Mr Darwin Responds.

Mr Darwin has written a post in response to my Rules of the road for fornication.  His response is titled How to Marry a Nice Girl.  I haven’t read his entire post, but I noticed one issue after skimming part of it and attempted to post a comment on his site.  Unfortunately I’m unable to prove to his spam filter that I’m not a robot, and after failing to pass the captcha test several times I decided to post my comment here instead:

Hi Mr. Darwin.  Thanks for your reply.

I haven’t had time to go through your entire response, but I wanted to point out that we appear both to be using the same dataset.  Double check my post and you will see that I referenced the complete xls spreadsheet from the US Census, and that I’m using median and not mean age of marriage in all of my charts.

This is a minor issue, but I think it is worth noting.

Check out Mr. Darwin’s response if you are interested, and if your captcha skills are better than mine participate in the discussion in a courteous way.

Edit:  Chris from Dark Brightness has his own response to Darwin Catholic up, titled Nicking wisdom from the papists

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

139 Responses to Mr Darwin Responds.

  1. Dalrock,

    Sorry for the problems with the Captcha. I’ve had readers experience problems with it before on occasion (it appears to be an intermittent problem Blogger has with some browsers). I tried turning if off for a while, but unfortunately I just got too much SPAM that way and had to turn it back on.

    [D: No apology required. Spam is a major pain in the neck. I’m running Firefox on Linux, so that probably explains it. I can’t comment on Captain Capitalism’s site for the same reason. Good to know it isn’t me failing a test of skill…]

  2. unger says:

    Mostly vapid. Darwin admits that virtuous women are ‘rare’, and that men must ‘deserve’ them? Well, then, he’s all but given up the argument. Half the point of this site is to show that it is no longer enough to be a good man: that one must be head-and-shoulders above other good men in order to ‘deserve’ such a woman in her own estimation. In practice, that means displaying dark-triad traits that seldom really go with being a good man, traits which women may be biologically hard-wired to find attractive, but which they should be – and used to be, but no longer are – discouraged from chasing. Meanwhile, the sole non-sinful option for anyone who can’t or won’t be that ‘attractive’ is celibacy – for which neither Darwin nor the church in general lifts a finger to prepare or aid anyone. The two failures constitute a gross inducement to sin: for women, because they wind up holding out for alphas who (surprise, surprise!) behave like alphas and make adulteresses of them, and men, for reasons that should be obvious to the people who spend so much time condemning them. I say that makes Darwin and those like him much worse than Roissy.

  3. van Rooinek says:

    Half the point of this site is to show that it is no longer enough to be a good man: that one must be head-and-shoulders above other good men in order to ‘deserve’ such a woman in her own estimation. In practice, that means displaying dark-triad traits that seldom really go with being a good man, traits which women may be biologically hard-wired to find attractive, but which they should be – and used to be, but no longer are – discouraged from chasing. Meanwhile, the sole non-sinful option for anyone who can’t or won’t be that ‘attractive’ is celibacy

    What a perfect summary of the entire problem. The whole manosphere in one paragraph.

  4. Brent says:

    @unger

    “Meanwhile, the sole non-sinful option for anyone who can’t or won’t be that ‘attractive’ is celibacy – for which neither Darwin nor the church in general lifts a finger to prepare or aid anyone.”

    Unless, in Darwin’s Church’s case, you decide to go into the priesthood, in which case celibacy is required, but given the observations by historians over the centuries of the kind of things that go on in Catholic seminaries, it isn’t clear from which form of sexuality they are remaining celibate, if they are at all.

    However, I have to give it to Mr. Darwin. Unlike Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family, Darwin was actually manly enough to come over here and back up his arguments. Of course, no doubt Mr. Stanton is too busy, what with work, interviews, writing, and trips to the grocery store to purchase his wife’s feminine hygiene products for her.

  5. Kel says:

    I’m a traditional Catholic, in that I reject cafeteria Catholicism and believe in a strict adherence to the traditional teachings of the Catholic church. I was raised plain-old-regular Catholic, but became more convinced of the rightness and also benefits of traditionalism in college. All during this time of slowly learning and accepting traditionalism, I was Mr. Nice Guy.

    Let me tell you, Darwin Catholic: traditional Catholics are IDIOTS when it comes to women. They are first-class morons. I know, because I was one of them. I was Mr. Nice Guy Traditional Catholic. It gets you nowhere, with traditional Catholic women, with regular Catholic women, and with any woman on the planet. Not only will it get you nowhere, it will destroy you and make you think that the virtures are really sins, and the sins virtures, because women (even traditional Catholic women) in their actions reward sin and punish virtue. Yes, they do.

    I was an idiot because, despite being traditional, there is absolutely zero teaching about the ways of the world and how women really are. All the Proverbs about the wickedness of women are completely ignored. And women have invaded the Church, whether in traditional communities or otherwise, and have either deliberately or not purged all wise teachings about the ways women uniquely sin against men.

    Women uniquely sin against men by being coy with them, by stringing them along, by dangling the thread that suggests intimacy, yet giving it up for the Bad Boys. They have lied to men, saying that feminine traits in men are attractive, while secretly holding their passion for masculinity. They lie and slut it up, and then expect that forgiveness of sin means that consequences can be ignored.

    Forgiveness of sin does not mean that consequences of sin can be ignored. In fact, it means they can never be ignored.

    Roissy really taught me what women are like. And let me tell you, God did not make women who like meek, humble men. That’s not the way he wired them. God made women who are attracted to men with strength, determination, and a casual indifference towards supplication. That’s the way Jesus in the bible acted, although you wouldn’t know it from the Priests these days (whether traditional or not).

    Anyone who thinks that being a traditional Catholic gives any unique insight on the ways of the world, or women, is a fool letting Pride dominate them. Perhaps in earlier times, the Church actually taught how women’s unique inclinations to sin required civilization to deal with them in different ways. But nowadays, the Church (traditional or not) treats women either as unique, almost incapable of sin, or merely equal to men in that they can sin just like men can sin. The Church ignores the ways in which women uniquely sin, and papers over the consequences of sin. And so when someone rightly says that slutty actions have irrevocable consequences, even if forgiven, your wife goes ballistic and you ban that person from your blog. The truth hurts, I guess.

    And that’s the reality: the truth is too painful. Traditional Catholics want to paper over how they have ignored the teachings of the Ages about how women really uniquely sin.

    You are abject failures. If you had any brains, you would accept that Roissy is right, that women love the Dark Triad traits, because of their inclination towards sin that is unique to women (just as men have an inclination towards sin in a way that women do not share). You would understand that this wiring that God gave women has been distorted by the culture, and other Agents, and you would use that profound knowledge to re-establish the patriarchy that the Church upheld for centuries.

    Instead, it’s more of “be Mr. Nice Guy.” Pathetic. You guys are clueless.

  6. The Continental Op says:

    “it will destroy you and make you think that the virtures are really sins, and the sins virtures, because women (even traditional Catholic women) in their actions reward sin and punish virtue. Yes, they do.”

    Men who take their morals from women are doomed to hell.

  7. Brent says:

    @Kel

    “Not only will it get you nowhere, it will destroy you and make you think that the virtures are really sins, and the sins virtures, because women (even traditional Catholic women) in their actions reward sin and punish virtue. Yes, they do.”

    So, if I understand you correctly, Kel, you are making the extremely controversial and perhaps theologically-suspect claim that–gasp–women too are born with original sin? I actually think, for a lot of Christians, after decades or even centuries of brainwashing and indoctrination on this matter, this is their theological roadblock.

    Glenn Stanton as much as admitted he believes women are born without original sin.

  8. unger says:

    Exactly. Nobody has the slightest trouble believing that the male sexual instinct suffered from the Fall, and that the constitutional evil therein can be fed and worsened by the pressures of society, but suggest the same, however faintly, about the female sexual instinct, and you’re denounced for excusing bad men, blaming the blameless, playing too many video games, supporting terrorism, etc., etc., etc.

  9. greenlander says:

    There are so many holes in Darwin’s response that it’s not even worth the trouble to debunk them.

    He just doesn’t get the way the world is today for young men. It’s not at all like he describes.

  10. P K van der Byl says:

    Kel nails this round. Darwin is just an idiot, another clueless and pathetic TradCon, Catholic variety.

    The Christian churches, with few exceptions, have become so feminized, philosphically, that even men who want to be “traditional” really have no idea how – their whole religious lexicon is womanly.

    Protestants are under the sway of a profoundly feminized clergy (literally as well as a mentally) if mainline, or they are into the soft, weepy, feminized Jesus if they are evangelical. And the Catholics are no better: they have gone to wimminz too, led by a very homosexual clergy.

    I hear enouraging things about the Orthodox, but I’m always skeptical of any US institution’s ability to withstand feminization and related Cultural Bolshevization.

    The sad part if that real, no-kidding traditional Christianity was very realistic about women and their ways – no one can read the Bible with open eyes and not learn a lot that Roissy would endorse about how woimen really operate – but that’s been simply chucked aside in favor of “progress” and keeping women haaaaaappy. Believe me, if Churchianity had been like this all along, it would have died out centuries ago.

    It’s done, put a fork in it … we’ll just have to start over.

  11. Kel,

    You certainly seem to feel you had a bad experience, and I can’t argue with your claim of that. All I can say is that I never ran into the problems you describe when I was a young, single Catholic guy moving in faithful Catholic circles 15 years ago. I and lots of other guys I knew had not problem finding women to date and to marry. And since then, other friends and relatives of mine have similarly found (whether after a long or a short time) good Catholic girls to marry.

    Of course, given the tone of your comment, I can’t help wondering if maybe part of the problem was simply that girls didn’t like you. Just a possibility.

  12. Brent,

    I confess, I’m flummoxed by the claim I keep hearing that Christians think women don’t have original sin. Of course women have original sin. Men and woman have it equally, though being different they have it in different ways. (Stereotypical examples being that men are more prone to anger while women are more prone to gossip and spite.)

  13. CL says:

    DarwinCatholic says:
    April 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Kel,

    You certainly seem to feel you had a bad experience, and I can’t argue with your claim of that. All I can say is that I never ran into the problems you describe when I was a young, single Catholic guy moving in faithful Catholic circles 15 years ago. I and lots of other guys I knew had not problem finding women to date and to marry. And since then, other friends and relatives of mine have similarly found (whether after a long or a short time) good Catholic girls to marry.

    Of course, given the tone of your comment, I can’t help wondering if maybe part of the problem was simply that girls didn’t like you. Just a possibility.

    This whole comment sounds like it was written by a woman. He “feeeels” he had a bad experience? So you just ignore that and talk about how you and your friends did well as if that discounts all the stories to the contrary, then at the end you throw out a snarky insult. As distasteful as it may be, you’ll find that Kel’s experience is common if you care to look beyond your small circle.

    You also seem to be well-versed in PC inclusive language, yet you supposedly reject mainstream culture. Interesting juxtaposition, wouldn’t you say?

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    DarwinCatholic
    I confess, I’m flummoxed by the claim I keep hearing that Christians think women don’t have original sin. Of course women have original sin. Men and woman have it equally, though being different they have it in different ways. (Stereotypical examples being that men are more prone to anger while women are more prone to gossip and spite.)

    Over the years, I’ve been invited to various churches, including Catholic ones, and consistently in sermons I’ve heard the sins of men blasted, and the sins of women rarely mentioned at all – and then only in passing, in the most gentle of ways. I’ve been in churches where single women with bastard children are active members, including in teaching. I’ve been in churches where single mothers, pregnant with their third child by as many men, are not criticized in the least. And, of course, I’ve seen and heard the cry of “Man UP! Marry the sluts!” more than once.

    One of the first precepts of Game is to not pay much attention to what women say, but watch what they do. Given the feminized nature of the US churches, the same concept reasonably applies. So from my perspective, if Churchians really believe that women sin, they sure don’t seem prone to act like it. And actions speak louder than words.

  15. 7man says:

    @DarwinCatholic
    Anger is not a sin. Remember Jesus got angry at the moneychangers in the Temple, but Jesus did not sin. Why use a stereotypical example of a false teaching to prove a point?

  16. Kel says:

    Darwin,

    Actually, women “liked” me. I had PLENTY of female friends. Too damn many. That was the problem. Too many friends, and nothing more. All “like”, no “love.” And worse, they were really, really beautiful. It was a living hell. And they would cry on my shoulder and ask why their bad-boy boyfriends couldn’t be more like me. I would try to help them. I would be Traditional Catholic Nice Guy. And I was beyond that: I went to law school, I am fit and in shape, I have a 6-figure job, I am waiting for marriage, I treated these girls with respect instead of as a piece of meat. I went to Church with them. And It. Was. Torture.

    Perhaps you don’t deserve a harsh tone because we’ve never met and as far as I know you’re a decent guy. But your myopic, self-sheltered life should mean you should have some humility about these sorts of things. Instead, you pretend that you have answers. You clearly do not. Please, friend, do not insult my intelligence. It is beneath both of us.

    I went to a first-tier Catholic law school, from 1999 to 2002, and lived in the dorms that were both shared with undergraduate college students and the law school. The undergraduate girls there were rampantly engaged in sexual hypergamy, the likes of which would make the Playboy mansion look like a tea party. The Jesuits and administrators looked the other way. Condoms were available in the public bathrooms for 10 cents. I only realized the extent of this hypergamy later, because appearances were deceiving and to anyone they all looked like Traditional Catholic girls. Their youth and beauty, and their Catholicism, served as a mask to conceal all of their sinful actions. In the meantime, they lied to me and to every other “nice guy”, pretending that they respected equality, loyalty, fairness, openness, honesty, and chastity. They didn’t. They respected strength, domination, determination, playful dishonesty, playful deceit, and sexual experience.

    Can you imagine what it’s like, when appearances are deceiving, to try to date in that environment, especially as Mr. Traditional Catholic Nice Guy? Meat-grinder doesn’t begin to describe it. But it wasn’t only I who faced this barrage: all the men, whether traditional or not, whether Christian or not, whether they were fit, fat, or not – all men who treated women “nice” were completely obliterated in this environment. How we escaped suicide, I’ll always wonder. My roomate was Mr. Dark Triad (and was a nice enough guy otherwise), and he had different women knocking on his door every damm day. But even STILL, that wasn’t enough to clue me in to the reality, until YEARS after when I finally read Roissy and he opened my eyes. Until then, even after working in Manhattan, at a white shoe law firm, making 6+ figures, keeping fit, etc, etc. After being Mr. Nice Guy and “The Sort of Man That The Sort Of Woman You Want Would Want To Marry”, it was worth nothing. In fact, it was worse, because as I said, your soul slowly starts to dissolve, and you wonder if everything you were taught was a lie because women everywhere, including Traditional Catholic Women, obviously reward Evil and punish the Good.

    Please stop. Look, I hear what you’re saying about the value of sex in marriage and the importance of chastity, etc, etc. I’ve heard it all before. You’re beating a dead horse. What you’re doing is answering the question with a completely ridiculous response. Your answer is historically interesting, but has no value to today’s world. Until you can fully grasp how all women (including traditional Catholic women) actually behave, you have NOTHING to offer people trying to navigate through this minefield. And does nobody any good to say that they should try to find people who already agree with them. That won’t help at all. I once thought that way, but then I realized that even Traditional Catholic girls lie about the kind of man they want, because as women they don’t understand themselves at all.

    You need to accept the reality that women are wired differently from men because God had a purpose in that, but that purpose has been corrupted by society and by others. You have to deal with how women really are. Until you do, telling men to be Mr. Nice Guy is basically telling them to abandon Catholicism in their despair after the world destroys them.

  17. Samuel says:

    I wonder how much of this ties in with the fact that most Catholics believe that Mary was without sin.

    Jesus said, “There are none that are righteous, NO, NOT ONE.”

    But the deification of women, in that realm, may very well root from that. Virgin birth, yes.

    Sinless?

    Nope.

    Jesus, The Word, come in the flesh, said NO.

    He never addressed her as mother, either, calling her only…. “woman”… and even rebuked her.

    Let me just say this- if a man can “commit adultery in his heart” just by lusting after a woman… then you better believe that women can sin too… even if nobody knows it, and even without a sexual act, or any ‘evidence’.

    Pride is also a sin.

    I think the bible is extremely clear about how men should rule over women. Anyone with eyesight can see why.

  18. Brent says:

    @DarwinCatholic

    One of your fellow white-knights has said so:

    “Women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally, for various reasons and we could talk about that. But men have to be taught how to lead.”
    –Glenn Stanton, Focus on the Family.

    See Dalrock’s post “Women are innately good,” which summarizes the issue nicely.

    It also can be seen in Christian leaders and clergy who will engage in screeds about pornography (which I agree is a sin), while totally neglecting the rise of frivolous female-initiated divorce, hypergamy, and even downright pre-marital female promiscuity among church-going women. A lot of alpha-type philanderers will tell you CHURCH is where you go on Sunday if you want to get laid. Consider, for instance (warning, foul language): http://www.antifeministtech.info/category/sunday-morning-nightclub-exploits/

    Gosh, I think a lot of guys would be well-served to go on Christian dating websites like ChristianMingle.com. Look at how many women in their mid-to-late 20s and early 30s there talk about marriage as a goal. Virtually none. Look at some who have subtle hints they are open for business. For instance, one I read today: “I’m looking to meet someone who has the same values…and maybe likes to have some fun too :)” Have some “fun.” Wink, Wink. I don’t know any guy who wouldn’t interpret this as, “I want sex.” And this isn’t uncommon.

    Damaging and irresponsible use of female sexuality by Christian women is simply never mentioned in the broader Christian community, even though it is an increasing trend.

  19. Samuel says:

    Comical side note:

    Cuba Gooding, as a character in a movie I do not recall the name of, said to a girl he was trying to bed:

    “but everyone knows Catholic girls are the best hoochies!”

  20. Random Angeleno says:

    Darwin, you must have been moving among the Trad Catholic version of the Amish. I’ve been around many different Catholic parishes both urban and rural, and I’ve never seen the results you cite. Anecdotal, I know, but that’s my experience.

