How we came to embrace illegitimacy.

Some time in the 60s and 70s something let the illegitimacy genie out of the bottle in the US.  In the early 1960s we went from out of wedlock birth rates consistently under 5% to a dramatic upslope leading to our present rate in excess of 40%.  You can see this in Figure 1 from NCHS Data Brief No. 18 May 2009, Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States:

db8_fig1_percent_out_wedlock_trend

It is difficult to separate legal verses social changes because each tends to greatly impact the other.  However, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers offer some insight into the legal part of this dynamic in their paper Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces:

Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s and 1970s also changed the nature of family relationships by eliminating many of the legal distinctions stemming from the marital status of a child’s parents. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruling in Levy v. Louisiana (391 U.S. 68) granted equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to “illegitimate” children. Five years later, the 1973 ruling in Gomez v. Perez (409 U.S. 535) overturned state laws exempting men from financial responsibility for “illegitimate” children. These rulings reduced both the social and economic cost to women of bearing a child out-of-wedlock, and thus may also help to explain the decline in shotgun marriages. This remains an under-researched topic in need of further scrutiny.

As they say, this is “under-researched”.  More accurately this bit of history is outright denied.  Try finding any reference to a legal distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children here, for just one example.

Similarly, neither Levy v. Louisiana nor Gomez v. Perez are referenced in the fairly lengthy history of child support included in the paper by Daniel L. Hatcher in Wake Forest Law Review, Child Support Harming Children: Subordinating the Best Interests of Children to the Fiscal Interests of the State (2007).  This omission leaves the impression that the legal basis for compelling child support for illegitimate children was a settled issue in the US going back to at least the 1800s:

Along with the poor laws and criminal nonsupport laws, states enacted bastardy statutes aimed at forcing putative fathers to support their illegitimate children.  The statutes were both criminal and civil in their focus and, like the nonsupport laws, their purposes were mixed. For example, a Maryland court explained that “[w]hile the prime object of the Maryland Bastardy Act is to protect the public from the burden of maintaining illegitimate children, it is so distinctly in the interest of the mother that she becomes the beneficiary of it.”

Yet clearly prior to the 1960s there were competing legal views on the degree to which mothers of illegitimate children had a “right” to compel the father to pay support.

Another massive change is the social acceptance of mothers who bear children out of wedlock.  Even the name of the bastardy statutes indicates a profoundly different social view of illegitimacy than our current embrace.  This vastly different social order comes through in one of the court cases Hatcher quotes in the same paper, the 1832 decision of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in Burgen v. Straughan (emphasis mine):

[N]or can we perceive how it can be unlawful or immoral, or inconsistent with the policy of the law, for the mother of a bastard to agree with the father that, if he will co-operate in the maintainance [sic] of their child, she will not proceed under the bastardy act . . . . It should not be deemed injurious to the community or county. It is not the public duty of the mother of an illegitimate child to assert her statutory right. Her voluntary forbearance is no breach of any moral or civil obligation. Her child may become a burthen to her county; but this might happen, and would, perhaps, be more likely to occur, if such contracts as that we are now considering should be declared illegal and void. Many, in her condition, might prefer all the wretchedness of destitution and poverty, to a voluntary promulgation, in a county court, of all the circumstances necessary to coerce contributions under the bastardy act.

See also: 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Child Custody, Child Support, Data, Illegitimacy, Replacing Marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

437 Responses to How we came to embrace illegitimacy.

  1. sunshinemary says:

    Another massive change is the social acceptance of mothers who bear children out of wedlock.

    And not only acceptance of the mothers but the children as well.

    I was sorting through an older family member’s things not long ago after his death and happened upon his birth certificate. I did not know that in our state, there used to be two boxes on the birth certificate marked “legitimate” and “illegitimate”, and one had to be checked. I tried to google it to see when that changed but could not find the answer. But being illegitimate used to carry a stigma for the children that followed them on their birth certificate for their entire life.

    Or, to be a bit hokey, think of the Diana Ross song “Love Child.” Who could even understand the song character’s dilemma any more?

  2. Jack says:

    And so it begins. I will be poolside.

    “Florida alimony-reform bill draws fire ”

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/bill-to-end-alimony-draws-acrimonious-debate/2112996

    We should totally rally this blog to this cause and flood these guys offices with calls. These things start small and then spread…. Great to see someone step up.

  3. Elspeth says:

    The idea behind the acceptance of the children is that the children shouldn’t be held responsible for their parents’ sins. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is certainly debatable.

  4. Elspeth says:

    The alimony battle has been going on in Florida for a couple of years now. I think the press was largely ignoring it but the lawmakers pushing for reform have refused to give up their fight. I admire their persistence.

  5. Opus says:

    Of course in our modern times it all seems very cruel, and yet, suppose you knew two young women, of equal beauty and wit and accomplishments, and one was legitimate from an intact functioning family and the other, the daughter of a divorcee or an unwed mother, which one of the two would you rather marry? I once dated a young woman who had been adopted by strangers, but – in hindsight, of course – I do not think I would ever wish to knowingly court such a person again. We may talk the language of equality but in practice we act otherwise (once we remove the Vagina Goggles).

  6. Jack says:

    It shows you how out of control the current landscape is when women loudly argue that they have a right to lifetime payments from their ex husbands. LIFETIME payments even if they initiate the divorce. So absurd it would be laughed at if it wasnt’ true.

    LIFETIME payments. WTF is that?

  7. sunshinemary says:

    Elspeth wrote:

    The idea behind the acceptance of the children is that the children shouldn’t be held responsible for their parents’ sins. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is certainly debatable.

    Yes, I understand what you are saying, and I have a theory that the fact that you and I (and most women) feel this way actually makes women terribly policy-makers. Our thought process, because we have a natural affinity for children, is “Oh dear, it is just too bad to make an innocent child suffer for the sins of his parents! We must influence laws and policies so the children are free of shame! We must excise judgmental words like “bastard” from our vocabulary!” And this seems very humane and loving, but is it? I now think it is killing by kindness.

    Men, on the other hand, are better able to make rational decisions on such matters. I think that, while they can feel sorry for an individual child, they can see that removing the stigma has paradoxically caused more and not less suffering for children because now the percentage of children who grow up in the decidedly inferior single-mother home has skyrocketed.

    Remember in the song why Diana Ross’ character wouldn’t put out for her paramour? Because she was motivated not to pass on the shame she had to bear from being illegitimate. The song is cheesy, but the story it tells actually lends support to allowing illegitimate children to be stigmatized.

  8. As they say, this is “under-researched”. More accurately this bit of history is outright denied. Try finding any reference to a legal distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children here, for just one example.

    No kidding; I’m sitting here wondering how they were legally distinguished. All I can think of is inheritance: property generally went to the oldest legitimate son. But legal primogeniture never really caught on in the US, and I don’t know that there were ever laws preventing a man from passing his property to an illegitimate child (or anyone else) — at least not in 1960.

    Other than that, I’m drawing a blank. Were illegitimate children banned from public schools? Refused housing or employment in certain jobs? Prevented from marrying? If there were other legal distinctions, then you’re right: they haven’t just been under-researched; they’ve been wiped from history.

    [D: The only legal distinction I’m aware of is laws in states like Texas excluding illegitimate children from child support laws. See the ruling on Gomez v. Perez for some detail here.]

  9. The idea behind the acceptance of the children is that the children shouldn’t be held responsible for their parents’ sins. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is certainly debatable.

    What’s not debatable is whether it’s biblical. A recurring theme in the bible is children paying the price for their parents’ sin, especially sexual sin. Take David’s son born of Bathsheba after having her husband killed, for instance:

    David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.” — 2 Samuel 12: 13-14

    On top of all the individual examples, there’s also Original Sin which we all inherit from Adam and Eve, and that doesn’t seem to be dissipating any with each passing generation.

    Whether that should be paralleled by legal punishment for illegitimate children is a separate issue, though, I’d say. But I’m still waiting curiously to find out what those legal punishments were.

  10. Shameful says:

    The enemy remains the state. Without the state redistributing wealth and holding men and gunpoint this wouldnt happen. As is plain to see the state loves feminism, it enlarges and empowers the state like few things can. This is not a permamanet thing though, in places of total state women lose this massive advantage, hell look at Chinese femisism. So either the state will outgrow the need for feminism or the state will collapse under the stress of economic and social factors and feminism will be left without its primary means of support. The world we live in wont last one way or the other it will change.

  11. Spacetraveller says:

    @ Cail Corishev,

    “…property generally went to the oldest legitimate son.”

    This makes me think immediately of Prince Albert of Monaco who has two illegitimate children (by two different women) and as yet no legitimate heir, as his wife of 2 years is yet to have a child.

    He is in danger of letting the reign of the monarchy pass onto his sister Caroline’s children…the eldest of whom (Andrea) has just had an illegitimate child! But alas, Andrea is soon to marry the mother of his child, and according to Monaco Royal laws, once a man marries the mother of his illegitimate child, that child becomes legitimate ‘retrospectively’.
    So ‘phew’ to Andrea!

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

    lzoozozo

    when fatherhood and teh family declibe
    the government grows
    and the central bankers
    get to seize asstes from men
    and get rich by creatinf debt to burdne men witrh
    to support the welfare/warfare state
    so of course they had to egt rid of fatehrhodo and the fmamisly
    so of course they fund single motherhood
    and buttckcokcingz zllzozozo
    for the less loyal a woman is
    to god man jesus and the family
    the more loyal she is
    to the bankerz
    whose corproations she will now and then work in
    whose lawyers she will work with to transfer asstez from men
    whose minsiters she will work with to crucicfy jesus and moses
    again and again and again

    the aboliton of the family is the gola of th esommunsistz communsists who formed the central banksz

    and thus they are succeeding in lveraging women’z hypergamous butt and gina tingles
    in enslaving mankind
    to pay to raise bastead bastard childrenz
    and fund her buttocckkzizininingz
    withimmoral immoral, fallen thugz

    those religions which exalted
    the noble man’s aprehension of the abstract
    his grand mind and his soul of honor
    those religions which exalted
    honor duty god zeus moses jesus
    over womenz butt and gina tinglez
    created science, freedom, and, civilizatiososioznzz

    those other regions of the world
    stayed in the dark ages with oenthug to rule them all
    ignorant and unaware of eve’s fall

    lzozozozoozozo

  13. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruling in Levy v. Louisiana (391 U.S. 68) granted equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to “illegitimate” children. Five years later, the 1973 ruling in Gomez v. Perez (409 U.S. 535) overturned state laws exempting men from financial responsibility for “illegitimate” children.

    Ah, I’m starting to see the bait-and-switch now. When they say “granted equal protection … to ‘illegitimate’ children” (nice touch with the scare quotes there, by the way, folks), they really mean granted to the mothers of illegitimate children. Now it makes more sense.

  14. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:
  15. Athol Kay says:

    The core purpose of marriage from the individual view is to assure paternity. It would seem that the decline in marriage and rise in illegimacy would be related.

    The core purpose of marriage from the view of the state is to assure that children are not a burden to it. The legal relationship between parent and child is also more easily controlled by the state than those between spouses. It is also typically more permanent.

    I think we are heading toward a future where the core purpose of marriage is replaced by mandatory paternity testing. Resulting in marriage itself becoming increasingly a token legal status secondary to the legal status of being a parent.

  16. tz2026 says:

    Today we don’t make the children suffer, at least not longer than it takes to dismember them in their Mother’s womb. Many if not most Abortions are coerced. At least the old time bastards were given the right to life.

    I don’t think it was just for men to be able to impregnate women then just ignore them. There are cases where it would have been adultery (which was a criminal offense back then too). What if it was rape?

    But the distinction is that back then we were dealing with exceptions, trying to balance justice and mercy, responsibility and charity. The 80%(?) of intact and large families just went about their business for the most part, and called out sinners, sometimes without mercy and forgetting that God’s Grace is paramount.

    I’ve noted today we don’t value children. If I asked you if you would want 2 $100 bills or 10, Immediately or after a few years, which would you choose? If I asked you if you want 2 children maybe later or 10 children starting now? Values clarified. Eugenics through economics and culture. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood have won the minds and hearts of even those who find abortion an atrocity. On what basis do those today place a value on children?

  17. tz2026 says:

    There were also technological problems back then. Without DNA testing, how do you know if the child was conceived by a particular man? There could be a few genetic exclusions (e.g. blood types), but there was no certainty. The state is doing a bad enough job today when we can genetically establish paternity with near absolute certainty.

    Not everyone had a will, so there would be more chaos if the Father died – how do divide things up? Do we wish to have anyone claim?

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Athol Kay

    I think we are heading toward a future where the core purpose of marriage is replaced by mandatory paternity testing. Resulting in marriage itself becoming increasingly a token legal status secondary to the legal status of being a parent.

    This is true, but the much more fundamental shift is a shift from a marriage based family to a child support philosophy of family. Child support is now the foundation of our view of how to form families. DNA testing technology makes the implementation of this new family philosophy much easier, but the change in structure predated DNA testing and the technology itself wouldn’t mandate that we scrap our marriage based family structure. We chose the child support model over marriage first, and then later were able to scientifically establish paternity with DNA.

  19. herbie31 says:

    The comments in the Tampa article were interesting and troubling in that many still seem opposed to any reassessment of alimony/child support. Self-reliance is hardly mentioned anymore.

  20. A says:

    A woman that decides to conceive without a formal contract with a man to provide for her should not have any right to extract resources from the man. I also think it is a good idea for a society to look down at her for attempting to raise a child without a father, this has been shown to increase the risk for a lot of social pathologies. Boys growing up without a father usuall become p*ssies, girls get a ton of “daddy issues” and the cycle continues. So such women behave in an stupid, careless and unempathic way.

    It is not a right to grow up with a rich caretaker and the state should only intervene if things get really critical (starving to death etc).

    But _moral_ shaming of children for what their parents did? Such behavior is inconsistent with any kind of legal principle. Nobody should be persecuted for offenses commited by others. I am happy I am libertian so I am not bound by such irrational dogmas.

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

    “Elspeth says:
    April 4, 2013 at 8:58 am
    The idea behind the acceptance of the children is that the children shouldn’t be held responsible for their parents’ sins. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is certainly debatable.”

    The idea behind labeling bastard children as bastard children is that other men shouldn’t be held responsible for the bastard parents’ sins, by being force, at gunpoint, to feed and clothe the illegitimate, fatherless child,whom statitistically speaking, is far more likely to suffer from numerous afflictions and become a bigger burden to the good men of civilization. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is not debatable

  22. Novaseeker says:

    It shows you how out of control the current landscape is when women loudly argue that they have a right to lifetime payments from their ex husbands. LIFETIME payments even if they initiate the divorce. So absurd it would be laughed at if it wasnt’ true.

    LIFETIME payments. WTF is that?

    The concept comes from the time of fault-based divorce and widescale depdendence of wives on husbands financially. Such that a husband who left his wife for his secretary had to pay lifetime alimony. As far as I am aware, an adultress who was sued for divorce under fault divorce laws was not entitled to alimony. That makes some sense to me. The problem with the current system is that divorce is elective unilaterally for no stated reason in most states, so that alimony awards just started to automatically happen irrespective of fault — even where the wife walks out, commits adultery and so on. That makes very little sense and creates “moral hazard” to beat the band, really.

    The current “justification” offered for it is mostly either (1) “I gave him the ‘best years’ of my life” (i.e., I’m not as attractive now as I was when/before I married him, so he needs to compensate me forever for having access to me sexually when I was more attractive than I am now, and less capable of finding a suitable replacement mate) or (2) I was a SAHM, and supported my H in his career at the expense of my own earning prospects, and therefore I am entitled to a substantial slice of his earnings forever. As a practical matter, in most states unless there is a substantial income differential, alimony awards are rare — that is, if two people with similar incomes are getting divorced, there usually isn’t alimony. Alimony is most commonly awarded with the SAHW/SAHM situation where the wife has much less earning capacity than the husband, and if she has degrees and “potential” earning capacity, in many states the alimony award will be temporary (for a few years until she gets back into career swing). The largest awards are all in cases where there is a huge disparity in actual earnings and potential earnings, and the situation can be characterized as the W supporting the H in his career (and therefore entitled to a slice of its income). Having said that, there’s a wide variety in the law here (much wider than the laws on c/s, because the feds have had a huge impact on c/s law), such that there are some states that have hard caps on alimony by time (Texas), while there are others that have full lifetime alimony as a matter of course, and the obligation carries on even to future wives (that is, wife 2 is also jointly liable for the alimony obligation to wife 1 — see Massachusetts). The law is kind of all over the place, but the rule of thumb is that if you have a SAHM/SAHW, getting divorced is going to be damned expensive unless you live in Texas.

    I think we are heading toward a future where the core purpose of marriage is replaced by mandatory paternity testing. Resulting in marriage itself becoming increasingly a token legal status secondary to the legal status of being a parent.

    From a logical point of view, yes, but from a practical and social point of view, I don’t see mandatory paternity testing ever taking hold. Women will not allow it — the reaction against it is almost universal and visceral among women of all political, social, and economic stripes. What I personally see happening is the growth of the mother being able to designate the father unilaterally, with the designee being able to rebut that within a certain period of time through the use of a paternity test. I don’t see the state forcing all babies to be tested for paternity — that’s politically impossible, really.

  23. Novaseeker says:

    This is true, but the much more fundamental shift is a shift from a marriage based family to a child support philosophy of family. Child support is now the foundation of our view of how to form families. DNA testing technology makes the implementation of this new family philosophy much easier, but the change in structure predated DNA testing and the technology itself wouldn’t mandate that we scrap our marriage based family structure. We chose the child support model over marriage first, and then later were able to scientifically establish paternity with DNA.

    I agree, but I don’t think we will really see mandatory paternity testing. Women won’t allow this politically.

    The c/s model of family suits the state and women because it mandates provision, thereby saving the state from having more “wards of the state”, while providing women flexibility in their romantic life, implicit (and often explicit) monopoly control over children, and financial support without the obligations of marriage. It’s a win/win for women who *want* to do that. Not all women do, but it gives all women the flexibility to do it if they want — and flexibility is mesmerizingly attractive to women. Look at the abortion issue — most women don’t want to get abortions, but almost all women want the flexibility to be able to do so if they really want to. The no-fault, c/s-as-father model provides the same thing, even if most women don’t, at least at the outset, *want* to do it that way — they want to know that if they eventually want (or, likely they will say, “need”) to do so, that the law is there to back them up in their flexibility.

    This is why I see things moving in the direction of mothers designating fathers, and the designation being rebuttable by a paternity test, rather than mandatory paternity testing.

  24. Jeremy says:

    So, in 1832, women had that much self-respect (reading between the lines in that court decision)?

    I was born in the wrong time.

  25. Farm Boy says:

    Yes, I feel for the children. Perhaps they should be taken away and given to married couples. The bio mom and dad however, should be whipped

  26. Of course in our modern times it all seems very cruel, and yet, suppose you knew two young women, of equal beauty and wit and accomplishments, and one was legitimate from an intact functioning family and the other, the daughter of a divorcee or an unwed mother, which one of the two would you rather marry?

    I once fell for the idea that a woman who was still angry at her parents for divorcing would be leery of divorce herself. After all, she said she never wanted to go through what her parents went through. But in reality, when things got tough, she had that option already sort of programmed into her by experience, and pulled the trigger quite easily.

    I still wouldn’t automatically disqualify a woman for being illegitimate or a child of divorce, but I would take it into account on the ‘con’ side of the ledger and check her closely for red flags in that area. I’d also pay no attention whatsoever to any claim she makes that her bad childhood experience makes her any more virtuous or more likely to stick things out. That might seem logical, but we have plenty of proof that it doesn’t work that way — divorce gets inherited more often than not like everything else.

  27. Jeremy says:

    @Athol Kay says:

    The core purpose of marriage from the view of the state is to assure that children are not a burden to it.

    UNLESS that state wants to increase it’s own budget, then as the state you want as many children dependent upon you as you can, so you can tax betas more to take care of… the children. From this perspective, you’ll come up with any reason to make children wards of the state. You’ll even go so far as to outlaw harsh speech to children as a form of child abuse.

  28. BC says:

    When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
    When you remove penalties for something, you get more of it.

    When you both subsidize and remove penalties for something you get a lot more of it.

    (Dis)Incentives matter.

  29. Dalrock, if you’re not on the payroll for the Heritage Foundation, you should be by now.

    Boys growing up without a father usuall become p*ssies, girls get a ton of “daddy issues” and the cycle continues. So such women behave in an stupid, careless and unempathic way.

    I would contest that to a certain extent with regards to boys behavior. I think it depends largely on the community. Suburban SWIPL kids without fathers usually do get raised to be mama’s boys who would rather sit around braiding hair than learning to take a car apart or playing ball with the neighborhood kids. I would theorize this is due to boys naturally seeking paternal authority from somewhere, and in the case of smothering middle-class mothers, only being able to find it in a distinctly feminine form.

    In lower-class urban or rural environments it’s the exact opposite. Boys often grow up with violence and find male role models in gangs and other violent associations wherein they associate maleness with violence and undisciplined power. This results in the extremely high arrest record and prison membership of single-mom bastards.

    While instance 1 is certainly more benign than instance 2, neither raises healthy and productive men. Moreover, neither instance produces a man who can raise a family. Suburban bastard is hopelessly unattractive to women on a basic level due to his lack of masculinity. Urban/rural bastard has no beta family-planting instincts whatsoever. Both are nuclear recipes for family, especially with the modern women. Instance 1 creates a loveless post-carousel marriage. Instance 2 creates another pump-and-dump mother who thinks the long-gone alpha will come back and raise his kids.

  30. greyghost says:

    A male birth control pill takes women out of the process. Educate boys on the laws of misandry and the new child support foundation of family (I like that dalrock). Take the hysterical out of the loop. Also solves the Florida problem no marriage and no child too bad honey, get a job. As long as the debate and the discussion involves in any way a woman’s behavior as the check on disaster their will be disaster. The irresponsible idea that it is unfair to stigmatize a child for it’s parents actions in just plian irresponsible . Look what we have now. As said before laws and cultural structure that does not take into account the wicked childlike selfishness and lack of empathy of women (all natural and normal) is bad for every one including the women and civilization as a whole. This article and the court rulings as shown have made the point loud and clear.

  31. Mark Minter says:

    I’m am going to include a graphic of some data..

    This graphic is teen pregnancy by year. Notice the bubble that occurred in 1992.

    In 1992, congress passed The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act also know as Welfare Reform under bipartisan cooperation between TradCon Newt Gingrich and Liberal Democrat Bill Clinton. The primary aims of the bill were:

    -Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
    -Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
    -Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
    -Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births;
    -Enhancing enforcement of child support; and
    -Requires state professional and occupational licenses be withheld from illegal immigrants

    Notice number 5 in that list. Also again, notice the bump in bubble teen births beginning in 1992 and staying high until 2000.

    The births more or less stayed high until demographics changed to actually make it more profitable for women to not to have a child and receive the cash and prizes of being a single 20 something year old woman. And teen births are at an all time low today as the social environment of today has maximized cash and prices to an all time high for practically any and all teen and 20 something women.

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

    lozozoz

    hey ther gbfm has found a typo and grmamaticiall errororozz!!

    i corect:

    The core purpose of marriage from the view of the state is to assure that children are not a burden to it.

    should read:

    The core purpose of marriage from the view of the bbuttehxted ernnkifieid state is to assure that children are a burden to the men who did not conceive them, thusly alllowing the ebenrnkeifiersz to tax said men and claim “itis all for the bastard childrenz!” while alos augmenting debt to grow the welfare state and inserting that debt into tghe common man’s buttholesz, often using churchian lube. zlozozozozlzoozzlzlz

    there now taht reads better and has mor eproepr grammar diction and context!!!

    your ewoeolconez!!!!!

    gbfm z.oozl

  33. Farm Boy says:

    How we came to embrace illegitimacy.

    Answer — excess wealth

  34. Farm Boy says:

    UNLESS that state wants to increase it’s own budget, then as the state you want as many children dependent upon you as you can, so you can tax betas more to take care of… the children

    The state is an entity with its OWN interests. And these often do not coincide with the interests of the people.

  35. Mikediver says:

    I have stated before that I have two neices that heard their biological clocks ticking too loudly and found sucker/one night stands to impregnate them. These strong independent women wanted the men to have nothing to do with “their” daughters, but were insistant on child support, since it was the guys responsibility as they had not “kept it in their pants”. These two intentionally got pregnant. They don’t come out and say it, but I was there before, during, and after. My opinion in these types of cases is that not only should the children have been taken from them and given to a two parent family, but the women involved in these types of scams should be forcably sterilized as unfit mothers for all time. I may be a little harsh but my solution would stop so many social problems or severely limit them.

    In our current culture women can not be at fault for even intentional acts of vicious deception, but all men are guilty of sex as a crime.

  36. Chris says:

    @Athol Kay

    I think we are heading toward a future where the core purpose of marriage is replaced by mandatory paternity testing. Resulting in marriage itself becoming increasingly a token legal status secondary to the legal status of being a parent.

    The institution of marriage has already been replaced by the institution of child support. One may think that they are different things but they are not. Both marriage and child support are methods to support and raise children but they cannot coexist as the existence of one undermines the purpose of the other.

    Since marriage no longer grants men custody of any children produce in such a union nor is it the only method of a women to receive support from the father of any children she bears it is no wonder that marriage is but a facade of its former self. Nowadays marriage is but a feel good public expression of love and not a binding social contract necessary to be counted as a social institution.

  37. Dalrock says:

    @Mark Minter

    This graphic is teen pregnancy by year. Notice the bubble that occurred in 1992.

    In 1992, congress passed The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act also know as Welfare Reform under bipartisan cooperation between TradCon Newt Gingrich and Liberal Democrat Bill Clinton.

    There is a similar (temporary) drop in the growth of out of wedlock births around that same year. However, welfare reform (at least the passage of that specific act) can’t be the reason for either change, because that was passed in 1996. This is certainly worthy of more investigation though, because something very interesting seems to have happened around 1992.

  38. sunshinemary says:

    @ Mark Minter
    It seems that chart has both married and unmarried teens together. It would be interesting to see that same chart only for illegitimate births (for example, my mother was 17 when I was born, but she was already married to my father, which is quite a different situation than an unmarried teen mom).

  39. I forgot to mention, the second part of my previous approach is addressed @ A

  40. Dalrock says:

    BTW Mark thanks for sharing that chart. I modified your comment to make the image viewable.

  41. A says:

    TKI, I guess you are right. I have never lived in the ghetto but it sounds reasonable.

  42. Mikediver says:

    I think the key distinction made in the OP was the move from a marriage based to a child support based family structure. Another key was the stress on child support collection by the state as a means of ensuring that the costs of the child are not born by the state, but rather by the guilty party (the man). Note that there is no intent to relieve the state burden by forcing the mother to share in the load.

    I read not too long ago that the cost in Florida of trying to collect child support from “dead beat dads” was 2 to 4 times the total amount of child support paid in the entire state. The vast majority of the child support paid did not need to be collected as the fear regime and a sense of honor for most men to pay the amounts they agreed to in the divorce is sufficient. The amount collected from the non-paying dads was mostly not collectable, no matter how many resources the state put into it or how much they beat them until they were dead. In most cases the men were in prison, destitute themselves, or living on the street already. It is hard to get blood from a turnip, but the socialist state will continue to try. I have a brother in law that has MS. He has been in long term care for many years. A portion of his Social Security is still taken to pay the back child support to his ex wife. This does nothing to take care of the children; as they are all middle aged and have kids of their own. The money goes straight to the harpy for her pound of flesh vengeance, and will until the day he dies.

  43. slwerner says:

    sunshinemary – ”It seems that chart has both married and unmarried teens together.”

    At first, I thought something must have been amiss with the graph, until I realized (as you did) that the high numbers in the 18-19 age group prior to ~1975 was likely due to more women in that age-range actually being married during that time range.

    sunshinemary – ”It would be interesting to see that same chart only for illegitimate births”

    Absolutely. Without that specific break-out, the data is not as easy to make sense out of, especially for the first half of the overall time range, when early age of marriage (for women) was more common.

  44. Mikediver says:

    BTW, the reason he got so far behind in his CS was that he was unemployed for a long period and could never make enough to get out from under.

  45. Bobbye says:

    There is a disconnect in solving problems with conservatives . Conservatives tend to be progressives . The “game” played by the progressives is designed to do just that. Good thing conservatives are so easy to ‘play’. The progessive game is played by ‘ finding’ a victim group and agitating for ‘relief’. Conservatives are quickly brought into agreement that the victim has indeed been abused by society or the law. Half way to being a progressive. Now whats to be done for relief? Once the ‘ conservative’ agrees something needs to be done , they are a full progressive. Easy. Conservatives never catch on to this game. The only hope to win is to reject that the group in question is a victim. Thats not nice!

  46. John says:

    Sociologist Charles Murray researched the by then decades-long growing illegitimacy problem back in the early 1990′s and in October of 1994 the Wall Street Journal published a column by him on the subject. Murray noted that in 1964 the illegitimacy rates amongst the races were as follows: 5% amongst Caucasians, 18% amongst Hispanics and 24% amongst Negroes. By 1994 these numbers had risen to 24% amongst Caucasians, 56% amongst Hispanics and 70% amongst the then and now hyphenated “African-Americans.” These numbers are somewhat worse at present but not terribly so, as marriage still does indeed happen. The racial group with the highest increase in illegitimacy since 1994 is the Caucasians, now up to 29%.

    Not discounting the legal citations in Dalrocks piece and certainly not ignoring the “welfare state” created in 1964 with L.B.J.’s so-called “Great Society” (look at the social carnage on the landscape today) that gave both financial support as well as incentive to the birthing of bastard offspring, Murray posited another argument that dovetails in perfectly with the aforementioned factors. His argument (aided by all these other factors in my humble opinion) was that proper social behavior falls by the wayside when a certain “critical mass” of the population adopts behaviors and/or belief systems that were formerly considered immoral. Murray believed this “critical mass” figure to be 25% of the population, which explains the stunning rise in illegitimacy rates amongst “African-Americans” first, followed somewhat quickly by the Hispanics and then finally with the Caucasians hitting that “critical mass” point in the late 1990′s.

    There are without doubt socio-economic factors in play here as well. This phenomenon exploded first among the lower classes of the respective racial groups and as the current statistics clearly indicate, the barrier that wealth and “class” once provided has been breached. Many “career women” are now consciously choosing to bear bastards, thus Murray’s argument clearly has better than good traction.

    “Everybody’s doing it”, and in a society where the very concept of shame has evaporated away like the morning dew in mid-July in the lower reaches of the Mojave Desert, there now exists no social more’ against the behavior. The Churches are effectively silent as little bastards run from pew to pew during sermons (Aren’t they cute?) and the other parishioners acts as if no sin has been committed. The Fish without the Bicycles who are riding the government Sugar Daddy carousel proclaim their power and independence as the electronic money transfers and E.B.T. cards keep their proud heads held high while hoping for the next fool to come along and bed them, for even a Fish needs to feel “loved”if it but for five minutes. Add to this the amoral legal support for the behavior and the television and movie “programming” as psychological reinforcements to the recipe and you have a morally and socially unpalatable disaster from sea to shining sea.

    Stop the madness.

  47. Ton says:

    We are embracing embracing illegitimacy because of a misplaced sense compassion. All of leftism relies on it.

  48. anonymous says:

    suppose you knew two young women, of equal beauty and wit and accomplishments, and one was legitimate from an intact functioning family and the other, the daughter of a divorcee or an unwed mother, which one of the two would you rather marry?

    I once believed that, since a girl’s family background was not her fault, it would be wrong to discriminate on such a basis. Also, more pragmatically, from a purely statistical perspective, holding out for a girl from an intact home, in today’s fractured culture, is jjust about as foolish as holding out for a virgin. (Even though I myself had both of those traits). In both cases, such girls are so few and far between, nowadays, that holding out for one is just plain unrealistic and stupid… Or so I reasoned.

    So I dated girls from divorced, chaotic, abusive, etc. backgrounds. In fact, now that I think about it, I can only think of ONE girl from an intact home, that II had more than 1-2 dates with, from high-school til my marriage at 38… AND THAT WAS THE ONE I MARRIED. I tried very hard to make it work with several others, and they were just too f***ed up. As soon as I found someone “normal”, it was clear sailing to the altar.

