The mysterious male marriage premium.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit explains why he left big law:

…I looked at the partners and their lives and thought, “this is what it looks like when you win?

But one thing I noticed about a lot of the partners was that they worked hard and pushed for more compensation because they were married to women who spent a lot of money. Perhaps the older women lawyers don’t have that incentive to stick around.

A commenter echoed Glenn’s description of the pressure involved for those who stay in big law:

Chasing partnership in Big Law has been described, properly, as “a pie-eating contest where the prize is more pie.” Best thing that ever happened to me was getting sacked from a Big Law firm in October ’08, when the legal market (and the economy at large) collapsed. I’ve done a bit of solo work, which has been grand, and am now outside general counsel to two companies and having a grand time of life.

I would rather sell everything I own and take up bartending than go back to life in a big firm — even if it were possible at this stage, which it pretty much isn’t. Sorry I spent 10 years trying to make that crap work.

As you may recall, the pressure married men feel to seek out and remain in more stressful and difficult jobs is a key benefit Prager and Wilcox claim men get from marriage.  While obviously not all married men seek out and remain in jobs as stressful as big law, as Glenn suggests marriage does push men to make career choices they otherwise would prefer to avoid.  This isn’t bad in itself, but the lengths we go to in order to minimize the sacrifices married men are making is a problem.  This kind of foolishness prevents us from understanding the true cost of feminist policies to destroy traditional marriage.  Being forced to work much harder to support others is not a benefit of marriage to men, just as the benefit of buying a home isn’t the need to work harder to pay the mortgage.

While Prager and Wilcox sell pressure to work more difficult jobs as a benefit to men, at least they understand that for men marriage comes with pressure to earn more.  That men take on obligations as bread winners in marriage that women don’t would come as a terrible shock to many, probably most, economists.  In fact, this is something economists go to great lengths to avoid seeing.

One of the favorite theories is that marriage frees men up to focus more on paid work.  By this theory, single men dream of working a more dangerous job with more stress, a longer commute, and working more hours, but are prevented from chasing this lifestyle by the constant demands of housework.  These poor single men are stuck putting dishes in the dishwasher when they could be sitting in traffic, traveling for business, or working late into the night.  This absurd feminist theory simply won’t die, even though the data shows that marriage increases men’s focus on paid work while not reducing their focus on housework.  As the St Louis Fed explains in For Love or Money: Why Married Men Make More

…If a man spends less time on housework after he is married, then it makes sense that he would see an increase in his wages because the extra time and effort spent at work would increase his productivity and promotion chances.

…while marriage does seem to make men more productive in the market (i.e., men begin making higher wages after marriage), household specialization does not seem to be the cause. They find little difference between married and unmarried men in the time they spend on home production.

If the productivity from marriage itself is not the result of decreased hours spent on housework, as Hersche and Stratton suggest, then where does that improved productivity come from? Because the earnings of divorced or separated men are higher than those of never-married men, the added productivity that accompanies marriage must be of two kinds: (1) productivity from the marriage itself and/or (2) advantages that remain even after the marriage is dissolved. Korenman and David Neumark argue in a 1991 study that the wage premium earned by divorced or separated men is attributable to the advantages gained while married. Their evidence is that wages grow more slowly in the years of divorce or separation.

Economic papers are filled with this kind of willful misunderstanding of what is going on.  Why do men earn more after marrying, and then after divorce tend to stop growing their earnings?  The answer is quite simple, and boils down to incentives.  Men who want to marry know they need to earn more to signal provider status.  After marriage men have greater responsibilities, and therefore have to earn even more.  Threats of divorce ratchet this pressure up further, as men understand that the family courts are designed to separate fathers from their children while financially rewarding the mother at the father’s expense.  Divorce for women means ejecting the man and keeping both the kids and a large part of his paycheck.  Divorce for men means losing the kids and paying a steep monthly fee to finance the operation.

But since divorce removes the incentive married men naturally feel to earn more money, family court judges know they need to replace the natural incentive with something else.  This is why the family courts assign men earnings quotas (imputed income) based on their previous income.  The man might earn less than his quota, but he will be billed for child support and/or alimony based on this quota.  This quota system is enforced with the threat of imprisonment, and is not surprisingly despised by the men who find themselves forced into it.  This explains why divorced men earn more than never married men;  they have a quota to meet based on their income at the end of the marriage.  If they don’t maintain their married level of earnings, they will be sent to prison.  It also explains why divorced men’s earnings tend not to grow like they would have were they still married;  quota systems are effective in the short term at coercing hard work, but they create a disincentive for increasing productivity.  Under a quota system earning more only increases your quota.  Most men under our new quota system will work hard enough to stay out of prison, but they aren’t going to take risks and/or work harder for the privilege of increasing their quota.

Note that while Prager and Wilcox claim the pressure married men feel to work harder is a benefit to men, the St. Louis Fed likewise implies that being forced by a court to pay alimony and/or child support is an advantage divorced men have which never married men lack (emphasis mine):

…the added productivity that accompanies marriage must be of two kinds: (1) productivity from the marriage itself and/or (2) advantages that remain even after the marriage is dissolved.

We won the cold war because an incentive based system leads to a kind of dynamic productivity that a quota based system can’t ever hope to create.  Yet we have dramatically reworked our family structure in ways only the Soviets could truly appreciate.  This new system is hurting us in ways we refuse to accept, because accepting the cost would force us to rethink our family model. Part of the problem is that the costs associated with replacing marriage with a child support system weren’t immediately obvious. Since we pretended we still had a fundamentally marriage based family structure, initially men carried on as if that was the case.  In fact, most men today still do so.  However, over time the reality of the new system has caused not a marriage strike, but something more ominous.  Just like with the Soviet system, this will continue until we decide the ideology behind the quota system isn’t worth the economic pain it inevitably causes.  In the meantime, economists will remain baffled as to why married earn more than divorced men, and why both earn more than never married men.

This entry was posted in Child Support, Dennis Prager, Disrespecting Respectability, Economics, Fatherhood, Marriage, Patriarchal Dividend, Pay Gap, Threatpoint, W. Bradford Wilcox. Bookmark the permalink.

228 Responses to The mysterious male marriage premium.

  1. rugby11 says:

    The economics of love.

  2. Pingback: The mysterious male marriage premium. | Aus-Alt-Right

  3. Pingback: The mysterious male marriage premium. – Manosphere.org

  4. Oscar says:

    “This absurd feminist theory simply won’t die, even though the data shows that marriage increases men’s focus on paid work while not reducing their focus on housework.” ~ Dalrock

    I do exactly zero cleaning at home. I can’t even remember the last time I vacuumed. That’s one advantage of having eight kids. But if you include classically male chores, I do a hell of a lot more housework than I did when I was single.

    I have a 12-acre property to maintain. I build stuff. I fix stuff. I maintain cars. I probably did about 1/10th as much housework when I was single, and I would probably do a lot more housework if I didn’t have one of those jobs married men often pursue.

    Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy working with my hands, and it’s a nice break from my office job, but it’s still work. I assume plenty of other dudes here have similar experiences.

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    Gee, it’s almost as though economists regard men and women as interchangeable carbon-based work-units, rather than as different forms of humanity. Tabula rasa economicus, as it were.

    But that has no nuance, so it can’t be right.

  6. Morgan says:

    End child support and alimony and watch how quickly our incentives rebalance to 50% joint custody and men and women increasing their productivity above divorce level quotas. Decreased fear of divorce rape will improve men’s willingness to marry. Don’t forget that the mother is even more dis-incentivized from earning money under divorce, since it means less child support to her. She can work for $1, or not work for $0.50. He can work for $1, or not work and go to jail. A father with joint custody of his kids will work harder to support them, than a father who doesn’t see them and works under the quota system.

  7. Leiff says:

    “…If a man spends less time on housework after he is married, then it makes sense that he would see an increase in his wages because the extra time and effort spent at work would increase his productivity and promotion chances.”

    Why does a decrease in time doing housework automatically equal an increase in time and effort at work? If I spend less time on the golf course my bowling average will automatically shoot up?

    “Because the earnings of divorced or separated men are higher than those of never-married men, the added productivity that accompanies marriage must be of two kinds:”

    Only in the babblings of economists are productivity and earnings treated as the same thing, but only in certain cases. Funny how middle class wages (earnings) have basically been stagnant for 3+ decades while productivity has gone through the roof.

  8. Morgan says:

    Our society needs to enforce parental responsibilities, and if you can’t take care of your children, provide them with food and shelter, even with state welfare, child protective services will step in and take them away. It should be the same with single parents, if you can’t take care of them, give them to the other parent who can, or let the state take over. Arrange joint parental custody and visitation so that the welfare of the children is paramount to the welfare of the mom. My kids’ mom doesn’t need $500/month from me to put food on the table, and if she did, that’s not a safe stable position to force my kids into, especially when I’m willing to have full custody so she doesn’t pay a dime to me. I don’t see any reason for it’s existence other than the soviet style quota system Dalrock describes. Take away a man’s children, and then make him pay for it? Choose one or the other.

  9. Feminist Hater says:

    Lol, that Fed piece is ridiculous, they really tried to pull the other leg with that one. Good going Dalrock! I agree with the second quote, getting out of a law firm was the best decision I ever made. Even better that there is no marriage to worry about.

    The Fed economists get paid for making a mountain out of a mole hill basically. Married and divorced men earn more and chase better jobs because they have to, whether due to having the family to take care of or due to a court order to force the same, the outcome is identical. He works harder and for longer because the man has to not because he wants to. Not a benefit for the man, it’s a premium for the family and society as a whole.

  10. Feminist Hater says:

    Once again, women doing housework should be mandatory for married couples. It’s one of the only benefits she provides. Any women who complains is insane and shouldn’t get married. Marriage is of such little benefit to the man himself that women need to be getting on one knee and proposing to men; and then paying the man a monthly sum for staying with them. They should do the housework, have sex with their husbands whenever he wants, day or night. Women should be thankful that any man is willing to even think about marriage to them.

    The lies built by the media, economists, Pastors and other leaders is merely to keep the machinery moving. They know damn well if the vast majority of men caught on, shits done.

  11. feeriker says:

    Marriage is of such little benefit to the man himself that women need to be getting on one knee and proposing to men;

    Let TSHTF and the social order completely invert itself and desperate women, realizing finally that there is no such thing as a SIW, might just start doing that. They probably won’t be getting down on one knee so much as literally throwing themselves at the man, weeping and begging hysterically for the man to “make me your woman! I’ll do ANYTHING, I SWEAR!” It will be really interesting to see how many (or few) men decide that these women are worth the risk and expense.

  12. If I spend less time on the golf course my bowling average will automatically shoot up

    Dang man, headed for the ally now! Have not golfed in years….helloooo pro bowling tour

  13. Werkof Rodann says:

    I think the cause-effect here is backwards…women are more likely to marry men who are more dominant and assertive, which are exactly the type of men that tend to pursue high pressure jobs and make more money. Wages grow more slowly following divorce because there’s only so many positions at the top and you’re waiting for people to retire to get one. Add the stress of divorce, and voila!

  14. thedeti says:

    @ feeriker:

    “weeping and begging hysterically for the man to “make me your woman! I’ll do ANYTHING, I SWEAR!” ”

    –“And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by your name, to take away our reproach.”

    Isaiah 4:1 (KJV2000)

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lol, that Fed piece is ridiculous, they really tried to pull the other leg with that one.

    Yeah, sure, and the Duluth Wheel is ridiculous, too. Unfortunately junk thought like this informs major policies which is why it’s muy importante for Dalrock to cover it, since no one else will.

  16. >>Economic papers are filled with this kind of willful misunderstanding of what is going on.

    You should see the sociology and psychology papers, lol. EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING is turned inside out and twisted around as if we are having a collective social argument with a woman. Wait….never mind. The “poor” are said to be starving for lack of nutritious food AND to be morbidly obese, I suppose for lack of nutritious food? “Women” are helpless victims tossed on the random waves of circumstance AND victims of awful, awful patriarchy AND master’s of their domain and strongindepednant feeeemales. The marriage strike is caused by neckbeard men with no responsibility AND by men who are focusing on their careers over family AND because there are no good men any more. I am sure there is a Bible verse that describes our upside down turnabout intruder world where good is evil and evil is good.

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    bpp
    You should see the sociology and psychology papers,

    Economics involves some numbers, sometimes, supported by something sort of resembling a premise. Why, I once saw a pricing curve in a textbook that required [fear, tremble] differential calculus. Well, the first derivative, anyway.

    Sosh and psy used to have some numbers. Old books that I’ve looked at from the late 1940’s had numbers, usually in the context of public health. Can’t tell when that went away, but for sure it was gone by the 80’s.

    If there’s numbers, it might be science. Otherwise, eh, it’s opinon, like history could be well researched and informed opinion but still opinion.

    Modern day psych / sosh papers seem to be pretty much exercises in SJW virtue signalling; the conclusion being pre-determined, what is needed is a path from the “data” (laugh!) to the conclusion no matter how tortured or convoluted. It’s not just opinon, it’s politics.

    For example, does divorce hurt children? Sheesh, is that even open to discussion anymore? Yet it is, because admitting the truth means divorce is not an unaltered Good Thing, and might call into question the divorce-porn market and even the divorce industry itself.

  18. The biggest factor in divorce is the husband’s employment status. This is why you can’t let your woman get away with guilting you into being a stay-at-home dad so that she can indulge in her careerist fantasy. She works because it’s her dream to work in X profession. You work because you HAVE TO. A woman’s career is all about her and a husband’s career is all about her. Don’t be a male stay-at-home mom.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/don-t-blame-divorce-on-money-ask-did-the-husband-have-a-job?utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-business

  19. Quality post, Dalrock.

    In response to:
    “Our society needs to enforce parental responsibilities, and if you can’t take care of your children, provide them with food and shelter, even with state welfare, child protective services will step in and take them away. It should be the same with single parents, if you can’t take care of them, give them to the other parent who can, or let the state take over.”

    The state is only competent when it does activities that its agents enjoy.

    Thus states are often competent at killing, but they are seldom competent at nurturing.

    Also, states have a tendency to buy and sell human beings:

    Remember the “kids for cash” scandal?

    In 2011, former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella was convicted of accepting bribes for putting juveniles into detention centers operated by the companies PA Child Care and a sister company, Western Pennsylvania Child Care. Ciavarella and another judge, Michael Conahan, are said to have received $2.6 million for their efforts.

  20. Robert What? says:

    Look, taking on the roles of responsible husband and father has always been a tremendous sacrifice for men. However in the past society acknowledged those sacrifices with some perks: respect, a certain amount of deference, male only spaces, some authority over family matters, and property rights. Those benefits are all gone. Yet men are still expected to live up to their historical responsibilities. The amazing thing to me is that men continue to get married at all. Why is that?

  21. Pingback: The mysterious male marriage premium. | Reaction Times

  22. thedeti says:

    Robert What?

    Men continue getting married because of thirst for sex.

    Most men can’t get sex outside marriage. Or they can’t get sex regularly outside marriage. Marriage is still advertised as the one place where the average man can get “regular sex’ in a “good relationship”.

  23. Coloradomtnman says:

    @thedeti

    ‘Men continue getting married because of thirst for sex.’

    Obviously that is a great misconception. There is nothing to dry up sex like getting married and men that are even partially awake recognize it. The marriage rates show that this entire jig will be up within a generation, young men are not as stupid as those in our generation.

  24. thedeti says:

    ColoMtnMan:

    Most men are not attractive. Most men are unable to get sex outside of marriage or a relationship. Marriage is sold to them as a way to get regular sex.

    Most men who stay with a woman long enough get pressure from that woman to marry. The unspoken argument is “marry me or I will break up with you and you will no longer get sex. Marry me, and the sex will continue and even improve. I’ll want to have more sex with you if you marry me.”

    Christian men are exhorted to avoid sex before marriage. Marriage is sold to Christian men as the only legitimate place in which sex can occur.

  25. feeriker says:

    Most men who stay with a woman long enough get pressure from that woman to marry. The unspoken argument is “marry me or I will break up with you and you will no longer get sex. Marry me, and the sex will continue and even improve. I’ll want to have more sex with you if you marry me.”

    Most men sell themselves short. If sex is the man’s primary or only consideration, then MOST men can actually say to any woman who says the above “OK, fine. Don’t let the door hit you on your cellulite-laden arse on the way out. I guarantee you that this bed you’ve been laying in will have your replacement in it within a month, if not much sooner.”

    That’s not an idle threat from most men. With even minimal game, even an average (or slightly below) man can get all the regular sex he wants. Now as to the QUALITY of the life support system (and its physical appearance) that provides all of that sex, that’s a whole ‘nother matter. For any middle-aged man of even average looks and in even moderately good physical condition, it’s horrifyingly easy to build up a “soft harem” for sex. True, most of that “harem” will consist of well-ridden, well-used middle-aged wrecks who are probably on every psychotropic med imaginable, but hey, if sex (and NOT a relationship) is your goal, then that’s a very temporary and easily dealt-with problem.

    Christian men are exhorted to avoid sex before marriage. Marriage is sold to Christian men as the only legitimate place in which sex can occur.

    True, which is why the aforementioned advice is useful only to non-Christian men (or churchian playahs). It probably also helps explain why the ratio of women to men who are regular church attendees today is sol lopsided.

  26. BubbaCluck says:

    What’s that old joke…..Scientist’s have discovered a food that diminishes a woman’s sex drive by 95%. Wedding cake.

  27. thedeti says:

    @ feeriker:

    “For any middle-aged man of even average looks and in even moderately good physical condition, it’s horrifyingly easy to build up a “soft harem” for sex. True, most of that “harem” will consist of well-ridden, well-used middle-aged wrecks who are probably on every psychotropic med imaginable, but hey, if sex (and NOT a relationship) is your goal, then that’s a very temporary and easily dealt-with problem.”

    You’re not the first person who’s said this. I’ve noticed this same thing. Lot of these women have no problem being “plates”, in Rollo Tomassi parlance. They are plates, they know they’re plates, and most of the time they’re OK with it. They don’t really want relationships. A lot of them want a man to come around every week or so, have sex with them, maybe take them out for drinks or dinner, and then leave. They want to go on dates. They want to have no strings attached sex. They want to have some fun.

  28. feeriker says:

    thedeti says:
    August 1, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    Yes, and just to be clear, my last post was meant to be descriptive, NOT proscriptive. As that popular saying goes, “just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean that you should.”

  29. Lost Patrol says:

    This post and accompanying comments made me conduct a mental review.

    I’ve lived long enough now to know quite a few divorced men. Did not understand what was happening in the background (Duluth Model, “No Fault”, semi-arbitrary monetary quotas with jail time option!!!, etc.) I learned essentially all of that from this blog after the fact, from Dalrock explaining it and from guys telling some of their stories.

    Reviewing the individual cases in my mind, I see clearly in retrospect that we were talking about woman launched frivorces (unhappiness) with cash and prizes in virtually every case. No one knows what goes on behind other people’s closed doors, but these men were quality individuals in my estimation. Accomplished, dependable in a tight spot, honorable. All of them took it hard.

    All of them married again, or are actively seeking to do so. These are men that took the hits and know the risks/costs (presumably even the $ quota threat). One can mentally track with a young man that is avoiding marriage based on a severely stacked deck, but why are the veterans returning to the marriage game? I don’t know and haven’t asked the ones still in contact.

  30. Spike says:

    When I read of quotas in this article, I immediately thought of the Soviet system. Lo and behold, then it gets mentioned.
    Quotas for agricultural produce were not sustainable.
    Quotas for machinery led to poor quality
    Quotas for labor productivity led to the Chernobyl Accident.

    What makes the current crop of social engineers in Western countries think that their quotas will work?
    If you don’t think quotas are the norm, there are the following:
    -Quotas for divorced men’s earnings (mentioned).
    -Quotas to industry for female CEOs
    -Quotas for LGBTIQ employees
    -Quotas for female participation in the STEM subjects at university

    How long is it before the inefficiencies that get built into the system make it crash, exactly as it did to the Soviets? Further, who is driving this agenda and why? Whoever it is, they must be more powerful than government AND the forces of Supply and Demand at the same time. I’m starting to think “Illuminati”.

