Status is a powerful motivator.

Larry Kummer at Fabius Maximus has an excellent two post series on the current state of marriage:

  1. We teach boys that marriage doesn’t work
  2. Women embrace higher values, destroying their families

In the second post, Larry writes:

How do women integrate these values into their lives? They use Girls’ Game. First, romance a man to get married. Most women want children, and middle- and upper-class women are careful to not do so until they have a ring on their fingers (men’s assistance and money makes the first few years much easier).

Weddings have become the Party of a woman’s life, in which they are Queen for a Day. This is new. In the past weddings were modest, except for the rich. See the wedding in The Best Years of Our Lives (1946): the bride wears her best dress to a ceremony at home, serving punch and wedding cake at the reception. The wedding was the focus, not the bride.

Then have some kids. The husband provides support during those first few difficult years raising the children. When the children go off to school, file for divorce. There are always reasons: he does not meet her needs, she has grown, etc. Then get community property, child support, and independence. It is a logical strategy for women raised to value their independence, pride, and strength above all else.

This is an excellent description of the way the game is played, but there is an even greater motivator to consider, which is status.  I left the following as a comment, and thought I’d expand it a bit into a quick blog post:

Marriage conveys legitimacy to the children, and status to the woman. The man’s money could be obtained via child support without a wedding, and likewise his assistance (living together would do the trick). For middle class women, there is only one respectable way to babymamahood, and that is by marrying first, and then divorcing whenever it is most convenient after she has the number of children she wants (from that particular baby daddy at least). This is incidentally a weakness in the Girl Game model you describe that could be exploited socially (no legal change required) should we ever start to value marriage and respect men who marry and become fathers. Of course legal changes would quickly follow if our view of fathers changed, but the social mechanism would be extremely powerful even by itself for middle class women.

Women who divorce do take a status hit in their intrasexual competition, unless they stick the landing.  However, this status hit could be much worse if conservatives ever start respecting marriage and men who marry and become fathers.  Simply speaking, or even thinking the truth would be devastating to divorcing baby mamas.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Disrespecting Respectability, Divorce, Fabius Maximus, Larry Kummer, Status of marriage, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to Status is a powerful motivator.

  1. Dalrock,

    “I think there is a more powerful motivator, which is status.”

    That’s an important point that I learned from you. I included it in the draft of my post, but deleted it – because I believe it is the past, not the future. This post describes *new* values that are replacing the “marriage gives status” old values.

    Culture is shaped in America by the top and the bottom. For example, see how culture (music, dress, language, behavior) has migrated from the ghettos to the middle class. In both our upper and lower classes, marriage is no longer the necessary gateway for women to respectability. Celebrity women have children out of wedlock, or adopt without husbands. Or they proudly remain single. Ditto in the underclass to an even greater degree. I’ll bet these are the vanguard among women, and that middle-class women will (& probably already are) adopting these new values.

    “should we ever start to value marriage and respect men who marry and become fathers.”

    I can’t imagine how that would happen. Anything is possible, but that seems to me a “do you believe in fairies” (from Peter Pan) exercise. Stopping the cultural rot will require a drastic effort. The process won’t be pretty.

    One example of how such a cultural revolution might occur: mass conversions to Islam (nature abhors a vacuum). Should Islam become powerful a few generations from now (probably following and as a reaction to massive social decay), these new power centers won’t be gentle about enforcing their social standards.

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/05/10/a-big-future-for-islam-in-the-west/

  2. Novaseeker says:

    I think things could just as easily go the way they have gone in Europe. Namely that marriage becomes less common and increasingly comes very late in the life of a relationship, if it does come. So, a couple finds each other, dates/has sex, moves in, then if that works out buys property, then if that works out has kids, then if it is working out with all of that and everything looks good and stable .. THEN gets married, if they want to, at the *end* of all of that. Marriage becomes a kind of cherry-on-top for those who want it (and it’s common enough among the educated classes in Europe), but it’s not a society-wide status marker in a strong way because many seemingly durable couples are not married, or are married only after years of being a durable couple with joint property and kids. This happened as a result of secularism in Europe, which lessened the status of marriage socially. I expect that as the United States continues to aggressively secularize generationally, we may very well see the same trends appearing here as we have in Europe relating to marriage, where it becomes an even weaker/optional status signal.

  3. Novaseeker,

    “that marriage becomes less common and increasingly comes very late in the life of a relationship, if it does come.”

