Suzanne Venker on women’s rights, men’s responsibilities, and why she divorced her first husband.

Several fellow bloggers expressed concern in the comments section of my last post that I might be creating an enemy out of an ally.  After all, in her opinion pieces Venker seems to get it at least somewhat right. At least she wants to allow men to be men in some ways (provide and protect), even if she is all about the strong independent woman.  The problem is expecting men to continue with traditional gender roles while having no reciprocal expectation of women is a disaster.  This is just another brand of feminism, where women have rights and men have responsibilities.  We can see this in her interview with the Daily Beast:

…women, once they have children would prefer to work part-time or not at all when their children are young. Their career trajectory will be different than that of men. Feminists don’t like that. They want everybody to want the same thing, career trajectories to be the same. Women may say I really want to exercise or hang out with my friends and have coffee or go shopping and have a cushier life, and your guy will be happy to do that, and go to the office all year long for 40 years to allow you to do that. Men don’t have that option. And there is nothing wrong with having different road maps.

The need to enforce this brings us the worst parts of marriage 2.0, which are all about ensuring that the wife can divorce without consequence if her husband doesn’t follow her leadership.  This is what the threatpoint is all about.  After all, what if her “guy” isn’t happy going to the office all year for 40 years to allow his wife to lead a cushy life after she attains her feminist merit badge?  While Venker claims to oppose easy divorce, she can’t really come down hard on it because women need this threatpoint to have it all.

Venker knows this better than most, because she has been there and done that.  In her interview with New York Magazine she describes finding that she had to personally adapt as a wife and temper her “strong-willed and opinionated” personality.  This lead to the topic of her first marriage, and she explained that her being a strong independent woman wasn’t the cause of her divorce:

I wouldn’t say what we’re talking about here applies to my first marriage, although there is some connection. After college, I lived in and worked in New York, and I was married for four years, then I moved back to St. Louis, remarried, and had two children. Our issues were geographical. I didn’t want that crazy lifestyle. I wanted a simpler life, a one-income family. I didn’t want to live in New York. But that’s not the whole enchilada.

See also the video of the Venker interview on Fox and Friends here (H/T Free Northerner).  In that interview she continues to distance herself from her War on Men article and seems to want to reclaim her feminist bona fides.  She reiterates that wives should sometimes allow husbands to make decisions.  She also makes it very clear that she isn’t talking about husbands as head of household.

One of the hosts suggests as an example of women making accommodations to men that wives not take out the garbage, even if they already have it in hand (leaving that honor for their husband).  Ms. Venker is delighted and responds that this is a perfect example of what she has in mind.  Another example he offers to her enthusiastic agreement is that wives should leave it to their husbands to investigate a possible intruder in the home.

She does end the interview with a plea for appreciation on behalf of men, explaining that men are much better now than in her father’s generation.  She offers the example of men shopping while wearing Snuglis™ (like this man) as proof of men’s improvement.  She made the same basic comment in the NY Mag interview:

I grew up with the hands-off father from a different generation. He was old school and didn’t show his love. I don’t see how people cannot see the huge change between him and fathers today, who are wearing Snuglis, and you’ll see them at Target on a Wednesday afternoon. I think male involvement at home is a wonderful thing, but understand that if you try to make them into women completely, you’re never going to be able to have that male provider.

See Free Northerner’s take on the Fox & Friends interview in his post:  Venker Backtracks

About these ads
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Divorce, Feminists, Solipsism. Bookmark the permalink.

213 Responses to Suzanne Venker on women’s rights, men’s responsibilities, and why she divorced her first husband.

  1. Lib Arts Major Making $31k a Year at an Office Job says:

    “If we make men into women, then we’re never going to have men.”

    Yup. Now please own it.

  2. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    lzozozoozozooz

    da fmeienists definition of “returning to tradition” is returning to the missionary position for one’s husband when she lets him have sex with her once a month, while yet engaging in buttehxt with all the college dudes and post-divorce dudes while the x-husband fundz itzlzzozozooz

    lzozozozozo

  3. At risk of falling prey to it all being about me…meaning if I’m in the group to which you refer, in my case the point is missed. My issue is limited to the article, and not applicable to the person as to whether she is or is not an ally. In fact, I knew these things as Ive been following her since her and Schlafley’s book was released and have been well aware she has the tradcon femcentrism down pat.
    I wanted to simply suggest that that article, literally just it, is not a bad ice breaker. Sure, then as you go on to discourse with her ilk and the followers you well may run smack into their dissembling but I still think its worth something.

  4. ybm says:

    *wheels come off the bus*

    Well, that didn’t take long.

  5. Hbuin90 says:

    She’s a liberal through and through. But will be given the “far-right!” makeover by the liberal media. Kind of how the media painted people such as Palin/Beck as “far- religious RIGHT!”.

    Hysterical. And untrue.

  6. Looking Glass says:

    Even from the first post-release interview, she was backtracking as fast as she can. She got a little close to accurate and way too close to breaking down all of the lies that most people hold. Obviously, she couldn’t take the heat.

  7. ybm says:

    Hbuin90 says:
    November 29, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Controlling the narrative is of primary importance among authoritarians. Paint reactionary values as revolutionary and mainstream values as “correct” and people wouldn’t dare consider revolutionary values as anything other than “dangerous” and needing to be controlled.

  8. ar10308 says:

    Well chalk that up to a book I won’t be buying.

    As another described earlier, this is a discussion between slave masters on how best to keep their slaves.

  9. TFH says:

    Yeah, with this new information, I have to conclude that Susan Venker is not very good.

    Positives :

    She used the term ‘War on Men’, bringing exposure to it.
    She pointed out that men are avoiding marriage and are less interested in it than women.

    Negatives :

    All of the many points Dalrock has mentioned above. She still seems to think men exist only for the utility of women.

    Yeah, she is no ally. She succeeded in riling up the enemies, but that does not make her an ally.

  10. Joseph says:

    Add to her mentality “God said so” and you have 99.999999999% of “Christian” women. And now they wonder where all the good men have gone. It’s easy ladies, we’re running from you with everything we have.

  11. Carnivore says:

    One of the hosts suggests as an example of women making accommodations to men that wives not take out the garbage, even if they already have it in hand (leaving that honor for their husband).

    So, a wife is supposed to let her husband decide to do those things she doesn’t want to do. That’s thoughtful of her.

    I think male involvement at home is a wonderful thing, but understand that if you try to make them into women completely, you’re never going to be able to have that male provider.

    A wife should emasculate her husband just enough so he can still do the things she doesn’t want to do.

    My, my, marriage is sounding more attractive by the minute – NOT.

  12. ybm says:

    Carnivore says:
    November 29, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    In other words: Neuter him, don’t castrate him.

  13. Feminist Hater says:

    More like stick his balls in a vice and then release them once a month.

  14. ballista74 says:

    Suzanne Venker is no ally. I think people were interested because she exhibited the 0.01% of understanding that it takes to see that men are angry, but she has absolutely no conception why, and has already backed away from that small degree of understanding entirely.

    So in the end, she’s just another female-supremacist hate monger. All her message is is this: “Hey wait a minute, our slaves are running away from the plantation. Let’s be kinder gentler slave masters and maybe they’ll come back.” I’m sure, she, like a lot of other women, are sensing the coming shit-storm that they have reaped due to their wickedness, and are doing everything they can to forestall it.

    Slavery is slavery is slavery. Until Marriage 2.0 (i.e. all modern marriage) is blown up, and female-supremacist hate is dealt with for what it is in a severe manner, nothing will change.

  15. Feminist Hater says:

    The entitlement attitude held by this lady is immense and to think she’s being shouted down by the rest of the femcunt chorus as being overly traditional in outlook?! Women seem to truly think that it is an honour to be their humble slave.

    Yes grrls, continue to be ‘smart and sassy’, it’s oh-so attractive!

  16. Looking Glass says:

    All she ended up really doing was questioning the “The Beatings will continue until Morale improves” thinking. Obviously, she lost her point to her intended audience.

  17. okrahead says:

    The fact of her divorce was, of course, a gigantic red flag from the start…. She had refused to give any reason other than being unhaaaaapppy living in New York that she filed for divorce. A woman who ditched her husband because she wanted to move to another state and he refused, and who still refuses to own up to that action, is not and cannot be an “ally” in repudiating feminism.

  18. Feminist Hater says:

    Marriage to Venker sounds much the same as sticking your dick through a wood chipper.

  19. ybm says:

    I really want to see an interview with Mr.whatever-his-last-name is (because she doesn’t seem like the type to take his last name).

    I’m picturing a collared shirt 2 sizes too big
    10 dollar supercuts haircut
    Sneakers
    Hangdog expression
    Doesn’t talk

    Poor guy.

  20. MackPUA says:

    The wood chipper works out better in court too … you dont have to pay alimony disguised as child support to pay for the wood chips … after your dick gets wood chipped …

    Also married to a wood chipper works out financially better then married to most woman … vive la woodchip …

  21. jg says:

    There is another conservative feminist by the name of Dr.Janice Shaw Krouse(Economist) who once said in a radio interview said that women must not only be educated and have jobs, they must never ever get back to the 50′s position of “barefoot and pregnant”!!! Now this is a woman who from the conservative women’s think tank called Independent Women’s Forum.

  22. an observer says:

    Straight from the publicists playbook. Make some controversial comnents, then backtrack.

    Just another attention whore seeking book sales.

    Yawn. Nothing to see here.

  23. FuriousFerret says:

    It’s really simple though:

    The woman herd was manipulated by the unattractive she-beasts into buying into something that sucks, a career. These physically replusive women didn’t have the option to marry a high status man and be a pampered woman. They had to marry Cletus, if they got married at all, and work some shitty service job. So they demanded that all women should want high powered high paying jobs because it served ugly women.

    Women being the sex that is has more receptable herd response combined with the natural attitude of entitlement were like ‘yeah you know what we should all have awesome powerful jobs’. Very few normal women stopped to ask do we actually want these soul sucking jobs? Because if they had any common sense, the answer would be ‘HELL NO. We have a good thing going here, we clean up and take care of the children and get treated like little queens”.

    Now that the horrible truth about careers and how horrible they are and the only reason a guy does them is to support his wife and kids is front and center in their face, they want the old deal back except with the added bonus of keeping the majority of the decision power in the relationship.

    See the women that are legitmately pretty and have some common sense don’t want a career. They want to marry an alpha and get waited on hand and foot. These are the equivalent of a female PUA, they are smart enough to see through feminist bullshit and get the best deal for themselves.

  24. MackPUA says:

    “Hbuin90 says:
    November 29, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Controlling the narrative is of primary importance among authoritarians. Paint reactionary values as revolutionary and mainstream values as “correct” and people wouldn’t dare consider revolutionary values as anything other than “dangerous” and needing to be controlled.”

    excellent comment btw …

  25. deti says:

    Well. So much for Suzanne Venker. That’s that.

  26. Yeah, I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt in the other thread, but this clinches it. She picked a controversial topic to write about and went against the PC position a little, but she doesn’t appear to understand the problem past the surface appearance, and she certainly isn’t on the side of traditional marriage in any sense.

    I think male involvement at home is a wonderful thing, but understand that if you try to make them into women completely, you’re never going to be able to have that male provider.

    (My emphasis.) So she only wants to make men into women partly, not completely. (Never mind that feminism has already made men very effeminate, and that’s part of why women are so unhappy.) And she stresses again that what she really wants from a man is a provider, not a leader in any sense.

  27. ron says:

    At this point, as a deeply religious man, I would only recommend a man to get married if he has tremendous faith in G-d. And he had better know game.

    It’s interesting, but this situation is similar to what Abraham and Isaac went through, both men found their marriages under siege by government. Only in those days, the rascals were more upfront about it. What did Abraham do? He made it clear to the government that the woman was his sister, not his wife, and just went along his business. Isaac did the same.

    We find ourselves in an equally sick situation. A man can treat a woman with whatever honor and respect he wishes, but heaven help that poor son of a bitch if he legally announces that he will do so in an honorable fashion. It’s gotten to the stage where I believe that the only way a man can truly be a husband and father in any honorable manner is if he is legally in the position of a “cad”.

    That means he has a separate domicile for himself and the woman, under no circumstance does his “girlfriend” live on a property he purchased, only rented. He dares not share anything, any accounts, any assets, in fact he should probably keep as much overseas in as many diverse jurisdictions as possible, and he should make it his business to never allow his girlfriend(s) to hear a word of it. He’d probably be well advised to get a second passport just in case, and should have some investments overseas as well if possible.

    Furthermore, he’d probably be well served having more than one such woman available at the same time. As for children, I honestly don’t know what to tell American men, it’s a dangerous call getting an American woman pregnant, because legally she’ll have you.

    I remember what Abraham said when he was asked by the Philistine king why he relied on the ruse of not being married. The implication being that the Egyptians were obviously wicked and demented but that the Philistines were cultured (they actually were). His answer was “there is no fear of G-d in this place”.

    That is the situation for you my brothers. You live in a country (a world at this point) that has no fear of Heaven at all. You must be smart and methodical. You cannot allow yourself to be destroyed or played. The great enemy hates you, and will do everything to break you and break your souls so that you will be destroyed and embittered; that’s how he turns people into servants of evil. Don’t give up. We are all in a terrible fight for our lives, for nothing less than our individual freedom, our manhood, our liberties, even to have the ability to pass on our genetic existence.

    Such wicked people those enablers of the feminists are.

  28. Pingback: In the Home Stretch « Hidden Leaves

  29. ron says:

    I want to add something

    People are blaming the feminists, and I believe that is a foolish and short sighted thing to do. There are always wicked people speaking selfish nonsense, I don’t believe the feminists have said any wicked nonsense that wasn’t said by equally horrible people throughout the ages of history.

    But the reality is that the feminists have many men who support them. We call these men “white knights” and “manginas”. Men who unconsciously adopt strategies that use women as an excuse to brutalize their fellow man. To destroy their fellow man, to humiliate him in order to gain prestige, to take what their brother rightfully earned, to intimidate all others for the sake of gain. In addition we have the flatterers, the sycophants, men who are really cowards at heart and say things for the sake of pleasing the foolish masses instead of educating them with unpleasant and painful truth.

    It is these men who we should direct our ire at. The feminist has little power if the police officer will not lift a baton on her behalf, if the judge will not rule according to her philosophy, if the politician will not make laws that torment the electorate. I saw a photo of a group of women carrying various blunt objects while walking across a field with angry expressions and the caption said “tell us to make a fucking sandwich again asshole”. And what would these amazons do if even 2 half trained marines carrying lead pipes were to really cut loose on them? They’d be slaughtered and we all know it. The point is, their “power” their “strength” is illusion. It is the power and strength of cynical rascals who use them as an excuse to oppress the rest of us.

