How the destruction of marriage is strangling the feminist welfare state.

The standard narrative is that feminism removed the artificial restrictions that were holding women back, and what we observe today is a level playing field.  The Social Pathologist described this in his recent post Hypergamic Affirmative Action:

The social, sexual and economic liberation of women in the latter half of the 20th Century has meant that for the first time women were able to compete with men in society without restriction. The result has been spectacular if not particularly beneficial to the happiness of women. Whilst not all degrees are created equal (men still overwhelming dominate the “hard” fields of knowledge) the fact that there are now more degree credentialed women than men is simply astonishing. As income is broadly correlated with economic well being,  its safe to assume that women have been able to achieve a economic parity with men. The manosphere may not like this result but the fact is that women have been able to effectively compete with men when the shackles of social convention have been removed.

What he is describing is the feminist fantasy coming true, and out of respect for the feminists reading I suggest taking a moment to savor the euphoria before we continue.

The problem with his statement is he is ignoring the incredible amount of social engineering required to achieve and maintain the current state.  Feminism has become a central organizing force for western culture.  Nearly every decision public and private must consider feminism first, and everything else second.  This is true for everything from our last ditch nuclear deterrent to men’s entertainment.  Even the Word of God must kneel before the word of feminists.  The reason this doesn’t come to mind for most people is it is everywhere.  It seems normal, if not natural.

What is too easy to forget is that this is artificial, and therefore requires constant effort to maintain.  Feminism didn’t demolish a barrier between two seas and let the water levels adjust;  it is a massive pumping operation.  Turn off the pumps even for a little bit and reality will come flooding back.

The longer we keep the pumps running, the more the true cost of the operation becomes evident.  Most of what feminism gained it did on credit of one sort or another, and these bills are coming due.  The reality is human biology makes it impossible for a large percentage of women to focus on casual sex and professional advancement to the degree that feminism insists is only natural.  The reason for this is children require more investment than women themselves can provide.  Women who want to be mothers need to extract resources from men in order to be truly successful parents.  Many have looked at the success of a small number of widows in raising their children without the help of a husband and assumed husbands and fathers aren’t really necessary.  However, what is possible as an exception isn’t something we can build a society on.  Aside from those who started with great wealth, widows have always struggled to provide for and raise their children.  In a healthy society made primarily of husband lead households they also benefit from an in tact social and familial structure.

But a husband-lead permanent family structure is something feminists must destroy.  They have no choice if they are to achieve their goals.  They need to find a way to compel men to provide resources for children while removing men’s authority and women’s responsibility.  In a society with traditional marriage men voluntarily agree to produce more than they personally need in order to lead a family.  The problem for feminists with this voluntary model is something which is core to all voluntary cooperation agreements;  women must give something up in exchange for men doing the same.

There are of course multiple ways to attack this problem of mutuality.  While the methods appear different on the surface, the ultimate end is the same;  men must be compelled to offer financial (and sometimes parenting) resources to women who want to have children, and women must be freed from reciprocal obligation and responsibility.  The methods to achieve this tend to fall into one of three models:

  1. Socialist State Model:  The economy of the state must be reorganized to redistribute production.  While the stated aim of socialism is to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, in practice this is a very effective tool to redistribute wealth from men to women.  In the socialist state model marriage becomes largely irrelevant because the resource transfer is being achieved at a state or corporate level.  These resource transfers can take the form of make work jobs, cash benefits, and free or subsidized child care and education (which tend to become one and the same).  Marriage tends to be looked down upon in this type of model because women living with men are forever at risk of being “oppressed” by male leadership.  Marriage also works counter to the socialist aim of equality of outcome;  if some children grow up with fathers (even weak ones) while others lack fathers altogether the children with fathers have a large advantage.  This inequality of maternal outcome poses a danger to feminism as well because women who want to give their children an advantage are at risk of suffering from exposure to male authority.
  2. Sham Marriage Model:  This is the model preferred by feminists with a sense of nostalgia.  In this model great effort is expended to maintain the illusion of marriage as a fundamental and legitimate social institution.  While the edifice is left in place however, the institution itself is entirely debased.  Husbands are still expected to support and protect their families, but their authority and rights are all removed.  Marriage becomes a vehicle for theft, and something women delay as long as possible and discard as soon as it is no longer needed.
  3. The Stanton/Povich Model:  Under this model women enjoy their sexual freedom and are free to pursue their goals of education and career without the responsibilities and limitations which come with being a wife.  Should such a woman find herself giving birth, she heroically whittles down the list of paternal suspects until she determines the biological father of the child.  She then enlists the state to compel the biological father to bankroll her and her children.

What we see in practice tends to be a blending of the three models above.  The exact blend of course will vary over time and from country to country, but any country which fits The Social Pathologist’s description has by necessity fully implemented some combination of the three.

The fatal flaws of all three of these models, including their use in blended form, are the same:

  • There is insufficient incentive to keep the mass of men producing at the levels needed to transfer enough wealth to women.
  • Women who spend their early adulthood focusing on education and career before becoming mothers lead to an enormously expensive mis-allocation of investment in human capital.  This exists across all industries but is most easily identified in the case of medical doctors, as The Social Pathologist has witnessed.
  • Children don’t just need financial resources, they need a real father.  Fathers who aren’t head of the household are a very poor substitute for those who are.
  • By prioritizing women’s careers over becoming mothers, the birthrate greatly declines.

While the first two bullets reduce production by existing men below their potential, the last two reduce the number of productive men in future generations.  Taken together we end up with reduced numbers of productive men, and less production by those few who exist.  These problems aren’t visible at first with feminism however because there is a delay in experiencing the loss of production by men.  This gives the initial appearance of a free lunch, where the only result is the increased production associated with women prioritizing paid work.  However, this apparent free lunch is simply the inertia of the system;  the flaws become progressively more evident from generation to generation.

It is worth reiterating that both the destruction of marriage and the resulting lowered production are ultimately inescapable for any society which makes feminism a priority.  There is no way to square this circle, no matter how many people claim it is only natural.

The truth of what I’m describing can be found by opening any economic or business publication.  The nations of the west are all facing a time bomb of entitlements caused by demographics moving the wrong way.  In the US, Social Security and Medicare present looming demographic threats which get closer every year.  Eventually there will be too many people taking out of the system and too few willing or able to produce at the excess levels required to fund them.  Discussion of this problem is constant in the financial press, with articles like the one by Forbes titled:  America’s Baby Bust: How The Great Recession Has Jeopardized Our Demographic Health

Without these future workers our already tottering pension system will become even more untenable, as is occurring in Europe and Japan.

Of course since feminism is the dominant philosophy of our time the author struggles to understand why birthrates are falling.  For some inexplicable reason in the past economic growth has lead to falling birthrates, while economic decline is now also leading to falling birthrates:

Without growth, the long-term decline of most high-income countries, including the United States, is all but assured.

This turns on its head the commonplace assumption that societies reduced their birthrates as they got wealthier.

The problem in the US is worse than it looks on its face.  While we remain at near replacement level fertility, the internals of the macro number are cause for concern.  Slate explains this in an article subtitled Why America’s widening fertility class divide is a problem.  The feminist system comes with perverse incentives regarding family formation.  The most capable women are encouraged to delay childbirth as long as possible.  At the same time, successful men fear becoming fathers because fatherhood is the bait for the trap feminists and their enablers have set for honest men.  Ironically the New York Times can see the disincentive for productive men to become fathers, but only when looking outside of the United States;  the headline declares In Europe, Divorce and Separation Become a Burden for Struggling Fathers, and the stories are straight out of the manosphere:

The pain of Europe’s economic crisis is being felt sharply by a new class of people: separated and divorced men who end up impoverished or on the streets as they struggle to maintain themselves while keeping up child support and alimony payments.

The Forbes article cites the NY Times piece, and in an added twist of irony manages to conflate fatherhood and parenthood just in time to miss the point:

Stories about divorced Spanish or Italian young fathers sleeping on the streets or in their cars is not exactly a strong advertising for parenthood.

Making the problem worse is the list of solutions currently on the table.  We can go the way suggested by the Slate article, and increase transfers to women with children.  Never mind that this brings us back to the core problem.  The other solution is to raise taxes, but this exacerbates the productivity problem.  In order to tax our way to solvency, we would have to declare a fiscal jihad on the productive.  But men are already showing signs of being less willing to create the very excess wealth these taxes are after, for the reasons explained above.  If men don’t see the incentive to lead a family, higher taxes will convince ever larger numbers of capable men to decide to get by on just enough to keep themselves comfortable.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Denial, Fantasy vs Reality, Feminists, Glenn Stanton, Marriage, Patriarchal Dividend. Bookmark the permalink.

319 Responses to How the destruction of marriage is strangling the feminist welfare state.

  1. When I first found out I was going to be a father, I was overjoyed.

    perhaps much like a fish who has found himself a juicy worm just dangling there.

  2. Justinian says:


    These problems aren’t visible at first with feminism however because there is a delay in experiencing the loss of production by men. This gives the initial appearance of a free lunch, where the only result is the increased production associated with women prioritizing paid work. However, this apparent free lunch is simply the inertia of the system; the flaws become progressively more evident from generation to generation.

    Yes, yes, yes.

    The early years of feminism was carried on the backs of men brough up under the old ways.

    The boomers were the last generation to grow up under that system and they are now fading away.

    Each geneneration of men that followed had fewer and fewer brought up in intact families.

    Most current CEOs and industry leaders are middle aged and older.

    What will the world look like and how well will it function when the peter-pan men and grass eaters are of that age?

  3. TMG says:

    On a related topic, austerity is coming to the US regardless of who wins the election. The big bankers are already talking about it. Though, I don’t doubt that the austerity measures will be more favorable to Feminism under one president than the other. But even if a percentage of make-work jobs for females are cut, that will make a huge dent in Feminism. Another factor is the coming burst of the higher education bubble. That will be a colossal hit in the gut of Feminism and Progressivism in general, and I am looking forward to it. Liberal arts professors will be competing with their former students for jobs at the local fair-trade coffee shop near campus.

  4. TMG says:

    Justinian- “Most current CEOs and industry leaders are middle aged and older. What will the world look like and how well will it function when the peter-pan men and grass eaters are of that age?”

    Some of us are still highly talented and motivated in our careers. I am not a master of the universe by any means but I have gotten some national recognition in my career, and I’m only in my early 30’s. Also, companies will increasingly have immigrants, or the sons of immigrants, in leadership positions.

  5. I suppose we can take some comfort in the expectation that the System can’t last forever.

    In the meantime, two or more generations of men will with sound reason have waived the chance to have a wife and family of their own.

    Sacrificial generations, as it were.

  6. WestSnow says:

    The single man knows that he can live comfortably in most places in the U.S. on $35,000 a year. There is no incentive to go any higher.

    If the next economic collapse is as bad as I think it will be, then I foresee a mass exodus of single men from the United States. Meanwhile, single mothers are stuck in place and forced to witness the havoc they helped cause.

  7. freebird says:

    There is also the self enforcing negative feedback loop:As the economy goes badly,middle class men avoid having children due to the cost.This leaves the lower class breeding at the cost to the rest of society,primarily the middle class.(working class)
    The rich get by just fine,the poor get subsidies,it’s the middle class taking the beating,by design.
    The poor are easily controlled,the rich are also,they dare not risk their wealth with political activism.
    So the system reinforces itself in a number on ways,both positive and negative.
    There appears to be no way out,short of responsible legislation,but the matriarchy scream oppression when such concepts are introduced.After all “it’s for the children.”

  8. mighow says:

    It is instructive to me that bloggers in the USA are using evidence and data out of the UK and Europe to support the argument.

    This issue isn’t really on the mainstream media radar at all unless it is framed indirectly as a problem for women.

    Lets see how we in the UK pull our aircraft out of the stall. I imagine it will look like the Air France Flight 447 where they dropped 38,000 ft in 3 and half minutes due to incorrect indicators and pilot error.

  9. freebird says:

    There is another way to fiscal stability: quit giving money to the banksters.This does not happen as they ARE the government.
    The population is just a crop to be harvested,the boom and bust cycle maximizes profits.

    http://ia600301.us.archive.org/35/items/TheOccultTechnologyOfPowertheArcaneSecretsOfPoliticalPower/OTAP.pdf

  10. Tom says:

    Absolutely brilliant article. I am often amazed at the quality of thinking and research in the blogosphere, in comparison to the intellectual poverty of established “journalists”.

    I would add 2 more factors, that are making feminism unsustainable (as if we needed more!): genetic debasing and moral breakdown.

    Genetic debasing occurs when women are left to procreate, without any incentive (financial or social) to choose productive men. As has been documented by Roissy and others, women are attracted to men who could often be described as parasites and psychopaths. So what happens when they are free to mate, while being shielded from the consequences of their choices? To see an example of that: one can look at Italy (where the center of Ancient Rome was two millenia ago, and probably the only time in history when women were free to mate without consequences), isn’t the stereotypical Italian a pick-up artist? Isn’t Italy a corrupt and dysfunctional mess?

    Moral breakdown occurs when a society replaces male values of truth, logic, honor and honesty with female values of moral-relativism, feelings-over-facts, political correctness and consumerism. A civilized society simply cannot exist without the males virtues. That’s probably why we evolved those values in the first place: to be able to organize our specie and leverage our collective strength – but it can only work if most individuals put the well-being of the “hive” before their own. Again, as has been demonstrated in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, most women are simply unable to understand the male value system – they remain perpetual children, and see everything in a sollipsistic fashion (that’s why your girlfriend gets upset when you disagree with her – she cannot understand that disagreement with her views is separate from attacking her as a person, because to her it is one and the same). Men evolves these important values first, probably partly because they were in charge and partly because the Y chromosome is the fastest-evolving part of our DNA (we are the expendable guinea pigs of evolution!)

  11. Pozdnyshev says:

    Funny, I immediately thought of the book Germania by Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, in which he describe the customs of the Germanic people. He waxed poetic about how faithful and supportive the Germanic women are to their menfolk, and that “adultery is very rare, and that an adulterous woman is shunned afterward by the community regardless of her beauty.” This contrasted the Germans against other barbarian tribes, and is in Tacitus’ opinion, one of the key reasons for the Germans’ success. Nothing new under the sun…

  12. I think this analysis is spot on, but let me play Devil’s Advocate for a moment.

    Whenever impending doom is forecast, optimists/futurists propagate the idea that technology and innovation will be able to compensate and save the day. The classic example is Malthus and modern food production.

    The idea here is that technologically enabled productivity will more than compensate for demographic productivity loss. In the SMP a relatively small number of alphas provide for the sexual needs of all the sluts. In the techno-optimist future a relatively small number of men, made super-productive by technology, will provide for the material needs of the femocracy.

    As far as my own view goes, I don’t see this ultimately saving the day. But the market can stay irrational a lot longer than you can stay solvent.

  13. Carnivore says:

    Dalrock, you’re the man! Dude, you really, really nailed it with this one.

    [D: Thank you.]

  14. Bob Wallace says:

    For the most part, I don’t think women can compete with men. What I hear, over and over, are women promoted above their level of competence (whose idea of work is holding meetings and talking) while the men support them and do all the work. I don’t hear this a little bit. I hear it a lot. In fact, it’s been my experience.
    The men are allowed to advance only so far in their field, and promotions are given to the women, This, of course, can’t last, and I wonder what the future will be like. But then, who doesn’t?

  15. Brendan says:

    The idea here is that technologically enabled productivity will more than compensate for demographic productivity loss. In the SMP a relatively small number of alphas provide for the sexual needs of all the sluts. In the techno-optimist future a relatively small number of men, made super-productive by technology, will provide for the material needs of the femocracy.

    One version. Another more outlandish one (yet supported by some deep pockets like Google) is the singularity idea preached by people like Ray Kurzweil — i.e., the time is soon when humanity divides into enhanced haves and unenhanced have-nots, and that this will have both good and bad impacts, but either way will eclipse current problems and issues by providing a new paradigm. Largely pie-in-the-sky stuff, but there it is.

    Leaving aside futurism, I think it does bear noting that there will remain some guys who are naturally ambitious and who do well. These guys are going to be getting married and having kids, most of them, as they will be in shorter supply relative to their peer women (and just in short supply in general). So I expect we’re going to continue to see the divergence between these guys, and their families, on the one hand, and everyone else, on the other. Not a stable scenario, surely, but also one that can be sustained for a long time — look at Latin America.

  16. Dalrock says:

    @Zippy

    Whenever impending doom is forecast, optimists/futurists propagate the idea that technology and innovation will be able to compensate and save the day. The classic example is Malthus and modern food production.

    The idea here is that technologically enabled productivity will more than compensate for demographic productivity loss. In the SMP a relatively small number of alphas provide for the sexual needs of all the sluts. In the techno-optimist future a relatively small number of men, made super-productive by technology, will provide for the material needs of the femocracy.

    I don’t disagree with this. The economies of the west are so incredibly productive that they can survive with high levels of distortion like what we see. As you say quoting Keynes this could go on for a very long time, some might argue indefinitely. But this doesn’t change the fundamental point. This isn’t a level playing field, it is an expensive distortion. The argument you put forth as devil’s advocate is that we are so well off we can afford the expensive distortion. This may or may not be true, but it doesn’t negate the point that it is expensive and something which requires constant effort to keep in place.

    As for Malthus, I’ve written before about how no one can seem to locate where Malthus made the prediction he is famous for. All I’ve ever found is him being quoted out of context while refuting the pipe dreams of a utopian anarchist. I did see once a claim that something like the 4th of 13 editions of his famous essay contained this assertion, but this comes without a link to the actual edition for verification. Even so, according to this theory it was neither his final nor his starting argument, and it wasn’t something he asserted very long (if ever).

  17. @Dalrock:
    As for Malthus, I’ve written before about how no one can seem to locate where Malthus made the prediction he is famous for. All I’ve ever found is him being quoted out of context while refuting the pipe dreams of a utopian anarchist. [...]

    Interesting. I did not know that.

  18. Ras Al Ghul says:

    If these distortions were sustainable indefinately, we would not be seeing the debt load taken on. If it was maintainable, there would be no debt needed. The proof is right there that productivity is not enough.

    The futurists and their “enhanced humans” and singularity or for that matter sex bots are pipe dreams and I think we all know what’s in that pipe.

    Thank you for tearing apart the Social Pathologist and his inability to see the forest for the trees.

    The man’s crimestop is incredible at times.

  19. Some Guy says:

    (This is a cryptic remark in order to preserve anonymity.)

    I opened my mouth to challenge a typical husband cut-down. I received praise, but was discreetly redirected to a reeducation session. Then… everything I was told not to do to my wife (criticize, accuse, direct, challenge, rebuke, etc.) was done to me, only with more tautologies, twisted scripture, and psychological redirection. The bottom line is… I have to “Fireproof” my wife and “respect” her even to the point of a Hosea type scenario. If she is doing anything wrong… then *I* am the one that needs to repent. (Much effort is spent to establish moral equivalency.) Also… I need to affect a much more saccharine demeanor… and I need to gab and mix more with the herd.

    This is all done with a smile and a hug… but I know the Inquisitorial approach to isolating heretics, and that is what is currently warming up. There is one script for marriage problems… and nothing I say can even be processed if it varies from it.

    It’s on. Any prayers or advice are appreciated.

  20. deti says:

    “In a society with traditional marriage men voluntarily agree to produce more than they personally need in order to lead a family. The problem for feminists with this voluntary model is something which is core to all voluntary cooperation agreements; women must give something up in exchange for men doing the same.”

    Dalrock’s post describes one of the unintended consequences of feminism. Feminism was going to right all the wrongs, level the playing field, and be “fair” to women. Women would be able to do what they wanted, have sex with whom they wanted, and discard unwanted marriages or end them after they had “served their purpose”. Women would be free to “explore their sexuality” and leave a “bad” marriage to “find myself”. Women above all would be free to “follow my heart” and “be true to myself” because “I need something for myself before I can share it with a man”.

    Women presumed men would simply absorb all the changes, adjust to them, and yet continue on as they did before — working to provide, creating, and making women’s lives easier. Women writing on the topic have said as much. They expected hot alpha studs to service their sexual needs. They expected all the other men to wait for marriage or marry less attractive women. They demanded good, attractive men to be available when they decided they had had enough of the carousel and wanted to marry. They expected to be able to have sex with whom they wanted, when they wanted, and never to be judged for it. They expected men to subsidize their lifestyles, and they have — with all sorts of welfare programs. All this was done by appealing to emotion and “fairness” because it’s “for the children” and “if you don’t support this you’re a sexist pig”.

    Now people stand around blinkered and scratching their heads, genuinely puzzled that men at large in our society are either sackless omegas, inveterate slackers, productive men absolutely refusing to marry or sire children, douchebags like “The Situation”, or smooth PUAs bedding women and living at a bare minimum of productivity. They wonder why a growing number of divorced men absolutely refuse remarriage. Simple: It’s all about incentives. Incentives matter. Feminism has incentivized all the behavior we see in men.

  21. deti says:

    Some Guy:

    Prayers on their way. As for the pastor and the wife, my response would be one word:

    No.

  22. A says:

    > Also, companies will increasingly have immigrants, or the sons of immigrants, in leadership positions.

    Ah, yes. Mexicans and Somalis (great producers of wealth, dontchaknow) will save you.

  23. pdwalker says:

    That’s an excellent analysis.

  24. greyghost says:

    One of the reason for my support of the PUA, MGTOW and for christians with game in general was the merits of this very article. I also fully support the sffering of women for the consequences of their actions. No rings for sluts and redemption is for getting your soul in to heaven not for securing a husband. All of these approaches are meant to get to the tipping point before it gets like europe of before a real shooting civil war starts. It is already happening on an individual basis with the murder suicides and shooting rampages.
    There will be no technological break through directly for productivity. Any technological break through will be for men to be able to live with out women. Sexbots,artificial wombs and surrogacy. Also women on the margins will start to vote the misandry away or better yet and more in line with female nature attempts to remove misandry will not be apposed by the majority female vote.

  25. Tom — “Absolutely brilliant article. I am often amazed at the quality of thinking and research in the blogosphere, in comparison to the intellectual poverty of established “journalists”.”

    I am certain that it is because that we are not brainwashed and blinded by the tyrannies of ‘Political Correctness’ and ‘feminism'; to the blogosphere, they are not the ‘sacred cows’ that are so dear to modern journalists and journalism. We can “call a spade a spade” and follow logical arguments to wherever they lead without having to kowtow to the matriarchy.

    May we always have the intellectual freedom of the blogosphere.

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    Some Guy, I recall your history. It may be too late for peace, but:

    Si viz pacem, para bellum

    That means you need to find the local junkyard dog attorney in the divorce practice and pay him or her a retainer. Tell this person everything. For now, if I read you right, you do not wish to start the fiht, but you expect one possibly in the near future. Therefore, you should have the ground prepared for a major counter attack. This is not just your life at stake, your children are at risk as well. Tell this attorney you anticipate possible false DV claims, false abuse claims, false rape claims, the works.

    Then find the next 4 heavy hitters, and consult with them, being sure to pay a consultation fee. By doing so, you should make it unethical for your wife-opponent to hire the due to conflict of interest. Save the receipts from all consultations with attornies in a place where they cannot be found and destroyed, that means “not in your house” and not at work. Some secure location, such as a private (non-bank) safe deposit box would be useful for all documents of this sort, and other documents to come.

    You need your ducks lined up; perhaps the situation can still be salvaged, although it appears that your own church has taken her side in the all-too-usual Churchianity pedestalization. And unhappily, thanks to 40+ years of what the Social Pathologist would call “progress”, she has a lot of power on her side. You can create an “armed peace” if she understands what the cost of divorce will be – not the bogus cost-free divorce others are telling her about, but the real, long term, all-by-her-lonesome cost.

    Good luck. Keep us posted, if you wish.

  27. ar10308 says:

    @Zippycatholic,
    ” In the SMP a relatively small number of alphas provide for the sexual needs of all the sluts. In the techno-optimist future a relatively small number of men, made super-productive by technology, will provide for the material needs of the femocracy.”

    Men are built to fight or fuck. If most of them aren’t fucking, then they’ll soon be fighting. Beta rage is obvious in the recent string of mass shootings. Now, imagine these betas find each other and start to gain numbers.

  28. Rookie Writer says:

    I’ve been reading about feminism, looking around the children and other marriages. And what is described here is exactly I’m seeing in other places. What women don’t get(especially feminist) is that a child without a father most of time grows up without certain aspects in life. An old saying “A woman can’t raise a man” is true.

  29. greyghost says:

    Ar-10 308 winchester
    Zippychick is telling you in her comment she is a woman. Her comment is the best that can be expected.
    America also has a large number of firearms and a history of tough free individuals. The productivity Dalrock mentioned also means that productivity is available for warfare. Technical ability to make bombs with various types of triggers, setting fires, hacking computers,marksmanship, and other dual use type skills are spread out over a large number of people. In the third world countries the western governments like to bullie those types are in shorter supply.

  30. RICanuck says:

    @Some Guy

    You have my sympathy, man. Anonymous at 10:42 has given good advice. Deti also, he is a better writer than I, and probably more intelligent. You are going through a rather brutal red pill moment.

    My free advice is that men and women are different and process faith and religion differently.

    Women process religion as feelings. Jesus loves me! I am so close to God! It feels good! I think we have both encountered women who devoutly worship the Holy Trinity of me! me! me!

    Men do religion to know what is true and false, what is good and evil, what must I do to be worthy of the promises of God? Am I in a state of sin, and what must I do to be worthy of salvation?

    This is one of the reasons whay you are being raked over the coals. Your pastor knows, even if he doesn’t articulate it, that your wife is incapable of examing her own consience, therefore it is all on your shoulders. It’s not fair, but God knows we live in a fallen world.

    In terms of salvation, women do not come factory equipped with a consience. The manosphere is full of references to the ‘rationalisation hamster. Women can always come up with a reason with why God is cool with what they have done. I do not believe that God holds women eternally accountable for their sins.

    We are men. We come with a consience. That is why you are being asked to change. We bear the eternal guilt of our unrepented sins. You may, in the near future, go through a foretaste of the blackest pits of Hell. Jesus was and is a Man, as are you. Your near future must be faced with courage and fortitude. God has your back, but there may be many times when He will seem to have abandoned you.

