The funny thing about conservatives is most have no idea they are raving feminists. Part of the problem is that social conservatism is much like a sea anchor. They exert constant force against the prevailing direction of social change, but they aren’t anchored to a specific point. At best So Cons will claim they are against feminism, but what they mean are the feminists of today. They have fully bought in with the feminist ideas they fought against 20 years ago.
I think their fundamental problem is they have bought into the lie that you have to be feminist for women to like you. They fear that not being feminist will be a political death sentence with an electorate with a majority of women. It will be interesting to see a new batch of conservative men come into power in the decades to come who have a sound grasp of female psychology in the form of game; they will understand that prostrating yourself in the face of childish demands doesn’t make women like you. In the meantime, we have the old guard of social conservatives who are so clueless they risk becoming caricatures of themselves.
But what would a social conservative who wasn’t a feminist look like? Lacking a defined anchor point to try to move society back to, how would they respond to the world we live in? I think this is an easier question to answer than it might seem at first glance. When they aren’t groveling to feminists, conservatives have a fairly clear cut philosophy. Think about how conservatives view business. They understand the need for fair, predictable, and consistent contract enforcement. Anything less is an obstacle to conducting business. They are acutely aware of unintended consequences. If you want more of something, subsidize and deregulate it. If you want less of it, tax and regulate it.
Fox news has an opinion piece by social conservative Penny Young Nance titled Why Does America Have So Many ‘Peter Pan’ Men? (H/T dragnet). She opens with:
Working in an office full of women, many of whom are young, single gals, I hear all the time, “Where are all the good men out there?” Even in this post-feminist age of asserting independence from men and having both a career and a family, women still want their prince and these days, he can be really tough to find.
If Ms. Nance was a conservative and not a feminist, what she would point out is that it is perfectly fair for women to unilaterally dictate the terms on which they will become wives, but it is also perfectly fair for men to decide what is in their own best interest in response. Women are free to assert their independence; men are free to let them have it. Women are free to try to extend courtship into a lifelong process, but men are free to make their own adjustments. But of course Ms. Nance isn’t a conservative when it comes to issues of the family, she is a feminist.
The feminist in conservative clothing continues:
[Men] have fallen behind in college where women now surpass men in getting their college degrees. These women are getting jobs in the workforce while the men are lingering in dead-end jobs — if they are working at all. While opportunity for women is a good thing, men should not take this as a cue to coast.
Men have fallen behind in college and the workforce? You don’t say? A conservative would look for (and find) government interference and regulation which could be removed to solve the problem. A conservative would also ask why a group of economic actors didn’t feel that expending effort and taking additional risk was worth the reward of doing so. If you told her that entrepreneurs were no longer starting up new businesses, holders of capital were keeping their money on the sideline and corporations weren’t hiring, would she write an opinion piece shaming them, accusing them of coasting? Of course not; that is what the left would do. She would demand lower taxes and less regulation on business. But this isn’t something important like business. This is only the family. If it were important, she would demand the courts stop restricting private parties from mutually defining their own terms upfront on how a potential divorce will be settled. She would push for an overhaul of the overwhelmingly biased custody process, and stop punishing men for marrying when considering the issue of cuckoldry (reproductive fraud). She would want to stop (or at least greatly reduce) subsidizing women who have children out of wedlock or kick the child’s father out of their lives in the form of welfare and child support.
If she were a conservative she would respect that individuals can decide for themselves the best way to spend their own time and money, so long as they aren’t infringing on the rights of someone else:
And don’t even get me started on the maturity level of these Peter Pan-like boys. The statistic from Bennett’s book that perhaps struck me the most is that teenage boys, ages 12-to-17 years old, actually spend less time playing video games than 18-to-34-year-old men. I can understand the desire to play a video game here and there as a kid, but as an adult? Grow up.
If she were a conservative her shame would be directed at a generation of women who are delaying marriage past their most marriageable years, and the authors of the books which advise them to do so. She would be shaming the women who are making motherhood a last priority. She would be shaming the mothers who raised a generation of sluts who prefer hookups to having a boyfriend instead of shaming the men who don’t feel motivated to work hard to support one of these sluts in a legal arrangement where the deck is stacked entirely against him. And finally she would be shaming a church which is too afraid to hurt the feelings of women who commit divorce theft and feel that they don’t need to compromise at all in marriage.
Like a good leftist, she knows better than individuals how they should lead their lives:
These men should be studying in college, getting a job, and contributing to society through the workforce and family. How in the world do they have time to play video games for hours? The answer is that they just don’t ever grow up.
She knows more about what is good for them than they do themselves:
men should man up, take on the responsibilities of an adult, get a job, have a family and be a contributing member to society. The benefits to being a married man are huge.
A conservative would ask if the deal is so sweet, why do you have to shame men into it? This idea that men universally benefit from marriage is a So Con unquestioned truth. It is the So Con equivalent to green energy and jobs on the left. Most So Cons ignore the legal nightmare of marriage 2.0 and the very high probability of divorce theft when espousing the benefits of marriage. This is Ms. Nance’s approach. Fellow So Con Dennis Prager takes it a step further, and argues that it is good for men to marry and then have their wives divorce them, even though he acknowledges the extreme bias in the system:
as a rule, it is far better for society to have people marry and divorce than never to marry.
Lest you think Ms. Nance only takes men to task, she takes women to task as well. These independent career gals need to stop discouraging men from opening doors for them and paying on dates, so long as there is no sense of reciprocity. Just because these women play by the new rules, it doesn’t mean they should discourage men from continuing to play by the old rules:
Feminism has been detrimental to the identity of the American male. Men have been rebuked if they pull out a chair or open a door for a woman. If they offer to pay for dinner (which they should), their date may be offended and demand to split the check because she can pay her own way. — Ladies, it’s not such a bad thing to be treated to dinner unless that meal comes with sexual expectations, which is another column.
Ms Nance closes her piece with an acknowledgement that men should make their own choices, so long as they choose what she tells them to:
But women also need to let men be men. Men don’t have to linger between college and well, college, forever. They can make choices to take control of their lives and be the men they are called to be if they just put down the game controls and choose a better direction. Sadly, at the moment, American women are apparently still in need of a few good men.
For a picture of Ms. Nance see Ferdinand’s post on the topic.
Every few days, there’s an article like this somewhere. If you want good men, become a good woman. There’s a price to pay to get what you want. You’re not going to get a new Apple iPad for fifty cents.
As you’re implying, this woman is complaining about high prices without acknowledging market forces.
We must live in different worlds because I have no idea what Nance is talking about as I see good men everywhere. However, what I don’t see is perfect men, which is what she seems to be searching for (I see this with my single gal friends all the time). Most people, men and women, have defects, so it’s important to be aware of your own value and focus on the good, rather than the bad.
And like Toz already said, it’s very simple–if you want to attract a good man, then you should also become a good woman.
In the text you quote, Dennis Praeger does not argue “that it is good for men to marry and then have their wives divorce them”. He claims instead that it’s good for society. He’s not saying the fatted calf benefits from the slaughter. He’s saying the guests do.
But what he doesn’t seem to stop to think that half the guests are calves too (so to speak), and they’re up next.
But that’s OK, Boston’s not a big college town.
These articles are being pumped out with force these days, smells like tptb are cooking something up. Bachelor tax on the 2012 election agenda? Well, bigger than the ones we already have….
Seems like it. Between lowering the standard of guilt on campus for men, acquitting husband-killing wives, and destorying whole forests to print an avalanche of misandric articles it really does seem like socons and manginas are ramping things up.
One might say they are doubling down ahead of the final unwinding of the misandry bubble… 🙂
The part of Nance’s article that stood out most to me was:
She blithely and effortlessly moves from saying women are “independent from men” to women want a family; something which is dependent on a man. Men see this and notice that their role would be nothing more than an unfortunately necessary accessory in a woman’s self-actualization fantasy. Of course men are going to avoid committing to foolish women who proudly proclaim that they don’t need or want men. Her sense of cause and effect is as poor as “vile misogynists” like TFH repeatedly claim.
Men don’t want to pledge themselves to women who will assert their ‘independence’ by kicking him out of her family. I just can’t believe how little women care about the lives or feelings of the average man. It’s truly cruel. Nance doesn’t give a shit about what things are like for a man, she just wants to use men for her own childish purposes.
When will we ever see posts criticizing women? Probably never. Women naturally believe themselves above criticism, and they will use all their social and sexual power to avoid it. Half the population is just way too many people to exempt from responsibility. This civilization is dead.
In Ferdinand´s post that you referenced, they rip that old canard of married men being better off than single men. In the words of Ferdinand Bardamu,
¨ While it’s true that married men are healthier, wealthier and “happier” (I dispute that a nebulous and fleeting emotion like happiness can even be quantified to begin with, but let’s roll with it) than bachelors, the numbers conveniently omit that the divorce rate is fifty percent – and that divorced men have poorer health, less money and are more miserable (and more likely to commit suicide) than either marrieds or singles. In other words, you have the same chances of reaping the benefits of marriage as getting heads on a coin toss. That sound like good odds to you?
Also, these raw statistics ignore the possibility that correlation is not causation. While it might be true that marriage makes men richer and healthier, it could just as easily be the other way around – wealthier, healthier men are more likely than poor and unhealthy ones to get married. Who is more likely to get married and be well-adjusted, a SWPL couple or a white trash couple? To ask the question is to answer it.¨
Furthermore, a commenter at that post by the username MikkoAP writes,
¨when talking about the lifespan of married men it’s necessary to note whom we’re talking about: men in their seventies, eighties and nineties.
When did they get married?!! The answer is before the advent of no fault divorce and the feminist hate campaign against men!
So “married men live longer” is entirely irrelevant from the viewpoint of today’s young men.¨
Not to hijack the thread Dalrock, but I thought this was good information to add to your excellent analysis. I´m feeling too lazy to summarize.
Her article is full of fail. The same old song. Stamps feet – waaaa – why won’t men do what I want when I want – waaaaa!!!!!
No rings for sluts. Sorry laddettes. You broke, the social contract between the sexes. YOU fix it. Start in the mirror. I took my turn being the sacrificial calf for society. I took one for the team and greater American good according to Praeger. As for Bennett, F-U. Dude’s a freak. I hope the tales of his alleged Las Vegas escapades break in the big media.
Now that I know the rules and how the game is really played I’m like Neo reshaping the Matrix as I go. I’ll keep looking for a Trinity that is also aware of the Matrix. Until then, cold day in hell before I so easily give another woman access to the goods, business and resources I have worked so hard to accumulate my whole life. If all she has in trade is a genital region ravaged by a long line of unsuitable suitors, sub-par domestic skills, entitlement mentality, slavish devotion to pop culture and a snowflake personality, not good enough. Not by a long shot.
So there goes 90% of the ‘young career gals’ gossiping around the office, bitching in the break room and scheming against their female co-workers while trying to charm a raise out of their male boss and turn him against their frenemy of the week. L, O, L my friends. Hell, I don’t need another teenager to raise. But I’ll throw your type a bang every now and then as long as you do the dishes before you leave and you don’t whine too much.
I look at the SoCons and mock them in their liberalism.
You want something solid? There are those of us out here who are hard-core radical reactionary authoritarian monarchists.
Democracy/The Republic is a failure. I reject it with laughter. I think I shocked some people at church one day by saying it’s a failure, and that monarchy is the way, and that’s where America went off the rails (I know it’s more complicated than that, but I’m doing polemics here, OK?).
(For the Christians out there who have a sneaking suspicion about Democracy here is what I say: if you are an anti-monarchist, just get out of the Kingdom of God already!)
Ms. Nance’s harangue reminds me of why I never bought into the whole “mama bear” movement with Palin and Bachman. She reminds me of Mrs. Jellyby.
Having said that, I would hit it.
Oh yes she is. She’s CEO of Concerned Women for America, which apparently employs a lot of unhappy young women.
I just commented on that article in your recent links post. Here it is again.
This article explains the cause of the very problem its author is whining about.
Working in an office full of women, many of whom are young, single gals, I hear all the time, “Where are all the good men out there?” Even in this post-feminist age of asserting independence from men and having both a career and a family, women still want their prince and these days, he can be really tough to find.
Every woman in that office means one less job for a man that wants to raise a family, meaning one less “good man” for them to find.
And, every woman in that office means one more woman competing for the even higher-status men. Meaning another woman who won’t get her Prince Charming.