    I say we direct our anger and our ire at the MEN who have betrayed us. Let the feminists wail all day long, it matters not. But we should save our glowering stares and the gritting of our teeth for our so-called leaders who betrayed every single one of us. Betrayed us, and our sons, and yes, even our women and daughters.

    Let them know you are aware of their little games, that you know what they are doing to you, let them become aware of the hate and anger you feel for their deception. Give up your hatred of women, they are merely catspaws for the cowards, the bullies, the sadists, the sycophants, the worthless two-faced leaders who despise you and laugh while they fuck your wives, turn your daughters into whores and your sons into slaves.

  30. Feminist Hater says:

    What she wanted was a walking wallet that had a dick attached.

  31. CL says:

    Why is she wearing an air traffic control shirt? And just look at that sexy haircut!

  32. UnicornHunter says:

    Random thought of the day:

    I just can’t relate any more to who I used to be. I can remember; but it seems surreal, like a bad dream.

    Recently, I was searching through some old emails and read a couple I sent my ex when our marriage was coming apart. I wanted to vomit. I would have divorced me.

    Now, I wonder how much of a young man’s sex drive is nature and how much is a desperate searching for validation of their self-worth between a woman’s legs. After my divorce, I grew the hell up and finally realized that my self-worth is not connected to the opinion my ex and her family and most other people have of me. I have a handful of people who’s opinion I value otherwise, it’s what I think of me and if the ex thinks I’m scum, so be it.

    I’ve no women in my life currently. With no need to seek validation via sex, the value of regular sex in comparison to the hassle and drama of most women makes the equation untenable. Sex just isn’t worth the hassle. Instead, if I want to add to my bass guitar collection or take the kids on vacation, I can and I’ve got the money to do so.

    I just don’t get it any more.

  33. @ CL – “Why is she wearing an air traffic control shirt?”

    She’s bringing in some femininst cargo for a landing to avoid forced closure by the Femstapo.

  34. Cane Caldo says:

    And just look at that sexy haircut!

    Empathh, I think, wrote a post about her article a few days ago. I took one look at the man-hair headshot, and thought: She’s a phony. Venker gets the problem. It scares the crap out of her to lose her fame-inducing but otherwise worthless career to be an actual wife. Besides: What kind of idiots must men be to allow themselves to be repeatedly chained to serving her whims? Only a bigger idiot would accept leadership from them…

    There’s a weird likeness to the photos of women who write on marriage issues from the post-feminist perspective. Stepford must be a very butch place these days. If you told me Venker, Walsh, and Gregoire were sisters I would fully believe it.

  35. Ahab says:

    What she suggests is similar to Rollo’s take on that HUS blogger – building a better beta.

    This is like the women saying: “ok, you guys don’t like marriage 2.0, fine. how about marriage 1.99 then?”

  36. Brendan says:

    Now this is a woman who from the conservative women’s think tank called Independent Women’s Forum.

    These are basically empowered professional women who don’t like taxes (and some of whom don’t like abortion). That’s all it is.

  37. FuriousFerret says:

    “I took one look at the man-hair headshot, and thought: She’s a phony. ”

    Girl Writes What looks like she could lead a feminist parade. She has short hair and is divorced, yet everything that she talks about it dead on. She uses scientific fact, reason and logic in her videos.

    So you can’t always judge a book by their cover. I know NAWALT, but I honestly believe that Girl Writes What is definitely one of those women.

  38. koevoet says:

    I read through some of the comments on one of Venker’s interviews that Dalrock has linked. Regardless of what you say about her, she sure shook up the hamster hive! I haven’t heard that many angry beavers chattering since…hell, never.

  39. CL says:

    @Cane Caldo

    There’s a weird likeness to the photos of women who write on marriage issues from the post-feminist perspective. Stepford must be a very butch place these days. If you told me Venker, Walsh, and Gregoire were sisters I would fully believe it.

    Yes, I have noticed this too. Especially the Christian ones – they seem to have a uniform look that is anti-sexual and boring. It is kind of creepy. Of course there is bound to be an exception or two, but that doesn’t change the generalisation.

  40. Looking Glass says:

    Considering the Student Loan market’s default rate just went parabolic, I’d say that the hamsters are about to be in overdrive for a while. A lot of people will be in for a rough life they chose. Irregardless of the recent election.

  41. TFH says:

    Looking Glass,

    Considering the Student Loan market’s default rate just went parabolic,

    Yes! Thanks for noticing that. I wish more people kept their eyes out for that sort of datapoint.

    The bubble-pop is near.

  42. Feminist Hater says:

    She deviated 1 degree away from the feminist narrative and team femcunt clawed into her like Sandy did to New York. The back tracking is simply to gain favour once again so as to maintain her place in da sisterhood.

    All hail the Mighty Vajayjay of the sisterhood, hail!

  43. ybm says:

    TFH says:
    November 29, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    If I recall correctly, in the US you cannot dispense student loan debt in bankruptcy, it simply carries on forward as garnishment and withheld refunds.

  44. Cane Caldo says:

    I read through some of the comments on one of Venker’s interviews that Dalrock has linked. Regardless of what you say about her, she sure shook up the hamster hive! I haven’t heard that many angry beavers chattering since…hell, never.

    She’s a peculiar form of environmentalist dedicated to preserving the American Breadwinner from extinction. We’d be better off, to her mind, locked up in the personal menageries of sensible women like her, rather than dead, as her sisters wish.

  45. Johnycomelately says:

    Didn’t Dalrock predict this last year, that feminists would try to co-opt the manosphere but on their own terms?

    Kudos for spotting the fifth column.

    It’s good to see feminism mark IV (or wherever it is now) ‘allows’ men to take out the garbage.

    Is it just me or are all these types of articles by post wallers looking for beta chumps to settle with expired women now that they’ve seen the ‘light’.

    [D: I didn't predict it. I'm not sure who did.]

  46. ybm says:

    It was Zed who said it first, we all have just been reminding people of it.

    He said it in 1998.

  47. okrahead says:

    Let’s have a “Venker Rule”…. Any woman wanting to claim she’s NAWALT material, yet has divorced her husband, must give proof beyond any reasonable doubt of extreme circumstances…. And freezing your husband out in the bedroom until he looks at porn is not “extreme circumstances.” Neither, for that matter, is “abuse” which consists of a shouting match when he finds out you’ve been logging serious facebook time with your ex.
    No, until all you divorced womyn can prove the divorce was really and truly not your fault, you are guilty. If you frivorced your husband you must go back to him, in figurative (and perhaps literal) sack cloth and ashes. You busted up your family, you fix it. Otherwise just admit what you are.

  48. Anonymous Reader says:

    Looking Glass
    Considering the Student Loan market’s default rate just went parabolic,

    Last time I checked, SL debt exceeded all credit card debt. It is one of the accounts receivable to the government, too. I expect to see the Occupy movement demanding forgiveness on those loans in the next couple of years, and do not be surprised if something along those lines happens. Another means of vote buying.

  49. FuriousFerret says:

    ‘Another means of vote buying.’

    By who? If the Republicans forgive college debt, the young voters that benefit from this action would lap it up and still vote Democrat. The Democrats don’t need to do anything to ensure their votes so they won’t.

    The only chance that Republicans have to buy votes at this time period is to appoint Latino candidates. The ace in their hole, I’m certain is a Latino presidental candidate.

  50. deti says:

    Johny:

    “Didn’t Dalrock predict this last year, that feminists would try to co-opt the manosphere but on their own terms?”

    I think that was either Rollo or PMAFT.

  51. Infernal Optimist says:

    @ron “The feminist has little power if the police officer will not lift a baton on her behalf, if the judge will not rule according to her philosophy, if the politician will not make laws that torment the electorate.”

    Dunno about the police officer, but the judge and politician – where the electorate is 51% female? Good luck with that!

  52. MackPUA says:

    50% of the population ie women, if you popularise & endorse throwing away their families, point the finger at the perpetrators …

    Sure clueless men enforced these laws, but theyre not the ones initiating the divorce, or endorsing all the false dv, false rape claims, prevalent today

    Its women who popularise the status quo

    Even if the laws werent in place, women will always repeat the same narrative

  53. MackPUA says:

    @Deti
    Johny:

    “Didn’t Dalrock predict this last year, that feminists would try to co-opt the manosphere but on their own terms?”

    ‘Yea that was TFH & PMAFT

  54. TFH says:

    Yea that was TFH & PMAFT

    Yep, but the thing is, they would be very unsuccessful at it, since they just can’t grasp the core concepts of the Androsphere.

    For one thing, they have no clue what Game is.

    Secondly, they never, ever bring up the fact that the laws are unfair (because these women don’t think the laws are unfair if a woman benefits, even as they shriek if, once in a blue moon, a woman actually loses money from a divorce).

    Their attempts to co-opt it would be laughably unsuccessful.

    Note that a real anti-misandry woman like Dr. Helen is not attempting to co-pot anything, even though she also has a book coming out soon. She is actually making a positive difference, and sticks to talking about the unfairness of the law (which is where the discussion should reside first and foremost).

  55. TFH says:

    Ybm,

    If I recall correctly, in the US you cannot dispense student loan debt in bankruptcy, it simply carries on forward as garnishment and withheld refunds.

    That is correct. The universities themselves have no skin in the game, as a result. They are free to increase fees higher and higher and higher (that too on the back of yet another government subsidy), as the costs can be passed onto students who cannot get out of it.

  56. TFH says:

    I should add, however, that more of the people being crushed under student debt are women, since men are more likely to study a field that leads to a real job (engineering, business). Women rack up these debts with humanities degrees and truly expect some man to marry her and pay off her debt (after a decade of carousel-riding, of course).

    A large portion of single women in America have negative net worth. A man marrying them would be taking on their debt. Something more men should know (on top of all the other financial risks).

  57. ybm says:

    TFH says:
    November 29, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    Oh yes. Lessons from the frontline ahead:

    I’m on contract until the end of April to teach 1 personal finance course each semester, because I’m not an educator, and because I am not tenured, the course that I teach is the introductory personal finance course. It is required for all business majors, whether accounting or HR, but it is an elective otherwise. The course is the basic things: Present Values, WACC, the concepts of Beta-statistics and risk-return. Complex sounding stuff but very basic, I even allow a cheat sheet on my exams, despite the class averages never getting above 58% good thing I scale!

    The reason of course, why the average is so low is plainly obvious to all of you: the HR, marketing, ‘supply chain management’, ‘general management’ majors. Despite what you may think, the bell curve is irrelevant to exam marks. The real chart looks more like: “/\/\/\” a bunch of people getting 20% then a chasm, then a bunch of people getting 60%, then a chasm, then a bunch of people getting 100%.

    Who are these three groups:

    20% – Daddies little princess getting her first taste of freedom (among other things she is tasting on weekends who will never graduate. They are there to fuck football players, get drunk and ‘have fun’ on daddies dime.
    60% – The marketing, HR girls who have absolutely no idea what they are doing and on the second or third try, are finally able to pass (our school requires a C- to get credit in the course)
    100% – The White male/Asian female accounting, finance, mathematics majors and the brainiacs who are taking the course as an elective.

    Why does this matter to the student loan bubble: Simple, that 60% cohort are the ones with the student loans, and they are the ones who will not be able to find jobs. They are the ones who expect to marry quickly once graduation hits (or are in their MRS.Degree phase right now) and all of that debt will either become unloaded onto her future husband, or the taxpayer when she can’t find a job.

    These are the Occupy Wall Street girls, the women who want you to marry them, the professional girls embracing their hypergamy, the feminist merit badge-types.

    Women can get all the degrees they want. The fact is that, from the other side of the equation, less than a quarter of the girls in my class should be there. In a class of 50 people, 10 are men, and they are all finance and accounting majors. These poor guys are going to end up paying for the ~30 women who can’t pay back their student loans, either through taxation or marriage.

  58. freebird says:

    Notice Ms.Venker never refers to her husband in the first person possessive,it’s always in the second person collective,as in:
    “The dishwasher works better when I don’t hit it with a hammer.”
    An item of utility,not a person at all.
    I wonder what Mr Venker *wants*?
    Ive’ heard a lot about what she did because it was what she *wanted.*
    The utility appliance/husband is presumed to have no wants nor needs of his own.
    If he doesn’t like it he can be replaced,she’s done it once already with no compunction.
    Howdy Mr.Venker!
    High five bro?
    What’s that?
    You support your wife in all things?
    Idiot.

  59. TFH says:

    These poor guys are going to end up paying for the ~30 women who can’t pay back their student loans, either through taxation or marriage.

    Yep. Hence the Roosh effect, where a man who is a PhD Biologist is now a scruffy PUA in Eastern Europe. He is not bearing the costs of these womens’ degrees.

    As long as the cost is transferred onto manginas/whiteknights, or kept on the women themselves, that is good. Our job in the Androsphere is to ensure that men who want to be enlightened can make sure they dodge these costs.

  60. ybm says:

    That’s what I did. I went from Audit manager at KPMG working 70-80 hours per week to part time contractor at a college doing retirement planning for a few farmers. I probably work 10 hours per week on average these days not including the time I’m sitting in my temporary office browsing the internet during the day.

  61. ybm says:

    And I’m not even thirty yet :)

  62. TFH says:

    Not paying taxes is a victory unto itself. Any man who is working long hours to be in a high tax bracket is being swindled big time.

    Get free time while denying the parasites the taxes they would take for you. The obvious way to survive this holocaust.

  63. Anonymous Reader says:

    Me, on forgiving student loan debt ‘Another means of vote buying.’

    Furious Ferrit
    By who? If the Republicans forgive college debt, the young voters that benefit from this action would lap it up and still vote Democrat. The Democrats don’t need to do anything to ensure their votes so they won’t.

    The Dems need to keep their 20-something single vote block active and directed. It would be a great move in 2016, when a majority of that debt will be held by women, a majority of whom will have degrees that they cannot get jobs with that pay enough to service the loan debt.
    Just as the “free birth control” issue worked this year. Opposing the debt forgiveness will likewise be a “war on women ” and a “war on college graduates”.

  64. ybm says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    November 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    Your democrat party has the 20-something single female vote locked up for the duration of my lifetime anyway.

    The republican party is too much like their dad. He like, tells them to do stuff and stuff, and he was like, never there when they needed him, you know? Why should she like, be there for him when he was like, too busy at work to be there for her?

