Weak men really *are* screwing feminism up.

I have recently had the benefit of multiple email exchanges with Larry Kummer, Editor of the Fabius Maximus website.  What follows is an edited version of one such exchange, with Larry’s gracious permission.  Larry will be posting the same discussion on Fabius Maximus as well.  Larry’s comments are in blockquotes and my responses are in normal typeface:

I describe fourth wave feminism as women seeking superiority over men. They’re quite open about it. Here’s a fun example, showing how far the idea has spread. The author is not fully on board with the program, giving clear statements about the Matriarchy with assurances that it won’t be a matriarchy. But clear thinking has seldom been a characteristic of feminists (unlike women physicists and doctors).

How To Prepare Our Sons for the Matriarchy” by Jenny Hoople at The Good Men Project – “We must not leave our boys behind even as we raise up our girls.” “The Matriarchy doesn’t mean women over men, it means strong women leading all of us in rebuilding a society …”

Here is the image that goes with it (shutterstock_10800637). It captures the nature of the article quite well, and the intent of those pushing for a Matriarchy.

That pic really does say it all.  On the other side we have conservatives responding that weak men are screwing feminism up.

The “cuckservatives” are part of the problem. It is more accurate to say that weak men are screwing up society. I’ve wanted to write about this, but it’s too complex and I don’t understand it sufficiently. Here is how I see it.

Strong societies devote a lot of energy to producing strong boys. We’ve found how to produce something worse for society then feral men (who are destructive but strong): hordes of weak men. Withdrawal from dating and marriage is a natural response of weak men.

How did this happen? Disasters (excluding natural disasters) usually result from multiple and reinforcing errors. Feminists produce weak sons. Dads subservient or acquiescing to their feminist wives produce weak sons. Families too busy to raise sons, especially with few larger institutions doing so, produce weak sons. Single mothers produce weak sons. Feminist-dominated institutions – such as our schools, churches and youth groups – produce weak boys. Institutions that train boys to be strong, such as Boy Scouts and male-only sports programs, are under attack.

Worse, we’ve stopped raising girls. So they grow with their core programming, their base nature. What we thought was their natural state was in fact the result of intense indoctrination (e.g. pronatalism). Modern girls, as often seen in music videos, are somewhat feral girls. Like feral men, they are disruptive to society.

Right. The problem is not the observation, but the frame.  The observation is accurate. The problem is the implicit desire to change men so that feminism will finally work. It can’t be done, and conservatives shouldn’t be trying to make feminism work anyway.

Like so much of your work, that’s a brutal but accurate observation. Obvious, once you point it out to us. It’s a sign of the ultimate victory when your opponents adopt your goals. It’s a commonplace in history.

[Note:  I created the title of the post intending to limit posting our conversation to this point, as it provides context into how I use the expression “weak men screwing feminism up”.  But at Larry’s suggestion I also include the rest of the exchange below:]

It is imperative, imo, that we break the debate out of the current two channels: despair (Aquinas: “To commit a crime is to kill the soul, but to despair is to fall into hell.”) and MGTOW (fantasies of being Tarzan: Me strong & self-sufficient, live in jungle alone with my animal friends).

I’m in general agreement I think, but MGTOW men aren’t the problem, they are a logical reaction to the problem.  I made an analogy a number of years ago regarding seats at a restaurant that ended up taking a life of its own.  In a nutshell, I wish the MGTOW men well and hope they have fulfilling lives.  My focus isn’t on trying to convince them to come dine in the restaurant (marriage), but to find a way to make more seats available for them to do so.

Now we’re getting to the core of the situation. Under your prodding, this is becoming a bit clearer to me.

“but MGTOW men aren’t the problem …”

I fully agree, looking at this on an individual level. More broadly, men bailing on the current system will be (guessing) a major force blowing it down. But – again guessing – I think most are kidding themselves. I’ve seen a lot of this, by age 63, and imo GAME and MGTOW are the equivalent of Fantasy Football for most men. They can be played but not won in real life.

But young women aren’t the problem, either (neither side has much empathy for or understanding of the other – which is part of the problem). They’re doing as they have been told, acting on the values the Boomers and Gen X taught them. They are like young women playing at being Wonder Women (vainly seeking to have it all).

Both young men and women are on courses that will end badly for many of them. Their damaged lives are pushing the system to its destruction. But not, as often described, as collateral damage. More like involuntary sacrifices. I can’t think of the right metaphor for them.

That’s why I refer to this current debate – 4th wave feminism vs. GAME/MGTOW – as a doomed fight from which we must break free from. This is a common situation in history, in which societies fall into conflicts in which there can be no winners.  {Fourth wave feminism is women seeking superiority, not equality. Take a feminist’s speech and reverse the genders. If it sounds sexist, then she is in the fourth wave.}

End of email exchange.

This page lists all Larry’s posts about the gender wars, sorted by subject, including A surprise end to the gender wars: men stand together.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Fabius Maximus, Feminists, Good Men Project, Larry Kummer, Linkage, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

146 Responses to Weak men really *are* screwing feminism up.

  1. Anonymous Reader says:

    A few years ago when I bothered to attempt a dialog at the Good Mangina Project I quickly found out just how heavily modded the place was. When the founder was ousted by the women he’d brought on board for “balance” or some such reason, it wasn’t a surprise. For the GMP to go further and further towards matriarchy was baked in the cake at that point. The 3rd wave feminists were already pushing the 2nd wave sisters to the side.

    I agree that the image says 1,000 words, all of them misandrous.

    Larry Kummer’s fantasy of “men standing together” was tried in the 80’s and 90’s. Warren Farrell was involved, if I remember right. Nothing came of it. There’s always been some White Knight, usually in his 60’s, willing to overlook any behavior by a woman while punishing the nearest men for letting her screw up. Joe Biden was a major force in getting VAWA enacted, for example.

    The institutional bias against men has been growing since the 1970’s, but it’s become really obvious now if you wear the glasses, but too many men are still effectively blind.

    MGTOW is a rational reaction: when the game is rigged, the only way to “win” is to refuse to play. Control as much of the world around you by being extremely selective about whom you let in.

    Game is also a rational reaction: when the game is rigged, go around the rules and control as much of the world around you as you can. That may be one man’s room, or it may be a small group.

    What is not rational is: pretending that nothing really bad is happening, blaming all men for the actions of some (Joe Biden, we look at you), and assuming that some top-down solution is even possible.

    Looks to me that Larry Kummer is still convinced the Kobiashi Maru scenario has a solution.

  2. “Looks to me that Larry Kummer is still convinced the Kobiashi Maru scenario has a solution.”

    Trekies are unreliable sources of advice, no matter how fun the TV shows.

    Western history – and especially American history – was made by men that stood together, organized, and acted. Perhaps it is for the best that men unwilling to do just stand aside.

  3. Spike says:

    ”“The Matriarchy doesn’t mean women over men, it means strong women leading all of us in rebuilding a society …”
    Apart from the obvious contradiction between the first and second halves of this sentence, I’m further confused about the adjective.
    Everywhere you go in the Western* world today, you encounter ”strong” women. They’re at work, in business, in families (“The Strong Independent Woman…”). All this strength.
    Are they really strong? Where did they get their strength from? The physical nature? Their decisiveness?
    All this strength is bluster.
    If they really wanted to be strong, they would have a big family and home school them.

    *”Western” in this case means, “Western, European, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic = W.E.I.R.D…

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry
    Trekies are unreliable sources of advice, no matter how fun the TV shows.

    It is an analogy. I chose it because it is rather old, and therefore you would recognize it.

    I note that you did not actually answer any of my factual observations. Would you care to reveal how to roll back the Clinton-era interpretation of Title IX, just to pick one example? Or perhaps you’d like to discuss what’s required of Sec. DeVos to roll back just a bit of the Obama-era “preponderance of evidence” (“51%”) rule for higher education?

    A genuine scholar, a real engineer, an actual doctor all want to know what the “prior art” is when solving a problem. What attempts have been tried in the past, and did they work? That’s because actual problem solvers dislike wasting time on fails approaches.

    Know-it-alls don’t bother to find out prior art. That’s why know-it-alls often fail.

    Western history – and especially American history – was made by men that stood together, organized, and acted.

    Sigh.

    Larry, men like Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Charles Schumer, etc. all managed to put not just VAWA but the Duluth protocol into Federal law. They stood together and jammed misandry into the law of the land. Now mandatory arrest is the “solution” to domestic disturbances in how many states?

    Speaking of action, where were you during the Congressional debates over AVCA-94, Larry? What actions did you take to resist that very bad law?

    Perhaps it is for the best that men unwilling to do just stand aside.

    What’s the plan, besides handwaving about “men standing together”, Larry?
    Or to put it another way:

  5. Spike,

    “Are they really strong? …All this strength is bluster.”

    I understand your perspective, but the gender wars (or however we describe it) are a straightforward contest of wills and strength. Women are winning, taking institution after institution. They are changing the regulations and laws that govern our lives.

    People that accomplish such things are strong by the ultimate measure – the harsh accounting of nature.

    Fourth wave feminists are foes of mem. Beware of underestimating them.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Spike
    Everywhere you go in the Western* world today, you encounter ”strong” women. They’re at work, in business, in families (“The Strong Independent Woman…”). All this strength.

    Yeah, and it all rests on invisible men. All of it. I expect we are about to see that play out again at FaceBook.

    Share prices of FaceBook have been dropping for a few weeks now, people are beginning to drop FB as their primary social media, Zuckerberg’s appearances in DC have not produced the desired results, and now CEO Sheryl Sandberg of “LeanIn” fame is under the hot spotlight. She’s one of the archtypes of the “strong, independent woman”, who flat out promoted AF/BB as a sexual strategy.

    Well, the FaceBook kitchen is getting hotter, let’s see how she does when the game isn’t being played on the “easy” setting. Right about now, I’m recalling Carly Fiorina’s tenure at Hewlett-Packard…

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    Spike
    ”“The Matriarchy doesn’t mean women over men, it means strong women leading all of us in rebuilding a society …”
    Apart from the obvious contradiction between the first and second halves of this sentence, I’m further confused about the adjective.

    I’m pretty sure that actual matriarchies do not exist, have never existed outside of fiction (including the “research” of Gimbutas). The contradiction is just more female solipsism / gaslighting. Women have no qualms about using men against each other in “let’s you and him fight”, while at the same time favoring their sons.

    The ingroup preference of women is documented, the one small study estimated 4:1, so in any organization that (a) allows women to join but (b) does not strictly limit their participation, women will in time come to crowd men out. One example would be those churches that do not limit women’s roles – in time, we see an Amy Semple McPherson or a Beth Moore come to dominate.

    What is called “matriarchy” is really more like “dominance by women and those men who choose to serve them, aka the White Knights. Queens in history always have male advisors / war
    leaders / etc. So it means “women’s whims ruling over men’s rights, enforced by whiteknighting men”. If that resembles anarcho-tyranny, it’s probably not a coincidence.

  8. vandicus says:

    History teaches us that countries, kingdoms, empires, they fall and die. Sometimes new iterations come about. The falling part is not fun. Right now I think we’re one of the oldest countries still kicking without some sort of reboot, and a lot of our systems and institutions have decayed enormously. I intend to keep on pushing in the right direction, but I’m not liking our odds. We’re going to need a bigger Trump.

  9. Vandicus,

    Governments come and go, but peoples’ cultures remain, slowly evolving. Think of how many governments France has had since 1750, yet their society – their people – remain.

    A few centuries old, American society is young.

    Fourth wave feminism is a challenge to our society and culture, not to our government.

  10. BillyS says:

    Larry,

    Women aren’t winning. They are creating a future that will be bad for them as well. They think they are winning with all they have pushed, but they are destroying the foundation and anything built on sand will fall dramatically at some point.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    Just for reference and amusement I followed the “preparing our sons for matriarchy” link to the Good Mangina Project. The list of things to be encouraged in boys is the usual mishmash of “be nice”, concluding with something about a strong sense of self worth. More cognitive dissonance from feminists…

    Best part: In order to comment now one must “join”, i.e. pay them money. I’m sure the modding is at least as heavy handed as a few years back, likely moreso. “Men! Pay money so you can comment and be banned!” P.T. Barnum would be proud.

    See the Egress! This way to the Egress! Don’t miss the Egress!

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    vandicus
    History teaches us that countries, kingdoms, empires, they fall and die.

    You should read Sir John Glubb’s little monograph from the 1970’s entitled “Fate of Empires”. It’s something that should be a fundamental document in the androsphere.

  13. Re: The debate between @Anonymous Reader and @Larry Kummer.

    The initial comment by Anonymous Reader was brilliant and dead on. I commend your, AR, for the writing excellent. Better than how I could have put it.

    Men who can’t agree have emotional attachment issues and simply are doing too well as yet to realize they are fundamentally wrong. Sci-fi is exactly how touchy real world issues are discussed intelligently with emotive normies. Typical humans are not interested in objectivity, i.e. facts as Anon. R. said.

