She doesn’t have what it takes to be a professional divorcée, but she does have cats.

The Other McCain on ‘Broken People,’ Cats and Prozac:

See, this is the thing with young feminist writer types nowadays. They can’t go to Podunk State University. No, they must attend one of those private schools where annual tuition is at or near the median U.S. household income. This is the only way to become that glorious being, The Writer. And, probably because as girls dreaming of becoming The Writer, they watched a sitcom or movie about the lives of quirky bachelorettes in Brooklyn, they simply must live there after graduation.

Well, you may ask, what does The Writer write about?

Herself, of course! Do these elite colleges offer a major in Solipsism Studies nowadays? Because Ms. Stokes’s oeuvre is typical of the genre — menstruation, her sex dreams, things that make her cry.

See the whole post for a year’s supply of ugly feminism expertly distilled by Robert Stacy McCain.  All I will add is if the XO Jane blogger had an ounce of initiative she would do it right by getting married, having kids, and then give us all a front row seat as she puts her kids through the meat grinder.

Hat Tip Instapundit.

This entry was posted in "The Writer", Instapundit, Professional Divorcee, Robert Stacy McCain, Solipsism, Ugly Feminists, XO Jane. Bookmark the permalink.

249 Responses to She doesn’t have what it takes to be a professional divorcée, but she does have cats.

  1. honeycomb says:

    (pair’uh’dee of jaws quote)

    “I think we are gonna need a bigger popcorn machine!”

  2. Pingback: She doesn’t have what it takes to be a professional divorcée, but she does have cats. | Manosphere.com

  3. Dave says:

    All I see here is pain. This woman needs help. Fast. She seems stuck in misery and depression. I hope she gets the help that she needs.

  4. JF says:

    It needs to be said and I’ve not seen it identified elsewhere: The reason women go for cats instead of dogs is the same reason they go for alphas instead of betas. Like alpha men, cats cannot be fully domesticated and they always put their own needs above everything else. Cats provide a pathetic surrogate fuzzy inner tingle to lonely spinsters and those women on the road to spinsterhood.

  5. JF says:

    In other words, cats and alphas are useless to the betterment and maintenance of cohesive society. Only betas and dogs are capable of sacrificing themselves and putting others before themselves.
    And women, in their natural, feral state, unless the older women civilize them, instinctively prefer insouciant uselessness.

  6. Bango Tango says:

    @JF. Awesome.🙂

  7. Bango Tango says:

    Of course the real reason is cats are most of the time smaller then dogs, which is why women like poodles but I like your analogy.

  8. Boxer says:

    It needs to be said and I’ve not seen it identified elsewhere: The reason women go for cats instead of dogs is the same reason they go for alphas instead of betas. Like alpha men, cats cannot be fully domesticated and they always put their own needs above everything else. Cats provide a pathetic surrogate fuzzy inner tingle to lonely spinsters and those women on the road to spinsterhood.

    Do you have any hard data on women overwhelmingly preferring cats to those little yippy dogs I always see them with?

    @JF. Awesome.

    I’m sure there are a multitude of different reasons why spinsters go for animals (no real evidence for their preferences, noted above, has been introduced, mind you). I think most lonely spinsters like animals because they are desperately trying to control something. People who have no self-control (not just women, mind you) are usually the most ardent control freaks when it comes to other people.

    Boxer

  9. Pocketspock says:

    It’s so odd that this is the first thing that I read with my morning coffee. On the walk over I had this odd little realization that there are women all around me who have patterned their lives after a horse faced woman in a television show.

  10. LiveFearless says:

    But, @Dalrock, that is not in the script… yet.

    Welcome to the world of those shows we never watched, those popular fiction novels we never read.

    As the MacBook Pro read the words of the RSM article to me, I was waiting for a quote from her explaining that she’s depressed…

    Because she could no longer afford to pay for her Brooklyn apartment,
    Because she would have to stop paying for health insurance,
    Because was going to have to eat oatmeal just to stay there,
    Because the editors said no one reads this stuff…
    But, there’s money in writing about that stuff.

    Writing about other writers too often leads to unwanted attention

  11. modsquad says:

    Cats are easier to care for. Twenty minutes of attention a day and that’s it. No walking them, no grooming them. Path of least resistance.

  12. LiveFearless says:

    Spending 2014 in inpatient care learning to walk and talk again,

    I’m still not on any anti-depressant.

    Yes, “Ms. Stokes” writes of the “bolstering of serotonin that (her) pills provide”

    Happiness is a choice.

  13. Boxer says:

    LiveFearless: You OK man? I did not hear about the ailment/accident. Hoping you continue to improve!!

  14. Ang Aamer says:

    I am often reminded that people who don’t have real problems will often invent them.

  15. earl says:

    One gal I know showed her bill from some mental health place on facebook. That isn’t cheap.

    If you got a gal with tons of debt from school combined with some mental health issue and cemented with rapid aging…it’s no wonder they go for cats.

  16. tz says:

    Ye Cats!
    I wonder if toxoplasmosis might be worse than we thought. Rats lose their sense – they don’t fear cats, but someone should do a study on women to see if it makes them less sensible, or non feline femmes are the same.

  17. JF says:

    @Boxer
    I live in a country where so many spinsters fall into the habit of feeding and collecting multitudes of cats that the society i live in has coined a name for this phenomenon. Here where i live, folks call them “cat ladies.” Or else “crazy old cat ladies.”
    I live in the United States.
    Where are you from, and has your society coined a corresponding name for the yippy-dog women phenomenon that you’re seeing?

  18. The Brass Cat says:

    I’m going to write a meandering collection of introspective essays about myself entitled The Caterwaulings of The Brass Cat. It will explore my male privilege, lack of menstruation, and why I should learn to cry. Given that I own a cat, I am uniquely qualified to write about myself.

    I do so hope you will all buy a copy on Kindle. Otherwise you may never know about the time I had to plunge my toilet after dropping a deuce. *Spoiler Alert:* It ended in tragedy and I needed professional help. Other essays will cover all the times I reeeally didn’t feel like taking my laundry out of the dryer.

  19. earl says:

    I get how hard things can be for men nowadays…but it seems like for women every day is doom and gloom with a side of despair. For all their great degrees, amazing adventures, and wild times…they are plain dead inside.

  20. The Brass Cat says:

    JF says:

    I live in a country where so many spinsters fall into the habit of feeding and collecting multitudes of cats that the society i live in has coined a name for this phenomenon. Here where i live, folks call them “cat ladies.” Or else “crazy old cat ladies.”

    Yes, they start leaving big trays of catfood outside in certain spots daily. More and more cats are attracted to the spots and the piles of food get bigger. And don’t even try to stop these cat ladies! Eventually it gets to the point of security guards escorting them off the premises.

    But who will feed the cats?! The cats!!!

  21. magicalpat says:

    Mod squad is right.

    These women choose cats because they are easy. It’s a low maintenance pet for a high maintenance woman.

    You don’t have to walk them or take them out. They stay home and don’t need much from you. Just some food. You can even go out of town for a few days and it won’t die.

    This is the kind of man they want too.

    Someone who can help them focus on them.

    Because the job is too big for just one person.

  22. BradA says:

    You don’t have to take a cat outside all the time to take care of its business. You have to do so for dogs.

    Sure, litter boxes are a pain, but you can let them run a while where doing the same with a dog would be disastrous.

  23. Tam the Bam says:

    “Because was going to have to eat oatmeal just to stay there”
    Dinnae knock it till ye’ve tried it, laddie.
    A (cooked) pint or two of coarse pinhead every morn for me (and mebbes a wee suspicion of ‘stimulants’ and honey, at this time of year. For the breathing, you know. Along with a fill of Westmorland Slices, once yer oot the hoose and down the road. Anyone would think you foreign people didn’t understand how to look after your health).

  24. earl says:

    It was around 540 dollars. She lamented about the cost.

  25. earl says:

    The only other woman that shared in her pain mentioned that’s how much her student loan repayment is every month.

  26. Miss Stokes may not realize it, but by her own actions (if we buy all her writing), she is choosing to become a WGHOW.

  27. KP says:

    Boxer:

    Cats – Yippy_Little_Dogs == 0

  28. Hence, we see all sorts of needless, unproductive resource misallocations regarding women. From her mental health bill to student loan payments, to the 90% of items in a mall that no man would buy

    2 years before I got married, I worked with a woman in a start-up-firm who was at exactly my pay grade. We worked together for a year. She was convinced I was earning twice as much as she was because she could never afford to take a vacation the way I could (and often did, in just that one year.) That was until she figured out that I never bought anything. Nothing. This girl lived at the f-cking mall around the corner from our office (the same mall that I would only frequent once a week for lunch at the food court.) Her life was all about getting paid every other Friday and spending all that pay all that weekend buying boots, shoes, make-up, perfume, purses,thousands of dollars of mall-crap. I was under the impression that the only reason why that mall existed was to give her a place to spend all her money (and then some.)

    I suppose now, we have Amazon.com to satisfy this needless consumption “itch” that has infected our more feminist women.

  29. JF says:

    The Brass Cat says:
    But who will feed the cats?! The cats!!!

    What a beautifully succinct and illustrative example of female misallocation of resources.

  30. feeriker says:

    It was around 540 dollars. She lamented about the cost.

    That was probably just her deductible. The actual cost of the care was probably infinitely higher.

  31. feeriker says:

    This malinvestment will correct within our lifetimes. It will be the single biggest tear in the fabric of humanity.

    It’s already starting to correct itself. Given the vanishing private-sector economy (something due in no small measure to regulatory and tax policy, itself in no small measure the result of politicians caving in to women’s demands), the money to fund these wasteful extravagances is drying up. Putting it another way, an ever vanishing number of men are working, meaning that the gravy train is drying up. If this keeps up, pretty soon women will have to –*GASP*, horror of horrors– budget, save, and prioritize their wants and needs, since they’re going to have to pay for all of it themselves. This of course means that certain sectors of the economy that exist solely to cater to the FI are in for a world of agony, but I think humanity will ultimately survive.

  32. greyghost says:

    Speaking of female economy. You ever notice some of these over night “single mom” millionaire business women. The 14 year old girl with the flip flop company, the single mom with the million dollar cupcake empire, There is another lady that came up with the shaping panties. She was making bucks.
    The whole garage sale economy is big time chick based.

  33. herecomestheLIGHT says:

    I’m so glad Dalrock posted this. This has got to be exposed for what it is.

    Putting cats (or any animal) on a pedestal above humans is DEMONIC and IDOLATROUS.

    Women have formed a BITCH brigade which goes around “RESCUING” animals. I say bitch brigade because it mainly consists of beta males and broken middle aged females who have eaten the bread of idleness and idolatry who make up these CULTS of cat worshippers. IF I had a dollar for every demon possessed bitch I see proclaiming that animals (cats in particular) are Good and humans are bad, i would be filthy stinking rich by now. No matter where you turn, facebook, twitter, etc., these women all have the same broken, satanic mantra. It’s like they are clones of each other. I use harsh language because it’s like a cancer which spreads from one person to the next. They infect foolish women (and their sissified male counterparts) with their mindless cat “rescuing” banter.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love animals, but NOT LIKE THAT. I don’t worship what crawls and what for eons has been used in ritual black magic.

    We’ve come full circle. The egyptians worshipped cats and now the modern trendy dim witted disobedient women of the 21st century do the same. Well done. You have finally arrived.

  34. Wow…

    I know soooooooo many women who think (and look) just like this. I work with them and yes, they want to be married (like this one) and are absolutely terrified by the whole concept of MGTOW. They understand why men go MGTOW and even partially support it, but being honest means that it scares the crap out of them because…. deep down, they know that they can’t go it alone the way men can.

  35. Boxer says:

    IBB:

    Interesting video. I can certainly sympathize with what she’s describing.

    Sure, bitches be crazy and all that, but the ones I know in meatspace aren’t as bad as many in these parts (MRA/MGTOW/PUA) make them out to be. The chicks I know aren’t total whores, they don’t conspire to ruin men with false accusations, or to rip them off in divorce court. I realize that wimminz like this do exist, but they’re not the majority. When we fall off the edge of criticising the individuals who indulge in bad behavior, and begin making blanket condemnations of every woman everywhere, we’re falling into a huge fallacy.

    There’s lots of angry rhetoric about how we need to raise the next generation of test-tube kids as single fathers, and replace regular women with sex robots. I find this nonsense pretty tedious. In many ways, the dudes who wallow around in this sort of angst are the male equivalent of radical feminists, and they clearly aren’t very happy or well-adjusted.

    I also sympathize with a lot of the angry men who are online too, and I don’t see this as a discontinuity. Many of the angry dudes are reacting to being ripped off. If we really care about these men, we’ll encourage them to return to a more balanced perspective, rather than goading them into remaining miserable. Radical feminists do this to women, not because they care about the women who may be hurting, but simply to exploit them. Keeping women angry has proven to be a big moneymaker for feminist scam artists, and I am starting to become suspicious of a few people (none of whom are on this particular blog) on our side who appear to be cultivating the same sort of con job.

    Best, Boxer

  36. BradA says:

    There’s lots of angry rhetoric about how we need to raise the next generation of test-tube kids as single fathers, and replace regular women with sex robots. I find this nonsense pretty tedious. In many ways, the dudes who wallow around in this sort of angst are the male equivalent of radical feminists, and they clearly aren’t very happy or well-adjusted.

    I agree Boxer. This is a logical consequence of what has happened, but it is not all productive. I have argued many times that the idea a man can and should try to raise a child alone is idiotic in most cases. It may be necessary for the widowed, but doing it voluntarily is intentionally depriving a child of a parent which is just as bad as a woman doing the same.

    God made us for two parents, not one. Breaking that Divine plan brings bad consequences however we try to do it.

  37. MarcusD says:

    http://instagram.com/miserable_men

    “Miserable Men Men that went shopping. It’s a global epidemic.”

  38. MarcusD says:

    As it turns out breaking down the job surge from September to October by gender provides an even more peculiar result then an age distribution. Because as the chart below shows, of the 416K jobs added in the 20 and over category, a meager 10% of these went to men: some 90%, or 370,000, went to women! Men aged 20 and over were the recipients of a paltry 48,000 jobs, or 10% of the total increase.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-08/about-americas-sudden-fascination-hiring-young-women

  39. Mark says:

    @IBB

    “”I know soooooooo many women who think (and look) just like this. I work with them and yes, they want to be married (like this one) and are absolutely terrified by the whole concept of MGTOW.””

    Thanks for the link! This is getting passed on to about 100 or so men that I know(even gay ones)…L* Women are starting to realize that something is wrong(of course,we men will be blamed).I have have met 2 women in the last 2 weeks that know what MGTOW is….and they are terrified.Of course,they would never admit it.Again,it is men’s fault.What a BAD bunch we are……L*

    @MarcusD

    Thanks for the link.I have read a few good articles off that site….of which you posted…and I have bookmarked it.Thanks. Welp! it is 3am in the morning here and I am heading out the door to the office as I have to be on the phone for overseas conference calls.Do you think any of those wimminz would get out of bed at 2am in the morning to show up at work at 4am?……I highly doubt it.It would take longer than that for them to put on their makeup.Thank God I was born male!

  40. hoellenhund2 says:

    In many ways, the dudes who wallow around in this sort of angst are the male equivalent of radical feminists, and they clearly aren’t very happy or well-adjusted.

    There’s no such thing as a male equivalent of radical feminism. The policies and choices advocated by radical feminists are based on a) lesbian separatism b) ludicrous and baseless left-wing delusions about men and society. On the other hand, the promotion of single fatherhood and artificial wombs is based on the simple and easily observable facts that a) women are more likely than men to be dysfunctional and socially destructive as single parents b) even in two-parent households mothers are more likely to have a negative influence on their children than fathers, plus they are enabled and encouraged by society to do so c) signing up as a man for marriage 2.0 is monumentally stupid for a number of reasons that don’t need repearing here.

    There’s lots of angry rhetoric about how we need to raise the next generation of test-tube kids as single fathers, and replace regular women with sex robots.

    Where exactly? I frequent a number of Manosphere blogs and occasionally read MGTOW forums, and I don’t see “lots of angry rhetoric” about that. This seems to be yet another parroted feminist-tradcon myth.

    By the way, Manosphere commentary on sexbots is normally based on simple and easily observable facts as well, namely that a) the current SMP is such that a significant segment of men are unable to attract women due to unrestrained hypergamy etc. b) cohabiting and merely interacting with a woman is a dangerous legal risk and has a significant chance of simply being a PITA.

  41. hoellenhund2 says:

    Interesting video. I can certainly sympathize with what she’s describing.

    You do understand that she’s a rather extreme and thus largely negligible outliner, don’t you?

  42. Pingback: She doesn’t have what it takes to be a pr...

  43. greyghost says:

    Boxer
    The reason why men here have the blanket “all women” it is all women by law. The behavior we describe from women is normal. Good or bad the tendencies spoken about here are normal female behavior. The problem is we are living in a civilized society with rule of law. By law all women are fuck up period. What appears to be hatred or avoidance of women is just common sense and survival. To not base line your view of females from that perspective is just irresponsible plain and simple. MGTOW is a civilized and responsible responds to what we have that is basically by law. Women behave the way they do because the can and it is encouraged by law. The basic nature of women is used by law to take advantage of the basic nature of the beta male.
    The amazing thing about this whole thing the same women with out a single change in their nature with behave with pure milk and honey virtue with the same wickedness has a frivorcing wife with a boyfriend. Where the anger and murder suicides come from is that is perfectly LEGAL and culturally and legally celebrated and is only available to women. Yeah all women are bad. That’s what happens.
    Ignorance is no longer bliss (blue pill) As TFH brings up more and more a man burned by marriage brought it on himself. he was irresponsible. If you want kids get a surrogate you stupid mutha fucka..That is the world she voted for and the good men that don’t hate and respect women put in place at gun point and called it law. Hell, even the church is in on it bringing Gods blessings to the party.

  44. enrique432 says:

    Dalrock, as a recent arrival to your blog, I am pleased I had the opportunity to read your: “Harming your kids for attention and profit.” blog post from a couple years ago.

    That may be one of the finest, short feature articles ever written within the hallowed halls of the Manosphere. Absolutely CRUSHING takedown of the professional divorcée industry. Hope Rollo and others link to it when appropriate.

    Brilliant.

  45. enrique432 says:

    Ang Aamer: I think that reality (inventing problems) has been the basis of all of feminism. It may be cliché to speak of Friedan simply being a bored housewife, but she’s nothing compared to the “First world problems are sooooo bad…and creepy” crowd that feast on trite narratives such as Eat, Pray, Love. It’s perhaps why so many 3rd Worlders, before they (or more likely, their children) are corrupted, are shocked to hear of all the problems (like unwanted “God Bless you” cat calling) privileged white women have to deal with every day. The cat-calling video was not an expose (ala James O’Kiffe”) it literally was someone who is NOT working for 10 hours, instead taking that time to invent a problem, essentially for herself, by walking around all day (allegedly)…to have a few stray comments thrown her way.

    And for the record, don’t think for a second that Miss Bitch Face didn’t have lots of narcissism going into it (and the final edit), to make sure, indeed, she really WAS attractive to random men. It was undoubtedly self-serving at it’s core.

  46. Lyn87 says:

    I just watched the video posted above. I actually feel sorry for the woman, she’s living proof that the saying, “Feminism helps men, too” is exactly backwards: the truth is that feminism hurts women, too.

    Let’s face it: she’s not attractive and probably never was, and life isn’t nearly as cushy for unattractive women as it is for their attractive sisters (something we tend to forget), just as life is a lot easier for tall men than for short men. The fact that even a woman of middling attractiveness can get laid like tile is not germane for a woman like her who eschews fornication, so the usual response that she could walk into any bar and walk out with a man doesn’t help her at all. It just means that women like her fall behind in the sexual arms race caused by feminism. A prudish woman (I’m not using that in a derogatory manner) who is pretty can still attract men. An unattractive woman who is a slut can also attract men. An unattractive prude has a tough row to hoe indeed, and living in a society where young women at the height of their SMV are encouraged to be sluts means she needs a miracle. No wonder she admits to hating feminism.

