When we talk in the sphere about what motivates women we focus heavily on the “tingle”, or sexual attraction. There is good reason for this, and nearly all men need to focus more on attraction. We also talk about the tangible benefits women receive from men in the form of provision, protection, and parenting. Sexual attraction to alpha traits is generally accepted as the (imperfect) manifestation of the female need to provide her children with the most advantageous genes in the form of sperm. Women are looking for all of these things, but not all choose to acquire them from the same man. The tendency of many women to pursue a split strategy when securing sperm and provision/protection is summed up in the catch phrase:
Alpha f**** and beta bucks.
For those who are new to the topic of female sex related drives understanding and accepting the basic truth of the above is essential whether your goal is to be a player or a husband. Moreover, looking at feminism through the lens of the female mating strategy has caused many to note that feminism has worked to free women to focus more on the pursuit of the tingle while enlisting the state to compel beta men to provide them with provisioning and protection outside of the traditional arrangement of marriage. This is certainly true, and even the most conservative elements in our society now embrace the replacement of marriage as the central organizing structure for the family.
However, after acknowledging these facts many in the sphere make the mistake of claiming that all of women’s needs are being met in this new post marriage family structure; women simply don’t need marriage anymore, they claim. With the aid of feminists and conservatives alike, strong independent women are now empowered to revel in casual sex with alphas while using their career and/or the state compelled transfer of money from betas to buy their own status symbols. These strong independent women even have their own anthem performed by Beyoncé:
Question: Tell me what you think about me
I buy my own diamonds and I buy my own rings
Only ring your celly when I’m feelin’ lonely
When it’s all over, please get up and leave
Reinforcing the point is the triumphant refrain “I bought it”:
The rock I’m rockin’ — I bought it
‘Cause I depend on me
The watch I’m wearin’ — I bought it
The house I live in — I bought it
The car I’m driving — I bought it
I depend on me
That feminists would love this song is obvious, but why are so many in the manosphere singing the same tune? And more importantly, is it even true?
The problem for feminists is in their effort to change the rules of their status competition with other women they have overlooked a fundamental aspect of female intrasexual competition. Those status symbols women use to compete with each other don’t have the same meaning if a woman has to buy them for herself. Women don’t just need men for tingles and provision/protection, they need men for status and validation. Women gain status and validation from men in a number of ways, but all of them are perfectly tuned to make a good feminist want to pull her leg hair out. Even the sex positive feminist’s favorite, the alpha booty call, is more important for status and validation than it is for sexual fulfillment in the way men think of sex. Roosh goes so far as to argue that The Female Orgasm Is Trivial.
Maddeningly even the non-sexual status and fulfillment feminists seek can really only be provided by men. Feminists desperately crave to be accepted as one of the guys in a mostly futile effort to experience manly pride. This obsession is core to our integration of the military and is a staple in feminist fiction. In The Last Psychiatrist’s brilliant review of the Hunger Games he describes the unlikely scene in the movie which has feminists so enthralled:
There’s a banquet and the contestants have to show off their skills, but the overlords are eating a roast pig and bored with Katniss (because she misses a target) so Katniss turns her arrow towards them and shoots an apple. Katniss says, “you better recognize, mothafuckas!”, flashes a gang sign, and the audience swoons. That’s when she’s a badass. Yes, she was wonderful in the Games, I’m sure, but what got your adrenaline going, what made her a badass, is showing off her abilities– to men.
TLP goes on to assert that to the delighted female viewers Badass = showing she can compete on a male level, but if you watch the scene it is very obviously not about competing on a male level but instead a plea for attention and acceptance from the men. The look on Katniss’ face screams:
Notice me! Take me seriously!
This is exactly how Entertainment Tonight characterized the same scene:
While in the training area getting prepared to enter the arena for the Hunger Games, a literal fight to the death, Jennifer’s character Katniss Everdeen shows her skill with a bow and arrow. But when the game makers seem more interested in a pig that just arrived, an angry Katniss gets their attention.
Getting back to women’s intrasexual competition, what matters most is proving investment by a worthy man. In this sense the claim that women are the gatekeepers of sex but men are the gatekeepers of commitment is incomplete. More accurately men are the gatekeepers of investment, a category which includes commitment. When Roissy or Roosh have sex with a woman, they automatically confer on her the validation which comes from being desired by and sexually satisfying an attractive man. They simply can’t get what they want without giving this to the woman in the process. But while the women they bed crave this validation, it is of limited and fleeting value in the woman’s competition for status with other women. For this she needs something public that she can show other women. Winning the alpha away from the other women present for the night or a few hours has some cachet, but what she really wants is a public display of his investment in her. She wants him to give her things she can show off to other women, things that prove that she is his woman. She wants him to formally call her his woman, either as his girlfriend or far better, his wife. This is why Beyoncé changes her tune when she wants to rub other women’s noses in her superior status. The foolish boast of “I bought it” is forgotten, and the earstwhile strong independent woman rolls out the big gun of female status symbols, the title of Mrs.
Coming soon to a city near you
The Mrs. Carter show world tour
Bow down bitches. The ladies at Slate’s Double X are of course beside themselves.
Unlike the tingle, women competing for the investment of worthy men aren’t just evaluating these men on alpha traits. In fact, while alpha traits are a definite positive beta provision and protection traits are a must. While Roissy may well be correct in his assertion that Prince William is a beta chump, Kate Middleton has won the female intrasexual world championship by becoming his wife. Even if he doesn’t make her tingle, there is huge status associated with not just becoming but remaining Prince William’s wife.
Beyoncé and Duchess Kate are married to men on the extreme end of the male status curve, but the wives of more ordinary men also receive a very large status boost by the title Mrs. While feminists tried to eradicate the term on the grounds that it belittled women, the average woman is actually quite proud of the term and the status which it confers. You can see this in among other things, the popularity of the Mrs. necklace.
That women receive status from marriage even to men who aren’t high on the tingle factor likely is counter-intuitive to many in the manosphere. However, not only is it easy to observe, but there is a good biological reason to think that this in fact should be the case. While we have in many ways divorced sex and marriage from children, the unconscious drives that govern men and women in this area generally come down to seeking a reproductive advantage. It is popular to try to distill the advantage fathers provide to their children to financial support and physical protection, with the added benefit to the mother of general “parenting assistance”. Those who are feeling generous may even acknowledge that fathers bring a stability to the home which fatherless homes generally lack and that fathers are especially helpful when it comes to discipline.
But there is another extremely important but less tangible benefit which fathers provide, and this is best described as legitimacy. Fathers matter in ways that are difficult to quantify or describe, but the cost to children who don’t have the benefit of growing up in a traditional father lead home are undisputed. Legitimacy can best be thought of as the public acceptance of the child by the father. The child benefits from a sense of status and identity, both internally and by reputation.
To understand the concept of legitimacy and tie this back to the topic of women’s intrasexual competition it helps to recognize that legitimacy isn’t an all or nothing prospect, especially in our current culture. For example, not all newborn children of unwed mothers have equal legitimacy. Some of them are welcomed into a home where their father resides, even though their parents aren’t married. Some might even receive their father’s last name. As time goes on, some of these children will continue to live in the home of their father, while others will have their father leave or be ejected by the mother. Even for those whose father doesn’t remain in the home there will be differences. Some will mostly grow up with their father in the home, while others will separate from their fathers much sooner. There will also be differences in the relationships the children retain with their fathers when he is out of the home. With no fault divorce all of the same is true for newborns of married couples.
Another way to look at legitimacy as a sliding scale is to consider the impact the mother’s relationship with the father has on the child’s relationship with him in cases where a man has children by more than one woman. Duchess Kate recently gave birth to a son who is third in line for the throne. Were it to (hypothetically) turn out that another woman secretly gave birth to another son of William around the same time, the difference in advantage for the two women’s sons is obvious. While this is admittedly an extreme and hypothetical case, it should help to conceptualize the real benefits the newly born Prince George receives from his mother being William’s wife. Aside from the public fact that he is officially in line for the throne, his personal identity as William’s son is also much stronger. Even if the other (hypothetical) son was eventually acknowledged to be William’s, and even if William made a serious effort to be in the child’s life the difference in advantage would always be huge. In the modern era we have used child support to try to overcome the advantages of legitimacy (to free women from the restriction of marriage), but even massive amounts of child support can not overcome this gulf.
Feminists want to argue that the status of the father is irrelevant, and that the mother can replace the father with respect to the child’s identity. Certainly children receive their identity from both their mother and father, but there will always be a difference. As the feminist experiment has inadvertently demonstrated, there is something special about the status of men.
Thinking about legitimacy as a sliding scale also helps explain a number of peculiar things about women’s reaction to men’s infidelity. Wives of sufficiently alpha men tend to overlook the periodic infidelity of their husbands, so long as the infidelity doesn’t become public and the man himself consistently denies the infidelity. What is unforgivable by these wives is when the husband crosses the line of carrying on in public with another woman, publicly acknowledges the other woman, or even worse, acknowledges a child he fathered by another woman. This last humiliation is too much even for a woman from the Kennedy family to bear.
The question of legitimacy also helps explain why it is so incredibly painful for wives who divorce their boring loyal dude husband only to have him marry a younger woman, especially if he either has children with the new wife or she has young children of her own. The paternal investment of her now ex husband is diluted by the other woman’s children, who because they now live with the father arguably have a greater public claim to him. Similarly we can understand why widows don’t take the status hit that divorcées do and why their children largely escape the negative effects of single motherhood; there is no question that their mother was their father’s woman, and their identify and status are secure.
Note: In a future post I’ll tackle the question of why women’s intrasexual competition for status takes on different forms over time.
Great analysis Dalrock. The question which comes to my mind (based on our previous discussion/disagreement/debate) is this:
On the hierarchy of female drives and impulses, where does this Female need for a mate (because that is functionally what this is) place compared to other drives and impulses?
[D: Thank you. I’ll give my thoughts on that in the follow up post.]
Excellent post! The one thing that stuck out to me was the “royal baby” part. The only reason the child is known is because of his FATHER’S position, for prince William could have picked any girl, and Kate just happened to be in the right place at the right time (most girls would go because of the title given to them and there children). Very few people would know about the middletons (average people like me and you), but now the family, especially Kate is now been granted the status of royalty by him, and the added benefit of her child being royalty. If Kate would of had a child out of wedlock by the prime, but the prince didn’t acknoledge him, then Kate would be more miserable than Scrooge mcduck. Anyway, women defiantly can have money, but it will never be the same as a man validating a women by buying her a gift.
Also the part about roosh and roissy, was right, these whores that have one night stand want validation of being attractive with out having to explain there irresponsible behavior to others hiding it up as liberation. As much as I think that the traditional family is the only way society will prosper, I get more fed up every day and now am starting to cheer for these guys a little. They take advantage of the hand played to them and if I was their age, I would most like have taken up some variation of pua. I look at it like this, if a women is that easy to pickup and bang, she most likely would not have been wife material, so their simply using her for the only thing she is, a cum bucket( sorry for the language)
Look forward to your next post dalrock
lzlzozozozozooz nice artatizlzlzo articlelzozolzlozozo
alpha fuckzz and beta bucckzlz zlzozzoz
DA GBFM rveoltoutinez da internetz woolrd with his ALPHA FUCKS BETA BUCKS POEMZ zlzlozozozooz
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-23971.html “Alpha fux Beta Bux poetry “
Post: #3RE: Alpha fux Beta Bux poetry
GBFM is a genius.
“alpha fucks and beta bucks” — GBFM”
“There is a strange hypnotic brilliance to GBFM.”
“Yeah – his Matrix responses are the best.”
“I think GBFM is Sven Thompson. Read the comment section how he mentions exactly the books GBFM always mentions. He is completely serious here though.”
dey be sytitfying an dparsisnig da gbfm at roossh zlozlozoz
“GBFM? What dat’ about?
I am fascinated by Great Books For Men (a legendary commenter on Roissy’s site) – but I cannot figure him out.
Anyone got any theories?
Also – if I can find it. I will post up one of my favourite comments by him. It is one of the funniest, most bizarre and yet profound comments I have come across.
[EDIT] – Okay I found it. I love this song from GBFM…
“da professional womenz ode”
alpha fucks and beta bucks
dat is how we roll
da butthexting cockass we fucks and sucks
and in our anuthes it doth deosul
alpha fucks and beta bucks
it is da way of da fed
to transfer assetss to dose who butthext
cuckold dose who pay for our bread
beta bucks and alpha fucks
it’s what day teach us we;’re entitled too
da assetts from betas we plucks
after da alphas desol us through our hole for poo
cuckold da betas cockhold da alphas
datsz what day taught us in mba grad school
as da feiisnsits see no truth nor justice in their laws
and say da great books for menz was all fools.
yes, yes, i did very good on my gmats
dey bernenakifed my soul away, left me with cats”
Another interesting query along this line is what status effects occur for a child when his mother divorces his father and then marries another man. Can the stepfather provide status to the child, and even if he can, how often does this happen?
Really cogent article. Nice!
men are the gatekeepers of investment….if he either has children with the new wife or she has young children of her own. The paternal investment of her now ex husband is diluted by the other woman’s children
So in this case it’s a bad idea to diversify your poonfolio – it only dilutes your stock and drains your capital.
Portfolio! I meant portfolio, really I did.
Speaking as a widower, who has raised his son alone since age 2……I can unilaterally declare ONE very important fact.
There are MANY redundancies in the system to give a child a mother-figure in those rare instances when Mom cannot be in the child’s life (whether by choice, or death). Think daycare, grade school, aunts & grandmothers.
There is NO redundancy in the system to give a child a father figure if Dad dies and/or is ejected from the household. Stepfathers do not cut it, and are generally cuckolded by the birth mother from providing (much needed) discipline.
One more reason women are FAILING at this vain attempt to ‘have it all on their terms’.
“The child benefits from a sense of status and identity, both internally and by reputation”
There is no such thing as an independent woman. Men created everything, so women have the choice of marrying a man or marrying the State. They are 100% dependent on men and their inventions/discoveries, whether they believe it or not.
Nothing else matters, unless that is taken into consideration.
The modern solution: women gain marriage status, then divorce husband and get his money. A divorced father has much lower status because other women know his resources and attention will be going toward his ex-wife and children. no matter what happens after that a woman was still validated enough that a man married her. Its a raw deal.
This blog entry emphasizes the status – the legitimacy – of woman’s father. However, a scenario is also an attractive way of portraying fatherhood’s value…
In many situations, when a wife is pushing against the masculine walls around her, getting too big for her bloomers, her father should be able to step in and give another man’s voice to undermine her expansion. (I’m hoping that most of this blog’s readers will understand a woman’s nature which is to try to expand to lengths that are unhealthy for her, her family and society) So, when a modern woman starts to look for support in her frivorcement, her father should catch word of this and, using influential power, “neg” her or otherwise push her off the idea to everyone’s benefit…
Also, I would underline @Dalrock’s latest as an example of how, of course, hereditary monarchy produces far more classy examples for families. In the United Kingdom, the Prince is a man who has had patriotic military service and knows how to dress himself. In the United States, Mr. “Jay Z.” Carter is a bohemian (artist), who often takes on thug stylings in order to make his bread. Which is the example of a healthier society? Which man is the stronger Christian? ( http://live.drjays.com/index.php/2010/01/14/jay-z-speaks-on-religious-beliefs-with-angie-martinez/ )
Best thing I’ve read yet. Ta.
I love how people like to point to Beyonce as some sort of power woman. Look at her, even if she is foolish with money she will never be poor, she didn’t need to find a provider male. Could have found the best lay, or the best looking, or what have you. But she goes out and lands the most successful black man in the US under 40 (excluding Tiger Woods who is only 1/4 black and clearly is interested in blondes). A man that is well positioned to make a run at the richest black man in the United States before he dies because his success is built on his business savvy rather than his ability to hit a ball or look good on film.
“She wants him to give her things she can show off to other women, things that prove that she is his woman. She wants him to formally call her his woman, either as his girlfriend or far better, his wife. ”
I think this is why in the bdsm community collaring is so attractive for women. It shows and means ownership and is a very visible sign to the world and her female competitors that she is owned and marked by a man. It is a much more visible sign than a wedding ring as a collar is more in visual line and in your face. And in the bedroom she wants to be called “his slut”, “his slave”, “his good girl”. It is always about being HIS.
Reblogged this on Transmillennium.
Destinys Child performed “Independent Women”
“Question, TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT ME?
I buy my own diamonds and I buy my own rings”
Ellsworth Toohey (in “The Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand) asked:
“Mr. Roark, we’re alone here.
