Dr. Helen is disturbing the mound.

Fox News recently did a segment on Dr. Helen’s Men On Strike, and clearly Dr. Helen has hit a nerve.  Dr. Helen wrote:

[The] new world order is a place where men are discriminated against, forced into a hostile environment in school and later in college, and held in contempt by society. Maybe there is no incentive to grow up anymore. It used to be that being a grown-up, responsible man was rewarded with respect, power and deference. Now, not so much.

Tucker Carlson responded to the quote with the Traditional Conservative* party line:

Every word of that is true, and let me say who cares?  If you’re a man, stop whining and reclaim your birthright which is masculinity, and masculinity and male power derive from responsibility. You don’t embrace responsibility, you have no power

This line of thinking is essentially saying:

We’ll teach those feminists!  Once they are done screwing other men and playing career woman, we’ll marry them and support them!  And if they decide to divorce us, why we’ll give them cash and prizes!

Take that feminists!

Or perhaps:

Prove how powerful and traditional you are;  man up and marry those sluts!

Follow the link above to check out the video.  The combination of feminist contempt by the eye rolling female host and faux traditionalism by Tucker Carlson is something which has to be seen to be fully appreciated.

Interestingly the day before Carlson’s comments, Matt K. Lewis at Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller wrote a favorable piece on Dr Helen’s book titled Going Galt: Why men are boycotting marriage, fatherhood and the American Dream.

…most observers of this phenomenon have concluded that we just need to “man up.” That is, until now. Dr. Helen Smith’s new book, is decidedly different, inasmuch as she argues that if men are checking out of society, it’s only because we are making rational decisions about changing incentives.

All of this also follows the the recent dust up over a Fox News segment regarding the increase in women as the primary breadwinner, where Juan Williams states:

I just think that this should be in large letters on the front page of every newspaper in America because what we are seeing with four out of ten families now the woman is the primary breadwinner you are seeing the disintegration of marriage…

You are seeing I think, systemically, larger than the political stories that we follow every day something going terribly wrong in American society, and it is hurting our children.

Fox News host Megyn Kelly was incensed that a group of men were disturbing the mound, and brought Lou Dobbs and Erick Erickson on to her show to scold them for daring to challenge feminist progress:

*Not All Traditional Conservatives Are Like That.

See Also:

This entry was posted in Dr. Helen, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

197 Responses to Dr. Helen is disturbing the mound.

  1. Great illustration. Once I saw Suzanne Venker interviewed by the little nerdy Engish dude (name?) with trendy plastic glasses, and she is already doubled down on traditional feminism. Even that was not enough for him, he was pissed off that she deign say what she did.

    There is no assistance forthcoming from the conservative main stream.

    Megyn Kelly is useless as a bag of hair. Her kids are sequestered from real life, handed advantages 1/100 % will ever see, and they may well succeed in the sense they get an Ivy League education, or something elite otherwise and look outstanding outwardly. But its the same fallacy as when Stanton heralds 38% divorce rate in church, or when a blogger on FOTF writes that despite kids losing their way, faith wise after divorces, lookee here, there are a few who actually INCREASE in faith….therefore its all good.

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

    lzozozozoz

    hey HEARTIETSTZTEE!!!

    YOU ARE QUOTESD AND CITED AND EXLATED & SALUTEDZ IN DA DR. HELENZ BOOKZ WHICH IS COOLZZ!!!

    but shedz forgot to mention other menz like say

    HOMER
    MOSES
    JESUS
    VIRGILZ

    zlzozoozozozoz

    oh well at least it is a step in da right direiictizonz exlating and salutinzg da MIGTHEY HEATRIETSEZ!!! lzozolzolzolz

    DA GBFM REVIEWS HIS FRITS BOOKZ!!! ”Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters Yo YO yo llzooz” lzozozozozo

    http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Fatherhood-ebook/dp/B00APDFXKO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370732726&sr=8-1&keywords=marriage+strike

    Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters

    firstsoff i was rather dismayed to knotice some misspleiingz in da titles which should read:

    Menz on Strike: Why Menz r Boycotting Marrying Benenrkiikfied PRe-Buttcocked, Desouledn Womenz, Risking Having der assetsts rapepdd by multi-asscocked womnz, DA Farce of modern Fatherhood attacked by da BERNEKaz TV, and da fiat false American Dream as definedz by da elitez zlzozoozz- and Why It don’t relaly really Matters zlzozozozlz

    Da first thing I noticed about da book for menz titled MEN ON STRIKE is dat just like EVERY OTHER BOOK WRITTEN BY WOMEN FOR MENZ is dat it made no mention of

    HOMER

    nor

    MOSES

    nor JESUS

    nor SOCRTAESZ

    nor MISEZ

    nor VIRGIL

    nor DANTE

    nor JEFFERZONSOZN

    nor HAYEK

    nor ADAM SMITH

    nor JOSEPH CAMPBELL

    nor ACHILLEZ

    nor ODYSSEUSZ

    nor STAR WARS nor THE MATRIX nor BRAVEHEART nor 300

    nor KING LEONIDAS

    nor DAVID form da bible story DAVID VS. GOLAITH

    nor SODOM

    nor GOMMORRAHZ zlzlzolzo

    nor NOAH

    nor WHITMANZ

    nor SHAKESPEAREZ

    nor DA BIBLE

    nor da OLD TESTAMENT

    nor da NEW TESTAMENTZ

    nor any of MY FRIENDZ

    nor any of da GREAT BOOKZ FOR MENZ

    NOR THE FALL OF EVE which launched DA BIBLE nor DA ADULTERY OF HELEN which laucnhed da TORJAN WAR

    as if

    HOMER, MOSES, JESUS, SOCRATES, JEFFERSN, ADAMS, MADISON, WASHINGTON, LEONIDAS, SOCRATES, GALIELEOZ , COPERNICUS, NEWTON

    KNOW ABOSLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT BEING A MAN

    as if ACHILLES KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT HONORZ

    as if DA BIBLE IS COMPLETELY FUCKING USLEFLESS TO MENZ

    HOW MANY MORE FUCKING BOOKZ

    ARE GOING TO BE WRITTEN ABOUT MEN AND FOR MEN

    WHICH FUCKING IGNOREDTHE FUCKIUNG GREAT FUCKING BOOKS FOR FUCKING MENZ???? AND TGUS IGNORE DA CLASSICAL, EXALTED, PUINNACLE, PAARGAON, FORM OF MAN AND EPOIC MANHOODZ?

    lzozlzoozzlzozolzozozozozozooz

    and den when i found out da book made no metion of da GRETA BOKS FOR MENZ

    nor classic epic heoresz which da neococnths hate while they exalt tucker mwax rhmeys with godlmanssnachsz da butcokeekrz in da wekelsy standadrdth lzozozolz

    i got boredz and went and palyed some playatatstaion grand theft autos zlzozoz

    and tunered on da ESPN and picked up a GBFM iliad hoddodyse HOMER JESUS & i texted a bunch of my hotties:

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/great-books-for-men-greatbooksformen-gbfm-tm-gb4m-tm-gr8books4men-tm-lzozozozozlzo-tm/

    and i PICKE DUP HOMERZ ILAIDZ AND ODYSSEYZ

    and I EXLATE DIN READING THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN

    WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED AND BANISHSED

    AND WICH WOMEN CARE NOT FOR

    AS THEY NEVER READ, NOR TALK ABOUT DEM, NOR WRITE BAOUT DEM

    AS THEY COMPLETEYTEY IGNORE THE GREAT BOOKS 4 MENZ

    and den think dat they can write BOOKS FOR MEN

    while completely ignoring da ARHCETYPAL PINNACLES OF HEORIC MANHOODS

    AND DA GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ!!!!!

    thusly endeth da GBFMZ first book rievewz lzozolzlz

    i hope u ejoyedz it up next i will review da HBO seriez GIRLZ which at least dey get right with da fat fattassed fattie who takez it up da butt form a loser beoryfieerbndsz, so women can get womenz right (as dey feel da buttingzlzozo firts hand zlzooz), but when it comesz to classical, exalted, moral, menz like MOSES ZEUS JESUS SOCTRETATE CICERO CATO SENECAZ leave it to MENZ OKZ? lzlzozoozozozozo

    ZEUS’ LIGHTNING & MOSES’ THUNDER: Da Reason Dey Banned da GREAT BOOKS 4 MENZ is dat da GREAT BOOKZ teach of the true nature of WOMENZ and da HONOR OF MEN.

    IN THE MIDST OF ZEUS’ LIGHTNING & MOSES’ THUNDER

    A LOST GENERATION OF MEN BEHLD DA GBFM IN WONDER.

    AS HE CAME DOWN FROM HIGH OFF THE MOUNTAIN PEAK

    TO DELIVER DA TRUTH & HONOR ALL YOUNG MEN SEEK.

    lzozozozololzoz

    Lots of people talk and few of them know,soul of a woman was created below.
    Every day I work so hard, bringin’ home my hard earned pay, Try to love you baby, but you push me away.-

    LED ZEPPELIN – DAZED AND CONFUSED LYRICS

    Da Reason Dey Banned da GREAT BOOKS 4 MENZ is dat da GREAT BOOKZ teach of the true nature of WOMENZ and da HONOR OF MEN.

    HOMER TEACHES:

    You have to watch out [20] She doesn’t carry off all your treasure. You know what a woman’s heart is like. She wants to enrich the house of the one who weds her, Never mind about her former children And the husband she once loved. Once he’s dead, [25] She doesn’t give any of them a thought. –Homer; Lombardo, Stanley; Murnaghan, Sheila (2010-07-02). Odyssey (Translated & Annotated) (Kindle Locations 6813-6817). Hackett Publishing. Kindle Edition.

    lzozoozozlzozoz dat is because a owmenz is gudied by materialz insticnstinct and mater = mother = matter = material you fanabaoyz zlzloolzolzoz. DA ANCIENTZ KNEW IT–all dat da bernnkeifierz conceal and hidez as tehy d create false LAWS allowing womenz to arbitrarily transfer a man’s property and chirlederen to da state zlzlzlooz!!!

    OK EVERYONEZ!!

    CLASS IS IN SESSION!!!

    IN THE COMMENTS, leave samples and excerpts from the GREAT BOOKZ which teach game!! AND also note how the GREAT BOOKZ they teach thingz GREATER THAN GAME (such as honor and civilizatin and freedom from punnanaizz zlozzoz and freedom form butthext) as there is more to life than being the 27th PUA to game some buttehxt off a modenrz ebebernankifed deousled womenz zlzozolzlzlozlzozoolzolzozlzloz

    HEre is one for starters:

    lzozozlzozozoz

    read homers lodysysyey!! duh!!!!

    homer’s odysysey teaches that if you stand up to womenz you get to FUCK them lzozozozo

    if you don’t stand up to dem dey turn you into pigs

    yes homer was alomst as brrilliaaiant as heartistse lzozozozozo:

    HOMER’S ODYSSEY:

    “‘And I will tell you of all the wicked witchcraft that Circe will
    try to practise upon you. She will mix a mess for you to drink, and
    she will drug the meal with which she makes it, but she will not be
    able to charm you, for the virtue of the herb that I shall give you
    will prevent her spells from working. I will tell you all about it.
    When Circe strikes you with her wand, draw your sword and spring upon
    her as though you were goings to kill her. She will then be frightened
    and will desire you to go to bed with her; on this you must not point
    blank refuse her, for you want her to set your companions free, and
    to take good care also of yourself, but you make her swear solemnly
    by all the blessed that she will plot no further mischief against
    you, or else when she has got you naked she will unman you and make
    you fit for nothing.’ ”

    -http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.mb.txt

    zlzozozozozoz

    ANOTHER GREAT PLACE IS IN GENESIES GENEIS IN DA BIBLE:

    16 Unto the woman GOD said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    is it no wonder sad benerneiannkieirz funded fmeinnisnsmz to deconstruct the GRETA BOOKZ AND CLASSIZCXZ? zlozozzlzol

    HAMLET: HAMLET

    O, that this too too solid flesh would melt
    Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!
    Or that the Everlasting had not fix’d
    His canon ‘gainst self-slaughter! O God! God!
    How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
    Seem to me all the uses of this world!
    Fie on’t! ah fie! ’tis an unweeded garden,
    That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
    Possess it merely. That it should come to this!
    But two months dead: nay, not so much, not two:
    So excellent a king; that was, to this,
    Hyperion to a satyr; so loving to my mother
    That he might not beteem the winds of heaven
    Visit her face too roughly. Heaven and earth!
    Must I remember? why, she would hang on him,
    As if increase of appetite had grown
    By what it fed on: and yet, within a month–
    Let me not think on’t–Frailty, thy name is woman!–
    A little month, or ere those shoes were old
    With which she follow’d my poor father’s body,
    Like Niobe, all tears:–why she, even she–
    O, God! a beast, that wants discourse of reason,
    Would have mourn’d longer–married with my uncle,
    My father’s brother, but no more like my father
    Than I to Hercules: within a month:
    Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears
    Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,
    She married. O, most wicked speed, to post
    With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!
    It is not nor it cannot come to good:
    But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue.

    SHOEPNHAUER:

    The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husband’s lifetime, but at any rate after his death.

    As soon as he has given them his earnings on which to keep house they are strengthened in this belief. Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage—that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.

    It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters.

    HAMLET:

    OPHELIA

    Good my lord,
    How does your honour for this many a day?

    HAMLET

    I humbly thank you; well, well, well.

    OPHELIA

    My lord, I have remembrances of yours,
    That I have longed long to re-deliver;
    I pray you, now receive them.

    HAMLET

    No, not I;
    I never gave you aught.

    OPHELIA

    My honour’d lord, you know right well you did;
    And, with them, words of so sweet breath composed
    As made the things more rich: their perfume lost,
    Take these again; for to the noble mind
    Rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind.
    There, my lord.

    HAMLET

    Ha, ha! are you honest?

    OPHELIA

    My lord?

    HAMLET

    Are you fair?

    OPHELIA

    What means your lordship?

    HAMLET

    That if you be honest and fair, your honesty should
    admit no discourse to your beauty.

    OPHELIA

    Could beauty, my lord, have better commerce than
    with honesty?

    HAMLET

    Ay, truly; for the power of beauty will sooner
    transform honesty from what it is to a bawd than the
    force of honesty can translate beauty into his
    likeness: this was sometime a paradox, but now the
    time gives it proof. I did love you once.

    OPHELIA

    Indeed, my lord, you made me believe so.

    HAMLET

    You should not have believed me; for virtue cannot
    so inoculate our old stock but we shall relish of
    it: I loved you not.

    OPHELIA

    I was the more deceived.

    HAMLET

    Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a
    breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest;
    but yet I could accuse me of such things that it
    were better my mother had not borne me: I am very
    proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offences at
    my beck than I have thoughts to put them in,
    imagination to give them shape, or time to act them
    in. What should such fellows as I do crawling
    between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves,
    all; believe none of us. Go thy ways to a nunnery.
    Where’s your father?

    SHOPENHAUER:

    In India no woman is ever independent, but each one stands under the control of her father or her husband, or brother or son, in accordance with the law of Manu.

    It is certainly a revolting idea that widows should sacrifice themselves on their husband’s dead body; but it is also revolting that the money which the husband has earned by working diligently for all his life, in the hope that he was working for his children, should be wasted on her paramours. Medium tenuere beati. The first love of a mother, as that of animals and men, is purely instinctive, and consequently ceases when the child is no longer physically helpless. After that, the first love should be reinstated by a love based on habit and reason; but this often does not appear, especially where the mother has not loved the father. The love of a father for his children is of a different nature and more sincere; it is founded on a recognition of his own inner self in the child, and is therefore metaphysical in its origin.

    In almost every nation, both of the new and old world, and even among the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that one has departed from this. That the property which men have with difficulty acquired by long-continued struggling and hard work should afterwards come into the hands of women, who, in their want of reason, either squander it within a short time or otherwise waste it, is an injustice as great as it is common, and it should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. It seems to me that it would be a better arrangement if women, be they widows or daughters, only inherited the money for life secured by mortgage, but not the property itself or the capital, unless there lacked male descendants. It is men who make the money, and not women; therefore women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it nor capable of administrating it. Women should never have the free disposition of wealth, strictly so-called, which they may inherit, such as capital, houses, and estates. They need a guardian always; therefore they should not have the guardianship of their children under any circumstances whatever. The vanity of women, even if it should not be greater than that of men, has this evil in it, that it is directed on material things—that is to say, on their personal beauty and then on tinsel, pomp, and show. This is why they are in their right element in society. This it is which makes them inclined to be extravagant, especially since they possess little reasoning power. Accordingly, an ancient writer says, [Greek: Gunae to synolon esti dapanaeron physei].10 Men’s vanity, on the other hand, is often directed on non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning, courage, and the like. Aristotle explains in thePolitics11 the great disadvantages which the Spartans brought upon themselves by granting too much to their women, by allowing them the right of inheritance and dowry, and a great amount of freedom; and how this contributed greatly to the fall of Sparta. May it not be that the influence of women in France, which has been increasing since Louis XIII.‘s time, was to blame for that gradual corruption of the court and government which led to the first Revolution, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the result? In any case, the false position of the female sex, so conspicuously exposed by the existence of the “lady,” is a fundamental defect in our social condition, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must extend its harmful influence in every direction. That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.

    lzozolzl good thing
    that the GBFM
    is a RICH NOBL MILITARY OFFICER
    in my ARMY OF ONE lzozlzlzllozozooz
    dat is ONE LOTATSSA COCKASZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    lzozozozozoz

    THE GREAT BOOKS TEACH GAMEZZZ!!!

    the following is from: http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/whatathenianmensaid.htm

    “1) Aristotle said that man is by nature superior to the female and so the man should rule and the woman should be ruled.[1]
    2) Demosthenes wrote “We keep hetaerae for the sake of pleasure, females slaves for our daily care and wives to give us legitimate children and to be the guardians of our households.”[2]
    3) “A man who teaches a woman to write should know that he is providing poison to an asp.”[3]
    4) Euripides has women characters make disparaging remarks about their sex:
    a) I am only a woman, a thing which the world hates.[4]
    b) No cure has been found for a woman’s venom, worse than that of reptiles. We are a curse to man.[5]
    c) Men of sense should never let gossiping women visit their wives, for they work mischief.[6]
    5) Hipponax, whose writing is quite abusive anyway, had this to say about women: “There are two days on which a woman is most pleasing—when someone marries her and when he carries out her dead body.”[7] This aphorism probably should be ignored, coming as it does from a Sixth Century BCE Ephesian whose malicious temperament left him with few friends in the land of his birth and very little good to say about anyone, but the remark is quoted too often today to be left out.
    6) Hyperides said, “A woman who travels outside her house should be old enough that people ask whose mother she is, not whose wife she is.”[8]
    7) In his Funeral Speech Pericles said, “A woman’s reputation is highest when men say little about her, whether it be good or evil.”[9]

    It seems clear, then, that Athenians saw women as beguiling creatures capable of causing considerable harm to themselves and others, and weaker in mind and body than men. Many believed that young girls were somewhat wild and difficult to control and that virgins were subject to hallucinations that could encourage them to be self-destructive. The solution was an early marriage, for only after a woman had delivered her first baby could she be a fully-operational female.

    zlzozozlolzoz

    ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER READ HTE GRET BOOKS FOR MEN
    WOULD STATE
    THAT THE GREAT BOKS 4 MENZ
    DO NOT TEACH GAMEZ Zlzolzlzlz

    Th following is form:

    http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20and%20the%20law%20in%20ancient%20israel.htm

    “WOMEN AND THE LAW IN ANCIENT ISRAEL

    The Ancient Hebrew law code outlined in the Bible unfortunately lacks the detail that can be found in other ancient legal systems such as the Babylonian and Roman, but we can at least summarize the general principles.

