Feminist Atlantic waxes conservative.

The Atlantic has a love-hate relationship with men’s economic contributions.  The magazine alternates between gloating that feminism has destroyed men’s economic status once and for all, and worrying that men are no longer fulfilling their traditional roles as bread winners.

In 2008 The Atlantic published Lori Gottlieb’s now famous piece Marry Him! warning of a shortage of eligible men for marriage delaying women:

…despite growing up in an era when the centuries-old mantra to get married young was finally (and, it seemed, refreshingly) replaced by encouragement to postpone that milestone in pursuit of high ideals (education! career! but also true love!), every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried.

…if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, there’s good reason to worry.

Then in 2010 Atlantic senior editor Hanna Rosin switched the sentiment from fear to greed with her own now famous piece The End of Men, gloating at the ostensible crushing of men once and for all:

Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? A report on the unprecedented role reversal now under way— and its vast cultural consequences.

But the end of men means the end of feminists having it all, since having it all depends on men continuing to fulfill their traditional roles as feminists radically rewrite the rules of marriage and the family. In 2011 The Atlantic switched back to fear, publishing Kate Bolick’s All the Single Ladies:

Recent years have seen an explosion of male joblessness and a steep decline in men’s life prospects that have disrupted the “romantic market” in ways that narrow a marriage-minded woman’s options…

Rosin and Gottlieb went on to write books by the same title as their Atlantic articles.  Bolick has since embraced her new status as a spinster, first with an Atlantic article and then with a book by the same title.

In 2014 instead of Hanna Rosin’s open gloating, Derek Thompson wrote a less triumphant Atlantic piece titled The Mysterious Rise of the Non-Working Man.  Thompson quoted the New York Times, noting that a combination of new technology, the destruction of marriage, and the welfare state was changing men’s incentives:

Many men, in particular, have decided that low-wage work will not improve their lives, in part because deep changes in American society have made it easier for them to live without working. These changes include the availability of federal disability benefits; the decline of marriage, which means fewer men provide for children; and the rise of the Internet, which has reduced the isolation of unemployment.

Thompson concluded his 2014 piece with a much more muted declaration of feminist victory than Rosin’s 2010 piece:

…some economists think identity plays a starring role in the economy. “Some of the decline in work among young men is a mismatch between aspirations and identity,” said Lawrence Katz, a professor of economics at Harvard University. “Taking a job as a health technician has the connotation as a feminized job. The growth has been in jobs that have been considered women’s jobs—education, health, government.”

The economy is not simply leaving men behind. It is leaving manliness behind. Machines are replacing the brawn that powered the 20th century economy, clearing way for work that requires a softer human touch.

In April of this year Derek Thomson was back, this time with a feminist complaint about American men titled Too Many Elite American Men Are Obsessed With Work and Wealth.

…it’s making the pay gap worse.

Like most economists, Thompson minimizes the obvious difference between men and women’s roles in marriage and the profound impact this has on how the sexes approach work (emphasis mine):

It’s hard to identify the root causes of the values gap. Are women averse to high-risk, high-reward professions because they expect, from an early age, that these career paths are barricaded by discrimination? Maybe. Are women less interested in working more hours because pay disparities mean that the marginal hour worked earns them less money? Maybe. Are subtle and hard-to-measure cultural expectations nudging young women toward jobs that would offer flexibility (to care for kids they don’t yet have) while pushing men toward high-paying jobs (to provide for that family they don’t yet have)? Maybe. Are part-time female workers in the U.S. happier at work because their husbands are the primary breadwinners, and they don’t feel a similar burden at the office? Maybe. In addition to these cultural factors, are there biological factors that, for better and worse, make men more likely to seek out risks? Maybe.

Thompson then closes his April Atlantic piece with an indictment of (some) American men for selfishly working too hard:

But something else is clear: There is a workaholic mania among educated wealth-seeking American men, who seem uniquely devoted to working any number of hours to get rich. Remember the lesson of the Stanford study: Sometimes, the winners of a tournament are the ones who choose not to enter it.

But while Thompson and the Atlantic worry that elite men are selfishly working too hard, they also worry that young men are not preparing to be bread winners for aging feminist career women.  This brings us to Thompson’s July Atlantic piece on Why America Should Be Worried About Its Young Men.  In this piece the feminist Thompson frames his angst as a concern for the wellbeing of layabout young men who aren’t preparing for the joy of marrying aging feminist career women:

…they are having fun, Hurst emphasized. “Happiness surveys actually indicate that they [are] quite content compared to their peers,” he told UChicago. In the short run, not working doesn’t seem to make men miserable at all.

Cheap and abundant entertainment anesthetizes less-skilled and less-educated young men in the present. But in the long run, it cuts them off from the same things that provide meaning in middle age, according to psychological and longitudinal studies —a career, a family, and a sense of accomplishment. The problem is that these 20-year-olds will eventually be 30-year-olds and 40-year-olds, and although young men who don’t go to college might appear happy now, those same satisfaction studies suggest that they will be much less happy in their 30s and 40s—less likely to get married, and more likely to be in poverty.

There is of course some truth to this concern.  A life on the dole is soul crushing.  However, this sudden claim of concern for men coming from The Atlantic is hard to take seriously.  This is doubly true given Thompson’s Atlantic article two days ago praising the Scandinavian welfare state.

At any rate, we should expect to see an increasing frequency and intensity of articles worrying about how men are reacting to the radical redefinition of the family, as men’s choices slowly catch up with reality.  These articles will come both from conservatives looking to conserve feminist progress, as well as feminists who find themselves suddenly conservative when it comes to men as (selfish) breadwinners.  There is after all one thing conservatives and feminists can agree on whole heartedly, and that is that weak men are screwing feminism up.

This entry was posted in Ageing Feminists, Economics, Hanna Rosin, Having it all, Marriage, Patriarchal Dividend, The Atlantic, Traditional Conservatives, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

228 Responses to Feminist Atlantic waxes conservative.

  1. Pingback: Feminist Atlantic waxes conservative. – Manosphere.org

  2. Jeff says:

    Not to get off topic, but I am listening to FLT and the woman guest talks about how if her son or children do not treat her respect she will not take them sports practice etc. If they sleep through alarm ‘oh well’, if leave lunch on counter before school ‘oh well’.

    So my question is why a mother can have authority over a child to discipline, as it should be biblicaly, but it states “wives submit ti your husbands in everything” and the husband IS the authority in marriage, but cannot discipline the wife through silence or taking away compliments or vacations etc?

    Stupid cucks.

  3. Pingback: Feminist Atlantic waxes conservative. | Aus-Alt-Right

  4. Durasim says:

    In this piece the feminist Thompson frames his angst as a concern for the wellbeing of layabout young men who aren’t preparing for the joy of marrying aging feminist career women

    Do Thompson and his ilk expect that these young men must actually marry aging feminist career women to best support them? Or is it enough that these men seek gainful employment so that they can be better taxpaying cogs of the collective governmental “husband” that most women now have?

  5. Chase says:

    The fact is that a very small percentage of the population of the country is engaged in actually economically productive activity, and virtually 100% of them are men. Make-work is endemic and is where women truly have an advantage over men (note, I am a well compensated but completely superfluous worker).

    I buy into the r/K theory here. As soon as our resource glut works its way through, men will once again be a necessity for women to survive. Often it’s easy for us to say our culture has some effect on these things – it’s nice to believe we have that kind of control. But the longer I live, the more I believe our hardware influences us in ways we can’t consciously understand.

  6. MrTweell says:

    Oh no, the Millennial men won’t be ready to marry when women are ready to stop partying! How will these feminists continue to go with AF/BB if the betas don’t go with the plan?

    My goodness, there’s no divorce cash and prizes if guys aren’t working hard and saving money! More guilt trips and shaming columns are needed, keep men from seeing reality!

  7. The Atlantic never really recovered from the loss of Michael Kelly in Iraq.

  8. Neguy says:

    @Durasim, the reality for many of these guys is not marrying an aging career girl. It’s marrying a single mother who works menial jobs to barely support herself and her kids. Sometimes women who have had children by a string of different men, and who have already repeatedly demonstrated that they are not able to sustain a relationship. Once you get out of the top 20% UMC females, the situation for both men and women is extremely bleak in many cases.

  9. Fiddlesticks says:

    This researcher says the way that the male “wall” exists, and triggers male need to commit, is that bachelors start picking up signals that they’re “too old for the club” and feel sheepish about sarging. He doesn’t use the term “inner game” but that’s what it is.

    It is not how old they are that makes men uncomfortable, it is how old they feel, or how old others make them feel. Once a man decides he’s too old for the singles scene, that part of his life is over, and he is more likely to marry.

    http://www.today.com/health/reason-why-men-marry-some-women-not-others-t74671

  10. Wesley says:

    This is funny. It was well known that family men were more reliable and harder workers when I first entered the work force. That was back in 1976. Why is anyone shocked that men are not ever taking work all that seriously, now that marriage looks like an unattractive option in life. At the very least men do not plan on raising a family until well into their thirties. SO they do not plan on taking their careers all that seriously until then.

    Nothing has changed other than woman not wanting marriage until latter. Men have followed suit. Some by the time they hit thirty can see a reason to ever get married. Or to ever make work a top priority in life. It is not hard to make enough money just for yourself

  11. Durasim says:

    It’s marrying a single mother who works menial jobs to barely support herself and her kids.

    @Neguy

    I figured as much, and “a single mother who works menial jobs to barely support herself and her kids” is much more likely to depend on the government as her functional “husband” throughout her life.

    The only reason I asked the question was that it seems strange that feminist and progressive commentators at the Atlantic or other rags would suggest that there is still some importance or necessity for men to provide for women by serving as husbands. This carries the implication that women may actually “need” men for something in a marital context, which is blasphemy for progressives.

    Wouldn’t it be more consistent for Thompson to just say “Men are irrelevant and unworthy and women have no use for them as husbands. However, men should continue to work and produce the most income so that they can be taxed to collectively subsidize women at large, who will be free to live at their leisure and remain single or marry other women.”

  12. javaloco says:

    I’m gonna give it a couple of generations before the powers that be recognize the lack of innovation and resulting stagnation in society and the economy as a result of the missing men. Might be too late for recovery, though.

  13. kaminsky says:

    Taken one right after another really highlights the lack of thought clarity. And oh how the hamster runs! Maybe even the hamster has had enough at this point? HGTOW. Hamsters going their own way?

  14. Leiff says:

    All the articles have as their basic premise, “Men are a problem. What are we going to do about them?” I honestly have no idea why anyone would read that magazine.

  15. Dalrock says:

    @Durasim

    This carries the implication that women may actually “need” men for something in a marital context, which is blasphemy for progressives.

    Yes. This is why the message is so convoluted. At one time it is celebration of the end of men (a feminist triumph), other times it is “Men crushed, women and children hardest hit!” Still other times it is “These poor men are having so much fun being carefree, don’t they know they will come to regret it?”

    But they can’t bring themselves to come out and say what they want to:

    Man up and marry the aging feminists you loser manboys!

    That is something they have to leave for conservatives, who will fortunately gladly do so while being careful to not upset the feminist narrative.

  16. We talk about “destroying marriage” and so on but rarely consider why patriarchal marriage is successful in terms of incentivizing men to work hard and smart. I believe the answer lies in just two small but crucial changes:

    1. Patriarchal marriage gave men A FAMILY. Men had a wife and a reasonable opportunity to raise his children. Today, in the matriarchy men only have a family at the whim of the wife. She can hit the eject button for cash and prizes at any time AND she gets total control of the children. Further, as our host has pointed out, this gives her the THREATPOINT to force compliance from any husband. Without the prospect of raising a family THAT IS HIS FAMILY, NOT SOLELY THE WIFE’S FAMILY or where that right is not given to men, the reaction to marriage is…meh. The only reason it took this long is that men were not aware of the raw deal of marriage. Now with The Red Pill and MGTOW, men ARE being made aware. Change it back or we are not interested.

    2. Patriarchal marriage meant men had reasonable and regular access to sex. Sexual denial was the thing of jokes because it rarely happened. Men were in control, had social events just for them, laws in support of the man as the leader of the family, held the power of life and death over the wife and children, and wives who were taught from a young age to be deferential and helpful, kind and sweet and giving. All this meant that sex was not going to be total Starfish. Most women would be more than able to sexually perform when married to a strong man who is in charge and respected by society. If those women were virgins and younger than the man in question she would likely cream the sheets every time he touched her. That was what we thought we were getting when we married. That is not what we got. The men are defeated. They are not strong and women are not taught to be deferential, sweet and helpful. LOL. The sex dries up in 80-90 percent of matriarchal marriages. Really not interested.

    @Dalrock:

    It is not a love/hate relationship. They ONLY care about whether it is beneficial to women. The prism of the entire series of articles is that only the concerns of women matter and the concerns of men ONLY matter insofar as they impact the concerns of women.

    One columnist looks at the defeat of men and the victory of women and concludes this is good for women so he/she writes a triumphant article.

    Another columnists looks at the defeat of men and the victory of women and concludes this could cause problems for some women so he/she writes an article decrying whoa is me!

    They are being completely consistent using just 4 simple rules:

    Good for women = Good

    Bad for women = Bad

    Good for men = Who cares, is it good for women?

    Bad for men = Who cares, is it bad for women?

  17. Same old story: the media elite becomes “concerned” about the cultural welfare of men only in terms of how it either positively or adversely benefits women — never being concerned one iota about how men’s cultural welfare affect the men themselves. (Which gives rise to one expression “the only argument between a feminist and a ‘non-feminist’ is how to best hold the whip”.)
    And then the media and the female population seriously wonder why MGTOW is becoming more popular with men and is growing all the time.
    They should read “Atlas Shrugged”, but I doubt that the subtleties of the parallels between the “looters” and “moochers” of the book, and the feminists, liberals, and leftists of modern society would register with them.
    “Going MGTOW” is essentially “Going Galt”, and for good reasons.

  18. anonymous_ng says:

    It’s been said so very many times that men need to look outside the US. Well, I was recently in Southern California, and now I’m in Northern Germany, and the contrasts are striking.

    I’m in a touristy area, but I was in SoCal as well.

    The most attractive young women in SoCal were prettier than the prettiest young women I’ve seen in Germany. HOWEVER, there are twenty times as many attractive women in Germany.

    If I see a fat woman in Germany, she’s 99% from the US or the UK. Folks here in Europe just aren’t fat like Americans, at least in my short experience.

    Also, even the grungy, goth types with piercings aren’t as over the top as they are in the US. Basically, the tattoed freaks here aren’t nearly as tattooed and freaky as in the US.

    Just an observation.

  19. Dalrock says:

    @Bluepillprofessor

    We talk about “destroying marriage” and so on but rarely consider why patriarchal marriage is successful in terms of incentivizing men to work hard and smart. I believe the answer lies in just two small but crucial changes:

    …laws in support of the man as the leader of the family, held the power of life and death over the wife and children,

    More combox Tourettes. Why do you do this? Are you intentionally trolling, or are you just oblivious?

  20. feeriker says:

    I honestly have no idea why anyone would read that magazine.

    Or any other lamestream media organ, for that matter. In this case, however, Dalrock is doing us a very valuable service by analyzing just how disjointed and dissonant the Atlantic’s offerings are. What boggles the mind is not only that these people are considered professional journalists, but that no one else is calling them out on their glaring inconsistencies of thought.

  21. Damn Crackers says:

    – Beta Revolt – Sounds like the title of a new blog site.

    – America- We have become France on the way to Brazil.

  22. feeriker says:

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

    While German women may not be the obesoids that their American counterparts are, an unplugged freezer has more personality than the typical German woman and a plugged in, fully functioning freezer has more warmth, affection, and joy (and I say this after having spent a few years living in Germany). A choice between American and German women is essentially a choice between a meal of white bread and margarine sandwiches and one of chitterlings and tripe. “No thanks!” to both.

  23. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from writing in the sphere for as long as I have it’s that, for all of feminists pleas for strong independence in women, men will always be expected to build their lives around providing emotional, provisional and material support for those would-be strong independent women.

