If it was a snake, it would have bitten them.

CNN Money has a new article up claiming that men with children magically earn more than childless men (H/T Sunshine Mary):  It pays to be a dad

Dads had a median salary of $49,000 compared to around $29,000 for men without kids.

“Parenthood is giving advantages to men but not to women,” said Justine Calcagno, a social psychologist and author of the report.

The sad thing is very few can spot the problem with this logic.  Men who have families to support have larger expenses than single, childless men.  This means they have to work harder to earn more money.  They all but tripped over this fact while rushing to their false conclusion:

Overall, 92% of dads are employed full-time compared to 77% of non-dads, who are more likely to be part-time workers.

Even to the extent that managers prefer fathers over childless men, the reason is that they know the father is much more motivated.

Everyone understands this when talking to a young man who wants to someday have a family.  Everyone knows the young man had better work hard if he wants to be able to support a family.  But once the family man has done what he needs to do, this is suddenly proof not of sacrifice by men, but of unfairness to women.  Even most conservatives can’t spot the flawed thinking.

We see the same nonsensical thinking regarding findings that married men earn more than unmarried men:

“Particularly for men, marriage typically brings what has been called the ‘marriage premium’ where married men with identical experience and education make more money than their single counterparts.”

Edit: Here is a link to the original study. The ‘Mommy Tax’ and ‘Daddy Bonus’

This entry was posted in Data, Denial, Fatherhood, Foolishness, Patriarchal Dividend. Bookmark the permalink.

241 Responses to If it was a snake, it would have bitten them.

  1. Kevin says:

    If I did not have a family I would consciously cut my income by 3/4. I am in a profession which can be selective sometimes about working arrangements. No need to make all that money. My tastes are simple. I don’t mind working more for my family- happy to do it. But to imagine that marriage confers a maniacal money benefit? People miss the obvious.

  2. Crank says:

    “HE HATES THESE CANS! STAY AWAY FROM THE CANS!!!” – Navin Johnson

  3. James says:

    What about a simple correlation of salary to age? Older men means more likely to be a parent, and also more likely to have been promoted and make more.

  4. James says:

    After increasing my reading comprehension, they do say they account for age. My bad.

  5. Pingback: If it was a snake, it would have bitten them. | Manosphere.com

  6. Opus says:

    I am the laziest person I know. How I asked my married friend can you afford to pay £200.00 every month for heating bills when in the last three months (it was summer) I only paid monthly £15.00 His wife (and her children) feel the cold apparently; I put on an extra layer.

  7. Looking Glass says:

    I read that link wrong, at first. “Science for Betas”. I really have spent a lot of time around these parts.

    Also, apparently no one has ever heard of the “correlation vs causation” issue. Which, since this is published in the Media, is a complete given.

  8. WillBest says:

    This logical fallacy is well documented, and in modern days is known as the Fox Butterfield Effect.

  9. Dave Johnson says:

    The first laugh is as you’ve described: that men are increasing their output under load.

    The second: Of course, if it were found that this “marriage premium” applied to women instead of men, we’d be hearing screetches about how “the patriachry wants women to be married so bad that they have to pay the unmarried ones less”.

    Feminism in two steps:
    1. Environmental Stimulus
    2. “This is unfair to women!”

  10. earl says:

    I’m single and have live comfortably for the most part near that median. If I had a family I would probably need at least 2-3 times as much money to be in a good spot.

  11. earl says:

    “His wife (and her children) feel the cold apparently; I put on an extra layer.”

    Well happy wife happy life and all. If momma wants heat she gets heat despite how much it costs you. Putting on an extra layer is for chumps.

    Perhaps a man would save money by putting his foot down…but that right has been taken away too.

  12. MarcusD says:

    Pregnant Austrian teens in ISIS: We’ve made a huge mistake
    http://nypost.com/2014/10/10/pregnant-teen-girls-who-joined-isis-weve-made-a-huge-mistake/

    Jewish girl has joined ISIS, French intelligence official reveals: Dozens of teenagers have fled to Syria and Iraq from France to horror of families
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2787892/jewish-girl-joined-isis-french-intelligence-official-reveals-dozens-teenagers-fled-syria-iraq-france-horror-families.html

    Women joining ISIS mostly serve as wives and housekeepers for militants

    It’s amusing that the only way they [think they] can find such a life is by joining one of the most feared terrorist organizations in the world.

  13. Dalrock says:

    @James

    What about a simple correlation of salary to age? Older men means more likely to be a parent, and also more likely to have been promoted and make more.

    As you note in a follow on comment they found that this only represents part of the difference. But for the part it does explain, why are older men more likely to be fathers than younger ones? Men prefer to wait until they are earning enough to support a family before having children. Women also strongly prefer to marry men who are ready or at least on track to be providers. It isn’t that having children makes the men older and more established, it is that men tend to wait until being older and more established to have children. Malthus understood this over 200 years ago, but we have somehow forgotten it. This isn’t proof of some advantage, but more proof that leading a family creates an incentive/obligation for men to work harder to earn more.

  14. The sad thing is very few can spot the problem with this logic. Men who have families to support have larger expenses than single, childless men. This means they have to work harder to earn more money.

    We have a “temp” consultant at my firm. He only gets paid when he works. We’ve outsourced him to clients 4 times this year (on average, 5 weeks per client.) So he has worked just 20 weeks so far. I’ll bet he’s only pulled in (maybe, at most) $40,000. And yet he’s been on 6 single’s cruises this year (so far) one that went through the Panama Canal. He told me that when he ends his current contract (should be over by Halloween) he’ll check to see if he can go skiing in upper Maine in early November if they get any snow. Plans on hanging out in Maine for a month or more.

    He could probaby earn $100K or more a year if he really wanted to, if he wasn’t so busy travelling, taking cruise vacations, and going skiing. Oh did I say he was single and childless?

  15. Gaza says:

    So single men get paid 59% of what married men get paid. And women get paid 77% of what men get paid. Seems like women are doing ok compared to all those poor single men. We should really be looking for ways to close this married man wage-gap. Shaming men into marriage is not enough. We need moar. Like redistributive taxation of single men via healthcare…oh wait.

    As a single man I make 20% of what I made as a married man. Given, I made quite a lot back then. But I also worked quite a lot – and had 10x the stress, work travel, and soul-sucking corporate politics to endure. I’m lucky to have a nest egg as a result, but other than the occasional five-star vacation (with blackberry in hand, of course) I don’t miss much about the grind or the money.

    Now I work how and when I want, within reason, and spend the balance of the time I would have been under the yoke volunteering, learning new skills, and taking care of my body and mind. I am less productive to the ‘system’, but feel exponentially more productive as a human being.

    If I had children to support from that marriage, my choices would obviously have be made for me (in the best interest of ‘the children’.) But thats part of the rub with contemplating marriage at this point. The incentive to willingly lean over the barrel and face the unilateral winnowing of my future optionality while providing a free option for a woman raised in an environment built on optimizing her choices is quite a lot to overcome. There are just too few ways to mitigate those risks. Worse: working harder is not one of them.

    Perhaps I will burn with the desire to have children and perhaps a woman will inspire me greatly, but I meet one of those women every 24 months and they are usually married (and have been for quite some time.)

    The call for men to increase their productivity “for the good of society” is quickly losing ground. Younger men seem to sense this without having to go through the hypergamy meat grinder. And for those who have, it seems that “enjoy the decline” is gaining ground. In my heart, I don’t *like* this but I spent 20 years producing surplus for a culture that would just as soon turn me into a battery-pack to keep the lights on in some feedlot to keep the feral masses fat and happy.

  16. “Parenthood is giving advantages to men but not to women,” said Justine Calcagno, a social psychologist and author of the report.

    Is there no male social paradigm the Feminine Imperative can’t convert into its own victimhood?

  17. Gunner Q says:

    I wonder why they say these things. CNN Money isn’t read by a lot of women, I’ll wager, so maybe this is an attempt to make marriage look more appealing to ambitious single guys? They should have done an expose on alimony fraud instead, to make marriage BE more appealing.

    Non-royalty men have rarely gotten hitched for financial advantage anyway. SAHMs have never looked good on the balance sheet, which was fine. The wealth they produced was not the barterable type.

  18. Dalrock,

    Everyone understands this when talking to a young man who wants to someday have a family. Everyone knows the young man had better work hard if he wants to be able to support a family. But once the family man has done what he needs to do, this is suddenly proof not of sacrifice by men, but of unfairness to women. Even most conservatives can’t spot the flawed thinking.

    Conservatives can’t spot the flawed thinking because conservatives are taking feminists at face value when feminists say why this is so unfair. Fact is feminists are lying. They are too prideful and too sensitive to get their feelings hurt by telling the truth about why this is so unfair to them.

    The truth (as to why it is unfair) is frighteningly simple: some women are just plain ugly. They are ugly women, they have always been physically ugly (even when they were younger), and there is absolutely nothing they could have done (at any point of their life) to make themselves attractive. No man would have them. No man would ever marry them, would ever be willing to share their hard earned resources with them. They know it. You know it. Everyone here knows it. Sooooo… of course, married men making more money (even if they have to work so much harder to do it) isn’t fair to some women because some women will never (at any point of their life) be married. Remember Rush Limbaugh’s undeniable truth #24:

    24. Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to
    the mainstream of society.

    Get back to the orignal root of feminism. So long as we no longer have arranged marriages (so long as people date, pick, and choose their spouses) some women will never be chosen, ever. That’s why they hate the Patriarchy. That is why they are feminist.

  19. fakeemail says:

    The men who have moneymaking careers and were serious about their professoinal education were the once women selected to be husbands.

  20. MarcusD says:

    Here is an example of the Imposing-Their-Beliefs Fallacy (ITBF), taken from the New Republic article “The Straight, White, Middle-Class Man Needs to Be Dethroned” by Grayson Perry, a self-labeled “artist” (the trick these days is to discover who is not an “artist”):

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=14365

  21. sunshinemary says:

    The authoress of the paper, Justine Calcagno, is completing her PhD at City University in New York, and this data seems to have come from her dissertation research. Here is the summary of findings:

    This study examines the relationship between parenthood, sex, and personal income in New York City between 1990 and 2010. The data analyzed in this report indicate that men with children had significantly greater median personal incomes compared to women with children as well as men and women without children. This did not change in any significant way over the twenty year period considered here.

    In order to provide an analytical framework to account for these income differentials comparative patterns of educational attainment, occupation, and employment status were examined. Surprisingly none of these factors explained the differentials found in personal income. Even at equivalent levels of educational attainment and within the same occupations, men with children earned higher median personal incomes than the other three groups.

    It is likely that income disparities were related to the well-known fact that women have
    historically been paid lower salaries than men in similar occupational categories
    ,
    although these data were not available for analysis in the data sets examined for this
    report. Another probable explanation may be that women with children worked fewer
    hours than men with children because of domestic responsibilities.

    If you go to Ms. Calcagno’s academic CV and scroll down to her list of publications, you will see that her feminist credentials are extensive; this is what passes as an “unbiased” social scientist in the modern era.

    It is very important that people realize that most “research” and “data” coming out of psychology departments or the social sciences is utterly worthless because it is twisted to fit the researcher’s progressive politics. This is no longer even hidden; indeed, it would be considered suspect if Ms. Calcagno were not a self-proclaimed, unabashed staunch feminist. The fact that she is one is not seen as possibly making her biased but rather is seen as a necessary credential in the academic world.

    The paper Ms. Calcagno has just published, which the news media are gabbing about today, is entitled “The Mommy Tax and Daddy Bonus: Parenthood and income in the United States.” Consider that title – does that sound like an unbiased presentation of data? The mother earns less because she is TAXED so that the father can have a BONUS.

    I mean, it’s like you guys are just stealing the bread right out of our mouths!

    Any decent person can see that it would only be right and fair to increase the tax on Daddies’ earnings to even out the bonus they get at the expense of Mommies. Fair’s fair, right?

  22. Opus says:

    Grayson Perry is a well-known transvestite. He won a prize for decorating vases.

  23. SSM,

    It is likely that income disparities were related to the well-known fact that women have
    historically been paid lower salaries than men in similar occupational categories

    When a woman says this to me (and they say this alot) I usually smile and tell her that the reason why this may be true is because men (particularly married men) are more PROACTIVE about increasing their income. You see studies like this do not gather enough data. The data they should be gathering (but can’t or WON’T because they will not like where the data leads) is what percentage of women who feel they earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns for the same job has a willingness to interview, find a higher paying job with a riskier employer, get the higher paying job offer, and quit (thuis giving up a week’s vacation, seniority, stability, and security?) Because women are generally NOT willing to do that. And when I phrase it in that manner (the manner in which the world of men work and look for their hard earned dollars in the free market) that is like a reality slap across the face of feminist that ever lived.

    They don’t want to quit their current job. They have stability, a certain comfort level there that gives them a sense of security. What they are really saying with this 77 cents on the dollar nonsense is that feminists want government to step in and force their current employers to equalize their pay with what the free job market has adjusted to by ambitious men make by switching jobs without taking the risk of looking for and accepting a new job.

  24. DrTorch says:

    There was an old rule of thumb, “Hire a married man or a single woman.”

    Everyone back then knew why. But apparently that common sense is lacking in a PhD candidate in the social sciences.

  25. Steve H says:

    As a wealthy single man in his 30s, I can tell you from 2 decades of working in the private sector: there is ABSOLUTELY a bias towards paying fathers – and particularly married fathers – more than single men for the exact same work performed.

    SoCons obviously don’t want to acknowledge this. I have even heard it said firsthand to childfree men who ask for a raise commensurate with other men in his department – “well, he does have a family to support, you know.”

    It’s almost a Judeo-Christian bias against godless atheists like me, but I’m sure most of you here would simply smile and applaud that.

  26. Opus says:

    I hate to say it, but in my experience, women actually make more than men for the same work – I won’t bore you with examples, but I have a number of instances where I was the worse paid man, and did I complain? No, for women at work are always treated far better than men and not just in relation to pay but generally and are given special favours and advantages no man could ever either receive or ask for.

  27. TDH,

    He got attacked and had to grovel, even though none of his attackers actually pointed out anything he said that was untrue or even particularly harsh.

    There was nothing untrue about that statement. It was hurtful because it was blatently honest (and the majority of female society is too sensitive to hear such brutal truth) but it was 100% correct.

    Torch,

    Everyone back then knew why. But apparently that common sense is lacking in a PhD candidate in the social sciences.

    I think it is far more sinister. I think they know the truth. But they reframe the data in such a way as to try and adjust/shift public opinion and political policy to achieve their goals by way of government overreach. That is easier, far less likely to pu them under scrutiny for their analysis and far more likely to get them academic tenure.

  28. feeriker says:

    The authoress of the paper, Justine Calcagno, is completing her PhD at City University in New York

    More than sufficient grounds by itself to ignore anything she has to say.

  29. Steve, I wasn’t aware that godless atheists couldn’t have children. But yes, I’m fine with employers favoring married men and fathers. Of course, I’m also fine with them favoring men, women, white/black/yellow people, green-eyed people, or whomever they prefer to hire and pay.