    1. Marriage was called “taking a wife”

    2. It involved sexual intercourse

    3. While there was no death penalty in Hebrew law for property crimes, adultery was a capital offence for both participants.

    4. Marriage and children were necessary to have a fulfilled life. A childless woman could call herself a mother by giving her maid-servant to her husband as a second wife (assuming, of course, the maid-servant did indeed produce a child).

    5. A widow had the right to marry her husband’s brother if he lived in the same town.

    6. Polygyny was permitted but uncommon.

    7. Divorce was easy for a man and impossible for a woman.

    8. Childlessness was the most common reason for divorce

    9. The woman moved to the husband’s home and family

    10. While the husband was clearly the boss, each expected love from the other and a wife had the legal right to support.”

    ONE OF THE MOST HILARIOUS THINGZZ IS HOW

    SO MANY FATHERLESS RITALIN RAISED PUSUSYSYSYYSS FANBOYZ SAY

    “WELL THE GREAT BOOKS TEACH NOTHING OF GAMEZZZ lzozozlzolz”

    THIS IS WHY THE MODERN CHURCHIANZ HAVE BANISHED THE BIBLEZ: lzozozzozo

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/womens_rights.html

    “Genesis 3:16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    Isaiah 3:12As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.

    1 Corinthians 11:3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

    1 Corinthians 14:34-36Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

    Ephesians 5:22-24Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

    Colossians 3:18Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

    1 Timothy 2:11-15Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

    Titus 2:4-5Teach the young women to be … obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

    1 Peter 3:1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.”

    SOMEDAY WHEN ALL D PUASZ GET BORED WITH STERILE BUTTOCKINGZ SESSIOZN tehy will return to d a GREAT BOOKZ FOR MENZ RENAISSANZESZ zlzlzlzllzlzlzz

    ‘Tis why the PUAs also hate HOMER and SOCRATESZ and CICERO.

    Here’s a list of books the PUAS hate and detest and regularly attack, excoriate, and vote down so as to please the central banking feminsista fanboyz who rule over them via butt tingzlzozoz:

    0. THE BIBLE
    1. Homer’s Iliad
    2. Homer’s Odyssey
    3. Exodus & Ecclesiastes & The Psalms
    4. Virgil’s Aeneid
    5. Socrates’ Apology
    6. The Book of Matthew & Jefferson’s Bible
    7. Plato’s Repulic
    8. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic
    9. Aristotle’s Poetics
    10. Dante’s Inferno
    11. The Declaration of Independence
    12. The Constitution
    13. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
    14. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
    15. Newton’s Principia
    16. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments
    17. Henry David Thoreau’s Walden
    18. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (& all of his work)
    19. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
    20. Ludwig von Mises’ A Theory of Money and Credit
    21. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom
    22. Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
    23. Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity
    24. Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myth
    25. Ron Paul’s Revolution & End the Fed
    26. THE BIBLE

    :LZOZOZOZZOL HONOR YOUR FATHERS: HONOR THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN! READ THE GREAT BOOKS! LZOZOZLOZOLZOLZOZ (TM) zlozozolzolzlzo

    The renaissance hath begun.

    As Athena called Telemachus to adventure–to sail forth and learn the news of His True Father Odysseus, so too does GBFM call upon ye to man up, sail forth, and learn the news of your true Fathers.

    Like Hamlet you came of age in a world where your father–THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN–had been murdered. Where they had been debauched, debased, bernenekfified out of the fiat-debt curriculum. And just as Hamlet’s Father called upon Him to Avenge his Death and Set the World Right, so too do I call upon all of ye buton-mashing gamersz and manboob betasz churchians to Man Up and Honor Your True Fathers.

    Like Odysseus’s son Telemachus you came of age in a house occupied by false suitors trying to buttehxt your mom Penelope alongside your future wife, deosuling her faster than Bill Bennett can gamble away a million dollars in Vegas. You came of age in a home absent of your true Father–Odysseus and THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

    Like Telemachus and Hamlet, you were born to know of your Fathers and do the work of your Fathers, as did Jesus. And like Jesus, you were born into a fallen world occupied by arrogant neeoconth Scribes and Pharisees, lorded over by intellectually-indifferent Pontius Pilates, ruled by mobs (and female prison wardensz lzozlz) who vote to set the murderer free, while sending Jesus to die upon the Cross.

    But all of that was then, and This is Now.

    Do not fail to Honor your Fathers by neglecting to live for the Classical, Epic Honor that so many of them not only Lived for, but Died For.

    Do not turn away from the vast Gifts they bequeathed you with–THE GREAT BOOKS AND CLASSICS.

    Begin today, begin today, all ye fanboyz mashing buttonz in your single-mom’s basements, all you PUA artsitsz trying to get your occkas wet in sterile bungholez and sterilized ginaholez made sterile by the fed’s before and morning after pillz. Begin today, all my fatherless, ritalin-addicted, gold-farming sons and READ the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

    Learn of the HONOR of your FATHERS form Achilles and Moses on down. The tiny-cckcoaaks white-knighting Churchians will scowl and stamp their feet and scream at you that Jesus cam to Abolish the Law, while Jesus himself stated that He came to Fulfill it.

    When you were a child ye partook in childish things–in mashing buttons in your meaningless videogamez.

    But now that you are a Man, it is time to Man Up, which does not mean marrying a babebrnekified beenrnakified butethxted, desouled, single monz, but reading THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

    Begin today my firendz. BEGIINZ TODAYZ.

    I propose that a renaissance in the Great Books and Classics is needed so as to re-instill a more traditional Code of Honor which will enrich the lives of men, women, and children, and liberate us all from the debt-financed debauchery, deconstruction, and debasement.

    All men should begin immediately by reading the following books which the central bankers and their fellow churchians hate, fear, and detest:

    0. THE BIBLE
    1. Homer’s Iliad
    2. Homer’s Odyssey
    3. Exodus & Ecclesiastes & The Psalms
    4. Virgil’s Aeneid
    5. Socrates’ Apology
    6. The Book of Matthew & Jefferson’s Bible
    7. Plato’s Repulic
    8. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic
    9. Aristotle’s Poetics
    10. Dante’s Inferno
    11. The Declaration of Independence
    12. The Constitution
    13. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
    14. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
    15. Newton’s Principia
    16. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments
    17. Henry David Thoreau’s Walden
    18. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (& all of his work)
    19. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
    20. Ludwig von Mises’ A Theory of Money and Credit
    21. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom
    22. Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
    23. Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity
    24. Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myth
    25. Ron Paul’s Revolution & End the Fed
    26. THE BIBLE

    And as men are reading the Great Books for Men, they must start enacting their principles in the living world, so as to exalt our legal system and universities, for it is not enough to think and read, but virtue is ultimately defined by *action*.

  3. Old Glory says:

    It’s funny watching the three of them and the host on the right side was constantly seeking approval from the female host throughout the segment about what women find attractive. Does he not have an opinion of his own? And Tucker Carlson calling men in society a bunch of “children and losers.” I would love to see him explain what incentive for men there is to seek responsibility. “Let’s not worry about those losers! Because that’s all they are!” LOL

    The segment really embodies the majority’s perspective on the situation: utterly clueless. Which that stems from being in denial, first and foremost, about the decline of our culture.

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

    It’s funny how Dr. Helen never mentions
    that the whole purpose of psychology
    was to
    deconstruct and debauch
    and undermine
    western civilization
    and culture
    and christianity
    as freud considered himself a hannibal
    a bernankifierz of womenz
    a debaucher of western civilization
    as freaud preached that every exalted principle
    every virtuous act
    was but
    “repression”
    and freud the savior came to liberate us
    from the law of moses and jesus
    and set us free to butthext
    hich is why the churchian today
    hates moses and jesus
    and loves freud zlzoozzo
    and ciopiius amountz a of butethxt
    on demand
    zlozlzlzoolzz

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

    da reason dat womenz have more jobz
    is dat dey get da bernanke dollarz
    which but place men in greater debtz
    lzozozoozozozozozoz
    the women’z movementz femeins8tsts rise
    coniinciced with the largest
    dcreation of debt ever known to man
    this is because womenz
    create more debt than welath
    when they “Work”
    lzozozozozozo

  6. donalgraeme says:

    The problem is that so many associate “Feminism” with the Political Left in this country, and around the world. Which is why Rollo’s concept of the Feminine Imperative is so valuable, because it hints that we are dealing with something far deeper rooted than just a modern outgrowth of Leftism.

  7. Zorro says:

    Tucker Carlson is a tree-stump-stupid mouth-breathing knuckle-walker whose career should have died of pancreatic cancer when Jon Stewart pulled him onto the mat and sissy-slapped him for the sniveling little seal pup bitch he is and always was.

    I’m sorry if that sounds harsh.

  8. Gynocentrism predated FI by so much Ive no idea who said it. But yes, that some terms exists besides feminism is necessary. The word feminism affords cover to them. It does no good to be against feminism.

    Dalrock, apply for the extra memory version of wordpress, GBFM is going to use your giga’s

  9. Zorro says:

    PS: If GBFM can’t make a f*cking point without using seventy-seven feet of column space, then the bastard doesn’t know the virtue of conciseness and should be banned on grounds of superfluousness.

    It’s called “you know what you’re talking about or you need to gas off like Oprah Winfrey.”

    Moron.

  10. HanSolo says:

    I think this book will help drive the conversation more and more into the mainstream media, as we can see with the video link above.

    It’s also interesting to see how the comment sections of articles were once more pro-feminist and are now more red pill.

    For example, see this article at the Atlantic about how feminism shames some women out of having relationships because they think they need to just focus on career to be loyal to the feminist herd. Go to the comments and choose ‘best’ instead of ‘newest’ and you’ll see many comments by yours truly with a lot of up votes, and a lot of other sensible comments too by other people. The feminist apologists didn’t make many good points and had their ridiculous arguments shown up for what they were.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/women-in-their-20s-shouldnt-feel-bad-about-wanting-a-boyfriend/273737/

  11. HanSolo says:

    Also interesting to see how Juan Williams, a moderate liberal black guy is pointing out the red pill truths about how it is the minority communities suffering the worst from liberalism and feminism. Blacks had high two-parent family rates but then along came welfare and replaced the black man with Uncle Sam.

    Whenever women don’t need a provider as much then their hypergamy is unleashed and they are free to seek men that are out of their league in terms of long-term commitment, as I discuss in this post:

    http://www.justfourguys.com/evolutionary-incentives-why-women-are-going-for-badboys-and-players-instead-of-stable-providers

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

    lzozozozozozoozoz

    “Zorro the feminist deocnstructionsista says:
    June 23, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    PS: If GBFM/HOMER/SHAKESPOEARE/JESUS/MOSES/DANTE/JEFFERSON/VIRGIL can’t make a f*cking point without using seventy-seven feet of column space, then the bastard doesn’t know the virtue of conciseness and should be banned on grounds of superfluousness.

    It’s called “you know what you’re talking about or you need to gas off like Oprah Winfrey.”

    -Moron.”

    yes you heard it from zoro
    becasue the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN are longer dan
    a tweet
    dey are superfluous
    lzlozozoozozz

  13. HanSolo says:

    Hmmm, I guess my comment got caught up in moderation due to a link.

    Anyway, interesting how moderate-liberal Juan Williams is pointing out that minority families and communities are the ones most affected.

    Blacks used to have high two-parent family rates but then along came welfare and the black man got replaced by Uncle Sam as provider in chief*.

    Whenever a woman doesn’t need a provider/protector as much then her hypergamy is unleashed, to whatever extent it’s there in her, and she is freer to pursue men that are out of her league. However, she rarely can get them to commit and it just turns into casual or short-term sex. Then the middle and lower value men have a harder time finding a wife because the women at his level are seeking higher-value men.

    I discuss this at length in my post at the link in my username.

    *of course the black women worked back before welfare too.

  14. HanSolo says:

    The thing that people have to understand is that incentives drive behavior.

    Men no longer have the incentives to be providers as much anymore because women no longer value it as much (unless you have a lot more than they do).

    Plus with all the misandry against boys, starting in school where girls are favored, and against men then men just kind of tune out.

  15. If anyone needs a reason for why men are on strike…

    Exhibit A: Megyn Kelly

    Megyhnmmndnd Kellllll1Y: Look at all these biased studies I have, where the outcome was predetermined by political correctness… lolollozlzlozlzozlzo

    What a stupid cuntess. Why are those men so polite when she is so rude? Have some balls Lou Dobbs and tell her to ‘shut it!’ Ask her to explain the decline in America which coincides exactly with all these political issues relating to race and sex? Get that bitch to explain that.

    Why must we believe obviously distorted studies done by liberals with a predetermined notion of the outcome when our own blooming experiences tell us all we need to know.

  16. HanSolo says:

    It’s true both that the environment is more hostile towards men now than 50 years ago and it’s true that if a man wants success he needs to do the best he can in the environment while also trying to improve the environment itself.

    It’s true of any legitimate victim–yes, you he was wronged so the environment should be made more fair–but the victim should also try to make the best of the situation he’s in.

  17. Gina says:

    A question for GFBM:

    Why exactly do you promote reading Jefferson’s Bible in particular? What do you think worthwhile about Jefferson’s Bible that can’t be found in the full Bible?

  18. HanSolo says:

    Tucker Carlson is totally out to lunch and needs to take Economics 101. He just says it’s men’s responsibility to do everything without any thought to the fact that women aren’t rewarding those very men who do what he says.

  19. Retrenched says:

    Here’s a great comment Rollo left over at Ferd’s old blog a couple of years ago, rescued by the wayback machine, and I think it fits here (all emphasis mine)…


    The widespread societal feminization for the past 60 years has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man while at the same time denigrating masculinity. What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled “Patriarchy” and oppressive. Assuming all the same boy-men Hymowitz complains of took her message to heart and “manned-up”, 6 months later her complaint article would be about how horribly oppressive, chauvinistic and misogynistic these “new men” had become.

    Essentially this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women control their fates (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

    The short version is that, as in most other things in life, women want their cake and to eat it to. Whatever serves the feminine purpose is the responsible, correct thing to live up to for men, but that which doesn’t is shamed and quashed socially.

    ALL women (yes, I said “ALL”) solipsistically presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essence everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought you are cast into what would benefit a feminine social frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.

    Men are simply facilitators for a feminine reality.

  20. Twenty says:

    GBFM makes a lot of good points, but I wish he would cite some specific books or authors sometimes. After reading his posts, I’m always left wondering: “But what, in particular, should I read? Would Homer be a good choice? Or maybe something from Oprah’s book club? It’s so confusing!”

    Also, I’m not clear on his position on quantitative easing.

  21. “Every word of that is true, and let me say who cares?  If you’re a man, stop whining and reclaim your birthright which is masculinity, and masculinity and male power derive from responsibility. You don’t embrace responsibility, you have no power.”

    This is a fantastic response to your snotty 12-yr-old who depends on you for the necessities of life but complains that no one takes him seriously. It’s a terrible thing to say to a bunch of 18-50-yr-olds when your stock portfolio depends on them.

  22. Pingback: Where are all the good men…. | A Nine Pound Hammer....or a woman like you, either one of these will do

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

    Dear Twenty,

    I have posted a list of the Great Books For Men you should read in the first post. You may also see them listed towards the end of this post:
    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/da-gbfm-reviews-his-frits-bookz-men-on-strike-why-men-are-boycotting-marriage-fatherhood-and-the-american-dream-and-why-it-matters-yo-yo-yo-llzooz-lzozozozozo/

    Dear Gina,

    Jefferson saw that Christianity could be corrupted and seized by the buttehxting churchians who hate Christ, Moses, and the Great Books and prefer buttcockingz. Jefferson explained, “In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines”

  24. LiveFearless says:

    @Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    As you have requested: Any man that fails to read this 25 page book with large print has chosen to continue to fail at his purpose in life. Here: http://www.lifegivingshow.com It is the easiest and fastest GBFM that will change it all immediately

  25. Zorro says:

    I don’t care about what anybody says about Megyn Kelly. I would SOOOOOOO love to bury my schwanz ballz deep in her saddle meat and ride her like a f*cking polo pony.

    RRRRRRRrrrrraaaaahhhhhh!!!!!

  26. Opus says:

    Han Solo’s use of the word Protector in his 03.33pm message resonated with me.

    Perhaps what I am about to write might seem not quite on topic but perhaps you will bear with me:

    Yesterday evening I listened on the wireless to the broadcast of a new Opera from Covent Garden. Naturally it is being touted (as every new Opera is) as the greatest addition to the genre since Monteverdi more or less invented the form four centuries ago. The tale is adapted from a 13th century Provencal manuscript, but of course no one can really understand how 13th century folk thought, and thus it is as meaningless to set the tale then as in say the 23rd century – so that is a clue we are entering into the realm of the pretentious – and that here we really have a blank canvas. This is the story – a story which I must add seems to me to be essentially Act 1 of The Valkyrie with the end of the third act of Tosca tacked on (I would have avoided that like the plague). A woman is married to a man known as The Protector. He is said to be powerful and of course violent [isn’t that what women are supposed to like?] – yet spurns her amorous advances [for no known reason – perhaps he just likes oppressing her]. She thus being unhaaaapy forms a relationship with a character just called The Boy – the use of a counter-tenor for that role and reference to The Boy’s Satchel underlines the fact of his youth – he is barely pubescent. In short it looks like paedophilia by the wife – but did any of the commentator’s on the radio or any interviewed member of the cast pick up on this? Of course not, as women are to be excused everything and the boy is obviously very lucky. The husband becomes jealous but in true Cuckold Porn fashion also becomes enamoured of the boy. The Protector then kills the boy so the wife climbing to the top of a tower throws herself off (that’s the Tosca bit). The End. The role of the wife was performed by American freaky-soprano Barbara Hannigan who in talking about the role before the broadcast thoroughly approved of the wife’s suicide which she saw as brave and empowering and naturally she hoped she would have done the same had her toy-boy lover barely passed childhood suffered a similar fate – or something of that sort. I regret to say that both the Librettist and Composer are English men.