    She errs in thinking that “It’s a man’s world,” though. It’s pure Apex Fallacy to think so. MGTOW is about the rational response by some men to the realization that it is NOT a man’s world at all – any woman has the ability to destroy any man in her vicinity. She doesn’t like that, but rather than addressing that, she wants men to get past their anger. Fair enough – living in a constant state of agitation is unhealthy – but whether men are angry or resigned, the response can be the same: risk mitigation.

    I suspect that – if given the choice of continuing as she is or signing away the female privilege that puts a machine gun in her hands that she can use against a man at will – she would sign in a heartbeat… but she doesn’t have that option: by law, she has the machine gun whether she wants it or not, and THAT is the crux of her problem, not risk mitigation by men.

  47. Novaseeker says:

    Let’s face it: she’s not attractive and probably never was, and life isn’t nearly as cushy for unattractive women as it is for their attractive sisters (something we tend to forget), just as life is a lot easier for tall men than for short men. The fact that even a woman of middling attractiveness can get laid like tile is not germane for a woman like her who eschews fornication, so the usual response that she could walk into any bar and walk out with a man doesn’t help her at all. It just means that women like her fall behind in the sexual arms race caused by feminism. A prudish woman (I’m not using that in a derogatory manner) who is pretty can still attract men. An unattractive woman who is a slut can also attract men. An unattractive prude has a tough row to hoe indeed, and living in a society where young women at the height of their SMV are encouraged to be sluts means she needs a miracle. No wonder she admits to hating feminism.

    What feminism promised such women was power regardless of their sexiness — that is, they couldn’t have “woman power” because they weren’t hot enough, but they could take “man power” as a consolation, and as a means of getting back at men who dissed them sexually. That was — and is — a powerful motivator for many women who are not attractive. Feminism is alluring because it tells them men are bad for not being attracted to them (unfair, hurtful, superficial beauty standards), and that taking men’s power onto themselves is a justified option for them to get ahead in a society which doesn’t treat homely women as well as it does hot ones.

    Honestly in this day and age, the unattractive (plain women, short men, small penis men etc.) are probably left with either (1) finding it within themselves to match up with someone of the opposite sex who is also unattractive objectively (and we see enough of these couples, don’t we?) or (2) embrace their singleness as their destiny in an age of free market mating, and dedicate themselves to God. Those seem like the best options for people who are genetically unattractive (i.e., not people who would be attractive but for being soft or overweight or what have you, but people who are just genetically losers when it comes to attractiveness). Of course, lots of these people are angry, as are the losers in any free market system (like the poor in laissez faire capitalism), but the free market isn’t being changed anytime soon, so these seem like the most viable options for people who find themselves in the “genetic loser” category, when it comes to attractiveness to the opposite sex.

  48. new anon says:

    I tried to read the linked article, but the woman is such a mess I couldn’t.

    She writes about an incident in 7th grade (a boy said he liked her, and she didn’t know how to react) as if it was a life altering experience that still impacts her lift today.

    A clear example of someone suffering from privileged western women’s problems syndrome (PWWP). She’s had so much handed to her in life, that she can no longer differentiate a real problem from a non-problem. In fact, she has so few real problems in life she has to make them up.

    She’s 31 (not 29 as she states), and she acts as if her life is over. If she would simply straighten up and focus on the positives, she could still have a wonderful life ahead.

    But noooooooo. She thinks the key to life is out martyring everyone else with tales from her life in the 7th grade. Her attitude is what is destroying her life, not what she has experienced..

  49. Nova and Lyn,

    Let’s face it: she’s not attractive and probably never was, and life isn’t nearly as cushy for unattractive women as it is for their attractive sisters (something we tend to forget), just as life is a lot easier for tall men than for short men.

    This is what drives me crazy here when some of the guys say that there is no such thing as ugly duckling women. Afterall, ALL OF THE had to waste their most attractive fertile years riding the cock carrosel. There can’t possibly be ugly women who have no chance in life.

    I mean she did what everyone told her to do. She stayed thin. She grew her hair long. And she did not ride any cock carrosels (claims to be virgin.) Still, she’s got nothing to show for doe her sacrifices, absolutely nothing. And there are others like her.

    Honestly in this day and age, the unattractive (plain women, short men, small penis men etc.) are probably left with either (1) finding it within themselves to match up with someone of the opposite sex who is also unattractive objectively (and we see enough of these couples, don’t we?) or (2) embrace their singleness as their destiny in an age of free market mating, and dedicate themselves to God.

    I don’t think she wants this. She desperately wants to be married. She has no hope for that. And is left with a line of loneliness. MGTOW just makes a bad situation for her, that much more hopeless.

  50. Tam the Bam says:

    “You do understand that she’s a rather extreme and thus largely negligible outliner, don’t you?”
    And appears to have been beamed down directly from a Breughel Sr. painting, which is intriguing.
    But “hate”? Hey, it’s the internet. Seek and ye shall find.
    I think she’s obsessing on people’s “studied indifference” to her. That’s not “anger”.
    Miserable beggar.

  51. earl says:

    Perhaps your personality disorders are much worse in women than we think. Things like a boy telling a girl he likes her or most normal social situations shouldn’t cause this amount of trauma.

  52. thedeti says:

    IBB:

    You’re getting too exercised over this. People like the woman in the video do exist. But HH is right that she’s an outlier. There are very few women who cannot generate ANY male interest. The women at the UB 1, 2 and 3 end of the spectrum are the left end of the tail on the curve, and it’s a small number. I can’t say I have ever met a woman in real life who was so unattractive she couldn’t garner ANY male interest AT ALL. Can’t say that about this woman either. Looks to me as if she’s trying to be deliberately unattractive. It’s nothing a makeup artist and better hairdo couldn’t fix.

    But she has a point in that women like her will be squeezed out of the market as more of her male counterparts and assortative equals GTOW. In years past she would have been married off to the Gilligan or the runt of the male crowd, and she’d have at least been content.

  53. the deti,

    You’re getting too exercised over this. People like the woman in the video do exist. But HH is right that she’s an outlier. There are very few women who cannot generate ANY male interest.

    Fair enough.

    Does anyone have a clue was Miss Stokes looks like, the reason for Dalrock’s excellent post here?

  54. Novaseeker says:

    I don’t think she wants this. She desperately wants to be married. She has no hope for that. And is left with a line of loneliness. MGTOW just makes a bad situation for her, that much more hopeless.

    Only marginally. The market is free now, meaning that there is little pressure to marry. Quite a few people of both sexes (not just MGTOWs) will not marry if their only options are unattractive people — regardless of how unattractive they themselves are. Some people are able to calibrate downward and be happy with a similarly unattractive spouse as an unattractive couple, but a lot of people of both sexes cannot do that, or will not do that. The MGTOWs exacerbate that somewhat, but really only on the margins. The main thrust of the problem people like her have is not related to MGTOWs, but related to the fact that unattractive people in a free market where there is no pressure to marry will often remain unmarried because people don’t want to be with them due to their being unattractive (i.e., prefer to be alone than coupled with a similarly unattractive person).

    Nothing can be done for the unattractive people in a free market, really. In economics, we throw people a bone out of humanitarianism, but there isn’t any equivalent sexually, and there really can’t be. These people belong to God.

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    deti
    I can’t say I have ever met a woman in real life who was so unattractive she couldn’t garner ANY male interest AT ALL.

    I can say that. Once knew of a woman who had suffered some sort of terrible accident that seriously damaged her face, it looked as though some of her skin had melted and coagulated. She had a sweet voice, and so far as I can tell was trying very hard to be liked, but in the small college environment it was apparently impossible for her to attract any male interest. Hopefully at some point while still in her 20’s she was able to get corrective plastic surgery as well as whatever emotional or other therapy required.

    Note how extreme a case this is. There are others like it, I’m sure. But at the same time I knew of that woman, I knew of a very obese and mouthy broad who still was getting some male attention, simply because she was DTF. I knew of average women who attracted men as well, some were co-workers. One such woman was average looking but with an acne problem and short hair. She mooned over some men but took very little action. Years later I was told she’d grown her hair out, fixed her face, was married and had a child. Probably married to an avereage looking man, unlike the situational alphas she was crushing on, but…married nevertheless.

    What Mrs. IBB is queefing about is really obvious: there are women who don’t get attention from the men that attract them. Anyone who has average powers of observation can see this in any 20-something social gathering, and the well known and documented change in women’s standards as they approach The Wall verifies it. Mrs. IBB’s endless repetition of the false claim that “feminism came from ugly women” doesn’t make it any more true, it merely demonstrates a stubborn ignorance.

    Lyn87 has a valid point, the plain woman who does not wish to have sex outside of marriage is at a disadvantage in the current SMP, because of feminism. Such a woman can get wifed up provided she puts herself into a conservative religious mileau such as Lyn87’s or Novaseeker’s or Cail Corishev’s church, but that could be a higher price than some women want to pay. Note the use of the word “can”, she can get married but there is not a guarantee even there.

    Women under 40 just don’t seem to understand what weapons they are carrying around, whether they like it or not. Explicitily coming to terms with that is sure to be difficult.

  56. Honeycomb says:

    Sadly she was never taught that .. “everyone gets knocked down .. it’s up to you to get back up” … in the ole’in days it was common fair to let your children and young adults to do just that.

    My concern has been for years now that all I hear is how parents don’t let their little precious fail or fix little preciouses mistakes. Thus depriving them that true life lesson and thusly that young adults future success path.

    We allowed this in the schools too. No PE. No dodge ball. No recess. No hurt feelings. No No NO NO NO NO everywhere they turn .. What do they get to learn from when they are young? What chores do they do to learn from? What jobs do they do that allows for failure and then recovery? Hmmmmm. And, why do we reward the young ladies with a lack of success and not for success? (e.g. little lady loses at a softball game and daddy says “there, there dear daddy will make it better” and takes her for ice cream. When she comes home with straight A’s .. daddy says dismissively .. “that’s great dear”.)

    You want to blame this woman. Fine then. But I have a few more people to blame. Blame her parents. Blame the schools. Blame the feminist (minz and wimminz both alike). But, someone created / promoted that little monster into existence through years of training.

  57. Nova,

    Nothing can be done for the unattractive people in a free market, really. In economics, we throw people a bone out of humanitarianism, but there isn’t any equivalent sexually, and there really can’t be. These people belong to God.

    True. And awful.

    Because feminism got started to give unattractive women access to the mainstream of society, I think those same ugly women are finding that many of the (chavalrous-based) safe guards that were built into the system that feminists counted on in order for feminism to work, no longer apply. So now we are increasingly seeing feminism hurting women as well as men. The ugly women are left ONLY with God.

  58. thedeti says:

    AR:

    Yeah, I take back that I’ve never met anyone who couldn’t attract any men. There was a girl a year behind me in high school who had a couple of birth defects that disfigured her face. That, coupled with the usual cruelty young kids inflict on each other, cloistered this girl for the rest of her life. She died in her early 40s of complications from some of those defects having never married and, as far as I know, never having attracted a man. I never saw her with a man or that any man expressed any interest in her.

    It was sad, really. But as Nova said, there’s nothing that can be done for the truly unattractives in society other than get them vocations or hope to pair them off with other unattractives. In a free market, the former is more realistic than the latter. Even the unattractives want attractive mates, but unattractives can’t get them, so it is a tough situation all around.

  59. It was sad, really. But as Nova said, there’s nothing that can be done for the truly unattractives in society other than get them vocations or hope to pair them off with other unattractives.

    There is no school/training that “society” can give-to/force-upon the most ugly women that can guarantee them a lifetime income (to replace the patriarical dividend they will never get.) They pretty much have to fend for themselves. And for those who didn’t bother to get any meaningful vocational training, they got nothing. That is probably why so many of them are left to writing bullshit like what Miss Stokes wrote, there probably isn’t anything else she can do and she must hope against hope that people take the time to read her words….

    …the rest? They turn to government.

  60. An ugly or unattractive person, I include myself as unattractive not ugly though, should rather spend their lives doing things they enjoy. Don’t worry about the opposite sex, they will just end up causing more grief. A growing increase of ugly people not mating and not marrying will usher in a future of attractive people who will not have these issues, mental or otherwise.

  61. Casey says:

    @TFH
    TFH says:
    November 9, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    “Ugh. Look at the resource misallocation…………
    This mal-investment will correct within our lifetimes. It will be the single biggest tear in the fabric of humanity.”

    I agree that there are HUGE resource misallocation.
    I disagree that it will be corrected within our lifetimes. Wishful thinking my friend.

  62. easttexasfatboy says:

    I watched the video with the woman who was sad about MGTOW. Yeah, she’s plain. So was I. I really was blue pill beta when I got married. Had no idea of red pill. I can feel her pain, but the way feminist laws are enforced nowadays means that she’s stuck. My ex married me to get her nursing degree here in Texas. Yeppers, soon as she graduated, she was unhapppppy. She would leave and come back repeatedly. She finally frivorced me. After all was said and done, folks didn’t have much to do with her. So, finally come to the red pill. Talk about bitter truths. See, she was a super religious Jehovah’s witness. Curious situation there. I’ve gone MGTOW, without any interest in women anymore. Wasn’t a scriptural divorce, you see. As I’m not going to commit adultery, she can’t remarry. Sad situation when the only person who’ll talk to you is your ex – husband. She’s tried to make up some of the financial losses, but she can’t remarry. As an RN, she’s used to having her say. I’m happy where I’m at, but it seems kind of strange to have a “religious” women encourage me to commit adultery. The Lord that I’m acquainted with would consider such actions as “feet in a hurry to badness”. Here’s the point….I’m plain as a rock….experience has shown me that money brings out the worst in women. So, MGTOW it is. BTW, dogs are much more reliable.

  63. Gunner Q says:

    “That is probably why so many of them are left to writing bullshit like what Miss Stokes wrote, there probably isn’t anything else she can do…”

    Not today. Women have total economic freedom so being ugly is no excuse for an empty life. If ugly, marriage-minded women were wise, they could purchase cosmetic surgery instead of a college education. I bet a potential husband would rather pay for her facework and boob job than a Womyn’s Studies degree.

    There is much an ugly woman can do beyond hating men and signing up for welfare.

    “See, she was a super religious Jehovah’s witness. Curious situation there.”

    Sometimes women act overly religious to compensate for slutty behavior. If she’s had another man since your divorce then you’re Biblically free to remarry… good to remain single these days, though.

    “BTW, dogs are much more reliable.”

    There’s a line I’m going to use on a deserving woman someday. “Have you ever wondered why man’s best friend is not a woman? This is why.”

  64. Lyn87 says:

    TFH,

    Have you read any of the stuff James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg were putting out in the 80’s and 90’s? They were looking forward in time and writing about the disruptive nature of information technologies and capital flight even back then. They understood that the Information Revolution (as they termed it) was on par with the Agricultural Revolution several thousand years ago, the Gunpowder Revolution of the renaissance period, and the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century in its potential to reorganize society. They noted that each major resetting of human social systems happened far more quickly than the previous one, and they posited that the effects of the Information Revolution would happen in an eye-blink, relatively speaking.

    Combine the effects of the Information Revolution and the Sexual Revolution, and it seems that a major reset is not only inevitable, but relatively imminent. Feminism demands an enormous misallocation of resources that can only exist as long as significant barriers to capital flight and the inertia of the pre-feminist social compact remain. Both have been significantly reduced in my lifetime, and will reach critical mass. We can’t know when that will happen, or even what it will look like to those who live through it (as we are in uncharted waters here), but happen it will, and we are accelerating towards it. Frankly, I’m surprised we’ve lasted this long.

    When it does, people like Rebecca Jane Stokes will have to come to terms with the idea that her ability to write internet articles chronicling her school-girl navel-gazing is not particularly useful. Nobody is going to care about first-world problems any more – which means feminism will be shown for what it is: an excuse for UMC white women (the most pampered people in history) to whine about how hard they have it.

  65. Lyn,

    Have you read any of the stuff James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg were putting out in the 80’s and 90’s? They were looking forward in time and writing about the disruptive nature of information technologies and capital flight even back then.

    The Great Reckoning

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Reckoning-Change-Depression/dp/0283061162

    I bought the book. It was good read. They predicted that Islam would replace Communism and Marxist-economics. They were right about that. But if you followed any of the investment advice in the book, you’d of lost everything. They were wrong about all their investment predictions. They also kept saying over and over in the book that you needed to get married if you weren’t already (because no one could go it alone in the future.) Probably bad advice given unilateral divorce laws.

  66. MarcusD says:

    @Mark

    Both esr.ibiblio.org and http://www.zerohedge.com are great sites (at least in my experience).

    Well, based on the American Time Use Survey (run by the BLS), I suspect that they are indeed less likely to be up that early: http://www.bls.gov/TUS/CHARTS/SLEEP.HTM (men do, on average, spend more time at work, too)

    I’m not sure exactly why it is the case, though I suspect testosterone might play a large role (e.g. motivation). The link between testosterone and sleep has been researched (e.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006899311014302).

    Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I’ll take the data for the 2013 ATUS (http://www.bls.gov/tus/datafiles_2013.htm), and I’ll try to create a chart that replicates the one at the bottom of this page: http://www.bls.gov/TUS/CHARTS/WORK.HTM (but, breaking it down by gender).

  67. MarcusD says:

    @Mark

    Both esr.ibiblio.org and http://www.zerohedge.com are great sites (at least in my experience).

    Well, based on the American Time Use Survey (run by the BLS), I suspect that they are indeed less likely to be up that early: http://www.bls.gov/TUS/CHARTS/SLEEP.HTM (men do, on average, spend more time at work)

    I’m not sure exactly why it is the case, though I suspect testosterone might play a large role (e.g. motivation). The link between testosterone and sleep has been researched (e.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006899311014302).

    Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I’ll take the data for 2013 ATUS and I’ll try to create a chart that replicates the one at the bottom of this page: http://www.bls.gov/TUS/CHARTS/WORK.HTM (but, breaking it down by gender).

  68. MarcusD says:

    @Mark

    Both esr.ibiblio.org and zerohedge.com are great sites (at least in my experience).

    Well, based on the American Time Use Survey (run by the BLS), I suspect that they are indeed less likely to be up that early: http://www.bls.gov/TUS/CHARTS/SLEEP.HTM (men do, on average, spend more time at work)

    I’m not sure exactly why it is the case, though I suspect testosterone might play a large role (e.g. motivation). The link between testosterone and sleep has been researched (e.g. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006899311014302).

    Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I’ll take the data for the 2013 ATUS and I’ll try to create a chart that replicates the one at the bottom of this page: http://www.bls.gov/TUS/CHARTS/WORK.HTM (but, breaking it down by gender).

    (@Dalrock: apologies for the multi-post – please ignore the other ones – forgot about the link restriction)

  69. Lyn87 says:

    IBB,

    Yes, JDD and WR-M were incorrect about their financial predictions, but I wonder how much of that was bad timing rather than bad analysis. And although they correctly predicted that the Information Revolution would be sweeping, they had no red-pill understanding that might have led them to see the nexus between the Information Revolution and the Sexual Revolution, and they underestimated the resilience of the system. They certainly expected things to happen faster than they did, but some of their contrarian predictions were remarkably accurate, and I still think that they were among the first to come to serious grips with where we are going.

    I just noticed that TFH sounds a lot like they did – although he has the red-pill understanding they lacked – and wondered if he was familiar with their early work.

  70. Snowy says:

    @herecomestheLIGHT re: animal worship

    Very well said. This animal worship by women and associated manginas is more infectious/contagious than Ebola. It’s literally everywhere. Though I’d noticed this phenomenon some time ago, it was only put into its spiritual perspective for me recently. And you’ve summarised it perfectly. Well done. Furthermore, it’s little wonder that, especially for women, such animal worship often leads to bestiality. These days I can’t help but wonder, when I see that woman out walking her dog.

  71. Mark says:

    @Lyn87

    “”MGTOW is about the rational response by some men to the realization that it is NOT a man’s world at all – any woman has the ability to destroy any man in her vicinity.””

    Yes it is…..at least from my POV. Men have different personal reasons for going MGTOW. The majority of men that I know that are MGTOW have never even hear the acronym before.I have encountered this MANY times.The main reason that I see and hear of men GTOW is because of the laws.They have seen it via friends and family.They have watched other men’s lives destroyed by wimminz.Especially businessmen,who have the power to deduce a good deal from a bad deal….from a SUCKER’S DEAL.The risk is not worth the reward.Plain & Simple.But,wimminz are just beginning to see and understand this.I have told MANY wimmenz MANY MANY times….”I will NEVER EVER get involved with a Canadian woman under Canadian law”……if they don’t like that?….who the f*** cares!…I certainly don’t!