    Though you cherry pick at the same data Dalrock does, I do have to give you one point: that sexual virtue is dang hard for either sex. For most Catholic men who do not understand women, it has been a failing strategy. I do not see you addressing this failure as your experience appears to be strictly limited to your immediate circle and you’re not making much effort to understand the failures of men outside your circle. For instance, you assume there is something unlikeable about Kel. I think that says much more about you than it does about him.

    Another thing I think you do not get: sexual virtue is more important for women than for men. Be careful where you go with that, I did *not* say sexual virtue wasn’t important for men, only that it’s *more* important for women. Yet given the nature of women, it is much harder for them to return to the truly repentant state that you cite. Hence, it is extremely difficult at best for men to discern whether the repentance professed by a “former” slut is true repentance. Consequently, while it is possible for a slut to transform into a good wife, the available data posted by Dalrock and others indicate that the man who can’t discern the truth about her repentance is undertaking a huge risk to himself. “Go and sin no more” is not enough.

  21. van Rooinek says:

    I went to a first-tier Catholic law school, from 1999 to 2002, and lived in the dorms that were both shared with undergraduate college students and the law school. The undergraduate girls there were rampantly engaged in sexual hypergamy, the likes of which would make the Playboy mansion look like a tea party. The Jesuits and administrators looked the other way. Condoms were available in the public bathrooms for 10 cents

    With 10 cent condoms, how did Sandra Fluke rack up $3000 in contraceptive costs in 3 years at a Catholic law school? Do the math, calculate in terms of “men per day”…..

  22. deti says:

    I’m not Catholic, (was raised mainline Protestant in the 1980s) but Kel’s description of his teenage years resonates with me. Ministers, pastors and youth leaders, teachers, parents — none had even the first clue about the changes taking place in the SMP. None had any clue about what women were/are (and no, your mothers don’t know either).

    Mr. Darwin can respond only with feeble solipsism. He bleats

    “well, the Catholics I knew weren’t like that!”
    “The young Catholics I knew weren’t like that!”
    “I wasn’t like that!”
    “Mrs. Darwin wasn’t like that!”

    As for Mr. Darwin’s backhanded insult to Kel that maybe “girls simply didn’t like [him], well, speaking for myself, perhaps that was a part of it. But that doesn’t explain it all. What parents and civic authorities should have been doing for boys is to teach them how to be more likable men, more independent, less supplicating, less approval-seeking and more physically active; teach them to develop interests of their own, and teach them that their purpose is to make a way in the world through a calling, a job, a vocation; and not necessarily as a husband to a wife or a father to children.

    The church (Protestants included) completely failed us. It told us that women are to be put on pedestals, young men are to compete for them; and that they simply selected the best ones. But time and again, we watched them select the bad boys, the leather jacketed long haired Harley riders, the thugs, the burnouts, the alcoholics, and the garage band flunkies. And these were the CHURCH GIRLS selecting these men. In my youth group there were 18 girls. One — ONE — of them was a virgin by the time we got out of High School.

    No, had we been properly educated, we would have been told of these things. And we would have been told of the sin natures of girls and women.

    1. Women are capable of feticide (abortion).

    2. Women act ruthlessly in their own self interest. They are not altruistic.

    3. Women are hypergamous. They want the best man they can get. And she will stay with you only until a better one comes along.

    4. Women sometimes are in it just for the sex.

    5. Women are capable of unimaginable verbal and emotional cruelty. I’ve seen women walk away from decades-long marriages and talk openly of how they never loved their husbands, they hated their husbands, they cannot imagine why they ever dated, much less married, these hopeless, disgusting excuses for men. I’ve seen women cheat repeatedly and relentlessly on husbands. I’ve seen a girl rip out a young man’s heart, throw it on the ground, stomp on it, and walk away as if it was nothing. I’ve been on the receiving end of some of the coldest, cruelest, most Hiroshima-level rejections I’ve ever seen — and I’ve seen girls do it to other men I’ve known. I’ve seen girls decide they are done with a boyfriend, break up with him, and start a new relationship that night. I’ve seen women treat men they dated and once loved, as if they had never known them. I’ve seen ex wives so blinded with rage and vengefulness they throw up every legal and other roadblock to separate their ex husbands from their children. I’ve read story after story of men cuckolded by cheating wives, duped and defrauded into raising bastard children fathered by the wife’s affair partner. I’ve seen women blatantly lie about their sex partner counts expressly for the purpose of frauding their way into relationships and marriages.

    These are the kinds of things young men should be instructed in.

    Talking about facts is not misogyny. Relating personal experiences is not misogyny. Teaching truths from Proverbs is NOT misogyny.

  23. deti says:

    Mr. Darwin has come here admirably to plead his case.

    I’d just like to note that despite his disagreement here, Dalrock has not banned him.

    I’d also like to note that despite some strong disagreement, Mr. Darwin has been and is being treated with respect here. We are engaging his arguments and examining them on the merits in light of evidence, reason, tradition, Scripture, and literature. We have not attacked his character, his sincerity, his beliefs or his person.

    No one has attacked him personally, despite his insulting at least one commenter here.

  24. Brendan says:

    Can you imagine what it’s like, when appearances are deceiving, to try to date in that environment, especially as Mr. Traditional Catholic Nice Guy? Meat-grinder doesn’t begin to describe it. But it wasn’t only I who faced this barrage: all the men, whether traditional or not, whether Christian or not, whether they were fit, fat, or not – all men who treated women “nice” were completely obliterated in this environment. How we escaped suicide, I’ll always wonder. My roomate was Mr. Dark Triad (and was a nice enough guy otherwise), and he had different women knocking on his door every damm day. But even STILL, that wasn’t enough to clue me in to the reality, until YEARS after when I finally read Roissy and he opened my eyes. Until then, even after working in Manhattan, at a white shoe law firm, making 6+ figures, keeping fit, etc, etc. After being Mr. Nice Guy and “The Sort of Man That The Sort Of Woman You Want Would Want To Marry”, it was worth nothing. In fact, it was worse, because as I said, your soul slowly starts to dissolve, and you wonder if everything you were taught was a lie because women everywhere, including Traditional Catholic Women, obviously reward Evil and punish the Good.

    Indeed. I also had similar experiences (my freshman year roommate at my HYS college in the mid 1980s had charming habits like stealing lawn furniture and snorting cocaine yet had a steady stream of women parading through his bed so quickly that if you blinked you’d probably have missed one of them, preferably one of the underage ones) but stubbornly clung to the notion that this was exceptional behavior. The same was replicated in law school and beyond. It’s the case in every church and community as well — because it’s deeply entrenched in the culture as a whole.

  25. slwerner says:

    DarwinCatholic – “Of course, given the tone of your comment, I can’t help wondering if maybe part of the problem was simply that girls didn’t like you. Just a possibility.”

    I can’t recall the color code for it, but if I’m not mistaken, this is pretty much just a variant of the “You can’t get a woman/can’t get laid” shaming language of the feminists (left and right)

  26. Brendan says:

    It’s in fact the standard “you sound bitter, so it must be because women don’t like you” shaming language to be honest.

  27. Brent says:

    @Kel,

    Your point is exactly correct. I also am, by all measures, a very eligible Christian young man. Eligible Christian young ladies aren’t exactly breaking down my door.

    I went on two dates with a Christian girl once. True to form as a Christian gentleman, though I held her hand, I signaled my respect for her by not kissing her before our relationship had reached the necessary emotional stage (which it never did). She told me that, after the second date, she started to get the feeling she was just hanging out with a good friend, and that “obviously that’s not what either of us wants.” Stupid me, I foolishly believed genuine friendship was one of the most important ingredients in a successful marriage.

    Truth is, her statement indicated I was the one who dodged a bullet there. Christian young women, like non-Christian young women, aren’t necessarily looking for marriage. They’re looking for “excitement,” and when a woman is looking for “excitement,” she ends up fornicating with “exciting” alpha men (that her last boyfriend was a long-distance relationship with a corporate jet pilot who “really messed me up” should have indicated something).

    Thing is, now that I have learned more about “game” and how female psychology works, I realize if I wanted the relationship to last, I should have just suddenly put my arms around her and planted one square on her lips on our first date, ala my man John Wayne. I thought, “She’s a Christian girl. She wouldn’t want that.”

    But then again, given her common utopian “unicorns and rainbows” concept of relationships, I’m glad I didn’t.

    She’s not the only one like that.

  28. Brent says:

    @Darwin

    “Of course, given the tone of your comment, I can’t help wondering if maybe part of the problem was simply that girls didn’t like you. Just a possibility.”

    Alright, I’ve been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but no more Mr. Nice Guy. You’re an insufferable self-righteous twit and the epitome of the reason so many people today can’t stand Catholicism.

    How’s that for tone?

  29. Brent says:

    @Darwin

    I would also reply, like the Apostle Paul once said, that you should go castrate yourself, but it appears your wife has already taken care of that.

  30. asinusspinasmasticans says:

    None of the long list of female atrocities changes anything. A woman is evil? Evil people will make themselves known sooner or later, and unless you deceive yourself, she will reveal it. Don’t have anything to do with evil women. Don’t marry them, don’t date them, and, (this is where I stand with DC over against nearly everyone else) don’t fuck them.

    I remember someone calling in to one of those gawd-awful Christian talk shows in the early 00s with just such a litany of complaints about the duplicity of women, especially Christian women. A young man complained – why should he struggle to maintain sexual purity when it was obviously such a non-starter to the women he approached on a daily basis. “It’s the guys with the experience, the ones who know how to tease and flirt, the ones who break hearts, who are getting all the attention.”

    Naturally this set the pastoral geese all a-clucking, with the same old bromides you always hear – “it’s just the least desirable girls who act like that.” or “young girls act like that. they grow out of it.” There followed a twenty minute discussion about how less physically attractive girls are often passed over by young men seeking wives, etc. This was some seven or eight years ago. I turned the radio off in disgust. No one answered the young man’s simple question. “Why should I be sexually pure if the most desirable women will hold it against me?”

    I put the question to one of the saintliest people I know, a 97 year old blind Pentecostal woman. She just smiled and said “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” The radiance on her face convinced me that she was talking about a present reality, not a future hope. It was then that I realized there was a reward beyond a one night stand, doing coke off a girl’s Mons Veneris, or even that of a lifelong dedicated marriage.

    There are things that are better than sex.

  31. CL says:

    I suspect that shaming comment was his wife posting. S/he seems to have disappeared suddenly, realising she is in over her head pretending to be a man.

  32. Kel,

    I went to a first-tier Catholic law school, from 1999 to 2002, and lived in the dorms that were both shared with undergraduate college students and the law school. The undergraduate girls there were rampantly engaged in sexual hypergamy, the likes of which would make the Playboy mansion look like a tea party. The Jesuits and administrators looked the other way.

    Sounds like Georgetown. And yes, it sounds like pure hell. I apologize for giving into the temptation to snark.

    That said, I was in college at exactly the same time (1997 to 2001), it’s just that I was going to Franciscan University of Steubenville. Definitely not as prestigious a school (probably the most prestigious school with any kind of real Catholic culture remaining is Notre Dame, and even there the contingent that’s serious about their faith is a distinct minority, though a fanatical one) but one of the main reasons I picked it was because the student body was almost universally very serious about living their faith and I figured since many people meet their spouses in college I wanted to make sure I was around women who actually shared my beliefs.

    So just to clarify: when I talk about what I’ve found looking for a spouse to be like in conservative Catholic circles, I’m talking way, way conservative: Opus Dei, Communion and Liberation, the big homeschooling and traditionalist networks, Theology on Tap, and the very conservative colleges like Steubenville, UD, Thomas Aquianas, Ave Maria, etc.

    In a culture in which 50% of marriage fail, you have to be pretty damn counter cultural to put yourself out side of that world.

  33. Brent says:

    “Unless DarwinCatholic proves otherwise, we have to assume that he believes that ridiculously anti-male laws like no-fault alimony and asset division, default mother custody (again, ‘no fault’), VAWA, false rape accusations, are all entirely acceptable laws.”

    Interesting that Darwin et al. demand that men “marry these [possibly reformed] sluts” while never dealing with the laws that severely disincentivize otherwise pro-marriage men from marrying at all.

  34. CL says:

    Perhaps he or she could clarify whether we are dealing with a man or a woman here.

  35. Kel says:

    The shaming language is to be expected. Apart from it’s annoyance, it’s actually proof of how myopic and sheltered he really is. He’d realize that, of course, if he actually knew what he was talking about.

    I don’t want to dominate this thread, but my point is that the Traditional Catholic answer to these things, that of “Be Mr. Nice, and Be Patient, and Live in an Environment where Everyone is like you” don’t work in the real world.

    The Traditional Catholics SHOULD be saying: YES! ROISSY IS CORRECT! All women these days have wholly given themselves over to their animalistic hypergamous instincts, because the world is Fallen and society has become completely corrupt. The purposes for those instincts, to prepare a strong family unit, have been destroyed. And so, young man, realize that women will tell you lies and say they like supplication, humility, chastity, and friendship, but the TRUTH is that women are attracted to their EXACT OPPOSITES: strength, dominance, sexual experience, and leadership. And so, young man, if you are to live as a God-fearing Traditional Christian, and do not want to be destroyed by despair in believing those lies, you must treat women as the children that they have allowed themselves to be. You must project strength at all times, you must lead them, you must never supplicate, and you must completely ignore their beauty and treat them like the sinful flesh that society reinforces them to be. You must be a rock, like Peter, upon which no hypergamy will ever prevail. Oh, and by the way, as Christ has said, you must ALSO realize that the entire world, and the law, will be against you, and you will be labeled a mysognist, and possibly falsely arrested for fake domestic violence, and Human Resources departments will persecute you, and force you to mouth falsities in the name of keeping your job. And if you can navigate this environment, and actually choose a Shrew you can Tame, and decide to try to live as Man and Wife, God bless you for trying, but know that one day even she may turn on you, and you will cry out: “Why have you forsaken me?” And then the world will put you to death, but you will be rewarded in heaven, unlike the fools to believed the lies and have now turned away from the Church in their despair.

    That’s what Traditional Catholics should be saying. But they’re not, because they’re idiots when it comes to women.

  36. jbaee says:

    Although I essentially skimmed most of DarwinCatholic’s post (I am an atheist and have very little interest in moral arguments that I don’t see as fundamentally grounded in economic and evolutionary realities), most of what I did see seemed to be reasonable, decent arguments about how an individual should behave to get good outcomes.

    What I did not see was any recognition that people also behave as groups, not as individuals. In particular, women are what are referred to in game theory as “first movers”, at least in the sexual and marriage realm. When women and men reach 18 (what we can roughly generalize as the time when marriage and sex are put on the table), women and men have roughly very similar long-term sexual and marriage market value(average). However, in the short term 18 yo women have far more value: they are pretty and young, while 18 yo men are mostly gangly, awkward, and poor, the low men on the totem pole.

    In a society where both men and women have long-range time orientations re: sex and marriage, marriage will take place when both are very young, driven by the woman’s need to marry quickly before her youth fades. Men will readily go with it, because their value also decreases over time although much more slowly.

    However, when women have short-term orientations (regardless of the orientation of men!), they will convert their youth and beauty into sexual enjoyment with peak alpha males. They will hold off on marriage because their lack of long-term orientation means they do not realize their stock will be much reduced when their youth fades.

    Men have no similar ability to choose pleasure early on (at least, not the beta males). A short-term orientation for men will lead them to choosing poor mates, such as extremely ugly women or much older women; these are the appropriate matches for a gangly, awkward, broke man who does not recognize he will not be that way forever. A long-term orientation, however, encourages a man to respond to women based on the first-mover choice of women: if women choose marriage as their first move, he will quickly get married to a woman from the same peer group. Remember, his own valuation is gradually decreasing, so he doesn’t have much reason to delay.

    If women choose sex and fun as a first move, the man is incentivized to wait until he gains value (late 20’s and early 30’s), then choose sex and fun, then finally choose marriage in the late 30s or 40s if at all. The reason being that, by the time men reach the late 20s and early 30s, men of that age cohort on average are higher in value than the women of that cohort, who have lost much if not all of their youth. A man who wants to marry should marry a younger woman. However, younger women are choosing sex, so they will not marry the older man! Only when the woman gets older and recognizes her fading youth will she move to a “get-married” state.

    Obviously, this assumes that all men and women behave the same way, which they obviously do not. However, similar effects take place even with heterogeneity in the groups: all that matters is what the majority of women do for their first move. (Even that may be too strong an assumption, and these effects may play out if ANY women choose sex as a first move, I haven’t thought it through entirely). If there are 200 men in a cohort, and 150 women choose sex and 50 choose marriage, then there will be 150 men in their 20s and 30s who have not gotten married in the first stage of the game. Those 150 men will want to marry women of the younger cohort. . . but of that younger cohort, only 50 will want to marry, and many of them will marry men of the younger cohort! All in all there will still be 125 or so men around age 30 who want to marry lovely young women of similar value, and cannot. For marriage, their options will be women of the same cohort, who are of lower value. Instead the men can have sex with women of both cohorts and continue to wait for marriage until their own value matches that of the 30-yo women.

    There are three major implications of all of this, which is what the manosphere is so pissed off about, and which I do not see DarwinCatholic recognizing:

    1. Women have most of the choice power.
    Almost every argument, article, whatever about what men should do misses the point: what men do matters very little over their 20s. All the rise in age of first marriage and in pre-marital sex rates is due to female choice, not male choice. Male choice only becomes relevant in their 30s.

    2. You cannot change these dynamics by appealing to male sexual behavior.
    It takes very few high-quality men to satisfy many women sexually. Unless you can limit male sexual behavior in an enormously high percentage of the male population, women’s first-mover choice will not change a hair.