  30. MarcusD says:

    @dalrock

    /r/Catholicism is just like CAF, unsurprisingly:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/2ixk77/selling_sin_dalrock_on_the_lionization_of/

    [D: Good find. Hilarious. The rationalization jackpot!]

  31. Another reason you should only hire men. Not a single women… okay, maybe just the secretary..

  32. Even if 15% of engineers at corporations are women (almost always Asian women), just about 0% of these legendary hired guns of SV are women.

    Meh, same thing happened in all of South Africa’s major public industries. With AA and BBEE, they kicked the whites out and hired blacks; and quickly outsourced the needed work to those same whites they kicked out, instead, they are now consultants and charge triple what they were getting.

  33. JDG says:

    DrTorch says:
    October 13, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    But apparently that common sense is lacking in a PhD candidate in the social sciences.

    Common sense is lacking almost everywhere these days. I’d go so far as to say that it is no longer common. Feminist normality has replaced common sense. Maybe we can call it feminist sense.

    Feminist sense has permeated nearly every sphere of influence in western society, sadly even the Manoshpere.

  34. Steve H says:

    “I hate to say it, but in my experience, women actually make more than men for the same work”

    Yes this is true. Single men get the raw deal. It’s unfortunate that even in the ‘Sphere, you’ve got a subsection of men who actually agree that it’s fair to pay a married father more money and a single non-father for the same exact work performed.

    Moreover – in an already over-populated world, you’ll get nowhere proliferating that nonsense.

  35. Vic says:

    “The men sprinting across the beaches in Normandy received a 40% athletic premium compared to men vacationing in the Hamptons. Those lucky bastards!”

  36. “I hate to say it, but in my experience, women actually make more than men for the same work”

    Yes this is true. Single men get the raw deal. It’s unfortunate that even in the ‘Sphere, you’ve got a subsection of men who actually agree that it’s fair to pay a married father more money and a single non-father for the same exact work performed.

    Again, this is because the single man gets comfortable. He has security and stability somewhere and (even if he makes less than a married man for the same work) his expenses are dramatically less than a married man. He does just fine on a fraction of the pay. He can put money in the bank on a fraction of the pay. He has no sense of urgency to look for another job, a higher paying job, the way a married man does. In someways, the single man is very much like the feminist woman.

  37. Oscar says:

    Steve H says:
    October 13, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    “It’s almost a Judeo-Christian bias against godless atheists like me, but I’m sure most of you here would simply smile and applaud that.”

    The possibilities for victimhood are limitless.

  38. Oscar says:

    Steve H says:
    October 13, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    “Moreover – in an already over-populated world, you’ll get nowhere proliferating that nonsense.”

    The idea that the world (particularly the West) is overpopulated is nonsense.

  39. earl says:

    “It’s almost a Judeo-Christian bias against godless atheists like me, but I’m sure most of you here would simply smile and applaud that.”

    Everyone is out to get you.

  40. “Moreover – in an already over-populated world, you’ll get nowhere proliferating that nonsense.”

    The idea that the world (particularly the West) is overpopulated is nonsense.

    Data is soooo much better than talking points, isn’t it Oscar?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

  41. Bike Bubba says:

    There is of course one snake hiding in that the married man with children has reasons (his wife & kids specifically) to work harder. The flip side to this argument also bites the dissertee’ on the tuckus; men who show the qualities necessary for a higher paying job (skills, responsibility, looks) also tend to be favored as candidates to become daddies.

    To wit, if you look at the graphs, fathers have a higher proportion of degrees, a higher proportion of managerial and office jobs, and five will get you ten they have a higher proportion of STEM and other professional degrees, and fewer “College of Arts & Crafts” degrees. We don’t like to say it, but “LAMPS” applies at work almost as certainly as it does in the marriage market.

    Discrimination against singles and women? Not provable from this sample. Rather, it simply demonstrates that employers are looking for the same basic intelligence, poise, skills, and responsibility that motherhood-minded women are.

  42. Discrimination is freedom, there can be no freedom without the ability to discriminate. All forms. The government should not be involved in the ‘victim’ industry. Anyway, working for yourself has benefits far and above those of an employed man. And one certain benefit is not having to deal with Corporate Office Politics.

    The freedom from just doing your own thing, might be a little risky but you do get more control.

  43. Discrimination against singles and women? Not provable from this sample. Rather, it simply demonstrates that employers are looking for the same basic intelligence, poise, skills, and responsibility that motherhood-minded women are.

    Yes! YES, to all of this.

    And if the singles and women don’t feel they are paid enough, they can leave. They can interview, get an offer, and leave (don’t even need to give a minute’s notice.) We do not have indentured servitude in Western Civilization. They are free to test the market for more money. Largely, singles and women choose NOT to do this. We can argue as to why that is the case, but that IS the case.

  44. JDG says:

    “I hate to say it, but in my experience, women actually make more than men for the same work”

    In my experience, women very often get paid more for LESS work.

  45. Just keep reminding them that if women worked more for less pay, businesses would be lining up to hire them. That whole profitability thing. Men get paid more because they do more work and keep the business afloat and even induce growth. Women corrupt and destroy; and tend to sacrifice productivity for more personal goals.

  46. Dalrock says:

    @Steve H

    I have even heard it said firsthand to childfree men who ask for a raise commensurate with other men in his department – “well, he does have a family to support, you know.”

    I’ve seen it too. However, only in fiction, and then almost always in reference to days of patriarchy past. Every place I’ve worked in real life would have fired me had I discussed salary details with my peers, let alone have such a conversation with management. I’m fairly confident that such a practice would be illegal according to the EEOC, and if it is a publicly traded company a violation of management’s fiduciary responsibility (it probably is a fiduciary breach for most private companies as well, but some private owners might want to pay fathers more). But yeah, I saw that movie too…

  47. It’s so unfair how Dalrock has an edit button and the rest of us have to suffer and be violated by having our poorly constructed comments shown! I demand Dalrock pay restitution!

  48. BradA says:

    TFH,

    > I would argue that a *boy* raised by a single mother will not go into STEM.

    You would be wrong. I was raised by a single mother and went into STEM because it was interesting and I had the raw talent to succeed in it.

    My father was around, but I only saw him every other weekend, so it was different than having a father at home.

    I could probably have done much better had they stayed married, but I made it through in spite of the challenge. I have not done a study to know if I am a special snowflake or not.

    Steve H.,

    You are almost certainly full of it. I don’t even know the married status of most who I work with in an IT-related field. I have never seen any evidence that a single guy would make less than a married one. I have seen that those with talent, ability and dedication will do better and I would encourage you to examine yourself for that. Perhaps you don’t have as much of those, especially the first two, as you think.

    Looking for signs of persecution may just be reinforcing your own bias.

  49. Opus says:

    I have always felt that I would have done far better had my parents divorced.

  50. earl says:

    “I have always felt that I would have done far better had my parents divorced.”

    Your feelings are wrong.

  51. I’ve seen it too. However, only in fiction, and then almost always in reference to days of patriarchy past.

    Yeah, I seem to remember Darren asking Mr. Tate for a raise when Tabitha was born, or something like that. Certainly nothing more recent. I’d like to think there are still small businesses out there who treat their employees with that much consideration, but they’d be risking a lawsuit, and no large company is doing it.

    All they need to do to fix their study is turn around the causation. Being married doesn’t raise a man’s income; having a higher income raises a man’s chance of marrying. Now it makes sense, and it’s even partly true.

  52. Dalrock says:

    An interesting quote from a NY Times article on the same basic topic (emphasis mine):

    Ms. Budig found that on average, men’s earnings increased more than 6 percent when they had children (if they lived with them), while women’s decreased 4 percent for each child they had.

  53. Brad,

    You would be wrong. I was raised by a single mother and went into STEM because it was interesting and I had the raw talent to succeed in it.

    SIDEBAR:

    Last weekend, I met a large university alumni group at a public place to watch a college football game. Two of the people in this group were medical school students and one of them was a medical doctor. About half of them were lawyers. I worked STEM. We had a 50 minute delay of game as there was a lightning storm. So (in killing 50 minutes) we all started chatting about work. Conversation got around to STEM as it relates medicine and medical studies of all things. Everyone wanted to know why (particularly the lawyers at this group, and there were a lot of them) why people who work in STEM make so much money for (quite often) only having a bachelor’s degree (or even less.) In fact, it is not uncommon for a 22 year old in STEM to be paid more than a 35 year old lawyer. So why?

    We concluded this was on pure cognitive ability. The STEM worker (typically a CompSci major) must think outside the box to make a living (constantly thinking and building and automating and facilitating) where as the lawyer (an English or PolySci undergrad) needs to read, and read, and read, and repeat what he read in court to make an argument. STEM worker is charting new ground. The lawyer quite often repeats what other people did.

    So how did they relate STEM to medicine? You’ll love this Brad. I have no data points at all to support the hypothosis, but here goes: People who do great work in STEM, are/were quite often smart enough to become medical doctors, but either didn’t have the discipline to hit the books when they were younger and pull straight As in college required for medical school, didn’t have the money for the required prestigous underdraduate degree and the big bucks for a 4 year medical degree, or they just weren’t interested in medicine. To be perfectly honest Brad, I do not agree with this philosopy. But it is an interesting way at looking at the working world (and justifying compensation for certain occupations.) Heard on the way to work this morning the three highest paying occupations in the United States are all medical doctors (two of whom are surgeons.)

  54. MarcusD says:

    Ms. Budig found that on average, men’s earnings increased more than 6 percent when they had children (if they lived with them), while women’s decreased 4 percent for each child they had.

    These people strike me as overly ideological, under-qualified, or both. The average earnings go down likely because the women have stopped working (but also because they may switch to part-time or similar levels of flexibility).

  55. MarcusD says:

    Actually, the comments on the NYT article are quite interesting, too.

  56. Opus says:

    I think TFH has it the wrong way round: outside his jurisdiction a lawyer is unemployable, whereas stem is applicable the world over. Where I am (that is to say the commuter belt south-east of The City) everyone, predictably seems to be a banker – all sterling millionaires several times over by the age of forty. Class and Money are however not synonymous, such are the oddities of the Kingdom.

  57. Gunner Q says:

    “I have even heard it said firsthand to childfree men who ask for a raise commensurate with other men in his department – “well, he does have a family to support, you know.”

    From what I’ve seen of the working world, single men are now preferred because their employer-mandated costs are low. The real cost of employing a person, at least in Cali, is the employer mandates, not the actual pay rate.

    Also, if an employer can’t afford to hire someone full-time then a single man who doesn’t need much is a better long-term prospect than a married father of four who’ll be balancing a second job.

  58. Ah, but look what you have to look forward to after you’ve received your Daddy Bonus:

    http://time.com/3479037/grey-divorce-boomers-no-fault-divorce

    Nearly 1 in 4 people who is experiencing divorce in the U.S. is over 50. Almost 1 in 10 is older than 64. People over the age of 50 are twice as likely to divorce as their forebears were as recently as 1990. And for that age, education doesn’t matter: those with degrees and those without are having the divorce papers drawn up in equal numbers.

  59. Squib Load says:

    “Even to the extent that managers prefer fathers over childless men, the reason is that they know the father is much more motivated.”

    Right observation. Wrong analysis.

    People are cliquish, inward-looking, and self-sorting. Managers naturally like subordinates they can identify with, and it just so happens that many managers are still from the old school. The next generation of bachelor managers will prefer bachelor subordinates. I certainly do.

    For the most part fathers hang with other fathers (and sometimes wannabe fathers). Bachelors hang with bachelors. The single by choice bachelor and the family man are oil and water. It is near impossible for one to understand, much less mentor the other. Incidentally, this is why church does not work so well for happy bachelors.

    This is a time of transition. In the future organizations will be delineated as family or single oriented, which is not a bad thing.

  60. JDG says:

    It’s so unfair how Dalrock has an edit button and the rest of us have to suffer and be violated by having our poorly constructed comments shown! I demand Dalrock pay restitution!

    I don’t want restitution, but I would like an edit button.

  61. I am not sure if wordpress offers the edit button. I think I tried to get that for my wordpress blog, and failed.

  62. I am still trying to appeal to insanitybytes and her white knight followers like Eric & Paul. I am giving them red pills. Maybe they will get it? I hope so.

  63. TFH,

    A doctor or software immigrant can plug into the workforce quite swiftly.

    Not so much for a doctor. In the Western world, a medical doctor MUST be licensed to write prescriptions for drugs and to practice medicine in hospitals. And that license can be easily taken away with a single missed diagnosis. They can still practice medicine without a license, but they are going to have a hard time making money in the 1st World without the ability to prescribe even one drug. They would have to treat a patient and then (after they make a diagnosis) refer the patient to another doctor WITH a license (or even a Nurse Practitioner) who can write a script to be filled at the pharmacy.

  64. Steve,

    @Steve H

    I have even heard it said firsthand to childfree men who ask for a raise commensurate with other men in his department – “well, he does have a family to support, you know.”

    I’ve seen it too. However, only in fiction, and then almost always in reference to days of patriarchy past. Every place I’ve worked in real life would have fired me had I discussed salary details with my peers, let alone have such a conversation with management. I’m fairly confident that such a practice would be illegal according to the EEOC, and if it is a publicly traded company a violation of management’s fiduciary responsibility (it probably is a fiduciary breach for most private companies as well, but some private owners might want to pay fathers more). But yeah, I saw that movie too…

    I think this harkens back to a time when the jobs were more “well formed” and an employer actually had to “train” people to do them. In these situations, there was less to differentiate one worker from another. Moreover, this was say the 1940s, 50s, and 60s before globalization. Employers in the First World only had to compete with other First World employers on labor costs. So an employer had the liberty to take a man’s marrital status into consideration for compensation. Not so much anymore in the world of globalized reality. Companies are too competitive on price.

    I agree that married men make more, maybe much more. But that is because they hustle more (job hop more) to get the occassional $5000/annual raise that a single man might not be bothered to do. Dad has ballet lessons to pay for and needs that extra $400 a month. Single guy just needs enough to make the monthly Beemer payment.

  65. easttexasfatboy says:

    Horsefeathers! Kids are way expensive. I believe that some stoned feminist is behind such economic hogwash.

  66. tsotha says:

    Another brick for the “social science is junk science” wall.

  67. desiderian says:

    Dalrock,

    “Even most conservatives can’t spot the flawed thinking.”

    How much longer will we fall for the explanation that the problem is “flawed thinking” and not something more willful and less innocent?

  68. Oh, another tid bit from today’s radio advertising. A new tv series, mocking the virgin birth and pushing cuckolding all at once–some girl believes in romance, purity, and gets “accidentally” artificially inseminated at the hospital and meets some wonderful guy who will be a family with her.

  69. OlBlueEyes says:

    I chuckle every time I hear the married man VS single man debate, particularly regarding who is more dependable. I’m the only single guy where I work (blue-collar delivery-type job). Who’s the guy who jumps on late runs, gets more overtime, doesn’t take time off due to children/wife’s concerns, and is generally leaned on the most? Yours truly.

  70. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Social science researchers like the author of this piece give social science researchers a bad name. This was intentionally and malignantly deceptive. Nice spot Dalrock.

