Why aren’t men responding to economic signals?

I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not, and it’s very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It’s a fact in need of an explanation.

– Michael Greenstone, M.I.T. economics professor

Social scientists are obsessed with the “gender wage gap”;  for decades they were distraught that the gap existed at all.  Now large numbers are alarmed that the gap is shrinking.  The quote above fits with the more recent concern, and is central to the New York Times business section article Study of Men’s Falling Income Cites Single Parents, as well as an opinion piece by David Frum at CNN titled Straight marriage is the real issue (H/T Rollo).

While I’m not a professor of economics from MIT, I do have a real degree in economics and an honorary PhD in red pill pharmacy.  Putting those two together allows me to explain what so frightens the good professor and the journalists quoting him.  To start with, they very much should be frightened by the shrinking wage gap, but not because men are ignoring market signals or are somehow unfit for the modern economy.  In fact, the problem is that men are slowly but surely starting to respond to market signals stemming from our radical overhaul of the family structure in recent decades.

Not too many decades ago the US and the rest of the western world had marriage as the central organizing philosophy for family structure.  This was a structure which created an incentive for men to produce more than they required for their own consumption and encouraged them to take on the responsibility of a family.  This system not only benefited children, but men and women as well.  Women benefited from the protection and resources husbands provided to them and the children they bore.  Men were provided the only socially and morally sanctioned access to sex as well as the prestige and satisfaction which came from leading a family.  Society as a whole benefited because children had the advantages of growing up in an intact home and men were willing to work extremely hard to produce the required surplus.

Through a combination of legal and social “reforms”, the US now has what appears on the surface to be a dual family structure but is in legal reality a single family structure organized around the concept of child support.  Where in the past a woman needed to secure a formal promise from a man in the form of marriage before she could expect him to support her and the children she bore, in this new structure the law declares that any man she has children by are bound to support her and her children whether she marries or not, and whether or not she honors her own marriage vows.

While men were motivated under the old family structure, they absolutely detest the new child support system of family formation.  Under the old system a man who married before fathering children could reasonably expect access to his children and the opportunity to direct their upbringing (in concert with his wife).  Under the new system the children are de facto considered the property of the mother, whom the state compels him to pay so she can direct their upbringing generally as she sees fit.  Since the new system has removed the incentive for men to work hard to provide for their families, it has to rely instead on threats of imprisonment to coerce men into earning “enough” income.  Where men used to take pride in the birth of their children and celebrate with cigars, large numbers of men now fear fatherhood more than anything.

Under the new rules even if a man chooses the structure of marriage he is always subject to being forced into the child support model for any or no reason by his wife.  No fault divorce laws are unilateral and openly celebrated by both social scientists and modern Christianity as a tool for wives to threaten their husbands.  Fathers have gone from being the respected head of household to deputy parent serving at the pleasure of their wives.

Fortunately for society awareness of the reality of the new system has been slow to spread.  Most men are either uninformed about the true nature of the family court or assume that the woman they marry would never detonate their family for 30 pieces of silver.  Because of inertia men continue to earn more than women, and those who have studied the question (Hymowitz, Farrell) have found that this is due to men choosing to work harder, longer, and/or more difficult and dangerous jobs than women.  While the MIT economist is correct that men earn fewer degrees than women, those men who do earn degrees are far more likely than women to choose majors with real economic value.  However, the gender earnings gap is still shrinking, and this has the author of the NY Times business article both puzzled and worried:

The fall of men in the workplace is widely regarded by economists as one of the nation’s most important and puzzling trends. While men, on average, still earn more than women, the gap between them has narrowed considerably, particularly among more recent entrants to the labor force.

He should be worried, but he shouldn’t be puzzled.  The hard earned lesson of the twentieth century was that incentives work far better than coercion when it comes to generating economic value.  Yet despite winning the cold war the US and the western world has quietly elected to move from an incentives based family/economic structure (marriage) to one based on coercion (child support).

Nearly all observers however are misunderstanding the cause/effect relationships here. In his otherwise excellent recent NY Times piece Late Marriage and Its Consequences, Ross Douthat makes the classic error of confusing the added responsibility men take on when they marry for a benefit, instead of a cost they bear in exchange for leading a family:

Men, meanwhile, reap a wage premium from marrying earlier, so late marriage tends to hurt their economic prospects

Similarly, the NY Times business piece and Frum’s piece at CNN both note that men’s shrinking relative economic output is occurring at the same time the majority of young mothers are skipping the time honored wedding/birth/divorce process and deliberately choosing to have their children out of wedlock.  As we’ve seen with Christian leaders like Stanton and Driscoll, the standard narrative is that women are being forced to choose the child support model by men who are unworthy of marriage.  The NY Times business piece explains:

Men who are less successful are less attractive as partners, so some women are choosing to raise children by themselves, in turn often producing sons who are less successful and attractive as partners.

Frum echoes this sentiment with:

As men (on average) finish less education, as male wages (on average) decline, men become less attractive as marital partners.

Dr. W. Bradford Wilcox of The Marriage Project doesn’t make this mistake in a similar article he wrote recently for Slate, but he agrees that the explosion in out of wedlock births is due to deliberate choices by women:

Melissa, a 31-year-old single mother, had this to say about why she has never married any of her boyfriends: “I just never felt that anyone’s as loyal to me as I am to them,” she said. “Even when I feel like I’m in a good relationship, there’ll be little things that they’ll do that will make me start wondering, ‘Do they really have my back?’ ”, according to the Love and Marriage in Middle America project, a study of Middle American relationships in a small town in Ohio. What’s striking about Melissa’s comment—which is all too representative—is that it’s not just the bad guys who give her pause about marriage; it’s also the good guys. She just seems to harbor a general suspicion about the possibility of lifelong love and the whole institution of marriage.

The long term danger here is obvious.  The more women delay, avoid, and abuse marriage the less men will be willing to generate the surplus economic output our economy depends on.  Instead of being the economic powerhouse of the west, men disenfranchised from fatherhood will more and more decide to enjoy the decline.  This reduction in economic output will coincide with the massive increases in social costs caused by fatherless children and comes at a time when governments are already running out of options.  If we want to stem this vicious cycle we will ultimately have no choice but to return to a marriage based family structure.  Right now this is politically unthinkable, as both the left and the right are deeply invested in the child support model of family organization.  However, the more we experience the true costs of this model the more the folly of this path will become undeniable.  True hardship has a way of making the right choice suddenly clear, so it is still possible that we will ultimately return to a marriage based family structure.  In the meantime social scientists will remain baffled and hundreds of millions of children will continue to suffer.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Child Custody, Fatherhood, Feminists, National Marriage Project, Patriarchal Dividend, Replacing Marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

787 Responses to Why aren’t men responding to economic signals?

  1. pavetack says:

    Another brilliant post – a broad but concise summary of the problem. It’s too bad this couldn’t be published by CNN or the NYT, since you’re largely preaching to the choir here.

  2. Miserman says:

    … honorary PhD in red pill pharmacy.

    A laugh-out-loud moment (in a good way), The think the most important line is:

    Yet despite winning the cold war the US and the western world has quietly elected to move from an incentives based family/economic structure (marriage) to one based on coercion (child support).

  3. Elspeth says:

    Well said Dalrock, well said.

    Recently my husband and I were riding along the highway and saw a billboard advertising a missing 7 month old baby. Last seen with his biological father.

    My husband, not at all prone to analyzing things through the lens of the gender wars, automatically noted the irony and wondered if such a billboard would be along the interstate if the mother of said baby had taken the baby and moved away to parts unknown.

    We all know the answer to the question, and it explains why many men are checking out. There is no incentive for towing the traditional line.

  4. ar10308 says:

    The MIT prof needs to read some Captain Capitalism. Then again, the guy is a college professor so he doesn’t realize how worthless he is.

    Education does NOT equate to production.

    A man can do far better for himself by going and starting a software company with a few thousand dollars than he can by going to medical school nowadays. Peter Thiel and a number of other men in that field have proven exactly this. Extensive education is not required for production.

    The very experience that led me to the Red Pill in winter 2011-2012 was a woman my age (28 at the time) declining to date me because she had just gotten a promotion at work and was going to be taking some financial license certifications, then going to grad school for her MBA. My Red Pill exigence came when she declined to have dinner (which I had made) and hangout with myself and a group of friends because she was doing work stuff on the Friday night before Christmas. At that moment, I realized something was very wrong that things kept working out like this for me and found Roissy about a month later. Anyway, just this fall, she has started grad school (she’ll turn 29 this year) while working full time and will be continuing that arrangement for the next 3 years. I know that towards the end of that, she’ll be feeling her body’s alarms to settle down and have children pretty strongly. My contribution to her, will be that I will not be remotely interested in being with her, even if I am umarried at the time. Through the Red Pill, I have realized that I am not going to be put on the back-burner for several years while she checks her feminist checklist and then suddenly be willing to be at her beck and call when she is ready.

  5. Bob Wallace says:

    Affirmative Action means “White Men Need Not Apply.” I could tell stories about several of my friends but I will tell only one: a man I know loved teaching law more than anything else. When he inquired at a law school about the possibilities of being a professor , he was told, “Don’t waste your time. You’re white. And although you’re better than everyone else, you will not be hired.”

    Now multiply that by a million times and then wonder why men are avoiding colleges

    By the way I started my own business and work for myself.

  6. Jim says:

    No incentive whatsoever to risk my well being and future. At 41, own my house, been unemployed for over a year and am doing just fine. And looking around at the worker bees who are MISERABLE, there’s absolutely no way in hell that I want to join them. BTDT and at least I came out ahead. Much rather landscape my yard or go fishing.

    More men should think like that. Work to achieve independence from the system and not as a tool to feed it until they get so old and broken down that they no longer can’t. And definitely not as a walking wallet for some messed up woman that this culture produces.

  7. Novaseeker says:

    Good post.

    I think the bafflement stems from an unwillingness to cast the principles of incentive properly, as you suggest. The equalitarian worldview strongly suggests that men and women will respond the same way to the same economic incentives, and therefore someone working from that premise (i.e., that men and women are functionally the same other than for social training to be different) will be baffled that men are not responding similarly to these “objective economic incentives”. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding which stems from the incorrect worldview.

    A more accurate worldview understands that men and women have different priorities and will respond differently to various incentives. For women generally, a priority in life is being able to procure provision (or, if need be, to provide themselves) for children. This is the case in terms of a fundamental “drive” even if a specific woman is personally disinterested in having children, although in many of these cases something else is also going on (see * below). Until recently this drive was directed towards men because until recently it was difficult for women to earn enough to support raising a child or children on their own. That has now changed. As a result of that change, women are now incented to pursue self-provision, even if on a “just in case” basis (as is the commonly asserted reason for it being done by women who claim traditional values yet pursue the post-modern life script, as well as the families of such women). The fundamental drive towards provisioning and the security it provides is deep wiring, and making it accessible on a “self-served” basis has led to women pursuing it on a self-served basis. This is the case regardless of social class, but the differential in marriage rates as between social classes probably has different roots (see * below).

    For men, the priority historically was securing enough provision ability and other character traits so as to attract a mate (and/or her family, as this was more the case historically until relatively recently) as a good mate. Now, one may ask “so why aren’t they stepping up and doing that today, then?”. The reason is that in the past this was the only way for man to secure socially approved access to sex. That is not the case today. Today, women are choosing men for sex based primarily on, well, sexiness as sex mates, and not on ability to provision or character qualities that have nothing to do with raw sexiness. And this is precisely because women are about self-provisioning now — so they (1) don’t have to worry about getting married (they think) until they are older anyway and so in the meantime (2) can pick men for sexytime on the basis of who is sexy, and not worry about the other guys until later on. The problem this creates for male incentives is that it kills off the incentive for most men precisely at the time in their lives when they would otherwise be working on making themselves a better mate for marriage. During that time of building up, most guys are effectively closed off to most women because they aren’t sexy enough, and women are in their “choose the sexy guys” stage of their current life script. The rest of the guys see this happening and basically decide either to try to become one of the sexy guys, or they more or less slack (there are exceptions, of course, see * below). The reason, again, is that there is no real incentive for them to work hard or better themselves unless they are otherwise personally driven to do so, because it doesn’t impact their relationship with women or their access to sex or any of it at all. So we see a lot of slackers. It’s actually not irrational or puzzling or baffling — it’s quite logical when you understand the actual incentives for men properly. Take away the sex access/wife access (and historically they were the same thing) until guys are in their very late 20s or even their 30s, and you’ve taken away the incentive for most guys who are younger than that to do much more than slack — especially when they see that their male peers who are being “rewarded” with sex access are also slackers, many of them.

    This is, of course, very politically incorrect. It requires one to understand that incentives for men and women are different, and that, in fact, they’re kind of ugly when seen in plain light. But it’s the culture’s hidebound denial of these realities that has both created the current situation, and which perpetuates it. People like Frum can moan all they like, but they have no answers for this unless they are willing to understand the actual incentives, and work to fix them — which is basically culturally and politically impossible at the current time.

    ——

    * — There are always people who are naturally ambitious and driven personally. There are both men and women who are like this. Some of the women who are like this no doubt are not personally motivated by self-provisioning, but simply by ambition. And similarly the men are not personally motivated by sex access but simply by a personal drive for power, money, status and so on in and of themselves. These people have always existed, and they still exist today. However, these characteristics are not evenly distributed in the population, but are really only possessed by a small minority of the population. This is a primary reason why our social policies are currently dysfunctional (more below).

    The relationship of this to the observed differences in marriage rates and durability as between the elite educated class of dual professional earners and the rest of everyone else is that the former have more people who are very ambitious. Perhaps not in ways that are completely selfish and narcissistic, but ambitious in a more broad way in terms of wanting the absolute best for everything they do, including having a family. These people are very selective and assortative in mate choice (our society has become relentlessly assortative in mate selection on the basis of education/career ‘merit’ in the past few decades) and choose how they do because they want stable families that perpetuate the economic advantage they have built for themselves. In short, they are about creating a new elite class.

    The problem as this relates to social policy, or even social worldview, is that it gives rise to the idea that “people just need to be more like us, then everything would be okay”. In other words, everyone needs to have the same goals and ambition and control and future time orientation and intelligence and discipline and social network and so on as we do — and the fact that they don’t is what is holding them back, creating these problems, and so on — so that’s what we need to fix. The problem is that these differences between people aren’t really fixable. These character elements are not evenly distributed, nor will they ever be. A social system needs to be functional for the average, not just for the very above average. A system designed around the characteristics of the very above average — which is what our system is both economically and sexually — is a system that will create massive dysfunction for the average. And for the very above average — who dominate the media and the cultural institutions in general — to turn around and lament the fact that the average are not like the very much above average is frankly beyond stupidity and entering into the realm of the truly absurd.

    But that is our cultural moment, unfortunately. Don’t expect people like Frum to change their minds. They’ve bought into the idea that everyone needs to just be like them, and it will all be alright. For all of their supposed empathy they don’t have a clue about what things look like in life for the bog standard average. They can’t be bothered.

  8. Glenn P says:

    Great post… and you bring up some awesome points!!! Example… “Melissa, a 31-year-old single mother, had this to say about why she has never married any of her boyfriends: “I just never felt that anyone’s as loyal to me as I am to them,” she said. “Even when I feel like I’m in a good relationship, there’ll be little things that they’ll do that will make me start wondering, ‘Do they really have my back?’ ”, according to the Love and Marriage in Middle America project, a study of Middle American relationships in a small town in Ohio. What’s striking about Melissa’s comment—which is all too representative—is that it’s not just the bad guys who give her pause about marriage; it’s also the good guys. She just seems to harbor a general suspicion about the possibility of lifelong love and the whole institution of marriage.”

    I would argue that women in this time and age intuitively know that they can easily survive without the perils of marriage because the “Father” of her child or children will be financially bound to her well being without having to be in the picture full-time. She will have ultimate control of her kids destiny while still being able to sleep other partners. It is about her needs and not the needs of her child in relation to the father.

    These women who are choosing NOT to marry must also have some sort of financial security to some degree or they would be trying to lasso in the man that will make their life easier… For if not… She would have married someone by now even if he wasn’t the best provider. A bad provider is still better than NO provider.

    “I just never felt that anyone’s as loyal to me as I am to them” I.E. I haven’t been able to find a man that can satisfy my needs and who I can walk all over both emotional and financially to care for me and my kid and will continue to support and help me on all levels despite his own misery… So I’ll just fuck the bad boys until that day comes! Her mistake was actually getting knocked up with a bad boy type that was not marriage material in her eyes!

  9. earl says:

    The elite want to destroy the family and marriage that way they can implement their new world utopia. So I don’t see it turning around.

    I’m just not going to buy into this fraud.

  10. sunshinemary says:

    The long term danger here is obvious. The more women delay, avoid, and abuse marriage the less men will be willing to generate the surplus economic output our economy depends on. Instead of being the economic powerhouse of the west, men disenfranchised from fatherhood will more and more decide to enjoy the decline.

    Is this universally true? Sweden has some of the lowest marriage rates in the world, yet it is a fairly wealthy country, roughly on par with the USA, no?

  11. RasAlGhul says:

    Inertia works both ways.

    An object in motion tends to stay in motion. And now that the motion of men is in the direction of “enjoy the decline” that direction is going to continue even as greater hardship occurs, perhaps even because of it.

    Why suffer the onus of hard labor when I do not have to? Why take those burdens on? These are going to be growing questions in the minds of all men for some time.

    The fact that society has no answer for it other than shame and coercion means that it cannot fix it.

    Even if you restored traditional marriage today, it would not stop this. You would have to trust that the government that has repeatedly rewritten marriage won’t in their near future. That the women about you are worthy of marriage (they are almost entirely not) and that your life is better for it, which it isn’t. (you can toss around the metaphysical benefits all you want, if you can’t measure them then they have an arbitrary weight on any scale)

  12. earl says:

    “Why suffer the onus of hard labor when I do not have to? Why take those burdens on? These are going to be growing questions in the minds of all men for some time.”

    I think we are going to find that feminism actually liberated men and enslaved women. Oh well…they can enjoy their “happiness” and I’ll enjoy the decline.

  13. okrahead says:

    One of my students was complaining yesterday about her boyfriend…. According to her (for what it’s worth) he has no job, no income of any type (not even unemployment or SSI), no ambition, and does nothing but lay on the couch all day while she “takes care of him.” I inquired as to what he had been doing when they met; she indicated he had already been in that state when they “hooked up” and he moved in with her. I then inquired as to why she had pursued him…. Her answer was to prove to the girlfriend he had at the time that she could take him. I found it to be a wonderful insight into the feminine psyche.

  14. Novaseeker says:

    Is this universally true? Sweden has some of the lowest marriage rates in the world, yet it is a fairly wealthy country, roughly on par with the USA, no?

    True, but Sweden is rather small, rather homogeneous, and very redistributionist. So the “gap” in classes in Sweden is much smaller, incentives are much more commonly shared, and there is less personal autonomy, as a practical matter, overall, than in the US. It’s true, though, that there are more moving parts here than we suggest. I think when we are speaking about the US we need to be clear that we are speaking about things in this context — and that is a context which is wildly heterogenous, huge in geography and population, and characterized by an almost radical emphasis on personal independence and autonomy. Most of that isn’t easily changed, and some of it (geography, population) isn’t changeable at all without bad stuff happening.

  15. Elspeth says:

    If I recall correctly Sunshinemary, Sweden has a high OOW birthrate but the couples producing the children are in what some call a ‘natural marriage.’ They have everything in place but the state license. So long as they family unit is largely in tact there (marriage licenses or not), you have lower levels of poverty and dysfunction.

    I expect someone much more knowledgeable than I will add more or correct me if I am wrong. The problem we have in America is one of OOW births with no commitment at all, serial monogamy, and high divorce rates, which increases poverty for all involved parties. Children and their mothers who have to live on far less, but also the fathers who are subject to exorbitant child support judgments

  16. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    Based on what I’m seeing in my (very large) company’s corporate policies, the college degree is worthless beyond being a credential required for further consideration for employment. Hell, the TECHNICAL jobs we’re trying to fill don’t consider what the candidate’s degree is in, only that he has one.

    So get a degree in underwater basket weaving at the local diploma mill. Then educate yourself in whatever profession you’re wanting to pursue. On the job training is a real prize … PROVIDED you’re actually learning a trade and not just padding a resume with a title and time served.

    Regarding economic incentives, everything I’m seeing points to off the grid hermitage or enjoyment of the decline being the two most rational responses. A big part of deciding which is more appealing is whether you’ve got (or want) kids. And as you point out, when a (good) man has kids, he’s basically putting his hand in a blender and hoping his ‘wife’ doesn’t turn it on.

  17. Elspeth says:

    See? I knew someone smarter than me had an answer. I should have just waited. Thanks for the explanation, Brendan.

  18. The One says:

    Considering this decline was predicted in both Decline of thee West and the Fourth Turning, I don’t see anything turning around hardship or not. Until the people turn to G-d they will be slaves, in one way or another.

  19. Jim says:

    Actually when thinking about it, men should scorn you and others out there for writing articles about trying to put them back into chains. Not lamenting the fact they are free from them. Those so called betas out there that don’t date or get laid are lucky. They just don’t realize it yet.

  20. Novaseeker says:

    See? I knew someone smarter than me had an answer. I should have just waited. Thanks for the explanation, Brendan.

    Thanks, but your comment was pretty much spot-on as well. I think the reason why we see these disparate behaviors is cultural and not really replicable in the US. As much as some on the left would like the US to be like Sweden, we really can’t because of the very things (size, diversity, heterogeneity, radical autonomy) that make us the US. So it’s kind of a Don Quixote exercise. What has worked in Sweden isn’t really capable of working in the US (and it doesn’t seem to be working in more nearby places like the UK either).

  21. zlzozozozzo great post ahgainz! once GBFM univeristy is up and urnningz runningz, dalrock will recieve a Ph.D. in lzozlzlzlzzzlzlzzlzozlzozology!

    the MIT economics professor is ignoring the elephant in the room–the bernanke bernkifier class that has profited immensely in the short term by deconstructing the soul and classical religions, and objectifying both men and women–men as mere ATMs and women as mere harlots consuming oprah and victoria secret underwear for her never-ending carouseling.

    by deconstructng classical, biblical law, and sending forth bernankee’s best tucker max rhyemes iwth gdlamn sax to butthext women and tape it secretly as they deousl future wives, the beranke class has created entire new industires that see people not as spiritual beings, but as mere wards of the state, whose income nand labor they can seize and transsferz. as they profit from war, they created the family law legal proferssion, large pharmama (from where i get my manadaotry rtiaalaizn which makes me go zlzllzozozozoozoozlzozozozozo), and the corproate-state apparatus apparatati apparauststues which seize children and property from men.

    it puzzles me that MIT Economics proferrosos nnever talk about money (like duh money is important to eomccininz!!!), and its creation these days, and how those who create teh worthless debt-based money also created the feminists industry to convert the owrthless fiat dollarz into physical wealth and propertiez:

    zlzoozzlzozoz

  22. It is a wonderful article with deep insights. Inspires me to write something with the Indian context. We are foolishly trying to mimic the western doctrine, inspite of knowing the pitfalls associated with it.

  23. okrahead says:

    Sunshine Mary,

    Re: Sweden. Sweden is suffering a demographic crisis due to a below-replacement birth rate; a problem which has been on-going for at least fifteen years. The birth rate in Sweden is currently only has high as it is due to the higher birth rates of some of its immigrant groups, namely those from Islamic countries. Likewise, Sweden has maintained its population level only due to allowing an influx of immigrants from war-torn European areas (Yugoslavia) and war-torn Islamic countries (Iraq, Afghanistan). What the prospects are for Sweden in choosing to import third world refugees rather than birth their own children remains to be seen, although if France is any indication things will soon be getting dicey.

  24. Of the people I know who have graduated college, less than half are gainfully employed. Worse, most of the ones who are employed are women. In my major, women made up the majority. 2/3 of them have jobs in the field. I’m unaware of another male I graduated with who has a job in it. Worse yet, a lot of the men like me doubled down and took extra concentrations and minors in with our degrees. Along with writing, I studied media/critical analysis and Public Relations. Essentially, I crammed an extra year into college into my four years to stay competitive in a competitive field.

    As to whether the girls could write better, I must answer with a resounding “NO.” Their research papers, which I often proofread, took naive positions and failed to argue articulately whereas I typically chose an uphill position and argued it with robust reasoning and heavy sourcing. More than a few profs privately admitted my papers constructively challenged their world-views. So why, then, did the girls get the jobs? Surely companies want to hire better writers, particularly ones with GPAs above 3.5 and other honors associations, additional education and accreditation in the field, and a robust sense of communication and argumentation. (White women college grads are second only to Asian men in post-baccalaureate employment levels

    It all comes down to the shifting corporate environment. A half century of government puppeteering, law suits, and sensitivity trainings have rendered companies deaf to reality. The corporate attitude takes no risks. The productivity of one man cannot compare to the financial risk that he might make an off-color remark that somehow triggers a woman to sue him and the company for supposedly subjecting her to his comment. The supreme irony is that, despite the playful joking attitudes of men in the workplace, women accomplish much less. Companies either willfully ignore this or are too scared to act on this fact.

    And now, let’s return to what men have been doing. I call this the Scott Pilgrim phenomenon. Where men have encountered resistance to even their most sincere and dedicated efforts, they have assumed a fatalistic attitude towards achievement, especially since they have no family. With very few reasons to give more than a minimum hoot that they have accomplished nothing, they settle into the solipsistic world of drinking, video games, bad TV and other nonconstructive pursuits. (I grew up with video games and still enjoy them, however I treat it as I do TV and limit my use)

    The truth is that when faced with difficulty and no rational cause to weather it, men retreat to the hibernation state and care only about basic comfort and enjoyment. Men, by nature, are not lazy. However, a combination of the “everybody’s special” culture, institutional resistance to their presence in the labor force, and the lack of real liabilities like a family hardly persuades men to better themselves and become more productive. The reason men marched into coal mines to do back-breaking labor had little to do with personal motivation and everything to do with familial provision.

  25. If we want to stem this vicious cycle we will ultimately have no choice but to return to a marriage based family structure. Right now this is politically unthinkable, as both the left and the right are deeply invested in the child support model of family organization.

    What on Earth gives you any confidence that American society will reverse course? Look at this week’s news. We are rushing headlong toward dismantling the few remaining bits of the institution of marriage, all in a silly effort to be nice to perverts.

    There might be a renaissance of marriage and family and morality in the offing, but it’ll only happen after a governmental and societal collapse. The progressive termites have eaten the foundation away; it can’t be repaired. Let it all collapse and burn, let the leftist mobs kill each other, and then rebuild.

  26. Tom says:

    Absolutely brilliant writing!
    The manosphere is maturing into an incredible body of knowledge and understanding (like so many other things invented by men, it surpasses all expectations)
    Keep on writing, Dalrock! :-)

  27. sunshinemary says:

    As much as some on the left would like the US to be like Sweden, we really can’t because of the very things (size, diversity, heterogeneity, radical autonomy) that make us the US.

    I agree, but reducing what we see in the US to being only due to what Dalrock calls the “child support” model of family formation is probably too reductionist. It’s one of many factors, but only one (albeit a big one, especially among middle class whites, I suppose). The men in my particular social niche still marry and earn a lot of money; in other social groups, not so much, and increasingly less so. Fixing the family formation model by getting rid of discriminatory divorce and custody laws would probably help some for middle class whites, no doubt, but I don’t think it would be a big-picture solution at this point in the USA. There are just too many other factors at play at present.

  28. sunshinemary says:

    Sweden is suffering a demographic crisis due to a below-replacement birth rate; a problem which has been on-going for at least fifteen years. The birth rate in Sweden is currently only has high as it is due to the higher birth rates of some of its immigrant groups, namely those from Islamic countries.

    In that particular way, Sweden is not different than the USA. How long has it been since white women were reproducing at replacement level? Two generations now, I think? I think even African American women are slightly below replacement level, no? So it’s just Hispanic and Middle Easter Asians who are reproducing here, too. Middle Eastern folks marry; Hispanics don’t as much.

  29. Good stuff. The elites think everyone should get — and that everyone can get — an Ivy League education like they did. That’s the cornerstone of their viewpoint; all their other assumptions are built on that, so they’re blind to anything that contradicts it. As you say, you’d think all the software geeks dropping out of college to make millions would be a pretty strong “market signal,” but since that contradicts their belief about the necessity of an elite college degree, it doesn’t factor in.

    A friend of mine makes good money as a plumber. Not as good as a connected Harvard lawyer, of course, but we don’t need a lot of Harvard lawyers in this area (and they wouldn’t want to live here). We do need plumbers, though; they and electricians and other skilled laborers stay as busy as they like, and make good enough money to own a home and have their wives stay home and take care of a bunch of kids. If family is your goal, you can get into one of those careers by starting young as an apprentice or spending a year or two at the community college, then testing for your license, and off you go.

    SSM, Sweden can get away with more amorality because it’s full of Swedish people. The more homogeneous and cooperative the population, the more it can absorb blows to traditional institutions that are designed to keep a society stable. When the people are all equally members of one big extended family, to use Steve Sailer’s term, each person is more willing to pitch in and work for the community and even work some extra to pay the high taxes for things like cradle-to-grave welfare for illegitimate children, rather than go on the dole himself even if he could. Also, cold-weather populations probably developed a necessary level of cooperation to stay alive over the centuries. Bringing down a mammoth and using it before it goes bad takes a village in a way that fishing and picking fruit don’t.

    Even so, there’s a limit. Some of the early settlers in America discovered that when they tried to be communists and almost starved the first winter because everyone wanted to be on the same side of the means/need scale. They couldn’t have been more homogeneous, but they still tried to use each other. Sweden and other European countries have also benefited from the fact that the Cold War and subsequent American hegemony have meant they could spend most of their military budget on social spending. Also, the inherent “niceness” that helps them live peacefully together also makes them susceptible to immigration from incompatible cultures, which they’re starting to have a serious problem with now. Just don’t expect to read about it in the New York Times.

  30. I had a rather large comment about corporate environment and male achievement incentives, but it appears the WordPress filter has eaten it.

    [D: Thanks for the heads up. I found it in the spam bin and set it free.]

  31. lzozoozozzl the MIT Economist reminds me
    of the thirty-yearl old woman who wakes up one morning
    and asks
    two questions
    1. where have all the good men gone?
    2. why is my butt sore?
    lzozozozozozozozzooz

    Michael Greenstone, M.I.T. economics professor, “I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not, and it’s very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It’s a fact in need of an explanation.”

    well, maybe working for fiat dollarz dat ben beennke prints and hands to mit eocncomicz proferssorz while alos funding the destruction of marriage which is one of the plankz of teh communist manifeetsoz.

    hey GREENSTONE read da great eocnomist SCHUMPTERE: “The stock exchange is no substitute for the Holy Grail.”–Jospeh Schumpeter

    maybe, like ACHILLES, men work not for fiat butthext money and central banker cthchockes primarlity, but for HONOR!!!

    jesus staed “what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?” which is why the communistici cenetrla bankerz economists hate christianity, becuase it existses above and beyond their base, cenetral planning butthexting deoulsing ebenrnakifiying eocnomizcz modelz lzozlzlzoz

    the first word in HOMER’S ILIAD is RAGE.

    Achilles RAGE is born when his commander seizes achilles prize–his woman, in teh same way the corproate stte state seizesz wives these daysz and butthextes them and teaches them to hawk subrime bernanke loans in short skritz zlzozozo

    ACHILLES QUITS THE GREEK ARMY, just as many men quit the workforce drop out, not because of moneyz, but becoause they have been denied HONOR, as teh corproate state tucker max rheyems whith goldman sax is buttehxting their future wives and esouling it and taping it secerelety.

    THE GREAK ARMY begis to LOSE iwthout ACHILLES!!!

    So KING AGEMAMNEMNON, who seized achilles prize, sends forth a group of menz to beg to have achilles back, offering him money, prizez, honors, and awardz.

    Achilles says, “All your money is worth nothing to me, for once honor is taken from a man, it cannot be bought.”

    ACHILLES IS A MAN WHO CANNOT BE BOUGT BY MERE CENTRAL PLANNER BERNANKE BAUBLESZ, as ACHILESLSLS lives and dies for HONOR.

    Achilles tells them, “Keep your honors (tenure/titles/awards) as I recieve my honor from Zeus.)

    And so it is that the Good, Honorable, Men have left the front lines of battle, as the bernakifierz are sitting back, far, far away from the front lines, and butthexting their rightful prizez prises belonging to men.

    Regaridng Homer, liberty’s prime poet Thomas JEfferson wrote, “They all fall off, one by one, until one is left with Virgil and Homer and perhaps Homer alone. lzozozlzozlzlzoz”””

    Which is why teh butetehtual central bankerz and eocnomists hate Homer as much as Honro and JEfefreonzoznz lzozlzozoz.

  32. earl on March 29, 2013 at 9:12 am

    The elite want to destroy the family and marriage that way they can implement their new world utopia. So I don’t see it turning around.

    Bingo.

    I’m just not going to buy into this fraud.

    Smart man.

  33. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Comparing Sweden to the USA reminds me of comparing apples to oranges. They are simply different countries, with different cultures, populations and languages. Swedish is from North Germanic languages. English is from West Germanic languages. Sweden has a smaller population than the USA for one (9.5 million vs. 310 million). Sweden has a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy whereas the USA is a democratic republic (or a full-blown democracy by now). Sweden is homogenous whereas the USA is diverse. Even the climate is a bit different between the USA and Sweden. Every time somebody (usually a white liberal) points to some Scandinavian country like Sweden and how they can enact that cute little thing in the USA, it doesn’t make sense. Maybe you can enact that in the certain places of North East USA but in other regions it’s going to go into trouble.

  34. Novaseeker says:

    I agree, but reducing what we see in the US to being only due to what Dalrock calls the “child support” model of family formation is probably too reductionist. It’s one of many factors, but only one (albeit a big one, especially among middle class whites, I suppose). The men in my particular social niche still marry and earn a lot of money; in other social groups, not so much, and increasingly less so. Fixing the family formation model by getting rid of discriminatory divorce and custody laws would probably help some for middle class whites, no doubt, but I don’t think it would be a big-picture solution at this point in the USA. There are just too many other factors at play at present.

    I more or less agree, as I wrote above. The problem is multi-faceted. It has to do primarily with detaching the benefits of marriage for both sexes for people other than in the top echelons. I don’t think there is a “big picture” fix for this, really. It would have to involve substantial economic and social changes, and the elite class, for whom marriage is working currently, changing its tune — which is unlikely at least for quite some time.

  35. 30words says:

    DAL this is gold! Thank you for thoughtfully presenting the truth. Please leave this up for us to show to others- and if you speak with SSM please encourage her to archive her work as well. Both of you are priceless :)

  36. Drew says:

    Another useful post Dalrock. Lots of good links to provide further details to the supporting ideas. By the way, your website posts is turning into wikipedia, where one article on ‘piano’ turns into a time suck of links ending up at the Schrodinger wave equation. Thats a good thing.

    Anyway, I tried to explain to my brother in Christ that we (as a country) need to end child support in order to re-establish family. It nearly blew his mind. “You really think women have kids outside of marriage because of child support?”
    “Yes, women are the gatekeepers of sex, and gov’t is the new husband promising to take care of them.”
    I am thinking of sending him this article, but I doubt it would get through.

    My atheist coworker was more receptive to the idea that these things are connected, and that ending child support/welfare system would help end the proliferation of children outside of marriage.

  37. Michael Greenstone, M.I.T. economics professor, “I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not, and it’s very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It’s a fact in need of an explanation.”

    Women entering the workforce has coincided with the largest creation of debt ever known to mankind–the suffocating, soul-killing, butthexting debt created by the expert economists and foisted on the people to fund their wars, debaucheries, and desecrationz zlzozozoz.

    while women respond to mere fiat dollzrzlzozzlzo, real men, like Achilles and Jesus, work not for mere debt-based, worthless, fiat butthextual dollarz, for for HONOR.

    What greenstone will never realize is that by deocnstructing the GRETA BOOSK FOR MEN and HONOR he has removed the incentive for WEstern Civilization, which has ever been honor.

    Did Jesus work for mere money? Did Copernicus work for mere money? Did Achilles battefor mere money? Did Scorates work for mere money? No, as they all lived and died for that higher currency which doesn’t even show up as a blip on the cenetral banker butethting economsists radar–HONOR.

    zlozzllzzlzoz

  38. DrTorch says:

    A truly outstanding post. Bravo Dalrock.

    Okra- Things are already dicey in Sweden. Rapes are up by 500%.

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/1-in-4-swedish-women-will-be-raped/

    Sorry for the unpleasant information.

  39. herbie31 says:

    Given the declining quality of education – even in college – in America, the men may be making a prudent decision by declining the the traditional four year degree. Along with declining quality comes costs that have skyrocketed which may be a setup for an education bubble. STEM majors are still important but so are technical skills such as auto mechanic, electricians, plumbers, HVAC, …etc; and the costs of this type of schooling is often much less than going to a four year school.

    Prof. Greenstone’s comment is more interesting in what was left out but might be implied. Men are the primary movers in a nation’s economy in that they have been informally tasked with making things, fixing things, inventing things and improving on things. With hyper-regulation occurring, traditionally male-dominated industries will not be as economically feasible resulting in lost male productivity. As we move towards a more service oriented economy, which will benefit female workers, economic stagnation will continue. It is simply not a strong enough engine to grow the world’s largest economy.

    No doubt this is desirable to some, but an economy that is directed more and more by the government will have as one of its effects that more men will remain unemployed and disenfranchised with delayed- or no marriage being additional collateral damage.

  40. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Brendan made a great point about Sweden being redistributionist.

    The USA, in contrast, is capitalism running amok with both big corporations and big government going against the middle class (call it the top-low alliance against the middle). Welfare is money taken from the middle class, to give it to the lower class (and the underclass), while the super rich hide their money overseas and don’t pay taxes.

    These same super rich practice much projection and assume that since they aren’t paying taxes (but they will never admit such things, the horror!, and will actually say that they are supporters of the little man and giving a fair share), that you aren’t paying either.

    It’s the same thing with this upper class accusing you of hypocrisy (they are projecting their circumstances unto you since they practice hypocrisy). They also argue in bad faith. But all of this is an unconscious instinct, they wouldn’t know it out in the open and will deny it when confronted.

    In Sweden, birth rates are anything from below replacement level to slightly near replacement level. If their media starts cheering about the “high birth rates of Swedish women”, that means that they are having replacement level (e.g. 2 children). It doesn’t mean +3 kids (that’s so retrograde, fascist, hateful, superstitious and unimaginable).

    If the Muslim women in Sweden are having “low birth rates”, it means three things. The women in question aren’t Muslim (but secular women who calls themselves Muslim), the Muslim families are leaving (emigrating) or they are having them outside of state notice (without marriage licenses, meaning illegitimately, having babies at home or whichever).

  41. Elspeth says:

    I think even African American women are slightly below replacement level, no?

    Yes, SSM. Contrary to popular lore, black women aren’t having babies either. Even at my church, which is 90% black, people look at our family as if we are a freak of nature. When I was pregnant with our 5th, more than a few people seemed incredulous that there arewomen who still “do that”.

    Even the ever maligned black single mothers almost never have more than two children now. Usually it’s only one. Of course, the incentives to have several children have been removed.
    And black men dropped out of the marriage market a long time ago.

  42. anonymous says:

    Sweden has some of the lowest marriage rates in the world, yet it is a fairly wealthy country

    They have a lot of shackup relationships with kids. Kids often have a relationship with their fathers even if there’s no marriage. Very different from the intentional single mom of the USA, who is stupid enough to think she can do it without a man, and uses divorce courts, restraining orders, etc, to keep the father out of the kid’s life at all costs.

  43. Dystopia Max says:

    Mencius Moldbug said the main problem with the West was chronic Kinglessness.

    Which makes this post essentially: “Queen’s Magistrates Shocked, Appalled that King not responding to Prime Minister’s Intimations about the Need for a Fifth Shrine to the Goddess Asherah, and the Employment of Itinerant Princes to Staff the Great Monument to the Glory of Woman.”

    As Moldbug says, the first step is to find and fund a monarch to kill or fire the oligarchy that enables and profits from the disease.

  44. A Northern Observer says:

    earl says: March 29, 2013 at 9:15 am
    I think we are going to find that feminism actually liberated men and enslaved women.

    This.

  45. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The USA, in contrast to Sweden, is more individualistic and atomized. There’s a form of socialism in Sweden. This doesn’t exist in the USA. There’s no big form of bonds. I’m thinking Americans are distrustful and wouldn’t know their neighbors. Their neighbors can be criminals or evil for what they all know.

  46. hey da GBFM will be teahcing a class on modern eocnomicz at HARVARD NEXT SEMESTERZZ!!!!

    I hope dat da MIT Eocnomists all drop in to my lectures erudite schoalrly lecturezzz!!!!

    today da professor GBFM would like to lecture on INFLATION lzozozz and eocnomizz INCENTIVEZ lzozlzlz

    once upon a times $50,000 would buy yo u a nice house a nice wife two cars and three kids who you could play baseballs with and raise to be nice girls and nice boyz zlzoozoz

    today $1,000,000 will buys you an cassocked assockccoked, embittered, doused, deosueld and bernanenkied butthexed dfeminsistasz who will take %70 70% of oyiry assets in divroce court as ada dirvroce industries forces men to pay for past use oif a pussiezzes which is why da enoeteconths hate prostiutuitions as it does not make man pay for past pussy uyse but only present pussy use and da neococonths hatchet comepetitzzinonszz lzozlzlzoz, and dat $1,000,000 will be used to pay your wives dirvocre attorney and fund her future as socking sesisosns dat day got her hooked on in college during da prrima noctae asosckingszz seeisosnsnsns lzozlzozozo and den da $1,000,000 will be whittled down furthers buying presscirtption drugs for your dumbed down drugged up kids who you never get to see because ebernenekifiers seized den as poker chips in da fed’s wealth transfer games zlzozlzl

    so now you see da definition of butthex, wealth-rttrannsfeeringz INFLATION lzozozlzlzoz

    HOW DA FED HIDES INFLATION:

    da fed hides inflation in many, many ways

    frist of all, da government always lies about the true inflation lozozozl but you see it at the gas pump as day pump and dump your future wife in college deosuling and ebenrnkaifiying her

    A LOT OF INFLATION is hidden in your future wife’s buttonhole lzozlzoz

    with all da extra dolzlrz zlzozo day print dollars and fund feminism and sassockcing lessons as socking seminars assockcing instructions on da college campus where day can butthext and deosul your future wife and make her loyal first and foremost to da bottom line lzozozl da BOTTOM line lzozozoz da BOTTOM UTTHOLE line lzozozlzl programming her to seize your assets to tempt you into marriage, seize your assets and spy on you, and then forward all your emails to da FED alongside all of your assettsts ASS tests ASSsetts zlzozzzlz BOOTOTOM LINE BOTTOM LINE ASSests zlzozozllzozoz

    once upon a time a man couple support a family and a wife and kids and rise them proper moral decent lzozllzoz

    but now, due to da FED’s massive inflation which they hide in your wife’s buttonhole during secretive tucker max rheyme with godlmans sax secretly taped buttehxting sessions, she will be more loyal to da shopping channels and her sista’s and the CIA’s cosmo magazine zlozozzllzzol and unloyal not loyal to family, god , man, religion, and thus she will insatiate initiate over 80% of divorce as the FED whispers to her that she will get her uhusdbansds assetsts to fund future as socking as socking buttonhole cockas sessions that they addickecter adduced adDICKted her to in college lzoolzlzozo

    and da fed gets a gut

    as they must convert

    worthless less than zero fiat debt

    into physical assetttss

    by seizing property and lifer and liberty form da betas

    operating through their wive’s buttholios

    where they dhid allda inflation zlozozozlz

    DANTE and MILTON noted the same thing, so if you do not believe da GBFM, take it up with DANTE and MILTON asslcocen zlzzzl assclowns zlzozlzlzo

    lzozozozzlzlzlzozl

    wonce upon a time mens wents 2 church 2 find a good wownenez lzozlzlzloz to be a wife and mother and faithful honor cherish lzozlzzozlolzozlz

    today woemnz go 2 churrhc 2 find a beta or gammamale to pay for their three children forrm three fatehrs who pumped dand dudmped theier zazzez afetr asszzcockcing them lzozlzlzlzo

    lzozozozlzlzolzolz

    once uppoineez a time da dollars was backed by gold

    today it is backed by porn as emerikaz went off the gold/god standtdthedth and went onto da iron porn standadtdth lkzozozzlz

    HARVARD UNIVERSITY JUST INTRODUCED A NEW COURSE!!

    Upper-Level Feminist Business 401: During the semester we will learn how to optimize Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks, as we are buttcoked by “alphas” and then go forth into the corporate-state to buttcock betas out of their assettsts (buttcocking their asstettss so to speak lzozlzoz) buttcoki dem outta der assettts in divorce curt, entitle progapms, corproate sexual harrassment suits, and guilting betas and gelding them with the “pay gap” myth, all the while complaining about the glass ceieling even as we rise to very top of the fiat debt empire while da menz are unemployed and crusedhesd and enslaved bwloe zlozlzlzozozl. We will transfer teh assetts to the central banks and bernankifiers for teh centyral banks can only create debt-based fiat dollarz which are worth less than nothing, and thus need d awomenz movement to go forth and buttcock and guilt betas into working working working for a hope to lick our std-addled, strecthed-out bungholes lzozlzololzozo. We will examine why betas do not like this setup, and how we can shame them into marriage and slaving away in corproate jobs while we cock hold the alphas and cukhold da betas zlzololzlzlozozololzlzolz. homework will consist of getting buttcocked by a buttccker while mainitaing a roster of at least 20 beta oribters to reguallry buy one meals so that they will be well fed for the buttcocking later that evening. this will prepare tda womenz for bigger game, whnce they get betas to buy them homes and cars, and then dun future buttcockings with aplphas via alimony and child support lzzllzzlzozozozozo. sample exam questions will be, “what does tucker butthexter max wheym with? klzozolzolzolzo

  47. anonymous says:

    Dr. Torch: Things are already dicey in Sweden. Rapes are up by 500%.

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/1-in-4-swedish-women-will-be-raped/

    And nearly 100% of the rapes in Sweden, are committed by Muslim immigrants and their demon-possessed spawn. Some Swedish women now dye their hair black to look non-Swedish, so they won’t get raped by Moslems. Islam truly is a “rape culture” —

    http://www.breiviksmanifesto.com/jus-primae-noctis

    Elspeth: And black men dropped out of the marriage market a long time ago.

    I know well how white conservatives explain this. What is YOUR explanation — and more importantly, what would fix it?

  48. slwerner says:

    Elspeth – “And black men dropped out of the marriage market a long time ago.”

    Okay, I know you know just how loaded that last statement of yours is. And yet, you just dropped it in, without elaboration?

    I feel compelled to ask the rhetorical question, “Why, Elspeth, did black men drop out of the marriage market a long time ago?”

    Of course you know that the answer is quite germane to the OP. The welfare state dis-incentivized (actually, it outright forbid) women who wished to receive “free money” from marrying the fathers of their children. I don’t know that there is any practical way to try to quantify the effect that a sharply diminished likelihood of marital prospects for young black men in lower SECs had upon their incentives to do those things which would have traditionally prepared them for marriage (education, working hard to establish themselves economically, etc), but I’m quite sure that it had significant impact.

  49. Miserman says:

    Sweden is suffering a demographic crisis due to a below-replacement birth rate; a problem which has been on-going for at least fifteen years.

    Thriving economics is based on a thriving family culture and not vice versa.

  50. anonymous says:

    How long has it been since white women were reproducing at replacement level? Two generations now, I think?

    Malcolm Muggeridge once observed, that the last Englishman will be an Indian. Along the same lines, I assert, sadly: The last white man will be a Mormon.

  51. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    but reducing what we see in the US to being only due to what Dalrock calls the “child support” model of family formation is probably too reductionist.

    It depends on how you mean this. If you are saying that UMC women are far less likely to elect to unilaterally force their husbands into the child support model, then you are correct. However, legally and socially this is still entirely her option. When push comes to shove, our organizing philosophy for familes is now founded on the child support model. It isn’t hyperbole to state that this is the foundation of our new philosophy of the family. How many people do you know who could even conceive of removing this option for women and going back to a model where women who want paternal investment need to get and stay married to have a reasonable expectation of getting it?

    The only exceptions would be tiny groups like the Amish. While the family courts are of course perfectly happy to convert an Amish man’s marriage into a child support arrangement should his wife desire this, socially this would result in the baby mama being ostracised. Only if she is willing to leave the Amish community would she be willing to do this. So in some very minor exceptions there exists a legal structure of child support but a social structure of marriage. But again this isn’t the case for the UMC. UMC women stay married at much higher rates because they are much better at anticipating the negative consequences to themselves and their children of the baby mama model far better than women in lower classes, not because they don’t have the full option to convert their husband to the role of absentee father on a whim.

  52. Mark Minter says:

    If you start pouring into those statistics about who is getting what degree and you start breaking it down by ethnic group, if you really get deep into the numbers, what you see is feminist cheerleading.

    Ok, A light bulb joke. I am going to abbreviate it for the sake of the discussion.

    How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb.

    One to change the bulb,
    One to shame men for creating a world that needs light bulbs
    One to demean men for creating light bulbs that need changing.
    …….
    And one to claim that women are now outlightbulbing men.

    There is a 4% difference between white men and white women in the number of bachelors degrees awarded. All the rest of this is minority women, Hispanic and black women. And yes, the majority of the degrees that men earn are more marketable and often a masters degree in those fields is not worth the loss in income that a man would have to sustain by staying in school. And the reality of being a man, a young man, is you better get your ass to work because you don’t have a Vagina.

    And I going to say this. Having a vagina is good thing that definitely yields cash and prizes. Solomon II did a calculation and based on what he was spending on the women in his life, $1400 by a conservative estimate, which included things like him factoring out his half of a dinner check, or his movie ticket, and didn’t consider things like having a more expensive car because of women, more expensive house, than he would have had if he had not desired a social life with women. And he calculated that it basically added up to about a $100,000 injection directly into the lives of women by the time they are 30.

    So when you are cute coed at the height of you SMV, the poverty of college life is lot more bearable if you actually don’t have to bear it. And like the Romeo Void song says “A girl in trouble is a temporary thing” because when you whine and cry, someone steps in the fix that car when it breaks, find money for your books when they have to be bought, even feed you when you go hungry.

    But for young men, they could fucking die and nobody cares. Once when I was college, I ate cornbread mix and water to shut my stomach down from hunger pains while I lived in shit single room in a crap cooperative because it was all I could afford. And I had the GI Bill. A typical boy doesn’t even have that. And every semester it was a struggle to get college paid for and find the money to buy books and I was own my fucking own. With no Vagina.