    @Lyn87

    “”Have you read any of the stuff James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg were putting out in the 80’s and 90’s?””

    Yes I have.I have a couple of their books in my library at home.I know that one of them is “The Great Reckoning” as posted by IBB……I really liked those books a lot.Been years since that I have read them.

  72. Yes, JDD and WR-M were incorrect about their financial predictions, but I wonder how much of that was bad timing rather than bad analysis.

    It wasn’t bad analysis. It was very good analysis just bad imagination. Their analysis as to what to invest in was predicated on the irrational deficit spending on the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations in the United States. They were right about that. What they were wrong about is that they couldn’t imagine that interest rates on all that federal debt would drop so low as to not even be a blip on the spending line. And even then, in 1992 it was maybe 5 to 6% on US Savings Bonds, today you get (what?) 0.335% return? That is basically free money for the government. They could never have imagined that is all….

    … no one did.

  73. Lyn87 says:

    By the way, regarding James Dale Davidson and Lord Willian Rees-Mogg, the Amazon description of their book “The Great Reckoning” noted that:

    Some of the things they predict are: higher taxes; migrations away from big cities; decriminalization of drugs in order to preserve social order; the privatization of faltering public services and infrastructures; retirement will be postponed or even revoked for most people; Islam will replace Marxism as the main challenge in ideology.

    All of those are happening right now. Taxes are up (especially considering that things like QE, ObamaCare, and annual deficits are nothing but tax increases for men and future taxpayers). Cities like Detroit are hollowed-out shells of their former selves, with cities and entire states either in financial default or close to it. Marijuana is legal is several states, with more on the way. Large numbers of prisons are often now run by private companies for profit – which would have been unheard-of even two decades ago. The U.S. hires thousands of mercenaries – if we use the term to mean people who perform the duties of soldiers (most are in support roles, but they free up troops to fight). The age for Social Security has gone up already and is scheduled to go up further in the coming years. In the Cold War the Soviet Union was our greatest threat and Shi’ite Iran was an ally – now the Soviet Union does not exist, Russia fights internal Muslim threats, and everyone (except Obama) is worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Every one of those predictions is coming true in front of our eyes right now.

  74. Random Angeleno says:

    I occasionally do work that brings me into people’s homes. Some nice places out there and some real pigsties as well as everything in between. Can be interesting that way. One of the more noxious smells is cat urine … though I like dogs better, I don’t mind cats, but that smell is well and truly objectionable. It spells lazy housekeeping as it doesn’t take a lot of effort to clean and change out cat litter frequently enough that cats will use the box rather than urinate (and defecate) somewhere else.

    Although everyone likes to take shots at older single women living by themselves, the worst case I can remember was a women-run family. Mother, grandmother and 3 or 4 kids about 4 to 11 years old in an ordinary one story house in an ordinary lower middle class neighborhood. Yard kept looking okay, clutter in the house is arranged neatly, kitchen appeared clean, the mother and grandmother were okay to deal with, but that cat urine smell was just overpowering. Find out they have 3 cats and they compete with each other. Felt sorry for the children, like tobacco smoking, the smell of cat urine gets into their outer clothing, they go to school every day vaguely smelling of that. Did my work, made sure to do it right so no callbacks and got the heck out of there…

  75. Boxer says:

    Dear Grey Ghost:

    The reason why men here have the blanket “all women” it is all women by law.

    That’s a good point, and I agree with you, which is why it’s so interesting to note that the majority of women are not taking advantage of the laws that protect their own worst behavior.

    Most married women do not divorce their husbands, despite immense material benefits (at least in the short term) for doing so. Most married women aren’t fucking other men on the side, despite the laws protecting that too.

    The behavior we describe from women is normal. Good or bad the tendencies spoken about here are normal female behavior.

    The tendencies described here range from random harmless stuff, like reading fantasy-inducing romance novels, to banging the best friend of the husband while he’s on a business trip. On one end of the bell curve is probably normal female behavior, on the other is narcissistic (and in some cases psychotic) crap. Hopefully we can all agree that there’s a difference here.

    Most women do read romance novels, for the same reason that most men check out the waitress’ ass. That is normal, but letting these things move into extramarital affair territory is not normal. We should criticize the losers who lack the self control to recognize these differences, without painting all people with a broad brush for doing normal stuff.

    Best, Boxer

  76. TFH,

    I would say that in terms of correction of the obsolete misallocation of resources to women (rather than directly to children, which is what it will evolve to), we are already on the horizon.

    Feminism that started out about financially empowering ugly women is quickly turning into communism in a dress.

    As people marry less and less (and that is documented fact) government will be forced to step in and tax men more and more. The misallocation of resources is the sole purpose of the Affordable Care Act and the tax that it is based on. It is a complete and necessary transfer of wealth (from men to women.) Expect more and more of this as men are less and less inclined to man up and marry a slut.

    They WILL get your money. As long as government has ultimate tax authority over your earning power, she WILL be voting in people who will take it from you if you don’t give it up voluntaraly.

  77. Opus says:

    My sensibilities grate, my nerves jangle, when I read Lyn 87 refer to the former editor of The Times (of London) as Lord William Rees-Mogg. He was not the younger son of an hereditary Peer was he, but a Life Peer and thus Lyn 87 (who I thought would have known better – what is the point of spending two weeks in the wilds of porridge-eating Scotland if that is the best he can do) should of course have referred to Lord Rees-Mogg or Baron Rees-Mogg, if you prefer. Tomorrow I will explain why it is wrong to refer to Sir Churchill or Sir McCartney, without mentioning their first name – I don’t think one can say Christian name for I doubt there was ever a Saint Winston.

    I have always had a soft spot for Moggies, although I like large dogs too.

  78. Yes, but other nation-states then become more and more attractive. Doesn’t Anon Age 72 keep telling people to GTFO?

    I have no idea. I wont read his posts. I haven’t read them since I warned him to stop denigrating me. He didn’t stop so I put him into my bozo filter with Anonomous Reader.

    If anything, that is a stronger argument *against* marriage, since misandry court leaves a man in poverty, isolation, and ostracization.

    When they made the claims in The Great Recokoning that everyone had to get married, it was not because they were thinking that marriage 2.0 was all that. It was instead because Rees-Mogg and Dale believed that crime would skyrocket out of control and those who were single were more likely to be killed. Remember TFH, they wrote the book at the “peak” of the crack-rock crime epidemic of 1992. So that was the data they had to go by. Since that year, the crime rate has dropped way off and continues to drop. If you ask the writers of Freakanomics that is because all the would be future criminals were “aborted” out of existance.

  79. BradA says:

    I thought that the woman in the video could do herself wonders with a little makeup on her cheeks when I first saw her. She may be sabotaging herself. She is a bit old now, but I would be fairly certain I might have been attracted to her years ago when I was looking if she had dealt with those issues.

    I will bet she didn’t look for a husband when she was in her late teens or early twenties, putting herself in likely locations of such and even learning to like things they might like. I find many Christian women have that problem and almost expect the husband to rain down out of the air.

    I have a feeling my wife would have been that way had I not come along when I did. Believing you can delay marriage is very tragic in general, but probably even more so for those on the edge of attractiveness like the one in the video. Even staying think with a decent figure can get attention at an older age, especially since it goes at odds with so much in our society.

    She also is likely to not realize men have little reason for marriage after a certain point, MGTOW or not. Companionship is not as important to men as it is for most women.

  80. BradA says:

    TFH,

    That raises an interesting question of whether a MGTOW could make high income. Could you love the tech field and end up doing well (financially) in it, for example, and still be MGTOW?

  81. Lyn87 says:

    Opus,

    Hmmm, Baron Wm Rees-Mogg shows up as “Lord” on the dust covers of his books over here, but that may be because the publishers figure most of us wouldn’t know a Lord from a Baron from an Earl from a Count from a Viscount from a Duke from a Marquis… and they would undoubtedly be correct in that assessment. I note, however, that both the Daily Mail and BBC News referred to him as “Lord” rather than “Baron,” although that may say just imply something unflattering about them.

    As for my trips to Ireland and Scotland… I intend to visit England and possibly Wales on my next trip to your quaint archipelago, whenever that may be. Maybe we can up-end a pint.

  82. honeycomb says:

    BradA ..

    I make High Income and am MGTOW. Have been doing thus since leaving the Navy 20+ years ago.

    I really have to admit though I would like to cut my salary by half to avoid continued high taxes.

  83. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Nova:

    “Nothing can be done for the unattractive people in a free market, really. In economics, we throw people a bone out of humanitarianism, but there isn’t any equivalent sexually, and there really can’t be. These people belong to God.”

    Au contraire, unless marriage is the only ticket item. Prostitution comes up as a free market alternative, and the Japanese are expert at parsing out even the “beta male attentive listening” for a price.

  84. The Brass Cat says:

    Lyn87 says:

    migrations away from big cities;

    Cities like Detroit are hollowed-out shells of their former selves, with cities and entire states either in financial default or close to it.

    At the same time, people are generally moving from small towns to cities. I’ve read more than one prognostication on the demise of the small town.

    Perhaps there could be a counter-current due to the Internet freeing people to work from anywhere and some deciding to return to small towns. But overall, people live where there is work and that’s in cities.

  85. The Brass Cat says:

    Screwed up the blockquotes.

  86. greyghost says:

    I suspect that – if given the choice of continuing as she is or signing away the female privilege that puts a machine gun in her hands that she can use against a man at will – she would sign in a heartbeat… but she doesn’t have that option: by law, she has the machine gun whether she wants it or not, and THAT is the crux of her problem, not risk mitigation by men.

    This is along the lines of my comment to Boxer. here Lyn87 describes my feelings on the subject. It’s “all women” by law whether they frivorce or not. And you can bet your ass even the “happily” married men know it and live every day (that sword thing comes to mind).
    That lady in the video is unattractive due to her personality and life vibe. If she smiled she would be getting the dick. Simple as that. Unattractiveness is in the eye of the beholder just look at the women out there that have kids. She is just tight and fears feeling sexually arouse. Her anti-slut id is out of balance.

  87. easttexasfatboy says:

    The thing about moving to another country is that you have to get out of the American mindset. Learn how to speak the language, don’t expect them to speak English. I like Mexico and Guatemala. That said, you can’t really tell I’m American. I wear local clothes, speak fluent Spanish, and observe the cultural mores if you will. I like goat and beef tripe. Gringos by and large don’t. I don’t insist on a shower everyday. I carefully watch what the locals do, and that’s good enough for me.
    I agree that woman could use some makeup. However, she appeared beat down. As far as MGTOW, I’ve always favored ghosting. Minimal presence. Galt surely is attractive nowadays, right? I’ve learned to be happy with less. That way I don’t have as much to lose. Went out of my way to learn food preservation techniques from different cultures. Right handy. Anyways, I’ve learned a lot from Dalrocks site. Truly intelligent comments. Face it, gentlemen, this society is doomed. The Lord ain’t into baby killers. Here’s an eternal principle….The land always has to pay for innocent blood. When I talk to people, I subtly probe them for feminist tendencies. And I never forget. That’s why I have said that I wouldn’t feed or rescue a feminist. Never said what sex they were. And as for cat urine, man, ugh. I knew when I was a helper that folks who lived like that were mentally ill. Always had some excuse to avoid them. Was kinda known for it, actually.
    Women who realize that MGTOW is not really interested are going to act out. It’s their nature. My ex has had to realize that I’ll only talk to her once in a while. With no emotional connection. That’s the best I can do. And, no, I’m not going to commit adultery. She’s on the beach.
    .

  88. Tom C says:

    If you are new to Davidson and Rees-Mogg, I would recommend Sovereign Individual as the first of their books to read even though it is not the first written. Try to get the original hardcover since the revised softcover spends some time on the Y2K computer bug that obviously did not amount to much. That aside, many of their predictions have come true and are continuing to do so.

  89. James K says:

    @Novaseeker:

    Feminism is alluring because it tells them men are bad for not being attracted to them (unfair, hurtful, superficial beauty standards), and that taking men’s power onto themselves is a justified option for them to get ahead in a society which doesn’t treat homely women as well as it does hot ones.

    I believe this. It also reminds me of David Collard’s views on how women lie about what they want when talking to beta males:

    http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/women-policing-the-hierarchy/

    The interview with Steve Moxon that Collard mentions can be found in the Wayback Machine:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20101123215242/http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/03/06/the-science-of-female-supremacy-an-interview-with-steve-moxon/

    Moxon says: “Feminism is just business-as-usual elitism. It is not about serving the interests of women as a whole: it is a disservice to most women.”

    When hot women tell plain women that their problems are the fault of superficial men, they are distracting them from how the feminist regime fails to serve their interests.

    The error is probably unfixable. A return to traditional courtship would give the plain woman a husband whose MMV is comparable to her own; but 80% of women are hypergamous, and the plain woman is no exception. She will prefer instead to wait for a better offer; and she will end up with cats.

    Nothing can be done for the unattractive people in a free market, really.

    I disagree. The unattractive girl can be taught the truth about female hypergamy and perishability. She can be encouraged to settle for a man of her own MMV, and to marry young when she has the most bargaining power. Remember that the low-MMV man she might marry at 21 would otherwise probably not have sex until his thirties.

  90. Frugal Nerd says:

    @Novaseeker

    “Honestly in this day and age, the unattractive (plain women, short men, small penis men etc.) are probably left with either (1) finding it within themselves to match up with someone of the opposite sex who is also unattractive objectively (and we see enough of these couples, don’t we?) or (2) embrace their singleness as their destiny in an age of free market mating, and dedicate themselves to God. ”

    Option 3: Those that can afford to do so are also looking to marry foreign women. Not every unattractive will be able to afford it financially, but it is an option that both attractive and unattractive people are taking.

  91. MarcusD says:

    Overall, CAF is extremely conservative and (IMO) offers narrow advice.
    -A Crypto-Feminist

    From: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=919805&page=19

  92. infowarrior1 says:

    @Gunner Q

    ”If ugly, marriage-minded women were wise, they could purchase cosmetic surgery instead of a college education.”

    http://www.inquisitr.com/1022313/man-sues-wife-for-ugly-children-wins-120000/

  93. MarcusD says:

    If your GF or BF wanted to save kissing for marriage…
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=920505

    How do I interact with a previous boyfriend?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=920529

    Married but still think about my ex, please help!
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=920535

    I have been married for three and a half years and I love my husband. Before I met him I was in a relationship of five years. That person was emotionally abusive and I suffered a lot from it, yet I loved him so much. After years of him cheating or being really mean, apologizing and going back to the same thing, he proposed to me and swore he had really changed. So I said yes, but it didn’t feel right. Deep down inside I knew I’d be in for the same thing. Maybe even worse. So I called it off. My husband came into my life and was just the total opposite. He’s caring and sweet and loves me so much. Yet, I think about my ex a lot and it’s been years. I feel haunted by his memory and the what ifs. I feel guilty for thinking about him and it makes me feel horrible. I don’t know what to do anymore. I don’t want to live like this. I don’t want to be back with my ex. I don’t even want to think about him. It tortures and depresses me.

  94. greyghost says:

    Feministhater
    That was awesome I’m proud of the man. Black women in the “hood” are like that and almost never get arrested. Black men are subject to arrest or being shot just for being alive and in public or in the presence of a police officer. The hood rats do as they please and at the end of the story “no arrest made” There are whole youtube channels devoted to showing video of the strong black woman. A whole web site world star hip hop is nothing but video of fights and arguments and hair weave. Take race based politics ,liberalism and feminism and you get 95% democratic vote for no logical reason and ridiculous violent unproductive behavior. A complete parasitic society. It is to the point to where it is common knowledge to assume blacks are lower IQ inferiors. My wife is a school teacher and she as shown that is not true. (I always new it wasn’t)
    That guy slapped the hell out of that bitch and he was being a nice guy about it until she hit him. I wouldn’t arrest him or charge him with anything. He was attacked verbally and physically twice. His arrest is how you emasculate men and how you make beta males unattractive. That is a nutshell is how you make a shit whole like Detroit and how you destroy a church and western civilization.

  95. Opus says:

    I suspect TFH is right. My friend runs a small software business, but swears he will never again employ a married man (never mind a woman). Why? because his married employee’s wife gave birth and thus the Government ordered the company to pay the new father a salary for six weeks while he underwent what can only be described as a mock or sympathetic confinement. If the wife needed help, where were her mother, mother-in-law or maiden aunts? Anthropologists have come across the same sort of thing, so it must be ingrained in humans.

    My friend’s company is just not large enough to justify paying for an employee to sit around at home in idleness.

    I think we may formulate an inverse rule: the more female employees a company has, and the less nurturing the organization (I thus exclude teaching children, nursing etc) the more inefficient the company becomes.

  96. hoellenhund2 says:

    Nothing can be done for the unattractive people in a free market, really. In economics, we throw people a bone out of humanitarianism, but there isn’t any equivalent sexually, and there really can’t be.

    Well, actually there can be: prostitution.

  97. hoellenhund2 says:

    A prudish woman (I’m not using that in a derogatory manner) who is pretty can still attract men. An unattractive woman who is a slut can also attract men. An unattractive prude has a tough row to hoe indeed, and living in a society where young women at the height of their SMV are encouraged to be sluts means she needs a miracle.

    No, she doesn’t. It’s not like her potential future husbands are getting sexed by young sluts women at the height of their SMV. She just needs to put herself in the company of young men that are her SMP equals and not averse to the idea of marriage. There are plenty of them around, despite tradcon women’s claims to the contrary.

  98. hoellenhund2 says:

    Feminism is alluring because it tells them men are bad for not being attracted to them (unfair, hurtful, superficial beauty standards)

    This BS has been fed to such women by their parents, friends, relatives and entire society everywhere, long before feminism as well.

  99. hoellenhund2 says:

    “Honestly in this day and age, the unattractive (plain women, short men, small penis men etc.) are probably left with either (1) finding it within themselves to match up with someone of the opposite sex who is also unattractive objectively (and we see enough of these couples, don’t we?) or (2) embrace their singleness as their destiny in an age of free market mating, and dedicate themselves to God.”

    I don’t think she wants this. She desperately wants to be married.

    And she can. There’s no contradiction there. Just saying, IBB.

  100. hoellenhund2 says:

    These people belong to God.

    Except that churches seem to have abandoned them as well.

  101. hoellenhund2 says:

    Once knew of a woman who had suffered some sort of terrible accident that seriously damaged her face, it looked as though some of her skin had melted and coagulated. She had a sweet voice, and so far as I can tell was trying very hard to be liked, but in the small college environment it was apparently impossible for her to attract any male interest.

    In other words, she had the same fate as roughly 25-35% of all men in any society in any era. Cry me a river.

  102. Casey says:

    @TFH
    TFH says:
    November 10, 2014 at 1:55 pm

    “Um…..it is already correcting. In the tech industry, more innovation is moving out of big companies and into small teams of men, since the big companies are the only place ‘feminists’ can extort from.”

    That’s great, for those industries that can split apart into smaller components and ditch the feminists in the process.

    Boutique firms of various disciplines aren’t numerous enough to tip the scale in men’s favour.
    But, it is a start.
    Perhaps men need to think long and hard of the vocation they settle on in life to avoid working in a toxic feminist environment.

    Some of the worst places to work are those that have the greatest representation of women (think government and near government agencies such as healthcare & teachers).

    I’ll tell you this much, you never see women slugging at a construction site in the depths of winter. They would rather earn their feminist merit badge spinning a road sign for a union crew in the middle of July. “No uncomfortable environment nor heavy lifting please!”

  103. thedeti says:

    “Married but still think about my ex, please help!”

    Alpha widowhood is real.

  104. Luke says:

    Everyone here is missing the direct issue why the woman in the video (I still don’t know her name) is saddened and grieves at MGTOW. To her full credit, she gives rightly complete blame to feminism. She sees all these men that would have made good husbands diverted from that path, when she needed one and never got one. That is ultimately what she sees as horrific about feminism ==> MGTOW. I don’t doubt her sincerity that she sees feminist actions as unmerited evil, but do doubt how much those would have come up on her radar had she not drawn the connection between them and her sad, unfulfilled life. (Were I single and had I met her earlier enough, I would have certainly certainly given her a closer look, and I’m a guy with an N>30 from my pre-Christian days.)

