Suzanne Venker on what men are good for.

A year ago Suzanne Venker famously asked:  Marriage: What’s in It for Men?

…we must retract the message Boomers sent young women about female empowerment. Indeed, it isn’t a coincidence that marriage rates have plummeted alongside America’s fascination with the feminist movement. Empowerment for women, as defined by feminists, neither liberates women nor brings couples together. It separates them. It focuses on women as perpetual victims of the Big Bad Male. Why would any man want to get married when he’s been branded a sexist pig at “hello”? In the span of just a few decades, women have managed to demote men from respected providers and protectors to being unnecessary, irrelevant, and downright expendable.

She was close to the core of the issue then, but was missing the key point of leadership.  Telling the man he is responsible for financing and protecting the family but not leading it places him in a subordinate role.  As others have pointed out, the difference between a driver and a chauffeur is who is calling the shots.  Far too many self labeled “traditionalist” women want to put men in the driver’s seat as figureheads with the wives calling the shots;  they are feminists who don’t want to get their hands dirty.  The issue of headship is the litmus test which separates out truly traditional women and feminists in traditionalist clothing.

Just this week Ms. Venker launched what has become a celebrated broadside against the results of feminism with her Fox News opinion piece The war on men.  The signature line of the piece is by now familiar to most readers:

Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.

The piece certainly has its merits, as Vox Day, Empathalogicalism, and LGR have already explained.  However, she still avoids the question of headship in the article.

In the meantime Ms. Venker spoke with the Daily Beast to correct the record:  ‘The War on Men’ Author Suzanne Venker: I’m Misunderstood! Venker explains (emphasis mine):

Women should understand that they absolutely can be strong and independent and be married, but that being feminine and vulnerable and taking on that more traditional role as being dependent on a man and letting him have some say in the matter is not wasting that empowerment. They are confusing what empowerment means. They think it’s about money and prestige, but there is a tremendous amount of empowerment in surrendering in the home and letting the man in your life be what he wants to be, which is to protect you and care for you and provide for you.

One might read that as suggesting that men are made to be servants to women, and women need to let men act as servants (and perhaps even consider their husband’s input when making decisions).  This of course sounds familiar.  She reinforces this concept later in the interview:

I work outside the home. My husband does his thing. No one would consider me a docile or obedient housewife…  I am married to a guy who works so that I can have a cushy writing life. That is the beauty of marriage.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Feminists, Finding a Spouse, Marriage, Solipsism. Bookmark the permalink.

190 Responses to Suzanne Venker on what men are good for.

  1. CL says:

    Just once I’d like to see one of these people who almost seem to get it actually get it. They always leave out headship; that seems to the most unpalatable part of it for women, yet it is the only way to make marriage what it was meant to be. The language of ‘letting’ a man do this or that is cringeworthy and further shows that ‘egalitarian’ is always femDOM; and you know full well that if a man said “I let my wife…” they would all go bananas.

    So close, yet so far.

  2. Matt says:

    I genuinely wish that women would understand what a marriage is supposed to look like. I still think that Athol Kay at MarriedManSexLife got it right. A man is supposed to be the Captain of the house and his wife is supposed to be the First Officer. Both roles are necessary, but different.

    This “Let him have some say” and “… a guy who works so that I can have a cushy writing life… ” misses the mark by a large margin. With descriptions like that, I can’t imagine why men don’t want to marry anymore.

  3. Tertioptus says:

    Yeah the true “L” word. Or the “H” word, that most are so afraid of.

    The following scripture is often taken out of context. Notice the semi-colon following the first verse. What does that mean? hmmm.

    Ephesians
    25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
    26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
    27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

    Many an effeminate preacher today loves proclaim that passage loudly, out of the shame of previously and sheepishly, no less, having to say “Wives, submit to your husbands”. They like to make it so the former didn’t have the power that was intended, by scaling up the latter.

    Truth is, the complementary verses to verse 25, further emphasizes the initial headship claim. Notice it says, “That he might present it to himself”. It’s still about him, but it is to her total benefit.

    Bible mad-libs. Why? justification: “even as Christ ”

    Christ and Church:
    The church fully submits to Christ. Christ loves the church, and will do anything to keep the church lovable to him. He will give his church a thorough cleaning, such that it will be to his liking. And forever cherish it, even if he has to die to do so.

    Man and Car (not really a car enthusiast myself, but you get it
    The car fully submits to man. Man loves the car, and will do anything to keep the car lovable to him. He will give his car thorough cleaning, such that it will be to his liking. And forever cherish it, even if he has to die (go broke w/time or money) to do so.

    Insert Husband and Wife.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Hmm, I wonder if the church will ever not see the glory of it’s relationship to Christ, and rebel against for a seemingly more prominent role. And thus forfeit the only washing that could keep it pure.

  4. Stig says:

    Oh gee, where do I sign up to pay for some chick’s cushy life sitting on her ass writing such crap?!?

  5. CL says:

    Another thing women don’t seem to grasp is that a man who is the leader of his family is perceived with a greater presence in the world – he feels it, and she feels it – and she reaps the rewards of that. Sure, the respect she will get isn’t entirely on her own merit and is secondary out of the respect he garners, kind of like the light of the moon, but it’s no less real or beautiful for that.

    How much women lose by trying to be suns in their own right. They put the light of men out and then they are nothing but a cold satellite. At the risk of straining the metaphor further than I already have, they also have an unreliable orbit; you can’t take your position or direction from the moon.

  6. Carnivore says:

    Letting a man have some say is just as ridiculous as states asking for secession.

  7. “Women should understand that they absolutely can be strong and independent and be married”

    You can be independent while attached to another person, huh? And while you’re at it, why not have some jumbo shrimp with a glass of dehydrated water.

  8. Ybm says:

    Well the absolute cherry on top is that a woman writing an article about women becomes an excuse to bash men of course as seen by Lauren Boyle in the Huffpo (not going to bother linking it).

    We like to say that women always blame their problems on men, but to actually see it in action puts a smile on many of our faces. To see a” woman who wrote an article about women ” become an excuse to belittle, demean, humiliate, mock, imply, whatever word you want, that men suck and women should hate them is really very, very, wonderful to my ears.

    Why bother writing anything when I can simply sit back and let the women speak for themselves about why men should avoid marriage, never cohabitate, work as minimally as it requires to be happy, live leisurely, and reasonably free!

    I mean I think we all knew that this was just rhetoric to promote a book, but seeing some of our Memes in public domain was a nice little reminder that someone is at the other end of the can-phone. I’ve spent the better part of a year, after the Sarah Walsh debacle of the manosphere, saying that feminism is starting to become a dirty word for the modern women burning out at 30, and they are going to start showing up in larger number speaking softly in nice words about home cooked meals, submissive wifey, high heels and short skirts, and big strong men. But they are still utterly feminist and female supremacist they just want to get the chains back on the men, because that collapse in marriage rates we’ve seen sure as hell is being noticed by them.

    Don’t be fooled men, it’s still a con game. Justice first, then reconciliation.

  9. FuriousFerret says:

    When you miss the main point of the whole patriarchy thing it’s essentially worthless.

    It’s simply throwing a dog a bone.

    I’ll just let him think he’s in charge. HAHAHA.

    That’s what our society does with men, they throw them a bone and hope they are too stupid or weak to notice. Here you go boy, here is some NFL football, here is some beer, here is some sex when I decide you can have it, here is a power tool, Goooood booy. Who’s a good boy?

    I balk at the concept of being the manipulated pet of my own household.

  10. taterearl says:

    The money quote is…

    “Let him have SOME say”…as in his say is good when I agree with it.

    No hon…let him have all the say (law abiding) even when you don’t agree with it…is the point you should be saying.

  11. ar10308 says:

    Even a female who wants to be in favor of men can’t divorce herself from arguing from the Feminine Imperative. It is like trying to stop a woman from Hamsterizing or being Solipsistic. It just isn’t possible without a massive paradigm shift within her mind.

  12. deti says:

    “Just once I’d like to see one of these people who almost seem to get it actually get it. They always leave out headship; that seems to the most unpalatable part of it for women, yet it is the only way to make marriage what it was meant to be.”

    A couple of thoughts:

    1. Dalrock is the first one to pick up on this from Venker’s article and the subsequent writings. Tradcons see male leadership as a “figurehead” — he’s the leader, but not really; he leads when the woman lets him. If it goes well, we both take credit; if it goes bad, he takes the blame ‘cuz he’s the leader.

    Stealth feminism and changing biblical principles once again to make them palatable and acceptable to women in their sight. It’s so subtle I didn’t even pick up on this myself until the Big D pointed it out.

    And most Christians won’t either. Most evangelical Christians’ view of biblical male leadership lines up exactly with the tradcon view: Husband leads when the wife wants him to or lets him. She is free to disobey or disregard his leadership if he is not meeting every condition she or her pastor or someone or something else has for it. If she believes he is in sin or disobedient, she can disobey or disregard him.

    2. This looks to me like another example ot deti’s Second Law: In any relationship between a man and woman described as egalitarian, the woman is the dominant partner.

  13. Tom says:

    I concur with CL’s first comment …. and you’ll notice the section (IN BOLD) “LETTING the man in your life be what he wants to be, which is to protect you and care for you and provide for you.”.

    EVERY man on the planet should read “The Manipulated Man”…… before a woman “lets” you be her slave. As if men everywhere are BEGGING her to be shackled.

    As CL said, she “SOUNDS” like she gets it, but women are so clueless on these matters.. they should be totally forbidden from opening their mouths on the subject.

    “LETTING a man provide for you (her).”

    “LETTING a man provide for you.”

    “LETTING a man provide for you.”

    Unbelievable.

    I remain eternally convinced that ALL – yes ALL – women are selfish beyond recognition or repair, and only care about their OWN selfish needs and interests. But NO man should EVER sign a marriage contract – especially to a woman who hates him so much that she would let him actually go through with it.

  14. ar10308 says:

    I’d like to add that a woman cannot escape her own frame. Every statement she makes is argued entirely with her frame being paramount.

  15. deti says:

    Male leadership is not “I will let him lead me. I will follow him when I agree with his decision or when it suits me or when I am ready to follow.”

    Male leadership is “He is the leader because I agreed to marry him and because it is what the Bible says. i will follow him because I agreed to submit myself to his leadership that God has rightfully placed over me.”

    First corollary to deti’s Second Law: In any relationship between two people, one participant is dominant, the other submissive.

    Somebody’s gotta be the Captain.

  16. Feminist Hater says:

    Always put what a woman says through the filter of :”What’s in it for me?”

    Feminism was for women, that didn’t work so well, so now, anti-feminism is for women too.

    Get back to work men, the wimmenz have spoken. In the closest approximation of GBFM, they’ve been thoroughly butthexxed lollzllzlzoolzlzol and teh mens must continue to finance the butthexxeing bottomzzlines for the Bernankefication to continue lolzlzozlzzlzozlzozlz! !

  17. Cultural_Expat says:

    Should she divorce her hardworking husband, she’ll likely get the kids, the cash, the house and she can continue her cushy writing gig. As it is no fault she doesn’t need to a reason to divorce. With the divorce rate what it is, I hope this husband is not an investment adviser taking the same risks with my money as he does with his own life. Why would any man risk marriage or children and paving the road for his own and his childrens destruction?!?!

  18. CL says:

    @Tom

    It might be a good test of a woman to see if she will agree to a ‘private marriage’ and forego the piece of paper and societal approval via her girlfriends’ bok bok boking over the ‘engagement’ and squeeing over all the wedding prep and décor. That’s if anyone wants to bother at all.

    Recently I read an article in the “Good News” magazine on wifely submission – it looked good, hit the main points, but was full of hamster droppings. Most people (i.e. women) will read something like that and think submission means being the judge and jury presiding over their husbands’ perceived submission to Christ – all based on how she feeeeels of course. Obviously that will never be perfect as he is a mere mortal, so she gets to play the “ah ha! See? I don’t have to submit to him because he’s not as good as Jesus!” card.

    I feel like banging my head on the desk sometimes… These days that “LET him have SOME say” speak is like a neon sign anywhere I read it. It rubs me the wrong way; the public disrespect is disgraceful, as is the entitlement to a man’s provision so she can have a “cushy writing life” churning out worthless junk. Perhaps it was meant as a joke, but it just seems tasteless given the current state of things. I’m sorry to say that I am highly suspicious of anything a woman says anymore. It’s likely to be self-serving crap.

    Somewhat off topic but possibly amusing, my brother sent some woman (a university student) he’s talking to Dalrock’s post on Eat Pray Cats and How Stella Got Her Groove Back, and this woman said she felt “deflated” after reading it. LOL

  19. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    MadLib time! It’s interesting to note that switching genders makes the statements either non-sensical or downright offensive to “equalitarians”.