If 20% of women took a man’s job in the office, then suddenly 40% of women will have a lot more trouble finding a suitable man to marry.
That 2x multiplier effect is why society reached a tipping point so fast. A tipping point that was surpassed so quickly that no one noticed until it was far, far too late.
That’s why so many spinsters have their rationalization hamsters redlined, spinning to deal with the disaster that feminists led them to. They might have realized that feminism is a long-term failure, but they surely believed the crisis wouldn’t happen until after their Prince Charming rescued them.
Every woman in that office means two more women will be not get the “good man” they want. And the Federal Government has mandated for decades that women replace men in business, to the point that offices are full of women, where they create the very problem they’re complaining about.
Yeah the ‘momma bear’ thing. Palin is a total phony. I was at lunch with a couple of guys. On the news a recap and highlights of one of the debates. Talk turned to the candidates and they mewled that they wish Palin was running. I asked why as she seems to be an uneducated, ignorant, hick, adulteress? [These are supposedly strong Christian men I was with.] Man did they mangina-up in a hurry and jump to her defense, etc. etc. and put me down for thinking ill of her qualifications and character. I closed with “Boy, you guys sure are eager to prostrate yourselves in front of a ‘strong woman’, what’s up with that?” Dead air. Grrrrrr-Momma Bear gonna make dis country right again. Yeah.
Perhaps the title of these types of women’s articles should be what they are really asking for:
“Dear American Men – Time for you to Mangina Up!”
Man up? F-U. I manned up when I left home as a young teen. I manned up when I enlisted two weeks after I turned 17. I manned up when I took on a career, a marriage, had sons, built a business, etc. I felt pretty emasculated during the divorce process. Now that I have my pair back, I’ll keep them thanks and just simply ignore any advice women have to offer about what a man should do or how a man should act. I am better for it.
Concerned Women for America bills itself as a “US coalition of conservative women which promotes Biblical values and family traditions.”
Sounds like a socon to me…
Most of the MRAs seem to be against traditional gender roles–the man brings in the money, while the woman stays at home, raises children and takes care of her family. I’ve always been curious, what gender roles do you propose? (if any)
The funny thing about conservatives is most have no idea they are raving feminists.
This is true, Dalrock.
I see good men everywhere.
As do I, Chels. I think what she means is that there are women who want husbands and don’t have them, therefore men are evil. If I had a son, I would tell him to be oh-so-so-careful what kind of woman he takes up with.
Most of the MRAs seem to be against traditional gender roles–the man brings in the money, while the woman stays at home, raises children and takes care of her family.
When traditional Christians browbeat women who are in submission to and are working because they are assisting their husbands, it grates on me. I say this as a full time wife and mother who appreciates the good it does a family and a community to have mothers present and accounted for. Still, I am far more convinced that a wife should be in subjection to her own husband than I am that a wife should stay at home.
As for your question: the roles are actually pretty clear: he leads, she follows. The problem (with both liberals and conservatives is that if he doesn’t lead and she doesn’t following a way they believe in, they feel compelled to stick their noses in it and undermine a man’s authority in his home.
I’m so tired of hearing this “you need to man up and quit playing those video games” canard.
I’m going to plagiarize from a commenter at Ferd’s site on this article.
Ladies, we’ll make you a deal. We’ll quit playing the video games when you stop reading Cosmo, stop reading Us and People, quit wasting time and money shopping for Manolo Blahnik shoes and Louis Vuitton handbags, and stop updating your Facebook pages with the latest attention whoring photos of you and your BFFs.
Man up? For what?
For an entitlement princess demanding her annual week’s vacation in Paris and her $200 dinner at the fancy restaurant every week?
For a used up, crudded up, jaded, cynical, trash talking slut with mangled Fallopian tubes and whose genitals have hosted a couple of football teams?
For a career woman who works 60 hours a week, earns more than he does, will never let him forget it, and will dump him as soon as something better comes along?
For a whining nag who will balloon up 50 pounds after the wedding and then divorce him, taking half his assets and pushing him out of his children’s lives?
For a SAHM who doesn’t do the work, can’t cook, refuses to learn how, and sees the lifestyle as early retirement, eating bon bons and watching Oprah every day?
Not at all. Every single time the OLD Conservative says something about “men”, you should replace it with “young men”.
Then it becomes fairly obvious why the old men talk endlessly about how young men can benefit “society”… that is them and women. It is only a question of USE. They want some USE out of the young’n. They never going to be young again, who cares.
What to see a snarling old man… I mean “Conservative” turn into an in touch with his feelings hippie? Do something mean to an old man. Any old man.
“I can understand the desire to play a video game here and there as a kid, but as an adult? Grow up.”
I actually agree wit this. Even though I don’t think men are under any obligation to “man up,” as it were, or under any obligation to settle down and get married to some shrieking harpy fem-slut, I am unable to fathom the popularity of video games and sports. It does seem rather childish to spend most of one’s time playing mindlessly repetitive games after one reaches, say, the age of twenty.
I’ve played plenty of video games myself (the big ones, like Halo, CoD, etc.), but I just got bored with not only these games but the entire concept. The same is true of sports fandom. I used to follow football, basketball, and NASCAR pretty religiously, but in recent years the only that captures my attention anymore is the NFL. Everything else bores me. I just don’t get the appeal. Sports and video games are meaningless and unimportant in the grand scheme of things, so I find it difficult to devoting massive amounts of time and emotional energy to them.
Again, this doesn’t mean that males need to give these up in exchange for carousel-riding fem-sluts, but perhaps most males would be better served by using their time more constructively. I recommend learning a hands-on hobby (mine are computer repair, car repair, and blogging). Alternatively, learn to play a sport instead of merely watching it. Just do something.
That’s just my opinion, though, for whatever little it’s worth.
It’s Fox, what did you expect? So Cons masquerading as real conservatives are what Fox is all about. Same old crap, from a “different” perspective.
Excellent work here. Understated skewering that really hits the point perfectly.
deti – Peggy Nance probably doesn’t do anything like that so the argument needs to be a bit more focused. The problem with her rant is its question-begging: that men are a priori obligated to ‘man up’ and become human ATM’s. No, they’re not. Men are fully entitled to ask about marriage, “What’s in it for me?”
Why should a man enter the corporate meatgrinder and spend money on a house which his wife will choose and schooling for their brood which his wife will choose and the various status-mongering activities which she will also choose? The answer better be along the lines of I will cook your meals, run your household like a top so you can devote sufficient energy to the high-pressure, high-paying job that funds our lifestyle, keep myself sexually desirable, and spread my legs for you whenever you feel like it. If Ms. Nance and her female workforce can’t bring that to the table, then they better bring something else. If men still aren’t buying, too bad. This is not to say that women can’t insist on their own benefit of the bargain. Both parties must have a reason to enter the marriage contract but Ms. Nance seems to assume that men have a non-reciprocal duty to hitch themselves to the female workforce at the CWA..
If Ms. Nance wants to encourage men to form families, then she needs to lobby against the policies that drive up the costs for family formation. Among other things, she can argue for severely restricted immigration, abolishing Title VII, eliminating government consumption of private wealth, including public education and voting booths for illiterate Afghans and Iraqis. She doesn’t mention any of that, and insists only that men must work harder, harder, HARDER to pay taxes for all these great ideas that she and her fellow hive members dream up.
That’s the sound Dalrock’s response has to conservatives, just goes over their heads.
I can see their counter, what are you unpatriotic?
Funny you should mention that. He kindly linked to my post with charts on delayed childbirth over the weekend and sent over 5,000 hits my way on Sunday alone. Instalanche indeed!
PT Barnum says:
October 11, 2011 at 4:03 pm
“What to see a snarling old man… I mean “Conservative” turn into an in touch with his feelings hippie? Do something mean to an old man. Any old man.”
Hey! Getting that Glock once I get another job is no longer a pipe dream. I’ll be on the lookout for you. (joke)
And I prefer to think of myself as a cranky old man.
If you want young men to man up, there has to be manly work to do.
It is an illusion that women have overtaken men’s work or duties. The natural duty of the male is to be a hunter, a warrior or a seeker. Women are the gatherers and maintainers of family life and home economy.
The incredible onslaught of technological development in the past 100 years has pacified most of the tasks in the developed world. Through the efforts of men, what was once adventerous, dangerous or difficult is now made relatively routine. This includes complicated professions (except real engineering and related) and even military endevors.
What has happened, almost in stealth fashion, is that horizons and frontiers for men to conquer are (temporily we hope) in short supply. The invasion of women into professions, or formerly male occupations has happened because the task in these areas is to learn what has already been discovered and apply the receipe or administer the details so that things run smoothly. Intelligent women can do this really, really well.
There remain a lot of dirty dangerous jobs and few women are in those jobs.
Where is the adventure? Well, slaying creatures in the complex, violent virtual worlds of amazing computer games obviously DOES engage the attention of a lot of young males worldwide. The games are so compelling that the brain seems to be satisfied with the virtual experience as a substitute for real-world problem solving. And problem solving, whether in business or science or anything else, is hunting in solution-space.
I think a lot of young guys really don’t want to work in the same jobs where there are a lot of women since they instinctly know that the jobs, although complicated, are basically routine and offer little possibilty of adventure.
Enjoyed the read, a couple of points in response to some of the comments as well as the article on the whole.
Can’t disagree with the main thrust of what you write. It is strange that women expect men to not respond to changing behavior from them.
A few things to note though. Men generally are better off when they are married than single, and the divorce rate isn’t really 50% in the way it is usually claimed. The divorce rate for first marriages is actually much lower than 50%, and it is second and third marriages that have higher than 50% divorce rates which distorts the average. Also, number of sexual partners prior to marriage, waiting till marriage to have sex and cohabitation before marraige greatly change the rates of divorce when you break it out by groups. First time marriages bettween virigins (real virgins, no oral sex, etc) who wait till their wedding night are very very low.
So perhaps the SoCon message would resonate better if it actually admited and reflected the truth of the situation.
[D: Welcome to the blog! I am a cautious proponent of marriage, but I think men have to be very careful when selecting a wife.]
Near the end of the previous discussion thread, blogger And That’s Why You’re Single posted a “thanks for the link” and invitation to visit.
In the vein of so-called “Peter Pan” men, I found this guest post there quite revealing Guest Post – Is The Unmarried Man Over 35 a Freak?”
Seems a 55 year-old never-married woman was offered a chance to meet a never-married 52 year-old man (who is described as otherwise being desirable to women), and promptly turned down the offer because she assumed that since he had never been married, there must be something wrong with him.
”At the very least, one of us needs to have some sense of how to be in a long-term committed relationship and it’s not me…so the onus is on him. Sorry.
So, I’m a hypocrite. Single, childfree women are fine; single, childfree men are weird. Tell me I’m not the only one who feels that way.”
Fortunately, many of the comments took this women to task. And, while she was obviously trying to play it off, she did admit to her hypocrisy.
Still, it is just such hypocrisy about men choosing not to (prepare themselves to) marry being “Peter Pan’s” while women who delay marriage (and do damned little to prepare themselves for it) are celebrated as empowered and in-charge of their lives that SoCons such as Nance completely gloss over in their “man-up!” calls. It’s never considered that perhaps it is the unmarried men who are being much more serious and thoughtful about life and it’s realities.
Most everybody here has probably seen Hanna Rosin’s insane glorification of what she called the “unprecedented and amazing moment” (the end of men) on a Ted conference. In case anybody wonders why many men would rather be no part of women’s plans and expectations:
I think a lot of young guys really don’t want to work in the same jobs where there are a lot of women since they instinctly know that the jobs, although complicated, are basically routine and offer little possibilty of adventure.
Yup. I work in corporate America as a cubicle dweller basically doing spreadsheet jockey work that is complicated in that there are many moving parts but very routine and mundane. Most of the department analysts are women. Truth be told, I think they are better than men at this type of work. Generally, they do seem to be more efficient and organized at the sort of work that is repetitive and routine but higher on the complexity scale than say workng an assembly line. That said, I’ve had discussions with female co-workers that on the whole leads me to think most women (yes I know NAWALT) really aren’t good strategic big/picture thinkers. They are good a micromanaging the details but not setting the course and especially connecting the dots.
Problem though in the modern economy is alot of the routine office shuffle paper/play with spreadsheets pay much more than physical work with some adventure.
Speaking as someone who would identify themselves as socially conservative, i’d have to disagree with your suggestion that a social conservative can never be critical of women.