WHY DON’T YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK OF ME,
in any words you wish?”
What does an alpha male think of her buying those things for herself?
What does Howard Roark (Alpha male) think of Ellsworth Toohey?
“But I don’t think of you.”
Destiny’s Child platform of influence on the masses:
Unlimited distribution of content via the most popular media of the day.
Ellsworth Toohey platform of influence on the masses:
Unlimited distribution of content via the most popular medium of the day.
I haven’t mentioned other similarities… yet.
Couldn’t be plagiarism… it was old when we were in school
“The Fountainhead” Publication Date:
April 15, 1943
“Independent Women” performed by Destiny’s Child
recorded July 4, 2000
released September 14, 2000
And for those the betas here that ignore the influence of popular music,
“Independent Women” was NUMBER ONE for 11 WEEKS in a row in the U S
…and had similar chart-topping results around the world.
“It was in the 2000-2001 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records for longest-running song by a female group.”
That was a very fine bit of wordsmithing.
“Bow down bitches” was also a nice touch. Reminded me of me.
“Legitimacy can best be thought of as the public acceptance of the child by the father.”
This is why fathers are so important for their daughters. A girl’s father is the first man in her life who *can* make the decision to love her unconditionally. It’s a tragedy when that doesn’t happen.
If this is true, then why are women so less likely to marry now than in the past?
So, this is a great post, in that it describes something real that has been mostly overlooked, or at least talked around rather than about.
Can anyone come up with a reason why it should exist though? Why does she need the herd to acknowledge male investment in her?
It’s because men, under which “fathers” are a subcategory, have been WEAKENED by republicanist materialism.
The answer is simple: Power.
The power that a woman is able to exert over other women is directly correlated to the status/power/value of her man. The greater her mate, the greater the power she has over other women. This will often translate into increased benefits directed to her and her progeny.
The The Last Psychiatrist is a women.
Let’s not forget Beyonce’s other gem: “I’m a single lady”
“If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it”
funny… no one can do the math on that and see that a guy who didn’t “put a ring on it” must not have liked it that much, and the whole thing is a big hamster circle-jerk to try and reframe her rejection into how great it is to be single.
Beyonce is competing with feminists of yore for “most damage caused” to the female gender.
Every girl-power song out there adds too their shitty attitudes and undermines their own efforts. It must be confusing to be a girl in feminism-land.
I had never previously known anything of the Hunger Games, but when I saw the clip of the Katniss shooting the bulls-eye and then the apple, I was immediately reminded of something else: William Tell. Tell (in Schiller’s version) offends a Nobleman, Gessler, and is ordered to shoot an Apple off the head of his son. He takes two bolts and when asked later why he took the second bolt replies that had he missed with the first bolt, the second bolt was for Gessler. There is no showing off or drawing attention to himself; it is in deadly earnest.
Yea, they might still ‘need’ marriage but is it actually worth giving it to them?
Don’t worry Opus, you’re not missing much. Just another ‘grllllll power!’ flick with the sexy male for an out of place romance that blossoms whilst our heroine kicks other guy’s asses.
I think you are blowing this out of proportion. Sure women like to get matried, the pageantry the shoe and the new slave…err partner. But that clearly gets old, fast, as seen by the divorce rates. Just because women use it as yet another means to show off does not grant us men a tangible benefit, save reinforcing the overriding principle of the manosphere and nature, be the best man in tbe room. But the world is a dark place for those who are not the best man in the room as we live in a feral age.
Regarding your next post on women’s intrasexual competition, you may want to review this “new study” that shows women buy luxury goods to ward off female competitors :
“Purchasing designer handbags and shoes is a means for women to express their style, boost self-esteem, or even signal status. New University of Minnesota research suggests some women also seek these luxury items to prevent other women from stealing their man.”
What is interesting is the dynamic between Beyonce’s actions with the naming of her tour and the reaction of the feminist apparatchiks, though I have no idea if it is intentional. Their frustration at Beyonce’s “Mrs Tour” seems to be the primary driving force in the Salon article, in that it doesn’t conform to the You Go Grrl meme.
Beyonce might be thought of as taking the intrasexual competition up a notch here. She essentially puts the “Mrs Degree” on display for all to see, and goes against the Feminist Grrl Power meme. She takes away the Feminist’s usual tool of “yeah, but she said she’s a Feminist–one of us–so we win even if she and we disagree”.
Beyonce stands out in starker degree, and takes away a weapon from the Feminist to use, thus perhaps the perceived frustration.
“In another study, Griskevicius and Wang made participants feel jealous by having them imagine that another woman was flirting with their man. Shortly afterward, the women completed a seemingly unrelated task in which they drew a luxury brand logo on a handbag. The result? When women felt jealous, they drew designer logos that were twice the size of those in the other conditions.”
“The feeling that a relationship is being threatened by another woman automatically triggers women to want to flash Gucci, Chanel, and Fendi to other women,” explains Wang. “A designer handbag or a pair of expensive shoes seems to work like a shield, where wielding a Fendi handbag successfully fends off romantic rivals.”
hety dalorkcas nice articlez after a seocnd reaidngz i notcied some typose which da GBFM has fixed for youz zlzlzlzoozz:
“When Roissy or Roosh have butthztsext with a woman (or da GBFM has ginasez with his lostsas ockasz), they automatically confer on her the validation which comes from being desired by and sexually satisfying an attractive man (with a beard in rooshses case lzozozzoz which dlarock finds attractives! lzlzozzl), while also serving and sataiataingz der but tiznzzlzlzoozlzzz as womenz are capapable of anal orgasamsszz just read COSMO zozlzozozooz. They simply can’t get what they want without giving this to the womanz bungholzlzlzo in the process. But while the women they bed crave this bughozlzlzo validation, it is of limited and fleeting value in the woman’s competition for status with other women. For this she needs something public (and not just pubic zlzoozoz) that she can show other women, like a large life-size GBFM lotsass cokasz dildo to hang aorund her nekcz zllzozzooz. Winning the alpha away from the other women present for the night or a few hours (or a few GBFM minuets zlzozoz) has some cachet, but what she really wants is a public (not just pubic lzozozo) display of his investment in her. She wants him to give her things she can show off to other women, things that prove that she is his woman, like a GBFM pearl neckalce lzlzlzozoz. She wants him to formally call her his woman, either as his girlfriend or far better, his wife, or even better, his bitch beeeeatch zlzlzlzozozzo da GBFM’s bitch zlzoozozozoz.”
der now dalrocksas i thinkz dat dat reads better and better conveysz the spirit of your economciz analalayses brillaibaceesz zllzlzzolzozozozozoo glad 2b of sevriveces zlzozlzlzolz
Question: Is this a “Talk to the (ring) hand, ’cause the face ain’t listening” moment?
August 11, 2013 at 12:59 am
>>Can anyone come up with a reason why it should exist though? Why does she need the herd to acknowledge male investment in her?
In someways it’s a wide-broadcast territory marker to other females — “look what I have–you can look, but stay away from him or I’ll cut you!”
I wondered about that because of the quip about not having burned a bra in years, but then again it was a joke. Can anyone confirm this so I can fix the pronouns if nessesary?
I’m well aware of the divorce rates, and have written on the topic at length. The question you aren’t asking is why do so many women not get divorced in a culture which daily eggs them on to do so and in a legal environment promising them cash and prizes. Have you seen the not-divorce rates?
Whom/what are you responding to here?
The point of this post is to understand base female motivation and the true value of men that feminist women are so jealous of ( that penis envy thing) What was done to the relationship and marriage between men and women by feminism with misandry and lies does not change a thing.
I think what happens is everything we discuss is in twos the truth of base nature and the actual day to day reality we live with not necessarily base on any truth but is an observable practice. Causes of a lot of disagreement.
Over all this article Dalrock, is the perfect father daughter conversation to help explain and focus the huge emotional transition girls go through from 12 to 20. The lies and the I wanna look hot is very powerful but the base instincts are there and the red pill wisdom is very soothing for a confused soul. (there are many men if asked honestly will tell you they were on there way to suicide, murder or slow painful death before the wisdom of the red pill. Even the churchian reading of the bible which further adds to the misery is over come with red pill eyes reading the bible)
Once again good article to red pill a young women heading for the cock carousel trying to get knocked up by the NFL draft pick. Now for my son I’m going to teach him right. he is going to be like this guy. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid899459040001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEMe8RQ~,R8iUD_53FI-fFhu9OAo50DzmPhxRXuK4&bctid=2343646607001
Very enlightining post Dalrock
I’m wondering if feminism could be viewed as women seeking acceptance from authority. I think it would help explain their frenzied emotional attachment to the State. When all authority has been stripped from men by their government, the women perhaps gain acceptance by being granted favors from that most violent and aloof of alphas…the nation state. It may also explain why criminal thugs are alpha, they are the only ones who have retained the natural sovergnty that God gave men, as they refuse to be under the authority of the state.
It changes everything greyghost, for it shows that women are not interested in marriage as a means to raise productive children and have a relationship with their father based on respect and submission but instead as a means to gain favour over and validation from other women. A man is a tool, a dildo. And the women with the biggest dildo wins.
Instead of women ruling their base instincts, their base instincts rule them. I, for one, have had enough of the excuses for covering their bad behaviour. You cannot correct their feral behaviour by giving in to how to satisfy it. You only correct it by making them control it. The onus lies on women to come to terms with their feral antics and then correct and adjust their behaviour. Telling men that they have to satisfy it, is a way towards doom.
If women want to all fight over the few alpha men, I say they should go for it. Have at it ladies. I will not slave myself away, making myself more attractive, more assertive and more dominant to merely have a women who views me as a meal ticket towards validation. If they are that void of compassion and empathy, pouring your life into satisfying them is of the utmost waste.
No one would dispute your knowledge of the divorce numbers and statistics, personally I use your material as the basis for my knowledge of that. I’m trying to point out that marriage has next to nothing to do with legitimacy and is showing off. It’s the personal beauty pageant that every woman can have and win. This is why women will talk up the man even if she finds him distasteful. So yes this hits on female competition, but more “I’m prettier than you!”
Now seems that making the argument that this showing off reflects why some marriages last. That I would disagree with. Women can still cuckhold if they desire, but also we must look at the female SMV and MMV, lets face facts, many women in the US/West are self inflicted ugly or wall ugly. This feeds into your analysis of women marrying later having fewer divorces, lack of options == stability. Sure Prince Williams of Me. Clooney would get them to stray, but those options are not available (and they are alpha if only because of fame). Women do want super high status/fame man, that is a core of game. I remember not to long ago a man faked being a movie star in a mall, and women threw themselves at him. So as to my comment of being the best man in the room it is directed towards women and staying with man in marriage, basically have to be the best of her available options. This has been brought up by others, in that for long term stability a man is often forced to swing below his MMV to ensure woman stays true.
Dalrock writes, “I’m well aware of the divorce rates, and have written on the topic at length. The question you aren’t asking is why do so many women not get divorced in a culture which daily eggs them on to do so and in a legal environment promising them cash and prizes. Have you seen the not-divorce rates?”
Dalrock–75% to 80% of divorces are initiated by women.
True, you state that many women do not initiate divorce, but of these women, how many have been, or are being:
1. buttcocked before and during marriage by men other than her husband?
2. ginacocked before and during marriage by men other than her husband?
3. mouthcocked before and during marriage by men other than her husband?
Many marriages that do not disintegrate only endure because the men have accepted that they must settle for a multi-buttcoked and buttcocking disobedientz debauched, debased womenz for a wivesz lzlzozozlzozozoo. technically speaking, they *are* divorced in the classical, Biblical sense, as their wives are often fornicating with other men, both before and during marriage.
Also, suppose that the planes in Dalrock Airlines crashed 50% of the time, with 75% of the crashes being initiated by female pilots. Dalrock would sell you a ticket to a flight piloted by a woman with, “”I’m well aware of the crash rates of Dalrock Airlines, and have written on the topic at length. The question you aren’t asking is why do so many planes not crash? Have you seen the non-crash rates of 50%? Now man up and get on that plane piloted by a women, you mysandric pig!” llzlzozozoozozozo
Women also like to call themselves Christian. They get there feminize the place to churchianship and go around calling themselves Christian women with no more character than any other woman. Shopping for a church is no different than shopping for a pair of shoes.
“It changes everything greyghost, for it shows that women are not interested in marriage as a means to raise productive children and have a relationship with their father based on respect and submission but instead as a means to gain favor over and validation from other women. A man is a tool, a dildo. And the women with the biggest dildo wins”.
They were always like that. What you described is normal for women. Women were never submissive and kind ever because they controlled themselves ever. A woman behaved that way to secure favor and status. I wouldn’t tell my daughter the story of the princess because she is a good person, I tell her the story so she knows how to get the most out of life because I know she is a slut that can’t wait to get a dick in her mouth. That sounds cruel to some but that is how a father needs to see his daughter. ( you don’t talk like that to a child I know ,we are men talking but I hope you are all getting the point) She is a human being not an idol to be worshipped. Do you really love your child or are you in awe of your child and want her approval.
Just because women have been allowed to treat men as tools through misandry doesn’t mean men are tools. In fact women are just helpers to man as God said in the beginner she is a “helper”. Her job is to submit to authority it is not a mans place to lead her to shit. Giving it away for the bullshit women are offering will lead to the madness we have today. Once again I will say to all here the PUA, Player and Thugs are doing the lords work. And any so called Christian man that doesn’t understand what was written there is a sorry churchian coward. Hiding behind bible verses thinking he is saving himself for heaven. Never tell a Christian man to ever marry a slut ever.
I hope that helps you understand my previous comment and why this is such a powerful article from Dalrock
I’ve recently written a series of posts on how men respond to the incentive of marriage to the benefit of society. Take away the incentive to marry and have sex with young fertile women, and young men won’t be as inclined to knock themselves out to build society. Certainly that changes everything as well, doesn’t it? Men are just pigs who think with their dicks.
Or as Tucker Carlson would put it:
Women’s desire to benefit their children by first marrying and then remaining with their father is a beneficial thing. Yes it is selfish in the sense that they are trying to give their own children an advantage. If you don’t like the design, take it up with the Engineer. What I’m pointing out is the seemingly pointless status competition women have with each other can be channeled, in fact I would argue it is designed to be channeled, into something positive, and that at its core it is all about something (selfishly) noble.
Kindly point out the person who is telling you you have to satisfy it.
What a rack on Jennifer Lawrence.
I’m not selling tickets to anything. To continue with your plane analogy, I wrote a post explaining the bernoulli effect and the principle of lift. Someone fired off an angry response that this can’t be true because 50% of all planes eventually crash. Lift must not exist, there is only turbulence, faulty welds, poor maintenance, and drunken pilots. So I pointed out that I’ve written extensively on those very same topics, but today we are talking about lift.
No Dalrock, hypergamy is running amok, it’s like saying that men are violent and therefore rape, murder and out of control violence is A ok. When I say women need to control or learn to control their hypergamy, it is exactly the same call and expectation that society has had with men all along. Men learn to control their violent impulses which leads to a better society and social order.
If women cannot control their urges, they are not fit to be wives or mothers.
I don’t see where you or I disagree here. That would be advantageous except that it isn’t what they are doing. It isn’t what is expected of them anymore. They are not shamed for following their feral instincts with regard to mating the same way that men are shamed for following our own instincts. They are taking advantage of this and reverting back to alpha fucks and beta bucks, which is not advantageous to children at all.
What incentive does marriage give to women now, Dalrock? Is all they want out of marriage validation, status and a big cock, once all their financial and welfare needs are taken care of? What happens when you cannot provide that anymore? Is divorce then okay? Since you have failed to step up and be the man, why should she be expected to stay with you? And really, women have gainfully been given everything to provide them with incentive to be better wives and mothers. They have taken it all and then want more. Just because they asked for something that now they don’t want anymore is rather inconsequential. What’s to say they won’t turn that around at some future date, once men have started to lead again, and start this whole parade again?
The point being is this: If you expect men to lead and women to follow, then instead of trying to satisfy incentives of women, you need to focus on satisfying men. Then they will lead and women will have to follow or be left out in the cold.
Thank goodness that the airlines are far more reliable than modern marriage, as the airlines humble themselves before Physical Law.
The problem with modern marriage is that it fails to humble itself before Natural Law and God’s Law, expressed and exalted throughout the Great Books for Men, which have been disappeared in our churches on on our campuses.
Why not first return the Bible to the church, and the Great Books for Men to the universities–to the center and circumference of our once Noble Institutions, and then invite men to buy a ticket on Dalrock’s “Modern Marriage is Great” Airlines?