    Way of life is not just your mind and your flesh. It is the body ‘politic’ of that way of life. We are being eliminated in an orderly way. If you really had a solution, it would make sense to deploy it now rather that wait for more attrition and longer odds. The only way to win is to rise from the ashes of the enemy’s total victory. Most of us will not survive, and that is why emotively attached cuck fighters need the (mental) elbow room from the naysayers. They are driven by a autonomically selfish fear, as are religious or otherwise ideological people in general. Escapism for the cuck or drone. Materialism for the parasite player. Only to be a philosopher is to be truly or else fully human. We will never agree, until we are all dirt. If you really love selflessly, plant the seeds that men of the future can grow. Your parable from Jesus about the types of ground for seed comes to mind. Nevermind, because as you say, sci-fi has no wisdom, amirite?

  14. Cane Caldo says:

    Does Larry claim to be a Christian? If not, my response is irrelevant.

    Larry wrote:

    That’s why I refer to this current debate – 4th wave feminism vs. GAME/MGTOW – as a doomed fight from which we must break free from. This is a common situation in history, in which societies fall into conflicts in which there can be no winners. {Fourth wave feminism is women seeking superiority, not equality. Take a feminist’s speech and reverse the genders. If it sounds sexist, then she is in the fourth wave.}

    Game/MTGOW and Feminism aren’t Christians’ problems except as they appeal to Christians because modern Christian practice is both anti-Christian AND a losing proposition. Our problem is that Christians don’t actually believe in the word of God. They don’t believe that–as whole beings–women are weaker than men…even though we all observe it every day. They don’t believe that it is good that God gave women fathers and husbands to rule them… even though we live in a society of liberated whores. They don’t believe that women are more easily deceived…even though marketing and scams are overwhelmingly aimed at susceptible women.

    What Christians actually practice is chivalry because they believe that chivalry is “real” Christianity”. Chivalry is the water in which Feminism and Game/MTGOW swim; what is necessary for their existence. If we want Feminism and Game/MTGOW to go away, we have to destroy the cultural environment created by chivalry.

  15. Pingback: Thar Be Monsters in our Sea of Chivalry | Things that We have Heard and Known

  16. Cane,

    The internet overflows with discussions from every conceivable demographic, religious, and political group.

    The FM website tries something a bit rarer: a non-partisan discussion of geopolitics (broadly defined) from an American perspective (as best we can). Nothing narrower.

  17. Nick Mgtow says:

    When a guy found the perfect way to pump and dump… Pretending to be the other chick to get rid of the one night stand:

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/womans-perfect-tinder-date-the-13263813

  18. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The Good Men Project website also has an article praising Boy Erased: https://goodmenproject.com/arts/boy-erased-one-of-the-years-best-movies-in-its-inquiry-into-the-nature-of-our-humanity/

    That’s the anti-“gay conversion” film I posted about in a previous thread.

    As I predicted, it will sweep the Oscars in 2019. Everyone is already talking about it.

  19. JoeBob_Walker says:

    I do have to say, after reading Dalrock for years, this conversation really seems pointless. Who cares whether it’s 3rd or 4th wave feminism? Men standing together? Show me a single example from history of this other than Esther, and that took a decree from the emperor. I want to be wrong, but how do you think feminism was so successful to begin with? Men DON’T stand together. It will probably take until 6th wave feminism before 2 men are comfortable talking openly about reality, and by then it will be because they’ve been banished to a penal island for wrong-think.

  20. Joe,

    Since women were politically inconsequential almost everywhere for most of history, history was made by men standing together. For example, look at the shift to more representative governments during the 19th century. It wasn’t easy, it required strong social cohesion among men. but it was done.

  21. Pingback: Weak men really *are* screwing feminism up. | Reaction Times

  22. 7817 says:

    Well there’s a good point, despair and MGTOW are the two most commonly accepted options in the comments here. That is indeed a problem.

    “Western history – and especially American history – was made by men that stood together, organized, and acted. Perhaps it is for the best that men unwilling to do just stand aside.”

    This is not a solution, it’s a bumper sticker. “Stand together.” With who am I going to stand? And for what? You’ve said Game is a fantasy for most men, but it has actually given me a measure of positive results in my marriage and dealings with women.

    Standing Together without a plan being outlined is meaningless. Men organize in a pack, for a purpose. Women organize in a herd, to be together and feel safe. Unless you have some kind of plan, this sounds like what the rest of the trad cons say.

    Are we going to pool some resources to start a foundation and buy housing for men who have been divorce raped so they are not homeless? Are we going to go the way of the MRA’s and imagine we are going to get legislation passed? Are we going to start a Fight Club? What’s your plan?

  23. freebird says:

    Feminism was the splinter that broke the cell wall and let in the cancer of millennialism.
    The new generation cares not for VFW,Eagles,Lions,Elks,Baptists,Protestants,Lutherans,Methodists,ect.
    They don’t even have a cultural reference past the cell phone in hand.
    Technology has made it possible to not talk to each other.

    Marriage is dead,God is dead,the Ubermensch is dead.
    Cue up John Cougar’s “Blood on the Plow”
    I’m sorry son nothing but memories for you now.

    As for MGTOW “fighting” feminism,nope, we just walked away from the female WAR.
    You want the war to stop,try talking with those that are prosecuting it,not defecting.

  24. Cane Caldo says:

    @Larry

    The FM website tries something a bit rarer: a non-partisan discussion of geopolitics (broadly defined) from an American perspective (as best we can). Nothing narrower.

    Whenever someone says non-partisan what they really mean is “fits with that to which I am partisan, and nothing else.”

    I’ll take your answer as, “Larry Kummer is non-Christian”.

  25. freebird says:

    I did enjoy the “all men stand together” article,I didn’t really find a single fault with it.
    But, Heavy sigh* we need to be realistic about what is happening to our society.
    From the top down the PTB have been pushing a successful agenda to eliminate the heterosexual male.(dreaded cis-scum)
    They’ve already broken the black man down,now it’s demonize whitey.
    All sorts of dissent from the Idiot box,if you have a difference,it is to be hated.
    That way no one looks at the real problem, they are looking at what they are told to look at.

    OK that’s a bit cryptic,but true,let us ‘Judge them by their fruits.”
    There is more success in creating transsexuals than there is creating MRA’s, WHY do you suppose that is?
    There is more success in creating vacant minded yet incredibly hostile antifa than
    there is in a boy coming to be a fine man through the Institutions. WHY is that?
    Because there is a tremendous force exerted to push it that direction,and a huge penalty for going against the flow.
    We now have to be careful what we say in public just like the Russians during Stalin’s time.
    WHY is that?
    WHY are Police telling YOU what YOU can do with YOUR children?
    Larry,you talk a lot about bottom up change,I’m talking about top down,.
    Like Reagan said “It all trickles down”
    Or Mao; “all power comes from the end of a barrel.”

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry Kummer
    Governments come and go, but peoples’ cultures remain, slowly evolving.

    Obviously history is not your strong suit. I’ll try to help a bit with some simple, easy questions.

    How did the people’s culture of Carthage slowly evolve after the second Punic war?
    How did the people’s culture of Tenochticlan slowly evolve after the Conquest of New Spain?
    How did the people’s culture of East Prussia slowly evolve after May, 1945?

    Think of how many governments France has had since 1750, yet their society – their people – remain.

    Obviously current events isn’t your strong suit, either.
    What do you suppose the 5 most popular names for boys born in 2017 in the greater Paris area happen to be?

    Demographics matter.

    If you are going to be arrogant you have to be good, very good. Suggest you dial back on the arrogance.

  27. Anonymous Reader says:

    Currently I am reading the book Propaganda by Edward Bernays, first published in 1928. It is easy to read and quite interesting. Bernays was Sigmund Freud’s nephew, and unlike his uncle I believe he knew a bit about “what women want”. His successful campaign to increase cigarette smoking by women is just one example.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Edward_Bernays

    Read this book, and see if you don’t view all major “news” sources in a different way.

  28. Facepuncher says:

    @arry Kummer, Editor
    > GAME and MGTOW are the equivalent of Fantasy Football for most men. They can be played but not won in real life.

    Then I think you are trying to define whatever game you think we’re playing incorrectly.

    > Perhaps it is for the best that men unwilling to do just stand aside.

    A lot of us have been standing aside for a while now. But you keep bashing MGTOW and insisting we owe you action, that “men stand together”.

    If a woman runs up to me on the street and tazes me, or sprays me with pepper spray, who will other men “stand with” and “stand behind”? Her. Social experiment after social experiment show that if a man and woman are in physical conflict, everyone rushes to the aid of the woman. This is doubly true if it’s the police.

    As far as I am concerned, if I personally manage to avoid being robbed, shot, stripped of the resources I use to stay alive in court, etc, during those mandatory and required interactions, I win. It’s a small, weak win condition in that “I do not loose”, but it’s all that’s actually available.

    If the cops came tomorrow and shot me because I had a gun, or a book that they disfavor, you would do nothing except point me out as an example of what not to do. You are a hypocrite, exhorting men to your own benefit, for things you would not do. As is anyone else preaching the “men stand together, force a change!” rhetoric. I’ve seen other false prophets before.

    Despair? Hardly. We’ve just learned your con.

    You want to effect a change? Go convince the white knights to stop white knighting. Don’t piss on my shoes and tell me it’s raining.

    Frankly, I’m not sure who I’d rather punch in the face — you, or Gloria Steinem.

  29. Opus says:

    Prussia – the co-victors of Waterloo – yet who can accurately pinpoint on a modern map its location?

    I loath Feminists but I reserve my greater loathing for white-knighting Manginas.

    As Hamlet might have put it: To Game or to MgTow that is the question.

  30. Novaseeker says:

    Men stand together … against groups of other men. There is no precedent at all for men standing together, as a group, against politically organized and unified women. None. The reason for this is fairly clear — women have a substantial in-group preference (4 to 1) for other women. Men have no such preference for siding with other men — rather, men tend to tear each other apart, generally, and particularly in the face of women, in an effort either to impress the women or to simply display their dominance relative to other men. As long as this is framed as a fight between women and men, men will never organize and stand together for that fight — suggesting that they will is, as one might say, “fantasy football”.

    If the fight were to be reframed as one group of men vs. another group of men — which is what I actually think the fight *is* anyway — there is some chance of building a resistance. The odds are long, because any attempt to do so will be clamped down on by the large and powerful WK group of men, but it still has better odds than trying to organize men to stand together to fight politically organized women.

  31. Cheque d'Out says:

    This is giving me misty eyed nostalgia. I remember tradcon types rock up at AVoiceForMen in the early days. They expected an army of clueless men would leap to follow them in a charge on the machine gun nests. Some used to get quite upset when they left follower less.

    Dear latest intended glorious leader, listen to Dalrock. Dalrock has known what he’s writing about for years. Your script was outdated more than a decade ago.

  32. earl says:

    Everywhere you go in the Western* world today, you encounter ”strong” women. They’re at work, in business, in families (“The Strong Independent Woman…”). All this strength.
    Are they really strong? Where did they get their strength from? The physical nature? Their decisiveness?

    I’ve got the simple translation down for the women who says she’s strong & indepdendent.

    -I’m a terrible helpmate.

    Women truly are ‘strong’ when they fulfill their God given role which is the helpmate.

  33. feministhater says:

    Strong societies devote a lot of energy to producing strong boys. We’ve found how to produce something worse for society then feral men (who are destructive but strong): hordes of weak men. Withdrawal from dating and marriage is a natural response of weak men.

    I have the same disdain for tradcons as I do for feminists. You’re two sides of the same coin. Don’t complain that men are not willing to date and marry when you’ve created a system that punishes them for it. If this is what you believe, that only weak men walk away from a bad deal, than that means that ‘strong men’ are idiots.

    Both dating and marriage today is a con, a scam. Saying men are weak for seeing this and making the appropriate decision to avoid it, makes you a con artist. By definition.

  34. earl says:

    Withdrawal from dating and marriage is a natural response of weak men.

    By that logic you could also say women withdrawaling from the helpmate role in dating and marriage to be ‘strong and independent’ is a natural response of weak women. Heck I’d like to be married but it’s kind of difficult when a large part of the complimentary sex has this notion they should be something they aren’t.

  35. Warthog says:

    ” but MGTOW men aren’t the problem, they are a logical reaction to the problem.”

    Disagree. The PUA/MGTOW learn how to seduce women, and then seduce many of them in the hopes of finding a good one. Their method damages women, and ensures they will never find a good one.

    Men who want a wife with traditional values should emmigrate to the old world to find one.

  36. StAugustine says:

    This conversation reminds me of Watership Down when the rabbits are realizing that they have brought no female rabbits with them to their destination, and they are doomed despite their visions of the future and heroic escape and journey. The problem that MGTOW poses is that of an empty future – by definition, they have abandoned the future to the feminist culture. They are not part of raising and teaching the next generation (except by chance or on the periphery), and so, the culture can ignore them.