And I can assure you it will never change while they are not taken to task for only mentioning half the picture.
The criticism of men as refusing to grow up does seem to be a reasonable one after all but it ignores the other half of the equation that it isn’t in their interest to grow up as Dalrock points out very well.
But that it runs counter to their interests based on the circumstances they find themselves in today, doesn’t change the truth that many of these guys are still essentially aimless teenagers in their late twenties and early thirties.
The problem it seems isn’t that the criticism is wrong, the problem is that the criticism of men today is incomplete and completely ignores why it is against many men’s general interest to “grow up”.
If women have failed to make themselves more interesting than xbox, why is that my fault?
It could just be my imagination, but doesn’t Penny Nance look a little bit like one of the Martians in the movie “Mars Attacks”?
@ Mike C:
“Generally, they do seem to be more efficient and organized at the sort of work that is repetitive and routine but higher on the complexity scale than say workng an assembly line.” This is well established in Education research. A grading system that skews to daily work at the expense of Tests will bias the grading to girls. Similarly, a grading system that skews to only Testing will bias the scores better to the boys. That this reality would change when people become adults would be quite odd. So, the insights, while good, isn’t exactly controversial.
It’s more of the fact that most Social Cons completely miss any cause for a singular symptom. It’s complaining about the water on your floor when you couldn’t be bothered to turn off the faucet.
Social Cons should be better are realizing that Society is a system built up by lots & lots of work and is always on the brink of collapse. (This is where the Left screws up the most basic of assumptions, which leads them to failure in most policy) Yet they can’t realize that “young men” are simply reverting to their base impulses. You return to “base impulse” when there is no confines against it and when there’s no benefit to going against it. Society doesn’t work well when people aren’t rewarded for doing more than looking out for only themselves. The social setting is to the point that “looking out for oneself” is the only operating principle. That’s what they need to address. The “manning up” issue is the result, not the cause, of the problem. Most guys do “man up” when they can, but, right now, they simply don’t have a lot of reason to.
On Video games: rent/buy a PS3 then play Uncharted 1, 2 and 3 (which comes out in a few weeks). It’s the best storytelling in any visual medium until the next Christopher Nolan film. What most don’t get is that Video Games are where most of the good story telling is these days.
This link is from a radio interview given by Dr.Janice Crouse, a bigwig of the CWA think tank The Beverly Lahae Institute. There is a point in this interview where she nullifies everything she says in praise of men by confirming exactly what TFH has been saying about socon women as feminists. Here is the link. Listen carefully and it will confirm TFH’s observations.
I think I understand where you are coming from, but you are (perhaps unintentionally) hugely downplaying the social conservative blind spot when it comes to the feminist aspect of the culture war. Conservatives have stood watch and often enthusiastically assisted while feminists devastated the family. Now they notice the smoking hole and are indignantly looking for who to blame. Because of their own complicity induced blind spot, they don’t notice the remnants of the missile they themselves built and launched and instead notice the pulverized bits of the homes which have been destroyed. Clearly this is a case of a neighborhood in disrepair! Those lazy homeowners!
Let conservatives acknowledge and then roll back the unfathomable damage they have done and they have allowed others to do to the family in the last 50 years, and then we might have an intelligent conversation about how ambitious a man should be and what type of social obligation you might expect of him.
Guess I should offer a few replies 🙂
First up, @THF,
Let me define “grow up”. First a little background. I am an orthodox conservative christian so my persecptive on the whole thing is influenced by that and it underlies much of my thinking.
For a man to grow up is for a man to mature into a productive adult, father and husband (if they marry and if they have children, this is not obligatory but common enough and the proper outlet and function of sexual desire, not “strictly procreation”, but that is part of the function of sex in the human make up, just to be clear). A man who doesn’t grow up and mature will be incomplete and not really rise to the level they are capable of rising to. Much will be wasted in failing to do this.
Now you say,
“Avoiding marriage is not immature given how unfair the laws are to men. It is wise”
I don’t think it is wise, but it certainly is a rational response to the way things are set up. I’m not suggesting the choice is irrational or even “immature”. It is a perfectly rational choice given the circumstances the men find themselves in.
Likewise with taxes it is rational to refuse to work hard to subsidise social parasites. Economically I tend to come out as fairly strongly libertarian, almost a borderline anarcho-capitalist.
Next you note,
“You still seem to believe that entering a preposterously unfair legal contract equates to ‘maturity’, and that men are obligated to be useful to women, while not telling women to ‘grow up’ and keep up their end of the bargain. ”
No I don’t think entering into an unfair legal contract equals maturity. It is rational not to. I’m all for the concept of “covenant marriage” that has much stricter conditions for divorce (there are not no fault provisions) and would be all for letting couples draw up their own marriage contracts and have them enforced as contracts. And don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting women are blameless in this at all, they are literally the sexual gate keepers and they have done more harm to themselves as a group by choosing to abandon past customs that they regarded as “inhibiting”. I agree women should understand also that marriage is for life and they need to keep their end of the bargain as well. No fault divorce laws are a large part of the problem with this, where one unfaithful disgruntled partner can walk away and not be held liable for their unilateral decision to abandon the marriage.
“Many men are becoming pickup artists instead of cubicle slaves. You may not like this, but they are making intelligent decisions based on the society we live in.”
I can see why they regard this as a rational position, but I don’t think in the long term it is a wise one. They can do it if they like, but they sell themselves short when they chose this course of action.
Next for some reason you say,
“I suppose you think that modern women are somehow more mature than modern men. If so, please explain why you believe this, and why so many women end up as childless old ladies despite their superior maturity.”
No I don’t think modern women are “more mature”. They are often just as immature although it surfaces in different ways. They are certianly behaving in immature and foolish ways as they choose to ignore reality and behave the way they often do and in the way you clearly see as wrong and destructive. No argument from me there at all.
Yes I think you hit the nail on the head when you note that
“Yet they can’t realize that “young men” are simply reverting to their base impulses”
Sadly that is exactly what they are doing. I think you are right when you see this as a symptom of the underlying problem that they are actually behaving rationally when faced with choices that make living as they were made to live difficult or profoundly irrational.
As for video games, play World of Tanks. It is awesome and free on the PC 😀
Hi Dalrock, you said,
“Conservatives have stood watch and often enthusiastically assisted while feminists devastated the family. Now they notice the smoking hole and are indignantly looking for who to blame.”
Yep I think you are right here. They have bought into many of the lies they have been told and are now “reaping what they have (in part) sown”.
I agree with you that we should seek to unravel and rollback much of the insane system that has been set up that has proven to be devestating to men and women and that many conservatives have gone along with for too long.
Thanks for the comments everybody 🙂
@Jason Rennie and some general comments
Couple questions so I can understand where you are coming from better:
Are you married? It helps understand where you’re coming from. For example when D puts something out there I can understand his perspective is from a guy with a lot of marriage experience under his belt.
I’m not sure how are men better off being married. Aside from in a Biblical fashion like having an approved outlet for sex. In 2011, in America, how is a single man going to be better off being married? What if he doesn’t want to have kids?
Concerning the covenant marriage which you say is a better arrangement. I don’t disagree with that, but does that hold up in court?
General but related:
Perhaps the Golden Age of the Beta was 1946-1964 and we only see glimpses of that in stories from our Grandfathers of the way it used to be. But it was just a brief few years and perhaps an aberration of sorts brought on by having a war footing economy, some shortage of men from war deaths, and a surge in technological growth, etc. I don’t know if back at other times in history there was another Golden Age of Beta. Perhaps the Roman debauchery and increasing tribalism we live in now is more normal.
From what I see, ‘The Church’ encourages young men to leap like lemmings into marriage to avoid the sin of sex but the church long ago abdicated any and all responsibility for the maintenance of marriages or determining, who, what, when, where of any potential divorce. It’s cruel to the young men to encourage them into something so stacked against them with such potentially ruinous outcomes and then stand back and say, “Well it’s up to the government, our hands are tied. Shrug.”
If you want to get a fair divorce these days I think your best bet is a Sharia court. Wasn’t there an article here or there where non-Muslim Brit men were turning to that. I’ll try to find it.
As to Church for me, I’ve been interested in Eastern Orthodox lately as I hear that they aren’t all feminized. I was going to an Evangelical for a long time and then I realized how fem it all is with bands and dancing and hands in the air and feel good sermons and an abject fear of calling sin, sin. Plus the only thing they offer men are accountability groups while the women get study groups. I guess Eve doesn’t sin anymore. Ever hear of “Promise Keepers” for women? No? Hmm…funny that.
Bennett and that woman complaining about Peter Pans are trying to bail out the Titanic with a teaspoon. It won’t work.
We have already as noted reached the tipping point. Illegitimacy is rapidly rising among Whites, as it has among Blacks before them and then Mexicans. Only Asians and the wealthiest of Whites (upper 20% income), due to strong social controls and shaming mechanisms have retained 1960 levels of illegitimacy, around 4%.
That destiny is already written in stone. Men won’t man up, because the model has changed. The nuclear family is already dead, the destination being Kevin Federline or Levi Johnson. The only thing that will make the nuclear family return (and it is not “man up” screaming) is a shock:
Women and kids starving, because there is no provider.
Basic security and shelter being provided only through a secure provider, not the government.
The Welfare state collapsing, and there being no prospect even of reviving it.
Basically you’d need something like the fall of the Western Roman Empire to change behavior, otherwise we are already well on our way to “total douchebag domination.” Which most women will prefer anyway. Most women would rather have a share of a D-bag type, than all of a Beta provider. Beta Providers just need to turn into D-bags, the bigger and jerkier the D-bag the better. Federline away!
While we are all joking around, I prefer to think of you as a weak minded fool who had an incredibly easy life.(joke)
I agree with Whiskey, the so-called D-Bags the screeching feminist blogs condemn will soon be all that remains. Provider men will be reduced to the apex males capable of supporting women, (or if he so desires, a harem) while the rest of the body of men will be the pump-and-dump D-Bags.
Welcome to post-post-feminism.
Hi Puzzled Traveller,
“Are you married? It helps understand where you’re coming from. For example when D puts something out there I can understand his perspective is from a guy with a lot of marriage experience under his belt.”
Yes, currently seperated, nearly divorced, but my wife has decided to give it another go. Also I am located in Australia, which is similar but not identical to the US in the way things are set up.
“I’m not sure how are men better off being married. Aside from in a Biblical fashion like having an approved outlet for sex. In 2011, in America, how is a single man going to be better off being married? What if he doesn’t want to have kids?”
All of the stats seem to point to men being healthier and living longer when married. As someone else noted, this does ignore that they are worse off when divorced. But I would note, that a couple starting life and doing life right tend to have very low divorce rates so it isn’t necessarily the crap shoot that it would be in other cases. Been listening to Mark Gungor for a while on this stuff over at Laught your way to a better marriage and he has some excellent points and advice on the whole thing, and he is more than happy to note that women are to blame for many of the problems today.
“Concerning the covenant marriage which you say is a better arrangement. I don’t disagree with that, but does that hold up in court?”
In some places it is the law that you can opt for this sort of marriage instead of the normal one and so I can only assume it is more legally binding as a result. Don’t know how it has gone in courts as I think it is a relativly new concept and I would guess that people that go into a covenant marriage end up in the divorce process much less often. I guess the test will be when someone tries to break up the marriage for reasons that are not given as grounds in the covenenat marriage contract.
You also note,
“From what I see, ‘The Church’ encourages young men to leap like lemmings into marriage to avoid the sin of sex but the church long ago abdicated any and all responsibility for the maintenance of marriages or determining, who, what, when, where of any potential divorce. It’s cruel to the young men to encourage them into something so stacked against them with such potentially ruinous outcomes and then stand back and say, “Well it’s up to the government, our hands are tied. Shrug.””
Couldn’t agree with you more. I’d still support young marriage and encourage it as it tends to have the best outcomes and lowest divorce rates (Assuming the couple are actual virgins [rather than “technical vigins”] going in etc), but you are right the church has largly abdicated much of its responsibility in these cases. I think this might be starting to turn around in some areas, but it has been an ongoing issue for a long time. Part of the solution to the problem will be the natural attrituion of churches that go in these sorts of theologically liberal directions. They generally over a generation or two shrivel up and die once they forsake the Gospel.