    3. Men’s primary choice power lies in rejection of marriage once they hit their late 20s and 30s.
    Remember, most men have very little choice power in their teens and 20s, as long as a reasonable percentage of women have short-term time orientation. A man’s primary power comes when he reaches his 30s and women of his cohort want to marry him (he is of higher value by this point) and he can say “you didn’t want me then, I don’t want you now”. This rejection by men in the aggregate is the only thing that can spur younger women to marriage, because they will look at older women, see that they cannot get married, and decide on earlier marriage. If the older men get married to the older women, young women have no incentive to decide on earlier marriage as their first move.

    Thats why arguments that men “man up” so vastly miss the point: men MUST reject women in their 30s in order to encourage fair trade of value. Manning up is directly equivalent to men accepting whatever deal women propose, which is inevitably a bad one.

    While I think that DarwinCatholic has reasonable arguments about what an individual man should do, his lack of consideration for how people behave in groups has caused him to miss the boat on what men in the aggregate are forced to deal with, and as a result, what each individual man is forced to do.

  37. Brent,
    Alright, I’ve been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but no more Mr. Nice Guy. You’re an insufferable self-righteous twit and the epitome of the reason so many people today can’t stand Catholicism.

    How’s that for tone?

    Pretty good. 🙂 Hey, we’re all men here, I have no problem taking it as well as dishing it out.

    Look, reading Kel’s second comment I realized I was being an ass towards him and I apologized for that. That being said, when someone starts out saying things like:
    All the Proverbs about the wickedness of women are completely ignored. And women have invaded the Church, whether in traditional communities or otherwise, and have either deliberately or not purged all wise teachings about the ways women uniquely sin against men.

    Women uniquely sin against men by being coy with them, by stringing them along, by dangling the thread that suggests intimacy, yet giving it up for the Bad Boys. They have lied to men, saying that feminine traits in men are attractive, while secretly holding their passion for masculinity. They lie and slut it up, and then expect that forgiveness of sin means that consequences can be ignored.
    My initial thought is: If that’s your attitude towards women, no wonder they didn’t like you much. After all, you guys share my disdain for feminism, and in that regard I imagine you are no more impressed with their ranting about how men are all evil “potential rapists” or some such. If some woman goes on about how all men are horrible and then complains she has no luck finding a man, my thought is, “Really? I wonder why? Maybe it’s because you don’t respect them.” My initial response to Kel was pretty much the same, but reading his second comment I could see more where his anger was coming from: being treated as the nice guy shoulder to cry on by a bunch of women who didn’t actually share his beliefs about sexual morality.

    That’s a lousy place to be. My advice to someone in that situation is: You need to find another group of people to be around. You won’t change those women, and getting mad at them will only hurt you. Go find a group of people who actually share your beliefs about marriage (not just give lip service to them, but really share them) and start looking for a mate there.

  38. Kel says:

    Darwin,

    Respectfully, you are fooling yourself if you think that immersing yourself in Traditional Cultures, like the ones you mentioned, will make a material difference. Even among the Amish, where no television or radio can corrupt them, women are instinctivly hypergamous. Women do not like Mr. Nice Guy because God made them such to respect dominance and strength, so that strong families and Patriarchial societies could be built. I’m not going to debate this, because it is proven every day to those of us actually living in the real world with our eyes fully open. All you are doing by self-segregating yourself is building a tiny, tiny barrier against the weight of the world. Do not be fooled. It is a false defense, and will be crushed if the flame of Ms. Darwin Catholic’s hypergamy, now at a simmer (for it can never be quenched), is ever ignited to full force.

    The Bible is full of ample evidence that Roissy’s view of women is correct. He is right. You must admit that. You have to deal with the way women actually behave, and respond accordingly. The correct answer to these issues that the Church should be saying is that ultimately a patriarchial society must be re-established in full, with women properly relegated to submissive roles, in every way possible. You want counter-cultural? You haven’t begun to realize how counter-cultural things need to be. I’m much, much more counter-cultural than you’ll ever understand. And you are not counter-cultural, you’re a dupe of the Culture, one of its deluded minions. You unwittingly claim to be against society, but ultimately you ask men to Man Up, and Bear their Cross, and sacrifice once again at the altar of Femininity.

    I will destroy that altar, with every interaction I have with women, with every interaction I have with a supplicating, beta male. You haven’t begun to see a counter-cultural revolutionary, Darwin Catholic.

  39. Country Lawyer says:

    Kel said:

    “In fact, it was worse, because as I said, your soul slowly starts to dissolve, and you wonder if everything you were taught was a lie because women everywhere, including Traditional Catholic Women, obviously reward Evil and punish the Good.”

    Wondering if everything you’ve been taught is a lie is the beginning of wisdom.

    Brent:

    “I foolishly believed genuine friendship was one of the most important ingredients in a successful marriage.”

    That is one of the most pernicious lies right there. If a woman is in a passionate relationship with you she will modify her behavior to become your “friend.”

    One of the reasons people resist accepting the truth about women is that it unravels everything in our society and culture. It is very hard to accept that almost everything you believed was a lie, that the church(es) has been perverted and are Apostate, that we are not free, that we are not just.

  40. Kel says:

    TFH,

    I first read the Misandry Bubble approximately 6 months after it was first published. I think I was guided there by one of Roissy’s comment threads. Roissy allowed me to survive, but you actually provided something Hopeful for the better. For all of our sake, I hope you’re correct. The alternative is decades, perhaps centuries, of slavery to female hypergamy.

    In any event, I’d like to thank you. You were the first, and as far as I can tell, the only person so far who has outlined a realistic, possible way out of our current living Hell. Even if it’s a hope that must come from a violent cultural revolution, it’s still hope.

  41. Brent says:

    “If that’s your attitude towards women, no wonder they didn’t like you much.”

    First off, none of the situations where I personally have been spurned by girls ever happened while this was my thought process. It was all pre-red-pill. I thought, like you, that Christian women were all perfect little virtuous angels.

    Second, you seem to imply Christians should not deal with the widespread problem of young female sexual immorality within the church, because that will make women not “like you much.” If anything, if they had any sense at all they would thank us for it, because it would save them a great deal of future angst if someone informed them it is possible for them to use their sexuality in a way that destroys their futures.

    In fact, your point about women not liking us very much is the exact reason no leaders in Christianity are dealing with this. Christian men are being cowards. Christianity today is at least 2/3rds, if not 3/4ths, female (and despite your statement about being in a Church that respects men, Catholicism is the same as the wider Christian break-down). Dalrock dealt with this in his post Game for Pastors.

    It is all well and good to go after Christian men for their own sexual immorality. I actually have no problem holding men sexually accountable. It is a practice that has a history as old as the church.

    But we’re trying to make clear to you that these “nice Christian women” aren’t looking for husbands. They will tell you that because it’s what you want to hear. They want to keep up the outward appearance of being sweet, pure little angels. But they aren’t. FFY, an alpha-type ladies man, commented on the Rules of the Road post that his some of earliest sexual encounters were with girls in his church youth group. This confirms my experience going to a private religious high school (though unlike FFY, I was not the kind of boy they had “encounters” with). As well, I have noted how, when one peruses Christian dating sites looking at profiles of 23 – 30 year-old women, one finds virtually zero mention of wanting marriage, and not a few mentions of “having fun” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). One also finds profile pictures that, honestly, though there is no explicit nudity, only signal one thing.

    You simply don’t want to hear stuff like that. That’s the problem. You are willingly turning a deaf ear because the truth frightens you. You respond with shaming language and rank, petulant little insults that expose you for the emasculated man that you are. Yeah, the truth is scary, but strap your nuts back on and MAN UP!

  42. TFH,

    Mrs. Darwin pretending to be a man is also an example of another oft-repeated point of mine

    MrsDarwin hasn’t been posting on here at all (or on the thread back on my blog.) I picked this fight because Dalrock linked to me, and I specifically told her it was my fight and to stay out of it.

    What exactly is your ‘disdain’ for feminism? Please describe in detail. No one who truly disdains feminism would find Dalrock or Roissy so disagreeable.

    – Feminism peddles the idea that women don’t need men, when obviously our biology is such that men and women need each other for the species to even exist.
    – Some feminists claim that there is no difference between men and women other than the shape of their bodies, I think this is clearly wrong, men and woman have different aptitudes and abilities.
    – Other feminists (or the same ones at different times) claim that men are different from women because they are the defective “dangerous ape” while women are what holds society together. It’s true that women have a tendency to social behavior which is different from men, but it can also be pretty dysfunctional when it comes to getting anything done. I’d say the reason why men tend to predominant in high level leadership jobs is because men are just better at that.
    – Feminism tends to see traditional marriage as limiting to women and to hold that women should seek equality by going into the workforce and being “just like men”. I think that the more traditional division of labor in which the wife stays home full time to rear children while the man works is a far better allocation of the husband and wife’s natural inclinations and abilities.
    – Feminism generally wants to see a gender war dynamic at play between the sexes (similar to Marxist class struggle) whereas I think the sexes are inherently complimentary not in competition. (Actually, this strikes me as an area in which the manosphere and feminism overlap: both seem to want a gender war, there’s just a desire to opposite sides win.)

    Honestly, it’s hard to make a list of what I disagree with about feminism, because there’s so much (and because there are a lot of different and contradictory variants of feminism.) Pretty much the only areas in which I’d find any agreement with feminism is in condemning some of the extreme forms of misogyny you find in cultures like, say, the Taliban. And that I tend to strongly disagree with the flavor of “trads” who think that women shouldn’t be educated or pursue careers while single. This is for the simple reason that I find educated and accomplished women far more interesting than those whose only accomplishments are long hair, lack of makeup and prairie skirts.

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    It is interesting that there seems to have been a series of women posting either as men, or under ambiguous names over the last few months. Generally as traditional conservatives / social conservatives. Some better at the charade than others. But really, the differences between the way men tend to think and the way women tend to think show up sooner or later. It’s like Marcy D’Arcy putting on a fake moustache and trying to infiltrate a No Ma’am meeting..no matter how hard a woman tries to use a male voice, it does not work. Heh. Perhaps the reason so many tradcon “men” argue like women is simple: they are women, pretending to be men.

    Now, here is the interesting part. One would expect truly traditionalist people to recognize that a man with a dress on is still a man, and a woman with a fake beard is still a women – thus sock-puppeting as a member of the other sex is a major challenge. Aaaand, one would expect that a truly traditionalist woman would not want to pose as a man anyway – she’d want to let her man lead her, and be his helper, and generally adhere to complimentarity – different spheres, etc. Furthermore, shouldn’t truly traditionalist women be willing to gracefully leave some areas of life – such as energetic disputation on female behavior – to the menfolk? Hmm?

    But we do not see that. We see that the tradcon women are often just as shrill, just as obnoxious, just as prone to play “let’s you and him fight”, just as likely to get in men’s faces, and just as gynocentric as any feminist. And, of course, always ready to drop a wing & run in a circle like a wounded dove when the going gets too tough, crying “Don’t Hit Me I’m A Girl!” in the expectation of rescue by some White Knight. IF that happens, as DarwinCatholic did for Duffy, then we simply see once again bad behavior by women being rewarded. One does not have to be B.F. Skinner to see that rewarding bad behavior doesn’t lead to less bad behavior, surely?

    DarwinCatholic says “We’re all men here”. The question is, did Mrs. Darwin giggle gleefully as she typed that?

  44. Dalrock says:

    @DarwinCatholic

    MrsDarwin hasn’t been posting on here at all (or on the thread back on my blog.) I picked this fight because Dalrock linked to me, and I specifically told her it was my fight and to stay out of it.

    I have to say it can be confusing as to which is which. For example, are you saying that Mrs. Darwin didn’t write the post The Unmanly Bitterness Of The Manosphere, which closed with the following:

    [Administrative Note: Having seen how the comments at Patheos went downhill fast, let me assure anyone wanting to vent that I intend to maintain standards in my comboxes. Think before you post, and understand that the man of the house has no hesitations here about showing people the door to maintain order. And put the coffee down. Coffee is for closers only. (full David Mamet strength language warning on that link)]

    Not that the personal issue should be what matters, but if we are going to discuss the issue of who picked the fight, clearly that post on your site was picking a fight with me (I had never heard of your blog prior to that). Are you suggesting that you wrote that post, and referred to yourself as “the man of the house” in that note? Or, perhaps you wrote it but were referring to someone other than yourself as the man of the house (Mrs. Darwin?) You can understand why some might be confused into thinking your wife wrote the post picking the fight with me, and that she was referring to you as the man of the house. If it is in fact an error, it is certainly an honest one.

  45. 7man says:

    @DarwinCatholic
    “Actually, this strikes me as an area in which the manosphere and feminism overlap: both seem to want a gender war,..”

    So when there is injustice and feminists have messed up the world, you think red-pill men should be silent and let the world go to hell and other men to blindly end up in the financial meat grinder, because they should be peace-niks? Real men don’t back away from a fight started by others when women, children, families and civilization are at stake.

    Have you heard the phrase “Enjoy the Decline”? That is something most red pill men consider. Still, men in the manosphere choose their battles, and realize there is a war going on. This is not so different than the pre-Vatican II teaching on the Church Militant.

  46. Kel says:

    I wonder if I’d prefer a violent popping of the Misandry Bubble, so it’d be over with quicker…. Even with the best efforts, I’ve yet to see a cultural revolution throughout history that was not violent.

    I’ve done the URLs at urinals… But I’ve been more effective in other ways. I’ve turned every unmarried man I know against feminism, some more radically than others. I’ve popped plenty of women’s bubbles as well, particularly those about to hit the Wall at 30. The problem is getting men to realize it’s not merely women that they’re up against, but the entire culture. For the culture is wholly seeped in radical feminism and white-knight beta supplication. As I said to Darwin:

    “You haven’t begun to realize how counter-cultural things need to be. I’m much, much more counter-cultural than you’ll ever understand. And you are not counter-cultural, you’re a dupe of the Culture, one of its deluded minions. You unwittingly claim to be against society, but ultimately you ask men to Man Up, and Bear their Cross, and sacrifice once again at the altar of Femininity.

    I will destroy that altar, with every interaction I have with women, with every interaction I have with a supplicating, beta male. You haven’t begun to see a counter-cultural revolutionary, Darwin Catholic.”

  47. Brendan says:

    There are three major implications of all of this, which is what the manosphere is so pissed off about, and which I do not see DarwinCatholic recognizing:

    1. Women have most of the choice power.
    Almost every argument, article, whatever about what men should do misses the point: what men do matters very little over their 20s. All the rise in age of first marriage and in pre-marital sex rates is due to female choice, not male choice. Male choice only becomes relevant in their 30s.

    2. You cannot change these dynamics by appealing to male sexual behavior.
    It takes very few high-quality men to satisfy many women sexually. Unless you can limit male sexual behavior in an enormously high percentage of the male population, women’s first-mover choice will not change a hair.

    3. Men’s primary choice power lies in rejection of marriage once they hit their late 20s and 30s.
    Remember, most men have very little choice power in their teens and 20s, as long as a reasonable percentage of women have short-term time orientation. A man’s primary power comes when he reaches his 30s and women of his cohort want to marry him (he is of higher value by this point) and he can say “you didn’t want me then, I don’t want you now”. This rejection by men in the aggregate is the only thing that can spur younger women to marriage, because they will look at older women, see that they cannot get married, and decide on earlier marriage. If the older men get married to the older women, young women have no incentive to decide on earlier marriage as their first move.

    That’s a very intelligent statement of the problem, I think, and why the “manning up” approach is actually harmful in terms of perpetuating the same problematic situation.

    That said, I was in college at exactly the same time (1997 to 2001), it’s just that I was going to Franciscan University of Steubenville.

    And this is a key fact. I have had some dealings with people from FUS, and I think what others need to understand is that, in effect, the people who come from FUS (and the handful of similar very conservative Catholic institutions scattered around the US) are basically akin to the Amish. A huge percentage of the people there get married either while they are still in college at FUS or immediately thereafter. They’re not geographically concentrated like the Amish are, or technologically limited, but they are similar in that they are a very small separatist-type group that doesn’t generally participate in the culture at large — even in the *Catholic* culture at large that you may see in your local Catholic parish.

    Why is this important? It’s important because the size of their counterculture is tiny and its approach is therefore not applicable to the vast majority of people — in other words, the “approach” recommended by the Darwii is one that is generally effective only in their tiny fringe group and not outside of that context. It’s virtually useless to the broad swathe of people who live in the broader culture such as it is. And, even if guys wanted to segregate themselves from the culture to the extent that these people do, the entirety of the community is far too small to take up a lot of slack in the grand scheme of things. Therefore the advice offered is really not useful for almost everyone who isn’t from FUS or one of the handful of similar institutions.

  48. Dalrock,

    Yes, that was me writing that post in response to your post linking to Elizabeth Duffy’s Patheos post (and me saying in the third person that as the man of the house I had nor problem showing people the door.)

    I was also the one who wrote the “Not Everyone Has To Get Married Post” you linked to, though MrsDarwin had a few comments in that thread.

    Each post does have a little “Posted by Darwin” or “Posted by MrsDarwin” attribution at the bottom of the post, but the way the Blogger template works it’s not super obvious.

    In general, I thrive on conflict a lot more than my wife does, and yet, it was definitely me writing both of the posts on the blog linking to you.

  49. Dalrock says:

    @TFH

    A women can easily educate herself up to age 23-24 (Masters Degree, which 90% of women don’t have anyway), and marry after that. The dispute is not about women who marry at 25, but women who delay marriage until 30+, and then expect men to become useful to them when they themselves have lost most of what a man would find attractive in them.

    I disagree. The issue is at what age a woman begins searching for a husband, when she would be willing to marry if she found him, and to the extent that this is past her sexual maturity what she is doing sexually in the interim. A 24 year old who has embraced the carousel isn’t a good bet for marriage. My problem with Mrs. Darwin’s statement was that it denied that women are (in general) deliberately postponing their search for a husband to focus on school and career first (while sampling a number of alphas potential husbands). This, coupled with the Darwins’ very strong disapproval of men who are hesitant to marry non virgins feels an awful lot like a pass for mainstream feminism and the hookup culture.