    I was reminded of the surgeon who was divorced by a horrible bitch-wife. He resigned and got a job in take-away food. He was resigned to do this until his children were independent, so that then he could go back to work and give his children, not his wife, the proceeds of his labor.
    I don’t blame him one little bit.

  31. Morgan says:

    @Lost Patrol
    Because some men want to be leaders. No matter the risk, they want the imagined rewards society bestows on patriarchs. Even when society stops honoring fatherhood they still believe that their family can, and that may be enough. I think the older generation still sees that outcome as a possibility, while teaching the younger generation that the odds are ever decreasing. I would tell any young man to avoid marriage at all costs, but I’ve already been divorced and survived, so what worse can they throw at me?

  32. Fiddlesticks says:

    Speaking of Professor Wilcox, here’s an interesting video from 2014 where he and his wife Danielle give a college lecture on marriage.

    A lot of (inadvertent) RP themes here. Danielle speaks about how she had been dating “an artist from Seattle” before she met Brad in grad school in the early nineties. She calls her husband a “Steady Eddie” who when they were dating was concerned about her “health insurance.”

    She also notes that she had a really tough time getting him to escalate.

    So Wilcox comes to this from the perspective of a blue piller who was fortunate enough to get in the orbit of a smart, religious woman who had her Epiphany Phase at a younger age than most do today. (He does deserve credit for having masculine body language and speech patterns.)

  33. jew613 says:

    I watched the Prager University video and I don’t understand what is supposed to be attractive to men about working more hours, commuting more, and greater stress.

  34. Coloradomtnman says:

    @thedeti

    Gee, thanks for the education; I was totally unaware of everything you mentioned. 🙂 Actually I have two marriages and almost a cool M in alimony to my credit so I am quite familiar with the racket being run and the games being played by women before, during and after.

    My point is that men can absolutely get sex regularly outside of marriage and Christian men of our generation are the only ones falling for this ruse in large measure anymore because the younger generation of men are less gullible fools than we are. They see marriage in Amerika for what it is – a loser’s bet for men. As a man you’re playing against a stacked deck, and the platitudes of ‘Christian’ men are not going to protect you in this society.

    Fortunately, a higher percentage of men in the younger generation ‘get it.’

  35. Anon says:

    As the St Louis Fed explains in For Love or Money: Why Married Men Make More

    Since when does the Federal Reserve contribute to the ‘feminist’ narrative? Isn’t the Fed supposed to be fully apolitical?

    Oh wait, we have a San Francisco Democrat female as Fed Chairperson now… Hence, the FI has to enter places where it did not enter before.

    Tomorrow : The sky is patriarchal because it is blue rather than pink.

  36. Anon says:

    We won the cold war because an incentive based system leads to a kind of dynamic productivity that a quota based system can’t ever hope to create

    Debatable, since as soon as the USSR collapsed, the US began to work feverishly to do to ourselves what the USSR could never do to us. Today, being an open socialist is more socially acceptable in the US than being a capitalist. By any measure, America is far more left-wing in 2016 than in 1991. If that is what winning the Cold War looks like….

    To the extent that a country won the Cold War, it is China. It stayed neutral after 1969 or so while the US and USSR drew all the attention, and transitioned from Communism to a high-growth economy without much bloodshed. It has also managed to avoid democracy, and hence, the inevitability of feminism and feminist socialism.

  37. terrifictm says:

    Dalrock, I just can’t read your posts in their entirety. The pain they dredge up!

    Yet my ex was not as evil as most of the women I see.

    And my new wife, however, had been committed to “simple living” and “opossum living”, from the book of the same title.

  38. Anon says:

    I claim that far from a boost to a man’s productivity, marriage can often be a drag on it. It is time to revisit the ‘housework’ albatross again.

    The article a few weeks ago about housework revealed something evil :

    Dalrock said :

    “You can test all of this by offering suggestions to the next woman who complains to you that her husband doesn’t do enough housework. My wife hears this complaint from other Christian wives all of the time. Each time she starts by giving them time to explain why their no good husband isn’t doing enough around the house. Then my wife offers suggestions that don’t involve the wife assuming authority over her husband and making him do work the the woman (falsely) believes is humiliating. For women with children old enough to help, she advises having the children do more of the housework. Other times she will identify time consuming work the woman is focusing on which could just as well be left undone. In other cases she will suggest ways to get a “problem” job done that better frees up her day (cooking with a crock pot, etc). The response is always the same, because the issue is not about the woman having too much work. Invariably once the discussion turns toward solutions that don’t involve making the husband do more housework, the women lose all interest in the conversation.”

    Emphasis mine.

    Note that these are supposedly conservative women in intact marriages. Yet, there is a seething need to make the man waste time on unnecessary, mundane tasks.

    We know full well how the cuckservative myth of ‘men earning more through marriage’ is a fraud due to obscuring incentives with necessity and assuming the woman is so magical that marriage to her showers some productivity pixie dust onto the man, but I question even that. In the above situation, what if the man is a highly skilled professional who earns $200, $300, or even $500/hour in his primary profession? Such menial tasks waste his valuable time. Even worse, what if such a man is an entrepreneur, where the job is 24/7 with a very uncertain payoff. To have these sorts of stupid demands on his time for nothing more than the woman’s need for passive-aggressive abuse, damages the potential for the man to succeed in his entrepreneurship.

    For all the cuckservatives who claim that marriage increases a man’s earnings, we can counter with the fact that all the big tech entrepreneurs (Gates, Ellison, Brin/Page, Zuckerberg, Musk) did their first and big great innovations *before* getting married at all. If they had gotten married, they would have to do menial, needless housework which would have detracted from their entrepreneurship, which itself is a process that women oppose. How many great innovations were blocked because the man married before his great idea arrived to him, and he was not permitted to work on it due to the woman’s need to conduct abuse?

    Question : Is it really this common for married women to conduct this sort of passive abuse onto their husbands, and take away their discretionary time, no matter how valuable his other work may be? If so, then I question whether even ‘stable’ marriages are even such a great thing in the information age.. Marriage conceals the anti-civilizational tendencies of women, and the opportunity cost of great male innovations being stifled is not quantified.

  39. Leiff,

    Funny how middle class wages (earnings) have basically been stagnant for 3+ decades while productivity has gone through the roof.

    I’m not sure we have a middle class anymore. The information age has really rocketed up productivity, but that hasn’t translated into much wealth going to people with an IQ that much below 105.

    At one time (say, 1965, the atomic age) we did, a fat middle class, and a small lower class, and a teeny-tiny upper class. Of course much more than 72% of all people 18 and older were married in 1965. And wives were not nearly as hypergamous then, they actually went to church and listened to the Pastor/Priest/Rabbi when HE said Father Knows Best. And we had more than ample manufacturing jobs for “marginal” men (IQ less than 95) who could only earn a living and support a family with their hands in creating wealth.

    Nowadays, I’d say (with only 48% of people 18 and older married, and it is still dropping) and a vanishing manufacturing base, I’d say with the information age we have about 10% upper-upper class ($200K+ a year combined income, husband and wife), another 20% that are closer to middle class ($60K->$199K a year combined income) and the rest (70%) lower class. And of that 70% only the smallest percentage is married and a more than significant percentage has no real earned income… at all.

  40. What’s interesting to me about elaborate Soviet centralized production plans and incentives and the modern day divorce court imputed income quota for ex-husband paid child support is that, at the end of the day, it’s just a number. Quantitative, not qualitative.

    Soviet elites had no strategic answer for chronic supply shortages, pervasive poor product quality, deplorable process inefficiencies, incomplete batches, huge variances in labor productivity, and concealment of actual data by factory managers of true quota attainment. Soviet elites only cared about “officially” hitting a given quota number. Anything else was summarily dismissed.

    Likewise divorce and family court administration officials simply do not care HOW court-ordered quota dollars are ultimately used for the support of the children, if at all. No receipts or accountability required.
    All they care about is that the subject (ex-husband) “hits quota”.
    Because hitting quota is a good thing.
    Never mind that the ex-wife’s new live-in boyfriend Chad has taken the quota dollars to place spinning gold rims on his 2010 Honda Civic.

  41. Some perspective about Stalinist USSR:

    In 1952 Stalin-led USSR’s light industry produced three (3) pairs of socks and barely one (1) pairs of shoes for every member of its population (roughly 110 million people at the time). Refrigerators and TVs: Unobtainable.

    By 1952 Soviet elites already knew that three decades of consistent, capricious and brutally violent government terrorism and incentive (gulags, labor death camps, etcc) had outlived their usefulness to motivate Soviet worker production and achievement of grandiose central plans.

    The Soviet worker had adapted and responded to the toxic and uncertain environment, predictably, by passive withdrawal and non-engagement. He had become indifferent to both incentives AND coercion.

    Interesting parallel to the adaption and response well underway by the 21st century western male, aged 18-35.

  42. Hammer of God says:

    Dalrock, I have bad news, the elites have “found” a solution that just so happens to solve many of their other problems, and it’s not an end to their hideous social experiments: it doesn’t matter if Western men won’t work, they’ll just import hordes of asians, hispanics (and in the case of Europe, africans) to do the work instead. Sure, many of it will be sub-par, but there’s enough chinese and indians alone that at least some of them can be trusted to handle writing difficult code. For manual labor you don’t need to be Dr. Manhattan, a mexican peasant will do. So who cares if Western men retire from the marriage game, or don’t work as much? Even if the immigrants are considered too low value by the women here to marry or even have sex with, they can always bring in more.

    My opinion, given that the only champion for change is Trump, who is clearly nowhere nearly good enough to do what it takes, is that the end of this era will be civil war, slaughter, destruction and all on a scale unimaginable.

  43. Dalrock, if I may….

    Part of the problem is that the costs associated with replacing marriage with a child support system weren’t immediately obvious. Since we pretended we still had a fundamentally marriage based family structure, initially men carried on as if that was the case. In fact, most men today still do so. However, over time the reality of the new system has caused not a marriage strike, but something more ominous. Just like with the Soviet system, this will continue until we decide the ideology behind the quota system isn’t worth the economic pain it inevitably causes.

    I think we are past the point of no return. As it is (today) marriage is basically an UMC and UC social norm. For the LMC or LC, gonzo…. and its been that way for about a couple decades.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/10/26/marriage-and-the-growing-class-divide

    And I quote:

    The marriage rate has declined steadily since the 1980s and is now lower than at any time in history, including during the Great Depression, as shown in the chart below by postdoctoral researcher Randy Olson. While 78 percent of women at age 35 were married with children in 1970, just half were by 2010, and the share of Americans who were not married – either with children or without – had increased.

    It’s over Dalrock. For people like myself, you, Elspeth, SunshineMary, anyone who isn’t among the wealthiest of people BUT with kid(s) who we hope to see married someday, I think its at best a coin flip if they will ever be married… AT ALL… at any point in their life. I haven’t exactly been to very many marriages lately. I could probably count on one hand the number I have been to in the last ten years.

    And its not just the Millennials who I think will miss marriage completely. Gen-X got really hurt by the strike. I don’t know about you but I have quite a few close friends in their late 40s (now almost 50) who have never been married. I don’t expect they ever will be. And its not that they missed their window. They never had the window that you and I had, never even had one option.

  44. Jim says:

    And its not just the Millennials who I think will miss marriage completely. Gen-X got really hurt by the strike. I don’t know about you but I have quite a few close friends in their late 40s (now almost 50) who have never been married. I don’t expect they ever will be. And its not that they missed their window. They never had the window that you and I had, never even had one option.

    More and more men are coming to the conclusion that being a woman’s slave (thanks to her daddy the state) is not for them. Why do something that has a really good chance of destroying your life? It’s just not worth it.

  45. greyghost says:

    s that the end of this era will be civil war, slaughter, destruction and all on a scale unimaginable.

    as it should be

  46. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    jew613: I watched the Prager University video and I don’t understand what is supposed to be attractive to men about working more hours, commuting more, and greater stress.

    It’s been a while since I’ve listened to Prager, but I remember his overall themes. Marriage forces men to grow up. Marriage matures a man. Marriage turns Peter Pans into Real Men — Responsible, Respectable, Admirable.

    Working more hours, etc., implies Sacrifice and Productivity and Achievement — and the Societal Approval and Respect that comes with it.

    Men supposedly want to work long and hard for the same reasons they want to be a Marine and go through the hardships of boot camp. For the same reasons they work to excel at sports, or the arts, or science, or business, or in any other difficult and competitive endeavor. Hard work and long hours brings Success and Respect and Societal Approval.

    But as others have observed — and as Prager fails to appreciate — long hours and hard work and sacrifice no longer bring Respect or Admiration for men. Women are now granted the same merit badges for doing nothing. Women are admitted into the military, the police and fire forces — into any field — and are showered with ranks and privileges and medals and promotions for no achievements at all. Thus achievements and societal approval are cheapened.

    Men are no longer admired for working long hours at boring jobs — whereas women are admired for working at any “job” — be it “travel blogger” or “relationship consultant” or whatever other vapid “career.” Working fathers are mocked in the media. Goofy, hapless Dad plays with his electronic toys, while Mom in her Power Suit is busy planning finances with their realtor or banker (who are also women).

    Prager appeals to men’s desire for the respect that hard work brings, except that hard work no longer brings respect — only mockery and a frivorce.

  47. Novaseeker says:

    Nowadays, I’d say (with only 48% of people 18 and older married, and it is still dropping) and a vanishing manufacturing base, I’d say with the information age we have about 10% upper-upper class ($200K+ a year combined income, husband and wife), another 20% that are closer to middle class ($60K->$199K a year combined income) and the rest (70%) lower class. And of that 70% only the smallest percentage is married and a more than significant percentage has no real earned income… at all.

    Yes. When things shake out this way, you will always see declining marriage rates, because there simply aren’t enough marriageable people. Over the broad population, marriageable means that there is some firm economic basis. Increasingly, that is reserved to the upper and upper middle (I would define the boundaries differently than you do, but in any case at some point around 100k it begins to look different in terms of behaviors). Below that, there simply isn’t enough money to justify it, really, for both men and women. This is not likely to change, because the underlying reason for it — the unavailability of jobs for people who are lesser skilled and not knowledge workers — is not only not going away, but is going to keep spreading due to increased automation and other technologies which will continue to displace many jobs. Not everyone can be a knowledge worker or a health care worker. There simply won’t be enough jobs, and this will depress incomes, which will depress marriage rates, which will lead to further worse outcomes, and an increasingly stark divide between the married uppers and the unmarried lowers.

    Most people see this happening, now, but no-one really has a solution for how to stop it, from the underlying economic perspective. Instead, the attention is focused on making more women CEOs, using public funds for abortion, and making sure your genderqueer kid can use the girls locker room.

  48. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    Yes. When things shake out this way, you will always see declining marriage rates, because there simply aren’t enough marriageable people. Over the broad population, marriageable means that there is some firm economic basis. Increasingly, that is reserved to the upper and upper middle (I would define the boundaries differently than you do, but in any case at some point around 100k it begins to look different in terms of behaviors). Below that, there simply isn’t enough money to justify it, really, for both men and women. This is not likely to change, because the underlying reason for it — the unavailability of jobs for people who are lesser skilled and not knowledge workers — is not only not going away, but is going to keep spreading due to increased automation and other technologies which will continue to displace many jobs.

    The causal arrow points the other way as well though. We are in an era where good jobs are scarce for large swaths of the population, making marriage less attainable. But it is also true that our move away from marriage has reduced the incentive for large swaths to work harder precisely when we need to pull an economic rabbit out of the hat.

  49. Bucho says:

    This is why the family courts assign men earnings quotas (imputed income) based on their previous income. The man might earn less than his quota, but he will be billed for child support and/or alimony based on this quota. This quota system is enforced with the threat of imprisonment, and is not surprisingly despised by the men who find themselves forced into it.

    I’ll go into places like Sears on the weekends and see middle aged men working retail jobs there. They often look weary and worn out. Not trying to knock people who would rather work then sit idle, but I often wonder how many of them are working there just to have the money for the alimony checks.

  50. Chris says:

    “So Wilcox comes to this from the perspective of a blue piller who was fortunate enough to get in the orbit of a smart, religious woman who had her Epiphany Phase at a younger age than most do today.”

    He was raised in a time when there was still a collective respect for both men and the Ten Commandments. He’s stuck in a social and political time warp.

    And has anyone verified if that “Doug Taulby” guy even exists?

  51. Feminist Hater says:

    Yes. When things shake out this way, you will always see declining marriage rates, because there simply aren’t enough marriageable people. Over the broad population, marriageable means that there is some firm economic basis.

    Not really. People have been far poorer before, orders of magnitude poorer than our poorest poor. Marriage worked for them and worked well to some extent. This is a combination of social issues, legal divorce, cash and prizes, no respect for the marriage institution proper, plus the unwillingness of the sacrifice required for marriage to work. The UC and UMC and almost wholly to blame for the shit house we find ourselves in. They though they could unleash unilateral divorce and a free sex era. It worked mildly well for them since they were insulated for the direct consequences of their actions. Now, an untethered underclass with no guidance or hope is expected to keep marriages going without any societal backup… yeah, right…

    Money merely protects the UC and UMC from consequences, marriage isn’t really working for them either, their children still suffer the brute of the consequences of divorce and bad marriages and will move down the social ladder as time goes on.

    Marriage required moral guidance from the Church and social norms to be kept and protected by the state. Neither were done, in fact, the left went on a wild spree by destroying all of the underlying foundations of our civilization.

  52. Kevin says:

    The housework hypothesis makes no sense because homework for an adult man takes about 25 minutes per week. A more obvious source of distraction is spending time chasing women that decreases once married.

    In my case the career I choose would hardly have changed married or not. But it has impacted the jobs and the pay needed (better neighborhood for better schools and the crazy cycle of materialism) and my wife is incredibly thrifty in every other respect except the house and neighborhood. But those are big items.

    I only recently found about the quota income system for divorced men. This is awful. I would rather go to jail than be demanded by the state to make X amount of dollars for a woman who ditched me. No wonder suicide is so common among divorced men. The system is incredibly cruel. Hey this woman who left you and broke your heart – fund her life while she seeks new boyfriends. Screw that.

  53. feeriker says:

    It’s over Dalrock. For people like myself, you, Elspeth, SunshineMary, anyone who isn’t among the wealthiest of people BUT with kid(s) who we hope to see married someday, I think its at best a coin flip if they will ever be married… AT ALL… at any point in their life. I haven’t exactly been to very many marriages lately. I could probably count on one hand the number I have been to in the last ten years.

    As I’ve posted before, this not at all surprising, given the church’s apathy, if not outright hostility, toward the formation of the families they spew so many empty platitudes over. I wonder if most pastors would even know how to conduct a wedding ceremony anymore.

    Pathetic and sickening. I’m seriously afraid that the next time I hear whiny hand-wringing in church over the state of the family, the sarcastic rejoinder I offer will NOT be sotto voce. It’s really well past the point where the church needs a firm kick in the (place where its metaphorical) nuts (would be if it had any) on this issue.

  54. “Most men are not attractive. Most men are unable to get sex outside of marriage or a relationship.”

    I suspect most men, attractive or not, can come up with $40.

  55. feeriker says:

    [Wilcox] was raised in a time when there was still a collective respect for both men and the Ten Commandments. He’s stuck in a social and political time warp.

    Wilcox is younger than I am by at least a decade and I have never lived in an era where there was society-wide respect for either men or the Ten Commandments.

    No, Wilcox has either led a very sheltered life or is just plain delusional. He WANTS men to be respected as husbands, fathers, and breadwinners (as do we all), but is incapable of coping with the real world in which this just ain’t happening. Rather than fight to reclaim this legacy (and I’m sorry, but no matter what anybody claims, Beta Brad is NOT a fighter), he chooses to live in a fantasy world where the only thing failing society is men not “manning up,” rather than women and their mangina enablers destroying the social fabric (something Brad would have to fight ***shudder***).

