Fragile femininity and our masculinity crisis.

Conservatives frequently complain about a masculinity crisis among younger generations of men, but while feminists probably are succeeding somewhat in their efforts to feminize young men, their primary success has been in making women less feminine (H/T Vox Day):

The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is one of Sandra Bem’s most notable contributions to feminist psychology, measuring an individual’s identification with traditionally masculine and feminine qualities. In a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. college students’ scores on the BSRI (34 samples, N = 8,027), we examined changes in ratings on the Bem masculinity (M) and femininity (F) scales since the early 1990s. Additional analyses used data collected in a previous meta-analysis (Twenge 1997) to document changes since the BSRI’s inception in 1974. Our results reveal that women’s femininity scores have decreased significantly (d = −.26) between 1993 and 2012, whereas their masculinity remained stable.

Feminists cry crocodile tears over “fragile masculinity”, but it turns out that masculinity is surprisingly resilient.  In their consuming envy of men, feminists have tried to eradicate the very idea of noble manhood.  This is an assault on our collective imaginations, and spans everything from our military to entertainment.  While men of my generation grew up with tales of a young man on a heroes’ quest in movies like Star Wars, feminists have succeeded in replacing Luke Skywalker with a woman.  Where the masculine hero can’t be replaced outright, he must be otherwise neutered by a strong independent woman.  I’ve recently shared examples of this with The Battle for Christmas Morning:

And the Ratchet and Clank movie:

This weekend Nickelodeon aired a three part series about two boys saving the day titled Lost in the West:

Best bros Chip and Dave saddle up for a whirlwind adventure when Chip’s latest invention accidentally transports them back in time to the Wild West! Not only will they have to save their hometown, they’ve also got to make it back to the present in time for the Homecoming Dance!

But because feminists are so completely consumed with envy, the hero’s quest must always be modified to sooth their fragile femininity.

Despite all of this being done entirely out in the open, our conservatives can’t bring themselves to see what is going on.  When faced with a generation of hyper masculinized young women all they can see is “normal” women surrounded by weak men screwing feminism up.  Calling out the bad behavior of women is hard, so herculean efforts are made to pretend that feminists have not been wildly successful in transforming young women.  This is why the men of the CBMW live in a fantasy world where men are forcing women to go into combat in their place, all the while cheering on the moxie of the latest female action hero.  While feminists were crowing about their victory in turning Star Wars into a piece of feminist propaganda:

Finally we have our female Luke Skywalker – an orphaned scavenger girl alone on the desert of Jakku.

The president of the CBMW went to the same movie and not only didn’t notice the feminist propaganda, he found the feminist message inspiring:

The forest battle between Ren and Rey (Ren’s lightsaber was very cool)…

I liked how Rey showed steel as she discovered the power to use the force.

We are without a doubt in the grips of a masculinity crisis, but it isn’t in young men.  Young men in fact have proven themselves remarkably resilient in the face of mass attempts to demoralize their manhood.  The true masculinity crisis is with the older men who stand by while feminists wage war on the masculinity of young men, too afraid to stand up and protect the culture.  Let us hope that the resilience today’s young men are showing remains with them as they grow older.  If they keep this resilience, hopefully we will one day have a generation of middle age and older men with the courage to stand up to feminism and set an example of courageous masculinity for the young men who follow.

This entry was posted in Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Moxie, Nickelodeon, Owen Strachan, Star Wars, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Vox Day, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

178 Responses to Fragile femininity and our masculinity crisis.

  1. Novaseeker says:

    Despite all of this being done entirely out in the open, our conservatives can’t bring themselves to see what is going on. When faced with a generation of hyper masculinized young women all they can see is “normal” women surrounded by week men screwing feminism up.

    Yes, and as you say, also because it feels bad calling women out for anything in this culture.

    But, at the same time, many of these guys *want* their daughters to be this way. They *prefer* daughters who have moxie, are sassy, push around boys and take no prisoners, and are focused on their own achievement. If they didn’t want this for their daughters, they wouldn’t mostly bend over backwards to make their daughters like this in countless ways while they are raising them. The pushy, moxie’d, un-feminine young women didn’t materialize from the ether, they were raised to be that way, and mostly with the full cooperation and enthusiastic support of their fathers.

    That’s a big part of the “weak men are screwing things up” mindset — they *want* their daughters to be like this, and therefore they want the boys to be even stronger. The idea appears to be a marriage of super heroes — wonder woman can only have Superman as a husband, because no mere mortal man can handle wonder woman, so the problem is that most guys are weak because they aren’t Superman for my daughter’s wonder woman. This is the mindset. As men, we need to hold the fathers of these young women to account for what they are doing to the culture, and their critical role in the cultural destruction and outright vandalism that is taking place.

  2. Pingback: Fragile femininity and our masculinity crisis. | Neoreactive

  3. Pingback: Fragile femininity and our masculinity crisis. – Manosphere.org

  4. rugby11 says:

    Thanks Dalrock

  5. Not much point “calling out the fathers”. After all, they are largely passive and unwitting bystanders in this whole process. What’s most needed is to attack the feminists themselves, pointing out their errors, delusions, dishonesty, and viciousness, and the destructive effects of their ideas and actions. That, or just ostracise them completely.

  6. Johnycomelately says:

    I’ve got to admit I’m beginning to enjoy this feminism caper, if you can’t beat em join em. What’s not to like, less work and more heavy lifting by women. Isn’t the male happiness quotient going up, why ruin a good thing.

    My only concern is that we don’t have enough single mothers in the female professional set, their selfishness is dragging the male happiness quotient down. Too much time on their hands to complain, at least a bundle of joy should keep them busy for a decade or two.

  7. Novaseeker says:

    After all, they are largely passive and unwitting bystanders in this whole process.

    Well, my point is that this is not true at all. The fathers are not passive bystanders, they are active encouragers and drivers of the masculinization of their daughters in most cases. They have fully drunk the Kool Aid in this regard, which is understandable because in order not to drink the Kool Aid, you have to be consciously, intentionally counter-cultural today, given that feminism and its worldview and values set is now the cultural default setting. The fathers are the key to this, because they are the ones creating more moxie, sassy, pushy young women in an active, encouraged, intentional sense.

  8. Hells Hound says:

    The pushy, moxie’d, un-feminine young women didn’t materialize from the ether, they were raised to be that way, and mostly with the full cooperation and enthusiastic support of their fathers.

    It’s all based on the notion that women are right to expext some sort of payment for doing anything. In their minds, it’s completely acceptable for women to be out for themselves, to always consider what’s in it for them, to be avoid risks and be selfish, but not for men. This means femininity is wholly conditional – a woman can only expected to be feminine if men and society as a whole incentivize her to be so, if they basically give her assurances that the sacrifices she makes in order to present herself as feminine are duly compensated. But as far as social conservatives are concerned, these assurances are sadly no longer around, so it’s right for their daughters to become ball-busting sassy harpies instead.

    These fathers are like “well, yeah, theoretically I’d love my daughter to become a feminine, charming SAHM raising four children in some neat suburb, but sadly we have a grave crisis of masculinity today, so she can’t just expect to find some millionaire, honorable, chivalrous superman who marries her and offers her a comfy lifestyle as a SAHM. But, like, she’s gotta eat, you know, so we encourage her to to to college and become a ball-busting, snarky, careerist cunt. She need to earn a living, you know, and in this horrible man-centric world, she’s gotta be tough.”

  9. Sir_Viver says:

    I quoted DALROCK at AMBEC today. And I included pastors among the “older men” who often stand by while feminism does its thing. Pastors appear to demonstrate an unbiblical approach to Christian spouses divorcing. If true, it means their AMBEC is showing. I am hoping some divorced brothers will add some personal experience to this discussion.

    AMBEC (Anti-Male Bias in the Evangelical Church) is a new facebook group for evangelical men. Please become a member and participate!
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/reportAMBEC/

  10. Elspeth says:

    The fathers are the key to this, because they are the ones creating more moxie, sassy, pushy young women in an active, encouraged, intentional sense.

    True, and when a father raises a daughter who is chaste, a good homemaker, smart (this does matter!), wants to marry and have kids young, and follows her father’s lead, there is push back from other parents -including fathers!- that he is treating a grown woman like a child.

    Not sure what the with metric was for measuring the stability of masculinity. Dr. Helen posted some pretty startling numbers recently that kind of corroborate the notion of fragile masculinity:

    https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2016/05/24/the-decline-of-the-manly-man/

  11. PokeSalad says:

    First in with the obligatory “Ghostbusters remake” reference post🙂

  12. LeeLee says:

    It makes a lot of sense. Adam was created first, and Eve for him, so there was a time that his masculinity sort of existed unto itself.

    God did say that wasn’t good, and created Eve for him, but still, femininity could never stand alone in that way, because it’s secondary, derived from and for masculinity.

    I don’t take that to mean women have to be married in order feminine, because otherwise 1 Corinthians 7:34 doesn’t make sense, but I think it does mean that women have to be living for men, as helpers to men, in a sense in order to be healthy in their femininity.

    Encouraging women to turn in towards ourselves is one of the most damaging things feminism has done. Femininity, the wellspring of our humanity and creativity as women, dies when it’s unplugged from it’s context of helping men.

  13. White Shores says:

    As a father of two young daughters (2 years and 6 months) I am very concerned that the most potent source of opposition to raising them properly is the “churchianity-conservitard axis.” Having run the bloody gauntlet for over four decades, I am determined to give my daughters the best possible chance to avoid becoming miserable, unfeminine harpies like so many others around them. I would genuinely appreciate any useful advice from good Christian fathers of daughters.

  14. I appreciate all you do to “raise awareness” but what can be done? This is just outrage porn for click-bait if we have no alternative. I’m tired of outrage porn. If I wanted that, I’d read Salon or Slate. What can be done? Can you lead with that?

  15. Marie says:

    Sometimes I wonder what definitions others think of as feminine? I would consider Ruth, Esther, and Abigail to all have determination (which is how I always defined moxie), and to be strong women. To me, there’s a difference between a strong woman and someone who is bitchy. I think feminism uses “strong” in a different way than others would.

  16. Carnivore says:

    But, at the same time, many of these guys *want* their daughters to be this way.
    Bingo! The fathers are the worst offenders, with the most “conservative” fathers leading the way. If they have sons, pity them since they are constantly hammered for not being “man enough”.

  17. Anon says:

    feminists have succeeded in replacing Luke Skywalker with a woman.

    Not to mention the absurd attempt to make The Ghostbusters female.

    Next up : Indiana Jones and James Bond. They are hard at work to make them female too.

  18. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I’ve seen two films over the past year wherein a group of children creep up onto an allegedly haunted house, or some place of ill repute. They seek to explore or do mischief.

    In both cases, it’s the boy who chickens out. It’s a girl who sneers at the boy, “Oh, all right. If you’re scared, stay here. But don’t run off.”

    In both cases, the boy is noticeably taller and older (by several years) than the girl.

    I don’t think opposite sexes play much together at that age (pre-adolescence). I especially don’t think boys play with younger girls. And I most certainly can’t imagine older boys cowering in fear while much younger girls go boldly forth into the haunted house.

    But this scenario seems to be a “thing” in film-making these days.

  19. Anon says:

    This is why the men of the CBMW live in a fantasy world where men are forcing women to go into combat in their place,

    This continues to be the most bizarre delusion among cuckservatives.

    In reality, if men were indeed avoiding military service, the reaction of women would be to switch sides, not to ‘defend their country’ as the cuckservatives laughably claim.

  20. feeriker says:

    That’s a big part of the “weak men are screwing things up” mindset — they *want* their daughters to be like this, and therefore they want the boys to be even stronger. The idea appears to be a marriage of super heroes — wonder woman can only have Superman as a husband, because no mere mortal man can handle wonder woman, so the problem is that most guys are weak because they aren’t Superman for my daughter’s wonder woman.

    Daddy putting Baby Princesss up on a pedestal (no ordinary douchebag for MY precious daughter!).

    I also wonder if, at least subconsciously, Daddy is trying to forge a clone of Baby Princess’s momma, who is probably also a loud, opinionated, pushy, masculinized obnoxious harridan with an entitled princess complex. Daddy figures that since he’s had to endure decades of henpecked hell, then, gotdammit, any future son-in-law is gonna suffer too!

  21. LeeLee says:

    @Marie
    God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. (2 Timothy 1:7)

    If this is true then yeah, it’s not wrong for women to have a spirit of power in a sense, but what does that mean?

    Look at that in context of 1 Peter 3:5-6. We’re Sarah’s daughters if we refuse to give way to fear, if we do what is right, and if we obey our husbands. The problem with feminism is that it defines strong only in the context of leadership, as in we’re strong women, we don’t need a man.

    But Biblically, strength is a tool that we use in being submissive. Because of her strength and fearlessness, Sarah didn’t give way to fear, but obeyed Abraham. Evangelical Feminists would say that strength and fearlessness look like putting up boundaries against your husband and being willing to correct him.

    It’s all about changing the definition of words. Ruth, Esther and Abigail were all strong AND deeply submissive, yielded and trusting. The two traits clearly work together instead of against each other, when properly understood.

  22. Kevin says:

    There is a big difference between being a strong woman and being a harpy. We have had generations of amazing strong woman that raised children when husbands went to war, or died in that war. Modern women want to be strong the way Rey is – just strong by virtue of being a woman not of earning anything with effort. As if womanhood alone was strong. No, some woman are strong, they resist the world and resist sin and go against the current for things that are important. But that is a virtue to aspire too, not an automatic thing just because of having a vagina.

    I have children in elementary school and the woman are slovenly and seem to be fatter. Its going to be hard for my boys to find a woman who cares about womanhood instead of in constant competition with them trying to prove she is tougher, smarter, better. The modern woman is completely unfeminine.

    I can understand the motivations of fathers to make their daughters into potential workers. I have a female relative that fell in love and married a loser. They have been destitute their whole lives. They would have been better off if she had become a nurse and he had stayed home with the kids. Men see situations like that and they worry for the daughters and try to determine ways to insulate them from men. Marriage choice is the best insulation, but many people marry for love without much thought. If those daughters risk divorce as everyone does, fathers want them to have the ability to provide for themselves. At the same time though, this mixes in with all the bad that promotes so many of the problems we have. The culture just sucks for everyone.

  23. feeriker says:

    …I think it does mean that women have to be living for men, as helpers to men, in a sense in order to be healthy in their femininity.