  71. embracing reality says:

    I don’t know whats wrong with me. By choice I work 6 days a week operating a small business and often get home after dark. It’s lucrative but hardly enjoyable and yet I feel compelled to continue even though I could easily retire, I do this yet I am single, never married and completely apposed to ever having children. In my early 40’s the only women I’ll date seriously are those who don’t have kids and definitely don’t want any. I guess most single men simply just want to get by in life but do they actually just want to get by in life and work until they drop dead?

    Incidentally, there are financially well off, attractive, single women who don’t have and don’t want kids. Guess what kind of men they’re looking to date.

  72. Dalrock says:

    @OlBlueEyes

    I chuckle every time I hear the married man VS single man debate, particularly regarding who is more dependable. I’m the only single guy where I work (blue-collar delivery-type job). Who’s the guy who jumps on late runs, gets more overtime, doesn’t take time off due to children/wife’s concerns, and is generally leaned on the most? Yours truly.

    This is a good point. I do think that employers know they have more of a hold on family men, but single men do have more availability. The issue is motivation, and while married men/fathers as a group are more motivated than single men there will always be single men who are extremely motivated. Those men are both more motivated and have more available time to devote to work than family men. I’m not taking a shot at other men’s work ethic or productivity, I’m pointing out how ludicrous it is to claim that companies are handing fathers extra money because they have children (while penalizing mothers). The difference shows up in the aggregate, as I demonstrated with this post on earnings.

    What your example hits at directly is the lie of a favorite chestnut of traditional conservatives (and the feminists who love them); the claim that married men earn more because their wives take care of things like picking up the dry cleaning, etc. so the married man has more time to devote to paid work. In that alternate reality single men are so stressed out cooking their own meals and picking up laundry they can’t focus on work. I don’t deny the economic benefit wives can bring to the table, but this particular framing is laughable. Single men can devote much more time to work, especially if you are looking at things like working on holidays, staying late, travel, etc. They are also much more free to relocate to where the work is.

  73. desiderian says:

    Bluepillprof,

    “Social science researchers like the author of this piece give social science researchers a bad name. This was intentionally and malignantly deceptive.”

    Please. As SunshineMary points out, this sort of thing is in fact a job requirement these days. Their behavior, and your willful ignorance, is what has given social science researchers a bad name.

  74. mikea says:

    Correlation doesnt necessari;y mean causation. Actually I think the casuation is in the opposite direction. Its not marriage that leads to men making more money its the other way round. If a man makes more money then he is more attractive to women who then want to marry him.

  75. Spike says:

    The “flawed logic” extends to the mythical Pay Gap for just this reason, Dalrock.
    When a man has a family he works hard, gets ahead in order to provide for his wife and family. This is immediately seen as unfair by feminists, or better translated, selfish women who fail to see that women – working husband’s wives – are better off because of it ( as you have testified to previously).
    Whenever I hear the tired old trope about “72 cents in the dollar”, I ask the following:
    Why don’t employers fire men and only hire women, thus saving themselves up to 30% in wages?
    The fact is, women want to work part time, look after children, or don’t want to work at all.
    When it comes to single men, what needs to be looked at is disposable income. A married man’s income is high but not disposable. A single man’s is.

  76. Dalrock says:

    @mikea

    Correlation doesnt necessarily mean causation. Actually I think the casuation is in the opposite direction. Its not marriage that leads to men making more money its the other way round. If a man makes more money then he is more attractive to women who then want to marry him.

    It is both. Either way, this still shows the incentive for men to work hard in a marriage based society.

  77. A.B Prosper says:

    Oscar, the West is overcrowded. 60 Million people in a nation the size of the UK is far far too many. Over 300 million in the US means a lower standard of living for everyone. More is only better if wither your ideology or your business model depends on continuous growth

    In fact I’d go so far as to say that every single western nation would be better served with demography and population it had in 1950 or so.

    Assuming vibrancy and cultural Marxism weren’t pressing issues it would still mean something like a 25% population reduction for Whites alone.

    Now on topic, this is another no spit Sherlock study. I just wonder how these things aren’t immediately obvious, married men work harder , tend to benefit from some positive discrimination and tend to be wealthier since marriage is rare among the lower classes.

    One last aside,anyone else notice all the natal agi-prop lately, Time, Newsweek everybody is getting on the band wagon, I suspect though they can’t say it, the fast decline in fertility rates especially among their base is starting to worry them.

    Can’t sell to marginally literate vibrants and dregs after all or the zealous and those are the only natal groups right now.Heck even the former is declining a bit

  78. evilwhitemalempire says:

    Obviously the author is a feminist afraid of the marriage strike and this article is a calculated lie intended to try and reverse it.

  79. unrulyv says:

    I’m a single never-married man who manages a team of about 20 men in a STEM field. I don’t favour my single vs married staff or other way around, but generally it’s the recently married, mortgaged fathers who are the most motivated to get a raise, and therefore get the most done. They also eat very poorly (to save money), have no hobbies or free time and have poor health.

    It’s not how much money you make, it’s how much you keep after the expenses are paid. That’s the financial wisdom I learned long ago.

    I bet the single men get to keep more money.😉 After treating myself with all kinds of fun, I still save well over 50% of my take home pay in a bad month, with zero debt. I doubt my married staff have money left for themselves, and if/when they get divorced, they will be in serious financial troubles.

  80. Luke says:

    BradA says:
    October 13, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    “TFH,

    > I would argue that a *boy* raised by a single mother will not go into STEM.

    You would be wrong. I was raised by a single mother and went into STEM because it was interesting and I had the raw talent to succeed in it.

    My father was around, but I only saw him every other weekend, so it was different than having a father at home.

    I could probably have done much better had they stayed married,”

    Fact check here: you were raised by a divorced mother, not a single mother.
    That runs something like half a socioeconomic class lost (compared to the better of how the two parents were raised), compared to easily a whole one for the SM.

  81. Luke says:

    Steve H says:
    October 13, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    “Moreover – in an already over-populated world, you’ll get nowhere proliferating that nonsense.”

    Except that almost everywhere outside the Third World, the native-born population is collapsing. In the Third World, the lifetime number of births per woman is coming down fast in most countries. (Iranians in Iran are already below replacement, while non-Kurdish Turks are right about there.)

    Suggested reading for you: “Why Civilzations Die (and why Islam is dying too)” by David Goldman

    Read David Goldman’s book

  82. Opus says:

    Should it not be: If it were a snake, it would have bitten them.

  83. BradA says:

    Luke, you want to divide the two? Good luck to you. I should have had a much crappier life, but God kept me from it. I wonder if you would have claimed your out had I not succeeded. I would have almost certainly done what I had done whether I had a single mother or not. I have always been very self motivated. I am not ideal and things could have gone better, but in spite of doing most of my upper level schooling in a major metropolitan school system (lower quality) and many other hurdles.

    Some make it in spite of the hurdles. Open your eyes a bit.

  84. Most married men I know are up to their eyeballs in debt. Houses, cars, school expenses, university expenses, holidays to Europe, sports tournaments for the kids, diamonds for the wife..

    Yeah, no wonder they earn more…

  85. Cane Caldo says:

    @Opus

    Should it not be: If it were a snake, it would have bitten them.

    Not in Texas, son.

  86. Opus says:

    ‘I am no viper’ – Shakespeare Pericles Act 1

  87. Pingback: Dalrock  If it was a snake it would… | Honor Dads

  88. Steve H says:

    Squib Load is right and Ol Blue Eyes nails it.

    Married men take ‘sick days’ because their kids are sick and their wife is working. They also quietly sneak out of work early for little league games, dance recitals, you name it.

    Dalrock – not every job is in a publicly-traded corporate cubicle farm, you know. Plenty of small business and privately-owned large businesses where this still happens – though admittedly, I’m referring to 1st hand experiences of 10-20 years ago in citing that quote (which I have heard literally iterated more than once). The thing is – I’m not denigrating those managers per se – Squib Load’s analysis speaks to this as well – those managers relate more to the married fathers if they themselves are also that. They aren’t bad or dishonest men necessarily – and were good men in my instances – but to claim that this residual Judeo-Christian bias against single men has completely evaporated with heightening spikes to the feminist zeitgeist? Inaccurate. That’s not the lay of the land.

    Completely agreed on your points about women and particularly working mothers, by the way. Working mothers are far and away the worst offenders of all – far, far worse than working fathers who take advantage of all the things I mentioned above (BTW: y’all think it’s fine that single guys do the work of married fathers/working mothers who take a ‘sick day’ when they themselves are not sick, for absolutely zero additional income since that ‘sick time’ is compensated at 100% in many cases?)

    As for the predictable TradCon & SoCon retorts of ‘The possibilities for victimhood are endless’ – you do realize the irony of saying that, yes? Here where anti-feminist grievances are constantly uttered and picked apart? And again, I don’t disagree with you then, either.

  89. BradA says:

    Steve H,

    Are you really arguing that single men work dedicated during the entire day, all the time?

    I am a bit dubious about that one, based on my experience. You may be a hard core special snowflake, but I suspect you are human too. Blaming married men for a human trait is dishonest.

  90. PokeSalad says:

    “though admittedly, I’m referring to 1st hand experiences of 10-20 years ago”

    ..stopped reading at this point.

  91. mikediver5 says:

    Do those of you stating that the married men are getting an unfair break because the managers can relate to them more know that in the US 51% of managers are women? What does that do to your analysis?

    I have six sisters. All of them are rabid feminists of one stripe or another. The oldest is a “good” feminist in that she was first wave. When she noted that the production line workers got paid more than she did as a secretary she didn’t protest; she got a job as a production line worker. When she noted that the maintenance staff got better pay she became the first female apprentice. One of my older, and retired, sisters was an insurance company executive in what used to be called data processing. She was one of the original Cobol Cowboys. She makes more money in retirement than I do working; and I am i the 90th percentile of incomes. She is convinced that she was the victim of pay discrimination her whole working life. She is also absolutely sure that women still get paid less for the same work. I have used multiple arguments to dissuade her of this myth but she is adamant.

    During one of these discussions about the pay gap with several of my sisters, I pointed out to my sisters that, in a recent study of people never married, no children, and working full time, that women made 17% more than men. This study was based on 2013 data. In 2011 the gap for these groups, all working full time, never married, and no kids, the gap was women making 11% more. In the early 2000s the gap was women making about 8% more. They refused to believe it and diverted by stating that the segmentation of the study was faulty and made no sense. I said they were being intentionally obtuse. When people marry they cease being individual economic units and become one united economic unit. Then the women start to prioritize home and children instead of work, while the husband prioritizes income to support the whole family. I didn’t even make the distinction that this was a study only of full time working people, while the $0.77 on the dollar BS is based on all women and all men; while many fewer women are working full time. If you try to compare apples to apples you find that women get paid more for maybe the same work, and maybe less work. This is the regulatory penalty paid by corporations in the US to avoid gender bias lawsuits. It is a causal factor in companies outsourcing off shore or moving operations off shore. My sisters, like all feminists, chose to ignore the facts and “reasoned” that this just didn’t feel right so it could be dismissed.

  92. Steve H says:

    Brad – no, but you raise a red herring. Being on the job and being unproductive/sporadically not being busy – but still being there to take the work as it comes – is entirely different than vacating the job site. It is an issue of leaving everyone else in the lurch because you as a parent are a special snowflake and your precious little kids are special snowflakes. Good job though turning that vernacular around preemptively though, gotta give you debate points on that. You know full well that it’s precisely the ‘special snowflake’ rationale that working parents use to justify their vacating the job site while others pick up the slack.

  93. Steve H says:

    PokeSalad – so in which compartment do you put that specific sentiment, then? Is it only heard in movies from an ancient foregone era, or has it been heard in the workplace (in the bluest of blue states, mind you) in roughly the current decade? And is it not in fact what is being defended as ‘the right thing’ here by SoCons and TradCons?

  94. Novaseeker says:

    I’m sorry, what was that about a Daddy Bonus again?

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/perk-facebook-apple-now-pay-women-freeze-eggs-n225011

    This was fairly inevitable, I think. I expect within a few years almost all professional women above a certain paygrade (think exec track) will routinely freeze eggs, which will push the marriage rate for this group back into the late 30s to mid 40s range.

  95. mikediver5 says:

    Just think of the inevitable outcome of this trend; women marrying and having their first child(ren) after they retire at 65.

  96. Honeycomb says:

    Apparently the “Married Male Privilege” isn’t driving men to enjoy it …

    http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26779009/marriage-rates-hit-new-all-time-low

    Perhaps it’s because these evil men are refusing to enjoy said privilege [sarcasm].

    And, they think their training is incomplete [more sarcasm].

    lol

  97. Farm Boy says:

    If you try to compare apples to apples you find that women get paid more for maybe the same work, and maybe less work. This is the regulatory penalty paid by corporations in the US to avoid gender bias lawsuits.

    True. And why isn’t that women cannot see what is so blatently obvious to men?

  98. BradA says:

    Steve H,

    I was talking about leaving early, long lunches, etc. Life happens and good companies adjust to it. It is not a Christian married man thing, contrary to your claim. Maybe you haven’t worked in fields such as It much.

  99. Honeycomb,

    Apparently the “Married Male Privilege” isn’t driving men to enjoy it …

    This year we just dropped to only 49.8% of all people over the age of 18 being married, the lowest point ever (first time in our nation’s history it was under half of all adults.) Other than finding a cure for death, I see no way we can reverse this trend. We’ll hit 45% of all people over the age of 18 being married inside of the next ten years.

    A lot of women I talk to want to know why it is that they are having such a hard time finding men to “man up” and marry them. I give them the stock answer that makes everything seem all too obvious: “….is there anything at all that men gain from a lifestyle of privilege standpoint that they aren’t already getting by remaining single?” No answers there, just deer in the headlights. I follow up “…..I can name numerous disincentives for men to marry women, but I can’t identify even one incentive at this point.” This usually creates some rhetorical response from women with them smiling and saying that live is just so good for married men without them identifying one good thing that a married man gets that a single man doesn’t. I think it is at that point when women start to get it (hopefully.)

  100. The free market is always right… and as more and more people either don’t marry (or can’t marry) that affects everything. Its even affecting cruising.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cruise-industry-woos-solo-travelers-2014-07-16

    Historically, one of the biggest barriers to solo cruising has been the “singles supplement,” a hefty surcharge imposed on single travelers. “The cruise industry, as a rule, bases pricing on two people in a stateroom,” Flagg says. The normal supplement is 200% of the cruise fare.

    But with a growth of single travelers, the industry is changing.

    For one, single cabins are becoming more common. Norwegian Cruise Lines has been a pioneer in designing cabins for solo cruisers. The modern 100-square-foot studio staterooms on some of its newer ships are specifically designed for singles; they open to a common lounge area — a virtual living room where passengers can meet for a drink, watch TV or chat.

    In June, Cunard, owned by Carnival Corp. CCL, +4.06% , announced it was adding single staterooms with oversize windows on its refurbished Queen Elizabeth. Riverboat cruises, another growing area, also offer single cabins on some ships.

    Experts recommend solo cruisers book early. Because the number of single staterooms (on cruise ships and riverboats) is limited, these cabins often sell out quickly.

    They are refurbrishing cruise ships and riverboats to accomidate singles. Are you kidding me? This would never-ever have happened 20 years ago.