    Consider even earlier than college. So EPL mom tosses out beta dad. But she has young children so doesn’t really think of pairing up again. But then when the kids get to be, say 12-14 years old, then she looks at the clock on the wall and says “Fuck, I’m 36, I better get me some gettin’ before I run out of time”. So she finds her a man and then brings him into her life. I had this happen to my kids. I had a daughter who was quite attractive and a son. Guess what? Stepdad knows he better get along with the daughter or he is out, actually he wants to get along with her because she’s cute. But the boy, my wife tells him he better suck it up and get along with the new man. And she pushes him aside to make room for the new man. And of everyone involved, the boy was the one that got shit on. My ex takes out a second mortgage and builds out the basement into a hotel suite for the daughter, the boy has to share his room with the man’s son. And they fucking fought, like fist fights. My kid beat the shit of the other kid because he is sick of being pushed around by everyone. So what happens, he is the villain, but only because he won. So they drag his ass of to therapy.

    So imagine this happening all over to all kinds of boys, where the “new” man pushes the boy out of the way. And then when it is college time, if it is that cute little step daughter and she needs money for this or that, then, lo and behold, it gets found. But when it is the son, fuck him. When the cute step daughter comes home for the summer, it all happy happy happy. But the son, fuck him.

    So this adds up. One boy here, one boy there and you get that discrepancy, the vagina gap.

    And there are some assumptions that women jump to. Women out earn young men until 28 but then that gap closes. So feminists all leap to conclusion that it falls off because women then are distracted by child rearing and “women chores”.

    How about women have a vagina? How about young women have preferential status compared to young men but there is an SMV intersection at 28? So once that SMV advantage falls off then men start to pull ahead. The power of the pussy stops having its draw, stops giving access and advantage that is supreme over even ability. How about that men actually give a shit more at work then women do and the nature of men is it takes until 28 for them to fully developed as men, as thinkers, as doers, and up until 28 they are apprentices, more or less. How about the fact that by 28, the nature of the work is that you have to be paid for doing something other than being cute. How about the fact that men enter hard, dangerous, or complicated jobs and it takes until 28 to become competent at those jobs.

    But no, women all jump to the conclusion that there is some institutional bias just by looking at a number, when every evo pysch principle says that men are disposed to compete and women are not, and when 28 comes around, those men are hitting 4th gear on that big block engine. That small block might rev faster and get the jump until 1500 yards, but when that big block get into 4th, then baby that race is over.

    You know what. On Jezebel today Lindy West has this rant about hating men and men make it self fulfilling prophecy. She goes through all these points about friction between men and women, particularly MRA claims. So she says “I’m Sorry That You Are in Pain, But Please Stop Taking It Out on Women”. Mostly she address MRA whines like it is the whole manosphere, those “misandry issues” are the thing that has men so pissed off. She is obviously is confused and misses that men are pissed off on a very personal level over the personal relationships they have with women, the actions of women in those relationships, the disgust men are having towards women in their conduct of their personal lives, and the new paths, the new ways of living that men are deciding to adopt instead of “what was”.

    But I take great pleasure that she is writing that article that “men are taking it out on women”. That means that our message is getting through and it is getting through on worldwide basis. That means the men are getting in their faces, standing up, being obstinate to the point Lindy West from Jezebel is having to write this article instead of another “bash men, attack men” article.

    Take this story. It was quite the web topic a few days. A website in Singapore has some “fairy tales” that appear to chide women in being aware of their limited fertility. They are cartoons like Snow White, Cinderella, etc. Here is an excerpt from the Huff Post.
    ———-
    The Singaporean Fairytale website features 15 updated fairy tales along with facts about fertility, marriage and pregnancy. And more than one of the fairy tales seems to shame women for waiting to or choosing not to have children. The story of The Golden Goose explicitly ties women’s value to their fertility. It reads:

    The Golden Goose was prized for her eggs / That shone light in brilliant gold / But there soon came a time she could make them no more / For her egg-making device was rusty and old

    Other stories offer similar messages: The Fairy Godmother is mocked for being “a maiden some suspect past forty” with “ten cats” and no suitors — the horror! — and Alice (formerly of Wonderland) is “wild and reckless.” A pop-up bubble warns readers that “the extended adolescence of twentysomethings today has a biological cost for women.”
    ————–

    So all the women’s publications all leaped right on this as this site chiding women in their responsibilities of fertility, sexism, yadayadayada. And the site was indirectly funded by the Singapore government but only in that the media training program in a college is funded. There was no desire on the government to have a site with fertility message created. But the women all jumped all over this this as a message from the government because Singapore has the same issues, same low birthrate, same drop off in marriage as the west.

    And it went right over the head of women.

    What this was some college boys from Singapore sticking women with manosphere “digs”, “insults”. Messing with women. Basically using the message on the Dalrock blog as a means “poke” and “insult” women for their behavior and actions. “Alice” had on “YOLO” shirt and was driving a convertible from the passenger seat with her foot on the steering wheel, basically those students way of saying she was carousel rider. A 4o year old with cats is what happens to carousel riders. And every one of fairy tales had a Manosphere dig in it.

    And it went right over those women’s head as they screamed about the sexist message in the fables.

    What they missed is that some boys, some 20 year old Asian boys, in Singapore, English speakers that read English websites, manosphere sites, are spitting back the Manosphere message, the Dalrock message, in the face of women.

    Gentlemen, we are starting to win.

  53. Farm Boy says:

    And men are the abusers (child and spousal)…

  54. Elspeth says:

    I know well how white conservatives explain this. What is YOUR explanation — and more importantly, what would fix it?

    I have to run anonymous, but I’d like to try and answer your question.

    The first answer is that there is simply, I believe a more relaxed attitude towards sex in the black community, It pains me to say it, but it is what it is. No, not there is no ability to control ourselves or live Christian lives, but that like every group has it’s sins to confront and overcome, that’s one that the black community has to overcome.

    The lack of incentives to “let your freak flag fly” had the same effect on black Americans as it did one every one else: lower OOW birthrates, more marriage, more incentives for men to marry and reproduce legitimate children. When the sexual/feminist/educational revolution hit the black community first and hardest for a couple of reasons.

    The first was that black men were already lagging behind their women educationally and corporately because well, women are perceived as less threatening than men in general and black women have the “advantage” of being a double minority. When the set asides started in the late 60’s/early 70’s, black women were at the head of the line because at that time blacks were at the head of the oppressed groups line (this has changed dramatically by the way).

    The result was the exact same as other groups of men are experiencing today. But when you start out 10 paces back, you get what we have today.

    It is often hard for me to consider what it would take to change it because in my life, I am surrounded by married and marriageable black men. Some are at the upper end of the vocational curve, like my husband (STEM, doctors, lawyers etc). Most are blue collar (factory workers, garbage collectors, plumbers, construction workers,) A good number are entrepreneurs.
    They are all devout and married, so the urban underclass are a different and distinct group to me.

    But…a significant number of them came from single parent homes and pulled themselves up from the projects/inner city, so it can be done. The dividing line is faith and discipline, and this culture offers little to promote either.

    I don’t know that it can be fixed because no one really wants to return to a society based on Biblical patriarchal principles.

  55. Novaseeker says:

    UMC women stay married at much higher rates because they are much better at anticipating the negative consequences to themselves and their children of the baby mama model far better than women in lower classes, not because they don’t have the full option to convert their husband to the role of absentee father on a whim.

    Exactly. They are more family-ambitious than average, which is why they are in the UMC to begin with. The same “available options” for women in the mid and lower result in very different outcomes, because they are different people.

  56. Elspeth says:

    I totally screwed up the italics tag, Dalrock. Sorry.

  57. Farm Boy says:

    Education does NOT equate to production.

    Univesities often teach student how not to think. I have to teach students what critical thinking is. It is a foreign concept to them.

  58. Frank says:

    The corporate attitude takes no risks. The productivity of one man cannot compare to the financial risk that he might make an off-color remark that somehow triggers a woman to sue him and the company for supposedly subjecting her to his comment.

    That’s patently ridiculous and sheer paranoia. Why it’s not like employees could be subjected to firing just for making a less than off color private joke at a Python conference full of geeks because some slut-ho who doesn’t even work for their company tweeted her outrage over their boorish behavior after eavesdropping on them.

    Oh wait.

  59. The eocnomist asks, “Why aren’t men responding to economic signals?”

    As this is a Christian blog, it would be wise to contemplate how Christ might answer.

    Firstoff, Christ stated that “Man shall not live by bread alone,” meaning that man does not work only for physical goods, but that he also that he also gains sustenance from “living by the word”–acting honorably.

    Secondly Christ asks, “For what does it profit a man, to gain the world and lose his soul?”

    The economist who is worried about “incentives” should open his eyes and ask, “What does it profit a man to gain a worldly, butthexted, desouled, bernankified wife, and lose his soul as well as past, present, and future earnings and assets, while also having his Natural Rights, as laid down by the Law of Moses, denied?”

    BEcause economists are generally incapable of the Noble Honor found in the GReat Books for Men, they are quite incapable of grasping or fathoming Men, and so they seek solace in their benrnaifying, meaningless equations, theorems, and statist wealth-transferring mathematicsz lzozzlzo.

  60. Farm Boy says:

    That MIT economics prof sure is obtuse (perhaps deliberately)

  61. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    You told the joke wrong, MM.

    Q: “How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?”
    A: “That’s not funny!”

  62. Elspeth says:

    By the way slwerner, I should have been more clear. By “the lack of incentives”, I do indeed mean welfare programs that rewarded illegitimacy and penalized marriage.

    I hope that is less ambiguous.

  63. Frank says:

    BTW, I have two college degrees, neither of which was needed for my current job (with thankfully all loans paid off.) It could also be men actually have more financial sense than women and see academia for the massive fraud that it is, and pursue alternative paths such as trades, where you can get a well paying job through training and certification for a fraction of the cost of getting a bachelor’s degree in Feel-Good-Fluffy-ology. Why put yourself 100 grand in debt for a masters just to be a barista at Starbucks when you can be a plumber?

  64. Farm Boy says:

    Why it’s not like employees could be subjected to firing just for making a less than off color private joke at a Python conference full of geeks

    Dalrock,

    How about a post on Adria Richards? It would seem that she operated on an assumption of “female moral superiority” and “perpetual pussy license”.

  65. country doctor says:

    Undoubtedly the marriage laws have produced the decline in marriage that have produced the growing recognition by many men that they can work considerably less hard if all they need to do is take care of themselves. However, there is also a considerable anti-male attitude affecting men in schools and the workplace.

    It is well noted in the Manosphere that women value comfort, flexibility and safety over competition, innovation and achievement. That alone affects the workplace and the desire of many men to be as productive as possible. I have seen more than one organization destroyed by a woman being placed in a position or power and immediately setting about removing the competent. Men first, competent women next. I have also worked with women who would not only be unemployed but unemployable if they were men saying about women what they routinely and publicly say about men.

    It has gotten so that a male doctor can barely look down a woman’s throat without having to be supervised by a woman. Frankly there are many things I’m good at that I won’t do because the risk is too high.

    Why should a young man go to school and be treated like a rapist? I wouldn’t advise any boy, including my own, to go to university unless it leads to a trade or get married unless they really want children.

    What the professor doesn’t understand is that men are responding to the incentives. Ah, unintended consequences. If anyone needs a doctor I’ll be in my garden.

  66. Martian Bachelor says:

    OT

    Any Catholic(s) want to waste time going over to Psychics Today and explain to a Unitarian arguing for Catholics’ need to “evolve” why maybe the Unitarian has it backwards?

    It’s not everyday you see a biblical reference at PT. The piece is called “Why Religion Needs to Evolve” – which basically means “become more feminist/liberal”. It should be like fielding an easy grounder for several who are frequently around here.

  67. Farm Boy says:

    This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding which stems from the incorrect worldview

    This seems to happen very often with liberals. I wonder why that is…

  68. Found this post somehow through the NY Times and read this with interest, as I’ve written some of my own views about the marriage market of Millennials based on financial research (it’s funny what you discover when you’re looking for other information). I will definitely give your post some thought; I have argued that 33 – 40% of Millennials will not marry because the males of the generation lack interest in it, and my support was that Millennial males might favor cohabitation (financial reasons do form a basis for that assumption). This was my observation based on discussions with thousands of them (even after my study, I’ve still had discussions with young men where they’ve said the same thing, plus social media mining indicates they lack interest).

    You write about economic signals, something I haven’t thought about other than the financial complications if a marriage ends. I assume that a large part of this lack of interest in marriage originates from Millennial males perceiving being a “husband” and “father” as a position of disrespect (think entertainment). What I found about young men when marketing to them is that they tend to align themselves in positions where they perceive they’ll be respected and often this perception is based on entertainment (whether we like it or not). In fact, one banking executive asked me a month ago, “We still haven’t connected with young men – how do we do this?” and my immediate response was, “How are young men portrayed in your marketing?” She immediately connected the dots.

    Anyway, I appreciate your analysis, as I’ve never considered how our society’s approach to the family may be an economic signal in and of itself to young men.

    [D: Thank you, and welcome to the blog.]

  69. Farm Boy says:

    And this is precisely because women are about self-provisioning now

    Well, I suppose going to the welfare office and filling out forms is self-provisioning.

  70. Regarding economic incentives, everything I’m seeing points to off the grid hermitage or enjoyment of the decline being the two most rational responses.

    In rural areas where I live, there have always been some men who lived “off the grid.” He might live in a trailer, or a small house on a farm where he does some work for the farmer as rent. He stays single or was married and quickly divorced young, and has no children (at least as far as the state knows). He’ll show up to help a farmer through a busy harvest season, and then disappear when he gets paid — until that money runs out and he needs work again, but his cost of living is so low that takes a while. (Around here, a single man can live on $10K/year; half that if you work out a trade on rent and grow or hunt most of your own food.) As long as he has money in his pocket, you’ll have a hard time finding him to hire him, but he’ll work hard when he does.

    As I say, we’ve always had those guys, but they’ve been a small minority, and they tended to be the type of guys who couldn’t have handed college and a regular house payment and a lawn to mow and all that anyway. One step up from a hobo, basically. But if guys with the capability of being productive workers, husbands, and fathers start following their lead, the whole system is screwed.

  71. Also, to answer the good economists’s “Why aren’t men responding to economic signals?”

    Men are answering to eocnomics signals!!! And then some!

    If one has a 401k and a modest tech job and shows up on time, one will be viewed as a beta, and will get no puzyzyzyzy nor buttholzizozlzzo (if dat is what you like not for da gbfm though lzozlz))

    On the other hand, if one is a loser with lotsa tattoosz, one will get losttass pussuussuieieuziusizuizuzziziziuzziu.

    When the State funds teh buttccking and mass deosuling of womwwnen womenz and programs womenz to seize a man’s assetststz and his children, the less assetsz and children a man has, the les sthe beenrnakekekens can claim! remember chicldren are viewd as but pawns by the soulless seocnomiztstsz eocnomistsz, and by remobving chicldren from fatherz, this allows the central banking bernnakifierz to enslave men as wage slaves, whence teh bernenkifierz get a cut while seizing a man’s assets, after having seized his wives ass in coleleg and edelsouled her in as ectrely taped buttcocking sessiosnz like tucker max rhes with godlmna sax.

    So the answer is MEN ARE RESSPSOING D TO EOCNMIZ STILUMULUSES SIMULUSUES STIMULUSES, indluding the fact that having a job and money does not stimulate nor make a womanz butt nor gina tingelz, and since all of entirelyty is now ruled by womenz butt and gina tingelez, instead of god, honor, man, Moses, JEsus, family honor, and religion, men are manning up and finding lives of honor byond teh bernenifiying matrix machine lzozlzlzoz run by stooopidly blind mit eocnomistss and tehr bebenrkiifierz zlzozlzoozozo

  72. Opus says:

    May I suggest, that if, as Professor Greenstone of MIT says, men are not responding to ‘price signals’, then they must be responding to something else. If women are responding to the ‘you need more education’ call and men aren’t, then one must surely suppose that on a costs/benefit analysis men are not seeing the extra education as worth their time and effort, at least in the short term, and what, pray, might that something else that men might be responding to be? I suspect that it has to be sex.

    Surely the calculus is like this: Women recognise that their chances in the MMV rise if they can demonstrate sufficiently high status by means of a Degree or three – that is if they seek a high-status Banker. Perhaps men are finding that with, say just one degree, they are able to go out and work and make their way in the world and along the way have access to hot young things and or marry one of the same – something less likely at College, as they can demonstrate no more status than the female-students. The female Post-graduate and Doctoral-candidates as Dalrock has indicated before, look likely, when they finally decide to marry, to have missed the boat.

    I was expecting, by the way, that things would be quiet here today, so I am assuming that nothwithstanding that it is Good Friday that you Americans have to work? – we have a Public Holiday – Praise the Lord.

  73. Dalrock says:

    GBFM, I just saw this linked from Captain Capitalism and knew instantly that you would want to read it: The Invisible Bitch-Slap

    Adam Smith famously described “the invisible hand” — how selfish, individual efforts work through free markets to benefit society generally. Fast-forward a couple hundred years, and see how Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke works through the banking system to screw over the young and the poor to benefit a much smaller segment of society. I call this “the invisible bitch-slap.”

  74. anonymous says:

    …if guys with the capability of being productive workers, husbands, and fathers start following their lead, the whole system is screwed.

    I”m just about there. Galt’s trailer park is calling to me very loudly. I’m so pissed off at my job right now, I’ve actually drafted a resignation letter. My wife is supportive of that decision, and we can coast quite a while jobless if we have to….

  75. “Opus says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:21 am
    May I suggest, that if, as Professor Greenstone of MIT says, men are not responding to ‘price signals’, then they must be responding to something else. If women are responding to the ‘you need more education’ call and men aren’t, then one must surely suppose that on a costs/benefit analysis men are not seeing the extra education as worth their time and effort, at least in the short term, and what, pray, might that something else that men might be responding to be? I suspect that it has to be sex.”

    Opus, yes sex is part of the equation, but there is an even greater calling for men–HONOR.

    Honor is at the center and circumference of all the world’s greatest literature, mythologies, poetry, and religions. All of these things were created by MEN, as the GREATEST MEN valued HONOR over gold even.

    This is why the bernankifiers had to deocnstruct the Great Books and Classics, so they could buttehxt a man’s future wife and sell the subprime ward of the state so as to further their debt-slaing divorce industry.

    The communists outlawed Christianity in Russia, and they are doing the same thing here, via alternative means.

    Sex is easy these days. An honorable relationship with an honorable woman is nigh impossible as most have been butthexteed in the fed’s buteteheyudal promasz of esxtciev tapings of buttehxt, and so men have no incentive to work to support a traditional family, just like a pillar has no incentive to hold up a roof after the roof has collapsed.

  76. The Outsider says:

    Spot on, and lots of great comments. I offer the following example of the incentives created by the current system.

    As a divorced father of two paying child support, I face a marginal “tax” rate well over 60 percent. I wonder what Art Laffer would say about that.

  77. Martian Bachelor says:

    On topic…

    The “child support model” was discovered not to work by bordello operators long ago. The first step is to keep the girls from getting knocked up, because after that they’re worthless and only the churches will take them.

    Sticking the johns with the tab for the incompetency at the managerial level is just compounding the self-destructive lunacy, which is all the rage these days. Here in Colorado a bill is working it’s way through through the Democratic legislature to suspend 2nd Amendment rights for anyone with a DV conviction or protective order – one of seven gun control bills (which are already prompting tourism/hunter boycotts). Like that’ll make all the trashy tattoed single moms even more babe-ilicious. Sheesh. A guy now will have to be sure to get his guns before dating! “Better go in armed, son…”. lolz

  78. The debasing, debauching Michael Greenstone, M.I.T. economics professor writes, “I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not, and it’s very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It’s a fact in need of an explanation.”

    Why should men respond to price signals, when money is but something created by the cenetral banenenrakifierz from thin air?

    Why should a an work for ebebrnke to pay Michael Greenstone’s tax-subsideds, gvermment sbsisdied salary all just to get a buttcocked, bernkefieid wife?

    Michael Greenstone completely fails to understand Mankind and Humanity, as he sees men as but soulless pawns in his centrally-planned world, all working for debt-based bernanke dollarz to bring home to their ebernankifeid wives.

    And imagine that–his “Man up and slave awayr for ebenrnky bernanke debt dolalrz to support beranrkified butttcocked desouled womenz and children that the bernankifers can sezie at any monent” isn’t working!

    what a dummy!!! ozlzzzlzolzo

    lzoozozozozozozozo

  79. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    Cail,
    I should have been more clear with regard to what I meant by “off the grid hermitage.” I was specifically thinking of hermitage in the sense of “secluded residence”. As in a family (rather than a lone hermit) that is as self-sufficient and unconnected as can be managed. The loner hermit you describe would be more in keeping with someone who’s enjoying the decline without putting enough thought into it.

  80. Thanks for the link Dalrock!!!

    “Dalrock says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:22 am
    GBFM, I just saw this linked from Captain Capitalism and knew instantly that you would want to read it: The Invisible Bitch-Slap.”

    lzozolzlozozzlz

    Da Bernanke Buttcock, made famous by tuckeree max rhyems iwth goldman sax, is pretty much the smae thing, and just like the meetings of the federal reserve, wchih is neither fedderal nor a reserve, it is secrtely tapedzz lzozlzlozozoz.

  81. Farm Boy says:

    Why aren’t men responding to economic signals?

    Because they are rational.

  82. Farm Boy says:

    I face a marginal “tax” rate well over 60 percent. I wonder what Art Laffer would say about that.

    He would say that it would not be rational for you to work any harder.

  83. Farm Boy says:

    Galt’s trailer park

    I wonder if that has been trademarked…

  84. country doctor says:

    CC: “But if guys with the capability of being productive workers, husbands, and fathers start following their lead, the whole system is screwed.”

    The whole system is screwed. As the government goes down the drain it will cling to anything, like a drowning swimmer dragging down his rescuer, in an attempt to control everything. Every law has unintended consequences which will require even more laws with unintended consequences.

    The objective now is not to keep the system from collapsing but to keep it from collapsing on you. As a particularly insightful episode of Malcolm in the Middle once observed: “If you can’t beat the system you can run it into the ground”.

  85. The USA, in contrast to Sweden, is more individualistic and atomized. There’s a form of socialism in Sweden. This doesn’t exist in the USA.

    There’s lots of socialism and redistribution in the USA. The difference, as you touched on, is that in the USA the redistribution goes from particular groups to particular other groups. In Sweden, because Sweden (at least until very recently) is full of Swedes who have been interbreeding for many generations and look at another Swede as sort-of-family, the redistribution feels more like helping out a family member who needs it because he’s elderly/disabled/ill/whatever.

    By contrast, in the USA, most of the money is being redistributed (sorry, but it’s necessary to mention race here) from white (and Asian, to a lesser extent) men to women and non-Asian minorities. These are not groups that look at each other and see “sort-of-family” the way Swedes do when they look at each other. In fact, a Swedish-descended American living in Wisconsin may feel more of a bond to Swedes in Sweden than he does to an African-American, and the African-American may feel more of a bond to Africans in Africa than he does to the Swedish-American — both for perfectly sensible reasons. The one thing that might change that would be stronger feelings of nationalism, but we equate that with Nazis, so that’s not an option. All we have left to bind us together is some vague feel-good stuff about the American Dream, which a growing number of people no longer believe in. It’s not a situation where the productive people will willingly be socialists for long.

  86. Anchorman says:

    Dalrock, did you have numbers showing the custody relationship following UMC divorce?

    I ask because I have seen three divorces of UMC couples within the last few years and the father fought for joint or full custody and was awarded full custody twice. The third (mine) looks like at least joint custody, though at least one child of significant age/rationality has requested full time residence with me.
    Are UMC couples less likely to split because the husband/father is far more willing to battle for his rights?

    [D: I charted out the data I found on this here. Note that the "family income" refers I believe to the income of the custodial parent. But either way education should be a fairly good proxy.]

  87. some pioeople
    good people
    have suggested dat
    da GBFM interjectz
    lzozozozlzlzlzllzlzo into his writings
    to obfuscate
    but i intereect lzoozozozzozo
    lzozozozozlzllelels into my wirtingz
    to clarify
    and make
    myself
    understoodz
    as the fie frenzy of my imaginaion blossomms and blooms forth
    and i cpature da supreme beauty
    with da poet’s
    pen

    lzozlzozozlzlzlzlzo

  88. Good job. Found the message that broke into the venue, now pound it home, over and again.

  89. Frank says:

    Is it even possible to go Galt these days? How does one go about achieving this? Is there a How-To guide I can find to walk me through the steps?

    I’m actually being serious, I’m debt free, been saving money and keeping a cache of gold, but I have no idea how to invest it, at least to the end where I’m self sufficient (and not a wage slave.) I’m lucky because my circumstances as they are, with no debt, wife or kids gives me a certain amount of freedom, so it’s only my job tying me down.

    A modern cabin in the Rockies would be nirvana for me.

  90. I”m just about there. Galt’s trailer park is calling to me very loudly.

    When I moved back to my home area 15 years ago after living in another state for several years, I said it was for good. My family is important to me, this is a great place to live, and I can do my work from anywhere, so I figured I was home to stay.

    Last weekend I spent a couple hours researching the possibility of emigrating to a particular foreign country. Not a serious inquiry, but I was surprised how curious I was once I decided to look into it. I’m a long way from actually doing it, but if the elites (in both parties) sell out my citizenship for votes and cheap gardeners like they keep trying to do, and the SCOTUS determines that Jefferson and Madison intended for men to be able to marry each other, I’m going to have to take a serious look at it. I used to think that, although the country is clearly doomed, it would stay healthy enough through my lifetime that I could still live a good life and ignore the slide in my corner far away from the beltway. Now I’m not so sure; the elites seem determined to bring their social experiments with dysfunction to my front porch.

    To the political downward spiral, add the fact that it’s been at least a year since I’ve met a halfway attractive single woman who’s not (and doesn’t need to be) on meds for some mental illness or other. If all that continues for another year, I’m going to start wondering what I’m sticking around for.

  91. As Dante, Milton, et al. noted that debt-based currencies are buttehxtually based, the good economist’s question, “Why aren’t men responding to economic signals?” is tantamount to asking “Why aren’t men responding to butthextual signals?”

    The reason the economics models of central planners fail so often is that not everyone is as incentivized by butthext as they are.

    In fact, by telling a man that if he mans up and works harder he will get a pre-butthexted wife who will butthext him in divorce court and seize his children so that they can be tuaght the butthectual way y the State, said man might choose a non-butthextual path in this breif life.

    Just sayin’.

    lzozolzlzzozozol

  92. anonymous says:

    GBFM: some pioeople
    good people
    have suggested dat
    da GBFM interjectz
    lzozozozlzlzlzllzlzo into his writings
    to obfuscate

    The GBFM style used to drive me crazy. But eventually I started to appreciate it, as great truths were revealed therein. Now it’s addictive…

    GBFM… spoofed you a bit here…hope you liked it:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/did-the-last-decade-prove-that-gay-marriage-isnt-really-a-problem/#comment-76764

  93. lzozozozozoz thank you!!!!!

    “….I saw an inscription, in lines finer than anything I have ever seen before. The inscription shone piercingly bright, and yet remote, as if out of a great depth:
    zozozzloolzolozozlzzozozzozozzloolzoozozlozozlzzzozozzloolzoolozozlzzzozzozozzloolzoozozzozozzloollozozlzzzoozozzozozzloolzlozozlzzoozozzovzozzloolzoozozzlozozlzzozozzloolzoozozzozozzloolzoozovzzozozzloolzoozozzozozzlozozlzzloolzoozozzozozzloolzlozozlzzoozozzo

    ‘I cannot read the fiery letters,’ I said.

    ‘No,’ he said, ‘but I can. The letters are ButtHex, of an ancient mode, but the language is that of Great Books for Men , which I shall not utter here. But in common English this is what it says:

    One Fed to buttehxtet them all, One Fed to find them,
    One Fed to bring them all and in the darkness ebebrkififiy them lzozlzlzlzozlol.”

    BEfore I started my mamndadaroty state-school prescribed RITALINZ prescirritpion after asking too many questions about central abnking and the fED, I used to write in LATIN but nobody undersstood me ever whicmh made da GBFM a sad, sad, sad man.

    here iss the translation in english anglaias lzozlzoz englisshes:

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/i-luvs-you-allls-o-ye-of-little-faith/

    ands hwe here da latins for all da phi beta beta beta tea kappa betaboyz zlzozozozzozozoozozlz:

    i luvs te allls o vos parum fidei

    ad omnes uiduae cum feles
    qui semel pascebant insidiatur in spinsterhood / servientes debitum lxolllozlzl
    ad omnes fanboys in xit una mom scriptor basements
    cuius dads numquam cognovit quia pascebant tookawy fatehrhood lzozlzl
    ad omnes contritum familes
    qui secantur, haedos pascere oportet facere salaria
    ad omnes canus necon womenz celeberating secretive tapings de butthex sine semel girlths conthent lzozllzlzozlzl sunt tircked vos
    ad omnes VIDUA chix iterum i sum contristati sunt sdesouled vobis
    in asscokcing sessins consopiti te in prozac
    vobis ad APSTRAHO haedos tuos non mirum your’re d [expressi et omnes fucjked usque non lozlzlzlzling hic
    mea viscera ad vos Tucker max & Goldman sax risum zlzolzlzl
    quoque omnes abortivi fetushes quaeritur veniam mereri non et ad omnes insidiatur in abortum donum vitae lzozllzllzl nos dimittimus u etiam et pro semel fethuses, sed non in schola orationem est illegal in schola lozlzllzlz
    ad omnes inthe ortu genertaion qui erit redde eorum parentes culturae et pecuniariis debita lzozlz bellum est non fun sed scriptor parte semel pascebant scriptor fiat bulla cyclum lzozlzllz ita similis post th e patria vadit imaginem bellum incipiat in ultimum sentinam et udmp ratio te cogitari enron / worldcom / fannae Mae mala lolzozlzlz iustum expectare lzozlzlll i spem non et ai pro pacem lozlzlz maybe nos potest omnes discere vivere et FIO sed i putant esset committitur cum verum et nobilitate et honorem et ocurage et virtus et non cum fiat debitum et butthex lozlzlzl quod suus iustus nDo gues lectione heroduts et magna boooks et classis in Graeca et latina zlzolzllzlzl

    et Biblia etiam de Sodomorum et gomorroah non yuknow amet sodomycame forma Sodomam et gonnoreah de gommroah? lzozllz kidding ut secundo i dubitas fecit sed maybe qui scit i numquam eitehr sodomiticum nec gonorreah et i ahve numquam Sodomam nec gomoorrah

    Sodomorum est; ve fuit ridiculam loco lzolzlozolllzzll et furiosum pars vel duo et editor in chiefstress Priscilla painton ad Simon et schuster esset apta ius in editae Tucker max librorum alleluia i betin gmorrah habebant turris confusionem cum ofices Simonis et schuster in summo trans aula formans pascebant lzozlzlzllzlzlzlzllzlzlz

    aliquando i mirum si poetae et prophetas adhuc mutare mundi?

    vel sunt trainde quoque, etiam multis mulieres ad odio, et dumbed descendit et consopiti nimis multa menz? sunt destoryed etiam multi patres et occidit multis familias? habent y deocnstructed tyoo librorum et effundetur etiam multo sanguine et abortivi etiam multis fetuthes ut est quoque multis. sunt praescripta ritalin ad etiam multis cretaive sols in chool in prozac ad etiam multis qui opus ad esse adflictus et sustinere cum APSTRAHO foetus ut deus nobis affectus et facit non operam ad amet stae corproate doctores ut omnes Glossarium ex non attendentes statu lzozlzzll et nunc est prognosticis ut a diseas lzozlzlz.

    lozlzlzzlzl

    bene juust voluit dicere i luv u omnes et delicatus II scire ya et excipit abords lzozlzl

    et II asnwer mea super quaestiones
    me jsut dicere
    semel magna librorum
    non esse magna
    si non immortalis
    et offerunt nobis redemptionem
    in momento committitur habitabat tehir ideasl
    et heroicis superior fabulas
    ponere tuam odium et secretive butthex machinae magnetophonicae
    et levare crucem
    et venit sequitur me
    et me shoulderyour onus
    meo iugum est lux
    Dantes scripsit la vita nuova-in vita
    IV invenias vitae tempus et u
    enim ad perdit unum vetus via est ad fuind in novus
    ita non timere
    lozlzlzlzlzlz omg wtf sum i dicens lzozlzlz
    i fere cecinit mea operimentum hic ut semel Messias lzozlzllll abscondam beind omnes lzozlzllzlzlzlzlzlzlles sed a duobus vobis ahve captus in lzozlzlzlzllzlzl

    as you can see, “zlzozozozolozoolzolzol,” retains its universal meaning n all languages thusly lending to da gbfm longevity eve eafter latin died lzolzzlozozozo

  94. Ton says:

    Dalrock, you have a degree in economics? Makes sense as I’ve noticed economist make for some of the better social commentators. I agree with Miserman about the most important line. The usa is not so slowly becoming a slave nation. The federal government uses all manners of stick and carrot approaches, like a tax code which rewards some behaviors, like home-owner-ship vs renting. Not caring what is the best decision for individuals.

    Wage gap vs education gap: my life being a sample size of one means folks should take it for what it worth. I date a girl with masters degree in social working or some such. I make 3.5 times her salary. I also date a girl who is a pharmacists, I don’t out earn her by much. My buddy is a plumber and makes more than his wife, the school principal. Me and my buddy have GED’ s and I know all manner of blue collar men who make more money then the social worker and her master’s

    All that to say these things don’t play out in the linear fashion folks think

    Sunshine Mary is correct, more is going on. Not all folks are smart enough to make money/ have jobs that can provide for a family. That occurred when the usa trashed its manufacturing economy. That would have to return before things change. Immigration would have to end as well since it has a larger impact on native born men who come up on the wrong side of the bell curve. But for manufacturing to return, a certain level of employment law and environmental law would have to be rolled back.

    The whole thing is layers upon layers with few willing to discuss what needs to be done, convergent fewer willing to do those things. Which is an inherent flaw in “our” system of government

    Achilles had the right of it, but he was a masculine character written in a time before masculinity was a dirty word, but accords to some he is a beta because he did not shut up and take being wronged like a good little boy

  95. sunshinemary says:

    It depends on how you mean this. If you are saying that UMC women are far less likely to elect to unilaterally force their husbands into the child support model, then you are correct. However, legally and socially this is still entirely her option. When push comes to shove, our organizing philosophy for familes is now founded on the child support model.

    Yes, I know that because I learned it from your previous posts on who is/isn’t marrying and who is/isn’t divorcing. I don’t disagree that child support is the foundational model; what I disagreed with was that it is the only reason why men are not responding to economic signals. I think there’s more to it than that when you look at the USA as a whole. Yes, not leading a family is a part of that, but I also think male pride is destroyed when women enter into male professions. In part, this is because women act like dumb-asses (Adria Richards), and in part it’s because men are discriminated against in universities and the work force so heavily, and shamed so frequently for imaginary stuff like male privilege and other feminist fantasies. I have observed that men won’t do something they can’t take pride in (perhaps my observation is incorrect?). I think the destruction of male pride is nearly as big a factor as the child support fiasco is in men earning fewer degrees and less money

    It isn’t hyperbole to state that this is the foundation of our new philosophy of the family. How many people do you know who could even conceive of removing this option for women and going back to a model where women who want paternal investment need to get and stay married to have a reasonable expectation of getting it?

    Among the UMC as a group? Perhaps the men would want that model, but the women certainly don’t. It’s almost entirely (as you noted) based on a social stigma and the ability to understand the dreadfulness of having to lower one’s economic status.

    The only exceptions would be tiny groups like the Amish. While the family courts are of course perfectly happy to convert an Amish man’s marriage into a child support arrangement should his wife desire this, socially this would result in the baby mama being ostracised. Only if she is willing to leave the Amish community would she be willing to do this. So in some very minor exceptions there exists a legal structure of child support but a social structure of marriage.

    It isn’t just the Amish. I wish I had your head for numbers so I could provide data, but anecdotally I can tell you that among white Christians (and perhaps other racial groups, too?), there is a small but growing movement of Christian Patriarchalists (also annoying called Quiverful families, a term I dislike) with large families who work very hard to pass on their values regarding lifetime marriage and large families (I have pointed you toward Vision Forum before on this matter). I suppose Elspeth and I would both sort of fit into that model. I have noticed this trend in traditionalist Catholics as well (someone like Morticia, for example, who I believe has half a dozen children).

    Everyone else is in die-out mode. Sweden is in demographic collapse, as others have noted, as is most of Europe. So…in a few generations, there will be no more of this nonsense. No more feminist careerists, sluts, PUAs, and so on. They will contracept themselves intro extinction. When they are gone, no-fault divorce, sluttery, and baby-mama-hood will go the way of the dodo bird. We cannot change the laws now, but we need only be patient and make babies while we wait, and train our children to do the same.

  96. I wish people would renounce these fantasies about surviving the collapse through solo hermitage. I know it appeals the the American mythology, and to you rabid Randists who really do believe you are Six Sigma, but face-to-face, high trust communities (think monasteries, Amish, and Mara Salvatrucha) are going to make it through.

    The Unabomber? Not likely.

  97. anonymous says:

    GBFM What would be really cool, is take an image of the Ring, replace the Elvish script with
    lolzolzzlozozololzolzlzolzzlozozoolzolzzlozololzolzzoolzolzzlozozoolzolzzlozozoolzolzzlozozo
    ..and post it on your website. Alas I’m not a photoshop expert.//

  98. anonymous says:

    face-to-face, high trust communities (think monasteries, Amish, and Mara Salvatrucha) are going to make it through.

    That’s basically what Chuck Youngbrandt’s prophecy said. We won’t survive as individuals or lone families — we’ll need the Church community to make it through the collapse and the Red Dawn war.

  99. So…in a few generations, there will be no more of this nonsense. No more feminist careerists, sluts, PUAs, and so on. They will contracept themselves intro extinction.

    As long as they control the schools and the media, they’ll be able to recruit plenty of replacements from the next generation, except from those traditionalist ghettos you mentioned. Most liberals today probably weren’t raised by liberal parents, after all. Anything that contradicts the laws of nature as much as liberalism does has to be taught to be passed on.

  100. lzozozlzlozo yes anonymous such a ring would be nice!!!! tahnkyouz!!!

    also here is a poster commeemamerative poster for all those who took da red pill and d sa the fiat butthextaul matrix for what it was:

    lzzozozoozozozoozzz

    lzozozzozozooz

    i can show you the way, neo, but you will have to walk it zlozlzlzozzlozlzlzo

    ozlzlz the more you read me and roissy the mroe your life will improve as you come to see the fiat butthex matrix for what it is — you will see the green streams of fiat data (dripping with buttdouche fresh off the butthex presses) like the matrix but with a subltle difference as some of you wieinsteinas have already seen for urself lzozzll

    at the ned of the matrix neo saw it as

    1010101011110100101
    1101001010100101010
    1101010101011101001
    0101010000010101111
    0100101111111101010
    1101010101001001001
    1101001010101001010
    1101001010100001010
    0100101010010101010

    and when you have walked the path you too will see the butthexing matrix for what it is and how the fed funded the desouling of womenz with massive amounts of douchcock frrom an early age in all tehir orfices and are acting through the soulles temptresses to seize your assetts now when a girl says, “what i really really want is a nice guy, i’m tired of the asswholes (lozlzl who got her younger hotter tighter)” instead of hearing what she says and then trying to be a nice guy you will hear the truth behind the butthexing matrix’s facade lzozlzl:

    10101010010110101010101010
    10101010101010101010010110
    101010z01010z0101l01zzlzozll1
    1o1o1o1o1ozozozo1o1o101011
    1o1o1o1oozozzozozozozo01011
    lozlzlzozlzozlozzlzozlzozlzozzoz1
    1010i1o1o1want1010a01010001
    douchebag10to butthex me0101
    010and i want you 2 buy me100
    01meals and a ring while i01011
    0101give by butt & vagina01010
    010away for free to butthexers1
    100who tape it scretely lzozl100
    zlzozllzlzlzozlzozzloozzllz and101
    1010make my anus sore for010
    1010days010101 101010101011
    1010lolsolsoslslollzzlozlzzozlz010
    0101pay 4 my meals0101001010
    101010and1010maybe1010u1010
    1001can1010touch1010my10dry
    101001dried1010up110pussy100
    101stds stds stds0101010101010
    10101buy me 1010a ring1010101
    1010for100the1010pussy1010i100
    0101gave1010away1010for0101
    1010free1010when1010it0was10
    100younger1010hotter0110lozlz
    lolzlztighter1010and010propose01
    1010so1001i1010can0110rape10
    1010your101010anus1010in0101
    1010divorce01010court1010and01
    10transfer010your0101assets1001
    1010to1010bernanke1001and1010
    1010the1010fiat1010buttheex1010
    1001matrix01010lozlzlzlzlzlzzozllzzl
    omglzozlzlzllzlzlzzzlzllzlzlzlzlzlzllzlzllz

    10lzozllzlz0zzllllzllzllzlzz1ozozlzlzl0
    010111010101010101101010101

    the sublime act of butthex is a beuatiful metaphor for what the fed does to a currency and a country, which is why the neocon weekly standard celebrates butthexers–es[pecially those who taope it without the girkl’s conthent and profit off the act. lzozlzlzlzl!

    [on the war that devastated the Real World]
    Morpheus: We don’t know who butthexed first, us or them. But we do know it was them that videotaped it without our consent while scorching the sky wioth a long trail of butthex lies. At the time, they were dependent on butthex power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the common man’s collective anushole. lozzllzlzlzzl

    Trinity: I know why you’re here, Neo. I know what you’ve been doing… why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer reading roissy & GBFM. You’re looking for him. I know because I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn’t really looking for him. I was looking for an answer. It’s the question that drives us, Neo. It’s the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.
    Neo: What is the butthex fiat Mathrix?
    Trinity: The answer is out there, Neo, and it’s looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to.

    [Neocon sees a black cat walk by them, and then a similar black cat walk by them just like the first one]
    Neocon: Whoa. Déjà vu.
    [Everyone freezes right in their tracks]
    Trinity: What did you just say?
    Neocon: Nothing. Just had a little déjà vu.
    Trinity: What did you see?
    Cypher: What happened?
    Neocon: A black cat went past us, and then another that looked just like it.
    Trinity: How much like it? Was it the same cat?
    Neocon: It might have been. I’m not sure.
    Morpheus: Switch! Apoc!
    Neocon: What is it?
    Trinity: A déjà vu is usually a glitch in the butthexMatrix. It happens when they change something. Now that I am an aging women in the butthex matrix with her eggs and gina drying up having given the best years of her anus to drunk alphas during her college desouling years via massively multiplayer asscockig in the butt sessions and getting her fiat mba (masters of butthexing in da Anus) and blowing upper level mangement lzozllz, the butthexmatrix is now delivering my cats. Two this morning and now two more. yaya! lozlzl

    lozlzlzlzlzl

    Morpheus: The Fiat lozllolozllzzl butthex Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. lzozozozozl! But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, bloggers, teachers, betas, lawyers, herbs, carpenters, and neocon womenz writing for the weekly standard, repeating the fiat lies of secretive tapers of butthex without teh girls conthent lzozlzlzlzl. The very minds and anusholes of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that butthex system and that makes them our anus’s lozlzlzozzozozl enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unbuttplugged. And many of them are so inured to butthex, so hopelessly dependent on the system of secretive tapings of butthex without tehir conthent, that they will fight to protect it and reapet the lies of secretive tapers of butthex in teh pages of the weekly standard even though they seem to be nice neocon ladies.
    [Neo's eyes suddenly wander towards a woman in a red dress]
    Morpheus: Were you listening to me, Neo? Or were you looking at the woman in the red dress (woman as temptress in the heor’s journey myth) who was desouled via copious fiat-funded butthex from butthexers celerbated in teh pages of the weekly standard?
    Neo: I was…
    Morpheus: [gestures with one hand] Look again.
    [the desouled, massively-butthexed woman in the red dress is now a bestselling new york times author, pointing a cock at Neo's ass; Neo ducks]
    Morpheus: Freeze it.
    [Everybody and everything besides Neo and Morpheus freezes in time]
    Neo: This… this isn’t the butthex Matrix?
    Morpheus: No. It is another training program designed to teach you one thing: if you are not one of us lozlzlzlzlers, you are one of them butthexers.

    lozlzlzl

    i wanna start lzozlzlzl media where we have a character based on roissy who sees green streams of streaming data every time a bernankified chick opens her moutrh and throughout every episode all the herbs and betas pay for the meals of the chix roissy butthexes in the end due to his supreme knowelge of being THE ONE lzozlzlzllzzl

    i would be more like one of those minor characters along for the ride in the mother ship

    zlzoozolzol
    stanidng off to the side going lzozlzz zlzozlzozlzozlz zlzozllzozlzlzlz and don’t gte me worng i would score with all the hotties but like roissy woudl get first pick for his lead dick and i’d get the next two as that’s only fair lzozlzlzlzllzlzllzl

  101. anonymous says:

    what have I done?

  102. Novaseeker says:

    Well, I suppose going to the welfare office and filling out forms is self-provisioning.

    Indeed it is. As is voting.

  103. Looking Glass says:

    @Anchorman:

    You have the money and the wherewithal to fight the system, but you start at an unconstitutional disadvantage. Good on you for fighting.

  104. Hopeful says:

    “The first was that black men were already lagging behind their women educationally and corporately because well, women are perceived as less threatening than men in general and black women have the “advantage” of being a double minority. When the set asides started in the late 60′s/early 70′s, black women were at the head of the line because at that time blacks were at the head of the oppressed groups line (this has changed dramatically by the way).”
    This is crucial and Elspeth’s assessment is correct.
    “It is often hard for me to consider what it would take to change it because in my life, I am surrounded by married and marriageable black men.”
    Wow, I wish I were as lucky. I grew up as a black girl in the suburbs, on a block where our family was usually the one of maybe two black families on the block.
    “But…a significant number of them came from single parent homes and pulled themselves up from the projects/inner city, so it can be done.”
    Maybe a lot of black women want men from similar environments as they are from? Maybe they feel like these guys aren’t as good? You know, because they don’t have as much money, prestige (I mean the ones who are “pulling themselves up,” not the hustlers).
    “It could also be men actually have more financial sense than women and see academia for the massive fraud that it is, and pursue alternative paths such as trades, where you can get a well paying job through training and certification for a fraction of the cost of getting a bachelor’s degree in Feel-Good-Fluffy-ology.”
    I’ve read a few articles that that recommend this worldview and as someone who works in higher education they pique my interest. My question has always been, and I’m curious how others would answer it, what if you’re just not good at math or science?

  105. Hopeful says:

    Sorry about spacing; computer has a mind of its own.

  106. sunshinemary says:

    As long as they control the schools and the media, they’ll be able to recruit plenty of replacements from the next generation, except from those traditionalist ghettos you mentioned.

    Yes. This is why many of us homeschool and have no tell-a-vision.

  107. anonymous says:

    In Sweden, because Sweden (at least until very recently) is full of Swedes who have been interbreeding for many generations and look at another Swede as sort-of-family, the redistribution feels more like helping out a family member who needs it because he’s elderly/disabled/ill/whatever

    It would seem that the Illuminazis are following the Braveheart plan:

    …..The trouble with Sweden is that it’s full of Swedes! Perhaps the time has come to reinstitute an old Ottoman empire custom. Grant the Muslms prima noctes. First night, when any white girl inhabiting the land goes outdoors, our immigrants shall have gang rape rights to her for the night. If we can’t get them out, we breed them out. That should fetch just the kind of immigrants we want to Sweden, though they pay no taxes…..

    I wouldn’t put it past them.

  108. gdgm+ says:

    Dalrock –
    Apologies for being a bit pedantic, but you slightly mis-spelled the name of “Dr. Bradly Wilcox” of the Marriage Project. He formally goes by “Dr. W. Bradford Wilcox” or informally as “Brad Wilcox”. A small point, but someone at the New York _Times_ could be reading this!

    [D: Good catch. Fixed.]

  109. Cane Caldo says:

    @Cail

    As long as they control the schools and the media, they’ll be able to recruit plenty of replacements from the next generation, except from those traditionalist ghettos you mentioned.

    They’re bastions, not ghettos.

    It’s always about Frame, folks.

  110. “I laugh that I may not weep.”–Patrick Henry
    “And if I laugh at any mortal thing, ‘Tis that I may not weep.” –Lord Byron
    “I lozzozzlzozozozozozozoz dat i may not buttehetx zlzozoz nor get buttehexxtdded lzozlz”–GBFM

  111. herbie31 says:

    My question has always been, and I’m curious how others would answer it, what if you’re just not good at math or science?

    The average person can grasp math and science concepts if they are willing to put in some self study. They won’t become good at understanding some of the concepts if they don’t first develop an interest in learning the basics and becoming proficient at those. But this involves personal “drive” and that’s hard to teach.

  112. Hopeful says:

    @Herbie31

    I understand what you are saying. I was just thinking of people who go to class, do extra math practice problems, go to tutoring and still get like a C or D in their math classes. Should this person just struggle so they can get a good job and make a lot of money (presumably) or switch to a field where his/her skills are better suited, even if it is a lower-paying job field? Most of the people in lower-paying fields don’t do it for the money (although they can complain about not making a lot of money).

  113. anonymous says:

    Back on topic:

    …women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not… people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It’s a fact in need of an explanation.

    As some of you know, I’m in my late 40s, with an engineering BSc and hard-science PhD. That
    path was rational, and affordable, when I was younger. However, it’s completely off the table now. If I were by some evil magic, transformed into a single, 17 year old all over again, just about to graduate high school, into today’s economy, I would do things completely differently…….

    I WOULD NOT SET FOOT IN COLLEGE

    My reasons are 4-fold —
    (1) NonSTEM majors are totally worthless.
    (2) STEM majors are hopelessly unaffordable… and I will NOT rack up debt that will take me til my 40s to pay off.
    (3) As a white conservative male normalsexual, I feel distinctly and strongly unwelcome on college campuses. I saw the begining of that in the 80s, and I hear it’s way worse now.
    4) The women I’d meet in college, would be totally ruined — sexually and ideologically — by the end of the freshman year. ( I chose my college, back in the day, in part based on where I’d have the best chance of meeting and marrying the right kind of girl. As it happened, I met plenty who were worthy but none who were willing. Today, virtually none of them are even worthy. So… why bother?)