    The most f***ed up of all, was a Christian virgin from a seemingly intact home…. BUT…. her parents’ marriage began as an adulterous affair while her Dad was married to a first wife — which he divorced (leaving kids behind), to be with her Mom. Thsi girl had really a WEIRD attitude toward men, marriage, and relationships, which I attribute to the fact that her parent’s relationship began illictly.

    It shows you how out of control the current landscape is when women loudly argue that they have a right to lifetime payments from their ex husbands. LIFETIME payments even if they initiate the divorce. So absurd it would be laughed at if it wasnt’ true.

    Lifetime payments, in exchange for lifetime sex, would be fair. But even a lot of still-,married men are not getting that benefit.

  49. Novaseeker says:

    This phenomenon exploded first among the lower classes of the respective racial groups and as the current statistics clearly indicate, the barrier that wealth and “class” once provided has been breached. Many “career women” are now consciously choosing to bear bastards, thus Murray’s argument clearly has better than good traction.

    It’s been breached, but the higher you go, especially into the UMCs, the breaching is very minor so far. Most of these get married and illegitimacy is still very uncommon. The real breaching is going to come in the next 1-2 generations due to the education gap, and not enough men to go around for the women in this group, which will lead to a spike in illegitimacy in this group as well — but that hasn’t happened yet. This is, in fact, a significant part of the problem, because it is this group that is the most influential culturally, politically, economically and socially, and for them it’s like “what’s the problem? Everyone I know is married with kids, very few are divorced, everyone is highly educated with advanced degrees and both spouses in high-powered careers .. what’s the problem? To the extent that there *is* a problem, I don’t see it in people like me, and therefore the problem is that more people “need to be like us”. That creates very, very dysfunctional policies towards people as a whole, because people as a whole are generally not as disciplined, focused and future-time-oriented as this group is, and likely never will be.

  50. Miserman says:

    In his commentary on Exodus 23:6, John Calvin wrote,

    For, although the poor is for the most part tyrannically oppressed, still ambition will sometimes impel a judge to misplaced compassion, so that he is liberal at another’s expense. And this temptation is all the more dangerous, because injustice is done under the cloak of virtue.

  51. Mark Minter says:

    Also when I was reading The Woman Trap by Steve Mockey, he has an initial chapter that describes how intellectuals in the 60s and early 70s had to face the reality of the failure of the Proletarian Revolution, that those Proles just weren’t going to rise up and revolt like Marx had predicted. They chalked it up to cultural conditioning and the tendency to cling to the family unit. Those proles just didn’t realize how bad they had it under heinous capitalism.

    And after the invasions of Hungary in 1956 followed the the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 there was a great degree of dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the Soviet Union as the great liberator of the masses. So a metamorphosis began. If the Proles weren’t going to view “The Man” as the oppressor and cast off the chains and shackles of capitalist oppression, the Feminism would lead the way and instead of “The Man” as the oppressor then it would become “The Men” as the oppressor within the family unit. And only by destroying the family unit could socialism proceed as it proper evolution in society.

    I just read it and it went in one eye and out the other. Yeah, Yeah, Feminism is Marxism.

    So then I was researching this idea I had. Venezuela is experiencing a spike in its murder rate since Chavez took power. It was 5300 before and it is 22,000 now. The government actually stopped releasing the figures in 2005.. So private journalists compute the 22,000 which actually up by quite a lot of the 18,000 number in 2010. The reporters hang outside the morgues. And count the bodies in order to compute the murder rate.

    My idea was perhaps there was some connection between this spike in murders and the possibility that the Bolivarian Socialist Revolution has made women as the biggest recipient of the largesse of oil money received with the very high spike in the global price of oil. And it is turned out that, yes, women have received a great bulk of the benefits. They are much the same sorts of benefits as welfare recipients in the United States receive, basically aid to dependent children, medical benefits under WIC type programs, free schooling at both the scholastic and university level, and preferential hiring in government employment. And the murders are committed mostly in the same sorts of neighborhoods by younger men in gangs all behaving in the same ways as gangs in the United States

    Guess what my key source of data was for this information about the women in Venezuela receiving a great bulk of benefits?

    “Goodbye ‘Manguard’? Women and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela”

    http://openarchive.acadiau.ca/cdm/singleitem/collection/Theses/id/602/rec/19

    That would be a paper from a PhD student from Arcadia University in Nova Scotia. When I searched for Arcadia U, one of the links that came up had a title “10 Best Universities in Canada”. So I assume it is a private university, more or less, on the same level as an Ivy League college in the United States. And the paper made multiple references to “Marxist-Feminist” as if it were a given, no big shakes to say it. And the author of the paper thanked both the Department head and senior professors, like all of them just accept the notions of Marxist-Feminism like its no big deal and the list of people involved is got some names:
    —-
    Acknowledgements
    First and foremost, I would like to recognize the people of Venezuela who fight everyday to create a more equal and just society. Specifically, I am indebted to the women I interviewed who inspire me through their struggle for socialism and equality. A special thank you to Jose Luis Oropeza and Jesus Rojas who were my interpreters and guides.

    I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. James J. Brittain, for his encouragement
    and helping refine my ideas. This project was made easier through his open door policy
    that was taken advantage of many times during this research. I am grateful to Professor
    Barbara Moore for her suggestions that strengthened my work. To the other graduate
    students: Lisanne Turner, Ryan Romard, Anthony Gracey, Duncan Philpot, Melody
    Sanford, Carolyn Landry, and honourary graduate students Shayna George, Emma Van
    Rooyan, and Chantelle Doucette, thank you for being a soundboard for my ideas and
    creating a supportive environment.
    ——-
    How big is the department at this private college in Nova Scotia that the Department head, a professor and a rather long list of names are complicit in this paper about Marxist-Feminism in Venezuela? It seems about like maybe the physics department believing in something like, I don’t know, maybe gravity or something, nothing anybody in the department actually challenges or has a problem with.

    This is the abstract:
    —–
    This thesis examines the political role of women in the Bolivarian Revolution in
    Venezuela and attempts to fill a void within the literature. While authors cite the
    importance of women in the revolution, little published work has explored the
    phenomenon. Seven interviews and four discussion groups with women in Carora in the
    state of Lara were completed. Most of these women discussed the importance of
    education and consciousness raising to the movement for socialism. Huge numbers of
    women have embraced the free educational missions and are arguably, becoming organic
    intellectuals of the working class. As women are becoming educated
    in huge number sand recognize the importance of raising consciousness, the author argues that there is the potential for women to become an important part of the consciousness raising vanguard.
    ——–

    I want to say that I have voted Democratic since I was 5 years old, the first being John Kennedy. It takes my about 5 seconds to vote. I check the box at the top of the ballot that says basic “All Democrats”. For me to make these statements is not easy and is not the result of having a conservative axe to grind against liberals.

    But tit obvious that the essence of feminism is the destruction of the family. And I would assume the aim of many feminist is to further Socialism at the expense of Capitalism and Free Markets.

    To me now this a war of genders as much as a war of economic ideologies. Capitalism rewards competition and in the words of Solzhenitsyn “It punishes stupidity”. Socialism, in the form of government subsidies and support of women, removes the role and importance of men, not only within the family but in society.

    I am not going to bore anyone with claims. You connect the dots if you wish.

  52. anonymous says:

    Tprogessive game is played by ‘ finding’ a victim group and agitating for ‘relief’. Conservatives are quickly brought into agreement that the victim has indeed been abused by society or the law….Once the ‘ conservative’ agrees something needs to be done , they are a full progressive.

    Sad but true. The only way to stay conservative, is to accept the painful truth that most social problems are inherently unsolvable by any government action, regardless of how much money is spent. But those who refulse to acknowledge this — which ultimately means, those who refuse to accept a dark view of human nature — will agitate forever for more intervention, more money, more social engineering, in a desperate and futile quest to force reality to conform to their demonstrably untrue worldview.

    The only hope to win is to reject that the group in question is a victim.

    “”Racist!!!”

  53. greyghost says:

    When you sayUMC you are meaning social status and not neccesarily wealth. The million dollar athlete,entertainer crowd has been breeched with the 35k a month child support groupie.

  54. Novaseeker says:

    When you sayUMC you are meaning social status and not all eccesarily wealth. The million dollar athlete,entertainer crowd has been breeched with the 35k a month child support groupie.

    Yes, I mean the dual-advanced-degree, highly educated dual professional income couples in the tonier suburbs of the major metros. It’s a small segment, but it utterly dominates the conversation around these issues because it includes pretty much all journalists, opinion-makers, academics, and so on.

  55. anonymous says:

    for them it’s like “what’s the problem? Everyone I know is married with kids, very few are divorced, everyone is highly educated with advanced degrees and both spouses in high-powered careers .. what’s the problem?

    Although I am neither rich nor involved in the entertainment industry, due to the circumstances of my birth and upbringing I have had a lot of personal contact with that world — some of them, names you would know. One thng I have noticed about the musicians, screenwriters, producers, actors, etc, that I have known, is that they DO NOT live the licentious, carefree, irresponsible, libertine lifestyle that they portray in their music, movies, or TV shows. Far, far from it!!!! Their art, and their politics, may be quite liberal, but in terms of lifestyle, they are all personally conservative — they live in 2 parent families in comfortable suburbs, they raise their children more or less normally, they’re very conventional and domestic. And most of them are LOATHE to have children out of wedlock.

    Granted, many of them are on their 2nd, sometimes 3rd, marriages but they aren’t greatly different from the rest of America in that respect. They appear to value marriage a lot, and if one fails, they seek another. The cultural center of gravity for the elites, is the 2 parent family unit, however it can be cobbled together. Even the homosexuals pairbond and live in quasimarriages.

    To the extent that there *is* a problem, I don’t see it in people like me, and therefore the problem is that more people “need to be like us”.

    Sadly no. They appear NOT to think that. Their own personal lives testify to the superior nature of the 2 parent family — after all, that’s what they almost invariably do themselves — but for some odd reason they just can’t bring themselves to promote it as a universal ideal. Which is a shame, because it would far, far more beneficial to the lower classes than themselves..

  56. Novaseeker says:

    What I mean is that everyone needs to be a part of the educated elite class, and if they were, they would be married, too. This is what they think. Not social enforcement, but making everyone culturally upper middle class.

  57. anonymous says:

    What I mean is that everyone needs to be a part of the educated elite class, and if they were, they would be married, too. This is what they think. Not social enforcement, but making everyone culturally upper middle class.

    Ah, I see what you’re saying — that they think that if we could just get everybody college educated and prosperous, that marriage — and the attendant reduction of social chaos – would folllow from that. When in fact (a) most people CANNOT be educated to high levels, and, fortunately, they don’t need to be, because, (b) being “culturally upper middle class” brings huge social and economic benefits even if, in strict monetary terms, you’re actually poor.

    After all, what we call “culturally upper middle class”, used to be the society-wide norm, back in the much malinged 1950s… and 1650s….

  58. anonymous says:

    being “culturally upper middle class” brings huge social and economic benefits even if, in strict monetary terms, you’re actually poor.

    May I amend that:

    …being “culturally upper middle class” brings huge social and economic benefits even if — ESPECIALLY IF — in strict monetary terms, you’re actually poor. Because the rich have financial resources to recover from the occasional screwup; the poor do not.

    Also, the average high-school graduate in California in the 1950s, had a far better understanding of history, literature, politics, philosophy, etc, than the “college educated elites” of today. So by today’s standards, most of the population back then was “culturally upper middle class”, educationally as well as behaviorallly.

    Hot damn. Maybe the 2 ARE linked somehow.

  59. Elspeth says:

    The idea behind labeling bastard children as bastard children is that other men shouldn’t be held responsible for the bastard parents’ sins, by being force, at gunpoint, to feed and clothe the illegitimate, fatherless child,whom statitistically speaking, is far more likely to suffer from numerous afflictions and become a bigger burden to the good men of civilization. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is not debatable.

    I agree. This is true insomuch as the father of said illegitimate child is leaving the state to support it. Fathers who earn well pay a hefty financial price for their folly, almost as much as fathers who have gone through the divorce meat grinder.

  60. Novaseeker says:

    I think the issue is that without a broad social enforcement of norms, there will be most people living chaotically and only the relative few who are disciplined, personally — and not because of social norms (although there is an asterisk there — see below) — will adhere to less chaotic norms for their own personal lives. These people are of course scattered among all social classes, but are more concentrated in the most ambitious and driven types, because that kind of success requires a number of characteristics, and one of them is discipline, generally (again, leaving aside “lottery” type situations like professional athletes, movie stars and so on).

    The asterisk, of course, is that there IS quite a BIT of social enforcement in the UMC against divorce, against out of wedlock children, and so on — to the same degree there is a stigma in the UMCs against smoking, against being overweight, against marrying an “undereducated spouse” and so on). The UMC is actually chock-full of social stigma, it’s just that this operates solely within the confines of the UMC. It’s not because they are religious, it’s because they are driven and ambitious and mostly disciplined, and … there is a good deal of social stigma around dysfunctional behaviors. Of course, UMCs still get divorced, but at lower rates, and, as a divorced UMC, I can tell you there is a LOT Of stigma about it (most of the UMCs I know are not divorced). There’s more tolerance of singletons, marginally, than there is of divorced people in the UMC, but also for singletons it’s considered kind of a “fail” if you are not married by a certain time.

    The difference between now and then is that the UMCs and UCs stopped the practice of endorsing their lifestyle choices as universally good, and became relativistic in outlook, while themselves remaining conservative in practice. Now that it’s realized that this isn’t working for the rest of the population, the “re-think” doesn’t involve generally exhorting a return to traditional family structures and so on (although that is happening a little bit in some parts of opinion-maker-land), but rather that we need to focus even more on education and make everyone highly educated so that they can all behave like the UMCs. This is of course silly even upon brief examination, as family structure has broken down at the same time, and it’s also abundantly clear that most people with some degree of post-HS education are not UMCs. But it’s easier to think that way than to reconsider political and social opinions which are … yet again, socially enforced *within* the UMC. Try talking about the stuff we do here at a typical UMC event (say something harmless like a kids’ lacrosse match or a birthday party or something like that) and you’ll quickly find yourself a social leper in the UMC. So the ironic thing is that the UMC embraces social shaming and social pressure and so on … but only within its own bounds, and limiting it to its own bounds is also a part of the social shaming it enforces on itself.

    In a word, our elites function well for themselves, but have become dysfunctional in terms of their overall role in the society at large due to limitations of their own self-enforced worldview.

  61. sunshinemary says:

    anon: Hot damn. Maybe the 2 ARE linked somehow.

    I think the phenomenon you describe is fundamentally linked to IQ.

  62. 8oxer says:

    We are embracing embracing illegitimacy because of a misplaced sense compassion. All of leftism relies on it.

    The right wing relies on it just as heavily. This is why you get people like Stanton and others, who lionize skank ho single moms. The conservative republicans are the biggest cheerleaders of child support, and they helped implement all the laws in place now, back in the 1990s. Also, VAWA was introduced and co-sponsored by ultraconservative republican Mike Crapo, from Idaho, the most conservative American state.

    A society which truly cared about the well being of its children would take the children away from the irresponsible idiots who are incapable of giving them a normal upbringing, and give them to a healthy, normal couple to raise in a two-parent home. Most babymamas just look at their kids as a status-marker and a hostage to use for regular welfare and child support payments, which is hardly in the best interests of said child.

    There are tens of thousands (probably millions, when you think about it) of couples in America who would be willing to foster/adopt children in a decent and healthy environment, who are precluded from doing so now because of “the rights of the mother” (note that parental rights only mean mother’s rights, no father in North America is assumed to have any).

    Yes, there will be stigma associated with being born to a skank ho single mom, rather than a normal couple. That’s too bad, but it has always existed and would hardly be worse than it is now. The child would also have a decent shot at overcoming this with the help of decent men and women who help to raise him, rather than a welfare ho who lets him run around loose with no accountability or social expectations.

    Regards, Boxer

  63. Joe Blow says:

    The acceptance and in fact advocacy of illegitimacy is the result of an intentional Gramscian effort to subvert conventional morality by the leftists who have been making a “long march through the institutions.” Their arguments are accepted because like all humans in all ages, we want things to be easy, and the social acceptance – and indeed incentivization of illegitimacy – makes things very easy on everybody involved. Well, y’know, except in the long term sense, in which case it’s very hard on everybody involved, except perhaps the man, and then only if he can manage to make a clean break from the woman he impregnated.

  64. anonymous says:

    anon: Hot damn. Maybe the 2 ARE linked somehow.
    SSM: I think the phenomenon you describe is fundamentally linked to IQ.

    Today, yes. Not 2 generations ago. It does not take a rocket scienfce PhD to understand the basic lessons of history…. or to understand that getting married before having kids, is just plain good sense.

    Nova Seeker: The difference between now and then is that the UMCs and UCs stopped the practice of endorsing their lifestyle choices as universally good… while themselves remaining conservative in practice.

    Precisely my observation. And, with entertainment, they promote the opposite of what they do.

    political and social opinions which are … yet again, socially enforced *within* the UMC. Try talking about the stuff we do here at a typical UMC event (say something harmless like a kids’ lacrosse match or a birthday party or something like that) and you’ll quickly find yourself a social leper in the UMC

    My wife and I say that sort of thing all the time at neighborhood parties and get away with it. We don’t change many minds but it’s surprising how many people privately agree with us. And we still get invited to the parties.

  65. Opus says:

    You (and especially Spacetraveller) will be relieved to learn that the heir to the Throne of England must be a legitimate offspring (though, just to be sure, they still killed off Lady Di). Prince Harry (the spare) is, of course, legitimate despite any appearance to the contrary. Different rules apply to us commoners and indeed it is precisely twenty-five years ago this very day that The Intestacy Rules were changed so as to allow an illegitimate offspring to be treated as if legitimate for the purposes of Inheritance (which is why I continue to seek proof that I am indeed – as my father asserted – the illegitimate son of the late Lord ******). (Since 1926 it had been possible to correct for illegitimacy by marrying the bastards mother). Frankly I have always felt that all property should pass to the eldest male (the old system of Primogeniture) and the second eldest male should go and seek his fortune elsewhere. The Europeans followed a different system which is why they had so many impoverished aristocrats, unwilling to soil their position with work, yet unable to support their pretensions. Let us not forget that the Duke of Marlborough, the younger son of an Aristoctrat, acquired his title via military skill and not inheritance. Disipating assets is not a good idea, and thus I deprecate equal division of property amongst the Legitimate and Illegitimate, and of course girls should not inherit at all; as they can always marry money.

    Actually, the new system is very cruel, as it enables a family to treat illegitimate offspring with contempt, whilst publicly acknowledging them (much as – so I understand – pre-abolition, slaves were treated worse in the Abolitionist North than in the Confederate South where there was no misunderstanding of their position or room for pretended equalism).

    Under the guise of fairness for Bastards it is also an attack on legitimate children, so the advice to be very careful in choosing ones parents, needs particularily to be emphasised. I must say, that in Professional life, I have never come across problems of illegitimacy – lawyers always advise that you make a Will, though they never bother to do so themselves (as they know the Intestacy rules adequately and frequently more sensibly provide).

  66. The elites have always thought everyone else should be as much like them as possible. The difference is that the modern blank slate belief makes them think that’s possible through education and proper environment. Poor people and criminals would be going to Ivy League schools and entering the UMC if they hadn’t grown up in bad neighborhoods with bad influences. (A reasonable person might wonder how the neighborhoods got bad in the first place, in this paradigm, but reason doesn’t enter into it.) It’s a sort of lassiez faire attitude applied to morality and culture instead of to economics — take away the things that hold people back, and everyone will be his best.

    Past elites understood that UMC-style behavior doesn’t come naturally to everyone equally, so the less-endowed needed encouragement, both positive and negative. The born-lazy needed to be prodded. The less intelligent needed to be pushed harder in school, and jobs they could handle needed to be available. Laws were needed to curb the worst impulses of people, even if the UMC were able to avoid those impulses without laws. There was often a carrot-and-stick structure to it: a man without a job could get assistance, but he had to live in the poorhouse where he could be monitored to make sure he wasn’t spending it all on booze. They didn’t believe everyone could be just like the UMC, but with proper guidance they could be their own best.

    Today’s elites think they’re being respectful to the lower classes by saying, “We know you’re just as capable of self-control as we are, so you’ll get none of that old-fashioned paternalism from us. Here’s a big box of freedoms, all the education you can stand, and some cash to give you a head start; have fun!” Unfortunately, we’re not all equally capable, so that’s often like giving a calculus book to a high school kid and expecting him to become an engineer even though he’s struggling with long division. But the elites don’t know anyone who struggled with long division, so they don’t even see the problems they create.

  67. greyghost says:

    The UMC has a social structure that is more than just the money to keep behavior in check. hypergamy is in check based on the reality of the limited number of men available to stay in the club and besides that they are all married. The lower class has unlimited hypergamy and the normal checks due to the feminine imperative and laws of misandry are gone. The problom of the bastard child was removed from the mother to society at large. hell we have a church the calls them bastard breeders heroic. I think that is where the break is. The liberalism and feminism worked together to destroy the family.

  68. we need to focus even more on education and make everyone highly educated so that they can all behave like the UMCs.

    Yes, it’s actually cargo-cult thinking at its finest. They see people coming out of graduate schools and getting married and settling down and being productive citizens, so they think, “Aha, we just need to build more colleges and graduate schools and make sure everyone attends them!” It’s absolutely no different from the islanders who cleared swaths of land to resemble airstrips, thinking that would produce cargo planes.

    But you can’t even explore the idea that the kind of people who go to graduate school are already the kind of people who live by the rules and become productive citizens, because as soon as you say “the kind of people,” you’re in danger of committing a hate crime. So they can’t really believe anything other than what they do.

  69. Keoni Galt says:

    The core purpose of marriage from the view of the state is to assure that children are not a burden to it.

    That’s just the rationale for the State to fund massive bureaucracies (i.e. Government Jobs) who’s sole purpose is to get any man on the hook for paying “child support.”

    Never forget Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act.

    “Opponents try to paint loving fathers as “deadbeat dads” for daring to challenge the mother-take-all system of family law. This is nothing more than diversionary propaganda. The concern of fathers is not that they are unwilling to support their children financially. This is not an argument against paying child support. Any father that cares about his child will do everything in his power to provide for the child. The concern is, rather, that children are being separated from their fathers by family courts because the State stands to reap huge financial rewards as a result of the father’s loss of custody. The higher the order of child support, the more money the State can collect – even if the amount ordered by the court far exceeds the reasonable needs of the child or if the father is required to take second and third jobs to keep up with outrageous support orders and escape certain incarceration. “

    The Federal Government provides MATCHING FUNDS for every dollar collected by a State’s child support agency.

    This is why the Single Mother Household is encouraged and incentivized.

    “Child support is not about supporting the children; it’s about supporting government bureaucracies.And, that’s why government is implementing new and easier divorce laws to make it easier to get divorced. This gives government access to everyone’s wealth, assets, property and salaries. “

    In other words, these folks jobs, salaries, career paths, livelihoods, and pension plans are all tied to maximizing the amount of child support they can collect from “deadbeats” and redistribute to custodial parents. This is why you have so many cases of paternity fraud for which the State does not give relief or continues to enforce support orders on men who are proven to not be the Biological Father.

    We have Bureaucratic entities in all 50 States who depend on the creation and maintenance of Single Mother Households (doesn’t matter to them whether it’s because of out of wedlock birth or divorce), so that they can collect child support from Fathers, redistribute it to Mothers, and receive their matching funds from the Federal Government to fund their budgets.

  70. Ton says:

    The gop is the orginal big governement left wing party. Thinking the gop is the right only shows how far left the dnc is

  71. greyghost says:

    Keoni Galt
    To add to that they also get a whole demographic (women) that will vote into power the politicians writing these laws of misandry.
    Male birth control pill will kill the goose.

  72. Krakonos says:

    @anonymous

    Also, the average high-school graduate in California in the 1950s, had a far better understanding of history, literature, politics, philosophy, etc, than the “college educated elites” of today. So by today’s standards, most of the population back then was “culturally upper middle class”, educationally as well as behaviorallly.
    Hot damn. Maybe the 2 ARE linked somehow.

    Are you referring to idocracy? Actualy it is supported by Helmuth Nyborg’s work and works of others I do not remember.

  73. Martian Bachelor says:

    …This omission leaves the impression that the legal basis for compelling child support for illegitimate children was a settled issue in the US going back to at least the 1800s:

    Along with the poor laws and criminal nonsupport laws, states enacted bastardy statutes aimed at forcing putative fathers to support their illegitimate children.

    My understanding of the rationale behind these laws is somewhat different. Granted, it’s been some time since I studied the topic, but what I recall had to do with an acute problem which developed in Europe in the early 19th century: when a man of any wealth died (a matter of public record/notice) unmarried women caught on that they could then come out of the woodwork with a bastard child in tow (typically a teenager) when it came time to settle the man’s estate and claim that it belonged to the dead man. She therefore would then make a substantive claim against the estate based on the idea she and her kid were thus entitled to her fair share of it.

    It was fairly easy for the women making such a claim to fabricate a story linking her to the man way back when, and of course witness(es) could be manufactured (for a cut of the extortion) to corroborate it – and doesn’t the young lad look just like the dead man anyway? It was a low cost strategy with a potentially huge payout for the trashy single moms of the day.

    This obviously created a huge and intolerable mess for legitimate wives and children. Thus, my understanding was that the bastardy laws of the early 19th century (at least in Europe – England/France primarily) were enacted to strengthen the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children/heirs. I think I’m correct in saying this is when the birth certificate originated – without that, the woman had nothing except a big problem on her hand.

    So I’ve always thought of these laws as the last time the Wives won one over the Whores. Since then it’s been a complete rout in the other direction. Such that the State is now on the side of the whores! Which is why we now have a nation of bastards. (Alexander Hamilton’s wet dream…)

    IOW, I’m wondering how the “support for illegitimate children” part made its way into the discussion surrounding these laws, because that was never part of their original purpose, again, based on what I know about them. Everyone back then (more or less) understood or at least accepted as a given the crucial distinction between legit and illegit kids, and that (married) fathers were willingly and voluntarily and joyfully responsible for the former, but not the latter.

  74. Martian Bachelor says:

    Oh, and if you think framing and language are in any sense important, please start using the more accurate term “beat-dead dads”.

    Because that’s what they really are under this regime which has criminalized Fatherhood 1.0.

  75. anonymous says:

    the average high-school graduate in California in the 1950s, had a far better understanding of history, literature, politics, philosophy, etc, than the “college educated elites” of today. So by today’s standards, most of the population back then was “culturally upper middle class”, educationally as well as behaviorallly

    Are you referring to….Helmuth Nyborg’s work …

    No. Just googled Nyborg. He makes a genetic argument. That wasn’t what I meant at all.

    The total collapse in the qualtiy of California public schools, happened (according to my parents) by the mid 70s…. WELL BEFORE the massive genetic transformation of the state. Bluntly, when I was a kid, California was still mostly white; the “blond Californian” stereotype was largely true, and not the laughable memory that it is now. So, based on the timing, the dumbing-down of the state was cultural, not genetic. It was achieved by putting liberals in charge of the schools.

  76. 8oxer says:

    The gop is the orginal big governement left wing party. Thinking the gop is the right only shows how far left the dnc is

    The gop and dnc are in identical spots on the spectrum, they just emphasize different things. The Law and Order republicans will enforce draconian child support laws in the name of “getting tough on deadbeats”, while the Compassion democrats will whine and cry tears about the poor children. They work together, and the first thing men should do is to recognize that we are living in a rigged system which is “heads they win, tails we lose”.

    In a truly “left” country, single moms would be forced to work, as would everyone else. There wouldn’t be any of these looney make-work paper shuffling jobs, either. Bitches would be out loading shit on train cars, as they were in the USSR under Krushchev, and in China under Mao. People who think that the democratic party is “communist” really don’t know what they’re talking about. Krushchev put western type feminists into labor camps when they started talking their shit, and they shut up quickly over there, at the same time they were coddled here. Women who had kids out of wedlock in “left” countries had them taken away, and multiple offenders got sentenced to jail (USSR) or forced sterilization (China).

    What we have today is a straight up misandrist dictatorship, a tiered, fascist society, where men are expected to work, and women are allowed to loaf, collect big salaries in useless jobs, and slut it up. This is the result of decadence and laziness, with a ruling class that considers itself untouchable. There is no practical difference between the political parties in the USA. This is why, when some honest politician emerges (think Traficant, a leftish type, or Ron Paul, a rightish fellow) thinking he is going to change the rigged game, his own pretend party hacks are first to slander him, set him up and railroad him.

    Start thinking outside the box, and all this becomes quite obvious.

    Regards, Boxer

  77. Anonymous says:

    Heck, I know stuff like this make illegitimate kids a better idea…

    “N.Y. Prenup Battle Winner ‘Destroyed’ Family With Affair, Cousin Says,” by Christina Ng, ABC News, 2 April 2013

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/n-y-prenup-battle-winner-destroyed-family-with-affair-cousin-says/

  78. Orion says:

    @Elspeth
    “The idea behind the acceptance of the children is that the children shouldn’t be held responsible for their parents’ sins. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is certainly debatable.”

    The issue is, to spare a slight amount of pain to a small number (because the removal of the stigma has removed NONE of the deleterious effects of having no legitimate father) we have instead elected to spread the pain more widely, making it worse for an even greater number. Sort of like not removing an appendage with gangrene and letting it spread to the rest of the body. Result, death. Just like we are seeing with our society.

  79. We have Bureaucratic entities in all 50 States who depend on the creation and maintenance of Single Mother Households

    Yep. The idea that child support is about keeping children off the government teat may have once been a rationale used to sell it, but it’s certainly not the purpose now. Modern US government — with the minor, short-lived exception of welfare-to-work in the mid-1990s — loves to have people on the dole. Our two parties are currently arguing over which one is more anxious to extend citizenship to a group of lawbreakers who already commit more crimes, have more out-of-wedlock babies (and abortions), and go on welfare at a higher rate than Americans do. Hillary Clinton’s infamous “it takes a village” line came in the context of extending government pre-schooling to encompass day-care starting from birth. When a recent presidential candidate pointed out that nearly half our citizens are dependent on government, and suggested that this wasn’t a healthy condition for the nation, he was excoriated and accused of racist dog-whistling.

    Our government loves dependents.

  80. GKChesterton says:

    @Elsbeth,
    Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is certainly debatable.

    I know this is Zippy’s position. It is a very modern one (from the curse of Coniah in Jer 22):
    Is not this man Coniah as a despised and broken idol? or as a vessel, wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they carried away, he and his seed, and cast out into a land that they know not?O [r]earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.

    Thus saith the Lord, Write this [s]man destitute of children, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for there shall be no man of his seed that shall prosper and sit upon the throne of David, or bear rule anymore in Judah.”

    Did God err? And believe it or not I’m very sympathetic to the counter position. I’d rather _not_ the sins of my ancestors be held against me. However, I know at least Adam will result in my death even if the rest aren’t counted. I am confident that hope is held out all the same, but it is a hope that I will have to live through pain to attain.

    @SSM,

    It is not just a problem with women. Zippy for example has the same perspective. For as much as I think it is wrong I understand the _feeling_ of why it should be right. I don’t like seeing kids suffer. I would _love_ a way of mitigating that suffering. However, I believe the quickest route to mitigation is calling a spade a spade. This will hopefully have the effect of saving children like it does in the song you mentioned.

    @Cail
    No kidding; I’m sitting here wondering how they were legally distinguished. All I can think of is inheritance:

    I’m not to sure about the laws here. I know there were limits on how property could be passed. Those without wills for example would automatically exclude bastard children while legitimate children could contest the estate. Also, for a long time bastards couldn’t be priests unless the parents subsequently married according to Western Canon Law. Something that some in a previous thread were quick to forget and sweep under the rug.

    @Spacetraveller,

    Marriage has _historically_ erased illegitimacy. Hence shotgun weddings preserve the child from bastardy. This is a feature and not a bug. We want to _encourage_ marriage. A sacramental understanding of marriage (that is the power it has to erase sin) reinforces this view.