The remarkable thing is how amazingly content so many men are with having given up the church and universities to the leftist eernenekfiiersz fmeinistsz zlzlozozoz that the best they can do is try and sell marriage with,”Hey our airplanes, which fail to honor physical/natural law, do not crash 50% of the time!”
Dalrock–you’ve witnessed churchians lashing out against Homer, Moses, and Jesus here, and that is *exactly* why marriage is in such a sad state today.
Your larger, nobler message in the current post is that women do have a soul, and they do see value in being honorable wives, mothers, and grandmothers, like Penelope in Homer’s Odyssey. Now if we could just get the churchiansz to set aside tehir buttzozkcicngzzlzlzoz sessioznz lzlzozo and stop raging against Homer, Moses, and Jesus, there would be hope!
I think you are argueing the mechanics of the reality on the ground and see that as in conflict with the truth. What you are talking about is the effects of misandry trying to gain control over the base female hypergamy. The hypergamy is not the problem and never was. It is how it is incorporated into civil society that is giving you your argument. Men don’t step up to shit it is women that step up to submit to her man.
The mechanics of making a shift in the structure of society and culture to redirect and as Dalrock said channel the power of hypergamy is a whole new topic and article and one I can’t wait to come to the fore in the manosphere.
Most women still do want a husband. However, the feminists (like Hillary Clinton) and the raunch queens that use sex to some extent to create their image and sell their product (like Beyonce and Kim Kardashian) are the dominant voices that are leading the female herd. So some of the women listen to these alpha mares and change their behavior to try and be part of the herd.
There was an interesting article in the Atlantic where many educated women felt guilty for wanting a relationship, as if they were betraying the cause for wanting a relationship in their 20’s, before their careers were fully established, heaven forbid that it happened to be during their most fertile years when their bodies are telling them to seek a man and get pregnant.
I think that showing how feminism and raunch culture doesn’t actually serve important interests and desires of most women (namely, to find a decent relationship and have kids) can be a significant tool in turning women away from those things. However, one must remember that feminism and raunch culture do serve real female desires as well, namely guaranteeing resources and independence so that hypergamy can be pursued. Most women have split desires, part of them are geared towards marriage and a stable family while others are geared towards getting pregnant with the best sperm they can find.
The apex alpha males and the alpha females have focused largely on promoting the promiscuous and hypergamous side of women. They’ve focused on promoting independence in women and casting down the beta males so that the women would be freed up and indoctrinated to act as cheap labor, big spenders, liberal-leaning votes, and plentiful pussy.
However, the other side of women has been neglected and repressed and this is where inroads can be made to draw women away from the current alpha mares’ and apex alpha males’ plans for the world.
Me personally? That would be family, friends and general society.
However, in regards to this post and other posts in the same realm, you are saying exactly that to any man who needs to get married. Any man who burns with passion. Is that not so?
Effectively, what you are saying boils down to four points.
1. Women are naturally hypergamous.
2. Their nature has been allowed to take over and has consumed them.
3. Only men can satisfy this nature.
4. They will only submit to the man who can satisfy them.
Which is why Shameful said exactly what he did.
In other words, what exactly is the benefit of marrying a hypergamous whore, who cannot control their behaviour, and thinks of a husband as nothing more than a walking dildo that gives her status and validation in the female herd?
I’d like now to comment on that part of the essay concerning investment by a worthy man, where Dalrock observes that when Roosh or Roissy have casual sex with a woman they confer on her an inevitable validation without which Roosh or Roissy are not going to be facilitated in sex. In my (obviously comparatively limited) observation, women simply hate it if as soon as he is finished the man zips up his flies and wants to be off. The ex-girlfriend I am thinking of, amongst others, arguably a greater whore than any you will find in the Bible always wanted the man to stay the night. Beyoncé’s lyric ‘when it is all over please get up and leave’ does not ring true to me, although of course I cannot speak for her. Staying the night is a form of investment which reassures her that she is more than a cum-dump. Is it any wonder that there is a rash of false-rape allegations from women who have put-out but then realise that they were just (as they will perceive it) being used for how could the woman then return to her girl-friends and boast of the one night stand if she could provide no sign of a further meeting or engagement ring, especially when that man is a top athlete. To make known or boast of her conquests will be to lower herself in the eyes of other women, even as she asserts her empowerment. As I always say, women cannot cope with free sex. Even a prostitute gets some sort of validation – a wealthy enough, perhaps even charming and sophisticated guy getting hard for you – and a very handsome cash pay-off – but the slut gets nothing other than awareness of her own cheapness. Women, despite their protestations do not feel easy in behaving in the manner of a customer at a Homosexual Bath House – so much for women having the same sexual drives as men!
What are we to make of a woman who can afford everything even including younger men (the gigolo) but whose entire existence is entirely reliant upon having that salary to enable her to buy anything she desires but who has never been able to create (or even hold down) any sort of LTR. Is she admired? I think not, even though she may be envied. Such women are corporate-cubicle Courtesans.
In a later version of his essay, Malthus (rather like Einstein adding a cosmological constant to his formula) encouraged, as a morally acceptable means of limiting population growth, later-marriage; yet we can see what the regrettable consequences of that trend have turned out to be for such a woman: STDs, Abortions, Childlessness and an inability to find a ‘suitable boy’.
Interesting post so far, but I’m looking forward more to ‘Part 2’, and possible explanations *why* women seek the ‘status’ they do, and how that varies with age and class. That would help clarify “where the rubber meets the road”, shall we say, per FH’s comments above at 11:33 am. (Glad to ‘see’ him still around and posting, as I was concerned).
But it’s a shame the topics of this OP aren’t covered more generally in mainstream media — the feminists are opposed, and the Churchians are… perplexed? In denial? Clueless? A recent example (maybe slightly OT here) is a Churchian review of Dr Smith’s book “Men On Strike”. The commenters on that blog are… interesting as well.
I should state that as any Christian man who burns with passion. As other men don’t need to look to marriage to satisfy their urges and can simply rely on easy casual sex.
Why focus on trying to enlighten and convince women? Because the bulk of the beta-female herd has more power than the beta males in today’s femcentric and apex-alpha-centric society. And because it’s easier to influence beta women by changing the alpha mares that lead the female herd than it is to outright overthrow the apex alpha males at the top.
In other words, what exactly is the benefit of marrying a hypergamous whore, who cannot control their behaviour, and thinks of a husband as nothing more than a walking dildo that gives her status and validation in the female herd?
You don’t marry that. You do marry a hypergamous that sees the best way to receive the full benefit of the man is to be submission, pleasant and kind to him and his children. (a goddamn good helper) A sane society has cultural and legal checks to help the bitch. Even to this day men that don’t understand reality attach virtue to women. There are no virtuous women they just behave that way to make people think they are. good enough, “when we finish having sex I’ll go out and kill that dragon for you and give you half my money because you behave with such virtue and kindness you fucking whore.” You can build the wealthiest and most powerful civilization in history off of that shit.
I should state that as any Christian man who burns with passion. As other men don’t need to look to marriage to satisfy their urges and can simply rely on easy casual sex.
That is how you make the change. You are right on the money doing the lords work playa
greyghost, thank you. Which is what I was trying to get across when I said that: “The onus lies on women to come to terms with their feral antics and then correct and adjust their behaviour.”
In letting the feral women come out and then trying to satisfy that same feral women, is what is leading us to doom. Maybe Dalrock misunderstood me?
To clarify what greyghost has said:
Women cannot be trusted to police themselves on their own. At least, the overwhelming majority of them cannot. Instead, you must organize social structures and systems so that women are given incentives to act responsibly, and punished if they act irresponsibly.
Our problem is we have done the opposite: we punish responsibility and reward irresponsibility. At least, that is what has happened for women.
It is important, essential even, to keep in mind that female behavior is far more reactive than male behavior is to environmental conditions. One example of this is Rollo’s “War Brides hypothesis.” Women, being physically (and in some cases mentally) weaker than men must base their behavior on their environment because they lack the greater male capacity to alter it to suit their ends. For want of a better way to explain it, they were made to “fit in.” You cannot change this. What can be changed, by men, is the environment itself. That is what we must be working towards.
August 11, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Isaiah 5:20 anyone?
Truth behind Dalrocks post is still there. We as warriors of the manosphere have to do the things to make the truth the living reality. That is the part that will make watching the news and reading newspaper fun. At best 50% of all women that marry actually deserve to marry and no single mom deserves to be a mother. So we have a lot of fun work to do getting those sluts to childless spinsterhood and let’s make it involuntary this time. when we get the suicide rate the same as men’s rate we can tell them the key to happiness is pleasant submission to your man and with faith in god you will be given inner peace. Until then get that phone from the bitch so you can call on it for a booty call. don’t forget your gandarusa young man
This also speaks to the inherent conflict between a divorced dad with children and any new woman that he gets involved with if she has a child or gets pregnant with the divorced dad. It is not only the ex-wife that resents the younger wife that impacts her status, it is the new wife too that resents the man still investing in children other than hers.
This is a very insightful analysis. I have never considered this angle. However, how many women do you think are actually aware of this? Few, I would say.
I can remember when the royal engagement was going on and all these women were atwitter about Kate’s fabulous ring. It was (and is) so popular that they were making and selling replicas of it. Then the question came up about William’s ring. All these women wanted to see his ring, but he decided he wasn’t going to wear one (a royal tradition I think).
The internet hen house went apoplectic. “How dare he?!!”, “Just like a man, it’s not like people wont know he’s married!!”, “Poor Kate, he should want to wear a ring.” One hen-houser said “JUST WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS?!”
To which I replied, he ‘think’ he is the Prince of Fucking England is who he thinks he is.
Reblogged this on House-Wife Sexuality and commented:
A more deeply explained version of my post ” I need you to be more romantic”, covers the same basic principles
Brilliant post. My mind hasn’t latched onto it yet, but somewhere in your post is the answer of why children of divorce who go to the father’s custody turn out better than the ones who end up in the mother’s custody as a general rule. I guess it’s a matter of examining the other side of the coin… what effect do divorce and/or a wive’s infidelity have on a man’s perceived value to other women? Or maybe the question should be, what effect do those things have upon a man’s standing among men, and do women perceive that standing any differently than other men do?
…and a sidebar: When a wife or girlfriend down-talks her husband in front of other women, there seem to be cross-purposes involved. On one hand, yes, she’s showing off to other women what her man will do for her. On the other hand, she’s undermining his perceived value and, it would seem by effect, undermining her status among other women. My question is, if men are a status tool for a woman’s basic self-perception, why would she ever be caught lowering the perceived status of that man?
@They Call Me Tom
* …if men are a status tool for a woman’s basic self-perception, why would she ever be caught lowering the perceived status of that man?*
The Roissy explains:
Dalrock, I like your articles and appreciate your argumentation even when I disagree. In this case if I follow rightly, it isn’t so much an argument in particular that is the upshot of this article, it’s the question your asking and that’s important enough because too often the way the whole culture, “feminine imperative” or “feminist frame” works … the whole thing is finding out to how to make sure people do not think about, let alone do not ask, inconvenient questions.
That said, there’s a lot brought to mind by your article. In terms of the value of a father, your remarks and Casey’s above provide fodder that I could give a heavy response or echo to. But I want to touch a few more even basic things about what I think it is you are getting at:
1) One problem when we talk about these things that comes to mind with me is illustrated in a comment I read by some other reader/commenter on some other manosphere site and article, sometime, I can’t remember where, but the commenter made a notable remark which I paraphrase (in quotes nevertheless because not exactly my original):
“When women talk to me and tell me about ‘men’, I always answer that I am not a ‘men’, I am a man, and for that matter there is no such thing as ‘a men’, there are only men, individual men, who in a group, constitute a plural, men.”
I think the point is important. I end up discussing gender topics with women a lot. What comes at me in these conversations is a lot of what I take to be reflections or echos of the coffee-talk chatter among women, when women talk about this thing, “men”, and so I get a lot of “men are like this” and “men are like that”.
I try to point out to whatever individual women it is I’m speaking with, that she care about this enough to talk with me, because she has relationships with men … individual men … she does not have a relationship with “men”. Channel Yoda here, but “there is no ‘the men’, only men”.
Whole point being … the challenge is to avoid the same error in reverse. We do not have individual relationships with “the women”, we have individual relationships with women.
2) With point -1- in mind, your article brings to mind an incisive comment that I recall being made by Elspeth on SSM’s site, not too long ago. Another disgruntled commenter had make a fairly sweeping statement of frustration and anger at women, attributing some vice to women, on the whole.
Elspeth’s response, as I took it, was measured and penetrating. She said that another way of looking at the problem that the commenter was attributing to vice was to notice that a lot of women don’t really want marriage and family. On the other hand, a lot of women DO want a wedding, and to get married, and the status associated with a wedding and a marriage, and the implied status along the lines that this transmits to the entire world that at least one human being, one man, found her worthwhile and desirable enough, that he would wish to commit his entire life to her.
Whether she agrees to the commitment or not, or whether she commits herself and follows through, or not, the point is that this is an enormous affirmation of her legitimacy and desirability to the world. The counter case … where no man ever sought her in marriage, would be a sort of implied state of “no man ever found you worthy”, and that is a dire fate indeed to many women.
So … marriage and family, that is a thing, and indeed if we take statistical and demographic data to mean anything, it is not at all clear that marriage and family are things that women, in mass, are comprised of a strong commitment to. But to be sought in marriage, to have the legitimacy of marriage as a matter of their own personal record, that is important to most women.
If I got that all right … just channeling Elspeth, so all credit to her.
Feminist Hater knocking it out of the ballpark as usual …
FH this is the new version of game, I’m working on, teaching men how to be alpha has no point
What is the point of teaching all these amazing skills with women …
If we dont teach these future alpha’s, how to teach women to control themselves & teach the women how to hold themselves responsible for their own actions
Imagine an army of gamers & red pill men, combatting feminism by teaching women how to hold themselves responsible for their own actions & stop being victim whores & emotional trainwrecks …
Gaming women is easy, taking a woman out of the clutches & horrors of being a modern woman, & turning her into a submissive feminine woman, is the next step for game & red pill
As I’ve stated on my blog, women have to learn to game themselves, being submissive doesnt fix crazy, ie fix the shit tests, or batshit crazy behaviour of most women
The future of game, the future alpha’s instead of only gaming women, they’ll teach women how to game themselves
THAT is the future of game, gamers & red pill men, teaching women how to stop themselves from shit testing, & how to stop being sluts & whores & drama whores
Women who know how to game themselves … this is what I’m developing over at my place
Women who know how to fix themselves
The future alpha’s will teach women how to game themselves …
As Hannah put it over at my blog, women who know how to be better women …
Again brilliantly said FH …
“Instead of women ruling their base instincts, their base instincts rule them. I, for one, have had enough of the excuses for covering their bad behaviour. You cannot correct their feral behaviour by giving in to how to satisfy it.
You only correct it by making them control it. The onus lies on women to come to terms with their feral antics and then correct and adjust their behaviour. Telling men that they have to satisfy it, is a way towards doom.”
So, in addition to wanting the alpha f**** and beta bucks, you are saying women also are jockeying for status position with other women. I’d agree that women are competitive with other women for status. So why would women give up the opportunity to increase their status by replacing the beta husband with the welfare state? There’s no status in getting a welfare check. I think the desire for the alpha is superseding the desire for status but the desire for status is still there. The average lower class female could only snag a guy able to generate a very low income. They wouldn’t get much financial support or much status from marrying this kind of guy so they are willing to give that up for the alpha guy sex plus government support. Women from the middle and upper classes are used to a higher standard of living and don’t see the lifestyle welfare provides as enough and are able to get wealthier husbands that provide both money and status. That’s why these women still get married and vote Republican. The exceptions would be women who inherited wealth or have a high paying job in government or area heavily subsidized by government like higher education. This eliminates the financial need for a beta husband among these women and whatever status need still exists is often overwhelmed by the greater desire for the alpha. You would expect this category of women to be big government liberals and they overwhelmingly are.
