A most impressive trail of wreckage in her wake.

Vox Day has a post up this morning about a female CEO who suffered from a problem with no name and ended up wiping out both her own savings and $640k of investor capital.  But don’t worry, she isn’t taking it too hard.  From her letter/blog post Dear Investors, My Company Failed and We Lost All Your Money. Here’s What Happened:

Am I upset that I lost my investors’ money? Only in the sense that many of our investors were my friends and I didn’t want to disappoint them. But the me coming out from this hurricane of chaos is a much stronger me, able to acknowledge the mistakes I’ve made, able to open up and be emotionally raw with my friends and my team–qualities that every great leader must possess.

As a person, I am worlds apart from the one who raised money back in 2012. I was not confident in myself back then. I had a gritty edge. I was scared.

Fortunately the bulk of the trail of wreckage is purely financial.  No doubt much of this money represented the hopes and dreams of real life people, but at least no children will need to take a trip through the divorce meat grinder as a result of this woman’s need to focus on herself.

See Vox’s post Bulletproof Self Regard for a link to the original post/letter and his analysis of it.

This entry was posted in Solipsism, Vox Day. Bookmark the permalink.

509 Responses to A most impressive trail of wreckage in her wake.

  1. Anonymous Reader says:

    Wait, wait, whatever happened to the notion that women were better investors than men, because testosterone?

    I especially like the solipsism running through the piece, “Well, yeah, I wiped out some people’s retirement, but I’m a stronger person for it”. Sure, and if you’d totaled your neighbor’s Maserati by driving it through the front door of their house and out the back, but came out a stronger person then things would be all better, too. You bet.

    This is the special snowflake syndrome taken to a higher level.

  2. JDG says:

    The hamster is strong in this one. I feel bad for everyone involved.

  3. Just Saying says:

    “I am worlds apart from the one who raised money back in 2012”

    Yes, you have proven yourself to be absolutely incompetent when it comes to handling other people’s money. That isn’t something that you should be proud of – most men would be thinking of committing Hara-kiri after such a catastrophic failure. The fact that a woman can turn this to a positive – speaks volumes….

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oh, and her experience teaches her why women should be the world leaders. So much for the 2nd stage feminist cant of “co-equals”, now it’s gynosupremacy all the way.

    There are comments on the page…the latest few are amusing.

    And my error for assuming actual investing had anything to do with this, it was rather one of those vague “wimmin in tech” handwaving kind of app thingies. Froth on the wave…

  5. Steve H says:

    In fairness, no worse a hamsterization than countless male CEOs who robbed investors blind while concocting inflated ‘market-value’ salaries out of thin air to bleed public offerings dry.

    I still say Dick Morris (11/5/12 – Fox News w/ Greta Van Susteren), in all probability, blatantly lifted Vox Day’s laughable prediction (11/4/12 – WND) when he said ‘Romney is going to win tomorrow, and it’s not even going to be close. I know, because I have *actual sources*…’

    Folks say that Vox is the journalist’s journalist. Yeah, about that…

  6. myrealitie says:

    Companies fail all of the time. But it is truly appalling that she is choosing to make this about her own personal journey. She is not apologetic at all about losing other people’s money. I am disgusted.

  7. cryo says:

    Just another manifestation of the Female Void. To think, some men still WANT to dive head first into the Void (marriage). Inexplicable.

  8. James says:

    It’s ridiculous to me how, after questioning why she doesn’t feel right/happy, that she just nukes everything around her as a first reaction. No time was spent thinking and searching, no time was spent talking to her coworkers to transition herself into a less important role for a while. No time was spent talking to her fiance about her feelings at all. Nope! Nothing! Just nuked the whole darn thing.

    “Think before you nuke” should be plastered everywhere these people reside.

  9. I’m often asked how I can be so callous in promoting the idea of women’s innate solipsism, or how I disagree wholesale with the notion that women have some supernatural capacity for exclusionary empathy. It’s sometimes hard to give examples that exist outside of the framework of intersexual / personal relationships, that is until something like this comes up.

    It’e the fish in the water not knowing it’s wet conundrum, and even when you have a glaring example of feminine solipsism there are several social conventions already pre-established to excuse it away.

  10. jf12 says:

    I’ll give this a twist. I feel she wants me to think I’m a stronger person for *her* having failed.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    Steve H.
    In fairness, no worse a hamsterization than countless male CEOs who robbed investors blind while concocting inflated ‘market-value’ salaries out of thin air to bleed public offerings dry.

    I don’t recall any of those countless male CEO’s proclaiming that bankruptcy was a good thing because they, themselves, personally had “learned” and now were more self-confident, though. The solipsism in this blog-entry is extremely thick. That’s kind of the point, you see.

  12. oblivion says:

    A great leader doesn’t lose everybodys money. A great leader gives them a return on their investment. This is the equivalent of her leading a tribe and making decisions that cause almost everyone to starve during the winter. Then, when spring rolls around she tells the 5 people left what a great leader she is, and how much she has grown through the process.

  13. Steve H says:

    Absolutely Rollo – but the beauty of this ‘non-intersexual/personal relationship example’ is that her hamsterization is far less likely to trigger rote head-nods of FI-mandated ‘understanding’…

    Folks understand that in this case, where investors were in the dark and lost their shirts, that she is totally full of shit and contemptible in trying to re-establish a bit of the moral high ground with this eat-pray-love solopsism, in which ‘it made me a better person’ is supposed to resonate with the general public – it’s supposed to ‘count for something’ in her twisted mind that she’s so self-aware (narcissistic) about the whole situation. At least, I’d honestly give the general public that much credit…in *this* arena – one seemingly miles apart from the arena of intersexual personal relationships.

    But again, no worse than male psychopath CEOs who remained tight-lipped about fleecing their trusted clients.

  14. Denise says:

    Given everything that happened in 2008 under the leadership of men in the financial services industry, I think it will be a very long time before one example of a female CEO losing money will be at all insightful regarding the faults of the female sex. I’m reminded of something about logs and specks.

  15. cryo says:

    “I think it will be a very long time before one example of a female CEO losing money will be at all insightful”

    It isn’t about her losing money, it is about her solipsistic ME ME ME reaction to…ah fuck it, why do I bother

  16. Tilikum says:

    Moralist like Steve H are entertaining.

    ashes to ashes and dust to dust, brother. everything in between is merely a function of the mind.

  17. The funny thing is that she runs a blog on giving out advice for small business folks. Anyone who takes her advice should not be invested in.

  18. Emma the Emo says:

    What is the “event” that made her crack like that?
    Did she burn out? Suddenly realized she made the wrong career choice? Pathological perfectionism reached its zenith?..

    I can understand the relief feeling a recovering perfectionist might get from personal failure and letting themselves down. But not when other people were also let down. It would eat me up inside for a very long time, even when the failure is much smaller than this one.

    Sometimes it’s good to hit rock bottom and get back up again, being much stronger. You tear down the unstable structure built on perfectionist lies, and make a genuine one with a strong fundament. But that’s supposed to happen inside YOU. It’s an inner victory. The outside world has to be dealt with differently – you need to fix your mistakes and make things up to people. Broken trust is not easily won back.

    It’s best to do all this personal failure stuff before career start, or else you’ll enter into trusted positions with inner instability.

  19. deti says:

    Denise:

    Again, you’ve missed the point. The point is that her losing other people’s money was all about benefiting HER personally. It was about enriching her “understanding”. It was all about making her a “stronger” and “better” person; and how much she’s learned from it, etc.

  20. mikediver5 says:

    There is no point in responding to female input on this subject. As Rollo stated above it is a matter of the fish not realizing they are wet. They are incapable of seeing the point no matter how or how many times it is pointed out to them.

  21. Denise says:

    Read the rationalizations of those in the financial services sector after the fallout. ME ME ME exists in the form of ridiculous bonuses and some admitting, “Well, I’m just smarter than everyone else, so I deserve this.” You’re right that it’s not necessarily about the money itself, but the attitude that follows it (and caused it in the first place), and like I said, it will be a long time before one example such as this is anything more than a drop in the bucket in light of how the men in finance justified their actions.

  22. Tilikum says:

    Denise right here is why women should absolutely be banned from important topics and should absolutely be excluded from voting.

    Denise get it straight: men profit from exploiting the weakness of others, sure, and often people get hurt. BUT at least someone profits.

    but women like to claim victory in their own weakness and as in this case nobody profits except whatever she pretty lies she can make herself believe in order to rationalize her destructiveness.

    her gain is totally in her mind, and what she has told herself is a lie.

    Huge difference.

  23. HawkandRock says:

    Those clients who were less than thrilled to have funded her personal growth are the worst kind of misogynists who deserved to lose their money anyway.

    See? Everything happens for a reason… live, laugh, love…..etc.

  24. Emma the Emo says:

    The comments in that thread don’t seem right… “You lost other people’s money and are totally unashamed about it- That’s SO courageous to admit!” ?….

  25. Steve H says:

    Being an atheist, the irony of being called a moralist as a lite-prejorative on this Christian blog is not lost on me. If you said ‘Ethicists like Steve H’ we’d be in agreement – no doubt I am a self-righteous prick – guilty as charged.

    Having copped to that, I unrepentantly affirm that men are to act at a higher ethical paygrade than the Jezebel set, irrespective of FI-bias they benefit from in every way.

    If you have any salient points as to why this female CEO isn’t any worse than the male CEOs whose *actions* were equivalent, I’ll suspend my disbelief long enough to consider them…

  26. Zodak says:

    people should feel confident investing in her next business, just make sure she doesn’t read any poetry.

  27. Steve H says:

    If you have any salient points as to why this female CEO *is any worse

    (my bad)

  28. Opus says:

    Did she lose her $1,100,000 windfall in the crash? I was not clear on that (it is all so vague – rather like cloud computing) but, if so, I can understand why she has been up in Boulder CO for four days and is still crying – which is what you do when you are now a stronger person, I guess.

    She, however, has one advantage that no man ever has; notwithstanding that her looks which I’d put at no more than a 4 – sorry – she is still young enough to bail out by way of marriage, and given her many adoring fans who still seem to think that the sun emanates from her vagina, I do not doubt that will be available for her, either with her ‘perfect’ fiancée (who I guess will jump ship) or otherwise.

    I wonder what the truth is? – Daddy’s money, a tech savvy fiancée, highly-gullible investors? Businessmen only turn to lecturing and blog-writing when their day-job is tanking or perhaps when their narcissism exceeds their grasp on reality.

  29. LostSailor says:

    Fortunately the bulk of the trail of wreckage is purely financial.

    Well, there is the fact that she unceremoniously dumped her loving fiancee, thereby breaking his life as she was breaking hers. But hopefully he’ll soon realize that he dodged a .50 caliber bullet there.

    @Denise: like I said, it will be a long time before one example such as this is anything more than a drop in the bucket in light of how the men in finance justified their actions.

    Men in finance didn’t have to justify their actions, since their intent was to make boatloads of money, which they did. Their actions and performance were (and are) a feature, not a bug. Trashing the economy was just an unfortunate bump in the road that didn’t really affect them much. Erica, by contrast, killed her company (and her pending marriage) and betrayed all her investors because she just didn’t feel right. But the up-side is she’s all better now and available for consulting at hefty fees (she has to get back on her own financial feet, after all–she seriously said that) and can teach you how to destroy a business and lose all your money in just a matter of days (of course, her fee must be paid in cash in advance and in non-refundable in the event that she doesn’t manage to completely destroy your business on schedule).

  30. Casey says:

    @ Denise

    Step out of that ‘ME, ME, ME’ mantra for a moment, and you’ll see what men see: A selfish, self-absorbed, solpsistic woman who screwed over everyone in her path……(and here’s the BIG difference)…..for an emotional outburst.
    BUT
    It’s OK, ’cause she emerged stronger for the experience.

    How many bystanders have to get creamed before the cost is TOO high for a woman’s emotions to TRUMP all other stakeholders?

    100?
    1000?
    1,000,000?
    10,000,000?

    At least greed of corporate CEOs can be harnessed & contrained.
    The nuclear option this woman set off upon cannot be constrained.

  31. Tilikum says:

    well Steve, do you now have your answer?

  32. greyghost says:

    Steve H
    You have made your self a training aid
    You compared and rationalized a normal and better than average woman to a psychopath male CEO as a way to silence judgment on this normal woman. I have said before a women is always comparable to a defective man outside of the 80 percentile of all men (bets) that actually give a damn about other peoples well being.
    White knighting for stink hole doesn’t carry the same status building qualities it used to. You would have been more effective showing her as a selfish psychopath lacking a sense of empathy for others and comparing that to her male counter parts with the same qualities to show how screwed up she is.

  33. Opus says:

    … but wait there is more

    On Thursday 5th December 2013 she posts ‘My Personal Transformation – 6 Lessons from 6 Years of Blogging’, where we learn:

    Lesson 1 – You come First…. Pretty much my entire life I have put other people first…. I deserved to be paid well… My businesses need to be profitable, I need to take a salary… I deserve better.

    Lesson 2 Your health is more important than your business

    I am still dealing with the health ramifications of my actions in my twenties [she is thirty three or four].

    Lesson 4 Revenue Trumps Frugality

    Now I am focused on revenue generation.

    Lesson 5 Your beliefs create your reality

    I have changed dramatically…. I believe in myself now….. I belief in my ability to create a huge business.

    Lesson 6

    Its ok to dream big

    I am here to do it for future women and girls.

    LMFAO

  34. JDG says:

    In fairness, no worse a hamsterization than countless male CEOs who robbed investors blind while concocting inflated ‘market-value’ salaries out of thin air to bleed public offerings dry.

    Robbing investors blind under the guise of inflated salaries is deceitful and greedy, but it is not the hamster at work. The hamster is self-delusionary. Both are detestable, but we already know all about the abhorrent things that men do. We get to hear about it every where all the time.

  35. @Opus

    Spot on. Now… where’s Tam the Bam when we need him?

    @Greyghost

    You compared and rationalized a normal and better than average woman to a psychopath male CEO as a way to silence judgment on this normal woman.

    Brilliant. The necropsy is proceeding as planned.

  36. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Great Post.

    As someone who’s family employs 24 full time money managers,I assure you that none of them are women.My father or myself have never hired a woman money manager….and never will.Neither have we ever taken financial advice from women.Women might think that they have a place in high finance but,they do not!

  37. Steve H says:

    “You compared and rationalized a normal and better than average woman to a psychopath male CEO as a way to silence judgment on this normal woman.”

    Nope. Lazy internet scapegoating. I never conferred ‘better than average’ status upon her, nor would I – I don’t esteem female CEOs based upon their ‘credential’. Also I never sought to silence judgment but instead, to invoke the intellectual honesty as a baseline for just measurement – which some here prefer to volitionally deny. And so I wonder, whom among you has fleeced clients?

    Let me be clear: this is a horrid woman. But your insertion of strawmen – essentially, your disingenuous ideological sophistry – cheapens your argument.

  38. Badpainter says:

    I wonder if the blog post in question will be used against her in any future civil action by defrauded investors. Could the right prosecutor use her words as an admission of guilt if there’s a hint of criminal wrong doing? Hmmm… I suppose if John Corzine can get away with it this broad is in the clear, but Corzine never publically rationalized the collapse of MF Global as being the necessary side effect of finding himself.

    I look forward the duel of hamster vs. lawyers.

  39. It’s true that what she did is morally no worse than a male CEO or advisor ripping off his employees or clients. Stipulated, but irrelevant, because that’s not what she’s claiming here. She’s not saying her failure isn’t the worst thing anyone’s ever done; she’s saying it was a good thing. It’s good that a bunch of people lost their money, because the payoff is that she had an emotional epiphany and feels good about herself. Her feeling good about herself and (temporarily) shedding that feeling that things weren’t right is worth $640K of other people’s money.

    The worst male con artist might think it’s a good thing that you lost your money because he got rich in the process, but he wouldn’t try to convince you that you should feel good about your loss because now he’s a better person. But that’s the argument she’s making, and she doesn’t even seem aware that it might be a tough sell.

  40. Steve H says:

    “You would have been more effective showing her as a selfish psychopath lacking a sense of empathy for others and comparing that to her male counter parts with the same qualities to show how screwed up she is.”

    In the spirit of fairness, you have a very good point here. There’s no point in me being overly combative (on the defensive), checking myself on that.

  41. Lastango says:

    This is a fine time to remember Kate Bolick’s dynamiting of her life:

    ” In 2001, when I was 28, I broke up with my boyfriend. Allan and I had been together for three years, and there was no good reason to end things. He was (and remains) an exceptional person, intelligent, good-looking, loyal, kind. My friends, many of whom were married or in marriage-track relationships, were bewildered. I was bewildered. To account for my behavior, all I had were two intangible yet undeniable convictions: something was missing; I wasn’t ready to settle down.”

    “The period that followed was awful. I barely ate for sobbing all the time. (A friend who suffered my company a lot that summer sent me a birthday text this past July: “A decade ago you and I were reuniting, and you were crying a lot.”) I missed Allan desperately—his calm, sure voice; the sweetly fastidious way he folded his shirts. On good days, I felt secure that I’d done the right thing. Learning to be alone would make me a better person, and eventually a better partner. On bad days, I feared I would be alone forever. Had I made the biggest mistake of my life?”

    “Ten years later, I occasionally ask myself the same question. Today I am 39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count and, I am told, two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a “good enough” mate. At this point, certainly, falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck. A decade ago, luck didn’t even cross my mind. I’d been in love before, and I’d be in love again.”
    ======

    It was all there: the discarding, the meltdown, the unbridled confidence, the entitlement. Here, the CEO’s Eco-boosted hamster is busy telling her she’s destined to build a great organization one day because that’s who she is! She will climb every mountain, have every success, marry Alphamale, have three beautiful children, and be on the cover of Vogue. And so will all her girlfriends, because they invented themselves and this glorious new era of !!!Victory!!!

  42. feeriker says:

    Well, there is the fact that she unceremoniously dumped her loving fiancee, thereby breaking his life as she was breaking hers. But hopefully he’ll soon realize that he dodged a .50 caliber bullet there.

    You took the words right off of my fingertips. I hope “Brian” has awakened to realize what an incredibly lucky and blessed man he is.

  43. Opus says:

    (more sleuthing) She sold her company for $1,100,000 to pay-off her debts – so it seems that despite her apparent success she never made a penny. Perhaps that explains her moaning about undervaluing herself.

    Interesting to observe that it all goes wrong sometime after she and her Fiancee (and CEO or whatever he was) part company. Was she, as I wondered above, just the poster-girl behind the brains, seducing investors (her Beta orbiters) with the ‘girls make better leaders’ schtick.

    Her solipsism is demonstrative of the fact that women are never responsible for anything, and just get more and more fabulous; that is not a bug but a feature of non-men, sadly.

    ‘Dear fellow countrymen, I write this from the bunker; the Russians are closing in from the east, the Americans from the West. Am I upset that I have wrecked your country? Only in the sense that we did not win the war. The me coming from this chaos is a stronger me. Qualities that every great leader must possess. I am worlds apart from the person who in 1939….. Adolf.’

  44. feeriker says:

    But the up-side is she’s all better now and available for consulting at hefty fees (she has to get back on her own financial feet, after all–she seriously said that) and can teach you how to destroy a business and lose all your money in just a matter of days (of course, her fee must be paid in cash in advance and in non-refundable in the event that she doesn’t manage to completely destroy your business on schedule).

    I’m sure that I don’t really need to point this out to the regulars here, but we know, for certain, that there are Team Grrrrrl ideologues and their femengina enablers out there already lining up to put her back in business.

  45. Tam the Bam says:

    [USD>GBP= hmm… 380k] The price of a 2-bed ex-council-flat (=gentrified section 8 project apartment) in London. I’ve lived in those boys, warm and roomy they are not. Balcony’s nice though. Same in Edinburgh, in case you think I’m making a worst-case example. Might get you a 3/4-bedder out in the ‘burbs in both cities.
    Bigtime.

    It’s not that nutty Armenian videogame queen is it? Kickstarter?

  46. Viro says:

    What’s the over/under on miscarriage vs adultery?

  47. AmStrat says:

    *10 page post about how the 2007-2008 financial crisis was really more the fault of women’s “need” for a bigger, better house and apathy toward the financing, rather than Male bankers/analysts who were pretty much forced to deal with toxic assets and acted immorally in self-preservation*

    Not going to make this post because those who would understand already know, and those with an axe to grind would just skip over it anyway.

  48. Opus says:

    @Tam the Bam

    That looks like the one Mr Dudley and Ting Tong’s – but you are way off topic. No, not Anita Sarkeesian.

  49. feeriker says:

    Was she, as I wondered above, just the poster-girl behind the brains, seducing investors (her Beta orbiters) with the ‘girls make better leaders’ schtick.

    Could very well be. Here in the United Politically Correct Fascist State of Amerika, white males are all but officially banned from succeeding on their own merits in the corporate marketplace, especially if they want play Corporate Welfate Queen and stick their snouts in the government treasury vault. This why it pays to front a woman (double bonus points if she’s a member of s “preferred” racial or ethnic demographic group) as head honcho. That might very well have been “Erica’s” role – until she decided that she wasn’t going to “play the role” anymore and seized the reins to become the real thing. She probably kicked “Brian,” the real power behind the throne, to the curb at this point, he wisely then saying “fine, Sweetie; you broke it, you bought it” before quite sensibly walking away from it all. Her bluff having been called (and being just smart enough to know what her real limitations were), she had no choice but to shut down the whole charade before getting herself in beyond the point of no return.

    Prediction: as the lawsuits start rolling in and things start to get “real,” we’ll see from “Erica” a torrential flood of “it’s all Brian’s/some other man’s fault” blog posts.

  50. Anonymous Reader says:

    Steve H.
    If you have any salient points as to why this female CEO isn’t any worse than the male CEOs whose *actions* were equivalent, I’ll suspend my disbelief long enough to consider them…

    That is not the topic. That is your strawman that you clearly would prefer everyone to engage with, in lieu of the actual topic: female solipsism.

    “Men Do That Too” is not a rational argument, it is a rationalization. Make a note of this, please.

  51. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD, re: reasons for gender disparity. Do women simply believe fairy tales more? Are women that much more susceptible to advertising “Invest with us, and we’ll double your money, guaranteed”? Or are women more believing that Daddy , or Big Daddy, will rescue them?

  52. BradA says:

    @Steve H,

    You don’t see lots of people reinforcing what the male CEOs (and others) did, especially not like here. Look at the replies on her entry prior to getting pointed to by here and elsewhere. They are all “good job” not “how horrid”. That is the big difference you failed to note. We know evil males are evil, even if they get away with it. We don’t do that for leading tech females like this.

    That is the flaw with the “You Go Girrrrrl” approach to tech. It will fail spectacularly and few will acknowledge how many were cheated in the process.

  53. Steve H says:

    ““Men Do That Too” is not a rational argument, it is a rationalization. Make a note of this, please.”

    Noted. But I’m not rationalizing anything. I think she’s an awful human being.

    “That is not the topic. That is your strawman that you clearly would prefer everyone to engage with, in lieu of the actual topic: female solipsism.”

    OK, I hear you. To be frank, I may be grasping for straws in searching the ‘Sphere for someone – anyone – outside of Matt King (who seems AWOL) and possibly Earl who will call a spade a spade when it comes to detestable male conduct (I’m reading whispers of it in this comment thread).

    And so yes, I’ve grafted ‘Men do that too’ onto this argument in a search for that intellectual honesty, whereby core ‘Sphere ideology might be so ethically superior to feminism that it eventually changes minds and hearts. That it becomes undeniably self-evident to the masses. And we’re a long way off from that point, particularly if we adopt knee-jerk justifications for detestable male conduct, blaming it all on ‘fallout from FI cultural saturation’. I’m happy to be that voice of ethical consistency so long as it isn’t detrimental to the discourse. And with that, I aim to be constructive. Appreciate that opportunity to make my voice heard.

  54. Steve H says:

    @ Brad

    “You don’t see lots of people reinforcing what the male CEOs (and others) did, especially not like here. Look at the replies on her entry prior to getting pointed to by here and elsewhere. They are all “good job” not “how horrid”. That is the big difference you failed to note. We know evil males are evil, even if they get away with it. We don’t do that for leading tech females like this.

    That is the flaw with the “You Go Girrrrrl” approach to tech. It will fail spectacularly and few will acknowledge how many were cheated in the process.”

    Well said. I hadn’t investigated direct responses to her original letter. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that your median ‘you go grrl’ bootlicker essentially gave her a pass and kissed her ass.

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    Steve H.
    Noted. But I’m not rationalizing anything. I think she’s an awful human being.

    That’s still not the point. You seem desperate to write about anything other than the point: female solipsism. For example, you clearly would much, much, much rather go on at length about How Bad Men Are, and Why Are Men So Bad, etc. as if that is a novel topic that is not available anywhere else. Why is that?

  56. Opus says:

    My guess is: bored with fiancée Brian, she hopes that Parnell the programmer will take over his romantic role. He sees the writing on the wall and is not too keen on her proposal for his romantic future, and bails; Erika is thus without a man to support her and run the company and also without her brilliant programmer. The Company implodes.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    Steve H.
    I hadn’t investigated direct responses to her original letter.

    So you ‘ve been writing from a position of ignorance, correct?

  58. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tam old bloke, what was all that about, eh?

  59. Tam the Bam says:

    Oops messed up tags again. I really should stop trying.

  60. Tam the Bam says:

    AR : Why is everybody crying about this pitiful amount of what some people, definitely not anyone near, or in any way connected with this great site cough cough might characterise as fraud? Heck, the SJWs and Allied Trades, to name but one, milk their followers once or twice a year with online pity-party tales of woe, for hundreds if not thousands. And the brain-damaged fuckers lap it up and come back for moarrr ..

  61. Steve, I’ve said this before, but: you don’t see a lot of bashing of detestable male conduct in the manosphere for two reasons: it’s not the topic, and the rest of the world has it well-covered. It’s not that we think men are perfect, or that we won’t criticize men when needed (see any talk of “manginas” or beta behavior, for instance). It’s just that we’re talking about other things — the things no one else will talk about because the female imperative makes them off-limits. Failing to give equal time to male evil doesn’t make us ethically inconsistent unless we refuse to condemn it when it’s part of the topic.

    If it helps, just assume all our comments include a “men do bad things too” disclaimer. In this case, the interesting thing isn’t that her business failed. That happens to men and women, and doesn’t mean she’s a bad person, or even (necessarily) a bad businesswoman. It’s not interesting that she’s trying to avoid responsibility for her mess; again, men do that too. What’s interesting is the way she presents it as a victory because of how it’s making her feel. That’s a particularly female way of looking at it, which doesn’t apply to the men you want to give equal time. Men don’t “do that too,” so there’s no way to spread the bashing evenly on that.

    The other interesting part is the way most people will react to her with hugs and applause, which again would not happen if she were a man. So we’re not just — or even primarily — criticizing her; we’re criticizing all the people, men and women, who will give her a complete pass because of her sex.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tam ye Bam, it is not the amount of boodle lost, it’s the ‘tude of the Executive Broad in Charge – “Sure, I ran my company into the ditch and stiffed my employees but I feel better about myself”. I once worked briefly for a startup that was late a day or two on paychecks, and they nearly lost their best employees over that. Failing to make payroll is borderline criminal. Saying it’s OK because now you’ve “grown” is childish.

    It’s all about the female solipsism.

  63. Steve H says:

    “That’s still not the point. You seem desperate to write about anything other than the point: female solipsism. For example, you clearly would much, much, much rather go on at length about How Bad Men Are, and Why Are Men So Bad, etc. as if that is a novel topic that is not available anywhere else. Why is that?”

    Fair question prefaced by incorrect assumption.

    My answer: because the obvious cultural pretext for this news story that it has been virtually 100% male CEOs heretofore nefariously bankrupting companies via mendacious means. Right? This is a notable counterexample where a female CEO carries out the same *action* – and then her Monday morning quarterbacking is vastly different in both form and content – as Rollo and others so articulately elucidated.

    So no, I am not “desperate to write about anything other than…female solipsism” but rather acknowledging that historical fact of the financial world, and pointing out that the very reason this particular story is so ‘newsworthy’ is in light of that history.

  64. Steve H says:

    “So you ‘ve been writing from a position of ignorance, correct?”

    Incorrect. Researching fan-girl comments underneath a press release? Not even required reading for the most thorough old-school journalists, let alone an amateur commenter like me.

  65. Anonymous Reader says:

    Steve H.
    My answer: because the obvious cultural pretext for this news story that it has been virtually 100% male CEOs heretofore nefariously bankrupting companies via mendacious means.

    That is 100% totally irrelevant. We do not know if she bankrupted her outfit via mendacity or not. And it does not matter, either.

    nd then her Monday morning quarterbacking is vastly different in both form and content – as Rollo and others so articulately elucidated.

    That’s closer, but you have left out the fact that her Monday Morning quarterbacking is quite solipsistic (come on, Steve, type the word, it won’t hurt for you to do so, go ahead) and typically female. The other thing you have left out, as Cail Corishev observed, is the reaction of people to her destruction: she’s getting a virtual tongue bath for her failure and for behavior that is arguably grounds for a civil suit (failure to make payroll).

    That’s the point. Her solipsism, and her pussy pass. Get it? Or would you rather go on and on about what a rotten guy Jamie Dimon is, and how that proves All Men Are Crooks And That’s All They Are?

    C’mon, one bicycle to another – don’t you get enough Men Are Bad from the mass media? If so, quit bringing it here. If not, well, there is a whole stellar constellation of websites where you can get that fix, you don’t need to cry for it here.

  66. CarpeOro says:

    “OK, I hear you. To be frank, I may be grasping for straws in searching the ‘Sphere for someone – anyone – outside of Matt King (who seems AWOL) and possibly Earl who will call a spade a spade when it comes to detestable male conduct (I’m reading whispers of it in this comment thread).”

    Try checking Vox Day’s blog. Goldman Sachs gets no love there and there are very few women at the top. However, back to the subject at hand, you would find no “you go dude” comments on a man’s post of that story. You would see almost pure venom, or at the very least requests he come back to earth and maybe start considering how he will pay those investors back. The female commenters there? The majority were praising her being “authentic”. Of course, while they commiserate, few of those being supportive are likely to give her more than spare change to manage. It is all part of the Team Grrrlll marching orders: support the most idiotic thing other women may say while in public, finding any way possible to justify it or simply cheer for them and avoid the topic.

  67. Anonymous Reader says:

    Steve H.
    To be frank, I may be grasping for straws in searching the ‘Sphere for someone – anyone – outside of Matt King (who seems AWOL) and possibly Earl who will call a spade a spade when it comes to detestable male conduct (I’m reading whispers of it in this comment thread).”

    Ok, so you’d require each man to write some kind of ritual denunciation of Men on a regular basis, rather like the Maoist “self criticism” sessions of the Cultural Revolution? Or wear a hair shirt while posting? Or devote some percentage of words posted to teh Interwebz to bashing fellow men for their multitude of sins?

    What is it that you really want?

  68. @Denise, of all the profiteers and villains responsible for the late 2000’s financial collapse I’ve yet to read one of them excuse their actions as a journey in ‘personal discovery.’

  69. You know why? Because men don’t expect they’re entitled to anyone believing it.

  70. Steve H says:

    Cail, Anonymous, CarpeOro – I thank you for the civil discourse.

    I’ll leave you with one last question on this post: If not for Jamie Dimon and 1,000 Jamie Dimon imitators before her, would this woman in fact get a pussy pass (albeit for more sinister, FI-drenched reasons)?

    I’ll rest my case there – as my intent is to be clear and state my case, not win an argument. I think that case has been heard, and I have heard you and appreciate your thought-provoking arguments.

  71. Steve, yes, she would. Again, we’re not criticizing her because her business failed. Businesses fail, and it’s good that we have people willing to take that risk anyway. I have no idea whether she did anything wrong in the way she ran the business, and I don’t think anyone’s accusing her of stealing anything. So those guys you want to talk about have nothing to do with her. She’s not getting a pass because of them; she’s getting a pass because she’s a woman.

    We’re not saying she shouldn’t “get a pass” over the business failure; we’re saying she shouldn’t be getting patted on the back. See the difference? It’s not about how she ran the business; it’s about the way her emotions today trump everything that went before.

    Imagine if her letter had gone something like this: “I’m sorry to inform you that XYZ Corp. will be ceasing operations on [date]. I had great hopes for this company, as I know you did, but it just hasn’t worked out, and we need to stop here before we’re unable to pay our hard-working employees. I’ve given my all to this project, but sometimes businesses fail, as you know, especially in this fast-moving field. I hope to find a new project for my talents soon, and I will be grateful for any of you who wish to support me in that.”

    See how that expresses empathy for the people hurt by the failure, while still taking pride in her own involvement and leaving out there the possibility that they might invest in her again? How much better is that than, “Yeah, this kinda sucks for the people who lost their money and jobs, but hey, when I went outside this morning the sun was shining brighter for me than it has in years, and isn’t that what’s really important?”

  72. Tam the Bam says:

    Well yeh AR, she’s a womynz, so she would say that, wouldn’t she? It’s what they do, FFS. Anyone expect different? WTF? Where have you been?

    I wouldn’t expect f’rinstance, Major General Sir Charles Vere Ferrers Townshend KCB, DSO, to state that he had achieved some kind of inevitable and necessary stage of personal development as a result of his abject failure at Kut, but he did get a nice house to stay in while the blokes and sepoys got the death railway treatment, and a pension.
    I’d expect, nay, require him to die of shame. Which he pretty much did, being a chap and all that.

    Fools and their due diligence are soon parted. Who cares about the post-hoc reframe this dim cow is attempting? Never again, that’s my creed.

  73. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’ll leave you with one last question on this post: If not for Jamie Dimon and 1,000 Jamie Dimon imitators before her, would this woman in fact get a pussy pass (albeit for more sinister, FI-drenched reasons)?

    Of course. Either you need to read a lot more, or you are flying a false flag in even asking this question.

    What is your purpose in posting here?

  74. BradA says:

    @Steve H,

    I have come under flack in the past for saying similar things (and probably will in the future), but I would agree with the trend in this post that the point is the reaction to the “things failed” is the problem, not the failure. The callousness toward her employees is probably the worst. They don’t matter at all.

    I do wonder how much she was in charge if she felt she could run off from “her job” at a whim without thought. A leader does not do that. They may go down with the ship, but that will be the attempt. Running off to get yourself together at a key time is not a good response to such a situation and needs to be called out as such.

    I would add that many of the comments below confirming her blog post were from men as well. Pretty sad, but typical of modern society and it continues to show me that we are headed for a mess.

    I would note that I find what many got away with in the banking crisis (for example) to be reprehensible, but what do you expect when the government can run a Ponzi scheme without shame?

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Steve” H.
    If not for Jamie Dimon and 1,000 Jamie Dimon imitators before her,

    Hmm. So you do not know who Jamie Dimon is, in actuality, and reviewing your postings you clearly are all about dragging the discussion as far away from any accurate observations about women’s behavior as you possibly can…especially soplisism, and women’s known 4:1 in-group preference*.

    “Steve”, what is your purpose in posting here? Can you answer, or is that too much?

    * The tongue-bathing in the comments over at the mea culpa blog posting is mostly from women, as Science would predict.

  76. Anonymous Reader says:

    Here are two pointers to the Purdue study that revealed a 4:1 in-group preference for women:

    Abstract of the 2004 publication:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

    Press release on the study:
    https://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2004/041213.Goodwin.gender.html

    There seems to have been no followup research in this area, for some reason or other.

  77. MarcusD says:

    I can understand why she has been up in Boulder CO for four days and is still crying

    If I recall correctly, gaining altitude can actually make someone, for a period of time, more emotional (due to less oxygen in the surrounding environment), and particularly more susceptible to negative emotions.

  78. MarcusD says:

    @AR

    To add to your comment, the effect (for the benefit of those only reading this page) is the “Women Are Wonderful” effect, which is well-documented (but very much not well known).

  79. MarcusD says:

    For those interested in sources:

    Shukitt-Hale, Barbara, Terry M. Rauch, and Richard Foutch. “Altitude symptomatology and mood states during a climb to 3,630 meters.” Aviation, space, and environmental medicine (1990).

    Aquino Lemos, Valdir, et al. “High altitude exposure impairs sleep patterns, mood, and cognitive functions.” Psychophysiology 49.9 (2012): 1298-1306.

  80. jf12 says:

    Re: women are wonderful, and in-group preference. It’s no coincidence that 80% is 4:1 to 20%. Last week I was taken out to the ballpark by my wife to cheer on a neighbor girl in her softball game, which turned out to be a double header. Naturally just about every adult involved on the girls’ teams were men, fathers, from main coaches to base coaches to umpires, although mothers chaperoned and provided snacks, but the bleacher crowd was about 50/50 men/women divided cliquishly. About 80% of the men spectators were actually watching the games, but about 80% of the women (including my wife) talked about people.

    Most of the people the women talked about were other women, especially women not there to defend themselves, but of the men discussed about 80% of it was extremely derogatory, especially concerning the men helping with the girls. Except for the one good looking guy coach on the other team.

  81. The Grand Cannon says:

    ” Am I upset that I lost my investors’ money? Only in the sense that many of our investors were my friends and I didn’t want to disappoint them. But the me coming out from this hurricane of chaos is a much stronger me, able to acknowledge the mistakes I’ve made, able to open up and be emotionally raw with my friends and my team–qualities that every great leader must possess.

    As a person, I am worlds apart from the one who raised money back in 2012. I was not confident in myself back then. I had a gritty edge. I was scared.”

    Spoken like a true American. I have found these “no regrets”, “there are no should’s” and “everything is a learning experience” mantras to be uniquely American memes and I assume they grew out of the American Self Esteem Movement of the 1970s and now they have thoroughly saturated the mainstream collective consciousness.

    Everywhere I turn I find Americans speaking like this, trying to rationalize their behavior, being in denial about the mistakes they’ve made and the regrets they really do have laid buried deep inside. They particularly do not like to feel guilty about anything, even when they have things to genuinely feel guilty about. Oh and the “strength” and “leadership” obsession;

    “But the me coming out from this hurricane of chaos is a much stronger me, able to acknowledge the mistakes I’ve made, able to open up and be emotionally raw with my friends and my team–qualities that every great leader must possess.”