    Encouraging women to turn in towards ourselves is one of the most damaging things feminism has done. Femininity, the wellspring of our humanity and creativity as women, dies when it’s unplugged from it’s context of helping men.

    I was talking to my 82-year-old widowed mother over the weekend and we got off on a subject tangentially related to this. One of things she said to me was that spending the last 30 years of her 53-year marriage to my father side by side with him, 24/7/365, as they ran his mom-and-pop accounting business together was that being Dad’s “right arm,” through good years and bad, through all the stresses and the successes, was what gave her the greatest feeling of accomplishment ever. She said she couldn’t imagine having spent years on her own struggling to find purpose in life or happiness by herself, nor can she understand how my SiL (whom I’ve described here before) can stand life being nothing but a useless dead weight to my brother (I reminded her that SiL has been “damaged goods” from Day One). “She needs to step up and support your brother and start acting like a wife!”

    I do indeed believe that most wives can find more purpose, challenge, and opportunity for personal growth and enrichment just by being helpmeets to husbands in this day and age when everyday life is more of a trial than ever, especially for believers in Christ.

  24. @Dalrock: “hopefully we will one day have a generation of middle age and older men with the courage to stand up to feminism and set an example of courageous masculinity ”

    I think the necessary precursor to this is either War and destitution and mass death….or MGTOW. That may sound strange coming from one of the moderators on Married Red Pill but that has always been our position. Those are the only options that present a way forward for society today. The individual man can use Red Pill tactics to improve his marriage and even make it tolerable but the social forces are well engrained and marraige is a TERRIBLE deal for men.

    The central issue is that men today may NOT stand up to women. Just try it on Facebook, Dalrock. I dare you or any or your readers.

    Try to say something pro-masculinity on Facebook. The female bonobos will IMMEDIATELY pounce on you, defriend you, and begin spreading lies about you. They will work in concert to destroy you while the men stand by, afraid to speak up, well knowing their place is to hold their wife’s purse at the mall and to provide whatever utility is demanded by the mistress.

    Try to complain that women lie about rapes and domestic violence. They will lose their minds even if you show them studies, for example, that women lie and make up false “abuse” charges in fully 1/3 of all divorces. Women will call your boss at work demanding that you be fired because of your “misogyny.”

    Try to mention the 60,000 men who commit suicide every year and the homeless, jobless, sexless men who comprise a majority today. They will whine that “the men just have to keep up with us women. What is the problem?” Must be “fragile masculinity.” They can’t handle a ‘strongindependentwoman.’

    Try to complain about movies as you do. They will collectively shame you, question your manhood, make fun of your whining, and most likely tell everybody that you only feel like that because you hate women since you can’t get laid- and these are the devout Christian wives. The average woman will completely freak out and recite entire lectures from her college feminists studies classes and give you a lesson on the historical oppression of women.

    Men today have been crushed under the heels of the gynocracy and the nonstop drumhead of women demanding more and more and more and more while taking it from men and leaving less and less and less.

    The only way forward is for a generation to boys to REJECT long term associations with women. Once a breed of men are groomed to REJECT women entirely, only then can they throw off the power women hold and, as we say on married red pill- DNGAF (Don’t Not Give a Frack) about what they say or their reactions or whining. Only by truly, TRULY not caring what women have to offer might some of them be enticed to reverse course and actually offer something different.

    However, this is not likely to happen. The law is in place. The law benefits the loudest complainers (women) who howl collectively for more and more power- when will it end, Dalrock? I know! EVEN WHEN women are allowed to open their eyes and ears and “be like God Almighty Himself” they will STILL find a way to be unhappy. They are, in a word, misers with love and fidelity.

    While men are individuals, women follow the herd. Once you reach the Overton Window, there is no going back short of a societal reset and massive social unrest.

    Only when feminists are dragged by their short blue hair out of Ivory Offices, and onto podiums set up in the square of every campus in the nation, will things actually begin to change. When cheering crowds chant derisive sloguns as the feminists are stripped and beaten, and hanged by the neck to swing, kicking and twisting, perhaps at least a few of the women who were not hanged will finally listen to reason? Perhaps another round of hangings will have to be done before they will listen? I don’t know, but I DO know if we hang enough of them, the survivors will finally obtain that Godlike knowledge which they lust after and I think most of them will calm down enough to listen, for a few minutes anyway.

    When women are starving in the streets they will realize they needed men after all. When the survivors are picking through garbage in unlit streets after the men at the power company and the trash collectors Go Their Own Way, some of them will decide that being pleasant- at least on the surface- is not so bad after all.

    When women are being gang raped by Muslims in Europe and brown skinned gang bangers on welfare in the U.S. while the “men” stand by, or more likely while they walk by quietly with their heads bowed and their eyes firmly on the ground, will women start to clamor- “where are all the good men?”

    You have destroyed them in the cradle, ladies. Enjoy the Decline.

  25. Dalrock says:

    @Timber St. James

    I appreciate all you do to “raise awareness” but what can be done? This is just outrage porn for click-bait if we have no alternative. I’m tired of outrage porn. If I wanted that, I’d read Salon or Slate. What can be done? Can you lead with that?

    Our biggest problem by far is denial. Perhaps you already saw it all, and more importantly had no problem articulating it to others. In that case, this blog will probably be neither of interest nor of value to you.

  26. Kevin says:

    Someone mentioned the movie trope of the scared boy mocked by the brave girl. That trope is getting absurd and is everywhere. I cannot think of the last time I saw a show depict reality and have a girl cower in fear. NEVER. All of media is showing an unreality. Every spy show has a version of Black Widow beating up groups of well trained men. Its just so silly. But reality is hard to fight. My daughter was laughing at a girl complaining that WNBA players get paid less than NBA players because despite the worlds nonsense she understood what her eyes were clearing telling her: the girls get paid exactly what they are worth.

  27. @novaseeker: “fathers are the key to this, because they are the ones creating more moxie, sassy, pushy young women”

    I doubt this is true. Women with fathers are more feminine than women with “absent” fathers who have been forcibly removed from their daughters lives through the wallet.

    It is primarily “single moms” creating this horde of unfeminine, contrary, rude, obnoxious, and arrogant females, not concerned Dads. Although it is no doubt a contributing factor it is not the primary factor.

  28. @timber st james,

    What can be done is for us men still of marrying age to take the red pill, accept our masculinity, accept that women have been lied to even worse than us for their entire lives, and raise our value until we can attract and maintain a woman’s feminine submission. Then have many babies and raise them red pill aware.

    We must be the change we want to see. And we must start at the lowest level.

  29. Gaza says:

    Not to take away from men who manage to retain some measure of masculinity in spite of the massive headwind, but some of this resiliency of masculinity may be tied to the rigid societal expectations placed on boys and men.

    Part of the absurdity of this whole exercise is that they desire to destroy the honorable and noble aspects of masculinity but retain the obligatory duties and the benefits that accrue to society from those same things. It is some kind of meta-put-option on masculinity. Marriage 2.0 (or are we up to 3?) is the papering of this transaction.

    The culture works to handicap boys from an early age in order to create the *options* necessary for women to take on masculine roles and functions when it benefits them personally or serves the overall narrative, but these options are just that. If/when the options cease to have value or include costs/risks above the low tolerance as determined by the culture, i.e. negative consequences, unforeseen outcomes, unacceptable trade-offs, the deal is put back on men, e.g. “man up and marry that _____.”

    Within media they perhaps unknowingly reveal some of this whenever the SIW heroine rises to her greatness via the sacrifice of men. It is subtle enough that most viewers see only her badassery and not the men who actually did most of the killing and dying along the way in order for her to complete her sacred feminine journey of transformation.

    Often, the saving the world part is actually tied to her innate (feminine) specialness (e.g. the “force” or “divergence”) and not the actual virtues cultivated or skills honed via a hero’s journey as it often was when men (even gifted with the “force”) still had to earn their places as leader and hero. Even in their attempts to claim masculinity as their own they can’t help but to reveal that men must produce, work, and perform while women can just “be.”

    Co-opting masculinity is about creating free options for women, not actually assuming the full role in all its trade-offs. It always stops short of the responsibility that has historically or traditionally been attached with such roles and functions. Thus the culture still needs men to step in when the fiddler demands payment so the boys are expected to stay their course.

    Where the societal expectations of women have expanded into male territory this has not absolved men of these expectations. Men have just been asked to accommodate women in their spaces and then hang around to make sure that when the real costs of making such options and accommodations possible arise, there are enough of them around to pay. And they wonder why many boys are checking out altogether.

    I have some experience with Title IX in collegiate sports. The zero-sum hatchet to create equality (free female options) works just fine until the costs start showing up later on. I coached a female collegiate sport as a grad assistant and more than half of the team hadn’t even played that sport prior to college.

    But the school was super-duper proud of the fact they had the program. It was embarrassing. Not just because the level of play was so poor but because the attempt by the admin to elevate the woman’s program to that of the men’s (which was top-notch) ended up just demoralizing the men’s program and making a near farcical display. Like most of these efforts they just threw tons of money at it thinking funding was the problem-solution and not that most women just don’t want to play at that level nor are they physically designed to perform in ways that result in something entertaining to watch.

    The bar was so low it hardly resembled the sport I knew so well, yet the school and the players were quite cocky about their “success”. The competition was so weak that I think we took 3rd nationally or something like that. Of course, there were 3 or 4 female divisions whereas the male program played D1. Trophies all around. Later on one of my players from that era was inducted into the hall of fame at the school. The AD pretty much told me it was “time”; the administration wanted a woman from that sport in the HoF. Vagina wins the day.

    So what to do? I go out of my way to celebrate actual femininity, but this is not often observed. Whenever the go-girl stuff comes up socially I am tactfully dismissive of the attempts to celebrate masculinity in women and these kind of opportunistic swerves into male spaces until it actually gets tough or costly. e.g. a female friend who was raving about one of her old students taking up MMA was met with “that’s too bad” or the same woman cheering on her friends 4 y/o girl for being what I consider to be an insolent budding sociopath (“she will probably grow up to be a bad-ass lawyer”) which made me “LOL” and “great, we really need more laywerc**ts.”

    So while I am a “jerk”, I’d rather be a jerk than a cuck that is passively selling out boys so some girl might dabble in boxing or lawyering until she wants to cash in on her vagina.

    The enabling by the older generations is massive – and I’d say unstoppable. They only thing that will change it is pain. Pain brought on by their male peers challenging them directly, or subversively, or just the natural result of killing their golden gooses, one by one.

  30. @Timber St JAmes: “What can be done? Can you lead with that?”

    I have proposed a solution to the problem that will actually work, albeit with a bit of unpleasantness. Do YOU have some ideas on what we can lead with? Are YOU challenging these super powered young female / scared older male stereotypes? You want Dalrock to point them out AND provide solutions? Do you think he should also lead the armed revolt? Should he be on the podium leading the chants and tying the ropes?

  31. Gunner Q says:

    Peregrino Nuzkwamia @ 8:20 am:
    “Not much point “calling out the fathers”. After all, they are largely passive and unwitting bystanders in this whole process.”

    If you mean they’re frivorced out of the picture then yes, but first- and second-wave feminism was encouraged and funded by Daddy. That’s the treachery of the Baby Boomers, raising the next generation the exact opposite way they were raised, because… uh… white guilt or something.

    Timber St. James @ 9:20 am:
    “I appreciate all you do to “raise awareness” but what can be done?”

    Point feminism out. Bring it up in conversation. You have the right perspective, you have the facts about current events, now evangelize. It’s less about making converts than nudging people into taking sides. And who knows what the bystanders are thinking? One of my most important lessons from college was the fact that every question I asked, five other students were thinking but too nervous to speak up.

    But I share your frustrations. After the Trump abortion mini-scandal, I decided to take a closer look at my Constitution Party. They were still saying all the right things but like the dog that didn’t bark, my politicians were much less scandalous than one would expect for uncompromising “Christ & Country” types. One advantage of a small party is that even national officers can be personally reachable and we had a national convention last month so I decided to talk & float some red-pill ideas… and…

    The Constitution Party is Cucked. A couple guys rang true but they were the marginalized ones. I could hardly believe it; these people have literally no reason to lie, no reason except ideology to even get out of bed, and they’re the exact same Cuckservatives that run the Republicans. They actually plan to Nice their way into power!

    And they hate Trump. There are great reasons to oppose Trump but these guys talked like Trump’s campaign was a personal threat. Maybe I’ll vote Trump anyway just because the Cuckies who betrayed my country (and me!) hate & fear him so much. Democrats and commies I can defeat, allies who fear to offend sodomites not so much.

    PokeSalad @ 8:49 am:
    “First in with the obligatory “Ghostbusters remake” reference post.”

    Robocop remake would have been more plausible. I can accept a ninja princess when her body is 95% cyborg. That could actually make an interesting red-pill movie, a female brain in an artificially superpowerful body. She’s now as strong as a man!… but why is she still not acting like a man?

    Since we’re talking movies, is the upcoming Warcraft movie converged? I don’t care for movies myself but gamer friends might be going. In keeping with my above advice to Timber, I need to know whether to take a principled stand like I did with Star Whores.

  32. Pingback: Fragile femininity and our masculinity crisis. | Reaction Times

  33. Opus says:

    I have done a little research.

    Vox is quoting Roissy who has slightly altered (though without loss of sense) the Abstract. I was suspicious about the study because it merely targets College Students – whether they would reveal the same results after College or in future decades is not determined by the study. The Author of the system will be of some interest to Dalrock readers: Bem (born Lipsitz) [what a surprise] and who was apparently unable to obtain male-attention in her teenage years married at the age of twenty fellow academic Daryl Bem. Daryl Bem is in the Parapsychology camp and has theorised on Homosexuality as well as being a supporter of Egalitarian marriage, [pure psycho-babble if you ask me but what would I know?] and it was only on his agreement to his future wife’s terms that she agreed to marry him. In time, naturally, they duly separated – amicably. Her Sex Role Inventory theory – developed with her husband – of course, supports her anti-masculine, anti-femininity bias.

  34. Damn Crackers says:

    @Timber St JAmes: “What can be done? Can you lead with that?”

    I, for one, am going to do my part by pissing on all the unisex toilet seats. Some lessons are tough, but necessary for society to learn.

  35. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    I have done a little research.

    Vox is quoting Roissy who has slightly altered (though without loss of sense) the Abstract.

    Just to clarify, I followed the link from Vox through to Roissy and then to the abstract, and quoted directly from the abstract in the post.