  105. Luke says:

    BradA says:
    November 10, 2014 at 1:33 am

    “There’s lots of angry rhetoric about how we need to raise the next generation of test-tube kids as single fathers, and replace regular women with sex robots. I find this nonsense pretty tedious. In many ways, the dudes who wallow around in this sort of angst are the male equivalent of radical feminists, and they clearly aren’t very happy or well-adjusted.

    I agree Boxer. This is a logical consequence of what has happened, but it is not all productive. I have argued many times that the idea a man can and should try to raise a child alone is idiotic in most cases. It may be necessary for the widowed, but doing it voluntarily is intentionally depriving a child of a parent which is just as bad as a woman doing the same.

    God made us for two parents, not one. Breaking that Divine plan brings bad consequences however we try to do it.”

    BradA, I have previously posted data that shows that in terms of worldly consequences (I won’t touch after-death consequences, where you may well be correct), it is NOT nearly as bad on the children for them to be raised just by a father, than for them to be raised by a single mother. I know you saw at least one of those posts, and have not to my knowledge even attempted to refute them. Why do you continue to espouse a position that is clearly erroneous?

    BTW, were I to do fatherhood all over again, with what I know now, I would seriously have considered egg donor + gestational surrogacy as an unmarried father as the best route to fatherhood I could find in this flawed society. (Marrying foreign I rejected as either nonWestern and “not mine”, or other European-origin as flawed as US women.)

    =========================================================
    http://poppawon.com/?p=60
    Effects of Fatherlessness (US Data)

    1) BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS/ RUNAWAYS/ HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS/ CHEMICAL ABUSERS/ SUICIDES

    * 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
    * 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
    * 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
    * 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God’s Children.)
    * 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)

    2) JUVENILE DELINQUENCY/ CRIME/ GANGS

    * 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)
    * 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
    * 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
    * California has the nation’s highest juvenile incarceration rate and the nation’s highest juvenile unemployment rate. Vincent Schiraldi, Executive Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, “What Hallinan’s Victory Means,” San Francisco Chronicle (12/28/95).

    These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:

    * 5 times more likely to commit suicide.
    * 32 times more likely to run away.
    * 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
    * 14 times more likely to commit rape
    * 9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
    * 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
    * 9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
    * 20 times more likely to end up in prison.

    * Juveniles have become the driving force behind the nation’s alarming increases in violent crime, with juvenile arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault growing sharply in the past decade as pistols and drugs became more available, and expected to continue at the same alarming rate during the next decade. “Justice Dept. Issues Scary Report on Juvenile Crime,” San Francisco Chronicle (9/8/95). “Crime Wave Forecast With Teenager Boom,” San Francisco Chronicle (2/15/95).
    * Criminal behavior experts and social scientists are finding intriguing evidence that the epidemic of youth violence and gangs is related to the breakdown of the two-parent family. “New Evidence That Quayle Was Right: Young Offenders Tell What Went Wrong at Home,” San Francisco Chronicle (12/9/94).

    3) TEENAGE PREGNANCY

    * “Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% are more likely to dissolve their own marriages”. “All of these intergenerational consequences from single motherhood increase the likelihood of chronic welfare dependency”. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Atlantic Monthly (April 1993).
    * Daughters of single parents are 2.1 times more likely to have children during their teenage years than are daughters from intact families. The Good Family Man, David Blankenhorn.
    * 71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.

    4) CHILD ABUSE

    * The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there were more than 1,000,000 documented child abuse cases in 1990. In 1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women with sole custody. Shared parenting can significantly reduce the stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in abusive situations by allowing both parents’ to monitor the children’s health and welfare and to protect them.

    5) POVERTY

    * “The National Fatherhood Institute reports that 18 million children live in single-parent homes. Nearly 75% of American children living in single-parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11. Only 20% in two-parent families will experience poverty.” Melinda Sacks, “Fatherhood in the 90’s: Kids of absent fathers more “at risk”,” San Jose Mercury News (10/29/95).
    * “The feminization of poverty is linked to the feminization of custody, as well as linked to lower earnings for women. Greater opportunity for education and jobs through shared parenting can help break the cycle.” David Levy, Ed., The Best Parent is Both Parents (1993).

  106. Lyn87 says:

    “Everyone here is missing the direct issue why the woman in the video… is saddened and grieves at MGTOW.”

    If by “everyone” you mean “no-one,” then you’re probably correct.

  107. Lyn87 says:

    Luke says,

    BradA, I have previously posted data that shows that in terms of worldly consequences (I won’t touch after-death consequences, where you may well be correct), it is NOT nearly as bad on the children for them to be raised just by a father, than for them to be raised by a single mother.

    Non sequitur, BradA didn’t say that single fatherhood is preferable to single motherhood (I assume we all know that), but that a two-parent household is superior to a father-only household.

    If you’re going to accuse him of ignoring your arguments against his position, you should probably argue against something he actually wrote.

  108. Luke says:

    Helping you out here, Lyn87, here are Brad’s words quoted from just 2 posts above your last post:

    ” I have argued many times that the idea a man can and should try to raise a child alone is idiotic in most cases. It may be necessary for the widowed, but doing it voluntarily is intentionally depriving a child of a parent which is just as bad as a woman doing the same.”

    Uh, NO. Going by the observable results over millions of children and decades of time, a single father raising children does a better job on average than does a single mother doing so. This makes a man intentionally setting up such a situation less of a bad thing than a woman doing the equivalent.

    Why are you and Brad struggling with this obvious fact?

  109. BradA says:

    Luke,

    it is NOT nearly as bad on the children for them to be raised just by a father, than for them to be raised by a single mother.

    Not nearly as bad does not mean the same as good. Your logic skips a few steps there.

    BTW, were I to do fatherhood all over again, with what I know now, I would seriously have considered egg donor + gestational surrogacy as an unmarried father as the best route to fatherhood I could find in this flawed society.

    So you are selfish. That approach is no less self seeking than a woman getting “her kids” however she can. Both are flawed and wrong.

    You at least have children now. I am one of the exceptions that is married after 26+ years, but I have no children. That sucks far more than you could imagine.

  110. Boxer says:

    Uh, NO. Going by the observable results over millions of children and decades of time, a single father raising children does a better job on average than does a single mother doing so. This makes a man intentionally setting up such a situation less of a bad thing than a woman doing the equivalent.

    That’s not what he said, for the umpteenth time. Can you not read?

    intentionally depriving a child of a parent which is just as bad as a woman doing the same

    “Just as bad”… do you know what that means? It’s a question of morality. You (and the other feminists here) are wrong, and they’re right.

    Boxer

  111. BradA says:

    Honeycomb,

    I really have to admit though I would like to cut my salary by half to avoid continued high taxes.

    I can agree with you on that. My wife and I are part of the rich that need to pay our “fair share” it seems, even though we are pushing to get everything taken care of. Another aspect of our corrupt society.

    Luke,

    Why are you and Brad struggling with this obvious fact?

    You are trying to move the goal posts. The comparison is to a 2 parent family. You just continue to show that you are selfish enough to not give a hoot about your children, but really only care about yourself.

    Raising children alone may be forced on some, but is not a good plan for the first choice, no matter how bad things are. Skipping children entirely is a more honest approach, but you are not willing to go with that. You still want your “child fix,” you just want it in your own way and one that ignores the need of those children for 2 parents.

    It is theoretical for you (it seems), but many will take that approach and it will end up being just as harmful to those children and society, over the long run, as the foolishness we have now. A good society is built on solid families with 2 parents. All other approaches fall short of the Manufacturer’s manual.

  112. Boxer says:

    BTW, were I to do fatherhood all over again, with what I know now, I would seriously have considered egg donor + gestational surrogacy as an unmarried father as the best route to fatherhood I could find in this flawed society. (Marrying foreign I rejected as either nonWestern and “not mine”, or other European-origin as flawed as US women.)

    Sure. You need a chick like a fish needs a bicycle… I am menz, hear me roar. Only problem is that society would be footing the bill for your kid.

    Being just another welfare parasite, like the fat babymamas I see waddling around at the bus depot, would not be a source of pride, dude. It also wouldn’t be a healthy environment for a kid to grow up in.

  113. Exfernal says:

    Tam the Bam: “And appears to have been beamed down directly from a Breughel Sr. painting, which is intriguing.”
    Personally, she reminds me of this Cranach’s the Younger handiwork.

    Regarding fuglies and face surgery; that’s like ‘kicking the can down’ to the next generation. Not the best idea if followed as often as getting a boob-job already is.

  114. Exfernal says:

    My blockquote disappeared. Strange…

  115. You just continue to show that you are selfish enough to not give a hoot about your children, but really only care about yourself.

    By law, the kids don’t belong to the man but the women. Seriously, that’s what you and Boxer are missing. Your solution could be blown up anytime if the women so chooses.

  116. First paragraph should have been in quotes…

  117. Boxer says:

    By law, the kids don’t belong to the man but the women. Seriously, that’s what you and Boxer are missing. Your solution could be blown up anytime if the women so chooses.

    I’m sure Brad will correct me if I’m wrong, but I see him talking about morality, and I see everyone rebutting him with legalistic mumbo-jumbo. Ideally, legality and morality would be more-or-less the same. In practice, as we all know, there are wide chasms between the two at many different points.

    When we say “it is bad” or “it is wrong” we do not mean “it is illegal”. Actions have moral consequences, even when the law looks the other way.

    It is immoral (extremely so, in my opinion) to plan to bring a child into this world without the stable foundation which two parents (and their extended families) provide. Is there any disagreement with this? If so, state an argument.

    Best, Boxer

  118. Exfernal says:

    Oh, it was the missing ‘k’ in [blocquote]. Apologies.

  119. Thomas says:

    I overheard a mid-20s woman say to another that she loves her dog more than any boyfriend she’s ever had. She said her dog gave her “unconditional love,” unlike any man she’d ever known. She sounded as if she thought “unconditional love” was her rightful due from a man.

    That is why, I think, so many women love pets. Apart from appealing to their nurturing instinct, a cat, or even a dog, makes no demands. A dog won’t complain if she wants to move to another city. A dog won’t complain if she wants to go out, or stay in. A dog has no expectations about her makeup or hairstyle or weight gain or clothes. A dog won’t judge her.

    A woman can do as she pleases, and the dog will happily keep loving her, so long as his bowl is filled every day. A dog offers love without expecting much of anything in return.

    To prefer an animal’s unconditional love to a human’s qualified love and respect (which have to be earned) reflects a certain immaturity.

  120. Spacetraveller says:

    Luke,
    Whilst I agree entirely that single fatherhood is indeed superior to single motherhood (if only marginally), I still cannot be persuaded that single fatherhood *by choice* is any better, morally speaking, than single fatherhood *by choice*. I think I would have to agree with Brad A (and by inference Boxer) that this falls far short of the Manufacturer’s manual, as it were. of course, what you also seem to be missing is that both of these men state that both single parent situations are inferior to the 2 (married) parent state (sorry to be rather direct on this point – but you really cannot argue against this point – can you??).

    I think someone recently mentioned that in some forward-thinking societies, eg. (paradoxically) some African countries, custody of the children are always given to the father instead of the mother, in the event of a (rare) split. I think it may have been Enrique??
    This is done (in my opinion) with the understanding that the father will be the better material provider, and indeed the more spiritual/educational guide for the child (assuming the child is over infant age) and also, being with the father legitimises the child, somewhat, as those societies are very patriarchal. Finally, (very important!) it is supposed that the 2-parent model will be kept up for the benefit of the child, because a divorced father is much more likle to remarry than a divorce mother (those same societies shun divorced mothers from the SMP), and so the child will certainly have a new mother in the main home even if he/she maintains close relations with the biological mother. So indeed giving the child to the father ensures that he/she gets the benefit of 2 parents instead of just one. It is not really because those societies believe that the father is the better parent, per se. Opportunities (on many levels) are simply higher, with the father.

    And then of course, there are all the usual arguments against robotic wombs and surrogacy due to the human aspects of it all (eg. a surrogate mother forming a bond with the child and not wanting to give it up) and the ‘ew’ factor from artificial insemination and all that it entails (that last bit is my own personal disgust coming out – feel free to discount it, by all means).

  121. Spacetraveller says:

    Typo alert:

    I still cannot be persuaded that single fatherhood *by choice* is any better, morally speaking, than single *mother*hood *by choice*.

  122. Spacetraveller,

    Typo alert:

    I still cannot be persuaded that single fatherhood *by choice* is any better, morally speaking, than single *mother*hood *by choice*.

    Here is where it is morally better.

    The father being a single parent *by choice* typically does so only when he has adequate financial resources and assets such that he can properly provide for the needs of these children that God has commanded of him to bring unto the earth, be fruitful and multiply. He must pay for a surrogate, “rent her womb” (for lack of a better term) for 9 months in preparation of caring for the child well into adulthood. The father expects no resources or provisioning from neither the mother nor government.

    The mother being a single parent *by choice* typically does so with the understanding that she need not have any resources or assets such that she can properly provide for the needs of her children. She need only have procreative sex with any willing (or unwilling, should she feel no moral indignation about lying to him about her own contraception) male and then (should pregnancy occur) contact a lawyer and the department of social services for the father’s provisioning (as well as provisioning from government.) Having children could be (for her) a way to access resources for her OWN living, not just that of the child.

  123. Luke says:

    Boxer says:
    November 11, 2014 at 9:38 am

    “Sure. You need a chick like a fish needs a bicycle… I am menz, hear me roar. Only problem is that society would be footing the bill for your kid.

    Being just another welfare parasite, like the fat babymamas I see waddling around at the bus depot, would not be a source of pride, dude. It also wouldn’t be a healthy environment for a kid to grow up in.”

    Actually, as I’m in the top 15% of Americans in per capita income (a STEM M.S. degree is kind of handy that way), welfare is unlikely to be in my future as long as I can work. Oh, and I can afford (with sacrifice) a FT English-speaking nanny during working hours, if it came to that.

    Re comparing 1) fathers with custody alone vs. 2) mothers with custody alone vs. 3) intact 2-parent families: never forget that most families that do get formed in the U.S. now will not remain such til the kids pass college graduation age. Those that get shattered will very predominantly be by the mother frivorcing and getting at the very least predominant custody, where the father instantly becomes more like an uncle the kids aren’t seeing every day and aren’t really that close to, Thus, the realistic choices for a man today considering becoming a parent are between #1 (means egg donor/surrogacy) and #2 (via divorce orphaning/original bastardy), with #3 a sadly longshot ideal. I have #3 with my two young children, to their unquestioned benefit, but understand full well how only one emotional storm separates my wife from heavily breathing on the thin, started-out-frayed thread suspending a razor-sharp legal Sword of Damocles point down over my head, as it is suspended over the head of every married father of minor children in America. For those reasons, were I to do it all again, I would definitely consider intentional single fatherhood with custody, confident I was doing the right thing.

  124. Luke says:

    IBB, Spacetraveler, thank you for your posts. Agreed with much of your thinking. However, you’re forgetting some things.

    1) Just going by voting records, to say nothing of the different life results from single fathers with custody vs. single mothers with custody (even when household income is held constant), men on average have morally superior value than do women, who seem to have to in most cases have morality imposed on them to live rightly.

    2) Surrogacy that involves insemination of sperm into the gestator (thus using her own ova) is called Traditional Surrogacy. This is fairly rare now, for good reason. Most surrogate-assisted reproduction is Gestational Surrogacy, where an embryo (in something like the 250-cell stage) that is NOT the gestator’s DNA is transferred in the GS’s uterus for 9 months. My wife and I had the latter done, and NEVER considered TS. My sperm was never inside our GS for a moment, but two babies were there for 36 weeks.

  125. Anonymous age 72 says:

    I do not normally say GTFO. I say GTHO. Same result; different words.

    easttexasfatboy says:
    November 10, 2014 at 7:07 pm

    >>The thing about moving to another country is that you have to get out of the American mindset. Learn how to speak the language, don’t expect them to speak English. I like Mexico and Guatemala. That said, you can’t really tell I’m American. I wear local clothes, speak fluent Spanish, and observe the cultural mores if you will. I like goat and beef tripe. Gringos by and large don’t. I don’t insist on a shower everyday. I carefully watch what the locals do, and that’s good enough for me.

    The best explanation of successful expatting I have read in a long time. I like goat, and ate lots of it, until I learned that much goat meat in the countrywhere I live is contaminated with insecticide. I don’t eat tripe (menudo) only because I am low carb. I do kiss a lot of babies which is really important in small villages.

    ###
    I denigrate IBB? Perhaps, though it was not intentional. it was a reflex response to a man/woman who pontificate. Pontificating is only for the Pope, and recently even the Pope isn’t doing a really good job at it.

    I need a script to keep up with all the strange postings, but IBB has said some pretty outrageous things over the years, directed in a negative way at others. The Queen bee is immune to its own sting?

  126. Hugh Mann says:

    @Thomas – “She said her dog gave her “unconditional love,” unlike any man she’d ever known.”

    In my limited experience, giving a woman your unconditional love merely makes her wonder “what’s wrong with him?”.

  127. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Note in IBB’s posting he calls me bozo several times. Need I say more?

  128. AnotherGuy says:

    To Boxer:
    “According to my data, cat owners were one third more likely to live alone than dog owners and twice as likely to live in an apartment or flat. Being married, living in a house, and having children living in the home, are all factors that are more likely for dog owners than cat owners. A single woman was the most likely individual to have a cat.

    Turning to the personality profile of the person who owns only cats, we find a reasonable overlap with Gosling’s recent findings. To begin with, we find that people who own only cats tend to be relatively introverted (low on extroversion) and also reasonably cool (low in warmth or agreeableness) which is the pattern confirmed by Gosling’s more recent data.
    Looking at the other two measures, we find that cat owners are relatively low in dominance. People who are high on dominance are generally described as being forceful, assertive, persistent, self assured, and self-confident. They are the people who stand out in social gatherings as opposed to people who are low in dominance that come across as being more timid, bashful, shy, and unaggressive. The final dimension that I looked at was trust, and cat owners appear to be fairly trusting. People high on this dimension are often described as obliging, modest, straightforward, and “good sports.” People low on this dimension can be more suspicious and manipulative.”
    – See more at: http://moderndogmagazine.com/articles/dog-people-vs-cat-people/10716#sthash.1DT9CJEt.dpuf

  129. JDG says:

    In my limited experience, giving a woman your unconditional love merely makes her wonder “what’s wrong with him?”.

    She will beg, nag, kick and scream to get a man to declare his undying “love” for her, then she will despise him for doing so.

    Part of the problem is that most don’t even know what love is. It seems to me that many women are really asking for complete devotion, undeserved pedestalizing, and unlimited servitude, when they say they want to be loved. They have no right to ask for any of these things. People (more often women) often confuse love for emotional attachment, which they try to qualify in ridiculous ways.

  130. Gunner Q says:

    “Re comparing 1) fathers with custody alone vs. 2) mothers with custody alone vs. 3) intact 2-parent families: never forget that most families that do get formed in the U.S. now will not remain such til the kids pass college graduation age.”

    You assume 3) will fail to justify 1). That means your children WILL have a broken home instead of MIGHT have a broken home.

    We Christians deal in absolute morality. Justifying one bad behavior by proving it isn’t as bad as a different behavior won’t fly. We also have the Garden of Eden story, which tells us that things didn’t get really bad until the man followed the woman’s bad example.

    I shudder to think of the future: kids bred in laboratories for the selfish benefit of adults, intentionally born with legally deniable parentage. This is not how one respects human life.

    IBB,
    “The father being a single parent *by choice* typically does so only when he has adequate financial resources…”

    Children need more than money, otherwise orphanages would be a great way to raise kids.

  131. Gunner,

    Children need more than money, otherwise orphanages would be a great way to raise kids.

    Children have NO parents in an orphanage. A single man may be turned away from adopting by every single state-run orphanage (from a government authority standpoint) because of those second set of books that Thomas Ball discussed in his manifesto (the second set of books that stipulate women are good, men are bad, enforce laws under those cardinal rules), but I still contend that any kids he would raise alone would do far better than those kids if government left them in the orphanage.

  132. Luke says:

    Gunner Q says:
    November 11, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    “Re comparing 1) fathers with custody alone vs. 2) mothers with custody alone vs. 3) intact 2-parent families: never forget that most families that do get formed in the U.S. now will not remain such til the kids pass college graduation age.”