  50. feministhater says:

    That’s a lousy place to be. My advice to someone in that situation is: You need to find another group of people to be around. You won’t change those women, and getting mad at them will only hurt you. Go find a group of people who actually share your beliefs about marriage (not just give lip service to them, but really share them) and start looking for a mate there.

    How would one even go about this? You make it sound all so easy. Please enlighten me.

  51. feministhater says:

    About India, here’s something interesting.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Cabinet-gives-nod-to-quick-divorces/articleshow/12386677.cms

    Got the link from Oz Conservative.

  52. Brent says:

    “I can tell you that in India, maintaining female virginity until marriage is very strict. This was easy when marriage happened at 21-22. But now that marriage ages for women are rising up to 26-27 even there, and more women are working at jobs……….the system is fraying around the edges.”

    I will say that, after working with multiple Indian people and learning a little about their culture, I believe they have the right idea one one aspect: Arranged marriages should be the norm. Also, from what I understand the son-in-law has an honored position in Indian culture. This cements the bride’s family to the husband, increasing familial cohesion, increasing the pressure from a bride’s parents to remain in her marriage, and thus decreasing the probability of divorce. In American culture, on the other hand a spoiled 30 year-old girl goes crying to mommy and daddy that “I was unhaaaaaapy” and, in addition to alimony and child support, it is not uncommon for her to get cash and prizes from them.

    It was abandoned in the West under the influence of romanticism in the West in the 18th – 19th centuries. As for the romantic poets and artists and whatnot, well, I highly suspect none of them were looking for strong marriages, at least not with women, if you get me.

  53. Dalrock says:

    On the question of arranged marriages: I don’t always chime in just to note my disagreement with commenters who have different opinions (it ruins the flow of the discussion if I swoop in on everything I disagree with). However, for the sake of our guests today I’ll clarify that I’ve written quite a few posts advising against marriage where the parties aren’t head over heels in love. Here is one. To the extent that arranged marriages meet this condition, I don’t have any issue with them though.

  54. Kel says:

    Dalrock,

    Notwithstanding your desire for men to ultimately marry, I think it’s just too dangerous to do that in today’s culture. I am advising everyone to wait until the Misandry Bubble pops, or possibly never marry. The only exception is if someone marries someone from a different, traditional culture, like an Asian girl, but even that can be terribly dangerous. American girls are wholly off-limits as they are generally completely corrupted.

    Women still “like” me, but only because I’ve used Game on them. In general, I have nothing to do with American women and treat them as they deserve. I won’t be caught alone with one. Since I live in New York, I have plenty of access to traditional girls from overseas cultures who actually like men who are masculine and who like being girls who are feminine.

    There is no going along with the current culture anymore. It’s better to work to actively overthrow it or subvert it, than to try to build a defense against it.

    I got rid of my TV 4 years ago. I have literally not watched network television in probably 6-7 years. With the exception of being dragged to a screening of “The Dark Knight”, I have not seen a Hollywood movie in probably 8 years. I will not pay, nor will I support, in any manner whatsoever, my enslavement by this culture. It can rot to the core, for all I care. In fact, I am hastening its demise, because it cannot die quickly enough.

  55. pb says:

    “The issue is at what age a woman begins searching for a husband, when she would be willing to marry if she found him, and to the extent that this is past her sexual maturity what she is doing sexually in the interim.”

    Not to mention the impact of fostering a “career” on hypergamy — women’s expectations for what is to be considered a “suitable” spouse.

  56. TFH,

    So now, explain your disagreement with the theme of Dalrock’s blog.

    Like I said, it reads to me that Dalrock to an extent, and even more so many of the commenters, hate and disrespect women in general and embrace a gender war dynamic. I don’t like it when feminists address men that way, and I don’t like it when the manosphere addresses women that way.

    I don’t think that women are perfect any more than men are perfect, but I also don’t think that they’re uniquely evil or uniquely deluded.

    Sure, there are a lot of badly behaved women in the world. The solution, from my point of view, is simply to not marry women like that and move on. Why spend all one’s time winding oneself up about women in general? After all, we each only need one.

    I gather in the local parlance that makes me a “white knight”, but that doesn’t really bother me a whole lot. I’m happily married, have no problem exercising leadership over my family, and my concerns primarily center around raising my five kids in a sub-culture in which my daughters will be respected and taken care of by the guys they marry. If there are several million players out there, and the crowds of women who want to be with them, my main concern is to make it clear to my children that that is totally and utterly immoral and unacceptable, and otherwise just to go on living — in the fairly certain knowledge that those people are going to be far less happy in old age than those of us who simply went and founded stable families.

    That’s the course I would advise for others too.

  57. Dalrock says:

    @Kel

    Notwithstanding your desire for men to ultimately marry, I think it’s just too dangerous to do that in today’s culture.

    This isn’t my position. It is true that I am pro marriage, but I don’t deny the risks in our current legal/cultural/religious environment. I also don’t advise men to go on a “marriage strike” in an effort to fix the system. If you feel like you have an opportunity to marry a woman who is still suitable for marriage in our current climate, I would advise that you do so. No need to spite yourself just to teach the culture a lesson. However, I do advise men to be extremely careful in making this decision, and not getting married unless they have found a woman with the ability within herself to keep her commitment despite the law, culture, and church cheering her on to divorce.

  58. Kel says:

    Ok. I can agree with that, except with the caveat that American women are generally wholly corrupt, and that marriage only has a chance of success if the girl is from a traditional culture that values masculinity in men and femininity in women. Since that’s impossible for American girls today, I advise men not to marry them and would advise marriage-minded men to only marry traditional foreign women from traditional cultures (this rules out most of Europe). American girls are basically too radioactive to be around at all, and can blow-up at any time.

    At some point, it will be too dangerous to marry anyone in America, whether or not they’re a traditional girl from a traditional culture. But maybe we’re not there, yet… (maybe).

    I also suspect that despite the best efforts, when the Misandry Bubble does pop, it will be incredibly violent and bloody. Those White Knights aren’t called Knights for nothing…

  59. slwerner says:

    ”Like I said, it reads to me that Dalrock to an extent, and even more so many of the commenters, hate and disrespect women in general and embrace a gender war dynamic.”

    So many hate and disrespect women? Really?

    Are you certain that you aren’t mistaking the stated distaste for the behaviors of (a majority of) women for hatreds and disrespect of women in general. I think you are, in fact, making that very mistake. In fact, I could name a couple of men here who express far hatred for me, as a man, that what they ever express towards women.

    And what, exactly, is this “gender war dynamic”? And, really, I’m asking this sincerely, because I don’t see that advocating for (equal) right and protections for men as a war on women (you seem to join the majority of gender-feminists in that line of think, BTW).

    Nor would I call men seeking to educate men on how to avoid “bad woman” and to protect themselves from those women as a war on women (again, that sounds like something a main-line, man-hating gender-feminist would say).

    Perhaps it’s that many here would call-out women on their bad and immoral behaviors? Is knocking women off of the pedestals that supplicating left-wing male-feminist orbiters (manginas) and right-wing White-knights have propped them up on and act of gender war to you?

    Seriously, I think you need to elaborate on this supposed woman-hating and gender-warring you claim you observe here and elsewhere in the Manosphere.

    On a side-note, I notice a few posters starting to adapt the term “androsphere” as a replacement for “Manosphere”. I think it flows better, but is it too late to change the name?

  60. van Rooinek says:

    Sure, there are a lot of badly behaved women in the world. The solution, from my point of view, is simply to not marry women like that and move on

    It’s not that simple. Many of these women are in churches (Cath/Prot)… pretending to be good Christians… anf ripping the hearts out of decent single Christian men over and over. As “Christians” they should know better… and do better… Single Christian men expect, and have a right to expect, better. At least the girl should have the Christian decency to turn a guy down politely, instead of ripping him a new one for the “crime” of politely asking her out… but even that minimal courtesy is often not offered.

    Saying, “don’t marry women like that” is too simplistic an answer, when given to a repeatedly devastated young (or not so young) single Christian man, whose experience is starting to tell him that ALL women are like that… including all the “good marriageable Christian women”. PUA/Game theory starts to look attractive precisely at the moment that it seems like you can’t possibly ever get a woman without it.

    I know whereof I speak. I wanted to marry at 19 but due to the problems Deti describes above, I was forcibly single (and a virgin) til age 38. Oh, and I’m tall and good looking and gainfully employed, and was told more often that I could count, what a “great catch” i would be… Like other good men who faced this torment, I found the Christian world was no help whatsoever. The manosphere taught me the truth which enabled me, in retrospect, to understand WHY I suffered as I did. Hopefully I can use that knowledge to spare my sons, and get them married to good women before age 20, so they can actually righteously *enjoy* being young instead of being faced with the choice of sin or misery as I was.

  61. Dalrock says:

    @DarwinCatholic

    Like I said, it reads to me that Dalrock to an extent, and even more so many of the commenters, hate and disrespect women in general and embrace a gender war dynamic. I don’t like it when feminists address men that way, and I don’t like it when the manosphere addresses women that way.

    I trust you have the quotes handy to back that assertion up.

    While I’m standing by, I’ll offer that the true difference between you and I is that you are in profound denial as to the state of the culture, the law, and the church. I am very pro marriage, and as a result I am outraged at what is being done to the institution. I care for marriage so much I won’t stand by while the institution is turned into a farce and a means of cruelty, injustice, and theft and pretend that nothing is happening. You have made several comments on my site today alone which show that you are in deep denial. I’m not your enemy, but so long as you cover for the feminist status quo, you insist on being mine.

  62. ukfred says:

    I was brought up in Scotland., in an area with approx 50% of the population Catholic. I can think of one Catholic family, father a local medic, one son and three daughters. Middle daughter started going out with her husband when she was 20, married him and had no other sexual partners. Eldest daughter lost her virginity to a bloke she was going out with at 20, and was unfaithful to him (confessed her infidelity to him) on 5 occassions before he kicked her to the kerb. Youngest daughter started having sex at 17, while still (in US Terms) a senior in High School. Son was like a satyr. Oh, and uncle was a priest. Another really good looking catholic lass I went out with, in the days when there were women you had sex with and women you took home to your parents, dropped me when I did not push hard enough to help her out of her knickers. Another catholic girl had had 11 of the 15 lads in our group by the time she was 18. All of these good catholic girls went to mass regularly each week. In my home town at the time, late 60’s early 70’s, catholic girls were seen as easier than the others.

    One of the problems was their view that all they had to do after anything like this was to go to confession and everything would be all right. Cheap grace and theologically unsound.

    Fast forward some 5 years and I do not think there was a religious difference, certainly not in England where I now lived. At university, the accepted statistic was that 20% of girls went up with sexual experience and 20% came down as virgins.

    At church, after I had graduated, there was a woman who was interested in me. I did (and still do) believe that sex outside marriage was wrong, but two things put me off her. I was out on a date with her and when she went to the little girls room, one of my friends advised me that prior to her first marriage she had been a barmaid at a local pub where, as he put it, “Whoever took her home got lucky that night.” The other was that later on that same date, she made it clear to me that she knew what she had and she knew how to use it and that, if we shared it, she assured me I would not be dissatisfied. I have worked on the principle that if they will do it for you, they will do the same behind your back.

    The problem with cheap grace is that one cannot be certain how sincere the repentance is. Only God and the person repenting know that for sure. Marriage is a risk and in any risky venture it is prudent to manage the risk using the factors that can be managed, which in this case is choice of spouse.

    I mentioned in another thread, but probably Mr DC has not seen it, that the probability of a marriage ending in a divorce rises with the number of sexual partners that the woman has had. This is another argument for looking for a virgin to marry.

  63. slwerner says:

    van Rooinek – “Saying, “don’t marry women like that” is too simplistic an answer”

    But, it is a “safe answer”.

    An alternative (perhaps the only real alternative) would be for the church to begin to hold women and girls accountable for their bad behaviors as well as properly correcting them for their immoral behaviors.

    Christian Girls and women desperately need to be told that they generally treat men rather poorly, and that their sins are, in fact sins that cause damage to both body and spirit.

    But, I suppose that would be too mean a thing to do to the “fairer sex”. Better to just put all the onus onto the men and boys, because it’s acceptable to blame and berate those of the male gender.

  64. van Rooinek says:

    PS. DarwinCatholic… I should offer this concession: It’s clear you mean well. But with that, I must say, it’s also clear you don’t really know what’s really going on out there.

  65. van Rooinek says:

    An alternative (perhaps the only real alternative) would be for the church to begin to hold women and girls accountable for their bad behaviors as well as properly correcting them for their immoral behaviors.

    Christian Girls and women desperately need to be told that they generally treat men rather poorly, and that their sins are, in fact sins that cause damage to both body and spirit.

    This is indeed the correct solution. But don’t hold your breath. There is a pervasive attitude that characteristically “female” failings are somehow not as bad as characteristicaly “male” failings. Pretty much all “Christian” relationship advice I’ve seen, operates on the unspoken, unexamined, and not very transparent assumption that all relationship problems are the fault of the man. Which anybody with a modicum of real world experience knows to be false.

  66. CL says:

    @DarwinCatholic

    ”Like I said, it reads to me that Dalrock to an extent, and even more so many of the commenters, hate and disrespect women in general and embrace a gender war dynamic.”

    As a woman, I do not get this feeling in the manosphere. These men are straight shooters and tell the ugly blunt truth. When I treat them with respect, they treat me with respect, and I have learned much from them and it has helped me to become a better woman.

    These guys do not hate women although they will attack fallacies, follies and rationalizations and call out any woman spouting BS or shaming men for problems created by women. White knights and manginas who defend women’s bad choices and bad behaviour are also fair game.

    Negating the truth does no one any favours. Allowing people to persist in their delusions is not an act of kindness. Sometimes the kindest thing to do is to give someone a slap across the face where all attempts at reason have failed.

  67. Kel says:

    slwerner,

    It’s not enough for the Church to hold women and girls accountable. The Church must stand in opposition to the culture today, in a way that is radically different. The Church has to become an enemy of today’s mainstream culture. The Bible says:

    “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household…. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?…. If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.

    This isn’t rocket science. But instead of standing against mainstream culture, mainsteam feminism, the Church has enabled it and accepted it and promoted it. This cannot stand any longer.

    DarwinCatholic’s only solution is to associate with like-minded people, hoping to keep the culture at bay, perhaps not even realizing how bad it is.

    The solution, from my point of view, is simply to not marry women like that and move on. Why spend all one’s time winding oneself up about women in general? After all, we each only need one. … my concerns primarily center around raising my five kids in a sub-culture in which my daughters will be respected and taken care of by the guys they marry

    Because women in general are corrupting your daughters every second of their lives, because women in general are persecuting and lying to men, causing countless pain and suffering. Because women in general are being lied to by other women. Because these lies have made Western Civilization an unsustainable project that wil collapse as men withdraw from it in increasing numbers. Because your sub-culture is under attack and won’t survive your pathetic attempts to isolate it.

    And moreso, because you have a duty to bring the sword. You seem to have willingly blinded yourself to the Present Time, in an attempt to ignore how bad things are, and how much is outside of your control.

    That would be fine, if you were merely silent. But you are an enabler of the culture because you’re advising men to Man Up, be Mr. Nice Guy. You are sending them to be slaughtered. Don’t think you won’t be held accountable.

  68. deti says:

    You know, the more I read of Darwin Catholic, Brendan’s explanation seems to make it.

    DC is an extremely conservative Catholic, part of a tiny subset of Catholics and even outside mainstream North American Catholicism. He is part of an enclave inside a community inside a denomination. He is not mainstream at all, and extremely countercultural. He is not representative of Christianity or Christian men or Roman Catholics or even orthodox Catholicism.

    The strategies he suggests will work for young people only if they attend FUS or institutions like it and only if they completely immerse themselves in that tiny subculture.

    I’m not saying this is bad. I’m just saying it’s completely unworkable unless you’re part of that tiny subculture — and most aren’t. So his strategies just aren’t going to work for most people.

  69. philadelphialawyer says:

    “You need to accept the reality that women are wired differently from men because God had a purpose in that, but that purpose has been corrupted by society and by others.”

    It amazes me how people can go on and on like this, rather than face the obvious. “God” did not “wire” women, evolution did. The traits which everyone here admits are attractive to women, were useful ones for men to have in the evolutionary environment. Being masculine instead of sexually ambiguous, tall instead of short, confident instead of timid or shy, charismatic instead of introverted, etc, etc, etc. All of these are traits that showed hereditary fitness in the evolutionary environment. The also showed that the male in question would probably have more resources to share with his mate and their offspring than if he had the undesired traits.

    Similarly, what men find attractive in women, physical traits, mostly, which boil down to indicators of youth (short nose, big eyes, shiny hair, firm T and A, etc) are the direct result of that same evolutionary environment. Youth in women means that they are in, or approaching, their prime years of fertility. That’s why men evolved to judge them on that basis (ie physical beauty, which means youth or the appearance of youth), not “personality” or accomplishments or anything else. God played no part in it.

    Men and women were “wired,” or “hardwired” or whatever term you wish to use, by evolution. “God” had nothing to do with it, unless you want to resort to a “First Cause” type of God who set everything up, including evolution, and then sat back and let it all play out. In which case it all amounts to the same thing (ie “God” = nature), and no specifically Judeo Christian God is necessary.

    All of that is not to say, one way or the other, that the Judeo Christian views about marriage, monogamy, and sex in general are good or bad. Nor about how civilization (until recently) worked to check the desires of both sexes, and channeled their evolutionary preferences into monogamous marriages with partners that, for most folks, fall short of the evolutionary ideal.

    But, please, stop talking about how God made women such and such a way, but that way has now been “corrupted” and so on and so forth. Evolution made women what they are, and civilization hasn’t been around long enough to undo that. Women still value in a man what they valued back on the Serengeti plain. Similarly, men haven’t changed either. No one has changed, much less been “corrupted.”