    That’s a common – and logical – forecast. This system works in western and especially northern Europe’s prosperous and relatively homogenous societies. I’m skeptical that it will work in the rapidly changing, heterogeneous America.

    In fact, it *already* exists in the US – and has failed spectacularly. It is life in our underclass, especially the African-American communities. As this new mode has grown, social pathologies have bloomed along with it. There are indications this mode is spreading into blue-collar (aka lower middle class) communities – with the same effects.

    The common belief of our liberal overlords that this will bring a new renaissance – free of patriarchal sexism, wonderous in all ways – seems delusional given our experience so far.

  4. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Phrases like “broken marriage” and “broken home” used to be common. But today, women get testy to outraged when you say she came from “a broken marriage.” It implies that she might be broken.

    But also, those phrases lower the status of her marriage. A “broken marriage” is of lower status than a “successful marriage” So too phrases like “failed marriage,” which implies that the woman might be a failure.

    Another lost word is “homewrecker” for women who pursue an already married man. “Why is the woman the homewrecker and not the man?” feminists complain.

  5. Excellent discussion topic. Very interesting questions.

    In my observation I do not think that modern day western women age 18 to 28 view marriage positively or as a status gain for themselves. They know marriage and family formation likely means surrendering her own career aspirations (from which she does derive pride and status and financial independence) and frankly marriage also means a possible step back to her mating opportunities (though not really in practice). Aside from this, the only women seriously interested in marriage and family formation (though definitely not interested in being a wife) in North America are women age 27 to 45. And even their attitude seems to be predominantly “OK I’m going to have to settle, aren’t I?” and “I’m not happy about that”.

    So it’s not good.

    Second, as far as a solution for how does society stop looking upon men as hapless, clueless, sexless buffoons and begin to “respect men again”, it’s not going to be lead by political or religious leaders or social figures. The solution lies in in the horror of male scarcity. This is of course terrible and horrific, but it is the truth. If you want to see men on a broader scale be viewed very differently and as the opposite of pathetic, then there needs to be a lot fewer of us around. How does that happen? War.

    Right now there are already fewer of us that are “economically unattractive” and therefore sexually invisible to the majority of women, even the 3’s and 4’s out there.
    But women do see a lot of men around in their daily life – at school, public transportation, at work, in stores, coffee shops – but all of the “out of the question!” men only serve as reminders to her of how short they all fall from her ideal, fro her “basic” expectations and entitlements that were promised to her by her parents, by her pastor, the corporate influencers (Sheryl Sandberg) and feminist professors, you-go-girl girlfriends, talk shows, etc.

    Matters are much worse than what most men are really willing to admit.
    Some of us are waiting for the Misandry Bubble to pop.
    But it won’t. Not yet.

  6. Viaqwerty says:

    Don’t hold your breath with Islam gents, they also have unicorns in their midst: yes to kebab rolls, no to gender roles….

    https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/22/british-muslims-launch-first-ever-pride-festival-10788697/?ito=article.amp.share.top.email

  7. vfm7916 says:

    They think the truth. Otherwise they would not protest so much.

    Women’s public statements to other women are simply affirmations of what she herself desires to be true in order to silence the knowledge that what they did is a bad thing. If enough public support can be gained, then the lie is effectively reality. This is simply a result of women’s primitive social dynamics evolved for survival purposes. Survival in this context has been replaced with “happiness” as the prime driver. I won’t cover how Christianity transcends those survival instincts or desire for “happiness” since it’s TL;DR material that most should already know.

    Some middle and upper class women do this as status is indeed an important value to those groups. They broadcast loudly enough to present an image that AWALT, as it helps them avoid reality. You see the same thing with the gay and trans propaganda. The reality is that most middle and upper class women don’t act this way, especially if they have followed the prescriptions for successful lifelong marriage: Early, 0-1 partner, Christian, multiple children, SAHM. They end up happy. Everyone else takes varying degrees of depression medication.

    You can certainly amass big piles of fact to support whatever propaganda you like, but the truth is still hanging above your head: there’s the objective good that God has commanded you to do. What you do is up to you, and it’s on you. The worst thing you can do is to lie, distort, and turn others from God’s truth in order to absolve your own sin and fear.

    It does not matter that AWALT, or men are men, or biological hardwiring, or any other argument you can think of. There’s only one God and one Son, and there’s no compromise of truth in them. You are commanded to be fruitful in your spirit, in your property, and in your body. Keep in mind that One Tael Man was the one cast out into oblivion. Don’t be that guy or girl. Don’t quit. Pick yourself up and keep going.