    For as non-traditional as feminists’s utopia would be, there can never be ‘strong independence’ for men. Strong independent men threaten the Feminine Imperative. Thus, men must be conditioned to believe they should build their lives around internalizing the idea that their support of ‘independent’ women ought to be their highest form of personal, life-fulfilling reward.

    https://therationalmale.com/2016/07/18/are-you-experienced/

  24. Feminist Hater says:

    Haha, they are shitting their pants at the prospect of having to work all their lives. Welcome to equality bitches is all I have got to say.

  25. greyghost says:

    Dalrock

    More combox Tourettes. Why do you do this? Are you intentionally trolling, or are you just oblivious?

    I want to like the guy. But something is just off. That comment about the power of life and death over his family is just bizarre. No family man really thinks like that.

  26. john smith says:

    I was a tradcon beta mangina for decades making six figures consistently which it turned out was never enough for the lying, adulterous, money laundering snowflake ex-wife. I now live below the poverty line and have never been happier. Freedom ain’t free. Possessions are the bars of a gilded cage. Women are the jailers of the cage. The trauma of the state destroying my former life for her benefit has healed into a garden of peace, acceptance, and understanding. I couldn’t go back even if I wanted to. And women wonder where all the good men have gone. The answer is away from them with our heads held high, a bounce in our step, cleared minds, and intact souls. Thank you feminist, you have set me (and tens of millions of others) free. Enjoy your cats. Cheers.

  27. Jim says:

    I once owned a rental house that I rented one time to a “section 8 family”.
    That experience forever changed my view of working and paying taxes..Those people were irresponsible and were handed all the same things by taxpayers that I worked hard all my life for.
    It was mind-boggling.

  28. Avraham rosenblum says:

    I think this makes a lot of sense. I myself dropped out of the rat race for things I find more satisfying. I found Western women to be not worth the trouble.

  29. Jim Christian says:

    Time for aging, feminist career women to consider they may have to marry “beneath themselves”. What that means however is that when they pull a “Not haaaaaaapy” divorce scenario it is THEY that pay. If they marry below themselves reality is, it is they that work and the man that is home. That pisses a woman off. They wanted the jobs and the goodies AND a man with higher resources than their own to tap into. Feminism never figured out (the workplace certainly did) that the workplace is zero-sum. Double the labor force, you halve the salaries. In their quest for independence, the women deliberately work for less even as they complain they make less than men, At least before women came into the workplace. Once all the men and all the women were available, salaries dropped. Incomes never recovered because all the increase in the supply of labor and the drop in the need for that labor. Since HR hires women and not men, women got fewer men with resources. In any case, they drugged the young men from 1st grade with ADHD meds and stifled their brains making many, I believe, unfit for college leaving most of the degrees to the women.

    Face it ladies, it is now time for women to woMan-Up and marry the men they helped ruin if they want a man, a husband and a father. They are incapable of doing what men always did before, marry beneath themselves. It is never suggested, not even here, or not that I’ve seen. It is now their only and “final” solution. Woman Up, Marry Down. Interesting times..

  30. Damn Crackers says:

    “…laws in support of the man as the leader of the family, held the power of life and death over the wife and children,”

    Well, the Roman father did have the right to kill his children at any time. Although, we are a long way from those times.

  31. rocko says:

    The problem is that these 20-year-olds will eventually be 30-year-olds and 40-year-olds, and although young men who don’t go to college might appear happy now, those same satisfaction studies suggest that they will be much less happy in their 30s and 40s—less likely to get married, and more likely to be in poverty.”…..

    I can’t speak for other men, but since I broke off my engagement four years ago, I’m actually progressing, and I’m in my 30s. A woman my age would be freaking out by now. Now I find the poverty part amusing, but that’s because I WAS actually living in poverty when I was engaged. I had to follow the social convention that women had to be kept happy at any cost. Literally. I’m even paying off the engagement ring I bought her. It’s a bit frustrating, because with that money I would have bought the work van I’ve wanted for a while. But that aside, I’m not only happy, but also more motivated. Now, if I don’t marry and or don’t have children, it would no doubt be a disappointing, but oh well. I’ll manage.

  32. Bart says:

    True story: helped a friend’s girlfriend move last year, along with my friend. The girl was struggling driving the loaded truck, and I offered to take over, she said no. “You’re talking to a strong, independent woman!” she said. “I can handle it.” Swear to God. Self-described feminist. But she was fine with us taking her sofa, bed, and other shit down from a third-story walkup with half-flights of stairs. And to the second story of the new place. I reminded her that her dad had paid to fly her home for a holiday weekend just the month before.

    To Rollo’s point, the Atlantic ends up contorting itself with pretzel logic because it’s trying to rationalize FI whims. Whatever serves the imperative is the argument that day irrespective of consistency or facts on the ground. I should look at their ad card and see what the gender split is these days among Atlantic readers.

  33. Pingback: Feminist Atlantic waxes conservative. | Reaction Times

  34. >>comment about the power of life and death over his family is just bizarre.

    It is bizarre from our femcentric point of view. It was also the law and fully accepted custom in virtually every civilization in world history before Western and European liberalism prevailed just a couple hundred years ago. We see the result of releasing the Kraken and reigning in the power of men over their families and wives but many of you still refuse to acknowledge the genesis of that power.

    The society of the Bible which is the subject of this blog was very clear about the power of husbands. I object to the Biblical instructions to defer and sacrifice to the wife by loving her like Christ loved the church because we live in a society where the mere suggestion that some of the conditions that prevailed at the time the instructions were given is met with accusations of “clueless trolling.” Any man who follows these instructions today will be destroyed. His wife will lose attraction for this supplicating mangina. She will cut him off and then she will frivorce him. The fate of the powerless Churchian. In our society, such topics as men holding real power in marriage and where a man has real power to control his family cannot even be discussed thus loving her with a deep sacrificial love is not even on the table.

    >>No family man really thinks like that.

    You obviously do not have teenage boys🙂

  35. BillyS says:

    DC,

    Well, the Roman father did have the right to kill his children at any time. Although, we are a long way from those times.

    I have read that and heard it mentioned many times, but I am very skeptical that it was a common thing at all. Ignoring our idiotic modern society, who would marry someone who just killed his wife? I would expect the pool would dry up after even a few of these for all but the rarest exceptions.

    Most men still sought the welfare of their wives and families and I would bet the wives ruled a great many homes even with that legal situation.

  36. thedeti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    “Man up and marry the aging feminists you loser manboys!”

    Yes, feminists want to say this. In so many words, conservatives are saying this.

    But the obvious rejoinder from most men is:

    “Why? What do I get out of that deal?”

  37. Oscar says:

    @ Fiddlesticks says:
    August 4, 2016 at 10:16 am

    “Finally, we had men in their sixties ask the questions, and that solved the problem. The responses they elicited were generally straightforward. The single men apparently did not feel an obligation to give these interviewers macho or politically correct answers.” ~ Today

    You mean young men instinctively trust and respect older men? No way!

  38. Great post. Thank you.
    First, I find it interesting that the article writers would keep gyrating back and forth over time covering the same ground over and over again, undecided whether to panic and worry, or to lash out in anger and rage like some cornered animal.

    Somehow it is all rather comical, and not quite real. They keep dancing around a distressing reality (“the elephant in the room”) refusing to acknowledge it, while the audience looks on, barely able to contain in their laughter:

    The preferences, wants and motivations of human males actually matter.

    Women today are so magnificently conditioned to minimize, deny and ignore this reality, that they could not possibly anticipate negative consequences for themselves, which they would vehemently deny having any role in creating anyway.

    Secondly, no amount of shaming is going to work anymore.
    The idea that feminists can outsource that assignment to Christian conservatives to start re-scolding millennial dudes about their refusal to wage slave and marry, calling them “basement dwellers” and “spoiled Peter Pan’s”, etc. is going to fail in prolific fashion.

    Third, I find it remarkable that feminists are now being catapulted into some very uncomfortable territory. Incessantly berating, castigating, vilifying and recriminating men was easy. Mission accomplished.
    Now that all their customers really have left the store, might they now realize that they have to start changing their tone? Maybe make some persuasive arguments and advertisments to men that AREN’T laced with caustic shaming? Might they have to *gasp*….do some selling?

    It’s too late.

  39. Fred Flange ducks and covers says:

    A startling comment by Hollenhund over in Rollo’s new thread posits an interesting idea: A WaP article chronicles the growing desexualization of today’s high school and college population. Cowed by “yes means yes” rules which could get them expelled, fears of “catching feelings” for someone, avoidance of having one’s own feelings hurt or hurting others’ feelings through relationship drama, being too busy with coursework and games to socialize in person, which can be done better online anyway, plus confronting someone in person can be scary and upsetting… lots more kids are avoiding sex and relationships altogether. (All you parents can shout “hooray” until you’re worried why your kids graduate with no social life or potential partners). Except as social events where hooking up can and will occur, just among a smaller 80/20 group: athletic events, frat parties, clubs, hangouts, shows, malls, coffee shops. The few places where intersexual interaction is ALLOWED today. Hollenhund’s point: everyplace else – where social interaction used to occur – are now sterilized from any potential sexual interaction. It’s not allowed at work (no-dating rules, sex harassment claims), school (ditto), and there are no community-based functions or social organizations anymore where mingling of some sort could occur. Except maybe church, and that is a Titanic-slanted playing field, as your fellow contributors report.

    Which means society has endorsed, and to some extent mandated, the soft MGTOW. Men know they’re not wanted, she don’t need no man, so they don’t go there anymore. So now they’re the Soft Boys. Soft MGTOW is the practice, and on colleges and in workplaces it’s the law. How can you complain about men obeying the LAW?

    Since we, the Soft Boys, are going to be shamed no matter what we do, we might as well do what we like.

    More and more women might be increasingly dismayed at the results their culture has generated, finding the Soft Boys to be uninspired whiners and wieners. They can cluck, and throw shame, like they’re trying to do here, but they can’t unbreak the vase.

    To the extent marriage survives, it will be as an UMC indulgence. Only they can afford it, and have at least some concept of sticking with it, at least for a while. Otherwise, monogamy will crater, complementary parenting is fucked, and kids will have to raise themselves, finding mentors where they can if they are lucky enough. As for us, we will throw money at our kids (the ones we know of), lock ourselves in with Pornhub, and only venture outside for takeout Chipotle, artisanal pizza and beer, and Pokémon Go quests.

    More here:
    https://therationalmale.com/2016/07/29/the-cardinal-rule-of-sexual-strategies/comment-page-4/#comments

  40. “The hours that they are not working have been replaced almost one for one with leisure time. Seventy-five percent of this new leisure time falls into one category: video games.”

    Women are going to school, getting degrees, entering the work force full-time, could it be that young western men who have become the new leisure class?

    I can hear their shrill voices now standing akimbo:
    “You guyz were suppose to keep doing what you were doing, not loaf around and have fun all day!!”

  41. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    The manosphere and the feminists tend to frame this discussion as men deliberately choosing to work low-paying jobs rather than hard working jobs that pay enough to support a family. That might be the case. But this might be entirely outside of their control. As feminists love to say, this isn’t the 1950s.

    No one seems to realize that when you make a huge push for women to enter the workplace you de facto leave less room for men. When you favor hiring women, you push out the opportunities for men. When 60 percent of women are college students, that means only 40 percent can be men. Add to that completely obsolete advice from the previous generation in regards to higher education and you have men unprepared to obtain and succeed in careers that enable them to act as that provider irrespective of their own desires.

    Our country has created a modern economic situation in which these men can’t “man up” and provide for these women even if they wanted to. “Desire” has got nothing to do with it.

    I’m sure someone will talk about pursuing entrepreneurial and small business opportunities but you can’t talk a man who has been raised to think and act like a worker bee for the first 20 years of his life and then expect him to turn around and think like an entrepreneur. Those ventures can also take years for any real income to come in. They can also fail spectacularly. I’ve had several small business owners tell me that they would never start a business with the amount of regulations in place.

    The reason men are checking out because it’s the only option our modern society allows them.

  42. Damn Crackers says:

    @BillyS

    I’m not sure about the wife, but I remember from the patria potestas that even capital punishment extended to one’s children:

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/patria-potestas

  43. Lost Patrol says:

    @feeriker:
    “While German women may not be the obesoids that their American counterparts are, an unplugged freezer has more personality than the typical German woman and a plugged in, fully functioning freezer has more warmth, affection, and joy…”

    I love this. Lived there also. After a while you stop wondering why the word most heard and seen posted everywhere is – Verboten!

  44. After retreading Kate Bolick’s nonsense, another aspect of female psychology that might be worth talking about how women deliberately sabotage women to either advantage themselves or sucker other women into making the same bad choices they’ve made and know are bad to share the misery. This can be anything from women telling other women that they look cute in short hair that makes them look like a boy to Bolick, who threw away a good guy for no reason and spent a lot of time crying trying to convince other women that being alone s great (not to mention the sabotage her own mother inflicted on her).

    Her is some more useful advise for young women:

  45. Dalrock says:

    @The Question

    Our country has created a modern economic situation in which these men can’t “man up” and provide for these women even if they wanted to. “Desire” has got nothing to do with it.

    There is no question there are structural issues involved here. If you will indulge me to offer a metaphor, we are observing that our car is slowing down. I’m pointing out that we are losing horsepower, and you are pointing out that we are going up a steeper hill. Both are true. Clearly we need horsepower (incentives) now even more than before. We also might have to change our expectations of speed. And if we can find an alternate route with a less steep grade, we should also do so.

    In addition to the issues you raise, I would add trade and immigration. There is a concerted push to lower the wages of the working class, from moving manufacturing to places with lower labor costs, to importing H1B workers to displace Americans and looking the other way as illegal immigrants come in to do the same. These are issues currently being discussed politically.

    To these I would further add the far less discussed issue of the massive push by HUD to spread public housing into middle class neighborhoods. This raises the cost of family formation, because you now have to spend even more money to move into a neighborhood that is safe and has reasonably good schools. How many men who can’t afford to start a family today could afford to do so if they didn’t have to outbid their own tax dollars in an attempt to flee the violent and property crime HUD is busy sprinkling into what would otherwise be ok neighborhoods to start a family? How many more could afford to do so if they also didn’t have to compete with low cost workers from overseas? How many more if the man didn’t have the threat of divorce hanging over him (and all that entails) should his wife not be satisfied with his earnings?

  46. American says:

    I simply direct all vaginas and their male cucks to visit the nearest sand pile and pound it for the rest of their lives for I’ve gone my own way already and do not care the slightest bit if they don’t like it.

  47. Hmm says:

    Interesting that one of the touted benefits of Obamacare was that those with nontraditional jobs – artists, writers, etc. – would be able to afford health insurance. I expect that broad support came from women, who had no idea that it would enable men to drop out of the workforce and pursue their own desires.

  48. Dalrock says:

    @The Question

    The reason men are checking out because it’s the only option our modern society allows them.

    I disagree that this is the only option (on an individual level). But I do think that it is foolish for us to complain when the culture responds to the new incentives we have worked so hard implement.

    I don’t think the bulk of these non working (or minimally working) men made a full cost/benefit analysis and decided not to signal provider status in order to marry. I think the culture has slowly responded over time to the new reality, and individual men make their choices in the context of the new culture.

    At first feminism appeared to be free. Look how we can enable a sexual revolution and still have people marry and raise children. Look how we can replace our marriage based family structure with a child support based family structure and still have kids in the vast majority of homes grow up with a mom and a dad (even if we have to be fairly loose in our definition of “dad” to claim this).

    But it wasn’t really free, it just took longer for the cost to become visible.

  49. Crank says:

    @Damn Crackers

    “– Beta Revolt – Sounds like the title of a new blog site.”

    Or a kick-ass band!

  50. Eidolon says:

    This article finally explained for me what’s so annoying about these sorts of articles. Someone linked it on Vox the other day:

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005864.html

    Basically both liberals and conservatives only deal with obvious contradictions or inevitable disastrous consequences of the leftist worldview that they share by means of unprincipled exceptions.

    When you get down to it, there’s no principled case to be made. For leftists, destroying families is a feature, not a bug. Taking away men’s ability to be successful and demolishing the provider/patriarch role is an intentional part of the ideology.