  36. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    ” Let us hope that the resilience today’s young men are showing remains with them as they grow older. If they keep this resilience, hopefully we will one day have a generation of middle age and older men with the courage to stand up to feminism and set an example of courageous masculinity for the young men who follow.”

    Our day will come. We’re just biding our time.

  37. When you look at the ‘new’ Star Wars, the ‘new’ Mad Max, the ‘new’ Ghostbusters, and likely the ‘new’ Jane Bond, it would seem to me that the latent narrative of these movies being contrived to serve a feminine purpose would be obvious and people would reject them, but instead the contrivance is embraced. The unoriginality of remaking tired but tested male-centered stories, despite how campy they were originally intended to be, is really of no concern either to the hacks producing them or the audience applauding them.

    The ‘novelty’ of having a “female version” of an old male-led plot supersedes any idea that these stories, media, etc. are a manipulative contrivance. Fem-centric society knows they’re contrived, but the idea of gender-swapping a classic franchise trumps any appetite for an original script. They simply don’t care that it’s a hack because the need for equal gender representation and mock retribution excuse the lack of imagination.

    It’s interesting to see the hubris integral in all of this. The presumption is that a male-led role wasn’t important to a classic story plot, and that a woman can serve in the same capacity, but what they fail to grasp is that those stories and creative franchises are epics because they were fantastic plots founded in conventional gender roles. The stories and IPs were/are great, but hanging a dubious understanding of genderism on them doesn’t make them ‘better’, however, most people acculturated in fem-centrism don’t care. There is no originality because anything new that’s based on this equalist paradigm is boring or unfamiliar, thus the old ‘interesting’ stories must be the vehicle to promote this need for equalist validation, and in doing so they debase the integrity of the original, great, epic, stories.

  38. rugby11 says:

    @dalrock

  39. Looking Glass says:

    @Kevin:

    I saw a WNBA game on one of the TVs at a local restaurant (other games were on other TVs). I’d never actually watched more than like 2 highlights of the sport. I can see why. A decent High School boys team is just going to run over them. About 2 of the players actually looked & moved like professional athletes. The rest just looked uncoordinated. And these were the top players.

    I’d love to see the WNBA champion go against the McDonald’s All-American team. Though the fallout that would result would be brutal.

  40. rugby11 says:

    Bad link
    @dalrock
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Jungle
    I can’t see how this story would work with role reversals.

  41. Novaseeker says:

    Rollo —

    That and the fact that the nerdier type of guys (who are the core base for many of these kinds of films) seem to get really turned on by take-charge, empowered, sassy female heroine types. I think it’s the usual soft sexualization of their feelings of powerlessness vis-a-vis women reflected in the attraction to the take-charge female character, in much the same way some betas are attracted to the dominatrix trope. It stems from the same thing, and I expect as the culture becomes increasingly pornified, more men will have these kinds of feelings, and that will promote more portrayals of female characters of this type in big films, because the men themselves (i.e., that sub-portion that tends of be more hardcore fan of the SW or superhero type films) are attracted to these images of domme-type females.

  42. Novaseeker says:

    I appreciate all you do to “raise awareness” but what can be done? This is just outrage porn for click-bait if we have no alternative. I’m tired of outrage porn. If I wanted that, I’d read Salon or Slate. What can be done? Can you lead with that?

    This comes up from time to time, which is fine — it’s understandable frustration, I think. A couple of points.

    First, spreading awareness is still critical. The mainstream, even in churches, does not have this perspective. It’s pretty important to keep spreading the ideas, to keep pointing out the issues, especially in churches and places in the culture that are supposed to be anti-feminist, because that’s where awareness needs to be raised, and that needs to be much more widespread before any kind of collective action can have any hope of bearing any fruit at all.

    Until then, the main actions we can take are personal and not collective. Do not personally live in a way that is feminist/egalitarian — in your own relationships with women, in your own raising of your children and so on. Do not partake of the memes in the mainstream culture — resist them in your own life. Instill this in your children. Spread the ideas to men in your acquaintance who may need to hear them. Live the alternative openly so that people can see it. Given that the largest media/propaganda/meme-creation machine ever created in the history of the planet is against us, we can’t currently hope to prevail on that level. Efforts are better spent in personal lives and influencing people in that way, on the grassroots level, by word and example.

    This will be a slow process, but keep in mind that a critical element at this point — perhaps the most critical one of all — is simply survival of our ideas and ways of living in the midst of what is about to become the most hostile culture for these ideas in a long, long time. Mere survival in the short term is an extremely high priority. It forms the basis for any longer-term prospects of turning things around once the coming cultural tsunami passes and recedes a bit, whenever that may happen — the key is not having most people who think like us and their children washed out to sea by that.

  43. PokeSalad says:

    I can accept a ninja princess when her body is 95% cyborg. That could actually make an interesting red-pill movie, a female brain in an artificially superpowerful body. She’s now as strong as a man!… but why is she still not acting like a man?

    That was called Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

  44. PokeSalad says:

    I’m telling ya, just wait until Saving Private Rihanna comes out! It’s gonna be yuuuuuuuuge!

  45. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo

    The ‘novelty’ of having a “female version” of an old male-led plot supersedes any idea that these stories, media, etc. are a manipulative contrivance. Fem-centric society knows they’re contrived, but the idea of gender-swapping a classic franchise trumps any appetite for an original script. They simply don’t care that it’s a hack because the need for equal gender representation and mock retribution excuse the lack of imagination.

    …There is no originality because anything new that’s based on this equalist paradigm is boring or unfamiliar, thus the old ‘interesting’ stories must be the vehicle to promote this need for equalist validation, and in doing so they debase the integrity of the original, great, epic, stories.

    I think it is simpler than this. The impulse really is to break into an all male sphere, not to create something new. Little girls don’t dream of creating their own exclusive treehouse. They dream of making the boys let them join. This plays out everywhere, from women wanting to join male units in the military to the massive preference of women to become executives in existing tech firms over creating their own startup. Men create, women watch and then want to join. They have no interest in creating their own.

    Of course once the first impulse is successful, it is inevitably followed by the overwhelming urge to mark the space as feminine. This then makes the space no longer desirable to conquer, so women look for another host to take over. Rinse, lather, repeat.

  46. Looking Glass says:

    @Novaseeker:

    Being around both the Anime & Geek cultures, I’ve got a pretty good insight to what the general media thrust is using to work. You’re on the right track, but it’s a little more subtle than that.

    Firstly, they “want to be wanted”. In the current media environment, where do you find a kind, feminine character portrayed? So there’s literally nothing “kind” to grasp onto, and after years of being feed that, you’re left with a collection of trope-only Females. So, responding on the human desire to want to be liked/wanted, the “hard-charging, take-action” Females are the only decent choice. Because if they’re that driven, then they’ll be driven to want your cock. (Everyone understands, at the instinctual level, that Women will get what they want. And if they want the MC’s cock, they’re going to get it.)

    Secondly, the female MCs always have a “soft-side”. Even if it’s just basic human interaction, they’ll show not a feminine but at least “decent human interaction” side. For most of the Men in these subcultures, even those little soft-sides are more kindness than they’ll get from most Modern Women. Calling a lot of Women “callous whores” is pretty accurate these days. Since the Hero’s Journey works best when you can see yourself as the Hero, you see the Hero being treated far better than you ever will be.

    Thirdly, the female MCs are normally not really like Modern Women. Sure, those movies/media exist (though it tends to fail horribly), but the stuff that sells normally has to remove most of the female aspects from the female MC. This renders it Fantasy. And we know how much you can sell people on tempting fantasy.

    Lastly, and this has been commoditized within Anime/Manga (so expect to see it more common in the future in Western Media), but the females will eventually turn “dere” to the male MC. The purpose is two fold, here. 1) It let’s everyone ignore the previous horribleness of the female characters and 2) makes the female seem far more human than she did previously. This makes the female character desirable, but that only works when they make her the prettiest and leave little in the way of options.

    Though let’s never talk about “shipping wars”. Just, please, no.

  47. Dalrock says:

    On the push to remake established franchises with female leads, my vote is to agree and amplify. I’ll sign a petition to have Gillian Anderson be the next Jane Bond, so long as she promises to play Bond as she played Stella Gibson* in The Fall, only with a double portion of “sweetnight” speeches! Let it turn to ashes in their mouths just like Ghostbusters already did (and this with only the trailer released so far).

    *Language NSFW

  48. thedeti says:

    Rollo, Dalrock:

    Regardless of whether the female-centric remakes of cultural iconic films and characters is unoriginal (as Rollo says) or so the girls can run with the big boys (as Dalrock says), the originals with male centric characters were fun, interesting and enjoyable to watch, even if intentionally campy. They never took themselves too seriously, even Bond. The new female centric ones demand to be taken seriously. This despite the chop-socky action, girls beating the shit out of guys, and moralizing to the cameras.

  49. Looking Glass says:

    @PokeSalad:

    Ghost in the Shell. The topic has been done and done well. I’d normally only recommend Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Which is probably the best written anime series you’re going to be able to understand.

    Though, being it is Japanese, they don’t focus on her identity as a Woman but as a Human. The entire anime is really about the question “What does it mean to be Human?”. (This is why the live-action version coming soon is going to be TERRIBLE.) The main character, The Major, spends a lot of time trying to maintain being human and they actually point out that she still uses female forms when she’s barely gendered, at that point.

    I at least highly recommend the first season of that specific version of the Media. (GitS:SAC Season 1.) The Laughing Man saga is well worth the watch.

  50. anonymous_ng says:

    I wonder when the rot will rise to the level where people stop going to see the movies? I have noticed for myself that I no longer care much about movies.

    Latest Star Wars? Didn’t see it. Don’t care.
    Batman vs Superman? Don’t care.
    Captain America? Don’t care.
    Latest X-Men? I *might* see this one, but probably not until it’s on cable.

    In fact, the only two movies I’m looking forward to seeing are John Wick 2, and the latest Jason Bourne movie.

    It’s kind of like the NFL. I just don’t care. There are other things I’d rather be doing.

  51. Desiderius says:

    “We are without a doubt in the grips of a masculinity crisis, but it isn’t in young men. Young men in fact have proven themselves remarkably resilient in the face of mass attempts to demoralize their manhood. The true masculinity crisis is with the older men who stand by while feminists wage war on the masculinity of young men”

    Wow, that a tremendous insight.

    One thing that you highlight elsewhere in this post though is that the lion’s share of the damage done by the feminists hasn’t been to the masculinity of young men, however hard they’ve tried, but to the femininity of young women.

  52. Desiderius says:

    Nova,

    “But, at the same time, many of these guys *want* their daughters to be this way.”

    I’ve been arguing this for awhile. What is the principal sociological change in the last fifty years? Smaller family sizes.

    Smaller family sizes means less sons to carry on the family name/prestige. Fathers are pressing their daughters into those roles.

  53. Jeff Strand says:

    Speaking of fathers raising their daughters. I have 2 girls, and the wife and I are making a deliberate point to raise them to be feminine and submissive to a future husband, We also model this in our marriage, so they have grown up with it.

    I saw a guy on another web-board asking for advice for his daughter. She got through college and got a bachelor’s degree and has no debt (dad paid for it.) However, now she is thinking about grad school, and she would need to go into debt for that. She’s 22. Dad wants advice, but made it clear he leans heavily towards encouraging her.

    I responded that he should consider having her stop her education, get a job using the 4 year degree she already has, start dating seriously with an eye towards marriage, get hitched and start producing grand-children for him (she is his only child), Well, you would have thought I suggested she move to Syria and become a sex slave for ISIS! He responded “It’s clear to me you don’t have a daughter!” I replied, that’s right – instead, I have two!

    So he asked what I wanted for my daughters. I said I have already prepaid their college educations (4 years), but would like to see them get into a traditional feminine, flexible line of work. Like teacher, nurse, flight attendant, physical therapist, secretary, X-ray tech, etc. And then marry and start having kids relatively young. I further stated that if they didn’t want to go to college and wanted to be a hairdresser, that’s fine too – in fact, being a hairdresser is a good choice in many ways: there’s always demand, your job won’t become obsolete, you can cultivate a clientele, you can maybe work part-time, you can quit for years while you have kids and then maybe go back to it later, etc

    Well again he went ballistic – I’m a Neanderthal, I’m a woman-hater, etc. And this is a conservative, Republican-leaning guy in the UMC with a good job! He also said his own daughter was “way too young to think about marriage”! I kid you not, he said that! She’s 22, I remind you – not 18! And he didn’t make it sound like she was close to getting a proposal now…so running the math: to date seriously to find the right guy, then date him for up to a year, get engaged, go through (typically) at least a 6 month engagement, etc…that puts her at 24 to 25 on her wedding day. And that’s if she starts the process now and is lucky enough to meet her future husband fairly quickly! But in his mind, not only is she too young, she’s WAY TOO young.

    This is how even conservative, UMC, Christian, Republican-leaning dads are raising their daughters nowadays. So I agree with the commenter who said it’s the dad’s fault. They are DELIBERATELY raising their girls to be sassy, snarky, hard-charging, masculine, over-educated, independent, marriage-eschewing harpies. I’m just now truly realizing how rare parents like me and my wife truly are…who are intentionally raising our daughters to be anti-feminist and to make good surrendered wives.

    On the bright side, given how their peers are being raised, I anticipate that both my girls will have sky-high MMV and will be able to marry well. And they’ve been taught since toddlers that they will be producing children with their husbands – it’s their duty and it’s not optional,

  54. Desiderius says:

    Nova,

    “That and the fact that the nerdier type of guys (who are the core base for many of these kinds of films) seem to get really turned on by take-charge, empowered, sassy female heroine types.”

    Another great observation.

    “I think it’s the usual soft sexualization of their feelings of powerlessness vis-a-vis women reflected in the attraction to the take-charge female character, in much the same way some betas are attracted to the dominatrix trope.”

    I think you’ve got it backwards. Within this milieu (comics, SF, games) they have all the power in the world, in fact they’re drunk with that power. It’s the Revenge of the Nerds, and it’s spilled over into the broader culture with the general popularity of things like Big Bang Theory. Of course they’re still not scoring hot chicks on a regular basis, but that’s not really what they’re into anyway. See Paul Graham’s essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

    What they are into is (re-)creating women into their own idealized image of themselves. An increasing number of young women who’ve had their natural femininity stolen or discouraged are all too desperately playing along.