Now to the question of Legitimacy. This is the one that drives the femi-nazis wild. Anything a man can do a girl can do… but backwards and in high heels, so we are told. Looking back, I have come across (in the romantic stakes) – and the fact that these are things I remember, is surely not insignificant – women; some who assert that they will if necessary have an illegitimate child; other who are in your face about never having wanted a husband – as they show off their horrors (boys from broken-homes always seem to be out of control); and those who rationalise that they are quite happy having never married. Somehow or other I just don’t quite believe it. As W.S. would have said ‘they protest just that bit too much’. Why does a newish-boyfriend need to hear all this stuff unless somewhere deep down they know they have or are about to screw-up: imagine if you will, were I to assert to a new girlfriend, that I had always wanted to have sex with as many women as possible but never wanted a regular relationship. Her reaction would surely be one of shock, or outrage but I think that is merely a male equivalent of a woman opting for illegitimate offspring.
Last Friday, by chance, my friend was telling me how his new wife had been very keen to take his surname. She had rationalised it somewhat but there is no question that being married to him is something of which she is proud. She has done well, and much better than her elder sister. One must always be slightly suspicious of the future behaviour of a woman who refuse to ‘love honour and obey’.
“Poor Kate, he should want to wear a ring.” One hen-houser said “JUST WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS?!”
To which I replied, he ‘think’ he is the Prince of Fucking England is who he thinks he is.
Brilliant illustration of Dalrock’s post
There is no environment to change, what the hell are you talking about … lmao
You christians will never be able to bring back a traditional society… NEVER
You guys had your chance, & you sold men out … screw you & the donkeys you pagans rode in on …
What FH, greyghost & myself are saying is the ONLY way to bring back a REAL society based on the family, with a focus on putting mens rights FIRST
This third phase of game & the red pill, will ENSURE feminism STOPS becoming normalised AND it’ll prevent the rise of feminism
Teaching women how to game themselves, is THE return of a society based on mens rights first
Women are dangerous IF we dont teach women how to control themselves
External social structures like traditionalism ONLY HIDE the dangers of women
LOL Havent you learnt anything from the manosphere …. lmao
Women are dangerous IF we dont teach women how to control themselves
How MANY aborted children is it going to take, to teach you christians & traditionalists, how dangerous & feral women REALLY ARE
HOW MANY ….
Fun fact …. women were demanding the right to kill children EVEN in the height of traditionalism
Traditionalism DOES NOT WORK, unless women are taught techniques & strategies to control themselves & hold themselves responsible for their own actions
Excellent post. I was going to play devil’s advocate and point out that if a man is alpha enough, women will be his mistress secretly, which doesn’t give them this status over the herd. But then I realized that those situations actually help to prove the point. A woman won’t agree to be the silent mistress of a man whose SMV is fairly equal to hers; she will only do it when his SMV is so outrageously high (he’s a head of state or top actor or something) that he would never look twice at her as a wife, but by giving up the right to share publicly in his status, she gains the chance to bask in it privately. As a wife, maybe she could get a man whose SMV is 8, but as a discreet mistress who never makes any demands, she can spend time with a man whose fame or power makes him a 100. She’ll only do it when it’s extremely lopsided.
And even then, most mistresses hope to get that public status someday, either by becoming the wife or by being publicly acknowledged as a mistress (in societies where that’s accepted). Without that hope, I don’t think many would sign up for that program, for the reason you give here — a man’s status makes him attractive to a woman because she wants to share in it. If she knew that would never happen, it’d look a lot less attractive to her. (Of course, in many cases her hamster will convince her there’s a chance, even if the evidence says there isn’t.)
Check out this quote from slate …
I”m reminded of the “controversy” when Madonna was on Nightline to defend the part in the ‘Express Yourself’ video where she’s collared and crawling under a table.
She made the point, yeah i’m collared and crawling under a table “but it’s MY table”.
You guys make it sound like Jay-Z forced her to call the tour that…as if. “
Dalrock, this is a very fine essay. I’m curious – did you just sort of suss this by observation or did you talk to your wife or other women and ask them about this? I’m asking because most men don’t notice the jockeying for status that occurs in groups of women nor how women will subtly insult one another, especially on the issue of marriage. Most men also seem to be unaware of how much status a woman receives by being married. Even if she goes on to divorce, at least she can say that she once was married, and that is better (status-wise) than being a life-long spinster.
Of course, because increasing numbers of men are choosing not to marry, feminists are trying to spin this as women choosing not to marry. In terms of status, a woman can salvage a tiny bit of her pride by claiming she just never wanted to marry, as opposed to admitting that no one wanted to marry her.
Hmm…nightskyradio, can you comment on this for us? It seems to me that it took allamagoosa at least fifteen minutes to change her gravatar picture after you collared her. 🙂
An excellent article!! Well done, well thought out and well written.
1) The article and the upshot of the article
2) Mark’s points (and others) to the affect of “…are saying women also are jockeying for status position with other women…”
3) My own attempt to cast an illustrating reflection on this by channeling my memory of a comment Elspeth made at SSM
when we talk about status compared to other women, and specifically status as it relates to the presence of a father for their children as Dalrock teases out in the second half of the article, here I find myself wondering more about Rollo’s oft-made assertion that where it concerns the “relational equity” that builds from male commitment, women are simply incapable of understanding or valuing what a man brings to their relationship and shared lives … taking that as a starting point, what about valuing fathers, and the role of father’s in children’s lives?
Topping it off: I don’t know. I really don’t know. I took pains in my last comment to note that we can really err by generalizing about women here.
The point where there is legitimate question though is that there is a mass of common behavior: men are cast out of their homes, out of their children’s lives … the culture, the law and the courts, all collude on this. When men remain in their children’s lives post-divorce, it is either because the divorce was unusually amicable, or it is because a man fights viciously and doesn’t concede a sand grain. Couple this with a legal regime that makes child support and CS collection primary and shared time and parenting … oh so ho-hum, and we seem within rights to ask if the contribution of father’s is really being valued.
I find the problem hard to tease apart. This article seems concerned with the status factor in the question, and that a present supporting father is a matter of status. My interest is in the absolute contribution.
The status question seems wide open to me. The absolute contribution factor, not so much. Data on absolute contribution is clear as much as it is copious. Children do better — LOTS better — (1) with fathers in the home (2) with father’s remaining primary (even if equally shared) caretakers in divorce. There’s simply no question on this data point.
We are 3+ years into our divorce. That’s a while, long enough to get a sense of things. It’s an experiment of n=1, so make of it that, but my kids are doing ok. My involvement in their lives in constant. I sometimes think documenting the details of this involvement, if only to provide a log to put into some illustration just how important a father’s role is, that maybe should be a bigger point of my own blog.
It’s the little things, day by day, that add up over a long period of time, to make all the difference in the world. Kid took a bad way of the example of another kid … nip it in the bud, now. Done. Kid took a bad rap by way of a wrong-run-in with a new teacher … nip it in the bud, now. Kid feeling insecure while mom going through upheaval. Emotionally available, stable as a rock. Discipline … not so much a matter of “rod and staff” as it is forebrain activation: I offer you a square deal. You do what I want, you behave, be responsible for yourself, then you get what you want … every day, constancy. Solid. It all adds up, 3 years later your kids are stellar. Other kids in weaker or broken families, it’s from a distance but you can see they thrive less. All this and we haven’t even touched exercise and academics.
On an absolute level … I can’t see the future but I can say this: I am working to prepare my kids so they could go to Yale or MIT. We have a distance to go, but dad has demanding expectations while he provides voluminous assistance and guidance. Remove me from the equation. Replace me with child support. Yes, it is n=1, but does anyone think we aren’t being hopeful to cross our fingers the kids will make it to community college?
…and I’m struggling with my own remark above. I didn’t mean to go off on my own case, but the part of it I wonder about is: “this is clear as crystal that my contribution as a father to my children’s fates and fortunes is incalculable. Did my ex-wife ask, ‘Blue’s contribution is do important to the kids, so maybe we shouldn’t divorce?” … Hard currency says the thought didn’t cross her mind. Does it cross the mind of **any** woman contemplating divorce?
The trouble with the question is it’s a layer cake, but reduced to question you just get one question. In other words, one part of the problem is we literally don’t know the answer. i.e.: I don’t think this is even something anyone’s asked divorcing couples in a study, i.e.: “Have you asked yourself about the potential for a reduction in the prosperity and thriving in the fate and future of your children on account of them being cut off from the other parent?”
We literally don’t know. So we guess. My n=1 example … no chance my ex asked that. Divorcing couples I see and know of (and we talk, so that’s quite a few) … unscientific, but I’m not thinking it was a big factor, like not even making the factor list. Sure people say, “what about the kids?” but they mean by that: “how will the kids be affected by a broken home?” … whatever the answer is, we know this: there are zero organizations, formed of and by women, that have constituted themselves for the purpose of advocating for the affirmative retention of fathers’ roles in their children’s lives post divorce. Lots of women’s organizations concerned with other aspects of divorce. Not one, that is concerned, with that.
Oh, but we’re not done. Because once you come to grips with that, THEN you need to do the qualitative calculus and try to apprise the value of the role of an involved father in his children’s lives … and you find what I was poorly trying to articulate above:
So … I know it is roundabout, but I’m trying to wrap my mind around the contention that the status of having a father, for one’s children, is in particular, a highly valued aspect of what women seek in marriage. Various statuses of associated with being married … yes I see that, Elspeth did a better job than me putting words to that, but the status of a father?
It would seem to be a sickness, if it is true, and I would like to be wrong, but the admittedly anecdotal evidence I have to make sense of it, doesn’t suggest that this is a subject that really bothers people all that much, comparatively speaking, i.e.: domestic violence, child support, “dead beat dads”, or no-fault divorce because one party is “unhappy”. You know because, since we obviously care about those things … we do something about them.
Hopefully my follow on post will shed more light on this for you, but here is my short answer for now. I have no question that large numbers of women are considering the cost to their children when contemplating expelling their father from the home. UMC women in particular are very aware of this, and they have divorce rates bearing this out. In many cases the woman considered the cost to her kids but then rationalized it away because she wanted to divorce. Here is one example of a divorcée rationalizing it away post divorce, but the same rationalization process no doubt occurs pre divorce as well. The other aspect to this is the risk to her status among women. This is related as I explained and the concern on that front is far more obvious. So even if your ex didn’t directly consider the harm she was going to cause your children by expelling you from the home, she almost certainly considered the risk that she could end up either settling for marrying a man who is a step down from you or not being able to remarry altogether. The cloak of denial and rationalization around this topic is so thick it is nearly impenetrable, but women very much do consider and fear this (status/remarriage) risk. I’m thoroughly convinced that the vast majority of wife initiated divorces would be avoided if the woman hadn’t convinced herself that she was going to remarry up. This is hard to conceive because the likelyhood of a woman marrying better the second time around than she did the first time around is so wildly improbable, especially if she now has children. But the hamster is especially strong here, and the culture is constantly whispering:
@bluedog (and several others)
The question the OP answers is: “Why do women get married despite all the pressure, reasons, and incentives to not?”
It is not the answer to: “Why don’t more wives choose staying in marriage rather than divorce?”
Women don’t want status alone, and they don’t necessarily want status more than other things. The hamster wheel is round, and has several spokes.
In reading “Bluedogs” comments, I congratulate him for sticking with the welfare of the kids, cheers.
My child has both parents and I’ve noticed lately that she is a rare bird for it. The children of broken homes treat her differently. They are obviously jealous, make comments to the effect, well, you’re just lucky, you have a dad, mine’s not around etc. But worse, the school administration at her HS earmarks school perks (scholarships, travel opportunities, extra tutoring, sports team spots) for single mother kids. My child has asked about this, in that in most instances she is far more qualified for the “spot” in question and is told, she comes from an advantaged home and so it’s only “fair” to help the less advantaged.
SO, my point…
when these women frivorce and blow up their family, harming their own children, there is now collateral damage to the children of intact families.
The damage ripples on and on wrecking lives in its wake!
“why are women giving up the opportunity for higher status with a husband for the welfare state?”
Because the welfare state has many more benefits than just food stamps (provision). The welfare state “invests” in her in other ways too. Subsidized college. Make work jobs. Affirmative action. Decreasing the “pay gap”. In short, the welfare state thinks she’s a wonderful investment. The welfare state really believes in her and think she’s got what it takes. And the welfare state is willing to use a lot of smoke and mirrors to make sure everyone else believes it too. To protect her reputation. The antichrist wants everyone to believe that it’s little princess is suitable for the tasks it’s given her. She’s such a capable woman. Such a good and loyal helpmeet.
Dalrock, I appreciate your reply and your reply, like the problem, is many-layered and I needn’t address all the layers, but I will offer this one thing for you to think about when composing your next article on the subject.
Where it concerns UMCs who are not so likely to divorce, I would suggest being careful not to confuse cart with horse. For one, I keep the company of UMCs who, interestingly enough, have a tendency to hold their marriages together. In fact, my neighborhood in particular is interesting that way. It was “planned” and if you checked out my zip code on zillow you can see that it basically covers everything from decidedly UC (up on the hills) to LMC (apartments and condos). There’s a certain kind of 3-bedroom home in the hood … divorced and divorced/remarried couples abound. A step and two steps up from there, but not quite on the hill, are the 3-5 bedroom half-acre lots of the UMC … who have not (yet) divorced.
Beyond that though … I in particular will be, among your readers, one who is sensitive to questions and matters of class. Class if real, and you speak of impenetrable denial, another area of denial in our culture is where it concerns class and that denial, for what it is worth, is stronger on the right than the left.
That’s not important now, or to your next article, but what is, is this: money is only one part of class. Another aspect of class are values. Values create UMC. The values, in particular the values you are talking about where the woman/wife is possessed of a personal value for the role of her husband as a father in her children’s lives … this is a marker, of UMC. You may earn $30K and live in an apartment, but in having a value like this, your class exceeds your income.
One way of describing the problem we’re talking about is that we have men who are marrying women who do not share UMC values. That may be a necessary but insufficient observation though. A further observation would simply be that as a culture, we have become vulgar.
In that, may be part of the solution. To believe that you can “marry up”, to cast your husband out from your children … is vulgar. Without overwhelming justification, it is a mark of a classless person … or, to be charitable, it is the mark of a person, trained by a culture, to think of marriage as a means to personal happiness first, and as an institution for raising children, … well maybe, if it suits me.
@Buck, I feel sad for what your comment means. You certainly can see from the point of view of the children who treat your daughter differently, that they’d be jealous. Your intact family is a complete puzzle, no missing pieces. I do so much to fill out the emotion lives of my kids, and the disputes with my ex are largely concealed from them, so we will still do certain activities together, but on some level I understand they are missing out. My inclination is that, kind of as per Casey above, who noted that there are redundancies in the system for missing mothers, but no redundancies for missing fathers … odds are higher that that behavior would come from children in single-mother primary care … but I don’t know.
It makes me sad. The efforts of the system to provide opportunities for such children are understandable, but almost comically vain. You cannot fill in for a father. The lack of a father is an absolute loss. I am even vaguely remembering Carrie of S&TC reflecting to herself that a man who grows up without a father is always looking for one.
You could remove gender and just say a “parent”. A parent totally cares about you, is totally interested in your present and your future, in your fortune and wellbeing. A human being carries much on his or her shoulders. Children prosper, immeasurably, from having two parents.
“Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”. We treasured child support. We treasured it so much we passed a helluva law about it in the 1990s because you know … that’s what we do when we treasure something. So now men in their 20s do the math and don’t want kids. We dis-enfranchised fathers from their families, so this surprises anyone?
And schools will fill in for this, with “perks” for children of single parents? It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.
I’m sick of GBFM posting on these threads, making no sense, speaking in his own language. Why don’t you kick him off here and delete his posts? His poetry sucks. He’s stupid and the list of books he made is decent at best.
I was reading about societal breakdown yesterday and today, and came across details of Dr. Calhoun’s mouse experiments. Here’s a basic summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Mouse_experiments
Some of the authors I’ve been reading have suggested that the “societal breakdowns” in his experiments are being mirrored in today’s society (and getting worse). Specifically, I wonder if “the beautiful ones” can be compared with MGTOWs? Perhaps the herbivore men in Japan?
Just some thoughts.
“widows don’t take the status hit that divorcées do”
I recall Steve Sailer writing that widows increasingly self describe as single mothers. They would not do this if they thought widows had higher status then divorcees.
Beyoncé and Princess Kate are married to men on the extreme end of the male status curve, but the wives of more ordinary men also receive a very large status boost by the title Mrs. While feminists tried to eradicate the term on the grounds that it belittled women, the average woman is actually quite proud of the term and the status which it confers.