    Almost every American I’ve ever met fancies him or herself a “leader” of some sort. Its baffling to us outsiders.

  82. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Fortunately the bulk of the trail of wreckage is purely financial. No doubt much of this money represented the hopes and dreams of real life people, but at least no children will need to take a trip through the divorce meat grinder as a result of this woman’s need to focus on herself.”

    Don’t American couples fight mainly over finances? Probably more than few divorces could result from this person’s mistakes and worse yet, her lack of regret about them.

  83. Mark says:

    @Rollo

    “”of all the profiteers and villains responsible for the late 2000′s financial collapse I’ve yet to read one of them excuse their actions as a journey in ‘personal discovery.’””

    Bingo!…….this sums up the entire post!

  84. Opus says:

    Americans are ‘can do’ people (I could not but observe). Even so…

  85. On the “no regrets” thing, it’s always bugged me when famous people like Hollywood stars say they have no regrets. Oh, so you don’t regret the drug problem you developed and the time you spent in rehab? You don’t regret the three divorces or the fact that two of your kids won’t speak to you?

    I know what they’re saying: “My life has been so great in general that I wouldn’t go back and change the bad things for fear of losing the good ones.” But it seems to me that you can say that while also admitting that you do regret the harmful things you’ve done.

    I think part of it comes from the New Age-y positive thinking stuff (which is very much an American phenomenon, so that’s interesting with regards to Grand Cannon’s comment). You’re never supposed to feel bad or express sorrow about anything. Positive thinking is supposed to make everything better. Even people with cancer or terminal diseases are encouraged to deny themselves the emotions of grief and anger, and instead keep a smile and think positive at all times because that’s supposed to make them healthy (it doesn’t. See the book Bright-Sided).

    So that stuff shows up in business too, and doubly so for girls because it’s so important that they succeed in formerly male-dominated endeavors.

  86. Boxer says:

    Anyone who is not red pill, getting cleaned out by overestimating women, is necessary and healthy.

    That’s an excellent point, and I agree with the sentiments behind it.

    The prevalence of manginae in our society will be seen, from the future, as a self-correcting problem. Eventually, all the loser men will be cleaned out by the women they idolize, and there will be no more free stuff for them to pilfer. I expect this to accelerate as resources continue to be squandered globally.

  87. Lyn87 says:

    What struck me most was her dogged determination to hang onto the idea that she is a leader, and that the most important take-away from this situation is that now she’s an even better leader.

    Miss Douglass: I’ve known leaders. As a career military officer I’ve been a leader almost all of my adult life. You, madam, are no leader.

    If Miss Douglass wishes to think of herself as a leader – even a great leader – then she needs to do the things that great leaders do. (Personal accountability is a great place to start.) When I used to be in uniform one of the items on my Officer Evaluation Report (OER) was whether I was “tactically proficient.” In other words, did I know what I was doing? Another was “integrity” – which is supposed to be a given. Losing most of a million dollars of other people’s money and running away to have a pity party, then declaring that those very actions prove that you possess the attributes that great leaders possess…

    … help me here – I’m kind of at a loss for words. Solipsism seems so inadequate.

    Just for fun, this link (http://www.apd.army.mil/pub/eforms/pdf/a67_9.pdf) is for the Army’s DA Form 67-9, the current Officer Evaluation Report. Ask yourself: if you had a subordinate like Miss Douglass in a supervisory position, how would you rate her?

  88. Warlock_Stratos says:

    “Losing other peoples money makes me a stronger person.” Obviously it’s all about her, screw everyone else and their losses.

  89. Lyn87 says:

    TFH,

    It should hurt to be stupid.

  90. The Grand Cannon says:

    “On the “no regrets” thing, it’s always bugged me when famous people like Hollywood stars say they have no regrets. Oh, so you don’t regret the drug problem you developed and the time you spent in rehab? You don’t regret the three divorces or the fact that two of your kids won’t speak to you?”

    HELLO!?

    “I know what they’re saying: “My life has been so great in general that I wouldn’t go back and change the bad things for fear of losing the good ones.”

    No, they are not actually saying that. What they are saying is they screwed up and secretly know it but “guilt” and “regrets” and genuinely humility are supposedly bad for humans to experience so to avoid those bad feelings and maintain face along with a false sense of self-esteem …. “I have no regrets and neither should you!”

    “But it seems to me that you can say that while also admitting that you do regret the harmful things you’ve done.”

    Yes gratitude for one’s blessings in life and acknowledgement of one own personal positive accomplishments can go right alongside genuinely humility and regret for mistakes made. I fail to see why so many modern Americans don’t get this. They have a really hard time with being humble.

    “I think part of it comes from the New Age-y positive thinking stuff (which is very much an American phenomenon, so that’s interesting with regards to Grand Cannon’s comment). You’re never supposed to feel bad or express sorrow about anything. Positive thinking is supposed to make everything better. Even people with cancer or terminal diseases are encouraged to deny themselves the emotions of grief and anger, and instead keep a smile and think positive at all times because that’s supposed to make them healthy”

    Yes, there’s some book titled “My Crazy, Sexy Cancer” and an American wrote it. (Who woulda guessed?) Americans also seem to have a “sexy” this and that obsession.

    “it doesn’t. See the book Bright-Sided”

    There’s a difference between genuine gratitude and positive thinking and faking one’s way through it as a form of rationalizing away one’s own mistakes and regrets as well as being in denial about the full expression of the human experience which includes disease, aging and facing the temporary nature of our existence.

    There’s a reason why some Buddhist sects have their monks meditate in graveyards or cremation grounds and contemplate the ick factor of the human body. This is to give some grounding to young people obsessed with youth, beauty and the positive. and to drive home the real facts of life about the nature of existence.

    So that stuff shows up in business too, and doubly so for girls because it’s so important that they succeed in formerly male-dominated endeavors.

  91. jf12 says:

    @Lyn87, for another word for solipsism besides narcissism, which I think adequate, dictionary.com linked to ipseity which I had never heard of before. It makes me feel good to suggest it, in the sense of all self all the time..

  92. The Grand Cannon says:

    “So that stuff shows up in business too, and doubly so for girls because it’s so important that they succeed in formerly male-dominated endeavors.”

    I think the corporate world was one of the first places the American Self Esteem Movement (or New Age) sunk its claws into. An argument could even be made that corporate America birthed those two and not the other way around. For decades now corporate speak has been particularly “strength” and “leadership-y” focused with everyone taught to hone and develop their “leadership abilities”. The corporate world is full of Anthony Robbin types, motivational seminars and motivational-speak. What I noticed about new age folks is they sound exactly like these corporate people and even use the exact same terminology. Its a chicken and egg scenario where you don’t know what came first but I think its the business world that started this. Think Napolean HIll, Think and Grow Rich, etc. It goes back almost 100 years if not earlier.

  93. jf12 says:

    TFH proposes “But even more likely is that her solipism is so deep that she fully expected her attractiveness to men to rise by being a 35-year-old Tech CEO.” It is possible. How would we go about seeing if it were more than possible, i.e. if her life crisis was due to the Wall crushing her or something?

  94. Alex says:

    [Am I upset that I lost my investors’ money? …

    So What Comes Next?
    … I want to keep our team together. … Paul, Amanda, and I work together well. So we may form a new company, or rearrange the current one. I think I may do some consulting for a month or two, recovering my finances and helping other authentic leaders of larger companies find their voices and build better teams. … it won’t be cheap, but it will be worth it for you.

    And I would like to do MarketVibe, but I think it is time to explore some funding options that buy us some time … Some of our current investors may come along for the ride. Some won’t, and that’s okay. As a person, I am worlds apart from the one who raised money back in 2012. … Today I’m embracing myself as a leader not just in business, but in our world. … I am no longer concerned. This is who I am. ]

    Others highlighted her comments, but I couldn’t not list them. It was like slowing and watching a horrible wreck alongside the freeway.

    Who would hire or give this woman additional funding after reading this? And put down your drinks before you read this page about their technical skills!!!
    whoos htraffic .com /about

  95. You have to wonder: is there anything she could do which would NOT make her a better leader of the world? Or are all experiences she has automatically beneficial by dint of her having had them? (Yes, it’s a rhetorical question.)

  96. Don's Johnson says:

    Ah yes. Solipsism at it’s finest. It’s a perfect example of narcissism as well. The 700k she lost, the investors she fleeced, and people sent job hunting are of little consequence. They receive a few lines in the whole spiel. While her “feelings” and HER future are of the utmost importance and get the lion’s share of the words.
    But you can hardly blame her. Someone that would so easily disregard the destruction left in their wake goes by a simpler name than a narcissist. That name is woman. She probably hasn’t had to make account of her actions in her entire life. Usually the failure could be placed at the feet of her boss/other male authority figure, but as she was at the top, the hamster just injected HGH and ran like Usain Bolt.

  97. feeriker says:

    She assumed that what makes a man attractive makes her attractive….Only to see that some 23-year-old waitress gets more male attention than her. That made her go insane, and she decided to destroy her company (much like many women decide to get abortions relatively late in the pregnancy, or leave their kids in a hot car to bake to death, just because the husband’s employer’s stock fell 15%, shrinking his earnings upside)….

    Yep. The last thing any EmpoweredWoman[TM] will ever admit to herself is that such “empowerment” (or her delusions of it) are about as attractive to the average heterosexual man as Richard Simmons in sweaty licra tights. The reality that most men find such a woman repulsive simply cannot be acknowledged, EVER, for it denies the self-loathing estrogen vessel her entitlement to “have it all,” one of the essential pillars of the FI. Any man who rejects her is categorically “gay,” “a loser,” or “a misogynist.”

    As I told an EmpoweredWoman fiancee many years ago when I broke up with her and called it off (and this was in my bluest of blue pill days): “if I want a life partner I have to compete and contend with 24/7, I’ll marry CEO Joe, my current a$$hole boss.”

    (I recently came upon her Facebook page. After 25 years, she’s still single and childless [go figure], but apparently more “empowered” than ever, thanks to AA/EO.)

  98. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Or are all experiences she has automatically beneficial by dint of her having had them? (Yes, it’s a rhetorical question.)”

    The rhetorical answer is that they are beneficial by dint of her having them. Lessons have been learned (whether they genuinely were learned or not) and her experiences have made her the person she is today (whether that’s a good person or not).

    This appears to be a uniquely American approach to life because I rarely run into such bizarre thinking anywhere else.

    “She assumed that what makes a man attractive makes her attractive….Only to see that some 23-year-old waitress gets more male attention than her.”

    A 23 year old waitress does not get the kind of attention she wants (long term/marriage minded) from the type of men she wants (her socio-economic equals and better). 23 year old waitresses get long term attention from their own socio-economic equals and they get short term attention from their socio-economic moderately betters. Both of these types of men are far below the level of men that the CEO lady desires either short or long term attention from. The 23 year waitress is not competition for her. Her competition is the pretty 27 year old executive that is a few promotions below her in the same general socio-economic class. They would be competing for the same type of man.

  99. gdgm+ says:

    Steve H —
    I’m also a lurker and non-professional occasional commenter… I hate to be the one to state this (obvious to some) info… but Jamie Dimon (known for association with JPMorgan Chase) is MALE and not a female. Sheesh!!

  100. enrique432 says:

    I would have thought this was made up, if I had not heard so many women use the same kinds of self-stroke speech and terms.

  101. Guys, Steve’s sentence may have been unclear, but the “her” he was referring to was Miss Douglass, not Jamie Dimon.

    Another reason this woman won’t have trouble getting her next job or funding: despite all the girls-in-STEM promotions and equalitarianism, there is still a pretty small number of women who A) have any desire to work in IT with a bunch of nerds, and B) have even the low-level technical ability needed to get started in the field. Add to that the requirement C) that she have the communication and social skills to give speeches at seminars and board meetings, and you’re getting down to a pretty small group. Some company will hire her just for the sake of having a front-woman — although they might be smart enough after this to make sure to keep her well away from any aspect of their work that matters. She’ll land on her feet and have people asking her opinion and hanging on her word again in no time.

  102. greyghost says:

    Keep dreaming about that sexual and marriage competition The grand Cannon

  103. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Keep dreaming about that sexual and marriage competition The grand Cannon”

    Meaning?

  104. greyghost says:

    A pleasant woman is always competition for any man with any woman. The only thing that makes a waitress not competition is the man hasn’t met her. The easiest way to find some new pussy is to go to places you haven’t been. men go for pleasant women period all of the window dressing is window dressing.

  105. enrique432 says:

    I wonder if “Brian” is discretely checking her site, to see when he takes the blame for the failure. It can’t be far behind, from her, or from her fellow dumb broads.

  106. The Grand Cannon says:

    “A pleasant woman is always competition for any man with any woman. The only thing that makes a waitress not competition is the man hasn’t met her. The easiest way to find some new pussy is to go to places you haven’t been. men go for pleasant women period all of the window dressing is window dressing.”

    Statistics and a walk down the street does not bear this out. Rarely do people marry across vastly divergent socio-economic lines.

  107. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Keep dreaming about that sexual and marriage competition The grand Cannon”

    Dreaming? Frankly I’d love it if humans were partial to mating across vastly divergent class lines. It would have worked in my favor.

  108. MarcusD says:

    Partner’s sexuality (I really wonder about people like the OP…)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=880080

  109. Opus says:

    Running a business is surely not easy – conflicting demands – yet I cannot help but suspect that behind it all and Miss Douglass’ less than explicit explanation of what went wrong, and when and how, is the probability of sex -much like Godzilla – rearing its ugly head. Brian, the perfect fiancée, walked – or was he pushed. What about the developer Parnell (the real brains?) who also bailed – people do like to get paid – or did he have a better offer. She is thirty-four and perhaps the media attention (no less than four pages worth on YouTube) has persuaded her that she is considerably more sexually desirable – and marriageable – than she really is. A nerd male CEO can marry a young and desirable woman; the same is not the case with a less-than-hot female CEO. That is why female business success will never do for a woman what it will do for a man.

    I have seen some of her videos including one where she lectures in front of a room of, largely, men; she is, to be frank, less than impressive – whiny, indistinct voice, physically hardly imposing. She complains on Twitter about being mistaken for the typist – but that is what she looks and sounds like. I do not doubt that America has many capable females but Erica just does not seem to be cut from that cloth. How on earth did a woman aged twenty, seemingly without any education, or any IT skills create a company, in a seemingly cut-throat industry which she can sell six years later for over a Million Dollars. It is what we are not being told, here, that is important.

    She appears to have believed her own publicity.

  110. Rookie Writer says:

    It’s hard to grasp that she is at peace with

    A) Breaking someones heart
    B) Nose diving her company and all the money.

    The last thing I want to hear as an investor is that I lost all your money from a CEO.

  111. jf12 says:

    greyghost sez correctly “A pleasant woman is always competition for any man with any woman.” BTW for the definitionally challenged “a pleasant woman” means “pleasing a man”. I fully expect unpleasing women to dispute it.

  112. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    Steve’s sentence may have been unclear, but the “her” he was referring to was Miss Douglass, not Jamie Dimon.

    I’ll agree on a third reading that it is ambiguous. So is the beard of “Steve”…

    Some company will hire her just for the sake of having a front-woman — although they might be smart enough after this to make sure to keep her well away from any aspect of their work that matters. She’ll land on her feet and have people asking her opinion and hanging on her word again in no time.

    Unfortunately this is true. “Equal Opportunity” has over time morphed into de facto quotas. I once worked at a job where the boss’s son was given a mildly prominent role in management. He was arrogant and difficult to work with or for, and all too often found a way to blame his own mistakes on others. Nobody could tell the boss this, because his son could do no wrong. This was not good for the operation in the long or short run.

    De facto quotas have a tendency to make the favored ones into an equivalent of the “boss’s son”, the person who cannot be allowed to fail, and if they do then they must be picked right up ASAP. The person who clearly and obviously would not be where they are, were it not for “Daddy says so”.

    Knowing at some level that there will always be a man around to pick a woman up can only make her solipsism all the worse.

  113. Dalrock says:

    @MarcusD

    Partner’s sexuality (I really wonder about people like the OP…)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=880080

    You have to love how she is worried that the man she is fornicating with is… sinning sexually.

    One thing which is obvious whenever you read questions from women with disordered/omega men is that the woman is nearly certainly on the wrong side of Rollo’s curve. Young attractive women don’t worry about “fixing” omega men; only divorcées, single mothers, and spinsters do this. There was a similar question on Dear Prudence where a woman’s boyfriend only gets aroused after she has pooped.

  114. jf12 says:

    re: poop. I read it more like “No matter how frequently I keep ducking into the bathroom in order to have an excuse not to have sex, he still wants to have sex.”

  115. You have to love how she is worried that the man she is fornicating with is… sinning sexually.

    And not a single person who posted on the first page of answers, all supposedly Catholics, said, “Stop having sex with a man who isn’t your husband!” Depressing, but I refuse to let Marcus pull me into arguing with those people. They’d ban me in a day anyway.

  116. Steve H says:

    Anonymous Reader – it is a distinctly feminine trait to attack the speaker rather than the speech. Women do that when they have no cogent retorts to any remotely thoughtful statement.

    Another angle – I question any interpretation of this story which concludes that this terrible woman is *more wrong* than Jamie Dimon et al *because of* her revolting hubris and solipsism. What I think we all object to is the presence of adoring fan-girls who will validate her narrative of ‘who cares that this tanked, my sky was more beautiful than ever this morning because my struggle taught me blah blah blah…’. Of course her male counterparts didn’t ask for sympathy. Because they *knew* what universal reaction that would prompt. For women, they get the ‘benefit’ of vapid idiots validating their horrid choices if not horrid intentions. I get it, and I’m with you there.

    That said – looking forward to another topic where I can disabuse myself of having staked a position which is immediately conflated to white-knighting by some here. So settle down, AR.

  117. Lyn87 says:

    Cail,

    And not a single person who posted on the first page of answers, all supposedly Catholics, said, “Stop having sex with a man who isn’t your husband!” Depressing, but I refuse to let Marcus pull me into arguing with those people. They’d ban me in a day anyway.

    One guy finally did say something to that effect on Page 2: the guy who goes under the name 3Doctors. But his language was so weak it would be easy to miss the fact that he told her to stop screwing around herself. I had to read it twice before I realized that he was telling her to stop fornicating. But even then… in his second post he dialed back his tone. But you’re right – none of the initial responses even mentioned that she was wrong herself, and at no point did anyone ever tell her in plain English that her fornication with her boyfriend was just as bad as his weird fetish, or even that her participating in that fornication was, objectively, wrong in and of itself.

    Plenty of criticism for him, though. Justified, no doubt, but why were none of those good Catholics willing to call fornication a sin when the female writer openly admitted to it? One commentator even wrote that the boyfriend’s porn use was, by itself, cheating on her with other women. I cannot imagine the mental gymnastics required to equate porn use by a single man with “cheating” on his f*<k-buddy – while completely ignoring her admission that she is his f*<k-buddy.

    Call me a crazy fundie Protestant, but my first response to her question would have been something like this: “You’re committing fornication with this guy. Both of you are guilty of that, and his fetish is nothing more than an additional weirdness to the sin you are both equally committing. You need to repent, break off the relationship, and start keeping your legs together. Once that’s done, you should start working on avoiding bad relationships. And by the way, if you meet a good guy in the future who is considering you as a wife, he deserves to know this part of your past.”

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

    lzozozozolzlozolzozlzzo

    “There was a similar question on Dear Prudence where a woman’s boyfriend only gets aroused after she has pooped.”

    Good to see dalrockzas focuszing on da Boxerian Marcusianz poopyz poo holelzlzoz chutez instead of Homer, Virgil (made up fairy tales accroding to dalrockainasf frankfartain flockasz), Moses, and JEsus (Who came to abolish da law of moses according to dalrockina frnakfartian flock fanboyz zlzozozl)–da more exalted realm of mankindsz.

    Expectz a big instalanchesz for your yeoman’s poopyp poopz workz zlzlzozlzozozo buztzexthztzz! zlzlzoz

  119. Almost every American I’ve ever met fancies him or herself a “leader” of some sort. Its baffling to us outsiders.

    I’m American and I wish I were more like this. I battle crushing self-doubt every day.

    This woman mentions a goal of making $10K/month from “writing.” What content? What the hell is she thinking?

    How do these balloon-heads float thru life like this?

  120. deti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    “You have to love how [the woman in the CatholicForums post MarcusD commented on] is worried that the man she is fornicating with is… sinning sexually.”

    I just laughed out loud.

    Thanks. I needed that.

  121. Lyn87, I found that poster too, at reply #29. And even then, someone had to nitpick over his wording, and ignore the rest of what he said. You’ll note that many also shrugged off his masturbation as no big deal separate from the porn and cross-dressing, even though Catholics believe masturbation is a serious sexual sin — St. Thomas Aquinas thought it might be worse than fornication.

    I’ve dealt with Catholic Answers and CAF before. There are plenty of Catholics who would give her the straight talk about sin, but they don’t last long at CAF. So much for the “explain and defend the faith” claim in the site’s logo. They’re churchians through-and-through, just with an added whiff of incense and clatter of distant rosary beads.

  122. Lyn87 says:

    Cail,

    I figured you’d seen 3Doctors since you stipulated that the Page 1 commentators had ignored it and he first appears on Page 2. I’m shocked that it took so many commentators before anyone even mentioned – and even then in the most mealy-mouthed way possible – that she ought to reconsider her own actions, even though they are objectively as bad as his. And even then, 3Doctor’s biggest beef was with her use of the term “partner” rather than “boyfriend.” … Really? THAT’s what he took away from her letter?

    I’m sure there are some Catholics who might call her out in plain English, but none have so far. But as a fundie Protestant, I can’t say that “our” sites are much better. All sorts of nonsense gets tossed around, and attempts to counter are usually met with either silence or accusations of “legalism.”

  123. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Steve” H
    Anonymous Reader – it is a distinctly feminine trait to attack the speaker rather than the speech. Women do that when they have no cogent retorts to any remotely thoughtful statement.

    This is true. It is good of you to be sufficiently self aware to admit it. Now, what is your purpose here, again?

    Another angle – I question any interpretation of this story which concludes that this terrible woman is *more wrong* than Jamie Dimon et al *because of* her revolting hubris and solipsism.

    Gee, that’s great. So what? I don’t see anyone besides you bothering with this strawman. You’re the one who dragged the “more bad” notion in via your MDTT, as you should be aware.

    What I think we all object to is the presence of adoring fan-girls who will validate her narrative of ‘who cares that this tanked, my sky was more beautiful than ever this morning because my struggle taught me blah blah blah…’.

    That part of the Female Imperative (the 4:1 ingroup preference) is part of it, yes, but the naked solipsism is extremely obvious. As Rollo pointed out, the blog posting in question is a very pure example of female solipsism. That is why it is useful to be able to point to, when women put that wide-eyed look on and bleat, “Solipsism? Whatever are you talking about?”. A concrete, clear, easy to explain example is much more useful than any number of hypotheticals.

    But here’s one anyway: I don’t object to a cat sharpening its claws per se, it is not “more bad” than a dog urinating. I do object to a cat clawing my couch, or a dog pissing in my house. The actions in question are natural, they are inherent to cats and dogs, it’s just an issue of the appropriate venue. That’s what house training is about. Now, don’t get your dress up over your head, I’m not trying to overtly compare women to house pets. I’m pointing out that actions can be value neutral inherently, be harmless in the proper context, and very harmful in the wrong context.

    Similarly, the inherent solipsism of women is not “more bad” than some trait in men, rather it is something that needs to be properly directed – time and place, as it were. In the modern world, where it’s a major fight to even discuss solipsism, where men and women posing as men dive into comment threads with “Men Do That Too!”, strawman arguments and other irrelevencies in order to take the focus away from the inherent solipsism of women, a lot of time and effort has to be expended stating that which is painfully obvious. It would be a lot easier if people, men and women, could acknowledge such things. But since we swim in a putrid sea of feminism, we must constantly be revisiting basic facts, such as female solipsism. It exists, it’s real, and if it is left uncontrolled it can do real damage to people.

    Of course her male counterparts didn’t ask for sympathy. Because they *knew* what universal reaction that would prompt. For women, they get the ‘benefit’ of vapid idiots validating their horrid choices if not horrid intentions. I get it, and I’m with you there.

    Good. That didn’t take too long, did it? Didn’t hurt too much, eh?
    And again, it’s apparently something inherent in women, the 4:1 ingroup preference. It’s a feature, although it can be a dangerous bug in certain situations – such as most HR departments nowadays, where a queen bee is surrounded by her worker bees and a few drones for diversity. This is the kind of mini empire that facilitates “sexual harassment” jihads, for example.

    That said – looking forward to another topic where I can disabuse myself of having staked a position which is immediately conflated to white-knighting by some here. So settle down, AR.

    Sure, “Steve”, I”m quite calm. Just quit pretending to be Mom and we’ll get along a bit better.
    And do let us know what your real purpose is, sometime.

  124. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anti-Gnostic
    This woman mentions a goal of making $10K/month from “writing.” What content? What the hell is she thinking?

    Perhaps she’s close friends with a certain Nigerian prince…and you can be his friend, too!

  125. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87, Cail Corishev, I’m sure both of you recall Empathalogicalism’s mention of his efforts on christianforums to deal out straight quotes from the Bible, and where it got him. I spent a little time reading that site a while back, and it’s pretty much gynocentric. I saw a lot of “Judge not” and “let him without sin cast the first stone” blather, there was a definite picking and choosing of quotes from the Bible to serve the FI going on .

    I can sum Christianforums up with the signature line of one regular named “Dallas”, it was something like this: “I get to define what it is to be a woman, and it is AWESOME!”. From a purely social and biological point of view, this is nonsense. It’s also nonsense from the perspective of the BIble. In fact, it’s nonsense in every way I can think of.

  126. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sorry, did not finish my thought. From both CAF and Christianforums, small sample though they are, it seems likely that any online forum allowing comments that is not explicitly opposed to feminism and gynocentricity (but I repeat myself) will, in time, come to be gynocentric. Either someone polices the comments to some degree, or the environment is “hostile to women”, or eventually the women take over. Because women will support each other against men (4:1 ingroup preference), saving the eye-scratching for later, and so divergent opinions get treated badly while some sort of groupthin…er…”consensus” builds up.

    Clearly, CAF and Christianforums whatever they may have been, are now gynocentric, traditionalist feminist sites, and thus the Female Imperative will be served there.

  127. Lyn87 says:

    AR,

    I haven’t seen what Empathalogicalism wrote, but now I’m curious. I just wandered over to christianfourms (never been there before), and I saw that there are currently 12 pages of responses to someone who asked if it was possible to be both an atheist and a Christian.

    I don’t get it: that question can be answered with a single word: No… and even a wordy explanation of why that is true wouldn’t take up more than a few lines of text.

  128. AR, yes, those sites are the religious version of the saying, “Any organization not explicitly right-wing eventually becomes left-wing.” If you don’t bind an organization tightly to specific principles and vigilantly exclude those who would weaken and remove those principles, they will gradually take over and reverse the organization’s purpose. Given the kind of advice that gets dressed up and sold to ignorant searchers as “Catholic” at CAF, it would be better if it didn’t exist at all. It’s not just badly Catholic (and Christian) anymore, it’s anti-, as that thread shows.

  129. Knowing at some level that there will always be a man around to pick a woman up can only make her solipsism all the worse.

    And when the men who pick up the pieces behind her are invisible, that makes it worse yet because she doesn’t even see that pieces-picking-up was necessary. Stuff just works out in her wake wherever she goes, so why worry about it?

  130. Lyn87 says:

    TFH,

    Good point. Another way to bring that point home is to ask these questions:

    1) How many women do you know who live significantly above their level of economic productivity?

    2) How many men do you know who live significantly below their level of economic productivity?

    The answer to Question 1 is most – the answer to Question 2 is also most. It’s easy – most women’s lifestyle is higher than what their economic productivity by itself would grant them. The additional resources may come from an individual man or from the government (funded mostly by men), but it’s there nonetheless. Men, on the other hand, almost always divert a significant percentage of the fruits of their labors toward women. Those may be wives or welfare queens, but resources generally flow from men to women.

    That was fine for millennia, when women earned their keep in other ways – but when women decided to chuck femininity and compete with men economically (and failing spectacularly), subsidizing Empowered Women [TM] becomes an exercise is cultural hari-kari.

  131. jf12 says:

    @Lyn87 “the lifestyle she was accustomed to” was (and/or is) a legal principle.

  132. feeriker says:

    …are usually met with either silence or accusations of “legalism.”

    At the risk of veering badly OT (but beneficial, I think, for purposes of future discussion), does anyone else agree that an adequate definition of the term “legalism” would something along the lines of:

    “Condemning or prohibiting behaviors as ‘sinful’ or ‘unbiblical’ that are in no way decreed as such in the Bible, but which are, in the opinions of self-described ‘experts’ on the Scriprures, not reconcilable with a Christ-centered lifestyle and therefore not permissible to Christians.”

    Fundamentalist attitudes toward, say, dancing or consumption of alcohol (not to be conflated with drunkenness) are two examples.

    I bring this up because I frequently hear churchians in the process of hamsterbating their behavior that is clearly condemned by the Bible (e.g., frivorce, fornication) accuse those who point out their sins of “legalism,” when in fact they are clearly and legitimately sinning.

  133. Here’s a literal extract from Erica’s post:

    I my I I I my I I’ll I I my me I I my me I I my myself I I me I I I my I I I I my I I my me I I my I my preferences me I I my I I my I I me I me me myself I me my I my I I I my I I I My I I I I I my I my me I I I my me I I’d my I I my I My I I I I I I my I I I my I myself myself My I myself me I I I my I me me I’ve my my I I I me I I me I me I I my myself I my I I I I I my me I I I me I I I I myself I I I’m myself I I me my my my I I I’m I’m me my me I’m I lost your money.

    With love,
    Erica

  134. Steve H says:

    Anonymous, let’s lose the ad hominems, ok? If you must condescend, I’d appreciate the absence of invective. I accurately pointed out that you took a feminine debating tact by attacking the speaker, not the speech. And you responded that I’m a dress-wearing woman (or: the speaker is a fraud, disregard his speech!). Let’s rise above that.

    Now, responding to this as fairly as I can: “Gee, that’s great. So what? I don’t see anyone besides you bothering with this strawman. You’re the one who dragged the “more bad” notion in via your MDTT, as you should be aware.”

    Let’s have a look at 5 other original comments from within the first handful from the top. All due respect to those who posted them.

    “most men would be thinking of committing Hara-kiri after such a catastrophic failure.”

    i’d say this is empircally false in the US. perhaps it’s true in japan. most men have done some variation of ‘poolside in america’ after fleecing investors and/or employees. but the point is – this statement confers default honor onto ‘most men’. I wish that were the case more often! That goes back to my blustery meta-statement regarding if, or where, there might be a constructive role for my voice in the ‘Sphere further up.

    “Companies fail all of the time. But it is truly appalling that she is choosing to make this about her own personal journey. She is not apologetic at all about losing other people’s money.”

    This infers that this particular iteration of company failure is comparatively ‘truly appalling’, as opposed to the normative failures which happen ‘all the time’. And it singularly targets her for being ‘not apologetic’. But of course, this iteration involves a woman CEO. Everyone *should* be apologetic, regardless how normative any failure in which investors/employees got fleeced.

    “men profit from exploiting the weakness of others, sure, and often people get hurt. BUT at least someone profits.”

    This to me seems like a naked way of saying that men doing this commensurate action is ‘less bad’ because something constructive has resulted (‘at least someone profits’). I’d disagree.

    “Those clients who were less than thrilled to have funded her personal growth are the worst kind of misogynists who deserved to lose their money anyway.”

    Would we say “those clients who were less than thrilled to have funded Enron CEOs’ lavish excursions are the worst kind of misandrists who deserved to lose their money anyway”??

    Thanks again for the opportunity to play sincere contrarian here. Respect.

  135. MarcusD says:

    Barbara Kay: IVF for obese women is a wish, not a right
    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/05/barbara-kay-ivf-for-obese-women-is-a-wish-not-a-right/

    .

    Wherever one stands, it makes perfect sense that Canadian women should consider IVF a human right to be funded by the state. After all, our society considers it has a moral obligation to ensure a woman’s absolute right to rid herself of a baby she has conceived naturally, but doesn’t want. So why shouldn’t a woman presume she has the parallel absolute right to the best available shot at having a baby she can’t produce naturally, but does want?

    Trouble is, IVF is not only expensive, it is unreliable. About a third of IVF procedures fail to produce a viable embryo. And in a universal health system, ethical triage should be applied. Just last week, a gay couple in Quebec, where IVF for women has been funded for the last few years, announced a surrogate mother they had contracted with (illegally but that’s not today’s issue) was carrying twins fertilized with their mingled sperm, all paid for by a government that already spends $70 million annually in IVF treatments for women having difficulty conceiving, and for lesbians. That money could have conferred the blessings of palliative care on many suffering terminal patients, to point to one of any number of more humane uses for the funds.

    There’ll be more of this in the future, primarily due to delay of marriage and subsequent child-bearing (especially for UMC and up).

    Oh, wait…

    the IVF industry only really took off when women started delaying pregnancy past the point of easy conception. Peak fertility ends before age 30. After age 35, conception rates plunge, and by 40, the odds of successful natural conception are slim. Fertility clinics are in large part catering to counter-productive cultural trends. Should the state endorse and encourage such actions?

    Funny thing, some woman on CAF could not believe the suggestion that fertility drops off after 30 for woman: http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11225794&postcount=261

    Second sentence of reply – BTW, she claims to have four degrees…

  136. Steve, you seem determined to miss the point, but you’re doing a good job of showing how hard people will work to avoid talking about uncomfortable truths about women, so thanks for that.

    Also, just a tip: men really don’t care how many times you claim to respect them, if you follow it with nitpicking and trying to parse their words into meaning what you want them to be saying rather than what they clearly state that they are saying.

  137. Lyn87 says:

    freeriker,

    I agree in principle: the fundamentalist movement that started in the early part of the 20th Century was about getting back to scriptural basics and Christian living. I would argue that prohibitions against such things as dancing or consuming alcohol are not part of fundamentalism, since neither of those activities is prohibited in scripture. A lot of people who made up (and currently make up) the fundamentalist movement have, indeed, declared that sin means “things of which they disapprove,” but such is no more scripturally-sound than liberal theological positions that allow, for example, women to be pastors.

    I describe myself as a fundamentalist because I accept the doctrine of Sola Sciptura and thus stand against both unscriptural restrictiveness and unscriptural permissiveness. I had a bit of red wine with my dinner just the other day, for example, and I defy anyone to show me that it was sinful. By the same token, if I entered a church and a woman stood up to preach, I would walk out immediately.

  138. Opus says:

    Would I be correct in suspecting that the business operations of the sort that Erica Douglass was involved in – the blogging, the speaking engagements and so on – are in essence get-rich-quick schemes, where the substance of what she produces (if anything) is of an absolute minimum.

    I just wish I had the gall to run such a site and with no less than twelve thousand subscribers – or so she says – or give motivational speeches (you can hear for yourself her ‘tips’ on YouTube) and without the embarrassment of knowing that I was fooling people – and perhaps myself. I am tempted to say that Douglass being female has a built in advantage as no one will suspect scam or Ponzi scheme – but she manages all this without even being good-looking – or does that help.

    What, by the way, is a Consultant, and what does a Consultant do? She proposes just a couple of months of consulting to get back on her financial feet – can it be that well paid. Who would ‘consult’ her and about what – other than her feelings – that would be worth paying for?

    Her solipsism (and evasiveness) is of course breath-taking, and yet as you can see from Erica.Biz she still has myriads of adoring fans. By complete chance (over the week-end – we also had a public holiday) my buddy and I were discussing vie e-mails a woman – just turned forty but fit – into pretty much the same sort of thing as Erica and being the 21st Century everything we needed to know about her was available on the web – alI I began with was a photograph, but that is all I needed to research her: she is long on tales of financial acumen; obsessed with money in fact, yet her seven jobs in twice as many years suggests she is at the least economical with the truth as to her wealth or success in acquiring it. I discovered that she is a member of a Capitalism and Christianity group; I also discovered that she reads books with the tile such as Soulmates, Men are from Mars and How to find your Perfect Man. I can happily predict that only men with the looks of Brad Pitt, the charm of George Clooney and the money of George Sorros will interest her, and yet she is beyond her avaricious nature an unremarkable girl – and still pursuing pointless degrees. As a Spinster and Childless she is a of course a failure as a woman, no matter how much she makes. My friend and I had a lot of amusement at her expense.

    All my friend (who has met her on some motivational speaking stint) and I am interested in is can we bed her (and before she hits the wall).

  139. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    You have to love how she is worried that the man she is fornicating with is… sinning sexually.

    One thing which is obvious whenever you read questions from women with disordered/omega men is that the woman is nearly certainly on the wrong side of Rollo’s curve. Young attractive women don’t worry about “fixing” omega men; only divorcées, single mothers, and spinsters do this.

    They seem to miss that obvious fact (nearly always when the OP is a woman).

    There are at least two threads every day on CAF that are just like that one.

    But, even young, attractive women seem to have their strange choices – one thread detailed a women (21-22 y/o, I think) who was determined to marry a man with at least one strain of HPV (and herpes, too). He was “so attractive” – they’d make it work (apparently – sex a fews time a month to avoid transmission).

    Anyhow, it is always fascinating to the SMP demonstrated on CAF.

    Depressing, but I refuse to let Marcus pull me into arguing with those people.

    Certainly not trying to get anyone arguing with them. I have a 25 page thread mirrored that shows how absolutely futile it is to even think of arguing, no matter how many facts you have and how logical, fallacy-free, and unemotional your arguments are.

    There are plenty of Catholics who would give her the straight talk about sin, but they don’t last long at CAF.

    Clearly, CAF and Christianforums whatever they may have been, are now gynocentric, traditionalist feminist sites, and thus the Female Imperative will be served there.

    Yes, that is something that I’ve noticed over the years I’ve been reading CAF. It’s a feedback effect – they (real Catholics who stand up for the faith) already feel outnumbered, and they are usually targeted as “judgmental” (etc). They end up leaving, making the remaining ones of their ilk feel even more outnumbered. What’s interesting is that the tradcon/feminist Catholics on CAF hear dissenting views less and less and (in my estimation and understanding) react more strongly to them (and so, back to the feedback effect).