    Indeed, that is the source of the problem. Because neither gender, in its lusts, in its primal urges free from both conventional morality and PC niceties, actually value those traits that would make a good mate in today’s world. With men, it’s easy to see. They value physical beauty way too much. Sure, fertility might matter, but we are smart enough now to know that a young woman is fertile whether she looks the part or not. And, pretty or not, marriage to a bitch sucks while marriage to a non bitch might just not. With women, it’s a little more subtle. Some of the things they value, like success, actually make sense, but their preference for the brutal over the cerebral, and the like, does not.

    Not that different, really, from our appetites for food. In the evolutionary environment, sweet foods were rare, but they contain energy and vitamins (as in ripe fruit). So, when they are availiable, it was a good thing to eat as much of them as you could. But now that sweet foods are always available and no further away than your cabinet or refrigerator, that trait (desiring sweet foods, eating as much of them as you can when they around) is counterproductive. Our desires haven’t changed, or been “corrupted,” they are just no longer self optimating. And no deity has any real role in all of this….

  70. Kel says:

    deti,

    He’ll find his strategies won’t work at all even in his group, because the greater culture will not allow for it. Hypergamy, unless recognized and fought with Patriarchy, will win out in this broader culture. His children are under constant assault and temptation, and his refusal to bring the fight to the culture will mean he will eventually be defeated. What he should do is embrace the reality of female hypergamy, and the reality of mainstream Misandry, and work to overthrow the corrupting influence society has so that once Patriarchy is re-established, his girls can marry men who will take care of them. As it is right now, notwithstanding his claims, his sub-culture is highly influenced by the mainstream American culture (unless he has completely cut-off all relations to mainstream culture even more than the Amish have), and his girls are no better than any other damaged, radioactive American girl.

    Worse, he is not merely advocating a defense within a sub-culture. He is telling blind men to step forth and Man Up and Be Mr. Nice Guy. That is dangerous stuff coming from a person as myopic and deluded as he.

  71. greyghost says:

    DarwinCatholic
    Study game, Read and understand these men here and all over the manosphere. Study the laws of misandry. incorporate what you learn into your church and and you will have the most powerful church in the western world, have faith in it. You coming here and speaking will be a turning point in your life and your church. And you are different because you are here. This is where the rubber meets the road, let yourself be pleasing to god and with faith as your foundation don’t concern yourself with being pleasing to man.

  72. deti says:

    Kel:

    Yes, hypergamy exists, but it can be contained and controlled. I still maintain that most of the problems we have today are a direct result of completely uncontrolled hypergamy.

    A patriarchy with strong fathers and men at the helm knew that to keep all this from exploding as it has, you control the young women, not the young men. You control access to the supply — who can get the supply, when and under what circumstances. You keep hypergamous girls in check. By doing so you choke off the supply of premarital sex. You cannot do this by controlling demand.

    We’ve learned that controls on demand usually don’t work. If it is strong enough, demand finds ways to satisfy itself regardless of legal or other controls. Under a patriarchy, a man’s sex drive is satisfied through assortative mating and early marriage. In the old USSR a black market sprang up to satisfy consumer demand.

    And yes, Darwin is in deep denial about the broader culture, the laws, and the operation of the mainstream Christian church in America, and what is really going on.

  73. Ballista_GTOW says:

    @DarwinCatholic
    Sure, there are a lot of badly behaved women in the world. The solution, from my point of view, is simply to not marry women like that and move on. Why spend all one’s time winding oneself up about women in general? After all, we each only need one.

    This really shows the issue. DarwinCatholic and so many like them really are so sheltered that they have no understanding of reality. People are reacting to you as they are because you are exhibiting this. Personally, I’ve concluded that I’d rather have Jesus and live towards discipleship towards Him than have a contentious and quarrelsome wife and the consequences of the unjust and corrupt power that the government gives women in this day and age. Then, couple the reality that American culture represents as it is and the thoroughly misandric laws.

    As a result, given the dangers of crossing a woman that is like that, it becomes a very safe position to conclude that ALL women are like that. This is especially true that all the churches have rendered marriage (what is God’s) over to Caesar and has honored what he has done. Marriage as it is today is NOT what God has set out. Even if I were to find a woman that isn’t LIKE that, Caesar has rendered it a dangerous proposition to even consider it, especially since you can not go against his terms in enacting the marriage, pre-nuptual agreement or not. And I and many men that make up the manosphere have demonstratively seen time and time again the destruction that partaking in Caesar’s marriage (termed “Marriage 2.0” in the manosphere) has wrought. Sure it could possibly not happen if I were to partake. But I choose to use wisdom and discernment, observe what is going on around me, and decide that it’s a snare not worth stepping in.

    I know in the feminist and white-knight parlance (that’s you in this thread, too) that criticizing women in any way (or to use church-speak “calling women out in their sin”) is misogyny. You express that in saying that so many “hate and disrespect women in general and embrace a gender war dynamic”. Until I hear different, this is a definite assumption that I am making which does hold water. You evidently see all women as sinless if you are to hold this position.

    In this way, you are as clueless as the Glenn Stantons and Mark Driscolls of this world. Your lack of knowledge (ignorance) of what is going on in the culture today is boundless. If you were aware of the current state of the culture and spoke to it from the perspective of Scripture, you would sound a whole lot like Dalrock or Roissy and not those named above.

    @Dalrock

    It is true that I am pro marriage, but I don’t deny the risks in our current legal/cultural/religious environment. I also don’t advise men to go on a “marriage strike” in an effort to fix the system. If you feel like you have an opportunity to marry a woman who is still suitable for marriage in our current climate, I would advise that you do so. No need to spite yourself just to teach the culture a lesson. However, I do advise men to be extremely careful in making this decision, and not getting married unless they have found a woman with the ability within herself to keep her commitment despite the law, culture, and church cheering her on to divorce.

    Now this brings me to why I come to this site and have recently chosen to delurk (post #3). I have a great interest in studying how the churches have gone astray from what the Lord has intended, have written much on this in other places, and am praying on starting my own blog to bring up these issues. To that end, Dalrock is one of the few that dares speak on this problem within the churches, and speaks to it with authority. But in this sense, what is quoted is probably my only disagreement with him. I can testify that he understands the risks of Caesar’s Marriage, yet perhaps he does not understand the gravity of those risks.

    I do not know if he understands the reasons behind what is quoted by the majority of men involved, or has researched why men “marriage strike”. Maybe in a way, Dalrock is as sheltered as DarwinCatholic is in this regard. But I can only speak to myself. My position constitutes having gone on a “marriage strike”, but it is not an effort to fix the system. It’s a recognition of how failed the system is and a reflection of the wisdom that playing a near unwinnable game is unwise. The only wise move in such a game is not to play. Lastly, this is also a recognition that there is no way to verify that a woman has the ability within herself to keep her commitment. All it takes is one lapse in that commitment to the guy that brings her excitement and something new, and the whole marriage goes out the window. This is especially true since the legal/cultural/religious environment is there to egg her on with wonderful cash and prizes for her at the end of the road.

    It would be nice to have a marriage as God has defined it (a covenant relationship), but that has gone out the window a long time ago. I recognize that, and I also recognize that those who should be speaking for God’s interests are either blind to this or cheering it on. While I would love a huge push for reform in this matter in the churches and into society, I’m not holding my breath.

  74. deti says:

    TFH:

    And if it turns violent, part and parcel of it will be women demanding that men with guns take food, money, shelter, clothes and other resources from other men, so as to keep women and children fed (with apologies to the esteemed Anonymous Reader. The good AR’s quip has really resonated with me).

    The National Guard will be called in to keep the peace and it will be unable to do so.

    The full time military will be called upon to turn weapons against its own people. Martial law and curfews will likely be imposed.

    How depressing even to contemplate.

  75. Brent says:

    @CL

    “These men are straight shooters and tell the ugly blunt truth.”

    This is a masculine trait that, upon a time, was regarded as a virtue. But with the feminization of both society and the church, it is discouraged now because it might hurt someone’s wittle bitty feeeeewings. Jesus was of course such an incredibly blunt straight-shooter that the religious authorities of His day couldn’t stand Him. Jesus was very “not nice.” But Churchianity has become a religion of limp wristed sissies.

    Or, as one famous Danish Christian philosopher once observed:

    “Act just once in such a manner that your action expresses that you fear God alone and man not at all…you will immediately in some measure cause a scandal”

    Or, as another anonymous person once observed, “If your taking flak, you’re over the target.”

  76. Dalrock says:

    @Ballista_GTOW

    I do not know if he understands the reasons behind what is quoted by the majority of men involved, or has researched why men “marriage strike”. Maybe in a way, Dalrock is as sheltered as DarwinCatholic is in this regard.

    Perhaps. Have you read this post?

    But I can only speak to myself. My position constitutes having gone on a “marriage strike”, but it is not an effort to fix the system. It’s a recognition of how failed the system is and a reflection of the wisdom that playing a near unwinnable game is unwise. The only wise move in such a game is not to play.

    This is the distinction I was trying to make, and it goes back to a discussion I had with Zed some time ago. Zed referred to me as a “strike breaker” because I’m married. I don’t see it like that. Men need to be given the truth and then be allowed to make their own decision based on a full understanding of the risks and rewards. One who decides to take the risk isn’t breaking a strike. Likewise if you decide to not marry it will be because you feel that it isn’t worth the risk. This is different than refusing to marry to teach society a lesson, and ultimately more likely to teach the lesson itself. One way is a glorified temper tantrum, the other is based on an honest assessment of the choices available to you (which could lead you to marry or not marry).

  77. Brent says:

    @TFH

    “And DarwinCatholic,

    Will you advise your sons to get pre-nuptial agreements?

    Will you advise your daughters to be good women and offer to sign one even if their fiance does not bring the topic up?”

    Catholic canon law forbids prenuptial agreements. Another reason I am thankful to be a Protestant.

  78. Kel says:

    philadelphialawyer,

    Don’t let my use of the idea that God made women hypergamous distract you. Hypergamy exists as a fact of female nature. Since Christians believe God made man, whether through evolution or not, Christians have to accept the reality of female hypergamy. As such, since it exists, it must have a purpose (either a pure God-given purpose or an evolutionary purpose that could or could not be directed by God). Just like Men have a polygamous nature, which exists and has a purpose. There is nothing immoral about the mere fact of a biological imperative that is unique to each sex, anymore than hunger or thirst would be immoral. Christians believe that where those strategies are best met is in the sacrament of holy matrimony. The immorality arises when society prizes one biological imperative over the other. It’d be like prizing the need to address hunger in women alone, at the expense of men, by creating an industry designed to allow women to indulge their appetite and overeat themselves into 500 pound obese behemoths (which, actually, has happened). To take the analogy further, society has put every incentive out there to get women to over-eat, and then has told men that it’s unfair if they also feel hungry because men are given a crumb every day, and that if they ever try to take any food from women the man would be executed on the spot. That’s how society has distorted perfectly natural biological imperatives.

    I would be a hypocrite if I said hypergamy was per-se evil, because as a man I’m naturally attracted to beautiful women and I’m not beating myself up about that. But I am socially tempered, in many ways, from acting on those attractions. Women are not tempered today, they’re encouraged. It has caused massive, massive problems in society that eventually will cause Western Civilization to collapse. But that’s a topic for another day.

  79. Joe Sheehy says:

    “Catholic canon law forbids prenuptial agreements.”

    Today, canon lawyers today are mostly known for finding ways to pretend that marriages didn’t exist. As far as Catholic traditionalists are concerned, the system is a joke. The rationale behind annulling marriages on the basis of pre-nuptial agreements doesn’t make sense to me, and the traditional laws were not crafted with this insane “marriage” system in mind. Catholic marriage used to mean divorce and remarriage was impossible. Now it means that marriage is virtually impossible, because in almost any case a pretext can be found to claim the marriage was invalid.

  80. sheera says:

    I’ve read both Darwin and Darlock. I think Darwin doesn’t understand why Darlock considers him to be of the man-up and marry those sluts variety. Darwin is basically saying if she’s really repented. But how can she repent if she hasn’t been shamed? Remember the story in Corinthians about the guy sleeping with his mother (or maybe step-mother) ? And the Corinthians didn’t throw him out of the church in a self-guided and self-righteous attempt to show love? well they had to throw him out to help him feel shame and actually repent, and then once he had done that they were to bring him back. Maybe that’s the big problem with these churches. I know in my church if I was fornicating and the ministry found out about it I would be hurled on the street like a sack of rotten tomatoes. Even if I was very “repentant” The ministry would throw the male party out too, there would be no sermon encouraging him to marry me.
    Also I think white knights are a much bigger problem then feminists, because in all facts men still control every major institution in society.

  81. Suz says:

    I’m here TFH, as is CL! I haven’t been commenting because my WolfAlpha is home for a few days!!! (He’s asleep now, after 24 hours on his feet.) Also, I’m sitting here in awe of these comments. The eloquence here today is off the charts! I’m with CL, I love the brutal honesty in the manosphere. Most men used to be so direct, but that trait (like so many others) has been beaten out of them by feminism. It is so refreshing to come here and find men behaving like men, the good, the bad and the ugly.

    Deti, I started to copy/paste this:
    ” What parents and civic authorities should have been doing for boys is to teach them how to be more likable men, more independent, less supplicating, less approval-seeking and more physically active; teach them to develop interests of their own, and teach them that their purpose is to make a way in the world through a calling, a job, a vocation; and not necessarily as a husband to a wife or a father to children.”
    – but it’s not enough. The entire comment is going into my ‘keepers’ file, and I’m sending it to Lance Criminal. This was my goal in raising him, even though I didn’t realize it (since nobody I know EVER said such things out loud.) He’s still young and a fairly independent thinker, thanks primarily to his father; I hope he gets the message. I’ve been sending him articles and a couple of books, and I hope hes’ sharing them with his fellow Marines.

  82. imnobody says:

    Of course, given the tone of your comment, I can’t help wondering if maybe part of the problem was simply that girls didn’t like you. Just a possibility.

    Shaming language alert. I quote from the catalog (http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/)

    Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) – The Ugly Tan Charge

    Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned. Examples:

    “I bet you are fat and ugly.”
    “You can’t get laid!”
    “Creep!”
    “Loser!”
    “Have you thought about the problem being you?”

    Response: This is another example of “circumstantial ad hominem.” The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.

    They think they’re brilliant and snarky. They are only boring and unoriginal. The same tactic repeated one million times by different women. Yawn.

  83. philadlephialawyer says:

    Kel:

    “Don’t let my use of the idea that God made women hypergamous distract you. Hypergamy exists as a fact of female nature. Since Christians believe God made man, whether through evolution or not, Christians have to accept the reality of female hypergamy. As such, since it exists, it must have a purpose (either a pure God-given purpose or an evolutionary purpose that could or could not be directed by God). Just like Men have a polygamous nature, which exists and has a purpose.”

    Yes, both female and male natures exist. But their purpose, obviously, was determined by evolution. If you want to equate attribute to evolution to a deity, that’s fine. But it really makes little sense for you to claim, on the one hand, that your particular Judeo Christian God wants men and women to marry and be monogamous, but, on the other hand, that same deity endowed men and women with “natures” that make that difficult. What possible “purpose” can there be in giving beings that you create a “nature” that is odds with what you want them to do? Hypergamious and polygamous natures are at odds with monogamous marriage.

    “There is nothing immoral about the mere fact of a biological imperative that is unique to each sex, anymore than hunger or thirst would be immoral.”

    Agreed. Nature is ammoral.

    “Christians believe that where those strategies are best met is in the sacrament of holy matrimony.”

    No, Christians (and really, many other religions and societies too) believe that something better than what the biological imperatives point to is achievable through marriage. Those imperatives, and the evolutionary strategies they serve, are at odds with monogamous marriage. The strategy of hypergamy is best met by women being free to take up the best male currently on offer, regardless of prior mating with (or committment to) another male. The strategy of polygamy is best served by men being free to mate with as many females as possible (or, at a minimum, with as many as they can afford to support the offspring of), regadless of previous mating with (or committment to) another female. Marriage thwarts both strategies and the biological imperatives behind them. And that is by design (whether you think the design, or the entire insitution of marriage, is ordained by God or not).

    Matriarchy is based on women being free to follow their natures, and, to some extent, it also allows men to follow their natures too (women mate with the best man on offer, and, since there is no monogamy, men often end up mating with more than one woman).Patriarchy in general is based on women not being able to follow their natures. Monogamous patriarchy is based on both genders foregoing following their natures. I think history has shown pretty conclusively that matriarchy, to the extent it even exists, leads nowhere. And that, in the long run, monogamous patriarchy is preferrable to polygamous patriarchy. But this is precisely because it thwarts the natural urges (as all rules of civilization do, to some extent), and channels them into something that benefits the overall society more over time. As a dollop on top of those clearly utilitarian and social benefits, various religions also claim that there is a spiritual benefit to the monogamous marriage regime. Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn’t (certainly, some folks seem to value their long term partnerships and experience ever more profound love for their partners, on the other hand, plenty of folks, men and women both, seem to chafe under the condition of monogamous marriage, and their spirts don’t seem much uplifted by it). But the utilitarian, societal benefits of marriage are there without the religous additive.

    “The immorality arises when society prizes one biological imperative over the other. It’d be like prizing the need to address hunger in women alone, at the expense of men, by creating an industry designed to allow women to indulge their appetite and overeat themselves into 500 pound obese behemoths (which, actually, has happened). To take the analogy further, society has put every incentive out there to get women to over-eat, and then has told men that it’s unfair if they also feel hungry because men are given a crumb every day, and that if they ever try to take any food from women the man would be executed on the spot. That’s how society has distorted perfectly natural biological imperatives.”

    Yes, of course, the “immorality,” or, as I would call it, the unfairness, develops because one gender is expected to live up to the notion of monogamous marriage, while the other is not. One gender must forego its natural instincts, but not the other. And, beyond the notion of what is right or wrong, it is also a disaster for society, because it is clear that both genders must do so to make a civilization flourish.