  101. I guess that pay hike married men get just isn’t worth the trouble of a wife and kids anymore? Especially when it’s all taken away anyway; and the man is still expected to earn as if her were married and a functioning part of that marriage. Alas, no, a married man is a slave. A slave to women or to the state, via women. It really is a clusterfuck at the moment and not worth the effort to work hard for, unless of course you’re motivated by having state sponsored dick up your ass.

  102. Farm Boy says:

    is there anything at all that men gain from a lifestyle of privilege standpoint that they aren’t already getting by remaining single?

    “Their awesome selves”.

    Is there any way to make young women realize that they really are not that awesome?

  103. MarcusD says:

  104. Jonadab says:

    So a society is more productive and affluent when lifelong marriage is the context for sex? Huh! Maybe there is something to those precepts of morality found in the Bible.

    News flash moral effluence destroys affluence!

  105. Farmboy,

    “Their awesome selves”.

    Is there any way to make young women realize that they really are not that awesome?

    It is not that they are awesome or not awesome. It is instead that no matter how awesome the women are (and I am married to an awesome one), the majority of single men are largely coming to the conclusion that women aren’t worth it. And this realization has been building over the last twenty years (at least.)

    A casual acquaintence of mine back in the mid 1990s, we shared a common hobby, liked to play Magic the Gathering. It is collectable card game similar to many others. But that was back then. Anyone, one of our common friends asked him why he was always filling his time with hobbies, no women anywhere? His response:

    I don’t date. I masturbate.

    That statement made absolutely no sense to me then but (now) I believe this young man was ahead of his time. He was MGTOW long before there was such a thing.

  106. MarcusD says:

  107. Novaseeker says:

    @MarcusD —

    Yes means Yes is going to be the law everywhere soon enough. I think it’s just something that people will need to adapt to. It has critics, but the supporters are too strong politically, and it will be muscled through. There will be a lot of male casualties, which is apparently intended, and that is also not surprising. Their goal is to completely end all ambiguous consent situations by placing men in jeopardy 100% of the time. It’s excessive, but to reach their goal, they need an excessive law. As I say, it will be the law pretty much everywhere within 5-10 years, no question.

  108. I think it’s great. Laws like that mean they are close to an end-play. Put that hammer down. Let the sexes have a real war, let everyone suffer the consequences.

  109. Opus says:

    Women never say yes.

  110. anonymous_ng says:

    I can already hear the future gnashing of teeth when fleshlight sales boom, and women can’t even find a beta orbiter.

  111. Don’t be surprised one day to wake up and find that eye-rape is a legally punishable crime..

  112. Farm Boy says:

    Can I require a written consent for my taxes to be used on baby mamas?

  113. Farm Boy says:

    Don’t be surprised one day to wake up and find that eye-rape is a legally punishable crime..

    Would men have to walk around with their eyes shut?

  114. mikediver5 says:

    For those looking to enjoy the decline or accelerate it, yes means yes is a wonderful law. When college women can’t get the time of day from college men they will stop going to college. There will still be the LUGs (lesbian until graduation), but they will not be sufficient to sustain the massive academic infrastructure we have built up. And we the left will never be able to force enough women into STEM. What they might do is limit the size of STEM to the number where 50% is small enough to contain the women that actually can be forced into STEM. This will lead to basically all STEM sensitive fields and industries to either import workers from overseas or to go off shore. Then the crash comes. You can’t have an economy that only washes each other’s cloths (i.e. a 100% service economy).

    So far this law only relates to college campuses; you know because one out of three, or four, or maybe five (no not that few) college women get raped. What will be interesting for those of us leaving the country ASAP is when the law starts to cover the general population; and it will. Then it will spread from California in that configuration and the gender war will be out in the open. Men will be forced to pick a side. So far the gender war was declared and fought by women only. Men have just refused to believe it exists.

  115. Joey says:

    Having Children => Magically Benefits Males in the Workplace.

    That is a prime example of NY Times logic that conflates cause and effect. About every three years since the mid 1990s, they run a story that is always headlined the same way:

    “Despite Rise in Incarceration, Crime Rates Drop.”

    It’s a miracle!

    I shit you not.

  116. Just sign on the dotted line, here, here and here. And then sign every five minutes again, here, here, here, there and here, here, here….. oh, you get the picture.

  117. Ra's al Ghul says:

    @Dalrock

    @Steve H

    I have even heard it said firsthand to childfree men who ask for a raise commensurate with other men in his department – “well, he does have a family to support, you know.”

    I’ve seen it too. However, only in fiction, and then almost always in reference to days of patriarchy past. Every place I’ve worked in real life would have fired me had I discussed salary details with my peers, let alone have such a conversation with management. I’m fairly confident that such a practice would be illegal according to the EEOC, and if it is a publicly traded company a violation of management’s fiduciary responsibility (it probably is a fiduciary breach for most private companies as well, but some private owners might want to pay fathers more). But yeah, I saw that movie too…

    Unless salary is public record (like the government) companies will not share the salary of one employee with another. It is illegal to discriminate like that. It is also a fiduciary breach as well.

    What I have noticed is that companies will shit on fathers because they know the bastards can’t leave and they “suck it up” because they have to.

    You’re not just a slave to the wife and system, you’re a slave to your boss too.

    @Novaseeker:

    “Yes means Yes is going to be the law everywhere soon enough. I think it’s just something that people will need to adapt to. It has critics, but the supporters are too strong politically, and it will be muscled through. There will be a lot of male casualties, which is apparently intended, and that is also not surprising.”

    The end result is less jury convictions for all types of “rape” which will extend to all criminal cases. I know people that would acquit as a juror no matter what now and would happily tell the system they are “unbiased”, and that’s just the beginning.

    I expect men video recording everything secretly is going to become common place.

  118. Opus says:

    Personally, I have always found a verbally enthusiastic woman to be a boner-killer. Previously, the only time a woman ever said yes was when she accepted an offer of marriage; by running away and playing hard to get she caught her man. The only women who say yes on a regular basis are prostitutes.

  119. At least the porn industry will get a boost.

  120. Ra's al Ghul says:

    Opus:

    “Personally, I have always found a verbally enthusiastic woman to be a boner-killer.”

    I suspect women that shout “YES!” repeatedly during sex are going to be considerably more popular in the future (especially if they are loud enough for the neighbors to hear.

    Mike:

    “For those looking to enjoy the decline or accelerate it, yes means yes is a wonderful law.”

    I expect male enrollments to be half what they are now in five years

  121. GoPro might reclaim share price with more such laws.

  122. Honeycomb says:

    Ra’s al Ghul said ..
    “What I have noticed is that companies will shit on fathers because they know the bastards can’t leave and they “suck it up” because they have to.

    You’re not just a slave to the wife and system, you’re a slave to your boss too.”

    Yes .. I agree.

    I have worked places where they hired a 1/3 as junior and green as possible (they take it because they have student loans to service), a 1/3 married with kids (because they too will take it because they have a family unit to provide for) and a 1/3 retired military (because they have been through worse and they probably have side bennie’s that make-up the difference).

    I, as a single man, was treated a whole lot better because I was hired for my experience and education. But, I was treated well because I had other opportunities and a savings that allowed me to walk away as soon as they put the screws to me (promises not kept .. etc). I could move on a moment’s notice without concern for family issue’s (school’s for the kid’s .. etc).

    In the old days when loyalty was a prime company assets they was not true. They preferred men married to work for them. They were not big risk takers like single men.

  123. As far as “yes means yes” goes, its real simple…

    “I do” should equal

    “Yes I consent to sex with my husband ON HIS DEMAND anytime he wants it, day or night, 24 hours a day if needs be. My body is his. It is impossible for me to be raped by my husband as my body is his property. Any other man that has sex with me (even with my consent, which I can not legally give anymore) IS raping me provided they already know I am married.”

    That should be the law. Create that law in 50 states, we’ll probably slightly stop this marriage decline.

  124. Gunner Q says:

    embracing reality @ October 13, 2014 at 9:39 pm:
    “I don’t know whats wrong with me. By choice I work 6 days a week operating a small business and often get home after dark. It’s lucrative but hardly enjoyable and yet I feel compelled to continue even though I could easily retire, I do this yet I am single, never married and completely apposed to ever having children.”

    It means you’re a good Christian. God values a strong work ethic and productive work is as much a holy calling as the priesthood. I’m sympathetic to “enjoy the decline” types but working is what God made me to do. (I’m in the opposite camp from you. I love my job but it doesn’t pay many bills.)

    “Incidentally, there are financially well off, attractive, single women who don’t have and don’t want kids. Guess what kind of men they’re looking to date.”

    Homeless rebels? No joke; I should’ve connected the dots when “Titanic” came out.

    “… one out of three, or four, or maybe five (no not that few) college women get raped.”

    One in four college women. One gets raped, one secretly wants to get raped, one wants to protest rape for a living and one doesn’t drink.

    A.B Prosper @ 12:08 am:
    “Oscar, the West is overcrowded. 60 Million people in a nation the size of the UK is far far too many. Over 300 million in the US means a lower standard of living for everyone.”

    When the world was less populated, subsistence farming was the norm. More population means more people making and doing things for other people, which is what raises a standard of living.

    Then the Communists take over, wreck the economy and suddenly there are “too many mouths to feed”. Population control is government’s preferred solution because government is much better at killing people than growing food.

  125. The Brass Cat says:

    Steve H says:

    As a wealthy single man in his 30s, I can tell you from 2 decades of working in the private sector: there is ABSOLUTELY a bias towards paying fathers – and particularly married fathers – more than single men for the exact same work performed.

    I haven’t seen this with pay but absolutely with granting vacation/leave time. For a stretch of about 6 years I worked almost every major holiday because my co-workers had kids and “needed to be home with the kids on [insert holiday].” But everyone who had this advantage was a woman. Wasn’t the fathers.

  126. Farm Boy says:

    And we the left will never be able to force enough women into STEM.

    If there is a better indicator of natural sex differences, I don’t know what it is. Despite pushing hard for women to enter, and reasonable pay on the other side, women will just not go for it. What to make of this?

  127. GeminiXcX says:

    Make sure you examine your motivations, as stressing yourself out by working so hard to raise financial standing in a decaying world seems rather self-defeating. There is a difference in having a biblical work ethic and ‘paying out money for what is not bread.’ The more you make, the more they take. Worthless possessions will not fulfill you now anyway (Luke 12:15) and will not save you in the future (Ezekiel 7:19).

    “moreover, every person should eat, drink, and *enjoy the benefits of everything that he undertakes*, since it is a gift from God.” – Ecclesiastes 3:13.
    Since the corrupt system, (which opposes God), is the primary beneficiary of my hard labor, this also serves as a motivation to stop prioritizing giving more to the system. Live simple, and establish human relationships as your life priority. For me, “enjoy the decline” means. . .
    1) Work to live.
    2) Take care of your loved ones, as family/close friends is all that will matter when. . .
    3) The entire planet will soon fall into WWIII, or Armageddon, so I don’t concern myself too much. (Daniel 12, Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13)

    The puppet masters pulling the strings go beyond feminists, the Elite, “the Illuminati”. This entire world is being maneuvered by something more powerful to it’s ultimate destruction.
    “And the demonic spirits gathered all the rulers and their armies to a place with the Hebrew name Har-magedon.” – Revelation 16:16

    -GXcX

  128. Despite pushing hard for women to enter, and reasonable pay on the other side, women will just not go for it. What to make of this?

    You know as well as I do what to make of this. Its hard. They flunk out of school in greater numbers majoring in STEM. They just want to read a book (maybe) a take a test. They don’t want to sit in a computer lab 20-30 hours a week and do projects. They want to go to parties and get drunk and get laid by the alphamcharleyrockbankdrummer. That is more likely to happen with a psych or women’s studies degree.

  129. Newdist says:

    Another horror story from the CAF:
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=909276

    Male virgin in his early 30s meets woman seven years older than him, sleeps with her, marries her, endures 22 years of misery and abuse.

    No children.

  130. Farm Boy says:

    Male virgin in his early 30s meets woman seven years older than him, sleeps with her, marries her, endures 22 years of misery and abuse.

    No children.

    Perhaps the “no children” part was a blessing.

  131. earl says:

    “Male virgin in his early 30s meets woman seven years older than him, sleeps with her, marries her, endures 22 years of misery and abuse.”

    “she was my first sexual partner out of wedlock”

    There’s the reason why. He fornicated with a hag and now is reaping what he sowed.

  132. earl says:

    If I could give men one bit of advice it would be this: Never ever sleep with a victim. A life of celibacy pales in the pain compared to sticking your dick in crazy and then marrying it.

  133. Robert What? says:

    (Most) men have always had to work like dogs to support a wife and family. This is nothing new. What is different is this: there used to be some benefits to be a hard working husband and father in recognition of the tremendous sacrifices men had to make for that: respect, a certain amount of deference, male-only spaces and property rights. Those benefits are all gone. In the modern marriage, the responsibilities go to the men but the benefits go to the woman. Take the word of an older married guy: modern marriage for most men in a suckers bet.

  134. Farm Boy says:

    Never ever sleep with a victim

    So what exactly is a victim?

  135. Take the word of an older married guy: modern marriage for most men in a suckers bet.

    You should be out telling younger guys what you know, and even diverting the ones who understand it to the androsphere.

    Usually it is only sons of frivorced men that get this type of frank and hurtful conversation from someone who knows better. And that only occurs when the son is willing to listen to his frivorced father and NOT his mother. That doesn’t happen often.

  136. Re: Yes Means Yes; the more a feminine-primary social order embraces, endorses and openly promotes feminine hypergamy as the normative, correct, social paradigm, the more it will be necessary to legally force men to comply with it.

    As it stands now, the Feminine Imperative is having a hard time enforcing its primacy through social conventions and popular culture shaming men into compliance with it. They see the raw duplicity of open hypergamy and increasingly are becoming less and less cooperative with what really amounts to their participation in their own cuckoldry – which women triumphantly crow about in as public a manner as is practical now.

    Yes Means Yes is merely the first of many coming mandates with the latent purpose of legally mandating men’s cooperation with feminine hypergamy and women’s sexual pluralism (AFBB).

    A common refrain from the manosphere has been that the only reason a man should consider marriage is if he wanted to raise children – a functioning, cooperative, child-rearing environment being the only evident ‘advantage’ marriage offers men – but in light of laws cut from this cloth and the glaringly empirical risks of having his children legally removed from him under the flimsiest of pretenses I can’t say as I agree with this anymore.

    There are no “advantages” for men in marriage – only liabilities.

    It’s not about buying the cow when you can get the milk for free anymore. It’s about the cow milking itself and giving it away to Alpha fucks in its peak years and then expecting you to buy her just before she’s gone completely dry.

  137. desiderian says:

    Nova,

    “Their goal is to completely end all ambiguous consent situations by placing men in jeopardy 100% of the time.”

    Students of history, especially regarding totalitarian societies, will understand that there are fringe benefits that accrue to those who can place men in jeopardy 100% of the time. For at least some involved in pushing the law, that is end, not means. Likewise ugly women jeopardizing the opportunities of less ugly women to get with men.