    The only specific piece of advice I can offer is; if the movie ‘Fireproof’ is mentioned, go into a righteous rage. The wife in ‘Fireproof’ at the end of the movie went to her husband because he donated $20,000 versus the $500 donated by the hunky doctor who made her tingle. Her character in the movie was a whore. An expensive whore, but still a whore. If anyone in your chuch community mentions ‘Fireproof’, say in a loud voice, “That woman was a whore who sold herself to the highest bidder! Never, call the mother of my children a whore!”. It doesn’t hurt to look like a dangerous white knight.

  31. Miserman says:

    As men choose less and less to produce more and more for money-pit relationships in their search for a family, feminists will be facing a very real option for women. Men will still want a cooperative relationship with women in which they supply for women’s needs in exchange for fulfillment of their own.

    Essentially, a woman would agree to be a part-time companion for the man, being with him on contractually agreed upon weekends in exchange for the financial and material backing she needs for education and introduction into her career. After the contract is fulfilled and she is materially set (perhaps long enough for an undergraduate degree) she can then search for a man to be a husband and possibly a father. As a business arrangement, it would look legitimate and natural. It might even be called a career in “professional companionship.”

    However, it will still be prostitution.

  32. imnobody says:

    Dalrock, I though your “Debasing marriage” post was your best post ever. But this is even better. Thank you for sharing.

  33. @greyghost:
    Good to see folks like you around doing the heavy lifting to make sure the combox Jackass Ratio doesn’t drop below manosphere standards.

  34. gdgm+ says:

    Another spin on the “decline of marriage” subject, called “Post-Familialism”:

    For most of human history, the family — defined by parents, children and extended kin — has stood as the central unit of society. In Europe, Asia, Africa and, later, the Americas and Oceania, people lived, and frequently worked, as family units.

    Today, in the high-income world and even in some developing countries, we are witnessing a shift to a new social model. Increasingly, family no longer serves as the central organizing feature of society. An unprecedented number of individuals — approaching upwards of 30% in some Asian countries — are choosing to eschew child bearing altogether and, often, marriage as well.

  35. Some Guy says:

    @RICanuck — Yes, I have caused a stink over the movie Fireproof. It proves that I am a “mean”, prune-faced malcontent that doesn’t know how to “respect” other people. I should be nicer… less abrasive… more saccharine… exuding joy.

    Oh man… I like the dangerous white knight thing. Next time someone trots out Fireproof or Hosea… I can say something like… “woah there… my wife and I have our disagreements… but I really need counsel on how to handle a *woman*, not a *whore*. I am insulted that you would imply that my wife was even remotely like either of those women. I demand an apology!”

    Yes! *I’m* tingling just imagining such a scene. Heh.

    As things play out, I think this is ironically helping the marriage. It’s a good reason to cut off some seriously bad company… and the drama factor seems to make my wife feel lead/protected. She is skeptical and leans toward giving everyone but me an out here… but she also seems to be trusting my discernment.

  36. sunshinemary says:

    @ Some Guy – I pray God will give you wisdom and that the Holy Spirit will reveal the Lord’s will to you. I pray for protection for your children. I pray that those around you who pervert the Word of God will be brought to full repentance. I pray your wife will turn from selfishness and sin.

  37. Just sayin says:

    “Most current CEOs and industry leaders are middle aged and older.”

    Do you know why men start and run more businesses? It is simple – it is the only way that they can actually advance due to all of the various rules and regulations to benefit women. Heck, I have several businesses which on paper are run/owned/controlled by “fill-in-the-blank-minority” since it benefits me to do that. So on paper, they are succeeding, when in reality I am enjoying the profits.

    Since Heir Obama took over, I’ve been using all of his incentives to leave the US to write off my income in the US, to finance setting up businesses over-seas, where I make greater profits. Most of us “older” CEOs know how to play the system, and will continue to do so. Why? I am tired of supporting all of the moochers, looters, and leeches who are promoted and put in positions of power. They can’t take money when all of the paperwork shows that there is none to take – because it is earned over-seas.

    Feminism is just another symptom of a sick economy. Every year, I get closer and closer to having enough to leave the US permanently. It is just a stop gap since all countries are doing the same non-sense. I dream of a place that is based on skill, ability, and hard work – but that no longer exists on this Earth. So I will suck from the carcass of capitalism – to eek out a living till I can leave it to collapse – and it will collapse. More and more men are seeing no incentive to work hard and excel – and when the movers and shakers, stop things from moving, all that is left is decline…

    Read Atlas Shrugged – it is spookily prophetic…

  38. RICanuck says:

    @Some Guy

    Glad I could offer some potentially useful advice.

    Women love cost free drama and being protected. If ‘Fireproof’ comes up in the context of you marriage, make sure you are loud, righteous, and angry. Espcially in public. Women love the bad boys. ‘NEVER, call my wife a whore!’ Chances are your pastor is high status in your community. Out alpha him if he mentions ‘Fireproof’.

    If a whispering campaign starts against you in the congregation, keep attending, with your wife on your arm and your head held high.

  39. deti says:

    SomeGuy:

    In addition to AnonReader’s excellent advice, I offer the following:

    1. Get a “go bag” together and keep it in a safe place your wife doesn’t have access to. Keep a couple of days of clothes, copies of important papers (or the originals if you can do it), and some cash.

    2. Get a credit card in your name only. Start establishing an independent credit history.

    3. Withdraw small amounts of cash and keep it in several different secure locations known only to you.

    4. Separate out the finances. Go to the bank and put half the cash in a separate account in your name only. Do this with all liquid assets.

    5. Start a handwritten journal. Start documenting your wife’s behaviors. Do it in handwriting and in a spiral notebook so its integrity is preserved and so that it can’t be easily deleted or frauded up. Record events as they happen or very soon after, while your memory is fresh and so they serve as a contemporaneous, detailed, play-by-play account rather than a retrospective memoir. Include verbatim statements and detailed descriptions. Keep it in a safe place (not at home).

    5. Assume that your home is not secure and not safe. Assume that your wife has reviewed or made copies of anything you have at home. Assume you’re being recorded. Assume that your wife has already been to a divorce lawyer and is simply waiting for the right time to file.

    6. If your wife announces she wants a divorce, DO NOT agree to leave the marital house. DO NOT agree to move out. Tell her that if she is the one who wants the divorce, she can leave. She can still call the police and claim false rape or false DV. Warn her that if she calls police and makes an accusation of false rape or false DV, she will be setting in motion a chain of events that can’t be stopped. There will be absolutely no chance of reconciliation and no walking it back, and that you will press charges for false report and malicious prosecution and any other legal remedies you may have. Tell her that if she leaves the house, she will not be welcomed back in. You will immediately change all the locks. You will pack up all her things and place them into a storage locker with one month’s rent paid. She will have 30 days to make other living arrangements. And then do it.

  40. Mencken says:

    zippy: “Good to see folks like you around doing the heavy lifting to make sure the combox Jackass Ratio doesn’t drop below manosphere standards.”

    LOL. Yup. Dalrock is brilliant – his commentariat, notsomuch.

  41. Retrenched says:

    Long story short…

    Women wanted feminism to free them from their traditional roles and obligations, but they are now discovering (much to their chagrin) that feminism has largely freed men from their traditional roles and obligations as well.

    You’ve come a long way, baby! Now, you have to deal with the consequences…

  42. tbc says:

    This is a brilliant post. Feminism is not sustainable long term and is being propelled currently through massive state intervention. It is not sustainable because it is not natural. One of the ways in which the system is being maintained in the west is through the outsourcing of a great deal of work to still developing and non-yet feminists economies either through the importation of cheap immigrant labor or directly through the relocation of industry to those countries. This enables women in the west to have high profile service jobs that pay well without any of the unpleasantness associated with actual wealth creating activities (like mining, forestry, manufacturing, etc.) Despite what many people think, those activities are still the backbone of economics and are all done largely by men. In developing countries, there is no deception that women and men are the same and the safety nets that exist in wealthy nations do not exist. So if a woman sluts around, she pays the high cost associated with it. If a man is no good, that too will show up in short order.

  43. Random Angeleno says:

    @Some Guy, you may think things are improving and while that’s not a bad thing, you’ve been advised to play some defense as well. I’d continue on both offensive and defensive tracks if I were in your position. You’ve been given good advice above… good luck.

  44. Opus says:

    I am prepared to accept Dalrock’s challenge: to whit; finding the exact source in the Essay on The Principles of Population for The Rev’d Malthus proposition that doubling the population in a generation is easy but doubling the food supply difficult. Surely, however, the challenge cannot be that easy. What am I missing?

  45. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Some Guy:
    Another thing that helped me was that she put all the utility bills in her name. She did this years ago to build credit in her name, because her credit score was terrible (years of massive credit card balances).
    When she pulled the PFA, I wasn’t on the hook for those bills. Had I been, I qould be paying them until she decided to change them. I wouldn’t have been allowed to shut off the service, since my children were in the house.
    Not sure you can get her to take over the accounts, in name only.
    As it is, she is still sitting in the house and refuses to refinance, which would free up my VA certificate so I could buy a house.
    The lesson/point is that unless her name is on a bill (and her name only) you will be put under intense pressure to pay them for as long as she wants during divorce proceedings.

  46. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    I am prepared to accept Dalrock’s challenge: to whit; finding the exact source in the Essay on The Principles of Population for The Rev’d Malthus proposition that doubling the population in a generation is easy but doubling the food supply difficult. Surely, however, the challenge cannot be that easy. What am I missing?

    This part is accurate. However, it is generally presented as Malthus predicting out of control population growth eventually leading to famine. This is in fact the opposite of what he was arguing. His argument was that social institutions such as marriage work to keep population from outstripping our ability to feed ourselves. He saw this as a constant check, and a beneficial thing. He backed this up by showing how quickly population grows when there aren’t resource constraints, such as the initial colonization of the US and in Europe following mass deaths by the plague or wars. He argued that different countries had different thresholds for pain with this regard (he mentions China), but that the traditional family served as this check. His other argument was that welfare laws would only increase the number of the poor by working around the natural checks. I’ve explained it further here.

  47. The Continental Op says:

    Some Guy:

    Mutual Assured Destruction worked for the US and USSR. If she launches a first strike, she needs to know a devastating counter-strike is on the way. And what–without killing and maiming people–is a devastating counter-strike? I have ideas, but we should discuss. She should know that if she pushes the big red button, it is all crashing down around her.

  48. The Continental Op says:

    I’d add that deti has some things started (good ideas all), but once you have all the details lined up, she needs to feel the dread.

  49. Uncle Elmer says:

    Nice work Dalrock. A relevant comment I have repeated at the Spearhead is that women are competing for jobs but are not creating them. Another is :

    Peter Drucker, in his famous essay Managing Oneself, advised strongly the need to understand your strengths and weaknesses, and observed that you can never win by improving your weaknesses, only by improving your strengths.

    In broader socio-economic terms, we have given women the opportunity to build on their weaknesses (ability to compete against men) and discouraged them from capitalizing on their strengths (youth and fertility). They compete through artifices of fairness and inclusion that are borne on the backs of an ever-dwindling pool of male supporters.

    We have weakened society as a whole by building on women’s weaknesses in attempts to make them the equal of men, rather than encouraging them in their natural strengths. And while this charade is going on, men are encouraged to adopt feminine attitudes and lifestyles at the expense of their own natural strengths, now deemed unnecessary in the new gender-neutral economy.

    ————————————-

    Off-topic and I know the is a “Christian” blog, but you may enjoy this :

    “An Open Letter to Sarah Silverman” :

    http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/dear-sarah-silverman/2012/10/11

  50. AlmostAnonymous says:

    (Offtopic,mbuy does someone have a reference to Some Guy’s back story?)

  51. AlmostAnonymous says:

    (Offtopic, but does someone have a reference to Some Guy’s back story?)

  52. Pingback: Destructive Feminism. | Dark Brightness

  53. Ian Ironwood says:

    Excellent post, as usual, and especially Deti et. al.’s comments.

    Riffed on the post here: http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/10/is-it-really-win-when-other-team-doesnt.html

    Basically, does it count as “achievement” if the best competitors self-select out of competition? Or are these poor spinsters stuck holding the bag they were told they wanted but that we desperately wanted to get rid of? Maybe it’s better here in the briar patch . . .

  54. deti says:

    Continental:

    “Mutual Assured Destruction worked for the US and USSR. If she launches a first strike, she needs to know a devastating counter-strike is on the way. And what–without killing and maiming people–is a devastating counter-strike? I have ideas, but we should discuss. She should know that if she pushes the big red button, it is all crashing down around her.”

    Indeed. Let her know the only winning move is not to play.

    What’s a devastating counterstrike? Depends on the woman. For a woman with no sense of shame but is materialistic, it would be telling her you’ll quit your good job and she’ll have to go back to work. You will impoverish yourself and make yourself judgment proof. You’ll fight her tooth and nail, and consume all the marital assets in court costs and attorney fees. You’ll tie everything up for years and waste the marital assets. You won’t obey a child support order. You’re prepared to expat. Get all the major property in your name if you can do it.

    For a woman with a strong sense of shame or in a prominent position, you have to get all the dirt on her. You’ll air all her dirty laundry, past and present. The entire family will know the reasons for her demanding a divorce. The entire family, friends, church, her employer, and coworkers will know all the sordid details. The divorce, the proceedings, the reasons for the divorce, and all her dirty laundry will be on full public display. Catch: It all has to be true, and you have to be prepared to defend its truth. Get copies of supporting documents. If you can’t prove it’s true, don’t say it.

    For a woman who’s dithering, you tell her to make a firm choice. If she opts for divorce, there will be no going back, ever. Her decision is irrevocable. Tell her you’ll fight her on everything and force her to take positions.

    For a woman who’s being a complete bitch: Fight her on everything. Make it all public. You’ll fight on alimony, child support, who gets the Springsteen CDs, everything. She’s got some dirty laundry, and it will be aired in full and put on full public display. Start dating again, even before the divorce is final. Put up public pictures on social media of you and your date(s) (NOTE: This last bit will work only if you have no kids.)

  55. Opus says:

    @Dalrock

    I will re-read for I do not recall his justifying his theory on the efficacy of marriage. I certainly recall the part where he predicts that welfare merely leads to more poor people because of the increasing burden on those expected to maintain the poor. What is so annoying for a true Malthusan such as myself, is that in England, Welfare laws had begun as early as the end of the reign of her late Majesty Elizabeth, yet more than four centuries later and with a welfare bill – so I understand of £200 billion per annum – the country is richer than ever. Malthusan – ironically – was, I seem to recall, childless.

    The rest of the essay (that is to say most of it) is taken up with rebutting Godwin and Condorcet.

  56. christiankp says:

    I think this was just a wonderful post highlighting the Achille’s heel of feminism. In former commentaries I have myself pointed to this weakness in feminism. And it was pointed out many years ago by Geoff Dench. Patriarchy is a societal order constructed by women to gain as much resources from men as possible and the destruction of patriarchy by feminism is the greatest mistake done by women.
    In a society where men are not providing for their family, men need not work very much to keep alive because they don’t have to share resources with their family. And the state cannot tax men too hard as men then work less. Feminism has been financed by married men so despised by feminism.
    Men have a great advantage in the gender war. Men do not need to attack to win. Men can retreat indefinitely and as women advance their defeat will just get bigger. Women could very well be in the same condition as Napoleon: when he concurred Moscow he was too exhausted to and was forced to retreat. He lost the war by winning every battle.
    Women should be in a hurry to change their course and I think they have some very hard bullets to bite (maybe they need to submit and repent). But it is not men a a gender who will loose out if women continue.
    Productivity cannot compensate for more idle men, because idle men consume from the resources meant for women and children. Therefore, if women do not find any way to make middle and lower class males more productive, which they might do most effectively by leaving labor market themselves, they face the burden that women are going to provide for idle males either by sharing resources or worse by working in the labor market for the benefit of idle males.
    The only way for women to handle this situation – apart from resurrecting patriarchy – is by forcing lower class women to abort male fetuses. In the upper class women are still marrying and upper class women need men to keep them secure so there will still be upper class men.
    Maybe lower class females will be reduced to working slaves and and a part of a reproductive machinery in which they will not be able to choose the father of their children (that would happen if society chooses to make it mandatory for women to conceive by insemination in which case the sex of the fetus can be determined beforehand).

  57. sunshinemary says:

    christiankp, your comment makes me shiver. And the worst of it is, rather than being in a hurry to change course, as far as I can tell women are hurrying to go further down the road they are already on. Anyone who thinks Christian women aren’t gleefully skipping along right beside their secular sisters might try reading this recent Her-meneutics post on Christianity Today called Can Breadwinner Wives Be Happy?. The article is okay, but read the comments; most of them wouldn’t be out of place on site like feministing.org or jezebel.com .

  58. pb says:

    Something I was thinking about… I am inclined to claiming that men are more naturally group-oriented than women, because it is part of the natural function of men to work with other men for the good of the group (even if they have to sacrifice themselves for the group), while it is the natural function of women to help man. If this is so, how do we explain the “altruism” of women? Is it less altruism than solipsism plus empathy at work?

  59. greenlander says:

    Dalrock, this post is too awesome… and I understand it completely.

    I expatriated six months ago. I could just see that forming a family in the United States left me vulnerable in exactly the way you described. It’s a sucker’s game. Now I’m living in a place with none of this feminist nonsense. I work a third as hard and make a third as much money, yet that third is considered a high income here. Due to the Foreign Income Tax Exclusion and lower income I will pay almost no taxes in the US, which helps remove a pillar from the feminist police state. And fertile women are genuine appreciative of a solid upper-beta guy here.

    I’m glad I found the manosphere and took the red pill.

  60. “Socialist State Model: The economy of the state must be reorganized to redistribute production. While the stated aim of socialism is to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, in practice this is a very effective tool to redistribute wealth from men to women.”

    This system in practice:

    “Russia, as everyone knows, is the land where love is free. Anyone can make love to anyone else. And the Government doesn’t give a hoot. The Government takes the point of view that love is natural, and interference with it silly. It takes this point of view, that is to say, up to a certain point — to the point where children are involved.

    Motherhood is considered a purely social function, and therefore the State assumes a definite responsibility for mothers. Every Russian child has a mother; but it has a father, too. Legally, there is no such thing as illegitimacy in Russia. Illegitimacy has disappeared as idea and reality both. Every Russian child is a legitimate child.

    Suppose a Russian girl is unmarried, but is going to have a baby. Very good. This happens all over the world; but in Russia differently. The “very good” is literal. The girl simply goes to ZAGS, reports her condition, and names the father.

    The designated young man is thereupon notified. By law he is given one month in which to make protest. In some cases presumptive fatherhood is inflicted unjustly, wherefore young men are inclined in Russia to tread the amatory path somewhat warily. Unjust or not, the father, if he is designated as such by a court which settles the matter, must support the child, and in addition, before its birth, must pay for the hospital care of the mother. Any sum up to 30 per cent of the father’s wages may be thus assigned. For eighteen years!

    But suppose the young lady comes into the registration bureau or the court and says frankly that she does not know who is the father of her impending child. This, one must admit, presents a difficulty — even for the Russians. As a rule the prospective mother is rebuked. But she is not punished. Then she is asked to furnish to the court a list of possible candidates for paternity. These are assembled, the judge talks to them, and tries to make one of them agree, if possible, to marry the girl; in any case to support the child.

    Suppose none of the candidates “agrees.” No matter. The child comes first. The court simply selects, one of the group, and assigns him to fatherhood. Jokesters in Moscow will laugh and tell you — in such deplorable cases — that the court usually chooses as “father” the “candidate” who is richest!”

    (John Gunther, “Russian Children All Have Fathers,” The North American Review, January 1930).

  61. Joseph says:

    Throw on top of this the 50+ million people that were aborted during this process and the potential pool of workers to even try to pull them out of this isn’t there, let alone of a quality and determination necessary for the job.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    ar10308
    Men are built to fight or fuck. If most of them aren’t fucking, then they’ll soon be fighting. Beta rage is obvious in the recent string of mass shootings. Now, imagine these betas find each other and start to gain numbers.

    Maybe, maybe not. There’s a lot of different, various games that simulate “fighting” to parts of the hindbrain, everything from Civilization to Warcraft on up to various first person shooting games. For example, I believe that there is a new, upgraded multiplayer real-time game of “Walking Dead”, in which players get to shoot zombie walkers as part of a larger team.

    Add a second screen to the computer for teh pron, pretty much got simulated F & F covered.
    Overclock that multi-core CPU with a broadband connection to the world…

    Much is made in some computer circles of the fact that display tech has been driven heavily by gamers, and if one pays close attention there’s also an undercurrent of “images that look like the real thing” that might just be significant. At this point one could make some rude jokes about mouse balls and joysticks, but…nah.

    Amazing what we’ve managed to do with all the excess capacity developed since 1950 or so.

  63. Feminism, like a fiat currency, was created by the central bankers to transfer labor and assets from good men to themselves. They debauch both the currency in secretive meetings of the fed and your future wife in secretive tapingz of buttcocking seeesisonszoznoznoznzo, whence she is desouled and reprogrammed through he ass to transfer a man’ assets to da state and da bernankeid eleitezzlzolozoz

    follow da moneyz neo in da fiat buttehxt matrix zlzoozozozozoz

  64. an observer says:

    Altruism is a misapplied concept.

    Wikipedia defines it as “principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others.” In practice, the supposed altruist is intrinsically rewarded for disrupting the natural chain of consequences.

    Feminism distorts civilisation to benefit team woman. Enacting legislation to benefit women brings unexpected outcomes. By changing the price tags on behaviour, women get to interfere in the lives of others, whilst simultaneously generating virtuous pride with their meddling ways.

    A true altruist is defined as:
    “Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (e.g., receiving recognition for the act of giving).”

    I don’t see this happening. Social changes like welfare and the redistributionist state almost always couch their programs of organised theft in special langauge. In other words, unicorns and rainbows, at the behest of the legislator.

    This is not in the spirit of altruism. Men and women are different. Since they were never equal to begin with, this is favouring one team over another in the name of fairness and equality.

    Withdrawing from such a rigged and insane contest is totally understandable. And civilisation will be the poorer. We all lose. Thanks, feminism.

  65. “For some inexplicable reason in the past economic growth has lead to falling birthrates.”

    The reason why this usually take place was explained by Michael Thomas Sadler, a contemporary opponent of Malthus. See here: The Law of Population, Vol 2, John Murray. London, 1830.

  66. Sharrukin says:

    We have had a possible glimpse of what may be coming when the ‘other socialist’ model collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union. The state support structures that had artificially buttressed women’s roles within society could no longer support them until western capitalism started bankrolling them again. Feminism/Political Correctness are simply the approved western form of socialism.

    During the transformation of the economy, women fell out of the labour market in great numbers to find themselves in the household, which did not provide any income for them, or in early retirement. Women’s political representation radically decreased, compared to the “statist feminist” era, when their representation was regulated by quota.

    The level of women’s participation in national legislatures fell precipitously when democratic elections were held, ranging from 20-30 percent in 1987 to less than 10 percent in Poland, Slovakia and Hungary in 1990.

    For example, in Russia after the removal of quotas the number of women parliamentarians fell from 34,5% in 1984 to 7% in 2003. In Lithuania, women’s percentage in parliament dropped from 30% under communism to 10 % in the present parliament. In Armenia and Ukraine women represent only 5% of members in the national parliaments.

  67. There seems to be an assumption on the part of many of my manosphere brothers that the State will simply let all those under-productive menz labor and produce at rates less than which they are capable.

    This was not the case in 17th century Europe, where, according to Murray Rothbard in his History of Economic Thought, men who were perceived as malingering or not working up to what the authorities thought was their potential were pressed into labor gangs.

    The Romans did something similar, if memory serves. Not Shanghai’ing happy bachelors into forced labor, mind you, but by hitting men who did not marry with a punishing “bachelor tax” that both incentivized them toward marrying but also doubtless helped fatten the Emperor’s purse.

  68. This author argues the same point in a somewhat different fashion:

    “Thus, rejecting the assumption opposed to facts, and replete with anomalies and contradictions, that “population has a tendency to increase in a greater ratio than subsistence,” we establish, as the law of social progress, the converse principle, that the productive power of a community tends to increase more rapidly than the number of the consumers. We show this to be so physically, because every substance, animal or vegetable, on which man subsists, is capable of more rapid multiplication than himself; we show it to be so historically, because we observe that, in every nation, in proportion to its progress in civilisation, the advance of wealth acquires increased ascendancy over that of population; and, in examining the mode in which this result is worked out, we have traced it to principles of universal operation in the constitution of human nature.”

    (George K. Richards, Population and Capital, p. 257, Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans. London, 1854).

  69. imnobody says:

    @Elusive Wapiti

    Yes, the Roman established a bachelor tax because they wanted bachelors to get married. Bachelors paid the tax and didn’t married anyway. We all know how things ended.

  70. Kaehu says:

    @Uncle Elmer

    Sarah Silverman is a prime example of who comes to mind when I think of messed up feminist womyn. Very pretty, very bright, but totally obnoxious, repulsive and foul-mouthed. Obviously a real mess inside. I can’t imagine any guy with common sense wanting to get within 500 feet of her.

  71. imnobody says:

    @christiankp

    Good comparison between feminism and Napoleon in Russia. Regarding the latter, Tolstoy writes in War and Peace, that the actions of the French army in Moscow were irrational and self-destructive and, therefore, they cannot be analyzed in a logic sense. He compares them to the behavior of a wounded animal who acts irrationally and precipitates its own end.

    I think the same could be said about feminism. These women are marching so happily to the abyss. Nobody can convince them to stop. The only thing for men to win is to wait and see.

  72. Dalrock says:

    @Elusive Wapiti

    There seems to be an assumption on the part of many of my manosphere brothers that the State will simply let all those under-productive menz labor and produce at rates less than which they are capable.

    The problem is the normal feminist game of pretending laws are gender neutral won’t work in this case. The tax code isn’t family court or DV cases, where one by one some bureaucrat can magically decide that the woman always wins, but just this once. A bachelor tax in the modern era would have to be a tax on childless men and women, and this would hit the uber feminist women very hard since they tend to be both childless and financially successful. While bullets 1-3 in the OP are core to feminism, so is denying their very purpose. Furthermore, taxing those who don’t earn enough is downright regressive. Good luck feminists and Trad Cons on pushing that one through. Their hands are tied here due to the rest of the cultural marxist agenda.

  73. BC says:

    men who were perceived as malingering or not working up to what the authorities thought was their potential were pressed into labor gangs.