  81. Orion says:

    Don’t get me wrong, I like the children my wife’s niece has but four children by three different men (married the father of the middle two and then screwed around behind his back causing a divorce). But the eldest is a fairly intelligent girl who has just become a teenager. No direct male influence that has legitimate claim to her attention and scant regard for her mother. She has started talking back regularly to her great-grand mother (who raised her mom and mostly raised all four of her children). I forsee very clearly many years of grief and anguish ahead for all for children, including the two legitimate children. Why don’t I man up? Besides current societies constant undercutting of men in general, we live 400 miles away. After my sister’s divorce I stood in as a father figure for my niece for several years until I moved away for work (they continued living in my house paying only utilities).

  82. Just saying says:

    During my younger days my targets of preference were older, married, women – mostly because they wanted children and I wanted sex. Invariably after several months they got what they wanted, and I moved on to another. They were a lot easier to deal with than flighty younger women and readily available.

    It’s interesting that these days it’s the much younger women who are in somewhat long term relationships with a boyfriend who tend to be most willing to take a chance of getting knocked up by an older man. The boyfriend is vital since he is what she’s trying to reel in, I’m just providing the bait so to speak. They get a major kick of being ridden bare-back when they make their boyfriend use a condom.

    Of course, when you’re playing those kinds of games, you have to make sure that your assets are protected just in case. And I’ve only had a few such issues – but being older, threatening to take the kid is your best defense if they want to play hard-ball. But I’ve found that social pressures are the best protection. Young women do not want to admit that they had sex with a man older than their father to their social group – it just isn’t done… :)

  83. anonymous says:

    During my younger days my targets of preference were older, married, women – mostly because they wanted children and I wanted sex. Invariably after several months they got what they wanted, …these days it’s the much younger women who are in somewhat long term relationships with a boyfriend who tend to be most willing to take a chance of getting knocked up by an older man

    So…. how many children have you sired? Do you keep track of their life progress, or is that level of caring too “Beta” for you? :-)

  84. deti says:

    I think we have now hit on the second most important social science insight this blog has contributed.

    The first is women’s overall preference for serial monogamy as their “form” of promiscuity.

    The second is the transition from the marriage-based family to the child-support-based family.

    The marriage based family’s foundation is intimate personal relationships. Each person, man, woman and children, are personally invested in the family unit’s continued existence. The basis is not money or material goods, but rather is relationship and interaction with the other participants both day to day and over the long arc of their lives. The close relationships foster personal growth and development in a relatively safe, hazard-free environment. The man is invested because he can lead a family — he is king of his castle and gives loving protection to his wife and children. The woman is invested because she receives the bulk of her husband’s time and money to provide for their children. The children are invested (though they don’t know it) because they are totally dependent on their parents for sustenance.

    The intimacy and investment are self-propelling and self-sustaining, and cause the unit to be greater than the sum of its individual parts because of the incentives each gives the other. The man’s incentive is reasonably frequent, hassle free sex for which he exchanges his labor and commitment. The woman’s incentive is continued provision for her and her children as long as he lives and she remains with him; for which she exchanges exclusive sexual access and her reproductive capacity. The children’s incentive is provision for their needs and instruction, for which they must exchange their obedience and subordination.

    Contrast this with the child support basis for family formation. This is based not on relationship or intimacy, but on (1) redistribution of economic benefits by coercion and confiscation; and (2) emphasis on individual rights over voluntarily-assumed obligations, and emphasis on children’s provision over individual rights. At bottom it is about freeing women from economic and sexual fealty to men. At the same time it is about insulating women from the adverse consequences of their actions and transferring those consequences to men as much as possible while using the “IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!!! WE HAVE TO DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!” mantra as the base justification.

    A biological father has no investment other than his value as the draft horse and ATM for the model. He does most of the work and provides most of the money. His labor is coerced; his money confiscated. The mother receives benefits with no corresponding obligations. She is relieved of all consequences of a poor decision to create a bastard. The children are used as pawns, bloody shirts and the rationale for the system’s continued existence and operation. The State provides the administration and the muscle: the phalanx of lawyers, judges and social workers; and the cops and soldiers. The bio-dads WILL be made to pay. The society will be reordered to permit no class or other distinctions to be made based on parentage.

    The privilege of a relationship between father and child is reduced from that of loving dotage to that of raw monetary benefit. The child must be supported; the State ought not do so when a father/sperm donor is available; the bio-dad must be made to pay. He is not permitted to protest that with his genetic material and his monetary resources should come a personal relationship with the child. No, he has no such right. Instead his sole value to the child’s life is measured by his monetary contribution. On these facts, the father is required to invest, but given nothing back in exchange for his investment.

    When the fathers fail to provide, the cacophony becomes a din:

    “Where have all the good men gone!”

    “SOMEBODY’s got to DO something! There are CHILDREN STARVING!”

    “We need another program!”

    “We’ve got to do this FOR THE CHILDREN!” “The men of the church need to step up and start taking care of children who aren’t theirs, because IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. You divorced men need to MAN UP, GROW UP, and FORGIVE your ex-wives and start INVESTING in our future by caring for kids with no fathers.”

    And the State will step in and confiscate more and more Bernankified fiat dollarrssszloolzzlozl to take care of the children.

    It’s a system that is bound to fail, and is failing.

  85. greyghost says:

    Just saying is just what the west needs more of. Just don’t get em knocked up spinsterhood requires childlessness to be effective. But the wasting away their fertile years, yeah that is my kind of guy

  86. hurting says:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/how-we-came-to-embrace-illegitimacy/#comment-77665

    Nova…

    The simplest way to describe the current system (residual alimony despite no-fault, presumed maternal custody deriving from the tender years doctrine, onerous child support), is that of a free put option for women. Technically it is not free from society’s viewpoint (all but a very few alpha men and all children bear the costs), but it is largely costless, at least economically and relatively speaking, from the typical woman’s perspective whether she benefits directly from it (from divorcing) or more indirectly (divorce threatpoint).

  87. Marriage has _historically_ erased illegitimacy. Hence shotgun weddings preserve the child from bastardy. This is a feature and not a bug.

    Yeah, I actually come from a long line of 6-month-ish “official” gestations that led to 50+ year, til-death-do-us-part marriages. Not shotgun weddings in the sense that anyone was being forced into it; but the couple met, courted, got serious, started thinking about marriage, then oops, better get on with it. I think that’s part of the problem with the older generation’s unwillingness to criticize the younger generation’s hooking up — they assume we’re talking about the same kind of behavior, and they weren’t pure virgins on their wedding night and it turned out okay, so surely it’ll work out for the kids nowadays too.

    Of course, the problem is that today’s hooking up is nothing at all like yesterday’s engaged or nearly-engaged couple giving in to temptation. But not many people seem to realize just how vastly far apart they are.

  88. Johnycomelately says:

    We seem to be tracking the same family laws the Soviets attempted and with the same unintended consequences. The Soviets are a valuable resource as they dramatically changed family laws four times and offer a window into how laws create unintended consequences.

    http://fatherknowledgecentre.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/1/

    “The real breaching is going to come in the next 1-2 generations due to the education gap, and not enough men to go around for the women in this group.”

    Brilliant observation.

  89. Jeremy says:

    @Elspeth says:

    The idea behind the acceptance of the children is that the children shouldn’t be held responsible for their parents’ sins. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is certainly debatable.

    The idea behind meritocracy is that free citizens should only be judged by the choices they have made, and no one else. In other words, no individual should be held responsible for the results of the bad choices of other people. Good, bad… make your own judgement. It comes down to a difference between accepting individual moral agency, or subsidizing failure with a community burden on the productive among us. That community burden looks really tiny when your nation is very productive and your currency is over-valued, a fairly fleeting situation. Individual responsibility looks like a no-brainer when everyone is poor and you need collective work-ethic to turn things around, which is the state most of the world is usually in.

  90. Novaseeker says:

    Lol, Dalrock, Susan is attacking you more or less directly in her latest post. It appears she is trying to get manosphere bloggers to out themselves or, barring that, to drive a wedge between them and other men based on the “unmanliness” of being anonymous. As far as I can tell, the goal is to change the message to make it more MSM palatable, which of course will, well, change the message. Anyway, you should know that you’re under direct attack — probably don’t care, but it’s somewhat entertaining.

  91. Jeremy says:

    @Anonymous says:

    Heck, I know stuff like this make illegitimate kids a better idea…

    “N.Y. Prenup Battle Winner ‘Destroyed’ Family With Affair, Cousin Says,” by Christina Ng, ABC News, 2 April 2013

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/04/n-y-prenup-battle-winner-destroyed-family-with-affair-cousin-says/

    WOW… that’s the strongest hamster I’ve yet seen.
    First Hamster Claim: “This pre-nup is illegitimate! I demand half!”
    Obvious Question: “Why are you getting divorced in the first place?”
    Second Claim: “The prenup is what lead to my desire to get divorced!”
    Her Own Cousin: “Nuh uh, you destroyed your marriage by having an affair with my husband.”
    Final Claim: “Well yes, I did have an affair, but the marriage was falling apart for years!”

    Words just fail…

  92. “Florida alimony-reform bill draws fire ”

    What do strong, capable, brassy, tough, unstoppable feminists who can do anything a man can do twice as well and in high heels need with alimony?

  93. Jeremy says:

    @Nova who is this Susan you speak of?

  94. Novaseeker says:

    Susan Walsh, Hooking Up Smart.

  95. Dalrock says:

    That is funny Novaseeker. Reading the article I didn’t take it as a shot against me, especially since she focused on gamers and specifically stated that an identity isn’t needed when discussing facts and data. However, when Clarence pointed out the obvious differences in risk she responded specifically naming me, Badger, and Rollo. She really seems to have an obsession with Rollo and me. I don’t understand this. We really aren’t competing for readers. Those who want to read a gossipy affirmation of serial monogamy aren’t going to be interested in my site, and vice versa. I guess a blog war would be good for business in that sense, but I don’t have any interest in one. I’ve already pointed out the fundamental problems in Susan’s serial monogamy is moral argument. Beyond that, I’m not sure what else I have to offer. If I ever get a strong opinion about the latest Girls episode I won’t hesitate to join the fray, but I really don’t see that happening.

  96. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Lol, Dalrock, Susan is attacking you more or less directly in her latest post. It appears she is trying to get manosphere bloggers to out themselves or, barring that, to drive a wedge between them and other men based on the “unmanliness” of being anonymous. As far as I can tell, the goal is to change the message to make it more MSM palatable, which of course will, well, change the message. Anyway, you should know that you’re under direct attack — probably don’t care, but it’s somewhat entertaining.

    Nice way of putting it Nova seeker. Don’t listen to Susan in this aspect. She’s a great blogger, with some good insights, but still ruled by the Feminine Imperative and the recent post she wrote is smack of feminine wills in an effort to shame a person into disregarding the truth, perverting it or obfuscating it. Most women are like this (except for a couple of mental disabled women, retarded women or autistic women/women with exceptional masculine brains and minds).

  97. deti says:

    HUS’s repudiation of the Red Pill is complete:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/04/04/politics-and-feminism/game-and-cowering-bad-boys/

    The persons she calls out by nom de blog are all writers with whom she’s had public disagreements and/or with whom she severed ties. I left this at Rollo’s:

    “Moreover, Susan calls out Dalrock for blogging anonymously, in obvious reference to her dustup with him around Christmas 2011 leading to the First Great HUS Purge. Then she calls out Badger who hasn’t commented on Susan’s blog for a year. She’s called Badger out on HUS by his nom de blog before and publicly criticized some of his posts. Her feuds with Rollo are well known.

    “It appears to me that her calling out Dalrock, Rollo and Badger as examples of “cowardly” anonymity smacks of something personal going on. It looks like taking jabs and swipes at bloggers who have criticized her publicly and/or severed ties with her. Looks to me like it’s less about bolstering manosphere credibility and more about passive-aggressively settling old scores.

    “Susan’s latest reads like little more than shaming language and sophisticated taunting. “Whatsa matter, Dalrock, Rollo and Badger? Are you CHICKEN?”

  98. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Didn’t somebody around the manosphere nickname Susan Walsh, Hooking Up Smart, Aunt Giggles?

  99. Tam the Bam says:

    Athol : “I think we are heading toward a future where the core purpose of marriage is replaced by mandatory paternity testing. Resulting in marriage itself becoming increasingly a token legal status secondary to the legal status of being a parent.”

    So if DNA testing is to be the touchstone, what would that do to all the SteadyEddie Betabucks who’ve been kebabbed as dripping roasts on the “presumption of parenthood” laws, where he pays for the retired slapper’s thugspawn litter after she “settles”?

    Does she have to get the Agency to go after her first love, Waster Plugnickel the County Spermfountain, and exist thereafter on (a minute co-share of) his welfare check?

    Is Eddie off the hook? And do the kids ever get to see the guy they’ve been calling “Daddy” again?

  100. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Is it because she’s funny, light hearted person or is there another deeper meaning to that nickname?

  101. deti says:

    Alcest:

    The source of the nickname “Aunt Giggles” is Rollo Tomassi (the Rational Male). He’s taunting and mocking Susan.

  102. Heh, she needs a little drama in her life…

    Her hubby must not be able to slap her hamster down and be boring her to tears. With tingles looking for a way out of her marriage prison, the EPL whispers keep taunting her to abandon ship, and now she’s looking for a good old put-me-down from Dalock, Rollo, et al, to assuage her little rebellion.

    I advise ignoring her plight.

  103. I prefer the phrase “Susan Slut Walsh”!

  104. Looking Glass says:

    I don’t think Susan’s desire to bang Rollo has ever been in much question. Though it is hilarious at this point.

  105. deti says:

    Oh, that’s overstating it, Feminist Hater. Susan’s obsession with Rollo and Dalrock is a result of their sound thrashing of her on the merits in debates.

  106. deti says:

    But rest assured, FH, that Susan’s latest post will remain active for two weeks and generate 1500 + comments.

  107. I was there when they rawhided her arse. Red as a tomato I recall.

  108. Don’t listen to Susan in this aspect. She’s a great blogger, with some good insights, but still ruled by the Feminine Imperative

    But from a red-pill or androsphere perspective, isn’t that kinda like saying, “He has some great insights about Christianity, but he’s still ruled by his atheism”? I don’t follow her site regularly (if I was ever tempted to, her banning of reasonable dissenters convinced me otherwise), but I’ve seen enough of her stuff quoted elsewhere to tell that, to the extent that she offers any good-seeming ideas, they’re always twisted just enough to give women a way out of accepting their true natures and proper state in life. The respect she gets in these parts baffles me, to be honest.

    Maybe she’s like the one-eyed man in the land of the blind: the sorta-sometimes-anti-feminist in the land of total feminism. But don’t we have enough real red-pill female bloggers at this point that we don’t have to settle for a pretend one?

  109. But rest assured, FH, that Susan’s latest post will remain active for two weeks and generate 1500 + comments.

    There are a lot of angry future spinsters out there. The supply of cats must go up! Call the FED, call the BOJ, we need some more stimulus money up in here!

  110. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    It’s been breached, but the higher you go, especially into the UMCs, the breaching is very minor so far.

    The problem with the UMCs is that they talk feminine imperative, but walk the other way (thanks mostly to retarded male autistic nerds and geeks). That’s a huge form of disjunction and I don’t think that the next generations will be able to do this. Already there’s cries of sexism, misogyny, retrograde, rapist, etc.

    If you stay too low, you risk of not speaking up and influencing the culture and the language. If you stay too high, you risk of diluting and perverting the message. It’s a lose-lose game.

  111. Novaseeker says:

    Sorry for the derail. It’s just that she mentioned you by name in that follow-on comment, which seemed quite funny, really.

  112. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Nah. Susan Walsh isn’t generally bad. I really like the nickname Aunt Giggles. LOL

  113. Tam the Bam says:

    So-o-oo … HUS throws random gauntlets at the most prominent Manospherians she’s had brought to her attention (rather than researched, like actual work WTF?..).
    And don’t it look just like the very slightest fit of say, Attention Seeking Behaviour?
    (ever had a girl you hardly even spoke to in grade school just appear left-field and slap you? And then run about the playground shrieking about it? Mmmhmm ..)

    I am a bad old man.

    Yup. Traffic fell over after Valentine’s Day
    or thereabouts, back to last fall’s levels.

  114. Susan Walsh is in the business of getting sluts paired up with unsuspecting betas. She wants marriage 2.0 to continue well into the future. She’s the worst sort. Smiles to your face while you walk past her and then she slides that knife right between the shoulders for maximum effect. Perfectly happy with sluttarts slutting it up in their teens, twenties and early thirties and then teaching them to snag that clueless manboy just before their face meets the wall.

  115. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I think on TheWomanAndTheDragon’s deleted blog, there was a comment that said that Susan Walsh wanted to preserve the relationship setting circa 1975.

    But if 1975 was okay and all dandy, then why has the culture “progressed” (degraded) beyond that and gone straight into single motherhood, hooking up and (temporary to long-term) serial monogamy?

  116. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    And why has the illegitimacy levels sky-rocketed? Doesn’t that kind of show that 1975 wasn’t okay either?

  117. Novaseeker says:

    So-o-oo … HUS throws random gauntlets at the most prominent Manospherians she’s had brought to her attention

    No, she knows them. There’s some history here, but it isn’t really worth rehashing, especially since our host doesn’t really care about any longer, which is almost certainly the best course of action in my view.

  118. Tam the Bam says:

    o when will I learn to dbl check the tagses, Precious?

  119. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    But don’t we have enough real red-pill female bloggers at this point that we don’t have to settle for a pretend one?

    Interesting point. I loved TheWomanAndTheDragon’s deleted blog and Grerp’s blog too.

  120. Ras Al Ghul says:

    greyghost says:

    “Male birth control pill will kill the goose.”

    For the same reason there will never be mandatory paternity tests, you are never going to see it. The male pill has been around for at least ten years if not longer. It will not be legalized because it takes away female power.

    As for HUSsies calling being anonymous as “unmanly” it is amusing. Robin Hood, Zorro, the Scarlet Pimpernel, Kilroy, every comic book hero ever written . . .

    Even Jesus does it.

    I think there’s a fairly common idea that being anonymous is sometimes necessary to fight injustice. I am also reminded of the 1989 Batman film where the Joker calls out the Batman for being “anonymous”

  121. Retrenched says:

    “there was a comment that said that Susan Walsh wanted to preserve the relationship setting circa 1975.”

    I think it was 1985, actually, and I believe it was Anonymous Reader who said that (IIRC). Basically, Susan wants young women of the 2010s to be able to do what she did back then — sleep with a few alphas here and there while in college before finding beta husbands to settle down with in their mid or late 20s or so.

  122. Martian Bachelor says:

    Correct R.A.G. – the male pill as savior will never arrive. It’s been talked about as long as I can remember, and it’s perennially still several years out – like sustainable and practical fusion power is 25 to 40 years away, still.

    Our globalists handlers can easily see what sand in the gears the female pill has caused, and aren’t going to double down by repeating the mistake.

    The only way a male pill could happen would be by some renegade underground group of pharma-biochemists — if it can be done with some degree of reliability and safety. Until then we’re all stuck with DIY.

  123. The Antigrrrl says:

    I am not sure the male pill would effectively decrease illegitimacy as I can’t see most of the baby daddies bothering to take it. It would be great for the average decent guy but hasn’t it already been established that those aren’t the kind knocking up all these women anyway?

  124. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    No, she knows them. There’s some history here, but it isn’t really worth rehashing, especially since our host doesn’t really care about any longer, which is almost certainly the best course of action in my view.

    I appreciate that. The only thing I’ll add is the actual disagreement I had with Susan was really very tame. Somehow along the way it has become epic in the memory of the blogosphere.

  125. 8oxer says:

    While Susan occasionally comes up with something interesting, I’ve never found her content compelling enough to become a regular reader. If you go over there now, you’ll find her babbling with her commenters about various pop-culture artifacts and trash tee-vee shows. I agree with what others have said: If she’s trolling you guys, it’s because she leads a boring and tedious life, and needs some drama in it. Best not to respond to attention-whores like this.

    The dogs bark, and the caravan moves on…

  126. Ton says:

    There is a whole slew of red pills men need to swallow 8boxer. Some about women, some about politics and a metric $hit ton of stuff in between

  127. GKChesteron says:

    Susan I think is a nice soft landing for guys new to the ideas of the manosphere who might not want to commit fully yet. She short circuits some of the protection instincts…because she’s a girl and says things they aren’t used to.

  128. Drew says:

    Dalrock, another good post explaining what happened.

    I’m not sure any one has a good convincing explanation of why. Most of the theories I’ve seen written out typically have huge holes.

    Not that it is your job to explain “why” in a air tight thesis. Just busting the narrative of what is happening certainly an important contribution.

    But my mind races around, “why?, why?, why?”
    Why did society chose this path?
    If it is all about law and incentives, why did it take 50yrs for overall culture to react so deeply?
    why the huge divergence between black and white families in reaction rate?
    which came first the culture change or the law changes?
    (I think culture change came first)
    why is it a gradual change rather than a step change that is typical of big changes in law and incentives?
    etc

  129. Johnycomelately says:

    I think the take away from Susan is just how inimical the views expressed by Dalrock is to the mainstream.

    Back to the post, I wonder if there is a correlation between the expansion of the welfare budget and illegitamacy or is the slack being carried by imputed childcare payments.

    If its the welfare budget then the law has had an opposite effect to its initial intention, of getting fathers to support their children.

  130. laf says:

    At work yesterday, a woman I worked with asked why I haven’t been asking people out on dates. I said I don’t have any interest in ‘raising bastard children’, direct quote. OPPS. The hive mind attacked and all the women at work won’t look me in the eye for the last two days now. Direct Fucking Hit.
    lzzoolololzzolz

  131. sunshinemary says:

    Mrs. Walsh wrote:

    You can’t be a Dalrock regular and profess ignorance of the treatment of female commenters there, as well as the tolerance of that behavior by the host.

    lulz

    You’re a Bad Man, Dalrock. Don’t you know that when ladies show up here, you are supposed to put on a bow tie and serve us tea?

  132. greyghost says:

    Ras Al Ghul,anti grrrl
    The male pill has to be made into a money maker politically. It may even slip in as saving women from the hormone damage from “the pill” It will be work and a better push for the MRM than finding a good wife. Illegitimacy won’t end with a male pill but sure as hell will put a dent in the beta chump cuckolds. Nothing will be 100% all you will need is a large enough group to cause a panic. Inertia of the female herd will maximize the effect of childless spinsters. Something nonhormonal that doesn’t effect male behavior and a means to at home test for sperm fertility would be all that is needed for an underground drug trade. It would sell to college guys and the players and the responsible beta types will know it ain’t his and can avoid CS with out even revealing he is on birth control simply by challenging paternity. No need to talk trash just get the negative results. If he plays it cool enough he can play fantasy fuck pregnant pussy and get rid of her and her bastard.

  133. greyghost says:

    Sunshine has a point Dalrock you let these guys comment on your blog like there aren’t any women going to see it. ha ha ha ha Especially that guy GKChesteron, and his buddy greyghost and that Butttext dude ha ha

  134. Norm says:

    Retrenched-I think it was 1985, actually, and I believe it was Anonymous Reader who said that (IIRC). Basically, Susan wants young women of the 2010s to be able to do what she did back then — sleep with a few alphas here and there while in college before finding beta husbands to settle down with in their mid or late 20s or so.

    Reminds me of an old Rolling Stones song I heard today from the sixties called “Ride On Baby”. Yes I know Mick(especially) and Keith shouldn’t talk, but there is a line in the song that says, “I know where you’re going but I don’t like the places you’ve been”.

  135. sunshinemary says:

    That’s right, greyghost. Such shocking language! I’d faint, but I’m sure none of you non-chivalrous slobs would catch me when I fall. :)

  136. infowarrior1 says:

    @Novaseeker

    Gee looks like Aunt Giggles are up to her usual mischief again.

    Remember all must bow down to the sacred vajajay. (sarcasm

  137. This is a good post. My mind is still swirling on how to make the connections to things i already know.
    Somebody posted a link to Russian Soviet history. It seems that in order for empires and states and nations to gain power, they must figure a way to demolish the power of the extended (patriarchal?) family.
    As far as”legitimate” children are concerned, it seems the distinction between legitimate and illigitimate, is somewhat akin to the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant. If the extended family is the state, then they need a way to determine who the citizens of that state are.

    I’m starting to see the nuclear family as having been a stepping stone to the “withering away” of the family, as the soviets imagined. Perhaps “single family residential” zoning ties into this.

    All this stuff could only have been orchestrated by the father of lies. If i believe in any conspiracy thories, it’s the conspiracy of the devil to destroy mankind. With us being his unwitting accomplices.

  138. Looking Glass says:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0430_0762_ZO.html

    Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 766-67 (1977); appears to be the case that actually established legal rights to a Father’s estate.

    And actually reading Levy v Louisana’s issue, it actually is all about the Warren Court taking a small classification issue and blowing it all up. (At issues was the children’s standing to sue on their mother’s behalf. The father(s) had nothing to do with the case. But the Warren Court blew up any ability to classify the children differently.)

  139. an observer says:

    Culture is encouraged to think of the children, as it deemphasises the shaming consequences for women, legitimises the taxpaying man as mobile wallet, and venerates the women regardless of her poor relationship choices and bastard offspring.

    This is one of the saddst examples i ever saw personally. A decent young man whose pretty young wife died of cancer. No children. Insurance payout takes cares of mortgage. Guess what happens next?

    Yep. Hypergamous frump with four children in need of a role model. Encouraged by the church, and real, but misplaced concern, he marries the frump then dies.

    She got the house, the car, and honourary title of widow. Instant sainthood.

    This is what the feminists want. Beta bucks, no messy husband. The modern state makes it all possible, by robbing men of their earnings. What incentive is there for men to strive anymore?

  140. an observer says:

    Ssm,

    Aunt giggles probably needs that sort of treatment, now and then, and just turns up here to fantasise about a good spanking.

  141. CrisisEraDynamo says:

    @ sunshinemary

    And now, Susan says that your husband cheated on you 30 times after I called her out on this attack:

    +++++
    (Susan Walsh)
    @sunshinemary

    I have always been treated politely by both Dalrock and most of his readers, even when I disagreed with them. I have never observed a woman who was being polite to receive any inappropriate treatment there.

    Polite or a Christian submissive who has stood by a compulsively cheating husband?

    (Susan Walsh)
    That’s not venomous. Sunshine Mary can correct me if I’m wrong. I believe she has stated that her husband has cheated on her 30 times? And yet she is a submissive Christian wife.

    Sorry Crisis, I do not respect that.
    +++++

    Just do a search for those words in Page 2 of the comment thread in “The Cowering Bad Boys of Game.”

    Susan has become unusually nasty for some reason. It’s like her dislike of 3MM’s performance was visceral, not from a rational assessment of his tactics. Even the title of the post is just harsh.

  142. Norm says:

    Here is a gal who probably will produce illegitimate children if non of you “nice guys” man up and marry her. She says she’s Christian, 30 yo, tired of bad boys, looking for a nice guy, doesn’t want any naked rooster pics, as she says she’s seen many naked men. And I’m sure they seen her many times, though her beta will rarely see her like that. Some one man up for her. ;)

    http://www.pof.com/viewprofile.aspx?profile_id=50098079

  143. Farm Boy says:

    I see that Giggles hasn’t changed. Same old circular reasoning, distinctions without a difference, shaming (this is a hate site, doncha know) , etc. I wonder how much her hamster has grown since she started blogging . Or is mentioning hamsters hateful?

    She is being a bully, and one should stand up to bullies.

  144. To translate that profile Norm linked:

    Occasional smoker: Compared to me, a chimney smells like laundry fresh off the clothesline on a spring day.
    Christian-other: I want you to think I’m spiritual (read: deep), but I’m usually too hungover on Sunday mornings to go to church.
    30-year-old student: I still have no idea what to do with my life.
    First date, read to me while I take a bath: If I like you, I will be naked on our first date, no problem.
    No opinion on kids: I don’t want to scare you with my baby rabies.

    Having said all that, the sad truth is that she’s probably in the top 5% of online dating profiles, maybe the top 1%. She’s attractive and in good shape for her age (though there seems to be some triceps fat in one picture that could be troubling); she can put together a few sentences that make sense with capital letters and verbs and everything; and she doesn’t already have someone else’s kids for a new guy to raise. Compared to most profiles, she’s a prize. Of course, that means she gets 100 contacts a day, so you’d better do something impressive to stand out if you’re going to contact her.

  145. She is being a bully

    That’s a good way to put it. There’s a startling nastiness that shows sometimes when people who specialize in writing fluffy, non-offensive, love-everyone stuff get offended and decide someone needs to be attacked — but always in a snide, passive-aggressive way, of course.

  146. sunshinemary says:

    Off Topic

    It is kind of baffling that Mrs. Walsh’s response to my comment (that women who behave politely here are generally treated politely) was to insult me.

    Mrs. Walsh wrote that she was threatened with physical violence here on Dalrock’s blog. Does anyone know if this is true? I’m not saying she is making it up, but I have had some very sharp disagreements with people in the manosphere and never once did anyone physically threaten me, so I find it a bit odd. She writes:

    I have been physically threatened, yes, right here in the manosphere. I have been worried about my safety on several occasions.

    The only thing that’s kept me up at night were threats to harm me physically during Dalrockgate.

    and then when a commenter asked if she notified the authorities about the threats, she wrote:

    I didn’t. I was really freaked out and talked with my husband, obvs. His advice was to get the hell off the internet. It was also very unnerving that this happened on Dec. 23. I had lots of family arriving, and I was imagining bloodshed during Christmas dinner. Terrible. That’s the worst experience I’ve ever had. Thank you Dalrock and Co.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/04/04/politics-and-feminism/game-and-cowering-bad-boys/comment-page-2/#comment-197539

  147. ballista74 says:

    It is kind of baffling that Mrs. Walsh’s response to my comment (that women who behave politely here are generally treated politely) was to insult me.

    I don’t know the normal tone there since I usually don’t frequent that blog too much (for obvious reasons). But reading in this thread…I know I get a little too wrapped up in things for my good sometimes, but the hostility coming off in there from that woman has got to be the worst thing I’ve ever seen in my time in reading blogs.

  148. an observer says:

    “She is being a bully.”

    A typical feminist, then….

  149. Johnycomelately says:

    Despite the ill conceived nature of illegitamacy laws one can’t help but think that men’s promiscuous behaviour during the ‘swinging 60s’ (when age cohort adjusted sex ratios were low due to the baby boom) precipitated the laws.

    In effect the burden of the outcomes of negative behaviour was changed from being placed on women to being squarely placed on men.

    The high illegitamacy rates and it’s high correlation to socio economic status just goes to show that male proles are the most dangerous segment of society and in need of laws to protect themselves from their own stupidity and the damage they inflict on wider society.

  150. krakonos says:

    The high illegitamacy rates and it’s high correlation to socio economic status just goes to show that male proles are the most dangerous segment of society and in need of laws to protect themselves from their own stupidity and the damage they inflict on wider society.

    You ment female proles. Corrected it for you.

  151. KMan says:

    @Cail

    What’s not debatable is whether it’s biblical. A recurring theme in the bible is children paying the price for their parents’ sin, especially sexual sin. Take David’s son born of Bathsheba after having her husband killed, for instance…

    I think you may be jumping from the descriptive to the imperative here, and confusing them in the process. While God is within his rights to hold judgement against the children of sinners (Exodus 20:5-6 “You shall not [commit adultery] for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”), it is not our place to punish children for the sins of their parents.

    In fact, when it comes to the imperative, we are commanded to care for the fatherless.

    Psalm 82:3-4:

    Defend the weak and the fatherless;
    uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
    4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

    Isaiah 1:17:

    Learn to do right; seek justice.
    Defend the oppressed.
    Take up the cause of the fatherless;
    plead the case of the widow.

    The NT is also full of exhortations to care for widows, orphans, etc. There is no distinction made that we should not care for children who are the product of adultery or other sin. Unrepentant men and women were to be excommunicated, but it does not say to do the same with their children.

    Personally, I struggle with this mainly because I don’t know the best way to care for the fatherless. I certainly don’t think cash handouts are the solution and as others have noted may actually be doing more damage than good. I just know that, whatever the best way to care for these children, we are commanded to do so as Christians.