  56. Novaseeker says:

    The causal arrow points the other way as well though. We are in an era where good jobs are scarce for large swaths of the population, making marriage less attainable. But it is also true that our move away from marriage has reduced the incentive for large swaths to work harder precisely when we need to pull an economic rabbit out of the hat.

    It’s true enough. Even with the decrease of available good jobs, there are still guys who are capable of getting/maintaining/advancing in them who are not doing so to the same degree because of the lack of incentives.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, Nova, it is not just a lack of incentives, as we all know it’s also negative incentives.
    Female initiated frivorce for cash and prizes constitutes a kind of tax that is only paid by married men. The fact that frivorce looks random from the outside doesn’t change this.

    I repeat: frivorce constitutes a tax that is only paid by (some) married men. It is easy to avoid the frivorce tax; just don’t get married.

    The frivorce tax is only paid by married men. An economic fact no one dares to notice.

  58. Gunner Q says:

    Anon @ August 1, 2016 at 7:30 pm:
    “Debatable, since as soon as the USSR collapsed, the US began to work feverishly to do to ourselves what the USSR could never do to us.”

    Ironically, the Commies successfully infiltrated the US at the same time their own country collapsed. That left the atheistic True Believers in charge of the living proof that the key to creating a worker’s paradise is Christ… which perfectly explains why our leaders are burning the West to ashes as quickly as they can. It’s a combination of revenge, religious fervor and hiding the evidence.

    “To the extent that a country won the Cold War, it is China. It stayed neutral after 1969 or so while the US and USSR drew all the attention, and transitioned from Communism to a high-growth economy without much bloodshed.”

    Like Islam, China’s success is based wholly in the Elites’ destruction of the West. They were given America’s entire manufacturing base as a GIFT.

    Bucho @ 8:24 am:
    “I’ll go into places like Sears on the weekends and see middle aged men working retail jobs there. They often look weary and worn out. Not trying to knock people who would rather work then sit idle, but I often wonder how many of them are working there just to have the money for the alimony checks.”

    Or simply had careers that failed to launch. I was very nearly one of them–seven years out of college before getting entry-level work. Our society’s hatred of its men goes far beyond just marriage.

    No wonder some MGTOWs complain endlessly. It’s not like everybody can become a self-employed millionaire just by willing it.

  59. Robert What? says:

    @thedeti

    Men continue getting married because of thirst for sex.

    Well, the jokes on them (me included) because sex evaporates pretty soon for most men in modern American marriages.

  60. @Anon: ” Is it really this common for married women to conduct this sort of passive abuse onto their husbands, and take away their discretionary time, no matter how valuable his other work may be?”

    The figure is 100% of men who have sex with women or who associate with women will be subjected to this type of passive abuse. 100% of men will be forced to take away discretionary time to deal with utter horse shit and this is in total and complete disregard to how valuable the man’s work might be.

    The only variable is how much the man permits this invasion of his time. She will push and push until the neurosurgeon is puttering around the house dusting while his wife follows him around complaining that he is never home and never does anything to help her clean the 7,000 square foot house on his 1 day off a month. This behavior is a female shit test, nothing more, nothing less. You can pass it- or you can fail it.

    @IBB- sometimes you nail it!

    “we have about 10% upper-upper class ($200K+ a year combined income, husband and wife), another 20% that are closer to middle class ($60K->$199K a year combined income) and the rest (70%) lower class. And of that 70% only the smallest percentage is married and a more than significant percentage has no real earned income… at all.”

    @whatever that link to the blog by Melton:

    That book “Love Warrior” is about her struggles in marriage. 6 days before the book comes out she announces they are separating. It looks to be the most ridiculous hamsterfest EVER.

    WNB- Would NOT Buy (or Bang).

  61. Feminist Hater says:

    I suspect most men, attractive or not, can come up with $40.

    Perfectly fixable by saying most men are not attractive enough to get sex without paying for it. Simple enough.

  62. thedeti says:

    >I suspect most men, attractive or not, can come up with $40.

    Pffft. Sounds like drug money for a crack whore or methhead. To be crass about it, he’d be better off spending that $40 on his internet connection or a premium subscription to a porn site.

  63. gdgm+ says:

    Ouch, I’m seeing the dynamics of this OP play out around me… a sub-theme is how many wives are encouraged, if not addicted, to spending increasing amounts of money. From a Web piece published in 2012:

    Women are earning, spending, and influencing spending at a greater rate than ever before. In fact, women account for $7 trillion in consumer and business spending in the United States, and over the next decade, they will control two thirds of consumer wealth. Women make or influence 85% of all purchasing decisions, and purchase over 50% of traditional male products, including automobiles, home improvement products and consumer electronics.

    http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2012/01/24/the-top-30-stats-you-need-to-know-when-marketing-to-women/

  64. gdgm+ says:

    And one more link, referenced in the above:

    http://she-conomy.com/report/marketing-to-women-quick-facts

  65. Damn Crackers says:

    @thedeti – Hey, I’ve seen some very attractive crack whores in my time.

    Also, better to rent a whore than to marry one.

  66. Lord Rofl says:

    “… in large measure anymore because the younger generation of men are less gullible fools than we are. They see marriage in Amerika for what it is – a loser’s bet for men.”

    I would like to believe this. I really would.

    However, personal experience tells me it just isn’t so.

    The younger, well compensated, high-provider-potential guys I deal with every day seem to fall into one of five categories:

    Gameless, gormless gammas. (>50%) Forever alone, awaiting their super special equality lifepartners-in-crime. He’ll find her one day, real soon now. Completely inexperienced with women. Blanches whenever the conversation strays from PC orthodoxy. Reflexive whiteknightery at the slightest provocation. (Good: Pop culture references. “Going to Comicon? That’s in San Diego, right? Gonna hit the beach? Or head down to TJ? No? Too busy dressing up like Spandexman this year? Great. Okay, sounds good. Yep, enjoy yourself. Later.” Bad: Rapeculture (TM) references. “Some of those cosplay girls are pretty cute. Huh? No. C’mon, man, there’s nothing wrong with saying that…” (Distilled from actual conversations.)) Raised on Joss Whedon’s taint sweat and Tigermom milk. Yearns to marry.

    Parachutes. (20%) More attractive and socially adept than the GGG, provides a desperately needed soft landing, and maybe a future special needs child, for the cannier post-wall Messalina. Could shack up, could get married; it’s entirely her call. Formless and spineless. These guys get discarded, repacked and reused repeatedly, with nary a sign of distress. Often comes with strong undertones of cuckoldry. “Hi, /r/relationships. I need some advice on polyamory.” Wants to get married, will accept alternate arrangements… and assignment of child support.

    Retroman. (10%) The millennial masculine man. Take a random engineer from 1955, swap his sliderule for some VLSI, triple his protein intake, halve his testosterone, stunt his psyche with a decade of neglect and poz-praganda, grow out the hair and beard a bit, add a few tats, pair with a “traditional” (read: dyed-in-the-wool third wave feminist) shrike with incipient metabolic syndrome. Believes it’s his solemn duty to get married, but, when push comes to shove, will accept a modern perma-liaison. Like the Parachute, what she says goes. His great grandfather would be ashamed at his gay great-grandson. “Wait, what? That’s a woman? Oh…”

    Checked Out. (10%) Gave up long ago. Now in a galaxy far, far away. Possibly committed to an imaginary Slave Leia waifu. Or just… gone. Probably wanted a real girl some time ago, but that notion got axed like Milo at an Islamic State mixer.

    Gay. (5%) “Fought” for the “right” to “marry” a dude, usually doesn’t want to. (LOL)

    Player. (<5%) Making the hedonistic best of a otherwise stark situation. One existential crisis, and a missed period, away from falling in love and straight into Retroman or Parachute modes. Eschewing marriage one day, posturing silverback uberpatriarch the next. As time t approaches infinity, desire to marry approaches infinity, "conservative" sanctimony approaches infinity.

    All of these men, except the gays and the Walking Dedi, would be tripping over themselves, jostling their way to (((Moishe's Conflict Diamond Emporium))) this very morning, if they thought a living, breathing woman would actually accept them and their overpriced trinket. Plenty of the parachutes and retromen, and even the occasional gamma, actually go through with it. (The rate is surprisingly high in my sample cohort. Maybe 15 to 20% per annum, with a high degree of turnover.)

    As far as white collar guys go, they're not learning. They're just being locked out of the market by the girls.

  67. redlight says:

    “That book “Love Warrior” is about her struggles in marriage. 6 days before the book comes out she announces they are separating. It looks to be the most ridiculous hamsterfest EVER.”

    See the show Girlfriend’s Guide to Divorce for the fictional version of this, and how the divorce industry operates

  68. Novaseeker says:

    As far as white collar guys go, they’re not learning. They’re just being locked out of the market by the girls.

    Yup.

    The girls are in total command of the markets for sex *and* for relationships *and* for marriages. All three of them. I know it’s popular to think that “men control access to commitment, while women control access to sex”, but that is only the case if the man is very attractive, in which case he also holds control over sex as well as commitment. For men who are not very attractive, women control access to both, because they are tied to together for men who are not very attractive — that is, these are the guys who only get sex in relationships (or with hookers) because they aren’t attractive enough to attract women for extra-relationship sex. So the woman is always in control — she controls the sex, the commitment, and whether a relationship takes place in the first place, and if it results in a marriage of course she will control that, too.

    Men can avoid this by not being like the average guys, of course, but that means making yourself more attractive.

  69. Novaseeker says:

    That book “Love Warrior” is about her struggles in marriage. 6 days before the book comes out she announces they are separating. It looks to be the most ridiculous hamsterfest EVER.

    She has a turbo-charged hamster, too. She’s an addict and alcoholic. Folks who have that personality are world-class elite pro hamsterers. it’s ironic that she’s separating just as the book is being released, but really not surprising. With Elizabeth Gilbert as one of your fans, the writing is on the wall already, and when you add in that kind of a messed up background personality, you’re cooking with gas.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    I know it’s popular to think that “men control access to commitment, while women control access to sex”, but that is only the case if the man is very attractive, in which case he also holds control over sex as well as commitment.

    This is a “1st set of books” vs. “2nd set of books” issue, seems to me. Men controlled access to committment much more when they also controlled access to resources. Now that women are their own betas, and the trend is for women under 35 to out-earn men in the same age bracket, control of committment must perforce move to women. Except for above average men, of course.

    Provider game just doesn’t work any more. That leaves “nice guy” game, “lover” game and MGTOW. Most men are programmed to be “nice guys”, ie. Betas at best.

    Some number of those men will be paying the “frivorce tax”.

    Nova on the latest online trainwreck:
    She has a turbo-charged hamster, too. She’s an addict and alcoholic. Folks who have that personality are world-class elite pro hamsterers.

    Also she apparently was bulemic for several years maybe at the same time as she was addicted to chemicals, so she’s got that going for her, too. If she hasn’t been on Oprah yet, it’s only a matter of time.

  71. thedeti says:

    Nova, Anon Reader:

    “Provider game just doesn’t work any more. That leaves “nice guy” game, “lover” game and MGTOW. Most men are programmed to be “nice guys”, ie. Betas at best.”

    The issue of who controls sex, relationships and marriage, and the 1st and 2d set of books issues, are why most men will be MGTOW, I think, as we continue inexorably sliding.

    Most men will not be attractive enough to sustain attraction for a marriage. Most men will not have the assets or earning power to justify even being a beta cuck. Marriages today work only when (1) there is strong and sustained sexual attraction from wife to husband; or (2) H and W are both UMC on up and there is material wealth to be acquired, conserved and consolidated. (1) is the Elspeth/Sunshine Mary model; (2) is the Susan Wal$h model.

    Unless the marriage fits either of these paradigms, most women won’t see the point in remaining in the marriage after the kids reach a certain age and the money transfers from man to woman can be established, the income stream set. Most women won’t see any reason to get married in the first place.

    Many men will GTOW, and most such men will have relationship and sex lives that look like they did in high school or college when they were at the nadirs of their sexual and relationship market values. They’ll have occasional relationships and one night stands, sometimes short term relationships, none of which ever last very long, and never get close to marriage. They’ll have dry spells of varying duration. They won’t have any kids, ever.

    A significant number of men will have “accidents” in which they impregnate a woman. They’ll pay child support but have no meaningful relationships with their children.

    Most men will have no incentive to improve or acquire wealth. They’ll earn enough to cover their expenses, but not much more. They have no incentive to marry, because they’re not attractive enough or wealthy enough to attract and hold the interest of one woman for life.

  72. Coloradomtnman says:

    @thedeti The issue with attraction in Amerika is more with the women, not the men as you continue to chant. Women in this ‘stan are fatties through and through, even more of that in the modern church than the greater society. Even worse than the physical appearance is the rotten core of their SJW personalities.

    We can disagree on the ‘why’ but the marriage rate will continue to shrink well beyond the unsustainable level it is already at; the outcome is all that matters.

    There’s more to life than occasional sex with slavemasters which if you are high income works out to about $1000/per which the quality of doesn’t match.

  73. greyghost says:

    Hmm

    The end of sex?

    Looks like the “grass eating men” and “dried fish women are coming to america. That article should give you an idea on how fucked up Japanese women and their government is. Marriage is of no respected value in Japan and is also of no respected value anywhere in the west.

  74. Feminist Hater says:

    Most men will not be attractive enough to sustain attraction for a marriage. Most men will not have the assets or earning power to justify even being a beta cuck. Marriages today work only when (1) there is strong and sustained sexual attraction from wife to husband; or (2) H and W are both UMC on up and there is material wealth to be acquired, conserved and consolidated. (1) is the Elspeth/Sunshine Mary model; (2) is the Susan Wal$h model.

    Unless the marriage fits either of these paradigms, most women won’t see the point in remaining in the marriage after the kids reach a certain age and the money transfers from man to woman can be established, the income stream set. Most women won’t see any reason to get married in the first place.

    Many men will GTOW, and most such men will have relationship and sex lives that look like they did in high school or college when they were at the nadirs of their sexual and relationship market values. They’ll have occasional relationships and one night stands, sometimes short term relationships, none of which ever last very long, and never get close to marriage. They’ll have dry spells of varying duration. They won’t have any kids, ever.

    A significant number of men will have “accidents” in which they impregnate a woman. They’ll pay child support but have no meaningful relationships with their children.

    Most men will have no incentive to improve or acquire wealth. They’ll earn enough to cover their expenses, but not much more. They have no incentive to marry, because they’re not attractive enough or wealthy enough to attract and hold the interest of one woman for life.

    Sad but true. Talking from my own experience, it’s almost impossible to even garner attraction from the opposite sex when they are young. I’m not ugly by any means but nowhere near attractive enough to keep a woman’s attention for longer than a few months at most. The older the women gets and the less interested I get, the more that starts to swing. It amazes me the amount of women 28-33 who start conversations with me randomly trying to, I guess, flirt with me. I usually just laugh, say something casual and move on, simply ain’t interested.

  75. Anon says:

    In terms of absolute attractiveness to the opposite sex across the world, American men rank much higher than American women, on average. This is true of American white men vs. white women, and the American black man vs. black woman gap is even larger.

    There are cultures where to opposite is true. Russians/Poles, Chinese, etc., where the women have much higher SMV than the men, in the world market.

    The reasons for this can vary, based on overt rigging of a system against one gender (as in America), to a skewed gender ratio, to certain racial traits being more appealing on one gender vs. a negative on the other…

  76. Lost Patrol says:

    @Morgan:
    “I think the older generation still sees that outcome as a possibility, while teaching the younger generation that the odds are ever decreasing.”

    Hope springs eternal. Abandon all hope.

    I wonder if the younger men still marrying now (not to jinx them) will re-marry if it comes to that.

  77. Avraham rosenblum says:

    My impression of women in the USA is that too much feminism got to them. That means as some comments have said slavery of the man. Some men do not accept slavery willingly. I was one like that. Especially growing upon traditional American values, the prospect of being someone slave seemed less than the best option.

  78. http://momastery.com/blog/2016/08/01/i-need-to-tell-you-something/

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about your “Christian” marriage.

  79. Anonymous Reader says:

    Religious people who take their religion seriously will still be obligated to marry. Marriage will, as Nova noted, more and more an Upper Class / Upper Middle Class practice, with some number of MC and working class people also marrying. So marriage will come to be a peculiar practice limited to “the rich” and to “religious fanatics”?

    That should work out well. But so long as child support is possible, aka the marriage tax nothing else matters. Because “for the children” aka “for the Female Imperative”.

    It becomes even more important to hand out pairs of The Glasses.

  80. thedeti says:

    Rollo:

    Well according to Glennon Doyle Melton’s blog, while in therapy, Craig divulged to her some “news” in 2012 about himself. It was something that her husband was or had been since the beginning of her marriage. Glennon has never publicly divulged what that “news” was, to protect Craig and her kids. They separated, then reconciled. Now she’s disclosed, 4 years later, they are separating again. She describes it all in vague, new age-y terms. They “healed” each other; they fell apart and got put back together “differently”, and she “doesn’t fit in here anymore”.

    According to Glennon’s website and blog entries I’ve skimmed, Glennon was a multiple addict. Craig knocked her up and they decided to get married. Glennon parlayed her recovery and her conversion to Christianity into a ministry, blog community and authorship of two books. They went on to have 2 more kids. By all appearances they were a happy family.

    Not sure this breakup is based on hypergamy.

  81. thedeti says:

    http://momastery.com/blog/2012/10/16/momascary/

    The above blog entry from October 2012 describes what apparently caused Glennon’s first separation from Craig.

  82. Lost Patrol says:

    You do come up with them Rollo. First of all, that is one scary looking old broad. Is that supposed to be her? Secondly, TLDR, but skimming does produce the classic ever crying ‘man’, and the emblematic Love Warrior theme. Turns out – that love is for her(new)self.

  83. Fiddlesticks says:

    Instapundit’s story reminds me of one of the Blue-Pill Right’s most prominent pundits, RedState’s Dan McLaughlin. He toils 70 hours a week as a corporate lawyer to support his family but obviously yearns to pursue his own interests – he occasionally tweets cries for help (below). He has written that he married his first girlfriend after orbiting her for 4 years in college. (Like Brad Wilcox, he was fortunate that religious girls used to have their Epiphany Phase in their EARLY 20s.) He’s a smart guy and likely realizes that he sold himself short by tethering himself to the beta bux treadmill – why would any young man read his writing and see his example as something to emulate?

  84. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I see LOTS of (apparently) married young couples walking the streets where I live, in Santa Monica, CA. What I notice about these couples are:

    The men are invariably TALL and lean. Because Santa Monica is a wealthy area (many work in Silicon Beach or entertainment), I assume these men are successful.

    The women are usually pretty, and white or Asian. Usually toned and slender, and much shorter than their man.

    These couples often walk in jogging or biking attire. Often have a baby in a stroller, or strapped to the man’s chest.

    These women found their TALL, lean, SUCCESSFUL men (Betas or Alphas) and married. Women will marry men who meet their high standards. The upper tier of men will continue to marry.

    Despite being tall and successful, these couples’ body language suggests the women are in charge. The men are more likely to look at (and defer to) the women, while the women stride forward confidently, talking on their cell phones. The men more often carry the babies, strapped to their bodies.

    I suppose if I were taller, and had more game (I didn’t know what that was in my youth), I might have married.

  85. Fiddlesticks says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer
    The dads are throwing their sons under the bus if they’re marrying a much shorter woman. Jeb + Columba anyone?

  86. Vektor says:

    Not sure about a ‘male marriage premium’. Marriage was more demoralizing than anything.

    I can say that I believe women are the most expensive, and most overvalued, thing in the universe. Every economic hardship I have ever experienced in life has be the direct result of a long-term association with a female.