    “MEN should understand that they absolutely can be strong and independent and be married.”

    “…letting HER have some say in the matter…”

    “… letting the WOMAN in your life be what SHE wants to be, which is to FOLLOW you and SUBMIT to you.”

  20. The more red pill I get the more I understand:

    I am not a tame lion.

    Nor did God make me to be one.

  21. MaMu1977 says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224357/Occupy-mom-wins-85-000-divorce-banker-husband.html

    This is just an affirmation of something that I learned back in 2006: no matter how egregious your wife’s actions, you always have to pay. He’s lucky: no child support, alimony received as a lump sum, full custody of the kids, and all it took was his wife travelling halfway across the country and being filmed engaging in sex acts with strangers. What chance does a regular Joe have to receive the same treatment?

  22. Copyleft says:

    The article is mistaken in another important area–it claims that men haven’t changed.

    We have. We’ve woken up to reality. Feminism has been teaching women to resent, complain about, and even hate men for decades now; why act so surprised that we’re not lining up to settle down with someone who hates us?

  23. dragnet says:

    Responsibility without authority–same old schtick, really.

  24. Ybm says:

    It’s pretty telling that even the comment section at the daily bile is against that woman.

  25. sunshinemary says:

    I think I understand what Mrs. Venker was trying to do in the first quote. Submission is a voluntary yielding, so the “letting” part could just mean I’m letting go of control so he can be the head of the home without a constant power struggle, not in the sense of “giving him permission”.

    The second quote is bad, though. Obedience is part of submission. If she’s not willing to obey him, how exactly does she submit to him? How can you rebel and submit at the same time?

  26. Pingback: I simply Can’t resist. « Retrophoebia

  27. Tom says:

    It’s the way they phrase it. It’s disgusting and amusingly transparent at the same time! “LET him have some say. LET him provide for her.”….

    The modern female is so toxic and polluted in her mentality that she says shit like this AND ACTUALLY BELIEVES IT. It would never even cross her tiny mind that EVERYTHING a man does for her is a GIFT. Not an expectation. The modern female really believes she is entitled to it. So it simply doesn’t matter WHAT you do for her…. supporting her… providing for her… generously writing alimony checks… NOTHING is appreciated because she thinks she is “LETTING” you do this.

    Female insanity is so off-the-charts, I can’t even finis this sentence.

  28. Legion says:

    “..letting him have some say…” Yes, this is the offending passage in the article. Yet, as it has been noticed, the offensive part that isn’t in the artricle is any mention of divorce laws and how they are enforced against men. You marry you are still her slave.

    That’s why men are avoiding marraige.

  29. Stingray says:

    SunshineMary,

    If it weren’t for the word some then maybe, but given that I think the letting does mean for her to “allow”.

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    I find a bit of encouragement in this article. The first step to solving a problem is to admit that it exists. All the “manUP” articles for a while now have concentrated on “men, you have a problem, you should fix it NOW!”. This article lets a few bits of air into the vacuum-sealed argument – it admits, in a weak, roundabout way, that women just might have a problem or two of their own. Also there is a wee bit of a challenge to the feminist notion that “women are just like men, except they can have babies”. Not much, to be sure, but a tiny bit.

    This article is kind of like watching a toddler pulling up on some furniture, to get up on both feet for a second, only to plop back on the floor. It’s not a big step, it doesn’t go very far, but it is an effort towards a first real step. And for this, Venker is certain to be blasted by the entire feminist / gynocentric established herd as wanting women to be “doormats”, etc.

  31. an observer says:

    Men are good at making money for women to steal.

    Situation: woman steals $8m to gamble
    She says: “reality was not there for me to understand of what I was doing.”

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/pokies-boss-unaware-of-millions-trusted-manager-stole-20121127-2a66q.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    It is good to see two key ideas showing up in this thread:

    * “Submit” is a verb, it is active, not passive.
    * Justice first, reconciliation later.

    Any man who has ever learned anything real – be it martial arts, carpentry, how to mow a lawn, how to work in a commercial kitchen, military life, whatever – has learned at some level that he must submit to a duly authorized authority. It’s not just laying back and saying “Yes, boss”, it’s doing what ever the job requires, when needed. It means doing things the way the organization requires it to be done, even when that seems stupid.

    The happy-clappy school / church culture has put a premium on niceness, and being nice no matter what. That’s not working out – not at the national level, and not at the personal level. I already ranted about this in a previous thread. First, admit what you did wrong. Then accept what you have coming to you. Then – and only then – we’ll talk about reconciliation, mercy, etc.

  33. Stingray says:

    Anon Reader,

    I keep wondering, too, if this is at least a small step in the right direction. Is a stumble step a good start or is it dangerous in that it doesn’t give the whole truth? Is it palatable enough that it will get more people at least a start in the right direction or is it the completely wrong direction from the get go?

    Also, she was supposed to be on Fox and Friends this morning and give a possible shout out to the manosphere. Does anyone know if she did?

  34. Tom says:

    It is not a step in the right direction. A “step in the right direction” would be not allowing women to have an opinion on the subject of what men are SUPPOSED to do for them. A “step in the right direction” would be to forbid women from writing articles on what “manning up” actually is. (what would a woman know about being MAN??? What would she even know about being HUMAN??!)

    A “step in the right direction” would be —–>>> to save a male and stop a wedding.

  35. an observer says:

    “save a man, stop a wedding”

    Bumper sticker?

  36. taterearl says:

    “Any man who has ever learned anything real – be it martial arts, carpentry, how to mow a lawn, how to work in a commercial kitchen, military life, whatever – has learned at some level that he must submit to a duly authorized authority. It’s not just laying back and saying “Yes, boss”, it’s doing what ever the job requires, when needed. It means doing things the way the organization requires it to be done, even when that seems stupid.”

    Women probably submit better to a job than their husbands.

  37. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    “Women probably submit better to a job than their husbands.”

    I know for a fact they do.

  38. koevoet says:

    “Tom says:
    November 28, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    It is not a step in the right direction. A “step in the right direction” would be not allowing women to have an opinion on the subject of what men are SUPPOSED to do for them. A “step in the right direction” would be to forbid women from writing articles on what “manning up” actually is. (what would a woman know about being MAN??? What would she even know about being HUMAN??!)”
    ——————————————————-
    Tom, women can say how they think a man should behave, just like we are free to tell a woman how we think she should behave. It is then up to the other side whether they are going to heed or not. Women don’t. Why do men?

  39. Oh gee, where do I sign up to pay for some chick’s cushy life sitting on her ass writing such crap?!?

    No kidding. I think I’d prefer to marry a ball-busting feminist who insists on going out and bringing in half the bacon, rather than one who deigns to let me provide for her while she sits at home making decisions for us.

  40. okrahead says:

    She’ll “let” him provide for and protect her… Want three guesses at what she WON’T let him do? It’s what the hot alpha in college has already done to her several times over, and in every way possible.

  41. Whaddya wanna bet that her husband has a “man cave” which he got to decorate, while she made the decisions for the rest of the house, and she would consider that “letting him have his way”?

    It’s like these women want 16-year-old sons with flourishing careers. That way she has a manly presence in the house for killing spiders and moving furniture, but Mom can be in charge and give the boy some responsibility when he earns for it, but he’s also supposed to bring home a nice paycheck.

  42. Tom says:

    “Tom, women can say how they think a man should behave, just like we are free to tell a woman how we think she should behave.”

    But we are not. A woman (yes, all women) would never tolerate and get extremely offended if you were to give her even a FRACTION of what they dish out.

    This is the kind of shit that men are expected to be “punished by their wives” for. FOR BUYING HER THE WRONG GIFT. If men WERE actually were “free to tell a woman how we think she should behave” women would behave a lot differently. The men in that commercial would give those cunts the finger and boot their useless, ungrateful, fat, old, parasitic wives out on their ASS – with zero hesitation or remorse. If men were REALLY free to tell their wives how they should be behave, that commercial would never be made. But that’s the entire point of a marriage contract. For the man to be a docile controlled schmuck. Who questions nothing, quietly pays for everything, and never pesters her for sex. That – to today’s woman – is “the ideal husband”.

    Pathetic.

    I thank my personal God I am one of the few who can AFFORD to be free to tell a woman anything i want with zero consequence. Too few men have that luxury.

  43. sunshinemary says:

    See, I don’t know. Suzanne Venker as our enemy? I see where she’s off, but she’s not our enemy. She needs the red pill, of course, and a lesson on Ephesians 5, but she’s written some really good stuff that’s gotten some feminist panties in a wad. Her aunt is Phyllis Schlafly, without whom we would have the ERA. You think women are a pain in the keister now? Imagine the ERA being ratified. It would be Hanna Rosin on steroids. I think Suzanne Venker could easily be shown the error of her thinking and converted to “our” side, insomuch as we have a side. Try to remember what you were like pre-red-pill; women like her need to be educated, not fully condemned.

  44. AmStrat says:

    I wouldn’t even give it a “step in the right direction”. Women think in terms of “things”. A rose is a “thing”, chocolates are a “thing”, an all expenses paid trip to Paris is a “thing”, picking up your socks when you didn’t ask her to is a “thing”. You give this the designation of a “step in the right direction”, which would be a “thing”, then you forgive 40+ years of feminist hell, which is also just a “thing”.

  45. CoffeeCrazed says:

    author wrote: I am married to a guy who works so that I can have a cushy writing life. That is the beauty of marriage.

    bitch.

  46. BC says:

    This is the Feminist Imperative that Rollo often posts about, including its pervasiveness to the point that even people who have supposedly “taken the red pill” do not even notice it.

  47. CL says:

    @sunshinemary

    I think Suzanne Venker could easily be shown the error of her thinking and converted to “our” side, insomuch as we have a side.

    I get your point, and perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t have patience for this sort of thing anymore. Usually they won’t listen. If she has the spirit to learn, she would see this here and be convicted, but more likely she would read all this and get her back up.

    Forgive my cynicism, but I see this in my own family. In spite of the last two years or more of explaining this stuff, my brother is the only one who isn’t completely hopeless, my dad is a hopeless neo-con White Knight who idolises Sarah Palin, and my mom is off her meds again and back to her usual thin-skinned self. People generally don’t change much. There has to be some impetus to cause the change to be worth more than the status quo; the price is too high for her at this time.

    Look how many people thought the price of selling all their stuff to follow Jesus for the reward of eternal salvation was too high. Nope. You can’t teach people with logic.

  48. judgybitch says:

    I’ve ALWAYS thought of my relationship with my husband as a Captain/First Officer relationship because I am a huge Star Trek fan, and that was a relationship that made a lot of sense to us both. Leadership is fundamentally based on care. A great leader is one who CARES deeply about the people he is responsible for, and that is such a great metaphor for my husband. Yes, he leads. It comes with a huge responsibility and an obligation on my part to trust.

    I wrote about this topic in reference to the Hunger Games on my blog http://www.judgybitch.com, and it’s something I write about alot.

  49. taterearl says:

    “Women should understand that they absolutely can be strong and independent and be married”

    “I am married to a guy who works so that I can have a cushy writing life.”

    DOES NOT COMPUTE!!!

  50. Johnycomelately says:

    Just wait until Obama rolls out the carbon tax, given that it will shrink the money pool in the free market (men), who do you think will benefit government largesse?

    Things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.

  51. sunshinemary says:

    @ CL

    Usually they won’t listen. If she has the spirit to learn, she would see this here and be convicted, but more likely she would read all this and get her back up.

    I have to say, though, that it wasn’t that long ago that I arrived here, and I came in thinking Mark Driscoll was pretty okay because he actually doesn’t allow women to preach in his church (and he is right about that, but also wrong on so many other things). The first time I read Dalrock, I was like, “What the heck is this? Run away!” and I didn’t read here again for awhile. I needed a more gradual introduction through places like Patriactionary. I might have sounded feministy (without realizing it) when I arrived here, but I was teachable (I think). Lots of people are teachable, but they have to stumble into these remote corners to find the teaching (which they ought to be hearing every Sunday from the pulpit, but I digress). When someone seems to be looking in the right direction, I want to help them toss the bathwater but hold on to the baby.

    I will say that we women ought to be doing the work of educating one another, since this whole mess is pretty much our fault. The men shouldn’t be held responsible for dispensing the red-pill to women unless they feel like do so. I can entirely see why men would say, “Your mess, your problem, good bye.”

    CoffeeCrazed quoted the authoress:

    I am married to a guy who works so that I can have a cushy writing life. That is the beauty of marriage.

    Yes, she’s way off there, but I have a feeling that maybe she was trying to do some husband-bragging directed toward the feminists. Like, “Hey, I’ve got a man and you don’t” but in subtler language. I might be wrong, though. I wonder how her husband feels reading that.