    The Romans did something similar, if memory serves. Not Shanghai’ing happy bachelors into forced labor, mind you, but by hitting men who did not marry with a punishing “bachelor tax” that both incentivized them toward marrying but also doubtless helped fatten the Emperor’s purse.

    Guns*. Lots and lots of guns*. That is all.
    And if men let it happen despite that, then they deserve it.

    *: or any other typically male force multiplier, including but no limited to computer, chemistry and other dual-use technical knowledge.

  74. Cane Caldo says:

    I am sympathetic to SP’s original claims that we are a poorer crop of men than we should or could be, but not his premises.

    When, in the comments, he referenced “coverture” and “Caroline Norton” I had to go read the links. I’d never heard of either. Afterwards I thought: THIS is the justification for “equality” and suffrage under the law?

    It seems to me that the best choice is to withdraw from the system as best as possible. Move to a smaller town, or the sticks. Decrease the need for taxed items. Put labor into what cannot be taxed…at least not taxed yet. Get our kids out of the schools. In our era, being neither a borrower nor a lender means going off the grid.

  75. greyghost says:

    Yeah it will be a higher tax rate on single and childless types. Like it is now actually by the use of exemptions and dependents. believe it or not the desperate move might be to have male birth control in an effort to reduce the number of baby momma welfare recepients. It will be pushed by the upper middle class and the elites wit the blessing of thier manginas. (The government needs that money to pay those working government job moms those pensions.) That will be a killer of the whole feminist power base right there. Also with reduce production male labour and having men around in general will be highly beneficial due to the lower cost of having men around.
    Over all once the laws of misandry are gone and constitutional rule of law actually applies to women. this stuff will come to an end in less than a generation. That is why it is very important for the christian leaders to learn game or at least be on the red pill at a minimum to be in a position to establish the cultural basis for a sustainable and productive society. As it stands now the church does not have the capacity to handle that.

  76. Justinian says:

    @Dalrock


    The problem is the normal feminist game of pretending laws are gender neutral won’t work in this case. The tax code isn’t family court or DV cases, where one by one some bureaucrat can magically decide that the woman always wins, but just this once. A bachelor tax in the modern era would have to be a tax on childless men and women, and this would hit the uber feminist women very hard since they tend to be both childless and financially successful. While bullets 1-3 in the OP are core to feminism, so is denying their very purpose. Furthermore, taxing those who don’t earn enough is downright regressive. Good luck feminists and Trad Cons on pushing that one through. Their hands are tied here due to the rest of the cultural marxist agenda.

    The problem is that they apply the tax to everyone (men and women), then make exemptions for favored groups.

    Recently there was a very prominent example of this tax that is going to hit the low-income grass eater types very hard.

    This is of coarse the Obamacare tax.

    Low income single mothers cedit credits and expemptions, while young low income men will be forced to pay the penalty.

    The Individual Mandate


    Limited “Hardship” Exemption

    The hardship exemption to the mandate is extremely limited. To be exempt from the insurance requirement, someone would have to be facing insurance premiums at least equal to 8 percent of his or her income.

    As Obamacare has not yet been implemented, its not clear exactly how this exemption will play out,

    It has been speculated that Single mothers will probably cross this threshold as many earn little except whatever welfare and child support benefits they receive. These benefits may not count towards the 8 percent. (Again it depends on how this is implemented)

    The tax in 2016 will be $695/year.

    In order for a grass eater to avoid this tax, he would have to earn less than $695 / 0.08 = $7812/year.

    $695 a year will be a substantial hit for men living at subsistence level.

    With the John Roberts supreme court ruling, that tax might just be the beginning.

  77. I think the “bachelor tax” will face a big uphill battle. Childless women would fall into that same category, especially since they’ll be in the workplace. They’ll find ways to tax male lifestyle, before a naked “bachelor” tax.

  78. greyghost says:

    The easiest way to tax bacheler\ors is to raise the overall rate to where the lowest rate high enough to be like child support and then start having credits and deductions for dependant children or spouses.

  79. whatever says:

    The Romans did something similar, if memory serves. Not Shanghai’ing happy bachelors into forced labor, mind you, but by hitting men who did not marry with a punishing “bachelor tax” that both incentivized them toward marrying but also doubtless helped fatten the Emperor’s purse.

    You mean shortly before it collapsed. But yeah, they’ll do it.

  80. Chris says:

    The problem is not the laws or the regulations or the other apparatuses (aparatii?) of the state. It is that the state is bankrupt, will be seen to be bankrupt, and will either default or savegely cut back its size to be able to pay the bills.

    EIther way, expect tens of thousands of people employed by the state to either be out of work or employwed, doing three people’s jobs, for half the pay.

    Across the board: expect redundnacies in the police, fire, public hospitals… and biggert ones in city hall. A lot of the nice things will go — Big Bird will survive because Sesame St. is a profit centre, but art funding will disappear.

    THis is already happening in placies like Queensland (Australia).

    Now, since women are disproportionately in the service sector and that secrot can shrink, it will be a women’s recession. Men? well, they will to the the jobs. A lot of Kiwi men work in mining camps in Australia: quite a few US men are moving to the oil fields. Women with kids can’t do that. Now, in the old days, this was OK because a family has two adults and that brings redundancy. But in the single mother paradise which is the USA, these women are competing with the 20 -30% of young men who are functionally underemployed.

    And I agree with the Sonter lad: the reason we are not seeing riots is cheap internet allows for fighting and fornicating in cyberspace. Besides, the US is rich: no one is starving. Yet. Switch that internet pipe off and cut the food supply, and then all bets are off.

  81. Elaine says:

    Uncle Elmer said “…discouraged them from capitalizing on their strengths (youth and fertility). ”

    Sorry, but youth and fertility are not the only strengths of women, nor the most important. Perhaps you intended to say that these are only two of the many strenghts women have, that are most important to men specifically. The strengths I had in mind benefits both men and society at large. Their capacity to love and nurture children. Their capacity to build mutually beneficial networks and relationships through their natural empathy and people skills. Their capacity to provide emotional and practical support and to provide a safe emotional haven for their families and friends. The list goes on. Many women have this capacity, but their strenghts have to co-opted, twisted or negated to suit the particular needs of feminism or whatever power structure exists at the moment. Just like men are brainwashed into thnking they must work hard for another’s benefit, women are equally brainwashed into thinking their natural inclination to help and support others are stupid and they should always put their selfish needs first.

  82. BC says:

    Just like feminism strangling the feminist welfare state as per Dalrock’s blogpost above, any “bachelor tax” likewise bears the seeds of its own destruction, because when an organism is subjected to adverse stress, the basic responses are fight, flight or submit.

    If Men choose to submit, then they deserve whatever happens to them. To mangle a quote, “Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our [brethren].”

    Many married men or men who are seriously considering marriage in the near to mid-future will choose to fight, because these are the men most invested in society. I wish these men luck, but feel their struggle will be in vain until society as a whole decides to change itself due to force or economic necessity.

    However, many bachelors, and especially red-pill bachelors, are likely to choose third option – flight – because of disincentives and the fact that bachelors are the most mobile and adaptable of any population segment. And if flight becomes impossible due to forced labor, passport/travel restrictions, or other state measures, well, that leaves only submit or fight. However, a cornered animal is more often than not a dangerous animal.

  83. Fitz says:

    An important work that lays out the macro demographic problems…

    http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html

    And the full movie on Youtube… (about an hour and worth watching)

  84. jg says:

    I don’t that think we men are brainwashed to work harder for another’s benefit!!! It is in our wiring…if not civilization will not be what it is today…
    In fact men have been systematically demasculinized and masculinity criminalized over the last 50yrs where men see no benefit in contributing to society. That is why MGTOW and going Galt our slowly but surely gaining momentum among men. Most women on the other hand have been thoroughly brainwashed and masculinized to go against their nature. In the end we reap what we sow and chickens are coming home to roost.

  85. TFH says:

    This article is similar to one Heartiste wrote back in the day in 2008 :

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/decivilizing-human-nature-unleashed/

    Now, I myself, have not only given a time when this will approximately end by succumbing to market forces (2020 – just 7 short years away), but I even listed the 4 main factors, which are the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation

    1) Game
    2) VR Sex
    3) Globalization
    4) Male Economic Disengagement

    Just like an orchestra needs wind, string, brass, and percussion, all Four Horsemen combine to bring the femiBeast down by 2020 or thereabouts.

  86. TFH says:

    I really wish that Stanton, Driscoll, and even Sheila ‘Woodchuck’ Gregoire actually end up reading what Dalrock has written about them (or more importantly, the people following these clowns read these articles)…

    There is far, far, far too little in the way of exposing these people’s misandry. Dalrock is just about the only one doing it.

  87. TFH says:

    Dalrock said :

    I don’t disagree with this. The economies of the west are so incredibly productive that they can survive with high levels of distortion like what we see.

    Yes. And this also causes complacency, as 1% growth rates are still growth, and the opportunity cost of that vs. 4% growth (what America *could* achieve with small govt.) are not noticed.

    To see this even more starkly, just take a look at this little table I made.

    http://futurist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452455969e2015393e08d75970b-pi

    Sure… the US is still growing…. so everything still seems fine on a day-to-day basis..

    Very few people are keeping track of the rate at which others are catching up. They won’t notice until after the fact.

  88. Me says:

    Society is messed up. We get that. How about some articles on how to overcome all this insanity in our own families and live above this insane world? Just a suggestion.

    Btw, have you ever stopped to thought that men got us into this mess. Who controlled Congress, universities, and business when the Feminists started promoting their philosophy? Men? Who is a majority in the government now? Men. The real problem is men buying into this stuff. Feminism only has power as long as men allow it to. When men assume their rightful role in society, feminism can have no power.

  89. Sharrukin says:

    Me says:

    Btw, have you ever stopped to thought that men got us into this mess. Who controlled Congress, universities, and business when the Feminists started promoting their philosophy?

    So men are responsible for their own conduct as well as that of women? If women are not responsible for their own behavior then should they even be allowed to vote?

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    Me
    Society is messed up. We get that. How about some articles on how to overcome all this insanity in our own families and live above this insane world? Just a suggestion.

    New to the site? Might consider reading some more older postings.

    Btw, have you ever stopped to thought that men got us into this mess. Who controlled Congress, universities, and business when the Feminists started promoting their philosophy? Men? Who is a majority in the government now? Men. The real problem is men buying into this stuff.

    Nice example of the Apex fallacy at work. Please consider learning the difference between the words “some” and “all”. Because feminism was liked by some men, who worked to put it into place for the benefit of women. Now all men are at risk.

    Feminism only has power as long as men allow it to. When men assume their rightful role in society, feminism can have no power.

    Sure. What could go wrong with “Manning Up” and assuming our rightful role?

    Maybe you should consider telling this to men like Thomas Ball?

  91. TFH says:

    One thing that needs to be added here is that it is not just the societies have made feminism a priority…..

    But that democracy can only move in such a direction.

    While men vote for what benefits all people, women only vote for what benefits women..

    For that reason, Democracy turns a society into a feminist police state where every single resources has to go towards propping up feminist illusions. Also, since 70-80% of all government spending is a transfer from men to women, note that such an outcome is a 100% certainty under Democracy..

    Oh…and feminists have proved that it is men, rather than women, who care more about children. We see evidence of this every day.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    Not quite off topic:

    http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/12/993.full

    Excerpt:
    Model 1 presents the age adjusted effects of sex on the risk of suicide. Divorced men were over eight times more likely to commit suicide than divorced women (RR = 8.36, 95% CI = 4.24 to16.38). After taking into account other factors that have been reported to contribute to suicide, divorced men still experienced much increased risks of suicide than divorced women. They were nearly 9.7 times more likely to kill themselves than comparable divorced women (RR = 9.68, 95% CI = 4.87 to 19.22). Put another way, for every divorced woman that committed suicide, over nine divorced men killed themselves.

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    Also not quite off topic:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328445/soldier-suicides-are-they-all-about-ptsd-david-french#comments

    Soldiers and Marines are committing suicide in higher numbers. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is often pointed to as a cause, but it appears that infidelity is a big factor. While the man is away, Jody’s coming to play and wifey goes right along.

  94. BC says:

    IIRC, “Me” is a woman, and remember that from the fem-centric point of view, it’s always men’s fault. Man up.

  95. greyghost says:

    This is another one of those articles that scares women

  96. Johnycomelately says:

    Bachelor taxes already exist indirectly, in Australia families, single parents, low income earners and pensioners get carbon tax rebates, so who ends up holding the bag? Single men.

    Bachelor taxes are stealth taxes, they simply exempt the preferred class from taxation by providing reverse tax rebates, that way everyone gets taxed but only the preferred class gets special rebates.

  97. 22to28 says:

    @Dalrock

    “The most capable women are encouraged to delay childbirth as long as possible.”

    In the present culture, any talented young woman is going to encounter at least a few feminism influenced teachers or role models between age 7-18 who will note her giftedness and encourage her, with the genuine best of intentions, to not waste her talent. There is certainly enough pressure from society to achieve the “feminist merit badge,” that any gifted young woman will feel like she is doing herself a serious disservice if she fails to complete the college –> career trajectory.

    The unfortunate reality is that

  98. 22to28 says:

    @Dalrock

    “The most capable women are encouraged to delay childbirth as long as possible.”

    In the present culture, any talented young woman is going to encounter at least a few feminism influenced teachers or role models between age 7-18 who will note her giftedness and encourage her, with the genuine best of intentions, to not waste her talent. There is certainly enough pressure from society to achieve the “feminist merit badge,” that any gifted young woman will feel like she is doing herself a serious disservice if she fails to complete the college –> career trajectory.

    The unfortunate reality is that for intelligent women, this is going to reduce their marketability on the MM, leading of course to claims that men are intimidated by smart women.

    For men like myself, for whom intellectual connection plays very strongly into attraction, we have to choose between two poor options, should we resolve to choose a mate:

    (1) An intelligent woman, who will only marry post 25 years of age, who is teetering on the edge of less than bonerific, and due to her education expects to be treated as an intellectual equal, even when she believes things for unexplained (and typically emotional) reasons, or

    (2) A woman dumber than us, but at least knows it and might provide us with at least a few youthful sexual years before we dive wholeheartedly into regular Viagra prescriptions to cure an illness that would most likely fade if we were simply to change up the woman.

    Those are my options. A woman that I won’t be able to get it up with because once she’s no longer hot, her stupidity may kill my boner — or, a woman who will kill my boner because she’s too smart to listen to reason regarding healthy nutrition and just never quite recovers the 50 pounds of weight gain that came child number one.

    Why is it that all the brilliant women who blew past me in school are now floating in a sea of uncertainty, with only generic life plans and beliefs that they ultimately can’t explain?

    I’ve found that I have much more respect for a woman who is dumb and knows it, than one who is clever but fails to note her areas of weakness.

  99. Rider says:

    @Opus
    Opus says:
    October 15, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    “I will re-read for I do not recall his justifying his theory on the efficacy of marriage. I certainly recall the part where he predicts that welfare merely leads to more poor people because of the increasing burden on those expected to maintain the poor. What is so annoying for a true Malthusan such as myself, is that in England, Welfare laws had begun as early as the end of the reign of her late Majesty Elizabeth, yet more than four centuries later and with a welfare bill – so I understand of £200 billion per annum – the country is richer than ever. Malthusan – ironically – was, I seem to recall, childless.”

    I’m not a historian (I’m not even from the anglosphere, mind you), but I’ll give my opinion about this:
    – First: England had an Empire to colonize and control. Maybe all these people that depended from the welfare state for a time decided to, after some education or development, to try their luck overseas. “For the Queen, the Empire – and for a better life to myself!”

    Today, if some guy try their luck in other country, he is by yourself, AND he’ll have to learn a different language, AND he’ll have to adapt himself to other culture, AND he’ll have to find a job there first…

    – Second: in the Victorian society, one could work and study and accumulate richness ALL his life, with the hope that he’ll have a decent life, a decent woman as a spouse, and that he’ll be able to create his children right and in better conditions than he was; that his son will be a middle-class gentleman (and not a peasant, like him); and his grandson could be, with luck and smarts, a real gentleman, rich, or a land owner. If he didn’t make it, it was because he didn’t work hard enough, didn’t have the opportunitty, or wasn’t talented enough.

    So, the people that depended from the Welfare State tried their hard to NOT depend from it all their lives, and better yet, to be sure that their children will not depend from this as well.

    Do you see any of these stimuli being held for the new generation? I don’t. Better (and easy) to find a job that won’t give me headaches, enough cash for a confort life, and speacially, without feminazis around. I’ll make myself fit, easy-going, learn game and PUA methods, and just pump and dump them till I’m bored and old. And, of course, I will not have children – at all.

    tl;dr: solid society and values + Welfare State: richness. Poor society and poor values + welfare state: stagnancy.

  100. infowarrior1 says:

    @Elaine
    “Many women have this capacity, but their strenghts have to co-opted, twisted or negated to suit the particular needs of feminism or whatever power structure exists at the moment.”

    Feminism is the encouragement of the sin nature of humanity in women.

  101. infowarrior1 says:

    @TFH

    Democracy is for men only then.

  102. BC says:

    http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2012/10/brave-new-war-john-robb/

    This is very pertinent to the topic. Especially the last few paragraphs.

    Excerpt:
    “For anti-modernists, for anti-feminists, for tribalists and anarchists and the alternative right…there is no political way forward. Your interests conflict with the interests of the international business interests pumping millions if not billions of dollars into these television programs you call elections. The momentum of globalism is toward world governance, sexual and cultural interchangeability, increased regulation and whatever kind of bureaucratic police state resources will allow.”

    Heavy stuff.

  103. @Some Guy. If your pastor suggested to “Fire Proof” your marriage. Get a real pastor. That flys in the face of professional marriage counseling and the marriage vows taken.
    Any pastor who is getting and givinghis marriage advice from Hollyweird is NOT A MAN OF G_D.
    Any pastor who thinks “Fireproof” is based on the book of Hosea is “delusional”.

    Hosea spoken by the prophet as inspired by the Holy Spirit is a “divorce decree” – take a hard look at chapter 2.
    Hosea is a quite a alpha / “real man” (Hosea 3:15).

    Btw, Israel was absolutely devastated by the divorce decree.
    Consider how the Jews suffered suffered from their loss over the centuries only to become a nation in 1948 after the slaughter of over 6 million Jews less than 70 years ago.

    Here is a nice “summary” (1 day = 1000 years)
    Hos 6:2 After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live before him.

    G_D absolutely allowed them to be “pulverized” to the ground and learn a very very hard lesson.
    This is G_ds “love/discipline”.
    To compare the book of Hosea to “Fireproof” is absolute farce.
    I sugest getting a easy to read version and read it solid till you understand what each chapter is about – it is a great book on “love” from G_ds viewpoint and not Hollywerid or your secular pastor.

    I strongly suggest finding a male marriage counselor who bases their belief on Victor Brown book of “Human Intimacy” ( hard to find but excellent) & “Getting the love you need”.
    Finding a real church / pastor (good luck), reread your marriage vows (they are sacred) – if it isnt too late and pray.

    Btw, Dalrock – Awesome post !

    Shalom

  104. Höllenhund says:

    One curious thing I noticed about the crop of PUA bloggers who loudly denounce the Manosphere and its so-called misogyny is that they are also vocal about their renunciation of marriage (you know who you are!). The claim to love women and despise MRAs, but for some curious reason, they happen to agree with their main argument: Marriage 2.0 is a farce.

    Well, if you claim to be some master of Game and a lover of women, why don’t you marry one?

    Even these men cannot be bothered to marry.

  105. an observer says:

    The Victorian era was also known as the Gilded era, with minimal government regulation and a stable, specie-backed currency in most western nations. Women did not vote, and men were able to see results from hard work.

    Contrast that to now. Government meddles with everything. Women have the vote, half the jobs, the ear of the police state. . . There is little incentive for men to strive and bette themselves, if a woman can divorce them and take most of his lifes work.

    I am unclear on mathusian thinking. However, i suspect that individual behaviour in a larger population is responding to perverse interventions influencing reproductive behaviour, like no fault divorce, qualification inflation, credentialism, jobs for the girls etc.

    Groups like zpg always seemed a ploy to centralise personal decisions. In a rational society, families would have the number of children they expect to support. Now, they have the number of children SHE wants, spaced to maximise HER convenience and lengthen the period of child support post divorce.

  106. Mark Minter says:

    I have been doing research on the term “Puer Aeturnus”.

    I have not really gotten extremely far into it yet. I have about 16 hours into it and I must confess that I am approaching it with a pre-conception, that Peter Pan is complaint by women and is, pure and simple, straight up Hamsterbation.

    It was first coined by Jung in his publications of the Archetypes. It was a mere minor mention in the Archetype of “The Child” and attributed to men that had very strong mothers and weak or non-existent fathers. This was written in 1940. Jung believed heavily in dreams also, and almost nothing of his work is held in high esteem by today’s psychiatry. All lot of the reading sounds like New Age Mumbo Jumbo, the notion of a Collective Unconscious, real Ouigi Board sentimentality, a lot of stuff that was taken seriously at the time, but really laughable today.

    So this is one of the areas of my research that I have to confess is rather light. I can find summations of Jung’s work but not entire volumes for free online. Jung is probably one of the most discussed, but least read figures in psychiatry and psychology and so far, I am equally guilty. But what I have read seems like a lot of crap so far. I am left with quote from Dan Akyroyd’s movie “The Couch Trip” -“You might ask why analysis takes so long. And I say to you why do something in a short time that could be done in a long one”. That seems straight from a Jungian Psychotherapist if you ask me.

    But the key here is that Puer Aeternus was not a major theme of the work. People today refer to it as an Archetype which is nonsense. It is a special case of man that wishes to remain in Child Archetype.

    So then the hamster is brought to bear on the issue in 1960. The original elevation of Puer Aeternus from mention to Archetype was by a woman.

    “The Problem of the Puer Aeternus” is a book based on a series of lectures that Jungian analyst Marie-Louise von Franz gave at the C.G. Jung Institute, Zurich, during the Winter Semester, 1959–1960. Von Franz worked with Carl Jung, whom she met in 1933 and knew until his death in 1961 and she founded the C. G. Jung Institute in Zurich.

    To put her in perspective, in “The Way of the Dream”, she claims to have interpreted over 65,000 dreams, primarily practicing in Kusnacht, Switzerland. Von Franz also wrote over 20 volumes on Analytical psychology, most notably on fairy tales as they relate to Archetypal or Depth Psychology, most specifically by amplification of the themes and characters. She was the first to publish that the mathematical structure of DNA is analogous to that of the I Ching. ( I do not know how to put the text into a bold font for emphasis, so I will do it here “most notably on fairy tales as they relate to Archetypal or Depth Psychology, most specifically by amplification of the themes and characters.” Fairy tales and psychology. Sure. Also, the 65,000 dreams. She was pretty busy I guess. Today, Dreams are nothing in psychiatry, the discarding of irrational production by the subconscious of the brain. No real psychiatrist asks about dreams. They write scripts for pills and use CBT to train inappropriate thought and behavior out of the patient. Also Peter Pan Syndrome is not a recognized diagnosis the Psychiatric Community)

    She writes in “The Problem of the Puer Aeternus”:

    “In general, the man who is identified with the archetype of the puer aeternus remains too long in adolescent psychology; that is, all those characteristics that are normal in a youth of seventeen or eighteen are continued into later life, coupled in most cases with too great a dependence on the mother.”

    “The two typical disturbances of a man who has an outstanding mother complex are, as Jung points out, homosexuality and Don Juanism”. (You get that? )

    “In the case of the former, the heterosexual libido is still tied up with the mother, who is really the only beloved object, with the result that sex cannot be experienced with another woman. That would make her a rival of the mother, and therefore sexual needs are satisfied only with a member of the same sex. Generally such men lack masculinity and seek that in the partner.”

    “In Don Juanism there is another typical form of this same disturbance. In this case, the image of the mother,the image of the perfect woman, who will give everything to a man and who is withou tany shortcomings, is sought in every woman. He is looking for a mother goddess, so that each time he is fascinated by a woman he has later to discover that she is an ordinary human being. Once he has been intimate with her the whole fascination vanishes and he turns away disappointed, only to project the image anew onto one woman after another. He eternally longs for the maternal woman who will enfold him in her arms and satisfy his every need. This is often accompanied by the romantic attitude of the adolescent. Generally great difficulty is experienced in adaptation to the social situation and, in some cases, there is a kind of false individualism,namely that, being something special, one has no need to adapt, for that would be impossible for such a hidden genius, and so on. In addition there is an arrogant attitude toward other people due to both an inferiority complex and false feelings of superiority. Such people also usually have great difficulty in finding the right kind of job, for whatever they find is never quite right or quite what they wanted. There is always “a hair in the soup.” The woman also is never quite the right woman: she is nice as a girlfriend, but. There is always a “but” which prevents marriage or any kind of definite commitment.”

    OK, so this little blurb here, is the seminal piece of work on which the Peter Pan idea is based. I have read post after post about Peter Pan Syndrome and see this this text copied Verbatim into the the post and the the author of the post is always a woman.

    So what it seems to me is two things.

    1) The writers are addressing women who got Pumped and Dumped by a Charismatic Alpha and the Peter Pan myth is a way of defense. “He was a Peter Pan and couldn’t grow up”

    2) The Female Imperative only views men by what they can get from them and that the definition of “A Real Man” is that man that makes himself useful to a woman. My early analysis is that their claims of Peter Pan syndrome are not so much because he actually is a burden on her, but because he is not something that she can extract the adequate resources that she deems she merits as the “member of the gender with the ability to give “The Genius of Life”‘. (That last little bit taken from a RadFem blog).

    So what I am gathering here is that Pues Aeternus is a stereotype that is bought into use by both men and women that cannot let go of the Female Imperative as the organizing idea behind and belying society.

    Also, I am coming to the conclusion that there is something much larger underfoot, a reorganization of the world and society as we know it.

    Men are, basically, voting with their feet. According to Linus Torvalds. There are three levels to existence: survival, social, entertainment, each higher than the previous in its level of humanity. Linus states that men can jump over the social and into entertainment. And this he believes is the basis behind Open Source. That men actually enjoy themselves in programming and will contribute in the Open Source community for the pure enjoyment of doing so.

    Women need the social; men don’t.

    Little can be done by men to change those 3 models that Dalrock describes above. The combination of the three will proceed whether men like it or not.