Sorry, but I vehemently disagree with this statement. I cannot remember the last time I heard a married woman under the age of 70 use the title “Mrs.”, a handful of Christian wives excepted. The now-ubiquitous term “Ms.” is another example of how feminist culture has so deeply infected what is left of the mainstream, specifically through its corruption of language, that people of both sexes who otherwise reject all things feminist use the term instinctively, routinely, and without thinking about it. Even as recently as twenty years ago it was still considered a controversial title, much resisted in “traditionalist” circles by both men and women. Nowadays it is the default.
The excuse most often coughed up for the use of “Ms.” is some variation of “given the uncertainty of most women’s marital status, it is the term least likely to give offense.” Indeed, very true. The use of “Mrs.” is now considered offensive, even in the mainstream, whereas its feminist-contrived replacement is not.
@bluedog: Class exists, the thing is, that the classes are not ‘have money’ and ‘don’t have money’. The classes are the government and the governed. In the 18th century the balance of power was going in the right direction, in 21st, the governed are too willing to cede power to the government. What you call the values separation I call difference of allegiance, not class differences. And, as a general rule in this world, it’s typically better to be in allegiance with your own interests rather than allegiance with your enemy’s. Those who throw their lot in with the government are the ones who most suffer for what they are willing to give up… don’t disagree with you there. That’s the sad irony of it. They give away their rights to ‘stick it to the wealthy’ and find themselves poorer for it.
When I say women need to control or learn to control their hypergamy, it is exactly the same call and expectation that society has had with men all along. Men learn to control their violent impulses which leads to a better society and social order.
I absolutely see where you’re going with this and agree in principle. However, expecting a woman to control her hypergamous urges through her own will power is like expecting a mosquito to stop sucking blood from its victims.
If women cannot control their urges, they are not fit to be wives or mothers.
More accurately, it means that they’re not fit to live independent of a male relative’s control. This explains why some cultures (that of Saudi Arabia and certain other traditionalist Muslim societies come readily to mind) prohibit women from doing exactly that. I would venture to say, based on anecdotal observation, that very few Saudi Arabian women are able to act on their hypergamous urges.
The point being is this: If you expect men to lead and women to follow, then instead of trying to satisfy incentives of women, you need to focus on satisfying men. Then they will lead and women will have to follow or be left out in the cold.
Again, well said and completely true. Men, however, have come to the realization that the overwhelming majority of women are simply not going to allow themselves to be led by men – EVER. This will not change as long as the State (i.e., the dominant partner in Marriage 2.0) remains functional and in possession of a monopoly on coercive violence. Given these two factors, men are simply not going to step up and lead because there’s no incentive for them to do so anymore. Not only no incentive to do so, but every disincentive to even think of trying.
I envision that most women, when faced with the choice of male headship/leadership or rebellion, will choose the latter without even thinking about it. Once TSHTF they’ll change their minds and beg to follow, but by then it will be too late.
@feeriker: how do you explain the prevalence of the “Mrs” necklace tags linked by Dalrock? Perhaps you’re just not in the right circles to see this? Anecdote is not data but my sisters are well under 70 and they use “Mrs”. The eldest one even calls herself “Mrs John Doe” on her formal correspondence. They tell me many of their friends use “Mrs” though it’s usually in the form of “Mrs Jane Doe”.
@Dr Faust: you may think of GBFM as the manosphere’s weird uncle in residence. Every once in awhile, he slips into regspeak and is quite cogent. But there is method to his madness.
@Bluedog, LFM, Buck, et al: depriving children of their fathers is tantamount to child abuse: I think that is pretty well understood here. Those like Bluedog who hang in there to guide their children; those kids are better off for it. But the “churchian” view is men must “man up, marry those sluts and be the role model to her thugspawn”.
@Dalrock: many commenters are black and white about marriage when in truth there are gray shades and I appreciate your efforts to divine these. An example of black & white thinking: all women are bad in that they are totally subject to following their hypergamous feelings to the bitter end, in which case the frivorce rates should be far higher than they actually are. Well we know that is not so, we can say many, we could say a majority, we can say there’s a trend going in the wrong direction, but we can’t say *all*… Good post… Looking forward to the next one.
I’m sick of GBFM posting on these threads, making no sense
Here’s hoping you’re pulling an Ogilvy. Your issues with GBFM are the intention of the GBFM made up language. Dove ‘Real Beauty Sketch’ has earned bad press from the ad campaign …that ONE ad has 55,682,126 views.
A lot of people say they hate the constant barrage of “Flo” ads about insurance. You know fo’ sho’ that “Flo” is performed by that actor on the PROGRESSIVE Insurance ads.
There are other places you could find wisdom similar to the GBFM, but you remember GBFM as being the source of it. Whenever he chooses, he can opt to accept the fame that’s already being offered to him. When that happens, he’ll already have a saturation of name recognition and style signature. Great writers can break the rules.
GBFM has genius.
The Dove ad posted to youtube April 14, 2013, near the deadline for “beta bucks” lzlzozozozozooz nice artatizlzlzo articlelzozolzlozozo
Cail Corbishev makes a good point about Mistresses, and in my experience they always hope (even though common sense ought to persuade them they are being played along) that one day they will marry their man. Most don’t, and I suspect that they fail to grasp that men are programmed not to abandon their wives. One never, however, comes across the case of the man who sleeps with a married women hoping that one day she will leave her husband for the purpose of marrying him, although there are no shortage of Omega’s who in return for just a word or a smile will act as a general servant to a woman whom they hope against hope will one day sleep with them. It never happens does it! Better to reign in Hell than serve in heaven I say.
I wanted to point out that I just made a post where I used your Carousel Rider post data to calculate 5-year marriage rates and then use three different scenarios to project never-married rates out to 2017. It’s quite striking.
In the early 2000′s, 30-34 y/o never-married white women (NMWW) had a ~34% chance of marrying within the next 5 years. This level was cut in half by 2007, to ~17%. Only 1 in 6 white women had never married in 2000 but this level will likely double to 1 in 3 by 2017, a stunning increase. The 35-39 y/o NMWW cohort will nearly double from 11% in 2000 to ~20% by 2017.
You can follow the link in my username to read the post if you’re interested.
GBFM’s a lightweight attemtion whore … he promotes cliche’s & mediocrity as profound truths …
GBFM’s a reality virgin, he’s just like tate earl, yet to pop his cherry on life in general …
There’s greater truths then socrates & aristotle, just dont expect middle class, conservatives like GBFM to state them …
Women dont need to be taught how to control their hypergamy
Hypergamy is social relativity
Women always try to lower their status relative to the status of an alpha
ie. women will always ensure their status is lower then the alpha’s in their social circle
This is why women cant stand beta’s, they cant lower their status low enough to feel attraction for them
Women need to have lower status to feel attraction for a man & bond to his children
Men love, women judge.
August 11, 2013 at 9:17 pm
No, women do not consider the ill effects of divorce on their children. That’s why they initiate 2/3 to 3/4 of all divorces. Others have or will probably answer the question more eloquently, but the ruth is this simple and uncomplicated.
When I was still in the military one of the things you noticed early on was that many wives “wear their husband’s rank.” A colonel’s wife “outranks” a captain’s wife… an officer’s wife “outranks” the wife of an enlisted man. It was a lead-pipe cinch that the head of the Officer’s Wives Club (OWC) would be the wife of a field-grade officer, and often the wife of either the post commander or the wife of the commander of the largest tenant unit.
Everybody knew it… even junior officers know not to cross the commander’s wife.
I’m out of the game now, and I understand that there’s less of that than there used to be, but that can be explained by the fact that women can now be accorded high rank in their own right – so the status of high military rank has been lessened accordingly.
I just want you to know that after reading your blog, I can’t even enjoy a simple pleasure in life like watching a movie without seeing your lessons. I watched the 1951 movie “When Worlds Collide” over the weekend, and it has the whole alpha/beta thing.
The movie opens with the alpha piloting a small plane with a girl on his lap. It’s made clear early on that he is something of a journey man that takes odd jobs, and his next job is to deliver a sealed package that has in it–unbeknownst to him–info about how the world will end. A couple of scenes later he is a passenger on a commercial airline, and a stewardess is throwing herself at him. When the alpha delivers the package, there is also a scene that makes it clear that he isn’t the sharpest knife in the draw (at least not compared to the scientist he is surrounded with at the time).
The beta is a doctor who works with the group receiving the package and is engaged to the girl. Whey they find out the world has less than a year left, he suggest they get married now so they can spend their last year together.
She puts him off, because she suddenly has eyes for the hard drinking, womanizing alpha (who bluntly tells her in a club that he is interested in taking her away from her fiancee the doctor). After all, who needs a beta provider if the world is going to end in less than a year?
The girl tells her father of her new feelings for the alpha. The father enables her by telling her he’ll find a way to keep the alpha around (even though he has no skills or value that would contribute to their project–an effort to build a ship to escape from Earth to another planet). In fact, the father goes one step further and rigs the lottery that determines who gets on the ship and who stays behind (and dies) to ensure his daughter’s now alpha boyfriend gets to go.
The alpha, in a moment of moral clarity, refuses to go when he realizes he would be nothing but dead weight on the ship. He has no skills that would contribute to their survival and he would be taking up space and fuel that could be better used for chickens or even a farmer.
In steps the beta (who has made it clear that he still loves his fiancee) who pulls the ultimate “nice guy” move to ensure that not only will he lose his woman, but that the alpha will end up with her. He tells the alpha that the ships pilot (who is also an engineer) has a health condition that might prevent him from landing the ship and that the alpha needs to go along as a backup pilot to land the ship if needed. All of which is a complete lie, but it gives the alpha the excuse he needs to go on the trip.
In the final scene they are standing in doorway of the ship of the new planet. The alpha and girl have their arms around each other, and the beta is taking care of some puppies and the one child that made the trip (symbolic of his beta provider role).
I used to really like that move, and now you’ve ruined it for me. Arrrrrrrgggggg!
Men are one of the pegs that women use to keep score in their never ending Cribbage game of omnes contra omnes. I am so surprised that this has escaped the notice of men for so long. I noticed it in early adolescence. The girls who landed the noisy, unruly, athletic boys in middle school were chosen as cheerleaders, Redcoats and student council. Ebven the adults played along. The lost of a “steady” relationship mean immediate demotion unless a suitable surrogate could be quickly located.
My daughter conformed this to me last week. “The idea is to get the cutest boy you can and get him to give you something he hasn’t given to a lot of other girls. It doesn’t matter what this is. It could be a night in the sack, a declaration of undying love, a bracelet, an engagement ring, or a real sit down date. What matters is that other girls want it and you’ve got it.”
I don’t know why I notice that intra-sexual competition is so vicious with women. Maybe I’m hyper sensitive to slights toward my immigrant wife by angry divorcees, but that can’t be it. I’ve known since puberty that women were more competitive than men. What I don’t understand is why this fact is so unknown to most men.
One thing I loved about When Worlds Collide is that there were no black people on the rocket ship to Bellus, and very few brunettes. I thought the Nazis had lost the war.
I noticed the lack of minorities on the ship also (not just blacks, but of any type) although I didn’t notice any lack of brunettes (the female lead is a brunette after all). It’s a 1951 film and obviously a product of its era. What I found interesting is that the whole women & alpha/beta guy thing we talk about today was so clearly on display in the film (which was, as I said, a product of 1951 and the mindset found in society at that time).
Once you take the Red Pill, it is amazing how much clarity it brings to old movies, TV shows and books. You can’t look at anything the same again.
If some of the theories being bandied about are true, you cannot expect women to police themselves, because they can’t. They can’t hold themselves accountable, they can’t control themselves. We are talking about base, primal instincts here, which will always and eventually manifest themselves.
Women need behavioral constraints forced upon them in order to act in a “civilized manner.” Indeed, I dare say it may well be that civilization itself depends on restraining critical aspects of female behavior, without it you can’t have civilization at all.
Calling a woman Mrs. is much like asking a woman when she is due. If you are right in your underlying assumption there will be no offense. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The problem comes when you call an unmarried woman Mrs, because you are inadvertently shaming her by pointing out her lower status.
My wife had pointed out the status competition to me for years. At first I was resistant but over time I had gotten to where I could recognize the signs when women interacted. But it wasn’t until I read Roissy that I started putting the larger picture together. This post for me was another step in that direction, especially recognizing the connection between the relationship of the mother with the father and the relationship of the child with the father.
As for the status of the divorcée, I think that is true at least initially. But over time the status of these women drops as they start to become just a different class of spinster. When she is newly divorced she can somewhat plausibly claim to be empowered by reentering the courtship (choosing) phase. This is chick crack of the highest order, and even married women tend to want to believe it is possible (even if they know better than to try something so foolish themselves). But the suspension of disbelief doesn’t last forever. I think this is similar to the status (in women’s eyes) of a man who has been engaged but never married. There is an expiration date on the idea that he was the one that got away from some other woman. As the years pile on it starts to look more like (confirmed) rejection and unworthiness. But even worse is the twice divorced woman. While women are pretty willing to assume the man was at fault for divorce #1, a second divorce is viewed very differently. “She’s on the road to finding the one!” turns into “She can’t keep a man!” This puts divorcées with poor remarriage options (those who are in their 30s or older and/or have children) in a very tough bind. The older she gets and the more years post divorce, the more she loses the benefit of the doubt. But if she marries and can’t stay married she ends up even lower in status, and second marriages have a higher probability of divorce than first marriages do.
The question of the use of soubriquets Miss, Mrs, and Ms is more involved than it might appear. It would be absurd for a teenager to adopt Ms – and remember until recently most women were married when hardly out of their teens. The use of Ms hardly suggests youth and availability (it is obviously some form of fitness test) and thus Elizabeth Taylor was always Miss (except when married).
Ms is use by women trying to hide something, namely the fact that they are not married but unwilling to admit that they are still available. I came across an old flame (on-line in the registry of companies) and she although clearly living with a man of her own age still uses her birth name and is still calling herself Ms. I could only pity the bloke and reflect that there for the grace of god went I, as she has obviously not changed one iota since her twenties when though very desirable – a high 7 – was simply her own worst enemy. She was, as a friend of mine observed, a person for whom there was not a situation she could not get into that she would not make the worst of.
My girlfriend assumes the title Mrs yet she is not married!
Men do not have these problems: women always will. Ms only makes it worse for them.
The comment from rmaxgenactivepua was where the change can be made
This is where churchian and traditionalist show their ass and lose all respect. Any so called Christian preacher that thinks Christian men should not learn and understand game and the red pill that is behind it is just plain irresponsible and stupid. If fact this late in the game I would say the man is working for satan for his own benefit of appearing relative to other men as pure and Christian. PUA are doing their job for them. The same red pill that uses hypergamy to get pussy can use hypergamy to make kind empathic in behavior women. The hyperganmy isn’t going away it is normal. The men’s movement hasn’t made any progress over the years because hypergamy was never understood to be natural and normal for a woman. Even now ideas and thoughts are being directed at removing hypergamy from woman or even more insane thinking women can be taught to control her hypergamy. Her hypergamy is controlled by her submission to you.
All of the arguments here against the OP are from feminism using the female characteristics to manipulate hypergamy. Traditionalist are wrong because they never understood why women were called virtuous. Traditionalist and Christian men (churchian) today are no different than old money snobs living off inherited money looking down their noses at a man that innovates and creates new wealth today, a self made billionaire. They have none of the traits or character of the men that created the wealth they live on and yet act as if they do simply because they have it. Hypergamy is natural and normal the same as beta males are a civilizing influence on society.
Your last two comments are dead on right.
“Whole point being … the challenge is to avoid the same error in reverse. We do not have individual relationships with “the women”, we have individual relationships with women.”
I appreciate this remark. Perhaps Dalrock or someone else has done a blog entry on the herd, as it’s called, but I’m finding it hard to believe. Women don’t all agree on the same thing. They don’t even complain about the same things. So anyone can point me in the direction of an explanation of the politics of the herd, I welcome it. And depending on what they say at the time, paradigm shifts are a regular thing.
@Opus and others regarding “Ms.” title
Are you saying “Miss” and “Ms.” are not synonymous? Is this the basis for your argument?
Around 1970 feminists decided that Mrs. was the same as saying “property of some man” and that Miss was demeaning, because men didn’t have a similar title designating them as unmarried. So, Ms. came into use as a marriage-neutral title for women (just like men had).
I think women “keep score” with each other with money. I think it is less and less status based on who you are married to (or even if you are married AT ALL) and more and more about how much money you have. That is how they “keep score” because the money IS the status. F@ck everything else.