  52. Cultural_Expat says:

    Susan Venker may not be on the right path, but she is closer to the forest than most. What would help to make her position honest is that if in a divorce situation (1) Automatic shared 50/50 custody of the children (2) No money changes hands–no alimony, no child support. The children get the standard of living that each parent earns…that may mean she may need to get another job to supplement that cushy writing job. Right now Susan bears no risk and should things not be agreed upon in the marriage, or the man doesn’t faux lead, then she can boot him with little discomfort to her life.

  53. Joe Blow says:

    Asking a man to be responsible for a household, the wife and kids, but then denying him the leadership role, is effectively castrating him and reducing him to the role of eunuch. What’s the tradeoff there?

    Any job where I have had responsibliity but no leadership role, I’ve left. Not worth the effort. Marriage 2.0 looks like one of those jobs.

  54. Tom says:

    I was at a married friend’s house recently — for a dinner thing after work. The wife (very attractive feminist cunt) actually said “I’m a strong and independent woman” at the dinner table while I was chewing. I could not contain the laughter and almost spit my food out. Because I know she would be the first to hold her hands out for alimony – and originally pushed for marriage like you wouldn’t believe.

    I can’t even stand to be around this bitch. I don’t know how my friend can live with her. The last time I was over, she said “you know I made a LOT of sacrifices” (speaking in regards to her “oppressed wife” situation as the mother of his kids.) Female victimhood at it’s show stopping best.

    I called her out on her own bullshit: “Oh really???? That’s not what you told me when you were pregnant. You told me you couldn’t work in this country while waiting for your visa and had at least another 6 months of nothing to do, so you thought it would be as good a time as any to have a baby. So what “sacrifices” are you talking about exactly???”

    You can imagine the expression on her face. Pure hatred.
    And I enjoyed every second of looking her straight in the eye.

    Who brainwashed these whores?

  55. Johnycomelately says:

    Gold.
    “Women probably submit better to a job than their husbands.”

    “Stealth feminism and changing biblical principles once again to make them palatable and acceptable to women in their sight. It’s so subtle I didn’t even pick up on this myself until the Big D pointed it out.”

  56. CL says:

    @sunshinemary

    The first time I read Dalrock, I was like, “What the heck is this? Run away!”

    I had the same reaction when I first read Roissy (which was pretty much my introduction to the ‘sphere via Dr Helen, followed by The Spearhead), but I came back because, well, it was interesting if hard to read. The point is, you came back!

  57. TFH says:

    Sunshinemary,

    Did you see the sequence of 3 comments I left for you the other day :

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/harming-your-kids-for-attention-and-profit/#comment-62026

    The short form is, tell MEN about what you know about misandry. Don’t bother telling women, tell MEN only, and point them to blogs like Dalrock’s.

    That goes for CL too. Telling MEN is the best use of your efforts.

  58. TFH says:

    See, I don’t know. Suzanne Venker as our enemy? I see where she’s off, but she’s not our enemy.

    I agree. She might be wrong on a few things, but is closer to getting it than 99% of women. She still has a long way to go, but at least there is something to work with. It takes courage for a woman to even write what she did.

    Women who truly get it, like Dr. Helen or grerp, don’t emerge every day or even every year.

  59. There has to be some impetus to cause the change to be worth more than the status quo; the price is too high for her at this time.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Yep.
    I had a friend convert recently…..after he was tossed into anger management, following being invited to leave his house, and kids…..he was awestruck with the info I shared with him. I didnt have the heart to say , hey man Ive been telling you this for years

  60. CoffeeCrazed says:

    CoffeeCrazed quoted the authoress: ETA: yes, authoress :)

    I am married to a guy who works so that I can have a cushy writing life. That is the beauty of marriage.

    Yes, she’s way off there, but I have a feeling that maybe she was trying to do some husband-bragging directed toward the feminists. Like, “Hey, I’ve got a man and you don’t” but in subtler language. I might be wrong, though. I wonder how her husband feels reading that.

    Sorta feels like the socio-economic version of Lindsey Hartz.

  61. infowarrior1 says:

    A fallacious argument about headship from one website:
    Eph. 1:22-23. The passage that immediately precedes this text exalts the supremacy of Christ in his session. But in relation to the church, the role of Christ is described as being appointed head for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. The headship of Christ is never over the church in the New Testament. Here, it is for the church. As head, Christ gives the church fullness. He provides for the church’s growth. The function is not one of authority but of servant provider of what makes the church’s growth possible.

    Eph. 4:15-16. Christ is the head from whom the whole body grows and builds itself up. The function of the head in relation to the body is to provide it with growth. Headship is not an authority role but a developmental servant function.

    http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

    [D: Edited for brevity.]

  62. Farm Boy says:

    The point is, you came back!

    We need more women coming back. Perhaps a mild introduction to manosphere issues written by a lady would work.

  63. alan says:

    Men as staff, toys, or ceremonial figureheads has an appeal to closet feminists, as they like to pretend that they have a traditional marriage. I tangled with this a while back:
    http://www.takeninhand.com/comment/25659#comment-25659
    It’s subtle and creeps in often. I noticed that everyone here picked up on the implication.
    Stay vigilant.

  64. This is not progress, or a “step in the right direction”

    It is MISdirection. It is a half-truth, and therefore a lie. It is the new lie designed to subvert the MRM. You see, most blue-pill guys will read that and think “yeah! I wish she would let ME decide stuff sometimes.” It’s a way for them to be controlling bitches without looking like one so blatantly. It is a soft-touch approach, soothing lies to quell the dissatisfaction while relinquishing and admitting nothing. It is sinister, insidious, and the feminist uproar about it is window dressing to propel the new party line.

    The devil knows how to look like a beautiful angel… but remains the destroyer nonetheless.

    No woman in the world will allow true headship by a man, and offer true submission, unless she loves Jesus and sees the bible as truth. Anyone not sold out to these ideas will be a wolf in sheep’s clothing at best. The lie above IS the sheep’s clothing.

    The men who are deceived by it will surely be devoured.

  65. CL says:

    @Farm Boy

    Go back and read what TFH said and at the links he posted. It’s largely a waste of effort trying to get women on board – especially the older ones who have more to lose (i.e. what they’ve based their whole lives on). If they come, they come; if not… ::shrug::

    There really is no ‘mild’ way to do this – at least, not that I’ve been able to come up with and maybe that’s my fault for being unable to be anything other than blunt. It doesn’t really matter anyway because they will still have to face reality and that’s what most people avoid doing at all costs. The truth hurts; take it or leave it.

  66. TMG says:

    I like Venker but she seems primarily interested in engineering a “soft landing” for women and society before the misandry bubble bursts. Kind of like Susan Walsh.

    In one of her books she has a whole section highlighting the disenfranchisement men experience in society and personally I’d like to see her talk about that a lot more, rather than training women how to attract providers.

  67. CL says:

    @Samuel

    Yes! Exactly! Thank you for saying it. Everybody read that twice, then read it again.

  68. Tom says:

    @Samuel. Precisely. It’s a fist in a pink velvet glove.

  69. FuriousFerret says:

    @infowarrior1

    How can people with degrees from a seminary be so stupid?

    “Christ makes of husbands servants to their wives in their relationship of mutual submission (Eph. 5:21). ”

    Eph 5 isn’t that hard to understand.

    The woman obeys her husband expect when he commands her to sin.

    In return, the husband is supposed to responsible with his power and doesn’t abuse his wife and is supposed to treat her with love and respect. However, he still has to lay down the law from time to time because he does love and care for her. Just as you wouldn’t let your child do anything that he wants, you don’t let your wife go crazy either.

    Husband aren’t damn servants, they are Kings that take care of business.

  70. Stingray says:

    Thank you, Samuel. Understood.

  71. infowarrior1 says:

    Another fallacious argument Part 1:
    t is my judgment that the male headship/female submission issue in biblical interpretation, especially within the evangelical tradition, revolves primarily around a series of five separate (but clearly related) topics and texts.[31] These are, in what I perceive to be the order of their importance in the discussion and debate, the following:

    (1) the meaning of the term kephale (head; the term understood traditionally to indicate authority or headship) which also involves 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Ephesians 5:21-33, the two New Testament texts in which kephale is used with reference to the relationship of men and women;

    http://godswordtowomen.org/scholer.htm

    [D: Edited for brevity. See link for full text.]

  72. Uncle Elmer says:

    “Women probably submit better to a job than their husbands.”

    I know for a fact they do.

    ———————————–

    The irony is that their insatiable quest for “validation” can only be satisfied by workplace males.

  73. SomeGuy says:

    This reminds of the sad – and embarrassingly uncomfortable – situation of a girl I refused to date. She has nice SUV, good “job” and everything the “empowerment” entails, along with the few years to “discover” who she is (read: bang bad boys) under her belt. (Yes, there is war on men, but it’s hurting females more than it even bothers me.)

    Much to my dismay (at the time) I was suddenly the guy she wanted (read: the sucker who consumes the leftovers). She gave her all to entice me; the car, the sweet-caring girl ways, the sensitive, and you name it. To no avail. She’s 22 and still has “sexual market value” – something I learned here – but the current trend still exposes her to fierce competition from her fellow attractive females for an incredibly shrinking number of available males in my area. She has brand new luxury SUV that she had hoped I’d hop in, along with other enticements but I’m unfazed and my contentment is driving her to become psychotic. She’s confused, alarmed, angered, flabbergasted and completely distraught by the fact that I unreceptive to her advances.

    She still looks downward and poses in a submissive way. Displaying vulnerabilities expecting I’d come to her defense and be her protector.

    Initially I probably would have just banged her and left her, like I do with most females that I bother to give my time to, but reading the manosphere over the past year has made me more knowledgeable and probably contemptuous toward females in general. So I suppose you guys have something to do with it.

  74. I can’t be bothered to read 72 comments. Did someone else already mention Spiders? And lifting heavy stuff?

  75. @SomeGuy- test her. See if she will submit. Make it difficult.

    If she succeeds, let her know that it will always be this way, and see if she is good with that.

    If so, you might have something worth investing in.

    Uhh, but no legal marriage certificate.

    Understand that this sort of thing will inspire attraction in her, and if she sets herself at your feet, truly, she will become more beautiful than any woman you have ever seen.

  76. red says:

    A men really independent once marred? Most men seem to give all they are for that their wives and their children. How can women expect to be interdependent once they marry?

  77. Tom says:

    Feminism makes women miserable:

    But then again.. everybody knows women are “happiest” when they are complaining.
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/08/26/o.divorce.dreams/

    That’s right, fellows and gents. Brought to you by OPRAH and CNN, that’s what a married man gets to look forward to after 16 years of busting his ass to make a woman “happy”. A mile-long diatribe about how miserable she is — beginning with her gripe about how he greets her ungrateful ass with a SMILE in the morning , just because she would prefer to behave like a complete b*tch before 10AM. These are her words.

    And there you have it.
    Women are happiest when they are complaining.

  78. Pingback: Venker Backtracks « Free Northerner

  79. Anonymous Reader says:

    I like Venker but she seems primarily interested in engineering a “soft landing” for women and society before the misandry bubble bursts. Kind of like Susan Walsh.

    Kind of, but not really. In any event, the first step is to recognize a problem exists.
    Of course, we are supposed to give her a gold star. Imagine how dismaying it is or will be to her when men say “Yeah, ok, you see a problem. So? Whatcha gonna do about it?”
    Because men are supposed to solve all problems….

  80. tacomaster says:

    I enjoy coming here and reading your great analyses Dalrock and the comments that people leave afterwards. I have to be honest though, it really starts to take a toll on me after a while. I am married man in my early 30s and my wife is 25. It took me forever to take the risk to get enough courage to get married in this current situation men are in. We practically have no rights in family court, etc.

    I was perfectly content with working and having my hobbies, traveling the world, and being in the military. I have always wanted to have a large family, at least three to four kids but how can I be assured that I will have the life/family I desire? Is there anyway to increase my chances of having a happy married life in today’s societal climate? I’m curious what the guys with kids say. Are they happy and would they suggest doing it? The guys at my church that I ask all give me the same ‘ol “life is awesome!” line. I would like some truth. What is it really like after kids? Sorry if I’m derailing the conversation.

  81. sunshinemary says:

    Farm boy wrote:

    Perhaps a mild introduction to manosphere issues written by a lady would work.

    I wish it would work. I had hoped to be that lady, but alas, I’m about as popular as a box of rocks with the TradCat and TradProt women. The TradProts take exception to my use of the word slut and the TradCats are infuriated by my assertion that they are supposed to have sex with their husbands. I suppose I’ve failed in the original mission of my blog, which was to spread biblical red-pill wisdom to women. Perhaps TFH is right.