“As to Church for me, I’ve been interested in Eastern Orthodox lately as I hear that they aren’t all feminized. I was going to an Evangelical for a long time and then I realized how fem it all is with bands and dancing and hands in the air and feel good sermons and an abject fear of calling sin, sin. Plus the only thing they offer men are accountability groups while the women get study groups.”
Move down to Sydney Australia, I know quite a few good evangelical anglican churches that are not so in the thrall of things like that. Although even here I think you are right, it seems the women are held to a lesser standard in that regard, although perhaps the church is just slow on the uptake and hasn’t realized that most divorces are filed by women it seems due to the good deal they think they can get from the legal system. Although the reality seems to be much harsher than they expect.
“But what would a social conservative who wasn’t a feminist look like? Lacking a defined anchor point to try to move society back to, how would they respond to the world we live in? I think this is an easier question to answer than it might seem at first glance. When they aren’t groveling to feminists, conservatives have a fairly clear cut philosophy. Think about how conservatives view business. They understand the need for fair, predictable, and consistent contract enforcement. Anything less is an obstacle to conducting business. They are acutely aware of unintended consequences. If you want more of something, subsidize and deregulate it. If you want less of it, tax and regulate it.”
There is a difference between a “social conservative” and a laissez faire, free market, unrestrained capitalist “conservative.” Historically speaking (eg the “Manchester school”), untrammeled free trade was a “liberal” idea. Conservatives, not so long ago, were all about maintaining the elements of a traditional society. NOT about putting Adam Smith’s ideas into practice, which they saw as “leveling” and overly materialistic. Really, they were more about maintaining pre modern forms: feudalism, established churches, monarchies, class systems, etc,, than about unleashing the individual through free markets and freedom generally.
A social conservative can, in total consistency, agree that marriage is not such a hot deal for men, but insist on men marrying anyway. Because, as the heirs of the nineteenth century conservatives described above, they are all about maintaining traditional society, with as little change as possible. Such social, or old school, conservatives are focused on society, not the individual. Far from celebrating individual choice, homo economicus, and the all powerful consumer, such folks value the stability of a historically proven social model. Social conservatives, like nineteenth century conservatives, typically see nothing wrong with working against or trying to override market or consumer choices. Indeed, some such conservatives, perhaps of the Christian Democrat variety, see nothing wrong with various forms of welfare and the like. And are not afraid to say so.
So I think you are barking up the wrong tree in this regard.
Of course, you are right on when you argue that, if these folks really want to re establish (or maintain what’s left of) traditional society, particularly the two parent family, then feminism should be their number one enemy. Not gay marriage. Not porn. Not even abortion, per se. And certainly not “Peter Pan” men. Perhaps they view that task, rolling back feminism, as impossible. Perhaps they think that feminism is just too popular and ingrained. Or, perhaps, their notions of chivarly and white knighting blind them to the damage that the specifically “womanist” feminism has done to the very traditional society they so prize. Perhaps Christianity, which has itself, over the centuries, become very “feminized,” stands in their way too. Or, maybe, they take a “traditional” view of women as being moral patients, sort of like small children or animals, who can’t be expected to do anything on their own. It therefore falls on the men, as the only real adults, as the only moral beings, as the only humans even capable of thinking in terms of what’s good for society, as opposed to women (who act only in terms of immediate gratification–again, like small childrem or animals), to make all the sacrifices. To take the shit deal of even Marriage 2.0, so that some semblance of what they consider to be traditional society can continue.
I think some combination of the above is what is at work, NOT any inconsistency in how they view the family vs. how they view business. To a SoCon, it is business which is less important. Pure capitalism? Social democracy? Socialsim? A return to feudalism? Something else entirely? These are not the important issues to them. Sure, they might favor a “go slow” approach to any change in whatever the existing system happens to be, like all conservatives generally do, but, to them, economic policy is really more a matter of pragmatism and empiricism than it is ideology. What is dogmatically ideological is their view of the family.
I don’t even think it is fair to label folks such as this author a “feminist.” She is a trad con. She does not favor freedom for women anymore than she does for men. She is not particularly interested in freedom (or, as Oz Conservative would call it, “autonomy”), for anyone. SoCons want everyone to fall into line and help rebuild the traditional society they favor. As a practical matter, that may lead them to make many, and grossly unfair, demands on men, and almost none on women (eg, her advise to them to let men buy them dinner!). But that is not becuase they “believe” in freedom and autonomy for women, or even equality for women, or anything at all about or for women, but because they see men as the easier target.
“If she were a conservative she would respect that individuals can decide for themselves the best way to spend their own time and money, so long as they aren’t infringing on the rights of someone else.”
Liberals, libertarians, and economic conservatives (aka nineteenth century “liberals”) all use one version or another of this mantra, but not social conservatives. Because, again, they are not about the individual, they are about society as a whole.
“Like a good leftist, she knows better than individuals how they should lead their lives.”
Like a good “leftist,” or like a good authoritarian, whether left or right? Leftist authoritarians clearly want to tell people what’s good for them, and have them do it, whether they want to or not. You, like many in the men’s movement, seem to have no trouble understanding that. But so do rightist authoritarians. Think of folks like Franco or Salazar, or of the Pope pre John XXIII and possibly today too. Right authoritarians think that individuals should live their lives in ways that lead to what is best for societey, just as left authoritarians do. They only disagree on the particulars of what constitutes that ideal. Social Conservatives are a soft variant of Right Authoritarians, just as Social Democrats are a soft variant of Left Authoritarians. The problem with the author isn’t that she is a leftist (she isn’t), but that she is an authoritarian.
“She knows more about what is good for them than they do themselves:”
Which, again, is the hallmark of authoritarian thinking, not necessarily leftist (or rightist, for that matter) thinking.
What many, including our gracious host, seem to miss is that the genie is out of the bottle. There is no going back.
You might want to try here: http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/ it’ll help.
I think you are mistaken. It might take a while to turn around but it can be turned around. I don’t actually think it is a matter of “putting the genie back in the bottle”. The current approach to relationships that many men and women (especially it seems) have is utterly unsustainable and destined to cause all sorts of problems.
Look at the recent English riots for example. Anybody want to wager that it was regular church or mosque) going youth who have a father at home that made up large chunks of the rioters? I doubt anybody would be foolish enough to take that bet.
Society can’t survive with the deal it has tried to make, cutting of sex from reproduction and trying to replace the father with the state and reduce him from provider to ATM/CashPoint.
So it will either turn around when the whole thing collapses or will turn around because people see sense before the whole thing collapses. Either way, the “status quo” wont continue because it is ultimately utterly unsustainable. p
Thanks for the tips the site looks interesting. Why exactly will it help?
Women and kids starving, because there is no provider.
Basic security and shelter being provided only through a secure provider, not the government.
The Welfare state collapsing, and there being no prospect even of reviving it.
I do not think it will change behavior of women. Why? There are examples of many societies around the world which live in such conditions. Does it force them to abandon their societal model? No. Women have their share of alphas and that is the only thing important for them.
Athol is the Manosphere’s resident relationship Doctor. He’s not a Christian anymore, but you won’t really find much objectionable in his actual advice. He gives a method for understanding a lot of the reasons problems in your relationship have cropped up. It likely isn’t about the sex (and he’ll point that out, a lot), but he gives a frame work for understanding relationships a whole lot better.
That’s why I linked to the introduction to his book and his first posts. They explain what he’s on about. I also link them because you’re attempting to end a separation with your wife, which means something has gone wrong in the relationship. Athol focuses on improving you and good ways to understand what a wife is thinking/responding to. He can’t solve all problems, but he helps clarify the mind. (He also responds to emails if you have questions)
It falls into the category of “this won’t hurt and will likely help you, a lot” advice.
Great post Dalrock.
Its curious to me as a Brit that unmarried men are not getting attacked by media neo-cons in the same way over here. Perhaps neo-cons in the UK already know that marriage is on the way out?
This sentence sums everything up.
“A conservative would ask if the deal is so sweet, why do you have to shame men into it?”
That should be the standard response to all misandrist rantings. No ideology is required. Only a common sense awareness that you get more of things that you reward and less of things that you punish.
Thanks johnnymilfquest that expresses the point really well.
Men don’t get married because they are getting a bad deal and the reason for the bad deal is the way things are set up. It is rational to choose not to marry under such insane circumstances.
I still think it is the case that men will benefit greatly from a traditional marriage where both partners are in till one gets carried out in a body bag. The problem is that we have destroyed that and now women are surprised that men don’t want the perversion they have beeleft with.
I get the impression that part of the problem is that those saying marriage is a good versus those who are saying marriage is a negative are actually talking past each other to some degree.
Only a common sense awareness that you get more of things that you reward and less of things that you punish.
This is true.
I’m not sure I’m getting the whole “women only want alphas” thing. Guys like that have always kind of scared me — in fact, I have a theory that women who repeatedly fall into destructive relationships are confusing the awful “thrill” of fear with that of true sexual attraction. Or maybe I’m just an outlier. It wouldn’t be the first time.
(As an aside: I’m new here — be patient with me if I’m misinterpreting the key ideas here. I’m not familiar with the acronyms or basic lingo, so if I disagree about something, maybe it’s because I didn’t really understand the issue at hand. In other words: Be nice. You alpha guys scare me.) 🙂
About the whole “women are mature, men are little boys” thing — a lot of women think that way as they cattily go about their flakey, self-destructive ways, and it would be laughable if the results weren’t so devastating. It’s the complaining that calls them out (as immature) most, I think.
My parents, who were little kids during the depression, had very stressful lives by today’s standards. But one thing I really notice, especially about my mom: They never complained. They did what was in front of them to do, and that was that. Once, recently, I was complaining (heh) to my mom about some shoulder pain I’d been dealing with, that made it especially hard to keep up with the housework. She smiled. “Take some Tylenol, and go do it,” she said.
One of the many fallouts of feminism is the whining and complaining to which women seem to feel so entitled. Somehow, the idea that women lacked equality in terms of financial/ political power translated into permission to complain about every little thing, and to then blame one’s unhappiness on the nearest (or, I guess, in this case, the elusive) guy. I don’t understand why everyone wants to be considered “feminist” somehow — e.g., “feminists for life.” As though a woman, of any political persuasion, can’t stand on her own with any credibility unless she can define her success and/or confidence in terms of some brand of feminism. I don’t get that.
Confusion wrought by the influence of feminism almost cost me the chance at marriage and family, so I take a lot of the posts on this site very personally (I first found this site via the insty link to the chart post a couple days ago, and I’m actually obsessed with this site now!) I don’t feel the least oppressed by any men in my life, nor have I ever; my own choices, made without serious thought about their consequences and influenced unduly by feminist ideas, are what got me there — and enlightened self-interest is what got me out (and none too soon). Feminism does more to ensnare otherwise capable women into a victim mentality, often unexamined, that can only end in unhappiness for them, and a sense that there’s nothing that can be done (by them, at least) to reverse it. It is a very, very damaging philosophy/ political ideology, on every possible level.
I don’t know if women were ever really “oppressed” by men (my own experience, and that of my family going back several generations at least, says otherwise). They’re often oppressed now, though.
And men have nothing to do with it.
Thanks for the response. Lot of good points there. I still don’t know about the whole men are better off being married schtick. Here’s a dissenting point of view.
Impressive first post. Eileen.
Is the issue about to go asymptotic? I think maybe.
The pace of the ridiculous shaming is increasing. This must be because there is now a strong enough “leading edge” of dissatisfaction among soon-to-be cougars that is it beginning to create some disturbance. I do not believe the full wave is here yet.
The time is coming soon for men to say their piece with boldness and with no trepidation of the cries of “loser”.
Follow up comment is stuck in moderation (has a bunch of links to Athol’s work), but, in a nutshell, Athol gives a framework for dealing with LTR/marriage issues that escapes most. And he responds to emails if you have issues.
Cool first post. On the issue of “oppression”, Western women (starting with Anglo-Saxon around 1200) are the best treated on the face of the earth, comparative to any others. This is still true and shall remain that way for at least the next 20 years (no clue what society will look like past that, so let’s not project too far out). They’ve enjoyed more rights, responsibilities and respect in Western culture than any others.
There are still places of real repression, but you need to take a trip to Saudi Arabia to see it. It’s brutal and very real, if pleasantly ignored by today’s Feminists.
I’ll second the suggestion to check out Athol Kay’s site. He has a book out which would be even better, since books naturally start from the beginning and take you from there.