    The reaction to it by men and the preferred solution is and will be NON-PARTICIPATION. The reality is that men marry for sex and because of sex. It is a trade in kind, the man’s surplus labor in return for women’s sexual favors. If women do not choose to marry then men that otherwise would have married have access to women for sex without marriage.

    So, Puer Aeternus is bullshit myth of the eternal boy. Roosh and Virgil Kent are not boys, they are grown men that have decided to avoid the traditional role of men as defined by the Female Imperative and choose to pursue their own goals. Millions of men that are opting out of male gender role that society and women have defined for them are not boys.

    No longer will “A Real Man” be defined by women. Men are going to live free and in the form that they decide.

    And if the national deficit, society, and, big business don’t agree with the choices of these men, they can kiss our Puer Aeternus asses.

  107. an observer says:

    Society (and many women) DEPENDS on organised theft from the productive efforts of men.

    Men produce; women consume. Less production means less consumption. A lot of extra debt, more taxes and more qe can only go so far.

    The shaming will continue until we run out of mens money to p!ss against a wall. (mixed metaphors a favourite)

    What happens then could go several different ways. It may not be pretty. But you betcha men will be blamed for it.

  108. Opus says:

    Rider addresses the Malthusan problem at 11.44 (in reply to me) so I will merely say what I understand to be the case: Whereas it is certainly true that there was some emmigration from England to other parts of the world, I am not at all sure that that was entirely from the indigent; for example my mother’s uncle emigrated to Ontario, Canada in the early years of the twentieth century, but he had some resources as he set up as a fruit farmer; and another relative – of whom I know nothing more – went out to China at about the same time. Even if it were the case that the indigent emmigrated, the welfare bill continued to rise, thus putting the employed under greater local taxation.

    Rider may well be correct in assuming that there was greater incentive to achieve in the Victorian era, with less of a state-welfare cushion, and lower taxation. Why bother to make an effort if you are unlikely to be successful and if one can just about survive tolerably with little effort – one rhetorically asks. Again: why bother to marry if one is – with the assistance of the State- likely to lose ones wealth and family? This is the Malthusan nightmare coming home to roost; only, this time, the recipient instead of being merely unemployed, is a woman who has frivolously divorced.

  109. greyghost says:

    Once again Dalrock and with the assistance of the commentors. You have given reason for and actually shown a neccesary need for MGTOW.

  110. Mark Minter says:

    I have one last comment.

    While I like to imagine that this horde of Puer Aeternus cadres enter into this status voluntarily, Dalrock notes that is not the case. Many will find themselves in this state involuntarily as women choose to remain unmarried due to numerous social and financial options available to them.

    Today’s post in Roosh highlights how smart phones and social media combined with the increase in Game practitioners have led even ugly and fat girls to have inflated egos of their self worth. She can justify not being approached by quality men in person by the numbers of social media admirers she can receive. One poster talked of ends game and means game. For men, the end is the goal of sex and the tribulations he puts up with, including marriage, are the means to that end. For women, the end is social attention that is given her by the minions of suitors, both electronic and real.

    The important aspect to emphasize among men is that even though you might end up in Puer Aeternus involuntarily, a delightfully free and happy life awaits you without the chains of slavery that your “chosen” brothers will have to bear. As Coco Chanel said “The man who can do things will be ‘cursed’ to be loved by women.” As more and more of those “things” are done by society and state for women, fewer and fewer men will have to be ‘cursed’.

    I am reminded of two young male tourists in Venice, lost in the labyrinth of confusing streets, pouring over a map.

    One young tourist says, “Dude, I could be lost in this city all day and be happy”

    The other replies, “Dude, we may not have a choice”.

  111. ray says:

    good post — the Social Pathologist is fulla pathologies!

    this cannot be repeated often enough, b/c it is constantly, and intentionally, ignored by those unwilling to face the truth:

    “The problem with his statement is he is ignoring the incredible amount of social engineering required to achieve and maintain the current state. Feminism has become a central organizing force for western culture. Nearly every decision public and private must consider feminism first, and everything else second. This is true for everything from our last ditch nuclear deterrent to men’s entertainment. Even the Word of God must kneel before the word of feminists. The reason this doesn’t come to mind for most people is it is everywhere. It seems normal, if not natural.”

    feminism/matriarchy IS the assumptive air of the western nations . . . an already settled and permanent condition . . . beyond criticism, much less reform or retraction

    mark minter — Men are, basically, voting with their feet. According to Linus Torvalds. There are three levels to existence: survival, social, entertainment, each higher than the previous in its level of humanity. Linus states that men can jump over the social and into entertainment.

    agree

    And this he believes is the basis behind Open Source. That men actually enjoy themselves in programming and will contribute in the Open Source community for the pure enjoyment of doing so.

    Women need the social; men don’t.

    women have collective/herd psychologies, and are slaves to constant social-status conniving and displaying — the very engine of mammon babylon US, and of all consumerist empires, including the original babylon

    the more male a guy is, the less interest in social conventions, esp in matriarchal societies

    “kanner” autistics are at the extremity of maleness, and their cognitions and affect are concretistic, imagistic, and either disdainful of social cueing/conventions, or in rejection of same

    how interested in social standing and the opinions of The Community were old testament prophets?

    that tells ya

    mark minter, thats a pretty good grasp of depth psychology and cultural application, for someone new to the field — you might enjoy erich neumann also

    wapiti —

    There seems to be an assumption on the part of many of my manosphere brothers that the State will simply let all those under-productive menz labor and produce at rates less than which they are capable.

    a popular and naive assumption

    the State is feminism, some of you guys are supposed to be chrisitans, so you should long ago have figured out where feminism actually comes from, and who is behind it, try genesis

    feminism will not be allowed to fail no matter how much more damage it inflicts, because its purpose is not (heh) equality, nor the raising up of women from some absurd academic “oppression,” nor even satisfaction of herd-breeding imperatives (hypergamy etc) in the female

    the purpose of feminism is to destroy fatherhood, sonship, masculinity, and the connection between the human male and God

    all those fat perfumed asses in chairs at fake government jobs over the past few decades? you know where that office furniture comes from? the staplers? bulletin boards? desk sets?

    when women inevitably begin to feel the pinch of their totalitarian femdom — and i’m damn sure not talking about man-up-and-marry-me agitprop from the New Jerk Times, but the real pain that is coming — wapiti is right, they collectively will do to boys and men whatever they wish, and rationalize it away just as they have their degradations and disenfranchisements over the past four decades

    the matriarchies wont last forever — Christ’s Kingdom of the Father is coming

    they strive to hold it off, but cant

  112. Thomas says:

    What will the end result be? Read Atlas Shrugged.

  113. greenlander says:

    @Thomas

    I finally read Atlas Shrugged for the first time last year.

    It blew my mind. How in the world could Ayn Rand so brilliantly predict what was coming over fifty years later? It was just brilliant.

  114. Mats says:

    What most people don’t understand is that feminism was created PRECISELY to destroy the sistem. That is cultural marxism’s spearhead.

    ONce the system collapses, and there are riots everywhere, people will year for a “savior” or (yes) a strong government to “restore order”.

    Don’t see the effects of feminism as sometning unexpected. Quite the contrary; the architects of feminism KNEW VERY WELL that society would colapse and THEY WANTED it to colapse.

    Read about cultural marxism and you’ll see

  115. Justinian says:


    It blew my mind. How in the world could Ayn Rand so brilliantly predict what was coming over fifty years later? It was just brilliant.

    Not really,

    Rand predicted that it would be the captains of industry who would stop playing ball.

    Reality is quite different, some of the biggest billionaires likes Gates, Buffet, Zuckerburg, and Jobs are/were pro-statists.

    The rich guys certainly aren’t walking away from the current system.

    It doesnt really matter to the super rich if their taxes go up a few percentage points. They can still afford to keep a woman and have families.

    Peter Thiel has some excellent commentary about the marginal utility of money as one goes up the income bracket. The money that the captains of industry earn go far beyond what is necessary to keep a woman and provide for other life necessities.

    These men are driven by other desires, and many of them aren’t going to be deterred by another few points of vig kicked up to the matriarchal overlords.

    The captains of industry do what they do not because they want another lamborghini or a hotter trophy wife, but because they actually enjoy what they do. They don’t see it as work, its more like a vocation that defines who they are.

    They often have atypical neurological profiles and abilities. Many of them are too intelligent to find any amusement in the popular entertainment that the masses consume. These traits compel them to keep going.

    It is the middle class and lower status men who are being squeezed out of the marriage market and therefore have no motivation to keep playing by the rules.

    It remains to be seen if the rich can keep what they got if the male peons are no longer willing to slave away.

  116. sunshinemary says:

    Hollenhund wrote: Well, if you claim to be some master of Game and a lover of women, why don’t you marry one?

    LOL, hellhound, your comment reminds me of kids on the playground. Kid A says, “I love ____ (i.e. candy)!” and Kid B says, “Oh yeah, well if you love ____ so much, why don’t you marry it?!”

  117. Animal Mother says:

    For men that lost interest in marriage and family like myself, i’m happy women are sexually open and financially independent. It sucks for men that want a family, but if you’re not after that, it can be a very fulfilling life.

    Marriage isn’t needed to sustain a healthy sex life. I bare long term financial responsibility to no one other than myself. And soon a vasectomy can prevent being accused of being a daddy.

  118. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus, it could be that the nature of emigrants from England, Wales, Scotland was not uniform across the geographic and cultural space. It also likely varied with time. The North American colony of Georgia (now the state of Georgia) was founded originally in large part by former inmates of debtor’s prison. Their debt in England was covered when they got off the ship in Savannah, Georgia, and they were barred from returning. Emigrants from Great Britain and some Continental countries were the original sugar plantation workers – indentured servitude, for a period of years – in the West Indies, on islands such as Nevis, St. Kitts, and so forth. A man who would in essence sell himself into slavery for a period of 5 to 10 years surely wasn’t rolling in wealth.

    On the other hand, history is full of men who went out to South Africa, to Australia, to India, to Canada as you mention, with an expressed plan to mine for gold, ranch cattle, trade, farm, etc. All ways that require a body of knowledge, and preferably some capitol as well.

    I’m sure Malthus’s opinions were affected by the current events of his time. So fair question would be to look at emigrants, poor house workers, and others in the years Malthus was writing.

  119. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    The rest of the essay (that is to say most of it) is taken up with rebutting Godwin and Condorcet.

    Yes. This is the context which is dropped when people claim Malthus made his prediction of famine. He was specifically talking about the calls by one of them (Godwin as I recall) to abolish the family unit entirely and have children be cared for and educated collectively (in an anarchist utopia). Malthus was saying that plan would lead to disaster. At the same time, what is forgotten is that the other side of Malthus’ argument was that parental investment in their children’s well being prevented the disaster.

    Unfortunately both conservatives and liberals are now hopelessly invested in the idea that Malthus was a malthusian. Conservatives have spent far too long proving Malthus wrong (or so they think) to acknowledge that he actually was on their side, and likewise for Liberals arguing that Malthus was right.

  120. greenlander says:

    @Justinian,

    Rand predicted that it would be the captains of industry who would stop playing ball.

    In the story, it wasn’t just captains of industry that went to Galt’s Gulch. Lots of stand-up men also did. There were lots of incidents in the book where trains were abandoned in the middle of nowhere by their crews. Certainly, the focus of the book was on the protagonists, but if you read carefully that all kinds of stand-up regular guys moved to Galt’s Gulch.

  121. 38 male, single, never married, no kids. Make roughly $85,000 a year, and it’s all mine….none of it going to any womb turds. I guess you can say I’ve won my battle against feminism overall and Ameriskank women specifically. Now….growing old alone might be a bitter red pill to get down, but it hand over fist beats the alternative of being reduced to a hollow empty shell of a former man which is guaranteed when you marry one of those women today.

  122. Joseph says:

    @zippy

    “The idea here is that technologically enabled productivity will more than compensate for demographic productivity loss. In the SMP a relatively small number of alphas provide for the sexual needs of all the sluts. In the techno-optimist future a relatively small number of men, made super-productive by technology, will provide for the material needs of the femocracy.”

    I think this is a logical fallacy on our parts. Technology comes from somewhere and though we are very advanced as a society, the reality is that there are less and less men willing to put in the effort that is required to maintain our current standard of technological progress. Ultimately, we will stagnate technologically and another (more masculine and thus more productive) society will take our place and possibly invade. It has repeated many times in history and ultimately, it will repeat here. Men are the creative side of economics. We don’t just make things, we make new things. We invent technologies and sciences. Right now, we have the law of large numbers on our side. We are individually not as smart as previous generations, but we have their knowledge as well as a large pool of workers to essentially “throw warm bodies” at the problem. However, with fertility rates dropping and technological innovation stagnating, we will see the logistical support necessary just to maintain what we have dry up. When this happens, we stagnate and the technologies necessary to make this feminist utopia work will disappear. One great example: the pyramids, we have no clue how they pulled that crap off and the technology was essentially lost. Egypt was incredibly advanced for it’s time, but ultimately, it fell just as we will.

    As the good Captain would say, enjoy the decline!

  123. Opus says:

    @Dalrock and Anonymous Reader

    I recall my father used to sing a little song which ended with the line ‘Christmas Day in the Workhouse’ [triplet rhythm]. Workhouses have since been abolished and despite the jolly tune must have been horrid places, yet that was part of the legacy of the Poor Law – I suppose they are better than the dregs of the council-estates which replaced them. Charity is big in the U.K. too and also dates from that Act of Parliament in Elizabeth’s reign – for the promotion of education and religion too. It is hardly surprising that the elite prefer the hard-working immigrant to the native lay-about -much as I have some considerable sympathy for them, and they are treated shamefully by the elite; they are nevertheless ghastly – our version of your trailer-trash.

    When I was in D.C. I met some of those who were living at the former school on (I think) 2nd and D. This was a charity run by that fraud (whose name I forget – Mitch Snyder?) and who committed suicide. The men – and it was largely men – black and white – were in a terrible state, frequently mentally ill, and largely unable to adequately care for themselves or their personal hygiene, but I suppose it was better than living over the air-vents where frequently in the bitter D.C. winters they froze to death. A terrible indictment of the wealthiest city in the world. They wanted to go to Oregon, as there seemed to be opportunties there – indeed I met one guy – college educated too – who intended just that. I have no idea what the solution is, but government hand-outs are surely ultimately unsustainable – which is perhaps why your economy has outpaced ours – as our feckless merely reproduce in droves – unaware of the joys of feminism! Even the Salvation Army seems to make little impact, much as they try.

  124. Fitz says:

    Mats (writes)

    “What most people don’t understand is that feminism was created PRECISELY to destroy the system. That is cultural Marxism’s spearhead.
    Once the system collapses, and there are riots everywhere, people will year for a “savior” or (yes) a strong government to “restore order”.
    Don’t see the effects of feminism as something unexpected. Quite the contrary; the architects of feminism KNEW VERY WELL that society would collapse and THEY WANTED it to collapse.
    Read about cultural Marxism and you’ll see”

    Exactly right…More minds in the manosphere need to understand their enemy better.. Cultural Marxism is Frankfurt School Marxism. The works of Gramsci, Adoro, Marcusa, and their disciples are the foundation of the feminist movement, the sexual revolution & the counter culture of the 1960’s.

    The anarchist and the Marxist have always been able to make common cause because they understood that social decay gives rise and excuse for government to take over.

    The movement to redefine marriage is totalitarian by definition. It is the logical consequence of radical gender equality that is feminism. As old as Paraclise the natural family has been understood as a bulwark against tyranny.

    It is all about divide and conquer. So when we pretend that the collapse of society under feminism will magically discredit the movement and restore the patriarchy.

    On the contrary they have anticipated the collapse and will use the collapse to reinforce their rule and legitimize further totalitarian and redistributionist schemes.

    The manosphere needs to understand Frankfurt school marxist designs and worldview better if we are to prevail and restore a just social order.

  125. AnonymousManosphereBlogger says:

    The manosphere needs to understand Frankfurt school marxist designs and worldview better if we are to prevail and restore a just social order.

    Plenty of us do. But when manosphere bloggers write about this, we get marginalized and dismissed. We get attacked as “conspiracy theorists” and a kooks. And it’s not just by random trolls and anonymous commenters, but by other manosphere bloggers who don’t (or won’t) understand the roots of our current malaise are certainly traced back to the “long march.”

  126. @Joseph:
    I think this is a logical fallacy on our parts. Technology comes from somewhere and though we are very advanced as a society, the reality is that there are less and less men willing to put in the effort that is required to maintain our current standard of technological progress. Ultimately, we will stagnate technologically and another (more masculine and thus more productive) society will take our place and possibly invade.

    Well, I think it is important to say up front that all we are debating is the slope of the decline, if you will: the extent to which the phenomenal productivity of Western societies counteracts the wholesale value destruction of feminism. That said, I’ll continue to play devil’s advocate, if only in the sense of suggesting that the cliff could well still be several generations away. (I don’t know that I believe this myself; I just see reasonable arguments in that direction).

    When I was managing software developers (quite a while ago now), one thing that I noticed – and that was a truism among savvy managers – was that the relationship between an excellent programmer and a merely good programmer was nonlinear. An excellent programmer would get literally ten or twenty times as much work done as a merely good programmer. As with the sexual marketplace, in software there are “alphas” capable of propagating their code with orders of magnitude greater efficiency than “beta” coders.

    I can easily envision a near future where a relatively small number of very productive men use technology as a multiplier to be society’s productivity “alphas”. Because of their importance they will get all of their sexual and other material wants satisfied by the hedosystem. Other men will become as materially superfluous as the fem studies majors getting cranked out of high priced universities today, and will be pacified by being kept fat and dumb.

    Do I make this as a definite prediction? No: it is merely a possible future. Is this sustainable in the long term? Absolutely not.

    Are we going to see the big collapse of civilization in our lifetimes? I doubt it. I think a lot of that sort of thing is just apocalypse porn. We’ll all die long before the last feminist takes her last breath.

  127. Martian Bachelor says:

    “There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious — makes you so sick at heart — that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part. And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.”
    – Mario Savio (from the 1964 Berkeley Free Speech Movement)

    Damned counter-culture!

    An FSM protestor w/sign.

  128. Fitz says:

    AnonymousManosphereBlogger (writes)

    “Plenty of us do. But when manosphere bloggers write about this, we get marginalized and dismissed. We get attacked as “conspiracy theorists” and a kooks. And it’s not just by random trolls and anonymous commenters, but by other manosphere bloggers who don’t (or won’t) understand the roots of our current malaise are certainly traced back to the “long march.””

    I was a philosophy major… When dismissed or attacked as a “conspiracy theorist and /or kook” I always remind people that its not conspiratorial but philosophical. If one studies philosophy one realizes that the entire history of man is a battle of idea’s. Be they political philosophies like liberal democracy, or theological idea’s or whatnot…ideas matter (few things matter more) and they certainly have consequences.

    I urge you to challenge those who would dismiss you or marginalizes/demonize you for stressing cultural Marxism. The counter-cultural revolution of the 1960’s did not come out of thin air. It is anti-intellectual to presume that something this powerfully would occur in the midst of the cold war against communism and not have any connection to Marxism.

    The 1960’s witnessed a worldwide “youth” revolution that was in actuality the last (hopefully)pronounced Marxist revolution. In America and western Europe it was channeled into Frankfurt School Marxism and it’s “great refusal”… Without this explanation one needs to plead ignorance or pretend that feminism and the sexual revolution and the counter cultural revolution came out of nowhere and had no philosophical antecedents or real social/political purpose.

    That is clearly daft and anti-intellectual. You don’t get something from nothing. Feminism and the counter culture did not occur in a vacuum without context.

    Many in the manosphere concentrate on how feminism is bad for society, men and woman alike. What they fail to realize is that the cultural left can see this as clearly as we can. Therefore the question becomes “Why would people intentionally try to undermine the foundations of their own society?” What’s the motivation?

    The answer to that question lies in a understanding of Frankfurt school Marxism. They understood that prior to the 1960’s democratic capitalism undergirded by Christian morality was too strong to fail and would out compete the Socialist totalitarian regimes behind the iron curtain.

    It turned out they were correct…the “long march” through the institutions and the counter cultural revolution of the 1960’s was an effort (largely successful) to undermine and subvert those cultural institutions that made liberal democratic countries strong to begin with. Those institutions are marriage and the family, the Christian religion (and religion in general) our sense of cultural pride (hence multi-cultural ism) relations between the sexes (hence feminism) patriotism, civic virtue and the like..

    If people in the manosphere including Dalrock continue to miss the forest for the tree’s and continue to ignore the base philosophical antecedents to feminism then they are simply missing the driving force being the anti-social movement that is feminism.

    If one understands Frankfurt School Marxism than one has the missing piece of the puzzle that is the MOTIVATION behind various leftist movements like feminism that are so clearly anti-social. Clear thinking people including clear thinking leftists know that the trends of the counter culture are unsustainable. What remains to be explained is why otherwise intelligent people would desire social collapse and family destruction..

    Again.. Frankfurt school Marxism is the answer to that question.

  129. van Rooinek says:

    ….this is artificial, and therefore requires constant effort to maintain. Feminism didn’t demolish a barrier between two seas and let the water levels adjust; it is a massive pumping operation. Turn off the pumps even for a little bit and reality will come flooding back.

    The sooner, the better. That little Dutch boy should pull his finger out of the dyke…

    (pun intended…. hehe)

  130. Fitz says:

    Martian Bachelor (writes)
    “Mario Savio (from the 1964 Berkeley Free Speech Movement)
    Damned counter-culture!”

    Just because a counter cultural revolutionary can come up with an inspiring quote that happens to parallel sentiments among the manosphere today’s doesn’t mean he was part of something that has been progressive for society..

    I can come up with inspiring quotations of people from Hitler to Moa to Stalin…

    What I would like to know was what “machine” was the fellow talking about??? We are talking about feminism and the destruction of the family… What was happening in 1964 that Mr Savio felt was repressing his free speech to be against it? The Berkeley free speech movement was notorious for running around using swear words with the purpose of simply using swear words in public.

    The cause he and others were fighting for was the counter culture. “free speech” was simply the shield they used against those who disagreed..

  131. Joseph says:

    @zippy

    “Are we going to see the big collapse of civilization in our lifetimes? I doubt it. I think a lot of that sort of thing is just apocalypse porn. We’ll all die long before the last feminist takes her last breath.”

    Agreed, if it comes down to how long, I couldn’t even begin to offer a guess. With all the magic that bankers can conjure up, it could well take another 150 years. As for apocalyptic, I don’t think that is realistic. We will more than likely see something along the lines of Greece. It will suck and people will be hurt, but it’s not going to be the end of the world. That is unless WWIII breaks out in which case, all bets are off.

  132. Fitz says:

    “Are we going to see the big collapse of civilization in our lifetimes? I doubt it. I think a lot of that sort of thing is just apocalypse porn. We’ll all die long before the last feminist takes her last breath.”

    Agreed as well… That is my problem with posts like this one by Dalrock.. There have ALREADY been multiple collapses…(the breakdown in the black family….the housing bubble…) and it has not caused the feminists or our society to react one iota…

    Like the old Soviet Union, just because one system is obviously less humane and unsustainable compared to another system dosent mean people will recognize that or fight it.

    It takes more than waiting around for a collapse…like Reagen and Thatcher knew…it takes constant moral presure and warefare in order to MAKE the system collapse..

  133. van Rooinek says:

    There have ALREADY been multiple collapses…(the breakdown in the black family….the housing bubble…) and it has not caused the feminists or our society to react one iota…

    It’s not a true collapse if you can ignore it. These partial collapses are ignorable if you are a privileged middle-class or wealthy feminist.

    A true collapse, the one the feminists can’t ignore, is the one where the food trucks stop running… the cops go AWOL…. foreign troops are over the next hill… Behold: instant patriarchy.

  134. The Continental Op says:

    The collapse began 50 years ago. It may go on for another 100 years, in a long slow downgrade. !!! I was hoping I could survive a catastrophic collapse, heroically standing astride it like a colossus!

    We go out not with a bang but with a whimper.

  135. Martian Bachelor says:

    @Fritz:

    Just thought I’d give everyone a heads-up on all the big fiftieth anniversaries looming right around the corner, as we do a complete sequential cultural re-think of the entire sixties over the next about a dozen years, from the Kennedy assassination (the first one) to maybe Watergate or the winding down of the draft and the final end of our involvement in the Vietnam War in 1975.

    The Berkeley students were just that, only college students, so I’d say cut `em a lot of slack: A Little Rebellion Now and Then Is A Good Thing

  136. an observer says:

    “It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose your own.”
    Truman, Harry S

  137. infowarrior1 says:

    I would like all of you people to direct your attention to yuri bezmenov:

    Subversion and control of western society.

  138. Johnycomelately says:

    Fitz

    Brilliant post, about time someone mentioned cultural Marxism.

    Concerning the envisioned techno eutopia I think Moore’s Law will have something to say about that. Unless quantum computing and free energy become a reality we are going to reach a tech crunch in the not too distant future.

  139. “There is another way to fiscal stability: quit giving money to the banksters.”

    Abso-freaking-lutely.

    “I bet a million bucks on the market and lost, if I’d won I would have made 50 million so the government owes me fifty million!” Actually, no.

  140. “Sorry, but youth and fertility are not the only strengths of women, nor the most important.”

    So another group possesses the ability to bear children as well?

  141. greyghost says:

    Zippy,joseph
    Zippy you are right about one thing it won’t be a collapse all at once. i do think it will be a gradual coaste down with with mini crisis along the way. As they come up with ways to maintain misandry with less and less. It can get pretty bad (see North Korea and stalinist russia with the millions of deaths through government controlled famine.) The government just running out of money and citizens running wild not a chance in hell. People politically connected will live better than others. Kind of like we have now with the Ivy league college types set up as the ruling class

  142. James says:

    Excellent, thought-provoking article.

    However, it’s even worse than you think.

    When imports from Japan mushroomed in the 1970s and 1980s, people thought Western economies would collapse. Indeed, individual incomes, when adjusted for true inflation, have halved in the US over the last 40 years. However, household incomes have flatlined rather than fallen, and the economy has remained stable. The reason for this unexpected success is that many more women have joined the workforce. Of course, this means that the birthrate has fallen – more on that in a moment.