    But sometimes the effects are inconvenient, so an unprincipled exception is made — “men generally are evil and oppressive, but women still want them as husbands (for reasons which would destroy our whole worldview if actually acknowledged) so we need to demand that our evil oppressors hurry up and earn more, increasing a pay gap that we’re against, so that individual women can get what they want.” Any concession made to men, especially white men, is totally contrary to their ideology, but may be necessary in order to keep the whole thing going a little longer since white men’s earnings and productivity are the fuel that progressivism burns.

    It reminds me of Democrats complaining in ’08 that we needed to fix the economy. I kept thinking “aren’t you guys environmentalists? Isn’t this economic downturn, less production and consumption, exactly what you want? Isn’t this the economy you wanted to create? If we got things up and running again you’d just go back to complaining about the very thing you claim now to want to do.” Again, wanting a solid economy is an unprincipled exception to wanting less productivity and consumption because a robust economy is useful for providing more money they can tax, and people tend not to vote for them if they make the economy horrible.

    Anyway the article does a great job of articulating what the problem is and how it’s basically the same for both liberals and conservatives, as opposed to the alt-right/reactionary side. If you don’t dispute the ideology itself then you can only disagree with it by means of unprincipled exceptions.

  51. feeriker says:

    But the obvious rejoinder from most men is:

    “Why? What do I get out of that deal?”

    If they were honest, both tradcucks and feminists would respond to that with “You’re a man. What makes you think you’re entitled to any benefits? It’s your obligation, asshole! Too bad you were born with a dick if you have a problem with that.”

    That is, in fact, their position already. They just don’t have the guts to state it frankly.

  52. Kevin says:

    The solution to these non-working layabout men is obvious – cut all welfare benefits to people who don’t work. Oh wait – that would impact single moms all over the US? Oh no!

    As long as it’s their parents picking up the bill I don’t care. If it’s me paying their way, I don’t like men or women living on welfare at my expense.

    An alternative is that these men be stay at home dads or they just live off desperate women when they get older.

    When feminists finally get what they want they will have made all women as miserable as themselves. The men need to be smart enough not to participate in this disaster.

  53. Anonymous Reader says:

    At any rate, we should expect to see an increasing frequency and intensity of articles worrying about how men are reacting to the radical redefinition of the family, as men’s choices slowly catch up with reality.

    The explanations must become ever more convoluted and complicated, too. Because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate: admitting that the blank slate doesn’t exist, that men and women are different in more than the obvious ways, that men and women are not interchangeable. Because that admission would destroy feminism.

    Given a choice between preserving feminism and preserving civilization, it’s clear where the Atlantic writers and a whole lot of other people want to go.

  54. BubbaCluck says:

    “Paterfamilia” The Roman head of the family that had complete, absolute control of his family. Yes, even over life and death. That was a long time ago but it was what it was.

  55. Dalrock says:

    @BubbaCluck

    “Paterfamilia” The Roman head of the family that had complete, absolute control of his family. Yes, even over life and death. That was a long time ago but it was what it was.

    This may be, but it is no more relevant to the discussion than the marriage practices of the Druids. That we are still discussing it shows how effective a troll BPP is. This problem is easily enough solved.

  56. Vektor says:

    “But in the long run, it cuts them off from the same things that provide meaning in middle age, according to psychological and longitudinal studies —a career, a family, and a sense of accomplishment…………and more likely to be in poverty.”

    Cuts them off from family….more likely to be in poverty… Hmm…this sounds familiar.

  57. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    “If you will indulge me to offer a metaphor, we are observing that our car is slowing down. I’m pointing out that we are losing horsepower, and you are pointing out that we are going up a steeper hill. Both are true. Clearly we need horsepower (incentives) now even more than before. We also might have to change our expectations of speed. And if we can find an alternate route with a less steep grade, we should also do so.”

    I agree. I just notice there is a lot of talk about how we need the extra horsepower. We could speed things up if we stopped trying to climb up the steep hill. Also, to continue with the metaphor, it’d help if we’d shift to low gear.

    “I disagree that this is the only option (on an individual level). But I do think that it is foolish for us to complain when the culture responds to the new incentives we have worked so hard implement.”

    That’s probably a better way of putting it. It’s the only rational choice for a lot of men; not all, but a lot. I’m also speaking a little bit from personal experience. People wonder why we’re not raking in the big bucks, buying a home and settling down as though it was just sitting there in front of us. They talk as though we avoid responsibilities when it involves factors often beyond our control.

  58. Paterfamilias existed in Roman law. But it did not carry over into Christian law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias

  59. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Dalrock: BPP – I think it’s ComboxTourette’s rather than active trolling, personally.

    We can expect to see much more thrashing about in Atlantic and other publications as the wheels continue to come off of the bus; cognitive dissonance can actually become physically painful, in theory,

  60. Fiddlesticks says:

    Median income for a white male Gen-Xer with a bachelor’s degree is $77K (source below). Frankly not bad, given how dumbed-down many college degrees are, and given the fact that this number includes part-time workers.

    There is currently a big drop-off for the subsequent generation – white male college-educated Millennials, $41K. How much will that generational gap close as they gain experience and promotions, and how much represents structural changes?

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/03/02/what-percent-are-you-2/

  61. Kevin says:

    Another issue is the absolute loss for everyone of this.

    I am older and enjoy playing video games. I think they are amazing and prefer them to most other forms of couch entertainment like TV and movies.

    However, Playing video games all day is a loser thing to do. It’s a loser life. It is ultimately an un satisfying life. The happiest life for men can rarely be achieved because of our screwed up world – a productive contribution to society and a loving wife and children. Everything else is a far distant second. But this joy has been taken from so many men because the system is all screwed up. A single life of being productive and pursuing hobbies is a fulfilling life, but video games is a pretty lousy hobby. Even masculine hobbies have been so corrupted and boys so beat down the thing they fill their days with is sitting on a couch exploring a virtual world. I love it – but it’s as meaningless as binge watching TV and not the stuff life is made of. It is really worth sorrowing over, that what makes men happy has been destroyed and they are left to pursue bread and circuses. And it’s just going to get worse because the society is so confused no one is going to wake up. We are going to end up weak like Europe. And some crazy non feminist culture that believes in itself will replace us over time. Tragic.

  62. tsotha says:

    The solution to these non-working layabout men is obvious – cut all welfare benefits to people who don’t work. Oh wait – that would impact single moms all over the US? Oh no!

    Men don’t get welfare. If you’re single you get food stamps and Medicaid. That’s about it. It’s not enough to survive on. What these guys are using as welfare is disability. I don’t know anyone who wants to eliminate support for truly disabled people.

    One thing I see is people who get into the disability system tend to live in such a way that they develop genuine mental and physical disabilities over time. A guy who enters the system at age 30 is probably not going to work again.

  63. Morgan says:

    >What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?

    I’ve seen this to be true in at least one way, postindustrial workplaces are highly bureaucratized, with less dependence on manual labor jobs requiring men’s advantages in strength. It also seems that as departments bureaucratize, they feminize, being taken over by women who seem to excel and using the bureaucracy to blunt their incompetence, and seeing the departure of men looking for more interesting challenges. Look at what’s happened to all of Human Resources.

    >a steep decline in men’s life prospects that have disrupted the “romantic market” in ways that narrow a marriage-minded woman’s options…

    True, but only if a marriage-minded woman is only looking for a meal ticket, whatever happened to finding your soul mate? He’d better come with six figures.

    >low-wage work will not improve their lives

    The welfare state was perfect for women, until men learned how to take advantage of it, too!

    >In the short run, not working doesn’t seem to make men miserable at all.

    They work and they’re happier than women, they don’t work and they’re happier than women, they do housework and they’re happier than women. When are these guys going to learn how to be as miserable as women? The fact is, if a man decides he would be happier married when he’s in his thirties or forties, he just has to turn around and there’s an abundance of minimum wage, service sector women ten years younger than him dying to marry him. And since he doesn’t have an income requirement, it’s pretty easy to find a wife.

    Thanks Dalrock, for pulling the feminist media’s doubleSpeak into plain view!

  64. “Crank says:
    August 4, 2016 at 3:29 pm
    @Damn Crackers

    “– Beta Revolt – Sounds like the title of a new blog site.”

    Or a kick-ass band!”

    Ironic. There’s a band by the name of “The All-American Rejects”, whose most successful hit was “Gives You Hell”. I always assumed the song was about the singer addressing a former girlfriend who dumped him; he is now living a better life, while she is not.

  65. Anon says:

    What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?

    Nothing could be further from the truth. If this is a knowledge economy where technological innovation is the most important source of new prosperity, who produces knowledge? Who produces technological innovation?

    Hint : The gender that still gets gina tingles from serial killers is not the gender more suited for a knowledge economy.

  66. Anon says:

    I am sure young Muslim men being brought in will work hard to keep aging Western ‘feminists’ well funded and phabulous.

  67. Gunner Q says:

    BubbaCluck@ 4:22 pm:
    ““Paterfamilia” The Roman head of the family that had complete, absolute control of his family. Yes, even over life and death. That was a long time ago but it was what it was.”

    You forget the Roman Empire’s notorious cruelty. Most of the “paterfamilias” back then were slaves who were themselves subject to the life-or-death whims of their masters. Life was ugly before God introduced the idea that human life is inherently valuable.

  68. BillyS says:

    Very true Kevin. I will always play some video games, but balancing them is the point.

    DC,

    I realized my comment made an assertion you did not make, about a husband’s power over his wife. That was so connected in my head that I assumed you had noted that.

    I would agree with Dalrock though that it is not an issue we need to worry about as we are not there. I also don’t believe many men would even want to go there, especially those who are not mentally ill or just incredibly hurt by what they received in the past from a wife.

    Most men want to do well for all in their families. That is why everyone whacking on that is so annoying. I get very annoyed when preachers trot out that old foolishness in spite of it matching few. (I listen to quite a few preachers.)

  69. Spike says:

    Gottlieb and Rosin belong to the tribe of elites who unfortunately run the Western World. It is these elites who have paid both political parties, who own media, entertainment and communication, who have worked their way into management, to then sell off businesses to Third World countries under the banner of “globalization”.
    Thompson is the obsequious minion of those elites.
    The best way to hurt them is to stop buying newspapers, stop subscribing to cable, boycott Hollywood movies and cinemas and forget about listening to radio, since everywhere you go in the world they have two idiots – male and female, trumping up a ridiculous war between the sexes.
    The biggest problem with their ridiculous view of a feminist utopia – and there are many – is that the sex ratio is biologically determined. You are going to get male babies, like it or not, and some women just might not be able to bring themselves to abort them. These male babies will grow up to be men who, when locked out of the economic system by Strong Independent Women, will parasitize it through welfare and openly destroy it through Luddite-ism and vandalism.

  70. Anon,

    Totally. The regressive feminists certainly fantasize this will be the case. Never mind the migrants lack any skills, education, or training to meaningfully work in a modern economy; if you simply check your ‘western privilege’ and care enough all will be fine.

    The truth is the only thing the Islamic Migrants are going to provide for aging feminists are swim burkas, slavery, mutilation, rape, and murder.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    At first feminism appeared to be free.

    Two or three years ago it was just another snake cult…

    But it wasn’t really free, it just took longer for the cost to become visible.

    …now… they’re everywhere.

  72. feeriker says:

    What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?

    Nothing could be further from the truth. If this is a knowledge economy where technological innovation is the most important source of new prosperity, who produces knowledge? Who produces technological innovation?

    Hint : The gender that still gets gina tingles from serial killers is not the gender more suited for a knowledge economy.

    The problem is that technology has evolved to such a degree already that all of the real “grunt work” in its development and implementation has already been done – by men, of course. Everything else from this point forward is really just refinement of the existing infrastructure. The result has been that everyone’s basic needs are being met, there is no powerful external force driving further innovation as something essential to human progress, and everyone can pretty much just “get by” on putting forth as close to minimal effort as possible. This has been an ideal situation for women who, under current conditions, can “pretend to work” at something advanced and demanding, but without really producing anything and also without being put at risk of causing any serious, long-term damage, (the male– designed and operated infrastructure being sufficiently advanced and resilient to be essentially “stupid clumsy bitch-proof”). This is how women get away with faking their way through 21st Century workplaces masquerading as “knowledge workers.”

    However, let TSHTF and let the infrastructure degrade to the point of collapse, and this mask will fall off. Women will at that point be revealed as the superfluous dunsels that they are.

  73. moderncaleb says:

    @bluepillprofessor:

    >>> I object to the Biblical instructions to defer and sacrifice to the wife by loving her like Christ loved the church because we live in a society where the mere suggestion that some of the conditions that prevailed at the time the instructions were given is met with accusations of “clueless trolling.” Any man who follows these instructions today will be destroyed. His wife will lose attraction for this supplicating mangina.

    Christ’s love has little to do with supplication or in any way doing what his beloved wants over what God commands:

    Revelation 3:19 (NASB) Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

  74. Pingback: Missing the Boat — Part I | Spawny's Space

  75. Lord Rofl says:

    “Somehow it is all rather comical, and not quite real.”

    They are weaving a narrative– defining a problem and creating desire for a solution– by frightening their readers. The long-term goal is fomenting political action.

    Remember that you are reading propaganda. It’s not supposed to be logical.

    (A rag like The Atlantic will use two criteria to decide whether or not to run an article: 1) pecuniary, or how well with a prospective article will sell detergent, financial services and overpriced German automobiles to its readers, and 2) ideological, whether or not the article advances the owner’s and/or staff’s political objectives. All other concerns are secondary. Newspapers and magazines are not blogs; the money required for their continued operations has to come from somewhere. Proctor & Gamble and patrons, never punters.)

  76. Spike,

    Exactly. These globalist regressive idiots have absolutely no clue about maintaining a civilization. The entire problem with having your society catering to the ‘Feminine Imperative’ is you entirely govern off of ‘feeling’, ‘tingles’ and ‘entitlement’ and ignore things like biology, reason, rationality, logic, facts, and the truth.

    Look at the narrative in regards to the New Years Eve assaults on women in Germany by Islamic Migrants. The Regressive Media and Feminists were shocked and questioned ‘where were the men’? Not a single shred of introspection why the “White Knights’ didn’t literally charge out to protect them. They aren’t capable of critical thinking.

    I think this quote from Rorschach from Watchmen sums up how to deal with these fools.

    “I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll whisper “no.”

  77. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    Just to clarify (as if you lot didn’t already know): “health” and “education” are also government jobs, and they’re “femininized” by government incentives to hire women and PoC to make the numbers look good. The actual utility and productivity provided by these jobs is minimal, if not negative.
    Women are “better suited” to this modern job market, but only because their sex gives them a great advantage in a market driven by ideological demands rather than economic forces.

  78. Boston to Providence says:

    I just want to know which conservative they waxed.

  79. Anon says:

    Derek Thompson wrote a less triumphant Atlantic piece titled The Mysterious Rise of the Non-Working Man.

    It is telling yet again that the most recent efforts to strenuously preserve ‘feminist’ memes are from manginas rather than females. This is proof of massive internal weakness in ‘feminism’.

  80. Feminist Hater says:

    I just want to know which conservative they waxed.

    Sounds like something they would do. Waxing a man and turning him into a metro sexual.

  81. Spawny Get says:

    I’ve seen hints of the fact (no clear reportage) that there were protective men in the NYE’s mass rapey attacks. They faced bad odds so some gave in, some had the krap kicked out of them and ended up in hospital. The media had no interest in reporting on them. They’re made happy by people assuming the worst about the men.

    Stop just accepting the misandric MSM reports as gospel. Why in hell would you trust them on this issue more than on any other?

  82. honeycomb says:

    What I find funny is … None of the targeted men read the Atlantic?

    Heck, I’m upper 7% income tax wise and I don’t read the Atlantic … pass the marshmallows fella’s … this is gonna turn into a really big bon-fire.

    Bachelor for life … 45 plus years old and loving it.

  83. Dave says:

    The result has been that everyone’s basic needs are being met, there is no powerful external force driving further innovation as something essential to human progress, and everyone can pretty much just “get by” on putting forth as close to minimal effort as possible.