    “You assume 3) will fail to justify 1). That means your children WILL have a broken home instead of MIGHT have a broken home.

    We Christians deal in absolute morality. Justifying one bad behavior by proving it isn’t as bad as a different behavior won’t fly.”

    Ahem:
    1) A “broken home” arguably is understood to means one with no father. Supporting this is how children not bearing their father’s surname is a clear mark of bastardy, rather than effective widowerhood (inflicted via feminism rather than uterine cancer, say).

    2) What Biblical commandment is a father who went egg donor/gestational surrogate necessarily violating? Sex outside marriage isn’t part of it, unless a TS is involved (which I do NOT recommend).

  133. Spacetraveller says:

    IBB and Luke,

    I see your points of view, and I do agree that single fathers do better than single mothers. But two quick points:
    1) If single fatherhood *by choice* is a reactionary move because of the general lack of respect of fatherhood, then this is lamentable, because a child is being made to ‘pay’ for his father’s anger at women. The feminists have done this, because of their anger at men, and look where we are now with single mothers.

    2) Also, single fathers are a very small minority (currently). And most of them are where they are now due to a crisis (death of the mother, divorce with mother proven to be unfit, etc), as is the case for widowed mothers.
    What will happen if and when the percentage of single fathers swells up because of the *by choice* brigade is yet to be seen. Perhaps the statistics will sudenly change and we will start to see disaffected children among this group, simply because the underlying reason behind Dad bringing them up on his own has changed…

    Gunner Q’s argument is rather strong – perhaps orphanages was not the right analogy to use, but he is right that children do need a lot more than just financial security.

  134. Luke says:

    Spacetraveller says:
    November 11, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    “1) If single fatherhood *by choice* is a reactionary move because of the general lack of respect of fatherhood, then this is lamentable, because a child is being made to ‘pay’ for his father’s anger at women. The feminists have done this, because of their anger at men, and look where we are now with single mothers.”

    Boy howdy, a few disagreements there.

    First, a man who goes ED/GS without involving a wife or female coparent is doing so not out of “anger” (makes it sound like all he has to do is “cool down” to give up that idea). Rather, he does it out of an assessment that he’ll more likely than not lose any children he has in marriage (to the detriment of those children). This leaves him effectively no longer a parent and his children now fatherless. But, he can cut the divorce industry’s Gordian Knot by giving no woman the right to steal his children having a father (and himself having children). As I have noted more than once on Dalrock’s good site, when children past weaning are between a mother and a father, the latter is proven on average much more important. (The prisons are disproportionately filled with effectively fatherless children, while father-custody kids relatively rarely end up there.)

    Second, a child in a deliberately, originally father-only is not “paying for his father’s anger against women”. Instead, the father is doing what he can to ensure his children HAVE a father all through maturation. Looking out for the best interests of children is what a parent is supposed to do, and a single-by-choice mother does not do (but a father does, at least til the last divorce court judge is strangled using the guts of the last divorce attorney specializing in women’s frivorces). I’ll throw a party on that day, and will happily admit that single-father ED/GS would be rarely a good idea then.

  135. greyghost says:

    A family is a father and his children The woman is a helper. The same technology that allowed female rebellion is the same technology that will allow a man to ignore her rebellion. Following Gods commands should never ever depend on the cooperation of some bitch. If you want to have a child and don’t need her then don’t get her. What makes anyone so sure a mother and father is so great in this environment. It isn’t like the father is actually running the household. (by law) MGTOW family men just the idea of them will do much to change society for the better. MGTOW/family men will be productive. the blue pill lack of hope and drive young men have today (grass eaters and peter pans) in naturally occurring and is dangerous. The red pill MGTOW handling his business and being fruitful and multiplying is good to go. Once a man has his children and then chooses to marry that is a win win win for all include the Christians that frown on the use of surrogates for single men. I don’t and fully encourage all men to be productive and nest just as they would to prepare for marriage but rather than piss it away on some cunt have children of your own to love and care for. American society will thank you for it. Being a swell guy and marrying in todays world is selfish and stupid and with a 50/50 chance your kids will grow up in the cunt you married to be seen as a good guys house with the much higher risk for all social problems for your children.
    She is not necessary and every day she proves it.

  136. greyghost says:

    Luke you have it right. TFH had it right when fathers have custody of the children families and marriages become real stable. Why not just make it happen.

  137. Boxer says:

    Dear Luke:

    Actually, as I’m in the top 15% of Americans in per capita income (a STEM M.S. degree is kind of handy that way), welfare is unlikely to be in my future as long as I can work. Oh, and I can afford (with sacrifice) a FT English-speaking nanny during working hours, if it came to that.

    The 85th percentile in the individual income dataset is, in the USA, around 65000/y. Household income isn’t even breaking 100k. (census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf) That’s hardly wealthy. (As a STEM degree holder, I find your phony boasting to be sorta funny — are you claiming that a mathematics degree can make you a rich man? I and all my friends are living proof of the foolishness of this idea)

    Even if you were wealthy, which you are not, you’d still be hiring people to do the traditional mothering that your bastard requires.

    You claim to work every day, which means that an even larger contingent of better, healthier, more fit people will be tasked with raising your bastard kid. No doubt your modest finances will require the services of those from the “undocumented immigrant” category. In short, you’ve just admitted to being what I described you as: An irresponsible welfare parasite, who wants to “have it all” at the expense of better men than yourself, and who doesn’t give a shit even about his own biological offspring.

    Actual wealthy people (the white-trash rich, as I call them) who want to breed some fatherless or motherless bastards are still profoundly immoral people. Example:

    http://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2013/12/25/thieves-and-liars/

    While I have sympathy for people who lose a spouse through war or disease or accident, I have none for people like you. No matter how much money one earns, breeding a kid without a fit wife or husband is not an acceptable moral choice, and never will be.

    Best, Boxer

  138. Boxer says:

    Luke you have it right. TFH had it right when fathers have custody of the children families and marriages become real stable. Why not just make it happen.

    Why would you encourage this, when it will lower the standard of living for your own children?

    The fact is that Luke is a working class guy with a math degree (lol). At his self-declared salary, if he has bastards as a single parent, he’ll qualify for food stamps. His kids will get the free school lunches, and a host of other freebies that you and I will have to pay for. His bastards will be largely unsupervised, meaning that they’re much more likely to join a drug gang or skinhead gang, get sent to jail, or otherwise become a nuisance that the rest of us will be expected to pay for.

    Luke needs to quit fantasizing about “having it all” feminist style, and get back to reality. If he doesn’t want to get married, he should just live a nice life (like I have) and help out with some of the bastards that already exist in his community. I know there’s not a shortage of them if a bro wants to be a “do-gooder” and pretend to be a father.

  139. greyghost says:

    A child is a bastard when he doesn’t have a father. And money isn’t everything having a father is.

  140. Boxer says:

    A child is a bastard when he doesn’t have a father.

    All kids have a father, someplace. A child is a bastard when his parents aren’t married (or have never been married, if you want to allow for divorce, which is questionable to me).

    And money isn’t everything having a father is.

    I think having both a father and a mother, and both of the extended families that come with those two parents, is the minimum amount of insurance that a responsible person would give his own biological kid. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, though.

    Boxer

  141. greyghost says:

    There is no such thing as both extended families by law. I guess if she will allow it.
    Just because a man has his children to never be taken from him, doesn’t mean he will have to remain unmarried. One thing is for damn sure, those kids will never be without a father.

  142. enrique432 says:

    Only because I don’t know where to post un-related, yet such material, but goodness, the RedPill awareness is growing STRONG in the US Culture, every time I turn around and see some “women as victim” story, unlike even FIVE years ago, men are popping out of the woodwork to deliver a fresh batch of scored Red pills:

    http://news.yahoo.com/video/4-arrested-wild-nyc-subway-183710655.html

    Read the comments…by the way, the chick HIT the guy, didn’t just harass him.

    [D: Vox Day did a post on that video over at Alpha Game.]

  143. BrainyOne says:

    …the RedPill awareness is growing STRONG in the US Culture…

    Yes it is, which is why I do not share the “doom and gloom” outlook of many posters here.

  144. MarcusD says:

    @deti

    Alpha widowhood is real.

  145. BradA says:

    I agree with what I saw here from Boxer and others. I may reply later, but I didn’t have enough time to dig into things tonight as I had hoped.

    I still would argue that anyone that wants to deprive a child of either parent is morally wrong. Do as you wish, but don’t be surprised when your version of utopia leaves lots of holes and societal problems in it wake.

  146. MarcusD says:

    [okay, comment disappeared there…]

    @deti

    Alpha widowhood is real.

    Yes, it certainly appears to be the case. I wish people on CAF had a closer relationship with reality such that they could recognize why such things happen.

    I think it was heartiste who posted this somewhere on his website: https://www.reddit.com/r/breakfeminazis/comments/1lx53z/im_a_feminist_woman_and_i_think_this_subreddit_is/ (likely NSFW)

    It’s in keeping with a lot of research on the topic.

  147. BradA says:

    I would also have to question the claim that “most” of the marriages will not last until children are of college age. I say it that way since some will not go until college. I suppose that would be true of the children I raised to, even though my wife and I stayed married long past that, since they went back to their birth family where the parents divorced after the children were removed from both of them.

    That said, I think far more stay together than you realize. It isn’t perfect for any and some cases are rough, but long term marriage does still happen. Women are not as powerful as some of you claim, even if they do almost completely have the courts and society on their side. They still can’t be a mother and father, no matter how much support they squeeze out from the ex-husband or the government.

  148. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Is it possible that women have gone a bridge to far and men are not going to put up with it any more? I doubt it. I hope….but I doubt it. The girls in one of my classes were outraged- OUTRAGED I say- at Ray Rice knocking out his woman with, what looked like to me, an open hand in the face of a violent attack but the boys in class warmed up to his defense.

    These women have literally created a culture where men can be physically assaulted and have blood running down their face while the woman is hysterical and screaming (with no injuries whatsoever) calls the police….they will come and wipe the blood off the man’s face while they handcuff him and take him to jail.

  149. Luke says:

    Boxer says:
    November 11, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    “The fact is that Luke is a working class guy with a math degree (lol)”

    Actually, I have B.S. and M.S. degrees in Geology and work in the petroleum industry, traveling to 5 different continents for different projects. I was a pre-med for 3 years before changing majors, so have a full Biology minor as well, with Chemistry through the end of Organic (why I was able to work in Biotech for years when the oil industry was in the toilet, to the point of 2 publications as well as environmental lab employment for years). My math only goes through 2nd term Calculus. I have some IT background as well (both academic and held jobs doing).

    My parents and one sibling have 4 graduate degrees between them. My father nearly became a general in the U.S. military (an untimely accident prevented that). My grandfather was a senior engineer on the Manhattan Project (one of many, to be sure).

    While I have worked a variety of humbler jobs at times such as fast food, security guard, etc. (largely in the very distant past before finishing graduate school), I am hardly “working class”.

  150. hoellenhund2 says:

    …the RedPill awareness is growing STRONG in the US Culture…

    Yes it is, which is why I do not share the “doom and gloom” outlook of many posters here.

    Well, let’s state the obvious. Average people have, by definition, average intelligence, which means they only have limited awareness of the changes of their environment. They are just dumb, rather slow to notice trends, one reason being that they just mostly don’t care to begin with. The reason red pill awareness is growing strong is that feminism has entrenched itself to such a degree and is so brazen about its own true nature and goals that even average people are now taking notice. This, of course, is also a sign that it’s too late to do anything about feminism. To give you a parallel, it was probably the case in the USSR that it took a couple of years for average proles to realize that the regime’s ideology is complete nonsense, but by that time it was already too late – the regime was firmly in power.

    Think back to the times before the crisis that began in 2008. Was red pill awareness going strong? Of course not, because average people took it for granted that the economy will just keep booming, everything’s pretty much fine, and men will keep doing what they have always been doing i.e. working like oxes, getting married, asking women out etc. That’s why they didn’t care about feminism, the red pill, men’s rights etc. Now an increasing number of them do care. But it’s too late.

  151. Luke says:

    Boxer says:
    November 11, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    “Luke needs to quit fantasizing about “having it all” feminist style, and get back to reality. If he doesn’t want to get married, he should just live a nice life (like I have) and help out with some of the bastards that already exist in his community.”

    1) As I have said many times, I AM currently married (2nd marriage; was divorced before becoming Christian, and ex-wife has been with other men since, but not remarried). My wife is a SAHM in my house for our two children who see almost no TV and will be homeschooled.

    2) If you think that a man wanting his children to grow up in his home (where he can see to their being properly reared) is “having it all”, your sights are pretty low (e.g., working class or less).

    3) Why the F would I waste my efforts and resources on the already-damaged beyond repair who aren’t even my blood? I’m not going to choose evolutionary oblivion by being a voluntary victim of brood parasites (like cuckoos, magpies, and whydahs, look up what they do) to make you feel better about your own life. Nah. My line is not going to die if I can help it.

  152. Luke says:

    Boxer says:
    November 11, 2014 at 6:18 pm

    Dear Luke:

    “The 85th percentile in the individual income dataset is, in the USA, around 65000/y

    You’re not that hot at math OR logic, Boxer. I gave a floor but not a ceiling to my income, which is substantially higher than 65K. (I’ve earned multiples of that on an annual basis, if you must know.) Our HOUSEHOLD income is in the top 15%, but not AT the 85th percentile, but a higher level .

    Agreed that a math degree is not the best college major choice economically. Petroleum Engineering is (last I heard) the most renumerative degree, with Electrical and Chemical Engineering degrees following. Aaron Clarey’s book “Worthless” on college major choice is however accurate IMO in that generally only a degree requiring substantial math will pay off. This thus excludes all majors in navel-gazing, worm-watching,unearned self-esteem, or “how somebody was UNFARE!!! to my great-great-grandparents or 18th cousin so I’m owed an UMC income the rest of my life without producing anything”.

    What do you call it when a young woman graduates with a B.A. in Sociology, Communications, Psychology, Fashion Design, Literature, Early Childhood Education, etc.? She graduated summa cum latte, where all she is fit for is going back to her last job helping out at the counter at a Starbucks — only 4 years older with >$60K in debt (interest approximating her take-home pay) to increase her marriageability.

  153. Opus says:

    Not everyone enjoys arithmetic, let alone al-gebra, or trigonometry. Gives me a headache.

  154. Luke says:

    BradA says:
    November 12, 2014 at 12:17 am

    “I still would argue that anyone that wants to deprive a child of either parent is morally wrong.”

    Good thing I don’t WANT men to have children without a mother. What I consider probably a workable, morally plausible safe route for men called to fatherhood is merely a workaround. As soon as the feminist-run divorce courts in this country are figuratively burned to the ground, then men here can safely marry and have children in heterosexual, Biblical marriage again, which IS the ideal to anyone not brain-damaged by feminism or homosexuality.

  155. Luke says:

    Opus says:
    November 12, 2014 at 5:35 am

    “Not everyone enjoys arithmetic, let alone al-gebra, [sic] or trigonometry. Gives me a headache.”

    Well, Opus, not everyone belongs in college. I read a while back that the traditional demarcation as a lower limit is a 115 IQ. Yeah, that would knock over 80% of the currently-enrolled out of college, to the financial detriment of no one but those inappropriately benefiting from the operations of those schools. (If just about the only thing that one can do with a degree in a field is to teach classes in it, it’s almost certainly a cr*p made-up field.)

  156. Luke says:

    Opus, you deserve a better response from me than that. I don’t “enjoy” it exactly when I change a diaper on one of my children and it’s a “poopy” one. However, it’s an appropriate means to a good end, so I do it anyway. Same with my wife washing dirty pans after cooking a healthy meal for our children when I’m out of town working (and can’t help her that night); you see how that works.

  157. Opus says:

    @Luke

    Actually I am quite good at mental arithmetic – which is more than can be said for most Bank tellers, but having given up Math(s) at sixteen and opted for Arts (in those days one had to go either Arts or Science) my grasp of Math is both shaky and without confidence. Once upon a time one could read Eng Lit at University without it being suggested one was taking a soft option. In those days of course most people never even made it to sixteen, as the minimum school leaving age was then fifteen, indeed aged fourteen my father took me aside and said that as I would soon be leaving school, what did I propose by way of making a living predicting that if I did well I might by the age of sixty make it to Junior Manager, and I wasn’t even at a Secondary Mod (the fate of over seventy five per cent of children – Tam the Bam can explain the British references). How times have changed, in England, but America was always more advanced. I attended a seminar at G.W.U. and looking that Uni up on Wiki the other day I came across a photo of their 1915 woman’s basketball team. I predict that ere long Uni will be compulsory as school now is to the age of eighteen.

    For some reason that I have never been able to understand people are in admiration of those who have mastered The Law and it is not (as teachers confidently say) that the study of History is of any use to the wanna-be lawyer.

  158. earl says:

    “Married but still think about my ex, please help!”

    Alpha widowhood is real.

    I’d call it something else other than alpha widowhood. I’d call it the serpent. Always telling her there is something better or she’s missing out on…even while she is in paradise.

  159. Opus says:

    Warming to my theme, I recall that De Tocqueville – for some strange reason – was of the opinion that America was largely devoid of educational establishments. In England, if my memory serves correctly, the first minimum school leaving age was introduced in 1871, and that age was ten – home schooling is, I believe, illegal here. For this blog, it is worth recalling that education is expensive; that in past times (for obvious reasons) such little education as was available went largely to men. A large educated elite would have been both pointless and financially irresponsible, yet women were educated; my mother’s school – girl’s only of course – was founded in 1726. Women – some were always educated – Anne Boleyn certainly was (which was her real undoing) and her daughter spoke in addition to English, Latin French Italian and Spanish.

  160. Dave says:

    “Married but still think about my ex, please help!”

    Alpha widowhood is real.

    Sex is the only activity we do with someone else that involves our body, soul and spirit. It is like being joined to the Lord, and becoming one spirit with Him. Through sex, we not only exchange body fluids; we exchange a part of our very souls. We give a bit of ourselves and pick up a bit of theirs. Short of divine intervention, it is often impossible to totally extricate ourselves from a sexual partner, even if we never see them again, particularly if the sexual experience is accompanied by deep hurt or high levels of ecstasy. Short of divine release, a person violently raped will be damaged for life. Same goes with Alpha widows: she has been taken to the height of sexual experience that may be impossible to replicate by other men. No wonder marriage is supposed to be for life, and adultery used to be punished with death. But it is not only Alpha widows that are in trouble. The Alpha widowers are as much damaged, since a part of their souls will forever be with the women they considered most receptive to their powers.

    The wise man understood this well:
    But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
    Proverbs 6:32

  161. BradA says:

    You are very self-centered Luke, certainly not a proper trait for a Godly man. Though that may not be your target. You could not do all that travel and still raise children. They would bond with the nanny or whoever was watching them while you were working you well paying jobs.

    You would still need a woman, you just foolishly think you could use and discard women along the way with no impact on your children.

    The unfortunate thing is the current idiocy is likely to lead to that idiocy and we will go through more of a mess as a society because of it.

    You can claim all you want that you do not advocate single fatherhood, but that is exactly what you did above. You really should own up to what you are pushing. You know what happens to people who straddle the fence too long don’t you?

  162. Boxer says:

    You’re not that hot at math OR logic, Boxer. I gave a floor but not a ceiling to my income, which is substantially higher than 65K. (I’ve earned multiples of that on an annual basis, if you must know.) Our HOUSEHOLD income is in the top 15%, but not AT the 85th percentile, but a higher level .

    First it’s a claim that I can’t do math, and then it’s an acknowledgement that I cut and pasted the right numbers, but that you were being dishonest when you boasted about your self-reported income.

    Doesn’t matter much, anyway. You could be Bill Gates’ benefactor. If you have a beep-boop test-tube bastard raised by a team of nannies, you’d still be an immoral asshole. you realize this, yes?

    Aaron Clarey’s book “Worthless” on college major choice is however accurate IMO in that generally only a degree requiring substantial math will pay off

    Aaron Clarey’s “books” are so riddled with spelling and grammar errors that they’re almost unreadable. His youtube broadcasts are filmed in what looks like a double-wide trailer. The content of his books is largely plagiarized from Karl Marx (props to him for making Marxist stuff entertaining, though, he succeeds on that front). As a man who claims to be so wildly successful, why would you take financial advice from him?