    If the manosphere cannot build a culture that gives status to men and to women and protects its children from being inculcated by feminism culture, it will always be doomed,as the vast majority of us will always be influenced by having higher status. At the moment, the culture we have is too weak to either give status or protect the group. Family formation has been replaced by the child support model, and so any attempt at changing the culture here can be so easily destroyed or subverted by the women involved. No matter where, they can always blow it up and walk away, and it is only their fear of loss of group status that can prevent it. The loss of the husband or family is very much secondary.

    So as red pilled culture, to be durable and lasting, being a part of the culture has to give higher status to the men and the women, and has to protect it’s values given to the children. It must have a system of ethics explicit and implicit. It must have a way of judging and enforcing infractions outside of the law. Religions typically answer this structure, which is why many redpilled men gravitate towards eastern rite, where the biblical roles are still somewhat enforced. However, these churches have a hard time keeping their young due to the feminist culture that surrounds us, and being subject to law.

    The rabbits of Watership down had to go to the enemy and convince some of the lady rabbits to escape with them. These were oppressed rabbits, so Watership down rabbits had something to offer. Then they had to fight to keep them. Depending on the nature of the enemy, a truce can be found, or not.

    This is my understanding of the problem. Men currently lack the coherence to form a masculine dominated family culture. If a group of men comes together to form one, they must agree on rules of the culture and that the group will punish it’s individuals. This group must be the foremost identity for its members. They must support each other when they are oppressed externally.

    On the other hand, we can just wait for disaster to strike our enemies or (unchristianly) strike first. Or until Sharia law gets here (assuming Islam is not corrupted by feminism by that time)

  37. Lost Patrol says:

    I loath Feminists but I reserve my greater loathing for white-knighting Manginas.

    It can take awhile for a new join to figure this out. His initial frustrations are with women, or a particular woman over time. Even after he takes his red pill, or gets his proper glasses on, he can remain fixated on the trouble with women; but that is not where the ‘center of gravity’ (gratuitous military jargon used to excess by pedantic American generals) resides in this conflict.

    Eventually he figures out his real nemesis and may be surprised to learn –

  38. earl says:

    I came to that conclusion as well. I loathe feminists with their ‘single & independent’ nonsense but it’s the manginas, the white knights, the Boomer and X husbands with their ‘she’s the boss, happy wife, happy life’ ethos. The DODOs who AMOG to cover up their own simphood…that deserve more of the loathing.

    Because these guys either produce the terrible daughters out there or are as great of cheerleaders of the worst of feminine behavior as women are.

  39. feministhater says:

    Disagree. The PUA/MGTOW learn how to seduce women, and then seduce many of them in the hopes of finding a good one. Their method damages women, and ensures they will never find a good one.

    MGTOW does not seduce women in the hopes of finding a good one. Pure bull shit.

  40. feministhater says:

    I mean, fuck guys, who created ‘hordes of weak men’ if not the very society and tradcon men who demand they then marry and screw up their lives by accepting a bad deal on the very face?

    If men are weak, look no further than those who raised them for your answer to why they are. You placed boys in the care of women, who took no time in throwing the father out of the house with the full support of the state, the church and society.

    You tradcons are the cause of your very own demise.

  41. feministhater says:

    Which president pushed through no fault divorce? Hmmm, was he a tradcon or a liberal pansy? Hmmmm, questions, fucking questions.

  42. purge187 says:

    “Withdrawal from dating and marriage is a natural response of weak men.”

    Or smart ones.

  43. ZMAN says:

    @feministhater

    That President would have been another one of the Bohemian Grove boys who played the American people just like the rest of the recent Presidents. Presidents are selected by the true elites not elected by the American stooge population. People need to wake up and realize the political system in America is an illusion gifted to the American people as if they have a choice. The true owners of this country have been exploiting the American people for a very long time. Same thing with those who believe in Cheeto Jesus or the previous Obummer.

    @LarryKummer

    Withdrawal of men from dating/marriage is an indication of weak men?

    No it has nothing to do with the legal system that will literally divorce rape a man and reduce him to poverty.
    No it has nothing to do with the legal system that has solidified the feminine imperative at the expense of men: Roe v Wade, Title 9, Affirmative Action, etc.
    No it has nothing to due with the current gynocentric paradigm that elevates women and denigrates men.
    No it has nothing to due with women fucking dozens of men and blowing out their pair bonding ability and completely destroys their mental sanity.
    No it has nothing to due with women entering the workforce and taking jobs away from a man that would have had a job to support a family.

    Millions and millions of men are walking away from dating/marriage because you will lose and it is so dangerous that you will literally lose your life or your freedoms. Have you seen a family member thrown into jail based on a false allegation from a woman? I have and I will never get married or have children in this Satanic country the USA. I welcome death before I will take up marriage in this shithole.
    The OLDER generation (Greatest, Boomers, etc.) of men that allowed all of these things to happen are the WEAK men. You all stood by and let these things happen. I have no respect for you or others from that generation that allowed men to become nothing more than cucks and now you want to tell us who is weak? Western Civilization is nothing more now than a cuckold civilization and it is destroying itself. So before you try to lecture the younger generation on who is weak or not, remember that the young millennials and generation Z like myself were not alive when the laws were written and put into place.

  44. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: As Hamlet might have put it: To Game or to MgTow that is the question.

    Most men do neither. Instead they Man Up and Servant Lead and Orbit and White Knight. And while they’re doing all that, they sneer at both Game and MGTOW.

  45. earl says:

    Game and MGTOW correctly point out the problem but take the wrong path as to the solution.

    Promiscuity and ejection aren’t going to change the feminist narrative that women are forced to be the head and men are forced to be the simps.

  46. Dalrock says:

    @Warthog says:

    ” but MGTOW men aren’t the problem, they are a logical reaction to the problem.”

    Disagree. The PUA/MGTOW learn how to seduce women, and then seduce many of them in the hopes of finding a good one. Their method damages women, and ensures they will never find a good one.

    There is a definition problem here that I won’t try to resolve in the broader sense (what is MGTOW). But in context LK clearly means men who avoid romantic and sexual contact with women. Your beef is with who LK calls gamers (pickup artists).

    But even the pickup artists are a reaction to the core problem. We have collectively decided that our daughters’ most attractive and fertile years should be devoted to having sex with the sexiest men. After a decade or more of that, we want boring loyal dudes to eagerly wife them up, so we can spend every fathers day and every Christian movie telling the boring loyal dudes how worthless they are. Some men see our values (expressed by our actions) and decide that instead of being the object of our contempt (the married dads in Moms Night Out), they would rather be the sexy bad boy we devote our daughters’ most fertile years to (the sexy tattoo artist biker in Moms Night Out).

    The fundamental problem isn’t the men who listen to our values and act accordingly. The problem is our values are entirely screwed up.

  47. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    As long as this is framed as a fight between women and men, men will never organize and stand together for that fight — suggesting that they will is, as one might say, “fantasy football”.

    If the fight were to be reframed as one group of men vs. another group of men — which is what I actually think the fight *is* anyway — there is some chance of building a resistance. The odds are long, because any attempt to do so will be clamped down on by the large and powerful WK group of men, but it still has better odds than trying to organize men to stand together to fight politically organized women.

    Excellent point.

  48. feministhater says:

    That President would have been another one of the Bohemian Grove boys who played the American people just like the rest of the recent Presidents. Presidents are selected by the true elites not elected by the American stooge population. People need to wake up and realize the political system in America is an illusion gifted to the American people as if they have a choice. The true owners of this country have been exploiting the American people for a very long time. Same thing with those who believe in Cheeto Jesus or the previous Obummer.

    The point wasn’t that voting mattered or that the American people choose their leaders or that, indeed, their leaders are chosen for them but that the President held up as the defeater of the Soviets, the bastion of Conservatism, a man amongst men, the perfection of 1950s Tradcon.. was an actor… who passed a law so pernicious, it devastated any lasting effect marriage would have as the cohesive that keeps society together.

  49. Dark says:

    Warthog,
    “The PUA/MGTOW learn how to seduce women, and then seduce many of them in the hopes of finding a good one. Their method damages women, and ensures they will never find a good one.

    Men who want a wife with traditional values should emmigrate to the old world to find one.”

    >>> I’m not sure about that last point. Here’s what the old world had to say (back in 1994):

    “From the amorous point of view, Veronique belonged, as we all do, to a sacrificed generation. She had certainly been capable of love; she would have wished to still be capable of it, I’ll say that for her; but it was no longer possible. A scarce, artificial, and belated phenomenon, love can only blossom under certain mental conditions, rarely conjoined, and totally opposed to the freedom of morals that characterizes the modern era. Veronique had known too many discotheques, too many lovers; such a way of life impoverishes human beings, inflicting sometimes serious and always irreversible damage. Love as a kind of innocence, and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort.”
    – Houellebecq

  50. Asm 826 says:

    Our country won’t go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won’t be any America, because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race. –Lt. Gen. Lewis (Chesty) Puller

  51. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

  52. but that the President held up as the defeater of the Soviets, the bastion of Conservatism, a man amongst men, the perfection of 1950s Tradcon.. was an actor… who passed a law so pernicious, it devastated any lasting effect marriage would have as the cohesive that keeps society together.

    There was no way (no way at all) that Ronnie could have known what lasting damage he did to California (and later the world) when he signed that bill into law in 1969. No way he (or anyone) could have seen it. God knew. He told us how marriage was supposed to be. We just stopped listening to Him. So He let us destroy ourselves..

  53. jbarruso says:

    You promote gender wars when Jesus said love your enemy. “Weak men” are full of fear. Too weak to overcome their fears with faith. Too afraid to love their enemy. Women are demonstrating an increasing need for power and control. They are stepping into the vacuum me have left. Only men strong in faith can be in relationship to a woman like this and convict her of her mistaken behavior. The way Jesus demonstrated in relationship to His bride. Love your enemy.

  54. vandicus says:

    Reagan called it one of his worst mistakes per his son in the book Twice Adopted. He screwed up(and not only on this). People have a tendency to virtually beatify him, and not without reason, but obviously he’s still human. People look for heroes, its not reasonable to expect someone to actually live up to those standards. Its not like he was the backer of the bill in any sense, he did have to be persuaded by James Hayes(originator for CA) not to veto it. There’s also no purpose in trying to elevate a popular figure like Reagan as an avatar of a cancerous institution. That’s just doing the no-fault supporters’ work for them.

  55. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    jbarruso: Only men strong in faith can be in relationship to a woman like this and convict her of her mistaken behavior.

    AMOG much?

  56. feministhater says:

    Only men strong in faith can be in relationship to a woman like this and convict her of her mistaken behavior.

    Lol. Sure. You guys go and do that. It’s all so easy. Nothing to see here folks, all under control.

  57. feministhater says:

    AMOG much?

    So full of false bravado. It’s quite sickening. If only weak men weren’t screwing up their feminism. Life’s a bitch, eh jbarruso?

  58. Cheque d'Out says:

    Can the new resident tradcon please tell us when he’s going to start blaming women. For anything.

    That’s when those guys get quiet in my experience.

  59. feministhater says:

    There’s also no purpose in trying to elevate a popular figure like Reagan as an avatar of a cancerous institution. That’s just doing the no-fault supporters’ work for them.

    That wasn’t the purpose. The purpose was to show that one of the most pernicious changes to marriage laws happened under the watchful eyes of Conservatism, under the same men’s eyes who scold young men to ‘get married’ to ‘love your enemy’ to ‘real men get married’ and ‘weak men shy away from dating and marriage’.

    The same bull shit over and over again. The institution is a nightmare, a con, a walking shambles, shaming will no longer work, men know the score and it is the right decision to walk away.

  60. feministhater says:

    You tradcon fucks are all saying that ‘real men only eat steaks’ whilst shoving rotten, mold ridden and poisonous steaks in men’s faces whilst scolding them for not eating.

    Fuck you.

  61. feministhater says:

    They are not part of raising and teaching the next generation (except by chance or on the periphery), and so, the culture can ignore them.

    Oh I pray to God that you do. Each and every day.

  62. Jim says:

    @feministhater

    You’ve hit it out of the park with every post today. The tradcuck morons just don’t get it.

  63. feministhater says:

    Thanks Jim.

  64. “God knew. He told us how marriage was supposed to be. We just stopped listening to Him. So He let us destroy ourselves.”

    Hmmm so God is MGTOW.

  65. Paul says:

    @jbarruso

    “They are stepping into the vacuum me (sic!) have left.”

    These men were the leaders that refused to enforce:

    I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man she must be quiet.
    For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

    the same leaders who taught their flock, men and women, to pedestalize women, the same leaders who will publicly shame men who try to adhere to these rules, the same leaders who voted for a government to oppose these rules. the same leaders that will never condemn any woman on her sin, however gravely, the same leaders that supported suppression and indoctrination into feminism of boys.

    and the current generation of men is left with the mess they created, and is shamed by these very same leaders, and so are you doing.