  55. Kevin says:

    @LookingGlass

    I read an article reporting that the women’s world records in most events match the boys aged 15-17. I beleive I read WNBA teams practice against college age boys that were good enough to play but not great or good high school teams. I would expect the McDonald team would have the athleticism to dominate but would have a tough time just because it’s hard to beat a team that has been playing together. It’s just genetic reality. Since you mentioned video games old RPGs would sometimes give a bonus to men of strength and women of dexterity and you often see the idea in the movie that the guys are big but too slow for the quick woman fighter. But that’s just gibberish. Boys are quicker, stronger, faster, jump higher, and have more endurance. I don’t know if men are more accurate – in archery or shooting do women do as well as men at the top level? Anyway in video games men should get bonuses to strength and girls empathy and communication if we wanted to be accurate.

  56. greyghost says:

    Dalrock
    That Stella Gibson is just too much macho. Her character really does need some very weak men to fly. That scene at the car was a joke. Those guys in real life when asked if that was her car and she said yes would have beat ass and took the car. Unless even Britain’s bad boys are emasculated enough relative to women to back down. Hell if that is the case how in the hell can you even have a cop show set in Britain if the bad boys are so understanding.
    Finland has gotten in on the act too

  57. Kevin says:

    @desiderian

    Great point about smaller family size. Lots of men with only 1-2 children and 0 or 1 boy try to put their daughters in all the sports. I have seen it. If fathers had a few more kids maybe they would be more comfortable having girls be girls and boys be boys, but with small families everyone must toss the ball with dad and play basketball with dad. Cannot leave anyone out. Dad cannot have special time with just his sons. No no.

  58. fatmanjudo says:

    White shores: “I would genuinely appreciate any useful advice from good Christian fathers of daughters.”
    I have two daughters and one son. Daughters 4 and 11; son 9. Thus, embarked on an ongoing project. I claim no expertise or authority, and no comment should be perceived as a criticism. I will tell you what I think, feel free to reject any idea.
    1) you are raising human beings, not political projects. Don’t get caught up in the political when it comes to your kids. Their well being is first. You are not raising feminists, MGTOW’s, Democrats, Republicans or Dalrockians.
    Also, People believe things are linear, when they are actually circular. Sooner or later, things change, because costs of the status quo exceeds the cost of change. The political will be different when they are of age versus now. Virtues are timeless for a reason.

    2) Raise strong intelligent kids. Life is to a large degree a competition. Don’t encourage weakness and whining. Victimhood is currently celebrated. This is a historical aberration. (the historical is more along the lines of “the weak suffer what they must and the strong do what they will”. While true, not a good dadism (see below) for obvious reasons)

    What you encourage you will end up with more of. What their strengths/weaknesses are will be different with each kid and if you are very unfortunate, they will mirror yours and make you insane because of it. You will have no ability to eradicate what you don’t like about yourself when you see it in them. The best you can try to teach them your coping strategies. Hopefully, you have coping strategies that worked for you. Juries still way out on this one, but that’s all i got. Good luck.

    3) Provide a good example. In life, when things fall apart, people go back to what they know. This is true whether “what they know” is good or bad. Try to make what they know good and hopefully, they will fall back on that when the going gets tough. Be a good masculine father and hopefully, they will try to one day replace you with a good masculine husband.

    4) Use “dadisms”. Oft repeated phrases or rules of thumb which encapsulate some wisdom and can be used to point out cause and effect concerning behavior. Example Dadism #1: “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” You would be surprised how often that one comes up.

    5) Children employ the age old tactic of divide and conquer. Because of that, no weakness can be shown in the spartan phalanx or you will be routed off the field of battle. The battle phalanx moves in lockstep in the same direction. Dadism #2: “what did your mother say about it.” Dadism #3: “your mom said No. That means no.”

    Concerning feminism, my plan is to say “is there any reason you feel it necessary to war against your father, uncles, brother and cousins.” make the abstract concrete. Also point out that if their goals are to be married and have a family, they should make choices that reflect that goal. I’ll check back in in twenty years and tell you how its going.

  59. Per Desteen says:

    @Timber and others:

    What are you doing about it?

    Do you have children? If yes, then:

    Live on one income with a stay at home mom. It’s the father’s role to work for income.
    Homeschool the children. This should be the primary occupation of the mother.
    Live debt free or nearly so (mortgage only). This is a secondary occupation of the mother and father.
    Cooking, wisely using resources, ensuring good nutrition and food, etc.
    Having a long range plan, budgets, direction. This is the secondary occupation of the father.
    All of the above while making a conscious choice to be religious and follow classical western civilization, without teaching stupid chivalry to sons.

    Realize that men and women are not the same, not equal, but are complementary. Be the patriarch and lead.

    If you are a man, start with having a plan, direction, and skills for yourself. Plan to marry when you are 25-30 to a woman 5-7 years your junior after establishing yourself.
    If you are a woman, marry an older man, be feminine, loyal and no ring no sex.

    That’s where you start.

  60. Novaseeker says:

    Smaller family sizes means less sons to carry on the family name/prestige. Fathers are pressing their daughters into those roles.

    Yes, this is at least a part of it, I agree. But I think there’s also other motivations like what Jeff Strand’s comment mentions as well — for men of a certain class, this is just how you raise daughters in 2016, and that’s that. Any suggestion otherwise marks one as an obvious misogynistic crank and a cretin.

    Admittedly, this is where we currently are, in that what we think is very counter-cultural today. Most people are not going to be counter-cultural, and are going to “go with the flow” of the culture, and this is true even of most Christians of whatever stripe, as we all know. And it is very true in terms of how daughters are raised — UMC Christians will typically raise their daughters in the UMC way (which is very feminist to say the least) unless they are being consciously and intentionally counter-cultural, and are willing to take the social flak for being so (the culture will always exact a social price for bucking its norms).

  61. The Question says:

    @ Desiderius

    “One thing that you highlight elsewhere in this post though is that the lion’s share of the damage done by the feminists hasn’t been to the masculinity of young men, however hard they’ve tried, but to the femininity of young women.”

    Very good insight.

    It tells us something important. The young men will endure the coming hardships because they’ve already survived much. The same can’t be said for the young women. There will be inevitable and permanent consequences for both, but the young men will recover. Many of the women will not.

  62. Looking Glass says:

    @Kevin:

    The Women’s world record 100m sprint (which, current record is accepted to have been wind-aided), would barely qualify for the finals in the Jamaican High School Boys track competition. They would have no chance of winning. By about .6 of a second.

    That’s trained, steroided female athletes in their peak condition, against high school aged Boys.

    I believe the USA Women’s Hockey national team lost to a high school team last year, and that was with a ban on contact.

  63. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    Smaller family sizes means less sons to carry on the family name/prestige. Fathers are pressing their daughters into those roles.

    Yes, this is at least a part of it, I agree. But I think there’s also other motivations like what Jeff Strand’s comment mentions as well — for men of a certain class, this is just how you raise daughters in 2016, and that’s that. Any suggestion otherwise marks one as an obvious misogynistic crank and a cretin.

    Admittedly, this is where we currently are, in that what we think is very counter-cultural today. Most people are not going to be counter-cultural, and are going to “go with the flow” of the culture, and this is true even of most Christians of whatever stripe, as we all know.

    Both are certainly part of it. I would add another factor, and that is that it is an easy (seeming) win. It is easy to raise kick ass girls, because of affirmative action and the fact that no one will ever challenge them to really perform like they would a boy/man. If she puts her hair in a pony tail and wears a lab coat and safety goggles, she clearly is an expert scientist, etc. This goes for any uniform you can imagine. All she has to do is put her hair back, put the uniform on, and act serious; in the mind of nearly everyone she is “doing” whatever role corresponds to the uniform. Plus, she has the guys eating out of her hands. She’s a real heartbreaker, my girl is!

    This is too hard for most to pass up. Boys have to perform, and prove they can do what they claim. This is hard, especially because the bar is set high. This makes raising an extraordinary (seeming) boy much more difficult than an extraordinary (seeming) girl. Unless you understand the downside to the fiction, it is very hard to pass up the easy win.

  64. The Real Peterman says:

    “I’ll sign a petition to have Gillian Anderson be the next Jane Bond, so long as she promises to play Bond as she played Stella Gibson* in The Fall”

    What the hell is that? Is her sole purpose on the police force to nail as many co-workers as she can?

  65. RichardP says:

    @Timber St. James: You asked “what can be done”? Short answer is this from the last paragraph in this post. “So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or EFFORT, but on God’s mercy”. Longer answer is – helping folks understand the truths contained in the following paragraphs is a start. If we truely understood and cared about what God actually said, we would be having a much different conversation than the one that has been going on.

    God did not create Eve to submit to Adam. Nowhere does the Creation story claim that he did. And God did not call Adam to lead Eve. Nowhere does the Creation story claim that he did (and the meaning of the New Testament Greek word for “head” favors “rulership” more than “leadership”). In the New Testament, Paul was either creating a new standard for male – female relationships different from God’s standard, or he was embracing God’s standard as described in this post and we have misunderstood what he was saying, intentionally or otherwise.

    God does not call us to “save” people. He calls us to expose people to the truth that God gave us in his word. God reserves the saving for himself. That is – we expose people to the “truth”. Only God can do the changing / saving.

    God knew what Eve was going to do to Adam before he created her, yet he created her anyway. Tell me again, what was it that Adam could do to change that truth? God hated Esau before he was conceived. Tell me again, what was it that Isaac could do to change that truth? If God rules over all, do we maybe have an inflated sense of our acutal ability to do anything about “correcting” the problems we see? “Problems” that were intentionally created by God. Or – to put it the way God actually put it – does the clay get to tell the potter that he made a mistake and tell the potter what he should do to make it right? Or do we have free reign to say unto the man, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? (Isaiah 45:9-10)

    Paul said that he wished all men were as he was – unmarried (because of the troublesome times they were in: 1 Corinthians 7:8). Was he speaking only to men? Or was he speaking also to women? Of what value is femininity (as defined by the writers in these parts) to a woman who is not married and intends to stay that way? Of what harm are all of the “masculine” traits defined here if adopted by a woman who is not married and intends to stay that way? The Bible itself talks about folks having access to different “gifts” (or skill sets), depending on what job they are doing. I agree that femininity should be part of the skill set that a woman should have if she is married; unfortunately, the ability to carry that off is determined far more in the womb than some people will admit to (genetics).
    ————————

    God created Eve to help Adam. To be a proper help, which is the God-mandated objective, the helper must submit to the instructions given by the helped – otherwise, no helping gets done. Submission is a required subset of helping. But helping is not a required subset of submission. A person can “submit” to another and at the same time do nothing at all to help them. That is, submission is a necessary part of helping, but it is not sufficient. God said help, not submit. Why do we say otherwise? (And please note that effective “helping” requires a different skill set than just being “feminine” or a “doormat”.)

    God told Eve what he had created Adam to do – rule over her. Not lead. Leadership depends upon the cooperation of the one who is supposed to be led. Rulership suffers no such restriction. Rulership rules, regardless of the attitude of the one being ruled over. Rulership is much more difficult to accomplish now when the state stands ready to intervene. But I’m talking about what God actually said, not what we have devolved into. God said rule, not lead. Why do we say otherwise? (And please note that effective “ruling” requires a different mindset and skill set than “leading” requires.) Did God say “rule” because he knew that he had created Eve to be resistant to leadership?

    God did not intend that Eve help everyman. Only her husband. And God did not intend that Adam rule everywoman. Only his wife. If one is not going to be a wife or a husband, God does not really have a list of skill sets that each sex must employ. So why should we?

    Finally, let us let Romans 9:6-21 inform our on-going conversation:

    It is not as though God’s word has failed. … What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Absolutely not! For He says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” … So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. .. who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay [whatever he wants to make]? See Isaiah 45: 9-10 for follow-up.

    God only calls us to be the messenger. All of our efforts to do what God reserves to himself are likely to be met with God’s displeasure, to say nothing of our failure. We have plenty enough to do just doing what God told Eve we would do (not should do; would do) – ruling over what God has given us. But “ruling over” is kinda hard to do from a jail cell. So be wise in your ruling over.

  66. Anon says:

    First, they though only strength-based sports would be dominated by men…

    Then, they found that even track was one where women are just not competitive with men, since the lower body is used, rather than the upper body. Whether sprinting or marathons, women lag men by a huge margin..

    Then, it emerged that even chess, a field with no barrier to entry and no physical demands whatsoever, is one where almost all grandmasters are male….. Men across a wide range of cultures, mind you, but always male….

  67. rugby11 says:

    @Looking glass
    Masculine

    Masculine

    Part of why the term red pill is so appealing is being able to look at the wolrd without being told what your seening.

    Ghost in the shell was the matrix before their was a matrix. With live action…

  68. RichardP says:

    This thread of Rollo’s is a good companion piece to what is being discussed here.
    https://therationalmale.com/2016/05/06/good-girls-bad-girls/#comment-154880

  69. @Dal
    https://therationalmale.com/2014/06/03/male-space/

    The First Woman

    This push into male space is rarely due to a true desire to belong to a traditionally all-male institution or condition, but women are encouraged to believe they’ll make some dent in the universe simply by being the first to push past a “gender barrier.” It’s not about making a true contribution to that male institution or endeavor, but rather a goal of being ‘the first woman to do it too’.

    For all of the misdirections of a hoped for equalism, it’s not about becoming an astronaut for a woman, but rather becoming the first woman–astronaut – then moving on to being the first woman assigned to a combat role in the military, then the first woman to play at Augusta. If equalism were the real intent, we could expect the desire of the endeavor itself would supersede this, but the Feminine Imperative motivates women (and socially demotivates men’s resistance) to the first woman goal, not the actual accomplishment or excellence in that accomplishment or endeavor. The trail being blazed is less important than being the first woman trailblazer – in fact it can simply be the same trail men blazed centuries before and still be recognized as a significant accomplishment.

    The goal is to be a woman in male space.

    The cover story is the same trope the Feminine Imperative (and its social arm, feminism) always finds useful; the never ending push towards gender equalism. The practice however reveals the push into male space serves two purposes – social control and male oversight.

    Social control is the easier of the two to grasp. Even when changing the rules of an all-male game to accommodate a lack of genuine female interest in a male endeavor, it fundamentally alters the nature of that game. The first woman allowed participation in that game is novelty enough to extend the Feminine Imperative’s social control into that male space (i.e. “nowadays women do it too”).