  8. Tom Lemke says:

    @constrainedlocus has it nailed in saying:

    In my observation I do not think that modern day western women age 18 to 28 view marriage positively or as a status gain for themselves. They know marriage and family formation likely means surrendering her own career aspirations (from which she does derive pride and status and financial independence) and frankly marriage also means a possible step back to her mating opportunities (though not really in practice).

    Even now in the conservative movement you can see the young women lobbying to strike marriage off the list of status symbols.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/27/idolizing-marriage-motherhood-isnt-godly/

  9. Cane Caldo says:

    However, this status hit could be much worse if conservatives ever start respecting marriage and men who marry and become fathers.

    1. “There’s a herd for that.”

    A woman’s status is relative to her environment. The Internet and social media in particular occludes and destroy women’s herd boundaries. They roam into other virtual herds where they learn to play a new status game. This doesn’t satisfy most women in the long run (it ends with driving themselves crazy) but they rarely recover from the self-inflicted wounds to become stable wives.

    2. Stepfather Hero Status

    There is in fact a conservative love for men who marry and become fathers. The way to garner that love from conservatives is to marry the mother of another man’s children. This is perverted, yet it satisfies the prerequisites including the heroic act to rescue a princess from a deadbeat dragon. American Christians (I mean the serious Protestant ones who go to church regularly, read the Bible of their own accord, etc. ) raise their boys to prefer this strategy when they teach them that women should love them for their character and inner person, but should not love them for their accomplishments (looks, money, status, etc. That’s so shallow.) The great majority of American women care deeply about accomplishments but nothing for character because they believes their love and mere presence will mold a man’s character. Only single mothers (but not even all of them) look specifically for men of good character because they desire the stability and peace of a boring loyal dude. Young Christian men are figuring this out, and the less attractive ones (a bit redundant concerning young Christian men) submit to the new “heroic” arrangement.

  10. The Inimitable NEET says:

    That’s an important point that I learned from you. I included it in the draft of my post, but deleted it – because I believe it is the past, not the future. This post describes *new* values that are replacing the “marriage gives status” old values.

    I anticipate the next decade will witness a head-on collision between feminist aspirations of independence and the pressing imperatives of evolutionary biology. While the process of delegitimizing marriage is well underway in Europe and the U.S., it still produces an intractable conundrum: formal commitment, regardless of what official title it boasts, still grants heightened status within the intrasexual hierarchy irrespective of which set of institutions enshrine said status. Women only enjoy the prospect of transience as long as the opportunity to secure a high-value partner – through civil contract, verbal promise, mutual affection or whatever nominally binding method – exists. No amount of cultural boondoggling will change this. Conversely, the lack of associative value is what so incenses them about ONS, ghosting, and the array of methods men use to make intersexual relations impersonal and transactional.

    In my observation I do not think that modern day western women age 18 to 28 view marriage positively or as a status gain for themselves. They know marriage and family formation likely means surrendering her own career aspirations (from which she does derive pride and status and financial independence) and frankly, marriage also means a possible step back to her mating opportunities (though not really in practice).

    I’m not sure women disregard the idea of marriage as much as resent the notion they will suffer ignominy for not embracing it. The biggest trend in 4th generational feminism has been repudiating any social tradition that engender shame. Holding “strong, independent women” in esteem is the base countervailing tactic used to ameliorate any doubt; the second pillar is assuming that they can still obtain the expected investment inherent in a relationship as any point during even they aren’t prepared to marry.

    But women do see a lot of men around in their daily life – at school, public transportation, at work, in stores, coffee shops – but all of the “out of the question!” men only serve as reminders to her of how short they all fall from her ideal, fro her “basic” expectations and entitlements that were promised to her by her parents, by her pastor, the corporate influencers (Sheryl Sandberg) and feminist professors, you-go-girl girlfriends, talk shows, etc.

    On an anecdotal note, over the last half-decade I’ve noticed the NYC scene shifting towards Informal harems dominated by a small pool of charismatic, financially successfully (i.e. >$100k) men rotating 3-6 girls in their schedule. Plating has ascended from a prescriptive Manopshere term to the prime sexual strategy of any urban man with options. It’s an unhappy compromise for the women, who suffer from chronic anxiety, neuroticism, and a lack of stability regarding whether he’s genuinely interested at any point. But they feel like they have no other choice: he’s the “best” guy that satisfies their prerogatives. I’ll admit, seeing them choke on the bitter fruits of their labor inspires more amusement than sympathy.

