Denying the existence of feminism.

Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies.  But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well…  Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.

– Glenn Stanton, Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity

One of the most striking features about modern Christianity is the pervasive denial that feminism has radically changed our culture, and as a result modern Christian women are in rebellion against all Scripture which offends feminism.  This is especially the case when discussing the social problems feminism has created.  Nearly every piece I read by modern conservative Christian leaders reads like an essay assigned with the direction “Pretend that feminism never happened;  what then would be the source of our problem?”  But feminism did happen, and denying that it happened is incredibly foolish.

In the piece by Dr. Dobson that I quoted from the other day, Dobson describes the putative oppression of modern day wives very much the way Betty Friedan did twenty years prior with her problem with no name.  At the same time he was channeling Friedan, he also denied that feminism still existed (in 1980):

2. She can become very angry at men and society for their perceived insults and disrespect. This source of hostility helped to power the now defunct women’s liberation movement and gave it an aggressive character. Fortunately, both men and women quickly recognized that that was not the answer.

In this article by Covenant Keepers they address the question of why men aren’t taking the lead in their homes.

(2) Some pastors do not teach about a husband’s leadership role because they fear being charged with male chauvinism.

Yes, but why are the pastors afraid of that today?  In dodging this question they are displaying the same cowardice as the pastors who are afraid to confront the rampant feminist rebellion in their own congregations.  This denial of feminist rebellion inevitably leads to the Christian leader trying to defend Scripture from charges that it isn’t feminist.  We can see this in another example from Covenant Keepers What Is God’s Design And Calling For You As A Wife?

I believe the reason why this idea of submission is so abhorrent to many wives is because the concept has been taken out of its biblical context, and this has resulted in many abuses.

Later in the same piece they explain (emphasis mine):

4. Be a submissive wife. I know for some of you, as you read the word submission, you are becoming very uneasy. If the idea of submission rubs you the wrong way, I want to encourage you to take another look at the definition according to Scripture. Submission should never be considered a word that denotes inferiority or a position that is contemptible to you. If this is your belief, let me assure you that your understanding of this issue is not a biblical one.

To the contrary;  while he is right that it doesn’t denote inferiority, with a handful of exceptions (women who aren’t in feminist rebellion) if a modern Christian woman isn’t “uneasy” with the biblical command of submission this is a sign that she isn’t understanding the Scripture.  The idea of a wife following her husband is contemptible to the modern woman because feminism has taught women that men are oppressors.  The only way to make submission palatable to the modern feminist woman is to distort Scripture beyond all recognition.  The right answer is not to explain that the Bible secretly agrees with feminism, but to be honest that the two are in irreconcilable conflict.  Thus the modern Christian woman has to choose between faiths;  she can either hold on to her feminism and follow Friedan, etc. or she can follow Christ.

That of which we do not speak.

Dennis Rainey of Family Life expressed discomfort at the thought of his female audience hearing Pastor Baucham (a man!) preach on submission in Ephesians chapter 5, but he couldn’t bring himself to name the problem:

And yet, in this culture, Bob, I feel like we poisoned the
stream about—I don’t know—four decades ago and really made it almost objectionable for a message like this to be preached by a pastor—by a man—to a mixed audience, at this point. I don’t want you to hear me apologizing that we did it—that’s not my point. I want to recognize that, in this culture, we understand that it does go against the grain of what a lot of women are taught. All I would say is, “If you can find a better way for a marriage to work, I’d like to see it.”

Who is this “we” who poisoned the stream?  Feminism has such a grip on modern Christian culture it has become something too terrifying even to name.

Rainey’s simultanious embrace of and denial of feminism is even more clearly on display in Encouraging Our Guys (H/T Empath).  Rainey and his guest Kenny Luck are selling their respective DVD programs exhorting men to man up.  As they make their pitch for men to view these two programs on the Saturday before Superbowl Sunday, they are very sensitive of the fact that in nearly all Christian households the wife has usurped the position of headship.  They don’t criticize this at all, they just beseech the wife to give her husband permission to attend the event even though this will mean she misses a day’s worth of ordering her husband around.

Bob: …You know, on Super Bowl Sunday, on the day of the game, you can pretty much count on the fact that most guys are going to want to kind of have that time blocked out and they’re going to want to watch the game. They are not going to be available to do a whole lot of “Honey, do” stuff around the house that afternoon; right?

Dennis: That’s correct. That’s correct.

Bob: So, I‟m thinking of a wife who is planning for that weekend. She’s got the option of either her husband, on Saturday, doing all the projects around the house so that he can watch the game on Sunday; or she can send him to the Stepping Up® Super Saturday event, down at the church, that’s happening in their community. We’ve got hundreds of churches that are participating in this; but she’s not going to get any “Honey, do” lists done that day. What would your counsel to her be, Dennis?

Dennis: Give up the “Honey, do” list for a day.

Bob: How did I know that was what you would suggest?

Dennis: Give it up! I’m not trying to be a guy who is abdicating responsibility. I’m actually—I’m actually encouraging you, as a wife, to look beyond the “Honey, do” list and beyond to making an investment in your husband’s life—to encourage him, not discourage him— but encourage him to become the man God made him to be. If you send him down to the Stepping Up Super Saturday event—I can’t guarantee this because he’s got a choice—he’s got a real choice, and some guys don’t make it; but a lot will. I’d encourage you to send him down here and find out more information.

Kenny:  I was just saying—the hall pass—“Ladies, here’s the deal. When you do give permission for a desired activity—but more importantly, when you encourage your man to take ownership of his life—spiritually, relationally, maritally— in the context of other men, that’s when you get a solid result versus hinting, hoping, nagging…

So, when you were talking about “Hey, let him go. Ladies, let him go! It will be so encouraging to him,” —that’s the first point.

Dennis:  …The wife needs to be very foxy, and smart, and know exactly what to say to her husband to get him to help champion this in your community.

All of this of course reassures the wives that the men who come back from the video event won’t expect to follow biblical roles in marriage;  the wife’s position of headship will not be threatened by this event.

Kenny then explains that the problem his video is intended to address is the broken male subculture.  Bizarrely, he claims the problem goes back 20 centuries.  Is he blaming Christ, or perhaps the early church fathers for corrupting the previously healthy culture of the ancient world?  He doesn’t explain, but he does state that while modern women have a much healthier culture than men do, women are now starting to show some problems as well (emphasis mine):

…what you have is men retreating from the caricature and withdrawing from responsibility. What’s interesting, though, on the female-side, is that, with the advent of, what I would call—female-independence, politically; female independence, financially; female independence, educationally; relationally, from men—with distancing of the need for a woman to depend on a man they now have the power, and pressure, and responsibility that goes with that.

And guess what? They are developing their own broken female-subculture as evidenced by Fifty Shades of Grey. They’re looking for diversions and relief from that pressure of assuming life, without partnership with a man.

Why can’t Kenny bring himself to speak the word feminism?  Also, note that he doesn’t frame this as a problem, except to the degree that it makes women unhappy or causes them to consume chick porn.

The irony of all of this is modern Christian men are guilty of failing Christian women, but a huge component of our failure has been to enable the feminist rebellion by refusing to confront it.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Covenant Keepers, Denial, Dennis Rainey, Dr. Daniel Wallace, Dr. James Dobson, FamilyLife, Feminists, Focus on the Family, Foolishness, Glenn Stanton, Headship, Submission, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

412 Responses to Denying the existence of feminism.

  1. donalgraeme says:

    Feminism is the modern equivalent of Voldemort from the Harry Potter- That Which Must Not Be Named. Other literary works also have similar foes, who likewise cannot be named, at least, not directly. For in a name is found Power.

  2. jf12 says:

    “Feminism, what’s feminism? All I see is women desperate for merely equal treatment with men, well anyway equal with the few good men who are good enough to be equal with women, along with liberation from drudgery, just like all the rich men are liberated from drudgery.”

  3. Pingback: Denying the existence of feminism. | Manosphere Me

  4. the bandit says:

    Here’s a curious observation: Whenever I rag on feminism (by name) on Facebook, all the likes only come from females.

  5. titanic says:

    As I continue to absorb the red pill, it just hit me that the whole idea of a “honey-do” list is unbiblical.

  6. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    The irony of all of this is modern Christian men are guilty of failing Christian women, but a huge component of our failure has been to enable the feminist rebellion by refusing to confront it listening to the Church.

    FIFY.

  7. deti says:

    “The irony of all of this is modern Christian men are guilty of failing Christian women, but a huge component of our failure has been to enable the feminist rebellion by refusing to confront it.”

    Several reasons come to mind:

    “We’re equal. The law says so. ”
    “That ‘wives submit to your husbands’ bit doesn’t mean what you think it means.”
    “That ‘wives submit to your husbands’ bit was for a different place and time.”
    “Do what I want or no sex for you.”

  8. MattyIce says:

    BRAVO, BRAVO Dalrock!

    “Thus the modern Christian woman has to choose between faiths; she can either hold on to her feminism and follow Friedan, etc. or she can follow Christ.”

    And it comes full circle… Adam puts all his faith in Eve and is lead away from Christ, today all these “Adams” with their complete faith in all the “Eves” are being lead away from Christ.

    [D: Thank you. Welcome.]

  9. MattyIce,

    (sidebar)

    …are you a BC Eagles fan or an Atlanta Falcons fan or both?

  10. sunshinemary says:

    The irony of all of this is modern Christian men are guilty of failing Christian women, but a huge component of our failure has been to enable the feminist rebellion by refusing to confront it.

    When, on occasion, pastor do confront feminism head on, there is always an outcry, but I think if they just held on and didn’t capitulate, people would begin to listen (I also think the churches would switch from having more women in them to having more men in them as angry females departed in rage). It really is cowardice on the pastors’ part that prevents them from labeling female rebellion and feminism for what they are.

  11. Bucho says:

    Based on that dialogue among Bob, Dennis, and Kenny, not only did it seem rather passive-aggressive, how can a single guy be sold on marriage when they are making these remarks about honey-do lists. Why spend the weekend doing tasks that probably don’t add any value to anything?

  12. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Great Post!

    “”Nearly every piece I read by modern conservative Christian leaders reads like an essay assigned with the direction “Pretend that feminism never happened;””

    I concur…….and it is MUCH WORSE in the Synagogue!

    “”Dobson describes the putative oppression of modern day wives very much the way Betty Friedan did twenty years prior””

    Need I say more?

    Shalom!

  13. As we keep saying, there is no 50/50; if the husband isn’t in charge, the wife is, and she decides when to give him permission to take ownership of his life. If that line didn’t sum it all up, I don’t know what would.

    Just sickening, to see two men begging women to let their husbands have one free day per year, and apologizing for being so presumptuous.

  14. RichardP says:

    “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

    I think we all know that the Hebrew word for “desire” used in that verse shows up in only two other places: “sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you” (Genesis 4:7), and the desire of one lover for another (Song of Solomon someplace, I think). In one instance, the term denotes someone wanting to dominate and overpower another. In the second instance, the term denotes the affection of one for another. So – how to know which interpretation to apply to the “desire” of a woman for her man? Experience has suggested to me that this particular term was used on purpose, as both interpretations can be seen at play in the interaction between a woman and her man.

    Assume for the moment that the woman’s “desire” is the same as the desire had by sin crouching at the door – a desire to dominate and overpower another (e.g., her man). And we know that God’s proper order is displayed in his announcing that “he will rule over you”. So – in this instance, we have two people attempting to rule the other. One legitimately, in God’s eyes; the other, illegitimately, in God’s eyes.

    What kind of society do we end up with when the law blocks the efforts of one of the parties to “rule over”, while allowing the other party free reign to exercise their desire to “rule over”? Particularly when the law is giving a free pass to “rule”, illegitimately in God’s eyes, to the wrong party.

  15. MattyIce says:

    @innocentbystanderboston Actually neither, just a Matt Ryan fan from NFL desolate southern California.

  16. jf12 says:

    Bucho asks rhetorically “Why spend the weekend doing tasks that probably don’t add any value to anything?” and deti answers “Do what I want or no sex for you.”

  17. feeriker says:

    It really is cowardice on the pastors’ part that prevents them from labeling female rebellion and feminism for what they are.

    One more time, just for the benefit of those who need reminding: when “shepherding” and “spreading the Word” are your livelihood rather than your calling, and your livelihood depends on the donations of those whom you shepherd and to whom you spread the Word, you tend not to do anything that smacks of biting the hand that feeds you.

  18. titanic says:

    Not only do women tend to be miserable being the leader in the relationship, men tend to be miserable being led. And most of the time neither knows what they’re missing.

  19. deti says:

    The only way to break out of this is for the man to take over leading; for the woman to get pissed off and sulk for a few days, and then adjust to the “new normal”.

    She’ll say “I’ll go to the pastor about this!” He should respond “OK. Go. I’m your priest, prophet and king. Our pastor is not.”

    She’ll say “I won’t stay married to you!” He should respond “OK. If you’re really planning on detonation, then let me know who your lawyer is.” And he should be prepared to walk that all the way out.

    She’ll say “No sex until I get what I want.” He should respond “OK. Let me know how the couch feels.”

  20. feeriker says:

    Thus the modern Christian woman has to choose between faiths;  she can either hold on to her feminism and follow Friedan, etc. or she can follow Christ.

    No need to insult everyone’s collective intelligence by pointing out which god(dess) the vast majority of these women have chosen to follow.

  21. Heheh,..Stepping Up® Super Saturday, at last Christian Culture has produced its Christian Kosher version of a PUA / Game seminar for unsuspecting chumps.

  22. UK Fred says:

    On the East of The Pond it is even worse. I became a Christian almost 35 years ago. I have probably missed about 150 services of worship in the church to which I was attached over that time. I have never heard a sermon preached on leadership in marriage in any of those churches. In the Methodist church I attend now, the minister (pastor) claims that the sermon is for proclaiming the word and not for teaching.

  23. Dalrock,

    This is the second best post you’ve ever created (second only to Threatpoint.)

    Dalrock & Mary,

    The irony of all of this is modern Christian men are guilty of failing Christian women, but a huge component of our failure has been to enable the feminist rebellion by refusing to confront it.

    When, on occasion, pastor do confront feminism head on, there is always an outcry, but I think if they just held on and didn’t capitulate, people would begin to listen (I also think the churches would switch from having more women in them to having more men in them as angry females departed in rage). It really is cowardice on the pastors’ part that prevents them from labeling female rebellion and feminism for what they are.

    They can’t. They can’t confront feminism because the women pick the church and if the Pastor starts tearing down feminism in church, he is hurting his earning power. The women will leave (and take their husbands and their tithes and offerings with them.)

    There would be no listening. None. All you would get is an empty church and an unemployed Pastor with a family to feed. This is the conflict. This is why the churchianity Pastors like Driscoll and others are FORCED to tell mne to “man up” instead of confronting feminism. They have no choice. They need to eat and pay mortgages. They don’t have a job outside of churchianity so…. they have to say whatever pleases the women. Their OWN marriages depend on that.

  24. MarcusD says:

    @the bandit
    Here’s a curious observation: Whenever I rag on feminism (by name) on Facebook, all the likes only come from females.

    Part of that may be due to men simply being afraid to be called anti-feminist (which some people seem to think is “anti-women” – equality, right…).

    @Matty

    And it comes full circle… Adam puts all his faith in Eve and is lead away from Christ, today all these “Adams” with their complete faith in all the “Eves” are being lead away from Christ.

    Interesting observation. I’m sure you or someone else could make a full post on it.

  25. MattyIce says:

    So it seems not only women, but church Pastors must also decide which god/God they serve… money or Christ?

  26. feeriker,

    One more time, just for the benefit of those who need reminding: when “shepherding” and “spreading the Word” are your livelihood rather than your calling, and your livelihood depends on the donations of those whom you shepherd and to whom you spread the Word, you tend not to do anything that smacks of biting the hand that feeds you.

    This!!!!!

    Feeriker gets it. Not labeling feminism as the problem and in direct conflict with Christianity, that is just a fiscal decision, nothing more. Because Pastors need to pay bills and husbands don’t want their wives frivorcing them by forcing them to attend a true Christian church, it will never get fixed.

  27. MattyIce,

    So it seems not only women, but church Pastors must also decide which god/God they serve… money or Christ?

    If they are married with children (and they don’t have a job outside of serving Christ) then… they can’t serve Christ.

    It really is that simple. How can you feed your family when no one is giving you a check because no one wants to listen to what you have to say? Maybe husbands do but if they drag their wives to a church where the Pastor tears down feminism, they all risk losing their own marriages.

    Feminist Imperative. Threatpoint.

  28. feeriker says:

    In the Methodist church I attend now, the minister (pastor) claims that the sermon is for proclaiming the word and not for teaching.

    Well, you have to give the guy some grudging props for at least verbalizing the dominant churchian hamsterbation, as utterly moronic a light as it might cast him in. Most pastors on the west side of the Pond would either ignore the issue entirely (no one brings such a subject up in polite conversation; it’s akin to discussing bowel surgery at the dinner table) or thunder in wrathful indignation that anyone would dare question their interpretation of the Word (which in what passes for the minds of many of such is akin to arguing with God Himself).

  29. Anonymous Reader says:

    One method of problem solving proceeds in this manner:

    Describe the problem in broad terms
    Break down the problem into easily understood parts
    Devise a method to solve one part of the problem
    Evaluate the success of step 3.
    Return to step 2 and repeat.

    As a society we are stuck part way through step 1. Aside from the “problem? What problem?” group, we cannot agree on even the broadest, most abstract view of the problem at the large-audience level. So there is no way to proceed down any solution-ladder on a large scale.

    At the micro level, within families and slightly larger groups, there is room for problem solving, but only when agreement exists on what the problem actually is, and who should be in charge of leading the solution.

    PS: Killing all the PUA’s isn’t a solution, not now nor ever in the future, for a number of reasons…

  30. Rainey and his guest Kenny Luck are selling their respective DVD programs exhorting men to man up.

    Hmmm,..sounds an awful lot like another secular group that sells DVDs with more or less the same message…hmmm,..

    BTW, someone needs to send these guys this link:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/17/science/la-sci-sn-better-to-be-right-than-happy-20131217

  31. jf12 says:

    Because threatpoint.

    That was the shorter version. The longer version starts: Because we as a society decided to make it easier for single women, and especially for single mothers, to live their lives without men, then women have been given the keys to the family car. Women are no longer constrained to making empty threats while back seat driving. Society now has women’s backs if the women decide to frivorce, so the threatpoint of frivorce moved drastically towards women’s advantage. But admitting that the threatpoint moved seems to too-highlight the existence of it: “Isn’t it such an awful thing that it’s so easy for a woman to get a divorce! nudge nudge wink wink And here’s the number of lawyer I used, she’s great!” So, instead, some pretend to deny it “Divorce is terrible for everyone! Especially for women!” maybe with the good intentions of keeping the women away from divorcing.

  32. greyghost says:

    I think this is really interesting to watch. I commented a few times here http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/22/your-husband-doesnt-have-to-earn-your-respect/
    Not to be riding your jock Dalrock, but are you the only mens Christian blogger? Vice the other churchian bloggers? MarcusD keeps sending over stuff from that catholic site and those people are jacked up and seem happy about it.

  33. AR I think we are stuck in number 2. This is maybe the 31st comment on this thread. By the 150th there will be a game definition debate and something or other about Marxism and Frankfurt economics and a third tier philosophy called Neverherdovus

  34. greenlander says:

    Great post, Dalrock

  35. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    MattyIce says:

    March 12, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    BRAVO, BRAVO Dalrock!

    “Thus the modern Christian woman has to choose between faiths; she can either hold on to her feminism and follow Friedan, etc. or she can follow Christ.”

    And it comes full circle… Adam puts all his faith in Eve and is lead away from Christ, today all these “Adams” with their complete faith in all the “Eves” are being lead away from Christ.

    This is a bad comment because it’s not related to the post at hand. Nowhere does it mention Adam and Eve, but MattyIce jumps right into it. Forgive me if I have little trust, but why did you instantly think of them? Did you watch the disgusting SNL Skit with Lena Dunham? Why not concentrate on Dobson?

    Anyhow, stop twisting the Bible. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that Adam “put his faith in Eve”. There have been some trolls lately and 99% of them are currently twisting the relationship and words in the Bible regarding to Adam and Eve. Like “Adam was a bad leader” and other serious bullshit.

    The Biblical literalists are good for one thing. They are hardcore fans of accurate, lasting language and wouldn’t let these twisted meanings nor words into their vocabulary.

  36. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    In the piece by Dr. Dobson that I quoted from the other day, Dobson describes the putative oppression of modern day wives very much the way Betty Friedan did twenty years prior with her problem with no name.

    I think donalgraeme’s first comment was gold concerning this subject.

    Feminism is the modern equivalent of Voldemort from the Harry Potter- That Which Must Not Be Named. Other literary works also have similar foes, who likewise cannot be named, at least, not directly. For in a name is found Power.

  37. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Voldemort – That Which Must Not Be Named.

  38. Lol, there is no such thing as marriage with one party having the ability to use the state. Come Dalrock, since you say it’s ‘Christians mens’ fault for allowing this to happen, go on and explain exactly what you think Christian men should have done…

    I’ll be waiting.

    Oh, women choose this and continue to choose this. The serpent offered them the fruit (feminism) and they took it… again… what part of that don’t you get? Man cannot control women, at the end of the day, she has free will and chooses what she does with it.

  39. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that Adam “put his faith in Eve”

    I’m thinking you missed the sarcasm.

  40. Once again. Adam’s option, in this case “man’s option” is to leave Eve to her own sin.

  41. @jf12, Roosh has a great post (one of his best IMO) about your point today:

    http://www.rooshv.com/the-contradiction-of-pursuing-casual-sex-while-advocating-for-traditional-values

    To your and Dalrocks point:

    A popular manosphere saying is that women are gatekeepers to sex and men are gatekeepers to commitment. I wish this was an absolute truth, but it’s not. As a collective, women are often gatekeepers to both sex and commitment. Most men reading right now can surely attest to their failed attempts to secure commitment from women they slept with, and if you poll the entire population of men, you may find that they are the initiators of monogamous relationships more often than women. It only makes sense for this to be true: it is way more damaging for a man to have his woman sleep with another man and get cuckolded than the other way around. The 0.5% of the population who are skilled players and have more say with commitment don’t put a dent into this common reality. As a sex, men have very little say in determining the relationship dynamic.

  42. fh,

    Once again. Adam’s option, in this case “man’s option” is to leave Eve to her own sin.

    That is what is happening. That IS the problem. You have just defined exactly what people like Stanton, Dobson, and Driscoll are trying to stop men from doing!

    But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well…

    Well indeed. I suppose if Christ told His disciples that any man who refuses to marry a woman and breed will surely burn in Hell for all eternity, then maybe Stanton, Dobson, and Driscoll could have some actual scripture to force men to “man up…”

  43. MarcusD says:

    @greyghost

    CAF is only part of the story. There’s a significant network of crypto-feminist Catholic bloggers around.

  44. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Lena Dunham made a skit doing a liberal parody about Men’s Rights Activists.

    –> http://www.the-spearhead.com/2014/03/10/saturday-night-live-promotes-the-mrm-by-accident/

  45. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    LOL!

  46. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The ridiculous outdated “Time” magazine has published articles within minutes about how MRA’s are outraged by Lena Dunham’s SNL sketch. It’s like seeing a skit in real life. LOL!

  47. Ras Al ghul says:

    IBB

    “They can’t. They can’t confront feminism because the women pick the church and if the Pastor starts tearing down feminism in church, he is hurting his earning power. The women will leave (and take their husbands and their tithes and offerings with them.)

    There would be no listening. None. All you would get is an empty church and an unemployed Pastor with a family to feed. ”

    Then these men have no faith. None. They should never have become pastors they know the score, the bible tells them that the Lord will be with them if they follow him and they do not believe it.

    They aren’t just apostate. They are antichrists and antiprophets

    And I will be blunt, I don’t think things will go as badly for them as you think IBB. There’s a reason so many women are flocking to Islam, and it isn’t because Islam is feminist and has no rules.

    Imagine a pastor saying frivorced and remarried people are going to Hell. Straight out they are unrepentant sinners. That there are rules to follow. That repentant sinners can be forgiven, but unreprentant ones are not.

    I tell you now, it would bring people hungry for the truth, hungry for answers, hungry for a real religion. A religion without rules, without sacrifice is empty.

  48. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    The dissertation I posted further up (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/denying-the-existence-of-feminism/#comment-114090) is especially meant for you, as it touches on a lot of the points you make in this post (if you’re short on time, I’d recommend Chapter 1, pp 1-35).

    There’s even a feminist taxonomy.

    The citation: Skiff, David M. Measuring Partner Violence Chronicity and Prevalence in the Religious Community: Contextualizing Marital Submission. Diss. University of Rochester, 2009.

  49. greyghost says:

    Then these men have no faith. None. They should never have become pastors they know the score, the bible tells them that the Lord will be with them if they follow him and they do not believe it.

    You have that right NO FAITH.
    Far to many associate nice deeds and female approval (gina tingle) with “Christian” goodness.

  50. Anonymous Reader says:

    alcestiseshtemoa I am sure most men in the androsphere are aware of Lena Doughgirl’s little infomercial for Planned Parenthood on SNL, and most either do not care, or regard it as an indication that the righteously angry men are starting to gain some traction. But since you brought it up, I’ll point out that plenty of conservative feminists will point to Doughgirl’s obligatory nudity and boring, not funny, sketches as “teh feminism” that they oppose. Never mind the fact that Doughgirl’s cable series, “Girls”, gets plenty of viewing from … whom?

  51. Anonymous Reader says:

    empathalogicalism
    AR I think we are stuck in number 2. This is maybe the 31st comment on this thread.

    Which “we” do you mean? The “we” who babble here in comments, or some other “we”?

  52. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    The part that distresses me the most is, by caving in to the feminine imperative, these “pastors” have closed off the church to men as a path to God.
    Slice that up and add it to your corn flakes in the morning.

    Alcest’s observation of the Saturday Night Live skit is off topic but, it is hopeful in that feminists are taking notice. They have had the soapbox all to themselves for far too long.

  53. Lurker no. 9 says:

    What I’m failing to understand is, why are these putatively tradcon types so tolerant of female impiety towards the male gender? “gets mad at men for their disrespect of women?” Why would you even marry a woman if she was capable of ever feeling that way? Can’t you just wait for a woman who is naturally incapable of disrespecting her man?

  54. Han Solo says:

    Rollo,

    That was a great post by Roosh. And it is totally true that women have a huge say in who they commit to. For women under 30, they are the commitment gatekeepers. Once women’s looks start to fade then the commitment gatekeeping starts to be more equally shared but there are still lots of 30 and 40-something y/o women who are talking about how so and so men wants to marry them but she doesn’t them. At some point, maybe in their 50s and certainly by their 60s then men become the primary gatekeepers of commitment but in their peak-looks years, women are.

    I talked about this in my post here:

    http://www.justfourguys.com/are-men-the-gatekeepers-of-commitment/

    When women blame men that they can’t find a relationship and that men hold all the power, what they really mean is that men that are 1-4 points higher in relationship value won’t commit to them and only want sex.

    Of course they could get a relationship fairly readily with a man that was roughly at her level.

    Since about 1/2 of all American women marry by 25-29 y/o, we know that there are many that never were too picky or they soon learn, and yes, some unfortunately marry someone they’re not attracted to and then divorce (http://dalrock.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/2012allracesnevermarriedbig.jpg) but the large number of women that are too picky have a huge effect on the marriage/relationship market.

  55. Han Solo says:

    Hmm, now both my comments are in moderation. Is there a links limit? I used 2 in one and 1 in the other.

    [D: It triggers at two links, but I'm not sure why your following comments were also held in moderation. Maybe you hadn't posted with that email address before and it saw you as new.]

  56. rl says:

    The breakdown of female-male relationships is just another social change evolution of human social systems. Perhaps we don’t need to get married, have children any longer? There are a lot of people who don’t need someone else as a crutch to rely on. They are happy being self reliant. People who don’t need anyone else all the time are strong people than the weak, clingy, and needy. Needy people constantly whine about everything, everyone, and are very annoying.

  57. Hey Dalrockas!

    Maybe the reason that men never speak about feminism and the sources of it is that the most-read Christian blog never discusses the sources of feminism. :)

    Cue the marxist deconstructionist churchians to call the words of Jesus noise, berate the Great Books, and teach that Jesus came to abolish the Law of Moses, while also never discussing the causes of feminism. :)

  58. Lurker no. 9 says:

    Perhaps so, rl. I’m just wondering, since the people here want a woman to be so subjugated to her husband, why are they doing it like this at all? Maybe they should just accept that what they want is impossible, and get in the 21st century.

  59. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker No. 9
    What I’m failing to understand is, why are these putatively tradcon types so tolerant of female impiety towards the male gender?

    Offhand I speculate that the “traditionalism” in question is like modern “conservatism” – i.e. the liberalism/radicalism/feminism of one generation back. Remember, we are immersed in feminism all the time, and it takes a conscious act of will to not be feminist to some degree or other. A lot of people don’t really think things through to the logical conclusion.

  60. Thinkn'Man says:

    ” Dennis: …The wife needs to be very foxy, and smart, and know exactly what to say to her husband to get him to help champion this in your community. ”

    Translation: “manipulate, manipulate, manipulate”….

    Good Lord, does it EVER end?

  61. greyghost says:

    Sooner or later Dalrock discussions of the issues and shining the light on the blue pill leadership will go to the actions needed to make a correction. That is going to be the fun stuff. Just think young men getting actual advice on how to live there life and thrive with out the burden of women. I would even go as far as having children and families with out women.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/03/mummified-woman-in-detroit-suburb-likely-dead-6-years/

    http://madamenoire.com/119071/dead-3-years-and-no-one-notices-film-explores-the-life-and-death-of-joyce-vincent/

    These are stories that need to be the norm for women that fail to marry (commit to give to other rather than pursue their hypergamy) at 24 and become members of churchian worship.

  62. feeriker says:

    Good Lord, does it EVER end?

    No.

  63. And I will be blunt, I don’t think things will go as badly for them as you think IBB.

    Agreed. A few weeks ago at a Catholic Latin Mass, the priest during his sermon mentioned how wives are subject to their husbands. It wasn’t even his main point; he was using it as an analogy to explain something else, and just tossed it out there like it was understood. No one gasped indignantly or got up and left. Now, I can’t say that it didn’t annoy any of the women there, or that none of the men got a beating over it when they got home. But for the most part, that crowd accepts it and tries to live that way.