But the first thing I would suggest you read is this post, because I think it will resonate with any man who has been in a relationship. What game teaches is counterintuitive, but it works and has the additional benefit of simplifying what is otherwise universally assumed to be hopelessly complex.
After you read the link above, you might want to check out this page which I set up as a placeholder to identify good game resources.
Edit: For my own perspective on using game in marriage, see my post Gaming your wife.
2nd Edit: Here are two other posts I’ve done on using game in the context of marriage. That way rationalization lies and Should you game your prospective wife into submission?
I don’t have the time to read the linked article — I’m too busy playing video games.
Seriously, I think this is just par for the course. Social conservatives are fairly useless when it comes to issues between men and women, because social conservatism serves to reinforce 99% of contemporary feminism (the only significant disagreement between them relates to abortion). When Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are the face of American social conservatism, you pretty much know that social conservatism *is* feminism — it’s simply its right-wing branch. So while the left-wing branch of feminism emphasizes sexual libertinism for its own sake, and so on, the right-wing branch emphasizes empowerment coupled with existing female privilege and expectation — they really are two sides of the same coiin. Virtually no-one in the culture is arguing for a return to traditional roles for *both* sexes, and virtually no-one in the culture is arguing for a more forced egalitarian model, either (other than a few MRAs). So, the default setting is feminism of the left and feminism of the right — but either way, it is feminism. Feminism is the air we breathe in this culture when it comes to men and women — just is.
As for Bennett et al, they would do well to understand that the reason why men are underachieving is because they can. If liberation for women meant liberation from accountability to men, liberation for men meant liberation from responsibility to women. Again, these are two sides of the same coin. For some reason the numbskulls who pass themselves off as public intellectuals in this culture can’t seem to wrap their puny minds around that truism.
Save that last paragraph because it’s utterly brilliant. The entire problem, wrapped into 4 sentences.
[D: Agreed. I was just thinking the same thing.]
I don’t know if it’s news flash, but now we have a “dating gap”:
Increasingly, the new dating gap—where women are forced to choose between deadbeats and players—trumps all else, in all socioeconomic brackets.
Kate Bolick must have matched the publication of her Atlantic piece All the Single Ladies to your posting schedule. This never-married, childless 39 year old manages to be clueful (the essay’s middle section is an interview with Susan Walsh of HUS) and clueless (“duh, how’d I end up here!?”) at the same time.
While the topic is, er, topical, the article is way, way too long. Bolick is talking around Game, Hypergamy, and the unintended consequences of feminism. She just doesn’t know it.
You want to know why men need to ‘men up’, grow up, and start being responsible? It’s to court, marry and start families with bright, educated, independent, career women like these:
How surprising that so many men today don’t know what they’re missing.
Re tm’s comment:
This will become increasingly common as the economy deteriates and students can’t find good jobs to pay off their loans. If the economy collapses as badly as some fear we’ll probably see large numbers of single mothers and poorer single women having “arrangements” for cash.
“I took her back to my place and arranged her good…”
And of course, the whole thing is due to wymin’s oppression, and their male counterparts have it much better, etc
Yeah, Tax those Peter Pan Manboys for shirking their “responsibility” to all those needy single mothers.
Pingback: Outstanding reader comments | Dalrock
Will; they won’t even be able to do that if men have no jobs and money. I know. Maybe they will start a few more wars and bring back the draft.
@LookingGlass & @Dalrock
Thanks for the Tip, i’e bought his book and started reading it. Your right, it can hardly hurt at this point and will likely help a lot 🙂 I read your first suggested post and it really did resonate with me. One thing though, is there a list of acronyms and terms somewhere? They can usually be figured out from context but a glossary would be awesome if it exists. I am kind of new to all this stuff and only found your site a few months back.
Listening to the video now. Tom makes some good points about why men don’t want to get married. I don’t disagree at all with the idea that being married is currently a risky proposition for men and the deck is stacked against them in many ways. Can I just say, the guy being interviewed seems like a bit of a tool.
Tom is wrong about “living together” being as benifical as marriage, “defacto” relationships (the term used in australia) have higher rates of domestic violence and all sorts of other negative aspects. Marriage is a different sort of relationship (or it is intended to be) comapred to just “shacking up”. The problem is that it seems culturally we are trying to “dumb marriage down” to the level of “shacking up” with a big party at the start and a collection of risks assocaited with it. Incidentally in Australia living with a “partner” (I hate that term) for six months results in a defacto marriage that entitles them to the benifits of marriage (idiocy IMO) especially in the advent of a split.
I would freely contend that marriage is a risky proposition for men today based on the way it is set up. Tom is quite right on this aspect.
I can’t believe how much of an idiot Paul is. He makes me head palm regularly listening to him.
In part I think Tom and Paul are talking past each other which is a large part of the problem.
One additional thought. It seems that Tom’s problem with the current setup is that No Fault Divorce is a large part of the problem, plus the stacking in favour of the woman in a divorce. While either party can just walk away without paying a penalty for doing so (or at least they have the impression that they can, the reality is obviously different) and actually think they will benifit from it, then unfortunately Tom will have a good point.
The solution it seems is a return to sanity and wind back the current insanity of the setup. Unfortunately the lunatic feminists that think all this is wonderful will seek to fight it every step of the way, although I think ultimately it will turn around as the current setup is unsustainable and women are starting to figure out that the current setup isn’t actually in their interests at all.
Return to sanity is as laughable a notion as the term reformed slut.
I feel like the Bennett, Nance and Bolick articles are at the very least serendipitous coincidences. Lots of chatter about spinsters this week.
Why do you say that? The current situation is a total train wreck and is unsustainable, eventually something will have to give, either the collapse of civilization or a turn around before that happens. No civilization has ever survived when it tried to continue indefinitely down the road we are currently on.
I’m not attempting to answer for Yaboymatt, but I will chime in with the reasons I agree with him.
Most people consider 1963 as the start of this “2nd wave” of feminism which has defined most of our mating lives. That means the situation we are in has been developing for 48 years.
I’m sure that in Australia you have bush fires. Think of feminist thought being like a campfire out in the bush which leaps out of its fire ring and starts a small fire in the surrounding bush. All someone has to do is stamp it out or pour some water on it while it is still small and the problem is solved.
Now, imagine that instead of putting it out, people fed it and the whole damn bush is on fire – millions and millions of acres. Not so easy to put out now.
When the majority of the culture was still ruled by older, more traditional values, this bush fire of feminism was impossible to put out. Now, that the whole damn outback is on fire, it will take millions of times the effort to turn things back.
Do you really see that happening? Do you see any evidence at all that any common sense is sneaking into law or public policy?
In order to happen, a change has to get started, and I don’t see any evidence of one getting started.
Actually I do think it is starting to turn around slowly, although indirectly. That something like covenant marriage laws are popping up indicates a recognition of the problem and an attempt to turn it around. Additionally we are starting to see the rise of organized groups of men seeking to remedy the insane situation in divorce law that gives everything to the woman and sees the man as a walking check book. Also we are seeing more and more data that divorce on the one end and the “hook up” culture on the other end are really destructive to the chances of living a happy and healthy life.
It took 50 years to get to this point and even the thickest of people are starting to get the idea that maybe the whole thing was a bad idea after all. Plus the aging feminazi’s that will never give an inch on this are dying off.
It will take time to turn around, perhaps more time than the culture as a whole has left, but I do think it is starting to turn around. We will see what happens. Change takes time, we didn’t wreck it over night and we are unlikely to be able to fix it overnight either.
I am awestruck that someone with the gravitas as Zenpriest would quote me in agreement since so much of what I have learned in the past year comes from his and Bonecrker’s writings.
I could never elucidate myself with 1% of how Zed wrote above, so I will simply say “Quoted for Truth” and bow.
Thank you to Lavazza and Looking Glass for your responses. Given that I was pretty nervous about posting, I’m surprised didn’t think I needed to be more concise! 🙂 This site is an awesome find, and it’s an honor to be able to participate in the discussion.
Looking Glass, thank you for pointing out the bigger issue where oppression is concerned. I wasn’t really thinking about the world at large, but when you do, it really exposes the hypocrisy (at best) of modern feminism.
Pingback: Clueless SoCons, Redux | The Badger Hut
@ Jason Rennie
Yeah the Paul guy is a bit of a tool but I think the gist of the conversation is:
1. If you have religious beliefs that compel you to get married and stay married, and more importantly your potential wife has them, that’s a start for consideration of doing it.
2. If you plan to have kids that’s a viable reason to consider it.
3. Otherwise with no fault divorce, cashing in on men and court ordered theft it’s a pretty foolish risk. I think today’s men in their twenties are wise to it now for the most part.
I was married. I’m dating now. I really can’t see myself getting married again. When I was in my twenties I had all kinds of silly romantic notions about it. Now, having been through a divorce, I can tell you marriage is a legal contract about money. Whether it started with a church ceremony or a civil ceremony, at the end, it is the state and its courts which will decide how, when and in what way it can end. It is the state which will decide what happens to your kids and property. The church, they want nothing to do with it.
If you ever have to go through a divorce you will learn rather quickly what marriage, as regulated by the state is all about. I don’t wish it on anyone. I have some small glimmer of hope for marriage though because not everyone gets divorced obviously. (Our Host)
However, I do agree with Tom’s point in the radio segment that if (let’s just say) half of people get divorced, of the remaining ones who stay married, how many of those guys are in happy marriages? The number is probably much smaller than those who are in rotten marriages and stick around or who are in somewhat tolerable mediocre marriages and stick around.
I define horrible or tolerable marriage as your typical suburban marriage with low amounts of sex, high amounts of conflict, high amounts of nagging, bitching and all the rest. We all know guys who live in marriages like that and can’t or won’t leave because they know the state will drop a hammer on them. However for the women it’s great. They really can do whatever they want short of physically attacking their spouse and terminate the marriage at any time and get the same cash return in the divorce. Heck, even if they are the ones physically abusive, tell that to the cop as he has your face planted into the ground with a knee of your neck.
Where I live, my state repealed common law marriage a couple years ago. Now I wonder, because I don’t know, what the genesis of that legislative drive was? I wonder if it was women pushing for that so that they did not become “trapped” in a common law marriage after a couple years of living together, or if it was men that pushed for it so they wouldn’t get trapped, or if it was some so-con initiative that was put forth in a misguided attempt to abolish common law marriage (so that gays could not participate) and therefore keep marriage hetero and encourage people to get married with a license. It was probably the so-cons.
October 12, 2011 at 9:31 am
Read the article. Nothing indicated that these women weren’t chasing the alpha cock the whole time. The first black man they interviewed seemed to confirm it. He talks of a 4 to 1 ration of his girlfriends. Sounds like the usual 80% of women (black) chasing the 20% of (black) alpha cock. I have read on blogs where black men are decrying black women for slutting around until their 30’s and then using the churches to shame the decent black men who have been ignored to marry them. Decent black men want nothing of that. But yeah, blame it on incarceration rates, not the women.
It is a perfect introduction to relations between men and women all over the Western World.
Well, since you still have some skin in the game, I hope that you are right for your sake. My perspective is colored by having watched the entire downward slide and was absolutely unable to get people to even stick their feet out to try to slow it down.
It’s probably impossible for a man in his 60s to get across to a younger man how absolutely sick of women’s shit a man can become. Take away the sexual attractiveness of their youth and a man’s desire for children, and about all you have left is like living in a room full of people running their fingernails along chalkboards. I was listening into a conversation between 2 guys I work with who are both about ready to retire, and both of them said the reason they keep putting it off is have some place to go every day and not have to sit around and listen to their wives’ drivel.
I think the loss of a positive cultural value for marriage is going to take a very long time to reverse. Right now we are in the stage where people realize that men actually do contribute something to the culture, but instead of bring back any rewards for men doing so they just keep repeating the “slave up” mantra – and I just don’t see that as actually working.
I’ve said before that cultures virtually never “go back” to anything – they keep moving forward and either change and adapt or are replaced. Susan Walsh’s blog has a recent post about a woman getting ready to hit 40 whose public appearances tend to reinforce the message that “Marriage, as we know it, is on the way out.”
With women like that in their pool of potential marriage partners, men need to be thinking about what their “Plan B” might look like.
zed also had a related comment before: “If men were more realistic in their assessment of their own earning potential and understood the costs of maintaining the lifestyle to which women had or wanted to become accustomed and realized that they simply couldn’t do it and as a result refused to make promises that they knew they couldn’t deliver on, it was due to the fact that they were “Peter Pans” or “commitment phobic” or a man that a woman “loves too much.” Of course it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the women themselves because everyone knows that women are powerless. The more power they had, and the more that men tried to give them, the louder they screeched that they had none at all.”