  11. The Inimitable NEET says:

    Ah, buggered up the italics for the blockquotes.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    The contempt that elites hold for the average American man is a factor. Church leaders at the national level, social elites, cultural elites, financial elites – a whole lot of them really hate ordinary American men, and wish them to suffer various harms. It did not used to be this way, but it’s become obvious in the last 5 years or so.

    They hate us. They want us to suffer, and to go away.

  13. Frank K says:

    Even now in the conservative movement you can see the young women lobbying to strike marriage off the list of status symbols

    Well, that article, and the comments section, dispel any doubt that feminism has made itself at home with the Churchian crowd,

  14. Minesweeper says:

    Dalrock,
    “This is incidentally a weakness in the Girl Game model you describe that could be exploited socially (no legal change required) should we ever start to value marriage and respect men who marry and become fathers. Of course legal changes would quickly follow if our view of fathers changed”

    I rarely ask this, could you expand on this. What is the weakness and what legal changes would follow.

    Cheers

  15. Frank K says:

    In both our upper and lower classes, marriage is no longer the necessary gateway for women to respectability. Celebrity women have children out of wedlock, or adopt without husbands. Or they proudly remain single.

    I guess I’ve never thought of “celebrities” as upper class, I think of people such as doctors, directors and VP’s, etc, as upper class. What I have also observed is that divorce and remarriage is rife in the UMC, at least the ones which with I occasionally hob nob. But the ladies do begin with a “starter husband” before they trade up to a guy with a fatter wallet.

  16. Frank K says:

    They hate us. They want us to suffer, and to go away.

    Until things break, then they scream at us to fix them.

  17. Phoenix says:

    “There is in fact a conservative love for men who marry and become fathers. The way to garner that love from conservatives is to marry the mother of another man’s children.”

    What I find interesting in that is while you see endless demands for single men to man up and marry those single mothers, it seems the pastors never do, nor do they exhort their sons or nephews or preacherboys from the seminary to do so. From my standpoint, it looks like a standards-for-thee-but-not-for-me thing. The clergy living by example would help in a lot of matters, this being one of them.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    2. Stepfather Hero Status

    There is in fact a conservative love for men who marry and become fathers. The way to garner that love from conservatives is to marry the mother of another man’s children. This is perverted, yet it satisfies the prerequisites including the heroic act to rescue a princess from a deadbeat dragon. American Christians (I mean the serious Protestant ones who go to church regularly, read the Bible of their own accord, etc. ) raise their boys to prefer this strategy when they teach them that women should love them for their character and inner person, but should not love them for their accomplishments (looks, money, status, etc. That’s so shallow.)

    But even here the promise of respect is a false one. Should the baby mama decide to eject the stepfather from the home, conservative Christians will react with contempt for the step father for failing to keep her happy. Even before this happens, there is (to my knowledge) no exemption for stepfathers in the anti father Christian movies and Father’s Day sermons.

  19. Dalrock says:

    @Minesweeper

    I rarely ask this, could you expand on this. What is the weakness and what legal changes would follow.

    Women who take the indirect route to single motherhood (what LK describes as Girl Game) are currently afforded higher moral and social status by conservatives than women who take the direct route. This is subtle because conservatives go out of their way not to judge any bad behavior by women. But if conservatives stopped thinking making and then breaking a sacred vow was better than not making a sacred vow in the first place, this would undermine the very status that is at play here.

    Keep in mind that our current legal structure, where wives can simply pick up the phone and say the magic words to have the police come out and take her husband away, and where married fathers are treated with contempt by the followup actions in the family courts, are merely the formal legal expression of how we as a society feel about husbands and fathers. If we did a 180 and started respecting men who marry and become fathers, the legal situation would be very quickly fixed.

  20. Minesweeper says:

    @Dalrock

    Got it , thank you.

  21. Dalrock says:

    @LK

    “should we ever start to value marriage and respect men who marry and become fathers.”

    I can’t imagine how that would happen. Anything is possible, but that seems to me a “do you believe in fairies” (from Peter Pan) exercise. Stopping the cultural rot will require a drastic effort. The process won’t be pretty.