  152. KMan says:

    Sorry, that Exodus quote should be “You shall not [commit idolatry]…

  153. CedarFever says:

    As I read through these posts and their associated comments, I find myself trying to envision realistic scenarios about how this trend can be reversed. The answer that I always come up with is that there is no turning back until our infrastructure – physical, legal, social – is in ruins and there is open conflict. Meaningful change will not occur without the requisite cultural attitudes changing and I don’t see those attitudes changing without the civilizational destruction happening first. The chaos will march up the chain through every socioeconomic level. It’s like trying to stop a fusion reaction after it has started – the change will not stop until all of the fuel is consumed. Not only will it not stop but it will accelerate. To borrow an phrase from Dalrock, we are committed to the trail.

    As an example of the embedded attitude, I’ll again mention an acquaintance of mine who just underwent IVF successfully. She is early 30′s, a school teacher with a master’s degree, and never married. Upon announcing her pregnancy, her hamster made sure to point out how she was being responsible, unlike all those other single women who have “oopsie” pregnancies (that is verbatim). No, *she* was going about this the *right* way. The most disturbing thing I witnessed is the overwhelmingly positive reactions of 40′s/50′s women to the news – this all occurring in what is considered a very socially conservative city in a socially conservative state. It’s one thing to read about it in the abstract but to personally witness it removes any doubt in me that our civilization is rapidly coming to a close.

  154. CedarFever says:

    Not fusion, “fission”. Sheesh.

  155. Looking Glass says:

    @SSM:

    I think if you stare long enough at a GBFM post, you may be able to see the Mona Lisa or random bits of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so it’s very possible she divined something from someone’s comment some time ago.

    But (I was doing other work and just was browsing through the comments during the Date in question), unless Dalrock removed the supposed threatening comment, I can’t find it in any of the threads active at that time. Further, unless he removed all response/discussion to it, it either happened on her own blog, some comment thread not posted within 5 days of the 23rd or she’s simply making stuff up.

    Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, I just see no easy to find proof of it. Though re-reading that thread reminded me how destroyed Susan got on the topic. She really doesn’t know the concept of “The First Rule of Holes”.

  156. Looking Glass says:

    @Kman:

    I think you need to do a Bible search on “Harlot” and start reading. “Fatherless” is a child that lost their father, not the child of a harlot. I’ll let someone else correct you further on the distinction.

  157. an observer says:

    Met plenty of gals like this in church.

    What she said:

    “Hey there! Just moved here, and I’m starting out fresh after a string of bad guys in my life. Let’s change that, shall we? So please be gentle and genuine…. no players! I’m a student, and I’m looking for a guy I can snuggle up with on a non-studying night.I just love a guy with a glint in his eye, and boyish charm. I want him to be rugged, but is a big teddy bear inside….”

    What she meant:

    “Hey there, high status hunk. I’ve sexed up a string of bad boys way out of my league, and unsurprisingly they all dumped me. Just turned 30 and the wall looms large, and dont get the attention i used to. Need a dude to fund my substantial student debt payments so i can settle with dignity and in the style i want.

    Want a guy that makes me tingle like an alpha, but with the occasional beta tendencies.

    The players i fall for have sexed me up down and sideways everywhere but church, but willing to try the ones there too.

    Despite my emerging crows feet, arm flaps and ongoing weight problems, i will only accept interest from attractive hunks only. Low status guys that are approaching my market value i will deem creepy, out on facebook and freely reject.

    Look forward to hearing affirmation and adoration in spades.

    Yours sincerely,
    Cindy begood churchgirl.

  158. an observer says:

    ” men’s promiscuous behaviour during the ‘swinging 60s’ …”

    Then, just like now, women were attrated to the same small percentage of men they always were.

    With the advent of the pill and the loss of cultural controls over female sexuality, these middle of the pack women were now liberated from the financial and social consequences of an unplanned pregnancy, and used this ‘liberation’ to sex up the high status men they found attractive.

    Not complaining. Thats just how it is.

    Unsurprisingly, the high status men now had even more opportunity to seduce women.

    In suggesting it was soemhow mens fault for unleashing this, it is assumed that all benefited. Untrue. Classic apex fallacy.

    Yawn.

  159. Aremo says:

    Athol wrote: “The core purpose of marriage from the view of the state is to assure that children are not a burden to it.”

    Late to the party but this one jumped out at me. It is patently UNTRUE. I know it seems this way but the state has moved far past this and now uses children as a way of generating profits not recouping costs. The money for child support if the woman in on public assistance is far in excess of the amount paid the mother especially when interest and penalties are considered. A mother on assistance now means a profitable slave who is forced to work for the state or be jailed.

  160. SlargTarg says:

    Personally, I struggle with this mainly because I don’t know the best way to care for the fatherless. I certainly don’t think cash handouts are the solution and as others have noted may actually be doing more damage than good. I just know that, whatever the best way to care for these children, we are commanded to do so as Christians.

    For modern Christians, it always ends up with cash handouts….now enforced by the laws and guns of the state.

    They are too spineless to do anything else.

  161. greyghost says:

    Norm
    that chick is classic sex in the city slut. The pictures she puts in her profile demand a frontal nude shot the bigger the better that is why she gets them. All she has to offer is sex and nothing else She claims to want a “good” man and then compettively markets herself as the best slut you can get because she has raised her standards from all of the guys that tore that pussy up from the past. She says it as something to be proud of. (projection)
    Now imagine her carouseling for a beta husband her only option is to get knocked up because she has absolutely nothing else to offer, and them boys are on the pill. Now she is 38 profile is “i need a fertile man serious about family and commitment” Then see her 43 never married and childless.
    Some chump will bail her out but she has competition. All it takes is one chick of roughly the same physical appearance to talk some red pill truth with empathy and speak of over coming life as a team with her at the side of her man. And the beta is hers.

  162. Opus says:

    I have to second an observer when he takes issue with Johnnycomelately who seeks to blame the sexual revolution of the 1960s on males. It has to be women, for without females (famed) consent male sexual access to women must be coercive, and although men are programmed to try it on, nothing happens without the permission of the female. Whether there really was as much casual sex in the 1960s as there was famed to be is another matter, and one where beyond personal anecdote we are unlikely ever to have conclusive stats. The advent of The Pill, Technology and female-economic-independence seems to me to be the driving forces of Promiscuity, and I guess that we must wait for the decline of the west before that promiscuity begins to receed. Unlike TFH I am not a futurist and will not therefore attempt to predict futurity. In the meanwhile what is a man to do; rejecting women can be so hurtful as they tend to get angry and upset if you don’t want them.

    Johnnycome lately also suggests that there should be laws against men ‘to protect themselves from their own stupidity and the damage it inflicts on the wider society’. A noble aspiration, but one, I fear unlikely to be successful for the reasons I mention in the paragraph above and because as women are always going to be attracted to the most dominant and attractive of males there will be little incentive for those attractive males to restrain their behaviour – men after all are the risk takers. It will only be when the State ceases to bail-out women (much as they bail out bankers) and makes them face the consequences of their own behaviour that women’s hypergamous and frequently promiscuous inclinations will be restrained (and I don’t mean serial-monogamy-promiscuity, which with the greatest of respect to deti and his excellent post above places more weight on the notion of promiscuity than the nature of such female actions may reasonably be expected to bear – what I mean is that serial monogamy is not promiscuity any more than a one night stand might be regarded as temporary monogamy).

    A start however has been made here – where it continues to snow – in that HMG has introduced a bedroom tax for those on benefits – frequently of course single-mums – and so if they do not want to lose benefit they must either let the spare room or find money from some other source. Now how pray, might they do that? Hmmmm.

  163. KMan says:

    @Looking Glass

    I’m well aware of what the Bible says about harlots, but if I missed a clause somewhere which says “don’t worry about caring about children of harlots because they technically do have fathers somewhere who are probably still alive and she’s bad and you should let her children suffer even if it’s in your power to provide legitimate help to the children” then please feel free to correct me. Otherwise, it seems as though you’re just inventing convenient excuses to get out of what you’re commanded to do.

    I don’t know to what extent we as individuals or collectively as the church can and should be doing to help these children. Perhaps it is enough that we pay our taxes some of which will probably go towards supporting such children (when not harming them in various ways) and hopefully some of those children will be able to escape the cycle of dependency and act more honourably than their parents. On the other hand, the only way someone can be brought out of death is ultimately through Christ, so I think the very least we can be doing is praying for these children (especially individual cases we might be aware of.)

  164. 8oxer says:

    Dear Sunshine Mary:

    Mrs. Walsh wrote that she was threatened with physical violence here on Dalrock’s blog. Does anyone know if this is true?

    Ms. Walsh has the responsibility to substantiate that with screenshots. Bear in mind that some of the *ahem* more delicate personalities may interpret disagreement and insults as physical threats. While she might be totally serious, from her own perspective, I’d guess this is due to oversensitivity, I never remember any physical threats of “bloodshed” (her words, mind you) during that thing.

    It was a long time ago, however. If someone can be shown to have behaved so poorly as to have kooked out and threatened “bloodshed” for anyone who disagreed with them, I’ll personally point and snigger in their general direction(s). That would be almost as funny as imagining “T” making good on her threats of going into her local FBI field office with various participants names and addresses and demanding that we all lose our jobs, because we disagreed with her about feminism.

    Nice to see you back, by the way.

  165. anonymous says:

    SSM: That’s right, greyghost. Such shocking language! I’d faint, but I’m sure none of you non-chivalrous slobs would catch me when I fall.

    I have spent a lot of time in holy-roller circles, catching falling people. And I’m an old fashioned chivalrist, too. So I will catch you, and, I promise, I won’t even cop a feel….

  166. Tam the Bam says:

    @Crisis ED: “Susan has become unusually nasty for some reason.”
    Presumably will be classed as an unnecessary ad hom., but I’ve been thro this (well not me, obviously. ‘Er indoors. Told yer I was old.)
    The good news is it levels off after a year or so of total madness, plus flushes and panic attacks, all sorts of lunacy, and then the woman actually becomes more rational and stable. But o-o-old as all hell suddenly, and creaky, whereas I’m not much more decrepit than when I was 35. C’est la vie, not like I didn’t know about the built-in depreciation on the forecourt when I got into the deal.
    I’ve met WomenOfACertainAge who do the HRT thing. They love it, but seem unaware that to longterm acquaintances they appear to have gone moon-yodelling insane. Inappropriate behaviour alert. I suppose it could be psychosomatic or whatever, and they’d carry on in that way even if it was m&ms but they thought they had their mojo back. License to Cougar.

  167. Tam the Bam says:

    SSM : that’s straight out of the Myers/Watson Elevatorgate/Schroedinger’s Rapist playbook. Uncanny.
    They were making stuff up for attention and brutal political leverage, this is almost word for word.
    There’s acres and acres of atheist blowback to the Myers/Watson lies all over the web, too.
    A lot of it outrageously funny! Exquisitely pwned, I’d say. They just can’t understand how badly. Yet.
    Like they say, “Social Justice Warriors! : Do Not Engage!”; Marcotte’s skulking in the background of it somewhere, all that atheist feminist victim bafflegab.

    “Does anyone know if this is true? I’m not saying she is making it up, but I have had some very sharp disagreements with people in the manosphere and never once did anyone physically threaten me, so I find it a bit odd. She writes:

    I have been physically threatened, yes, right here in the manosphere. I have been worried about my safety on several occasions.

    The only thing that’s kept me up at night were threats to harm me physically during Dalrockgate.

    and then when a commenter asked if she notified the authorities about the threats, she wrote :

    I didn’t. I was really freaked out and talked with my husband, obvs. His advice was to get the hell off the internet. It was also very unnerving that this happened on Dec. 23. I had lots of family arriving, and I was imagining bloodshed during Christmas dinner. Terrible. That’s the worst experience I’ve ever had. Thank you Dalrock and Co.”

  168. deti says:

    That thread at Susan’s has exploded.

  169. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    You’re a Bad Man, Dalrock. Don’t you know that when ladies show up here, you are supposed to put on a bow tie and serve us tea?

    The level of hysteria around all of this is astounding. Susan challenged the “manosphere echo chamber” to prove frivolous divorce is a real problem or shut up about it. I politely did just that, and tossed the challenge back. I also included a note stating that I respected her as a blogger and asking that readers focus on the ideas/arguments and not Susan as a person. She melted down, claiming she hadn’t written what she had written, that I was mean for proving her wrong, and assured us that she would back up the assertion (which she still claimed she never made) at a later date. I can understand how this caused her embarrassment, but it was a polite disagreement on the facts. Now Susan is describing it as “dalrockgate”, and suggesting I put out some sort of internet hit on her. Susan really needs to take a deep breath and get a grip.

    By the way, thank you for defending me. I was very sorry to see Susan go after you so personally for doing so.

  170. Norm says:

    Interesting replies to this POF link I posted yesterday. Obviously Red Pill men and women know what she is up to and how to interpret her profile. You can see she has “the jaded stare” look. My niece is a year older than her and looks way younger. Some beta will probably get fleeced by her.

    http://www.pof.com/viewprofile.aspx?profile_id=50098079

  171. Tam the Bam says:

    “A start however has been made here – where it continues to snow – in that HMG has introduced a bedroom tax for those on benefits – frequently of course single-mums – and so if they do not want to lose benefit they must either let the spare room or find money from some other source. Now how pray, might they do that? Hmmmm.”

    I realise you’re just quoting the media, and are perfectly well aware that it’s not a bedroom “tax” as such. Merely that the state organ tasked with disbursing Treasury funds has decided to limit the rent relief (Housing Benefit) to the rooms justifiably occupied by the beneficiaries.
    (A few quid a week off the HB “Landlord Benefit” payments depending on how many spare rooms they have. And I also am well aware of the truly dire housing situation in Blighty. Other homes, never mind “appropriately sized” homes, simply do not exist, and will not be built this side of Doomsday).
    If they’re not careful, the indigent paupers may find themselves reduced to the condition of those taxpaying, yet tax-credit-claiming married workers who for example rent “unsuitably large” premises, and that will never do, will it?

    ” .. find money from some other source.”
    An “unforeseen” increase in Philpottery, you think?

  172. ballista74 says:

    @KMan: Why does Paul say all this about taking care of widows and doesn’t just say “give aid to widows, no matter what?”

    As Looking Glass writes, “fatherless” is much different than “bastard”. Deut 23:2 should make this clear in light of the other things you posted.

    A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

    By fatherless, it is meant a child that had a father but he died somehow.

  173. Ton says:

    I wonder if that blonde chick wears that dress to church….

  174. Farm Boy says:

    Part of Giggle’s premise is that society accepts her and her minion’s views, while society doesn’t accept manosphere views. So that shows that manosphere stuff is evil. In reality it just shows feminists and their white knight friends have created a chilling environment with their bullying.

    Remember that a majority of Southern Society thought that slavery was fine and dandy, so majorities are not necessarily moral.

  175. Krakonos says:

    @Norm
    At least she is not fugly. Some player might be willing to pump’n’dump her. He will just apply a bit of “beta game” :)

  176. Farm Boy says:

    @SSM

    You stated that you were going to kill something this year. Too bad it was your blog.

  177. 8oxer says:

    Norm:

    That chick is from Cranbrook, which is a town I spent a large chunk of my life in. It’s a railroad town, and you’d be right to assume this implies something significant about any woman from that area (and most of us men, too). I’d stay away from that one, if I were you, but hey, it’s your funeral.

    As for the other blog, I posted a polite request for verification this morning and was refused. Apparently, Dalrock & Co.’s threats of bodily harm and “bloodshed” happened on 23 December, but I don’t have any more information than that. She told me she wouldn’t post a screenshot, or even a link, as it gets her all stressed out to discuss the matter (the poor dear). One has to admire her courage in bringing it up, despite these grave threats to her emotional and physical health.

    Sarcasm aside, I’m going to go out on a limb here and speculate that Susan is being less than totally honest about what actually transpired, unless someone wants to fess up that they actually were part of threatening her and her family over the winter holidays, that is. I don’t think it’s good form to troll her on her own blog, so I’m not going to press the issue over there.

    I think it’s a shame that people are still holding grudges about internet arguments they had, months and months ago, and hope she finds some way to get over the trauma of having people disagree with her about social issues on the internet. The strange thing is, I’ve been lurking around here as long as Susan has, and in the process I’ve disagreed with most people here, and I’ve never seen anyone descend into the level of kookery she continues to describe as regular practice.

    Regards, Boxer

  178. I’m sure Dalrock can link that specific thread if needs be.

  179. Farm Boy says:

    Giggles says that the proof is on Dalrock’s blog,

    It wasn’t actually during Christmas dinner that the conversation took place, Dalrockgate got really ugly on the 23rd. My family holiday was very much affected. I was unwise to engage, that was the very expensive lesson, and I take responsibility for that error.

    If you’re genuinely curious, I’m sure you can easily find it. That is if Dalrock has left it up. TBH, he shouldn’t. Bloggers are potentially legally liable for the commentary on their blogs.

  180. Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:
    In a word, our elites function well for themselves, but have become dysfunctional in terms of their overall role in the society at large due to limitations of their own self-enforced worldview.

    This is typical of intensely provincial modern liberal (both Dem and GOP, in the US) views. It is why the neocons (as one example) actually, genuinely expected Iraqi’s to welcome US “liberation” with open arms and magically transform into another first world liberal democracy.

  181. Elizabeth says:

    This comment won’t have much to do with what is discussed in the post. I’ve read most of this blog and like it very much. But there is one idea repeated here that makes me feel very bad every time I see it. It’s the “carousel riding” one. I am a 21 one years old eastern European female living in the UK. I’m in a committed relationship of 3 years old, we are living together. I have never cheated on my partner and he is the love of my life (I’ve known him since I was 13 years old) I would rate myself as being an 8 or a 9 when it comes of looks (I don’t know if it matters, tough). I’ve been sexually abused (full blown penetrative rape, although not the “stranger in the bush at night” kind of rape) when I was 14 years old and the result of this was a very young me having a crushed self esteem and in consequence sex with lots of different boys and men I didn’t even feel attracted to, just because they asked for it, for several years. During this time I was LONGING for some guy to love me. I wasn’t feeling worthy of having a relationship, I felt just a piece of cloth to be used and dropped. I felt as only other girls where the type the guys wanted as a girlfriend. When I was around 17 years old I stopped this behavior and I went through a very long and lonely period of deep introspection. My boyfriend and future husband knows everything about this and it crushed him for a while knowing that I’ve had sex with so many men but he finally got over it. I cook, I clean, I want marriage, I want children and I am very committed. The thing is I am not trying to find excuses for my behavior but I’m curious what do you think of such a case? Am I the cock carousel riding slut? I don’t feel as I am not capable to bond with my partner, not at all, when I “compare” him to the guys in my past I only feel disgust towards them and infinite gratitude towards my boyfriend. I would say he is a 3 parts alpha 1 part beta guy. Any thoughts?

  182. Zippy says:

    GKC:
    Nice straw man, but I don’t support alimony for illegitimate children, at all.

    Believe it or not, it is entirely possible to at one and the same time:
    1) Be utterly against forcible financial support of “baby mama’s”, as public policy; and
    2) Understand that heaping contempt and derision on illegitimate children – the children themselves, who are not responsible for their origins and are not under some sort of quasi-sacramental curse – is and always has been morally despicable.

    Perhaps many people lack the intellectual capacity to distinguish policy making from contempt and derision. In an ideal world those people would not be involved in policy making. Nor would I be inclined to invite them to dinner.

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

    lzozozozoz

    as what’s her face’s blog is titled “hooking up smart,” generally meaning f%&%&*ing & sucking before one is married, is she not contradicting the Law of Moses? and as Christ stated that He came not to abolish the Law of Moses, but to fulfill it, is what’s her face not teaching children how to “hook up smart” and thus violate the Law of Christ and Moses in a “Smart” manner? Is she not teaching Children to be “clever” in their immorality, exalting the servicing of gina and butt tingelzlzozo over serving God, Man, Moses, Jesus, and Family?

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

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

    20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

    20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

    20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

    20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

    20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

    20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

    20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

    20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

    20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

    20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

    20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

    20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    20:15 Thou shalt not steal.

    20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

    20:18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.

    20:19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

    20:20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.

    20:21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

    20:22 And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

    20:23 Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.

    20:24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

    20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

    20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

    Does she not teach and preach against Moses and Jesus? Hath she no shame?

  184. I don’t know to what extent we as individuals or collectively as the church can and should be doing to help these children. Perhaps it is enough that we pay our taxes some of which will probably go towards supporting such children (when not harming them in various ways) and hopefully some of those children will be able to escape the cycle of dependency and act more honourably than their parents.

    One of my favorite quotes that I picked up somewhere on the net is: Jesus never said, “Whatever you lobby the Roman Senate for for the least of my brothers, that you have lobbied the Roman Senate for for me.”

    Hoping that some of our tax money doesn’t do too much harm isn’t charity. We’re called to feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc. ourselves — not hand over money and hope someone else will do it.

    The way it used to work was that, if a girl got pregnant with no father in the picture, her family took her in and cared for her and the baby, with grandparents babysitting so she could get a job to help cover expenses. If she had no family, her church or a charitable family or organization could take her in. If the child had a father willing to do his duty, they’d marry and he’d do his best to support them. If he was a deadbeat — say he drank too much to hold down a job — he could resort to living in a poorhouse with other men who needed adult supervision. In very bad cases where it just wasn’t possible for the parent(s) to raise the child with local help, adoption was a possibility.

    This was by no means a perfect system, but the important thing is that the charity came from individuals or small groups and had strings attached. A grandparent, neighbor, or pastor who’s helping one unwed mother can make sure she’s spending the aid on good food instead of smokes, much better than a case worker with a bunch of clients. An employer who hires a young man with a new baby to help out the family can do a better job of holding the young man to his commitment than an unemployment office can. A church that pays a young mother to come in and clean part-time can make sure her child comes to religion classes. There’s a lot that can be done to help kids (or adults) with problems, when you’re personally involved with them.

    But imperfect systems aren’t acceptable today because one person might slip through the cracks, so we spread the misery evenly across millions of people via the highest levels of government instead, to keep things fair.

  185. Feminist Hater,
    After reading over the comments in that thread for Dec 23, I would have to conclude the comment Susan refers to is yours:

    You’re done my dear, nothing but all the time in the world to think about it.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/is-frivolous-divorce-overstated-in-the-manosphere/#comment-26053

  186. deti says:

    Cail:

    Yes, exactly. The basis was relationships: some personal, some intimate, some from extended family. The purpose was to care for the human beings involved and to teach, instruct and train such that future mistakes could be avoided and/or the impact of past errors lessened by the people who cared most about the human beings involved.

    Now, the basis is not interpersonal relationships with other human beings. The basis is purely economic, with exchanges of money and resources. It is simple redistribution of wealth.

  187. Zippy says:

    sunshinemary:
    Yes, I understand what you are saying, and I have a theory that the fact that you and I (and most women) feel this way actually makes women terribly policy-makers.

    Tommyrot. Thinking that the sins of parents shouldn’t be held against the children is just rightly ordered, consistent, Christian thought. Women don’t make good policymakers, it is true — but that isn’t because Elspeth is wrong about the moral premise here.

    Women probably have a harder time than men compartmentalizing, and facing the limits of what can and cannot be accomplished as a practical matter. To women, perhaps it feels like failing to mobilize police and courts to forcibly extract resources from men and “make things right” is “holding parents’ sins against the children.”

    But that is a failure in rational thinking – one shared by many men, apparently.

  188. Hm, Sarah, honestly, does that even sound like I’m physically threatening her? She is done, her belief system is based on a falsehood. A physical threat needs to contain something that ‘I’ am going to do to her… That’s just a statement about where ‘hooking up smart’ will get her and her troop.

  189. Nah, I have a feeling about you, one I’ve had since I read your first comment since I’ve been on this blog. You strike me as a feminist in sheep’s clothing. I don’t think you’re the real deal at all. Maybe you’re one of the first women to see the clouds rolling in and now are suddenly trying to show men how you’re not one of those evil feminazis that caused all these problems. Doesn’t work that way, my dear. Your generation continued this absolute farce of existence, with multiculturalism, feminism and whatnot else, cultural relativism my foot!; and anyone who disagreed was named a sexist pig and a racist to boot. You’re done my dear, nothing but all the time in the world to think about it.

    Full paragraph for reference. There is no physical threat in there. No threats that deal in blood or violence. If that’s the line she has issue with, she’s merely projecting again…

  190. That’s the only one I could find that would be remotely threatening if read absent the context of what you were saying. An emotional overreaction to be sure but one would expect that from a woman who refuses to admit when she’s wrong.

  191. sunshinemary says:

    Zippy,
    I think that social stigma for being illegitimate was probably a good thing, not for the individual child but for society as a whole.

    My point about women being bad policy makers is based on the fact that I perceive women to be bad at separating their emotions about a given situation from what would be best for society as a whole. In an old post I wrote on my blog about my days as a special ed teacher working with the children of illegal immigrants, I explained how I felt so bad for these kids that…well, let’s just say that theoretically I might have been tempted to look the other way (let the reader understand) and I certainly would have voted for legislation to make these children’s lives better. But allowing illegal immigration to continue unchecked has been very bad policy for the USA.

    Same with removing all stigma from illegitimacy. It seems like kindness but I think it is removes a powerful bulwark. Because women are emotional about children, we tend to want to remove suffering (even if it’s just emotional suffering) from the child in front of us, even though in the long run such policies actually cause more children to suffer the curse of being born to single mothers.

    I suppose one way around this would be to have a separate legal procedure whereby a man could legitimate his children without marrying their mother, but in that case it seems to me that he should receive sole legal custody of the child.

  192. Dalrock says:

    @Elizabeth

    This comment won’t have much to do with what is discussed in the post. I’ve read most of this blog and like it very much. But there is one idea repeated here that makes me feel very bad every time I see it. It’s the “carousel riding” one. I am a 21 one years old eastern European female living in the UK. I’m in a committed relationship of 3 years old, we are living together.

    Welcome Elizabeth. My advice would be don’t worry about the term “carousel riding”. What is more important is to understand that 1) Love doesn’t make sex moral. and 2) Being boyfriend and girlfriend isn’t “commitment”. Unfortunately these are extremely common misconceptions in our current society, and I say this with the intent of being kind, not cruel. These lies are causing great harm to countless millions. If you want to have commitment and moral sex, then you should marry. As for your larger past, part of it you should repent for and part of it is no fault of your own. Repent for the part you should repent for, for your own sake and for the sake of your future children (if you don’t repent you will find it exceedingly difficult to give them honest guidance). Beyond that, marry and be blessed, and be sure to observe the biblical roles of husband and wife and remember that marriage is for life.

  193. sunshinemary says:

    Elizabeth,
    Sarah’s Daughter has a post entitled Amazing Grace which you may find helpful. It chronicles her past experiences with early sexual promiscuity and then marriage.

    http://sarahsdaughterblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/amazing-grace.html

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

    Dalrock for Pope in 2078!

    “My advice would be don’t worry about the term “carousel riding”. What is more important is to understand that 1) Love doesn’t make sex moral. and 2) Being boyfriend and girlfriend isn’t “commitment”. Unfortunately these are extremely common misconceptions in our current society, and I say this with the intent of being kind, not cruel. These lies are causing great harm to countless millions. If you want to have commitment and moral sex, then you should marry. As for your larger past, part of it you should repent for and part of it is no fault of your own. Repent for the part you should repent for, for your own sake and for the sake of your future children (if you don’t repent you will find it exceedingly difficult to give them honest guidance). Beyond that, marry and be blessed, and be sure to observe the biblical roles of husband and wife and remember that marriage is for life.”

  195. deti says:

    It is ludicrous to construe FH’s statement on the “Frivolous Divorce” thread as some kind of physical threat. There are no threats of death or bodily harm on that thread against anyone. At all.

    What was most reprehensible about the “Cowering Bad Boys of Game” thread at HUS now is Susan’s personal attack on Sunshine Mary. She brooks no dissent there. SSM defends Dalrock there and Susan calls SSM a “submissive Christian” who stood by “a cheating husband” and then says “I’m sorry. I can’t respect that”. It appears any common frame of reference has been obliterated.

    Susan’s interest in Game is to make more men relationship-ready for her focus groupers and women like them. To Susan Walsh, Game is OK so long as it’s used “ethically”, i.e. for the purposes of men furnishing themselves as dates, boyfriends and husbands.

  196. This is why I read here. What wonderful advice and guidance, Dalrock!

    Thanks for the link SSM. Good to see you. And thank you for what you wrote at HUS.

  197. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Aunt Giggles has gone hysterical. She’s saying that there is a lot of misogyny on the manosphere and that men should “respect” women who come to manospherian blogs. Same thing I’ve heard concerning other male dominated places (STEM places or even the Orthosphere) from most women.

    She also insulted Sunshine Mary (the one who authored the deleted blog The Woman And the Dragon) by calling her a “submissive Christian woman who stands by her husband while he is cheating”. I wonder why she didn’t add the word “doormat”.

    Nice.

  198. ballista74 says:

    @GBFM

    is she not contradicting the Law of Moses?

    And the law of Christ. All she is doing is advocating for ways for the sluts to continue their behaviors and then sucker an unsuspecting beta. She’s a feminist and her views are identical to the MSM. She is of the world and I have very little to do with her site, unless something happens like this recent bitter outburst of hostility.

    HUSies just plain aren’t happy with life.

  199. ballista74 says:

    SSM defends Dalrock there and Susan calls SSM a “submissive Christian” who stood by “a cheating husband” and then says “I’m sorry. I can’t respect that”. It appears any common frame of reference has been obliterated.

    Proof right there. There is nothing friendly about the HUSies for men, or for anyone. What she said of SSM is so disgusting I’m trying to keep the vomit back…yes, that disgusting.

  200. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    This all boils down to miscommunication between the sexes. Back in the day, we used to be bilingual and know each other (men had their native masculine tongue, but learned feminine tongue and women had their native feminine tongue, but learned masculine tongue as a second language).

    Right now most are monolingual (separated, divorced) with rare/exceptional people on both sides on the sexual divide speaking fluently both languages (or the other side’s).

    There is also the PC Orwellian environment.

  201. deti says:

    If I could add to Dalrock’s statement to Elizabeth:

    Repent doesn’t mean simply to be sorry about the past and regretful about the things you did for which you’re responsible. It is more than remorse. It is also leaving the past behind. You leave behind the illicit sex, the relationships that didn’t work out for whatever reason, and the people who were part of that past. Most of all, you leave behind the mindset and frame of mind which comprised what you used to be; and press on to who and what you are now.

  202. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    You know the manosphere may be full of bitter (MRA), frustrated or hedonistic men (PUA), but rarely have I seen misogyny or sexism or etc. If men as a whole were truly misogynistic, or barbarian, or uncivilized, or savage, most of them would have murdered the entire female sex a long time ago.

  203. deti says:

    And Dalrock: That advice you gave Elizabeth was priceless.

  204. Zippy says:

    sunshinemary:
    Social stigma, material support, and holding children accountable for the sins of their parents are different things.

    The first is vague enough that it could mean all sorts of things: it is perfectly natural to be embarrassed about having a drunk father, for example. But holding innocent children of drunk parents accountable for their parents’ drunkenness is the sort of thing that only morally despicable people do.

  205. ballista74 says:

    If men as a whole were truly misogynistic, or barbarian, or uncivilized, or savage, most of them would have murdered the entire female sex a long time ago.

    Exactly. The more I do this stuff, the more I find that the misogyny charge usually involves men who dared speak out against anything a woman has done (no matter how reprehensible the act is that she did). The fear of the misogyny charge is a lot of the reason why churches don’t rebuke women in their sin in this day and age, actually.

    Criticizing or disagreeing with a woman in any way = misogyny.

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

    Yes Deti, “Susan’s interest in Game is to make more men relationship-ready for her focus groupers and women like them. To Susan Walsh, Game is OK so long as it’s used “ethically”, i.e. for the purposes of men furnishing themselves as dates, boyfriends and husbands.”

    The part that perplexes me is why should a man have to learn game, as opposed to a woman learning Christianity?

    I submit that the highest form of Game is refusing to play Game, just to get a woman to obey/give it up by making her butt/gina tingle/etc. The highest form of Game is living by Classical, Judeo-Christian Principles, which also means dismantling the immoral welfare state and corrupt, inverted legal and banking system which are no longer based on God’s Law–the Law of Moses and Jesus.