  140. Steve H says:

    Cail, I don’t particularly mind if I’m not respected in turn. It is simply my tact in attempting to facilitate the degree of civility I’d prefer in discourse – to disagree without being disagreeable. And to make my points heard to whatever extent possible. But I am surprised to see the degree to which this blog can be an echo chamber at times. I am libertarian and red-pill to the core, though few here may believe me, and so be it. And in fairness, perhaps it’s about my enjoyment of being the contrarian and claiming the righteous high-ground too. So with that I thank you for the discussion, and perhaps I’ll re-emerge to comment another day if I have a salient point expounding upon an existing consensus opinion here. Respect.

  141. Mark says:

    @GBFM

    “”Good to see dalrockzas focuszing on da Boxerian Marcusianz poopyz poo holelzlzoz chutez instead of Homer, Virgil (made up fairy tales accroding to dalrockainasf frankfartain flockasz), Moses, and JEsus (Who came to abolish da law of moses according to dalrockina frnakfartian flock fanboyz zlzozozl)–da more exalted realm of mankindsz.””

    Do you have a problem with the English language?….or are you just retarded?

  142. greyghost says:

    Steve H
    If you were /are as red pill as you claim to be you would not need to comment as you have. You claim to be red pill as a credential to add weight to your words. The only thing required is truth and logic. A poor man and a rich man black man, white man even women are respected for truth and logic. Truth and logic are all that matters. We do disagree on how to shift the culture. To some that would entail sin big time sin.

  143. theasdgamer says:

    @ Marcus

    From the poster on CAF: “If the paper goes against every common sense, I am sorry but it means there is something wrong with the paper.”

    Translation: “If scientific research contradicts feminist propaganda, then I must reject scientific research.”

  144. Jeb Kinnison says:

    It’s a good thing we have the mechanism of reputation to keep people like this out of business. Her courageous dumping of responsibility means it’s very unlikely anyone will invest in her or make her responsible for anything larger than a fast-food stand again (and even that seems too big for her.)

    I don’t agree with people here who think *all* woman are this self-centered and emotion-driven. There’s a lot of similar behavior (narcissism) on the male side these days, and some women can be fierce and responsible when required. It’s a shame when people take the worst examples and label an entire group because of it. Unfortunately we have a cultural zeitgeist that rewards emo-driven thinking, and little recent experience of privation and existential danger which would restore vigilance and long-term goals to primacy. News is now mostly infotainment about emo topics, manipulated to give power to those who promise an easy life for the delicate flowers who watch it.

    There has to be failure to produce change.

  145. enrique432 says:

    Hope Dalrock picks up on this one, I just read the first installment today, and it will simply be a most delicious feast for the Manosphere, esepecially with the indication this is only the first installment of her mutlipart navel-gazing series:

    https://www.yahoo.com/travel/i-lost-my-job-my-marriage-and-my-home-so-i-climbed-84559157272.html

    I assume she is going to pull an Eat, Pray, Love thing, because she drops the early hint about how perfect her husband was, according to everyone else. Seems likely future installments will fully take him down for her unhappiness.

    Hint as you read: She’s NOT fat, and she’s ONLY 40.

  146. MarcusD says:

    @asd

    From the poster on CAF: “If the paper goes against every common sense, I am sorry but it means there is something wrong with the paper.”

    Translation: “If scientific research contradicts feminist propaganda, then I must reject scientific research.”

    The poster is being perfectly ridiculous. For a while I thought she/he/it was a troll (for a variety of reasons), but now I think she is indeed real. It’s not even necessarily related to feminist propaganda (at least the fertility part), but rather denialism in support of feminist delusions (e.g. women can wait until their late 30s/early 40s to have children, with no possible negative effects or outcomes). I know plenty of women who waited until they had an established career (e.g. 35-40) and realized they can no longer have children (or maybe just one), and that giving birth in one’s late 30s is much harder. It also sometimes costs them $100,000+ for fertility treatments – guess who helps pay for that?

  147. enrique432 says:

    “The 360-degree view [Kilimanjaro] was tremendous, but what intoxicated me was the sheer adrenaline around my sense of accomplishment and my surprise at what my mind and body could do.”

  148. Don's Johnson says:

    Steve,
    Being a contrarian is fine, if your contradiction is based in reality, and not simply mincing words. You call yourself a contrarian, but I would call your posts an example of a red herring. You shouldn’t be surprised some people think you’re a woman. You’re parsing words and debating minutiae instead of the topic at hand: The solipsistic nature of this letter, from a supposedly professional woman, that highlights her own solipsism. Not only is she not derided for her error, she gets pats on the back for letting her emotions ruin a company in her charge. This topic isn’t man good, woman bad. It’s highlighting the absurdity of her rationalization, and how laughable it would be to see a man do the same. He wouldn’t be getting a “you go boy”, I can assure you of that.


    “most men would be thinking of committing Hara-kiri after such a catastrophic failure.”

    i’d say this is empircally false in the US. perhaps it’s true in japan. most men have done some variation of ‘poolside in america’ after fleecing investors and/or employees. but the point is – this statement confers default honor onto ‘most men’. I wish that were the case more often! That goes back to my blustery meta-statement regarding if, or where, there might be a constructive role for my voice in the ‘Sphere further up.”

    This is Apex fallacy of the highest order, and furthermore is not the topic of debate. “Most men” are not CEOs or hedge fund managers. Ken Lay is not “most men”. “Most men” have never fleeced anyone. As has been pointed out numerous times, the thread isn’t using the failure as the example, but the “apology”. If Kenneth Lay had sent a letter that extolled his new purpose in life, downplaying the people left in the wake, and boldly offering his services as a consultant, maybe your example would hold water. I would love to see your empirical evidence that “most men” have fleeced investors and/or employees.

    Next:
    “Companies fail all of the time. But it is truly appalling that she is choosing to make this about her own personal journey. She is not apologetic at all about losing other people’s money.”

    This infers that this particular iteration of company failure is comparatively ‘truly appalling’, as opposed to the normative failures which happen ‘all the time’. And it singularly targets her for being ‘not apologetic’. But of course, this iteration involves a woman CEO. Everyone *should* be apologetic, regardless how normative any failure in which investors/employees got fleeced.

    Semantics. It isn’t the failure, but the REACTION to said failure. But you probably know that.

    Next:
    “men profit from exploiting the weakness of others, sure, and often people get hurt. BUT at least someone profits.”

    This to me seems like a naked way of saying that men doing this commensurate action is ‘less bad’ because something constructive has resulted (‘at least someone profits’). I’d disagree.

    I would agree here. Exploiting weakness is not a vritue by either sex, regardless of outcome.

  149. Spacetraveller says:

    @ Marcus D and co,

    About that woman who was worried about her (sexually) deviant ‘partner’, to be fair, the very first response was from a woman who was disapproving of the OP, or at least the OP’s choices (Avocadomom). Also, there was another woman (Vicki63) on the first page who specifically gave advice about being celibate before marriage…
    But fair enough, 3Doctors was about the only other one who called out the OP. Everyone else was focussing on the partner (who was not there to defend himself).

    The other link I was interested in, Marcus D, was the one where a woman was complaining about an abusive boyfriend (I think it was called ‘shall I marry him?’)
    It is interesting, this phenomenon. A woman gives a one-sided story about ‘abuse’ and well-meaning outsiders immediately assume she is correct about the alleged abuse. A few carefully-worded phrases from her, and she is flooded with sympathy fom whiteknights and sympathising fellow women. I described this phenomenon in my post ‘the quiet man’. It is sad to see, because the man is presumed guilty just on her say-so. And usually, he doesn’t defend himself. He remains quiet.

    I think I now understand why men remain quiet in this situation, but it is infuriating for those who have HIS best interests at heart, who would rather his side of the story were heard…

    Women ‘own’ the social arena, so it is easy for men to be ‘played’ in this way. No easy solution, except for women to be more honest about so-called ‘abuse’.
    Of course there are genuine cases of real abuse – I don’t argue about those. But there are far too many examples of a woman just ‘blowing smoke’ in people’s faces, and her word is taken as fact.

    In the end, it is all about dishonesty.
    The woman Dalrock is talking about here in his post is simply being dishonest. She lost other people’s money, and instead of being humble about it and putting her hand up and admitting it, she ‘moves the goal-posts’ and redefines her crime as an ‘exercise in empowerment’. Yes, we can see through it, but she thinks we are stupid…The ‘feelings’ thing is just a smoke-screen to deflect from her real failure to handle the invested money.
    She is effectively ‘gas-lighting’ the rest of us. (I hope everyoen knows what I mean – from the movie ‘gaslight’).

    Of course there are corrupt men (and women) in the banking industry, but most of them at least own up when they are caught. This one is brazen enough to keep lying to her investors.

    Bold dishonesty of the worst kind…

    Her fiance is indeed a lucky man to have been ‘let go’. If he had gone on to marry her, I fear he may have paid a very high price indeed.

    So…thank God for small mercies…🙂

  150. Pingback: the Revision Division

  151. Lyn87 says:

    @ enrique432: regarding the woman who detonated her marriage, lost her home and job, and consoled herself with a luxury trip to climb Kilimanjaro.

    Fascinating story. I looked up some of the details of a trip like the one she took. While complaining about the diminution of her luxury lifestyle and spinsterhood, she probably spent $8000 to $10,000 to climb a really big hill in Africa, with a large pack of swarthy men carrying her gear. The cost of the tour alone is more than $5000 after taxes. One marvels at the mindset that allows a post-40, divorced, unemployed woman – sharing a crappy apartment with a friend-of-a-friend – to simultaneously claim both poverty and empowerment.

    Where did that money come from? Oh, that’s right… she’s divorced. I imagine her ex paid for it in the form of alimony. The parallels to the original story are clear – an Empowered Woman [TM] goes through a crapload of (probably other people’s) money, but it’s all good because it makes her feel better about herself.

    At least she only blew a few thousand dollars rather than $640K.

  152. Opus says:

    The poster (whoever he may be) has the patience of a Saint with commenter MaryMary (age 38 and surely Irish) linked by Marcus D. Her level of reasoning (rhetorical devices such as Strawman and ad hominem) and use of English struck me as somewhat unconvincing – but perhaps it was the ranting – such that I was amazed to learn that she has 1 Bachelors 2 Masters and 1 Doctorate as well as being a practising lawyer. At comment 265 we even had an example of Godwin’s Law which always cheers me that we are moving into incoherence.

    My definition of Misogyny: anything that draws attention to the fact that women do not get better looking more fertile or more desirable as they rush towards the wall. No wonder they need all those degrees.

  153. Opus, I haven’t looked closely at her site, but at first glance it does have the smell of generic Make-Money-Online Internet Marketing, which often boils down to selling people e-books and seminars on how to get rich online, usually by selling e-books and seminars teaching others how to get rich online….

    MarcusD, I was just kidding about you trying to draw me in. As a Catholic, though, I do sometimes feel a duty to go straighten out harmful sites like CAF with a bracing dose of orthodoxy. Then I remember that they wouldn’t listen, and it usually passes. I actually tried to register there today, but the verification email never came, so maybe they saw me coming.

  154. enrique432 says:

    Lyn87: Yep. The “self talk” these women engage in, which used to be, as the words imply, only to themselves, has taken on such a public display the last 25 years, with increasing force. Her “blog” as it is formed on Yahoo, basically has the same terms as so many others, “girl” stuff, “empowerment”, “pouring myself blah blah”. Lot’s of self-serving references too…like the “even I was surprised by how wonderful I was/am”. Which is just one narcissistic step closer to pathology than the once famous girl line “All my (girlfriends) say…INSERT SELF PRAISE”

    Anytime I hear a woman refer to “pouring” herself in, on, or around anything, my flags of insincerity are raised, especially when they do it “with every tear”. Curious to hear if she “poured” through her ex-husband’s finances to find her “empowerment”.

    We shall see. Part two must be coming soon, and she has laid the Eat, Pray, Love groundwork, about how everyone ELSE thought he was a great guy. “But something was missing” cannot be far behind…
    ……………….buried shallow in her navel, gazed a feminist darkly.

  155. The Grand Cannon says:

    “I haven’t seen what Empathalogicalism wrote, but now I’m curious. I just wandered over to christianfourms (never been there before), and I saw that there are currently 12 pages of responses to someone who asked if it was possible to be both an atheist and a Christian.

    I don’t get it: that question can be answered with a single word: No”

    Not so fast. I’ve heard several people argue very convincingly that it is possible to be a Jew and an atheist at the same time, so……

  156. enrique432 says:

    You can be a Jew and ANYTHING…except a believer in Yeshua…you can be a Jew and an anti-Semite, but you had BETTER not be Messianic.

    Trust me on that. Es la verdad.

  157. Lyn87 says:

    Grand Cannon,

    I assume you’re being /s, but for those who don’t know, it is possible to be both a Jew and an atheist, but only in the sense that the word Jew can denote either an ethnicity or a religion. One can be a Jew in the ethnic sense and still be an atheist, while one cannot be a Jew in the religious sense and still be an atheist. Since Christian only applies in the religious sense, one cannot be both Christian and atheist. The person asking the question was confused because his atheist friend attends church and thus considers himself to be a Christian in the cultural sense, but that’s a non-starter – Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ, not a club one joins by attending church services while rejecting the very reason the people there are meeting in the first place.

    Now… one could argue that there are no true atheists at all, in the sense that knowledge of God may exist in everyone, no matter how vociferously they deny it, but that’s a different argument. I’ve debated many people who claim to be atheists, but it’s so easy to tie them into logic knots and self-contradictions that it makes me wonder why anyone would wish to believe such demonstrable tripe. It’s always the same: they start by claiming logic and science as their home turf, them when I crush them in those areas they call me names and go back to their internet echo chambers.

  158. MarcusD says:

    Well, something an old neighbor of mine told me about (he was one): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

  159. MarcusD says:

    (Obviously it’s nonsensical in the way we understand (properly) the term “Christian,” but worth mentioning anyhow.)

  160. desiderian says:

    Jeb,

    “I don’t agree with people here who think *all* woman are this self-centered and emotion-driven. There’s a lot of similar behavior (narcissism) on the male side these days, and some women can be fierce and responsible when required. It’s a shame when people take the worst examples and label an entire group because of it. Unfortunately we have a cultural zeitgeist that rewards emo-driven thinking, and little recent experience of privation and existential danger which would restore vigilance and long-term goals to primacy. News is now mostly infotainment about emo topics, manipulated to give power to those who promise an easy life for the delicate flowers who watch it.

    There has to be failure to produce change.”

    Of course you’re right, but I think you also miss the purpose of the blog, as Dalrock has stated many times. The problems are general human problems, but the culture (both of the usual alternatives it presents, progressives and conservatives) focuses exclusively on men and exempts women for various (ir)reasons.

    This (obviously) exacerbates the problems for women, but also in more subtle ways for men as well.

  161. Mark says:

    @TFH

    “”Obama told Facebook : you will be allowed to operate if you a) become a tool for spying, and b) allow this woman, who is a close insider to me, to be an executive figurehead there, so we can later use her for political purposes, to get more ‘feminist’ legislation passed””

    This is VERY believable! She will be used by Israel also as she was voted one of the top 50 Jews in the world……Shalom!

  162. Mark says:

    @Enrique432

    “”You can be a Jew and ANYTHING…except a believer in Yeshua…you can be a Jew and an anti-Semite, but you had BETTER not be Messianic.””

    Very true!……”Christian Jews” are the despised of us Jews.I know a few of them and they are treated like Pariahs within the Jewish community.

    @Lyn87

    “”for those who don’t know, it is possible to be both a Jew and an atheist””

    Lots of Jews are atheists.I know a lot of them.Jews are some of the most virulent anti-christians around.I also know several Christians that are very “Pro-Jesus” but,anti-Semitic(mostly Catholics).I have to constantly remind them that Jesus was a Jew.

  163. Jeb Kinnison says:

    desiderian:

    “Of course you’re right, but I think you also miss the purpose of the blog, as Dalrock has stated many times. The problems are general human problems, but the culture (both of the usual alternatives it presents, progressives and conservatives) focuses exclusively on men and exempts women for various (ir)reasons.”

    I am just catching up with reading here. I have been around a long time, from the 60s when women and minorities had legitimate grievances about being slotted and prevented from making the most of their natural talents. But as these movements achieved their reasonable goals, they became industries: those who directed them would not recognize that the unfairness had largely been addressed, and created new and unsatisfiable grievances and demands. Creating more passive victims and demanding more power to “solve” their problems, with the intention of course that they will never be solved, but the power in their hands will remain. It’s bad enough that these people gained power, but worse they have turned strong men and women into dependent victims.

    I fully understand why someone would say “women should never have been given the vote.” But they have, and most of the women *I* know use it wisely; it’s just that there are so many who are so easily swayed. In *this* bubble of grievance (Dalrock and similar sites) I see people saying a lot of things which sound an awful lot like grievance-based groupthink. I wrote a book recently about relationships and started the blog to talk about that, so naturally ended up addressing divorce — and of course got an earful from the angry-men-who-were-screwed group, which is large and loud, and I agree many were treated unfairly and led down a primrose path to fleecing. But the anger and the group support don’t make it easier to resolve the problems with family law. All of these problems never get resolved because politicians have the megaphone and control the discourse; and so the tribal grievances grow and harm the lives of many. And just try to say something about teachers (“the average new certified teacher now is from the bottom half of her/his undergraduate class. Why is this not a problem?”) and the little PC antibodies come out of the woodwork to attack you.

    I’ll keep reading and listening to people. I can’t do anything to help but write clearly about how to remove the hand of government from so many parts of our lives where it deadens and truncates our freedoms to achieve. So many problems and in almost every case, you find a bureaucrat, a legislature, or a state-imposed monopoly (education, for example) wasting our substance and killing our drive.

  164. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    A Pastor friend of mine sent me this link awhile ago.Pretty good reading.Check it out.

    http://www.gillistriplett.com/manhood/articles/modern.html

    Here is a site for you.I personally donate to this organization.They are based in Ottawa.They also have an infomercial on TV.Not sure of the channel but,you might see it sometime on one of the Christian channels.

    http://www.ifcj.ca/site/PageServer

  165. The Grand Cannon says:

    “You can be a Jew and ANYTHING…except a believer in Yeshua…you can be a Jew and an anti-Semite, but you had BETTER not be Messianic. ”

    Jews are already Messianic. They are waiting on their Messiah as they have been waiting on him for thousands of years so far. Now if you are talking about the cults “Jews for Jesus” and “Messianic Jews” that’s a whole other flavor of Kool Aid.

    http://usedforjesus.blogspot.com/

    http://exjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/

  166. JDG says:

    I am just catching up with reading here. I have been around a long time, from the 60s when women and minorities had legitimate grievances about being slotted and prevented from making the most of their natural talents.

    I was around in the 60s as well, and I don’t recall women as a group ever being prevented from making the most of their talents. There were women who worked and went to college, however they understood that a career and a family did not mix.

    As a result of the sexual revolution, many bought into the lie that women could and should abandon their formal roles as wife and mother to occupy men’s spaces. Feminists and their followers have collectively bought into the load of bull which says:
    a) women are as capable as men in any and every endeavor
    b) women can have it all (marriage, children, and career)
    c) women don’t need men
    d) women are more moral than men
    e) women are more important than men

    Granted the last two have been around longer than the last couple of centuries; however, before the 1960s there was some give and take in the male female dynamic. Now the societal expectation is all take on the female side, and all give on the male side. And everyone (except the very wealthy) suffers for it.

    Men and women are not and never were equal (as defined by feminists). Patriarchy is the best way I have seen to incorporate the strengths and weaknesses of men and women in a social construct.

  167. The Grand Cannon says:

    “women can have it all (marriage, children, and career)”

    Women (and men too, by the way) can and in fact do have it all. You can’t tell me you don’t know any men and women who simultaneously have successful careers and are good, attentive parents as well? I know several. It may be that instead of taking the raise and a transfer to another city where the commute time increases by an hour, he or she stays in the same position so as to be able to spend more time at home. Trade offs happen, that’s life. But the families that are not struggling financially are those that have at least one parent, more often two, “having it all” – the marriage, the career and the kids. These also tend to be the ones with the longest lasting marriage longevity, i.e. lowest divorce rates.

    The Sexual Revolution began BEFORE the 1960s by the way. But nothing, even as yet, has been “revolutionized” as such. There’s always been promiscuous people.

  168. The Grand Cannon says:

    “And just try to say something about teachers (“the average new certified teacher now is from the bottom half of her/his undergraduate class. Why is this not a problem?”) ”

    They are still well above the average IQ.

    http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/10-college-subjects-with-the-lowest-average-iqs/?utm_source=OT-US&utm_medium=Content-Distribution&utm_campaign=OT-US

    K-12 kids don’t need to be taught by geniuses.

  169. Luke says:

    “You can’t tell me you don’t know any men and women who simultaneously have successful careers and are good, attentive parents as well? ”

    No, not any mothers. They should be at home with their children, spending the days making a home that her husband (the children’s father) will look forward to entering at the end of the day. Careerist women make the career the higher priority over their marriage and their family. Evidence: most work days, they spend their best hours on the job (mostly at made-up cr*p not even needed), giving the job priority rather than their family. That is, she moonlights as a mother.

    “But the families that are not struggling financially are those that have at least one parent, more often two, “having it all” – the marriage, the career and the kids. These also tend to be the ones with the longest lasting marriage longevity, i.e. lowest divorce rates.”

    If you are claiming that careerist women have lower divorce rates (are less likely to frivolously divorce their husbands, the father of their children) than SAH mothers, you couldn’t be more wrong. (Careerist women are also more likely to be adulterers, cuckolders, and deny their husbands sex.) The statistics about this has been described repeatedly on this blog.

    If you need another source before becoming willing to let go of your error, look up Daniel Amneus’s “The Garbage Generation” (it’s all over the internet, viewable for free) and look at the hundreds of references, more than a few relating to this.

  170. JDG says:

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 7, 2014 at 1:06 am

    Yes I can tell you that I know not one single woman who has a career where her children (if she has any) are not suffering for it.

    And Yes I know that feminism began well before the 1960s.

  171. JDG says:

    Luke you are spot on.

  172. Luke says:

    “K-12 kids don’t need to be taught by geniuses.”

    Just not by government employees, members of the NEA/AFT, holders of any degrees awarded by Colleges of Education, or anything any of these people have ever written or spoken.

    (I have two young children both of whom will be homeschooled by my wife and me. With a hard science M.S., and IQ scores commonly exceeding those of ANY teachers in your typical government hellhole school, they’ll almost certainly outdo the poor kids trapped in the latter.)

  173. Jeb Kinnison says:

    Grand Cannon: That site didn’t work on my browser, but I looked it up elsewhere. Elementary education students average 108 IQ, which is about average (it depends on the scale — average has crept up from the original normalization at 100 as people have apparently been getting a bit quicker.) *Average is terrible* for a teacher, even of early grades; “average” means low vocabulary, dull-witted obedience to Conventional Wisdom, and limited creativity. Average is fine for childcare (where emotional responsiveness is most important) but assigning the training of young brains to *average* education school graduates is a terrible loss to the future of those children. This situation is tolerated because it’s unpublicized and union teachers help finance the union-social welfare-bureaucratic machine.

  174. JDG says:

    These also tend to be the ones with the longest lasting marriage longevity, i.e. lowest divorce rates.

    The more a wife makes, the more likely she is to frivorce her husband. The more exposure to high ranking males she has, the more likely she will become dissatisfied in her marriage. And who is tending the children while she is off taking the spot another man could have had?

  175. Luke, the important thing is that, even if you and your wife were high-school dropouts with below-average IQs, your kids would still be better off homeschooled than in a government indoctrination daycare. Too many parents get suckered into thinking if they don’t have degrees they aren’t capable of helping their kids learn.

  176. Luke says:

    “And who is tending the children while she is off taking the spot another man could have had?”

    Wetback daycare to the rescue! Yes, instead of being raised by a native speaker of educated English, YOUR KIDS TOO can learn profane broken pidgin English mixed with gutter Mexican Spanish! Such an improvement over how the generation of the Founding Fathers was raised, no doubt with concomitantly better intellectual and moral prospects in life…

  177. feeriker says:

    There is a tremendous amount of money being made in the US, by women, for doing nothing other than pretending to be a ‘successful woman’.

    Those of us who work in the tech and financial sectors can attest to the fact that corporate Amerika is overrun with such creatures.

  178. Luke says:

    JDG says:
    May 7, 2014 at 1:36 am

    “And who is tending the children while she is off taking the spot another man could have had?”

    Major point you made there. When a relatively-successful (financially, anyway) careerist woman (who probably wouldn’t approach marriage seriously in any event) whines that she can’t find a good (apex) man”, no one ever tells her SHE TOOK HER (would-have-been) HUSBAND’S JOB! Even if she DOES find a man she’ll deign to marry (with income/status at least 1.3x hers), that’s a family that will never be formed, given the man whose job she probably has. No one here still has the delusion that there’s a plethora of professional jobs capable of supporting a family available for native-born white males, surely?

  179. The Grand Cannon says:

    The demographic with the lowest divorce rate in the US is the university graduated, professionally employed, upper middle class demographic.

  180. Luke says:

    With a wife who stays at home with the children, NOT out trolling for higher Alpha males, er, “fulfilling herself with a “career” a zillion hours a week” (and saying to hell with a husband, and any kids, if she has any (almost certainly under 3 if careerist, so below replacement, an upside-down pyramid).

  181. Opus says:

    I would have thought that someone like Richard Dawkins was a good example of a Christian Atheist: he believes in Jesus (now – public recantation of his former Heresy), loves the rites of The Anglican Church and merely doubts the historicity of Genesis Chapter 1. Is that really so different from Catholics and Anglicans who see Genesis Chapter 1 as allegorical. Anglicanism (which is clearly not Protestantism in the Lutheran or Calvinistic sense, as they regard themselves as Catholic, albeit not of the Roman variety) is a broad church such that even some of its Divines are doubters.

    My (former) Jewish girlfriend (from New York State) told me that all Jews believe in Jesus.

  182. Opus says:

    On the subject of Kilimanjaro – the large hill in the former colony of Tanganika, but now a ‘least developed country’ she refers to her former husband as ‘lovely’. Lovely is one of those words that you use when you don’t want to say what you really feel, but do not want to offend, as in ‘the ham sandwiches were lovely Vicar’ even though the Vicar’s dog would have rejected the ham as well past its sell-by date and you also use it when it is irrelevant to your purpose as in ‘the scenery was lovely’ to cover your real purpose in going away to the country for the weekend with a pump-and-dump Alpha male whose existence you prefer not to reveal to your maiden Aunts. No one returning from a performance of Hamlet dwells on the scenic delights – ‘the castle battlements’ ‘the graveyard’. Doubtless further episodes will reveal more and explain why she abandoned her husband, her job, and everything 1st world to take off with her New Best Friend (do I detect something Sapphic here?) from NYC for the delights of being waited on hand and foot by Testosterone-driven native African males in their twenties only too happy to entertain forty-year old single white-women with money to burn. I once climbed Helvellyn (3,117 feet above sea level) – can I have self congratulatory round of applause for being soooo fabulous.

  183. Cicero says:

    @ Opus:
    “Richard Dawkins was a good example of a Christian Atheist: he believes in Jesus “
    “My (former) Jewish girlfriend (from New York State) told me that all Jews believe in Jesus.”

    So do demons. Acts 19:15 “And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?”

  184. hurting says:

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 7, 2014 at 3:02 am

    This is due to the fact the UMC’s have a lot to lose in terms of lifestyle vis-a-vis richer and poorer folks and likely a much greater future time orientation than folks at the bottom of the income strata.

  185. Hurting, exactly. If you’re tempted to think that the UMC’s low divorce rate reflects any sort of respect for traditional marriage or that their marriages are happier than others’, you have only to look at the anti-marriage laws and media they’ve foisted on the rest of us to prove otherwise.

  186. jf12 says:

    @Cicero, re: belief being insufficient, also James 2:19.

    The main issue is not whether someone can *actually* believe they ought to do what Jesus said they should do without believing He is God, since He did teach they should believe that, but whether someone *actually* believes we are supposed to consider them qualified to pick and choose which amongst the teachings to follow and which ones not to follow.

  187. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87, 12 pages of discussion on a topic that can be settled with a paragraph, or even a word, seems to be pretty common there. Going only by what MarcusD has pointed to on CAF, and my own observations on christianforums, the most important thing on those fora is niceness. Getting along is more important than actually coming to a conclusion about an issue. The herd mentality at work, and punishment by outgrouping, and “what does this mean for me“.

    Note the “I don’t like that science paper, therefore it must be false” remark alluded to upthread? It’s just a version of “well, my reading of the Bible says…”. It’s all solipsism at work.

    Solipsism, groupthink, outgrouping as punishment: the next time you are around a pregnant woman who already has one or more children, consider these ideas[*]. She must take care of herself, or the children who depend on her are in big trouble, so she’s the center of her world. She can’t care for all of these people alone, so she needs a group of people to help her. Cast out of the group, she and her brood may well perish. These are features of women, and I don’t care if one is a 6-day creationist or a pure Darwinian, clearly these are survival traits for most of human history. The women whose children survived to reproduce were solipsistic to some degree, they were followers not leaders, and being cast out of the group was a horrific threat.

    It is only in modern times, as TFH points out, that women have few children and thus do not need to be a sink for resources while at the same time age-old mental programming leads them to demand at least access to every potential resource around.

    The woman in the OP would not be a walking disaster if her solipsism had been contained to a small area of authority. It wasn’t, and she is, because of feminism and a surfeit of resources.

    [*] It is very interesting to consider that in some parts of the industrialized world, this experiment would be difficult to perform because finding a pregnant woman with one or more children is not that easy.

  188. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oh, and the groupthink aspect of women brings up two androsphere truths:

    * A woman in an LTR or a marriage is either going to be on Team Her Man, or Team Woman as a general rule. The former supports a relationship, the latter will damage or destroy it.

    * A woman’s associates matter, the matter more than a man’s associates. Men do groupthink too, but it is not nearly has deeply “wired” into us. Dalrock has posted multiple times on how divorce spreads within female networks, I just read of another study (sorry, no link) on this issue. If a woman spends all day within a catfight environment (think Human Resources all too often) she will carry that home with her, and eventually internalize it. If a woman spends all day around higher social ranking men, then her man at home will shrink by comparison; his SMV and even MMV will decline, and this will lead to problems as well.

    Yes, as my father told me years ago, “a man is judged by the company he keeps”, but a woman is influenced – often quite heavily – by the company she keeps. It’s a feature, not a bug, and it is another example of how men and women are not “exactly the same except women have babies”.

  189. Cicero says:

    @ jf12.

    Compromise is the foundation of the Hegelian Dialect.

  190. feeriker says:

    The woman in the OP would not be a walking disaster if her solipsism had been contained to a small area of authority. It wasn’t, and she is, because of feminism and a surfeit of resources.

    Concerning the “feminism” and “surfeit of resources,” since we know that the former of the two depends on the latter to be at all viable, it will be fascinating to watch the disintegration of the former as those resources evaporate before our very eyes (the ongoing Amerikan economic implosion being just one major symptom of resource evisceration).

  191. feeriker says:

    * A woman’s associates matter, the matter more than a man’s associates. Men do groupthink too, but it is not nearly has deeply “wired” into us. Dalrock has posted multiple times on how divorce spreads within female networks, I just read of another study (sorry, no link) on this issue. If a woman spends all day within a catfight environment (think Human Resources all too often) she will carry that home with her, and eventually internalize it. If a woman spends all day around higher social ranking men, then her man at home will shrink by comparison; his SMV and even MMV will decline, and this will lead to problems as well.

    This is the proverbial “turd on the appetizer platter” that is deliberately avoided in any discussions of marriage or intersexual relationships, in both secular and Christian settings. No one DARES admit that a woman’s female friends and associates can be the most destructive influences on herself, her marriage, and her family. No one DARES suggest to any woman who is in the process of making foolishly destructive decisions that are obliterating her marriage and tearing her family apart that “the ewe herd” is a toxic influence in her life and that she needs to sever all ties with her current hen cohort (most of whom are usually either single EmpoweredWomen[TM] or single non-empowered women with serious emotional and personality issues that have precluded them from having stable marriages and families of their own). And finally, no one, not even “Christian” pastors and counselors who surely should realize it as self-evident truth, even thinks of suggesting that a working wife spending 40-plus hours per week surrounded by male authority figures and EmpoweredWomen[TM] is pouring corrosive acid on the bond between herself and her husband and contaminating the spiritual well that feeds her marriage and family. This negligence and spiritual cowardice is at the heart of much of the current destruction and does even more damage than the deliberate and intentional efforts of the progfems and their enablers at undermining marriage and family.

  192. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Jeb Kinnison says:
    May 6, 2014 at 11:28 pm

    >>In *this* bubble of grievance (Dalrock and similar sites) I see people saying a lot of things which sound an awful lot like grievance-based groupthink

    Jeb, there was so much in your posting that was just wrong, I don’t even think I am going to comment. Except to say it is wonderful that a man of your vast superiority would condescend to point out our many faults.

  193. Opus says:

    Bravo TFH. Your incite into Female Solipsism and the men who promote it seems to me to be one of the most jaw-dropping – yet obvious.

  194. Opus says:

    I suppose that should have been Insight.

  195. Going only by what MarcusD has pointed to on CAF, and my own observations on christianforums, the most important thing on those fora is niceness.

    Yes. If churchianity has one commandment, it is, “Be nice.” Or perhaps phrased in reverse, “Judge not.” So when a woman asks what to do about the cross-dressing boyfriend she’s having sex with, you can’t just say, “Stop sinning and get ye to a confessional,” because that wouldn’t be nice. She might even get resentful and stop seeking advice, and that would be the most horrible thing of all. So you have to be nice and non-judgmental and build up her self-esteem, hoping that she’ll figure out what she needs to do on her own without being told.

    While they’re harsher on the guy — partly because he’s a man, but also because he’s not there to have to be nice to — most of them won’t try to correct his sins either. They’d rather tell her to condemn him as a person and cast him out of her life entirely, than address his particular sins by name. It leads to a bizarre choice of extremes: they can’t point out a particular sin and encourage someone to fix it, but they can declare someone anathema and judge him unfit for human society altogether (see also: American politics).

  196. deti says:

    jebkinnison:

    Went over to your blog. Seems you’re an MIT-trained computer software engineer, a child of two parents, one of whom struggled with mental illness. You have had some unsuccessful relationships but met your “most excellent partner” around 40.

    You’ve written a book called “Bad Boyfriends” aimed at helping people find the best relationships for them. You have a blog apparently based on the book and intending to promote it. Your views are apparently based on a mix of studies and “Science”.

    Hmmmm. Sounds a bit like the trajectory of a certain business school-trained marketing consultant who decided to dabble in the field of intersexual relationship advice……

  197. jf12 says:

    @feeriker, re: “no one DARES”. I wonder if this is going to be the final rift between new and old in the Church: pastors of congregations that dare to responsibly continue to teach that families will be happiest when mothers stay at home, and pastors that dare to be irresponsible i.e. willingly ignorant (2 Peter 3).

  198. BradA says:

    Any confirmation on the idea that Richard Dawkins has truly converted to Christianity? Very little evidence on Google. I have not heard that before. It seems like it would get much more press if true.

  199. @feeriker

    The reason no one dares teach that women are heavily influenced by their peers is because the logical and rational result of such teaching is shaming bad behavior and shunning bad influences, things which Team Woman will oppose at every turn. It violates the ‘play nice’ rule.

  200. feeriker says:

    @feeriker, re: “no one DARES”. I wonder if this is going to be the final rift between new and old in the Church: pastors of congregations that dare to responsibly continue to teach that families will be happiest when mothers stay at home, and pastors that dare to be irresponsible i.e. willingly ignorant (2 Peter 3).

    I think it safe to say that none of the churchian franchises that make up the majority of what passes for “churches” today will ever dare venture into such territory. The remnant (i.e., the closest approximation there is today to the First Century body of believers) almost certainly already believes, preaches, and lives this. The question is: will this remnant gain strength and numbers as more and more eyes are opened?

    @AT: Exactly. Again, this is why no churchian franchise will ever even think of treading that path, given that the FI reigns supreme in all of them.

  201. Opus says:

    @BradA

    I did not say he had converted to Christianity, but he has gone from, ‘there was probably no Jesus/Jesus was based on some forgotten unknown person’ to (as I say) a full acceptance of the historicity of Jesus. My view is, that if that is what you think, then you must be a Christian (of some sort). Of course he would doubtless say that he does not believe in the Miracles, Resurrection or Virgin Birth, but if you do not accept that then do you really believe in the historicity?, because without that there is really not much that is left – as if I were to say ‘yes I believe in Barry Obama, but his father was not black, he never lived in Hawai’i and he is not an American President!’

    I cannot see Dawkins saying ‘well yes I now accept the historicity of Vishnu’, or ‘I used to mock Zeus, but now I accept that really existed and lived on Mount Olympus’ and thus his take up of Jesus is in my view significant. Rather as if one might say, ‘I believe in Sherlock Holmes but don’t believe he was an amateur sleuth’. If you believe in Holmes you believe in his works; the same goes for Jesus. Tolstoy had a similar view of Jesus but was avowedly Christian.

    His apology for apostasy can be found in his debate with John Lennox and Dawkins gets his apology in early on – you can see it on YouTube.

  202. Cicero says:

    @ BradA

    I am still perplexed by the idea that one can be a Christian Atheist. Like I indicated the Hegelian Dialect requires compromise.

    Thesis – Christianity=There is a God and the Word of God is the truth.
    Antithesis – Atheism= There is no God so the Word of God is myth.
    Synthesis – Christian Atheist = It is true that Jesus is the Son of God as stated in the Bible being the true word of God although one is free to use deconstructionism on the parts you like and don’t like whilst keeping in mind that there is no God.

    How on earth does this work?

  203. The Grand Cannon says:

    “My (former) Jewish girlfriend (from New York State) told me that all Jews believe in Jesus.”

    They believe he was a Jewish upstart and fake messiah.

    One can be a “cultural Christian” and not take the bible literally.

    Stay at home moms who do not divorce their husbands largely come from the university graduated, professionally employed (at one time), upper middle class demographic.