    Besides, not a few UMC white girls get the “safe-black” bad boy boyfriend in Obama. I’m very surprised anyone though UMC white girls would have voted for Romney, he’s so like, boring, you know?

  65. sunshinemary says:

    Well, crap. Just crap.

    Although it’s disappointing, I must retract my hopeful comments about Ms. Venker on the last post. I was not aware she had ever been divorced; that certainly wasn’t mentioned in the book I read by her. Her statements in the Daily Beast interview are revolting. How can her husband stand to read it? How can he allow her to speak of him that way? She does not respect him, that is clear. What she is suggesting certainly is not biblical headship and submission. She is useless. She is worse than useless because she comes disguised as a friend but is really an enemy. Samuel Solomon was correct in his assessment.

    It’s disheartening, though. I had secretly hoped she might be the proof that we women aren’t entirely hopeless. Bye-bye happy illusions.

  66. greyghost says:

    As long as the cost is transferred onto manginas/whiteknights, or kept on the women themselves, that is good. Our job in the Androsphere is to ensure that men who want to be enlightened can make sure they dodge these costs.

    Beautiful, I really like that.

  67. greyghost says:

    Sunshinemary
    Women are hopeless, woman can be loved

  68. ybm says:

    sunshinemary says:
    November 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    He probably reads it and knows how much it pisses him off but he also knows that there’s a sword dangling above his head and if she’s detonated one marriage, she sure as hell can find a new reason to detonate his.

  69. 8oxer says:

    I should add, however, that more of the people being crushed under student debt are women, since men are more likely to study a field that leads to a real job (engineering, business).

    The brutality in the subtext is that most women who go to universities in my local area are scholarship recipients. It would likely cause a huge uproar if their male classmates knew to what extent they were already subsidized. Welfare pays single moms to go to school. Female-only scholarships are quite plentiful to boot.

    Many women take out maximum loans anyway, and use them to buy used cars, luxury goods (what freshman at a state university needs a 2500 dollar MacBook? She does!) and other such nonsense. Women *double dip* at an astonishing rate.

    The usefulness of the degrees they get is already covered. Sure, a few people ought to study the humanities, but those sorts of degrees are easily 30-50 percent of the degrees awarded. Does my community benefit by 5000 new degrees in literature and history, churned out every spring? I can’t see how.

  70. Looking Glass says:

    US Student loans should just be made dischargable, after 5 years, in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. You take a supremely nasty hit for a decade, but it’s better than the slavery some people end up in.

    But, as pointed out, they’ll probably dangle some “forgiveness” system around. Though if you’re willing to file the paper work to setup a 501(c) charity, you can save yourself a lot of money. :)

  71. lgrobins says:

    “Well, crap. Just crap.”

    LOL. Well said. That was certainly my reaction as I didn’t know any of this either.

  72. YOHAMI says:

    “understand that if you try to make them into women completely, you’re never going to be able to have that male provider.”

    She’s not an ally of men.

  73. ybm says:

    lgrobins says:
    November 29, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    She failed from the premise to be honest. To her (and other adherents to the traditional dynamic) its all about jobs, providing roles, ‘masculine values’, pats on the head, treats for the dog when he performs tricks.

    that is not what the War on Men is.

    The War on Men is the Emergency Protection Order
    The War on men is the “Pound me in the ass” Prison
    The War on Men is the Second Set of Laws (Thomas Ball)
    The War on Men is the Shelter System
    The War on Men is Title IX
    The War on Men is Affirmative Action
    The War on Men is Parental Alienation
    The War on Men is VAWA
    The War on Men is IMBRA
    The War on Men is the WHEA

    Whether a man is able to fit into a provider role is inconsequential and is equivalent to arguing over the colour of the linens on a burning bed.

  74. Anonymous Reader says:

    ybm
    Your democrat party has the 20-something single female vote locked up for the duration of my lifetime anyway.

    The 20-something vote is constantly being renewed. The 20 year old college woman of 2008 becomes the unemployed, indebted 24 year old college graduate of 2012, who becomes the lonely barrista / office clerk / call center worker of 28 who wonders “where are all the good men” in 2016.

    Meanwhile, the 14 year old high school freshman of 2008 becomes the 18 year old college freshman of 2012 who will become the graduating-with-no-job-and-much-debt 22 year old of 2016. What better way to buy the vote of the 22 year old of 2016 than with a massive debt forgiveness?

    You’re talking about people with the attention span of a squirrel. If you doubt this, look at your own students.

  75. ray says:

    Marriage to Venker sounds much the same as sticking your dick through a wood chipper

    agree, that chipper is starting to look kinda hot, and, well, we are her first!

    hey chippie whats your sign?

  76. TFH says:

    sunshinemary,

    It’s disheartening, though. I had secretly hoped she might be the proof that we women aren’t entirely hopeless.

    Dr. Helen is the real deal. Sadly, that the list of such morally mature women is so short is itself the problem.

    At any rate, YOU can have a big impact by telling MEN about what you know. You will be surprised and delighted how much progress you make, and how different it is than the futile attempt to tell women.

  77. Chris says:

    I think you need to look, folks at this little treasure courtesy of the lesbian we want marriage group — they are threatening to marry all the boyfriends.

    Them gay girls have the red pill… down.

  78. ballista74 says:

    And the man’s counterpoint to this that I found in the related stuff.

  79. Mark Minter says:

    Dalrock, I would not worry about making an enemy out of this ally. Men will have no allies that have a vagina. Any man that cannot see that as the truth and reality of the way things are today, just hasn’t run into enough experiences before it finally becomes evident to him.

    No woman is ever on the side of a man. Sometimes it may appear that she is, but she is always protecting her own interests even when she protects those of a man. But she is always on her side and never completely on his side. He might be on her side and is deluded that she is actually on his side. But time and circumstances will show the reality of the situation to most men. And in the end, a women is going to be for herself.

    You just do what you gotta do and not worry about who may be offended by you calling it like you see it.

    Basically this women is calling a spade a spade. Women only want men if the men have some utility for the woman. The reality is that nothing has changed over time in this aspect. It is the same as it ever was. The thing that has changed is that now society is starting to favor women over men and women need less and less from men, so the marginal utility of men has fallen. As it has fallen, then men are more and more easily avoided until necessary, used, and then disposed and thrown away like last year’s fashion. Duh!!! It is the theme of this blog and no other blog or source on the internet has done more to show the truth and the “why” of this reality.

    All that Ms Venker was saying is the political and social climate is making it more and more difficult for a woman to con a man into delude himself that the deal between men and women is something different than it really is, a bait and switch scam to force men into slavery. And at least men are learning to fear the outcome even if they don’t see the scam for what it really is. Finally, I am starting to see the word “Slave” show up in comments besides mine.

    But it doesn’t matter. You can expect any woman that speaks out against the game and the scam, any woman that breaks ranks from the sisters, to immediately get censured and get shouted down.

    All men need to accept right now, that this war is over and you have lost. Beyonce has a new song “Who won the world?? Girls!! Girls!!! Who won the world? GIrls!!! Girls !!!”

    And she’s right. Men are losers.

    And it is now a slow descent into second class status, discrimination, and even laws passed to institutionalize your lowered status. There is no turning back now. Woman have seized control of the courts, the police, the legislature, the bureaucracy, the family, the commercial world, the media, the church (Thank you Dalrock for illuminating us on the reality of that), and the arts, music, film, television, News, …. Did I leave anything out? If there anything left. They have imposed relativisms on everything, include the Revelation. And if they can impose on that, then there is nothing that they cannot impose their doctrine upon within the entire culture. And no one can stop them.

    Soon men will be publicly considered “The Dumb Ones”. And judgement by men will be second guessed as “Man Judgement” and subsequently ridiculed and doubted. Your place will be to lift and heave and not to think and plan. Even in STEM professions, men can calculate but not plan and not control. No. That is dominion of the smart ones, women. If you weren’t so stupid then why are women getting the degrees in universities and those dumb men aren’t? Why are women getting the managerial jobs and those dumb men aren’t. Men are inferior in an evolutionary sense. They can only use rational powers and direct forms of communication not like those higher beings on the evolutionary scale, women, who have superior powers of overt, subtle communication, and intuition that is far more efficient than mere logic and rationality.

    See what I mean? How long before the above line of thought becomes gospel, accepted, institutionalized?

    And do you think there is a legislator or a judge in this land that would take on women? Do you ever believe there would be a Brown vs Board of Education on behalf of men? Or a case where a president would send troops to enforce a judgement on behalf the gender rights of a man like John Kennedy did for James Meredith to enforce civil rights? Do you ever believe that you could ever show women the unfairness, the injustice, or the immorality of a situation that favors a woman at the expense of a man, and that the women would ever not be able to rationalize or justify it and would actually change their behavior?

    There will never be any change to this trend for the rest of the lives of any man that is reading these words. Every woman, no matter how conservative, or how religious, supports things as they are and will push for change in the status of women at the expense of men. And the younger the woman, the more she pushes for it and supports it. One thing I have learn from reading Dalrock is that we cannot project attitudes or actions onto a younger 10 year cohort of women merely because women in an older cohort did or didn’t do something. So every year that passes and older older women dies, the younger ones coming into the pipeline are more and more radical than their predecessors.

    It is getting to the point to where if genetic testing shows that a fetus is a male, then the humane thing to do it abort it. Then the boy won’t have to suffer in the way males will suffer in the coming years. And if parents want to live well, than have 5 daughters. Daughters have value, sons don’t. It will tear your heart out to see the way that your young boy will suffer in the years to come.

    So any man had best assume, here and now, that there will never be any society wide victory of any size, large or small, for men in this ongoing battle.

    So the only victory that can be claimed for a man is own personal victory, that within his life, with his actions and the consequences or benefits of them, that he win his own personal battle.

    And he wins this battle by forming a new consciousness, a new paradigm of awareness, by reconstituting every foundational concept by which he judges the world and the actions that he takes by that judgement.

    And Dalrock, never underestimate the role you play in assisting men in forming that new consciousness. If you ever doubt the utility of your work, the good you do in the every day lives of ordinary men, all I can is “Get over it”. Never doubt your value and whether your writing has meaning.

    It does.

    .

  80. Chris says:

    @Ballista, that was hilarious. Fixing the embed for you.

  81. Johnycomelately says:

    In line with Mr Minter’s post, the indefatigable David P. Goldman aka Spengler.

    Scroll down to How Civilizations Die.

    http://www.thedailybell.com/28314/Anthony-Wile-David-Goldman-on-Wall-Street-the-Middle-East-and-the-Judeo-Christian-Perspective

  82. BBJ says:

    I got egged in the comments of your last post too, for daring to suggest that this is all a function of stupidity on both the part of women AND men. But I remain correct: this woman is obviously a clot headed cnut and isn’t worth the time of day. Why are you taking her seriously Dalrock?

    The garbage has to go out? Take the damned garbage out then, it doesn’t matter who does it! What’s that smell? Well … the old lady isn’t around so you have to man up and change the baby’s diaper. Or do the dishes or cook supper. If she has a flat tire while out shopping she can change it. Why do you people fight about stupid stuff like this? And why would you care about what some vaginal New York dummy has to say about it?

    Boys, being a victim is a CHOICE. If you are letting yourself be victimized by stupid women that is on YOU. Your marriage is between you and your lady and that’s it. Yes, you will have to make sure your girl isn’t stupid before you marry her. That’s life, man up and deal with it. If you can’t trust your woman don’t marry her. If the chick in this article wants to saddle up her husband and ride him into the dirt – that is between them and if a tree falls in their forest … my wife and I certainly aren’t going to hear it. We’ve been married 28 years and the lady in this article is in no position to tell us how to make marriages work seeing as how she pooched hers. Sheesh – and this just slays me: then some idiot married her AGAIN after she got divorced. What a genius…marry a woman with kids that uses men! What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

    GAH.

    Yes, growing numbers of women are stupid these days. Any episode of The View or Oprah should tell you that. It doesn’t mean you have to marry them or let them take advantage of you.

  83. dhurka says:

    BBJ

    Well you’re just a damn hero aren’t you. Your marriage worked so everyone whose marriage failed only has themselves to blame. My father married a virgin from a religious family before the no fault divorce laws – he is such an idiot because his wife left him as soon as the laws passed. My friend who was thrown in jail because his wife started throwing things at him is so dumb. If only you were there to tell him to stop choosing to be a victim it all would have worked out fine.

    This site is largely about educating men so they don’t fall victim to this shit. Due to all the brainwashing in society and schools many men grew up blind to it. I suppose because you missed it that makes you inherently better than all of us.

    What do gain by coming here telling and telling us that we are all morons? Why do we offend you so much? If your life is so awesome and you are so much better than us then just go and live it. We won’t miss you.

    You are obviously so offended because this site shatters your world view in some way. If you knew you were right and we were wrong you wouldn’t care at all. Why do we upset you cupcake? Do we make you realize your wife has been using you like toilet paper all these years?

    Go on tell us what idiots we are again. That’s going to change all our minds cos your so awesome.

  84. Opus says:

    I did not comment on the previous Venker thread – all I thought was, ‘what is there in her version of marriage, which would make any man want to sign up for it?’.

    If it is the case that it is men who are leading the marriage strike, then women are going to have to offer a lot more, than (say) the opportunity to take out the rubbish to entice men to take up an irreversible option on any one woman. For what it is worth, I view the idea of regarding the strong independent woman (that is to say an affirmative action corporate slut) as consistant with being a good wife and mother as incoherent.

  85. @ Chris – I’d marry one of those lesbians. Heck, I’d marry two of them.

  86. greyghost says:

    Well Chris you have made my day. That first I don’t think is a realistic portrayal of lesbian chicks because in our context i see a lesbian as some mean mn jawed chick testifying to congress about some complaint about lack of free toasted ice for the homosexual community with women being the most unfairly represented.
    Now that one with those guys really looked like some red pill PUA that were speaking from personal experience. (I’m biased jack)
    Nice videos.

  87. The only chance that Republicans have to buy votes at this time period is to appoint Latino candidates. The ace in their hole, I’m certain is a Latino presidental candidate.

    You can tell how well that would work by how hard the Democrat-leaning media are encouraging them to do it. They’d love to play my-minority-is-more-genuine-than-your-minority any time the Republicans are stupid enough.

  88. From that last video: “We’re allowed to get married, and we still don’t want to.”

    Ha!