    “I would be a hypocrite if I said hypergamy was per-se evil, because as a man I’m naturally attracted to beautiful women and I’m not beating myself up about that. But I am socially tempered, in many ways, from acting on those attractions. Women are not tempered today, they’re encouraged. It has caused massive, massive problems in society that eventually will cause Western Civilization to collapse.”

    Exactly right. Men are not evil for desiring polygamy and women are not evil for desiring hypergamy. Both are natural instincts. But to make society work, both men and women have to temper those instincts.

    “But that’s a topic for another day.”

    I would say it is today’s topic. Men are opting out of marriage. In the long run, if this continues, society will collapse. And you have eloquently stated why they are opting out. Even in the context of supposedly “traditional” Christians, who have that extra reason I mentioned above to follow the rules of monogamous marriage, women simply refuse to play by those rules. Once women refuse to play by the rules, men refuse also. If women are going to engage in hypergamy, than monogamous marriage is over, in which case an individual man really has no choice but to try to engage in polygamy.

  84. lgrobins says:

    TFH,
    I like the old quote you posted from W.F. Price. With the manosphere in general and PUAs, what you see is what you get and I value that greatly. No pretenses and I know exactly what I am dealing with. If a comment thread is too nasty, I generally don’t engage as I can clearly see what I am getting into. Not so with some Christian blogs/forums. There, you really don’t know what you get. They can be true Christians, the kind you would expect, or they can be wolves in sheep’s clothing. It takes a lot more discernment when dealing with a Christian as evidenced by a lot of Dalrock’s posts and his exposing of those like Shelia and Darwin..I have to say I respect more those in the manosphere than I do some Christians (as outrageous as that will sound to some).

  85. Speaking of the Amish, I was raised in a plain Anabaptist sect and can very much attest the presence of raging hypergamy in those cultures as well. It’s not the religion, it’s the women/girls. They have a sin nature, and everyone turns a blind eye to it because it is front and center in the discussion that must not be had. As a youth group leader for a group with mostly young ladies I was still in the blue pill fog and didn’t understand why they didn’t like the good boys but always managed to sniff out a thug at twice the distance I could. I didn’t figure it out until years later….

  86. Anonymous Reader says:

    I Art Laughing
    As a youth group leader for a group with mostly young ladies I was still in the blue pill fog and didn’t understand why they didn’t like the good boys but always managed to sniff out a thug at twice the distance I could.

    Given what has been discovered regarding pheremones in the last 10 – 15 years, some of them may well have been actually sniffing out the highest-T male in the area – not consciously, either.

  87. Brent says:

    Regarding all of this, and everything else on this blog, I recently shared some of this kind of thing with a group of committed Christians on another website, people I have come to know and trust personally over years as devoted to the Lord. I shared it, while pointing out my own experience as the former husband of an unfaithful wife. I noted there are tons of such Christian men, that I have talked to them, and that they’re pissed off (not my exact words there) that Christians somehow want to shame men for sexual immorality, but give women like my own former wife a pass.

    Almost immediately, the response from one woman was the typical “BUT MEN DO IT TOO!” As if 1) that makes it justifiable when women do it, and 2) that addresses the problem I was raising, which isn’t that women sin more than men or vice versa, but that, while the church loves to talk about and condemn male sexual immorality, the church is silent when women cheat on husbands (and not to mention, when it does act, it often responds by shaming the victim husband).

    And people wonder why men like myself get so pissed.

  88. “I also suspect that despite the best efforts, when the Misandry Bubble does pop, it will be incredibly violent and bloody. Those White Knights aren’t called Knights for nothing…”

    I suspect that given that environment that “white knights” aren’t going to be so white. The “beta” dynamics change when there is open conflict I suspect. The targets of hypergamy will change and it will turn the SMP on its head. I think the most positive outcome from this is that there will be a massive reset where reality re-assumes it iron fist over this Oprah-fied country. Middle-aged white collared feminists are scarcely going to be worth saving when things get hard enough, why feed and protect them?

    I’m thinking a good example of this happened during the “Alaska Experiment, Out of the Wild” when the women sat and fed the fire with wood gathered by men and insisted on equally splitting the food gathered by men while the men packed all the weight. Take away the “panic button” and you would have had a different scenario altogether (the men that got burned up “white-knighting” would have figured it out and forced the women to pull their share or quit.)

  89. @ Anonymous Reader

    “Given what has been discovered regarding pheremones in the last 10 – 15 years, some of them may well have been actually sniffing out the highest-T male in the area – not consciously, either.”

    The problem for me was that I was often that person. (Especially after sending a thug packing). I had good covering from my wife and let my pastor know whenever a sweet young innocent girl would make a play for me…….man I was blind.

  90. Kel says:

    I Art Laughing,

    Thanks for the insight. That proves the point entirely. It’s not the sub-culture, it’s the women. It’s part of their DNA. They can’t help themselves.

    Hypergamy can only be managed with patriarchy. If a sub-culture or even the broader culture isn’t explicitly and proudly and defiantly patriarchal, then hyergamy will destroy it.

  91. Brent says:

    The concept of “white knighting” is quite interesting in itself. The modern white knight is nothing like the actual chivalric concept from whence we get the term. In a society that is built properly, men are providers and protectors. The White Knight of chilvary developed from this, but he bears little resemblance to today’s Dr Darwn. For instance, he was a real warrior who dealt death to his feudal lord’s enemies. As such, he was much more masculine than your typical modern white knight.

    Second, where he saved a woman from peril in order to win her hand, he didn’t do it to impress her. Marriages were arranged. He did it to impress her father, who would then give her hand to him.

    Third, he protected the virtue and reputation of his feudal lord’s lady and daughters, but not because he falsely thought she was just so perfect and faultless and these guys are just being such big mean bullies and hurting her wittle feewings. Nor because he thought doing so would get other women to like him. If he was true to form, he wouldn’t care about the opinions of women, and would be quite clear about that. He did it in order to protect the honor and glory of his feudal lord, and by extension, himself as that lord’s sworn man.

  92. @Kel

    “Hypergamy can only be managed with patriarchy. If a sub-culture or even the broader culture isn’t explicitly and proudly and defiantly patriarchal, then hyergamy will destroy it.”

    That patriarchy still exists in principle in those sects but the cultural disconnect has become so great as to paint any properly caring man as a raging misogynist who is mocked secretly even in insular sects. The feminism runs so deep in this culture and the sirens song of hypergamy so strong that it is becoming impossible to be in the world but not OF the world. I think that alone is a reason why we should expect to see God’s judgment and correction very soon.

  93. lavazza1891 says:

    “Because women in general are corrupting your daughters every second of their lives, because women in general are persecuting and lying to men, causing countless pain and suffering. Because women in general are being lied to by other women. Because these lies have made Western Civilization an unsustainable project that wil collapse as men withdraw from it in increasing numbers. Because your sub-culture is under attack and won’t survive your pathetic attempts to isolate it.”

    Great stuff!

  94. Pingback: Righteousness and education | Dark Brightness

  95. Anonymous says:

    Off-topic, but here’s something the sexual marketplace (SMP) has made obsolete:

    “Love Letter Lost for 60 Years Finally Recovered,” by Eric Pfieffer, Yahoo! News, 2 Apr 2012
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/love-letter-finally-delivered-60-years-first-written-165305864.html

    He proposed in it, made up for it not getting through and they’re still married today. Relationship wouldn’t have survived the non-delivery today.

  96. Suz says:

    “TFH:
    Remember, the single most powerful thing you can do is to *tell other men what you know*, as you have been doing. If they get it, encourage them; if they become manginas, shame them. But that is the single most powerful thing you can do. It is not as effective if a man talks about misandry (it should not be that way, but it is).”

    Thanks for boosting my resolve. Sometimes I feel like I’m nagging my son by bombarding him with this material, and the internet is sporadic over in The Stan so I don’t get a good read on his thoughts. “But it’s so important!” makes me feel like a domineering shrew. I’d like to get WolfAlpha on board, but he’s pressed for time, and I’m not sure he sees the depth of the problems our boy is facing – he doesn’t deal directly with many women of any age…

  97. The moral godless says:

    Darwin is a young man. He and I seem to be about the same age. There is still PLENTY of time for him to experience the hypergamous, amoral female first hand. I hope this does not happen. But if it does he should know that I will never accuse him of not being worthy of a woman.

  98. Opus says:

    I confess that I have been greatly entertained and amused by ‘in the Red Corner Protestant Dalrock, and in the Blue Corner Catholic Darwin’, though, being a devout Pagan, it is not, I feel, a debate that I feel qualified to comment on, even as it reveals so clearly the unbridgeable fissure between Catholics and Protestants, – so much for ecumenicalism – but I am puzzled by one thing: Catholic Darwin, according to Protestant Dalrock thinks that those men should man-up and marry those sluts, although Catholic Darwin in the linked article claims to have been misinterpreted as to this and explains why. Catholic Darwin and Protestant Dalrock both married pure girls and are happily married with children. Would Catholic Darwin (unlike Protestant Dalrock), had he not met a pure girl at eighteen, married (after suitable penance in accordance with the rules of his church) a reformed slut? – or would he, in practise have balked at that. Character seems to be heritable and consistent, and with the possible exception of a Pauline type moment of religious enlightenment – one cannot even with all the positive-thinking or self-help books in the world, change it. Is this, in other words, a case of do what I say, not do what I do? I guess we can never know.

    I made it clear (perhaps to my own surprise) on the previous thread that – like Prime Minister Gladstone – I was a Slut-saver, so I probably would have taken Catholic Darwin’s advice (but without the Sacrement or Priestly involvement). I am put in mind of Lara in Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago, but then that Julie Christie was cute.

  99. Paul says:

    I wonder if sometimes the ignorance generally displayed by white knighting guys who have married well (good on them, I hope to be doing the same) isn’t really purposeful, a form of denial as psychological defense. Let us take the current subject at hand, Mr. Darwin, as an example. I went to a Catholic college, my friends were traditional, some Opus Dei, I have some idea where he’s coming from.

    The facts about marriage 2.0 are pretty much self-evident and self-explanatory, you really have to choose to not get them. However, think of the consequences to someone such as Mr. Darwin of accepting them. Specifically, every married man in the U.S. and the West pretty much is entirely at the mercy of his wife, who has the entire legal and political establishment behind her. Period. Full stop. That’s quite the Sword of Damocles hanging over your head, and as we’ve all seen from personal example and in the overall statistics, there is no proof against that, not religion, not social class, nothing. Unhappiness sets in and you’re done like dinner, and you can’t do a darn thing about it.

    Now this is bad enough for any guy, but imagine the fellow like Mr. Darwin, who is not only Catholic, but he means it, takes it seriously. On the one hand, to follow his religious teachings is very counter-cultural (i.e. to lead, be head of the house, etc.) and can get you arrested on a whim of Mrs. Darwin (not that I’m casting aspersions on her character, just saying that it is a simple fact that one phone call from her destroys his carefully constructed and sheltered world). Equally, should she end the marriage frivolously (which could happen at will, for any or no reason), there are obviously very troubling implications for him theologically, which should she leave obviously wouldn’t be bothering her anywhere near as much. Or, to sum up, he has a lot further to fall and is in for a much rougher landing should that come to pass.

    Not only that, but he, called to be the leader, patriarch, etc., by teaching, wouldn’t be able to. His Church, either his Church or the Church as an entity, can’t do anything about it. In fact the Catholic Church is if anything tacitly supporting her frivolous divorce, regardless of whatever his local Catholic community might think or do. And of course if Mrs. Darwin were to simply decide to leave their community as well as the marriage, anything his very traditional community might do becomes a moot point.

    As a result, many folks like our Mr. Darwin can’t accept much about the truth of the female nature, the realities of marriage 2.0, etc., not for theological reasons but for eminently practical ones, namely that’s gotta be some incredibly scary sht to even contemplate, even if it remains at the abstract level and never actually happens. And the Mrs. doubtless knows it, and it’s gotta be one heckuva temptation for her to resist not factoring her unbridled power into the equation, she is only human.

    As I mentioned, I am looking to marry, to a non North American, and obviously I am only contemplating doing so because in addition to the touchy-feely part of the relationship she is solid enough from the commitment, etc., point of view. Plus we’re both 40 and not having any kids together, which infinitely reduces the risk. But I am also not putting the blinkers on to female nature, and so I fully understand and accept the risks inherent in marriage today. I am mindful of the Sword of Damocles, but I don’t fear it. This state of fear tends to engender beta behaviour and create the vicious cycle where increased betaness leads to increased unhappiness which increases the fear and the betaness leading to more unhappiness, etc., and I think leads to a lot of relationship failures. On the other hand, the self-awareness and lack of fear translates into confidence, which helps maintain a much more positive and healthy cycle.

    /rambling or I’ll never stop

  100. CL says:

    it reveals so clearly the unbridgeable fissure between Catholics and Protestants

    This is more a societal issue than a Catholic versus Protestant one. I am a newbie Catholic but I’m with Dalrock on these issues and there are as many Catholics who don’t get it as there are Protestants. Judging by what others have said, the U.S. Catholic Church is in pretty well as bad a state as the rest of Christianity, so no one is immune to these problems. Whatever doctrinal differences exist, the feminisation of the Christian religion is happening across the board aside from a few small sects, the survival of which is tenuous.

  101. TFH,

    There is nothing in the androsphere to support this, to even one-tenth the degree that you will see on any feminist site. So unless you condemnation of various feminist sites (who openly joke about castration, and ponder the benefits of exterminating 90% of men), you are, in fact, applying a different standard to men and women.

    Agreed. The couple times I’ve followed links to Feministe, for instance, I’ve found it to be an absolutely revolting place. In general, though, I just never go to feminist sites, because I very strongly object to just about everything about feminism. (And cause, as a guy, I’ve got limited interest.)

    Will you advise your sons to get pre-nuptial agreements?

    Absolutely not. A pre-nup is a plan for divorce, and as such it is actually an impediment to contracting a valid Catholic marriage. You can be annulled for having set one up.

    Dalrock,

    I trust you have the quotes handy to back that assertion up.

    That’s been my overwhelming impression of your site and it’s readers ever since your first post I read, which was your sneering post linking to Elizabeth Duffy’s Patheos column. I don’t have an interest playing the “oh yeah, what did you mean by this quote game” since we’ve already seen that people can take quotes in incredibly weird ways. (This latest exchange was, after all, started when you read a post of mine and a comment of my wife’s and reached the totally non-following conclusion that we had no problem with women fornicating.)

    TFH,

    DarwinCatholic’s participation in this thread will drop exponentially as more anti-misandry females arrive (we are now up to three : CL, Suz, and lgrobins). The Darwins’ paradigm just cannot account for their existence.

    Actually, my participation in this thread will drop completely pretty shortly, because while this spat caught me at a moment of downtime after working my tail off for a couple weeks on a big project, I’ve got things picking up again and simply can’t spend this much time off in internet land going forward.

    It’s no surprise to me that some women accept really messed up gender dynamics, whether it’s feminism or the gender-war vision of marriage which seems to adhere around here. (Or a messed up, female version of game. Check out the book “Fascinating Womanhood” if you want to see that in all its weirdness.)

    In closing:

    I had two big reasons for responding to Dalrock’s post in detail:

    1) He seemed to be under the impression that my wife and I thought that fornication was okay for women, when in fact we both hold, as the Catholic Church does, that fornication is for anyone and everyone a mortal sin which merits damnation.

    2) Reading through the posts and comments here, I saw what appeared to me an angry and consistent rejection of Christian teaching, churches in general, conservative/traditional social morals, etc. I understand that this is in part a result of people having seen many Christians and many congregations not live up to the ideals that they claim to (or should claim to) profess. The failure of Christians to live up to their beliefs is invariably a scandal, and it is one of the most common reasons for people reject the faith. However, I firmly believe that truly embracing the fullness of Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality is the only solution to our society’s ills. That means rejecting fornication and adultery equally for women and for men. That means rejecting divorce utterly. It means rejecting pornography. It means rejecting contraception and the illusion that comes with it that sex can be consequence free. However angry people may be at the times they’ve seen professed Christians not living up to these ideals, if that leads to people rejecting those ideals, they’ll end up worse off, just like the sick person who refuses to go to the hospital or the drowning man who curses the life saver that’s thrown to him.

    That’s what I sought to cover in my post, and it’s what I think people will find far more able to improve their lives than just sitting around railing about how the women are all trying to get them down.

    All the best, guys.

    –Darwin

  102. @Darwin

    “Absolutely not. A pre-nup is a plan for divorce, and as such it is actually an impediment to contracting a valid Catholic marriage. You can be annulled for having set one up.”

    With the divorce laws that are in affect ANY marriage in this country is being established over a very active fault. The nation has a plan for divorce and it is giving the detonator to the wife. Naively screaming: “not there, not there, not there” doesn’t change the state of things, nor in my opinion does it represent a plan to STAY married. A pre-nup may actually be a plan to take incentives to divorce from the woman and REDUCE the likelihood of divorce.

    Do you have any thoughts on how to disinsensitive women from divorcing using the “no fault” system to steal the marital assets from the marriage? Something that might actually represent a penalty to a wife’s bad behavior should she become dissatisfied in a marriage? Any ideas for taking the detonator that society has handed them away?

  103. slwerner says:

    Having had some exchange with you, I believe that what you say it true…of you.

    But, your wifes own chosen words do not clearly indicate that what you claim also applies to her as well. It would be more convincing to see her state it as well. [just sayin’]

    And, even though I accept that you believe as you indicate, I still find it odd that you broadly reject the (quite parallel) experiences of some many other men, simply because you never noticed it in your own experience (which you admit was rather cloistered, and not representative of anything outside your limited sect).

    I’m actually rather disappointed that your approach has been to question the validity of other men’s more broad experiences, and then to suggest that if the churches they have known haven’t been up to par, that they should pack up and move to some place like your own community. Not only would doing so be highly impractical for most, but would you really want an influx of men seeking higher quality women into your community? (Oh wait, you probably don’t believe in female hypergamy, so none of you guys would be in any way have your own marriages threatened by having lots of single men lurking around looking for women…like your wives).