    Oh but what about a Chrissssssstian college? First, name one that’s good in engineering. Secondly, from what I hear, the women aren’t much different, for the most part.

    So… no college. I’d go into some highly technical, non-exportable, skilled trade, instead. Maybe get a BS in engineering in my 30s, with my own $$, much later in life.

  114. face-to-face, high trust communities (think monasteries, Amish, and Mara Salvatrucha) are going to make it through.

    Agreed. I could make it on my own as a hermit; I have the necessary skills, despite not being quite Six Sigma. But even as a strong introvert, I wouldn’t want to. I’d much rather weather the storm with a small community of like-minded believers.

    And since you mentioned Rand: that’s what Galt’s Gulch was, after all. The only person who tried to cut herself off and be a hermit was Dagny, and that was because she was still in denial about the inevitability of the collapse. The ones who dropped out entirely went straight to forming a new community, with a system of currency and a couple of laws, even.

    The problem with the Amish concept is that, currently, the US government leaves the Amish alone because there aren’t enough of them to matter. They do pay taxes (many people think they don’t, but they do; the thing they don’t pay is Social Security, because they went to court to insist that it would violate their beliefs to participate in an insurance scheme that went beyond their community), but they stay away from the rest of the nonsense as much as possible. I have my doubts whether the feds would continue to ignore such people if they started to number in the millions instead of the thousands, or if the communities got large enough to be truly self-sustaining, with their own doctors and currencies and things. They couldn’t afford to ignore it then, just as they couldn’t afford to let the Amish skip paying SSI if they were more numerous. Pyramid schemes, which is what the US government now runs on, don’t work if most people opt out.

    If you form a little community today, out in the sticks somewhere, off the grid as much as possible, you know whom the mainstream media will liken you to if the government takes a dislike to you? Right, the Branch Dividians. That didn’t end well.

  115. GKChesterton says:

    @Nova and Dalrock,

    Indeed what is odd is that the article Dalrock quotes from implies that economic incentives are different for at least women:
    Men who are less successful are less attractive as partners, so some women are choosing to raise children by themselves, in turn often producing sons who are less successful and attractive as partners.

    Why would that be? What’s sad about egalitarians is they inevitably say stuff like this because the truth will out. I just wish they would realize what they are saying. It would make all of our lives so much easier.

    @Sunshine Mary,
    Is this universally true? Sweden has some of the lowest marriage rates in the world, yet it is a fairly wealthy country, roughly on par with the USA, no?

    Sweden’s an odd bird (as are all of the Scandinavian countries). Sweden is politically left but culturally right. That is, it talks a grand talk and produces stuff like “The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo” but is composed of farms and villages that have fairly normative families. Marriage for example is down, but long term (and by long term I mean an enormous number who live “till death do we part”) relationships still predominate. I mean you need that social stability to survive those winters. I view them a bit culturally like Lewis’ dwarves in “The Last Battle”. They’ve forged their own path to hell. Its an honest path, but hellish just the same and they aren’t going to listen to anybody about it.

    And I see now Elsbeth and Brenden beat me to this…I agree with both of their assessments.

    Okra then piles on with the demographics. Which is _also_ true but a slightly different problem. Marriages must be both stable and fecund. Both problems are something we’ll have to deal with. The Manosphere tends to be more keen on the first than on the second sadly.

    @Karamazov,

    The supreme irony is that, despite the playful joking attitudes of men in the workplace, women accomplish much less. Companies either willfully ignore this or are too scared to act on this fact.

    I don’t know if I’d say that. It might be better to be said that they are allowed to fill fields that are not natural to them. I’m in STEM and I find women do excellent work in testing. They can’t write/build the new thing but they will do the monotonous task of confirming that it works to specification with alacrity.

    The rest of your post I agree strongly with. I’d go a bit further though on _why_ they are hired. Women, especially straight out of college, are just flat out pleasant to be around for just about everyone. It is part of their nature. Men and women both enjoy young women around. Given the choice of “new guy A” who is a risk and “new gal A” who is a risk new gal has going for her:
    * The HR departments diversity goals
    * A pretty smile

    New guy A is probably obnoxious for one of two varying reasons. He’s probably either over confident or socially awkward. No one likes that. New girl gets the job even if guy is a genius.

    @Sunshine,

    On replacement levels you are actually wrong. Mexico dipped below replacement a few years ago. We just think of the as the titans of reproduction because their best, brightest, and or most sleazy make it to the US so it seems like their is a never ending tide. But the tide has crested. Woe be to those in the border regions who make use of that tide for cheap labor.

    @asinusspinasmasticans,

    Amen. A thousand times amen. I am reminded once again of “The American Religion” which argues convincingly that most American’s aren’t Christian they are some sort of Randian type gnostic. I’ve got the cool knowledge so I can hold out all by my cool self!!!

    Worship of the self as idol is thick here.

  116. BA says:

    He’s got it backwards. It’s the men who are responding to market signals while the women continue to waste their productive lives chasing degrees they don’t need.

  117. Novaseeker says:

    Why would that be? What’s sad about egalitarians is they inevitably say stuff like this because the truth will out. I just wish they would realize what they are saying. It would make all of our lives so much easier.

    Well, I would well suspect that the response would be along the lines of “if these boys/men were more like the girls/women, they would be more attractive”. In the sense of economic success that may be true in the long term, but in the relevant timeframe it isn’t true in the least.

  118. anonymous writes, “Oh but what about a Chrissssssstian college? First, name one that’s good in engineering. Secondly, from what I hear, the women aren’t much different, for the most part.”

    lzozozlz yah!

    da main difference in-between
    da christain college
    and da
    secular college
    is dat jesus forgivez christians for their butthext
    so while da secular college girls go to hell
    for butthext
    da christian churchian girls gor toheavne heaven
    for butthext

    lzozozozozozozo

    either wya it’s buttehxted

    zlzozoozoz

  119. deti says:

    Excellent post, Dalrock.

    The short version: Incentives matter.

    It is as if the architects of our modern feminist utopia thought that they could change society, fundamentally reorder it. Feminists thought they could denigrate men, call them names, accuse them of crimes against humanity, deny them employment and advancement, and create a society in which most women won’t have sex with or marry them or stay married to them.

    But yet they expected men would simply continue doing what they had always done: getting educated, working, getting married (when she was darn good and ready to get married), earning surplus money and goods to support a woman, busting their asses, and doing most of the working and the dying for family, society and country.

  120. sunshinemary says:

    @ GKC
    Mexico dipped below replacement level but Hispanic American women have the highest fertility rate of any “racial” group in the USA and are the only ones reproducing above replacement level:

    Latina – 2.4 children/woman
    Black – 2.0
    White – 1.8
    Asian – 1.7

    Source:

    http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx

    I think replacement level is 2.1 in the USA, right?

    Birth rates will continue to drop in the USA. Young women seem not to understand (or perhaps they just don’t care) that their fertility heads south quickly after age 35 and plummets after 40.

  121. GKChesterton says:

    @Cane,

    Bastions. Absolutely. And we should call them such for the same reason we shouldn’t make fun of prairie skirts (even where we aren’t fond of them).

    @Hopeful,

    So here’s the thing. I’m terrible at math. Terrible. Completely flummoxed by it. Yes, I passed my two semesters of mandatory calculus but I did it largely based on the long suffering nature of a couple of teachers who wanted to make sure I passed. That being said failure in a _certain type_ of math, logic, or science does not mean a failure in _all_. I’m STEM and _dang_ good at some of the non math concepts. I did well in economics, chemistry, basic physics, and logic. So the trick is to not give up because of a failure in one area. There are a lot of mechanics that would, minus the truly terrible notations(s!!!!) that calculus forces on us, do well at basic calculus.

    Try it out. Try multiple fields. Keep trying. Many of the “Dummies” books are worth while reading if you are just exploring.

    @Anonymous,

    Make other people pay for your college. That’s what the State is good at. Go the community college route for the first two years and transfer. This reduces cost by a _HUGE_ margin and makes it affordable on a “McDonald’s” salary.

    @Cail,

    As much as the Davidians were a tragedy they didn’t help themselves at all. The best thing you can do is look as normal as possible. Its harder to shoot the guy that could be your neighbor.

  122. anonymous says:

    Me: If I were by some evil magic, transformed into a single, 17 year old all over again,…….
    I WOULD NOT SET FOOT IN COLLEGE
    (1) NonSTEM majors are totally worthless.
    (2) STEM majors are hopelessly unaffordable… and I will NOT rack up debt that will take me til my 40s to pay off.

    So… why are women goingt to college, then? Can’t they respond to price signals? Yes, but..

    (a) they can get hired with meaningless fluff degrees for makework jobs, and
    (b) expect to eventually marry a man who will pay off that college debt for them.

    Those options aren’t open for a man.

  123. anonymous says:

    @Anonymous,
    Make other people pay for your college. That’s what the State is good at. Go the community college route for the first two years and transfer

    Not as easy as it sounds, especially in Californistan. Besides, who is going to give a scholarship to a non-athlete white male?

    I’ll advise my 3 sons, when they’re old enough to care, to go into nonexportable skilled trades. And never date a woman who went to college.

  124. GKChesterton says:

    @SSM,

    I’d be a bit skeptical for a number of reasons:
    1.) We very poorly track TFR in this community as a large contributing portion are illegal. For a variety of factors illegals are likely to have at or below the TFR of whatever Mexico is officially reporting (same culture increased societal stresses).
    2.) In general as incomes rise TFR falls off for a variety of reasons. So 2.4 may be a “one generation” bump where both cohorts with longer and shorter times in region (counted by generations) have lower TFR. That is, first generation legals may be significantly out producing their second-third and zero generation sisters.

  125. herbie31 says:

    Hopeful,
    I don’t know. But I suspect many people are closer to becoming mathematically literate than they realize(assuming they’re putting in some effort). If some of the Asian countries provide an example, it is that several hours of study(per day) is required if you want to truly become “good” at math, less if you just want to become proficient(which is OK) – and of course the individual’s natural gifts have some bearing on this. When it comes right down to it, I would suspect that the determining factor in most cases is just how bad someone wants something. Not a good answer, I know, but there it is.

  126. Pingback: Randoms | Foseti

  127. GKChesterton says:

    @Anonymous,

    I know from which you speak. Trust me. However I think its worth it to try. Credentialism may be wrong but it does work to get you in the door. Just be a miser. In my own field here in Kalifornia I’ve gotten a late life degree and it has helped significantly as we see an increase of Asians who have cultural expectations about degrees (ie if you don’t have one you must suck since the State _does_ send all the bright kids through school). I am now much more secure in my income bracket. I like that.

  128. donalgraeme says:

    “Hard” Monogamy is a social construct. It is not the natural state of men and women. In order for it to be sustained, society must encourage it. That means incentives and/or punishments. Withdraw those, and human society will revert to the state of nature. This should be obvious, but isn’t. Now would be a good time for TFH to show up and remind us about cause and effect.

  129. “I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find that men do not work harder to get butthexted in divorce court from butthexed women, while the state seizes their children to teahc them the tao of buttehxt. SHOCKED! lzlzozozoozo” – Michael Greenstone, M.I.T. economics professor

  130. GKChesterton says:

    @Herbie,

    The notation is what kills me. I think many have this problem. There are two major notations in higher math (depending on field) an they aren’t in any way complementary. That’s why I am actually fond of the graph visualization techniques that are coming into vogue. I think that they are very helpful for people like myself. All of which is waaaaaaaaaay off topic though. Again I highly suggest the dummies/idiots books and one hour of quiet non-family time a day for the five work days. For about a year.

  131. herbie31 says:

    GK,

    I recently purchased Michael Kelley’s Geometry and Trigonometry problem workbooks. I suspect they are similar to the “dummies” books. Hopefully I can apply some of this to projects at home. Should be fun.

  132. Yes. This is why many of us homeschool and have no tell-a-vision.

    That’s great, and the kids I know who are being raised that way are a real pleasure to be around. But unless the homeschooling numbers grow exponentially a few times over, there will still be plenty of children in the schools for liberals to indoctrinate for the next generation without needing to produce a single one from their loins.

    Cane, I didn’t mean ‘ghetto’ in a negative sense at all, but you’re probably right that most people take it that way, so I’ll try to avoid it from now on.

    My question has always been, and I’m curious how others would answer it, what if you’re just not good at math or science?

    The successful tradesmen I know weren’t particularly good at math or science, or at school in general. As far as college goes, I think you can avoid the “feel-good” subjects without going to STEM. After all, “liberal arts” predates stuff like Women’s Studies by a long while, and people used to get rigorous degrees in fields such as philosophy and literature. It might be harder to do that now because those fields have been so infiltrated by the relativists, but maybe it’s still possible.

    My language teacher in high school urged us to take college courses that would teach us to think and be a man. He said if we wanted to learn a trade like engineering, fine, but if we didn’t learn to think while we were there, we were passing up an opportunity. He was talking about philosophy and the classics, at least the way they were taught in his day. If you get that kind of education, you should be able to go do whatever you have the aptitude and interest for, and apply your education in all areas of your life instead of just your work.

  133. ar10308 says:

    This thread is turning into a manifesto of GreatBooksForMen. Which is amazing.

  134. deti says:

    Dalrock is on a roll. This is the fourth excellent, manosphere required reading post in a row from this site.

  135. Elspeth says:

    @ Hopeful:

    For clarification purposes, I grew up (as did my husband) in a typically dysfunctional black community. We both have family members who have been in and out of handcuffs. We knew drug addicts and drug dealers. The difference is that we both grew up with fathers who expected us to make something decent of our lives. My husband was also blessed to come from a family where lifelong, happy marriages were not an anomaly. That, and he is smart and determined.

    It was a conscious decision of his to separate his children from the communities we came from, though we do spend a fair amount time with our families of origin. We just chose to expose our children to a different culture and to raise them in a home that is truly Christian, and not just religious. Black people all claim to love Jesus but we heard rhetoric while seeing no victorious living.

    All that to say that we am fully aware of and related by blood to the dysfunction. But it has been 2 decades since it has had any real of tangible connection to the life we have built.

    @GBFM:

    What’s up with the binary code? You comments are complex enough without all that, LOL.

  136. Elspeth says:

    That should have said: we are fully aware of the dysfunction, not we am

  137. Elspeth says:

    One more thought: As evidenced by this post, it seems that only the men who are already married, uniquely ambitious, or UMC are in any position to avoid the fate of those typically considered lower class. And that is very, very sad.

  138. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    They’re bastions, not ghettos.

    It’s always about Frame, folks.

    I think when people (particularly white liberals or people who come from white liberal culture) talk about traditionalist “ghettos”, they are just protecting their (real and accurate) observation concerning crime levels of many city NAMs onwards to a scapegoat that has little to do with it (typically “bad white people”, the religious, the rural, etc).

    It’s a strange way for them to “lose steam” (frustrated by aspects they persistently see and since they can’t *ahem* generalize, because generalizations are evil, stupid and bad, since come on there’s always those exceptions that contradict your bigotry, and you cannot touch that subject, they push this feeling of frustration towards another unsuspecting unrelated group and blame that other group).

    Even the whole discussion concerning polygamous behavior, illegitimacy, single parenthood and abortion in the African American community is all about “misogyny” and men who hate women. Not the fall of monogamy, not illegitimacy, not below replacement fertility levels, not the welfare state and those goodies, not violence and crime, not divorce, not literacy levels, not the nihilistic rap culture. No.

    It’s misogyny, “men with little penises and egos”, sexual abuse and dangerous bad boys.

    I mean come on…

  139. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Of course I’m talking about the mainstream, not this part of the blogosphere. Here we talk about these issues.

    But in the mainstream it’s just misogyny, misogyny, misogyny.

    About a majority of African American children come from families which are not intact (>50% single mommy households) and <2 TFR, many of them are poor and the only stuff people who are suppose to help them talk about is misogyny and racism.

  140. anonymous says:

    Elspeth: That should have said: we are fully aware of the dysfunction, not we am

    Somewhere in there, lies the seed of a joke about Ebonics….. :-)

  141. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The more women delay, avoid, and abuse marriage the less men will be willing to generate the surplus economic output our economy depends on.

    You make your bed, you sleep on it.

    Instead of being the economic powerhouse of the west, men disenfranchised from fatherhood will more and more decide to enjoy the decline.

    Enjoying the decline is much better than being a bitter man forevermore.

  142. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The book this post linked to, called “Enjoy the Decline” by Aaron Clarey, seems interesting.

  143. Novaseeker says:

    He was talking about philosophy and the classics, at least the way they were taught in his day. If you get that kind of education, you should be able to go do whatever you have the aptitude and interest for, and apply your education in all areas of your life instead of just your work.

    Of course. But that is for certain people and not for others. It can never be a universalist aspiration.

  144. Elspeth says:

    This is what the black church is spinning. I saw it in the store today(a warehouse club of all places). It’s a mess, and the cancer is spreading.

    A few months ago, my husband told me to pay close attention to the young kid that graduated with our daughter from high school last year. His family lives in the biggest house on our block and although I knew he wasn’t a great student I chalked a lot of that up to his two working parents and the feminized school system. A lot of boys flounder in it, smart white boys most of all because no one thinks they deserve any help.

    So I started paying attention and a week later my husband asked me what I thought the kid was up to. We know when someone is selling dope. There are clear signs and you know it when you see it. We’re pretty sure it’s weed and not crack, but still. And yes, the cops have been called.

    We paid a lot of money to live away from that kind of foolishness. But it’s every where. This country is in big trouble. Across the board. Two parents are no guarantee. A gated community is no guarantee. Our culture is poisonous.

    You can hardly blame the young men who have chosen not to finance it and hasten the destruction, whatever their motivation or lack thereof. What cannot continue must eventually stop. The sooner the better.

  145. Elspeth says:

    Somewhere in there, lies the seed of a joke about Ebonics…
    ;) That wasn’t lost on me, Anon. I changed the wording from “I” to “we”, because I like to refer to my husband and I as a unit rather than speak of myself independently. But then I forgot to change the verb.

  146. As much as the Davidians were a tragedy they didn’t help themselves at all.

    True, they were pretty weird, what with Koresh having all the wives and such. Nothing that should have brought the full force of the US government down on them, though, including military aid that was only allowed because the feds lied and claimed drugs were involved.

    In any case, if you form your own “bastion” separate from the rest of society, you’re going to look weird by definition, and if the powers that be decide to break up your party, the MSM will happily portray you as dangerous kooks, one way or another. Your hunting rifles will be assault weapons; your patriarchal family structure will be spousal and child abuse; your schooling will be sheltering your kids from reality; and if you die in a blaze of non-flammable tear gas that somehow got ignited, most of your fellow citizens will say, “Good riddance, freaks.” That’s all I meant.

  147. anonymous says:

    GKC: I know from which you speak. Trust me. However I think its worth it to try. Credentialism may be wrong but it does work to get you in the door. Just be a miser. In my own field here in Kalifornia I’ve gotten a late life degree

    Being a miser is genetic to me, but it is nowhere near enough any more.

    As to the late in life degree… welll… research shows that the human capacity to learn, drops about 13 and doesn’t fully recover til 30. Therefore, ages 18-22 are pretty much the WORST possible time of life to go to college! I was a good student and a good kid, yet looking back, I can see I would have got a lot more out of it, if I’d gone when I was older.

    My plan, if I were “magically turned back into a 17 year old” — and my tentative plan for my own kids, if world war 3 hasn’t started by the time they hit their late teens — is this….

    Pick the skilled trade nearest to the engineering or science discipline that you are interested in. (Eg, an aspiring chemical engineer should learn plumbing, an electrical engineer should learn computer or electiical appliance repair, a mechanical engineer should be a mechanic and/or machinist…. Apprentice in your late teens, and master your craft and save money til you are 30. (Also, start your family during those years… ) If you really can’t wait to learn the engineering, do it “Good Will Hunting” style — just get a library card and read all the books.

    Around 30 when your brain is sort of mature, sign up for evening/night/online classes, and rack up credits til you get an engineering degree. NOW… you have intimate hands on experience with the technology AND the engineering degree. You will be a kick-ass engineer, far better than the kids coming out of school, or even the long time cube jockeys, who can theoretically design the widget but have never had to actually REPAIR one.

    You’ll dominate your field.

  148. Novaseeker says:

    One more thought: As evidenced by this post, it seems that only the men who are already married, uniquely ambitious, or UMC are in any position to avoid the fate of those typically considered lower class. And that is very, very sad.

    It is, but the problem is that the former think they have the “success potion” they can give to the latter, but they don’t.

    The elite should not be obsessed with creating more of themselves, but rather with using their influence to create social structures that benefit society as a whole (which, of course, benefit them indirectly as well).

    Our elites are not badly intentioned, but they are badly aimed pragmatically. This is the problem when you have a cognitive and cultural elite that sees itself as being “like everyone else”, but at the same time as seeing everyone else as “needing to be more like me”.

    I am a tad different, in that my main mode of resistance has been against the UMC I earned into — and in favor of the MMC and LMC I grew up in. Most people like me trash the MMC/LMC and throw it under the bus, becoming UMC liberals who are “glad to beyond all of that pathetic stuff”. And there is of course dysfunction among the MMC and LMC, but still … there is plenty of garbage and nonsense and self-hate among the “rising” UMCs I have known in the last 20 years. It’s disgusting to be honest.

  149. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    And there is of course dysfunction among the MMC and LMC, but still … there is plenty of garbage and nonsense and self-hate among the “rising” UMCs I have known in the last 20 years. It’s disgusting to be honest.

    No wonder UMCs hate those redneck retrograde religious rural white hicks. They’re “above it all”.

  150. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Wait, this post is linked to the NY Times correct? Does that mean that they can come here and comment? Are we leaving a trail?

  151. MarkyMark says:

    Guys,

    For those who wish to learn math and NOT be flumoxed by it, here’s an easy way to do it: learn from old math books. That’s right! Get the oldest math books you can find, and study from them. The older you can find, the better. The problems they have are relevant and interesting; you WANT to learn the material, so you can figure out the neat problems they have in these old books!

    For example, I have an old, WWII era trig text that has spherical trigonometry in it, something that’s not even touched on in modern texts. To reinforce the lessons, they have artillery aiming problems, since indirect aiming requires a knowledge of trig; when shooting a shell over long distances, the Earth’s curvature has to be factored in, thus making the knowledge of spherical trig a necessity to properly place the artillery shells on target.

    Another neat problem I encountered entailed figuring out how long an enemy’s marching column was. The problem placed you in a bomber/recon plane overflying the column. You were given altitude and angle of depression, thus forming the triangle with which to solve the problem. To make it easier, you’d already learned the reciprocal trig functions by this point (sec, csc, & cot), though you could have used the regular trig functions (sin, cos, and tan) to solve it; the only difference is you would have had an extra step or two to find the answer. This was from another WWII era trig text, though this one was more basic.

    Even the arithmetic books from the 40s had interesting problems that were relevant to everyday life. They had shop problems for guys, which got you good at fractions; after all, our measuring system is FULL of them! When you have 9/16″ wrenches, 5/32″ drill bits and so on, you learn real quick like to be good with fractions. They also had problems for girls, most of which entailed cooking and recipes. Though I’m a guy, I worked these too, and learned some useful things. One is that recipes are usually predicated on serving six people; knowing fractions and ratio/proportion can help you figure out how to adjust amounts up or down depending on the size of the group being fed. Given today’s political correctness though, such books, good as they were, would be considered ‘sexist’.

    In closing for anyone wishing to really learn and UNDERSTAND math at an intuitive level, get your hands on the oldest math books you can find; the older they are, the better. You can find these books at garage sales, used book sales at the local library (where I got most of mine), and so on. You can pick these books up for dirt cheap too. Then, once you have them, take pencil, lots of paper, and spend some time. You’ll become better than you ever thought you could. I know I did! Hope this helps…

    MarkyMark

  152. Kaehu says:

    If the Supreme Court mandates homosexual marriage, by necessity it will have also legalized polygamy (and, in fact, incest), because the legal arguments for “equality” are identical for all three variants of the new concept of “marriage.”

    I would bet polygamy will be established as a legal right within 5 years after a forced legalization of same-sex unions, because to do otherwise would be a violation of equal protection. And, in fact, I would be happy to take the first civil rights suit on polygamy into court. Although I am opposed to same-sex marriage, if its recognition is forced then society must also recognize all the legal consequences of that.

    That being said, how would re-institution of polygamy in society play into this discussion. Good, or bad? May be the subject of a future post.

    But note that the Supreme Court in oral argument telegraphed they were wary of legalizing same-sex marriage because they were concerned about the wider societal effects, and that there had only been “five years worth of data” regarding same sex unions, and “thousands of years” of experience regarding traditional opposite sex marriage.

  153. But I suspect many people are closer to becoming mathematically literate than they realize(assuming they’re putting in some effort).

    It appears to me that innate ability (IQ combined with a knack for problem-solving, more or less) sets an upper limit on how far you can go in math. It’s not quite a hard limit, but more like one made of strong rubber bands. With hard work and desire you can stretch it, but the further it stretches the harder you have to push. At some point the pace of advancement won’t be worth the effort, and you burn out. Especially if you’re in a classroom with people for whom that level does come easily. It’s definitely not like learning languages, where learning a second one makes the third easier, which helps with the fourth, and so on. Math just keeps getting harder.

    The bad thing about an innumerate population in the modern day is that a basic understanding of statistics and probabilities is probably necessary to know when you’re being scammed by politicians. For instance, if you have no idea how compound interest works, can you understand why the national debt is a problem, or why it matters whether they’re talking about principal or interest when they make claims about it? It seems like that would be tough.

  154. ballista74 says:

    @MarkyMark The biggest problem in math instruction is true application is never hit upon. I remember solving a construction problem using some basic trig. I did the math while the guy operating the table saw was trial and erroring a 4×4 and muttering why I wasn’t doing any work (I was there for the day). Finally I just walked over there and said “set the saw like this”, and gave some other directions for dimensions of some of the other boards. They cut them, it all worked right the first time. The response: “You mean there’s actually a use for that crap?”

    Yes indeed.

  155. Pingback: Why aren’t men responding to economic signals? | God's Own Crunk

  156. tz2026 says:

    I can see two possibilities of going Galt. First, hope the Lakota nation wins their suit so West Dakota becomes independent. The second is the permanent cruise, a city of ships moored in international waters. Apple and Google would be better off if they did this form of rather literal offshoring for their employees who could be nearby Taxifornia.

    While being blowhards against paying for contraception, the blowhard Bishops (one of the symbols of office is the crook, so a gathering of crooks is called a Bishops’ conference) could do two things. First end the annulment factory. Second, DEMAND couples sign a pre-nup that would mean scorched earth for the party causing the divorce (and excepting felonies on one side, it means who applies). This would change the incentives. I posted yesterday that I blew out a few people’s minds when I asked “Why do I need a government permit for a sacrament?”. License marriage?

    There are plenty of foster parents and adoptive parents available. I think it would be better to simply end single-motherhood (even if we had to accept gay marriage – it is and will be rare). So except in the case of the death of the husband or wife which creates a widow(er), either Mom supports the kids or they are placed for adoption, maybe with visitation. If a couple divorces, the father and mother have equal access to the foster family.

    Gay marriage is nasty but slow. Divorce is the bleeding femoral artery.

  157. Hopeful says:

    Elspeth, don’t even get me started on the black church.

  158. Hopeful says:

    “That being said, how would re-institution of polygamy in society play into this discussion. Good, or bad? May be the subject of a future post.”

    Sounds like you guys wouldn’t be for that. What would happen if all 4 wives (or however many you have) divorce you? What if they conspire to do it all at the same time? You know how women plan and plot.
    Although, then there would be more women married.
    And with polygamy, why is it that a man can have several wives, but I’ve never heard of a woman having several husbands in societies that practice polygamy?

  159. deti says:

    Hopeful:

    In polygamous societies (or more accurately, polygynous societies), men, specifically wealthier men, were in a position to take and support multiple wives and their children. One man can sexually service and impregnate many women. It also serves the male interest in sexual variety. Women are more willing to share one man than men are willing to share one woman.

    A woman having more than one husband (polyandry) doesn’t work for many reasons. It’s very, very uncommon for a man to be willing to share one woman with other men. Men want sexual exclusivity with the women they support and have sex with. Assuming a woman has multiple husbands, there will be a “top dog” among those men, an alpha male of the group, and he will get first dibs on sex with her. If necessary he’ll beat out the other men for those rights. So that arrangement would invariably devolve into infighting among the men over who will get to have sex with her. Second, the other men aside from the AMOG will have no incentive to remain with her and fight over scraps and leftovers.

    Polyandry doesn’t work because men don’t want it. They might be willing to have sex with her, but they’re not willing to pay money for her or support her or serve her or do anything else a husband would be willing to do.

  160. herbie31 says:

    For those who wish to learn math and NOT be flumoxed by it, here’s an easy way to do it: learn from old math books. That’s right! Get the oldest math books you can find, and study from them.

    I couldn’t agree more.

  161. Danger says:

    For what it’s worth, the pay-gap does not exist when you control for hours worked and job choices….

    In fact, women earn more than men do now.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

  162. anonymous says:

    A woman having more than one husband (polyandry) doesn’t work for many reasons. It’s very, very uncommon for a man to be willing to share one woman with other men

    The few exceptions in the anthropological literature, are brothers or other close relatives who share a wife because they are too poor & low status to get a wive for all of them, so they pool their resources to afford a bride price for one. Omega move. It works because any children born to her, will be either your own children, ora niece/nephew, and in both cases, genetically “worth” your investment.

    In ancient times, the Picts of Scotland — in their preChristian days — lived in patrilineal clans where all men shared the same direct male line great-nth-grandfather. (If surnames existed back then, they’d all have the same name). These related-male groups reportedly held their women in common.

    Titillating as it may sound to some women, the anthropological records of polyandry in modern times, indicate that women don’t really like being shared., Think of how often, in our society, the wife wants sex a lot less often. Now put her in a traditional society where she has no real right to say no. Now put her with 2 or 3 brothers, doubling or tripling the sexual demands on her. Nope, women do NOT like the arragnment.

    Sharing wives between unrelated men was out of the question.

  163. Pingback: Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence | Patriactionary

  164. Farm Boy says:

    Now put her with 2 or 3 brothers, doubling or tripling the sexual demands on her

    What if they were bad boys?

  165. Andrew says:

    Women major largely in nonsense such as “Communications” so they can learn to talk to people better, or “English” so they can learn their native language SO MUCH better.

    I wish articles like yours could be posted on Fox News, or the like. It’s good common sense, what you write, Dalrock, yet it counts as brilliance, because so many people are such complete fools in our society.

    And the one sentence version answer to that professor: “They don’t need to respond to such economic signals, as it’s easy to make enough to get by on your own.”

    A single guy like me, can earn an easy 4-year degree, become a cop in Atlanta (pays 56k a year if you have a bachelor’s) and be rolling on the dough, pretty much. Have a nice apartment, drive a nice used car, buy nice cloths, be socking away in savings accounts…

    A guy who has to support two kids and a household, or a woman who has to support two bastard children with some child support? They have to work lot harder to live the same level.

  166. Farm Boy says:

    anthropological records of polyandry in modern times, indicate that women don’t really like being shared

    What does the hamster have to say in all of this?

  167. Farm Boy says:

    Women major largely in nonsense such as “Communications” so they can learn to talk to people better

    Does it help? Do they need such a capability? Are they empowered?

  168. Andrew says:

    I have no clue, Farm Boy. Somehow they’ll get a job that only requires people to be able to talk well… it’s pretty entertaining to talk to girls on what they’ll do. Like one, at the college cafeteria, who switched from political science to geology. She said she wanted to get a job “studying the earth” like “in a non-profit research group.” Apparently there’s tons of openings for that… not. (I’m at Kennesaw State University.)

    At orientation–about 80% of the women left in groves when the “education” and “healthcare” and “dental care” groups got called off to their own buildings. Ironically, women voted overwhelmingly for Obama both times–and he’s gutted the future of healthcare along with dental in the United States, and teaching jobs are one opening per 100 candidates these days.

  169. anonymous says:

    Now put her with 2 or 3 brothers, doubling or tripling the sexual demands on her
    What if they were bad boys?

    If they were bad boys, they’d reach high status, and they wouldn’t find themselves in the shameful Omega position of sharing a wife.

  170. anonymous says:

    <one, at the college cafeteria, who switched from political science to geology. She said she wanted to get a job “studying the earth” like “in a non-profit research group

    LOL. Oil companies are always hiring geologists though. Coal and construction, too. Too bad there’s so much nasty profit involved….

  171. Miserman says:

    @Andrew

    Women major largely in nonsense such as “Communications” so they can learn to talk to people better, or “English” so they can learn their native language SO MUCH better.

    I, too, am one of those guys who would love to see all higher education come to end, including high school. However, higher education in and of itself is not the problem. It is merely a tool now perverted to cater to social engineers and is being foisted on men without choice.

    Unmasking Feminism has an article about how the presence of women in higher education severely damaged the ability of men to learn genuine critical thinking skills, thus removed the substance and value of higher education.

  172. 8oxer says:

    Get the oldest math books you can find, and study from them.

    I’m actually qualified to talk about this, lol.

    For Calculus, the hands-down best text is Morris Kline’s *Calculus: An Intuitive Physical Approach”. Modern textbooks aren’t terrible, but if you want to cut out the 1300 pages of extraneous stuff and save yourself 200 dollars at the same time, just get the above book. The answer key is only available online (the answers aren’t included, in other words) and there are some errors in the answer key, which is frustrating for students.

    The best Linear Algebra textbook is, as it has been for the past 40 years, Georgi Shilov’s definitive work. Dover’s English translation is excellent. Most of the university textbooks are basically reprints of this.

    I learned trigonometry with a book so old it had tables in the back. I’ve taught out of modern Precalculus math books, which are fine, but it’s not like there are any new ideas in there. If you are studying on your own time, pick up an old cheapie from ebay and get yourself a decent graphing calculator (I’m a Texas Instruments man, but there’s nothing wrong with the Casios) and go to town.

  173. Opus says:

    I was romantically linked to a woman who has a bachelors degree in Communications (and now has a corporate-cubicle) and she vered between shouting at me, presumably under the delusion that doing so would make me disppear, and going silent, when we were alone, which rather killed any possibility of interaction.

    I have long wondered what the pecking order in girlie degrees is. Presumably it starts with Eng Lit ‘Bright Star were I steadfast as thou art’, and then degenerates I would guess to Communications, then lower still is Sociology, and at the bottom of the heap is Women’s Studies.

  174. infowarrior1 says:

    So Dalrock. How do I do italics on this website? I seriously have no clue.

  175. Luke says:

    anonymous says:
    March 29, 2013 at 10:28 am

    “How long has it been since white women were reproducing at replacement level? Two generations now, I think?

    Malcolm Muggeridge once observed, that the last Englishman will be an Indian. Along the same lines, I assert, sadly: The last white man will be a Mormon.”

    Not so WRT the latter. While the Mormons do indeed (and IMO laudably) do reproduce at well above replacement rate, they have a high and increasing apostasy rate. This is probably due to the combination of 1) the Internet unmasking the corruption and untruths characteristic of its founders and current-day heads, and 2) the onerous, unnecessary burdens (time as well as money) laid down upon its adherents. Further, the Mormons have laughably (and obviously intentionally) inaccurate membership statistics; there are surely well under half as many Mormons as the main Mormon church claims. So, while there may in the future be many white Americans who have Mormon ancestors, most of them won’t actually be Mormon.

    ===================================================================
    On another subject: Dalrock, thank you for this great forum, and for your sophisticated, informed, well-written lead essays. But, would you PLEASE do something about CrappyTVforPoufters? If you’re not inclined to just delete his random jumbled “writing”, then just deleting any line that has a misspelled word, nonsense assemblage of letters, or a sentence fragment would do nearly as well.
    Thanks in advance.

    Luke

    [D: GBFM is an acquired taste, but there is a method to his madness.]

  176. Michael says:

    I received a stray email from a Congress women about women being discriminated against because they make 1/4 less than men for the same work in the private sector.

    The email invited me to support her to “make” private companies to pay women more.

    It was from Debbie Wasserman Shultz or something like that. Asking for my vote or something. Apologies I can’t remember because I’m wifeless and drinking myself into a stupor.

  177. greyghost says:

    Outstanding work here Dalrock. For a short period I had an abreasive water jet machine. As interesting as setting up and running that machine was my customer base was amazing. Men working in the fabrication industry with little or no professional schooling are sub contractors for the lastest military and nasa projects. The dalls ftworth area of texas has amazing small fab shop with guys that can produce things as complicated as jet engine parts. You don’t need college just hard work and ability.

  178. MarkyMark says:

    Michael,

    That woman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (aka Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz) , is chairwoman for the DNC, I think. She’s also a congressbitch. Anyway, she’s one of the biggest feminists out there. She’s ugly (can’t BELIEVE anyone would marry her!) and her voice is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard-ugghh! Anyway, it’s no surprise that Blabbermouth Schultz sent you that tripe; after all, she’s a good feminazi…

    MarkyMark

  179. MarkyMark says:

    8oxer,

    Dover Publications has some decent books amongst the newer material. I have their calculus book and calc refresher; both are good. But, for the most part, I prefer older books for self teaching. I used to have an article from 20+ years ago about a math teacher who coaches his HS math club. His club started doing well when he started using older math books; the older the books, the better his math club did. Based on my experience, I can see why…

    MarkyMark

  180. They Call Me Tom says:

    @ Luke: Is Mormonism all that unique among religions in regards to apostasy rates? I’m just curious, because I think a majority of institutional failures across the board in modern society have resulted from the loss of credibility of their leadership. Name the institution: government, courts, churches, colleges, charities, etc. Their leadership has failed to live to the standard they’d have their subjects/adherents/whichever live by, and yet they are self righteous at the very same time that they are breaking their own rules. It’s not a new thing (The Decameron has a short story on Christians and their not having faith in Rome), except that in the present, doubt of leadership results in anarchy rather than a simple disregard for a given institution’s leadership.

    p.s. I have disagreements with Mormon theology, but I’m not going to pretend that they’re unique in lacking good leadership.

  181. They Call Me Tom says:

    @Opus: Sociology is definitely the lowest on the scale. The only majors lower being the specialized Sociologies that constitute ‘me’ studies of Gender and/or Race.

  182. Infowarrior, to italicize text, put brackets around it like [i]this[/i], except use the angle brackets that are on the comma and period keys. To make text bold, do it like [b]this[/b]. To quote someone, [blockquote]enclose his text like this in its own paragraph[/blockquote].

    In each case, the opening tag is a left-angle-bracket, the tag name, and a right-angle-bracket, while the closing tag is the same thing except with a forward slash between the opening left-angle-bracket and the tag name. Some sites don’t allow the blockquote tag, but nearly all will let you do italics and bold.

  183. To clarify my instructions in my last comment: replace the square brackets I used in my examples with the angle brackets to get the desired effect.

  184. HanSolo says:

    The female herd does what it’s told by the alpha mares and the apex alpha males. The vast majority of men are followers of what the female herd demands.

    To fix the males you have to fix the females. If women want marriage and family they have to actively seek and reward them men that want that.

    The female herd determines the market for sexual access and men respond. Due to technological and societal conditions that provide a safe and prosperous environment (either the woman can work or she can get gov’t assistance) the male provider/protector role isn’t needed as much at the individual level so women’s hypergamy is more free to pursue sexy, rich or famous men, if even just for a night’s pleasure.

    Men belatedly and gradually respond to what the herd demands–sexiness over providership and so they’re checking out of the provider track gradually and bit by bit shifting over to the casual-sex and don’t-offer-women-chivalry track.

  185. Luke says:

    anonymous says:
    March 29, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    “<one, at the college cafeteria, who switched from political science to geology. She said she wanted to get a job “studying the earth” like “in a non-profit research group

    LOL. Oil companies are always hiring geologists though. Coal and construction, too. Too bad there’s so much nasty profit involved…."

    Uh, no. I have B.S. and M.S. Geology degrees, a quite high Geology GRE score, etc., and have NEVER gotten a job with an oil company despite repeatedly trying over the years. When I got my M.S. I sent out ~400 resumes to oil companies, getting in return approximately 40 form letters with 2-line canned "Thank you, but no thank you" responses. I work for oil service companies doing something called mudlogging, which is partly geological, but mostly not. (I'm paid more for spending most of my working life out on oil rigs, rather than for what I know how to do; the latter more just gets me the work easier.)

    Coal? Don't make me laugh. Obamination swore 4 years ago that he'd bankrupt the coal industry via regulations. Scores of coal-fueled electrical generating facilities have since shut down. Now, with his "re-election", God knows how many more will be economically murdered, to the point some cities get all-day, all-summer brownouts ever after.

  186. TFH says:

    This article leads some of us to the following conclusion :

    Democracy is not a permanent state any society can reside in, but rather has a life-cycle, after which it is followed by a feminist police state. This is because while men tend to vote for what benefits all people, women only vote for what benefits women (that too in a form of short-term, perceived benefits only).

    A stable, functioning society (and certainly one that is good for children) requires strict controls on the behavior of women.

  187. TFH says:

    I see two elements of the higher education bubble here :

    1) An increased assertion that all degrees are equal. Women are getting more ‘degrees’, so the trumpet that, but totally ignore that men are getting the real degrees that lead to real jobs.

    2) An Economics Prof at MIT should have figured out the real incentive structure causing men ot change, many years before the Androsphere. Yet, he still doesn’t grasp it even though the Androsphere has been around for a while, and now Dalrock has written an article addressing him directly (I hope he sees it). What type of Professor is this? An Economics Prof at MIT (perhaps the most decorated Econ dept in the world, with the most Nobel Laureates and Central Bankers from there), should be embarrased to be any less than the FIRST person to figure this out.

    An Econ Professor from MIT who cannot identify incentive patterns. Brilliant…..

  188. anonymous says:

    Luke: I have B.S. and M.S. Geology degrees, a quite high Geology GRE score, etc., and have NEVER gotten a job with an oil company despite repeatedly trying over the years. .. Coal? Don’t make me laugh.

    OKay, that’s fair. Maybe things have changed alot in 30 years, when the geology students at my college were anticipating those types of jobs. Or were they just plain wrong, even then?

    More to the point… Who DOES hire geologists nowadays?

    Or has it sunk to the “usesless degree” category?

  189. greyghost says:

    TFH
    all of real thought is through the feminine imperative. There was not a snowballs chance in hell an MIT professor a male one at that was going to see the elephant in the room.

    “nice flash light you got there Dalrock where’d you get it?

  190. [D: GBFM is an acquired taste, but there is a method to his madness.]

    lzozozozThanks! but my neocon freudian psychiatrist said there was a madness to my method lzzozozoozozzozo but hw does he know stoopid stooopi zlzozoozozozo

    the same people who criticize the GBFM’s lzozozo
    are generally
    the same people
    who think all the tultural culturrual decline and rot is fine and dandy
    and even progress
    and who will h8 on a borther brother
    long before
    they would ever pass judgment
    on those who publish and profi off
    sectrive tapingz
    of buttehtztzxtxxtt lzozozozo

  191. Luke says:

    anonymous says:
    March 29, 2013 at 8:54 pm
    ” Who DOES hire geologists nowadays?

    Or has it sunk to the “usesless degree” category?”

    Oil service companies, as I work for one, and have for over eight years.
    WOMEN and MINORITIES with Geology degrees get on with oil companies, no problem.
    White males, not so much.
    Environmental companies use people with Geo degrees some as well; men over half the time tend to get the cr*ppier/lower positions, with women getting almost exclusively the better (higher pay/no field work or getting dirty) positions, from what I’ve seen. (I have over 7 years working in environmental lab, etc. type work.)

  192. Farm Boy says:

    Is there any chick degree that is rigorous and useful?

    Nursing is useful, maybe not rigorous

  193. Luke says:

    CrappyTVforPoufters said:

    “the same people who criticize the GBFM’s lzozozo
    are generally
    the same people
    who think all the tultural culturrual decline and rot is fine and dandy
    and even progress”

    Since none of those apply to me, and I think you need epididymus-applied ECT until you stop intentionally puking on Dalrock’s good and valuable site, the only remaining explanation is that some of us have higher standards for written communication than those in your “degraded from Ebonics” verbal pus blows.

  194. Luke says:

    Sorry, that’s “epididymis”.

  195. electricangel says:

    @Cail
    Cane, I didn’t mean ‘ghetto’ in a negative sense at all, but you’re probably right that most people take it that way, so I’ll try to avoid it from now on.

    Who cares what people think? We care about accuracy. The original ghetto was the Jewish community in Venice, set aside by the authorities for the Jews to live in, both to protect them and to keep them under control. Voluntary segregation from society isn’t a ghetto; more of a commune or compound or some other term. The least offensive one should do.

  196. Dear Luke,

    I am curious.
    The same Righteous Rage that you direct at me,
    Do you also direct it at those who publish and profit off of
    secretive tapings of butthext?
    If so, where can we witness you speaking out against it?
    Or do you only attack your own brothers
    like William Bennet and the Churchians
    while giving secretive tapings of butthext
    a free pass?

    I’m betting on the latter, and I haven’t lost yet.

    lzozozozo

  197. Luke says:

    CrappyTVforPoufters, was that a question?

  198. electricangel says:

    @Luke,

    The day will come when the lllollz washes over you like a great wave, catches you in its swell, and delivers you from the Fiat Matrix. If you would understand some of the gibberish, my fellow Patriactionary, Eumaios, has some explanation of the terms. Once you understand the word butthex and its sublime mocking of the sodomites, you will appreciate it.

  199. dear luke,

    this is gbfm’s girlfriend. he is in the shower now but he told me to ask you if you are trying to buttehxt him. lxlxlxoxlooxxlxox

  200. Luke says:

    Electricangel, instead of me p*ssing away my time learning the “rules” of ONE stranger’s apparent mental illness, how about CTVFP just posts in Standard English (and Dalrock deletes what’s not?) His/her/its using noise to obscure whatever rare point might conceivably be found in the nonsense babbles is reminiscent of the writing in feminist theory articles in would-be serious periodicals. Surely every red-pill male here understands why the former doesn’t get a pass on being nonserious; neither should CTVFP.

  201. Luke says:

    Agh. “Former” should have been “latter”. Mea culpa.

  202. luke skywalker, this is gbfm’s girlfriend. i told him you haven’t answered his question yet. he told me to post it. please answer, if only to show chivalry to a lady:

    Dear Luke,

    I am curious.
    The same Righteous Rage that you direct at me,
    Do you also direct it at those who publish and profit off of
    secretive tapings of butthext?
    If so, where can we witness you speaking out against it?
    Or do you only attack your own brothers
    like William Bennet and the Churchians
    while giving secretive tapings of butthext
    a free pass?

    I’m betting on the latter, and I haven’t lost yet.

    lzozozozo

  203. Luke says:

    “this is gbfm’s girlfriend”

    Underage ewes post on the Internet? That seems unlikely in the extreme.
    Ask me an actual, serious question in standard English and I may answer it.
    Make noise, and people will just conclude you’ve wetly soiled your pants in back, again.

  204. James says:

    Improved educational results for women, relative to men, are a response to economic signals all right – a response made not by women, but by the government-education complex itself.

    STEM courses in high school are made easier, in order to attract more girls even if they do not have a great aptitude for mathematics or engineering.

    Semi-academic courses such as “combined studies” or “media studies” provide university degrees to girls who go on to pen-pushing jobs.

    The purpose in both cases is to meet targets for gender inclusiveness. The economic value of the education provided, mostly to girls who are not in the top of the ability range, is limited.

    We get away with this tremendous waste of resources because our countries are still wealthy. As prosperity decreases, some of this waste will be cut.

  205. anonymous says:

    Luke…. Luuuuke……. lolzolzolzolzolz the Force….

    Understand GBFM, I once could not.
    Learn more of him, you must.
    Great insight, you will eventually receive.

  206. anonymous says:

    Ask me an actual, serious question in standard English and I may answer it.

    What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

  207. Dear Luke,

    This is GBFM back here. So now you’ve insulted my girlfriend too. You really are one of thos William Bennet buytetehtxual holy rolllers, aren’t you?

    Again, we all ask you a simple question is simple English–I might have misspelled butthext but the way Tucker Max rhymes with Goldman Sax pronounces it, it sounds like Buttttthhhext:

    Dear Luke,

    I am curious.
    The same Righteous Rage that you direct at me,
    Do you also direct it at those who publish and profit off of
    secretive tapings of butthext?
    If so, where can we witness you speaking out against it?
    Or do you only attack your own brothers
    like William Bennet and the Churchians
    while giving secretive tapings of butthext
    a free pass?

    I’m betting on the latter, and I haven’t lost yet.

    lzozozozo

  208. William Newman says:

    _A Concept of Limits_ is another good calculus(-related) book available cheap from Dover. It’s a thin book which won’t teach you all of calculus; as per the title it mostly teaches limits and related foundational concepts (e.g., convergence). Also, along the way it may teach you a fair amount about proofs, at least if you study it carefully without fooling yourself about how much you understand. I studied the book in high school, and I found it useful preparation for the calculus book that I went on to study, and then for my calculus class in college and for calculus-related work later.

  209. James says:

    Men are wising up to Marriage 2.0, and the result will be a continuing decline in marriage and the birth rate.

    I don’t think anyone in government gives a shit.

    We tend to vote for whichever party we think will deliver the greatest economic growth. Governments realized that they could generate growth by increasing the number of years women spend in paid work – ideally, by encouraging them to take full-time jobs with only short breaks for childbirth. Amazingly, women helped this process by persuading themselves that this was liberation!

    The birthrate fell, but that didn’t matter, because the government found it could import people to replace the children we never had. By importing even more people, it could increase the population, and therefore the size of the economy – more “growth”.

    Politicians don’t care if we are “poolside”. They are slowly electing a new people, and it isn’t us.

  210. Melissa says:

    The author has a very clear bias. This topic reminds me of the chicken and egg scenario… did the single mother family structure come because the traditional family unit structure didn’t work? ..or did the traditional family unit structure come because the single mother family structure didn’t work?

    My solution is male birth control!! Give men more fertility options. ..and teach women to not have children with worthless men.

    For anyone who’s interested in a scientific view of human sexuality here’s a GOOD READ: The Evolution of Desire.

  211. Fool says:

    @ HanSolo
    “Due to technological and societal conditions that provide a safe and prosperous environment (either the woman can work or she can get gov’t assistance) the male provider/protector role isn’t needed as much at the individual level so women’s hypergamy is more free to pursue sexy, rich or famous men, if even just for a night’s pleasure.”

    Would much appreciate if anyone could elaborate on why the MS/Blue Pill Set refuse to acknowledge that women’s hypergamic nature is a major detriment. I don’t know if it’s the beers talking but i intend to get reacquainted with the bible, the classics (lollzz) and attend Sunday service at the church directly across from my flat.

