:

    @krakonos

    I am not sure what you mean by “recent Western patriarchy”.

    I mean the 50s in America or the 70s in my country (although I could argue that 50s in America was already a matriarchy). Or the last part of the XIX century. No one killed women because of adultery back then.

  274. greyghost says:

    Stuff
    What you described is the status in the herd. It is how a few feminist set the tone to make NAWALT a lie. Every once in a while female commenters here will tell about how they are belittled for not following the 8 step plan. Hypergamy is stepping up to the better deal but herd status defines what the better deal is. At one time it was the good girls with the solid betas that laughed at the sluts with alphas. A crying jilted sluts were advised to get a decent beta man. (good or christian) and or given the I told you so. even culturally the message was given. Old twilight zone 141 Spur of the Moment gave a tale of the tingle for the alpha. Hypergamy is what ever the herd dictates and the hamster will make it all right.

  275. Anonymous Reader says:

    Höllenhund says:
    Re: Anonymous Reader at 9:54 am

    Point taken. I’m not sure what it has to do with my comment, though.

    Two things:
    1. Provided an example illustrating your point regarding polygamy and who gets it, a lot of times people think of polygamy only in terms of Middle Eastern harems, but Chinese society was quite stable for centuries with such a system – and good times, for those in the upper reaches…
    2. Expanded on your point regarding the common man in a polygamous society.
    If some men get 2+ wives, then some men are going to get 0 wives. Basically “it gets worse than you say, and here’s why”. I could have gone on about the Fundamentalist LDS communities in northern Arizona / southern Utah, and what they do with their “excess” boys, but chose not to.
    3. Compared and contrasted ancient societies who rewarded useful men with more wives
    vs. Western civilization that pays for a layabout’s harem via “aid to children”. Since demography matters, a civilization that discourages its best citizens from having children and encourages its worst to do so is not in a good situation.That’s us.

    Clearer?

  276. @Anonymous Reader- what do the LDS communities do with their excess boys?

  277. deti says:

    Samuel Solomon:

    some of these communities kick them out because they are considered sexual competition for the older men who want to marry the younger women. In some of these communities the older men are reaching down to the girls in their early teens or younger.

  278. Jimbo says:

    @Feminist Hater, deti: “As to your ‘pairing up’. You ain’t going to get beta men to marry old virgins, even if they do exist, it’s a waste of time.”

    “SEcond, even the virgins repeatedly shout loud and clear that responsible betas aren’t attractive to them. This is largely a function of societal and media pressures, I think.”

    I largely agree with this although I do think this is mitigated as men age, they gain status and wealth. Women decrease in selectivity. This is why I think game is useful for Beta men who can improve their attractiveness via practice and offer the reality of their higher status and earning potential. Beta men can seek virgin women especially if they are significantly older like a 5 year gap (30 year old men – 25 yr old women) and this continues as women age out higher like in my situation where I was 44 and I married a 34 year old (a 10 year gap).

    It is not a waste of time.

    “Third, men in general are getting the message that women are holding out and delaying marriage.” and “First, sexual power has shifted from men to women. Hypergamy is completely unrestrained and there are no societal or other sanctions against premarital sex. So many of these virgins don’t stay virgins.”

    This is not a disadvantage. The delay in marriage works to the advantage of men. Besides, the hookup culture is not something they would have gotten into. If they did, they the issue is moot.

    There is no proof that virgins are not staying virgins. College would be the first place they would lose it if they didn’t at high school. They held out for a long time. With less opportunity after graduation, they are likely to remain virgins.

    “They look around and see thugs, bad boys and douchebags getting the quality women. So they see no point to breaking their asses for a slut with N >20 who at age 29 decides she’s finally ready to settle down with Eddie Steadyman.”

    Again, I’m not advocating Beta men date sluts. It doesn’t make sense to lose your sense.

  279. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti is correct. Here is a summary on wikipedia that is reasonably accurate.
    Please note that this involves a small group who call themselves Fundamentalist LDS, not the much larger Mormon church.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)

  280. “When the prerequisite of sex was marriage, women were the first interested in punishing girls who gave up for free”

    Exactly. No one slut-shames more than women.

  281. deti says:

    Peterman:

    “No one slut-shames more than women.”

    Not anymore. Now it’s “you go grrrrrl” and “so many men, so little time” and “he’s so hot”. Virgin shaming among women is all the rage now.

  282. Cro says:

    So here is a study on marriage and divorce in Sweden if anybody is intrested:

    http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2004-010.pdf

  283. marlon says:

    Confont your local pastor about these issues.
    That’s something that can be done now.
    No need to wait decades for the collapse of matriarchy due to Islam, robots, marriage etc.

  284. imnobody says:

    “No one slut-shames more than women.”

    Not anymore. Not anymore. Now it’s “you go grrrrrl” and “so many men, so little time” and “he’s so hot”. Virgin shaming among women is all the rage now.

    This is because society has changed. Nowadays, putting virginity as a requisite for marrying is really rare. Rejecting a wife because she is not virgin is almost unheard. So slut-shaming is not in the interest of women.

    Now, it’s the opposite. Sex is one of the tools you use to land a man. So being promiscuous is in the interest of women. This is why virgins are shamed.

    It’s the feminine imperative. Any society revolves about the interest of women, as I said.

  285. “Not anymore. Now it’s “you go grrrrrl” and “so many men, so little time” and “he’s so hot”.”

    I’d say we’re both right. Women will encourage each other to take a spin on the carousel–but should one of her friends go after a man she wants and out come the claws.

  286. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Suz 2:40 pm

    There can be no “unfixing” because there is no route for men leading back to patriarchy and Marriage 1.0 – the economic and cultural conditions simply aren’t there for that. Bygone norms and cultures are never regenerated, they just morph into something else. History teaches that religions also have a shelf life. Don’t pin your hopes on some sort of Christian revival.

  287. Höllenhund says:

    Re: imnobody at 6:31 pm

    Meh. Women never supported the patriarchy; they demanded its dismantling as soon as it was economically and politically feasible. They merely tolerated it because it provided the only method for extracting resources from men before women’s suffrage and economic independence.

  288. Jimbo says:

    “Virgin shaming among women is all the rage now.” Yes, I agree.

    “This is because society has changed. Nowadays, putting virginity as a requisite for marrying is really rare. Rejecting a wife because she is not virgin is almost unheard.” No, I disagree.

    There is no evidence that virginity is not valued as an asset for marriage. It seems like many men want to marry zero to low count women. This doesn’t mean sluts don’t marry. It is evident that they are not selected for marriage.

    I will agree that most marriages occur with non-virgins. Since we are dealing in a numbers game, 40% of the female population are virgins and 40% are low partner count women (1 to 2), the remainder are sluts (20%). A vast number are not hooking up prior to marriage.

    “So slut-shaming is not in the interest of women.” Not in their interest, but irrelevant.

    “Now, it’s the opposite. Sex is one of the tools you use to land a man. So being promiscuous is in the interest of women. This is why virgins are shamed.”

    This is a lie. Virgins are shamed because it is against the promiscuous culture, but it doesn’t land a man except for one night.

  289. imnobody says:

    Meh. Women never supported the patriarchy; they demanded its dismantling as soon as it was economically and politically feasible. They merely tolerated it because it provided the only method for extracting resources from men before women’s suffrage and economic independence.

    No. They didn’t demand the patriarchy’s dismantling as soon as it was possible. It was ten thousand years of patriarchy (at least). So, if this was “as soon as possible”, it was very slow.

    Some time ago (I can’t find the link), the Spearhead published a demand of women in XVII century. Nothing about abolishing the patriarchy. Everything about maintaining “female privileges” in the patriarchy.

    The temperance movement of the XIX century (which defended women’s interests and was the predecessor of feminism) … it was about men not drinking so they could work for women and kids. In other words, more and better patriarchy.

    Only the pill changed the game. Women thought that, in this new world, patriarchy was not profitable for them anymore. Only then, women demanded its dismantling.

    I lived in the patriarchy when I was kid and believe me: women supported the patriarchy. They were the harshest critics and shamers of women who didn’t want to follow it: sluts, feminists. Women loved the patriarchy. Then, things changed.

  290. imnobody says:

    Virgins are shamed because it is against the promiscuous culture, but it doesn’t land a man except for one night.

    Yes, but they don’t know it. They think that they are going to land Mr. Alpha Guy by giving him sex. The fact that this is not true does not alter their perception and, hence, their behavior.

  291. Martian Bachelor says:

    @electricangel ( & Mark Minter )

    I didn’t follow that manboobz link, but the “logic in brief” which was quoted is, for all intents and purposes, a degraded copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy of the basic logic which can be found in a book (ironically) called Innumeracy (John Allen Paulos, 1988). There’s a section in it on the mathematics of choosing a spouse, and it sounds like what a de-garbled version of what you posted might sound like.

    For one thing, it’s not game theory, but a problem in applied probability theory. Paulos uses the term suitor in it’s simplest, most traditional sense: someone who progresses from dating to going steady to proposing marriage, with the courted woman being on the same old-fashioned track.

    So the woman actually has to be on the quest to get married. She can’t be wishy-washy and adopt an “if the right guy comes along then I’ll want to get married” strategy… “–and I’ll do this by holding out on sex to make him commit, since I like him so much — and after I’ve thoroughly learned to give it away more, and more easily, to those who I like and care about least because they’re such losers I’d never want to commit to men like that.” Okay, so they don’t really say that last part. lol

    Anyway, Paulos presents a simple but still very useful model for understanding a lot of things. The model does provide an optimal (and simple) strategy for choosing when confronted with a task of this sort involving random presentation of a sample with a variable characteristic. And this optimizing strategy is one which is surely better than picking randomly, because at its worst it falls back to the random pick strategy.

    But the caveat is it’s only optimal when followed by entire populations. It maximizes the average outcome for that population, with some individuals doing better and some worse than average. So there’s a basis for believing natural selection would manifest such a strategy, at least in a general sense, for species facing this fundamental problem when mate choosing.

    Any individual trying to beat the odds by pursuing a different strategy amounts inevitably to pursuing a sub-optimizing strategy, and is therefore just gaming him or her self out of the population of optimizers and into a different population, one of mutant retards and screw-ups. Who reproduce less efficiently, and therefore get preferentially bred out of the population.

    Thus the optimizing strategy should be a stable one in populations once it’s established, since it can’t be improved upon. And it’s such a valuable and low-cost adaptation the strategy should become established in new populations quickly and easily — kinda like how evolution has invented the eye (basically) many different times.

  292. JoeS says:

    “Only the pill changed the game. Women thought that, in this new world, patriarchy was not profitable for them anymore. Only then, women demanded its dismantling.”

    No, the movement towards universal contraception and the the end of marriage has been coming a long time – the last 50 years were the final victory in a long process.

    Women have been using white knights for the purpose of undermining patriarchy for a very long time.

  293. Anonymous says:

    “Virgin shaming among women is all the rage now.” Damn straight. By other women. They want to knock down the competition because the lower-mileage babe is always better marriage material for those desirable hot guys. Shame that other girl into being a bigger Skank (with lower SMV) than you!

  294. Suz says:

    ” Don’t pin your hopes on some sort of Christian revival.”
    Oh I’m not. I’m pinning my hopes on a Male revival.

  295. Höllenhund says:

    With all due respect, imnobody, you should read a comment and think before you decide to formulate a response. I said that women demanded the dismantling of the patriarchy “as soon as it was economically and politically feasible”. Yes, for a long time, women supported the patriarchy. And then, things changed – because the dismantling became feasible. Duh.

  296. Anonymous Reader says:

    marlon
    Confont your local pastor about these issues.
    That’s something that can be done now.

    That’s true.. Just be ready to find another church afterwards.
    Churchian preachers don’t like it when people point out mistakes.

  297. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jimbo
    Since we are dealing in a numbers game, 40% of the female population are virgins and 40% are low partner count women (1 to 2), the remainder are sluts (20%). A vast number are not hooking up prior to marriage.

    Please support this claim with some evidence. It would be useful if your evidence was broken down into age groups as well. I am quite skeptical that 40% of women over 30 are virgins, for example.

  298. sunshinemary says:

    ” Don’t pin your hopes on some sort of Christian revival.”
    Oh I’m not. I’m pinning my hopes on a Male revival.

    I don’t think there will be one without the other.

  299. Suz says:

    SSM,
    The principles may be Christian, but most Christians don’t know that. I think economics and “secular” justice will drive most of it.

  300. Anonymous age 70 says:

    The Christians can’t revive anything. It is only with the support of the Christian churches that men are so totally mistreated.

    I also do not agree with the percentages of women who are virgin. In the mid-80′s, a woman’s magazine reported that the average bride had had 11 lovers. Not long ago, the same figure was stated. With the AVERAGE bride having 11 lovers, that would mean very few virgins or low count women ever married.

  301. wolf says:

    Slightly off topic. Check this funny video out Dalrock.

  302. JoeS says:

    Jimbo is drinking deeply of the “hooking up smart Kool-Aid. His daughter might well be a paragon of virtue, but to believe those surveys of college aged women is just not very rational. It’s just so easy to delude oneself about one’ s own relatives. Best not to think of it! However, those who send their daughters to Hook-up state U for a career in affirmative action career studies have only themselves to blame for the things that they might unwillingly find out about down the road.

  303. sunshinemary says:

    This is entirely off topic, but I’d like some input. Many of you may know a commenter here who goes by Doomed Harlot. She and her husband have an egalitarian marriage model, whereas my husband and I follow the Biblical headship/submission model. She has agreed to do a role swap with me for the next three days, and somehow we have managed to convince our husbands to go along with it. I’ve written up the parameters that she should follow to demonstrate submission to her husband here, but if anyone has any other suggestions, I’d love to here them.

    Sorry to interrupt with the off-topic request!

  304. Anonymous age 70 says:

    On your blog, 7man commented that submission is not a one way thing. Oh, yes, it is. I recommend the book, if you can find it used, ME? OBEY HIM? by Elizabeth Handford, a Baptist minister’s wife. She explains Biblical submission and the benefits of it for women.

    The mutual submission is a distinct feminist interpretation, designed to minimize submission by women who really don’t want to do it. I could write a book on this, but Mrs. Handford already did.

  305. sunshinemary says:

    Hi A70 – thanks for the suggestion. I have read excerpts from that book and found it insightful.

  306. farm boy says:

    Well, all of us guys can just pack it up and go home now, at least according to this

    http://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2012/08/21/dont_call_this_empowerment_22.html

  307. Suz says:

    Well, farm boy, that was refreshing! Written by a woman, no less!

  308. Höllenhund says:

    Nobody would publish something like that if it were written by a man.

  309. yaboy says:

    hahaha morning after regrets.

    Enjoy your world anglo-bitch! The gender war is over and you won a total victory. Here’s some ashes for you to play with!

    Love it, just love it. The feminists have achieved what 2000 years of work could not: Make women hate men and stop reproducing! I can’t wait until the dividends from the ‘girl power’ generation of workers start flowing into my bank account! Fewer whites = lower wages.

    hahahahahaha!

  310. Höllenhund says:

    “The feminists have achieved what 2000 years of work could not: Make women hate men and stop reproducing”

    I’d argue that’s actually a pretty easy task to accomplish. A far more difficult one is to make men hate women and stop reproducing, but feminism is making great success on that front as well.

  311. Fitz says:

    The problem young woman are encountering in finding “worthy” men to marry is bad and will get worse. In the current regime, under feminism, it is only possible for woman to present this as a problem.. It is impossible to find the mainstream media or our universities asking the question on why men don’t want to marry these women.

    #1. Feminism gets them to concentrate on their careers early in life. They are used to outperforming men so they continue to do this academically through high school, college and even graduate school. (as an interesting aside – many woman use this as a social and emotional excuse to blow off men, getting another man, or dating at all, I cant tell you how many marriageable young woman think…”I’m to busy now, once I get X,Y, or Z done I will pursue Mr. Right)

    #2. Sexual Liberationist ethos’ have led these same woman to think it O.K. to have multiple partners and boyfriends throughout their young lives. Many of these men are not the type girls would marry if they were being marriage minded and thinking of long term considerations like children.. So they end up ruining themselves because they lose the ability to effectively bond or gain a mans trust as to the long term commitment of marriage)

    #3. They have any natural charm, docility, submission, wrong out of them during the hook-up years along with the message of feminism…they become creatures that allot of men cant and don’t consider making a long term commitment with as desirable. I cant tell you how many young woman who don’t even realize that emotionally and socially don’t make you feel like a man, or the job of husband as noble. These same woman don’t seem to have any idea about the virtues of motherhood or how that is attractive to men… and approach it as a vehicle for personal fulfillment and not as a responsibility.

    #4. Hyper gamy kicks in as they start thinking about marriage and suddenly their looking at unexciting beta’s that there not acclimated towards because of a young life chasing alpha’s…,they have also done a good job of out competing many man… and there new law degree or medical degree that was a feather in their cap, or a way to met men, or a quest for status..has become a unattractive fact for potential mates and a new bench mark that they cant mary down from.