    In a more modernist church, yes, it would be a shock to their system if a pastor suddenly rolled out such truth on marital roles, and some people might get upset, try to get rid of him, whatever. But some might see it as a breath of fresh air. And really, if you take it upon yourself to preach the gospel, aren’t you supposed to expect a certain amount of danger along with that? Most of the Apostles were martyred, and missionaries have been following in their example for 20 centuries. And you’re going to call yourself a pastor but refuse to teach something you know is true because someone might yell at you?

  64. feeriker says:

    Re: picking the church to attend: 

    Probably should have ended at point #1…

    As soon as I read this: “Husbands have a spiritual leadership role – within limits” [!!!!], then I knew there was no point in reading any further. Then again, this being FotF, I wasn’t the least bit surprised either.

  65. Which “we” do you mean? The “we” who babble here in comments, or some other “we”?

    If the (horses ass) shoe fits…..

    But I was actually referring to the “we” that you mentioned.

    As a society we are stuck part way through step 1.

    Tough to follow, I know. Blows your (horses ass) frame.

  66. feeriker says:

    And really, if you take it upon yourself to preach the gospel, aren’t you supposed to expect a certain amount of danger along with that? Most of the Apostles were martyred, and missionaries have been following in their example for 20 centuries. And you’re going to call yourself a pastor but refuse to teach something you know is true because someone might yell at you?

    Cail has just neatly summarized the night-and-day difference between churchianity (the norm in the western world) and true New Testament Christianity (almost invisible and threatened with extinction in the west).

  67. animal says:

    Cail beat me to it. The day I have to ask permission from my wife for anything is the last day of my life.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous Reader
    Which “we” do you mean? The “we” who babble here in comments, or some other “we”?

    Empathalogicalism:
    If the (horses ass) shoe fits…..
    But I was actually referring to the “we” that you mentioned.

    “We” in the comboxes as a sorta kinda general group have a clue what is wrong and what can be done at the micro level: control as much of your environment as you can, starting with yourself, in an actively anti-feminist manner. Do this with the tools that have been sharpened up. Seek other men who can be awakened from the feminist drugging. Yeah, easy to say, not so easy to do, but it’s a plan, it breaks the problem down to smaller pieces, and it can be evaluated continuously.

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    And as a postscript, those who are churchgoing need to drop little redpill bombs into their churches from time to time, it does not have to be some great, dramatic, AMOGish John Brown moment, it can be little bits of reality stated to other men at quiet moments. Because subversion of White Knight leadership has to start somewhere…and as Dalrock has tirelessly and repeatedly documented, far too many of the extremely visible leaders of many churches in the US and other parts of the Anglosphere are always willing to stand up for the “right” of women to behave as badly and irresponsibly as they wish, without ever paying any sort of penalty.

    At the very least, subvert the notion that women are “more spiritual” than men.

  70. MarcusD says:

    As soon as I read this: “Husbands have a spiritual leadership role – within limits” [!!!!], then I knew there was no point in reading any further. Then again, this being FotF, I wasn’t the least bit surprised either.

    The heretical and cult part makes sense, though.

  71. MarcusD says:

    Ratzinger/B16 once said: “the catastrophic failure of modern catechesis is all too obvious.”

    By the way, 2013 had the lowest numbers of Catholic baptisms since mid-WWII.

  72. MarcusD says:

    Worth noting:

  73. Tom C says:

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” – Voltaire

    Maybe to learn what rules over you, find out what you are not allowed to name?

  74. Yes AR,
    I know FAR better than most what to do, and venture that I do (and have done it for a decade) it more than 95% of the vacuous pontificating commentariat I “babble” about. This is not sport, it is not a hobby, it is not, for me, good fun debating other men about esoteric bullshit.

  75. JDG says:

    (I also think the churches would switch from having more women in them to having more men in them as angry females departed in rage).

    I think far too many of them would follow their wives down the road to the church of her liking. I have seen it. Confronting feminism in Western churches badly needs to happen, but I believe it won’t. I believe we are under God’s wrath, and feminism is here to the end of Western civilization as we know it.

  76. MarcusD says:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-women-should-embrace-the-bs-in-college-to-make-more-later/2014/03/10/1e15113a-a871-11e3-8d62-419db477a0e6_story.html

    A message to the nation’s women: Stop trying to be straight-A students.

    No, not because you might intimidate easily emasculated future husbands. Because, by focusing so much on grades, you might be limiting your earning and learning potential.

    I’m always amazed at the face-saving women feel they need to do…

  77. I think far too many of them would follow their wives down the road to the church of her liking.

    Maybe so, but “too many” for what? For the church to stay in business and for the pastor to keep his job? If so, then he should shake their dust from his sandals and preach the Word to someone else. Separate the wheat from the chaff; if 90% of the congregation turns out to be chaff, let them go and preach the truth to the 10%.

    I agree with you that it’s not going to happen, except in rare churches where the people are hard-core and demanding traditional teachings. But that doesn’t let the rest off the hook. The sad thing is that in most churches there are probably a handful of people — especially men, but probably also some women who want to be better wives and would like some good scriptural guidance — who would be open to the truth, but won’t hear it because their pastor is fearful or so inured with feminism that he doesn’t know what he’s missing.

  78. Lurker no. 9 says:

    Because, Marcus, to allow the other side any meaningful victory is to risk having to Bend The Knee forever. That’s how we all tend to think, and why we rationalize the things we do in a way that keeps us at least equal in social rank, if not superior, to the rest. For to be the low man on the totem pole means they’ll never let us forget it.

  79. tradcon women are pretty much all just stealth feminists, as are all white knights.

  80. galloper6 says:

    I suspect there is a hidden demand for a Confident Streetwise church were men can be MEN, Where Alpha is encouraged , taught and practiced. The kind of men it would get and keep would attract women. Zeal and good works would be high. I believe the early English Puritain church was like this. Cromwell did not lead wussies.

  81. greyghost says:

    (I also think the churches would switch from having more women in them to having more men in them as angry females departed in rage).

    I think far too many of them would follow their wives down the road to the church of her liking. I have seen it. Confronting feminism in Western churches badly needs to happen, but I believe it won’t. I believe we are under God’s wrath, and feminism is here to the end of Western civilization as we know it.

    You know something. Maybe we should have faith in the women that yearn for a man to slap them down. Imagine the status hike a woman could get staying in a church that spoke the truth as the “rebellious sluts walked out with their sissy limp dick husbands. I wonder how sexy a preacher would be with the “balls” to tell the truth. he could do sermons compare their church with the feminized supplicate churches playing to feminism instead of the word. In this world of wimps competing for victim status a man speaking as a man would bring some new unfelt emotions.

    http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2014/03/11/Colorado-man-saved-from-flood-faces-backlash-for-suing-rescuers/1201394549385/

  82. greyghost says:

    MarcusD
    I see your graph shows that women are not impressed by wimps supplicating for their approval.

  83. MarcusD says:

    @Greyghost

    The meaning behind the attendance graph is likely going to be difficult to determine – the supplication aspect almost certainly plays a part.

  84. MarcusD says:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/duke-university-porn-star-belle-knox-denies-parents-heartbroken-article-1.1717057

    The Duke University coed who turned to porn to pay tuition claimed Monday that her parents are not upset with her X-rated off-campus activities.
    Miriam Weeks, 18, denied a report that her dad, an Army doctor, was heartbroken when he learned of her moonlighting gig upon returning from deployment in Afghanistan.
    “My parents aren’t upset,” Weeks told the Daily News Monday in between filming scenes for an upcoming adult film.
    “I want my family left out of it. If people criticize me that’s one thing, but leave my family alone,” Weeks said.
    She said she was “really, really upset” over an online article Monday in The Daily Mail that identified her parents as Dr. Kevin and Harcharan Weeks, devout Catholics from Spokane, Wash.

    I’ll bet she’ll get tired of it, then come back to church, and a pastor will say to some young man: “Man up and …”

  85. margaret59 says:

    I am totally shocked that a husband must “ask permission” from his wife to watch the Superbowl? or anything else, really. Certainly, a husband should discuss MAJOR decisions with his wife, and take her concerns into consideration..but..watching a football game? Once a year?

    OMG, I hereby apologize for any women who are so bloody stupid that they think they should control their husband’s every move and interest. Permission? How many wives think that asking their husband’s “permission” to go out for a girl’s night amounts to abuse? We really need to grow up.

  86. Stg58/Animal Mother says:

    An alternative to the axe hanging over salaried pastors’ heads is for the pastor to have a job outside the church. He is then free to preach as The Spirit leads him, not as the women in the church lead him.

  87. oblivion says:

    I just wanted to throw this out there. This modern day situation sucks, I really wanted a family, but the laws and the women are too steep a price. Ill give up nearly everything i have in life to get what i want, but I just cant give up my self respect. Most modern day marriages in america really have the asking price of a man to give up his self respect in order to raise children. the worst part is that after he gives it away, there is a really high chance that he wont be allowed to actually be a father. Two weekends a month, if everything goes wrong, just aint a silver lining. Its a slow torture.

  88. Cail,

    And I will be blunt, I don’t think things will go as badly for them as you think IBB.

    Agreed. A few weeks ago at a Catholic Latin Mass, the priest during his sermon mentioned how wives are subject to their husbands. It wasn’t even his main point; he was using it as an analogy to explain something else, and just tossed it out there like it was understood. No one gasped indignantly or got up and left.

    Apples and Oranges. Or should I say, empowered by hierachy vs fear of losing money and threatpoint.

    A Catholic priest isn’t hired by his parish. As far as I know (I’m not Catholic) but I believe the diocese places him. And he earns (what?) $12,000 a year? $15,000 a year? And the RCC gives him a car and place to live. And in almost all cases, he was never married and he has no children to support.

    Your priest at the Latin Mass can pretty much speak truth to power from the Bible and well… if the feminists want to drag their beta-husbands out of there and never return, no skin of his nose. He’s going to get his $15K a year either there, or somewhere, anywhere. He has no financial disincentive to saying things that the feminists might find repulsive. He is paid. And if that church loses all its members, the diocese will place him elsewhere.

    Most importantly, the RCC is almost never married. So if he says in Mass that wives must submit to their husbands because its right there in the Bible, he doesn’t have to worry about coming home to an angry, screaming, harpy of a feminist wife, her attorney, and their frivorce papers. He has nothing to lose.

    Protestants? Its different isn’t it Cail? A Protestant pastor must “interview” to be the pastor of his church. He is not placed there by any higher authority. So of course, if he wants to make money, he is going to have to say what the people of that church want him to say. A pastor in a low-crime, modern, middle-class, suburban neighborhood, might earn $60 to $100K a year (or more at a megachurch.) He has a wife and children. And he might not have a parsonage. (Many of them do, but not all churches have those.) So he is going to need bigger bucks than a RCC priest. So speaking truth to power in these cases, he has a lot more to lose than your average RCC priest.

    This is the number one reason why I will never-ever be a member of a Protestant congregation where any of the pastors are actually paid by the church. It creates a conflict of interest. This conflict of interest is mitigated in the RCC because of its hierarchy and the decisions they make in placing priests. A Protestant church has no real hierarchy. All it is supposed to have is the King James Bible. Unforuntately, far too many pastors make their living by ONLY being pastors. I don’t think that is a good idea.

    I’m a non-denominational Protestant. I was once (kinda-sorta) Catholic and I just didn’t feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. I’ve felt it in just a few Protestant congregations, but in almost all those cases, the pastor was a lay-pastor.

  89. Anonymous age 71 says:

    @oblivion: “Most modern day marriages in america really have the asking price of a man to give up his self respect in order to raise children.”

    That is exactly correct. I created a terrible fuss many months ago when I reported that early in my marriage, my wife was acting strange, and I began to wonder if she was having an affair. I also realized that while maternal custody isn’t the worst thing that can happen to a child, it is the worst thing that DOES happen to most children. I had to kiss off on my self-respect AND ASK NO QUESTIONS. (A reminder that I am now convinced she did not have an affair, because leopards do not change their spots, and it is highly unlikely a woman will commit adultery early in a marriage then be faithful for nearly 40 more years.)

    I realize some men would refuse to ignore it, caring more for their self-respect than their kids. That is their choice, but I don’t think seeing your kids in maternal custody, on drugs; sleeping under a bridge; or in prison, is real good for self-respect.

    No man should ever be in the quandary I was in. But, that is what marriage in any nation which has no-fault divorce means. In fact, being allowed to keep your kids free from maternal custody by sacrificing your self-respect is almost a blessing from God, since most men don’t have that choice. She simply pulls the trigger and you are gone with no choice of ignoring self-respect.

    But, in response to having to sacrifice my self-respect, I have been preaching since around 1984 DON’T GET MARRIED!!!

    Once you sign on the dotted line, your self-respect is gone, gone, gone. Don’t do it.

  90. b g says:

    Margaret59

    Yeah, I was laughing to, why would any couple behave like that…but of course, we mostly liked each others. Neither myself or my late wife would even have dreamed of asking for permission for something the other needed, we would have simply insured that we made certain that it could happen. Is love truly that dead?

  91. Looking Glass says:

    @MarcusD:

    From “page” 28 of that Thesis you linked:

    “However, Bendroth (2001) notes “although, on the one hand they embrace ostensibly feminist norms of mutuality in housework and equal opportunity in the workplace, they clearly oppose what they perceive as a secular elitist bias in the political feminist movement” (p. 50).” Even the researchers see modern Evangelical Women as mostly Feminist.

    Though, I think the very next page just admitted that Women are more likely to commit Intimate Partner Violence than Men (see page 29’s percentages). Actually, it pops up again at the top of page 49.

    So the entire Thesis is premised on the important problem of IPV among the religious… who have significantly less of a problem with it than everyone else. Oh, and it’s really important for Women, yet they around 50% higher likelihood of committing violence inside a relationship.

    Talk about decent work done by an utter fool.

  92. Is love truly that dead?

    When marriage is reduced to a series of “honey do this or I’ll do that!” then its not so much that love is dead. It was never born. That is not a marriage created in love (certainly not on her part.)

    I could probably count on one hand the number of women I have known in my life where divorce was simply not-an-option ever to be considered in their lifetime (not for any marriage they would enter.) If divorce is ever truly on the table (for any reason) then love really isn’t there (in my opinion.)

  93. b g says:

    Anonymous age 71

    Guy, I am 65, we were married for more than 45 years. Why the hell would you be doubted your wife early in your marriage? Those are the easy years of your lives together. The work is hardly beginning.

  94. Looking Glass says:

    @b g:

    It’s technically illegal, as it all hinges wholly upon the Wife’s State of Mind.

  95. infowarrior1 says:

    @galloper6

    Unfortunately Puritans suffer under the same faulty theology assumptions with soul as the bride of Christ as the church in the 12th century:

    Bridal mysticism did not disappear in the Reformation.
    12
    Edward
    Pearse follows Bernard: “God the Father gives Christ unto the Soul,
    and the Soul unto Christ; he gives Christ for an Head and Husband
    5
    Feminized Christianity
    to the Soul, and he gives the Soul for a Bride or Spouse to Christ.”
    13
    Puritan sermons used the dominant metaphor of the Christian as the Bride
    of Christ and the relationship between Christ and the Christian as that of
    a man and a woman. Cotton Mather, addressing the Puritans of the late
    seventeenth century, spoke of God’s approach to the soul “under the Notion of a Marriage,”
    14
    applying passages from Scripture that refer to the
    church as bride to the individual Christian. Mather, while recognizing
    that the mystical marriage first referred to the Church, applied it also to
    each Christian: “Our SAVIOR does MarryHimself unto the Churchin
    general, But He does also MarryHimself to every Individual Believer.”
    15
    The Puritan Thomas Shepard stated that “all church members are and
    must be visible saints . . . virgins espoused to Christ.”16
    In the following century the Puritan Foxcroft in a funeral sermon
    spoke of the grave as a happy place in which “the Saints shall be impregnated” and from which they would arise “as some happy Bride from her
    Bed of Perfumes, call’d up to meet her royal Bridegroom.”
    17
    The sweetness of Pietism, the Protestant version of the Baroque spirituality of the
    Counter-Reformation, has roots in bridal mysticism. Thomas Hooker
    preached that “Every true believer . . . is so joined unto the Lord, that
    he becomes one spirit; as the adulterer and the adultresse is one flesh. . . .
    That which makes the love of a husband increase toward his wife is this,
    Hee is satisfied with her breasts at all times, and then hee comes to be ravished with her love . . . so the will chuseth Christ, and it is fully satisfied
    with him. . . . I say this is a total union, the whole nature of the Saviour, and
    the whole nature of a believer are knit together; the bond of matrimony
    knits these two together, . . . we feed upon Christ, and grow upon Christ,
    and are married to Christ.”
    18
    Hooker carries forward into New England
    Protestantism the central ideas of medieval mysticism: the total union of
    God and the soul, a union best expressed by the erotic imagery of marriage and the assimilation of eating.

  96. infowarrior1 says:

    The roots of feminization of the church is as follows:

    Like the light pouring through the great windows of Chartres, the
    brilliance of the High Middle Ages is colored by the personality of Bernard of Clairvaux. Like many great men, Bernard contained multitudes. As a monastic who united prayer and theology, he looked back to the patristic era, especially to Augustine. A monk who renounced the world, he set in motion the Crusades, whose effects are still felt in the geopolitics of Europe and the Middle East.A celibate, he introduced into Western spirituality an eroticism that developed into spiritualities he would have condemned.Hence, Bernard was, at the same time, the instigator of religious war and the propagator of a spirituality that cultivated the affections,
    including the affection of eros, cleaving, if only in a small way, masculine and feminine spirituality. How men responded to his teaching I will discuss later. But Bernard’s use of erotic language to describe the relationship of the soul and God was very appealing to women. Of Juliana of Mount-Cornillon, a thirteenth-century biographer wrote, “Since the writings of blessed Bernard seemed to her so full of mighty flame and sweeter than honey and the honeycomb, she read and embraced them with very much devotion, honouring this saint with the privilege of an immense love. Her whole mind was absorbed with his teaching: she took pains to learn it by heart, and fix in her memory, once and for all, more than twenty of the sermons in the last part of his commentary on the Song, there where he seems to have outstripped all human knowledge.”The use of erotic language to describe the relation of the believer to God was not unprecedented, but Bernard, for reasons that will become clear, did not choose to acknowledge his intellectual debts. Bernard claimed that “if a love relationship is the special and outstanding characteristic of
    bride and groom it is not unfitting to call the soul that loves God a bride.”Realizing that this application needed defense, Bernard explained that although none of us will dare arrogate for his own soul the title of bride of the Lord, nevertheless we are members of the
    Church which rightly boasts of this title and of the reality that it signifies, and hence may justifiably assume a share in this honor. For what all of us simultaneously possess in full and perfect manner, that each single one of us undoubtedly possesses by participation. Thank you, Lord Jesus, for your kindness in uniting us to the Church you so dearly love, not merely that we may be endowed with the gift of faith, but that like brides we may
    be one with you in an embrace that is sweet, chaste, and eternal.Having established the principle for the use of such language, Bernard then elaborated. He referred to himself as “a woman”
    and advised his monks to be “mothers”—to “let your bosoms expand with milk, not swell with passion”—to emphasize their paradoxical status and worldly weakness.
    Bridal mysticism has its patristic precedent in Origen, whose heterodoxy makes him a dubious authority. Probably for this reason, Bernard neglected to acknowledge the source of his ideas in Origen. Origen’s Commentary on the Song of Songs was “the first great work of Christian
    mysticism.”Following rabbinical tradition that saw the bride as Israel, Origen saw the Bride as “the Church”or “the whole rational creation”
    and also (with no explanation for the extension) as the individual soul.
    One suspects unexamined Platonic assumptions.
    The individualism of this interpretation was contrary to the original
    image of the community as bride discussed in the previous chapter. Yet
    Origen was very influential, and the ecclesiological interpretation of the
    Songslowly gave way to the individual interpretation in which the soul
    of the Christian is the bride: “the individual soul of the mystic takes the
    place of the Church collective.”
    Origen recognized the dangers of sensuality in his interpretation: “Do
    not suffer an interpretation that has to do with the flesh and the passions
    to carry you away.”
    The Song of Songsfor Origen is about “the soul that
    seeks nothing bodily, nothing material, but is aflame with the single love
    of the Word.”
    The soul as the bride of God is an allegory in Origen and
    Bernard, but the allegory cannot be extended to the individual soul precisely because it is individual. In the New Testament, the bride is the Church.
    Even worse, this allegory was taken up into the increasing humanization
    of the relationship of the Christian and Christ, and the individualChristian person, body and soul, came to be seen as the bride of Christ. Thus,
    sensuality and spirituality joined hands. Female mystics took the language
    to heart, and developed “the sensual imagery” in the Song of Songs“much
    more openly than … in the official interpretation.”15
    As Barbara Newman
    points out, “women with a talent for sublimation need not even give up
    their eroticism. Beginning in the twelfth centtury and increasingly thereafter, the brides of Christ were not only allowed but encouraged to engage
    in a rich, imaginative playing-out of their privileged relationship with
    God. Christ as a suffering, almost naked young man, was an object of the
    devotion of holy women.”
    This bridal status of holy women gave them
    an added cachet in the male imagination. As Abelard wrote to Heloise, she
    began to outrank him “on the day she became the bride of his lord while
    he remained a mere servant.”
    Because of this extension of the metaphor of the Song of Songs, Bernard and the mystics who followed him used the language of marriage
    to describe the conformity of the soul to Christ, the transformation into
    Christ, and the deification of the Christian. Bernard believed that marriage
    was the highest type of human love and was therefore an apt symbol for
    the love of God and the soul. Likewise, Beatrice of Nazareth felt that “the
    divine Spirit modeled her soul according to his own image, and conformed
    it very appropriately to his own likeness with some proportional harmony”
    and speaks of this process as a “divine embrace and union.”
    Bridal mysticism with its implicit eroticism came to be the principal way in which the
    union of Christ and the soul was expressed, and it united with penitential practices. Ernest McDonnell summarizes the medieval development:
    “Without ceasing to be a means of expiating sins and suppressing unruly
    passions, penitential practices were more and more inspired and illuminated by the idea of conformatioor configuratiowith the suffering leader of
    mankind, with the crucified Christ. With literal following of His acts and
    words as the basis of everyday life, these mulieres sanctaedesired not merely
    to conform but actually to relive the passion, in all its excruciating horror.”
    The language that expressed the union of the soul and God in
    erotic terms was highly congenial to women. As Valerie M. Lagorio in her survey of mystical literature concludes, “in the works of the
    women visionaries, one notes the prevalence of Brautmystik, the love affair
    between Christ and the soul, leading to espousal and marriage.”
    Birgitta
    of Sweden usually referred to herself in the third person as “the bride.”
    After 300 in Germany, “It was chiefly among women . . . that the Brautmystikwas received with fervor.”
    Mechtilde had a vision of Gertrude
    of Helfta: “[Mechtilde] saw the Lord Jesus as a Spouse, full of grace and
    vigor, fairer than a thousand angels. He was clad in green garments that
    seemed to be lined with gold. And [Gertrude] for whom [Mechtilde] had
    prayed was being tenderly enfolded by his right arm, so that her left side,
    where the heart is, was held close to the opening of the wound of love; she
    for her part was seen to be enfolding him in the embrace of her left arm.”
    Medieval eros, which delighted in bright colors and knights who received
    wounds of love, is prominent here. Christ had revealed himself to Gertrude
    “a youth of about sixteen years of age, handsome and gracious. Young as I
    then was, the beauty of his form was all that I could have desired, entirely
    pleasing to the outward eye.”
    Hildegard of Bingen carries the erotic imagery a little farther in her song “O dulcissime amator,” in which she addresses Christ: “O sweetest lover, sweetest embracer. . . . In your blood, we
    are joined to you, with nuptial rites, scorning men, and choosing you.”
    For Hildegard, and many others,
    the bridal union of the soul and
    Christ is not simply higher than earthly marriage; it replaces it and takes
    on some of the physical eroticism of the missing sexual union. Margaret
    Ebner feels Jesus pierce her “with a swift shot (sagitta acuta) from His
    spear of love.”
    She feels her spouse’s “wondrous powerful thrusts against
    my heart,
    and she complains that “[s]ometimes I could not endure it
    when the strong thrusts came against me for they harmed my insides so
    that I became greatly swollen like a woman great with child.”

    Jesus spoke
    to her these words: “Your sweet love finds me, your inner desire compels
    me, your burning love binds me, your pure truth holds me, your fiery
    love keeps me near. . . . I want to give you the kiss of love which is the
    delight of your soul, a sweet inner movement, a loving attachment.”
    had learned of this kiss from Bernard: “I longed for and greatly desired to
    receive the kiss just as my lord St. Bernard had received it.”
    Henry Suso, whose writings were known to Margaret, demonstrates
    the convolutions that men had to undergo to adapt this language to their
    spiritual situation. In the Little Book of Eternal Wisdom, the Servitor (an
    aspect of Suso) speaks of the “strange longing”
    he feels for Wisdom,
    whom he sees as feminine, Sapientia. But then the Servitor says of himself
    that “the heavenly Father created me more lovely than all mere creatures
    and chose me for his tender, loving bride.”
    Wisdom then addresses the
    Servitor: “I place the ring of our betrothal on your hand, clothe you in
    the best garments, furnish you with shoes and confer on you the engaging
    name of bride, to have and to hold forever.”
    Revelation becomes a love
    affair. Wisdom says to the loving soul, “every sentence of Holy Scripture
    is a love-letter written by me exclusively for her.”
    The Eucharist becomes
    a love-union with the “beloved Spouse,”
    “the table of divine sweetness
    where lovers are nourished by love.”
    The Servitor says, “my heart would
    be satisfied,” “if I were granted the grace to receive into my mouth one
    single drop from the open wounds of my Beloved’s heart.”
    38
    The connection between bridal mysticism, Eucharistic devotion, and the devotion to
    the Sacred Heart are all present in this passage, which has sexual overtones
    that sound peculiar to the masculine ear.
    This tone stems from the Song of Songs, the “Book of Love,” as Suso
    refers to it, and dominates in his writings.
    On occasion, Suso uses other
    metaphors, but the blood and flowers of his mystical eroticism of suffering suffuse everything he writes. The soul languishes for love of God; God
    suffers for his love of the soul. Suso prays to Mary to “spread over me your
    rose-colored mantle, dyed with the Precious Blood of your dear child.”
    Although it is difficult to grasp the personality of a medieval writer, Suso
    may not have been a fainting, languishing dévotin reality. His ability to
    switch suddenly from raptures to sober scholastic distinctions gives the
    impression that he was a stolid German soul, but that he thought he ought
    to be like the Servitor, ravished with love-longing.
    In the few later mystical writings by male writers, the bridal
    metaphor is not dominant, but nothing of equal emotional intensity replaces it. Catholic mystics, such as Theresa of Avila and John of

    the Cross, employed bridal metaphors through the Counter-Reformation. John of the Cross was a great poet, and he handles the metaphor
    of the soul as bride with great skill. Thus, the incongruity of the metaphor
    is softened, but remains nonetheless.
    Denys Turner summarizes the result of the predominance of bridal mysticism: “The Western Christian has
    traditionally been a female soul in love with her Bridegroom.”

  97. infowarrior1 says:

    Leon J Podles Church impotent Chapter 6

  98. b g says:

    innocentbystanderboston

    Life requires honey does for both, it always does. It is a team or your truly screwed. My wife had the wisdom to seek the experience of older women in my family because we were very different than her own culture. She would never directly would tell me what she had told her, but much later she once laughed and said you know every single time we got in trouble it was because she had ignored that advice. I just laughed and said that because we had had so few really hard argument that I knew exactly what she had been told. She then laughed and said, yeah, you’re not a complete idiot and they all told me that too by the way. Sometimes, you just have to laugh, she was talking about three generations of women…girls are girls ;-D

  99. Pingback: Sins of Omission- Part 3 | Donal Graeme

  100. A Catholic priest isn’t hired by his parish. As far as I know (I’m not Catholic) but I believe the diocese places him.

    In our case, our priest isn’t diocesan (few Latin Mass priests are), so we do pay him directly. That’s not really relevant, though, because many diocesan priests embraced feminism wholeheartedly even before their congregations pushed for it — even when their congregations opposed it. Liberal orders like the Jesuits and Franciscans led the charge on this stuff, even as it cost them members and followers.

    As I’ve said before, “follow the money” just doesn’t work on this topic, or at least it doesn’t tell the whole story. The pastor of an independent church, whose salary depends entirely on the collection plate — yeah, he might tailor his preaching to the wishes of his donors. But for a priest, and I suspect for a pastor in a larger denomination, it’s about A) being liked, especially by the women of the church; B) not having to deal with the headache of angry women’s committees storming into his office; and C) not getting calls from his bishop/superior asking why his people are complaining and whether he really can handle the job.

    But most of all, they believe it. Most of them believe that “wives be subject to your husbands” is really about “mutual submission,” and that wives need to have their husbands in harness for family life to go well. They’re not preaching against their beliefs to keep their followers from revolting; they’re preaching from the heart.

  101. jf12 says:

    Lurker jokes “Can’t you just wait for a woman who is naturally incapable of disrespecting her man?” but it’s not funny. Almost all women are naturally (extremely) unsubmissive and contemptuous, and therefore the few women who are not that way should be more commended.

  102. jf12 says:

    @infowarrior, marriage as mutual eating is good doctrine.

  103. JAM says:

    very off-topic: has anyone ever done a study on the wage dollar value that men and women respectively earn per workplace death or injury? I think the results would be enlightening. And yet another nail in the steel-studded casket that is the wage gap myth.

    Dalrock, this might be an original topic to which to apply your statistical sledgehammer.

  104. Marissa says:

    As I’ve said before, “follow the money” just doesn’t work on this topic, or at least it doesn’t tell the whole story.

    Good point. Often “follow the Enemy” works better.

  105. Soullite says:

    This IBB person does understand that, at their most basic, his arguments aren’t conducive with remaining in the church at all, doesn’t he?

    I mean, it’s not like most men are going to hear him out, believe him, and then go to church on Sunday. Those men will most often leave church, and they will very often leave God behind with it. He is, then, arguing for the dissolution of Christianity itself. He just isn’t clever enough to see his own arguments to their natural end.