    This would be true if America was the only country on earth. While we put “forth as close to minimal effort as possible” here, India, China, and most other countries out there will zoom past us, and take the first prize as the most innovative countries on the planet.
    One of the most important reasons why America has been at the top is its attraction to highly trained and highly skilled professionals, who come from all over the world to make here their homes. As the climate becomes less accommodating, they are likely to head in the opposite direction. That is when the real cost of the “do nothing” strategy will become more obvious.
    Even right now as we speak, the biggest and most innovative companies in America are run or headed by foreigners. One out of every 4 doctors in America are foreign born and/or foreign trained.
    What I see happening is a changing of powers of sorts. America is being replaced as the most advanced country on earth. Some other country (?China) is taking over. Our “do the minimal possible” will only accelerate this trend, to the ultimate detriment of feminism.
    Imagine a situation where, due to the minimalist mindset of the populace, the country is unable to bring in adequate tax revenues. America will start to look like a third world country. And we know what happens to feminism in third world countries.

  84. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    It is telling yet again that the most recent efforts to strenuously preserve ‘feminist’ memes are from manginas rather than females. This is proof of massive internal weakness in ‘feminism’.

    Weak men get a huge benefit from feminism. It gives them a plausible excuse (ego defense) as to their own personal failure with women, and simultaneously relieves them of the burden of trying to chase down a relationship, which they know is unobtainable anyway. Feminism allows them to assume a false air of superiority over those bad, bad men who don’t aspire to their phony ideals (i.e. pretty much all normal men).

    It’s not too surprising that they’d be the first to fight for feminism. Indeed, it is probably the only thing they will fight for.

    Boxer

  85. feeriker says:

    Imagine a situation where, due to the minimalist mindset of the populace, the country is unable to bring in adequate tax revenues. America will start to look like a third world country.

    We’re well on our way there now.

  86. agreyknave says:

    OT, but it looks like the rules of hookup culture have shifted again. Woman goes on hookup app Tinder and doxes a guy for trying to hook up with her… calling his actions “disrespectful.” https://twitter.com/Siobhanapiranha/status/761278433821396992

  87. Novaseeker says:

    Believe it or not, some people will claim with a straight face that Tinder is a dating app, and that therefore propositions like that are disrespectful and inappropriate. Again, as we all know, it all depends on who it is who is acting that way and how attractive he is.

  88. JDG says:

    My boyfriend was intimidated by my sexual history. So I dumped him.

    Marcus that guy should thank her.

  89. Feminist Hater says:

    That woman is a crazy, tattooed piece of cat lady ass, what was that guy thinking!? Don’t do that, sheesh, now he gots his mentions listed all over. Just not the way to go about it, in some way, he was asking for it. Never date a feminist, ever, just don’t do it. Not worth it. Don’t talk to feminists, don’t interact with them, just leave them alone.

  90. Feminist Hater says:

    Marcus that guy should thank her.Marcus that guy should thank her.

    And some other idiot wifes that shit up. It’s crazy out there but I won’t shed a tear for him. Men that marry sluts deserve everything they get and far more because they are the cause of the damage by settling for someone else’s used up trash.

  91. Gunner Q says:

    “Imagine a situation where, due to the minimalist mindset of the populace, the country is unable to bring in adequate tax revenues.”

    Parasites never have enough, they just invite their friends. And breed.

    Isaac Asimov once wrote a short story about the U.S. gov’t deciding to apply the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to its finances. If they spent money fast enough then nobody would know if they were broke. Now we have trillion-dollar annual deficits despite being the richest country on Earth… I thought the guy wrote fiction?

    Dave @ 6:47 am:
    “One of the most important reasons why America has been at the top is its attraction to highly trained and highly skilled professionals, who come from all over the world to make here their homes.”

    Christianity is the reason we’re so innovative. We believe in an orderly Creator God while most Eastern peoples believed in either nothingness, their ancestors or nature gods. Hard to advance science when you think the way to alter reality is sacrificing a goat.

    Even today, China and India have industrious but not innovative people. That’s why China industriously spies on us so much. Did you see their latest military drone? It’s identical to ours. I’m sure that’s a total coincidence…

  92. MarcusD says:

    Trump definitely exposed the pro-life (“pro-life”) movement:

    I’m pro-life. And I’m voting for Hillary. Here’s why.
    http://www.shannondingle.com/blog//im-pro-life-and-im-voting-for-hillary-heres-why

  93. feeriker says:

    MarcusD says:
    August 5, 2016 at 12:55 pm

    That is some of the most bizarre “reasoning” I have ever read.

    “Shannon Dingle” offers yet more proof of why the Nineteenth Amendment needs to be repealed ASAP.

  94. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    Feminism allows them to assume a false air of superiority over those bad, bad men who don’t aspire to their phony ideals (i.e. pretty much all normal men).

    It’s not too surprising that they’d be the first to fight for feminism. Indeed, it is probably the only thing they will fight for.

    It is usually quite productive to proactively attack a mangina as a creepy predator in disguise. Hugo Schwyzer proved this, and David Futrelle’s pedo inclinations have been well-documented by Judgybitch. Being a ‘male feminist’ is quite an effective cover for a predator, actually. Calling them out proactively is worthwhile.

  95. JDG says:

    “Shannon Dingle” offers yet more proof of why the Nineteenth Amendment needs to be repealed ASAP.

    Never should’ve happened to begin with.

  96. BillyS says:

    feeriker,

    The result has been that everyone’s basic needs are being met, there is no powerful external force driving further innovation as something essential to human progress, and everyone can pretty much just “get by” on putting forth as close to minimal effort as possible.

    I am not sure if you meant this literally, but it is not true in reality. We are appearing to do all that now by going farther and farther into hock, but that is not supportable, even with the ability to (temporarily) print our own money. The piper will be paid eventually and the free money flow will stop. We also keep having to tax more and more to maintain the illusion. TPTB can keep it up far longer than I would have thought, but it cannot go on forever.

    I pity those who will be hosed when that comes, but they would not listen to reason now or they would already be doing something to change their situation.

    The best we can do is to prepare ourselves.

    This does raise the interesting question of how much MGTOWs (in general and in specific) are doing to be prepared when the modern system collapses under its own weight. How much of their actions is impacted by the modern system? I will bet all of us will be in for a rude awakening when the consequences start to hit.

    I am not sure I really am and I have done at least a few things to prep. Even those working on the farm are highly reliant on modern benefits and they will be impacted as well.

  97. mrteebs says:

    BPP said…

    2. Patriarchal marriage meant men had reasonable and regular access to sex. Sexual denial was the thing of jokes because it rarely happened.

    I’m not sure this has ever been true post-Garden. Jokes usually tap into common experiences – not one offs.

  98. BillyS says:

    Dave,

    I have been thinking a bit and I want to start gathering some ideas on how a man can find a proper wife. Not easy, but no real guidance exists on that and most here would claim it is more like playing roulette to win a fortune at a casino rather than learning how to count cards in poker. (Yeah, it will get you kicked out, just as practicing red-pill truths will get you kicked out of some places, but it is a way to win.)

  99. BillyS says:

    mrteebs,

    I’m not sure this has ever been true post-Garden. Jokes usually tap into common experiences – not one offs.

    That would be true. Successful jokes build on at least partial truth or they would not connect.

  100. RichardP says:

    @BillyS “… I want to start gathering some ideas on how a man can find a proper wife.”

    In the past, proper wives were not found. They were made. Social structures were in place that curbed the worst excesses of behavior. Those women who would not comply were shamed and shunned. This punishment had a beneficial effect upon the remaining wives and wanna be wives.

    Those social structures don’t exist much anymore, if at all. The worst excesses are being allowed to run free. We all are getting a game-side seat to observe why the excesses were curbed in the past, and should be curbed again.

    Re. BPP and holding life and death decisions over families. I thought he spoke the truth. Before government protection, a family survived, or didn’t, based on the preparations the man made. His decisions truely were of a life or death nature. If you still wonder, consider the homesteading families heading out by wagon train into indian territory 150 years ago. Whether the ground he staked out was fertile enough to support a healthy farming, whether he brought enough seed to plant, whether he had enough weapons and ammunition to defend his family inside the log cabin when the indians attacked. Life and death issues all.

    Have we really forgotten that this is what life looked like for thousands of years before central government became the norm for protection? Perhaps this is not what BPP meant, but I assumed it was. It is only with the rise of husband government that a man’s decisions have NOT been life or death ones for his family.

  101. Yoda says:

    boyfriend was intimidated by my sexual history. So I dumped him.

    She also probably made sammiches not

  102. BillyS says:

    Not relevant RichardP. A young man who wants to keep civilization going can’t wait until some future point. I would expect you to say to not even try, but that is not what I am going to do.

  103. Dale says:

    Fred Flange ducks and covers said:
    >Which means society has endorsed, and to some extent mandated, the soft MGTOW. Men know they’re not wanted

    I remember sitting in class one day in grade 10, at age 15 or 16. I figured that I had probably heard 1000 messages by that point in my life telling me that I was unacceptable.
    Things have not improved since, except for when I was in Eastern Europe on vacation.

  104. Hank Flanders says:

    Dale

    Things have not improved since, except for when I was in Eastern Europe on vacation.

    Could you expound on this, Dale? I’ve actually been thinking a lot about Eastern Europe, lately and have even slowly started learning a little bit of Russian. I’ve still been skeptical of the whole idea, though.

  105. RICanuck says:

    I was surfing the web this morning and a commenter on Rod Dreher linked to an article on First Things asking what is wrong with young men. I can’t find it now, but I believe the author was associated with the Fuller Theological Seminary.

    Anyhow, the article devolved into another templated porn lecture. What is wrong with young men that they prefer porn to marriage?

    Let’s turn the question around. A woman has a voice, a personality, soft hair, skin that smells like a woman. She has soft yielding flesh, she is real, she can respond, she can appreciate, and tell her man what gives her pleasure, and make him feel respected and appreciated.

    Porn is just a bunch of ink dots on paper, or flickering pixels on a computer screen. With all the advantages a woman has over porn, why would a man, especially a husband, use porn? Is there something wrong or lacking in women these days?

    Let the shrieking and bellowing of Christian women and their white knights begin!

    I don’t want to make this comment too long, but if any other reader is curious, I can add an additional comment as to why I do not think porn is a problem for Christian (and other) husbands. It is a sin, but really masks and anesthetizes much more serious sin.

  106. Gunner Q says:

    “This does raise the interesting question of how much MGTOWs (in general and in specific) are doing to be prepared when the modern system collapses under its own weight. How much of their actions is impacted by the modern system?”

    There isn’t much to be done when you don’t have kids to protect. I’m prepared for a crisis or disaster (earthquakes particularly) but honestly don’t care if I survive the apocalypse. I doubt living in the New World Order will be worth a heroic effort.

    RICanuck @ 8:06 pm:
    “Anyhow, the article devolved into another templated porn lecture. What is wrong with young men that they prefer porn to marriage?”

    Do churches still worry about porn? My experience is that they went silent when young men started asking for sexual alternatives. “Porn is evil!” “Can I date your daughter before you send her to college?” “Porn is… unfortunate!”

    They aren’t even fans of sex INSIDE marriage anymore.

  107. Dale says:

    @Hank:

    Eastern Europe: I first went to Ukraine, to see for myself if the marketing hype from the various “foreign bride” service companies had any truth to it. Although many/most of those companies are in fact primarily interested in your money rather than helping you, they can be successful because the claim that many women there are vastly superior to western women is in fact true.

    Learning Russia is fine, but it will probably be a long time before you are proficient enough to not need a translator. So learn 3 to 5 hundred words, and consider that good enough to make a good impression, and to be able to navigate (find the bus, buy food, etc.). Translators are $15 an hour, so not a big deal.
    I would advise you to focus on getting debt free so that you can afford to take 3 months to go there. Slavery to money/debt is SO bad for us.
    You cannot expect to start a decent relationship in a couple weeks, so having at least 6 weeks there would be good. Especially since the first woman you pick to pursue may not be appropriate/serious anyway.

    When I was there, women actually made an effort, or gave openings, to spend time with me. And these were women upon whom I had spent very little money, not even dinner, so there was not an immediate gold-digger motivation. For example, one woman went for a walk with me through her city. The only monetary benefit she received was the rose I gave her. And she wanted to get together again.
    Another met me, and I paid only for a few flowers, a salad, water bottle, and a couple games of ping-pong. After that, she really wanted to get together again.

    If you are really interested, just go. Trying to find/communicate with a woman before you get there is just a way to line the pockets of unethical companies. As a guy who will get no financial benefit from you regardless, I can tell you: Many women there ARE in fact vastly superior. It is not just marketing hype.
    I am thinking of going next spring, so if you want company/help, maybe we can arrange to go at the same time. Most companies that offer to help are massively overcharging, or are outright frauds.

    One problem you will have that you do not have in North America is that the women are very feminine/beautiful, so this will be very distracting for you unless you firmly hold to your reason/mind. (At least, it was a problem for me.)
    Have a short list of what is important to you, and then you can run through the list and pass on the women that, while strongly emotionally/sexually appealing, are not appropriate for marriage with you. E.g., I want:
    – woman not married to her career; if she’s not prepared to ditch school/career so she can invest her time in our children, I don’t want her. Similarly, she must have investing time in her marriage as a life priority.
    – she accepts that we will read the Bible together almost daily and obey it. (As opposed to churchians who say the right “Chrisitan” words, but do not live it out — read Matt 21:28-32. I am not too concerned about her past “religious” experience, just her obedience.)
    – 2 mandatory physical characteristics that are important to me. Tough beans to the feminists/churchians who claim that we are all equal and the outside should not matter
    – feminine in the areas of her appearance that she can control (clothes (deut 22:5), hair length (1 Cor 11), not fat (titus 2:3-5))
    – easy to talk with and pleasant. Able to have fun with me.
    – under 29, preferably about 25, give or take a few years. I want kids from my new wife, not menopause. Plus the “wife goggles” would be a benefit to the marriage.

    Oh, and living costs there are very low. A private apartment is about $33 US a day, less if you pay by the month. A week’s worth of groceries is maybe $26, if you plan to eat “high on the hog”. Six games of bowling, with shoe rentals, is about $5 US.

  108. feeriker says:

    They aren’t even fans of sex INSIDE marriage anymore.

    They aren’t fans of marriage AT ALL anymore.

    Yet another example of the church’s complete capitulation to the culture.

  109. feeriker says:

    One problem you will have that you do not have in North America is that the women are very feminine/beautiful, so this will be very distracting for you unless you firmly hold to your reason/mind. (At least, it was a problem for me.)

    WOW. That sounds like it would be worth a documentary film all by itself. Tragic, isn’t it, that femininity is so rare in North America among young “women” that when encountered as an all-pervasive attribute elsewhere, it causes mesmerization and distraction?

  110. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Human relations are in God’s hands as far as I can see and rules that apply in one case change for another. No two people are alike. Still as far as the general nature of that comment about the Ukraine and Russia I have to agree. The women are far, far, superior to anything one can find in the USA in character and looks. Just avoid those dating sites at all cost. Learn Russian and go there. Period.

  111. They Call Me Tom says:

    I was ready to marry in my early twenties, most of the girls at the time just wanted to roll in the hay.

    So it isn’t when you feel old, it’s when the man feels like marrying, and he finds a woman who feels like marrying. Now, if women are waiting until after the wall (to feel they’re too old for the single scene… nice projection by the hamster) they should realize they’ve missed the train, and go out and proselytize to the women who are still young enough to catch the train.

    I’ve kind of marveled myself, at how high a premium femininity is these days. Seeing a woman in a spring dress gets my attention, even if there’s a plain woman underneath. Long hair gets my attention even if it comes with a plain face. So many girls think butch is fashionable, or perhaps they’re just that paranoid of male heterosexuality (that’s what my sister blames the rise of girly men being seen as heartthrobs)… either way, things like perfume, skirts, beautiful hair, that wouldn’t have stood out thirty years ago, certainly do now.

  112. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    It is usually quite productive to proactively attack a mangina as a creepy predator in disguise. Hugo Schwyzer proved this, and David Futrelle’s pedo inclinations have been well-documented by Judgybitch.