    @ Samuel
    I liked your comment at 5:27, but don’t you think someone like Mrs. Venker would be able to learn why phrases like “let him” are so wrong? I read the book she wrote a few years ago, “The Flipside of Feminism,” and was impressed by it. We can’t expect perfection from people who aren’t aware of what we’ve learned in the manosphere. When they seem to be moving in the right direction, that is a place for us to educate by leaving comments/dropping links on their blogs. Truth has a way of spreading.

  82. CL says:

    @sunshinemary

    I think we ought to be able to expect a professional writer to understand the importance of word choice, and how much is said therein. That’s what is particularly bothersome about it – surely given her profession, she ought to know this and has been told at some point that words have power. Of course, I realise that there are a lot of hacks with poor training out there.

  83. Farm Boy says:

    letting him have some say in the matter

    When I read that I thought of females in those stupid sitcoms that I don’t watch, the ones where she is wise and he is a semi-lovable doofus.

  84. sunshinemary says:

    @ Tacomaster
    Read through the comment thread for A reader asks: why do women reject their husbands after they have children? A bunch of the comments that guys left were pure gold, but pay attention to Keoni Galt’s in particular.

  85. admiralboom says:

    This is at least a start. Ideas questioning 50 years of feminist dogma can only trickle drip by drip into the mainstream…the dam won’t burst overnight. That said…all the empathy and understanding in the world won’t change the fact that on paper, thanks to divorce laws and family (sic: destruction) court, marriage is an absolute shit deal for most men.

  86. TFH says:

    Sunshinemary,

    I’m about as popular as a box of rocks with the TradCat and TradProt women.

    Forget women. Tell MEN. When a woman talks about misandry, it carries more weight than if a man brings the subject up.

    Tell MEN.

    Women just support the existing status quo. That is why women in Saudi Arabia are also in no hurry to leave despite having to wear a full covering in public. They accept their status quo, and don’t think of leaving to go to a different status quo. Same goes for the ‘traditional’ women you talked to. That is just how women think.

  87. TFH says:

    tacomaster,

    What is it really like after kids? Sorry if I’m derailing the conversation.

    Not to scare you, but since the cruelest and most unfair laws are inflicted onto the man *after* has had had children with a woman, this corrupts her mind and she starts to hate her husband even more. Her power to destroy him is absolute (children get destroyed too, but women don’t care about that), and as we know, absolute power corrupts absolutely, especially when the gullible female mind is receiving constant messages about how it is not her fault. The prior article on Dalrock’s blog was titled ‘Harming your children for fun and profit’. That says it all.

    Children receive messages through various ‘after-school programs’ that the father is absent because HE is a deadbeat. Even if the opposite is true. Go to the Spearhead, and talk to WF Price, who underwent a brutal custody battle.

    Plus, a woman’s looks nosedive after 35, especially if she has children. She may gain weight.

    You might avoid both the brutal ‘children as conduits to extract wealth for mommy’ trap, as well as the ‘Fatocalypse’ trap. About 30% of men manage to avoid both. But the odds simply are not good.

    Sorry to ruin your day. But those are the cold, hard probabilities.

  88. Farm Boy says:

    @TFH

    The Manosphere needs some ladies on our side for credibility’s sake.

  89. Phil says:

    “Samuel Solomon- No woman in the world will allow true headship by a man, and offer true submission, unless she loves Jesus.”

    Except for Muslim women, Orthodox jewish women, Buddhist women, Japanese Shinto women, Hindu women, animist women, pre-christian European women, etc.. In fact, christianity isn’t necessary at all for women to be traditional.

  90. yfr says:

    ‘She still looks downward and poses in a submissive way. Displaying vulnerabilities expecting I’d come to her defense and be her protector. ‘

    I notice that Asian pop culture glorifies some extremely submissive women as sexy. I wonder to what extent that translates into real-world behavior.

    Is there a considerable population of women who are so needy that they genuinely *want* to be submissive pets, with manly men holding their leashes?

    If they exist, are they too crazy to breed? The BDSM subculture strikes me as a non-reproductive dead end – it does not seem to be producing as many children as, e.g. Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, Wahabi Islam, or Mormonism. Possibly this is because mewling in velvet handcuffs takes a lot of time, and changing diapers takes even more time, and BDSM posing takes valuable resources away from actual child-rearing.

    If genuinely submissive women exist and are healthy enough to produce viable children, they should have massive reproductive success. The fact that I don’t notice any seems to suggest that they are either well-hidden or very rare. Or perhaps I have lousy observation skills.

  91. TFH says:

    The Manosphere needs some ladies on our side for credibility’s sake.

    We already have them. Sunshinemary and CL are just two. But they should not be out recruiting other women. That is futile. We just have to accept the women who figure it out of their own free will.

    You are disagreeing with something I did not say or even imply.

  92. greyghost says:

    from Tom
    I remain eternally convinced that ALL – yes ALL – women are selfish beyond recognition or repair, and only care about their OWN selfish needs and interests.

    Yet at one time women behaved with virtue all with the above characteristics applified and running at full tilt. That is women you are goddamn right. Selfish needs and interests are any thing we say it is and it is the only thing about women that can be changed. Women can not.

  93. FuriousFerret says:

    I like this woman:

    She just posted at CH.

    Her blog is pretty good.

    http://judgybitch.com/

  94. ybm says:

    Jenny Marbles does that shtick much better at she’s at least easy on the eyes.

  95. Tom says:

    @ FARM BOY

    The Manosphere needs some ladies on our side for credibility’s sake.

    No it fucking doesn’t. We have already learned that women don’t have credibility in these matters. They go out of their way to prove it.

  96. Stingray says:

    There are more and more women coming to the manosphere all the time and many more women blogs than even a few months ago. Rollo called it a few months back (though I can’t remember the name of the post). This is good news and potentially bad news, I think. The danger is that we start a new herd, just as dangerous as the current. Women get together and we have a tendency to influence each other’s hamsters. This can be for the good, but the more women that enter the fray, the more the waters get muddied and we have a difficult time keeping our feet on the ground.

    I like TFH’s idea of attracting more men. We need men to help keep us focused, in my opinion, to keep our heads clear. If you take a look at most of the female bloggers (CL, Sunshine Mary, Sarah’s Daughter, and this new lady judgybitch) we have very strong men to hold onto who back us up. Maybe I am speaking wrong about the other women here, but I suspect not. I have to run some of my more difficult posts past my husband to make sure I get them right because there is sometimes too much hamsterlation in the way.

  97. Stingray says:

    Here is Rollo’s piece I was thinking of.

  98. sunshinemary says:

    @ Stingray,
    I agree with you, although I want to say this clearly: women cannot be “part” of the manosphere. We’re not manosphere bloggers. Personally, the only cause I belong to is the cause of Christ. That is why I can’t just ignore women.

    But I agree with you that there could potentially be the danger of herdism among red-pill women. This is why women who write about red-pill issues should resist the urge to form group blogs. Bad idea all around. You’ll notice the ladies you listed all blog alone, and I believe you are correct that we all have strong husbands reading every post before we hit publish (my husband has edited my posts from work after I’ve published them).

    @ Tom, TFH
    I’m thinking FB might have meant “credibility with other women”. I understand where you’re coming from, but if some women hear and listen, that’s one potential fewer frivorces. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you but I bet it matters a heck of a lot to the guy and kids who didn’t get their lives ripped apart.

  99. Stingray says:

    SSM,

    I don’t think we should ignore women, but attracting more men would have the counter affect of bringing women along too, don’t you think?

  100. GT66 says:

    Venker should be proof enough that whatever the future brings, it won’t be the past. Ya’ll say she falls just short of getting it but you’re wrong. She TOTALLY gets it which is why she dances around the topic. There’s no going back just like there was no unsinking the Titanic once it hit that iceberg. We’re now all just waiting for the wreckage to decay. The government gave women power without sacrifice, freedom without consequence, life without responsibility. You think anything other than full on societal collapse is going to change that?

  101. an observer says:

    “women probably submit better to a job than their husbands.”

    Take note how they behave with a personal trainer.

    Its transference of the dominance-submission dynamic to a socially and culturally acceptable context. Fascinating.

  102. an observer says:

    “power without sacrifice, freedom without consequence, life without responsibility”

    Beta men underwrite every unseen, uncounted cost that supports this hideous ‘empowerment.’ They are the ones that must change.

    Men see cause and effect more clearly. This alone suggests where i would focus efforts.

  103. ybm says:

    GT66 says:
    November 28, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    This is why it is so dangerous to fall into the trap of believing soft words from women who appear to be allies of men like Venker, Walsh, etc.

    It is not, and will never be about men, it will always be about women. No matter how ‘red pill’ soft worded commentators like Venker pretend to be, and useful allies they may be at times, when the new system starts to emerge, they will vanish into the ether to ensure female-supremacy has continuity.

    Pretty words from deceivers and temporary allies will lead to men being back in trenches and chains for the ‘traditional women’.

  104. Je Suis Prest says:

    @ Farm Boy

    There are women here, I’m one of them (although I mostly lurk), but reading blogs in the Manosphere requires the ability to face some harsh truths and not everyone has the ability to process the arguments being presented in a logical vice an emotional way. Generally, I’m with TFH in that unless one encounters a woman who displays attributes and attitudes that lead you to think that she is predisposed to being receptive to the MRM message, one’s time is most effectively spent speaking with men.

    Being a woman, initially I thought I might be able to reach women by starting conversations from an emotional angle (i.e. the suffering that comes as a results of our current social norms), but I found that many women could recognize, for example, that children of frivolous divorce suffer greatly, they could only recognize that in hypothetical cases or those of women they disliked. They seemed to be able to apply different weighting metrics to situations in their own lives or in those of their immediate circle. I got frustrated with explanations of why when person “a” perpetrated action 1, it was different from when person “b” perpetrated action 1, when in my view 1=1. I think this is partly a result of our current education system where one can achieve success by memorizing and parroting back what a teacher thinks and where the focus seems to be on making something sound good vice having it be logically consistent. Many people had no problem spouting two premises that opposed each other as part of the same argument. Ultimately I don’t think it’s worth the headache, although I will still ask leading questions when girls come to me for advice.

    On the other hand, when I spoke with men, I found that reason and bringing up examples (either of guys getting hosed in divorce or of the media portraying men in an unfair/unattractive way), I was able to generate some good conversations. Perhaps your experience has been different from mine, but I generally found the conversations with men to be both more productive and more enjoyable. This isn’t an absolute rule, I did have one very entertaining conversation with a woman who maintained that the issue was that most women in our society needed to realize they they are responsible for the consequences of their own actions and the great majority need to put on their big girl pants and deal with the outcomes they have created. (Just as an aside, she and her husband have been happily married for years…)

  105. SomeGuy says:

    To; Samuel

    I understand females respond to rejection. But I simply couldn’t care less; I don’t want her or relationships or marriage or anything else. I just can’t be bothered with females, except for sex, which comes so incredibly easy that at times it’s difficult to digest.

    She knows I don’t want her at all, not even enough to play games. And I suspect this is (partially) what’s making her increasingly psychotic. Along with the mental anguish her physical appearance is changing as well. Her boobs got bigger/firmer and her butt is getting bigger and she’s always sad. It’s a freak show!

  106. Troll King says:

    Hey Dalrock.

    I have been having a blast reading your blog lately. Being an atheist and on the other side of many of your beliefs I wouldn’t have thought that I would find so much in common. I have always like your work but simply haven’t followed your blog that much.

    Anyways, I would be interested in what you have to say about a few different articles.

    I will link to feminiting but there is plenty to be found recently about this:

    http://feministing.com/2012/11/28/5-insidious-victim-blaming-tactics-being-used-against-halle-berry/#more-55526

    What do you think of the Halle Berry scandal? From what I understand she basically got her new boytoy/fiance to beat up the babydaddy over custody issues. This is one of the few cases that I have seen with the false accuser being a man, though he was undoubtedly making the accusation as a proxy. Anyways, I would be interested to read what you have to say about the case and with it being in the headlines so much recently it might help drive some new hits to your site and open some minds.

    I was also reading this NYTs article earlier on psychopathy and children.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html?pagewanted=all

    There are a few things I wonder about with regards to psychopathy/sociopathy in children. I wonder to what degree the intitutions and adults create this, or if it is actually created or socially constructed and projected onto the children v. being biologically created, and whether or not it is seen in some demographics more than others. I remember reading some psychology studies a long time ago that looked into detachment disorders with respect to the first 18 months or so of life and the argument was based around how the brain develops with a lack of bonding hormones in those early years that leads to mental disorders. This is one explanation given for why children, especially boys, from single mother by choice and divorced families have so many more problems than traditional families. If both mother and father are either both absent for some reason or not capable of creating a environment where their children are cuddled and emotionally taken care of then it seems to make some sense to me. It might make sense with respect to why some upper middle class latchkey kids turn out ok after some rebellious teen years while the lower classes and single mother by choice groups have much higher rates of criminal activity with their children because of daycare and nannies.