    You thus have a husband who is sexless yet powerful (is that a probable combination?) a wife who is empowered in her adultery, Cuckoldry, Homosexuality and Suicide, and a boy who is effectively abused, and not one member of the cast, or any member of the production team or the (imho) gullible composer who has wasted over two years of his life on this trash, nor the announcer ever came close to even noticing that the tale is morally bankrupt. Is it any wonder that with this sort of anti-male attitude men are walking away from Marriage and any meaningful interaction with women.

  27. Zorro says:

    Having said that, yes, she is a mouth-breathing cuntess with the mind of a terrier.

  28. earl says:

    “Why are those men so polite when she is so rude?”

    Because she is a “you go grlll” and those meanies are subtle rapists. Nobody is going to challenge Megan’s (and I’m spelling it the correct way) solipsistic perfect world.

    However Lou Dobbs…”oh dominate one” and the other dude’s “I’m not judging” should have been torn apart. You can’t argue like a woman with passive aggressive statements or covering up your intentions with pretty little lies. Argue like a man…say what you mean and mean what you say.

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

    in this video, dr. helen talks about how women see the state as the husband where they get all their money:

    the state taxes men and places men in debt and taxes them again via the inflation tax

    if you abolished the fed and ended the irs, women would no longer be able to butthext with abandon.

    ben bernankiferierze et al profit massively off the base female desire for alpha fucks in the butthole and beta bucks, seized at gunpoint, to raise their thug offspring.

    the welfare/warfare state is a big wealth-transfer business from men to women, and so naturally the fed funds it, as they must convert their worthless debt into physical property, which they do via feminism/alimony/sexual harrassment cases/welfare, all of which da ebernififiersz get a massive cut of.

    the federal reserve created and funded the feminist movement to seize assets form men, while also seizing their future wive’s assess and ebebenrnakifying and deousling them in collegz lzlzozozozolozlzo

  30. Zorro says:

    @earl: it’s not “dominate one.” It’s dominant one.

    Duh!

  31. BC says:

    Well, honestly, how else would you expect someone named Me-Gyn! to think?
    It’s all her parents’ fault. Just like that boy named Sue.

    Me-Gyn! hear me roar…

  32. earl says:

    Yes Tucker…I’ll claim my birthright, man up, and marry those sluts. I need to prove to you that I’m a man by marrying a woman with a somewhat-barely functioning uterus from riding the carousel, a mind full of unrealistic expectations, and a heart full of bad attitude.

    Let’s forget the fact that marriage in this country gives license for your wife to get your family ripped apart and you become penniless on her whim. I’ll take prudence and wisdom over what some media head thinks.

  33. Pingback: Dr. Helen is disturbing the mound. | Viva La Manosphere!

  34. Mark Minter says:

    There was video on ABCNews web site with commentary on Plan B and now how would men shame women for their sexuality, an anti slut-shaming piece on one of the most mainstream media sites possible.

    So I left a comment. Hey, the comment box was right there and just had to do it. The whole video was like a slow pitch, high and across the plate. And I couldn’t resist swinging at it.

    So I quoted Dalrock, not exactly quoted him, but I used the data from one of his more famous graphics about the number of sexual partners and likelihood of the marriage going 10 years.. Zero or one partner was up in the high 70s-low 80s, 15-20 being around 46%.

    And I said women could do exactly as they wished. But so could men. And any man that doesn’t recognize the risk corresponding to a high partner count and the risk of the destruction that divorce will cause his life is a fool.

    I would say I “disturbed the mound”. And a follow up comment accused me of fabricating the numbers and that my views were “Puritanical”.

    I responded with “I have the graphic for the data if you wish”. And I referred to other studies particularly in neuroscience on bonding if the person wished. And I was sorry if this academic and medical research did not respond to their world view of things. I sort of tire in getting in pissing matches on web sites, so I left it at the last comment

    Later, I got an email from ABCNews about the “top conversations on ABCNews right now”. Seems this Dalrock data was occupying the top slot.

    I told you last fall that we were having our Stalingrad back then. We weren’t necessarily winning, but damn it we weren’t losing any more. Yes, there is still of lot of dancing on the streets over data and findings by women. And this does seem to be a very dark hour for men and for freedom. But so was Feb, 1943, But at least now a vocal opposition has arisen. And a trickle is now turning into a stream which will turn into river and into a flood.

    I’ve said this also before, the men of the world are watching us. And when they see us begin to fight, and they see that the American men are now fighting back, then they no longer have to accept the march of feminism as some stage of economic development, the mark of a modern economy and society.

    The one thing I recognized about this blog in my very first exposure to it was that it took the high moral ground not only within the manosphere but in all debate.

    “That’ll do Dalrock. That’ll do.”

  35. sunshinemary says:

    rational decisions about changing incentives.

    This is what a lot of traditional conservatives do not get. Men aren’t making decisions in a vacuum.

    But I sort of get what Mr. Carlson wants to say but can’t quite figure out. I don’t want men to man up and marry the sluts or support feminism. What I want them to do is man up and stop white knighting for sluts and feminists. Without support from men, the whole feminist fauxtopia will crumble.

  36. James K says:

    Tucker Carlson, rhymes with Roosevelt & Son … no, wait …

  37. handbanana says:

    this is why I have no faith in the right wing to stop feminism. the tradcons, the churchians, the fundies, the whole “moral majority” are a pack of retards.

    whenever the left and the right agree on something, we all get fucked.

  38. dannyfrom504 says:

    Damn, I used to like her.

    My mother loves to give shit to feminists for being a SAHM.

    “I work more in one day then you will in a week. The results of my work better society, not simply put another car in the garage.”

  39. lagunabeachfogey says:

    @ GBFM ~ Where does ‘Meditations’ by Marcus Aurelius fall in your pantheon of very good books?

    I reckon a large part of the current problems faced by Western men stems from their Christianity.

  40. Novaseeker says:

    The thing is — Tucker Carlson, based on what he wrote, could very easily be a member of the manosphere. What he wrote has a lot of currency in the manosphere, and a lot of the “conservative” manosphere agrees with him, more or less 100%, even if individuals might word it differently. The “none of this would matter if you would just man up” meme is very prevalent in the manosphere, and that is basically what he said.

  41. Thing is, there’s two things you can mean by “None of this would matter if men would get their act together.” You can mean what “tradcons” often mean by it: that men should be so virtuous that they make up for any failings by women, which is unfair and impossible to boot. Or you can mean what SSM said a few comments up: that feminism can only exist if men support it, because men are necessary to make things work. If men became confidently masculine again, feminism would disappear.

    Imagine Ms. Kelly if the men in her studio laughed at her equalitarian nonsense, told her she was so cute, and told her to get them sandwiches. Sure, she’d try to rant — but the men behind the camera wouldn’t film it. So she’d head to HR — but the HR department would tell her the men running the corporation told them they’d better not take any sexual harassment cases anymore unless they were serious, like someone being required to trade sex for a job. Maybe she’d get an attorney and try to take it to court, but that wouldn’t work because men would have overturned the laws making that possible.

    The whole edifice of feminism exists because of men at every level, corporate, legal, and personal, trying to make women happy. The instant men stop doing that and stand up for themselves, the whole thing falls apart. Women — those women who would want to — can’t keep it going by themselves.

    It doesn’t sound like that’s what Carlson was saying, but it really is up to men to decide whether feminism rules or ends. Ending it will require men to “man up,” but not in the way he’s thinking of.

  42. Michael says:

    @ Twenty – you owe me a new keyboard you sarcastic heathen. That comment was some funny stuff right there!

  43. it is not correct, simply, that men manning up is sufficient. it not charge that men should not man up though.Cane splits the hair pretty well. id disagree on margins. but tucker doesnt even get specific and is tossing off conventional wisdom.

  44. Senior Beta says:

    For the grief GBFM takes for his long winded, if usually hilarious posts, don’t understand the gig about not having a list of books. He gives us a list of 25 or 26 (I think he counted the Bible twice) that ought to go on anyone’s Bucket List.

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

    yes Senior Beta, dey have eyes, but dey do not see lzlzozozozozozoozoz

  46. an observer says:

    Tucker Carlson, rhymes with Roosevelt & Son … no, wait …

    I keep thinking tucker max, rhymes with goldman sax……

    Lozllozlzllozlloz

  47. Novaseeker says:

    The idea that men manning up en masse would get rid of feminism is, frankly, quite misguided in my opinion. Nothing short of a complete war among men would be required to get rid of feminism. Why? Because, like everything else, men will not agree (already don’t agree) as to (1) whether there is a problem to begin with and (2) what is to be done. The men who are in support of feminism are not all pussies, by the way. There are many alphas among them, for whom feminism is well suited, for one reason or another (sexual, economic, political, familial, and so on). These guys either don’t see a problem with the current system, or, if they do, don’t agree as to what to do about that (whether it requires tweaks or a trashing). There are more of them than there are of men who see a problem, or who agree that feminism needs to vanish, even among the more manned up currently. If everyone manned up, this conflict would simply magnify. Perhaps that’s a good thing, but there is no guarantee of any particular result. The idea that if all men “manned up”, they’d all agree about what to do about feminism/women and the like, and that therefore feminism would just disappear, is just false.

    Feminism exists not because men are insufficiently manned up. That is much more the result of feminism than it is the cause of it, because the men who ushered in the feminist era were mostly quite manned up alphas (people like the two Roosevelts come to mind, among others). Feminism exists because it is the expression, in the sex and sexuality arena, of a broader programme of enlightenment/liberal/progressive values that emphasize individualism and equality as supreme goods. It’s simply not true that all of the proponents of these values are wimpy, effeminate, mangina faggots. Some of them are, of course. Many are not. Especially not the powerful ones. Even today among men who realize that there is something amiss with feminism, there is wide, brutal disagreement about every single detail, and about what is to be done. Manning everyone up won’t end feminism unless pretty much all of the said manned up men agree with each other.

    And, as most guys know, donkeys will fly before that happens. I mean look around you even here. Here we have men who agree somewhere between 80-99% on this stuff, yet often bitterly disagree on the rest. And that is among a group that has a fairly high buy-in regarding these issues — something which is not the case among the more general manned up populace.

    So, no, color me extremely, extremely skeptical of manning up as a viable political programme vis-a-vis feminism. You’ve got manned up men against you, and plenty of them. Manning up is a viable way of attracting and maintaining a mate, but it won’t end institutional feminism in itself.

  48. Novaseeker,

    I agree, it’s not a politically viable plan, for the reasons you describe. However, for society to be fixed and cleansed of feminism, that’s what it would take. Men would have to do it; women aren’t going to give it up voluntarily en masse, and women don’t make civilization anyway. So I guess we’re doomed to continue down the leftist/feminist drain until we hit bottom and start over.

  49. Ton says:

    I kind of like when dip shits tell me I should man up. I like to look at them, point to the scars on my face and say, I never saw you in Kandahar or Mogadishu.

    Not that those kinds of things are the be all an end all of masculinity but does reframe things

  50. Novaseeker says:

    Cail —

    I think two things would be required. Manning up is certainly a *part* of it, so the call to manning up is not completely wrong — but it matters what *kind* of manning up it is. It would have to be a very specific and unified kind of manning up in order for it to have an impact that is feminism-negative — and that kind of unity is exceptionally rare among men, really. Really, manning up today presents the average guy with more great opportunities under the current system than it does opportunities to change it, and so unless he has a very specific kind of manning up (a kind of revolutionary manning up), he’s more likely to simply opt to enjoy the benefits that accrue to a manned up guy in 2013 (which are a fair few, most of which would disappear if feminism were to disappear). I guess I’d also say that this kind of manned up guy serves feminism and its interests just as much as the wimpy emasculated faggot army does, just in a different way.

  51. Novaseeker says:

    “wimpy emasculated faggot army” should read “army of wimpy emasculated faggots” — just to clarify that I am not talking about the *actual* Army.

  52. HanSolo says:

    @Novaseeker,

    Good points.

    Many alpha males benefit greatly from the mixture of feminism and “raunch” or “slut” culture that make women more slutty and because of feminism that makes women more independent. With women more independent then they don’t need the provider/protector male at the individual level (still need him collectively as the police, tax payers, so on). This frees these women up to try to get out of their league men. Usually this is just for sex but the dream never dies for some of these alpha chasers.

    With all these women freed up from needing a provider male, the higher value promiscuous males have a field day, like Wilt Chamberlain having sex with thousands of women (20,000 is the estimate but even if it’s only 5,000 that’s a huge number).

    So, as long as society can remain stable enough then the higher value promiscuous males (also see Bill Clinton and JFK, very powerful politicians when president) benefit greatly by the unleashed hypergamy that feminism and “slut/raunch” culture promotes.

    Many of these powerful, higher-value men are the ones who create the laws and influence the culture. Either consciously (basking in pussy paradise) or inadvertently (they think women are suppressed by the patriarchy and should have tons of handouts and shouldn’t be slut shamed), they will be loath to change things.

  53. Things I’ll never be tempted to sign up for (based on just this week). Facebook or Fox News. Thanks, Me-GYN (don’t you have some babies that need a mother your heartless witch?)

  54. HanSolo says:

    Continuing off my last comment….

    For feminism to fail it WILL require the men in power (and some of the women in power too) to decide to change things.

    This can come either:

    1) Voluntarily by wise men (and women) seeing the consequences of the current path and having the courage to change.

    2) If things get worse, either through economic stagnation/ruin or through men checking out/rebelling, then the men (and now women) in power will respond to enforce a more assortative mating scenario on everyone.

    I talk a lot about these scenarios in my post that can be found linked in my username.

  55. ray says:

    thanks to Helen for sticking with this stuff, love the retro cover, right outta MARS ATTACKS! from a 1959 comic

    Fucker Carlson at least is aptly named

    that photo of Dobbs, Erickson, and The Falsity in the middle tells me all i need to know about the betrayal of the sons of america, the reason the loonie left wasnt challenged by the Repugnicants, and how it came to be that little boys across the u.s. cry (and worse) all night, needing daddies and men

    may dobbs and the rest of Mammon America choke on his Moneyline

    the ticker below tells true: america has “exhausted the trust fund” yet despite all “remains unchanged” . . . or perhaps “remains unchained”

    Megyn Kelly is legion, absolute poison, her clonettes all have THAT same smile and generally horrid visage, carlson dobbs erickson and the rest of the Big Brave Conservative Men are widdle beebies before her, o yeah these are america’s “successes” . . . telling others to be men, something they cant seem to manage themselves

    yup quite the trio, God-in-heaven the Horror is loose, and it thinks it’s really cool, to boot!

    looking at these American “men,” God might be mulling hm I coulda stopped at clay…

    a v effective piece thanks

  56. Buck says:

    I fight the fight as I can…
    1) I NEVER recommend marriage to guys…I always tell them not to make the mistake I made!
    2) I shame and mock sluts and tramps every chance I get!
    3) I ridicule tattoos, gauges, piercings, tongue rings purple hair and slut fashion !
    4) I refuse to carry the water for women at work, or in public…equality baby, live it- love it!
    5) When a woman makes an utterly stupid comment I call her on it!

  57. RJ says:

    Men On Strike because of the simple formula:
    80% of men (beta) are getting AGED & STERILE sluts on IVF while the other 20% of men (alpha) are getting YOUTH & FERTILE sluts on birth control.

  58. Johnycomelately says:

    The issue at hand may be more complicated than simple inter-gender dynamics and the intractibility of the situation may involve more than positive masculanist solutions.

    Joseph Tainter’s book ‘The Collapse of Complex Societies’ is a must read for manospherians (there is an hour long lecture on YouTube for the condensed version) and most adequately describes the issues at hand. While it doesn’t specifically address gender issues, the themes can be extrapolated to fit the current topics.

    Complex systems gradually create a condition of diminished returns for units of labour and the capacity of individual male provisioning for females declines (example, stagnation of real wages since the 70s) the result being socialized provisioning (which we have now) and the natural consequences being feminism and socialism. It’s a very expansive theory and best I have read to date.

    Interestingly his thesis indirectly validates Old Testament laws concerning the Sabbath, the Sabbatical year and Jubilee.

  59. HanSolo says:

    @Outcast Superstar

    Read your review about Men on Strike. Good stuff. Thanks. I think I need to buy the book.

  60. WillBest says:

    You can’t win bread if you are on state aid. And given that breadwinner requires primary source of income, you can’t even win bread if your salary is barely more important than your spouse.

    As for Tucker maybe he meant it in the pure chauvinist manner of if you train up your woman real good, the system won’t matter. Or maybe man up and learn to filter women better so that you only actually marry the 40% that aren’t interested in destroying civilization

  61. Cane Caldo says:

    The real lesson to me is how useless it is to fight this battlefield from a “scientific” standpoint. The conservatives and traditionalists long ago ceded the scientific bastions to the leftists. Erick Erickson wants to win this on the grounds of “sensible science”, but he’s going to have his ass handed to him because those who put the “sense” in our “science” are raging perverts.

    The reason is because he’s a coward when it comes to his faith (Erickson is a professed Christian). Not only is he coward, but he’s ignorant. And not only is he an ignorant coward of his faith, but he’s a coward in owning up to what he has said in the preceding minutes.

    Megyn Kelly said: “But that’s your choice (for Erickson’s wife to be a SAHM while he works), but you are denigrating the choices made by others.

    Erickson: “I’m not, Megyn…” [He SHOULD have denigrated their choices.]

    Kelly: “Let me get back to Lou […] I’m trying to ask Lou to weigh in about your [Erickson’s] much more controversial statements about loving familes–both parents present–and your [Erickson’s] notion that it is damaging to have the mother as the primary wage earner.”

    Dobbs: “I won’t take up his [Erickson’] argument […] in the meanwhile, God bless you and my wife for […]

    God bless her for WHAT? Both parents are NOT present. It’s a lie! It’s a straight up lie weaved right into commentary and never even questioned. How can both parents be present when even one of them is working? No, no. God bless Kelly’s nanny. Megyn Kelly is superfluous, so Dobb’s is essentially using the Lord’s name in vain by blessing her for something she can’t possibly be doing!

    Husband’s don’t work just because it’s good for the family, but because it’s good for men. Similarly, wives don’t raise their children just for the children’s sake, but because it’s good for the wives. To watch the effects on children is to see the problem too late. Even when it’s necessary for a mother to work, it’s never good for them the way raising children is good for them. You show me a mother who actually raises her own kids, and I’ll show you a woman who is very aware that she herself is lousy with wickedness, and in need of a savior.

    Erickson goes wrong right off the bat, and Kelly eats his lunch. Dobbs is the quintessential frail old man [TradCon]; too willful to believe his own lying eyes that Kelly is kicking his ass.

  62. Opus says:

    On my way out for a drink last Friday night I passed an hotel where (as I could see) a wedding reception was being held, for the bride (in white) was outside and having a full-on row with her newly-made spouse. This did not bode at all well. In jest, my friend suggested that I hand one or other of the arguing parties my business card. He was not in the best of moods himself, as his own wife, the one he had bought a Motor-car for last Xmas, had failed to even give him a card on his birthday, a day or two earlier (a perfect example of Briffault’s law).