    Today we have an even tougher situation than the 1980s: competition from China and India where people earn only 10% of Western wages; and at a time when we have exhausted the supply of women who are willing and able to join the workforce. How have Western economies stayed afloat (apart from borrowing)? The answer is that they are being sustained by immigrants who will work for minimum wage, or less if they are illegals. Immigration also compensates for the fact that the women of our productive classes have a lower birthrate than 40 years ago. Basically, we are directing our adults into work rather than child-rearing, and then importing people from abroad to replace the missing children.

    The sexual mores of the naturalized and productive segment of the population, and feminism itself, are the main subjects of this blog; however, they are no more than an amusing epiphenomenon of the main event.

    The main event is that we live in democracies, and voters select politicians based on the prospects for economic growth. In the last 40 years, the only way to achieve growth, or the illusion of growth, has been to increase the workforce by adding more women. The high priestesses of feminism even persuaded women that their entry into wage slavery was some kind of liberation. Now that that process has gone as far as it can, politicians are encouraging or turning a blind eye to immigration. All politicians talk tough on immigration but do little or nothing, because they know the economy depends on it.

    The economic and sexual dystopia that we see around us is something that we have voted for. It is not going to go away, unless voters are willing to accept economic hardship. I won’t be holding my breath.

  143. Anon says:

    Hollenhund,

    One curious thing I noticed about the crop of PUA bloggers who loudly denounce the Manosphere and its so-called misogyny is that they are also vocal about their renunciation of marriage (you know who you are!).

    Which PUA bloggers are these? I know of no such PUA blogger who denounces the ‘manosphere’ that they themselves are a part of..

    Or are you just imagining something that no PUA blogger like Roissy, Roosh, or Krauser actually said?

  144. @greghost:
    As they come up with ways to maintain misandry with less and less.

    Good point. Dalrock’s point that misandry/feminism is very, very expensive is well taken. But efficiencies can be gained in all sorts of places and it is a virtual certainty that tremendous effort will go into making misandry itself more efficient.

  145. greyghost says:

    Efficiency is not the goal. Maintaining misandry is. The purpose of which is to oppress the population and stay in power with the female vote. All the while pretending every one is free so as to justify killing off a few non believers. Standards of living are relative. A poor person today lives much better than a king from the 1400’s. As long as women live better than men they won’t care. And more importantly if the end of misandry means women living as the lowly beta male you can bet your ass women will vote for misandry. The ruling elite will always ensure they stay in charge. The police and military enforcers will have enough to eat and have the priviledge of not being one of the subjects.

  146. Titanium says:

    Greenlander, what country did you move to?

  147. Fitz says:

    James (writes)

    “The sexual mores of the naturalized and productive segment of the population, and feminism itself, are the main subjects of this blog; however, they are no more than an amusing epiphenomenon of the main event.”

    I disagree, culture is king…people get and stay married and have famlies on a bowl of rice a day in places like India and Mexico. My own Sister has given up a lucrative career in marketing to be a stay at home mom.. I am trying to say people will live on less and endure less economic security if there exists the right values of patriarcy and religious motivation..

    “The economic and sexual dystopia that we see around us is something that we have voted for.”

    Actually they did not vote for any of it. The entirity of the sexual revolution was forced on this country unconstitutionally through judicial fiat…The Griswald decision got rid of laws prohibiting birth control, Roe v Wade established a right to abortion, Lawrence got rid of morals legislation like sodomy laws and the Goodridge decisionand ones like it are forceing states to change the very definition of marriage…. an institution that is itself a fundemental constitional right..

    None of this is “in” the consitution and there is no reason to think that democratic majorities could have brought these changes along. Absent judicial tyranny the majority of this country would be living under pro-life and pro-family laws who’s very presence and contention would have forced the culture war outside of the Universities and into the clear minds of American voters.

    The sexual revolution and feminism has always relied on tyranny not democracy to warp are culture into what it is today. They will continue to warp the country through the courts until they are stoped.

    Americans in the main never wanted this cultural revolution and we should not pretend we live under a authentic democracy when ALL these crucual decisions that enable modern feminism and the current economy to function the way it does were forced on the people of this country by Judges who transparently broke the law to do it.

  148. @greyghost:
    Efficiency is not the goal. Maintaining misandry is.

    Agreed. Liberals truly believe that to do otherwise – to stop pumping and allow the patriarchal waters to flow back in – would be an injustice of the worst order, a fundamental violation of the God-like principle of equality of rights.

    One way to maintain misandry/feminism against rising outside pressure is to increase the effort put into it at current levels of efficiency. Another is to increase efficiency. We should expect both.

  149. greyghost says:

    Zippy
    When you use the term efficiency are you using it to discribe a way of maintaining the same level of living standard as is enjoyed now as the unsustainable system colapses?

  150. @greyghost:
    I’m just agreeing with your point – assuming I understood it myself (I certainly hadn’t thought of it until I read your comment) – that if/when the resources necessary for the enforcement of misandry itself start to dry up, feminists will innovate new ways to enforce misandry more efficiently. That is a separate issue, almost a microeconomic one, from the macro question of the productivity of society as a whole, social classes, and the rest.

  151. Mark says:

    This is the most awesome literary piece of journalism on this Blog!…..You really outdid yourself with this one Dalrock! I am passing this out to every guy that I know! Keep up the good work!

  152. Mark says:

    “”The problem with his statement is he is ignoring the incredible amount of social engineering required to achieve and maintain the current state. Feminism has become a central organizing force for western culture. Nearly every decision public and private must consider feminism first, and everything else second.””

    You know it!…..anyone else see a problem with this type of decision making?……What a joke this! Femi-Nazi appeasement!…..L*

  153. Mark says:

    @Tom

    “”Moral breakdown occurs when a society replaces male values of truth, logic, honor and honesty with female values of moral-relativism, feelings-over-facts, political correctness and consumerism. A civilized society simply cannot exist without the males virtues.””

    EXACTLY!…….You hit the nail on the head with this brilliant analogy! As a businessman I see this drivel all the time! Look at our schools…what a joke! And just for the record….I DO NOT HIRE WIMMIN!…they bring this “feel good” “liberal” BS with them…and myself and partners will not tolerate it! PERIOD!.Also,just from a business standpoint…”WIMMIN” are despised and detested in a company board room(Not just mine.Many many other boardrooms).They are useless and bring absolutely nothing to the table!

  154. Joseph of Jackson says:

    @greyghost and zippy

    “People politically connected will live better than others. Kind of like we have now with the Ivy league college types set up as the ruling class”

    I know that there will be a few drastic steps taken to bring men into line with what feminists want even after the actual means to have prosperity at the same time is long gone. We will more than likely be drawn into a state where feminism is the central doctrine, but the prosperity that fostered it has long since passed. Basically the host withers to the point where just staying alive is a challenge and the parasite continues to leech until it kills the host that is feeding it. They both die together, but the parasite doesn’t really suffer until the very end.

  155. Mark says:

    @Justinian

    “”Most current CEOs and industry leaders are middle aged and older.””

    Something that I would like to point out. WIMMIN make terrible CEO’s…..and I mean really bad! From someone like myself that trades securities I can tell you that when a woman takes the helm as CEO you have about a 90% chance of that stock tanking and going into the basement! Don’t believe me?..here are 2 examples..Hewlett-Packard and Mattel check it out! So for you guys that want to trade securities on the public exchanges I just gave you some great “insider info”. Trust me…look at companies that appoint or elect a “Femi-Nazi” to the position of CEO…..then “short sell” the issue! You cannot lose!

  156. Mark says:

    Here you go! “How 5 ‘WIMMIN’ CEO’s destroyed confidence in the US economy” Please read!

    http://antimisandry.com/facts-figures/how-five-women-ceos-destroyed-confidence-u-s-economy-3793.html#axzz29UoEnCF9

    Note:”WIMMIN” owned business’s account for about 5% of GDP…..but,62% of government employees are WIMMIN?…..Go figure! This is because they have the business skills and personality skills of a dead rodent……and they want the easy way out..aka..”government jobs”(cradle to grave)..and do as little as possible for the most pay!….typical Femi-Nazi garbage! If WIMMIN are equal then why do they only contribute 5% in business to the GDP?…because they are not equal!…They are idiots! Lazy, incompetent morons! Our capitalist system would never survive with WIMMIN at the helm….the numbers prove this! Once again,I NEVER hire women…or will I ever…they are garbage!

  157. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/10/17 « Free Northerner

  158. Mark says:

    @justsayin

    “”Do you know why men start and run more businesses? It is simple – it is the only way that they can actually advance due to all of the various rules and regulations to benefit women””…………..BINGO!….Thank you!

    “”I am tired of supporting all of the moochers, looters, and leeches who are promoted and put in positions of power.””……………………BINGO!….again,thank you!…and most of these promotions go to the Femi-Nazis!

    “”So I will suck from the carcass of capitalism – to eek out a living till I can leave it to collapse – and it will collapse. More and more men are seeing no incentive to work hard and excel – and when the movers and shakers, stop things from moving, all that is left is decline…””

    BINGO! again!…..the movers & shakers are men!…not the Femi-Nazi cunts! You are correct about the collapse…..it will not hurt me….in fact,you and I will both profit from it because we are in “the know”….cannot wait to see massive government lay offs(good luck to the Femi-Nazis)…….and all the Welfare checks stop to all the single mothers(the only problem I have with this is the kids….they were not asked to be born…and they will suffer)

  159. lavazza1891 says:

    “The answer to that question lies in a understanding of Frankfurt school Marxism. They understood that prior to the 1960′s democratic capitalism undergirded by Christian morality was too strong to fail and would out compete the Socialist totalitarian regimes behind the iron curtain.

    It turned out they were correct…the “long march” through the institutions and the counter cultural revolution of the 1960′s was an effort (largely successful) to undermine and subvert those cultural institutions that made liberal democratic countries strong to begin with. Those institutions are marriage and the family, the Christian religion (and religion in general) our sense of cultural pride (hence multi-cultural ism) relations between the sexes (hence feminism) patriotism, civic virtue and the like.”

    I don’t agree. As I see it wealth and security gives stupidity/laziness/immorality a much better chance to prevail. It’s not something anybody needs to sell or enforce in a wealthy and secure society.

    As I see it the meta explanation to everything that has happened the last 50-200 years is fossil fuels. Fossil fuels made wealth without hard work/intelligence/morality possible.

  160. “Also, companies will increasingly have immigrants, or the sons of immigrants, in leadership positions.”

    Oh yes, Mexicans and Arabs will save you from becoming third world. After all, Mexico and the MIddle-East are not third world.

    I suppose the US should just let in more Asians. They’ll be first world in a few decades. Japan, Korea, and a bunch of others already are.

    Problem is… Mexicans and Arabs produce like rabbits.

  161. Mark says:

    @deti.
    ………….excellent advice to someguy….going to copy and paste your adivce in an email to a friend of mine.Thanks bro!

    @retrenched
    “”Women wanted feminism to free them from their traditional roles and obligations, but they are now discovering (much to their chagrin) that feminism has largely freed men from their traditional roles and obligations as well.

    You’ve come a long way, baby! Now, you have to deal with the consequences…””

    Brilliant post…..and the fucking idiots have the audacity to say..”where have all the good men gone”?……..L*

  162. DaveA says:

    Try this next time your wife uses the D-word:

    “If you divorce me, I will quit my job and not lift a finger to support you. I will live in a car or a tent. If jailed for non-support, I will enjoy the warm bed and free food. Meanwhile, you and the kids will be living in a Section 8 slum infested with drug dealers, child molesters, and 24/7 rap music.”

    If your freedom ends, so does your responsibility. Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils (slavery is).

  163. greenlander says:

    @Titanium

    Greenlander, what country did you move to?

    Russia

  164. James says:

    @Fitz

    Interesting points. Yes, culture is king, but the prevailing culture in Western democracies is very much in favor of prosperity.

    We voted for what we have, not by actively choosing it, but by putting money first, second and third. People and politicians pay lip service to family values, but at election time we are most interested in whether we will have jobs, how much money we will have in our pockets, and so on. The truth is that we will compromise over almost everything for the sake of prosperity. That is one of the reasons why our countries are rich, while others are poor.

    If Americans were that bothered about Roe vs Wade, they would elect a President and legislators who would do something about it. However, candidates who are more interested in such matters than in bread and butter issues, or the pressing business of foreign policy, are immediately smoked out as nutcases. They appear weird _because_ their number one priority is something other than fostering wealthy citizens in a strong country. They appear weird and unelectable because their values differ from those of the prevailing culture: they would sacrifice some of our prosperity for the sake of something else.

    It is true that those with a religious motivation can choose to live and vote in a different way, but they are in a minority. At best they can keep and propagate their values – and it is true that religious people have larger families than the non-religious. However, they have no more chance of changing the prevailing culture than, say, the Amish.

  165. @Mark:
    Are you short Yahoo? I don’t know if I would open a short position in the company at the moment, but shorting the emotional future of the CEO’s brand new baby is a no brainer.

  166. Fitz says:

    lavazza1891 & James

    Both your points concentrate on love of money or “mammon first” culture.. They are not mutually incompatible with the points I raise. Peoples priorities often focus on material needs first. The question is one of degree. Without the considerable cultural forces of Frankfurt school marxism sapping our moral streangth then mutiple other values like family and children would move up the list of priorities.

    Look at the way femism is not productive and hampers society. Look at the way the Obama administration is still in viable re-electability despite the worst recession since the great depression. He obviously prioritized socialized medicine over the economy. People place multiple values over wealth all the time without even thinking about it. The trick is to get people to make those sacrifices for God, Family and children rather than for socialism and feminism.

    This does not dismiss your point about greed & self interest, it simply puts it into an over-all context…

  167. Titanium says:

    Mark, you are referring to Fiorina and Barad? I agree. And they made out like bandits with severence packages. Current HP CEO is much worse.

  168. It’s easy enough to predict collapse, discuss collapse, and wait around for collapse like a bunch of passive women.

    I find it striking that no one in Manosphere and Alt-Right circles seems to have a concrete plan in place for when the collapse occurs (or is initiated), something along the lines of, say, Provisional Government of National Restoration (PGNR), which, I can tell you, *is* being discussed outside the InterWebz.

    Like a hot drunken slut teetering on high heels staggering down the street after midnight, societies in the US and Europe are absolutely begging for assault and occupation.

  169. lavazza1891 says:

    Fitz: What I mean is that stupidity/immorality can only prosper if you’re living in a wealthy and secure society where stupidity/immorality does not kill you, But in a wealthy and secure society only outliers will avoid stupidity/immorality, even though it does not kill you and wisdom and hard work does not pay much.

  170. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Grape Harvest Edition « Patriactionary

  171. Fitz says:

    “It’s easy enough to predict collapse, discuss collapse, and wait around for collapse like a bunch of passive women.”

    Thats what bugs me as well. We need take a page from the Marxist playbook and use the varying levels of collapse to lie the blame were it belongs and let people know who’s responsible.

    “But in a wealthy and secure society only outliers will avoid stupidity/immorality, even though it does not kill you and wisdom and hard work does not pay much”.

    This is true as far as it goes but I find it to defeatist. Many more people than you realize understand these moral truths. They are trapped in the system like we are but they are amiable to change and thirsty for revenge against those who demoralized them. The Truth has a nawing persistance. The number of regular Church goers is high in this counrty as well as the number of self identified Christians. Look at the success of marriage amendments at the polls despite persistant propaganda of our elites to redifine & destroy this basic social structure. Support for feminism, abortion, gay “marriage” may be a mile wide but its only an inch deep..

    This is not an “Amish” phenomina…and we should not think of ourselves as an Amish like movement… We can still change elections, replace our judiciary, confound our advesaries, build counter revolutions and reformations, lead protest movements, build alliances, co-opt supporters, subvert enemy positions, inflitrate oppositional orginizations and fight signifigant rear gaurd and broad front battles…..

    We are millions strong…we are girded in faith and we have God on our side.

  172. lavazza1891 says:

    Fitz: I think it is right to do right even when the rewards are not there, but there will be a long time without success until external factors make convincing real easy. Sometimes you don’t have to fight to succeed, just avoid a fight and let the opponent roam around getting tired.

  173. siquaeris says:

    @Some Guy: You’re following the script that a lot of men find themselves following. I know I did.

    – “If she is doing anything wrong… then *I* am the one that needs to repent.”

    This is either a shit test or a marriage that shouldn’t be salvaged. Even if you have kids, I recommend that you get a mindset that it’ll be OK if you get divorced. You need to assert yourself in your marriage, but you can’t do this effectively if fear of divorce is behind your words and actions.

    My marriage ended before I found the red pill. Still, I don’t think I could have saved it because, deep down, my ex-wife is the type who will never be happy and blames this on her environment.

    Bottom line – you are the primary guardian of your own self. Don’t betray that responsibility.

  174. Dear Fitz,

    Yes, the amazing thing is that not one–not a single person–out of the entire manosphere will stand up to the feminist publishers who publish, promote, and profit off of books celebrating secretive tapigs of butthext without the girlth’s conthent.

    If Men wanted a Renaissance, all they would have to do is read and exalt in their Natural Heritage–the Great Books and Classics–Shakespeare, Homer, and the Bible.

    But instead, men like King A et al. prefer bitching,moaning, and attacking other
    men in the blogosphere, while giving the buttcockers and publishers and profiteers of buttcocking a free pass.

    Such is the nature of the mob, the scribes, the Pharisees, and today’s elite. They fred the murderer and sentenced the Prophet to die, they plotted against the Living Prophet, and when given a chance to save Him, they washed their hands of responsibility.

    While the buttcocking explodes, King A and Michael Singer will smile and attack the GBFM’s grammar, ignoring the massive amounts of buttcocking, which is being secrtely taped without the girlths conthent, as Tucker Max performs it, en route to getting financed by feminist-run multinational corprorations. This does not bother King A and Michael Singer, but instead, they are deeply contherend about my spellings of da holy word buttehxt.

  175. shoe says:

    “if some children grow up with fathers (even weak ones) while others lack fathers altogether the children with fathers have a large advantage. This inequality of maternal outcome poses a danger to feminism as well because women who want to give their children an advantage are at risk of suffering from exposure to male authority.”

    I am reminded of this: http://www.empowernetwork.com/mmwempower/blog/cranston-bans-father-daughter-dances-as-violation-of-state-law/

  176. Höllenhund says:

    “Which PUA bloggers are these? I know of no such PUA blogger who denounces the ‘manosphere’ that they themselves are a part of..

    Or are you just imagining something that no PUA blogger like Roissy, Roosh, or Krauser actually said?”

    Roosh, Assanova, the Mating Market, Racer X, Matt Forney, Simon Grey etc. have all denounced the Manosphere and MRAs as a bunch of whining, misogynist losers. It’s just another online fad.

  177. UAI says:

    BTW I think xslplat also made a comment about male-female relationships and the influence of technology: http://xsplat.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/family-men-forecast-doom-as-the-cost-of-promiscuity-because-its-in-their-genes-to-do-so/.

  178. Fitz says:

    GBFM

    “Yes, the amazing thing is that not one–not a single person–out of the entire manosphere will stand up to the feminist publishers who publish, promote, and profit off of books celebrating secretive tapigs of butthext without the girlth’s conthent.”

    I dont support the PUA approach in the manosphere… By condoning sexual conquest as a viable goal for men we only reinforce the pedesltalization of woman and further encourage men to enter into relations with poor quality woman. Lets face it many of these PUA are using there newfound skills to “get” laid and end up falling for woman and getting gamed themselves into marriage with woman who will take them for a ride.

    More importantly as you point out, this lifestyle of sexual conquest and developing the skill set that allows one to seduce woman ends up degrading woman and the men doing it. It promotes sexual licentiousness and turns woman into jaded, angry, objects who ultimently will end up taking revenge by marying some innocent beta and using him.

    Its only compounding societies problems between men & woman.

    Having said that I think their are elements of “game” that are usefull to young single men as anoculaters against many womans attitude about sex and mating.. I also think it can be usefull in marriage to reinforce the proper male frame and help men maintain their natural masculinity.

    Call it whatever we want but an authentic manosphere needs some advice for men to get on their feet an exhibit confidence and authentic authority in their dealings with woman…

  179. greyghost says:

    Laguna Beach Fogey
    “I find it striking that no one in Manosphere and Alt-Right circles seems to have a concrete plan in place for when the collapse occurs (or is initiated), something along the lines of, say, Provisional Government of National Restoration (PGNR), which, I can tell you, *is* being discussed outside the InterWebz.”
    I’m in the process of writing an article for the spearhead on this subject. Basically the collaps needs to be done on purpose with men of the manosphere activly pushing for men to use lifestyles that protect themselves from feminism and the government and at the same time don’t feed the beast. The main reason why I comment here is to help the christian types understand they are churchian for intentionally denying themselves the red pill and calling it virtuous. Being helpless doesn’t make you a good person. When the collaps does come people will come to the church for help and guidance. The christian church must have solid red pill game to be in a position to have something to offer. As it stands now the churchians can only double down on the same shit that lead to the collaps in the first place. It is very importannt that solid conservative people (Lets not argue definitions of conservative here my hope is people will understand the point I’m trying to make) are red pill and have a full under standing of game and female nature and sexual psychology. Becaise these are the people that will have to couragiously step up to set cultural standards and norms. Dalrock will be a very important man and so will many bloggers and preachers with game. (I sincerely believe and with faith know game is not at all sinful) Clarence just posted up what looks like a link to a bus driver standing up to misandry in practice. It is not the video or the story it is the comments. The people are hungry for guidance and understanding. The churchians are missing a huge opportunity to truely change the world or at least give peace to many confused and angry lost people.
    That is just my two cents on the subject
    BTW what Joseph was /is doing as mentioned in the comments on another article was perfect and is how you save men and prepare them for the collaps.

  180. Johnycomelately says:

    Thomas Thwaites shows just how precarious modern civilization is, it takes an entire civilization just to build a simple toaster. Collapse is certainly something that shouldn’t be desired.

    http://www.itsnotmagicitsscience.com/seeing.asp?newsid=232

    Rome anybody?

  181. greyghost says:

    Johnycomelately
    If done on purpose it won’t happen. Think of game for sex. Alpha’s and thugs have one thing in common the the girls just want to fuck they have no guilt and for some reason from there women sexually respond to it (gina tingle) A guilt free man is worthless to a civil society but they do exist. Just as game is a tool a beta male (non natural alpha, notice how he must learn and understand game for sex) to simulate guilt free that triggers the female response. MRA’s and men with game All men that understand the nature of women can simulate a collapse. (do not laugh at this) An actual collapse is terrible just as tingling for a thug is but a christian man with game is a blessing from god. (think about that one) (for those of you churchians with your heads still firmly up your asses the stud gamed a virgin and she forgoed the carousel for that good christian dick) A collapse can be simulated and a panic set in the tell is all of the lieing about divorce being told to women. Once the lies are gone fear of being a cat lady come in.Once the lies are gone the thought of dieing and nobody noticing until the odor of decay lets your neighbors know it is time to check on you fear will return. Once the sexula desirability is gone and thanksgiving and christmas are holidays of loneliness due to no children or family fear and regret will come to play. It will be hidden until the numbers will be to large to hide. When 60 year old women are 100% dependant on what they earn and work to eat and not just so she can have something of her own….. “fear” imagine that a woman fully responsible for herself. Any man the white knights these women will have the full double down of misandry applied to them to cover the losses from the “collapse” When the marriage strike becomes something men do and not a feminist empowwerment choice fear and panic. Women will be ready to accept sound cultural teaching include losing the vote anything to avoid responsibility. Remember a woman can kill and unborn helpless child and pass herself off as a victim with out guilt. The hamster makes anything possible out of wicked selfish want.

  182. Fitz says:

    Greyghost (writes)

    “(I sincerely believe and with faith know game is not at all sinful)”

    The problem I have is often those who preach game on the manosphere use it as a recipe to be sexuall predators twoards woman. They are not simply using it to teach young or insecure men how to be succesfull with woman and not get screwed over..One game advocate openly talks about how he sleeps with married woman…

    Alot of PUA types it would seem are not interested in fighting feminism but rather just in geeting back at woman through sexual conquest.

  183. James says:

    @Fitz

    Absolutely right. Game is useful knowledge, but abuse of this knowledge by PUAs feeds the very problems that we deplore.

    @greyghost
    Basically the collaps needs to be done on purpose

    If a collapse happens, the consequences will be unpredictable, and are unlikely to be anything that you want.

    When the October Revolution began in Russia, Lenin was in Geneva. He boarded a train to St Petersburg, and the rest is history. Even if you manage to start a revolution, you have no control over the outcome, and there are people out there who have been preparing for decades for such an opportunity. They would probably outsmart you, but if they could not do that, they would have you killed.

    Quit the teenage revolutionary talk, and get real. The USA and other Western countries are robust, and are not going to collapse any time soon. Even if they did, a “Red Pill” revolution is not a likely outcome. Too many people have investments in the status quo.

  184. greyghost says:

    James
    Women are the only people that need to feel or notice the “collapse” so to speek. Think of the shit only women think about ( be childish and selfish and read womens magazines and feminist articles. Check Dalrocks stats also) Put that is short supply and youu have a “collapse” Enjoy the show men on the red pill will enjoy it the most save the world of men by helping with the red pill ( thank you joseph)
    “Quit the teenage revolutionary talk, and get real. The USA and other Western countries are robust, and are not going to collapse any time soon. Even if they did, a “Red Pill” revolution is not a likely outcome. Too many people have investments in the status quo.”
    You are telling the truth there. No need to get them all either (the divorce rate is 50%) MGTOW,PUA,MRA’s they are sacrificing themselves wether they know it or not for toddler boys walking around today. Just as a lot of adolescente girls today are going to pay for mom and grandma’s empowerment through misandry.

  185. Brendan says:

    The USA and other Western countries are robust, and are not going to collapse any time soon.

    This is my thought as well. I think it’s wish thinking to really believe a true collapse is coming anytime soon in the West. The West is messed up, but everywhere else is messed up more than the West is, and so it will continue to have a comparative advantage for some time.

    The upshot of that, of course, is either “going poolside” (in terms of just making hay out of the cornucopia of sex, consumerism and general hedonism on offer today) or “go Amish” and separate from the culture to some degree for personal reasons (not necessarily “full Amish”, mind you, but “personal Amish”, meaning that outside of pragmatic things like the workplace and so on, leading a life that is largely outside the mainstream). I think both of these are more realistic approches than hoping for some revolution or collapse.