  204. The Grand Cannon says:

    “I cannot see Dawkins saying ‘well yes I now accept the historicity of Vishnu’,”

    He did say of all philosophies, Hindu ones are closest to a scientific reality. By the way, Hindus do not claim any historicity of Vishnu. That is not how Hindu ontology works.

  205. MarcusD says:

    Lyn87, 12 pages of discussion on a topic that can be settled with a paragraph, or even a word, seems to be pretty common there. Going only by what MarcusD has pointed to on CAF, and my own observations on christianforums, the most important thing on those fora is niceness. Getting along is more important than actually coming to a conclusion about an issue. The herd mentality at work, and punishment by outgrouping, and “what does this mean for me“.

    That’s one of the dangers (and downsides) of that forum. It mimics the wider PC culture – you’re position is untrue (and becomes practically untenable due to unceasing wailing) if you offend someone (or more exactly, enough people). It’s almost opposite the “sign of contradiction” – it can’t bother someone in order to be true.

    As an example of the herd mentality, as well as outgrouping, you can see this disaster of a thread: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=823388

    Notice how they dig up past comments of the main dissenter (57), engage in distracting side-shows, and encourage their own rage over someone who dares question the dominant views (and quite well, which likely bothers them even more).

  206. Tam the Bam says:

    The atheists seem to be indifferent to Dicky Dawks’ Damascene freakout, so I guess it isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
    This is what they’ve been mulling over in the last few hours ..
    “Don’t be stupid. We all know the solution is to send out some feminists to educate the religious fundies. Either we get the girls back and fundies will never do this again or they will kidnap the feminists and we wont have to hear them whining any more. Win Win in my view”

  207. The Grand Cannon says:

    Opus, you’re confusing two entirely different things here. Plenty of atheists believe that Jesus was possibly a historical person. That is a far cry from believing that same person was born of a virgin and the rest of the miraculous/mythical claims of the bible. (Don’t be offended by the word “myth”, it doesn’t mean what you think it does). For example, there are people today who make miraculous/mythical claims that you can meet face to face. Do they not exist? They exist. Its their miraculous/mythical claims that have to be put to the test.

    You seem to be saying that if someone exists (or existed) in history (past) or real time (present) that whatever else is claimed to be connected to them must exist also. That doesn’t make sense.

    I remember reading in the bible that Jesus went to a certain area and was unable to perform miracles there because the locals had no faith. This means miracles are dependent on the feeling-state of the would-be audience. Humans can make themselves believe, even “see” all sorts of things that may not actually be happening.

  208. I did not say he had converted to Christianity, but he has gone from, ‘there was probably no Jesus/Jesus was based on some forgotten unknown person’ to (as I say) a full acceptance of the historicity of Jesus. My view is, that if that is what you think, then you must be a Christian (of some sort).

    Not necessarily. A Christian believes that Jesus is the Son of God. Some believe that he is fully God and Man; some that he’s only partly one or the other, but all Christians, including heretics, believe he’s “of God” in some fashion, which obviously requires a belief that God exists, not just that Jesus did. I’d say, as a minimum, a “Christian” believes that Jesus came to Earth from God for some divine purpose.

    An atheist can think, based on the historical evidence alone, that a man named Jesus lived at about 0-33 AD, preached around Jerusalem and gained a following that wanted him to rule Israel and kick out the Romans, and was crucified for it. An atheist could accept that the man described in the Gospels existed, but think that he was a completely mortal man and that his claims of divinity were delusions and that the reports of miracles were lies or misreporting.

    Atheists used to claim that the bible was just a bunch of made-up stories, probably invented as late as the Middle Ages to sucker gullible peasants. They’re a little smarter than that now, because archaeology has put egg on their faces too many times: someone digs around and finds an Old Testament-era town that uncannily matches the description in the bible, or an older manuscript of something proves that it was around centuries before they thought possible. So now they tend to take the more nuanced view that many of the people and events recorded in the bible did exist, but simply weren’t supernatural in nature.

  209. MarcusD says:

    @Mark

    Thanks for both the links. Has Gillis ever been asked to participate in the “manosphere” or Orthosphere? I’ve spoken to people like Gillis before, and they often think they are entirely alone in the fight, and don’t realize that there’s a community (online) that espouses the same views.

    The second link is interesting, since I grew up in an area where nearly everyone was Jewish (Orthodox, mainly). I ended up joining various Jewish organizations in the area, as well, primarily because they were closer than comparable ones (e.g. YMCA). People were always curious to find out I wasn’t Jewish (sometimes preceded by asking where my yarmulke was :D).

  210. Jeb Kinnison says:

    Anonymous Age 72: “Jeb, there was so much in your posting that was just wrong, I don’t even think I am going to comment. Except to say it is wonderful that a man of your vast superiority would condescend to point out our many faults.”

    As I said in my first post, I’ve just started reading here at what is now already a highly-developed conversation with significant trains of thought that I’m finding interesting, and I really need to go back and look at the earlier sources to understand better. Your hostility to any well-meaning attempts by outsiders to understand and sympathize is noted.

    deti: “Went over to your blog. Seems you’re an MIT-trained computer software engineer, a child of two parents, one of whom struggled with mental illness. You have had some unsuccessful relationships but met your “most excellent partner” around 40.”

    If anyone here understands the damage of lack of parenting, it would be me. You left out the fact that my father went to war, then came back and started preaching at a Pentacostal church when I was an infant. His religious obsession blended into schizophrenia when he began hearing voices and experiencing paranoid delusions, and even his church friends realized he was in trouble. He was institutionalized when I was 5 and made few appearances in my life, then completely disappeared. He was rescued 30 years later by his half-brother, who found him a place in a Veteran’s Affairs nursing home. When I last saw him, he was waiting by the front door for the limo he thought Bill Clinton was sending to pick him up.

    Meanwhile, my mother was forced to return to work as a secretary, and I had after-school care from a succession of local babysitters. I am sympathetic to many of the complaints I see here about culture and the willingness to buck Conventional Wisdom in trying to understand the problems (someone’s post about women’s sense they are owed all resources as a result of evolutionary history that no longer makes sense is especially interesting.)

    “You’ve written a book called “Bad Boyfriends” aimed at helping people find the best relationships for them. You have a blog apparently based on the book and intending to promote it. Your views are apparently based on a mix of studies and “Science”.”

    I’m impressed by the depth of your motivation to understand me.

    “Hmmmm. Sounds a bit like the trajectory of a certain business school-trained marketing consultant who decided to dabble in the field of intersexual relationship advice……””

    That’s extremely ungenerous of you to say.🙂 I think she is a fine example of narcissism (or in the vocabulary of this site, solipsism.) Entirely unlike my trajectory (which is so uncommon I don’t think it really is like anyone else’s.) In my book, I do go into the problem of girls being raised as “little Princesses,” demanding everything and rejecting anything less than perfection; it’s very common and very destructive. Unfortunately the current cultural background only encourages this. Responsibility and consequences have been partially vanquished, *for now*.

  211. Lyn87 says:

    I’m amazed that we’re even having this debate here – one cannot be simultaneously a Christian and an atheist. That is an absolute.

    The belief in the historicity of Jesus does not make one a Christian any more than a belief in the historicity of Julius Caesar makes one a Roman. Jesus existed: that is simply a matter of historical fact – we have FAR more proof of that than for the existence of any figure for antiquity. Accepting an indisputable historical fact does not make one a Christian.

    Even believing that Jesus is the Son of God does not make one a Christian – Matthew 8:28-29 says, “And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” [Emphasis added]. Obviously demons cannot be thought of as Christians – although they affirm the divinity of Jesus.

    Going to church does not make one a Christian any more than my standing in my garage would make me a Buick. The only way to be a Christian is to accept Jesus as your Savior, which is a matter of having faith in the only being who has ever shown Himself worthy of it. An atheist cannot, by definition, do that.

  212. Opus says:

    Well, personally I don’t believe in Science: nothing but a lot of theories which are all ultimately falsified; take Phlogiston, there I was a devout believer in Science, convinced of the existence of the substance, getting really angry when a bunch of disbelievers came along telling me that it did not exist and that I must be some sort of Moron for believing, and now it turns out all the other Scientists agree with the non-believers and have also ceased to believe in Phlogiston.

    Next they will be telling me that the Theory of Evolution by way of natural selection is not all it is cracked up to be (even David Stove has pulled parts of it to pieces in Darwinian Fairy tales – and he claims to be an Atheist) – at least he did until he went to the great Feminist-infested Faculty in the sky.

    I was, in fact, this very day, having a discussion with a guy as to the Theory of Gravity. He says it does not exist: if it exists he says, then how come flies walk up side down on the ceiling. I was going to say something about suction pads on their feet (not that I have ever looked and neither have you so that was surely magical thinking on my part) but he pointed out that there is no food on the ceiling because if there were it would fall off, thus flies walking on the ceiling falsifies the theory of gravity.

  213. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    May 7, 2014 at 10:21 am

    Were it not for MarcusD’s occasional reference to CAF, I would never go there anymore. There do appear to be some knowledgeable posters there (in terms of both Roman Catholic catechism and practical understanding), but the modernism is suffocating, and the anti-male bias is palpable. As to marriage questions, there are no pasts too sordid to forgive and no marital difficulties that can’t be fixed with a divorce and a 1095 special annulment.

  214. hurting says:

    feeriker says:
    May 7, 2014 at 9:55 am

    Yes, to suggest that women’s behavior is informed by the actions of the group is to invite their wrath.

    Here is a link to the ‘divorce as social contagion’ study.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1490708

  215. feeriker says:

    I’m amazed that we’re even having this debate here – one cannot be simultaneously a Christian and an atheist. That is an absolute.

    Unfortunately, our current culture is allergic to absolutes.

  216. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    “”Has Gillis ever been asked to participate in the “manosphere” or Orthosphere? I’ve spoken to people like Gillis before, and they often think they are entirely alone in the fight,””

    I have no idea if he knows of the Manosphere.I think I will drop him an email and ask him.If he is interested I will be inviting him to come here to Dalrock’s Blog.I have introduced many guys to the Manosphere that never new it existed.I have also discovered that there are one hell of a lot of MGTOW’s out there.They are GTOW unconsciously.In fact,I was reading somewhere else how Canada is a major leader of MGTOW. Which is VERY believable as I have met so many men in the last 10 years that want nothing to do with Wimminz whatsoever! And as Opus will attest to….Toronto is an absolute hellhole for descent women.I also did some reading from Roosh that he considers Toronto the bottom of the barrel.As someone who has been all over the world I can strongly agree with him!

    “”I grew up in an area where nearly everyone was Jewish (Orthodox, mainly).””

    Really?……sounds like you grew up in the same neighborhood as myself. Rosedale(Toronto).I couldn’t throw a stone without hitting a Jew there…L* Here is some info for you.I believe that my parents home is pictured within this site.I will have a look later.

    http://rosedaletoronto.com/

  217. The Grand Cannon says:

    In many cultures one is considered a Christian if they were born of Christian parents and grew up celebrating Christian holidays. Since religion and culture are deeply intertwined, there is such a thing as “cultural Christian”.

  218. The Grand Cannon says:

    “You can finally hear your own voice again. Plus you no longer have to constantly initiate sex, and hallelujah: no more obligatory birthday blowjobs.”

    http://www.xojane.com/family/what-no-one-tells-you-about-divorce

    This article, and thousands more like it, confirm my theory that temporary “breaks” from one’s spouse could reverse divorce trends. I suggested to one couple on the rocks that they sleep in separate bedrooms and use separate bathrooms to give each other space. They did this for one year and credit me with saving their marriage.

    Absence makes the heart grow founder and familiarity breeds contempt. Maintaining boundaries creates mystery between people and mystery creates tingles (and boners). Rabbi Schmuley wrote a whole book about this I believe.

    The sexes mix too much and know too much about each other for any feminine or masculine mystique to be maintained in today’s society. The same applies to couples. Create boundaries, give each other space, sleep separately and if you can create a room in your house that is reserved soley for your intimacy nights, you just might begin to feel sparks fly again.

  219. deti says:

    “This article, and thousands more like it, confirm my theory that temporary “breaks” from one’s spouse could reverse divorce trends.”

    I’ve heard something like that before, Grand Cannon. You might be in pretty good Company.

    I Corinthians 7:5:

    “[Husbands and wives should] not deprive each other [of sex] except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

  220. The Grand Cannon says:

    Yep. Today’s society, including marriage, is over saturated with sex or expectations of it. This is particularly true of the modern family unit, the nuclear family. With so much space and privacy couples oversaturate themselves with sex in the beginning of their marriages and then later oversaturate themselves with the expectations of sex. In a house comprised of multi-generational family members there just isn’t the space or privacy to throw decorum to the wind and go at it on the living room table. Couples have to plan, sneak around and get it in when and where they can, which creates a sense of forbidden naughtiness even between socially sanctioned, legally married couples.

    Sometimes I think the creation of the nuclear family was the beginning of the break down of traditional marriage and family life.

  221. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    Here is a link for you.I have been reading this site for awhile.Quite sad really.She could be any of a few hundred women that I know.Read the “stats” at the beginning relating to Chicago and singles men for her to meet……compared to single women for men.I have known this for years.Then read the comments…27 of them…..Rollo,Deti and Dalrock get mentioned.The comments by ‘Mike’ are great.Obviously,Red Pill and knows his stuff.

    http://thebitterbabe.com/2014/04/03/hunger-games/

  222. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mark, I read the posting and the comments. I want my 5 minutes back.

  223. The Grand Cannon says:

    One benefit for her ex-husband, what she calls a “healing tool”;

    “Here’s another thing they don’t tell you. When I was married, I would throw my husband under the bus all the time to my daughter. Not on purpose, just as a matter of habit. “He’s such a jerk,” or “You know Dad, his work is very important and he’s too busy for us.” But as a divorced parent I would never say anything bad about my ex to my daughter. In fact, I go out of my way to compliment him and frame him as the greatest dad in the world. “How lucky you are to have a dad that takes you to Disneyland –- oh, how he loves you!” And when my daughter questions his forgetfulness, (I nicknamed him “Alzy” – short for Alzheimer’s) I just blow it off with, “Well, you know dad, he’s got a lot on his mind and sometimes he forgets things, but that’s just him. We love him anyway and he adores you no matter what.” This should be the golden nugget that divorced couples insist on espousing to their married friends. It’s truly a gift to the child, and a wonderful healing tool for the ex. Say nice things enough times and you might even believe them!”

    Have any divorced readers here experienced this?

  224. I can agree that many couples need to give each other more space. I’ve known guys who couldn’t go out and play cards with the guys every couple weeks without dragging the missus along — and often he was the one insisting on it. Husbands and wives need to have their own spheres that they handle without ordinary interference from each other, and proper marital roles can help with that.

    On the topic of sex, however, I think a moratorium on sex would be dangerous (and non-scriptural) for a couple having problems. After the initial honeymoon period, I’d bet there are far more couples having too little sex than too much. When a woman is bored with her husband, which is the most common cause of frivorce, it’s not likely to help for him to give up one way he might still have been dominant with her. The suggestion from St. Paul about taking a break for prayer is supposed to be an exception for spouses who don’t normally deprive each other, not taking a problem they already have and magnifying it to an extreme. It might work once in a while out of dumb luck, but I wouldn’t recommend it.

  225. TGC, I’m not sure why you’re trying to find a silver lining for divorce; it’s off-topic and not likely to fly here anyway. But to answer your question: I’ve heard many divorced parents claim they don’t bad-mouth their exes in front of the kids. And without exception, I’ve watched them bad-mouth their exes in front of the kids. I think they may honestly think they don’t, but they always do, and the kids always pick up on it. I doubt the divorcee who wrote that to pat herself on the back is any different.

  226. The Grand Cannon says:

    I am not pro-divorce nor do I favor single parenthood. I linked to that article because I’m showing you what’s out there. And it goes back to what I wrote before that for a man and a woman to come together in today’s society and stay together for life, they have to really WANT that in the first place. I just don’t see many people wanting that anymore (outside the university educated, professionally employed upper middle class demographic, which is not the majority) “Starter marriage” is a thing. It appears to me that the majority of young people today prefer the single life and don’t dream of marriage anymore.

  227. jf12 says:

    “Absence makes the heart grow founder and familiarity breeds contempt.” The near total collapse of sexuality after the short honeymoon period (e.g. twice a day falling to twice a week after the first couple of years) is almost entirely blamable on women and women alone.

  228. jf12 says:

    The classic contemporary reference.
    Murray, S. & Milhausen, R. R. (2011). Sexual desire and relationship duration in young men and women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 38(1), 28-40.
    “women’s sexual desire was significantly and negatively predicted by relationship duration … Men’s sexual desire, however, was not significantly affected by the duration of their romantic relationships.”
    Period. Period. Period. Nobody has ever seriously found any other result.

  229. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Jeb Kinnison says:
    May 7, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    >> Your hostility to any well-meaning attempts by outsiders to understand and sympathize is noted.

    You were trying to understand and sympathize? Hardly. You were very patronizing and insulting.

    >>from the 60s when women and minorities had legitimate grievances about being slotted and prevented from making the most of their natural talents.

    >>In *this* bubble of grievance (Dalrock and similar sites) I see people saying a lot of things which sound an awful lot like grievance-based groupthink.

    >>I wrote a book recently about relationships and started the blog to talk about that, so naturally ended up addressing divorce — and of course got an earful from the angry-men-who-were-screwed group, which is large and loud, and I agree many were treated unfairly and led down a primrose path to fleecing. But the anger and the group support don’t make it easier to resolve the problems with family law.

    >>so the tribal grievances grow and harm the lives of many.

    >>the little PC antibodies come out of the woodwork to attack you.

    Let’s face it. You are here for two reasons. First, you want to develop publicity for your book.

    Second, you are researching the manosphere and hope to trash those grievance based group thinkers in the next book. Deliberately provoke them, then pretend it is their hostility that is the problem.

    You make the same mistake often made by ignorant people. Claiming open grievances or hostility prevent redress for a group of people who have been mistreated.

    I need not repeat the tales of African people taken prisoner by other African people, and sold to slave ships. After the slaves were freed in the US, their descendants were subject to lynching; seeing their sisters and daughters raped with no recourse; no access to any good jobs or education. Young men wanted to fight. The older men told them, no, if you show anger you lose all credibility. Show them we are dignified respectable people.

    So, the lynchings and rapes continued, until X announced we have automatic weapons and are coming to kill you. Try lynching a black man or raping a black girl today and see what happens to you.

    The German Jews were miserably treated in the latter parts of the 19th century, until WWII. Some wanted to fight, and their elders told hem, no, if you show anger or rebellion, you lose all credibility. Show them we are a civilized people.

    They learned their lesson. Screw with a Jew today and see your whole neighborhood converted to rubble.

    Starting around 1965, men have been viewed as ATM’s with no civil; human; legal; or constitutional rights. Not even the right to see their female murderers put in prison.

    Any man who married today stands a 40% chance of being divorced without any fault being shown, and by feminist studies in most case with no fault existing. At least half the time when he is divorced, he will eventually never see his kids again, except the bill from CSRU each week.

    The divorce process routinely includes false charges of DV, or false charges of sexual abuse of his own children, strictly to generate maximum revenue for law firms. They well know most such charges are totally false, but pretend the case must run its course to protect the kiddies. And, by the time it does, ther judge will rule he no longer has a relationship with his children, too bad.

    After the divorce it is common for men to be told they must continue working for their ex-wives until death. They are told to pay child support that very often is more than their actual income. And, if they lose their jobs, they are tossed in jail like common criminals. They lose their jobs a lot, because of a thing called affirmative action, which means incompetent protected persons get jobs over more competent men.

    The suicide rate among divorced men is out of sight.

    Boys are being emotionally harmed in hostile school systems.

    And, what a surprise. Any man who speaks up is told, “You have no credibility because you show anger and hostility.”

    It can only be stopped by anger; hostility; and extreme resistance.

    From 1978 until 1993, I wrote very militant and hostile op-eds to our local newspaper.

    I was the first non-governmental employee to have a copy of the CSRU employee’s manual.

    When a man called me with a problem with CSRU, I could call the regional director for a meeting, and he’d ask me when we wanted to come in. He changed his schedule to suit us, not the other way around. He would often give what was asked on the unspoken condition that I not write it up in my next op-ed.

    And, if the local contract CS agency violated the laws, I would write a letter to the State Director. If she discovered the complaint was valid, she fixed it. Also on the unspoken condition that I did not write it up in my next op-ed.

    Roll over and kiss posterior has never worked. Roll over and kiss posterior will never work. Roll over and kiss posterior is merely another way of keeping the truly oppressed and victimized group in submission.

  230. Luke says:

    Anonymous age 72 says:
    May 7, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    Good post you made there, A72. I don’t disagree with any of it.
    I will add that I am surprised you got the cooperation you did from the local CSRU; perhaps it was from back then, it wasn’t so overrun with feminists and other affirmative-action hires as now?

    Further, there IS an alternative for frivorced fathers besides permanently expatting, suicide, or positioning themselves on elbows with butt lifted in the air. That is to simply disappear into the rural U.S., working at grey jobs for not much, living simply, hoping with some plausibility to outlive the child support Todt Organization (WWII reference), or at least the faithless b*tch (so that there is a hope of retrieving his children). Giving NO advance warning or inclination to do this would be wise, of course. Neither would it be easy. But, if enough wrongly ejected fathers do this, it will discourage the other, not yet frivorced, would-be faithless wives out there from pulling the trigger on their families. Think of it as a major act of patriotism. Women can be expected to pick up on this trend long before government, of course, being more attentive to their (at least perceived) short-term interests than even the most obsequious government ever will be.

  231. Lyn87 says:

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 7, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    In many cultures one is considered a Christian if they were born of Christian parents and grew up celebrating Christian holidays. Since religion and culture are deeply intertwined, there is such a thing as “cultural Christian”.

    Sort of true… in a sense – but only if we stipulate that “Christian culture” and “Christianity” are two different things. I myself referred to people who think of Christianity in “cultural” terms yesterday, but I stipulated that we must reject that thought as being invalid. Christianity can only be defined in terms such as this, “By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourself – it is gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.”

    In a similar “cultural” vein, it has become fashionable to allow people to assign themselves a sex based on how they feel like at any given moment. We are left with absurdities like this (http://www.outsports.com/out-gay-athletes/2013/2/21/4015388/kye-allums-first-transgender-man-playing-ncaa-womens-basketball), where Kay Allums, who is 100% female, decided that she’s really a man: and everyone instantly started referring to her as “him.”

    Just as referring to Kay Allums as “him” does not change the fact that she is a woman, an atheist calling him/herself a Christian because of the days they send cards to their friends is a logical and definitional absurdity.

    I might just as well declare myself to be a Martian male rad-fem misogynist from an all-female tribe on Neptune and expect people to indulge my delusion. “Atheist Christian” is no less absurd.

  232. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Luke, I see I failed to communicate. I got cooperation from them BECAUSE I was very militant and hostile.

    if the complaint was correct, which I verified before hand, an advantage of having the CSRU manual, it was to their benefit to fix the problem rather than face my poison pen.

    it was CYA, not cooperation as such.

  233. Anonymous Reader says:

    TGC
    I am not pro-divorce nor do I favor single parenthood. I linked to that article because I’m showing you what’s out there.

    Several men who post here regularly know very well what is “out there”, because they have gone through it themselves. In fact, that’s why they read this site and post here. You might want to bear that in mind; you aren’t preaching to the choir, you’re telling someone else’s war story to some veterans.

  234. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Absence makes the heart grow founder and familiarity breeds contempt.” The near total collapse of sexuality after the short honeymoon period (e.g. twice a day falling to twice a week after the first couple of years) is almost entirely blamable on women and women alone.”

    Twice a week is considered A LOT in traditional cultures that still live in large, multi-generational familes.

    Thanks for proving my point about oversaturation of sexual expectations in the nuclear family unit, which is a breakdown and corruption of the traditional multi-generational family.

  235. Luke says:

    Twice a week is considered A LOT in traditional cultures that still live in large, multi-generational familes.”

    So is a husband earning 5 grand USD a year considered a “LOT” in most of those places. Higher expectations for the husband here, higher expectations for the wife; it’s only fair.

  236. I linked to that article because I’m showing you what’s out there.

    We know what’s out there; we’ve been talking about it here for years.

    I’ll be blunt: I don’t believe you. I’m starting to see what your agenda is, but a few more comments should make it clear.

  237. The Grand Cannon says:

    “So is a husband earning 5 grand USD a year considered a “LOT” in most of those places.”

    25 years ago, maybe.

    “Higher expectations for the husband here, higher expectations for the wife; it’s only fair.”

    High expectations, high divorce rate.

  238. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Several men who post here regularly know very well what is “out there”, because they have gone through it themselves. In fact, that’s why they read this site and post here. You might want to bear that in mind; you aren’t preaching to the choir, you’re telling someone else’s war story to some veterans.”

    Anonymous Reader, I get that. The article doesn’t show that divorce is out there, or that women initiate divorce. I understand readers here already know that. What it shows is an attitude of even when a marriage is “ok”, many people today would rather have the freedom of a single life. Please read it. She makes many references to having her own freedom and space.

    http://www.xojane.com/family/what-no-one-tells-you-about-divorce

    This is an attitude that is pervasive amongst Americans under 40. You readers here are arguing in favor of the stability of a life long marriage as if its a given that people want that. I’m telling you no, that’s not necessarily aspired for as people feel there are benefits to the single life that outweigh the benefits of married life.

    They would agree that if one is going to marry, a loving, stable, life long marriage is probably the cat’s pajamas. But they personally feel single life for them is better. This is not an uncommon view.

  239. Luke says:

    80 countries as of 2012 with annual per capita incomes below %5K U.S.:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

    Perhaps a husband should only go to work on days his wife WAS a wife the night before?

    Given that ~20% of married couples in the U.S. have sex 10 or fewer times a year, I’d say it’s time for a work strike by husbands not getting “it” at least as often as they go to work. A reverse “Lysistrata”, for those of you with a classical education…

  240. MarcusD says:

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/07/robyn-urback-u-of-t-student-union-moves-ahead-with-harrowingly-stupid-equity-plan/

    The UTSU, however, wants to take the unprecedented step of overhauling its council structure and implementing a new system comprised of “constituency directors” representing mostly marginalized groups. In total, there would be 10 constituency directors, who would represent racialized students, LGBTQ students, women, international students, indigenous students, students with disabilities, mature students, athletes, first-year students and commuters. That would mean that board representation for Engineering, Arts and Science, Trinity College and so forth would all be dissolved, leaving 45,000 students to hope their interests are represented by the “racialized” council member, or the “indigenous” representative, or fits nicely into one of the other eight categories. This plan doesn’t include any council representation for the white, male, second-year student who lives on campus and doesn’t play sports — but he has his privilege, right? That should be enough to forgo a voice on student council.

    The UTSU is already patting itself on the back for what is, truly, one of the dumbest ideas to come out of student governance in recent memory. Emphasizing the need to give a voice to underrepresented students on council, UTSU president Munib Sajjad called the move, “Evolutionary. It’s revolutionary.” I’ll give him something: It really is extraordinary.

    Bolding added. This is why I don’t trust the internalized definition of “equality” that liberals possess.

  241. greyghost says:

    Mark
    not impressed with the peanut gallery of the female herd. I did leave my own comment as you should have

  242. Boxer says:

    And in a related post, Jenny Erikson tells her meager audience how divorce really improved her life…

    http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/171905/12_things_i_learned_about

    Never mind that she made her two little girls into bastards, in order that she could chase some strange cock. It’s really OK, because she, like, grew as a person, and stuff.

    Jenny Erikson, Erica Douglass: peas in a pod, birds of a feather, skanks and cheats scheming together…

  243. The Grand Cannon says:

    “80 countries as of 2012 with annual per capita incomes below %5K U.S.”

    “Perhaps a husband should only go to work on days his wife WAS a wife the night before?”

    Luke, my friend, when people are that poor the wife works just as much and often more than the husband. And back breaking work in fields and on construction sites, not cushy office jobs. You don’t see women working fields (so much) or construction sites (at all) in the US, but its a common site in many other, very poor areas of the world.

    “So is a husband earning 5 grand USD a year considered a “LOT” in most of those places. Higher expectations for the husband here, higher expectations for the wife; it’s only fair.”

    The expectations are higher for both spouses here only in terms of the fulfillment of sexual and emotional needs. Otherwise in more traditional (and poorer) cultures the expectations of the spouses are higher in terms of provisional duties (of both) to the extended multi-generational family. A man from here simply could not withstand the expectations set upon him by his own parents and in-laws that are par for the course in traditional societies and these men are not rewarded with frequent or edgy, kinky, experimental sex from their wives as there is no privacy for what is considered such a silly extravagance.

    Your comments betray your civilization which is centered around the individual and at most the nuclear family, where single people and couples have wide open spaces (literally and figuratively) to expect their emotional and sexual needs to not only be met, but to set world records. Traditional cultures where large, multi-generational families living together are the norm see emotional and sexual needs as far down on the list of what constitutes marriage and family’s purpose.

  244. Luke says:

    “So is a husband earning 5 grand USD a year considered a “LOT” in most of those places.”

    25 years ago, maybe.

    80 countries as of 2012 with annual per capita incomes below $5K U.S.

    Do you EVER admit error, GC? You were just caught in a gross one.

    BTW, wives don’t generally get to say “no” in traditional societies, the ones that are left.

  245. The Grand Cannon says:

    I wasn’t caught in a “gross one” friend because the traditional cultures, countries and families I had in mind are making way more than that. But even amongst the poor, the family and societal expectations of both a husband and wife in a multi-generational family are beyond what you could even conceive of, what to speak of bear. However sex is not one of those expectations (outside of providing grandchildren to parents and in-laws). I find it very telling that sex is your main concern. If traditionalists made sex their main concern then their cultures would be in the same sinking boat yours is.

  246. James K says:

    The casual psychopathy of the failed CEO is not gender-specific. I recently met a male CEO who had burned a similar amount of money as this twat, and he wanted me to be a director of his next venture and take out a government loan to help finance the enterprise. It took me a week to recover from the cognitive dissonance of this brush with insanity.

    The element that is female-specific is the utter lack of shame, the self-justification, the brazen advertisement of information that the male psychopath attempts to hide. She is David Brent in a skirt.

  247. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGC

    “I find it very telling” that you’re a mangina who minimizes the importance of sex. lolz

    “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” Gen. 2:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A24&version=NASB

    Sex is the point of marriage. It is expected that couples will have their own houses (which may be in a family compound)–not that they will share a house with parents.

  248. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGC

    “What it shows is an attitude of even when a marriage is “ok”, many people today would rather have the freedom of a single life.”

    lolz I see lots of single old ladies (50+) who have cats and are looking for a bf–every one. I don’t see any who just want to live alone…with their cats.

  249. theasdgamer says:

    @ James

    Male CEO: “I grew from this experience. I learned so much about myself. I am so awesome.”

  250. Luke says:

    GC, you have NO clue about me. I’ve lived over 6 years outside the U.S., including working on 5 continents as an adult in the past 5 years.

    More evidence that you have no clue what’s going on, including the results of the partial sex strike by Western wives:
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RECESSION_POPULATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-05-07-12-52-32

    “Couples in the world’s five biggest developed economies – the United States, Japan, Germany, France and the United Kingdom – had 350,000 fewer babies in 2012 than in 2008, a drop of nearly 5 percent. The United Nations forecasts that women in those countries will have an average 1.7 children in their lifetimes. Demographers say the fertility rate needs to reach 2.1 just to replace people dying and keep populations constant.”

    Yes, I’ve heard of birth control and abortion, but without sex in the first place, they’re pretty much irrelevant. Look, inspiring men to be peaceful and productive (via regular sex and fatherhood), thus bearing (and to a lesser extent) raising children is ALL that women HAVE to do. Everything else women do is either irrelevant or men can do. EVERYTHING. (Like we need all these women lawyers, PR/marketing broads, gov’t bureaucrats, Education majors, cr*p subject women professors, and such; about as much as we need trephines.

  251. Anonymous Reader says:

    TGC, you are pointing to an article at xojane, for crying out loud, there’s nothing surprising or unusual there, just rationalization hamsters on steroids cranking away at 1,000 RPM.

  252. BradA says:

    @Opus,

    That is why I asked. I don’t follow Dawkins closely, but a religious conversion would seem to be really big news, which is why I haven’t heard anything about it, since it didn’t happen!

    @Cicero,

    No one can be a Christian and an atheist. I would also argue that you cannot truly be a Jew and an atheist, but I am sure some would argue against that. You can claim to be a Christian or a Jew in both cases, but claiming something doesn’t make it true.

    @TGC,

    Your “separate for a year plan is a good way to kill things in almost all cases. Going your separate ways, even while living together, will build distance, not closeness. And it has already been noted that too little sex is the problem rather than too much in almost every case. I am not sure where the women was coming from claiming to have had to initiate sex, but that doesn’t happen much in my experience, at least not once the very young sex drive is past.

  253. Boxer says:

    No one can be a Christian and an atheist… you cannot truly be a Jew and an atheist

    Umm, yeah. I hate to break this to you, but you don’t get to define “Christianity” or “Judaism” and issue it as an edict to everyone else in the world. You can, of course, define it for yourself, but your definition means exactly zero, outside the bounds of your own skull.

    I have known plenty of Protestants, Catholics and Jews who are also skeptics. They have a faith that they admit they can’t prove, and which they admit is at odds with what they see around them; but they study the texts and pray and hope for things, and do the best they can. From my perspective, they’re at least as [Christian/Jewish] than the average priest or rabbi. (Probably more so, as they aren’t drawing a paycheck out of it all.)

  254. Mark says:

    @greyghost

    “”not impressed with the peanut gallery of the female herd. I did leave my own comment as you should have””

    That was my sole intention of posting that link.To show the “female peanut gallery mindset”.

  255. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    I read that article in the National Post.I attended the University of Toronto and acquired a Bachelor of Commerce(BCom) & MBA.I have to say as a member of the alumni that things have drastically changed over the years.U of T Liberal Arts Studies has to be the hotbed of Liberal & FemiNazi politics in the country.

  256. MarcusD says:

    U of T Liberal Arts Studies has to be the hotbed of Liberal & FemiNazi politics in the country.

    It seems many universities are shifting in that direction, with (newer) smaller private colleges providing an alternative. I suspect it’ll be the undoing of many universities to be so uncritical of modern (left) liberalism.

  257. Boxer says:

    I suspect it’ll be the undoing of many universities to be so uncritical of modern (left) liberalism.

    I think you’re right in many cases; though some schools have enough money to simply give the cold shoulder to all the normals, and continue to be as weird as possible.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment
    I think it’s much the same scenario with the “liberal” churches and synagogues, where you’ll only find a couple of really old people attending services, but which survive on huge investments (many of them sold off profitable hospitals that started out as charities, for example). They don’t really care that they don’t have any worshippers. It’s all a big tax-free money game to them.

  258. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Sex is the point of marriage. It is expected that couples will have their own houses (which may be in a family compound)–not that they will share a house with parents.”

    It is expected in your culture. There are many cultures in the world where young couples live in the homes of either the wife’s parents or the husband’s (mostly the husband’s), and they often stay their for life. The Bible qoute you offered up would have to be looked at in the original language to see if it indicates leaving the house of his parents. In ancient times in that part o the world (and currently in many cultures), the bride goes to live in the house of her in-laws where she adapts to their family customs.

    BradA, the separate bedroom suggestion worked miracles for two good friends of mine. That doesn’t mean no sex. They emptied out and converted a small room that they used for storage into their “love chamber” which is where they would meet for sex, which made it special and exciting.

    “I have known plenty of Protestants, Catholics and Jews who are also skeptics. They have a faith that they admit they can’t prove, and which they admit is at odds with what they see around them; but they study the texts and pray and hope for things, and do the best they can.”

    I too know Jews, Christians, Muslims and others like this. As well as cultural Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc who robustly celebrate religious holidays but who don’t believe in or take literally everything their religious texts teach. Some are agnostic.

    Religion is moving right along with the rest of us into a more rationale age and rationale people who practice X,Y,Z religions are adapting.

  259. Cicero says:

    @Boxer
    “I have known plenty of Protestants, Catholics and Jews who are also skeptics.”
    Well does standing in a garage make you a car?
    The word of God defines these types of *Christians* in Revelation3:16 “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
    All they are doing is trying to get God to do their biding and not trying to do His.
    So I guess BradA’s definition regarding the Christian perspective is spot on.

  260. The Grand Cannon says:

    You could say we’ve entered an age of Religious Darwinism. Religions will have to adapt or die out.

  261. The Grand Cannon says:

    “TGC, you are pointing to an article at xojane, for crying out loud, there’s nothing surprising or unusual there, just rationalization hamsters on steroids cranking away at 1,000 RPM.”

    Tell me about it! Check out these doozies.

    “Speaking of, no more initiating sex or else you won’t get it, and no more obligatory birthday blowjobs. That was an unspoken; no matter how you felt or what day of the week the special day fell on — “it’s my birthday, goddamit!” And if you swallow, well, that ends up being a birthday bonus; you might even get away with only spending $50 on a gift rather than $200, because anything less than $200 means you don’t really love him. During the lean years, I swallowed a lot.

    What they don’t tell you about living alone is that it’s not so lonely. You still have the same friends, well, almost all of the same friends. You don’t have his low-life cohorts anymore and you don’t have to make up excuses about why you can’t join them that evening, or why they can’t come hang out at your house to drink till 3am … on your birthday.

    The alone time is surprising in its ease and fluidity. You become a much better masturbator. You finally dig out that Magic Bullet vibrator, or splurge on the Lelo Mona 2 G-spot massager, and dang, you never had orgasms like this when you were married. Okay, maybe the first year you were together, but you weren’t married then. And how lovely it is to take as long as you want to linger yourself into climax and then start all over again. And your hand is not jealous of your vibrator.

    Divorce is a great time to shed other people, like the negative friends who have always made you feel like shit because they were either jealous of you or had so much baggage of their own that they refused to deal with and instead, like the ex, would project it on to you. Goodbye, “friends,” I no longer have room for you in my life. I can only afford to spend my time with loving, supportive people who accept me for who I am.

    And your back feels better, and you sleep better because you’re not constantly being woken by his cheap Cabernet Sauvignon induced snoring or his many trips to the bathroom or his anxious tossing and turning. Anxious because he was having an affair with his best friend’s ex-wife.