    There are of course the naive/ignorant who believe they are doing God’s work here, but such folk tend to be followers, not leaders, and also more comfortable taking a conciliatory than a confrontational approach. That’s not what is happening in this case – which is the Left exhausting more of the seed-corn built-up by their erstwhile liberal allies. This time in attacking the liberals themselves and the norms they’ve established.

    “It’s excessive, but to reach their goal, they need an excessive law. As I say, it will be the law pretty much everywhere within 5-10 years, no question.”

    There are powerful interests on the other side. At some point, PC will jump the shark. Unless the socons go all-in to support this law, this looks like a decent candidate. Even if they do, the PC demonization of the socons could come back to bite them.

  138. Farm Boy says:

    more it will be necessary to legally force men to comply with it.

    How will this look? And how will it be sold? Guys are catching on.

  139. Farm Boy says:

    Likewise ugly women jeopardizing the opportunities of less ugly women to get with men.

    Is this the real “war on women”?

  140. desiderian says:

    Rollo,

    “There are no ‘advantages’ for men in marriage – only liabilities.”

    Speak for yourself. My wife makes more than I do and is feminine and devoted. There are too many women who are not suitable wives, but there are also a great many men who don’t provide much in the way of competition either. Women whose parents have faithfully kept their marriage vows are still a decent bet.

    “It’s not about buying the cow when you can get the milk for free anymore. It’s about the cow milking itself and giving it away to Alpha fucks in its peak years and then expecting you to buy her just before she’s gone completely dry.”

    Like many socon girls, she got married off at a young age to a delta shlub who reneged on his promise to start a family with her once their careers were established, then divorced her. She’s getting her alpha fucks now, and we’re pooling our beta bucks to pay for a family.

    AF/BB is wrong. Pretending no alternatives exist doesn’t do much to combat it.

  141. Luke says:

    BradA says:
    October 14, 2014 at 3:33 am

    “Luke, you want to divide the two? Good luck to you. I should have had a much crappier life, but God kept me from it. I wonder if you would have claimed your out had I not succeeded”

    Yes, my inclination is to point out that error of terminology whenever I read anyone using it, whatever their own history. If a child was any one of conceived during marriage, born during marriage, or (arguably) his biological parents married after his birth (but before the age of legal adulthood), he is legitimate, not a bastard. if his parents divorced, he has (if alive) a divorced mother. It’s pretty straightforward.
    ==============================================================
    Anyone that says that women are smarter than men (especially where it counts, above 120 IQ) doesn’t need to sort through lots of statistics. They can just skim over the science Nobel Prize listings (even the post-1980 ones after discrimination became affirmative action support this), the Fields Medal winners (FM ~= Nobel Prize for math), or just look into a 400-level class in Electrical or Chemical Engineering, a math class in Differential Equations, or just any Technical Physics (NOT “General Physics”) class.
    ================================================================
    Re married men “owing” for the “advantage” that marriage gives them in pay: that will make sense right around the time that slaves in the Third World (there are tens of millions of them even now) would rightly owe money for whips used on them to make them work 16 rather than 14 hours a day.

  142. desiderian says:

    “Is this the real ‘war on women’?”

    One of the many fronts, yes. Civil war is the nastiest.

  143. greyghost says:

    Rollo you got that right. Having your own kids is not a good enough reason to marry anymore. I would follow the gay marriage crowd straight to the surrogacy clinic. No matter the cost it is still cheaper.
    IBB
    Young men today know. It is the stupid asses in the late 20’s and older that still think the way to a woman’s heart is to respect her. The young guys know marriage is a sucker deal. It is just a matter of teaching them how to game the pussy.

  144. Boxer says:

    innocentbystanderboston sez:

    You know as well as I do what to make of this. Its hard. They flunk out of school in greater numbers majoring in STEM…

    Then Luke sez:

    Anyone that says that women are smarter than men (especially where it counts, above 120 IQ) doesn’t need to sort through lots of statistics. […] just look into a 400-level class in Electrical or Chemical Engineering, a math class in Differential Equations, or just any Technical Physics (NOT “General Physics”) class.

    You guys who deify the numerate or technically competent are really missing the point. The two types who do this most consistently tend to be narcissistic nerds who think themselves much brighter than they are, or the dudes who are afraid of mathematics and look up to people who aren’t any smarter than they are.

    A few years ago I taught a diff eq class. You don’t have to have a 120+ IQ to learn diff eq. The standards, broadly speaking, for learning mathematics (esp. lower maths, like calculus and diff eq.) are the same as they are for learning classical latin, or memorizing the British monarchs. They are:

    1. Don’t be retarded.
    2. Basic reading/writing competency (a grade 6 level is probably sufficient).
    3. Be willing to work for a couple of hours, every day, on the material.

    Anyone who meets those criteria will learn how to do diff eq, or learn how to conjugate classical Attic verbs, or anything else he has a mind to learn.

    The fact that women don’t tend to study this type of stuff is indicative of laziness, not stupidity. Lots of really bright women find it easier to squeeze out a thugspawn and live on welfare. It takes less effort to leech than to learn something interesting. For that matter, most men don’t bother learning useful stuff either. The deepest reading that even the “intellectuals” do, these days, is middlebrow stuff like Rushdie or Cormac McCarthy.

    Best, Boxer

  145. MarcusD says:

    The average white knight on CAF?

  146. Steve H says:

    Rollo on ‘Yes Means Yes’ – That’s brilliant, as usual for you. And serves as a further mandate for the legalization of prostitution. If, as a society, we’re going that far down the lefto-femi-fascist rathole – prostitution will be the only thing that can keep the playing field remotely level (and at that, only for those men who are morally/ethically willing to go that route.)

    Honeycomb – you raise a great counterpoint to my points, and I agree with you. If/when an employer puts the screws to me, it’s simply this: “OK, my last day here will be 2 weeks from today”. But think of it another way – in an FI-corrupted, HR-doting/presiding swarm of new ‘socially conscious’ behavioral requirements at work (now I’m contradicting my earlier premise entirely, but some workplaces are like this, others are as I described above) – that’s how you actually enforce the principle of keeping one’s word. Let them shriek, when you point out their broken promise, ‘well I don’t recall that being in the offer letter, so I guess we’ll never know if that was exactly the case’ – and you walk. So in that sense, single men with financial abundance are in the best position to enforce the ol’ ‘oppressive patriarchal’ notion that when you shake hands on something, or have a verbal agreement, it stands no matter what. Because you enforce it. And that’s a good thing.

  147. embracing reality says:

    In regard to the tweet above. Why? Or how? I don’t begrudge a gal a *few* extra pounds, like 10 or maybe 20 on a tall gal but this, seriously? If this woman looks like this on her wedding day whats she going to look like in the future? I don’t understand how this woman could ever be married to anything less than a fat fetishist and that doesn’t explain how many of them snag a man. If this is the best I could do I would happily, with great enthusiasm, just go without. NO! None for me, no thank you.

  148. MarcusD says:

    Nurse Accused Of Killing 38 Patients She Found Annoying
    https://archive.today/RhUgQ

  149. MarcusD says:

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/cached/breaking-cardinal-burke-says-statement-from-pope-francis-defending-catholic.html

    The document, among its most controversial propositions, asks whether “accepting and valuing [homosexuals’] sexual orientation” could align with Catholic doctrine; proposes allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a “case-by-case basis”; and says pastors should emphasize the “positive aspects” of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation.

  150. embracing reality says:

    Gunner Q

    “Incidentally, there are financially well off, attractive, single women who don’t have and don’t want kids. Guess what kind of men they’re looking to date.”

    You replied “Homeless rebels? No joke; I should’ve connected the dots when “Titanic” came out.”
    Sorry but this seems to be over my head, above my pay grade, no comprende… However the point I was making is that there are a minority of attractive (including Christian) childless non-breeder females in the pool, some with money. I’ve dated a few. These women can’t /won’t marry men who want kids. One sweet, and oh so savory 29 yo hottie I was entangled with at Christian Cafe told me she “didn’t want to be any man’s baby factory”. It was like beautiful music! They tend to be sophisticated, educated, slightly highly strung and quite sexually driven to marry… It takes some game, dominance, good taste and No-kids to attract them. They are out there and don’t seem to understand the demand for them from men who don’t want kids because they’re inundated by dense men who tell them “you should have babies”.

  151. embracing reality says:

    TFH says: “What do you think the blindfold is for? He doesn’t know what his bride to be looks like.”

    Lol, if only that were true, The sad truth is these poor schlubs sign up for this with their eyes wide open, I’ve watched them do it. Then they put their portly princess on a pedestal (a damn sturdy one) and proceed to spend the rest of their lives worshipping her in exchange for nothing more than the occasional “good dog, now heel!”. It’s sick, truly disgusting and I have no idea how or why it keeps happening.

  152. Kevin says:

    Few random comments on things up thread:

    More doctors are specialists and those doctors make more than people were saying up thread. Also, some STEM make 120000 but lots don’t. That is a high paid STEM vs the lowest paid doctor (pediatrician). Many docs are STEM trained (chemical engineering was very common for awhile) and many STEM could be docs but the skill sets don’t overlap. Most STEM managers would make good doctors, many other STEM would find day to day medicine incredibly boring but also emotionally difficult. Also, the hardest thing about medicine is the delayed gratification they endure not the mental effort. It is having no income until early- mid 30s that is difficult and working 60-80 hours a week for the rest of your life. . Cognitively any one with + 1-2SD IQ can do medicine. I suspect to be a real star in STEm you need to be +2-3 and be creative.

    As far as lawyers, the distribution has a long tail. The average lawyer makes little because it is not that hard to become a lawyer. But from the top law schools they all start in the mid 100s and go up from there. But being a high paid lawyer is incredibly hard work with deliriously long hours.

    Having an advanced degree in a field which uses methods similar to sociology most research in my field is crap and a greater percentage of theirs is. You cannot test it so it is just a big round of bias confirmation.

  153. Kevin says:

    Boxer

    I have great respect for you because based on your posts you are clearly a bright, thoughtful guy but if i am understanding you correctly you are dead wrong about math. There is pretty good literature that you need an IQ of around 115 just to do calculus, to say nothing of higher and higher math. Sounds like you are pretty smart, found these math classes not to difficult and assumed it was your hard work. The majority of the population could never master calculus if they spent all day on it every day.

    Why women don’t do STEM as much is probably multifactorial but clearly one component is female lack of natural talent in math on average. Lack of enjoying it even when good is pretty common. The smartest women I knew in math still went into theater, English.

  154. Boxer says:

    Dear Kevin:

    Thanks for a thoughtful riposte. Please see inside text…

    I have great respect for you because based on your posts you are clearly a bright, thoughtful guy but if i am understanding you correctly you are dead wrong about math. There is pretty good literature that you need an IQ of around 115 just to do calculus, to say nothing of higher and higher math.

    You’ve said a lot of nice things, and I appreciate them, but they actually aren’t true. I’m about average to bright-normal on the scales. The thing I found really difficult as a kid was getting a handle on methods of integration. Later, I had to take a couple of 400 level statistics courses for my degree, about which I had no real interest, and which are the only “c” grades I earned (and I earned them both).

    I have to disagree with you about Calculus being generally difficult. Most students find it a really neat topic. The difficulties I see with kids studying Calculus generally boil down to a poor understanding of the precalculus math (trigonometry in particular).

    As an aside, one of my pet theories about the widespread failure in learning higher math (beyond calc, diff eq, etc.), compared to previous generations, has to do with the breakdown of what might be called a conceptual competency. We used to live in a literary culture, where people got used to order their thoughts by reading novels and seeing theatre. Today, we all live glued to our iphones and our televisions, where we’re bombarded with disjointed images and dissonant noise. It’s not that people today are objectively stupider than their grandparents, but they think very differently.

    The procedural way of thinking, of yesteryear, was more conducive to breaking down complex problems in orderly fashion in the hopes of finding creative solutions. That’s all gone now.

    Best, Boxer

  155. Luke says:

    Boxer says:
    October 14, 2014 at 9:30 pm

    It’s not that people today are objectively stupider than their grandparents, but they think very differently.”

    I’m not so sure about this. For starters, consider how the SAT scores have declined (needing TWO resets upwards so it’s not so obvious. Second, think about how over the past 40 years all the smart women have stopped going into schoolteaching, becoming scientists, doctors, lawyers, engineers, managers, etc. instead. (As evidence, they had to come from somewhere, and Education majors have the lowest ACT/SAT scores in college.)

    Nonsense like affirmative action for teachers (and increasingly for students), Title IX coming to academics, promoting the should-have-failed, mainstreaming the short-bus severely-damaged morons, “whole word” reading instruction, “New Math”, “how do you FEEL about math/ chemistry/physics” (instead of actually teaching them), and now Common Core are practically certain to result in stupider (not just more ignorant) graduates of mass schooling. (Home schooling is a rare glimpse of countervailing hope, but isn’t widespread enough to fight the declining averages yet.)

    Even if your statement were to be true, that doesn’t rule out the distinct possibility of the IQ going down in America by various metrics. The substantial increase in NAMs (and the many South Asians less bright on average than America’s founding stock) would far overweigh the modest increase in North Asians and the smarter Indians (dot not feather).

  156. desiderian says:

    Kevin and Boxer,

    “The majority of the population could never master calculus if they spent all day on it every day.”

    This is incorrect.

    The basic concepts of calculus are conceptually easier than many covered in the typical Algebra II or Trigonometry/Pre-Calc course. The best contemporary math curricula have been integrating calculus concepts earlier and earlier where they fit better with children’s development.

    I’ve taught come basic calculus to sixth graders and they had a blast. Calculus is rates (division) of change (subtraction). Review the definition of the derivative if you find this too flippant.

    The typical calculus course that is actually taught to advanced high schoolers/college students is of course far more challenging. As Boxer notes, part of this is due to the erosion of competency in the basic building blocks of thought (including, the latest research has demonstrated, such things as memorizing multiplication tables), but it is also due to muddled curricula that aims to serve too many masters. So esoteric theory is mixed in hodgepodge with elementary concepts with advanced applications lacking the mastery of, for instance, the physical/mechanical concepts upon which those applications were constructed.

    Students are “taught”, and expected to memorize, various tricks, without being required to demonstrate themselves, if not to actually discover, how the tricks were derived or why they matter to the fields where they are employed.

  157. desiderian says:

    Luke,

    Common Core is the camel nose under the tent (or perhaps his ass, a great deal has already been lost) in English and Social Studies.

    In Math, it is in fact in most ways an improvement.

  158. The fact that women don’t tend to study this type of stuff is indicative of laziness, not stupidity.

    Not necessarily even laziness, but just a complete lack of interest. There’s this big push now to get girls into programming, but girls have never liked messing around with computers. Give them one that comes in bright colors, that they can just turn on and play social games with, and they’re okay with that; but the computer itself as a machine that does nothing but follow logical instructions is like kryptonite to women.

    That’s the case with most of the tech jobs that don’t attract women. Even women who are smart enough just have no desire to do them. Since plenty of other jobs have been created for them that pay well enough, why would they take a job they’d hate?