    An easy example of this would be NASCAR’s embracing a driver like Danica Patrick. It’s not that she’s an exceptional driver, and I can’t vouch for her genuine passion for NASCAR, but the social control she represents is that she is the first woman to (dubiously) be taken seriously in the nominally all-male space of NASCAR drivers. The goal has been achieved, all that’s left now is female oversight of this male space.

  70. BillyS says:

    Or the first female US President Rollo….

    Dalrock, you use “week men” in the OP where you meant “weak men”.

    [D: Thank you. Fixed.]

  71. Desiderius says:

    Dal,

    “Plus, she has the guys eating out of her hands”

    Doesn’t take long for her to tire of guys and wonder where the men are.

  72. Anon says:

    Only 2 of the top 100 Chess Grandmasters are female.

    https://aeon.co/essays/why-are-only-two-of-the-world-s-top-100-chess-players-women

    Ironically, many aspects of chess seem that they might suit women well, and hence women should be able to close the gap. Of course, the article gives convoluted reasons to avoid the most obvious explanation…

  73. Johnycomelately says:

    Feminism doesn’t produce masculinised women, it produces the exact opposite. It subsidises the female and shields her from real world repercussions, there’s a reason there are more female Indian STEM majors than in the west.

    What feminism does produce is hyper narcissistic female behaviour, not masculinised women, there’s a distinction. Delusions of grandeur and the incessant need to denigrate others to prop oneself up is the hallmark of narcism.

    Masculine women (there’s got to be a better expression) are great, they don’t have a pretence to superiority, they work hard and are generally grounded in reality.

    You don’t deal with narcissits by trying to take them down a peg, it doesn’t work, they’ll fight tooth and nail to maintain the illusion.

    The real issue is male low self esteem, female narcism can only exist in an environment of low male self esteem. The culture wars will only be won by lifting up the male and identifying the ‘guilt culture’ wars propagated by social programmers.

    Rollo and Heartiste have it pegged, shit lords will win the culture war by embracing the guilt narrative and not giving a shit about the repercussions of not abiding by its tenets.

  74. Anon says:

    Masculine women (there’s got to be a better expression)

    A better description would be ‘androgynized, unnatural women’.

    Or ‘feral females’ always works.

  75. mike says:

    Yes, and even though psychological warfare may have previously failed against young men, they have a new method – medical warfare. The main targets of the trans movement are young men. If you can’t beat the masculinity out of their brain, then indoctrinate them at ages as young as 4 and confuse them so they get on puberty blockers. Then, literally increase their estrogen levels and chop off their genitals. That should be permanent, right?

  76. greyghost says:

    Johnycomelately
    Masculine women are female caricatures of how the see men. It explains the attraction to shitlords and thugs and the contempt women have of mature productive men. When women become masculine they behave as immature young men older boys and then declare themselves strong. And the whole time a government and cultural safety net is carried around behind them.

  77. Anon says:

    It explains the attraction to shitlords and thugs

    I am convinced that when women get tattoos, that is only because they were attracted to a tattooed man (a biker type, etc.).

    The same goes for women who think swearing and sarcasm make them attractive. They were merely attracted to a male jerk who did those things…..

  78. Neguy says:

    With apologies to Conservative Pundit, CBMW thinks “egalitarians are the real misogynists”

  79. Novaseeker says:

    I am convinced that when women get tattoos, that is only because they were attracted to a tattooed man (a biker type, etc.).

    The same goes for women who think swearing and sarcasm make them attractive. They were merely attracted to a male jerk who did those things…..

    Yes, this is what masculinized womanhood looks like. You have to lean in, cuss like a sailor and drink like one, have sex like men do, get tats like men do, have a fundamentally competitive nature like men do, and so on. It’s all aping of men, and that makes them inherently less feminine and more masculine. Of course it isn’t truly masculine, just as feminized men aren’t truly feminine, but this masculinization runs down their femininity and makes them, from the persona perspective, more androgyne, while at the same time they max out on physical sexual power projection — so you have the image of a very sexually aggressive female in terms of her dress and appearance, coupled with a very masculinized persona. It’s quite common among the more highly educated professional young woman set, or at least a certain portion of them (the portion that is hot enough to pull off the sexually aggressive physical presentation well enough).

  80. greyghost says:

    On the opposite end look how emotional and irrational a transgendered man acts to be female. It is not a helpmeet. A feminine man or masculine woman both act as childlike immature versions of what ever it is.
    Imagine and think of the conversations we have on a man or a woman that is the mature ideal for marriage or responsibility. These caricatures are definitely not it.

  81. Spike says:

    I agree that young men are remarkably resilient to feminist’s attempts to brainwash them. It is however getting harder and harder to prevent the brainwashing, since there are no male spaces, and the economy is essentially feminist in nature, because it is women who do the bulk of the spending in the Western world.
    A culture that tells boys as young as 4 that it is okay to be same sex attracted, even when they see the most powerful symbol of stability in their lives – their mother and father together – is criminal. Telling girls the complementary message of same sex attraction is wriing a recipe for the society’s extinction.
    Perhaps denouncing it from the pulpit might help:

  82. I thought y’all would like this. A woman is terrified of her post wall status!

    http://idly.craveonline.com/2016/05/kaley-cuoco-karl-cook-dating/#/slide/3

  83. feeriker says:

    It is easy to raise kick ass girls, because of affirmative action and the fact that no one will ever challenge them to really perform like they would a boy/man. If she puts her hair in a pony tail and wears a lab coat and safety goggles, she clearly is an expert scientist, etc. This goes for any uniform you can imagine. All she has to do is put her hair back, put the uniform on, and act serious; in the mind of nearly everyone she is “doing” whatever role corresponds to the uniform. Plus, she has the guys eating out of her hands. She’s a real heartbreaker, my girl is!

    God help the man who doesn’t buy EmpoweredPrincess’s[TM] phony bullshit act and decides to put her to the test. Heaven and all the angels, plus God help him if doing so results in EP’s mask falling off and revealing her as the clueless, incompetent token that she is and causing her to crack and fall apart under pressure. Crucifixion is a merciful fate compared to what said man will suffer at the hands of EP’s enablers.

    Ask me how I know this …

  84. feeriker says:

    I responded that he should consider having her stop her education, get a job using the 4 year degree she already has, start dating seriously with an eye towards marriage, get hitched and start producing grand-children for him (she is his only child), Well, you would have thought I suggested she move to Syria and become a sex slave for ISIS!

    A typical example of how churchians are enthralled to the culture.

    Sand in place of salt. A dark, foggy cloud on the horizon instead of a light on a hill.

  85. I disagree somewhat with the prevailing opinion on this thread. Feminism is a form of nihilism. Therefore, having been the first woman to do something is simply a front for tearing it down. And so forth and so on. Until all patriarchy and fatherhood, most especially Divine Fatherhood, has been toppled. Many of these same people, most notably women, love the idea of Christ, the Son, with little reference to God the Father. One can imagine that Christ, who was all about giving glory to the Father, is not very pleased with those who want the Son with virtually no reference to the Father.

    Also, read:

    http://www.returnofkings.com/86615/the-end-game-of-feminism-and-cultural-marxism-is-to-eliminate-sex-differences

  86. The takeaway from the article I provided:

    The true aim of the nihilism (of cultural Marxists, at least) is to create societal-wide amnesia, so that they can remake the world as they deem best.

  87. Desiderius says:

    Nova,

    “It’s all aping of men”

    Mirroring is the rudimentary social skill all non-sociopaths figure out very early in their development. Those stuck there are socially retarded (literally).

    My guess is that we’ve seen an epidemic of that retardation engendered by the greater atomization of society. The miserliness of feminism that precludes the consideration of the actual needs and preferences of men is also a major contributor toward this retardation in women.

  88. Anon says:

    Jeff Strand,

    He also said his own daughter was “way too young to think about marriage”! I kid you not, he said that! She’s 22, I remind you – not 18!

    So they want a decade of courtship for their daughters, so that her prime is not given to the eventual beta bux husband.

    No wonder some men see more value in adjusting their approach, and being among the many recipients of these women’s 20s, at little or no cost.

    Woe to the shmoe who becomes the son-in-law of your friend…

    An acquaintance of mine has a daughter who recently married at 24. SHE was smart, but even the father said ‘she married sort of young’. He thinks 24 is young, and miraculously the daughter knew better.

  89. Anon says:

    Jeff Strand,

    They are DELIBERATELY raising their girls to be sassy, snarky, hard-charging, masculine, over-educated, independent, marriage-eschewing harpies.

    One important correction. There is almost no such thing as an ‘independent’ woman. Even if she has a high-paying job. She benefited from layer upon layer of affirmative action, tons of other government transfers from men to women, plus a male population that is now so well-behaved that a single woman commuting to work every day can do so in safety.

    Extremely few women are truly independent. Having a well-paying job alone is no such indicator.

  90. feeriker says:

    An acquaintance of mine has a daughter who recently married at 24. SHE was smart, but even the father said ‘she married sort of young’. He thinks 24 is young, and miraculously the daughter knew better.

    This would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic and didn’t have such tragic consequences in most scenarios (i.e., Daddy coddling baby princess until she’s on the threshold of 30, indulging her snowflake delusions).

    Your acquaintance’s SiL appears to be a lucky man. Too bad his FiL* doesn’t appear to be as grown up as his wife.

    (* Don’t be this guy)

  91. infowarrior1 says:

    @LeeLee
    I think a distinction can be made between power and strength. Both men and women can be powerful in their unique way but only men can be strong in the traditional sense of the word.

    Since strength as in being courageous,competent and able to exert force to defeat enemies and to endure and overcome hardship is much more in the male domain than the female domain.

    Female power on the other hand is the ability to influence men and to have men rise to their defense in trouble as well as helping to give rise to the next generation of men to supercharge men who would fight for them and their offspring. From their wombs rise valorous men and women who support them.

  92. White Shores says:

    fatmanjudo: Thank you for your suggestions.

  93. Gunner Q says:

    Desiderius @ 1:44 pm:
    “I’ve been arguing this for awhile. What is the principal sociological change in the last fifty years? Smaller family sizes.”

    I would say apostasy.

    “Smaller family sizes means less sons to carry on the family name/prestige. Fathers are pressing their daughters into those roles.”

    This isn’t consistent with fathers encouraging Princess to focus on career over children. The way a lot of these fathers talk, you’d think getting pregnant was a death sentence.

    Also, the way these fathers refuse to invest in any sons-in-law indicate posterity is not a pressing concern.

  94. Desiderius says:

    “The way a lot of these fathers talk, you’d think getting pregnant was a death sentence.”

    One of the distinguishing characteristics of sons is their low pregnancy rates.

  95. ray says:

    “We are without a doubt in the grips of a masculinity crisis, but it isn’t in young men. Young men in fact have proven themselves remarkably resilient in the face of mass attempts to demoralize their manhood. The true masculinity crisis is with the older men who stand by while feminists wage war on the masculinity of young men, too afraid to stand up and protect the culture.”

    Hear hear.

    The boys of America are worth fighting for, absolutely right. There are some pretty tough little doods around, folks might be surprised. Our boys are worth protecting from all enemies, foreign or domestic. They deserve daddies, a loving Christian upbringing, and a non-feminist culture.

    Those who’ve been riding the Cuckmobile are cheating those boys of their futures — boys who are counting on us, amidst the chaos and corruption of this rebellious nation, for their basic safety and welfare. May the Lord reward good works on their behalf.

  96. Isa says:

    I took the silly quiz. Very odd bent to the questions. Typical nonsense about if you think you are loyal, compassionate, hardworking etc. I managed 69% masculine, 44% androgynous, and 33% feminine as they score each category separately. I’m not sure which traits go where, but I imagine anyone that is a introverted and self motivated will come out highly masculine according to the test. Perhaps being opinionated as well is considered masculine…? Link here:
    http://garote.bdmonkeys.net/bsri.html

    This next is quite stupid, and I ended up androgynous. As for the questions, who hasn’t set things on fire for fun…? Isn’t that a normal human thing to do? And why the {%**% would someone dream of being in a natural disaster? Having been in 2 in my life, it is the opposite of fun and exciting. Morons.
    http://personality-testing.info/tests/OSRI/

  97. greyghost says:

    Also, the way these fathers refuse to invest in any sons-in-law indicate posterity is not a pressing concern.

    This is the biggest thing I think about with my daughters. I want a mature masculine SiL if I have to work with the guy myself. I talk about the type of guy my oldest daughter will be with fairly often. Good thinking GunnerQ.. Attractive daughters can be sluts or they can be an asset for bringing in red pill family men into the family. It’s all about frame.

  98. feeriker says:

    Also, the way these fathers refuse to invest in any sons-in-law indicate posterity is not a pressing concern.

    Depending on the family in question, that might not necessarily be a bad thing.

  99. Hells Hound says:

    The young men will endure the coming hardships because they’ve already survived much. The same can’t be said for the young women. There will be inevitable and permanent consequences for both, but the young men will recover. Many of the women will not.

    Nonsense. The hardships of history always victimize men to a disproportionately high rate. If the US, or any other Western country, is affected by some sort of grave social crisis and mass death, the overwhelming majority of the victims will be men. The average woman will easily find some white knight or captain save-a-ho to protect her, and she isn’t seen as a target to begin with.

  100. Hells Hound says:

    Well again he went ballistic – I’m a Neanderthal, I’m a woman-hater, etc. And this is a conservative, Republican-leaning guy in the UMC with a good job! He also said his own daughter was “way too young to think about marriage”! I kid you not, he said that! She’s 22, I remind you – not 18! And he didn’t make it sound like she was close to getting a proposal now…so running the math: to date seriously to find the right guy, then date him for up to a year, get engaged, go through (typically) at least a 6 month engagement, etc…that puts her at 24 to 25 on her wedding day. And that’s if she starts the process now and is lucky enough to meet her future husband fairly quickly! But in his mind, not only is she too young, she’s WAY TOO young.

    A couple of things:

    As Nova pointed it out, he’s an UMC normie first, a follower of the herd second, a father third, and “conservative” fourth; keep that in mind. He doesn’t want to take risks, so he’s not OK with the idea that her daughter should structure her life around the gole of becoming a happy young mother, because nobody can assure her that this will come to pass, whereas there’s a fairly high chance of her getting an UMC-style career if she’s pushed hard enough in the job market. He probably falls for all the feminist nonsense out there: women can easily have healthy children even when they’re 45, masses of evil shitbag players are preying on her innocent daughter. Plus he’s probably OK with having only 1-2 grandkids.