    It is all but unthinkable right now. But there is an interesting aspect to it. On the conservative side the whole system is founded on denial. Conservatives are quite certain that they are 100% in support of marriage, fatherhood, etc. That the denial is absurd doesn’t change this. This is a potential weak point, and something I don’t think we have seen challenged enough to know how effective it could be as a change vector. A comparison would be illegal immigration. Conservatives swore for years that they opposed illegal immigration. Along came Trump who actually proposed meaningful action against illegal immigration, and the stranglehold the elites had was shattered astonishingly quickly. Conservative love of broken homes probably isn’t so fragile, because the love for destroying the family is much deeper amongst the conservative base than love for illegal immigration was. Either way, it makes for good sport, as when you poke at this area you end up forcing conservatives to both defend the lie (that they support marriage), and defend the destruction of marriage.

    One example of how such a cultural revolution might occur: mass conversions to Islam (nature abhors a vacuum). Should Islam become powerful a few generations from now (probably following and as a reaction to massive social decay), these new power centers won’t be gentle about enforcing their social standards.

    I see a (potential) mass spread of Islam in the West as an opportunistic infection, and really just an acceleration of the rot. Islam isn’t really better on marriage/patriarchy anyway.

  22. Minesweeper says:

    @Dalrock, I know you don’t want it, don’t need it, don’t require it, your treasure in heaven beats all on earth.

    But – It would be nice 1 day to sub you a beer.

  23. Actually, I wish I could buy all of you fellas a beer. Dalrock two.

    This horror show has to be better over a ice cold glass of suds.

  24. Pingback: Status is a powerful motivator. | Reaction Times

  25. MomOfMany says:

    OT
    Although I have read posts here for a few years, I have not commented because I respect that this is a male space. However, I came across something particularly relevant that I fear you might not discover otherwise.
    Trim Healthy Mama is a diet plan created by two sisters. I listen to their podcasts to stay motivated (60 down, 20 to go). Although these were recorded a few years ago, I just listened to them in the past couple of weeks. I believe their message will surprise you. It reminds me of older women instruction the younger ones on how to be good wives. They are by no means perfect, but I do think you will be surprised at how biblical they are. Here is the link to the podcasts:
    https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/trimhealthypodcast?selected=ADL5868036151
    The podcasts of interest to this audience are 29 and 32.
    29 has commercials during the first 30 seconds, 21:30-23:30 and 40:34-end
    32 has commercials during the first 1:08, 24:30-26:33 and 41:50-end
    Dalrock, thanks for all you do to promote the sanctity of marriage.

  26. Spike says:

    Bit by bit, cloud by cloud, camouflage by camouflage, Toxic Femininity is being exposed.
    We have witnessed the outrage against abortion liberalization, demonstrating that Christian conservatives have been right all the time. We have witnessed the embarrassing false rape scares on university and college campuses.
    The fact that women initiate 75+% of divorces on a no-fault basis is starting to take hold. Enquirers into the Family Court are being made in many countries.
    We have seen Peak Feminism, and the coming times will be very interesting.

  27. Nochildren says:

    Dalrock,

    Great blog. I started reading yours more than the other manosphere blogs over the past two years as I became a husband.

    Question for you…my wife and I apparently cannot have children. Children were a major driving factor for both of us to get married.

    Any advice on how this rolls out?

    I can provide more details if it will better inform your reply.

    Thanks

  28. Sven says:

    I’ve heard weddings called. ” princess party”

  29. locustsplease says:

    This is the most common american womans strategy. Sticking the landing is key. The goal is to b a triple finacial dipper. Shes got her college degree and decent job, an ex husband ordered to pay her typically over 1k per month cash, shes got new emotionally defeated simp.
    Simp has been ignored most of his life and will do whatever for decent looking post wall mom. Take out the cs and simp step dad and oh boy she aint happy. I see lots of single moms at my kids school the hotter they are the nicer the vehicle. They sold their tail to the highest bidder backed out and only a fool couldnt see it.
    Im not trying to b a hyprocrite but i have noticed several women claiming proudly we have joint custody when i do events for my kid. As they lookey kinda winkey at me huh , huh. It must b a tough sell for all but the prettiest. I robbed the last guy but wont rob you.
    They really want to stick the landing. It proves they were always right they followed a devine path of innocent occasional failure. And we know women cannot admit failure.
    There is a single mom i see at school. She is just a tall gorgeous fox i could sit in a chair and watch her walk all day. I was thinking no man left this woman it would b nearly impossible. But im sure shes got a ridiculous cover for her leaving him. I would love to go on a date with her to just drink a few beers and listen to some grade A gaslighting. Ya dont say!