    Shame on you.

  66. earl says:

    Only men strong in faith can be in relationship to a woman like this and convict her of her mistaken behavior.

    Ok.

    When are women going to start becoming God fearing again, go into the helpmate role God created for them and be virtuous? That’s the main issue here.

    The tradcons, white knights, manginas, and feminists all demonize men for not manning up to be a simp and yet are encouraging and allowing the worst of feminine behavior to continue unabated.

  67. American says:

    I realize that the primary patterns manifesting in our society are being discussed here; however, it also needs to be pointed out that one does not need to be a sexually immoral player to be MGTOW. In fact, one not even need identify as MGTOW but rather live their own life in a godly way taking care to never subject themselves willingly or unwillingly to the mighty U.S. government at the request of one or more females to their benefit at his expense.

  68. Dry Holes says:

    A lot of anger here on holiday (just like at my folks dining table in my youth)! On this date (before the Univ. of Oregon bans Thanksgiving) I note that I am thankful for our host Dalrock and for most (not all) of you here.

  69. Dry Holes says:

    The history of Christendom has been one of near continual conflict. We are leaving our anomalous age of Pax American for more historic, choppy waters. Our recent age of wealth, comfort and routine access to a marriageable women now ebbs as our land has rejected God and His natural order for the delusions of Rousseau and his demonic children.

    I personally see very little hope in the short term, but I attempt (faith over present distress) to try to hand down some of the truths of our civilization to my sons and a few close friends, that perhaps like Nehemiah and Ezra they might, generations hence, rebuild the wall of Christendom after they are freed (or free themselves, h/t Ezra Pound) from the upcoming Babylonian Captivity.

    Fight on gents! In a marriage, or divorced, MGTOW or otherwise, Fight on.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    The history of Christendom humanity has been one of near continual conflict.

    Fixed that for you.
    Happy Thanksgiving to all! Not just Americans. Even Opus.

  71. Paul says:

    @earl : “When are women going to start becoming God fearing again, go into the helpmate role God created for them and be virtuous? That’s the main issue here.”

    That the culture at large is hostile to God is to be expected, and should not come as a surprise to Christians. In that light feminism is only one of the destructive ideologies that have plagued societies throughout the ages. But that Christians have embraced it and it therefore increasingly difficult for men to live a godly life with a devout wife is a stain on the Church. When is the Church starting to push back? Only with the help of God’s Holy Spirit will we be able to overcome these difficulties. At the same time, God might have decided the end is near and we can expect his speedy return on the Mount of Olives.

    But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

    They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

    On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.

  72. 7817 says:

    “Some men see our values (expressed by our actions) and decide that instead of being the object of our contempt (the married dads in Moms Night Out), they would rather be the sexy bad boy we devote our daughters’ most fertile years to (the sexy tattoo artist biker in Moms Night Out).”

    Heh. Can’t argue with this. I’m married, but at this point I make it a goal to not put effort into being a nice guy at all. There is no benefit to it anywhere, at church, at work, anywhere. Being nice is being a harmless sucker.

    I am not convinced there will be a solution originating in church. Just look at them: even our “conservative” churches accept feminism, look at Doug Wilson. And people I know IRL think he is to patriarchal.

    The most practical solution for the individual christian man is to stop worshiping women and worship God instead, and then to understand how intersexual relations actually work and implement this understanding into his daily life. My guess is that it will look like some form of Game, without the fornication.

  73. earl says:

    The most practical solution for the individual christian man is to stop worshiping women and worship God instead, and then to understand how intersexual relations actually work and implement this understanding into his daily life.

    If you do the first…I mean really do it…the later falls into place.

    And you’re right about being the ‘nice’ guy…it’s another term for the servile guy.

  74. Anonymous Reader says:

    @7817, @earl, @others

    Rhetorical question: where in the Bible are men instructed to be “nice”?
    So many churches insist on it, so it’s gotta be in there somewhere, right?

  75. Oscar says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    Rhetorical question: where in the Bible are men instructed to be “nice”?
    So many churches insist on it, so it’s gotta be in there somewhere, right?

    Modern Christians think kindness and meekness are niceness.

  76. Pinelero says:

    Feminist counted on men being of the old school and exploitable under the old rules. However, once you have an anti-male agenda and feminize men, they are no longer like the old rules guys. This change in conditions was not accounted for by feminzis. These new men are just feminized males, and like women they will whine and complain about their plight. Like women they will be become net drains on society, while demanding equal rights and benefits like women have. Feminzis’s have wrought their own destruction, but they just can’t see it.

  77. Otto Lamp says:

    “Modern Christians think kindness and meekness are niceness.”

    The word translated as “meek” in the King James is properly translated as “gentle” in modern English.

    In 1611, meek and gently were synonyms, but the meaning of meek has changed over the centuries to now mean: submissive and timid. The Bible NEVER said “the submissive and timid will inherit the Earth.” The Bible says: “The GENTLE shall inherit the Earth.”

    Modern translations consistently translate this as gentle, because it is correct in modern English.

  78. SJB says:

    It is more accurate to say that weak men are screwing up society. I’ve wanted to write about this, but it’s too complex and I don’t understand it sufficiently.

    J. Donovan has a sufficient answer (in paraphrase): it is no longer necessary to be anything other than a weak man.

    Other have responded with concise criticism; there’s only to add: a contemporary male’s major challenge is remembering the new cover sheet for the TPS reports. Strength, virtue, Godliness – whatever you want to call it – is no longer necessary.

  79. American says:

    There are actually many ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and even Latin which do not translate well into modern English. Meek is one of them. You are correct Otto that Biblical meekness describes one exercising strength under God’s control. It is not a word meant to subjugate males into allowing females (who are not meek) to transfer male wealth to females. A different word in the Bible describes that behavior: foolish.

  80. I gotta write it: GGHOW … God Going His Own Way!

    Humanity has stopped listening to God therefore He has left ‘us’ to destroy ourselves … Leaving a losing game is the essence of MGTOW.

    Men; Follow the example set by The Almighty and Go Your Own Way.
    Allow ‘the wicked’ to destroy themselves while you persevere to build another day.

  81. ZMAN says:

    @FeministHater

    Yeah I know Reagan passed the law but most retards don’t know anything except they hold him up as some kind of conservative icon when you and I both know he was a fraud. That was the point. I should be more clear in my writing.

    @jbarruso

    Man you tradcucks never give up do you? Setting the stage for everyone’s own destruction…..just as bad as the libtards.

  82. Gunner Q says:

    Larry Kummer, Editor @ November 21, 2018 at 8:14 pm:
    “Looks to me that Larry Kummer is still convinced the Kobiashi Maru scenario has a solution.”

    “Trekies are unreliable sources of advice, no matter how fun the TV shows.”

    Whoosh goes AR’s point over Larry’s head.

    “Western history – and especially American history – was made by men that stood together, organized, and acted. Perhaps it is for the best that men unwilling to do just stand aside.”

    No, it’s Eastern history/culture that values conformance, social honor and a caste system that forces men to participate in society.

    Meanwhile, America popularized the Western. Superheroes. Men doing deeds based upon their personal character and skillsets, often in opposition to corrupted social institutions.

    Do you realize, Larry, that you’re calling for a powerful centralized gov’t (or charismatic leader, same thing) that can coerce men to participate in society whether they want to or not? That is what you do when you fantasize about the days in which “strong men” were programmed that way by multiple/redundant social institutions, or wish men would spontaneously “get together and fix the problem”. You cuckservatives will never accept that trusting authority to raise your kids is how America went wrong in the first place.

  83. Anon says:

    Fourth wave feminists are foes of mem. Beware of underestimating them.

    Anyone who thinks that it is important to distinguish between ‘waves’ of ‘feminism’ is still far from grasping the true scope of the problem.

    There is biological hardwiring in humans that programs both men and women to put the well-being of the woman first. The biological reasons for this are obvious (even if now starting to become obsolete). This is found in all centuries in all cultures. The ‘waves’ of feminism (that too as per the FI of just one country) are just different manifestations of the same notion of the FI and male expendability.

    ‘Waves’ of feminism is really just fixating on one leaf of one tree, and missing the forest. The biological hardwiring explains it all. Equally ignorant is a belief that there was no FI until 1858 in Seneca Falls.

  84. Kid Charlemagne says:
  85. Pingback: I am thankful for blueberry pie | American Dad

  86. @Anonymous Reader is just giving a clinic on history! Love it!

    Yes, as @Novaseeker said and @Dalrock amplified, “If the fight were to be reframed as one group of men vs. another group of men — which is what I actually think the fight *is* anyway — there is some chance of building a resistance.”

    This, and great minds think alike. “Women Are a Medium, Men Are the Law” dated 19 Jan. 2013:
    https://realitydoug.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/women-are-a-medium-men-are-the-law/

  87. Keith says:

    Can’t help but to think 2000years ago there may have been two old centurions sharing a jug of wine and talking about how these young kids are messing up their lives following that Christ guy. Principles that govern don’t change human nature. Values may change. Fourth wave feminist still just a shit test.

  88. Pingback: Friday hawt chicks & links – The Thanksgiving edition. – Adam Piggott

  89. John James R. says:

    @Pinelero

    “These new men are just feminized males, and like women they will whine and complain about their plight.”

    Good insight. Funny or ironically enough, but the incoming wave of white males will actually be the only demographic who has a valid gripe about unfairness. That’s trifling though, because ALL demographics will be playing the victim card soon enough. There will soon be NO demographic that has self-sacrifice/duty as a character trait (we’re down to only one right now anyway, previously mentioned) so it’s going to get interesting. I often wonder who is going to the be the hard-working guy in Pocatello, Idaho who takes it upon himself to run the city’s power grid? Who will be the lead septic engineer? Who’s going to do the mining? WHY would they? A whole generation of males is on the way who will have solipsism as a character trait after their single mom childhood and the estrogen dump of k-12 feminist warrior educators. What happens when men start to indulge in solipsism?

  90. BillyS says:

    Dalrock,

    My own experience tends to reinforce the flaws in MGTOW and PUA. I refuse to do the latter and I am likely to be forced to the former, but not out of choice. Finding a faithful woman I am attracted to and that is attracted to me at my age is most unlikely. That is a flaw of expectations.

    The two movements only think about themselves however, not about civilization. Not surprising, but sad, especially for a Christian.

    Though I am not sure what advice I would give a young man today. The deck is definitely stacked against him, no matter how carefully he looks. Though I would tell him to pay great attention to warning signs that would not have been an issue in past generations.

    I also find it ironic how many preachers speak about the need for men to protect women, yet completely neuter any ability to do that by allowing them absolutely no authority. Exactly how is a husband supposed to protect his wife from a stupid move today, even if both are Christians?

  91. Pingback: Raising boys to live in the coming matriarchy - Fabius Maximus website

  92. Random Guy says:

    Wow, Larry got real quiet once people saw his BS first hand.

  93. Anon says:

    BillyS,

    The two movements only think about themselves however, not about civilization.

    False. They recognize that it is impossible to get women to think about civilization at all, hence the absence of strict patriarchal control of women (the only model that makes women net contributors to civilization) means the next best choice is for a man to manage his personal situation within these realities.

    The typical MGTOW and PUA knows more about the true inner workings of civilization than any cuckservative.

  94. Anyone who thinks that it is important to distinguish between ‘waves’ of ‘feminism’ is still far from grasping the true scope of the problem.

    The “waves” are just different phases of the same ultimate plan. There was only so much feminists could accomplish at one time, due to social restrictions.

    The goal of feminism was reproductive supremacy, which they’ve achieved. Feminists have been pushing for “free love” all the way back to Mary Wollenstonecraft. Their first move was to seek political power under the banner of equality. The Great Depression and WW2 slowed them down, but once the smoke cleared they went to work on the second phase by demanding subsidized birth control and easy divorce.

    Before WW1 (or thereabouts) reproduction was controlled by men. Families arranged for their daughters to marry a boy because they wanted to carry on a legacy. If a boy saw a girl in town, he would have to win the parents over in a traditional courtship to marry her. In either case, it was the father who had final say (veto power) over whom the girl would marry and therefore which genes would be passed on to the next generation. This is the way it was throughout all recorded history. Men either took women by force, as in the case of Iceland, or they arranged for their daughters to marry a young man.

    But now that the father is out of the picture, men can go straight to the girl for non-reproductive sex. If he wants to get married it’s the same drill. He has to appeal to the preferences and sensibilities of women, rather than the preferences of the father. This was the ultimate goal of the feminist movement hatched by the suffragettes; it’s why they wanted political control.

  95. Dave says:

    Our country won’t go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won’t be any America, because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race. –Lt. Gen. Lewis (Chesty) Puller

    Unfortunately true. It seems that nature is very brutal in weeding out the weak, and replacing them with the strong. This is clearly true of animals in the jungle, where lions reign over weaker animals. However, once the lion becomes old or severely injured, it becomes a prey to other animals. A lion with a broken jaw or legs becomes a meal for the hyenas.