    Another thing that really stood out to me about the article is how closely related all of the disorders are. They mention psychopathy in children, mostly boys in the article, as being the last ditch diagnosis after ADHD and then bipolar disorder and antisocial disorders. With intelligence being highly correlated to these kids, again mostly boys, I wonder how much of their “disorder” is not a lack of empathy or whatever but instead a calculated, to the degree a nine year old can calculate, response to a highly feminized environment.

    Another thought I had was with respect to the parents interviewed in the article. Some of the older theories put forward with respect to anti-social personality disorders was based around supposeldy sexist assumptions about “icy” mothers and passive fathers. From reading the article the parents seem to fit that bill. At one point the mom claims along the lines of, “I always knew my son would either be a Noble Leaureate or a serial killer.” What kind of mom says stuff like that?

    Another fascinating part of the article is with respect to a girl in the psychopath intervention program who they refer to as L. Of course they use the boys name but not hers to protect her identity, but that aside. Apparently L is incredibly manipulative and has all the boys in the class fighting each other and acting out just to get attention from her.

    Anyways, it is an interesting article to say the least. I especially find it interesting with respect to what we talk about in the MRM. Whether biological or social or a bit of both and with women being the selectors in the mating market I suspect we will see a much larger demographic of children with psychopathic tendencies in the near future. Both male and female, I knew a lot of psychopaths growin up and many of them have children today.

    Also, I would love to see such a talented writer as yourself do a thorough smackdown on Amanda Marcotte:
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/27/when-mens-rights-narratives-kill/
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/28/the-faulty-premise-of-the-marriage-threat/
    It would be like a christmas present to the MRM if you also commented on her site and then posted screen grabs but a post would do.

    As a writer who talks quite a bit about marriage, have you written any posts on the influx of married women sleeping with pubescent and pre-pubescent boys?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239984/Married-woman-25-having-sex-13-year-old-boy-August.html

  107. sunshinemary says:

    @ Stingray:

    I don’t think we should ignore women, but attracting more men would have the counter affect of bringing women along too, don’t you think?

    Oh, you are so right about that! Men seem not to realize that women desperately want to be wherever they are, even more in IRL than online. Witness the relentless and ultimately successful campaign to allow women in at Augusta National.

    And on that note, I’m making a graceful exit so the men can talk without me tying up the thread. :)

  108. TFH says:

    Stingray,

    I like TFH’s idea of attracting more men. We need men to help keep us focused, in my opinion, to keep our heads clear. If you take a look at most of the female bloggers (CL, Sunshine Mary, Sarah’s Daughter, and this new lady judgybitch) we have very strong men to hold onto who back us up.

    Remember that if a woman talks to a man about misandry or a ‘War on Men’, it is taken much more seriously than if a man brings that up. It should not be that way, but it is, so that is what will get the job done.

    Also, one red-pill woman nullifies a large number of manginas. We all agree that manginas are a large part of the problem (perhaps the biggest part). Red-pill women talking to men is the antidote. If they are receptive, guide them to these blogs. If they are manginas, shame them ruthlessly (yes, shaming language can be used for good too).

  109. Troll King says:

    It never ceases to amaze me in how blatant feminist lies are when combined with the Orwellian pictures of a police state.

    These police officers are conducting morning no-knock style commando raids on men simply thought to have committed some sort of violence against women while wearing ski masks.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/mass-arrests-by-police-tackling-shocking-level-of-domestic-violence-in-london-8364242.html

    We need to remember what the socialist E. Belford Bax said about feminism and women’s suffrage. Being a socialist he was against it because he saw the opportunity for individual women to use the collective force of men and the state against individual men. It is amazing how prophetic he was with respect to his writings on the loss of liberty and freedoms that men would experience at the elevation of women.

  110. 8oxer says:

    I tend to agree with ybm here. If anything, he doesn’t go far enough.

    Women see the writing on the wall, and a few of them are running interference, trying to distract, raising the static-to-noise ratio, and indulging in propaganda. They’re telling us all sweet words that many of us enjoy hearing, and they’re blurring the boundaries between ourselves and “them”, and they’re doing it in their own interests.

    This is not to say that honest women don’t exist, who are likely on our side. Girl Writes What (a self-avowed bisexual, divorced, equality type female) does a lot more work on behalf of serious male interests than I do. It takes a keen eye to separate the wheat from the chaff, though. Trust ain’t exactly the going commodity these days, and I appreciate these types of deconstructive articles that illuminate all the motivations that hide beneath the text.

  111. ybm says:

    Back before Rob started cannibalizing the MRA he wrote a pretty good post on ‘women who pretend to be MRAs but really aren’t’

    http://no-maam.blogspot.ca/2010/06/no-maams-guide-to-bird-watching-in.html

  112. infowarrior1 says:

    As I have referred to above as with the example of those websites. They argue in favor of headship as meaning source and not authority.

    “If an author wanted to make a point about AUTHORITY, he would use two specific words–exousia (“authority”; Matt 28.18, Rom 13.1-3) and/or archon (“ruler”; Rom 13.3). He only used ‘head’ when dealing with issues of origination, completion, consummation. ”

    This fallacy is what enables female leadership, women ruling their husbands and feminism without the label therein.

    http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

  113. infowarrior1 says:

    Farm Boy says:
    November 28, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    @TFH

    “The Manosphere needs some ladies on our side for credibility’s sake.”

    The ladies will come once the manosphere reaches critical mass.

  114. Flip says:

    “I got frustrated with explanations of why when person “a” perpetrated action 1, it was different from when person “b” perpetrated action 1, when in my view 1=1.”

    Yes, I’ve always found this with female relatives and friends. What they think about a situation depends greatly on what they think about the people involved. Men are able to apply abstract principles and be consistent even if it disadvantages people they like.

  115. tacomaster says:

    @Sunshine Mary, thanks for posting that link. I’m going to comment on it when I’m done reading it all
    @TFH, good points. Thanks for the honesty. I’m going to go back and reread that Dalrock posting

  116. Suzanne Venker wrote:

    “My husband does his thing.”

    In light of this female’s attitude, I hope his “thing” includes banging other women.

  117. Mark says:

    @Copyleft

    “”The article is mistaken in another important area–it claims that men haven’t changed.
    We have. We’ve woken up to reality. Feminism has been teaching women to resent, complain about, and even hate men for decades now; why act so surprised that we’re not lining up to settle down with someone who hates us?””

    I think that you summed the main thrust of this article with your post!….Thanks!

  118. Mark says:

    @sunshinemary

    “”Personally, the only cause I belong to is the cause of Christ. That is why I can’t just ignore women.””

    Correct me if I am wrong….but Jesus and none of his disciples were married.Maybe they knew something that we men ought to?…L*…………and I have no problem ignoring women.In fact,it makes the day much more productive and stress free!

  119. an observer says:

    Professor Hale,

    No spiders. No heavy stuff.

    Cunnilingus and fellatio discussed here:
    http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/

  120. ray says:

    make women happy — is here presented as the worst possible negative, something establishing suzanne’s cred as Strong n Independent

    the matrix is ascended gradually, it hurts bringing certain realities into consciousness

    venker did pretty well, she’s still pretty newbie, but trying, at least admitting theres a problem

    this post rightly points out how far she has yet to go

    CL – “Another thing women don’t seem to grasp is that a man who is the leader of his family is perceived with a greater presence in the world – he feels it, and she feels it – and she reaps the rewards of that. Sure, the respect she will get isn’t entirely on her own merit and is secondary out of the respect he garners, kind of like the light of the moon, but it’s no less real or beautiful for that.”

    it is just as real and just as beautiful in God’s sight, because such a woman glories in her created nature, and thus glorifies God by affirming his creational wisdom, instead of rebelling against it and negating it

    in no sense whatsoever is her light “less” than that of her husband…. but our feminist cultures want females to believe that

    God probly sees such a couple as a single light

    Sunshine – “The first time I read Dalrock, I was like, “What the heck is this? Run away!” and I didn’t read here again for awhile.”

    even for an obedient woman with her eyes on Christ, it takes some time

    it is possible to be patient, and at the same time not relax standards

    “You’ll notice the ladies you listed all blog alone, and I believe you are correct that we all have strong husbands reading every post before we hit publish (my husband has edited my posts from work after I’ve published them).”

    it shows, the results of gladness in supervision under God and husband

  121. TFH says:

    Also note that in terms of men being the primary audience of the ideas of the androsphere, the URLs @ Urinals campaign, by definition, specifically targets men, and reaches out to the men who could get the ideas of exposed to them.

    Thousands of flyers were posted by the 5-6 most committed volunteers in locations where men could not help but see them, and this coincided with the increased awareness we see for anti-misandry memes since the start of 2011.

  122. TFH says:

    an observer,

    Men see cause and effect more clearly. This alone suggests where i would focus efforts.

    Yep. Everyone here know one of my maxims, which is that women simply do not understand cause and effect very well.

    Hence, men must be the target audience for something that requires connecting the dots on cause and effect.

  123. Höllenhund says:

    „I don’t think we should ignore women, but attracting more men would have the counter affect of bringing women along too, don’t you think?”

    Only if the men in question are attractive.

    And this is the primary reason why men and women cannot effectively communicate about these issues. The men that women’d actually WANT to listen to about these issues are exactly the men who cannot be bothered to talk. Sexually successful alphas don’t normally bother to go around politely educating women either online or offline. Why would they? They basically see the bottom 80% of the female hierarchy as trash, only worthy of casual sex.

    The reason the latter is significant is because the usual reason why a woman starts questioning feminism and/or stumbles upon the Red Pill is either because she’s unable to secure the commitment of an attractive man or her marriage is failing. In other words, she’s pretty much lame in one way or another. She cannot stay in shape, she isn’t slender, she isn’t pleasant, she has no clue how to display feminine virtues, she can’t cook etc. So alphas aren’t interested in her, unless we’re talking about casual sex. They definitely won’t hold her hand and guide her to the truth about male-female relations and all that. The women on the very top of the female hierarchy don’t have problem pairing up with alphas, so the very idea that something might be wrong with the mating marketplace doesn’t even occur to them. They don’t go surf the internet to find relationship advice.

    The best example of this dynamic is HUS. The female readers are pretty much mediocre or low-quality: they cannot find long-term boyfriends, let alone husbands, they have no idea how to increase their mating value, they aren’t hot, they can’t cook and so on. What they want is for hot men to show up and politely explain stuff to them about the sexual/mating marketplace. You know, the unicorn men who have the perfect mix of alpha and beta, always calibrating the mix perfectly, sexy and dependable at the same time and all that. But such men never comment there, because they cannot be bothered. What happens instead is that beta chumps show up and try rationally explain things over and over, and the only thing they achieve is that the women get more and more angry, frustrated and repulsed.

  124. Höllenhund says:

    ” We need men to help keep us focused, in my opinion, to keep our heads clear. If you take a look at most of the female bloggers (CL, Sunshine Mary, Sarah’s Daughter, and this new lady judgybitch) we have very strong men to hold onto who back us up.”

    Yep. I’ve concluded myself that pretty much the only way a woman can digest the Red Pill is for some attractive alpha to commit to her and politely hold her hand while guiding her to the truth. If he’s absent, the woman will just become more and more angry and stressed. Because while the Red Pill may be unpleasant for men, it’s downright brutal for single women whose MMP/SMP value has already peaked – in other words, if she’s older than 22. Not to mention the possibility that she isn’t hot.

  125. taterearl says:

    “Take note how they behave with a personal trainer.”

    Or dancing. It’s another dominant-submission tactic that’s acceptable. Some ladies try to take the lead from me but I won’t let them. The good ones let me do my thing and they react.

  126. Loath to use it, but here goes. Perfect being enemy of good is in this case the right observation to the article here, especially the progression that has occurred through the comments. We have less than a hand full of women here who have somehow managed to get past the sphere’s vetting process, which ranges from pile driving to the more delicate mortar and pestal type of constant grinding the eek out yet an even finer point, a lower and lower denier fiber of wisdom.

    I suppose it is academically interesting to parse her article, and yes, the phrases Dalrock highlighted absolutely reflect back wrongly on the concepts she is trying to address in a manosphere friendly way. But the operative part, the central thesis IS a pile driver, not a mortar and pestel, and by virtue of who she is writing to it has to be.

    The hook is “think about these problems maybe being women’s fault”. It is a good hook. And when you juxtapose it against the readership (which ranges from male’s who go sycophantic near women, pedestalizers, those tradcons, liberals who like to read the opposition so to speak, angry women, women in general because its a relational argument, etc. ) it is a pile driver of a point she makes.