  212. 8oxer says:

    Or has [geology] sunk to the “usesless degree” category?

    Any degree can be useless depending upon what’s done with it. The lazy kid who earns a geology degree, and subsequently becomes an artist who pours espresso on the side, is earning a useless degree. S/he’d been better off not going to uni at all, and letting someone with the initiative to work in the field have his/her seat.

    When you look at things this way, most degrees are largely useless. Those which are less useless than others are a means to a happy and productive life, and those which are more useless than others are simply ways to pass the time while indulging in a 4-6 year drinking and sex binge (and I’m big enough to admit having done some of this myself).

    There’s a guy named “Captain Capitalism” who put out a fairly insightful but very poorly written book about useless degrees, which is worth reading. One of the fields of study which he lists as “most useless” [sic] is English. Ironically, his “work” is the best example of the worth of a serious study of grammar, as it is almost unreadable, despite touching on some salient points.

    Sociology and Gender Studies, which is also listed above, in the comments, by various participants here as “totally useless” is also humorous. If the Dalrock blog were to be classified, those are exactly what it’d be categorized as: Sociology/Gender Studies. The people here who think these fields are useless are constantly indulging in the very disciplines they condemn, here for all to see.

    Society needs people to study Sociology, History, Literature, etc.; but, I don’t think society needs *all* its people to be getting four-year degrees in these fields, which is the actual, underlying problem with this society. That was the (never elucidated) point in the subtext of the fascinating book by “captain capitalism”, which I can’t help but agree with. Most people ought to be concentrating on producing things of value. In that regard, his name is humorous too, since “Captain Capitalism” is basically rewriting Karl Marx. I originally read his book thinking it was a very clever joke, but have friends who have met the author personally and assure me that he’s quite serious.

  213. anonymous says:

    The people here who think these fields are useless are constantly indulging in the very disciplines they condemn, here for all to see

    Ah, but we make our money in STEM. At least I do.

  214. Luke says:

    nonymous says:
    March 30, 2013 at 12:20 am

    “Ah, but we make our money in STEM. At least I do.”

    Ditto, if I’m somewhat underemployed WRT using all of the talents I went to school for.
    (I do make a pretty decent living.)

    That said, my wife agrees with me that no non-STEM college majors have ANY chance of our paying for tuition when our children consider college. (Trades that can’t be outsourced to the Third World, and specialized tutoring in certain skills, NP.) If a kid wants to learn art, drama, history, English, literature, sociology, psychology, anything ending in “studies”, marine biology, etc., my advice will be for them to read about it at the library in their free time around a job.

  215. anonymous says:

    Off topic but STUNNING: A letter by a Princeton alumna (and mom of 2 princeton boys) to the women of the campus. Choice exceprts.

    “….For most of you, the cornerstone of your future and happiness will be inextricably linked to the man you marry, and you will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy of you.

    Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.

    ….Men regularly marry women who are younger, less intelligent, less educated. It’s amazing how forgiving men can be about a woman’s lack of erudition, if she is exceptionally pretty. Smart women can’t (shouldn’t) marry men who aren’t at least their intellectual equal. As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves out of the market. Simply put, there is a very limited population of men who are as smart or smarter than we are. And I say again — you will never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of you…..

    …. by the time you are a senior, you basically have only the men in your own class to choose from, and frankly, they now have four classes of women to choose from. Maybe you should have been a little nicer to these guys when you were freshmen

    Read more:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301415/Susan-A-Patton-Find-husband-campus-Ivy-League-Tiger-Mother-writes-open-letter-urging-Princeton-women-marry-male-peers-like-SONS-avoid-settling-dumber-men-prestigious-schools.html

  216. voxofreason says:

    The econ professors premise is all wrong to start with. ‘Price signals’!? You mean the distorted and false price signals created by the federal reserve’s meddling with the economy? So women by and large are more under the spell of central banksters machinations than men? Que the Genesis narrative, sounds like Eve is still buying into the serpent lies.

  217. ballista74 says:

    There’s a guy named “Captain Capitalism” who put out a fairly insightful but very poorly written book about useless degrees, which is worth reading. One of the fields of study which he lists as “most useless” [sic] is English. Ironically, his “work” is the best example of the worth of a serious study of grammar, as it is almost unreadable, despite touching on some salient points.

    I’ve found in my experience that there are useful skills to have for a number of different productive ventures, but aren’t exceedingly useful for profit in and of themselves. I can’t say I’ve read this book for myself, but one of the usual mental fallacies that people take when they set their minds to certain tasks is that (whatever tool they favor) will fix all kinds of problems. So they apply the use of a hammer to remove a screw. It seems that this is the case with

    I’ve found as I’ve gotten more removed from my schooling, I’ve realized the importance of English and wish both that I had better teachers and devoted more of my time to it. In other words, I’ve found my writing ability (or lack thereof) has served as a tool to profit in other disciplines (either non-English classes or job-related tasks), and the quality thereof is a direct reflection of *how much* I might profit. In a way, I’m trying to make up for lost time and practice by my blogging activities because of this realization. I won’t claim that I write well (far from it), but I hope I’ve been improving since I have jumped into the blogging world.

    I just looked at one of his blog posts from a more “Grammar Nazi” oriented standpoint. In some ways, he’s lucky that most people aren’t cognizant of such things. For instance, I remember a couple of professors in my past that would eat his writing for lunch if it ever crossed their desks as assignments. Again I’m not saying I write that well either, but I’m just noting there’s always room for improvement in any venture.

  218. ballista74 says:

    “It seems that this is the case with” should be “It seems that this is the case with ‘Captain Capitalism’.” Noticed that just as I hit “Post Comment”…

  219. Alex says:

    anonymous says:
    March 29, 2013 at 10:27 pm
    Understand GBFM, I once could not.
    Learn more of him, you must.
    Great insight, you will eventually receive.

    You’re a stronger man than I, Anon, to have reached the end of that rainbow.
    The man(GBFM) has a good mind, and I’d like to push through all the fluff to read his thoughts, but I usually lack the will and the patience. Perhaps once a month, GBFM would be kind enough to give a concise presentation of his thoughts, just for the hell of it all.

  220. Johnycomelately says:

    “Why aren’t men responding to economic signals?
    Because they are rational.”

    Heh

  221. As an economist, he should have read Rand: When something doesn’t seem to add up, check your assumptions. His assumption is that men aren’t responding to economic signals, but of course the truth is that they are — people always do. If he checked that assumption, he’d realize they must be responding to signals he’s not recognizing, and he could move on to figuring out what those are.

  222. Höllenhund says:

    I think it’s fair to say that building a technologically advanced civilization was the biggest mistake of betas. Now the entire artificial structure they created has turned them into irrelevant, mocked, exploited hostages of the Feminine Imperative.

    Unlike women, betas are naturally imbued with a sense that humans are entitled to dignity and justice. It’s very easy to turn this against them. That’s why they have become slaves. The average beta sees a struggling single mother living in poverty with her thugspawn and says “nobody should suffer in misery like that”. And he tries to help, even though the woman herself couldn’t care less about her own situation.

    Women have never built a civilization for the simple reason that they don’t care.

    We’ll eventually have to realize that technological progress is a dead end, because its maintenance requires a growing army of beta drones who repulse young women instead of attracting them.

  223. Johnycomelately says:

    The converse of women not needing men is men not needing women.

    A man that doesn’t need to provision for a family only needs 3/10ths the economic output to take care of himself.

  224. Farm Boy says:

    The author has a very clear bias

    But is he wrong?

  225. BC says:

    A man that doesn’t need to provision for a family only needs 3/10ths the economic output to take care of himself.

    This assumes that the man is still productive and self-sufficient. One who sees a corrupt system for what it is and believes that it cannot be fixed until it crashes may also choose to live off the system or others where possible, in which case there might be 0/10ths the economic output, or even negative economic output.

  226. Novaseeker says:

    …. by the time you are a senior, you basically have only the men in your own class to choose from, and frankly, they now have four classes of women to choose from.

    A bit overstated. It wasn’t that uncommon when I was in college for a woman to be involved with a guy who was 1-2 class years behind her. Not common, but not uncommon or rare, really.

  227. The biggest problem in math instruction is true application is never hit upon

    I used to have this issue. Math instruction, especially subjects calculus, differential equations, etc. (and then on to physics and dynamics and statics, and even statistics) are taught by derivation of the equations needed. Professors sit at the board and derive, leaping from one concept to the next building block concept.
    As my kids grew into HS and college, and are/were taking high algebra, trig, calculus, I was called back into it and found that having learned those derivations made it easier to explain and teach.
    The application falls out of this.

  228. Opus says:

    I certainly did not wish to imply that all girlie degrees, as I called them, are without any intrinsic merit. I own for example Floridi’s book on Communications and other books in the Sociology category and I suppose Moxon’s The Women Racket might fit into what is called Gender Studies. As for Eng Lit the reason I can quote reams of Keats (as I did a line from his final Sonnet) is my ‘A’ level therein, and I fancy that is the reason I have a far better sense of the good and bad in Literature than most scientists, at least that is my observation both of STEM guys I know, and people I don’t, like Dawkins, whose tastes are – frankly – embarrasing). It is just that such subjects are largely inhabited by the (less intelligent) of women, such as the dozen or so female Doctroral Candidates (only two males) in Sociology that myself and a friend began to chat-up one late afternoon a few months back in our local. I knew one unfortunate young women whose degree in Law (no less) although from one of England’s least prestigious Universities (ranked 113 out of 117) proved useless to her in the job market.

    I own a copy of Books One and Two of Euclid, and may thus learn some Maths.

    The world by the way has a new Christian convert, as my friend’s mini-skirted soviet-satelite wife has decided that she was never very Muslim, and having lost interest in The Secret is now attending her local Parish Church (Anglican) – a lot of dancing around in circles so I understand. God certainly works in mysterious ways, as my friend who had never had any religious upbringing – strange to tell – has also been dragged along.

  229. “voxofreason says:
    March 30, 2013 at 3:10 am
    The econ professors premise is all wrong to start with. ‘Price signals’!? You mean the distorted and false price signals created by the federal reserve’s meddling with the economy? So women by and large are more under the spell of central banksters machinations than men? Que the Genesis narrative, sounds like Eve is still buying into the serpent lies.”

    Yes voxofreason. you nailed it.

    See, the cocnomistsz economisst central bankerz only see the world in terms of material “prices.”

    What they don’t realize is that all true Men work for a far higher currency–HONOR, as they themselves have never felt like working for it.

    This is why the central bankerz have to destroy religion while butthexting the family into oblivion.

    The reason that marriage is failing is that it its classical soul of honor, defined by the likes of Homer, Moses, and Jesus, has been removed from it.

    Over the past forty years or so, a women have advanced in the workplace, the US has created far more debt than wealth. This is because women excel at creating debt, which the bankers then use to enslave men via taxes and tarp baillouts. As men are the ones who actually work and create (just look around your room or out the window–everything you see was invented and built by men) the central fiat bankers had to create the myth that women were oppressed, and that they are now entitled to the work and wages of men. The central fiat bankers use this ruse to convert their worthless fiat paper debt into physical property and wealth.

    Long story short, they butthexted the institution of marriage alongside the dollar, and then their “best and rbightest” economists pretend to be surprised that real, rugged men don’t want to work for butthexted beernake dolalrz and butthexted, bernankifed, deosuled owmenz lzlzozlzozzlzozlzoz.

  230. Höllenhund says:

    “One who sees a corrupt system for what it is and believes that it cannot be fixed until it crashes may also choose to live off the system or others where possible, in which case there might be 0/10ths the economic output, or even negative economic output.”

    The truth is that the average young Western man doesn’t have many opportunities to leech off the welfare state.

  231. Farm Boy says:

    It would seem that women fear poverty. We need more government programs.

    http://m.detnews.com/business/article?a=2013303300323&f=1214

  232. electricangel says:

    @Luke,

    Electricangel, instead of me p*ssing away my time learning the “rules” of ONE stranger’s apparent mental illness, how about CTVFP just posts in Standard English (and Dalrock deletes what’s not?) His/her/its using noise to obscure whatever rare point might conceivably be found in the nonsense babbles is reminiscent of the writing in feminist theory articles in would-be serious periodicals.
    The role of the fool is to make comments to the king (or the powers that be) on behalf of the people who dare not utter such words. See, e.g. King Lear, written in an English that was non-standardized, but soon recognized its author as the greatest poet in history. Rigoletto, the jester, uses his position not to mock and rebuke the ruler, keeping him honest, but to pour more grief on the father of a young woman defiled by the Duke of Mantua. He comes to grief for that.

    In brief, the fool must speak truth to power, but cannot do so in such a way that power destroys him. Hiding behind a sort of Ritalin-induced stammer is GBFM’s method when exposing the feminist/Cultural Marxist nexus that rules us. You know very well the kind of auto-da-fe they are capable of over there.

    Surely every red-pill male here understands why the former doesn’t get a pass on being nonserious; neither should CTVFP.
    Ever notice how feminists refer to (white, black, Asian) “males” all the time, never giving us the distinction of a true noun, but turning a generic adjective into one? It’s part of their process of dehumanizing us. You mean every red-pill MAN.

  233. James says:

    @Höllenhund

    I think it’s fair to say that building a technologically advanced civilization was the biggest mistake of betas. Now the entire artificial structure they created has turned them into irrelevant, mocked, exploited hostages of the Feminine Imperative.

    Sadly true. The first stage of civilization was created by the tough men who built the roads, killed the predatory animals etc. As the song says, “then came the churches, then came the schools, then came the lawyers, then came the rules”. We knew it was part of the natural succession that the tough men would be marginalized, but we didn’t realize that we were just another stage in the same succession, and not its end state.

    There is a positive side: we can enjoy the fruits of our technologically advanced civilization, even while our sisters lust for alpha cock and Prada shoes.

  234. I think patriarchy is Gods anti communist policy. Patriarchs represent the pinnacle of decentralized control: each landholding male head of household is the sovergn of a mini-state. I believe the United States in it’s original incarnation (before universal suffrage), could be classified as a confederation of patriarchs. The word suffrage itself means “i support”. (support means more than simply agreeing with something, it means putting something into it).

    Socialistic societies are defined by Central Control, where citizens are subjects of the state. Patriarchy is the most concise system of Decentralized Controls that can be imagined. It is based upon free association, where women and men freely and voluntarily form a “traditional” social structure.

    A free society will automatically evolve into a Patriarchy. Just as a socialist society will automatically evolve into a matriarchal/hedonistic society.

  235. It is quite simple, really.

    In classical, exalted Christianity, a man can exercise his Natural Rights to his Wife and Children, which are his own and thus bear his name.

    In BErnankified America, da cenrtal bankerststerz pump fiat cash into da pocketez of the cenrtal buttehxteetetrs who pwn your once future wifez butthoelezzlzooz and gianaholalalzozl and mouthoalzzozo in colleeg highs schossosll and beyond. The bankeerz get first rights to your future wife, and they trian her in the art of seizing and transferring assetetz and detsorying the fmaily, promising her all the buttehxt her bunghole can ever tingel for lzozzoozozoozlozoz

    And their buttehxtual incentive system is working!!! They are succeeding in detsroying the family, while they pay the MIT economist to pretend that that is not their goal, to feign “suprise” that they are triumphing in the deosuling and buttoccingz of america zlozlzozozoz.

    zlzozozlzooooozoz

  236. b-166-er says:

    herbie31 says:
    March 29, 2013 at 2:04 pm
    Hopeful,
    I don’t know. But I suspect many people are closer to becoming mathematically literate than they realize(assuming they’re putting in some effort). If some of the Asian countries provide an example, it is that several hours of study(per day) is required if you want to truly become “good” at math, less if you just want to become proficient(which is OK) – and of course the individual’s natural gifts have some bearing on this.

    ******When it comes right down to it, I would suspect that the determining factor in most cases is just how bad someone wants something.******* Not a good answer, I know, but there it is.
    ————————————————————————————————————————–
    Hopeful; the key to all EFFECTIVE learning is having a teacher who wants and expects you to learn.

    This is why many people end up teaching themselves. I know cause Im one of em.

  237. The truth is that the average young Western man doesn’t have many opportunities to leech off the welfare state.

    Not as many as a single mother, that’s true — no WIC, for instance — but there are more than most men realize. Food stamps, for instance, are based on income and family size. A single man with no (discernible) income after deducting rent, utilities, child support, and so on, can get the maximum amount for an individual, which is currently $200/month in Illinois. Not enough to eat like a king, and he won’t have extra to trade to other people for cigarette and booze money as I’ve known single moms with a few kids to do with their several hundred/month, but he won’t starve.

    There are other income-based programs, like assistance with your utility bills. I think the main thing that keeps most able-bodied men off welfare isn’t that it isn’t available, but that it just doesn’t come naturally to them, so they’re not even aware what’s available. There’s also a lot of pride involved: even a fairly shiftless man doesn’t want people to see him buying his groceries with food stamps. If men as a group ever decide it’s acceptable to go on the dole — the way, for instance, women became convinced it was acceptable to sleep around — and really abuse the system to its limit, there would be a huge shift from the productive side of the ledger to the lotus-eating side.

  238. D_Johnny says:

    GB4M: “What they don’t realize is that all true Men work for a far higher currency–HONOR, as they themselves have never felt like working for it.

    This is why the central bankerz have to destroy religion while butthexting the family into oblivion.”

    Amen. I think this is why I’m angrier at the likes of Tucker Max than the feminists.

  239. lzozozozo

    Tucker Max *is* a feminist writer. He’s funded, financed, published, and promoted by women including Priscilla Painton editor in chief at Simon and Schuster (Sodom and Shceietster lzozozoz) and Charlotte Allen at the “conservative” Weekly Standard, who dutifully repeated his lies about his height and succeth, casting him as a “six-fooot-tall” butthetxual hero.

    Unlike the “conservative” Weekly Standard, Russell Kirk never promoted buttehxtlzozlzoz nor lying about one’s hieght and succeteth as a virtue.

    zlzozlzozozloz

  240. Elspeth says:

    Happy Resurrection Day, Dalrock. Hope you have a great weekend.

  241. GKChesteron says:

    @Cail,
    In any case, if you form your own “bastion” separate from the rest of society, you’re going to look weird by definition, and if the powers that be decide to break up your party, the MSM will happily portray you as dangerous kooks, one way or another.

    The Mennonites in my old home town bought out a block or so around their church. Didn’t force anyone to move out. Was more or less in the middle of stuff. But they knew who their kids were playing with and could threaten the local city rep pretty solidly. I think there is some wisdom in that.

  242. GKChesteron says:

    And fiddle Elspeth. There is nothing tying “Easter” to any pagan goddess. If you must call it something else than use “Pascha” which has a long and noble Christian tradition and is simply “Passover” in Greek. “Ressurrection Day” indeed.

  243. Pingback: To think that I used to dream about going to MIT | Random Reading Notes

  244. Matt Strictland says:

    Every tribe will have its outsiders, its prime men, its lesser folk (like me) its chief and its shaman , GBFM is of course this little tribes half mad shaman .

    Besides he makes me and I suspect a lot of other people laugh which has worth of its own. Its harder to despair when you are laughing and despair is of course the council of the enemy.

  245. “The truth is that the average young Western man doesn’t have many opportunities to leech off the welfare state.”

    Somewhat true, unless he is shamelessly shacked-up with his baby Mama – at which point he can, if he so chooses, coast through on almost every available social services benefit she receives: SNAP, WIC for his children under her name, rent assistance, heating/electric assistance, Medicaid for the whole family, etc. Since cohabiting is becoming much more popular than marriage, a man, if he desires to “check out” – so to speak – can just work as little as possible to fill in the gaps in provision where the State just doesn’t cut the mustard, and his family will still be fine.

    There are many who partake in this self-induced poverty here in the State where my husband and I live. Partly because men have such a hard time earning a living here,post “mancession” – and, partly because men have responded precisely the way Dalrock states in the absence of any true authority in their “marriage” relationship, they avoid as much financial responsibility as possible.

  246. infowarrior1 says:

    @James

    I know exactly this song you are talking about:

  247. Peter T says:

    Dalrock, I didn’t see an email address on your page, so I use the comments to make you aware of the newest media story of the modern Western marriage market: Susan Patton, a graduate from Princeton, asks the female students of Princeton in an open letter, published in the student newspaper, to look for a husband on campus and gets skewered for this in the media, see e.g. under

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nina-bahadur/susan-patton-daily-princetonian-find-a-husband-princeton_b_2979789.html

    The link to Patton’s letter is

    http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2013/03/29/33188/

    but does not seem to have worked for a while.

  248. Anonymous age 70 says:

    MarkyMark, I teach English to several friends and kinfolk here in rural Mexico. In the past, I did the expected thing and taught them to speak English. A few months after classes, they already forgot how to speak English.

    So, now I am teaching them to READ English. I am using used reader books from the 30’s and later. The Alice and Jerry series. The first one I use is FRIENDLY VILLAGE, written before WWII. It was my second grade reader in 1950.

    For students of the age I am teaching, around 13 to 16, plus a 22 year old, they may seem childish. But, they all enjoy the little stories. One student said after you read a zillion stories about Benito Juarez or Porfirio Diaz, you have no unmet needs for more.

    We are now on the Third grade reader, IF I WERE GOING. And, I would bet most high school students today would have trouble reading it.

    GBFM I don’t like his stuff, and you can’t make me like it. People are different so some reasonably will like it. Thus it should be.

    Höllenhund says:
    March 30, 2013 at 6:02 am
    >>Women have never built a civilization for the simple reason that they don’t care.

    Exactly. Which is why in female dominatred ghettos the plumbing and hygiene suck and the average child dies from diahhrea before kindergarten, right?

  249. pb says:

    “I think it’s fair to say that building a technologically advanced civilization was the biggest mistake of betas. Now the entire artificial structure they created has turned them into irrelevant, mocked, exploited hostages of the Feminine Imperative.

    Unlike women, betas are naturally imbued with a sense that humans are entitled to dignity and justice. It’s very easy to turn this against them. That’s why they have become slaves. The average beta sees a struggling single mother living in poverty with her thugspawn and says “nobody should suffer in misery like that”. And he tries to help, even though the woman herself couldn’t care less about her own situation.

    Women have never built a civilization for the simple reason that they don’t care.

    We’ll eventually have to realize that technological progress is a dead end, because its maintenance requires a growing army of beta drones who repulse young women instead of attracting them.”

    Betas were tools of the political and economic elites in the building of a technologically advanced civilization – men have been the tools of the system for some time, and feminism is just the latest onslaught permitted by the elites for the sake of fragmenting the power of the masses of men. As for dignity and justice – I don’t think the average beta thinks like that. So-called liberals do, but how many of them are putting on an act for the sake of gaining and preserving power? There is no collective we” to realize the consequences. The elites will continue to push the unsustainable until the very last and women will not submit until there is someone to dominate them.

  250. pb says:

    I should clarify: As for dignity and justice – I don’t think the average beta thinks like that with respect to the single mother.

    Before the triumph of feminism (early in the 20th century) I don’t think the average beta thought in terms of that. Once feminism captured the schools and the mass media, though they do think in terms of “fairness” with respect to women in general, and whether they should be allowed to x, y, or z.

  251. UnicornHunter says:

    On the value of a degree. I point out to my kids all the time and I think my oldest is starting to get the point, that beyond your first job, no one cares about your GPA, and unless you went to an Ivy, no one really cares about where you graduated either.

    I have a BS in math from a BS state college for the non-traditional student and then barely. Yet, that degree has opened more doors than I ever would have imagined.

  252. The Scolds Bridle says:

    These fools are only puzzled because they’re stubborn.

    I can excuse the common house slut for displaying ignorance of cause and effect (never a strong attribute in the chicks), but a man ought to be able to see reality.

    Unless, of course, he has a couple slutty daughters who he refuses to see for what they are.

    There is no white knight more dangerous than a blue-pill father.

  253. Matt says:

    @Melissa

    I’ll bite.

    This is no chicken and egg scenario. The traditional family unit structure DOES work. It is the only structure that has been shown to CONSISTENTLY work. Even a passing familiarization of history will bear this out. Very few, if any, civilizations that marginalized the traditional father/mother family structure have survived for any length of time. The single-mother style creates chaos and turmoil to any civilization that allows it to exist in any significant number.

    But if you don’t like history, how about science? Children raised in single-mother households consistently go on to have higher rates of criminal activity, drug use, unsafe sex (leading to more children born to unattached parents) and mental health issues. They also have less of a chance to achieve as much as their traditionally raised peers. Curiously, children raised by single-fathers don’t share these problems. Things that make you go “Hmmmmm” ….

    Just because an author has a bias, doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

  254. Cane Caldo says:

    @GKC

    The Mennonites in my old home town bought out a block or so around their church.

    Mennonites are exactly who I had in mind. Great people. My mother used to work in nursing homes, and the only one I ever saw that was worth a damn was run by Mennonites.

    I don’t recall ever seeing an obese Mennonite young woman, either.

  255. They Call Me Tom says:

    I did find it interesting when I was in college, and at some point in a class the question was asked…’How many of you are from divorced families?’ I was one of three students. With as many divorced parents of friends, as many divorced friends of my birth mother as there were when I was growing up, I would’ve expected half the class on average to be from a divorced family. Architecture was an impacted program at the state university I went to though, letting only about 10% of applicants into the program any given year. I think there’s something to be seen in there being a significantly smaller than average sample of people from divorced families in a program that only accepts the top 10% of applicants. If divorce didn’t tend to have a negative impact on children, why were there so few from divorced families in that 10%?

  256. happyhen11 says:

    ” ..and teach women to not have children with worthless men.”

    They didn’t have near so many when their fathers, brothers, uncles, male relations were involved in the choice of said man who would fertilize her eggs. I guess we could call THAT a male fertility option.

    As it is now with the present crop of feral females, you would probably be better employed teaching a dog to play the piano, more successful too.

  257. Keanu says:

    Wow, this is an EPIC post. Well done.

    “If we want to stem this vicious cycle we will ultimately have no choice but to return to a marriage based family structure. Right now this is politically unthinkable, as both the left and the right are deeply invested in the child support model of family organization.”

    Return to a marriage based family structure? Speaking from the point of view of a young man, I think this is highly, highly unlikely.

  258. HanSolo says:

    @Fool

    Would much appreciate if anyone could elaborate on why the MS/Blue Pill Set refuse to acknowledge that women’s hypergamic nature is a major detriment.

    Short answer:

    Probably a mix of ignorance and cultural inertia on one hand and feminist victimization and seeking power by blaming men–why acknowledge the desire for someone out of your league if that will only lead to reducing the likelihood of getting it and eliminating the culture that assists in realizing part of the hypergamous dream, i.e. sex with higher-value men; though it can’t provide the ultimate realization of having said men commit to the women.

    Long answer:

    Perhaps it had to do with the assortive mating of past centuries and you either didn’t want to scare off the average man with the thought that his wife would much rather be with a better man or due to the individual woman’s need for a provider/protector that the average man was attractive enough and so he sufficiently satisfied her hypergamous instincts (it varies from negligible to high, and even a few hypogamous cases).

    So the blue pill continues to be guilty of the apex fallacy, seeing males as the top of everything, full of privilege and the perpetrators of most of the world’s ills. It is highly ironic that feminists promote victimhood and hypo-agency, in contrast to the purported goals of female empowerment. It’s more that they want many things to be given to them rather than to be earned.

    Recognizing hypergamy would make it more difficult to continue the pursuit of hypergamy and probably about half of today’s women are mildly or highly hypergamous–they want things the way they are–sex with higher status men. Of course they’d rather have these men commit to them but that is mathematically not possible on a large scale. There will likely be some improvement as you have more and more childless spinsters that bemoan their fate and younger women realize they can’t “have it all.”

  259. greyghost says:

    What is even worse and more destructive than HanSolo even discribed is hypergamy with todays women is not even for some aslogical as he discribed. Far to many women have hypergamy with criteria based purly on gina tingle.

  260. Miserman says:

    I’m going to go out on a limb and pull some religious symbolism into the fray. Today is the celebration of Christ’ resurrection in churches. I hope that as the Father resurrected the man Christ Jesus from a tomb of death, He will resurrect men of the West from the tombs of feminism.

  261. Farm Boy says:

    Far too many women have hypergamy with criteria based purly on gina tingle.

    It’s fun, the government will subsidize it, so why not?

  262. Farm Boy says:

    ” ..and teach women to not have children with worthless men.”

    Punishment would be useful also.

  263. On the value of a degree. I point out to my kids all the time and I think my oldest is starting to get the point, that beyond your first job, no one cares about your GPA, and unless you went to an Ivy, no one really cares about where you graduated either.

    Im glad you said this. Its OT, but its the wisdom in my home as well. very very few schools have impact based on the name of the school. Ivy, and a few select, very select others having to do with a particular program they have. the rest of us pedestrians? State accredited school and get a tangible degree…..that’s it.

  264. Farm Boy says:

    Just because an author has a bias, doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

    It is how liberals argue. If a person has a “bias”, they are implicitly disqualified. Then the liberal does not have to use facts and logic to argue their position, a normally difficult task for them.

  265. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >>I don’t recall ever seeing an obese Mennonite young woman, either.
    This statement makes me think maybe they do not have a high carb diet. It would be interesting to know if they have a standard diet. Maybe I can Google.

  266. Anonymous age 70 says:

    >> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070107183240AALt7ew

    The answer implies it came from a Mennonite, but that may be my misunderstanding.

    The answer perpetrates the error that eating fat and cholesterol makes you have high cholesterol. That is not true. I know a man in his 30’s who is on Atkins and eats a lot of fat on purpose. Last summer his triglcyerides measured 27. Not 270 but 27.

    Those who eat high carb have high cholesterol.

  267. On this pretty Easter Sunday, I would like to point out that the Marxist Communist Bolsheviks destroyed religion in the Soviet Union by abolishing and banning it.

    Because the Soviet Union failed and exiled all the Bolsheviks after millions were murdered in the name of communism, the Bolsheviks could not do the same thing again in their new countries. And so they invented feminism, neoconservatism, and postmodernism and used them as battering rams against the souls of the churches and universities. This way, they could abolish religion while not only leaving the church and university buildings standing, but they could actually use the churches to abolish and destroy the Spirit of Christianity, and teach its very opposite from the pulpits like Driscoll at al.

    Jesus predicted all of this, as such is the way of the world in Matthew 23, just before the Scribes and Pharisees made sure he would be crucified–imagine speaking the following words to your feminist minister and the fate you would suffer–then you would better understand the Spirit of Easter:

    13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

    14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

    15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

    16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

    17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

    18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

    19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

    20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

    21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

    22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

    23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

    24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

    25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

    26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

    27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

    28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

    29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

    30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

    31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

    32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

    33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

    34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

    35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

    36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

    37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

    38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

    39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

    Well, the true meaning of Easter is the Resurrection of the True Ideals of Christianity.

    And that belongs not to the institution–not to the church–but to the Man.

    For Christ himself had no fancy building nor exalted altar, but only his words and honor.

    Christ stated that he was not king of this world, but rather the King of the world of Ideals.

    And that Kingdom has ever been the domain of Man. Man’s greatest asset, which he so often forgets these days, is not the knowledge of game to gain him asses lzzlozoz, but knowledge of the Great Books for Men–the unified symphony that begins with Homer and Moses and progresses to Socrates and Jesus–exalted by Dante et. al on down the line.

    And Christ invites you to celebrate Easter as your Fathers did, not to man up and marry the sluts as your pastor prescribes, but to Man Up and read the King James Bible for yourself.

    Then, like Thomas Jefferson, you might conclude:

    “Jefferson accomplished a more limited goal in 1804 with “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth”, the predecessor to The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.[6] He described it in a letter to John Adams dated October 13, 1813:
    In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines”

    Renaissance comes from re-naissance meaning rebirth.

    And the greater salvation for all the men coming of age is not to be found in gaming deosuled, berankified, debt-laden womenz, but it is to be found in honoring the classic, epic ideals.

    The classic, epic, exalted ideals will not make a woman’s butt nor gina tingelzozlzozo, and thus, at the end of the day, following the classic, epic exalted ideals is not only the highest form of of life, but it is the highest form of fallen game too, for it simply does not answer, respond to, nor is dictated by butt and gina tinglelzozlzzlzozlzzlzozl. And there is no greater game than that–not even wearing furry hats, negging, and wasting your invaluable time on this earth in playing texty-texty games with those incapable of exalted ideals, just to serve your baser, biological callings which so often voluntarily imprison one to the state and its small-souled dictators.

    As Jesus died for you, so too was He reborn for you. Do not call is “teahcings” noise as so many churchians do. Do not falsely suppose that he came to abolish the law of Moses, but understand that he came to Fulfill it. Understand that Jesus saw noble pagans as his brothers and false preachers as his enemy, when he stated “there are those who are saying they do not go, who go; and there are those who say they are not going, who end up going.” For Jesus, unlike the false preachers, judges us not by the sect of our faith alone, nor the color of our church, but by our *actions*.

    So Man Up, pick up a couple translations of the Bible, of Homer, and Virgil, and read all Your Fathers and Brothers today, and exalt in a Renaissance of the Great Books for Men.

    dis has been a GBFM sunday sermon which i delivered herein as if i had stated thusly in a church i would have been flogged to death by the minister and his harem of buteteocockeked bernieifkfied womenz (and som of their bastard kidz too who are now getting old enough to listen to their slutty momz about how the reaosn the y have no fatherz is becaseu menz are bad bard bad bad zllzlzlzolzolozzlozozlzzzlzll)

    god bless & thanks to pastor dalrock for his invaluable work, for if anything, dalrock’s logic, reason, wit, wisdom, bold service in the living context, and humble temperament are expressions of our Father’s Spirit.

    zlzolzolzz

  268. p.s. and as great as dalrock is, i do have one minor correction to add:

    dalrock writes above, “Most men are either uninformed about the true nature of the family court or assume that the woman they marry would never detonate their family for 30 pieces of silver. ”

    i believe he made a typo, as it whould read:

    “Most men are either uninformed about the true nature of the family court or assume that the woman they marry would never detonate their family for 30 debt-based fiat ebeernake dollarlolllzozlzlzozozlo with primsosmeis of coopious buettehxt funded by their x husbandz alaimonies and child supprotz zlzozozoolzzo. ”

    Yes, at least Judas sold out for Silver. That would make him a saint in today’s world, where so many preachers, wives, teachers, and ministers turn their back on Christ’s true Ideals for a few butetehxtual fiat debt base ddolalrz lmroe lzozlzozzlzozozozlzoz.

  269. HanSolo says:

    @greyghost

    I believe that most hypergamous women don’t realize they’re being so. They simply have an elevated sense of their own attractiveness and desirability. In part, this is due to the ease with which a woman can get sex with and attention from a man 1, 2 or 3 points higher in value. Now, the outright sluts (maybe 10-20% of the population) aren’t trying to get a relationship and just want to enjoy sex with the best man they can get. They’re probably less delusional than the partial sluts that are actually trying to get relationships with the out-of-their-league guys.

    I think that most of the somewhat-slutty or non-slutty women that are also hypergamous* actually think they can get the guys that are 1-3 points higher and so they have sex with those guys thinking it’s going to lead to a relationship. I have seen a lot of this. Part of this delusion is due to the attention for casual sex they get (so they think they’re relationship or marriage value is higher than it is) and part of it is due to the “you can have it all” and “you’re amazing” messages that women receive and inflate their perceived value. Part of this is also based on women mistakenly thinking that men will value things like degrees, confidence, independence and unpleasant personalities in the same way that many women do in men.

    Do to the wealth and safety of our society, women really are freed up to seek out the sexy, what in terms of evolution would have likely led them to better genes than what they could have gotten if they had to mate with an “equal” that would stick around for the long haul.

    This is the current in the river that we’re all swimming in…without any effort it pushes women towards hypergamy and men to casual sex (those that can get it). On top of this current, the culture can decide in which ways they will swim. Don’t do anything and you shift to a more promiscuous mating environment. Swim against the current with a lot of effort and you can maintain a relatively assortive and committed marriage environment (like mainstream monogamous Mormons have maintained to some extent, not talking about the fundamentalist polygamous ones). Swim with the current like feminism and raunch pop culture promotes and you get a good portion of Western culture where not only are women freed up by economic realities to pursue promiscuity (and better genes) but are also discouraged by feminists to seek relationships in their 20’s as was seen in the Atlantic article and are encouraged to be sluts by pop culture alpha mares.

    So, you have two influences: 1) the underlying technological and economic situation that frees women from needing a provider at the individual level, and 2) the alpha mares and some apex alpha males that encourage the promiscuous lifestyle that drives things even worse than what factor 1) would have created just on its own.

    *I don’t think all women are hypergamous, since I see plenty of evidence around me of women marrying guys that aren’t out of their league–it’s more of a spectrum but divided into a binary categorization, I’d give it a 50/50 split of hypergamous vs realistic women; some of the realistic women were always that way and others clued in about their marriage value eventually, and a small portion of women, maybe 5 or 10% are hypogamous, going for guys below their league due to poor self-esteem

  270. Opus says:

    I am sorry to have to take up an historical point on this blog, but when GBFM says that Relgion was abolished in the Soviet Union, he is greatly mistaken. For what it is worth a similar error is made when it is suggested, as it frequently is, that the Soviets did not have elections and when it is also suggested that they abolished all private property – I mean land. It is however the case that neither the Soviet Union nor The United States had any State institution of Religion – and that I beleive we all agree upon. To achieve apathy towards Religion it seems that what is required is for ones Head of State to also be Head of the Church – although that may have more to do with the character and temper of the people who are embarrased by any show of enthusiasm as enthusiasms are seen as bad form. It is also not the case, despite considerable appearance to the contrary, that all wealthy Russians now live in Berkshire or Surrey. It is bitterly cold here and we have all been dreaming of a White Easter.

  271. one can better understand female hypergammy if you understand female mathematics.

    if a 3 is banged by 6 bored alphas during college, she will add 3+6=9 and consider herself a 9.

    she will do more female math and reason that she can wait until 45 to have children, so she will wait for one of those college alphas to find her on facebook, travel to her apartment in the city, get down on one knee, and propose. as all the other 9.8 alphas she banged over the past 25 years from 20 to 45 just weren’t good enough for her, as they could not commit, unlike the college alpha, who would have, had she just been ready.

    “how can she bang 9.8 alphas?” you ask the GBFM. “is that some sort of way that she counted buttehxt?”

    no. the 9.8 comes form the fact that when you ask a woman over thirty how many men she has been with, she naturally divides the true number by 10, as such is the nature of female math. she had been with 9.8 x 10 =98 men, as 9.8 = 98/10. were she to also add the buttcoking sessions, she would have said she had been with 14.7 men, which is in reality 147.

    ok, now da GBFM has delivered both a churrche semronz and a lecture on MATHMETIACSZ and i haven’t even gone easter egg huntingz yet zlozozlzozlzozozo

  272. Dear Opus,

    “Opus says:
    March 31, 2013 at 11:17 am
    I am sorry to have to take up an historical point on this blog, but when GBFM says that Relgion was abolished in the Soviet Union, he is greatly mistaken.”

    Yes, at the end of the day religion cannot be abolished, as Christ is forever resurrected.

    But the Bolsheviks tried to ban and outlaw religion, and millions of Christian russians were put to death.

    Opus, if I am wrong, as you stipulate, please be sure to update wikipedia:

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

    “The Soviet Union was the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[1] and its replacement with universal atheism.[2][3] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[4] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.
    The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. “Science” was counterposed to “religious superstition” in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes.
    State atheism in the Soviet Union was known as gosateizm,[1] and was based on the ideology of Marxism–Leninism. As the founder of the Soviet state, V. I. Lenin, put it:
    Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[5]
    Marxist–Leninist atheism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed. Many more were persecuted.[6]”

    Dear Opus, please let us know when you have corrected Wikipedia, so we can read your corrected version.
    Thanks, GBFM

  273. ^^^^
    today da GBFM has delivered
    1. an economicz lesson
    2. a math lessonz
    3. a history lessonz
    4. a chruch sermonz which da churchians will hate zlzlzooz

    anybody wnat to talk physics?

    zlzozozoozzlo

  274. Dear Opus,
    Another question.
    Why do so many Churchians
    spend so much time
    denying history, mathematics, economics
    and Christ?
    Why do so many Churchians
    stipulate that Christ came
    not to fulfill the law
    but to Abolist It?
    Why do so many Churchians
    spend so much time
    attacking and berating
    their Brothers
    while giving secrtive tpaerz
    of butthext
    a Free Pass?

    When I look around and see
    the decline of Western Civilization
    it is not the women
    who know not what they do
    but the male Churchians
    with malicious intent
    jealousy anger rage
    who are tearing it down.

    Is it becase they were not raised
    with fathers
    who could have taught them
    manly, exalted
    honor?

    Why do the fanboyz spend so much time
    raging against the Spirit of Christ
    in the Name of Christ?

    Why Opus? Why?

  275. Opus says:

    I am afraid I am neither intelligent nor knowledgable enough to answer GBFMs many questions and so I pass thereon. To the best of my knowledge the only person with a plausible (though disputed) claim to infalibility is Francis I, and so unless he is reponsible for the content of Wikipedia, I take what I read therein with suitable scepticism depending on the subject. My sources of knoweldge as to the Soviet Union (and many other things) are therefore different. One likes popularity but cannot always achieve it. It is the coldest March here since 1961 – at least according to Wiki.

  276. Dear Opus,

    Why are you refusing to correct wikipedia?

    Why do you tell me that I am wrong, and then, when I give you a chance to correct wikipedia, you choose not to?

    Again, why do Churchians spend so much time attacking their own, instead of gracing the world with truth and beauty when given the divine opportunity?

    If you are, in your won words, “neither intelligent nor knowledgable,” why do you invest so much time in attacking others?

    Seriously–what motivates the Churchians to preach and teach falsehoods and attack their brothers alongside honor and Western Civilization?

  277. Was Jesus referring to the Churchians?

    “King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

  278. Opus says:

    @GBFM

    My answers – or lack of them – do not improve with repetition.

  279. GT66 says:

    Sweden’s feminist utopia:

    http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/1-in-4-swedish-women-will-be-raped-as-sexual-assaults-increase-500/

    1 in 4 Swedish Women Will Be Raped as Sexual Assaults Increase 500%
    weden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.
    With Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual assault epidemic by a misogynistic ideology.

    And the left does indeed want the US to be more like Sweden. And they’ll get it too.

  280. Pingback: Single, smart, over 40 - and frustrated

  281. greyghost says:

    I never thought I could laugh at a stat like that. But those people have done everything neccesary including using misandry on their own men to make it all possible. All of it from the reduced birth rate, socialism and the need to import labour to make up for the reduce birth rate to pay for the socialism. Even the stupid muticulturalism that won’t allow them to get rid of islam is present. hell man they don’t even want their men to piss standing up.

  282. GKChesteron says:

    @Cain,

    “I don’t recall ever seeing an obese Mennonite young woman, either.”

    You know now that you bring it up I can’t either. I’ve seen stocky Mennonite women, especially in the 40+ set but nothing where they could be classed as obese. And after five plus kids it is difficult to be photo perfect absent a trainer. In fact their general demeanor vis-a-vis men in general is spectacular.

  283. Just Saying says:

    ‘You need more education’

    Men have given up, since no matter what they do, or have, they will always be discriminated against in the market place. So many men have decided to simply “punt” since women will be promoted over them always. No matter how good they are, or what they do, they will always be expected to take the hit to the mouth, and made to be the butt of jokes. So they have decided to stop playing the game – there is no point for them to do so. Most men are “going Galt” – it is as a simple as that.

    I am one of the older ones that learned how to play the game to benefit me – which producing nothing, and ensuring the Government pays me to do so, at the expense of others. I tell many men how to avoid it if they can, but it will cost them a lot and they will have to check their honor and integrity at the door if they expect to pocket the change. Produce nothing. Suck the life-blood out of the system to hurry it’s destruction. That is what men have learned…

  284. fakeemail says:

    Great article. Society must have structuralized alphaness for most men. Men need to be able to extract the status and prestige out of work that allows them to marry women. If they don’t get that from most jobs (with good salaries), then who fucking cares about working?

  285. James says:

    The rape statistics are a wake-up call for the Swedish liberal left. They told us how bad white men were; they told us that Swedish women were exploited victims of patriarchy; they told us that all women were victims of rape. Anyone who thinks places like Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan are worse than Sweden must be a racist. Why not invite some of those gentle, non-racist, oppressed people to live in Sweden so we can learn from them?

    It will be interesting to see how the Swedish left, and in particular its feminists, react to the rape statistics. It’s amazing that they ever bought into the white guilt trip, because Sweden had very little involvement in either slavery or colonialism.

  286. piercedhead says:

    “Children raised in single-mother households consistently go on to have higher rates of criminal activity, drug use, unsafe sex (leading to more children born to unattached parents) and mental health issues. They also have less of a chance to achieve as much as their traditionally raised peers. Curiously, children raised by single-fathers don’t share these problems.”

    It’s not that hard to work out why.

    We learn by imitation – we become who we mix with. If we grow up in a household where there is only one female parent, what do we learn (and therefore, what do we imitate)? Is it likely to be conducive to self-reliance?

  287. Dale says:

    In a feminist society, the man who can produce a lot of children by many women is the best man to have father your children. The provider is only best in a society where the children fathered by the roving male are unlikely to survive.

  288. GT66 says:

    http://www.npr.org/2013/03/14/174269211/mass-crime-lab-scandal-reverberates-across-stateCRIME

    “A scandal in a Massachusetts crime lab continues to reverberate throughout the state’s legal system. Several months ago, Annie Dookhan, a former chemist in a state crime lab, told police that she messed up big time. Dookhan now stands accused of falsifying test results in as many as 34,000 cases.”

  289. The Antigrrrl says:

    Good to keep in mind that Sweden also has a skewed way of counting rapes compared to most places. If a women is in a relationship with a man, they count each episode of sexual abuse as a rape. so one woman with a guy over the period of a year times daily sex acts is 365 “rapes” for one woman. That will seriously changes the numbers compared to places that don’t use that count system.

  290. The Antigrrrl says:

    I think slender Mennonite women comes more from cooking from scratch and not eating a ton of fast food/processed food than anything else. A lot of women in plain churches still make their own bread and cook with lard. They also work very hard physically usually.

  291. D_Johnny says:

    I hope to someday celebrate the birth of my child by having cigars with my buddies. That sounds awesome. Thank you for the positive motivation for fatherhood.

  292. electricangel says:

    @Opus,

    It is however the case that neither the Soviet Union nor The United States had any State institution of Religion – and that I beleive we all agree upon.

    Au contraire, my Anglo-Saxon-with-Latin-derived-name cousin. The State Religion in the United States is The Cathedral. And there’s no way to excommunicate.

  293. Pingback: Links and Comments #6 | The Society of Phineas

  294. Martian Bachelor says:

    @JustSaying

    I’ve got a slightly different take, as a late boomer, namely that my gen of guys was just told to get, and stay, out of the damn way — the wimminz waz comin’ through, to do all their awesomely fabulous awesomeness things, and our role was just to stand at attention in awe and wonder at all the wonderful things they do, though any specific examples escape me.

  295. mackPUA says:

    Brilliant description of Fascist feminist hysterical countries, designed to re-inforce the bureaucracies of women, not justice

    The irony is, women dont want it all, they literally dont want anything, except to compete sexually & whine about the lack of musculine men, while protesting the patriarchial state which creates masculine men

    Goto any country, women have no real expectations of work, or progress, even in dangerous backwaters, like alaska

    Women dont want to hunt, chop down tree’s or operate heavy machinery

    It’s all about leeching off the community & popping out kids, while jostling for sexual flavours of the month …

    Economies based on feral behaviour always leads to feral forms of poverty & injustice

    Feral Girl game vs Masculine Created Society, created by men for men, to allow other men to compete

  296. mackPUA says:

    A city is essentially a centrallised form of catering to hypergamy feral behaviour

    Theres no real incentive to bond or procreate, as everythings centralised & policed

    The perfect playground for feral primitve wage slavery & feral women

  297. Hopeful says:

    “Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there….So, by the time you are a senior, you basically have only the men in your own class to choose from, and frankly, they now have four classes of women to choose from. Maybe you should have been a little nicer to these guys when you were freshmen?”

    I understand this logic, but how does stack up against the “4-6 year drinking and sex binge” that some claim college is? If most people indulge in this kind of behavior, why would I want to marry anyone like that? (By the way, I went to a small school so there were only so many choices.) I’d say study hard and graduate.

  298. A Northern Observer says:

    Because not all people are like that. :)

  299. Farm Boy says:

    A city is essentially a centrallised form of catering to hypergamy feral behaviour

    That partly explains why cities like to tax and spend

  300. Farm Boy, that’s not true!!!!

    They also like to spend and tax!

  301. i think we are finally seeing the culmination of the last 20 years or so. ladies, the chickens are NOT coming home to roost.

    by now enough men have experienced or winessed men being ass raped by the family court system and have bowed out. i always have women question my decision to never marry. “but you’re 39, no kids, no messy divorce in your past, great job….why WOULDN’T you get married?”

    i ALWAYS reply the same, “because i don’t want to LOSE any of the shit i’m worked my ass off for because daddy’s little princess decides she wants to have her EPL experience at 35, taking the kids, most of “our” shit, and forcing me into a studio apartment in the hood, making 1/3 of what i used to.”

    female companionship…..red-pill= zero lack of female attention. but of course the ladies hamsters kick in a remind me that i could be the lucky one and i’ll eventually find “the one”. problem is….i don’t CARE to find the one.

    thanks to the internet: men are able to discuss these topics unbridled. most men would NEVER say in pulblic thier true opinions in public. HR would destroy his ass, or the general public would vilify him.

    great post Dal.

  302. anonymous says:

    I don’t recall ever seeing an obese Mennonite young woman, either.

    My wife and I noticed that at our first homeschool convention. We were horrified at what we saw there — my wife almost wanted to quit homeschooling due to the fact that, except for a couple of teenagers, all the females at the homeschool convention were hideously overweight. “I don’t want to be like them!” quoth my wife, and of course I couldn’t disagree.

    EXCEPT… the Mennonites. The Mennonite chicks were hot-hot-hot; every single one of them was in top shape, regardless of age.

  303. ar10308 says:

    http://www.myfoxny.com/video?clipId=8688178&autoStart=true

    Looks like we are seeing more female led wedding proposals happening nowadays. And I can’t be the only one who thinks the male of the featured couple sounds a bit gay.

    I wonder if we’ll see this more and more. All it will take is for a few women to propose to guys who aren’t willing to get married to teach a lot of them that it isn’t a good idea.