    If a woman prefers to bang some gamer and become his problem/liability, leaving you to read Mises, Moses, Homer, Socrates, Shakespeare, Virgil, Hayek, and Matthew, is that really a loss?

    And too, there is nothing more masculine than the Classical Codes of Honor in the Great Books and Classics, created of, by, and for Men. And it is this masculinity, far above servicing gina and butt thingelzllzo, that defines a man’s Greater Glory.

  207. deti says:

    Yes, GBFM, but then where would we be without Bernankified fiat dollarszllolzoolzozllzolz?

  208. sunshinemary says:

    Zippy,
    I see what you mean. Social stigma just means that we are going to affirm that illegitimacy is shameful, I suppose. I am not sure that illegitimate children have ever been held legally responsible for their parents’ sins, have they? But they have been excluded from inheritance rights. I’m not sure I would have a problem with that.

    However, I think we can all agree that providing material support to baby mamas has been a resounding policy disaster, so I would be okay with the women receiving the bulk of the shame and stigma.

  209. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Aunt Giggles a nice blogger and all, but she is consistently trying to water the message down for the Feminine Imperative. And her Anglo Puritan White Knights can’t stop protecting her. This situation is getting horrendous.

  210. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    But that is a failure in rational thinking – one shared by many men, apparently.

    While I agree with this on some level, on the other level this is greatly exacerbated by single motherhood (whether through divorce or out-of-wedlock) or a woman raising her children all alone with a string of unsuitable “suitors”.

    Everything from culture, to the media, to the workplace, to schools (education), is under the power of the Feminine Imperative.

  211. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    And if you disobey The Feminine Imperative, you are a misogynist/sexist/retrograde/etc.

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

    lzozolzlozooolzoz deti ebre benekrnifiied butethcucual dolalrz zlzozlzlzo

    i also think the manosphere has inverted the true definitons of alpha and beta, and actually adopted the feminists’ definition of “alpha.”

    to the feminist, the ultimate alpha is the bully certieve tpaer of buttehxte who lies about his hieght and ucctehet while secrtely taping buttehxt. the feminist neoocncths publsihers propmote him and wire fiat butthextual bernake f=dollarz r to him.

    to the feminist, the ultimate beta is the strong john wayne/clint eastwood type–the man of character, honor, duty, chivalry, kindness.

    in sergio leone’s great film A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, clint eastwood reunites a family, rescuing the mother from a gangster thug. clint eastwood does not game nor sleep with her, but reunites her with her true husband, as Eastwood represents the Law of Zeus/Moses.

    watch the film and you will see that clint eastwood is the classic, exlalted alpha who is defined not by his ability to buttocck or game womenz, but rather by his ability to render the Law of Zeus/Moses/Jesus real.

    today, because clinte astwood does not try to buttcock the womenz, he is viewed as a beta, while those who buttcock and ebernkfifiy womenz and tape it in secrtee t are eheralded as “six foot tall” buttehehtxual heroes by rpominent neocon women repreating lies about tehir height.

    alpha has ever been defined by the ability to live by the heroic code of honor–to protect and serve–to treat all with dignity and respect.

    when the manosphere learns to define alpha as pursuing honor instead of pursing buttcrakc and ginacrack, it will be on teh road to higher victory.

    lzozozozozozzozzlozzo

  213. SSM darling, you’re the hot chick in high school that all the fatties gossip about over at HUS today. What an amusing gathering of blithering idiots over there.

  214. ballista74 says:

    where would we be without Bernankified fiat dollarszllolzoolzozllzolz?

    Or Bernankified fiat marriage lzozozozozozozlzzoz!

  215. sunshinemary says:

    ballista74:

    What she said of SSM is so disgusting I’m trying to keep the vomit back…yes, that disgusting.

    I don’t mind what she says about me – she can’t offend me by calling me a submissive Christian wife, since that is what I actively strive to be. It’s actually a compliment in my estimation. The fact that she doesn’t respect my decision also doesn’t bother me. I don’t expect a worldly woman to understand my reasoning. It is written:

    For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.

    However, this is the first time I have ever commented on Mrs. Walsh’s blog, and I’ve only made three comments, so I am startled by the degree of animosity that has been immediately directed at me. Again, I don’t care that much, but I am disgusted by what she and her commenters are saying about my husband. First, it’s clear that Mrs. Walsh must have been quite familiar with what I wrote on my blog, yet she is misconstruing my story about how past marital difficulties led us through God’s grace into a truly happy Biblical marriage and making it seem like I’m passively part of a harem now (which I am not).

    Second, the fact that she is LOL-ing at commenters who are making jokes about Jesus gaming 30 churches (a backhanded dig at me regarding the number of other women my husband cheated with in his pre-Christian days) is particularly repulsive. All this because I said that I have always been treated politely here.

  216. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    “The idea behind the acceptance of the children is that the children shouldn’t be held responsible for their parents’ sins. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is certainly debatable.”

    Moses does not appear to have regarded this idea as debatable.

    A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
    Deuteronomy 23:2

    No doubt, humans being what we are, exceptions were made in various ways even then. But it looks like a pretty clear line in the sand…

  217. donalgraeme says:

    @ SSM

    You are witnessing the herd in action. Team Woman, if you will. You are a threat to the group, and so must be crushed. If there was no herd, the response would be passive-aggressive, but because of the home-field advantage and numbers, more direct means become available.

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

    bernakififcations bernakkfiication inverts everythingz
    true form of family:
    wife obeys husband is loyal to faith gof family children
    berankified family:
    wife obeys corproate state butt and gina tingelzozlzo
    true form of alpha:
    man who lives by honor duty god chivalry grace judgment justice temprment
    bernakified form of alpha:
    man who butttehxtes and tapes it secrteilyt, living to serve butt and giana tinglzozlzozo
    true form of sex:
    in the context of holy matrimony
    bernakified form of sex:
    in da buttjhoellzizl and secrtly taped
    true money:
    gold, which prevents governments form stealing via inflation tax
    beenrkekeified moneyz:
    debt based which allows da goevernemet banekrsz to buttehxte the common man

    zlozozzzoz

  219. ballista74 says:

    I am startled by the degree of animosity that has been immediately directed at me.

    A lot of that in total…but it’s nothing new with feminists, there’s always a layer of bitterness.

  220. Opus says:

    It is difficult to know quite what to make of Elizabeth – other than to wonder why a twenty-one year old female who is an admitted 9 (wow!) and for three years in a quasi-marriage should feel the need (and whilst being absent from her home country – I am guessing Poland) to be interested in this blog.

    Perhaps it is Catholic guilt, and genuine regret for having gone a bit crazy, especially as – in hindsight, now that she has the man she loves – she would rather not have done so, or perhaps it is the opposite; that the Rape was anything but, as she played with fire and led the guy on and getting what she wanted realised that it was not what she wanted (Dear God if I had £5 for every woman I knew who claimed that she was raped by a man who went too far, I would indeed be wealthy) and the guys that followed were really more of the same, but now away from home and with a macho-guy to cling to and (perhaps) sensing that he might be attractive to other women wants to pin him down with marriage and children. One years introspection at seventeen, seems to me like temporary penance, a little like an alcoholics dry-spell. Still, Elizabeth is young and I am fascinated in the way women come to Dalrock to confess their sins, pretty much as that Mary Magdeleine did with Jesus. ‘Go, and sin no more’ was what he said, and indeed the Roman Catholics have always been good at providing for reformed women – one of the purposes of their convents.

    Vita Longa.

  221. Jeremy says:

    @sunshinemary

    …yet she is misconstruing my story about how past marital difficulties led us through God’s grace into a truly happy Biblical marriage and making it seem like I’m passively part of a harem now (which I am not).

    There is clearly visible cognitive dissonance when a woman who runs a blog called “hooking up smart” which essentially teaches women to create their own “harem” of sexually available men* uses the converse situation as an insult.

    HUS:: “Yes, yes, use game to hook up with as many men as you want, commitment free. Ha! Look at those women who are with men who sleep around! Aren’t they silly!”

    * – does a sexually unavailable man exist? I think she aims low…

  222. deti says:

    Susan’s own words:

    “I’m on record as saying that I am a proponent of Game because I think it makes more men relationship material. It nudges a bunch of guys upward a bit on that far right bar in the chart – enough to be in play.”

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/04/04/politics-and-feminism/game-and-cowering-bad-boys/comment-page-2/#comment-197535

    There you have it, in black and white. Game’s only utility is to create more men to date, boyfriend and wife up women, but only when the women are good and ready to get relationships.

  223. an observer says:

    Govt is in the business of messing with price signals. Thats what it does. The resulting misallocation of resources results in ‘inequities’ and calls for ‘fairness’ that require more regulation, more law, and a bigger govt.

    The erosion of the family, loss of male authority and legitimisation of illegitimacy is a simple outcome of govt nationalising the relationship industry through divorce law. A whole new industry has emerged.

    Relinquishing money at the point of a gun to support single mommies is no longer charity. The charities lost out a long time ago. The few that remain do so under the watchful auspices of regulation. This was achieved over several stages. Government nationalisation of an industry can be sudden, or gradual. The end result is fairly similar. Inefficiency, less choice, higher price, restrictions on entry and exit.

    Interested readers can review the stages of takeover here:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/lora/m.lora30.html

  224. an observer says:

    Deti,

    If male utility is just to serve women, and sw thinks game provides better men, i’m surprised she hasnt made the logical next step. Mandatory school instruction on game principle.

  225. Elspeth says:

    While I hate that SSM’s righteous and Christ-like commitment to her marriage was mocked at HUS, do we really expect anything less from a worldly woman who authors a blog titled “Hooking Up Smart?”

    I certainly do not, and have learned to accept this kind of thing from those kinds of women as the cost of standing up for Biblical marriage.

  226. Tytalus says:

    @ Cail Corishev

    I think you’re right. This girl mentioned really doesn’t seem to be a bad catch at all, at least from her profile.

  227. If HUS claims to the utility of men was the only problem over there, we’d yawn and stretch and get back to watching grass grow, or something.
    SSM asked her an interesting question. She asked why would she fault her for honoring her marriage vows and staying married. Easy. like that silly scorpion and frog tale…its her nature.

  228. But that is a failure in rational thinking – one shared by many men, apparently.

    What is the subtext here?

  229. imnobody says:

    I was a regular commentar at Susan’s but not anymore. As times goes, she becomes more feminist, more shaming. more blue-pill and with a stronger hamster. The way she repplied to SSM is nasty and ad-hominem. She who has good arguments doesn’t need to insult.

  230. Ive never commented there. I just did, telling her Ive never seen a host behave as she is on that thread on any of the Christian manosphere blogs.

    Never

  231. deti says:

    Jeremy:

    “There is clearly visible cognitive dissonance when a woman who runs a blog called “hooking up smart” which essentially teaches women to create their own “harem” of sexually available men* uses the converse situation as an insult.

    “HUS:: “Yes, yes, use game to hook up with as many men as you want, commitment free. Ha! Look at those women who are with men who sleep around! Aren’t they silly!””

    Well, not really. Susan isn’t telling women to be promiscuous sluts going from ONS to ONS to STR. She’s telling them to leverage “hooking up” (meaning anything from kissing to groping to same night sex) into whatever it is that the woman wants out of that hookup — be it LTR or boyfriend/girlfriend, or relationship. She’s telling women to use the culture and the current dysfunctional SMP to get the best they can from the men in it based on current market conditions.

    There are two problems: First, she implicitly views serial monogamy as “more moral” than a series of short term relationships or flings or ONSs. So long as men and women are hooking up in an “ethical” way (both participants are up front and above board about what they want and make “full disclosure”), it’s all good and anything goes.

    Second, while she recognizes that the sexual aims of men and women are at cross-purposes, she views men’s sexual objectives as less legitimate, less “moral”, and not as deserving of satisfaction as those of women. If a man wants to pursue relationships without marriage, this is bad because it doesn’t serve women’s interests (not because it is inconsistent with traditional morality). If a man expects his wife to provide “duty sex” and he has let himself go somewhat, too bad, he’s gotta be f**kable and it’s his duty to make sure he’s attractive enough to “be f**kable.” Women aren’t subjected to that same scrutiny. Whatever she wants from the hookup is “right” and “just” and “moral” and “legitimate” and she is entitled to it, whatever “it” is.

  232. Anonymous Reader says:

    One comment on that other blog: it was just a few years ago that Walsh regarded Badger as a kind of nephew, a relation upon whom she doted to some degree. Now for whatever reason she’s ripping into Badger just as much as Rollo. Go figure that out…

    Lesson for men: feminists like Walsh cannot be your friend. Ever. Sooner or later they will turn and backstab.

  233. Jeremy says:

    @Deti,

    Thanks for the correction. I am forced to wonder exactly what kind of success she has had, if any. I’m certain there are lots of men out there who are easy to force into a commitment. Does she even acknowledge how poorly these men should rate if they can be so coerced? It’s sexy to for a man to manipulate a woman, women are a challenge. It’s trivial for a woman to manipulate a man, just take your panties off. She seems to be advocating for using nuclear weapons on someone who has already surrendered, to try to jam an analogy in there..

    If she ever truly studied red-pill knowledge and game, then it seems clear to me she was unable to leave her own preconceptions behind and acknowledge the pros/cons both sexes deal with in the SMP. It’s as if that knowledge were given to a woman who was already devoid of empathy, because her father likely sucked.

  234. deti says:

    In conjunction with that “second” problem, Game in its purest form exists for men. It is a set of tools for men which men are supposed to teach to men and boys. Its primary purpose with regard to intergender relationships is to secure for the man what he wants and to safeguard his interests. HUS appears to be to declare that use of Game to be illegitimate and base and inappropriate. Instead, it is insisted, Game’s ONLY legitimate purpose is to edify men, improve them. and transform them into better sex partners, boyfriends and husbands for women who want them.

    If ever there was evidence for a feminine imperative, this is it, straight from Susan’s keyboard:

    “I’m on record as saying that I am a proponent of Game because I think it makes more men relationship material. It nudges a bunch of guys upward a bit on that far right bar in the chart – enough to be in play.”

  235. sunshinemary says:

    Well, it’s off topic, so I won’t be offended if Dalrock deletes this, but I’ve gotten interested because the way Mrs. Walsh is communicating with/about me exactly fits with what Dalrock described in his post from last fall on female solipsism:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/female-solipsism/

    empath:

    SSM asked her an interesting question. She asked why would she fault her for honoring her marriage vows and staying married. Easy. like that silly scorpion and frog tale…its her nature.

    You know what is interesting is not only that she didn’t answer that question, but that she then let her commenters trash me:

    Mrs. Walsh:

    Sunshine Mary can correct me if I’m wrong. I believe she has stated that her husband has cheated on her 30 times? And yet she is a submissive Christian wife. Sorry Crisis, I do not respect that.

    SSM:

    I really don’t understand why you would not respect a woman who stands by her husband and honors her promise of “until death do us part.” Do you really advise women to be that unforgiving? For my part, I realize that I am as much a sinner in need of forgiveness as my husband. Jesus taught us: He who has been forgiven little loves little and he who has been forgiven much loves much.

    Mrs. Walsh: *no response*

    But…her commenters jumped right in to bash me despite the fact that I was very polite; here are the last three comments in that series:

    Han:

    Maybe you’re forgetting the part where he said, “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, to them I must also go.”

    Ana:

    Sheep =/= Church.
    I guess you are trying to joke but SSM is already confused enough as it is,refrain from this please, if you don’t mind.

    J:

    Actually what scares me most is that woman out there will use that quote as a scriptural justification for her husband screwing sheep…because God knows one can use Scripture to justify anything.

    What makes that exchange particularly interesting to me is this exchange from earlier in the thread:

    Clarence:

    Dalrock basically has no moderation provided you aren’t disagreeing with him. Disagree with him, and he’ll let the regulars eviscerate your character (rather than simply attack your arguments they will either attack you personally or try to “psychoanalyze” you over the internet esp if you are a woman) and any counterattacks you get in might eventually lead to your banning and even if not, it’s rather hard for one person to take on 20.

    Susan Walsh:

    Yes, this is why I characterized this as the “Flying Monkey” strategy. Dalrock can stay out of the fray knowing full well that his disturbed commenters will always attack and report back.

    In other words, Mrs. Walsh disapproves of what she sees as Dalrock letting his commenters fight his battles for him…while she lets her own disturbed commenters do exactly that. Hilarious!

  236. deti says:

    Jeremy:

    I’ve said it many times on this blog as a commenter. If a woman really wants a beta for a husband, a nice guy, a provider, she can get two or three of them to walk her down the aisle and wife it up TOMORROW, and it won’t matter one bit what her N is. But as has been established here and elsewhere (nearly conclusively, I think), women DO NOT WANT and ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO betas.

  237. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, it seems to me the most likely direct influence on illegitimate children would be the Great Society. I have been told by people who were around as adults in the mid 1960′s that before the LBJ political landslide, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was available only to women who had been married. Widowed or abandoned or divorced, made no difference, but the claim made is that it was not available to women who had bastard children until after LBJ I cannot confirm this, so far am unable to determine the requirements for such aide prior to 1964-65.

    However, if it is true that AFDC (“welfare”) was extended from widowed/abandoned/divorced women with children to any woman with a child, bastard or not, that would account for the behavior seen. Because if it was true in, say, 1960 that the Widow Jones and the divorced Mrs. Smith were able to draw some benefits, but divorce was hard to come by, and Susie Slutcheeks would have to rely upon the kindess of family and strangers for her “love child”, the the economics are pretty simple: the children of Jones and Smith get aid from the government, but Susie is totally at the mercy of her family for the most part — she’s very likely going to put that baby up for adoption.

    But if it is true that AFDC was not available to bastard chidlren prior to 1964-65, and then became available afterwards, then there not only is no economic impetus in the short term for Susie Slutcheeks to give up her “love child”, in fact there is an economic benefit to keeping the child – government aid, in the form of food and shelter. Social stigma or not, if the government pays people to do something, they will do more of it.

    Paying single women to have babies -> more babies from single women. It’s simple.
    Add the men’s-fault divorce revolution that began in Governor Reagan’s office in Sacramento, Calif. circa 1969, and the creation of Uncle Sam as the Big Daddy Beta was well under way.

    So the question that ought to be investigated is this: did the rules for AFDC, public housing, and other mother-and-child protective aid change in the mid 1960′s?

  238. sunshinemary says:

    Deti:

    If ever there was evidence for a feminine imperative, this is it, straight from Susan’s keyboard:

    “I’m on record as saying that I am a proponent of Game because I think it makes more men relationship material. It nudges a bunch of guys upward a bit on that far right bar in the chart – enough to be in play.”

    It’s funny you say that, because I left this comment at Rollo’s place today:

    Rollo:

    @SSM, hopefully you’re reading my comments here, but what got deleted on Giggles site is that I officially redact any comparison I ever made between you and her. I know Aunt Giggles and you are no Aunt Giggles.

    SSM:

    Thank you. Oddly, I had been considering commenting here that I finally concede some of your points about the feminine imperative. Previously, I didn’t agree and wasn’t seeing it, but I see it now oh-so-clearly in what Mrs. Walsh writes. She wrote that she “understands game very well.” I find that odd because while I don’t understand game very well, I understand it well enough to know that wide-spread knowledge of it will not quickly lead to the production of sexy husband-bots that Mrs. Walsh seems to think it will. I don’t know if she is just playing with fire that she doesn’t fully understand or if she’s trying to create an illusion on purpose.

  239. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Dalrock, it seems to me the most likely direct influence on illegitimate children would be the Great Society. I have been told by people who were around as adults in the mid 1960′s that before the LBJ political landslide, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was available only to women who had been married. Widowed or abandoned or divorced, made no difference, but the claim made is that it was not available to women who had bastard children until after LBJ I cannot confirm this, so far am unable to determine the requirements for such aide prior to 1964-65.

    I would have to look it up, but the second paper I linked to in this post left me with the impression that the federal government started trying to locate “deadbeat dads” as part of the welfare process (including never married fathers) going back to the 1950s. My guess is the real change was social acceptance of welfare for unwed mothers. As I recall LBJ sold this as compassion for the unfortunate. I suspect he legitimized welfare for unwed mothers in the process, and this would still fit with the way people who were alive at the time recall the shift.

  240. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Dalrock, this is a request I am making as brief commenter. I hope you convert all of the posts from the inception (start) of your blog until maybe the end of this year (who knows), into an E-Book and sell it where you find appropriate. I would buy it. Or you can create a joint venture, and publish a lot of the most special articles (main articles) from your blog or from around the manosphere (like articles detailing serial monogamy to feminine wills and tactics such as reframing, projection, shaming, etc. to illegitimacy to single motherhood to the feminine imperative and so forth).

    [D: Thanks. I have considered this and will give it some more thought.]

  241. anonymous says:

    That’s not venomous. Sunshine Mary can correct me if I’m wrong. I believe she has stated that her husband has cheated on her 30 times? And yet she is a submissive Christian wife. Sorry Crisis, I do not respect that.

    I have to wonder, what would Susan have said, if it had been the other way around — if Sunshine Mary had cheated with 30 men, and her husband was the one doing the forgiving?

    Somehow I just know Susan would sing a different tune.

  242. Dalrock says:

    I did a quick search on this Anon Reader and you appear to be correct in the change in the rules of AFDC. From here:

    A provision in the law that authorized ADC assistance only to “suitable homes” functioned, in the program’s first three decades, to reduce the number of eligible children (in 1960 when 79 of every 1000 children were in need, only 30 received assistance) and, particularly, to inhibit coverage of “illegitimate” children and children of color.

  243. deti says:

    SSM:

    I saw Rollo’s retraction. Nice to see that Rollo once again <3's SSM.

  244. Dalrock says:

    SSM (quoting Clarence):

    Dalrock basically has no moderation provided you aren’t disagreeing with him. Disagree with him, and he’ll let the regulars eviscerate your character (rather than simply attack your arguments they will either attack you personally or try to “psychoanalyze” you over the internet esp if you are a woman) and any counterattacks you get in might eventually lead to your banning and even if not, it’s rather hard for one person to take on 20.

    This doesn’t make any sense. He claims that I have a hands off approach until someone disagrees with me, at which point he accuses me of switching to…. (wait for it)…

    a hands off approach.

  245. Jeremy says:

    @deti says:

    …But as has been established here and elsewhere (nearly conclusively, I think), women DO NOT WANT and ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO betas.

    So… Susan is using the encouragement of men to use game… as a shit test?

    My mind is blown…
    :)

  246. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, your Google-Fu is most impressive. Very good find.
    I find the use of scare quotes around the word illegitimate to be both interesting and illuminating.

    Now, we know that nationally around 40% of children are born to unmarried women, 50% for women under 30, I wonder what percentage are on EBT, Section 8 housing, etc.?

  247. Farm Boy says:

    “I’m on record as saying that I am a proponent of Game because I think it makes more men relationship material. It nudges a bunch of guys upward a bit on that far right bar in the chart – enough to be in play.”

    Tingles Über Alles

    She only cares about guys giving tingles. Not about how to make men better husbands, or women better wives. Just tingles.

    I propose a new name- Aunt Tingles

  248. greyghost says:

    Hey Dalrock When aunt giggles made that comment about disturbed commenters, do you think she was including me?

  249. Farm Boy says:

    So… Susan is using the encouragement of men to use game… as a shit test?

    No, game is to counter shit tests, and to give tingles.

  250. Farm Boy says:

    As for “disturbed commenters”, my inner Spock finds the people here most rational

  251. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Dalrock, your Google-Fu is most impressive. Very good find.

    Thanks. The section right after I quoted is really telling as well, starting with this sentence:

    For its first three decades, AFDC operated much like a private charity, with its case workers given discretion in investigating clients, cutting off benefits to those determined to be unsuitable, and reducing benefits to those found in violation of any of AFDC’s myriad regulations.

    This (as you pointed out) would seem to be the other crucial piece of the puzzle. There was a strong and successful activist movement to make welfare a “right” which bore fruit in the 1960s and 1970s.

  252. Pingback: How changes to welfare encouraged the illegitimacy explosion. | Dalrock

  253. Johnycomelately says:

    “There will be little incentive for those attractive males to restrain their behaviour.”

    The top 5% aren’t siring the bastards, it’s the proles, just check out the illegitemacy rates in the ‘hood’, they may pass the sexy test but they’re still proles.

    Given the manosphere assumption that women can’t control their reaction to attraction cues (limited free agency?) who is worse, the hood rat that sires 50 children or the baby mommas?

    Obviously legitimacy laws provided that proles were too stupid to ‘keep it in the pants’ and women were burdened with the responsibility of carrying negative outcomes (ie illegitamacy), so the behaviour of men was curtailed through female responsibility. I’m not arguing against the wisdom of the ancients, just saying the way it is.

    Laws unleashing hyperagamy have released feral female behaviour but that in no way exhonerates feral men and it’s the rest of society that has to pick up the slack for the wanton spreading of their seed.

    Remember the bell curve of human intelligence, male proles are firmly smack at the bottom.

  254. Anonymous Reader says:

    Idle question: the other week I waded through about 900+ comments at the WordPress blog of one Amanda(sic?) Blum, having to do with a kerfuffle at the Python developer conference (PyCon). The issue was along the lines of the SkepChick elevator / coffee thang. That’s not important.

    What is important is this: all the comments were in pages. There were 4 or 5 pages, each with something like 200 comments. It kept the reading of them almost manageable, and unlike on other WordPress blogs, I never got a message in my browser about a script that is hung. Each page took a while to load, but once loaded scrolling up and down was pretty easy.

    I have no idea if paging of comments is a documented feature in WordPress, or if it is a hack that was done, but it would be worth it to find out. Once comments on this blog exceed 250 or so, reloading gets slower and some other things happen, depending on the browser. Just a thought.

  255. JoeS says:

    Illegitimacy is a lot more serious of a problem than something confined to the ghetto. Yes, it definitely affects the middle class.

  256. But holding innocent children of drunk parents accountable for their parents’ drunkenness is the sort of thing that only morally despicable people do.

    I’m not sure anyone’s suggesting that we should. I was the one who pointed out that God does sometimes hold us accountable for the sins of others, but that doesn’t mean we on earth should do the same. Parents who divorce or have children out of wedlock do enough damage to them; no need for the rest of us to pile on.

    I think what we’re talking about is using reasonable judgment in dealing with people, not about punishing them. For instance, if I know a woman’s parents divorced when she was 5 and had angry custody battles for several years while they shuttled her back and forth, am I punishing her if I take that into account when considering whether to court her? Or am I just being realistic in noting that that experience — her parents’ sin, not hers — is likely to affect her ability to be a good wife?

    We know that addictions and mental illnesses are at least partly hereditary — problems like drunkenness and BPD tend to run in families. If I know that a woman’s mother and grandmother were drunks who gambled away their child support, is it wrong for me to be concerned about that, even though the woman herself hasn’t shown those tendencies?

    Was the Catholic Church wrong (and un-Christian?!) to deny Holy Orders to men of illegitimate birth in many cases before 1983? Again, it wasn’t about punishing them for someone else’s sin; it was recognition that such a background would tend not to make the best priests.

  257. Dalrock says:

    Anon Reader I just turned on the stock wordpress feature for breaking up comments. I’m not sure I like the way it works, but I’ll try it for a while and then either switch back or leave it as it is. So far the only thing I don’t like is that it appears I have to have it set to default to the last page of comments to have the sidebar links to new comments work. I would prefer to have the oldest comments display by default when a page is first viewed, because this way people coming to an old (enough) post are more likely to see on topic comments. After the first 100 or so comments it can get pretty far off track. But I’ll see what I think after the weekend.

  258. Farm Boy says:

    @SSM

    Perhaps if you keep this up, you will kill Ms Walsh’ hamster.

  259. Dalrock says:

    @Johnnycomelately

    who is worse, the hood rat that sires 50 children or the baby mommas?

    I have no soft spot for men fathering illegitimate children. One essential aspect of the problem is that you could convince 90% of the men to “keep it in their pants”, but the other 10% (the most irresponsible ones) can still service as many baby mamas as you can throw at them. You might think they would get frustrated, or at least tired, but I have it on good authority that the irresponsible men in question will be downright delighted to have you challenge them to service all of the sluts you can send their way.

  260. an observer says:

    “I’m on record as saying that I am a proponent of Game because I think it makes more men relationship material. It nudges a bunch of guys upward a bit on that far right bar in the chart – enough to be in play.”

    Deti,

    Thanks for pointing this out. I had’t realised she’s saying game is useful only it makes more men attractive, on tne margin. Nothing about being good for society, or civilisation, just more tingles.

    I think farm boy made a good suggestion. Aunt tingles has a certain appeal.

  261. sunshinemary says:

    @ Farm Boy
    Is this normal behavior for her? I’m not a reader there and won’t ever make the mistake of commenting again (the four comments I left have just about burned out the hamster exercise wheels of an entire team of her female commentariat). She’s in full rant mode. She’s also outright lying. She wrote that she has never read my old blog, but last fall when I wrote my initial post on the feminine imperative, she linked to it and said it was well-written.

    She seems rather unhinged. Some woman named Grace criticized her and Mrs. Walsh’s reply was to ask, “Mrs. Dalrock, is that you?”

  262. Anonymous age 71 says:

    @Cail Corishev says: April 4, 2013 at 10:23 am
    >>I still wouldn’t automatically disqualify a woman for being illegitimate or a child of divorce, but I would take it into account on the ‘con’ side of the ledger and check her closely for red flags in that area.

    Think that one over. Daughters of unwed or divorced mothers have a much higher divorce rate than daughters of stable married couples. Do automatically disqualify such women. It is not your job to be fair, but to find the one best woman you can find, period. Be heartless in rejecting damaged goods.

    By the way, there was a reference on that old thread involving talk of violence. Jennifer said something about her fantasy for drawing blood.

  263. Twenty says:

    Ah, beating up on SW. As Internet past-times go, an oldie but a goodie.

    What I take away from this is that, in SW’s worldview, it’s fine to judge a woman harshly for honoring her wedding vows to a husband who has strayed and repented (“I can’t respect that”), but not ok to judge a woman for giving it up to all and sundry before trying to land a Beta sucker. (No quote for that one, but since her blog is basically “how to get the most out of being the smartest slut you can”, I’ll take it as a given.)

    Good to know.

    SW is another of those “you can never judge a woman for the choices she makes unless those are choices I don’t like in which case she’s bad” feminists. Great fun at parties.

  264. Martian Bachelor says:

    I was at the public library today w/my laptop on their wireless network. It blocked me from HUS, saying it was a known porno site!

    No problemo w/D’s here. Karma, et al.

    +1 on the paged comments; beyond ~250 of ‘em it would frequently crash/hang my old iphone v1.

  265. KMan says:

    @ballista74 (and Anonymous Reader re. you also quoting Deut 23)

    Why does Paul say all this about taking care of widows and doesn’t just say “give aid to widows, no matter what?”

    Firstly, I was not really talking about widows in my comment, but I take your point. I was certainly not trying to imply that we should help women and their children “no matter what”. Paul is basically just saying that for widows to receive support from the church, they need to be exemplary Christians and they need to have exhausted their own abilities to support themselves (i.e. when they are too old). Whom do you think Paul wants these young widows to marry, by the way? He’s not telling men to “man up and marry those widows” but perhaps he thinks some men will do this without being pushed to.

    As Looking Glass writes, “fatherless” is much different than “bastard”. Deut 23:2 should make this clear in light of the other things you posted. By fatherless, it is meant a child that had a father but he died somehow.

    I never said that fatherless and bastard are the same, or even similar. There were dozens of restrictions on who could enter the temple, and it was a matter of purity not “these people are too far gone”. 23:1 says that men who’ve lost their genitals can’t enter the temple either, not because such men are contemptible but because ritual purity was more important. It does NOT say that those people should be cast out of the town, just that they can’t enter the temple. The faithful Jews in this situation relied on others to atone for their sin on their behalf. Besides, as Christians, the old temple system is abolished and now the condition of entry is not our own ritual purity but our reliance on and wearing of Christ’s ritual purity through faith in him.