    Since CL extruded through a semi cheesy metaphor I will stay with mine. I worked on a pile driving crew one college summer, building a bridge. The first few drops of the weight are HUGE, and the piling slides into the earth like…well anyway….but after about 5 smashing blows, it starts moving inches, then millimeters, and finally refusal and stop. Without the first awkward clobbers the repeated pounding (details) would never be achieved. The readers are like unmolested earth and a pile driver cracks the surface.

    Ok, that’s all on the stupid pile driving.

    It is also interesting to me how I see women here who have been figuratively knighted as worthy female manospherians reflexively, instinctively seek to repel stuff like this.

    I suppose some of it is just that the group is above average intelligence and that lends itself to over analysis, which leads to the final point. Are there people here interested in seeing change, or in analysis to paralysis? Its not that critique of her piece here damages her efficacy, rather its that using this piece as an opener when evangelizing the red pill to the subset of apathetic lemming tradcons is a good thing. Look at it this way, they won’t even notice the language that the comments, and Dalrocks piece highlight as wrongheaded because those are what those people already believe anyway. Those foibles have zero effect, they are like the polyethylene glycol that comprises the mass of the pills that carry medicine…benign, and she has wrapped a small dose of red pill medz in it.

  127. dhurka says:

    There is an old manosphere saying about traditional women and feminists being two slave owners arguing about the best way to hold the whip. I think that is relevant in the case of this Venker woman.

    If I were an early 19th century american slave owner I would feed, clothe and house my slaves well. I would give them a day off once a week or so and even provide them with some beer. I would allow them some personal choice in clothes and slave hut decorations and sex partners. The reason is simple – you don’t extract maximum productivity from someone by grinding them into the dirt.

    One thing I would not compromise on is my right to flog disobedient slaves or hunt down and kill runaways. The anti male laws are the modern equivalent. Until women are seriously talking about changing these laws then they are just being smarter slave owners. In the long run this kind of thing is WORSE not better for men.

  128. greyghost says:

    dhurka
    You have that right on the money. A nice slave owner is still a slave owner. The laws are my target i don’t really care about a relationship with women. That is something I can handle on my own I partticipate because of the laws. Women participate because they are worried about their relationships period. They voted in the laws for their on selfish needs of SMV and MMV they do not give a damn and do not have the capacity to give a damn about the health effects it has on society as a whole. (men,children and “other” women)
    empathologicalism
    The MRM has many different areas that are needed to acheive changes. You are correct about the analysis and informing men. That is the easy part. taking what is known and redirecting the herd is the hard part. I said to Dalrock many times his role in the MRM is as a cultural leader in my eye. He is how to do it right he is to me a place for beaten down and terrified woman can go for personal security with god. My role I feel is to find ways to attack and beat down femminism. redirect the herd. Telling every man I see to not marry is a start. Involuntary childless spinsterhood is my goal for as many women as possible. At one piont I’ll start pushing for femminism just to make sure a selfish woman that believes in that suffers. Doesn’t bother me one bit to know a woman out of wicked selfish desire causes her self and any others involved with her suffering. My only concern is to let truth be known to those involved with such women.

  129. BBJ says:

    But, Dalrock, you don’t have it right either – anymore than this chick does. Marriage is a PARTNERSHIP. It is about partnership – not leadership. Done properly, it is goal oriented with both partners playing to their own strengths, and covering for their partners’ weaknesses. Good marriages come from good communication and mutual decisions. Marriage isn’t about roles, contracts, pre-nups or legal hogwash. They are about getting the most out of life you possibly can. How does divorce figure into that? Or fighting about money? Or who leads and who follows? Couples get into the stupidest battles and fight tooth and nail to win them – and lose the war. Are you people stupid?

    I admit I don’t understand the world I live in or what is going on out there. I met my girlfriend in high school. She got pregnant, we had a quick shotgun marriage and are still together 28 years later. We have had our battles, the the goal was to resolve them, not ‘win’ them. Perhaps that would be the limit of any advice I could offer younger men in the dating game. If you start having battles with your girl and the intent of it is who wins and who loses…you should walk away without any looking backward. The trials of marriage are about getting you what you BOTH want.

  130. tbc says:

    @Mark – Correct me if I am wrong….but Jesus and none of his disciples were married.Maybe they knew something that we men ought to?

    You’re wrong. Jesus was not married, but there is solid evidence that his disciples were married. In fact one of the first healing miracles of Jesus is of Simon Peter’s mother-in-law

  131. “All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
    If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.”

    Brilliant article, and great analysis thanks Dalrock. Good to see this going mainstream.

  132. Stingray says:

    Only if the men in question are attractive.

    And this is the primary reason why men and women cannot effectively communicate about these issues. The men that women’d actually WANT to listen to about these issues are exactly the men who cannot be bothered to talk.

    I agree that it is the alpha men that women will listen, too. But, as you said, past a certain age it will be much harder for women to listen, even to those alpha men. The thing is, past that age, they still don’t have much reason to listen because there are so many men willing to still validate them. A whole host of men, with different reasons, willing to give women the one thing they crave . . . validation. Take away these women’s validation and they will come. If you take away the beta males who are currently willing to continue orbiting, white knighting, et cetera, then the women will come. Women seek relationships with the alpha, but do not underestimate the usefulness of the beta males in maintaining their current belief system and lives.

    Where the men go, so go the women.

  133. Buck says:

    @
    “tbc says:
    November 29, 2012 at 6:30 am

    @Mark – Correct me if I am wrong….but Jesus and none of his disciples were married.Maybe they knew something that we men ought to?

    You’re wrong. Jesus was not married, but there is solid evidence that his disciples were married. In fact one of the first healing miracles of Jesus is of Simon Peter’s mother-in-law”

    Yeah, these alpha studs left everything to follow a preacher, Jesus… without a recorded peep out of their respective peanut galleries…MGTOW?

  134. taterearl says:

    “Yeah, these alpha studs left everything to follow a preacher, Jesus… without a recorded peep out of their respective peanut galleries…MGTOW?”

    Back in those days women weren’t “liberated”…women just followed. The only way divorce happened is if the man wanted it.

  135. The Rigorist says:

    @Dalrock

    Off topic and in regard to : “An adaptive strategy for furthering the family line”

    “How infidelity helps nieces and nephews: Men may share more genes with sisters’ kids than with cheating wife’s kids”

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-11-infidelity-nieces-nephews-men-genes.html

  136. Professor Hale,

    No spiders. No heavy stuff.

    I beg to differ; both mentioned by yours truly on November 28 at 3:21 pm. You’re welcome.

  137. It’s ironic that a debate about the status of men in today’s gender landscape can only be delivered by women to be taken seriously.

    Only in a fem-centric society are two women allowed to debate the pros and cons specifically about men and gender issues. Only in girl-world is a woman considered a legitimate authority and a credible assessor of issues that are uniquely male. No man could ever vocalize the points that Suzanne Venker makes and expect any rational discourse beyond the dismissive screeches of “MISOGYNIST!”

    In girl-world only women are allowed to advocate for men – but even in their best meaning advocacy they still unconsciously frame it in the only social framework they know, feminine primacy. This is the totality of the social environment we live in.

  138. dhurka says:

    BBJ
    “Marriage isn’t about roles, contracts, pre-nups or legal hogwash…..Are you people stupid?”

    Dare you to say this to a man being divorced raped. I probably would have smacked you in the mouth. You obviously don’t understand. Your wife can make your marriage about these things any time she wants. Maybe you should be grateful for what you have, rather than calling people stupid.

  139. tbc says:

    @Buck – an interesting way of phrasing it. But these ‘alpha studs’ as you put it would only follow someone who was more alpha than they were. So Jesus = the ultimate alpha, who had tremendous power and authority and uses it to the glory of his father and in service of others. I think it’s interesting in light of how often the “Christ as the head of the church” get subverted into debate over the Greek word kephale (head) actually meaning source and not authority. It is utterly despicable exegesis designed to support a feminist interpretation of Eph. 3. Christ as head of the church never gives up his authority in order to subject himself to that which he is to lead (the church) but rather uses his authority for her sanctification. The same principle is in view for the husband wife relationship. The husband is to use his power & authority for the sanctification of the wife. For some reason that bothers femigelicals a lot

  140. I wonder if part of her article’s problem can be chalked up to excessive cuteness. It seems like most people writing today want to be writers for The Daily Show, larding their words with heaps of irony and sprinkling in lots of winks and sarcasm. (I admit to doing plenty of it myself.) Women writers seem even worse about this than men, on average.

    So I wouldn’t be surprised if “I let him” is meant that way — like, uh oh, I’ve been serious for four whole sentences; better throw in a reversal to get a chuckle. She may not really mean it the way it sounds; I could see a wife who really does appreciate her husband’s leadership throwing in a bit of ‘irony’ like that to try to lighten things up. It’s still a problem, because it reflects how that kind of thing appeals to so many people. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say she’s trying to pull some kind of scam, without reading a lot more of her stuff (not that I’m going to bother).

    To me, it looks like she mostly gets the truth, but hasn’t totally accepted it, or even comprehended it yet, so she’s joking her way through the uncomfortable parts. She might be able to get there.

  141. Anon7 says:

    “I am married to a guy who works so that I can have a cushy writing life. That is the beauty of marriage.”

    This is the sentence that lets you into her mindset. She is a member of the worst variety of women you can find – the apparently-adult female who in fact has an emotional age of ten. In her mind, she still lives in her wealthy father’s house and is given everything in life without having to do anything in return.

    Her husband had better watch it. If he ever fails to come across with the goodies, he’ll discover that he is married to a vengeful child who will torture him for the rest of their married life.

  142. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Cail,
    That’s possible, but SWPL writers tend to use “scare quotes” to draw attention to snark.

  143. deti says:

    BBJ:

    “Perhaps that would be the limit of any advice I could offer younger men in the dating game. If you start having battles with your girl and the intent of it is who wins and who loses…you should walk away without any looking backward. The trials of marriage are about getting you what you BOTH want.”

    For some of the men who read and comment here, this: “walk away without any looking backward”, can no longer be done without isolation, alienation and impoverishment, because they are locked into Marriage 2.0. But the women can do so easily, even after marriage and children, because the legal framework currently exists to allow her to do so. She can “walk away without any looking backward” anytime she wants because the law guarantees her an income stream, continuing his marital obligations while releasing her from hers. She is rewarded for walking away from her obligations; he is punished for meeting his.

  144. Brendan says:

    I would like some truth. What is it really like after kids? Sorry if I’m derailing the conversation.

    First, kids in general are a great thing, in my opinion. One of the primary human experiences in being a parent, and the relationship with a child is unique due to the blood bond involved and inherent genetic similarities. It’s tough, but very satisfying at the same time. On balance, it’s probably worth the risk, but the probabilities there depend on your own circumstance.

    Having said that, it’s very common for marriages to change after kids come along. SSM’s post does a good job of describing some of the bigger changes, I think. Basically there is a tendency in American marriages in particular for the children to become the center of the family around which everything else revolves, rather than the H+W pairing being the center around which everything else, including the kids, revolves. This isn’t only due to feminism and changing gender roles and all of that — it’s also due to very different parenting standards today in which far, far greater social expectations are placed on parents to spend most of their free time directly interacting with their kids in some way. This is rather different to how things were when I was growing up in the 1970s and early 1980s — markedly different, different in kind. The impact on the marriage, potentially, is clear: there is generally much less time and energy for H+W to interact with each other, full stop, due to the expected time spent interacting with the children. This can be managed, of course, but it absolutely has to be actively managed in order to work well — the “default setting” will probably lead to marital problems in many cases if it is not actively managed in such a way to achieve more balance in time and energy, and more of a focus on the couple. In a lot of cases, the couple switches permanently to “parenting mode 24/7″ after the first child is born and never really changes back — that generally leads to problems and can lead to divorces. In terms of the divorce risk, yes, you have greater financial obligations if you have kids due to the way that child support is currently calculated as a flat tax on your income post-divorce regardless of your income, but if you want to have kids, I think that the benefits of kids outweigh that risk if your marriage is otherwise good, and you can actively manage things pro-actively after the kids arrive so as to not morph into a “parents only” marriage.

  145. deti says:

    “Take away these women’s validation and they will come. If you take away the beta males who are currently willing to continue orbiting, white knighting, et cetera, then the women will come. Women seek relationships with the alpha, but do not underestimate the usefulness of the beta males in maintaining their current belief system and lives.”

    “And this is the primary reason why men and women cannot effectively communicate about these issues. The men that women’d actually WANT to listen to about these issues are exactly the men who cannot be bothered to talk.”