    As I have mentioned before I cannot recall that I have ever been under any pressure to marry, in deed more frequently the opposite – my parents treated me as never much older than a teenager, a characteristic perhaps of older parents who had themselves married late, and thus – they regarded me as too young for marriage. I learned from bitter experience that it was necessary to keep any girlfriend on whom I might otherwise be keen, away from them, for otherwise they would be certain to put her off, but an attitude pro-marriage did not prevail amongst friends and colleagues. I have certainly sensed envy from married men at my being single, but never accompanied by a suggestion that matrimony would be desirable for me or some duty that I should perform, not that I have ever met a woman who seemed in earnest for me to man her up (beyond the perennial ‘I am not that sort of girl’ – oh yes they are) and most although they may have thought highly of themselves would in hindsight have badly failed my check-list of marriageable qualities – far too many red-ticks – and being good in bed is not to be ticked green, indeed it is not even on the list. The more full of themselves, the more unsuitable, was the prevailing trend.

    Marriage seems to be particularly expected in America. It is a bit hard, however, to blame men for failing to marry when presumably there are many women who also refuse to do so and where the incentive for men to marry is outweighed by the considerable and frequently early disadvantages. If women want men to marry then they are going to have to provide incentive for the man to do so, and the State are going to have to make men attractive enough for women themselves to want to marry. Rampant promiscuity from women, and the baggage that goes with it, combined with lack of employment opportunities for men is not that incentive.

  63. Tam the Bam says:

    Carlson has it totally bass-ackwards. Cart firmly before hoss (and the horse is showing its dock). As any fule kno, it’s ” WITH GREAT POWER THERE MUST ALSO COME – – GREAT RESPONSIBILITY! ” ©Stan Lee
    Or to put it another way :-
    “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”
    So where’s my super-power then, Tucker? (I’m kinda torn between ‘talk to the animals’ and ‘things just stay put where I left them’).

  64. Ton says:

    It is foolish to think republicans and the GOP would offer a counter to big government and centralised power. The GOP is the original big government, centralized power political party and attracted many Germans from their failed Marxist revolution of 1848( pert sure that date is correct)

    Only fools and the ignorant look to the GOP and Fox news types to stem the tide.

  65. Tam the Bam says:

    .. and the Welfare State was invented shortly thereafter by those limp-wristed, bleeding-heart … Prussians.
    Purely in the interests of the state/national pastime (or industry), i.e. waging Total-War mit Maximum Efficiency Against Everyone Everywhere Forever (and it allows one to ignore the casualty-rate, it’s only those male uentermensch anyhow).
    Works. We’re still in the ‘Stans and shit.

  66. Elspeth says:

    You show me a mother who actually raises her own kids, and I’ll show you a woman who is very aware that she herself is lousy with wickedness, and in need of a savior.

    Two, four, six, eight! Oh wait. We’ve already done that, haven’t we? Amen, brother Caldo.

    I cringed as I watched Eric Erickson back pedal from what he said in his first interview and what he wrote in his subsequent blog post. And yeah, comparing man made in God’s image to the animal kingdom in ludicrous and I tire of Christians trying to discuss these issues from the position on of evo-psych rather than absolute Truth.

  67. Casey says:

    Tucker Carlson……….what a joke. Pardon me if I don’t hold him up as an authority on masculinity. Bought & paid for is how I would describe him. For additional fun, search YouTube for the tear-down Jon Stewart did on him 8 years ago.

    You will notice he did not say ’embrace authority to reclaim your masculinity’. He said embrace ‘responsibility’.

    Megyn Kelly is also someone for whom I hold ZERO respect. Just another pretty face (for now) used to sell the drivel that passes for news at Fox News.

    Same old tired mantra, spouted by people who have diarrhea…….but it’s coming out of their mouth instead of their ass.

  68. Casey says:

    @ Zorro

    I see you already voiced an opinion on Jon Stewart taking Tucker Carlson to task on CrossFire.

    I bow to the master sir, and no; I don’t think you were being too harsh.

  69. hurting says:

    It will require societal collapse for anything to change.

    Feminism and the misandrist jurisprudence it has cultivated benefit 100% of women fairly directly insofar as they all possess a valuable put option within the context of Marriage 2.0. This is roughly half the electorate.

    If 10% of the other half of the electorate (alpha males) also benefits from the current arrangement, you have a 55-45 natural advantage.

    Game. Set . Match.

  70. Entropy is My god says:

    Disturbing the mound is a not so hidden reference to an ant farm which is what all feminists, communists, etc want for America and the world. A barren wasteland of obedient drones and a few stud males servicing the queen.

    This is where technological innovation and comfortable living was always destined to take us. We have succumbed to our own delight and now relish our subjugation. The only way to crawl from this quagmire is for all of the vile pillars of modern life to break, letting the weight of self sufficiency crush those who would denigrate the sanctity of man hood.

    I hope and pray for nothing more than justice and the reaping of the bitter harvest that has been sown. Not because I will be laughing, but because no one will.

  71. @Ton:

    “Only fools and the ignorant look to the GOP and Fox news types to stem the tide.”

    Ton, I totally agree. Fox news has been on my TVs in my home for the past 13 years, but that is due to there not being a more viable alternative.

    At least the women are by far the best looking on Fox than other networks. Fox business network also has a couple of very good looking babe. One comes to mind; the very skinny chick with the long brown hair. I’d say yes to her if she invited me out to dinner and “conversation”.

  72. Casey says:

    Here’s another little offering from the turd supermarket…….an article blaming men (or pigs…so says the article) for women’s menopause.

    http://www.theloop.ca/opinion/news/article/-/a/2525489/The-reason-for-menopause-Men-are-pigs

    The feminist claptrap continues unabated.

    Just remember, just because you’ve found yourself having walked into a turd supermarket; does not mean you have to buy anything.

    I can’t imagine why men are going on strike.

  73. Matthew King says:

    Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
    Or close up the wall with our TradCon dead.

    Helen Smith is doing yeowoman’s work. For the life of me I cannot understand why this site wants to drive a wedge between their perfect allies and anti-feminists of all stripes, including traditionalists.

    Tucker Carlson differs with Smith only as a point of emphasis. He wants to see men take more responsibility for the predicament, while Smith (and Dalrock) wants to emphasize the blame on female princessliness. Both are correct. Both are necessary! It is a niggling debate over the source of the problem, which, is largely a moot debate. Doesn’t matter whether the chicken or egg came first, right now we have a dying chicken.

    I ask you, my friends, I ask you, HOW WILL WE EVER GET A DEAD CHICKEN TO CROSS THE ROAD?

    When the conservative says “man up,” he is not saying “find the courage to submit to the feminist prerogative”! He is saying, seize responsibility for the chaos so that you might fix the chaos. What is the alternative? Perpetual whining about the influence of feminism from last century? If Carlson (or William Bennett or Kay Hymowitz) were simply arguing that men made this bed so let them lie in it, then yes, he would be the enemy. Traditionalists are arguing that this bed is unmade, and if we sit around waiting for the feminist housekeeper to come tuck in the sheets, we’ll be waiting a long time.

    I tell you, my friends, I tell you, FEMINISTS ARE THE WORST HOUSEKEEPERS. Let’s clean up the wet spots and blood stains ourselves and get on with it.

    We need allies, not more and more enemies turned against us for mooted reasons brought on by hair-splitting.

    Megyn Kelly is not the spokesman for conservatism. She is a bottle-blonde ditz who has airtime on a sometimes-conservative network. When Speaker John Boehner starts promoting tax increases, amnesty, and larger government, do we say that conservatism must be opposed because he has an “(R)” after his name? Or do we say he is a RINO and has ceased to represent the Republican position?

    One method requires infinite categorizing, labelmaking, and a flow-chart of finely delineated enmities. The other requires individual scrutiny against a widely understood standard. This is a simple matter of rhetorical efficiency.

    Matt

  74. Nicole Petallides is her name. What are the chances that she would forgo her Fox career, marry me, and keep my welfare and my son’s welfare foremost on her mind for the rest of her life; that is second to her faith in God???

    Here is her pic:
    http://www.foxbusiness.com/watch/anchors-reporters/nicole-petallides-bio/

  75. Matthew King says:

    Mr. Dalrock wrote:

    *Not All Traditional Conservatives Are Like That.

    This is a fine sentiment in that it calls for peace/alliance among men with the same goals. But it is condescendingly flawed at its essence.

    For some unexplained reason, you have located a flaw within traditionalism itself rather than in the insufficient fidelity to principle of those who would call themselves traditionalists. And you attempt to evade conflict over this controversy by saying there are exceptions to the rule (“NATCALT”) rather than understanding that rule per se.

    Please take the time to explain how traditionalism per se is just another secret advocate for feminism. Can you cite the ur-sources of this sock-puppetry in the Catechism or Kirk or Burke? Or is it just one more instance of modern people mislabeling themselves and, frankly, failing to grasp the big picture?

    Everyone knows that practitioners of a principle are often flawed. Your assumptions about traditionalism are the error here. You can far more easily call out those who improperly go by the name than you can attempt to make an enemy of traditionalism itself. Because no matter how much you want to define the term according to its worst representatives, you and traditionalists share the same ends. You marginalize the true traditionalists by calling them the exception (NATCALT), rather than realizing the TINOs are the outliers.

    Matt

  76. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The men who are in support of feminism are not all pussies, by the way. There are many alphas among them, for whom feminism is well suited, for one reason or another (sexual, economic, political, familial, and so on). These guys either don’t see a problem with the current system, or, if they do, don’t agree as to what to do about that (whether it requires tweaks or a trashing). There are more of them than there are of men who see a problem, or who agree that feminism needs to vanish, even among the more manned up currently.

    There are a couple of differences between powerful upper-class men vs. upper-middle class men (same thing with upper-middle class women who are feminist true believers vs. upper-class women who are lukewarm about feminism, liberalism and enlightened modernity).

    Upper-class men, who are mostly liberals by “going with the flow” and being tested consistently by their female family members and reaping the rewards of their economic and political constituencies (who a couple of decades ago started becoming and resembling average women the most), rather than “true believers” (upper-middle class men), aren’t really going to make it without upper-class females (the true ones left anyways).

    I think the first change should be to convince high women of this entire scenario. I don’t think upper-class women aren’t liking what powerful men have done to them inwardly. If they would just speak up and start doing something, maybe the ball would start rolling and then an avalanche may occur.

    Since the upper-middle class in the USA is starting to die of its own feminist poison, all that’s left is the ultra-rich powerful “going with the flow” modern enlightened liberals.

  77. Casey says:

    @ Matt

    Tucker Carlson is no ally…….if you can’t see that, then I don’t know how we can bridge that chasm.

    He is a ‘Man Up Card’ dealer, and looks to women for approval of everything he says.

    As to your comment that Traditionalists are stating that the bed is unmade……..that’s not correct either. Women made this bed, and now it’s time for THEM to lie in it.

    Men going on strike is a perfectly acceptable & reasonable course of action to the hostile environment they find themselves.

    Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, etc. are not part of the resistance, they have already joined the BORG. Complete with a removal of all feminine imperative offensive thoughts, parts, & will.

    I believe Megan Kelly actually keeps Tucker Carlson’s previously removed scrotum as a makeup bag to keep her lipstick.

  78. Pirran says:

    Tucker Carlson (and his acolytes) always remind me of Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness’s character in The Bridge on the River Kwai).

    Industrious, destructive and delusional.

  79. Ton says:

    The reactionaries who would like to turn the social/ political/ legal clock back to 1820 are to few to matter, and all the ones I know, besides myself, want all kinds of modern expections. Simply won’t happen.

  80. Ton says:

    Vas 7777 my experience is UMC white chicks are dying for men with aggressive masculine attitudes.

    Not to many of them Fox babes I wouldn’t pass sometime with. As long as they don’t talk much

  81. MathGuy says:

    @sunshinemary

    But I sort of get what Mr. Carlson wants to say but can’t quite figure out. I don’t want men to man up and marry the sluts or support feminism. What I want them to do is man up and stop white knighting for sluts and feminists. Without support from men, the whole feminist fauxtopia will crumble.

    Well, plenty of men have quit white knighting. However, some also need to start kicking back and there in lies the problem.

    Early settlers get the arrows but the guy who just moves out of town doesn’t. There will be a lot more MGTOW and letting feminism collapse, with all the trauma that brings, than actively tearing it down. For that women have mostly themselves to blame. Why feminism requires men to support it, it also requires women to embrace it. Women who embrace feminism aren’t good prospects for partners (not just marriage partners, but dance partners or even conversation partners). Most women, including (especially?) those who say they aren’t feminists, embrace feminism.

    Without a prize to win why fight instead of just plain not going to the competition?

  82. greyghost says:

    Cane Caldo
    Looks like what you described is how blue pill men that see what is wrong and try to address it from a blue pill frame. They want to talk reality from the feminine imperative frame with a feminist woman (conservative type) With red pill knowledge and game they could have and should have agreed and amplified that chick and spoke past her to the audience. Lou Dobbs can get somewhat a pass due to his requirement to be a supplicant to even have a job on television but you can tell he knows something is wrong. Both men could use some time in the manosphere to give them some red pill to what they know and see.

  83. Höllenhund says:

    What a trainwreck. But the truth is there’s nothing surprising about that. Prime time TV is pretty much directed at proles, average women and other idiots who just want to be entertained and get their prejudices reinforced. It’s not a platform for high-minded people to discuss complex issues like this one. It just doesn’t work that way. They don’t give air time for all that confusing stuff. It’s no wonder TV is dominated by run-of-the-mill media whores like Carlson and that Megyn broad. It’s obvious they have zero intention to engage in serious debate. Forget about TV. It’s of no use if you want to spread the Red Pill.

    As far as the book is concerned, look…the fact is that the title is misleading for the very reason that it’s designed to capture the attention of the average dumb woman. Of course it’ll elicit dumb reactions. Men are simply abandoning roles that give them no benefit whatsoever. Deal with it. That’s not the same as going on strike.

  84. I purchased the book based on the DC article. Since the females make up 40% of the “breadwinners”, does anyone know how many are single moms of that percentage that are receiving government assistance? Has the government became their protectors?

  85. Luke says:

    1) Zorro is correct. CrappyTVforPoufters continues to smeal smegma all over the face of Dalrock’s good forum, for no remotely sufficient justification in the substantive portions of his posts.
    (Idea: post only the “real parts”, skipping the “buttsexing” and “ZZZZZLZZZLZLZLZLZ” nonsense that makes you your persona alternately an ass and a moron.)

    2) Interesting advice column piece: http://takimag.com/article/four_family_problems_three_bitchy_in_laws_two_twins_a_bathing_and_a_child_s/page_2#axzz2X3jBOub7

    Dear Delphi,

    I am a 40-year-old man with two children. My wife actually told me she is leaving me because I do not have or make enough money. She says she still loves me but can’t stay. What can I do?

    —Not Enough Cash in Corpus Christi

    Dear Not Enough Cash in Corpus Christi,

    It seems straightforward enough: She is a money-grubbing bitch and you simply do not have enough money. The only way to solve the problem is to make more money.

    You could start studying to become a surgeon; however, this is a very long-term plan that will make you much poorer in the short term. You could steal the money. Make sure you plan well, steal enough, and don’t get caught, or you will end up paying child support from your prison chain-gang wages. You could try an Internet marketing scheme from home in your spare time and make $40,000 a month; however, I am not so sure those schemes actually work. You could buy lottery tickets every day and wait for the blessed money to fall in your lap—not very likely.

    Or without any worry or stress you could decide you are lucky the bloodsucking parasite is looking for newer, richer prey to clean out and send to an early grave. If you did not have children I would suggest you get fired from your job, declare bankruptcy, and ask her for alimony.

    http://takimag.com/article/four_family_problems_three_bitchy_in_laws_two_twins_a_bathing_and_a_child_s/print#ixzz2X9kIBdUQ

  86. greyghost says:

    As it looks now we have an issue with what man up is defined as. I like sunshine’s and that is what needs to be said. Now that one fella back pedaling to Magyn has a blog, We can get to that guy and his followers and get him some red pill. (game) He can then get back on the show and add some more goodies to stir the pot. Maybe even use sunshinemary’s definition and idea of maning up as a public statement on air of what manning up is. Human nature is our friend, traditionalist would love to have what Dalrock has and be seen as cultural leaders (that is why they jumped on feminism) They incorporated a lie into biblical principles to be popular and now they will incorporate the red pill truth into biblical principles to be popular To peel off traditionalism from feminism and even make it hostile to feminism would be a good foundation to grow a civilized society from.
    A manned up man doesn’t white knight the feminine imperative. “You sluts are on your own”

  87. Swithunus says:

    @Matt

    The reason that we know that most trad-cons are TINOs is that the churches have been irretrievably feminised. If that isn’t the case, then please furnish Dalrock with a looooong list of churches preaching the traditionalist creed. And I’ll let Dalrock define what is acceptable as traditional. He keeps asking for such suggestions, but I haven’t seen many made.

    FYI, to save time – ‘Man up and bend over’ is not acceptable. Neither is ‘Man up and throw yourself under the marriage bus’, nor is ‘Man up and if it all goes wrong you didn’t man up enough’, nor is ‘Man up and if it all goes wrong you didn’t choose the right woman (for some unspecified ‘obvious’ reason)’.

    Neither are those blowhards interviewed above acceptable examples of ‘real’ trads. One minute the interviewer is claiming scientific basis for her feminist creed, the next she is deriding science from the past. Now either science is unassailable, or it is subject to the bias of the times. Were neither men capable of making the point? Absolutely worthless to the cause of men.

  88. en-sigma says:

    I really don’t know where to start. The fundamentals of conversation? Logic is obviously out the window here, so I really just don’t know where to start.

    The book was written by a woman – yet men are whining? I say “we” but I have been happily married for 22 years – we are not whining about anything, we have long understood that complaining gets you now where, so in the face of something that is wrong, we just don’t do it. That is how men work. If you complain too long about what we say, we stop talking to you. If you don’t like how we do something, we stop doing it for you. It really is quite simple – but the problems arise when every one else realizes we still rule the planet and we still make decisions and do things that they are not aware of for reasons that they cannot fathom.

    Now we get “news” shows like this that decry intents of men and misread the situation completely. All the while patting each other on the back and paying each other big salaries.

    Men are more than willing to sacrifice if we decide it is worth sacrificing for – but WE have to decide it. Just like any other individual in the world who has free will -we don’t like things being decided for us. Just like men are the ones who won the freedom to complain about HOW they won our freedom to complain. We know SOMEONE is going to complain, but it is right to do it and we did. And would do it again. And it increasingly looks like we may HAVE TO do it again one day.