    This natural brutality has also been the history of humans, as our endless historical wars can readily show. In more peaceful times, businesses are often in high-stakes competitions with each other, leaving only the most brutal companies standing. Even friendly engagements (e.g. the Olympics) favor the best and most athletic.
    Interesting enough, Scripture gives a hint that only the tough, the bold and the fanatically courageous overcomers will ever make it to heaven in the end.

    Fortis Fortuna Adiuvat

  96. Dave says:

    Fourth wave feminist still just a shit test.

    Nay, the entire feminist movement from start to finish is a ginormo-humongous shit test, which men miserably failed, and continue to fail, with potentially serious ramifications for our very existence as humans. There, FIFY.

  97. BillyS says:

    Anon,

    The typical MGTOW and PUA knows more about the true inner workings of civilization than any cuckservative.

    How is that inconsistent with my statement? They are still only out to maximize their own benefits.

    I did not say the cucks were better. Few are better today. At least Dalrock is trying to do something (with some posts) to propose solutions. I don’t see that from PUAs or MGTOWs.

  98. Facepuncher says:

    @BillyS,
    I already made a suggestion. Focus action on white knights, and cucks instead of on trying to get MGTOW to beg to be let back onto the plantation.

    As for an earlier exchange, you claimed
    The two movements only think about themselves however, not about civilization.

    MGTOW tend to think a great deal about civilization, and analyze it.

    That is very different from acting to prop up a system that despises and degrades them.

    Some MGTOW choose non-participation out of self interest alone. Others find inaction the most effective choice to undermine a corrupt system they actively hope will fail.

    I suggest you look into how the Grey men of the Soviet Union were a part of it’s downfall.

  99. Sven says:

    “Withdrawal from dating and marriage is a natural response of weak men.”

    Thanks for the shaming…..

  100. Opus says:

    I send belated Thanksgiving wishes to Anonymous Reader as well as commiserations to his Turkey and reflect that Thanksgiving (22nd November) is the American equivalent of Guy Fawkes Day (5th November) otherwise known as Bonfire Night. The main difference so far as I can see (other than that you do not set off fireworks around a bonfire) is that Americans (thanks to your wonderful 1st amendment) are not arrested by the police for setting fire to cardboard boxes. Even forty Years ago (as I recall witnessing at one of the Bonfire Society’s event) burning effigies of the Pope passed without police interference. How low have we fallen.

  101. Novaseeker says:

    Can’t help but to think 2000years ago there may have been two old centurions sharing a jug of wine and talking about how these young kids are messing up their lives following that Christ guy. Principles that govern don’t change human nature. Values may change.

    Actually what we are living through is quite special in the history of the evolution of the species. When women gained control over their fertility in such a way as to make maintaining a pregnancy a fully “opt-in” scenario, the rules around sexuality and mating were bound to change, because the underlying basis for them (female pregnancy and children) had been fundamentally altered scientifically. Yes, women are hypergamous since forever, but that had a *natural* check in the form of pregnancy and all that entailed for a woman (dependency, in particular) — the social norms around sex in the species in various cultures all developed around the premise that sex often led to female pregnancy, which created a serious situation for the woman and her children unless certain structures (marriage, patriarchal father rights and roles, etc.) were adhered to, as well as a lot of social pressure for women in particular to avoid sex outside of these structures. When you take away the basic underlying premise for all of that — that women simply *do* get pregnant from sex — by allowing women to fairly easily avoid and/or terminate their pregnancies, the entire basis for the rest of the superstructure of social rules around sex collapses — which is precisely what has happened.

    This is not a minor thing, and it represents a major *discontuinty* with prior eras, and with the way hypergamy works itself out in human relations. The natural check on the expression of women’s sexual hypergamy, which is pregnancy and the fear of pregnancy, has been artificially removed. This has created an imbalance between the sexes which is *structural*, given that the natural check on the expression of men’s sexuality — women’s sexual choice — has been strengthened both by this fundamental underlying change as well as a set of other social mores that came rushing in at the same time in response to this fundamental change. This, again, is a discontinuity — it is new. It is not something any men ever faced before in the history of the species. Yes, feminism in various forms has reared its head before, but never before have women had anything like this degree of reliable/safe/cheap/accessible control over their fertility. The fact that men are largely floundering around in the wake of such a massive change in fundamental circumstances regarding female sexual expression is not at all surprising — in fact, it’s to be expected. We have simply not evolved to counter the expression of female hypergamy which is not naturally checked by pregnancy and the fear of pregnancy, and our social institutions have not been developed to deal with this either — whether churches and doctrines/praxis, social mores and rules, dating and mating scripts. It’s all in the trash bin because the fundamental change of circumstances on the women’s side has really made the old structures, rules and norms largely irrelevant other than for those few people who choose to follow them voluntarily based on personal conviction — something which can never form the basis of a social order, obviously.

    There is no way back. It’s not like women are somehow going to have the control over their fertility taken away from them. What is needed is a more creative response — something which deals with the new reality of artificially liberated female sexual hypergamy in a way that doesn’t rely on individuals voluntarily choosing to follow certain older order rules and norms out of personal conviction — I mean that is what many of us are doing, but it isn’t the basis of a social norm and never can be. If you’re interested in the bigger picture and the years ahead, you’re best off focusing on discerning what a new set of rules looks like for the current scenario of liberated hypergamy (beyond the current “harm” standard of “no harm, no foul”). I don’t know what that looks like — no-one does, really, and so society is thrashing about on these issues because the situation has fundamentally changed, and everyone knows that it has, but there are still no new rules to address it which more or less everyone agrees upon other than “don’t rape someone”.

  102. Lost Patrol says:

    Novaseeker,

    Thank you for that explanation. A sea change.

  103. jbarruso says:

    Your longing is for a woman who will love you by submitting to you. But Jesus said; “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?” He also said; “a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” I suggest you’re looking at this whole feminism thing bass-ackwards. Which came first the feminist or the man weak in his faith? Eve exerted herself and Adam acquiesced. And so it continues today with sons of Adam.

  104. Acksiom says:

    >If the fight were to be reframed as one group of men vs. another group of men — which is what I actually think the fight *is* anyway — there is some chance of building a resistance.

    No, there isn’t, because that’s not what the fight is about. The fight, like all conflicts, is about resources. In the kind of cases were discussing, the resources that matter are men’s involvement and commitment to their communities and traditional responsibilities, and their communities’ reciprocal compensation for that involvement and commitment.

    But our communities prefer to have the cheaper prices on goods and services provided through their willing self-sacrifice of male safety, health, and lives, instead of paying higher prices in exchange for having everybody value men and boys more highly.

    We indoctrinate everyone into believing that men and boys are less worthy of protection and concern so that they will be more likely to expend their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health and lives for the overall benefit of everyone in general. We also reinforce this belief throughout their lives by positive and negative behavioral modification; i.e. rewards and punishments for obeying and violating the norms and codes of masculine behavior.

    The problem is not some group of other men because most people in general benefit from the strict gender indoctrination of everyone into devaluing men and boys so that they become sufficiently willing to sell themselves cheaply enough.

    The fundamental problem with “calls to action” like Larry’s, etc. is that the recent considerable expansion of women’s choices in life is the result of the child mortality rate decreasing to a mere fraction of all pregnancies, in combination with the general availability of safe, affordable, reliable birth control and a significant increase in labor-saving technology in women’s traditional areas of responsibility, rather than angry and passionate activism.

    Advances in the actual expression of human rights are, as a rule, far more the result of the scientific and technological improvements which make them possible than they are the result of angry and passionate advocates, as can be seen by the consistent comparative failure of anger and passion to change reality throughout human history measured against the effects of science and technology.

    Sorry to ruin the illusion, but that’s just how it is.

    We may like to believe that it is our angry and passionately motivated activism which changes the world, but the truth is that it is improvements in science and technology which create the possibilities for large-scale change, and our activism only exploits them as they become available. As Novaseeker says,

    >There is no way back. It’s not like women are somehow going to have the control over their fertility taken away from them. What is needed is a more creative response — something which deals with the new reality of artificially liberated female sexual hypergamy in a way that doesn’t rely on individuals voluntarily choosing to follow certain older order rules and norms out of personal conviction — I mean that is what many of us are doing, but it isn’t the basis of a social norm and never can be.

    Exactly so. If you want to change the current conditions, you need to change the environmental conditions that created them. We have no-fault divorce and the other corruptions of the culture because we reached a point where technological progress made them affordable. This is also why MGTOW has become A Thing today. The technology curve is catching up to men’s traditional responsibilities, which were, and remain, harder to industrialize and automate. We have MGTOW to the degree we do today because we can likewise finally afford it.

    And no amount of marching and shouting and posting and demonstrating and trying to “activate” other men is going to change that. The only thing that has a chance of changing it is the same thing that IS changing it: technological advance.

    Men have cheaper, better, and more alternatives to their traditional social contract than ever before in history, and that trend is only accelerating. “Joi” from Blade Runner is literally right around the corner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-oHdR_-l6o . That kind of technological advance is only going to accelerate MGTOW. It will raise men’s prices in the social involvement and commitment market from the bottom right on up to the top, because those prices are fungible across male quality categories.

    So the only worthwhile option communities have is to increase their compensation to men for engaging in that traditional social contract. But instead, they’re trying to clamp down harder and harder on men, which only further drives the exodus. And so, in turn, they’re not going to increase their compensation until MGTOW reaches a sufficiently painful tipping point economically, and that’s not likely to happen before a crisis of civil violence starts really tearing things down, because part of that traditional social contract is keeping the borders secure and maintaining internal order, and they won’t compensate enough men well enough to do those things well enough.

    There is only one technological advance on the horizon that I can perceive which would provide a way out of this trap, and it wouldn’t even be that hard. It’s arguably within our arms’ reach. But it involves a Better Pill For Men, one that has been shown to work reliably and reversibly for over a couple of decades now, and that’s not going to get anywhere with the traditionally religious population around here.

    But it’s the only way I can see out of the current trap. If sperm becomes expensive, communities will either change how they compensate men for their involvement and commitment, or they will die out. And that’s when “men standing together” will matter, to ensure that the compensation meets the necessary requirements — particularly the return of the guarantee of paternal custody and authority again, because that’s the core, fundamental social contract of civilization.

  105. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    jbarruso: “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?”

    So you’re saying that churches should teach women to love men who abuse them?

    Or does that Jesus quote only work in one direction?

  106. Paul says:

    @jbarusso

    You’re an expert in selective quoting, congratulations!

    “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?” this was said as part of:
    “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.”

    So all men should be longing to marry their enemy, someone who hates them, curses them, and mistreat them? And then love such wives?

    If your wife sins against you in such a major way, listen to Jesus’ advice:

    “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

    Which Church condemns Christian women for mistreating their husbands?

  107. They Call Me Tom says:

    False equivocation, I think, in Kuddow’s closing. MGTOW does not desire to control women in the way that modern-day feminism is trying to control men. MGTOW seems to simply be about not submitting to the rules currently offered. So calling that point of view ‘weak’ is curious. How is opting out of the indentured servitude suggested by modern-day feminism doing anything besides preserving self-determination? Is self determination weak and indentured servitude strong?
    MGTOW on it’s face may be problematic, but not moreso than the social context it is responding to. The only weak men involved here are:
    1) those who didn’t raise there daughters well,
    2) those bureaucrats in family law who prevented fathers from raising their daughters well, and
    3) those church leaders who embraced frivolous divorce, and the women who engaged in it.

    I, myself, haven’t given up on women entirely. I think a good woman is hard to find, but not impossible. I wouldn’t suggest giving up on them entirely is a weak thing though, for it is near impossible these days. Time shouldn’t be wasted trying to make one’s self amog when there are actual problems involved. Church leaders need to be stronger in raising good women, ‘go forth, and sin no more.’ Political leaders need to be stronger in holding women equally accountable, justice is supposed to be blind. And fathers of daughters must not be weak men when the church leaders and political leaders try to shame strong fathers into being weak men like themselves.

  108. Keith says:

    Novaseeker I understand your point of view. And yes it is different from generations in the past. I don’t see any new social contract coming any time soon. The two sexes don’t trust each other to begin with and after forty years of big brother governments helping the sisters ruin the first model of a contract I’m not sure what a (new deal ) would look like. How would you bring mgtow and pua back to the marriage market ?

  109. They Call Me Tom says:

    On a side note, because I saw reference to the French Revolution in the comments above, and because I’ve been reading on it lately… the first significant butchery of the September Massacres? A female noble rumored to be Marie Antoinette’s lover. So the revolution that has been the model of every marxist revolution that followed, chose to kill one of their sacred cows (female, lesbian and a foreigner! a sjw’s wettest of wet dreams!) to kick the thing off. I find it both interesting and predictable. The factions that start revolutions always seem to claim to be fighting for a different cause than they actually are. So far, the French Revolution seems to have been more about increasing the power of the bureaucats by removing interference from the nobles than being about the freedoms of the French peasant.