  87. greyghost says:

    Red Pill Latecomer
    I bet none of those married men are happy, not even in the slightest. I will say this those tall handsome dudes had some real pleasant pussy as single men that they will never see again from their new masters (wives) Until the deal was sealed and the shackles welded on with the birth of the child That tall handsome man felt lucky to be tall and worked hard at being successful in making himself marriage ready.. And there he was a proud man of high status and achievement giving birth to his child doing it right as a married man. To be rewarded by society to be a pet and prop. A personal slave boy trophy to an ungrateful bitch without a sliver of optimistic hope of joy in his future.

  88. @fiddlesticks: “The dads are throwing their sons under the bus if they’re marrying a much shorter woman.”

    Can confirm. Mine actually lied about her height to me. LMFAO, she knew I wanted sons to play sports because my dad was an All American. She did what ALL of them do, she lied. My sons are several inches shorter than me at 5’7″

  89. Dave says:

    I can say that I believe women are the most expensive, and most overvalued, thing in the universe. Every economic hardship I have ever experienced in life has be the direct result of a long-term association with a female.

    Where is Yoda? If he were around, he would have said: “Pessimist in chief, you are. A little faith, you must have”.

  90. Chris says:

    “Also, better to rent a whore than to marry one.”

    Like they say: when you rent a prostitute, you’re not paying her for sex, you’re paying her to leave after the sex.

  91. Anonymous Reader says:

    I bet none of those married men are happy, not even in the slightest.

    I bet if you asked them they would say they are happy, if nothing else because their women told them so. But more likely because they don’t really know anything else – 40% of them were raised by their mothers with an absent father, they went through the boy-hating K-12 system, they got drenched with “rape prevention” lectures in college, and thought they hit the jackpot when some 5 or 6 agreed to let them chill out with Netflix every weekend. Then they got hit with “When will you COMMIT!?” and wound up married.

    I will say this those tall handsome dudes had some real pleasant pussy as single men that they will never see again from their new masters (wives)

    Disagree. I strongly suspect those men come to marriage pre-betaized. You don’t know what it is like out there for men under 30, greyghost. It’s not good.

    I’m beginning to understand how the Japanese “grass eaters” came to be.

  92. feeriker says:

    I can say that I believe women are the most expensive, and most overvalued, thing in the universe.

    After real estate and stocks, yes, I agree that American women are indeed currently the most expensive and overvalued commodity in the universe. As with those other two commodities, that didn’t used to be the case. Even if you paid a premium for them in times past, whether short term or over the long haul, you generally still saw a solid return on your investment. Alas, that’s no longer the case. Now, like with the other two, prices are inflated to ridiculous levels and you stand a good chance of being wiped out when the bubble bursts.

  93. feeriker says:

    “Also, better to rent a whore than to marry one.”

    Like they say: when you rent a prostitute, you’re not paying her for sex, you’re paying her to leave after the sex.

    “If it flies, floats, or f**ks, better to rent it than buy it.”

  94. feeriker says:

    I bet none of those married men are happy, not even in the slightest.

    I doubt most of these guys could even define “happy,” any more than they could define “masculine” or “headship.” The average such guy is probably content –or even awed– that some woman who isn’t a nausea-inducing landwhale not only is showing him positive attention, but has chosen him, specifically, out of thousands of other thirsty aspirants, to be her spermbank, mule, scapegoat, wallet, and doormat. That kind of opportunity doesn’t present itself to just any guy, dontchaknow.

  95. Dale says:

    >And its not that they missed their window. They never had the window that you and I had, never even had one option.

    Counting unmarried women:
    – that I personally knew at least somewhat well prior to my 30th birthday,
    – who chose to be at least half-way feminine, and
    – who met a basic physical attractiveness cutoff for me:
    Two. And both clearly expressed disinterest when I pursued them. So no chance with either; at least, not without the self-confidence/game to pursue a woman who has already turned you down.

    So yup, you are correct about the “never even had one option”.

    In my city, the biggest limiter from my list above, by far, is the “chose to be at least half-way feminine” item. I just am not sexually attracted to men. Or women who cut their hair and dress like men.

  96. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Another man enjoying his “marriage premium” …

    He is arrested for yelling at his wife (and, allegedly, spitting at her): http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/athens/grilled-cheese-rage-546398

    Can a wife be arrested for yelling at her husband?

  97. Anon says:

    Now, like with the other two, prices are inflated to ridiculous levels and you stand a good chance of being wiped out when the bubble bursts.

    Interesting.

  98. Uncle Silas says:

    It has been nearly three years since my divorce was finalized. I’ve accepted comfortable failure and part-time fatherhood. Your analysis, Dalrock, explains my actions and attitudes perfectly. My siblings and parents are upset that I refuse to game peri-menopausal, obese harridans or younger career sluts. They’re concerned my self-imposed isolation will lead to adverse consequences in the years ahead. I, however, could not care less about making another tenuous connection with an entitled, over-valued woman. Other than my daughter, there are few people with whom I care to associate in my free time. I enjoy solitude, cynicism, classical music, and Walter Scott. I work hard enough to pay my child support obligations and to maintain my standard of living. However, my ambition has withered, and I work no harder than I need to. Marriage, an institution little different from a Soviet gulag, already has shaved a decade or more off my life. No need to let undue work stress cause an acute MI when I reach my 50s.

  99. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    A man’s life nearly destroyed by a false sexual assault allegation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/my-year-of-hell-commuter-of-preposterous-sexual-assault-case–wa/

    Although he was found innocent, his female accuser remains unnamed.

    And he refuses — fears? — to blame her, instead blaming the prosecutors.

  100. Paul says:

    I’ve noticed something else too: for the single men in the office Monday morning is the worst time of the week; for the married men it’s the best. A lot of married men prefer working to spending time at home with screaming kids and a nagging wife.

  101. Jim says:

    Marriage, an institution little different from a Soviet gulag, already has shaved a decade or more off my life. No need to let undue work stress cause an acute MI when I reach my 50s.

    And people wonder why MGTOW keeps growing. Yes, it’s MUCH better to just relax and not have a harpy in your life, especially since they hold all of the cards legally and culturally. Just be aware that you will hear the usual shaming language from not just women but male traditionalists as well. Personally, I just laugh at it. Those men can die sooner and live a high stress life if they want. That’s up to them. I’ll work and then relax when I get home. Enjoy my hobbies. Learning new things.

    When a MGTOW comes home he stops for a second and listens. You hear that?

    Quiet……Nice isn’t it?……Peaceful…..

    No disrespectful, bitching harpy to listen to. No worrying about those three little numbers of your phone that can destroy your life forever. No losing everything you ever worked for. No slavery to a cunt. It’s fantastic!🙂

  102. Hells Hound says:

    Most people see this happening, now, but no-one really has a solution for how to stop it, from the underlying economic perspective.

    Most people don’t identify it as a problem to be solved, and if they do, they mostly can’t even be bothered to try come up with a solution.

  103. greyghost says:

    AR
    You have some good points to consider. As Red Pill Latercomer described the body language tells all. The lies of the FI and PC culture will tell him he is happy. Truth and reality as seen in demeanor say another. That demeanor will also feed itself to his master’s lack of respect for him ( he doesn’t look confident)
    Rest assured those guys are miserable whether they can openly quantify it or not. Much effort is spent keeping men isolated and immersed in the blue pill to keep it that way. (even the church is in on it)
    Last point I’m newly early 50’s now. When I was in my 30’s and younger girl friends were pleasant until they felt you needed them or were in love with them. I guess even that pretense of virtue is now asking too much from american women. Next thing you know they will stop wearing make up and dressing nice.

  104. Opus says:

    They used to say, that in most occupations you go out to the world but with law the world comes to you, and I would say that is correct at least for most lawyers other than those who ply their trade in court – in which case you can sometimes Game the Judge-ess but always charm the public gallery and the catering staff. As a lawyer, then, you only meet the people you work with which when I was younger meant a very limited supply of even vaguely attractive and suitable females, although en endless supply of nubile young typists is not to be overlooked. Even so, can one as Novaseeker at 2.00pm precisely on the 2nd says make oneself more attractive to women? Certainly if one is overweight one might attempt to replace it with muscle but one can no more add inches to ones height than one can give oneself the visage of Cary Grant. Perhaps, you may think, a new set of clothes would assist: I am just back from a check-up with my dental surgeon and I am pleased to let you know that not all English have poor teeth as she says mine are perfect – £22.00 for the privilege of being so informed. I was wearing an old denim shirt and slightly embarrassed about it as it is very frayed and truth-to tell, needs cleaning, but she was cooing over it. My old frayed cord jacket had the same effect on the War Cry sale lady from the Salvation Army – who always messes up my hair and for some unfathomable – at least to me – reason is convinced that Jesus is going to take control of my soul . I think one can tell when someone really likes you and were it not for the Hygenist…..

  105. Pingback: Honor Dads

  106. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    People shrink with age. I’ve read that, after age 40, the average human shrinks a half an inch per decade. So if you were 5’10” at age 40, you’ll be 5’9″ at age 60, and 5’8″ at age 80.

    That’s a healthy, average shrinkage. That doesn’t take into account individual bone diseases (like osteoarthritis) or racial and sexual factors (women shrink more, and wrinkle more, than men).

  107. Learning says:

    http://www.rooshv.com/the-old-testaments-position-on-female-behavior

    Sounds like he needs to be pointed here post haste. His awakening is in full swing. Would hate to see him turn from the call of Yahweh because he can’t find a true man of God.

  108. Fiddlesticks says:

    The contrast between conservative lawyers/bloggers Glenn Reynolds “Instapundit” and Dan McLaughlin “Baseballcrank” is striking. They have so much in common, but their red-pill vs blue-pill choices resulted in different outcomes.

    Regular readers of Instapundit know that he often talks about how he dated around, enjoying his bachelor days before settling down, while Baseballcrank orbited his college oneitis for 4 years before making her his first girlfriend and later wife.

    So it’s not surprising that it was Instapundit who mustered the will to get off the 70-hour-a-week grind and go into academia, which allowed him to pursue his own legal interests and gave him enough free time to build a profitable Internet brand. He also did a good enough persuasion job on his wife to get her to write the rp book Men on Strike.

    Meanwhile, Baseballcrank is still on the outside looking in, sweating it out at his corporate job while squeezing in political tweets here and there but never able to truly tend to his brand. He refers to his wife as “non-political.”

    Two highly intelligent conservatives who pursued the same field. One succeeded in love and work on his terms; the other played by the rules. No wonder that Instapundit strikes a relaxed, happy-warrior tone while Baseballcrank will lapse into fussiness and virtue-signaling.

  109. Danno says:

    The economists can’t seem to explain the “marriage premium” experienced by men. Whenever you have an effect that you can’t explain, you should look closely at the population sets you’re examining. The population set of men who never marry contains a lot more losers than the set of men that will marry. Ask yourself this: In which population set are the guys with Down’s Syndrome, the low-functioning autistics, the just plain stupid, paraplegics, and the very unattractive? (Side note: physical attractiveness is generally positively correlated to income). The so-called “marriage premium” may not be caused by marriage but instead may be caused by being in the “marriageable material” population set rather than the “unmarriageable material” population set.
    The fact that divorced men tend to earn less than married men may be because: (1) low-earning men are more likely to get dumped by their wives; and/or, (2) men who have failed marriages may be more prone to failure in other aspects of their lives.

  110. feeriker says:

    Just be aware that you will hear the usual shaming language from not just women but male traditionalists as well. Personally, I just laugh at it.

    Check out Vox’s latest two entries over Alpha Game, particularly the most recent in which he spits out another repitition of his popular desperation rant “MGTOW are losers who are killing western civilization by not marrying and breading, so come on, guys, go find that white princess, wife her up, and spit out some more kids to save or future!”

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2016/08/they-want-you-to-give-up.html

    The delusional responses from his “amen corner” are really something to behold (“there are plenty of marriageable white women out there!” “I found MY rainbow-farting unicorn who is submissive to me in all things and we have a whole gaggle of beautiful children together. What’s YOUR problem?!”)

    I usually find Vox to be spot-on with at least 95 percent of his observations and opinions, but this is one of his really serious blind spots that has resulted in complete rectal-cranial inversion.

  111. mikediver5 says:

    Dave says:

    August 2, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    I can say that I believe women are the most expensive, and most overvalued, thing in the universe. Every economic hardship I have ever experienced in life has be the direct result of a long-term association with a female.

    Where is Yoda? If he were around, he would have said: “Pessimist in chief, you are. A little faith, you must have”.

    Faith is the evidence of things unseen. It is not denial of things seen.

  112. Feminist Hater says:

    Vox is the same guy who uses his Alpha, Beta, Omega and Gamma man line to categorize men into neat little boxes. If he can get the Alphas and Betas to marry and have lots of kids, sure, as long as the women are truly beneficial to the man and submit to him in all things… the problem comes from him targeting lowly gamma men, the incels and the unattractive. He has already torn them down be labeling them as useless but now wants them to step up and marry the left overs of the other men and fight for his right and the right of men like him to have it all with beautiful women and families. I suggest he should do that fighting himself and leave MGTOW men alone. He doesn’t want a battlefront on two fronts..

  113. thedeti says:

    feeriker:

    Vox wants to save Western civilization, in large part because its ideals are worth preserving.

    Western civ is not going to be preserved in the United States or in Europe. It will live on as an ever shrinking remnant of men and women who hold to a Judeo-Christian worldview and who continue reproducing. That will be ever fewer and fewer people as we progress.

    I still believe that more and more men will find MGTOW as the only viable solution for them, in large part because no matter what they do, they won’t be attractive enough or valuable enough to get and keep the interest of a woman for three or more decades.

  114. thedeti says:

    Western Civ will live on as a set of ideals. The geographic areas in which it lives might or might not be Europe and the English speaking world.

  115. Feminist Hater says:

    The economists can’t seem to explain the “marriage premium” experienced by men. Whenever you have an effect that you can’t explain, you should look closely at the population sets you’re examining. The population set of men who never marry contains a lot more losers than the set of men that will marry. Ask yourself this: In which population set are the guys with Down’s Syndrome, the low-functioning autistics, the just plain stupid, paraplegics, and the very unattractive? (Side note: physical attractiveness is generally positively correlated to income). The so-called “marriage premium” may not be caused by marriage but instead may be caused by being in the “marriageable material” population set rather than the “unmarriageable material” population set.
    The fact that divorced men tend to earn less than married men may be because: (1) low-earning men are more likely to get dumped by their wives; and/or, (2) men who have failed marriages may be more prone to failure in other aspects of their lives.

    Correlation doesn’t always imply causation was what your diatribe could be said as. However, you had to go bash men instead, nice going, chump.

  116. Hells Hound says:

    Check out Vox’s latest two entries over Alpha Game, particularly the most recent in which he spits out another repitition of his popular desperation rant “MGTOW are losers who are killing western civilization by not marrying and breading, so come on, guys, go find that white princess, wife her up, and spit out some more kids to save or future!”

    He’s making perfect sense, at least in the context of his ideology. He’s a believer in white supremacy, which is a collectivist approach, and, as such, one based on the doctrine of male disposability. He believes men are to take risks and sacrifice themselves for the common good. I don’t intend this as criticism, it’s a simple observation. There are many similar ideologies out there. Feminism, Churchianity, Islamism, Communism all tell you the same thing: men are to be sacrificed as cannon fodder, one way or another, for some glorious goal.

    The funny thing is that none of these ideologies offer tangible payoffs to men. Because they can’t. Any payoff is an illusory future possibility. What is Vox telling you, as a white man, after all? “Dedicate your life to our cause. Put up a fight, take risks, spill your blood, and maybe you’ll survive our struggle to see our final victory. Then maybe you’ll be rewarded. Or something. Trust me.”

  117. Novaseeker says:

    I still believe that more and more men will find MGTOW as the only viable solution for them, in large part because no matter what they do, they won’t be attractive enough or valuable enough to get and keep the interest of a woman for three or more decades.

    I agree in effect, although I don’t see most of them as conscious MGTOWs, but rather “de facto” MGTOWs. In other words, guys who have kind of given up, retreated into other things, without considering themselves MGTOWs, hanging out on MGTOW forums, or even knowing what MGTOW is. There are lots of guys of all ages who are dropping out, in effect, but most of them are not conscious MGTOWs. Their number will continue to grow, I think, for various reasons.

    There will be some political fallout from this as well — already has been with the rise of the movement which supports Trump. It will fail in this election due to Trump’s foibles, but I don’t think we will have heard the political last breath of the angry white guys yet, really.

  118. Hells Hound says:

    the problem comes from him targeting lowly gamma men, the incels and the unattractive. He has already torn them down be labeling them as useless but now wants them to step up and marry the left overs of the other men and fight for his right and the right of men like him to have it all with beautiful women and families.

    It’s because he has no other choice if he is to stay loyal to his ideology. It’d be useless for him to preach to alphas and higher betas, or whatever you want to call them. Why? Because the current system is optimal for them. They can have lots of sex, smoke drugs, drink, have fun, delay fatherhood or avoid it all together, have comfy office jobs, go on vacations etc. They have nothing to gain by joining some sort of rightist, white supremacist insurgency. So he’s preaching to lower betas, marginalized middle-class whites, gammas, AFCs etc., because he thinks they can be convinced that they have a lot to gain and little to lose by following him.

  119. Kaminsky says:

    @freeriker,

    Yup. There has been a lot of shaming coming from our very own manosphere peers.

    With a lot of the manosphere it’s ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same.’ A lot of guys were led to the manosphere after, presumably, getting knocked around pretty hard in the sexual market. Likely oneitis, pedestalization mistakes. So they find the manosphere and cycle through all kinds of stuff, but at the end of the day, they’re back at the feet of their white goddesses. “Don’t give up!” or “VirginTOW losers” or something. But mostly it’s still pedestalization of their idealized, white goddesses. Heartiste is especially bad at this. I see you point out Vox. Clarey hates MGTOW. ROK had a MGTOW bashing session the other day. Heartiste and his agree-ers are the worst with their ridiculous homages to their white girl overlords. They think they’re coming at it from another angle, i.e. extreme racism, ‘pure blooded’ R/K selection dramatic nonsense but it’s just them back to being who they are; guys pedestalizing white girls. I don’t understand how they can’t recognize how out of hand Anglo women have gotten. What does it take?

    @Kevin,

    Income quote or imputed income was also the last straw for me. Absolute final nail in the coffin for me in even ever thinking of marriage. I can’t believe that can happen. Same goes for passport confiscation of divorced men. Unreal.

    @Anon

    “In terms of absolute attractiveness to the opposite sex across the world, American men rank much higher than American women, on average.”

    Well thanks for pointing that out and you’re fighting the good fight, but, wow, what an understatement. American men as a group are in the top five (out of 230 countries) in every major category of how women generally judge men (money, looks, personality, options, security) . American women are in the bottom five in every major category (looks, femininity, supportiveness, personality, cost). The obesity alone just ends any discussion right out of the gate. It’s the elephant in the room humping the 800 pound gorilla that no one talks about nearly enough; OBESITY KILLS EVERYTHING. All other manosphere talking points concerning the USA are secondary.

  120. Feminist Hater says:

    The funny thing is that none of these ideologies offer tangible payoffs to men. Because they can’t. Any payoff is an illusory future possibility.

    The only tangible benefit was and always has been the authority of the husband in the home. That gave the man the control to both have children, raise them and get on with his life as he saw fit. It both gave him purpose, used his strengths, harnessed his labour resource and made him willing to fight for it. All that was taken away and now there is no incentive, no authority, no control, no purpose for the man to enter into marriage or society at large. Only shame, which oddly enough, Vox knows full well but still uses shame to coerce men into a losing proposition.

    By allowing a man control over his home and family, society gave that man an entrance point from which he could build a life without interference. Vox and others just need to explain how a man can do that now, without being a He-man Cane or Vox 6 foot five inches or more tall, genius who knows everything.

    It no longer works, stop pointing and telling men to ‘man up’ and marry. You can’t till a farm that has been salted… until you remove the salt and replace the soil. As with marriage, the legal laws need to be removed and man restored to the rightful authority of his own domain, until then, MGTOW is the only option for majority of men that don’t fit into the Alpha category of Vox’s ideals.