    @Cail
    I agree, and my hypothetical about taxes was just devil’s advocacy in case that wasn’t clear :). I don’t know how modern society will ever be able to return to this kind of functional support model. Part of the problem seems to be that it’s very hard from a legal perspective to offer conditional support. If you offer to help care for a child but withdraw that help if/when the mother returns to a life of sin, it’s some kind of “discrimination” and “terribly judgemental”. I can understand why people think it’s often better to do nothing rather than risk legal entanglement.

  266. Norm says:

    8oxer says:
    April 5, 2013 at 11:36 am

    Norm:

    That chick is from Cranbrook, which is a town I spent a large chunk of my life in. It’s a railroad town, and you’d be right to assume this implies something significant about any woman from that area (and most of us men, too). I’d stay away from that one, if I were you, but hey, it’s your funeral.

    Don’t worry, I wouldn’t touch her even when given the chance. Only her gynecologist knows for sure. :). I lived there also for a spell. Didn’t like it for reasons you stated, also summers were hot, and winters were colder than many parts of the Yukon, even though Cranbrook is 60 miles\100K from the Idaho border.

  267. Novaseeker says:

    Is this normal behavior for her? I’m not a reader there and won’t ever make the mistake of commenting again (the four comments I left have just about burned out the hamster exercise wheels of an entire team of her female commentariat). She’s in full rant mode. She’s also outright lying. She wrote that she has never read my old blog, but last fall when I wrote my initial post on the feminine imperative, she linked to it and said it was well-written.

    It isn’t that typical, no. Mostly she does her own thing and doesn’t attack Dalrock and so on. She despises Rollo, however — but he also participates there still from time to time, so that keeps the wounds fresh, as it were.

    The issue I think is that there are two different worldviews here. Dalrock’s worldview is pretty much explicitly Christian, as is his advice. He doesn’t limit his observations to Christians, and doesn’t ban other discussion here (this is a particular bone of Susan’s I think), but his blog, when it gives advice, gives it from the Christian perspective, and the same can be said of his observations, particularly the really sticky one.

    That sticky one is that serial monogamy is just slowed down promiscuity. Susan very much disagrees with that, I think because she thinks it both isn’t realistic (she isn’t coming from an expressly religious perspective) and she thinks it excludes women from too many opportunities to meet men. Like most of the culture, Susan distinguishes between what is generally accepted as promiscuity (casual sex, hookups, ONSs, and so on) and sex that happens in “relationships”, whether the latter are leading to marriage or not. So she endorses the latter, endorses later marriage, and so on, not so that women can “have their fun” (she actually recommends that they abjure casual sex and be intentional about finding a suitable mate), but she doesn’t endorse early marriage, like Dalrock does, nor does she see serial monogamy as a kind of slow motion carousel, like Dalrock does (and which I agree with). I think Susan’s view is based on the idea that most of these women find husbands anyway as long as they get intentional about it at a decent age, say around 25-26. Dalrock’s view is more based on Christian morality, which sees the slow-motion carousel as just another, and female-preferred, way of getting it on outside marriage, and in this case without social opprobrium.

  268. I liked where one of the HUS-ites said she likes the place because its just not as nasty as other places. That amidst the trashing she was doling out. (deja vu, if I wrote this here already, delete it please, no time to look)

    She re opened the debate where she states the data show there is not a preponderance of frivolous divorce. How the hell can anyone say that? By doing as the masses do, creating an artificial reality and living in it.

  269. Farm Boy says:

    That sticky one is that serial monogamy is just slowed down promiscuity. Susan very much disagrees with that

    Hence the “frivorce incident” of December 2011

  270. Farm Boy says:

    As for frivorces, go up and down the cubicle rows at my workplace. It seems like one in two fellas are frivorced.

  271. ballista74 says:

    Is this normal behavior for her? I’m not a reader there and won’t ever make the mistake of commenting again (the four comments I left have just about burned out the hamster exercise wheels of an entire team of her female commentariat). She’s in full rant mode. She’s also outright lying. She wrote that she has never read my old blog, but last fall when I wrote my initial post on the feminine imperative, she linked to it and said it was well-written.

    Actually from what I understand yes. She’ll delete comments she doesn’t like (namely those who refer to Rollo and Dalrock positively) and will even kill old posts if whatever was there doesn’t suit her given whatever irrational tirade she happens to be on at the moment. That said, she probably went back and deleted it (by looks of it, I tried searching and finding it by both your wordpress id and your blog name) if that happened to be so .

  272. sunshinemary says:

    ballista74:

    she probably went back and deleted it (by looks of it, I tried searching and finding it by both your wordpress id and your blog name) if that happened to be so .

    Nope, her comment linking to my essay is still up (she linked to it in a comment, not a post):

    But in reading through her continued bizarre over-reaction to a couple of polite comments by me and the relentless and inaccurate personal attacks that have nothing to do with anything I wrote at HUS, I’ve decided that donalgraeme is right, and I’m just getting a full Herd assault by Team Woman. No biggie, but I’ve lost interest and I won’t comment there again. And with that, I won’t derail this thread any further by discussing SW.

  273. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    There was a strong and successful activist movement to make welfare a “right” which bore fruit in the 1960s and 1970s.

    So all the parts to build this machine were in place by the 1970′s – government support of children no matter what, unilateral contract abrogation aka “no fault divorce”, and last but not least reliable hormonal-based contraception that gave women pretty much total control of reproduction. Homosexual marriage as a cultural object may accelerate the decline of marriage as a social institution or it may not (Stan Kurtz thinks it does and has some evidence), but the toboggan ride down hill was already in progress 40 years ago.

    Unfortunately, it is very difficult to criticize the notion of welfare as a right without being accused of racism, and “racist!” is an epithet that tends to shut down any debate (it is, IMO, all too often used specifically with that end in mind). One way to avoid this may be to focus on the deleterious effects that single motherhood has on the children. It is ironic that even socially liberal academics appear to have finally arrived at this conclusion – the social sciences are converging on this rather rapidly in the last few years. Of course, the “science” is simply rediscovering what was already known 50 years ago. But never mind that.The point is, now that social science agrees with common sense once again, supporters of marriage can use that as a lever, or a club, against other liberals.

    Supporters of marriage can point to the extensive documentation of bad effects, bad outcomes for children from single-mother families and use such terms as “science” and “scientific consensus” to argue this topic – illegitimacy – while avoiding the usual claim of “racism”. We should do this. Because the disaster clearly is approaching. As I have said in other places, an industrial society needs a certain percentage of the population to be normal, functional, thinking people in order to keep the water coming out of the faucet, the electricity in the wires, doctors & staff in the hospital, gasoline in the pipelines, and so forth. It is not enough to keep on turning out investment bankers, stock brokers and upper managers – sorry, UMC and UC, you are not indispensible. A society where the incompetent takers outnumber the competent makers is not stable. It will likely break down.

  274. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    Is this normal behavior for her? I’m not a reader there and won’t ever make the mistake of commenting again (the four comments I left have just about burned out the hamster exercise wheels of an entire team of her female commentariat). She’s in full rant mode.

    There is a bit of a pattern here, but I wouldn’t call this “normal” for her. Something is clearly very wrong. Most troubling is that she appears to be dead serious about her suddenly recovered memories of receiving death threats when all that happened was she lost an online argument about frivolous divorce.

    @Novaseeker

    The issue I think is that there are two different worldviews here. Dalrock’s worldview is pretty much explicitly Christian, as is his advice. He doesn’t limit his observations to Christians, and doesn’t ban other discussion here (this is a particular bone of Susan’s I think), but his blog, when it gives advice, gives it from the Christian perspective, and the same can be said of his observations, particularly the really sticky one.

    That sticky one is that serial monogamy is just slowed down promiscuity.

    You are certainly right about the different worldviews, but my case against the supposed moral superiority of serial monogamy doesn’t require acceptance of the Christian perspective. While I have pointed out that Christian marriage is wholly inconsistent with serial monogamy, I’ve also made a purely logical case that everything outside of hard (lifetime) monogamy doesn’t have a moral basis. Note how tied in knots Escoffier found himself trying to argue against this from a secular perspective in this thread. Even here, Escoffier’s argument wasn’t that serial monogamy is moral. He in fact stipulated that it is immoral, but argued that it is less immoral than other forms because it is a slowed down form of promiscuity.

    I’m not saying serial monogamy is moral. I am saying that it’s less immoral than lots of ONSs. Less sin is less bad than more sin.

    Recall that Escoffier wasn’t using “sin” in the biblical sense. He was using it as “harmful” in the secular sense.

    “A woman engaging in 10 sex acts with the same man is equally immoral to a man having 1 sex act with 10 women.”

    Even if we grant this, that’s not what’s at issue here. What’s at issue here is whether, for women 20 is worse than 2 and ONSs are worse than sex within a LTR. The conventional wisdom–common opinion–is that 20 is indeed worse than 2 and that ONS sex is indeed worse than LTR sex. I love to question conventional wisdom but in this case, it seems to me that conventional wisdom makes more sense than 2 LTRS = 20 ONSs. The former person has kept more of her soul.

    Later he clarifies even further:

    However, I am not arguing from a religious perspective. In my opinion, based on what I understand rational, natural, secular morality to be, differences of degree and kind DO matter. Killing two people is worse than killing one person. Killing in a premeditated way is worse than killing in flash of uncontrolled anger. And so on. Degree and kind also apply to sex, in the ways that I have been saying.

    But I don’t think Escoffier’s argument is Susan’s position. I’m not aware of Susan ever formally making the case for the moral superiority of serial monogamy. The closest she comes is trying to shame men into believing they owe “commitment” (really emotional investment) to any woman who offers them casual sex. This probably best explains why Susan despises Rollo as much as she despises me. Her position is essentially what Rollo calls the Feminine Imperative. Whatever benefits women is automatically moral, no actual logic required. I believe it is my logical case which threatens Susan far more than the Christian case, because this is the one which destroys her position from her own secular frame.

  275. deti says:

    SSM:

    Let me just add a couple of final comments for your benefit.

    I think Nova has described SW’s worldview very well and it’s why she gives the advice she does.

    It’s unusual for SW to post something like this in which she really flies off the handle, or in which she calls out bloggers by name (other than Rollo, of course, who I think views it as an exercise in amused mastery). She despises Rollo with a passion. She does rarely delete comments she believes to be off topic. She has banned commenters occasionally. I am banned from commenting there, as is Leap of a Beta (I believe).

    SW has a policy at her blog that criticisms or comments about her husband or children are strictly off limits. She has come out firing both barrels at commenters who speculated about her marriage (Yohami) and commented about her relationship with her self-described “beta” son (Escoffier). Her treatment of you at her blog has been interesting, to say the least. An effort to discredit you immediately got underway. She and her commenters apparently saw fit to critique you and your marriage to HHG and his past repented-of infidelity. This while at the same time insisting that no one dare say a word about her family and implicitly brandishing the ban hammer.

    This is interesting to say the least. SW and her commenters call Dalrock a “sadist and misogynist” and his commenters “certifiably insane” and “unhinged”. The claim is that Dalrock unleashes commenters here on dissenters, allowing them to drive dissenters away while Dalrock does nothing. But the same thing went on there, with SW leading the charge against you in an effort to shut you up and drive you away.

    SW justifies the critique by saying that your marriage to HHG “IS the blog” (The Woman and the Dragon). But then in the same breath she says she never read your blog. If she’s never read your blog, how can she know whether your marriage to HHG “IS the blog” and therefore a legitimate basis for criticism? As you pointed out, the one time SW did read a post on your blog had to do with the Great Feminine Imperative debates, which had scant to do with your marriage or HHG or dispensing marriage advice.

    SW’s really not helping her credibility here. And people around these parts, some in the manosphere, some outside, give her a lot of credibility because of her work with the research in the area of sociosexuality.

  276. Farm Boy says:

    @SSM

    Today is the Hash Bash. Go out and protest the drug that makes men lazy.

  277. Höllenhund says:

    With respect to anonymous Manosphere bloggers, there are a number of simple factors in effect.
    If you bother to read that HUS post and the comments, you’ll see that Game and its mainstream image isn’t the issue really discussed there. Walsh is merely using that TV segment as an excuse to declare that nobody should able to spread „misogyny” online anonymously. Nothing more, nothing less. She doesn’t say, of course, that misogynists should be silenced and censored. What she does say is that they should be able to say what they want, but only if they suffer all and any social/economic repercussions that result.

    This, of course, is nothing new. Some of you may probably recall that Denise Romano, a prominent feminist charlatan, has also made it a talking point of hers that she’s writing under her real name whereas her „cowardly” opponents are anonymous. But it’s not even her that this whole idea originates from. It originates from feminists in general, who are just one interest group that advocates the legal curtailment and even banning of online anonymity. That’s the real issue. There have been many news stories about such laws passed in South Korea, for example, and pushed in some federal states of the USA. It’s happening slowly but surely.

    The days of online anonymity are numbered, because its enemies are numerous and influential: feminists, the record industry, other lobby groups against online piracy and so on. And you can now see that Walsh is pretty much siding with them because…well, in case you didn’t notice it already, she craves mainstram acceptance – not merely mainstream exposure, mind you, but *acceptance* – and all the goodies it brings: fame, book deals, invitations to popular TV and radio shows, you name it. She fancies herself as some relationship advice guru and she knows she won’t become one unless she’s co-opted by those who control mainstream discourse, unless she does everything to lure in as many female readers as possible.

    And the easiest way to do that is to start feuds with the Manosphere again and again. It also enables her to get rid of her competitors. You remember that Lady Raine outed Roissy with the help of Denise Romano, do you? Walsh surely does. That’s why she’s now encouraging her female readers, most of whom are miserable, bitter losers just like Lady Raine, to track down and out Rollo, Dalrock and all other „misogynist” bloggers they can find.

  278. Clarence says:

    Hollenhund:
    I started out agreeing with you, and I do agree that there is a war on anonymity on the internet by various self-interested parties including feminists.

    That being said, your final paragraph wonders into conspiracy territory. I’ve seen no ‘call to arms’ from Susan to her commenters. Insofar as I think about Susan Walsh’s motives I think two things:
    A. Since the thread in general was guaranteed to get a response from the manosphere you might be right that part of it was wanting attention
    B. BUT the thread in specific was about ‘presentation’ particularly the presentation of the manosphere in the wider world. Susan has a built in interest in that ( aren’t you one of the one’s who’ve accused her entire blog of merely trying to get men slotted into relationships with sluts and former sluts in order to serve the feminine imperative?) because she wants more men to learn game. So of course to her you are going to have to ‘put your best foot forward’ when you interact with the mainstream media. I see no contradiction in her blogs mission and that particular thread.

    Anyway, her position is that IF you are going to claim “advice guru” status you should put yourself out there in the open. She specifically does not say that all manospherian bloggers should be shamed if they are anonymous.

    Oh, what do I know? I’ve only read all the comments in that now 5 page thread. Go back to hating.

  279. Clarence says:

    Heh.
    Since I view Christianity as untrue, I refuse to get into the ‘morality’ of ‘serial monogamy’, and one would never be able to argue with me based on any morality about it. The only thing I will say is that ‘serial monogamy’ seems to be the normal mode of human sexuality and I think any society that doesn’t take that into account is going to suffer one way or the other.

  280. Höllenhund says:

    Well, Clarence, in that thread Walsh called Rollo and Dalrock misogynists, painted them in the worst possible light, attacked them for hiding their identities and then basically painted a target on their backs by describing how to find their real identity by paying a professional to find their IP address. The comments she gets are obvious proof that most of her female readers are frustrated, luckless single women on a straight path to spinsterhood, plus many of them are black (thus they’re the bottom of the totem pole that is the SMP for women – our pal Obsidian was absolutely correct to point that out), and she did everything she could to whip up their frenzy against the so-called misogynists of the Manosphere. Of course it’s a call to arms. And they aren’t the only ones she’s targeting – she wants to eliminate other competitors as well.

    And yes, I accused her of that particular stuff. Well, I was neither the first nor the only one to accuse her of that, and technically it’s not an accusation but a mere description of observable truth. But she isn’t specifically saying she wants men to learn Game. What she’s specifically saying is that Game should be presented to a wider audience in a sanitized, non-offensive way, and then men should implement it in a way that never hurts women’s interests. In other words, she promotes Game 2.0. That’s a big difference.

  281. Höllenhund says:

    Clarence, your assessment doesn’t take it into account that Walsh very much wants to get into the morality of promiscuity, but at the same time she refuses to acknowledge that women’s serial monogamy is not one bit more moral than men spinning plates and engaging in casual hookups.

  282. deti says:

    @ Jeremy:

    “I am forced to wonder exactly what kind of success she has had, if any. I’m certain there are lots of men out there who are easy to force into a commitment. Does she even acknowledge how poorly these men should rate if they can be so coerced? It’s sexy to for a man to manipulate a woman, women are a challenge. It’s trivial for a woman to manipulate a man, just take your panties off. She seems to be advocating for using nuclear weapons on someone who has already surrendered, to try to jam an analogy in there..

    If she ever truly studied red-pill knowledge and game, then it seems clear to me she was unable to leave her own preconceptions behind and acknowledge the pros/cons both sexes deal with in the SMP.”

    To me, the salient points are that SW encourages women to leverage the hookup scene and parlay “hookups” into whatever the woman wants. The only legitimate purpose of Game is to create and supply attractive men to serve as dates, boyfriends and husbands. She acknowledges men have had it tough in this SMP, but insists it’s been just as tough for women (I have no doubt it has been for some). Thing is, I’m seeing a lot of women getting to their late 20s and early 30s who are still finding husbands; it’s just that a good portion of those marriages end in “I’m not haaappy” divorces. Even more of them plod along in mediocrity and vague discontent. These women are marrying; but not nearly as well as they could have had they married younger to men they were attracted to and could submit to. And more to the point, they are not marrying as well as they could have had they not racked up sizable Ns which takes them out of the running for many of the best men except for pump and dump.

    Despite the fact that women are being told they should not submit or don’t have to submit to an attractive marriage minded man, we’re finding more and more that reposing themselves in submission to a man they feel comfortable submitting to is what nearly all women really want and what gives them the most happiness and contentment in a long term relationship with a man.

    What good does it do a woman when she’s around 30 to just find a guy with a decent job, give him a few BJs and then demand he wife it up because she’s decided it’s time to settle down?

  283. sunshinemary says:

    Today is the Hash Bash. Go out and protest the drug that makes men lazy.

    Meh. Although I advise people not to smoke anything because it is very bad for one’s health, I am too much of a libertarian to care if people want to sit on the diag with their bongs.

    @ Deti
    Well, I said I was done discussing the HUS situation…but yes, she is clearly being dishonest about reading my blog. She knew way too many details that she could only have gotten there. And she’s just making stuff up about me now, almost as if she is trying to goad me into continuing the discussion. I won’t comment there further, though, as I’ve already said.

    And I actually now believe she is probably lying about receiving threats of physical violence here. I’ve had people from the manosphere be rude to me a few times (though not many and certainly not half so rude as the HUSsies), but I have never, ever received, nor witnessed anyone else receive, threats of physical violence. I call b.s. on her assertion that she did.

  284. deti says:

    Dalrock:

    I know all this is off topic. thanks for giving me an extremely wide berth on this.

  285. Höllenhund says:

    Yep, SSM, she’s a bullshitter. She made the same complaints after writing the post below and thus intentionally starting her ongoing feud with the Manosphere.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/10/02/hookinguprealities/stop-putting-out-for-alpha-asshats/

    And yet she kept writing posts such as that ever since. That’s not the behavior of someone who’s afraid of genuine threats.

  286. Clarence says:

    Hollenhund:
    I must have missed the vast parts of her post (the one we are talking about) wherein she talks of the ‘morality’ of promiscuity.
    That you have some legitimate gripes against her blog, I will grant you. But I will not change the subject.
    In this case – and remember SHE wasn’t the one who brought up the idea of the manosphere going mainstream – I think it was well within the mission of her blog for her to put in her two cents. She wants men to learn game and “Aunt Giggles” as so many are happy to call her, feels she has some advice to give them on how best to present themselves. *I* took offense early in the the thread when I thought she was condemning all manospherian bloggers who are anonymous cowards. She’s not. What she is basically saying is that if the red pill gamers want to have credibility in the mainstream they are going to have to go public with their identities. I agree with that as a general proposition. If all you are is a regular blogger or a data cruncher (think Dalrock himself) then she’s perfectly fine with you staying anonymous.

    Anyway, she has larger problems (and I sometimes even agree with the criticism of her) when it comes to individual bloggers and former commenters such as Rollo, and PMAFT. But that’s not really what her post is about, though it certainly does drive the comments here some.

    P.S. I’ll agree she has her own ‘flying monkey’s’ on her blog. But the differences from here are twofold:
    A. She’s not anonymous
    B. She has to deal with the hamsters of tons of women readers. Does this blog have 100 women readers (even those who don’t comment) total?

  287. donalgraeme says:

    SSM, I think that SW’s reaction may be in line with an old post of yours where you talked about how many women claim to have been raped in order to gain moral sympathy for themselves. In this case, SW is probably claiming threats that never happened for the same sense of moral sympathy.

  288. Höllenhund says:

    And she just declared that *sadly* she has no other choice but to delete a couple of comments because she’s “getting a flurry of emails (and a few comments in the thread) complaining about the tone of male commenters”. Stop and think about that for a minute. Just how lame and pathetic her female readers can get, really? Complaining about the tone of male commenters in e-mails? Whatever.

    It’s just further proof that she wants to have her cake and eat it too. She keeps attacking people without giving them opportunity to defend themselves there.

  289. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti
    SW’s really not helping her credibility here. And people around these parts, some in the manosphere, some outside, give her a lot of credibility because of her work with the research in the area of sociosexuality.

    What credibility? Walsh demolished any credibility years ago when she was caught by her own words. She claimed a certain on line survey used in a study was anonymous, when the actual study methodology clearly stated that each student’s survey was tied to their university email address. Too lazy to read all of a 4 or 5 page research document? Too mendacious to admit the truth? I don’t know, nor do I care. When someone is caught red handed making things up in a cite to research, in the real world, they either ‘fess up immediately and promise to not do that again, or their credibility is gone. Look, there are people who have been disciplined formally, been demoted, even lost their jobs in research, both corporate and academic, for faking citations, for doing pretty much what Walsh did.

    To the best of my knowledge, Walsh has never admitted that she was wrong at all. So that means she sees nothing wrong with making things up and pretending they are true. That’s called “lying”. Liars have no credibility.

  290. deti says:

    “If all you are is a regular blogger or a data cruncher (think Dalrock himself) then she’s perfectly fine with you staying anonymous.”

    Disagree, Clarence. She called out Dalrock by his nom de blog and suggested he’s a coward. She also called out Rollo and Badger; two other bloggers with whom she’s had public disagreements.

  291. deti says:

    Nope. It looks to me that part of the motivation here is retaliation. That’s why Dalrock, Rollo and Badger were called out.

  292. sunshinemary says:

    donalgraeme:

    SW is probably claiming threats that never happened for the same sense of moral sympathy.

    You know, there is an interesting dynamic in that which I think pertains to all women. I have a vague memory of reading something about this before – maybe at UMan? – about women using vague (false) accusation of having received threats of violence or sexual assault to get attention from all their beta orbiters (or just from men in general).

    But that’s not unique to Mrs. Walsh or even “bad” women. I think it’s virtually all of us (me included). I think it probably served some purpose in females in our distant genetic past. It’s interesting to consider. I’d write a post exploring that idea if I had blog. Or maybe someone already has.

  293. sunshinemary says:

    By the way, whose idea was it to change to paged comments? Dislike.

  294. Farm Boy says:

    I’ll agree she has her own ‘flying monkey’s’ on her blog.

    “Flying Hamsters” I would suppose.

  295. Farm Boy says:

    I’d write a post exploring that idea if I had blog

    There’s an idea

  296. sunshinemary says:

    I should clarify what I wrote at 1:41. On re-reading it, it sounds as if I am saying that all women (me included) make false accusations; that isn’t true. What I meant was, all women want to get male attention and almost all women would be tempted to get that attention in any way they could, up to and including manufacturing made-up threats.

  297. Farm Boy says:

    What I meant was, all women want to get male attention

    Not just any males, but ones with status.

  298. donalgraeme says:

    I understood your point SSM. and agree.

  299. Anonymous Reader says:

    SSM
    By the way, whose idea was it to change to paged comments? Dislike.

    It was my suggestion, Dalrock is trying it out temporarily. It’s annoying that Blogger runs comments oldest first, then click to find newer ones, while the default setting in WordPress is “newest first, click to find older ones”.

    So blame me, I brought it up in a previous thread.

  300. Clarence says:

    Deti:
    I disagree with your interpretation. She calls Dalrock a coward because she thinks he uses his readers as attack dogs, not because he is anonymous.
    I certainly agree that she is being very personally vindictive in her comments about people she dislikes or distrusts and that includes Dalrock. But I don’t think her position is what you claim it is – and please remember I’ve read every comment.
    By the way, I do agree with her that there is a difference between Rollo and Vox when it comes to ‘dark game’. Vox has an overarching morality that will not now allow him to use it, whereas Rollo does openly admit using it on occasion.

    Of course Susan put her foot in her mouth when she started talking about “agree and amplify” being dark game. Like ‘negs’ (well, actually even MORE so)agree and amplify can be used for humerous effect to disable a shit test. I love humerous comebacks such as A&A and I would hardly consider myself a ‘dark gamer’. I suppose I’ll have to talk to her about that later.

    Anyway, I’m bowing out of this unless someone comes in and starts attacking me personally. Please remember that her basic argument (in the post) is that she feels if you are making your living as a Game guru and you have a chance to break out into the MSM, you are probably best served by dropping anonymity. You can agree or disagree with that, but that is what her basic argument is. The rest, the personal stuff, the larger direction her blog has taken over the past year etc, I want to stay out of. On some of it, I feel she is full of crap, on other things I support her, but on most of it I have no opinion as I have hardly investigated every fight she’s ever gotten into with another blogger let alone read everything she’s ever said. I DO seem to recall her saying she got threats in late 2011 just before Christmas at earlier times, not just now (in other words, by my memory this is NOT the first time she’s made the claim), but I have no idea where to go about finding those posts and am unwilling to devote any effort to it. She’s the one making that claim, she can back it up or not.

  301. deti says:

    @ Jeremy:

    “deti says:

    …But as has been established here and elsewhere (nearly conclusively, I think), women DO NOT WANT and ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO betas.

    So… Susan is using the encouragement of men to use game… as a shit test?

    My mind is blown…”

    Jeremy, I can’t tell if you’re being facetious. But assuming you’re not, I don’t think SW believes game is a shit test. But it’s pretty well known that men escalate sexually and quickly for a lot of reasons: (1) to get to the sex, the “good part”, because that’s what the man is really after; (2) to gauge her interest and responsiveness so as to limit investment and commitment only to those women who show genuine interest; and (3) to minimize time and money outlay until attraction is established and she has some skin (so to speak) in the game.

    I’m a bit interested in what women hope to accomplish with putting out early. I’ve posited this here and elsewhere. A woman puts out, then wonders why she got pumped and dumped — for the 10th time. By the last in a series of 10 guys. She somehow fails to see the pattern. Attractive man shows interest and escalates. She’s attracted to him. Somewhere between first meeting and date/hangout session 3, she does the P in V (or whatever sex act he wants). As soon as she gives it up, he’s gone, never to be heard from again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    Am I the only one who sees the pattern?

    This isn’t a good strategy for meeting a husband.

    When you ask women why they give it up to an attractive guy in an ONS or in a week or two, they invariably respond in one of the following ways:

    1. Yes, I expect that if I have sex with this really hot guy I just met a couple of hours before, he’ll want to see me again.
    2. I was hoping for a relationship.

    It’s been explained before to me that women are still following the “exchange sex for commitment” model. OK fine, but this SMP doesn’t follow that model anymore. Sex has been divorced from commitment largely because women wanted it that way. Now, in this SMP, there’s sex for sex, and commitment for commitment. So who can really blame men for taking sex for sex, and leaving commitment by the wayside? And why would a woman expect commitment for sex when the only investment he’s offered is the price of a couple of drinks, a few hours of his divided attention, and cab fare back to her place? And how many times does a particular woman have to make this same mistake before she figures out that her little strategy ISN’T WORKING to finagle commitment, especially not from the men she finds most attractive?

    This is why I don’t believe it when women say “I really expected him to want to see me again” after the P in V happens on date 2. This is why it appears to me that the promiscuous woman’s goal is sex with the most attractive men she can find, and if commitment happens, well, OK, and if not, well, that’s fine too.

    If she really wanted to keep him around, she’d hold off and retain her most valuable bargaining chip while at the same time responding favorably to his escalation. She would do things to keep him there and show him her clear interest while at the same time encourage him to continue escalating physically. Ideally, there is a dance in which she gradually gives up more and more of her sexuality while he gradually gives up more and more of his time, attention, and resources until both arrive at mutual commitment at around the same time and they get to hard lifetime monogamy.

  302. sunshinemary says:

    SSM:

    What I meant was, all women want to get male attention

    Farm Boy:

    Not just any males, but ones with status.

    For mating purposes, yes, I could agree. But I don’t know if that is true in the sense of just looking for pure attention. Attention can be conveyed into benefits (protection, stuff) – isn’t that the idea behind the beta orbiter? All women love male attention, just not sexual attention.

  303. sunshinemary says:

    AR:

    So blame me, I brought it up in a previous thread.

    Haha, well, it’s the blog host’s decision, of course, but I don’t like paged comments because I tend to want to scroll back to old comments when I am writing my replies, and it’s kind of a hassle when they’re on different pages. Plus it messes up ctrl f, which I do a lot (sometimes months after the fact) when I am trying to locate an old comment.

  304. deti says:

    SSM:

    “All women love male attention, not just sexual attention.”

    That’s my take on it as well. She wants that attention for whatever purposes she deems necessary at that moment: validation, affirmation of her worth and value, assistance, emotional support, scratching a sexual itch, relieving horniness — whatever. And most of the time she is not consciously aware of what she’s doing or why she’s doing it.

  305. deti says:

    Clarence:

    You’re simply incorrect that Susan called out Dalrock for cowardice because he sics his readers on dissenters. She called him out because he blogs under a pseudonym.

    You obviously missed this comment by Susan, the 10th one in the thread, and in response to you no less:

    “Mystery and Neil Strauss are basically off the scene. Mark Manson writes under his real name, credit to him. Vox Day does. Roosh does! He may be reviled by many, but he’s got the balls to stand up and be counted. I’m not addressing MRAs, but there are a bunch of bloggers in hiding, including Dalrock, Rollo, Badger, and many other PUA types.”

    But don’t take my word for it. Read (or re-read) it for yourself:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/04/04/politics-and-feminism/game-and-cowering-bad-boys/#comment-197358

  306. Clarence says:

    deti:
    That’s ambiguous, esp given later replies by her in the thread. It’s over 600 posts now. I just asked her directly. I’ll see what she says.

  307. sunshinemary says:

    You know, it’s kind of interesting, too, Deti and Clarence, that SW calls on male bloggers to decloak, but look at the difference in how she and her commenters treat male and female bloggers. They have spent a bunch of comments now critiquing (very negatively) the physical attractiveness of Roosh, Roissey, and others (see her comment page 5). I wonder how Mrs. Walsh would respond if men did that to her? Are male bloggers allowed to comment on her body, hair, and skin tone, too? Or is there a double standard here where women can say horrible things about men, but men have to say nothing in the same vein to women?

    Hey, Susan, let’s you and I post our full-length pictures and let male commenters rate and compare our attractiveness, just like you are doing to Roissey and Roosh! I’m game if you are.

  308. donalgraeme says:

    With regards to females wanting male attention:

    Women view men as appliances. We do stuff for them. Whether it is protect them, provide resources for them, or give them sexual satisfaction, we are appliances. And like all appliances, when something new, shinier and better comes along, we get replaced and set aside at best, thrown in the garbage at worst.

    Rollo would call this Feminine Imperative. A strict interpretation Christian would call it the Curse of Eve. As for myself, I don’t see a difference between the two.

  309. Twenty says:

    @SSM

    They have spent a bunch of comments now critiquing (very negatively) the physical attractiveness of Roosh, Roissey, and others (see her comment page 5).