  110. Jaquio says:

    I am rather confused as to Fabius Maximus’ characterization of MGTOW as a fantasy. Didn’t he say at one point on his website that “‘After me, the deluge’ is a perfectly rational philosophy for the childless”? So to those who have been shut out of our 21st-century marriage system, how can you fault them for following their own rational self-interest?

    And similarly, to paraphrase Dalrock, shaming people for pursuing their own rational self-interest is something a leftist would do. A real conservative would determine what factors are causing people to withdraw from the system, and try to introduce new incentives that cause them to re-align their interests with the good of society. A leftist would simply damn them all for being selfish.

  111. Jed Mask says:

    Eh, where the STRONG MEN at…?

    ~ Bro. Jed

  112. Keith says:

    Novaseeker , they are too many aspects of it to get my weak mind around. To build a new social contract that is a win – win model for both sides. Both sides have unrealistic achievable goals. Weman have out priced the marriage market and men will not chance a whole life investment on a 50/50 coin toss. Not that I believe that we have ever had a golden age of a social contract to begin with. There is no guarantee that will a 100 percent.

  113. Randon Guy,

    “Wow, Larry got real quiet once people saw his BS first hand.”

    I seldom comment at other people’s websites. I respond to all comments at my own, which is much more than enough. I was looking at this thread to see if I needed to tweak the version of it I was posting. Didn’t need to, but it’s always good to check.

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/11/23/preparing-for-the-matriarchy/

  114. Gary Eden says:

    Our problem is that Christians don’t actually believe in the word of God.

    This ten thousand times this. The quickest way to get rejected by Christians is suggest a Biblical solution so something that contradicts the world’s perspective.

    So, what are the concrete ways men should “Stand together” to win this culture war? Any such suggestions need to take into account any attempts of men to do this in the USA are being mercilessly shut down or co-opted.

    Focus action on white knights, and cucks instead of on trying to get MGTOW to beg to be let back onto the plantation.

    This is correct. MGTOW’s are a very important part of the solution. First they change the supply/demand dynamic; putting the squeeze on women and cucks who care about women getting a man. Second because they are calling out our culture on it’s BS.

    While MGTOW isn’t a long term solution by itself, it is a perfectly logical and reasonable response. Honorable even.

  115. Novaseeker says:

    I don’t see any new social contract coming any time soon. The two sexes don’t trust each other to begin with and after forty years of big brother governments helping the sisters ruin the first model of a contract I’m not sure what a (new deal ) would look like. How would you bring mgtow and pua back to the marriage market

    I agree — as I said, I don’t have the answer as to what the “new deal” between the sexes will look like, but I do know that a new deal will be needed at some stage. The old deal is outdated because it is based on fundamental circumstances (pregnancy and dependency of women) that no longer obtain (or are “opt in”). We need a new deal, and we don’t have one, which is why everyone is flailing around, desperately trying to work out their own “personal solution” (all understandable), because the old rules are outdated and there aren’t really any new rules to speak of that broadly apply. We are living through a transitional period. Eventually there will be a new deal, and it will likely look so different from the old deal as to not look like something we would recognize as a deal at all, but some kind of social arrangement will eventually be reached. Perhaps to get there we will need some more technological development, as Acksiom suggests.

  116. Gary Eden says:

    One of the problems here in the search for solutions is in looking to government as the ultimate solution. Yes the laws are a problem, but if that’s the only solution we’ll never get there.

    Law is but a codification of culture. Change the culture and you change the laws. They didn’t change our marriage situation by changing the law first; there was no cultural support for that. First they had to use propaganda to shift the culture.

    https://blackpilled.com/2018/09/selling-divorce-to-the-west/

    Let me offer an example of a solution in illustration. The Amish have zero divorce, large families, and are economically thriving in comparison to their rural neighbors. This despite the present laws. How do they manage to avoid divorce despite the legal situation? Culture and the willingness to enforce it.

    And what they have accomplished is impressive beyond measure. They are in the belly of the beast and yet have been able to maintain their separate culture and identity. Look around the world at the spread of globalism; almost no other tribe on this earth accomplished that, despite having radically different cultures and distance to their advantage.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we all must give up our cars to get out of this situation. I’m saying, there are some lessons and solutions there if you but look.

  117. imnobody00 says:

    @Novaseeker

    One of your best comments and that’s saying a lot.

    In my opinion, the new deal is already between us. It is the “child support” family model explained by Dalrock, feminism, promiscuity, the whole nine yards. Of course, it is a new deal that produces the decline and fall of Western civilization (and it conquest by patriarchal civilizations, such as Islam).

    Nothing new under the Sun. The matriarchal late Rome used so much the contraceptive weed called “silphium” that it became an extinguished species. Rome was conquered by the patriarchal barbarians. The matriarchal late classical Greece was conquered by the patriarchal early Rome. The matriarchal Abbasid caliphate (believe it or not there was feminism in this Islamic civilization) was conquered by the patriarchal Turks and so on and so forth.

    I guess that, when you talk about the “new deal”, you mean “a new deal that is not self-destructive”, but I don’t think this is feasible. What we have right now is the law of the jungle: since everybody is free to do as he wants, the powerful ones (women, alpha) impose their will. Freedom means “people do what they want”, that is, what the human instincts tell them to do. In turn, human instincts are programmed during a matriarchal Stone Age culture and produce a matriarchal society.

    A new deal would mean that, like with the old deal, somebody has to renounce his selfishness for the entire society to work. When I say “somebody”, I mean “the powerful ones (women, leaders, alphas)”. This is against human nature. And without a religion and hard times, simply impossible.

    The only way out is to have a Dark Age so the powerful ones suffer and decide that they have to give in (so it is a selfishness move again) as a lesser evil. It is better if this is complemented with a religion telling you that, if you are selfish and have anti-social behavior, God will punish you. It seems to me that we will see nothing of this in the foreseeable future. So I guess we will only experience a constant decline.

    If I am wrong, please tell me. Nothing is better than to learn and I have been wrong many times.

  118. Gunner Q says:

    Facepuncher @ 3:27 am:
    “I suggest you look into how the Grey men of the Soviet Union were a part of it’s downfall.”

    I’d be interested to read more. Can you point me towards a couple resources?

  119. Novaseeker says:

    One of your best comments and that’s saying a lot.

    Thanks — it’s an important issue, yet a hard one.

    What we have right now is the law of the jungle: since everybody is free to do as he wants, the powerful ones (women, alpha) impose their will. Freedom means “people do what they want”, that is, what the human instincts tell them to do. In turn, human instincts are programmed during a matriarchal Stone Age culture and produce a matriarchal society.

    I agree with a lot of what you say, but to me it’s important to remember that the natural consequences of those instincts have been suspended, which has had a primary influence on current affairs. We are not experiencing a reversion to an old natural order, because despite prior uses of contraceptive herbs and the like among higher caste women, there has never, ever been a situation where every woman from the President’s wife to the chambermaid has full 100% reliable control over her fertility, either through contraception or abortion. It’s new. The concept isn’t new, but the scope, breadth, effectiveness and impact is new. Kind of like the stack of Hustler magazines in Dad’s garage isn’t the same as internet porn, and nor is the impact.

    I think that the solution will remain unknown for some time. There will be a new equilibrium. We aren’t there yet, because the current system is unstable and in flux — #metoo is one manifestation of that. We aren’t finished with the fallout from the new reproductive techs yet, and we need to get past that fallout before we can even think of a contra position that could create a new equilibrium. The current child support model is a current de facto reality, but it isn’t stable and it isn’t an equilibrium. Who knows what the equilibrium would be?

  120. feeriker says:

    The most practical solution for the individual christian man is to stop worshiping women and worship God instead, and then to understand how intersexual relations actually work and implement this understanding into his daily life. My guess is that it will look like some form of Game, without the fornication.

    It will probably result in a man being the target of both mockery and persecution, but he has to condition himself not to care. The less heed he pays to what today’s world values and the more attention he pays to what God demands, the better off he’ll be. (Yes, once he realizes just how far removed today’s “churches” are from God’s word, he’ll probably have to fight hard to keep from falling into despair and depression, but he should consider that a challenge to strengthen his prayer life and walk with God).

    Feminist counted on men being of the old school and exploitable under the old rules. However, once you have an anti-male agenda and feminize men, they are no longer like the old rules guys. This change in conditions was not accounted for by feminzis.

    Of course not. Feminazis, being women (and that includes the male variety), can neither think long term nor understand cause and effect.

  121. feeriker says:

    “God knew. He told us how marriage was supposed to be. We just stopped listening to Him. So He let us destroy ourselves.”

    Your hero Ronnie was also one of those who stopped listening. Otherwise, if he had any immutable principles, he would never have signed what he would have KNOWN to be an abomination into law.

    But hey, I guess when you’ve done the divorce deed once yourself and are accustomed to being the center of attention (as well as having insatiable ambition), you can’t just do the right thing, admit that you screwed up big time, and try to keep others from being destroyed by the same mistake you made.

  122. Rollory says:

    Anon –
    “There is biological hardwiring in humans that programs both men and women to put the well-being of the woman first … This is found in all centuries in all cultures. ”

    In “refugee” boats crossing the Mediterranean in the past few years, it has been very common that when the boats are overloaded and in danger of sinking, it’s the women that get pushed overboard.

    Among the Inuit it was common to put girl children who were considered to be in excess out on the snow to die of exposure.

    In China with the one-child policy, abortions of females are far more common than abortions of males. If they have just one child, they want it male. Similar pattern in India, although not as strict due to not having the one-child policy.

    I could go on but I won’t. Please don’t post such spectacular nonsense again.

  123. feeriker says:

    Cane Caldo asks: “Does Larry claim to be a Christian?”

    Larry can answer for himself, but if this eye-opening comment he made to me in response to a post I made on his blog a couple of months back (“IMO god is indifferent to our prayers. But He sometimes shows favor to those who help themselves.” https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/09/29/collapse-of-american-empire/#comment-375742) is reflective of his core beliefs, any affirmative claim he makes to being a Christian would cause me to doubt his honesty.

  124. Gary Eden says:

    We will be stuck with the current deal between the sexes until we realized that ‘a deal’ is not possible.

    Women have well proven that they will not be held to account for any deal. They’ll accept anything they can get of course, but will not be held responsible for upholding their half. They are not honest negotiators. They will not be satisfied for anything less than more and more until they have ALL the power.

    Do you get what patriarchy means? There will be no deal in patriarchy. It is male rule, period, end of story. We will get the needed new ‘deal’ when men rise up and take it by subjugating the women in their lives; either as part of a subculture or extending from there into society at large.

    Until then, it will be nothing but death, injustice, and fall. Destroyed lives. Invasions. Loss of everything we once held dear.

    There is no nice out, no ‘agreement’ to be made that allows women to keep some of their ‘freedoms’. It’s either full on matriarchy or full on patriarchy. Anything else is but a transient transition from one to the other. Any privileges we may allow women to have will only be because we allow it.

    Because they’ll never negotiate a middle way of their own accord. And even if they did, the mangina’s and women would conspire to violate the terms progressively until it became matriarchy again.

  125. Anon says:

    Rollory squeaked :

    Please don’t post such spectacular nonsense again.

    Good Lord, you are cartoonishly clueless.

    Total US deaths in WW2 : 300,000
    Total of those that were women : 16

    Total US deaths in VietNam : 58,000
    Total of those that were women : 8.

    You are actually claiming that many societies treat (reproductive age) women as more expendable as men. That level of blue-pill cluelessness is a sight to behold. It is truly stunning cluelessness on your part. Everything from female hypergamy to which reproductive resource is scarce vs. which is plentiful; it truly takes effort to achieve the enormous absence of knowledge you have exhibited.

    The preference for sons vs. daughters by parents in some cultures is a very different thing. It has to do with who they think is a net earner and who the parents can stay with when old.

  126. Anon says:

    I think I have to beat up Rollory a bit more here :

    Go to any animal farm anywhere in the world. You will see that an equal number of male and female babies are born among the animals (whether cattle, pigs, goats, chickens, or ducks). Yet if it is an animal used for food, almost all of the adult animals are female. At most, there is one bull/boar/billy/rooster for each 20 cows/sows/ewes/hens.

    Now, someone like you is not curious or observant enough to have noticed this before, but to others reading this, we all know why this is :

    The males are processed for meat as soon as they are old enough. The females are used to reproduce, with only a small number of males needed to inseminate them. Everyone (except Rollory) knows that females are the scarcer reproductive resource. 90% of all red meat and poultry eaten is from male animals.

    This extends to human hardwiring about which gender is expendable and which isn’t. The death of a woman is considered to be worse than the death of 50 men, for obvious biological reasons that are only now starting to become obsolete.