  106. Pingback: The “truly” … whatever | Crowhill Weblog

  107. Soullite, no, he doesn’t seem to. That’s the problem with tradcons: they can’t see that they’re actually helping the other side. If they could see it, presumably they’d stop doing it.

  108. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    Just what I was thinking.

  109. Pingback: Darock–denying the existence of his Marxist Churchian Crusade! Progress! Dalrock is now realizing that the feminist movement has changed the culture!!! | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzoz

  110. lzozozozolzozoz

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/darock-denying-the-existence-of-his-marxist-churchian-crusade-progress-dalrock-is-now-realizing-that-the-feminist-movement-has-changed-the-culture/

    Darock–denying the existence of his Marxist Churchian Crusade! Progress! Dalrock is now realizing that the feminist movement has changed the culture!!!

    Darock–denying the existence of his Marxist Churchian Crusade! Progress! Dalrock is now realizing that the feminist movement has changed the culture!!!

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/denying-the-existence-of-feminism/

    For quite some time now, Frankfrarter Marxist Dalrock has been spearheading the “long march through the institution of Christianity,” teaching that men needed to learn Game, instead of teaching women the tenets of Christianity. With all his charty, flashy economic goodness, his lust for mainstream instalanches, and his proclivity to announce that words can mean anything at any time, and thus nothing and everything at the same time, Dalrock is a natural cultural marxist/frankfarter, crusading against the spirit of Christianity, alongside his loyal flock of frankfartians, lead by Boxer et al. who label the words of Jesus “Noise” and teach that Christ came to abolish the Law of Moses.

    Long story short, Dalrock is doing his marxist duty in introducing the sexual revolution into the Church, in his tinglzozozo-centric Christianity, which his fall fanboy flock of frankfartians lap up, like little poodles.

    But wait! Now there is progress! Dalrock is now realizing that the feminist movement has changed the culture!!!

    This places Dalrock far, far ahead of all the churchiansz.

    Soon, Dalrock may realize that true Christians do not need game! What Dalrock might realize is that true Christians do not need Feminism! Soon Dalrock may realize that Jesus did not teach game, but that he came to fulfill the Law of Moses! (Cue the h8rs and attackers!)

    Dalrock may realize that if True Christians followed Genesis and the Bible, and exalted the Great Books for Men in their institutions, they would not have to be slaves to butt and gina tinzgzlzlzozozozooz!

    O Happy Day!

    Soon, so very soon, Dalrock might realize that by claiming words can mean anything and everything, and by teaching men to kneel before tingzlzozoozozooz instead standing before god, he has effectively been a Marxist warrior, marching through Christianity and destroying the meaning of words, all for an instalanche here and there, and a bit of fawing attention from his flock of fellow, lesser marxists!

    lzozozozozo

  111. It is not about money. That is a distracting argument that is too obvious, low hanging fruit that is so easy to sell it makes it easy to dismiss. Imagine all the social issues that we can explain away with -follow the money- , sometimes that argument is spot on. Now list one or two where outing the money aspect really made a difference, that it lathered the masses to corrective action.

    I’m not suggesting there is no financial aspect to big ministry. Of course there is. But focusing on hat as the root of this narrowly defined issue is to clever by half.

    The roots are more complicated. Fear is a huge one, The Lift is another one, both of these describe very fundamental parts of the male mind. Someone mentioned Podles. These aspects of the male mind were, even in the medieval church, driving the feminization even to kooky ends like the Baby Jesus Dolls he writes of women carrying around back then.

    Courage and a (unfortunate term) devil-may-care attitude are remedies. Soullite is wrong, it would not lead to dissolution of the church because the reaction where men just stop going is already there, and the result is a 65% female church body collectively. We’ve covered that ground already. The right reaction would lead to an upheaval and purge, as at first men, dragged by their wives, sought churches that remained devoted to the churchian feminine imperative. Eventually they would run out of alternatives, and eventually men would be drawn to church where the ratio was 65% men! That would bring women back too.

  112. tz2026 says:

    Part of the problem is the easiest way to see who is the leader is a fit-test.
    And it is easier not to fight, confront, argue, or say “no”, so headship isn’t a crown of gold, it is a crown of thorns.
    Many can recognize LGBT as “disordered”, but few would go so far as to say it of men and woman in the family when the man is not the head and the woman not submissive.
    Yet most women don’t have any trouble submitting to an Alpha (or Al-the-PUA), or her boss, or the policeman or other government official who says step back. The only ones they won’t submit to is to a loving husband.
    (On a related blog there was a recounting of “fill in every embarrassing medical detail into this iPad” by a woman who after a quick bit of objection to the security simply submitted – here is where she should NOT have submitted, who was this nurse to demand the information?).
    Submitting to anyone and everyone is no better than not submitting even to the husband.

  113. This documentary tells of the nature of Dalrock’s and Boxer’s long march through the halls of the church, so as to replace Moses, Jesus, the US Constitution, and Western Civilization with game (butt & ginza tinzgzlzlozoz)

    lzolzoo

    [D: I did it all for the fiat dollars!]

  114. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    March 13, 2014 at 8:12 am

    Yes, ARCClergyALT. They truly believe the modernist view of male/female relations. I still don’t understand mutual submission, and this is a phrase used by the RCC.

  115. Anonymous age 71 says:

    b g says:
    March 13, 2014 at 2:20 am

    Anonymous age 71

    Guy, I am 65, we were married for more than 45 years. Why the hell would you be doubted your wife early in your marriage? Those are the easy years of your lives together. The work is hardly beginning.

    Where and why did you come up with that theory?

    I supplied no-fee counseling for 10 years, and virtually everyone said their first years were the hardest. Divorce statistics show the same thing. After a time those who don’t get divorced, which is mostly in the first few years, usually start mellowing out and learn how to be married. Our first years were very difficult.

    Furthermore, it was not a case of my personal failure in doubting her, as you imply. She was acting strangely and I clearly said so. Are you sure you aren’t a Baptist minister, trying to re-frame it as somehow my fault?

    I try to understand when people disagree that we are different people and will thus have different viewpoints. But anyone who says early in a marriage is the easy time has no grasp of the reality of marriage at all. Go pick a fight with someone else.

  116. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Speaking of asking permission from your wife, I wrote an op-ed on men’s issues to our local newspaper, every 2 months for 15 years between 1978 and 1993, and I was usually not nice at all.

    I remember one day they printed an unusually strongly worded letter. A man came up to me laughing and laughing, and asked me, “What happened? Did your wife forget to hide your ink pen?”

    I looked at him as if I didn’t understand him. “Do you mean you have to ask your wife’s permission to write a letter?”

    He stopped laughing, and turned around and walked away, fast.

  117. JDG says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    March 12, 2014 at 9:34 pm

    I was responding to this:

    When, on occasion, pastor do confront feminism head on, there is always an outcry, but I think if they just held on and didn’t capitulate, people would begin to listen (I also think the churches would switch from having more women in them to having more men in them as angry females departed in rage)

    My thoughts are that too many won’t stick around long enough for the results stated above to play out. They don’t begin to listen. They just leave. I suspect there is too much influence from a worldly perspective outside of church, and most folks just don’t know or don’t care what is written in the Bible.

    I agree with both you and SSM that this confrontation needs to happen, and as you stated the faithful can build from there. I attend a small church where this is precisely what occurs. We have lost single women, couples, and families over this. We continue to minister to those that remain. But after years of (slowly) moving in this direction we are still at roughly the same numbers.

    Another thing is that none of this is happening in a vacuum. We are teaching the whole of scripture, so we have lost people over sin accountability issues of various kinds. But accountability for wives submitting to their husbands is one of the most commonly opposed that I have seen.

  118. [D: I did it all for the fiat dollars!]

    lzolzozo we both know you did it for the instalanches :)

    good to see you coming around and preaching less gamey game, and more “Well, what’s wrong with teaching what the Bible teaches?”

    also good to see that your favorite marxist frankfartian Boxer has dropped out.

    perhaps you ran out of fiat dollars to pay him to conflate sexual revolutionary marcuse with christianity, and teach that jesus came to abolish the law of moses, and fulfill the law of freud?

    at any rate, now that you have noticed that feminism has changed the church and inverted it, there is hope, that in the next couple decades, that you introduce the good men to their true fathers–the great books for men. :)

  119. JDG says:

    I should add that another reason people have left is because we do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. It’s interesting though, because many women who accept that they should not teach the Word of God to men still reject the teaching that they should submit to their own husbands. It used to baffle me, but not anymore.

  120. JDG says:

    Another thought is that our congregation is made up of mostly 1st generation Christians and not steeped in tradition. Perhaps in a congregation with 3rd and 4th generation Christian’s there would more reluctance to depart. This might produce what SSM was getting at. But it also might cause a church split.

  121. Soullite,

    This IBB person does understand that, at their most basic, his arguments aren’t conducive with remaining in the church at all, doesn’t he?

    I mean, it’s not like most men are going to hear him out, believe him, and then go to church on Sunday. Those men will most often leave church, and they will very often leave God behind with it. He is, then, arguing for the dissolution of Christianity itself. He just isn’t clever enough to see his own arguments to their natural end.

    Any churchiantity church that preaches feminism and commanding men to “man up” (far too many of these now) are not Christian. That is what I am really arguing.

    I don’t think a pastor should be paid. That doesn’t mean we need the dissoulution of Christianity. We just need to prevent the conflict of interest. Basically feminists, if you enter this building and you don’t like what is being preached because the Bible assaults your feminist imperative, “…there’s the door….” and the pastor doesn’t care because he has a job outside teh church that pays his bills.

    By the by, Joeseph of Jackson was purged/ex-communicated/shunned/removed/injucted from his church by their two pastors specifically because the women of that church told the pastors to do so (and they control the money.)

  122. empath,

    It is not about money. That is a distracting argument that is too obvious, low hanging fruit that is so easy to sell it makes it easy to dismiss. Imagine all the social issues that we can explain away with -follow the money- , sometimes that argument is spot on.

    It is spot on. Social issues (and how we react to them) are directly impacted by the money. Always follow the dollars. Its always about the money. Yes it is the low hanging fruit but these fruit have the seeds that become the root. And we all know that money is the root of all evil…

    …I’m not saying this is right (pastors altering their sermonizing to accomidate the feminist imperative to thus maximize their compensation.) I am only saying it is reality. And I have explained why. Much of the counter arguments I have heard from all of you stem from “…well that is not right because it isn’t Christian…” which I agree with or “…well I know this one case…” which is just a strawman. I’m not interested in whether or not you think what they are doing is Christian or not because they ARE doing it. And I’m not interested in isolated cases. NA(pastors)ALT. Well duh. But that doesn’t disprove my point.

  123. JDG, I agree, I really can’t think of any topic which is more universally untouchable in almost every church of every denomination than marital roles. (As I mentioned in a recent blog post of my own, I’ve seen bishops and priests ready to go to the lions to defend the Church’s position on marriage, but who stammer over headship/submission.) On the topic of, say, sin in general, you can find the whole range, from churches which don’t even acknowledge that sin exists to churches where you’ll get a fire-and-brimstone scorching about how you’re headed straight for Hell, and everything in between. But on this one topic, you’re lucky if there’s one church in your town that teaches the biblical position without apology. The others won’t be on a range in the middle, either; they’ll all be way over at the “she wears the pants” end of the scale.

    I’m glad to hear your church is maintaining its numbers despite tackling this topic. I do think that’s more possible than people think. For one thing, so many people have dropped out of church over the past few decades that most of the wishy-washy ones are already gone. Among Catholics, at least, if you’re still showing up every week despite the modernism and the homosexual priest abuse scandals and the decline of the schools and everything else that’s gone wrong in the last 50 years, you’re not that easily scared away. And even if some leave, like you mentioned, there are also those who will be drawn in from all the other churches who won’t touch it.

  124. Casey says:

    @ IBB

    A friend of mine & I were talking last night about the death of feminism. He warned me not to look forward to a world where feminism is dead. I immediately queried him as to ‘Why?’

    He believes that feminism is a byproduct of elected leaders wanting to get elected. Feminism was a non-starter when women didn’t have the vote. Once they made up 50% of the electorate, then politicians needed to pander to them.

    He made the observation that you can no longer get elected president in the USA if you don’t have the hispanic vote. I.E. the demographics having children are not white, middle class America.

    As the demographics change, the motivations of politicians change. Western societies demand population growth, and if you can’t get it in-house……you import the baby-makers.

    I believe what he is hyptothisizing is that stronger male-centric cultures will be imported giving rise to the death of feminism.

    I however, am not convinced. If anything feminism is doublig down right now trying to reach every female under the age of 40 of ALL races.

    We may import a stronger male centric culture……but it will surely be destroyed like the one before it, that is if woman have any say about it. (and it appears as if they do/will).

    There simply isn’t a great enough opposing force to stem their evil ways.

    Thoughts anyone?

  125. It’s not about the money most places, not primarily. We’ve been through this before, but IBB is unteachable.

    I’ve seen people go into a church and ask for something traditional, offer to make a large donation for it, and be turned down. I’ve seen a committee put together a plan and take it to their priest, to say, “Here, we’ve worked this all out so it doesn’t cost the church anything, and you don’t have to show up and do anything, and we’ll do it on this evening when no one else is around, and we’ll all start coming here and contribute every week and make this big donation now.” And it was still like pulling teeth to get it approved, after being rejected a couple times and having to work up the chain of command. And it’s not just one case, because I’ve talked to traditionalists around the country who have been through similar experiences. Some modernist/liberal sacred cows are untouchable, and you can’t just outbid the modernists.

    Yes, “follow the money” often works. But not everyone is that attracted to wealth. For some, ideology trumps money. For others, the fear of facing angry women trumps the fear of being out of a job.

  126. Casey,

    A friend of mine & I were talking last night about the death of feminism. He warned me not to look forward to a world where feminism is dead. I immediately queried him as to ‘Why?’

    He believes that feminism is a byproduct of elected leaders wanting to get elected. Feminism was a non-starter when women didn’t have the vote. Once they made up 50% of the electorate, then politicians needed to pander to them.

    He made the observation that you can no longer get elected president in the USA if you don’t have the hispanic vote. I.E. the demographics having children are not white, middle class America.

    As the demographics change, the motivations of politicians change. Western societies demand population growth, and if you can’t get it in-house……you import the baby-makers.

    Your friend is right about all of this.

    Senator Kennedy’s 1965 immigration reform specifically targets immigrants with the lowest education and the greatest social needs for government support. Basically they import future Democrat voters to re-assure their sustained re-elections. This is by design, the system working properly.

  127. Marissa says:

    It’s really Emmanuel Celler’s immigration reform. It’s always nice to get a Gentile to pimp your legislation for you, but Celler was trying for decades before Kennedy was born.

  128. Marissa,

    It’s really Emmanuel Celler’s immigration reform. It’s always nice to get a Gentile to pimp your legislation for you,

    Okay, I think I’m going to look that up right now. I’m not saying you are wrong. You have intrigued me dear Marissa.

  129. Pingback: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place

  130. Marissa says:

    Go for it. It’s typically not lower-class Catholics who have tried destroying the foundations of America and Western Europe.

  131. feeriker says:

    FWIW, I believe Cail and IBB are both correct. The root of the rot really depends on the dynamics of a specific churchian franchise.

  132. Fascinating Marissa!

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

    You get a fruit cup my dear. The only possible consternation I could have with your argument (if it is much of one) is that we should have thrown open the doors to every Jew of Europe (as Cellar wanted) not because he or I are Jewish (I am not) but instead, to save their lives. I have to hope against hope (and have enough faith in my government not being anti-sematic) that in November of 1941, either Hitler had not yet starting murdering Jews OR that if he had, the United States government was not aware that this was happening. If Hitler was doing the nasty at that point and we still stayed out of it, a pox on the United States.

    There would have been a bonus to giving them asylum and citizenship. A Polish Jew in 1940 that was a medical doctor or engineer or any professional would NOT have been a financial sink on our economy the way our current immigrants are today. They are weatlh producers, not wealth consumers. I really don’t care if a medical doctor wants to vote Democrat or not, we need MANY more qualified medical doctors. And yet (thanks to the 1965 reform), we can not import them as citizens.

  133. And I have explained why. Much of the counter arguments I have heard from all of you stem from “…well that is not right because it isn’t Christian…” which I agree with or “…well I know this one case…” which is just a strawman. I’m not interested in whether or not you think what they are doing is Christian or not because they ARE doing it. And I’m not interested in isolated cases. NA(pastors)ALT. Well duh. But that doesn’t disprove my point.

    You’ve heard neither of these arguments from me. Those are also way off the mark. I can tell you will not be convinced but this is an exception to Occam here, its the simple answer that is not correct. I don’t even know what you mean about a counter argument that says “its not Christian”.

    When a pastor has a flock of 10,000, a mega church, the people attending are a shifting demographic. There are half coming and going at a given moment. The cash is gonna flow. The small town preacher may fear losing his job…..you can call that follow the money if you want, but when someone says follow the money I take it to mean almost a profit motive, not a job security motive.

    Not that you would bend, but if you had any idea of the things I have done and contacts I have cultivated and results Ive seen through years of direct efforts with pastors and ministry leaders across the board, well, I know how that sounds to someone not wanting to believe something, I may as well say I’d designed the space shuttle…..just trust me on that I did…..

    I will go as far as to agree the preacher is not relying on the church for his living expenses, it COULD lower the likelihood of his falling fully under the influence of evangelical feminism. That is no where near the same as saying it is follow the money.

  134. Marissa,

    Go for it. It’s typically not lower-class Catholics who have tried destroying the foundations of America and Western Europe.

    Well, um, lets hedge our bets here a bit.

    Catholics believe in labor. Part of the root of the Catholic Belief in Labor is that not all people are born smart. And that it is the responsibility of government to make it easier for the laborers to extract as much wealth from their employers as they can. The Catholic Church really believes this as they want working men to support large Catholic familes.

    So the RCC supports the Democrat Party because they support Labor Unions. Yes they do. Afterall, if a Catholic man with an IQ of 85 can’t join a union to extract the maximum amount of pay, tenure, and pension as he can from them (and he needs tenure to make sure his job is protected from those younger and cheaper guys hired after him, flrst-in/last-out) how can he get married and support a family?

    I am not saying that unions are destroying the foundations of American and Western Europe per se. But at this moment (with the United States being in the Information Age and not the Industrial Age) unions most certainly are not helping. And right now, we need to import lots of really smart and well educated people, not laborers.

  135. Marissa says:

    By that logic we should have opened our borders to every Pole as well, as he suffered far more than the Jew. A better idea would be helping them settle elsewhere, like Uganda (one of the re-settlement locations posited before the West bequeathed Israel). Also, Celler was adamant in his position decades before a (German) concentration camp opened and many decades after the last one closed and Israel opened her borders. Clearly his position was not based on his religion, as he did not want to restrict immigration to that specific group.

    I don’t support the immigration regardless of education. The highly educated non-Europeans need to stay in their homelands and fix them, not bring their culture here.

  136. Marissa says:

    Also, I’m not saying lower-class Catholics (and I have been assuming those of European descent) are blameless, just that upper class WASPs and Jews have far more potential (and results) for destruction due to their higher intelligence. The guild system of Europe is part of what built its nascent economy; I understand the return to this tradition of strong labor and don’t consider it a destruction of what European Christendom created (it is in fact a part of what European Christendom created). And I don’t mind present voluntary unions at all; highly skilled labor can be a powerful negotiating force. But the union system in America is ugly and petty and has more to do with enriching union bosses than assisting the low-skilled, middling-IQ family man. The Democratic party is almost through with abandoning this group.

  137. Marissa,

    By that logic we should have opened our borders to every Pole as well, as he suffered far more than the Jew.

    One and the same.

    Of the 6,000,000 Jews that perished, probably 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 of them were Polish. That represents almost half of the Polish WWII dead (the one nation that suffered the worst per capita.) We could both go get a bunch of linkies here but I guess it doesn’t matter that much. Lots of the Jews were Polish. In 1938, Poland “was” Judaism’s European Israel.

    A better idea would be helping them settle elsewhere, like Uganda (one of the re-settlement locations posited before the West bequeathed Israel). Also, Celler was adamant in his position decades before a (German) concentration camp opened and many decades after the last one closed and Israel opened her borders. Clearly his position was not based on his religion, as he did not want to restrict immigration to that specific group.

    There would have been NO resettlement at all, anywhere (and no Israel today) were it not for Hitler and WWII. In 1938, the Jews were happy in Poland. The purpose behind the resettlement (any resettlement) was that in 1946, the majority of the world was in agreement that it was not safe for Jews to live in any part of Europe and (the ones that were not foresaken and stuck behind the evil that was the Iron Curtain) had to move elsewhere….

    …so where do they go? They picked Israel. And now, here we are.

  138. Marissa says:

    I don’t really see the point of your post…put these people who are endangered elsewhere, where they can build their own (new) homeland. America is not that place. Celler clearly did not care about his fellow co-religionists or he would have stumped only for them, and only after they were persecuted. He in fact was doing it decades before, but for everyone. And he was doing it decades after, when Jews had their homeland in Israel. His immigration fervor had nothing to do with saving Jews (except during the time they were in concentration camps). Back to the point, Celler wanted to invade this country with anyone adn everyone, low-IQ, non-European, non-Christian people who were in no way interested in conforming to standards created by the founding stock. He wanted Babel.

  139. IBB, I’m not going to write a rebuttal to your clueless ramblings about what the Catholic Church believes since it would be too far off-topic, but you should stick to being wrong about things you know something about.

    And we don’t need to import any workers for a while, smart or otherwise. Check the STEM unemployment rate. In a country of 320 million people with universities that draw students from all over the world, it’s ridiculous to claim that we don’t already have enough of a skill or the ability to train more people in it. Is this about you wanting smart foreign husbands who will be easy marks for your daughters again or something?

  140. Back to the point, Celler wanted to invade this country with anyone adn everyone, low-IQ, non-European, non-Christian people who were in no way interested in conforming to standards created by the founding stock. He wanted Babel.

    I will grant you this.

    And now (thanks to Teddy following through) we have it.

  141. Tam the Bam says:

    ” A better idea would be helping them settle elsewhere, like Uganda “ An off-the-wall notion of Neville Chamberlain’s dad, it being a Protectorate of British East Africa until 1962, so I don’t know who this “we” is, going about doling out spare chunks of The British Empire.

    They weren’t even too sure if it was there, or Kenya at the time. Apparently declined on the basis that there were (i) lions and stuff (ii) an entirely reasonable apprehension of tangling with the Maasai, who’d been kicking off again. My kid’s classmate’s mam was kidnapped in a raid by the Maasai for a bit, as a teenager, they’re Not Nice.

  142. Lyn87 says:

    Late to the party:

    <

    blockquote>Cail Corishev says: March 12, 2014 at 3:18 pm
    As we keep saying, there is no 50/50; if the husband isn’t in charge, the wife is, and she decides when to give him permission to take ownership of his life. If that line didn’t sum it all up, I don’t know what would.
    Just sickening, to see two men begging women to let their husbands have one free day per year, and apologizing for being so presumptuous.

    <

    blockquote>
    I had a similar thought. Christian pastors have no business asking Christian wives to give their husbands permission to do anything. If they want men to do something they ought to ask them… and if their wives object they ought to tell the husbands to tell their wives that it is his decision to make – not hers.

    MarcusD says: March 12, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    … Probably should have ended at point #1…

    True – he probably should have left out everything after the first sentence of the first point.

  143. Lyn87 says:

    D – my formatting went awry for some reason. I was trying to blockquote Cail. Can you fix it, please?

  144. Cail,

    And we don’t need to import any workers for a while, smart or otherwise. Check the STEM unemployment rate.

    0%. If you are technically qualified, and you want a job, you have one. We need 10 people here in IT, can’t find them because we can’t afford them. So the work never gets done, just going from bad to worse to impossible.

    What we have instead (the numbers you are looking at) are people who need a job that are not technically qualified to work in STEM but want to do so (and nothing else) and don’t have a job so we count them as a STEM unemployment statistic. I’m sorry, I’m not hiring a 22 year old college kid to be a software developer, not even entry level. He is not qualified no matter how many programs he wrote. I can’t use you because you have no business knowledge and I would have to teach you everything for years. I don’t have that kind of time. Get thee to thy help desk and suffer answering phones for a few years.

  145. Marissa says:

    IBB, is your company publicly traded? Just curious.

  146. Tam,

    An off-the-wall notion of Neville Chamberlain’s dad, it being a Protectorate of British East Africa until 1962, so I don’t know who this “we” is, going about doling out spare chunks of The British Empire.

    Did you really want this tiny chunk?

    http://www.mapsofworld.com/israel/

    How many “taxes” did the British Empire collect for the Crown off the Islamic gypsies and Islamic horse thieves that lived here on this “chunk” roaming around doing nothing but raping and murdering each other and causing you (and your Royal Navy) problems prior to the Jews moving in and turning the land into something valuable? I am no supporter of Communist Kibbuts Tam but there is no oil in Israel. Did you really want it? Was it really worth it to the British to “protect it?” You already have that extremely valuable real-estate in the Falkland Islands.

  147. Marissa,

    IBB, is your company publicly traded? Just curious.

    I wish! I’d be sending my whole check in for employee stock purchase just to get a piece of equity. I’ve already worked 10 hours today and have another 4 to work because there is so much too do (and I spend too much time blogging here), egads.

  148. Opus says:

    Not that I would of course for one moment doubt any historical fact or figures provided by IBB but it always amazes me that one cannot go anywhere without coming up against more Survivors than one can shake a stick at. Those Nazis do seem to have been mighty careless and lackadaisical.

    Anyway, I thought God had given Israel to the Hebrews so who could doubt that Uganda would not prove popular. Anyway as IBB knows (as I have had to bring him up to speed on this before) it was Stanley Baldwin who set about reversing Hadrian’s plans for the Hebrews; and Baldwin was not, no matter what Tam the Bam might chose to have you believe, Neville Chamberlain’s Dad.

  149. Opus,

    it was Stanley Baldwin who set about reversing Hadrian’s plans for the Hebrews;

    heh, what that the part played by Paul Newman? :)

  150. b g says:

    Anonymous age 71

    (i)Where and why did you come up with that theory?(/i)

    From the same as yourself, personal experience. I meant no disrespect, I was just shocked that you had come to that conclusion.

  151. Opus says:

    @IBB

    No, that was Exodus where Newman (and Peter Lawford) play British Army Officers (!?) and without any suggestion that they had attended the Dick Van Dyke school of British pronunciation – such is Hollywood – awful movie.

    Hadrian (or perhaps it was Trajan) would have been more suited to someone like Charles Laughton (who of course would play a Roman Emperor with a British accent). Hadrian at least did do one very good thing and built a wall – which needs repairing – so as to attempt to keep the Jocks out.

  152. LOL @ Opus! yes sir! 1960. Interesting movie. I wonder if hunger strikes work today?

  153. Novaseeker says:

    The thing about unions, importing people and so on is that the alliance between the social conservatives and the libertarian/economic conservatives is beginning to wear thin. With the victory in World War G upon us presently, Team Red is going to be endorsing it openly within, say 10-20 years if not sooner (many voices in Team Red are already calling for this, for political reasons). That will destroy the final wedge social issue for most people other than the sliver of voters who votes solely based on abortion. And even there Team Red is under pressure from the “political realists” to water down its approach to that issue.

    The other side of it is that a growing number of social conservatives are beginning to understand that embracing traditional values is extremely difficult for most of the population in a free(ish) Darwinian “meritocratic” system — other than the ones at the meritocratic top of the pile, that is. The alliance is beginning to unwind. Not because of deep love for labor unions, but because people are increasingly realizing that these policies that social conservatives have allied with for decades have actually undermined the traditional values they stand for in huge ways for most of the population. I don’t think this means a swift abandonment — but I think the drift is already beginning, and the libertarian/economic conservative “establishment” on Team Red are actually helping it happen, believing that social conservatives will vote for them no matter what, because Team Blue embraces radical social policies openly. That’s still true, but once Team Red gets around to embracing and internalizing the reality of the total defeat in WWG, there likely won’t be much of a difference left between them even in optics (which is mostly what it is today, anyway). Therefore, I expect also that within the next 20 years, the social conservatives in places like, oh, Kansas, are not going to be voting the same way they have for the past 40 years to nearly the same degree, and that therefore the linkage that many social conservatives make today with libertarian/economic conservative ideas is going to be gradually breaking.

  154. Nova,

    Emphasis mine.

    The other side of it is that a growing number of social conservatives are beginning to understand that embracing traditional values is extremely difficult for most of the population in a free(ish) Darwinian “meritocratic” system — other than the ones at the meritocratic top of the pile, that is. The alliance is beginning to unwind. Not because of deep love for labor unions, but because people are increasingly realizing that these policies that social conservatives have allied with for decades have actually undermined the traditional values they stand for in huge ways for most of the population.

    You bet.

    This country doesn’t really work at all if the uneducated can’t find good work, refuse to attend church, and don’t marry before they have kids.

  155. Tam the Bam says:

    ” Was it really worth it to the British to “protect it?” “ Goodness no, absolute tarbaby, more like a malodorous section of the surface of Mars than planet Earth, not a stick of timber or a drink of clean water in the place, and simply heaving with mad wogs, unlike Mars which is blessed in comparison.
    Got shut of it as soon as poss., once the Turks and the Frogs were no longer threatening the Canal and the Persian oilfields. I mean supposing the Germans had been able to run a line to a railhead as far south as the border of the (brito-frog) Condominium of Sudan and start unloading there, by “prevailing” on the Ottomans or Ataturk for wayleave? Could’ve had all that area round Lake Victoria back again before you could say “Achtung!”. Humphrey Bogart and Miss Hepburn would have gone through all that business with the leeches for nothing. A crying shame.

    It’s not like the Frogs would have shrugged all that hard, as Fritz laid crossties and plate through Syria and Lebanon. Only bit left was Palestine/Jordan, until that mad little chap Lawrence cut a deal with the Head Wog (and rather predictably suffered Dolchstoss by Whitehall. Some people never learn, do they?).
    I don’t know why the Irgun and that lot bothered murdering squaddies, everybody hated the place with a passion, and spent their time saving up and planning their escape to a place in Manitoba, or Argentina or (ahem) Kenya (kid’s mate’s dad (same kid as above, different mate, not Lizzy the Maasai slavegirl’s boy) was in the Mandate police, spent most of his time trying to collar ‘em, Begin and the lads. Married a local Christian girl, which for some reason made him (and her) even more of a target of the terrorists).