I’m going to leave women who are law breakers (drug users) out of my equation for this analysis, but what I have found (over 20+ years) in my professional career is that single women never seem to have any money, not a dime. Doesn’t matter how much they make, 30K a year or 100K a year, they have nothing to show for it except massive credit card bills. They get their paycheck, they spend it (all of it) almost immediately (purses, boots, clothes, hand bags, shoes, nice weekday lunches, magazine subscriptons, make-up, perfume, newest cell phone, fancy BMW\Lexus\Cadilac-CTS lease payment, etc) things single men almost never buy. The only time single women don’t spend all of their money is if they are going to pay their rent that month, in which case for the first time (all month) they budget for the rent. But that is about it. Never any savings, never a house or condo that they saved up for and bought, almost never any 401K. Spend it. All of it. Live for the day, you could be dead tomorrow.
Then the lucky ones get married (common among Asian women, less common among White women, rarer still among Latinas, almost non-existant for Black women.) The very lucky ones marry a man with (as much as) twice their income. The even luckier ones marry a man with the same income (or even less income) but the man has NO EXPENSES outside his very small mortgage payment (of which he is doubling up each month because he is smart and frugal.) So even if he has less money per month than she does, he will still have MORE money to spend ON HER because he wasn’t spending any ON HIMSELF. Then they have a kid (or two.) Then some years go by (usually 7 give or take.) Then they get divorced (well she divorces him.) Then she joins her sewing circle of single/divorced friends and their status is based on how much money they have. (For the divorced woman, it is her paycheck, her child support check, and her alimony check.) The ones who have the most income each month, wins their “status game.”
…and so it goes.
Now before everyone flies off the handle here, we are talking about a small subset of the female gender that does not value marriage to the same level many of the Christian women who post here do. They don’t see marriage as a lifetime commitment (til death do us part.) And they absolutely, POSITIVELY would never-EVER keep a commitment to the following three vows (the most important vows in a marriage…)
She may say those things, but she is not going to follow those vows if the sh*t hits the fan (as it so often does.) He loses his business in the recession, dhe divorces him and she’ll use the excuse “…well, just became a different person after he lost the business and it just wasn’t working out…” etc. We’ve all seen it. The root here is MONEY. It is all about trying to get his money. And if he isn’t making money anymore she is not staying, simple as that.
Status? Whoever is married to the medical doctor has higher status? Please. That “status game” is for married women who keep score with each other (women who are going to stay married for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, for sickness and in health), NOT for women who’s whole goal is the money OR ELSE she exits the marriage. It was also for a “game” played when most (almost all) adult women could expect in some point in their life that they would BE married. We are talking before the 1970s. Today, women can’t (and don’t) count on marriage at any point in their life. Far fewer men ever bother going down on bended knee (even if she had his kid.) Women read those magazines, they see the statistics, and they believe it. They are not stupid. So their priorities have changed. Friends and their friendship network is much more important than their boyfriends and their husbands. They keep their friends their whole life, they don’t keep their marriage their whole life. For them, the marriage just means more access to monthly money. You wouldn’t believe some of the conversations I overheard past GFs say to their friends when I’ve been over, the way they look at men. Frightening.
I know this post seems kind of cynical and down on marriage and don’t mean it to be. But men, protect yourselves. You have so much to lose here because I know you are not goign to trade her in if she loses her money. Best suggestion I can make to men who want to get (and stay married) is do your own monetary fitness test of sorts. Here’s a great idea if you are in love with your GF and are thinking up upgrading to wife provided she is not solely motivated for the money: interview for jobs. Send out resumes. Get interviews. Get a couple job offers. Accept an offer, and tell them you’ll join in two weeks. Quit your job. Don’t tell your GF that you were looking for and got a great job. Don’t tell her you quit. Just tell her you were fired! Spend the next couple of weeks being rela frugal, no more dinners out or movies, just staying home the two of you alone time. If she is BUSY whenever you try to arrange these tv-video-pizza dates or (lets say she tells you that maybe its time you two take a break) then you will have your answer. It was always your money and not you that she wanted. If she hangs in there (and even takes YOU OUT over those two weeks) well, now you’ll know for sure. She truly loves you and (well) now you might think about getting the diamond.
Thanks for the explanation. Is the problem that “Miss” is considered demeaning and it shouldn’t be? That the options should be “Miss” for girls and “Mrs.” once they are married only? That “Ms.” is a type of no-man’s-land (or in this case no-woman’s-land)?
I believe that Dalrock makes it quite clear in the essay: Women who are married have male investment; the use of the term Mrs reveals that investment: thus Margaret Hilda Roberts was Mrs Dennis Thatcher, and Hilary Rodham is Mrs William Clinton (and don’t tell me either would have achieved what they have, had they not been so favourably wed. Posh Spice is assuredly Mrs David Beckham.) A woman who is married but who calls herself Ms is thus surely heading for the divorce courts or is being disrespectful to her husband. A woman who is single and calls herself Ms is either fat, old, or ugly and signals thereby that she is out of the race for male investment, or else she is using the term as a fitness test. Would you want to risk making a play for a woman calling herself Ms? Would you want to hold a door open for a woman calling herself Ms? Would you want to have anything to do with such a woman? Until 1970 the position was clear, and sensible. Since 1970 Femi-Nazis have merely made fools of themselves by denying human nature, and although they may call themselves Ms will be the first to use the Pussy-pass when needed. I am frankly amazed that in an effort to achieve equality women have not adapted the wearing of large Strap-Ons to announce their equality, much as they used to wear shoulder-pads. Ms is a similarly ridiculous affectation, which simultaneously attempts do deny the sex of the person even as it acknowledges that it is not male. We know what a Miss is and we know what a Mrs is, but a Ms has had its uterus metaphorically removed. Such a woman is a figure of fun. Perhaps these Feminist should take the matter up with God or Dawkins, but imposing barbarism on the English tongue is a crime for which some of their leaders need to pay a heavy, and preferably, capital price.
Happily, men have no such problems and for obvious reasons. A man is Master until majority and Mr thereafter (unless a member of the Aristocracy).
Miss is associated with young girls. Women under 30 love it, because it implies youth (I’m young; I’m sassy; call me miss).
For older women, it implies “couldn’t snag a man.” As has been noted, there is a stigma for women aged 30+ that have never been married. Calling a 40 year old woman “Miss Smith” is like calling her “old maid Smith.”
I’ll have to keep an ear out for how women introduce themselves. If older married women are using Mrs. or Ms.
August 12, 2013 at 11:14 am
If you are not sure, call the older ones Ma’am and make their heads spin.
“I’ll have to keep an ear out for how women introduce themselves. If older married women are using Mrs. or Ms.”
I will as well since this has been mentioned. I think most women just say their names.
“If you are not sure, call the older ones Ma’am and make their heads spin.”
This is funny.
Don’t make “the investment”. Marriage is an obsolete construct from a fading epoch. When it can be dissolved at any time for any reason, it cannot even be considered a contract anymore. The costs and odds of failure are too high. Marriage is the invitation to The State to infiltrate your life.
Female hypergamy was always there, but was held in check by the marriage contract and by societal shame. Both of these constraints are gone and are not coming back.
At no time in Christian history has it ever been harder for a man to enter into a Christian marriage knowing that his beloved wife is making the same level of commitment that he is.
“Miss is associated with young girls. Women under 30 love it, because it implies youth (I’m young; I’m sassy; call me miss).
For older women, it implies “couldn’t snag a man.” As has been noted, there is a stigma for women aged 30+ that have never been married. Calling a 40 year old woman “Miss Smith” is like calling her “old maid Smith.””
(and see first quote here: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/07/re-httpdalrock.html)
I dont know where you got this police women nonsense from, who the hell wants to police a woman …
No one’s asking women to police themselves, we’re telling women to control themselves & hold themselves responsible for their own actions, we’re telling them to control their actions
Being alpha & dominant doesnt stop the shit tests, or repair emotionally damaged women
A social structure designed to constrain women will ALWAYS lead to feminism
We have to teach women how to heal themselves & become whole, basically fully functioning adults
The best way to do that, is to teach gamers & red pill men, how to teach women to control their emotions & learn responsibility for their own actions
We have a society which normalises dysfunctional behaviour for women, THIS is THE problem we have to tackle
We have to tackle the expectations of dysfunctional behaviour by society of women
What you guys dont realise …
We’re approaching a zero sum game, with women, a loose loose situation, where women will get replaced by artificial simulants
The misandry bubble is coming & women will NOT make it, if we dont teach women how to stop being dysfunctional
Society will never accept the dysfunction of women, we cannot afford to wait for traditionalism to come back
You have to realise technology has made the status of women equal to man, THIS is where the problem lies
Its this status disparity which is causing all the abortions, the high divorce rates, & the childless marriages
You are telling women they need to be men. Women are wired differently. Some women behave in responsible manners. Most do not.
Lets put it this way: when women were primarily stay at home moms who were responsible to do the shopping, a man would give his wife some percentage of his paycheck to go out and buy the food for the week. It was the responsibility of the man to allocate exactly the dollars that she would spend at the grocery store knowing full well that every single dollar he gave her would be gone forever. It was not her responsibility to save a dollar or two out of what he gave her for an emergency or rainy day money or whatever, that is what HE had to do. She was going to spend every cent he gave her, end of story. And he knew that going forward and that is how it goes. It was her responsibility to stretch the dollars as far as she could, but it would all be spent. But this understanding was common among men and women because both knew what they were and were not responsible for….
…its like my post about 10 posts up, single women do not save any money from their paychecks. They don’t do that. They are (largely) not responsible enough to do that. They are not going to control their actions. They just aren’t. To demand that they do (the way you and I would demand that of single men) is to ask women to be men.
Women aren’t accountable. If a man goes on a fishing trip with his buddies one weekend and he leaves his girlfriend home with her friends, she might very well go out and sleep with whatever alpha male presents himself to her because she IS going to submit to a man. And in her mind, it is not her fault that she went out, got picked up at a club, and had sex with a strange man. It will be her boyfriend’s fault because HE was out of town, what is she supposed to do? Keep her legs crossed and wait until he comes back? Forget it, live for today.
You can’t ask women to be men. All you can do is try and be very careful who you give your heart to and who you marry because so many women are not able to make those kind of commitments. It simply is not in their nature. And we can’t keep ’em locked up in the house Islam-style so with th egreat freedoms our country offers come great responsibilities. Some people are simply not up for the task of responsibility. With marriage when women had to “obey” men still knew that THEY were responsible (because they had to define everything.) Those marrital parameters are now gone forever.
What you are proposing is exactly what I am talking about: teaching women to police themselves, to manage themselves, to hold themselves responsible. And I am telling you that DOES. NOT. WORK. You are proposing a solution that would work for MEN. Not for women. You cannot teach women to “stop being dysfunctional.” They aren’t malfunctioning. Everything is work exactly how it was, and is, supposed to! The problem is the behaviors, impulses and instincts that women have now are essentially the exact same as they were 10,000 years ago. But our environment, the situation in which we live, has drastically changed.
What you propose, changing women, can only be done with a massive overhaul of the core architecture of the female brain. Otherwise, you are basically saying we should teach women to not act like women. Good luck with that!
Many of these professional “independent women” have learned the hard way that money is not everything to life. They become depressed and commit economic suicide This is pointed out in this article. I highlight some words of it here: They are unhappy or trying to fill a void. ‘Some of them shop to replace whatever is missing in their lives,’ said one expert.
Treating women like men is the number one mistake (beta & omega) men make with women.
rmax is making this mistake…
Women can’t be accountable unless there are men to whom they will submit. Her father, her husband, … up to them to establish the boundaries. Assuming she will set them herself is setting one up for deep disappointment, beta-style.
The baseline needs to be women cannot be trained to control themselves for the benefit of society. A women will run wild with hypergamy with positive behavior that appears good and kind out of wicked selfishness. Just know women have no self control only desire to deceive all (status) that they have self control for the benefit it brings them. NOT IN ANY WAY FOR ANY SACRIFICE FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY only men do that.
lol I’m not suggesting women become independent of men
You guys are reading into things I’ve never said, I’m stating as a FACT, there are techniques which will cause women to stop being feral & primitive
I’m well aware women are emotional & irrational
What I’m saying womens behaviour today goes BEYOND a womans natural emotional & irrational state
THIS is what we have to fix
Get women BACK to being natural emotional feminine women
Women today are TOO MASCULINE
THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO FIX
Seriously do i have to spell everything out for you guys? Holy crap lol
They are not too masculine. If they were too masculine they would act in a much more responsible manner.
All that has happened is society changed the rules the used to limit/contain the irrational behavior of women. Because man’s law starting trumping God’s law, women have acted out in what would be considered normal behavior. They are just pushing their limits as they no longer have any boundaries so OF COURSE they are going bankrupt and sleeping with all the men that they can. This is their natural outcome of their irresponsible behavior when they allowed the same freedoms as men.
Outstanding post Dalrock!
Mans law trumped Gods law in this world when Man attached virtue and responsibility to women.
The fix starts with no husband and children for sluts and bitches. No chivalry what so ever always charge more for an un escorted empowered female. No rings for sluts or single moms. etc. Anything along those lines goes along way in producing polite women.
Well that is not going to happen greyghost. LBJ saw to it that single moms in our country would be PAID to have children out of wedlock. And because women vote, that will continue to happen. And because women control churches single moms will not be shamed. So…. your fixes will never happen.
Simple as that.
Cheer up it is already happening. The marriage rate is low. Birth rates are down and take a look at this http://sartikaherbal.com/home/extract-herbal/gandarusa-justicia-gendarussa?vmcchk=1 That right there is a male birth control pill. Teach all mean about game and always counsel against marriage for young men and Fuck the church. No need to wait for women just do it. There will never be an enlightening of women the behavior will just change. They will vote out the laws of misandry themselves as soon as men stop projecting agency on women. Have faith.
Dalrock mentioned Prince George as an example of how legitimacy is a very real yet often overlooked benefit to children and to the mother. The British Royals, by magnifying the traits Dalrock mentions make those traits very obvious (I have never previously heard of JayZ).
It thus struck me that Prince William’s mother is also an example worth considering. She was, you may recall, the winner of the previous women’s intrasexual competition. Whatever the rights and wrongs of her marriage, thereafter, she seems to have gone off the rails, with a series of lovers (finding herself) and then at the time of her death was engaged to be married to a man essentially no different from the sort of men women of a certain age also pick up on vacation to North Africa and bring back to England where the said men are fish out of water. Al Fayed was not of course a gigolo, even if he was a playboy, and he was not poor even if his family were and remain anathema to the British establishment. Of course the proletariat turned Diana into a secular saint but could they really be so blind not to observe that in Royal terms marrying Al Fayed – an Egyptian Muslim – had no status; he would have been Mr Diana. This looks like more self-destruction from Diana, (always keen to play the victim, even as she stabbed her husband in the back). Mercifully being Upper Class Britain the two boys were out of her clutches being away at boarding school, yet as Dalrock says, the idea that your next husband is going to be an improvement on the first is rather unlikely. If that second marriage should also fail…
There goes my knighthood. 😦
yeah but that doesn’t matter. the most irresponsible alpha males are NOT going to marry and they are NOT going to use the male birth control. they are also NOT going to earn sufficent money to support all their illegitmate children. so the single mom’s will just continue to go on government support which means the tax payers (you and I) will continue to pay for their illegitimate children. you are making the assumption that once the male birth control pill is available, it will alter the behavior of men who don’t already use condoms. it will not. all the male birth control pill will do is make condoms obsolete and prevent women who fish them out of the trash from using them to self-impregnant. that is such a tiny percentage of women it isn’t even worth factoring.
That was my thought as well, but I don’t really follow the royal family and coming from an American there is the added potential to come off as Brit bashing. It strikes me that Fergie is another example of massive loss of status following divorce. I did a post on her a few years ago and was surprised at how openly the British press despised her. Both cases in my mind reinforce the observation that the loss of status for a divorcée isn’t (entirely) immediate. There is a period of time when they can still plausibly assert that they will recover. But as the years pile on empowerment turns to failure.
I’ll just leave this right here…
From reading this thread, it does appear that “rmaxpua” is some kind of degenerate, as he rails against Christianity, the middle-class, and conservatives.
To the rest: Yes, women are the ultimate betas but then again, most men are betas. (Unless you want to go wild with the nomenclature saying “delta”, “omega”) That means that the majority of men will refuse to take responsibility for moral agency and that is why a wide open democracy will always fail. Most of you commenters and readers will argue for a limited form of republic without a hereditary monarch, but as you can read in history textbooks, that’s what got us here in the first place. A strong, traditional (dare I say vertical) structure must be built or else the alphas will run themselves ragged, into the ground trying to take responsibility for the betas and women who can’t or won’t accept the responsibility of their own moral agency as individuals.