  159. Boxer says:

    Off topic: The kook Hanna Rosin lionizes a lesser-known nutcase, Katha Pollitt, who wrote a book declaring that “Abortion is Great!”

    frankly, in 2014, it should be no big deal that in a movie a young woman has an abortion and it’s no big deal.

    Yes! It’s no big deal that I killed my own kid, because I was too irresponsible to use any of the four hundred methods of birth-control available at low or no cost… (before I had one too many appletinis and had sex with a bunch of strange men in the bathroom of the nightclub). Don’t judge, BIGOTS! I am wimminz! Hear me roar!

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/10/katha_pollitt_s_pro_reclaiming_abortion_rights_reviewed.html

    Forgetting about the religious aspect, for a moment (that I don’t buy anyway), it boggles the mind to see how irresponsible these nitwits are.

    Boxer

  160. KP says:

    desiderian,

    For f’s sake, surely you know you are an outlier? Surely???

  161. Steve H says:

    Boxer, aren’t you forgetting a few choice expressions in your description of that prototypical garden-variety abortion barbie (like so many generic wendy davis’s) apologist?

    “Slut shaming is wrong”
    “You have no right to call anybody a slut”
    “I wouldn’t think that having had boyfriends before means she’s a slut”
    “It’s none of anyone’s business except her and her doctor” (uhh, the prospective dad?)
    “You’re really showing your ignorance now!”

    Just off the top of my head.

  162. Pingback: Lightning Round -2014/10/15 | Free Northerner

  163. Luke says:

    desiderian says:
    October 14, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    “Luke,

    Common Core is the camel nose under the tent (or perhaps his ass, a great deal has already been lost) in English and Social Studies.

    In Math, it is in fact in most ways an improvement.”

    I have not looked that closely into Common Core, particularly math. My children were already going to be homeschooled with Saxon Math and probably some Khan Academy videos, some of Isaac Asimov’s nonfiction books on math, with a possibility of some pieces from Ron Paul’s Liberty Curriculum and/or Vox Day’s nascent homeschooling curriculum (presuming the latter two have math sections). That said, I’ve read a couple of places about how CC is costing kids up to 3 grade levels in math capability, turning former math lovers into math haters, how even fathers with mathematics or engineering degrees cannot determine with certainty the correct answer to some CC middle school math problems, etc.

    Re Social(ist) Studies and other humanities curricula, I don’t think there was much more value to lose (the rest as gone as most of the life expectancy of a typical 80-YO).

  164. MarcusD says:

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=uxorious&allowed_in_frame=0

    uxorious (adj.)
    “excessively fond of or submissive to one’s wife,” 1590s, from Latin uxorius “of or pertaining to a wife,” also “devoted to a wife” or “ruled by a wife,” from uxor (genitive uxoris) “wife,” according to Watkins from PIE *uk-sor- “‘she who gets accustomed” (to a new household)’ after patrilocal marriage.”

  165. Luke says:

    desiderian says:
    October 14, 2014 at 9:59 pm

    “Kevin and Boxer,

    “The majority of the population could never master calculus if they spent all day on it every day.”

    “This is incorrect.”

    Hm. Please consider this public school teacher’s recent experiences (below link). Jaime Escalante prescreened his AP Calculus students, and gave them aid no public school teacher would do now.

    Out of curiosity, have you read this classic essay a teacher wrote on just how difficult he found teaching NAM students? It’s ‘What it is like to teach black students” (rough title) by Christopher Jackson.

  166. Daniel Gilson says:

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=915074

    “We have no financial problems, healthy kids and a great life outside of this so I don’t know what the problem is. It is ruining our marriage. Outside of his temper he is helpful around the house, works, involved with the kids and a great husband on paper… But I am desperate for a break from the constant negativity and making everything into an argument. It is truly so bad that I have contemplated divorce.”

  167. deti says:

    “AF/BB is wrong. Pretending no alternatives exist doesn’t do much to combat it.”

    Some men don’t fall prey to it. Many do. Denying AFBB is real only serves to perpetuate it, and to subjugate men’s interests to the FI. Ultimately, serving the female interest completely subsumes the male, to everyone’s detriment and misery.

  168. deti says:

    As for “Yes Means Yes” – Agree that it will likely become law everywhere. In addition to putting all men in jeopardy 100% of the time, it will have (and is clearly intended to have) a chilling effect on less assertive men. It will only embolden the thugs, jerks, players, cads and “rapey” men its proponents say they want to discourage. The “dads” that some in these parts claim they like so much will only become less engaged.

    “Dads” are the rules followers, the betas, the engine of our economic society who make it run. They can’t afford to take a flyer on some cutie at a bar or some other meeting place. So they won’t approach girls they otherwise might approach. But the guys who will approach? Players, cads, and jerks. They are more aggressive, have less to lose, don’t care anyway, and will have learned the workarounds.

    Men will have to start doing the following:

    1. Audio and video record their sexual encounters. EVERY TIME. Which would you rather have to defend — a “he said, she said” felony rape or “sexual assault” charge that carries with it a long prison term and lifetime sexual offender registration? Or a misdemeanor eavesdropping charge that you can probably plead down to a petty offense and a fine; or at worst if repeated three or four times will get you a week to a month in the county jail? One can make the argument that video recording is a form of self-defense.

    No prosecutor wants to spend his time and that of his assistants sorting through video evidence to determine if consent were present or absent, and they won’t put “iffy” rape cases in front of juries. No district attorney will spend his time or want to account to voters by prosecuting 40 year old divorcees and 20 year old college students on bullshit eavesdropping charges.

    2. Text to confirm her interest and save the texts.

    3. The next morning, give her the “boyfriend” treatment with a breakfast out, confirm the encounter by text, save the texts, and offer a followup.

    4. DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT. Save all documentation – print out texts. Screenshots of social media private messages. Take selfies of the two of you together and save them. Save all photos she sends you, regardless of content – even better if it’s a photo you took on your phone, and one that she evidently posed for. All of these denote consent, and could serve as valuable exonerative evidence in the event of later charges.

    This is more evidence to me that women are lying when they say they want good men, nice men, kind men, providers. They don’t – they want to winnow good men away from them, and encourage only the men who will push through Last Minute Resistance.

    It’s funny that this law/policy will discourage the men these women say they want. And, this law will only encourage the men they claim not to want. It’s clear to me these women are going to use this law for what blogger Whiskey has often pointed out: Such laws merely serve to separate out attractive men that women want from unattractive, unwanted men. All a woman has to do to fend off a good man is to shout “Yes means Yes! BUSTED!!!” and the guy is well and truly screwed.

  169. greyghost says:

    AF/BB is the normal state, the alternatives are the checks that make up a civilized society. Rules and responsibilities and checks on bad behaviors is what makes for an advanced civilized society and civilization that is sustainable. Maintaining lies and delusions erodes civilization as we are seeing now.

  170. anon1 says:

    I am one of those subhumans from South Asia. I teach math and physics in the community colleges. By far, the Indian JEE(Joint Engineering Entrance) exam is one toughest I have encountered. The level of math and physics at those exams is equivalent to junior and senior level math and physics in US colleges and universities. Learning Saxon math is a joke and an embarrassment. Saxon never teaches rigorous geometry forcing students to think logically and write proofs. Back in my day, the old British geometry textbooks introduced us to Reductio Ad Absurdum and how to prove that square root of 2 is an irrational number. We were taught how to think analytically early on by way of learning to work geometrical proofs and word problems. We were even forced to memorize not only theorems from geometry, but also the multiplication tables. Learning Singapore Math is much better than learning from Saxon.

  171. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon 1:

    I am one of those subhumans from South Asia.

    It’s best to ignore the outspoken White (Black, or whatever) supremacist types. They fall prey to many of the same fallacies as feminists (female supremacists). It’s like a pseudoparanoid neurosis, with simultaneous delusions of persecution (everyone’s conspiring against the White/Black race!) and grandeur (we are the most advanced race evah!).

    Specifically: The idea that knee-grows (or wimminz) can’t do math is disproven simply by stepping into any university campus and looking at the faculty. Anyone within the non-retarded range can learn calculus. It just takes consistent effort, which is why so many spoiled and entitled White kids are failing at it today.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  172. greyghost says:

    When I worked in Silicon Valley the only engineer we had that could put theory to work in real world production was a cat from India.

  173. Chris says:

    “A life of celibacy pales in the pain compared to sticking your dick in crazy and then marrying it.”

    A nice variation of Proverbs 21:9.

    I was depressed as hell about being single a few short years ago. Since then, God blessed my finances in a huge way, some of which I used to buy a Mustang convertible, a quiet apartment in one of the best towns in the state, and a trip to Glacier Park.

    Aside from that, I never really wanted kids (where are all the childfree Christian women you guys are talking about?) and 35 years of celibacy have made me largely asexual. Not much reason to get married to begin with.

  174. Opus says:

    Is it not true that South Asians are all genius Mathematicians and in support Anon 1 comes along to support my Hypothesis. Certainly in every Bollywood film all the aspiring types are at college or saving to go there. I worked with a woman far better at the spelling of English than most of our natives yet she had been schooled in Pakistan albeit to only Primary level (so much for Nobel prizes to the daughters of wealthy British Immigrants whose books are ghost written by Femi-Nazi Journalists). As a friend of mine observed ‘the annoying call-centre worker with the hard-to-understand accent is almost certainly degree educated’.

    …and should it not be: If it had been a snake, it would have bitten them.

  175. Farm Boy says:

    It will only embolden the thugs, jerks, players, cads and “rapey” men its proponents say they want to discourage.

    How will men know that they are in this category? Will it just be a matter of not having anything to lose?

  176. Farm Boy says:

    Ultimately, serving the female interest completely subsumes the male, to everyone’s detriment and misery.

    Often this is masked as “for the children”. But how much do the children benefit?

  177. Farm Boy says:

    Such laws merely serve to separate out attractive men that women want from unattractive, unwanted men.

    That is what the slutwalk business is all about. They want to be able to dress like sluts to attract the men that they want. And have the law enforce under all circumstances their choices in this matter.

  178. deti says:

    @ Farm Boy: “How will men know that they are in this category (thugs, jerks, players, cads)? Will it just be a matter of not having anything to lose?”

    The way I see this playing out is that if “yes means yes” becomes the law of the land pretty much everywhere , which I think will happen, then the only men who will be willing to run the risks of the ambiguity it presents will be men who have proven successful track records in approaching, dating, and bedding women. Most men, the men who have lifetime Ns of 2 or 3, are not going to be willing even to talk to women for fear of her crying “rape” at any given point in the exchange. Most men simply cannot run the risks of a “lack of consent” charge, because of the ruination it will bring.

    “Interesting game. The only winning move (for most men) is not to play.”

    This will have the effect of driving further wedges between the sexes, increasing adversarialness, increasing distrust, and decreasing marriage and birth rates.

  179. deti,

    I really feel sorry for the single guys.

    Most men, the men who have lifetime Ns of 2 or 3, are not going to be willing even to talk to women for fear of her crying “rape” at any given point in the exchange. Most men simply cannot run the risks of a “lack of consent” charge, because of the ruination it will bring.

    The safe bet for the men who do not want to be false accused of anything, would be to simply wait until they are approached by women. Do not approach them. Let them chase you.

    Just keep focusing on bettering yourself to make yourself the best YOU you can be, and do not approach women. Do not talk to them. Do not be friends with them. Don’t do anything for them. Let them chase you.

  180. deti says:

    Proponents of “Yes means yes” also are Game deniers and Game haters. The funny thing is that this law will only increase Game and swell the prevalence of its practitioners. Jerks, players, and cads will be the only ones with the balls and the resolve to press forward. Less adept men will give up, because they cannot run the risks of an encounter going bad. They can’t risk criminal records, loss of jobs, loss of family, loss of money and time. The risks aren’t worth the puny rewards.

    What marriage is now is what social interaction between men and women will become – a man merely looking at a girl too long will bring a complaint to police, and a man will have to answer merely for his gaze. He could be fined or even imprisoned.

    The proponets of Yes means Yes think it will reduce Game and assault; will remove the ambiguities. they think it will foster and encourage the growth, development and proliferation of healthy relationships and marriages. They think it will create safer places for women to seek relationships (or not). It will do none of these things.

    “Yes means yes” will only increase Game because the only men willing to try will be those with proven successful sexual track records. It will only create more ambiguity. It will only cause more “good men” and providers to drop out or hoard their earnings, refusing to put them to the service of women. It will leave only the jerks, thugs, cads and players in the SMP as the only men willing to navigate the sexual minefield. These men won’t marry because they don’t have to. The men who would be willing to marry won’t be in the marketplace because they dropped out, and they won’t prepare to marry in the first place because they never got the signals to prepare for it and there’s no point in trying anyway. Marriage rates will continue sliding; the age at first marriage for men and women will continue inching up.

    Women will continue to get pumped and dumped. The unhappy ones, ones who regret the encounters or they didn’t go exactly as hoped or planned, will quickly and quietly drop their “lack of consent” claims when video recordings of the encounters in question surface, together with smiling photos and confirmatory texts. A few such women and their institutions of higher learning will be defendants in defamation lawsuits. Some of those videos will make their way to the internet; most won’t.

    Welcome to our brave new sexual world. I think that our interlocutors really ought to think this all the way through before supporting it and deciding this is what they want.

  181. Farm Boy says:

    This will have the effect of driving further wedges between the sexes

    One would think that people would start to notice that this is happening.

    Or perhaps problems can be blamed on other stuff, rather than a debased system.

  182. Opus says:

    Deti gets it right. The only men who will have the nerve to break through the ambiguity will be the thugs players etc – those who already have a proven track record or men who have nothing to lose. Many men will be caught which will lead to the call for even more draconian measures as well as more slut-walk type behaviour from the forgotten women of the sexual revolution. I think we can thus predict both more MgTow from men simply fed up with a game stacked against them and an increase in the numbers of Homosexuals. Men will always find an outlet for their sexual urges.

    I have before mentioned Simon Sheppard’s book The Tyranny of Ambiguity and the Californian legislators might have done well had they first read his analysis of female ambiguity (as you all should too). He explains that women need plausible deniability and then divides female behaviour into Signals, Markers, Tokens and Handles. Thus, When Her Royal Highness, The Princess Margaret brushed away a non-existent piece of dust from the lapel of Royal Equerry, Group Captain Townsend the amassed press instantly caught the (he is mine) meaning of the Marker. So do all of us, which is why amongst my many sexual crimes I am (by California standards) a serial Rapist for, I have never received that verbal Yes but had I done so my enthusiasm would have shrunk faster than an ice-lolly in the Sahara. Women (usually the much inexperienced) dictating what can go where and when is such a turn off that I’d have my trousers on and out of the door faster than a rat up a drain-pipe. The woman who, on ones entering her apartment makes show of slipping the lock shut, or sliding the key down her blouse has most men heading for the window or devising some other method of escape even if they are three floors up.

    Making love according to Act of Parliament is never going to work.

  183. Yoda says:

    I think that our interlocutors really ought to think this all the way through before supporting it and deciding this is what they want.

    Ask much you do.