    I spent 4 years in the military on a ship. The first year or so you are the low man on the totem pole and you get the undesirable jobs. The Skipper’s toilet was clogged and I was elected to go down into the forepeak where the tank was located and cut the sewage line. The only angle was sitting on the cold hull and sawing about 8 inches directly above my head. No other way to get it done. Not a complaint (other than the resigned “…..great….”). And yes, that all rained down on my head until I had cut the pipeline…in two places. I received everything the Skipper had eaten over the last week or so. We do what we do cuz it needs to be done.

    BUT FEMINISM DON’T NEED TO BE DONE! I WOULD RATHER STICK WITH THE HUMAN FECES RAIN THAN LIVE WITH FEMINISM!

    If they want it, so be it. But they have to live with what they want. They are getting all of the “RESPECT” they want from the betas, the rest of us will snipe the choice high-value targets when the opportunity raises itself. You won’t see us otherwise.

  89. The_Collapsar says:

    First post. I’d like to thank you Dalrock, as I’ve been reading this blog for several months now, and it has done a lot to awaken me from the blue-pill stupor I spent most of my life living. As a traditional conservative, it is true that not all of us are like that. However, an unfortunate number of us are – I was a massive white knight myself until recently. The difference, I think, between feminists and trad-cons is that trad-cons can be swayed by experience and logic/facts (it took both to start my conversion). I have started to reach out and introduce red-pill thinking to some friends and family close to me (and the social conservative community on reddit, yes such a place does exist), and although they have been skeptical I can tell that the thinking resonates with them to some degree. So I guess what I would like to say to everyone here – it is possible to reach out to traditional conservatives and find common ground, especially on a personal basis.

  90. OT, but this may be of interest to your Catholic readers: The Devirilization of the Liturgy in the Novus Ordo Mass.

  91. Lovekraft says:

    At this point, mainstream media has been so discredited (primarily via its vetting of Obama with little scrutiny) that watching them comment on the news is like a toddler showing off his/her new bouncy balls.

  92. Casey says:

    @ Lovekraft

    Given Fox’s tendancy to ‘stack’ the news line up with bodacious blondes (and that breast augmentation is outpatient surgery)……yes, it truly is like a toddler showing off HER new bouncy balls.

  93. greyghost says:

    Fox news at least has enough sense to put some women on that look half way good. Up until today I haven’t seen that many continuous minutes of the show in years

  94. Pingback: Steynian 476rd | Free Canuckistan!

  95. Sandra Smith is another hottie on Fox Business Network. Check her out at:
    http://www.foxbusiness.com/watch/anchors-reporters/sandra-smith-bio/

  96. Casey says:

    I personally am not interested in how beautiful they are….although I will give them credit on their transient good looks.

    I am more concerned with what they represent…..the dumbing down of society.

  97. doclove says:

    Sixty-Three percent of the women who are the primary or sole bread winners are dependent on government assistance to Lou Dobbs. Erick Erickson should have pointed out that women in all households are at least 65% likely to initiate the divorces, and that women who are the primary or sole bread winners are more likely to initiate divorce than women who are not. I don’t know what the percentages are though, and maybe someone can help me out here.

  98. feeriker says:

    Pirran said on June 24, 2013 at 11:21 am

    Tucker Carlson (and his acolytes) always remind me of Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness’s character in The Bridge on the River Kwai).

    Industrious, destructive and delusional.

    You forgot to add obsequious. BIG omission there. Never, EVER forget the term obsequious when describing people like Carlson and the rest of the feministass-kissing brigade of TradCon frauds.

  99. SlargTarg says:

    A trad-con white-knight reviewed this book on Ricochet (conservative forum) and got thrashed by some of the comments:

    Ricochet: Because its Hard

  100. James K says:

    @Casey

    Given Fox’s tendancy to ‘stack’ the news line up with bodacious blondes …

    It’s instructive to watch the news on “Russia Today”. They use good looking presenters who are native English speakers, but you soon realise that they are puppets who are told what to say by people behind the scenes who have their own agenda.

    Then you think “how is this different from our own news channels?”

  101. Casey says:

    @ James K

    Exactly right James……….the beautiful girls are just there to distract men; and keep us from thinking critically about what is being presented. We are only flesh & blood…….so a beautiful woman can have that effect.

    Women love it because they view it as tangible proof the feminist narrative is being delivered upon.

    These sexy news anchors are indeed puppets, and we need to see them for that; and assume whatever is coming out of their treacherous mouth is suspect.

  102. Martian Bachelor says:

    @LagunaBeachFogey

    I know exactly what the xtians’ problem is of which you speak: too many keep wanting to flip their 10th Commandment from SHALL NOT to YOU MUST! lolzz

    It’s that simple, and is the gist of gambit at the core of all their Mule Up! bugle oil.

  103. They Call Me Tom says:

    “Plus with all the misandry against boys, starting in school where girls are favored, and against men then men just kind of tune out.” –Han Solo

    No one plays a game where they’re derided for attempting to win. I still believe there are leagues out there (to overextend the metaphor) where one is allowed to not only attempt to win, but actually are celebrated for winning. When I find such a league, I’ll give that game the commitment it deserves.

  104. Ton says:

    I use to get the “naked news” when I lived in Hawaii. I was very well informed those days

  105. OK , nothing new here. Only a woman could plagiarize what manosphere bloggers have been observing for almost a decade and be taken legitimately. In girl-world no man would ever be interviewed for writing the EXACT SAME THING as Dr. Helen.

    As I’ve said countless times before, in a feminine-primary, fem-centric culture, the feminine imperative will only allow women’s interpretations of gender relations to be validated. And again I’ll ask, could a man have written this? Would a man be taken seriously on a MSM outlet? Would a man be interviewed and lauded for writing what Dr. Helen has lifted from the manosphere?

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/08/could-a-man-have-written-this/

    Would a man have gotten a Salon interview for writing and researching the EXACT same data? Or would he have been dismissed as a misogynist before the ink was dry on the books first press run?

    When what passes for the Red Pill comes to the mainstream it will be wrapped in a pink chiffon camisole, wearing spanx and carrying a copy of Our Bodies, Our Selves. The mainstream Red Pill will only, can only, be what the feminine imperative will allow it to be. The Red Pill is only what the Dr. Helens of the world will interpret it to be.

    Hear me now, believe me later,..go ask Vox about it here:
    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/05/book-review-men-on-strike.html

    Once again, only a woman is allowed any red pill credibility.

  106. greyghost says:

    Rollo
    You are right. That’s why we’re here. If it wasn’t for us she wouldn’t have anything to say. This is a step of many breaking the feminine imperative.

  107. Höllenhund says:

    Re: SlargTarg

    It’s time we admit that tradcons are merely useful idiots, their worldview is a pile of misandrist BS and they have no place in the community of thinking men that is the Manosphere. Men should serve religion if it serves their interests. If it doesn’t, just nip it in the bud.

  108. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Cail

    “I agree, it’s not a politically viable plan, for the reasons you describe. However, for society to be fixed and cleansed of feminism, that’s what it would take.”

    Nonsense. Society cannot be “cleansed” of feminism, in fact it cannot be cleansed of any particular ideology. That’s just typical tradcon idiocy. The track record of all attempts to combat ideologies is unimpressive to say the least. I suppose you’ve heard about the Catholic Inquisition. Well, heresy is still around, isn’t it? It’s not possible to shoot ideas in the head or run tanks over them.

    Another fact is this: as long as contraceptives and abortion are available, and our level of technological development permits women to enter the workforce en masse, feminism is here to stay. The tradcon idea of returning to old sexual norms is futile.

    Look…mankind is a mutant species. Can you name me any other species that INVENTED the tools for its own degeneration and eventual demise?

  109. Swithunus says:

    Dear I’m-not-a-TINOs

    The reason that we know that most trad-cons are TINOs is that the churches have been irretrievably feminised. If that isn’t the case, then please furnish Dalrock with a looooong list of churches preaching the traditionalist creed. And I’ll let Dalrock define what is acceptable as traditional. He keeps asking for such suggestions, but I haven’t seen many made.

    FYI, to save time – ‘Man up and bend over’ is not acceptable. Neither is ‘Man up and throw yourself under the marriage bus’, nor is ‘Man up and if it all goes wrong you didn’t man up enough’, nor is ‘Man up and if it all goes wrong you didn’t choose the right woman (for some unspecified ‘obvious’ reason)’.

    Neither are those blowhards interviewed above acceptable examples of ‘real’ trads. One minute the interviewer is claiming scientific basis for her feminist creed, the next she is deriding science from the past. Now either science is unassailable, or it is subject to the bias of the times. Were neither men capable of making the point? Absolutely worthless to the cause of men. No wonder women are losing their respect fro men if guys like that are put forward as the voice of male authority.

  110. The male lion IS dominant. What the hell is he saying? I do not agree with the general statement that conservatives have ceded science to liberals though, not one bit. It may seem that way but you have to look at whats being said in the murmur of the masses and who is saying it. Both sides have a huge ignorant constituency. That the ignorant constituency on the left happens to have more folks with useless degrees able to parrot unsupportable claims is not representative of the right having ceded science. In a comparison of the groups non-ignorant constituencies, it doesn’t hold. In academia, indeed science is ceded to the left. Its inevitable because science replaces God among those smarty whipper snappers.

    Megyn Kelly owned those guys. They looked just like pastors up there with their self effacing expressions and yuk yukking. Its sickening. There is not enough common ground with them to call them allies. Acting in ignorance or in fear, neither are excuses.

  111. We can get to that guy and his followers and get him some red pill.

    Looks like is going to avoid this issue for a while, gonna be hard to invade his space with red pillers

  112. Read the stories of the women in this article and see , ahem, powerful evidence in favor of career mothers.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/done-baby-boomer-reveal-deepest-financial-regrets-225707221.html

    Also, check out that picture and write a mental caption. I cannot suffer the notion that that woman did not run the home, from inside it or from a corner office.

  113. AdmiralBenbow says:

    Dateline 1943:

    In response to recent reports that Jews across Nazi-occupied Europe are being sent to work camps where millions of them face disease, starvation, and death, the US TradCon Weekly Report issued a statement:

    Every word of that is true, and let me say who cares? If you’re a Jew, stop whining and reclaim your birthright which is the Torah, and the Torah requires work and responsibility. You don’t embrace responsibility, you have no freedom. Arbeit macht frei.

  114. Cane Caldo says:

    @Empath

    “I do not agree with the general statement that conservatives have ceded science to liberals though, not one bit. It may seem that way but you have to look at whats being said in the murmur of the masses and who is saying it.”

    The ground is airspace; freedom of expression. Those who feel free to shout, are winning it. Those who murmur cede it.

    More to point: Women working outside the home is a secondary issue, elevated to primary ruse. The primary issue is: Should wives do what their husbands say? That’s not a question for science, but religion. Science wants to use inductive reasoning to look around the world, compile a list of facts, and say, “These data points seem to point this direction.” We are Christians! We use DEDUCTIVE reasoning because we know that there is a God, and He has told us about His nature, and made us according to His nature. He gave us a book. We deduce knowledge about the world FROM these things. We do not try to approach them from without. God is the proposition. We are the facts deduced from Him.

    That is the ceded ground. Whoever is not approaching science from the perspective that God made it, in the way and manner that it was and is revealed by the Holy Spirit is building idols. So, if Erickson thinks that “six days” means something other than “six days” then he needs to have a very compelling reason.

    “What I would say is that since Einstein proved that time is relative to the position and motion of the observer, there is no way to disprove that God could have created the universe in six literal days as He counts time. The Scripture even says it: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” II Peter 3:8 (KJV) “

    Oh, well, EINSTEIN! Hey Erickson: You picked the wrong Jew for validation! Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection was witnessed by hundreds of people. He testifies through His life, death, and life again that the Word of God is real and among us and so good that not even death can stop It.

    But, you know, there’s Einstein…and lions!

    So what that male lions are dominant? Feminists will just retort that lions sleep while the lionesses do all the hunting. Lions are violent polygamists. Is it acceptable to go Genghis Khan on my neighbors and absorb his women into my harem? No one is convinced by this logic except the sort of nerd who couldn’t be the Genghis Khan of a retirement village.

    Divine revelation should be the metric here. That goes a thousand-fold for the RCC and the the various Christian denominations who hem and haw and equivocate the crap out of plain words: Six days.

    Until you’re willing to be six days wrong about something that has very little direct influence on your life, you will struggle to ever be right about the one life that matters. It’s a very short trip among “6 days means 5 billion years”, to, “3 days means 30 minutes to resuscitation”, to, “women should be the primary breadwinners”.

    If that won’t do it for you: Einstein’s wives didn’t have careers.

  115. John says:

    “Science wants to use inductive reasoning to look around the world, compile a list of facts, and say, ‘These data points seem to point this direction.’”

    And science, of course, is very biased. You can make the data points go any direction you want by being selective, ignoring contradictary studies, having scientist under the grip of grants and other sources of gov’t-funding, etc.

    If a study/studies were released that definitively disproved man-made global warming, any possibility of homosexuals being “born that way,” etc., would mainstream science accept them? Would the “unbiased” peer review process come out on the side of truth?

    Nah, that won’t happen until it’s below 32 F down in Hades.

  116. HanSolo says:

    Here’s a more favorable Fox News interview with Dr. Helen where both the male and female interviewers are in agreement with Dr. Helen:

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2503530221001/men-on-strike/

    Much more positive than the “man up” Fox News video posted above.

  117. feeriker says:

    @Rollo:

    You’re right, but, sadly, that’s just the way the world is. Women will only listen to other women. I’d rather much have Dr. Helen “plagiarize” the message of the manosphere, if that’s what it takes to get other women (and their mangina/white knight enablers) out there to listen up and take heed, than to have the message not be spread at all. If it takes a woman like Dr. Helen to get the word out to the intended target, then more power to her.

  118. D_Johnny says:

    Don’t know if it’s been said yet, but a good example of game from the classics is the fall of dido in vergil’s aeneid. Aeneas lands near carthage, a city dido has founded. Dido is the strongest woman — she’s independent and directing men in the building of a great city. Aeneas denies her marriage bc he’s fated to find italy. Dido, the high watermark of womankind, descends into sorrow and kills herself as a result. Hermes warns aeneas not to look back, saying that womankind is fragile and fickle.

  119. Bluedog says:

    I am repeating greyghost and feeriker to agree and say, “Rollo … you’re right” … and of course he is, seriously word-for-word everything Dr. Helen is saying has been being said or could have been repackaged with a male author, even a well known and respected one, and it’d be rejected.

    I think there are two questions in this recognition though. One is: what would Dalrock/AVfM do about it? I am guessing from what I am reading that the answer is “ride”. Take that pony and ride it. Regular bullets don’t work so if given a silver bullet by all means fire away!

    The alternative question though is: what does Rollo himself suggest we do? I have followed Rollo a long time and I think he’s holding back, but I’ll speculate from what he’s said in the past that Rollo understand the masculine and feminine imperatives to be in conflict with one another and one surmises that both writ small in individual relationships and writ large in the culture, either one or the other can be dominant.

    I interpret that myself to mean that first of all, masculine and feminine “imperatives” are emergent properties arising out of the millions of transactions that occur between three things: (1) human conscious agents (2) male unconscious programming and (3) female unconscious programming.

    To take that out of the abstract and be concrete, that is like when we as conscious agents use ATM cards to buy groceries. The ATM card, its magnetic instructions, the ATM reader, the electronic relay and clearinghouse and banks in the background … all unconscious rule systems, interacting as they do with conscious agents … people, who are using their agency to buy and sell things.

    … so when we say masculine or feminine is dominant, we mean to say that we are aligning with the unconscious reproductive agendas of one or the other set of programming and using our agency to impose dominance.

    One can understand an “imperative” best by thinking about how it behaves when the other imperative is removed. For example … we can understand the unconscious, programmatic logic of the ATM/electronic clearinghouse by removing the human agent and asking, independent of human decisions, ***turned in on itself*** what does the system do?

    Asked another way: to see the “feminine imperative”, we can ask … what would female reproductive programming do if men were removed or otherwise neutered?

    Answer: you get a system that works like a beehive.

    The harder question is answer is what it looks like with a dominant, masculine imperative. I don’t think Rollo has answered this for himself. It might be a positive thing, but I would caution everyone here who thinks we can “enjoy the fall” … it may also look a whole helluva lot like Sicily under a hard mafia hand.

    A completely dominant feminine imperative … where unconscious female sexual reproductive strategies erase the human value of men and women alike and turn just a few disgusting “alpha females” into “queens” while those that remain are sterile worker drones or sex drones (to be used and killed) … sounds like hell on earth.

    Until Rollo clarifies this himself though, I have to default myself to humanism: the Human Imperative, where human agency is honored before male or female reproductive genetic strategies … that Imperative seems to be our only hope.

    And, if we require Dr. Helen’s silver bullet and others like it to get there, so be it, because fellows, those of you saying “enjoy the fall” … I’m guessing you’ve never been anywhere near organized crime. That must be nice.

  120. HanSolo says:

    @Bluedog

    There isn’t just one masculine imperative. Broadly speaking, there are two, that of the upper males and that of the middle and lower males. Many of the upper males love a stable society that allows women to be promiscuous and hypergamous while the middle and lower males prefer a society that enforces assortative mating (everyone marries, the 6 with the 6 and so forth). Often, only when the threat of chaos or ruin is so present do the upper males realize that if they want to avoid a rebellion (and the massive destruction that might result and ruin their hold on power) that they need to make some concessions to the lower and middle value men.

  121. SlargTarg says:

    Many of the upper males love a stable society that allows women to be promiscuous and hypergamous while the middle and lower males prefer a society that enforces assortative mating (everyone marries, the 6 with the 6 and so forth).

    I’d be content with a less regulated world that would not throw so many artificial roadblocks in front of my path from attempting to be top dog.

    The elites are not just about marginalizing the ambitionless betas, but pulling up the ladder to success once they’ve “got theirs.”

  122. Bluedog says:

    @HanSolo,
    I think I agree and have kind of put my own finger on the pulse of that. I’m sure it takes a lot of forms, but to give an example of how I think about it: observing/listening to the MGTOW folks such as barbarossaaaa or Stardusk … what seems important about them both, even when you (or I as it were) don’t agree with them, is that they put words to thoughts that you feel pretty certain other men feel and live out, but can’t articulate, i.e.: the “grass eaters” or even the larger “men on strike” or “John Galts” that Dr. Helen is referring to and the basic thrust of the whole thing seems to be:
    “we aren’t playing this game, so you will either grow up, or go without us”

    Stardusk has at times gotten carried away with it. But barbarossaaaa, if he is to be faulted, is only to be faulted in being very articulate where it comes to an acuity we are only recently appreciating for uniquely female fault, but not equally articulate where it comes to male perspicacity where it concerns our own male faults. In other words: men have a reproductive agenda too, we always have, yet it is by way of some minimal level of perspicacity that men DELIBERATELY sublimate their reproductive agenda into a larger human tapestry of needs and interests. In other words: we all want a 9 or a “hard 10”, but we will compromise that and take it down to a 6 or 7, happily (!), when 6 or 7 comes with the virtues that make things like family possible … and many of us would be happy with a harem, but we understand and accept the trade off that, at least used to be: you can have your virtuous life-long 7, or your harem now, but not both.