    Sure, the duties and the finances are not split anymore, and you shoulder the burden as primary caretaker, but they don’t tell you how wonderful this actually is. You have no idea that you’re going to become even closer with your daughter because the time you spend with her is so much more intimate and honest. Or that you’re going to do all sorts of fun crafts or outings or science experiments in the kitchen with flour and water and white chocolate chips. ”

    What we can glean from this is that their marriage wasn’t half bad. Half bad? It wasn’t “bad” at all. And as I said before, young women and men today are coming to this middle aged divorced woman’s conclusions before they even get married the first time.

    Theasdgamer above mentioned sad, lonely 50 year old women with cats looking for boyfriends to presumably live with. That’s THAT generation. In 1984 when they were 20 years old, most young people still aspired for marriage. I don’t think that is still the case. Although I do think theasdgamer is making a bit of leap in assuming these 50 year old women want to move in under the same roof with the boyfriends they seek. Even a lot of older people like maintaining their own space while they date.

    The US has undergone a major cultural shift due to the internet. People have become more introverted in the sense that they would often rather stay home and communicate with people online then go out. You can communicate with dozens of people in one hour and feel like you have spent an entire day in a crowd of people or have engaged in some very intimate exchange without having ever even opening your mouth or door once. Heck you can even have “sex” online.

    Do not underestimate how this has changed the way young people view relationships.

    I presume most readers here are 40 and over with a traditional marriage and family outlook as well as a religious bent. You’d be foolish if you think most young people in the western world share your similar world views. They don’t.

    Don’t get it twisted, I’m not saying they all want to become players and sleep around their entire lives. Quite the contrary. They want to stay home and engage online. A relationship might be nice as long as it doesn’t interfere with their “space”.

  262. JDG says:

    Umm, yeah. I hate to break this to you, but you don’t get to define “Christianity” or “Judaism” and issue it as an edict to everyone else in the world. You can, of course, define it for yourself, but your definition means exactly zero, outside the bounds of your own skull.

    If everyone gets to have their own definition for “Christian”, then that word is in effect meaningless.

    Here is a the definition from a modern dictionary:
    Chris•tian
    ˈkrisCHən/
    adjective
    adjective: Christian

    1.
    of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.
    “the Christian Church”
    informal
    having or showing qualities associated with Christians, especially those of decency, kindness, and fairness.

    noun
    noun: Christian; plural noun: Christians

    1.
    a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

    Yep! I see a lot of wiggle room for postmodern application in the above meanings given for this word. But let’s look at where the term originates.

    Here is where the term is mentioned in the Bible:
    Acts 11:27: “The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch”
    Here we have Luke informing the reader where the disciples of Christ were first called Christians. The text also indicates that the term was used as a term of derision by hostile critics who opposed those who put their trust in Jesus.

    Acts 17:28: “Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?'”
    Here King Agrippa (a non-believer) was speaking to the Apostle Paul (a believer) who was in custody being questioned because of his faith in Jesus Christ.

    1 Peter 4:16: “However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name”
    Here the Apostle Peter was encouraging other believers to persevere in their faith in Jesus Christ even amidst persecution and suffering.

    Even though the first people referred to as Christians were labeled so as an insult, they were called thus because of their faith in Jesus Christ. They believed He died for their sins, rose from the dead, and would return to judge the world with righteous judgement.

    Scripturally speaking, a Christian is some one who believes in and follows Jesus Christ who is the son of the living God. A Christian is someone who believes the words and teachings of Jesus and His apostles. Through out history Christians were insulted, tormented, and put to death for their faith in Jesus Christ, and they still are today. Does anyone really believe an Atheist can be a Christian without first ceasing to be an Atheist?

  263. Boxer says:

    If everyone gets to have their own definition for “Christian”, then that word is in effect meaningless.

    No, it’s not meaningless, and yes, if someone calls themselves something, I trust they’re capable of defining themselves in terms of the signifier.

    You don’t get to be the pope or the chief rabbi of the world, declaring people in or out of the faith. You get to concentrate on yourself, and let other people do as they like. Hope that helps.

  264. The Grand Cannon says:

    Literal interpretations of religious texts with extravagant miraculous/mythical claims are being weeded out in favor of more rational approaches to transcendent experience. It cannot be otherwise in a rational era in which the average IQ is rising.

  265. Luke says:

    Out of curiosity, GC, why would a woman not want her husband to be the man she gives her blowjobs to? (The answer, of course, would be hypergamy + alpha widowdom.) Plus, surely she would want to be his sole provider of same…

    ===========================================================
    “You could say we’ve entered an age of Religious Darwinism. Religions will have to adapt or die out.”

    Absolutely. First, persecution in the long run has often been good for Christianity. More than a few Catholic thinkers (for example) expect that the Catholic church in the U.S. will be smaller but more devout.

    Second, the degree of adherence to fundamental beliefs of the faith is a strong predictor of how long a denomination is likely to be around. If it’s all old people, that’s a warning sign. When a denom starts having female ministers, the writing is on the wall. When it has openly active homos as clergy, SELL! When a church stands for nothing eternal, it literally cannot stand — and won’t. Think of it as a theological equivalent of the general societal evolution the liberal Phillip Longman described in this classic piece:

    http://home.comcast.net/~jdfusa/files/thereturnofpatriarchy.pdf

  266. Luke says:

    Some excerpts:
    “Throughout the broad sweep of human history, there are many examples of people, or classes of
    people, who chose to avoid the costs of parenthood. Indeed, falling fertility is a recurring tendency of human civilization. Why then did humans not become extinct long ago? The short answer is patriarchy.
    Patriarchy does not simply mean that men rule. Indeed, it is a particular value system that not only
    requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station. It competes with many other male
    visions of the good life, and for that reason alone is prone to come in cycles. Yet before it degenerates, it is a cultural regime that serves to keep birthrates high among the affluent, while also maximizing parents’ invest ments in their children. No advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it.
    Through a process of cultural evolution, societies that adopted this particular social system
    which involves far more than simple male domination maximized their
    population and therefore their power, whereas those that didn’t were either overrun or absorbed. This cycle in human history may be obnoxious to the enlightened, but it is set to make a comeback.”

    ——————————————————————————————-

    “Declining birthrates also change national temperament. In the United States, for example, the
    percentage of women born in the late 1930s who remained childless was near 10 p
    ercent. By comparison, nearly 20 percent of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having had children. The greatly expanded childless segment of
    contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and 70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of their parents.

    Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Nor do single-child families contribute much to future population. The 17.4 percent of baby boomer women who had only one child account for a mere 7.8 percent of children born in the next generation. By contrast, nearly a quarter of the children of baby boomers descend from the mere 11 percent of baby boomer women who had four or more children. These circumstances are leading to the emergence of a new society whose members will
    disproportionately be descended from parents who rejected the social tendencies that once made childlessness and small families the norm. These values include an adherence to traditional, patriarchal religion, and a strong identification with one’s own folk or nation.”

    ———————————————————————————————————
    “What [patriarchial societies] have in common are customs and attitudes that collectively serve to maximize fertility and parental investment in the next generation. Of these, among the most important is the stigmatization of “illegitimate” children. Under patriarchy, “bastards” and si
    ngle mothers cannot be tolerated because they undermine male investment in the next generation. Illegitimate children do not take their fathers’ name, and so their fathers, even if known, tend not to take any responsibility for them.”

    ————————————————————————————————

    “Another key to patriarchy’s evolutionary advantage is the way it penalizes women who do not marry and have children. Just decades ago in the English-speaking world, such women were referred to, even by their own mothers, as spinsters or old maids, to be pitied for their barrenness or condemned for their selfishness. Patriarchy made the incentive of taking a husband and becoming a full-time mother very high because it offered women few desirable alternatives.”

    ———————————————————————————————-

    “one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options —
    be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children — has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline.”

    ——————————————————————————————
    “he descendants of parents who have three or more children will be hugely overrepresented in subsequent generations, and so will the values and ideas that led their parents to have large families.

    One could argue that history, and particularly Western history, is full of revolts of children against
    parents. Couldn’t tomorrow’s Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal,
    religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of ‘68?

    The key difference is that during the post-World War ii era, nearly all segments of modern societies married and had children. Some had more than others, but the disparity in family si
    ze between the religious and the secular was not so large, and childlessness was rare. Today, by contrast, childlessness is common, and even couples who have children typically have just one.

    Tomorrow’s children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents’ values, as always happens. But when they look around for fellow secularists and counterculturalists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

    Advanced societies are growing more patriarchal, whether they like it or not.
    In addition to the greater fertility of conservative segments of society, the rollback of the welfare state forced by population aging and decline will give these elements an additional survival advantage, and therefore spur even higher fertility. As governments hand back functions they once appropriated from the family, notably support in old age, people will find that they need more children to insure their golden years, and they will seek to bind their children to them through inculcating traditional religious values akin to the Bible’s injunction to honor thy mother and father.

    Societies that are today the most secular and the most generous with their underfunded welfare states will be the most prone to religious revivals and a rebirth of the patriarchal family. The absolute population of Europe and Japan may fall dramatically, but the remaining population will, by a process similar to survival of the fittest, be adapted to a new environment in which no one can rely on government to replace the family, and in which a patriarchal God commands family members to suppress their individualism and submit to Father.”

  267. Luke says:

    Related piece:
    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/why-young-men-dont-marry/

    Most of it will be familiar to red-pill men here. That is, the inability through no fault of their own for many men before nearly age 30 to marry, or even date assortively, which often leads to them “giving up” on being economically ambitious.

    What’s relatively novel for such an article is this:

    “In the early 1900s men also married late, but you can see from the data that they married very young women. This tells us that men were just as bad-off then, as they are now, but that chastity was enforced, which prevented rampant female promiscuity. In that era, men were also struggling with sinking market worth and many men didn’t marry at all. Their problems were similar to those currently visible in Islamic countries, and this demographic pressure found an escape valve in WWI. Millions of sexually-frustrated young men eagerly joined the armies of Europe for “a bit of fun”, similar to the effect that resulted in the Crusades, or that pushed youth to “Go west, young man!”.

    In those situations, we can see what happens when you postpone marriage while promoting chastity: young male rage and frustration. In America, we postpone marriage without promoting chastity, with a similar result: young male apathy and frustration. The common denominator of both failed policies is the habit of postponing marriage which leads to widespread involuntary male celibacy and alienation from society, regardless of whether a society promotes chastity or not.

    Those who are indifferent to — or even grateful for — the decline of marriage in the West, would be wise to note what history tells us: such a decline always ends in a bloodbath. If young men aren’t fully-engaged in building up a civilization through marriage, then they will busy themselves with tearing it down. Bread and circuses will only mollify them for so long.

    A society that wishes to prosper in peace must ensure that the overwhelming majority of young men can marry and keep their wives. As we are not doing that, and there appears to be little appetite for enacting the policies which would encourage that, we should prepare ourselves for our inevitable decline and the destruction that will follow it.”

  268. MarcusD says:

    A friend of mine sent this to me:

    The Rialto school district planned to revise an eighth-grade assignment that raised red flags by asking students to consider arguments about whether the Holocaust — the systematic killing by the Nazis of some 6 million Jews and millions of others — was not an “actual event” but instead a “propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain.”
    In a statement released Monday, a spokeswoman for the Rialto Unified School District said an academic team was meeting to revise the assignment.

    Interim Superintendent Mohammad Z. Islam was set to talk with administrators to “assure that any references to the holocaust ‘not occurring’ will be stricken on any current or future Argumentative Research assignments,” a statement from district spokeswoman Syeda Jafri read.

    […]

    The 18-page assignment instructions included three sources that students were instructed to use, including one that stated gassings in concentration camps were a “hoax” and that no evidence has shown Jews died in gas chambers.

    […]

    “ADL does not have any evidence that the assignment was given as part of a larger, insidious, agenda,” the blog post read. “Rather, the district seems to have given the assignment with an intent, although misguided, to meet Common Core standards relating to critical learning skills.”

    […]

    In her statement provided to KTLA, Jafri said the district’s “CORE team” would meet to revise the prompt.

    http://ktla.com/2014/05/05/rialto-assignment-asking-to-students-to-question-holocaust-to-be-revised

    And yes, the name of the superintendent is actually “Mohammad Z. Islam.”

  269. But Luke, didn’t you see where GC explained that we’re becoming more rational (or “rationale”)? So obviously these things won’t be a problem for us, unlike all previous human societies. We’ll just use our growing IQs to adapt our religions (whatever she thinks that word means) to the circumstances, and our surplus of young men will happily replace sex with intellectual pursuits rather than finding violent outlets for their frustrations.

  270. Luke says:

    Cail Corishev, here is a more likely outcome for our rootless young men:

    http://www.resist.com/CWII.pdf
    Every red pill person should have this free book downloaded AND READ IT. (Start with the map of what the U.S. will likely look like in 30 years on page 91.)

    It’s as much a documentary of the future as Idiocracy, just not as far ahead in time. I hope to God that Jean Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints” doesn’t come to be; in that case, I’d just as soon my whole species goes extinct.

  271. Luke says:

    Not to mention, anyone who likes to believe that the near future in the U.S. will be a more “rational” time is not considering these factors:

    1) The dygenics (negative eugenics) from who is immigrating to the U.S. to who breeds to who doesn’t breed (latter includes many bright if ill-raised young white women);

    and, 2) the public school system. I give you affirmative action, social promotion, mainstreaming special ed students, and Common Core as examples.

  272. Opus says:

    There is or was a popular view out there that single people were having more sex than married people. Is that, overall, really true?

    Consider our good friend Krauser PUA: Nick spends a lot of time chasing skirt, indeed he is on record as saying that last year he made One Thousand approaches, and from those thousand approaches scored with twenty-seven women. That is (for a man) pretty impressive, and I am all envy, but is it really that many? It is sex at the rate of once every fortnight, which would not really be considered a lot for a married man, indeed perhaps normal. I was watching an old low-budget British film from 1971, where in the initial voice over, a man laments that his wife only lets him have sex once a month, that is to say twelve times a year. Is that really so different from Krauser’s twenty-seven.

    Consider the fictional Don Giovanni: according to Da Ponte he has slept, by my calculation with 2045. Let us assume that Giovanni has been doing this for say twenty years; if so then his strike rate is about 100 conquests a year, yet for a newly married couple in their late teens or early twenties, that is not really that much.

    One should therefore not get too hung up on frequency of sexual intercourse – of course any half-decent women can sleep with a different man every day and without much effort should she be so minded, but that is an inbuilt female advantage.

  273. Luke says:

    How men have EARNED patriarchy (without even getting into dying in all the wars):

    http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-would-happen-if-no-men-showed-up-for-work-today/

  274. James K says:

    @Denise:
    “Read the rationalizations of those in the financial services sector after the fallout.”

    Yes, they rationalize their bonuses; they don’t rationalize their errors, they keep quiet about them. I don’t recall anyone saying “Yes, I invented/regulated/sold CDOs and subprime mortgages, and the me coming out from this hurricane of chaos is a much stronger me, able to acknowledge the mistakes I’ve made, able to open up and be emotionally raw with my friends and my team – qualities that every great leader must possess.”

    Erica’s post reads like a parody from a comedy show – like David Brent firing people and then telling them how great the downsizing has been for his own career. I’m wondering whether her entire blog is an elaborate joke.

  275. Opus says:

    @Brad A

    It is true that Dawkins has not outed himself as a Christian (much as he obviously wants to) but consider: He wrote an essay entitled ‘Atheists for Jesus’, recommends that children should read The Bible (although he says they should do so for literary purposes – as if I were to recommend reading Mein Kampf or Das Capital for their literary qualities), avows that he loves the services of the Anglican church and most of his friends seem to be Bishops and Right Reverends – he is after all married to the Honourable Lalla (Romana) Ward and thus part of the British elite and further acknowledges that Britain is a Christian country, much to the annoyance of his fellow scoffers and skeptics. I am merely surprised that he has yet to accept a seat in The House of Lords.

    There is presently one Scottish Anglican Bishop who has acknowledged his own athesim, so I ask rhetorically in what sense is he different from Dawkins. I appreciate that in the United States of Jesus this might seem very strange but in England being anti-God is regarded as embarrassingly inappropriate as being pro-God; thus despite his atheism Dawkins can be labelled as a God Botherer (do you have that expression?).

    Personally I quite fail to see what Darwin’s famous theory – which seems to be the sticking point for Dawkins – has to do with the existence or otherwise of the deity. One thing we can say in favour of Dawkins however is that he managed to ruffle the feathers of Mad-Feminist Rebecca Watson by suggesting that she had only 1st world problems.

  276. theasdgamer says:

    It is expected in your culture. There are many cultures in the world where young couples live in the homes of either the wife’s parents or the husband’s (mostly the husband’s), and they often stay their for life.

    I really couldn’t care less about what other cultures do.

    The Bible qoute you offered up would have to be looked at in the original language to see if it indicates leaving the house of his parents.

    Lol, go ahead and research it if you doubt. Until you can undercut the meaning, my interpretation stands.

  277. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGC

    I remember reading in the bible Reference?

    that Jesus went to a certain area and was unable to perform miracles there because the locals had no faith. This means miracles are dependent on the feeling-state of the would-be audience.

    Or it could mean that Jesus wasn’t allowed by some divine law to do miracles there. Perhaps the divine law required faith in order to permit miracles. And faith has nothing to do with feelings,sorry.

    You could say we’ve entered an age of Religious Darwinism. Religions will have to adapt or die out.

    trololol

    Literal interpretations of religious texts with extravagant miraculous/mythical claims are being weeded out in favor of more rational approaches to transcendent experience. It cannot be otherwise in a rational era in which the average IQ is rising.

    trololol

    Rationalism has failed, sorry. We live in a postmodern era. Even with your high IQ and all.

  278. While frequency of sex in marriage is important, GC’s claims about traditional cultures, even if true, miss the point. The more important thing is that the spouses don’t deny each other. If life’s distractions mean that a couple only get to have sex twice a week, then it’s that much more important that neither of them refuses. But today, married men aren’t settling for an average of once every week or two because their homes are too busy, but because their wives are choosing to withhold it. That turns the leader/follower dynamic of the marriage upside down and frustrates both spouses.

    If the house is only empty enough once a week, and the wife enthusiastically runs to the bedroom shedding clothes as soon as that happens, things will probably be fine. If there’s nothing to prevent sex nightly, but the man gets refused three nights out of four, or stops asking more than a couple times a month because being refused sucks, things probably won’t be fine.

  279. Opus says:

    I have obviously got it in for those in marketing – always running them down – so time to make amends: so here from Pat O’Bryan’s blog for July 2011, I quote “Erica Douglass keeps on getting better and better…. Now she is showing others the way” [straight to insolvency court]. A three day marketing love-in – so that is how you make money – by talking about it and if you like women with really fat legs Erica has two. Erica love, those shorts do you no favours.

  280. jf12 says:

    Luke @2:45 am Great article by Alte, thanks.

  281. jf12 says:

    In response to data showing that she’s wrong about trends in our culture, wherever she’s not merely agreeing with redpill stuff, TGC whole Potemkin villages to raise her straw children.

  282. hurting says:

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 7, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    In-house separations like the one you describe do not begin to emulate what life is like post-divorce; not even close. Besides, many married couples, especially ones enduring troubled marriages are living in that fashion anyway.

    Even true separations do not because they typically are going to involve efforts at reconciliation and are not going to give either participant a realistic view of the fiscal realities that await. Indeed I suspect that many such arrangements encourage divorce rather than even having a neutral effect.

    Co-signing Cail’s (and others comments) that the porblem in modern marriage is not too much focus on sex but too little. And the downard slide is driven essentially entirely by women.

  283. Spacetraveller says:

    “Co-signing Cail’s (and others comments) that the porblem in modern marriage is not too much focus on sex but too little.”

    Yes. And the real problem is that all the sex is being had *outside* of marriage. The only way to elevate the levels of sex within marriage is to outlaw *outside of marriage* sex.

    But no government (in the West) would ever do this. Way too ‘alpha’ for them…
    This is why Islam and other ‘hard line’ religions are more likely to prosper than our wet, soft, version of modern Christianity.
    Sad😦

  284. Scott says:

    I’m interested in a link exchange with yout site.

  285. The Grand Cannon says:

    “This is why Islam and other ‘hard line’ religions are more likely to prosper than our wet, soft, version of modern Christianity.”

    They are not prospering. They are growing only because of birth rates (and the assumption their newborns will grow up to be “hard liners” like their parents, and those are lowering wherever a population reaches a certain socio-economic status. In the UK the first generation Bangladeshi and Pakistani Muslim immigrants were not hardliners but some of their second or third generation kids and grandkids became because of influence by Imams influenced by Wahhabi who came over. They are expecting their kids to carry forth the hard line torch but not only is there no guarantee for that, trends show they are not.

    In other words, Islam does not get the adult converts you think it does and its claims to be the fastest growing religion via conversion are blatantly false.

  286. jf12 says:

    “Despite subsequent generations becoming more hard-line, trends show they are not becoming more hard-line.”

  287. The Grand Cannon says:

    “In-house separations like the one you describe do not begin to emulate what life is like post-divorce; not even close. ”

    They’re not supposed to.
    I didn’t suggest “in house separation as emulation of divorce”. If you bother to read my entire comment you will see the suggestion has to do with creating mystery and longing between a couple who have lost that for each other.

    “And faith has nothing to do with feelings,sorry.”

    You say that as if having anything to do with feelings is a negative thing. Faith has everything to do with feelings, and that’s fine. Faith IS a feeling-state. What do you have against feeling-states?

    You make a huge cultural assumption that desert people living during ancient Biblical times had the same ideas about houses, family, living situations, privacy, autonomy and individuality that you, a post-modern westerner do.

    Is Jesus also blonde with blue eyes as depicted in old Hollywood epic films?

  288. greyghost says:

    The downward sexual spiral in marriage is entirely driven by women and that is what the grand cannon is trying to preserve. The male comments here truly challenge the essence of who she is and makes a great place to speak to men speaking the truth and backing it up. Both powerful motivators for a woman.

  289. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Despite subsequent generations becoming more hard-line, trends show they are not becoming more hard-line.”

    Trends show that kids born of that generation are not. Its cyclical. And I was speaking of only the lower socio-economic class of Bangladeshi and Pakistani Muslims in the UK. Their parents and grandparents WORKED. Many of them are on the dole. Trends show their kids want to get off the dole and out of a hard line approach to Islam, if not out of Islam altogether.

    The higher classes of Muslims work, assimilate and prefer to be thought of as “cultural Muslims” or “secular Muslims” rather than literalists.

    Please don’t tell me you think all Muslims everywhere are praying 5 times daily and wearing the national dress of Saudi Arabia and calling for jihad and sharia.

    Please travel.

  290. The Grand Cannon says:

    “The downward sexual spiral in marriage is entirely driven by women and that is what the grand cannon is trying to preserve. ”

    Good god. Read the original comment. I saved a marriage with the suggestion and the couple;s sex life went through the roof with the creation of a “love chamber”.

    I believe someone else here suggested the readers here are closed to advice and improvement and just want to gripe about something, anything.

    Try proving him wrong, just once.

  291. As I think Dalrock calls it, rebuilding the mound. And of course, right on schedule, if we scoff at her attempts to rebuild it, we’re being close-minded. She just wants to help us improve and be better men, really! Respect the mound!

  292. jf12 says:

    “Less is more!”

  293. JDG says:

    No, it’s not meaningless, and yes, if someone calls themselves something, I trust they’re capable of defining themselves in terms of the signifier.

    Sorry I cannot agree with you. The actual definition of a term must mean something that cannot be redefined at will, or we will never be sure of what the term means. People call themselves things all the time without the ability to define the signifier or the signified. In a world of absolutes something is not true just because some one says it is. You don’t have to be a pope or a chief rabbi of the world to know that.

  294. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGC

    You say that as if having anything to do with feelings is a negative thing. Faith has everything to do with feelings, and that’s fine. Faith IS a feeling-state. What do you have against feeling-states?

    What do you have against the English language and the accurate use of words? What do you have against evidence and thinking linearly? What do you have against thinking like a man????

    “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Substance. Evidence. Faith.

  295. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGC

    Islam historically has grown buy conquest and subjugation, not by persuasion. Your analysis of Islam’s future is lacking.

  296. jf12 says:

    @Jeb re: narcissism vs solipsism. A womans narcissism is more a conscious focus of herself on herself, while her solipsism is more an unconscious assumption that the world does and should revolve around her. In her solipsism, she dwells in the center of the universe under a heaven of complex epicycles.

  297. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGC

    You make a huge cultural assumption that desert people living during ancient Biblical times had the same ideas about houses, family, living situations, privacy, autonomy and individuality that you, a post-modern westerner do.

    No, actually, I don’t. I am literate however. Not sure I can say the same for you. Your subtle shaming has failed and your argument has been shown to have been composed of straw.

    Is Jesus also blonde with blue eyes as depicted in old Hollywood epic films?

    Are you a blue-eyed blonde?

  298. theasdgamer says:

    @TGC

    The higher classes of Muslims work, assimilate and prefer to be thought of as “cultural Muslims” or “secular Muslims” rather than literalists.

    Please don’t tell me you think all Muslims everywhere are praying 5 times daily and wearing the national dress of Saudi Arabia and calling for jihad and sharia.

    Please travel.

    Please read some history about how Islam is spread.

  299. theasdgamer says:

    Since there are so many comments touching on religion, I think that it’s worth noting that the FI has replaced the historical content of Christianity which focused on linear arguments with content acceptable to the FI, which is herd-based.

  300. JDG says:

    You say that as if having anything to do with feelings is a negative thing. Faith has everything to do with feelings, and that’s fine. Faith IS a feeling-state. What do you have against feeling-states?

    The above statement is ludicrous.

    Faith has nothing to do with feelings. In fact it’s quite the opposite. Faith is trusting and believing in spite of your feelings.

  301. Boxer says:

    You don’t have to be a pope or a chief rabbi of the world to know that.

    You’re asking everyone on earth to adopt your own personal definition (which is in the minority among believing Christians, mind you).

    If you believe in religious texts as historical documents, then that’s great; but few people are going to join you, for example:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

    and you’re going to have to accept that. Alternatively, you could continue to issue your own religious edicts as an anonymous voice on the internet, while the world moves on.

    Regards, Boxer

  302. hurting says:

    I wish I had Cail’s ability to spot trolls…

  303. greyghost says:

    The grand cannon
    Following the truth and logic is not closed minded. There is more to the comments here than our on vanity of having our words in view on the internet. Thousands maybe millions view these comments and articles looking for answers to failure of living perfect civil lives of the lie of the blue pill. How many women have robbed themselves of joy riding the cock carousel rejecting truly good men that actually give a damn about them and choosing men that are sexually arousing. The men that played by the blue pill rules are by law chumps. men speaking the truth to each other in the only place not shut down by law that men can speak the truth to each other have discovered truth in reality and have even rediscovered the bible. MarcusD regularly links a catholic forum with feminized liberal churchianship passed off as Christian faith.
    Are you sure you want to keep that mound in tact?
    There is more to it than getting pussy from our wives but that is a good place to start. It is the loss of civilized western culture in general. Up until these guys that just want to ‘ gripe about something” the truth and the bible were losing. Truly think about the foundation you are standing on as a basis.

  304. JDG says:

    @Boxer

    Then how is the definition of a term decided? When the definition is disputed, who gets to play world rabbi and decides which belief is correct?

    I made a strong case for the meaning of the word referencing historical documents widely accepted even by secular scholars, yet you reject it. On what grounds? Popularity?

  305. Cicero says:

    @ Boxer

    “You don’t get to be the pope or the chief rabbi of the world, declaring people in or out of the faith.”

    Well does the pope or the chief rabbi of the world have sole discretion on pointing out that a persons actions do mot measured up to their beliefs? A tree is measured by its fruit is it not?

  306. JDG says:

    Alternatively, you could continue to issue your own religious edicts as an anonymous voice on the internet, while the world moves on.

    One would think that when it comes to all things Christian that the source of Christian thinking might be the place to go for understanding things that are Christian.

    Yes the world will indeed move on, but we will hardly be alone being in the world but not of the world.

  307. Cicero says:

    @ JDG

    “Yes the world will indeed move on, but we will hardly be alone being in the world but not of the world.”

    The great part is no matter how much people like Boxer try to change (or are even successful in doing so) the Word of God to fit to their PC feel good views of all opinions being equal – the Bible says in Luke 19:40 “He answered, “I tell you, if they keep silent, the very stones will cry out!”

  308. feeriker says:

    First, persecution in the long run has often been good for Christianity.

    Direct persecution has been essential to the strength of the Christian faith. A major reason behind the corruption and slow, steady decline of Christianity in the western world over the last millennium and a half has been not only the end of persecution of the faith, but the co-opting of it by governments and other secular social institutions for their own ends (which have nothing to do with Christ’s message). Compare the life and the lot of the self-professed First Century believer with that of his historical descendant in the West today, and you’ll find that there is almost no similarity between the two.

  309. Casey says:

    FILE UNDER ‘EQUALITY’

    I just had a very disheartening conversation with a colleague. His son is an MBA at a prestigious business school, and the corporate hiring has begun.

    The men have been told point-blank to ‘not get discouraged’ as the first hires are going to be the women.

    This is mandated policy for large companies, pushed down by the Canadian Federal government. If you do business with the federal government, you have to adopt their cancerous hiring policies – the ‘Federal Partners Program’.

    So all the cream jobs, and easy hires are going to women. Men have to beat the pavement harder, longer, for weaker results.

    Utter bullshit.

    My son, a high school student, stated that a mandatory assembly was being held for each of the grade 9, 10, 11, & 12 girls. Boys were NOT allowed to attend.

    The assembly was all about being a leader in business, and the standard feminist claptrap.

    This is how far we have slid, that this type of open hostility towards men cannot be objected. If you do, you are red-circled as a chauvanist, sexist, etc., etc.

    I see now that men are to be exterminated from the business world, and job prospects few. This will create a generational dearth in marriageable men.

    Exactly what feminism wants………no marriages, and economic misery for men.

    Our economic climate will look a lot more like Jamaica for Western men.

  310. Steve H says:

    Jumping back in to heartily +1 Casey’s comment. If we think free speech is under siege in ‘Murica, it is 3-5x worse than that in the Great White North. And now these blatantly discriminatory legally-mandated acts of female social primacy – both in education and ‘private’ business.

    As an American with Canadian descendants, I grew up with a misty nostalgia for the noble Canada of my ancestors’ yesteryear. Now that they have all died, and with that pain in my heart, I now invest heavily in Canadian utility, energy, and natural resource equities for their rich monthly/quarterly dividends (and moderate asset appreciation) – while spending my tourism/travel dollars expressly elsewhere.

  311. Anonymous age 72 says:

    There is another solution to these abuses against men. Expat. I just ran across something written in 2011.

    “On DGM-4, a man posted on his experience with his cable company. He had a billing error, and when he called the cable company, he dialed 1 for English.

    He got a pissed-off, nasty Amerifiend who put him on hold several times.then told him she couldn’t help him and gave him another number.

    Being fluent in Spanish, he called the same number, but dialed 2 for Spanish.

    He got a happy, cheerful, pleasant woman, who checked, and told him, you are right. That was an error. And, promptly fixed it.Chatted with him as she worked, asked where he was from, because of his accent.

    The more I think about it, that grows on me. Expatting is sort of like Dial 2 For Spanish. Or whatever language. A whole different world when you escape the English language.”

  312. Steve H says:

    As an American with Canadian *ancestors (d’oh! sorry)

  313. feeriker says:

    If you do business with the federal government, you have to adopt their cancerous hiring policies – the ‘Federal Partners Program’

    The silver lining here is that if you are a business owner, especially of a tech sector business, who wants your business to remain competitive and cutting edge, the LAST customer you want is one that is any level or form of government. First of all (I say this a current insider of such a business), accepting contracts from any government will eventually lead you to depending on that government for the bulk of, if not all of your business (the money is just too easy compared to having to satisfy private-sector customers, and most business owners are both lazy AND greedy/shortsighted). Second, once you become dependent on government for the bulk of, if not all of, your business, you WILL cave in to and abide by ALL government fiats on everything imaginable, most of which fly directly in the face of sane, sound, sustainable business practices. Such will lead to irreversible rot within your corporate culture, driving what few dedicated and competent employees you have elsewhere while ensuring that the non-productive and incompetent parasites not only remain, but grow to majority status. Last but not least, if you are technology company, you can forget about remaining cutting edge or being innovative. Depending on Big Daddy Government will ensure that any creative spark within you is destroyed, as you will be forced to adopt your parasitic, sclerotic government clients’ equally parasitic and unproductive habits. To sum it up: JUST DON’T DO IT.

    I work for just such a company, one now so dependent on government contracts and for so long that they’re actually consciously avoiding private-sector expansion. A good thing too, since, being dominated at the executive levels by retired generals and admirals and AA/EO-enabled women, they couldn’t sell oxygen to drowning victims. Once the government goes bankrupt and collapses, so will these companies (and YES, I am actively shopping my resume out looking for greener pastures, but in this economy and at my age, it’s no easy slog).

  314. JDG says:

    Exactly what feminism wants………no marriages, and economic misery for men.

    Our economic climate will look a lot more like Jamaica for Western men.

    Not just for the men. It’s too bad the adherents of feminism didn’t consider the old adage ‘Be careful of what you wish for’.

  315. Spacetraveller says:

    TGC,

    Well, I live in the UK, and islam is a religion I have grown very accustomed to, simply by virtue of living in Britain. I really don’t need to travel to get to grips with islam anymore.

    No, I don’t think that every muslim is praying five times a day. But I can tell you that the average muslim is more fervent with his faith than the average christian. Which is why I think islam will win over christianity in the next few years in terms of numbers of converts/influence.

    Look, it has just come to light that all of us in Britain are now eating halal meat because that is what restaurants/food retailers are serving up routinely. It is apparently an ‘economics’ issue, since with halal meat, they can cater for muslims and non-muslims alike, so it is cheaper to serve halal meat for all…

    Personally, I don’t care. If halal meat won’t kill me, I shall happily eat it. I don’t know that much about halal, but I don’t suppose it contravenes any christian laws. Someone correct me if I am wrong about this…

    But it’s the INFLUENCE of the religion that I am alluding to here. If christians don’t stand up for their own faith in their own country (albeit welcoming other religions with open arms – I am a fan of islam personally, so I don’t knock it), then one cannot blame other religions from taking hold.

    I just used islam as one example. But there are others that could easily do the same job. I think (modern) christianity could take a leaf out of other religions. In other words, modern christianity could take a leaf out of real christianity, the pre-1950s christianity.

    Otherwise, those who want to remain faithful to the faith would have to do it ‘on their own’ which is infinitely harder than when it is ‘cultural’.

  316. James K says:

    @The Grand Cannon

    Islam gets adult converts by many mechanisms. There are at least two that are important in Britain – conversion of women by their Muslim boyfriends, and conversion in prison, amazingly enough because Muslim prisoners get better food!

    It is not clear whether modern extremism is cyclical, because we are still in the first cycle. In 1979 extremists took over the Grand Mosque in Mecca, and denounced the Saudi royal family for their decadence and lack of Muslim values. The royals were seriously worried, and their solution was to export radicalism, something that seemed even more appropriate when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan later that year. Exporting radicalism has a dual purpose: it satisfies the extremists that they have a common cause with the Saudi royal family, and it gets the extremists away from home where they might think about overthrowing the royal family itself.

    The expansion of Wahhabism/Salafism from Saudi Arabia into a strand of mainstream Sunni Islam has happened in only 35 years. The Iranian revolution also took place in 1979, and had a similar effect on Shia Islam.

    Both developments have favored the lethal mixture of politics and religion, with suicide attacks as the weapon of choice.

    Of course most Muslims do not favor suicide bombings, and neither do they pray five times a day. However, there is a dangerous undercurrent of sympathy for the aims of the bombers, if not support for their methods. The number of British Muslims on trial for terrorism after the 7/7 bombings exceeded anything in the IRA campaign, or the numbers of people caught for spying in the Cold War. There is a genuine problem – it should not be overstated, but neither should it be ignored.

    There is also a real problem with clannishness, protecting one’s own people, and so on. The rate of first-cousin marriage among Pakistanis, even among Brits of Pakistani descent, is 50% – roughly the same as in Sicily 100 years ago. It is hard for someone with such a background to tell the police about extremism and criminality within their own community.

  317. Luke says:

    Re the “pray 5x a day” thing among Muslims, I can give a first-hand account about this. I spent several months in eastern (the less conservative/fundamentalist part) Saudi Arabia last year. I worked with a group of about 20 people (nearly all Muslims), ages 23-50, all with at least hard-science B.S. degrees, many with M.S. degrees. The majority were Saudi, with Eqyptians, Tunisians, Algerians, etc. as well. About 60% of them prayed the ~3 times that prayer time came during the work shift. All were VERY fluent in English.

  318. BradA says:

    @Boxer,

    > “No, it’s not meaningless, and yes, if someone calls themselves something, I trust they’re capable of defining themselves in terms of the signifier.”

    I completely disagree. Someone isn’t a car even if they call themselves that and stand in a garage.

    You become a Christian by confessing Jesus as the Lord (master, controller, etc.) of your life and believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead (Rom 10:9-10). You don’t get it any other way. The path to Life is narrow and few find it.

    @Opus,

    Interesting. Though Darwinism is utter nonsense without an spec of truth beyond “things specialize”. Lots of flaws there. I do not think that following Jesus is prohibited by following Darwin, but you will have to pick who is Lord at some point. Either God made things or He didn’t. Absolutely no evidence things happened to be that way. (I am sure some/many disagree. I don’t want to argue the issue here, but realize that of us take the Scriptures a bit more seriously than you do.)

    The bishop you mention is not a Christian either. One can be in an ecclesiastical role and still not be reborn. That problem was magnified when Christianity became the official religion of Rome and it became a political issue to be called a Christian, not a heart conversion.

    Dawkins will face some huge struggles if he ever does convert, just as others have before him, if he is not very cautious how he walks it out. (See Bob Dylan for an example of that.)