  30. imnobody00 says:

    Fabius assigns too much rationality to modern women. Modern women live in the moment and are driven by feelings, not by values. They get married because all their friends are getting married. They divorce because they can’t stand their beta husbands.

    Women are repugned by betas. They were forbidden to work to force them to marry a beta. It was marrying a beta or starving. Only this way most women accept a beta as a husband. When divorce was not widespread, this meant making their beta husbands’ lives a living hell. My parents’ marriage is an example of that.

  31. Dale U says:

    Phoenix
    demands for single men to man up and marry those single mothers, it seems the pastors never do

    I knew one youth pastor who did this. I am not sure if he was a paid religious professional, or just the volunteer leader for the group. (It was a small church.)
    Rather sad actually; he was a young man, middling-decent looks. I suspect he could have done far better. Especially when you consider that this would have been adultery if she was married to the prior man… and depending on some details and how we are supposed to interpret some OT passages, perhaps it would be adultery even if she was not married to the father.

  32. Dalrock posted the first two in my series about the American family, the foundation on which the Republic was built.

    Here is the last and most important post. It shows the core engine of the family as it was, how it broke, and why we will find it difficult to fix. I think this will surprise many of the readers here.

    We have to work quickly. The clock is running down on us – while we run in circles, loudly.

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/09/24/american-families-are-broken-dreams-wont-build-new-ones/

  33. Jason says:

    The problem I see with all of this is that if the laws do change and suddenly it becomes stigmatizing to women who divorce, what does this mean for men? It seems like all that would accomplish is to replace the number of divorces with an equal number of bad marriages. Instead of letting the women go, they will instead be trapped in a marriage with a man that isn’t loved or respected and whom she will behave passive-aggressively towards out of revenge. Is this really going to help men? I can see how it would save money and keep him close to his children, but does that really get to the root of the problem?

  34. Jenny says:

    @Jason – Right. Besides, men benefit from no-fault divorce too as it lets them up and leave their elderly wives when they get cancer or have a stroke: https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/why-sick-wives-increase-divorce-risk-not-sick-husbands/.

  35. TheOtherScott says:

    The saddest part of this whole debacle is that the church enables it. The one social sphere that should be acting as “salt and light” is behaving like an asylum run by the inmates. The leadership is so afraid of interrupting the gravy train that they won’t call out the bad behavior. Even worse, I think they actually believe that these women can do no wrong.

    Yet again this week I am witnessing a church family being destroyed by a woman who has decided to eject her husband from the home. Nothing is said. The man slinks off into the shadows while the pink mafia gathers around the woman to care for and comfort her. In the past I have ignored the problem. No more. I will make contact with this man and give him what comfort I can. I will encourage him to remain within the church.

    Additionally, I have started to plant red pill seeds. I know these guys can handle the truth at this point, but maybe someday. (Because of my wife´s employment, I am required to be a member of this church….boy are they gonna regret that.) I had coffee with a new church friend (an elder) and rocked his world when I informed him that 70% of all divorces are initiated by women.

    Its going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I don’t care about status and I don’t care who I piss off. That makes me a dangerous man.

  36. The Other Scott,

    That’s how revolutions begin! One pissed off guy at a time.

  37. Minesweeper says:

    @TheOtherScott says:” I will make contact with this man and give him what comfort I can. I will encourage him to remain within the church.”

    Good for you, you’ll probably be the only one.

    “I had coffee with a new church friend (an elder) and rocked his world when I informed him that 70% of all divorces are initiated by women.”

    You want to really blow his mind ? The figure is 90% for BSc and above educated women and most of them frivolous.

    Take a look at all the divorces you know, we have had about 2 dozen, the figures match up perfectly.

  38. Paul says:

    Interesting statistic, supporting the view that it are the women that are predominantly blowing up marriages:

    Since the introduction of same-sex “marriages”, the inevitable same-sex “divorces” have yielded statistically significant data:
    After 10 years, 30% of “marriages” between women ended in divorce, against 15% of “marriages” between men.

    Compare that to divorce statistics that in normal marriages, 70% of divorces are initiated by women, which is about twice the percentage of men.

    Therefore, women are twice as likely to divorce as men, and it does not even depend on the sex of the other half! It’s THEIR fault!