    I point this out because I have to speculate a bit, but I would speculate that if there is a change in women that Stardusk, barbarossaaaa and MGTOW in general seek, it is a similar female perspicacity that becomes broadly shared and distributed … an understanding that there will have to be trade offs … that you can’t have all your sexual marketplace cards, and eat your happily married monogamy, too.

    I really hate describing it this way, but you could say, just to keep it simple, that the feminine imperative operates as a sort of unconscious, multi-person organism. The “alpha” masculine imperative would seem to act as a single-organism, will-to-power, unconsciousness, driven almost sociopathically through a tacitly conscious single person. The “beta” masculine imperative, on the other hand, seems to have a communitarian component … it has something in common with the feminine imperative this way … its programming recognizes the weakness of the individual (beta loses to alpha) but finds some strength when beta acts together, by going, MGTOW, or “on strike” or “John Galt” (unrelated side point: I positively HATE Ayn Rand and most of what she stands for and I am thoroughly dismayed that people I otherwise sympathize with admire her, but that’s for another time).

  123. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Now I know my ABCs Edition | Patriactionary

  124. HanSolo says:

    @SlagTarg

    Striving for the top is a risky and dangerous road. And you can’t expect anyone to play fair (look at Game of Thrones and honorable Ned Stark–and yes, I was pissed that he died). There are definite perks to be had by being at the top and if pulling up the ladders ensures better success for their children (and princes ruling by right of inheritance is probably the ultimate example) then that’s what they’ll do. If we find ourselves on the lower rungs then we have to either climb the ladder in the face of difficulties or use our own rope and grappling hook to climb another way.

  125. HanSolo says:

    @Bluedog

    I agree that the alpha imperative is to be selfish and individualist, if it can get away with it. If not, or if it’s wise, it sees the great latent power in the beta masses and organizes them to serve his purposes while getting enough of their own met to keep them content. One alpha warrior with 10 beta warriors can beat another alpha warrior or even two. So the more foresightful alpha will ally with the betas. I think that is why the more successful civilizations promoted monogamy for the masses (except for the most dreadful omega males that no one cared about) and limited the polygyny of the rulers. The rulers didn’t do too bad because they could still have the better women and sneak some in on the side, even if their wife had to be some ugly chick to form an alliance.

    I also agree that the beta male imperative is more collectivist, that “together we may do great things.”

    The female imperative definitely has a herd mentality to it. I think this arises from the female physical vulnerability so they instinctively always want safety in numbers and to know they belong. I mean, they won’t even go to the bathroom alone! I think that there is less potential conflict between the top females and the rest because they can all be theoretically impregnated by the top males and have their offspring survive. But women aren’t just wired for that. Most are wired to want a commitment from their male for multiple years and even longer and so the upper females can be angry at the lesser females for distracting their man or keeping him from wanting to settle down (with her).

    The real two female imperatives are to get the best genes you can (easier in a safe/rich environment where it doesn’t matter if the man bales) and have enough safety and resources for her own and her offspring’s survival. I think that women will tend to slut shame a lot more in harsh environments where they really need a man to be there at the personal level. In richer environments there’s less need for keeping a man and so there’s less slut shaming.

  126. Bluedog says:

    @HanSolo,
    Yup, yup, and yup. Also, re: your statement, “sees the great latent power in the beta masses and organizes them to serve his purposes while getting enough of their own met to keep them content” … sounds/feels/smells to me like cosa nostra and Putin’s Russia. Given the choice between alpha crime bosses and the beehive of the alphaqueen, hell I’d pick grass eater and MGTOW any day. A man’s got a soul, or at least some of us do.

  127. HanSolo says:

    @Bluedog

    What? You haven’t seen into Putin’s soul and found a good man there?

    But all joking aside, the purposes of the alpha don’t necessarily have to be tyrannical and purely selfish. You can have benevolent alphas who organizes the beta masses for good as well. Not that he was a saint but perhaps Churchill could be seen as a more benevolent alpha while Hitler was the tyrannical alpha.

  128. HanSolo says:

    The female imperative is to go for quality genes and ensure the children survive. She can’t go for quantity to the same extent a male can and often has to trade off genes for children’s survival.

    The male imperative is to go for both quality and quantity if possible and ensure or hope that the children survive. Due to the fact that most men don’t have top genes then they aren’t as able to pursue the quantity and quality strategy (or even just the quantity strategy) and so they have to pursue the find one good woman strategy and stay around to make sure the kids make it to reproduce themselves.

  129. BC says:

    OT (or is Aunt Giggles ever OT?), but the latest HUS post quotes a study and selectively interprets various data to conclude that:

    “[data and research] support the narrative that marriage rates are not declining (much). Rather, people are postponing marriage, viewing it as a “capstone of adulthood” rather than a launch into adulthood. This means that overall, people will spend fewer years of their lives being married, assuming static life expectancy. Whether you think that is a good or bad thing depends on your point of view. However, I find little support for the claims that men (or women) are reluctant to marry.”

    Oh, and contrary interpretations are tainted by “political spin”.

    So Man Up and marry those aging sluts, guys. lol

  130. BC says:

    we all want a 9 or a “hard 10″, but we will compromise that and take it down to a 6 or 7, happily (!), when 6 or 7 comes with the virtues that make things like family possible

    The problem is that a 6 or 7 today is simply a 5 some fifty years ago, and that “virtues that make things like family possible” were a given. So the average guy is really not asking for all that much in terms of assortive mating, but feminism and fattyism have shifted the bell curve to the left to the extent that “average” princesses think they are a good standard deviation or more to the right side of the curve, with resultant expectations and complexes.

    As others have said above, I also believe that the situation cannot be fixed, and must be let, and even helped to fail as much as is necessary to clean out accumulated imbalances and restore equilibrium in the same way that natural systems ultimately do.

  131. Höllenhund says:

    Re: feeriker

    It’s not entirely true that “women will only listen to other women”. In practice, women are absolutely willing to listen to men talk about women, as long as a) he’s a unicorn (you know, the perfect mix of alpha and beta, the whole package, sexy AND dependable etc) and b) he packages his argument in a way that women don’t find it offensive. In fact, women-oriented blogs and women in general seem to badly want these men to show up and join the discussion.

    Here’s the problem: high-value men don’t waste their time listening to women complain about men, and they definitely don’t bother giving advice to them. They just cannot be bothered. The kind of men that do bother talking to women and giving relationship advice to them usually are the exact kind of men that women find sexually unattractive, so they don’t tend to listen.

    And another problem is this: picture the AVERAGE, say, 28-year-old single Western woman. Is there ANYTHING that Red Pill men, either attractive or not, can honestly tell her about the current SMP/MMP that makes her feel better about herself and her options? Even if they carefully package their argument? Can they tell her anything that gives her more hope instead of less? No, they can’t.

    These dilemmas cannot be solved.

  132. Höllenhund says:

    Re: BC

    Well, look…think about it this way: what kind of woman is likely to visit a blog like HUS? Obviously the type of woman who isn’t getting what she wants from men so she starts surfing the net for advice. In other words, a medium-value or low-value woman. Do you think such women are capable of psychologically handling the naked truths about the current SMP if they are presented to them? Of course not. So if Walsh wants to retain her readers, she has to carefully bury her arguments under layers of BS – which is exactly what she’s doing.

  133. Tam the Bam says:

    ” it may also look a whole helluva lot like Sicily under a hard mafia hand”
    I was thinking more like post-Imperial Eurasia under a hard Hunnish, Gothic or, even later, Mongolian hand. Those Sicilian boys love their mammas and the Virgin too good to be convincing and make it stick.

  134. It still baffles me when I see the assumption around the manosphere that “alpha” is somehow a higher rank than “beta”. Perhaps I’m missing some key information, or else my categorizing is off. The bad boy alphas that I’ve met couldn’t lead anything. They were losers who drove rusted out cars and couldn’t fix them when they broke down, and never had their own place but were moochers.
    The Betas I hang out with are also not followers. They are more likely of the “live and let live” mentality, who have a sense of honor and intelligence who act to not screw over their fellow man because of honor, not because some alpha scared them into it. When dealing with those who are their lesser, they still treat the losers as equals and show respect. Not out of fear, just courtesy.
    Perhaps it’s just my cultural conditioning that is keeping me from seeing it, but I have no problem telling a loser alpha “no”. I myself am not a leader, but neither do I seek a leader. But maybe those “betas” which need leaders, are not the kind to hang around these parts.
    A final thought is that perhaps “Alpha” is simply a propensity towards violent behavior. Where beta is not necessarily “collective” in thought, but simply likes to resolve issues in a peaceful means because they see violence as a waste of time. Perhaps that is foolish of the beta, but it is the mentality. The beta can create all they want, but if they don’t have the power to keep what they create, then they are no better off than slaves.

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

    Yes Liberty, Family, and Masculinity,

    The mainstream media, lead by women, has redefined alpha and beta.

    This is because women’s brains are more juvenile, naturally debauched, base, and degraded.

    For instance, once upon a time men defined alpha as “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, curteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

    Women, on the other hand, define alpha as someone who buttcocksz women and tapes it secretly. This is why women such as priscilla painton at simon and shcuster and charlotte allen at the weekly standard publish, fund, promote, and repeat the lies about teh hieight and succeth of secretive tapers of butthext.

    Unfortunately for the church, many churchian men, raised by single moms, have manboobs, and also think that secrteive tapings of buttehxt are more alpha than Jesus Christ himself.

    This is why they stipulate that the words of JEsus are “noise” as churchian commenters often do on this blog, while also preaching that jseus came to abolish the law so as to enable their buttehxtual activities.

    The federal reserve has thus succeeded in abolishing the church and the traditional family, while yet leaving the church buildings standings alongside the walls of the homes. But the soul has been buttehxted away, and as so many churchians prefer butteht x buetethxting overe JEsus, a renaissance may not belong to them.

    -da GBFM lzozozoozozoz

  136. Bluedog says:

    @HanSolo, re: “The female imperative is to go for quality genes and ensure the children survive” … agreed … in fact, any genetic imperative is just that: an unconscious rule-based system underlying conscious agency, experienced by conscious agents as a drive (i.e.: men have this peculiar “drive” to mate with hot nubile women), which when taken to its own ends, serves the end of passing on genes successfully. The feminine imperative just wants to pass on genes at end of day. “Hypergamy doesn’t care” as Rollo taught us. The genetic imperative doesn’t care. Your male drive to mate doesn’t care that she’s 41 and capable of virtue and dedication. Your agency might, but the drive, the hypergamy, the imperative … they don’t, they just want to pass on genes and for that, men need a fertile woman and women need a fit man.

    @Höllenhund and feeriker, re: “women will only listen to other women” … also I am agreeing this is not always true. Being a high value man, demonstrating largely through body language that you really can’t be troubled to care about the anti-male tropes that others take for granted, and being both relatively laconic and articulate, … all seem to affect the result of women taking note and adjusting accordingly.

    @Tam the Bam, re: “Mongolian hand” versus Sicilian boys, their mommas and the Virgin … well, yes and no. Yes … I am personally at long odds to see an actual example of a clearly dominant masculine genetic imperative working itself out in the real world that isn’t some kind of dystopia where cases of “here’s one worse than the last” just pile on top of each other … but tongue in cheek aside, while it is true that Catholicism in particular in Italy and Christianity in general have had civilizing, counter-balancing effects to the genetic imperative … the “Sicilian boys” were simply not fellows who you messed with if you came born with one cent of good sense to your name. Again, I am regularly struck with incredulity by the “enjoy the fall” crowd. One guesses such folks have led privileged lives that they wildly take for granted and assume to be normal.

    @Liberty, Family and Masculinity, re: “It still baffles me when I see the assumption around the manosphere that ‘alpha’ is somehow a higher rank than ‘beta’.” … correctly understood I don’t see what there is to be baffled by.

    Here’s something I know from my own life. Math is hard. Really – it is really hard. Differential and integral calculus … it is hard to break that down. I sucked at it for a long time myself. I had to accept that I wasn’t good at this, then decide that precisely BECAUSE I wasn’t good at it, that I would put it at the center of my own studies.

    You know what – that decision to do something, not because I was good at it, but because I kind of sucked at it – that was manly. Do you know what value that gained me in the SMP? Let’s talk about it …

    That was in early adulthood. Now in later adulthood I have had moments of looking at groups of engineers and as I’ve looked at them, and really, from direct personal experience, had a grasp of the magnitude of their achievements (Boeings, interlocking mass transportation and distribution systems, corn from Nebraska transformed to a sugar in a can, sold for $0.75 in Guam, etc) so I can really appreciate them … and being able to appreciate them, I will sometimes look on engineers standing about talking to one another and I understand that these are fellows who faced one of the toughest challenges put before people – before men and women alike, and who overcame that challenge – and yet in the SMP … no value.

    Because, if you can: go this very moment to Disneyland and sit on a bench and people watch. And if you can’t do that, go to a mall instead. Bring a pencil and paper. Watch the couples. Attractive ladies … and, as my New England friend who lives next door to New Jersey describes them, “Guidos”.

    Is every attractive woman with a Guido? No, of course not, but if you mark this on paper you will clearly see a pattern. The attractive ones … they sure as hell are not selecting engineers.

    The trouble with “masculine imperative” is that at end, there can only be a few anointed male “10s”. 10s are distributed among those who have the rarest gifts of extraordinary personal charisma which are the characteristics of “alpha” that get so much attention in the manosphere.

    Tautologically we cannot have many men of maximum charisma, so most men who lack the charisma to be 8, 9 and 10 will resort to the other alternatives they have to raise their value as high as they can take it, which may just be a 7. Sadly, it is within the grasp of most men to be a Guido. It isn’t really that hard. And if your nearest mall is any representative guide then Guido, in the SMP, seems to do ok. Certanily a helluva lot better than the engineer who brought you the 777.

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

    some comicsz releiefs for all da chrucchiansz heer lzlzozozozlo: here is how da GBFM handles modern day churchianz womenz sh*t-testz lzozoz from da heartiets blog mighty heartistez blog

    lzozozozozoz

    “Are you a player?”
    yah-tennis. now serve my balls. lzolzoozozz

    “Give me your number instead.”
    ok twelve inches. lzozoozozo

    “I don’t give out my number.”
    how do u get lostsas cockas den? lzozozooozoz

    “I have a boyfriend.”
    i don’t mind sharin’ if he don’t mind goin’ second zllzzozo

    You never listen to me.
    i do, but it hard 2 undestrtatnd u wit my ballsz r in ur mouth. lzozo

    “Do I know you?”
    u prob recognize mez from giantcockas.com lzozozozo

    “How may girls have you been with?”
    only two–in da last day or so lzozolzozozolzoz

    “What are you looking for?”
    love in all da wrong placesz, and now i have herpies on my eyebrows lzlzlzozl

    “Stop staring at me.”
    i’m not, i’m staring at da skinny girl trying 2 escape zzlzozzlzo

    “That [X] you’re wearing is ridiculous!”
    Thankx you. ur mom bought it 4 me. lzozoozozozozoz

    “You’re not my type.”
    many ginasz have said dat to my lsotass cockasz lzozozlozoz

    “Come hang out with me and my friends.”
    i’ll hang it out 4u 4 free, but each friend costs extraz zllzlzoz

    “Does this work on other girls?”
    only da hot ones lzozlzoz

    “When are you gonna settle down?”
    i fallzasleep a minutez after splooginz

    “If you impress me, you might get a shot at this!” [wiggles hips]
    like hitting the side of a barn with a handfull of rocks

    “What are you doing??”
    u 2nite lzlzozoozzlo

    form: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/compendium-of-female-super-shit-tests/#comment-452220

    i have always thought dat chateau is
    da modern day jesus
    as jesus said “Da truth will set you free”
    and da chateau speadks da truth
    setting a genernataionz of menz
    who have been lied to
    setting the menz freeezz zlzozozozozoozzo
    now chateau is a humble soul
    and would never claim to be foing doing da lord’s work
    but it was written long ago
    dat there are those who say they are going
    who do not go
    and those who say they are not going
    who go
    there are those who say they are going (the modern preacher manboob)
    who do not go
    and those who say they are not going (da chateua hearrtsistez)
    who go

    and now da gbfm must go
    and textz his lsostats hottiesz to get somez to cumz oversz 2 nittetsz zllzolzo
    lzozozoozozoozoz

  138. The One says:

    Can’t wait for Dalrock’s commentary on how the Supreme Court homosexual marriage decision affects marriage overall. Marriage is dead, all of you trying to walk back the law are living in fantasy land

  139. greyghost says:

    Too many think Alpha as defined in the SMP is a high value beta type or a criminal. An alpha male is a man that women are emotionally and sexually aroused by and nothing more. They are not necessarily productive in fact thugs and criminals tend to have characteristics about their nature that triggers sexual attraction in women. (Yeah she is going for the better genes)
    Also the context needs to be defined as in a civilized society. Right now women are not civilized but are fully feral in a civilized society and it ain’t working. They call it feminism and liberation for women because to be civilized is to be oppressed. (people still think women didn’t vote because there was this sexist hatred against women) I should not be able to type this with a straight face.
    In a civilized society a loyal Christian men that is honest and concerned for his wife’s happiness and is sexually and morally faithful to his wife is an alpha and a good catch. Throw in middle class money an education and an athletic body and you have gina tingle and a strong nation. Today that same man is a divorced man fully demonized as abusive. The cad and player is now sexually desirable purely for gina tingle with out thought of anything else. (liberated it’s called, a good thing that shows the progress women have made) The solid man has been replaced with court orders and government money to provide a substitute for a solid man. That part of the oppression of women has been progressed out. It is now time for women to be true to herself.
    Try not top confused a common sense in a civil society alpha male with a liberated woman alpha male they are not the same thing at all. The definition of hypergamy that is also in error for it defines it has women moving “up” it should be define as moving to the gina tingle. If she thinks it is moving “up” then so be it.

  140. Mikediver says:

    A blogger named Boneckr discussed, in IIRC 2003, the incorrect assignment of Alpha status to the thug/loser/Guido in Game analyses. His analysis, with which I agree, is that an Alpha is a man that leads other men and has their respect and cooperation (i.e. one that has the respect of the high Betas and other Alphas as well as women). The thugs/scum/Guidos are really Omegas that just happen to trigger a woman’s lizard brain the same way a true Alpha would. Really, how often have you thought or said that most women wouldn’t recognize a real man if one was biting her on the ass? Letting women determine who the Alpha is is foolish.