The America I’d like to return to is that of the early 1960s in the northern states. The America of Mad Men — and Pan Am (but with current and ongoing technology). No widespread Marxist feminism or feminist laws. Clear gender roles for the most part but with flexibility with some copywriters emerging such as Peggy Olson and aspiring ones such as Don Drapper’s new wife. No affirmative action but not too many absolute bars to black or female progress either. No ridiculous sexual harassment laws but some sense of decorum as well.
Before marriage they both work but he makes quite a bit more money in part because he’s 7-10 years older, and in part because she cares more about enjoying her work in a job with good status than making tons of money. After have first one and then a second child she stays home until the youngest is two or three, then returns to part or light time work. He generally leads in their marriage but delegates lots of stuff.
Sadly my experience is that serial killers are more valued than engineers. At least from women, who want their alpha genes. I spent my teens being a petty crook and thug precisely because it got me constant bareback action in high school and post. Now that I’m a reformed boring finance type I might as well be invisible, truly a bitter pill for a 25 year old man who manned up and left the life because it was killing his momma.
I can see Tom’s point of view, I don’t disagree with the idea that avoiding marriage can be a rational choice given then system as it now stands. I am sorry to hear you got divorced 😦 I think I have avoided the same fate myself at this point.
You are right marriage is a legal contract about money, and in the past it was also a legal contract about sexuality, fidelity and progeny.
I must disagree with Tom though, it isn’t true that half of all marriages end in divorce. Well, it is true, but if you break it out by different sorts of marriages the reality is that first time marriages don’t break down at that rate, while 2nd plus time marraiges break down at a much higher rate and 3rd+, forget about it.
I think i’ll have to take exception with your concept of “happily married” though. Marriages go up and down over time and when it has been studied it has been found that couples who choose not to divorce are generally happier 5 years later than couples who chose to divorce.
Also I don’t think “divorce is great” for the women at all, as many learn to their regret after the fact. It is sold as advantaging them, as I agree the way the court system is set up etc it looks like it does advantage them, but how legion are the complaints from divorced 30+ women who can’t find a man?
I agree the court system etc is broken and idiotically setup to make divorce look like a good idea for the woman but in reality I don’t think it is really true and I think slowly people are waking up to the fact.
Actually I am all in favour of abolishing common law marriage. If you aren’t prepared to “sign on the dotted line” why should you acquire the benifits and protections that come with marriage? It isn’t like you need to do anything more than file the paperwork after all.
One final thought. It seems we both agree the current system is insane and is, at least theoretically setup to “benifit the woman”. What strikes me as really ironic is that in reality marriage as an instituion exists in no small part fo protect women and their offspring and provide them with support etc. In reality, by breaking down marriage and making it unattractive for men while removing the major incentive for men to marry (availabiltiy of a sexual partner, which can now be had much much more “cheaply”), the people that suffer the most are the women who are supposed to be being “liberated” and “helped”.
They lose the protection marriage affords them and their offspring and sets them up for lonliness and poverty. What surprises me is that more women don’t see these obvious truths that the data clearly bears out. Who is lying to all these girls?
Unfortunately I think you are right about how things have gone downhill, and I can understand the whole not wanting to retire thing.
You are also right about how people are realizing it but as yet they aren’t willing to connect the dots and understand that marriage is a contract that involves compromise on both sides of the equation.
I think your observation that cultures never go back may be colourd by your age and the limits of the human lifespan itself. I’m 36 and i’m not sure I would bank on living to see how all this ultimately plays out, whether things turn around or finally collapse in a heap. I don’t think there is a third way though, as history shows pretty clearly that modern western civilization would be the first in history to ever avoid the fate of collapse if it doens’t turn itself around and reverse most of these insane trends. I just don’t think we are that special.
We’ll see what happens I guess.
Big daddy government for the poor women, big daddy…. Well daddy for the rich girls. Responsibility is for men. Mangina daddies creating little monsters out of daddies little white girl is what is the biggest factor for a white girl jumping on the thug carousel. Take it from me, all the Girls chasing thugs have a beta paying the bill, whether husband, boyfriend, daddy, or the taxpayer.
“Correction – modern marriage law is structured so that the woman is relieved from her end of the bargain by the state, while the man is kept to his (or worse).”
That is what I meant. Both parties give up somethings coming into a marriage in exchange for the goods marriage provides them. The contract is now messed up and men as you say are prudently opting to avoid getting into such a circumstance.
Your link rightly notes that “no fault divorce” is a large part of the problem.
Isn’t it weird that marriage is the _only_ contract that can be unilaterally broken by one party with no recourse by the other.
For a while i’ve been in favour of the idea that marriage should essentially be treated exactly like contract law with the spouses able to draw up the contract they want at the time they wed. At least then nobody would be in the dark about what is going on.
I already loathe many social conservatives because they can’t understand that genuine social conservatism is not compatible with nanny stateism.
I think sadly you are right about the marriage rate plummeting as the information gets out. Ultimately things will have to change. Women and men _still_ want to get married after all and marriage in its traditional form is actually really good for men and women generally.
The problem isn’t marriage, the problem is Marriage 2.0 it seems.
Oh well, as I said. We’ll reform it and come back to sanity or western civilization is doomed. Either way, it will work itself out in the end.
I will just opt to be more of an optimist about the whole thing than you I think. One question. What is an MRA?
We’ll see in time whether your pessimism or my optimism was the most warranted stance.
As I said, I think the real irony of the whole thing, especially as it was so called “feminists” that pushed for the whole thing, is that the biggest losers in the end will be women (I think in many ways they already are, even given how men are generally punished by the courts in no fault divorce) who want husbands and can’t find them because the guys have wised up to the circumstances. But that seems to be true of anything feminism has pushed as a good idea since about the middle of last century. 2nd wave feminism and on that is.
I prefer the more manly metaphor, putting on the They Live glasses.
Funny, I did a post on this not too long ago.
Even funnier, I have done a whole series of posts on this. I even coined a new term, Post Marital Spinsterhood. Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? I have a whole section linked from the top where you can see all posts on this subject, but some of the best ones IMO are:
Post-marital spinsterhood part two: the data.
Boring loyal dudes
Divorce made Lorraine Berry sexy!
Single in the Suburbs: How Match.com sells your wife post marital spinsterhood.
Why a woman’s age at time of marriage matters, and what this tells us about the apex fallacy
I think Justin makes a valid point–men and women ARE happier married than alone. You can encourage men to be bachelors for life, they’re never going to be as happy as in a good marriage, but of course that you can deny it all you want and say that it’s great banging different women every night. This is not a lifestyle that suits most men, so most men are going to keep getting married or cohabiting with a woman.
Waaait, this sounds familiar—-wasn’t it feminists encouraging women to abandon men as women don’t need them, and instead to be independent and focus on their careers? Well, we all know how that turned out, more women are waking up and realizing they’ve been sold a lie, and regretting not getting married and having a family.
Hey Dalrock, I think this goes well in that post you’re writing addressing my question? 😀
@TFT & @Dalrock,
I think you both make good points. I am learning about female psychology at the moment from the married man sex book that was recommended earlier in these comments. I’ve already read several of those Dalrock. It seems there is some podcast episodes in this material for my show Christian Meets World (would you be interested in cohosting/interviewing?).
And I agree, The They Live glasses is a much better metaphor 🙂
Marriage 2.0 is not marriage. You know this, but deliberately ignored it because you want to believe something that makes you feeeeeeel good.
Reread my comment—I said a GOOD marriage, not some crappy one in which the man is at the whims of the woman, one in which both parties have responsibilities and rights.
As well, it’s not only about what feels good (although I admit it, it does feel pretty awesome being with a man), but it’s also about the good of society, marriage is its foundation and what’s natural for most people.
PS: Sorry Jason for mixing up your name.
@TFH (and sorry for the typo before).
I agree it isn’t a trivial matter. Please don’t think I thnk it is trivial, feminism is a cancer that has destroyed many lives. I can’t think of one good thing has come out of 2nd wave and later feminism.
“I think you are still not willing to fully see the elephant in the room, which is the true nature of the female mind.”
What am I missing exactly? I’m happy to consider your arguments, I think I am just not connecting a dot somewhere and we are talking past each other as a result.
I’d happily contend that in terms of
“vastly higher morality, intelligence, wisdom, and productive capability, than they actually do, while also insisting that they are victims of oppression”
That men and women are roughly equal (but quite different in outcomes etc) in that department. Women do somethings better than men and men do somethings better than women. And all are fallen and sinful (being a Christian this is a given and a no brainer).
Part of the problem of Feminism is that it tends to deny that people (women specifically) are fallen creatures and are therefore perfectable. This is a deep part of the problem, but it isn’t just feminism, it is a trait common to most leftward (and some right side) political ideologies and ideas.
So what am I missing? Many women it seems behave in foolish ways because they have been shown a set of incentives (and lied to about the reality) that make the behavior you regard as problematic (actually I guess we should just call it what it is and say it is Evil) is also rational.
Here’s an interesting article, what’s with all this increase in older women realizing they’re happy being housewives?
Thats fine. I think part of the problem is that TFH and Dalrock and others are making a very reasonable observation. The current setup of Marriage 2.0 is freakin’ insane for men to enter into. But to be fair the whole “live worse than a whore till your 30 and then get married and have a family” concept is lunacy in and of itself (BTW, I stand by that, whores get paid for what they do, actually God even makes that point in the bible Ezekiel 16:33).
But that you also rightly point out that marriage does have lots of benifits for men and women when it works.
The problem seems to be is that we have generation of narccisists who think “happiness is a right” and setup a legal/political system will all the wrong incentives to make marriage a workable proposition for men and women.
You’ll have to take a number. 🙂 I have three other post ideas I’m already working on. I think Anonymous Reader did a very good job on this question in the other thread.
I won’t rule out another post on it entirely, but I guess what I’m saying is don’t hold your breath. Part of my hesitation is I’m staking out my position on specific issues one issue at a time. I want to keep the intellectual freedom to honestly consider each issue as I write about it instead of declaring a party line and then later trying to contort my posts to fit my previous broad sweeping statements. In the meantime, my sense is you have some concern with where I’m ultimately going with all of this. Honestly I’m not holding much back. As I think about things I tend to post on them, and then I learn much more from the comments and think some more. What I will say which might help in this area is:
1) I like women. I like them even more after learning about game. Women tend to make awful men, and expecting women to be like men is very frustrating.
2) There is no secret plan to ship women in boxcars to reeducation camps so they can learn the fine art of sammich making. Actually some of these guys may have drawn up exactly such a plan, but I am not considering such a thing.
3) As Anonymous Reader pointed out, this isn’t a political party and isn’t really even a movement. This is only a blog, and I’m just some guy writing what he thinks. Feel free to agree with me where you think I’m right, and disagree where you think I’m wrong. Your reading the blog and even agreeing with me on a specific point doesn’t come with a larger obligation.
The whole “banging different women every night”/Game/PUA phenomenon is an artifact of the just the past few years – maybe 6-8 years. It was maybe 2004 when I first heard the term “PUA” and most guys in the Men’s Rights arena had an intense and visceral negative reaction to it. It seemed to be mostly younger men who were talking about it – not those of us who had spend our entire lives living through the holocaust of feminism.
There are a lot of people who do not have the luxury of falling back into an older lifestyle like Jamie Lee Curtis. Men who have competed their entire professional lives with women who have the advantage of Affirmative Action are not in a position to support a stay at home wife in their final years leading up to retirement. The reality of post-marital spinsterhood and the post-feminist squeeze between the labor force and poverty is hitting home to a lot of people these days.
Many years ago – right after Susan Faludi turned what was a tenuous exploration of new roles for both sexes, that most people were negotiating without too much hostility. into an all out war – I pointed out that when groups of people begin to regard each other as “the enemy” it has a tendency to persist throughout those people’s lives. I was born shortly after World War II, and most of the adults I knew had a great deal of animosity toward both Asians and Germans, and that animosity persisted until they died. New perspectives almost always require a new generation to allow them to take hold.