  319. MarcusD says:

    My wife is abusive
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=880942

    The above thread will be of interest to people who’ve (or, who’d) been around CAF for a while. Notice how people respond to a male recipient of abuse – the majority of response are: “you should go to counselling” or “I’m praying for you.” For a female, it would be “separate, get a divorce, call the police, ‘your husband is the worstest most horrible person ever’, etc.”

  320. The Grand Cannon says:

    ” I spent several months in eastern (the less conservative/fundamentalist part) Saudi Arabia last year. ”

    Please. Not a good example. That’s Saudi. The most extreme place on the planet where women are forbidden by law to simply drive cars. Most Muslims do not live in Saudi and do not follow the Wahhabi cult rules.

    “Dawkins will face some huge struggles if he ever does convert”

    Why on earth do you think Dawkins would convert, pray tell?

    “Islam gets adult converts by many mechanisms. There are at least two that are important in Britain – conversion of women by their Muslim boyfriends”

    Most women who convert to Islam because of boyfriends end up defecting when they break up. Since divorce is sanctioned in Islam it shouldn’t surprise you that many Muslims are divorced and the divorce rate when they marry a non-Muslim woman who converts when she marries is also high. Again, when those women divorce they usually fade away from Islam also, if not outright begin to angrily oppose it. I’ve known several Muslim converts growing up and most of them are no longer Muslims. They were average to below average IQ to begin with, not your sharpest knives in the drawer. Islam simply does not attract quality Westerners to its ranks and the ones it does attract usually don’t stay for the long haul. Oh, and talk about baby mammas? Single moms are amongst those “girlfriends” and “wives” that convert. Wouldn’t you say good riddance? (But they always come back once the shwarma supply runs dry.)

    “conversion in prison”

    That’s huge in the States (or was at one time) amongst African American prisoners. Again, they don’t stay with Islam for the long haul. Ever notice how a lot of American rappers have Arabic names? Many of them are “Muslims” of some sort, or once were.

    “I see now that men are to be exterminated from the business world, and job prospects few. This will create a generational dearth in marriageable men.”

    Could work in our favor. If all of us are jobless then women will be forced to support us if they want sex and/or babies from us. This could finally be the great equalizer that will get all of us laid like tile; alpha, beta and omega alike!

  321. JDG says:

    This could finally be the great equalizer that will get all of us laid like tile; alpha, beta and omega alike!

    Nope!

  322. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

    Substance. Evidence. Faith.

    Where’s the “evidence” in things not seen? What tools are used to procure such evidence? And how does one go about using those tools to procure it.

    “What do you have against evidence and thinking linearly? ”

    Nothing at all. I’m asking for evidence. Where is it?

  323. Luke says:

    “If all of us are jobless then women will be forced to support us if they want sex and/or babies from us. This could finally be the great equalizer that will get all of us laid like tile; alpha, beta and omega alike!”

    Agreed, NWIH. Right now, if a woman makes 250K/year, a level at which no one else needs to bring in money to support a family, she’s very likely to only look at men making, say, over 320K/yr as potential husbands, or even (if she has her druthers) LTRs. Hypergamy + commonly wanting to quit work if she DOES have kids + general very strong unwillingness for most women to support a man for any length of time (often, AT ALL) kills that.

  324. Luke says:

    “I’m asking for evidence. Where is it?”

    A good place to start would be with the book “The Irrational Atheist” by Vox Day. C.S. Lewis is another good author for the genuinely curious about Christianity.

  325. JDG says:

    @TGC
    “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”

    Creation (what is seen) is evidence of the existence of God (who is unseen). Faith is believing and trusting that God can and will deliver what He promised.

  326. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “BradA” is really badly catechised and it shows. How can an infant conceptualise what he requires? That’s the reason becoming a Christian begins at BAPTISM

  327. I wish I had Cail’s ability to spot trolls…

    I wrote a long instruction on it, but my #%^!7* laptop’s bad power connection at it. Probably belongs on my own blog anyway. So I’ll just say that, unfortunately, it comes from long experience with them.

  328. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGC

    I’m asking for evidence. Where is it?

    Evidence, from the perspective of a 1st century Judean Jew, consisted of corroborated, scrutinized testimony consisting of scrutinized empirical statements. “We cannot stop speaking of what we have seen and heard.” The person with faith had not seen the events in question. Instead, that person relied on the evidence from others who had.

  329. Casey says:

    @ The Grand Cannon

    “This could finally be the great equalizer that will get all of us laid like tile; alpha, beta and omega alike!”

    Wishful thinking my friend…..you are thinking women will respond the way a man would; by sharing his resources and supporting a family.

    That is how a man would react.
    A woman will look for a man that makes more than herself, even if she is pulling down $ 350k a year.

    Men are being drummed out of the workfource by the next wave of feminism, so there will be a dearth of marriageable men.

    Women will settle for a night of unprotected sex, and child support payments from some poor schlub before they ‘share’ their resources with some ‘layabout’ male.

    This dearth in marriageable men is entirely feminism’s fault by the way.

  330. Anonymous Reader says:

    CC
    I wrote a long instruction on it, but my #%^!7* laptop’s bad power connection at it. Probably belongs on my own blog anyway. So I’ll just say that, unfortunately, it comes from long experience with them.

    Suggestion: write that instruction, then let Badger edit it, then post it on both sites. In my experience, a rule-based algorithm (or a checklist) works in all sorts of venues of life, even when a man is short on sleep, physically ill or otherwise distracted. Just a suggestion.

  331. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Foam Cannon
    This could finally be the great equalizer that will get all of us laid like tile; alpha, beta and omega alike!

    No, dearie, you really do not understand much of anything on this topic. Do run along, I’m sure you can find plenty of friends over at xojane.

  332. BradA says:

    @Alan,

    > ““BradA” is really badly catechised and it shows. How can an infant conceptualise what he requires? That’s the reason becoming a Christian begins at BAPTISM”

    And what is your Scriptural support for this?

    [Mar 7:13 NKJV] 13 “making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

    The context here was a bit different, but people like you are doing exactly that. You can be physically baptized and yet remain unregenerated and headed to Hell. Infant baptism is a waste of time, except in that it may commit the parents and others to do what is right in that child’s life. It still remains up to that child what to do when they reach the age of accountability.

  333. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD, the “my wife is abusive” thread at CAF is merely another grain of sand on the beach of reality. Since CAF comments are dominated by a relatively small number of posters, almost all women, the 4:1 ingroup preference will manifest in a form that preserves any woman’s access to the two most important things men have to offer: sperm and resources. Don’t leave, don’t divorce, no, reconcile! Flip the situation, and the 4:1 ingroup preference leads those same women to hoot and holler, “get rid of him! You can do better!” because of male disposability.

    Ironically, this mindset leads to bitter, middle aged divorced women who can’t understand why no man wants to pay attention to them in real life – but there are always online fora where they can compensate. Like, oh, um,…CAF?

  334. BradA says:

    @Casey,

    > “Women will settle for a night of unprotected sex, and child support payments from some poor schlub before they ‘share’ their resources with some ‘layabout’ male.”

    I definitely agree that the push in women is to seek someone who has more than they do, too many idiot women support that same layabout to make your claim here credible. Look at Lily from the previous thread. She goes on supporting Carl, even though she won’t marry Carl. It is quite unlikely she will ever get any support payments from Carl.

  335. BradA says:

    I was going through some very tough times a few years back as our adopted children started acting in VERY hostile ways as they all reached the teen years. A support group that was mostly female and all behind those in such a situation quickly turned on me when I made a few email replies noting that my wife was not behaving ideally. I wasn’t even noting huge issues, just implying that my wife needed to support me more and such. You would think I had stirred the fire ant mount based on the response.

    That was long before I read these sites, but I quickly saw the double standard in even supposedly supportive places. Just another point for some of you to keep in mind.

  336. Women will settle for a night of unprotected sex, and child support payments from some poor schlub

    The funny (not) part is that a woman could do just that — trade an unattractive man one night of sex for his sperm and 18 years of cash transfers — and still think SHE was the one who settled for a raw deal.

  337. hurting says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    May 9, 2014 at 10:09 am

    Having had some experience with CAF and after begrudgingly reading through comments at the latest link posted by MarcusD, I’d add that there is a subtext to the typical woman’s view there as it relates to husbands leaving abusive wives. Even the loudest among them who profess no double standard would (and have on other threads) demand that even when a husband has a canonically valid reason to separate and ultimately divorce that he continue to support and provide for her. I can almost accept this view from a ‘sickness and health’ perspective, but I have seen firsthand one of those female posters in the latest thread postulate that even after a declaration of nullity that the parties owe a measure of support to one another. This poster clearly understands that such a declaration patently means that no marriage ever existed, and in the US, it means that one or both of the parties were deemed INCAPABLE of marriage per canon 1095, but she would have these people (read: man) continue to care for the other. Unbelievable.

  338. Boxer says:

    The above thread will be of interest to people who’ve (or, who’d) been around CAF for a while. Notice how people respond to a male recipient of abuse – the majority of response are: “you should go to counselling” or “I’m praying for you.”

    That poor fellow is in an unenviable situation, fo’ sho’. He is getting some good advice toward the end. I suspect it may be coming from people who may read content at this or similar sites.🙂

  339. Casey says:

    @ BradA

    “too many idiot women support that same layabout to make your claim here credible. Look at Lily from the previous thread.”

    Allow me to clarify, my example was of a woman pulling down $ 350k a year……she is unlikely to ‘bed down’ with some common street hood. A woman with resources is going to be slow to support some below-average earning male.

    ‘Average’ (read stupid) women pulling down $ 35k a year will indeed ‘bed down’ with Alpha street hoods. You see it every day…..poor choices, many consequences….for many, many people.

  340. Boxer says:

    I completely disagree. Someone isn’t a car even if they call themselves that and stand in a garage.

    You become a Christian by confessing Jesus as the Lord (master, controller, etc.) of your life and believing in your heart that God raised Him from the dead (Rom 10:9-10). You don’t get it any other way. The path to Life is narrow and few find it.

    You and your fellow inquisitor have your work cut out for you, then; as there are millions and millions of good Christians who have been able to reconcile their faith with reality. I suggest you both get to work mailing out the excommunication letters. You can start with the blasphemous editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia (linked above) who allow for different (including ahistorical and literary) interpretations of the text. I’m sure they’ll take you as seriously as I do, in your self-appointed office.

    Regards, Boxer

  341. Opus says:

    @Boxer

    Catholics aren’t Christians (so I have been told).

  342. Even the loudest among them who profess no double standard would (and have on other threads) demand that even when a husband has a canonically valid reason to separate and ultimately divorce that he continue to support and provide for her.

    Feminists have made women deathly afraid of the “woman supports her husband through medical school and as soon as he’s making good money he dumps her and marries his hot nurse” trope. That may have happened a few times in history, but is probably less likely today than being struck by lightning, yet they want to structure the entire marriage/divorce legal system to correct for it. Even women who marry men who are already wealthy or who show no signs of ever being wealthy, or who are themselves financially well-off enough that they don’t have to worry, desperately fear getting “gypped” and leaving the marriage — voluntarily or not — with less than the man got.

  343. imnobody00 says:

    The funny (not) part is that a woman could do just that — trade an unattractive man one night of sex for his sperm and 18 years of cash transfers — and still think SHE was the one who settled for a raw deal

    American women have insane expectations. When they are little girls, their fathers treat them as a princesses and Disney tell them their prince will come.

    When they are young, alphas way beyond their SMP f_ck them (so they think they can marry these alphas). All their girlfriends tell them she is ideal and she deserves the best man (“you are great! any man would be lucky to have you!”). All their beta orbiters feed their ego and give them things without expecting anything in return. The feminists tell them they are superior because they are women…you go grrrl. The tradcons tell them they are the angel of the house. The priests tell them that they are daughters of the King (that is, princesses). The politicians cater to their every desire. Mass media deal with any problem they have as a national issue that demands a quick solution (and usually passing legislation). Oprah tell them they can have whatever they want.

    As a result, the average twenty-something American woman has an inflated ego with the size of Kilimanjaro. Combine this with a reduced intelligence and the tendency of American people to live in a dream (which in females takes the form of a Cinderella-type fairy tale dream) and you get that. Nothing is good for her. She deserves the best of the best.

    This is the root of the problem. Feminism is only a minor problem compared to that. This is why feminism has been so awful in English-speaking countries.

    Look at this

    In any other country of the world, this prematurely aged short fattie (which is quite homely) would thank God every day to have a man like that. Not in America. She deserves a younger George Clooney. Your unicorn is out there. You go grrrrl

  344. The Grand Cannon says:

    “You and your fellow inquisitor have your work cut out for you, then; as there are millions and millions of good Christians who have been able to reconcile their faith with reality.”

    As well as atheists who have been able to reconcile their lack of faith in god with cultural participation in religious holidays and rituals. Speaking of Dawkins, the “handsome alpha” of the New Atheists, Sam Harris, actually practices Buddhist meditation. He just doesn’t believe the woo-woo stores associated with that tradition. So obviously some atheists see some benefit in practicing something or other devised by some religions.

    Atheists generally just call for the scientific method to be applied before they will “believe in” something.

    “Catholics aren’t Christians (so I have been told).”

    Who told you that, and why?

  345. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGC

    Atheists generally just call for the scientific method….”

    Oh? Ever heard of Thomas Kuhn or Paul Feyerabend? Your modernist tripe won’t fly around here.

  346. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Men are being drummed out of the workfource by the next wave of feminism, so there will be a dearth of marriageable men. Women will settle for a night of unprotected sex, and child support payments from some poor schlub before they ‘share’ their resources with some ‘layabout’ male.”

    They won’t get child support payments from men with no jobs. Which means men will get sex and women will have to pay for it.

    “Creation (what is seen) is evidence of the existence of God (who is unseen).”

    No, it is not.

    ” Faith is believing and trusting that God can and will deliver what He promised.”

    You went from creation to some promise that someone supposedly made. Complete wishy washy woo-woo.

    Look, I am not anti-religion nor am I even an avowed atheist. I’m simply able to say “You know what, I have no idea what happens after death, if there is an afterlife (or lives) or another plane of existence or a soul, or anything (or nothing).”

    I didn’t come onto this site to argue for or against any religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise. Its a waste of time because again, faith is a feeling-state and feeling-states are very personal.

    Religions are truth claims. In order to cross over into the realm of facts, the scientific method has to be applied. Until then, truth claims are, well, claims.

    You can have your truth claim, someone else can have his, and I can have mine (or maybe I don’t have any). Its ridiculous to argue over them.

  347. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Evidence, from the perspective of a 1st century Judean Jew, consisted of corroborated, scrutinized testimony consisting of scrutinized empirical statements. “We cannot stop speaking of what we have seen and heard.” The person with faith had not seen the events in question. Instead, that person relied on the evidence from others who had.”

    Truth claims.

    “C.S. Lewis is another good author for the genuinely curious about Christianity.”

    Did I give off the impression that I’m genuinely curious about Christianity? If so, my bad. I’m not. I did not come to this site to learn about Christianity or argue with Christians about their religion. I didn’t know this was a site exclusively about Christianity. Is it? I thought it was a site designed to discuss other issues.

  348. greyghost says:

    Playing dumb now huh honey?

  349. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Evidence, from the perspective of a 1st century Judean Jew…”

    I’m not a 1st Century Judea Jew, nor am I particularly interested in the perspectives they may have had.

    Dalrock, did you create this site specifically to “witness” to non-Christians? Are non-Christians welcome here or not? It appears Boxer is a non-Christian. Are there any other non-Christians here?

  350. Playing dumb now huh honey?

    Right on schedule. We’ve gotten: marriage isn’t that important, men should be shamed into accepting sex less often than they’d like, anyone who argues with her is close-minded, faith is just feelings, and now atheism. It always comes down to that, ultimately.

  351. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Right on schedule. We’ve gotten: marriage isn’t that important, men should be shamed into accepting sex less often than they’d like, anyone who argues with her is close-minded, faith is just feelings, and now atheism. It always comes down to that, ultimately.”

    Quote me on any of that.

    Rather, “I’m not anti-religion nor am I an avowed atheist” (but even if I were, so what?)

    Friends have credited me with saving their marriage by suggesting they sleep (only sleep) in separate rooms while maintaining a love chamber exclusively or their intimate times. And, growing up in a two parent home is important for children, but not necessarily that their parents be LEGALLY married.

    You are reading into all this what you want to read according to the script you’ve got playing in your head. It prevents you from perceiving the obvious and the well spelled out. Unless you have a genuine lack of reading comprehension skills.

    So who was she and how did she hurt you?

  352. MarcusD says:

    Off topic, but interesting to note: http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/05/09/colorado-symphonys-marijuana-themed-concerts-could-go-up-in-smoke-as-city-of-denver-urges-cancellation/

    Encouraging marijuana use to sell concert tickets to young people. I never expected a symphony to basically say “we’re your background music for your high – that’s it.”

  353. The Grand Cannon says:

    “faith is just feelings”

    I said “faith is a feeling-state” not “just feewings”.

    But its interesting how you word that, “just”. Another commenter also took umbrage to faith as a feeling state. Its because you and he don’t give any credence to human emotions and find them beneath you perhaps? So any suggestion that you may have human emotions too is perceived to be an insult?

    Of course faith is a feeling-state. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

  354. Casey says:

    @ Grand Cannon

    Casey said:
    “Men are being drummed out of the workforce by the next wave of feminism, so there will be a dearth of marriageable men.”
    “Women will settle for a night of unprotected sex, and child support payments from some poor schlub before they ‘share’ their resources with some ‘layabout’ male.”

    Grand Cannon said:
    “They won’t get child support payments from men with no jobs. Which means men will get sex and women will have to pay for it”

    Using my own words against me, awesome. You must be a chick.

    You are assuming that chronic UNDERemployment is the same as UNemployment.

    I did not say men would not have jobs, nor that women would F*CK only unemployed men.

    Women have never…..ever…..PAID for the consequences of their actions. That gets foisted on the guy standing next to them.

  355. The Grand Cannon says:

    Marcus, you’re off topic subject is more than welcome, at least for me.

    I know some people who have had pot addictions for years now and and now that medical use is being legalized (as it should be) they see absolutely no reason to kick their bad habits because “its healthy!”

  356. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail also note that we are beginning to see denial of hypergamy as well.

    I think pretty soon The Foam Cannon should be telling us how absolutely fabulous women over 40 are and how we are all missing out by not chasing cougars.

  357. The Grand Cannon says:

    “I think pretty soon The Foam Cannon should be telling us how absolutely fabulous women over 40 are and how we are all missing out by not chasing cougars.”

    That’s your script.

  358. greyghost says:

    AR
    It is funny as hell watching this .I wonder how many lurkers are watching this? and can see the changes.

  359. Casey says:

    @ The Grand Cannon

    “That’s your script.”

    Confirmed…….Cannon is a chick.

  360. Opus says:

    @Marcus D

    I predict that the Colorado Symphony will be performing the following Programme

    Elgar: Cockaigne Overture
    Delius: Song of the High Hills
    – interval –
    Scriabin: Poem of Ecstasy

  361. deti says:

    Grand Cannon, May 9, 12:46 pm

    “So who was she, and how did she hurt you?”

    So we get down all the way to it, don’t we? Whenever a man talks about something he doesn’t like in the SMP/MMP, problems with this or that, it MUST be, HAS TO be, because he’s a Bitter Insecure Loser Who Can’t Get Laid. It can’t POSSIBLY be that the man has a point independent of his personal life.

    Fuck that.

    You come here talking to a traditional audience about how men should lower their expectations for sex, and extolling the virtues of the multigenerational family vis a vis the traditional nuclear family. What, so we should return to living like Eastern Europeans under communist rule? We should return to Middle Ages-like living as peons, simply because it’s “better”? We might have to do that eventually, but we “should “ do it because someone like you says we should?

    And screw your idea that married people need to be sleeping apart, or having less sex. Shit. Husbands and wives aren’t sleeping together nearly as much as they should be and that’s mainly because of WOMEN, not men. If anything, wives should be sexing up their husbands MORE – a LOT more.

    Congratulations for finally trotting out the BILWCGL shaming language. I was wondering how long that would take. I knew it would show up sooner or later. What’s next? “Don’t judge me”?

    See ya.

  362. Cicero says:

    @ Boxer

    “You and your fellow inquisitor”

    Logical fallacy; Poisoning the well

    “have your work cut out for you,”

    Well nothing of value is easily obtained that is why you and those like you try and change the Word of God to fit into your view of how thing should be, because you don’t value the Word of God.

    “as there are millions and millions of good Christians”

    Only God is good. Yeah yeah I know it doesn’t go down well with the feel good PC all opinions are equal crowd. That is why they try and change the Bible so they to can be good and thus be like God. Narcissism is so predictable and banal.

    “who have been able to *reconcile* their faith with reality.”

    You mean compromise their faith for what they have been told by questionable individuals of what reality should be.

    “I suggest you both get to work mailing out the excommunication letters.”

    Can’t excommunicate someone if they weren’t part of the Church to begin with because you can only be part of the Church (bride of Christ) if you believe the Word to be the whole truth. John 14:6 “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the *truth* and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Now either the Word of God is entirely true or it is a lie. Revelation 3;16 “But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!”

    “You can start with the blasphemous editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia (linked above) who allow for different (including ahistorical and literary) interpretations of the text.”

    Would that text that you are referring to be the actual Word of God or the one that the catholic church has been changing, fudging and fiddling around with over the centuries?

    “I’m sure they’ll take you as seriously as I do, in your self-appointed office“

    And who are they that I should care if they take me seriously? And my office is that of Child of God. If you have a problem with that take it up with my Father …All Mighty God.

  363. The Grand Cannon says:

    “It is funny as hell watching this .I wonder how many lurkers are watching this? and can see the changes.”

    No changes. The views I’ve expressed thus far here are simple, clear and consistent.

    I am agnostic. I am not interested in arguing with people over their religious truth-claims.

    Legal marriage is not necessary to raise an intact family under one roof.

    Assortive mating is the rule, not the exception.

    All 3 views are not only confusing but thoroughly objectionable and offensive, I know!

  364. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, don’t forget that for women “the personal is political” isn’t just a slogan from the 80’s, it is for the most part true. Because of their ingroup preference, because of the danger of outgrouping to a woman in the past, they tend to read personal issues into abstract discussion. So it cannot be that Cail has observed behavior of women, noted the difference between actions and words, and reached some conclusions. No, it must be personal at some level, because to women (even those with poorly fitting beards) everything has the potential at least to be personal.

    Of course, that “who was she” could just be garden variety concern-trolling and red-herring-dropping as well. Note that this thread seems to have attracted more than the usual number of disruptors – the topic is magnetic, women must rebuild the mound ASAP and shut down discussion of their inner nature.

  365. greyghost says:

    Man she has Deti cussing and swearing on Dalrock’s blog. That is marriage material there. (and fornication stuff too ) MarcusD get some of those CAF studs to come over here check this out.

  366. The Grand Cannon says:

    I just read that Nevada is the state in the States with the highest divorce rate. Any speculations on why?

  367. Opus says:

    The Grand Cannon mayor may not be female, but I have noticed that (s)he is not American: (s)he is also an attention seeker; don’t feed the trolls.

  368. The Grand Cannon says:

    The nuclear family is not traditional. It is a breakdown of the traditional family. The next level of breakdown is single parent families.

  369. Boxer says:

    She is also an attention seeker; don’t feed the trolls.

    Ordinarily I’d agree, but on this blog, a lot of the best comment content is in reply to these masochistic types. The Grand Cannon is a bore, but the responses are pretty good.

  370. jf12 says:

    Cail Corishev has the iron frame @12:37 pm. Any minute now, TGC is gonna say “Of course I’m a woman just trolling, but I had you going there.”

  371. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Ordinarily I’d agree, but on this blog, a lot of the best comment content is in reply to these masochistic types. ”

    Again the views I’ve clearly expressed on this blog are simple;

    Not interested in religious truth-claim debates.
    Legal marriage is not necessary for life long pair bonding.
    Assortive mating is the rule, not the exception.
    American divorce rates are high in the middle class on downward and maybe Rabbi Shmuley is onto something with his mystery theory.

    I don’t see anything “masochistic” in the above views. Care to clue me in?

    Does anyone here have any objection to those views or you guys just don’t like the way I express them?

  372. Opus says:

    TFH has a seventy-two hour rule: Let’s see.

  373. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Foam Cannon
    I just read that Nevada is the state in the States with the highest divorce rate. Any speculations on why?

    Duh. I vote this for “clumsiest attempt to change the subject”. Gotta do better than this, dearie.

  374. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH has a seventy-two hour rule: Let’s see.

    D’oh! Ooooh, I forgotted that.

  375. The Grand Cannon says:

    Seventy two hours is long ago. I’ve been posting here for a few weeks now, if not longer. Again, anyone care to address my actual views who you just want to gloat in snark.

    Cail accuses me of writing things I never wrote and Deti throws a hissy fit and now we’ve got a snark fest taking place.

    All over what?

  376. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Foam Cannon
    I’ve been posting here for a few weeks now, if not longer.

    Under which names?

    Again, anyone care to address my actual views who you just want to gloat in snark.

    Most of your actual views as stated have nothing to do with the original posting.

  377. BradA says:

    @deti,

    > “extolling the virtues of the multigenerational family vis a vis the traditional nuclear family”

    Are those two necessarily opposed? The modern implementation of the former is not good, but I find the concept to be much better, at least how it was practiced in the past that I have heard of. It seems a good way to deal with taking care of the elderly, though not lazy adult children.

    @Casey,

    > “Allow me to clarify, my example was of a woman pulling down $ 350k a year……she is unlikely to ‘bed down’ with some common street hood. A woman with resources is going to be slow to support some below-average earning male.”

    I would tend to agree with that. Anyone know how often the women supporting a layabout man make more than a low-end income? The examples I have personally seen are women who don’t have huge options themselves nor the drive to change anything.

    @Boxer,

    > “You and your fellow inquisitor have your work cut out for you, then; as there are millions and millions of good Christians who have been able to reconcile their faith with reality.”

    How can you be a Christian if you do not follow the Biblical pattern for doing so? Or is this just a magical label someone gets? You seem to hold the latter view. Have fun with it. I will go with believing the Words God gave to us.

    Nothing about reconciling anyone’s faith with reality. I have done that a long time ago and find a lot of what is called reality (such as the idea of particles to people evolution) to be utter bunk. Lots of just-so stories, kind of like what we talk about in these comments in relation to male-female relations.

    You still have to make Jesus your Lord and believe God raised Him from the dead. Anything short of that is not a saving faith. The other stuff is very important, but won’t keep you from having a reborn spirit, which is the key ticket item. Few people understand that and instead think salvation is some external thing. Either your spirit is reborn or it isn’t. I can’t tell whether that is true for any given individual, but it remains the core principle.

    @TGC,

    > “Of course faith is a feeling-state. And there’s nothing wrong with that.”

    No it is not. Faith is a firm conviction and produces the willingness to follow through with it. It is not faith if you can’t stand for it even when you do not “feel good” about something.

    @Casey,

    > “Women have never…..ever…..PAID for the consequences of their actions. That gets foisted on the guy standing next to them.”

    I don’t know that I would agree with “never”, but the point is quite valid. Those consequences are hoisted off on others in many ways today. A lot of stupid behavior by men and women would be far less common if each person had to live with the consequences. That is definitely true with the women that sleep around. Removing the consequences can remove the need to not do something. “Sin is pleasurable for a season,” but thinking judgment day will never come makes that pleasure well worth it.

  378. BradA says:

    > “TFH has a seventy-two hour rule: Let’s see.”

    TFH?

  379. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Under which names?”

    The Grand Cannon.

    “Most of your actual views as stated have nothing to do with the original posting.”

    Which particular post are you referring to?

    I believe the last few days we’ve been discussing marriage and modern relationships, in which case “Legal marriage is not necessary for life long pair bonding. Assortive mating is the rule, not the exception.American divorce rates are high in the middle class on downward and maybe Rabbi Shmuley is onto something with his mystery theory.” all apply.

    I’ve been forced to state my agnosticism and non-interest in religious truth-claim debates only when a few online missionaries attempted some conversion tactics on me. I’m more than happy to drop that one altogether and proceed with the other topics.

  380. Opus says:

    TFH – yes TFH or perhaps it was Deti, but it sounds like one of TFH’s dictums – or should that be dicta?

  381. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGC

    Not interested in religious truth-claim debates.

    Your argument rested on a solipsist definition of “faith”. However, religion gets to define what faith is–especially the Christian religion. I have shown what that definition is and how it is to be understood.

    Definitions are necessarily ontological and rely on truth claims. Your definition of “faith” is exotic and controversial and your argument is unpersuasive. You have painted yourself out of the area where the answer lies. If you’re going to argue on dalrock (regarded as part of the orthosphere, I believe) with any hope of persuading, you need to at least accept basic Christian truth claims for the sake of argument. (I hope I have put the cookies on the lower shelf; sometimes I overestimate the height of my high-IQ correspondents.)

  382. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGC

    Your comment which initiated the controversy was:

    I remember reading in the bible that Jesus went to a certain area and was unable to perform miracles there because the locals had no faith. This means miracles are dependent on the feeling-state of the would-be audience.

    Perhaps you wish to withdraw it now.

  383. JDG says:

    Does anyone here have any objection to those views or you guys just don’t like the way I express them?

    Both! Plus there are some angles you aren’t even aware of. For example some of us don’t like you spouting modernist nonsense as if it were truth with next to nothing to back it up. The same goes for all the male / female dynamic nonsense.

    “Creation (what is seen) is evidence of the existence of God (who is unseen).”
    No, it is not.

    Yes it is. Why should anyone take your word over the Bible?

    ” Faith is believing and trusting that God can and will deliver what He promised.”
    You went from creation to some promise that someone supposedly made.

    The promise wasn’t supposedly made. It is documented in the Bible, God’s written Word. Even secular historians don’t dispute that these things were written down.

    Cicero says:
    May 9, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    Well said. Thank you for taking the time to write this.

  384. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Are those two necessarily opposed? The modern implementation of the former is not good, but I find the concept to be much better, at least how it was practiced in the past that I have heard of. It seems a good way to deal with taking care of the elderly, though not lazy adult children.”

    This. The multi-generational family IS the traditional model of family. And you don’t have to read about the past to understand how it works. There are plenty of people around the world, who are living it. Even in the USA and Western Europe there are some first, second and third generation immigrants who live like this, and no I’m not talking about the poor ones either. Just go to the Bay Area. The pillars of Silicon Valley live like this. Though its a reverse of what their parents did. Their parents lived in the home of the husband’s parents. Whereas for them the husband’s parents are living in the home of the husband and daughter-in-law because he (the Silicon Valley employee) brings them over. If he were not here, he and his wife would be living in his ancestral home back in that country, along with his brothers and their wives and children.

    Its a way to care for parents and in-laws in old age, as well as to have day care for the kids kept in the family. What to speak of the benefits toward children growing up so close to grandma and grandpa. Sure, there are some drawbacks to such a situation. The lack of privacy being one of them. But there are trade-offs in every type of living situation, aren’t there?

    I find that amongst people living like this the divorce rates are very low. Someone else here suggested arranged marriage and I didn’t see any commenters jumping down his throat. I find it odd then that the same readers would react so vehemently to my suggestion that maybe we could learn something from those still living in a traditional family environment like this one.

    What makes arranged marriage so acceptable but multi-generational family homes not?
    You are aware aren’t you that these are the types of families that arranged marriages thrive in?

  385. feeriker says:

    The Grand Cannon mayor may not be female, but I have noticed that (s)he is not American: (s)he is also an attention seeker; don’t feed the trolls.

    C’mon now, guys, you’re slippin’ here. I’m certainly not gifted with Cail’s experience or skill in this discipline, but even my first-generation TDS picked up on TGC’s true nature after her second post.

  386. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Most of your actual views as stated have nothing to do with the original posting.”

    The Foam Cannon
    Which particular post are you referring to?

    The one entitled “A Most Impressive Trail Of Wreckage In Her Wake”.

  387. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Foam Cannon
    I believe the last few days we’ve been discussing marriage and modern relationships…

    You’ve been moderately successful in diverting the comments away from the OP, it is true, but your rebuilding-the-mound digressions are still off topic strictly speaking. Abstractly, your self-absorption is relevant as another example of solipsism…

  388. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12, please don’t follow the concern-troll down her rabbit trail.

  389. MarcusD says:

    Any minute now, TGC is gonna say “Of course I’m a woman just trolling, but I had you going there.”

    Well, for those interested, semantic analysis says that TGC is a female feminist.

  390. Has anyone ever seen IBB and TGC in the same room together at the same time?

  391. JDG says:

    Marcus I was going to ask, but I already kinda figured. I suppose we could all be wrong and TGC is the product of intense academic indoctrination with feminist/modernist ideologies all packaged into an effeminate male mind, but I hope not.

  392. JDG says:

    Has anyone ever seen IBB and TGC in the same room together at the same time?

    The thought actually occurred to me yesterday, but IBB has bouts of sanity (supporting the more than one user theory) while TGC’s comments have progressively revealed a lack of understanding in how the world works as well as a lack of sincerity.

  393. jf12 says:

    @Anonymous Reader, I appreciate the advice, but as long as we’re discussing Shmuley …

    For the same reason that womenz luv them some Dr. Phil, womenz luv them some Rabbi Shmuley. He apparently convinces women he is the AMOG, provided other men aren’t around.

  394. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    May 9, 2014 at 11:06 am

    Indeed the whole US system of civil domestic relations law essentially rests on the idea that the higher earning spouse is on the hook for financial wellbeing of the lower earning spouse regardless of fault in the break-up of a civil marriage and/or regardless of the degree to which the lower earning spouse actually contributed to the higher earner’s ability to earn. None of this passes the reasonable person test, but it definitely benefits a concentrated minority of the population very directly and widening circles of beneficiaries that generally leaves only men of decent earning power outside. At best the RC church is ignorant of the horrible moral hazard (in the economic sense) it helps to perpetuate; at worst it is actively complicit.

    All of the above is bad enough, but the lunacy of expected annulled parties to continue to care for one another spiritually is beyond the pale, especially when the annulment is likely to be based on one or both of them having been adjudicated to have been incapable of such things at the outset.

  395. The Grand Cannon says:

    ” I suppose we could all be wrong and TGC is the product of intense academic indoctrination with feminist/modernist ideologies ”

    Do they teach assortive mating, traditional multi-generational family living and staying together in a life long pair bond for the sake of the kids(with or without a legal document) in academic and feminist circles these days? If so, count me in!

    “TGC’s comments have progressively revealed a lack of understanding in how the world works”

    What, you mean people don’t mate assortively in real life?

    ” as well as a lack of sincerity.”

    I’m sincere in my views. I don’t know how I could prove that to a stranger on the internet though, other than being consistent in what I post. Which I have been all along.

    By the way, went to the Schmuley link and of course he’s just reiterating about mystery and the nature of human sexual desire just as I thought he would and just has I’ve already explained here.

  396. jf12 says:

    The big factual error that Shmuley makes, which makes him so popular with women, is that he blames men for not evoking lust in their wives. Plus, of course, he poses himself “If I were your husband then I could make you lust for me!”

  397. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Most of your actual views as stated have nothing to do with the original posting.”

    “Which particular post are you referring to?”

    “The one entitled “A Most Impressive Trail Of Wreckage In Her Wake”.

    Ah ok you mean this particular blog article written by Dalrock. I though you were referencing my very first posting at this site weeks ago. My first post on this particular blog article was this;

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 5, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    ” Am I upset that I lost my investors’ money? Only in the sense that many of our investors were my friends and I didn’t want to disappoint them. But the me coming out from this hurricane of chaos is a much stronger me, able to acknowledge the mistakes I’ve made, able to open up and be emotionally raw with my friends and my team–qualities that every great leader must possess.

    As a person, I am worlds apart from the one who raised money back in 2012. I was not confident in myself back then. I had a gritty edge. I was scared.”

    Spoken like a true American. I have found these “no regrets”, “there are no should’s” and “everything is a learning experience” mantras to be uniquely American memes and I assume they grew out of the American Self Esteem Movement of the 1970s and now they have thoroughly saturated the mainstream collective consciousness.

    Everywhere I turn I find Americans speaking like this, trying to rationalize their behavior, being in denial about the mistakes they’ve made and the regrets they really do have laid buried deep inside. They particularly do not like to feel guilty about anything, even when they have things to genuinely feel guilty about. Oh and the “strength” and “leadership” obsession;

    “But the me coming out from this hurricane of chaos is a much stronger me, able to acknowledge the mistakes I’ve made, able to open up and be emotionally raw with my friends and my team–qualities that every great leader must possess.”

    Almost every American I’ve ever met fancies him or herself a “leader” of some sort. Its baffling to us outsiders.

  398. MarcusD says:

    I though you were referencing my very first posting at this site weeks ago.

    Could you provide a link to that posting?

  399. The Grand Cannon says:

    Nope. That’s why I asked him that. I believe I started posting here a month or so ago, give or take. The blog master could probably easily find it if he’s deems it worthy of his time.

  400. jf12 says:

    Anyway it’s not Mystery that works per se on women, it’s Dread. Unfortunately for women, and unfortunately for the majority of us men for whom Dread is difficult. The only aspect of Mystery that works is the dark part, i.e. her uncertainty that it might turn into Dread. Plus, it turns out that certain Dread works faster and harder than uncertain Dread.

  401. MarcusD says:

    Nope. That’s why I asked him that. I believe I started posting here a month or so ago, give or take. The blog master could probably easily find it if he’s deems it worthy of his time.

    The reason I ask is because a search of the site turns up no results, which is odd, since it should (assuming you did start commenting “a month or so ago, give or take”).

  402. Legion says:

    TFH isn’t strict enough. My rule is: “I do not read the stupid.”

    I stopped reading TGCD during its second paragraph. I wish you all would stop quoting it.

  403. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ah ok you mean this particular blog article written by Dalrock.

    Yes, that is the original posting. Your meanderings about other topics aren’t relevant.

  404. Dalrock says:

    TGC’s first comment was on April 13th.

  405. Anonymous age 72 says:

    This is probably the wrong thread. But, someone asked me if I could produce the list of all the Bible verses which refer to men; women; marriage; sex; etcetera. I used them to see if there was any bibilical basis for stating that men are responsible if women sin. And, if male leadership iniitiates female submission. And, there is nothing at all, except the exact opposite.