    Best, Boxer

  163. Boxer says:

    Dear Grey Ghost:

    There is no such thing as both extended families by law.

    This isn’t really about the law. It’s about right and wrong. Parents have a positive duty (to paraphrase Kant) to provide a minimum level of subsistence for a kid. Part of that is two parents.

    Forget the law anyway. The laws these days are being written by a small group of decadent homos and people who have never worked, in Washington DC. These people have no idea how you live or what’s best for you. Steer clear of the cops and lawyers, and do what’s right regardless of what the law might say.

    Best, Boxer

  164. Spacetraveller says:

    Luke,

    OK. We will have to agree to disagree. Most of what I say is driven by my Catholicism so in many ways although you make fair points, my stance will remain non-negotiable, as I am not really arguing with ‘logic’ as you are, but with heartfelt beliefs that (I hope) are unshakeable.

    My disgust remains whether it is your sperm deposited in the surrogate mother, or a fertilized egg implanted into her. In many ways, the latter is *worse* because even more steps in the reproduction process are taken away from ‘Nature’ in the latter than in the former.

    Either way, ‘non buono’ as a third party has been grafted in to ‘help’ in the begetting of your children, so it is not just you and your wife, but you and a third party. However, of course, each to his own…

    Curious about something…
    I trust that your children have birth certificates…Is there a mother listed on these certificates? If so, how can you be so sure that in the event of a break-up (I sincerely hope this never happens, of course) that your wife (assuming she is listed as ‘mother’ on the certificates) will still not win custody of the girls?
    The reason I ask is, even when the family courts know that a man is not the biological father of a child in marriage, i.e. that that he was cuckolded/deceived by the wife (and I speak from bitter experience here – this happened to one of my uncles) he is still required to pay for that child, simply because he is married to the mother, and therefore he is automatically the ‘father’ of the child…I don’t agree with this law, of course, but can see why it exists to protect the children of an unfaithful wife…

    Why won’t the reverse case of this law affect you?
    Can you be absolutely sure you will keep your girls even if they are not genetically your wife’s?

  165. Anonymous age 72 says:

    In the FRA back in the early or middle 80’s, we did find studies which show that single father families much outperform single mother families.

    We spent a lot of time studying this to find out why it would be so.

    We concluded that the emotional function of a mother is to supply unconditional love to them when they are small. That is, Mommy still loves them even if they screw up. This is best seen when they are going to fry some vicious mass murder rapist thug. His mommy is crying outside the execution chamber, insisting they don’t understand her baby. Even as a vicious murderer Mommy still loves him.

    Fathers provide conditional love. If the kid screws up, daddy lowers the boom! If the kid does good, daddy loves him.

    This conditional love is what kids need to learn to live within the rules of society. So, kids raised by their mommies learn it doesn’t matter if they follow the rules or not. They still get loved by mommy.

  166. Gunner Q says:

    Luke @ November 11, 2014 at 4:40 pm:
    “2) What Biblical commandment is a father who went egg donor/gestational surrogate necessarily violating?”

    Honor your Father and Mother comes to mind. Hard to do that when Father did not allow Mother to exist.

    The Biblical principle you’re looking for is in early Genesis, where God made humans in God’s image. We are a special creation, not cattle, and must not be treated like cattle. Don’t grow your children in a laboratory vat.

    Before you dismiss this principle, note that it’s also where we Christians find our respect for human life in general. Take away our “God’s Image” principle and we might as well re-enact the Spanish Inquisition on you.

  167. Spacetraveller,

    My disgust remains whether it is your sperm deposited in the surrogate mother, or a fertilized egg implanted into her. In many ways, the latter is *worse* because even more steps in the reproduction process are taken away from ‘Nature’ in the latter than in the former.

    Either way, ‘non buono’ as a third party has been grafted in to ‘help’ in the begetting of your children, so it is not just you and your wife, but you and a third party. However, of course, each to his own…

    Without taking any side on this matter with Luke (I have no real dog in this fight), let me just comment that right or wrong, I think our society will increasingly see this surrogate mother practice continue and it will grow. It is simply a matter of biology, culture, and economics in our increasingly secular society.

    As men and women get older and older before they first marry (if there is to be any marriage at all, as that institution seems to be going away for a significant percentage of Western society) couples will increasingly choose to rent a womb. There is the MOTIVE. Young women, welcome to the free market.

    I don’t have a crystal ball Spacetraveller, but I could very easily see young women (age 18 to 21) renting out their wombs for nine months in exchange for (say) a year or two of paid education at whatever univerisity they are attending. Think about it, with all this angst about women and their student loan debt (now over a trillion dollars) and men opting not to marry them because of it, a young woman might find it hard to resist renting out her gestational organs to a married couple who (say) are both in their 40s and childless. They want children but it is very difficult and dangerous for a 45 year old woman to carry. So, go see the OBGYN, harvest her egg, he masturbates and the OBGYN implant his semen in her egg, and then plant that fertilized egg inside the young girl’s womb to attach. In exchange, the professional couple playing God pays for two years of her schooling. Now they have a family at no personal health risk to the mother.

    Seems like people are cheating Gog and breaking His rules, but we have long since abandoned God for our own secular desires. So this WILL be happening, whether you or I like it or not.

  168. Tam the Bam says:

    Opus, as an out and proud thicko, I’m disgustingly good at mental arithmetic.
    Year after year chanting those blasted times tables and the like in serried ranks, each child’s eyes fixed on the elaborately-wrought Lochgelly (a leather strap, specifically crafted to flog and sometimes injure anyone between the ages of about six and sixteen, as an humane measure to prevent the ad hoc employment of those instruments designed for use on larger animals).

    But eventually I had to do daily battle in Real Life with both the Queen’s Own Royal duodecimal systems of mensuration, coinage, and most vitally, liquid capacity (a leisure activity), and the hellforged abomination of Boney’s accursed metric system, forced on us by I think Wislon & The Kalagon and then Traitor Heath via Brussels. I can frighten children with the arcane art of converting and calculating on-the-fly in both, with aid of neither slate nor tally-stick.
    Although I have to cheat when faced with anything more laboured than basic trig. by resorting to the roofing square, or draughting it out French-style with dividers.

    Wizz for Computers! I loves me a bit of CAD. It’s still sheer magic to me. And spreadsheets, with formulae! I nearly wet myself with happiness when I got ‘Rocket’ for the Amstrad when it finally came out. No more VAT-return hell, and beam calcs. a doddle.

    Oh sorry. What was that about women that you chaps were going on about again?
    If I’d won the Euromillions, I’d also be careful to cast a wide net, and bracket myself income-wise with those on the breadline. And continue to wear rags. Sound policy, in a welfare state gone zombie.

  169. Exfernal says:

    IBB, the DNA in 45 years old eggs is riddled with mutations and chromosomal aberrations. That means high probability of miscarriage and, to lesser degree, genetic defects of varying caliber.

  170. I don’t dispute any of that Exfernal. That doesn’t mean she isn’t going to do it.

  171. Tam the Bam says:

    “45 years old eggs is riddled with mutations and chromosomal aberrations”
    Wahay! Fast-track “evolution”! The stuff of dreams, for some folks.
    OK, so they may well have to break a shedload of eggs to see The Future®, but who’s counting … ? The abortion mills will appreciate the pickup in trade, it’s all for the best, in this best of all possible (if “perfected” korrektly, by the “right” people) worlds, eh?

  172. Exfernal says:

    Would a surrogate mother be still compensated for a miscarriage?

  173. Would a surrogate mother be still compensated for a miscarriage?

    That depends on the contract she signs with the parents (or man’s secular law regarding the “rent” of her womb.) Either way, I don’t think you or I are going to like where this path leads us.

  174. Exfernal says:

    Tam, at some point in ‘The Future®’ there will be ‘designer babies’, if a civilizational collapse won’t happen first. Any comments?

  175. Exfernal says:

    Here are some references, for anyone curious.

  176. Spacetraveller says:

    IBB,
    Indeed, the future is bright, ain’t it, lol.
    I have a suspicion that yes, it is surely going to happen, what you describe in such vivid, glorious technicolor. I just hope I won’t live to see too much of it.
    I am getting sick of the thought of it already, and it is not even happening in huge numbers yet.

  177. Larry J says:

    BradA says:
    November 12, 2014 at 12:20 am
    I would also have to question the claim that “most” of the marriages will not last until children are of college age.

    I think a more accurate way to state it is that by the time most (>50%) of children are of college age, they’ll be in a single parent or divided custody family. First, 30+ percent of all children born today in America are born outside of marriage. Of the 60-70% born in families with married parents, a significant percentage of their parents will divorce by the time the kids are of college age. Add those two sets together and you’re probably at the 60+% level of all American kids.

  178. IBB,
    Indeed, the future is bright, ain’t it, lol.
    I have a suspicion that yes, it is surely going to happen, what you describe in such vivid, glorious technicolor.

    We might already be there. As you know, the desire women have for wanting children is almost irresistable. As a woman, you can put it off, and off, and off, for a very long length of time. But eventually (if you haven’t had them) your mid to late 40s hits you like a wall and realize that you simply MUST have them (at any price.) Take a second mortgage on the Long Island vacation house and hire the 19 year old college dropout neighbor girl across the street to host your egg for you.

  179. Tam the Bam says:

    “there will be ‘designer babies’,”
    Mine are entirely shop-made naturally, from whatever was lying to hand at the time.
    Turned out okay, but not like I had supposed. The Designer’s template, I’m told by those who care for such notions. Disapprove of amateurs and bodgers reinventing the wheel, or anything else for that matter. The “people” thing was sorted out ages ago.
    Just do new stuff. Like tiny Difference Engines driven by electrickery, and … Outer Space! ♥ ♥ ♥

    Oooh, reminds me, the Fridge landed on the Rubber Duck a couple of hours ago, must beetle off for a butcher’s, and a Bordeaux glass of dodgy Auchan red to toast The Europe actually doing something useful, like CERN, not just obsessively harrassing the villeins night and day. I approve of our tithes being thus spunked up the wall, for once.

  180. Opus says:

    @Tam the Bam

    You realise it is a hoax. We only have Europe’s word for that and look how they cooked the immigration figures. On a comet. I ask you. Those people couldn’t shoot hoops even if you positioned them ready for a dunk. Did anyone phone back from the comet to say ‘It’s arrived?’ Of course not.

  181. enrique432 says:

    Marcus:
    Although I am not Catholic, or even Christian, I just had to look at what you linked to. Goodness.

    “Being a leader to your wife and family means being a SERVANT. That was the approach that Jesus took. He was a Servant to the point of giving His life for His Bride. Start by just being there (something that seems so basic, but a lot of husbands miss it and end up being gone all the time for reasons other than work obligations). And when you are there, deal with whatever comes up in the moment without being asked (e.g., dishes need washing and wife and children are busy doing another family project, so you do them). Don’t be obsessive-compulsive about this. Just be there and do the work of the day, whatever it is, without being asked and without being crabby about it, and don’t expect any thanks (although hopefully your wife and children will say thank you). ”

    There’s just so much there to work with. “See, being a leader means, you are actually below me…Just like at work, your boss is actually working for YOU! Right? Don’t you tell her that? That she actually is serving YOU as your boss…” “See, work 10 hours, then come home and clean the dishes, while your I, your wife, is doing some other “project” (I can’t STOP my wife from going around the house looking for projects to do….for ME to do). Btw, DON’T have an attitude…ever. And don’t expect sex. Jerk.

    And if you lick the boots properly, you MAY (but don’t expect it), get a “thank you” from your wife and children, who, as I note, are the family unit here….WE are the judges of your doormat-sufficiency.

  182. pavetack says:

    Off-topic, but I found this interesting: http://www.vdare.com/articles/happy-white-married-people-vote-republican-so-why-doesnt-the-gop-work-on-making-white-peopl

    The war on Marriage is beginning to look like an effective tactic for Democrats, not just a Republican conspiracy theory.

    It’s widely assumed in the press that victory in the Electoral College is determined by the Gender Gap or by the Rising Tide of Hispanic Voters or whatever. But in fact the relationship between these demographic factors and whether a state votes Republican or Democratic in the four Presidential elections of this century has been relatively weak.

    Despite the increasing importance of nonwhite voters, what still determines Presidential elections is a fundamental divide among whites over the very basics of life. Thus, an extremely obscure statistic measuring marriage among younger white women that I debuted here on VDARE.com in December 2004 correlates sensationally with Electoral Votes.

    This metric: average years married among white women ages 18 to 44 on the 2000 Census (what I’ll call “Years Married” for short).

    “Years Married” had its best won-loss record yet in 2012. Mitt Romney carried 23 of the 24 highest-ranked states. Barack Obama won 25 of the 26 lowest-ranked states.

  183. Ras Al Ghul says:

    AA72:

    “We concluded that the emotional function of a mother is to supply unconditional love to them when they are small. That is, Mommy still loves them even if they screw up. This is best seen when they are going to fry some vicious mass murder rapist thug. His mommy is crying outside the execution chamber, insisting they don’t understand her baby. Even as a vicious murderer Mommy still loves him.”

    This would be the logical result of the biological eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. The number of children a woman can have is limited, so she is much more invested in them. A father, even with only a few children, on biological wiring level can replace them.

  184. pavetrack,

    Its real simple, one of two things: either the GOP does not know what to do to coax men to go down on bended knee and thus create more happily married women which ensures their elections OR the GOP knows what needs to be done to get men to marry (ie: change divorce laws) but they aren’t willing to try to make those legislative changes because to do so would jeapordize their re-elections as they would alienate women who count on those laws remaining intact.

    This is a which came first, the chicken or the egg kind of thing. Are women (aged 18-44) who have been married for 15+ years or more happily married (and thus vote GOP) because marriage in and of itself makes them happy OR do they vote GOP largely because this version of marriage (marriage 2.0 which prostrates their husbands to their will/headship by Sword of Damocles) is the ONLY version they want, and when they get it, only that makes them happy and thus they vote GOP?

  185. Ras Al Ghul says:

    IBB:

    “Are women (aged 18-44) who have been married for 15+ years or more happily married [voting GOP] . . .”

    There is a simpler way of looking at things that explains women’s behavior.

    Women vote in the way that they perceive benefits themselves the most. That’s it.

    For single women that’s government largess = democrats.

    For married women that’s smaller government/less taxes because her wellbeing is tied to her husband’s financial situation. More largess from the government means less for her = vote republican.

    Its as simple and practical as that. If the republican voting women thought it was in their interest to vote democrat they would and vice versa.

    Just as in love, so to is it in politics. Men are far more likely to vote based on idealistic ideas (see all men voting democrat that aren’t on the dole) or moral principles (see most men that vote republican) instead of looking at the real results of each party and their personal impact on their lives.

  186. Gunner Q says:

    “Take away our “God’s Image” principle and we might as well re-enact the Spanish Inquisition on you.”

    A little backpedaling here, I didn’t intend this as any kind of threat. My point was to illustrate how not holding human life sacred in one context can backfire into a different context.

    Still working on how I portray myself online. My IRL sense of humor might need some work, too.

  187. greyghost says:

    I will say Boxer it is a tough question for a man. Right before our very eyes we see men make the “moral” choice and see the disaater that it is. I think it was luke that posted up the stats. Most of the men here made the moral choice and it was what brought them here.
    As far as nannies and maids go in many cases she has more of an interest in the well being of the client than a mother that is entitled to her meal ticket. Just as a girlfriend is much more submissive and friendly than a wife/mother that has the threat point. When Robin williams died it was the house keeper that gave enough of a damn about him to check on him. This was in the same house his current wife walked out of and he may have already been dead as she left. (just speculating).
    What ought to be and what it is are not always the same. As men we don’t get to enjoy nice lives. We never really did. We make them for society to enjoy.
    I wonder what God has on using a surrogate to have children. The one thing I have gotten from the red pill is a civilized society and civilization in general has the father as the key there is no substitute. I also believe women are helpers and by their very nature will be and can be great mothers when it is in their interest. It doesn’t come naturally (the stats show it) When fathers have custody divorce is lower period. I would love to study the social dynamic of nations that follow that model.
    The manosphere’s catolog of female nature can never be left out of any social dynamic, Married,single , christian,athiest,what ever, regardless of the tendencies of the woman ,slut,prude,mean,nice it is always there. Responsible leadership can never forget. It is like a subroutine program attetched to every thing good and bad. Gods grace to me is allowing me to red pill and still have the ability to love. As terrifying as the truth is it always works out.

  188. Gunner Q says:

    pavetack @ 3:39 pm:
    “It’s widely assumed in the press that victory in the Electoral College is determined by the Gender Gap or by the Rising Tide of Hispanic Voters or whatever.”

    The Electoral College is more or less dead. Most states have either linked it to vote percentages or adopted a “winner take all” rule. This is something I would love to see restored–it’s a potential fix to female suffrage–but it’s hard to even explain the Electoral College to the proles.

  189. greyghost says:

    Gunner Q
    Popular vote and the ballet inititives are not compatible with rule of law. Those things are mob rule. Democracy in it’s pure form is mob rule. A representative republic is what we are supposed to have and that includes an electoral college.

  190. The Electoral College is more or less dead. Most states have either linked it to vote percentages or adopted a “winner take all” rule.

    States MUST go “winner take all” or they have NO political power/clout. No one would spend any money campaigning in a state where electorals are apportioned based on the percentage of the vote. That said, the electoral college was created to give the states the right to elect the President. That is a right they jealously/enviously guarded from one another (states being equal with Senate representation, Un-equal with house members based purely on population.)

  191. greyghost says:

    Gay marriage and old career women are going to fund the surrogacy clinics. Once the clinics are there money will be the motive to stay in business. Abortion is a business with its own supply train and employees that gotta eat. And before long single men and women will use surrogates. There will be plenty of eggs coming from the young college girls. And middle class women will most likely be surrogates. My guess is married women with children in their late twenties and thirties or single women living with parents or family. Eggs will be sold by young women (pay for college) for 2 to 5 thousand dollars. Gay men will make it normal to see men hanging around those places and the transfer of male money will make them welcome. If the incentives to produce for family returns to a level lost when men stopped working for a marriage ideal that they can see is a lie the government will be all for it. When you see one ad or government program or anything marketing to single fathers it is on and here to stay.
    When that occurs very quitely with out and breaking news the marriage laws or how they are enforced will change for no other reason than women wanting to get in on the action. First step will be to ban men from surrogacy (love to see the gay types on that one) After than female nature may try appearing as virtuous and kind just as a girlfriend will sex her man anytime and place even if they have been together a few years before a wife would.

  192. enrique432 says:

    RE: Surrogacy, old gay women, etc.

    I’ve said it before on here, in ANY issue, if you want the answer, simply ask “What is best for White Women” and you have your answer. If white women feel threatened by Gay men having babies via surrogacy, fully expect white women to, suddenly “question” (attack) those men as pedophiles or whatever it takes. Lesbian divorce, which I and others once thought might bring equity to divorce and child support laws, will only create new laws that work to side-step any change that may benefit men…

    …we could even see clauses drafted like, “Child Support to be paid by the non-custodial parent, as per INSERT PRIOR LAW, unless and in case that non-custodial parent is the same gender of the custodial parent, where that parent is the natural biological mom” See? That’s how it works.

    White women, women in general, but white women being the “California” (so goes…), the Canary if you will, set the trend. If something is bad for White Women, it will stop happening…or made illegal (titty bars near Smith College), if it is good for White Women (soon to be, demands to pay college debts for ALL, by the US taxpayer, which like the Obamacare, will benefit White women)…THEN it will go through.

  193. Tam the Bam says:

    Uterus is uterus. If’n Miz Perfick don’t like the idea of men having childer without her sayso .. well I’m quite confident that some fiendishly ingenious nerd could adapt the hindquarters of a mule, or a goat and some hdpe plumbing fitments or something, to do the requisite eggshell-less intracorporeal gestation.
    When I was a little kid, I often wished I was a fulmar.
    Makes sense, now. In spite of the “mating-for-life” bit, and all that fish. At least they don’t have confession.

  194. BradA says:

    I would dispute one “fact” that has been posted here several times:

    Men do not love one bit less than women nor is their love necessarily conditional. The fatal error those who posit such make is that they equate “love” with the emotionalness than is ruining our society. It is quite similar to the claim that women are more spiritual to men, because they are more emotional.