    (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbs.nl%2Fnl-nl%2Fnieuws%2F2016%2F13%2Fvrouwenparen-vaker-uit-elkaar-dan-mannenparen)

  39. Novaseeker says:

    The problem with raising the divorce initiation stat is that the typical response you get is “yeah, that’s because the husbands did something to trigger it”. In other words they still see it as being the husband’s fault — he did something that “forced his wife to file” for divorce, and so they don’t really care that she *initiated* the divorce. It still gets squeezed into the same narrative.

    In general the hard sell is frivorce — convincing Christian men that most divorces are frivorces and not “justified by misdeeds by the husband”. That is a very, very, very hard sell because as men we are wired to presume fault/flaw/inferiority in other men (even when it’s not there) and to assert ourselves against that. It’s how we roll.

    ——

    Larry — I think as you can tell from the few comments on your latest post, the current system isn’t going to be changed back to one where people “do their social duty”. It’s too individualist now. of course resets, yadda yadda — not holding my breath for one of those.

  40. feeriker says:

    The Other Scott,

    That’s how revolutions begin! One pissed off guy at a time.

    And revolutions, once they gain momentum, nearly always result in a purging of the classes responsible for the status quo ante. In this case that would be clergy and lay elders in the church who not only allowed, but even encouraged the ungodly behavior responsible for all of the cureent destruction. The future for these people is going to be an ugly one; God will not be mocked, and all these people have done is to mock and subvert God.

  41. Novaseeker,

    Great minds think alike and so forth …

    “the current system isn’t going to be changed back to one where people “do their social duty’.”

    True, but that wasn’t the basis of the old system. Men weren’t told to “man up and marry that ho” as a duty to society. How this worked and how we broke it are the subjects of the last post in this series. I think you’ll find it of interest (and perhaps surprising).

    “America’s families are broken. Dreams won’t build new ones.”
    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/09/24/american-families-are-broken-dreams-wont-build-new-ones/

  42. Novaseeker says:

    I don’t see how things change other than through a reset, because the basis for the changes — the rise of individualism among everyone — is very popular in general (whether it actually makes people happy or not), and will likely only be dislodged by compelling force of events.

  43. Novaseeker says:

    Of course that doesn’t stop us from endlessly trying to tinker around the edges, as you mention Larry in terms of experimentation. One of the next things that is being pushed by the mainstream is “consensual non-monogamy” (aka consensual cucking), as we can see in this recent piece in The New York Beta Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/how-to-propose-an-open-relationship.html

  44. Novaseeker,

    You bring up one of the distinguishing – and strange – features of our time: our willingness to tinker with our lives, and those of our children. To try on experimental personalities.

    Cuckolding husbands (in the major media, it is almost always the wives who want playmates) is one example. The extreme example is using drugs and surgery to change the gender of children, enrolling them as lab rats in a mad social science experiment (given the high suicide rate among trans, the casualties will be high).

    The largest scale of this is the Left’s experiment on western society. Their first attempt at rebuilding society – communism – didn’t work well. But they are conducting the second round (attacking sexism, racism, etc) with undiminished enthusiasm. That’s nothing new. There have always been those that want to burn society to the ground and rebuild it according to their utopian ideas.

    The odd part of the story is that we’re allowing them to do so. Whatever the outcome, the responsibility is ours,

    Lots of posts about this here: https://fabiusmaximus.com/tag/social-engineering/

  45. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry
    We have to work quickly.

    What action items do you suggest?

  46. Ranger says:

    @Jason

    A LOT of a woman’s bad behaviour in marriage comes from knowing she has a golden parachute if the marriage fails. Take that away and their behaviour would improve considerably

    I think Dalrock refers to this phenomenon as “bargaining under the shadow of the law”, or something like that.

  47. Anonymous Reader says:

    TheOtherScott
    I will make contact with this man and give him what comfort I can. I will encourage him to remain within the church.

    Excellent. The churchians can hurry by on the other side of the road, while a man helps the robbery victim. I once read a story like that in some book or other…

  48. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    One of the next things that is being pushed by the mainstream is “consensual non-monogamy”

    Yep. Open hypergamy showing up in the Times?
    Right on schedule. Rollo wrote this article just about 5 years ago:

    https://therationalmale.com/2014/08/07/open-hypergamy/

  49. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry
    The odd part of the story is that we’re allowing them to do so. Whatever the outcome, the responsibility is ours,

    Can you explain how a farmer in Iowa doing his job raising grain is responsible for some Manhattanite (New York, not Kansas) getting cucked by his wife? Using logic and reason, not emotional handwaving, please.