  141. bluedog says:

    greyghost and Mikediver,
    I think this could be seen through the prism of what Catholic priests call “pastoral issues” … where there is the matter of what good doctrine says, and the reality of the nature or behavior of your flock.
    I agree heartily with a total denigration of thugs, criminals and “Guidos”. But the “pastoral issue” of concern is that something like 1/2 the bell curve, isn’t going to get that – they are going to respond to the “market signals” and thug, criminal or Guido it up a few notches.
    I said when I first used the example that I hated referring to this in “alpha/beta” terms, it just helps to simplify the discussion. What you are pointing out is among the reasons why I dislike the semantics. But … it is just semantics.
    Almost everyone troubling to read Dalrock, me included, holds the “brute alpha” in contempt, but we are here having this discussion, because the demographics are reacting to the market signals and the outcome is imposing itself, unwelcomingly, in to all of our lives.

  142. Dalrock says:

    @BC (quoting Susan Walsh)

    [data and research] support the narrative that marriage rates are not declining (much). Rather, people are postponing marriage, viewing it as a “capstone of adulthood” rather than a launch into adulthood. This means that overall, people will spend fewer years of their lives being married, assuming static life expectancy. Whether you think that is a good or bad thing depends on your point of view. However, I find little support for the claims that men (or women) are reluctant to marry.

    I don’t know that Susan is entirely wrong here. I tend to agree with her first two sentences, and this is the narrative of the head of the Marriage Project. I think Dr. Helen shared a study a while back that young men were interested in marriage, but once they were in their 30s they were less interested. My own take is that women have continued to push the issue with each generation demanding a little more; a little more feminist attitude, and a little more of her youth spent on other men and on feminist credentials, take it or leave it. At some point the likely response by men (on the margins) is going to be more “leave it”, and I think that is what we are seeing. I don’t think men are ruling out marriage in the abstract, at least not the bulk of young men. But when young men don’t see signaling provider status as making them an attractive mate, at least for quite a long time, more men (again on the margins) will elect not to knock themselves out to compete as a provider. Those men who do attain the kind of employment success needed to be seen as marriage material meanwhile are less likely to want to marry now that they are in the SMP power position. Now their choice is between low investment sex with the most agreeable and attractive women in the SMP (young women), or a very high investment in a more difficult and less attractive aging career woman.

    Where I think Susan Walsh stumbles is in overlooking the data showing that for women there is a real risk that (to borrow from Langston Hughes) a wedding deferred is a wedding denied. The women now in their 40s married at incredibly high rates, but they did so much younger than today’s 20-35 year olds. Until just two years ago less than 10% of the White 40-44 (US) female demographic had never married. Just recently that number has broken 10%. The question is will this generation of 20s and 30s women be able to catch up with the past cohorts, or will they as the data suggests find themselves marrying at significantly lower rates than the women who preceded them?

  143. bluedog says:

    I would add: as a young man it puzzled me endlessly. To see man after man who I, at very least, had been socialized to recognize as a stand-out loser, … but not only did these fellows clean up with the ladies … but the ladies liked them! Cliche alert one coming: “if I had a dime for every woman who I asked, ‘WTH do you see in that loser?’, I’d be a …”
    It was a puzzle. And a reality. And in 2013 it is a reality that has launched onto an exponential growth curve. To take it to the point where we say, “thugs/scum/Guidos are really Omegas that just happen to trigger a woman’s lizard brain the same way a true Alpha would” … that seems like we are deep into semantics. I don’t care how anyone describes it once we are here, because we are describing the same thing we’re just struggling with value-attribution.
    Question is: how bad do we let this get? What can we do about it? Is there a way to marshal “imperatives” or our knowledge of them to do something to arrest and reverse this?

  144. greyghost says:

    His analysis, with which I agree, is that an Alpha is a man that leads other men and has their respect and cooperation (i.e. one that has the respect of the high Betas and other Alphas as well as women).

    This is a blue pill definition based on a civil society founded in rule of law. This is where the so-cons and traditionalist and churchians live. It is an illusion and lie set up to bring cannon fodder to the misandry beast. It is not and never has been based on reality. It is based on civil society and even then it is not the way of a feral woman . But only the way of a civilized women (a feral woman kept in check by a civilized society) working in her own selfish interest. It works and it is sustainable and nations grow to be very wealthy and powerful. But just remember she has no part in it other than getting her gina tingles. That is what responsible leadership and headship is. Not very romantic and flattering to the feminine just how it is. It kind of Explains Rollo’s comment a little better, There is no agency to be had if it is in her best interest to gina tingle for a good man that is all that matters. The is why a woman writing what we have discussed here is listened to.

  145. gdgm+ says:

    Dalrock et al,
    Walsh is referring to a New York _Times_ article by Stephanie Coontz (two red flags right there!):
    The Disestablishment Of Marriage

    If not ‘rebuilding’ the mound, certainly trying to sculpt it more to their liking.

  146. Opus says:

    @Dalrock

    If my memory serves me correctly, in the U.K., the number of people marrying is now half of what it was in the 1970s, when it was at an all time high (so much for male oppression unless one assumes women were lemmings). With the high Marriage take-up rate went a very early age of Marriage – the two must be linked; half of all women were married whilst no more than twenty, which given a year or two of courting meant that all women had met their Prince by the age of nineteen – what was so difficult about that! [I recall – this by way of example – a rather attractive woman (aged twenty nine) who was neither married nor in an LTR; I always thought of her as somewhat on-the-shelf , which at the time she would have been despite her good looks. I, and others, treated her as an unmarriagable slut.] Men wanted sex, and sex meant Marriage and thus men were happy to marry, and would marry Virgins – more or less. Marrying ones first proper boyfriend, meant there was not only little likelihood of STDs but the problems of bonding just weren’t there, Divorce was comparatively rare and because women married there were no False Rape or Sexual Harassment allegations. The average age of marriage for women is now nearly thirty, which means that the women are not Virgins, that if men want sex then offering Marriage is not their best option, indeed it is their worst, as they will be perceived as needy Betas. Worse still, the number of first marriages has halved from what it was in the 1970s. The Divorce rate has however remained fairly constant since the 1970s – even with the massive decline in Marriage – and is six times higher than it was in the 1960s.

    Curiously this came up in conversation last Friday night (after I had come across the angry bride – referred to in the previous comment of mine on this thread). My friend said that it was true that women were marrying later but was greatly surprised to learn that the number of marriages had halved. With public wedding receptions one no more observes a drop in marriage than one observes a fifty per cent divorce rate from women doing their shopping or for that matter that one in four foetuses are aborted.

    The women simply cannot catch up, and are, for better or worse, condemned to life as increasingly aging Spinsters (or Unwed Mothers).

  147. Georgia Boy says:

    OT but germane enough to this blog … I know manosphere guys tend to take a live and let live approach to gays. But before the first news cycle is even over on the demise of DOMA, Hanna Rosin is over at Slate with an article highlighting gay couples that have arrangements allowing them to step out and trying to hold this up as a model for bad old repressive monogamous heterosexual marriage.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

    Liberals are starting up exactly what some guys around here have said they would do if gay marriage were legalized: use gays as pawns to push a different model of what marriage is, less committed, less monogamous, more a legal contract and less the foundation of child rearing or anything else. Using gays to weaken marriage. They were right.

  148. Legion says:

    The One says:
    June 26, 2013 at 9:26 am

    No fault divorce and VAWA killed marriage. The gays deserve marriage good and hard.

  149. greyghost says:

    Opus
    A male pill will reduce the unwed mother count. Only women that marry should have children.

  150. AdmiralBenbow says:

    In any decent society, traits like aggressiveness and rational risk-taking can help a man secure basic resources necessary for survival. Even in civilized societies, a certain level of aggressiveness is still beneficial so long as society maintains a risk-reward-responsibility paradigm. So the skill to accurately calculate and balance risk and reward becomes much more important.

    For a woman to hitch her wagon to a husband in a civilized patriarchal society, she also has to engage in a risk-reward calculation. A woman would have to make a balance between tingles and risk. Physically, aggressiveness still gives her the tingles because she has the DNA of her ancestors. In their rational and civilized world, you had to take some risk to survive, so some aggressiveness was helpful. But a pure tingles-maximization strategy would carry a high degree of risk that she and her offspring would have inadequate provision. So she had to make a tingle-risk trade-off that forced rationality on her. More engineers, less thugs.

    Now consider our society. Today we in America live on the coat-tails of our forefathers, who successfully built the greatest society humankind has ever known. At the same time, we have jettisoned the vital institutions of civilization they put in place (morality, patriarchy, liberty, responsibility, rationality, and religion). We are now little more than a very primitive society of brute savages clothed in the guise of civilization.

    But so great was the surplus our forefathers left us that we have been able for a time to remove the consequences of poor mate selection: Even if she reproduces with a total loser, both she and her children will be well-provided for by big Uncle Obama and his magical money machine known as the Federal Reserve. We have lost the risk-reward-responsibility paradigm.

    One no longer has to take risks to secure basic needs. And the trend–Obamacare, Obamaphones, and now Obamacars (if the immigration bill passes)–means one can secure an increasingly beneficial lifestyle without any risk whatsoever. The trend is her friend.

    Consequently, a woman’s risk-reward calculation changes dramatically. If the dumb overly-aggressive thug strikes it rich somehow by sheer luck, she wins, even more so if she frivorces him after he hits the jackpot. If he fails and gets himself incarcerated or shot, Uncle Obama and Auntie Bernanke are still there to pick up the pieces of her life. In fact, in some jurisdictions you can do better on Uncle Obama’s dime than if she made a $60,000 salary working. Heads she wins, tails she doesn’t lose.

    So now her risk-reward calculation says to maximize tingles regardless of his riskiness. The final social result of all this is what we’re seeing now: A massive rise in illegitimacy and government dependency. This is doomed to collapsed, because eventually there are too many people on the cart and too few pulling. The last leg of this is when the betas give up on life and get on the cart because there is no benefit to their risk-taking (all their money goes to the people on the cart and they have no chance of mating successfully anyway). Once this stage completes itself, no one is left to pull. We are in the middle of this stage right now. God has so ordained the natural laws of His universe that one cannot continue violating His moral laws without eventually incurring the negative consequences of His natural laws (Rom. 1:27).

  151. HanSolo says:

    Well said Admiral.

  152. greyghost says:

    Adrmiral
    Outstanding, gina tingle was always in charge but reality kept it in check. That last paragraph should be a lot of fun for the gun owners and the ruling elite. Look a lot like Syria.

  153. Casey says:

    @ Admiral

    Agreed.
    I salute you, sir.

  154. Dalrock says:

    @gdgm+

    Walsh is referring to a New York _Times_ article by Stephanie Coontz (two red flags right there!):
    The Disestablishment Of Marriage

    If not ‘rebuilding’ the mound, certainly trying to sculpt it more to their liking.

    That is an interesting piece. Coontz is correct that the number of marriages per 1,000 unmarried women is a very problematic metric. I pointed that out several years ago. But her analysis is flawed because she basically assumes women today can do things very differently than women of the past did, and still end up married at the same rates.

    @Opus

    If my memory serves me correctly, in the U.K., the number of people marrying is now half of what it was in the 1970s, when it was at an all time high (so much for male oppression unless one assumes women were lemmings). With the high Marriage take-up rate went a very early age of Marriage – the two must be linked;

    I tend to agree with you on this, although the intervening decades have shown that there was quite a bit of headroom here for women to exploit. I think I shared this earlier but this is even true in the UK (see appendix table A1). While it is too early to say with certainty, I think we are seeing what was inevitable. If women make it their goal to “waste” as little of their youth on their husband as possible, eventually men will respond. I think what clouds the situation so much is how long and how far it had to go before we started really seeing a shift. When I looked at the data 3 years ago there was something in the wind but late 30s women still seemed to be caught up with past cohorts. Just in the last 2 years the trends have become more and more obvious. What I suspect is it will be harder for women to walk this back just a bit to regain the “demand” for marriage from men. The same inertia which worked for women for all of those decades will suddenly be working against them.

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

    da reason dat marriage is declining
    is dat we now live a world
    ruled not by the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ’ HEROIC CODES OF HONOR
    but we now live in a worl
    ruled by
    womenz butt and gina tingelzlzoozoz
    and marriage stands
    stalwartly in da way
    of a womanz getting her
    butt and gina tingzlzlozoz
    SERVEDZ lzozozozoz

  156. SlargTarg says:

    OT but germane enough to this blog … I know manosphere guys tend to take a live and let live approach to gays. But before the first news cycle is even over on the demise of DOMA,

    I’m laughing my ass off today at all the conservatives and their wailing and gnashing of teeth over that ruling.

    Unlike no fault divorce, this development is going to have minimal effect on my life and the lives of most men.

    Conservatives are weak and clueless (although I generally agree with on most major principles) and it is satisfying to see them loosing on every front.

  157. Casey says:

    @ Dalrock

    Have you considered the effect of the He-cession, or Man-cession that began in earnest in 2008 as the cause of the recent decrease in marriage rates?

    I truly hope the abandonment of marriage is the conscious choice of men, and not just the reality of a lowered standard of living putting the brakes on family formation.

    Perhaps in the end, maybe it does not matter….so long as a significant number of women are NOT able to marry & have children.

    There could be no greater lesson learned (& deservedly so) by a generation of feminists.

  158. Dalrock says:

    @Casey

    Have you considered the effect of the He-cession, or Man-cession that began in earnest in 2008 as the cause of the recent decrease in marriage rates?

    I think there is something there. However, I think a good analogy would be someone who built in a flood plain and then was flooded when a storm hit. Do you blame it on the storm, or building on a flood plain? Storms happen. To the extent that the recession is the issue, it means that a generation of women have backed themselves into a corner and don’t have the ability to recover. Essentially their marriage plan wasn’t prepared to weather out an economic slowdown.

    But I don’t think the recession is the whole issue. I think it highlighted the structural problems, and probably accelerated the change we were bound to see eventually.

  159. feeriker says:

    Unlike no fault divorce, this development is going to have minimal effect on my life and the lives of most men.

    We can only hope that the same problems with no-fault divorce/frivorce plague the gay community as much as the straight community. Let everyone suffer equally.

  160. Buck says:

    RE:servatibe community
    feeriker says:
    June 26, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    “Unlike no fault divorce, this development is going to have minimal effect on my life and the lives of most men.

    We can only hope that the same problems with no-fault divorce/frivorce plague the gay community as much as the straight community. Let everyone suffer equally.”

    The irony in all of this is the fact that “committed” gays switch partners like most people trade in cars, about every 2-3 years. This ruling is a boon to divorce lawyers and the family law meat grinder industrial complex. The gay community’s best friend in securing their free sex and wealth maintenance was the “bigoted, closed minded” conservative community, keeping them from the mistake that is marriage!
    As usual, the Marxist left cloaks their evil in glowing terms like “civil rights” “equality” “free expression” “love”….when in reality it’s crass wealth transfer to their lawyer buddies.
    There is a part of me that’s sad and another that has me laughing my ass off. Like all the blacks who voted for Obama, yet they suffer a 25-50% youth unemployment rate….hahahahaha…got what you asked for?!?!?!
    I do think gay marriage may be what saves hetro marriage. The courts will actually have to investigate the merits of each case for the first time in a generation. This may bring a semblance of fairness back to family law.

  161. Outcast Superstar says:

    Dalrock Writes,

    “I don’t know that Susan is entirely wrong here. I tend to agree with her first two sentences, and this is the narrative of the head of the Marriage Project. I think Dr. Helen shared a study a while back that young men were interested in marriage, but once they were in their 30s they were less interested. My own take is that women have continued to push the issue with each generation demanding a little more; a little more feminist attitude, and a little more of her youth spent on other men and on feminist credentials, take it or leave it. At some point the likely response by men (on the margins) is going to be more “leave it”, and I think that is what we are seeing. I don’t think men are ruling out marriage in the abstract, at least not the bulk of young men. But when young men don’t see signaling provider status as making them an attractive mate, at least for quite a long time, more men (again on the margins) will elect not to knock themselves out to compete as a provider. Those men who do attain the kind of employment success needed to be seen as marriage material meanwhile are less likely to want to marry now that they are in the SMP power position. Now their choice is between low investment sex with the most agreeable and attractive women in the SMP (young women), or a very high investment in a more difficult and less attractive aging career woman.”

    Hey Dalrock last Saturday I wrote and published a blog entry called Women Trying to Have the Best of Both Worlds As it Suits Them.

    Basically, I agree with your conclusion that if Women wanted to get married in their early 20’s, they would have been able to do so. With women delaying marriage until their 30’s, men have woken up and said forget it, and what would been a temporary delay on women’s part, once men are in their 30’s they will see to it that it’s permanent.

    I believe you will enjoy this one because I discuss the system of the old in the 1950’s, the 1960’s revolution and the modern day system of the 1970’s and beyond.

    http://outcastsuperstar.blogspot.com/2013/06/women-trying-to-have-best-of-both.html

  162. WSJ review of her book (if someone mentioned this, sorry, have not tracked comments) today had some really predictable lines. One in particular:

    “Mrs Smith’s claims pre-date feminism”

    And had the normal shaming of men. Made me sick to read.

    Her point has nothing to do with chronological coincidence with feminism. How mendacious. One of our famous “Anonymi” made the papers though. Thats good, right?

  163. SlargTag, your final sentence makes zero logical sense.

  164. feeriker says:

    There is a part of me that’s sad and another that has me laughing my ass off. Like all the blacks who voted for Obama, yet they suffer a 25-50% youth unemployment rate….hahahahaha…got what you asked for?!?!?!

    Yup, exactly. I actually find myself wondering how long it will be before gay rights activists, perhaps realizing that at the rate things are “progressing” they’ll be out of a job, and also awakening to the realization of what a pile of toxic dog shit that is current marriage and family law that they’ve thrown their community into, will start demanding “special considerations” for gay marriage and divorce not accorded heterosexual unions (i.e., exceptions to current no-fault frivorce case law, etc.).

    I also wonder, unPC as it is to ponder the question (oh hell, I don’t do PC, so I don’t really care): what criteria in a gay divorce case will be used by the courts to determine which of the parties gets burned and screwed over the way men habitually are in heterosexual no-fault frivorce cases? This inquiring mind would love to know.

  165. Ton says:

    High value men don’t waste their time listening to women… didn’t know I was high value.

  166. Mikediver says:

    When I was quoting Boneckr I may have failed to give the context. He was well aware of, and was describing, the extent to which western women were feral. He rejected Game not because of any dispute over the true and exhibited nature of women which Game exposits, but because he felt that women’s sexual urges were fairly random. He felt most of the time their rampant hypergamy was so out of control that no man would ever do. Then when they got too hormonal they randomly decided to screw whoever was available at the moment. After which they would discard the male victim of her hormones. He called this binge and purge; like bulimia. Where he was arguing for the definition of Alpha was what should be the goal or ideal. He felt we should strive for his definition of Alpha for our own sakes and not for the approval of women. Gina tingles are random, so trying to generate them is pointless.