  89. greyghost says:

    Venker over the last two is what I had in mind when I speak of the selfish interestthing. She has displayed all of the female lack of character with self being the only constant. The first article showed she was aware of mens issues and ity mattered due to mens adaptation to survive made the reliable beta provider type of man she wanted less gina tingling. Her suggestion was like a wow a woman that gtes it and you were correct she does understand because none of the lies was doing it for her so why not try some truth. Then we have the phenomenon of the herd take over. Let’s on one side we have truth and the other herd status.Truth….herd….truth ….herd. Wha’ts a fem cunt to do? Like any good churchian has done with christianity and the word, she is restoring her position within the herd by adapting the manoshere truthes will feminism (lip stick on a pig). The crazy thing is she most likely saw the light and really felt the enlightenment and power of that little sampling of the red pill. Just the rest of the herd didn’t follow this new leader of the pack (Look how tight pussy is now bitches I got me some red pill Buy my book and I’ll lead you bitches to joy and happiness) So she quickly got back into the herd and reenlightened herself. (Unworthy bitch if she had of stuck it out she would have been a cultural as the colapse occurs) Susan Walsh pulled that shit with Dalrock. She was starting to “get It” but in the end she stuck with what she was comfortable with. And for a woman comfort is what the herd is. Self interest will always rule over a woman’s life always. Any one that wants to work to change society has to never let that thought leave any judgement on action to take.

  90. Farm Boy says:

    “Why is she wearing an air traffic control shirt?”

    That’s easy, she is a true cargo cult leader,

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

  91. BBJ says:

    Well Durka, the problem I have with this is that you can’t raise a child ‘blind’ to common sense. To me the answer to this is simple: if you can’t trust it, don’t hop into bed with it.

    But…c’mon! Feminism? Divorce? No offence to our host – but do you need him to tell you that the author of the piece is an idiot? For me, that is intuitively obvious and any fella with a pulse and an EKG should see it: she is dictating the terms of the partnership – after the last marriage fell apart. A woman that truly loves her man will ask him what terms he wants and will negotiate from there. A good man with a good woman will do the same.

    The same common sense with divorced women applies: if you take up with one, there’s a healthy chance you are dealing with damaged goods that you probably shouldn’t.

    For the life of me I don’t understand why basic common sense is so offensive and why people don’t understand it.

  92. Stingray says:

    For the life of me I don’t understand why basic common sense is so offensive and why people don’t understand it.

    Because it hurt their feelings.

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    BBJ
    …this woman is obviously a clot headed cnut and isn’t worth the time of day. Why are you taking her seriously Dalrock?

    I’m not Dalrock, but Venker is on a national TV network or two, and has a book out that women are reading. So she’s a public figure who is also something of an opinion leader. Therefore analyzing her words is important, if for no other reason than so she can be refuted.

    Your marriage is between you and your lady and that’s it.

    That is marriage 1.0, it is dead. In the modern world, marriage is a 3-way: man, woman and the state. If you have read this or any other androsphere blog for any time, you should be able to understand what that means.

    Congrats on staying married for 28 years. Now, try to get up to speed on what has happened in the world since 1984: Bradley, VAWA, IMBRA and all the rest.

  94. “the judge and politician – where the electorate is 51% female? Good luck with that!”

    Yes, but only 50% of voters actually bother voting. In the last election 53% of people who voted were women–thanks to all the men who stayed home. They should start showing up and making their wishes heard. Men can’t count on women and white knights to care about what they need.

  95. Joe Blow says:

    “if you try to make them into women completely, you’re never going to be able to have that male provider.”

    Nothing personal dear, but go fuck yourself. I don’t want to be remade by anybody, and I don’t want my son to be remade for your daughter’s benefit. I want him to grow up to be whoever he is meant to be, without you and your cronies trying to beat him into some model of a sensitive guy / provider provided solely for your benefit. He is a *person*, not a utility. Try to get out of your solipsistic world view and see that for just a moment.

  96. “The War on Men is VAWA”

    But YBM, only 75% of victims of violent crime are men, so why should we worry about them?

  97. Jeremy says:

    I wouldn’t say what we’re talking about here applies to my first marriage, although there is some connection. After college, I lived in and worked in New York, and I was married for four years, then I moved back to St. Louis, remarried, and had two children. Our issues were geographical. I didn’t want that crazy lifestyle. I wanted a simpler life, a one-income family. I didn’t want to live in New York. But that’s not the whole enchilada.

    So, she wanted marriage without compromise, got it. She’s a whiny baby and did not deserve marriage in the first place.

  98. I’d marry one of those lesbians. Heck, I’d marry two of them.

    I wouldn’t marry one of them, but I’d consider two.

    The short hair thing has two causes that I’ve seen. First, these women are all a little pudgy — not fat, necessarily, but they’re not 16 anymore and you can see in their faces that they’re fighting the bulge. Women somehow have the idea that short hair makes your face look thinner, because your neck looks longer or something. I think it’s crap, but I’ve heard from numerous women that it’s a well-known fact that long hair makes your face look fatter.

    Second, a short haircut is a guaranteed way to get compliments from other women. If you have long hair and you get the ends trimmed, no one cares. But take an inch off a short do and style it a little differently, and everyone in the office will notice and coo.

  99. CL says:

    @ron

    My thoughts exactly! (Graciously hosted by sunshinemary).

  100. ” I’d marry one of those lesbians. Heck, I’d marry two of them.”

    Haha!

  101. Bee says:

    Learning about the frivolous reason for Venker’s divorce makes her very unatractive to me. The short, feminist hair style was a negative 2 but the frivolous divorce is a negative 20.

    Guys need to man up and REFUSE to marry any women that has been an active participant in a frivolous divorce.

    Venker’s second marriage sounds like some married couples I know. They live in the same house but they keep separate checking accounts and savings accounts. They assign the bills and mortgage proportionally based on who makes more money. They are each responsible for their own retirement savings. They often take separate vacations and they often visit the relatives without the other person accompanying them. They are really more like roommates than a true married couple. They never fully bond and get knitted together like a good marriage. Feminism has taught them to never allow themselves to be dependent on a guy who might use their lack of finances against them. This results in a lack of trust and a lack of submission.

  102. Buck says:

    @
    Cail Corishev says:
    November 30, 2012 at 7:11 am

    The only chance that Republicans have to buy votes at this time period is to appoint Latino candidates. The ace in their hole, I’m certain is a Latino presidental candidate.

    This last election made it clear, the GOP can lose in a squeaker with NO black vote. So, they (blacks) have become irrelevant to the GOP.
    Solution, simply pull a page out of the democrat party play book and foment racial tension between blacks and Latinos and Asians… racial groups that already harbor animosity toward each other. Do it under the auspices of equal protection under the law, in that affirmative action targets Asians and Latino’s for the unfair benefit of blacks…don’t even mention whites.
    The natural enticement of hate, jealousy, envy, will carry the day. The GOP only needs to peel away a few percentages of the Latino and Asian votes. Look how the Democrats use “the rich” as their straw men.
    Since Obama nationalized student loans, the GOP should make college “free”, no tuition payments and nationalize the teachers, relegating them to non-union status and give them pay equivalents to the military pay structure. Enforce the uniform code of military justice on them too, and dictate the curricula with an equal time demand…with strict oversight. No more liberal/Marxist boot camp as primary education.
    This would draw all the freeloader college kids who want free shit, and their parents, now off the hook for college payments to the GOP, strip the education lobby of their funnel of cash to the Democrats and perhaps actually educate the next generation in patriotism and economics. This would also make entrance into the elite schools an actual merit based competition, and of course Asians will directly benefit. This will also gut the tenured professorial class forcing them to actually get a job. Force the Democrats to fight FOR high tuition to protect their education lobby buddies…and against hard working parents trying to help their kids. Use this same wedge to funnel welfare money into education…it’s for the children don’t ya know… Democrats fight for bums and slackers on the dole and against working parents trying to help their kids. Use the Democrats own words against them RE education funding.
    Oh the laughs!

  103. Farm Boy says:

    I didn’t want to live in New York

    I can understand the sentiment, but would she not have known his intentions before marriage?

  104. sunshinemary says:

    @ Farm Boy
    Of course she should have know his intentions, but even if she didn’t, or even if his intentions changed, so what? He was the captain. She was supposed to be the co-pilot. If they couldn’t reach consensus after a reasonable amount of discussion, she ought to have acquiesced. That’s what submission is.

  105. Some Guy says:

    There are times that a wife will make her wishes known. The husband maybe doesn’t like it… but a few months later he announces that he has this idea…. Maybe he mulled it over and finally sees the plus side. Maybe he just wants to make her happy because he cares about her. Maybe he doesn’t care, but all other things being equal, he’s willing to make what his wife wants become a reality. At any rate… she probably rolls her eyes and teases him for finally coming up with this “brilliant idea”. She doesn’t realize that her constant talking impacts his thought life to the extent that he might forget whose idea is what after all. But our “humble” wife has to elbow him in the ribs and remind him of who really has the brains in the relationship.

    Then a few years later, it becomes obvious that the grass isn’t actually greener on the other side of the fence. One day the husband is a figurehead that mouths whatever the wife wants to hear has as she manipulates him like a ball of putty. The next… he is this terrible ogre that made her move to this godforsaken place– probably because he is abusive and wanted to isolate her from her true friends. And he obviously didn’t put Jesus first in that decision. Yadda yadda yadda…. She talks to herself so much about what a victim she is… and all her friends agree with her… until finally she can’t take it anymore. If the husband attempts to interject a few facts into this internal dialogue of hers, it is only proof of what an uncaring brute he is!

    At some point, the sex stops.

  106. deti says:

    jack:

    I read the Lisa Whelchel piece. More support for Dalrock’s “head over heels” rule.

    This, and what I’m about to link to below, essentially explains why she married and divorced her pastor ex-husband Steve Cauble. It’s a learning lesson for men.

    Whelchel says in the Yahoo piece that she divorced her husband of 24 years, but doesn’t want to talk about the reasons why. Ah, but she DOES talk about the reasons why:

    “I never thought divorce would happen to me. But Steve is still my best friend. We just couldn’t be married,”

    Then speaking about her relationships with some of the people on the “Survivor” show, she reveals a bit more about her personality:

    “I have never been good at breakups. I have continued in relationships way too long just because I didn’t want to hurt them.”

    An educated Red Piller can clearly deduce what’s going on here. Steve is an LJBF whom she married and to whom she wasn’t attracted. Being a good Christian woman married to her former pastor, she stuck it out as long as she could and then divorced her husband when either (1) she couldn’t take it anymore or (2) her last kid was out of the nest.

    Aaaaaand: CONFIRMATION!

    http://www.crosswalk.com/1090966/

    In this Crosswalk article from November 2001, Whelchel describes her “arranged marriage” to Steve Cauble, her then husband.

    tl;dr: She attends church where Steve is an assistant pastor and celebrity televangelist Jack Hayford is the senior pastor. Whelchel is fresh off the last taping of Facts of Life in around 1984. She meets Cauble and promptly LJBFs him, whereupon he becomes one of her orbiters. She’s 23, he’s 35. She’s dating a contemporary Christian musician. Steve is her “friend” for a couple of years, then says “I’d be good for you” and “whaddya think of us gettin’ married?” She is flattered but knows she’s not physically attracted to Steve at all.

    Word gets around that Steve “proposed”. Hayford spills the beans publicly and says Steve and Whelchel are engaged. She is horrified and doesn’t really want to marry him; but doesn’t want to hurt his feelings. She thinks he’s a nice guy herb dork who’s a great friend, but husband? NO WAY. On a flight, she writes down all the great things about Steve and finds out he has lots of great qualities. She “does the right thing” and marries her pastor because he’s a great guy and nice to her.

    Then there’s this:

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/exclusive-lisa-whelchel-survives-doomed-marriage

    tl:dr: Whelchel wrote in her 2001 biography that she felt pressured to marry Steve when Hayford announced her “engagement” in public even though she had never accepted any of his proposals. According to a family friend, she realized she never loved Steve the way a wife should love a husband and her lack of love for him affected her treatment of him. He fell off a garage and, instead of helping him, Whelchel took photos of her husband while he was still lying on the ground from his injuries and published them on her blog. (Her blog is now gone.)

    then there’s this:
    lisawhelchel.com

    She’s moving back to LA from Texas, where Whelchel, now 49, hopes to get back into her acting career after more than 20 years away from it.

  107. koevoet says:

    @Buck – I like how you think.

  108. deti says:

    Hamsterlation of l’affaire Whelchel (MEN: please read):

    23 year old woman is at the peak of her SMV. She’s a quintessential Evangelical American Princess (RIP Christian Men’s Defense Network). Our heroine is even worse than an EAP because she’s hot (if a little pudgy — go back and look at the reruns of mid to late 80s Facts of Life shows near the end of its run). She’s at the peak of her SMV, is a Christian, and is cloistered in the celebrity entertainment world where she is surrounded by even more yes men, sycophants, beta orbiters and white knights than is the average hot EAP. She’s dating the Christian version of Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer, who’s on the road a lot.

    Enter Steve, a situational alpha solely because of his position but a hopeless Delta-Gamma. As a pastor he has “spiritual authority” over her; but otherwise, he’s a herb beta. He’s smitten, she’s “meh”. He’s in love, she’s LJBF. He orbits and then kinda sorta proposes; and enlists his uber-alpha boss to help seal the deal. She’s conflicted, but on a long plane flight, her hamster flies into high gear to rationalize what everyone else has decided is good for her. She allows herself to be railroaded into a marriage to a man she has no physical attraction for. Her revulsion for him continues to the point where she admits the truth that she is “not haaaaaappy”. They stay together “for the children” until the last one is in college, then quietly divorce.

    The court file is sealed. Why? Usually court files are public documents and are open to the public. Well, you see, Whelchel is a celebrity (a washed up child star, a C- or D-list celebrity, but a famous person nonetheless). Cauble is a pastor who was associated with a Christian ministry luminary. They get special treatment. We can’t have the mess of the “I’m not haaaaaappy” frivorce publicized when it’s a self-proclaimed happily married Christian mom and her pastor husband.

    One can see Whelchel has kept herself pretty well preserved. She’s 49 but still looks good. She’s kept her weight down and her hair long. She’s lost a lot of that carb weight from her late teens and early 20s days on Facts of Life. She’s even showing a bit of cleavage in some publicity stills from “Survivor”.

    Now 49, she needs some money and attention. She doesn’t get the accolades she used to get as a hot young TV star, which she left behind 20 years ago for the bucolic pastures of marriage and mommyhood. No, she’s now a Christian cougar, showing flashes of cleavage in photos while dressed in clothes clearly intended to accentuate her still svelte figure. She hopes to recapture her youth and show Hollywood that she’s “still got it” by appearing on “Survivor — Washed Up Used Up Celebrity Edition”. As for her future acting career, I see in her future “Dancing with the Stars”, perhaps the center square on “Hollywood Squares”, “Celebrity Family Feud”, and perhaps the bitchy older divorcee sister on some sitcom to-be-named-later as a mid-season replacement.