  101. Desiderius says:

    greyghost,

    “I want a mature masculine SiL if I have to work with the guy myself.”

    That’s the way good fathers have always done it. It’s best way to end up with a large, healthy brood of grandchildren.

    The grrl power booster dads are too solipsistic to be that large-minded. They’re too in love with themselves and making their daughters into carbon copies of their own inflated self-image.

  102. Opus says:

    I observed (as I have pointed out on a previous occasion) when I was State-side that Americans take even their run-of-the-mill movies with a seriousness that is not prevalent in Great Britain – and super heroes are in case you have overlooked this an entirely American phenomenon. One reason for that failure to take movies with seriousness on the part of the English is perhaps due to our home-grown movies largely being set in the past. There is I also think more live theatre, and denser population makes London’s hundred or so theatres accessible to a large proportion of the population. It is also the case, for me, that I am but short journey from the two London opera-houses, Covent Garden and The Coliseum not to mention, in the other direction, Glyndebourne. It is that of which I write.

    Castration – bear with me – (apparently encouraged by The Roman Catholics because of St Paul’s admonition against women speaking in church) went entirely out of fashion by the mid Nineteenth Century and Castrati parts are frequently thus taken – to preserve as best one can – the tesitura, by women. In addition to that, many trouser-roles were specifically written for women (e.g. Cherubino). Operatically speaking Transgender Opera is just sooo passee – you never get it say post Wagner (except in Richard Strauss). This allows producers plenty of opportunity to exhibit strong empowered women (pretending to be men). Then there is the Counter Tenor who may sing powerful males (e.g. Julio Cesare) nevertheless he sounds effeminate and thus in modern opera tends to be reduced to the sexually doubtful (e.g. Oberon).

    It gets worse, however. I was rather shocked recently by a Viennese production of Peter Grimes. Grimes (as you will all recall) is the gruff fisherman who is brutal to his cabin boys and who asserts that he WILL marry Spinster school-Marm Ellen Orford. In Vienna, Ellen is a trouser-suited dyke who seems to take a liking to the cabin boy. Predictably the set consists of overturned chairs (I never understand that but they do it all the time these days). Naturally Grimes and the boy get into bed together (I never saw THAT before but to prevent any hint of under-age sex the boy is now a young man with a beard – which makes a nonsense of Grimes alleged cruelty). If Grimes really is homosexual why does he not sing ‘I’ll marry John’? – the boy’s name. Why do I have to suffer this stuff?

  103. craig says:

    Opus says: “There is I also think more live theatre, and denser population makes London’s hundred or so theatres accessible to a large proportion of the population.”

    The prices are also a big difference. Attending live theatre in America requires taking out a mortgage.

  104. Novaseeker says:

    This isn’t consistent with fathers encouraging Princess to focus on career over children. The way a lot of these fathers talk, you’d think getting pregnant was a death sentence.

    Also, the way these fathers refuse to invest in any sons-in-law indicate posterity is not a pressing concern.

    Not in terms of grand-children, no, but in terms of “look at how proud I am of what my [son/daughter] does” type of thing. That kind of posterity. It’s both virtue signalling and status enhancing in the UMC to have both one’s sons and daughters “achieve well”, in a way that is acceptable to the socio-economic peer group. That’s the posterity piece, and it’s largely displaced the desire for a brood of grand-children for many people. A couple of grand-children, properly planned and spaced and not had before the appropriate age, of course, is sufficient, coupled with a prestigious and well-paying career.

    In addition to the posterity factor I describe, it does have to be said that there is a real fear factor — that is, fear of the daughter being in the lurch if either (i) she cannot find a suitable suitor or (ii) divorce ensues. it isn’t so much that the career planning is seen as “Plan B” — it may be for some, but for most it isn’t that explicit. It’s more a general sense of “everyone needs to be able to fend for themselves” which motivates this, I think, and it’s a broadly felt concern.

  105. Otto Lamp says:

    “In both cases, it’s the boy who chickens out. It’s a girl who sneers at the boy, “Oh, all right. If you’re scared, stay here. But don’t run off.”

    1) Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

    2) Women are so used to men bailing them out for their mistakes, they lost the ability to judge danger.

  106. greyghost says:

    2) Women are so used to men bailing them out for their mistakes, they lost the ability to judge danger.

    Captain-save-a-ho is not your friend

  107. Kiljoy says:

    “The true masculinity crisis is with the older men who stand by while feminists wage war on the masculinity of young men, too afraid to stand up and protect the culture.”

    Speaking of which, I’d very interested to see what readers here would make of Greg Buzwell, who works for the British Library.

    To quote from his review of Jude The Obscure

    Marriage, and the role of women

    “If the dominant theme in the first part of the novel is education, then the focus in the second is marriage and the opportunities available to women in a largely patriarchal society. Jude the Obscure addresses the horrors of sexual relationships devoid of love; the consequences arising from ignorance about sex, and the unenlightened view held by society and the Church that an unhappy marriage was preferable to a loving, sexual relationship outside of wedlock. It also explores society’s attitude towards women as they attempt to secure financial security for themselves – either via marriage or the pursuit of a career.”

    And

    “It was common in literature to show fallen women as suffering and, indeed, as often paying the ultimate price for their immoral behaviour by throwing themselves to their deaths in a river in a symbolic act of cleansing. Arabella’s adeptness in using her sexuality to secure husbands and survive, without showing any signs either of guilt or disease as a result of her promiscuous activities antagonised conservative Victorian opinion. In an elegant twist at the conclusion of the book, Arabella does indeed go down to the river but not to drown herself. She goes there in search of another husband.”

    Elegant? One might wonder what Buzwell’s female colleagues *really* think of him.

    – See more at: http://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/an-introduction-to-jude-the-obscure#sthash.PuSBxGHX.dpuf

  108. Kiljoy says:

    Greyghost “Captain-save-a-ho is not your friend”

    Indeed. The gentleman defends a lady’s honour. PUA’s, White knights etc defend female dishonour.

  109. Kiljoy says:

    Or, to quote Jane Bennett in Pride and Prejudice:

    “It is our vanity that fancies SMV means more than it does.”

    Lizzie “and dishonourable men take care that it should.”

  110. feeriker says:

    2) Women are so used to men bailing them out for their mistakes, they lost the ability to judge danger.

    I’m not entirely sure that women have ever had the ability to judge danger to the extent that men have. Of course the difference between the past and the present is that in the past the “evil patriarchy” kept women out of most situations where they would need to be able to gauge the danger of the surroundings. Today, on the other hand, women are both feral and entitled, meaning that they are completely free to put themselves in reckless situations and then demand that random men extrict them from them. Worst of all worlds for men.

  111. PokeSalad says:


    2) Women are so used to men bailing them out for their mistakes, they lost the ability to judge danger.

    Exhibit #1: The Houston road-rage video.

  112. Chris says:

    Exhibit #2: The women who are now falling prey to Muslim rapefugees in Europe. Aaron Clarey suggested in one of his recent videos that we as men should stop and think before we rush in and protect them from the consequences of their own choices and complicity. Needless to say, it’s one of my favorite YT videos.

  113. Girls in the collage dorm where I am are more behaved. And study. The guys are a disaster zone. There are guys that are responsible on rare occasions but they are rare.

  114. Though I admit sometimes women after college age ask for trouble.

  115. Opus says:

    @Craig

    A lot of theatre is subsidised. It is, frankly almost as cheap for me to attend the Opera as it is to go to the Cinema. I can (if I want) acquire a ticket – and on the day – for the Coliseum at £15.00 ($21.00) or Covent Garden £25.00 ($36.00). I can also for some concerts at the Royal Festival Hall pay precisely nothing – it’s free – to hear London’s, Philharmonia Orchestra. I checked: one of those free concerts conducted by Esa Pekka Salonen was the same concert he had given with the L.A. Phil (where he is also Music Director) a few days before – the cost in L.A. $44.00, in London £00.00. May I also (as I doubt I will ever get another chance) observe that you can always spot Americans at The Coliseum as they are the ones wearing a Tuxedo (what the British call a Dinner Jacket commonly abbreviated to D.J.). The English do not dress for the opera (although one might look slightly conspicuous at Covent Garden if you are not in a suit and tie) though one is expected to wear a Tuxedo at Glyndebourne – and bring a picnic hamper as you relax in the extended interval surrounded by Cows safely grazing (or whatever it is that cows do).

  116. codebeard says:

    I don’t know if Gillian Anderson was always a radical feminist, but ever since waking up to all this (red pill, if you want to call it that) I can’t stand anything she’s been in recently. She was only just tolerable in Hannibal, but her character Stella Gibson in The Fall was basically just a walking womens studies textbook.

    Here’s a critique I wrote of The Fall on imdb (thread is “Pointless feminism ruined the whole show” – spoiler alert: it’s true):
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294189/board/thread/219940589?p=4&d=226465913#226465913

  117. @Avraham: “Girls in the collage dorm where I am are more behaved. And study. The guys are a disaster zone. There are guys that are responsible on rare occasions but they are rare…..Though I admit sometimes women after college age ask for trouble.

    We are not talking about study habits. Those well behaved little snowflakes may behave themselves around you and project the yourgogirrrrrrl strength and power but i assure you, put an Alpha among the sheep and they will start competing and sniping one another. Before long, the “gang rapes” and “fake rape allegations” will commence.

  118. Gunner Q says:

    feeriker @ 9:08 am:
    “I’m not entirely sure that women have ever had the ability to judge danger to the extent that men have.”

    This would explain all the useless safety features on cars these days.

  119. Cane Caldo says:

    @Avraham

    Girls in the collage dorm where I am are more behaved. And study. The guys are a disaster zone. There are guys that are responsible on rare occasions but they are rare.

    Those girls and boys didn’t grow up in a vacuum, Avraham. What you are observing is that never missing an opportunity to beat down boys turns out to be discouraging, and sacrificing everything (including sanity) to puff up girls is encouraging.

    Besides, I think you might suffer from the delusion described by Dalrock’s comment about girls in ponytails and lab-coats. The girls doesn’t actually have to perform well to be taken seriously; she just has to put on the outfit and be “in the scene”. It’s Barbie writ large; however much Feminists might hate to hear it.

    @Novaseeker

    Great comments.

  120. Joe says:

    I’m a new reader. I have been enjoying your blog for a few weeks now and have gone back to read some of the archived posts. I have been happily married for 23 years and we have 10 children. Our oldest (twin boys) are both getting married this summer. My oldest son’s fiancee’ posted this on her FB wall today and I wondered if you had seen it or have any comment on it. I am not familiar with the author but it struck me as something you might have an opinion about. http://www.faithit.com/richard-paul-evans-how-i-saved-my-marriage/?utm_content=bufferf6d0b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

  121. Anon says:

    Joe,

    I have been happily married for 23 years and we have 10 children.

    Well, that is good. You are from a different time.

    But don’t think that ‘feminism’ cannot damage some or all of your children (both male and female). Most churches in the US are now extremely feminist.

  122. Anon says:

    Avraham said :

    Girls in the collage dorm where I am are more behaved. And study.

    That could just as easily mean that they merely stay indoors on Fri and Sat night instead of going to Frat parties, but nonetheless invite men up to their rooms for sex, sometimes 20 men in a single calendar year. This is not ‘studying’.

    Refer to what Cane Caldo said : across society, there are tons of women who just wear the costume and pretend to be doing the real work of a profession, and most people assume they are brilliant. In reality, they are not doing anything productive or praiseworthy, nor does society require them to.

  123. Hells Hound says:

    In addition to the posterity factor I describe, it does have to be said that there is a real fear factor — that is, fear of the daughter being in the lurch if either (i) she cannot find a suitable suitor or (ii) divorce ensues. it isn’t so much that the career planning is seen as “Plan B” — it may be for some, but for most it isn’t that explicit.

    What I find somewhat baffling is that these people see the pursuit/establishment of a career as incompatible with being married, looking for a husband or even thinking about marriage. That way of thinking is sort of black-and-white. I know it’s basically a troll question, but why couldn’t a 24-year-old woman work on her career and be open to the idea of marriage at the same time?

  124. Anon says:

    2) Women are so used to men bailing them out for their mistakes, they lost the ability to judge danger.

    This explains why the ‘electorate’ is consistently voting in a manner that makes everyone less safe…

  125. Joe says:

    @Spike posted a video of a sermon above. Is that the “pisseth against a wall” guy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNCoevpt5TE

  126. Anon says:

    HellHound,

    What I find somewhat baffling is that these people see the pursuit/establishment of a career as incompatible with being married, looking for a husband or even thinking about marriage. That way of thinking is sort of black-and-white. I know it’s basically a troll question, but why couldn’t a 24-year-old woman work on her career and be open to the idea of marriage at the same time?

    Because there is a belief that housework is a huge workload, that greatly increases when the man lives with the woman, and that the man does not contribute to. They believe their own garbage on this topic, resulting in a view that women are taking on a massive new workload.

    In reality, a single guy needs to spend only a couple of hours a week to keep his dwelling well-maintained…

  127. anonymous_ng says:

    @Spike “It is however getting harder and harder to prevent the brainwashing, since there are no male spaces, and the economy is essentially feminist in nature, because it is women who do the bulk of the spending in the Western world.”

    I’ve found two male places, the barber shop, and the gun store.

  128. Cane Caldo says:

    @Joe

    Is that the “pisseth against a wall” guy?

    Thank you for that link.

  129. feeriker says:

    That would explain all the useless safety features on cars these days.

    That is indeed, IMO, a reflection of the thorough feminization of our society: the Safety Ueber Alles mentality in which every possible catastrophe is guarded against, regardless of cost, ROI, or practicality.

    I’ve found two male places, the barber shop, and the gun store.

    The owner of the barber shop I had frequented for the last six years just closed down his shop. Three years ago he got a wild hare up his ass and decided to relocate the shop to an expanded space so that he could include a woman’s beauty salon and a tanning parlor – neither of which did even a day’s worth of business as far as I could tell.

    So the guy went from running a thriving barbershop that catered exclusively to MEN to running a money-sucking unisex hole that failed. Serves the asshole right. There’s a clear lesson here, although I doubt that Barber Bob has learned it as he works his rented chair in a shopping mail mega-salon.