    I was talking about Uganda and Kenya and Tangyanika, absolutely sumptuous real-estate, with loads of potential. Natives understandably stroppy, though. Er Indoors’s dad used to stop his Eyetie PoWs scarpering by telling them that the darkies (his term cough cough) would eat ‘em raw if the hyaenas didn’t, and that it was thousands of miles to the Ocean (scouser, very natural and convincing liar as a consequence).
    The Ugandan discussions were old Brummy Joe’s contribution to the mess, I’m not on about Balfour, Baldwin and all that British Israelites foolery.
    Almost as mad as all that Rastafari guff. My (coincidentally) maddest ex’s dad worked in a department store on the south coast while Selassie was stuck here during the war, the little fellow used to toddle in followed by a gaggle of I suppose wives and courtiers, gaily order up shedloads of furnishings for delivery, and bugger off. Could have been John Lewis’s, rings a bell. Payment came there none, and on several occasions too, but the plucky little monarch got his loot on account of HMG wanting to keep him sweet as another possible puppet (like the Hashemites up the road), for “restoration” if the situation warranted it sometime down the track. Still owes the “Partners”, AFAIK.

  156. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev refers to the STEM unemployment rate

    IBB
    0%. If you are technically qualified, and you want a job, you have one. We need 10 people here in IT, can’t find them because we can’t afford them. So the work never gets done, just going from bad to worse to impossible.

    Is there any topic at all that you know anything about? This is such a solipsistic pile of nonsense, it’s difficult to know where to begin. Since you are afraid of me, there’s no point in attempting to discuss it:

    Once again, IBB is simply and grossl wrong.

  157. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    The thing about unions, importing people and so on is that the alliance between the social conservatives and the libertarian/economic conservatives is beginning to wear thin. With the victory in World War G upon us presently, Team Red is going to be endorsing it openly within, say 10-20 years if not sooner (many voices in Team Red are already calling for this, for political reasons).

    George Wallace famously claimed in the 1968 election that there was “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the Nixon-led Republicans and the Humphrey-led Democrats. That may have been arguable at that time, but I expect to hear something like it in the years ahead. The wealthy donors of both parties socialize more with each other than with the middle class of either. The concerns of the middle and working people are paid lip service by both teams during election years, but increasingly that’s about it. The ongoing economic crisis won’t affect the donor class, but it may affect the middle class interest in voting. And as the donor class has pretty much unified on the winning side of World War G, as Nova pointed out the difference between the two teams on social issues will dwindle.

    I won’t be surprised if sometime in the next 5 to 10 years churches that are deemed “homophobic” start to lose their tax-exempt status. Most likely the small independent non-denominational ones first. I doubt that the donors for team Red will be willing to buck the cultural victors for a bunch of hicks in the sticks, frankly.

    But look at the bright side. The next stage in the world economic crisis may pretty much end immigration to the US, one way or another.

  158. What we have instead (the numbers you are looking at) are people who need a job that are not technically qualified to work in STEM but want to do so (and nothing else) and don’t have a job so we count them as a STEM unemployment statistic. I’m sorry, I’m not hiring a 22 year old college kid to be a software developer, not even entry level. He is not qualified no matter how many programs he wrote.

    And yet you want to import “smart” people who attended “college” in other countries where it’s the equivalent of a 6-month American trade school course at best. (By the way, I’m neither 22 nor a college graduate nor unemployed, so this isn’t sour grapes on my part like you implied.) I give up. I won’t make the mistake of engaging you in conversation again.

  159. Marissa says:

    Anyway, I thought God had given Israel to the Hebrews so who could doubt that Uganda would not prove popular.

    I agree–I just mentioned Uganda because I remember it being one of the choices and I wouldn’t expect anyone to like it, but it’d be better than Germany or Soviet Russia. I’d much prefer to see the Jews in Israel and didn’t mean to imply that that land was not appropriate for them. I should have said that instead, in fact.

  160. BradA says:

    Getting a job in the tech field is a challenge and easy at the same time. You have to continually develop your own skills, something many people don’t bother doing, even after you finish your education or get your job. Things change far to fast in IT to sit on your rear.

    IBB’s company can’t find enough people because they won’t hire those entry level people, if they follow his same though line. You don’t want a complete company of beginners, but appropriately paid (lower than many may want) entry level developers can do well if they come with a learning attitude and they have a mentor within the organization. The idea that you can survive with only all star developers is naive and most organizations are not willing to pay the cost of such development talent anyway.

    I would encourage those trying to break into the field to get business experience as well in some area, at whatever level they can work out. IBB is right that IT must meet business needs, not the other way around.

    Sorry for the diversion, but this is a strong area of focus of mine, both in my day job and teaching work.

    ====

    “the women pick the church”

    This is bogus in my case. I have caused us to leave every church we have, for a variety of reasons. I am driving our current search for a church in our area as well. I definitely take my wife’s interest in mind, but she would almost certainly go anywhere I would go, though we prefer a much more expressive form of service than the traditional ones likely favored by the churchgoers here, along with other issues of doctrine that place me outside the norm.

  161. BradA says:

    Cail, I am not sure that all foreign schools are the same as a “”6-month American trade school course at best”. I could be wrong, but I got the impression some of those schools might even be more rigorous than those here.

    I am not saying we should necessarily import them though, my views on that are somewhat shifting due to the “soft factors” such individuals will still bring. (Like the way I see Texas being pulled by lots of “immigrants” from inside and outside the country. I just got here about 15 years ago and I am not sure it can stay as it is.)

  162. Pingback: the Revision Division

  163. hoellenhund2 says:

    My guess is that IBB’s company can’t find eligible applicants because the small start-up IT companies where STEM guys normally did entry-level work are no longer around, because most of them went under after the dotcom bust of 2001 and the Great Recession. The IT field is in decline, demand is dropping, STEM education isn’t getting enough funding and the pace of technological innocation is slowing down. The companies that still exist can only stay afloat by playing it safe and keeping their workforce to an absolute minimum. They can’t afford to hire people without previous experience. It’s a classic economic death spiral: the dearth of productive workers make further investment and profit impossible, so companies downsize, so there are fewer opportunities for STEM guys seeking work experience.

    I recall reading a somewhat recent article claiming that there are 10,000 unfilled IT jobs in Germany. Of course, the article insinuated that German STEM guys are just too lazy, or aren’t productive enough, and this is the cause of the problem. The real cause, of course, is that those particular “eligible” 10,000 job seekers that these companies are seeking literally don’t exist either in Germany or India or any other place. These companies want to stay afloat in an era of economic decline, so they are setting impossible standards.

  164. craig says:

    Oh Lord, I could write a book on this — the STEM comments that is — but all I have is a smartphone with me, so I’ll be brief.

    ‘Good, fast, cheap: pick any two’ applies to STEM hiring and retention as well. For ‘fast’ substitute ‘already understands the business’. So when people complain about inability to find talent, what they really mean is that they can’t get good experienced employees cheap. And they can’t keep good employees down on the farm for cheap after they’ve got experience in the business.

    IBB’s complaint is nothing more than this kind of solipsism.

  165. I don’t know—four decades ago and really made it almost objectionable for a message like this to be preached by a pastor—by a man—to a mixed audience, at this point. I don’t want you to hear me apologizing that we did it—that’s not my point.

    Dalrock

    This rock is in my shoe
    I keep wondering what Rainy meant about apologizing. Is he saying “we” poisoned the well [with feminism] and he is not going to be apologetic about that?

  166. Reading here Id start thinking STEM is limited to IT.

    Ahem, there are lots of us out here that are not code writers. There is a dearth of STEM trained people in general, not just degreed but the next layer down where skilled STEM-ish labor resides. The petrochemical industry has more than $60 bln investment on the Gulf Coast between 2012 and 2018 , cannot find the people to allow any project that isnt already started to meet its critical path.

    One friend of mine works for a large German chemical company, not THE chemical company BASF, …another….he needed a tech sales rep, recent chemistry graduate. Waitress in Houston happened to mention she had a chem degree, she sent her CV to him, he expressed interest, she learned the job would involved overnight travel and said no thanks, rather be a waitress

  167. Cail, I am not sure that all foreign schools are the same as a “”6-month American trade school course at best”.

    No, not all of them, but many are, especially in the countries where IBB’s ilk most prefer to find their workers — which just happen to be the places people are willing to work very cheap (I have yet to see them importing lots of Japanese or German programmers), but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

    I deal with them on programming forums where programmers help each other every day. Typically a guy says, in barely understandable English (which isn’t his fault, but it’s another thing the corporations are willing to overlook if he’s cheap enough, even though it makes things harder for the end client), that he needs help writing a program to do some complicated parsing on massive amounts of DNA data (this is big right now in some of my preferred languages). We ask him what he’s written so far, because we’re there to help fellow coders, not to write code for free. He posts something that makes it clear he would struggle to write a working “hello world” program, and when we try to help him (without just doing the work for him), it becomes clear that he’s in way over his head.

    Now again, this isn’t primarily his fault. Some company hired him because he was cheap and then threw a project at him and a hundred other guys, assuming that quantity would make up for quality, and he’s trying to get the job done however he can. But these are the guys that the Zuckerbergs and IBBs want to import rather than training Americans and paying them what the market demands.

    I’m not denying that sometimes there are shortfalls in a skill set and it can be hard to find people quickly to fill jobs. But that’s what the market is for — supply and demand. If the demand for something exceeds supply, the price (wage) goes up, and more people will train in the skill. It’s not complicated. And really, if it takes a while for a Silicon Valley start-up to find enough programmers to produce the next Angry Birds, will we suffer all that much as a nation?

    To drag this back on topic, my problem with IBB isn’t his naive 15-year-old libertarian’s viewpoint on labor; it’s the fact that he hates American men. If that seems too strong, consider: he says he would refuse to hire an American programmer even if the guy can prove with a portfolio of work that he can do the job. He also encourages young girls to spend their early 20s experiencing a variety of cocks and then wants to shame men into manning-up and marrying them when they hit the Wall. He wants to drive American men into poverty and then saddle us with implacable ex-sluts. That makes no damn sense, but it makes one thing clear to me: he hates us.

  168. Reading here Id start thinking STEM is limited to IT.

    That’s because IT is where there’s currently a big push to expand the guest worker programs and throw the borders open wider. The kind of skilled work you’re talking about is a different matter. But one reason for the skill gap in many STEM fields is that we’ve already had a couple decades of employers using feminism and immigration and outsourcing to push down wages. Why isn’t a job that requires a chemistry degree and sales talent paying way, way more than waitressing? Obviously there’s some wage that would have convinced that girl to accept the travel, but they weren’t willing to pay it. That kind of job used to pay well enough to own a nice house and support a stay-at-home wife and several kids in pretty good comfort, while being a waitress was a second job or something you did for spending money after school. It’s not an accident that the chemistry job’s wage has stagnated, and kids looking at college and choosing careers recognize that and look elsewhere.

  169. Marissa says:

    Cail, you’re thinking logically. The waitress is not. I live in Houston, some of the women here are dumb as rocks and (off-topic) despise Houston men. While waitresses can make decent, mostly untaxed, money in parts of this very wealthy city, you’re assuming the woman wants a higher wage and will trade off the benefits of “fun nightlife” and “I can get drunk at work” for something steady and requiring the sacrifice overnight travel requires. I don’t doubt that the chemistry job’s wage is lower than it should be due to the factors you named, but I also can’t understand why someone would want to work until 4 a.m. and almost always on the weekend either.

  170. jf12 says:

    @Marissa, think of all the nice guys with petrochemical jobs in Houston that she can keep as beta orbiters!

  171. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    But one reason for the skill gap in many STEM fields is that we’ve already had a couple decades of employers using feminism and immigration and outsourcing to push down wages

    I know some men in the mining industry. They tell me there is a crying need for field geologists. There are increasing numbers of geology degreed graduates. Their companies pretty much insist on quotas for women. Women do not want to be field geologists. Those who take on that job generally do not stay very long, because field geology involves being outdoors in all kinds of weather, crawling around all sorts of terrain, for days on end. Therefore the crying need for field geologists continues…and I’m sure some fool somewhere would echo IBB’s absurd claim about IT.

    I know some men in the Navy. Increasingly, shore duty is being filled with women, often single mothers who happened to “accidentally” get pregnant on sea duty and who then had to be rotated to shore. As a result, men increasingly serve at sea, return for leave and are sent back out again. This strains families and especially wives to the breaking point.

    All across society, rules have been bent or broken or flat out re-written to meet the needs, or more accurately the whims, of women. As a result, the lives of many men have been permanently affected, or damaged, or even prematurely ended. And yet all across the “traditional” spectrum, from religious to agnostic to atheist, there is denial that this has happened, denial that this is happening, and as the OP states, denial of the very existence of the ideology of feminism.

    A thing that cannot go on, will not go on…

  172. craig,

    Oh Lord, I could write a book on this — the STEM comments that is — but all I have is a smartphone with me, so I’ll be brief.

    ‘Good, fast, cheap: pick any two’ applies to STEM hiring and retention as well. For ‘fast’ substitute ‘already understands the business’. So when people complain about inability to find talent, what they really mean is that they can’t get good experienced employees cheap. And they can’t keep good employees down on the farm for cheap after they’ve got experience in the business.

    IBB’s complaint is nothing more than this kind of solipsism.

    I agree with the “cheap-fast-good pick-two” theory. I agree with that because I am not the grumpy CIO who is forced to ignore reality which means I am not the glorified company-yes-man who has to get all the work done and under budget (which is impossible in IT.) Yes, to all of this.

    But this wasn’t really what I was talking about craig.

    What I’m talking about is that we need to run a Scrum-Agile environment here and our business analysts are useless. So is the business. It is impossible for them to tell the BAs what they want other than for them to say “we want it all! give everything to us NOW and now get out of my office little boy, you bother me…” and it is impossible for the BAs to translate those business requirements into any valuable user stories or epics for TFS-Jira or whatever-the-f-ck we are using for time tracking because no matter where you go, no matter what company you work for, three things are always true:

    BAs are incompatant but the company uses them because they are cheaper than technical people
    The Business never has any time to define exactly what they want, nor do they evver have any time to spend actually thinking about what they have truly demanded of IT
    The best programmers and software developers QUIT every year for 15 to 20% annual pay increases… because they can. As they walk out the door it is “ha ha and f-ck you!” These are the people smart enough to do the work of the BAs, the business, the programmers, and the application managers. They do it all AND production support. They got the keys to the kingdom and we can’t keep ours (nor can we ever replace them.)

    So you have pitiful fools like me, the Custom App Dev Tech Lead who is left to scramble around and pick up the pieces and interview a bunch of kids who need to have very clear business requirements (which we can never give them, ever) or they can’t do anything NOR can they think outside the box because they have neer worked in business. I can not hire these people craig, ever. And I can’t hire INDIA either because they don’t speak English, know even less about the business than the 22-year-old college grad, and require even more BRDs (which is outside the scope of Scrum-Agile.)

    For a working IT department with a hard cap on money, the people that stay are screwed. What ends up happening is a bunch of quickie bullsh-t fixes that cause more harm than good just to get the business they data they need in the short term. And its terrible. Because IT is always scrambling because there is never enough resources.

    Cail,

    I can’t use these college kids. Can. Not. Use. Them. They are almost as uselesss as INDIA. And no I am not going to offshore sir and no I am not interested in any H1B Visas either to save money because those people don’t know the business either. You have no idea what you are talking about when you slandered me….

  173. Marissa says:

    no I am not interested in any H1B Visas

    And right now, we need to import lots of really smart and well educated people, not laborers.

    I’m confused.

  174. We need them as citizens Marissa, not H1B Visa labor. They are not here in our country long enough to know how things work, so they couldn’t possible understand the depths of business. INDIA does exactly, precisely what you tell them to do, not one thing more. That is not enough, unacceptable. And why? When business makes demands of IT, they expect IT to already know all the answers to the questions that the business didn’t have time to answer, moreover the business expacts that IT will be smarter than then and know the mistakes that the business is making in their deamnds and account for them them. INDIA will never have those answers or accountablility working here as H1B nor could they ever, offshore.

    Culturally, it is virtually impossible to run an IT department with offshore labor. I can’t get functioning systems out of cheap 3rd world help that only does exactly what I tell them to do because I need everyone thinking outside the box in everything they do. If not, we introduce too many bugs because QA is not compatant to sniff them out (since they only do EXACTLY what you tell them to do.)

  175. feeriker says:

    0%. If you are technically qualified, and you want a job, you have one. We need 10 people here in IT, can’t find them because we can’t afford them. So the work never gets done, just going from bad to worse to impossible.

    WOW. Seriously?

    Please come out and admit that you’re trolling here, or that you intended that statement as a joke, but did an abysmal job of executing it. Otherwise, there is no reason for any adult human with a functioning cerebrum who lives in the real world to pay even a microsecond’s worth of serious attention to anything you have to say.

  176. Marissa,

    Let me put it another way: STEM is NOT well-formed work. That is why so few people can do it. That is why it pays so well.

    The more well-formed you can make the work, the easier it is to offshore it or go cheap with it. It doesn’t work that way with technology. They are creating and inventing, not following orders.

  177. feeriker says:

    Marissa I’m confused.

    So is IBB, terminally.

  178. Marissa says:

    We need them as citizens Marissa, not H1B Visa labor. They are not here in our country long enough to know how things work, so they couldn’t possible understand the depths of business.

    No, we don’t. We don’t need more foreign voters, especially of non-European descent and non-Christian in values. Otherwise we are importing our own cultural destruction, which we’ve been doing for the last 50 years. Those people belong in their own countries, as leaders and guides for their lower classes (who also don’t belong here). It’s bad for our culture and bad for theirs. Let them have their homelands and we shall have ours. Business is much easier to learn than culture, as culture is partly genetic (though business attitudes do stem from culture). You have it the wrong way around. The smartest Chinese/Jews/Muslims can learn anything about IT; they can’t learn the bonds of countrymen bound by blood and belief.

  179. WOW. Seriously?

    Yes feeriker, seriously.

    I can’t use any head hunters because these people price the people up so high I can’t afford them. I try and use linked-in to get people but by the time we get to interview they already accepted another job. The people I do interview might know how to code but don’t know enough about our business to think outside the box. I ask them how they get their work done and I get generic, BS answers they probably read out of some interview book instead of real-life solutions. Since I have a backlog of about 250 items (and that increases by 10 epics a day) I don’t have any time to train. I’d like to give IQ tests but I’m afraid our company would be sued if we did. So… yeah.

  180. Marissa says:

    I’d like to give IQ tests but I’m afraid our company would be sued if we did.

    Thank you, Griggs vs. Duke Power!

  181. Thank you, Griggs vs. Duke Power!

    That’s right Marissa. Of course (according to feeriker) I’m terminally confused so.. :)

  182. hurting says:

    A reminder, gentle readers, that there is no such thing as a labor shortage. There may be a shortage of labor at the fully loaded cost of compensation (including training as necessary) a given company (or even an industry) is willing to pay, but what that means is that the company (or industry) is simply not paying enough to attract the talent away from its next best alternative.

  183. hurting says:

    Marissa says:
    March 14, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    This court decision is almost singlehandedly responsible for the massive overcredentialing of the American workforce. The cost to society of having employers use college degrees as screening devices where simple aptitude tests would suffice is well-nigh incalculable.

  184. hurting,

    There may be a shortage of labor at the fully loaded cost of compensation (including training as necessary) a given company (or even an industry) is willing to pay, but what that means is that the company (or industry) is simply not paying enough to attract the talent away from its next best alternative.

    Which is why I said the unemployment rate is STEM is 0%. The truly qualified people (who know business AND can code without any training, can think, and can think quickly) if they want a job, they have one. And with good pay. Because if they don’t get good pay, they will just quit (which is what is happening at my company.) We can’t keep up on pay so… we lose.

  185. Micha Elyi says:

    …mutual submission… is a phrase used by the RCC.
    hurting

    I don’t know what your “RCC” is, but fortunately in the Catholic Church it’s not doctrine. I checked the Catechism of the Catholic Church yourself. An English translation is available online with a helpful search function thanks to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

    Showing results for: mutual submission

    There were no results that matched your search. Please try again.

    Someone might respond with something like, “But I heard Pastor So-and-So preach blah blah mutual submission blah blah blah.” Maybe that someone should have asked that pastor afterwards where that is found in Church teaching. The teaching authority of the Church does not have separate sources in each individual parish pastor.

  186. – Glenn Stanton, Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity

    Stuipd ass dumb mother fucker. Hell, this faggot ass piece of shit is more useless to society than Adolf Hitler was. TWATs do’nt have to be secure. Thanks to big daddy gub’ment and divorce court ass-rapings their security is established without any effort on their part.

    The most confident son can still be taken to the cleaners and have his soul destroyed by God’s fucking perfect little princess. You’ve got to be a dumb mother fucker today to put a ring on it!!!!!

  187. IBB you need to stop using STEM and say something IT-ish. To say that engineering is not well ordered work is crazy. Its us chemical engineers who use entropy as a thermodynamic law to avert or avoid chaos, we like order, systems, CONTROL. I’d generalize and say engineers as a group, but I’m only one kind so best I not play on someone else’s big wheel.

  188. And I can’t hire INDIA either because they don’t speak English,

    If the insularity needed to make this claim is in play while seeking these IT workers, its no wonder you cant find any.

  189. Opus says:

    I believe that IBB may be mistaken, for I have never heard an Indian who did not speak English (one of the many benefits they obtained for free from the Empire) – but that accent! makes them sound as if all their teachers were Welsh. Where would call-centres be without Indians to infuriate you.

  190. MarcusD says:

    If I understand correctly, the fear was, even decades ago, that Indian CS/ECE grads were going to be taking the IT jobs in North America (etc). This still hasn’t happened to the extent it was supposed to happen. Now, soft skills (particularly language and culture barriers) will undoubtedly hold that back. I’ve seen the IIT lectures on YouTube, and despite the technical prowess of the students that can get in there (and the people who can end up teaching there), I can only barely understand them. When it comes to interacting with clients who aren’t used to heavy accents, you’re going to lose business, either from people failing to have their requirements noted, or from sheer frustration in dealing with someone they can’t understand.

    Personally I think it’s like many predictions (flying cars, robotic workforces, etc) – it won’t materialize anywhere near the time it was supposed to.

  191. Opus says:

    Is an Indian accent then more difficult for Americans? – as I said , to us they sound Welsh.

  192. DeNihilist says:

    Speaking of Indians…..

    In eastern philosophy/mysticism, this bit about the woman surrendering is understood on the level of energy. Yin/Yang, etc. The two types of energy can be described as outgoing (leading) and in going (following). Generally in men the outgoing energy is manifested, the opposite in woman. The thing being, that since both energies reside in each human, there can be instances of when the masculine energy is manifested in woman and vice versa.

    It appears, that much like the magnetic fields flip from pole to pole from time to time, the west may be seeing such a thing happening in regard to the Yin/Yang. Woman are becoming the outgoing half of the species (yang) and the males are the feminized (yin) ones now.

    Wonder how you get a a Yin male to “man up”?

  193. greyghost says:

    What’s all this talk about IT and STEM How about some welding, Electrician, Manufacturing equipment technician, Auto mechanic, shop fabrication, HVAC technician, facilities maintenance, water treatment, Controls technician, and other types, over half of those jobs require a guy as geeked out as an IT guy plus the ability to climb lift and mechanical troubleshooting as well as electronic and electrical troubleshooting. Modern manufacturing requires all of those disciplines with the added hydraulic and pneumatic dynamics added to the mix. automated manufacturing uses computers and sensors connected to computers to do processes. geeks with biceps. The worst guys to work with were the degreed electronic eggheads. They can’t use hand tools to save their butts. Not every body gets to work the nice office job

  194. greyghost says:

    MarcusD
    I wonder what your CAF buddies would think of this http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/guess-the-sex/

  195. Marissa says:

    Is an Indian accent then more difficult for Americans? – as I said , to us they sound Welsh.

    They’re tough to understand. Americans have trouble with accents from within our own country.

  196. Their is one NT commandment that is overlooked and grossly mis-interpreted and it has to do with “head coverings and symbol of authority”. Any guy who serious Christian guy who thinks he has a serious Christian girl should check out 1 Cor 11:1-16 noting vs 10. This a NT commandment that is referenced in the OT many times.
    Going to church with a head veil or scarf is seriously humbling for any woman who claims to be “spiritual”. Ask a pastor about this one and why this isn’t taught – this is a instant feminism killer.

  197. Indian accents vary of course, Marati, Gujarati, etc. And then within the social castes the English differs. I have been in India a dozen times and am yet to encounter anyone not speaking English. Roadway signs are in English, and Sanskrit, everything is, and the written English is impeccable.

    I dont know if they sound Welsh, Id need to ask one to say Pontyclun and Midglamorgan to check (I know that’s spelled incorrectly, dare I attempt some Welsh words that are vowel free)

  198. MarcusD says:

    @Greyghost

    Well, they certainly aren’t my buddies – some of them I could get along with, but the vast majority (~99%) I generally have disdain for (they being crypto-gynofeminists and all). As for the female who is referred to by CH, I could definitely see them shaming some man into marrying her (especially if she says that she regretted it, went to confession, and attended Mass once a week)). You’d be surprised how they could spin that profile as a positive (“she’s frugal” or “she probably could recommend some really good beers” etc).

  199. greyghost says:

    I fully understand MarcusD I know damn well they were no friends of yours just a figure of speech amongst men.
    How do you think we can get that chicks profile on there and get them to discuss who gets to fuck that chick (after marrying her of course) ? A champion of freedom from feminism and respect and honor for the family man has to learn to implode those types and enjoy what they have to offer.

  200. Luke says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    March 13, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    Cail,

    And we don’t need to import any workers for a while, smart or otherwise. Check the STEM unemployment rate.
    

    0%. If you are technically qualified, and you want a job, you have one. We need 10 people here in IT, can’t find them because we can’t afford them. So the work never gets done, just going from bad to worse to impossible.”

    You’ve simply described not being willing or able to pay market rates for something you (third-person “you”) desire. Pay market rate, there’s all you want. It’s the same with wanting new Cadillacs for 10 grand; there aren’t any. But, pay 40 grand (or whatever), and there’s all you could want. Same again with the Red Cross periodically and predictably shrieking that there’s a shortage of blood. No, there’s a shortage of free blood. But, if you’ll pay market price, there’s all you could want.

    It’s appropriate that your company can’t find the help they want if they want a bargain in price, but won’t accept a bargain in quality (e.g., have to train employees).

    Look up Norman Matloff’s online book “Debunking the Desperate Software Labor Shortage” if (as it sounds) you’re new to all this.

  201. Desiderius says:

    “I believe that IBB may be mistaken”

    A useful default.

  202. Desiderius says:

    “Someone might respond with something like, “But I heard Pastor So-and-So preach blah blah mutual submission blah blah blah.” Maybe that someone should have asked that pastor afterwards where that is found in Church teaching. The teaching authority of the Church does not have separate sources in each individual parish pastor.”

    Keep whistling past that graveyard.

    A church that is too cowardly, or in the case of the RCC in America, too avaricious, to maintain that authority with manly discipline will surely lose it. And has.

  203. Desiderius says:

    “I’m glad to hear your church is maintaining its numbers despite tackling this topic. I do think that’s more possible than people think.”

    Women under 40 want male leadership with balls. Read Roissy’s 16 commandments – is there any theme that comes out more strongly? A pastor with the balls to take on feminism preaching manly leadership… I don’t know, I think it might be just the thing.

  204. Desiderius says:

    GBFM,

    What we’re up against, above all, is the great idol Progress. Appreciating the Great Books is “turning back the clock”. The only saving grace is the hollowness of that idol for rising generations who see precious little evidence of progress around them. For them, the appeal of the timeless will be less clouded.

  205. MarcusD says:

    How do you think we can get that chicks profile on there and get them to discuss who gets to fuck that chick (after marrying her of course) ?

    They’re going to come back with: “has she changed [outwardly]?” That said, there will likely be a few who would say that she would make a good wife.

    There was a post on CAF years ago (36 pages if I remember correctly) about a man whose wife who revealed that she had other sexual partners before marriage (despite telling him she was a virgin at marriage) – over a period of a year she kept revealing more partners, until apparently revealing all of them (that is, “all of them”). The CAF members chastised him for caring about that, to go be a better husband, etc.

  206. MarcusD says:

    Nevermind, found the post:

    Wife Lied About Sexual Past

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=486335

    [Warning: The thread will annoy some people to an extreme degree.]

  207. @ feeriker:

    “One more time, just for the benefit of those who need reminding: when “shepherding” and “spreading the Word” are your livelihood rather than your calling, and your livelihood depends on the donations of those whom you shepherd and to whom you spread the Word, you tend not to do anything that smacks of biting the hand that feeds you.”

    I totally agree. I still say to follow the money. I also agree with other motivations such as pastors seeking the “lift”, but my guess is the revenue stream is of utmost importance. Women mostly control that and church choice today.

  208. When 20,000 hands are feeding you and you only need 5000, the calculus changes

  209. Boxer says:

    Re: Catholic Answers nonsense…

    I love my wife with all my heart and love being married to her and plan to grow old with her.

    If iced tea (the aggrieved husband) is serious about this, then he really should forget about it. He’s finding his trust diminished, but in reality, no man could ever trust any woman too much, so perhaps this little sliver of red pill is a good thing. It’s also got his wife on her toes now, to know that her husband is displeased. Dread game is distasteful in theory, but no one can deny that it works.

    The reality is that the respect he feels was lost was never there, and would never have been there. Women don’t respect men by default. His illusion collapsed, but he can now deal with the reality of things.

    Peace, Boxer

  210. MarcusD says:

    Abbott and Costello Meet CAF:

    Modest Swimwear

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867109

    Threads dealing with modesty on CAF are effectively banned – in my opinion, due to outrage from women (all reactions could be summarized as: “don’t you dare tell me what to wear” or “keep your eyes to yourself”).

  211. Opus says:

    I am not sure how it is now but when I was in America one of the things that amused me was that the women all wore one piece bathing-costumes as if they were auditioning for a part in a Frankie Avalon/Annette Funicello movie. This was a real case of Back to the Future (i.e. the 1950s). That year, I had just returned from vacationing in a villa close to St Tropez on whose beaches when they are not wearing Bikinis they are au naturel. The French are of course all default Roman Catholics. Clearly nudity is less indecent than those extreme bikinis constructed of hardly more than a line of string.