    Yep. That’s pretty much what the men (myself included) have been at Susan’s site — beta orbiters, recovering betas, and white knights patiently and politely explaining things. HH is right about this — anything I say beyond cursory, abstract discussions of subjects is simply dismissed or ignored. Our direct responses to the female commentariat there simply causes anger, frustration and pushback, because we are precisely the men from whom these women don’t want to hear. They are petulant daughters rebelling against their fathers’ sound but stodgy advice. They want to have fun, fun, fun till their daddies take the T-Bird away (or until the baby rabies set in). Most women commenting there want affirmation and validation, not change or improvement.

    There is one self-proclaimed alpha dispensing such advice: Andrew at The Rules Revisited. But I don’t know how often he is read. His site certainly doesn’t get the traffic Susan’s site gets.

    Another thing is that a goodly portion of the manosphere is comprised of sites operated by recovering betas or whiny MRA types who happen to be very intelligent men and quite talented writers. Many of the commenters are themselves betas recovering from a divorce rape or failed relationships, or doing their best to navigate Marriage 2.0 without landing in the poorhouse and becoming isolated from their children. It’s funny that many betas and omegas call themselves Vox Sigmas, when they are anything but. I myself have slid along the spectrum from low Gamma to Beta. I’ll never, ever be an Alpha like any of the three Ro’s. I myself have done a fair amount of bitching and whining about how awful teh wimminz are, which is useful only for catharsis or as the internet equivalent of the primal scream. It is not actually changing anything.

    The best that will be done at all are changes on the margins. It’s why I think MGTOW will only increase, as will age at first marriage. I don’t see it getting much better for a long time. It will continue limping along as it has for the next several decades. The best that can be done is to educate men so they can make their own informed decisions.

  146. Some Guy says:

    “I would like some truth. What is it really like after kids? Sorry if I’m derailing the conversation.”

    1) After the stress of breast feeding issues, lactation consultants, constant fretting over baby weight, cries of anguish when the nipples got bit, and… worst of all… having to help with breast pumps… I no longer could get turned on by the sight of my wife’s breasts. This… combined with postpartum depression and stretch marks lead to a whole range of shit tests related to body image which did little to help me overlook these things. I never said a word, but I expect my wife picked up on this. Instead of adapting to the changes with an attitude of, “what can I do to be a little sexier or more discrete”, my wife responded to what she picked up from my feelings by being so hurt/rejected, that she seemed to want to intentionally withdraw her own attraction level to me ten times the amount mine had dropped as a sort of punishment for not appreciating her enough.

    2) With the kids on the scene, it seemed that every week I’d gain a new chore or task to do. One thing after another made her miserable. I assumed she was a rational adult and that should wouldn’t pitch a fit for no reason… so I’d do anything in my power to address these things even if it didn’t make financial sense. But the more I tried to deal with her complaints, the more she complained. It was exasperating; I’m not sure how much mental illness is involved, but I’m also sure I broke every Red Pill rule in the book.

    3) Concurrent with this… yes… the kids became the center of life as I became more and more a footnote. All the little things she used to do for me… favors, acts of service, random things… one by one… these fell by the wayside.

    4) However… the kids view me as some sort of Greek god or something. They admire me so much… it almost makes up for the emotional black hole that I cohabitate with.

    Don’t marry someone with health issues. If you are getting married and want to have kids… just go ahead and expect this sort of bullshit to happen. (Women can gain mental issues due to the whole childbirth thing.) Have an Athol Kay type plan for not screwing up in the face of up and you’ll do better than me.

  147. Some Guy says:

    correction for last sentence: “not screwing up in the face of *it*”

  148. Joseph says:

    The reality is that we have to have women complaining. Our society has been trained to ignore men in all circumstances. WE DON’T COUNT. Our opinions, DON’T COUNT. The only way for us to win this is to make so many women unhappy that they have no choice to address the issue for us. The fastest way to do that is to give them everything they want. Every…….last…….thing. It is the only way at this point.

  149. Brendan says:

    I myself have done a fair amount of bitching and whining about how awful teh wimminz are, which is useful only for catharsis or as the internet equivalent of the primal scream. It is not actually changing anything.

    The best that will be done at all are changes on the margins. It’s why I think MGTOW will only increase, as will age at first marriage. I don’t see it getting much better for a long time. It will continue limping along as it has for the next several decades. The best that can be done is to educate men so they can make their own informed decisions.

    Exactly, this is the conclusion I’ve come to myself as well quite some time ago now. It’s all about being informed and making better personal decisions. The system won’t be changing soon, with “soon” meaning the relevant time frame of that portion of our own lives for which these decisions are relevant.

  150. Brendan says:

    The reality is that we have to have women complaining. Our society has been trained to ignore men in all circumstances. WE DON’T COUNT. Our opinions, DON’T COUNT.

    I wouldn’t say that men’s opinions don’t count — men are all over the TV and the print media voicing their opinions about everything under the sun. It’s that men can’t complain about women — that is forbidden. At best the man comes off as a whiner, at worst as a misogynist, and probably in many cases as both. Women can complain about men all the time without being labeled by most people as whiners — not men. So, it’s a very context-specific restriction, really.

  151. CL says:

    @deti

    They are petulant daughters rebelling against their fathers’ sound but stodgy advice.

    Unless UMC fathers are demonstrably different to the average, my guess is that they either didn’t have fathers in the home or the ones they had were ineffectual, so they are simply adrift. The herd offers them a kind of security blanket and any man coming in to give them a dose of reality is going to have the herd mooing at him until he goes away. I highly doubt any more than an extremely small minority has grown up with the type of old school father you seem to be thinking of.

  152. deti says:

    CL:

    I was speaking more metaphorically in referring to fathers’ advice. Many women who seek relationship advice online didn’t grow up with a man in their house at all, much less their fathers. Men try to fill that role by giving advice at such sites. I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that it’s really a waste of time for me to do it.

    I think women would listen to Andrew from Rules Revisited; but they won’t listen to me.

  153. deti says:

    @ Joseph:

    “The only way for us to win this is to make so many women unhappy that they have no choice to address the issue for us. The fastest way to do that is to give them everything they want. Every…….last…….thing. It is the only way at this point.”

    We’re well on our way doing just that. Women have more options now than they ever have in the past. They have economic, social and sexual freedom. But as Brendan has said, women’s liberation from dependence on men has necessarily meant men’s liberation from responsibility and accountability to women.

    Another thing to consider is what “winning” will look like. If it means MGTOW and increased first marriage age, with women continuing to have freedom to work, act, talk and fuck like men, that will lead to less productivity, cratering birth rates, a shrinking economy, women competing with men for jobs, men losing out on more and more jobs, and a growing welfare state. That’s pretty much what we have now, and I don’t see it getting better what with the current administration which was just returned to office.

  154. CL says:

    @deti

    I wondered if perhaps you were being metaphorical. HUS is a waste of time. There is enough noise there that anything worth listening to is drowned out by the inane chatter.

  155. deti says:

    CL:

    Oh, I don’t think HUS is a total waste of time; but it’s just counterproductive for me to offer my views there.

  156. MackPUA says:

    There is no equality in a marriage … only biology

    A marriage & a relationship has bio-sociodynamic events & properties based on the imperative

    They are a timeline of biochemistry & seasons …

    Observe & demand those of your partner & you have a properly vital functioning family, union

    Dont observe them, & you no longer play off the dynamics of your god given biology & biochemistry

    Socio-biodynamics if not observed leads to a run away break down of bio-chemistry, but if observed reinforces a womans need for primacy

    All arguements in a relationship, are biological first & logic second

    Which is why as a man, if he’s right he has to correct her & be masculine

    In the unlikely event she’s wrong, he has to correct her & be masculine

    A man HAS to lead everytime …

    All relationships are measured by the standard of primacy

    A biologically correct primacy, where masculinity is strictly observed, is the hallmark of a union between a man

    Women internalise relationships

    Men externalise relationships by making their relationship relevant to the outside world

    By being masculine & strong a man creates an interface for the family to relate to the outside world

  157. Hugh G. Rection says:

    Jesus was not married, but there is solid evidence that his disciples were married. In fact one of the first healing miracles of Jesus is of Simon Peter’s mother-in-law

    It’s interesting then that Judas betrayed him when Peter had a legitimate grudge ;)

  158. sunshinemary says:

    @ CL
    I’m quickly coming around to your (and TFH’s and Stingray’s) point of view that trying to discuss this with women is a waste of time. After two weeks of attacks by TradCats and Prots, and then dealing with this kind of bull pucky, maybe it is a lost cause trying to move the herd in the right direction. Do you ever feel like a gender nomad, like you don’t belong on either team?

  159. Stingray says:

    Do you ever feel like a gender nomad, like you don’t belong on either team?

    I know you asked CL, so I hope you don’t mind, but yes. But I often wonder, are we supposed to belong to a team or is our team simply our family with our husbands being head coach?

    That woman Kelly, I feel sorry for her. She can’t see what’s right in front of her face, that she doesn’t need to project into the future as we are there right now. Women are not happy, but they cannot connect the dots to change themselves. Their happiness is their own to take responsibility for, yet for all of their *strength* and *independence* they can’t seem to fathom not making others bend to women’s will for women’s sake. Their is zero independence there.

  160. CL says:

    @sunshinemary

    All them time, sister, all the time. That’s what Team Her Man is for. Each dose of Red Pill only brings progressively more horrible truth – but what can you do, eh? Just see what happens when you try to bring your own family along and then all they have for you is insult and back-stabbing. I’ve wondered what they say about me when I’m not around, but today I wonder no longer. Just be prepared; Jesus said this would happen. Blood is not thicker than water.

  161. Samuel Johnstone says:

    Long time lurker first time poster (I think).
    Dalrock, this blog just gets better and better. I would like to say that your perspicasious analysis is reaching far beyond just the Christian domain in which it is intended. Like a previous poster confessed, I too am a non-religious person who is drinking deeply of the universal truths being found in this and other red pill manosphere blogs. In fact, it has led me recently to directly confront my agnostic atheism head on, rather continue with my usual hubris inspired glib dismissals of faith as an actually outcome of logical and reason. The cognitive dissonance has become too great.

    The brilliant cogence displayed here, and in other blogs, in deconstructing feminist ideology, showing how its illogical and destructive core is anathema to any sort of transcendant human morality and ultimate happiness, continues to be inspiring. Ultimately it is another example of the limits and fatal flaws found when humans attempt to rely on pure instrumental reasoning. Forgoing any sense of ancient wisdom we currently worship at the altar of science with high priests smugly professing immutable law even as it continually rejects its own assertions. What could this be but a type of faith?

    I personally find myself at a crossroad. Do I succumb to nihilism and go for the hedonisim/ epicurean gold and just try to slay as much tang as possible or do I throw my hat in with a floundering vessel that has been wracked by feminist, socialist, and liberal broadsides? Do I make a moral stand even though it may be one of a type of martyrdom that is actually sneered at by the vast inculcated masses? I fear that I will fall victim to what I call a NAMALT (Not All Marriages Are Like That) argument. Do I take a leap anyways, with my guts twisted into a knot and knowing with full red pill awareness what the statistics are? What the external pressures and messages sent to females are? Is it possible to avoid being in the statistical majority? Can one hope to keep a female away from indoctrination by the femanine imperative that insidiously invades and pervades every aspect of western society like a tidal wave roiling over a withered landscape? How can one even consider bring children into this debauched decadent decline?

    Thank you for what you contribute to society. It is truly awe inspiring.

  162. sunshinemary says:

    Stingray, maybe we should just be on our husband’s team, as you say. At least I like my husband, which is more than I can say for most other women (present company excepted of course). I’ve always hated Girl Nights Out anyway. Still, I can’t help feeling like that kid from the sixth sense (“I see dead people!”); it’s like, “Ladies, how can you not SEE this?!” I just want to shake them sometimes.

    Oh, and I know your views on the word “gender”, CL, but somehow “sex nomad” didn’t sound right – like maybe I wander from house to house looking for a lay or something.

  163. CL says:

    Oh, and I know your views on the word “gender”, CL, but somehow “sex nomad” didn’t sound right – like maybe I wander from house to house looking for a lay or something.

    Yeah, I thought the same thing, lol. In this case we’ll have to make do.

  164. Mark says:

    @tbc

    “”You’re wrong. Jesus was not married, but there is solid evidence that his disciples were married. In fact one of the first healing miracles of Jesus is of Simon Peter’s mother-in-law””

    Thank you.I knew that Jesus was not married……but have read that he fathered children with Mary Magdalene.(sp)……..I never heard anything about his disciples being married.I am not very familiar with the New Testament as I am Jewish.Thanks.

  165. Alexander says:

    @SSM

    The perfect image! I shall henceforth be using “Sex Nomad” as my favorite euphemism for slut.

  166. ybm says:

    Girls:

    Yes, your “gender adversaries” see it. They just don’t care. Or they know it if for “their benefit” and aren’t going to rock the boat.