  127. BillyS says:

    Facepuncher,

    I should have said “the future of civilization” meaning looking past their own current benefit. I understand why both groups look to benefit, but I feel a calling to a higher power. Out of my hands either way however, as I am well past the age of likely having children.

    Novaseeker,

    I believe we do have a way back, but it will not happen without major societal upheaval, something I am not gung-ho about. Though what cannot be maintained won’t. Women removing the incentive for most men to participate in society (with specific men enabling that) will eventually cause massive problems. Having a large number of men without any prospect for a stable long-term marriage ultimately does in any society and it will eventually do in ours.

    God setup the plan. Men muck it up, to their own hurt.

    Note too that we may have pushed off the immediate consequences (pregnancy), but the long term failure to create a stable society has not been avoided, only delayed. We are running on past fumes and those will eventually run out. Men will not continue to support this forever. A few men may try to whip all the others in the “proper place”, but that will only work for so long. Despotic governments eventually fall, though it may take quite a while along with a whole lot of suffering.

    We are not in a new golden age of humanity as some think.

    jbarruso,

    Look at how firm your arrogance is if you get hit with divorce near the end of your life. You are completely ignorant of how things have changed. Even Christian women refuse to be faithful, with churches supporting them. This will not end well, especially as more and more get hit with this and younger men avoid things completely.

    All the preachers preening against men will ultimately fail and even women will get disgusted with them as few will find any men they like at all in the churches.

    Acksiom,

    The technical child mortality rate may have gotten lower, but abortion takes out quite a number of them, so I would bet we are not that far ahead in reality.

    RPL,

    So you’re saying that churches should teach women to love men who abuse them?

    Ironically, many women already do that. It is the faithful ones they are repulsed by.

    Keith,

    Just because you can’t see a change coming doesn’t mean it won’t. It will likely delay far longer than most of us can fathom and then hit much harder than anyone expects.

    Societal downfall is quite possible, as the motivated ones that build civilization stop reproducing leaving only those who seek to tear it down. Look at many inner cities now. A few get remodeled by hipsters, but most just go in a downward spiral. Coming soon to a suburb near you!

  128. Meh.
    3rd or 4th wave? What’s the difference, and why do we even care?
    I really don’t.
    The fundamental problem is not feminism or even men responding by going MGTOW.
    The problem is that we now live in a dysfunctional society where injustice is mounting, and the likelihood of future economic collapse is increasing too because rights, power, authority have been summarily divorced and detached from commensurate responsibility and accountability.
    Everything we see is unsustainable long-term. Wait until Gen Z hits the streets and starts working on the world’s problems. My God.

    Women have been bestowed with inordinate rights, authority, power and privileges financially and legally that they simply DO NOT deserve to hold.
    Meanwhile, all men have had their own rights, authority and power removed categorically, while they are held 100% responsible and accountable, financially and legally.
    This has destroyed the family, marriage, birth rates and the social contract between the sexes.
    It can be undone. But men have been so conditioned, particularly religious conservatives, not to do what is required and ordained by God.

    So it’s not a restaurant. Not at all.
    It’s a plane experiencing serious mechanical failure.
    And that plane is going to crash to the ground.
    That is not even a debate. It is a certainty.
    And there is nothing anyone can do about it.
    The Mgtows are leaving the plane with the only parachutes, or they never boarded the goddamned plane in the first place.

    This leaves the religious conservatives either:
    a.) insisting that “hey, there’s some turbulence maybe. But there is no mechanical failure.”
    b.) saying feminists mechanics must have fucked up the plane before takeoff so its their fault
    c. ) saying “well, at least my soul is saved. How about yours?”

    Feminism is a self-correcting problem. Ironically, a lot of us weak-minded men are going to die because we didn’t know well enough to take control of the situation and treat both women and wives with the appropriate level of caution and control that the Bible indicates.

  129. Novaseeker says:

    Another thing.

    For committed Christians, there is no issue. Really, there is no issue. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling, whatever trials the Lord sends your way, be it divorce rape or anything else.

    The future’s rules won’t be written by committed Christians, however. Christianity is on the way out in terms of influence in the West, and any Christian who finds that irritating must remember that Christianity, regardless of being the true faith, has only ever made modest inroads in much of the world outside the West. We will decrease, others will increase. If you want to participate in the setting of the future rules, you will silence yourselves if you rely on Christian preaching or posturing to convince. You need to find a way to communicate things that isn’t religious, at least in the next 3-4 decades.

    Much more success is destined for those who come up with a vision of sexual mores that non-Christians and Christians alike can embrace. I have no clue what that is, though.

  130. Forgotten FuRyan says:

    “Feminists” … “Young women aren’t the problem.” Wrong and wrong. All women are passively feminists. Here, I’ll prove it: only caucasian men don’t receive Affirmative Action university admissions, scholarships and government mandated hiring. Only men are required by law to register for Selective Service or become felons, be fined and lose voting rights. Both of the aforementioned are directly brought by feminism. Virtually no women petition the government to take away their unearned privileges; ergo, all women are passively feminists. All waves of feminism are invalid and merely Male exploitation. ‘Men Going Their Own Way’ and ‘feminism’ are the least of your problems. Single motherhood is the most popular arrangement at 23%, men are flocking away from churches because they enforce 1 Timothy 5:8 on men, which says that a man (gendered language in the Hebrew & Greek) is worse than an unbeliever if he doesn’t provide; but not Titus 2:5 which is clear in the Hebrew and Greek that it’s blasphemy for women to work outside of the home. Furthermore, 70% of American men ages 20-34 aren’t married and women lose 90% of their ovarian eggs by the age of 30. Additionally, the United States Of America, under our Socialist mixed economic system, has 210 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. Tick-tock, Tic-tock!
    “I don’t care if I pass your test, I don’t care if I follow your rules, if you can cheat, so can I. I won’t let you beat me unfairly – I’ll beat you unfairly first.” — Ender Wiggin
    (Orson Scott Card, Ender’s Game – Ender’s Saga, #1)

  131. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m not sure if we have a case of girl-power, or weak men screwing up a feminist navy.
    Frigates are relatively small, maneuverable and have a high ratio of power to weight.
    Supertankers are big, slow, and sail in a straight line. So how did this happen?

    Anyway, Norway is down one frigate…

    http://www.newser.com/story/267396/oil-tanker-sinks-navy-ship.html
    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/17/europe/norway-navy-sunken-frigate-scli-intl/index.html

  132. ray says:

    Anon — “Waves’ of feminism is really just fixating on one leaf of one tree, and missing the forest. The biological hardwiring explains it all. Equally ignorant is a belief that there was no FI until 1858 in Seneca Falls.”

    Seneca Falls went down in 1848. It was the beginning of mass, organized feminism in the U.S., and was strongly allied with Abolitionism (modernly, the Racial Grievance Industry) and Spiritualism (modernly, the New Age/Goddess Movement). New century, same scam.

    The FI began in Eden. The species has ALWAYS been cucked, in one form or another. Men built civilizations but, frequently, women (and weak men) subverted and destroyed those civilizations, beginning internally. There has never been a Patriarchy and there never will be, until Jeshua sits. Then there will always be a patriarchy, not that He will call it that. This is satan’s world, and this planet is cursed and will remain cursed until Papa says not.

    As regards the U.S. and the FI, the evil was already in the land when the pilgrims landed. When the founders were scrambling to form a nation, wives of powerful men (like John Adams) were sending ‘helpful and supportive’ letters wheedling and nagging for . . . power for pore oppressed wimmin. Yoop.

    This Waves of Feminism nonsense is just another dodge. I’m always hearing dorks in authority yammering about the evils of current feminism — whatever wave is ruling presently — and pining for the Good Old Days of first or second or whatever wave feminism. A boy with some good teachings on Scripture — Steve Cioccolanti — recently tackled Feminism. He assured his large flock that modern feminism was wrong, but that the earlier waves, you know, the ones that ‘freed’ women from the oppression of Abusive Men and gave them the right to work, well those were good things, and entirely Biblical.

    I shit you not. Just clueless, not to mention sackless. And he is representative; and they are legion.

  133. “God setup the plan. Men muck it up, to their own hurt.”

    So God is punishing Men – again –

    for mucking it up…

    Again –

    …More male shame

    Thanks again

    For even more male shaming

    This shit never get’s get old…

    ’til now

    MGTOW.

  134. Gunner Q says:

    Anon @ November 23, 2018 at 6:37 pm
    “I think I have to beat up Rollory a bit more here :

    “Go to any animal farm anywhere in the world. … The males are processed for meat as soon as they are old enough. The females are used to reproduce, with only a small number of males needed to inseminate them. Everyone (except Rollory) knows that females are the scarcer reproductive resource. 90% of all red meat and poultry eaten is from male animals.”

    An animal farm where they’re cared for and protected by humans. When the humans aren’t around and there’s one breeding rooster against two coyotes, it’s an entirely different story.

    Same thing with humans. Assuming an easy supply of food, shelter, medicine, manufactured goods and anybody-can-use-it weapons, sure, you don’t need any men except a couple sperm donors. But the moment Barbie’s Funhouse needs a plumber, guess who she expects to get dirty.

    Rollory is right. You can even see the boys-are-better attitude in the Bible. It’s men who get things done, who make civilization happen. This is also why women have evolved to quickly change loyalty from one man to another, because without a man she’s dead.

  135. FatR says:

    @Anon
    “You are actually claiming that many societies treat (reproductive age) women as more expendable as men.”

    Indeed, most societies that aren’t extremely, extremely far removed from brutal realities of life by long periods of advanced civilization do. If you had enough young men, you always could go and seize more women. But if you did not have enough men, you could not prevent neighbors from rolling in and taking your women. Besides the fact that evolutionary psychology is a sham and a scam in general, the idea that Stone Age life could or did instill into human psyche the idea of placing higher value on women’s lives is utterly retarded and can only arise from ignorance of basic realities of Stone Age, or indeed of that that held true for most of Iron Age.

    Look, by the way, do you want an example of how men reduced to their primitive instincts (or, to be more accurate, their sinful nature), or at least reduced as far as possible while still masquerading as members of modern society, actually act? Look no farther than the subculture of career criminals. No placing high value on women there.

  136. ChristianCool says:

    Before I delve into this very interesting and important OP topic, which has been causing me to do a lot of thinking and reflections lately, I want to share a few thoughts:

    As a Christian, I always favor hope over despairs, because it is in the nature of Christianity to have faith, to pray, and always hope.

    But since 2016, probably one of the greatest political years since 1980 (when I was yet to be born), the hopes of many Conservatives/Traditionalist Christians (Biblical, patriarchal kind) has soured. It is hard not to.

    When Trump was elected, the fact that an unabashed patriotic Alpha male could defeat a radical globalist FemiNazi in a national election was unthinkable to most around the world. That is why the left and all the media was in shock. I will never forget Megan Kelly’s despondent face filled with disbelief on election night as Trump is projected the winner and as the Fox team pans their broadcast to the Hillary “victory party” as crowds of Bolsheviks are crying. 🙂

    That evening, we won a slight majority in the Senate, many governorships, and a huge majority in the House. Trump was going to work it out with beta cuck Pail Ryan and the permanent DC figure of Mitch McConnell. But then trouble began when the Globalist Progressive “Republicans” managed to worm their way into the Administration. They sought “conciliation” with Paul Ryan, a huge mistake, instead of doing the “trump way” and forcing Ryan out and picking a New Speaker that could work the MAGA agenda.

    The two critical components of MAGA, The Wall and immigration enforcement via deportations, was completely shut down to this very day, as we approach the lame-duck Congress budget fight of Dec 2018. Now we have 4 massive caravans of Central Americans trying to storm into the country and show the world that anyone can “come to America, storm the gates, and sign up for welfare the next day”, with a political party (the Democrats) fully funding and abetting the invasion. We could be flooded with tens of millions of illegal aliens in months, not years.

    Anyone who understands the US Immigration laws and the impacts of mass immigration has had in the American economy, society, and elections since 1965, knows that we are one amnesty away from a permanent Democrat Super Majority, of a radical type that will make Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez seem like reasonable moderates. 😮

    Anyone who tells you the illegal aliens from 3rd world hellhole countries are “natural Conservatives” because they SOMETIMES oppose abortion are insane or completely misinformed (i.e. Karl Rove, the Bushes, the Chamber of Commerce, etc). Looking at almost every poll on the matter will tell you over 85% of illegals in America today want all guns banned, want higher taxes on the middle class to fund welfare for them, think the government “should do more, not less”, and want the UN under control of “global bodies” (i.e. the UN).

    The reason the illegal immigrants’ home countries are raging shitholes, to quote The Don, is because these people continually and repeatedly vote in Socialist governments over and over again and demand massive welfare benefits that these countries cannot afford (and neither can the USA with $21 Trillion in debt growing at ~$11 Billion a day). Don’t believe the polls on illegal’s voting trends? Then look at Brazil electing Socialist Lula for 8 years and then the Communist Presidenta Dilma was elected for 4 years and re-elected, after destroying the economy completely in Brazil. Look at Hugo Chavez and his successor, Maduro, who before becoming dictators were elected and re-elected so many times they became dictators. How about Mexico with Obrador, a Marxist… or Argentina and Chile with their fem Presidentas who ruined formerly prosperous countries with their feminist-socialist governments?