  212. Cicero says:

    “A problem well defined is a problem half solved.”

    So is feminism the cause or the effect of modern men feeling/being emasculated?

  213. It is a cornucopea now, swim suits range from dental floss to quilts hand made by pioneer women. Ive seen a pentacostal hosting a ganthering of children having cold fruit juice beneath the shade of her swim dress, then parents having trouble l all the kids when break was over

  214. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD
    Threads dealing with modesty on CAF are effectively banned – in my opinion, due to outrage from women (all reactions could be summarized as: “don’t you dare tell me what to wear” or “keep your eyes to yourself”).

    So CAF reflects the wider culture once again? Surprised, or not?
    The swimsuit issue used to be a mystery to me. Young woman wearing almost nothing who resents being ogled? Duh? I even recall once on soc.men when a 20-something woman flatly proclaimed “I dress for my boyfriend! Not for anyone else!” as if that somehow would control where photons go, like an invisible burkha.

    Now some years later, wearing The Glasses and understanding women’s true nature, it all falls into place. Young women wear skimpy clothing, including bathing suits, to display their bodies to alphas, and find it repulsive in the extreme when a beta looks at them. Hence the replies MarcusD notes from CAF, “Keep your eyes to yourself!”. Of course this makes young women at the pool or the lake or the beach into something like pseudo-aristocracy, “Thou varlet! Cast down your eyes to the ground when one of The Snowflake Princesses doth stroll by! Varlets are not to look! It is not a sight for them!” and for some reason, the order to “keep your eyes to yourself” fails.

    Nowadays, I would cheerily respond to any such order, whether accompanied by a stamped virtual foot or not, thusly: “Oh, stop fretting about it, in a few years you won’t look very good in that suit, and then you can sit on a towel in a one-piece and bitch about the ‘hussies’ who keep attracting men’s attention”. Nothing like a dose of the red pill truth, eh?

  215. Opus says:

    Is not that also what the Slut-Walks were about. Those women – given good advice by the policeman for the purpose of protecting them from sexual assault demand the right to attract Alphas, by treating themselves like Aristocracy and thus only fit for Alpha attention, and lowly Betas, no matter the provocation, must avoid even so much as gazing at them. The women see well-meaning don’t-put-your-hand-in-the-lion’s-cage advice as being support for the Lion and an attack on their freedom to attract Alphas.

  216. Desiderius says:

    “So is feminism the cause or the effect of modern men feeling/being emasculated?”

    Not all modern men have been emasculated. Feminism is a tool used by the evil few who are doing the emasculation.

    Not that (some) women haven’t been accomplices, and many more not-so-innocent bystanders.

    Alpha fux, beta bux doesn’t even quite get to the heart of the matter – it strains any definition of alpha to apply it to the men who are actually knocking up all the baby mommas, or higher up the socioeconomic scale merely racking up notches.

    More Evil genes, Good means.

  217. Anonymous Reader says:

    Desiderius
    Alpha fux, beta bux doesn’t even quite get to the heart of the matter – it strains any definition of alpha to apply it to the men who are actually knocking up all the baby mommas, or higher up the socioeconomic scale merely racking up notches.

    This is factually incorrect. “Alpha” is relative, not absolute.
    You appear to be assuming that women think as you do. That’s wrong. What you regard as “alpha” is totally irrelevant to any woman.

  218. MarcusD says:

    So CAF reflects the wider culture once again? Surprised, or not?

    Not at all surprised. In fact, they will sometimes take a more liberal stance on things (perhaps due to selection bias, who knows).

    as if that somehow would control where photons go, like an invisible burkha.

    It’s one of the most interesting things: they want to wear revealing clothing, but only for certain people, while having everyone else interact with them as if they are wearing a burqa. It’s like an optimization problem (which, oddly enough, could be solved by wearing clothing that is considered fairly modest by contemporary standards – though, that’s a bit of a simplification).

  219. jf12 says:

    @Desiderius, the definition (there’s only one definition) of a primate alpha male is a male that females service, particularly providing food (bananas) and grooming to the males, in exchange for nothing but sexual activities from the male. Alpha males get to take provisioning, and do not have to give. In contrast, beta males are forced to service any female from whom they might get sexual activities, particularly food and grooming to the females. Beta males do NOT get to take provisioning, and have to give instead.

    Adjust your definition of a human alpha.

  220. Cicero says:

    @ Desiderius

    My question isn’t that of male ‘social standing’. My question is whether feminism it is the cause or the effect of emasculation of modern men.

  221. MarcusD says:

    The Curse of CAF:

    Oogling at women (BTW: BlueEyedLady (“Lady”) is a Jezebel feminist)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867289

    husband is a video game addict (comparisons to porn, and discussion of divorce)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867400

  222. Opus says:

    Apropos the oogling thread at CAF, it seems to me that New Atheist was merely acting as an agent provocateur with his hair-splitting question as to the difference between admiring female beauty and – well – really admiring it. Blue Eyed Lady however in true female fashion had it sorted. The latter is, she explains, being a creep, but I think we can fairly conclude that were either of the Colins (Farrell or Firth) or Brad Pitt to oogle or even ogle then that would not be ‘creepy’ but merely a natural admiration of female beauty.

    Personally I find it very difficult even with the best of intentions to avoid noticing women when they expose vast amounts of cleavage or when they wear very tightly fitting tops – try as I might other wise – but as Marcus D says I have to act as if they are wearing a Burkha.

    Somehow I expected better of Roman Catholics – no one on the thread admonishes women for inappropriate displays of flesh, but are only too happy, especially the feminist BlueEyedLady to go in to full-on male-shaming.

  223. greyghost says:

    What a great time to be alive. That robot thing will fit in real nice with the gay marriage across the western world and feminism. Marriage now as nothing to do with sustainable practicality. Not even the “Christian” church believes that anymore. Marriage between one man and a woman gives everyone a dog in the hunt for that civilized society. Undermined in the name of feminism with no fault divorce by one party and forced obligation on the males marriage is of no value. Now we have gay marriage as a start. We have seen a woman marry herself, joked about a woman marrying the Eiffel Tower and a woman marrying a dog. Polygamy is coming and will be legal. It is the only naturally feral direction for this death spiral to go. That is how “she” gets her alpha. The ruling elites will have sex box and male birth control pills to pacify the betas into motivated labor with criminal penalties (what we have now) for knocking up a member of an alpha’s harem. It fits in with everything else. Check out this article from the Spearhead http://www.the-spearhead.com/2014/03/11/wheres-the-conflict-between-feminism-and-polygamy/
    Take that and look at social trends with the shit MarcusD finds and shares with us. Even the church is all in.

  224. Casey says:

    @ Greyghost

    This rampant nonsense is only possible because the world is currently an easy enough place to ‘get by’ that harsh realities can be ignored.

    If the world becomes less hospitable to our continued occupation thereof, then the truth will be finally realized. We have real physical constraints on our continued exponential population growth on this blue marble known as ‘earth’.

    There was a reality show over 10 years ago that re-introduced couples to living like 1850s agrarian farmers. No electricity, no running water, no central heat, no central A/C, no conveniences, no fooling.

    The woman in the duo was born & raised on feminist propaganda. She took offence to being handed the domestic duties, and insisted she be the one to go out & plow the field (with an oxen pulled plow). Her husband (probably knowingly) said ‘go for it’.

    She didn’t last 2 days. Guiding a plow pulled by an oxen was far too physically demanding for her. The plow would hit a rock and buck her from it’s handles. She had to acquiesce that although she WANTED to do the man’s role, she COULDN’T do the man’s role.

    What feminism calls ‘patriarchy’, I would call ‘practicality’.

    Feminists currently have the luxury of hiding behind the modern technology of the world (generally pioneered by men) and get to exclaim (like Sheryl Sandberg) that men have made an awful mess of the world, and women are ready to take the reins from us.

    Claptrap……..but the din is getting ever more deafening.

    So long as the world can be a technological marvel, and life is easy to ‘get by'; then men will have this burden to bear. Few women can see that THEY have become the oppressive force.

  225. Farm Boy says:

    .due to outrage from women (all reactions could be summarized as: “don’t you dare tell me what to wear” or “keep your eyes to yourself”).

    All nonsexy ( i.e. boring creepy) guys should be banned from going out into public areas so that they cannot see such displays. They should leave the house only to go to and from work. Electronic tethering devices should be used to enforce it.

  226. Desiderius says:

    “My question isn’t that of male ‘social standing’. My question is whether feminism it is the cause or the effect of emasculation of modern men.”

    It is an efficient, but not final, cause. The final cause is the enforcement of relative social standing. Buffy and Tanner have an easier time getting into an Ivy when the competition suffers from the dissolution of family ties.

  227. Cicero says:

    @ Desiderius

    My apologies but I do not follow your line of thinking.
    “It is an efficient, but not final, cause.The final cause is the enforcement of relative social standing.”
    Are you claiming that feminism is both the cause and the effect? Because my understanding is that the word “final” denotes the ‘effect’ yet you claim it to be ’cause’.

  228. Desiderius says:

    “This is factually incorrect. “Alpha” is relative, not absolute.
    You appear to be assuming that women think as you do. That’s wrong. What you regard as “alpha” is totally irrelevant to any woman.”

    “the definition (there’s only one definition) of a primate alpha male is a male that females service, particularly providing food (bananas) and grooming to the males, in exchange for nothing but sexual activities from the male.”

    Well, bless your little hearts. Good to see some doctrinaire schoolmarms defecting to Roissy’s team, maybe you can cancel out the ones still enforcing the Feminine Imperative.

    You know what else a primate alpha does? Beats the shit out of any other male that challenges him. Sneaky fuckers are not alphas.

    Beside the point. What I said was that even by Roissy’s (and your) definition, its not always, or even principally, the alphas who are getting in there.

    The non-emasculated man is now so rare that females may want to service him, but be unable to find him or beneath his notice (say your average 14-year-old and Bieber). The question is – does she then settle for the next most alpha? It’s not clear that this is the case.

    In the other direction, if too many men go for the Nash equilibrium, the hottest girl ends up without a suitor. I’ve seen this happen frequently, especially if all the men are emasculated and underestimate their value (one reason why homlier women are so gung-ho to emasculate men).

  229. Desiderius says:

    Cicero,

    Surely you of all people are not unread in Aristotle?

    A final cause is analogous to a purpose. The purpose of feminism is not the emasculation of men per se. Feminism does, however, produce that effect, so it is an efficient cause.

    Some feminists use the resulting emasculation as an excuse/rationalization for female chauvinism (i.e. a cause of future feminism, material cause in this case), but I’m not that worried about that – the proof is in the pudding. Female domination is so utterly barren it always almost immediately overthrows itself.

  230. Cicero says:

    @ Desiderius

    I am more a Socrates reader. However Aristotle’s philosophy was to understand the essence of things in practical terms.
    And logic dictates that the ‘effect’ cannot be the imputes of the ’cause’.
    So by what you now stated am I to understand that you are of the view that the emasculation of modern men is due to the effect of feminism?

  231. @Casey, I remember that show. The wife didn’t have much use for beta-buck boy anyway, she smoked a pipe and was virtually useless on the domestic front. The husband (not the father of her two children) never established a decent frame despite the benefit of their surroundings and they were separated shortly after the show. She was a train wreck, I think the husband finally saw through it. (“Frontier House”)

  232. Desiderius says:

    “I am more a Socrates reader. However Aristotle’s philosophy was to understand the essence of things in practical terms.”

    see

    “So by what you now stated am I to understand that you are of the view that the emasculation of modern men is due to the effect of feminism?”

    Feminism, massively funded initially by elite foundations run by alpha males and since sustained by academic and media institutions whose boards are made up largely of same, has had the effect of emasculating large swaths of men who would otherwise have competed with those elites via their offspring who would have been well-raised but for the corrosive effect of feminism on their families. These offspring were further hampered by affirmative action ostensibly intended to promote feminist goals.

  233. Haha, if too many men go for the “Nash equilibrium”, the hottest girls end up without a suitor? On what planet is this? The one where we’ve revised the nature of humans? While the theory has some merit, it is still just a theory. In the real world (which is where antagonists of Adam Smith fall down) it falls apart. In the real world the men that think they actually have a chance with “the blonde” go for her. The ones who don’t settle for other girls. Now, the top men will also all have a decent chance to sleep with “the blonde” via serial monogamy or carousel maneuvers (why settle for the non-blondes?). I get suspicious of “theories” that fall apart in the first 30 seconds of their implementation. Nash is just the hook that globalists hang their economy rigging justifications on.

    It only works when everyone agrees to keep the game rigged. Watch the global economy and observe its failure.

  234. Desiderius says:

    “the men that think they actually have a chance with ‘the blonde'”

    What part of “emasculation” do you not understand? I’ve known several top women who have noticed this phenomenon. Now being top women, many have taken the bull by the horns and made things happen (including my wife), but there are far fewer top (again, relatively speaking) men taking the initiative to go after them. Many have been emasculated.

    What is often missed is the concomitant efeminization that goes to the original question. Many women who would make good wives also underestimate their worth. It’s the not so hot ones who are often the most full of themselves.

  235. @Desiderius, so what you are saying is that hot women cannot get laid (SMP)? That the emasculation process is nearly universal? Maybe these women aren’t so hot when you calculate the entirety of their SMP, like being stark raving feminists or Cluster B drama queens. It doesn’t take too many “top men” to make the carousel go round.

    If you are talking MMP things are getting even worse for the women, I would agree that gap is opening up like the Grand Canyon.

  236. jf12 says:

    Re: “hot women cannot get laid” lolz. One wonders at the absurdity of some others not wondering at the absurdity.

  237. galloper6 says:

    Desiderius, you are right about social disfuctions among lower classes benifiting the Legacy class IN THE SHORT TERM. They will find out that wecking the social structure that supports their pivilaged lifestyle will take that lifestyle away. But it will be too late for all of us then.

  238. Luke

    You’ve simply described not being willing or able to pay market rates for something you (third-person “you”) desire. Pay market rate, there’s all you want. It’s the same with wanting new Cadillacs for 10 grand; there aren’t any. But, pay 40 grand (or whatever), and there’s all you could want. Same again with the Red Cross periodically and predictably shrieking that there’s a shortage of blood. No, there’s a shortage of free blood. But, if you’ll pay market price, there’s all you could want.

    All of that is true. But that doesn’t change the fact that we aren’t willing to pay market rate. So things wont get done and the business is forced to do things “by hand” that IT could normally automate simply because we can’t hire anyone. And they complain to the CEO and he leans on the CIO to hire some people or get more productivity out of what few we have left.

    I’ve been in the meetings with tthe CIO when he had to explain to the CEO and the COO that we lost out of two new hires or another software developer just gave notice. Every single time it boils down to money. (We don’t pay enough or someone else pays more for our own people.) We bring in contractors and the contracting company “poaches” our own people and there is nothing we can do. That is the free market (which I believe in) working properly. It is also why I firmly believe that the unemployment rate for qualified IT people is 0%.

  239. Desiderius says:

    “Desiderius, you are right about social disfuctions among lower classes benifiting the Legacy class IN THE SHORT TERM. They will find out that wecking the social structure that supports their pivilaged lifestyle will take that lifestyle away. But it will be too late for all of us then.”

    Wholeheartedly agree. History teaches that the elites only try to pull this nonsense when they believe their hegemony to be unchallenged. We’ll see how long that lasts.

    Here’s hoping for Magna Carta next, not Estates General or the sacking of Rome.

  240. Desiderius says:

    Of course my primary concern is MMP. But even the SMP has gotten weirder than it was when Roissy first took up his pen.

  241. Desiderius says:

    “qualified IT people”

    Might not be a bad idea to double check who exactly your HR folks are disqualifying, and why…

  242. Desiderius says:

    “Maybe these women aren’t so hot when you calculate the entirety of their SMP, like being stark raving feminists or Cluster B drama queens.”

    I specifically said the ones who would make good mothers, hence stark raving feminists and cluster B drama queens are not who I’m talking about. Few men desire feminists or drama queens, so by the Roissy definition they’re not alpha either.

    I’m talking about the most desirable women. They can get laid, sure, just as I could get sexually unfulfilling commitment from a wide variety of homely feminists. Not what I was looking for on either count. Likewise, not what those women are in the market for.

  243. Opus says:

    I thought that IBB was a Christian but it transpires that he is a devotee of the God of the Free Market. My limited experience of purported IT people is that it is a case of the partially sighted leading the truly blind. My experience of the free market is that it is a race to the bottom – I regret the passing of the Guilds. The great think about IT is that if something does not work the machine beeps at you, and you may then appear knowledgeable by saying ‘just what I expected’.

    This is an entirely prejudiced view based on my complete ignorance of Multi-Nationals and their corporate cubicles.

  244. Luke says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    March 16, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    “…I firmly believe that the unemployment rate for qualified IT people is 0%.”

    Dr. Norman Matloff (C.S. Ph.D. at Univ-CA-Davis, wife a software eng.) would beg to disagree with you.

    http://tinyurl.com/lvgaurl

  245. How disappointing. They’ve only made it to Aristotle and Socrates. At 253 comments, not a single mention of Neverherdovus.

    The real action will begin any moment.

  246. enrique432 says:

    greyghost: Yes, I believe Warren Farell addressed this issue years ago. As far as economics of life, polygamy is a great deal better for some women, and almost always worse for men, overall. Being “3rd wife” can be a lot better than homeless spinster in some cultures, and as for men, if a bricklayer can’t find a wife, because “3rd wife material” just became some man’s 3rd wife…well, there’s the proof.

    We also already have polygamy, whereby extreme alpha males marry 1-4 times, and often to a woman who’s never been married, thus taking her out of the first-time buyers market for “3rd wife material” bricklaying man. If the top 5 percent of men are married to 50 percent of the women, it’s an encouragement for those lower class men to seek slaves, or lower class (often different racial group) women, which accounts for the very high rate of Scots-Irish that married mulatto and Cherokee women in particular, in the 17th and 18th century.

  247. greyghost says:

    Wait until they get to some of the greyghost classics. The conversation will get real interesting.

  248. Luke,

    I don’t care what Dr Matloff says about the unemployment rate for IT people is. I know what it is.

    Desid,

    Might not be a bad idea to double check who exactly your HR folks are disqualifying, and why…

    HR doesn’t get consulted when IT wants to hire someone. We just tell HR “…we are hiring this person, you HR girls do whatever you have to do and fill out whatever silly stupid pointless forms you have to fill out but we are hiring him, end of story…” and that is the end of it.

    If you work for a company where HR dictates to IT who they may or may not hire, find a new company to work for….

  249. Opus,

    My limited experience of purported IT people is that it is a case of the partially sighted leading the truly blind.

    That is correct. Everywhere. Pretty much every IT department.

    My experience of the free market is that it is a race to the bottom –

    Here in the United States, the expression “race to the bottom” is a Democrat talking point phrase used to justify Obamacare to prevent health insurance companies from competing on price for health insurance premiums. What it basically means is people who are in different risk pools have to pay more and that is non-starter for Democrats. They don’t like that because it seems so unfair. What it means for YOU is that it isn’t unfair that men without work experience can’t just have a job at a salary they think they are worth.

  250. Random Angeleno says:

    @IBB, how about a more nuanced and detailed takedown of the Matloff article? I happen to see a lot of truth in it based on mine and my friends’ experiences.

    Fast, knows the business, cheap, pick any two. Your outfit appears to have picked fast and cheap without regard for “knows the business” because the boss refuses to pay for that.

  251. RA,

    I read the article. Here is my nuanced and detailed takedown of it. I agree that we do not need to increase the number of H1B Visas. I agree that Congress screwed up in 1998 and President Clinton should be ashamed of himself (for more than just the blowjob.) I will further agree that the Googleplex of the Seas (if that floating barge ever actually gets built 1 mile into international waters, just to get around H1B Visa law) that it will be nothing but a giant, floating, software sweatshop. I grant you all of that. But that wasn’t the point of that old Matloff article.

    What Dr Matloff is saying is essencially this: its not fair that employers no longer have to spend money training people while paying people (to do nothing but learn) the way they once had to, nor is it fair that people get old and if they don’t constantly take classes and read books on technology they will find themselves out of job that offers no tenure, pension, or seniority. That is basically the entire premise of the article. We are in the information age and it is the financial responsiblity of the individual to learn what he must to make himself technically employable and shut the hell up about it. If he does that, he will have a job.

    My current employer understands that fast-cheap-stable thing, but they CIO has to be a dreamer because he is the CIO. He must try to get all three even though it is impossible. If he can’t get all three HIS job is in jeapordy (and right now, it is.) The Free Market will eliminate him if he can’t replace the people we’ve already lost.

  252. Badpainter says:

    IBB,

    What book does one read to learn the business? In particular to learn your business? Are there classes one can take relevent to learning your business in a way that gets the inexperienced applicant over that hurdle?

    The death of OJT is more a labor market dysfunction problem than about lack of fairness. If there is no OJT then there is a finite and shrinking pool of skilled labor with the cost premium that comes with it. The industries complaining about a lack of skilled workers have created a situation where they are canabalizing their the labor market.

    How does one learn the business when one can’t even get hired in the first place? Are there no entry level jobs in the industry? What do you recommend the 22yr old, who got the approved degree, do to get the experience without the ability to get a relevent a job? More importantly why would someone who can gain that experience without an entry level job want to work for a firm like yours?

  253. Luke says:

    IBB said…“What Dr Matloff is saying is…”

    You forgot these IMO:

    1) The IT hiring and training function in the vast majority of U.S. companies is on the same level of competence as the Ethics department at Enron. (Refusal to spend a week or two training, instead letting a critical vacancy remain unfilled for numerous months is just one of many examples.)

    2) That the age discrimination in IT in the U.S. is on the level of that in high-end clothes fashion modeling and (as an athlete actually on the field) professional athletics.

    3) That without a relevant internship in college, most C.S. majors will NEVER get a real job doing computer programming. (White men, anyway — Luke.)

    4) That C.S. grads specifically have half or less the odds of still working in the field by mid-career age for which they went to college as do engineering grads.

    5) That there is negligible real need to import even a tiny percent (like <5%) of the 3rd-Worlders being brought in to be programmers (and they get shafted, too).

    6) That it is EXTREMELY tough for would-be programmers to get around these for very long.

    You missed a few parts, methinks. See the one about the Ph.D. EE and Intel? Didn’t think so.

  254. Luke says:

    Badpainter says:
    March 16, 2014 at 11:18 pm

    “How does one learn the business when one can’t even get hired in the first place? Are there no entry level jobs in the industry?”

    For many C.S. grads who didn’t do coding internships while undergrads, there AREN’T any entry-level jobs for them, not ever. Helpdesk lines (nondegree-requiring in many cases, if even located in the U.S. and not in *sscrackistan), working behind a counter at Best Buy for Geek Squad — this is often as good as it gets. Why else do so many C.S. grads leave the industry forever at young ages?

  255. Luke,

    1) The IT hiring and training function in the vast majority of U.S. companies is on the same level of competence as the Ethics department at Enron. (Refusal to spend a week or two training, instead letting a critical vacancy remain unfilled for numerous months is just one of many examples.)

    I can train them on the business. I can’t train them on how to write C#. I don’t have time for that. If all they know is VB, get a VB job somewhere else, learn C# at that job, interview for C# jobs, get a C# job, quit that VB job, and get your $20K salary increase writing C#.

    2) That the age discrimination in IT in the U.S. is on the level of that in high-end clothes fashion modeling and (as an athlete actually on the field) professional athletics.

    I have two developers working directly for me. They are white men in their 60s, not Indians in their 20s. I like to hire older guys because they are easier to work with. So sue me for reverse-age discrimination.

    3) That without a relevant internship in college, most C.S. majors will NEVER get a real job doing computer programming. (White men, anyway — Luke.)

    In Computer Science? Are you drinking right now? Its not St Patrick’s Day yet.

    Comp Sci majors have PAID Co-Ops. They don’t have unpaid internships. They are not journalism, communications, or English majors. They do real work. At age 20, they may only make $17 to $23 an hour, but they are paid sir. They are paid because they are doing work that the girl in trans-gender-studies can’t do.

    4) That C.S. grads specifically have half or less the odds of still working in the field by mid-career age for which they went to college as do engineering grads.

    Maybe? So. But that is usually because they get bored with what they are doing and want to do something else. I am almost at the point now. As soon as I get the other mortgage paid, I might start driving a bus.

    5) That there is negligible real need to import even a tiny percent (like <5%) of the 3rd-Worlders being brought in to be programmers (and they get shafted, too).

    They come here and willingly allow themselves to be shafted, specifically because the 3rd world hell hole they are leaving is Hell literally. They don’t want to go back to Pakistan, India, Malaysia, or whever-the-f-ck they were living (in those shacks that are just one tsunami away from being swept out to sea), and would be willing to work a job for $50K that should pay $150K (in San Jose California) if it means they get to stay in California. You wouldn’t believe how lucky you are sir to be a beta male born in a 1st World nation. Yeah, you aren’t getting the ladies, but you don’t have to boil the water that comes out of the tap for fear that you will drink someone else’s piss and get cholera.

    6) That it is EXTREMELY tough for would-be programmers to get around these for very long.

    Send out one resume a month. That is what the programmers do (the smart ones) one a resume a month. Take an IT job (any job, even helpless desk if that is all you can get at age 22) and send out the resumes, one a month. Interview. Constantly. In a year, you will get another offer, maybe a junior level programming job. Take that and the 5K pay increase. Send out one resume a month. In a year, you get a straigth software developer job. Take that and the 10K pay increase. Send out one resume a month. See how this works?

    When I graduated college (many years ago) I just had warehouse working experience. That didn’t mean jack shit to an employer hiring for IT. My first job was a 3 week temp job setting up work stations, $13 an hour. Then I got a 3 month temp job, same pay. Then a 4 month temp job for $13.75. Then a 2 month temp for $15 which I didn’t finish because I got a call to work elsewhere (doing the same thing) for $30 an hour. I did that temp job for 6 months until they let me go but I had saved $40,000 for a condo down payment. I took 3 weeks off and relaxed. Then I Took a full time help desk job for $40K, still no programming. After a year, I found a small start up willing to hire me (at age 25, two years out of college) as a programmer with a 4K pay CUT! Did that for 18 months, got a $10K pay raise at my next job. Then another 5K pay raise at another job. Then another. But I had to hop around, job after job. I could NEVER extort from my employer the kind of money I was worth without leaving my employer. That is the only way it works. This is why programmers burn out, because they are sick and tired of hopping around to maximize their earning power.

  256. @Desiderius, please point me to the hot woman that is desiring marriage, who is non-carousel riding, who is not a stark raving feminist, not a Cluster B drama queen and is aiming for men in her MMP weight class. I suspect that I know a few guys that would actually be interested in that.

  257. MarcusD says:

    The Revenge of CAF:

    How important is virginity to people in a new relationship? (Where CAF “shines”)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867676

    a modesty question (Where CAF also “shines”)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867630

    Wife Won’t Accept My Victory

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867594

    Sex Starved Husband (And again… – “stop being selfish and thinking off yourself” – you must read the OP to see how this is completely off)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867481

    Single and desperate

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867476

    Somehow nearly every controversial topic was covered today on CAF.

    As an exercise, guess the reactions of the commenters after reading each OP.

    To be honest, I really cannot believe I read those responses to those OPs.

  258. MarcusD says:

    The Revenge of CAF:

    How important is virginity to people in a new relationship? (Where CAF “shines”)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867676

    a modesty question (Where CAF also “shines”)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867630

    Wife Won’t Accept My Victory

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867594

  259. MarcusD says:

    (cont’d)

    Sex Starved Husband (And again… – “stop being selfish and thinking off yourself” – you must read the OP to see how this is completely off)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867481

    Single and desperate

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=867476

    Nearly every controversial topic was covered today on CAF. As an exercise, guess the reactions of the commenters after reading each OP.

  260. MarcusD says:

    To be honest, I really cannot believe I read those responses to those OPs.

  261. Anonymous age 71 says:

    b g says:
    March 13, 2014 at 6:09 pm

    Anonymous age 71

    (i)Where and why did you come up with that theory?(/i)

    From the same as yourself, personal experience. I meant no disrespect, I was just shocked that you had come to that conclusion.

    I guess I simply don’t understand much of what you say,, young man. You made a critical remark about my marriage or my view of marriage, then say you meant no disrespect.

    Here is what you said:

    Guy, I am 65, we were married for more than 45 years. Why the hell would you be doubted your wife early in your marriage? Those are the easy years of your lives together. The work is hardly beginning.

    When someone starts a sentence with the words, “Why the Hell”, you can be sure there is disrespect. Think about it. You might have had something useful to contribute, but did not.

  262. Cicero says:

    @Desiderius
    Thank you for the link.
    The main contention I have with his cause list is that it does not contain a’ first cause’. Thus the subsequent causes are merely effects of the prime cause. Making it more a question of goals and outcomes rather than cause and effect within the scope of our discussion. I think it is here that we misunderstood the others points. My question regarding ‘cause and effect’ was based on what the cause of the modern man’s emasculation. Is feminism the ‘cause’ or does it somehow exploit an ‘effect’ that is the actual cause of this phenomena.
    Because if it is merely an effect, then understanding the cause and rectifying it will then logically negate the ‘effect’.
    As for you explanation of feminisms funding and support is neither here nor there. I am fully aware of the Frankfurt School and its teachings. My aim is to highlight the cause of the modern emasculated man by having him ask himself 1 question, answering it correctly and truly understand the implications thereof and in the process negating feminism and its effects. Without having to argue around in circles with illogical feminist views.

  263. Marcus D, the “Sex Starved Husband” thread is interesting; it brings up a point I’ve been thinking on lately. What does the wife’s libido or interest in sex have to do with anything? I’m starting to get sick of this one. If I’m not interested in shoveling the walk or painting the house do I get a bye? No, sex should not be a chore but why is it the husband who is accused of making it one when the wife is in fact responsible? (I know the answer: because she is a woman and lacks agency)

    Sex should happen in marriage on a regular basis, if one person is hating it THEY have made it a chore (maybe with a little help). Even if it is a labor it should still be done just like all of the other jobs that are required to make a married household function.

  264. hoellenhund2 says:

    IBB,

    “But that doesn’t change the fact that we aren’t willing to pay market rate. So things wont get done and the business is forced to do things “by hand” that IT could normally automate simply because we can’t hire anyone.”