    I have unconditional love for my own children. Yet I have absolutely no contact with them, even the one who was willing to have some contact, mostly because I have decided I am not going to be treated like a second class citizen in his life, always having to jump to his tune to please him. I love him unconditionally, but I will have nothing to do with him until he recognizes my position as father. I do not expect that to happen, so even though it pains me greatly, I am sticking with what I believe is right.

    I would also add that it is idiocy to think a mother is only needed for the early years of a child’s life. Both parents are needed all the time. The father is needed in those early years as well and can bond very effectively without being a second mother.

    I will go back to my original assertion that not following the core plan will harm our society. I tend to agree that many ungodly things will continue to be tried, but I also expect them to eventually result in very bad consequences and a huge backlash. This is likely to take longer than any of us can guess, but it is also likely to be stronger than our guesses as well.

  195. Tam the Bam says:

    OK unconditional is it? Like when AnonAetat72 postulates ” they are going to fry some vicious mass murder rapist thug. His mommy is crying outside the execution chamber, insisting they don’t understand her baby. Even as a vicious murderer Mommy still loves him.” it would not, in my gelid and inhumanly evenhanded estimation, be indelicate to suggest to Mommy Dearest
    “Sure, as you wish, somebody has to jump to those volts, more than my job’s worth .. it’s a big old chair and yore fat ass will fit in it just fine, Ma’m. Off yer butt, Chester, and give that seat to a Real Lady. And gimme that dam’ sponge back, we’ll need it. Smoke? ”
    Soon see the value of the term “unconditional” to a woman, I reckon.

    Still don’t quite grasp the iniquity of the “rapist” bit though, as distinct from the “mass-murderer” thang.
    It’s not like anyone ever huckled Slobodan Milosevic to den Haag on the grounds of his personally rapeifying all and sundry, it really was the “mass-murder” bit (and of course, publicly embarrassing fuckwitted Allied general staff. The worst crime of all since, ooh, 3rd Battle of Ypres at least).
    The rape dynamic was IIRC more the department of the loony “poets” and “psychologists” embodied in the Mere& Pere Ubu of the Balkans, Radovan Diddlywotsit and his almost-as-mad-as-Elenya-Ceausescu wife.

  196. Anonymous age 72 says:

    BradA

    That is one tough story that I heard many, many times when I was counseling divorced dads. You gotta’ kiss rear end on your own kids IF you are lucky enough to even have any relationship. Sorry, I am Irish and we don’t kiss rear end very well.

    And, it has been reported year after year that the largest number of collect calls are made on Father’s Day. You gotta’ pay them to tell you Happy Father’s Day.

    Of course I wonder if that has changed since the cell phone and unlimited national calling has become common.

    My eldest daughter when I used to visit her, used to scream and scream at me, over any trivial difference of opinion. And her husband TheBaptistDeacon was pretty much the same.

    I simply want nothing more to do with them. I think their children are cool enough, but I won’t take the abuse to have anything to do with the kids.

    If those grandkids want to know me they well know where to find me when they become adults. If they don’t want, I have all the loved ones a human being can have without feeling guilty, here in Mexico.

    In the year 2000, I was walking down the street and this little girl, just a baby, came running across the street and hugged me at my knees, very affectionately, because she couldn’t reach any higher. I still don’t know why she loved me. My mirror sure doesn’t show it, heh, heh.

    She is now 16, and all these years has called me grandpa (abuelito). Her parents view me as her third grandpa, so do the other two grandpas, and all her aunts and uncles who live in various places. When they have a family reunion, I am automatically invited.

    I have two other much younger grand-daughters of the heart, here in Mexico. The 11 year old is still young enough to play with dolls, so I brought a nice ‘school girl’ doll with me. Her mother has it hidden and she will get it on her birthday. Her mother tells me I need not buy presents. i tell her it’s not for the present. It’s so that little girl can show the doll to her friends, and say, “My grandpa bought me this doll. from the United States.” (Even at that age…) Her last grandpa died several years ago, and she asked me if she could call me grandpa. Another little girl who feels a need for male affection. I think it’s hard wired in little girls, until they are screwed up by massive indoctrination.

    The six year old never knew her parents, then lost her grand-father from a heart attack, then an uncle was murdered. When i visit her she mostly wants to sit on my lap and be kissed and kissed. Literally hundreds of kisses in a one or two hour visit. There is a very obvious need for male affection for that little girl.

    Life is strange. Who would have thought my old age would involve so much love and affection? If I were in the USA, it would not be happening. I am the same person, but the results are totally different.

    Or, maybe I am not the same person in Mexico. I remember years ago, I showed a picture of myself with friends in Mexico to that nasty eldest daughter. She was absolutely shocked! She said, “Dad, you look so happy! You never smile like that here!”

    I told her I have no reason to be happy in the USA.

  197. Anonymous age 72 says:

    >>“Sure, as you wish, somebody has to jump to those volts, more than my job’s worth .. it’s a big old chair and yore fat ass will fit in it just fine, Ma’m. Off yer butt, Chester, and give that seat to a Real Lady. And gimme that dam’ sponge back, we’ll need it. Smoke? ”

    Hohoho hahaha heeheehee. Love it!!!

  198. KP says:

    Spacetraveller,

    It certainly wasn’t done that way in the part of Africa we lived in (South Sudan). At least not for children where the parents weren’t married yet. For divorcing parents… well we heard that was theoretically possible, but never met a single actual instance* of it in the 5 years that we were there.

    But for out-of-wedlock births, the child belonged to the mother and, more significantly, the mother’s family, unless the couple were willing to marry. The underlying concept, though, was quite the opposite of what we have from our Anglospheric heritage. Here, in the days before Marriage 2.0, it was the illegitimate child that had no claim on their father; in South Sudan the significant aspect was that the father had no claim on the illegitimate child.

    ————————————————————————–
    *An amusing variant, which again we only heard of as a possibility but did not encounter any actual cases: Marriage there was traditionally arranged, and involved bride price (again, the opposite of the English way.) Well, if a woman got married and after some years proved to be more-fertile-than-average, her brothers might show up one day and demand some addition bride price from the lucky husband. Such cases partly depended on the wife’s attitude: if she was happy at home, she’d be likely to laugh it off, not wanting to undergo the ensuing strife. But if she wasn’t, she’d up and go back home with them until Dear Husband parted with some more spears.

    Note this isn’t exactly the same as hypergamy, as there was no real chance of trading up in this scenario.

  199. MarcusD says:

    Whoa, So Mama Bear Instinct IS Real!
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=920873

    Article: “Motherhood: the Ultimate Makeover”– On How the Souls of Mothers Can Grow.
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=920910

  200. BradA says:

    Anon72,

    I raised 4 of someone else’s children (adopted from the foster care system), so I suppose I share the blame with not having a connection now, but I won’t put up with it much either, especially after the idiocy of trying to connect with my oldest son finally became clear last spring. It sucks not having any children or especially grandchildren now. At least not in reality. I legally have 4 children and 5 grandchildren, but I don’t have a relationship with any of them so I may as well have been childless.

    I don’t expect to move to a situation like yours, though we are in Texas, which is on the border. Too much risk reaching out in the US today and I am not ready to move someplace there now. I have had many years of the language and could likely fit in fairly fast if I was immersed. I still have too many working years ahead of me though, 20 until I hit your age, so who knows what will come.

    I would almost like to move someplace where I could do reasonably well and have a solid impact, but I am not ready for that kind of life now yet, or at least how I imagine it now.

  201. Spacetraveller says:

    KP,

    Interesting, what you write about South Sudan! I am not familiar with this country’s culture. For sure, they don’t seem to be ‘wise’ there! I was describing what happens in West Africa, but even then, not all communities in West Africa think like this…
    But those that do, you can be sure that a) their divorce rate is low and b) their children thrive well socially, financially and psychologically.

  202. KP says:

    Yes, the divorce rate is low.

    No, the children are NOT thriving, due to other very serious factors there.

  203. KP says:

    1. Starting from a very low point of subsistence farming or ranching, the poorest of the poor really–and this is not new, for the cattle tribes it goes back a century or so when there was a catastrophic outbreak of rinderpest and half the cattle died, or maybe more; they’ve never really recovered from that.

    2. In general, a rate of cultural change in the last century that is just way to fast for any culture to absorb successfully.

    3. Most specifically, having spent 41 of the 59 years since Sudan first gained independence from Britain in some kind of civil war…

  204. Opus says:

    What we need to do is send in someone like Chinese Gordon. My Great Grand Father was, as a young officer, out there, fighting against The Mahdi (how strange in the film Olivier is the eye-rolling Mahdi and Heston Gordon) to bring Liberty Democracy and Feminism to that part of Africa.

  205. Luke says:

    greyghost says:
    November 12, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    “Gay marriage and old career women are going to fund the surrogacy clinics. Once the clinics are there money will be the motive to stay in business.”

    Not at all likely with “married” gays being important % of fertility clinics. There.just aren’t that many of them (1-2% of the population), not many take advantage of the “one-liberal-judge-subbing-for-the-will-of-the-legislature” SSM rulings, those rulings aren’t yet in effect in anywhere near the whole country,, etc. Oh, and watch SSM between gays with any money plummet like a prom dress after midnight once they inevitably start getting racked in divorce courts. (Lesbos will just go the turkey-baster/go to a bar and pretend to be normal for a night routes, as they’re way cheaper.) Lastly, there will almost certainly eventually be prenatal tests to cull likely poufter babies

    Old career women, very likely. However, they will often not be the ones paying. Remember most
    women work in marginally-paying fields (e.g., not-STEM/non-trades). From a interview Bernard Chapin had with Steve Moxon, author of “The Woman Racket”:

    Steve Moxon: “The “pay gap” between the sexes should be far bigger than it is. Only 10-15% of women have an attitude to work as that of men: to work full-time continuously. Of this already small proportion of women, only about a quarter are “careerists.” This is a very small pool from which work organizations can recruit to produce the sex-equal staffing ratio at higher job positions that social policies are designed to produce. These are the jobs that pay much more, and with women overwhelmingly naturally absent from them, then the “pay gap” overall inevitably must be substantial. It is artificially reduced by public sector initiatives to falsely flatten differentials, to over-promote women, and to falsely equate work sectors and niches.

    So it is that we have pay legislation that forces local councils to pay part-time day-care staff the same rates as to full-time, outdoor shift-working refuse collectors. That these very different jobs are naturally paid according to substantial differentials is firmly tied up with their contrasting sex-typicality. No normal women take dirty, dangerous jobs, because pay premiums to compensate for the undesirability of the work are of no use to them. This is because only men see their “mate value” rise through gaining status (the proxy for which is money).”

    Rather, I predict much more along the lines of what my wife and I did. She was effectively careerist (divorced with adult children that lived elsewhere), but earned well under half of what I did (STEM degree and job). She could never have funded the 60-100K the whole fertility/surrogacy thing cost us.

    “Abortion is a business with its own supply train and employees that gotta eat. And before long single men and women will use surrogates. There will be plenty of eggs coming from the young college girls. And middle class women will most likely be surrogates. My guess is married women with children in their late twenties and thirties or single women living with parents or family.”

    Agreed on the young college girls being many of the egg donors. (Ours were out of college 1-2 years, and one started doing it while in college.)

    I don’t think you know much about how the fertility industry makes use of gestational surrogates, though.
    First, pretty much all of them AFAIK only use GSs that have already borne a healthy child. (Ups the odds of success.)
    Second, married GSs are preferred. They have more stable lives than single GSs overall, important from nutrition to emotional/hormonal situation. Plus, a husband is the best insurance in the world for making a GS unlikely to contract what I call “Madonna Syndrome”, where the hormones overwhelm her brain and she decides she wants to keep the baby; few man wants another man’s child at their dinner table for the next 18 years. (Already having a child of her own decreases odds of Madonna Syndrome as well, since the surrogacy child will seem less unique to the GS.)
    Third, much past 30 for a nonrelative GS is unusual BC they are less desirable for that. Going from age 23 to 31 roughly doubles (don’t remember the exact #s) the miscarriage rate in gestating women in regular pregnancies, from 5% to 10% or so.
    Foruth, a GS needs to be somewhere near normal weight (rarer as women go from early 20s into their 30s, as we all know) for clinics to approve them as GSs, and rightly so. (Fatter gestating women bear children more likely to be fat/diabetic in later life, plus higher odds of toxemia, gesational diabetes, etc.) We didn’t even look at potential GSs over age 27 for our daughter we have now for those reasons.

  206. Exfernal says:

    Tam, I call that ‘Designer’ involved ‘repeated-trial-and-error’. I’m not for more unnecessary errors, as eliminating them (without harming the carrier) is impossible anyway.

  207. Tam the Bam says:

    The non-muslim Nilotic tribes were, as I am given to understand, one of the first causes of the unScience of Social Anthropology within the British Empire (and Protectorates, Dependencies, enclaves, coaling stations, tax-havens and guano-coated sea-rocks etc. I don’t believe it was ever formally incorporated , just ‘adopted’, to stop the Hun building their confounded Eisenbahn down to Tangyanika (c.f. Bogie, H & Katie H, The African Queen, passim.), or threatening the Canal approaches.

    The father of that fellow who festers on about Europe in the Telegraph wrote a skip-load of books about them, ostensibly as dry, systematising academic inquiry. In fact they were eagerly sought by Whitehall as intelligence reports, and parsed for some more cost-beneficent method of getting the inconveniently elusive buggers to behave. Not chucking more Tommies and Gents into the desert, as Dr Opus has explained, or lobbing bombs out of the old stringbag’s cockpit and mincing their precious cows, which just seemed to annoy them even more. Didn’t work in Mesopotamia, either. Slow learners.

    Finally the grey men caught on to the capital notion of identifying any possibly rational motives, cosmology-driven inanities and obscure social unconformities within those incomprehensible mobs of shiftless, dung-smeared nudists. Carefully enabling each would-be Big Man/prophet to dream of final victory over his hereditary foes, and also the perpetually-encroaching and even more gratuitously violent jihadi fuzzies to the North was a good one. While supplying the required materiel in modest quantities by circuitous means, being careful not to overstock and threaten actual consolidation via some nutter actually winning the constant game of king of the mud pyramid.
    Just keep them hacking and poking away at each other and be everybody’s second with the towel and bucket, whispering “special” District Officer advice to all the avid contestants in turn.

    Seemed to work quite splendidly, as KP reports. We made a desolation, and called it peace.

    Of course it all went to pot after the war, that Ghandi fellow setting a bad example to the Africans, getting them all chippy and truculent. Not helped by that fat fool Benny the Chin previously stirring up the Abyssinians after all the effort that had been put into making them play nice as well, back before Gordon’s time. Then the Nasser business put the absolute tin hat on it, of course.

    Not worth bothering with if the Canal, the Krauts, Happy Valley and the Daktari bungalow have all gone, and the blessed Frogs are our chers amis. Clear off, and let the wogs run wild, there’s some business brewing up the Gulf that needs attending to, something about oil apparently. The Septics are getting all hot under the collar about it, babbling about the Ivans and sticking their oar in, and if we’re not careful they’ll piss the Persians off … oooops too late

    Messy business, divorces of any sort. Best avoided, unless seeking freedom from the Hanoverian Empire. In which case, just go for it. How could anything get worse than that?

  208. Luke says:

    Spacetraveller says:
    November 12, 2014 at 9:30 am

    “Luke,

    OK. We will have to agree to disagree. Most of what I say is driven by my Catholicism”

    I am Protestant, so what the Pope thinks has no influence on what I believe I can and can’t do.

    “Curious about something…
    I trust that your children have birth certificates…Is there a mother listed on these certificates? If so, how can you be so sure that in the event of a break-up (I sincerely hope this never happens, of course) that your wife (assuming she is listed as ‘mother’ on the certificates) will still not win custody of the girls?
    The reason I ask is, even when the family courts know that a man is not the biological father of a child in marriage, i.e. that that he was cuckolded/deceived by the wife (and I speak from bitter experience here – this happened to one of my uncles) he is still required to pay for that child, simply because he is married to the mother, and therefore he is automatically the ‘father’ of the child…I don’t agree with this law, of course, but can see why it exists to protect the children of an unfaithful wife…

    Why won’t the reverse case of this law affect you?
    Can you be absolutely sure you will keep your girls even if they are not genetically your wife’s?”

    The law in our state first shows the GS’s name on the birth certificate. After she has signed the document of surrender (forget exact name), and the IPs (Intended Parents, in this case my wife and I apply for it via a lawyer, our state then sends out an amended birth certificate. This was all completed 2 years ago. We have in our possession an amended birth certificate with solely her and my name on it as the parents, which we carry around with us just in case.

    In the case of divorce I believe that the usual ~95% odds of her getting custody would apply. I have never heard that my having a genetic link to them and her not would matter much if at all. This threatpoint most assuredly has negatively affected our marriage. For this reason, I believe that a man who wishes to be absolutely certain both to never lose his children to a faithless, wayward woman (to say nothing of the desirability of removing that marriage-corroding threatpoint) might do well to have his children without a romantically/legally-involved woman other than fertility medical professionals, an egg donor (ideally stranger), and a GS. Once the kids are born, THEN he can safely date. Cohab is more risky, and marriage even more so, but above all, he should NEVER, EVER!! let a woman adopt his children. That defeats the whole purpose (other than better genes from younger donor, younger gestator than he could get via conventional starter marriage, etc.)

  209. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Tam the Bam,

    Sorry to be naive (i.e. – stupid) but what do they use the sponge for in an execution? I haven’t been guest of honor in many of them, heh, heh.

  210. Luke says:

    BradA says:
    November 12, 2014 at 8:56 am

    “You are very self-centered Luke, certainly not a proper trait for a Godly man.”

    I’m a devoted father whose life is predominantly focused on what is best his children. (Example: I ran ~7 errands yesterday, and all but a medical one were in some way about getting things the kids needed, such as laminating some educational posters that I will put up in the hallway and playroom.) I change just over half the diapers when I’m home. Re the travel, in some fields it’s hard to escape. Imagine a plumber trying to work 100% at home…

    I am looking into landing a corporate position that will have me home at night, though. A year from now, I hope to have that.

    On a MRA site, you find objectionable that a father would find desirable another father ensuring a wayward woman could not separate him and his children. I think your position is way out of step with the majority thinking here on that goal, put that way.

    BTW, I’ve considered that you and your wife might be good candidates for an embryo. (My wife and I have several left.) We’d just give it to you, for absolutely nothing but promises you’d do well by her (we have female embryos left). If you can get a younger relative or VERY good younger female friend to gestate for you, you could have a child (with NO “birth parents” to abandon you for) of your own, from birth. You’d need maybe 20 grand for medical expenses. Interested?

  211. Luke says:

    Anonymous age 72 says:
    November 13, 2014 at 8:36 am

    “Tam the Bam,

    Sorry to be naive (i.e. – stupid) but what do they use the sponge for in an execution? I haven’t been guest of honor in many of them, heh, heh.”

    On the head, between an electrode and the head, soaked with salt water so it conducts well so as to ensure a certain, reasonably quick kill. (Just burning off a limb or two would be nastier and slower enough at causing death that it’d be politically insupportable.)

  212. greyghost says:

    In the case of divorce I believe that the usual ~95% odds of her getting custody would apply. I have never heard that my having a genetic link to them and her not would matter much if at all. This threatpoint most assuredly has negatively affected our marriage. For this reason, I believe that a man who wishes to be absolutely certain both to never lose his children to a faithless, wayward woman (to say nothing of the desirability of removing that marriage-corroding threatpoint) might do well to have his children without a romantically/legally-involved woman other than fertility medical professionals, an egg donor (ideally stranger), and a GS. Once the kids are born, THEN he can safely date. Cohab is more risky, and marriage even more so, but above all, he should NEVER, EVER!! let a woman adopt his children. That defeats thewhole purpose

    This is the whole point of MGTOW/family men to use surrogacy. All of the rest of it is bullshit. It is about a father raising his children.

  213. greyghost says:

    Luke
    It will be interesting to see how the surrogacy expands. With the CS laws and lack of any standards or agency for any female I think men will be less likely to knock up lesbian couples and any body stupid enough to in this day and age deserves what ever he gets.
    You are right I have never involved myself in the surrogacy business just making and educated common sense call based on experience .It looks like I wasn’t far off.