    That was in 1984. Recently, I found that old paperback Bible in a box. Alas, the inside back sheets I wrote them on are long gone, except for the first one. That would have been nice, because I know I will never produce it again.

    Not only have 30 years passed. But, in 1998, that Bible was in a car which got wiped out in Austin, Texas when a man talking on a cell phone failed to stop when everyone else did.

    ###
    Also, someone commented on things I wrote on HB. I was moderator for a while in its early days. That was a time of extreme conflict on that board. I worked hard to implement as best I could the rules stated by the owner. That is hard when you have some very angry posters with no desire for peaceful discussion. Any time I had doubts, I asked his guidance.

    He finally fired me, which was fine with me. When I took the job, I told him to please do that when he felt I was not properly filling the job. But, he also gave me a lecture on how I should change my life, I suppose to be more like him? That was very offensive. Nor was he qualified to tell anyone how to live their life. Few of us are.

  406. JDG says:

    ” I suppose we could all be wrong and TGC is the product of intense academic indoctrination with feminist/modernist ideologies ”

    Do they teach assortive mating, traditional multi-generational family living and staying together in a life long pair bond for the sake of the kids(with or without a legal document) in academic and feminist circles these days? If so, count me in!

    “TGC’s comments have progressively revealed a lack of understanding in how the world works”

    What, you mean people don’t mate assortively in real life?

    ” as well as a lack of sincerity.”

    I’m sincere in my views. I don’t know how I could prove that to a stranger on the internet though, other than being consistent in what I post. Which I have been all along.

    This is what I’m talking about. Either TGC is literally incapable of understanding normal discourse in English, or she is not serious about engaging in said discourse.

  407. jf12 says:

    @JDG, the fact that TGC doesn’t think that women’s hypergamy is downplayed in “academic and feminist circles” is probably the single biggest clue that she is a woman. Every woman believes in “assortative” mating provided that the 80% of unwanted men would remove themselves from the mating pool. “Yes, I match well within my same-level counterparts in the top 1% of men.” In contrast, even the bluest of bluepill married men know about hypergamy: “Well, my wife is better than me in everything; I know because she tells me so. So I’m grateful to her for settling for me, because I know other women wouldn’t have me, because all the other women are so hypergamous.” Hypergamy is the inarguable Clue, Ariadne’s thread through the labyrinth of the feminine imperative.

  408. Dalrock says:

    @Anon 72

    This is probably the wrong thread. But, someone asked me if I could produce the list of all the Bible verses which refer to men; women; marriage; sex; etcetera. I used them to see if there was any bibilical basis for stating that men are responsible if women sin. And, if male leadership iniitiates female submission. And, there is nothing at all, except the exact opposite.

    I recall reading such claims in the past. As you say, there is no basis for it. I’m tempted to write a short post on it (because it only takes a short post to refute something so plainly wrong), but would prefer to have the original claim to respond to in order to avoid claims that I’m dismissing a straw man. Does anyone have an original source I can point to? Ideally in the form of a blog post.

  409. The Grand Cannon says:

    “TGC’s first comment was on April 13th.”

    Here it is in all its glory.

    The Grand Cannon says:
    April 13, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    Proles may be rationalizing sluttery as a path to marriage but the intellectual and cultural elite rationalize it as a path to enlightenment.

    http://www.elephantjournal.com/2014/04/unexpected-teachers-a-lesson-from-each-of-my-exes-amanda-webster/

    Read each one, but take special note of “The Nice Guy” and “The Heartbreaker” which follows consecutively in her list.

  410. JDG says:

    Does anyone have an original source I can point to? Ideally in the form of a blog post.

    If I recall correctly Lena aka CS had a post making the claim that men are responsible for women’s lack of obedience and other negative traits, but she used Catholic dogma and her own rationalizations more than scripture. Her site is no longer open to dissenters, so I can’t link to it.

  411. The Grand Cannon says:

    Wow. Copying and pasting my first comment here I went back to the crazy site I linked and found another doozey: “I don’t care. This feels so good I don’t want to walk away. I just want to follow this feeling wherever it goes.”

    http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/08/what-i-learned-from-having-an-affair-with-a-married-man-jennifer-garam/

  412. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I am not sure of blogs, Dalrock. I have spent many hours with my SIL, him red in the face, screaming as loudly as he could at me for saying it is not possible for men to lead rebellious women, and it is not possible for men to be responsible for the sins of women.

    He is a deacon in a Baptist church in Amarillo.

    This red in the face, screaming as loudly as he could, is called in Baptist circles, ‘respecting your elders’. [/sarcasm]

    Over the years, I have had many such arguments. And, heard sermons in churches before I realized that going to churches was a big mistake.

    This is the same SIL who in 2005, the last time I visited his house, was likewise screaming, red in the face, telling me when I visited him, I must obey him. I was preparing to tow a car dolly behind a rental truck over 1500 miles at highway speeds, and he concluded in his vast brain that I should disconnect the dolly while loading. I chose not to, because the rental people had hooked it all up, and I was well aware that disconnecting it would increase possibility of error when reconnecting it.

    That truck was not parked on his property and in any case was simply not his business.

    That was the last day he saw me in Amarillo. i bumped into him by ignorance when he visited McAllen and i did not know he was there when I crossed over from Mexico.

    Some years later, he and my dau. asked to be on my Facebook page. They were heavy into Deport All Illegals. Most on my Face are neighbors and friends here in Mexico. I have no problem with his political views. Just not on my Face in front of all my Mexican loved ones, thanks.

    I tried to discuss it with him, to no avail. So, Boom! I de-friended them all. My dau. wrote a really nasty PM which I did not completely read but something about me thinking I was top dog. That makes sense, I guess, since they think they are top dog.

    Life is so much better without them in it.

    I have never felt I was obliged to kiss family posterior to maintain a relationship, whatever that means.

  413. Boxer says:

    was likewise screaming, red in the face, telling me when I visited him, I must obey him

    I find this incredibly sad. The older dudes (even the blue-pillers I work with) are a tremendous reservoir of information, and listening to them has saved me a number of mishaps. Squandering a resource like a father-in-law (the one man in the world who may judge your wife’s nonsense as nonsense, when she pulls it) seems counterproductive.

    In any event, the world is full of headstrong, insecure people who feel the need to be in charge of everyone else.

  414. BradA says:

    Opus, I was just wondering who TFH was. I may have seen that before if it is not an abbreviation, but it didn’t ring a bell.

    I am curious if I missed an argument here against multigenerational living. Please point me to the right place if one exists.

    Anon72, should we just let others invade our country? They are called “illegal” for a reason. I guess you just oppose some things and not others. Awfully pragmatic of you.

  415. The Grand Cannon says:

    I’m still curious as to why Nevada would have the highest divorce rate. Any native Nevadans on here? Any next door neighbors (Californicators) who might know? Have the polygamists from Utah bled over the border to carry our their welfare fraud or something? What gives?

  416. BradA says:

    Though I should add that I would have nothing to do with Anon72’s SiL. Sounds like my oldest adopted son. I am not doing enough to earn his respect it seems, so we won’t be seeing each other for quite a while. Much different situation, but it sounds like another person who expects to be the lawgiver in all cases.

  417. BradA says:

    I would agree with giving respect to those that are older. I had plenty of arguments with my father, but he remained my father and we would ultimately talk again, not wait for him to bow down to me.

    I bet most of those who do not have such respect have no idea what they are missing. I would likely be arguing plenty with my own father if he were around today, but prostrate cancer took him about 15 years ago and that is not an option.

  418. BradA says:

    TGC, it would depend on many factors. Do those count all the “go to Las Vegas for a wedding” marriages? How many marriages? How many divorces? What time frame? What other mitigating factors? What is the marriage rate? Sounds more like Dalrock’s forte.

  419. eon says:

    ” … it is not possible for men to lead rebellious women …”

    This is true.

    ” … And, if male leadership initiates female submission. And, there is nothing at all, except the exact opposite.”

    Something has to initiate, and then continue to enable, female submission. This something can be religion for religious women, or interaction with a dominant man for non-religious women.

    But women are not going to submit spontaneously, without that “something”, because it is not in their nature. And women cannot follow a man whom they are also having to lead (logical impossibility).

    I only bring this up because, in these types of discussions, people sometimes forget that both men and women have complementary, and absolutely necessary, roles.

    I agree that it is not possible to lead (as something different from compel) someone who refuses to follow.

    On the other hand, one of my friends since childhood is a very devout woman who tries very hard to submit to, and follow, a husband who is so insubstantial in that regard that it seems like she is trying to push a chain.

    She tries to submit, and he responds by mirroring her. She tries to follow, but he leads by asking her what she wants to do. This all seemed funny, for a while, until I saw how exhausting and draining it was for her.

  420. Opus says:

    @Brad A

    I am of course only too happy to enlighten you as to the identity of TFH: TFH – or to give him his fuller name ‘The Fifth Horseman’ as used on his own web-site is one of your fellow countrymen, who for some obscure reason also bats for India (as I am keen to do myself) and thus he is an Indian American (but not an American Indian). TFH is a frequent commenter at blogs such as Dalrock and The Spearhead and is always keen to draw attention to my poor spelling; I expect he will make an appearance on this thread to confirm his identity, and can be found commenting on this thread up above on the 7th May.

    Am I missing something?

  421. Anonymous age 72 says:

    >>Anon72, should we just let others invade our country? They are called “illegal” for a reason. I guess you just oppose some things and not others. Awfully pragmatic of you.

    Good question,although a reframe of what I said. Although your phrasing was unfortunately an insult as you well knew. Which comes to the rub of it. ‘Should we’ implies future tense. It is long done.

    If we had no illegals and were debating on the future, ‘should we’ would be a darned good question. But, we have upwards of an estimated 11 million. “Illegals everywhere” is a done deal. The only question remaining is, are we going to deal with reality, or continue to fantasize about a past that is long gone?

    One reason I normally vote Republican is because historically Democrats talk about the way things SHOULD BE, while the Republicans talk about the way things REALLY ARE. Now, it is the Republicans who are talking about the way things should be, with the illegals, and the Dems about the way things are. What a change.

    Anyone who thinks we can force 11 million illegals out without a major civil war is highly deluded. I see more totally illegal military grade weapons (with five years in prison if caught) in Mexico than in the US where they are legal. Two examples. First, a double barreled .45 rifle; I didn’t even know such a thing existed. Second, one of those automatic pistols like they used to show druggies using on Miami Vice. The cops, with their M-16 automatic rifles are scared of the farmers, not the Zetas. In a place where one can buy arms like candy, they are not going to be less armed.

    However, the whole topic introduced by your reframe is totally irrelevant. My objection to his putting his political views on my Face was based solely on the fast that almost everyone on my Face is Mexican, my neighbors and loved ones. And, I said so, clearly. Even if I were to stipulate he was correct, that political view does not belong on my Mexican Face, period. You made the unfortunate decision to argue with me about the illegals, when at a glance you should have known my objection to the topic on my private Face had nothing to do with the political questions.

    Let me add that at every opportunity I try to convince the Mexicans not to go to the USA. I tell them, Don’t go, they hate you and you can die at the border. They smile and keep packing.

  422. Anonymous age 72 says:

    In 1997, I was talking to my daughter about the man-fault heresy in churches everywhere. She told me, “They do not talk that way in my church, The First Baptist Church in McAllen.”

    A few days later, I was sitting beside her in the balcony, when the Blow-hard (what I call the old pastor had been there for years, said, “You husbands should give your wives so much TLC they can’t even imagine sinning.”

    The heresy support group in the front row, whooped it up. “Amen! Amen! Amen, pastor. Amen! Amen!”

    He then said, “Let me say it again. You husbands should give your wives so much TLC they can’t even imagine sinning.:

    Again, the heresy support group in the front row, whooped it up. “Amen! Amen! Amen, pastor. Amen! Amen!”

    Then, he said, “Let me say it one last time. You husband should give your wives so much TLC they can’t even imagine sinning.”

    Again, the heresy support group in the front row, whooped it up. “Amen! Amen! Amen, pastor. Amen! Amen!”

    My daughter looked sick.

    Later, she told me she went and asked him about it. He made some nonsensical Bravo Sierra explanation. I could tell by her expression that she knew I was right.

    They are all the same.

  423. @Anon 72,

    That statement that “my church doesn’t have that frame of reference man bad woman good” has been said to me almost at a 100% rate as I awakened to red pill reality and started sharing some views with long time Christian friends who know me as someone not prone to trendy things or flights of fancy. In other words they know for sure that the views I am espousing are not me hitching my wagon to some new movement that I draw pride from or try to look different or whatever. I’m a skeptic. So they know not to directly refute what I say, rather they redirect. They can do what Americans do, be apathetic really, but express some agreement with me in the form, “yea that is a problem in some churches thats why we love our church, we never hear that stuff”

    I specifically had 5 guys I was in the county Republican apparatus with in TX (I was a precinct chairman with them) who objected that their church was manly manly men and in a group I challenged those guys by giving them specific things to listen for and telling them topics in which these things are said. We were not able to catch fathers and mothers days in the 3 month time, and the county Republican party organization met monthly so we could stay on it. It was my early days 10 years back so I was vigilant. Luckily a couple of them experienced sermons on marriage that all today’s churches do, one weekend for the husbands, the next for the wives.

    result was 4 out of 5 were shocked into a new reality, while the other I think is like lots of men, happy to get circles rubbed on his back by his wife in church.

    @JDG

    Does anyone have an original source I can point to? Ideally in the form of a blog post.

    If I recall correctly Lena aka CS had a post making the claim that men are responsible for women’s lack of obedience and other negative traits

    I cant find who asked for the source, nor the dialog in these comments about that topic. Was someone skeptical that the claim is made that women necessarily follow when men lead? Goodness it must be someone who is just exposed to the sphere because its ubiquitous.

    With due respect, even Dalrock leans that way, he and SSM agreed that women simply CRAVE strong leadership, and because of that craving, its like a need, and therefore humans respond well to someone meeting their needs hence they follow into shangri-la land of bunnies and ribbons (Im being facetious, Dalrock and SSM were not that flamboyant to evoke my saying it that way)

    Lena and 7 are way off in that direction. The risk of using them as the example is that they can be dismissed as , “yea there are extremes everywhere”.

    I wrote a blog post that was a response to a lengthy discourse here in the combox section, but i didnt link that dalrock post. I’m linking mine and he may be able to straight away then link the whole conversation, which was very long and very good on this topic.

    http://empathological.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/women-crave-leaderhsip/.

    @Deti

    So we get down all the way to it, don’t we? Whenever a man talks about something he doesn’t like in the SMP/MMP, problems with this or that, it MUST be, HAS TO be, because he’s a Bitter Insecure Loser Who Can’t Get Laid. It can’t POSSIBLY be that the man has a point independent of his personal life.

    Right. Its insidious and nefarious. It negates, in advance, any response you make. It is a female instinct that throws this out because , no matter how rational and tangible and even verifiable your statements, it puts your claims in the emotional realm where women can work with them to ensure they needn’t face any undue reality that may dislodge them from the comfy chair of conventional wisdom.

    In the past few months I was contacted by a representative from HQ at one of the handful of national/international ministries some of our blogs will refer to, using their positions as examples of evangelical feminism. It was an invitation to visit and spend a day talking with people there about things they read on some of our blogs. Over time and by email a conversation occurred about how I personally came to see things as I do. We all know that the most likely path is one of trauma experienced. Sadly, men don’t watch the path for the blue pill snake until after it has bitten them and they nearly die. That fact serves to draw out what you mentioned. And the guy emailing with me would, I am certain with sincere intent, preface discussions with “I am sad to know the things that have hurt you”,,,,etc. He never alleged directly cause and effect but he, also instinctively not strategically, took my facts off the table.

  424. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Good posting. I Liked it.

    In my opinion, there is no cure. The church will be cured when the nation goes all the way down.

    However, I do not wish to rule out the words, “KILL EVERY LIVING THING.”

    This comes from a nation mentioned in the Bible. When the Hebrews invaded, God told them, Kill every Living thing.

    That included men; women; kids; babies; canary birds in cages, cows; horses; pet hamsters if they had such things.

    I asked an intellectual, “What was that all about?” Since the bible did not explain what they had done to deserve that.

    He said history shows that that nation had Ba’al worship. And, every so often the Ba’al priesthood would announce a day of sacrifice to Ba’al. The priests would build a large fire, and women would come and throw in their sacrifice. Which consisted of a live baby they didn’t want. These babies would die the obvious horrid painful death.

    This was so ahborrent to God he ordered not just the people but every living thing in that nation to be destroyed.

    So, why would the US, and most of the Anglosphere not deserve the same? If called by God to defend the US against the same punishment, I’d have to say, “Lord, I cannot defend the US. Over fifty million babies killed, including babies big enough to live alone, and we did not have the will to stop it. We deserve the same thing. Your will be done.”

  425. jf12 says:

    @empathologism re: the guy who is “happy to get circles rubbed on his back by his wife in church”. It would be nice. I have to scratch hers first.

  426. jf12 says:

    @empathologism re: “humans respond well to someone meeting their needs”. The one Great Heresy, Idolatry, and Blasphemy combined, all rolled into one is this: “If You were a better Lord, then I’d be a better lordette.” Usually followed by “Didja ever think of that, huh, huh?”

    It doesn’t get any worse than that; it’s the unforgiveable sin. It truly is. And all echoes of it, including of course women (and men) saying “If you were a better husband then she’d be a better wife” are more evil than any other possible saying or thought.

  427. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12
    @empathologism re: the guy who is “happy to get circles rubbed on his back by his wife in church”. It would be nice.

    Nah. Not really, once you understand the psychology involved. IMO it’s a kind of backleading, empathalogicalism has his own take on it.

    There may even be a solipsistic side to it, but I’m not sure.

  428. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Female CEOs who don’t suffer consequences for this behavior? That’s not a good move.

  429. Anonymous age 72 says:

    http://www.ultimatehusband.com/8cow_wife.htm

    This is the story of the 8 cow wife. I remember when this story was printed in Reader’s Digest, apparently in 1988.

    If you take an ugly; timid; woman of no value and simply treat her like a queen, as if she were worth 8 cows instead of 1 or 2, she will turn into a real Queen.

    Google for Ten Cow Wife, and read all the pastor’s blogs on the topic. Yes, indeedy, it’s your fault if you are not married to a queen. You just need to treat your wife with more respect.

    An example: http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/chris-legg/the-8-cow-wife-story.html

    That was Lief’s problem. He didn’t pay enough for Jenny. Oh, well, by the time he whacks himself or finally dies, he will have given her thousands of cows.

    Slip the barf shield over your keyboard before reading this stuff.

    Man fault!

  430. The Grand Cannon says:

    “This was so ahborrent to God he ordered not just the people but every living thing in that nation to be destroyed.

    So, why would the US, and most of the Anglosphere not deserve the same?”

    Maybe it does. But have you considered god isn’t doing anything about it because the way it was written and now interpreted in the bible didn’t actually play out that way? It could have been a symbolic story rather than historical fact?

  431. BradA says:

    Opus, I was more looking for “TFH has been a regular post here in the past” or the name TFH was abbreviated from. Thanks for the explanation.

    Anon72,

    I can see the wisdom of keeping that off a Facedbook page with lots of Mexicans, but tacit support for illegality (since you date not mention it in spite of your regular complaints against the US) is quite hypocritical. They or their relatives/friends/whatever are openly flaunting US law and you have no real problem with that.

    We could force all those who are not citizens out and could end anchor baby type crud, but we will not. The same flaws that produce our support of female stupidity support this stupidity. You oppose one regularly, yet it is ingrained. Why not oppose the other as well?

  432. Anonymous age 72 says:

    This is really simple. I can’t explain it any simpler. You cannnot force out 11 million people. it has nothing to do with the will to force them out. It is logistically and militarily impossible in an armed nation.

    To say we can means you are living in a dream world. A world in which we activate all the military; all the LEO; and work full time invading our own communities, much like the Nazi taking all the Jews to the concentration camps. The difference is the Jews were first disarmed, and the Mexicans are not disarmed. LA alone would look like the skies over Bagdad at midnight if they started total community sweeps. tossing men; women; and children in cattle trucks for deportation.

    If you nail a small number of illegals, the others hunker down and hope to escape notice, because that is the most efficient response. If you start dragging them out by the thousands, nay, the millions, there will be resistance. A lot of it. Anyone who actually knows the Mexican people well knows this. Those who advocate forcing them all out are basing their opinion on a lack of knowledge of Mexican people. It takes cojones to leave your home and go charging across the desert to an unknown future.

    Because of this phenomenon I mentioned, the tendency to hunker down and try to escape notice, a lot of people have mistakenly judged Mexican men as spineless wimps. Bad move. In hand to hand combat, the US loses, in spades.

    Note that there was no tacit support on my part. You are making stuff up. Please stop it. I cut them off my board because it was offensive to my loved ones and friends here. Any other reason is strictly fiction on your part. I am well aware that many, though not most, US citizens are against amnesty for illegals. And, though I disagree, that is a valid political opinion. And, in the US, we debate, then we vote, then the majority vote wins. At least until recently…

    And, my complaints against the United States are simple. You may not notice it, but the US society is now the sickest society on the planet. And, that is scientific fact. The USA has the highest percentage of mentally and emotionally damaged women on the planet. That is not our opinion. That is medical fact.

    And, treatment of men is undescribable. You call it complaints. So, the high suicide rate is a complaint? The 40% divorce rate and total destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent men by the courts and c/s agencies every year is a complaint? There is something wrong with any man who isn’t at least checking out expatting.

    Oh, and let me add there are serious proposals to kill most men, just as the Germans proposed to kill the Jews. They are serious. That is the only feminist goal from the 60’s, which has not been completed. Tell me the part about how no such thing could ever happen in a civilized nation like the US. That was what the jews in Germany said, too, when they declined to leave Germany, and died. Now, the Jews will tell you when someone says he wants to kill you, believe him.

    I have also said if I had my way, Mexicans would stop going to the USA and return home. The USA does not deserve those workers. It is not good for them to break up their families and disrupt their communities..

    I do understand the US is quickly becoming Stalinist America. Many people today have the idea that was prevalent in Russia that only evil people wanted to leave Russia, (America) and deserved to be killed.

    I am told that at least 1 million US citizens, mostly men, have already expatted from the USA. I moderate several boards where men are asking for information on expatting. If you are happy in the US, that is where you belong. If someone else is not, basic human right says he should be allowed to leave the US.

  433. The Grand Cannon says:

    “We could force all those who are not citizens out and could end anchor baby type crud, but we will not. The same flaws that produce our support of female stupidity support this stupidity. You oppose one regularly, yet it is ingrained. Why not oppose the other as well?”

    Because Mexican women are kinder, gentler, more feminine and more hard working than North American women. American men who are unable to ex-pat to find foreign wives benefit from having them in the States. Feminists want to deport them to deflect competition.

  434. The Grand Cannon says:

    “And, my complaints against the United States are simple. You may not notice it, but the US society is now the sickest society on the planet. And, that is scientific fact. The USA has the highest percentage of mentally and emotionally damaged women on the planet. That is not our opinion. That is medical fact.

    And, treatment of men is undescribable. You call it complaints. So, the high suicide rate is a complaint? The 40% divorce rate and total destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent men by the courts and c/s agencies every year is a complaint? There is something wrong with any man who isn’t at least checking out expatting.”

    Hello! See my comment above. Most American men will not expat but at least now they have a greater chance of meeting some nice Mexicanas.

  435. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Brad. you stated I dare (I assume that ‘date’ was a typo) not mention something. Unlike most of you, for 15 years, I wrote op-eds for our local newspaper, one every two months, for 15 years, with my correct name and address at the bottom. I dare do anything I choose to do.

    I stopped in the end because of men much like you who attack; attack; reframe my beliefs and attack some more. I can deal with feminists, No sweat. I can also deal with the vicious attacks from other men, including MRA’s. it comes down to why should i bother? Fight for justice for men who attack me and don’t actually do anything themselves?

    Having expatted, I am free from the wost things that men experience in the US. If you like your slave status, enjoy.

  436. The Grand Cannon says:

    ” who for some obscure reason also bats for India (as I am keen to do myself) and thus he is an Indian American ”

    Well there you have it. If he’s Indian American that’s why he bats for India. Nothing obscure about it. Unless you’re saying that because he bats for India he has become an honorary Indian American?

    As far as “male leadership initiates female submission” BULL. There are dominant and submissive types in both genders. If you want a submissive female than look for one who’s personality is that way naturally. You cannot take a naturally dominant personality type and initiate it into submission.

  437. Anonymous age 72 says:

    TGC, one of the biggest mistakes a man can make is connect with an illegal Mexican woman in the US. The Mexican men go to the USA to work. The Mexican women more often go to have babies and get a government check. Or trap a stupid AM, and clean him out in divorce.

    There is a difference. Men can’t get a welfare check as women can.

    If a man wants a Mexican wife, he needs to move to Mexico, and “marry” a Mexican woman, free of government licenses and documents, (it’s called free union) and keep her with her family, who will guarantee she does not mistreat him.

    I wonder what you base your statement about men expatting. Do you actually know men who have expatted, or are you making stuff up as Brad has done? Several years ago, I was on a man’s board, and kept writing little stories about my life here in rural Mexico, and what the women were like here. Finally, the board owner and all the staff, 100%, left the USA forever. The others went to places like Italy and China, but they are gone.

    Expatting, like divorce, is contagious. Men don’t think of expatting only because they can’t visualize life outside the USA. Which is why most of my writing is not on Dalrock, but on boards where expatting is relevant.

  438. The Grand Cannon says:

    ” Feminists want to deport them to deflect competition.”

    Correction: WOMEN want to deport them. They can’t stand the sexual competition threat foreign women pose for them. Check out the Storm Front forums some time to see the racist jealousy.

  439. The Grand Cannon says:

    72, I know some men do expat, but most do not. Pick up guru Owen Cook (previously known as Tyler Durden) got “trapped” with an anchor baby but now he’s got 2 kids with the same Mexican woman (of previous illegal status) and he’s very happy.

    American men en masse should join hands with La Raza and be out there in the front lines marching for amnesty for our “beautiful, peaceful sisters from south of the border”.

  440. JDG says:

    As far as “male leadership initiates female submission” BULL. There are dominant and submissive types in both genders.

    Gender is not synonymous with sex. Misusing gender in this fashion is perpetuating a feminist construct.

  441. Cicero says:

    @ The Grand Cannon

    “Maybe it does. But have you considered god isn’t doing anything about it because the way it was written and now interpreted in the bible didn’t actually play out that way?”

    Well have you considered that God has not yet done anything about it because His judgment is yet to come and that the interpretation in the Bible will actually play out that way?

    “It could have been a symbolic story rather than historical fact?”

    Until their discovery were the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah also not seen as nothing more than symbolic stories rather than historical fact?

  442. theasdgamer says:

    @ TGC

    You cannot take a naturally dominant personality type and initiate it into submission.

    So, a “dominant-personality” woman can’t follow a “submissive-personality” man’s lead on the social dance floor? lolz Lots of “dominant-personality” women like to be treated like crap during sex and love submitting to men. You are full of 5h1t.

  443. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Of course most men will not expat. Most Jews in Germany also did not expat. Those who did, lived.

    However, I consider my writing on expatting to be an Operation Rescue activity. If I convince only one man a year to expat, to me it was a good year. That year when the entire staff bailed, that was a fantastic year.

    The real reason most men don’t expat is because it takes cojones to expat, and most men don’t have them. The good news is, it is the best of men who expat. Shivering, sniveling, trembling cowards don’t matter much if they whack themselves, or are fed to gas chambers, as cruel as that sounds.

    And, the technical reason most don’t expat is because they can’t visualize it. If I suggest Guadalajara as a starting point for Mexican expats, and explain why, it means little. A strange, unknown city far away.

    If I write a true story about playing hopscotch with 2 little girls, while their parents and grandparents laugh and laugh at our antics, they can visualize that. And, start to think it over.

    One common mistake people make is to assume just because the past has been a certain way, it will always be that way. Social change takes time. The number of men expatting grows every year. There is a concept called critical mass, and when it is reached, things change fast.

    Several decades ago, people started to home school. Only a few, the bravest, or the most pissed off, did it. But, slowly, people learned more about it. Once they learned all the home schooling materials available, and all any parent had to do was read and follow the instructions, suddenly one year hundreds of thousands of kids went to home schooling.

    Just so, as more and more men expat, and write about it on the Web, the increase in information makes it more believable.

    I do agree, most men will never expat. The US is a nation of cowards, which is why we have sold all our Constitutional rights for the pretense of increased security. As predicted by the Founders.

    But, I would like to remind you that no nation can survive 5% of the citizens who choose not be governed.

    The reason the manosphere gets so much attention these days, such as the dubious honor of TGC telling us of our many errors, is because MGTOW and expats and inpats have them scared silly. The marriage rate has been dropping rapidly and steadily, and those who benefit most from male slavery are panicky.

  444. Lyn87 says:

    With the recent arrival of “The Grand Cannon” I now have an even greater ability to keep up on long threads such as this one: by simply skipping over pointless walls of text when I see her name at the top of a post. I started skipping over anything written by GBFM some time ago, so by adding TGC to the list it’s even easier to weed out stuff that’s not worth reading.

    Most regular commentators have knocked heads with each other before, but steel sharpens steel and we can still learn from each other. I recently tangled with A72, for example, but I still read his posts because he often has some excellent insights… but TGC joins GBFM is contributing little of value, and in the most long-winded way possible.

  445. Highwasp says:

    Keep the blinders on Lyn87 and you can skip over my posts too – like TGC, when I first showed up here I was accused of being woman… probably because I just posted the first thing that came into my head with no editing, sort of like free association. Since then I have learned to organize my thoughts into a word program and edit before posting the results so that I might be better understood. But by all means – pridefully ignore those you don’t agree with.

  446. feeriker says:

    To say we can means you are living in a dream world. A world in which we activate all the military; all the LEO; and work full time invading our own communities, much like the Nazi taking all the Jews to the concentration camps.

    Amerikan Tradcon nationalists not only have no problem with imposition of a police state (as those of us still trapped here in the new Amerikan Polizeistaat can attest firsthand), but actually welcome it if it is, in their minds, the only successful way to rid their communities of “poodles” (the phoetic rendering of the acronym PWDL, for “people ‘we’ don’t like,” the “we” being UMC and UC WASP tradcons).

    I wouldn’t waste any additional time or energy trying to reason with people who have never been outside of Anglophone Norte Amerika for any length of time, who have never experienced life in another culture, who don’t care to, and who are actively hostile to the very idea. One InnocentBystanderBoston comes to mind as another prominent example of this mindset at work.

  447. JDG says:

    Highwasp says:
    May 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    That’s not what Lyn87 said, and he is correct about TGC who’s ideology and bad advice are saturated with ‘blue pill’ errors.

  448. JDG says:

    Anonymous age 72 says:
    May 11, 2014 at 8:50 am

    I am seriously considering moving my family over seas (South East Asia). Working out the finances is one of the biggest concerns. Do you have any suggestions in this area?

  449. Lyn87 says:

    I wrote:

    Most regular commentators have knocked heads with each other before, but steel sharpens steel and we can still learn from each other. I recently tangled with A72, for example, but I still read his posts because he often has some excellent insights… [Emphasis added]

    to which Highwasp replied:

    But by all means – pridefully ignore those you don’t agree with.

    You’re joking, right?

    You drew the exact opposite conclusion you should have drawn from my post. I have disagreed with pretty much every regular commenter here at one time or another – as I suspect we all have with each other, yet I identified a grand total of two people as not worth the time to wade through walls of their pointless text: GBFM (for reasons that should be obvious), and now TGC with his/her (not sure which – someone up-thread identified TGC as female) long-winded and obtuse defense of the FI.

    I disagree pretty strongly with several posts by Boxer in this particular thread, but I’m hardly going to start ignoring him – pridefully or not… he writes a lot of stuff that is worth reading: as do you.

  450. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Until their discovery were the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah also not seen as nothing more than symbolic stories rather than historical fact?”

    And Dwarka and Setu Bandu and a whole list of other acheological sites unearthed around the globe that show up in ancient texts like Mahabharat, Ramayana, etc (many older than the Bible). Another commenter addressed this issue better than me earlier with regards to Brad who thought Dawkins was in the process of converting to Christianity (or already had) because he has acknowledged the archeological evidence pointing to a historical Jesus from Nazareth.

    People have been living in Dwarka for eons and still do. Its a thriving city, bustling city right now as we speak. The remains of Dwakanath’s palaces have been unearthed. Does this mean all the claims associated with the Mahabharata (such as thousands of years old nuclear technology, Princess Kunti’s impregnation by the sun, etc) are “historical facts”?

  451. The Grand Cannon says:

    “As far as “male leadership initiates female submission” BULL. There are dominant and submissive types in both genders.”

    JDG, “Gender is not synonymous with sex. Misusing gender in this fashion is perpetuating a feminist construct.”

    You’ve got one of these on this blog too? What, now I have to out myself as “cis-gendered”? Being comfortable with the same sex, (or is it gender) that I was born with isn’t enough? We’ve got a name for that now? As if its a minority status or something? Barf.

  452. Anonymous age 72 says:

    JDG says:
    May 11, 2014 at 3:46 pm

    >>Anonymous age 72 says:
    May 11, 2014 at 8:50 am

    >>I am seriously considering moving my family over seas (South East Asia). Working out the finances is one of the biggest concerns. Do you have any suggestions in this area?

    Finances are in fact the big hold-up for many people. Which is why I did not move to Mexico until I started drawing pension. Not everyone has the skill set suited for finding good jobs in another part of the world. Even for themselves, not to mention a wife and children used to living in the Anglosphere.

    One thing some men have done is find a business in the US which sends employees to other nations and apply for those jobs once you are in the door of the company.

    Sometimes a man can create his own job. For example, online. Or Internet sales. Or writing.

    Another thing to understand is the cost of living may be totally different. Lee, owner of DGM-2,3,4 (now dead, the URL, not Lee) made big money in California, well into 6 digits. He now works in China as an English teacher, making $500 a month. He can’t spend it where he is, so he saves all year for big vacations in other nations. All on $500 a month.

    A warning that failed expatriation is most commonly triggered by wives who cannot adapt to another culture. Single men have the highest adaption rate. American men so hated in their own nation, are the most sought after in most other nations. Not for the reasons stated by the feminists, but because they treat their women better than any other nation, and women who don’t speak English as natives all know this. You put an AM in another nation, and he gets attached to a good woman, and it is hard to blast him back home.

    Most couples I have known who moved to Mexico, didn’t last long. One writer said almost all couples who expatted to Mexico were gone within 2 years.

    Frankly, I have minimal knowledge of SE Asia.

  453. The Grand Cannon says:

    ” Single men have the highest adaption rate. American men so hated in their own nation, are the most sought after in most other nations. Not for the reasons stated by the feminists, but because they treat their women better than any other nation, and women who don’t speak English as natives all know this”

    I commented this very same thing a few days ago. But we still might have to thank feminism for this. I stated before that North American and Western European men generally not only do their fair share (and sometimes more) of household chores and cooking, but we are quite good at it as well. Western feminism has been driving home the point about sharing household work load in our countries for several decades now. We got the memo. And it is one of the things women abroad love us for. Ha ha. I bet western feminists didn’t expect that, did they?

  454. Anonymous age 72 says:

    feeriker says:
    May 11, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    >>>>To say we can means you are living in a dream world. A world in which we activate all the military; all the LEO; and work full time invading our own communities, much like the Nazi taking all the Jews to the concentration camps.

    >>Amerikan Tradcon nationalists not only have no problem with imposition of a police state (as those of us still trapped here in the new Amerikan Polizeistaat can attest firsthand), but actually welcome it if it is, in their minds, the only successful way to rid their communities of “poodles” (the phoetic rendering of the acronym PWDL, for “people ‘we’ don’t like,” the “we” being UMC and UC WASP tradcons).

    >>I wouldn’t waste any additional time or energy trying to reason with people who have never been outside of Anglophone Norte Amerika for any length of time, who have never experienced life in another culture, who don’t care to, and who are actively hostile to the very idea. One InnocentBystanderBoston comes to mind as another prominent example of this mindset at work.

    Amen. People who have spent significant time in another culture are simply different from the wood work out. It changes you, in most cases for the better. You become more tolerant of most things except American xenophobia…

    We even noticed in the factory where I worked for over 30 years that men who spent time in the military, even without combat, were also simply different in outlook and attitudes from the men who never left their hometown.

    However, I am convinced there simply are not enough resources to remove all the illegals, even if the Tradcons are willing to toy with civil war.

    It is not just lack of cooperation by the illegals. Many have lived in the US, and have accumulated a lot of ‘goodies.’ Nice houses with nice furnishings, electronics; firearms (heh, heh), cars. Some even have kids, and second generation grandchildren, themselves totally legal. Now, maybe the Big Talkers imagine the parents of kids and grandkids will trot off obediently and leave behind kids or grandkids, and property which took them years of s**t work to buy. Boy, are you going to learn a lot very fast.

    I was accused of tacitly supporting the illegals. Utter nonsense, but you get that sort of nonsense when people start making things up.

    I see the damage done to the illegals; their spouses; their children who may suddenly find themselves in female custody by father absence. It really makes me sad.

    There is an older woman who walks by my house twice a day to take care of her animals up the mountain side. She has usually one or another teen-age grand-daughter with her. Karen or Selena. Selena is a bit heavier, but still awfully cute.

    I first met Selena when she was maybe 3 or 4. Her grandpa was disabled and sat in a wheel chair by the door, where people walking down the street could stop and visit with him. Due to respect for old men, instead of hating them as y’all do in the US, a lot of people would stop by, We were chatting one day, and this sweet, little girl came in and listened a minute. Then, she said, in her sad, sweet little voice, (in Spanish), “My mommy is far away.”

    I wrote about it on my board. That is so tragic, and I do not think she has ever seen her mom again.

    Marriages are destroyed by that absence. Boys get in trouble just as boys in maternal custody in the US do. The illegals die at the border; or get sick and die with no family member to care for them so far from home. I hate the results of the illegals going away. But a Big Talker insists I tacitly support the illegals, whatever in H*ll that means. All because I stated what the government itself has to know very well. THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN FORCE OUT 11 MILLION ILLEGALS.