  121. Novaseeker says:

    Vox is short, actually — like 5’7″ if I am remembering correctly. Not saying that to defend what he has written in the last few days, but he isn’t a tall guy as far as I am recalling.

  122. feeriker says:

    I still believe that more and more men will find MGTOW as the only viable solution for them, in large part because no matter what they do, they won’t be attractive enough or valuable enough to get and keep the interest of a woman for three or more decades.

    Which leaves self-described “Alphas” like Vox with the responsibility of giving the world as many lily-white kids as possible. Of course since Alphas are generally loath to commit to any kind of long-term relationship and tend not to reproduce in large numbers when they do, this presents something of a problem for his plans to re-establish the Master Race as dominant – a goal which of course he would have to admit is well beyond the ability of the “lower orders” of men whom he so mercilessly shames, men he really doesn’t want to see reproduce anyway.

    Rather hilarious, the gaping holes emerging in this philosophy of his when it comes to putting it into actual practice.

  123. thedeti says:

    “I agree in effect, although I don’t see most of them as conscious MGTOWs, but rather “de facto” MGTOWs.”

    Yes. They aren’t going to be activist MGTOWs or “movement” MGTOWs like we see online. They will just more or less gravitate to MGTOW by default, because it’s a path of least resistance. They’ll come to a conclusion that long term relationships with women, having a family and kids, and putting down roots are not for them mostly because they just cannot attract a woman long term, or decide the risks aren’t worth the returns, or cannot or will not put in the work. Can’t blame those guys for reaching that conclusion.

    And yeah, there’s a lot of political effect. Trump won’t be elected in the fall. He’ll lose by a couple of points in the popular vote and in a decisive electoral college victory for Clinton who already has NY, CA, OR, WA, IL, and New England’s electoral votes sewn up.

  124. thedeti says:

    There have always been MGTOWs in the classical sense. The only people who call them MGTOWs are manospherians and their critics.

  125. Chris says:

    “Although he was found innocent, his female accuser remains unnamed.”

    Souad Faress.

  126. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Another double standard: Shaming unmarried men vs. women.

    One of Feminism’s goals was to remove the shame of being a Spinster. The word itself was banished. As were the titles Miss and Mrs, to be replaced by Ms. It is now taboo to ask a woman why she never married, or even if she is married. A woman’s social status must no longer depend on whether she could attract or keep a man.

    There are no Spinsters — only Strong, Independent Women. They haven’t been left on a shelf. It was their Choice not to marry. They’re lucky to have escaped marriage. Free and liberated of men, who are useless bicycles to female fish.

    OTOH, a single man is to be shamed. There must be something wrong with him. TV is full of villains who are creepy, middle-aged, unmarried or divorced men. Always blogging about conspiracy theories, stalking women, molesting children, collecting guns and engaging in right-wing terrorism.

    Whereas single Strong, Independent Women on TV are always brilliant prosecutors, cops, FBI agents, scientists, and attorneys — building civilization while raising children as single mothers.

    TV shames single or divorced married men, while celebrating single or divorced women. This is the message children receive. A man without a woman is creepy and broken. A woman without a man is strong and smart and successful and happy and beautiful.

    No wonder boys grow up to be panting Beta orbiters, while girls grow up to be self-entitled, social media narcissists.

  127. Fiddlesticks says:

    Vox is throwing a bone to family men who missed opportunities to date/marry better because they came of age before this info was widely available, or when Promise Keeper-ing was the big thing. The CH lifestyle he triangulates against is a straw man; only a tiny hardcore uses that knowledge to pursue casual dating for life. Most eventually use it to approach commitment from a more confident mindset.

  128. feeriker says:

    They think they’re coming at it from another angle, i.e. extreme racism, ‘pure blooded’ R/K selection dramatic nonsense but it’s just them back to being who they are; guys pedestalizing white girls. I don’t understand how they can’t recognize how out of hand Anglo women have gotten. What does it take?

    As I’ve said before, here and elsewhere, it’s a combination of laziness and tunnel vision. The average North American white guy lives a comfy existence in which his most basic needs are met. He really isn’t driven internally to push boundaries or break new ground in anything, and that includes matters sexual. White Anglo chicks with whom he can communicate are pretty much the only things female that he’s ever had any experience with (imagine eating sandwiches of white bread and margerine with a thin layer of shit spread every day for each meal, for an idea of how fulfilling and healthy that must be), so the idea of going for something different either never occurs to him, or it takes more effort than he’s willing to put forth.

    As for what it will take to get these guys to wake up, there probably is no such thing. No breed of leopard, male or female, that I’m aware of changes its spots to stripes after a certain age. White Angl chicks will continue to be insufferable and white guys, even the RP types, will continue to believe that those are just the outliers, the majority being pleasant, submissive, rainbow-farting unicorns in bounteous numbers (like the guy who refuses to by those fresh meats, vegetables, and spices to experiment with making himself a delicious, nutritionally-balanced gourmet meal, but instead thinks that switching to a different brand of white bread will make his bread, margarine, and shit sandwiches taste better and become more nutritious).

  129. Hells Hound says:

    A lot of guys were led to the manosphere after, presumably, getting knocked around pretty hard in the sexual market. Likely oneitis, pedestalization mistakes. So they find the manosphere and cycle through all kinds of stuff, but at the end of the day, they’re back at the feet of their white goddesses. “Don’t give up!” or “VirginTOW losers” or something. But mostly it’s still pedestalization of their idealized, white goddesses.

    Well, duh. Being right-wing doesn’t necessarily mean being red pill. Many militant right-wingers, and leftists as well, for that matter, are hardcore blue pillers.

  130. Gunner Q says:

    Learning @ 8:30 am:
    “Sounds like he needs to be pointed here post haste. His awakening is in full swing. Would hate to see him turn from the call of Yahweh because he can’t find a true man of God.”

    He’s one of several Manospherians I see discover Christ on their own then veer away at the last moment. He surely knows where to find Dalrock.

    feeriker @ 9:00 am:
    “I usually find Vox to be spot-on with at least 95 percent of his observations and opinions, but this is one of his really serious blind spots”

    My thoughts, too. White America was betrayed first by white Americans.

    The powers that be don’t want us to give up and go MGTOW, they want us to serve Princess as slaves. Hence their tyrannies like imputed income for chilamony.

  131. Jim says:

    I still believe that more and more men will find MGTOW as the only viable solution for them, in large part because no matter what they do, they won’t be attractive enough or valuable enough to get and keep the interest of a woman for three or more decades.

    It’s a total myth that MGTOWs can’t get laid because we’re too ugly or whatever. I know a number of them who get laid on a regular basis. These pussy begging wimps just won’t accept the fact that we just don’t think sticking our dicks in a wet hole is worth the risk. Is it “alpha” to jump out of an airplane when you know you have a 50% chance of the parachute not opening? No. That’s called being a complete idiot.

    These morons like to claim that every MGTOW somehow “lives in their mommy’s basement”. It would be laughable if it weren’t so stupid. These idiots such JUST like feminists with their childish shaming language. I’ve got to admit that does crack me up sometimes because these two groups of idiots are so much alike in that way. They just have different justifications for it. They’re as gynocentric (something they bitch about all the time) as any feminist. They’re just too blinded by hormones to see it. Ha, the irony.

    These so called “alphas” are not what they claim. They’re just pussies who can’t control their own dicks. They’re SLAVES to pussy. They’re on their hands and knees begging these white cunts (in the case of these sickening white supremacist white knights) for sex and just hoping she doesn’t pick up the phone.

    I’ve been groped many times, had my balls grabbed, been flirted with and so on at work from women yet I’m supposed to be some hideous loser? Yeah right. Guys like Vox are just pussy beggars who can’t control their urges.

  132. thedeti says:

    Jim:

    What you describe as MGTOW is what they were until about 2013 when incels, gammas and omegas coopted the term. Most MGTOWs when I showed up here around 2011 were men who just didn’t marry. Most were men who dated and had sex, but never anything more than an STR.

    The MGTOW moniker has been completely overrun by sexless incel gammas and omegas who spend their days complaining online. Most of the men who claim MGTOW are one BJ away from throwing guys like you under the bus.

  133. Anon says:

    The MGTOW moniker has been completely overrun by sexless incel gammas and omegas who spend their days complaining online.

    Agreed. Incel MGTOW is not MGTOW. Only MGTOW from a position of choice is likely to be sustainable when it matters…

  134. Jim says:

    Most of the men who claim MGTOW are one BJ away from throwing guys like you under the bus.

    Yes I know. I’m talking about the REAL DEAL not these phony baloney types who got their little baby feelings hurt by some cunt so now they’re pouting. Those guys aren’t even MGTOW. I’m talking about guys like me who boxed in with these punks. I’ve told these so called MGTOWs that they’re not MGTOW and that their full of shit. Anyone who comes to MGTOW because “I got rejected!” or “I got my feelings hurt!” then they’re not MGTOW they’re just cowardly little shits.

    I’ve been MGTOW before the term was even invented.

    Look what happened to bar bar on YouTube. He got doxxed and Aaron Clarey was SO sure he was some ugly fat dude who can’t get laid (lol) and oops, Clarey was full of shit. I’ve seen this kind of thing more than a few times.

    I came to MGTOW because I saw the handwriting on the wall. Cunts have absolute total power over you pretty much anywhere you go. So why bother makign it a thousand times worse by getting married and inviting that into your house? Why sell yourself into slavery? Why live with someone who can have you chained up and tossed in cage just on her word, when their little girl feeling get all hurty?

    And these fucking piece of shit cunts call men oppressive? Please! Spare me.

    Anyway, I see almost no difference in these fake MGTOWs, PUAs, “traditionalists”, or feminists. They’re all just seconds away from the pathetic shaming language (I find it kind of funny but it sure makes them look bad) they all call each other out for. And worse, they’re all VERY gynocentric. And none of them even see it. Lol. It’s like the whole world has become one big vagina.

  135. redlight says:

    rebrand to something like Men Getting What They Want

  136. Jim says:

    rebrand to something like Men Getting What They Want

    I know what you mean. It’s tempting but phrases are always getting co-opted by idiots no matter how many times a moniker is changed.

  137. Learning says:

    Just to set the record straight, Vox has actually claimed that as the result of research and a brother’s DNA test he is Native American, Mexican and if I remember right…Irish. He enjoys throwing his race cards and has for years. He was always very clear that he is a Sigma, not Alpha and that it is the result of him removing himself from gammahood by hard work and dedication. He is also well under 6 feet tall. His point was always that improving your lot in life can be done because he is proof of it. Just like fat nasty feminists could change their lives when confronted with the truth so could MGTOW. Consequences and risks are part of the deal and they dont like it.
    And he is more of a western civilization supremicist then white supremicist, its just that people get feelings when they read him and freak out and never listen to what he is actually saying.

    That is all.

  138. Feminist Hater says:

    Why the need to think about re branding it, just let it be. It causes more problems with the core of society if they cannot box MGTOW in. It’s nice to see them shit their pants for once.

  139. redlight says:

    sorry, rebranding again due to roosh

    Men Doing What Is Right

  140. Jim says:

    Consequences and risks are part of the deal and they dont like it.

    Spare me. Taken many risks in my life pal. But I’m stupid, unlike others. Most men just prefer slavery it seems.

  141. AmicusC says:

    @jim

    “I came to MGTOW because I saw the handwriting on the wall. Cunts have absolute total power over you pretty much anywhere you go. So why bother makign it a thousand times worse by getting married and inviting that into your house? Why sell yourself into slavery? Why live with someone who can have you chained up and tossed in cage just on her word, when their little girl feeling get all hurty?

    And these fucking piece of shit cunts call men oppressive? Please! Spare me”

    ur no different than the mgtow’s you despise.

  142. Jim says:

    ur no different than the mgtow’s you despise.

    Read what I wrote a little bit more carefully. And very slowly. There’s no rush.

  143. AmicusC says:

    @Jim

    I did all u have there is bitterness and fear same as the ones u disparage. You can’t even just call them women gots to call them all cunts. Some are some aren’t. Most are just women reacting to incentives like men. You seem to live in a bitter world of fear.
    ” these phony baloney types who got their little baby feelings hurt by some cunt so now they’re pouting”

    U living in that fear and bitterness are just as bad, and if u haven’t experienced the ringer ur worse. Ur a Monday morning quarterback whining about others that have or had skin in the game .But do go on an pontificate ur not even a has been ur a never was

  144. ray says:

    The comment by gdgm+, above, concerning the ‘she-conomy’ explains most of the downstream socio-sexual consequences: the modern Western economies have been female-ruled for most of the past century. Law, marriage, etc. simply Follow The Money, because despite yapping, the U.S. is a monetary/secular society, not a Christian one. Very, very few people actually Follow The Lord. Including American Christians, putatively 70+ percent of the population.

    As for Ted Beale, the Great Dark Lord, Internet Hero, and Savior of Western Civilization, he demands that castrated Western men “man up” to “defend and protect” the very population (privileged white females) that has ruled over us lo these many decades running:

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-eyes-have-it.html

    Ted doesn’t give a crap about Christ, or about ‘Western Civilization” but he sure is clever at manipulating young, inexperienced men to follow his agendas. Including “hating blacks” and placing the names of all Jews in parentheses. I mean how cool is that, Mr. LePen? :O) Yet not even ONE of Ted’s commenters had the guts to call him out; hello Echo Chamber, hello manboys. Guess Ted didn’t much like it when I wrote (((Jesus))) on his website. The website he’s always bragging about, however many million page-hits he’s gotten, how he’s in Mensa blah blah, how he’s so much better than all other men, glorying as The Great Dark Lord and as self-identified Leader of the Alt-Right.

    Those who question The Great Dark Lord find themselves attacked by his Group, which somehow is supposed to be different from the Group Attacks we’ve undergone by the feminists and Left. But it’s different now, because Vox says so. Point out his jive, and he censors you, and calls you a Gamma, or one of the other phonyGreek alphabet selections from his self-made, self-worshipping religion. Goes dubble for his buddy Roosh and their invention of Neomasculinity. Won’t go along with their self-elevating twaddle? You’ll be silenced and, here comes The Group to put you in your place. Whatever place The Great Dark Lord has decided.

    I’ll say this for Ted, however — he is very representative, in his character and behaviors, with the current generation, and I’m not surprised that he is popular. So was Barabbas. Although Barabbas actually could fight, a little.

  145. TheLastCoyote says:

    A couple things…Vox has some good posts, but some of this stuff is really out there. It’s also interesting how he never talks much about his own experiences with women. I guess he fears we’ll find out he doesn’t fare well on his alpha beta etc. hierarchy.

    Then, the article below seems consistent with the topic at hand. Pretty much all the reasons why women divorce can be summed up as, “I’m not haaaapppyyy…”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reasons-women-leave-their-marriages-according-to-marriage-therapists_us_579fc7b9e4b0e2e15eb6ea31

  146. Jim says:

    AmicusC says: I did

    Hmm, I live in fear and bitterness.

    Idiot, think for a minute. Let me help by reposting what I wrote earlier:

    “I’ll work and then relax when I get home. Enjoy my hobbies. Learning new things.

    When a MGTOW comes home he stops for a second and listens. You hear that?

    Quiet……Nice isn’t it?……Peaceful…..

    No disrespectful, bitching harpy to listen to. No worrying about those three little numbers of your phone that can destroy your life forever. No losing everything you ever worked for. No slavery to a cunt. It’s fantastic!”

    That’s not someone who “always lives in fear” (that’s just an idiotic argument). For me personally it’s been great. I’d go so far to say that’s it’s been greater than I thought it would be in the beginning because I was raised with the usual tradcon BS, “go get married, have kids, white picket fence, blah blah…”

    But, oh “I’m just bitter” (ha, that’s just so stereotypical female). Lol. That’s like calling critics of Hitler “bitter” because they’re pissed off at seeing innocent people being systemically persecuted or even destroyed (yes, I know “extreme” example).

    Maybe I actually give a shit about other men (not many do. Believe it or not they are actually human), even one’s I haven’t met and am trying to open their stubborn eyes to the truth before they end up miserable or destroyed. That’s just the way it is for now. Why should I even care? Because they’re human beings? Or does only the vagina count as such? They already get MASSIVE amounts of help, to the point of engaging in legalized criminal behavior against men, so they don’t need mine. They’ve not only got endless numbers of support groups but live off my tax dollars, are supported by governments and even the United Nations! Who helps men? No one. Just dickheads calling other men “bitter” because they give a shit.

    But hey, you want to go on thinking “Oh, you’re no better! You’re just bitter!” blah blah go right ahead. In the meantime I’m going to try to help others by spreading the message. No one hurt me personally big boy. I guess some people just can’t wrap it around their tiny little brains that you don’t have to get shot in the head PERSONALLY to see what kind of damage that can do. Not only that but knowing their motivations helps you understand (for people willing to actually listen) that given the chance that gun will point your direction and that trigger can be pulled at any second. It’s like I said earlier, would you jump out of a perfectly good airplane if you knew that there was a real good chance that the parachute would not open? That’s not “living in fear” that’s called avoiding being an idiot. Besides, living the life the way I do there is nothing to fear anyway. But I do fear for the fools jumping out of that plane.

    Meanwhile they’ve already shot so many men already. I feel bad for those guys because they didn’t deserve that. They just wanted to be good husbands/fathers and how are they paid in return? Not just the wife leaving you (which is really just a minor problem in the scheme of things) but destroying their life completely, sometime even to the point of breaking their spirit. I can hardly think of a bigger coward who would do something like that. Worse than that, it’s just plain criminal. And there are so many ways they can do it too. I guess it’s better to be a completely selfish fuck and just ignore these men right? Maybe i should. It’s true most won’t listen but a few have.

    And hey, yes it’s a sad reality that it has to be this way but I also know it won’t be this way forever. It can’t because civilization can’t stand up with the current system. It’s too self destructive for it to last.

    As for skin in the game I’ve seen in happen up close and personal to family members so spare me you’re supposed mind-reading insight into my brain.

  147. Jim says:

    But one thing I noticed about a lot of the partners was that they worked hard and pushed for more compensation because they were married to women who spent a lot of money.

    That kind of reminds me of a friend of mine who had to divorce his wife because she wouldn’t stop spending his money. She put them tens of thousands in debt because of it. The funny thing about that is that she didn’t do that at first from what he told me but suddenly became that way. I’ve heard about that same scenario happening to other guys too. Women can be very fickle like that. And of course he had to dig himself out of that huge hole she put them in. That’s like legal thievery if you ask me. Thank God the divorce was AFTER the kids were already grown otherwise he’d have been stuck in debt for a couple of decades at least.

    It’s just another one of those warning signs and a “sign of the times”.

  148. feeriker says:

    Law, marriage, etc. simply Follow The Money, because despite yapping, the U.S. is a monetary/secular society, not a Christian one. Very, very few people actually Follow The Lord. Including American Christians, putatively 70+ percent of the population.

    Yes. The late, great conservative pundit Joseph Sobran quite accurately described what passes for “religion” in America –ALL of it, no matter what it calls itself– as “the Great National Religion.” Not to be confused with “the real thing” that originated in the Middle East or the Far East thousands of years ago and that is dogmatic, purist, evangelical, and deadly serious in defending or propagating itself, the GNR is a uniquely American animal, a neutered facsimile of its forebears that emphasizes above all else “going along to get along,” playing nicely together in the national sandbox, putting State above God, and not rocking the proverbial boat by taking one’s faith so seriously that one’s religious life comes at the expense of one’s life as a citizen of the world’s greatest dumbocracy. E pluribus unum, and all that.