    Sunshinemary I do remember it was sometime in the Spring of this year when you started to come around to the belief I express quite often around here that above all, its about CONTROL. It seems you’ve now gone about as far as you can under the manosphere dynamics, it might be time to start branching out into the academics now:

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

    http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Anatomy_of_Human_Destructiveness.html?id=YjR5Ve-zTcYC

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

    These writings are all gender-neutral, and show the things you are now butting up against are the same for both sexes. You think my younger brothers want to listen to their grizzled older brother lecture them about how much their wives and girlfriends suck?

    The only family member I can have these discussions with (other than my cat hahahaha) is my sister closest in age to me. My younger siblings aren’t old enough to remember what life was like in Europe, so the Anglo-American dynamic is all they understand.

    This sister married a man from back home and raises horses now. putting that law degree to good use I suppose…

  167. ybm says:

    Mark says:
    November 29, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    That is from a work called the Divinci Code a work of fiction that was made into a movie. That shows you the level of criticism some people give the media they consume. A fake book made into a fake movie became “fact” among conspiracy theorists (the Merovingian Jesus bloodline).

    Jesus left no heirs, if he did he would have been sanctified with the strength that the Caliph was. Jesus did have a brother though who had children.

  168. ybm says:

    I should say, half-brother. Joseph being his father,

  169. Buck says:

    @
    Some Guy says:
    November 29, 2012 at 9:32 am

    “I would like some truth. What is it really like after kids? Sorry if I’m derailing the conversation.”

    I don’t know a single married guy who would marry “her” again. Most would divorce tomorrow if not for the financial ruin they would experience, literally cheaper-to-keep-her.
    That said, the one redeeming thing most men claim to take away from their marriage are the kids!

    I know several guys who have special needs kids, they put on a brave face and say the things you probably should say…I love them, I wouldn’t have it any other way, they’re a blessing…but the pain on their faces is telling.
    I routinely thank the Lord for the health of my family, it’s a blessing that is incalculable.
    Life is risk, and children are a HUGE risk!
    I have friends with fat kids, gays kids, drug addicted kids, not-so-bright kids, criminals, smart asses, lazy, assorted disappointments. The kids that you would proudly brag about are few and far between.
    Kids for the first 7 months are easy, they eat and sleep, and fuss when dirty.
    7-18 months, they’re busy, and a parent must be on their toes.
    18mos’ to 9 years, the good years, kids are fun, everything is new, you as a parent get to relive your childhood through the kids.
    9-14 total roll of the dice, this is where they either take off or sink into social pathology.
    15 and beyond, their life course is pretty well set, absent a real eye opening.

    RE the wife,
    I know many guys who use the kids as a human shield to avoid the wife and intimacy…they become very involved with the kids and kid activities…to escape spending time with the wife.
    Wives do the same thing, BTY, kids do change the relationship.
    The kids are almost always her idea.
    The kids post college become a new reason to live, especially when grand-kids come along.

    On the onset of age/enfeeblement, those who shunned kids always have regrets and their soul searching is painful to watch.
    I fully understand their desire not to be burdened with kids when you are young and beautiful, free and funded, able to enjoy live.

    We all make choices.
    The bible advises that we think of death more than life…hummm, interesting.
    Many times I think of what legacy I will leave behind, what will people think and say of me after I’ve gone.
    I want to be thought of as honest, honorable, brave and generous…my children are part of the footprint I leave behind…are they descent honorable people?
    When on your death bed what are the things that really matter?
    For most people it’s personal relationships, the most important ones being with your parents and your children.

  170. Cultural_Expat says:

    BBJ, she’s got all the cards brotha…Although i do agree with your description of a successful marriage, and i have known the rare woman that will go against her lawyers advice to slam dunk the bastard, but in divorce theft she has nothing to lose so when the rubber hits the road and she doesn’t like how a situation was resolved, she has little risk and mostly unearned reward in saying….see ya latah Jack.

  171. infowarrior1 says:

    @Samuel Johnstone
    “Do I make a moral stand even though it may be one of a type of martyrdom that is actually sneered at by the vast inculcated masses? I fear that I will fall victim to what I call a NAMALT (Not All Marriages Are Like That) argument. ”

    You don’t do good to be recognized but for the sake of the good itself. If you are “saved” in christian terms you would also be recognized by our creator and applauded before the universe. Therefore if the masses right now and possibly forever may demonize you then take a moral stand no matter the cost.

  172. Anonymous age 70 says:

    I worked with MRA/FRA group in the 80’s, This is a common misconception that any group needs women for credibility.

    The minute you encourage women to participate, one of them will take offense at something, and attempt to stop open debate. Think Jennifer. And, one or more of the men will likewise immediately jump on any man who disagrees with them. This was one of many reasons the men’s movement gained little in the last 45 years, not because there was no such movement.

    There are a very few true red pill women, SSM seems to be one of them. So far.

    >>Our opinions, DON’T COUNT.

    Sure, they do. Our opinions is why the marriage strike exists. We don’t need permission to avoid marriage. (Disclaimer: I have been married since 1975. I married before it became apparent marriage is a bad deal for men. To my surprise, it has been 37 years, and it made no sense to divorce to avoid divorce. Marriage for men is a bad deal; don’t do it.)

    I do agree with some men that women avoid marriage until they approach 30, then it is men who finish off the marriage strike permanently.

  173. deti says:

    one or more of the men will likewise immediately jump on any man who disagrees with them. This was one of many reasons the men’s movement gained little in the last 45 years, not because there was no such movement.

    Maybe it’s one reason, but not by a longshot the most important.

    I’m with Brendan in that the most important reason the “men’s movement” has accomplished exactly nothing is there really is no “movement” in the sense of an organized, politically connected entity or network of people and entities focused on common goals. And there never will be such a movement.

    The second main reason is that the vast majority men just can’t be arsed to organize for those kinds of purposes.

  174. Pingback: Shouting in the Wilderness «

  175. twra says:

    “She was close to the core of the issue then, but was missing the key point of leadership. Telling the man he is responsible for financing and protecting the family but not leading it places him in a subordinate role. As others have pointed out, the difference between a driver and a chauffeur is who is calling the shots. Far too many self labeled “traditionalist” women want to put men in the driver’s seat as figureheads with the wives calling the shots; they are feminists who don’t want to get their hands dirty. The issue of headship is the litmus test which separates out truly traditional women and feminists in traditionalist clothing.”

    I Agree with the above ^^^^^^^

    I too often encounter traditional Christian women who in fact are nothing but little dictators. This is not how a marriage works, And this is not what the TWRA’s advocate. Personally I believe that men are the leaders while the women must follow. This is a dynamic complementary relationship between the sexes that works, very well. It is a starting point for a great relationship,

    Feminists want to shun most women from trusting their men, they ridicule and say that these men will eventually begin abusing them. The truth is most men are not abusers most men love and take care of their wives. And given that a man is the leader and the one responsible in the marriage. This will in fact lead the man to be better, as he will strive to be the best he can be for his wife. The wife will also seeing how masculine her man is will look to be more feminine and will want to please him in many ways. At the end they will have a wonderful relationship.

    I do not know people say I may be a perfectionist or I may be really lucky when it comes to finding my man. I still believe traditional mutual relationships are possible, People just need to drop the equality notions aside, as it is impossible since we are different genders meant for different things. When a husband and wife complement each other they are loved and honored for their both particular roles.

  176. Casey says:

    Ladies, welcome to TRUE equality.

    You can have the house, the kids, the cars, the job, the long work hours, the shortened life expectancy, the increased risk of heart disease & stroke, and of course all the STRESS that goes with it.

    Equality is a knife that cuts both ways……..but women want it to only cut in one direction. Such circular logic could only come from the feminine mind.

    Sooner or later, we will return to what worked for the benefit of the WHOLE family. However, you ladies are so obstinate & brainwashed it will likely take place by circumstance rather than acceptance.

    As the world runs out of cheap energy, times will indeed become tougher. The feminist movement was the byproduct of cheap energy, and an increasing living standard: both of which are now in full retreat.

    You ladies are so dependent on men to do the heavy lifting, and yet you don’t recognize it. How will you provide for yourself if no one is there to bring electricity & natural gas to your front doorstep?

    The truth is, I watch women at work talk about how the WISH they could stay home with their kids. That’s entirely normal. Unfortunately, your predecessors destroyed that option for you by entering the workforce en masse, and driving DOWN the price of labour.

    Men are retreating from marriage? DAMN RIGHT! What exactly is in this present arrangement for us other than ALL the RISK?

    Ladies, you have screwed up immeasurably. At least some of you will not be able to procreate because of your adbication of your role.

    For now, I will take some solace in the fact that many of you will face spinsterhood.

  177. editalm says:

    @ Casey what ladies are you referring to? It seems I am the only lady here and I an anti-feminist, yet you did not even bother to read what I said. Well sorry for you in fact I have a wonderful man, who will take care of me and provide for me. So I will take solace in the fact that hateful men like you will not procreate, :)

  178. Casey says:

    @Editalm……..I’m sure you are a female, but I’m certain you are no lady.

  179. Jennie says:

    Men are supposed to be “the captains” hmmm? Did any of you demented “men’s rights activists” ever think that life is not so black and white? Why assign different genders different, rigid roles? That is absolutely ridiculous. Life is NOT always so cut and dry (example: the man has to cook beef just because he’s a man, and a woman must eat salad just because she is a woman!) Switching “roles” is fun, in my opinion, and who predetermined what gender can do what? Think outside the box if you can. Example-let’s say Carrie loves construction, and is really, really good at it. Her husband Jim loves gardening. What is the problem with Carrie doing a stereotypically man’s job, and Jim staying home and planting roses? You guys are trying to return to the 1950’s it seems where “father knows best.” Well, sometimes father does NOT know best. Sometimes, father is an alcoholic, unemployed bum who beats his wife. You make it sound like all men are angels, and women are evil. Too black and white. And no, not all women are dying to get married. Marriage used to be an agreement between two MEN. Us women used to be property. PROPERTY!! Can you imagine that? Why the fuck would we want to give up all we have worked for to be property again? Would you? MRA’s have a reputation of being very misogynistic and hateful. Why? You guys need to seriously work on yourselves emotionally, spiritually, and many of you, I am sure–physically…

  180. Casey says:

    @ Jennie
    And you, Jennie my dear, need to work on your own anger issues by the sounds of it.

    You can generally tell when you are getting too close to the truth based on the level of expressed rage from the other party.

    You lament about how the manosphere makes it sound like all men are angels, and women are evil. Only seconds later, you paint all MRA’s as being “misogynistic and hateful, who need to work on ourselves emotinoally, spiritually, etc.” (ad nauseum).

    WEBSTERS DICTIONARY
    “Double Standard” – a phrase uttered by a woman in disgust, while seconds later invoking one.

    Is your hamster exhausted yet?

  181. Klavia says:

    It’s sad to see that misogyny is alive and well in the United States. As a female, I am insulted to have read such vitriolic thoughts regarding my station in society. Many of you who commented above should be ashamed of your beliefs regarding the “appropriate” roles of men and women. I’d like to see one of you face me, in person, and say such things — a thoroughly debasing verbal tirade is what you’d get from me, as major ideological correction is required.

  182. Sharrukin says:

    Klavia says:

    a thoroughly debasing verbal tirade is what you’d get from me, as major ideological correction is required.

    You sound like a member of the Red Guards.

  183. As a female, I am insulted to have read such vitriolic thoughts regarding my station in society.

    Sorry sweety. That is bad if we wrote of your station in society it was a mistake. We meant to write about you.

  184. Casey says:

    @ Klavia
    “Shame a man into his role” is what you just said my dear.
    A marriage is a team, but no team needs two Centers. Men play to our strengths, women should do the same…..if they value a happy marriage.

    Klavia, you are what is wrong with Western women. You don’t like what is being said, so you are going to devalue, debase, and demand men see it your way. Your way SUCKS; 50 years of ultimatums have left a tragic wake of broken homes, broken finances, broken childeren, broken marriages, broken men, and broken women……all at the hand of you and your sisterhood.

    The gender demanding second class submissive obedience isn’t currently men…….it’s women. Your own post confirms same.

  185. Casey says:

    @ Klavia
    Oh yes, by the way……..a major ideological correction is already ‘in the mail’. However, it is addressed to the myopic (read ‘all’) feminists of the world.

  186. Ton says:

    I’ll see your thoroughly debasing verbal tirade an raise you one hard right hand.

  187. Absolutely Right says:

    well there are many of us single straight serious men out there that are certainly looking for a love life again, especially after many of us had our wife cheat on us. many women nowadays are not that faithful anymore like they use to be back then. and today there are so many women that are looking for the RICH man instead.

  188. an observer says:

    ” major ideological correction is required… ”

    Be careful what you wish for.

  189. Pingback: Chasing Without Knowing, Acting Without Responsibility | The Society of Phineas

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