I just finished my ethics class and learned about “patrias potestas”, in which a father takes responsibility for his entire family. That’s not possible anymore, unless extraordinary legalistic rules are put in place – I’m talking about Orthodox Talmudic’s halacha or Amish’s Ordnung . The now-secular society’s laws now render a low birthrate and high divorce rate to the white Protestants who began it. By this reasoning, an state-established Christianity is also recommended…
SSM – It seems to me that it took allamagoosa at least fifteen minutes to change her gravatar picture after you collared her. 🙂
Because that’s how long it took to drive home and transfer the pic from the phone to her computer.
Want to fix women’s bullshit? End domestic violence laws, end all the legal bullshit that gets them into college and employed at make work jobs, fire 80% of the cops.
Re: Uncle Elmer’s post:
Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women’s Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women. YAJIN WANG. VLADAS GRISKEVICIUS
(First PDF in the results)
We respect your concerns. But we also need to talk about things that could happen in the world of reality. Your last post (although worthy of respect) will not be happening.
Random Angeleno asked:
@feeriker: how do you explain the prevalence of the “Mrs” necklace tags linked by Dalrock? Perhaps you’re just not in the right circles to see this? Anecdote is not data but my sisters are well under 70 and they use “Mrs”. The eldest one even calls herself “Mrs John Doe” on her formal correspondence. They tell me many of their friends use “Mrs” though it’s usually in the form of “Mrs Jane Doe”.
I wouldn’t even attempt to explain the prevalence of “Mrs” necklace tags, and for one simple reason: I’ve never heard of them, have never seen one, have never even seen or heard them advertised, and have never heard any woman I know mention them, let alone wear one. I don’t exactly live in a cave either, so I’m not sure I agree with your use of the term “prevalence” – unless your definition of that word differs from the one accepted by the OED. You’re correct too that anecdote is not data. While you are probably no doubt heartened by your sisters’ and their friends’ use of the title “Mrs.” (as well you should be), they are, like the women who participate supportively in the manosphere, precious exceptions rather than the norm.
The problem comes when you call an unmarried woman Mrs, because you are inadvertently shaming her by pointing out her lower status.
Again, my experience leads me to disagree with you here. The vast majority of unmarried women today take offense to being called “Mrs.” because they see that term as derogatory, something that carries a connotation of them being controlled by a man or as the chattel property of a man. They see it as something that indicates that they’ve been robbed of their identity as a sovereign human being and subsumed under the identity of another person. This stands to reason, given the view in which traditional marriage (and the customs that have generally attended it) is held by the feministocracy that still sets the rules for debate and behavior.
“”Many of these professional “independent women” have learned the hard way that money is not everything to life. They become depressed and commit economic suicide””
Thank you for the link.I would just like to add that I have seen this first hand…..more than once.I know quite a few of these “independent women” in the corporate world.They have more credit cards than brains.On top of the credit card debt I have also noticed another trend among these women,and that is the “hawking of the equity” that was obtained by them via divorce in the family home.These women obtained the family home(that the man paid for) after frivorce. They run up debt via credit cards and when they do not have the money to pay the debts they go to the bank and borrow against their home.This can only go on for so long.The houses are falling apart due to negligence of repairs and they continue to pile up debt.The best part of these scenarios is that the ex-husband is watching these financial shenanigans and is getting the last laugh.The irony in all this is that a lot of these women after they have spent themselves broke, try and rekindle a relationship with their ex’s……I have seen this more than once and have to say that this is one of the most pathetic shams I have ever seen. What most people do not realize about these “corporate women” is that they have the financial and business acumen of a dead hamster!
“”fire 80% of the cops.””
Here in Toronto that would be a great idea.Our cops are way over paid,way too many benefits….and they create a lot more problems than they solve.Here in Toronto most people that I know have lost all respect for the Police.Everyday I open the newspaper and there is a cop up on charges for something.It is getting ridiculous.There are more crooks in the Toronto Police Dept. than this is on the streets!
An article in Macleans Magazine(Canada’s Newsweek) had an article this summer about government employees making over $100k/yr. In Detroit(the worst city in America) the highest paid cop was $53k/yr…and the Police Chief made $97k/yr.Now come over the Ambassador Bridge to Windsor Ontario. 40% of the cops make $100k/yr or more…and the Chief Of Police makes $205/yr….the equivalent of the Police Chief in New York City. Something is definitely wrong with this scenario. At least 40% of the cops here in Toronto make $100k/yr or more….and they do as little as possible! Sorry to go off topic.
“”Teach all mean about game and always counsel against marriage for young men and Fuck the church.””
One thing that I have noticed in the last 15 years or so in the Synagogue is that “matchmaking” is taking a backseat. Matchmaking has always been a huge deal within the Synagogue and I remember after Bar Mitzvah the women with the daughters would always be introducing themselves to the boys in hopes that there would be an interest and they would become high school sweethearts and then marry. This is still going on but,I see that the guys (ages 13 to 23) are stepping away as they know the laws,have seen divorce via family and friends and are realizing that this is a “very bad deal” for them. I assume that the same is going on in the Christian Churches.
You mentioned Fergie (empowerment turning to failure). Who would have assumed that the fault was anything other than his; he chose her, a somewhat ‘coarse’ – as Jane Austen might have said – woman, neither particularly good looking nor particularly slim, when there should have been so many other options, for a man second-in-line to the throne. Perhaps, in awe of his elder brother marrying his so-much-admired sister-in-law’s best friend seemed a winning idea – almost like marrying a sister. For Fergie, therefore, divorce was escape from a boring (albeit handsome) man and from an oppressive family. Where exactly was she going to go, after having rejected a Prince, and doing so without looking cheap. As with so many women (married or otherwise) she was also incapable of managing her finances. The Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice will always be Royal (by legitimate-birth) and always the daughters of their Father: Their mother is just another aging, menopausal, divorcee, who some thirty years ago was briefly on a pedestal.
Divorce can thus be (in the long run) far more cruel to women than to men. I knew a woman whose husband left her for another woman. My female friend was however very attractive, busty and slim, and a very sensible sort of person, or so I thought. After a number of years, of enforced single-dom, and chastity, she took up with her son’s friend, a boy almost thirty years younger then her – they were in love. Obviously it did not last. More recently, I observe, (I lost contact) she seems to be living with a North African, yet somewhat before I met her one might have predicted a far more prestigious outcome for a head-turning girl from the council-estates whose ambitious husband – only secondary modern educated – had caught the Personal-Computer boom, and who owned a largish house in a country village by the time he was thirty. I have no doubt he did far better than her, not withstanding the financial cost to him of divorce. She was unfortunate as some are, but her beauty did not last past her mid-thirties. It is thus very difficult for an aging woman to successfully attract men of any calibre.
One of the advantages that marriage gives a woman (that wedding band) is that men back-off hitting on you. No man wants a fight with another man keen to protect what is his – I once received an angry phone-call (my name was then in the book) from an irate husband of some woman with whom I had been dallying. She meant nothing to me, even though I had accepted her encouragement, but that phone-call easily persuaded me not to pursue matters (not that I had intended to do so) and had already rather forgotten about her at the time of the threatening call. The single woman is fair game, but the woman who is ‘Mrs’ will be saved the tiresome business of having to reject attention from lowly males. Elevator-gate would never have happened had Rebecca Watson not divorced her husband: Elevator-gate is perhaps (amongst many other things) Watson’s unconscious lament for the failure of her then recent but very brief marriage; thrown back on to the meat-market where every man, even the geeky-nerds with whom she hangs-out hit on her (or so she imagines – she was thirty-one), and having to use her skep-chick powers of perception to ward them off. Life is so tough for a wanna-be Princess.
@Mark said: “I see that the guys (ages 13 to 23) are stepping away as they know the laws,have seen divorce via family and friends and are realizing that this is a “very bad deal” for them.”
If guys has young as 13 are stepping away, then it’s because their fathers have advised them that it’s a bad idea (13 being too young to really understand what’s going on in the world).
Older men can’t redo their own past, but they can prevent the upcoming generation of men from making the same mistakes.
J you don’t understand how bad teenage girls are nowadays. They invented the nuclear rejection, and it only takes one. Think of some young teenage boy getting that done and it making it onto social media.
When I was still in the military one of the things you noticed early on was that many wives “wear their husband’s rank.”
Yes, I think this effect has been overlooked in the Manosphere.
Women’s intrasexual competition is not only a competition to snare the “best” man for hypergamous reproduction; it is a competition for status among women themselves, in which men have a walk-on part.
You will sometimes hear a woman admit “I chose him because he looked good on my arm”. This is really not the same as the “vagina tingles” that we keep hearing about in the Manosphere.
The most glaring illustration of the difference that I have personally encountered was a divorced woman who had a three-year relationship with a stocky, muscular single man who had a high sex drive. However he was short, ugly and not very bright – and so he would have reduced her status among her women friends. The woman persuaded him to keep their relationship secret, and he did so until she dumped him upon finding a more presentable “partner”.
Alpha, beta, and vagina tingles do not help us to understand this woman’s behavior. Neither man was a true alpha, but if anything the first man was more alpha than the second.
A woman wants other women to envy her for her man. And for her perfect children, fabulous home, designer shoes and handbags.
The “perfect children” thing is a pernicious vice when it conflicts with the interests of the children themselves. If a child goes off the rails (e.g. drugs, crime) the best course might be to seek help from extended family and friends – but by doing so the mother will lose status among her fellow women. This is a test of character that not all mothers pass.
Since she was mentioned above, it occurred to me that Princess Diana is a good example. Yes, the media loved her after the divorce, but it was a love with an ugly side. They still showered her with attention and praised her causes, but they also gleefully printed any picture that made her look fat and exposed the seediness of her personal life.
Now imagine how she’d be treated today if she’d kept the marriage together and their personal problems quiet (assuming she could have), and was now being seen as the gracefully aging grandmother of the new prince. She might not get as much love from the press, but she’d be getting far more respect and be portrayed in a much better light than she was in her final years.
“”Older men can’t redo their own past, but they can prevent the upcoming generation of men from making the same mistakes””
Totally agree!…..I am one of those guys that takes the time to converse with these young men on the subject. I usually tell them…..”read the laws,you will find that the law is not in your corner and you might be making the biggest mistake of your life”…….they heed my advice,as they have come to me and say…”thanks!….I don’t want to get caught in that trap”!
“”J you don’t understand how bad teenage girls are nowadays””
Agreed! I assume a lot of people do not.I see it all the time.My associates and myself take a break and go downstairs to street level to have a coffee and Backwoods Cigar.What do we see as entertainment?…..teenage girls,with tattoos & piercings pushing baby carriages…..all of them living off of “Mother’s Allowance”(sucking the taxpayer’s dick). The one thing that my American friends have pointed out to me(which they don’t see at home very often)….is the number of young White Girls pushing a carriage with a Black baby in it.I explain to them that this is the “New Status Symbol” around here.The girl gets mixed up with some “Black Hoodlum” from Jamaica(whom authorities are looking for)….he knocks up some white girl…she gets on Mother’s Allowance(Welfare)…and then he gets to stay in the country because he has a kid?…..never pays a dime of child support….and he is selling drugs(while collecting Welfare)……Wtf?………this is called “Progress”…….Ya right!
A long time Dalrock lurker here.
Would you care to elaborate on this a bit to an outsider? Always interesting to learn what actually goes on in the minds of British upper classes. (The Internet is a blessing thanks to its provision of the much-needed anonymity for speaking the truth — and we are always better off with truth.)
Just out of curiosity.
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Late Summer Reflections Edition | Patriactionary
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/08/14 | Free Northerner
J said: I’ll have to keep an ear out for how women introduce themselves. If older married women are using Mrs. or Ms.
IME, most women don’t use either one at all anymore. If they introduce themselves to anyone, it’s nearly always first name followed by last name, no title at all. They’re probably trying to avoid the issue inherent in titles altogether.
Purchasing designer handbags and shoes is a means for women to express their style, boost self-esteem, or even signal status. New University of Minnesota research suggests some women also seek these luxury items to prevent other women from stealing their man.
Pingback: Synchronicity | Something Fishy
I agree with the sentiment expressed here about corporate women and ‘strong independent women’ when it comes to money. Most of the ones i’ve met were flat broke. In fact, most women i’ve ever known were completely hopeless with money, and that’s precisely why successful betas without much experience with women need to be careful, because once a woman passes a certain age, she is likely to be looking for a financially stable beta to marry her and pay for her bills.
A good friend of mine makes over 250k a year, owns his own house, drives a nice car, and is only 33. He LAUGHS at the 30 something corporate women that wouldn’t have given him the time of day 10 years ago try to make moves on him now. Most of them are broke, bitter and showing serious signs of wear and tear, and he just isn’t interested. However, there are plenty of desperate betas with no game or any real understanding of their SMV that end up marrying these bitches and think they struck a good deal. I personally know one actually, and his wife married him for money, status and bragging rights. He comes from an incredibly wealthy family, and it is clear as day to me that she isn’t really into him, but whatever, there was nothing i could do to change his mind at that point as i had no knowledge of game or the inner workings of the sexual marketplace beyond what was immediately apparent. Now I can smell divorce coming a mile away. She only went for alpha types when she was younger, and now tells everybody that she ‘matured’ and found a ‘nice sensitive man’. In other words, she employed the alpha-fucks-beta-bucks strategy that is regularly talked about in the Manosphere: she is exhibit A. But because she was a hard 8 when she agreed to marry him at the age of 30, he was completely mesmerized, and honestly i don’t blame him: she is very attractive. Marrying her was a big mistake though.
This bragging rights problem is only going to get worse too. Women are far more open about their gold digging ways than ever before.
I’ll have a go at explicating what I wrote, (and I trust it comes off better than explaining a joke) but as I am not a member of the British Elite I may have it all wrong. To a humble commoner this is how it looks.
The British, as everyone knows are Hypocrites; they say one thing and then do the opposite. To your face they will assert that Race is a social construct; that with regard to religion your God is just as good as theirs; and that it is merely an accident of fate that one is born in Alexandria rather than Aberdeen. That’s what they say; but it is not what they do, as can be seen from their actions and thus it is the case that even if the deaths of Lady Di and Dodi Al Fayed were accidents, they were very convenient accidents, because there is no way that the Heir (but one) to the Throne of England and his legitimate brother (the spare) can have as a step-brother or sister the offspring of a man whose surname is Al Fayed – a man whose father although born to an Egyptian primary-school teacher is a billionaire several times over. Given that his business associates included such delightful characters as Papa Doc Duvalier and Adnan Khashoggi, it is hard to think that this was all achieved merely through hard honest work, so although enormously rich, the British will not grant him citizenship though they grant that to every ne’er-do well who seeks it. Along the way Fayed upset too many well-connected people, was arrested for theft (case dropped) and accusing the Duke of Edinburgh of organising the murder of Di and Dodi was the last straw. It is not just (as Dalrock says) that legitimacy is important but that that legitimacy becomes tainted by illegitimacy.
Al Fayed (popularly known as the phony Pharaoh) has had commissioned and displayed in Harrods a statue of his late son and Lady Di (notice I have downgraded Di from her post divorce title) entitled Innocent Victims; a work of art of hideous taste such that it may be described as kitsch. Fayed who is now supporting Scottish independence – he owns some land up there – is an embarrassment and that statue is a pointless attempt to suggest that England (in the person of Di) had taken Egypt to its heart – a form of aristocratic money-laundering, turning an Egyptian crook into an English Gentleman. He even bizarrely erected a statue of your singer Michael Jackson at Fulham Football Club (which he owned) but I do not think that your average football supporter regards the late Mr Jackson as anything other than a man with an unhealthy interest in small boys and fully-grown chimpanzees. Lady Di is now a distant memory; she served her purpose, and is now forgotten. Di opened my local shopping-mall and there was a plaque made to record this. It’s position has been moved several times within the Mall such that I am not sure where it now is and it will surely soon be thrown out or donated to the local museum.
A few comments from my perspective — which probably isn’t too far off from yours.
As far as Lady Di and Dodi are concerned, your explanation doesn’t fall short of my “hunch.” Only you’re being a tad too hard on your own people: the statement
would probably be more fair-minded if we’d just said
It’s just that in the case of other nations (particularly those like mine), the avarice, greed, and the pathetic monkey urge to think highly of oneself is frequently on display with such blatancy and lack of decorum that the “hypocrisy” bit simply takes the back seat.