    People who foresake the GNR for a real religion, whatever it might be, tend to draw the ire of The Powers That Be, who ultimately bring all their force to bear to stamp it out or neuter it to where it becomes a part of the GNR. The Mormons are an excellent example. Agree or disagree with their beliefs, what started out as a religion that led thousands of devout followers into a swath of western desert to form their own holy land drew the ire of the budding American Imperium, which saw this new patriarchal religion as a threat to its own power, leading it to launch an armed invasion of the Utah Territory and subjugate this religion to its will. Today the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” might as well be campaigning to be America’s official state religion. Its adherents practically worship the American federal government, whose agents come disproportionately from Mormon institutions of higher learning. More radically, the church rolled over and abandoned a key tenet of its faith (polygyny) at gunpoint from Washington. Fully integrated into the GNR is Mormonism today, except for some tiny, isolated pockets of fundamentalists separatists who will be massacred if they ever grow large enough in number and influence to offer serious and systemic resistance to the GNR and its humanist puppeteers.

    Churchianity is another manifestation of the GNR, a harmless, toothless facsimile of Christianity that demands nothing of its adherents and that presents no threat at all to the existing political, social, and economic order. Just let any figure establish a church that operates along First Century New Testament lines, however, and the reaction by TPTB will be very reminiscent of a North Korean campaign against dissent. Such a church WILL be made to assimilate into the GNR or it will be obliterated. TL;DR version: the only real religion allowed is the State and worship thereof, above all else.

    So no, indeed, there is no true worship in America, in any institutionally systemic way of the God of Abraham in the way intended by the founders of the two faiths centered on Him. Such unfettered worship puts God above State, society, and mammon. Caesar will never tolerate that.

  149. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    As I’ve always said, I’m a reluctant MGTOW. Can there be such a thing? For me it’s not a happy choice. I spent much of my life as a blue pill pedestalizer. I always hoped that some day I’d me the Right One, who’d love me for me, for richer for poorer, for better for worse, till death do us part. My parents’ marriage lasted over 50 years.

    I don’t live in my mommy’s basement. I’m in my 50s and am financially well off. I own my home, near the beach, 100% equity, no mortgage. I don’t have to work anymore, just manage my finances. I can afford to travel whenever I like.

    But I am alone, and it’s no fun. I don’t like traveling alone. Sure, I have guy friends. When we get together the talk is lively (about sports, politics, movies, etc.), yet I’ve always sensed undercurrents of sadness in these men. Am I projecting? These men are mostly 40s to 60s, mostly never-married or divorced. No women calling them home.

    MGTOW are not necessarily losers, in the financial sense. But it’s depressing to see so many images of idealized romance, and not participate in it, even if one knows that it’s an illusion. I remain blue pill at heart, and regret not having an idealized marriage to a beautiful, loyal woman.

    But my wealth is not obvious — I don’t flash my money — and I’ve grown very cynical of women and suspicious of gold-diggers. I’m not Alpha, and I can’t be bothered at this age to try and be Alpha. The available women are not worth the effort. I pine for an idealized woman, but I doubt I can ever have what I want, so I don’t look very hard.

  150. Lost Patrol says:

    @TheLastCoyote,

    I’m getting faster all the time at skimming these articles for the Prime Directive:

    “They get to the point where divorce is the only way to put themselves first again.” (do the young women in that infamous photograph of the huffpo editors sit around all day writing this stuff? – never mind).

    The Prime Directive always turns up. Put Self First. Too bad the concept works so poorly in the field of good wife and mother.

  151. AmicusC says:

    @ Jim

    So nothing new under the sun. Just more bitterness that all women everywhere are horrible. The irony of writing that on this man’s blog utterly lost on u. And the the double down that I must be a chick because I don’t support the bs your spouting. Truly an inspiration u are .

    Your comments show u hate women hate puas hate mgtow that don’t do it the right way. Yeah sign me up for that. That’s totally not bitter and pathetic.

    You live in fear of trying just like those guys u say are doing mgtow wrong. But I dare say the message your pushing isn’t really going to find fertile ground on this blog, he says deferring to our gracious host.

    I could also go down the road of personal insults about your intellect or whatever but I don’t generally do that on this blog and I think if you have to call someone an idiot because you don’t like what they say that’s more a reflection on u then the person ur responding to.

    There are issues they need to be addressed and men need to know about them. But to extend your gunshot analogy your basically advocating don’t touch guns don’t look at guns don’t talk to people with guns don’t talk to people that are good with guns and anyone that’s been shot is a loser.

    You can’t have it both ways where u hate the gun shot victim, mgtows your totes not the same as, while trying to say your an altruist just trying to help prevent shootings and repeat shootings.

    Your comments stand for themselves and show bitterness and fear .
    As for skin in the game u obviously have no concept of what that means. It doesn’t mean u watched a family member put it all on line the line and succeed or fail.

  152. Learning says:

    @TLC

     It’s also interesting how he never talks much about his own experiences with women. I guess he fears we’ll find out he doesn’t fare well on his alpha beta etc. hierarchy.

    Yes he has, many times. He has also posted pictures of his wife.

  153. Jim says:

    I don’t live in my mommy’s basement.

    Heh, I don’t know of any real MGTOWs that do but it’s just the usual female style shaming language you get from people who want to tell you how to live because they don’t approve of it. They’ve also got the usual ones like, “you’re gay”, “you hate women”, “who hurt you”, you’ve got a small dick”, “you can’t get laid”, that kind of thing. It’s gotten so repetitive that it sound like a scratchy record.

    But I am alone, and it’s no fun.

    Sorry to hear that. Hate to hear that it hurts man. Something to remember though…

    I used to think that the worst thing in life was to end up alone. It’s not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel alone.
    Robin Williams

    It’s not being physically alone that’s awful or at least the worst thing. Many guys are in a situation where they’re with someone but a STILL alone as Robin Williams pointed out.

  154. Jim says:

    So nothing new under the sun. Just more bitterness that all women everywhere are horrible.

    Ha, this must be a feminist, a woman of some kind, or someone with serious comprehension problems (maybe all three?). It’s funny, how many times have I used to phrase “most women” yet they read “all women”? The words “most” and “all” are not interchangeable. You can’t seem comprehend (or maybe reuse to accept) that I’m just not interested in playing a game that’s been rigged from the outset. We’re done here.

  155. AmicusC says:

    Ya Jim everyone that disagrees with u is a feminist or woman no man would ever dare disagree with u.

    Also quote where u said most not all. All uve posted is cunts this cunts that. I don’t refuse to understand anything I completely understand and agree ur a pussy. But ur totes the secret king. Living the dream everyone should should envy.

  156. Anon says:

    AmicusC,

    Your comments show u hate women hate puas hate mgtow that don’t do it the right way. Yeah sign me up for that. That’s totally not bitter and pathetic.

    Yep.

    While MGTOW is a great concept in theory, too many self-described MGTOWs are extremely unhappy and misanthropic. A successful MGTOW should have a zen-like serenity that transcends concerns about these things. That is not what we are seeing from some of these people, who can barely contain their anger and misanthropy…

  157. Anon says:

    The Prime Directive always turns up. Put Self First. Too bad the concept works so poorly in the field of good wife and mother.

    Too bad the State does not have a Prime Directive along the lines of ‘The state shall never interfere in a marriage. To do so could adversely change the trajectory of a marriage.’.

    Alas…..

  158. Lord Rofl says:

    “His point was always that improving your lot in life can be done because he is proof of it. Just like fat nasty feminists could change their lives when confronted with the truth so could MGTOW. Consequences and risks are part of the deal and they dont like it.”

    The “consequences and risks” of mating have been summarily dumped on men; the bonuses mostly accrue to women. What used to be a mutually beneficial compromise is now a potentially monstrous liability for a man and a looming threat to his children’s wellbeing.

    Why should you or I expect someone to freely “change their li[fe]” for the worse? That would be dumb.

    On that note, the MOAR WHYTE BABBIES peanut gallery, including Vox, waste their time with demagoguery. They forget that the best way to motivate a man is to promise to directly advance his interests… then deliver.

    They could do this by establishing an alternative society with sane rules.

    But no one has the balls to do so.

    Good leadership is extraordinarily rare. Ciceronian bozos are a dime a dozen.

    (Takes one to know one. ha ha)

  159. BillyS says:

    Jim,

    You are making Vox’s case for him. Quit whining.

    I guess I am a special snowflake then. I don’t come home fearing anything. It may not always be a pleasant peaceful thing, but neither is your life, in spite of all your posturing. You are human like every other man and thus face your own set of challenges.

    Maybe it really is great now in spite of my doubts, but it will not always remain such. Christians are called to either pursue God’s work full time or seek to build the next generation and continue to spread God’s Kingdom. You don’t do that by isolating yourself, however happy it may make you feel.

    Waste your life if you want. Reasonably good women are out there. Dalrock is married to one, as are others here. Stick with your pessimism if you want, but some of us won’t let that be the only message.

    My father in law has his flaws, but he had significant family around last weekend for his 90th birthday. Who will give a hoot when you hit yours? Or will you follow the Adam Clary retirement method instead?

    Yeah, life can really suck, but family is the purpose of things. Christian civilization may seem doomed, but it has outlived worse in the past and will continue on. I hope it is through some variant of Western Civilization, but I know it will continue even if not. The One in charge will make sure of that.

    I enjoy being alone as much as anyone else, but I do miss my wife, who will not be back home for another week. That is the exact opposite of your claims. Call me whatever you wish, but I have lived through enough to know that my own little sorrow is not the driving force in the universe. I server the One who is.

    Like Christianity, successful living has been found hard and not tried.

    Too bad we don’t have more guidance on how to be successful. Hopefully I can touch on some of that when I get my own fingers rolling more in the future. Only a few short blog posts so far that will likely not have broad appeal to anyone here yet.

    I do hope to borrow lots of things from you (Dalrock). Lots of good stuff here, but a repackaging may reach some who would not come here or who could be scared away by the comment streams.

  160. BillyS says:

    A lot of this boils down to the question of why any of us are on this earth. Maximizing personal pleasure is certainly a good goal if you are hear to only please yourself.

    Focusing on something outside yourself is required of those who claim to serve a God outside themselves, especially if they claim to be Christians.

    Though life is ultimately pretty futile if you are only seeking your own pleasure, whatever your views.

  161. feeriker says:

    On that note, the MOAR WHYTE BABBIES peanut gallery, including Vox, waste their time with demagoguery. They forget that the best way to motivate a man is to promise to directly advance his interests… then deliver.

    Plenty of white babies are born in this country every day: most of them to either white-trash welfare cases or ballbusting UMC career harpies, neither of which are marriage material for any self-respecting white man. Indeed, both classes of women are increasingly opting to pump out these white crotch fruits without the added burden of a husband. Unfortunately, ivory-tower white nationalist idealists like those who hang out in Alpha Gameland prefer to ignore the unpleasant reality that such women are the norm and that finding the submissive, loving, white all-American breeding unicorn mare is akin to finding a precious diamond in a septic tank full of turds. That the occasional gem is found in every thousandth septic tank is a poor indicator that the seeds of civilizationsl rebirth are available in the necessary quantity to get the job done.

  162. Dale says:

    Red Pill Latecomer said:
    >I’m not Alpha, and I can’t be bothered at this age to try and be Alpha. The available women are not worth the effort. I [desire] an idealized woman, but I doubt I can ever have what I want, so I don’t look very hard [in North America].

    +1
    When I was last in Eastern Europe and had a chance with a young, feminine woman, I absolutely pursued. But 99% of the women I see here are not worth the cost, nevermind the liability.

  163. Anon says:

    On that note, the MOAR WHYTE BABBIES peanut gallery, including Vox, waste their time with demagoguery.

    Remember that ‘White Nationalists’ are quite open about the belief that cuckolding is ok if it produces a white baby. When challenged on this, they double down.

    They are no friend of white men. As long as a white baby is born, even cuckolding is justifiable. Child support and imputation of income be damned…

  164. They Call Me Tom says:

    Red Pill Latecomer said:
    ” >I’m not Alpha, and I can’t be bothered at this age to try and be Alpha. The available women are not worth the effort. I [desire] an idealized woman, but I doubt I can ever have what I want, so I don’t look very hard [in North America].”

    Dale said:
    “+1
    When I was last in Eastern Europe and had a chance with a young, feminine woman, I absolutely pursued. But 99% of the women I see here are not worth the cost, nevermind the liability.”

    Women are giving out a weak signal (of fitness for marriage) at the peak of their physical beauty, and a non-existant signal not long after. I imagine most men feel a little bit of pity for the women who they’ve seen that simply didn’t make a right turn at Albequerque… but not enough pity to give them pity pursuit and risk the possibility of accidentally catching them.

  165. kaminsky says:

    I have one question about the MGTOW bashers. How do you guys know so much about who MGTOWS are? Aaron Clarey, ROK, some posters on this thread here all seem to have so much information about so many MGTOWs private lives, right down to the shade of orange snack dust on their fingers as they play starcraft in, you guessed it, Mommy’s basement. How are the lives of MGTOWS described in such detail? The strawman is set up with such detail that we would have to be talking about a situation involving widespread, organized window peeping. There are these incredible sweeping characterizations that have become the standard definition of MGTOW. It’s stupid.

    Billy S,

    AMOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All hail!!!.

  166. Lord Rofl says:

    “…prefer to ignore the unpleasant reality that such women are the norm…”

    Yes, because the society and it’s people are broken.

    Castigating the, maybe if you’re pessimistic, fewer than 1 in 10 men who A) realize this and B) have thrown in the towel is Kulak-bashing.

    One thing I find interesting, though, is how reticent the fourteeneightyeight crew is when it comes to shaming virtueless women.

    If you want a working civilization, you need to shame the absolute bejeezus out of those slimy slippery slatternly skanks out there. Create a pecking order and get the hens to do the work for you. It’s what they do best.

    Of course, this would never, ever apply to the coruscating rainbow dew drop unicorn-fart even-Edmund-Leighton-would-snigger damsels in these guys’ fantasies.

  167. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    When I speak of MGTOW, I speak of the single men in my circle of friends. Mostly middle-aged, divorced or never married, who’ve resigned to remaining single. I think any one of us would love a beautiful, devoted, loyal, adoring wife. But at our age, we’re more inclined to pursue our personal interests, rather than the sorry selection of females available to us.

    Some years ago I was alone with a friend in a bar, long after the other guys had left. Because it was just the two of us, and he’d gotten drunk, he began to get personal. He told me about his Vietnam War days. He mentioned a prostitute he frequented in Saigon. She wanted to marry him. (I suppose she wanted to marry any American serviceman.) But he left her behind when his tour was over.

    Fighting back tears, my friend told me how sweet and kind this girl was, that she was the nicest girl he’d ever known, and how he should have married her. (Yes, it’s a silly notion, finding true love in the arms of a Saigon prostitute.) My friend never married. He had a good job and owned his own house, no mortgage. He’d always seemed a happy-go-lucky sort of fellow. But I realized then how lonely for a wife he must have been inside.

    He died about a year later, alone, in his bed, of an apparent heart attack. We held a memorial service for him, and talked about what a nice guy he was. But the whole MGTOW lifestyle is sad. Genesis says that it is not good for Man to be alone. He needs a wife. Not a hooker, not the sluts pursued by PUAs, but a good, godly wife. But they’re tough to find.

  168. Spike says:

    “As you may recall, the pressure married men feel to seek out and remain in more stressful and difficult jobs is a key benefit Prager and Wilcox claim men get from marriage”

    Correction for Prgaer and Wilcox: Men seeking out more difficult and stressful jobs is a key benefit for SOCIETY and CIVILIZATION, not individual men. It is a drag and a inducer of statistical early death in men.
    This is why there has to be some compensating social / civil factor for men to do it, namely, the respect that goes with difficult work, plus the security of intact families. All of that is now taken away, of course.

  169. dwellerman says:

    “This is why there has to be some compensating social / civil factor for men to do it, namely, the respect that goes with difficult work, plus the security of intact families. All of that is now taken away, of course.”

    I dunno Spike ~ compensation?… how about a nation full of Syrian terrorists imported with the intent of killing you and your children, enslaving and raping your women to replace you, your civilization, religion and genetic legacy – there’s some compensating social / civil factor for men… not you or you’re Christian men – but men none the less.

  170. kaminsky says:

    @Anon,

    “too many self-described MGTOWs are extremely unhappy and misanthropic.”

    How do you know this? Not just ‘unhappy’ but ‘EXTREMELY unhappy.’ That’s a lot to glean from a chat forum. Perhaps you have no idea about whether or not they’re unhappy but it massages your cognition to think that it is the case? To disqualify that more appealing option that you missed out on?

    For an overworked, unhappily married man, I can’t imagine a more aggravating thing than a 35 hour a week, camping, fishing, lifting, travelling MGTOW who has had the freedom to find work that gives 1, 2 maybe 3 months off a year.

    So it’s much easier to pass off this almost total stranger MGTOW as “unhappy” with cheetohs dust stuck to his sticky waifu in mommy’s basement as he battles Jessica Valenti tooth and nail on the net only to come away angrily screaming into his He-Man pillow.

    Certainly, it’s not a grown man smoking stogies in Cuba reading Hemingway on a hammock after a morning swim in the ocean. A man who recognized the shitshow of modern marriage that you fell for. That would be a painful thought for a guy donating over half his tiny allotment of weekly “free time” for drape-shopping…again. Does drape shopping make you ‘extremely unhappy’. Let me guess: It’s annoying or even laughable that I’ve presumed so much about your life without knowing a thing about you?

    Hmm…where has that happened before?

  171. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I’ve known bitter, impoverished-by-divorce men. The life of a lonely but financially secure MGTOW is far better. But the life of a happily married man is better still.

    I see my life as a MGTOW as a midway point. I see men destroyed by frivorce, and feel grateful to have dodged a bullet. Then I see happily married couples, laughing and traveling and enjoying the holidays, and I miss not having that.

  172. I see my life as a MGTOW as a midway point. I see men destroyed by frivorce, and feel grateful to have dodged a bullet. Then I see happily married couples, laughing and traveling and enjoying the holidays, and I miss not having that.

    I am happily married. My wife is a true helpmeet. I got lucky. That is it. I didn’t do anything special that made me more or less deserving of a true helpmeet. If a man doesn’t want to risk getting married anywhere in Western Civilization, I can’t say that I blame him. I will never give a MGHOW a hard time, never.

  173. Feminist Hater says:

    A successful MGTOW should have a zen-like serenity that transcends concerns about these things.

    You forget that every discovery is learned through time, you expect the impossible from every MGTOW. Not going to happen, each man is actually different and will come to his own realisation at his own pace. It’s not really a race. Just a way of life with anger and bitterness at what has been lost to that specific man being part of the parcel.

  174. Boston to Providence says:

    There’s way too much friendly fire over MGTOW and what it means.

    Let MGTOW be your first step, and far from your last.

  175. Dave says:

    but not enough pity to give them pity pursuit and risk the possibility of accidentally catching them….

    Even when you decide to give the pity pursuit you’d quickly realize they consider themselves the most desirable dames on planet earth, and expect you to treat them as such.
    In their defense though, most of them don’t really know how to respond when a man pursues them. They don’t know how to flirt with a guy in the real sense of the term.
    All because they never saw those activities modeled properly before them.
    I read an article yesterday arguing that the rottenness of American youth started with Dr. Spock’s horrible advice on childcare.

  176. Höllenhund says:

    The MGTOW label is nobody’s to own, Deti. But I can say this with great certainty: not marrying doesn’t make you a MGTOW in itself. Those men are simply known as bachelors.

  177. Dave says:

    I am happily married. My wife is a true helpmeet. I got lucky.

    Maybe you did. But I assure you, there are still millions of similarly godly women out there, women who will appreciate good men, and become helpmeets to their future husbands.
    Many so-called MGTOWs are either too lazy to do the hard work of finding a good wife, or are too sunken in cynicism and unbelief to expect to find one if they tried.
    There has never been a time in history when good women were easy to find. None. It took many years of searching and many miles of travel into a foreign country before Isaac got a wife. His father, the father’s personal assistant, etc were all involved in helping him.
    The wise man asked the rhetorical question: “Who can find a virtuous woman…?”, implying that she is not an easy to find commodity. Even when found she is not “cheap”; she will cost you quite a bit, because “her price is far above rubies”. I understand her “cost” to mean the effort you need to put forth to make her into what you want her to be.
    Most men are simply too lazy to do the hard work of finding a suitable woman, on whom they can expend resources to bring her to par. They want ready made woman. She does not exist.
    Unfortunately, the society is very hostile to men and family and marriage, making the guy’s job even harder. But a wise man will successfully navigate the dangerous terrain, not give up in despair.
    I challenge any man to spend time daily praying for his wife and patiently teaching her. She is far more likely to become a true helpmeet than a ball buster.