    Talk about female solipsism. Roosh is on record as saying that to criticize his looks is to compliment his game, which makes, of course, perfect sense. But to a hamster the ultimate catty putdown is to attack physical attractiveness, so …

  310. Clarence says:

    Deti:
    My question was answered. Susan does not regard Dalrock as a coward and certainly not because he blogs anonymously. She is curious why he does so , though.

  311. Retrenched says:

    “What I meant was, all women want to get male attention”

    “Not just any males, but ones with status.”

    Disagree. Women often like to get attention from men who aren’t particularly “high status”. Otherwise, why do they post all those pics on FB to get likes from their male “friends”? Why do they sign up for dating sites when they rate 80% of the men there as “below average”?

    These guys on FB and OKC aren’t all “alphas”, not by a long shot, but women still seem to enjoy the attention and validation they get from them — even if they’d never dream of dating them or sleeping with them.

  312. Farm Boy says:

    certainly not because he blogs anonymously. She is curious why he does so , though.

    So she is curious, huh? Really?

  313. Clarence says:

    Farm Boy:
    I asked, I reported what she told me. Beyond that, I won’t speculate.

  314. Twenty says:

    Hmmm … why oh why would a man blog anonymously when (a.) he doesn’t make any money from his blogging (b.) he says things that get the wimminfolk all up in a tizzy, and (c.) our culture is so f**ked that men get fired for making jokes to their friends that some neurotic female overhears and proceeds to bitch about?

    It’s a puzzlement, sure enough.

    Of course, some people less charitable than myself might say that anyone who claims to be “curious” why Dalrock blogs anonymously is either flat-out lying or irredeemably stupid. There’s a question to speculate on.

  315. Looking Glass says:

    @Twenty:

    I’ll be less charitable: they’re either too stupid to realize why or intentionally opening up the person for attack from the “outer edge” group to outright attack the blogger. Either way, it is malicious.

    Considering some of the most important works in American History (the Federalist Papers) were written anonymously, it’s hard to make an argument that it’s some way of only hiding.

  316. @ Clarence, this is why manosphere bloggers remain anonymous;

    http://www.rooshv.com/the-most-insidious-method-of-control-never-devised

    Aunt Giggles loves to turn everything I write up to 11. Her only debating tactic is to caricaturize her foils as insane sociopathic tyrants bent upon female domination. If you really want my take on the “dark arts” have a read of this:

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/the-bitter-taste-of-the-red-pill/

    My argument here isn’t about advocating fiendish psychopathic Game to domineer your woman, it’s that what the feminine imperative would acknowledge of Game is only what would benefit the FI. The term ‘Dark Arts’ is simply the FI’s qualification of Game that doesn’t benefit women’s imperatives.

    SW’s agree & amplify faux pa is a perfect example of this. Fine for me, but not for thee. In the last paragraphs of that post I explain that there really is no separation of Game principles into right and wrong camps. Any male application of Game is misogynistic to Susan because it fundamentally serves a male imperative. She’ll giddily use Roissy’s Agree & Amplify terminology when it suits the feminine, but when a man uses it, even with the most positive of intent, he’s using a ‘dark art’.

    Hey, Susan, let’s you and I post our full-length pictures and let male commenters rate and compare our attractiveness,..

    @SSM, oh but why wait for her?

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/02/10/whatguyswant/defining-sexy/

    *scroll to bottom*

  317. GKChesteron says:

    @KMan,
    I think you may be jumping from the descriptive to the imperative here, and confusing them in the process.

    Its closer to “perfect” vs. “permissive” will. Sin corrupts downwards. It seems to be part of the general plan. There are however escapes from that. As others point out you also confuse what “fatherless” is. That being said I am generally against the trend her to not care for bastard children _at all_. There is something to be said for trying to help them.

    @Opus,
    It has to be women, for without females (famed) consent male sexual access to women must be coercive, and although men are programmed to try it on, nothing happens without the permission of the female.

    So they voted themselves in the vote in the 1920′s? Or took the legislature in the 60′s? They didn’t do either. We fed the monster by submitting to the worst in women and ourselves. The only way to undo that travesty is to acknowledge that truth.

  318. GKChesteron says:

    @Zippy,

    Social stigma, material support, and holding children accountable for the sins of their parents are different things.

    No they are not. They are all wrapped up into the same thing. Social stigma affects _how_ the other two are handled. And as I have shown in the past your understanding of church law and the traditions involved is woefully inadequate. I understand the impulse, but the impulse is wrong.

  319. Keoni Galt says:

    Here’s another vote against these paged comments. Annoying.

    @ Rollo –

    She’ll giddily use Roissy’s Agree & Amplify terminology…

    Roissy deserves all the credit and accolades for many ideas, brilliant phrases, concepts and terminology he’s come up with, but Agree & Amplify is not one of them.

    That came from the post “What is a Shit Test?”, at the now defunct and deleted PUA blog “The Reality Method.”

    Agree and Amplify:
    If a girl says “I’m fat,” then “Yes, you’re HYOOOOOGE.” Or “It’s just more cushin’ for the pushin’.” Agree and Amplify; show her you’re not afraid to piss her off, but do it in a playful way. Don’t INSULT her; poke fun at her (gently). The worst you’ll get is a swat on the arm and that is proof that she is more attracted, not less.Some people might also call this a “reframe”; a term which I believe is probably borrowed from political discourse terminology. You’ve taken her frame (the shit test) and turned it into something entirely different and non-threatening.

    For instance, if she says, “You’re a tough guy, aren’t you?” You might say, “Yeah, so what is it you like about tough guys anyway?” Deliberately mis-interpreting her question as adoration, not a shit-test.

    Reframing / Agreeing and Amplifying is powerful. It’s my preferred method of answering shit tests. It demonstrates that not only are you not needy / logical, but neither are you willing to fall into her trap and try to lie to her face.

    Just giving credit where it is due. :-)

  320. ballista74 says:

    @SSM, oh but why wait for her?

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/02/10/whatguyswant/defining-sexy/

    Interesting in reading this post that she just proved how fickle her thoughts and desires were back then. See http://todayentertainment.today.com/_news/2013/04/03/17585776-emma-watsons-gq-cover-is-sexy-departure-for-star?lite

    Funny how one picture disproves everything she was quoted to say back then. Emma Watson doesn’t have a problem doing “sexy” if it suits her, evidently.

  321. @ballista: don’t forget she’s all good with full frontal nudity too:

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/50-shades-of-emma/

    Aunt Giggles is a real hoot,..

    Let’s take Rollo for example. From his posts, we know that he lives in Las Vegas, has a wife and a 14 year old daughter. He works for a liquor company, and employs “pour girls” at events. He travels internationally, and has shared which countries he has been to recently. The IP address of his computer is readily available. My guess is that for $100 I could hire a PI and out him in half an hour, all based on information he has voluntarily shared. (Alternatively, you could also make the rounds of LV neighborhoods and ask women who is creepily flirting with them at cocktail parties.)

    ,..that is unless my entire online persona is a cleverly crafted ruse built up over decades,..heheh,..guess I’ll have to watch my back next time I’m at the Spearmint Rhino right?

  322. INTJ says:

    @ SSM

    As I recall, she took it very personally when males suggested that pixie cuts weren’t attractive. That despite the fact that a short haircut is fully within one’s control (unlike natural beauty) and she would have had no trouble growing long hair had she chosen to. It would be like me being offended if someone said glasses are unattractive. I choose to wear glasses, and it would be very easy for me to switch to contacts. I shouldn’t take it as an insult to my looks.

  323. Mark Minter says:

    So let me get straight. She’s outing Manosphere men? Willfully and deliberately outing them?

  324. Farm Boy says:

    So let me get straight. She’s outing Manosphere men? Willfully and deliberately outing them?

    What is her stated purpose in doing so?

  325. Höllenhund says:

    “She’s outing Manosphere men? Willfully and deliberately outing them?”

    No. She’s trying to copy the tactic of Denise Romano that I mentioned above i.e. she’s basically egging on her female readers to try find the real identity of “misogynist” Manosphere bloggers by contracting IT experts etc. Read her comments to that post of hers, they speak for themselves.

  326. INTJ says:

    @ sunshinemary, JustJulia

    Oh and you two should post your pics. :D

  327. donalgraeme says:

    @ SSM

    I find it rather humorous that SW, who really should know better, assigns men a SMV value based purely on their looks. Yet more projection I suppose.

  328. INTJ says:

    To be fair, Susan Walsh was quite good looking when she was young: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1971-298×300.jpg

    Perhaps a 7. I doubt she’d have anything on SSM though. Certainly not today.

  329. Dex says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    “Moses does not appear to have regarded this idea as debatable.
    A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
    Deuteronomy 23:2
    No doubt, humans being what we are, exceptions were made in various ways even then. But it looks like a pretty clear line in the sand…”

    Some background: It wasn’t as cut and dried as that. While your greater point stands about generational guilt, this seems to have a prophylactic purpose rather than simply punitive, specifically keeping the products of adultery and incest out of the Hebrew nation/gene pool.

    The child of an unmarried woman wasn’t de facto a bastard. The word we translate as “bastard” has a slightly different meaning in Hebrew and the Law of Moses. “Mamzer” is the word and it means the offspring of either an incestuous or adulterous relationship. Prohibited incestuous relations were listed in the Torah and adultery in the Law of Moses means that the woman is married to another -the man’s marital status was immaterial.

    And you’re right –effort was made to presume a child not a mamzer unless the evidence was overwhelming that the parents were related or committing adultery.

    The mamzer “shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” was taken to mean that he or she (or any of their descendants) could not marry a Hebrew in good standing, but could marry another mamzer, a proselyte, or a non-Hebrew or a slave. They did still retain all other legal and civil rights including inheritance.

    The child of a man and an unmarried woman had full legal status.

    Sex with an unmarried (and unbetrothed) woman (virgin) did not carry the same consequences for the man under Torah that adultery did. Rather than a death sentence, the punishment was that the man had to marry her (Man Up and Marry those Virgins!) or pay her father the bride-price for a virgin. (50 shekels of silver – roughly a year’s pay, after taxes). This was at her father’s discretion.
    There appears to be no penalty for sleeping with an unmarried promiscuous woman, a “zonah”. Interestingly a “zonah” (sometimes transliterated “zanah”) meant prostitute – whether there was payment for promiscuous sex was immaterial. The punishment for the “zonah” was a flogging, unless she was the daughter of a priest – then it was death – and a lowered bride-price or no bride-price at all. Fathers were enjoined not to make a zonah of their daughters.

    The sum of all this is that the family was responsible for children’s well being rather than the whole nation of Israel. If there was no family (i.e. for the fatherless), then charity was expected.

  330. sunshinemary says:

    @ What
    Oh, don’t be so dumb. I was making a joke based on Mrs. Walsh’s bizarre and lengthy assessment of several manosphere bloggers. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s patootie what any man other than my husband thinks of my looks, but for the record, anyone who used to read my blog already knows what I look like because I had a few pictures of myself on the associated tumblr.

  331. sunshinemary says:

    Clarence wrote:

    Deti:
    My question was answered. Susan does not regard Dalrock as a coward and certainly not because he blogs anonymously. She is curious why he does so , though.

    Actually, that is not what she said. She wrote:

    I don’t know if he is a coward or not. It’s hard to say because I don’t know what he would be afraid of. MRA stuff is different than Game because it’s not a tool that often results in immoral or unethical behavior. It’s a strictly political movement. If I were an MRA and wished Dalrock to uncloak himself and contribute to the cause in a meaningful way, I would probably think he was a coward.

  332. sunshinemary says:

    What

    Roosh and Roissy on the other hand are very much on the market looking for buyers.

    That has nothing to do with what she wrote. It was highschool behavior on her part, which I’m starting to see is the modus operandi on her blog. Prior to my recent interaction with her, I had no opinion on Mrs. Walsh. After watching her strange behavior over the past two days, I see that in fact she is a liar and a gossip. Does anyone at this point believe that she was threatened with physical violence or blood shed here? I certainly don’t.

    Mrs. Walsh states that she is in favor of game. Yet read through her last bunch of comments. She doesn’t like negs, she doesn’t like A and A, she doesn’t like Dread, she doesn’t like this, she doesn’t like that. What exactly about game does she like?

    Rollo has already answered that for us, of course. The part of game that SW likes is the part where men make themselves into sexy cart horses for some career girl to hitch her wagon to when she feels like it. I didn’t know that was a part of game, personally, but I’m no expert.

  333. sunshinemary says:

    By the way, I do owe Mrs. Walsh a big thank you for finally helping me to see the Feminine Imperative. Until 48 hours ago, I had thought it was something Rollo and Dalrock made up. I publicly apologize to both of them now for making fun of the idea and confirm that they were in fact correct and I was mistaken.

  334. @SSM & Clarence, this might help you understand Aunt Sue a little better:

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/build-a-better-beta/

  335. Opus says:

    I am taken to task by GKC, for asserting that without female consent there is no sex, for he (quite correctly) refers to female suffrage and 60s technology as being driving forces in female ‘liberation’ as indeed I did too in my post. I say ‘quite correctly’ for a current exhibition in our local Art Gallery, encourages the belief that obtaining suffrage was entirely the result of female effort, and part of that effort involved burning down the local Cricket Pavillion – as they did – and thus far from being terrorism was entirely justified. Further the recent Ada Initiative seeks to perpetrate a brand new myth that women were the Pioneers in Technology. Expect more of that stuff; indeed I expect it will soon become politically incorrect to suggest otherwise, pretty much as it is more or less Politically Incorrect to suggest that the English are anything other than a polyglot-nation of immigrants and that England was full of Negroes at the time of the Industrial Revolution (see our historically-revisionist Olympic Opening Ceremony).

    It is difficult to see, however, how the genie is going to be replaced in the bottle, no matter who is to blame. There have always been promiscuous women – and men have avoided marriage to such – whilst men at the same time sowed wild oats, if, that is, they were attractive enough to females to do so. Human nature is not going to change any time soon, and thus it behoves women, if they do not want a bad repurtation – and none do – and if they wish to marry as well as is reasonably possible, for them to take steps to ensure that that is what happens. I imagine that the younger generation seeing what is about to happy to the presently late-thirties group of single-females will take notice and deal accordingly, no matter the suffrage or technology. When Hollywood makes comedies such as The Forty Year Old Virgin the joke is not about a woman who cannot get laid.

    Meanwhile Mrs Walsh suggests that Dalrock over-plays frivolous Divorce because only 17% of college graduates Divorce. Many of that group will never of course get to marry, but note her typical liberal response to all problems: More Education! 17% is still (historically – in the Christian era) an appalling figure, and can only mean that the rate for non-college graduates is even worse than the average which is 40+%. – as if SW were to pont out that the divorce rate for Presidents of the U.S.A. was very low (just Reagan I believe) and thus if everyone became President the problem would be solved. As I have said often, my own professional experience of Divorce (and largely not to college graduates but trailer-trash) was that it was always frivolous. Perhaps Mrs Walsh doubts that college graduates are capable of frivolity: would she perchance be one herself? Clarence is very brave but I predict he will be eaten alive there ere long.

  336. Ton says:

    I’ve never read a post claiming women hit the wall at 20 or advocating lowering the age of consent. That post reminds me of Eve, overstating God’s command about the tree of knowledge

  337. sunshinemary says:

    Rollo, OK, I just read your “build a better beta” essay. I didn’t read through the comment thread, so maybe this was already covered there, but I do think the part about women being afraid that game will put women at men’s mercy is accurate. It’s clear that Susan feels that anxiety, and I suppose if I’m painfully honest, I would have to say that I do, too. I understand why she wants just a enough game to make men attractive but not enough to put them in control. Where she and I differ is that I have always been honest about that, whereas she tries to pretend that she is some kind of game advocate and Friend of Man. Like hell she is.

  338. Looking Glass says:

    @What?!

    While I quite agree that all but a rare few white people should never have dreadlocks, as they end up looking like a reject from a blow-dryer factory, SSM was talking about Dread Game. Which is nasty, as it plays directly on the fears of women in general and the woman you’re talking with specifically.

    @SSM:

    You actually were never that far away on the Feminine Imperative stuff. It only took you about 6ish months to grasp the totality, which really isn’t that bad. Since it’s a part of your existence, rather than something you interact with directly, it’s very hard to notice the “big picture” of it all. Even when you already accept quite a number of the observations. (Which probably frustrated some of your commenters, but unlike most, you actually engaged the topic for quite a long time.)

    Over in the Red pill bitterness thread, in the process of offering some advice, I pointed out an insight into one of the ways I operate. I’ve always operated like that (“Plan, Do or Don’t Worry”), but I was into my 20s before I had any clue how different it was from everyone else and that I did that. It’s a part of my personality, yet it’s also a part that always gave me a significant advantage over my peers, but I still could not “see” it until far later and upon much reflection. But, I fully acknowledged parts of it.

  339. sunshinemary says:

    Ton, if you go read through the comment thread on the latest post at HUS, you will see that even though it runs over a thousand comments, the majority of them are from four or five women, and they do not appear to think that facts, honesty, or accuracy are of any importance. This is why I stopped attempting to communicate with them after four tries. Just for example, Susan and her commenters wrote lengthy, off-topic comments about my marriage (a subject I certainly did not introduce there); when I tried to correct their inaccuracies, they just continued writing as if I had never said anything at all, which is why I gave up trying.

    This is also why Susan can say that someone here threatened physical violence against her, and that she feared bloodshed, and that Dalrock is partially responsible for this alleged threat because he did not rein in his commenters, and yet she cannot provide any evidence of any such threat ever occurring. She is a flat-out liar.

  340. Looking Glass says:

    @SSM:

    It’s a legit fear, mostly as it’s quite true. A man with tight Game can simply dominant a situation and women will mostly fall in line. It’s actually kind of scary, on a number of levels. Though, it’s also quite funny.

  341. sunshinemary says:

    @ Looking Glass

    A man with tight Game can simply dominant a situation and women will mostly fall in line.

    We had a long discussion about this at tWatD based on a conversation between Novaseeker and donalgrame on whether females even have the ability to resist the machinations of an alpha after a certain point.

    Look, if women seem anxious about this, guys, ask yourselves how you would feel. Would you like to know that someone could hold that kind of power over you? It’s not a pleasant feeling.

  342. Clarence says:

    Sunshine Mary:
    I suppose you could still complain that she took a sorta ‘maybe, maybe not’ stance on whether Dalrock was a coward. But she specifically answered the questions part about anonymity:

    Yes, I do not feel qualified to judge Dalrock’s motives wrt remaining anonymous. There is nothing extreme about his blog, in my view, other than his commenters. And as I said, that seems an unlikely motive for anonymity. Beats me.
    So, the one thing we can conclude is that she was not calling Dalrock a coward for remaining anonymous. Her mixed judgement of him is based on what she is aware she doesn’t know and largely how he runs his blog.

    I think my summary is a fair representation of her views. Now, one can look to see if she says something that contradicts them, and thus one could then conclude she was being dishonest. But first you do have to clarify what she claims to believe.

  343. sunshinemary says:

    What?!/PJ/Holy Basil/Goldman Sucks wrote:

    Susan, Dullcock is the father of a pre-pubescent girl. Even I think its not in her best interest that her father out himself to a group of men who think the age of consent should be 12 and females hit their wall at 20.

    I have never once read in the manosphere that the age of consent should be lowered to 12 nor that women hit the wall at 20. If you cannot provide us with an example of someone calling for this, then you are simply a liar, and we should therefore regard anything you say as suspect.

  344. sunshinemary says:

    @ Clarence
    Thank you for clarifying. I understand what you are saying.

  345. Clarence says:

    Sigh. I don’t mind age of consents as low as 15, * I live in Maryland , the AOC for adult/teen sex here is 16 unless you are in a position of authority (Doctor, teacher, parent, etc) over them.* but it’s not something that is really important, except when such concepts are used to punish teen/teen or heck mid-teen/not-teen adult sex as if it is violent rape.

    How many people (even in the manosphere) really put lowering the AOC as a major goal that the movement should strive for? And of those few, how many would go lower than 15 (which it is in some foreign countries anyway)?

    This is basically a non-issue and a bit of slander. The Manosphere does not consist of tons of pedophiles or even near pedophiles.

  346. Ton says:

    I’ve not read those things on any of the blogs I read. My guess is your making shit up.

  347. Clarence says:

    Rollo:
    Thanks for the comments and the links. I read the first one and agreed with everything you said.
    I’ll read your second one soon. But here’s the thing: even if she has (purposely or not) misread your first post about Dark Game, she is claiming you say you have used it on your wife or something like that. Is this true?

  348. Ton says:

    Prove it bitch. Throw down some links

  349. donalgraeme says:

    @ SSM

    I believe it was actually Deti and I who engaged in that discussion, not Novaseeker. I saved a copy of the post, with some added thoughts, here:

    https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/moral-agency-in-women-revisted/

    I think What!? is a troll and plan on ignoring it.

    [D: Good call. Problem solved.]

  350. mikec74 says:

    The part of game that SW likes is the part where men make themselves into sexy cart horses for some career girl to hitch her wagon to when she feels like it.

    SSM, You basically just distilled the HUS “mission” to its basic essence. It took me awhile to see it, but Rollo was right about Susan’s views and motives all along.

  351. INTJ says:

    Oh gosh PJ just arrived here (with the alias of “What?”).

  352. Twenty says:

    @SSM
    Look, if women seem anxious about this, guys, ask yourselves how you would feel. Would you like to know that someone could hold that kind of power over you? It’s not a pleasant feeling.

    Eh, they’re called “tits”, and of course they can be resisted. Free will, and all that.

  353. Looking Glass says:

    On the “power over” issue, I should point out this is why the Divorce laws cause so many problems: Women actually do have too much power over Men in that regard. (It should also be pointed out that Men never had this power over Women in the Western world, a point too many forget)

    On the topic as a whole, however, Men are generally very aware of who we give power to. You have to be or you get dead, quickly. It’s the name of the game to make any society work. We could spend a while talking Thomas Hobbes on this point, but it should be taken as a given. Still, you don’t give up your Moral Agency at any point. Women are just unwilling to learn the control necessary to fight their own impulses that allow others to control them.

    You know, there’s even an ever-pressing drive to remove all requirement for those controls to be learned. I wonder what we might call that imperative…? :)

  354. donalgraeme says:

    “Still, you don’t give up your Moral Agency at any point. Women are just unwilling to learn the control necessary to fight their own impulses that allow others to control them.”

    My argument was that they might not be able to learn or exercise that control, and would in fact enter what Morticia called “sexual auto-pilot” mode. I would like to be wrong on this, but more than a few other commentators at SSM’s old site, including JoJ, backed me up on this.

  355. an observer says:

    Victimhood is a role dictated by scriptwriters and programmers. The state promotes and is trengthened by victimhood.

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    HL Mencken

    Viva fascism!

  356. an observer says:

    No need for self control. No need for avoiding the opportunity for sin.

    “It just hapened…
    “He took advantage of me at a difficult time…
    “I just found myself there….

    Welcome to the feminine imperative. Consequences are now optional. The man is always wrong. Sluthood is empowering. Rational thoughts is no longer necessary.

    Lie back and enjoy the flight. Diversions and amusements shall be served shortly.

  357. Farm Boy says:

    me to see the Feminine Imperative. Until 48 hours ago, I had thought it was something Rollo and Dalrock made up

    Well, that made my day. Perhaps the last vestiges of the hamster were killed off

  358. an observer says:

    Western civilisation’s adoption of feminism has assumed moral agency and limited consequences. This is a disastrous combination that appropriates wealth from men and apportions blame to men. This will continue until it cannot.

    There are few choices. Either the judicial reform recognises womens moral agency and assigns consequences to their behaviour – which is unlikely.

    Or more likely, the system self-immolates based on unsustainable transfers from net wealth producers to net wealth consumers, in association with loss of rights for women. This is the outcome that vox day suggests. It willbe inconvenient, to say the least, even for men.

    I hope he is wrong. But i’m not optimistic.

  359. Farm Boy says:

    Would you like to know that someone could hold that kind of power over you? It’s not a pleasant feeling.

    But we do know how it feels. All it takes is a yell of “rape” or “he hit me” or “he molested my child”. And she doesn’t even need any talent, unlike a guy with tight game.

  360. an observer says:

    Congrats, ssm. Welcome to reality. Now practise the brace position and be able to use it.

  361. an observer says:

    Farm boy,

    Beta men know how that feels.

    Alphas and sociopaths don’t bother with social niceties.

  362. INTJ says:

    No, divorce rape or false accusations of rape or DV aren’t analogous to the control that Game has. The former take away control of your property and freedom, but they don’t take away control of your mind. Physical attractiveness on the other hand is quite analogous to Game. Without self-control, men will fall for it. The same is the case with Game. Without self-control (and regardless of whether women are as capable of self-control, they are taught today to act without restraint), women will fall for game.

  363. sunshinemary says:

    Farm Boy wrote:

    But we do know how it feels. All it takes is a yell of “rape” or “he hit me” or “he molested my child”. And she doesn’t even need any talent, unlike a guy with tight game.

    Yes, I thought of that as I was typing my previous comment.

    The thing is, pre-feminism, women had protection via their fathers/male relatives/society at large from men with a lot of game. And men did not have the hostile legal climate, so things were okay. There were social controls to protect men and women from each other’s worst tendencies.

    But now, whenever one side or the other gains some kind of advantage, it just gets used for evil purposes and it doesn’t seem like there are any social controls over how bad we can be.

    The fact that men’s legal dis-empowerment bothers my sense of justice but doesn’t scare me is because…well, I’m a solipsistic female, I guess. The idea of men all learning game and possibly using it for evil purposes, by which of course I mean refusing any commitment, doesn’t bother my sense of justice but it sure scares me. It scares me because women are so scr-wed if men decide to do that; feminist b.s. aside, women desperately need men. But I think on some level, most women do know that men, much as they may want us, don’t really need us. Hence the Feminine Imperative, I suppose.

  364. Haniel says:

    I hardly ever comment, but after reading the comments here, at Rollo’s and at HUS this week I felt I should throw in a bit. I believe this is the prelude to something bigger. Seriously, this all started with such a minor event (George on Huffpo). He did all right. The Media had the frame, he got in a few comments. What did we expect?

    Why did Sue use this as an obvious attempt to out all manosphere male bloggers? (every time she was given the obvious explanation, she acted like she didn’t get it) I keep going over it in my head, trying to fit the pieces together but something is missing. I think this has to be deeper than her simply settling grudge matches. She wants to be the spokesman for the manosphere. She was jealous George was on the show instead of her. I hope that’s all it is, but I get the feeling a storm’s coming. Outing would be the first logical step towards censorship.

    As an aside, SM, I really enjoyed how you handled yourself, but sometimes the best recourse to hate is indifference.

  365. deti says:

    INTJ:

    IIRC, Susan walsh says that picture is not of her.

  366. Pingback: Holiness Uber Alles. | The Society of Phineas

  367. szopeno says:

    I read dalrock’s blog occassionaly for a long time; In fact I have read it before I found about HUS. I comment very rarely here, almost never, but the comments here makes me want to do some whiteknighting.

    Anonymous reader, and Feminist Hater, so Mrs Walsh is a feminist? *facepalm*. I guess maybe from some of the commenters everyone not agreeing with them is a feminist. Maybe I am a feminist too, since I do not believe XIX century was good for family and females (check syphilis rates in the Great Britain – it’s not reflecting cheating rate of the woman, but the widespread practice of public houses), I do not believe females should be (or were) marrying earlier (read some demomgraphy papers – west from Hajnal Line for generations females married at the age 26-27, and lower age was only in times of crises; east from Hajnal line (e.g. my home country) female married age was lower, the lower the further east from Hajnal line you go. In the past, about 10% of males and females never married.

    Walsh has a clear audience – college girls. SHe advices them how create a happy relationship. She does not advocate hopiing a carousele – at least, I have never read a post where she would write “go ahead, sleep around, and then catch the beta”. She does not condone the behavior. She simply does not condemn it. Her mission is not to fix the world, fix the laws, correct the marriage. Her mission, stated openly, is to help GIRLS to find good relationship. If you will go there and will start spewing aggressive remarks, spreading the word, etc you will simply kill her blog and you won’t convince anyone. As such, you should not be surprised, if you would be banned. It’s like if I would go here and started to try to convince you that God does not exist, using the Dawkins-like tactics and manners, and using a verbiage which is common in atheists’ blogs, but surely would be considered extremely rude here.

    For me, her purpose is far more noble of the other bloggers, who are not condemned here, who seem to advocate how to f* pussies around the world, including countries where the marriage and the law are not as f* up as in the USA.

    As from posting anonymous, sorry, but for me there is a difference between me posting under a pseudonyme (and yes, you could out me quite easily), and under a name.

  368. Ton says:

    SSM just laid out the path to victory, but she should not worry. Most men don’t have the brass to live their life independent of women or go the pua route. Which is why I say we as a people will be replaced in our own nations

  369. greyghost says:

    She just gave us the effect of involuntary childless spinsterhood. The hysteria is a valuable asset for men. And it doesn’t need all men. Just enough to cause panic. MGTOW,PUA, “peter pans”, surrogate fathers, single father custody winners, all combined will be enough. At present it is actually voluntary due to feminism in the heads of the women. (I now when talking to women including young women I fully encourage the feminist line of being true to yourself) Only my daughters and my wife will hear the message we have here for women. ( it sails over the wifes head any way , daughters are still too young )

  370. Farm Boy says:

    women are so scr-wed if men decide to do that; feminist b.s. aside, women desperately need men

    Fish need bicycles? Who knew?

  371. Farm Boy says:

    well, I’m a solipsistic female

    Less than most, it would seem

  372. Farm Boy says:

    She does not advocate hopiing a carousele – at least, I have never read a post where she would write “go ahead, sleep around, and then catch the beta”. She does not condone the behavior. She simply does not condemn it.

    Well then, I suppose that fixes everything.

  373. INTJ says:

    @ deti

    Ah looked it up. You’re correct:

    “Haha, no, but even my daughter thought that! It’s pretty close to what I looked like in 1971.”

  374. INTJ says:

    @ szopen

    No families married earlier than that. According to Wikipedia: “the median ages were 22.75 for women and 25.5 for men;”. The average marriage age of 26-27 is skewed because of remarriages.

  375. L'addition says:

    I’ve got to agree with Szopen in that I don’t believe that Susan recommends the carousel for women. My take on her ‘recommended path for women’ is:
    1) be selective, don’t sleep around ‘like men’ (like the feminists seem to think that ‘all men’ do, or feminists say that you should). Women are not the same as men. Women are hurt by ‘the carousel’, it is not a path to happiness.
    2) virgin at marriage is not required (not recommended?)
    (my apologies for any errors – Susan is very capable of correcting any of my misconceptions)

    I have never seen her recommend the carousel, just that virgin at marriage is not required. Basically that mistakes can happen, you don’t need to marry the first guy that you sleep with. But sleeping around casually is not recommended. This is not ‘the carousel’ as usually described. As an atheist, I find this very hard to get excited (upset) by, however, I would not blame any man for only marrying a virgin (or very close to virgin) – that is his choice, hers is to sleep with someone before marriage. This sounds pretty reasonable to me, but chaque a son gout.

    I can see the difference between Susan and Dalrock (hate the battle between them, but see reconcilition as extremely uinlikely), but think that both are closer to each other than Susan is to feminism.

    YMMV, I’m a long time reader of both blogs at the same time. I am completely uninterested in any battle between the two. I would say, however, that I do not understand the recent change in trajectory of HUS. I hope that Susan has taken this decision for a good reason. I don’t like it, but she doesn’t seem to care that people are surprised…end of story; it’s her blog to direct as she wishes.

  376. deti says:

    SSM:

    You said: “The fact that men’s legal dis-empowerment bothers my sense of justice but doesn’t scare me is because…well, I’m a solipsistic female, I guess. The idea of men all learning game and possibly using it for evil purposes, by which of course I mean refusing any commitment, doesn’t bother my sense of justice but it sure scares me. It scares me because women are so scr-wed if men decide to do that; feminist b.s. aside, women desperately need men. But I think on some level, most women do know that men, much as they may want us, don’t really need us. Hence the Feminine Imperative, I suppose.”

    SSM, appropos to this is the always astute Mike C’s excellent comment left this morning at HUS. An epiphany of sorts:

    Here’s Mike C:

    “The value of “Game” and I use Game very broadly here in terms of not just specific tactics at a bar on a Friday night, but something all encompassing in terms of really the proper male attitude to bring to all interactions, the self-recognition of male value, along with the techniques and tactics is really about restoring the proper balance of power to intergender relations.