    But, to be more serious for a moment, it is also very disappointing that rather than take a serious look at what you are being told about the conditions of many (most) churches, and the more-or-less complete failure of so-called Christian leadership, especially regarding their abdication of what should be the duty to properly bring up young women (in the same manner they feel they need to rebuke, reproach, and retrain the young men), the need to will brave enough and will enough to call-out women on bad and immoral behaviors, and to take a stand against the current status quo of misandric (not to mention dishonestly named) Family Law, and the way so many “Christian” women gladly avail themselves of the female-centric provisions of such laws to destroy their marriages and their families for often the most frivolous of reasons; you seem to simply reject it out of hand.

    If I may be so bold as to provide my brief interpretation of the sum of your response:
    ”Don’t see it…I don’t know that it exists. And, even if it does, it’s not my nor my parishes problem. If you don’t like things where your at, move somewhere else. None of it’s my problem. Frankly my dear folks at Dalrock’s, I don’t give a damn!”

  104. deti says:

    @ Darwin:

    “I firmly believe that truly embracing the fullness of Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality is the only solution to our society’s ills. That means rejecting fornication and adultery equally for women and for men. That means rejecting divorce utterly. It means rejecting pornography. It means rejecting contraception and the illusion that comes with it that sex can be consequence free.”

    Due respect, Darwin: your entire worldview is based on your residence in an extremely conservative subset of a subset of a denomination. ALmost no one — even those in your own denomination — agree with you, or live their daily lives like you. Your own denomination claims a divorce rate of around 30% and that’s among “faithful” Catholics.

    I don’t agree with you that the posts and comments here all angrily and consistently reject Christian teachings, churches or traditional/conservative social mores. What we’ve concluded is that many in the tradcon sphere have an incomplete view of what’s really going on, or are in collusion with the overarching feminist egalitarian culture.

    I agree with much of what you’re saying here, but it is incomplete. It’s great and most beneficial to live according to Christian tenets. But you need culture and government to back it up. It’s not very helpful when you have an entire culture, legal framework, and even churches which fight you and seek to take you out at every turn.

    The culture assaults women daily with “you go grrl” and “you deserve better” and “you can do better than that schlub” and “never settle” and “men are idiots”. Hypergamy is completely unleashed and is chewing up men left and right.

    The divorce legal framework is designed to permit women to divorce, take the children, impoverish the ex husband, and destroy the family, permitting her an income stream, such that she keeps everything from the marriage other than the husband. She can divorce for any reason or no reason at all. The woman has all the rights; the man, none.

    Even the churches are in on it: Most of them turn a blind eye to women’s sluthood and frivolous divorce. The churches’ main view on sex appears to be “who cares what the women are doing, just so long as there are men ready to court, date and marry her when she’s ready to marry”. Men are shamed for their sexuality in church. Women are affirmed, validated and celebrated. If she’s divorced it must be because of some evil man. And the attitude of the church is that a good man must be ready to step up and marry her, regardless of her past, regardless of her partner count. Churches view all women as ENTITLED to husbands. These are clearly feminist viewpoints.

    All of these things have greatly increased the risk of marriage to men. And I don’t blame many of them for saying it’s too risky and simply rejecting it altogether as an option.

  105. Brendan says:

    Do you have any thoughts on how to disinsensitive women from divorcing using the “no fault” system to steal the marital assets from the marriage? Something that might actually represent a penalty to a wife’s bad behavior should she become dissatisfied in a marriage? Any ideas for taking the detonator that society has handed them away?

    Doubtful, because he’s handcuffed as a Catholic to a canon law system which provides that anything like that basically is an indicator that one had a faulty intention when entering into the marriage (and therefore the marriage may be annulled). I suspect that the “answer” he has is what he has stated above: follow “Catholic truth” and find someone else who does so as well, and do your best.

    As I note above, this isn’t really a solution for the masses, even the masses of most Catholics. It’s in many ways a regurgitation of the old “you’re just going after/marrying the wrong women” or “you just don’t have the right attitude” and so on. It’s not useful in the context of an overarching legal and social system which applies to you regardless of your religious beliefs, affiliations and other attitudes.

    And, in many ways, it’s a reflection of just how ultimately useless traditionalists are when it comes to these kinds of issues. They refuse to address things on a systemic level, generally, to any meaningful degree beyond wedge issues like abortion. They shame individual decision-making which constitutes a rational response to the realities of the current system, and instead make appeals to ideals, ideologies and beliefs that are all subject to the current system, no matter what they are, and so which can actually set one up for catastrophic failure. And the more of a personal bubble they live in, the worse their advice actually is.

  106. Brent says:

    @Darwin

    “A pre-nup is a plan for divorce, and as such it is actually an impediment to contracting a valid Catholic marriage.”

    This indicates a lack of understanding of pre-nups that is too common among Christians. A pre-nup, historically (they have thousands of years of history), was never designed as a “plan for divorce.” In patriarchal societies, in which they were common, they constituted the basis for a man’s requirement to provide for a woman’s basic necessities if he divorced her without cause. They disincentivized frivolous male-initiated divorce and thus helped to keep it more rare. The point of pre-nups was to decrease divorce, not to increase it. This is a common misconception.

    Nowadays, a judge will simply award a woman whatever sum the judge deems fair, even if it is much more than enough to cover her “basic necessities,” and even if the wife was the one responsible for the divorce. With pre-nups, the woman wouldn’t be entitled to any support if she was unfaithful. This is another way in which pre-nups were designed to strengthen, not weaken, the marriage. They dis-incentivized female infidelity. They disincentivized male infidelity by requiring him to pay her money in the case of his infidelity. This stood as a check on the sinful flesh.

    It is for this reason that within Orthodox Judaism, ever since the Babylonian captivity, the Jewish pre-nup, or Katubah, has been a requirement for Orthodox Jewish marriage.

    In today’s society, the tables are flipped. A woman can frivolously divorce a man, for no reason. And overwhelmingly most divorces are filed by women, and the large majority of the time male infidelity is not a reason given in surveys. Once she divorces her man, even if she is the one in the wrong, he may be forced by a judge, at the judge’s whim, to give her huge sums of money, even if she has the capability of providing comfortably for her own basic needs. If her income is a comfortable $50K, and his is $100K, he has to make up the difference under the asinine legal principle that “standard of living” shouldn’t change because of a divorce. This is absurd on its face.

    Add to this the tendency for courts to almost always award child custody to the woman, even if there is good evidence she might not be as good a parent as the man, and the tendency for courts to reflexively and unthinkingly give the woman the primary residence (thankfully, my ex-wife didn’t want mine, because it was too far from her work). You have a recipe for a woman’s sinful nature to be tempted to frivolously divorce a man just so she can get cash and prizes. As Dalrock has shown statistically in numerous posts, this is indeed what is going on in most of the Western world today.

    Conversely, if he cheats and she divorces him, she still gets the same cash and prizes. As a Catholic, though you don’t agree with divorce, certainly you must recognize that this is a complete denial of basic Biblical concepts of justice. It’s “head’s I win, tails you lose.” The results of high frivolous female divorce in our society are the fruits of a system that is an affront to justice.

    In the patriarchal ancient world, the tables were flipped, and consequently pre-nups were used to check male frivolous divorce. The tendency was still to give custody to the woman, intending this to stand as another check on male frivolous divorce. Today, the laws are crafted to actively encourage frivolous divorce on the part of the wife. Certainly, pre-nups offer a valid and just solution.

    Unless you, like most Christian men today, implicitly and subconsciously believe women are born without original sin.

  107. Brent says:

    @Brendan

    he’s handcuffed as a Catholic to a canon law system which provides that anything like that basically is an indicator that one had a faulty intention when entering into the marriage Even though the priesthood and heirarchy of his church has centuries of history, up to the present day, of willfully flouting its own laws on divorce/annullment in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings,” and all that.I’m glad most of the devout Catholics who regularly post here–unlike DrDarwin–do not have illusions about the alleged perfections of the Church of Rome.
    . “No one is righteous, no, not one,” as some ancient Jewish guy once wrote.

    [Dalrock, please delete the ill-formated duplicate post above if you would. Thanks].

  108. imnobody says:

    “Absolutely not. A pre-nup is a plan for divorce, and as such it is actually an impediment to contracting a valid Catholic marriage. You can be annulled for having set one up.”

    This m___ doesn’t realize that a Catholic marriage is unbreakable by any of the parts. There is no such thing anymore. Catholic marriage does not exist. What exists is a glorified form of cohabitation admitted by the Church.

    I am Catholic and, until I was 10 y.o, divorce was forbidden in my Catholic country. This was a Catholic marriage. You couldn’t break it even if you wanted. You were free to enter but not free to exit. “What God has united….” Now a Catholic can divorce at will, because the authority of his/her marriage does not belong to the Church or to God, it belongs to the State and the State can break it and enforce all kinds of laws that are against Catholic teaching and doctrine.

    Your Catholic wife can divorce you, get the kids, get the house and break your life in a whim. Then, if you want to protect yourself with a prenup, “you are setting a plan for divorce”.

    Now, if Catholics were SERIOUS about Catholic marriage, they would fight for a Catholic marriage. They would shame divorced men and women and they would get them out of the Church. They would fight for private contracts that cannot be broken by the State.

    They would honor their words saying that the solution is to return to the Catholic teaching (which I agree with).

    But no: they nitpick Catholic doctrine only to benefit women. Prenups? No way. Porn? The horror. Single moms in Church? We are all fallen, who are you to judge? They are only innocent victims of bad men.

  109. AsinusSpinasMasticans says:

    Lots of dickswinging talk here – but really, what are the options for men?

    1) DC’s solution – dive into a subculture that upholds patriarchy. Yeah. I already know one priest who had to leave the priesthood because his wife was unhaaaapy. It may work. It may not.

    2) Join Roissy at poolside. The drinks are ready. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Not an option for anyone with a soul. Enjoy your life. Keep the penicillin nearby.

    3) GYOW – No intimacy, ever. Kind of radical, but the number of men who did this in the first Christian centuries eventually brought Rome to heel. However, something tells me that the majority of MRAs would make piss-poor monks.

    4) PUA-lite “game-your-wifers” see #1 above. Maybe it’ll work, maybe it won’t. Depends on the level of pimp hand you were dealt on how hard it will be for you to maintain. It would be exhausting for me.

    5) Stormfront type shit. Badassery in the woods and the mountains. A wet dream for all but about 99.98% of men. Once they start rappelling out of the assault helicopters…

    6) Work within the system. That takes time and organization. An Emily’s List for men? I could see it. We would need to start electing people at the local level first, and would have a hell of an uphill battle against the DV state and the feminized media gestalt.

    The more I think about it, the more DC’s “solution” seems to be pretty feasible. Knotty, fussy, religion-level-dedicated face-time-sized communities will probably be the most likely to survive the coming shitstorm.

    Anybody have any other ideas?

  110. greenlander says:

    It’s telling how Mr. Darwin hasn’t given a single on-topic response to the issues raised here… The TradCons are all like this: they’re stuck in their paradigm of looking down at the “sinners”.

  111. dragnet says:

    Excellent posts and comments on this thread.

    @ Brendan

    “And, in many ways, it’s a reflection of just how ultimately useless traditionalists are when it comes to these kinds of issues. They refuse to address things on a systemic level, generally, to any meaningful degree beyond wedge issues like abortion. They shame individual decision-making which constitutes a rational response to the realities of the current system, and instead make appeals to ideals, ideologies and beliefs that are all subject to the current system, no matter what they are, and so which can actually set one up for catastrophic failure.”

    Nice summation of the tradcon half of the cultural & economic pincer movement destorying men.

    —————————————————————-

    I would also add that I think with many tradcons the problem in some ways boils down to a complete misunderstanding of absolute (or at least, disproportionate) power and its consequences. Women have nearly untrammeled power in the sexual marketplace during their 20s and we’ve given them the rough equivalent of an economic nuclear weapon in their marriages thereafter. With so much power at their disposal—and being sheltered from many of the consequences—even good & decent women have tremendous (and often irresistable) incentive to engage in selfish and deplorable decisionmaking. You can thumb through the Bible and find tons of examples of otherwise righteous men commiting acts of intolerable wickedness and cruelty when they are positioned to wield great power (the murder of Uriah immediately comes to mind).

    But the tradcons would have you ignore all of this and roll the dice on a “decent” woman who follows one’s “Catholic truth”?

    Worse than useless, they are.

  112. Dana says:

    This is incredible. Here is a man who courted his woman for four years without having sex with her and then married her for life and you call this man worse than Roissy and Roosh – the biggest sexual degenerates in the world? This is purely satanic. Even a real satanist could not think of an inversion of Christian values such as this one. You might as well be wearing the upside down cross, like real satanists do.
    This man really loved a woman, and didn’t lust after her like some of these MRA guys. He could’ve tried to extort sex from her at age 18. Most of you lust after virgins because you want to fornicate with a woman as young as possible. For an MRA not fornicating with an 18 year old and waiting until she is 22, would be a waste. Their own pleasure comes first. You only lust after a woman’s body, but you don’t love a woman. You can love a woman at age 40 and even 80.

  113. Dana says:

    And to some of the bachelor’s here wondering why they can’t find a woman. You probably have plenty of good qualities as human beings, but as men you exert a vibe that is not attractive – you don’t have respect for women, and you don’t consider them as worthy a human being as yourselves. A woman wants a relationship with man who is understanding, affectionate, loving, non-threatening. And a friend. Just from the way you talk and what you say, it is clear that you do not possess those qualities. There is no way a decent, healthy woman will want to spend every day of her life with a bigot who denigrates her own sex. You need to be more humble, more empathic, you are not better than others, just because you are a 31 year old educated, well paid male. Criteria such as character and the capacity to love, accept and compromise are much more crucial for marriage than education and a high salary.

  114. ukfred says:

    @imnobody

    I would take issue with you on one point only, and that may be because your words are capable of more than one interpretation. That is your phrase “Single moms in Church?” I believe that the church should welcome single moms, divorces and divorcees, sexually active homosexuals, people with drink and drug problems and all the rest of the “sinners”, just as Jesus did. However, where I think we agree is that the church should cause everyone who enters it to have such an encounter with Jesus that they are changed, like Zaccheus, or they reject His teaching like the rich young ruler, but one way or another they do not feel that they can continue to live ignoring His demands while attending His church.

    I would also recommend to you that you look at

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201107/porn-induced-sexual-dysfunction-is-growing-problem

    to see that porn can be a problem for marriages, and that is not a moral judgement, but a purely performance based judgement.

  115. Dana says:

    I do not know the Bible that well but wasn’t there a prophecy there that said that at some point there will come a time when all sorts of human wickedness will roam the earth, when all sorts of evil moral degenerates will try to attack and persecute the virtuous, when vice will be considered good, when the values will be turned upside down. This must be the time Indeed, if Roosh is named as a moral paragon and Roissy is considered a sage, yet chaste, loving Christians are deemed as losers and their truly pure ways of life demeaned, this must really be the age of Satan.

  116. Pingback: What, Me Worry? | Dalrock

  117. 7man says:

    @ukfred
    “… porn can be a problem for marriages, and that is not a moral judgement, but a purely performance based judgement.”

    Is porn use the source of the problem or is it a symptom of foundational deficiencies which might be due to the woman being sexually repressive or denying sex? The point being we can’t know for sure what the cause of the problem is and must realize that it is all too easily and commonly blamed on a man.

  118. Brendan says:

    1) DC’s solution – dive into a subculture that upholds patriarchy. Yeah. I already know one priest who had to leave the priesthood because his wife was unhaaaapy. It may work. It may not.

    And that’s precisely the point. Even an Orthodox priest can’t escape the cultural tide — it is no solution. It is an option for those who want to take the risk, but it isn’t a systemic solution, both because it is subject to the system and because it doesn’t address the system as such.

    3) GYOW – No intimacy, ever. Kind of radical, but the number of men who did this in the first Christian centuries eventually brought Rome to heel. However, something tells me that the majority of MRAs would make piss-poor monks.

    Most monks made poor monks. But in any case, it needn’t be monastical to have the desired impact, it just would need to be enough of a withdrawal to be impactful. Not most men, either (as it would never be most men). Again, it’s an option that will be attractive only to a few, but it does address the systemic issue more directly.

    6) Work within the system. That takes time and organization. An Emily’s List for men? I could see it. We would need to start electing people at the local level first, and would have a hell of an uphill battle against the DV state and the feminized media gestalt.

    The most direct approach, and one which is bearing some fruit already, through groups such as Fathers and Families. Again, it seeks to address the systemic issue rather than trying to sidestep it.

  119. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dragnet, as I’m sure you recall Dalrock quoted a woman a while back who regarded divorce as a “neutron bomb” that would remove her no longer desired husband from her life but otherwise not change anything. So your description is quite apt.

    UKFred, I’m sure you are aware just how big that “However” is. It appears the Darwii misread my observation regarding Churchianity and its treatment of single mothers. It is one thing to accept a woman and her bastard child(ren) on the basis of “I’ve made mistakes but I want to do right, now”, it is quite another thing for a single, never married woman to join a church, have a baby by an unknown man, then two years later have another one by a different unknown man, then some years later get knocked up by a third one, all the while sitting in the same pew as the married folks and teaching other people’s children in sunday school.

    Modern Churchianity has declared all women – all women – to be above criticism. No matter what they do. No matter how their behavior hurts other people. No matter what, women can’t be criticized, they can’t be told they are wrong about anything. Men must support women no matter what choices they make – in other words, women have choices, men have the responsibility to enable those choices.

    As I’ve mentioned, I get invited to various churches when I travel. Too many of them are enabling women to do whatever they want. No church would hand out free shots of booze to any alcoholic who walked in on Sunday, because that would be wrong. But there’s support for women’s choice no matter what they do – it is enabling behavior, just like a family that continuously bails out an alcoholic, thereby preventing them from ever truly seeing the damage their alcoholism is doing.