  304. Pingback: Men and the economics of marriage | Crowhill Weblog

  305. Ton says:

    Danny is spot on why men shouldn’t get married. I had 21% of paycheck after getting divorced. I got by the hillbilly way

    The marriage strike won’t change anything on the societal level but it does protect men.

  306. TFH says:

    Here is the MIT Professor, Michael Greenstone, with his contact info.

    He looks like a mangina, but might not actually be one (we don’t know)..

    If some of you feel inclined, send him a POLITE email referring Dalrock’s article to him. You never know who might actually start the red-pill process, if exposed to it. If nothing else, an MIT prof. should be an inquisitive type.

    The Androsphere has to become better about closing the loop in this manner.

  307. TFH says:

    Link to Michael Greenstone faculty page :

    http://economics.mit.edu/faculty/mgreenst

  308. S1AL says:

    Hello all, new poster here. My former college roommate pointed me towards this site while we were discussing his reaction to a recent break-up (seriously dating/discussing marriage). For reference in what I’m about to say, I’m a young (early 20’s), married, Christian man (and college student) from what would most likely qualify as the “middle middle” class.

    That said, it’s always a bit shocking to me to see these kinds of numbers. And I think part of the bad press that the manosphere gets in more mainstream blog circles is a result of conflicting views of reality. As a poster pointed out earlier, the actively Christian middle class in America has been hit the least by the feminism of the last few decades. Between myself and the eight friends (seven guys, one girl) I still have from high school, the parent breakdown is four intact first marriages, one widow, one widower, one divorce (father remarried, fairly even joint custody), and one unknown.

    On top of that, everyone has a college education, most of the families have current or former SAHM/career father set-up (usually with the wife working part-time), and all of the guys have expressed a strong tendency towards biblical roles in marriage; in fact, many of them have had a reactionary redirection TOWARDS traditional marriage BECAUSE OF the current social state.

    On top of that, most of the mothers in these marriages were working women before their children were born, after which they switched to the more traditional roles. In the case of my parents, my mother was the (primary) bread-winner for a couple of years while my father was finishing school, then they were both employed, and finally they reverted to the traditional model when I was born (first child of four). My mother just recently returned to working after my youngest sibling entered high school – she’s a teacher at the same school, for reference.

    So I have to wonder why my experience is so different from the stats I keep seeing here, and I think that a big part of the issue is how many of these divorces are originating in the (often non-religious or non-practicing “religious”) lower classes and being decided by lower-class-oriented courts. Here the historical situation is different… one in which absentee fathers were common prior to feminism and the child-support era. So these courts are often operating on assumptions that may not be true at all anymore.

    On top of that, marriage is still highly-encouraged in the middle class; of those 8 friends, all of them have expressed a strong interest in marriage except for the guy who’s planning to be a Catholic priest and the guys whose parents are divorced (and he’s still at least moderately interested).

    So you want to reverse the trends and not just enjoy the decline? Demonstrate that the part of the culture that still values traditional marriage, Christianity, faithfulness, and work ethic is actually, you know, functioning. Until that part of the middle class gets more press outside of our dear President’s supposed administrative intent, you’re not going to see anyone returning to the only viable option that those not born into wealth have.

  309. anonymous says:

    Slightly off topic but… it suddenly hit me last night, after 3 glasse of wine, that the GBFM lozozolzozlzlz…etc is a trinary encryption system. As an example, let’s encrypt..
    GBFM

    Step 1. Convert your message into the usual A=1, Z=26 substitution cipher you used in 3rd grade. So, GBFM would be,
    7-2-6-13

    Step 2. Convert these numbers into 3 digit trinary codes. (Trinary is also called base-3, or ternary, google it). With 3 digit ternary, you can count from zero (000) to 26 (222). Save zero for word breaks, and use 1-26 for your letters. Converting 7-2-6-13 to 3 digit trinary gives: 021-002-0120-111. Since you’ll be decrypting later on the assumption that each “bit” is 3 digits, you can eliminate the dashes, thus:
    021002020111

    Step 3. Convert letters to text. Zero to “o”, One to “l”, Two to “z” (this is of course rather obvious, you’re using the letter that sort of looks like the number):
    ozloozozolll

  310. send him a POLITE email referring Dalrock’s article

    What about the urinals

  311. anonymous says:

    lzollzolzooozooloollzozlooozozlzoooozoozlolloolzooozozozzolzlllooooolllollo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  312. anonymous says:

    you don’t really need the ooo wordbreak if you’re translating text en bloc — just leave existing wordbreaks,etc, in place:

    13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees………

    13 OOZzlozoz zlzlzoolz zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo, zololozooloooozolzzol oolllzoll LZLozzoolzooloozololzolzzol, ozzzzllzllzoolozooloozozolzzol! ozolzozoo zzlolz zolozzzlozoz zlolzl zozozzolz lozloollzozlolllzolll lzoozo ozzolzoolzllolzllz oolozloolloollzzolzoz lllolzllz: ozolzozoo zzlolz llzolzloozozozzolzzoo ozllzo loollz zzllzozlozoozololzllozllolzzol, llzolzloozozozzolzzoo zolzloozoozoolzzoo zzlolz zozozzolzlll zozozzoolzoz oolzooolz olzllzzozolzzooloollzozl zozlzo ozllzo loollz.
    14 ZLZlzoolz zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo, zololozooloooozolzzol oolllzoll LZLozzoolzooloozololzolzzol, ozzzzllzllzoolozooloozozolzzol! ozolzozoo zzlolz ollolzzlllzozlozoo zlzlooolllzozlzzol’ ozzlzozlozololzzol, oolllzoll ozolzozoo ool lzlzooolzzozolzllzoloolz llloollozolz llolzollzozl lzlzoooolzzlolzzoo: zozozzolzzooolzozolzozooolz zzlolz zolozzoolllollo zooolzoloolzloozllolz zozozzolz ozlzooolzoolzozolzzoo olloollllllzoolzozloolzollz.
    15 ZLZlzoolz zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo, zololozooloooozolzzol oolllzoll LZLozzoolzooloozololzolzzol, ozzzzllzllzoolozooloozozolzzol! ozolzozoo zzlolz ololzollllzloolzolzol zololzool oolllzoll llooolllzoll zozlzo llloollozolz lzollzolz lzlzoolzozololzllozzlzozolz, oolllzoll zlzozzolzllz ozzolz loozol llloolollolz, zzlolz llloollozolz ozzloolll zozzlzlzoozolzollooll llllzozooolz zozozzolz oloozzloollooll lzoozo ozzolzllollo zozozzoolllz zzllzozlozoozololzllozllolzzol.
    16 ZLZlzoolz zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo, zzlolz oozlloloollzoll ozlzlolooollolzzol, zlzozzloooloozz zoloolzzl, ZLZozzlzozollzoolzzllolzzoo zolozzoolllollo zolzlzolzoolzoo oozzzl zozozzolz zozolzllllzllloolz, loozoz loozol llzlzozozozzloollzozl; oozzlozoz zlzozzlzozollzoolzzllolzzoo zolozzoolllollo zolzlzolzoolzoo oozzzl zozozzolz ozllzollooll lzoozo zozozzolz zozolzllllzllloolz, ozzolz loozol ool ollolzoozzozlzozoo!
    17 ZZLolz ozolzolzollozol oolllzoll oozlloloollzoll: ozolzozoo zlzozzolzzozozzolzzoo loozol ozlzooolzoolzozolzzoo, zozozzolz ozllzollooll, lzozoo zozozzolz zozolzllllzllloolz zozozzoolzoz zoloolllzolozozlooozolooolzzozozz zozozzolz ozllzollooll?
    18 OOLllzoll, ZLZozzlzozollzoolzzllolzzoo zolozzoolllollo zolzlzolzoolzoo oozzzl zozozzolz oolllozozoolzoo, loozoz loozol llzlzozozozzloollzozl; oozzlozoz zlzozzlzozollzoolzzllolzzoo zolzlzolzoolzooolzzozozz oozzzl zozozzolz ozllooozozoz zozozzoolzoz loozol zlolzllzollz loozoz, ozzolz loozol ozlzloloollozozzzl.
    19 ZZLolz ozolzolzollozol oolllzoll oozlloloollzoll: ozolzozoo zlzozzolzzozozzolzzoo loozol ozlzooolzoolzozolzzoo, zozozzolz ozllooozozoz, lzozoo zozozzolz oolllozozoolzoo zozozzoolzoz zoloolllzolozozlooozolooolzzozozz zozozzolz ozllooozozoz?
    20 ZLZozzlzozollzo zozozzolzzooolzozolzozooolz zolozzoolllollo zolzlzolzoolzoo oozzzl zozozzolz oolllozozoolzoo, zolzlzolzoolzooolzzozozz oozzzl loozoz, oolllzoll oozzzl oolllollo zozozzloollzozlzol zozozzolzzooolzlzollz.
    21 OOLllzoll zlzozzlzozollzo zolozzoolllollo zolzlzolzoolzoo oozzzl zozozzolz zozolzllllzllloolz, zolzlzolzoolzooolzzozozz oozzzl loozoz, oolllzoll oozzzl ozzloolll zozozzoolzoz ollzlzolzllolloolzzozozz zozozzolzzooolzloollz.
    22 OOLllzoll ozzolz zozozzoolzoz zolozzoolllollo zolzlzolzoolzoo oozzzl ozzolzoolzllolzllz, zolzlzolzoolzooolzzozozz oozzzl zozozzolz zozozzzoolzollzolz lzoozo OZLlzooll, oolllzoll oozzzl ozzloolll zozozzoolzoz zolloozozzozolzzozozz zozozzolzzooolzlzollz.
    23 ZLZlzoolz zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo, zololozooloooozolzzol oolllzoll LZLozzoolzooloozololzolzzol, ozzzzllzllzoolozooloozozolzzol! ozolzozoo zzlolz lzloolzzl zozloozozozzolz lzoozo lllloollzzoz oolllzoll oolllzloozololz oolllzoll olozlollllllloollz, oolllzoll ozzoolzllolz lzolllloozozzozolzoll zozozzolz zlzolzlooozlozzzozlooolzzoo llloolzozzozolzzoozol lzoozo zozozzolz llooolzlz, lolzloollozllllolzllzzoz, lllolzzooolozzl, oolllzoll ozooolloozozozz: zozozzolzzololz lzozloozlozzzoz zzlolz zozlzo ozzoolzllolz olllzollzolz, oolllzoll llzlzozoz zozlzo lloolzoolzllolz zozozzolz lzozozozzolzzoo zlollzolllzollzolz.
    24 ZZLolz oozlloloollzoll ozlzlolooollolzzol, zlzozzloooloozz zolzozzoooolloollz oolzoz ool ozlllzoolzoz, oolllzoll zolzlzoolllollolzozlz ool olooollllolzllo.
    25 ZLZlzoolz zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo, zololozooloooozolzzol oolllzoll LZLozzoolzooloozololzolzzol, ozzzzllzllzoolozooloozozolzzol! ozolzozoo zzlolz llloollozolz ololloolzoolllz zozozzolz lzozlozozzollooollolz lzoozo zozozzolz olozlolzl oolllzoll lzoozo zozozzolz lzlllooolzozzozolzzoo, oozzlozoz zlzloozozozzloollz zozozzolzzzl oolzooolz ozozlollollo lzoozo olzzzozozlzozoozozloolzollz oolllzoll olzzzooloolzzolzol.
    26 ZOZozzlzozlo oozlloloollzoll LZLozzoolzooloozololzolz, ololloolzoolllzzololz ozoloozoozolzoz zozozzoolzoz zlzozzloooloozz loozol zlzloozozozzloollz zozozzolz olozlolzl oolllzoll lzlllooolzozzozolzzoo, zozozzoolzoz zozozzolz lzozlozozzollooollolz lzoozo zozozzolzlll llloolzzl oozolz ololloolzoolllz oolllozollzo.
    27 ZLZlzoolz zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo, zololozooloooozolzzol oolllzoll LZLozzoolzooloozololzolzzol, ozzzzllzllzoolozooloozozolzzol! ozolzozoo zzlolz oolzooolz lloloolozolz zlollzzozlzo zlzozzloozozolzoll zololzlzlzlollooloozzzooolzzol, zlzozzloooloozz loollzollolzolzoll oollzllzlolzoolzoo oozolzoolzlozozlooozozlollo lzozlozozzlzoolzoooll, oozzlozoz oolzooolz zlzloozozozzloollz ozozlollollo lzoozo ollolzoololl lllolzllz’zol oozlzollzolzzol, oolllzoll lzoozo oolllollo zlollzololloolzoolllzllzolzzolzol.
    28 OLZzllolzllz zollzo zzlolz oolllozollzo lzozlozozzlzoolzooollllozzl oollzllzlolzoolzoo zoolooozlozzzozolzlzozlozol zlollzzozlzo lllolzllz, oozzlozoz zlzloozozozzloollz zzlolz oolzooolz ozozlollollo lzoozo ozzzzllzllzoolozooloozolzzl oolllzoll loollzloolzzzloloozozzzl.
    29 ZLZlzoolz zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo, zololozooloooozolzzol oolllzoll LZLozzoolzooloozololzolzzol, ozzzzllzllzoolozooloozozolzzol! oozolzolooolzlozololz zzlolz oozzloloollooll zozozzolz zozlzollloozzol lzoozo zozozzolz lzlzoolzolzlozzolzzozzol, oolllzoll ozloolzoollzloozolozz zozozzolz zololzlzlzlollooloozzzooolzzol lzoozo zozozzolz zoolooozlozzzozolzlzozlozol,
    30 OOLllzoll zoloolzzl, LOOozo zlzolz ozzoololl oozolzolzllz loollz zozozzolz olloolzzlzol lzoozo lzozlozoo ozooolzozozzolzzoozol, zlzolz zlzlzozlollooll llzlzozoz ozzoolzllolz oozolzolzllz lzloolzoozozoollozolzzoozol zlzloozozozz zozozzolzlll loollz zozozzolz oozllolzolzooll lzoozo zozozzolz lzlzoolzolzlozzolzzozzol.
    31 ZLZozzolzzooolzozolzozooolz zzlolz oozolz zlzloozozllzolzzolzololzzol zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlozoozololzllozllolzzol, zozozzoolzoz zzlolz oolzooolz zozozzolz oloozzloolloollzooolzllz lzoozo zozozzolzlll zlzozzloooloozz lozloollolloolzoll zozozzolz lzlzoolzolzlozzolzzozzol.
    32 OZOloollollo zzlolz zlolzl zozozzolzllz zozozzolz lllolzoolzolzlozooolz lzoozo zzllzozlozoo ozooolzozozzolzzoozol.
    33 ZZLolz zololzzoolzlolzllzzozzol, zzlolz ozlolzllzolzzoooolzozloolzollz lzoozo zllloolzlolzzoozol, ozzlzozlz olooolllz zzlolz olzzololooollzlolz zozozzolz olloollllllzoolzozloolzollz lzoozo ozzolzllollo?
    34 ZLZozzolzzooolzozolzozooolz, oozolzozzlzollooll, LOO zololzllzoll zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo lzlzoolzolzlozzolzzozzol, oolllzoll zlzloozololz lllolzllz, oolllzoll zololozooloooozolzzol: oolllzoll zollzolllolz lzoozo zozozzolzlll zzlolz zolozzoolllollo lozloollollo oolllzoll olozoozloololooozozzl; oolllzoll zollzolllolz lzoozo zozozzolzlll zolozzoolllollo zzlolz zolololzozlozooozlolz loollz zzllzozlozoo zolzzlllzoolozllzoozlzloolzzol, oolllzoll lzlolzzoozololzolozlozozolz zozozzolzlll ozozoolzolll ololoozozzzl zozlzo ololoozozzzl:
    35 ZOZozzoolzoz zlolzllzollz zzllzozlo llloolzzl ololzolllolz oolllollo zozozzolz zoolooozlozzzozolzlzozlozol oozllolzolzooll zolozzolzoll zlolzllzollz zozozzolz olzoolzoozozozz, ozozoolzolll zozozzolz oozllolzolzooll lzoozo zoolooozlozzzozolzlzozlozol OOLoozolzllo zlollzzozlzo zozozzolz oozllolzolzooll lzoozo zzzoololoozzoolzooloooolzol zollzollz lzoozo OOZoolzoooololoozzloooolzol, zlzozzlzolll zzlolz zollloolzzlz oozolzzozzlzolzolzllz zozozzolz zozolzllllzllloolz oolllzoll zozozzolz oolllozozoolzoo.
    36 ZLLolzzooloollozzl LOO zoloolzzl zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo, OOLllollo zozozzolzzololz zozozzloollzozlzol zolozzoolllollo ololzolllolz zlolzllzollz zozozzloozol ozlolzllzolzzoooolzozloolzollz.
    37 lzo LOLolzzoozlozoloollloolzlll, LOLolzzoozlozoloollloolzlll, zozozzlzozlo zozozzoolzoz lozloollolloolzzolzoz zozozzolz lzlzoolzolzlozzolzzozzol, oolllzoll zolzozlzollzolzzolzoz zozozzolzlll zlzozzloooloozz oolzooolz zololzllzzoz zlollzzozlzo zozozzolzolz, ozzlzozlz lzoozozozolzllz zlzlzozlollooll LOO ozzoolzllolz ozloolzozozzolzzooolzoll zozozzzzl oloozzloolloollzooolzllz zozlzoozlolzzozozzolzzoo, olzzllolzllz oolzol ool ozzolzllz ozloolzozozzolzzooolzzozozz ozzolzzoo oloozzlooololozolzllzzol zlollzollolzzoo ozzolzzoo zlzloollzozlzol, oolllzoll zzlolz zlzlzozlollooll llzlzozoz!
    38 OOZolzozzlzollooll, zzllzozlozoo ozzlzozlozololz loozol lloolzozozoz zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo ollolzzollzollooolzozolz.
    39 OZOlzozoo LOO zoloolzzl zlollzzozlzo zzllzozlo, ZZLolz zolozzoolllollo llzlzozoz zololzolz lllolz ozzolzllzoloolzozolzozoozozozz, zozloollollo zzlolz zolozzoolllollo zoloolzzl, OOZlloolzzolzololzoll loozol ozzolz zozozzoolzoz ololzolllolzzozozz loollz zozozzolz llzoollllolz lzoozo zozozzolz llolzozoooll.

  313. gdgm+ says:

    In a related subject, the young continue to be damaged by the “hookup culture”:

    Time to stop hooking up (You know you want to).

    “Donna Freitas is the author of ‘The End of Sex: How Hookup Culture Is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy’.”

    Of the 1,230 students who answered an optional survey question in a study I conducted asking what their peers thought about sex in 2006, 45 percent of participants at Catholic schools and 36 percent at nonreligious private and public schools said their peers were too casual about sex, and they said privately that they wished this weren’t the case. An additional 35 percent at Catholic and 42 percent at nonreligious schools reported that their peers were simply “casual,” without opining one way or the other.

  314. TFH says:

    What about the urinals

    That is for mass exposure. Scattering thousands of red pills across society, for those who would take them. It has worked well, as evidenced by how much more exposure the Androsphere has gotten since then.

    Here, we are talking about addressing a specific person who needs to see this article about him.

  315. D_Johnny says:

    @gmgm+:

    That article describes my experience with hookup culture pretty well. Before I hooked up, I felt like I was missing out and not reaching my sexual market potential. I was right. After I hooked up, I got more respect from men and I was more attractive to women. Can’t argue with that. However I still can’t shake the fact that I degraded other mens’ daughters, other mens’ future wives. Whatever.

  316. Keanu says:

    @Mark Minter
    “And there are some assumptions that women jump to. Women out earn young men until 28 but then that gap closes.”
    “There is a 4% difference between white men and white women in the number of bachelors degrees awarded.”
    Mark, can you link the studies that you used for those stats? I’ve been looking around but I haven’t found them. Thanks.

  317. Opus says:

    @D_Johnny

    How do you know that it wasn’t those women who degraded you; someone’s future husband. As you are (obviously) not suggesting you forced yourself on these women, they were surely only doing what they wanted to do and if it had not been with you it would have been with someone else. If they are unmarriagable, so be it; you are not responsible for other people’s behaviour. What I am really saying, is, that as I see it, there is no need to wear a hair-shirt, for if you had chosen not to sleep with them, they would have been very disappointed, and called you a loser and a virgin. Some, of course, may see my reasoning as Sophistic.

  318. eon says:

    anonymous April 1, 2013 at 2:51 pm,

    That was brilliant! I am a mathematician, among other things, and that never occurred to me.

    I was just over at Project Gutenberg looking for Homer, but none of the translations are in GBFM. They even have an English Blank Verse version, but a page search didn’t find even one “lzozozozzlzlzlzoz”.

  319. anonymous. says:

    eon: I was just over at Project Gutenberg looking for Homer, but none of the translations are in GBFM. They even have an English Blank Verse version, but a page search didn’t find even one “lzozozozzlzlzlzoz”.

    Well,I did make a BIble passage excerpt up at 3:43. Perhaps the first ever on earth?

    I wish I had photoshop skills, I’d like to make a Tolkeinesque gold “One Ring” image with GBFM trinary code instead of Elvish. My post at 3:09 says, “One Ring to Rule them All”, if I didn’t screw it up. Though in retrospect we can probably skip the linebreak/zero character ooo, as I did on the Bible excerpt. With the line breaks removed, “One Ring to Rule Them All” looks like this:

    lzollzolz zooloollzozl zozlzo zoozlolloolz zozozzolzlll oolllollo

    Okay, enough April Fool’s fun.

  320. A Northern Observer says:

    Found this very descriptive pic on facebook. It’s a hoot!

  321. Legion says:

    S1AL says:
    April 1, 2013 at 2:39 pm
    “…one in which absentee fathers were common prior to feminism and the child-support era.”

    It’s still men bad women good to you. You are not getting any converts with your feminist attitude.

  322. James says:

    @TFH

    What about the urinals

    That is for mass exposure. Scattering thousands of red pills across society, for those who would take them. It has worked well, as evidenced by how much more exposure the Androsphere has gotten since then.

    Here, we are talking about addressing a specific person who needs to see this article about him.

    He’d get a shock if he saw the URL to an argument refuting his article – in a urinal in Harvard. He’d be more likely to read it than if he got the URL by email.

  323. S1AL says:

    @ Legion – I’m not here to “win converts.” I’m also not here to brown-nose your viewpoint. I’m explaining something that the manosphere occasionally forgets: feminism didn’t start with women and it wasn’t allowed by women and it wasn’t a result of the actions of women. Men started it and allowed it. And simply dismissing all TradCons or SoCons as “feminist mouthpieces” is not going to win you any allies. In fact, you’re simply going to alienate many of those who are most likely to “come around” to to your way of thinking.

    And this issue is part of why you can’t gain any traction with the mainstream church. There are very real reasons that it is often seen as the fault of the man… because men allowed it to happen. Sometimes the woman is at fault. Anecdotal example: a woman in my parents’ church was abandoned by her husband. He doesn’t pay child support, as he makes no money. He is a junky and an alcoholic. She has NOT sought to be remarried, not because it isn’t an option (she has been asked out by several men), but rather because she believes in traditional church teachings about marriage and wishes to be reconciled with her husband. She has, in recent years, abandoned the hope of that.

    This situation, unfortunately, is the one that TradCons see most. And on top of that, many young, Christian women who do ride the carousel or engage in serial monogamy do so (partially) as a result of not having a father figure to lead them, regardless of the circumstances of divorce, abandonment, or otherwise, Also unfortunate is the fact that the mother is almost always still involved, regardless of whether it is the mother’s fault or the father’s.

    My point is this: TradCons are not delusional. They also aren’t supporting immoral sexual behavior (those would be Neo-Cons). They are also not missing out on the concept of submission and headship taught in scripture. What they do have is a different worldview with different understanding. That worldview is correct to some extent and incorrect to some extent. But for as long as you continue to make any disagreement (whether historically-grounded or not) out to be “feminism,” you’ll miss out on the chance to make allies of the people closest to your viewpoints.

    But hey, go ahead. Do it again. I’m sure it will accomplish a lot.

    But perhaps my real issue is the double-standard regarding marriage vows that I see cropping up here. No matter what goes wrong, the woman is getting blamed here… and that is, I suppose, just the pendulum swinging the other way. What I find unacceptable is the contention that, if the husband turns out to be a loser, it must be because “the woman made a poor choice of husband,” but if the woman is the one causing problems, it’s because “she’s not holding to her marriage vows.” Both sides need to be held accountable for their failings. Period. Both men AND women betray their vows and fail to fulfill their Biblical roles in marriage.

  324. “D_Johnny says:
    April 1, 2013 at 5:30 pm
    @gmgm+:

    That article describes my experience with hookup culture pretty well. Before I hooked up, I felt like I was missing out and not reaching my sexual market potential. I was right. After I hooked up, I got more respect from men and I was more attractive to women. Can’t argue with that. However I still can’t shake the fact that I degraded other mens’ daughters, other mens’ future wives. Whatever.”

    Yeah, nothing like bernanakifying bernankififying a few slutststs who have been bernankified before you and will bernenkifid after you to make you feel like a man zlzlzozozzzlzozoz.

    Getting laid is ez these dayzzz

    The big challengerz is getting laid while being nice to girlz.

    True story, one time I made a bet with a buddydy (not tbuttehxtual bddydyd lzozozzo) to see who could score first by being nice to girlzlzlzoozzo. So we would ask girlsz out, show up on time, take them out to dinnerz and moviesz, and then of course they would go get their bugnghole bernkified around midnight from someone else. But that is the nature of Mt. Everest, you are gonna get weieben wienerz.

    Then one night I get a text, “WTF who won?”

    It was from one the girlzz I had dated and been nice to. Her friend ahd overheard my friend talking about our bet, and told the girlz I had acted chivalrously to.

    So I text her back, “I’ll win if you cum over zlzoozzozolzo”

    A half hour later the GBFM won.

    But seriosusly feelleas getting ladi laid laid and negging chix and getting henm them sucking on your pricks is sooooooo easy these dayz and gets boring.

    For a kick, try treating a girl like a total gentleman and sdtilll scoring. It’s like going form da bunny slopes to the black diamnond slopes zlzozozooz

  325. “Slightly off topic but… it suddenly hit me last night, after 3 glasse of wine, that the GBFM lozozolzozlzlz…etc is a trinary encryption system. As an example, let’s encrypt..
    GBFM”

    fianalalyzzz~!!!! someobody has spoken the words that the voices in my head which sound like ben bernakke speeakaka to me!!!

    ohhh happy dyayayzz!!! lzlzozozlzozolzzolozoz 10101010101001 1010lzlz0l110zla0ala0abutthetxlzlzozozoozoz

  326. Johnycomelately says:

    I hope all you attended:
    The Bro Code: How Contemporary Culture Creates Sexist Men

    http://www.units.muohio.edu/oeeo/TheBroCode

  327. anonymous says:

    S1AL — the Christian manosphere doesn’t exist to defend bad men, but to heal the broken good ones.

    Nobody here denies, for example, that bad men sometimes break up their families for no good reason. But we do take note of that the stereotype, that it’s mainly men who do this, is actually the opposite of the statistical truth. Unjustified divorce and abandonment by women is epidemic, and is enabled by a wickedly unfair family law system that often allows them to profit from the betrayal.

    Possibly long ago the stereotype of the runaway husband was true — perhaps Tradcons are trapped into basing all their thinking on a long-outdated memory which prevents them from seeing today’s reality. But whatever the reason, they’ve got it waaaay wrong: the fact is that TODAY it is MEN primarily – not solely, but primarily – who are getting screwed over. And yet in some circles, merely stating this obvious truth, is considered out-of-bounds sexism, not even deserving a polite attempt at refutation. (If they don’t even attempt

    Furthermore, the maddening tendency of women to systematically pick bad men over good ones, and then complain that “all men are bad” — while legions of Mr Niceguys are dying of loneliness and rejection — needs to be dealt with somehow. And NOBODY else is even TRYING to do anything about that, outside the manosphere

  328. S1AL says:

    anon – I completely agree on the ridiculous nature of the current laws. I wouldn’t be posting here if I didn’t agree with at least a good portion of what Dalrock writes… that would be about as futile as trying to encourage actual journalism at HuffPo,

    And I agree that TradCons are stuck with an outdated stereotype… just not a meaningless or irrational one; I’m trying to show that there are reasons so that, instead of raging about it, the manosphere can overcome those reasons. So you want to convince them there’s something very, very wrong? Start there. On the bright side, the bleakness of the modern romantic/marital landscape is actually working towards that goal. Many of my intra-generational friends are naturally coming to the conclusion that there’s something very, very wrong. The current generation of 18-25-y-o’s is ripe to here the message, and preferably the largely positive one of Dalrock rather that the self-loathing, sex-driven game of heartiste & co.

    And that is where the manosphere has its greatest potential: in helping those who are concerned to RedPill it up. Any Christian guy on a college campus has seen the results, he just needs guidance towards the source.

    On the issue of women picking bad men… can’t the same be said of men picking bad women and then vent their rage against the entire gender on these very forums? There is a bias here in the Manosphere. It’s not a surprising one or even one which I’m fully inclined to condemn given the circumstances, but it is a bias and it will remain an issue if the manosphere wants to get its ideas into the mainstream like it claims.

    So no, I’m not advocating and outdated understanding. I’m just advocating knowledge of the battlefield. Know Thine Enemy, Know Thine Self – A thousand battles, a thousand victories. And I don’t mean the petty self-congratulating of handily dismissing the opinions of the hyper-hamsters. I’m talking about honest-to-God reorientation of thinking. This blog claims to want that. So take it.

  329. S1AL says:

    I would also like to point out that the TradCon middle class really does heavily encourage girls to marry nice guys… very seriously. But only recently have they discovered that “game” is important, and they’re operating under some very fundamental principles at best, and complete nonsense at worst. Then again, the blogging world has only gotten around to it in the last 5 years while Robert Jordan was writing about it in the 1980’s and Shakespeare had it down in Taming of the Shrew. So cut the community a bit of slack. You need the carrot and the stick.

    That said, I think the Christian community is lightyears ahead in figuring out the basis of alpha and beta traits… Tim Lahaye (of Left Behind fame) actually got his start by reorienting Hippocrates’ four classical personality types in “The Spirit-Controlled Temperament.” I personally find it very enlightening for understanding differences, and it could go a long way towards helping guys who are natural betas to become more alpha without betraying their natures.

  330. greyghost says:

    S1AL
    Any women is a bad choice by law. All women are no more that places to warm a penis and shoot semen on their back by law. The reason a conclusion of the natuire of women in the manospere is what it is ….by law there is no consequence to female behavior so what we see is how feral women (all) really are. It can be explained and should be that a well behaved women is still behaving as a typical woman with motivations no different than a carousel riding slut. Your are not posting to a bunch of blue pill men in the dark that pedestalizes pussy hoping “she likes me”.
    Btw the christian church isn’t in front of a damn thing. Infact the church is not christian but churchian and is in the name of god paving a pure and good pussy worshipping (and now gay inclusive) path to hell.
    One more thing nice try with the stuff from the past we got it covered before you guys stuff. The bible already had it covered and we all discuss that all of the time. So basically any body can start talking shit any time they want about how the bible has all of the Manosphere stuff in it. The churchians have hidden it from the public in the worship of pussy ( feminine imperative) instead of having faith in god and his word.

  331. Höllenhund says:

    “On the issue of women picking bad men… can’t the same be said of men picking bad women and then vent their rage against the entire gender on these very forums?”

    Not at all. There are crucial differences.

    Young women have always been repeatedly and openly warned not to pair up with „bad men” by various feminist and non-feminist voices in mainstream discourse. The reason is simple. Women have a very clear of what men are „bad”: those who refuse to do what women demand of them i.e. to invest time and money in women and their children. And both feminists and non-feminists cater to women, because they’re their primary audience (most men cannot be bothered to listen to all the nonsense that passes as „mainstream discourse” nowadays). Just ask a feminist what she thinks a „bad man” is, and then ask the same of some tradcon. I can assure you the answers will be practically the same. Feminist talk all the time about how many nasty, „misogynist”, deadbeat men there are out there and that women should be vigilant and avoid them. Tradcons and churchians do the same.

    But nobody warns the average man that he should avoid certain types of women. This issue is taboo in mainstream discourse. All that feminists and tradcons are willing to concede that there are many „damaged” women with psychological issues and low self-esteem, but they also agree that it’s the fault of „bad men” that these women even exist. As far as feminists, the mainstream media and Churchianity is concerned, 99.9% of women are absolutely worthy of marriage and male investment.

    With respect to men venting against women on forums, the people responsible for that are those who control mainstream discourse. They basically believe that no man should openly say anything about women as long as he isn’t kissing their asses. Any criticism of women, no matter how mild and „balanced” it is, is taboo. Men who have been wronged by women in any way never get a voice in mainstream discourse, plus their are always demonized, mocked and ridiculed. Of course they get angry. And when they finally find a place where they can talk about their experiences, of course they will express that anger. You cannot blame them for that.

  332. greyghost says:

    S1AL
    I just read the comment at 1157 pm april 1. That was one hell of an april fools joke. I can’t believe guy still think they can pass out the stuff to actual takers. Traditional Conservatives are correct in a sane society. This is not a sane society and what makes traditional consevatives delusional is the total lack of understanding of what their values are founded on in the first place. AS As you are showing here in your own comments is a complete lack of understanding of reality. The men that gave you your values did the leg work you need to do. Tradition is a daily short cut so you as a human being can live your life with out have to constantly weigh every thought. People can live well without being aware of why. That was the churches job until they started worshipping pussy.
    You and all traditional types need to learn from us. That includes the Pope ,Bill Bennett , the republican party, anybody talking family and marriage.

  333. ballista74 says:

    Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: (Isaiah 29:13)

    Such is the way of men and their hearts of wickedness. lololzzolzlozol loozol llolzozoooll

  334. Opus says:

    It may be that he does not realise it, but if one cuts out the elegant and polished English, S1AL’s posts are largely indistinguishable from those of females who come here to shame – i.e. ‘you men are no better’. It may be that there is a corner of America where Divorce is largely unknown and where people are both Christian and well-educated, and it is certainly the case that greater education and later marriage tends to produce less Divorce, at least from the Stats I have seen; but it does not appear to be the case that your average Church Congregation is noticably more moral than its Pagan neighbour, hiding its sins undert the cloak of righteousness – not that I am here to proselytize for the non-believers, for I am sure they are no better; it is just that they are unable to hide behind, the ‘Jesus would not want me to be unhappy’ meme and the like. S1AL will find that the points he raises have largely been done to death on other threads here, though it takes a bit of reading, as, with the comments, the threads are lengthy.

  335. Anonymous says:

    Ron Unz analyzes the impact of affirmative action and other corruption on Ivy League admissions here. While he does not break it down by gender, he finds that White Gentiles are underrepresented about 70% compared to their achievement on things like National Merit Scholarship semifinalists.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

  336. @S1AL said:
    Here the historical situation is different… one in which absentee fathers were common prior to feminism and the child-support era. So these courts are often operating on assumptions that may not be true at all anymore.
    I have trouble understanding the connection between absentee fathers and no-fault divorce rape. Somehow since there are men who abandon their families, women should be given the power to freely destroy their families. (And somehow even after that, men are still blamed for abandonment while women are celebrated for divorcing. )

    This is a common mindset that says that as long as there are any men who are behaving badly, all woman are entitled to a free pass.

  337. Miserman says:

    @S1AL

    I’m explaining something that the manosphere occasionally forgets: feminism didn’t start with women and it wasn’t allowed by women and it wasn’t a result of the actions of women. Men started it and allowed it.

    Perhaps. If one peruses the historical content archived on Unmasking Feminism, it would seem that modern feminism has been around for quite some time. Also, it could be argued that Eve was the first feminist and many celebrate her as exactly that.

  338. This situation, unfortunately, is the one that TradCons see most. And on top of that, many young, Christian women who do ride the carousel or engage in serial monogamy do so (partially) as a result of not having a father figure to lead them, regardless of the circumstances of divorce, abandonment, or otherwise, Also unfortunate is the fact that the mother is almost always still involved, regardless of whether it is the mother’s fault or the father’s.

    My point is this: TradCons are not delusional. They also aren’t supporting immoral sexual behavior (those would be Neo-Cons). They are also not missing out on the concept of submission and headship taught in scripture. What they do have is a different worldview with different understanding. That worldview is correct to some extent and incorrect to some extent. But for as long as you continue to make any disagreement (whether historically-grounded or not) out to be “feminism,” you’ll miss out on the chance to make allies of the people closest to your viewpoints.

    S1AL, I know your viewpoint. Really. I suffered under it for a few years myself as I nibbled red pill truth. But feminism is as feminism does, in the church and out.

    You say that the scenario you describe is what tradcons see most. What do you mean? That it is the one that EXISTS most? because that is untrue. They see what won’t spoil the comfy chair that is the false reality they exist within.

    Tradcons are not supporting immoral sexual behavior? You cannot be more wrong. They do not support a certain subset of immoral behavior, that which takes zero courage to oppose. They rant and rave on abortion and gay marriage, and porn and wild men and our roving eyes. They may even condemn a blatant harlot here and there. But they coddle the frivorcing women who begin to entertain new prospects, barely masked by thin walls while children sleep. They do not openly support that….they ignore it while pandering to every other aspect of that frivorced woman’s existence, every choice her little wounded heart makes.

    You are delusional, as these tradcons are delusional. And I am a Christian tradcon.

  339. anonymous says:

    On the issue of women picking bad men… can’t the same be said of men picking bad women and then vent their rage against the entire gender on these very forums?

    Actually, not at all. Quite the reverse.

    The normative experience for the good girl is to reject a good guy (“Let’s Just Be Friends, you’re such a great guy, you’ll make a great husband for somebody, someday…..), go for the badboy, and get burned.

    The normative experience for a non-elite good guy, is to avoid bad girls and intentionally go for the apparently good ones, only to be rejected over and over. Or sometimes, they discover that a woman who is righteous in every other area of life, is uncharacteristically spiteful in this one area (the “nuclear rejection”).

    So really, there’s no equivalency at all. Good guys seek good girls, and are rejected. But good girls fall for badboys every bit as readily as bad girls do…. and yes, pretty damned near the whole gender does this. (The badboys, for their part, don’t waste time on blogs talking about this stuff, since they have plenty of badgirls to party with, and good girls to seduce.)

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at — you seem to be implying that men are just as guilty, or guilty of the same things. First of all, that’s NOT true, not in this area of life. Relationships today are a wasteland today largely — not totally, but largely — due to female sin. Secondly, the audience of the manosphere, is the good men who have been stomped on by the current society wide relational dynamic. The badboys are not our problem. And finally, even if it were “equal”….. the manosphere (and pretty much nobody else) is here to help men — helping women is not our primary mission.

  340. Johnson85 says:

    Hopefully you will still see this, didn’t see a “contact” option. This seems right up your alley: http://thedailyprincetonian.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/opinion-letter-to-the-editor-march-29-2013/

    There is some elitism in the article that is off putting, but mostly people seem to be upset at the author for pointing out that women are hypergamous and men have a larger dating pool than women.

  341. Opus says:

    Although it may be the case that some men abandoned their families, the idea that it was common, as S1Al suggests is most unlikely, indeed I have never heard it previously suggested – literature is not full of such men, but rather of people like Soames Forythe or Karenin, determined to keep their marriage in tact no matter the circumstances – moreover, even if men abandoned their families they clearly did not do so in anything like the numbers that women have taken to ending theirs, for apart from anything else, men abandoning their family meant abandoning ones children, something that does not happen when modern women frivoulously divorce, as the State always grants the woman custody. The other noticable difference is that no man abandoning his family would be able to look for State support or obtain sympathy from his Pastor or society in general for abandoning his responsibilities. Some of my friends (with children) doubtless find their wives very tiresome but the idea that they would abandon them is implausible, no matter the provocation, and doubtless that has always been the case with men. The figure of the mistress always hanging on for the man to leave his wife and join her, but who never does, is all too common; the same cannot really be said of women; again from literature one thinks of Mellors and Lady Chatterley, or again from Galsworthy, Irene Forsythe, and elsewhere Anna Karennin, Madama Bovary, or Nora from Ibsen’s Dolls House. It cannot be just coincidence that Literature has it that way round. The one notable exception is surely Pinkerton from Bellasco’s Madam Butterfly, yet Cio Cio San (who is naive) is seen by Pinkerton (who meets her whilst on R & R in the far East) as a Concubine and not a real wife.

    S1AL appears to be White-Knighting.

  342. whatever says:


    So I have to wonder why my experience is so different from the stats I keep seeing here, and I think that a big part of the issue is how many of these divorces are originating in the (often non-religious or non-practicing “religious”) lower classes and being decided by lower-class-oriented courts. Here the historical situation is different… one in which absentee fathers were common prior to feminism and the child-support era. So these courts are often operating on assumptions that may not be true at all anymore.

    Not really. In fact, it’s a stupid thing to say. Breach of Promise suits were common in the “old days”. Taking a woman’s right to never be rejected, ever, to an absurd level.

  343. deti says:

    Johnson85:

    From the comments in your link by someone named “Kristina”:

    “I wish someone had told me this [find a husband during college] when I was in college. I am now in my late 20s, got a great job, got my masters and absolutely no male prospects to even pretend to do something else with my life other than work. It seems the ones who are still single are single for a reason. If one more person tells me what a catch I am, I may meltdown. And the friends who did the “silly” thing and got married? They have fulfilling careers and something to come home to. Say what you want, but until you are that girl who followed all the advice and now is all alone with her fabulous career and diplomas all over the wall, you don’t get an opinion.”

    How many more women need to say this before we start figuring this out?

    The smart women I knew from college in the mid to late 1980s were trying to lock down husbands. Of course we pooh-poohed them, but they’re still married and their kids are now in college.

    Too many of the women I knew from college are now in their mid-40s and are “I’m not haaaaappy” divorced; or are married to men they aren’t attracted to with moods ranging from vaguely content to hopelessly miserable; or are never married. It really is a tragedy of epic proportions.

  344. Novaseeker says:

    I think, as anon points out, S1AL, that there are different groups of men at play here.

    The “bad guys” are the ones that the tradcons see, the ones whom the women are hooking up with and getting dumped by, sometimes marrying and getting screwed over by, and so on. As anon points out, the manosphere isn’t for these guys — they aren’t really here. They’re too busy with the next woman, the next bottle, the next meth hit, what have you. We acknowledge that these men exist, and that they do bad things but we’re not here to help them or to excuse them, for that matter. We’re here to help the *rest* of the men with the fallout on the relationship culture of the fact that so many women are getting burned up by these guys when they are in their 20s, and the impact that this has on their male peers, both at that time and later on during the “marrying years” in the current culture. So, yes, there are bad men doing bad things — the manosphere isn’t advocating for them, at least not this part of it (the PUA-sphere does, of course). We’re mostly dealing with the fallout from too many women hooking up with and or “picking” these guys over the rest of the guys.

    Now, of course there are good girls, too. Not all women are going for the bad guys. It is still possible to find one who is not. I agree with Dalrock on that. But I also agree with him that since a huge-ish number are doing that, the number of women who are not is quite small, and therefore it requires having a very strict screening mechanism. It can be done, and I encourage men who want to get married due to their religion to do this, as Dalrock himself has outlined in one of his posts. But the current SMP/MMP is not characterized as “both are doing the same thing”. Nope. It doesn’t work that way because hypergamy doesn’t work that way — while shit flows downhill, female sexual access flows uphill. Simple as that. Therefore there is a relatively small number of men who are partaking in the bachanalia with a rather larger number of women. It isn’t an equal thing.

    A rational response to this would acknowledge this reality, but alas there is no rational response to be found among the tradcon set. Instead they see what they WANT to see. They do not want it to be true that a large number of women are engaging in promiscuity (either of the male short-term of female longer-term ‘serial monogamy’), while most men are not because they simply cannot. Instead they want to focus on the small number of men who CAN, and vilify them for soiling our pure, innocent and pristine daughters of the king. And, and this is the real kicker, do this by kicking the teeth in of the very men who are shut out from dating and relationships due to this imbalance, and blame these men for what the high-access men are doing — two groups of men who are fundamentally different (and the latter aren’t even usually in the room!). This continues with the way the same fools look at the current situation of divorce. When they see divorces, they focus on the ones where the guy is a lout. That’s because this fits the narrative. The larger number of divorces, which represent no such thing, are either trumped up so that they are thrown, falsely, into the same category, or simply ignored — again, because they do not fit the narrative. And, again, the men who are the ones sitting in the pews, largely still married, are the ones getting taken to the woodshed on fathers’ day for the sins of the small number of men who left their wives because they were louts. Meanwhile the divorcee women in the church are given full support, regardless of the circumstances of their divorces. If you want to talk about one-sided, it’s hard to paint a more vivid picture of it than the way the churches are currently dealing with ALL issues pertaining to men and women and relationships between the two. ALL issues.

    And, yes, men are to blame for this to large degree. I fully agree. But the reason must be clearly stated, because it is ultimately the same reason that underlies the behavior of tradcons and so many in the churches today. The reason is that men want the best for — and want(ed) to think the best of — the women in their personal circles, whether wives, mothers, sisters, but most especially daughters. THAT is the core problem. It is a problem held in common by today’s tradcons, today’s pastors, and yesterday’s and today’s feminism supporters. It’s all about wanting the best, and thinking the best, of their precious daughters, at the expense of men if necessary. Of course, it isn’t *consciously* done at the expense of men — they just really think that women are better than men (morally and otherwise) — if you don’t think so, Dalrock has some very choice quotes of leading Christian writers about these issues that say pretty much EXACTLY that — and that therefore to the extent that there is a problem, it has to be primarily a problem among the men. And then they say this is acting like God. Well, no. God held and holds women to account for their sin, separate and apart from any sins that men are committing. I don’t see tradcons doing this, I don’t see churches doing this and I certainly don’t see socons doing this — at least not in any comprehensive or consistent way, or in any way that is to any degree similar to how they address the failings of men.

    And that, frankly, is the issue.

  345. Dalrock says:

    I was convinced that S1AL was an April fools prank, but I see his comments have continued past the end of April fools day. Sorry for the interruption. Carry on. As S1AL points out, who are you going to believe, your lying eyes (and those lying academic studies and statistics), or what he tells you is the truth?

  346. mackPUA says:

    Women reward serial killers & thugs, men reward women for appearing to be decent women … who’re biologically designed to reward serial killers …

    The odds are stacked at who exactly? …

    Which is why …

    Women prepare subtly their homes for divorce, men prepare their homes for stability

    Make the man do the dishes, chores, ensuring no leisure for the man, no bonding with his children …

    Turn yourself into a victim, by blaming him for not being at home & placing his work first, before the family

    Claim abuse at all times, even in your work place, by men you dont even know

    Claim sitting on your ass all day, & pushing buttons on a washing machine, as barbaric & slavery …

    Modern Marriage Game 101

  347. Dear S1AL,

    You write,

    “April 2, 2013 at 12:55 am
    I personally find it very enlightening for understanding differences, and it could go a long way towards helping guys who are natural betas to become more alpha without betraying their natures.”

    Could you please define “Alpha” and “Beta” for us?

    Which is trustworthy loyal, helpful, friendly, curteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent?

    And which secretly tapes butthext with other men’s potential future wives?

    Unless I miss my guess, you will define alpha as those who secretly tapes butthext with other men’s potential future wives.

    And you will define beta as trustworthy loyal, helpful, friendly, curteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

    Well, as those who were “trustworthy loyal, helpful, friendly, curteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent” built Western Civilization, they are the alpha of all alphas.

    And those who buttehxt tand tape it secrteely, who are published and proomoted by womenz, are not even betas–they are omegas.

    But you seem to have this backwards, as you confused with bunghole you were ebebrnikeified in with someething elesl zlzozzolzlzozlozz.

    so how do you define alpha and beta?

    please do share! thanks!

  348. Dalrock says:

    GBFM,

    That Bernanke/Police video is brilliant.

  349. S1AL says:
    “April 2, 2013 at 12:55 am
    I would also like to point out that the TradCon middle class really does heavily encourage girls to marry nice guys… very seriously. ”

    lzozozozoz Yes! How else could they divorce the nice guys and seize their assesstst and children for the state to profit? If only the TradCons also encouraged girlszz to not give theirrz assetstszt away for free when their younger hotter tighter twenty pounds lighter before matrryring “nice guys” zlozzoozozzlo

    S1AL, can you name a single TradCon who has ever spoken out against the divorce laws, or publishing and profiting off sectrieve tapings o butthext?

    Why do TradCons fear to speka out against the corrupt fmaily law system and destruction of ythe family created and encofed by teh cenetral banking beenrnkakaififierzzzz?

    zlzozlzlzozoloz

    Dear S1AL:

    Could you please write a letter to the owner of this site, telling them that they are wrong?

    “Surprisingly, recent Christian divorce rate statistics indicate the number of believers ending marriages is keeping pace and in some cases surpassing those of the secular world. In some Protestant denominations, nearly 58 percent of first-time marriages end in divorce, with rates of 38 percent to 33 percent in others. The denomination with the least amount of marital dissolutions has been Catholics with a rate of 28 percent. The lower number might be reflective of the fact that for decades, divorced Catholics were excommunicated from the Church and prohibited from taking the sacraments. For a devout Catholic, excommunication from partaking of the symbolic blood and body of Jesus Christ at communion would be almost unbearable. For Protestant denominations, an increase in Christian divorce rate statistics would indicate the believer’s confession of Jesus Christ as Lord is insufficient to keep them from engaging in the practice of “putting away,” or divorcing husbands and wives.”

    http://www.christianet.com/christiandivorce/christiandivorceratestatistics.htm

    Please share the letter here. Thanks!

  350. deti says:

    Johnson85:

    Susan Walsh responded to the letter by Susan Patton in your link.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/04/01/relationshipstrategies/tiger-mama-susan-pattons-ineffectual-marriage-strategy/

    Susan’s argument is that women shouldn’t try to lock down husbands in college because their peers, college men, don’t want to get married and aren’t marriageable.

    Her argument:
    1. College women don’t want to get married.

    2. College men don’t want to think about getting married.

    3. College men aren’t marriageable: they’re not sufficiently mature and they’re not established enough in their careers.

    4. We live in an age of extended adolescence for men and women. Both aren’t fully mature adults until around age 26.

    5. It isn’t really true that age at first marriage (AAFM) has been rising over time. You have to look at the trend back to 1890. In 1890, male AAFM was 26.1, Then AAFM dipped in the 1950s reaching a low of 22.8 in about 1958; then has slowly risen again so that for men, AAFM is about 27.5 as of 2007 (US Census). Women’s AAFM have roughly tracked men’s; 22.0 in 1890; 20.3 in 1958; and 25.6 in 2007 at current peak. These trends show no signs of reversing.