    “Let me be clear here. At the micro level, of course relationships are not adversarial and are about emotional connections and a fair exchange of value. At the macro level though, only the naive or obtuse would not understand there is a tension to male and female interests and each sex has their respective imperatives. In fact, this goes well beyond sex difference interests, and extends to racial difference interests, class difference interests. In one sense, all of human society and civilization is adversarial in that it is about balancing competing interests because very often what is in YOUR interest is NOT in my interest. Civilization, laws, and societal structures, traditions, morals, are about how do we balance those various interests without basically resorting to pure violence and force.

    “In our current society, the balance of power and interests has shifted overwhelmingly to the female side of the equation. Men incorporating “Game” into their interactions is the way to some day restore a balance, particularly in mating relationships. Most women including [Susan Walsh] in my opinion do not fully recognize just how far things are tilted in the female direction. Sure, someone like Susan will recognize some inequities in things like elementary school classrooms, but she still stops way short of any reasonable balance.”

    Here’s the money graf. Mike C again:

    “I would in fact argue that when you distill down to its essence every single argument she and I have had, along with her criticism of the various “Dark” Gamers the core essence of the objection is she thinks it gives the male too much power in the interaction. Much of the debate on the [Cowering Bad Boys of Game] thread is about power, who has it, and how is it exercised. Do you (some random woman) have the power to influence some random conversation I have with a guy in environment A? VD’s black knighting strategy is essentially about convincing men to exercise power they have but are typically loath to utilize. But it is ALL ABOUT POWER. Who has it? And how do they use it? That doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing. There is the benevolent exercise of power. But I have really figured out in recent days/weeks really what MUCH OF WHAT ALL THIS IS ABOUT. Many women including Susan are very fearful about men having too much power especially if that power can be exercised to objectives not in line with their desires/objectives. This is abundantly clear when Susan says something like she must “rethink Game” if the end objective is men getting sex “aka free pussy” instead of going for relationships which is more in line with the female preference.”

    “Male-female relationships also have this aspect of being simultaneously adversarial AND cooperative. It is the proper balancing of power dynamics which incentivizes the right level of cooperation on the part of both parties. Ultimately, Game is simply the way to restore a more optimal power balance. It can’t be sold that way to the masses. It has to be repackaged in a more friendly wrapper, but at the individual level it doesn’t have to be sold that way.”

  377. deti says:

    As Mike C pointed out, Game is about restoring the balance of power. And it is not all or nothing. Again, Susan and others seem to be conjuring that the hillsides will roam with packs of little Roissys and Rooshes, plundering city and country, and deflowering innocent virgins left and right. This is silly. Sure, there will be a few such men looking for “free pussy” and some will get it. (Let’s remember that more than a few girls seem to be willing to give up the p*ssy for free; and for those girls, the willing men always show up to service them. Caveat emptor and all that.)

    But most men learning game are doing it to regain some power so as to serve THEIR interests, whatever they are: casual sex, casual dating, getting a relationship, finding a wife, improving a marriage. And I do agree with Mike C that this is something of a threat to women: The idea that a man isn’t going to sit back and be content with being an accessory to a woman who has finally decided she wants him for x, y or z. I think women at large are a bit threatened by the notion that a man is much more than a “sexy cart horse” to whom she can hitch her wagon when she is ready (and not one minute before).

  378. Novaseeker says:

    Wow, what a lot of hateful posts over at Susan’s blog. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were one of those people who outed SSM. Pfft.

    The most interesting part of the whole thing was the idea that because SSM reconciled with her husband after his very problematic behavior (which she never hid, by the way), she is forever tainted from giving advice to people about how to have a good marriage. It’s a very odd kind of reasoning, really, because successfully reconciling after such a thing is an incredibly difficult thing to do, and really is a great source of strength and inspiration — but instead is used as a disqualifier forevermore. Of course, that’s a fundamentally anti-Christian point of view, but even apart from that it should be easy for those people who read enough of her former blog to get her life history to also understand that she never characterized her marriage at the time that was happening as a good Christian marriage. But yet that is what she is being portrayed as saying.

    I can see now that she attracted a virtual army of lurking haters. I suppose that’s not surprising. The Christian message is the subject of hate and scorn across the board today in any aspect where it contradicts with contemporary perspectives, worldviews and moralities. Nevertheless it’s a sobering lesson, and a sad one as well.

  379. TFH says:

    I maintain that a Democracy can only move in this direction. Once women start voting, they are very focused on ensuring that laws and social norms transfer resources to them, and costs/blame onto others (men and even children).

    While there are subtle differences between Anglo-American feminism and Scandinavian feminism, those are minor compared to the megatrend of how a democracy always is followed by a female-centric police state.

    We live in a strange interval where it is impossible to make the case that women having the right to vote can have this effect. In the past, this was an acceptable point of view, and in the future it will be too. But at present, it is not, despite the obvious sequence of events that follows.

  380. TFH says:

    On Game :

    I will add that it is much, much more than just picking up women. It is even more than LTR Game (even though the anti-Game nuts insist Game has no value in LTRs).

    Game governs all interactions. It refines leadership, salesmanship, and social likability.

    Game is the new literacy. Learn it, or be left behind.

  381. Farm Boy says:

    Good stuff Deti. Once again, you cut to the essence of the situation.

  382. Farm Boy says:

    Game is the new literacy. Learn it, or be left behind.

    Should it be taught in schools?

  383. Opus says:

    Allow me to address this to Sunshine Mary and in response to hers just a little above.

    I have never really understood what Game is, so bearing that in mind, what I think is happening and is going to happen, is that men, instead of generally having the idea that marriage is something they seek and are prepared to attempt to demonstrate preparatory commitment towards together with an attempt to provide a show of resources to any women they might seek to marry, are going to take a disengaged attitude – call that Game if one wishes. You only have to fall for a woman who turns out to be a carousel-rider once or twice to acquire the protective armour necessary to protect onself from heartache and failed courting (I eschew the word relationships). Modern conveniences like Micro-Wave Ovens and Washing-Machines largely deprive men of the need for women for material purposes; female earning power deprives them of the ability to woo through provision of assets, and with a climate wherein they can be deprived of any children of the family at will, many men – even if unconsciously – will be tempted to see females as good for only one purpose. The perenial shaming-cry of ‘you only want me for one thing’ will have at last been found to be true.

    I will add that my view is that – overall – women have great difficulty dealing with casual sex and also non-sexual dealings with males, and it is because the barriers between the sexes have been removed in the foolish notion that ‘the lion and the lamb will’ indeed ‘lie down together’, that a lot of the false allegations and the like have come about. Women do seem to need either the certainity that they are getting paid for short time love (prostitution) or receive all the benefits of long-term love (marriage) and are somewhat lost in that increasingly large area in between which at best treats them as Concubines (i.e. serial monogamy) and at worse merely around for the picking-up. The Law Courts then rush to ‘wash whiter than white’ those getting into difficulty, and who in earlier times would have been regarded as ‘no better than they ought to be’. I was voicing this in passing as recently as last Friday night to two male friends in the pub. Much as they clearly enjoyed my saying it, there was a sharp intake of breath and a cry that that was hardly Politically Correct. It seems to me to be so obvious that the fact that it seems to be unaccaptable to voice it in public shows how far removed we are from the previous notion that nice girls were essentially virginal and that marriage was merely a matter of romance with no (spoken) financial consideration. Now, even men, are supposed to approve female promiscuity on the ground that what (some – and just a few) men are able to get away with must be equally the birth-right of every empowered woman. My observation is that the sluttiest women are the ones who are most likely to call foul when they are indeed treated – as they claim they want to be – as no different from men. These slutty (frequently corporate-cubicle) women are the ones who are pushing the envelope furthest – as they pursue their divinely-ordained careers – which is why they are the ones to come unstuck.

  384. Francine says:

    @Cali

    I figured the actual case that was fought over, Levy v. Louisiana, might be an interesting starting point to your question: “Whether that should be paralleled by legal punishment for illegitimate children is a separate issue, though, I’d say. But I’m still waiting curiously to find out what those legal punishments were.”

    And it would appear, this case was not about legal “punishment”, but a denial of an illegitimate child to sue for malpractice that resulted in the death of his/her biological mother. From Wikipedia, “The Court noted that, while states do enjoy substantial powers to make classifications, states are not permitted to classify in a way that constitutes ‘invidious discrimination against a particular class.’”, so I would say that appears to be when the court said states could no longer distinguish between the legal rights of legitimate and illegitimate children.

    Though, as a side note, I’m somewhat surprised that at the implication that only a child (legitimate or otherwise) would be allowed to sue for malpractice. I would assume that a spouse, sibling or parent would be able to sue as well? Maybe they defined it as family member, and the child has to be legitimate in order to be considered family?

  385. Francine says:

    And now I see that I was spell Cail’s name incorrectly and that this has already been discussed (which I missed when I searched for the incorrectly spelled name). I apologize.

  386. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker writes about SunShineMary:
    I can see now that she attracted a virtual army of lurking haters.

    Yes. Looking back, some number of them surfaced in comments upon her blog, such as T.
    This fact is worthy of remembering. SSM and HHG have overcome some issues that all too often destroy marriages. Logically, women who claim to be in favor of marriage should celebrate this. However, as we see at the other blog, the exact opposite is the case.

    Game teaches men to watch what women do, and discount what they say. In this case, a number of women, at least one of whom runs a blog, have loudly claimed to be all for marriage, in some cases for years. Yet when presented with a woman who has worked with her husband to preserve marriage through rough times, these women, including the bloggess, rather than praise her, or ask for more information from her, rather have turned upon her like a herd of wild sows, seeking to rend her to bits.There would seem to be a rather obvious lesson, here, for those who can bear to see clearly (perhaps others need some glasses?)

    It is a similar lesson to that taught by the attack upon Badger, in my opinion.

  387. sunshinemary says:

    SSM wrote:

    But now, whenever one side or the other gains some kind of advantage, it just gets used for evil purposes and it doesn’t seem like there are any social controls over how bad we can be[...]The idea of men all learning game and possibly using it for evil purposes, by which of course I mean refusing any commitment, doesn’t bother my sense of justice but it sure scares me. It scares me because women are so scr-wed if men decide to do that; feminist b.s. aside, women desperately need men. But I think on some level, most women do know that men, much as they may want us, don’t really need us. Hence the Feminine Imperative, I suppose.”

    And Deti responded:

    As Mike C pointed out, Game is about restoring the balance of power. And it is not all or nothing. Again, Susan and others seem to be conjuring that the hillsides will roam with packs of little Roissys and Rooshes, plundering city and country, and deflowering innocent virgins left and right. This is silly. Sure, there will be a few such men looking for “free pussy” and some will get it. (Let’s remember that more than a few girls seem to be willing to give up the p*ssy for free; and for those girls, the willing men always show up to service them. Caveat emptor and all that.)

    But most men learning game are doing it to regain some power so as to serve THEIR interests, whatever they are: casual sex, casual dating, getting a relationship, finding a wife, improving a marriage. And I do agree with Mike C that this is something of a threat to women: The idea that a man isn’t going to sit back and be content with being an accessory to a woman who has finally decided she wants him for x, y or z. I think women at large are a bit threatened by the notion that a man is much more than a “sexy cart horse” to whom she can hitch her wagon when she is ready (and not one minute before).

    I’m not supposed to feel reassured by that, am I? :) Let’s rewrite your comment and imagine that I am saying it to you in 1971:

    As Betty F. pointed out, Feminism is about restoring the balance of power. And it is not all or nothing. Again, Phyllis Schlaffly and others seem to be conjuring that the hillsides will roam with packs of little Germaine Greers and Gloria Steinems, plundering city and country, and introducing legislation that destroys families and discriminates against men. This is silly! Sure, there will be a few such women looking for AFDC and “free government cheese” and some will get it. But it’s not like many will choose to have illegitimate children, rely on the government for support via fiat currency, or butthext with Tucker Max-rhymes-with-Goldman-Sachs or anything.

    Most women learning about feminism are doing it to regain some power so as to serve THEIR interests, whatever they are: casual sex, casual dating, getting an abortion, majoring in Women’s Studies, ending a marriage. And I do agree with Batty, er, I mean Betty Friedan that this is something of a threat to men: The idea that a woman isn’t going to sit back and be content with being an accessory to a man who has finally decided he wants her for x, y or z. I think men at large are a bit threatened by the notion that a woman is much more than a housewife on whom he can dump all the household drudgery while he heads off for his fabulous and fulfilling life in the workplace. So you see, all the demands of feminism are very reasonable, and you men don’t have a thing to worry about, because we women promise to use our new freedom only for good and not for evil.

    Basically that is sort of what women said, and men bought it. How’d that end up working out for them? Feminism should have made (and probably did make) men feel anxious for a very good reason.

    So, I stand by my assertion that whenever one side or the other gains an advantage, things tend to get out of hand. If Rollo is right (and I’m sure he is) that some women are trying to sanitize game in order to make it serve the feminine imperative, that’s probably the reason. Can you understand why game (and I don’t mean the SW version) might make women feel a tad anxious and why they might try to co-opt/control it? I’m not saying they should do that necessarily, but I certainly understand the anxiety that motivates them.

  388. eon says:

    SSM,

    It is OT from this thread, but you really have to read this article at CH: heartiste[]wordpress[]com/2013/04/08/five-minutes-of-alpha-fifty-years-of-pining/

    It is a recounting of a Daily Mail (UK) article, with tame commentary from Heartiste, that encapsulates soooo much of the stuff that has been talked about here and at the former place that shall not be mentioned.

  389. Twenty says:

    Political feminism* is to the battle of the sexes** as Pearl Harbor was to (the Pacific theater of) WWII. (The manosphere just represents the first calls to shipyards enquiring whether or not a few more of those Essex CVs could be brought online in the near future.)

    * Allowing women to use the law to rob and harass men.

    ** Competing imperatives, differing mating strategies, dissimilar preferences, WTFE.

  390. an observer says:

    SSM,

    It was a patriarchal culture (sp?) that ushered in the gilded era, when rapid industrialisation and improvements in the standard of living were palpable.

    The era of the suffragettes will be associated with the loss of personal freedoms, mass war-induced death thanks to the state, crushing personal debts, destruction of the specie-backed currency and fiat replacement, ruination of the family by no-fault divorce law and mass consumerism financed by credit. Of course, it could just be coincidence it happened with women’s ‘emancipation’ . . .

    Vox is doing a series on this topic. This is the most recent posting, in case you missed it:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/is-reality-misogynistic.html

  391. Höllenhund says:

    Well, Novaseeker, we know for sure that HUS a) isn’t a Christian blog and doesn’t call itself one b) it generally attracts women from the bottom of the SMP totem pole i.e. single, burned, frustrated, not exceptionally beautiful, often nonwhite women with psychological baggage. Of course a woman like SSM will be treated horribly there.

  392. Höllenhund says:

    “Can you understand why game (and I don’t mean the SW version) might make women feel a tad anxious and why they might try to co-opt/control it?”

    I’m not the one this is directed to but I’ll answer anyway. Yes, I understand it perfectly well. But no, I don’t give a damn.

  393. Höllenhund says:

    Re:L’addition

    “I would say, however, that I do not understand the recent change in trajectory of HUS. I hope that Susan has taken this decision for a good reason.”

    Damn right she has a good reason: her female readers and their hamsters demand it. They demand it because they simply cannot handle the truth about the SMP, and the reason they cannot handle it is that they’re sad, lame sacks of crap. Look, her female regularly write her e-mails complaining about the tone of the male commenters there. Just think for a second about how utterly lame that is. What’d you say if you found that some of Dalrock’s readers are sending him e-mails complaining about other commenters and asking him to moderate them? What’d you think of them?

    “Dalrockgate” has nothing to do with all this. That’s just BS invented by Walsh. More than a year earlier many of her female readers were already complaining that they “feel” “attacked” and “offended” by the male commenters and asked Walsh to practice heavier moderation. And she agreed. See the whining of her readers here, for example, in 2010:

    hookingupsmart.com/2010/08/13/tidbits/rachel-maines/

  394. deti says:

    SSM, April 8, 10:36 pm:

    Well, we might have to agree to disagree, but hear me out.

    Your reframe is a macro level examination and discusses implementation of feminism on a macro scale. I agree that that’s how feminism was sold, we bought it, we installed it, and how you describe it is pretty much exactly what we have. On a macro level.

    It is true on a macro level that under patriarchy in which men have greater social and political power, that power can be and has been abused. We all know what that is — attractive married men cheating with impunity; women subjected to violent physical abuse; women unable to leave marriages even in cases of violent physical abuse; men abandoning wives and children with impunity and protection from the “old boys’ network”.

    I was talking more on a micro level, in which a man — an individual man — asserts power over his own life to get what he wants out of it — out of HIS OWN life, without regard to how other men live or their individual wants, needs and desires.

    SSM, you have a deep blind spot (and, I dare say, a sore spot) in this area because your husband at one time used his individual power for illegitimate ends and you fear he will do it again – because you know he could if he wanted to. he has demonstrated to you and to himself that he has that power and it scares the living hell out of you. Another blind spot you have is that your husband is extraordinary as men go. He’s an alpha by any objective measure and by your description. Most men do not sleep with 30 women, or even 10 women, DURING THEIR ENTIRE LIFETIMES — much less while being married.

    One thing to remember here is that the so-called patriarchy helped more of these men get a wife. The SMP in its natural state when men and women enter it has an incredibly lopsided power distribution. Young women — even average looking young women — are SMP superstars. They have nearly all the power. (Part of the reason for this I think is to help the Plain Janes and ugly ducklings get husbands.) Most of the young men have almost no SMP power. There are a few young men who have some SMP power because of extreme good looks or natural swagger/attitude, or both, but they are very, very few and far between. All that most young men have is potential — what they could possibly become.

    That’s why fathers helped their daughters get husbands – because Dad could see who would be good to her and who would pump and dump her. It’s also why men are exhorted to love their wives — love being “Be nice to your wife, be tender, don’t force yourself on her, give her what she needs.” No man who loves his wife would ever, ever have sex with her against her will.

    Ideally, the way a man and a woman get together and mate for life is that they become willing participants in a slow-motion dance with each other. She has her trump card – sex – and she dollops out a little more of it just to him in exchange for a little of his time, his resources, a gift here, a lunch there. He has his trump card – investment and exclusive commitment — and he dollops out a little more of it to her in exchange for a little of her feminine charms — a touch, a hand grasp, a kiss, she presses her body against his, oral sex, etc.

    He pushes her, she pulls back and refuses to give him all the goods until she has a firm commitment in the form of marriage. She pushes him for more commitment; he pulls back and makes her demonstrate she’s worthy of his time, money and resources. He says “I want sex”, she says “show me why I should give it to you” and he does. She says “I want you to stay with me and take care of me”; he says “show me why I should stay with you and why you are worth caring for” and she does. In the meantime they both take advantage of the time spent with each other to learn compatibility – likes, dislikes, pet peeves, common interests, personality type.

    This is a really long way of saying that Game really has far more micro applications. It isn’t a broad political or social change movement. It’s much more deeply personal for a man, so that he can get for his own life what he wants and needs. Because he is trained to look within himself and not to others for the answers to life’s questions. Because he is trained to confront the problem and fix it HIMSELF and not to look to others to tell him what the solution is or should be.

  395. deti says:

    Thanks Farm Boy, but I didn’t write it. Mike C did — and in the lioness’s den, no less.

  396. Tam the Bam says:

    Höllenhund : “What’d you say if you found that some of Dalrock’s readers are sending him e-mails complaining about other commenters and asking him to moderate them? What’d you think of them?”
    Ask and ye shall receive. The lozzlllzophobes are marching up and down some comments-threads here in the last few days doing just that. But in public, I’ll allow.

  397. Pingback: Tug-of-war over the Abyss | Sunshine Mary and the Dragon

  398. INTJ says:

    Regarding HUS and the censoring of comments that women cannot stand, in the past I had thought that if Susan simply censored personal attacks and obvious trolls, that would have made it sufficiently woman-friendly.

    Unfortunately, I hadn’t taken into account solipsism. Turns out women have an uncanny ability to get extremely personally offended by a dispassionate analysis and start making emotional attacks lacking in logic. This is amplified by the constant need to obey the feminine imperative and avoid ceding even the slightest bit of power to men.

    This is also something I noticed with the comments at Good Men Project. There are a lot of females there such as Julie, Erin, Lisa Wade, etc. who constantly attack men for everything and refuse to ever acknowledge any male problem without saying that the problem is much worse for women.

  399. INTJ says:

    Whoops I meant Lori Day not Lisa Wade. :D

  400. L'addition says:

    @Hollenhund
    I like most of the people there, I used to like trading viewpoints with them. The discussions seem to go around and around though. It’s nothing new to me to move on when things get overly familiar – all blogs have turnover. I can’t say that I was a part of the targeted demographic, nobody took my money, it was fun for a while. I see a few familiar names here, which is nice (including Intj, who was a surprise, a good one though)

    Susan can do what she likes on her blog, but I find the sudden denial of previously accepted facts somewhat bizarre. And worse, the denial that anything has changed. It’s her blog to redirect , why not just say that she doesn’t want men there anymore? I tried asking what was up a few times, but was stonewalled. Radfems never threatened any man! SRSLY?

    I hope it works out for all involved but my presence is clearly not required and only decreasingly tolerated as far as I can see. I don’t need to go there to have my intelligence insulted, I have plenty of friends IRL for that…

  401. INTJ says:

    @ L’addition

    That you Major Clanger?

    I decided to explore the rest of the manosphere that Susan seemed to always be complaining about. All the blogs from which Mike C is supposed to be getting his “toxic” stuff. :D I felt that HUS had run its course and the true male viewpoint was no longer acceptable there.

    I posted the comment about Susan’s looks, which as expected got me banned from HUS. Of course, my comment was far milder than the comments that Susan and others at HUS have directed towards Roosh and Roissy.

    It’s truly sickening to see Susan’s conversation with Sock and how much she seems to be in denial about what males face.

    Btw, does Ted D hang out anywhere outside HUS? I’ve been missing his comments. :D

  402. hansolo007 says:

    @INTJ

    Ted hangs out mostly at marriedmansexlife (Athol) so you could read him there. If you have an email you can post it and I can send it to him too.

  403. hansolo007 says:

    INTJ, you can find Ted at Athol’s

  404. INTJ says:

    Thanks Han Solo. My private e-mail is birbaldesi@gmail.com

  405. INTJ says:

    Err public e-mail. :D

  406. an observer says:

    Farm boy,

    “Should it be taught in schools?”

    I suggested that, somewhat facetiously, in the thread above, here:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/how-we-came-to-embrace-illegitimacy/#comment-77913

    I was highly amused at the thought of the mostly female teachers attempting to teach game to boys. But i wouldnt suggest it. Such a franken-curriculum would probably have no resemblance to anything posted in the manosphere.

  407. L'addition says:

    Hey, Cap’n Han too! Cool

    Intj, how could you possibly leap to that conclusion?
    Curses! Foiled again! I would have gotten away with it too…if it weren’t for you pesky kids.

    To any that care;
    Drop the apostrophe, tack on ‘stp’ and you’ll find me on gmail.
    L’addition will be around here (have been enjoying the discussion here for years, mostly just as a reader), but you have any other friendly, fun places to hang out, please let me know. My private opinions are very similar to my publicly expressed ones though, I’m not looking for somewhere to rant.

  408. After re-reviewing Susan’s weekend long self-created attention binge, I have come to the conclusion that for all her efforts to ‘out’ manosphere bloggers, the only person she’s managed to ‘out’ was herself for the false-flag red pill friend-of-men pretense she’s held for so long, and I called out more than a year ago.

    The source of the nickname “Aunt Giggles” is Rollo Tomassi (the Rational Male). He’s taunting and mocking Susan.

    This is a funny story. In September of 2011 I had no idea who SW even was until she decided to call me to the carpet for my Wait For It? post in her own rebuttal post. I naively engaged her at HUS about it, and I referred to her as “Aunt Sue” because at the time people were referring to Roosh as “Uncle Roosh”. Later I realized what a farce she really was and altered that name to “Aunt Giggles” due to her tendency to LOL her dismissal of arguments and ideas that conflicted with her FI perspective that she had no valid counter for.

    The name stuck and now everyone in the manosphere knows who you’re referring to when you see ‘Aunt Giggles’. Honestly I think she owes me a solid for this, if anything it’s become part of her brand identity now.

  409. L'addition says:

    @Obs
    “Such a franken-curriculum would probably have no resemblance to anything posted in the manosphere.”

    the good man project could probably give a decent idea of the franken-curriculum. Even Matlack has left (AVFM covering this).

  410. szopeno says:

    frankly, after reading the SW words in context, I am convinced half of the commenters here have reading disabilities.

    She basically argued, that there is no real point in trying to be anonymous, as anyone can be easily identified.

  411. INTJ says:

    @ L’addition

    I noticed the leaving of Tom Matlack yesterday. I was curious as to whether it had anything to do with his falling out with feminist voices and him increasingly standing his ground against them. They didn’t give any reasons for the leaving, and just left an obscure announcement at the bottom of the page. I’ll check out what AVFM is claiming. :D

  412. INTJ says:

    Also looks like SayWhaat has given up trying to tone down her snark…

  413. Höllenhund says:

    HUS and Art of Manliness seem to attract the same type of women, for obvious reasons:

    artofmanliness.com/2012/12/10/manly-honor-vi-the-decline-of-traditional-honor-in-the-west-in-the-20th-century/#comment-294280

  414. @Höllenhund:

    The women they seem to attract pretty much all have the exact same quirk: enough awareness of the “problems” to realize its systematic and that they’re striking out, yet never any self-awareness that “what they want”, “what society wants” and “what society needs” might be 3 separate things. The 3 are always merged together in their own mind, which makes what they say “sound” somewhat accurate at first, but they’ve rendered themselves incapable of actually understanding the problem.

  415. L'addition says:

    @Intj

    I don’t think that they’re claiming anything much, just that it was always going to happen because, whatever else, Matlack seemed to be a decent guy. Beyond blue pill (somewhere in the deep ultra violet), but a decent guy nonetheless. It was a car crash just waiting to happen.

    It’s almost tempting enough to go back and see what you mean…almost. But I believe that I’m done there.

  416. Marellus says:

    Heh, I must come and comment here as well then …

  417. INTJ says:

    That thread is getting more and more amusing. Moonchild appears to be my dark alter ego haha.

  418. Höllenhund says:

    @Looking Glass
    That sounds reasonable but I think it’s more simple. The main problem of these women is that they fail to elicit the kind of male attention they want, and this frustrates them. Walsh, of course, pimps her site as a place for men and women to „politely” and „constructively” discuss the current SMP, but the fact is that I can’t recall any of her female readers saying something like „yes, I want to know what men think and say about this situation”. What they apparently do want from men is simple. They want men from the top 10-15% of the male hierarchy to comment there and, of course, politely tell these women what they want to hear. But this never happens, because such men generally don’t bother to visit blogs and comment there, and the other reason is that the average HUS reader is incapable of eliciting commitment and attention from the type of men she’s attracted to. So when you look at her female commenters, you see more and more frustration and bitterness.

  419. L'addition says:

    Howsabout Han, Ted and Marellus contacting Intj using the address above?

    Writing emails is a pain right now, but I think that there’s a conversation worth having (or did I miss something in my absence this year?)

  420. AAB says:

    The 1960’s may have brought about higher numbers of children being born out of wedlock, but don’t forget that it wasn’t all roses for kids prior to that. The children that were born in a stable marriage during the 1800s could well have been sent off to the orphanage or foundling hospitals if they were not wanted. Foundling hospitals were staffed by ‘wet nurses’ who basically oversaw the death of the child (post-natal abortion clinics really).

  421. Micha Elyi says:

    Boys growing up without a father usually become p*ssies…
    A

    Prominent examples: William Jefferson Clinton, Barak Hussein Obama.

    It is not a right to grow up with a rich caretaker and the state should only intervene if things get really critical (starving to death etc).

    I consider being born out of wedlock “really critical” and therefore that is the moment at which the State should intervene. No more unwed mothers happily chirping “Oh lookie, I made a baby – gimme a prize!” Instead the infant should be immediately placed into a stable, married two-parent home.

    But _moral_ shaming of children for what their parents did? Such behavior is inconsistent with any kind of legal principle.

    One of the stupidities of modern America is the collapse of what is considered moral to the merely legal.

  422. Micha Elyi says:

    [S]erial monogamy is just slowed down promiscuity.
    Novaseeker

    Truly.

    What’s the difference between serial monogamy and serial polygamy? None that I can see.

  423. Micha Elyi says:

    I am generally against the trend here to not care for bastard children _at all_. There is something to be said for trying to help them.
    GKChesteron

    I don’t see such a trend. I do see reluctance among many to continue propping up a polygynist State that recruits its harem by promising Make A Baby, Win A Prize. And be clear that when the polygynist State claims to “care for bastard children” (your term) it is lying. The polygynist State is passing out bennies not to children but to she who whelped them.

    Q. What’s the difference between a terrorist holding hostages and an unwed mother?

    A. The unwed mother doesn’t have to take hostages, she makes her own.

    If you wish to adopt “bastard children” into a stable, married two-parent home of your own I am confident that no one here will stop you.

  424. Micha Elyi says:
    A man with tight Game can simply dominant a situation and women will mostly fall in line.
    –a href=”#comment-78257″ title=”jump to comment”>Looking Glass

    Look, if women seem anxious about this, guys, ask yourselves how you would feel. Would you like to know that someone could hold that kind of power over you? It’s not a pleasant feeling.
    sunshinemary

    You make a good point, SSM. However, the “guys” pretty much feel that most 15- to 50-year old females are trying to stomp on their libidos all the time. So what if most men can’t articulate what’s going on – they still understand they are being toyed with.

    What if men stopped pretending that females have plausible deniability for all their sexual teasing via their clothes and war paint?

  425. Micha Elyi says:
    A man with tight Game can simply dominant a situation and women will mostly fall in line.
    Looking Glass

    Look, if women seem anxious about this, guys, ask yourselves how you would feel. Would you like to know that someone could hold that kind of power over you? It’s not a pleasant feeling.
    sunshinemary

    You make a good point. However, the “guys” pretty much feel that most 15- to 50-year old females are trying to stomp on their libidos all the time. Just to pick one example: unless she’s dressing a toddler or grade schooler, all those clothes a female labels “cute” are intended to evoke sexual interest from every man in visual range.

    What if men stopped pretending that females have plausible deniability for all their sexual teasing via their clothes and war paint?

  426. Pingback: Links and Comments #7 | The Society of Phineas

  427. AAB says:

    ‘Boys growing up without a father usually becomes p*ssies’

    Either p*ussies or prisoners. Prisons are full of men who were raised in single parent household (i.e mother only). So it seems that if a women is allowed to rule the household and riase the kids, then the kids turn out either thugs or wimps, neither of which is preferable in reality.

    Men need to have authority over their wives iun order to remedy this, i.e. the woman cannot run off to ‘daddy government’/policeman everytime something doesn’t go her way.

  428. Pingback: A Fathers Day call to repentance. | Dalrock

  429. Pingback: Asking the wrong question. | Dalrock

  430. Pingback: The Coming Suicide Epidemic

  431. Sid says:

    Your Nazi views are shocking and you should be ashamed of yourselves!! Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

  432. Pingback: Don’t forget your 30 pieces of silver. | Dalrock

  433. The Radical One says:

    I find it interesting how with MRAs the subject is always about nothing more than evading child support. For every unwed mother there is an unwed father. Why was she unwed in the first place. I know it couldn’t possibly be because she thought she was in love with a man, slept with him, got pregnant then he dumped her and refused to marry her! Never. Why women just spread their legs and have babies for the child support obviously!

    Now at What’s Wrong With Equal Rights I have stated many times that I do not believe men should have to support illegitimate children or should they have rights to them. But with MRAs the only concern is to 1) keep mothers from getting custody in divorce and 2) keep men from having to pay support. “Our paychecks, ourselves!” Right? No concern about men accepting they aren’t some innocent sexless fluff bunnies and might be responsible for the epidemic as well.

  434. Pingback: Why isn’t Carl good enough? | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s