    Strictly speaking, that means that there’s no market demand for those things that won’t get done. Otherwise you’d be able to pay new workers market rate to do those things, because you’d have the earnings to do so.

  265. greyghost says:

    Thank you hoellenhund2 that is how things work.

  266. Soullite says:

    IBB sounds like every clueless BabyBoomer I have ever heard…

    This, good people, is why your children are going to let you all wallow in your own shit in some retirement home. It’s like these fools think it’s still 1975 out there in the economy. ‘just keep sending out resumes’. Jesus Christ, if he were standing right in front of me, I’d punch the man.

  267. John South says:

    margaret59 says:
    March 12, 2014 at 10:55 pm

    Permission? How many wives think that asking their husband’s “permission” to go out for a girl’s night amounts to abuse?

    It’s a very different thing – watching the game alone vs going out to a bar filled with horny men without her husband.

    I don’t think any husband should give his permission for such a thing. Girl’s night is at the house, otherwise forget it. None of this “it just happened”.

    No, it didn’t happen because I don’t trust you. Well, trust but verify…but to verify I must be there.

    Raype! haha

  268. Soullite,

    Jesus Christ, if he were standing right in front of me, I’d punch the man.

    #1) dont curse or ever take the Lord’s name in vain
    #2) my one resume a month recommendation is with the assumption that you are already workign and are not desperate. If you need a job quick, use a head hunter if you don’t like sending out resumes (but some companies will not hire you if you do because they refuse to pay the fee.) I’m trying to help not hurt. If my help is not appreciated, best of luck everyone
    #3) taking a swing at me would be the last thing I would ever recommend you (or anyone) do

  269. craig says:

    innocentbystanderboston says: “I can train them on the business. I can’t train them on how to write C#. I don’t have time for that.”

    Good (knows the technical work), fast (knows the business), cheap: pick any two.

    C#, specific business knowledge, etc., are all marketable commodities. What you are willing to pay for them indicates their value to you. The harder question is whether they are assets or expenses to you.

    A smart kid who knows how to write code can be hired for cheap. If he knows C#, he’ll come less cheap. If the kid knows both C# and your business, he won’t be cheap at all. For purposes of analogy, think of these stages as (1) ‘aspiring poor’, (2) ‘middle class’, and (3) ‘elite’.

    What gets you into the ‘middle class’ is largely ephemeral knowledge. C# is just another skill like Fortran, depreciating in value as technology changes over time. Because it’s ephemeral, it’s an expense, not an asset. It’s a Red Queen race for individuals to stay in the ‘middle class’ without their employers providing training. Employees can keep self-educating and job-hopping, but that is personally expensive and disruptive, and it leads most of them out of IT by the time they hit 45. It doesn’t help that the IT industry exerts deliberate downward pressure on this class through the use of H1B visas and outsourcing to India.

    Business knowledge is more durable, unless your industry disappears entirely. It’s an asset, not an expense. The upper tier who manage to acquire in-depth business knowledge before their ephemeral skills deteriorate are the superstar elites.

    Getting back to the topic of this blog, this is all analogous to the SMV vs. MMV discussion. Think of our three stages as a gradual progression from a visible preponderance of (ephemeral) SMV to one of (durable) MMV over time. It has been said here that young women of high SMV ought to be seeking out good young men with high future MMV, and making them husbands, while they are at an advantage relative to their peers. Instead, we seen many young women of high SMV maximizing current SMV in the men they date (and/or bed), acquiring nothing durable in return.

    Likewise, companies should seek out good young engineers and acquire them at a discount to their future value. Grow them as assets, get them the ephemeral knowledge needed right now, and keep them via ‘golden handcuffs’. Leaving employees to their own self-education and career management is setting oneself up for the business equivalent of pump-and-dump. They will have gained in value, but not for you: you’re not willing to pay their market value. Your continued insistence that there are no unemployed good engineers passed over into No Good Men Out There (a variant of No True Scotsman) territory long ago.

  270. craig,

    It’s a Red Queen race for individuals to stay in the ‘middle class’ without their employers providing training. Employees can keep self-educating and job-hopping, but that is personally expensive and disruptive, and it leads most of them out of IT by the time they hit 45.

    By the time you are 45, you shuld have enough IT expereince and be such a crack-programmer that you should be on your own consulting anyway. Why work for the man? Be the man. Bill $80/hour and work no more than 1000 hours a year. Vacation more with your family.

    It doesn’t help that the IT industry exerts deliberate downward pressure on this class through the use of H1B visas and outsourcing to India.

    The H1B thing really does NOT WORK (long term) in saving a company money. Why pay an Indian $120K a year when he only gets $65K (or whatever) when the rest goes to his placement agency? I can hire a 30 year old kid at $75K and get better productivity, cheapr for my firm. No I never support the idea behing H1B.

  271. lady N says:

    I suspect that outsourcing to India is going to bite a few companies in the *** sooner or later…

    ANTI-GLOBALIST EXPATRIATE writes:

    Academic achievement in the “world’s largest democracy” involves so much cheating that the police monitor exam sites.

    These are the people that U.S. high-tech corporations are seeking to import under H-1B visa and ‘training’ schemes to replace supposedly nonexistent qualified Americans – at far lower wages than Americans would command.

    Excerpt from:

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2014/03/exam-time-is-cheating-time-in-india/

  272. lady,

    I suspect that outsourcing to India is going to bite a few companies in the *** sooner or later…

    It already has. They are not getting the value.

    I mean if you are going to go and use INDIA to save money, the only way it really works is for your Business Analysts to be outstanding at gathering requirements AND they have to be empowered to dictate to the business that once they set something in motion, that’s it. You can’t go Scrum-Agile if you are going off-shore for the coding. And if you go offshore, you better have near perfect BRDs that give such clear defined requirements.

  273. b g says:

    Anonymous age 71

    I have no way of knowing about your marriage, or you of mine. However, despite your being Australian, and my being Canadian, the institution itself would have had a common tradition. Moreover, we both are of an era where the view of marriage itself would have been very, very similar. The vows almost certainly would have included “forsaking all others”…as I said, I was just shocked that you had concluded otherwise of your wife…and frankly, I still am.

  274. Slagtarg,

    Here is someone in denial”

    Msgr. Charles Pope: Remember when young people used to date? Whatever happened to that?

    With comments like this…

    As many of the comments here show, there is a lot of breakdown, camps, hostility and so forth. I don’t remember that. We guys certainly took our lumps and got a lot of nos when we asked a girl out, but at least we were trying to move toward relationships that led to marriage.

    I think Msgr Charles Pope, is one step away from taking his post down. This is NOT working out the way he thought it would, totally the opposite. Lots of red pills over there.

  275. Luke says:

    SlargTarg says:
    March 17, 2014 at 6:12 am

    “Here is someone in denial

    Msgr. Charles Pope: Remember when young people used to date? Whatever happened to that?”

    Indeed, ST. I posted this comment there (interesting if it gets past moderation…)

    Liesl says:
    March 17, 2014 at 9:20 am

    “Speaking as a single woman living in the DC area… we are lovable! We want to date, and we think it is worth it! Sorry that you’ve gotten this impression from so many women.”

    Liesel, Liesel…
    The vast, vast majority of unmarried American women (UAW) have had premarital sexual partners to the point that they can’t bond longterm to a husband. This chart shows this well: http://tinyurl.com/nlngkxl

    Further, UAW usually don’t realize (before their 40s, at least, when it no longer matters due to age-barrenness) that women can get much higher “market value” men to sleep with them than the men those women can motivate to marry them. Thus, UAW now routinely nuclear-reject men of their own “market value” for the years of their own peak attractiveness, holding out in vain for the impossibility of the “9″ (who years ago slept with her, a “6″ at her peak, say) to commit to her and marry her. The “5″s, “6″s and “7″ men she knows (who would largely have been decent husbands for her) in the meantime give up on her. Those latter men end up settling for porn, getting foreign brides, or (once their market value increases enough) going after younger women with some success.

    Another chart for you shows the possibility of the last very well: http://tinyurl.com/q7vetzn

    Then, there is the horrific rate of cuckolding of husbands by wives these days (bearing children sired by other men during the marriage), up to thirty percent of all legitimate children in America now:

    http://tinyurl.com/nt3bs7n

    This is all without getting into the grossly biased against men divorce courts, where a legally BLAMELESS man can EXPECT to become impoverished and have his children taken from him, even if his ex-wife-to-be was an adulteress and/or violent towards him. (Stephen Baskerville’s book “Taken Into Custody” describes this in detail.)

    Did I forget all the women making false accusations of rape, domestic violence, and sexual abuse of children against husbands, for which rarely do the women get ANY legal or other sanction? The women who use the law to shove better-qualified men out of jobs and college slots (via “affirmative action”, female-only scholarships, “diversity initiatives”, accusations of “sexual harassment”, etc.), then (refusing to “date down” due to hypergamy) complain about “how there are no good men anymore”?

    How are unmarried American women (in D.C. and elsewhere) lovable, Liesl? I’m having trouble seeing it.

    P.S. For further reading, I suggest Roger Devlin’s essay “Home Economics” and Daniel Amneus’s “Garbage Generation” (both available online for free). To see how to be a wife a man actually WANTS, there’s Debi Pearl’s “Created To Be His Helpmeet”.

    Good luck to you in taking the red pill (“Matrix” movie reference).”

  276. Cicero says:

    @ Luke

    “where a legally BLAMELESS man.”

    Ever wondered what the difference is between something being lawful and something being legal?

  277. Luke says:

    Not for years, Cicero. It’s the difference between’s Man’s laws — and God’s laws (alternatively, natural law).

  278. Luke says:

    Hey, the Catholic website (above) approved my post. Waiting for some feminist and white-knight heads to explode; 3, 2…

  279. Opus says:

    @IBB

    It must seem very strange to Americans such as yourself but in Great Britain every one pays the same for health care, so those who are more prone to illness (devotees of extreme sports, raw-dogging Homosexuals, or old people) or require special treatment (Male to female transsexuals,) pay the same as everyone else. No one has been known to complain about this, because you never know when you may need a Doctor. Better still visiting Americans get teated for free should they need health care. God knows how we afford it.

    I don’t think I said anything about those without working experience having the salary they choose, but perhaps when you wrote YOU you were not referring to me but some mythical American.

  280. Cicero says:

    @ Luke
    Within the scope of human interaction, there is another difference as well between the two.

  281. Luke says:

    Opus says:
    March 17, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    @IBB

    “It must seem very strange to Americans such as yourself but in Great Britain every one pays the same for health care, so those who are more prone to illness (devotees of extreme sports, raw-dogging Homosexuals, or old people) or require special treatment (Male to female transsexuals,) pay the same as everyone else. No one has been known to complain about this, because you never know when you may need a Doctor. Better still visiting Americans get teated for free should they need health care.”

    The last was NOT my experience in Aberdeen, Scotland in 2010. I was charged something like 40 pounds for a small, routine thing (getting a prescription renewed, not the drug, just the signed piece of paper), at a place that advertised itself as being part of the socialized medicine program there.

  282. Luke,

    Waiting for some feminist and white-knight heads to explode; 3, 2…

    Well there is that white-knight Mathew and I responded ot him. Mine is now awaiting moderation so we’ll see if they let it through. There is no way he can keep these comments open, too many red pills over there now ruining the whole point he was making.

    By the by, did you see the post by the Rules Girl? LOL!

  283. galloper6 says:

    Luke you sumed up the problem with UAW today. They confuse the sex market with the marriage market.

  284. Opus says:

    @Luke

    Had you taken my advice you would not have visited Scotland (I never have, the weather is awful and it is full of Scots) and perhaps things are different there, but it is true that prescriptions are now to be paid for (with exception of the unemployed and OAPs). This used not to be the case but unfortunately the Market has begun to interfere with our wonderful system, and it is almost impossible also to find a free Dentist. As a result there is considerable snob-value in making known that one goes private. Even so prescription charges are just a few pounds (are you sure you meant forty rather than four – I know our money is confusing – or were you being ripped off – that Aberdeen accent can be confusing – if that were the case I am sorry you were taken advantage of £4/10/- is the fee).

    By the way it is not Socialised Health Care: it is part of our birth right (doubtless in Magna Carta)and you will be hard put to find anyone who will say anything against it. Indeed to criticise the institution of the NHS is considered by all ranks of society to be highly inappropriate. No politician whether of the right or left would dare do so without risking sacking or de-selection.

    What similarity there is between the NHS and Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare I would not care to say – perhaps it is different.

  285. Luke says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    March 17, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    “Luke,

    By the by, did you see the post by the Rules Girl? LOL!"</i>
    

    I did, IBB. How someone of average intelligence over the age of 14 could think that problems in the mating market in America could be fixed by women becoming more “elusive” (e.g., even less responsive to social overtures and attempts at communication) is beyond me. If anything has a chance in fixing the MM short of the historical solution of feminism-vanishing economic collapse, it would be red-pill people tirelessly explaining the facts of life to everyone else whenever possible.

  286. Opus,

    What similarity there is between the NHS and Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare I would not care to say – perhaps it is different.

    Well what is different is that the “for-profit” motive for US pharmecutical companies marketing their drugs in the US at much more expensive prices is the sole motivation for the creation of the majority of the world’s pharmecuticals. The rest of the 1st world sucks-of the pharmecutical R&D within the United States. You get it in England/Scotland/Northern Ireland (cheaply) about ten years after we make it in the US (and Bid pharma makes their investment back.) And now (with Obamacare) there is going to be even less of that which means less life-saving drug research for the world. So your Magna Carta mandate be damned, our worldwide healthcare technology came to a screeching halt with the election of our President.

  287. Luke,

    I did, IBB. How someone of average intelligence over the age of 14 could think that problems in the mating market in America could be fixed by women becoming more “elusive” (e.g., even less responsive to social overtures and attempts at communication) is beyond me.

    When you are a woman who wants to get married (as pretty much all women do) but you don’t have much (or anything) to offer a man, the one thing you try to do is game the system by tricking into thinking you are some catch because you are so busy. That’s the Rules. She doesn’t have anything to offer but by virtue of her having a vagina, you must make her entirely whole. The Rules and the Manosphere is like matter-vs-anti-matter, causes a nuclear explosion far worse than furriously shaking nitrogyclerin.

  288. lady N says:

    Luke, those numbers on cuckoldry seemed a bit off, so I Googled it. :-)

    Yeah, realistically we are probably looking at a cuckoldry rate of less than 4% within marriages.

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2730/whos-your-daddy

  289. Opus says:

    @IBB

    Whereas I do not doubt that there is Pharma research in the United States, it is simply not the case that Great Britain provides none. Your views would I am sure it would be of considerable interest to the likes of Astra-Zeneca and Glaxo. Who do you think invented Penicillin? (Hint: His first name is Sir).

  290. Opus says:

    …and we cloned a sheep (“Dolly”) .

  291. Whereas I do not doubt that there is Pharma research in the United States, it is simply not the case that Great Britain provides none.

    You provide some. But (at this point) the amount provided in British research pales in comparison I think we’d both agree. Maybe that will all change now with Obamacare really f-cking things up for US pharmacutical companies.

  292. Marissa says:

    Luke, those numbers on cuckoldry seemed a bit off, so I Googled it. :-)

    Yeah, realistically we are probably looking at a cuckoldry rate of less than 4% within marriages.

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2730/whos-your-daddy

    This link says nothing about cuckoldry within marriages. Instead, it combines the median rates of two groups: can’t-conclude paternity and high-confidence paternity. Here’s the money quote, predicated on a “guess”:

    Seen this way, the numbers yield a pretty convincing pattern. The median nonpaternity rate for the high-confidence group was a not-too-scandalous 1.7 percent, whereas the low-confidence group showed an unsurprisingly high rate of 29.8 percent – about what one might gather from watching a few weeks of Maury Povich. If you combine the first group with the can’t-conclude group, which showed a rate of 16.7 percent, you get a rate around 3.3 percent, or a ninth of the low-confidence rate. While Anderson cautions that there’s currently no way to figure out what percentage of total births are low- or high-confidence, and thus what a societywide nonpaternity rate might be, he does use figures from a paternity confidence study he conducted in Albuquerque to guess that the rate for that city as a whole would be under 4 percent.

  293. Luke says:

    Miss N, an essay for you on cuckoldry:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/washington-post-fembot-tells-cuckold-suck-it-up/

    Re the “real rates” of cuckoldry being more like 4%, I offer two logical rebuttals:

    1) The commonality of wives allowing their husbands to have sex with them at only around 10% of the frequency with which they offered it early on in their marriage/relationship (when the women were presumably faithful, going to their husbands/future husbands with all their sexual needs;

    and
    2) married women now admitting to being unfaithful to their husbands at rates around half of married women (and, is if the “no, I never cheated on my husband” group couldn’t possibly include lots of blatant liars, no sir, nohow).

    4%? Fails the h*ll out of Occam’s Razor.

  294. Luke says:

    Marissa, re which women would be in the “low-confidence” group, that’s easy. Any woman in America that’s not Old Older Amish, SAHM Orthodox Jewish, recently-arrived Muslim, or lives ALONE with her husband on a remote island, should be in that group.

    Re men being easily able to recognize themselves in their children, I call hooey. I have fraternal twin daughters around 20 months old. Their maternal genetic component is from an ova donor. I had them independently tested (took them to outside lab 1000 miles away from and unconnected to our fertility clinic) to confirm they’re genetically mine. (Was against the rare but nonzero chance of switched seed at clinic.) I can’t fricking tell if they look specifically like me or not, aside from hair/eye commonalities.

  295. Marissa says:

    Luke, the problem with the high-confidence group is the number of men who are naively (or willfully) blind to their wives’ potential adultery. Because I assure you that the high-confidence group includes far more than the groups you listed. Another problem with those numbers is that is says nothing about currently married or unmarried (and whether the couple was married at the time of conception and birth).

  296. Mark says:

    @IBB

    “”Obamacare really f-cking things up for US pharmacutical companies””

    No kidding!….I have been working overtime looking for companies to short sell!

  297. Opus says:

    @IBB

    That is the second time you have attempted to put words into my mouth. Please refrain from doing so; people may well believe that you are my puppet. It is you who makes the assertion that there is no European Pharma: I have already cited Glaxo and Astra and indicated who discovered Penicillin as well as who cloned Dolly and we have no less than twenty-six Nobel Prizes for Medicine but to stick to Europe how about Ciba Geigy or do you think Switzerland is part of the U.S.A.

    Anyway here is another embarrassing fact to be getting on with: the British Book Publishing trade is the largest in the world (and your population is five times greater than ours). You can also let me know who invented the hover craft, the jet-aircraft, the jump-jet, the Micro-wave oven and the World Wide Web (as well as who discovered Higg’s Boson).

    Perhaps you think we are all cap-doffing yokels or football-hooligans (where of course we also lead the world) or slave -driving colonial masters but England if you recall (from our previous discussions) started the Industrial Revolution in the 1770s and it has continued apace ever since. Boston is a town in Lincolnshire (so obviously you cloned that).

  298. Opus,

    You can also let me know who invented the hover craft, the jet-aircraft, the jump-jet, the Micro-wave oven and the World Wide Web (as well as who discovered Higg’s Boson).

    Thank you so very much for radar, but twas the Germans who gave us jet aircraft.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

    You can say you built that technology all you wanted, but those spit fires had propellers sir (not jet engines) and the only way your Royal Air Force could catch those Me 262s was doing what we had to do with our planes, diving straight down at them from above with nitrous injected into carberators.

    The US wasn’t too concerned with Jump Jet, we just built more nuclear aircraft cariers. F-14s were way too heavy and way too heavily armed to tilt their propultion to take off vertically.

    Perhaps you think we are all cap-doffing yokels or football-hooligans (where of course we also lead the world) or slave -driving colonial masters

    No sir. I would never say that

    I am saying that the vast majority of pharmacuticals are (or should I say “were”) developed in the United States of America. They were done here because our government didn’t (or should I say, didn’t BEFORE) strong arm pharmacutical companies to give drugs to the American people at prices set by government. Big Pharma was spending the $100,000,000 in research, they were free to charge all that the market would bear and then (10 or 15 years later) the British and Canadian governments step in and strong arm big US pharma to force them to sell the generic pill in their counites for a penny or whatever, didn’t matter, they already made up their $100,000,000 investment off of 300,000,000 Americans.

  299. Badpainter says:

    IBB,

    Re: Jet engine- Frank Whittle 1932, Britain. First jet aircraft Heinkel 178, Germany.

  300. All true bad painter. But the first jet aircraft that mattered was the me-262. Thank God Almighty the Nazis didn’t start cranking them in the late 1930s or the only way the Allies win the war in Europe is without the British (there would have been no Royal Airforce left in 1940) and with a US A-bomb dropped on Berlin.

  301. Opus says:

    @IBB

    I am afraid I cannot let your mistakes pass uncorrected for it was Sir Frank Whittle who invented the Jet Engine. The U.S. navy purchased our Jump Jets, and although it is true you invented a few fast aircraft your F14s would have been hopeless in the Falklands (as were the French Super Mirage jets). So far as fast fighter jets are concerned we invented the TSR2 so the idea that you were the only one inventing fast jets is not correct – and of course the Buccaneers and Lightening jets not to mention the Jaguar and Euro-fighter are all ours. May I also remind you that the Concorde was also our invention.

    I am reminded of an alleged series of communication – on ship – between an American Admiral and his British counterpart. The American Admiral cabled ‘How does it feel to belong to the second largest Navy in the world’ and he received the following reply ‘How does it feel to belong to the second best Navy in the world’.

  302. Opus and Badpainter,

    Although Frank Whittle started first, it appears the Germans beat the British to the punch from an “operational” standpoint.

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

    By the by, I didn’t know this until just now. I had thought British made the first operational jet engine, just didn’t follow through is all….

  303. Opus,

    I am afraid I cannot let your mistakes pass uncorrected for it was Sir Frank Whittle who invented the Jet Engine.

    See above. Frank was first (because he started working on it first) but did Hans get there first?

    By the by, you said jet aircraft. The British did NOT build the first jet aircraft. That was the Nazis. I wish it had been you. Still, thank you so very much for radar.

  304. Opus says:

    @IBB

    Playing what-if historical reconstructions is never a good idea. We had Spitfires which were faster and more agile than the German fighter planes. We also had Swordfish bi-planes that were so slow the gunners on the Bismark consistently misjudged where to aim, but we still sank it.

  305. Luke says:

    Marissa, your last reply is a vague attempt at frame-changing that I find unconvincing.
    I will hold to my last position, that logically the current percentage of American legitimate births that are cuckoldings is probably far, far higher than 4%.

  306. Opus,

    May I also remind you that the Concorde was also our invention.

    And with it, you lost money on every flight with every passenger. Yes you invented it and were the first to have commercial jets travel faster than the speed of sound. Bully for you sir. And not enough people wanted to pay for that. So, British Airways discontinued its use (they never should have started.)

    By the by, the F-14 has never had a serious challenge, ever. And the US Navy officially retired that fighter over 7 years ago. When we first started deploying them at the end of the Vietnam war, our kill ratio was back up to 12-1. That is because you could shoot a bunch of holes in the F-14 and…. it kept flying. Hell, an F-14 pilot landed an F-14 on a carrier without one of the vertical stabilizers.

    The significance of the F-14 (what made it so special) is that it was designed for four purposes: #1) keep the pilot and navigator alive at all costs by encasing them in a armored cocoon #2) out gun any other plane in the air #3) have an incredibly long cruising range at medium speed (which would have been useful in your Falkland’s War) and when necessary #4) fly really FAST. These four components put together gave the US Navy complete and total air superiority over any and all would be challengers. MiG fighters were quicker and much more manuverable but they were shot down much too fast and they burned fuel much too fast.

    The negatives with the F-14 are obvious, you can’t exactly have a vertical take off with a jet that big and that heavily armed. So in that sense, we needed your Harriers for certain other missions (where our nuclear carriers would have been in jeapordy.) Of course, I don’t think we’ve ever actually LOST a nuclear carrier (and I think the Japs only ever sunk the USS Yorktown.)

  307. Opus,

    Playing what-if historical reconstructions is never a good idea. We had Spitfires which were faster and more agile than the German fighter planes. We also had Swordfish bi-planes that were so slow the gunners on the Bismark consistently misjudged where to aim, but we still sank it.

    Unfortunately, WWII taught the United States (at Pearl Harbor, our nightmare!), the British (at Singapore)…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Prince_of_Wales_(53)

    ..and the Germans and Japanese (Bismark and Yamato) one very imporant lesson, surface ships suck vs aircraft. Your torpedo bombers did a number on the Bismark.

  308. MarcusD says:

    and with a US A-bomb dropped on Berlin

    Which would be coming from where, exactly?

    Had the RAF been wiped out (that is, the Battle of Britain lost), Operation Sealion would likely have been a success (i.e. the Nazis would have occupied Britain). Unless the Americans managed to build their own version of the “Amerika Bomber” – and somehow got it all the way to Berlin without being intercepted by Me 262’s (or similar), it’s doubtful they could get an A-bomb to Berlin.

  309. Marcus, you are right. It could have been a nightmare.

  310. Sir, those Fokkers were Messerschmitts

    That joke ages well

  311. galloper6 says:

    Cant be get back to original topic?

  312. Badpainter says:

    “It could have been a nightmare.”

    And yet it wasn’t going to be because the crucial decisions were all made before the shooting started. The fatal decisions for the Axis powers were made in 1941 thus ratifying the previous decisions. One might suggest the hand of God was at play. Or simply that the mass hubris of the Axis resulted in fight very like three skilled midgets versus 2 of Andre the Giant. Really the war decided by the spring of 1942 and the worst outcome possible then would have been dragging it out to 1947 with the same result.

  313. mustardnine says:

    Well, it ain’t the wimminz derailing THIS thread, lol.

  314. greyghost says:

    MarcusD
    The B-36 was to be the intercontinental bomber. Modern day Brits are living on the history channel. I seriously doubt the men of that country could pull off the struggles of WW1 and WW2 although they were a good show in the Falklands.

  315. I’ve been too busy to read these comments, but I’ll chime in to say that I believe 4% is way below the reality of cuckolding in this country.

  316. Are there any very recent studies regarding men’s attendance, or lack thereof, at churches? I’m curious about 2012 and 2013.

  317. lady N says:

    Regarding the cuckoldry rate:

    “Such a figure squares a lot better with other recent large-scale surveys than the 10 percent rate one hears. In a 2005 paper Australian sociologist Michael Gilding reads available evidence as suggesting a nonpaternity rate for Western countries of between 1 and 3 percent; another comprehensive study of international data agrees we can’t yet draw any conclusions about across-the-board rates but says that minus paternity-dispute cases the overall rate looks to be about 3.7 percent.

    “While papers focusing on specific population segments may be of limited use due to sample-size issues, some fascinating small-scale research also supports the macro findings. For a 2000 study Oxford scientists collected DNA from 48 men with the last name Sykes living in a particular section of northern England. On genotyping the subjects’ Y chromosomes, the researchers found that (a) unexpectedly, there seemed to have been a single ur-Sykes with whom 44 percent of the living Sykeses shared a unique string of genetic info, and (b) over 700 years the Sykes nonpaternity rate had been about 1.3 percent per generation. Now, if one Sykes’s wife got together with another Sykes on the side, any resulting nonpaternity wouldn’t show up here. But assuming that women who married Sykeses were neither atypically unadventurous nor surprisingly prone to Sykes-swapping, this too suggests that cuckoldry isn’t nearly the undying scourge it’s been made out to be.”

    (From the same source, emphasis mine.)

    It is not unreasonable to assume that 95% of children born within an intact marriage were fathered by the husband. Since divorce is now so easy and often can be a “positive” for the woman, what typically happens is the woman simply leaves her husband for her paramour. Does cuckoldry still happen? Sure, but I suspect that is more of an “upper class” thing. Many low-income sluts do not even bother with marriage anymore anyway thanks to state-supported “polyandry” (the woman gets her sex and offspring from some men while getting other men, like my tax-paying husband, to financially support her and her brood.)

  318. lady N says:

    Here is another source (take it or leave it):

    (Excerpt; emphasis mine)

    I have done my own calculations based on British surveys in 1990 and 2000, for which raw data is available. They indicate an underlying non-paternity rate for children born in 1990 of somewhere between 0.7 per cent and 2 per cent. The estimated rate differs widely according to the marital status of the mother. For the offspring of married women, the rate is between 0.3 per cent and 0.6 per cent. For cohabiting women, it is between 1.1 per cent and 2.7 per cent. For other women – single, divorced, separated or widowed – it is between 2.3 per cent and 8.1 per cent.

    My calculations for the survey in 2000 indicate an underlying non-paternity rate for children born in that year of somewhere between 1.3 per cent and 3.4 per cent. The non-paternity rate rose between 1990 and 2000 for two main reasons: first, a higher proportion of women (married, cohabiting or other) with two or more sexual partners, and second, a higher proportion of births outside of marriage.

    Published data from the 2001 large-scale sex survey in Australia suggests that Australian rates are in the same range as those in Britain. Australian women are slightly more likely to have had two or more sexual partners in the previous year, which implies a higher non-paternity rate. They are slightly less likely to have children outside of marriage, which implies a lower non-paternity rate. In other words, the two patterns roughly cancel each other out.

    At the very least, these surveys indicate that the extent of misattributed paternity is increasing in rich countries such as Australia, largely because of the weakening hold of marriage on sexual behaviours. Yet the increase is taking place from a low base. The evidence from sex surveys is pretty much the same as the evidence from medical research. It shows that estimates of 10 per cent, 20 per cent and 30 per cent non-paternity rates are massively inflated.

    http://inside.org.au/the-fatherhood-myth/

  319. b g says:

    lady N

    Curious choice of names ;-D

    Let’s begin with the harsh reality that a cuckhold is a husband/boyfriend with an adultress for a wife/girlfriend. Paternity testing does not prove nor disprove the actual proportion of cheating wives/girlfriends. That latter is at best a minimum figure of the former, basically those that were actually caught.

    Regardless, as a retired scientist, I would wish you to argue rationally…please cite the original findings. Please do not cite the conclusions of government funded journalists such as ABC, or BBC, or my own CBC…all too often referred to as The People’s Network, if not as complete obscenities ;-D

  320. MarcusD says:

    @v777

    I posted this further up on the thread: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/denying-the-existence-of-feminism/#comment-114157

    In general, the Catholic attendance rates are lower middle for all church attendance in the US, from what I’ve been told.