Side Note I have a minority position here: I don’t suspect but rather wish that Lady Di’s “accident” was arranged. I don’t even want to think how millions of dregs from around the world — with the characteristic opportunism of those who have never amounted to much of anything — would have shamelessly milked any familial ties to the British throne from then on. Even trying to imagine all the nonsense that could have ensued gives me a headache. (End of Side Note.)
I didn’t know any of those things all of which sound reprehensible, to say the least. But it goes right to the heart of the matter. The motive behind my question — yours truly being of a conservative bent — was, we have arrived at a point in history where claims frequently labelled as simply “pretty lies” have reached nation-destroying capacity.
I don’t know in what conceptual universe people can bring themselves to assume that the upper strata of a nation (yours) that have achieved so many great things and proved its mettle in so many endeavours could have possibly accomodated social climbers from nations from the other end of the spectrum.
And yet, these lies poison not only the nations of the elites that spread them — posing as the embodiments of everything good, decent, and grandiose — around but particularly the members of other nations which still have a long way to go to have any hope of glory at the center stage. I, as a member of one such nation, know this first hand; how it poisoned even our best minds who knew, until fifteen minutes ago and right in their gut, that there’s nothing more dishonorable than trying to rub elbows with individuals, social classes, nations to whom you cannot possibly measure up. No surer way of making a muppet of oneself.
Hang on a minute, mate. I thought my nick had tipped you off about my nation. 😉 I’m not from the US.
I sympathize. Good riddance, then.
Much thanks for your response. Always a pleasure to read you posts.
Ahh. The Begrudgers, with the knives out for da GBFM again. Smells like .. pettiness.
Speaking as A Reasonably Clever Man, I can assure you that da GBFM is .. A Very Clever Man. Just get over it, will youse? Get yourselves a wheelmouse and set it to stun or something.
Opus is merely easing aside the lid on the foetid casket of British Public Life in that last post.
If you wish to retain your belief in human goodness, do not, by all that is clean and decent, inquire further. You have been warned.
And yes, I am now constructing and demolishing a variety of gin cocktails.
3-2, within the last half-hour, and even though it’s classified as a “friendly” everyone knows there is no such animal.
Pardonable bitterness, I very much think.
No my last post is what will happen when this train wreck fully unfolds. Or will happen in some places and those places will thrive. Other places will try to carry this mess into the future and will stay stuck in misery.
For every one thing you can point to saying things are improving a wise man can show you 10 things that prove the usa is doubling down on the stupid. The usa will continue to double down on the stupid until it falls apart, utterly and completely ( not likely in our lifetime). Think about what it means when Mitt Romney is the conservative….
Your womanish half measures only prolong the inevitable
Great Googly Moogly!¬ I fear very much that your last correspondent has rather over-indulged in .. French Cheese!!11!1
Wooooow!! That is such an interesting theory! I’d never thought of it like that. The whole status thing. You may have a point (not that I need to be convinced of the superiority of the typical mother-father-children form of family). Do you have data to back of the children-of-widows thing? Is there really statistics showing that they don’t do nearly as badly as kids of (voluntary/unmarried) 1-parent households?
Pingback: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place
I see much of what is said here reflected in this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-61867/Bankrupt-women-pay-price-high-living.html
@Tam the Bam
Do us all a favour & go back to pegging GBFM … dont give up your dayjob …
Btw this is an important post, as it proves christian women like SunshineMary & the rest of the redpill wife blogs, theyve given up on women
Theyre refusal to criticise women,& refusal to allow mens rights to criticise women, also proves how morally reprehensible these women are
The problem with women life SunshineMary, is the fact theyre either brainwashed by feminists or manginas
In SSM’s case its mangina’s, its a pity she’ll never realise she’s her own worst enemy
It’s also a pity she has no real morals, she asserts moral superiority instead of any real resemblance to morals …
& as a result leads the 300,000 a month women on her site astray …
Christian women, claiming fake morals like sunshinemary, have always been the greatest enemy of christianity
The deceptive morals of christian women, has always been christianitys greatest failure
What these women dont realise, men havent given up on women
We just hate the danger these women have become to soicety
Whats even worse, these christian are so unfeminine & so far from being women, they have no ability to be attracted to normal men
They require alpha’s, & high testosterone men to keep in a state of submission
This is how far these so called christian women, like SunshineMary have fallen …
Pingback: Spinster Anthem | Dalrock
“why are so many in the manosphere singing the same tune?”
The reason I see is simple – why not? I’m all for “feminism” since it benefits me – there are a large number of young women to choose from – as ones get too old, younger ones fill the void. They all have jobs, so can pay there own way on a trip with me, so I can have sex/date many more than I would otherwise, and the fact that they are in it for NOW means that they can have their beta boy-friend, or husband and I get the cream – or they get my cream regularly…
I love the world that feminism has created for one reason, it benefits me. If it didn’t I would find a way to make it benefit me. Now a lot of men in the “manosphere” basically are pissing into the wind and wondering why their pants are getting wet. I don’t – I enjoy life and all it provides – young women at my beck and call to use as I wish. Why would I want that to change?
The key to life isn’t to fight tooth and nail – it’s to make it work for you… Let others fight while you come in and scoop up what you want. Feminism works for me… (You can make it work for you too.) I don’t try to change the world, but to find a way to make it work for me. My hobbies are a way to do that – in one setting, there are other ways to handle other aspects of life – taxes, business, etc… It’s all in how you approach the problems that life tosses your way… If you don’t change – you will be road-kill… No one cares what happens to you, except you… So make yourself your priority…
>>> If this is true, then why are women so less likely to marry now than in the past?
we still have not crossed the rubicon where women ask a man to marry them. Or rather, do it WITH PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. ie, where the man’s refusal will count as a public black mark against their value.
>> I end up discussing gender topics with women a lot
I nominate this guy for the next Beta of the Month
Pingback: Is Polygyny inevitable? | Crowhill Weblog
Pingback: Women’s morphing need for male investment. | Dalrock
Studies that back up various claims made in the comments:
Makhanova, Anastasia, and Saul L. Miller. “Female Fertility and Male Mating: Women’s Ovulatory Cues Influence Men’s Physiology, Cognition, and Behavior.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7.6 (2013): 389-400.
Singh, Devendra. “Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status.” Journal of personality and social psychology 69.6 (1995): 1089.
Fisher, Maryanne, and Anthony Cox. “The influence of female attractiveness on competitor derogation.” Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 7.2 (2009): 141-155.
Buss, David M. “Mate preference mechanisms: Consequences for partner choice and intrasexual competition.” (1992).
And an article:
Pingback: Market Failure- Part 2 | Donal Graeme
I was thinking about The Spice Girls – the backing singers marketed and put together by a couple of males as Girl Power. They were going to tell you what they want and in their second song were encouraging their boyfriends to use condoms. Where are they now: Baby spice was very cute, and Ginger spice was hawt, and doubtless remain so. The other two were make weight contrast: Scary and Mulatto. That left Posh, who married Icon David Beckham, had two – or was it four – children; no condoms there, and will surely one day ‘ere long be Lady Beckham. Posh clearly won the intra-sexual competition and on the back of claiming she wasn’t even in the contest. No wonder they all hate her.
Pingback: Empowerment turned demotion. | Dalrock
Pingback: Divorce is Good for Women and Families | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: Father Hood | Dalrock
I really love this thread.
I was thinking about Lady Di. Marrying The Prince of Wales gave her a massive social boost. When she divorced she gained sympathy (as women always do); she may have become (God knows why) an icon, but she subtly lost Status. Her sons were now under the care of a divorced woman and in a sense also they too lost status. Now that the old hag is deceased (the plaque recording her opening our local shopping mall is now in some store-room, forgotten) and her sons returned to the care of their Father they regained their status as Sons – of a Father.
I was thinking further about Status; the status that marriage gives a woman. Marriage also gives a woman regular sex, and I saw a connection between these two words beginning with S.
When a woman marries, the man effectively (which is why she weds in white) absolves her from any past promiscuity. He effectively says to the world ‘she is mine now and thus she is made pure’ – he takes her promiscuity, bastard children and any other red flags upon himself (the reverse would surely not be the case) – a sort of Hegelian negation of the negation. No one ever accused a married woman, faithful to her husband of being a whore or slut for that reason – provided she remains faithful even a past of prostitution is washed away, yet even the most sex-positive of single women go to considerable lengths to hide their N-count (unless they are bragging that they shagged someone for the purpose of raising their SMV – say a Porn Star).
That, I think, is part of what the status implies – permission to have sex without any possibility of the imputation of being easy. If that is correct then the status of cohabitees provides less status than those who marry, being a girlfriend even less, and promiscuity (one-night stands, and the like) virtually nothing.
Pingback: Even strong independent women want to be possessed. | Dalrock
Pingback: Does Fornication Matter When It Comes To Marriage? | The Society of Phineas
I came here from Dalrock’s link on 2 Dec… D wrote,
Not so hypothetical… this has happened in the past. Henry Tudor (Henry VIII), had a bastard son by Elizabeth Blount, one of the ladies-in-waiting at court and the wife of another man. Henry acknowledged little Henry FitzRoy as a royal bastard. That was when his only legitimate child was Princess Mary, daughter of his wife: Queen Catherine (of Aragon). Had Henry died before his third queen (Jane Seymour) gave birth to Prince Edward, things might well have gotten ugly, since Henry FitzRoy was made a duke (twice!), and there were still Plantagenets with better claims to the throne than either a Tudor girl or a Tudor king’s bastard son.
Legitimacy matters – only the birth of Edward (Henry’s only legitimate son) prevented what could have been a civil war.
Pingback: “I have always depended on the sexual kindness of strangers.” | Dalrock
Pingback: Repenting of sexual morality. | Dalrock
A TV comedy HOME IMPROVEMENT featured a theme on dating that offens and sickens me to this day. The son had his date visiting his home. The males were watching the game and his girlfriend was making him a sandwich. When his mom noticed this she insinuated herself in the situation and told the girlfriend she should not prepare food for her son because in this day and age that simply wasn’t done now that women were emancipated. In a normal dating relationship the son would have a part time job to pay for all meals and entertainment of dates with this girl unless mom had trained her son from youth to be as useless as she wanted the girl to be. If my mom was brazen enough to do that to me and my girl listened to her I can think of 2 females I would avoid as much as possible from then on. A mom like that is a marriage destroyer and a girl who would side with the mom would go along with every social engineer that came along. Both relationships would be just so much poison in the future that life would be infinitly better avoiding them both.
Dalrock, here’s a relevant post in the Washington Post by a divorced mom who bemoans the fact that “society secretly categorizes single mothers in gradients of respectability depending on income, race and, most important, how you became a single mother.”
Pingback: Jane’s noble path to marriage. | Dalrock
Pingback: Missed a spot. | Dalrock
This is one of my favourite Dalrock essays, but I have just noticed one glaring error which must not go uncorrected: Kate Middleton is a Duchess (of Cambridge) and Countess (of Streatham ) as well as being a Lady (Carrickfergis) but she is NOT a Princess. You Americans – so embarrassing! Can’t take you anywhere, social faux pas.
Thanks Opus! I take it I need to change all references to “Princess Kate” to “Duchess Kate”. Is that correct?
You Americans – so embarrassing! Can’t take you anywhere, social faux pas.
Didn’t we settle this monarchy twaddle about, oh, 230 years ago?
Besides, we have our own royal family…..the Kardashians.
It was never clear to me how Queen Elizabeth II made it to the throne. Didn’t Queen Victoria have numerous sons and grandsons and other male descendents still living at the time King George, father of Elizabeth II died in 1952 or thereabouts?
I have to wonder if hereditary titles started out as a joke, or a goofy bet that somebody lost after too many tankards of ale.
“Ay there ‘Arry! If I kin quaff this mug wit’ another balanced on me head, you’ve gotta’ start callin’ me, Sir Drinksalot: Duke o’ Normady!”
It doesn’t work that way. It goes to the oldest living child of the current monarch. It only goes to other descendants if (and ONLY if) the monarch dies without any children. Albert has two beautiful daughters. Elizabeth was queen at a very young age, was given the throne while she was away (in either Africa or Persia or somewhere.) She wasn’t with her dad when he passed peacefully in his sleep.
When she passes, the throne belongs to Prince Charles. But I do hope (after cheating on Princess Di) he immediately abdicates it to his son Prince William. I think that would be the right thing to do. No matter what, the next monarch will be King, not Queen.
There’s been chatter about Charles abdicating right after for years. In the States. Since William was like 10. The fact that rumor crops up on our side of the pond suggests it’s something a lot of people would like to see.
Granted, since it would be for maybe 15 years (Charles is already 68 and has never looked like he’s kept great care of himself), there might not be as much pressure.
Pingback: A Course In Relationships | The Sound and The Fury
Pingback: Strategy For Men of the West: Polygyny | Toad's Hall
This is a Dalrock essay I keep coming back to. I would like to add something to the paragraph which begins ‘getting back to women’s intra-sexual competition’ where Dalrock explains how when a woman sleeps with say Roissy or Roosh she is automatically validated however fleetingly by reason of having been bedded by an Alpha male. Naturally Alpha males like Roissy must perforce go from woman to woman and cannot give any more than temporary validation and attention to any one female and thus when the woman discovers (the next day) that she has been replaced by another woman she will complain that all men are heartless and use women and her girlfriends will rally round to blame the cad.
There are however inevitably a shortage of Alpha males and thus she may go many years before again meeting another Alpha male. She may now however have a taste for sex and sex on a casual basis and so she will be tempted (being strong and empowered which is what she is told women now are) to sleep with another man, a man who will not be quite so Alpha as the man who has now passed on her. He too will abandon her, for a woman sleeping casually with a man will tend to grant that man Alpha status. This time her friends will still commiserate with her but less strongly than before. Should the woman continue indiscriminately to sleep with men then her friends will not merely begin to see her as a threat to women by lowering the value of women as a commodity but sympathy will turn to contempt with the one word women hate above all others: Slut.
Pingback: The word “husband” as bragging rights. | Dalrock
Pingback: A very long season (part 1). | Dalrock
Pingback: A very long season (part 1). - Top
Pingback: Links to posts for Christian husbands. | Dalrock
Pingback: Fake Knights and Phony Princesses | Σ Frame
Pingback: See how women’s calculus of marriage shapes America - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: Did an orphan girl from an exiled people dream of one day becoming queen of all Persia? | Dalrock
Pingback: Women are liberated. Here is how they still need men. - Fabius Maximus website
This is one of my favourite threads and the shenanigans in or about Frogmore Cottage this past weekend put me in mind of it. I, of course, refer to the behaviour of your compatriot the former ‘yacht girl’ and part-time teevee actress Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Even after her marriage to one of the world’s most eligible bachelors she was singing from the feminist hymn sheet but with the birth of her son all that changed. Not only does she talk of her ‘two men’ but in naming the boy – and I sense her greater input in the naming she chooses two really masculine names Archie(bold) and Harrison (Harry’s Son) making her position as the mother of a perhaps future Monarch entirely clear.
Of course, I can’t stand her for she is clearly Lady MegBeth to his Scottish King – look at how she was ushering him out of the room at Windsor Castle – she has his testicles (should he ever have had any) in her pocket book for he is clearly and for understandable reasons a man looking for his Mummy – the adultress Diana.
Archie, she explains, might one day become American President in addition to his responsibilities in England and the Empire – that is surely an anglophile wet-dream – united again, that unfortunate disagreement over taxes on tea now forgotten and forgiven. Jefferson will be turning in his grave and all because of a member of as he would put it ‘that unfortunate race’.
This is a great post to come back to and book mark because it also can be used to examine serial monogamy that especially young girls tout as so virtuous. And you can examine how young males get mixed up in soul mate myth/oneitis with it also.
Young girls can not be that interested in who they have at as a boyfriend at the moment. But because the title is there,she has the benefit in intrasexually competing with other girls who don’t have a boyfriend, and the monogamy means his investment of attention or any other resource goes to her. So it’s points on that checked item. She can not be ready for a sexual relationship or any other reasons for the relationship to not have a sexual side to it, but he still must invest in her without much return to his sexual strategy. And he can do all the things he’s heard he’s supposed to do as a good boyfriend, but if the relationship ends she moves on to the next beneficial to the feminine side non sexually monogamous relationship, and he may be at risk for the oneitis because he’s not aware of the dynamics at play that resulted in what he’s heard should be fulfilling to his male side of sexual strategy, panning out to be the opposite. So he can be left eternally thinking he did something wrong, fixated on making it right.
Pingback: How to become woman of the year. | Dalrock