I think that at the cultural level it will be necessary to simply write off the Boomers and much of Gen X. Unfortunately, I have had to spend my entire adult life regarding women as the enemy and I don’t imagine how that can change – particularly since the male obligation of being the initiator remains unchanged and I would have to be the one to take action to create a different sort of relationship with a woman. Not only do I have zero motivation to do that, but bailing women my age out of their self-inflicted post-marital spinsterhood would pervert the course of kharmic justice. They need to die alone to serve as cautionary tales to younger women.
I have a theory that listening to women –
whine, piss, and moan”
– is a bit like exposure to radiation: there is a lifetime toxic dosage that a man can tolerate, and once he reaches it even the slightest additional exposure will make him deathly ill.
I think this exposure is about equivalent of the amount of complaining that one woman can generate in a lifetime – so in a marriage the average man has just enough tolerance to listen to his wife’s complaining without growing to hate he guts,
However, feminism’s making of the personal into the political and the political into the personal, has given every woman in the world to collectively bitch out every man – leaving most men in terminal bitched-out overload, and exhausting all tolerance he has to give a shit about any woman’s complaints after that. In other words – feminists and other women have used up all compassion that a lot of men would have had to give their wives.
There are women who frequent this board, or ones like HUS, who can make me get down on my knees and thank God that I am not married to them with just one or two posts.
The end game is going to require that a lot of Boomer men, and some Gen X men, dedicate the remainder of their lives to making the lives of the women in their cohort as miserable as possible, so that younger women can see the reason to meet men half way instead of demanding everything be their way.
You know what the worst thing about this comment of yours is zed.
“The end game is going to require that a lot of Boomer men, and some Gen X men, dedicate the remainder of their lives to making the lives of the women in their cohort as miserable as possible, so that younger women can see the reason to meet men half way instead of demanding everything be their way.”
The worst thing about it is that you are very likely right 😦 And that is tragic
[D: I personally don’t think this is true. What men need to do is accept the new reality and decide the best way for them personally to react to it. No animosity or ill will is required. But the end result looks fairly similar.]
You may find this shocking, but for the under-30 crowd, it’s very common for men who go with the “be nice” strategy to obtain any sort of long term relationship. I know a highly trained, intelligent, faithful, and reasonably in-shape young man who has spent less than half of his 20’s in LTR. Whether you like it or not, it’s a fact that many young men live with.
Alphas are not necessarily violent, but are natrually less kind and compassionate than betas. Women have very fickle tastes, and are applying their attentions to alphas at a very high rate for a variety of reasons. Stick around Dalrock, Badger, Elusive Wapiti, and Hooking Up Smart, and you will see them explore these issues.
The end game is going to require that a lot of Boomer men, and some Gen X men, dedicate the remainder of their lives to making the lives of the women in their cohort as miserable as possible, so that younger women can see the reason to meet men half way instead of demanding everything be their way.”
So your solution is to basically punish women who might have had nothing to do with the problem? That’s rather crude, irresponsible and it might even backfire by giving feminists more ammunition.
How about you reserve your anger for the guilty instead of taking it out on everybody, including the innocent?
No, my solution is make sure that the women who are the problem bear the full consequences of being the problem. Women like Liz Jones have screwed up the lives of enough women that she does need to spend her own old age alone like many of the women she has influenced are going to to do.
And, I expect my ex-friend “Jane” will have both of her ex-husbands turn their backs on her and that she will die alone as well – http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/25/fun-with-dick-and-jane/
I know that if I were to walk by her and she was on fire, I would not spit on her to put her out.
@Dalrock & @TFH,
I hope you guys are right. I don’t exactly revel in the idea that the whole thing will need to implode in a very messy fashion. We will see what happens.
Ultimately I guess what is needed to right the boat, however it happens, is for the set of incentives currently in play to change (as it seems they are doing) so that women respond to a different set of incentives (and men for that matter).
I guess the main problem is that men avoiding marriage and women divorcing etc, are (at least based on the information they have) behaving rationally in some sense. It may be short sighted and it may actually be irrational based on the truth, but that is a seperate question.
“I know that if I were to walk by her and she was on fire, I would not spit on her to put her out.”
I believe refusing to piss on someone that is on fire is the greatest possible insult in that vein 😉
So your solution is to basically punish women who might have had nothing to do with the problem? That’s rather crude, irresponsible and it might even backfire by giving feminists more ammunition.
Chels, there is an awful lot of collateral damage and civilian death in war. That is just the way it goes, and you can’t stop it once the whole thing is in full swing. The time for Germany to tell the Soviets, “Whoops, my bad,” was in June, 1941, not – NOT – in April, 1945.
Feminism is fueled by money, prosperity. Without prosperity, there is not transfer of money from the greater to the lesser. Do you see a lot of prosperity going down? Around me, it’s in relative scarcity. Thus, feminism is a dead woman walking; it doesn’t matter whether it is given more ammo or not, EXCEPT on the micro level where men suffer as feminists triumph and chortle. As a whole, feminism’s done. Even without the all important money foundation, as this post point’s out, the younger generations of men have sussed out the con game here and aren’t playing anymore, at least not by the current rules.
Fortunately for you, men – esp. young men – are generally predisposed to like women. Find one of those. Treat him really really well. Keep treating him well, and you can’t probably ride this out. If this doesn’t seem like enough of a hedge, be really nice to all the men in your life. Even without the angle of self-preservation, it’s a good way to live.
So much of feminism is just pride. PRIDE. And pride, as we all know, goeth before a fall.
Just got through reading the The Four Horseman article. Very interesting reading. Thanks for recommending it.
TFH the most pathetic thing that will spell doom to all mens rights attempts is that she is probably right. Chalk it up to male willingness to forgive, pity, and protect, and the cycle will simply repeat itself as western society crumbles to ashes.
Wake up and smell the ashes ladies.
I’m not a nihilist, or at least I think I’m not. But I think zed, Grerp and TFH are right in that the relations between the genders will deteriorate further. There will be many factors playing into it, including economic, political, social and perhaps even military. I don’t see the economy improving much at all in the years to come. The US economic straits were unsustainable 30 years ago and it’s only worse now. The economic day of reckoning is coming. I don’t know exactly what it will look like but it is coming. I suspect it will mean a sharply reduced standard of living across the board for all walks of life in the US. That is probably best case. I suspect women will then look to men for protection. Some will get that protection. Many will not — especially never married women and divorced women. Women will find ways to appreciate the men in their lives, I think.
Then my question would be: what do we care about the opinions of a washed up old cunt like Ms Nance?
Hey grerp, thanks for the answer. I’m not worried about me, I’m already in a relationship, but I am worried about my future kids and grandkids, and I think that anyone who hopes to have grandkids should be.
All you said is right, and there was recently a post by an older women on a different topic lamenting how she hates the consequences of feminism and how she almost missed out on being a wife/mother. I just wish that more of these older women wouldn’t be so proud to speak out against feminism, I do think that women tend to listen to other women, so it would be beneficial for everyone.
Oh. it gets much worse and is going to get even worse. Right now over at HUS there is a playoff match leading up to the world series of “Combat Dating” happening on a thread about Kate Bolick’s article in Atlantic magazine singing the praises of “empowered single womanhood.” At age 39 she has let her window of opportunity to become a mother mostly close on her. Yet, much of the conversation at HUS centers on how “gorgeous” she is and how she can “pull” just about any man she might want.
Typically, like most “Game” conversations, there is a back and forth about how an older, wealthier, man can “pull” younger women with equal or higher SMV (Sexual Market Value, for the newbies) than she has. Dalrock might want to check out that thread for an installment of his ongoing coverage of Rationalization Hamsters – there is a veritable hamster stampede happening there.
Now, here is sort of the punch line of the conversation as a whole – delivered by a woman who aptly calls herself “Mrs. Robinson.”
There we go, combat dating at its finest – no matter how old a woman gets, the issue is whether the men who “court” or “woo” the older women will be suitable enough for those women to “choose.” As the argument over whose sex gets to claim the ultimate DHV rages on, people just keep getting older and their odds of “missing out on …” something just keep growing.
Dalrock has a thread here about whether women over 55 are “done” with men, which keeps getting hits. As someone in their age cohort, I have no reason to disbelieve women who say that they are.
Is there any point at all in “wooing” or “courting” such women when they have already made clear that they aren’t interested? Would it not be destructive to everyone involved if men kept feeding these women’s choice addiction and delusions?
As Cappy Capitalism put it –
“These men should be studying in college, getting a job, and contributing to society through the workforce and family. How in the world do they have time to play video games for hours? The answer is that they just don’t ever grow up.
men should man up, take on the responsibilities of an adult, get a job, have a family and be a contributing member to society. The benefits to being a married man are huge.”
I did all that and I did man up. All it got me was totally burned by women, especially the mother of my child.
I’m not ready to ‘man up’ again, because doing it once nearly destroyed my life. No thanks. See ya.
Combining the reason men won’t “man up” with the OWS story (this is priceless): http://m.nypost.com/;s=2fxAIsNpgs1brjho_oY8Y16/f/mobile/news/local/manhattan/she_plans_to_stray_awhile_opuo0dDOjE39dfRDdUZ1sM
Pingback: Better late than never linkage, and a quick note on who is welcome to read and comment. | Dalrock
Pingback: Comments from the last few days. | Dark Brightness
Pingback: 40 years of ultimatums | Dalrock
Pingback: Playing career woman | Dalrock
Pingback: Civilization, Feminism and “Manning Up” « elephants and trees
Every time I hear about these entitled princesses I always feel the need to say “they don’t exist. i don’t come across any of them.” Obviously I’m fully aware of their existence but they literally don’t get a second look from me. I go to a big 10 university in the Mid West so the place is literally crawling with them yet, on a daily basis they don’t appear on my radar. Why? Because they are invisible to me. Who are these women that watch Sex in the City? I literally don’t know them. Even though the place I live is saturated with them. I can’t believe how much attention women like that get. The reason they exist in such large numbers is because men go after them in such large numbers. I call them “shiny girls”. Girls who naturally stand out because they are loud, obnoxious when drunk, sexually aggressive, attention whores, and extremely rude to men. Yet, men pay the most attention to them when ultimately they could look away (not just sexual attention, but acknowledgment period). This includes having sex with them. Men are only reinforcing their behavior. I feel like game blogs take this holier than thou attitude about not marrying and dating these women, but they continue to allow the poisonous behavior for what? Vagina? All for the chance at some variety before you settle down? I don’t think I can respect a man who thinks like that.
I also feel like the peter pan meme is a bit over played. In the 21st century a lot of men play video games and other “child” hobbies, but I don’t think that has anything to do with manning up. Its all about mindset to me. It a man is mature, employed, responsible etc, then he should be able to play video games without ridicule. I don’t mean obsession or 8 hours a day, but a few hours a week kills no one. I will say however, that Im also a bit tired of the “lets blame feminist for emasculating us” game as well. It gets old. Can no one draw the line? Can no man stand up for himself? Men just bend over and take it.
Like I said in another comment, what you write about is great, but I just don’t see people openly representing it. The manosphere is this hidden world, full of people with monikers but with no actual faces to them. Blogs like this seem great in theory, but a part of me fears thats all they will ever become of it.
The “harpies” or shiny girls get the negative/positive/indifferent attention in real life, and apparently on the internet as well. Its a bit mind numbing after a while.
Chels is that you?
Pingback: The weakened signal | Dalrock
I think one thing to note is that, regardless of who brought about the social changes or who’s to blame for the current situation, men aren’t the only victims. Women are given unreasonable promises, fed unreasonable expectations, and taught to behave in an unreasonable manner, but they don’t usually realize just what’s going on.
They’ve been taught the world is their oyster, that they can be happy and successful and still have a marriage (or at least a relationship) and family, and that when that relationship fails it’s usually the man’s fault. But the end result is them constantly searching for the sort of man society has said they should expect, going into each relationship with hope. Then, when the men their actions have created end up failing them, they’re genuinely hurt and devastated, and they start to lose hope in the dream they’ve been promised. They’re victims of their own actions, but they’re still victims.
That said, I don’t intend to find a wife or even try for a committed relationship. Whoever dug this pit for all of us, I have no interest in getting in there. It wouldn’t be fair to myself, a prospective bride, or any children we might have, and unless things change I’m not interested. I’m not interested in womanizing either, so I guess there’s only one solution.
But don’t tell any women how I opted out. They’ll think I’m a selfish pig.
Yaboymatt wrote at October 11, 2011 at 1:19 pm:
And doing it without doing also Spinster tax ?