  312. Fitz says:

    Höllenhund (writes)
    There can be no “unfixing” because there is no route for men leading back to patriarchy and Marriage 1.0 – the economic and cultural conditions simply aren’t there for that. Bygone norms and cultures are never regenerated, they just morph into something else. History teaches that religions also have a shelf life. Don’t pin your hopes on some sort of Christian revival.”

    I cant agree with this general defeatist attitude. First, any attempts at “unfixing” have yet to reach a critical mass or be accepted as worthwhile amoung our social and intellectual eltites. If they were, I think most people would be surprised at how effective it could be. I have no reason to think people wont respond to messages of less promiscuousness, or virginity, or early marriage and the like. I also think you discount, out-of-hand, the power of religion to change peoples hearts and its staying power.

  313. farm boy says:

    The RealClearBooks article suggests that men and children have suffered due to feminism. Then it points out that women are no happier than in prefeminism times. So, once again, why are we doing this?

  314. farm boy says:

    “The feminists have achieved what 2000 years of work could not: Make women hate men and stop reproducing”

    I’d argue that’s actually a pretty easy task to accomplish. A far more difficult one is to make men hate women and stop reproducing, but feminism is making great success on that front as well.

    Hey guys, you forgot that it has made children hate their parents also. Three strikes and your out.

  315. What exactly is a “worthy woman” so that she deserves a “worthy man” ?

  316. farm boy says:

    What exactly is a “worthy woman” so that she deserves a “worthy man” ?

    She has a college degree in worthless subject, pushes paper behind a desk, has lots of self-esteem, plus moxie. And all of her friends affirm just how awesome she is.

    As for a worthy man, she thinks she deserves a stud who makes six figures. In reality, she probably deserves a high school drop out.

    Translation: she just isn’t that special

  317. Legion says:

    sunshinemary says:
    August 22, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    Role swap ? Do you have a hook up yet?

    Sorry, I had to ask.

  318. Fitz says:

    Farm Boy (writes)

    “The RealClearBooks article suggests that men and children have suffered due to feminism. Then it points out that women are no happier than in prefeminism times. So, once again, why are we doing this?”

    Great article and thanks for the link. Feminism is really starting to gain steam and momentum now. In years past girls still did not shoot for the stars career wise and considered marriage a route out of the workplace. Now – the pipeline is full of aspiring young woman who are told that marriage is something that will just natrurally fall into place once they get their top jobs.. and this man will somehow earn more and give them the “mommy track” option.

    They are competring for the very jobs they hope their future husband will have. the Dean of my old law school could see this and so could his colluges. Woman were more than half the entering class and they also were much more than half of graduating seniors. They took all the top honors and the like…

  319. Feminist Hater says:

    Legion, what they should really do is swap husbands lol!

  320. freebird says:

    @Sunshinemary
    Have you ever danced with the devil in the cool moonlight?

  321. Feminist Hater says:

    So, once again, why are we doing this?

    To empower women, duh.

    It should be duly noted that the average age a woman lives to will steadily become the same as a man’s and then actually start to dip below when women take on more and more responsibility. There will be greater stress on women, more heart attacks and more stress related deaths in future. Then there will also be more deaths on the job for women and more crime related deaths as they have to fit the role men do currently. It’s all coming together like a Kumbaya song. Though it remains to be seen how they will manage?

    They’re not empowered, they just finding out exactly how much crap the average man has had to deal with for eons. As the old adage goes, “World ends, women and children hardest hit!”

    Good job femcunts, you’re worth it!

  322. Feminist Hater says:

    And since women are doing so great and all, can they please remove all Title program schemes, affirmative action and preferential treatment of women at college. You can’t take these buffoons seriously. There are literally laws against how many men get to go to college, even cut offs for how many get to go on sports scholarships and bursaries, and yet women are somehow better because they are getting special treatment? Don’t make me laugh!

    If the purpose was to equal the playing field, it’s past that point. Any more now, even for another day, is pure discrimination. Let them put their money where their mouths are and lift these restrictions on men.

  323. Suz says:

    True dat, FH, true dat.

  324. greyghost says:

    According to churchian standards today any woman reguardless of cock carousel time is a worthy woman to any man in the churchian church. There is no such thing as an unworthy woman to a pussy worshipping christian leader (anybody claiming to be christian today)

  325. Platinum missus says:

    firstly, I LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS BLOG!!

    In relation to the comments about early marriage and divorce, has anyone checked out Mark Gungor’s blog? he shares similar views with many of you here on early marriage (he’s for it) and divorce (won’t remarry a divorcee unless its to their ex-spouse). I’d love to read your thoughts.

    http://www.laughyourway.com/marriage-insights/

    [D: Thank you, and welcome to the blog! Thanks as well for the link. I took a quick look and it looks promising.]

  326. gdgm+ says:

    Right on cue, just in time for Fall, the toxic Hanna Rosin re-appears with another _Atlantic_ magazine article:
    Boys On The Side

    The hookup culture that has largely replaced dating on college campuses has been viewed, in many quarters, as socially corrosive and ultimately toxic to women, who seemingly have little choice but to participate. Actually, it is an engine of female progress—one being harnessed and driven by women themselves.

  327. sunshinemary says:

    FH wrote:

    Legion, what they should really do is swap husbands lol!

    My husband reads my blog although he doesn’t comment, so he knew about DH’s open marriage. When I spoke to him yesterday, I said, “So, I have an idea about something I want us to try with Doomed Harlot,” and he interrupted me to say, “I am not seeping with her!” which made me laugh.

    No, but really, she is making a good faith effort at it for the next three days; she brought her husband’s breakfast to him today. :)

  328. imnobody says:

    Hollehünd

    With all due respect, imnobody, you should read a comment and think before you decide to formulate a response. I said that women demanded the dismantling of the patriarchy “as soon as it was economically and politically feasible”. Yes, for a long time, women supported the patriarchy. And then, things changed – because the dismantling became feasible. Duh.

    I read your comment completely before writing mine. Before writing my reply, I saw your position and I saw that it could be considered compatible as mine. But there’s a difference who can be subtle but it is also important. I am not always able to communicate subtle differences in English (a language I constantly struggle with), especially when I am in a hurry.

    Yes, if you put it in a logical way, “as soon as possible” is the same as “when things changed” but there is a difference of emphasis and emphasis is important in language. You make it sound as if women were completely unsatisfied with the patriarchy and they were only expecting an opportunity to remove their shackles and establish a feminist society. With your own words:

    Meh. Women never supported the patriarchy; they demanded its dismantling as soon as it was economically and politically feasible. They merely tolerated it because it provided the only method for extracting resources from men before women’s suffrage and economic independence.

    Sorry, but this is not true. Women were not tolerating the patriarchy. They wanted it. They were the ones who defended it the most.

    I know that in the United States the patriarchy is about 100 years ago (Sayid Qutb, the Muslim fundamentalists, detected in the later 40s the promiscuous nature of the American woman. The 20s was a time of sexual liberation. The 50s was a parenthesis and not a proper patriarchy).

    This is why American men have only abstract notions of the patriarchy but I lived the patriarchy. But you don’t have to trust me: you only have to go to a patriarchal country and speak with their women. With exception of women indoctrinated by Western ideas (for example, the ones who are studying college), women love the patriarchy. Their ultimate goal in life is to have a good husband and a good family. They don’t want to leave their children in child care and go to work in companies. They don’t want to be single moms.

    Women spend the last ten thousand years satisfied with the patriarchy (in average). How could this not be? Do you think a system is sustainable for ten thousand years when the 50% of the population is only “tolerating it”? Don’t you think women had power in the so-called patriarchy? Think again. When it comes to the relationships between the sexes, the mothers, the aunts, the grandmothers are the ones who really have the power in the patriarchy and the men are only their tools. These older women are the ones who police the patriarchy: teaching the little girls patriarchal tales, keeping the young woman virgin, making the young man responsible (shotgun marriage), shaming the slut, etc.

    Don’t believe me? Go to a patriarchal country (for example, one in the Middle East) and speak with their women. They will tell you like it is. They are happier than their Western counterparts, by the way. It is only feminists that they think they are miserable and expecting a feminist utopia. Pure propaganda.

    Further reading (how men were the ones behind the adoption of the pill and women resisted it as much as possible). Scroll down a little to get to the relevant part.

    http://www.angryharry.com/esTheSexualLiberationofWomen.htm

    I hope to have expressed myself clearly this way. English is a tricky language.

  329. deti says:

    The Social Pathologist crunches more slut numbers. He again notes the association between partner count and divorce risk here:

    socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/08/more-promiscuity-data.html

  330. greyghost says:

    I want things just like they are with out the laws of misandry. Screw the patriarchy. I do not want to be forced at gunponit to tolerate a woman at all. No chivalry none of that. I want real and actual enforced equality under the law. If some mangina wants to idolize pussy have at it. But this by law stuff is bull and is the root cause of the western collapse. Women are just fine and even worthy when not on a pedistal.

  331. Fitz says:

    greyghost (writes)

    “According to churchian standards today any woman reguardless of cock carousel time is a worthy woman to any man in the churchian church. There is no such thing as an unworthy woman to a pussy worshipping christian leader (anybody claiming to be christian today)

    I agree with this. I think its largely by default to feminist inspired culture and the surviving impulse of chivalry. I believe Christianity, Roman Catholicism have it well within them to confront woman and support men that is a required corrective. It is obviously in scripture and tradition, we have the intellectual resources to do it. No camp counselor “Jesus” need apply.

  332. Pirran says:

    @ gdgm+
    Re: Boys on the Side

    You got there before me. Truly the nuclear powered hamsters in full flow, delivered by the Hamster Godmother herself.

    Awesome.

  333. Fitz says:

    gdgm (writes)

    “Right on cue, just in time for Fall, the toxic Hanna Rosin re-appears with another _Atlantic_ magazine article:” Boys On The Side..

    This article is nothing more than an exercise in feminist and sexual revolutionary apologetics..

    It starts with the necessary straw-man caricature of devolving sexual standards that shoe horns a unavoidable reality into a politically correct narrative that allows its authors and feminism/sexual revolutionaries to avoid blame & the problem to go without address.

    (from the article)
    “Sexual liberation, goes the argument, primarily liberated men—to act as cads, using women for their own pleasures and taking no responsibility for the emotional wreckage that their behavior created. The men hold all the cards, and the women put up with it because now it’s too late to zip it back up, so they don’t have a choice.”

    I have never heard anyone paint the results of the sexual revolution so one sided or female victim centered as this. No Christian or socially conservative thinker or writer approaches the issue in such simplistic fashion. Clearly this is the straw man that is necessary to give this article its reason for existence. But since no such critique actually exists, this straw-man becomes the excuse for apologizing and cheerleading the degrading of standards and the collapse of our marriage culture that this article ultimately ignores.

    Now watch for the boilerplate bromide that says (somehow) that all this wont effect there lives and marriages/lack thereof in the future. Virtue is not habit acquired, every man/woman is an island onto themselves, what me worry…

    (from the article)
    “Ultimately, the desire for a deeper human connection always wins out, for both men and women. Even for those business-school women, their hookup years are likely to end up as a series of photographs, buried somewhere on their Facebook page, that they do or don’t share with their husband—a memory that they recall fondly or sourly, but that hardly defines them.”

    What husbands… Have not trends in marriage become clear to the author. What about satisfaction in marriage, stress in households, demands on woman & men and the willingness of men to marry these woman. Are the men just amiable dolts who have nothing to say about this female led time of no commitment and sexual licence? Are the really woman unhindered and unaffected by these causal encounters? Are no ill-effects possible much less being experienced? Are these good habits for future marriage…? For finding a suitable mate? Does this increase fidelity and contentment…will they get these years back??

  334. imnobody says:

    @greyghost

    I agree. The problem with men who idolize the patriarchy is that they haven’t lived in it. It seems rosier when you imagine it in your mind. In fact, as Chinweizu explains better than I could in “Anatomy of female power”, the so-called matriarchy is, in reality, a matriarchy in disguise.

    http://therawness.com/anatomy-of-female-power-download-and-discussion-page/

    This is why MRA movement is so divided. In reality, it is two movements: the ones who want to go back to the patriarchy and the ones who only want REAL equality between sexes (I mean real equality, not the rigged game favoring women we have today).

    They are united because they agree in opposing feminism, which is in power. If they could one day have power, they would fight one another. History shows once and again that opposing the establishment is the better glue to unite different ideologies until they have the power. It is easier to agree about what it is not wanted than to agree about what is wanted.

  335. Jimbo says:

    @Anonymous Reader says:
    August 22, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    “Please support this claim with some evidence. It would be useful if your evidence was broken down into age groups as well. I am quite skeptical that 40% of women over 30 are virgins, for example.”

    The evidence in the breakdown is in another post. Look a bit higher bro. However, the claim about women over 30 who are virgins is extrapolation of the data. I said that virgins who maintained their virginal status upon college graduation is likely to remain virgins due to lack of opportunity. There is more opportunity in college.

    @JoeS

    “Jimbo is drinking deeply of the “hooking up smart Kool-Aid. His daughter might well be a paragon of virtue, but to believe those surveys of college aged women is just not very rational.”

    I take some information from Hooking Up Smart, but I don’t represent their position. In fact, I have a difference perspective. And I didn’t claim to have a daughter in these discussions. I have claimed to have married 2 virgins, at different times, and they were both 30 and over and college graduates.

    How did I do it? You tell me since you said there are no such virgins.

  336. deti says:

    Fitz:

    The answers to your questions are No, of course.

    The Rosin article is just more of the same we’ve come to expect from her and her ilk. Women who want to can party it up, get the hot men to sex them while it lasts, and do whatever they want. Then around age 30 when she can feel her age creeping up on her, she decides she wants to marry. She simply expects that attractive men will be there when she decides to marry and that she will have the run of the litter.

    These women simply need to be denied husbands. Plain and simple. Oh, I know Kate Bolick’s story is that she’s 40 and single and fabulous. She says she’s dated younger men according to Susan Walsh, just since the Atlantic article came out last fall. OK. But does anyone think any of these younger men will marry her? Doubtful. More likely she will find herself simply serially dating these men, and them dumping her when they are tired of her.

  337. Jimbo says:

    “According to churchian standards today any woman reguardless of cock carousel time is a worthy woman to any man in the churchian church. There is no such thing as an unworthy woman to a pussy worshipping christian leader (anybody claiming to be christian today)”

    As much as I like to say the Church isn’t doing a good job, I haven’t heard any Church say an unworthy woman is a worthy one to marry. They are saying one should marry, which is the right thing to say.

    Let’s stop this church bashing. Being a Christian means you do need to take responsibility.

  338. farm boy says:

    @deti

    So Kate Bolick is a couger? I bet that is really empowering.

    Does a couger ever get married?

  339. farm boy says:

    Being a Christian means you do need to take responsibility.

    For guys, yes. For the gals, not so much.

  340. deti says:

    Farmboy:

    I don’t really know whether cougars marry. I think I’ve seen married and unmarried cougars.

    From what I can see, cougars are:

    –35 YO +
    –better than average looking
    –very sexually experienced and uninhibited
    –financially independent (or at least appear to be).

    It’s not really empowering to be a cougar. It seems the only real power a cougar has is in her sexual agency and, unless she’s got really great genes or has the time and money for a personal trainer and constant cosmetic surgery, she is on borrowed time. She has to be overtly sexual and forward or she gets no attention. She gravitates to either young hot studs or older players, neither of whom have any interest in anything long term.

    That’s a lifestyle that chews up and spits out a lot of women.

  341. Fitz says:

    “Being a Christian means you do need to take responsibility.”
    For guys, yes. For the gals, not so much.”

    I think a tremendous oportunity exists for the the Church inparticular and Christianity in general to address these problems forthrightly… A special emphasis would neccesarily be needed that would chastize woman and up there sexual standards twoards chasitity & marriage mindedness.

    Sure the blowback would be imediate and harsh from the establishment…but if it was done on a wide scale and consitatly applied and maintained people would respond postively because it is real agency and mature/responisble advice.

    If the leaders, lead (this always means men) then the people will follow.

  342. deti says:

    @Jimbo:

    “As much as I like to say the Church isn’t doing a good job, I haven’t heard any Church say an unworthy woman is a worthy one to marry. They are saying one should marry, which is the right thing to say.”

    The problem is deeper and more elementary than that. The problem is the Church doesn’t know how to recognize unworthy women, nor how to distinguish worthy from unworthy women. Moreover, the church is doing nothing to teach men how to do either of these things.

    You can have differences of opinion on who is and is not worthy. But you have to start there, and the Church by and large isn’t there.

    In the Church’s opinion any woman who comes in the door and attends for a month or so is “worthy” just by dint of her presence. In the church’s estimation, she is worthy of a husband simply because she is 32, never married or divorced, and she expresses a desire to marry. There is no examination of her past, her repentance and repudiation of that past. There is no questioning or training on whether she has the skills, character and horsepower to choose a suitable man, submit to him, and stick it out with him through the good times and bad.

  343. Jimbo says:

    @deti: The Church will not put people on trial. They won’t make such an determination. The couple can certainly arrange marriage counseling, which is voluntary.