  167. Mikediver says:

    As to the marriage strike and whether there is or is not a refusal of men to marry, I agree that, at this time, women are the ones saying no to marriage, thinking that they are merely putting it off until later. However, look at the grasseaters of Japan. This is where the trend is taking us, not to the past where 90+% of 40 year old women had been married at some point. In Japan they are seeing rates of men in their 20s and 30s of 61% and 70% respectively self identifying as grass eaters. These men have dropped out of the rat race. The rats won so why keep running? These men are starting to affect the markets as they are not interested in the products needed to attract women and form families. They could care less. They are consuming what they want for themselves. they will not be there when their women decide they are ready for marriage. This is the future in the west in general. People respond to incentives and disincentives.

  168. In the Old Testament, God condemned entire Generations and Nations of Individuals for their Hedonistic ways. He also blessed entire Generations and Nations of Individuals for their Faith and Righteousness. When God condemned Israel, he allways left a remnant of righteous believers.

    Was God being unfair when He condemned Individuals for being born into a corrupt and hedonistic society? Of course not. Each Individual is Judged on their own choice to either accept or rebel against God. Perhaps God clumped the righteous together to spare them, and clumped the wicked together for their destruction.

    I think we may be treading very close to sin. We should follow Lots example when he did not look back when his wife turned back towards Sodom. Lot followed God when he abandoned his wife to her hedonism.

    “Jesus said to him: No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” -Luke 9:62

  169. HanSolo says:

    Feminists and slutty pop-culture icons are the “alpha” females that are in control of the narrative given to women, the alpha mares in charge of leading the female herd.

    Just as alpha mare horses go around biting and punishing the rebellious beta mares for not following, the feminist and slut alpha mares shame women for wanting relationships, for not putting career above children, and for being virgins or “prudes.”

    http://www.justfourguys.com/feminists-and-raunch-queens-are-the-dominant-alpha-mares/

  170. HanSolo says:

    Feminists and slutty pop-culture icons are the “alpha” females that are in control of the narrative given to women, the alpha mares in charge of leading the female herd.

    Just as alpha mare horses go around biting and punishing the rebellious beta mares for not following, the feminist and slut alpha mares shame women for wanting relationships, for not putting career above children, and for being virgins or “prudes.”

  171. HanSolo says:

    @Mikediver

    I agree that it’s often women who are avoiding marriage, especially in their 20’s.

    Take a look at the article I posted on how feminists shame women out of having relationships and children so as to focus on career. (You can find the link in my username.)

  172. Interestingly Dr. Helen is not the first woman to write on this subject. 13 years ago Danielle Crittenden wrote “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us” in which she warned women what they were setting in motion by accepting feminist dogma. She wasn’t writing from a male perspective of course, but she did get a lot of things right, including the phenomena of women not being able to find men once they were past a certain age.

    http://www.amazon.com/WHAT-OUR-MOTHERS-DIDNT-TELL/dp/0684859599/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372392386&sr=1-2

  173. Max says:

    Dalrock said:
    Until just two years ago less than 10% of the White 40-44 (US) female demographic had never married. Just recently that number has broken 10%. The question is will this generation of 20s and 30s women be able to catch up with the past cohorts, or will they as the data suggests find themselves marrying at significantly lower rates than the women who preceded them?

    It seems to me this focus is misplaced as to whether women at some arbitrary point in their lives manage to have been however briefly “married”. Given the increasingly self centered and feral nature of modern women these “marriages” (quotes because it is no such thing in reality but is formalized dating) even if by 40 will come too late to provide the children needed by our society as a whole. And many of the children so produced will rapidly become fatherless and lead to ever larger problems with crime and ever lower productivity overall as the trend exacerbates generation by generation. So we’ll all get even poorer, as we have been since feminism really took hold in the 70’s and the average wage for Americans began to decline.

    Consider also that many of those families not destroyed by no-fault divorce have been damaged even still by internal conflict and feminist struggles resulting in both parents working and nobody really being home to raise the kids. Helicopter parents and all that. Multiple generations of boys have now been raised totally confused about how they are supposed to act and live, thus tuning out and as Dr. Helen says essentially going “on strike”.

    We are well past the point where whether or not some percentage of women manage to sucker a man into temporary or at a minimum mostly sham “marriages” has much real positive effect to our disastrous course as a civilization. Without massive societal changes its analogous to discussing deck chair layouts on the sinking Titanic.

    Tucker Carlson is right in one way, in that there is no way this is going to change unless we as Men make it so. Women are not going to do it for us.

  174. Luke says:

    Not a bad book, reddmoonproject. However, I think that Roger Devlin’s “Home Economics” and Daniel Amneus’ “The Garbage Generation” both did a better job. Both essays are readable for free on the Internet, hint hint.

  175. Martian Bachelor says:

    I’ve been surprised to see no mention of Kathleen Parker’s Save the Males from five years back. Books like these come out periodically, register a tiny cultural blip, and then are soon forgotten as business as usual goes on as before. I’ve already seen this “men on strike” meme being spun as male abandonment.

    As zed once pointed out, if it really was a strike there’d be representatives on both sides trying to bargain in good faith over substantive issues in order to hash out a deal, there’d be a redress of grievances, and a plan to get men going back to ‘work’, etc – lots of stuff we don’t see happening.

  176. Casey says:

    @ Martian Bachelor

    Cultural change happens slowly……it took 50 years for feminism to wreak this level of discord & havoc. Men’s recognition of same, and change of direction will take a long time to have an impact.

    My greater fear is that laws will just change to accommodate the female imperative.

    In British Columbia, you are now married in the eyes of the law (with full rights & obligations of a marriage) after co-habitating for 2 years. Feminists are CLEARLY behind that one……as getting married yielded to common-law unions, the feminists want to make sure they get their cash & prizes in full for common-law unions (what horseshit).

    Rome imposed a bachelor tax during the Roman Empire. Whose to say that could not come back? A tax on single men….it would test through the roof with women.

  177. HanSolo says:

    @Casey

    Cohabitation becoming marriage after two years sucks. It’s total BS and the laws should be changed. Only those who marry should be considered married.

    And I think what we really need is a bachelorette tax. lol

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

    lozozozozoz womenz mathz how womenz count now dat womenz are displacing menz form collegez lzlzlzozllzozozozolz wehnu ask a women how many poeple she has been with it wil be law that she will have to verbally multiply her anser by 10, and then add at least half the ass cocking sesssions which still count as sexth in certain religions lzozlzlzl

    lzozozo

    http://www.cafepress.com/greatbooksformen

    loozlzoozz

    womenz math: http://www.cafepress.com/greatbooksformen.582539788

    from: http://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/1gl26m/should_i_lie_to_men_about_my_sexual_partnercount/

    Should I lie to men about my sexual partner-count? (self.RedPillWomen)

    submitted 8 days ago by RoseflowerteaLady

    I hate lying, but I’ve had a few boyfriends, so at 26 I’ve now slept with 12 men. I’m thinking seriously about marriage now, and I know many men find women with a double-digit partner count not marriage-material, so I’ve been telling the last couple boyfriends that I’ve only slept with 3 people. I was wondering if RedPillWomen has an opinion on this. Will this help?

    one responder says, “12 men is a lot for a guy to swallow, but honesty is important in a relationship.” lzozozozozo waht they meant is “12 men is a lot for a girlz to swallow lzozozozoozozoz.”

    most chix who r 3s think they are 9s because now and then an alpha gets drunk and bored and bangs the shit out of them lzozllzlzlzlzlzlzl

    http://www.cafepress.com/greatbooksformen.582539788

    lozlzlzlz! omg i made it thank you thank you!!!

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/best-reader-comments/

    this is going on the back cover of my upcoming book:

    “ozzllzlzlzlzlzl!

    most 3s think they are 9s because now and then an alpha gets drunk and bored and bangs the shit out of them lzozllzlzlzlzlzlzl

    she sounds like a 2 who got banged by 7 drunk alphas so she reasons that 2 + 7 = 9.” –bestsest quotas ever from da r!! lozllzozlzzl

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/best-reader-comments/

    then later on they think they are 9s because they count 1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    cats

    9 cats! i’m still a 9!

    from banging 9 douchebags per week in college who got my prima noctae youngest hottest tightest years for free as commanded by bernanke to 9 cats lzozlzlzlzlzlz which leaves me more time to maekrt subprime loans. kids, families, and husbands are silly antiquated ideas and bernanke has liberated me from this all with fiat dollars and debt as they bankrupt the wolrd and liberate us with secretive tapings of butthex like tucker max does and gets pumped and hyped in teh neocon weekly standard butthexed secretly taped without my conthent lolzlzlzlz i’m a nine! buthexed 9 times makes me a nine! lzozllzlz

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/the-bill-of-mens-rights/

    the bill of men’s rights

    lzozllzllzl every man shall have the right to

    1) a womenz who hasth been butthexed less than 4 times
    2) said 4 times not being done in the same night nor two consecutive nights niether lzozlzl
    3) said butthexing events not being secretly taped without her conthent
    4) no woman shall have a right to her husbands assetts if he comes home and finds her banging the poolboy ontop of his ps3 controller, thusly damaging said controller lzozl that would suck
    5) wehnu ask a women how many poeple she has been with it wil be law that she will have to verbally multiply her anser by 10, and then add at least half the ass cocking sesssions which still count as sexth in certain religions lzozlzlzl
    6) no man shall be made to fund a pussy that it out banging biker drummer cock, nor shall any man be made to pay for past use of a pussy lzozlzlzlz

    i think that if we can pass this men’;s bill of rights into law, 90% of marriages will last lzozl.zlzlzlzlzl lzozllz which is why the butthex congreth and fiat masters will rail against my sublime logic reason phsilophy and religion lzozlzlzzl

  179. Pingback: Links and Comments #13 | The Society of Phineas

  180. freebird says:

    Patsy Cline’s immortal “You don’t own me” lyrics:

    you don’t own me, I’m not just one of your many toys
    you don’t own me, don’t say I can’t go with other boys
    and don’t tell me what to do
    and don’t tell me what to say
    and please when I go out with you
    don’t put me on display, ’cause
    you don’t own me, don’t try to change me in any way
    you don’t own me, don’t tie me down ’cause I’d never stay
    oh, I don’t tell you what to say
    I don’t tell you what to do
    so just let me be myself
    that’s all I ask of you
    I’m young and I love to be young
    I’m free and I love to be free
    to live my life the way I want
    to say and do whatever I please

    a-a-a-nd don’t tell me what to do
    oh-h-h-h don’t tell me what to say
    and please, when I go out with you
    don’t put me on display
    I don’t tell you what to say
    oh-h-h-h don’t tell you what to do
    so just let me be myself
    that’s all I ask of you
    I’m young and I love to be young
    fade
    I’m free and I love to be free
    to live my life the way I want
    —————-

    Sauce for the goose,sauce for the gander.
    MGTOW 4life

  181. Johnycomelately says:

    Good article.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/17/marriage-trends-demographics/2424641/

    Remarriages among older cohort at 30% is an often overlooked statistic when considering raw marriage rates.

  182. Tam the Bam says:

    Lozzls indeed, GBFM, from that reddit threddit. Abounding.
    After having the unwisdom of lying her ass off to secure commitment repeatedly rammed down her throat lolz by all and any of the sexes present, out flops this steamer.

    “[–]RoseflowerteaLady[S] 2 points 10 days ago
    I don’t know if I need to love my husband. I really want a solid companion I can respect and enjoy spending years together raising children. “

    FFS why don’t she just cut to the chase, and go on the game?
    It’s a steady-ish income if you’re not fugly (and can be even then, if you’re not fussy, and “specialize”), and she’s not worried about anything except that security, it reads to me. She’s 26, so her thug-babies would have graduated to the nearest gang by the time even desperadoes are muttering “No thank you ma’am. Not if you paid me“.

  183. Joe says:

    @freebird

    Patsy Cline’s immortal “You don’t own me” lyrics:

    Ahem – It was Dusty Springfield who popularized the song. The lyrics may reflect more about her personal life as a lesbian than a heterosexual relationship.

  184. Casey says:

    @ freebird

    “oh, I don’t tell you what to say
    I don’t tell you what to do”

    If only that part was true in divorce court. Women have been telling men exactly what to do & say (say nothing) in that regard.

    Women: yes you are free to do, say, hump whatever you want. JUST STOP ASKING MEN TO SUBSIDIZE YOUR (POOR) DECISIONS.

    I expect divorce numbers would fall to the ground if the picking of a mans pocket wasn’t a given in the family court system.

  185. Martian Bachelor says:

    In British Columbia, you are now married in the eyes of the law (with full rights & obligations of a marriage) after co-habitating for 2 years. (Casey)

    I try to make the point as often as possible that a guy is on the hook for 18 years of child support (and whatever other obligations the mother wants to stick him with) the moment his dick gets wet. From a functional standpoint, you don’t have to get anywhere near to co-habitation to effectively be common-law married. A one-night stand is all it takes.

    Rome imposed a bachelor tax during the Roman Empire. Whose to say that could not come back? A tax on single men….it would test through the roof with women.

    Look into Obamacare. The mythology about health insurance here in the US, as it’s been built up for the last twenty years, is that all the 40+ million people who don’t have health insurance don’t have it because they’re desperately poor, but want it.

    The fact is probably at least a third of that number — nobody knows their exact number because no one cares — are simply able-bodied young single men without families who have little or zero healthcare needs (unlike their female counterparts, who consume healthcare resources copiously), and who don’t get it as a benefit from work. So they don’t choose to go out and buy it. Obamacare is making them do so. In this sense it is somewhat like a bachelor tax of sorts, except no one sees it that way.

  186. Michael says:

    @ Michael

    “@ Twenty – you owe me a new keyboard you sarcastic heathen. That comment was some funny stuff right there!”

    My name is Michael. I did not write this comment. Someone else did. Please make a note of my IP address. It’s directly on the beach in Los Angeles.

    Thank you.

  187. Mikediver says:

    I found the comment that the ever married rate at age 40-44 was pretty pointless statistic if it just reflected how many women managed to be briefly married in a sham marriage by that age. Let me add; AMEN brother. The postponement of marriage and putting children last on the priority list of young women is what the issue should be. The result we are seeing is a very low marriage rate, and more importantly a very very low rate of married couple households. The percentage of homes that are married couples with children is about 20%, while households headed by a married couple is <50% for the first time in our history (per the 2010 census). Concurrently the out of wedlock birth rate is going through the roof. Over 50% of all births to women under 30 are out of wedlock. As these young women get to the babies rabies point in their lives they look around and see there is no way they are getting a husband anytime soon. So they have the mandatory one baby to soothe their inhernet instincts. Then they are done. This will not maintain the population. It will also mean the increase over time of the fatherless children raised by feral single women, which increases societal costs instead of supporting society.

  188. Pingback: Men on Strike by Dr. Helen Smith | The Red Moon Journal

  189. bios says:

    REDMOON: Crittenden’s book is out of date now i think. Women have far more options today when they get in their 30’s than what they did in the 90’s. There is no comparison.

    I agree with the posters that claim that you have to find a woman young. My cousin married an exotic beauty who is probably 3 SMV points above him. He is not rich. He has a slightly above average job, but the clencher is that they started dating in high school, when you are more likely to find a small percentage of hot women that are idealistic about love and relationships. As far as i’m aware, he was her second boyfriend; the first was a great looking alpha type. She got burned, learned her lesson, and hooked up with a friend when they were 17; and now they are happily married with 2 kids in their late 20’s. She doesn’t flirt with other men, she is a very traditional woman. To be honest, i’m extremely jealous of him. I earn more money than he does but i have never pulled a woman like that in my life. Even for a red pill guy like myself, i could meet a woman like that i would get married in a second.

    Unfortunately women like that are rare.

  190. LH says:

    I don’t have a problem with telling men to stand up and be responsible and get married. But that doesn’t mean they have to marry feminists who have been with multiple partners already. A responsible man can go find a Conservative, non-feminist virgin or a faithful widow, and import one from overseas if he has to. Leave the Feminists and the party girls to the men who’ll pick them up in bars or just live with them for a while without marrying them.

  191. RJ says:

    @bios “Unfortunately women like that are rare.”

    Women like that are impossible to find! Even for myself, a few decades ago when I was a teen, there was this young pretty early teen girl infatuated with me. We were both virgins and I had a bad-streak of morality in me that told me that I can’t date her until she’s a little older. By the time she was 16 it was game over. She had constant attention from guys (lots!) and soon lost her innocence (more ways than one), and had the taste for alpha jocks since ‘they were more fun’, since the guy going to university is not as exciting as the guy going to bars. Fast-forward 2 decades and now she’s single with 1 offspring and ‘scared to death’ being alone, now that her looks are fading fast. She may yet still have a chance to find a mate.

    Sagging skin sure does turn a beauty into a hag in no time if one only cares about superficial characteristics.

  192. Pingback: Manosphere Misery Pron

  193. Pingback: Limbaugh reacts to Dr. Helen’s Men On Strike. | Dalrock

  194. The Narcissist says:

    “let me say who cares?”

    To a large extent he is correct. And I think it is up to the man to decide how he will deal with this simple fact. Some take great affront and see it as an injustice that needs to be rectified – that is all well and good, if you really want to be PO’ed most of your life. Others – the realists – simply see it as the “way the world is” and ask themselves, “How can I use this to my advantage?”

    I have used all of these laws and customs to my benefit – sure I walk a fine line but it’s all “legal” and that is all that matters. So that minority owned business rule, puts a great deal of money into my pocket – a white male. Is that the intent? No… But then was the intent of the law really to hamper me and discriminate against me? They (the people that passed those laws) say, “No, it wasn’t to discriminate against white men.” So if that wasn’t their intent, all I’m doing is making sure their true “intent” is maintained…(Yea, me.)

    So while I support the men who are cashing out, and deciding not to play the game – that doesn’t work for me. I would rather twist things to my advantage – use the laws to my benefit and laugh at them. Thumb my nose at the powers that be. And I have, and will continue to do so. (Machiavelli understood the world, and more men need to understand what he was telling them, and live a life with him as an example.) If I can use a law, a custom, an intent to my advantage, I do. So whether it is the “law” or “custom” or whatever, everything can be bent to your advantage. It just takes time, effort, and understanding but we (men) created the greatest civilization this world has ever seen – twisting the intent of short sighted fools is child’s play for any man worth the title.

    While I applaud Dr Helen in her intent to explain why more and more men are choosing not to play a game stacked against them. I think she missed a greater opportunity – to tell more men HOW to operate in this bastardization of society which has been created. So when I say, “Man up.” I doubt very many of those Feminists or their supporters would like the message I am truly sending.

    Since this philosophy doesn’t end at business – you need to apply it throughout your life. So use the mangina’s to your advantage. Is she’s married, any kids belong to the husband – you just have your fun with her and walk away. That is all life is – for your fun. Use it. Don’t worry about consequences – there are none if you work it properly. Use Trusts to hide your assets. Off-shore your money. Use everything and everyone to your benefit. THAT is what I mean when I say, “Man up.” And I think more men need to live life that way.

    In a world without rules, the man who “plays by the rules” is a fool…

  195. Pingback: Book Review: Men On Strike by Dr. Helen Smith | The Society of Phineas

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