  178. Boston to Providence says:

    Sure, Dave, “no one ever said it was gonna be easy,” but when people get married, they do say it’s going to be forever. I try not to criticise anyone that wants to take the risk of marrying, but we can put in all the wise and well-meaning effort we are able to and still end up being punished for it. After how many years will our work be ruined, precipitously? Three, ten, twenty? Never?

  179. greyghost says:

    Dave
    You are full of shit. There is no such thing as a virtuous women, never was. If women were virtuous feminism would be the best thing that ever happened to the church and mankind in general. God has to tell men to love their wife.
    Your comment is the comment of a frightened man clinging to a lie that is all he knows. The fear of reality is very strong but no worries you are not alone. The whole western civilization is enjoying that fear and lying to it self. Great men of theological scholar have compromised Christianity in the name of the virtuous woman feeding the fear. Men are waking up and soon they will be killing. Or even worse not stopping men with purpose killing. (take a look at what Islam is doing in Europe the latest is London.) Nobody is stopping them. But rest assured German police did a round up of the real criminals for hate crimes of speaking ill of Arabs and Islam on social media.
    The west is dying one marriage at a time. One respectable man honoring what is good punished at a time.

    Most men are simply too lazy to do the hard work of finding a suitable woman, on whom they can expend resources to bring her to par. They want ready made woman. She does not exist.

    Passing a judgment on a woman for suitability for marriage, That is a hate crime even the christian church doesn’t approve of that. You know the truth because you tack it on at the end. L Lying is a tough way to live. There is a reason for MGTOW, PUA, grass eaters, BLM, active shooters, etc. etc.

  180. Dave wrote:

    Many so-called MGTOWs are either too lazy to do the hard work of finding a good wife, …
    There has never been a time in history when good women were easy to find. …
    Most men are simply too lazy to do the hard work of finding a suitable woman,

    Let’s assume about 6% of the population is physically too unhealthy to breed or will die before puberty.

    That leaves 94% of the population, of which assume 47% are male and 47% are female.

    Some small percentage – let’s say 7% of males and 7% of females – get married early and has a good marriage, or else they are willing to do the hard work of finding a suitable spouse.

    That leaves 80% of the total population (of whom 40% are female). They do not see any suitable marriage partners, so call them Set DNSA, for “do not see any.”

    Are we to assume that all of the women in Set DNSA would be suitable wives if only those lazy men in Set DNSA were to do the hard work of finding them?

    I don’t make that assumption.

    If I had to guess, I would guess that some percentage of women in set DNSA are never going to be suitable for marriage. Let’s say that’s 20% of the total, i.e. half the women in DNSA.

    Let’s say the men who read this website are in the lucky, diligent fraction of DNSA. We all do the hard work and find one of the suitable women.

    That leaves 20% of the total men, who are lazy, and 20% of the total women, who have not been discovered to be suitable.

    How many of those remaining men and women are obese, diseased, or mentally incompetent? Is any of that their fault? I’m willing to accept that I suck at being a man, and it’s my fault that I’m a loser. I just think that women suck at being women also, and it’s their fault that they are losers.

    Let’s assume that the women are all faultless, and the men are guilty of being lazy. That doesn’t fix the fact that 40% of the population is not going to breed.

    Calling men lazy is not going to fix demographic winter.

    Claiming that every woman has the right to breed is not going to fix the impending idiocracy.

  181. ray wrote (re Theodore Beale):

    Ted doesn’t give a crap about Christ, or about ‘Western Civilization” but he sure is clever at manipulating young, inexperienced men to follow his agendas. Including “hating blacks”

    I don’t think Beale has any consistent hatred except hatred of everyone who is not Beale.

    The guy is not logical or internally consistent.

    Theodore Beale claims that white nationalists should defend Western Civilization by following orders from Theodore Beale.

    He claims that he is Indian, Mexican, and white, and therefore his multiracial nature gives him divine right to dictate the policy of white nationalists.

    He’s not just crazy, he’s the dumb kind of crazy.

    If any actual white nationalists were to stumble across him, they would eliminate him from their supposed utopia because he wouldn’t be white enough to qualify as “white.”

    I think Beale has figured out how to sell books by shouting any kind of shocking nonsense that comes into his head. His paying customers enjoy posting comments on his websites, and maybe they like to think of themselves as white nationalists, but if so, they are strangely tolerant of their Dark Lord’s dark-skinned ancestry.

  182. kaminsky says:

    @Dave

    “Most men are too lazy to do the hard work of finding a suitable woman”

    In a culture where 90% of the women cannot be bothered to even go for a thirty minute walk five times a week it’s still the male’s laziness at fault

  183. ThePatriarchy says:

    It’s all over but the cry’n for Westernized nations. Marriage and birth rates have been tanking ever since feminism and no-fault divorce came to the fore. Women, given the power to destroy their men, ultimately destroy them and their home nations.

    The real deal breaker is coming via the end of outsourcing of birth to the breeder nations upon which Westernized nations now so rely (India, the African Continent, South America, the Middle East, etc). The big secret of mass immigration is that – instead of it being based upon the acceptance of downtrodden refugees – what’s really happening is a frantic outsourcing of birth to patriarchal nations. Hilarious. That’s amazing – because as feminism spreads – the outsourcing of birth will be cut off – followed by decreasing populations and economic collapse. Just look at Japan. They lost a million in population over the past few short years. All of the aforementioned breeder nations are battling lower marriage and birth rates as well – all easily attributed to the growing power of feminism in their own countries. Some claim this problem is the result of a bad economy – yet marriage rates and birth rates have been dropping in Westernized nations for the past several decades – in good economies, too.

    That this is such a taboo subject to talk about – and because criticism of feminists or feminism can result in job loss and/or false allegations – leaving men homeless and/or in prison – there’s no way to stop the eventual decline and destruction that will ultimately follow. I’m one of those people that was extremely fortunate and managed through luck and some research to avoid the marriage/divorce meat grinder in which so many hundreds of thousands of men find themselves each year. My heart breaks every day for the countless millions of men that have been destroyed by the marriage trap. I hope I’m dead before the worst of the consequences of feminism and its parent liberalism are revealed.

  184. Pingback: Word From the Dark Side, 8/4/16 | SovietMen

  185. Pingback: Feminist Atlantic waxes conservative. | Dalrock

  186. Dave,

    Maybe you did. But I assure you, there are still millions of similarly godly women out there, women who will appreciate good men, and become helpmeets to their future husbands.

    No there isn’t. I had to go through about 30+ girlfriends and 2 other fiancés before I found my “first” helpmeet. And I didn’t find her until I was 30 years old. I didn’t wait that long to marry her, I assure you.

    And that is the problem here Dave. A man searching for a helpmeet for a wife needs to go through a whole lot of misses to get one real hit.

  187. “Calling men lazy is not going to fix demographic winter.”

    This ironically is the exact “Do Nothing” plan of our regressive government leaders, corporate and banking cancers, and t lamestream media will continue to implement,

    There realistically is no solution to population decline. Our government and society can barely handle one-dimensional problems; there is a zero percent chance they can deal with a problem that crosses diverse areas such a biology, culture, society, economics, and religion. I don’t believe there is a realistic ‘fix’ for our demographics problems.

    It is curious to note the United States dropped from 2.01 women per child in 2014 to 1.87 in 2015. That is a larger than normal statistical drop. Most nations lose a .1 or .2 per year, barring warfare or natural disasters. Replacement level fertility is 2.1. It will be interesting to see if the drop is just as steep in the United States for 2016.

    If men think things are bad now in finding a woman then imagine the year 2060 where the populace is overrun with old people and ‘young fertile women’ become literal unicorns. The entitlement and ‘princess complex’ of women under 25 will be beyond anything we currently can comprehend simply due to their scarcity.

  188. feeriker says:

    Dave says:
    August 4, 2016 at 6:38 am

    AMOG Dave conveniently forgets (or more likely ignores) the fact that while “virtuous women” were certainly not growing on trees in eras past, human society was patriarchal, meaning that no matter how much of a bitchy, conniving, feral shrew a woman was, her behavior was regimented enough that any damage she might do was mitigated by custom and law That meant in practice that while a man might wind up with an insufferable harpy for a wife, he was not at risk of having her blow up the family and stealing the family assets and the children with the full help and force of the State. The fact that no such restraints on women’s behavior exist today means that MGTOW is, like it or not, the only RATIONAL decision a man in the western world can make to guarantee protection of himself and his property. Otherwise he is just rolling the dice or throwing a dart at a board on the wall while blindfolded. If he chooses to do so, that’s his prerogative, but to call a man “noble” or “honorable” who undertakes such a risk is just moronic.

    Manospherians who belittle or shame men for undertaking a careful risk and cost-benefit analysis of their options and making careful and informed decisions accordingly that are in their own best interests are no different or better than the feminists they claim to despise. No doubt much of their shaming and cajoling is based on regret over not having made the same careful RCBA themselves, an omission they themselves are now paying for very dearly.

  189. Dave says:

    I am no AMOG and I did not intend to offend anyone. But facts are facts, people. Good women have always been scarce. History bears that out. I find it difficult to accept that many men could escape feminism’s beta-isation of men, but no woman could escape the feministing of women. It just does not make sense. If we keep fishing in the wrong part of the lake, we may fish all night as the disciples did, and still come up empty. But as soon as we cast the net on the right side of the boat, we have better chance of making a haul. Many, many folks on this site are married, and happily so. Yeah, they were probably “lucky”. But I kid you not, there is a formula to their luck.

    IBB unwittingly confirmed what I wrote earlier: he did the hard work of searching, vetting, and picking a good woman, and never giving up until he did. Any man who prayerfully does the same will get “lucky”. That is my point.
    I once told my fiancée that the single most important quality I am looking for in a woman is the ability to learn and adapt to me. She is learning quickly, though not without a few wrong turns. But I am patient and getting more patient with her, as long as she is making honest efforts. There are still many women like that who have not been tainted with feminism. Know where to look. It is not manly to keep complaining and do nothing to change our situation.

  190. Dave says:

    If men think things are bad now in finding a woman then imagine the year 2060 where the populace is overrun with old people and ‘young fertile women’ become literal unicorns. The entitlement and ‘princess complex’ of women under 25 will be beyond anything we currently can comprehend simply due to their scarcity.

    I choose to believe the contrary. The useless youths of today will probably be dead or close to dying, but childless. It is our children—born and raised by sensible family men, who will be in relative abundance by then. Moreover, the pendulum of wrong child upbringing could have swung the other way, and feminism could also have experienced a burnout.
    But I hope and pray you are wrong. Otherwise, the world could only expect God’s judgement.
    I will probably be dead by then, or too old to care.

  191. greyghost says:

    Feeriker
    The problem is not the virtuousness of the woman. The problem is the lack of respect for the virtuous man.
    After the shootings in Dallas where the cops were killed a black lives matter conversation started and a guy asked me about it and the violence of “black on black” crime. I told him the easiest way to fix it would be to respect family men above all else. Any man married that had his children with his wife should never ever live in fear of anyone of having his children taken from him. Kills many birds with one stone and it excludes the player bad boys and slut bitches. They get to enjoy the shit hole they made for themselves. .
    All child custody should be by default bio dad. Even with out CS for ex wives to pay the divorce rate would be down to about 1 to 5 % tops. A couple of decades of that and everybody would think all women were virtuous and empathetic and full of concern for their husbands. A strong hard working nice man that cares about his wife will be sexy. Normally that man is the boring loyal dude we frivorce. The ole I love you but not in love with you type. Take that same productive guy the idolizes his wife and remove fear of losing his home and children and you have a sexy guy that is not a bad boy or criminal.
    The benefits to the west are off the charts. Men free to do their best, women actually behaving as women attracted to their family for the best motivation a woman can have , wicked selfishness.
    Married men actually happy

    http://www.antifeministtech.info/fatherhood-not-marriage-is-essential-for-civilization/

  192. greyghost says:

    It is our children—born and raised by sensible family men, who will be in relative abundance by then. Moreover, the pendulum of wrong child upbringing could have swung the other way, and feminism could also have experienced a burnout.

    Sensible family men don’t raise children by law. Feminism doesn’t burn out.

    f men think things are bad now in finding a woman then imagine the year 2060 where the populace is overrun with old people and ‘young fertile women’ become literal unicorns. The entitlement and ‘princess complex’ of women under 25 will be beyond anything we currently can comprehend simply due to their scarcity.

    Japan is already there and the FI is still in place. (women vote there too) They are hardly fighting over the handful of young pussy for marriage. They have the grass eating men and the “dried fish women” (those young hotties the men are after for marriage)

    I would bank on the worst

  193. American says:

    “…it was that they had reached the limits of incentive through fear.”

    ^ applied to marriage, men have figured out they can simply avoid the problem altogether along with government imposed “incentive through fear.” The easiest solution is never to have the problem. Soviets couldn’t not exist in the Soviet Union, of course, but men certainly can choose not to place themselves under the present Western anti-male pro-feminist body of familial law.

    A jar of Vaseline costs less than $5.00 and you don’t need to hire an attorney, appear before a judge, be faced with bankruptcy and/or incarceration in the nation’s penal system assigned a life long criminal record severely impeding your career choices and dreams, etc… and so forth to purchase it.

    God bless Vaseline.

  194. ThePatriarchy says:

    Marriage and birth rates have been tanking ever since feminism and no-fault divorce came to the fore.
    … there’s no way to stop the eventual decline and destruction that will ultimately follow.

    Yeah, the crash will have to come, but after the crash, we can hope that the feminist paradigm will be recognized as self-destructive.

    Look at China. The Communists made some huge mistakes, destroyed a lot of resources, killed a lot of their own people. But they hit rock bottom and changed direction from Mao’s Leftism to Teng’s right-ish capitalism. No one is allowed to be “feminist” unless they meet Communist Party standards of feminism. Thus “feminist” in China means whatever the Communists say. The Commies can go to the UN and claim that they are the world’s greatest feminists, no matter what happens. And feminists are politically powerless within China.

    thedeclineandfall says:
    August 4, 2016 at 9:43 am

    There realistically is no solution to population decline. … I don’t believe there is a realistic ‘fix’ for our demographics problems.

    There are solutions, and if the power configuration in the USA fails to implement them, then the USA will cease to function. Welfare checks won’t clear. EBT cards won’t function. Grocery stores will go empty.

    Teng pulled China to the right. (After leftism had nearly destroyed China.)

    Putin pulled Russia to the right. (After leftism plus foreign banks had nearly destroyed Russia.)

    If the USA doesn’t hit rock bottom, stop, and pull to the right, then the USA will cease to function, and the United Nations will shift its headquarters to somewhere else.

    feeriker says:
    August 4, 2016 at 11:03 am


    while “virtuous women” were certainly not growing on trees in eras past, human society was patriarchal, meaning that no matter how much of a bitchy, conniving, feral shrew a woman was, her behavior was regimented enough that any damage she might do was mitigated by custom and law That meant in practice that while a man might wind up with an insufferable harpy for a wife, he was not at risk of having her blow up the family and stealing the family assets and the children with the full help and force of the State.

    Boom! Hit the nail on the head.

    Dave says:
    August 4, 2016 at 11:20 am


    But facts are facts, people. Good women have always been scarce. History bears that out.

    But as soon as we cast the net on the right side of the boat, we have better chance of making a haul.

    You have not mentioned some obvious things that are accepted as facts. Or maybe you know them and you don’t want to talk about them.

    Here’s an obvious thing. Unlike 200 years ago, the current marriage market does not monitor hymen status.

    When a strong man dates a virginal woman, she has at least one qualification for marriage – her viriginity.

    If she lets the strong man have her, but marries him immediately, she can still make a good wife.

    The problem with courting virgins is that you run the risk of destroying their viriginity without securing their loyalty.

    Thus one strong Christian man who dates ten virgins and marries the tenth runs a very high risk of deflowering ten women just to marry one.

    Thus the men who move first make things worse for the men who follow after.

    If men follow the “no hymen, no diamond” rule (without the “you break the hymen, you BUY the hymen” rule) then lots of men will have to abstain from actual marriage, and lots of women will go unmarried.

    If, however, we monitor women’s hymens and force shotgun-marriages with the first suitor who is persuasive enough to break the hymen, then a lot of marriages will be unhappy and unstable.

    I think it’s important to address Dave from a demographic standpoint, with statistics, but that’s beyond my information. I personally cannot find enough relevant, up-to-date information to explain how many millions of women are absolutely unmarriageable, and how many millions are high-risk brides, and how many millions are low-risk-but-not-optimal brides.

    greyghost says:
    August 4, 2016 at 11:31 am


    The problem is not the virtuousness of the woman. The problem is the lack of respect for the virtuous man.

    Solid point, and one that should be remembered.


    All child custody should be by default bio dad.

    That is a key action item.

  195. ray says:

    “God has to tell men to love their wife.”

    Ain’t that the shit? It’s true, though. Actually had to be written down. And he has to tell wives to obey husbands. But she wouldn’t, and rebelled, so God multiplied her rebelliousness and made it even tougher for females to obey. So much for bullying God.

    I don’t think he has much multiplying in mind right now. I think he’s interested in subtraction.

  196. ray says:

    gaiko — “I don’t think Beale has any consistent hatred except hatred of everyone who is not Beale.”

    Yeah. Unless it’s somebody he can use. Actually I don’t think he really hates all blacks, as I pointed out to him originally when he made the comment. I told him there might well be millions (billions?) of blacks who God cherishes more than The Dark Lord, the Dark Lord’s fanboys, or myself for that matter. But he’s the one who said on his blog that he hates blacks, not me. I’m just repeating.

    The Jew-hate thing also is very revealing — likewise, that NOBODY on his entire site objected to it . . . everybody just went along with the Leader of the Alt-Right, including one dood who promotes himself there as a ‘rabbi’. LOL!! the rabbi was too cucked by Ted to object to his own pre-extermination! :O)

    Scripture makes it abundantly clear that God LOVES the name of ‘Israel’ despite the endless sins and antics of those tribes. So when some puffed-up punk in France wants to put the names of Jeshua, or Jeremiah, or Daniel, or apostle Peter, or any of the other Jews in parentheses to target them and other Jews, that’ll get my attention 100 percent of the time. Ted is far more intent on serving the daughters of old man LePen than he is on serving God.

    I see you’ve got a site with WordPress. I will check it out later.

  197. ray says:

    feeriker — Agree, Mormons long ago co-opted politically and financially. The lures of empire are difficult to resist. Goes for all of us.

    As you wrote, the Mormons originally did provide a kind of test case for U.S. co-habitation. Like Islam, the LDS founded their (false) religion on the putative dictations of an ‘angel’. Joe Smith followed masonry, so did his start-up church, and he was found with the Table of Jupiter (an occult icon) in his pocket at death. Mormon rites still resonate masonic practice.

    Ironically though, the early days of the LDS, once in Utah, were strongly patriarchal. E.g, when some converts were trapped in winter mountains, and folks had written them off, Brig Young said no way and they went and retrieved those doomed men. So although these were a deceived people from the get-go, they obviously weren’t a compete write-off. The LDS remind me a little of the Jehovah’s Witnesses — some good conservative/trad values, but bad theology. Theology can’t follow the socio-political, gotta be the other way ’round.

    Cheers.

  198. Gunner Q says:

    gaikokumaniakku @ 8:29 am:
    “[Beale] is not logical or internally consistent.”

    Preposterous.

    “He claims that he is Indian, Mexican, and white, and therefore his multiracial nature gives him divine right to dictate the policy of white nationalists.”

    He mostly uses his ancestry to twist the SJW narrative back on itself. I approve.