That is perhaps challenge what is considered.
Hamsta wrote at October 11, 2011 at 5:53 pm:
Yes. I say that computer games also engage the attention of girls. Games are just different.
Yes, I think that this is true on some amount.
Anon wrote at October 11, 2011 at 8:09 pm:
Perhaps because it is always also men’s fault if man fails make itself interesting for woman.
Jason Rennie wrote at October 12, 2011 at 3:55 pm:
It makes sense to these sites to collect glossary.
I arrived to here from Hooking Up Smart. It finally collected a glossary.
TFH wrote at October 13, 2011 at 5:12 pm:
I have not seen it.
Neo, has just been delivered into what appears a dream-like world…cue the red / blue pill
Pingback: Mark Driscoll’s feminist foolishness posing as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock
The author criticizes men for not marrying, but fails to note that most marriages end in divorce anyway. So why should men devote their time and energy to something that is destined to fail?
Furthermore, when divorce does happen men can potentially be wiped out financially, so it’s somewhat cowardly for the author to push men into marriage when the author is not the one who will have to bear the negative financial consequences if that marriage fails. Also, she pushes men to commit, but fails to urge women to stay committed once they are married. Women initiate most divorces and exhibit the same fear of commitment as men, but somehow they’re given a free pass by this author. Perhaps it’s time women looked in the mirror and stopped blaming men for everything.
Pingback: Rediscovering Masculinity « Elephants & Trees
Pingback: Male Shaming and Sexual Market Value « Elephants & Trees
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Homage to Quiplinks Edition « Patriactionary
men loves, women choose
men marry for sex, women for security
men usually want to be whealty before marry, women not
men don’t care about whealth women or poor, women does
men who work hard, save money, buy houses, they are good men but totally invisible to women who are looking for the other kind of macho men
men in marriage, apart from kids, have no rights whatsoever, women have everythings before and after marriage
the final BIG question is: why men still marry?
1) women are right: men are stupid!
2) men are the only one who REALLY love women for what they are but they still didn’t learned that women love them for what they may GIVE them
3)kids? get serious! don’t be egoist! born a baby in this corrupted, devious, cynical, egoist (add here what i forgot) world is an insane egoist decision, or maybe due many believe in HOPE (lol)
some words of advice:
1) even the sweeeeeetest woman in this earth may use the State if needed
2) marriage is women business. period.
3) women loooOOOooves cool, rich, beautiful men.. exactly the opposite of any married men in this earth
4) all men in this earth have to pay for having sex with women (e.g.: from the drink to the bar to the price of the condom) so if you have to pay, at least choose the woman that you like and don’t waste your time, money and (brrrr) life (with a marriage) with one of them
5) there are so many women in this earth is almost stupid to believe to find everythings in a woman, if you don’t agree, try to see the same in your ex wife once you will face her in the court..
6) today our societies, with weird music, media, spots, tv, etc etc and even your ex wives, drives our kids crazy and/or against you, usually they find it’s ok even to don’t respect you.. adopt if you feel the need to have kids, they will show you more gratitude rather than your biological ones..
last word: if you are looking for something furry and wet and that would be loyal for life, buy a dog!
Love read it backwards and you will know the true..Evol…Evil!
What women don’t seem to understand is that they have changed the rules. Marriage used to provide us men with a faithfull mate, someone to bring up your kids, look after your house and be attentive to your needs. In exchange we committed and went out and worked to pay for it all. Now we get none of that. At best “commitment” means living with a permanently stressed out woman who puts you at the bottom of the pile, after career, kids, socialising and shopping, who outsources the care of your children and can’t boil an egg. At worst, encouraged by the courts and a sense of dissatisfaction and entitlement, she will disppear with another man and your children, and financially cripple you for life! and this brings on my mind some words of advice:
THE 4 BIBLE PASSAGES:
1 John 2:18-19 “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us.”
1 John 2:22-23 “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies THE FATHER AND THE SON(*). Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
1 John 4:2-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.”
2 John 1:7 “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.”
From the Bible we can clearly see 3 things. First, the “antichrist” is defined as anyone who doesn’t believe Jesus is the divine son of God. Second, “antichrists” appear to actively teach against Christ. Third, there were many “antichrists” in the world when John wrote the book. This directly contradicts the teaching of modern speculationists who say that one antichrist will arise at some still future time.
The Greek word from which our English word “antichrist” is translated is very simple to understand. It is a simple compound word and means “anti” + “Christ” = “antichrist”. We use the same compound word every day. We have people who are “anti-smoking” or “anti-gay” or “anti-hunting” or “anti-Semitic” or “anti-abortion”. There really is no big mystery as to what the word means. “Anti-Christ” is anyone who opposes Christ.
The “antichrist” then, has no horns or red glowing eyes. Neither is the “antichrist” some demon possessed super-intelligent human clone. Rather, the “antichrist” are generally.. the women!
Basically, in the bible there’s a warning to keep women in the right conditions so they cannot harm themselves and men, or everythings will be doomed and the world as (they) we knows will end.
Today, women gained power (the dragon myth is realted to power), wreak families, childs and destroy the male figure in our societies, If a major religion is praying to a female deity, would it not make sense that the opposite of Christ would be totally inverse? the women? i think so..
Ancient warn us about women but seems that we don’t really care, even if they are doing exactly what they once told us..
That’s why men must remember and be, once again, MEN! since the antichrists, the antimen, the women, will ruin men’s life.. check the world around you.. where only a bunch of smart men who use women rules over all.. they earn lot of money just to deceive men using women to drives men life’s crazy and waste their life.
Pingback: Biblical Alpha – Introduction « Free Northerner
Pingback: The Bookshelf: The Way of Men « Free Northerner
Women keep telling me “get in touch with your feminine side, get in touch with your feelings, etc”. Then when the man does so, he is not a good man as he is not macho enough. She sees him as a push over and walks all over him. So I have to ask the question, why should men marry?
SAD, social anxiety disorder, ADD, ADHD, OCD,
Pingback: Losing control of the narrative. | Dalrock
Pingback: MGTOW vs WGTOW
Pingback: What is to be done? « Free Northerner
The situation is really very simple. The gal says she wants marriage, but she goes to bed without marriage. That means she’s a liar – if marriage meant anything, she’d not go to bed without it. With no fault, the only protection a man has is her character. He can’t depend on a woman who lies about marriage – women initiate 70% of the divorces.
If a gal wants to get married, she’s gotta avoid sex. If a man wants her, she can tell him she believes so much in marriage that she’s saved herself for her husband. Avoiding sex means she really meant it so he can believe she’ll stay married to him. She can say that if he marries her, she plans to open herself whenever he wants her, but she wants him to open his heart to her whenever she wants to talk. Opening her body to him makes her his; opening his heart to her makes him hers.
If a wife cheated on her husband, he raised other men’s children and was bred out of the gene pool. Men were selected for being VERY possessive and VERY jealous. If a girl has slept around, he can’t trust her at all. It’s really that simple.
Has anyone noticed that most of the Femi-Nazi leaders are Jewish?…Rosin,Steinam etc..etc….I am half Jewish and these women disgust me!
Pingback: Marriage Is a Grievous Commitment Taken Flippantly | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: The Society of Phineas – One Year | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Men Need Responsibility and Reward | Free Northerner
Pingback: Don’t blame women for creating feminism | Patriactionary
Pingback: Leftist larvae | Zippy Catholic
Pingback: Mohler Reviews Men On Strike | The Society of Phineas
This is so predictable it’s funny.
In a world where women simultaneously:
1) Want a career & to compete with men for good paying jobs, eliminating many men from good paying jobs
2) Want to marry a man who earns more than she earns.
OF COURSE women are moaning over a lack of marriage material men…….THEY CREATED THEM!!!
ENJOY SPINSTERHOOD SWEETHEARTS!!!!!!
Pingback: Defining Tradcon Feminism Part 2: Principles | The Society of Phineas
as far as the opening sentence id probably say im ” on the right side of the coin” so to speak and still reflect on the decline in quality and caliber of females these days as well as anyone else here ive gotten out of the hollywood and media and culture pushing marriage to th emodern day female on me but still think rightward though
Pingback: Selling Sense | Alpha Is Assumed
Pingback: Why Christian Men Choose Not to Get Laid Before Marriage | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: Shocked, Bitter, Angry Men | RedPillPushers
The article just doesn’t get to the point and the actual problem… The people who suffer from Peter Pan Syndrome (PPS) can be either male or female. This article is all that one needs to know…
Women do not have the right to be able to find a man. They can search but there is no guarantee they will find and they have no entitlement to that end.
Men for their part are free not to marry. That is their right absolutely. It is a free country.
Pingback: The Christian Man’s Trilemma
Pingback: Why I Won’t Marry You | Retrophoebia
The American woman is a whore & a pig and usually abusive in a relationship. She sees a man who can be faithful & loving as some kind of fool she can shit on. Not to mention the evil of abortion she thinks she has a right to. How can she love a man & kill her own offspring in her own womb? Men are finally wising up to the deterioration feminism has brought to our society. In addition to the removal of rights both socal & legal a man has in ANY relationship, you gotta be fuckin nuts to think marriage is a worthwhile risk. Besides, I think cats are the best relationship a woman can have. Better them than me.
Oh Hell, where are the good woman today like the good old days that were so much Nicer and Easier to meet?
Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.
It figures that a woman was going to start a topic like this.
The rants of feminist against men that need to “man up” are amusing to me. It is supposed to be ok for a female to be whatever she wants.. be it a career gal or a stay at home mom, and men should never expect anything from them. But if a man doesn’t want to get a job that is apparently completely intolerable and they are evil for it? Such hypocrites. And it shows that it was really never about female empowerment but actually about controlling males.
The problem is they have now lost control because men have just decided to go their own way, opting out of being a worker slaving away to earn for some ungrateful female & opting out of marriage altogether.
With so many very Pathetic Loser Women out there these days is a very Excellent Reason why many of us Good men are Single and always will be with the Kind of women that are out there these days. Especially with so many women that now have their Careers which many of them are Now so very high maintenance, independent, selfish, spoiled, greedy, picky, and very Money Hungry which really tells the whole story. Many of these women really want the Best and will Never settle for Less which makes it very Sad how the women of today are Unfortunately since many of us men really Would Have been Married if we really did Meet a Good One that are Not like they’re today which is really keeping us Single when many of us are Not Single by choice. I will admit that i really wanted a wife and family instead of Dealing with this Mess today since being Alone for me really Sucks when i really Could Have been Settled Down already which Hasn’t happened for me Unfortunately now that the times have really Changed since years ago when it was Certainly much Easier finding Love back then the way our family members had it. Quite a Change in the women of today compared to the women of years ago.
Masculine-minded men do not need their hands held to learn new skills. The cost to value ratio is not a good one. College in most cases, not all (doctors, lawyers to unravel the over complicated legal system, etc.), is not a good investment.
It is tougher, sometimes impossible, to convince someone with a college degree that one is on part or more educated than someone with a college degree. Why is this? Propaganda? Possibly in part, but a person has a very hard time accepting that somebody else could know more, be more capable, or produce better quality than them without suffering the same path and cost.
The pursuit of greater knowledge and understanding is my passion. The amount of information available is vast, it surpasses that which any one man could possibly grasp in a hundred lifetimes. Why would one pay an absurd cost for a product that is inferior in depth and scope, that is incredibly inconvenient and that has zero guarantees? Because we are told we are supposed to do so? Because they say you need it to learn x,y,z? I’ve proven otherwise. I, for one, refuse. It’s a more difficult road, but it teaches us more, makes us intellectually more robust, and it is far more rewarding.
Pingback: Let’s talk about male suicide | Deansdale's Blog
Beware of the Koumantang! Learn from history about the dangers that infiltrator s pose.
Pingback: Our Fates Are Bound—And Some Good News « Calculated Bravery
Pingback: Market Analysis: A Lack Of Confidence | Donal Graeme
And once they gave these Dumb Ass women the right to vote which that is when everything went down hill from there unfortunately.
Pingback: The Lone Wanderers’ solutions to feminism
Pingback: An expert looks at the gender wars & sees wonders ahead!
Thought I would link this article here for Dalrock to gloat over, Penny Nance’s Feminist Credentials confirmed!
Gosh! Why won’t these men man up and feed themselves into the ‘#me too’ meat grinder, it’s a mystery!