    Jesus H Christ! I went to the link and even my hardened and cynical shell was cracked by the outright lunacy of that degenerate.

    Little warning to all you stalwart followers of Christ here… Don’t bother trying to deconstruct Futrelle. Take Anon’s word that he’s worse than you could possibly imagine.

    Being a ‘male feminist’ is quite an effective cover for a predator, actually. Calling them out proactively is worthwhile.

    To be totally fair, I don’t think most of the men who halfheartedly self-describe as “male feminist” are in any way sincere enough to be degenerates. In this day and age, most college graduates of both sexes would probably define themselves with the word. Most of them don’t really identify feminism with anything concrete, and most of them aren’t rabid bluehairs.

    Hell, even I can’t define the term, with all the varied ways it’s used. That’s part of the charm of it, really. The degenerates get to hide behind it, and when their ideology is pointed out, others will chime in and say “well that’s not really feminism, feminism is…”

    Noam Chomsky wrote books on this sort of slippery jiggery-pokery. There are lots of meaningless words used these days, and that is only one of them.

    Best,

    Boxer

  113. Boxer says:

    Hey Billy:

    I have been thinking a bit and I want to start gathering some ideas on how a man can find a proper wife. Not easy, but no real guidance exists on that and most here would claim it is more like playing roulette to win a fortune at a casino rather than learning how to count cards in poker. (Yeah, it will get you kicked out, just as practicing red-pill truths will get you kicked out of some places, but it is a way to win.)

    There is a really good précis here on this blog:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/interviewing-a-perspective-wife-part-i-should-you-open-a-position/

    That said, I don’t want to discourage you from your idea of expanding on these truths. Far too little has been written about this.

    Incidentally, I have been following your ongoing exchanges, and I’m with you (in what is certainly the minority position on this blog) in some respects. Men do want to marry, even in this decadent society which has been hopelessly rigged against them. I think we (even those of us who don’t want to marry) have a positive duty to support these men in what ways we can. They’re the men who keep civilization afloat. Without them, we’d all be in grass huts.

    Best,

    Boxer

  114. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    I don’t think most of the men who halfheartedly self-describe as “male feminist”

    Not the half-hearted ones, but the committed manginas. The ones who write lengthy articles on topics even before the females do. Many are in fact predators and pedos. There are a few examples of this, beyond the couple I have provided.

    It is the perfect cover, really. Claim to be a ‘male feminist’ while plotting their predatory designs…

  115. patchasaurus says:

    Dude, or shall I say Sir Dude, how do you pull it off? This is Pulitzer Prize shit you write, brother.
    Thanks once again for the lucid perspective, Dalrock. You illuminate 10,000 brethren, soon to be ten-fold. Keep it up. How can I contribute for you to devote your professional life to this great cause?

  116. patchasaurus says:

    The movement starts here, not with heartiste, bless him,nor with bitterness and animosity, but with logic and reason and the voices of us.

  117. Höllenhund says:

    Our country has created a modern economic situation in which these men can’t “man up” and provide for these women even if they wanted to. “Desire” has got nothing to do with it.

    The issue at hand is that men haven’t “manned up” in the way feminists expected them to. When feminists said “the patriarchy is bad for men too”, “men need to be liberated from arbitrary, limiting sexist norms” etc., what they actually meant was that men should happily, voluntarily fulfill the social roles women have partially abandoned, like housework, childrearing etc. This hasn’t happened.

  118. Höllenhund says:

    While we put “forth as close to minimal effort as possible” here, India, China, and most other countries out there will zoom past us, and take the first prize as the most innovative countries on the planet.

    Seriously dude? The Chinese can’t innovate in the first place. They lack the social structure and cultural environment that makes it possible. They have a real estate bubble of unparallelled size on their hands, chemical pollution on a scale unimaginable to the average Westerner, and demographic implosion that is almost uniquely speedy. Plus they’re getting infested by feminism and consumerism. Not exatly a winning combination.

    As far as India is concerned, I could sort of picture it being innovative and productive if it were some hard-ass patriarchy with a robust national culture, and it weren’t a gigantic basket case of mass poverty in the first place. But it’s heading in the opposite direction, adopting feminist laws.

  119. Höllenhund says:

    Believe it or not, some people will claim with a straight face that Tinder is a dating app, and that therefore propositions like that are disrespectful and inappropriate. Again, as we all know, it all depends on who it is who is acting that way and how attractive he is.

    Two words: plausible deniability.

  120. ray says:

    ‘“Shannon Dingle” offers yet more proof of why the Nineteenth Amendment needs to be repealed ASAP.’

    Yep, they named dingleberries after her. Now you know why.

  121. Pingback: Part Of The Machine

  122. Lost Patrol says:

    @They Call Me Tom:
    “I’ve kind of marveled myself, at how high a premium femininity is these days. Seeing a woman in a spring dress gets my attention, even if there’s a plain woman underneath. Long hair gets my attention even if it comes with a plain face.”

    It’s true. I award substantial bonus points if they’re even making these attempts. A friend of mine who apparently was a kind of prophet, told me 20 years ago this was coming. Plain girls would be able to advance themselves decidedly by simply trying to project some femininity.

  123. iamadamalan says:

    @Dalrock

    God’s opinion for how to maintain a moral, functioning society as expressed in the OT was that adulterous women should be killed and non-virgins women who attempt to marry stoned on the fathers doorstep. Or is that beyond the pale and archaically irrelevant as well?

    Our society has given the power of life and death over husbands and children to women. And although its application is not as straightforward, they may do it for much less reason that the OT laid out. And unlike giving Paterfamilia men, its a power they are unable responsibly hold.

  124. Dale says:

    @They Call Me Tom and Lost Patrol
    >It’s true. I award substantial bonus points if they’re even making these attempts.

    +1. And it’s not just a mental choice to give credit; my emotions also respond strongly. The woman I chose to pursue in Ukraine did not have a “professional model” type of face. And I did not care. She was young and feminine; that was more than enough.
    Women could be so appealing to men, if they would just choose to live out what Scripture says to them.
    The fact I would rather budget $4000 to fly to Ukraine, than attempt to find a woman here in my back yard, should reveal that there is something seriously wrong. The feminists would of course say that the problem is with me🙂

  125. Dale says:

    @iamadamalan
    >Or is that beyond the pale and archaically irrelevant as well?

    Unfortunately, many “Christians” would answer yes. They feel the OT is obsolete, as if God is somehow more enlightened now, and able to see the “stupid mistakes” he made when telling us how to conduct our nations/families. Despite Mal 3:6 and Heb 13:8 which say that God does not change.
    Yes, God fulfilled the sacrifice requirement, so those are no longer needed, per Hebrews. And if the NT specifically rescinds an OT command (e.g. special days like Sabbaths, etc. in Rom 14), then fine.
    In the absence of a clear statement rescinding God’s prior commands, who am I to decide that I know better than God how to run my marriage? We have a grand capacity for arrogance.

  126. feeriker says:

    The fact I would rather budget $4000 to fly to Ukraine, than attempt to find a woman here in my back yard, should reveal that there is something seriously wrong. The feminists would of course say that the problem is with me:)

    Let the shaming of the “mail order bride hunter” begin (something that feminists, tradcucks, and manospherians all unite in).

  127. Gunner Q says:

    iamadamalan August 6, 2016 at 10:55 am:
    “God’s opinion for how to maintain a moral, functioning society as expressed in the OT was that adulterous women should be killed and non-virgins women who attempt to marry stoned on the fathers doorstep. Or is that beyond the pale and archaically irrelevant as well?”

    It was for Christ in John 8.

  128. Lost Patrol says:

    @Dale: “The feminists would of course say that the problem is with me:)”

    That’s putting it mildly. The fact that you are prepared to operate outside the narrative makes you every kind of ‘ist’ they can come up with. The labels will be applied with extreme vitriol, making it all the more clear you have hit a nerve.

    @feeriker: “Let the shaming of the “mail order bride hunter” begin (something that feminists, tradcucks, and manospherians all unite in).”

    I have several friends whose mothers or grandmothers were “war brides”. They were found overseas by occupation troops (their fathers and grandfathers) after the war and for many years afterwards. A small sampling in the grand scheme, but these examples worked out very well for all parties involved. No divorces after decades. None. The progeny report happy homes.

    We’re in a hellacious war of another flavor right now. Dalrock presents the evidence regularly. I don’t see why “war brides” wouldn’t be part of it.

  129. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    “Anyhow, the article devolved into another templated porn lecture.

    Society shames men for porn — while simultaneously celebrating women who engage in porn, either as sex workers or as consumers.

    Women who watch or read porn are Body Positive and Sex Positive and have a Strong Self Image and Refuse to be Defined by Men and have thus Reclaimed the Word Slut and engage in Slut Walks and Slut Pride.

    See all the media celebration over Fifty Shades of Gray.

    We live in a bizarro world with no clear, consistent rules. Women embrace the term Slut while also demand to be regarded as Ladies. Women demand to walk bare-breasted in public (because men can), yet if men look at their breasts, the men should be branded sex criminals for life.

  130. Novaseeker says:

    One problem you will have that you do not have in North America is that the women are very feminine/beautiful, so this will be very distracting for you unless you firmly hold to your reason/mind.

    This is very true. I remember the first time I was in Moscow many years ago and it was quite striking how different the women were. Western women would say “pfft, you just can’t handle a strong woman”, but the reality is that the women there are not weak or pushovers, they’re just feminine. Feminism in the West didn’t make women stronger, it just demonized femininity as weakness, and resulted in a wide and deep masculinization of women in the West. That didn’t happen in Eastern Europe.

  131. Novaseeker says:

    Unfortunately, many “Christians” would answer yes. They feel the OT is obsolete, as if God is somehow more enlightened now,

    Lol, many think that the NT is also obsolete, as in much of what Paul clearly says about men and women and marriage. Some try to pretzel modernity into Paul (the conservatives are prone to this, as Dalrock has detailed at length in numerous posts), whereas the more honest modernists simply think Paul is anachronistic and obsolete. In effect, the result is the same, but the conservatives are less honest about what they are doing (even less honest with themselves about it).

  132. Höllenhund says:

    Feminism in the West didn’t make women stronger, it just demonized femininity as weakness, and resulted in a wide and deep masculinization of women in the West. That didn’t happen in Eastern Europe.

    It depends on how you define “Eastern Europe”. If you define it geographically, you’re probably right. If you define it as “the former Soviet bloc”, I’ll have to disagree. There has been a rapid Westernization of pop culture and social norms in Poland, Hungary, former Czechoslovakia and the former GDR.

  133. Hank Flanders says:

    Dale,

    Thanks for the detailed response. Of course, now, I have other questions based on the info you gave.

    First, how did you meet those women you mentioned? A few months ago, I signed up with a dummy account on some Russian dating site and was inundated with messages from profiles showing photos of gorgeous women who were all model quality hot and in the same types of poses and outfits, whereas I didn’t even have so much as a picture or description on my dummy account profile. Also, the site wanted charge high amounts of money just to send emails, so obviously, my initial exposure to Eastern European / Russian dating sites caused me to believe it was all just a big hoax, as that first site clearly was.

    However, I later looked into the Eastern Europe idea again and read some articles and forums and have found some cheaper and more believable dating sites. For that matter, I have a vk.com I haven’t actually used yet, but at least it’s free, so I’m not losing anything by having it. From what I’m understanding, though, you didn’t use any sites to contact the women before heading there? How did you get them to spend time with you, then when you got there?

    Also, how do women there feel about dating and possibly marrying an older man? I’m in my mid-30s and will likely be in my late 30s before I’ll be financially able to go there. And thanks so much for the offer to travel together, but realistically, I don’t see being in a financially being able to go for a while, but if that changes, I might be getting back in touch with you. If you want, send me an email, so I’ll have a way to contact you in the future – hankflanders25@mail.com.

    Finally, are there any Protestant women there? It seems that they’re primarily Orthodox, and I don’t know much about that sect of Christianity.

  134. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Everyone’s talking about Eastern European women. Okay, but I also hear good things about Latin American and Asian women. I hear there are still some devout Catholic girls in Latin America and the Phillipines.

  135. Novaseeker says:

    It depends on how you define “Eastern Europe”.

    That’s true — I mean more former Soviet Union.

  136. Avraham rosenblum says:

    My impression of Ukrainian women is pretty high but only in their own environment. Not as mail order brides. I don’t have any advice in this regard though. It seems the best thing is just to pick up and go there and see how things go. Not guaranteeing anything, but still they are a million times better than American women. But you have to be on the ground there and not just a fast visit. And don’t to young either. And it is best to have some working knowledge of Russian and or Ukrainian.In any case it is an investment of time and effort but light years better than any american woman.

  137. Dave says:

    Also, how do women there feel about dating and possibly marrying an older man? I’m in my mid-30s and will likely be in my late 30s before I’ll be financially able to go there.

    You’re not that old, dude. It’s only in America that you must be within 5 years of the woman you date or marry. For most other countries, it is not an issue at all.

  138. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    It’s only in America that you must be within 5 years of the woman you date or marry. For most other countries, it is not an issue at all.

    That “5 year rule” is no longer true in America. Troll Craigslist. You’ll find that most women — even the landwhales — seek men who are 10 to 15 years younger, but only 2 to 3 years older, than they are.

    The media has convinced American landwhales that every female is a cougar. So they frivorce their “boring” husbands, and seek hot young cubs to “treat me like the queen that I am.”

  139. Dale says:

    @Gunner Q
    >It was for Christ in John 8.

    Not quite. This is the entire passage.

    53 Then they all went home,
    8:1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

    2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

    But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

    9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

    11 “No one, sir,” she said.

    “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

    a) For the passage in John 7:53 to 8:11, the notes say, “The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.”
    I suggest therefore that this passage be treated as the last half of Mark 16 — questionable. Personally, I would not preach from either. Which is not really a problem, since God tends to repeat important ideas, so there should be more than one passage if God is intending to throw out all civil laws from the OT.
    I have the same attitude toward preaching from the book of Enoch. It is referenced by books that are in the Bible. And many think it is valid/important. But God did not see fit to guide us to treat it as Scripture, so I do not see it as anything more than “interesting”.

    b) This was not a passage that shows Jesus preaching, teaching what attitudes or actions we should have. There are many “command-form” passages, like Matt 5:1-7:29, most/all of the NT epistles, much of the OT, etc. This passage instead shows an example, a case where Jesus is responding to a situation. He is responding to the Pharisees; he is not giving a sermon or teachings. And what was the example/situation?
    i) The religious people were trying to trap him, not genuinely get his teaching. “They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.”
    ii) The religious people were apparently (I think) trying to be deceitful, or at least only partly apply their own rules. They said, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery”, yet they brought only the woman. Where was the adulterous man? So they wanted to pass judgement on one person, and let the other go without judgement. This favourtism is completely contrary to what I think God wants, so if Jesus had agreed to this partial/favourtism form of judgement, it could be seen as contrary to God’s character. A few passages to support my claim:
    Leviticus 19:15 “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

    Deuteronomy 10:17
    For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

    Deuteronomy 16:19
    Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent.

    You will note that these 3 passages are in command form. In the John passage however, Jesus repeatedly tried to AVOID speaking, whether in command form or not; he did not want to answer.
    After their question was given: “But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.” — Jesus avoided answering the question. Did the religious leaders accept his refusal to go into their trap? No: “When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.”
    Even here, with this statement, did Jesus say to not fulfill the law? No, he just said to let the sinless start things off. Perhaps Jesus was trying to avoid the trap, rather than teaching that we should never give civil punishment.
    I understand that a person could say that since no one is sinless, Jesus was teaching there should never be capital punishment, or perhaps never any punishment at all. I will deal with that idea in “c” below.

    At the end, when God the Son is alone with her, he says that he does not condemn her, which could be taken to “teach” that Jesus is against civil punishment. The command to “Go now and leave your life of sin.” does not appear to allow her to continue in her sin without any punishment or change. She is at least to stop doing what God the Father commanded we not do.

    c) The idea that God changed his mind, and is now against capital punishment seems contradicted by the example (this is not stated as a command for us to follow however) of God the Spirit from Acts 5:
    7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

    “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

    9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

    10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

    So God was still willing to execute us for our sin, at least in that one situation.