  186. Anon says:

    Hollenhund,

    Roosh, Assanova, the Mating Market, Racer X, Matt Forney, Simon Grey etc. have all denounced the Manosphere and MRAs as a bunch of whining, misogynist losers.

    Roosh has done no such thing. He does, however, correctly point out that MRAs are all about passivity, and do no real activism.

    I notice you can’t provide a link of where Roosh said that.

    Roosh is part of the manosphere, and says so himself. And Roissy IS the manosphere (which is often called the ‘Roissysphere’…. no other blogger has ever approached becoming synonymous with the ‘sphere).

  187. greyghost says:

    Fritz don’t allow yourself to fall into the trap of game will make her a slut. I am not a PUA I actually think going out and getting pussy is degrading work. (don’t tell any body that i wanna look cool at work for my coworkers) It is very important for men to undersatnd the emotional dynamics of gina tingle. With good game I have a women in full gina tingle she will do what she thinks pleases me so she can gina tingle (no virtue needed) She will do well in school, save money for her future, exercise and eat healthy, learn to hunt and fish, simulate christian virtue what every is needed to please me ,the tingler. That is why christian men need game and not just some guy trying to get pussy, or some thug looking to hit the fine ass bitch that he saw working at the mall. saving ones dick for marriage is not virtuous if you couldn’t get any ass any goddamn way. Christian men with game can keep a lot of women happily off the carousel and in submisive wedlock at peace with out ever knowing a word from the bible and die loving god.

  188. Fitz says:

    Greyghost (writes)
    “Women are the only people that need to feel or notice the “collapse” so to speak.”

    Sylvia Ann Hewlits book “The Baby Bust” is a good place to start to convince woman that their ALREADY is a “collapse”..

    Nothing motivates like self-interest.

    A lot of young woman in college and graduate school are starting their careers think they have all the time in the world.

    They want to get married and have kids but dont start to worry about it until their clocks are audibly ticking.

    You can talk about whats wrong with feminism all day long to these woman and they simply wont care until you bring up something like “going barren” and show them the statistics that bring it home..

  189. greyghost says:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/oct/09/joyce-vincent-death-mystery-documentary

    They forgot to mention that when they said you don’t need a man or motherhood to be worth while.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2073388/Christmas-childless-hurts-Amanda-Platell-yearning-motherhood.html

    not in the eat pray love manual.

    http://www.pawnation.com/2009/07/23/cat-ladies-the-documentary/

    https://gateway-women.com/2012/09/27/only-88-days-left-to-your-next-childless-christmas/

    these kind of things need to be much more common. What ever it takes to get there. works wonders on character of the presexual girl if she is made aware.

  190. Fitz says:

    Greyghost:

    “simulate christian virtue what every is needed to please me”

    I get your point about game, and I understand your the point your making. I think it dosent always work that way in practice however and I wish more bloggers in the manosphere would make that point about game in the first place.

    My quote of yours above however reveals the problem of your approach..ultimently game used for this purpose and with this motivation is not a winning strategey but a rear-guard action used to try an make an ungodly feminist insppired woman captive to a decent man despite their propagandized tendencies.

    What we ultimently want is not just a stop-gag but a wholesale change in how woman think of themselves and their place in society.

  191. an observer says:

    The drunk and the bus driver has interesting implications. The dastardly patriarchy can use the technology – mostly created by men – to our advantage.

    Wearable tech can record our every interaction. Every stupid game that women play, every instance of verbal baiting, every assault – that they hide so well – could be uploaded to the world.

    Make sure her face appears on the video, and recognition software will do the rest.

    Her wonderful hr/media career will be over, in a few clicks.

  192. greyghost says:

    Fritz I want to show you something very interesting on Dalrocks blog. he has a commentor named Elspeth. She was talking about her family of five and how she still basically had the tingles for her husband. It was very interesting the kind of man he was and what was more telling is the strange admiration she had for him. She said their relationship was on his terms and she stuck with him. he was a street wise fella that was a solid beta male. I hope I can find the series of post she made. Game is not a technique of female supplication. The best mindset to have when you have game and to even understand it is women are worthless bitches. Off the pedistal women are easily and I do mean easily vetted for worthiness.
    BTW there was never a time when women didn’t need game. Society and rule of law had it handle. feminism culturally and legally removed the checks now women are gone feral and bread like cave bitches. Try not to let yourself make the mistake churchians and blue piller make. They pedistalise virtue onto women. It doesn’t exist and never has. Women behave in their best interest and if virtuous behavior is in their best interst they will behave that way even though without virtue.
    now this is a misunderstanding “My quote of yours above however reveals the problem of your approach..ultimently game used for this purpose and with this motivation is not a winning strategey but a rear-guard action used to try an make an ungodly feminist insppired woman captive to a decent man despite their propagandized tendencies ” A man with game doesn’t make her shit, she makes herself acceptable to him. No rings for sluts, no going out in public together for single mother booty calls. The ungodly femminist inspired women doesn’t get a decent man due to her progandized tendencies. the point of the purposeful collapse is to ensure these women die alone as childless spinsters. Yes really. No rings for sluts and god will save you a place in heaven. Our society was structured like that now abortion is a right and not something a shameful slut does. The church has now declared single moms heroes. Now it is up to men of the red pill armed with game backed by faith.
    So now leave the sluts for the PUA and players and the mangina’s and white knights.

  193. ybm says:

    Sage wisdom. I admit I am not pious enough to be abstinent despite having no intention to marry. It is a weakness, but truly gamecocks really aren’t any better than any other brand of white knight, merely a different type of deluded.

  194. ybm says:

    Sage wisdom. I admit I am not pious enough to be abstinent despite having no intention to marry. It is a weakness, but truly gamecocks really aren’t any better than any other brand of white knight, merely a different type of deluded.

  195. an observer says:

    If it was a choice between legions of players and collapsing civilisation, the former is an easy call.

    The players expose the churchian sluts for others to avoid. I wouldnt go as far as calling it a community service. Sin is what it is. But some want to stone the players for their sin. More shaming of mens behaviour fails to address the culpability of unrestrained female sexuality.

    Western women will leech off increasingly inept and cash strapped governments. As taxation regimes become increasingly oppressive, men will creatively find ways to avoid paying’their share.’ And women will continue to complain about a lack of equity and fairness, for them, their cats and their bastard offspring.

  196. Sharrukin says:

    Fitz says:

    The problem I have is often those who preach game on the manosphere use it as a recipe to be sexuall predators twoards woman.

    They aren’t preying on women. Women have the choice to take off their clothes or not, and they are choosing to cooperate with the PUA’s to get what they very much want. They are of the age of consent and there is no violence involved. Since the women are the ones who have the choice to say yes, or no, why don’t you say that the women are preying on the PUA’s?

  197. ybm says:

    They aren’t necessarily preying upon the PUA, merely giving him a pat on the head and a treat for being the good little doggy that he is. Bark for me, lick me here, show me what an alpha you are, good boy!

    “Men only think about one thing” “men think about sex ever 8 seconds” “men are dogs”

    Now tell me a woman doesn’t know, expect, and enjoy you barking like the good little dog you are to her. exact. wishes.

    Down boy.

  198. Sharrukin says:

    ybm says:

    They aren’t necessarily preying upon the PUA…

    They are flip sides of the same coin. I have as much respect for a slut as I do a PUA with the qualification that the slut seems to expect to be able to have her cake and eat it too, whereas the PUA only wants one thing out of the deal.

  199. Höllenhund says:

    “Roosh has done no such thing. He does, however, correctly point out that MRAs are all about passivity, and do no real activism.”

    Yup. Surely he just “correctly points out” things:

    rooshv.com/mens-rights-has-become-a-euphemism-for-sexual-loser

    rooshv.com/the-mens-rights-movement-is-dead

    Ultimately, though, this attitude doesn’t originate on the Internet. We all know such smartasses in real life, don’t we? They’re easy to notice. They usually brag about their success with women, how much sex they’re having, how they get along with them so well, how much they love them etc. Another favorite pastime of theirs is shitting on other men, all the time. Criticize women or sex relations in any way, and he’ll immediately attack you as a whiny, bitter loser who cannot get laid.

    Again, the funny thing about these guys is that they usually avoid marriage and fatherhood. Well, what’s the deal, cocksman? Are you actually agreeing with all those whiny bitter losers that marriage and LTRs are a bad deal, or what? Didn’t you say you love women and have great success with them? Well, wife one up, cocksman! Surely you know that a woman’s greatest desire is commitment from a man she’s attracted to. You’re hot shit with ultra-tight Game, right? Surely you could have a fantastic marriage with lots of exciting sex. What’s holding you back, cocksman? So pumping & dumping women is fun and exciting, but marrying one isn’t? Wait, what? Women aren’t so fantastic after all? Tell us, cocksman! Again, what is it exactly that makes you shit on other men?

  200. Höllenhund says:

    OT: on a somewhat different note…

    !!!Here’s Höllenhund’s challenge to all successful PUAs!!!

    Alright, wise man. We know who you are, because you’ve already told us. You say you’re hot shit with tight Game. Women practically fall on your cock day and night. You’re a master manipulator of women who can pick up some random woman from a bar and in a couple of hours, you’re at her apartment and she’s making you a sandwich after swallowing your load. Fair enough.

    Well, is your Game really tight, cocksman? Here’s the challenge then:

    Pick up a woman and turn her into a men’s rights supporter.

    No, really. DO IT. Surely this cannot be a difficult task for you, can it? After all, you know Game. Plus, you don’t even have to fuck her. Just pick up a woman from a bar and in, say, two weeks, get her to donate $100 to Fathers and Families or Paul Elam. Get her to voluntarily separate herself from her insufferable feminist girlfriends. Get her to publicly criticize feminists.

    Wait, what is is that you’re saying? That it’d turn her off and make her think you’re a creep? Well, tough shit, cocksman. This time the task isn’t sexual access…but surely it’s not too hard, is it? After all, you’re Game is tight.

    Right?

  201. Martian Bachelor says:

    @Höllenhund

    I had the same idea for a challenge, only bigger: If “Game” is such hot shit why can’t Roosh et al apply it to game the whole damned feminist establishment, and make it do things like roll back sex harassment law, the expanded definitions of rape, Divorce 2.0, and the rest of the whole shebang?

    It won’t because “Game” uses the five principles tools for how to prevent social change:

    1) Limit Your Vision
    2) Adapt
    3) Think About Yourself
    4) Be “Realistic”
    5) Rationalize

    Roosh just needed to let his hamster run free! lol

    Some will argue that personal growth (aka “improving yourself”) is a route to social change, but most of the self-help movement will not require anyone to wrestle with this question since social change is irrelevant to its goals and techniques.

  202. Johnycomelately says:

    “More shaming of mens behaviour fails to address the culpability of unrestrained female sexuality.”

    Dalrock and others have demonstrated that unrestrained, women are;
    Solipsistic
    Incapable of discerning what sexually arouses them
    Attracted to socially perverse attributes
    Incapable of financial independence
    Technically wards of the state
    Morally relativistic (abortion, divorce)
    Socially and economically destructive (state welfare, immigration, promiscuity)
    Have a natural tendency towards socialism

    If the above is correct and given that the 80/20 meme holds true, then wouldn’t it make sense that alpha behaviour is the overarching destructive element?

    Given that women are incapable of self regulation then why doesnt it make sense that destructive alpha male behaviour is the crux of the problem.

    Just a thought.

  203. greyghost says:

    yes it has and is. What is different now is feminism has told women all men are like that and they should get in on the fun (80/20 thing = f/m ) The rest is all misandry to marginalize and get out of the way the 80 percent (beta types) Even the the christian church went churchianity. That gets us to where we are today ( see Dalrocks original post here)

  204. Höllenhund says:

    More gynocentric BS from the media:

    youtube.com/watch?v=Dba00r9n2W4

    I don’t want this rubbish “civilization” to exist anymore.

  205. an observer says:

    Greyghost,

    Yes. Most women are incapable of understanding that 80% of men are do not benefit from hypergamy. As part of that 80%, i have no animosity towards the few men that do. They have always existed.

    Feminism, in unleashing female sexuality, has simply increased their menu options. That is hardly their (mens) fault.

    At best, i can learn and practise a modicum of game to at least be aware of the dynamics and counter female behaviour as needed in my own interactions with women.

    That the church has gone over to misandry largely explains why it has so little appeal to men. Women are not more spiritual. They do enjoy being pandered to, which is what churches, like broader society, now does consistently.

    Thus, the attention whoring hamster continues to be well fed.

  206. Buck says:

    @
    James says:
    October 17, 2012 at 7:22 am
    James you make some interesting points, let me toss in my opinion.
    I’m very much a “values” voter and given my druthers will always pick a morally clear person over a fuzzy socialist. BUT, I do think the war on drugs/drug De-criminalization, abortion, sexual promiscuity etc are all issues best left out of the political dialog.
    The best way to bankrupt a drug dealer is not buy his product, the best way to close an abortion clinic is to not have an abortion, the best way to avoid STD’s, unwanted children, being labeled a slut is to be chaste.
    Nancy Reagan was excoriated for her “just say no” campaign…it was in fact simple brilliance.

    So, if the moral issues are all about changing hearts and minds, then the primary qualifiers for a politician are his thoughts on defense and economics and fealty to a written constitution….Pocket book issues. This too is simple logic…if I’m to be miserable, it’s much nicer to be miserable in pleasant surroundings with a full belly.
    America’s current malaise and the impending financial collapse are really moral failings. It all starts with people voting for politicians who will steal the most from others to give to them. Socialism is the politics of greed and envy, 2 of the 7 deadly sins.

  207. JoeS says:

    Hoellenhund – love the idea about asking these guys to use their psychological skills to actually manipulate the opinions of women. Being a prop to fulfilling the sordid fantasies of the women they go with means following the feminist script, “not judging” – no doubt about it. Leading women to moral sanity requires collective efforts.

  208. imnobody says:

    @Höllenhund

    Well said and I completely agree.

    But you may answer a doubt that I have had for long. Why are there so many American men that are like this? And I don’t mean only PUA but in general. This is one of the things that I don’t understand about American men. It’s this attitude of condescension and smugness. This attitude of “I am the megaman and you are only a bunch of losers. Stop whining and admire my greatness”.

    I have lived in Europe, Latin America and the States. Only in the States have I seen this attitude and it seems really weird to me. Does somebody knows why this is so? I have been curious for years.

  209. imnobody says:

    @Brendan

    Agreed. There is no collapse but a slow decline. United States will become Europe, Europe will become Latin America, Latin America will become Africa. But this will be slow.

    In short people will be poorer and poorer. But, living in Latin America, I am convinced that a poor society can be very stable.

  210. Brendan says:

    But you may answer a doubt that I have had for long. Why are there so many American men that are like this? And I don’t mean only PUA but in general. This is one of the things that I don’t understand about American men. It’s this attitude of condescension and smugness. This attitude of “I am the megaman and you are only a bunch of losers. Stop whining and admire my greatness”.

    I have lived in Europe, Latin America and the States. Only in the States have I seen this attitude and it seems really weird to me. Does somebody knows why this is so? I have been curious for years.

    If I am remembering correctly, he is from Hungary.

    From my perspective, this has to do with the nature of the U.S. The U.S. is a fiercely, intensely competitive society on all levels — almost a cut-throat competitive one, especially in the major metro areas, of course, but it percolates throughout the culture even into small towns and rural areas, where it is simply expressed differently. This fiercely competitive environment generally leads to people being very shitty to each other in general. The attitudes that you see are commonplace in American heads, across the board, whether they are expressed or not — because of the public and superficial “politeness and friendliness” culture of the U.S., it’s easier to find it sometimes on the internet than in your face in the real world here (compared to places like, say, Germany, where people are just openly rude to each other in public often enough), but the attitude is there nonetheless: “these people are idiots and losers. I am better than they are. Look at what idiots they are” and so on. This is a quintessentially American attitude, and it is born of a society that has generally very loose social bonds between people (we are famously divided, of course, politically, but we also don’t have the cultural cohesion of a European or even Latin American country) as well as a tendency to fierce, even hyper, competitiveness among people. When you combine those two things — fierce competition and loose/lack of social bonds — you get the kind of attitudes you’re describing here.

  211. farm boy says:

    @Brendan

    He is from Spain

  212. Martian Bachelor says:

    @ Buck

    Nancy Reagan was excoriated for moving into the White House and promptly blowing a bundle on new china for her fairytale State dinners, and later for employing an astrologer to help her with her part in the management of presidential affairs. She was a dingbat, and made her hubbie look like one too. And the whole rest of us, by association.

    You can still probably find a “Just Say No to Nancy!” button.

  213. Brendan says:

    Hollenhund is from Spain? I stand corrected then.

  214. Pingback: Decreasing Marriage Rate Is Hurting Feminism

  215. Buck says:

    @
    Martian Bachelor says:
    October 18, 2012 at 11:52 am

    Nancy Reagan bought that China with private funds, not a dime of tax payer money.
    Nancy Reagan had a moonbeam astrologer, yes, whatever floats her boat. Lots of people watch professional wrestling and dancing with the stars; I thought Americans had the freedom to pursue their interests, however mind numbing.

    This nitpicking deconstructionism in interesting…so let me get this straight, Nancy Reagan saw an astrologer so her admonition to stay off drugs…what…wrong?????

    Bill Clinton created a semen stained dress, so I guess his signing welfare reform was bad policy?
    What’s your point?
    I’m relieved to know you don’t have any inconsistencies in your life, it’s refreshing to share the blogosphere with the new Plato

  216. Anonymous Reader says:

    Martian Bachelor
    Nancy Reagan was excoriated for moving into the White House and promptly blowing a bundle on new china for her fairytale State dinners,

    None of the bundle came from government funds. All of the bundle came from private sources. I’ve never understood this particular leftist talking point – some donors ponied up a bundle to buy new dishes for the White House? So what?

    and later for employing an astrologer to help her with her part in the management of presidential affairs.

    Years ago I had a 20-something relation with a bad case of one-itis. He was really infatuated with a woman who was nice enough to him, but did not return his intense emotion. One fine day, I think it was over lunch, he showed me the previous day’s horoscope. I don’t recall what it said, but he was convinced that the astrologer had accurately predicted how his pursuit of that women the previous night had gone -some kind of progress, I dunno what. So he became really sold on astrology. He started buying the paper when it first came out, in order to get to the horoscope, in order to plan what to do regarding his woman-on-a-pedestal. This wasn’t a dingbat. This was a 20-something college student who was enrolled in real courses, and his emotions led him to put unlimited trust in a freaking syndicated newspaper space-filler. Sigh. Naturally it didn’t work out. Eventually his one-itis was cured, in the way it often is – she moved out of town to a new job, he could not persuade her to stay, and he moped around for months. At least he stopped reading the stupid horoscope.

    This story leads to the Nancy Reagan case. Early on, Reagan got shot in an attempted assassination by nutbag Hinckly(who was trying to impress an actress he had one-itis for…).
    I don’t know the details but some astrologer supposedly predicted “danger” for that day, and Nancy Reagan, desperate to protect her husband, seems to have decided that by following the astrologer’s advice, she could do that. No idea how much input into Reagan’s schedule that had. The point is, powerful emotions such as “one-itis love” and “desperate fear” can lead us to believe in some pretty stupid things, like Astrology, or Marxism, etc. So I don’t get too worked up about that.

    What’s a lot worse was the Reagan reaction to the press’s “rich and out of touch” chant – the promotion of Mitch Snyder’s little cult of the homeless, the bashing of the White House dish purchase, etc. Nancy Reagan apparently decided she need to have A Cause, in order to appear more kinder, etc. Instead of literacy, or childhood disease, or something like that, the decision was made for Nancy to start ranting about drugs. And so the War On Some Drugs was revved up, with a whole lot of results, some good, some not so good. So if you want to hate on her, do it for something substantial, not for the private purchase of dishes, or for a panic-stricken, fearful woman buying into a delusion that was pretty popular at the time.

    PS: For all you conservatives, Reagan signed the first men’s-fault divorce law into effect as Governor of California. He supposedly expressed regret for that in later years, but as President he never did, or said, anything to even limit “no-fault” divorce in any way. So your hero played a key role in the long term destruction of marriage in the US.

  217. imnobody says:

    @Brendan

    Great explanation. It makes a lot of sense now. Thank you.

  218. Pingback: The normalization of the trashy single mother. | Dalrock

  219. Pingback: Single Moms, Divorced Moms, Widows . . . One of These Things Is Not Like the Other | Catholic Complementarian

  220. MackPUA says:

    “Women are not spiritual”

    Ridiculously true …

    Women are more biological, they also love anti-gamers …

    Anti-gamers = more beta’s for women with centuries of girl game to screw clueless anti-gamers over with …

    Enjoy your irrelevelance, you clueless backward, luddite’s…

    So no solutions? More blaming men … nothing really new there … typical pussy whipped anti-gamers …

    Go back to white knighting for sluts, single mothers & welfare whores … thats all you anti-gamers do in real life … no ?

    I hope you guys realise banging these dumb feminist infested sluts, is far more useful then white knighting for the typical Ameriskank & welfare toting single mother?

    Its cool though, someone needs to service the typical Ameriskank & welfare whore, once we’re done with their, delusional solipistic broke asses …

    PUA’s & Gamers, enjoying the feminist infested waters & making society safer for beta’s everywhere …

    BTW NOW THAT TRADITIONALISM IS DEAD, the MRA & PUA & Gaming communities are the last hope for men who want families & a functioning society …

    Ironic how activism, & radical philosophies are being setup to combat large scale social disasters …

    Just another testament to how far anti-gamers, conservatives & mainstream worshipping drones, have destroyed society as a whole

    So why are there no mainstream masculine movements in society today?

    You gave women the vote …

  221. MackPUA says:

    @greyghost

    “Only-88-days-left-to-your-next-childless-christmas” – Brilliant!!!

    Dalrock should run something like this … Only 88 days left to your next, childless, penniless, if you decide to divorce …

    Bonus if you’re a carousel riding slut & delay marriage like a good feminist whore …

    Whoredom & abortion – the new tools of girl game …

  222. greyghost says:

    MackPUA
    That is the attitude men need to have. Not every women is a slut but all woemn are susceptible to being lead to the carousel. A christian beta (with game) can get that before hand and “save her”. A slut on the other hand comes to church for god’s mercy to allow passage to heaven. here in this life she is shund and an example of ” no rings for sluts.” A slut repents for passage to heaven not a marriage to a good christian man. The only wedding she is going to attend is as a guest of a worthy woman’s marriage. That is how it’s done and will work wonders.

  223. an observer says:

    I propose two new metrics.

    For the married woman:
    Number of shopping days till your next divorce.

    For the single woman:
    Number of working days till your next childless happy holiday.

    Enjoy the decline. . .

  224. Highwasp says:

    Hollenhund, imnobody & Brendan…

    Yes we Amerikan men don’t seem to realize the destruction we do to ourselves and other men, even our sons, fathers and brothers, through our participation in the Amerikan male competitive neurosis, a compulsion based on a pathological belief system which dictates dichotomous or binary thinking – win or lose, right or wrong, him or me… We can’t get together for ourselves as a group since we are constantly competing with one another. And this is one reason why feminism is able to control and direct the masculine to the extremes it does today. Men competing with one another seems to take precedence over all other interactions, even to the detriment of our individual and collective well being.

    I wonder if this modern day male competitive compulsion is a spin off from an older dichotomous belief system… much older therefore more entrenched form of binary thinking : heaven or hell. An ‘Either – Or’ belief system which might be at the bottom of the our current day competitive neurosis – our fear of being a loser… of death and going to hell.

    Simply put, winners go the heaven and losers go to hell. Most competition is based on winners and losers as well. That’s why we keep score. One way to be a winner is to choose those whom I can successfully compete against. A good place to start would be to define the losers…

    How appropriate then that I would find detailed descriptions of various losers right here on a christian blog, where the dichotomous belief system of heaven or hell, winners or losers, is alive and well.

    As an example – one or two of the regular posters on this site have created a cast of loser male characters who could very well be candidates for hell and / or elimination from my competition. Of course, what it boils down to is ‘Male Bashing’ but it serves as a indicator of the winners and the losers.

    A great example of a loser is detailed by Deti where he starts off his cast of morally depraved, entitled or otherwise worthless male characters with : Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer: “This douchebag is an attractive alpha and swims in pu**y because he is a musician — beit 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.”

    Then, to further define the depraved and inferior, Furiosferret continues the condescension and belittlement: “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? ”

    There it is, the Amerikan male’s competitive compulsion to define another man as inferior, making himself superior by comparison. Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer – that’s the guy I can successfully compete against and win! He’s such a loser, I’ll be a winner for sure. And there you have it – competition is serious business for us men who think in dichotomous terms of heaven or hell, black or white, good or bad, winners or losers. There is no in between.

  225. deti says:

    Highwasp:

    Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer, Alpha McGorgeous, Harley McBadboy and Frank Fratboy are the SMP’s winners. They get most of the sex and most of the women. In this SMP, Eddie Steadyman, Ernie Engineer, Paul Plumber, Tom Teacher and Louie Lawyer are losers. They’re boring, predictable, and unattractive.

    What exactly is inaccurate about this? What do you find so offensive about using archetypes to illustrate how this SMP works?

    I don’t begrudge these alphas. I know some of them. They live their lives the way they want. Women choose them far and away over the Eddies and Pauls of the world — that is, until it comes time for marriage and stability.

  226. an observer says:

    A couple of observations…

    1. This is not a ‘christian’ blog.
    2. Alpha traits that attract women can be learned or simulated.
    3. Archetypes of attraction are used in composite characters to teach.
    4. The process of teaching needs examples of attributes that attract women.

    I may have misunderstood the intent. What i see is that Deti and others have developed an archetype that applies the dark traid of attractors to demonstrate their failings.

    Detis story is well known. He does not seek to compete. He is trying to enlighten.

    Whilst i understand the competitive spirit, i dont see that here. I see a lot of very helpful discussion.

    Which leads me to wonder. Perhaps projected insecurities promote straw men and vocal criticism of discussion that was intended to help.

  227. greyghost says:

    I don’t see Deti as one of those my dicks bigger than yours kind of guy either. I would like to think we were on the same page just using different words to make a point.