    There are women’s groups to help women out to discuss her options and how to be a good Christian woman and wife. I do see it isn’t enough to satisfy your criteria.

    Come on. Who am I to tell YOU not to marry if YOU want to?

  344. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Anonymous Reader says:
    August 22, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    “Please support this claim with some evidence. It would be useful if your evidence was broken down into age groups as well. I am quite skeptical that 40% of women over 30 are virgins, for example.”

    Jimbo
    The evidence in the breakdown is in another post. Look a bit higher bro.

    If you are referring to the study referenced at HUS, then we have a lot of talking to do, or you have a lot of work to do, or both. There are a number of issues with that study, starting with the method used to collect the data.

    However, the claim about women over 30 who are virgins is extrapolation of the data.

    You said “women”. That includes every female human above the age of 18. If you mean “women in college”, say so. If on the other hand you mean “women of college age (18-24)” then say so.
    I’m frankly skeptical that 40% of women over 20 have never had any sexual experience, and so are virgins. It is common in some US subcultures now for women to call themselves “virgin” if they have never had PinV sex, regardless of the number of blowjobs they have given…

    There is a growing body of evidence to suggest otherwise.

    I said that virgins who maintained their virginal status upon college graduation is likely to remain virgins due to lack of opportunity.

    And offered nothing to back that claim up.

    There is more opportunity in college.

    Uh huh. I guess that’s why Roissy has such a hard time picking up women who are college graduates with jobs, right? ‘Cause there’s more opportunity for women to have sex on the cock carouse in college than there is when bar-hopping in Georgetown…

  345. deti says:

    Jimbo:

    No, the church won’t put people on trial. No, the church won’t do the examination or questioning I mentioned. But it can return to biblical principles so it can teach women how to examine themselves and question themselves, so the women can determine what their shortcomings are and do their best to remedy them. Chief among these are her prior selection in men and her sharply reduced or perhaps even destroyed ability to forge sexual, emotional and spiritual bonds to the kind of man who will be willing to marry her. She first needs to determine if she can be attracted to these kinds of men. If she cannot, then she must not marry.

    She will need to be told her prior sexual conduct has increased her taste for alphas. She will need to be told that the kinds of men who sexually excite her will not marry her; and that she will have to lower her standards and include in her sights men she would not have considered before. If she cannot accept this, she must not marry.

    She needs to be told that bonding might be difficult or impossible, and that she needs to work through this. She must be told that she must be sexually avallable to a husband, whether she “feels it” or not. If she cannot accept this, she must not marry.

    An unworthy woman can become worthy. It is very difficult and most cannot do it, but some can.

    The church can and should teach men how to recognize worthy and unworthy women. The church and and should teach men what problems attend having sex with and marrying a high N woman. Chief among these problems is that during a lengthy marriage she will likely experience extended periods of time where she doesn’t feel physical or sexual attraction for her husband. Men need to be told that many high N women continue to have these periods of time even though they have “reformed” and overcome their bonding difficulties. Because of this, many high N women are more marriage “work” than lower N women. They usually require more dominance and relationship “hand”. This is why character development for such a woman is critical. She must have the character to know these things about herself. He must have the foresight and instruction to know that it is not his fault; rather, it is a problem that she and she alone created.

    He has a right to know this BEFORE he marries the “reformed slut”.

  346. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jimbo
    As much as I like to say the Church isn’t doing a good job, I haven’t heard any Church say an unworthy woman is a worthy one to marry. They are saying one should marry, which is the right thing to say.

    I haven’t run across any church saying that an unworthy woman is a worthy one to marry, either.
    That is because I have not run across any church that says any woman is unworthy.

    Please review the Driscoll “man up” sermon. That’s what a lot of men are hearing on a regular basis.

  347. Feminist Hater says:

    Haha, AR, so true. The Church is not willing to call a slut a ‘slut’!

  348. greyghost says:

    Deti
    An attempt was made to show the churchians how to vet a ho with the knowledge of female psychology(game) But the pussy worshippers fell back on the “bible” and the PUA. Don’t bash the churchians (christians) they are just good godly people paving the road to hell. Todays pussy begging christians have no faith and don’t want to see or know an unworthy woman. The proper term is cowards and they know it.

  349. deti says:

    How to recognize a worthy woman in church:

    1. Worthy: takes responsibility for her part in her past, without reservation.
    Unworthy: blames others, deflects blame, takes no responsibility.

    2. Worthy: kind, pleasant, submissive, demure, modest, tastefully attractive.
    Unworthy: Caustic, bitchy, demanding, forward, brash, garish.

    3. Worthy: talks about sex only with serious suitors and is honest and forthcoming about it.
    Unworthy: either evades the subject of sex completely or is too forward about it too soon, and even then is dishonest and tells half-truths.

  350. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Fitz at 12:20 am

    First, any attempts at “unfixing” have yet to reach a critical mass or be accepted as worthwhile amoung our social and intellectual eltites. If they were, I think most people would be surprised at how effective it could be.

    But they aren’t, and probably won’t be. No-one among the elites is going to propose the re-empowerment of average men. And if they actually were, the attempted “unfixing” in question would undoubtedly take a gynocentric form and be presented as “reforming” the “male useless eaters” so that they can once again be saddled with blanket expectations of responsibility towards women and children, as demanded by the majority of voters, especially average women.

    I also think you discount, out-of-hand, the power of religion to change peoples hearts and its staying power.

    I don’t. I do discount, however, the power of Christianity, as it has revealed itself in the last couple of decades as just another female supremacist cult of gynonormativity and gynocentrism. The same can be said about Islam.

  351. Höllenhund says:

    Re: imnobody at 9:41 am

    Do you think a system is sustainable for ten thousand years when the 50% of the population is only “tolerating it”?

    Actually that’s entirely possible and feasible. I won’t talk to women, thank you very much. Watch what they do, not what they say. As soon as technological progress enabled the dismantling of the patriarchy without leaving women defenceless and uncared for i.e. enabled the transformation of the government into history’s biggest beta provider through the mandatory transfer of beta male tax dollars to women, yeah, women instantly demanded their own liberation from patriarchal norms.

  352. whatever says:

    Jimbo says:

    As much as I like to say the Church isn’t doing a good job, I haven’t heard any Church say an unworthy woman is a worthy one to marry. They are saying one should marry, which is the right thing to say.

    Would you please stop lying? Saying that “you haven’t heard any Church say an unworthy woman is a worthy one to marry” is simply a really stupid lie. Do you really think i am that stupid?

    Or are you running on pure “he won’t dare call me a liar!” arrogance? Well, you are. You need to work on that.

    PS:
    I except the possibility that you have personally never seen a priest play pimp-daddy for a born-again slut. I completely reject that you have failed to understand that is what many priests would do and have done. After seeing the words and deeds of many priest no other conclusion is possible.

    But if you really need evidence, let’s pretend you aren’t a liar. Watch Fireproof. Then google it. You will find many a priest being a big pimp daddy for the slut-wife in the movie. So there. That is your proof, Jimbo, proof that you certainly didn’t need.

  353. Jimbo says:

    @AR “There is a growing body of evidence to suggest otherwise.”

    “And offered nothing to back that claim up.” (HEH)

    I’m not going to go back and argue 40% are virgins and another 40% are low count partners. If you don’t believe it, it seems like it is a hunch for you and not backed up.

    “That is because I have not run across any church that says any woman is unworthy.”

    No one can say the woman is worth to marry when it is the man that’s doing the marrying. Goodness. It is the chicken and egg theory. Which one is first?

    And another thing, at least in the churches where I attended, the majority of the weddings don’t even occur at the home church. It is not the “The Church Wedding”. It might not even occur to the Church member. I have never joined a church as a member. I attended the church and served in it, but I never formally joined it as a member.

    What you’re asking for is a issue of what is relevant? What can they do in light of how committed the person is to the Church.

    @deti; “He has a right to know this BEFORE he marries the “reformed slut”.”

    The guy holds the cards for commitment. Again, why are we so agitated about sluts marrying. If a Christian is making a decision on this, why is he ever considered sluts for marriage?

    I know we Christians can get hung up on forgiveness and such. I heard it too much before about the need for forgiveness, but forgiveness does not mean marriage.

    Marriage is hard enough without having to deal with someone’s past when such a horrible background should be avoided. The Church doesn’t say much about sluts. Maybe because sometimes people need to put their big pants on and notice the reality. DON’T MARRY SLUTS. Even I know this.

  354. Jimbo says:

    @whatever.

    Whatever!!!

  355. deti says:

    Jimbo:

    “Marriage is hard enough without having to deal with someone’s past when such a horrible background should be avoided. The Church doesn’t say much about sluts. Maybe because sometimes people need to put their big pants on and notice the reality. DON’T MARRY SLUTS. Even I know this.”

    On the contrary. The Church is telling men “Man up and marry the sluts”. The Church is telling men that the “reformed Sluts” who attend are marriage and motherhood material simply by dint of their church attendance and their having prayed a prayer. the Church tells men if they want a wife they need look no further than the twice-divorced tart with two thugspawn sitting in the next pew, or at the 34 YO never married career girl who just started attending a couple of months ago.

    The Church is telling men to ignore their gut instincts.

  356. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jimbo:
    @AR “There is a growing body of evidence to suggest otherwise.”
    “And offered nothing to back that claim up.” (HEH)

    You appear to be asking me to prove a negative. Is that what you meant to do?

    I’m not going to go back and argue 40% are virgins and another 40% are low count partners.

    Good for you, since you do not seem to have actually read the study you are citing.

    If you don’t believe it, it seems like it is a hunch for you and not backed up.

    If I understand what you are pointing to, it is a study that I have read, and I not only understand the conclusions, I understand the methodology used to obtain the data. Now then, if you have read this study – the original document, not someone else’s bad paraphrasing – then you should be able to explain to me in one or two paragraphs how the data analyzed was obtained. If you cannot explain the method used, then you have not actually read the study. It could be that you have found a different study, and that I have not read it, yet. I do not really know what you are citing, frankly, but I suspect you are pointing to something that I have already written an extensive criticism about right here on this site.

    So let’s stop fooling around. Give me the title of the study, and the author(s) so that I can look it up myself. And one more thing, show that you understand the study in question.

    My challenge to you, Jimbo: post the method used to obtain this data. Post it right here, preferably in your own words, or at least a copy/paste from the original paper. If you can’t do that, you don’t know what you are citiing, and therefore you don’t know what you are writing about.

  357. Jimbo says:

    @deti, “The Church is telling men “Man up and marry the sluts”.”

    This claim doesn’t align with the following:

    “The church can and should teach men how to recognize worthy and unworthy women.”

    “The problem is the Church doesn’t know how to recognize unworthy women, nor how to distinguish worthy from unworthy women. ”


    Either the Church knows or they don’t know, or they are untrustworthy and manipulative.

    Who the Church is telling to marry is hardly a problem. It isn’t much of their problem if the couple goes through with their program of counseling. The prescreening has already occured with those are marrying.

    After reading Dalrock for a while, the issue of maintaining a Christian marriage is the bigger problem, which I don’t dispute.

    Okay, I’m not sure what’s going on here. This argument is beyond ridiculous. I’m saying goodbye.

  358. Dalrock says:

    @Jimbo

    As much as I like to say the Church isn’t doing a good job, I haven’t heard any Church say an unworthy woman is a worthy one to marry. They are saying one should marry, which is the right thing to say.

    As Anon Reader mentioned above, see Pastor Driscoll. 40 year old career gal? Man up and marry her. Women fornicating? That is a sure sign you need to marry her!

    Let’s stop this church bashing. Being a Christian means you do need to take responsibility.

    The church absolutely needs to be bashed. It is our responsibility to call these things out. Are you seriously not aware of how far churches are away from biblical teaching on men, women and marriage? If not, I’m happy to point this out to you. Then you can man up and take responsibility.

  359. Jimbo says:

    “I do not really know what you are citing, frankly”

    Okay. I’m not going back to debate this nonsense.

  360. Jimbo says:

    @Dalrock: A 40 year old woman by definition should not be married. It is not necessary due to age. She won’t be bearing children. However, this issue of what makes her unworthy is not developed.

    You don’t give credit for his question “Ladies, are you part of the problem?” and “Are you the girlfriend who has allowed one of these guys to be with you although there is no clarity regarding what your relationship is or direction for where it’s going?”

    It is too bad that he didn’t ask the 40 year old woman the question. Maybe she is the problem.

    The problem that you and Driscoll see is the same problem. Not enough marriages. I’m hardly in position to argue for more with the prevalence of people unsuitable for marriage.

  361. Anonymous Reader says:

    AR
    “I do not really know what you are citing, frankly”

    Jimbo
    Okay. I’m not going back to debate this nonsense.

    I’ll be patient for now. You pointed earlier to a posting at a different web site and made a claim about “women”. I’m asking you to back up your claim by citing the study you say supports your claim. This is how rational debate works: when you make a claim, you back it up. When I make a claim, I back it up. You say that 40% of “women” are virgins, then backtrack about age groups sorta kinda.

    Cite the study you claimed. Don’t point me to HUS, you do the work to go find the study, and you do the work to download the study as a PDF, and you do the work to type the method used to obtain the data that you say is true. Then we can have an adult discussion, starting with what exactly the study defined in terms of sexual activity.

    Engaging in virtual handwaving, and citing studies you have not read, and ignoring the reality of the modern sexual “marketplace” as well as the modern marriage “marketplace” is not the way to have an adult discussion.

  362. Dalrock says:

    @Jimbo

    You don’t give credit for his question “Ladies, are you part of the problem?” and “Are you the girlfriend who has allowed one of these guys to be with you although there is no clarity regarding what your relationship is or direction for where it’s going?”

    Not true. I addressed that quote specifically in the post:

    In the place of biblical marriage they now hold up serial monogamy as the key to sexual morality. Driscoll even touches on this. He finds fault with women who are fornicating. Don’t worry, he doesn’t chastise them for sinning. He just wants them to pressure the men they have sex with into marrying them:

    Are you the girlfriend who has allowed one of these guys to be with you although there is no clarity regarding what your relationship is or direction for where it’s going?

    Imagine what a real Christian pastor instead of a feminist would say to these women. I’m guessing it would go something like:

    Are you squandering your youth and fertility chasing the feminist goals of career and casual sex? Are you making yourself less marriageable by not keeping your virginity? For those who are married, are you refusing to submit to your husband as the Bible commands?

  363. Höllenhund says:

    That new Atlantic column comes across as a mix of solipsism, ignorance, arrogance and denial. I wouldn’t call that surprising because I don’t expect anything else from someone like her. She failed to address the main problem stemming from the hookup culture, namely the disappearance of stable relationships (marriage included). I have to concede though that at least she doesn’t seem to blame anything specifically on men and the “women can have it all” argument is refreshingly absent.

  364. Jimbo says:

    @Dalrock: The credit for the question is her responsibility with the relationship. The issue of pressuring her to marry the one she is having the relationship doesn’t appear to be the main question. It might be implied, but we are all smart to realize that pressuring someone to marry doesn’t work. She needs to seek relationships that result in marriage (clarity).

    @AR: “Cite the study you claimed. Don’t point me to HUS”

    That’s where I took it from. Don’t ask me to undo what I did. I can see you have a point about an adult discussion. Let me know when that happens.

  365. Cane Caldo says:

    The church absolutely needs to be bashed. It is our responsibility to call these things out. Are you seriously not aware of how far churches are away from biblical teaching on men, women and marriage? If not, I’m happy to point this out to you. Then you can man up and take responsibility.

    I’m just quoting it because I wanted to see that again.

  366. furiousferret says:

    @Jimbo

    Deti is adamant that women tell them their sexual history because of his experiences with his wife and the problems it caused him.

    The one thing about that though is that in his story, he says he thought that his wife only had 10 but in reality she had 21.

    I consider 10 a pretty high number as well though. Every guy is different but I wouldn’t think 10 is a ‘good girl’. ‘Good Girl’ don’t put out for ONS. To get to 10 you either have to have a lot of bf/gf relationships or fuck random guys.

    Also it only really takes 1 other partner to make her an ‘alpha widow’ anyway.

  367. I hate to throw gas on the fire but since most of the American evangelical churches have taught that “sin” is acceptable and to be forgiven without actual repentance through “accepting Jesus” – what does one expect ?
    This is the removal of all moral demands.

    “Accepting Jesus” ( not mentioned anywhere in the scriptures) means to accept His forgiveness but not His commandment nor the commandments of the apostles of living a holy / chaste life. It is a perversion of the gospel and destructive.

    Peter warned against the perversion of Pauls teachings in 2 Peter 3:16…..Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

  368. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jimbo
    @AR: “Cite the study you claimed. Don’t point me to HUS”

    That’s where I took it from.

    When did HUS become a peer-reviewed publication? Do you understand the difference between actually performing a scientific study, and talking about someone else’s work?

    Don’t ask me to undo what I did.

    Posting a link to someone else’s biased analysis is not the same thing as citing a study.

    And this leaves aside the motivations at HUS.