  184. feeriker says:

    Men will have to start doing the following:

    1. Audio and video record their sexual encounters. EVERY TIME. Which would you rather have to defend — a “he said, she said” felony rape or “sexual assault” charge that carries with it a long prison term and lifetime sexual offender registration? Or a misdemeanor eavesdropping charge that you can probably plead down to a petty offense and a fine; or at worst if repeated three or four times will get you a week to a month in the county jail? One can make the argument that video recording is a form of self-defense.

    No prosecutor wants to spend his time and that of his assistants sorting through video evidence to determine if consent were present or absent, and they won’t put “iffy” rape cases in front of juries. No district attorney will spend his time or want to account to voters by prosecuting 40 year old divorcees and 20 year old college students on bullshit eavesdropping charges.

    Sound and absolutely logical as this advice might be, by the time “Yes means Yes” becomes law of the land, there will no longer be anything remotely resembling a “justice” system based on due process. Indeed, we will probably have something that will make the courts of Roland Freisler in Nazi Germany and Lysenko in the Stalinist USSR look like models of Natural Law justice by comparison. However much “evidence” any accused man might present in his own defense at such a point, courts will be in the business of convicting, exculpatory evidence be damned (this will go for any other charge[s] the State brings against a person too).

    Bottom line: in such a dystopian setting, any man at whom a woman screams “RAAAAAAAAAAAAAPE!!!!!” will automatically be treated as guilty as charged.

  185. deti says:

    Further consequences of Yes Means Yes:

    Yes means Yes will cause more and more of the “80%” to drop out and never even try to prepare for marriage. That means more and more women getting older before marrying. Result? Effects of AF/BB only increase and become more stark and more apparent.

    As these women get more aggressive and more desperate in pursuit of the BB they believe they’re rightfully entitled to, they’ll marry men with fewer and fewer qualifications and credentials. They’ll marry men clearly beneath them in socioeconomic status. Many will be kitchen bitches, or unable to outearn their wives.

    As their wives lose attraction (as will happen when women marry kitchen bitches), there will be many frivorces,. A lot of women will be quite surprised to find that, as the primary breadwinner, SHE will be paying HIM alimony. But, she will still get the kid(s) in many situations, because she’s the “better parent”. A few frivorces will be initiated by men, looking to cash in on the gravy train. Some of these men will get alimony and will fight tooth and nail for the kid(s). Some will get custody of the kid(s), meaning these women will become the income stream to a lesser earning man receiving long term child support as the primary residential custodial parent.

    It will get to the point that even AFBB’s deniers won’t be able to explain it away.

  186. feeriker says:

    “Interesting game. The only winning move (for most men) is not to play.”

    This will have the effect of driving further wedges between the sexes, increasing adversarialness, increasing distrust, and decreasing marriage and birth rates.

    Having concluded that this is pretty much what most North American women want (or are at least indifferent too, given the absence of any visible movement on their part to reverse trends), whether they can bring themselves to admit it or not, I have no problem with giving them what they want and letting them enjoy the long-term consequences thereof.

  187. Ra's al Ghul says:

    IBB:

    “The safe bet for the men who do not want to be false accused of anything, would be to simply wait until they are approached by women. Do not approach them. Let them chase you.

    Just keep focusing on bettering yourself to make yourself the best YOU you can be, and do not approach women. Do not talk to them. Do not be friends with them. Don’t do anything for them. Let them chase you.”

    I think this is intentional. Women that “chase you” tend to be a good three points below you in rank (or nut jobs). This places the power in the woman’s hands in the “courtship” process. Completely and allows the more aggressive uglier sisters a better chance of grabbing a higher ranked man on the SM curve.

  188. Opus says:

    My biggest mistake with women, I would say, has been, too often, to take Last Minute Resistance seriously. One really has to ask what right a woman thinks she has to flirt her way to my apartment, and then be able not merely to act as if we are just friends but paint me as a sexual predator. I have even – mid-coitus – been asked to stop, which trust me is physically painful, and then been informed that I was not meant to stop but that it would was just ‘more exciting that way’. Can I complain to the police that I need to consent to Rape Fantasies before they are carried out. Why should consent only go one-way?

  189. Opus says:

    We will place a man on the moon by the end of the decade – JFK

    We will see the Misandry bubble pop by the end of the decade – TFH

  190. feeriker says:

    Three markets that are about to explode :

    Let us indeed hope so. I would also add: ” iv) international matchmaking services for North American men seeking wives overseas”

  191. Exfernal says:

    @Opus:
    If it comes to book recommendations, I see “You Are Not So Smart” by David McRaney as more useful in everyday life and especially interactions with people.

  192. I mean seriously…. can you really GO TO JAIL just be “looking” at a woman with the “yes means yes” law? Obviously, the answer there is no.

    I think you are all safe to “look” at any woman you want. If that makes her feel a little “rapey” that is too bad. No crime has been committed.

  193. Farm Boy says:

    He explains that women need plausible deniability

    Can anybody argue that this is not how women naturally operate?

    Women will squawk at the unnaturalness of it all.

  194. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    I mean seriously…. can you really GO TO JAIL just be “looking” at a woman with the “yes means yes” law? Obviously, the answer there is no.

    I don’t think the law in question applies to criminal offenses at all. As I understand it, it is limited to university kangaroo courts and their ability to impose university sanctions.

  195. I don’t think the law in question applies to criminal offenses at all. As I understand it, it is limited to university kangaroo courts and their ability to impose university sanctions.

    Then who cares? I don’t. No one in the manosphere should care about “yes means yes” if that is the case. The only people in authority to do anything to the man would be the same school that wants to take money from that man. If they want to bite the hand that feeds them, so be it.

    And even still, at any university, any boy can look at any girl for any reason and what is she going to do? What could the school to do you if you just looked at a girl?

  196. Farm Boy says:

    Having concluded that this is pretty much what most North American women want

    Many probably do not understand the consequences of such laws. They probably feel that the only thing that will change is that they will have more power.

    They need to be educated.

  197. deti says:

    IBB, Dalrock:

    Correct, the law as currently constituted only applies in CA, only to colleges and universities, and only to university sanctions. It doesn’t impose criminal sanctions or involve the criminal process. But the argument I was making was the slippery slope one – these laws are coming to state legislatures near you and will be expanded to all realms of social interaction, including dating, including sex between adults, including marriages.

    Make no mistake – states WILL begin criminalizing “street harassment”. States WILL begin enacting “Yes Means Yes” and applying it to all sexual encounters, and will felonize it.

  198. anonymous_ng says:

    If it continues in the worst ways imagined, expect the number of real rapes to go up as well.

  199. Farm Boy says:

    will cause more and more of the “80%” to drop out and never even try to prepare for marriage.

    Now that hurts. The government wants to know who is going to pay taxes

  200. Ra's al Ghul says:

    “iii) Lawyers suing universities pro-bono on behalf of falsely accused men and hastening their demise in favor of online degrees at 1/10th the cost.”

    I suspect the number of men getting degrees will be half what it is today in five years, even with online degrees, which will get huge growth out of this. I’m not sure the online universities are all that cheap these days. I know a girl that got about 70000 in debt from getting an online degree.

    Dalrock is right, this is just the university campuses, and the lawyers are already having a field day on behalf of the boys wrongfully accused and punished.

    This is a good thing and regardless of how you feel about lawyers. what the lawyers are going to do to the university systems with these laws in place is an act of justice. This is going to cripple the current bloated university system.

    The concern, IBB, is that what is put in effect on the campuses will become the law in criminal cases.

    I would guess that will be the push in about 5-10 years once the campuses all fall in line.

    While there are still plenty of men willing to get married, the number of younger ones wising up is growing at an exponential rate.

    Just as the number of men realizing they are better of financially not going to college is growing too.

  201. deti says:

    Unlike most other people, I’ve actually read CA Senate Bill SB-967 which Governor Moonbeam signed into law.

    Contrary to what some people believe, this law DOES require “ongoing” consent. It clearly DOES require affirmative consent and permission at each and every step of the process. It DOES require consent to foreplay. This is because the law requires “ongoing” consent to “sexual activity”.

    Kissing is “sexual activity”.

    Hugging is “sexual activity.”

    Touching is “sexual activity”.

    Arms around waist, hand holding, hand on knee, are “sexual activities”.

    Petting, over or under clothing, is “sexual activity”.

    Oral sex is “sexual activity”. (Let’s see the feminists weasel out of that one.)

    Anal sex, vaginal sex, touching a penis or “girly parts”, are “sexual activity”.

    Also, contrary to others’ claims, it is NOT intended to obtain consent before penetration. This law does not say that. If that were the “intent”, then it should say that. It does not. In fact, this law does not even define “sexual activity”. All of the above are “sexual activity”. I’d like to know the source of the evidence for the claim that the “intent” is to ensure there is consent before penetration. Is it legislative history? The remarks of a legislator on the floor during debate? If so, I’d ask that it be produced and referred to.

  202. feeriker says:

    Many probably do not understand the consequences of such laws. They probably feel that the only thing that will change is that they will have more power.

    They need to be educated.

    I wonder if allowing the consequences of such laws to run their inevitable course and create their inevitable and painful fallout will do something to finally help large numbers of women grasp the concept of “cause and effect?”

    I guess a man can always dream…

  203. honeycomb says:

    TFH .. yep’per. Online degrees will be my recommendation from hence forth.

    Freeker .. I have said it before .. but just like Sweden the USofA will forbid US men from marrying foreign women via written laws.

    As for “yes means yes” .. men who didn’t even have sex with the accusing woman can and will be prosecuted.

    You will not be safe even if you choose to remain “sexless”. This law was built to accomplish false charges to soar .. just like false rape charges.

    This law may be gender neutral .. but its application will be anything but.

    You will not have evidence to produce that says you had consent because you in fact never had sex with her. This law will be used for leverage against all whom would step outta line with the FI in addition to all sexual encounters.

    In the end their will be a fence built on our nations borders. It will have armed guards protecting it .. it will only need to keep all US male citizens from escaping your upcoming enslavement to pull the wagon.

  204. deti, dalrock,

    I am 19 year horny, short, fat, really-ugly, pimply-faced, virgin, beta male, with no self-esteem, who not only has never seen a girl naked, I’ve never been on a date. I go to school at UC-Berkley because I got straight As. Girls hate me. They can’t stand the site of me. I disgust them. They want my absence until such time as I start working and making big bucks, then all they want is my tax dollars to give them thengs (my only value on this planet.)

    “Yes means yes” becomes policy at UCBerkley. Now, all I ever do is look “longingly” at all the pussy that I will never get and every single time I look at these girls, they feel a little “rapey.” They feel violated simply by my eyes. I have not even talked to them. What can they do TO ME at UCBerkley? What kind of sanctions could they possibly do because of my eyes? Are they going to kick me out of school for looking at girls? Honestly guys?

    Because if they do that (if that is what “yes means yes” means), I will lawyer up so fast and sue UCBerkley and the State of California for so many millions of dollars they wont even believe it.

  205. deti says:

    I fully expect constitutional challenges to this law. I can see void for vagueness, equal protection (as applied), substantive due process, procedural due process. The law is sex-neutral in its language, but it will be disparately applied to men. I’m sure few if any of these will succeed.

    Here’s another reason why videorecording will be required. Consent can be verbal or nonverbal and can be manifested in a number of ways. If you don’t get a verbal “yes”, then the nonverbal “yes” must be obtained and recorded so there is proof and evidence of it later.

  206. Farm Boy says:

    this law DOES require “ongoing” consent

    I wonder if there will be Android and iOS apps to make this easy…

  207. Farm Boy says:

    If this law is good for college campuses, why would it not be good everywhere?

  208. honeycomb says:

    I should’ve mentioned I believe this college policy will become state law very soon.

    And what I mentioned will be the outcome.

  209. deti says:

    Also, contrary to others’ claims, it is NOT intended to obtain consent before penetration.

    This should be:

    Also, contrary to others’ claims, it is NOT intended ONLY to obtain consent before penetration.

    What I mean by this is: You have to get “affirmative consent” to engage in “sexual activity. According to thsi law, “affirmative consent” means “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.” And “sexual activity” is not defined at all in this statute. It is not reasonable to limit “sexual activity” to “penetration”.

    It is reasonable to limit “sexual activity” to “penetration” only if we stipulate that women have no sexual agency, and only if we are going to say that the only persons capable of violating this law are men (or the “tops” in gay relationships, or butch lesbians).

    The only way to say that anything short of “penetration” is NOT “sexual activity” is to say that women are either imbeciles or have the mentation of 5 year olds. I’m not prepared to go there. Apparently, some people are.

  210. Ra's al Ghul says:

    I bet that whatever this girl paid 11x that amount for, has far lower earning potential in the private sector.

    You’d be right

  211. Opus says:

    Just looking at women can indeed get you into trouble. It will be seen as stalking or some form of sexual harassment – a woman only has to complain to the police and their white-knights will spring into action. There was a Japanese case: a man sat facing a woman on a commuter train on consecutive days. She complained; he was arrested and convicted. No woman must ever be made to feel uncomfortable.

    Then there is the woman who by her dress and behaviour encourages one to look but then complains when one acts upon the encouragement, even as she continues to parade herself in ones line of sight. Perhaps one needs to approach her to obtain written consent before looking.

    Soon there will be few men attending college: how different from when I first read Law aged nineteen. There were just four females in the class. One rather mousy-looking girl already married to one of the boys in the class. They sat near the front of the class. Then there was the plainer perhaps marginally over-weight girl who made up for her lack of looks with some quick-wit and who sat to the side. That left the two hotties; one, tall and blonde and the other even more attractive and both of trim figure and both wearing their mini-skirts no higher than decency permitted and who sat one row from the back, leaving the bad boys (viz Opus and friends) to sit in the back row itself and thus monitor all proceedings. I have to say they were at all times a credit to their sex – well mannered, polite and well-turned out. That is more than I can say for our female teacher of Tort – quite pretty, twenty-three years of age who sat on the raised teachers desk in the shortest of mini-skirts kicking her legs back and forth revealing her ‘thunder thighs’. (What was she thinking of as she thus sexually flaunted herself in front of nearly forty young hormonal males). A good teacher certainly but there was no way any of us were going to make a move on her for fear of ridicule from the other guys.

  212. deti says:

    Farm Boy:

    CA Senate Bill 967 applies only to institutions of higher learning in California by its plain language. It does so in the usual way — by conditioning state funding on the school’s adoption of policies and procedures implementing “affirmative consent” and “ongoing” consent.

  213. Farm Boy says:

    Deti,

    I was asking the question that a feminist would ask. If it is good here, why not there? And in reality, is there anything special about college campuses such that the law should only apply there?

  214. Farm Boy says:

    My point is that the people who pursue online degree for practical reasons are the ones who would be treated the worst by brick and mortar universities anyway.

    Universities and practical don’t always mix.

  215. deti says:

    Some say that “nonverbal” consent is OK under this statute.

    I’d like to know — where does the statute say that? It only says “affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement” is required for “sexual activity”. It also says that the student is responsible to ensure that he has obtained consent.

    How the hell else is he going to be SURE that he has consent unless he gets an unequivocal “YES, you may [describe desired and requested ‘sexual activity’ here]”?

    This statute does NOT say that “nonverbal” consent will suffice to exonerate an accused from wrongdoing.