    This goes along with something I said over 50 years ago. The end of civilization began when dueling was outlawed…

  455. The Grand Cannon says:

    “He said history shows that that nation had Ba’al worship. And, every so often the Ba’al priesthood would announce a day of sacrifice to Ba’al. The priests would build a large fire, and women would come and throw in their sacrifice. Which consisted of a live baby they didn’t want. These babies would die the obvious horrid painful death.

    This was so ahborrent to God he ordered not just the people but every living thing in that nation to be destroyed.”

    It was so abhorrent he ordered more of the same?

    Anon 72, I empathize with illegal immigrants to any country because they risk a lot, their very own lives, to try and make a better life for their families. Very rarely, if ever, is an illegal immigrant a “rugged individualist” loner. They usually do so for what is perceived to be their poor family’s economic benefit. And if American citizens are willing to hire them, what does that tell you? Why shouldn’t they seize opportunities from wherever they call? If my family were in a dire situation I might do so as well.

    What needs to be identified is who are the American citizens hiring these people and why are they doing so?

    I’ve heard a few American small business owners say they work way more efficiently than American citizens and for less pay. So maybe American citizens need to improve their work ethic and expect less pay? If they live 4 to an apartment or 6 to a house instead of just 1 or 2, then they wouldn’t need so much money for rent or lease or mortgage. Mexicans cut corners where Americans wouldn’t think to.

    One could apply the same logic to manufacturing and call centers being outsourced as well. The huge multi-billion corporations like Apple and all the other “American” companies do not value American citizens as workers. And yet you hear Americans say “those foreigners stole our jobs”. No, your jobs were GIVEN to those foreigners by YOUR BOSSES.

    Try to figure out why.

  456. JDG says:

    “A warning that failed expatriation is most commonly triggered by wives who cannot adapt to another culture.”

    I have no doubt that this is the case. Fortunately my wife is not from this country.

  457. JDG says:

    Anonymous age 72 thank you by the way.

  458. Anonymous age 72 says:

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 11, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    TGC once again passes the test for being a dearie. She tells us that foreign women want AM because AM help with the household chores. Hey, TGC, check it out. Men who help a lot with household chores in the US have a noticeably higher divorce rate than men who don’t. Women can’t stand men who help a lot with the household chores.

    No, it’s the microwave and freezer full of frozen dinners, the vacuum cleaner, potable water, the nice carpeted floors, the two cars, the automatic heating and cooliing systems, and the worship of women that does it.

    There is not a community in Mexico that in the last 50 years hasn’t had at least one woman marry and live in the USA.. And, they write home about the great life and how well their husband treats them. As an AM, your reputation precedes you.

    Let me say something very clearly: NICE GUYS,THE MEN WHO ARE SO HATED IN THE USA, ARE HOT IN RURAL MEXICO.

    Quite a few years ago, in our nearly 38 year marriage, my wife came to Mexico alone, and i stayed with the kids so they didn’t miss school. I can’t remember if this was in 1985 when she was so concerned about the welfare of her family in big earthquake or not. There was some reason she traveled when schooo was in session.

    When she got back, she reported that she and her sister had a major quarrel one day, and didn’t talk for nearly a week out of a two week visit.

    They were sitting around in the kitchen, drinking coffee and my wife made the mistake of complaining about some trivial, horrid thing I did. Her sister threw a tantrum.

    “The way we women are treated in Mexico, and you complain about something trivial like that? My children have visited you, and see the big house your husband bought you and all the nice things in the house. And, on weekends, you sleep in while your husband gets up and feeds the kids. Yet, you dare to complain about something we Mexican wives wouldn’t even notice?”

    My wife would never tell me what her complaint was, hee, hee.

  459. The Grand Cannon says:

    “TGC once again passes the test for being a dearie. She tells us that foreign women want AM because AM help with the household chores. Hey, TGC, check it out. Men who help a lot with household chores in the US have a noticeably higher divorce rate than men who don’t. Women can’t stand men who help a lot with the household chores.”

    I wasn’t talking about American women, dearie.

  460. The Grand Cannon says:

    My comment with a link isn’t posted but JDG, google “the four stages of expat life”.

    Its not easy. You will have to change yourself culturally from the inside out if you move from the Anglosphere to South East Asia. Which would probably be a good thing for you if your comments here are anything to go by😉

    A good buddy of mine has lived in Thailand for the last seven years and gone through all of the stages but he wants to return now. He says the people are driving him absolutely bonkers.

  461. The Grand Cannon says:

    This is an interesting comment regarding the 4 stages;

    “I think that the motivation behind the migration can also affect these stages. Someone who is motivated more by push factors (such as economic interest) will probably have a different experience than someone who desires to move abroad (pull factors). For instance someone who moves from push factors may skip stage 1.”

    I think that might apply to men who expat because they can’t find a wife in their own country or who have a wife but feel pushed out by what they perceive to be the increasingly negative cultural shifts in their country, thus causing them to desire to raise a family elsewhere.

    What are your motivations? Keep in mind that every culture, even one originally built around the 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism, will have some negative aspects to it, and globalization is everywhere so some negative traits of the Anglosphere can be found in SE Asia as well.

    I think if rather than a negative push away from one’s own culture/country, if one feels a positive pull towards a certain culture, and then goes to the country or countries where that culture is still thriving in some way, that that person, provided he balances that cultural idealism and romanticism with the reality of the very nature of this world (good and bad are everywhere), then I think that person will have the easiest time assimilating.

  462. feeriker says:

    Most couples I have known who moved to Mexico, didn’t last long. One writer said almost all couples who expatted to Mexico were gone within 2 years.

    Dragging the typical AW overseas is a pointless, even toxic move (and a great way to validate the “ugly Amerikan” stereotype).

    Expatriation really only makes sense for the single, divorced, or widowed American man. Much as I would love to do it yesterday, I’ve pretty much accepted that it’s not gonna happen unless I’m widowed while still young enough to move or am frivorced.

  463. The Grand Cannon says:

    Not necessarily freeriker. If you do the expat blog rounds there are several written by American women living abroad (some married there and I’ve noticed some are homely) who are loving it. The “ugly American” is an overblown stereotype. Plenty of Americans, both male and female, manage to respect locals and local customs. Some so thoroughly assimilate that they can be mistaken for locals.

    I completely missed this comment by Lastango posted last week.

    Lastango says:
    May 5, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    This is a fine time to remember Kate Bolick’s dynamiting of her life:

    ” In 2001, when I was 28, I broke up with my boyfriend. Allan and I had been together for three years, and there was no good reason to end things. He was (and remains) an exceptional person, intelligent, good-looking, loyal, kind. My friends, many of whom were married or in marriage-track relationships, were bewildered. I was bewildered. To account for my behavior, all I had were two intangible yet undeniable convictions: something was missing; I wasn’t ready to settle down. ”

    WOW! Lucky for Allen he dodged that one. Close call!

    “The period that followed was awful. I barely ate for sobbing all the time. I missed Allan desperately—his calm, sure voice; the sweetly fastidious way he folded his shirts. On good days, I felt secure that I’d done the right thing. Learning to be alone would make me a better person, and eventually a better partner.”

    WHAT? Why not just be a better partner to the partner you already had who was, by the sound of it, almost perfect?

    ” On bad days, I feared I would be alone forever. Had I made the biggest mistake of my life?
    Ten years later” ….

    Hold on… TEN YEARS LATER?!?! Let’s see what she’s doing now, 10 years later aligator…

    …” I occasionally ask myself the same question”.

    STILL thinking about Allan!!! And I bet he’s married with a couple of kids. And she? Well….

    “Today I am 39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count and, I am told, two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a “good enough” mate. At this point, certainly, falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck. A decade ago, luck didn’t even cross my mind. I’d been in love before, and I’d be in love again.”

    But, but, she never was in love again, was she?

  464. The Grand Cannon says:

    “Much as I would love to do it yesterday, I’ve pretty much accepted that it’s not gonna happen unless I’m widowed while still young enough to move or am frivorced.”

    It sounds like you wishing for a death or divorce here. Is your marriage on the rocks? Talk to me.

  465. Anonymous age 72 says:

    @TGC >>It was so abhorrent he ordered more of the same?

    Yep, He sure did. Explodes your brain, doesn’t it?

    That practice was viewed as so vile and evil, the society which did it was ordered to be scrubbed out of existence for two reasons. One, to wipe it out, just as you would wipe out a hornets nest in your daughter’s bedroom. The second as a message to other societies what would happen to them if they did the same evil. You assumed He would reward them by making them more prosperous and successful? Too funny.

    A few years ago, I think it was the president of the Alabama Tomato Growers Association, who thought it over and decided to try what has been suggested. Recruit US citizens to pick tomatoes. Only one man lasted two weeks. They started bailing within MINUTES. His noble experiment cost him a fortune in rotten tomatoes.

    A cousin’s son worked for some years in the US. He now works here as a builder. When we are doing work on our house, we buy cement in 110 pound bags, not the wimpy 80 pound bags they use in the US.

    One day he happened to be there when we got an order of cement. I walked out and carried my usual 5 or 6 bags into the house. (I could do more but at my age my heart rate starts soaring after 5 or 6 bags.) He said nothing until the next day. Then, he told me, “You are the strongest North American I have ever known.” I laughed assuming he was joking. He wasn’t. He had worked with many NA, much younger than I am, and he never saw one try to carry over 50 pounds. While they were whining for a Bobcat, the Mexicans unloaded the trucks.

    Next border trip I was in the Wal-mart on Trenton in McAllen, buying a five gallon pail of mixed paint. The young man in the paint department offered to put that five gallon pail of paint back in the cart after it was mixed. I laughed and told him, I’m old but I’m not dead, I often carried 110 pound bags of cement in Mexico. Oh, man, he whined, “I tried that once and almost broke my back. They are so heavy.”

    Let me note that I am not the strongest NA I have known. Not only not on the short list, not even on the long list. I was raised on a farm, and some of those farmers are super strong. My youngest brother was reported to have lifted a Holstein Cow. I once lifted a hog, but never a cow. And nearly 90 years ago, my dad saw an Irishman lift a railroad rail like they used in those days, over 1000 pounds, to his waist.

    JDG says:
    May 11, 2014 at 7:40 pm

    You are welcome. Wish I could be of more help.

    >>Fortunately my wife is not from this country.

    Fantastic! That is a great plus, though not a slam dunk by any means. That does bring up other opportunities. One man on the Web several years ago, was married to a Colombiana. They moved to Columbia, and he got a job helping with the family’s dairy herd, enough for them to live on and raise their children, as long as they adapted to live like the family did. He had energy and ambition and was willing to work at manual farm labor for the benefit of seeing his children raised in a more sane society.

    ###
    Let me say I am well aware not every man can expat. That would be as silly as Rush Limbaugh who used to say every one can start a successful business if he tries. Eventually he admitted there are many people who simply don’t have the intelligence or people skills or business sense to run businesses His story changed to many more people can successfully start a business if they work at it, which makes sense.

    I am saying a large number of men would be much happier living in another culture where men are not hated and threatened with death as they are in the US. The reason they don’t, often centers around ignorance and fear of the unknown. Which is why I write on those topics.

    Just this week, I have had now two men seek more information on expatting. Most will not actually go, but that is how marketing works, isn’t it?

    Almost every man on the manosphere understands the letters, GTHO.

  466. Highwasp says:

    Lyn87 : “I identified a grand total of two people as not worth the time to wade through walls of their pointless text: GBFM (for reasons that should be obvious), and now TGC with his/her (not sure which – someone up-thread identified TGC as female) long-winded and obtuse defense of the FI.
    I disagree pretty strongly with several posts by Boxer in this particular thread, but I’m hardly going to start ignoring him – pridefully or not… he writes a lot of stuff that is worth reading: as do you.”

    well thanks Lyn87 ~ I’m on the fence wether to ignore TGC or not, especially considering how quickly I was dismissed when I first started posting. I take issue with the habit of attacking and dismissing a differing or dissenting point of view ! and read into your comment that sort of easy bigotry so commonly at the root of Misandry. It pulled my chain and I jerked back… My bad. Thanks for clarifying.

    I’m just saying TGC has made some valid and interesting comments – some snarky good sarcasm which is needed to baffle the echoes – however I certainly do see the Feminine Imperative and a denial of hypergamy strong within this one.

    Or TGC could be a blue pill man with a big brain and a bigger mouth ([in which case he should stick around]} or could be a manipulative woman with same brain and mouth… which is good for dissecting TGC’s posts and pointing out the poisons of the feminista.

    Now considering TGC came up on my radar like IBB did when he/she first started posting, I might come to ignore TGC like I do IBB… And for these reasons:

    TGC: [{Spoken like a true American. I have found these “no regrets”, “there are no should’s” and “everything is a learning experience” mantras to be uniquely American memes and I assume they grew out of the American Self Esteem Movement of the 1970s and now they have thoroughly saturated the mainstream collective consciousness.]}

    as if women and men are exactly the same when culpability and the fragile American Self Esteem collide. Not so, masculinity puts heavy weight on trust, honor and respect, more so than the feminine can even comprehend. For trust, honor and respect are truly the only things of value a man can offer when he is of the disposable class… which is about 98% of us.

    And this statement of substituting self esteem issues with male/female motivation indicates the lack of understanding of why men do what they do to get the women they want – all while sounding really cool and trendy. Self Esteem Issues… ya I got issues… speaking of which, GBFM has sounded like a broken record lately – and maybe rightly so – but he has posted some astounding things in the past and I look forward to more, once his needle gets re-grooved.

    But it’s good practice to notice the trolls – and TGC is offering some practice like IBB did, until he wrote “I am alpha”! Anyone who has to write that is highly suspicious at minimum.

    TGC also writes: [{They won’t get child support payments from men with no jobs.]} huh? on what planet does this equity reside? obviously writing about something of which they know nothing… and if so ignorant why post here?

    TGC: [{Which means men will get sex and women will have to pay for it.]}
    Hahaha – teenagers!

    [Hello! See my comment above. Most American men will not expat but at least now they have a greater chance of meeting some nice Mexicanas.]

    Nice Mexicana who will give sex and pay for it too… ah the women of my dreams!

  467. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Major electrical storm here in the mountains, so I had to unplug from the telephone/DSL line. The line runs over the mountain, and even a close strike blows up my electronics. I bought the Phillips protectors from Wal-mart which protect the 115 volts. But, nothing stops the pulse on the phone line, except the fuses blow in the surge protector, and I have to replace them A big chore.

    Anyway, I just got back online to send the posting I wrote while disconnected.

    I just read the 4 stages of expatting. I have been here off and on since 1983. When I first came, I hated the whole nation and everything in it. Times have changed and now I want to live here until I die, then my bones to rest next to my wife’s ancestors.

    The honeymoon started in 1989. I will let you know when it stops, though I don’t expect that to happen. The only time I am ever homesick is when I go back to the States. I call my little mountain village, My Personal Paradise.

    The 4 stages indicate to me a person who has not really adapted very well.

    Oh, well. IMO, one needs two things to live in another country. As in my case, I had to leave. I simply cannot live in a nation which totally hates me for only one reason, because I am a man.

    But, something else is needed. Just wanting to leave your native country is not enough, no matter how much of a poltical dissident you may be. You also have to really want to live in the new country.

    In other words, both Push and PUll should be present.

    In my case, I cannot even imagine living again in the US. I would probably not live long. This village is my home. There is no other way to say it. To be told I had to go back, well, I cannot even imagine that horror.

    Several years ago, at a school program, I took a big emotional step. When it was time for everyone to salute the Mexican flag, I did it, too. And, I meant it. My flag. My country.

    The immigration laws here were changed. As spouse of a Mexican, I got resident under the Family Unity laws. The big difference is I do not need to show my own income, nor does my wife. I expect to be a Mexican in roughly five years, and when I am a Mexican, I expect to cry like a baby. i am a traditional male and simply do not cry, but there are limits. Knowing I am a Mexican and am safe will be too much.

  468. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Even my Mexican wife admits I have adapted very well. Several years ago, I forget what we were talking about, but very flippantly I told her, “Don’t forget I am more Mexican than you are.”

    I expected an angry response. Instead she became very thoughtful and said, “You are correct. You really like how life is here don’t you?”

    Once in a while, I will stop and explain something to her about the culture. She doesn’t always remember, after over 40 years in the US.

  469. The Grand Cannon says:

    72, ” You assumed He would reward them by making them more prosperous and successful?”

    Did I say that?

    Hiwasp, “And this statement of substituting self esteem issues with male/female motivation indicates the lack of understanding of why men do what they do to get the women they want – all while sounding really cool and trendy.”

    My point was this “no regrets, no guilt, no shame, no remorse” attitude which has thoroughly saturated mainstream American society (as well as current parenting and child-discipline trends) may be traceable to the Self Esteem Movement of the 1970s.

    My point had nothing at all to do with “gaming” women or trying to sound “really cool and trendy” while doing so.

    If you think men are not saying “everything in my life has been a learning experience that has made me who I am today” then you are sorely mistaken. I can rattle off the names of about 10 men who’ve said a variation of this very sentence to me just within the month of May alone.

  470. The Grand Cannon says:

    “The immigration laws here were changed. As spouse of a Mexican, I got resident under the Family Unity laws. The big difference is I do not need to show my own income, nor does my wife. ”

    US laws are really tough. Just in order to be a tourist there for a few weeks foreigners have to show their income and bank statements and if they are not high enough they can’t even go to Disney World for a few damn weeks!!!

  471. The Grand Cannon says:

    72, Americans are not only unwilling to do the work that Mexican farm laborers do in the US for the same price, they are unwilling and like you say, UNABLE to do the work for even 3, 4, 5, 10 times higher.

    So if Americans want to stop illegal immigration they need to up the ante on their work ethic.

  472. Anonymous age 72 says:

    72, ” You assumed He would reward them by making them more prosperous and successful?”

    >>Did I say that?

    Of course not. But, you seemed to find it strange that God would order them all killed. I realize you are a very slippery t***l, but there are limits. If you don’t want to be misunderstood, stop saying ambiguous things hoping to cause strife so you can whine.

    My retired BIL from Cordoba wanted to visit the US. I helped him work up his packet. He showed a sister in the US. He took copies of his pension plan, and his bank accounts, and his extended family, and the deeds to his rental apartments with plenty of income. He showed he had enough money in the bank for his planned trip. That was a perfect application.

    When he went into the Embassy in Mexico City, the women told him, “Well, due to current circumstances we are rejecting your application.”

    We assume she was perhaps talking about the Zetas in Tamaulipas. We don’t know because after all his work and expense, several weeks of income, to be rejected with no valid reason, he was so pissed he didn’t wait for her to say another word. Note that at one time, the Zetas were in Cordoba where he lives, so the thought of crossing Tamaulipas is not too frightening.

    I can’t say he will never visit the USA. I can assure you he will never again apply legally. And, that is the real reason Mexicans ignore our immigration laws. The Embassy breeds contempt for US immigration laws.

  473. So if Americans want to stop illegal immigration they need to up the ante on their work ethic.

    Is there anything that you’re not confidently and obnoxiously wrong about? So far, you seem to have a perfect record here.

  474. The Grand Cannon says:

    Its so ridiculous that just to visit the US for a few lousy weeks people have to go through all that and then Americans expect to be able to go anywhere at anytime and get pissed when their visas run out in foreign countries and they have to actually go to the trouble to get another one. They cry and rant about all the “red tape” which doesn’t amount to even a fraction of what they’d have to go through if the shoe was on the other foot.

    ” But, you seemed to find it strange that God would order them all killed.”

    Yeah that story is odd. And?

    “there are limits.”

    Religions are not off the table. We can red-pill deconstruct and analyse them just like we do society, culture, communism, feminism, neo-tradconism or anything else.

    ” If you don’t want to be misunderstood, stop saying ambiguous things hoping to cause strife so you can whine.”

    I don’t hope to cause strife nor do I whine. I call it as I see it.

  475. The Grand Cannon says:

    Bratty American teens should be sent to work the veggie farms and live in the onsite barracks (horrible conditions) that the illegal Mexicans are doing for peanuts in order to keep the prices low for Bratty American parents.

  476. Luke says:

    The Grand Cannon says:
    May 11, 2014 at 10:53 pm

    “So if Americans want to stop illegal immigration they need to up the ante on their work ethic.”

    Nah. Demolishing businesses that knowingly employed illegals, bankrupting and jailing their managers, making caught illegals work for free for 6 months the 1st time, 2 years the 2nd (then dropping them off 200 yards offshore of the southern tip of South America), and offering a cash untaxed bounty of 500 bucks cash for each illegal informed on would do pretty well IMO. (I favor all of these, incidentally.)

  477. BradA says:

    I missed a lot of the discussion, but I will note this point:

    > “This is really simple. I can’t explain it any simpler. You cannnot force out 11 million people. it has nothing to do with the will to force them out. It is logistically and militarily impossible in an armed nation.”

    That is hogwash. We don’t have the will to do it, It would take a huge effort, but some things would help many of them leave automatically.

    – Cease granting anchor baby status.
    – Actively go after those that employ them.
    – Stop giving them welfare and such.

    The second favors big business too much. The third lets even the unproductive get benefits, giving them little reason to leave.

    I am sure others have made many much better ideas, but doing even this would turn the invasion, and that is what it is. The results of La Reconquista will not be a good thing, but it fits with the rest of the stupidity of the country.

  478. BradA says:

    > ” But, you seemed to find it strange that God would order them all killed.”

    Anyone who wonders this should read Genesis 6 and note that some really weird contamination came when angels had children with earthly women. It indicates elsewhere that this is what caused men like Goliath and such. I am personally convinced that this is why God said to wipe them out. They were mixed together with many non-human hybrids.

    This is a matter of disagreement with many of course, but it fits the situation best for me.

  479. BradA says:

    > “The Embassy breeds contempt for US immigration laws.”

    The current US government breeds contempt in a lot of people, so no surprise there.

  480. Cicero says:

    @ The Grand Cannon.
    “And Dwarka and Setu Bandu and a whole list of other acheological sites unearthed around the globe that show up in ancient texts like Mahabharat, Ramayana, etc (many older than the Bible). Another commenter addressed this issue better than me earlier with regards to Brad who thought Dawkins was in the process of converting to Christianity (or already had) because he has acknowledged the archeological evidence pointing to a historical Jesus from Nazareth.
    People have been living in Dwarka for eons and still do. Its a thriving city, bustling city right now as we speak. The remains of Dwakanath’s palaces have been unearthed. Does this mean all the claims associated with the Mahabharata (such as thousands of years old nuclear technology, Princess Kunti’s impregnation by the sun, etc) are “historical facts”?

    That wasn’t my question. All you did was conveniently use strawman examples to try and ignore as well as sidestep the issue.
    So I will ask again. Until their discovery were the *cities* of Sodom and Gomorrah also not seen as nothing more than *symbolic stories* rather than historical fact?

  481. Swithers says:

    “All you did was conveniently use strawman examples to try and ignore as well as sidestep the issue.”

    Well…that is PlainJane’s modus operandi. I don’t understand why you’d expect different behaviour from her(?) (other names include baglady, something or other permaculture, etc etc)

    But then neither do I understand why anybody addresses her at all. She (historically speaking) tends to have lucid moments during which she may make insightful comments, but the rest of the time she E&Es difficult questions using the techniques that you identify (ignore and sidestep being a speciality of hers). In end stage PlainJanism she starts idolising shitty religions, cultures and myths – we appear to be approaching this stage.

    But hey, if anybody enjoys sticking their metaphorical dick in crazy…you go guys, fill yer boots, she can fulfill your needs and then some.

  482. Anonymous age 72 says:

    It takes extreme lack of knowledge of history and military issues and the Mexican people to believe we can force out 11 million armed people. Like my SIL, others who believe that are Big Talkers, whose words have little to do with reality.

    Pass with me back to Lexington, where the Redcoats were going to take away the Colonists firearms. Big Talkers. So, how did it work out for them?

    And, there were far less than 11 million Colonists in those fields.

    The Mexicans people are learning, as we speak. Remember how many times people in Mexico were found hanging over public roads, or body parts chopped up with chain saws? We assumed they had something to do with drug cartels..

    Last year, it came out this was the Caballeros Templares. In English, Knights Templars. A large gang of thugs who were basically terrorizing entire regions of Michoacan. Each student had to pay a couple dollars a week to go to school. Every sale of an animal had to pay around 20% of the sale price. Each household had a required payment each week. All stores had to pay 20% of gross sales.

    Then, the Knights changed pace. They’d go to a man, and tell him, “We want to borrow your wife for a couple hours.”

    And, then when they’d bring the wife back, would “borrow” the young daughters, 11 or younger. And, say, “Don’t worry, we’ll bring them back when they are pregnant.”

    In one case, they abducted and gang raped six girls from a primary school. That was the last straw.

    For some years, anyone who didn’t pay was hung or chainsawed. And, anyone who called the cops for help, their names were supplied to the Knights and they were hung or chainsawed.

    State police, no help. Federal police, no help.

    So, finally, the locals asked the illegals in the US for help, and accumulated a tremendous amount of firearms and ammo. They took over their communities, and tossed all the bad guys in makeshift prisons of their own makings.

    The first day, the prosecutors told them, “You must follow the laws. Turn them over to us for prosecution.” They were all walking the street before the sun went down.

    So, the self-defense groups simply shut down their communities. No local police. No state police allowed in without a gun fight. No Federal Police or military without a gun fight, which the locals seemed to mostly win. No corrupt prosecutors.

    The response of the Federales was to order them to stand down and surrender their arms. Yeah, sure, you bet your bippy!

    There were some gunfights with Federales, Never with the Knights; always with the Self Defenses.

    This winter the Federales decided to help round up the Knights, and got three of the four leaders. Then, then announced the Kinights were done for, and the Self Defenses should surrender all their illegal firearms, and shut down the roadblocks which search every person and vehicle entering the region, 24/7.

    One community did that. The others said, “You can have our firearms when you take them from us by force.”

    And, last week the Knights ran into a Michoacan government office and murdered a couple people. So, no, those guns will not be surrendered.

    And, these people are the ones our own B.S’ers claim they are going to take out and drop in the ocean, or force them to work for years without pay? Hee, hee. You guys need Thinking Brain Dogs.

    But, let me tell you the rest of the story. So, those so concerned about the nasty old Mexicans not honoring our laws? How many of them do you suppose never drive “Three Over” on the highways?

    And, my SIL when there was talk of confiscating our firearms, started plannng a revolution. They even told their kids what to do if Mommy and Daddy died in the Revolution.

    So, Mexicans who ignore stupid immigration laws to earn a living, bad. Patriots who ignore stupid gun laws, good? Hee, hee.

    And, people wonder why we are talking expatting.

  483. Cicero says:

    @Swithers

    Well…that is PlainJane’s modus operandi. I don’t understand why you’d expect different behaviour from her(?)

    I don’t expect anything. All I did was ask a question. If s/he answers it truthfully then we can go from there. If s/he answers it sophistically then I will highlight this. If s/he doesn’t answer then no skin of my nose.

  484. Swithers says:

    @Cicero,
    I admire your optimism and wish you luck…no skin off my nose either. My comment was not meant as an attack on you.

  485. Cicero says:

    @ Swithers

    “My comment was not meant as an attack on you.”

    And I did not view it as being one.

  486. BradA says:

    > “11 million armed people”

    Most of the 11 million are armed? How did you come up with that statistic? Some certainly are, but cut off their artificial support and you will do a large chunk of what is needed without any arms.

    I would note that a good portion of the non-illegal immigrant population in Texas (for example) is likely armed far more than they are.

  487. BradA says:

    @Anon72,

    Your own story requires a weak and otherwise faulty central government. The US is bad, but the one in Mexico is worse. I already noted that the will to take strong action did not exist in the US at the present, but what is preventing your exact scenario from happening with the “locals” in the US? The non-illegal immigrants have far more tie to the community than those who snuck in.

    Your story fails because of that.

  488. BradA says:

    > “So, Mexicans who ignore stupid immigration laws to earn a living, bad. Patriots who ignore stupid gun laws, good? Hee, hee.”

    The first is illegal and an invasion of another country. How much does Mexico support Honduran immigrants who try to put down roots?

    The latter is ingrained into the Constitution, even though many attempt to ignore that.

    You didn’t do to well in logic class did you?

  489. Highwasp says:

    TGC – [My point was this “no regrets, no guilt, no shame, no remorse” attitude which has thoroughly saturated mainstream American society (as well as current parenting and child-discipline trends) may be traceable to the Self Esteem Movement of the 1970s.

    My point had nothing at all to do with “gaming” women or trying to sound “really cool and trendy” while doing so.]

    ya I got your point and I’m going to say no – pathological personalities and self esteem issues are formed from a more basic source – within feminine/masculine interactions. Men and women are different, not the same. A Self Esteem Movement as well as psycopathy, traceable to 1970’s America or otherwise, are symptoms – not causes. Reminds me of what TFH keeps saying about Cause and Effect…

    And your second point: [My point had nothing at all to do with “gaming” women or trying to sound “really cool and trendy” while doing so.]

    You want to frame the basic motivations of masculinity as “gaming” women – well then – yeah – you got me TGC – “everybody knows” man bad / woman good.

  490. Highwasp says:

    “So if Americans want to stop illegal immigration they need to up the ante on their work ethic.”

    let me guess which Americans need to ‘man up’ their ante on their work ethic…

    and then I would have to wonder why, what’s in it for me? false charges; rape or DV or just making her feel threatened, then if am stupid enough to marry I can know the threat of man fault divorce for the entirety of the marriage. VAWA and the obligation to arrest, Child Support, Jail, arrest records and conviction records… uh yeah I wanna up my work ethic for that.

    And then I go back to my xbox, internet, bros, weed and pizza.

  491. Highwasp says:

    Sticking my metaphorical dick in crazy! Ha that’s a good one.

    Good thing I have a laptop, secure modem, PIX firewall, VPN, two encryption algorithms and various passwords all acting as prophylactics to keep my metaphorical dick ‘safe’… if only my virtual dick was so well protected!

  492. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Brad, your meaning was not clear. I am wondering if you do not know Mexico has completely changed its immigration laws. Not only are their illegals fully protected by the law, but being an ‘illegal’ in Mexico is not even a crime any more.

  493. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I get what you mean, after thinking it over. Sorry. Doing well in logic class means agreeing with you. Check.

  494. BradA says:

    Yeah right. You sound a lot like my young adult son, being really into projection. I noted two things had a completely different foundation, one on the Constitution and the other on violating the Laws that came from it.

    You are welcome to believe what you want, just be consistent.

    I did not know that Mexico had opened their southern border. I will eventually do some research into that as it is different than when I looked at it a decade or so ago.

  495. BradA says:

    I quickly read over the Wikipedia article on it. It hasn’t been around long, so it will take a while to see how it works.

    The part at the end about the way they “lost Texas” points to the fact that allowing unlimited immigration can have really bad effects for the nation allowing such. That is why I think calling it La Reconquista is quite accurate.

  496. Anonymous age 72 says:

    BradA says:
    May 12, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    >>Yeah right. You sound a lot like my young adult son, being really into projection.

    And, you sound awfully lot like my youngest brother, the Mormon, who has always thought he was God in this life, not waiting for the next one. He also thinks he gets to make all the rules of debate and logic. He is also so wrapped up in himself he is totally intolerant of anyone different from himself.

    I do owe everyone an apology. Arguing about issues with Mexico or Mexicans with people who clearly know nothing about either makes me as big a damned fool as they are. It is like arguing with a small child about nuclear physics.

    But, some points of fact. First, I never said Mexico opened up its southern border. That is just another example of re-framing. What I said was they have decriminalized immigration violations. It is fascinating that a man who sets himself up as making debate rules had no knowledge of anything in Mexico in the last ten years, yet wants to debate, and make snotty personal remarks. While you are obviously a great admirer of your own capabilities, do you have any idea how silly you look when you admit something like that?

    Two, someone asked for data on the number of firearms among illegals. It is true most people can’t comprehend anything without actually seeing it. That is the reason I worked in a job which essentially was Senior Diagnostician in the ole’ radio factory. If you actually turn your brain on, you can tell things without a blue flashing light. I don’t know what it’s called. I call it extrapolation, that is, discovering things without seeing them.

    In our division, I was the “Go-to” guy when they had a problem which was labeled unsolvable by the official experts. After I burned out that was all they got from me.

    My eldest daughter, the know-it-all wife of my know-it-all SIL is technically very intelligent, with an i.q. within 20 points of mine. Yet, she also cannot understand things very well. Once, when she came back on leave from Spain, I pulled out of a gas station behind a small red car with feminist slogans plastered all over the back, and the license plate from the county where the state university is located. I commented, “I see a lesbian from XXX county came up to pay us a visit.”

    She screamed at me, “Dad, there you go again! Making stuff up! Why do you do that?”

    I gunned it so we could pass the lesbian, and she looked hard, then said, “Well, she did look awfully butch.” Which was also dumb, because many lesbians are very feminine. She had no idea I really knew that was a lesbian in that car without seeing the driver.

    I have visited and lived in Mexico for more than 30 years, often among the people who are most likely to be illegals on the US. I cannot remember ever entering a house among the working and lower classes who clearly did not have an (illegal) firearm in the house. Some, a few, could have been legal if they had first applied for a permit, but they don’t do that. But, many were military grade and no one in Mexico ever is issued a permit for them. I am talking M-1; M-1 carbine; 30-30; those fancy automatic pistols from Miami Vice, though probably not full auto; double barreled .45 rifle; plus high powered pistols of almost every size. Five years guaranteed in prison if caught.

    It does not take ‘data’ to know they will do the same thing in the US. Which is why it is very foolish of me to quarrel with people who know nothing about the people under discussion.

    If you want a formal example of extrapolation at its finest, obtain and read the story of the men who won the Nobel prize for first describing the DNA corkscrew. That was totally mental, but they were correct. Few of our techs could do it, and I was unable to teach them how to do it.

    ###
    I want to write something that may be useful to those who don’t assume they already know everything about everything, but you can be sure I am not going to waste more time and energy arguing about it.

    There is a very specific reason the Mexicans ignore stupid laws.

    People of any society in the long run do what it takes to survive, no matter what the PTB tell them. One of my favorite examples is Pitcairn Island, (which by the way has its own URL on the Web, if you are curious.) From several centuries of in-breeding PI men became totally sterile. Though they are very religious, at least nominally, when a fertile man would visit the island, a woman would loan a key to an empty house to whichever nubile young female first announced she got his genetic materials. Yeah, it violated their stated religious beliefs, but they from time to time got a baby out of it, so they did it.

    It is the same in Mexico. The Mexican government has never been responsive to the people. In the US, if the traffic people set a 15 mph speed limit on a major highway, and people complain, the limit will be changed. In Mexico, it will stay at 15 mph forever. And, the cops will go out for harvest when they get short of money.

    This attitude is true all over the government spectrum. So, over the years, people have learned to simply ignore stupid laws and get the job done.

    Out in the country, on highways where you can see a mile down the road, the speed limit will be 38 mph, the same as it sometimes is on a main boulevard in a big city. Since the distances are too great to drive so slowly, people blast away at 70 mph to get where they are going. For the most part, the cops ignore this, unless they see foreign plates, heh, heh. Or, their honey needs new Victoria’s Secret.

    In the 1860’s, Benito Juarez got in a fight with the Catholic Church, which deserved it. He took away recording births; deaths; and weddings from the church. The problem was most people couldn’t pay government fees for marriage. What to do? They went back to Old Testament marriages. Simply move in together and announce they are married. Even today, my wife’s best friend told me half the couples she knows are private marriages. But, do be aware if you come to Mexico, you are considered to be truly married, even though in your culture you would consider yourself shacking up.

    Anyway, over the years for survival the society has pretty much learned to simply ignore the government when it is being stupid.

    We are all products of our cultures. So, when people from a scofflaw society moves to the US,they still ignore the laws, as a cultural norm. I am talking things like insurance on your car, and keeping the car registered. I am talking like buying i.d. from PR to work ‘legally’.

    Our immigration laws are also stupid. Anyone who has ever been involved with U.S. immigration laws well knows that. And, the implementation by the government employees is even worse.

    I see a lot of people who get all heated up about illegals ignorantly assume the illegals are simply lazy and don’t bother to apply legally. Not so. They come illegally because they know there is plenty of work, and no way to get papers, no matter how carefully they try. They know this is stupid.

    If those 11 million people who are in the country illegally had tried to apply legally the day Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, they still would not be in legally. And, no one lives 175 years.

    So, the Mexicans labeled our immigration laws as more stupid stuff, and simply come in. I wish they wouldn’t but I can’t change anything. And, neither can the Big Talkers on this board, nor my SIL.

  497. SRBEL says:

    It seems there are few who realise that women need men to pull them into line a bit. I keep seeing this maxim “Well behaved women rarely make history”.

    Check this http://behindenemylimes.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/well-behaved-women-rarely-make-history.html

  498. BradA says:

    > “is fascinating that a man who sets himself up as making debate rules had no knowledge of anything in Mexico in the last ten years, yet wants to debate, and make snotty personal remarks.”

    WTF? Are you so stuck on yourself that anyone who disagrees must be dishonest or worse? People are invading my country, stealing my tax money, etc. They may be doing it with the full blessing of others, but it remains wrong.

    You may say I don’t know anything about this issue, but you are far from the truth on that. I am certainly not as immersed as you, and studying quite a bit of Spanish in the past, along with several mission trips and such, made some impact. I am sure I don’t know a whole lot about Mexico, but portraying as a paradise, even of sorts, is far from the truth.

    I also live in an area that is being transformed, north Texas, so I see first hand the idiocy that is overcoming us. I will still not take your SiL’s approach as I don’t think that is all that pragmatic, but his words have a foundation in reality. A people must oppose invaders if they are to survive. We will not survive so it may not matter.

    Though you would find that you might be able to learn something if you really read things rather than just pontificating. You can believe whatever you want, and maybe you are right many/most times, but you are a human and thus have some stupid ideas inherent to your frame, however many years you have lived.

  499. BradA says:

    Our discussion was a bit old and OT for the base post, but I just came across this link and anyone that will tell me US immigration laws (not well enforced) are bad is an idiot.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/06/05/Leaked-Images-Reveal-Children-Warehoused-in-Crowded-US-Cells-Border-Patrol-Overwhelmed

    The country is being literally invaded. Houston, we have a problem….

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s