  214. Anonymous age 72 says:

    During my ten years of counseling I did encounter several cases where men who had sole custody for many reasons, later married and when the second wife divorced him, got the kids and child support. She had helped care for them, loved them, was willing to fight for custody and had the vagina. And, he of course, ahd the money.

    While I can indeed imagine divorce attorneys so stupid they would not warn you of this possibility when you re-married, I hope you dont’ encounter a lawyer that stupid. This is basic custody law 101.

  215. Anonymous age 72 says:

    BradA says:
    November 13, 2014 at 1:15 am

    I do not want anyone to think that they, anyone, can come to Mexico and get the paradise I have.

    I am in my wife’s native village, which she left for high school in Mexico City, in 1956 when she was 14. I am somewhat adaptable beyond the average, and her family has accepted me as a member of the family. IMHO, because I treat them like family, with respect. That is, in Mexico, family helps family. I do help them when appropriate but in a manner which does not feel like charity. And, they help me when I need it.

    Also, I have shown flawless morality. That is, in 39 years of marriage, I have never even so much as flirted with a woman. And, make no bones about it. I am faithful to my wife not because she deserves it, but because my own life is better. Few wives deserve a faithful husband; any woman who tells her husband no more than yes (which is almost all women) does not deserve a faithful husband. And, I tell people that openly.

    I give rides to women coming up the long hill who would never accept a ride from any other man.

    And, I love babies! I do kiss a lot of babies. And, no one calls the cops! Mothers stand there, beaming, proud the old American admires their sweet little girls.

    Even small babies can tell who is safe and who isn’t. So, sometimes, I will be walking down a street, and a little girl will come running frantically down the street for her forehead kiss, with a big smile.

    Once, a cousin’s DIL was pregnant, and needed to avoid serious walking. (Some technical thing about the baby dropping early.) Yet, she had to get her kids from school quite a hill distance from her house. So, I was asked to drive her on the hills.

    One day there was a problem with a parent’s meeting. So mom asked me to take her 3 year old to grandma’s house. I went walking down the street to my car with this sweet 3 year old girl, opened the car door, she clambered up, and I drove her to her grandma’s house, then went back to wait for mom’s meeting to finish.

    As I drove that sweet little girl to her grandma’s house, I thought, “Man, you ain’t in Kansas any more, Thank God! No one held you at gun point for being with a little girl.”

    All this was a long, long process, they have many of them known me for over 30 years, and thus they know I can be trusted.

    All it would take would be one extra-marital affair and it would be over.

  216. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Luke, thanks for explaining the sponge.

  217. Gunner Q says:

    innocentbystanderboston @ November 12, 2014 at 4:43 pm:
    “States MUST go “winner take all” or they have NO political power/clout. No one would spend any money campaigning in a state where electorals are apportioned based on the percentage of the vote.”

    Which is why the Founders’ intention for the Electoral College was such a good idea. Nobody could buy an election.

    We Christians should concern ourselves with doing right, not with winning. God will always get the results he wants.

  218. Gunner,

    Which is why the Founders’ intention for the Electoral College was such a good idea. Nobody could buy an election.

    We have the electoral college and yes it is a good idea. But it is at the Federal Level, not the state. A State is free to apportion its electors to that college anyway it chooses. 48 of our 50 states choose to do this “winner-take-all.” Only Nebraska and Maine have chosen to self-lobotomize by apportioning electors by their own interal electoral college, thus destroying any political clout they could have ever had. Now these two states simply dont count.

    We Christians should concern ourselves with doing right, not with winning. God will always get the results he wants.

    No HE doesn’t. He didn’t want Eve to eat that apple and He most definately did not want Adam to listen to anything Eve said about the apple she tasted. God didn’t want Lot’s wife to turn around and see Sodom destroyed nor did he want Lot’s daughter’s lying with their father in incest. God didn’t want Abraham to listen to his wife and cast out his son Ishmael (and thus, found the Islamic faith for which we all now must face those consequences.) God didn’t want David to murder and then take his victim’s wife as his own. God didn’t want Hitler to murder 6,000,000 of His chosen people. The results here are NOT want God wanted. But we have them. That is because God gave us free will. God judges us based on how we choose to use our Free Will. But we do have it. And sometimes those results are not what God intended.

  219. greyghost says:

    outstanding IBB

  220. randall g says:

    @AA72 Watch the movie “The Green Mile” with Tom Hanks. There is a scene where the requirement for a wet sponge is painfully evident.

  221. Anonymous Reader says:

    Viewing the vid Mrs. IBB posted at 11:19 PM Nov. 9, I note that at the 2:10 mark she gestures with her left hand. On the ring finger of her left hand I can see a simple gold ring, looks like a wedding band. It can also be seen clearly from 2:18 through 2:23. Rather an odd thing, in the context.

  222. BradA says:

    Luke,

    Example: I ran ~7 errands yesterday….

    You do lots of works it seems, but attitude is more important than works. Your willingness to lead others to be a solo father on purpose is the problem, not how many “good things” you do now.

    On a MRA site, you find objectionable that a father would find desirable another father ensuring a wayward woman could not separate him and his children.

    No, you are putting words in my mouth. I despise the current system. It will eventually break, but it will leave much pain in its wake.

    That does not mean that planning on “going it alone” is a good plan either. Both are wrong and you have a lot more work to do to convince me or anyone who holds Scripture as the highest authority that intentionally being a single father is a good thing. We should always aim at God’s Plan, not our own. Long term stable marriages do happen, even under the current very flawed system. They can never happen with a father who intentionally goes it alone.

    I am more focused on the child however than any one parent. Intentionally depriving that child is a morally horrid thing to do, no matter what the justification. I also believe the process is inherently wrong, as human reproduction is not just a test tube activity. We may get to the point it becomes that, but it will carry all kinds of dangers and bad things if we do. I suspect it will not work as well as some think, but only time will tell on that.

    I had been a strong opponent of even making extra fertilized eggs since that is the only logical point to indicate the start of a human, but I am not as firm on that now. My flexibility is likely due to my own experience as I would likely have pursued other efforts to birth children had I known the result of raising the children I did. I can’t wind the clock back though, so the only direction is forward now and figuring out why I am on this earth.

    You do seem to be hypocritical since you are raising your children in an intact two parent family, yet advocate for the latter. Advocating variation from God’s intent is not a good thing and that is the central point. Being personally wronged is bad, but avoiding that is not the highest goal in life.

  223. BradA says:

    Anon72,

    Then I am definitely unlikely to fit in there like that. Not sure where we will be in 30 years, for example, but I am trying to plan for that now. Not easy with no family that is relevant. Only my mother and her mother are alive now, not likely to be then. My wife has siblings, but none I would trust in the long run for support.

    I will truly be “in God’s hands” it seems, so I am trying to figure out where I could make a good living now and build a foundation for support.

  224. BradA says:

    greyghost,

    This is the whole point of MGTOW/family men to use surrogacy. All of the rest of it is bullshit. It is about a father raising his children.

    I would agree. It also shows the selfish focus. It is about the father, not the children. Children are not possessions, but people. Not considering their needs in this is the flaw. They need a mother. Some may have to do without that, but intentionally pursuing that route is the problem I see.

    Go for it however, it will have to turn out good, right? I am sure we will see a growing move toward that since people tend to go with what personally benefits them rather than fixing the root problem.

  225. BradA says:

    Viewing the vid Mrs. IBB posted at 11:19 PM Nov. 9, I note that at the 2:10 mark she gestures with her left hand. On the ring finger of her left hand I can see a simple gold ring, looks like a wedding band. It can also be seen clearly from 2:18 through 2:23. Rather an odd thing, in the context.

    My wife saw that too AR! It does really confuse the issue. Was she married? Does the ring have a religious significance?

    It is not surprising no man pursues her if she wears a wedding ring! Dropping that and using some makeup to tone down her cheeks might help a lot. She seems to be a bit new-agey based on the people she follows on YouTube, so it is not a “promise ring” type thing, at least I would think not.

  226. Boxer says:

    Dear Brad A:

    it will have to turn out good, right?

    There’s no historical evidence that raising motherless children was ever healthy. This is obvious in the fact that there aren’t historical precedents for societies where the tradition was to use women as breeding stock, where the father raised children alone, etc. If motherless children were superior to children with two parents, then societies would have evolved in that direction.

    Viewing the vid Mrs. IBB posted at 11:19 PM

    If the inference is that IBB is a woman, then you’re simply trolling at this point. This sort of thing is beneath you, and hope you’ll stop it. I look for your articles and like them here.

    If I were to address you as “the homosexual Brad A.” in my responses, I’d likely be seen as a petty kook who was still butthurt from losing an argument, so long ago as to have it be forgotten by the normal participants. No one would believe you were a homo (not on my say-so, anyway) and I’d just end up looking silly.

    IBB doesn’t like me much, and he’s a goofy CONservative who often white-knights, but occasionally he comes up with something interesting. You can argue with him without sexualizing the disagreement (I have before, and I’m sure I will again).

    Best, Boxer

  227. greyghost says:

    I would agree. It also shows the selfish focus. It is about the father, not the children.

    Do you believe that? Are we going to have to break out the stats agrain? A father raising his children is all about the childrens well being. If that is not the case then why in the hell have a manosphere. Why give a damn at all everything is just fine.

  228. greyghost says:

    Of a man has primary custody of his children there is almaost a guarantee that a woman and most likely the mother will be present. a woman will not pass up that gravy train even without the threat point. Know your women

  229. Boxer,

    IBB doesn’t like me much, and he’s a goofy CONservative who often white-knights, but occasionally he comes up with something interesting. You can argue with him without sexualizing the disagreement (I have before, and I’m sure I will again).

    I don’t dislike you. I don’t have a problem with you Boxer. I really don’t have a problem with anyone. Its just that some on this board (they know who they are) I am shunning them right now because they wouldn’t listen to me when I told them that their actions would cause me to shun them. I don’t bluff. They repeated their inane behavior. And I just toss people into the ‘ole bozo filter. AR is one of them. I have no use for him. Doesn’t mean I have a problem with him, I don’t even know him.

    I think Brad just did that because AR called me that and he just quoted AR’s stupidity without changing the text.

  230. Anonymous age 72 says:

    BradA

    Few could make my personal paradise their own paradise, in a small close knit country village.

    Men, divorced or widowed or never married, who cannot “skyhook” with a wife’s family as I did, probably belong in a city environment.

    I usually recommend Guadalajara as a STARTING POINT for new expats. No need to go into great detail, but I do so because more Americans find it to be a good place to live than anywhere else, based on stats I have seen over the years.

    Why? Because it has more that new expats need to adapt. English newspapers. International airport. Excellent markets for almost everything you want. Good medical care, including one of the best hospitals in the world. Modest rents (do not buy in Mexico until you pass the 2 year point, by which most expats have already bailed) if you live among the Mexican people and not in the American colonies. Modest food costs, if you adapt to the Mexican style diet, with an emphasis on vegetables and fruits. (You can buy enough of them to be a heavy load for less then 10 dollars here in the country.)

    Most men want female companionship. In places like Guadalajara, women will speak to you. Not just those looking for a man, but because women are friendly if they see you are there for a while. And, they always know a suitable potential mate, hee, hee.

    You do have some of the same issues as in the US. All the human drama exists in all nations at all times, but some nations do not reward it as much.

    One sign is when a woman has talked to you several times and invites you to meet her family. If you like her, show up as invited. That is what “good” women do when they are interested in a man. Those grandmas can spot a bum from twenty feet away, so a man needs to be vetted by the pros.

    If you are like IBB who insists you cannot possibly be married unless he PERSONALLY (I tell ya’ you can’t make up this stuff) sees the papers, forget about Mexico. Since our Civil War era, many many Mexican couples have private marriages. Like in the Old Testament. And, they and their fellow citizens view them as married in the eyes of God. The government and church control freaks try to stigmatize them, but no one pays much attention.

    But, if you do this, do truly assume you are married in the eyes of God. It is not fair to have your wife live with you believing you are truly married, while you assume you are shacking up and are ready to leave her when you get bored.

    In the USA, unwed mothers are mostly bad news in current times. In Mexico, the Mexican men consider it a sport to promise marriage to a good girl, then when she gets pregnant, abandon her telling everyone what a slut she is. Some of those women have learned their lesson, thus have only one child, and can make good wives. One child can be a mistake; more than one is a plan as in the USA.

    Also, it is common for men to simply walk away from a wife who may actually be a good stable wife, for another woman with better moves or bigger chest. Or, you can many widows of good character.

    There is one thing i will say with emphasis. In the country, I am not sure in the city, NICE GUYS[tm] are HOT!!! They have all the alphas they need with plenty to spare.

  231. Anonymous age 72 says:

    @IBB

    >>Its just that some on this board (they know who they are) I am shunning them right now because they wouldn’t listen to me when I told them that their actions would cause me to shun them. I don’t bluff

    I would like to personally thank you for that, IBB. Once again you pontificate, as if anyone especially cares who you shun or why.

  232. Gunner Q says:

    IBB: “The results here are NOT want God wanted.”

    For an omnipotent deity, this God guy is quite ineffective. Hmm, this explains a lot of what I see in politics. People claim to be idealistic and/or Christian yet they abandon their beliefs whenever they might interfere with seizing victory and power. The idea that God is weak and cannot succeed without human assistance is a fitting explanation.

  233. Anonymous age 72 says:

    greyghost says:
    November 13, 2014 at 12:32 pm

    You are correct, ghost. There is a reason for many centuries when a woman wanted out, father custody was deemed to be second only to the two parent family.

    Among many other reasons, men can usually find a woman to do the mommy thing with those kids, as well as they can support them and teach them to live in a society. If he can’t get a woman, a single sister or widowed aunt, to help out, the kids can pitch in and take care of each other.

    I have commented over the years that when you live in a nation filled with insane women, many men also become insane. For men to be unable to see clear statistics that father only custody is superior to all but two parent custody is a symptom of men whose thinking has been bolloxed.

  234. BradA says:

    The idea that God is weak and cannot succeed without human assistance is a fitting explanation.

    No, you just showed that humans are broken creatures Gunner Q.

    He lets us have what we really want within wide limits. You are going to try and tell me that man is better without any limits? Perhaps you want to buy a bridge if you are that gullible.

    Anon72,

    I already have a wife, so I would not be looking for another one. I am a few years away from retirement and don’t plan on that as early as most for a variety of reasons. I would probably have to work someplace with high tech stuff if it was to be any time in the next decade or two, but I am not convinced that would be the best location for that. It certainly would not in the areas you have mentioned.

    I am trying to figure out where I really want to be now, but living in the country in another country is not likely to be it. Glad it works well for you though.

  235. BradA says:

    greyghost,

    Do you believe that? Are we going to have to break out the stats agrain? A father raising his children is all about the childrens well being. If that is not the case then why in the hell have a manosphere. Why give a damn at all everything is just fine.

    Is that a real question? MGTOW are GOING THEIR OWN WAY! It is in the name. Not going their children’s way or anyone else’s way.

    What stats do you have to prove that children will never want to connect with a mother? Are those the same ones that claim some children never need to connect with a father?

    The plan was one man and one woman for life, to raise children. Anything other than that is lower on the effectiveness chain. Proving a man can do it proves nothing. Denying children part of their heritage is immoral when it is done on purpose, no matter which sex does it.

  236. BradA says:

    If someone still wants to believe a single parent is just as good as two, go for it. You will never convince me it is true, but let time prove out your theory.

  237. greyghost says:

    The whole point of a man having his own children is for the children to not be fatherless. Playing house and being a “good” guy and hoping some bitch can care about a man and children is a less than 50% deal. So basically all of this 2 parent shit is just hope and luck. BradA and others I will never convince you to embrace MGTOW/family man and that is fine. Todays young men don’t have the romantic notions of loving two parents family. With the threat point’s presence families 2 parent or not are female headed anyway. Overall the conversation does give some idea to the concept of men not being held hostage to the ability and desire to love and serve others. Men that love and desire to sacrifice themselves for children are seen as target drones for thr feminine imperative.
    A 2 parent family is only superior when the female sees it in her best interest As long as they are hers any way the children to her become hostages and meal tickets. (women don’t love,beta males do, Know your women)

  238. BradA says:

    Todays young men don’t have the romantic notions of loving two parents family.

    It is not a romantic notion, it is going back to the origination of the process. Execution in the current legal climate is extremely difficult, but that did not remove the fact it is the ideal.

    Pursue away, as I said, but creating a second wrong will not correct the first one.

  239. BradA says:

    MGTOW/family man

    That is still an oxymoron. Can you directly answer how you can “go your own way,” yet put the child’s needs first? And how would doing that differ from putting the wife’s needs first in a marriage situation? Could children not also reject the parent in a similar manner, at least once they hit the teenage years. I can tell you the system will turn against the parents if the children do, based on my own first hand experience.

  240. Gunner,

    For an omnipotent deity, this God guy is quite ineffective.

    He is extremely effective. He may be all knowing and all seeing but that doesn’t mean that what he knows and sees will happen (by the free will actions of the men and women He created) were of His doing. He does what He must to try and save us from the stupidity of our own free will, but in the end, we are ultimately responsible for our own demise. And at several key moments (of the last century in particular), we could have ultimately been the architechs of our own demise.

    Hmm, this explains a lot of what I see in politics. People claim to be idealistic and/or Christian yet they abandon their beliefs whenever they might interfere with seizing victory and power. The idea that God is weak and cannot succeed without human assistance is a fitting explanation.

    He destroyed almost ALL that He created with a flood. That was a one-time-shot with God (His correction of our sinisiter behavior.) He’s not going to do that again, he leaves it up to us to know if we will fail or succeed. But ultimately we (humans) have to speak for what God wants of us by reading His book. Its all in there. All the intructions we need to save ourselves (not just for the 80,90, or 100 years we sit on this rock, but for all time eternal) are in that book. And humans are required to assist other humans in educating them about that book. With churchianity, we are failing miserably here. Yes, we are letting politics rewrite God’s law. And that is wrong. And its only in places like this where Christians feel welcome to call out this wrong behavior without the repercussions harming their secular lives with non-believers who are in positions of power and authority.

  241. BradA says:

    I should have added to my previous post: How does the man intentionally having children on his own differ in principle from a woman having children that she claims she will put first? I am not looking for the theory, not the reality. You could find the special snowflake that has a high tech job and could afford to hire help, etc.

  242. BradA says:

    That should say that I am looking for the theory, not the reality stories already noted.

  243. greyghost says:

    BradA
    MGTOW is not being used as a simp. period. You are still a man and commit and take care of others on your terms. I love children mine especially. That love will not be determined by some bitch, MGTOW /family man. No threat point only the reality of raising ones children as best as you can. A woman in that situations tends to be more pleasant and polite because she has no threatand instictively knows she is there becauseit is pleasing for her to be there. That is the way it is with women. To bad women don’t have the ability to be that way just because of the role they have. It is called living in the world in reality. It has been said when primary custody is the fathers marriages become much more peaceful. A beta male doesn’t need game he can be his natural self and respect and love his wife with out fear and that just so happens to be attractive to his wife. Imagine that. That is the world I woant for my son if that means I go to hell so be i. Maybe a whole lot of men are damned for yours and my grand children. I hope that explains where the MGTOW?family man comes from it is about living with out the need of female cooperation. Going your own way with that way being having a family. Women now aren’t up to the job of being family members and every body knows it.
    The process at this time has been deliberately broken. And Our little princeses did it on purpose for their happiness. The romance of the two parent family is gone. It is now a threat point and a hope for tradition that men want to be real and true. Women were always in it for themselves. Even knowing that it is still possible to love a well behaved women. It is what makes a well behaved woman truely special it is where the term lady comes from. It is in no way natural for them.

  244. greyghost says:

    I should have added to my previous post: How does the man intentionally having children on his own differ in principle from a woman having children that she claims she will put first? I am not looking for the theory, not the reality. You could find the special snowflake that has a high tech job and could afford to hire help, etc.

    When a man (beta) has a child he does so to raise his child. A woman has a child to get her benefits. Look at how our society is set up to facilitate what I just said. That is just the way it is. A woman that claims to put her child first means she is under no obligation to any body for anything done for her and owes no one That is what that means. That is why abortion is legal and at any time any mother can drop off any child and say I’m through with the child.

  245. Pingback: “The Writer” writes | Dalrock

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