    6. Men are delaying commitment and have a host of reasons for doing so. Men don’t have to commit to get sex; cohabitation is better; they don’t want the financial risks of divorce; they don’t want to have kids yet; they want more financial security; etc. (Source: National Marriage Project)

    Susan concludes that there is no market for college brides so women shouldn’t be trying to lock down men at age 20 or 21.

    My response would be that what we’re probably seeing is not men driving the market; but responding to it. I don’t see men making the key decisions here. What used to go on was trading sex for commitment; and commitment for sex. Both parties’ commitments were given: hers first, then his; and then socially sanctioned sex took place. What’s going on now is women abandoning their roles as gatekeepers of sex such that sex is now the sole currency everyone is trading with. It’s now sex in exchange for sex, with commitment a distant afterthought in most people’s minds, I think.

    Extended adolescence exists for a number of reasons: College is no longer a rigorous academic exercise and is now full of diploma mills, party time, worthless degrees, and is functionally an extension of high school. In short, young men and women aren’t being expected to grow up and take responsibility. They are taking on enormous amounts of debt with no real way to earn the money to pay it back. Yet another reason for extended adolescence is the easy sex most all women and a few men can get. Men who aren’t getting sex and try to invest in their educations in the hope of achieving beta provider status so as to attract a mate are seeing their investments of time and money largely wasted. Despite their earning power, they STILL can’t find or draw attractive, marriage minded women.

    Susan also ignores what a lot of women are actually doing: getting educations and jobs, dating around, riding the carousel, becoming career girls. In doing so they are avoiding commitment. Many of them continue this until they get to their late 20s and then expect one of the pretty horses on the carousel to ask for marriage. Barring that, she has to “settle” for a less attractive man who would never have been on her radar screen had baby rabies not set in and The Wall not come into focus.

    Women, not men, are driving the trend. Men are simply responding to women’s power position in the market; with the law and culture buttressing and enhancing that power even more.

  351. Dalrock says:

    @S1AL

    it’s always a bit shocking to me to see these kinds of numbers.

    What numbers?

    I think part of the bad press that the manosphere gets in more mainstream blog circles is a result of conflicting views of reality. As a poster pointed out earlier, the actively Christian middle class in America has been hit the least by the feminism of the last few decades. Between myself and the eight friends (seven guys, one girl) I still have from high school, the parent breakdown is four intact first marriages, one widow, one widower, one divorce (father remarried, fairly even joint custody), and one unknown.

    I agree with you on the conflicting views of reality. The problem is I offer stats and you offer anecdote. I will agree with you though that Christians are quite proud of their fighting the divorce/feminist culture. For the last several years Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family has been celebrating the fact that at a mere 38%, the most devout Christians divorce at a rate which is statistically discernible (but not all that different) from non Christians. This is of course the same Stanton who is Director of Family Formation Studies for FotF and who calls single mothers heroic, and explains to parents that their daughters are innately good and will choose to marry good fathers before having children if only there is one available.

    So I have to wonder why my experience is so different from the stats I keep seeing here

    Again, I have no idea what stats you are referring to. Please explain which stats I have shared which are innacurate. Stating that you have anecdotally experienced something different is not a refutation of statistics.

    I think that a big part of the issue is how many of these divorces are originating in the (often non-religious or non-practicing “religious”) lower classes and being decided by lower-class-oriented courts. Here the historical situation is different… one in which absentee fathers were common prior to feminism and the child-support era. So these courts are often operating on assumptions that may not be true at all anymore.

    What you are stating is that there are two forms of family law in operation in the US. One for the “lower classes”, and one for middle class and UMC. I can find some indication to support the assertion made by another commenter that UMC fathers fare slightly better than other men in family court, but you are making an assertion which is simply not backed up by the data. I reviewed US Census data on custody demographics here. While UMC men seem to be slightly better at working the system, fathers as a class are at a profound systemic disadvantage.

    As for absentee fathers having been common prior to feminism, this is provably false.

    On top of that, marriage is still highly-encouraged in the middle class; of those 8 friends, all of them have expressed a strong interest in marriage except for the guy who’s planning to be a Catholic priest and the guys whose parents are divorced (and he’s still at least moderately interested).

    Your intense preference for anecdote over statistics and hard data is something you should seriously consider. Middle class women are not bucking the trend and marrying young. They have lead the delay in marriage which we have witnessed over the last few decades. Here are the stats, but since you prefer anecdote I’ll share the fact that most of the men in my social circle who graduated college when I did married within 1-2 years after getting their bachelors degree. Men in your generation want to get married right after college. Men in my generation did get married right after college.

    So you want to reverse the trends and not just enjoy the decline? Demonstrate that the part of the culture that still values traditional marriage, Christianity, faithfulness, and work ethic is actually, you know, functioning. Until that part of the middle class gets more press outside of our dear President’s supposed administrative intent, you’re not going to see anyone returning to the only viable option that those not born into wealth have.

    The problem with this approach is the data simply isn’t on your side. I’ve shown in great detail that the modern church is profoundly corrupt. If it weren’t, then your approach would be correct. It is in fact the approach I would prefer to be making, but first I have to break through an army of deniers.

  352. Hopeful says:

    “Although it may be the case that some men abandoned their families, the idea that it was common, as S1Al suggests is most unlikely, indeed I have never heard it previously suggested”

    It depends on the community under discussion. Men abandoning their families happened with some frequency during The Great Migration of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as many newly emancipated slaves migrated North (and West) in search of better jobs, working and living conditions. Due to the legacy of slavery and lynchings (primarily in the South, but also in the North) along with the fact that many would hire a black woman over a black man, because women were considered more docile and easier to control, especially in the domestic sphere. So many black women have traditionally been the sole breadwinners for their families, which many have claimed alienated black men. So for some the pressure of not being able to find employment (or steady employment paying livable wages), along with the fact that one’s wife may be gone for extended periods of time, working sometimes in another city or state, many black men simply left. See Richard Wright’s 10 Million Black Voices for further info.

    Considering that this current economic recession has been referred to as the “hecession,” with many industries that have traditionally been dominated by men being phased out (and partly because of more women in the workplace as has been noted previously), it seems like history is repeating itself in some ways. Opus, I like your discussion of literature.

  353. Dear S1AL,

    Could you please define your terms as well as the statistics you keep citing? The mark of an alpha is the ability to use simple logic and reason alongside facts to arrive at conclusions, which is why Dalrock’s blog is a huge hit. Could you please be a bit more alpha too?

    Or perhaps you define “alpha traits,” as the ability to obfuscate, opine without fact, spew random speculations, and buttehxt the statistics to serve some purely emotional pre-conceived conclusion? And then, according to you, would using simple logic and reason, combined with facts, comprise “beta traits” in your opinion? For I have heard from other churchians that simple logic and reason, combined with facts, doesn’t always make women’s butts and ginas tingelzozzozozo and thus, by definition, must be beta. Is this your school of thought?

    S1AL says:

    “That said, I think the Christian community is lightyears ahead in figuring out the basis of alpha and beta traits… Tim Lahaye (of Left Behind fame) actually got his start by reorienting Hippocrates’ four classical personality types in “The Spirit-Controlled Temperament.” I personally find it very enlightening for understanding differences, and it could go a long way towards helping guys who are natural betas to become more alpha without betraying their natures.”

    Dear S1AL,

    Since you have witnessed the “figuring out the basis of alpha and beta traits” could you please share your definitions of “alpha traits” and “beta traits?”

    Thanks in advance for manning up by providing examples for your profound discovery of the basis of alpha and beta traits!

    lzozlzozozozozozoz

  354. deti says:

    If I may add to what Nova said above:

    What tradcons and socons also do with marriage and divorce, is also being done with single mothers/divorced mothers. Tradcons and socons don’t want it to be true that some women make the colossal mistake of premarital sex followed by unplanned pregnancy. They don’t want it to be true that other women chose shitty men to sire their children. Tradcons and socons don’t want to acknowledge that many women aren’t very good judges of character and chose to marry louts who then divorce them and leave them high and dry with kids.

    So instead of holding such women accountable and encouraging them to make better decisions, we’re told these women are heroic. We’re told that women are innately good and if tehyare left to their own devices they will naturally make the “right” and “fair” and “moral” decisions. They only wanted to be mothers, you see; they only wanted to make their contribution to society by bringing children into the world. Since they couldn’t find good men to be husbands and fathers, they had their kids alone. We must ignore the fact that the children are the unfortunate result of their mothers’ poor decisions. Instead, the pastors, church elders, and other women say it falls to the men of the church (you know, those decent guys who were told to find a nice girl in church but get routinely blown out with nuclear rejections by the very girls they were told were available for them) to insulate them from their poor decisions. These men are browbeaten and excoriated and told it’s their DUTY to man up and marry a “heroic” single mom. These men are told God expects them to care for and support another man’s children as his own. These men are told they must suck up repeated rejection and approach and take on damaged, expended, used up, low value women as wives.

    That is also one of the problems here.

  355. deti says:

    JOhnson85:

    Dalrock has talked about one of the things going on with men and so-called extended adolescence. There’s a weakened signal going to most men. Most men aren’t getting the indicators to take on the responsibility of a wife and family because the women around them are clearly signaling they don’t want it yet.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/the-weakened-signal/

  356. deti says:

    Moreover, we’re told that single mothers are “more moral” than men because, well, “at least they didn’t have abortions.”

  357. Yes!

    “Tradcons and socons don’t want it to be true that some women make the colossal mistake of premarital sex followed by unplanned pregnancy.”

    A *real* traditional conservative, along the lines of Moses and Jesus, would understand that premarital sex is a sin.

    Also, a *real* traditional conservative, along the lines of Moses and Jesus, would understand that sex followed by an “unplanned pregnancy” is like jumping off a ten-story building followed by an “unplanned death.” lzozozlzlzo

    In many ways tradcons and socons and churchians are but fronts for the massively corrupt, wealth-transferring, slaveryenforcing, children-seizing machinations of the central bankers’ divorce cartel.

    Like used-car salemen, the modern minister tries to sell her as a bride in white, incabable of even thinking of buttehxt zllzozozozzoozoozzlo, as he rolls back her odometer from lostsas cockas in da butthzozlzozozo and hgianalzozlzoozholz to 0.

    Like S1AL, they say, “everything is fine here, my statistics show, everything is great, men need to man up and become alphas, and my statistics show that everything will be great!” while never presenting their statistics nor research, nor defining “alpha” nor “beta.”

  358. Legion says:

    Thanks all for continued reading and refuting of S1AL. Once I read someone with such retarded beliefs I don’t bother to read them again until they earn approval from the right people here.
    Thanks again.

  359. anonymous says:

    S1AL, Novaseeker wrote to you:

    [tradcons] do not want it to be true that a large number of women are engaging in promiscuity … while most men are not because they simply cannot. Instead they want to focus on the small number of men who CAN, and vilify them for soiling our pure, innocent and pristine daughters of the king. And, and this is the real kicker, do this by kicking the teeth in of the very men who are shut out from dating and relationships due to this imbalance, and blame these men for what the high-access men are doing — two groups of men who are fundamentally different (and the latter aren’t even usually in the room!

    We are actually dealing with 4 categories of men here — this may help clarify your thinking. Please also note that Alphas of all categories are no more than 10-20% of the male population. Anyway… here are the players on the stage:

    Righteous Alpha: attracts women effortlessly, marries well, usually marries young. Off the market. (Most pastors seem to be in this group. Having effortllessly attracted wives themselves, they have no clue how to help a struggling Beta for whom getting married is a Herculean quest rather than a 2 unit add-on to the last semester of seminary).

    Wicked Alpha: attracts women effortlessly, sleeps with lots of women when young; may marry and serially cheat later in life. May pretend to be a Righteous Alpha in order to get laid; targets Christian women with this game. When women and pastors bitterly complain about the behavior of “men”, they are mostly talking about this subset of men only, though they don’t realize it. (Call this the “Mark Driscoll Fallacy”) Some of these men also become pastors, leading to great chaos when they are found out.

    Righteous Beta: works his @$$ off trying to earn money and attract women, but is largely ignored until later in life. Does all the spiritual and character building inner work that Church and family tell him will attract a woman, and is bitterly disappointed to find that it doesn’t work. Tends to marry in his 30s, and is often a virgin or relatively inexperienced til then. In church, he is likely to get blamed for the crimes of the Wicked Alphas (the Mark Driscoll Fallacy, see above). Also, he may be called out and shamed for failing to “man up” and marry these good Christian girls, when in fact he’s been trying his damnedest and has been getting endlessly rejected. (Call this the “Albert Mohler Fallacy”)

    Wicked Beta: gives up, turns to porn and/or prostitution when he realizes that he’ll need to work 60 hour weeks for the next decade before a woman will talk to him. May totally drop out of the career realm and live in mom’s basement, or may earn well and spend the money on himself.

    Bottom line:

    Tradcons see, and women suffer, the horrible damage done by the small percentage of Wicked Alphas — and wrongly blame men in general. Which means that when Righteous Betas show up to church, they get hit with a bunch of moralizing about how they should stop sleeping around, stop playing with women’s hearts, stop being a naughtly commitophobe, etc. But in truth the Betas aren’t doing those things. They have precisely the opposite problem — women just don’t like them. (All together now: “Let’s Just Be Friends!”)

    And THAT is the audience for the Manosphere — the Righteous Beta.

  360. anonymous says:

    Also, a *real* traditional conservative, along the lines of Moses and Jesus, would understand that sex followed by an “unplanned pregnancy” is like jumping off a ten-story building followed by an “unplanned death.”

    Gold, GBFM. Pure, 24 carat gold. lzozozlzlzo

  361. Dear S1AL,

    You write,

    “I’m explaining something that the manosphere occasionally forgets: feminism didn’t start with women and it wasn’t allowed by women and it wasn’t a result of the actions of women. Men started it and allowed it.”

    We are fully aware here, S1AL, that the central bankers created feminism and used it as a sledgehammer to destroy the church, university, and western civilization:

    What we are wondering S1AL, is why you never speak out against the central bankers, but rather, why you instead castigate and impugn “betas,” and tell them to man up and marry the bernankifed sluts? Perhaps it is because S1AL believes that “buttocking” the currency, church, and culture is alpha?

    zlzozozozzlzo

  362. Yes anonymous!! You wisely write,

    “Tradcons see, and women suffer, the horrible damage done by the small percentage of Wicked Alphas — and wrongly blame men in general. Which means that when Righteous Betas show up to church, they get hit with a bunch of moralizing about how they should stop sleeping around, stop playing with women’s hearts, stop being a naughtly commitophobe, etc. But in truth the Betas aren’t doing those things. They have precisely the opposite problem — women just don’t like them. (All together now: “Let’s Just Be Friends!”)”

    Women get buttcocked by alphazs (who are in reality the characterless, unheroic betsas and omegas), and then to make up for their sore buttholzozolzoz, they can legislate against betas (who are really the true alphas who work and create welath) and seize their welath, giving a cut to the cenrtal abbemekrez who can only create debt, and thus created the feminsist moevement to conevert the worthless fiat buttehxhing debt into proeprty wans wleath zlzlzolzozozo

    this is the basis for a Harvad MBA course

    HARVARD UNIVERSITY JUST INTRODUCED A NEW COURSE!!

    Upper-Level Feminist Business 401: During the semester we will learn how to optimize Alpha F^%&% and Beta Bucks, as we are buttcoked by “alphas” and then go forth into the corporate-state to buttcock betas out of their assettsts (buttcocking their asstettss so to speak lzozlzoz) buttcoki dem outta der assettts in divorce curt, entitle progapms, corproate sexual harrassment suits, and guilting betas and gelding them with the “pay gap” myth, all the while complaining about the glass ceieling even as we rise to very top of the fiat debt empire while da menz are unemployed and crusedhesd and enslaved bwloe zlozlzlzozozl. We will transfer teh assetts to the central banks and bernankifiers for teh centyral banks can only create debt-based fiat dollarz which are worth less than nothing, and thus need d awomenz movement to go forth and buttcock and guilt betas into working working working for a hope to lick our std-addled, strecthed-out bungholes lzozlzololzozo. We will examine why betas do not like this setup, and how we can shame them into marriage and slaving away in corproate jobs while we cock hold the alphas and cukhold da betas zlzololzlzlozozololzlzolz. homework will consist of getting buttcocked by a buttccker while mainitaing a roster of at least 20 beta oribters to reguallry buy one meals so that they will be well fed for the buttcocking later that evening. this will prepare tda womenz for bigger game, whnce they get betas to buy them homes and cars, and then dun future buttcockings with aplphas via alimony and child support lzzllzzlzozozozozo. sample exam questions will be, “what does tucker butthexter max wheym with? klzozolzolzolzo

    lzozoozozoz

  363. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    anonymous @11:43a “Wicked Beta: [...]“

    I prefer the term ‘Rational Beta’, myself. ;)

  364. now and then the gbfm gets invited to cenrtal banker meetingz and davos

    most of the time i do not go but sometimes i do

    and i overheard the coneverattasion:

    “if we can get them to accept lostas cockas in tehir wife’s butthlozozlzoz, then its a short leap to have them accept lostats cockas in their bank acoccountz zlzoolzozoz butthetxing their savingzz. we will test it in a small country like cyprus before taking it globallzozlzlzozz. our greatest asset is the abundance of white-knighting S1ALs who will attack and berate their good brothers, calling them betas for acting honorably, while labeling us as master alphasz as we rule da world via buttehcockkng with one cenrtal buttcocking bank to ruele tehem alalasozlzozlzozlz”

  365. 8oxer says:

    I love you GBFM. :)

  366. Leon Haller says:

    Dalrock,
    Outstanding article (just discovered this site). But you lost me right at the very end. I hope you are correct about our returning to a traditional marriage structure (the implication being that this will be voluntary and rationally decided), but I highly doubt it. The West is dying because of liberalism (an insight I had in college 26 years ago). No Western country has yet really extricated itself from ANY aspect of liberalism (well, maybe one, exactly 80 years ago .. but that was due to special circumstances … and we don’t wish to investigate it too closely, know what I mean?). Liberalism thrives by unleashing and justifying formerly suppressed appetites, often of a sexual nature. Ditto democracy, a form of liberalism. How do you get people to renounce a hard-won “right”? It’s like asking Third World immigrants to go back home. It will never happen, except by superior firepower.

    Liberalism is profoundly, superficially, anti-authoritarian, like a rebellious teenager. But can you expect a teenager to discipline him/herself? Will The People ever exhibit the unprecedented maturity to renounce some of their “rights”?

    We will only return to sexual, marital, penological, demographic, economic, political and social sanity when reality reasserts itself and the entire civilization has collapsed of its inner (liberal) contradictions, leaving only strong men left to pickup the pieces, and forcibly reimpose their own preferred social order.

  367. i luvs u2 8oxer & i cherish our braomamance lzlzozoz bromance elzozozozz

  368. Leon Haller writes,

    “Liberalism is profoundly, superficially, anti-authoritarian, like a rebellious teenager. But can you expect a teenager to discipline him/herself? Will The People ever exhibit the unprecedented maturity to renounce some of their “rights”?”

    Actually, modern liberalism is profoundly authoritarian, as it exalts one central bank to rule over all entirety. The promise the comman man’s wife all the butthext she could ever want, and call it “freedom” and “liberation” as they leverage women ruled by butt and gina tinglesz to grow the authoritarian state.

    All one need do is look at reality. As sex was separated (liberated) from Holy Matrimony, the central government grew in a massive manner to support the welfare state, which profits the central bankers in an immense manner as they seize assets form men, while also growing the debt which men must service, to fund the legions of buttcocked womenz and their bastard chidlrenz zlzozlzooz.

    What Dalrock and Heartiste (and Genesis) constantly represent is that woman’s natural biological, baser sexual tendencies, which the economists ignore in all their meaningless equations, are incompatible with civilization. And the decline offers irrefutable proof.

    zlzozozlzolzo

  369. Ton says:

    Sucks to be a “beta”.

  370. Dear Ton,

    In your opinion was JEsus an Alpha or a Beta?
    Was Frodo an Alpha or a Beta?
    Was Luke Skywalker an Alpha or a Beta?

    Is the U.S. MArine who jumps on a grende to save his brothers an Alpha or a Beta?

    Is the butthexter who films secrteiv tapingz of butthext and publisheds and profitsz off them an alpha or a beta lzozlzlzoz in your world view?

    lzozozozozzloz

    please define alpha and beta ton

    tahnksz!!!

  371. buttehxt the statistics

    Pleasures anew….every day.

  372. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    Que es mas beta: Lightbulb o Schoolbus?

  373. Ton says:

    I put the words in quotes because I don’t much care for it GBFM. In this case it is the nice/ good man that gets shit on by the world. I don’t put much stock in the idea a man is alpha because he’s good with women, but they are handy terms for discussion

    the alpha male is the dominate male, for humans an alpha is a man with the strength to get what he wants and the will power to use that strength to accomplish his goals. What his goals are dictates whether he is a good man or not. And the strength could be physical, intellectual etc. What ever his abilities happen to be

    Lol All marines are beta by virtue of being a marine….

  374. dear ton,

    you write, “the alpha male is the dominate male, for humans an alpha is a man with the strength to get what he wants and the will power to use that strength to accomplish his goals.”

    so in your view, was christ an alpha or beta?

    remember that as the beginning, christ turned down three temptations from satan, as did the buddha

    did this make them alphas or betas?

    is christ a “dominate male” in your opinion?

    or is tucker mackz whyems iwth goldman sax the “dominate male” because he “has the strength” to butthext, secrtely tape it, and publish and profit off the butsthettual storiess lzozzlzo

    is he stronger than the us marine who not only does not profit offf of butthext and sectrive tapings fo fbutthext, but loses his life while jumping on a grenade to save his brothers?

    you write,

    “Lol All marines are beta by virtue of being a marine…”

    do you also think that achilles was a beta by virtue of being a soldier poet warrior?

    is every man who ever fought for freedom a beta in your book, while those who choose not to enlist, but rather buetethctx and tape it secrirtrly and prfooti off it “alphas?”

    see, i think a foundational problem with the manosphere s that it has truly inverted alpha and beta traits.

    if we are to progress, we mut return the classical codes of honor to the center and circumeference alphatude, as has ever been thfoughout all exalted civilization and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ lzozlzoz

    a great opportunity for a rnassiance awaits, if men only choose to take ownership in the gifts given them by the bold poet-warriors, philosophers, and prophets whose lives and works consttute the GREAT BOOKS OF, BY, AND FOR MEN of OUR FATHERS which teach of the true, higher nature of true alapahtude z

  375. S1AL says:

    Wow, I really stirred something up here. I’ll try to address every point, but there are a lot of them and some of you (coughGBFMcough) seem to want to make it even more difficult for me. But I will try to hit everything.

    But first I want to address what seems to be a sticking point here, and that’s my use of the term “TradCon.” I’m talking about the *traditional*, *conservative* segment of society that exists almost exclusively in the middle middle and upper middle class, with the strength of traditional marriage, low divorce rates, a strong Christian heritage, education, and reasonable levels of wealth (enough to be UMC and MMC).

    If you’re using another definition, then I apologize for not being more clear. That said, the segment of society which I am describing has gotten, as a commentator here once noted, “almost all of the benefits of feminism (extra income, education of women, and even double voting privileges) without the downsides in an equal measure (massive spike in divorce rates, marital dysfunction, the ‘alpha appetite’ among young women’). And this is where the conflict in worldview comes from. Trust me, people in that kind of social bubble are VERY open about condemning premarital sex, many times being much harder on young women… look at the application of the rules and social norms at Liberty University. They also very strongly support marriage and oppose divorce.

    The issue occurs when these thoroughly well-meaning people encounter members of other segments of society. This changes the rules, and TradCons have been slow to adapt. This is where I think the manosphere has had its greatest opportunity and greatest failing. Stop making a caricature of TradCons based on movies like “Courageous” or “Fireproof,” which are largely unpopular outside of the neo-con and liberal sides of Christianity. Verbally berating a caricature is pointless. Instead, take the opportunity to, in a spirit of LOVE (as commanded) speak the truth about the situation once you have demonstrated that you’re “playing for the same side” (God’s).

    I’d also like to take a moment to define what I call “Neo-Cons.” These, to me, are the churches that condemn “sluttiness” but largely turn a blind eye to people living together. It’s the congregations that will condemn players but not sluts. It’s the pastors who can barely find the courage to condemn homosexuality and wouldn’t even think to touch on the subject of submission in marriage. But I want to be clear: These. Are. Not. TradCons. They don’t fit the logical or practical definition of what makes a TradCon.

    I also don’t think that SoCon = TradCon. TradCon is much narrower and further from the mainstream on “traditional” issues like marriage. I consider FotF to be SoCon, but not necessarily TradCon. There’s a reason I don’t read anything they publish anymore.

    @greyghost – “Btw the christian church isn’t in front of a damn thing. Infact the church is not christian but churchian and is in the name of god paving a pure and good pussy worshipping (and now gay inclusive) path to hell.”

    This is simply a ridiculous thing to say, and I even gave an example. Do you need another? The church is actually leading on a great many points, just not necessarily the ones that YOU care about. If that’s how you feel, that’s fine, but don’t claim an absolute on the basis of your personal interests.

    And, frankly, your outlook is so twisted and depressing that I really have no interest in arguing with you… the constant demonization of women that you profess is indicative of a psychologically crippling bitterness. Maybe it’s well-earned; either way, it makes arguing with you pointless because we have fundamentally different worldviews (I see people as people… flawed and innately sinful but still precious to God).

    @ Miserman – “Perhaps. If one peruses the historical content archived on Unmasking Feminism, it would seem that modern feminism has been around for quite some time. Also, it could be argued that Eve was the first feminist and many celebrate her as exactly that.”

    This comes back to my original point… the first fault lies with Adam in ALLOWING his wife to eat from the fruit. The second fault lies in the eating of the fruit. This is actually an incredibly powerful analogy for where our culture is at: men did nothing to discourage feminism (consent by silence) and now society has gotten to enjoy the eating of the fruit of feminism.

    Also, of course feminism has existed conceptually for a long time. I mean, the intro to Esther starts off by examining an event based on that fundamental premise.

    @empathologism – “You say that the scenario you describe is what tradcons see most. What do you mean? That it is the one that EXISTS most? because that is untrue. They see what won’t spoil the comfy chair that is the false reality they exist within.”

    No, I’m saying that it’s the situation most present in actual TradCon churches, which have lately experienced an influx of single-mother families coming from other spheres of society. As I noted above, the problem occurs when the assumption that society functions the same outside the TradCon bubble mixes with a situation that is COMPLETELY different.

    – “Tradcons are not supporting immoral sexual behavior? You cannot be more wrong. They do not support a certain subset of immoral behavior, that which takes zero courage to oppose. They rant and rave on abortion and gay marriage, and porn and wild men and our roving eyes. They may even condemn a blatant harlot here and there. But they coddle the frivorcing women who begin to entertain new prospects, barely masked by thin walls while children sleep. They do not openly support that….they ignore it while pandering to every other aspect of that frivorced woman’s existence, every choice her little wounded heart makes.

    You are delusional, as these tradcons are delusional. And I am a Christian tradcon.”

    You apparently live in a very different TradCon world than I do. My experience indicates that most TradCon churches roundly condemn premarital sex and divorce without extreme cause (actual abuse, and true unfaithfulness – not porn, before someone tries to make that argument). I also think you’re mixing up Neo-Cons and TradCons.

    @anon – “The normative experience for the good girl is to reject a good guy (“Let’s Just Be Friends, you’re such a great guy, you’ll make a great husband for somebody, someday…..), go for the badboy, and get burned.

    The normative experience for a non-elite good guy, is to avoid bad girls and intentionally go for the apparently good ones, only to be rejected over and over. Or sometimes, they discover that a woman who is righteous in every other area of life, is uncharacteristically spiteful in this one area (the “nuclear rejection”).”

    Since I’ve been repeatedly accused of anecdotal evidence, how about you explain your thoroughly scientific (non-anecdotal) evidence for this one and how it applies to the church in particular, since it’s absolutely NOT what I have seen. What I *have* seen is “nice guys” who don’t have the ability to attract women because they lack any of the inherent qualities a woman’s hindbrain screams at her to find: confidence, courage, strength, etc. These are the “good” aspects of the “alpha male” that Christians barely know how to encourage

    And that is why I appreciate the concepts of game in the manosphere… the church is incredibly squeamish about promoting behavior like this, partially because of a false view of humility and an excessive desire to live “peaceful lives,” sadly forgetting that “godliness and holiness” includes these characteristics in men (and women, to a lesser extent).

    – “I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at — you seem to be implying that men are just as guilty, or guilty of the same things. First of all, that’s NOT true, not in this area of life. Relationships today are a wasteland today largely — not totally, but largely — due to female sin. Secondly, the audience of the manosphere, is the good men who have been stomped on by the current society wide relational dynamic. The badboys are not our problem. And finally, even if it were “equal”….. the manosphere (and pretty much nobody else) is here to help men — helping women is not our primary mission.”

    And I appreciate that; I really, really do. It’s a huge net positive for a society where we’ve outlawed violence (I’ll address how this influences my views later). What I take issue with, however, is how one-sided the conversations become here at times, with the vast amounts of vitriol thrown at specific women or women in general. I understand why it happens, but sometimes it take an outside perspective to point out the extremes.

    @Opus – “It may be that he does not realise it, but if one cuts out the elegant and polished English, S1AL’s posts are largely indistinguishable from those of females who come here to shame – i.e. ‘you men are no better’.”

    – ” literature is not full of such men, but rather of people like Soames Forythe or Karenin, determined to keep their marriage in tact no matter the circumstances”

    – “The figure of the mistress always hanging on for the man to leave his wife and join her, but who never does, is all too common”

    -“S1AL appears to be White-Knighting.”

    First, thank you; it’s not often that my efforts with the language are recognized on “teh interwebz,” and it’s even rarer that the reaction is positive.

    As to the first point, I think that men are in a historically unique situation. Women have had millenia to work on attracting men, while men have had only scant centuries in most cultures and did so under vastly different circumstance (the courtship scenario). So I don’t know that it’s a matter of “worse” or if it’s just a complete difference in position. I DO believe that women are largely responsible for encouraging and perpetuating the current condition, but I also believe that men allowed it, sometimes encouraged it, and are continuing to support it (actual white-knighting).

    Literature, and more importantly history, is chock-full of every situation. Literature written BY women (consider Jane Austen) is often more sympathetic to the woman seduced by the rogue. There’s also the important historical point that men had the vast majority of the power in a relationship until the last couple of centuries. This is one reason why you see women leaving men more often than you see men leaving their mistresses: men could afford to have an affair and still “walk away free,” particularly among nobility unless the other side wielded immense political power (i.e. Ferdinand and Isabella). Women, OTOH, had to make a choice much more often, and would choose to go with the man on whom they had NOT cheated.

    As to me white-knighting… honestly, it’s ridiculous. I was disillusioned about the purity of women in middle school and high school and then fully disillusioned when the “Nice Christian Girl” I first dated (college) invited me to sleep at her place the first night (not for sex, to her credit). That relationship was short and taught me a lot about where we’re ACTUALLY at in society. It was a big part of my “red pill” experience, which spans across the last decade.

    @whatever – “Not really. In fact, it’s a stupid thing to say. Breach of Promise suits were common in the “old days”. Taking a woman’s right to never be rejected, ever, to an absurd level.”

    Many of these laws weren’t applied to the lower classes for a number of reasons. The perception that the writing of the 1700’s-1900’s encompasses the general masses is a huge problem, wince the upper and middle classes were so incredibly tiny in comparison and yet dominated writing (understandably).

    @Novaseeker – “Instead they want to focus on the small number of men who CAN, and vilify them for soiling our pure, innocent and pristine daughters of the king. And, and this is the real kicker, do this by kicking the teeth in of the very men who are shut out from dating and relationships due to this imbalance, and blame these men for what the high-access men are doing — two groups of men who are fundamentally different (and the latter aren’t even usually in the room!). This continues with the way the same fools look at the current situation of divorce. When they see divorces, they focus on the ones where the guy is a lout.”

    To some extent this is true. It’s also a product of the massive, undeniable historical bias towards valuing the virginity of a woman far above that of a man. Not to say that it isn’t a problem, but I think you’re missing the core reason.

    -“Meanwhile the divorcee women in the church are given full support, regardless of the circumstances of their divorces. If you want to talk about one-sided, it’s hard to paint a more vivid picture of it than the way the churches are currently dealing with ALL issues pertaining to men and women and relationships between the two. ALL issues.”

    I agree to some extent, though my personal experience has shown this to not always be true. There was a couple in the church my father pastored that ended up divorcing… sadly, nobody even knew they were having problems until it happened, and really threw a lot of us for a loop as they had appeared very happy (though I was at college and may have missed some signs). My observation was that everyone in the church was open to supporting both of them if needed, though also frustrated with what had happened since they never brought it to the leadership.

    It’s also my opinion that women are more likely than men to lean on the church for help when abandoned. This creates a perception bias based on the apparent righteousness of women because they are still “in the fold.”

    -“God held and holds women to account for their sin, separate and apart from any sins that men are committing. I don’t see tradcons doing this, I don’t see churches doing this and I certainly don’t see socons doing this — at least not in any comprehensive or consistent way, or in any way that is to any degree similar to how they address the failings of men.

    And that, frankly, is the issue.”

    And with this principle I agree. I don’t believe it’s anywhere near as universal as you describe, but I do believe that it happens. Very much so. Of course, that’s why I’m taking the time to read and respond here.

    @Dalrock – “I was convinced that S1AL was an April fools prank, but I see his comments have continued past the end of April fools day. Sorry for the interruption. Carry on. As S1AL points out, who are you going to believe, your lying eyes (and those lying academic studies and statistics), or what he tells you is the truth?”

    Right back at you. My observations belie your universal condemnation. And I actually was agreeing with the statistics you posted sometime previous, where you noted that the middle class and the educated suffer the least from divorce. I believe that the TradCon segment of society helps to explain this to a large degree. Not saying it’s perfect, but rather that TradCons actually DO have a lot going for them.

    @GBFM – “I personally find it very enlightening for understanding differences, and it could go a long way towards helping guys who are natural betas to become more alpha without betraying their natures.”

    Could you please define “Alpha” and “Beta” for us?

    Which is trustworthy loyal, helpful, friendly, curteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent?”

    First, why are you using the boy scout creed?

    To be fair, I’m using the terms in a more social-oriented (and frankly classical) manner than Roissy ever used them. I first saw the terms in relation to the roles of men in male groups, not in a sexual-conquest-oriented one. However…

    Alpha: Domineering, powerful, strong, possessive, highly-driven, confident, etc.

    Beta: Comforting, empathetic, emotionally available, loving, etc.

    And there are a hot of negatives that come with both sides as well. You may choose not to accept this definition if you don’t want, but I think it fits the underlying nature of the situation quite well.

    – “can you name a single TradCon who has ever spoken out against the divorce laws”

    Many, but not many nationally-recognized leaders. This might have to do with the fact that recognizing them But in my personal church experience, I have found many (including my own father) who will roundly condemn the situation. But he is not a nationally-syndicated figure, so I’m assuming that’s not what you’re wanting.

    – “Could you please write a letter to the owner of this site, telling them that they are wrong?” About what, exactly? And how does this relate to my points?

    @Dalrock – “What numbers?”

    The divorce statistics. That’s part of the bubble effect.

    – “I agree with you on the conflicting views of reality. The problem is I offer stats and you offer anecdote. I will agree with you though that Christians are quite proud of their fighting the divorce/feminist culture. For the last several years Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family has been celebrating the fact that at a mere 38%, the most devout Christians divorce at a rate which is statistically discernible (but not all that different) from non Christians. This is of course the same Stanton who is Director of Family Formation Studies for FotF and who calls single mothers heroic, and explains to parents that their daughters are innately good and will choose to marry good fathers before having children if only there is one available.”

    I never disagreed with your statistics. I actually am borrowing the stats from a chart you previously posted, wherein you noted that being middle class and educated appeared to have a negative correlation with divorce. I am offering a partial explanation.

    And yes, the FotF stance is regrettable. I see what they’re saying, but I think they’re marginalizing men and significantly overstating what women are doing. To be fair, the women who come to the church for support are more likely to be in a situation where they didn’t do it for the alimony (if there is any); at least, that’s my experience.

    – “Again, I have no idea what stats you are referring to. Please explain which stats I have shared which are innacurate. Stating that you have anecdotally experienced something different is not a refutation of statistics.”

    You’re creating a straw man here. I said that *my experience* differs from *the stats*. You read this to say that I’m claiming the stats are invalid. I’m saying that my experience is an outlier, and I am crediting that to my TradCon upbringing and partial “social bubble.” Please don’t ascribe statements to me that I never made.

    – “What you are stating is that there are two forms of family law in operation in the US. One for the “lower classes”, and one for middle class and UMC. I can find some indication to support the assertion made by another commenter that UMC fathers fare slightly better than other men in family court, but you are making an assertion which is simply not backed up by the data. I reviewed US Census data on custody demographics here. While UMC men seem to be slightly better at working the system, fathers as a class are at a profound systemic disadvantage.”

    Actually, I’m saying that the heavy bias towards women is much more notable in courts that exist in lower-class areas and that the bias (which I grant is present at all levels) is a result of historical difference from the present situation. I’m fully agreeing with the stats you have provided, and I fully agree that the system is a huge, biased, unforgivable mess. My point is that you are ascribing things to TradCons based on your mistaken assumption that they are in league with feminists, when in reality TradCons compose such a small percentage of modern society that ascribing anything to them is a mistake unless you focus on the part of society where they exist. And when you do, lo and behold! YOUR statistics support my claim.

    – “As for absentee fathers having been common prior to feminism, this is provably false.”

    I singled out one specific part of society (and I’m actually talking about ye olden times, not 1900’s America). This chart doesn’t address that at all.

    – “Your intense preference for anecdote over statistics and hard data is something you should seriously consider. Middle class women are not bucking the trend and marrying young. They have lead the delay in marriage which we have witnessed over the last few decades. Here are the stats, but since you prefer anecdote I’ll share the fact that most of the men in my social circle who graduated college when I did married within 1-2 years after getting their bachelors degree. Men in your generation want to get married right after college. Men in my generation did get married right after college.”

    First, that depends on how you define young. Second, it fails to take into account the bare minimum number of years that women attending college adds to the average. My wife and I delayed marrying for about a year because of the complications of college, and I know friends who did the same. But, since we’re using anecdote for the moment, let me share mine: I have seven male friends who married while in college or shortly after graduating (male to avoid counting twice). They were ALL active Christians, mostly from what would be considered TradCon homes using my definition. Of my non-Christian friends or non-active friends from Christian backgrounds, one married immediately after college. I had significantly more friends in the later category than in the former.

    Do you see the pattern here? Do you get my point now?

    You make the argument that the modern church is corrupt. I agree. However, and this is the key point where we differ, I believe that there is a small but significant portion of the church that is largely not corrupt, composed primarily of actual TradCons, not neo-liberal SoCons. I also believe that, while giving lip service to NACALT, you are still throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I think you’re not even close to the only one doing it

    @GBFM – “Dear S1AL,

    Could you please define your terms as well as the statistics you keep citing? The mark of an alpha is the ability to use simple logic and reason alongside facts to arrive at conclusions, which is why Dalrock’s blog is a huge hit. Could you please be a bit more alpha too?

    Or perhaps you define “alpha traits,” as the ability to obfuscate, opine without fact, spew random speculations, and buttehxt the statistics to serve some purely emotional pre-conceived conclusion? And then, according to you, would using simple logic and reason, combined with facts, comprise “beta traits” in your opinion? For I have heard from other churchians that simple logic and reason, combined with facts, doesn’t always make women’s butts and ginas tingelzozzozozo and thus, by definition, must be beta. Is this your school of thought?

    S1AL says:

    “That said, I think the Christian community is lightyears ahead in figuring out the basis of alpha and beta traits… Tim Lahaye (of Left Behind fame) actually got his start by reorienting Hippocrates’ four classical personality types in “The Spirit-Controlled Temperament.” I personally find it very enlightening for understanding differences, and it could go a long way towards helping guys who are natural betas to become more alpha without betraying their natures.”

    Dear S1AL,

    Since you have witnessed the “figuring out the basis of alpha and beta traits” could you please share your definitions of “alpha traits” and “beta traits?”

    Thanks in advance for manning up by providing examples for your profound discovery of the basis of alpha and beta traits!”

    You could look up the book, or Google the info, but hey, I’ll bite.

    Hippocrates’ traditional types were Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic, and Melancholy. LaHaye uses the classifications and H’s definitions as a starting point and then moves out from there to a Christian perspective and modern redefinition of the finer points. In short –

    Choleric – Type A, Driven, Dominant/Domineering, Leader of men, seize the initiative, perfectionist, emotionally controlled but not emotionless, intensely loyal in a particular way, etc. Basically, a large portion of alpha characteristics, particularly leadership and dominance.

    Sanguine – Outgoing, able to read people intuiitively, sympathetic, life of the party, emotionally available, excitable, exciting, etc. Some notable alpha points and several beta points.

    Phlegmatic – easy-going, analytical, less emotional than the other archetypes, prone to poking fun at anyone and everyone, enjoying, good listener – Lots of the notable beta points, and strong tendency towards Vox’s Sigma points

    Melancholy – Introspective, intensely passionate, hyperanalytical and drawn to fine detail, artistic and creative; some beta points, a couple alpha, several gamma (Vox)

    And then there are the various mixtures, which LaHaye argues are much more common than the purer forms. Natural Alphas tend to be Cholerics, particularly Choleric-Melancholy.

    But again, you could go read about it for yourself and decide if it’s worth examining in detail.

    @deti – “What tradcons and socons also do with marriage and divorce, is also being done with single mothers/divorced mothers. Tradcons and socons don’t want it to be true that some women make the colossal mistake of premarital sex followed by unplanned pregnancy. They don’t want it to be true that other women chose shitty men to sire their children. Tradcons and socons don’t want to acknowledge that many women aren’t very good judges of character and chose to marry louts who then divorce them and leave them high and dry with kids.”

    I think you’re excessively conflating SoCons and TradCons here. TradCons, being traditional, tend to come down pretty hard on women who sleep around or get involved with losers. But again, this is using my definition.

    @GBFM – “Like S1AL, they say, “everything is fine here, my statistics show, everything is great, men need to man up and become alphas, and my statistics show that everything will be great!” while never presenting their statistics nor research, nor defining “alpha” nor “beta.””

    Never said any of that.

    @anon – “Righteous Alpha: attracts women effortlessly, marries well, usually marries young. Off the market. (Most pastors seem to be in this group. Having effortllessly attracted wives themselves, they have no clue how to help a struggling Beta for whom getting married is a Herculean quest rather than a 2 unit add-on to the last semester of seminary).”

    This is essentially who my father is. It’s also part of why I think he only ever taught me about relationships indirectly (though I did learn many things that way).

    – “Wicked Alpha: attracts women effortlessly, sleeps with lots of women when young; may marry and serially cheat later in life. May pretend to be a Righteous Alpha in order to get laid; targets Christian women with this game. When women and pastors bitterly complain about the behavior of “men”, they are mostly talking about this subset of men only, though they don’t realize it. (Call this the “Mark Driscoll Fallacy”) Some of these men also become pastors, leading to great chaos when they are found out.”

    Agree pretty much 100%

    “Wicked Beta: gives up, turns to porn and/or prostitution when he realizes that he’ll need to work 60 hour weeks for the next decade before a woman will talk to him. May totally drop out of the career realm and live in mom’s basement, or may earn well and spend the money on himself.”

    Wouldn’t this be more Omega? Serious question.

    On the last point, my only problem is that the Christian-oriented manosphere is tiny even in comparison to the manosphere, which is also tiny. And this is why I’m hoping to open up some more dialogue about TradCons… the manosphere is too small and will likely remain so unless it can shift more mainstream (without compromising values, obv). And the best bet for that is to ally with TradCons whenever possible.

    @GBFM (again…) – “What we are wondering S1AL, is why you never speak out against the central bankers, but rather, why you instead castigate and impugn “betas,” and tell them to man up and marry the bernankifed sluts? Perhaps it is because S1AL believes that “buttocking” the currency, church, and culture is alpha?”

    Please point out where I said this. Either that, or apologize for creating incessant straw-men based on your massive cognitive bias.

  376. lzozozo

    thanks S1AL

    concenring alpha and beta traits, you write, “You could look up the book, or Google the info, but hey, I’ll bite.”

    Thankss for bitiing S1AL!!

    In your answer I must say that never beofre has someo used so many words to say so little. Your logic is worse than my spellingz zlzozoz!

    You write,

    “Hippocrates’ traditional types were Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic, and Melancholy. LaHaye uses the classifications and H’s definitions as a starting point and then moves out from there to a Christian perspective and modern redefinition of the finer points. In short –

    Choleric – Type A, Driven, Dominant/Domineering, Leader of men, seize the initiative, perfectionist, emotionally controlled but not emotionless, intensely loyal in a particular way, etc. Basically, a large portion of alpha characteristics, particularly leadership and dominance.”

    GBFM: So was Jesus an alpha via his DOMINANCE? Does LaHaye see Jesus as a dominat alpha? Do you? Who exactly did Jesus dominate? Does being crucified define alphatude? Are alphas often crucified, or were they just picking on JEsus because of his haircut?

    You write,
    “Sanguine – Outgoing, able to read people intuiitively, sympathetic, life of the party, emotionally available, excitable, exciting, etc. Some notable alpha points and several beta points.”

    GBFM: Was JEsus the life of the party? Was JEsus emotionally available? Have you read the bible, or do you stick to “emotionally-available” pop psy books?

    “Phlegmatic – easy-going, analytical, less emotional than the other archetypes, prone to poking fun at anyone and everyone, enjoying, good listener – Lots of the notable beta points, and strong tendency towards Vox’s Sigma points.”

    GBFM: So easy-going men are betas? Clint Eastwood is pretty easy going in all the western films like cool hand luke, but they are both badass alphas! or are you saying that being cool is a beta quality, and alphas are always getting their panties in a bunch? Jesus poked fun at anyone and everyone, and they crucified him for it. Ar eyou saying Jesus was a beta in addition to being an alpha? actually we are all wondering, WTF ar eyou saying? do you have any thoughts representng logic and reason, or do you jsut spout lzozozozzlzolzo like elzozozlzoz ocming out of f abebnrifified buuththoliolz? lzozozlzolz

    “Melancholy – Introspective, intensely passionate, hyperanalytical and drawn to fine detail, artistic and creative; some beta points, a couple alpha, several gamma (Vox)”

    Jesus was Melancholy. Jesus wept. He was “Introspective, intensely passionate, hyperanalytical and drawn to fine detail,” as he said not a sparrow owould fall without the father knowing ad that every hair on your head ocuntd. So are you saying that jesus was an alpha, a beta, and a gamma? Again, WTF ARE YOU SAYING??????

    “And then there are the various mixtures, which LaHaye argues are much more common than the purer forms. Natural Alphas tend to be Cholerics, particularly Choleric-Melancholy.

    So was Jesus a choleric, partculalry a choleric menanl melancholy?

    But again, you could go read about it for yourself and decide if it’s worth examining in detail. (S1AL beta copout lzlollozloolz)”

    again S1AL, could you please man up define alpha and beta?

    THANKS!

  377. S1AL, “On the last point, my only problem is that the Christian-oriented manosphere is tiny even in comparison to the manosphere, which is also tiny. And this is why I’m hoping to open up some more dialogue about TradCons… the manosphere is too small and will likely remain so unless it can shift more mainstream (without compromising values, obv). And the best bet for that is to ally with TradCons whenever possible.”

    Dude–get with the program. Far more people read dalrock and heartiste than the bloated willima bennett and pro-butethxte neoconteheoncs lzozzozozozzoz.

    Back in Jesus’s day, you have siad, “On the last point, my only problem is that the Christian-oriented Jesus-sphere is tiny even in comparison to the manosphere, which is also tiny. And this is why I’m hoping to open up some more dialogue about the Romans, Scribes, and Pharisees…Jesus is too small and will likely remain so unless He can shift more mainstream (without compromising values, obv). And the best bet for that is to ally with Romans, Scribes, and Pharisees whenever possible.”

    Yes, if only Jesus could have aligned with the Romans, Scribes, and Pharisees , they would not have crucified him. It was His own fault, for not playing “nice,” with the dead souls, and instead saying, “let the dead bury the dead.”

    lzozozozozozzlzozozlozz

  378. S1AL says:

    Yes, I would say that Jesus covered it all… not sure how that would be a surprise. I’m not advocating pure alpha-ness as a solution. But the Alpha traits, which I defined when you first asked, are related to pure masculine traits that women crave (in a good way), and sadly that they often only find in “bad guys.” That is why I advocate for learning some “game:” women aren’t attracted to it for no good reason. And developing those characteristics is a good way to grow as a man.

    And yes, Jesus would qualify as a dominant individual. He taught, and people listened. He led, and people followed. He did what was right, and people emulated it That is dominance. It is headship. Dominance is the flip side of submission… domineering is a different story and is the trait that most often leads to abuse.

    Yes, Jesus was Alpha, and Beta, and Gamma, and Sigma… and even Omega (I’ll get to that). He was a leader, a teacher, loyal, kind, caring, who laid down his life, and outcast and a sojourner, and one who took the “alphas” of his day and destroyed their arguments in such a public way that they never dared to question him again.

    And yet he never had relations with a woman. He was crucified and mocked and beaten and degraded, but he bore it without complaint.

    But why are we arguing about the nature of Christ?

    And I would argue that every archetype has a very easy notable example. Since PhlegmMel is the hardest, let’s start there: John Lennox. The brilliant, easy-going Christian mathematician who debated with Richard Dawkins. If you watch a video of that first debate, you can see John keep his cool, just smile and flippantly contradict Dawkins with minimal effort while Dawkins start to steam at the ears and rant/rave. Yes, I would call that Alpha, though I’d also say it fits into Sigma very easily. But Vox argued that Sigma is essentially a confusing form of Alpha.

    And how about SangPhlegm? The protagonist in Life is Beautiful. The guy is in a freaking concentration camp, but he remains cool as a cucumber and saves his son’s life while helping his wife get through the ordeal. Yeah, the guy’s absolutely as beta as can be (as fits the type), but he pulls off the necessary alpha traits when required. That’s what I’m supporting.

  379. S1AL says:

    Oh, so now the Christian manosphere is being directly compared to Jesus? And the rest of Christianity is comprised exclusively of pharisees and Romans?

    Get real.