    Your’e not very good at serious discussion yet.

  369. JoeS says:

    “How did I do it? You tell me since you said there are no such virgins.”

    I didn’t say that.

  370. imnobody says:

    @Hollehund.

    This is my last post about this topic. Now I am sure I won’t change your mind, no matter what arguments I give you. You even refuse having first-hand experience. I am writing this last comment for other people who have read our discussion and who are open-minded.

    As soon as technological progress enabled the dismantling of the patriarchy without leaving women defenceless and uncared for i.e. enabled the transformation of the government into history’s biggest beta provider through the mandatory transfer of beta male tax dollars to women, yeah, women instantly demanded their own liberation from patriarchal norms.

    No. You have swallowed the feminist mythology. Things were not this way.

    (Most) women wanted the patriarchy but the patriarchy was no longer possible with the pill and other technology. The liberation was of men, who were not forced to marry and slave themselves only to have sex.

    Women (except a handful of radicals) resisted it as much as possible. When they realized that they weren’t able to get a slave mule of their own (aka husband) to work all their life for them, they demanded that the government stepped up and played the role of hubby.

    Don’t trust me. Watch women in patriarchal countries.

    Actually that’s entirely possible and feasible. I won’t talk to women, thank you very much. Watch what they do, not what they say.

    So watch what women do in patriarchal countries and you won’t see women tolerating patriarchy but enforcing it. I have seen it. But you can see it too. Don’t trust me.

    Let me put an example. I am an European and I have lived in a neighborhood with lots of Muslims immigrants. In my town, Western women are stressed, because they have to work and sometimes they don’t have a husband to help. At 10 am, while everybody is working, Muslim women go out to stroll, take the sun, gossip and walk with the children to a park nearby. The don’t rush. They go slowly.

    They seem TERRIBLY stressed and unsatisfied. Their smiles are so terribly fake. They get fatter and fatter each way. So unsatisfied that they can’t wait to rebel against the patriarchy and becoming single moms so they can work instead of watching their kids play while they gossip.

    When a Western young girl goes through this street and he has short clothes, Muslim women scream from the windows and balconies: “Slut! Whore!” to the young girl. So yes, I think it is true that Muslim women want to abolish the patriarchy and start the sexual revolution as soon as possible or as soon as technological progress enables it (Wait a moment! Technological progress enables it: they live in a Western country)

    Don’t believe your lying eyes…

  371. @imnobody – thoughtful, well written, and truthful. Thank you.
    In patriarchal countries it is a shame for a wife not be a virgin (even in the case of rape).
    It is also a shame to unmarried and / or childless. This is how it has been for centuries.
    What has occurred in the western countries is a massive decline in morality that has approved and rewarded illegitimate(bastard) childbearing, hypersexualization of children/women, and the destruction of the family by indirectly/directly assaulting the protector male.

    The consequence is a immoral nation that will eventually come to its own demise through civil war and be overtaken by a more moral/united nation.

  372. farm boy says:

    @ imnobody

    Thank you. Good food for thought.

  373. Lad says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    I don’t have time to verify every study Susan quoted in that article, because I personally don’t find a compelling reason to doubt their validity. The data align with my experience and about what I would predict based on what I know of high school and college-aged kids. She has provided verifiable citations, in fact she has placed them prominently in the headers next to the data. The one that I just checked (I forgot which one Jimbo linked so these are the stats he posted) matches up with the data she posted in the article:

    U.S. Dept. of Justice Campus Sexual Assault Study, 2007
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf

    Section 4 breaks down the statistics for men and women. Susan notes in her use of the data that “sexual intercourse” is not actually defined.

    Yes, the standard complaint about partner count statistics is that men and women lie in opposite directions. But even if you factor for that, Jimbo’s main point was that a majority of college girls had a low(ish…) partner count. The data confirms that. No, it doesn’t prove his point conclusively, but that point doesn’t invalidate any of the real important underlying arguments anyway, so why fuss about it?

  374. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lad

    I don’t have time to verify every study Susan quoted in that article, because I personally don’t find a compelling reason to doubt their validity.

    In order to comment meaningfully I would have to examine ever study she cites, because I caught her red-handed a previous time citing a study that she had not read. She’d evidently skipped to the table of numbers, and blew right past the methodology, leading her to make a really stupid false claim about how data was collected in an anonymous fashion. She has an interest in a certain slant to this topic, and given that I caught her either ignorant of a paper’s contents or lying, she cannot be trusted.

    The data align with my experience and about what I would predict based on what I know of high school and college-aged kids.

    Please look up the term “confirmation bias”.

    She has provided verifiable citations, in fact she has placed them prominently in the headers next to the data.

    And a careful reader would check each and every one, in order to see if the cite actually says what she claims, because of her prior history.

    The one that I just checked (I forgot which one Jimbo linked so these are the stats he posted) matches up with the data she posted in the article:

    U.S. Dept. of Justice Campus Sexual Assault Study, 2007
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf

    This data is 5 years old. Drawing conclusions about the current college environment from back when GW Bush was in office could lead to a wrong conclusion. Tell you what, I’ll sell you some bonds. Based on data from 2007, you should be willing to pony up big bucks for Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns bonds. Oh, wait, something changed.

    Section 4 breaks down the statistics for men and women. Susan notes in her use of the data that “sexual intercourse” is not actually defined.

    That’s another problem.

    Yes, the standard complaint about partner count statistics is that men and women lie in opposite directions. But even if you factor for that, Jimbo’s main point was that a majority of college girls had a low(ish…) partner count.

    That is not what his first claim was, if I recall, he claimed that “40% of women are virgins”. That’s bunk. Claiming 40% of college aged women are virgins is unknown. Claiming 40% of college women are virgins depends on how the terms are defined.

    The data confirms that. No, it doesn’t prove his point conclusively, but that point doesn’t invalidate any of the real important underlying arguments anyway, so why fuss about it?

    This leaves aside the larger issue of SW’s feminine imperative that none of her “girls” ever be thought of as sluts, no matter how high their partner count may be. This colors every single cite of every single study that she does. She will give women the benefit of the doubt, while referring to men she does not care for as “trashdick”. That ties into a larger part of the female imperative that goes a bit beyond the scope of this thread, because it would lead us to multiple postings at Rollo Tomassi’s blog.

    Question for you and Jimbo: would you call a woman who had 5 different sex partners in college a slut? Why or why not?

  375. Martian Bachelor says:

    > What do the LDS communities do with their excess boys? (Samuel Solomon)

    Salt Lake City is becoming the new gay capitol of the country, like the legendary Castro district of San Francisco was perhaps ~40-50 years ago. So that’s a clue.

    If you put a group of practicing polygamists on an island, the only way the patriarchs can have multiple wives is by making all their excess sons either gay or functioning eunuchs supporting the breeding hive. It’s no accident that the beehive is the state symbol of Utah.

    Or I guess you can have them engage in vicious competition for the few “bad” women in circulation (that’ll kill some off), but when they’re young and hungry they think they’re in competition for their first wife and entry into the club, so they send them off to be missionaries for a few years. The important thing, from the patriarch’s standpoint, is you have to keep the young men occupied somehow, lest they figure out their predicament, start talking to one another, and then gang up en masse to overthrow the Establishment. They do outnumber the patriarchs by a large margin when the system is fully polygamized. Lather, rinse, and repeat this process many times and you see why eventually someone is going to figure out that monogamy is the stable long term solution.

    If you instead put a group of practicing polygamists in the midst of a pre-existing monogamous population, they expel (some/most of) their excess sons into their neighboring communities — the way fissioning uranium spews neutrons. These guys then compete with the native males already there for their finite supply of women, messing things up there. In other words, they simply export the problem, dumping their trash sons in their neighbor’s yards, as it were. This is why Mormons have been despised by others from their beginning, why they were exiled to the then desert island of Utah, and why they try and keep a very low profile today. It’s anything but irrational religious prejudice.

  376. Legion says:

    whatever says:
    August 23, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    Check out Jimbo at August 23, 2012 at 2:46 pm.

    So, does Jimbo know how to research and argue? Or rather is Jimbo dumber than a bag of hammers?

  377. krakonos says:

    @Martian Bachelor
    The only long term result I know in practically polygynous societies (significant portion is polygynous – like 20% percent or more, with more than two wifes on average, etc.) is continuous bloodshed. Repeating smaller and bigger tribal wars, inter-tribal violence etc.
    There is a positive feedback between polygyny and violence which imprints itself into gene pool. So running long enough, you effectively remove ability to create and, more importarily, sustain civilization. This process is much faster than the opposite one.

    Note: Someone has presented here a link to an anthropological article stating that in the most violent hunter-gatherer society up to 56% of deaths are result of human-human violence.

  378. Platinum missus says:

    on the issue of virginity …….. I’d love to know what y’all think of this article called Subversive Virginity …….
    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/002-subversive-virginity-3

    it was written circa 2000, but has some interesting points made on virginity. the author is now in service in the Lutheran church and is married with one kid,last I checked.

  379. Feminist Hater says:

    Plat, personally I think the article is great. Admittedly, I don’t like feminists and even she said she was one; but I won’t let that cloud my judgment.

    This is the aspect I don’t get, the idea of the ‘power play’ between the sexes and I’ll quote for reference.

    Her virginity is, at the same time, a statement of her mature independence from men. It allows a woman to become a whole person in her own right, without needing a man either to revolt against or to complete what she lacks. It is very simple, really: no matter how wonderful, charming, handsome, intelligent, thoughtful, rich, or persuasive he is, he simply cannot have her. A virgin is perfectly unpossessable.

    To her, it’s a game of independence from men. I don’t get why feminists seem to love this idea so much? It’s so easy to be independent, just do everything yourself and voila, you’re independent, well done, clap, clap…! The tricky thing is to actually trust someone enough that you would be willing to trust your virginity to them and no one else. That’s a ‘dependency’ on someone. I suppose she would have called that a cessation of hostilities’?

    The reason I value virginity in a woman is that it shows ‘staying power’ to a belief, it shows she can uphold a commitment and it shows that she honours those commitments if she can keep her virginity till marriage. This obviously lessens the risk of divorce and future marital discontent.

    Don’t get me wrong, the article is spot on for why a woman should keep her virginity but it surely isn’t to be ‘independent’ from men. That’s a little absurd. In the greater scheme of things, especially in the Christian sense, the marriage union between a man and woman is meant to the binding of two into one. As corny as it sounds.

    Oh, and welcome to the blog.

  380. Here is a great article from a unusual source on when women / wives do not want to be subordinate to men

    http://www.brahmacarya.info/2010/12/single-moms/

  381. sunshinemary says:

    @ antipasknight
    From the article you linked to:

    You will never be equal with men, because in so many respects your functions are different. Why do you say artificially they’re equal with man’s? The wife has to become pregnant, not the husband. How can you change this? Both the husband and wife will become pregnant — is it possible?

    Well, yes, apparently in our Brave New World, in terms of pregnancy and breast-feeding, it doesn’t much matter if you are a husband or a wife.

  382. Hey you guys, did you know that women today really really really want a long-term relationship but gosh, the men they meet just aren’t good enough so they are forced–forced, I say!–to do without?

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/08/23/hook_up_culture_women_actually_want_it_and_less_needy_men_too_.html

  383. deti says:

    Peterman:

    From the Marcotte article:

    “If men demand so much time and attention from girlfriends that those girlfriends can’t have a life outside of the relationship, that suggests men are asking way too much of women. So needy!

    “If you want women to be more interested in long-term commitment, the best place to start is with fixing men. Men need to learn to be a value-add to the lives of their girlfriends, instead of a burden. Traditionally, women are expected to spend a great deal of time on their men with tasks like ego-stroking, cleaning up after them, and plan-making. If men could come to relationships with fewer demands, women would be more interested. After all, as Hanna notes, women do want the benefits of long-term love. They just don’t want the price to be higher than the rewards.”

    This is exactly what men should NOT do when seeking out women; and exactly why there is hookup culture. It is also why the marriage rate is declining and why we hear “where have all the good men gone?”

    Could there be any more wrongheaded way for a man to approach relationships?

    1. Qualify yourself to her, while not requiring her to qualify herself to you.
    2. Don’t expect anything from her.
    3. Shower her with help, love, attention and resources.
    4. Show her that you are worth less than she is, that your time is actually LESS valuable than hers is.

    Silly.

  384. sunshinemary says:

    And don’t forget
    5. Buy her a really expensive ring and get down on your KNEES to beg her to marry you.

  385. Feminist Hater says:

    6. Give her space.
    7. Let her have an open relationship whilst being impotent.
    8. Don’t have children as they’re a burden to her.
    9. Sleep on the couch or in the spare bedroom.
    10. Let her party like it’s 1999

  386. Suz says:

    FH:
    “To her, it’s a game of independence from men.”
    I’d like to qualify that. To feminists, “independence” is a game, but in truth there are only two choices – dependence and independence. For a college graduate probably not living in her father’s house, maintaining her independence is the default position of a woman who’s waiting for the right man to give it to – to depend on, to become a part of. She acknowledged her independence but I didn’t get the impression she was crowing about it; I thought she made it pretty clear she didn’t want “independence” to be a permanent feature in her life. Because of that HONEST desire to depend on a man (as opposed to feminists who depend on men and lie about it) I didn’t perceive her to be a feminist at all.

    I was blown away by her clarity of thought though, especially considering her age. It also occurred to me that most of what she said about virginity could be applied to celibacy in a non-virgin. A non-virgin is still in some ways compromised (so to speak) but such a respect for sex would go a long way toward making a woman marriageable to most decent men, even if she learned that respect “too late” to save her virginity. This article totally obliterates the raison d’etre of the Technical Virgin.

  387. This is a quote worthy:

    Reporter: Why does this mean that women have to be subordinate — just because they bear children and men can’t?

    Srila Prabhupada: By nature, as soon as you get children you require support from your husband. Otherwise, you are in difficulty.

    Reporter: Many women with children have no support from their husband. They have no –
    Srila Prabhupada: Then they have to take support from others. You cannot deny that. The government is giving them support. Today the government is embarrassed. If the husband supported the wife and children, the government would be relieved of so much welfare expenditure. So that is a problem.

    Reporter: What happens when women support men?

    Srila Prabhupada: First of all, try to understand that you are dependent. After a man and woman unite, there are children. And if the man goes away, you are embarrassed — the woman is embarrassed. Why? The poor woman is embarrassed with the child — she has to beg from the government. So do you think it is a very nice thing? The Vedic idea is that a woman should be married to a man, and the man should take care of that woman and the children — independently — so that they do not become a burden to the government or to the public.

  388. Feminist Hater says:

    From the article.

    In spite of all this, I still think of myself as something of a feminist…

    Suz, I don’t really think her article is feminist based myself, I just pointed out that she thought of herself as ‘something of a feminist’. Maybe she considered herself part of some different wave of feminism, not wanting to attach herself to the current pro-sex feminists of this generation? It’s not too terribly important though, as the gist of her article is quite clear.

  389. Retrenched says:

    @deti

    You also have to love the default assumption that everything is the fault of men, that it’s the men who aren’t proving themselves worthy. The idea that the women themselves may be less than perfect, or might be judged by men as “unworthy” of serious relationships never enters into their thinking.

  390. deti says:

    Retrenched:

    Indeed. The attitude from these women is “well, I’ll fit you in somewhere between my job and my girlfriends.” IOW, “the man steps into my frame; I don’t step into his.”

    Is it any wonder more and more men are saying “no thanks”? It needs to be said again: men are human beings with wants, needs, desires, dreams and plans of their own. They are not here to supply women with status and money, nor to supply boyfriends, hookups or husbands when women want.

  391. Al says:

    I agree that the idea that there is anything like 40% virgins in the adult female population is ludicrous. Personally I don’t even believe it for college although I do believe there is a substantial number– a large enough number for Jimbo’s idea to focus on connecting virgins and quality to at least be worth considering, with the caveat that you’re talking about college-aged people who are either attending college or would be based on IQ and SES.

    Question for you and Jimbo: would you call a woman who had 5 different sex partners in college a slut? Why or why not?

    I would not call her a slut, personally, but only because I am always reluctant to pass judgment based on so little information. But then personally I also wouldn’t get too deep into an argument with Christians on a marriage-oriented blog about the term, nor would I ignore comments on the risks of marrying such a woman.

    My question for you is:

    Do you really believe that no virgins and no low-partner count girls exist in any environment anywhere at all? That the numbers are so inconsequential that it’s worthless to even consider the possibility for discussion purposes?

  392. koevoet says:

    “If you want men to be more interested in long-term commitment, the best place to start is with fixing women. Women need to learn to be a value-add to the lives of their boyfriends, instead of a burden. Traditionally, men are expected to spend a great deal of time on their women with tasks like ego-stroking, cleaning up after them, and plan-making. If women could come to relationships with fewer demands, men would be more interested. After all, as Koevoet notes, men do want the benefits of long-term love. They just don’t want the price to be higher than the rewards.”

    I fixed this. I found a number of typos in it.