  109. Buck, the GOP has been trying to “peel off” more minority votes for a while now, and no matter how hard they pander, their percentage of those groups keeps dropping. If you know how they can turn it around, please let them know, because no one else has a clue. I’m betting that doing what all the Democrats in the media say they should do might not work out so well, though.

    To drag this back on topic: a natural constituency of the Republicans is middle-class white men, who are the ones taking it in the shorts over feminism, both individually through frivorce and child support, and as a group by paying most of the taxes to support women in the workforce. Married white guys already lean GOP, but if they could be bumped from 65% to 75%, the GOP would win the next election handily. Why not appeal to them with some talk about reforming the unfair divorce and custody laws? (Because they’re a bunch of manginas and they fear the savaging the media would give them, that’s why. But it could work. Pandering to groups that know the Democrats will always outbid them won’t.)

  110. “He fell off a garage and, instead of helping him, Whelchel took photos of her husband while he was still lying on the ground from his injuries and published them on her blog”

    How utterly despicable.

  111. sunshinemary says:

    Sometimes deti’s hamsterlations make me laugh. This one didn’t. What is wrong with women? Why are we like this?

  112. greyghost says:

    He fell off a garage and, instead of helping him, Whelchel took photos of her husband while he was still lying on the ground from his injuries and published them on her blog. (Her blog is now gone.)

    Deti
    I laughed my ass off when I read this. This is why men never should agree to be a house husband and why christian men need game and any pastor that doesn’t understand that is a POS.
    BTW i don’t think my wife would give a shit if I got hurt other than sueing for damages.

  113. deti says:

    Buck, Cail:

    The Democrat narrative of “Republican = racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot” is so firmly entrenched I don’t know that anything at all could shake it.

  114. Anonymous age 70 says:

    I remember many years ago, her Aunt Phyllis saying in plain English the reason she hated feminists is because women no longer can sleep in and hang around with their friends, drinking coffee and doing fun volunteer work while the men support them. If you did not hear that, you don’t understand either Venker or her aunt.

    >>The only chance that Republicans have to buy votes at this time period is to appoint Latino candidates. The ace in their hole, I’m certain is a Latino presidental candidate.

    There are many more Latino Republican candidates across the country, than Democrats. Nothing stops takers from voting Democrat.

  115. Ybm says:

    sunshinemary says:
    November 30, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Frankly with the exception of the last 300-400 years of European history only, women’s mate choices were largely irrelevant for human history, they simply submitted or were made to submit. Thus your triggers are somewhat sloppy and unrefined, the need for passivity created a nice little monster that doesn’t know what the he’ll it wants when it is left to decide for itself.

  116. tbc says:

    “To drag this back on topic: a natural constituency of the Republicans is middle-class white men, who are the ones taking it in the shorts over feminism, both individually through frivorce and child support, and as a group by paying most of the taxes to support women in the workforce. Married white guys already lean GOP, but if they could be bumped from 65% to 75%, the GOP would win the next election handily. Why not appeal to them with some talk about reforming the unfair divorce and custody laws? (Because they’re a bunch of manginas and they fear the savaging the media would give them, that’s why. But it could work. Pandering to groups that know the Democrats will always outbid them won’t.)”

    BUT I read somewhere today that the percentage of young Black men who voted for Obama dropped something like 14% between 2008 and 2012. Still they voted mostly for Obama, but there is an opening in the Black community among Black men, who have been screwed over by the feminist system worse than White men have. You want to find an angry fired somebody, locate a half-way decent young black man. Chance are:

    #1 He was born to an un-wed woman who either got pregnant out of wedlock or frivorced his basically decent dad and shoved him out of his life.

    #2 Went to crappy public schools where he was labeled a “problem” for acting like a boy (and perceived as ‘threatening’ by being a black one) and put on ADHD meds or dumped in special ed for ‘behavioral problems’ that were likely caused by #1

    #3a If he was an alpha, got to sleep around with a lot of girls and now is on the hook for child supprt which he can barely meet, so he’s constantly dodging contempt of court charges or

    #3b if he as a beta, he somehow managed to make good and go to college only to be LJBFed by dozens of women who were steadily being banged by alphas while being pounded over the head with a steady diet of feminist metanarratives about how ‘yeah Black men had it bad but Black women have it worse’ and hearing how there are ‘no good Black men around’

    #4 if he goes to church, he’s competing with the uber alpha pastor who his would be girlfriend/wife is comparing him to constantly (in a negative way)

    These guys are not at all interested in most of the Democrats sell because they’ve been on the receiving end of it for years. They can be red-pilled AND pulled to the conservative side politically. Many of them think Obama is a punk (read – a pussified man) but they back him because he’s one of the bro’s. Most of them HATE the govt because the govt is the one who has always screwed them over or assisted in having their moms/girlfriends/wives screw them over.

  117. deti says:

    SSMary:

    “What is wrong with women? Why are we like this?”

    In addition to ybm’s answer, the mate choices made for women were enforced first by brute physical force. Whoever was strong enough or big enough simply took the woman or women he wanted.

    Then later, female marriages were enforced by physical force and by the tribe through threat of expulsion and death by exposure or starvation.

    Then marriage was enforced by the church through threat of excommunication, social ostracism, certain poverty, loss of salvation, and eternal damnation.

    Then mate choices were enforced by an elaborate set of legal constraints through threat of poverty, loss of child custody and family relationships, shame and stigma, almost certain spinsterhood, social ostracism, and inability to support oneself.

    All of these constraints, stigmas, and pressures have been removed and do not serve to influence female conduct in the slightest.

  118. Brendan says:

    It’s just regression, quite obviously. Like the lioness who provides for her own pride, the modern woman provides for her own brood by herself and with assistance from baby daddy. But in neither case does she want to actually live with the lion who sired the offspring. She doesn’t need to. Apart from a very small segment of men, most women can’t be bothered with living with men and find us to be irritating at best. The only reason you see so much of it still is because the female herd still awards helmet stickers for being in a relationship, and not all women can be in a relationship with the small sliver, so they enter relationships with other men, get their herd sticker, but are hardly happy with it.

  119. Ybm says:

    That’s the hard interpretation, there is also the softer issues of arranged marriage, multigenerational living necessitating women doing what the head of the household told her to, under the watchful eyes of their mothers and grandmothers. Etc.

  120. ar10308 says:

    @Deti,
    I’d also add that once Beta men in society stopped using the various methods of coersion and constraint on women, the women gravitate towards the Alpha men that will use them.

  121. deti says:

    Lessons for men from the Whelchel matter:

    1. If you are going to marry, make sure she is head over heels in love with you.
    2. Be very, very clear about your interest in her as a romantic partner or possible wife. Do not kinda sorta propose. Either propose marriage firmly and demand an immediate firm answer; or do not propose at all.
    3. If she LJBFs you, never have anything to do with her again.
    4. A pastor has no hope of capturing the heart of the girlfriend of Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer.
    5. If she speaks ill of you publicly or mocks you publicly, she is not into you, regardless of what she says or how interested in you she claims to be.

  122. Ybm says:

    5 is critical, the first time she does the anglobitch eye roll or scoff, she’s not worth it. You’ll get no respect i tell ya.

  123. Chris says:

    Apart from Deti, y’all are missing the point.

    Feminism is a luxury good. You have to be rich enough to have spare time and be discontent. Now, when your country hits Austerity (Jan next year, unless congress DOES something, and the last 4 years showed how unlikely that is) Then the first things to go are luxuries.

    Like living alone. There will be limited social welfare: you will have to rely on family. And on those mechanics, plumbers, farmers & factory workers (I will be OK. I work for a university, and the mad will always be with us). who will bring home a wage.

    Because if the economy contracts 5% next year, HR is gone, Benefits are cut, and if you are lucky your wages remain OK.

    So, as Steyn said, you don’t need 50%. Your government is going to collapse under the weight of its debt. If you don’t like Mark Steyn, read Alte, she makes the same analysis.

    The US Gov’t’s commitments require all the $$$ in the world.And I will have NO compunction in fighting any bastard who invades my nation, uncluding morons from the District of Columbia.

    Pay your debts off, hunker down, and make sure you have beans and bullets.

  124. Feminist Hater says:

    http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/jennifer-maggio/5-reasons-your-church-should-have-a-single-moms-ministry.html

    This is just too good to pass up!

    The single parent family is the modern-day widow and orphan.

    Yep, pre-marital sex, out of wedlock births and frivorcing are the new norm for the family in the church. Next will be the ministry for pedo bears!

  125. whatever says:

    Anonymous age 70 says:

    There are many more Latino Republican candidates across the country, than Democrats. Nothing stops takers from voting Democrat.

    That’s an interesting thing to say. Your 70 so you’ve had it easier than I ever had it. Indeed, you continue to have things easier than I ever had it. My guess is that you justify this through a combination of “life isn’t fair” and imagining that you are such an incredibly wonderful person. The old man is always very proud of a complete lack of any sense of fairness or responsibility. Well, I mean towards others. Bring up social security or medicare and they enter a hypersonic frantic whine about responsibility and fairness. Oh yes, can’t shut up about responsibility and fairness then.

    It’s very hard to see the difference between a puffed up old person and a “taker”…. except that the old person has GOT HIS. Is it the success the old person has had with making sure “life isn’t fair” in his favor why he believes in his own wonderfulness?

    Of course, the old person can talk about “not owing anyone anything”, “life isn’t fair”, and not particularly caring if other (not old) people starve and die, and then continue on with a healthy whine about “takers”, but it does raise a good question. Once we’ve successfully completely jettisoned morality from the picture, as the proud and merciless old man has, what exactly is the old man’s problem with “takers” beside that the “takers” he is talking about happen to not be him?

  126. Behold the modern woman! How can you guys resist her?

    Just saw this and simply had to share it.

  127. Feminist Hater says:

    Looks like she just got out of prison.

  128. FuriousFerret says:

    Behold the modern woman! How can you guys resist her?

    Just saw this and simply had to share it.

    —————————–

    Why would anyone want to have sex with this?

    She doesn’t have one good quality in terms of looks or personality.

  129. I’m going to speculate a little differently on SSM’s “why are we like this?”

    The curse of Eve established a permanent inner conflict in women. They hold the part that is designed to complement the man in God’s order, and accept his authority freely… and the curse is the opppsite- now they also hold the constant tendency to try to rule their man.

    Because of this, men who don’t know better or are too weak end up getting ruled, and they fall out of God’s order into chaos. They become disrespected, too weak for the throne, unfit to lead or protect, and get their wives’ disdain.

    For women, in addition to the question of whether or not they have a man who has enough spine and understanding to manage her mutinous element…. is the question of which part of themselves do they feed? The side that wants to please God, follow his order and design for her… or do they feed the rebellious side, letting it become a monster of disrespect and reproach? What info is available for her to feed on?

    In the case of the woman who photographed her injured husband instead of helping him, it might be fair to speculate that both problems occurred: her rebellion runs rampant and unchecked, and he’s never had the balls to pass a shit-test in his life.

    With a formula like that in play, that is how women are “like that” pretty easy.

    With factors playing out differently- a man being worthy of and preserving respect, and a woman seeking to please God, it would be unthinkable for her to be so callous or mercenary towards him.

    Women may all have the curse of Eve, but how it is managed by her personally, and how it is managed by the man in her life, will have a great deal to do with the behavior she manifests.

  130. What does it say about contemporary women that even in same sex marriage they still abhor the idea of marriage, even after fighting tooth and nail to get same sex marriage recognized by the state?

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/11/gay_marriage_i_m_a_lesbian_and_i_m_never_getting_married_i_don_t_want_to.html

  131. dhurka says:

    BBJ

    “that you can’t raise a child ‘blind’ to common sense.”

    Really? Restricting information has been a means to control peoples thought and actions since the first governments 5000 years ago. That’s what PC is all about. I’d say on this matter you are being the naive one.

    My problem with you isn’t the ‘common sense’ thing you say. It is the way you call men who don’t work it out on their own stupid. Society controls the information flow to the point where saying this common sense to the younger generations results in look at you in shock because the ideas are so new. For people people raised in a brain washing environment of controlled information it takes a lot of observation and thought to wake up. Some people may not have the intellectual powers to do it. Are we supposed to throw them under the bus?

    You don’t seem to disagree with the common sense talked about here. So why the objection to talking about it? Why does that offend you? What if I am stupid and need ‘obvious’ truths pointed out? Would it be better for me not to ever learn? I object to you because of your condescending and insulting statements, why do you object to Dalrock, me and everyone else here?

  132. sunshinemary says:

    All of these constraints, stigmas, and pressures have been removed and do not serve to influence female conduct in the slightest.

    So when all the external constraints are peeled away, and we look at female behavior, I am having trouble concluding that we are anything other than heartless users.

    How does someone with a heart, who is capable of love or at least compassion, take photos of her injured husband rather than helping him?

    How does someone who is not a user go into the media spotlight and tell women that the really peachy thing about marriage is getting to have a cushy coffee-klatch lifestyle?

    And if women are really just heartless users, then even if TEOTWAWKI really does happen and feminism goes bye bye and women have to behave themselves again in order to survive, it doesn’t change the fact that you would be living with someone who is only spreading frosting over their true intention: to use you.

    I’m probably being dopey and emotional, but I find these stories very disturbing.

  133. BTW, that Slate article, you rage you lose.

  134. Joseph of Jackson says:

    @SSM

    “it doesn’t change the fact that you would be living with someone who is only spreading frosting over their true intention: to use you.”

    And now you are thinking like most men on this site.Seeing women for what they are on the inside isn’t very pretty. This is why I am having a hard time rationalizing getting married myself. I have a great girl, Christian (really), kind, compassionate, caring, feminine, and still I know that deep down inside, she sees me as a means to an end. I don’t know how to fix this in my head.

  135. Alan says:

    SSM: I find these stories very disturbing.

    Of course. You’re staring directly at sin without any filter. We pretend it’s not there, but then the effects appear.

    Without restraint, the old nature emerges with a vengeance. Separate the Church from Christ – apostasy. Separate women from men – divorce. Separate children from parents – feral animals. Separate men from truth – betas.

    Yeah, it’s ugly.

  136. deti says:

    Lisa Whelchel says her ex husband is still her friend, and she and their children still do things as a family.