  380. Ton says:

    The line about marines was an intra service joke. I spent 24 years in the army, Rangers and paratroopers mostly. I love joking with other vets. Don’t matter the branch or the nation, peace time or combat, only veterans make it into my inner circle. I cannot think of any post I have ever made, any statement I’ve ever uttered, that would give the impression I hold someone like tucker maxx in regard

    Achilles is one of my favorite literary characters, a good example for men, Frodo one of my least. I loved the Hobbit, cannot stand the Lord of the Rings. I agree about returning to an older concept of honor. Not 1950’s version either. Or even 1850’s

    The buddha is nothing to me.

    Christ is the alpha and the omega; the ultimate in ass kicking. Every time he healed the sick, or feed the poor He was monkey stomping the enemy of our souls, and He’s not coming back to chew bubble gum.

    I don’t do the alpha vs beta debate, or the what is alpha/ what is beta debate.Haven’t read one yet that doesn’t run down good men, and it’s about as useful as the ar vs ak debate. I am interested in topics like strength in all it forms, honor, correct action and thinking etc. I break down men into groups like who do I want to drink with, who’d I’d like to watch my back in a brawl, who do I want working on my bike, who’s opinion do I value and why etc

  381. Looking Glass says:

    S1AL has created a new argument category.

    There’s the “No True Scotsman” argument we all know about. His corollary is the “UMC Amish as TradCon”. There are very small, very cloistered groups like that, but good luck finding them. There are good churches out there, but there aren’t a lot of them. You aren’t going to get many takers to talking about the “Church” when you’re speaking from an ultra-thin minority.

  382. 8oxer says:

    Dear GBFM:

    I’m not really paying any attention to the latest attention whore/conservato-feminist troll, but you’re bringing up some excellent points.

    In my reading of the Jesus character, he displays many fine manly qualities. Compassion, the ability to suffer without whining, the strength of character to kick ass when absolutely necessary, and the proclivity to speak truth to power, regardless of the consequences. Of course these are rarely if ever mentioned by the Christian preachers and their brainwashed sheeple, who like to recast Jesus as some sort of Tucker Max/Hugo Schwyzer hybrid, while pretending that if he were walking around today, he’d be shaming men into marrying skank ho single moms.

    The definitions people throw around about “alpha” and such are useful for beginners, but soon become meaningless. Once you realize that you are able to bed hot women by doing a, b and c, it doesn’t seem like such a great trick any more. The astute playa realizes that the joke was on him, back in the day when bedding hot women seemed like the meaning of life. All the hot women have their own problems, and no matter how hot they are, they all grow tiresome with astonishing rapidity. Alpha beta bee ess… there is no spoon, as someone once said in the Bernankified Hollywood film. The Jesus character wasn’t alpha or beta, and didn’t need fancy labels. His greatest lesson is that none of us need to conform to some silly stereotype to be a man. We just need to believe in ourselves.

    Regards, Boxer

  383. Miserman says:

    @S1AL

    … the first fault lies with Adam in ALLOWING his wife to eat from the fruit.

    I used to think along this line, but to me that is blaming Adam for Eve’s choice. Adam had already stopped Eve by given her the command of God, “Thou shalt not eat ….” However, Eve rebelled against that authority and desired to rise above her husband and reach for the status of goddess. Adam was then faced with a choice of loyalty to God or loyalty to Eve. He chose poorly and history has played itself out since.

    Also, what was Adam to do once Eve rebelled? I do not know if Adam had the authority (or the desire) to restrain or harm Eve to prevent disobedience. What husband wants to babysit his wife? And I cannot see Adam bitch-slapping Eve to keep her from the fruit after declaring her “bone of my bone” and “flesh of my flesh” (cf Ephesians 5:28).

    Of course, Adam could have found a “non-violent” way to keep Eve from eating the fruit by “winning her over” from Satan’s deception, but he would then be in a position of always laboring to make his wife feel “loved,” subservient to her emotional headship …

    I’ll be damned … that’s where we are today.

  384. Opus says:

    Whether S1Al is as Boxer says the latest conservo feminist attention whore, the gratutitous reference to Jane Austen persuades me that he is probably a she, as does the clever than thou line of reasoning.

  385. S1AL says:

    @Looking Glass: Care to demonstrate how your definition is any better than mine? Or do you even have one? So far I have yet to see anyone besides me offer a definition, so I’m offering mine. Feel free to disagree.

    @Miser: IF we’re arguing from the assumption that the headship model has existed since creation, then a simple “no” from Adam would have sufficed; hence “consent by silence.” Of course, I’m taking a number of liberties here, including assuming that Adam was present for this exchange. Maybe he wasn’t. None of us really has a way of knowing. Either way, the analogy is a good one for today.

  386. S1AL says:

    @Opus: Nope, definitely male. But my wife loves Pride and Prejudice, so I pick up a lot of stuff. And I do intend to read the book at some point. I believe that knowledge is a good thing, but maybe that’s just me.

  387. Ton says:

    if it takes that many words to make your point, you probably don’t have one

  388. happyhen11 says:

    “Literature written BY women (consider Jane Austen) is often more sympathetic to the woman seduced by the rogue. ”

    No, they weren’t. That is your modern interpretation and the interpretation of many modern “scholars.” It is very clear in Austen’s works that women must guard against the rogue, they have the agency and the task to not place themselves in a position that would make them vulnerable to seduction. Women who break with convention and allow themselves to be seduced are often reviled by the other women of society who have guarded their virtue as the gift a woman brings to her husband. These fallen women, while pitied by family members and friends, are openly shown as having the power via sexual promiscuity to destroy their family’s honor, their family’s fortune, their sisters’ marriage prospects, their father’s reputation, and even if they do become reconciled through marriage to the rogue, even then they oft times are banished from their present society that knows of their transgressions to live among those who are ignorant and hopefully for the family’s sake will remain so.

    While Austen as a woman may understand and even pity the stupidity of young women under the influence of the rogue, never assume she is sympathetic to their destructive potentials should they act on their natural inborn tendencies. You might try reading Austen’s works before commenting. I have read them all, multiple times, and it is clear in Austen’s work she knows there is no more destructive power in society than an unguarded, immoral, and/or stupid female. Should a young woman keep that aspirin between her knees, the rogue has no power.

  389. Dear S1AL,

    you write, “Yes, I would say that Jesus covered it all… not sure how that would be a surprise. I’m not advocating pure alpha-ness as a solution. But the Alpha traits, which I defined when you first asked, are related to pure masculine traits that women crave (in a good way), and sadly that they often only find in “bad guys.” That is why I advocate for learning some “game:” women aren’t attracted to it for no good reason. And developing those characteristics is a good way to grow as a man.”

    So Jesus had pure masculine traits that women today can only find in “bad guys.”

    What are these pure masculine traits which Jesus had, which today’s women can only find in “bad guys?”

    You advocate learning some “game.” Did Jesus also advocate learning some “game?” How so? Or have you improved upon the teachings of Jesus and added to them?

    Do you see the Sermon on Mount as “game?”

    Perhaps you mistook the “Sermon on the Mount” as the “Sermon on how to get Mounted?”

  390. S1AL says:

    @happyehn11: At what point did “sympathetic” become “accepting?” Those are two very different words. It is often the most sympathetic people who are the fastest to condemn because they understand the danger the best.

  391. S1AL says:

    @GBFM: Quit misquoting me to make your points. I said that “Alpha traits are related to pure masculine traits.” Those are the ones that a lot of “bad guys” display (the derivative alpha traits).

    And I’m not sure what the rest of your post is about. I’m advocating game the same way that Dalrock does… a way for men to understand how to be attractive to their wives.

  392. happyhen11 says:

    @S1AL

    I think you need to review the definition of “sympathy.”

  393. S1AL says:

    @happyhen1 – “the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another,” “mutual or parallel susceptibility or a condition brought about by it”

    Merriam-Webster

    Those are the ones I’m using. But since it’s the English language, I’d understand if you were thinking of a different one.

  394. askjoe says:

    Screaming out “you need more education”
    Who is doing this? College administrators making six figure salaries as tuition explodes?
    Please note that more than 25% of college grads are doing unskilled labor.
    Men earn more than women yet they’re being hindered by lack of education? Huh?
    Translation “As women grab make-believe degrees in make-believe fields, they assume that this paid-for credentialism gives them the right to marry men who have equivalent education credentials.” That is, “it’s too low brow to marry a guy making $80K for doing unglamorous labor when I’ve been told that my Masters in PR is a ticket to marrying a doctor or lawyer”
    What a joke.

  395. Miserman says:

    @S1AL

    IF we’re arguing from the assumption that the headship model has existed since creation, then a simple “no” from Adam would have sufficed; hence “consent by silence.”

    Interesting. That sounds very egalitarian.

  396. greyghost says:

    An alpha male is a male the women find sexually and emotionally arrousing nothing more. gina tingle. Oher characteristics used to measure or predict alpha traits as good looks, physical strength, exellence in an activity are just coincidental. Ex. is Tiger Woods is a beta male. His skill level and ability of being one of the best in the world will cause people to think he is alpha but he is beta. (nothing wrong with beta in fact they are the best men a country has)
    PS a woman’s (cunt’s) gina tingle is not a very good gauge of the overall quality of men.

  397. S1AL says:

    @Miserman: Not sure I follow. Egalitarianism and traditional gender roles are generally considered quite the opposite.

  398. S1AL says:

    @greyghost: Sure, if you use heartiste. I’m going back further for my definition, as I stated, especially since heartiste’s determinism is backwards (the classical “alpha male” attracted women by being the dominant member of his social circle). That said, the “alpha characteristics” are based on purer qualities that every man should have to some extent.

  399. greyghost says:

    the first fault lies with Adam in ALLOWING his wife to eat from the fruit.

    Did you actually type that in S1AL?

  400. S1AL says:

    @grey: Yup. Assuming we’re talking about headship from the get-go, Adam had a responsibility to intervene here at some point, but didn

  401. greyghost says:

    In the context of marriage and relationships with women and as it influences feminism my definition is correct. Some very great leaders and impressive atheletes and military studs are hapless betas and easily chumped by women in this feral environment we have today. Even “traditional” definitions of alpha are invalid today and is very irresponsible for a man that is thoughtfully trying to find a solution rather than delusionally adding fuel to the fire.

  402. S1AL says:

    Sorry, browser freaked. That should say: didn’t. Also, note that I said ‘failure,’ and not ‘sin.’

    This is really important. Adam failed, then his wife sinned and so did he. My argument is this: by not intervening as the protector, Adam is indicating that their is no threat. I consider this his failure.

  403. Looking Glass says:

    @S1AL:

    Someone would need to slice through the divorce stats, but there is a group that divorces at roughly only 8% of first marriages. I believe these are the ones that pray together daily. I also believe they’re less than 1% of the population.

    Oh, and while the Amish have their communities, effectively a few families do own the land. Which means they are actually quite wealthy. That and the occasional Amish Drug Running operation. (Not a joke but quite hilarious)

  404. Miserman says:

    @S1AL

    One of the primary arguments egalitarians use to biblical support equality is that male headship is a result of the fall as opposed to being a universal state for men and women. The argument is that Christ came to remove the effects of the fall and therefore male headship, being part of sin, is now done away with. However, if male headship is part of the created order from the beginning, before the fall, then it is not merely an “assumption” for argument’s sake. It is an established fact.

  405. S1AL says:

    @Greu: That really doesn’t work. If they exhibit alpha qualities but fail to follow through afterwards, that’s not “beta.” This is where Roissy’s definition really starts to break down. He makes statements about people “being alpha” and about actions “being alpha” but also distinguishes between them because one is a trait and the other is an act, and that doesn’t fit into his framework.

  406. S1AL says:

    @LookingGlass: Yeah, I think we’re more agreeing here than anything else. I think most TradCons are traditional, conservative, *actively* Christian, and come from the UMC or MMC. You are continuing that argument by stating that those who are more actively and faithfully Christian are even LESS likely to divorce. This has been my point the whole time.

    @Miserman: The thing is, I don’t think we can know. Their are elements of male headship (in the “real” context) of the curse, but I’m of the opinion (though I can’t prove it) that headship existed before the fall but was made less pure as a result. This is, to me, the logical conclusion from the nature of the curse, as:

    1) Adam was to “tend” the garden, now he is to “toil”
    2) Eve was Adam’s “Helper” and “Companion,” now she is to be “ruled” by her husband.

    Either way, what was true before the fall doesn’t apply to real marriages today. I make the assumption for the sake of my argument, which doesn’t work if we don’t assume pre-fall headship.

  407. askjoe says:

    yeah, the market is just screaming out more education as people are taking unpaid internships without hope of a real salary.

  408. anonymous says:

    IF we’re arguing from the assumption that the headship model has existed since creation, then a simple “no” from Adam would have sufficed; hence “consent by silence.”

    In another context, assuming consent by silence can get you a rape charge.

  409. S1AL says:

    @Anon: Yeah, well, I have no patience for those laws and find them to be laughably illogical. The sheer absurdity of the fact that, legally speaking, I have to actually verbally request sex from my life is not lost on me in the slightest. Nor am I unaware of the massive legal bias in the laws.

  410. greyghost says:

    @grey: Yup. Assuming we’re talking about headship from the get-go, Adam had a responsibility to intervene here at some point, but didn

    My asnwer to that is goddamn. There was no head ship after those to dumbasses pissed god off part of Eve’s new set of rules was to be ruled over by Adam. Adam was told he was going to have to work for that pussy from here on out (sweat of the brow) No more pussy worship for you.
    As far alpha goes you are using a definition from a sane society. Look at the men commenting in this blog and the thoughtfulness of their comments. Most of these men if not all have been dumped by their wifes and punished by the state and each one of these men work and provide for family and believed in it and lived it. Now by what you described they are alpha. Even in the fantasy world you described the men women fucked were in fact beta men that acheived. Alphas were there they were called cads and adulterers. This is as alpha male http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/chicks-dig-jerks-game-is-its-own-status/ try and find something biblical about this guy that makes him so attractive. Men of acheivement are betas almost never are they alpha.
    Dirty little secret alpha males are defective men they have no guilt. guilt free men always seem to be confident and it is sexy that is why it is so hrd to get game into the main stream of beta males. Beta males are honest men of honor. It is simply about sexual attraction and nothing else. (pussy is work god said so )

  411. S1AL says:

    *Wife

  412. S1AL says:

    @Grey: You have an amusing way of interpreting scripture, I’ll give you that.

    But yes, I am using a definition from the sane society that first developed the concept… and applied it to the animal kingdom, specifically tribal species. I have little interest in playing by Roissy’s rules because they don’t suit my purposes even slightly.

    But to be fair, Roissy has stated that “being desired by women” is enough to qualify as Alpha. Actually having sex with them is optional. His words, not mine.

  413. Dalrock says:

    @S1AL

    You make the argument that the modern church is corrupt. I agree. However, and this is the key point where we differ, I believe that there is a small but significant portion of the church that is largely not corrupt, composed primarily of actual TradCons, not neo-liberal SoCons. I also believe that, while giving lip service to NACALT, you are still throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I think you’re not even close to the only one doing it.

    You can help me (and us) a great deal by clarifying exactly who you are talking about, those who are seriously fighting feminism. So far what you’ve said is the group you have in mind fits a certain income demographic, and they aren’t represented by FotF, the Southern Baptists, 700 club, Fireproof/Courageous (please correct if I have any of this wrong). Please lets stop the guessing game. Who are these pastors who are calling this nonsense out? I think we agree that the vast majority of Christian leaders are leading Christians astray. Those who are really fighting against this should be pretty easy to point to in the internet age. Where are the pastors who publicly point out the very grave problems with FotF, Fireproof, Courageous, etc? I can’t find them. Likewise, where do these folks meet on the internet? If there is anything close to a “movement”, even a micro movement, you should be able to point me to an online community. Where are these folks? I can tell you where they aren’t, but you will just tell me that isn’t the right group.

    Please, if I’m wrong I very much want to be corrected. I’ve only been looking/blogging for about three years, so while it is highly unlikely it is certainly possible you have stumbled into a group neither I nor my readers have ever encountered. I’m not talking about a sermon your local pastor once gave behind closed doors; understand that this is the hallmark of the problem. Pastors everywhere are doing their best to appear to be fighting the good fight, while being exceedingly careful not to draw any attention to themselves and/or offend the feminists in their congregation and having to actually fight the good fight.

  414. greyghost says:

    “But to be fair, Roissy has stated that “being desired by women” is enough to qualify as Alpha. Actually having sex with them is optional. His words, not mine”

    Correct.

  415. Looking Glass says:

    @S1AL:

    I think you accepted my point a little too quickly, as you missed what it means: this means your “TradCons” are somewhere less than 2% of the population. So somewhere just a little above the number that have had a homosexual sexual relationship, yet lacks the victim mentality to have the political sway. Plus, I don’t think too many here are arguing that they don’t exist, as we know they do. It’s just their mode of operation isn’t too useful unless you’re already in those communities.

    But, that doesn’t mean I don’t think they can’t be allies, it’s just that your “TradCons” are going to need to go the step you’re approaching: giving up the old-school feminist aspects you still hold to. As Opus well pointed out, you had no problem dropping back to shaming tactics that simply don’t work around here. Shame doesn’t work well upon those that have had massive injustice laid upon them by their “betters” that “know” what needs to be done.

    You might want to spend some time here: http://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/ Ballista74 is the one you need to probably interact with more.

    So, stick around, you’re learning: it’s noticeable that you’re in conflict with what you see happening, what exists in your social circle and the mechanics of all of it. That isn’t too surprising. You’re the son of an old-school preacher, likely a virgin-virgin marriage and didn’t have too many issues pulling women. Understanding the issues *is* harder for you, no matter how much intellect you can put down, as it’s mostly theoretical for you. (It’s the same for me too, but I got into these parts for a very different set of life reasons)

  416. Random Angeleno says:

    S1AL, Dalrock has long had an open request to name churches that show by their actions, not just their words that they are unsupportive of divorce, that they are unsupportive of single mothers who get there through their own poor choices, that they are supportive of men making something of themselves. You seem to be saying your church is such a place. Why not name it?

    Also congratulations on your tiny little pocket of “tradcon” piety succeeding against all odds to preserve nearly all marriages within its jurisdiction, then know and understand that nearly all Christian/Catholic men who read these blogs will never find such sanctuary in their lives. For most of us, it’s gone, never to return. We get tiny amounts of sympathy from “tradcon” as well as “socon”, more often we get tarred with the “bad boy” brush. As a single Catholic man of a certain age, I certainly don’t find refuge in my local parishes. We have to live with that. You don’t.

    S1AL, we have seen the likes of you before, in other so-called tradcon Christians and Catholics who came here and betrayed themselves by their lack of understanding and compassion for the plight of men whose experience they could not comprehend and who responded as you did, with very little but anecdote until you were called out for it. Get off the anecdotal hill, it’s not the one you want to die on…

  417. S1AL says:

    @Dalrock: You are, if I understand you correctly, looking for something that might not exist in the place where you’re looking. Personally, I’m talking about individual churches, generally ones that aren’t making the front page of Google because they aren’t bothering with website forums. I have never actually attended a church that had a website with more than minimal information because it’s mostly the small churches that do this.

    I also can’t say with absolute certainty that any church other than the one my father pastored took a hardline stance on the issue. I know that most of the pastors will say something privately or to a small group or will preach “soft submission” but are concerned about actually getting up and saying it from the pulpit. Partially this is a result of being personally conflicted on the issue… very few Christians are certain about how to interpret submission because the word has been coopted by the D/s community and patriarchy conjures up images of Islam. But I think the other part of it is that several of these churches are so traditional that the marriage rules fall into place naturally, and preaching on them isn’t a main priority.

    And this is where I think we’re in disagreement. I believe that these churches and pastors are willing to teach submission, and in some cases are actually doing so vocally. I have heard of such sermons/homilies at other churches without being present, since I can’t attend every church every weekend. I’ve also heard a couple of sermons about it, but they were mostly softlining the submission part… only a couple took a hard stance on it.

    But that leads to where we’re in agreement: we both think that churches need to take hardline stances in dedicated sermons. However, reform rarely starts at the top (the way you’re suggesting it could be done). Rather, it starts with some dude nailing several sheets of paper to the local gates. And I think that you genuinely do want to do that, but by roundly condemning TradCons for something they haven’t done (align themselves with feminism), you’re removing your best chance of convincing people.

  418. Novaseeker says:

    Joseph of Jackson found no truck that way, and was kicked out of his church for his efforts.

    What I honestly see here is a bit of “no true Scotsman” going on. Well, I don’t mean “that kind” of Christian, or “that kind” of conservative, or “that kind” of traditionalist, and so on. “My kind” are nothing at all like that.

    That’s an old line of argument. It isn’t convincing. Unless something has a bit more cohesion than “well, that’s what I’ve seen in my dad’s church” it isn’t worth much.

  419. S1AL says:

    @Looking Glass: Perhaps to some extent. I would guess that the number is actually a larger percentage, though I’d hesitate to put it above 5%… but 5% is a good place to start.

    @Random Angeleno: Mostly because the church no longer exists, as my father stepped down as the pastor and handed the church off to someone else, a church plant from another state. That is one of his big regrets, I think, since the guy managed to completely alienate most of the congregation, including several families who had been attending for almost a decade.

    My brother’s current church, Alethia in Colorado Springs, is experiencing the growing pains of trying to get back to core values. They recently went through a section on Biblical tithing, and afterwards I jokingly asked the speaking pastor that day who got the “short straw” to talk about Biblical marriage. He chuckled, with a slightly pained look, and said something to the effect of “we need to do that soon.” After talking with him for a while I came to believe that he was ready to take a hard stance on it but had never done so before (the church is very new). And I think this is part of the huge challenge for pastors: easing people into it. There’s an old joke that sums up the situation quite well:

    A pastor, new to a church, decides he doesn’t like where the piano is. So he asks around and discovers that the piano has sat in that very spot for generations. Nonetheless, he moves the piano about 12 feet the next Sunday. It isn’t long before the church was looking for a new pastor. The first pastor comes back a year later to find the piano exactly where he had put it. Shocked, he asked the new pastor what he had done. The second pastor replies, “Oh, I just moved it a foot every week.”

    This is what pastors are scared of: pushing super hard on an issue, only to alienate a congregation that would be better convinced over time. There’s a reason that Paul continued writing to the Corinthians for so long… sometimes it takes a while. The manosphere’s job is not to formulate overnight change… rather, it’s to get the church moving in a new direction and keep it moving.

  420. S1AL says:

    @Nova: The “No True Scotsman” fallacy only holds true if one can’t arrive at a reasonable definition. I’m not saying the TradCon churches and comunities are perfect; I’m saying that the have the baseline necessary for convincing. But it doesn’t take convincing, and angrily yelling accompanied by comparisons to feminists is a more way to go about it.

  421. S1AL says:

    *does take

  422. S1AL says:

    *poor way

    I’m typing poorly atm. Apologies.

  423. Dalrock says:

    S1AL

    But I think the other part of it is that several of these churches are so traditional that the marriage rules fall into place naturally, and preaching on them isn’t a main priority.

    What baffles me is you seem to be in agreement that not only the culture at large but 90% + of modern Christians are awash in feminism and at war with the biblical framing of marriage. Yet there are these other folks (1%, 5%, 10%?) who somehow just naturally aren’t exposed to the problem. Their pastors don’t have to mention it because the temptation of the mass feminist rebellion never occurs to their members.

    I don’t disagree that there are cultural enclaves which are to some degree fighting feminism, but there are two points I would make here:

    1) They aren’t engaging with the culture trying to fix the problem. They are hoping to squeak by unnoticed by the culture at large. As you say, they don’t advertise their counter cultural nature.
    2) Even these counter cultural enclaves have astonishingly feminist views when prodded. Because they chose not to actively fight the culture, the culture has slowly seeped in when no one was looking (see here and here).

    To the extent that a group really is fighting the culture, they already know how alone they are. What you are basically arguing is that I’m at risk of offending the people who are getting steamrolled by feminism because I’m pointing out the feminist steamroller. Nonsense.

  424. Novaseeker says:

    The thing is, S1, we know who the trad cons are. They’re also around on the internet, you know? Laura Wood? The Orthosphere? We know who they are — you can’t reasonably say these are “neo-cons”, they’re tradcons and they hate the manosphere for a large number of reasons, substantive ones, not presentation-related ones. They’re smarter than that.

  425. Legion says:

    Miserman says:
    April 2, 2013 at 4:10 pm
    @S1AL

    “… the first fault lies with Adam in ALLOWING his wife to eat from the fruit.”

    S1AL was so stupid as to say this? LOL
    Even I know god took eve to task for her sin then took adam to task (for only) his sin. So dumbshit S1AL is letting us know how god does not come up to his mark and correcting the word of god. You all are right, S1AL is a she. Only a woman knows better than god.

  426. Johnycomelately says:

    “Being middle class and educated appeared to have a negative correlation with divorce.”

    So by dint of circumstance a particular group from a specific group is partially inoculated from divorce, which has nothing to do with being a TradCon. So if the bottom 80% become more like the top 20% everything will be honky dory.

    The TradCon illusion is that their specific brand makes all the difference when the reality is that the economic utility of divorce makes it unappealing to that socio economic bracket.

  427. S1AL says:

    @Legion: This is why I normally don’t back down, and yet I did; stupid me. To quote the Bible:

    “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food , and that it was delightful to the eyes,
    and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband WHO WAS THERE WITH HER, and he ate.” (Gen 3:6)

    “Because you listened to the voice of your wife AND have eaten from the tree…” (Gen 3:17)

    That’s right, two separate sins. He was there. He didn’t protect the garden from the serpent and he didn’t protect his wife from its influence. Heck, maybe I was wrong earlier. Maybe I should count it as a sin and not just a failure.

    I welcome your apology for accusing me of heresy.

    @Dalrock: You make a good point, and I concede that maybe I’m wrong here. Maybe it’s just that the TradCon churches mostly have never heard of you… I mean, Nova claims that Laura Wood is a notable internet name for TradCons but I’ver never heard of her before. Then again, I don’t think most TradCons are particularly familiar with the blogosphere.

    However, I maintain that, as you and many of your regular posters consistently decry TradCons, you’re lumping in me, my church (including the present one, First Baptist in Riverton, WY), my family, and all of the extremely anti-feminist TradCons like me who believe in traditional marriage. NACALT falls a bit short when it’s used an excuse for lumping everyone together.

  428. Opus says:

    I stand corrected (I thought I would) but S1Al should know that when a newbie arrives here and begins to take over the thread and makes pronouncements (eighteen so far today – at time of typing – including the mega-post at 03.07, which takes on all-comers) sufficiently broad as to be difficult to pin-down and thus adequately answer, we have (until now) always been in the presence of a woman whose Hamster is spinning and who is merely seeking attention for aging looks and limited prospects.

    I remind myself that this thread posed the question as to why men are not responding to economic signals. S1Al’s first post avoided this (so far as I can see) but informs us that he heard of the blog via his former college room-mate, (so, is he posting here?, and if not will he do so) yet later in the same comment S1Al is informing us that the Manosphere gets short shrift in mainstream blogs (whatever that means – I have never seen the Man-o-sphere mentioned outside itself, but then I suppose I live a sheltered existence) so one wonders why (as it is his friend who is going through a break-up) why it is that S1Al is so interested in the Man-o-sphere, especially for a newly married young man. Perhaps that is the reason, I mean, the fear that Divorce, which like Plague, can attack anyone and is no respecter of Religion, Education or Affluence. In short: is S1Al in some sort of perfectly understandable denial? Unfortunately I find S1Al comments sufficiently vague or imprecise that I find it difficult to get to grips with what he is trying to say or argue. Doubtless his college lecturers do not have this problem, but we lawyers like facts and S1Al’s posts seem to me to be largely devoid of precision in that regard.

    So what does S1Al think is the reason men are not responding to economic signals, or is it that being newly married) he does not agree with that proposition?

  429. Dear S1AL,

    Even though you might know two or three couples who marriages are working, how does that help advance fairness and justice for the rest? You remind me of the person calling in from a remote island resort during a war to report that everything looks awesome, and that if all men only put on sunglasses and surf shorts, they too would soon find martinis in their hands, while sitting in the sand.

    you write, “Yes, I would say that Jesus covered it all… not sure how that would be a surprise. I’m not advocating pure alpha-ness as a solution. But the Alpha traits, which I defined when you first asked, are related to pure masculine traits that women crave (in a good way), and sadly that they often only find in “bad guys.” That is why I advocate for learning some “game:” women aren’t attracted to it for no good reason. And developing those characteristics is a good way to grow as a man.”

    So Jesus had pure masculine traits that women today can only find in “bad guys.”

    What are these pure masculine traits which Jesus had, which today’s women can only find in “bad guys?”

    You advocate learning some “game.” Did Jesus also advocate learning some “game?” How so? Or have you improved upon the teachings of Jesus and added to them?

    Do you see the Sermon on Mount as “game?”

    Furthermore, why must a man have to “game” a women who is is Christian wife? Are not Christian women to simply honor their husbands, as Moses and Jesus suggest?

  430. Miserman says:

    @S1AL
    He didn’t protect the garden from the serpent and he didn’t protect his wife from its influence.

    Let me ask again, what was Adam supposed to do at the moment Eve was being tempted and reaching for the fruit? He had already given her God’s command not to eat, so what now? Should he physically restrain her? Should he physically assault her?

    The same parallel applies today. Christian women rebel against their husband’s authority. They want the fruit. So what should husbands do? Divorce their wives? Physically limit their wives’ freedom? Assault their wives?

    Blaming Adam for Eve’s rebellion is erroneous. Adam’s sin was not that he did not stop Eve, but that he chose Eve over God. It is the same idea being taught in churches today. Women are responsible for their rebellion, not men. What men need to do is fulfill their duty and choose Christ over their wives, over women.

  431. S1AL says:

    @Opus: The best answer I can give is that my interest is of an intellectual nature. I struggled for a lone time with the concepts of headship and submission in marriage, since it’s not a natural tendency to conduct my relationships in such stark terms. It’s also an issue that modern churches avoid, whether deliberately, out of neglect, or simply because they don’t believe it necessary. Finding the manosphere was, therefore, a big surprise to me.

    Oh, and the whole variety of OCD known as wikipediitis got me. I have trouble starting a topic and then not digging way into it. Having seen how much writing there is and how widespread the opinions are, I wanted to start a discussion and I find it easiest to do that with controversial topics.

    Also, this was the newest post that was of personal interest to me, since I love the theoretical and practical sides of economics. I also saw a bit of a gap with relationship to the idea of the TradCon and decided to address it. The reason for the extensive background was twofold: first, to show that I actually had some anecdotal evidence, even if I can’t drum up the statistical evidence, and second, to stave off the eventual questions about my background and why I feel so positively (relative to you guys) about my church experience and the institution of marriage.

    Does that address your concerns?

    @GBFM: I already addressed your questions earlier.

  432. sunshinemary says:

    Who are these pastors who are calling this nonsense out?

    About six months ago, I was sure Dalrock was wrong in saying that there were virtually no Christian pastors/organizations out there tackling problems like Christian frivorce and feminism-infected churches, but in my quest to prove him wrong, I actually came to agree with him. Even the most “conservative” groups such as the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are subtly feministic in that they blame female sin on men.

    However, Vision Forum Ministries are the most straightforward in their denunciation of feminism and embracing of biblical family structure. They do not address misandry or secular culture discrimination against men; their primary purpose is to guide people into establishing Christian patriarchal families with traditional gender roles (as opposed to pointing out the way feminism/femDOM family structure has permeated most churches). VF is not a small organization, by the way.

    Their “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” post is fairly brief and straightforward:
    http://www.visionforumministries.org/hom e/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx

    Here is a quote from that passage:

    Central to the crisis of this era is the systematic attack on the timeless truths of biblical patriarchy. This attack includes the movement to subvert the biblical model of the family, and redefine the very meaning of fatherhood and motherhood, masculinity, femininity, and the parent and child relationship. We emphasize the importance of biblical patriarchy, not because it is greater than other doctrines, but because it is being actively attacked by unbelievers and professing Christians alike. Egalitarian feminism is a false ideology that has bred false doctrine in the church and seduced many believers. In conscious opposition to feminism, egalitarianism, and the humanistic philosophies of the present time, the church should proclaim the Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy as an essential element of God’s ordained pattern for human relationships and institutions.

  433. S1AL says:

    @Miserman: If we assume that Eve did NOT sin prior to deciding to eat the fruit (debatable, given her misquoting of God’s command?), then I would argue that Adam showed fault by not protecting the garden and his wife. The scripture is pretty clear that he was there and that he should have stepped in… at least that’s my reading. It’s also a pretty traditional interpretation, not one that’s connected to feminism.

    But no, I’m not arguing that Eve’s rebellion was anyone’s sin but her own. I am arguing that Adam should have intervened, removed the Serpent, and corrected Eve. And yes, I am making a case that places inordinate responsibility on the man, but I find that to be the case in the later scriptures as well. That doesn’t absolve Eve of her sin, also twofold IMO: eating the fruit, and making a decision when it should have been her husband’s place. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my interpretation.

    My Bible’s commentary also chooses to read that the curse on the woman indicates the future rebellion and strife revolving around headship and submission. I need to check into that.

  434. S1AL says:

    @sunshinemary: Thanks for the link. I’ll go browse their forums at some point.

  435. Dear S1AL,

    In quoting the bible, why do you leave out this crucial passage from Genesis?

    16 To the woman he said,
    “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
    Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

    Why is the spirit of this passage absent from modern christain churches?

    “Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

    Dear S1AL, Where does god blame Adam for Eve’s eating the Apple? Why are you interjecting your own “feelings” into the bible while ignoring what is there?

  436. S1AL says:

    @GBFM: Quoted the second half of that passage (the part relevant to the discussion). Even mentioned, specifically, my Bibles’ commentary on said passage. I’m getting tired of rehashing topics because you refuse to read my posts and instead invent straw men. This is the last time I will be responding to you.

  437. Dear S1AL,

    So if the husband is at work,
    And the wife is at home,
    And the pool man comes by to fix the pool,
    And the wife is tempted by the pool man’s serphent
    as it makes her tingle
    And she acts on it
    And takes the serphent in
    you are saying
    that it is the man’s fault
    for not better guarding his wife?

    Is that what they preach and teach at your church?

  438. sunshinemary says:

    On the issue of headship and submission, from VF’s website:

    http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/calvin_and_knox_on_male_headsh.aspx

    The Reformers of the sixteenth century did not acquiesce to the radical egalitarianism that has become the rage in Evangelical circles in our day, but rather affirmed the doctrine of male headship and female submission as taught in the Scriptures. While male headship is not a popular doctrine in the twenty-first century, it is one that has been affirmed by orthodox commentators for millennia. John Calvin and John Knox are two torch-bearers of this position from the Protestant Reformation.

    Interested readers can find more such articles in their archive on family issues, located here:

    http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/

    Please note that their position is that the created order applies not only to family and church life, but also to the civil realm. They oppose women in leadership positions anywhere in society, most especially in the political realm and explicitly teach that it is never correct in any sphere for women to be in positions of power over men.

  439. S1AL says:

    @sunshinemary: So the example of Deborah? How do we deal with that one from their position?

  440. Miserman says:

    @S1AL

    I believe the current church culture essentially blames men for the failings of women, in much the same way that Adam is blamed for the failure of Eve. What I think is needed is for the church to recognize that a major cause of the failings of men can be blamed on women. However, that is a taboo stance and church leaders (so-called) will not take it because empowered women have various threats (denial of sex, divorce, etc) to hang over the heads of men.

    I’ve said my peace (I hope).

  441. YAY! GBFM FOR THE WIN!!!!!

    “S1AL says:
    April 2, 2013 at 6:59 pm
    @GBFM: Quoted the second half of that passage (the part relevant to the discussion). Even mentioned, specifically, my Bibles’ commentary on said passage. I’m getting tired of rehashing topics because you refuse to read my posts and instead invent straw men. This is the last time I will be responding to you.”

    Note how S1AL tries to reframe the argument like a feminist, cutting out the crucial parts of the Genesis which don’t support his “crusade:”

    In quoting the bible, why do you leave out this crucial passage from Genesis?

    16 To the woman he said,
    “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
    Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

    Why is the spirit of this passage absent from modern christain churches?

    “Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

    Dear S1AL, Where does god blame Adam for Eve’s eating the Apple? Why are you interjecting your own “feelings” into the bible while ignoring what is there?

  442. S1AL says:

    @Miserman: I get what you’re saying, and to a point I agree. My question for you to ponder would be this: If, as men, we have allowed women to usurp headship, isn’t that our failing? I think the best way to sum it up is that men failed in their role as leaders, and now women are perpetuating the problem by means of male-guilt (analogous to white-guilt) and the legal system. The fault was originally (primarily) with men, but now it’s (primarily) with women.

    Yay/Nay?

  443. Dear S1AL,,
    Yes the tradcons who you were defending earlier failed. That is a large partof Dalrock’s blog, to shed light on failed preachers and teachers, whom you were defending.

    Perhaps you should read Dalrock’s blog, in addition to posting here?

  444. greyghost says:

    I checked it out S1AL God didn’t say Adams sin was in not stopping that bitch from listening to the serpent
    Gen 3:17 “you listened to your wife and ate of the fruit.” (churchian pussy worship,feminism) In other words he put his wife before God. (notice the attraction women have for bad boys straight out of genesis)
    God didn’t make Adam responsible for her she was responsible for her. The feminine imperative is in a small church in WY.

  445. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    However, Vision Forum Ministries are the most straightforward in their denunciation of feminism and embracing of biblical family structure. They do not address misandry or secular culture discrimination against men; their primary purpose is to guide people into establishing Christian patriarchal families with traditional gender roles (as opposed to pointing out the way feminism/femDOM family structure has permeated most churches). VF is not a small organization, by the way.

    I don’t know if you recall but you mentioned this group back in October and I took a brief look at them at the time. My take away was that they are nothing like Stanton, Driscoll, Mohler, etc. but that they also aren’t really fighting Christian divorce culture either. I’m not exactly sure what to make of that. To be honest I don’t understand how one can be for biblical marriage and not fighting tooth and nail against the mainstream Christian culture here. Doug’s passion appears to be much more around women in the military than fighting the rampant divorce culture. As I’ve outlined in great length, divorce is the club being used to demolish biblical headship. If you aren’t really fighting divorce tooth and nail, you can’t really care about headship. Christian feminists are fine with abstract discussion of the concept of headship, because they know wives still have the power to threaten divorce should a husband mistakenly think it is all serious and not follow the wife’s headship. So this is exactly what a group which wanted to talk the talk but not walk the walk would look like. However, this was just from my quick look/google search of the Vision Forum. Perhaps he has another organization where he focuses on divorce though. If so, please point me to the other forum, and even better specific examples of where he takes on the mainstream Christian acceptance of divorce.

  446. greyghost says:

    But no, I’m not arguing that Eve’s rebellion was anyone’s sin but her own. I am arguing that Adam should have intervened, removed the Serpent, and corrected Eve. And yes, I am making a case that places inordinate responsibility on the man, but I find that to be the case in the later scriptures as well. That doesn’t absolve Eve of her sin, also twofold IMO: eating the fruit, and making a decision when it should have been her husband’s place. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my interpretation.

    This is an example of churchian preaching. This is a very feminine imperative PC way of seeing the bible.

  447. greyghost says:

    Dalrock your reply to SSM was an example of the real issue being the law. Women do not have the character to lead and by law it is her that is incharge reguardless of christian belief. I still believe the cultural foundation still must be laid

  448. Miserman says:

    @S1AL

    I understand your position, but I remain haunted by that single question. What should Adam have done? Argue with the serpent? He had the command of God, no argument needed. Killed the snake? There were other snakes. Dragged his wife away from the tree? The use of force to enforce his authority.

    The best answer is, for me, having given Eve the command of God, He should have refused the fruit offered, walked away from Eve and turned toward God for help. Sadly, men are faced with the same problem today. The church’s answer is for men to submit to their wives’ needs in order to win the woman over from the strength of temptation by the strength of his love. The idea that a woman should resist temptation by submitting to the authority of her husband is the great taboo.

  449. There’s the “No True Scotsman” argument we all know about. His corollary is the “UMC Amish as TradCon”. There are very small, very cloistered groups like that, but good luck finding them. There are good churches out there, but there aren’t a lot of them. You aren’t going to get many takers to talking about the “Church” when you’re speaking from an ultra-thin minority.

    And even if you found these (probably mythical) small UMC Amish churches, they wouldn’t let you in because you weren’t born into their church. It would be like trying to join the actual Amish.

  450. Farm Boy says:

    However, that is a taboo stance and church leaders (so-called) will not take it because empowered women have various threats (denial of sex, divorce, etc) to hang over the heads of men.

    And then there is the truly important issue of donations to the church.

  451. Farm Boy says:

    (notice the attraction women have for bad boys straight out of genesis)

    I never thought of it that way. Good point

  452. ballista74 says:

    IF we’re arguing from the assumption that the headship model has existed since creation, then a simple “no” from Adam would have sufficed; hence “consent by silence.” Of course, I’m taking a number of liberties here, including assuming that Adam was present for this exchange. Maybe he wasn’t. None of us really has a way of knowing. Either way, the analogy is a good one for today.

    It is for what is going on today. From this:

    Again, Adam had authority to bring his wife under subjection. Let us remember that God’s admonition towards him was prefaced by “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife”. He chosen to listen to his wife before he chose to listen to God – in other words, he chose to not use his authority to quash his wife’s rebellion before the Lord. Instead he submitted himself to his wife. He put his wife before God.

    But Adam had much more authority over his family than the average husband has today. Ultimately when a husband’s leadership is thwarted at every step, he is left with no recourse but to NOT LEAD HIS FAMILY and submit to his wife instead. This is purposeful in enforcing Marriage 2.0, where its design is to bring the husband under subjection to the wife. If a husband today sanctions his wife for buying too much under credit, she just scoffs at him and continues. She knows he can’t do a single thing to stop her if she continues. If he continues to challenge her authority as head of the marriage, she can use the State and claim that he is abusing her (as all uses of Godly husbandly authority is). If he continues his rebellion against his wife’s authority, she can then proceed to crush him in family court for cash and prizes, leaving him destitute. She will get what she wants, no matter what it takes. The Church and the State will support her.

    This is the model of marriage today that literally all of your “groups” supports. As Dalrock states, the call is out there to point out a specific church that both regularly supports Biblical marriage (i.e. the dirty six-letter s word is routinely used in reference to wives towards their husbands) and is against the church-supported divorce culture. It still hasn’t been found. And if you claim they don’t, they still do by their silence against the government being involved and rewriting the definition of marriage, and supporting it too. Coincidentally, groups like FotF cue-ball these things in all churches – almost everything that addresses marriage comes from there in some form or another.

    As it relates to this post, it’s become obvious to all who are not delusional (like most of the “church” is) that the man has no authority over what is his in marriage and in life in general through taxation – therefore he has no reason to work and increase what he has other than personal subsistence. And that’s only about 10-30% of what the average married man would have to make. It doesn’t take that much to support yourself reasonably (barring medical issues and the cost of education and the like, the bernakification of things is everywhere lzozzzlzozzl).

    Egalitarianism and traditional gender roles are generally considered quite the opposite.

    They are actually one in the same today. All complementarism (men complement women).

    Yup. Assuming we’re talking about headship from the get-go, Adam had a responsibility to intervene here at some point, but didn

    So it’s all Adam’s fault because he didn’t step up and lead? Eve had no responsibility in the matter whatsoever? Where have I heard that before? In about every average Churchian teaching today. lzozzzzlzooozl Who did God rebuke and for what? Genesis is very clear about this, yet you Churchians want to blame Adam for all of it like usual. Oh, btw your “TradCons” are all actively Churchian and therefore actively feminist. This is the kind of thing sites in the “Christian manosphere” seek to bring out. Oh, and you’re never going to get Churchians to repent of their Churchianity.

    You aren’t really swaying anyone here, but it does seem you are willing to learn, and I guess that’s a positive.

    (and apologies to those that aren’t into the GBFM-speak. I’m actually working on a post topic where his rhetoric would fit in exactly. So it comes to mind much lately.)

  453. ballista74 says:

    I am arguing that Adam should have intervened, removed the Serpent, and corrected Eve. And yes, I am making a case that places inordinate responsibility on the man, but I find that to be the case in the later scriptures as well. That doesn’t absolve Eve of her sin, also twofold IMO: eating the fruit, and making a decision when it should have been her husband’s place. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my interpretation.

    Very Churchian and very feminist.

    Dalrock writes:

    As I’ve outlined in great length, divorce is the club being used to demolish biblical headship. If you aren’t really fighting divorce tooth and nail, you can’t really care about headship.

    +1, it’s fine to talk about Biblical headship and wifely submission but if it’s not enforced, it’s worthless. Talk is cheap. Like the text I quoted, that’s what happens. The church has to actively fight that and destroy it or any talk about Biblical headship and submission they make is just talk. Judge churches by their actions, not their words. They really are just like women.

  454. lzozozlzozo

    the merry, humble, noble dalrock
    and his congregation
    of kindred posters
    who
    drawn by his beacon of logic, reason, and humor
    assembled herein
    rulezlzlozzlzozo

    lzozozozozozo

    keep it up men. :)

    i am proud to add deep grvaitas and seriousness to dalrock’s light-hearted banter contrasting his comic relief zlzozozoozzlzoozzlo

    as the crazy irishman

    my real name is stephen:

    zlozzolozzoozz

  455. sunshinemary says:

    If you aren’t really fighting divorce tooth and nail, you can’t really care about headship.

    Indeed, they don’t cover divorce as a threat point in their ministries. They seem to do a great job explaining what we are supposed to be doing, and point out most of the problems of feminism of in the modern church, but barely address divorce. Why? Maybe they are expecting pastors to do this? They do write that frivorcees are to be excommunicated:

    http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/rule_of_law/the_texas_supreme_court_uphold.aspx

    I have found two blogs written by absolutely infuriated women who wanted to frivorce their husbands, or wanted to use the threat of divorce to whip their husbands, and who were strongly counseled not to do so by Pastor Phillips. Both women were eventually excommunicated.

    (Here is one of women’s blogs: http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/is-the-doug-phillips-boerne-christian-assembly-statement-against-me-rife-with-pure-fabrications-dangerous-half-truths-malicious-innuendo-and-vicious-personal-attacks/ )

    The divorce rate among the homeschooling, Christian patriarchalists appears to be low from what I’ve observed (no statistics exist on this that I know of), so maybe VF’s leaders aren’t perceiving that this is problem?

    But really, I don’t know why they aren’t covering this explicitly. I participate on several blogs with wives of some of the men who work for Vision Forum, and I’ve mentioned things I’ve read on your blog and the response is usually something like: “Well, divorce is forbidden in the Bible. What more needs to be said on the issue?” I guess they just aren’t seeing how larger Christian culture is accepting divorce.

    So this is exactly what a group which wanted to talk the talk but not walk the walk would look like.

    I don’t know if I agree with that. It’s more like they aren’t wrong in their advice, but they are missing an important part of the picture. But in any event, the truth of the matter is VF is the BEST that is out there, and on speaking out against divorce in the larger culture they are not very good at all, which tells us that the state of most other (ostensibly) conservative churches is truly pitiful. That was basically the point I was trying to make to S1AL.

  456. A Northern Observer says:

    All this discussion about Adam and Eve – here’s the whole passage which describes how Eve was tempted by Satan, took the bite, and then offered it to her husband who, apparently, stood by and silently watched as Satan sunk his fangs into Eve, the tagged along like a good little puppy:

    Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.

    He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”

    And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”

    But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Ge 3:1–6

    This is the smoking gun where Adam’s sin of not taking action is concerned:

    For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor 1 Ti 2:13–14.

  457. A Northern Observer says:

    Oh, one more bit:

    “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is …..Gen 3:17

  458. S1AL says:

    @Miserman: Something. I think that’s what you’re missing here: Adam did nothing. He didn’t exercise his authority. THAT is where he failed. We can go round-and-round about “what he should have done,” but that’s meaningless in comparison to the fact that nothing was done at all.

    @greyghost: For someone who claims that women have no moral character and need to be kept in line by men, you’re awfully insistent about how only Eve is responsible for Eve. Care to explain that line of thought?

    @Ballista74: Alright, so we have a traditional group that meets Dalrock’s requirements. But now, because they’re not “actively fighting divorce tooth and nail,” they don’t count. So when I find a group that meets both requirements, what’s the next one going to be? The modern necessity of head coverings? And after that, are we at the point of not trimming the sides of our beards?

    Pick requirements and stick with them or this whole issue is pointless. Once you lay out what you actually want, I’ll go looking. Until then I’m going to sit out on the never-ending Easter-egg hunt.

    As for complementarity, I don’t see your point. Men and women DO complement each other, and saying that “men complement women” is grammatically exactly the same as saying “women complement men.” Or is it not true that “God created them in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them?”

    I’m sorry, but this whole “women were created in the image of man” nonsense that I see in the manosphere is just that: nonsense. It has ZERO scriptural support.

    Also, they are not “my groups.” I never endorsed a single one listed here, because I don’t believe that any of them count as traditional. I mean, if you have to say “APPARENTLY God intends for men to lead,” you really aren’t invested in the statement in the slightest.

    And finally, I love how the ultimate resort of everyone responding to me is “that’s Churchian and feminist.” If you can’t make a LOGICAL case for why I’m wrong, resorting to insults and stereotypes is not going to convince me even slightly. If you can demonstrate that I am, in fact, incorrect, I’ll concede the point. But you don’t get to just call my arguments “feminist and PC” and leave it at that.

  459. Hey northern observer.

    you write: “This is the smoking gun where Adam’s sin of not taking action is concerned:

    For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor 1 Ti 2:13–14.”

    so if your wife
    was decieved
    by butt tingeleoozo
    and took a lotstats cockas sperpent in her bingholio bunholio buggholeoe
    it would be your fault
    because you were not decieved
    and did not take da seprepent
    in da bungloolzozlzoz?

    I always thought that those who commit the action commit the sin?

    But I am no chruchain zlzlzlzozoz

  460. Bee says:

    “You can help me (and us) a great deal by clarifying exactly who you are talking about, those who are seriously fighting feminism. So far what you’ve said is the group you have in mind fits a certain income demographic, and they aren’t represented by FotF, the Southern Baptists, 700 club, Fireproof/Courageous (please correct if I have any of this wrong). Please lets stop the guessing game. Who are these pastors who are calling this nonsense out? I think we agree that the vast majority of Christian leaders are leading Christians astray. Those who are really fighting against this should be pretty easy to point to in the internet age. Where are the pastors who publicly point out the very grave problems with FotF, Fireproof, Courageous, etc? I can’t find them. Likewise, where do these folks meet on the internet? ”

    I agree with Dalrock on this one. I was born into a Bible believing Christian family that went to church 3 times a week. My father was a deacon and both mom and dad taught Sunday School. I have gone to church all my life and at different times have attended and been a member of four different Protestant denominations. I have not seen a church actively teach the strong, hard messages from St. Paul about women.