    “I think Beale has figured out how to sell books by shouting any kind of shocking nonsense that comes into his head.”

    Having read SJWs Always Lie, I assure you his writing stands tall on its own merit. Since you clearly haven’t read it yourself.

  199. Dave,

    IBB unwittingly confirmed what I wrote earlier: he did the hard work of searching, vetting, and picking a good woman, and never giving up until he did. Any man who prayerfully does the same will get “lucky”. That is my point.

    No, that is not your point. You are moving the goal posts a little here. You first said to me that there are millions of helpmeets out there. No there is not. At this point, they are very rare, bordering on…. unique. I got lucky, very lucky. Most of the guys here who are frivorced were not so lucky. And the guys here who are MGTOW, they are playing it smart. They are playing the odds that they will never find a true helpmeet.

    No one should have to go through and “vet” 30+ different girlfriends and 2 unnecessary fiancés. That was a terrific waste of my time, my energy, my youth, and my money. After fiancé #2, I gave up entirely of ever thinking I would ever meet Miss Right (and I was settling for continuous, synchronous, Miss Good-for-Right-Nows.) Yes I said that, I-Gave-Up. Somewhere along the way when I was least expecting it when I wasn’t even looking, I found a golden ticket in my Wonka bar, my winning lottery ticket. I just had to cash it in real fast before my window vanished. I just got lucky. Most, dare I say almost all of these other guys here, will not be so lucky. So they really do NOT want to hear your needless AMOG-ing Dave, they have grown tired of it. You are not helping them, do you understand?

  200. BillyS says:

    @kaminsky,

    Yeah right. Saying men have more of a purpose than their own personal pleasure makes me an AMOG. Cool! Oh, you meant that as an insult?

    Some of us have formed our views based on how many self-proclaimed MGTOWs mouth off. I really don’t care what anyone does, for that is not my responsibility, but we all will be held accountable for what we had. Giving up on women is fine and dandy, but devote yourself to something else then.

    RPL,

    You don’t seem to push your views as much as others. I do suspect your friend would not have been as happy as it seems with the prostitute. Lots of baggage in that case and she may have said that to everyone, wanting to escape Vietnam.

    BostontoProvidence,

    There’s way too much friendly fire over MGTOW and what it means.

    Note how often someone states that AWALT noting some nasty female characteristic in these threads.

    We definitely need more guidance for young men on what to do. I would have almost certainly avoided some of my own struggles had I married earlier in life, but no one showed up and I didn’t have any outside guidance.

    Too bad Joseph of Jackson didn’t write a book….

    greyghost,

    There is no such thing as a virtuous women

    Nor a virtuous man. We are all sinners and must be transformed by Christ on an ongoing basis. Feminism is irrelevant in that. Women are fallen as are men. Both have their flaws and nothing will fix that. Are you going to put all the blame for the modern situation on men, since women have not changed at the core?

    The problem is not the virtuousness of the woman. The problem is the lack of respect for the virtuous man.

    And who controls that? Many things certainly input into it, but it is not a simple case of fixing one thing.

    Respecting virtuous men will have to happen before things change, but that is not sufficient in and of itself, especially since other things play a role.

    I would argue that marriage and fatherhood are intertwined, along with other things. What we have now is a bastardization of marriage, not marriage itself.

    gaiko,

    If, however, we monitor women’s hymens and force shotgun-marriages with the first suitor who is persuasive enough to break the hymen, then a lot of marriages will be unhappy and unstable.

    You have bought into feminist lies. Far fewer marriage were unhappy when society reinforced marriage. Couples learned to work through things most times and that can lead to happiness over time.

    Some would be bad, but shotgun marriages did work over the years, in spite of the bumpiness of some. It would also help reduce the need for them if most women had the risk drilled in their heads rather than ignored.

    Gunner Q,

    Anyone who has to throw out Vox’s “real name” as if we were working magic, does not make a logical argument. No value in using that over Vox Day, since the main blog and AlphaGamePlan use VoxDay.

  201. BillyS says:

    IBB, how lucky is “very very lucky?”

    Give that a rest. You found one. Dalrock found one. I have one. Others have. Perhaps not millions, but enough for those who will spend the effort. Some will fail even so, but that is the way of life. Things happen. You can’t guarantee success in any area.

    The result is worthwhile, even if the task is hard and may not turn out as expected. I would argue the same were I to find myself divorced in a few years.

    You will always miss 100% of the shots you don’t take!

    I may miss 90% of them anyway, but I would keep trying if basketball was that important in the overall scheme of life. I am fortunate it is not, but that doesn’t change validity of the point.

  202. You will always miss 100% of the shots you don’t take!

    That is a terrible simile. If you take a shot and you miss it, you just turn the ball over and you might still get an offensive rebound. If you take a shot with the wrong woman, your life could be over….

  203. Sorry Dave, but this is simply about the numbers.

    ‘Demographic Winter’ is Coming whether we like it or not. The night will be long, cold, and full of feminist terrors.

    You are correct we will fortunately be dead or too old but the world of the next two generations will be a less prosperous.

    Decades of demographic decline, marriage decline, coupled with regressive liberal governance is simply going take its toll. The process is largely irreversible because the ‘Feminine Imperative’ dominates government and culture.

    Our children, who will be shrinking in number, will unfortunately be crushed underfoot as tax-paying mules for the oppressive welfare state that will support a perpetual underclass and unemployed foreign migrants that breed like rabbits. I don’t see the trend of the state replacing fathers ending anytime soon.

    The youth of the future America is more likely mostly be born to single mothers and raised in ghettos thanks to the urbanization process. I am sure many will be trained to become productive citizens in Mosques since Christianity will continue on a downward slope and be replaced in 2060 as the world’s largest religion. Islam seems to thrive in ghettos.

    This is simply what happens when people ignore ancient wisdom regarding marriage. It happened to the Roman Empire, it will happen to the United States too. Consider it God’s judgement.

  204. BillyS says:

    IBB,

    If you take a shot with the wrong woman, your life could be over….

    Your life will be over either way. You will lose the game if you never shoot in basketball.

    Yeah, you may miss and turn it over. So what? You are in the game. Bench yourself and quietly go back to your hole if you want to just draw others down.

    No one is saying it is easy, but it is possible. Our society would be nowhere near where it is now if more men had taken the “it is hard so I won’t try it” approach to life in the past. Situations have been worse in the past and they will be worse in the future. Do something rather than sitting back and moaning.

    It is especially hypocritical to have accomplished something and then harp on about how impossible it is. Or is your goal just to be a special snowflake?

  205. Pingback: Missing the Boat — Part II | Spawny's Space

  206. Gunner Q says:

    BillyS @ 1:39 pm:
    “It is especially hypocritical to have accomplished something and then harp on about how impossible it is.”

    Accomplished what? IBB says he tried his best, failed, gave up and afterward got lucky when he wasn’t even trying. If that is what success with women looks like then you should be pleased to know that most of the bachelors here have also tried, failed and given up.

    @ 8:28 pm:
    “You will always miss 100% of the shots you don’t take!”

    You never lose a battle if you never start one. Or as Vin Diesel’s Riddick character once said, “If you can’t keep up, don’t step up. You’ll just die.”

  207. feeriker says:

    Your life will be over either way. You will lose the game if you never shoot in basketball.

    If the game of basketball were rigged to where the home team won every game by a blowout, even if they didn’t make single shot, and if everyone knew that the game was rigged this way, then only a complete idiot without any self-respect would ever play basketball at all.

  208. BillyS,

    Your life will be over either way. You will lose the game if you never shoot in basketball.

    Not everyone wants to play this version of basketball. If you choose not to play, there are all sorts of other games to play. If you play in this game, take a shot, and you miss, you risk your house, your children your freedom, your paycheck, your entire life. It is an entirely rational choice for the majority of men NOT to play in that game of basketball.

    MGTOW are playing a game, but its their OWN game with their OWN rules. And they do not need or even want your (or my) approval for them to play their game. And they are not interested in your (or my) counsel on how they live their life. You have no authority here Billy to dictate to anyone about how their life will be over, and your metaphors are just meaningless rhetoric. Don’t forget that.

  209. Billy,

    It is especially hypocritical to have accomplished something and then harp on about how impossible it is. Or is your goal just to be a special snowflake?

    I’m not special. I’m just lucky. I took 10 years of life savings, put it on red, and it came up red. Lucky, not special.

  210. They Call Me Tom says:

    I don’t know if I’m fully MGTOW, because some part of me still believes that I might find a unicorn one day. Another part of me believes that I am where I am, so that when the moment comes for me to do something, but is also dangerous or risky, I won’t have cause to hesitate…because it’s always important not to hesitate in such moments. Maybe there’s someone’s life to save, maybe there’s some kind of moment where risking everything is the only way to save everything for the people I care about. A time and purpose to everything…

    All that said, as a single guy in good health, who has met and known several people who’ve had a divorce initiated by their wife, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that a single man is in worse shape than a man married to the average woman produced by contemporary culture. It’s an assumption based on a faulty premise. If I was a miserable person, I doubt the friends’ and family’s kids would all be so eager for me to play with them the moment they saw me.

    Every man should be married to a good woman. I don’t argue with that. But there aren’t enough good women in the world to expect that every man has one that he should be marrying. Not when so many men are already marrying women who shouldn’t be married.

  211. kaminsky says:

    @ Freeriker,

    “Your life will be over either way. You will lose the game if you never shoot in basketball.

    If the game of basketball were rigged to where the home team won every game by a blowout, even if they didn’t make single shot, and if everyone knew that the game was rigged this way, then only a complete idiot without any self-respect would ever play basketball at all.”

    Ha ha. Love it.

    Let me continue the metaphor.

    What if you take the shot, swish it, win the game and your trophy is boredom, low-T, and a doughy 200 pounder blowing up your legs with ice cream gas all night long?

    Add in the fact that retaining the ‘trophy’ is contingent upon hitting the ‘winning shot’ every day thereafter under elevated difficulty levels as well. Hit the winning shot daily for thirty years (why, btw?) and finally have an off day and it’s all taken from you. One more downer; the trophy isn’t one-tenth as exciting or attractive to you as it was when you were first ham-handedly guided towards that basketball court by Walt Disney himself.

    You might end up wishing that you chose a different game at that point.

  212. feeriker says:

    …a doughy 200 pounder blowing up your legs with ice cream gas

    ROTFLMAO! You really should copyright that!

  213. “No one is saying it is easy, but it is possible.”

    Let’s make sure we’re talking about the same thing. We are talking about a *Christian* marriage, resulting in children, not just a marriage, right?

    Christian marriage is very possible for a small set of men.

    Successful survival in a Christian marriage that lasts long enough to raise children is possible for a smaller set of men.

    I could easily marry any number of Daoists or Buddhists. That would not be Christian.

    I could get married to a Christian girl. That wouldn’t help if she and I both starved to death because of lack of money, or if the children were stillborn due to bad genes and ill health.

    And there are lots of guys who don’t have their Christian conscience matured enough.

    If you expand your vision to include the men and women for which Christian marriage is not a possibility, you will realize that no formerly ian nation-state is prepared for demographic winter. The Amish and Mormons don’t count as nation-states.

    And incidentally, sex is perilously EASY. That’s the problem. Sex, not courtship or social integration, has become the prerequisite for marriage.

    ” Far fewer marriage were unhappy when society reinforced marriage. Couples learned to work through things most times and that can lead to happiness over time.”

    I agree with you on that!

    Shotgun marriages could save Christian society, if only there were a Christian society that had prepared to implement them!

    Even highly Christian countries such as Hungary and Poland have a marriage deficit.

    Sooner or later, the Christians who survive will probably go back to shotgun marriage or arranged marriage. I hope it’s the arranged kind, they seem to have been happier than the coerced kind.

  214. Boxer says:

    Good evening brothers…

    No one is saying it is easy, but it is possible. Our society would be nowhere near where it is now if more men had taken the “it is hard so I won’t try it” approach to life in the past. Situations have been worse in the past and they will be worse in the future. Do something rather than sitting back and moaning.

    I recently flew around in various and diverse parts of the world for a few weeks. I banged a few hot chicks, which was an enjoyable diversion, and did some field research, which was the primary focus of my trip. I arrived back home Thursday.

    So, I get off the plane and wander out to the rideshare area and order up a LyftUber car to take me home. Totally superior to taxi cabs, by the way, and often cheaper. My driver swings by and I get into the back seat. He’s in his early 20s, with the typical hipster beard. Almost immediately, he gets a call on the same cell phone that is navigating him to my house. He declares that it’s his wife, and tells me that she’ll just have to wait for him to return her call.

    It’s not that he chose to declare his marital status, it’s how he did it. He obviously had a sincere amount of genuine pride (as opposed to the hubristic false pride of the cuckold or playa, which we all rightly scoff at). He was proud of his accomplishment of building a family in a decadent society, and his pride was legitimate. I asked him a bit about his family and he told me bits and pieces. It turns out he and his wife are from a west coast town that I lived in for a few years. I didn’t know her family but listened to his anecdotes on my way home. As he spoke with pride and admiration for the good wifely qualities of his mate, I couldn’t help but admire him (and be just a touch envious). Here is a guy who has no real educational qualifications, and who drives uber to scrounge up a living, but he has what so many other men lack: a link to the future through a wife and children. He didn’t strike me as religious, but his secular wife seems to be a nice, feminine, faithful girl. A rare find in this world!

    It is especially hypocritical to have accomplished something and then harp on about how impossible it is. Or is your goal just to be a special snowflake?

    Aside from this blog, I occasionally post on its antitheses — places like Omega Virgin Revolt and Wimminz — and we know on Dalrock something those guys over there don’t know. They imagine that a widespread marriage strike and societal collapse is just around the corner.

    The reality is that young men want to marry. They will marry, despite a rigged system and people telling them it’s a bad idea. Young men and women are hard wired for monogamy and raising kids. We shouldn’t fight these people or mock them. We should struggle with them to destroy feminism, so that their journeys through life can be, easy… or at least fair.

    Boxer

  215. Alex says:

    In fact, this is something economists go to great lengths to avoid seeing.

    Which economists, specifically? Most economists recognize that the wage gap is caused by the different choices men and women voluntarily make. Most economists fully see that the entire reason men earn more than women, on average, is precisely due to the fact that “[t]hat men take on obligations as bread winners in marriage that women don’t”.

    You’ve merely slain a straw man.

  216. Höllenhund says:

    Your life will be over either way. You will lose the game if you never shoot in basketball.

    Yeah, you may miss and turn it over. So what? You are in the game. Bench yourself and quietly go back to your hole if you want to just draw others down.

    No one is saying it is easy, but it is possible. Our society would be nowhere near where it is now if more men had taken the “it is hard so I won’t try it” approach to life in the past.

    You should consider the possibility that society has become thoroughly feminist and gynocentric precisely because most men are willing to put up with a lot of shit, to keep trying even though the average potential payoff is marginal and the risks are huge.

    Imagine if Californian men had started boycotting higher education en masse after the passing of the YMY law, saying “shitty laws like this just make any interaction with female students too risky and hard, there’s no way we’re indebting ourselves by entering shitty environments like this in order just to get some lousy degree”. That’s have been a real wake-up call for the mainstream media.

    Imagine if, say, 20 or 30 million men had signed a pledge of bachelorhood after the passing of the VAWA law, saying “there’s no way we’re signing up for a deal that is lousy in the first place when crap laws like this are enforced”. That’d have surely gained attention.

    Imagine if there were a massive rebellion in the British Army in 1916. “This is a total shit sandwich, dude, we’re getting sent to our deaths by idiots for no good reason at all, why our wives and daughters are getting boned at home by the alpha louts who stayed behind. We don’t care if we get executed or inprisoned, even that is better than playing cannon fodder in the trenches. We’re just not putting up with this shit anymore.”

    Sadly, none of that happened. And now Western societies are feminist playgrounds as a result.

  217. Höllenhund says:

    If you take a shot with the wrong woman, your life could be over….

    Your life will be over either way. You will lose the game if you never shoot in basketball.

    Yeah, you may miss and turn it over. So what?

    I tell you what.

    – you’ll get thrown into jail for failing to pay court-ordered child support after losing your job; you’ll get anally raped while your wife gets railed by some alpha lout she found on Tinder, getting his rancid sperm shot into her various orifices

    – you’ll be prevented from seeing your children; your slut of a wife will decide to cohabit with some alpha lout, who ends up molesting your children, and that bitch does nothing to stop it

    – your passport will be revoked

    – your gun permit will be revoked

    – you’ll get registered as a sex offender due to a false accusation

    – you’ll never find a decent job again

    – your house and car will get taken away

    But yeah, “so what”, right?

  218. Höllenhund says:

    And he is more of a western civilization supremicist then white supremicist, its just that people get feelings when they read him and freak out and never listen to what he is actually saying.

    That’s BS, dude. Vox specifically says that “there is only one effective way to fight for civilization, and that is to marry a white woman, have children with her, and raise those children”.

  219. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Höllenhund: I took the liberty of quoting you. I like the way your comment made things clear

  220. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    It’s funny. You read a thread here at Dalrock’s blog, you go away, then you come back, and the entire direction and emphasis of the thread has changed entirely (except for that Glorious Are Women Done With Men After Age 55? thread, which is just the most awesomist OP+Commentary ever, anywhere in the Manosphere).

    I go away, I come back, and suddenly here’s all this incoming mortar-fire directed at MGTOW. WTF?

    May I point out that there is nowhere that you go to line up to get your MGTOW card? That there’s no MGTOW credo, anthem, or campfire song? I’ll warrant that there are hundreds of thousands of men out there who are arguably MGTOW, and have never heard of the acronym, nor of the Manosphere, … they’ve just given up, and are Going Their Own Way. It’s not some single belief system or ideology. There is no “MGTOW Manifesto”. It’s just guys who, each in his own way, to some extent or other, for a little while at least, or perhaps for good, and consciously or not, etc., … — who have given up on the SMP/MMP.

    That’s all.

    It’s just a fancy name for any of a thousand kinds of giving up, and the man directing his life energy elsewhere, into other pursuits than women — be that XBox or charity, a business start-up or travel, Karate or writing The Great American Novel. Whatever.

    Giving it up, or at least taking a break from it, is not an ideology, and has no single specific associated mental condition nor emotional state.

    And while, on the one hand, a casual web-walk around the commentary at sites like CH, Captain Capitalism, RoK, etc., will net you a fairly large haul of bitter, angry men who gladly, pointedly self-identify “as MGTOW”, I think a moment’s reflection will convince you that, pretty much by definition, most of the men who are consciously self-described as MGTOW will simply have gone ghost. One does not hear from them (about this), at all, anymore (if ever).

    Consider a metaphor: people men who leave a building by the door marked “exit”, versus men who “leave” that building by that door, but then pause in the exit-way, holding the door wide open, to loudly shout back into the building “I’m leaving now. By god, I’m really leaving. I mean it, dammit — I AM EFFING LEAVING. (Effing Landwhale Snowflake Beyotches.) I. AM. LEAVING. THIS. BUILDING. !!!1! [etc., more bloviation like this …]”. Now, who is really leaving the building? The men who are gone off into the night, g.o.n.e.? Or the ones spouting off, still at the exit door?

    My point is: the bloviators are loud and obvious, but they are no more representative than all the many silent, gone-ghost men (and are arguably only insignificantly representative of the full MGTOW cohort, in comparison to those others).

    “Going Your Own Way” implies, eventually, *Gone*.

    Just sayin’.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  221. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    The thought crossed my mind in the middle of the night: “MGTOW on Google Trends?”

    So, this morning I looked it up. Very (very) interesting: note the geography; note the time of first reference; note the general trend. I doubt people are mentioning it more, because it is happening less.

    Anyway, there it is, FYI, FWIIW.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  222. Micha Elyi says:

    I am happily married. My wife is a true helpmeet. I got lucky. That is it. I didn’t do anything special that made me more or less deserving of a true helpmeet.
    innocentbystanderboston (emphasis in original)

    Your humble words “I got lucky” express great wisdom about marriage in post-American America.

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