    These illegals in America today are natural Socialists, they are almost all on welafre. to Think the Republicans can “out-welfare” the Dems is folly. They will never beat the Left on welfare, gun confiscations, and high taxes. The only solution is to deport and enforce laws to reduce illegal population from the current 22-30 million illegals to a number that could be managed electorally. As of right now, it is permanent electoral suicide for masculine, religious Conservatives to legalize even 5 million illegals (the largest ever electoral win was 6 million votes with Reagan in 1984… think about it).

    Simply put, thanks to Congressional inaction, the GOP lost the House and many governorships in 2018 because so many voters are dispirited and angry that Trump was outmaneuver by the stealth RINOs that wormed their way into his cabinet and talked him out of confronting losers like Paul Ryan. They did not come out to vote, and the Senate was saved by Trump really rallying up the base and dragging these Senators over the finish line. New leadership and pushing hard for reforms in immigration, including the Wall and attrition enforcement that causes illegal aliens to leave (like happened in 2001 after 9/11, I personally saw the impact of enforcement and aliens just packing up and left on their own), would have started to turn the tide and allow the American electorate to remain more Conservative.

    As it stands now, we are literally one amnesty away from making Texas, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona into extremely difficult battleground States. Florida and NC becomes deep blue, making it mathematically impossible for anyone to the right of Karl Marx from being elected President and shifting the House and Senate into Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez territory forever. Pelosi and Maxine Waters are driven out in Primaries for being “too moderate”. This is not a far-fetched fantasy; this is a very realistic look into the electoral math and current situation of America and people who study Immigration voting trends from Ann Coulter to CIS to NumbersUSA all document this in length.

    That is why many Americas feel dispirited and some have begun to despair. We had the opportunity of a lifetime in the 2016-2018 period to fix this Immigration ticking self-destruction countdown within our borders and allowed the RINOs to block it.

    I personally have decided not to even have kids, since I am widower after being married 12 years (no kids), because I understand the costs and legal dangers of having a child today and do not see the point given out current situation in The West today. I refuse to bring a child(ren) into a world where they will be treated as 2nd class citizens, demonize for being male, white, or Christian and to live in a country controlled by the hard Left.

    Instead, I travel a lot, have girlfriends on the side, and have an awesome time in Vegas 3-4 times a year. I spend my free time mentoring young men to give them a slightly better chance at life in the future, since they are already in the world and need all the help they can get.

    But as of right now given out legal and criminal justice systems, marriage is akin to financial suicide, guaranteed slavery, and jail due to false accusations…. And having a child is court-mandated financial servitude for 18 to 26 years, depending on the State, with no guarantees you will even see the child or have a good relationship with him.

    Who is ready to sign up for that??! 🙄

  137. BillyS says:

    Gunner Q,

    Neither boys nor girls are better in the generic. It all depends on the context however.

    Of course fooling ourselves saying girls are better at everything is completely foolish. Boys are horrible at giving birth though.

  138. Facepuncher says:

    @Gunner Q

    It is the nature of the grey men that there aren’t really primary sources on them. I first heard about them in the “299 days” series, as a name-changed insert of someone the author knew.

    Part of what a grey man was can be encapsulated in the old Russian joke about Soviet times. “They pretended to pay us, and in exchange we pretended to work”, or the Japanese saying “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down”. It is in part the idea that excellence is punished with more work, and incompetence is punished in other ways.

    https://www.thebugoutbagguide.com/gray-man-theory/ is a page describing people adopting the philosophy today.

  139. Oscar says:

    @ Anon & FatR

    You are actually claiming that many societies treat (reproductive age) women as more expendable as men. ~ Anon

    Some cultures treat reproductive age women are more expendable than goats.

    During my 1st deployment to Afghanistan, a group of young women and girls from a nomadic tribe called the Kuchis (yeah, yeah, get it out of your system) got trapped on a piece of high ground during a flash flood (very common there) while herding goats. The water was rising quickly.

    Their men stopped our patrol and asked for help. We called for helicopters. A Black Hawk landed on tiny piece of high ground (outstanding flying, by the way), and started loading some of the girls.

    The men freaked out. “What are you doing? Save the goats! We can always get more women!”

    The Black Hawks saved the women, and a few goats.

    Don’t assume that Christian morality is universal.

  140. Gary Eden says:

    There has never been a Patriarchy and there never will be, until Jeshua sits.

    This is defeatest perfectionist nonsense. Nothing is ever perfect this side of heaven, but that’s a given. But we have had patriarchy in the not too recent past.

    And we will again. That which cannot continue indefinitely will not. Feminism is not sustainable, it is merely the mania of failing civilizations.

  141. ChristianCool says:

    @ray

    You need to study history. There HAS been a Patriarch in most countries throughout history and still do today, just not in the West.

    In America, we have a legislative, judicial, and justice system Matriarchy, as I will soon explain in my post below…. Stay tuned. 😉

  142. ChristianCool says:

    This topic of a “matriarchy” in America is one that really interests me, mainly because although I am totally American, I am also 1/2 Italian (albeit Northern Italian on my MOTHER’s side). Italy is a basketcase of a culture, where a 2,000-year extremely masculine, dominant, and rather violent Roman-era Patriarchy has been replaced with a Matriarchy… although some would argue the women in the Italian patriarchy always manipulated the men into having a “shadowy matriarchy” of sorts.

    But as we see in this article https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/world/europe/in-italy-economy-and-law-leave-many-single-fathers-broke-and-homeless.html
    Italian men are treated just as bad as American men in terms of Family Courts (divorce, child custody, etc). Even the hard-left NYT can see that. So that gives us some hints that Italy has become a “legislative matriarchy” for sure.

    The issue with Italian families is that Italian men, despite its well-earned reputation for being masculine and having good game with women (both true), is that Italian men have often died much earlier then the women. In my own family, the men seem to almost always have a shorter lifespan then women do and you end up with this large cohorts of older women in families. That is because Italian men have always been very chivalrous with women and that may be one cause. The other is Italy is a poor country overall and men do much more dangerous jobs then women. But unlike Eastern Europe where men were sent to die in wars causing the male-female population imbalance towards women, in Italy, war has not been the cause.

    The end result is not so much that women dominate relationships or society, but one where women end up becoming responsible for raising kids alone without a male figure in the home or one where the male-female ratio is so tilted in order populations, they have a voting advantaged over men, pushing for more leftist candidates and welfare.

    But at least in Italy, the men will fight for domination in relationships, unlike in most situations in the US or Western Europe. In my own family, before my maternal grandfather died, he controlled absolute respect and authority in his home. He was a true Alpha, however. This guy was tough as nails, jogged everyday on the beach shirtless, was physically fit, and commanded much authority over his wife and daughters. Never have I seen him use violence or force; this was sheer will and true masculinity.

    This TV ad depicts what I have seen, however, with Italian women, whom I consider loud, annoying, and combative. Only when the men stand up and fight back do the women in Italian culture finally subdue (likely a form of a shit test that is ingrained in Italian women’s brains):

    Nuff about Italy and Italian culture…. Now about America:

    First, I think it is hard to deny (short of insanity/extreme biased mindset) that a Matriarchal society has never succeeded, ever, anywhere on the world throughout history. I am I am wrong point me to that successful Matriarchy, please, and I will look it up.

    Second, Female leaders are absolutely horrible. Except for a few shining lights throughout history (Margaret Thatcher, comes to mind, for instance), female leadership has almost always led to total chaos and disaster. A successful female leader today is completely unheard of. In Brazil, Communist Presidenta Dilma collapsed thye Brazilian economy in 4 short years (and yet the morons in Brazil re-elected her for a 2nd 4-year term). Angela Merkel of Germany, the former Soviet collaborator opened up the floodgates of Western Europe/EU to 6 MILLION violent, poor, and unskilled Muslim Africans and Middle-Easterners under the guise of “helping refugees”. -_- The Merkel “open border” policies have been a disaster in terms of crime, poverty, and violence throughout Western Europe in a scale not seen since the destruction of the Western Roman Empire.

    We could go on and on with Argentina’s female Presidentas ruining the economy and setting off 2 (yes, two) currency collapses, and many others, but why bother? A comprehensive list of horrific female leadership of last couple of years can be found here:

    http://www.returnofkings.com/154877/15-evil-or-incompetent-women-who-prove-that-females-are-horrible-leaders

    Third, America ALREADY IS a Matriarchy in regards to its judiciary (courts), criminal justice administration, and legislatively (laws passed by elected officials, not laws created by activist leftwing judges). ❗ Ask any man/husband/father who has been through a Family Law Court and see what I mean the courts are a Matriarchy (totally biased for the woman under all circumstances). Women get almost always get full custody in child dispute, guaranteed money transfers from the man (tax free for her) via child support and alimony, and are awarded massive cash and property benefits during a divorce, even when a valid and enforceable Prenup is in place.

    When radical feminist laws are not employed via “discretion” in courts (judicial activism), feminazism can be employed against men using existing laws and twisting their meaning to favor women. Your company’s Human Resources (HR) office is one of the best examples, since it is dominated by women. HR often use Federal laws like the anti-discrimination in employment Act or the Hostile Work Environment type laws to create company policies (not laws) that protect women and make men vulnerable. Any “off color joke” is a fire-able offense; complaints of sexual harassment by women almost always cause men to be fired without any due process, and so forth.

    Than at one of millions of cases where female defendants (accused criminals) are not even arrested for making false criminal accusations against men, are not arrested when they violently beat and physically assault men in “domestic situations”, or are presumed to be the victim by police under the national standard of Duluth Model of Policing (look it up, one of the most unfair things about America, no doubt). Police officers, by a matter of policy (not law) are taught that women should be presumed to be the victims in any male-female dispute, except in extreme cases (man has been shot dead by woman who is physically unharmed)…. but even in that situation, she will claim she was acting in self-defense, will get charged with a minor crime, and will get no jail/prison time at all.

    Nowhere is the criminal justice system more blatantly matriarchal then in criminal sentencing for female defendants. Easiest examples are in cases of teacher-student sex (statutory rape of male children) and you will see the most obvious disparity between sentencing between male-female defendants, where women get probation or counseling and men get 10+ years in prison for same offense. Further look-up sentencing for female killers vs male killers and you will see this Matriarchal system at work (child serial killer Andrea Yates, the hot girl who beat up her kids and got probation despite a huge online campaign to give her actual prison time, the TN pastor-murderer Winkler, Lorena Bobbitt who cut her husband’s penis off, and countless others).

    BTW, that is when women are even convicted. Most of the time, they commit violent crimes and are found not guilty for a number of absurd reasons, such as “she had a bad hormonal period” or the jury gives the woman the “benefit of the doubt”, like Casey Anthony who clearly murdered her daughter.

    Then there is the legislative Matriarchal side of America. Most of the time, the female-bias is “hidden” and not explicit by using “judicial discretion”, such as in family courts and in criminal sentencing by feminist judges. Other times, the matriarchal legal system is much more explicit, with laws such as VAWA, Title IX, and many others clearly state that women be favored in a number of aspects of American life. This ranges from easier/guaranteed admissions in colleges, gov’t cash grants (free money) for “women-owned businesses”, to access to gov’t contracts only available to women/minorities, to special tax breaks like the EIC (Earned Income Credit – women getting a tax rebate when paying $0 income taxes for having a child – often used and abused by illegal alien women with an anchor baby) to special access to US Immigration benefits, like getting a Green Card via VAWA’s “abused spouse” USCIS immigration petition. It goes on and on.

    In sum, when I heard the FemiNazis and the left ask for the creation of a Matriarchy, they must be thinking more of in terms of men simply capitulating completely to women and literally becoming 3rd class citizens, behind “minorities”, gays, trannies, women, and illegal aliens.

    Besides totally legalizing male slavery and repealing the 13th Amendment, I have no idea how much more matriarchal America can go when you have laws that presume men guilty of rape, for instance, like “Yes Means Yes” in California or policies in campuses that remove Constitutional legal rights for men in disputes against women on campus….

    What do you think the FemiNazis want, besides legalized male slavery, under a 13th Amendment repeal scenario-style situation? Women in America already have all the legal privileges from school to employment to access to gov’t benefits to feminist policing.

    What more do the FemNazis want, ultimately? How would this new Matriarchy, be like? Men in literal neck chains and leg irons building homes?

  143. Max says:

    “Men and women are natural enemies.” -until you understand that and take the redpill, you’re behind the ages.

  144. Pingback: Warhorn claims we never set out for a back and forth exchange via email. | Dalrock

  145. Pingback: Doxxing Dalrock, pt. 2: Warhorn’s Credibility at Stake | The Lexet Blog

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.