    Hamsterlation: “He’s my best friend. I love him but I’m not in love with him. I want him to be my children’s father and provide for them. But I don’t want to live with him, I don’t want him to have authority over me, and I certainly don’t want to have to fuck him.”

  137. dhurka says:

    Whatever

    Anonymous aged 70 has been an MRA for decades and has done more to help men and spread wisdom than anyone I’ve seen except zed. You are right about most people his age but wrong about him. If the MRA had generals this guy would have 5 stars.

  138. koevoet says:

    SSM – I really don’t see a problem with the using nature of women. Hell, I truly doubt that anyone with two brain cells to rub together doesn’t really expect it to some degree. Why have men always tried to prove to women that they were a good provider? I think we have been doing this since we were still in caves. Animals do it all the time. Look at me! I can provide good meat for you so you should give me access to your poozle! That’s what mating is on an evolutionary level. Humans have developed greater degrees of symbolism since then (hence love) but there still is this base desire. I give you a spacious cave without too many drafts and a dead antelope on a regular basis and you give me sole access to your reproductive capabilities…and the Great Cave Bear god save you if I catch you with another troglodyte! Love is really a matter of you noticing my offerings of dead critters, respecting the sacrifices I made, appreciating that I gave the dead possum to you and not some other broad, and me doing the same when you give me access to your “affection”.

    Women use resources, men provide them. Women provide poes, men use them.

  139. deti says:

    SSMary:

    “So when all the external constraints are peeled away, and we look at female behavior, I am having trouble concluding that we are anything other than heartless users.”

    Welcome to our world.

    “And if women are really just heartless users, then even if TEOTWAWKI really does happen and feminism goes bye bye and women have to behave themselves again in order to survive, it doesn’t change the fact that you would be living with someone who is only spreading frosting over their true intention: to use you.”

    The only way I can live with it is to restore the exchange rationale for marriage, at least at this point. You have seen me post it at your place. Women who want husbands need to be prepared to put out early, often and with skill. Men should make full use of their wives’, eh, assets.

    “Wife, if I am responsible for you, then I have authority over you. If I am required to provide you with food, shelter and clothing, then you are required to give me good sex at reasonable intervals without complaint, argument or resistance. If you withhold sex from me, then I will withhold provision and protection from you. If you continue to withhold sex from me, then I will consider your conduct to be deliberate refusal to perform your marital obligations. I will construe your conduct as marital abandonment and grounds for divorce.”

  140. MackPUA says:

    @SSM

    ““What is wrong with women? Why are we like this?”

    Deti & ybm explain the problem, but they dont explain WHY it persists or gets worse

    Women need Strong men and a patriarchial male led society to keep them balanced

    Without strong male figures, a woman has no way of getting in touch with her male logical side

    Also as women hate beta’s, without strong male figures, she never develops empathy or sympathy for men

    Its this under-development of women in our society which is driving the current divorce & liberal frenzy

    Also most people dont know how to discipline women when theyre girls

    Young girls need to be disciplined as they use social logic, girls misbehave using social cues & shit tests, which need to be corrected if she wants to avoid dysfunctia in her adulthood

    Also women need to be disciplined out of their martyr complex which they develop early on, when in fact this victim martyrisation is her submissive nature coming to the surface

    Of course when men were more rugged, they knew how to do all of the above, ie avoid taking crap from a 12 yr old girl … try telling that to the dad of a daughter today …

    In our society where women & men arent allowed to behave biologically, victim status & victimology become ways for women expressing their submissive traits, without loosing their feminist merits

    Essentially women are going nuts without male role models & a patriarchial society, to keep them balanced & in touch with reality

    Welcome to the hell that is matriarchy ladies … a psychological playground designed to dehumanise & un-socialise women …

  141. “for the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked- who can know it?”

    Jeremiah 17:9

  142. The curse of Eve established a permanent inner conflict in women. They hold the part that is designed to complement the man in God’s order, and accept his authority freely… and the curse is the opppsite- now they also hold the constant tendency to try to rule their man.

    Yes. And the curse of Adam falls on men: because he failed to uphold his authority and submitted to Eve’s sinful wishes, man will always be tempted to sit back and acquiesce to a woman’s whims. With nothing to stop either of them, you get the inversion we have now, with ball-busting women running the family and husbands who mow and grill and bring home a paycheck and stay out of the way otherwise. Nobody’s really happy with it, but few people understand that’s because our human natures were designed for the opposite. It’s the way our betters all say it’s supposed to be, so what else is there?

  143. Johnycomelately says:

    Deti, brilliant summary on Whelchel.

    In line with Mr. Minter’s post, an interview with the indefatigable David P Goldman aka Spengler.

    Scroll down to How Civilizations Die.

    http://www.thedailybell.com/28314/Anthony-Wile-David-Goldman-on-Wall-Street-the-Middle-East-and-the-Judeo-Christian-Perspective

  144. hurting says:

    @Brendan

    The only reason you see so much of it still is because the female herd still awards helmet stickers for being in a relationship…

    One sticker for suckering the guy in; five for castrating him in divorce!

  145. Brendan says:

    How does someone with a heart, who is capable of love or at least compassion, take photos of her injured husband rather than helping him?

    Because at the end of the day, as a man to whom she is neither a mother nor attracted, he is more of a thing than a person. She sees him as a failure, and only seeks to document the failure that has caused her such pain. She holds him responsible for that pain, as well. So altogether, he is not only a thing, but a thing to be despised. This is the common attitude of divorcing women for their husbands long, long before a divorce happens. Basically they want to LJBF their husbands, but can’t, other than through divorcing. So that’s where it goes, and almost no woman has an ounce, nay a gram, of compassion for a man she is divorcing — not in the DNA of an XX member of the species, really.

    Why is this so? Women are fundamentally oriented around children, not men. The reason is obvious biologically. It’s true that women *can * bond closely to men, but only to a very, very small percentage of the male population as a whole — pareto principle applies here. Otherwise, it’s kids first.

    As the saying goes, men love women, women love children, and children love puppies. It’s not symmetrical, and that’s the point. Women have evolved to use men to provide seed and support for babies. If either or both of those can be found elsewhere, a given man has no use for a woman. It really is that simple.

  146. Alan says:

    Sam: Jeremiah 17:9

    Plays hob with self-reformation and enlightened self-interest, doesn’t it?

    I hear someone talk of “turning over a new leaf,” and I try to avoid laughing or choking — or pointing out the truth. Blue Pill for ‘em, all the way…

  147. MackPUA says:

    “for the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked- who can know it?”

    Jeremiah 17:9

    I could say the same thing about the bible & christians :p

  148. BUT I read somewhere today that the percentage of young Black men who voted for Obama dropped something like 14% between 2008 and 2012.

    Whoever wrote that must have been high. According to Reuters/Ipsos, who did the largest exit poll, Obama got 92% of the black, male, 18-34 vote. Not sure how that’s an loss of 14%, unless they mean it dropped all the way from 93% to 92%, and that represents a 14% drop as a ratio, not an absolute difference. (Romney got 5%, which is actually surprisingly high.)

    Even white, country-club Democrats like John Kerry consistently get 90% of the black vote. Those votes just aren’t in play at all for Republicans, especially against Obama. Neither are the majority of Hispanic votes. Ditto Asian votes until they get squeezed out of their part of the pie. Anyone who thinks it’s just a matter of finding the right way to approach them on one issue or another simply hasn’t been paying attention.

    Like Deti and Chris, I figure we’re screwed, and it’s going to take some serious hardship to get people to realize how far we’ve gone off the rails and repent. Stop the EBT cards, and reality will hit a lot of people in a hurry. Women especially have no idea how much infrastructure makes their daily lives comfortable, and it’s primarily created and maintained by one group. It’s not just the transfer payments of all sorts, but the roadside assistance so a woman doesn’t have to change a flat tire, and all the sports leagues for kids so she always has somewhere to be, and the ladies’ nights, and the wallet full of credit cards, and the cable TV and video games to keep the kids occupied, and the cheap food pre-packaged in numerous ways so you don’t have to cook. All those things are luxuries that ordinary people couldn’t afford when I was growing up, and they’ll be out of reach again if we’re ever forced to cut back and start paying it off.

    On the plus side, when a woman says she needs a provider, she’ll really mean it.

  149. @Mack PUA- that scripture includes all people.

    We barely need the bible to tell us so- it’s plain as day.

  150. deti says:

    “Women have evolved to use men to provide seed and support for babies.”

    And if I am going to be expected to provide that seed and support, then in return I expect her to provide me with good sex on command, decent blowjobs, and homecooked meals.

  151. Pingback: Weeping, whips and damnation. | Dark Brightness

  152. MackPUA says:

    @Sam Sol

    Actually I was including the bible in the wicked bit, as in the bible contains wickedness too … lol

    The bible provides the foundation, but other then that its self sufficiency & autonomy which are the real teachers, reality will always be a better teacher then a bible or a religion

    Anyway …

    If society doesnt provide the ready made social status or ideals, we just side step society ie game, mgtow etc

    In much the same way protestors & activists & other rebels, have done for centuries

    Self sufficiency & autonomy are the goals of a functioning civilisation

    Attain those & build your own castle

    Society is a social tool for control, its a mass opinion & very rarely correct

    The trick is to see how completely incorrect its become

    Society is essentially an aversion to reality & biology

  153. Brendan says:

    And if I am going to be expected to provide that seed and support, then in return I expect her to provide me with good sex on command, decent blowjobs, and homecooked meals.

    Right, but the key was that at some stage a group of alpha winners decided they would be better off fighting other tribes if they could harness the labor of their sexual competitors. The price was sharing pussy equitably (or more equitably than in an 80/20 take all situation). This “truce”, if you will, forms the basis of *all* subsequent social and civlizational development. The alpha leaders needed the labor of the betas/gammas/etc. in order to defeat other tribes and eventually buid empires and so on — but the price of this was to cut down on violent sexual competition and re-channel those energies of the men to building things. Hence marriage. monogamy, restrictions to beat the band on female sexual freedom and freedom to mate select, restrictions on alpha predation and so on.

    Scroll forward, and at some stage of technological development, this bargain stopped being necessary. The work needed to sustain and build civilization could be as easily performed by women (in many areas — not all, obviously, but in many areas) as men, and so the bargain was abandoned. Again, the “dangle” in front of the average guy was access to sex (this was literally how feminism was sold to the average guy back in the day), but in reality what was happening was that the ancient contract between alphas and the rest of the males was being torn up and replaced with a socio-economic system where non-alphas were less needed to build and sustain empires, were replaced to a substantial degree by women, and therefore there was no more need to “placate” the men into being builders through an agreement of monogamy replacing widespread alpha predation. Of course, women went along, too, because most of them chafed with their non-alpha mates, and hated the system that made them so unhappy.

    What we have today is a result of the alphas tearing up the contract with the rest of the men. They were the ones who allowed feminism to take root — not the regular guy. It was done *against* the regular guy, because the old deal wasn’t perceived to be needed any more. And so, boys, that’s where the fight needs to be taken — the old adversary, now out of his own cage, and screwing over everyone but himself.

  154. Stingray says:

    Joseph of Jackson,

    Is her end (I assume family?) the same as yours? I mean, is this at least part of your mission? If she is on board 100% to support you in family and your mission, then wouldn’t you both be joining together to meet an end, namely yours?

  155. an observer says:

    JOJ,

    “…she sees me as a means to an end. I don’t know how to fix this in my head…”

    Is this a rhetorical question?

  156. an observer says:

    Stingray,

    Is it about her goals, or his? And how many of his goals must be subordinate to hers?

    The typical modern wife is self centred. A helpmeet is other centred.

    For instance, what had she done in the past to suggest she is other centred.
    Gone to a cheaper college? Learnt domestic skills? Helps around church willingly, and cheerfully?

  157. Stingray says:

    It should be about his goals with the woman agreeing to (not only agreeing, but being excited by) his goals. When a woman is married to a strong man she is proud to be his and his goals will become her goals. She will shift herself to best help him in his life (as you said, a helpmeet). I’ve argued that a woman married to a masculine man would find divorce completely unthinkable. What she has in that man and in her marriage is worth everything to her.

  158. infowarrior1 says:

    @MackPUA

    If the bible is fiction then it is merely the codified wisdom passed down from the Israelites as well as myth. Rather than the costly hard slog of reality involving many deaths the text is already provided to avoid the pitfalls of life.

  159. This has all the appearance of a topical preemption. Now anyone looking into “The War Against Men” will tie into this as the “legitimate” and official PC position on the topic. This sets the boundary for the extreme limit that will be acceptable by the feminist establishment. Henceforth, Venker will be considered an extremist and anyone who agreed with her (to this extent) is also an extremist. Anyone who thinks she didn’t nearly begin to get it is clearly a complete troglodyte.

  160. Michael says:

    Hello. This does not have anything to do with this post:

    What does “Hamster” mean? Is their a glossary for using this website?

  161. Michael says:

    Looked on internet and cannot find definition of “Hamster”.

  162. freebird says:

    @stingray:
    “I’ve argued that a woman married to a masculine man would find divorce completely unthinkable.”
    Then you are arguing against Briffualt’s law and ladder theory,both have been proven time and again.
    But hey,whatever lets you sleep at night.

  163. mackPUA says:

    @infowarrior

    FYI the Israelites didn’t write the bible, it was the cult of the sun who took pre-existing religions & codified them into a monotheitic faith, which was then co-opted by the catholic church & revised & popularized by the catholic church

    As I stated before it provides a good moral foundation, other then that it offers a deliberately watered down version of spirituality, compared to philosophies & religions like zen or Taoism

  164. mackpua says:

    A comment by el bastardo which elaborates on my society is an aversion to reality

    The thing is our government has had women figured for a long, long time! Essentially; get them into a consensus, and make them feel like they came up with it themselves. Let them raise picket lines “to progress the cause of women” and you just finance it from the background; they will wipe out most all your opponents for you. Be sure to ad in a big group hug with a well known politician from time to time; and you have your population and those of your enemies on lock. History has shown how devastating this is; from Iraq to Europe feminism has an enormous track record in bringing politicians and dictators seemingly to their knees. If yo are looking for a word for all this; look no further than consumerism.

  165. Stingray says:

    As a short summation is this accurate (I am not familiar with either one)?:

    Briffault’s Law: Basically women will only associate with you as long as she can get something out of it.

    Ladder Theory: Women’s Ladders
    Ladder theory claims that women’s attraction is based on the following factors:

    50% Money/Power: Why unattractive men of wealth and influence are with beautiful women.