    BTW, Barber Bob’s old location, where it was a men-only shop, is now home to another traditional men-only barber shop that is thriving, like BB’s once did. Guess where feeriker is now getting his haircuts?

  130. Gunner Q says:

    Hells Hound @ 1:42 pm:
    “What I find somewhat baffling is that these people see the pursuit/establishment of a career as incompatible with being married, looking for a husband or even thinking about marriage.”

    Student debt.

  131. JDG says:

    I know it’s basically a troll question, but why couldn’t a 24-year-old woman work on her career and be open to the idea of marriage at the same time?

    Why should a guy be open to marrying a woman who’s world view includes a career for herself.

    A woman who has a career can only be a helpmate to a man who’s life course is set to include a woman with a career, yet a woman who has a career “don’t need no man”. She is less likely to respect him, much less submit to him and function as a helpmate.

    A woman who has a career is more likely to be in competition with her husband as the bread winner and as head of the house.

    A woman who has a career will be exposed to high powered men which can play havoc with her hypergamy.

    A woman who has a career who marries will be less efficient as wife / helpmate / mother or be less efficient at her career or, most likely, both.

    A woman with a career is just one more of many concessions to feminism.

  132. Anon says:

    the Safety Ueber Alles mentality in which every possible catastrophe is guarded against, regardless of cost, ROI, or practicality.

    Here is an article describing just that, using the recent gorilla incident as an example :

    https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/06/01/guns-gorillas-and-moon-missions/

  133. Atticus says:

    http://chicago.suntimes.com/lifestyles/dear-abby-i-love-my-man-but-might-like-a-hookup/

    Look at the question and the advice (not sure what “if he’s like 99% of the men on this planet your problem is solved. Ho-ho-ho” means because there is no way 99% of men would put up with this. Maybe 92.4%.

    How sad is this and how right is Rollo on open cuckoldry. How far we have fallen.

  134. craig says:

    Joe says: “My oldest son’s fiancee’ posted this on her FB wall today and I wondered if you had seen it or have any comment on it. I am not familiar with the author but it struck me as something you might have an opinion about.”

    Tell you what — read that article, and then come back and read one from our host Dalrock: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/11/30/twisted-scripture/

    The article you linked could be a 100% truthful account. I can say that its style and content appears crafted to stimulate all the emotional receptors in contemporary evangelical women. The man displays servility, obsequiousness, and emotional neediness toward his wife. It is a cloying, Precious Moments inversion of all the traits women respect in actual men, and for that reason it rings false. In real life women would be put off by that kind of behavior and would deem such a man a ‘loser’ unworthy of their affection.

  135. Dalrock, this part of your post is particularly good:

    “The true masculinity crisis is with the older men who stand by while feminists wage war on the masculinity of young men, too afraid to stand up and protect the culture.”

    Many people don’t want to accept reality anymore. If you have young women who are beautifully feminine then you don’t need to exhort young men to make commitments, the young men will believe there to be a reason for doing so. The “conservatives” you speak of want to go along with the liberal drift of society but still hold things together. They accept the loss of the natural forms of inspiring male commitments and so end up trying to pressure men into them. Feminists are a bit the same – they want to control men increasingly through legal means or the force of ideas. I can’t see it working even in the medium term.

  136. feeriker says:

    JDG says:
    June 1, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Thank you. I think you’ve provided a pretty definitive answer to the question. The sad part is that most American men today are so thoroughky neutered/cucked that they either don’t grasp the points you’ve made or consider them signs of a Neanderthal/misogynist mindset.

  137. Novaseeker says:

    How sad is this and how right is Rollo on open cuckoldry. How far we have fallen.

    It’s a small thing, really, but another indication of the reality that things are moving in the direction of open social support for female infidelity while remaining hostile (overtly or covertly) about male infidelity. Still, she’s wrong that 99.9% of men who are in boyfriend relationships would be ok with that — at least not today, yet.

  138. thedeti says:

    On that Dear Abby quip:

    Abby told the correspondent to explain it to her BF and if “he is like 99% of the men on the planet, your problem will be solved”. I take that to mean most men would not put up with it and would immediately break up with her.

    I do think, though, that a growing number of men will start putting up with it, as open polyandry becomes a thing. The way it will work is that a growing number of women will say, after having their kids, something like this to their husbands:

    “I want to have sex with other men. You can have sex with other women if you want (ha ha ha, we’ll just SEE how that goes). If we divorce, you know I’ll take most of the assets, and the kids, and you can see the kids every other weekend. So. Here are your choices:

    “Unconventional marriage in which I get to have sex with other men (and you, if and when I feel like it) and you can keep the money and the kids; or

    “conventional divorce, in which I rape you financially and strip mine the marriage for assets, you’ll be obligated to me for a decade or so financially, and you lose the family you wanted.”

  139. A♠ says:

    With respect, Dalrock, I believe you (and many others, elsewhere) mistake standard youthful rebelliousness with resilience.

    Feminism is the system, now.

    And, for a long time, it’s been cool to fight the system, whatever it may be.

    (Oscar Wilde once observed that America is in love with its heroes – especially those from the criminal class.)

    Plus, it’s easy to type things on the internet when one gets home from school or between college classes; it’s another to stand up when one’s career (not simply one’s “job”), family and social standing are all on the line.

    (I know, personally.

    It cost me everything.)

    Now, I’ve been here for years and, I agree, it’s at least heartening to see the changes.

    But, as Thomas Payne observed, there are always plenty of “summer soldiers and sunshine patriots”.

    Time will tell while I remain skeptical.

  140. Looking Glass says:

    On the “Young Woman + Career” topic, some of you are really missing a bit of Female Psychology.

    The instant she is married, she’s going to turn into a “Wife”. Then, at the first child, a “Mother”. Then she’s going to act out those scripts because those are the scripts she’s been taught and they’re mixed with enough instincts to work.

    Women simply aren’t Men. They don’t think “I’ve got my career and a spouse would be nice”. Women follow 1 script at a time and only 1 script. (It’s part of the reason only a few Women keep independent hobbies, assuming they developed one in the first place.) Parents instinctually know this, even if they could never figure it out enough to say it. So all of those years of effort they’ve put into making their “Precious Princess” into a Corporate Drone are going to go right out the window the instant she has her first child.

    This is why treating Daughters like Sons is such a bad idea. You fall victim to the Sunk Cost Fallacy, which leads you to encouraging the destruction of daughters to assuage one’s own vanity.

    Evil is evil and ain’t nothing changing that.

  141. JDG says:

    feeriker says:
    June 1, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    Glad I could help.

    they either don’t grasp the points you’ve made or consider them signs of a Neanderthal/misogynist mindset.

    I suspect that more often than not this is a “both and” situation rather than an “either or”.

  142. Cane Caldo says:

    @Desi

    What [nerds] are into is (re-)creating women into their own idealized image of themselves.

    Here’s my sanitized version, lest I scare off a a delicate gentleman: There’s a porn effect in play, too. Sex, to them–and whether they’d recognize it or not–is a masturbatory affair. So they’d rather be masturbated by an equal (which fits their lazy groove) than take a woman (which is a bit of work).

  143. Desiderius says:

    Cane,

    I think you’re on to something there. There was a definite correlation between my giving up egalitarianism and my capacity to take, and keep, a women. Once I did the former, the latter followed almost naturally.

  144. Isa says:

    @JDG Perhaps it is that the “career” is seen as an end to itself rather than something to help the family unit survive and prosper. Men I know with high powered careers generally have wives who help them either through acting as secretaries, social directors etc. or merely taking all home responsibility so the man only works, albeit 120 hr weeks with client rather than family dinners. Even the doctors I know with private practice are much more succesful with a wife also trained in the medical field, as those outside fundamentally do not understand the hours it takes. It also deletes the salary of another member of staff.

    Conversely, I have seen two young men recently working for themselves whose wives had their own “career” and basically assured their husbands would and could not be successful in theirs. One in construction and contracting and the other in veterinary medicine. The wives could not understand that the husbands need to work 100+ weeks at the beginning to get up to speed and earn a client base, so the work is shoddy and large profit opportunities were missed. Quite unfortunate as both young men are upstanding people with real talent and potential saddled with an impossible situation.

  145. feeriker says:

    “I want to have sex with other men. You can have sex with other women if you want (ha ha ha, we’ll just SEE how that goes).

    Odds are very high that this strategy will backfire badly on wifey in this situation. It’s likely that her hubby, if he’s even reasonably decent looking, in even moderately decent shape, and has any Game knowledge at all, will get much more extra-marital sex than she will. This will of course lead jealous, vengeful wifey to push the divorce button and destroy the marriage anyway, probably accusing hubby of DV and child molestation in the process just for good measure.

  146. ray says:

    That’s a good comment and example, Jeff Strand. I hope the Lord rewards your obedience, in your family and descendants, likewise as an example.

  147. Looking Glass says:

    @Desiderius & Cane:

    While I don’t disagree there is an aspect of that to the portrayal of Women in Nerd/Geek fiction, I would submit that it’s not really the core aspect that always shines through.

    The one thing that is almost always present: the Women are represented as better humans than you’ll probably ever find in a real Woman. That’s part of the entire “Action Girl” trope. The “Action Girl” is dedicated, loyal and competent at a useful skill. 3 things almost no Woman possesses that a Nerd/Geek will ever really see in person. There’s also a massive lack of sniping & cruelty, that Women actually display in real life, in most Nerd/Geek targeted media.

    It’s partially a result of the Blue-pill. Partially the result of native White Knighting. But I’d argue the largest competent is that Women with most of the positive masculine personality traits simply make a far more ordered and pleasant world. Thus, this is what the Nerd/Geek will create for himself, which is where all fiction groups start: creation for yourself.

  148. Kiljoy says:

    “Refer to what Cane Caldo said : across society, there are tons of women who just wear the costume and pretend to be doing the real work of a profession, and most people assume they are brilliant. In reality, they are not doing anything productive or praiseworthy, nor does society require them to.”

    Iain McGilchrist did a very interesting book on brain hemisphere differences (The Master And His Emissary) and he implications for society at large. I think it’s probably fair to say that much of the professional world is ideal for the ‘secretary’ (Kafkaesque, etc) but actually secretaries of old were probably far more appreciated, made far more valuable contribution.

  149. Looking Glass says:

    “competent” should be “component”. Would help if my ability to self-edit was competent most days.

  150. Hells Hound says:

    The one thing that is almost always present: the Women are represented as better humans than you’ll probably ever find in a real Woman. That’s part of the entire “Action Girl” trope. The “Action Girl” is dedicated, loyal and competent at a useful skill. 3 things almost no Woman possesses that a Nerd/Geek will ever really see in person. There’s also a massive lack of sniping & cruelty, that Women actually display in real life, in most Nerd/Geek targeted media.

    I’ve noticed that as well. These female characters display virtues we normally associate with traditional, martial masculinity.

  151. Hells Hound says:

    The instant she is married, she’s going to turn into a “Wife”. Then, at the first child, a “Mother”. Then she’s going to act out those scripts because those are the scripts she’s been taught and they’re mixed with enough instincts to work.

    Women simply aren’t Men. They don’t think “I’ve got my career and a spouse would be nice”. Women follow 1 script at a time and only 1 script

    Yes, that mostly explains it, I think. Society sees femininity as completely conditional i.e. it’s accepted that a woman will only do something if she gets paid to do so one way or another. If she enters a long-term relationship, that payment is a wedding as soon as possible. If she agrees to marriage, the payment is impregnation as soon as possible. And motherhood is seen as incompatible with a career.

  152. Looking Glass says:

    @Hells Hound:

    Functionally, everyone assumes Women are actually children. Sure, most act like it, most of the time, but it’s core to the assumption set that they’re incapable of multiple tasks. The assumption that there is a place past childhood that Women are more than capable of reaching is just outside of the cultural assumptions right now. It drives a lot of the basic thought process for how parents treat their daughters and the expectations on Women.

    Now, this is driven because the “Men = Women with some different dangly bits” assumption is illogical and irrational. When you hold onto truly false assumptions, it warps every other logic-chain associated with the area. (I find most people to be fairly rational; it’s their assumptions that are worthless, thus they cannot see the errors in their thinking, as their logic is “fine”.) This is why the “Red Pill” can be so bitter, as it roots out a deeply held belief with vicious efficiency.

    On the Media issue, the assumption runs throughout the issue with Nerd/Geek fiction. Men value loyalty and dedication, so if you wrap that up in a competent Fantasy Female character that’s also physically attractive, what’s not to like? Sure, it’s pure fantasy and it’s a trap, though any Nerd/Geek viewing the landscape of what’s available to him is going to prefer the fantasy. (If anyone knows what the “2D vs 3D” argument means, that’s the entire contour of the discussion.) That most Women in modern cultures are fairly lacking in basic humanity drives a lot of that.

  153. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Schopenhauer dealt with the fact that women can have a negative side. And he saw the problem that England was worshiping women. He thought nothing good can come from that. Since I saw that the subject seemed uninteresting to me since he saw and explained the issue clearly. There is what to discuss however in terms of his concepts of the Ideas in the subject and how that relates to this but it seems off topic for this blog.

  154. Novaseeker says:

    Conversely, I have seen two young men recently working for themselves whose wives had their own “career” and basically assured their husbands would and could not be successful in theirs. One in construction and contracting and the other in veterinary medicine. The wives could not understand that the husbands need to work 100+ weeks at the beginning to get up to speed and earn a client base, so the work is shoddy and large profit opportunities were missed. Quite unfortunate as both young men are upstanding people with real talent and potential saddled with an impossible situation.

    Yes.

    I try to explain to people that this isn’t very complicated. There really are two choices, with different outcomes. Choice 1 is for one spouse to concentrate on earning and the other to concentrate on family, maximizing in each, with some sacrifices (the earning spouse sees kids less). Choice 2 is for both spouses to share earning and family, which leads to more balance, but retards both work and family life for both spouses. Choice 2 is tolerable if the money each spouse makes, even without optimizing their career, is still very nice — there are quite a few couples here in the DC region who are not at the top of their careers but are kind of upper middle manager types in private or public sector where each is pulling down 150-200k, so even though they are each held back, they are each doing very well, so it kind of works (although the kids suffer of course). In all other cases, however, Choice 2 will normally be suboptimal to Choice 1 in both areas, and especially if one spouse is in an entrepreneurial (as opposed to bureaucratic) job.

    —-
    It’s likely that her hubby, if he’s even reasonably decent looking, in even moderately decent shape, and has any Game knowledge at all, will get much more extra-marital sex than she will.