    I understand that a person may think that my argument in “b” above shows I am trying to find an excuse to ignore Scripture. I look carefully at a passage, and identify it as one of the following:
    a) Command from God. (Some of these are repeated through prophets or given through apostles in the Epistles.)
    b) Command from a man who is not repeating a prophecy/command from God. For example, when Paul ordered John Mark to not accompany them on the second missionary journey. There is no indication that God ordered Paul to not permit Mark to serve.
    c) An example of God’s actions in a particular case. Sometimes these examples are given through a prophet, such as Ezekiel who was commanded by God to act a certain way, such as not grieving the death of his wife as an example to the people.
    d) An example of a man.

    Do I “obey” something, just because it is found in Scripture? No. For example, David committed adultery with Bathsheba. This is valid Scripture; it is a truthful account of what a man did. That would be “d” from above, not “a”. I do not see examples of men as commands from God.

    Even cases that fall into “b” should, I think, have limited application. The fact that God did something for one group of people does not compel God to do it for everyone else. I use “b” passages to learn about the character of God. In at least one situation, God was willing to do or allow something. This does not show that “something” will always be his choice, but what can I learn about what God is willing to allow?
    In the case with David, God allowed David to live, in spite of his adultery. This shows me God can chose to show mercy. It is not teaching that we should never execute an adulterer — God does not state “Thou must always let the adulterer live”; this is instead what God did choose to do in this one example.

    The above may look like a weasel-like attempt to justify ignoring Scripture. The ability to clearly articulate/write out the hermeneutic, and the willingness to consistently apply it, despite an uncomfortable result, should show something different however.

  140. Novaseeker says:

    Troll Craigslist. You’ll find that most women — even the landwhales — seek men who are 10 to 15 years younger, but only 2 to 3 years older, than they are.

    Yep. Also offline. I know quite a few single women in their 50s and even early 60s who won’t date any man who is not 10-15 years younger. “I’m young inside, and I don’t want to be with an old guy who will just slow me down” type of attitude. Mind you, these aren’t landwhales, they are attractive for their age, but still — it’s becoming quite common. My ex-wife has several friends who are frivorced and in the early 50s who, when kids are now college age, are moving back into the city so that they can cougar. It’s a real trend.

  141. redlight says:

    ” My ex-wife has several friends who are frivorced and in the early 50s who, when kids are now college age, are moving back into the city so that they can cougar. It’s a real trend.”

    my wife’s best friend is like this. She frivorced a business exec (“not enough passion”), she now dates a younger guy who lives in a basement, has never had a regular job, and doesn’t exercise. She is over drinking herself to happiness.

  142. redlight says:

    on the dating sites she did not say she was looking for younger guys, she just took a decade off her age

  143. Dale says:

    @Hank Flanders et al re Ukraine

    Our host may not want this thread to go into a discussion on how to pursue a good wife overseas, so if anyone has a suggestion for a better place to discuss this, please speak up.
    In the absence of a rebuke from Dalrock however, I’ll give some answers.

    Warning: Long-winded post ahead…

    As you discovered, some sites are outright frauds. Best way to avoid scams is: Do not spend money. A wife-wanna-be wants to know you have money to support a family; she is not wanting you to pay for her time now. That is prostitution.
    The only exception I would make for the above rule is if a profile site allows you to purchase her contact info, or send contact info in the first/second letter. For example, there is a religious profile site at http://adam-i-eva.com. They focus on finding someone of similar faith. The only money you can spend is to buy the ability to send her the first communication. In that first communication, you should include your e-mail address, and she either responds directly to you, or not at all. Thus, the company is not in the middle, and has no ability to keep charging you for “services”. They even suggest you find a free translation service instead of paying.

    Other profile sites make you pay for letters, but flat-out state that they will allow contact info to pass immediately, or after the first letter. For example, the site below states “So we never cut out any information from your letters.” So again, you can get them out of the middle. You may still wish to use their professional translation services, but they are not trying to force it. I used http://woman-for-marriage-ukraine.com/ when I was in Kiev in 2010, and (at that time) I thought they were ethical/honest. They also charge only $3 for a letter, not $10 or more.

    For paying for professional translation of letters: Do it if you want, but it is not necessary. Use a site such as http://imtranslator.net/compare/english/to-russian/translation/
    It gives 3 translations, for comparison. Enable the “back translation” option so you can see if your idea successfully survived the translation round-trip. (For example, avoid “ing” verb forms, such as “swimming”. Instead write, “I want to swim.” For some reason, “ing” verb forms get messed up in translation.) You’ll figure it out.

    However, I would say the entire “pre-communication” before you go is really not necessary. Plus a waste of time. Just go there and met people in person. I, at least, can’t make a relationship through phone calls or letters, even when there is no language barrier, so why waste my time and her time in the attempt? I do not understand how people in the Old West successfully chose wives through letters. Maybe they assumed that the woman would have a certain minimum level of character, simply because all women did, and they were accepting her “on faith”. That attitude assumes that all women in the group were moral however, and I doubt that has ever been true for any (large) group in history, male or female.
    Another reason to skip any “pre-communication” is that as soon as money gets involved, there is the potential for companies to want your business for the money, rather than because they actually want to help you. So just avoid it. Except maybe the “buy contact info” idea given above.

    Romance tours: These are, mostly, exorbitantly priced. I have been to Ukraine. I tallied up the hard-costs that the tour would cost per client, excluding their office staff and the cost of the large mixer/speed-dating event. I came up with about $1500, including hotel and full-time, dedicated translator for a week. I do not know what it costs, per client, to run the mixer event. But the companies charge $3,500 to 5,000 for the tour, so I am having trouble seeing how they are charging fairly for that mixer event and their office staff. And if you really want a large mixer event, AFA apparently sells access to these for $250; I have never been to one, so I cannot give a recommendation, although they appear noisy and unorganized so they likely would not be great for me. (And, it is my OPINION that the letter portion of AFA is a fraud. I tried about 3 times to send my contact info to a woman before I went to Kiev, and they refused to allow it to go through. So I was not able to meet her. Assholes.)
    I once found a site from a guy who had married a woman in Kiev, and he started a company that charged about $1,200 to help you with a one-week thing. That seems far more reasonable. (No, I do not remember the site URL.)

    How do you meet someone and get them to spend time with you? Find a local marriage agency, find 10 possibles in their profiles, and then pay their “date” fee to meet a woman. $50 to 70 per initial meeting, but this will include translation for maybe 30 minutes or something. You ask the woman for her contact info at that first meeting (if you want it).
    So if you meet 10 women, whom you slightly pre-screened via their profile, it only costs 500-700 US$. Keeping in mind that a tour costs $3500 should help you accept this cost. And the marriage agency is providing a service, so a modest fee is reasonable.
    Find your own translator; do not stick with the translator that came from the marriage agency company. Do an internet search, or call ahead and put an ad in the local newspaper or something. If you go to Nikolaev or Kiev, I can give you contact info.
    So you had a short first date with a woman. You both seem interested and you did not see any big red flags. She may even have suggested that you meet again. Using your own translator (see above), you (through your translator) call the woman and ask her to meet you a second time. If the woman only wants to meet again if you use the company’s translator again, you know that there is some kind of kick-back thing going on, either with the translator, or with the company. Drop that woman, and depending on what happened, maybe the company too.
    If the woman only wants to meet if you go to a certain restaurant, there is some kind of kick-back thing going on.
    In my limited experience, the (genuine) women generally avoided suggesting a dinner date, or if you went to a restaurant with them, they would refuse to order anything. They know that some women want to see you only to get free stuff from you, and they want to make it clear to you that they are there for the relationship, not for free stuff. I actually felt bad, because I would schedule a dinner date, expecting to eat, and she (claims she) does not want anything — I would have to push just to get her to accept a salad or something.

    Age: I was told last year that I look 29, so I may not be the best example. I included my age in my initial “about me” info I gave to a woman, so they knew what they would be getting. And I had no problem getting dates. Certainly it is possible that some refused because of my age, but other young women were still interested. I was late 30s in 2010 in Kiev, and early 40s in 2014 in Nikolaev, and I had no problem getting dates with women in their mid 20s. And some younger. In 2014, the woman who most wanted to pursue things with me was 24.

    Religion: Per my prior post and Matt 21, I care about a woman’s actions and her willingness to accept that we will read and live in obedience to Scripture. I made sure that women knew serving God is a priority in my life. I was careful to say I am not in church every day, but 1-2 times a week. They want to know what their life with you will be like. But I also said that almost every day I work on memorizing Scripture. They knew we would be living as the Bible says. Most of them will not be what I would consider a saved Christian, although they do believe in God and at least say they believe in the Bible, although they probably do not currently read it.
    However, I think a woman who says she is a Christian, but lives in open disobedience to God, even during Sunday service, is also not a saved Christian. Thus, 99% of north american “church” women do not qualify. Thus, what the hell is the difference? If you can find one who LIVES OUT obedience to God, is interested in marriage while still young, and actually willing to consider you, great. God bless you both!
    If the current-non-believer agrees that living as the Bible says is best, and she lives that out, I think she is better than the “20 year Christian woman from church” who does not live it out. So ask about reading and living as the Bible says, see how she lives and answers questions, and judge her actions, not her claims. Read Matt 21:28-32 and John 14:21-24.
    After reading those two passages, also consider if she is wiling to follow your lead. A prior non-believer who wants the man to lead, is, in my mind, a great possibility. I will lead as the Bible says, and she will follow me, so we are in a great situation.
    Funny example for you. My translator in Nikolaev was not a Christian. She was not rude in any way, but I knew that she did not consider God important. She occasionally went to church, as her husband’s family wanted this. (Her husband appeared to not care.) When she went, she would always wear women’s clothing. To do otherwise would be disrespectful. So here is this non-believer who is careful to obey God’s commands, at least while in the church building (deut 22:5). And in church with “Christian women” in my city, we see short hair, pants, and obesity. Hmmmmmmmm…….
    Can you find protestants? Yes, but not in the general population, same as here. You may wish to find a charity from your church / denomination that works with a church in Ukraine. They can recommend one. When in Kiev and Nikolaev, I did an internet search for a protestant church and found them; try “Baptist” as well as “Protestant”. But I found that after the church service, the women there were not interested in talking with me. They wanted to chat with their friends or go home. Same as here.
    Yes, I would prefer the woman with 20 years of proven experience of (mostly) living in obedience to the Scriptures, and I know that I will not get that in Ukraine. But I am a man, and I need to base my decisions on reality, not fantasies, and I do not have a realistic chance of getting that ideal anywhere. (Cue Dave to tell me I lack faith.) Therefore, deal with what is actually available to you, or give up and chose to take nothing. Both are valid options. I’ll let you make the choice for yourself.

  144. Novaseeker says:

    Can you find protestants? Yes, but not in the general population, same as here. You may wish to find a charity from your church / denomination that works with a church in Ukraine. They can recommend one. When in Kiev and Nikolaev, I did an internet search for a protestant church and found them; try “Baptist” as well as “Protestant”. But I found that after the church service, the women there were not interested in talking with me. They wanted to chat with their friends or go home. Same as here.

    I’d think guys would do pretty well with women who take Orthodoxy seriously. Now, they may want you to become Orthodox, of course.

  145. feeriker says:

    Everyone’s talking about Eastern European women. Okay, but I also hear good things about Latin American and Asian women.

    I can’t speak for Asia, but I can confirm for Latin America, specifically devoutly Christian women (in this case evangelical). Most assuredly feminine, affectionate, and non-rebellious, IME.

    I would strongly recommend becoming fluent in Spanish (or Portuguese, if Brazil is your target), as English is not as widely spoken in Cental and South America as one might assume. That, however, is really quite a minor impediment. Other than that, if one is looking for serious Christian women for a committed relationship, it is a very fertile “hunting ground.”

  146. Dale says:

    @NovaSeeker
    >I’d think guys would do pretty well with women who take Orthodoxy seriously.

    Sorry, yes I should have said that. There may be some friction if the Synod is teaching something that is contrary to your (honest) interpretation of Scripture. But having a woman firmly committed to obedience to the Bible, due to her Orthodox background, sounds like a great situation. Plus if her family is strong Orthodox, they also will hopefully push her to stay in the marriage and be an obedient wife.

  147. BillyS says:

    I had forgotten about that link Boxer. Thanks for the reminder.

    It is a horrid situation but this may be something worth devoting significant effort to.

    ====

    Dale,

    And these were women upon whom I had spent very little money, not even dinner, so there was not an immediate gold-digger motivation.

    Not necessarily true. They had a good expectation you weren’t there sightseeing. Getting a ticket out may have been worth all kinds of current activity.

    Anyone who claims women magically become trustworthy in any society needs to think things through a bit more.

    They could still be gold diggers in the long run, just not in the short run.

  148. – Beta Revolt – Sounds like the title of a new blog site.

    There are various cybernazi songs about “beat uprising” which can be found on youtube.

  149. Hank Flanders says:

    Red Pill Latecomer

    Everyone’s talking about Eastern European women. Okay, but I also hear good things about Latin American and Asian women. I hear there are still some devout Catholic girls in Latin America and the Phillipines.

    I’m open to a lot of possibilities, and I’ve actually been studying Spanish mucho mas than Russian, simply because Spanish is so much easier. However, I like the sound of Russian words and find slavic cultures interesting in general, so I’ve been learning the Cyrllic alphabet and a few basic Russian words just for the heck of it.

  150. Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    I am already seeing American women who look somewhat large by European standards already looking for beta suckers advertising on Craigslist. They are worried about Donald Trump. I flag these asap. We don’t need them in Canada as we already have too many libs here. They would be more suited to life in any of the Scandinavian countries(apologies to our Christians in Northern Europe) or North Korea.

  151. KP says:

    how much MGTOWs (in general and in specific) are doing to be prepared when the modern system collapses under its own weight.

    For the great majority who live in an urban center, this depends almost entirely on what you mean by “collapse”. If it’s total… then everybody in the urban core and periphery are hosed. Think about it–all your food, all your water, all your heat in winter, come to you via a complicated and near-just-in-time infrastructure supported by by the burning of oil, natgas, coal, (and in my neck of the woods at least, hydro.) When that goes away, we get quick, brutal death.

  152. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    I know quite a few single women in their 50s and even early 60s who won’t date any man who is not 10-15 years younger.

    They can’t possibly be succeeding at this in any large numbers.

    They either a) are pumped and dumped by these younger men, or b) get the most pathetic of manginas who actually buy into the narrative, which will make those women angrier than any other outcome.

    But a ‘successful’ cougar outcome? Entirely unattainable for 98% of women that age.

  153. Anon says:

    Western women would say “pfft, you just can’t handle a strong woman”,

    Heh. The Western Women is the perfect example solipism, as in, the display of a persona that MEN can use to succeed with women.

    Jerkboy charm
    Amused teasing
    Tattoos

    The fact that Western Women aim for all three (and become horrendously unattractive through it) is obvious evidence of what personality traits in MEN are attractive to women.

  154. MarcusD says:

    Question for men-would you leave your wife if she lost her looks?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1020424

  155. Novaseeker says:

    They either a) are pumped and dumped by these younger men, or b) get the most pathetic of manginas who actually buy into the narrative, which will make those women angrier than any other outcome.

    But a ‘successful’ cougar outcome? Entirely unattainable for 98% of women that age.

    Yeah, the ones I am talking about are completely disinterested in marrying again. They want a fun young lover/”fuckboy” who makes them feel younger than they really are. They aren’t looking for a long term boyfriend or husband. I’m sure a lot of them become de facto plates, but they seem ok with that. Makes them feel “young and alive again” and all of that.

    Keep in mind, I’m talking about *attractive* women here. The unattractive ones intuit that they can’t pull even that off, and so they don’t bother trying. These are the attractive ones — good divorce settlements, personal trainers, plastic surgery, bodies that are therefore in the top 5% of their age range, so not common. These types are becoming cougars en masse today.