    40% Attractiveness: Sub-divided as follows:
    50% Physical Attraction.
    20% Competition: The more interested a man is in something/someone other than the woman, the more attractive she finds him.
    20% Novelty: How recently the woman has met the man and his distinction from other men she knows.
    10% Other.

    If these are accurate, then I have no problem with Briffault. Women do get something our of masculinity (I’m talking alpha masculinity here, I wasn’t clear with that above). They get stability and strength, not to mention heaps of attraction.

    As far as ladder theory, competition I get, money and power I do not. How does it explain for all the poor Drummer McRockbuddy’s that women sleep with unless novelty and competition are misrepresented?

  166. mackPUA says:

    @stingray

    A masculine man will indeed keep a married woman from divorcing

    The problem is women are hypergamous

    A marriage is a marriage to three ppl ie to the government

    Since government provides more resources most women’s hyprrgamy kicks in & they divorce the husband regardless of his masculinity

    Seriously if the government offered you 200k+ for stabbing some1 in thebback most ppl don’t think twice ….

  167. dhurka says:

    a woman married to a masculine man would find divorce completely unthinkable.

    Except for an even more masculine man. So all I have to do is become the most masculine man in the whole world. And in all areas. So if I can out earn every man and beat the whole world in a fist fight and a knife and gun fight as well as deal with shit test better than every other man in the world I can be safe from divorce….

    Just playing really but the bind that hypergamy puts a man in is unbeatable, except by luck.

  168. Stingray says:

    Hypergamy, I get that. But it can be satiated and not by luck. That why a man has a goals, a mission, that is more important than any woman, even his woman. It makes her work to want to be seen by you and it keeps her working for that throughout the marriage. Is she going to find other men attractive? Sure, just as that 18 year old hot body is going to turn any man’s head. Her hypergamy is going to make her find that man attractive, but when she is still chasing you, working for you, she might notice other men, but she won’t leave. Money from the government cannot ever replace the stability and strength and attraction that a strong, masculine man provides.

    Now, vetting for a woman a man would find acceptable is obviously still incredibly important, especially today, but hypergamy can be tamed. Strength in a man tends to seep into the woman and she will follow his lead more and more as she gets stronger.

    Eh, I’m tired. I don’t know if it makes sense, it seems to be rare, but it is out there and it is possible.

  169. Lovekraft says:

    The ideal strategy of this system that wishes to maintain its shadow power base would be to keep hiding its agenda. A slow draining of mental and physical energy, a mass confusion/animosity to keep people disconnected.

    To have the system completely break down MAY be in the works, but for the majority of people, this option isn’t front and center.

    Which is why there seems to be a lot of discussion about framing the dialect, about positioning one side as the liberator versus the fickle and wicked.

    We are slowly waking the sleeping betas up to their facade of false dreams and are continuing a waiting game, waiting for the progressives to blink. MRAs and red-pillers are very patient. We know deep down that violence for violence’s sake will not solve anything or advance the cause. There is enough of it on the other side. Instead, the Mens Rights Movement shall simply lift the veil from the eyes of the confused.

  170. 8oxer says:

    Pardon me, brother. I don’t know you, much less know where you’re located, but I sympathize deeply.

    I have a great girl, Christian (really), kind, compassionate, caring, feminine, and still I know that deep down inside, she sees me as a means to an end. I don’t know how to fix this in my head.

    Best solution: don’t get legally married. You say you’re a Christian, so I have sort of a funky idea. If you’re in the USA, a secular country, I’d imagine you could have someone perform an “off the books” wedding which isn’t registered with the state. In Canada, an “officially Christian” country (Catholic or Protestant depending on whether you’re in Quebec/NB or not) this won’t matter as your marriage will be viewed as binding simply on the divorcing party’s say so.

    I’m not religious at all and am not an attorney, but there are a great number of bright men and women on the dalrock site. A few of you guys should spell out the ins and outs as to whether this will fly or not. If you’re really a Christian, and are disgusted by this society and the mainstream churches, which many seem to be, then a private marriage, or even a hermetic “self-marriage ritual” with no witnesses, ought to be respected by other Christians. I don’t know if this is covered in the Bible or not.

    If you live together and start a family, and then things go bad, then you may owe child-support, of course, but the unmarried in the eyes of big brother part should get you out of the crushing lifetime alimony meatgrinder that so many older brothers are stuck in.

    If you must get married, get Athol Kay’s book *Married Man Sex Life* and study it deeply and regularly. I hope Dalrock doesn’t mind that I plug someone else’s work, but it really does seem to be the magnum opus for married dudes who have put on the *they live shades* and deal with reality. I’ve read it myself. Two thumbs way up.

    Regards, Boxer

  171. Bee says:

    Michael,

    I’m new here so take this with a grain of salt. From what I can infer the hamster spinning in its wheel is the internal self fulfilling rationalization mechanism that soothes your conscience and tells you that your wrong action is really ok. The hamster can do its work internally but also can be given big boosts by others who encourage your bad behavior.

  172. whatever says:


    Anonymous aged 70 has been an MRA for decades and has done more to help men and spread wisdom than anyone I’ve seen except zed. You are right about most people his age but wrong about him. If the MRA had generals this guy would have 5 stars.

    Well then sorry. However the “throw everyone below the top 10% under the bus crowd has been ranting especially loud lately. We have reached the point of “never get married, never have children” for lower middle and “always hungry” for poor people and the lunatic rambling just gets louder.

  173. @Observer

    No, it’s not. The red pill is a very long and intense process. Kind of like how Neo was looking around and wondering why his eyes hurt and Morpheus says “because you’ve never used them before”. It’s not that I don’t understand, but this is the first chance I’ve had to use this knowledge in a real relationship and it changes things drastically. I don’t know if it will get better. I was built to be a servant for other people. It’s where my greatest joys in life come from. Using another person is just foreign to me. My biggest problem is that I believe all relationships should be win/win. I usually win by serving other people and making their lives easier. Unfortunately, this looks insanely beta to a woman (the deeper my relationship gets, the more I struggle to remember to require her to serve me). Getting around this is proving to be a challenge. There isn’t much win left for guys like me in marriage or relationships with women.

  174. 8oxer says:

    Joseph:

    Pardon me twice. You write some interesting stuff, like:

    I was built to be a servant for other people. It’s where my greatest joys in life come from. Using another person is just foreign to me.

    I think it’s easy to conflate expecting give-and-take with exploitation.

    Supposing that she has the same desires as you, allowing her to be good at what she is naturally good at is not using her. It’s just teamwork. In any relationship, there will be one person who is better at thing a than the other, who is better at thing b.

    I’m going to get the s*it flamed right out of me on the other forum I participate on (with people who read this one) but hear me out… There are people I know who do have successful marriages. Not many, but some. I’ve studied them. What they do is unique to them, but the common factors are that the couple splits up tasks and works together on a big picture.

    The couples I’ve seen that really work usually have one person who makes the money, and one person who manages it. There is one person who does one thing, and one another. No bitching or crying about whose turn it is to make dinner or take the trash out. There’s no “equality” except in a very abstract way. Both serve something greater than themselves and greater than the other also, they serve the whole, which is greater than the sum of its parts. You can both serve the marriage or relationship, rather than serving the other person.

    If you are really insane enough to get married, then this is what I hope for you. I wouldn’t do it, and wouldn’t suggest it to anyone else. It’s just too risky. Then again, I don’t tell other men what to do or not do. Your situation isn’t mine. Good luck

  175. an observer says:

    Michael,

    Try here for some helpful definitions with references:

    http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/p/masculexicon.html

  176. an observer says:

    Joseph,

    I have no idea either how a servants heart fits into contemporary church culture. Church life seems all about ‘what’s in it for me.’ Helping others is now incredibly beta and loses the respect of most women [and men]. I have seen churches use people up, drain their time and resources and toss them aside when finished like a used tissue.

    “…she sees me as a means to an end. I don’t know how to fix this in my head…”

    An involuntary servant has no choice but to facilitate the desires of others. But the voluntary sublimation of personal desires to serve others is noble, and honouring. The issue I have is that your quote above suggests she is/may take advantage of your heart of servanthood to meet her own ends – that may not be yours too.

    If these ends mean your calling, your talents and mandate is diverted from its divine calling, then there is no ‘fixing.’ There can be no mental gynmastics that sublimate your calling to that of a woman with her own ends in mind. This is because many women ignore or downplay biblical womanhood and instructions to suit their own personal preferences, idolise careerism, embrace equality and reinterpret scripture to suit themselves with the blessing of the church and pastor, abusing the gift of grace to excuse and overcome all sorts of wilfully chosen sin.

    However . . . If the ends that you speak of ARE in accordance with your own, and she is willing to follow your leadership, defer to your decision making and accept your headship, then the solution is a little more obvious.

    However, whilst I’m all for getting marriage away from the grubby hands of the state, having children out of state-sanctioned wedlock may not keep the lawyers, police and debt collectors from the door if it all goes bad and she pulls the eject lever. I don’t know the law in your part of the world, but the armed wealth redistributionists are still active in most western countries. Be aware.

  177. Stingray says:

    Joseph,

    8oxer has it right. If you are a good servant that doesn’t make you beta, only you are not servant to your wife, you are to your goal. Being a servant to your marriage/family is VASTLY different than being servant to your wife. You will have to make very difficult decisions that will be best for the whole, no for her. This comes from a place of leadership. If she is good at serving (cooking, cleaning, literally serving, etc) you and she likes it, don’t take it away from her. Some women who accept that role take great happiness from it. If you wish t serve, find you goals and serve them from a place of strength and lead you family. Make the tough decisions and stick to them unwaveringly.

    What 8oxer described is an incredibly strong marriage and there is nothing beta about it.

  178. So all I have to do is become the most masculine man in the whole world.

    I just wrote a long answer to this on my blog, so I won’t repeat the whole thing here, but in short: no. You can’t ever be 100% certain that your wife won’t leave you, of course, but that’s been true for all of human history, well before the legal system made it easy for her. But you can be reasonably certain, if you can make sure a few things are true:

    1) Your SMV is as high or (better) higher than hers and you keep it that way.

    2) You make it clear from the start that you will be the captain of the ship, and she purrs at that.

    3) You follow up by actually being the captain of the ship and not abdicating that role to her.

    4) You don’t let her go off to a job or social circle that puts her in regular proximity to men with higher SMV than yours.

    Do those things and you’ll probably be okay. There are no guarantees, but remember that, even today with feminism and frivorce laws and macho women and effeminate men everywhere, about 50% of marriages still don’t end in divorce. Yes, it’s risky, but I don’t think men who really feel called to be married should let the risks scare them away completely. Jumping out of a plane is pretty risky too, but if you train properly and have the right equipment, it can be done very safely. I think that’s a healthier way to look at marriage — it can be deadly stupid or reasonably safe and profitable, depending on how you prepare for it and handle it.

  179. Bee says:

    This whole Lisa Whelchel situation is very eye opening. Whelchel makes a big deal about not being able to love her husband and eventually frivorces him. But a careful reading of Ephesians 5 shows that the women is not commanded to love her husband but to fear or respect him. The husband is the only one commanded to love.

    When Whelchel made her long list about her fiance’s good qualities, it sure sounded like she respected him at that time.

  180. Pingback: - Husbands: the personal garbagemen of TradCon feminists. | The Woman and the Dragon

  181. Scroll forward, and at some stage of technological development, this bargain stopped being necessary. The work needed to sustain and build civilization could be as easily performed by women (in many areas — not all, obviously, but in many areas) as men, and so the bargain was abandoned.

    While the alphas may have believed this, this isn’t true in reality. Women aren’t doing men’s jobs. The “jobs” women are doing are mostly do nothing goverment, quasi-government, government mandated, and otherwise useless “jobs”. The “jobs” most women do don’t add any real value or productivity. In fact, they have negative value and productivity, literally.

    Women are not building and sustaining civilization. Far from it.

  182. dhurka says:

    Cail & Stingray

    I was just being a smart ass people. What you say is fine and someone who has relationship ambitions would be well to follow it. But I’ve got three strikes (mother, stepmother, wife) when it comes to women so I’m out.

    I generally am alpha enough. If the 80/20 rule is true I’m one of the 20. Not that I’m an uber alpha but I’ve never had to deal with a dry spell longer than a few months so I’m a winner in that regard overall. My problem is no one can be up, on top of the world all the time. And then whatever happened in life to knock me down quickly becomes a secondary problem compared to whatever woman I’m with causing trouble because I failed a few shit tests. I soon realize that while I may get support from a woman – I will never be able to get that support WHEN I NEED IT. I won’t get helped by a woman when I am down and need a hand up. They might be great when all is good but if the shit hits the fan they will become another problem.

    Try having a semi serious car accident and then have your recovery time filled with conflict because of how weak that makes you. Both physically (housework and stuff) and mentally (shit tests). Women are only fair weather friends. I don’t need those.

  183. Hugh G. Rection says:

    Someone here used the metaphor of the Captain and the First Officer as a model for an ideal marriage. In case of Mrs. Venker (no hyphenated name, that’s a feminist no-no!) it’s more like being the dictator in a puppet regime with her being the CIA controlling your every move. You get to wear the fancy uniform, if someone wants to kill you you’ll take the shots but every decision is ultimately hers.

  184. Hurting says:

    Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech says:
    December 1, 2012 at 4:01 pm
    Scroll forward, and at some stage of technological development, this bargain stopped being necessary. The work needed to sustain and build civilization could be as easily performed by women (in many areas — not all, obviously, but in many areas) as men, and so the bargain was abandoned.

    While the alphas may have believed this, this isn’t true in reality. Women aren’t doing men’s jobs. The “jobs” women are doing are mostly do nothing goverment, quasi-government, government mandated, and otherwise useless “jobs”. The “jobs” most women do don’t add any real value or productivity. In fact, they have negative value and productivity, literally.

    Women are not building and sustaining civilization. Far from it.

    It’s not just that women have displaced men in the workforce (as a product of societal pressures and technology enabling same), Technology and international trade have greatly lowered the demand for the type of labor that large swaths of solid beta men in this country used to perform. The bargain is indeed dead – even of most of the adjustment does not derive direclty from replacement of beta males in the workforce by females.

  185. Höllenhund says:

    That’s all reasonable and elaborate, Cail, but the fundamental problem with making marriages that unstable and conditional is that it greatly discourages all men from doing the one thing women have always expected of them, which is the investment of money, time and resources into relationships. It’s no coincidence that women always whip themselves into rage against two distinct groups of men: the alphas and the omegas i.e. those on the top and the bottom of the male sexual hierarchy, and the only thing they share in common, the one thing that makes them fundamentally different from betas, is their refusal to invest anything in women. Women merely despise and use betas, but only alphas and omegas elicit pure female hatred.