  216. Ra's al Ghul says:

    Opus:

    “There was a Japanese case: a man sat facing a woman on a commuter train on consecutive days. She complained; he was arrested and convicted. No woman must ever be made to feel uncomfortable.”

    I would like to see the actual case, not that I doubt this is possible, but if it was second hand (and the media is all second hand) things usually get distorted for one reason or another

    TFH:

    She didn’t get ripped off.

    She married a good little provider from a rural area that “locked her down” quick and she quit working, moved in and popped out a kid within 7 months of the wedding and she had a kid from a previous marriage that lasted all of 8 months. I’ve heard, and knowing her its almost certainly true, that the family is concerned about how fast she’s draining him financially. If I was to guess, he’s paid off her debt, bought her a new car, built a new house (all things she mentioned desiring) and took her on tropical vacations.

    So whenever I think men are wising up, there’s an army of men ready to enslave themselves and go through the meat grinder.

    Based on her notch count her chances of being happily married are about 20% or less, and the chances of staying married ten years are about the same.

    so she didn’t get ripped off, but someone did.

  217. Novaseeker says:

    On “yes means yes”, in order to understand it, you have to understand where it came from.

    For decades feminist legal academics have been arguing that the overarching legal standard of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is inappropriate for rape and sexual assault cases because it places the burden on the victim to prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt, which is experienced as “a second rape”. Ultimately, their goal is to flip the standard and burden of proof in criminal cases for rape and sexual assault such that once the crime is alleged, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove there was consent (rather than the state having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was NOT consent). I went to law school with some women who advocated this, and that is going back 30 years (and some of them are now among the agitators for these kinds of changes).

    Now, they are not stupid people, so they understand that there are both political and legal/constitutional issues with the changes they would ultimately like to see. So, working pragmatically, they shifted their focus to universities. That began about 10-15 years ago, with some smaller schools being the first ones to adopt the “yes at every step of escalation from start to finish” as the standard they would use for on-campus behavior. That began to slowly spread, until it became fairly common (but not ubiquitous) on university campuses. The idea here wasn’t that they were more concerned about what was happening on campus. Far from it. The idea was to change the rules of play on college campuses (1) because they could do so without much political scrutiny at all, (ii) because they could do so without having to get the legal system to change its standards (yet) and, most importantly, (3) because they could create a “de facto expectation” about the new standard over time which would, eventually, make it easier to swallow, politically (and hence legally) down the line for everyone else — that is, as criminal law, rather than university rules.

    The California law is a step in this direction. It is basically mandating these rules for all universities in the state. So it’s a step beyond the universities doing it themselves, but also not (yet) applying to off-campus stuff (i.e., everyone else who isn’t a student at the universities). But it won’t stop there. It has to be seen against the backdrop of the entire process, where the goal (which has been stated openly enough, really), is to change the legal system’s criminal law standards when it comes to certain specific crimes that impact women. They won’t rest until that goal is reached, and the California law is a big and important step in that direction.

    ====

    By the way, as I would have predicted, the approach of conservatives on this issue has been mixed at best. I was particularly unsurprised by the approach of this article by Heather McDonald:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/neo-victorianism-campus_810871.html?nopager=1

    “Conservatives’ second error is a tone of occasional exasperation at the burgeoning college sex regulations. Do the bureaucrats’ rules misunderstand the nature of sex? Do they take the fun out of it? You bet! And what’s not to like? Leave laments about the inhibition of campus sex to Reason magazine.

    To be sure, the new campus sex regime puts boys in danger of trumped-up assault charges heard before kangaroo courts. But the solution is not more complex procedural protections cobbled over a sordid culture, the solution is to reject that culture entirely. Just as girls can avoid the risk of what the feminists call “rape” by not getting drunk and getting into bed with a guy whom they barely know, boys, too, can radically reduce the risk of a rape accusation by themselves not getting drunk and having sex with a girl whom they barely know. Mothers worried that their college-bound sons will be hauled before a biased campus sex tribunal by a vindictive female should tell them: “Wait. Find a girlfriend and smother her with affection and respect. Write her love letters in the middle of the night. Escort her home after a date and then go home yourself.” If one-sided litigation risk results in boys taking a vow of celibacy until graduation, there is simply no loss whatsoever to society and only gain to individual character. Such efforts at self-control were made before, and can be made again.

    Unlike the overregulation of natural gas production, say, which results in less of a valuable commodity, there is no cost to an overregulation-induced decrease in campus sex. Society has no interest in preserving the collegiate bacchanal. Should college fornication become a rare event preceded by contract signing and notarization, maybe students would actually do some studying instead. At present, many students drink through the entire weekend without worrying about any academic repercussions. Maybe colleges should assign and grade some real homework instead of wasting faculty and administrator time drafting cringingly lurid consent scenarios. Rather than passing out tips on orgasm and the use of sex toys—a staple of campus health centers—colleges might send the message that they expect students to learn the periodic table, read the Greek tragedies, and understand the evolution of constitutional government. Parents might get some value out of their extortionate tuition payments, and boys might catch up to girls’ graduation rates.

    There are no sympathetic victims in the campus sex wars. While few boys are guilty of what most people understand as rape, many are guilty of acting as boorishly as they can get away with. Sexual liberation and radical feminism unleashed the current mess by misunderstanding male and female nature. Feminists may now be unwittingly accomplishing what they would never allow conservatives to do: restoring sexual decorum.”

    Yep. What I thought the response would be, really.

  218. Ra's al Ghul says:

    TFH:

    “This is an example of an ideology becoming so unhinged, as to be blind to the most obvious of self-sabotage…”

    But it won’t matter to them. The state funding is more important in the interim, these lost donors won’t be felt for twenty years or so minimum and most of these professors will be retired on their fat state pensions (or so they think) before that.

    Plus, I’ve seen a definite attitude from universities that they are getting their money “up front” from their alumni in the form of tuition.

  219. Ra's al Ghul says:

    Nova,

    Does Heather McDonald have any boys? If she doesn’t, may God make her fruitful and give her boys.

    It amazes me how much people don’t understand the sexual nature of women, because a land of 80% of the boys behaving the way she describes doesn’t change anything for the better.

    I know one guy that’s a cook, and he has, at 28, five children by four different women.

  220. Ra's al Ghul says:

    TFH:

    That’s just it, women don’t feel the costs of their stupidity.

  221. deti says:

    Yes to all, Nova. I was in grad school around the same time you were, and also worked in the housing systems of two universities, so I’m familiar with this.

    The burden-shifting, the lowering of proof standards, relaxing evidentiary rules, and the initiation of these procedures at the university level are also important, because they has an effect of “easing” society into the “new standards”. One reason for the “easing” as that as the men and women come out of university and into society, they’re accustomed to the “new” standards, having lived under them for so long, and so it’s no skin off their noses to impose that new structure on everyone else.

    And the conservative response is pretty much what I expected too: “You have nothing to fear from a set of rules if you just act “morally”, and hitch yourself to the FI”.

  222. There’s an idea that the work around to Yes Means Yes is simply to have sex with a girl off campus. Ergo the incidence of “campus rape” declines and the law is spun as a victory for feminists and evidence of a successful enactment of a functional law.

    Yes Means Yes will be a ‘success’ insofar as it curbs campus rape because it is uniquely based on male fear:
    http://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6966847/yes-means-yes-is-a-terrible-bill-and-i-completely-support-it

    To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

    Read this again, “…to create a WORLD where men are afraid.”

    So to IBB’s point, the ‘big deal’ is the latent purpose of the law and the motivating ideologies behind it. The law won’t actually curb rape, but it will be successful in creating a world where men are afraid by ambiguously and progressively redefining what rape is and what harassment should encompass – all while legally enforcing men’s compliance in feminine hypergamy.

    It’s just as easy to say, ‘well, men will simply not cooperate and go their own way”, and while that would certainly predicate what Deti is proposing, the most salient part is that this law has successfully changed the gender landscape to one based on fear of the Feminine Imperative.

  223. Novaseeker says:

    OT, but not for the blog as a whole. You may want this one for a fisking, Dalrock. Ah, you can always count of aging baby boomer feminists for a load of malarkey, can’t you?

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/opinion/schwartz-single-women/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

  224. Opus says:

    I attended an all-boys Boarding School. Shortly after I left they introduced some Day-girls and it was only a few weeks later if that before one of the girls was discovered in one of the dormitories. Naturally, the boys were blamed. I however place the full blame with the headmaster (who I in any event hated and loathed) for the stupidity of placing boys and girls together and then expecting that nothing would happen. I see the same stupidity being played out at Universities and in the workplace with the boys being blamed for freely acted upon female behaviour. Women cannot cope with sexual behaviour unless it is either within the confines or marriage or by way of prostitution. The fault thus resides with the liberal elite who created this problem not the students.

    I have (as I have said before) never either personally or professionally come across a genuine case of Rape but every instance of Rape I have come across (in double figures) has been fabrication on the part of the female.

  225. Yoda says:

    one based on fear of the Feminine Imperative.

    Fear leads to the dark side.

    Make clones of men they would.
    Obedient they would be

  226. Escoffier says:

    The thing that stands out to me as truly objectionable in the MacDonald passage quoted is the advice to send love letters and all that. Better advice to boys would be 1) avoid co-eds altogther; 2) if you want a girlfriend, try to snag a “townie” or at least a girl from a different school; 3) whatever you do, don’t “hook-up” in any facility that the campus controls, such as a dorm, or a place that depends on the campus for its existence, such a a frat house.

    Then again, I don’t know the details of these policies. If an enrolled boy hooks up with a non-enrolled girls in his (or her) off campus apartment, can she bring charges with a campus tribunal simply on the basis of his enrollment?

    MacDonald is surely right that campuses have become preposterous Bachanals. Cutting that back is in everyone’s interest. Not through show-trials, of course.

    She is, FWIW, unmarried (never been) and has no children.

  227. hoellenhund2 says:

    For decades feminist legal academics have been arguing that the overarching legal standard of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is inappropriate for rape and sexual assault cases because it places the burden on the victim to prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt, which is experienced as “a second rape”. Ultimately, their goal is to flip the standard and burden of proof in criminal cases for rape and sexual assault such that once the crime is alleged, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove there was consent

    My impression is that the reason this is not instantly dismissed by the majority of society as lunacy is that interaction between men and women has fundamentally changed, and the widespread consensus is apparently that certain laws should change accordingly.

    The old laws that defined and punished rape were based on the unspoken assumption that it’s rare for a young man and a young woman to even spend a longer period of time together in isolation, i.e. without adult supervision, therefore it’s unlikely that rape results from such a situation. Young people were fairly tightly controlled and monitored throughout their lives, and girls were basically not permitted to even enter situations where they are alone in the company of some man or men. Chaperoning was widespread, girls were closely guarded by their male relatives etc. Any opportunities for false rape accusations were rare. The rapes that did indeed take place were usually gang-rapes – after all, we’re talking about real rape here, a.k.a. rape-rape, when a woman actually has to be overpowered by force -, especially if we’re talking about wartime situations, and group antagonism based on ethnicity or religion usually played a role. In other situtations such rapes were committed basically as punishment intended to terrorize and humiliate women who violated some unspoken social rule i.e. they acted sluttily, sought the company of men from a different tribe etc. Such stuff is still somewhat common in India and Pakistan.

    Obviously such laws and regulations will not work when it’s common for young women to live alone without supervision for long periods and socialize with men they are not familiar with. If rape occurs and there’s no physical evidence, it’s a he-said-she-said situation, and the law is pretty much powerless. But the common consensus is that rape is horrid in any form, so it must be punished and prevented somehow through deterrence, therefore the law must be changed. The yes-means-yes legal standard is a result of that, admittedly one that completely ignores the interests and rights of betas, although that’s hardly a new development in human history.

  228. Ra's al Ghul says:

    TFH:

    “If a mangina pays up because he is stupid, that might very well be the natural order of things. Furthermore, that is the one thing that MRAs and ‘feminists’ can agree on – that all costs should be transferred onto manginas.”

    I don’t think feminist agree on this at all, which is why the government transfers wealth from men in general to women in general.

    They may feel no sympathy and actual contempt for manginas, but they feel contempt for men in general too. Envy has no bounds.

  229. greyghost says:

    Having concluded that this is pretty much what most North American women want (or are at least indifferent too, given the absence of any visible movement on their part to reverse trends), whether they can bring themselves to admit it or not, I have no problem with giving them what they want and letting them enjoy the long-term consequences thereof.

    The next few years are going to be a lot of fun. I am really interested in the football and basketball programs in the state as the players pump and dump the sluts that decide they were raped. Especially the ones that failed to get pregnant before draft day.
    MGTOW is going to take off. And the frivorced woman booty call will be really popular. There will be a correction and when the beast feeds on the white knights and manginas due to they being the only food left to eat, well that is going to be a lot of fun too. (the most fun of all)
    I bet that MGTOW/fatherhood with the surrogate doesn’t sound so bad now for you civilized society buffs. Who else is going to keep the lights on?

  230. Gunner Q says:

    TFH @ 12:46 pm:
    “This is an example of an ideology becoming so unhinged, as to be blind to the most obvious of self-sabotage…”

    I find the “yes means yes” rule is actually a well-planned action, consistent with what our elites have been doing for a long time: twisting human nature into unnatural shapes.

    Here in Cali, I am losing the ability to tell the difference between men and women. Women dress exactly like men, cut their hair exactly like men and act exactly like men. Even checking for breasts doesn’t always work because of obesity (thanks, fat boys). It’s very disturbing, like the “uncanny valley” effect. Sexuality is a part of our human identity and these people I see on the street have lost that. They are actually less than human.

    I’ve stopped trying Game because women are androgynes. Being feminine is apparently something they’ve confined to the act of sex. Or Tinder. Not only do they not respond to my approaches, I see they don’t do anything girl-like for anybody. Reptiles don’t respond to Game unless it’s breeding season and then only briefly.

    “Yes means yes” is perfectly consistent with this process of reducing all male/female interactions to androgynous, unemotional communications.

  231. Yeah, I’m not sure how this rudimentary logic escaped the folks at CNN money. Yeah, I make more now that I’m married with kids, because I had to – I have more mouths to feed, college funds to fund, larger house = larger mortgage, etc. I have to bust my ass far more than I did when I was single.

    Yet somehow I still have far less walking around money than I did when I was single. Funny that.

  232. “Some say that “nonverbal” consent is OK under this statute. ”

    Some backers of this law are, in fact, stupid enough to believe that nonverbal communication is clear enough for legal purposes:

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/10/10/3578502/yes-means-yes-consent/

    No surprise to see the names Valenti and Friedman there, of course.

  233. Gunner Q says:

    Women. Sheesh. No sooner do I publicly denounce the entire sex as androgynous reptiles beyond the reach of human psychology, than a pretty number approaches me at the gym. Gunner has finally received attention from women! All it took was the death of hope and kindness. I sort of grunted at her and she giggled.

    She’s cute but tattooed; an excellent opportunity for practicing Game, probably not LTR material. Hmm, Aloof Game or Jerkboy Game? I’m tired of Social Circle Game. Note to self, get some preselection going…

  234. Pingback: Fathers earn more than childless men, idiots have no clue why | The Null Hypotheses

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s