  156. Opus says:

    There were always older women sleeping with younger men. The next time you go to the opera – specifically La Traviata, and your wife or girlfriend waxes lyrical about how romantic it all is, better not to remind her that Violetta is, erm… somewhat older – like about two decades – than Alfredo (as it is being sung in Italian she won’t have a clue what is supposed to be going on); but he loves her and it looks as if marriage might be on the cards, that is, until his father has a serious word with her knowing full well that talking to his son will only make matters worse – ‘ ‘the day will come when making love no longer appeals to you and what is worse you are nothing but a cheap tart with a fancy line in frocks’ he sings to her, though obviously not in English. Happily, this being opera, and after the fat lady has done far too much singing, she dies of consumption.

    Have you noticed that in 0pera it is always the women and not the men who die some highly unpleasant or improbable death.

  157. Höllenhund says:

    Everyone’s talking about Eastern European women. Okay, but I also hear good things about Latin American and Asian women.

    Don’t fall for BS. Women are just women everywhere. If Japanese women were so great, the local men’d all be rushing to fuck/marry them. But the opposite is happening. If Chinese women were so great, we wouldn’t hear of “leftover women”. But that problem is now actually so big that not even the local commie media can ignore it.

  158. ljess says:

    In the end, the saying “You can not turn a Ho into a Housewife” is proved valid over and over again in divorce court.

  159. Novaseeker says:

    There were always older women sleeping with younger men.

    Of course. The suburban mom who divorces, moves back into the city and cougars is, however, new.

  160. Boxer says:

    Of course. The suburban mom who divorces, moves back into the city and cougars is, however, new.

    How widespread is this trend supposed to be, and are you fellas contending it’s global? I honestly don’t see it in the areas I’m familiar with.

    I have noticed an increase in women talking about younger men (i.e. teenagers) being more aggressive in their pursuits, but I’ve chalked this up to feminine braggadocio.

  161. Boxer says:

    Dear Novaseeker:

    Yeah, the ones I am talking about are completely disinterested in marrying again. They want a fun young lover/”fuckboy” who makes them feel younger than they really are. They aren’t looking for a long term boyfriend or husband. I’m sure a lot of them become de facto plates, but they seem ok with that. Makes them feel “young and alive again” and all of that.

    We all believe them.
    https://kevinfitzmaurice.com/self-esteem/self-esteem-issues/sigmund-freud-the-12-defense-mechanisms/

    As an aside, my own personal hangup is people conflating the words disinterested and uninterested. Freud would probably have something to say about me too. lol

    Best,

    Boxer

  162. Höllenhund says:

    Of course. The suburban mom who divorces, moves back into the city and cougars is, however, new.

    How widespread is this trend supposed to be, and are you fellas contending it’s global? I honestly don’t see it in the areas I’m familiar with.

    Of course not. They aren’t going to be open about it to you.

  163. Boxer says:

    Of course not. They aren’t going to be open about it to you.

    A shadowy conspiracy exists, with all da single ladies hiding their underage flings from Brother Boxer, while they try and goad him into marriage (or at least medium-term commitment with free meals at middlebrow restaurants included).

    Possible, but I’m skeptical.

  164. Novaseeker says:

    How widespread is this trend supposed to be, and are you fellas contending it’s global?

    Nothing is truly global, of course. It’s a thing where I am, in the DC region. I’d think it’s a thing in other similar places (in terms of SES skew, which probably means the coastal blue metros).

  165. Boxer says:

    Nothing is truly global, of course. It’s a thing where I am, in the DC region. I’d think it’s a thing in other similar places (in terms of SES skew, which probably means the coastal blue metros).

    That makes sense. I slum around in places that are a few years behind you. (Seattle, Houston, New Orleans). Looking forward to seeing this trend erupt, actually. It’s sorta funny to think about.

  166. Opus says:

    I think this must be an American thing: suburbs to city I mean. You have many cities and much space therein. You really have to be in the super-rich league to move into central Londonistan – and there is no other city that anyone would want to admit living in. You live in Manchester, Birmingham or Liverpool (how sad and unfortunate for you) and so, would-be cougars must seek younger men closer to home and I do not doubt that some do. All I can say is that when I was of an age to be the object of Cougar’s interest I felt a mixture of disgust seasoned by lust at what for me could only be plate spinning – but perhaps the women were just not good looking enough.

  167. DeNihilist says:

    From DC to the west coast Nova. We have an club here, that is officially named “The Two Lions”.

    My sons’, their friends, well just about everyone calls it, “The Two Cougs”.

    About 40 years ago we had a similar establishment that all of young guys knew, that if we struck out at the disco, there was always Daddy Long Legs to finish the night at and a good chance of taking an older, more mature “lady” home.

    Where I am from, this has been happening for as long as I can remember.

  168. Looking Glass says:

    The Cougar stuff has always been a function of Power or Wealth for Women. (See ancient Rome if we’re really looking for some old examples.) So you can either look at it as late-stage decline or an oddity when Women don’t have to worry about the “beta bucks” side of the equation, so they’re wholly invested in their emotional response to being “attractive”.

    It’s really what the Cycle Down effect looks like in Women of “means”. Though they all have effective failed in their attempts to “trade up”, so the drugs & alcohol are used to assuage those emotions.

  169. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The Cougar stuff has always been a function of Power or Wealth for Women. … when Women don’t have to worry about the “beta bucks” side of the equation,…

    Some wannabe cougars are so delusional, they post CL ads seeking younger men “who will treat me like the queen that I am.” They want much younger, wealthy men, who’ll wine and dine these cougars, take them on international trips, etc.

    I don’t think these wannabe cougars understand that the older member of a couple is supposed to pay.

  170. Dave says:

    @RPL

    I don’t think these wannabe cougars understand that the older member of a couple is supposed to pay….

    You are assuming we live in a sane society. That ship sailed more than 40 years ago.

  171. RICanuck says:

    @ DeNihilist

    That is the article from First Things, I was trying to reference. My bad.

    I re-read the article. I searched for the words, ‘husband’, and ‘father’. Nothing found until I reached the comments.

    When I was a young boy, there were TV shows like, ‘Gunsmoke’, ‘Bonanza’, ‘Wagon Train’ etc. set in the Western frontier. They had positive role models of courage, manliness, responsibility, and perseverance. The commercials may have shown housewives to be shallow, but I do not remember husband bashing,

    Today’s young men have had nothing but TV shows, and commercials that show husbands and fathers as incompetent, and laughable buffoons. Let’s not get into the primary and secondary education systems’ war on boys. The young men of today seem to have no examples, no inspiring stories of how to be a man, how to be a husband, how to be a father.

    There are precious few sources of praise and respect for a young man who assumes the risks and responsibilities of marriage and fatherhood.

    Can any of the commenters on this string link to a Christian or secular article that offers praise and respect to husbands and fathers?

  172. Looking Glass says:

    @RICanuck:

    The title of the piece gives you everything you need to actually know. They assume that not serving Women’s interests makes a Man into a “boy”. Video game playing is a perfectly rational decision. The Cost Effectiveness alone will always win out.

    But the piece is nothing more than an instinctual “Man up and marry the bitches” piece.

  173. RICanuck says:

    @LookingGlass

    So you can’t find any thing that offers praise and respect to husbands and fathers either.

    I started a Disqus account to respond to Delphin’s comments on the First Things (Journal of Religion and Cuckservative Life), to challenge her with the same question, but comments are closed.

    I am glad I am in my 60’s. I wouldn’t want to be a young man today. My wife and I had 7 children. My wife cannot figure out why we have so few grandchildren.

  174. feeriker says:

    My wife cannot figure out why we have so few grandchildren

    Women of older generations (age 65-plus) seem fundamentally unable to process what’s going on in today’s SMP and MMP. My 82-year-old mother, while she sees the dysfunction and collapse all around her, simply cannot understand why tbe solutions that were commonplace in 1955 aren’t applied today. I really think it all comes down to an inabilty to accept, after, seven, eight, nine decades of life, that most of what you were taught to believe is either misinformation, advice of transitory benifit, or an outright lie. This weakness affects both sexes, but women seem, to me anyway, to be especially resistant to acknowledging realirñty on the ground as it is.

  175. feeriker says:

    “…reality on the ground…”

  176. Hank Flanders says:

    Thanks for the great information, Dale! I’ve bookmarked this entry, so I can reference it in the future. I’ll probably be coming back to it a lot. Thanks again!

  177. Looking Glass says:

    @RICanuck:

    Considering we’re talking about Mass Media, I can’t recall anything outright praising Fathers off the top of my head. Most attempts would get killed in the planning stage, as any Woman involved will toss in the “well, what about Mothers?” fitness test. And, if we went hair-splitting, the popular examples will be happy accidents.

  178. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    Another “lost boys” piece that might inspire a followup post.

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/08/americas-lost-boys

  179. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    Keep in mind, I’m talking about *attractive* women here.

    OK, good. Then by being slutty cougars at that age, they are successfully making it harder for women age 30-35 to marry or hold out for more than they deserve.

    If the 55 y/o cougars who are in the top 5% of their age bracket are doing this, the cost is being borne by the 35 y/o who is now demanding a highly qualified husband the same age as her.

  180. Anon says:

    Women of older generations (age 65-plus) seem fundamentally unable to process what’s going on in today’s SMP and MMP.

    This is more evidence about how much cultural conditioning it takes to turn the naturally feral female into a productive person who contributes more to society than she consumes. This takes a tremendous amount of cultural resources, in the form of religion, courtship guidelines, marriage norms, etc.

    This is also why the devolution of younger women will be extremely hard to undo. The narrative naturally assumes that women become more awesome once ‘patriarchy’ is lifted. Nothing could be further from the truth. Without tight control and massive cultural guidance, women quickly devolve into pre-civilizational behavior.

    It takes a lot less for a man to be productive than for a woman. That is why groups of women never independently accomplish anything of value.

  181. RichardP says:

    @BillyS: ” A young man who wants to keep civilization going can’t wait until some future point. I would expect you to say to not even try, but that is not what I am going to do.”

    Billy – you asked for some ideas on how a man might find a proper wife. I was merely suggesting that you might have better luck if you understood the need to make a proper wife. Not trying to discourage you from trying. Just trying to help you develop a realistic idea of what to expect. We can always figure out solutions more succesfully if we have more properly defined the problem. As in – to repeat – you are not likely to find a proper wife, except by chance. You are more likely to find someone and then make her into a proper wife. If you get that, it will change your perspective, and perhaps also change your criteria for who you are looking for. As is said so many other places, it all starts with you making yourself into someone she wants to respond to – spiritually, emotionally, physically. Or – a cliche from an earlier time: it’s less about finding the right person; it’s more about you being the right person. Good luck.

  182. greyghost says:

    RichardP
    That was perfect advice for getting pussy. There is no wife. A far better work around (as mentioned by Anon our civilization has removed wife by law,culture and church) would be to consider what a wife is for. See about getting it done with out her. If you do decide you need her be ready to serve her needs by law, culture and church. You are not getting a wife. You are getting a legal, and financial and now religious liability. She knows and is proud of it. .

  183. feeriker says:

    BillyS daid:

    ” A young man who wants to keep civilization going can’t wait until some future point.”

    A legitimate question to ask is how many young men have even given the question of “civilization” any thought at all, or, if they have, how many of them really give a shit about saving it. Most young men looking to marry are looking first of all to lock down a woman for permanent, steady access to sex (they’re in for a MAJOR disappointment) and perhaps secondarily for a helpmeet (gonna get let down there too) or to have kids (which both the wife and the State will waste no time in reminding him constantly are theirs, NOT his).

    I really doubt that the “big picture” of “preserving civilization” is even a factor in most young men’s decisions to marry, except to the extent that they hope to avoid the traps that the modern version of it has set for them just for being men.

  184. DeNihilist says:

    Ah Anon – “The narrative naturally assumes that women become more awesome once ‘patriarchy’ is lifted” – simples, no more fire or writing!

    http://www.weaselzippers.us/287910-feminist-declares-the-invention-of-the-alphabet-the-root-of-sexism-misogyny-and-patriarchy/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/science/fire-smoke-evolution-tuberculosis.html?_r=0

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

    Gunner Q [August 6, 2016 at 11:47 am] says …(to iamadamalan August 6, 2016 at 10:55 am): “It was for Christ in John 8.”<brDale [August 6, 2016 at 2:23 pm] replies to Gunner Q: […]

    I don’t know if this adds to or subtracts from (or is entirely irrelevant to) the points iamadamalan, Gunner Q & Dale are making in their exchange, there, but …

    In a sermon I heard about John 8, the homilist drew the congregation’s attention to the odd, understated fact of Christ scribbling in the dirt.

    “What was he scribbling?” he asked.

    He hypothesised that Christ was probably looking each of the assembled “lawyers” in the eye, and scribbling the name of the most recent serious sin of that man — the thing most haunting his conscience.

    “Theft”, and then the thief went away.

    “False witness”, and then the perjuror slunk away.

    Perhaps, finally, with the last of them still present, “adultery”.

    And that is why each of them left, one by one.

    An interesting bit of speculation, that. Thought it might interest you lot, anyway. :^)

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  186. Anon says:

    http://www.weaselzippers.us/287910-feminist-declares-the-invention-of-the-alphabet-the-root-of-sexism-misogyny-and-patriarchy/

    A couple of points :

    a) The ‘alphabet caused the patriarchy’ meme was created by a mangina. This is yet another example of a manginas leapfrogging even bluehaired fembeasts in new frontiers of ‘feminism’. This pattern is growing.
    b) But he is correct to some extent. A alphabet and literacy led to civilization, and civilization is precisely incompatible with the core aspects of female psychology. That is why women actively oppose and obstruct anything that moves civilization forward. So he does correctly identify civilization and female psychology as polar opposites.

    This is not the first time I have seen a mangina enthusiastically argue that 11,000 BC was a far better time than today, because the FI was more purely followed and women had more power. Manginas were excluded from reproduction then as well, but they don’t seem to know that.

  187. Spike says:

    Richard P:

    Your advice to Billy S “If you get that, it will change your perspective, and perhaps also change your criteria for who you are looking for. As is said so many other places, it all starts with you making yourself into someone she wants to respond to – spiritually, emotionally, physically”.

    I get what you’re saying, but it allows a path into dangerous territory.

    If Billy is a young man intent on marrying and having a family, then he should be developing the skills required: trade/ career/ work ethic / Christian / savings. That is what he brings to the table in a relationship.
    In the case of his intended spouse, it is HER responsibility to develop the skills of a wife: helpmeet, respectful of man’s effort, good with children (how many modern women are?), good at keeping house, good at home economics.
    It isn’t Billy’s – or any man’s- responsibility to develop these skills in a modern woman. She needs to develop them. If his intended has these, she is good wife material.
    If you read this list to the modern woman however, you will be spat at and treated with scorn (or worse, arrested for assault!). The modern Western women brings a large wardrobe, shoe, handbag and accessory collection to the marriage, as well as an expensive, difficult-to-fix-car. She has a well-stamped passport and can tell you what restaurants in town provide the best cuisine, if she doesn’t come with an eating disorder that makes her look down on you. I refer specifically to the various schools of vegetarianism / ovo-/lacto-/pesco-/vegan, “dark vegan”/ fruitarian. Billy will be doing his own cooking in his own pots and pans, because those “will be contaminated with meat”. Needless to say too, she comes with that greatest of assets, a pre-stretched vagina, thinking that her “experience” makes for great bonding because “she knows herself”.
    Should Billy accept this and attempt to make a “wife” out of her? Why should he?

  188. Höllenhund says:

    A shadowy conspiracy exists, with all da single ladies hiding their underage flings from Brother Boxer, while they try and goad him into marriage (or at least medium-term commitment with free meals at middlebrow restaurants included).

    Possible, but I’m skeptical.

    Seriously dude? Are you really unable to picture that? Modern society is atomized and individualistic, where people basically live in virtual bubbles. Most people have very few close acquaintances outside the workplace and family, and most families today are small, with most family members having lots of privacy.

    Do you happen to have a daughter, or a young female relative, who isn’t a NEET living under your roof? Because if you do, I can tell you with certainty that she may as well be a member of some local swinger club, getting drilled by 3-4 different guys every weekend, without you knowing anything about it. Is she around you 24/7? Do you certainly know what she’s doing all day? Of course not.