  186. Höllenhund says:

    “How does someone with a heart, who is capable of love or at least compassion, take photos of her injured husband rather than helping him?”

    False premise. Women are biologically incapable of compassion towards men.

  187. Höllenhund says:

    ” The only reason you see so much of it still is because the female herd still awards helmet stickers for being in a relationship, and not all women can be in a relationship with the small sliver, so they enter relationships with other men, get their herd sticker, but are hardly happy with it.”

    I doubt that’s entirely accurate, Brendan. Women don’t get the helmet sticker from the female herd for cohabiting with beta chumps. The relationship only brings the herd’s award if it doesn’t infringe upon female autonomy in any way i.e. if the woman has the unilateral power to start, guide, channel and eventually end the relationship. Cohabitation doesn’t fit into that, because it involves compromises.

  188. greyghost says:

    Lisa Whelchel is just a case in my eye of a women that let herd status take priority over gina tingle. At 49 she is used up in many ways and will most likely never have anything like she divorced. Will maybe get some exciting bootie calls here and there. But she has aged out of the market.
    Why the church doesn’t teach christian men will game is stupid. If you are running a church and want to adapt to the times rather than worship pussy as churchians,they should have,could have,should adapt by teaching the young christian men “game” to allow christian marriage to thrive in this cesspool feminism and churchian pussy worship has brought us. Lisa was just being a typical woman.

  189. locard says:

    Did anyone else see Venker on Fox and Friends again this morning? Allison Camerata was absolutely foaming at the mouth and coming out of her chair attacking Venker! If anyone has the ability to grab that clip it is a must see. If anyone ever doubts that Tradcons are as bad as Feminists on this issue this is a stunning example of that fallacy.

  190. factory2590 says:

    For those interested in a glossary of Manosphere terminology, this is an attempt:

    http://huntingforarchetypes.blogspot.ca/2012/12/a-glossary-of-mrm-terms.html

    Which was started by dhanu on the AVfM forum. If you like, please pass it along to your buddies.

  191. Pingback: A secret the KGB couldn’t have kept. | Dalrock

  192. It’s not just that women have displaced men in the workforce (as a product of societal pressures and technology enabling same), Technology and international trade have greatly lowered the demand for the type of labor that large swaths of solid beta men in this country used to perform. The bargain is indeed dead – even of most of the adjustment does not derive direclty from replacement of beta males in the workforce by females.

    When it comes to international trade, that is something different that what is been describe here. What you have is a case of alphas trying to make a deal with a different group of betas not replacing betas for women. (This could be an interesting topic to explore, but it is the opposite of saying beta men are obsolete.)

    It’s similar when it comes to technology. Beta men are making it all run. Take them away, and it all falls apart. Women will never be able to do these jobs. We already see this with various aspects of infrastructure. Back in 2009 the stimulus was supposed to go into infrastructure, but that didn’t happen because NOW and Obama the mangina realized that men would benefit from infrastructure work (because it involves technology and construction). NOW had Obama redirect the stimulus into the black hole of women’s government jobs. Women didn’t replace men doing infrastructure work. It didn’t get done because only (beta) men could do it. Technology isn’t at a point where it can self develop (yet). It requires the work of legions of (beta) men. No one else (or nothing else) can (or will) do it (yet).

    By time technology could conceivably replace beta men wholesale, genetic engineering, cyborgs, and related tech will be so commonplace that the game will be different than just alphas and betas. Because of that, there will be no wholesale replacement of betas as it is described in this thread of comments. You can’t assume that one aspect of technology will continue while all others stagnate. That just doesn’t happen.

  193. Hurting says:

    @Pro-male

    Agree wholeheartedly that a great deal of technology still requires significant numbers of betas to make it all run, but I think my point is still valid writ large and over the longer term. I’m not referring to what’s transpired just in the last several years or even the last decade or two. What I’m describing, including the opening of international trade (up to and including the displacement of large numbers of jobs formally held by native betas), has been going on for decades and has been co-opted by the alphas running the show, namely politicians and corporate types.

    The alpha leaders simply don’t have to honor the old contract with beta males, or at least anywhere near the number of beta males say in even the 1970′s. There simply are far fewer of the types of jobs that would have allowed a typical beta in that timeframe, for example, to be the master of his domain. He faces too much competition from automation and greater access to labor markets from historically lower participation arenas (e.g., immigrants, foreign-based workers and yes, women). Yes there will still be a reasonably sizable contingent of greater betas, who by dint of their technological talent, will still be able to survive (not sure about thriving), but they will be overwhelmed with the rest of the lesser betas by the sheer number of women and alphas.

  194. twra says:

    I agree Venker for the most part I think is scared to come out as a traditionalist. Because ultimately she will be attacked viciously by the MRA’s and feminists alike. Feminists have been successful in their denigration of traditional values and attitudes. The truth is feminism is not women who are hating men, nor was it men who were hating women as feminists would like us to believe. Most feminists in fact hate traditional feminine women. Why? Because given a choice a man will always choose the feminine woman over a feminist. That is why feminists for the past 50 years or so have been doing everything to degrade traditional women. And they have succeed as most western men today are feminists. They want women who are promiscuous, they want women who “carry their own weight” by having a career, (yet you do not seen a man screaming in pain while giving birth do you?) the hypocrisy just never ends. The traditional woman has been degraded in the context not just through laws but also status wise, that is why many feminine women are afraid to speak out. They are afraid to admit that they do want a man who will be her superior and who will lovingly rule over her. Women for the most part are forced into going with the mainstream because otherwise they will be called the worst of names and ridiculed by feminists and men who are feminists “manginas.” Feminism is not just about the hatred of men. Feminists hate traditional women more then they hate men that is why the social stigma of being homemaker or a submissive woman is so high in our society. Men need to accept the traditional woman, they can no longer support feminists who are killing true womanhood in women who have not yet been infected with the feminist venom. Women need to be taught that the greatest power they hold is their femininity it is not their masculinity. When women become feminists and seek to be like men, they become a deformity nor male nor female. They are a true shame to all women.

    Society can only survive when both genders are complementary when the woman is feminine and the man is masculine. And when they both work in their own particular roles as husband and wife. A real man will strive for a feminine woman and a real feminine woman will want a real man. Feminists are hardly women they are deformities. And feminist men are also deformities as well. Only traditional values can bring about better change in the society.

  195. Martian Bachelor says:

    S.V. made The View earlier today. It was “Guy Day Friday”, so they had Mike Tyson guest hosting as part of the crew.

    The clucking hens had gotten going around in circles on the equal pay and who’s-the-breadwinner topics, and he finally said something, quipping “I’ve always been the breadwinner, but I’ve never been the boss.”

    Maybe you had to be there, but it was hilarious, cause he’s not the brightest bulb on the tree, but it stopped the convo. Somebody needs to get in touch w/him about getting tutored in “Game” — so he can “punch above his weight” for a change! lol

  196. ybm says:

    What a beta that Mike Tyson is. If only he read Roissy.

  197. deti says:

    I wish Venker would make up her mind:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/07/let-call-truce-in-war-on-men/

    First, women aren’t acting like women anymore and they need to get in touch with their feminine sides.

    Then, to the Daily Beast, she says she’s glad to let a man lead. Get that? LET him lead.

    NOw, back to Fox News, she says women need to be about “sacrifice and capitulation” to make marriages work. She says women also can “surrender to their femininity” without losing their identities as human beings and as women.

    She almost, ALLLLMOOOOOST gets there. She doesn’t want to say “submit to your husband”.

  198. Joshua says:

    No Deit she isnt anywhere close. Shes solipsistic, wants to have her cake and eat it too. Notice how she changes language and tone depending on who she thinks her audience is. For conservative Fox news its all the right buttons without the word submit. With the liberal rags its what you would expect their base to want to hear. She is the exact kind of woman we should point at and shame because it sounds like shes almost there, but in reality she does more harm than good. Shes the problem, not part of the problem, IS THE PROBLEM!

  199. The light that went on in my head the day she wrote the first article was violently extinguished when i watched her being interviewed by the weenie, oh….the British anchor with the plastic glasses…..he was obviously scared to death his producers and the help, as well as his wife or GF were going to kick his ass, so he was angry with Venker, who was capitulating to every feminist cliche imaginable.

    Mea culpa mea maxima culpa for even ever seeing a a single lumen emanating from this dead bulb

  200. Joshua says:

    We all make mistakes. Thats why where here to call each other on it and learn. This is what makes us men, not women.

  201. LiveFearless says:

    Suzanne Venker and I have had our disagreements, but we’re adults. When she interviewed me for her new book, on shelves as of today, I saw how she sincerely wanted to unlock the hidden secrets that would lead to monogamous lifetime love. The book isn’t intended for everyone.

    She has written “How to Choose a Husband…” for a small remnant of women that have the intention of enjoying happy lifetime marriage with one man. That man has not magically appeared, and that’s what Suzanne Venker intends to resolve. Even if it only works for a few people, Suzanne believes it was worth the year of writing it.

    Scripted news is not something I normally watch unless I’m there live. With Suzanne Venker, the “Fox and Friends” morning host had body language and speech patterns that were negative. This was like the spirit of some comments posted in this blog about Suzanne Venker. On the other hand, Sherri Shepherd, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg played the interview on ‘The View’ with hospitality and class. These women are not exactly the biggest fans of the content of the new book, but they were professional. It matters.

    Her new book, “How to Choose A Husband” will be a best-selling book in the United States. In the UK, it’s mind-boggling how popular her work has become. I hope you will think about this. Within one week, 100 million people will have seen this UK article: http://bit.ly/VHQpPj The Headline: ‘Just be nice, cook and have sex!’ Of course that headline is a bit out of context and for ‘shock’ value.

    She wrote about our interview, “Sam’s comments about sex are eerily similar to those of Steve Harvey, who referred to sex as “the cookie” in Act Like a Lady. “Please—puhleeze—don’t hold out on the cookie. We don’t care about anything else,” he wrote. “We don’t care about anything else; we need the cookie. The emotional stuff—the talking, the anything cuddling, the holding hands, and bonding, that’s Y’all’s thing. We’ll do those things because we know it’s important to you. But please understand: the way we men connect is by having sex. Period.”

    Then there’s the whole statistical truth about marriage. Dalrock has posted this often. Lori Gottlieb did too despite the negative press Tom Leykis gave in response to her article (the article that became a book and movie deal). You can find more data from Tracy McMillan, writer and on-air matchmaker for new NBC dating series “Ready For Love” which, I can say with authority is well-funded. Giuliana and her husband, Bill Rancic, are currently in production as the hosts for the new NBC dating series. Tracy McMillan doesn’t hold back. In this new book, Suzanne Venker doesn’t either.

    As with most created norms in culture, there are niche groups that have been marginalized, left out and discriminated against. Now, in an age of digital data, outsourced content moderators can continually hide information. You’re one of the ones that’s written negative comments about Suzanne Venker? Congratulations! You’ve joined thousands of women that share your general feelings about her despite not reading any of her books. You’re a man. Are you really going to let your assumptions control your emotions?

    Suzanne Venker’s new book is available at Barnes & Noble stores everywhere beginning today, and I suggest you read it. A lot of men are going to be bothered by the content of this book, especially habitual pick-up artists, skeezy weirdos… you know the list.

    For men that still intend to enjoy lifetime love, but you’ve opted out because of the Kardashian’s or whatever influences/agendas you think you understand, this book has answers you might like. If it works out for you because your future spouse read this book, you’re welcome. Buy it. Enjoy the quick read. Link to the book: http://amzn.to/TvUKmx

  202. ballista74 says:

    You’re one of the ones that’s written negative comments about Suzanne Venker? Congratulations! You’ve joined thousands of women that share your general feelings about her despite not reading any of her books. You’re a man. Are you really going to let your assumptions control your emotions?

    Suzanne Venker’s new book is available at Barnes & Noble stores everywhere beginning today, and I suggest you read it. A lot of men are going to be bothered by the content of this book, especially habitual pick-up artists, skeezy weirdos… you know the list.

    I realize you are probably one of the folks that’s been sent out to sell her book online, and I understand that you got to be positive and get out there. But to look at it seriously, she really hasn’t said or done anything in her media appearances that makes this book worthy of the $15 it would cost. While she said a few interesting things, she backed away from those completely in the course of her media appearances. Ultimately, she really hasn’t shown anything that would indicate she would be any different than any of the other feminist authors that are currently out there. What the book looks like is just a plea towards the women to be kinder and gentler as masters over their husbands in Marriage 2.0 (which her other articles seem to show that she adheres to), and really isn’t going to change anything for the better.

  203. Pingback: To be happy, we must admit it | There Is No Game

  204. Pingback: Was Jesus a feminist? | Sunshine Mary

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

  206. Know How says:

    There is so much vile, venom and hate of women on this blog. Is the purpose for this site to bash women, because that is what it appears to do. The words and phrases most of you have used, are downright evil, dirty, demeaning and you all wonder why women go against you all and won’t do what you all want them to do.
    For the comment about all you all not liking cuddling and only wanting sex, is exactly what women have been saying about men all along. The picture that you all have given to women, is that men are selfish, abusive, demeaning, arrogant, and want women to give up their careers, dreams, goals, but give sex, cook, not have a voice, and shut up. If that is what you men here want, you all can just can order a plastic ,life-sized doll toy, for most of that.
    Men like most of you, give women a bad picture when you write demeaning comments. No wonder some of you are having problems with your women. so angry and lonely, What woman wants to be with men like that?

  207. YOHAMI says:

    Knowhow, really?

  208. Opus says:

    Amusing to read Mark Minter’s anti-woman rant from 30th November 2012 – what a difference a year makes. Perhaps it was that comment that so incensed Know How but I must advise her that it is perhaps this very day that Minter is marrying Geisha Kate after a whirl-wind romance. I am sending Know How a large virtual handkerchief to mop her tears.

  209. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    I am sending Know How a large virtual handkerchief to mop her tears.

    You are both kind and hilarious.

  210. Empathologism says:

    She. Must cry like Spongebob. Oscillating with alternating jets, the streets of bikini bottom awash. It’s actually an all to real metaphor for the newly single dad, not his choice,p when he flicks through and sees Spongebob on. That show started when my college kids were little. Whole family liked the humor so should I find myself choosing between the Old Roys or stepping on up to Purinia in my home with but a bowl……this would work.
    Know how knows. Because she knows what everyone knows….right? ,

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