    So the churches may not be directly, fully feminist in all cases. But they are enablers of bad behavior by women. The Darwii don’t seem to get that.

  120. Anonymous Reader says:

    AsinusSpinasMasticans, the answer is obvious: most of the above. Some men who can will try to hold their sub-group of a sub-group of a denomination in line. Others will “enjoy the decline” as long as they can. Still others will, with grim determination, attempt the Sisyphean task of reform. A few may go “off the radar” as much as possible. There isn’t any one, best way. Nor should there be.

    Large forces are at work. Each man will decide how to respond. There isn’t going to be any central clearinghouse, any MRA central, that decides what to do. There isn’t going to be any required course of action except one: men who refuse to admit there is a problem, and choose a course of action, are de facto allies of the misandric system. (I look forward to the day when wordpress’s online spell checker does not flag “misandry” or “misandric” any more, btw).

    Men who basically take the “I’m all right, Jack!” approach are part of the problem. Men who undercut the righteously angry men, are also part of the problem. Ankle-biters who can’t lead, who refuse to follow, but who obstruct and won’t get out of the way – they are part of the problem as well. Tradcons fit into all of the above categories, frankly.

    So pick your part of the fight, decide on a course of action, and do it. Just don’t chop at your brother’s path unless you have a logical, or ethical, or moral reason to do so.

  121. Ballista_GTOW says:

    I know this will fall on deaf ears, but worth responding to anyway:

    @DarwinCatholic
    I very strongly object to just about everything about feminism

    Yet through your posts and positions you’ve taken, you are walking like a feminist and talking like a feminist in my estimation (in other words, you are defending the status quo). I take the old duck rule from there, and just have one response: It seems I’m completely right.

    gender-war vision of marriage which seems to adhere around here

    I saw what appeared to me an angry and consistent rejection of Christian teaching, churches in general, conservative/traditional social morals, etc.

    So if we reject the consequences of what society brings by marrying then we’re all this stuff in the 2nd quote and doing the first? So what would you have us to do then? Ignore the problems, run head long into the marriage meat-grinder and be sawed to bits? Nothing would please you more, no doubt.

    If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem, and DarwinCatholic and folks like him are a huge part of the problem here.

    However, I firmly believe that truly embracing the fullness of Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality is the only solution to our society’s ills.

    However we all don’t live in DarwinCatholic’s little vacuum dream world where marriage is a viable, positive activity that’s a blessing to all parties involved and no one never maliciously and frivolously divorces anyone else. DC is indeed blind to the world and all that is going on in it. The fact is, in today’s society, marriage is a destructive activity which, causes untold economic and physical devastation on the men involved, and brings nothing but slavery and servitude to both the wife and the state on the part of the husband during and after the divorce.

    While I agree, restoring the true meaning of marriage and sexuality is what is needed, doing this is completely useless and is worthless to talk about without removing all the incentives society legally and culturally permits in destroying marriage, and disincentivizing the activities required to destroy marriage (in other words, restore laws as they were in 1950). Unfortunately for those in government and in the pulpits and churches across the Anglosphere, they are not “man enough” in the sight of God (Galatians 1:6-10) enough to do so and take marriage back from Caesar. The folks like DC and those like them in the pulpits can talk until their blue in the face, but it’s all meaningless until there is demonstrative action taken both in their churches and in the government.

    @greenlander
    It’s telling how Mr. Darwin hasn’t given a single on-topic response to the issues raised here… The TradCons are all like this: they’re stuck in their paradigm of looking down at the “sinners”.

    Nothing to be surprised, and again this is another problem in the modern church today.
    Jesus genuinely listened to and spent time with the “sinners” and brought truth that was relevant to their lives to them. However, most today if they were put in Jesus’ shoes would have never spent time with Zaccheus, Matthew or The Woman At The Well, and would have much more in common with the Pharisees than with Jesus. The DCs are reacting in the same way, when the light comes upon darkness and the mirror is put up to the face, this is what happens.

  122. Ballista_GTOW says:

    @Dalrock
    Perhaps. Have you read this post?
    Yes. There’s a difference though between knowing people are angry, acknowledging why people are angry, and acknowledging that they have a right to be angry. I can’t say I know your reasons for commending marriage in the way you do, but personally I find it hard to commend Caesar’s Marriage in any way shape or form to anyone. While I’m single and never married, I’ve personally witnessed too much in the marriages of others around me to be able to do so or to consider it myself. Maybe you haven’t, and you have your personal experience of the moment to add to that. I don’t know.

    But at first blush, I could meet a godly woman who believes in all the correct tenets of a “Christian marriage”, marry her with the intent of partaking in God’s Marriage, be a “happily married father” and do everything a Godly husband and father is supposed to do, and still wind up going through the meat grinder because she’s not haaaaapy. With the system and her church (no doubt egged on by her sin of false witness and the church’s sin of making the wife sinless and blaming the husband for all) giving incentive, she’ll get everything she wants and will receive no consequences. There is no choice but to partake in Caesar’s Marriage if you are to marry.

    I’m an AWALT type. Not because of any women I’ve met or any anger I’ve had in the past at being rejected or none of the reasons that the feminists and tradcons love to trot out. In fact I’ve met plenty of women pleasant to be around. The problem, though, is the system and the inducements that are given in Caesar’s Marriage.

  123. Brent says:

    @Ballista

    So if we reject the consequences of what society brings by marrying then we’re all this stuff in the 2nd quote and doing the first? So what would you have us to do then? Ignore the problems, run head long into the marriage meat-grinder and be sawed to bits?

    Part of my problem with the way Christian churches in general deal with this is they deny the words of 1 Cor. 7:29-33, which state clearly that not marrying and remaining celibate is a perfectly acceptable, and possibly superior, choice to marriage in certain circumstances. In DrDarwin’s case, I think the issue is Catholics only think of this as an option for their priests. In Protestants’ case, they think this means you’re trying to be a Catholic priest.

    Personally, I have not firmly decided one way or the other, but rather have decided to take a “wait and see” approach, knowing that if I remain celibate and don’t re-marry, this is perfectly acceptable in God’s eyes.

  124. Brent says:

    @Brendan The most direct approach, and one which is bearing some fruit already, through groups such as Fathers and Families. Again, it seeks to address the systemic issue rather than trying to sidestep it.

    There are a lot of things that need to be done. I believe as Christians we must understand that it begins with the church (1 Pet. 4:17). We must educate fellow believers and engage in warfare with the principalities and powers that are corrupting their minds.

    As well, as a Christian man whose Christian wife committed infidelity, there need to be more resources to support men emotionally and spiritually in this regard, and give them guidance as to steps in the process. When my wife told me, I was totally and completely blindsided (looking back, there were clear warning signs she was planning to cheat as early as the previous year). I had no where to turn. There were no websites that explained what a Christian man should do when his wife cheats. Nothing that recognized the “game” aspects (game’s implications about female psychology are not unBiblical, though improper use thereof is). Nothing about the legal aspects. Nothing about dealing with the shaming Christian churches usually give to the victimized male spouse. Nothing dealing with explaining to him what drove his wife to cheat and why it isn’t his fault.

    Nothing. I remember I told one other Christian friend, and he replied back that the exact same thing had just happened to him. What do you say?

    I plan to start a blog, hopefully by this weekend, whose first entry will be very basic steps–emotionally, financially, legally, and spiritually–to take when you get blindsided by your wife’s infidelity.

  125. Ballista_GTOW says:

    @Brent

    Part of my problem with the way Christian churches in general deal with this is they deny the words of 1 Cor. 7:29-33, which state clearly that not marrying and remaining celibate is a perfectly acceptable, and possibly superior, choice to marriage in certain circumstances.

    This is one of the oft forgotten teachings of marriage in Scripture. Much of what is fought in the churches is that so many of them hold to the false teaching of pronuptualism (in other words, the encouragement and promotion of marriage in all circles, or to state it in the negative “if you are not married, you’re living in sin”). This is taught explicitly by many like Albert Mohler, or implicitly in the things that are taught, the way certain things are said, the way singles are treated socially and the like.

    rather have decided to take a “wait and see” approach
    This is my position as well, if the laws involving marriage were not what they are. The laws redefine marriage in every way from God’s intention (2 Cor 6:14-18, I’d rather not be unequally yoked in an unclean relationship with the state). But as for the above, I certainly wish that churches would teach the commitment necessary in covenant and recognize (and in turn help their congregants recognize) that there are many men and yes women too (and probably way many more women than men – see the CF discussions here for proof of that) that are simply unfit for marriage. Simply doing this again, in absence of the legal influence upon marriage would make a huge dent in the divorce rate.

    Wisdom and discernment are always important in all things, especially a matter like marriage.

  126. Dalrock says:

    UK Fred. The Cupid’s Poisoned Arrow blogger is a woman on a jihad against male ejaculation. Anything resulting in male release is a no no in her book.

  127. van Rooinek says:

    UK Fred. The Cupid’s Poisoned Arrow blogger is a woman on a jihad against male ejaculation. Anything resulting in male release is a no no in her book.

    And, horror of horrors, she’s married…
    http://goodmenproject.com/author/marniarobinsongarywilson/

  128. imnobody says:

    This prenup thing shows the limit of pharisaical morality, as it was criticized by Jesus. According to this kind of morality, you may follow the rules, no matter the context.

    This way, if you are a German hiding a Jew at your home and a Nazi asks you: “Are you hiding a Jew in your basement?”, you have to answer: “Yes”, because lying is evil (in fact, forbidding lies is one of the commandments),

    The same way with prenups. No matter that the number of Catholic wives divorcing Catholic husbands and ruining their lives is huge. You must not have a prenup because it is wrong. Even if you don’t plan to divorce, only have it just in case your wife divorces you. Having a prenup is WRONG. Period. You know what eleventh commandment is:

    “Thou shalt not have a prenup. A prenup maketh your marriage invalid”.

    (Right from the Moses’ lips).

    Of course, we know what our Savior thought about this kind of pharisaical morality:

    23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
    25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

    27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

  129. CL says:

    It’s no surprise to me that some women accept really messed up gender dynamics, whether it’s feminism or the gender-war vision of marriage which seems to adhere around here.

    I wasn’t going to bother addressing this not-so-subtle swpie and me, Suz and LGR but I don’t appreciate the implication here. None of us wants a “gender” war, but the reality is that there is one and it is heating up. What are these “messed up [irrelevant co-opted leftist grammatical stand-in term for ‘sex’ that undermines biological reality in favour of a fluid ‘identity’] dynamics”? You mean women are not supposed to try to adhere to St Paul’s instructions in Ephesians 5 to be subject to their husbands? Is that what you mean? If not, please explain. That we are not egalitarians seems to bother you for some reason, which is odd coming from a self-identified traditionalist.

    Honestly, I think you are sincere but deluded. Take a look at the terminology you use; you are using the language of those who seek to destroy Christianity and seem to be oblivious to this fact. You are, in fact, an appeaser. It’s evident in the way you talk/write.

  130. Brent says:

    @imnobody
    This prenup thing shows the limit of pharisaical morality, as it was criticized by Jesus. According to this kind of morality, you may follow the rules, no matter the context.

    This way, if you are a German hiding a Jew at your home and a Nazi asks you: “Are you hiding a Jew in your basement?”, you have to answer: “Yes”, because lying is evil (in fact, forbidding lies is one of the commandments),

    Hmm. Reminds me of something I read once:

    The great masquerade of evil has played havoc with all our ethical concepts. For evil to appear disguised as light, charity, historical necessity or social justice is quite bewildering to anyone brought up on out traditional ethical concepts, while for the Christian who bases his life on the Bible, it merely confirms the fundamental wickedness of evil. The ‘reasonable’ people’s failure is obvious. With the best intentions and a naive lack of realism, they think that with a little reason they can bend back into position the framework that has got out of joint. In their lack of vision they want to do justice to all sides, and so the conflicting forces wear them down with nothing achieved. Disappointed by the world’s unreasonableness, they see themselves condemned to ineffectiveness; they step aside in resignation or collapse before the stronger party….

    Still more pathetic is the total collapse of moral fanaticism. Fanatics think that their single-minded principles qualify them to do battle with the powers of evil; but like a bull they rush at the red cloak instead of the person who is holding it; he exhausts himself and is beaten. He gets entangled in non-essentials and falls into the trap set by cleverer people….

    “…Who stands fast? Only the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and in exclusive allegiance to God — the responsible man, who tries to make his whole life an answer to the question and call of God. Where are these responsible people?”
    –Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison.

  131. I’m closer to Darwin Catholic on all this than I am to Kel or Dalrock, but unlike DC, I spent years and years and years in the orthodox Catholic singles world (among FUS/Steubies, Theology on Tap, etc.) before finally (and most happily) retiring last year.

    Where to begin on scoring all this?

    DC got married young (and God Bless him and Mrs. DC, I’m happy for them and envious that I didn’t find love that young). DC, respectfully, I don’t think that you fully appreciate the hypergamous nature of women and all the implications that derive because you haven’t been on the hunt since you were 22, or really, since you were 18.

    The fallen nature of man and how original sin affects him is self-evident: he’s a horndog, he’ll hit anything, excited by pron, seeks to evade the consequences of his actions, etc. Even devout Christian men struggle with sin. Fail. Commit sin.

    What is less understood is how original sin affects women. Women are, typically, hypergamous. Women are frequently attracted to those displaying the Dark Triad. Women seek what women everywhere seek: dominant, confident, tall men. Even Christian women. It distorts the choices even of good chaste Catholic girls, even the ones patiently and chastely hungering for marriage (and those girls DO exist, like pearls of great price. I know some of them).

    Our appetites as human beings, both human and animal/primate, drive our desires and influence our choices. It’s our shared humanity as men and women that provides the basis for friendship, and it’s the polarity that provides the basis for sexual attraction.

    Men pursue their appetites, and women pursue their appetites, and the survivors usually feel lucky to get out alive:

    * Chastity, which is demanded by Our Lord and His Church, decreases a woman’s SMP value but increases a woman’s MMP value. It just about obliterates (or at least decreases) a man’s SMP value and is neutral, at best, to his MMP value.

    * Promiscuity increases a woman’s SMP value but decreases/obliterates her MMP value. Promiscuity hugely increases a man’s SMP value and may, depending on the girl, increase his MMP value as well.

    So when the Church preaches chastity to men and women, it’s true for both and tough for both, but tough in different ways. A woman who is faithful to this teaching is widely considered to be more marriageable. A man who is faithful to this teaching is usually considered unmarriagable because women calculate SMP value before calculating MMP value, and if a man can’t clear SMP, he’s done.

    So in an environment of orthodox Catholics, you would think that discerning marriage would be easier, but I think it’s actually tougher. In a heterodox environment, two orthodox Catholics might be more attracted to each other because of their shared faith. In an orthodox Catholic environment, everyone has “cleared the bar”, (i.e. met the most important qualification of sharing the same faith), so what criteria do people use? Simple. Women use what they use and men use what they use. Women select for qualities important to them (confidence, Dark Triad, height) and men select for qualities important to them (beauty, age, fertility, sweetness/disposition). And the singles in each group are usually hugely disappointed with the other because it’s not supposed to be this way.

  132. Joe Sheehy says:

    Many people suggest the psychology of women remains constant, but I’m convinced it’s been changing. Their behavior has been changing, and this is a result of a changed psychology, it’s not just a matter of physical limitations on promiscuity being removed. I believe this firmly because I have spoken to career women from the Muslim world, about my age. Their psychology is a great deal different than western women the same age. They are just a lot more like my mother in their personalities than modern western women. There’s a lot of brainwashing going on, and while it’s tapping into the natural desires of women, it’s amplifying them and distorting them as well. It’s also poisoning them against their better instincts.

  133. imnobody says:

    @Joe Sheehy. My experience about foreign women has proved me that what you said is completely right.

  134. ray says:

    You want counter-cultural? You haven’t begun to realize how counter-cultural things need to be. I’m much, much more counter-cultural than you’ll ever understand. And you are not counter-cultural, you’re a dupe of the Culture, one of its deluded minions. You unwittingly claim to be against society, but ultimately you ask men to Man Up, and Bear their Cross, and sacrifice once again at the altar of Femininity.

    I will destroy that altar, with every interaction I have with women, with every interaction I have with a supplicating, beta male. You haven’t begun to see a counter-cultural revolutionary, Darwin Catholic.

    God, i love that kinda talk

    a fine thread, should be requred reading in every western church, make em eat the pages too

  135. Terse_man says:

    Kel says, Let me tell you, Darwin Catholic: traditional Catholics are IDIOTS when it comes to women. They are first-class morons. I know, because I was one of them. I was Mr. Nice Guy Traditional Catholic. It gets you nowhere, with traditional Catholic women, with regular Catholic women, and with any woman on the planet. Not only will it get you nowhere, it will destroy you and make you think that the virtures are really sins, and the sins virtures, because women (even traditional Catholic women) in their actions reward sin and punish virtue. Yes, they do.

    Kel, your story is my story. Yes, the church is responsible here. I wish that they would fess up. Confession is good for the soul. Maybe they did not intend it to be this way, but it is the way that it is. I am putting my life in order after the damage, the church should also. If not, then within two generations it will exist of little more than a women’s club that hands out “get out of relationships free” cards.

  136. Terse_man says:

    How to marry a nice girl? That is the question asked.

    That would be easy. Build a time machine and import one from 50 years ago. Women were taught to control themselves and to be good mothers and wives. It is deal made in heaven. They would want to come to a more advanced world, and men would get good retro models. Win, win. I could make a killing for this service.

  137. Pingback: Darwin Catholic has hit the Jackpot! « Patriactionary

  138. Pingback: Darwin Catholic has hit the Jackpot! « Patriactionary

  139. Alistair. says:

    Kel, you hit the nail on the head.

    Admitting the true nature of women to your self is the first step toward emotional sanity, otherwise you make the mistake of having deep feelings for a woman who despises your sensitivity and will eventually destroy you for not being “alpha” enough when she needs it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s