  228. Highwasp says:

    Deti – puhleeze – the title itself condemns : Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer : and then “This douchebag…” “shitty garage band musician…” “no marketable skills – 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.” …you don’t begrudge? who cares if you do or don’t – you know perfectly well that’s the definition of a loser – and now you feign ignorance and innocence -

  229. greyghost says:

    I dont think Deti was using the term for a loser. I think the term goes with the times. Fuckbuddy rockband drummer is getting the pussy. What he is showing is the cat is not getting the ass the beta bluepill way. http://www.flickr.com/photos/cavalleto/3858945779/

  230. greyghost says:

    These remind me of my Marine corp days in southern California in the 80’s

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zMxMhGTLxG8/S_gV7w1t__I/AAAAAAAAA6A/gkjt824T-E8/s1600/douchebags.bmp

  231. an observer says:

    Ok, you’re a spammer and a troll. We get that from your ‘website.’

    Anything else we can help you with?

  232. Ybm says:

    If you are going to be throwing accusations like that around I will point out that:

    1. This is not a ‘christian’ blog.
    2. Alpha traits that attract women can be learned or simulated.
    3. Archetypes of attraction are used in composite characters to teach.

    Are all false observations.

  233. Pingback: Update to Previous Topics #3 « Manosphere Links

  234. Highwasp says:

    observer – you talking to me with that spammer troll stuff? no I am just stating my opinion which is obviously not welcome to you – and here we go – since you don’t like my comment – you need to find something wrong with me, conclude you are ‘right’ and dismiss me like any other loser who you don’t agree with… this is why men in Amerika are in the state we are… spammer or troll… yeah that’s me. You caught me. You win.

    Hello – let’s throw it around – perhaps ‘projected insecurities’ is why Deti developed his male cast of characters… does he have the equivalent of women characters to balance out what to me is obviously male bashing?

    Ybm – me? false observations? such as fallacy, ad hominem, generalization, non sequitur, not to mention delusion, judgement, stereotype and sarcasm ooozes from this male cast of characters. uh – again, to me that’s male bashing and I’m sick of it.

  235. Mark says:

    @Deti,Greenlander,greyghost,Dalrock etc.

    I went to to my cousin’s today in another city about an hour away from me to help with funeral arrangements for a deceased family member.Later on around dinner time he was reading the local newspaper online and he showed me this article that was in the days paper.I had to post this hear to show you guys this…as well as everyone else that posts on this blog.I must say I am surely disgusted with this and shows what the power of a loser Femi-Nazi cunt is in Canada and how stupid the system is.The cops and the judges are even more stupid to believe the loser cunt….and waste taxpayers money on this!…What a joke! Here is the article below:

    http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2012/10/18/six-months-for-sexual-assault

    Allow me to expand on this.Please notice..”occasional casual sexual relationship”.This guy was banging the whore prior to this event.He had “anal intercourse” with the pig.I am assuming that it was her idea and wanted to try it..Please also notice “no prior record”.My take on this is…..she wanted it up the ass….he gave it to her…then they had a fight about something else…she calls the cops and has him charged with sexual assault….just like a good Femi-Nazi loser whore would do! Obviously,this pig has no morals or ethics or shame as she had to tell the cop and the court that she got fucked up the ass.The cop should have laughed and left…but he did not…he arrested him and charged him.Shows you want a moron this cop is!
    Not only does this poor guy have to spend 6 months in jail.He is also now a “sexual offender” which means that he has to submit DNA for the National Data Bank.Also,this data is shared with other Commonwealth countries such as,UK,AUS,NZ.This guy will also be prohibited from entering the USA.He will also have a hard time securing employment with this on his record! So there you have it.All because of some Femi-Nazi loser whore that he was screwing on the side and she took revenge on him for who knows what….and just destroyed this poor guy’s life! If this was me I would be getting a “contract” put on this whore and making sure that she does not show up in court….and possibly try this BS on someone else.So to all you guys on this Blog I must tell you and warn you…”Stay away from Canadian women as they are nothing but fucking garbage”

  236. Höllenhund says:

    I’m from Hungary, not Spain. Where did that come from?

    „The USA and other Western countries are robust, and are not going to collapse any time soon.”

    They are the least robust societies on the planet, fatally vulnerable to external shocks and yet completely unprepared for them. A society whose members cannot rely on extended families, tribes and other blood-based groups for provision and protection is one that stands on its last legs. The West has created an unemployable, dysgenic underclass numbering dozens of millions of useless eaters, mostly NAMs and white trash, with no survival skills whatsoever, condemned to starvation once the government tit runs dry. Add to this the further tens of millions of people who have no idea how to grow and prepare their own food, not to mention their lack of any other practical life skills, and it’s just a gigantic disaster waiting to happen.

    „From my perspective, this has to do with the nature of the U.S. The U.S. is a fiercely, intensely competitive society on all levels…This is a quintessentially American attitude, and it is born of a society that has generally very loose social bonds between people.”

    Yes, but that doesn’t explain the massive Anglo-Saxon tendency to white-knight. I think it has more to do with the Victorian and Puritan heritage, themselves offshoots of Western Christianity, which is nothing but a female supremacist cult.

  237. Martian Bachelor says:

    @Höllenhund

    H.L. Mencken had an interesting take on chivalry and your “massive Anglo-Saxon tendency to white-knight”, and the difference between the US and Europe; from In Defense of Women (1922 edition):

    “…This, allowing for class modifications, is almost the normal history of a marriage, or, more accurately, of the genesis of a marriage, under Protestant Christianity. Under other rites the business is taken out of the woman’s hands, at least partly, and so she is less enterprising in her assembling of candidates and possibilities. But when the whole thing is left to her own heart — i.e., to her head — it is but natural that she should seek as wide a range of choice as the conditions of her life allow, and in a democratic society those conditions put few if any fetters upon her fancy. The servant girl, or factory operative, or even prostitute of today may be the chorus girl or moving picture vampire of tomorrow and the millionaire’s wife of next year. In America, especially, men have no settled antipathy to such stooping alliances; in fact, it rather flatters their vanity to play Prince Charming to Cinderella.

    “The result is that every normal American young woman, with the practicality of her sex and the inner confidence that goes therewith, raises her amorous eye as high as it will roll. And the second result is that every American man of presentable exterior and easy means is surrounded by an aura of discreet provocation: he cannot even dictate a letter, or ask for a telephone number without being measured for his wedding coat.

    “On the Continent of Europe, and especially in the Latin countries, where class barriers are more formidable, the situation differs materially, and to the disadvantage of the girl. If she makes an overture, it is an invitation to disaster; her hope of lawful marriage by such means is almost nil. In consequence, the prudent and decent girl avoids such overtures, and they must be made by third parties or by the man himself. This is the explanation of the fact that a Frenchman, say, is habitually enterprising in amour, and hence bold and often offensive, whereas an American is what is called chivalrous. The American is chivalrous for the simple reason that the initiative is not in his hands. His chivalry is really a sort of coquetry.”

    By this standard, the “Game” & Man Up! evangelists nagging on men about not being sufficiently “enterprising in amour” want American men to essentially (and ironically) stop being so damned American and emulate better the Frenchman!!

  238. deti says:

    For the obtuse:

    Women created F**buddy Rockbanddrummer, Alpha McGorgeous, Harley McBadboy, and Frank Fratboy. They exist because women want them. If women didn’t want them, they wouldn’t exist. Those men are acting in their own self interests and women want them. These men use effective tactics to get easy sex. And if those tactics didn’t work, they would do something else to get sex.

    Men, including me, always take the path of least resistance. Men will do whatever they have to do to get sex. If they have to get married, they’ll do that. If they have to be douchebags, they’ll do that. If they have to be aloof and disinterested, they’ll do that. If they have to look downward from 9s and 10s to 5s and 6s, they’ll do that. And if some men find they try all these things and more to get sex and they don’t work, then men, being the rational creatures they are, will give up and not pursue sex.

    Highwasp misunderstands. I am not pillorying these men or bashing them. I’m describing them. I use florid, intentionally caricatured language to do so because it’s illustrative, it entertains me, and it’s damn funny. But let’s not kid ourselves. Fuckbuddy, Alpha, Harley and Frank are not good bets for women long term. They are not marriage material as long as they continue to act in their own short term interests. Is that a bad thing? Not in this SMP. But they are not good for marriage or children, and it’s not good for society.

    Be that as it may, women are screaming loud and clear by their conduct that they want the Four Horsemen of the Alphacalypse. They are screaming that they don’t want Eddie, Paul, Tom, Louie or Ernie, at least not until they have gone through F**kbuddy, Alpha, Harley and Frank.

    I’m interested in telling women about F**kbuddy, Alpha, Harley and Frank so that if that’s what they decide they want, they will know that what they’ll get is hot sex for a night (usually) or for a little while (if she’s lucky), and that’s about it. If they want more, then perhaps they should steer clear of them and give Eddie, Ernie, Paul et al a go. No worries for our four ALPHA archetypes, though — there will still be ample numbers of women who will give them what they want. There always have been and always will be. And I have no problem with these four men living this way, if that’s what they want. Lord knows there is little incentive to become an Eddie, a Paul, a Tom et al. To put it bluntly, manning up for real and getting an education and employment is more likely to get them divorce raped — if they can find any woman willing to marry them at all. At best, many of these men find themselves married to shrill harpies or women who let themselves go or entitlement princesses or closet feminists or women who cut them off sexually. They tether themselves to unworthy, ungrateful women who view marriage as their entitlement after slutting it up for a decade.

    Where I disagree with some others is the notion that women should look to hooking up as the best path to a relationship or marriage. This is because from my observation and experience, the men they usually will gravitate to for hookups are the most attractive men like F**buddy, Alpha, Harley and Frank — who aren’t good bets for relationships. These women hook up with the four horsemen of the alphacalypse because THEY CAN. They don’t hookup with betas BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT TO AND THEY DON’T HAVE TO, and that’s the major flaw in those arguments, IMO. Now one or two hookups isn’t going to ruin her. But if she continues down that path, she’s run up her partner count and now she’s a slut. There are those who insist that every such assertion be backed up with studies and graphs and double blind, random controlled surveys. But when I come here and read the exact same stories from other men seeing the exact same thing I’ve seen for years now, over and over again, I have to think there’s something to it.

    We clear now?

  239. Highwasp says:

    Thanks for your consideration Deti – I’m busy for now but I’ll get back to you on this.

  240. Pingback: Normalitation of trashy single mothers

  241. Rocker says:

    Feminists have made marraige into a giant whorehouse, with the govt as the armed pimps.

  242. Before the Deluge says:

    You mentioned that you could not find a specific quote from Malthus where he claims that famine was inevitable. I found this one here

    Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction; and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague, advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

    There is a very good article about Malthus here

    He really was a miserable excuse for a human being.

    [D: You are misunderstanding his argument entirely. He is pointing out that social institutions like marriage keep population in check in accordance with existing food supplies. He is saying it is noteworthy that we don't see rapid population explosion outstripping our ability to feed ourselves. The only rapid population explosions we see are when population has recently been knocked down (eg following a plague) or when new lands become available (like in the new world). See the first link you offer, it is all right there.]

  243. Highwasp says:

    deti says:
    October 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    “For the obtuse”

    (obtuse) : Lacking in intelligence: blockheaded, dense, doltish, dumb, hebetudinous, stupid, thickheaded, thick-witted. Informal: thick. Slang: dimwitted, dopey. Antonym: Clever, Astute, Smart, Quick, Intelligent, Bright, Perceptive, Wise, Sharp…

    Good opening line Deti – For the obtuse… reading the remainder of your post then defines one as obtuse. Condescend much?

    “We clear now?”

    …perfectly

  244. Shadow of a Shade says:

    @ Rocker

    “Feminists have made marraige into a giant whorehouse, with the govt as the armed pimps.”

    Your posting reminds me of the quote from Watchmen:

    ‘The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll whisper “no.” ‘

  245. ASadMadDad says:

    Ras Al Ghul says:

    “If these distortions were sustainable indefinately, we would not be seeing the debt load taken on. If it was maintainable, there would be no debt needed. The proof is right there that productivity is not enough.”

    Precisely. Mark Steyn has done a great job detailing the ‘fiscal cliff’ the US is rapidly approaching in his book “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon”. Projecting from current spending levels the rest of the world would need to direct 20% of its GDP just to fund the US government by 2020 … that’s not far away. For a quick overview of his book, take a look at this series of YouTube videos:

    Niall Ferguson and Peter Thiel are other ‘secular’ thinkers that have been hammering away the importance of downsizing the role of the state in western nations.

  246. Pingback: LIGFY – Oct 21 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  247. ASadMadDad says:

    Joseph says:

    “I think this is a logical fallacy on our parts. Technology comes from somewhere and though we are very advanced as a society, the reality is that there are less and less men willing to put in the effort that is required to maintain our current standard of technological progress. … One great example: the pyramids, we have no clue how they pulled that crap off and the technology was essentially lost. Egypt was incredibly advanced for it’s time, but ultimately, it fell just as we will.”

    Very interesting points here. Peter Thiel has lectured extensively on how we have been experiencing technological deceleration over the past 50 years. A growing regulatory bureaucracy coupled with a feminist/victim mentality has brought development to a standstill in many areas. Think of transportation and energy. His example is popular science magazines in the 1960’s that were predicting lunar travel before the year 2000, and big reductions in travel times across all means (land, air, water). The fact that the concord was decommissioned in 2003, with no replacement is another example of technology moving backwards.

    Your comments on maintaining technological standards and the loss of knowledge that occurred with the fall of the Egyptian civilization are interesting in the light of comments made by Thomas Sowell in Dismantling America. Thomas describes how, during the dark ages people lived within the ruins of a (Roman) civilization, without even having the knowledge to repair, let alone rebuild the civilization that predated them. Frightening comments at the end of this video:

    Roman civilization fell in a relatively short period of time … about 30 years.

    “Pruned, it will grow again” Saint Benedict

  248. Opus says:

    I have taken it upon myself to re-read (through Androsphere glasses) all those passages in Malthus under the heading in the Index, Marriage. Godwin, looks forward to a day when the shackles of marriage are removed; where children are raised in common (all men being happy to assist), and marital jealousy is thus no more. Malthus however sess property and marriage as the bedrock of civilisation. He should have read Roissy, for we know that in practise women will all choose the same man, and falsely accuse the others or Harrassement/Rape. Malthus correctly describes the average ‘Council Estate’ where every woman has a brood of children by the age of twenty three, but he perhaps fails to notice that the richer and more empowered women become, the less children they produce, and the more promiscuous they become (at least on the council estates it is only serial monogamy). Malthus seems to overlook the fact that marriage cannot be delayed indefinitely (so in that regard he is like those corporate spinsters – never settling) and although married was himself childless. Godwin by comparison married twice and had one daughter – who ran off with some married Poet.

  249. @ASadMadDad ““I think this is a logical fallacy on our parts. Technology comes from somewhere”
    Many Jewish scholars contest that man was far far more advanced pre Tower of Babel and mankind has de-evolved quite a bit and current technology is still far far behind.
    Consider there was one common language & the early writings spoke were all poetry.
    Now there is unrecognizable garbage slang attempting to mimic the same poetic communication.

  250. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Dalrock says:

    “The problem is the normal feminist game of pretending laws are gender neutral won’t work in this case. The tax code isn’t family court or DV cases, where one by one some bureaucrat can magically decide that the woman always wins, but just this once. A bachelor tax in the modern era would have to be a tax on childless men and women, and this would hit the uber feminist women very hard since they tend to be both childless and financially successful. While bullets 1-3 in the OP are core to feminism, so is denying their very purpose. Furthermore, taxing those who don’t earn enough is downright regressive. Good luck feminists and Trad Cons on pushing that one through. Their hands are tied here due to the rest of the cultural marxist agenda.”

    Not too hard to do, raise the rate on single tax payers through the roof (gender neutral), make exceptions for primary custody parents (mostly women), people in college (mostly women), people in government jobs (er, “public service” again mostly women). They already do stuff like this with student loans. all in gender neutral terms.

    You can figure out all sorts of gender neutral ways to punish men for not marrying, it won’t work, you’ll just get more slacking and less work out of them, more living in the basements of their parents playing X-box. (they’ll tax the crap out of video games at some point)

    I don’t think women really understand how minimialist men can be, most of the shit they buy is to impress women, and if they don’t care about that (or learn that none of it matters as much as attitude) then they don’t buy it.

  251. Pingback: Hogyan fojtja meg a házasság lerombolása a feminista jóléti államot - Férfihang.hu

  252. Pingback: Why do about 70% of single / divorced / unmarried women vote Democrat? « Wintery Knight

  253. Pingback: POF 5 star of the week - Page 2

  254. Georgina says:

    The sad thing for women like myself, is that this nasty, ball-crushing feminism has a knock-on effect for traditional women like myself who want to have children and a husband to look after. We basically have to have sham careers to support ourselves for a long period of time because of the situation feminists have created. Also, now that we are the minority, we are looked down on by other women and the men who do not see why they should have to support women anymore. I want to have doors held open for me and someone to stand up for me on the train – I didn’t ask for this nonsense “equality” and for women to emasculate men, yet I have been pulled along for the ride. It makes me very angry.

  255. Cohab Monkey says:

    “The problem with entitlement democracy is that you eventually run out of other people’s babies.”

    http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/12/10/will_aging_childless_voters_enslave_my_future_grandchildren_100034.html

  256. Pingback: In Search of the Peter Pan Manboy. | Dalrock

  257. Pingback: A normalização das mães solteiras | Canal do Búfalo

  258. Pingback: Let them eat cake. | Dalrock

  259. K Egle says:

    I believe that the hardcore feminists profit at the expense of all women. I fail too see how feminists help all those single mothers on welfare. Since I was a child in the 60s I have watched feminism destroy the family unit and create a sick society of miserable people. Corporate America embraced the movement because women entering the workforce drove down the cost of labor. That is why a two-income household is necessary to have the same standard of living that use to be sustainable on one income. Before feminism, intelligent women taught school. Now, they pursue higher paying careers. Thus our qualify of education suffered. I do not have a problem with women in the work force, but I have a problem with the double standard where if a man chooses to stay in the home he is stigmatized as a dead-beat loser. If the same man were to divorce, the courts would still grant custody to the working mom. We have created a matriarchal society that is chauvinistic towards men.

  260. Pingback: Feminism And Hating Women | Western Woes

  261. Bill says:

    Damage is already done – more mess to follow!

  262. Tom says:

    First I must say thank you Dalrock for this fantastic blog.

    “Why America’s widening fertility class divide is a problem.”
    Really this is true of most first world countries.

    I think of what would have been at the time, ancient first world countries. Like Babylon, Greece, Egypt, Rome. All have declined dramatically. The side effect of these civilizations was it allowed those who would have done nothing to create a first world country to out multiply those that were the creators of the lifestyle of prosperity. I think history is in a sense is repeating itself. Feminism is accelerating the decline of the West.

    I think of the mongol hordes and others like them, a small number of warriors, conquering the remains of the decayed former first world. This may happen again – hundreds of years in the future.

    One new thing is the mobility of people, we can easily move to another part of the world which does not have much feminist influence. Things can change, like the American city Detroit, once the wealthiest city in America now near the bottom. Could something like this happen in Silicon Valley?
    Over half are foreign born, while not a dominant trend many return to there home country.

    While not the intention of feminism, the laws it has created are used for social control, like Christianity in the distant past. The church at one time had standing armies, remember the wars of religion. Some of the justification for America invading Iraq and Afghanistan was to force instill feminist principals on those populations.

    American Christianity operationally is a completely different religion compared to the distant past.

  263. Ow well, who is John Gault?

  264. Pingback: Changing horses mid-race: why do feminists oppose the elimination of lifetime alimony? | Sunshine Mary

  265. Andrew says:

    “The manosphere may not like this result but the fact is that women have been able to effectively compete with men when the shackles of social convention have been removed”

    This fucking guy. Social convention removed? I agree. But what about the other part of the equation, aka shaming men, attacking men, raising men like pussies, so they are effectively unable to compete at all? Feminists took a great shortcut into inserting women in the work place. They did so by destroying men first.

  266. Opus says:

    I was not quite sure where to write this but this thread is perhaps closer than most. I have long been somewhat puzzled as to exactly why and how someone like Glenn Stanton, who from the video that I saw seems like a populizing rabble-rouser – and looking eminently shifty – has a position of influence in the U.S.A. He is after all (surely) just that bit better at self-promotion than his rivals, and of course using all the latest technology to preach his message of fire and brimstone to men.

    Consider therefore the position on this side of the Pond where no one is religious but where a thunderous pronouncement by The Archbishop of Canterbury will make the top headline news – as today – and what is the Archbishop incensed about? Dead-beat Dads perhap? Of course not; he is concerned, as he puts it, about the Culture of Entitlement in the countries Banking Sector. Now as most people are not Bankers this will go down very well, although coming from a former Oil-Man (of, somewhat bizarrely, Jewish parentage it may be worth mentioning) it strikes me as a bit rich, and then again there are those who will say that Archbishop’s don’t do badly either – even your humble parish Vicar on £23,000 a year – paid by The State – has his lodging provided for free, and very nice lodging The Vicarage usually is too – I recall going to visit my local Vicar for his written recomendation when I was about eighteen, not that I was a Parishoner of his. Very civilized I thought.

    The Chief Rabbi, or The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster occasionally make great moral statements but not being the leader of the Established Church it is for that reason that their pronouncements carry less moral weight. Any other Ordained Minister further down the food-chain will thus make even less effect were he to attempt similar pronouncement, and The Archbishop’s Attack will be one which the P.M. will consider carefully, needing especially diplomatic language should he attempt a rebuttal. Let us not forget that it was one of the present Archbishop’s predecessors – a certain Thomas Beckett – who reduced the then monarch to a despairing request for someone to rid him of ‘this turbulent priest’. That is how it is over here – I once saw a performance of the play on the subject done in Rochester Cathedral, (wrong Cathedral I know) so I know what the murder of an Archbishop looks like. Let’s hope the present incumbent does not infuriate that much.

    Is there any likelihood, I wonder, as to whether Glenn Stanton will in the future, or has in the past, attacked American Bankers?

  267. natedrescher says:

    Reblogged this on Nate Drescher and commented:
    Informative post about the self-defeating nature of feminism.

  268. not_PC says:

    “The Forbes article cites the NY Times piece, and in an added twist of irony manages to conflate fatherhood and parenthood just in time to miss the point:

    Stories about divorced Spanish or Italian young fathers sleeping on the streets or in their cars is not exactly a strong advertising for parenthood.”

    Not quite. They — perversely — hit the nail on the head. Men see this and are turned off from pursuing becoming a father. Women see this and can’t find a suitable mate. No one gives a damn after this. So, in this case, it’s more appropriate to call it parenthood.

  269. Tom says:

    Thank you Dalrock as always.
    The purpose of debt and money? To keep people honest.
    In general women consume far more than they produce.
    The housing bubbles unpaid debts mostly went to women. This debt was effectively monetized by the FED.

    The current education bubble, women are the largest beneficiaries of this. Women will get some man to pay there debts or just not pay them off, I think that is called default. I predict in one way or another the FED will monetize this debt.

    This could be used as an economic stimulus depending on how weighted down by student loans the population at large is, that is they are unable to get credit because of this. Also the amount they cannot spend because they service there debt. Many do not pay any Student loan debt back so this would have no effect .

  270. Tom says:

    I knew this was coming considering who was holding all that debt in the current education bubble.
    Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2013
    When you cant get a man to pay your debts the answer is to cry and complain and refuse to make good on your debt obligations. When it comes to paying debt women are deadbeats of the highest order.

  271. BigMobe says:

    If only I could have been born 50 years from now to see the carnage.

  272. Luke says:

    Andrew says:
    April 24, 2013 at 11:00 am

    “The manosphere may not like this result but the fact is that women have been able to effectively compete with men when the shackles of social convention have been removed”

    Which explains why there are SO many womyn Field’s Medal winners. (It’s the equivalent of a Nobel Prize in Mathematics.)

  273. Zap says:

    Why do anti-feminist must be also dumb conservatives also ? :(
    I was on board with EVERYTHING you said until you went and claimed “oh social security is bad” “oh see teh socialist system is bad”.
    This is just baloney and you know it. Economic problems aren’t caused by feminists alone but by stratification of this society by CLASS.
    Rich and poor.
    Feminism is just cashing in.

    [D: Welcome Zap. Which commenter are you responding to? I don't see where anyone made the statement you are quoting.]

  274. Pingback: Forfeiting The Patriarchal Dividend | Dalrock

  275. Pingback: How the destruction of marriage is strangling the feminist welfare state |

  276. Pingback: How the destruction of marriage is strangling the feminist welfare state | Fighting Feminism

  277. Pingback: Supreme Court approves live-in relationships, asks Parliament to enact law

  278. Pingback: How the destruction of marriage is strangling the feminist welfare state

  279. Pingback: Where are all these ‘make-work’ jobs for women? | bodycrimes

  280. Andren Ess says:

    The gender paradigm is as was a forecast by the federal reserve nothing new,and other than the lamentations for yesteryear thinkers. which is well documented by the constant war drum of Gender polarization in so many places. Why are we now and only recently just breaking through on a five decade journey, Perhaps we could even go further back to quote Balfort Bax, http://womanandhersphere.com/2012/08/09/382/ who wrote ‘The subjugation of Men’, and the inequities of the legal system, this written way back in 1908. Moving to the early 1550’s we have the reformation of marriage and subsequently the formation of the UDMA committee. One in which the correspondence and minutes are replete with some very dissatisfying conclusions,which if memory serves correctly came up with some arguments involving opening pandora’s box, in addition to the fundamental argument of equality. The committee simply argued for the disposable male or father, nothing less. Pursuant to this and the disposing of common law in practice in favor of statutory law,a new article IV court was formed and marriages were reformed as dissolution, or in statute ‘No fault’ and the reassignment of marriage to one of gender roles not equality and civil with criminal enforcement of that role..

    In practice however when children are involved the courts acting under this mandate are required to find fault, and to create a captive clientele by fee and blackmail to simply redesign the marriage around incomes and federal fiscal incentives.

    Is it not In fact a case that we would find it hard pressed to find any case that regardless of whether the parents are rich or poor, these courts have not turned to a formulation that creates a string of self awarding windfalls that have been depleting the public purse andthat of its clients, or are is as its source an overarching system that compels the actors and associated agencies within the legal system to achieve the monetary rewards for carrying out as alluded to by many posters some social objective.

    In my own experience I found it so difficult to overcome the menagerie of agencies who require feeding by fee and appointed schedule of fee splitting. Some of the things and tests I had to do. I would wish on no man and feel for every guy that has has his soul ripped out and shoved up his nether regions for no better reason than interacting with vindictive Medea.