  393. @koevoet “Traditionally, men are expected to spend a great deal of time on their women with tasks like ego-stroking, cleaning up after them, and plan-making.”

    The roles got slowly reversed in regards to “ego-stroking, cleaning up after them, and plan-making” in addition for men working to provide for their expanding waist and ego.

    @Deti – Men are saying to “no thanks” to commitment and “yes” to casual relationships.
    It would appear the battle is heating up and as the rationalization hamster is now “juicing” – men are realizing through others mens divorces and blogs that American women are simply not worth it.

  394. Lad says:

    I agree that the idea that there is anything like 40% virgins in the adult female population is ludicrous. Personally I don’t even believe it for college although I do believe there is a substantial number– a large enough number for Jimbo’s idea to focus on connecting virgins and quality to at least be worth considering, with the caveat that you’re talking about college-aged people who are either attending college or would be based on IQ and SES.

    Question for you and Jimbo: would you call a woman who had 5 different sex partners in college a slut? Why or why not?

    I would not call her a slut, personally, but only because I am always reluctant to pass judgment based on so little information. But then personally I also wouldn’t get too deep into an argument with Christians on a marriage-oriented blog about the term, nor would I ignore comments on the risks of marrying such a woman.

    My question for you is:

    Do you really believe that no virgins and no low-partner count girls exist in any environment anywhere at all? That the numbers are so inconsequential that it’s worthless to even consider the possibility for discussion purposes?

  395. Anonymous Reader says:

    Peterman, another classic article from the feminine imperative. Interesting how the notion of men as fashion accessories, like Prada or Vutton, has become so popular among the urban feminists. Good thing feminism taught us all how bad it is when humans are reduced to the status of objects, isn’t it?

    Deti, IMO when a widely published 3rd stage feminist gives such stunningly bad advice it is due to a couple of things. First, the usual disconnect between things that attract her to a man, and things that she’d like in a man she’s already attracted to.Apex and all that. Second, and maybe it is my head cold speaking, there’s more than a little subversion in there. Advising beta men to be even more beta automatically disqualifies them and makes the alpha men much more easy for Marcotte and her readers to spot.

    It is a perfect addition to Dalrock’s orignal posting.

  396. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lad
    I agree that the idea that there is anything like 40% virgins in the adult female population is ludicrous.

    We make progress.

    Personally I don’t even believe it for college although I do believe there is a substantial number– a large enough number for Jimbo’s idea to focus on connecting virgins and quality to at least be worth considering, with the caveat that you’re talking about college-aged people who are either attending college or would be based on IQ and SES.

    This is also HUS’s idea, but there are some more caveats that are not being addressed.
    * What is “virgin”? In the modern SMP there are women who have done oral sex to multiple men, had anal sex done to them by one or more men, who will insist that they are “virgins” because they’ve never let a penis into their vagina. Fingers, tongues and maybe sex toys, yes, but not a penis. To put those women into the same category as young women who have never done more than allow their breasts to be fondled is not credible. Even more common are “born again virgins” who have had sex with a boyfriend or two, but now have decided they need to be different, and by golly they haven’t been sexual with any man for three or four whole months! Just like a real virgin! Then there’s the “low mileage” virgin who’s only had 4 long term relationshsips, and a few one night stands, but she’s a virgin, too, compared to those real sluts over at the I Spreada Thigh sorority…

    If I sold you a car that I claimed was “new” or “like new” and you found out that it had 75,000 miles on it before I rolled the odometer back, I could wind up in jail. But there are more than a few women who are willing to help each other pretend to be “low mileage” status in order to smartly hook a man. One case is fraud, the other case…not so much.

    Then there are carousel watchers, who for one reason or another decline to get onto the cock carousel, but they watch it intensely and yearningly. They pattern themselves to some degree on the carouse riders, and includes developing an unconscious desire for alpha men – it’s like reading romance novels/emotional porn for years, all the real world men pale in comparison. These watchers desire men who are several sex ranks above them, men they can never hope to have around them for more than a brief fling, and while it isn’t in the ‘five minutes of alpha” mode, it approaches that.

    With all the above disclaimers, I’m on record on this site as agreeing with the concept that assortive mating is a good idea, and keeping women off of the carouse & pairing them up with beta men – greater beta, lesser beta, etc. – of an appropriate sex rank is a good idea. if you return to the original posting, however, you see a definite preference in college women for a different pattern – something that looks a whole lot like riding the carousel, just not as long as those nasty sluts do – and then falling into the arms of the beta surely waiting at the end of the ride.

    It’s not working. It’s not working. And, it’s not working. if you think the whining over ‘no good men” is loud now, just wait 5 years. So IMO Dalrock’s notion of women marrying while still in college has more merit. It keeps their partner count low, which makes pair bonding more likely, which makes divorce in the next 10 years less likely, which is good for men and children and society at large. It’s also good for women, but frankly I’m not interested any more in the idea that the sole purpose of civilization is to make women happy. I’m done with that, very done with that.
    I asked:
    Question for you and Jimbo: would you call a woman who had 5 different sex partners in college a slut? Why or why not?

    I would not call her a slut, personally, but only because I am always reluctant to pass judgment based on so little information.

    What number of sexual partners in 4 or 5 years would qualify a woman as a slut, to you?
    Alternatively, what other information would you need?

    But then personally I also wouldn’t get too deep into an argument with Christians on a marriage-oriented blog about the term, nor would I ignore comments on the risks of marrying such a woman.

    Why would there be risks in marrying a woman who had been sexed by 5 men while she was in college? In your own words.
    My question for you is:
    Do you really believe that no virgins and no low-partner count girls exist in any environment anywhere at all? That the numbers are so inconsequential that it’s worthless to even consider the possibility for discussion purposes?

    Sorry, I don’t argue with strawmen. Nothing personal.

  397. Upon reading more comments here, it seems the Marcotte article is based on an article that has already been discussed here. Call me fashionably late.

    “the notion of men as fashion accessories”
    Haha! So true. Do women like her want to sabotage “lesser” men? Remember, it was Andrea Dworkin who wrote against men like that, and how great it would be if women could free themselves from them. Also see this posting at a radical feminist blog:

    http://cherryblossomlife.com/2012/05/18/the-worlds-losers-out-themselves-for-radfem-2012/

  398. koevoet says:

    AR – “Question for you and Jimbo: would you call a woman who had 5 different sex partners in college a slut? Why or why not?”

    I would never call her a slut. Not if I wanted to be #6.

  399. Suz says:

    I agree, FH. I think there are many women who consider themselves “somewhat of a feminist” because it never occurred to them to look at what feminism really is. I was one of them; I sincerely thought feminism was about legal equality. Any time I started to question the feminist “party line,” I was shut down immediately with: “You ungrateful, immature child! (last of the Boomers) None of YOUR peers ever died from a back-alley abortion! We have suffered, and you reap the benefits. It’s because of us that you can take your freedom for granted!”…ad nauseum.

    This was a very powerful shaming tactic during the 80′s and 90′s. It certainly shut me up. For a while. I can say I never actively joined them, but I did withdraw from them to avoid confrontation. It wasn’t until my son showed me how to use Facebook, that I started learning how to navigate the net, and discovered I wasn’t alone.

  400. farm boy says:

    Advising beta men to be even more beta automatically disqualifies them and makes the alpha men much more easy for Marcotte and her readers to spot.

    Go to David Collard’s blog for more on that.

    http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/women-policing-the-hierarchy/

  401. Martian Bachelor says:

    @krakonos

    My island scenario was intentionally very simple and idealized, in order to elucidate what I think are the important properties of such a system. You’re almost certainly right: it’s not clear how a “society” can easily get out of the lather, rinse, repeat loop of violent chaos once it’s thoroughly mired in such a state of maximum entropy.

  402. Anonymous Reader says:

    Farm boy, I remember Steve Moxon’s article, and should have provided the link.
    Another term for this “policing the boundaries” would be “pre-disqualification”.

    The feminine imperative wants sperm for babies and resources to raise them, but not necessarily from the same man…

  403. farm boy says:

    The feminine imperative wants sperm for babies and resources to raise them, but not necessarily from the same man…

    One word — taxes

  404. Lad says:

    Sorry, I don’t argue with strawmen. Nothing personal.

    Fine with me. It’s usually not worth debating someone when, after graciously accepting their frame for the sake of discussion, they fail to show me the same courtesy.

  405. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sorry, I don’t argue with strawmen. Nothing personal.

    Fine with me. It’s usually not worth debating someone when, after graciously accepting their frame for the sake of discussion, they fail to show me the same courtesy.

    I responded to you seriously. Your “questions” are a strawman argument. If you bother to read the comment, you would see my long standing positions, and that your strawman questions were in fact answered.

    My apologies to you for wasting my time.

  406. YBM says:

    So who did sarah walsh have to give a handy to in order for the sycophant squad to show up?

  407. GKChesterton says:

    @Cane,
    I don’t think you meant it this way, but it feeds into the “long-haired-prairie-skirt girls are losers” mentality. It’s true that they’re restricting their options, but that can be a very good thing. I want my wife to restrict her options!

    There was a long time that I went in a very white collar STEM role with no college degree because I began work straight out of HS. As my industry became more feminized and various other cultures moved in I went back and got the degree. To that end I agree with what you said, there are “HS only” women who have optimized marriage and children. That leaves little room for college.

    @Anonymous,
    So what’s all this “career” talk for women really about? I say, it’s about keeping her options open if she decides to dump the chump.

    I disagree as men do the same thing. The cultural middle class expectation is now college where it wasn’t not that many years ago. College is the new High School and people just go for little or no reason. Its a bad environment for marriage but I don’t think there is a sub-conscious goal here.

    @Starviolet,
    Women can’t necessary count on finding a husband who can and will support the family alone. It takes two incomes for most American families.

    Shockingly a man can work at a menial job and be happy completely single. When you say things like this you imply that status is important, which it should be to a woman, but it can override the primacy of marriage. That is, having enough to eat and sleep with a family is enough. Most American families have cable TV, two or more cars, surround sound, and cell phones. None of this is required to eat and sleep. Nor am I bagging on the above, as I have most of it. Scale back your expectations. Waaaaaaaay back.

    @Rollo,
    Marriage, even in biblical times, has never been a constant, social contract of monogamy between a man and a woman

    Actually you are wrong. Your confusing the exception with the normative in the Biblical narrative. Its “Biblical Apex Fallacy”. Adam and Eve form the first monogamous pair. This is followed by paired sons of Adam. Most of the genealogy in Genesis where wives are mentioned are monogamous pairs. Where polygamy is used its warned against and first wives are always given precedence. Hagar get’s the first son but both Hagar and her son end in the desert. Rachel is the hottie but Leah get’s buried with the patriarchs and is an ancestress of Jesus. Jesus (God) then emphasizes that the model has always been and always shall be monogamy. Even the worst marriage recorded (Hosea) is monogamous de jure.

    I also seriously challenge that monogamy is in any way endorsed by women such that polygamy get’s scrubbed out. Polygamy is _HORRIBLE_ for men. We may fantasize about being the Sultan but any half-assed analysis of polygamy shows women walking away like kings and most men committing genetic suicide. I’ve never met a woman that had a problem with polygamy as classically practiced.

    @Anonymous,
    So making assumptions about marriage that include “after college” means that one is ignoring the majority of American men and women. It is a premise that cannot support anything, because it is false.

    The majority of Americans includes the lower classes. It also says nothing of the normative societal expectation. Middle class America is _expected_ to be college educated now.

    @Samuel,
    Absentee fathers (forced or bailed), single moms, feminism, blue-pill, churchianity and general wussification has created a class of guys that are totally unpalatable. I can’t fault women for passing these men up, because they aren’t much of men at all, because they have been denied their birthright of being taught how to be a MAN by their fathers and local leaders, and have been smacked down by feminist laws and culture.

    I actually fully agree. I realize this goes against the general horror over “man up” but it is unreasonable to believe that both sexes shouldn’t maximize some form of attractiveness. One of the few times I think we will agree.

    @Hollen,
    Why aren’t young Western women moving there instead of endlessly complaining about the dearth of “good men”?

    Because their understanding of Western cultural norms on things like cleanliness is so out of whack. It reduces their perceived status. If they could dump that, and many in high population areas due because someone finally tells them, they do fine.

    @Darlock,
    Either way waiting longer means she picks last, negotiates when her MMV is lower, and her taste for alpha has increased. Also, if the assumption is that it will take some time to find the right man, all the more reason to start looking seriously ASAP.

    A fair assessment. However, we do society good by passing the information around. Young guys who have lived through this are more likely to get what is going on. The old guys, even the good ones, are a pain. Which will lead me to a question further in.

    @Imnobody,
    Women are designed to decide.

    Bull crap.

    @Samuel,

    what do the LDS communities do with their excess boys?

    The infamous “lost boys”. They get ejected from the local community. Its brutal. You don’t want that society, you want the Amish.

    @Sunshine,

    Do not throw your pearls before swine. The whole idea is lame. You can’t do it without metaphorically sticking your hand on the burner in the kitchen. It just isn’t worth it. I ask again _why_ you people engage her. She _isn’t_ an honest actor.

    @EVERYONE,

    So I know a really smart older gentleman who’s friendship I appreciate. He does local articles in his small town’s paper. He recently wrote about women’s dress and how they are really dressing for other women when they dress provocatively.

    I pointed out that he’s only half right. That women dress essentially for “that special guy” and to out compete women in the general vicinity of the same. Does anyone have any good links written by women that discuss this? Preferably from the Christian, “this is how the real world works bub’” perspective? He’s convinced, sadly, that only women can comment on this and he’s heard most of the story from his daughters who are also good gals but for entirely rational reasons are going to censor their hormones in front of dad. He _can_ be prodded onto the right path (in fact he’s made HUGE strides from his youth) but I’m not going to be the one to get him there. If one of you female bloggers want to take this up feel free, just avoid linking back here as I’d like to keep my identity vis-a-vis him private. Thanks for your time.

  408. GKChesterton says:

    For the love of God, one of my gigantic responses just got eaten. I’ll summarize without quoting heavily like I normally do:

    @Rollo,

    As other noted you are suffering from a bit of “Biblical Apex Fallacy”. Most of the Bible is devoted to monogamous relationships. The polygamous ones are actually in the minority and are treated poorly. First and last mentioned pairs in the Bible are monogamous. The worst relationship is monogamous. The best is monogamous. Second wives are also treated universally poorly. Also, as others pointed out polygamy is a woman’s game. It isn’t very good for men as the lost boys (LSD) testify too.

    @Anonymous
    As to Anonymous’ response about China. Chinese polygamy was, as you noted much more constrained. It had fairly rigid entry requirements (like all things Chinese) and therefore *probably* didn’t “tilt the balance” as much. I’d also speculate that China’s use of what amounted to serfs probably eradicated many men as they simply died under rather sever work conditions coupled with China’s infrequent but brutal civil wars. But that’s just theorycraft.

    @SunshineMary,

    Explain why we’re talking to DH again? Pearls before swine much? This is a grotesquely STUPID idea as it lowers you to her level. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Bring her up if you absolutely must, don’t bring yourself down. Jesus _ate_ with sinners. He didn’t follow in their footsteps. This is the critical point that many modern Churchinians miss.

    @EVERYONE,

    I have a friend who writes for his local newspaper and who shares his columns with me. He recently wrote a column about how women dressed for other women. I pointed out that he was half right. That women do indeed dress for other women but only in the sense that they are out competing women for “that special guy”.

    Now he believes that only women can tell the truth about this (sigh). And his daughters, who are also good gals but will of course rightfully censor in front of dad, have told him part of the story. Is there a good source of potentially Christian woman’s articles in the, “so this is the way it really is bub,” vein that I could use? I’m presuming since we have a few women of that category here there are some articles somewhere. If someone takes this up as a challenge (hoorah!) please don’t link back to this post as I don’t want my “here” identity conflated with my real one.

  409. sunshinemary says:

    @GKC
    I don’t know that you are entirely correct about DH. It is true that she may be a created persona that someone is using. That could be true of any of us. Maybe Dalrock is really a 32-year-old slut working on her PhD in Women’s Studies and this blog is her thesis project. At some point, you just have to accept whatever people present themselves as being.

    Also, more details have come out about her husband. She says he’s a great guy, but I’m not so sure.

  410. Retrenched says:

    Second, and maybe it is my head cold speaking, there’s more than a little subversion in there. Advising beta men to be even more beta automatically disqualifies them and makes the alpha men much more easy for Marcotte and her readers to spot.

    Yep. Policing the hierarchy, just like (almost) all relationship advice columns written by women for men.

  411. GKChesterton says:

    @Sunshine,

    Oh I think she’s _real_ I just think she isn’t worth the time. She feels that betraying the fundamental structure of her marriage is just peachy. That’s dishonest.