    S1AL, I have heard occasional teachings about Submission but never a teaching about a man having dominion and ruling over his wife. Submission without Dominion is a one way street. Never a teaching about being a Quiverful man and aiming to have a large family. Never a teaching about what hard questions to ask a single mom to discern if her faith is real or just, pretend to get a good provider.

    You point out one pastor, your father. And one church as evidence of some big group of Patriarchal christians. Your sample set is way to small.

    I think that your over-reaction here is because you feel a need to defend your father and your church in WY.

  461. A Northern Observer says:

    GBFM – read up on “faithless shepherds”

    Adam sat on his butt and did nothing while Eve was being tempted. Inaction was one of his sins, combined with eating the forbidden fruit.

    Eve’s sin is taking the fruit in the first place.

    Different sins committed by different people. Each are responsible for what they’ve done, not for what the other’s done.

  462. ballista74 says:

    Alright, so we have a traditional group that meets Dalrock’s requirements. But now, because they’re not “actively fighting divorce tooth and nail,” they don’t count.

    Because they actively support women in their sin. That sin is rebellion against God, and specifically to the thread, their mass refusal to submit to their husbands. They do it by a number of things, but the main one mentioned in this thread is the supported use of divorce as a threatpoint to force the husband’s submission to the wife. They don’t meet Dalrock’s requirement because it’s not by action. Talk is cheap.

    As for complementarity, I don’t see your point. Men and women DO complement each other, and saying that “men complement women” is grammatically exactly the same as saying “women complement men.” Or is it not true that “God created them in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them?”

    The state of being is that either men complement women or women complement men. Only one is Scriptural. Guess which one:

    And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:18)

    Typical Churchian feminism says that man was made to be a help meet for woman and not this.

    I’m sorry, but this whole “women were created in the image of man” nonsense that I see in the manosphere is just that: nonsense. It has ZERO scriptural support.

    And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:21-23)

    But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

    For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11:7-9)

    Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

    Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

    lzozzzlzooozl

    I love how the ultimate resort of everyone responding to me is “that’s Churchian and feminist.” If you can’t make a LOGICAL case for why I’m wrong, resorting to insults and stereotypes is not going to convince me even slightly.

    Because you are. You haven’t written anything that we haven’t heard a number of times before. What I just addressed is the typical feminist churchian line. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s gotta be one. Same with you.

  463. Anonymous Reader says:

    S1AL
    “First Baptist church of Riverton”

    Is this it?

    http://www.firstbaptistriverton.com/

    If so, it was not difficult to find via Ask, a common search engine. Therefore, it should not be difficult for you to provide other examples of “Traditional, Conservative” churches that meet the requirements Dalrock has outlined. Perhaps you could do that, sometime?

  464. Novaseeker says:

    Dear S1AL, Where does god blame Adam for Eve’s eating the Apple?

    He doesn’t. He says, instead, this, in a rather extensive commentary detailing the sins of each:

    And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

    10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

    11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

    12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

    13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

    14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

    15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

    16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

    18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

    19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

    (emphasis is mine highlighting what GOD says the sins were).

    Here is is rather obvious that GOD does not say that Adam’s sin is “failing to tend the garden” or “failing to protect his wife” or some other fanciful nonsense that GOD doesn’t actually say. GOD says that Adam’s sin is listening to his wife instead of listening to God’s command — i.e., he listened to his wife instead of following GOD’s command -> that is not a “failure to lead Eve”, because her sin has already happened by the time he has “listened” to her, but rather a simple disobedience of GOD’s command based on his wife, and his listening to her rather than to GOD’s will. That is what HE explicitly says in Gen 3:17. There is nothing here about Adam failing to tend the garden or protect his wife from her own sin. GOD is rather explicit, pointed and descriptive about Adam’s sin in particular here — and it does not include anything about failing to lead or protect. And he is also rather explicit in holding all three actors to account for their specific sins, separately and without reference to the responsibility of one of the others (in direct and pointed — and rather obviously intentional — contrast to the attempt by both Adam and Eve to pawn off responsibility for their own individual sins on Eve and the Serpent, respectively).

    To claim that this really means that Adam is really responsible for Eve’s sin — because he failed to protect, or to rebuke or something whatever else we can cook up he failed to do but which GOD HIMSELF fails to call out — or is guilty of these additional sins, or whatever else this poisionous misinterpretation intends to convey, is for man to put words in the mouth of GOD, regardless of how traditional it may be to do so in certain hermeneutical circles. And undoubtedly as it is an obvious interpretive “gloss” by men, it has been done with human motives — most precisely rooted either in a misguided attempt to definitively find the locus of male headship in the pre-lapsarian context (so as to preempt attacks on the legitimacy or necessity of a post-lapsarian and post-“saved” male headship) or as a result of more generally common (and related) human male white-knighting motives, both of which directly contradict GOD’s own rather direct, detailed and explicit testimony on this. The fruits of this misinterpretation (which has been made by Protestants and some Protestant-influenced Catholics as well) — that Adam was ultimately morally responsible for Eve’s own sin (either directly or indirectly by means of his additional and unmentioned-by-GOD sins of failing to lead, protect, rebuke, etc.) as well as his own — have undoubtedly formed the seeds of what we now know as feminism. And that self-styled “traditional Christians” still cling to such a poisonous interpolation is not only ironic, but also deeply troubling, and merits both pity and prayer.

    You see, this is the connection. And you have just walked in here and obviously laid it on the doorstep.

    Honestly, just pfft.

  465. dude northern observer

    read the bible:

    Man’s Disobedience
    1 Now the serpent Rev. 12.9 ; 20.2 was more subtile than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

    THE SERPENT WAS SUBTILE
    SO ADAM DID NOT SEE NOR HEAR IT
    THE SERPENT SPOKE TO THE WOMAN EVE
    THE SERPENT DID NOT SPEAK TO ADAM
    EVE DISOBEYED GOD
    AND THEN TEMPTED ADAM TO DO THE SAME

    2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
    3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
    4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
    5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
    6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    lzozlzozolzoz

  466. greyghost says:

    Care to explain that line of thought?
    gen 3;16 To the woman he said I will intensify the pangs of your child bearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master”
    The price for her sin was to be subject to her man. What is amazing is with out even putting the text or knowledge of genesis in place the manosphere has come to the awareness of how responsibility adverse women are. What is normal for a man is now something a woman has been cursed with having to make a conscious thought to be with honor. Women see this as oppression. A man sees it as normal civil behavior. When men allow women a pass to please her we have the chaos and madness (churchianity ) we have today. gen 3:17-19 is god letting man know his sin of listening to his wife means he must always make a conscious effort to produce. He can never relax. Women will and forever be a source of emotional stress for men for he is condemed to rule over her when ever he pauses we have what we have today. It is not natural and relaxing for a woman to have agency. (god removed it) Just as it is not normal or natural for a man that loves to have game.
    Eve was a unique woman and the only woman to have agency as a normal part of her being. Agency is still required it is just not natural now and men have been tasked to make it happen. (worshipping pussy is not the way)

  467. YES NOVASEEKER!!!

    Thank you!!!!

    “Here is is rather obvious that GOD does not say that Adam’s sin is “failing to tend the garden” or “failing to protect his wife” or some other fanciful nonsense that GOD doesn’t actually say. GOD says that Adam’s sin is listening to his wife instead of listening to God’s command — i.e., he listened to his wife instead of following GOD’s command -> that is not a “failure to lead Eve”, because her sin has already happened by the time he has “listened” to her, but rather a simple disobedience of GOD’s command based on his wife, and his listening to her rather than to GOD’s will. That is what HE explicitly says in Gen 3:17. There is nothing here about Adam failing to tend the garden or protect his wife from her own sin. ”

    AMEN!!!

  468. greyghost says:

    Novaseeker
    Outstanding

  469. ballista74 says:

    To claim that this really means that Adam is really responsible for Eve’s sin — because he failed to protect, or to rebuke or something whatever else we can cook up he failed to do but which GOD HIMSELF fails to call out

    +1, man always denies the word of God as His basic sin nature. The fact that this is plain and clear feminist dogma repeated before illustrates this perfectly. God calls out their sins and does it very plainly. The feminists want husbands to submit to their wives, so Genesis 3:17 is complete anathema. The message that the feminists hate is in there, along with the woman being created for the man.

    Second verse same as the first. lozooozzzzozzl

  470. S1AL says:

    @Bee: I completely agree with you on the point about submission and headship being a two-way street. I mean, that’s like saying you need followers if you’re going to have leaders. It’s the other thing that leaves me scratching my head about Ballista74’s aversion to the word “complementary.” According to every definition I know, headship and submission are complementary.

    As for the point about pastors not hardlining on marriage, my response to Dalrock covered that but I’ll summarize: there are a number of pastors who are willing to teach submission, but they are drowned out by those who are not and by their own concern over striking the proper balance between teaching the message and avoiding generating a culture of Islamic-style patriarchy (yes, this is the number-one concern that the pastors I’ve talked to have).

  471. Dear S1AL,

    What have you done
    to rectify the corrupt legal system?
    Have you written your congressman
    Or Senator?
    Or is it easier
    like Peter
    to deny Jesus?
    And instead berate
    good, honest men?

  472. Bee says:

    @Ballista74,

    Good post.

    “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)”

    This is another section of Scripture that I have never heard taught as a Sunday sermon.

  473. S1AL says:

    @Novaseeker: That’s all well and good. Now point out where I said that Eve wasn’t responsible for her sin.

    Oh wait, I never said that.

  474. S1AL says:

    @Anonymous Reader: So your expectation is that I will either attend or fully research enough churches to make a laundry list that you guys will proceed to disqualify for nit-picky reasons like “they don’t condemn divorce in the same place as they teach traditional marriage so FAIL.”

    Yeah, that’s not worth my time.

    @Ballista: Note that at NO POINT in those verses does it say that woman was created in the image of man. In fact, the ONLY statement we have on the point is the verse I quoted. You are attempting to create doctrine out of thin air.

  475. ballista74 says:

    On this issue of the woman being alone when the serpent was there (most of the old commentators agree with GBFM), as it is written the serpent was subtil. He didn’t announce himself and say to the man, “oh I’m going to go over here and tempt your woman now.”. He just went and did it, and the fact she was alone was all the better since someone couldn’t fuss at him for wickedness. Now, as I’m sure feminist and most everyone else will say, it’s not proper, wise, and even abusive for a husband to hover around his wife all the time. Everyone is alone at some time no matter what, this is natural behavior and to be expected. But that is what it would require if you follow the churchian feminist standard out to its conclusion where Adam is responsible for all of Eve’s sins like they claim husbands are responsible for all the wives sins.

    If this were true in the sight of God, marriage would be complete anathema because it would be an impossible standard that would only lead to eternal hell fire if practiced and would not only be stupid but supremely stupid to partake in. Thankfully this is not the case.

  476. Hey S1AL,

    You said Adam was responsible for Eve’s sin
    like the little churchian feminist white knight
    that you are
    repeating the lies
    your feminist preachers
    commanded you speak
    as they taught you to abolish the law
    of Moses and the ancients
    to oppose and mock it
    and your unmanly tragedy is
    that you don’t
    even know
    it.

    zlzoozozozozzozlzozzlo

  477. S1AL says:

    @Ballista74: Point me to these “old commentators.”

    Also, “subtle” at the time of the NKJV printing (the version I assume you are using) is rendered as “cunning” in the modern language, though there is a negative connotation that doesn’t belong. This is like quote from LotR: “For all your subtlety you have no wisdom.” It’s not a description of sneaking, but of subtle leading in the framing of the question.

  478. Novaseeker says:

    @Novaseeker: That’s all well and good. Now point out where I said that Eve wasn’t responsible for her sin.

    Oh wait, I never said that.

    Oh pfft.

    You have interpolated into the text sins that Adam supposedly committed which go unmentioned by GOD HIMSELF. The implication is that these additional and unmentioned by God, but known by S1, sins make him responsible for Eve’s sin. It adds additional sins on Adam’s part that do not accrue on Eve’s part, in an attempt to load him up with the greater sin. This is feminist Christianity in its essence, as we see in the pews and the pulpit. It’s the source of this garbage preaching and nonsense teaching. It’s poison.

    But even if you personally don’t assert that implication, you are still reading into the text sins on Adam’s part that even GOD HIMSELF doesn’t mention. Frankly, if GOD doesn’t feel the need to mention them, being as explicit as HE is in this description and calling-out of the sins of all the players in this particular tragedy, why do you?

    Question your motives. And if your motives are “it’s the traditional interpretation of my sect”, then question *those* motives.

    Either way, it isn’t what GOD says.

  479. S1AL,

    You split hairs growing off your own bungolzhozlzozzlozlz:

    You write,
    “Also, “subtle” at the time of the NKJV printing (the version I assume you are using) is rendered as “cunning” in the modern language, though there is a negative connotation that doesn’t belong. This is like quote from LotR: “For all your subtlety you have no wisdom.” It’s not a description of sneaking, but of subtle leading in the framing of the question.”

    Subtle means not obvious.
    Sneaking also means not obvious.

    If you murder someone in a subtle manner, then yes, there is a negative connotation associated with subtle. It’s about the context you prim and proper pedant of puffery.

    This is like quote from GBFM: “For all your diarahhettic posting S1AL, you have no wisdom.”

    zozozzlzzlzozlzozo

  480. S1AL says:

    @Novaseeker: Your argument might have merit if I didn’t also say that I believe Eve failed by making a decision that she had no authority to make.

    And here’s where I think you guys are getting mixed up. God absolutely did say “Because you listened to your wife.” The statement here is one of following. That is the opposite of leadership. So I put the question to you: is part of Adam’s sin failing to be the leader and instead choosing to follow his wife?

    You want it to ONLY be that he “chose his wife over God.” I see it as both. Perhaps I am interpreting the scripture incorrectly, but that is my *scripture-based* view. You can disagree with me all you want, but I will not be sanctimoniously misconstrued as ignoring or adding to scripture.

    It’s like arguing with liberals.

  481. S1AL says:

    Oh, and since you guys wanted a Christian organization that is outspoken about marriage roles: http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/carnal-husbands-cranky-wives-and-cantankerous-kids/?topic_slug=fathers-marriage

    They’re almost certainly not radical enough for you guys, but there they are.

  482. greyghost says:

    Adam was not responsible for eve until after the sin. Adam was accountable to god. Talk about poison.
    We are getting to the essence of a man ‘s being here now fellas I doubt we will see a change of heart.

  483. Novaseeker says:

    So I put the question to you: is part of Adam’s sin failing to be the leader and instead choosing to follow his wife?

    You want it to ONLY be that he “chose his wife over God.” I see it as both. Perhaps I am interpreting the scripture incorrectly, but that is my *scripture-based* view. You can disagree with me all you want, but I will not be sanctimoniously misconstrued as ignoring or adding to scripture.

    No, he never says that is his sin. His sin is listening to her instead of listening to God. The words are not “following her leadership and not mine”. He never says that. That is YOUR GLOSS. It is not a mere interpretation, it is a GLOSS, and as such I can and I will construe you in a righteous way as interpolating words into the text which are not there. They. Are. Not. There. Your interpretation of the is a gloss — a gloss based on a problematic hermeneutical tradition, but nothing more. Sorry, man, but that’s what it is. That you are not capable of seeing that is a cause for prayer more than one for debate, likely, as you seem locked in to your own traditional extra-textual gloss in hermeneutical terms.

  484. Novaseeker says:

    Sorry — “following her leadership and not himself leading her”. I hate that we cannot edit comments in WordPress.

  485. Dear S1AL,

    What’s your point?

    That you’re a wishy-wshy fool who says nothing and everything, then backpedals and says evrything and nothing, just to get attention for your churchian conclave that is holier than the rest of the world?

  486. S1AL says:

    “Listening to her instead of listening to God.”

    “Following her instead of following God.”

    Yes, that is such a huge difference… how could I have possibly missed it. I mean, that’s even less subtle than reading into the passage that Eve was attracted to “bad boys” from the get-go even though it’s not implied or explicitly mentioned.

    This is ridiculous.

  487. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bee
    “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)”

    This is another section of Scripture that I have never heard taught as a Sunday sermon.

    I actually heard this in the last year from a preacher, as an aside in a larger sermon. He even laid out the order: God, Christ, Man, Wife, Children. And then he asked if anyone had a problem with that. There was no answer. Pin. drop. silent.

    Of course, visiting pastors who are over 70, and who clearly don’t care if anyone has a problem with them or not, tend to get more than a bit of respect and deference.

  488. S1AL says:

    “Following her leadership and not leading her” is, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same thing (in this instance) as “following her and not following God.” Same response expected. Adam was. not. deceived. Eve was. Adam abrogated his leadership then and there by choosing to follow his wife.

  489. Novaseeker says:

    The distinction is important, because God is indeed saying that he failed to follow God and instead followed his wife — he doesn’t comment on his failure to *lead* Eve. He talks about following her instead of him.

    You only get to “well that means he wasn’t leading her properly” by reading things in that aren’t there, and if they were important to the relationship between men, women and sin, GOD would have said them here, as HE was being explicit here, and this is the seminal text that touches all of those issues.

    And that is also why it is the core text that causes these problematic issues in Christianity. We have millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of self-professing Christians, with an interpretation of this text that leads to a whole host of dumb, incorrect and downright silly conclusions about male/female issues as they pertain to relationships and sin.

  490. Novaseeker says:

    “Following her leadership and not leading her” is, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same thing (in this instance) as “following her and not following God.” Same response expected. Adam was. not. deceived. Eve was. Adam abrogated his leadership then and there by choosing to follow his wife.

    Which was a typo which I corrected. WordPress doesn’t allow post edits.

  491. Novaseeker says:

    Adam abrogated nothing. You are making stuff up.

    1 Tim is basically saying that Adam is a better leader because at least he was not deceived. So he knew right from wrong, but sinned due to weakness in terms of doing the right. Eve, on the other hand, should not teach, because she was deceived as to right and wrong. That is about the suitability for teaching in churches. It has nothing to do with the responsibility for, or the sins involved with, the Fall. God is explicit enough about these. Going hunting around for more support for a silly interpretive gloss is hunting in the dark.

  492. S1AL says:

    That would only be a correct conclusion if I somehow had come to an incorrect conclusion. So tell me where my moral conclusions are incorrect. Is it that…

    I believe men need to lead, and that failing to do so is to fail as a husband?

    Or perhaps its that I believe that “By one man, sin entered the world.”

    Or maybe it’s that I know men are supposed to listen to their wives (1 Peter), so clearly the problem was not “just listening,” or else we have a scriptural contradiction.

  493. S1AL says:

    Woah, woah… willfully sinning makes someone a better leader than sinning because of deception? Is that seriously how you’re choosing to interpret that passage? Despite the fact that is clearly about teaching and not leading (yes, those are different things).

  494. Novaseeker says:

    Don’t reframe — that’s feminine.

    Here is what you said:

    If we assume that Eve did NOT sin prior to deciding to eat the fruit (debatable, given her misquoting of God’s command?), then I would argue that Adam showed fault by not protecting the garden and his wife.

    This is what we have been arguing with you about. Don’t try to dance away from it, reframe it, or otherwise run away from it. Disowning it would be fine. :)

    As for these assertions, in order:

    I believe men need to lead, and that failing to do so is to fail as a husband?

    Not based on an interpretation of Genesis 3 in terms of this being Adam’s original sin, but being based on Paul.

    Or perhaps its that I believe that “By one man, sin entered the world.”

    Sure, because Adam is representative of all humanity, being the first-created. The original sin, or ancestral sin, has always been understood by the church fathers as being a sin of both Adam and Eve. Adam is a shorthand for the sins of both Adam and Eve, because he was the first created.

    Or maybe it’s that I know men are supposed to listen to their wives (1 Peter), so clearly the problem was not “just listening,” or else we have a scriptural contradiction.

    No. Ugh. Your hermeneutical habits are terrible, can I just say that? So disappointing. Look, it’s obvious that in Genesis the sin was “listening to your wife” in the abstract — you can’t possibly think that was what I was saying if you read what I wrote in good faith — but rather preferring what she was saying to God’s command. The listening to the wife isn’t a problem in the abstract. The listening in contradiction to God’s command is the sin. And that is what GOD himself says, and says no more. Everything else is your own gloss on what GOD himself says in Gen 3.

    I stand by what I wrote. Heretical, stupid, sinful interpretations of Gen 3 are what have led us into this feminist mess, and the reason why tradcons are useless in terms of helping us out of it.

  495. Novaseeker says:

    Woah, woah… willfully sinning makes someone a better leader than sinning because of deception? Is that seriously how you’re choosing to interpret that passage? Despite the fact that is clearly about teaching and not leading (yes, those are different things).

    Sure. The passage is saying this: Look, Adam at least knew right from wrong, Eve was deceive about the very nature of right from wrong. Both sinned in fact, but at least Adam knew right from wrong, so it is more appropriate for men to teach than women. because women are more easily deceived about the difference between right and wrong.

    That is quite obviously what Tim is saying.

    Your interpretation is “Adam is a bigger sinner, and sinned more, because Eve was really not as responsible because she was fooled — so Adam is a better teacher than Eve is”..

    Really?

  496. gdgm+ says:

    I don’t wish S1AL any ill will, or that the following necessarily happen to him. But it would be more interesting if we could have this conversation a few years later in the future… when he has more actual life experience… and his wife files for divorce (likely to his surprise).

    He would sound different then.

  497. Novaseeker says:

    Anyway — typos in my posts galore, and I need to sleep (after midnight here back east). I will check back tomorrow.

  498. ospurt says:

    Ahhh… a post at Slate about marrying young….

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/i_married_young_what_are_the_rest_of_you_waiting_for.single.html

    with a link to a rebuttal from Amanda Marcottee!

  499. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I stand by what I wrote. Heretical, stupid, sinful interpretations of Gen 3 are what have led us into this feminist mess, and the reason why tradcons are useless in terms of helping us out of it.

    Traditional conservatives in general aren’t involved, since they haven’t done anything in a large scale for decades, perhaps more, and died little by little after the rise of Modernity and Enlightenment. They have been dead for some time and only resurrection would bring them back.

    Traditional conservatives in the Anglo sphere in particular are shackled by Anglo Puritan Chivalry. Every time a woman is offended or something happens, cries of misogyny, hatred of the female sex and so forth pours forward. A PC Orwellian environment starts springing up. And one can expect a lot of feminine like arguments and tactics.

    The English person who called women the “fairer sex” was delusional. Women are indeed kinder, but Men are more civilized.

  500. GKChesteron says:

    John Calvin and John Knox are two torch-bearers of this position from the Protestant Reformation.

    After they set fire to every other sort of hierarchy. But I quibble.

  501. GKChesteron says:

    So I’m going to do a dangerous thing and wade into this. It is dangerous because I haven’t read as closely as I should.

    I _think_ I agree with Novaseeker but you also appear to be saying Eve was not deceived and that the deception did not _reduce_ her culpability. Am I right about that? If so I’ll have to disagree. Ignorance while it doesn’t remove culpability certainly reduces it.

  502. S1AL says:

    @Novaseeker: “Listening in the abstract.” So… listening and complying? If that is not following, then I do not know what is. And if that is following, then Adam was not leading. And this is where I disagree with you. If we’re looking at it as a dichotomy of leading or following, then Adam was failing to lead by following, and this is a problem. That is a fault. There’s no way around it. One is implicit in the other. And don’t bother telling me that implicit interpretation is “poor hermeneutics.” We both know better (or should).

    “If we assume that Eve did NOT sin prior to deciding to eat the fruit (debatable, given her misquoting of God’s command?), then I would argue that Adam showed fault by not protecting the garden and his wife.

    This is what we have been arguing with you about. Don’t try to dance away from it, reframe it, or otherwise run away from it. Disowning it would be fine. ”

    Stop translating “fault” as “sin.” I’m not going to bother with straw men. I’m not creating doctrine here… I’m giving an opinion.

    @gdgm+: Honestly, you’re silly. You know why I’m here? It’s not because any of this knowledge comes as a surprise to me. As I mentioned earlier, Robert Jordan was writing about shit-testing and alpha behavior loooonnnnggggg before Roissy ever made up the terms. Seriously, the “Wheel of Time” series is chock-full of all sorts of musings on male-female interactions and social archetypes disguised as fantasy writing (to be fair, also a great fantasy series). You want to talk about “game?” Television had that figured out a long time ago. The problems with modern divorce? Watch “Liar Liar” and tell me the manosphere is doing something previously unseen.

    The manosphere is convinced that the rest of the world is blind. That’s ridiculous. There are lots of people who see the problems, they just haven’t necessarily figured out the answers. When a show as liberal and secular as “How I Met Your Mother” portrays most of these problems and even includes an incredible masculine response, you can be sure that society knows something is up.

    You think that this whole debate about Adam and Eve is getting to the crux of anything? How would you answer a husband who found out that the lawn maintenance guy was trying to seduce his wife and did nothing about it? Yeah, Adam and the serpent is the same freaking thing. You can moralize all you want, but he failed when he didn’t just send it right out of the garden. How about if your wife shares her plans to do something incredibly stupid and you compliant say nothing and go along? DUMB. STUPID. If it’s not a moral failure, it’s at least a practical failure. That is the exact situation where a man needs to step up and LEAD. So yes, Adam failed to lead. It may not have been a moral issue, but it certainly was a practical one.

    You want to know why I’m here? I’m here because I had high hopes that this segment of the manosphere was interested in more than posturing. That when you guys talk about moral reform you’re interested in operating in the real world, working with real people, and starting with the churches that actually exist and are just waiting for someone to step up and say this stuff.

    But instead you want to spend your time slinging insults at the new guy. Fine. Go ahead. I’ve been called far worse by people whose opinions actually matter in my life.

    But maybe, just maybe, some of this stuff will get through to you. And in several years, when I’m still happily married and have kids and have fully demonstrated that I know what I’m doing, we can chat about it.

    Maybe you’ll sound different then.

  503. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/04/03 | Free Northerner

  504. GKChesteron says:

    Sure, because Adam is representative of all humanity, being the first-created. The original sin, or ancestral sin, has always been understood by the church fathers as being a sin of both Adam and Eve. Adam is a shorthand for the sins of both Adam and Eve, because he was the first created.

    Ok here I’m sure I don’t follow you. The Fathers understand what the scripture proscribes, that Adam is the root of sin. This doesn’t mean Eve doesn’t sin, but that she is incapable of passing it on. We inherit the estate from our Father not our Mother. This is not short hand; this is what it says it is. He does not represent humanity; he is humanity. He is icon and typos. Later we get a Perfect Icon of the Father.

    Eve sins. The sins culpability is modified by ignorance (as St. Paul tells us). However, as she can’t pass it on the buck can stop here if Adam takes decisive action. He doesn’t _need_ her. He needs God. In this he fails and acts to protect her in such a way that he actually does her more harm than good (oh if we could stop repeating that!). He goes further by being the worlds top coward. He lacks “vir” in a real sense.

    Now I submit that I may be wrong, but you are going to have to do a bit of work to explain why because that’s a fairly plain reading. Eve’s curse is brutal (but a blessing all the same). Adam’s leads to plainly to Death.

    Fortunately we get a new Adam who gives us life. He gives us the proper kick in the pants. The new Eve acts as a conduit but doesn’t actually _affect_ the change.

    So I agree that Eve maintains culpability but it _seems_ like you are discounting or at least lessening Adam’s role.

  505. GKChesteron says:

    @SA1,

    Just a note. I may dispise GB4M’s style, but he isn’t what I would call a Roissy fan. Be careful, you are setting up straw men here. And Robert Jordon? I mean really.

    Also, fault is sin. They “missed the mark”. Novaseeker is right that you are being a bit sloppy.

  506. Dalrock says:

    @S1AL

    there are a number of pastors who are willing to teach submission, but they are drowned out by those who are not and by their own concern over striking the proper balance between teaching the message and avoiding generating a culture of Islamic-style patriarchy (yes, this is the number-one concern that the pastors I’ve talked to have).

    This really does sum up the problem. They are witnessing the greatest rebellion of women in all time, and they are terrified they will err on the side of being too patriarchal. They live in an era where Christian men are failing en masse to rebuke women, and they fear rebuking women. Their fears are feminist fears. They are ashamed of the parts of the Bible which offend feminists. How do you not see the profound problem with this? These are the ones you are saying are getting it right, and they are hopelessly lost.

  507. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The bigger problem is that men who do rebuke women in their families, who want to help, are seen as misogynistic, retrograde and hateful. They shouldn’t be ashamed of God nor his Church. Listen to God and his Church, not your wife nor your precious daughters.

  508. Höllenhund says:

    Hopefully this newcomer tradcon idiot isn’t coming back.

  509. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    That doesn’t mean that your wife or daughter is worthless, just that the hierarchy is different.

    God & His Church —> Men —> Women & Children —> Other

  510. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    And I think that placing Eve’s sin on Adam is wrong on so many levels. Both of them had different sins.

  511. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    They are witnessing the greatest rebellion of women in all time, and they are terrified they will err on the side of being too patriarchal.

    They should be not be terrified of being “too patriarchal”. If you are fearful, you probably won’t do anything in the first place. Just do something. It doesn’t have to be big and miraculous, just something. Many women from all stripes of life will probably condemn for this, but it has to be done.

    And if the egalitarian heretics come under one’s wing ignore them, correct them or speak to them in a short but precise manner. Expel them if necessary.

  512. S1AL

    You are so close. Its not that you have this huge gap in understanding, you have a small one but its miles wide….or another way to see it as a million small ones strung together. You be interested, if you’d calm down long enough, to learn that there are more men who who would would relate to than not, but ……”(heavy breath) vestiges of blue pill churchianity are strong in this one master”

    How about if your wife shares her plans to do something incredibly stupid and you compliant say nothing and go along? DUMB. STUPID. If it’s not a moral failure, it’s at least a practical failure. That is the exact situation where a man needs to step up and LEAD.

    Yes…it IS a failure to lead. But you get one crux of the matter right here. The fullness of the church and state stand ready to smite you as you escalate leadership/insistence or simply make the decision and move along, never mind if its plainly the right decision for the family. . Preachers are indeed afraid they will create an army of ogres. because that’s the feedback their email and snail mail fills up with after they deign say something like what you just said….WITHOUT the mealy mouthed qualifiers of all the foot washing and SERVANT leader flawed emphasis they have surrounded the teaching with as the spoon full of sugar. One preacher friend told me he dilutes headship teaching because…..his wife is in the crowd…..think on that. Think on the church growth, the programs, the juxtaposition of mens ministry (admonish and hold accountable) with women’s ministry (coddle and encourage)…these are NOT new concepts, and they fit perfectly with your base doctrinal views, you just have a flawed assumption of the audience and leaders in church and the altruism of women, and the altruism of men who, you must know since you are one, want to please women. Bottom line, the church and the law are set to please women. these things were designed and customized by men, to please women. That men are at fault, in a big picture overarching way is true. That a man failing to lead in his home, as an individual and that the church is telling him how is absurd. Post me a link to a sermon that speaks unashamedly to these matters and doesnt first describe the man who “if a man is this way, what women would NOT follow that”

    Oh, and tell me that even you have not conjured an image of an overbearing ogre man based on what I am saying, because that is the tool they use to keep men in check. he is either a servant leader, or he is a tyrant. Its bunk.

    when you guys talk about moral reform you’re interested in operating in the real world, working with real people, and starting with the churches that actually exist and are just waiting for someone to step up and say this stuff.

    And in several years, when I’m still happily married and have kids and have fully demonstrated that I know what I’m doing, we can chat about it.

    Check your facts. the host is 2o years married, I am 23 years married, some of the other guys are married. AND, if they are divorced…..check your facts on that….they were jettisoned due to the teachings you support for the most part, hence they find succor in whats written here.

  513. greyghost says:

    I almost can’t believe what I’m seeing here. Eve’s sin was a display of hypergamy and wicked selfish desire if there ever was. Her intenet was to one up god himself. This she was deceived stuff was her new found ability to lie and was her lie to god.
    Dalrock,Novaseeker, all here this was one of the best exchanges I have ever seen so plain and in the open of the feminine imperative setting the frame. The mans identity and being is founded on a feminist PC lie and all is built from there.
    Someone correct me if Im wrong here. After sin gods curse for women was to have a master. Lets look at that Look how miserable and hysterical empowered women are. Now see a woman that actually lives by submission to the word of god. Much more at peace and respected.
    Look at man his curse is to toil. That includes to rule over women. Think of the good feeling a man has of a hard days work the peace it gives a man . A cure for a delinquent child is “boot camp”. Overall It seems to me when man lives as he was cursed It gives man the most inner peace. (same goes to women) The rest of the bible after genesis is a guide to getting done. Before sin Adam and Eve were only accountable to god. After sin things were different. Eve was the only woman to have natural agency now all female agency is a conscious thought. (notice how love ,honor ,commitment are seem as oppressive by women) Men still have natural agency and conscious effort must be made to overcome it (love, honor ,commitmant is trumped by game,best example is the church not wanting to be seen as oppressive so adopting the feminine imperative.)
    It the context we are discussing here men have two related curses One he is for ever task as master of women and the other is he will work for everything he has period. A man will never have inner peace for anything he has until he has earned it.
    Just some ideas on the subject.

  514. Opus says:

    You retire for the night: You get up; another eighteen messages from S1AL, and the worst part is that when he asserts that he is not female I take him at his word.

  515. greyghost says:

    He is not female and is a modern christian man.

  516. Opus says:

    So it seems greyghost. Perhaps we should send him a supply of Red Pills, to be taken twice daily. I’ll just see if my local pharmacy has the cheap generic version in stock.

  517. Tam the Bam says:

    “The English person who called women the “fairer sex” was delusional. “
    Nope, in those days it meant exactly what is says on the can.
    “Prettier”, basically. Nothing else.
    Although to be “fair”, either Englishwomen were hotter back then, or he had very low standards.
    Anyway it seems to have leaked into the Anglophone world from translations of Cervantes; “el bello sexo”.

  518. Miserman says:

    S1AL said, I completely agree with you on the point about submission and headship being a two-way street. I mean, that’s like saying you need followers if you’re going to have leaders … According to every definition I know, headship and submission are complementary.

    The major problem with this is that men are not challenging women (rebuking them as Dalrock says) because they are waiting for their wives to lead them into leadership, which is a safe way to navigate dangerous waters. However, leadership among men does not require followers. It requires initiative and a transcendent purpose, regardless of someone following or not. If a man does not have someone following his lead, he is still a leader, albeit his leadership may cost him dearly in this world. A wife should submit to her husband’s lead not because he had done something complimentary and earned it, but because his position and authority are given by Christ.

  519. greyghost says:

    Leadership and submission are based on faith in the word of God and not on the approval or gina tingle of the parties involved. That other stuff comes as a by product

  520. S1AL says:

    @GKChesterton: If you’ve read the series, you know what I mean.

    I stopped responding to GBFM when it became clear he wasn’t reading my posts.

    @Dalrock: Yeah, but it’s not an issue of being “hopelessly lost;” that’s where you get it wrong. The issue is that they don’t see the problem *in their personal lives or the lives of those close to them*. They see the problems in the culture but are having difficulty translating it into a personal response, often because they’ve seen guys take it way too far. Again, this is anecdote, but in my life the issue of severe abuse has been a far greater problem than a lack of submission, simply due to the people at the churches I have attended. It’s not a non-existent state like you make it out to be.

    And that’s why I’m pressing you to tone down the rhetoric. For a number of churches, and in my experience a growing number of churches, it’s simply inaccurate and denigrating. Sometimes extreme statements have their place, but you’re overdoing it.

    @Empathologism: As I noted to Dalrock above, part of the problem is that some pastors and church members DO see it more than they see an issue of rebellion. Even if they aren’t worried about “what people will think,” they’re most definitely worried about what people will do.

    And I think we’re getting to another part of the issue that’s dramatically overlooked: When a man who has not been trained to be a leader and has not observed how to be a leader see this teaching, their is significant potential that he’s going to overdo it in one direction or another. Either not expecting actual submission or else raging and DEMANDING submission (and potentially turning to abuse, verbal or physical, to achieve it). I’ve seen both. Pastors often see the latter much more than the former, and note this, because women are far more likely to come to the church for help than men are.

    Do you see where I’m going with this?

    And no, I didn’t conjure up such an image because I have a personal example from my own life to follow: my father. But I count myself superbly blessed on that count by today’s standards.

    That last bit is a response to gdgm+’s assertion that I’m heading for an unhappy life and divorce. Because that’s positive Christian exhortation for you.

    @greyghost: Traditionally the interpretation has been that headship was a model in creation, but that the woman’s rebellion caused it to become more extreme, hence the last part of the curse on her.

    Additionally, there is nowhere in the curse on the man that talks about his relationship with his wife, other than the fact that he screwed up by “hearkening unto her.” The rest is exclusively about his toil in life’s labor. You’re reading into the passage something that isn’t there.

    @Miserman: I think you’re misconstruing my point here a bit… I’m saying that without headship submission is meaningless and without submission headship is meaningless. They are “complementary,” using the normal English definition. Yes, the husband is called to lead; yes, the wife is called to submit. You can do one without the other, but it will not produce meaningful results unless you have both.

    @Opus: That, that right there… that’s the problem with debating on the internet. You can’t have a rational exchange because somebody will inevitably turn to snideness in a failed attempt to make a point.

    Let me point something out. I have nowhere here insulted anyone. In response I have been insulted in a host of colorful ways. Knock it off. Either debate the points or don’t respond.

  521. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    I have found two blogs written by absolutely infuriated women who wanted to frivorce their husbands, or wanted to use the threat of divorce to whip their husbands, and who were strongly counseled not to do so by Pastor Phillips. Both women were eventually excommunicated.

    Impressive. I haven’t read the link(s) yet but this is exactly the kind of reaction I would expect to a pastor who takes on feminism. I simply don’t buy S1AL’s claim that 90+% of churches are in full fledged, open rebellion, but the remainder get it right without any struggle. Pastors who are challenging feminism are going to create a huge shriek. That he took a hard line and didn’t back down is very uncommon, so all the more impressive.

    The divorce rate among the homeschooling, Christian patriarchalists appears to be low from what I’ve observed (no statistics exist on this that I know of), so maybe VF’s leaders aren’t perceiving that this is problem?

    We don’t have your level of exposure here but my wife and I do know some homeschooling families. Our observation is that divorce is extremely rare, but the wives are (nearly all of them) very immersed in the feminism of our day and tend to sulk on the topic of their marriage. They won’t divorce, but they also won’t stop bitching about how their husbands are failing to follow their leadership.

    But really, I don’t know why they aren’t covering this explicitly. I participate on several blogs with wives of some of the men who work for Vision Forum, and I’ve mentioned things I’ve read on your blog and the response is usually something like: “Well, divorce is forbidden in the Bible. What more needs to be said on the issue?” I guess they just aren’t seeing how larger Christian culture is accepting divorce.

    S1AL has pointed out how terrified pastors are of the verses on women and the roles in marriage, seeing them as unchristian (hence the astounding comparison of the Bible to Islam). Perhaps this is the issue. The prohibition on divorce is something he can be careful to enforce on both sexes, it just turns out that women are the ones who are most chafed by this.

    So this is exactly what a group which wanted to talk the talk but not walk the walk would look like.

    I don’t know if I agree with that. It’s more like they aren’t wrong in their advice, but they are missing an important part of the picture. But in any event, the truth of the matter is VF is the BEST that is out there, and on speaking out against divorce in the larger culture they are not very good at all, which tells us that the state of most other (ostensibly) conservative churches is truly pitiful. That was basically the point I was trying to make to S1AL.

    But what I described really is what we would expect from a church which wanted to talk the talk but not walk the walk. You offered more information, and as I mentioned taking a hard line on those who actually divorce (including women) is what I would expect from a church/pastor that walks the walk. This still leaves the elephant in the middle of the room unaddressed (mass feminist rebellion), but it isn’t the same thing as what nearly every other church is doing.

  522. Some Guy says:

    If a Christian man attempts to assert his authority in the home (“as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”), the wife can shut it down by claiming to be afraid or uncomfortable. In the case of even implied abuse (much less than even the formal accusation of it), the husband is automatically guilty until proven innocent– and the mere act of attempting to defend himself or talk about his wife’s rebellion is de facto evidence for his wrongs!

    Christian men have no formal means of directly leading their wives. The teaching is often that… if they are right with God, then the wife will “naturally” fall in line automatically. (So much for the fall….) Therefore, any man that does not have a submissive wife is clearly not right with God himself.

    If your son was born blind, I’m sure these knuckleheads could tell you why it happened. I’d hate to see what they’d have to say to Job about *his* wife….

  523. S1AL says:

    @Dalrock: Nit-pick – I’m not saying the pastors see the verses as un-Christian, but rather they are worried that some in the congregation will abuse the principles in an un-Christian fashion *because* they have seen it happen before. Teaching Christian submission is not as easy as you make it out to be because not every guy is as loving and caring as you appear to be from your posts about your family.

  524. anonymous says:

    An alpha male is a male the women find sexually and emotionally arrousing nothing more. gina tingle. Oher characteristics used to measure or predict alpha traits as good looks, physical strength, exellence in an activity are just coincidental

    Coincidental, and not accurate. I’ve seen guys with looks, height, strength, excellence, who were rejected Betas. Conversely I’ve seen men who, judging by women’s responses to the, were extreme Alphas despite having no visible advantages over other men.

    Sometimes you just have to chalk it up to pheromones.

  525. Ton says:

    The idea women choose which man is alpha or not is allowing the enemy to define the battle space, which never leads to victory

  526. slwerner says:

    S1AL – ”This is really important. Adam failed, then his wife sinned and so did he. My argument is this: by not intervening as the protector, Adam is indicating that their is no threat. I consider this his failure.”

    And later…

    ”Either way, what was true before the fall doesn’t apply to real marriages today. I make the assumption for the sake of my argument, which doesn’t work if we don’t assume pre-fall headship.” (April 2, 2013 at 5:02 pm)

    I was going to try to read through the whole discussion thread before jumping in, but…

    Does S1AL realize that he has just made the point that male headship of marriage/family is no longer applicable? “assume pre-fall headship” + “what was true before the fall doesn’t apply to real marriages today”.

    Really no way of seeing his statements otherwise, I think.

    But, that is not my real contention with this S1AL. Thus far (as I have gotten) he seems to be trying to reframe the argument regarding TradCons vs. “others” in primarily a socio-economic terms. As I read him, he equates being upstanding moral TradCons as being upper-middle-middle to upper-middle-class (more or less exclusively) and tries to cast the “ills” othe the others onto those of lower class.

    Sadly, I must admit, I know those in the classes he venerates quite well. And frankly, my personal impressions have been that these are the least devout, if not outright anti-religious of all people. It’s a lengthy and ugly discussion, but my nearly 50 years of life inside that class has shown me that such people are far more devoted to the almighty dollar than God Almighty. Purely anecdotal, to be sure, but in direct opposition to what S1AL claims to have anecdotally observed.
    Consider this:
    S1AL – ”My brother’s current church, Alethia in Colorado Springs” (in which S1AL describes as “not yet” having taken a hard stance vis-à-vis marriage (Marriage 1.0 vs. Marriage 2.0) , and makes an ill-thought joke about incrementalism as the way to approach the issue – seemingly completely unaware that this was exactly how feminism invaded such churches in the first place)

    I know the area wherein that church is located – northeast part of Colorado Springs, walking distance from Focus On the Families headquarters. The exact UMMC to UMC sort of suburban area that S1AL would tell us gives rise to devout TradCons. He’s right about one part of that, they are definitely TradCon in leaning. I know several people who live in that very area. They are definitely solidly TradCon, and see themselves as devout Christians; yet, they are also some of the blindest female-pedestalizers I personally know. They are also very “no confrontational” Christians when it comes to those “touchy” subjects like marital submission, male authority, and female fidelity. They are exactly as someone described earlier (sorry, I’ve forgotten who made the point) who go after the easy to condemn targets like abortion and gay marriage.

    Sorry S1AL, these are hardly the soert of people I would have any hope would ever challenge their women’s bad behaviors nor the feminism which HAS invaded their churches. They are modern Pharisees’ who look down on those less fortunate, and thank God that they are good Christians, unlike those lower-class sinners.

  527. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sa1L
    @Anonymous Reader: So your expectation is that I will either attend or fully research enough churches to make a laundry list that you guys will proceed to disqualify for nit-picky reasons like “they don’t condemn divorce in the same place as they teach traditional marriage so FAIL.”

    My expectation is that an adult who makes a claim, whether it is regarding the number of wing beats per second to keep a swallow aloft, or about the number of TradCon churches that visibly oppose divorce, said adult will be able to support said claim with facts, when it is requested.

    That’s how logic works. If I claim “X is true”, and you say “What evidence is there that X is true?”, then it is up to me to produce evidence to support the claim.

    As an aside, your mind reading hat may be in need of recharging. Or perhaps it is too tight, and given you a headache.

    Yeah, that’s not worth my time.

    So it is not worth your time to prove, or demonstrate, or even just support your point, is that correct?

  528. greyghost says:

    Ton.
    Don’t look at it like that. Based on hat you know is being alpha neccesarily a big picture positive. You seem more like a military MRA than a christian male red pill guy. Productive beta males built civilization and society was to ensure those males wee the most respected admired and appreciated. Also such males got the pussy worthy of wife. Alphas cads and thugs got the sluts and the rebellious ones. This blog is to me seen as a place to discuss how to do it and maintain it culturally and how to identify what is seen with red pill eyes.
    Red pill knowledge christian faith and game is a way for a solid beta to attract women in a feral world with out checks or consequences for female behavior, and at the same time not get lost (lose his honor) Natural Alphas are actually in many ways defective men.

  529. Dalrock says:

    @S1AL

    @Dalrock: Yeah, but it’s not an issue of being “hopelessly lost;” that’s where you get it wrong. The issue is that they don’t see the problem *in their personal lives or the lives of those close to them*. They see the problems in the culture but are having difficulty translating it into a personal response, often because they’ve seen guys take it way too far. Again, this is anecdote, but in my life the issue of severe abuse has been a far greater problem than a lack of submission, simply due to the people at the churches I have attended. It’s not a non-existent state like you make it out to be.

    And that’s why I’m pressing you to tone down the rhetoric. For a number of churches, and in my experience a growing number of churches, it’s simply inaccurate and denigrating. Sometimes extreme statements have their place, but you’re overdoing it.

    I have no idea what rhetoric you object to. I went back to the OP and re read it looking for what set you off. I honestly can’t imagine what you are objecting to. Either way, based on your arguments here my sense is that you want me to change my arguments so they don’t offend the Christians who are in denial. Quite simply, I won’t do so. Denial is the biggest problem we have.

    @Dalrock: Nit-pick – I’m not saying the pastors see the verses as un-Christian, but rather they are worried that some in the congregation will abuse the principles in an un-Christian fashion *because* they have seen it happen before. Teaching Christian submission is not as easy as you make it out to be because not every guy is as loving and caring as you appear to be from your posts about your family.

    You swim in a sea of denial and yet you still can’t see it. These pastors live in a time of the greatest female rebellion in history. Yet they are afraid of speaking words that the Apostle Paul wrote at a time when patriarchy was a given. If men and women in Paul’s time needed to hear Paul’s message, how much more do men and women today need to hear it? Yet as you keep saying, the pastors who you claim “get it right” are terrified that these verses will turn the average modern Christian husband into a member of the Taliban. Somehow the Koran slipped into the Christian Bible when no one was looking! Why wasn’t Paul afraid of this when he wrote the verses? The fact is that these pastors plain and simple can’t see feminist rebellion, all they see is the patriarchal boogieman that feminists have whipped up in their minds. They are fully in the throes of emotional hysteria. They listen to hysterical feminists over the calm sound wisdom of the Bible, and you want me to be careful not to offend them.

  530. Opus says:

    This is Dalrock’s blog and we are here at his good graces. Should he be unhappy with how any of us comment I am sure he will tell us. It is therefore somewhat priceless that S1Al is telling me to ‘knock it off’ and to ‘debate the points’ – though exactly what he dislikes in my posts this morning and what those points that he wishes me to debate might be (given what appears to me to be S1Al’s scttaregun approach to derailing this thread) I have no idea, especially as S1Al posted no less than forty-two times yesterday. His response to my attempt to understand his first post left me none the wiser, (as he evaded my questions) neither has he taken up my later invitation to say in response to the title of the Essay why men are failing to respond to economic signals, surely the only real justification for comments hereon – my attempt to get this thread back on topic. Is it any wonder that my patience (and that of greyghost) resulted in Mockery on returning to this blog this morning – the result of our time difference measning that we sleep whilst you post. To come here, take over the thread and then seek to lecture those of us who are less than amused seems to me to be the mark of one self-obsessed.

  531. Farm Boy says:

    Perhaps S1AL is from the same near-earth exo-planet that T is from.

  532. Farm Boy says:

    @S1AL

    Does your wife pick up your clothes that you leave on the floor and put them in a hamper, or does she throw them over to your side of the bed?

  533. S1AL says:

    @slwerner: Yeah, I can see how that would be confusing. Here’s a (hopefull) clearer explanation:

    Traditionally the church has maintained that headship existed before the fall. That said, the pre-fall version of headship seems to be significantly less extreme pre-fall (“He will rule over you”). My argument is then that it doesn’t matter if the position of men and women pre-fall was MORE equal than post-fall, because this is still post-fall. Essentially, it boils down to “the pattern was already there, but it was distorted by the fall; unfortunately, we live in the post-fall pattern.”

    Does that make more sense?

    As for my stance on TradCons, it’s not an elitist class issue. It’s a simple matter of patterns, and frankly, what “traditional” means. When I think of “traditional conservatives,” my mind conjures up images of the 1950’s heyday of happy marriages, traditional gender roles, etc. This situation is most exemplified by the MMC and UMC simply because they’re the ones who are most likely to come out of that tradition. Do you disagree?

    And yes, we’re talking about a church that has only existed for a couple of years and is coming out of the situation that fits your stereotype of the “negative TradCon.”

    Now, this is not to say that there aren’t these pockets outside of the MMC and UMC. My observation is simply that these are the most likely places for them to exist (as explained above). And of course, there’s the simple fact that the TradCon has generally been associated with this segment of society. There’s a parallel in the LC that fits into the “poorer” rural areas particularly.

    And yes, female-pedestalization is still a problem to an extent. It is being un-learned by the current generation, however, because they’ve seen the reality. In fact, I would say my generation WANTS to be able to pedestal-ize women but simply can’t anymore. It would be hilarious if it weren’t