    Generally speaking, women are very adept at hiding their sexual histories and activities. Simple evolutionary psychology. The women trying to goad you into marriage can have all the sex they want while keeping you in the dark. Modern society offers endless opportunities for that.

  189. Höllenhund says:

    >> Women of older generations (age 65-plus) seem fundamentally unable to process what’s going on in today’s SMP and MMP.

    > This is more evidence about how much cultural conditioning it takes to turn the naturally feral female into a productive person who contributes more to society than she consumes. This takes a tremendous amount of cultural resources, in the form of religion, courtship guidelines, marriage norms, etc.

    I think the main thing to take away from this is that patriarchal cultural conditioning was indeed so efficient and pervasive that old people simply cannot even conceive of a world where young women AREN’T acting with self-restraint and chastity, AREN’T looking for long-term assortative monogamous mating.

  190. Opus says:

    Civilisation is a tool of the Patriarchy. For Feminists and Manginas that very statement undermines their rhetoric: if women are every bit as strong and competent as men, then how come that men were able and seemingly since time immemorial to impose themselves on women through such deceitful means as the alphabet? They may say that such was men’s cunning – inventing the alphabet for the sole purpose of oppressing women – but that would only demonstrate what they are at pains to deny, namely male superiority.

    The question to be put to any feminist or male supporter thereof is therefore: What evidence would convince you that men and women are not equal; neither similarly mentally or physically endowed?* They will not of course be able to put anything forward which will thus demonstrate that Feminism is merely a belief system, unfalsifiable, and devoid of any empirical support.

    * I visited my new Medical Practitioner this morning: Despite an entirely male name the Doctor was being impersonated by a woman – surely there should be a law against such impersonations; what were her parents thinking of. She asked me to do a number of simple tests including asking me to squeeze both her hands. I did not use my full force but I don’t think that this morning she is much going to much enjoy writing anything. I bet that despite her presumably £50K salary, her husband – she was wearing the appropriate rings – earns appreciably more. How can we bring the pay gap down when women – even highly paid medical doctors – insist on marrying men with higher salaries. I prefer a male Doctor where one can discuss matters man-to-man: with a female Doctor all I can think is how she might be seduced and did I fancy her: I presume that was why the evil patriarchy persuaded her to waste her teenage years and beyond in medical study – for my benefit! ‘Sometimes physio is of benefit’, she said. ‘Benefit to whom’, I asked, ‘the medical profession?’ ‘Why don’t we start with an X-ray?’ I suggested. ‘Good idea’ she replied as she started typing with her squashed hands.

  191. Novaseeker says:

    Women of older generations (age 65-plus) seem fundamentally unable to process what’s going on in today’s SMP and MMP. My 82-year-old mother, while she sees the dysfunction and collapse all around her, simply cannot understand why tbe solutions that were commonplace in 1955 aren’t applied today.

    Mine too (she’s 86). Simply does not compute.

    I’d say that the cutoff is higher than 65, though. 65 year olds were born in 1951, and were 20 in 1971. Those people get the hookup culture intuitively, even if they didn’t partake in it personally — that was the boogie nights generation. The cutoff is about 75 (born in 1941, grew up between 1956 and 1970).

  192. ljess says:

    We live in a strange world where any young man who is responsible, industrious, saves money, morally upright, compassionate and caring is MARKED by female predators as a man to marry/ have a kid with/ divorce and strip him of everything he ever did in his life – only penniless fools win in the marriage game as they have nothing to lose in the ensuing debacle.

  193. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    greyghost: You are not getting a wife. You are getting a legal, and financial and now religious liability.

    The Hungarian word for wife is: feleség

    The Hungarian word for responsibility is: felelősség

    The two words are related. A wife is a responsibility.

    By contrast, the Hungarian word for husband — férj — is related to the Hungarian word for man — férfi. It takes a man to be a husband.

    Likewise, the English word husband also means (n) a prudent or frugal manager; (v) to manage, especially with prudent economy; and (v) to use frugally; conserve.

    The English word wife has no similarly positive meanings.

  194. Dave says:

    Ah Anon – “The narrative naturally assumes that women become more awesome once ‘patriarchy’ is lifted” – simples, no more fire or writing!

    http://www.weaselzippers.us/287910-feminist-declares-the-invention-of-the-alphabet-the-root-of-sexism-misogyny-and-patriarchy/
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/science/fire-smoke-evolution-tuberculosis.html?_r=0

    I am beginning to think that, in view of the current state of things, freedom of speech should probably be revisited.

  195. feeriker says:

    Likewise, the English word husband also means (n) a prudent or frugal manager; (v) to manage, especially with prudent economy; and (v) to use frugally; conserve.

    The English word wife has no similarly positive meanings.

    Tbe expression “ball and chain” didn’t originate in a vacuum. Ironically, it originated in a past when wives were to some degree still fulfilling the role of helpmeets. Nowadays it would seem that the term “wife” should just be tossed out altogether and replaced in every imaginable context with terms like “ball and chain,” “shebligation,” “frivorce timebomb,” “lifeshortner,” “fiscal tapeworm,” “spiritual cancer,” etc. Any term that even implies the traditional role of “helpmeet” is long past its expiration date and is irrelevant and inapplicable except in tbose rarest of marriages.

  196. DeNihilist says:

    I love this quote from the NYT article –

    “Negative cultural consequences came with fire, too — and continue to leave an imprint. Anthropologists have speculated that inhaling smoke led to the discovery of smoking. Humans have long used fire to modify their environment and burn carbon, practices that now have us in the throes of climate change. Fire is even tied to the rise of patriarchy — by allowing men to go out hunting while women stayed behind to cook by the fire, it spawned gender norms that still exist today.”

    Thinking of the tribe in the Amazon, where the men sit around and get high all the time, except when the meat gets low. That is their only contribution to the tribe.

  197. Feminist Hater says:

    Thinking of the tribe in the Amazon, where the men sit around and get high all the time, except when the meat gets low. That is their only contribution to the tribe.

    Patriarchy is the only method that gets civilisation off the ground. Without it, man lives a hellish existence where getting high or death are the only means of escape. Feminism must be crushed, burned and destroyed utterly for humanity to survive and thrive. A matriarchy will only bring death, destruction and hopelessness. Yes, the alphabet is sexist, everything is sexist and it is good that it is that way.

  198. Feminist Hater says:

    Biology is the most sexist construct of them all. It made a clean line between male and female. It gave clear advantages to men and clear disadvantages to women. Feminists are just angry they don’t get to be men. Their choices are to accept that and actually enjoy the feminine and masculine opposites for what they are or to wallow in that misery and destroy that which gives life meaning. We know what feminists chose; to bitch, moan and coerce men into giving away their God given right to authority and rule. They will rue the day they demanded equality.

    Don’t apologise for being a male, it is what you are. When feminists screech that everything is sexist, just agree and amplify and explain that it is good, proper and righteous for it to be this way.

  199. Anon says:

    Right on cue, as mentioned above, the NYT blames the domestication of fire as contributing to ‘Patriarchal Gender Norms’ :

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/240809/

    Mere days after blaming the creation of the alphabet for the same thing.

    Women are sooooooooooooo incompatible with civilization that it is not even funny.

  200. feeriker says:

    Don’t apologise for being a male, it is what you are. When feminists screech that everything is sexist, just agree and amplify and explain that it is good, proper and righteous for it to be this way.

    Ordinarily I’d tell women in such a state of anger, rebellion, resentment, and dissatisfaction that they need to take it up with God, since it was His decision and His creation that led to the status quo. However, that would be a boneheadedly pointless thing to say to a feminist, since she doesn’t believe in God (and that applies also to any so-called/self-described “Christian feminist,” who does not in fact actually exist, as the two terms are mutually exclusive. If she’s a feminist, she is not a Christian, or even a theist, as she has denied God’s involvement in His own handiwork).

    Really, all that these women can be left to do is wallow in their own ugly discontent, hoping that they at some point rediscover faith in God and the peace of Jesus. We certainly shouldn’t be accommodating and enabling them or their delusions n the meantime.

  201. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    You’d have a field day with this one.

    View story at Medium.com

  202. Oscar says:

    From the “First Things” article posted above by Rollo: “Love and sex are arguably the best incentives for men to assert their adulthood.”

    Nope. It’s honor.

  203. Heidi says:

    OT: Absolutely hilarious article:

    http://www.scarymommy.com/single-mom-dating/

    A few of my favorite quotes:

    “When an opportunity came recently to spend the night in some shady motel with an incredibly hot man whom I’d only talked to on the phone twice, I scrambled to make arrangements for friends to watch my kids, ages 2 and 9.”

    “Eventually I had to start talking to some of the ones I’d matched with. At least half, after I casually dropped that I was a single mom, stopped replying or just straight-up unmatched me.”

    “My standards skyrocketed. I saw myself as someone to be won over, instead of the other way around. I went out with firefighters, lawyers, musicians, and an Australian who’d been cycling all over the world for 20 years.”

    Aaand the grand finale:

    “I’m guessing it’s going to take a pretty strong man to keep showing up. I can definitely wait. For the first time, I feel like we’re worth waiting for.

    “All single moms are.”

  204. redlight says:

    @oscar

    give credit to neguy

    @heidi

    love that article!

  205. Lost Patrol says:

    @redlight:
    “@heidi
    love that article!”

    +1. More proof that feminsits CAN be funny!

  206. feeriker says:

    Heidi says:
    August 8, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    That just BEGS to be made into a feature-length satiric movie.

  207. RichardP says:

    @Spike: I can’t tell from your comment whether you read my first response to BillyS. If you didn’t, it might put things into a more proper perspective if you did read it. I was focusing on his words “find” and “proper”. My bottom line: it’s not likely he will “find” what he wants, except by chance. Better to set his expectations that he will need to “make” what he wants out of a person amendable to being “made”. One way to attract such a person is to become someone such a person wants to respond to – spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

  208. Jim says:

    bluepillprofessor says:
    August 4, 2016 at 11:09 am

    Bingo. Very well said. Why play a game that is completely rigged in women’s favor? It’ll destroy civilization soon enough anyway. What we need is a hard reset. It’s the only way at this point.

  209. JDG says:

    everything is sexist and it is good that it is that way.

    Exactly!

    I’ve said many times in the past (usually to US women bemoaning how sexist something I said was): There is no such thing as sexism, but rather only opinions of rebellious women who reject God’s word (or something close to that).

    If sexism is real then biology is sexist, reality is sexist, and God has ordained sexism in His created order. Therefore I posit that sexism (if real) is suitable, necessary, and good. It’s either that or sexism isn’t real, but rather yet another lie supporting feminist ideology.

  210. Oscar says:

    @ redlight says:
    August 8, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    “@oscar give credit to neguy”

    Good job, neguy!

    For what am I giving credit? I haven’t read the comments.

  211. Spike says:

    RichardP says:
    August 8, 2016 at 4:25 pm
    @Spike: I can’t tell from your comment whether you read my first response to BillyS. If you didn’t, it might put things into a more proper perspective if you did read it. I was focusing on his words “find” and “proper”. My bottom line: it’s not likely he will “find” what he wants, except by chance. Better to set his expectations that he will need to “make” what he wants out of a person amendable to being “made”. One way to attract such a person is to become someone such a person wants to respond to – spiritually, emotionally, and physically.

    -On closer examination of your first post (that is, your name on it!), I take you point.Thanks!

  212. Dave says:

    When an opportunity came recently to spend the night in some shady motel with an incredibly hot man whom I’d only talked to on the phone twice, I scrambled to make arrangements for friends to watch my kids, ages 2 and 9

    Feminism is cruel. It is probably the cruelest tool of the devil ever invented against humans.

  213. redlight says:

    @oscar

    “For what am I giving credit? I haven’t read the comments.”

    Neguy Aug 4 3:06 pm first told us about the lost boys article

  214. Gunner Q says:

    Dave @ 8:23 pm:
    “Feminism is cruel. It is probably the cruelest tool of the devil ever invented against humans.”

    And the first.

  215. Bart says:

    From the Atlantic’s media kit: readership, both print and online, are split 52/48 male/female. Median age 53 for print, 45 for online.

    I’m genuinely surprised that it isn’t heavily skewed toward women. . . . I suppose that’s evidence that women AREN’T oppressed and despised by men, as feminists like to argue. The Atlantic’s media kit boasts about how amazingly influential it is in the MSM and larger cultural discussions.

    Anyone think of a popular female-majority mag/channel that openly evangelizes for a pro-male world?

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

    feeriker says [August 8, 2016 at 4:21 pm]:

    Heidi says [August 8, 2016 at 2:15 pm]:
    That just BEGS to be made into a feature-length satiric movie.

    Problem is, Hamsters are satire-proof. In fact, three double-blind scientific experiments that I know of [citations needed] demonstrate conclusively that satirical critiques of Ideological Feminism either increase the angular momentum of the Hamster wheel, or lubricate its axle, or both.

  217. Pingback: Lightning Round -2016/08/11 | Free Northerner

  218. Daily Llama says:

    The Scandanavian welfare state is very different from the American one for various reasons. Those countries don’t have a lot of multi-generational layabouts. Everyone works and everyone benefits from the healthcare system and other systems in place paid for by working tax payers to help working tax payers. The UK (and the US) is another story.

    That said, the American and British doles don’t have to be “soul crushing” as you put it. I know creative, dynamic, productive people on the UK and American doles who are living splendid lives living their creative passions. If you just lay about and get fat that’s another story.

    Those guys who are happy not working in their 20s who cares if they’ll regret it in their 30s and beyond? They’ll deal with that when they get there. Dollar Store, Taco Bell, etc are always looking for cashiers and they can get minimum wage jobs there and continue playing video games or doing whatever makes them happy. Not every man need to have a high paying “career”, especially if they don’t have kids. I don’t see why that writer thinks a man can’t be happy with a simple job and simply income and simple life.

    You have to be daft to think Hana Rosin gloats about the end of men in The End of Men. She made it clear that its not the end of men and men are not going anywhere, they are in fact, doing just fine.

    Plenty of men are in the medical field as nurses, techs, physical therapists, etc. They usually date women in similar fields. There is no lack of men. Some (usually very attractive high risk ) women only target the ballers, rich dudes and movers and shakers but your average Pam dates your average Pete. It may be that some female doctors will have to target male nurses. So what?

    Who cares which spouse earns more? Who cares if single men aren’t stressing themselves out to become CEOs and would rather lead chilled out happy lives on minimum wage? Health and happiness is what matters, not wealth.

  219. Daily Llama says:

    Dalrock, HUD is not building projects in the suburbs. The project model is out. What’s happening now is that people who need help with rent (Section 8) are renting regular places on a sliding scale and getting financial aid to cover the rest. There is no way as a neighbor you can know who is or is not on this program. Nobody has to move out or to other districts for better schools. Besides, the US has “equal education” doesn’t it? Also, don’t you have a daughter? Why would education be that important for her anyway since you surely aren’t going to have her go to college are you? Why would you if your plan for her is to be a wife and mom?

  220. BillyS says:

    Those guys who are happy not working in their 20s who cares if they’ll regret it in their 30s and beyond? They’ll deal with that when they get there.

    Or they won’t. I can’t retire at 55, no matter what I do now.

    They are spending their future earnings now by not making them and it will be impossible to earn them later. Many are unlikely to have any useful skills when they are older and will be in for a world of hurt when that time comes.

    Such an approach only works when government steals other people’s money to support the lazy.

    [2Th 3:10 KJV] 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

    That is far more appropriate. Let them starve when they eventually run out of the ability to live on others (parents, government, etc.). The feedback loop can take a while in that case, but it is a necessary part of reality.

  221. Tomasz G. says:

    Help, help – Peter Pan manboys everywhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHM1giWU8ag

    Oh, wait – I thought it was a male hipster. But then it declared itself a woman.

    Also – take a look at some comments – how people hate the “double standard” – “it makes me so angry when men say that the don’t want kids or don’t like kids and people say that’s okay but when a woman says the same things people call them selfish or cruel. ” (Erika Blomberg) – sure, sure.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s