    The courts it appears will at the behest and orders give cause for actions against one particular gender to achieve its goals at whatever cost and to be able toqualify the childre on the IV-d program, under title ucc 42.. There appears to be no limit to the public funding and there is no low down practice that is left unturned to coerce clients of these courts or the very same judges mandatory objective or on some judicial nonesense a decree by fiat. No male as a general rule should expect any meaningful contact with their former children without the consent and approval of the mother, and no male should expect any more than the pareto formulation devised by the federal reserve which is four days per month and holidays as long as the mother approves.

    In terms of extending this new method of law, this has been the application in most inter gender related cases involving unmarried couples without children , and even as reported fictitious and factitious couples. In these courts a male from a factitious situation can and will recieve orders from a fictitious creation. It may even be the assignment of parenthood to a child of no relation, with no sexaul relationship and even geographically impossible. One may be even convicted of a crime by a simple statement, there is no need to be present at the scene of the alleged crime and those allegations are if not refuted in a timely and often expensive legal consultation can and may result in a period of incarceration and worse if the factitious and fictitious crime involves some form of factitiotus sexual interaction. For fathers of children this is what is known in the trade as the silver bullet. Such heinous accusations often follow a period that may reach into years where the states self endorses its position that the father should have little if any contact with the children, and this action can and will be repeated as many times as is necessary to ensure the testicular endowed blaggard is no longer a viable parent based on the legislative rules used to enforce and qualify the states argument.
    In the ensuing decades we have developed the male only rape culture and of course in cases of child custody the lesser but still highly pervasive male only child abuse and incest culture. Secretly resolved by these courts by alienating the children and the subsequent indoctrination of the same to reinforce a formulated outcome.
    While as yet I am trying to grasp the argument in terms of understanding how each viewpoint is simply a predictable product of economic policy, and dependent on how you were spoon fed your social education or upbringiing. Since it is all very simple, we need to look at the source of the gender paradigm, feminism sure, but that is the commercial arm and PR division of many who are slaves and beneficiaries to it. Mainly for financial incentives, what better tool for todays consumer mindset.

    So who is FEMINISM Inc or LLC and what isit;s voting franchise, well we certainly know a lot of the advertising agencies who are well paid for previously with VAWA funds from the federal agency authorization ways and means committee and the state budgets so heavily dependent on it for their budgets. Certainly a large percentage of what appears to be the production of and endorsement academic gender specific maligning studies with grant attached for specific expert viewpoints.
    So we are dealing with policy and policies need a grass roots agency. All these things are discussed in the archives of federal research, not on money issues, but population and economic policy.

    I have found what I believe is the monetary argument for abortion, the monetary argument for feminism, heck I have I believe even discerned the method in many. yet even if the research is there it is obscured in math and the science of economics. Which to my mind is the front face and mingling of all the hard sciences in the consumers purview and worldview.

    If the federal reserve can predict boomerang children decades before the event, what else does it know and how. For the female I believe a fate far worse awaits them far more than those currently assigned to males who have problems overcoming the natural urge to serve and protect. When what they used to protect is the front end of something possibly very insidious. We will not know for sure until the event arrives.

    Hopefully since males natural ally in life is probably at this time servile to another purpose, it will arise that males as in previous waves of feminism turn on females as a product of the state and also find as in Rome or even Greece, too base and repugnant to consort with. Or as has been suggested seek better maidens in shores afar, the Spartans sought to kindle and marry servants than their own females. Soldiers of Rome, even when called by their generals to create new citizens turned tail and ran. While technologies may differ, the principal economics and results are always a reliable source by virtue of attempting to repeat history and expect different results unless we are dealing with something that has a deliberate and necessary outcome.

  281. Pingback: Progress | Dalrock

  282. SchadenfreudianSlip says:

    “If the next economic collapse is as bad as I think it will be, then I foresee a mass exodus of single men from the United States. Meanwhile, single mothers are stuck in place and forced to witness the havoc they helped cause.” [from Westsnow, above]

    Agreed…yet they still won’t be able to exercise the kind of intellectual curiosity or honesty to analyze effectively their roles–and the roles of the sociopathic politicians who used them as pawns to do evil biddings–in contributing to its demise. They’ll just be stuck, child-burdened and bitter, blinking in silent, mouth-agape dismay at the crumbled society and smoking ruin of dreams and fantasies insane hucksters and misanthropic charlatans conned them into buying.

  283. Pingback: So, Ladies, You Want a Career? - Return of Queens

  284. Opus says:

    I have been re-reading this for a couple of days now, and have come to the conclusion that both Dalrock and the Social Pathologist are mistaken: mistaken because they both accept the rather fanciful notion that until about 1960 women were being held back from competing with men. That is broadly just not true. Women have always been able to work indeed not-working was only the preserve of the very wealthy – and a state to which women aspired – but what women did not do were certain types of work by reason of its physical risks and demands and also certain white-collar jobs partly by reason of a bar on female entrants to the Professions but also because it was recognised socially that if men were thrown out of those jobs then women would have no one worth-while to marry – and thus provide for them. This was probably more for the benefit of women (and children) than men – who are always happy to have female figure to gaze at as they work.

    What happened was that as a result of male-invented technology thus taking a lot of the drudgery even out of white-collar work it was possible to facilitate females in make-work occupations and pay these same women telephone-number salaries; being single (and not celibates) this drove female promiscuity – women not being particularly promiscuous unless someone very attractive is available (their hypergamous instincts being switched off by reason of their salaries). This then drove their Princess syndrome where they are too good for everything and everyone – male facilitation of females merely confirming them in their beliefs.

    Sexual Liberation and Economic Empowerment go hand-in-hand for women.

  285. Helen says:

    This is completely bogus, male ego petting. Get off your high horse and stop feeling sorry for yourself.
    First off, my mother was married when my siblings and I were born. My brother’s father left her for a secretary, is now a millionaire and has never had any other children. My mother basically raised the three of us alone as she has been cheated on used or abused in every marriage or relationship she attempted to have. She was the primary income in all but one pairing (my brother’s father.) she has never taken anything from her husbands (my brother’s father wanted custody but he was a child predator.) except an almost insulting $600 a year in child support. Our men are sluts, gamers and lazy frat boys. I have yet to meet a single man my age who is more than an overgrown shaving boy.
    You want marriages to work out? Look no further than a mirror. We are people. Not maids or baby ovens.
    Men need to learn to split work, ALL OF IT, at least somewhere near 50/50. Women are the breadwinners in 54% of family house holds in America right now, and still do 80% of house work and child care according to surveys given to both genders.
    I clean (my boyfriends house too!), I cook, I work, I go to school, I want kids one day and men I meet want a fling and not a family. I’m half way to ending another relationship because after I work all day, I mow his yard, clean my self up and get cute, fold his laundry, cook dinner while I study and come in to entice him off his computer to come eat… he says just a minute and plays DOTA for another hour and a half… I found out one guy I was seeing had a whole other relationship going on the side! Since 8 years before he met me.
    The only thing that’s wrong, is your mothers all raising you to be spoiled whiny bitches who can’t boil and egg never mind run a family. GROW UP!!

    At this rate I’m going to go get artificially knocked up and start a family with a lesbian partner, because at least she would be willing to help care for a family!!!

  286. JDG says:

    Helen before you do the lesbian thing could you get back in the kitchen and make us all a sammich?

  287. TFH says:

    JDG,

    Do you really believe Helen has the skills to make a sandwich that you would actually want to eat?

    You are giving her far, far too much credit.

    Government-subsidized creatures like Helen exist only to vote for expansions of the police state. Look what she wrote :

    First off, my mother was married when my siblings and I were born. My brother’s father left her for a secretary, is now a millionaire and has never had any other children. My mother basically raised the three of us alone as she has been cheated on used or abused in every marriage or relationship she attempted to have.

    Wait…. her brother’s father is not HER father (especially since she has siblings and non half-siblings)?

    Also, Helen said ‘every marriage’. So her mother had multiple marriages?

    Helen,

    Shouldn’t you be writing love letters to serial killers? Why are you taking the day off?

  288. Luke says:

    Oh, and Helen:

    1) If you and your mother only have bad relationships, well, guess what is the only thing in common in them? That’s right, you and your mother. Perhaps you two should stop picking exciting bad boys, and pick dull steady men? (Try Williston, North Dakota; practically all men there are employed, many with $100,000/year jobs, albeit blue-collar.)

    2) With your b*tchiness, on top of the current legal deal on divorce, why are you surprised no man wants to marry you?

    3) If you have a child outside of a heterosexual marriage, your child will be a bastard. This is true whatever a liberal, insane, and temporary unit of government may say.

  289. JDG says:

    @TFH
    I was going to mention that collecting a welfare check doesn’t make one a bread winner and that women these days need to learn how to cook and clean (and make sammiches), but I figured what’s the use and deleted my comment before posting.

    After reading the comments she still doesn’t even realize how much about herself and her mother she has told us. She is completely unconcerned that big daddy government could one day be doing to her future sons as it is doing to so many fathers today.

    I think baby mamas with children from multiple daddies is a sure sign of our decline.

  290. The Grand Cannon says:

    “The origin of the lazy husband myth lies in part in UC Berkeley professor Arlie Hochschild’s best-selling 1989 book The Second Shift, in which she claimed that “women work an extra month of 24 hour days each year.” Just as the media has rushed to publicize Thompson’s housework “strike,” Hochschild’s factoid was repeated uncritically (and unmercifully) by major media.

    Yet Hochschild’s conclusions were deeply flawed. As gender issues author Warren Farrell notes, Hochschild unfairly compared the housework burdens of full-time employed males with those of part-time employed females.”

    North American and Western European men are generally very good about doing our fair share of the cooking and cleaning. And we generally tend to be pretty good at those skills as well. That’s one of the things Asian and other non-European women love about us.

  291. Luke says:

    FYI, GC, if a husband is working way more hours than his also-working wife, OR if she is SAH, then “his share” of the housework may be very little.

    What’s this “we”, anyway? I thought you were a broad.

  292. The Grand Cannon says:

    “The sad thing for women like myself, is that this nasty, ball-crushing feminism has a knock-on effect for traditional women like myself who want to have children and a husband to look after. We basically have to have sham careers to support ourselves for a long period of time because of the situation feminists have created. ”

    No you don’t. Just continue living with your parents after you graduate high school while working at a fast food joint. Since a woman’s education and socio-economic status doesn’t matter to men, no doubt a university graduated, professionally employed, upper middle class man will ask you out one day over his order of high fructose corn syrup Coke and GMO French fries. That date will quickly escalate into a relationship and you will soon find yourself married and moved into his beautiful home in a wealthy suburb.

    That’s what the other guys at this site are saying anyway.

    Do you believe them?

  293. Luke says:

    Sigh. If she’s white/North Asian, under 23 YO, fit (H/W proportional, woman-length hair (e.g., at least to shoulders), debt-free, bright, healthy, openly marriage-minded, not a domestic duties dodger, clearly not a feminist, pleasant, and a REAL virgin (all 3 orifices + hands), wants kids, and clearly would be affectionate (implying more on regular basis for her husband), drugless, and preferably Christian, she’ll be beating them off with a stick. Sure, blond/redhead, at least a C-cup, and open about wanting to homeschool would help, but those aren’t crucial, as low as the example most women have to beat these days to stand out.

  294. JDG says:

    Do you believe them?

    She’s got a better chance at a fast food joint then accruing mountains of debt for useless degrees that won’t impress anyone except effeminate males and other women (and I’m not even sure about the effeminate males).

  295. Luke says:

    Also: parents still married to each other, good relationship with her father, owns no cats (and never would), likes dogs over 40 pounds, does not own an excessive amount of cr*p, not against guns or hunting, nonvegetarian, enjoys fishing on occasion, not a liberal politically.

  296. The Grand Cannon says:

    In the United States people very rarely marry across vastly divergent socio-economic class lines. A fast food worker, no matter how cute nor how high of character, simply won’t get the university educated, professionally employed upper middle class guy. First, the upper middle class professional won’t be chowing down on tater sticks deep fried in genetically modified soybean oil, he’ll be getting his locally sourced, organic wheat grass shot at Whole Foods. Where, as it so has it, other above average IQ university educated, professionally employed, upper middle class, hot, fit and health conscious people are lunching. That’s the type of place he’ll find a girlfriend, not Mickey D’s.

    Our cute, high character fast food worker will be dating the cutest guy working at Mickey D’s. The most either of them could have once hoped for without a college degree is working their way up Ronald’s food chain to “manager” – but not so anymore. Now Ronald directly hires college grads to management positions and servers stay put – for years.

    Class, its a thing.

  297. jf12 says:

    The apex fallacy, it should be seen as a boulder in your eye, not a mote. “Where’s all the above average guys for all the below average gals, huh?”

  298. Luke says:

    Nah. She’ll look down on her work peers BC of hypergamy. She MIGHT date the manager.
    Say, if she cashiers at Whole Foods, she could easily meet that young (under 34 YO )single degreed male professional. Even easier if she works at Starbucks; lots of starving ($$ and romance) STEM graduate students go there. They do eventually graduate, and if she starts husband hunting pre-24, she doesn’t have to hold out for one who’s already graduated and has the good job, just one clearly headed there.

  299. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Where’s all the above average guys for all the below average gals, huh?”

    Ask Luke. He’s the one pimping that myth. I’m the one hammering home the obvious (look around you next time you’re out) fact of assortive mating.

    And that is one reason why women should never forego higher education. The highly educated man will see the high school grad working at Ronald’s with no other ambitions in life than to get married and despite all her other possible good qualities, see someone with low character, no ambition or drive, no future time orientation and worse yet, parents who do not value drive, ambition or higher education for their genetic offspring. He’ll see bad breeding and lack of acculturation no matter the pretty face or cup size. But really, he won’t see anything because he doesn’t look at the Golden Arches and its employees are completely off his radar.

    “Say, if she cashiers at Whole Foods, she could easily meet that young (under 34 YO )single degreed male professional.”

    Nope. Still out of her league. But….

    His name is Ethan and one day while ponying up to the juice bar for is daily wheat grass shot a spritely young lass name Emily sits down beside him and orders a kombucha. He asks her how it is and she proudly informs him that the only reason she’s buying one is because her sister borrowed her “mother” and thus she was unable to make her own batch this week. Seeing an “in” Ethan pipes up, “Oh you make it. You know I’ve always wanted to learn how.” Emily quickly pulls out a flyer from her fair trade Guatamalan knitted handbag and tells him about the kombucha and fermented food workshop she’s giving at Seven Chakras Yoga Studio across town on Saturday. Ethan smiles, “Yes I know that place. They used to have a fantastic anusara class there before the John Friend scandal broke and the instructor was no longer considered Yoga Alliance certified. By the way my name is Ethan and I’m an aerospace engineer. I see from your flyer that your name is Emily. What else do you do, Emily?”

    “I graduated top of my class at med school, both of my parents are surgeons, but I felt something was missing. Modern medicine treats the symptoms, not the root cause of disease. I wanted to go deeper so I turned down a lucrative position at X General Hospital to internship at the Ann Wigmore Institute in Puerto Rico. Now I’m Chief Executive Sprouter at the Hippocrates Institute where we cure cancer with living foods. Oh sorry, the FDA says we can’t use the word “cure”, but you know what I mean. I save lives and teach others how to do the same. My next project is to start a large food co-op comprised of every organic farmer within a 50 mile radius of here and to get knowledge of living foods and their curing abilities into the hands of the underprivileged. I’m passionate about “food justice”.

    Ethan thinks to himself, “She’s obviously bright and above average IQ even if she did turn down a lucrative position as an internal medicine specialist at the hospital. Its obvious that she comes from good stock, she’s just not greedy, which I guess could be a good sign.”

    So that’s the type of woman our above average IQ, university educated, professionally employed, upper middle class yuppie man might settle for. Not a cashier.

  300. MarcusD says:

    For middle-class men, high physical attractiveness can render women desirable for dating, sexual relationships, and even marriage regardless of their occupation, income, and education — provided that they do not exhibit the obvious trappings of a lower-class status and lifestyle. In comparison, women appear unwilling to date, marry, or have sexual relations with low-income, uneducated males regardless of the men’s physiognomies and physiques.

    Women with higher SES have higher socioeconomic standards for their male partners (Townsend 1989, 1998; Wiederman and Allgeier 1992). Higher-status women may shift their economic standards because they judge their own mate value to be higher — even though their income and occupational prestige are relatively unimportant to men. Alternatively, they may simply believe that men with inferior status and earning power offer few advantages and therefore do not merit their (the women’s) investment. These explanations are not mutually exclusive (Townsend 1998).

    Townsend, John Marshall, and Timothy Wasserman. “Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria.” Evolution and Human Behavior 19.3 (1998): 171 -191.

  301. JDG says:

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 8, 2014 at 11:53 pm

    I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you really don’t know what you are talking about.

  302. The Grand Cannon says:

    “For middle-class men, high physical attractiveness can render women desirable for dating, sexual relationships, and even marriage regardless of their occupation, income, and education — provided that they do not exhibit the obvious trappings of a lower-class status and lifestyle.”

    Precisely! Working at a fast food chain and not simultaneously pursuing higher education is exhibiting a very obvious trapping of a lower class status and lifestyle.

    “In comparison, women appear unwilling to date, marry, or have sexual relations with low-income, uneducated males regardless of the men’s physiognomies and physiques.”

    Marry no. Sex? Depends on the ethnic background of the male. If he’s “exotic cock” fodder, anything goes. There’s even a sex-tourist industry built around it.

    “Women with higher SES have higher socioeconomic standards for their male partners”.

    Of course. That’s why Emily would marry Ethan but not the hot bus boy who comes to her yoga class (but she’ll have a fling with him if he’s “exotic cock” category).

    So yeah, everything confirms the fact that humans rarely marry across vastly divergent class lines.

  303. MarcusD says:

    @The Grand Cannon

    I don’t think you fully understand the excerpt I posted (I recommend reading the entire paper).

  304. The Grand Cannon says:

    I totally get it. People generally do not marry across vastly divergent class lines (your own neighborhood confirms this, as does mine). Sometimes a middle-middle class man might marry a lower-middle class woman if she veers more in lifestyle, habits and aspiration toward the class immediately above her (his class) rather than the class immediately below her.

    What has been common sense and common practice for eons doesn’t need a book to be written about it because its all laid out before our eyes in every day life, everywhere we go.

    Only a blind man needs to be told what’s in front of him.

  305. Luke says:

    “I graduated top of my class at med school”

    BWAHAHAHA! A guy who wants children and for them to be raised NOT by day care/nanny would do well to forgo an M.D. chick as a wife prospect. (I know, I did just that once.)

    Oh, and “intern” is the term for a 3rd or 4th year med student. I suspect you meant “resident” (who works over 100 hours most weeks, commonly including two 36-hour shifts, making less than minimum wage per hour, maybe 40K a year last I heard).
    A guy who can get past the hypergamy of a chick with a med school degree (who falsely thinks that makes her more attractive to men with decent prospects for an income, who might actually want children, who’d need a mother, and maybe to see his wife occasionally) can afford to provide for a family. Still, just hypothetically, how would this work?

    Let’s do the math here.
    First, she goes to college at age 18.
    She graduates from college with a hard-science B.S. Those usually take 5 years. That puts her at age 23.
    It might take her a year to get into medical school. Best/worst cases, 23/24 to start.
    Medical schools take 4 years IF you don’t flunk any classes. If you do, you repeat a whole year.
    We’re at 27/29, just at med school graduation day.
    Let’s say she wants to be a neurosurgeon. That takes 7 years for the residency.
    But, she could go to a program that gets closed down, losing a year in transferring (this happened to my closest friend, who is a practicing general surgeon today.
    Likewise, she could well have been foolish enough (or unlucky, in that only such a place accepted her for residency) to end up in a pyramidal residency program. That’s where, say, they have 20 1st year slots, but decreasing each year down to, say, only 5 7th year slots. She again loses a year transferring residency programs. (Also happened to my friend.) That’s best/worst at the end of residency of age 34/38.
    But, she has over a quarter million in debt, that will take her at least two, probably more like at least 4 years to pay off. (No chick who’d agree to marry, is worth marrying if you have to pay off her $250,000.00+ debt.) Now, she’s somewhere between 36 to 42, and has finally just broken even in her career.

    Oh, yeah, she’s going to be ready to abandon her career, right then, after decades of brutally hard studies and work, a poster child for deferred gratification, to have that ONE IVF baby, about another DECADE after meeting her perfect guy. (Think he’ll want to wait that long after marriage to have a kid? Odds are fair that she’d divorce him long before then, anyway.) Oops, there’s another hundred grand for the IVF for the egg donor (so it won’t even be her kid genetically), and probably a gestational surrogate to boot.

    Now, if a MAN had become the surgeon, then, it works out. A man is normally still fully fertile at age 36-42 or so. (I conceived my very healthy twins at age 48.) It’s not widely known, but much of the little decrease in fertility/baby health from a genetic father being middle-aged is eliminated by him conceiving a child with a young (under age 26) mother. 40/2 = 20; add 7, get 27. So if the doc is the male, a full family can result. (He doesn’t gestate or lactate, so can keep working during pregnancies, a good thing since his family will want to eat, sleep under a roof, etc.)

    See, GC, you’re either thinking of a couple being DINKs (Double Income No Kids), or that becoming (and usually being) a doc is an 8-5 M-F job. It’s anything but. That makes a doctor a lousy choice for a man who wishes to have a full-sized (3 or more, so is at least at replacement rate) family at reasonable age spread from a mother who is young enough for the kids to be healthy, and can actually spend time on them. (A dating relationship with a medical resident is one where you see them about once every two weeks, and they fall asleep an hour or two after you get together at least one of those times.)

    If you’re thinking that there is a good chance of a careerist woman getting a DINK marriage, forget it. For all but VERY religious men, marriage simply isn’t worth the divorce court risk if there aren’t probably going to be children born from it. If the guy liked the doc chick (meeting her in her late 30s so she MIGHT have some kind of time to date more than once or twice a month), he’d just date her. When it comes time for him to marry (because he wants children), he needs an under-30 woman. If he’s the doctor, or a status/income equivalent like a graduate engineer, he can score those. (Even ugly male doctors have nurses blatantly pursuing them, once post-residency.)

    This woman MD is likely to have her dating life to be STRs in her late 30s and during her 40s, then cats thereafter. Better by far she got no more than a B.S., then married. Even a 2-year degree would do, if it were in accounting (think taxes and bookkeeping), cooking, a 2-year nursing degree, etc., something that ADDS to a successful man’s marriage and family.
    I have an M.S. and married a woman with some college, but no degree. She’s plenty smart, but her job is our kids and home, just the way both of us want it. A lesson there…

  306. Luke says:

    Re the “trappings of a lower-class lifestyle”:

    First, if her parents are clearly upper-middle class, that helps a LOT. Being untattoed/unpierced (beyond a SINGLE normal earring per ear), speaking like an educated person, nontrashy clothes, limited or not profanity, etc. complete the picture. If her possessions and hobbies are not lower-class, she’s in like Flynn. Being raised well, and having attended a competitive high school can accomplish all this. Note that the younger she is, the more forgiving other people (including potential UMC husbands) for immature behavior, up to a point. (Sluttery, drugs, illegal or violent behavior are outright “Nexts!” at any age.)

  307. The Grand Cannon says:

    “First, if her parents are clearly upper-middle class, that helps a LOT. ”

    If her parents are UMC, she will be highly educated. The “trappings of a lower class lifestyle” are the fast food joint working girls who are not simultaneously pursuing higher education. They obviously aren’t the daughters of UMC parents.

    “Oh, and “intern” is the term for a 3rd or 4th year med student. I suspect you meant “resident” (who works over 100 hours most weeks, commonly including two 36-hour shifts, making less than minimum wage per hour, maybe 40K a year last I heard).”

    That was in reference to Emily. Reread her story. She quite mainstream medicine, turned down a lucrative offer in it, to “intern” or “resident’ at the Anne Wigmore Institute in Puerto Rico. Please google that to find out what it is and just what sort of “residency” she would have done there.

    Long story short: Emily is self-employed, not a cog in the mainstream machine. Her schedule is flexible.

  308. The Grand Cannon says:

    “This woman MD is likely to have her dating life to be STRs in her late 30s and during her 40s, then cats thereafter.”

    Not in the US. University degreed, professionally employed, upper middle class women like doctors are the last standing demographic of women who still get legally and often religiously married and are the demographic with the lowest divorce rate.

  309. Luke says:

    If your hypothetical woman graduated from medical school, she MUST complete a residency to practice any kind of medicine in the U.S. and all its territories. Even General Practitioners (called “Family Practice” now) have to complete one before they can work outside a residency program. They aren’t even LPNs til then, outside a res prog. That’s called “no (legally) marketable skills”.
    I suppose there’s always back-alley illegal abortion mills, injecting silicone weatherproofing into illegal aliens, and such, but those pay not so well, and tend to eventually result in JAIL. She could always go to the 3rd World; local MDs (uncertified in the West) make under a grand a month most such places…

  310. Luke says:

    “This woman MD is likely to have her dating life to be STRs in her late 30s and during her 40s, then cats thereafter.”

    Not in the US. University degreed, professionally employed, upper middle class women like doctors are the last standing demographic of women who still get legally and often religiously married and are the demographic with the lowest divorce rate.”

    Re their marriage (and childbearing) rate, your information is dated. I suggest you take a look at Sylvia Ann Hewlett’s book “Creating A Life”, and any of the “Where Are All The Good Men?” books (for careerist unwilling spinsters) for an update.

  311. deti says:

    “University degreed, professionally employed, upper middle class women like doctors are the last standing demographic of women who still get legally and often religiously married and are the demographic with the lowest divorce rate.”

    Perhaps, but one of the main reasons UMCers stay married is because of FTO and their awareness of the stakes. Many of them are not staying married for love or out of respect for notions of traditional marriage.

  312. The Grand Cannon says:

    “If your hypothetical woman graduated from medical school, she MUST complete a residency to practice any kind of medicine in the U.S. and all its territories. ”

    I wrote that she turned down that offer and flew to Puerto Rico to learn Ann Wigmore’s protocol. Now she’s Chief Executive Sprouter at the Hippocrates Institute in Fort Lauderdale, FL (google it).

    “Many of them are not staying married for love or out of respect for notions of traditional marriage.”

    So what?

  313. Dalrock you paint a terrifying picture.

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