    I threw a few charts together for you (and anyone else interested) and posted them here: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/03/gss-nsal-rates-of-church-attendance-in.html

    If you’re interested in other variables, let me know and I’ll update the post.

    Article I read a while back: http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2011-10/why-do-men-stay-away (yes, the contradictions are frustrating…)

  321. b g says:

    MarcusD

    There is no contradiction, males instinctively see any deliberate attempt at avoidance.

  322. MarcusD says:

    There is no contradiction, males instinctively see any deliberate attempt at avoidance.

    Could you expand on this?

  323. Amstrat says:

    @MarcusD, I read the article and half the comments. Quite frustrating for them to see the problem but so easily trivialize any solutions.

  324. Opus says:

    It is predictable that IBB should attempt to rubbish Concorde. It was after all only the most beautiful (after Comet) and fastest Air Liner ever built yet even so (and with our creative accountants) it is obvious that Concorde made a lot of money – its transatlantic flights were always full – but I suppose that someone who worships the Free Market God (price of everything, value of nothing) is not going to be impressed with speed or beauty, though he might appreciate loss-leaders; neither is he going to be able to tolerate the idea that anything of value comes out of a country no larger than the State of New York – as I wrote yesterday no less than twenty Four Nobel Prizes for Medicine, most recently in 2012. Round here they say that wrapping oneself in the flag is the last refuge of the scoundrel, but I doubt Americans are that cynical, and I commend IBB’s single-handed but unpersuasive patriotism.

    I have however frequently wondered about the proneness to sinking of Aircraft Carriers – they carry little armour. It is true we sank Bismark (as well as the entire French fleet at Oran) but the Swordfish came from Ark Royal which in turn was duly sunk. Dodging Torpedoes, one is sooner rather than later going to be unlucky. We lost a couple of ships during The Falklands conflict though we in turn sunk your former Cruiser – though not Hermes or Invincible. Ships are vulnerable but armour is hard to pierce. The Iowas (and Vanguard) scared the life out of everyone.

    Those Russians have some terrific looking fighter jets.

  325. Badpainter says:

    Opus,

    Look up the Sukhoi PAK FA T50. Simply gorgeous.

    Mr. Picky wants to point out, just for fun, that the Concorde ended its service life as the second most dangerous form of transpiration in the 20th century ( deaths/hours of operation), the Space Shuttle is number one by that measure.

    And an on topic note, sort of, in addition to beautiful fighter aircraft the Russians also appear to have non-feminized churches. Orthodox Christianity is something I might have to check out.

  326. b g says:

    MarcusD

    Surely, you understand that there is a very deliberate attempt to avoid sections of the Bible. My late wife was a devout Christian, but loved and married an agnostic…one still wrestling with numerous questions. I guess the most of the obvious are Ephesians, but much of the Book is being deliberately ignored… and has been for more than half a century that I know of.

  327. Opus says:

    @Bad Painter

    It is amazing what one may do with statistics: Concorde only had one crash in twenty or so years of operation – anyway it was an Air France Concorde that crashed so we can say that British Airways had a 100% safety record with her.

    The Russians also have that enormous plane the Antonov 225 as well as the extraordinary Ektranoplans.

  328. James K says:

    @IBB

    If I understand your posts correctly, your managers are aware of “good-fast-cheap”, but when a worker has achieved the first two, he will leave because your employer will not pay him an extra 20%. Even though the difference in productivity between a fast and a slow programmer is 1000%.

    If your employer is as clueless as you say he is, I suggest you look for a job somewhere else, because apart from the frustration of having your efforts sabotaged by your own managers, it is only a matter of time before the company itself is wiped out by its competitors.

  329. tejo says:

    “The finest trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist.” – Charles Baudelaire

  330. Marissa says:

    Marissa, your last reply is a vague attempt at frame-changing that I find unconvincing.
    I will hold to my last position, that logically the current percentage of American legitimate births that are cuckoldings is probably far, far higher than 4%.

    Luke, I was actually in agreement with you; I think the cuckoldry rate is much higher. I’m sorry if I was unclear. The issue I was trying to explain is that those men who are easiest to mislead (convince to never test paternity) can be the easiest for the woman to fool.

  331. hurting says:

    Micha Elyi says:
    March 14, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    JPII used the term in Theology of the Body.

  332. galloper6 says:

    Perhaps you two can settle this the traditional way? Both of you get yourselves a biplane and period fight suits and meet over Flanders. Then return to topic.

  333. MarcusD says:

    Surely, you understand that there is a very deliberate attempt to avoid sections of the Bible.

    Okay, yes, that’s true. I wasn’t sure that that’s what you meant.

  334. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ignorant Bystander in Boston
    I think the Japs only ever sunk the USS Yorktown.

    There is no evidence that IBB can actually think, or use a search engine, or read a book and learn something. This account has become a self-parody.

  335. Luke says:

    New reply of mine on the Catholic forum discussing marriage (previously mentioned above):

    http://blog.adw.org/2014/03/remember-when-young-people-used-to-date-whatever-happened-to-tha

    Catarina says:
    March 17, 2014 at 6:56 pm

    “I’m a single woman in her 40′s in the DC area, and I would love to date good Catholic men! But I’ve found that many of them are unmotivated and in no hurry to get married. Most around my age would rather marry women 10-20 years younger than they are anyway. Unfortunately, I am seen as “expired goods”. I’ve tried online dating and done tons of praying. At this point I’m hoping for a miracle! Please pray for me!!”

    Hello, Catarina. Before I go on with the rest of my reply to you, note that I do genuinely wish you well. What I don’t wish well is the continuation of any illusions you may have that are preventing you from finding Godly true happiness.

    First, you sound as if you believe that you should be able to date men your own age. Uh, no, that ended around your mid-20s. The traditional rule is that a man could date “down” agewise to (1/2 his age + 7). Working backwards, if you’re a woman aged 44, you should be looking at men that are (44 – 7) X 2 years old, which is 37 X 2, or up to age 74. That may repulse you, fair enough. But, according to basic Economics, if an item isn’t selling, either or both its price needs to go down. Lower “price” could mean looking for men in their 50s or 60s, say, or at least less attractive/lower-income than you’ve previously considered acceptable.

    Higher “quality” (that needs to go up) could mean any of lose weight to your age-20 weight, get out of debt, arrange your life to have more time to spend with a man, detrash your house, lose the cats, no more female porn like romance novels/Vogue/Lifetime/Oprah, learn how to cook well (if you don’t already know how), learn a skill (bookkeeping/taxes, say) useful to a busy professional man, etc. Tops, though, would be permanently acquiring the mindset that once you’re sexual with a man (hopefully not until married) you’ll not only be faithful to him (in mind as well as actions), but would absolutely be happy to have the type and frequency of sex be what makes him happy. Note that men rarely care about a woman’s income or job status being high, if anything (accurately) seeing those as indications she’s more likely to cheat on him or leave him.

    Lastly, you could possibly do what my wife did to get me to marry her when she was in her late 40s (I’m actually slightly younger than her). She agreed that we’d make a family together, by the egg donor/IVF/gestational surrogate routine, then be a doting stay-at-home mother and homeschool them. (We have happy, healthy 20-month old twin girls.) I would not, could not (since I wanted a family, the only sufficient reason IMO for a man to marry in the U.S. now) have married her otherwise.

    People here have noted that until God comes back in people’s hearts and minds, marriage will remain in deep trouble in the U.S. I agree. However, until divorce and related laws are completely changed, the current reluctance of men to become married, and women to stay married, will continue. (Women file for >75% of divorces in the U.S. now, almost always without having proved to a court they have traditional, e.g.,real, grounds.) Presumptive father custody of children combined with ending no-fault divorce (file without cause, you leave the family house/property/children behind, taking with you only your clothes and what you brought into the marriage) are absolutely necessary. The esteemed Catholic writer Daniel Amneus (sadly deceased) wrote extensively on this in his online books “The Garbage Generation” and “The Case For Father Custody” (easily locatable online for free).”

  336. Luke says:

    Continuing on cuckoldry rates, here’s an excerpt of references from the source I quoted previously:

    ” From the Guardian, 1998-07-14: “More than 25 years ago the consultant obstetrician E E Phillipp reported to a symposium on embryo transfer that blood tests on between 200 and 300 women in a town in the south-east of England revealed that 30 per cent of their children could not have been fathered by the men whose blood groups had also been sampled”.

    From the Dallas Morning News 1999-10-31: “DNA Diagnostics Center … an industry leader, says 30 percent of the men it tests prove to be misidentified. Similar numbers come from the Texas attorney general’s office, which enforces child support: About a quarter of the men who disputed paternity in the last year turned out to be right. In Florida, the proportion was one-third”.

    From the Sunday Times 2000-01-23: “David Hartshorne, spokesman for Cellmark, said that in about one case in seven, the presumed father turns out to be the wrong man”.

    From the Santa Barbara News-Press 2000-02-27: “For the population as a whole, “The generic number used by us is 10 percent,” said Dr. Bradley Popovich, vice president of the American College of Medical Genetics. [15 to 25 % has been determined from blood tests of parents and offspring in Canada and the US.]”

    From The Age 2000-03-26: “About 3000 paternity tests are carried out a year in Australia. In about 20 per cent of cases the purported father is found to be unrelated to the child. This figure is estimated to be 10 per cent in the general community”.

    From The REPORT Newsmagazine 2000-04-24: “The rate of wrongful paternity in “stable monogamous marriages,” according to the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, ranges from one in 10 with the first child to one in four with the fourth”.

    From the Independent 2000-05-12: “… biologists Robin Baker and Mark Bellis … review of paternity studies also suggested frequent infidelity, with extra-pair paternity running between 1.4 per cent and 30 per cent in different communities”.

    From The Globe and Mail 2000-05-20: “Anecdotal evidence suggests these numbers bear out in Canada as well…. Maxxam Analytics in Guelph, Ont., performs approximately two paternity tests a day. And according to Dr. Wayne Murray, head of the human DNA department, one out of four men who come in pointing a finger at their spouse is not the biological father of the child in question”.

    From the Sunday Times 2000-06-11: “More than 250,000 tests a year are now conducted in America, and about 15,000 in Britain…. roughly 30% of men taking the tests discover that they are not the fathers of the children they regarded as their own. In the wider community, social scientists say up to 1 in 20 children are not the offspring of the man who believes himself to be their father”.

    From the Observer 2000-09-03: “One study followed couples waiting for NHS fertility treatment, where the men were ‘azoospermic’, meaning they produced no sperm and were totally infertile. The researchers found that 25 per cent of the women became pregnant before fertility treatment started”.

    From the American Association of Blood Banks – 2001-02-26: “The overall exclusion rate for 1999 was 28.2% for accredited labs. Exclusion rates for non-accredited US and foreign labs were slightly less at 22.7% and 20.6% respectively”. f

  337. Luke,

    <

    blockquote>New reply of mine on the Catholic forum discussing marriage (previously mentioned above):

    Did you see Mathew’s response to my comment to him about what he said to David? He totally doesn’t get it, complete white knight. He even acknowledged the fact that his wife could frivorce him and (well) that is too bad but so be it, nothing he would change about that. I mean its almost as if he is afraid his wife will read the forum and he only wants to say what might please her for fear that if she isn’t happy then she might invoke threatpoint. So sad.

  338. Casey says:

    This is what passes for dating advice for a divorcee and/or single mother

    http://www.theloop.ca/living/life/parenting/article/-/a/3466946/Dos-and-don-ts-of-single-parent-dating

    WHAT CRAP!

    Dating as a single parent is tricky. Time is precious, you’re older, you’ve got baggage, and the stakes seem incredibly high. I get it. Getting involved with Downton Abbey is so much easier and it’s guaranteed to be entertaining. Because you’re tired—oh my God, you are so tired—and you don’t want to waste one second with someone who might say something stupid or breathe weird or wear Velcro shoes. You don’t have the time! You’ve got your kids and wine and Downton Abbey.

    But…

    Don’t wait. Date!
    I know it’s not easy. But the longer you wait, the more your kids will get used to the idea that you are just for them. I know a mom who actually told her daughters that she would never have another relationship after their dad left them. That’s just sending those girls the wrong message on so many levels.

    Don’t (or try really hard not to) compare and contrast dates with your ex.
    Keep it LIGHT! It’s challenging. I get it. Dating after a divorce feels a little like having dinner with a bleeding stump and trying not to get any blood on the tablecloth. I was still breastfeeding when my marriage ended. The thought of going on a date with a breast pad in my bra, smelling faintly of sour milk—well, you can imagine.

    Do go out! Do it! Make yourself.
    Go online, ask your friends to set you up. Do stuff that makes you happy. Fake it ’til you make it. It ain’t easy. But remember, ladies: A baby came out of your vagina. If you can do that, you can do anything!

    Don’t fish in your kid’s pond.
    Dating that cute guy from your son’s daycare? Sounds ideal, right? He can pick up your kid and go down on you! After all, we single parents love us a time-saver, am I right? But trust me, it can get awkward…fast. And then you have to move. Or get his kid kicked out of the daycare by putting some pot in the li’l guy’s backpack. Ugh. Too much work.

    Don’t introduce your date to your kids right away.
    This might seem obvious, but you’d be surprised. And when he or she finally gets to meet your kids, let him or her know to keep the PDA to a minimum. We didn’t like seeing our own parents kiss, let alone a total stranger. Gross.

    Do keep an open mind.
    The great relief of already having children is that you don’t need to find anyone to have a baby with! You already did it! Okay, maybe it’s not the perfect family you were envisioning, but oh well, at least now you have someone who can help you with the computer. So go for it. Make out with the inappropriately young dude with the tribal piercing, who teaches hot yoga and rides a fixie. You don’t need to make a life with him, because guess what? You’ve already got one. Bam. You are doing amazing!

  339. Luke says:

    IBB, what is the date/time on your post on that other forum?

  340. Tam the Bam says:

    Oh for Christ’s sake .. look, wimminz, unless you possess a Secret Inheritance in the millions, by the time you notice you’re Thurteee it’s just … over?
    Over. Got me? And even then “your” kids are likely to be some barely -sentient Kenyan or Gujerati child-bride’s reject adoptees in yer forties.
    Wake. The. Fuck. Up. Or stop whining (my preference).
    Do It. Just do It.

  341. galloper6 says:

    “Velcro shoes” Cant understand the big deal they make about a man’s shoes. As if they were permantly attached. {roll eyes}

  342. Luke says:

    Pictures (not associated with the story) that sum it all up:

    http://tinyurl.com/oakfttt

    http://tinyurl.com/nt3muhw

    Good failed cuckoldry attempt story:

    http://tinyurl.com/nttb3ys

    “There are so many levels of stupid revealed in this story that it is scary.

    Perhaps the stupidest was me.

    Like cops I divide the world into two groups, friends, or people I can trust, and the rest of the world. I tend to record all conversations with the “rest of the world.”

    Some might consider this post to be distasteful, but forewarned is forearmed.

    About two years ago the sister of a friend contacted me and told me she was in trouble and needed help. I warned her that I was not a priest or lawyer and if subpoenaed I would have to relate this conversation.
    She wanted to know how to cheat on a DNA test..

    How do you explain that DNA is DNA.

    And there is no way to cheat.

    And this woman graduated from college…..

    She related how she had been “messing” around with an (ex?) boyfriend shortly before she married her “true luv.”

    She was convinced the father of her child was not her husband.

    When the child was born there were questions……

    The wife and husband both have very fair skin, blond hair, and blue eyes.

    The child is very, very dark, dark skin, with dark kinky hair, and brown eyes. Now skin and hair color are controlled by many genes, and very odd genetic combinations can occur, so it wasn’t impossible they could have such a child….

    Certainly unlikely, but not impossible.

    And blue eyed parents have produced brown eyed children, but still……

    This raised questions.

    Lots and lots and lots of nasty questions.

    Now it may not be rational, but some guys might feel a tad bit betrayed and hard feelings might develop when they have been “had”.

    The husband’s lawyer obtained an injunction stopping the issuance of the birth certificate until “questions of paternity were resolved”.

    There was a very strict “prenup,” that among other things had extreme penalties for adultery. While adultery is commonly only applicable in a marriage, the contract included provisions for fornication outside the relationship and treated it the same as adultery.

    Hubby arranged for a DNA test, and surprise, he wasn’t the father.

    The “marriage” disintegrated.

    The only time civilians are allowed to wage unrestricted warfare is during divorces. And being unfamiliar with war, the combatants and allies, tend to let things get out of hand. Actions that would normally be a violation of the Geneva Conventions……

    Hubby started asking questions and rapidly figured out who the other guy was. He asked a police officer friend to pay the guy for a DNA sample. The cop paid the guy $100 for two samples. One sample went to a ‘civilian’ lab, the other to the state boys.

    The ex-boyfriend was a black guy.

    Anyone wanna guess who was the babies real daddy?

    Yes, we have a winner!

    Surprise surprise, the exboyfriend was the biological father.

    Once results came back and in spite of some fancy legal maneuvering on the wife’s part the court ruled the child wasn’t his, and no support was granted to the wife.

    The marriage was annulled for “fraud.” The birth certificate was issued with the (ex)boyfriend’s name as he father.

    Between revelations of premarital infidelity, and a biracial child, from a would be gang banger (now serving 15 years for armed robbery (he managed to cut himself with the knife and leave blood at the scene), the ex-wife’s family has been destroyed. Given the ex-wife’s father and both grandfathers are ministers, the whole mess has been very poorly received. The family has all but disowned the ex-wife.

    The other guy was somewhat less then thrilled when the state boys rousted him at dark thirty and hauled him off to jail. At trial his lawyer tried to argue the DNA samples were obtained illegally. But the cop had the release the ‘guy’ signed. Hum, you might want to not give out DNA samples if you have been out doing bad things. The guy didn’t take the plea deal, and rolled the dice for a trail and lost.

    He lost big time and will serve the entire sentence. Sticking a knife under the nose of a prominent man’s wife is a bad idea. Cutting yourself in the process is just plain stupid.

    I ended up testifying in a pretrial, closed session. And the soon to be ex-wife was livid when I pulled out my trusty Sony MP3 recorder. After puking, I hate speaking in public, I explained that her telephone call sounded strange, off color and to protect myself I recorded our conversation.

    The judge, an older lady, laughed at the expression on the wife’s face as the recording played. In part on the basis of my recording the judge ruled for an annulment, stating that the recording showed the woman entered into a marriage in a “clear state of deceit”.

    In the early stages of the “war”, the ex-wife’s father made the mistake of making a snide comment from the pulpit during a Sunday morning service. The husband stood up and informed the congregation what was really happening and invited anyone who wanted to see the proof to give him a call, he had the DNA maps, testimony from the boyfriend, hotel records, hotel video, the works

    The ex-husband’s family had committed to fund an addition to the church and let it be known they would only supply the cash if the minister apologized during a Sunday morning service.

    The minister said something about, “When hells freezes over.”

    In public.

    With witnesses.

    I guess it got cold enough this winter because he apologized several weeks ago during Sunday services last weekend and announced his retirement.

    The church has split and there are a lot of very hard feelings.

    The ex-husband had paid for the entire wedding and filed suit against the ex-wife for ½ the cost of the wedding and the honeymoon and received a judgment. I suspect he will never see a penny of that judgment.

    He also is suing for the support he paid in the interim, while the divorce was winding it’s way through the courts.

    And he stopped paying for her brand new Mercedes…

    The ex-wife holds a degree in education, but can’t get certified. Something about an outstanding drug possession charge….

    She receives some sort of public assistance, public housing and KY-Connect (Kentucky’s version of O-Bummer care) and the state initially tried to squeeze some support from the ex-husband, but after a review of the prenup and court rulings, decided the ex-husband was within his rights and had no financial responsibility to the ex-wife or infant.

    She is working at MickyDees.

    I ran into her the other day when I was out and about and needed a quick, cheap, meal.

    Bummer

    She tore me a new rectal orifice because “in her hour of need I didn’t help her”. Yea, that’s me, the all-powerful older white male, with the power to change the world. She went on and on and on about how hard life was, what a SOB her ex was, how no one understands true love….blah de blah blah.

    I walked out before placing my order. I was hungry, but not that hungry. I left her screaming about how unfair the world is.

    Yea how about that, sign a very restrictive prenup, mess around, get knocked up by a loser, and try to pull a fast one on your soon to be husband and whine about how harsh the world is when the world falls in on you….

    She was lucky she didn’t go down for fraud.

    Something about marriage under false pretenses, or misrepresentation. The prenup included a clause covering premarital infidelity, being preggers by someone other then her husband and all sorts of odd things.

    So ladies, if you go stepping out, you need to be extremely careful.

    The results could be devastating.

    I warned you this was distasteful.

    The amazing thing was my friend, her brother, brought my recording to the now ex-husband’s attention. While our friendship is all good, his family doesn’t much like me.”

  343. galloper6 says:

    What a tragedy for so many people. The only way it could have been worse was the husband could have gone along with this travesty. That lofo skank though he was either blind or so betaized he would not notice. spit.
    Text book (dark) alpha F@@@ /beta bux. Lots of them, how many newlyweds get a Mecedes?
    Too bad this will never be a made for TV movie. Make me ill as well.

  344. galloper6 says:

    I have heard of cases where a wife will deliberately get pregnant right before diviorce so she can make him pay for a baby that is obviously not his. Check different state laws concerning paternity during marriage.

  345. Anonymous age 71 says:

    \b g says:
    March 17, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    Anonymous age 71

    I have no way of knowing about your marriage, or you of mine. However, despite your being Australian, and my being Canadian, the institution itself would have had a common tradition. Moreover, we both are of an era where the view of marriage itself would have been very, very similar. The vows almost certainly would have included “forsaking all others”…as I said, I was just shocked that you had concluded otherwise of your wife…and frankly, I still am.

    Gosh, are you one hard headed man. I made it very clear it was her strange acting, NOT MINE, which caused me to suspect the possiblity that she was having an affair. Yet, you stubbornly insist on somehow finding a problem within myself as the cause.

    I said nothing to anyone for many years, because as I pointed out here what was important to me was protecting my children from maternal custody, not proving my wife was guilty of adultery or making my fragile ego the main issue. I succeeded.

    When I finally did mention it on DGM a few years ago, I explained exactly what was strange about her behavior which caused me to suspect her of an affair. The men on DGM, in many cases men who proved their wives did have affairs, but were sadly unable to save their children from maternal custody as I was able, said that is exactly how adulterous women do act.

    I am still not 100% sure she didn’t, but the 35 years without further misconduct would be more consistent with the possibility she did not and that it was only an emotional affair.

    I do not think I can make the explanation any simpler. But, fear not, Obamacare will probably perfect the brain transplant.

    And, I do not feel it is appropriate to give the same behavior details here, with men like you incapable of understanding simple concepts and just waiting to pounce on me with silly insults.

    it sounds to me pretty much like your wife could have had a lot of affairs, because you seem to be implying that a Real Man[tm] should ignore any evidence, no matter how strong it might be, of misbehavior by his wife, or there is something wrong with him..

  346. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Marissa, do not confuse the ‘cuckold’ rate with the paternity error rate. With the Pill and abortion, the ‘cuckold’ rate is going to be much higher than the paternity error rate.

    In 1953, in an East Coast big city hospital, a doctor noted blood types of babies and both parents. He learned way back then, that just on blood type impossibilities at least 10% of babies born in that hospital could not be from the husband. And, of course, if the woman got pregnant by a man with the same blood type as the husband, there would be no way to tell it.

    He found this so shocking that he did not disclose his findings for 40 years, until 1993.

    Some projections by DNA experts are that paternity errors today in the US run around only 3%. If the man has reason to suspect an error it runs closer to 30%, but that would be obvious to me.

    In more primitive societies, it normally runs around 30%.

    By the way, the word ‘cuckold’ is rather obsolete and should drop out of common usage. Originally, a ‘cuckold’ was a husband whose wife ever had another man, including before marriage or after divorce. Today the average first time bride has had 11 lovers, so almost all men are ‘cuckolds’. When most men are ‘cuckolds’, no man is a ‘cuckold’, which means holding him up to shame for accepting that sort of treatment.

    I have spent considerable time in recent years studying my y-marker DNA and matches. Few ancestral DNA lines go back very far under the same family name. My family y-markers ostensibly came from Ireland. I have several hundred close matches, and almost none of them involve my correct surname. Other people have found the same thing.

    Of course,it is not always adultery which does it. In the Famine, many foundlings were raised by other families.

    And, rape by invaders was still pretty much standard military tactics. My closest DNA matches bear the same surname as the British Lord who led the English invasion into Ireland in the late 16th Century. I am not saying that Lord raped local women; they usually had high moral codes. However, they were accompanied by inhabitants on their manors, and anyone whose ancestry paralleled his could produce the same y-markers many generations later.

    And, out of wedlock was so horribly castigated in those days that it was not uncommon for the grandma to pretend the illegitimate baby was hers.

    I actually think women must have been saints in those days, to keep the family name for even 5 generations, when we look at all the temptations women face. Only one in 5 women need to mess up to lose the family DNA line within five generations, and that is pretty amazing to me. But, then, I do not canonize women as too many people do.

    ###

    Even though the difference in productivity between a fast and a slow programmer is 1000%.

    In the late 70’s, I was editor for a local Mensa group. A large well known corporation had its payroll facility within our local area. They implemented a new payroll computer, which promptly “emitted sparks and flames”. They brought in large numbers of contract programmers to try to fix it.

    Contract programmers tend to contace local Mensa groups when they come into an area, because they get instant social contacts. Mensa members will invite them to their homes for holidays, otherwise spent alone in a small motel room with a TV set. As editor I was essentially communications officer, so they called me for meeting information.

    Several of them told me the same thing. If you take the number of lines that the worst programmer can write and properly document in a day,and set that number equal to one, most programmer supervisors are 3.

    And, few programmers can keep steady jobs if they are over a 10. Good programmers do not suffer fools well, and most supervisors take a lot of suffering. The better ones change to bar tending or become contract programmers, as were hired by that company when their 3’s couldn’t fix things. Or, start their own company.

    And, the best of programmers are 25, doing in one day what the worst programmers need a month to perform.

    Multiplying the numbers by 100, produces up to 2500%, I think. Just saying.

  347. feeriker says:

    The ex-husband’s family had committed to fund an addition to the church and let it be known they would only supply the cash if the minister apologized during a Sunday morning service.

    The minister said something about, “When hells freezes over.”

    In public.

    With witnesses.

    Who ever accused churchian CEOs of being smart?

  348. @galloper6

    Yet another reason for wise men to avoid legal marriage under any circumstance.

  349. Marissa says:

    Marissa, do not confuse the ‘cuckold’ rate with the paternity error rate. With the Pill and abortion, the ‘cuckold’ rate is going to be much higher than the paternity error rate.

    Thank you for your clarification and the story. Also I always thought a cuckold was a man who was cheated on by his wife. Your definition greatly expands my understanding of the Shakespeare plays I’ve been reading lately. It’s a very frequent and common theme but sometimes the references didn’t make sense to me with the limited definition I had.

  350. jf12 says:

    Re: misattributed paternity. I’m not going to go out on a limb, I’m going to shinny up the trunk and state that the rate of middle class married men’s nonpaternity rate is substantially below 4%, NOT restricting the class of men to high-confidence. On the other hand, it is true that the rate of nonpaternity of underclass unmarried men is well above 4% and may in fact approach 30% even for high-confidence men. Especially for women receiving government benefits, there is an economic advantage to an unmarried woman claiming the wrong man as father of her child.

  351. BradA says:

    “4) That C.S. grads specifically have half or less the odds of still working in the field by mid-career age for which they went to college as do engineering grads.”

    That may not be a valid statistic. I am technically not doing the work I trained for, since I have not written code for almost a decade now. I am hip deep in information security though, so the connection remains. It depends how the question was examined.

    @IBB,

    “As soon as I get the other mortgage paid, I might start driving a bus.”

    I would wonder how strong your development chops are then. Most who are really good would do this work for free. That doesn’t mean they will stay at a company that pays them nothing, but that the drive to develop something is incredibly strong inside themselves. Wanting to drive a bus instead would seem to indicate a low drive.

    I also wonder why you are staying at your company. Leave if it really is as bad as you say. You should have no trouble finding another job according to your 0% unemployment figure.

    I would dispute the latter from personal experience. Fitting the right people with the right jobs is a challenge, even in a perfectly running world. I am a very top talent, but I would not fit well at 95% of the companies. It took me a while to find the very successful positions I have had.

    “I can train them on the business. I can’t train them on how to write C#. I don’t have time for that.”

    Then you are doomed. “Smart and gets things done” is what Joel Spolsky had noted was his criteria for hiring people. He had an influential blog on software development and ran a company that seemed to do quite well. He wasn’t focused on specific skills, but on the ability to get things done.

    Yes, skills are important, but those change. The language of today will change tomorrow, or next year. Shortsighted time preferences are bad no matter where you are.

    “By the time you are 45, you shuld have enough IT expereince and be such a crack-programmer that you should be on your own consulting anyway. Why work for the man? Be the man. Bill $80/hour and work no more than 1000 hours a year. Vacation more with your family.”

    I will repeat, why are you working there then? Not all are cut out to be independent like this. I have done some of it and done quite well, but it takes far more marketing skill than many realize.

    (I skipped some posts, so hopefully I didn’t miss anything.)

  352. jf12,

    I’m not going to go out on a limb, I’m going to shinny up the trunk and state that the rate of middle class married men’s nonpaternity rate is substantially below 4%, NOT restricting the class of men to high-confidence. On the other hand, it is true that the rate of nonpaternity of underclass unmarried men is well above 4% and may in fact approach 30% even for high-confidence men.

    Agreed.

    Rule of thumb, if she is college educated and you are college educated and you live in the suburbs and you have a job and she has a job and neither of you do drugs and neither of you drink heavily and neither of you have been arrested and neither of you are compulsive gamblers and neither of you have “friends with benefits” on the side and you go to church, I think we can say the nonpaterinty rate is down to about 1% or even lower.

    If you live in a trailer, and the both of you are on disability or are routinely unemployed and neither of you have any higher education and there are lots of empty beer cans and beer bottles all around the double-wide and you spend 30% of your disability check on scratch tickets or lottery tickets and there is always ex-bfs/ex-gfs around smoking weed then I think we can ratched up that nonpaternity rate to be somewhere in the vicinity of a coin flip.