  412. Krakonos says:

    @Martian Bachelor

    Historically I know only one way out. It is harsh environmental conditions with absolute need of male participation (of most men in tribe) to survive. It create truly monogamous or predominantly monogamous society* where men are devoted to children and do not spend most of time in human-human violence and competition over women or caddishness. Another bonus is, it increases population’s IQ.
    You got it during the last Ice Age in Europe and (most of) Asia. It lasted 10ths thousands of years and shaped most of out-of Africa populations.
    But even after thousand(s) generations influenced by such environment it is very fragile and needs strict laws and hard punishment.
    Sometimes it falls down as a house of cards. Women obviously hate the system and thousands of years have not erased desire for promiscuity, polygyny and resulting violence.

    * At some point it probably influenced also our ancestors in Africa and created Homo sapiens but did not last forever.

  413. Paladin says:

    I thought you might be interested in this article that was just published in New York Times. It is so sexist, absurd and based on fallacies that even I was at a loss for words. Behold:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?gwh=984032F70CD00FF85918C07A28732879

  414. To quote that other American institution, Bart Simpson, the New York Times can eat my shorts.

  415. Feminist Hater says:

    Wait, what?! Dalrock is a 32 year old slut working on a Phd in Wimmenz Studies?

    Anyone wanna wife that up? Any takers, any at all?

  416. Feminist Hater says:

    I hear Dalrock also has 75000 dollars in student load debt! Come on gentlemen, get right up and take this beaut for a spin. Do I hear a starting bid? Anyone? Wait another two years and that debt will be a whopping 100000 dollars, so don’t delay, take a chance on Dal! And don’t worry, you have at least two years before this sex kitten turns into a cat. Nothing to worry about, nothing at all!

    There must be a handsome chap out there?! Come on you, man up!

  417. Feminist Hater says:

    The crimes of the New York Times indeed! They are a parasitical news paper and evil to its core.

  418. FH, I didn’t even read the article. I imagine it is just the usual crap about how useless men are (apart from inventing civilisation).

  419. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Paladin at 3:51 am

    Defining manhood solely on the basis of its usefulness to women and their spawn is an old tradition in the West. It doesn’t originate from feminism, but of course it’s just as misandric and gynocentric. This NYT column is no exception. I don’t know anything about this Hampikian character besides what’s given at the end of the article, but he can easily be a feminist or a tradcon as well. The position where a man can only choose between Western patriarchy and Western feminism is akin to that of some political prisoner in some Third World shithole who only gets to decide whether he’ll receive the bullet in his left temple or right temple.

    This attitude is cleverly manipulative – as far as its impact on blue pill manginas is concerned – but also somewhat short-sighted, though. When you declare a man needless for women and the “common good”, you free him of his responsibilities and thus liberate him. The well-being of women and their spawn is no longer his concern. So when any woman or mangina declares that you’re not needed, don’t despair. His or her fate is no longer your concern. It’s far worse if women declare you “necessary”, because it actually means “I want you to be my pack mule”.

  420. Feminist Hater says:

    Still no bids on Dal?! This is shocking gentlemen! Get your acts together and man up and marry, Dalrock, the 32 year old slut. According to the NYT, Dal does not need a man but that loan ain’t going to pay itself back now, is it?! So, just get to work, you filthy, useless men!

    *Throws hands in the air*

    Disgusting!

  421. Höllenhund says:

    imnobody at 7:29 pm

    No. You have swallowed the feminist mythology.

    Meh. The feminist mythology is that women bravely fought a revolution in order to be treated as legal equals and to get legal protection from the brutish orge men around them.

    Women absolutely despise the idea of average betas getting social status and power, no matter how conditional and limited that status actually is. Nobody forced women to go on the Pill and to start aborting their children. It’s you who swallows myths, no me.

  422. farm boy says:

    I didn’t even read the article. I imagine it is just the usual crap about how useless men are (apart from inventing civilisation).

    Reminds me of this,

  423. farm boy, yes. I always get a laugh out of feminists using male inventions like the Internet and computers to abuse men. They have no sense of irony.

  424. Another problem is that mangina journalists tend to know nothing about technology, and think it all just magically happens. That, and they have feminist wives to please.

  425. farm boy says:

    Another problem is that mangina journalists tend to know nothing about technology, and think it all just magically happens.

    People just don’t realize how dependent they are on the “system”. When it hiccups, life will get harder.

    In older times, this dependence was not so much. There was much more dependence on neighbors and community.

  426. imnobody says:

    @Paladin

    There’s no need to argue with feminists who employ arguments similar to that article. It is enough to say something like that:

    “Yes. you are right. We are useless and women are necessary. This is why women can work and raise their babies while we will only play games and f*ck around with a variety of women. It’s tough to be useless! Now, I have to leave, I go to a party with friends”

  427. farm boy says:

    “Yes. you are right. We are useless and women are necessary. This is why women can work and raise their babies while we will only play games and f*ck around with a variety of women. It’s tough to be useless! Now, I have to leave, I go to a party with friends”

    If you are in the states, make sure that you do not make enough money to pay a net positive income tax. Starve the baby mommies.

  428. Houston says:

    “Also, more details have come out about her husband. She says he’s a great guy, but I’m not so sure.”

    The “husband” probably has a tail, cleans himself with his tongue, and uses a litter box.

  429. farm boy says:

    The “husband” probably has a tail, cleans himself with his tongue, and uses a litter box.

    Actually, she might have several “husbands” in that case

  430. sunshinemary says:

    HH wrote:

    When you declare a man needless for women and the “common good”, you free him of his responsibilities and thus liberate him. The well-being of women and their spawn is no longer his concern. So when any woman or mangina declares that you’re not needed, don’t despair. His or her fate is no longer your concern.

    I think this is a rational response and is a good justification for MGTOW. However, i think it is not likely most men will ever really accept such liberation. God (or evolution, if that’s your preferred creation myth) created an innate desire in most men to be concerned about women. It takes a lot of meta-cognitive awareness to over-ride that. Some men may be able to; most won’t.

  431. farm boy says:

    an innate desire in most men to be concerned about women.

    The older generation, yes, there is a natural concern.

    Baby mommies, not so much.

  432. Feminist Hater says:

    farm boy, I believe Glenn Stanton has already cornered that market…

  433. Fitz says:

    Refreshing Honesty

    Over at the Atlantic – the discussion of “Boys on the Side” had this singular contribution that seemed to burn through the B.S. and go to the level of wanton distructiviness that ALONE can account for the situation we find ourselves in as a society.

    zdlax (wrote)

    “As a man, I find female promiscuity thrilling and exciting. I grasp the point of view held by traditionalist men who want a wife and kids with a guarantee they won’t be cuckolded, but seeing as I personally could care less about family and reproduction that argument to me is irrelevant. Outside of the “making sure his kids are his own” what other objection is there to rampant female sluttiness?

    As it is, I whole-heartedly endorse the disintegration of traditional cultural restraints on female hypergamy. Both for hedonistic reasons, and for broader social/political ones. Unshackling women’s sexuality is a sledgehammer blow against the foundations of traditional society. As the cracks propagate down the decades and generations, first beginning in the most developed countries of the West, and now encouragingly spreading to the rest of the world as the Millenials abandon the values of their elders worldwide.

    Nations and societies, stunned into helplessness, submissiveness and self-doubt become more amenable to radical changes. Institutions once held in common reverence are increasingly delegitimized. Globalization’s impact has the enemy weakened. Cultural assault is the final straw to break the back of the 20th century world of countries, religions, and families. Bring it on.

    Plenty of “manosphere” types chimed in over there and commented on a pretty boilderplate propoganda article for modern hypergamy only to be met with the usuall defense of feminist “empowerment”.

    In my minds eye this is the real enemey (I identify it as Frankfurt School Marxism) behind the behavior of young woman that needs to be exposed for what it is…before woman will see that they were duped and change their behavior.

  434. Opus says:

    I really must take issue with sunshinemary at 10.06 where she describes evolution as a creation myth. Whether one prefers to believe that the world was created, as all Christians must, or whether (my own favoured view – not contradicted by modern science I may add and popular with a few of the Greek philosophers such as Empedocles, Leucipus, and Democritus) that the world has always and probably always will exist; evolution, by which I take her to mean the scientific Theory of Evolution attributed to Charles Darwin – though he was not by any means the first person to observe that things evolved – asserts nothing as to the creation or origin of the universe. Catholics for example are I understand perfectly at ease with evolution (though not as part of creation) though I know that some do not see Catholics as true Christians.

    Sadly I am unable to find any biblical text to support my argument, although if there were I would certainly use it.

  435. Fitz says:

    Opus (writes)

    “my own favoured view – not contradicted by modern science …. that the world has always and probably always will exist….”

    This sounds to be the “solid state” theory of the universe that was discredited by the majority of scientists who now subscribe to the “Big Bang” theory. Under that theory the universe is currently estimated at roughly 13.7 billion years old, give or take 130 million years. In comparison, our solar system is only about 4.6 billion years old.

    Interestingly enough this fits in rather well with a singular event of creation that accords with Jewish and Cnristian accounts in the Book of Genisis.

  436. farm boy says:

    This sounds to be the “solid state” theory of the universe that was discredited by the majority of scientists who now subscribe to the “Big Bang” theory.

    Not to be nit picky, but you mean the “steady state” theory championed by Hoyle

  437. sunshinemary says:

    Opus, I was speaking of men, not the earth or the universe. Do you believe men have always existed? No. I think you probably believe they evolved. That is the “creation” I was referring to.

  438. Opus says:

    @Fitz

    I make no claim to having any proper understanding of physics as it is presently understood, although I observe that scientists have been just as prone as religionists to break into factions; that one theory is frequently replaced by another, and that those theories are frequently incompatible. I merely assert, that (in terms of space-time) the Universe has always been here.

  439. Desiderius says:

    “In my minds eye this is the real enemey (I identify it as Frankfurt School Marxism) behind the behavior of young woman that needs to be exposed for what it is…before woman will see that they were duped and change their behavior.”

    Humans require an enemy to truly unite, it’s part of our fallen nature. That’s what “hate” is. One theory of the Atonement is that God became our enemy (in the Greek, skandalon – so when people talk about the scandal of the Cross, this is what they’re referring to) in Christ to free us from that requirement. That’s the ideal. Abandoning the real in its pursuit is a mistake.

  440. Opus says:

    @sunshine mary

    Now I see better what you are getting at, especially where you assert a particular belief to me (that men evolved). I am not sure that I have any view about the origin of men (although I know what the Darwinists say) but if you say I have a propensity to believe that the Darwinists are broadly correct, that is a rather strained (if I may say so) use of the word belief.

  441. imnobody says:

    God (or evolution, if that’s your preferred creation myth) created an innate desire in most men to be concerned about women.

    The Almighty must have spared me of this desire. I couldn’t care less. Of course, I care about men and women that I love (family, friends, girlfriends, etc.) but not about women in general.

    I think it’s cultural. In Latin America, where I live, I can’t find this concern at all. Maybe God only intended to put this innate desire in American people or (my favorite explanation) it’s the result of centuries of American pedestalization.

  442. farm boy says:

    @Desiderius

    The Frankfort School is truly evil. Are you an apologist?

  443. ybm says:

    You are correct imnobody, this is a peculiar cultural behaviour among anglos. Anyone born outside the anglosphere can identify immediately that their women default into the ‘I require special treatment’ frame. That’s why 75% of anglo expats are men, women have no need to look elsewhere.

  444. ybm says:

    farm boy says:
    August 25, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    @Desiderius

    The Frankfort School is truly evil. Are you an apologist?

    Critical theory is the only reason you are able to identify the problems with anglo culture. Your post is the equivalent of “Hitler’s pen is evil”.

  445. Desiderius says:

    MB,

    “Salt Lake City is becoming the new gay capitol of the country, like the legendary Castro district of San Francisco was perhaps ~40-50 years ago. So that’s a clue.

    If you put a group of practicing polygamists on an island, the only way the patriarchs can have multiple wives is by making all their excess sons either gay or functioning eunuchs supporting the breeding hive. It’s no accident that the beehive is the state symbol of Utah.”

    This may well be the impetus behind the push for gay marraige, and the reason it is widely believed that 25% of the population is gay (wishful thinking). The old cultural/social contract (BTW, it was liberal and progressive in the true sense of the words) that encouraged as many men to reproduce (monogamously) as possible was abandoned due to overpopulation concerns. Gay marriage is seen by the sexual haves (both older people who benefited from the old contract, and the younger benefiting from the new) as a silver bullet to save our present soft polygamy.

  446. Desiderius says:

    “The Frankfort School is truly evil. Are you an apologist?”

    No. I agree that they are. The inability to see this, the elimination of “evil” as a category of thought, is the abandonment of the real that I said was a mistake.

  447. Desiderius says:

    ybm,

    “Critical theory is the only reason you are able to identify the problems with anglo culture. Your post is the equivalent of “Hitler’s pen is evil””

    The evil is not in the theory, but the practice.

  448. Fitz says:

    “I merely assert, that (in terms of space-time) the Universe has always been here.”

    But thats not the big bang theory..that theory is not that physical matter “exploded” at a particular time into space. Rather it is that all that is space & time exploded at an exact point some 13.7 billion years ago and both space and time itslef is expanding post explosion (still) and the earth & our solar system is just a part of that.

    It says that before that “time” (rather before time) neither time nor space existed , nor did any of the material universe and no laws of physics existed at the point of “explosion” 13.7 billion years ago.. and this “event” the “big bang” was therefore Literally “mataphysical” – beyond physics. In other words a miracle by definition.

    And it gets more intense from there if you read up on the anthropic principles…

  449. Lad says:

    At this point, evolution isn’t really a theory, it’s a word to used describe observations that have been made about the history of life on the planet. Mutation, natural selection, gene expression and epigenetics– those are the theories, hypotheses surrounding the mechanism of evolution.

    re: Fitz’s comment from zdlax,

    The problem, of course, is that it’s short-sighted. Countries religions and families are bad because they cause war/bad-things, therefore eliminating them is progress. That’s the fundamentally flawed premise. LA gang wars weren’t about country or religion and consisted largely of broken families– broken by racism not feminism, but broken all the same. He takes for granted unlimited prosperity lack of competition, and underestimates the long-term consequences of hypergamous promiscuity.

  450. Opus says:

    @Fitz

    I do not doubt your considerable knowledge of science, but you appear to be asserting to me views which I have neither expressed here, or for that matter have any knowledge thereof. I merely (to repeat) assert that in terms of space-time, the Universe has always been here, as you correctly quote me. This view is neither, I believe, in conflict with a Christian or for that matter scientific view of the Universe – but I have standing by, my good friend Fr Ockham, who has been sharpening his Razor.

  451. Platinum missus says:

    @ FH and Suz

    when I first saw this article in 2004, I was blown away by her brilliant arguments. I also think that she may have been trying to reconcile her opinions and beliefs with feminism, producing the statement “something of a feminist ” . she doesn’t come of as a dyed in the wool, man hating, deluded feminist. not to me at least.

    throughout campus I kept this article pasted on my wall like Martin Luther’s 95 theses, to remind me of why I decided and vowed to remain a virgin till marriage. like the author (at that time), I’m nowhere near marital bliss at 29,but hey……..

    my situation is easier. where I come from, virginity is generally not ridiculed, but we exist side by side with the crazy “empowered” girls who are adequately described in this blog. the fashion here is Single Parenting; get yourself a child (reverse pump and dump, or is it sperm harvesting?) because “men cannot be trusted” and the girls would rather “have a child who will never leave”,as opposed to ” the damn men who leave” and they “don’t have to marry to have a kid” . needless to say,there’ll be a whole generation of mummy’s boys in 10 years, poor kids who didn’t grow up with a father coz the mother didn’t need him.

    it’s still a sorry situation …… there’s a lot more with the strain of feminism floating here, but that a whole ‘nuther story.

  452. Inlone says:

    This satirical post is so spot-on that I’m worried that new readers who stumble across it may take it as sincere advice!

  453. Nas says:

    sunshinemary wrote: August 25, 2012 at 10:06 am

    “However, i think it is not likely most men will ever really accept such liberation. God (or evolution, if that’s your preferred creation myth) created an innate desire in most men to be concerned about women. It takes a lot of meta-cognitive awareness to over-ride that. Some men may be able to; most won’t.”

    - You are exactly right. I hope your words reach other female commentators on the manosphere and puts them at ease. The examples of a few men on here shrugging off responsibilities should not really worry women. These enlightened (or just angry) men are few and far between. Men are slaves to women and the American man is of a particularly pathetic variety. NOTHING will change that!

  454. Desiderius says:

    “my good friend Fr Ockham, who has been sharpening his Razor.”

    I think he’s moved up to a chainsaw.

  455. Desiderius says:

    “It says that before that “time” (rather before time) neither time nor space existed , nor did any of the material universe and no laws of physics existed at the point of “explosion” 13.7 billion years ago.. and this “event” the “big bang” was therefore Literally “mataphysical” – beyond physics. In other words a miracle by definition.

    And it gets more intense from there if you read up on the anthropic principles…”

    Unless there was a big crunch that preceded it, and another one to come, ad infitinum. It would be just like you average andros to attempt to throw a spanner into those works should a big crunch loom. Or heat death.