    Not typically. The typical situation is as it is in the typical extra-marital market in general — women have much easier access to sex than men do. I have read numerous accounts of situations where the husband asked to open the marriage, the wife reluctantly agreed, and within a few months she was far-outpacing him with her paramours, and when he asked to reclose the marriage she told him to buzz off. Women have easier access to sex than men do, pretty much at any age under 50, other than outlier cases where a fairly unattractive woman is married to a very good looking, charming man with Game. Most women under 50 can get sex much more easily than most men under 50 can, whether they are married or not.

  155. PokeSalad says:

    If she agrees to marriage, the payment is impregnation as soon as possible. And motherhood is seen as incompatible with a career.

    To my mind, marriage is seen by women as not a lifetime commitment with God’s blessing, but as just another career choice. The emphasis on huge, expensive splashy weddings reminds me of a graduation blowout, and the marriage itself is undertaken like a job; the wife is willing to work under certain job conditions (but like many clockpunchers, there is strong motivation to get the most ‘pay’ for the least ‘work’), and is free to ‘quit’ and find another ‘job’ if she is sufficiently dissatisfied with the work environment. There’s always a severance package, of course.

  156. Opus says:

    Avraham Rosenblum refers to Schopenhauer – and I raise a very small point about what he says. I assume he is referring to Schopenhauer’s essay On Women. I did not recall that the essay referred to England (although Schopenhauer frequently does so elsewhere) or if it did so, then not in the way he states, and so I have just had a look through my copy. The only reference that I can find specifically to England is to London’s eighty-thousand prostitutes – and an unrelated (to the prostitutes) mentioning of Lord Byron.

  157. Mister says:

    The researchers’ observation that masculinity is more resilient than femininity is related I think to the fact that effeminate men are still generally more revolting than masculine women. A woman can more easily be accepted as “one of the guys” than a (straight) man can be accepted as “one of the girls.”

  158. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Schopenhauer does mention in his essays the problem of English putting women on a pedestal.But not in the essay on women. In another essay. This seems related to the fact that he did not put positive traits of women into the “Ideas” in the subject. He could have if he had wanted to. I guess he left that for Jung to do

  159. Gunner Q says:

    Looking Glass @ 1:24 am:
    “It’s partially a result of the Blue-pill. Partially the result of native White Knighting. But I’d argue the largest competent is that Women with most of the positive masculine personality traits simply make a far more ordered and pleasant world.”

    Also, nerds have learned that showing direct interest in a woman is a great way to be shot down. A woman who has (genuine) common interests with nerds gives the guys a chance to interact with and impress her without activating the gag reflex. It isn’t deception or escapism. It’s tiptoeing through a minefield.

    Another thing. Nerds live in the mental world, not the physical world. They’re wizards, not barbarians. And like the stereotypical wizard cloistered in his Tower of Libraries, what the nerd wants most from a woman is to have his physical needs met so he can roam a mental landscape more vibrant than anything mere reality can offer. Don’t mock this; pasty-skinned, pencil-necked dorks living in their heads found a million medicines, put men on the moon and built this very Internet we’re using. I speak for all nerds everywhere when I say it’s frustrating to neglect our true power in order to compete in petty games of animal dominance just to satisfy blind hormones. Our desire for an easy path to sex with loyal Amazons is not laziness but a consequence of having only 24 hours in a day. How about we make Prince Charming build a submarine before he gets to get laid?

    But that’s another reason masculinity is robust. If we nerds have to choose, most of us prefer our minds to women. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can’t take the sky from me.

  160. >>>Odds are very high that this strategy will backfire badly on wifey in this situation. It’s likely that her hubby, if he’s even reasonably decent looking, in even moderately decent shape, and has any Game knowledge at all, will get much more extra-marital sex than she will.

    This is true….in the long run. What men don’t understand today is that men are built over time. They don’t come out of the box with a vagina that let’s them have all the sex they could ever want at any time of the day or night. Instead, men must build a sex life over time. So how it plays out is wife starts having sex with 3-4 different men, or more. The SAME NIGHT she goes out and comes back the next morning. Rinse-Repeat. Meanwhile the husband sits at home sobbing. Perhaps jerking off to porn. ONLY if the husband sucks it up and starts to go out into the wide-wide world and build a harem will he possibly beat the wife on extra-marital sex. Even then, SHE will be able to go out and get a good dicking any time- even if it is 3:00 a.m. and even if she is a blue haired wildebeest.

    What she won’t get is commitment or even affection, and after a short period of hypersexuality she is likely to start to long for some Beta behaviors from a loving husband. The key in that situation is to be at one of your plate’s homes and to ignore the whining, begging, pleading text from your cuck-wife. The next best move is to serve her with the divorce papers while she is home crying about getting pumped and dumped by Johny McfelonDrummer for the 3rd time that month. Harsh? I don’t think so. If I had my way and we followed God’s law, such women would be dragged outside the city and stoned to death.

  161. Kevin says:

    I have seen what Novaseeker describes. Very common to see two Doctor families now (fits in with general change that prior doctors married nurses, lawyers marry secretaries but now the professionals marry another professional) and if both spouses have these sky high 100k plus incomes you can hire nannies, and assitants to make life relatively smooth despite both working long hours. But if both have normal jobs there might not be enough money to get all the help and there will be strife suffering and sacrifice. Children suffer in a lot of these situations.

  162. JDG says:

    The woman was made for the man. Feminist abhor this fact and swapping male / female roles is one of the means feminists have been using to achieve their goals. In fact, for many feminists it was / is a main goal. They love the idea of the woman being the provider and in charge while the man basically functions as her helpmate. This is not what the Bible teaches, in fact quite the opposite:

    3 “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.” – Titus Ch 2.

    The Greek word used to translate “workers at home” or “keepers at home” or “busy at home” (translations vary) is oikourous. This word is derived from two Greek words. The first is oikos. It means a house, a dwelling, or, by substitution, a household or family. The second is ouros. It refers to a keeper, watcher or guardian, i.e., one who has the oversight and responsibility for something. Thus, the basic significance of oikourous is that of a “housekeeper,” meaning one who watches over a household and family, seeing to it that all members are cared for, and all things maintained in good order (like the woman described in Proverbs 31).

    A woman with a career will not be very effective at seeing to it that all household members are cared for, and all things maintained in good order. She will certainly not be a suitable helpmate UNLESS that is the trajectory set by her husband and she is doing so in submission to him. If this is the case I don’t see how what she is doing is a career (perhaps I am nitpicking here but perhaps not – words have meanings and feminists love to twist the meanings of words to for their own ends).

    In closing, I submit that a man just going a long to get along with a woman who wants a career is just fooling himself if he thinks such an arrangement is wise, prudent, or even remotely biblical. The only exception I can think of for this is when the man is doing damage control for the sake of his children. Even then he is choosing the lesser of two disastrous options.

  163. Isa says:

    @JDG
    “A woman with a career will not be very effective at seeing to it that all household members are cared for, and all things maintained in good order. She will certainly not be a suitable helpmate UNLESS that is the trajectory set by her husband and she is doing so in submission to him. ”

    That was what I was attempting to say, albeit not very well. I do not disagree that the home and children must be cared for, but it is a modern fantasy aided by economic prosperity that enables women to be largely useless with no discernible skills. They then have a career in “social work” or something else without much purpose. Instead, they need to understand that their work and education should be in a useful field to help support the family and complement the work of their husband.

    Perhaps the issue is indeed with words. I differentiate between vocation, career, and job. Married women ought to have a vocation to take care of the home and be a mother and may have a job to help support that. Women who choose never to marry may have a vocation to work in some field and have a career. Barren married women may be able to have a career, but their vocation is still marriage, thus they need to downgrade to a job if called upon by family situation.

  164. Damn Crackers says:

    @Opus – Trust me, I’m sure Lord Byron had at least some relationship with one of London’s 80,000.

  165. Opus says:

    I also looked through his Metaphysics of Love but England does not get a mention there either. I am not suggesting that he is excluding England from his judgement, but he extends it to all of western Europe. What I found most interesting was Schopenhauer’s assertion that you would not have all those Prostitutes if women had families. Reading his Essay on Women I felt at times as if he were writing in 2016.

  166. john says:

    There was this young boy who started work as a painter recently who stood next to me while I waited for something and struck up a conversation. I immediately felt deceived because this was a woman. Her voice, her softness was unconcealed by her buzz cut and manufactured stance. I had thought nothing of her before except maybe as a young boy who had his first job.

    There was something else I could tell from talking with her and from that point on. She liked me. But not in a romantic sense. She wanted to be me. She desired the camaraderie of men. The gestures of greeting, the “what’s ups” and the “how’s it goins.” But she can never be me.

    Feminism has certainly made women more masculine. But the presence of a man is not matched.

    Allow me to explain. There was this young, beautiful woman at work who looked at me like she had never seen someone in her entire existence. When I found out she was married, I avoided her. She had a loud mouth and was friendly with all the guys. But I protect her and her marriage by keeping my silence.

    Keeping your silence as a man can say much. There was another young, beautiful woman who walked around work teasing all the men and getting them to do her work for her. When she brought her haughtiness to me, it was my silence that sobered her. And I let her do her job herself.

    A man’s presence is stronger than a woman’s and it can be used to instruct and for reproach.

  167. feeriker says:

    The next best move is to serve her with the divorce papers while she is home crying about getting pumped and dumped by Johny McfelonDrummer for the 3rd time that month.

    That’s just about exactly what I did. Incredibly, she (my now ex) felt completely blindsided and butt-hurt by it, as if to testify to the innate and irremediably solipsistic nature of women.

    Harsh? I don’t think so. If I had my way and we followed God’s law, such women would be dragged outside the city and stoned to death.

    I once thought the same, but am now convinced that death is too easy and painless a punishment. My ex is now living alone, on a meager fixed income (which will dry up in 9.5 years, assuming she lives that long), and after getting dumped by Fuckbuddy Rockdrummer literally days after the divorce was finalized, according to a pair of reliable sources I know who are close to her, is getting male attention only from the male flies and mosquitos buzzing around her in the humid southern summer. That, to me, is a fate that might just might be worse than death.

  168. Daily Llama says:

    “The prices are also a big difference. Attending live theatre in America requires taking out a mortgage.”

    A free market “philosopher” was on NPR talking about the market price of rock concert tickets saying scalpers’ inflated prices reflect what people are willing pay ($1,000 to see some wrinkled old sceeze crawl back from the dead to “rock” the equally aging crowd??!!) and therefore box offices should charge that much too. “Our rock legends are dying and we should pay out of asses for the privilege of seeing them one last time”. LOL @ Americans (and Canadians as it was Tragically Hip they were musing about). I’ll stick with Bach.

  169. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Opus: It was about 6 years ago I read the Schopenhauer Essays, not his two books. I recall that somewhere in those essay he refereed to the problem of putting women on a pedestal. I might have thought his reference was to England but as you say it might have simply been a reference to all Western Europe.

  170. seventiesjason says:

    I attend a men’s fellowship at another church than my own (its a mega church)…….okay, the praise is “rock” music and secular songs with substituted lyrics about God and Jesus. It’s really hokey but the whole crowd of men think its great……and that should be a warning to me but the message / lesson I have to say is actually pretty solid and that is why I continue to go……

    Last week the pastor was talking about his daughter (pastor is my age, mid forties). She is probably about 14, and during the message he’s telling us that he is raising her to be “strong, biblical and solid” because since none of the men in this church (or any church today) are “being real men” and raising their sons to be “bold, righteous men of God” that a lot of Christian fathers to girls, don’t have a choice today……………..and have to teach their daughters to carry on and be the weight bearers” of our society. He then rambled on that actually “women are better at preserving our institutions and traditions” than men are. He then with fatherly pride talked about how amazing, smart, pretty, talented, gifted, beautiful and Christ-like her daughter is.

    Not one of the men in this group of maybe 100 said anything. Not ONE father was moved by the Holy Ghost to stand and speak against this drivel. No, we got shouts of “amen” and nods of agreement when the pastor mentioned that “no man” is raising his son to be a “righteous, bold man of God”

    Not one stood up and countered. Not one was moved by the Word or called for Scriptural context or references. I am not married. I don’t have children. I have never had sex or what you would call a dating life.

    When the pastor then said he had taken his daughter to see the new “Star Wars” movie three times, because it’s such a great story and inspiration to girls like his daughter…….

    I got up. shook my head smirking and walked out…….. a few men did applaud…pastor pretended nothing had happened and kept talking

    Won’t be going back to THAT men’s fellowship

  171. feeriker says:

    Won’t be going back to THAT men’s fellowship

    Knowing that you wouldn’t be going back (and thus not worried about bridge-burning), why not stand up and read Pastor Falsemessage the riot act, in hope that maybe at least a little bit of red-pill Christian truth might seep into at least one deluded sole’s head and heart?

  172. BillyS says:

    He wouldn’t listen.

  173. Pocketspock says:

    Regarding older men speaking up: Being in my 40s it’s genuinely hard and mostly made so by today’s social climate. I used to enjoy using social media to speak my mind but at some point in the last couple of years the worm turned and I found that as soon as I said anything that fell outside of the accepted orthodoxy of opinions on male female relations things got bad very quickly. I deactivated my Twitter account, barely posted to my YouTube channel (after getting it up over 300K views and almost never say anything on Facebook.

    The only thing that seems to work is to speak to men privately through messenger or in private. The men I speak to seem really receptive to this and I do sometimes get a genuine sense that they are relieved that they have a place to speak.

    I wonder if the situation online will become so difficult for men like myself to deal with that it might actually force men to start talking to each other however slowly and haltingly it may be at first. It’s ironic but this awful situation may actually be functioning as a sort of selection pressure and causing some men like myself to re-establish deep male bonds as a means of getting our emotional needs met. Men actually talking to each other in depth is something that I think an awful lot of people would rather not have happen.

  174. reupac says:

    Yes, I truly believe that feminists envy men and are trying to destroy the sacred grounds of marriage between man and woman. Much of the content I read by authors like Henry Makow and the Andelins’ focuses on a man’s role and a woman’s role in life. We find purpose and fulfillment in marriage and family life. I love this article, great read! Much of my poetry talks about relationships as well.

    -Reupac

    reupac.wordpress.com

  175. J.Q. Ronan says:

    I’m honestly curious here. Did you not enjoy the new Star Wars movie because the lead was a woman?

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s