  353. Brad,

    I also wonder why you are staying at your company. Leave if it really is as bad as you say. You should have no trouble finding another job according to your 0% unemployment figure.

    I have established some credibility here in my work, so much so that I get a lot of time off to spend with family. Yes I could leave and get the standard $5K annual pay raise that you get when you switch jobs, but they I have to start all over again on the vacation and I don’t get to work at home or have as much time off as I’m used to getting. I find the older I get Brad, the more I value time off, the more I value time with my family, and the less I value money.

  354. BradA says:

    IBB,

    “I find the older I get Brad, the more I value time off, the more I value time with my family, and the less I value money.”

    Then stop complaining about it so much. Either change positions or get a better outlook.

    I just went back to the standard low 2 weeks vacation, but the place I work at is very flexible. We have our challenges, but I have no plans to go elsewhere. I could probably even make much more than $5K more if I tried, but that would almost certainly involve a lot more than I am willing to “pay”.

    You can have a decent job at a decent company. It may take some work finding it and it may not be as ideal as you would really want, but it is possible. Your bed is often largely of your own making.

  355. b g says:

    anonymous age 71

    And, I do not feel it is appropriate to give the same behavior details here, with men like you incapable of understanding simple concepts and just waiting to pounce on me with silly insults.

    it sounds to me pretty much like your wife could have had a lot of affairs, because you seem to be implying that a Real Man[tm] should ignore any evidence, no matter how strong it might be, of misbehavior by his wife, or there is something wrong with him..

    Well, one of us is clearly trying to insult the other, and worse the character of his wife.

  356. Luke says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    March 19, 2014 at 11:33 am

    “Rule of thumb, if she is college educated and you are college educated and you live in the suburbs and you have a job and she has a job [raises odds of her being unfaithful by a LOT, like 3x -- Luke] and neither of you do drugs and neither of you drink heavily and neither of you have been arrested and neither of you are compulsive gamblers and neither of you have “friends with benefits” on the side [except, that's circular reasoning; if she is faithful, then OF COURSE your kids are yours -- duh] and you go to church [probably irrelevant if he, or even SHE goes in most cases, actually], I think we can say the nonpaterinty rate is down to about 1% or even lower.

    .

  357. MarcusD says:

    They really love pushing it, don’t they:

  358. I could think of another really good use for a coathanger (besides hanging clothes). Seems like 40 strokes would go a ways toward straightening some of these misanthropic baby haters out. And if not it would still be gratifying.

  359. ellethemagnanimous says:

    I’m a feminist and all I expect is to be treated like a human being with worth. Not as a drudge slave and a cum dumpster, not as a commoditized object, not as an ignorant child. I don’t feel there is any tension between cherishing a woman as a lover, the mother of your children and as an equal partner. What is so hard about it?

    Why do I have to be less than so you can feel “like a man?” Maybe, just maybe, if you treated women with respect you could greatly improve your relationships with us. Unfortunately, I don’t see that in your future. From what I’ve read on this site, you don’t even see us as human beings. And by the way, God created men and women differently, yes, but equal.

  360. galloper6 says:

    I doubt flogging would have any affect on lofo zombies or worse those domniated by hate, The Hate which cannot be named.

  361. DeNihilist says:
  362. MarcusD says:

    @DeNihilist

    Number 31 is so true!

    http://www.tickld.com/x/45-man-tips

    Not necessarily:

    Urbaniak, Geoffrey C., and Peter R. Kilmann. “Physical attractiveness and the “nice guy paradox”: Do nice guys really finish last?.” Sex Roles 49.9-10 (2003): 413-426.

    Ahmetoglu, Gorkan, and Viren Swami. “Do Women Prefer Nice Guys? The Effect of Male Dominance Behavior on Women’s Ratings of Sexual Attractiveness.” Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal 40.4 (2012): 667-672.

  363. galloper6 says:

    Ellthemagnanomus,
    The problem is, everyone of us here HAS treated women respect and got nothing but contempt distain rejectionand slander. In contrast I have personally witnessed attractive women keep on with dead beats they were supporting even after her put her in the hospital multible times. I am sure most of us here have seen the same story. If women really wanted respect and civil treatment the would start rewarding it; instead of rewarding cave man behavior. with sex, more sex, even more sex, babies, food, beer , weed, $$$$$$$, status, motorcycles, everthing a spoiled brat man child could want, all in exchange for treating her worse than his dogs.
    We have SEEN it too often to call it any thing but normal.

  364. greyghost says:

    elllthemagnanomus
    Look here baby I found you some serious mutha fuckas to tingle that hole for you. These fellas are everything you mentioned in your commit. You can thank me for the hook up with a donation to Welmer over at the spearhead.
    gine tingle y’all

  365. MarcusD says:

    @ellethemagnanimous

    I’m a feminist and all I expect is to be treated like a human being with worth. Not as a drudge slave and a cum dumpster, not as a commoditized object, not as an ignorant child.

    I’m curious as to your thoughts on the effects of feminism in increasing the frequency of such outcomes that you consider negative.

    I don’t feel there is any tension between cherishing a woman as a lover, the mother of your children and as an equal partner. What is so hard about it?

    Please define the word “equal” as you use it here.

    Why do I have to be less than so you can feel “like a man?”

    On what are you basing this statement?

    Maybe, just maybe, if you treated women with respect you could greatly improve your relationships with us.

    Could you expand on this? Particularly, how you know this to be true.

    From what I’ve read on this site, you don’t even see us as human beings.

    Could you give an example as to why you feel this is the case?

  366. greyghost says:

    MarcusD
    That coat hanger pendant thing is slap stick funny. Coat hanger is a pretty handy. Used as a welding rod on the farm. Makes a ground for electrical work. Can be used to unclog a drain getting the wife’s long ass hair out. (too bad it doesn’t work on the bearings for the roller brush on a vacuum cleaner. Hair will lock that roller up and burn that drive real quick) Coat hangers can be used to hang parts up for spray painting. Also I saw a movie where a pimp used a coat hanger to tighten up his hoes.
    I guess your twitter followers use the coat hanger as a symbol of pro choice empowerment.

  367. galloper6 says:

    We are tired of being lied to. If women wanted what they say they want, Ward Cleaver would have been a sex symbol. Remember that mob of Hugh Beaumont groopies?

  368. @ Marcus D. My thoughts exactly. Feminism is doing precisely what feminists claim to hate. Oh the irony. Wait until they find out that the State is an even worse master than any long dead “patriarchy”.

  369. MarcusD says:

    Re: the cohabitation study going around; a few small excerpts:

    The relationship found between divorce and cohabitation in earlier decades may have been a causal relationship, resulting from cohabiting couples’ ability to leave the relationship at any time without undertaking the legal procedures involved in a divorce. Partners may have become accustomed to this ability to easily leave the coresidential relationship and carried this “individualistic ethic” into their marriage, thereby increasing their divorce risk (Cherlin, 1992, p. 16). Cohabitation has also been found to decrease levels of religiosity (Thornton, Axinn, & Hill, 1992), which could lead to an increase in later likelihood of divorce.

    Selection into cohabitation is perhaps a more plausible explanation of the previously found association between cohabitation and increased divorce risk. Couples who did not cohabit with their spouse before marriage (referred to in this article as direct marriers) may represent a more select group that is less divorce prone than couples who did cohabit before marriage (Lillard et al., 1995). Factors that affect selection into cohabitation may have changed over time as it became more common, resulting in the changing relationship between premarital cohabitation and divorce.

    One factor that may have influenced the higher divorce rates of premarital cohabitors is the age at which they began their coresidential relationship. Although not an alternative to marriage altogether, cohabitation has to some degree become a relationship that serves as an alternative to early marriage (Bumpass & Lu, 2000; Bumpass & Sweet, 1989; Bumpass, Sweet, & Cherlin, 1991; Raley, 2000, p. 20). Extensive previous research has found that younger ages at marriage were associated with higher rates of divorce (Booth & Edwards, 1985; Heaton, 1991; Raley & Bumpass, 2003; South, 1995; Teachman, 2002).

    [...]

    Cohabitation precedes marriage, and therefore age at coresidence is necessarily lower than age at marriage for couples who cohabited prior to marriage. This younger age at union formation for premarital cohabitors may then explain some of their increased divorce risk when compared with direct marriers.

    [...]

    Findings from life tables indicated that when dissolution risk was measured by age at coresidence rather than age at marriage for premarital cohabitors, the risk was reduced to the rate of dissolution among premarital cohabitors who married approximately 2 years later, around the average duration of premarital cohabitation in these data. As demonstrated in Figures 3 and 4, a 2-year difference in age measurement, although seemingly small, can result in dramatically different results when examining marriage dissolution. For instance, a direct marrier who married at age 23–24, the average age in this sample, could be compared to a premarital cohabitor who married at age 23–24 or to one who began coresiding at age 23–24. If premarital cohabitors and direct marriers who married at age 23–24 are compared, the cohabitor would have a dissolution risk at 10 years after marriage of approximately 37% versus 23% among direct marriers, which is approximately 60% the size of the dissolution risk among premarital cohabitors. Alternatively, if women who directly married at age 23–24 are compared to women who began premarital cohabitation at age 23–24, the risk of marriage dissolution is 31% among cohabitors versus 23% among direct marriers, a smaller difference in which direct marriers are 74% as likely as premarital cohabitors to dissolve their marriage.

    [...]

    As increasing numbers of couples cohabit before marriage, correctly measuring age at union formation and therefore not artificially inflating the association between cohabitation and divorce is of increasing importance both methodologically and from a public interest standpoint. The findings presented here indicate that future research on cohabitation and divorce should standardize for age at coresidence rather than age at marriage. This research also suggests that young couples wishing to avoid divorce would be better served by delaying settling down and forming coresidential unions until their mid-20s when they are older and more established in their lives, goals, and careers, whether married or not at the time of coresidence, rather than avoiding premarital cohabitation altogether.

    Kuperberg, Arielle. “Age at Coresidence, Premarital Cohabitation, and Marriage Dissolution: 1985–2009.” Journal of Marriage and Family 76.2 (2014): 352-369.

    Basically, the argument is that researchers should be comparing when cohabiting couples moved in with each other, not when they got married, since the “timer” on the relationship seems to be ignoring weddings, and only being concerned with the point at which they have the ‘trappings’ of marriage (e.g. shared address, sexual relationship, etc etc).

    It also looks like selectivity is playing a large part in divorce (people more likely to divorce are more likely to cohabitate).

    Citing South’s study claiming that divorce at a young age is not due partially to alternatives is a mark against the author (she probably should have looked at: Glenn, Norval D., Jeremy E. Uecker, and Robert WB Love Jr. “Later first marriage and marital success.” Social science research 39.5 (2010): 787-800.).

    The author (I wonder what she wants to promote…): Arielle Kuperberg (https://sites.google.com/site/arielletk/)

  370. MarcusD says:

    Seeking advice – Marriage falling apart

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=868433

    People seem to forget that psychological issues (and other behavioral traits) are heritable.

  371. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    An interesting take on EPL: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/EatPrayLove

    TV Tropes has stuff for other films, too, like: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Fireproof

    Of particular interest for people here is the trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfairSex

    A special kind of double standard that completely screws around with a show’s internal logic. A male character is portrayed performing an act that seems evil and unfair in a relationship, like say, looking at another woman. Meanwhile, a female character can perpetrate the exact same actions but not receive any sort of penalty or negative dividends for it. As such, the end result of this is usually both that male sexuality (and the expressions thereof) are presented as inherently “wrong”, “dirty” and “ugly”, and that any problems that arise in a heterosexual relationship are automatically the man’s fault. It’s a form of “feminism” in some feminist appearing works: like Scrubs, Sex & the City and Beyonce.

  372. Opus says:

    I am not sure why but I can sense that the Magnanimous Elle is seriously overweight.

  373. hoellenhund2 says:

    “Of particular interest for people here is the trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfairSex

    Too bad there isn’t a “Real Life” section there. Having said that, TV Tropes is a pretty good website.

  374. jf12 says:

    @Marcus thanks for the Kuperberg excerpts. One thing to keep in mind about such silly advice as “This research also suggests that young couples wishing to avoid [breaking up] would be better served by delaying settling down …, rather than avoiding premarital cohabitation altogether.” is that they always want to compare cohabitation and marriage, but never want to compare breaking up with divorce.

  375. W.B. Kelsoe says:

    That’s a easy one. I have the “notwisthstanding clause” (that’s a wink to Canadian Parlimentary system) whereby no matter what goes on, no matter what there is to do, I get to watch the last Stanley cup game of the year. I don’t usually watch hockey (I play) but the finals, or Canada cups, or Olympics I watch.

    So one year I want to watch it, but the closest sports bar is a bit far and I’d have to drive. The wife says “why don’t you go?” I say well, I want to have a few beers but I don’t want to drive under the influence. SO she drives me there (Hooters), and when the game is over, picks me back up again. She was about 8 months pregnant at the time.

    …and when she had pregnant wife cravings for vietnamese food (or greek salad or whatever), I would gladly drive her to a restaurant.

    Marriage and giveing is a two way street, not a ball and chain for the male. Remember that Women.

  376. Cohabitation is marriage, for all intents and purposes. This process is farther along outside the U.S.; for example, in parts of Canada and in Australia, significant rights attach to the woman, er, I mean, the lesser-earning party who watches the kids after 6 months or 2 years.

    Men in America (outside of WA state) can still enjoy living with a woman without the threatpoint. I advise wise men to enjoy this privilege while it lasts.

  377. elle,

    I’m a feminist and all I expect is to be treated like a human being with worth. Not as a drudge slave and a cum dumpster, not as a commoditized object, not as an ignorant child. I don’t feel there is any tension between cherishing a woman as a lover, the mother of your children and as an equal partner. What is so hard about it?

    Why focus on the word equal? There is nothing equal about the following:

    God -> Christ -> Husband -> Wife -> Children

    Elle, you get married and its great. You and your husband love each other, its great. But now, there is a disagreement. He wants to do one thing. And you want to do the other. So now you are “equal” as you like it.

    So Elle, who breaks the tie? Afterall you are equal. Who breaks the tie and makes the final decision when you and your husband are equal?

    Why don’t you want to be his property? Men and women are very different and men have Pride of Ownership Elle. You should WANT to be OWNED by your husband and you know why? Because if he owns you, you are his property, he will take such good care of you!!!! The Patriarchy is your friend, the best thing that ever happened to women.

    Why do I have to be less than so you can feel “like a man?” Maybe, just maybe, if you treated women with respect you could greatly improve your relationships with us. Unfortunately, I don’t see that in your future. From what I’ve read on this site, you don’t even see us as human beings. And by the way, God created men and women differently, yes, but equal

    .

    Then dont get married. Ever. Never ever. You are not worthy of the sacarment of marriage. Its not for you girl.

    And before you go off and pout at Jezebell or whatever feminist hideout you normally blog at ask yourself this question, this all important question, the ultimate red pill question: if you are willing to marry a man but you are NOT willing to OBEY him in all things, do absolutely everything he tells you to do, why on God’s green earth would you ever marry him? Why do you want to marry a man, any man that you are not willing to OBEY?

    Seriously, think about it.

  378. Spacetraveller says:

    @ IBB,

    “…if you are willing to marry a man but you are NOT willing to OBEY him in all things, do absolutely everything he tells you to do, why on God’s green earth would you ever marry him? Why do you want to marry a man, any man that you are not willing to OBEY?”

    I am not always in full agreement with you in what you post here, but in this, I wholeheartedly concur.

    I fear you and I might be of the minority opinion, though.

    The Duchess of Cambridge famously omitted the word ‘obey’ from her mariage vows 3 years ago, as indeed did her late mother-in-law Diana (little-known fact!). I was appalled at the time that no-one battered an eyelid – not even the Church of England officials who were about to conduct the marriage ceremony. I am not particularly fiercely ‘royalist’ but I am a stickler for tradition and was disappointed at this turn of events.

    Perhaps it was a tit-for-tat thing? Afterall, the Prince William had declared a few days before that he would not be wearing a wedding ring. Indeed there was no ‘blessing of rings’ at their ceremony. It was a ‘blessing of ring (singular). Maybe she was ‘getting her own back’, I dunno.

    Whatever the case, if the Church does not stand up to uphold what is a major part of a marriage ceremony, indeed a high-profile one such as this, what hope do we have?

    Thank God this sort of thing would not be tolerated by the RCC. My own wedding was as traditional as they come. For this, I thank God.

  379. Spacetraveler,

    I am not always in full agreement with you in what you post here, but in this, I wholeheartedly concur.

    I think its pretty straight-forward. I mean not all women are willing to obey a husband. That’s fine with me, so long as they never marry. Because it doesn’t really work very well without her obeying him. He’s not going to be happy. She is definately not going to be happy. They marriage will be misery, not happiness.

    Let him own you. Men take oh so great care of the things they own. They use and abuse and trash things they rent. No-fault-divorce turned marriage from an ownership system into a rental system and we are all the worse for it.

  380. Spacetraveller says:

    IBB,

    That’s great fatherly advice, thank you.
    I think it’s sad that no-one sat Kate down before her wedding to give her such good advice.

  381. BradA says:

    “In the Methodist church I attend now, the minister (pastor) claims that the sermon is for proclaiming the word and not for teaching.”

    Exactly how are they different?

  382. MarcusD says:

    they always want to compare cohabitation and marriage, but never want to compare breaking up with divorce.

    Well, ‘cohabitation’ is closer to ‘marriage’ than ‘breaking up’ is to ‘divorce’. To move from cohabitation to marriage requires little work – divorcing requires much more work (and pain, etc) than breaking up. That said, yes, there can still be a comparison made (and breakups of cohabitation are more frequent than divorces).

  383. feeriker says:

    Ellethefeminist said, in true “original” feminista style I’m a feminist and all I expect is to be treated like a human being with worth. Not as a drudge slave and a cum dumpster, not as a commoditized object, not as an ignorant child.

    You have nothing to worry about. With your attitude, I would say that your odds of any man wanting to remain within ten feet of you for more than a few seconds, let alone get close enough to you to use you as a cum receptacle, are about the same as my winning the Powerball and the Megamillions on two consecutive nights.

  384. jf12 says:

    @Spacetraveller, afaik there are no currently approved Catholic wedding vows in which the bride promises to obey. Not that it really matters, since both my wives promised to obey and neither did.

  385. feeriker says:

    The Duchess of Cambridge famously omitted the word ‘obey’ from her mariage vows 3 years ago, as indeed did her late mother-in-law Diana (little-known fact!). I was appalled at the time that no-one battered an eyelid – not even the Church of England officials who were about to conduct the marriage ceremony.

    You were right to be appalled, most certainly, but were you surprised? I certainly wouldn’t have been.

  386. Anonymous age 71 says:

    b g says:
    March 19, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    Well, one of us is clearly trying to insult the other, and worse the character of his wife.

    All you are doing is repeating the same insults with different words. And, it was insulting the first time you said it. The implication that any man who notices what might be misconduct by his wife is not a Real Man[tm] as you are. It was extremely insulting and says a lot about how you process information. Or, more precisely stated, do NOT process information.

    If my wife engaged in misconduct then her character should be insulted. By me or anyone else who observes it. Just as men should be insulted for similar misconduct. There is a name for men who think misbehaving women should get a pass on it, by all Real Men[tm]. I don’t think Dalrock likes us to use those names.

    The only reason I did nothing about it (and I caught Holy Hell from someone else for not doing something about it, whereas you are saying pretty much the opposite, I shouldn’t even have noticed something that was very obvious) was because I cared more for my kids than my personal ego. I don’t regret it at all, and would do the same thing again. I also think it should be conventional wisdom for anyone stupid enough to marry in a feminist controlled society.

    I have said I supplied no-fee counseling to divorced men for ten years, up to twenty hours a week. When I started that counseling, I agreed with feminists on one thing. The unacceptable exposure of female electronic assemblers to dangerous chemicals.

    At the end of that ten years, I agreed with feminists on TWO things. The exposure of female assemblers to dangerous chemicals, and the fact that most men are incredibly stupid. If they were not, there would be no feminists.

    Adultery rates for women are claimed to be very low. I didn’t always know about the wives of the men who called me, but when I did know, virtually 100% of frivorcing women tried the next man on, to see if he fit, before the divorce. So, when a man would call me up, all confused, trying to figure out what those divorce papers were all about, I already knew that was happening, with over 95% certainty.

    And, instead of laying it right on the line, and get the sort of insulting response that b g gives, I’d ask, “Is it possible she is having an affair?”

    “Oh, no! She is not that kind of woman!”

    Hee, hee, ha, ha, ho, ho.

    Yes, Virginia, men are that stupid. It is not what you think, that he believes his wife is too pure and sainted to commit adultery. No, it is the conceited belief that he is such a studly man that his wife could not possibly ever break her vows to The Great And Wonderful Him. The wives of other lesser men might, but not his. No, the great and wonderful stud could not possibly have an adulterous wife. Only vile losers like thee and me.

    That is what b g is talking about here. In his mind, I must be a low-life loser to even consider the possibility that my wife might have strayed, even with obvious evidence that she did.

    Yep, Baptist minister material.

    ###
    DeNihilist says:
    March 19, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    Number 31 is so true!

    http://www.tickld.com/x/45-man-tips

    Actually, in most cases women find most Nice Guys to be boring. Just more man-fault.

  387. greyghost says:

    “…if you are willing to marry a man but you are NOT willing to OBEY him in all things, do absolutely everything he tells you to do, why on God’s green earth would you ever marry him? Why do you want to marry a man, any man that you are not willing to OBEY?”

    I am not always in full agreement with you in what you post here, but in this, I wholeheartedly concur.

    I fear you and I might be of the minority opinion, though.”

    That right there was outstanding IBB. The Broken clock was right on time again. That is what needs to be trolled into the comments of all of these relationship articles with comments . I firmly believe what we learn here and spread out through commenting and participation all over the web has made a cultural difference.

  388. gg,

    That right there was outstanding IBB. The Broken clock was right on time again. That is what needs to be trolled into the comments of all of these relationship articles with comments . I firmly believe what we learn here and spread out through commenting and participation all over the web has made a cultural difference.

    I just don’t think it makes much sense for feminists to get married at all to ANYONE unless they openly admit that their marriage is based on nothing more than his financial resources. Since all marriages have been reduced from property rights to rental agreements (due to no-fault-divorce) then the least a gold-digger-feminist can do is admit to her husband that he is nothing to her other than her “john” and she is nothing but his whore.

    I mean that is really what we are talking about when we relate marriage to feminism.

  389. b g says:

    Anonymous age 71

    Allow me to more precisely state it, and see if you are then more able to process information correctly. I was referring to your attempts to insult myself and far worse your attempts to insult the character of my late wife. If she had ever cheated on me; I wouldn’t have suspected, I would have known.

    It is not as though divorce was something that we had not observed closely; it tore my parents apart, ripped through half of our siblings, and now half of our nephews and all but one of our nieces. Too many of our friends have done the same, you come to see the changes in the behaviors of those marriages about to break down.

  390. shell says:

    MarcusD says:
    March 19, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    (in response to elle’s “From what I’ve read on this site, you don’t even see us as human beings.”)

    “Could you give an example as to why you feel this is the case?”

    Oh, that’s easy. I can’t speak for elle, but even an accidental visitor to this site can see it immediately. You cannot, because you are steeped in it and promote it. It’s not a feeling, BTW, but documented statements from the blog’s author and regulars.

    Here is what one learns from dalrock.com, in no particular order:
    – women have no sense of morality, responsibility, or self-direction (= less than human; therefore should submit to / obey men),
    – women are the source of all men’s woes (= less than human, therefore should submit to men),
    – giving a wife keys to a family car leads to divorce (= irresponsible, no moral agency = less than human; therefore submit),
    – men should be allowed to marry young female children (11 is a good age), because then they can best mold them to fulfill their sexual and domestic needs (submission above all),
    – women should never give men any advice (instead should submit, etc.)
    – women who work or seek self-realization are evil (submit already),
    – feminism is evil (cuz [no] submission ‘n all),
    – women should not vote (but should meekly submit),
    – if a wife does not properly submit, it is the husband’s duty to make her (using all available means at his disposal, including sexual and physical violence, as one learns from the comments),
    – and more!
    …of the same sociopathic, misogynist crap, which would perhaps be entertaining, if you did not mean it seriously. The fact that you do mean it seriously explains why you are so unsuccessful in relationships with women. It is not because women (American, Western, or whatever) en masse are defective, but because you are, as this blog proves.

    Female human beings *everywhere* are not keen on interacting or, God forbid, marrying male human beings who despise them the way you do. (Hint: if you did not despise women and see them as less than you, you’d have no desire to control them and expect obedience. And no, don’t use the Bible as an explanatory crutch, please. No one outside your closed-off circle buys it and it has no relevance to human reality beyond your narrow sphere. The fact that Christian fundamentalists like you have the highest divorce rates among all religious and non-religious people is another proof, as if one were needed, that your views on marriage and relationships between women and men are deeply flawed and lead to marital disaster.) It is human nature 101: people tend to be drawn to those who like and respect them. And women are people, contrary to your beliefs (which made you react with knee-jerk denial to the previous sentence, yes, we know).

    Here is another dose of reality for you: women’s equality, or the inevitable and irrepressible march toward it, is a fact across the civilized world. We are not going back in time, much as you wish we did. It bothers you, obviously, because it means that archaic reprobates like you cannot control women’s lives any more. Yeah, bummer. But there is a ray of hope: you can always move to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, where your views still fit, for a while at least. Here, not so much. And thank God – yes, indeed – for that.

    Meanwhile, you may take solace in being included on the lists of the most misogynist sites on the World Wide Web. Quite an accomplishment (for sociopaths).

  391. shell says:

    I almost forgot (among things learned at dalrock.com):
    – women (wives) are men’s (husbands’) property.*

    Remember this, MarcusD, if need you a good example of why people reading this blog come to a conclusion that you don’t see women as human.

    *Brought to you by Sociopaths R Us, with the Bible as your cover.

  392. Dalrock, it’s happening. Manosphere is going mainstream.

    A. J. Delgado is eating (and feeding the world) red pills.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373753/neo-porn-feminists-j-delgado

    National Review, welcome to the manosphere. White Knights, go away.

  393. hoellenhund2 says:

    Red Pill my ass.

    “Liberals, who once decried porn (and rightly so) as a male-dominated nightmare that objectifies women and exploits even its willing participants”

    “rightly so”? Screw that.

  394. Bradford says:

    Interesting it took a young attractive woman (Ms Delgado) to write this article. Probably too hot a topic for the older male NR writers.

  395. Anonymous age 71 says:

    In spite of your repeated postings, b g, you make your own problems. Write clearly and most of the ‘insults’ go away. In your posting, you refer vaguely to someone’s wife. You did not say whose.

    Then, suddenly, you announce, “Surprise! We have been talking about my late wife. Gotcha, you vicious brute!”

    While I am a great believer in free speech, I seriously suggest you do not belong on MRA blogs and forums. You think you have the right to make your own rules, such as “a Real Man should not question his wife’s behavior in spite of possible evidence of misconduct.” And, do so in a manner which will inevitably be taken as a personal insult. And, repeat it several times.

    There is a legal principle, though I can’t remember the Latin for it perfectly. It translates, “The cause of the cause is the cause of the effect.”

    In this interchange, the cause of the cause was the insulting remark, repeated several times, that implied no Real Man should ever question his wife’s conduct. Which totally SHOCKED you that I would actually do exactly that. I know few MRA’s who would agree with you. You are not in total contact with the reality we men face.

    Nor was my thought that she might be having an affair ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS! Using your own comments, who in Hell were you to qustion what was clearly within my rights to decide?

    Everything that happened after that was a direct result of that preposterous claim. As if a man is supposed to ignore (i.e. not even notice) obvious evidence of misconduct. That is totally irrational. And, makes no sense in an immoral time of history.

    So, if you don’t like the direct and predictable results of your own insults, perhaps you should stop making those insults.

    Also, you should wake up and actually read MRA blogs and boards to get a better understanding of what men face today. I doubt one in ten men on MRA boards and blogs would agree with your claim a real man simply trusts his wife even when there is evidence to the contrary.

    Note I am not going to do what you obviously think I should do, which is apologize. You caused this, and you reap the direct results of your insults.

    Your postings bring up another point. If your marriage was such bliss, why are you here?

    I am here because of 10,000 hours of working with divorced men, and a desire to make sure all men understand marriage today in the USA is basically legal slavery. If they want to make the decision to bite the bullet and sign off on all their property rights for a bit of mediocre sex, that is their right. But that decision should be an informed one. Dalrock made an informed decision and it looks like he wins! That is how it should be.

  396. Anonymous age 71 says:

    b g, I just noticed how you totally contradicted yourself. To wit:

    >>If she had ever cheated on me; I wouldn’t have suspected, I would have known.

    Exactly! And, that is what happened to me that produced my suspicion early in my marriage which caused you to insult. I KNEW something was wrong. I did not know what and am still not 100% sure. But I KNEW she was up to something. Yet you questioned my feeling that she might be having an affair so early in the marriage. You were ‘shocked”.

    You are engaged in a battle of wits while being totally unarmed.

  397. k8 says:

    When I read things like this, it annoys me because it’s so one sided. I wonder how many of you, if your wife cheated on your repeatedly, would take her back? How many of you, would stay faithful to your wife if she became absolutely physically repulsive or if she decided not to fulfill her conjugal duties anymore? How many of you could love a former slut that’s been with hundreds of men? Would any of you even try to forgive her and take her back? That’s that standard of Christ-like love isn’t it? I think Hosea is a good illustration of the kind of love God has for his people. If you can’t even meet your own standard for what marriage is supposed to be like, what right do you have to expect so much from somebody else?

  398. b g says:

    Anonymous age 71

    Had you simply said that you knew, there would have been no discussion. The suspicion is what shocked me. Because I would have bloody well known and that knowledge would have hurt me terribly.

  399. Heresolong says:

    “Send him to the event”? “Give him permission to attend”? Those two quotes make the problem completely and totally clear right there. Even if you eliminate the concept of biblical submission, why does an adult need to be sent somewhere or given permission to attend something? Even in an equal relationship there could be compromise and discussion, but their efforts to promote their event put the woman squarely in charge of another adult, in a parent/child type relationship.

  400. Pingback: Why isn’t Carl good enough? | Dalrock

  401. Pingback: The saddest man up rant ever. | Dalrock

  402. Pingback: Yiayia wouldn’t approve | 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