  456. Fitz says:

    Opus

    As you wrote:

    “I merely (to repeat) assert that in terms of space-time, the Universe has always been here, as you correctly quote me. This view is neither, I believe, in conflict with a Christian or for that matter scientific view of the Universe”

    I only brought this up because it is (as farmboy corrects me) more like the “steady state” theory of the universe that ruled before the “big bang” theory. And so you can say “yes” it IS in conflict with the reigning scientific view.

    I think you may find it very fascinating…The evidence for the big bang is impressive and widly excepted. What is less known are the philisophical and theological implications of this view for modern scientific rationalist/atheists thought.

    I would recomend as a primer Dinesh D’Souza – “What’s So Great About Christianity” and/or Patrick Glynn’s “God: the Evidence”

    The whole thing is being called a “new Copernican Revolution” & it (as a matter of fact) has the worlds top physisists positing theories like “multiverses” and “wormhole spouting “baby universies” all to try an avoid that very Ocams Razor you refrence.

  457. Höllenhund says:

    Re: sunshinemary at 10:06 am

    God (or evolution, if that’s your preferred creation myth) created an innate desire in most men to be concerned about women…

    …that show interest in them.

  458. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton
    As to Anonymous’ response about China. Chinese polygamy was, as you noted much more constrained. It had fairly rigid entry requirements (like all things Chinese) and therefore *probably* didn’t “tilt the balance” as much.

    China also was just big, even in those days. The point I was trying to make with regard to both ancient China and the FLDS is obvious: polygamy in a society is bad for the majority of men.There are various ways to mitigate the damage – sending all the young men out to raid neighboring cultures for wives is one traditional method not currently too popular – but the damage is still there. A culture that practices polygamy has to expend extra effort in harem – guarding, too. Given enough harems, the amount of energy spent surely becomes excessive.

    The FLDS offers us a neat summary of the problem, because those communities north of the Grand Canyon are small enough that the “excess boy” problem is obvious, and the option of making war upon the neighbors is not feasible. That kind of polygamy writ large would have the same problems, they just would not be obvious.

    Bottom line: polygamy benefits a few men and imposes a cost on the majority.

    That includes the soft polygamy that is documented by Roissy and others, therefore it ties back to the original posting.

    I’d also speculate that China’s use of what amounted to serfs probably eradicated many men as they simply died under rather sever work conditions coupled with China’s infrequent but brutal civil wars. But that’s just theorycraft.

    In some of the construction phases of the Great Wall, to be sent there on labor was a de facto death sentence. It would be impolite and even cynical to speculate that certain Emperors deliberately chose to deal with excess male population by working them to death on that project, though.

    I wrote:
    So making assumptions about marriage that include “after college” means that one is ignoring the majority of American men and women. It is a premise that cannot support anything, because it is false.

    GKC
    The majority of Americans includes the lower classes.

    Yes. That is exactly my point: most discussions of this topic revolve around whether women should pursue a career after college first, or marry. The underlying premise that women naturally should go to college is never examined. Also unexamined is the fact that social attitudes tend to flow from societal opinion leaders towards societal followers. So what the UMC and the middle class do in their mating habits affects men and women who never went to college, whether we like it or not.

    It also says nothing of the normative societal expectation. Middle class America is _expected_ to be college educated now.

    With the implosion of the college bubble in the next few years, societal expectations will change. Even if we blur the definition of “college” so far that a woman studying to be a hairdresser at the Online Community College of PO Box 2000 can say she’s “in college” there still will be a lot of people not in college.

    Discussing the marriage market place solely in terms of “what should women do in and after college” is useful, to be sure, but it is ignoring a whole lot of people. We should not be ignoring the man who gets out of the Army and goes to work at the car parts store or his wife who is working evening shift at the convenience store down the road. They could use a plan as well.

  459. Opus says:

    @Fitz

    Thanks, for the references.

    I tend to agree with you (if I have correctly understand you) that some of the metaphysical dreams of certain scientists are far more fantastical than anything Theologians dream of. I wouldn’t know however and do not claim to know. Desiderius thinks Ockham now has a chain-saw – perhaps he needs it.

    Curiously my own copy of (selected) Ockham has no reference to razors, which is rather disappointing, though I suspect he would be surprised and disappointed at the uses to which his razor is now put.

  460. Desiderius says:

    “though I suspect he would be surprised and disappointed at the uses to which his razor is now put”

    Yes, that was where I was going as well.

    “It would be just like you average anthros to attempt to throw a spanner into those works should a big crunch loom. Or heat death.”

    There is an unfortunate typo in this sentence. Should read “your average andros (human being)”, a category in which I’m included.

  461. Desiderius says:

    Dalrock, if there is a way to change the original, it would be appreciated. That’s a little grandiose, even by internet standards.

    [D: Fixed.]

  462. farm boy says:

    @Desiderius
    No. I agree that they are. The inability to see this, the elimination of “evil” as a category of thought, is the abandonment of the real that I said was a mistake.

    Thanks for clarifying

    @ybm
    Critical theory is the only reason you are able to identify the problems with anglo culture.

    That is quite an assertion. Can you say more?

  463. NoGames says:

    Clever post. It applies to fornicators. Hopefully, young women who opt out of the fornicator method will poor the players and end up with a decent man.

  464. Johnycomelately says:

    The Mormon comment raised an interesting point, is the expanding interest in foreign brides and expating a comsequence of soft harems and polygyny rather than some other rationalization.

  465. Krakonos says:

    @Johnycomelately
    Yes.

  466. Martian Bachelor says:

    Almost a century ago, H.L. Mencken mentioned “a popular philosopher, who had shrewdly noted that the arguments against polygamy never come from women” (paraphrased). I’m not sure who the philosopher was, but this principle stands up well.

    When women do seem to be arguing against it, it’s usually a weak, situational argument. This is because the simple tactic of always taking the woman’s side in everything is useless when multiple women are fighting over how best to bleed some man dry. The compromise position for them to settle, to resign themselves to sharing: they’ll take turns carving him up.

    This is why 75-90% woman-initiated Divorce 2.0 is really promotion of what I think is the dominant form of (properly) polygyny. It “liberates” some men (in a manner of speaking, and at high cost) to take second wives and start second families, if they can and are inclined to do so. Divorcing first wives put themselves in the custody trap, so they can be heroic martyrs for the cause of the faux liberation of women. Instead of outraging at feminism for tricking them into this, they take it out on “men”, thus diminishing the number of men available for sacrifice, leaving even more women for the few who are left, etc. The way women do it almost makes the Mormons look like rocket scientists.

    Monogamy is always the underdog, because it’s pitted up against basically all women and at least some fraction of the men. A monogamous system can drift towards a polygamous one, but there is no comparable reverse process. Monogamy either arises separately, independently and spontaneously, or it results from a discontinuous, abrupt change in an existing polygamous system. There is no way for the latter to smoothly evolve into monogamy. Everything argues against that happening.

  467. Fitz says:

    What a train wreak the sexual revolution caused…Still they are constantly talking about the “liberation” that occured when they simply just cast aside the Christian Sexual AEthic in favor of the unworkable & inhumane “consent & adults” moral minamalism (what it lacks in sophistication it makes up for in ease of use”. \

    That combined with the incesant feminism that makes woman more like men. What is lost in that “liberation” is both motherhood as a acceptable life goal & being a feminine & good wife.

    That later part now is something they are programed against…hence the need for “game” – a incomplete and morally questionable but understandable response to female “hypergamy”.

    Feminism & the sexual revoution NEED to be repudiated. The public needs to see feminsim & the sexual revolution as being repudiated. Feminists & sexual liberationists need to see themselves as having been repudiated.

    They need to disapear from mainstream acceptable public discourse ion the same way that classical Marxists disapered after the fall of the Berlin Wall..

    This is job #1 and requires strategey and planing…and explotation of the cracks that begin appearing in the surface…

    They are morally and intellectually bankrupt but have been able to prop themselves up by there iron-grip on the universities and media.

  468. sunshinemary says:

    @Farm Boy
    This was my favorite part from the article you linked to:

    Semen contains a number of “mood-altering chemicals”…Estrone and oxytocin elevate mood, cortisol helps promote affection, serotonin is an antidepressant, and melatonin helps regulate sleep patterns.

    So it’s like taking an Elavil with a glass of warm milk, except more fun. Nice!

    CL and 7Man wrote about a similar study recently:
    http://curmudgeonloner.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/women-know-what-is-good-for-you/

  469. Desiderius says:

    “Monogamy is always the underdog, because it’s pitted up against basically all women and at least some fraction of the men. A monogamous system can drift towards a polygamous one, but there is no comparable reverse process. Monogamy either arises separately, independently and spontaneously, or it results from a discontinuous, abrupt change in an existing polygamous system. There is no way for the latter to smoothly evolve into monogamy. Everything argues against that happening.”

    It is, however, in the interests of alpha females. They’re the ones who invented it, and the ones who police it when it works. That is the battleground. You’ll also have the best alpha males (those who recognize that monogamy produces the most good soldiers for societal-level competition, military or otherwise) onside, once the alpha females take up the banner.

  470. Fitz says:

    I read a National Review cover story about How Polygamy is bad for low status men and high status woman and (corspondely) It is good for high status men and bad for low status women.

    It fits your paradigm and I think its true. So when you say “It is, however, in the interests of alpha females” – I can see were your coming from….

    But Im not sure every reader is familiar with polygamy/monogamy devide that you rely on. Or that (I assume) we live in essentially a polygamous society in the form of serial monogomy.

  471. Fitz says:

    Here’s an article that from Jezebell – It expalins how men are learing to give orgasm’s in order to keep their woman…

    This article like many others is hyping the book by Hanna Rosin’s called “The End of Men: And the Rise of Women” – that is due out on Sept 11 of this year…
    http://jezebel.com/5927470/how-a-womans-orgasm-can-save-a-man

    Like the “Boys on the Side”- article, all such reviews, coresponding articles and spin-off’s will be laden with straw-men and a whole herd of feminist and sexual liberationist “sacred cows” that MUST go unslaughtered or apoligized for and sidelined.

    Just a taste….
    “A hefty percentage of the “masculinity crisis” is media-manufactured alarmism with an anti-feminist agenda. As women have moved into traditionally male spaces, the argument goes, men have begun to feel unneeded, redundant, disposable. Rather than adapt, many guys are disappearing into the online worlds of porn and gaming where they can, at least for a while, feel powerful once more. If we want men to “show up” again, the ladies need to go back to feigning helplessness –- or so the conservative argument goes.”

    It pains me to see the left being pro-forma… First they cause a crises…then they use that crises as a vehicle to continue to advance their agenda…

    That is what is going on in this article… and what goes on in the main stream media as they continue to pay reverance to sexual liberationist and feminist dogma…

  472. farm boy says:

    First they cause a crises…then they use that crises as a vehicle to continue to advance their agenda…

    As Rahm Emmanual said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

    Perhaps they could notice that if the boys do not want to come out to play, then maybe they should leave them alone.

  473. Lad says:

    I read Boys on the Side. Rosin drags poor Karen Owen out again as an example of her new female frontier. Perhaps ironically she includes a link to the original Atlantic article on Karen Owen, which points out that alcohol abuse on college campuses is now more prevalent among young women than young men.

    But yes, that particular argument you quoted, Fitz, drives me crazy. She is a master troll.

  474. Desiderius says:

    “It pains me to see the left being pro-forma…”

    There is no reason that the Left per se has to support polygamy, it is after all a raw deal for the common man. The original Left Wing of the French National Assembly, from which the Left derives its name, was firmly on the other side.

    Divide and conquer.

  475. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Fitz at 4:55 pm

    That column is nothing but a clever ruse. The women who complain about “Peter Pans” don’t actually want betas and omegas to “man up” in the traditional sense of the word. What they actually want is that high-status alphas marry young instead of “playing the field” and avoiding all commitment. They do seem to be irritated by average betas not working hard enough, but that’s only because they’d prefer more tax dollars for AA and other gynocentric programs.

    It’s somewhat interesting that many in the Manosphere actually agree with this feminist assessment that the majority of men have failed to adapt to the so-called rise of women. However, in their minds the failure was men NOT avoiding marriage 2.0 en masse, NOT slacking enough and NOT despising feminist women enough.

  476. Jezebel and Hanna Rosin: using technology invented by men to tell men that they are useless.

  477. Pingback: Beauty taming the savage beast. | Dalrock

  478. Jean says:

    “Fitz says: @
    August 23, 2012 at 12:57 pm
    If the leaders, lead (this always means men) then the people will follow.

    If only this were true! Is not history FILLED with people told what is right, best, most noble, correct – yet it is “hard” , so these (fallible) people do what “feels good”?

    I was raised Catholic – I had some sympathy for the human plight, until I realized most people don’t really give a crap and are too busy justifying their actions after the fact.
    And like everything else, the first time is the hardest… Then it gets easier, and easier, and easier… Same as any habit, the more Checks you have in the box, the more ingrained the habit is, the more of an issue it becomes…

    ” Our Father, Who art in heaven / … /
    And Lead me not into Temptation, For I can find the way myself!”

    (Forgive the sacriligious bent, meant to make a point about the human condition.)

    There’s a REASON politicians are mere panders to the “will of the ignorant people”. There’s a reason that schools focus on the lowest achievers first. There’s a REASON for government indoctrination centers, aka Public Schools – and like one Second Amendment parable points out, “when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers” never recognizes that we send something far more valuable to government-controlled facilities EVERY DAY and think NOTHING of it.

    “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

    While at casual glance, I’m seriosuly off-topic, as a born US citizen, it’s enough to make MY blood run cold – and I’m not even 40 yet. the messages inculcated in innocent minds with childhood cartoons were dreadful, divisive, simplistic, solipsistic – and what I learned at school sometimes worse. As I watch the daughter’s textbooks, help her with homework, etc, I realize it’s gotten WORSE. The lunatics are running the asylum – and like most proles, we’re here arguing over the color of the f*cking Band-Aid we need to use.

    It’s going to get UGLY. Female-centric goddess-hood can NEVER survive – it’s self-serving, whereas civilization is by nature other-serving. We need to re-learn the lessons over and over again (as they are no longer taught in school, or religion, and parents either are too stupid or too strapped for time to do much). The basic contract of civilization is that we forego certain rights (example: to kill another for their woman, or for fun) so that we become a stronger whole (the two of us together can survive when someone comes after either one of us – alone, we’d both die.)

    So, we’re discussing dissolution of society here; it’s being discussed on homeschooling blogs; secession blogs; game blogs; feminist blogs (they see the problem OK, they just don’t comprehend it – mostly by choice, female imperative to double-down – why most Game theories work, he acts indifferent, she doubles-down to get his interest; rinse and repeat); government blogs, police blogs, race relations, even!
    These people en masse see the problem, then intentionally MIS-categorize and mis-diagnose it, and they ALL basically double-down on their ideology rather than find a SOLUTION:
    - REBUILD THE FAMILY to revitalize the society.
    - Man earns, Man KEEPS THAT WEALTH.
    - Man can do? Man gets a job.
    - By rebuilding the society, you rebuild the future – PROVIDED you can discern what is useful: Reading, Writing, Arithmetic used to be core. F*CK FEELINGS. They get in the way! And the numbers don’t give a flying F*ck that you want them to equal five: 2 + 2 ALWAYS equals four. TRUTH. Cry all you want, little girl. (Girl used intentionally as an epithet here.)

    What do we actually have?
    - Spend your way to prosperity! (O’Bummer; George “Hiram Walker” Bush; “What blue dress?” Clinton; George Senior; etc, etc, etc, back though probably Garfield, if not earlier! The Constitutional convention was a coup d’etat – they’d been commisioned to FIX THE ARTICLES, not write into law the very system they had just fought a war to escape. But that’s for another time.)
    - Race relations are a joke – see Larry Elder’s 10 things you can’t say in America. (Chapter 2, I think, is, “Blacks are more racist than whites.” For proof? SPike Lee’s Black.White. TV show – watch the racism get handed down from father to son – on the BLACK side. )
    - War of the sexes? F*CK, the “war” was CREATED, FFS. I GREW UP with that shit. Taught all the egalitarian BS, WITH all the chivalry. A few decades of that, you become a misogynist – contempt is all they deserve. Teachers specifically “treat girls better than boys”, OPENLY STATE THIS, and it’s ACCEPTED because it’s got all the LEFT’S sacred cows… And the RIGHT goes along because it’s right to “help the less fortunate”, or “for the children”, etc, etc, etc. How long before we’re implanting RFIDs in the kids “for their own good”, or “in case they get kidnapped” (why I was fingerprinted in gradeschool, wonder how many databases I’m in now – and I’m not even a criminal! )
    - Technology is moving so fast we can’t blink without missing crucial developments. Imagine the Revolutionary war now? Or even the Civil War? (War of Northern Aggression, or even Subsumation of State authority to Federal Power.) Couldn’t happen. A massing of “patriots” is a massing of “terrorists” is a military target – should the “military” decide to act. (Quotes both indicate the flexibility of the terms, and the reality that BOTH might be in either group, as well as non-combatants or civilians.)

    Sorry to rant – my point stands. People have been LEADING for AGES – but corruption is the easy way. Takes minimal or no work. Water flows downhill. Without the threat of external destruction, “the sleep of reason produces monsters.” “And if you stare long into the abyss, know this: it stares also into you.”
    Seriosuly, our “leaders” in politics are whores and panders, and we refuse to deal with them correctly – and so, the system WORKS exactly as designed: Minds enslaved, our work co-opted, our civilization degraded, a few generations pass, and BINGO, we’re back to a form of barbarism.

    But we won’t even BACK the leaders who say, “Do the hard work. Stay the course. Study your history. Study your Bible. Do as Christ … did for us.” No, we back the “bread and Circuses”, sit back and watch the Soma (TV), and say, “At least I’m better than THEM.”

    We have, at best, less than 5 years. (based on a politico’s response to the question, How long do we have?, asked during the ’08 elections; response was, about 10 years.)
    The Misandry bubble (tip: Fifth Horseman) is only part of the problem; the very technologies that allowed us to build this nation, and then degrade it (and the world), will now work against any attempt to throw off the shackles imposed by externals: Women, Government, Race, Indoctrination (education), etc. When all your moves are tracked, all your communications monitored, all weapons illegal… then what?

    Britain and Japan and Soviet Union and small parts of the US are the test-beds, the “test markets”, and we pucker up each and every time…

    Think about it, do your research. Be ready, ’cause “you know not the day, nor the hour.” (to turn the verse.)

    I wish we could answer individual problems, and “refine” the system. It’s not broken, it’s just “divide and conquer”, and for some strange reason, EVERY government fears its citizens more than external forces – to the point it makes them ALL slaves. Greece, Rome, Persia, USSR, USSA, etc. The system works exactly as it’s meant to.

    And we’re arguing over leaderless, rudderless, misguided women’s motivations. Armchair generals, most of us… Myself included. (I think most of this, which I came to from learning some Game, is self-solving once the larger issues – like societal collapse – are dealt with.)

  479. Jean says:

    “Anonymous Reader says:
    August 25, 2012 at 3:45 pm ”
    Amerika.org. Same thoughts, different writers. Support for your argument. Specifically, the current one, “Assumptions Control the Debate”, posted 08.29.2012.
    Note that this also points up the Hegllian Dialectic, used most often to separate us from somethign we’d rather not lose. (Up to and including, ultimately our very balls, if done correctly… After all, they produce testosterone, which makes men aggressive, which leads to violence. Unstated assumption: Violence is bad. Synthesis from Hegellian Dialectic: Men are evil, because they are men. Oversimplified, but point stands.)


    farm boy says:
    August 26, 2012 at 5:14 pm
    First they cause a crises…then they use that crises as a vehicle to continue to advance their agenda…

    As Rahm Emmanual said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

    Farm Boy,
    Hegellian Dialectic again, and not something that started with Rahm Emmanual. “In the Chaos, there is Profit.” “Operation Petticoat”, Gregory Peck and Tony Curtis, circa 1950, if not earlier. And he even is echoing earlier philosophers, perhaps even turning a proverb: God helps those, who help themselves.

    Government wishes to control MAN; Woman wishes to control Men. Their interests align far too well. And woman being fundamentally herd-oriented (Examples range from social networks to Twitter to Facebook to cliques in school to the NEED for a woman to turn on the TV so there are VOICES instead of SILENCE. the need to NOT BE ALONE. “There is a place…terrifying to us, to women.” (Rev Mother Gaius, in DUNE, by Frank Herbert.) I believe that place is inside her own mind – without an external distraction to keep her mind occupied, REACTING to stimuli. If she were to actually look at herself with some introspection – examine the mirror of truth, if you will – well, entire books have been written about that. It does not end well. I think the entire modern field of psychology is dedicated to dealing with this, actually – making the painful truth palatable to these women, making it something they WANT to hear… but in so doing, it comes out with a different meaning, somehow congratulating them on being whores, sluts, and c*nts. Pitiful, really.)

    This is the basic element of FRAME. I think it was Jack Donovan (author of “The way of men”, in case I mis-spelled his name) who recently had a blog post about being a GOOD MAN vs. being GOOD at Being a Man. They are not mutually exclusive, but rarely co-exist, especially in modern life. Being Good at being a Man means leading, drawing others into your frame, being the final authority in some ways. Being a good man means putting others’ needs before your own, deciding for the good of the group, setting boundaries that benefit all.

    Easy example: Good man: monogamy. Loves one woman, controls lust, controls sloth, gluttony, etc.
    Good at BEING a man? If she wants to stick around, fine. If there are many women who want to stick around, OK – they can deal with the problems – none of them OWN him. But they’re all welcome into his bed, of course. To the victor go the spoils. Occasional gluttony and sloth normal; extreme examples would have the women working, bringing in food, preparing it, etc. Think Lion Pride. Not willing to tolerate challenges to his rule, either – kills other lion’s children when he assumes conmmand.

    Religion and chivalry have brought us too far towards being a good man, who is not good at BEING a man – those “neanderthals” are not needed, those VIOLENT ways are improper, immoral, etc. (Good examples, since clint Eastwood was running the other weekend – The Enforcer, Dirty Harry, Magnum Force. I think Magnum Force was where he got a female partner – that was actually what I was drawing on to some extent: Callahan laid out the ground rules in the review board, and the “civilized” feminist was (a) visibly upset, (b) visibly excited, (c) brought into Callahan’s frame of reference. I say Callahan “laid out the ground rules” even though he was “interviewing” (Bullying, some would say) a female candidate for promotion (via AA, BTW – “stylish” to have women in the front lines, after all, to prove a 5’2″ 140# woman is as capable as a 6′ 2oo# man…) Callahan was a MAN, though – he didn’t care that this was a WOMAN, he cared that she had NO BACKGROUND to make appropriate decisions in the field. (He was right, she dies in the film, from injuries which IIRC could’ve been avoided.) She made a rookie mistake, though – could’ve just as easily been a man making that mistake. And she’d carried her own weight all along, so Callahan respected her. Shit happens.

    Instead, now, we need to teach our feminized children how to be MEN. Everything else falls into place, basically, once that’s done. Biggest problem now is asserting dominance – every time a man has the advantage, we need to “level the playing field” for women (and minorities). I tack on the “and minorities” because that’s what “teh womynz” do – make it look like the White Male is a privileged majority, so ALL “minorities” must be, by definition, UNDERprivileged. So Blacks and Womyn and Polydactyl Chinese Immigrants from the Sudan should get appriopriate representation… When there is no counter-argument WRT, for example, Nursing, and Teaching would be INSANITY for a man to enter, let alone child care. (BTW, female engineers earn MORE than their male counterparts, as in nursing, though for different reasons. Fewer female engineers = higher market price, while in nursing, it’s the “good Old girls” network. But when it’s girls, it’s Ok – as readers of this and other blogs already know.)

    The previous (too long) post I did touches on the same sort of thing. The “Frame of Reference” is ESSENTIAL to being a dominant being, male or female. If the dominant frame has Man as head of household, man and woman can marry, and each knows what roles and tasks are expected. Society as a whole can flow from this frame of reference: a tribe forms, has the same frame – propagates a good frame into a culture; frame propagates to a civilization; Civilization grows wealthy, philosophers arise and question, so they learn more – and their tools are twisted and perverted by those with an agenda, allowing all sorts of equivocation and misrepresentation, re-defining of words to mean the exact OPPOSITE of what they meant (Q.V. Federalists in 1786 or so). Soon deviant ideologies, which are “as good [RIGHT, or CORRECT, AND Moral] as any other ideology” occupy the public square, and the civilized are forced to flee, crumble, or just try and survive. and shortly after, the culture – now an empire – crumbles, from within – and is coincidentally taken over by other cultures with stronger frames.
    :-P

    But try explaining that to people in a 3-second sound-byte that’ll get you elected.

    Read My Lips: MAN THE F*CK UP. Yeah, can’t see THAT winning votes. ;-) Unless you follow the same pattern: Obfuscate, Deny, misdirect: only act on your frame once elected. Then do it by executive order. (I.E., become a monarch… Deteriorates to Dictator, which is overthrown to Oligarchy, deteriorates to Aristocracy, is overthrwon to Democracy, deteriorates to Mobocracy… Until a single ruler asserts himself again…)

    Again, I write too much. ;-)

  480. gdgm+ says:

    Even the wife of the USA Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan, got her feminist merit badges before meeting and marrying him:

    Janna Little Ryan comes from a political family and was already a successful Washington tax attorney and lobbyist by the time she was 30. So when she met her future husband, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, she was drawn more to his character than awed by his office.

  481. “So when she met her future husband, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, she was drawn more to his character than awed by his office.”

    Yeah, sure …

  482. CoffeeCrazed says:

    I bet this would make a good topic of conversation.

    Canadian Bachelorette contestants

    “Whitney, 24, is a competitive and driven administrative assistant in it for the win.” and says, “I’m a very driven and very motivated person, not to mention I’m very competitive,”.

    mmmmm, sounds wonderful.

    Chantelle, from Sylvan Lake, is a pastor who is looking for love, although she said she already loves to preach.

  483. UK Fred says:

    I still laugh when I remember the TV interview of British magician Paul Daniels’ wife Debbie McGhee, when the interviewer asked, “What first attracted you to *THE MILLIONAIRE* Paul Daniels?”

  484. John says:

    Hey, guys. Strange thought-offer here. I know, but hear me out. Alphas got it far worse than you lot think. They’re so popular with the girls that they end up dependent on female approval. You can’t be Alpha forever. They go bald, fat, or old. And they’re stuck with a lot of problems.

    Betas are in a hard spot, but bearable. They are marginally attractive in the sense that women will be in relationships with them and marry them, but they could be in a far better position.

    By becoming omega. Omega men are the dudes who take a good look at the world and think to themselves: ”DANG, could it be that sex, love, and women are nature’s way to trap men into servitude?!”

    I know, right? How is it possible for a man to be this smart.

    Anyway.I go to college, a mostly feminine college, and most of the students are females in their 18-25′s and the very vast majority are quite hot. Due to the lack of beta males for them to date, and their eagerness to find a sucker(husband/boyfriend) they have no option but to socialize with me and inquire to my goals in life. Which I quickly downplay; ”I want to smoke weed, drink beer, and masturbate to porn.”

    Its a lot of fun.If you guys ever get the balls to do it to a German hot babe 10 who is giving you strong signs of interest all month.

    Oh, and God isn’t interested in what you do or you don’t do. Hard for an imaginary deity to have designs. Unless you’re confessing that, had you lot been born three thousand years ago in Egypt your object of adoration(”God”) would be Osiris and his crew?

    Hypocrites.

  485. Pingback: Turnabout is fair play. | Dalrock

  486. Pingback: USA Shaming - do unto others as they do to you

  487. Pingback: “The one” vs “my one and only” | Dalrock

  488. gerald says:

    Oh my, this must be satire because I can’t believe it. Why not? It leaves nothing sacred!!! What left is sacred if the woman just went from LTR to LTR? That’s the world’s pattern. And what man of God would want a woman like that. I don’t mean regarding her past because we have all made mistakes, but because of her character being displayed? She would have to be reformed. Saul became Paul but that’s because his heart was in the right place, he was just confused. No Christian man wants to marry a woman who only wanted to be in so many LTRs or eff around, and if she never wanted that but was confused, then she was not wise.

    And if men must man up, women also must wife up or woman up! I believe, to me, Gold Standard is marriage 1.0, traditional, woman marries man young (16-18yo) a man a few years older than her with a steady job or at least work ethic and intentions to protect and love and provide. Then they have kids and help our nation/culture not implode in population. I am 30 and just made marriage my highest priority under Faith/God, and wow what a difference it made in my life. I mean just 2 weeks ago. now I’m courting this Christian woman with intent to marry in next several months and start a family, and if it doesn’t work out, we’ll stay friends, and I’ll find another to court. And if we have daughters, they may call me Neanderthal and Misogynist or whatever, but I really question whether I’ll save and encourage her to go to University. I really think preparing her mentally and emotionally and physically and in all ways for domestic life and the role of a wife and mother is at least a valid and legitimate option if not the best way itself in keeping with our nature! We must liberate ourselves from the mind forg’d manacles of culture and Satan, and apply the truth to our own lives (and our own wives! :)). I would do this for my daughters for their own well being from love but I would not skimp on them, even if I encouraged my sons to learn a trade. Oh this is really good thinking about this because my 3rd priority is children, and 4th is making a home, and career is only fifth, so I should have a plan, and the woman I am courting is impressed by how much I think about this. Having my six priorities in order really gives me focus and releases motivation. Anyway if I gave my sons support and encouragement to learn a trade, and a savings account, I would want to give my daughters an equivalent. I would not want to short change them in any way! I would love them equally but in a different way. I may not do this in practice just out of fear but my thoughts lead me to something creatively different than what culture dictates or assumes. Got to think more about this now. maybe she goes to college but just not planned to idolize it and the emphasis is different. Hmm, I am going to make a plan for my sons and daughters now!!! Jawohl and will talk about it with this girl along the line.

  489. Pingback: A secret the KGB couldn’t have kept. | Dalrock

  490. Too hilarious. My ex just tried to pull this on me.

  491. Pingback: Mistaking fecklessness for wisdom | Dalrock

  492. Casey says:

    @Starviolet
    Women who know what is good for them marry a man who can provide. Years ago older men married younger women; and that was just fine.

    Let’s cut out the crap. The modern day ‘state sponsored violence against men’ has enriched your gender, without which you would suddenly ‘find religion’ and older men would look just fine to you.

    You currently have the luxury (and it is a luxury) to whittle away your youth, postponing marriage to JUST before your shelf-life expiration date. Do not be surprised when that train pulls into the station that no one is there to greet you.

    Feminism was all about freedom of choice for women.
    Welcome to the new movement: MASCULINISM

    Masculinism is all about freedom of choice for men.
    Our freedom of choice will increasingly be to let your sorted, tired, aging, ass spend its life in spinsterhood.

    During my lifetime, I expect to see a HUGE re-ordering of the family & social order. Men are sick to death of feminist BULLSHIT.

    More and more of us would rather go it alone, than take orders from the likes of your gender.

  493. Pingback: Feral love | Dalrock

  494. Sweet says:

    How can a young female approach a young male for marriage? I am thinking of trying the “subtle” manner that I have planned, where I bring up things related to marriage on a constant basis without actually stating “are you wanting a female for marriage? because that’s obviously on my mind.”

    Myself, like most other young females, are afraid that the male will run away or think that we’re being too serious and should spend more time enjoying their company and dating first. Most young men in Australia do not want to give up their slutty female friends and time spent drinking the the pub and “boys only” holidays to places like Amsterdam. In fact, one guy that I like is there right at this moment after we went on our first date and hence I am lead to commenting on your site for advice. He was enjoying himself on the first date but would occassionally look at me deep in though with a slight serious expression as though he is considering something about me.

    I don’t have a father or brothers or any males relatives to ask for such advice. Thank you.

  495. Sweet says:

    I first spoke to him by accident in a cafe, and then left soon as my drink was prepared as take away. I later thought about him for a while, and actually asked God to allow us to meet again. The next day, I saw him again but in another place, and even he thought is was such a coincidence. He said that his biggest regret last time was that he did not catch my number as I left fast. I know that I am beautiful, and my sister was in one of the Miss Australia competitions in the top 50. I suspect all males of trying to only sleep with me as they always make comments about my beauty rather than other things. This makes the dating/marriage game more complicated for women such as myself and my sister, not easier.

  496. Pingback: The Feminine Imperative Revisited | Dalrock

  497. Pingback: - Sunday Supplications: Entitled attitude, loose morals. | The Woman and the Dragon

  498. Pingback: The Spiritual Roots Of Feminism | Western Woes

  499. Pingback: Approaching the Super-Norm: Identifying Perspectives

  500. Pingback: “Christian” Dating « The Real Deal

  501. Pingback: Lovestruck | Dalrock

  502. Pingback: Grab-Bag | Mitchell Powell's Blog

  503. Pingback: But we were in love! | Dalrock

  504. Pingback: She was used! | Dalrock

  505. Pingback: Is Egg Freezing the Next Birth Control Pill? | Red Pill Theory

  506. Pingback: Toxic Waters | M3

  507. Pingback: Conservatives ask: Who is John Galt? | Dalrock

  508. Pingback: Making the Music Stop | Donal Graeme

  509. Pingback: What predictions can we make about the future of dating and marriage? | Sunshine Mary

  510. Pingback: The new sexual morality: Will the bra open for you? | Dalrock

  511. Obi says:

    I’m honestly not sure how this will sound or if its even been addressed (definitely did not go through all the comments completely) but what if you seem to be the guy trying to court women and continue to be fucked over by these women. How are these women [individuals, i mean, not all women in general] the seekers and protectors of love. Even though this is the same love that i believed I held, am i still the seeker of lust truly only wanting the draws from these women?

  512. Pingback: Girls conspiring to turn other girls into sluts: a good reason not to send your daughters away to college. | Sunshine Mary

  513. Pingback: Wedding season | Something Fishy

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