    Women love to emotionally blame men, all men, “oh! you MEN!” for the actions and/or inactions of some men. It’s just the way they are wired. Why some men want to emote just like women is an interesting question.

  50. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jenny
    Besides, men benefit from no-fault divorce too

    Do you really believe that the word “some” and the word “all” are synonyms? They have the exact same meaning?

  51. feeriker says:

    @TheOtherScott

    I will make contact with this man and give him what comfort I can. I will encourage him to remain within the church.

    By all means help him to keep the Faith. However, I’m not sure that encouraging any man to remain within what today passes for the institutional church is doing him any favors at all. I think it’s becoming increasingly obvious that “the church” today does more to blaspheme the Word of God, alienate men from Jesus’s message, and destroy men’s lives than it does anything even remotely good. Your living example and encouragement of, as well as prayer for, this suffering brother will do infinitely more to sustain his faith and pull him through this ordeal than any churchian pastorbator’s weasely backstabbing heresy and the faux “fellowship” of his equally phony and deluded congregants.

  52. The Inimitable NEET says:

    @Jenny

    You’re simply noting that past middle age, the imbalance in sexual marketplace options skews towards men. The fact they forsake wedding vows in the advent of “serious illness”, a minuscule portion of all divorces, just highlights the frivolousness of regular divorce.

  53. Anonymous Reader,

    Me: “The largest scale of this is the Left’s experiment on western society. …The odd part of the story is that we’re allowing them to do so. Whatever the outcome, the responsibility is ours,”

    AR: “Can you explain how a farmer in Iowa doing his job raising grain is responsible for some Manhattanite (New York, not Kansas) getting cucked by his wife?”

    That’s quite the non sequitur. Missing the point, too.

    Many or most of the cultural changes during the feminist era (arbitrarily, 50 years) were led or allowed by US governments, run by the folks we elected every few years. Changes in the divorce laws, making marriage such a bad deal for guys (esp as administered by feminist-friendly family courts and CPS agencies). Allowing the massive drugging of boys (and in many schools, encouraging or even mandating it). The kangaroo courts run by schools, spreading to corporate HR departments. I could continue, but you know the list as well as I do.

    Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: “Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.”
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/09/06/dalrocks-law-of-feminism/

    We, men, allowed this through our apathy and negligence. Democracy is, above all things, an assertion of responsibility for the city-state-nation’s fate. All else follows from that.

    “Sooner or later, everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.”
    — Attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson.

    But it is not too late to act.

  54. Anonymous Reader,

    “What action items do you suggest?”

    That is the key question. The great question. We have collected sufficient data and done more than enough analysis. It is time to act. I’ve written some sketches about this, focusing on the first step. That is the most important step, and probably the most difficult step. I explain it here:

    “The end to World War G (the gender wars)”
    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/04/09/solutions-to-the-gender-wars/

    The series is still in progress. Since we’re nowhere close to taking step one, I focus on how to make it happen. I also look at other proposed actions. See the series here:

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/women/#solutions

  55. feministhater says:

    We, men, allowed this through our apathy and negligence. Democracy is, above all things, an assertion of responsibility for the city-state-nation’s fate. All else follows from that.

    Democracy is a failure. This whole ‘men are to blame for everything’ is just another distraction. Who has the majority vote? Women. Who gets the freebies in Western Society? Women. Democracy is merely allowing those who take to vote to take more.

    I was not even alive for most of this shit. There wasn’t a thing I could have done to stop it. Voting is a sham. Stop pretending as if it wasn’t women who voted for this. They did.

    If you want to take away the rights of women to vote and take part in government affairs, be my guest, as that is the only process by which you can stop women from voting to take more of your shit.

    Are you advocating for taking up violence with the state?

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry
    Me: “The largest scale of this is the Left’s experiment on western society. …The odd part of the story is that we’re allowing them to do so. Whatever the outcome, the responsibility is ours,”

    AR: “Can you explain how a farmer in Iowa doing his job raising grain is responsible for some Manhattanite (New York, not Kansas) getting cucked by his wife?”

    That’s quite the non sequitur. Missing the point, too.

    Reading your plain language leads to a question that is too difficult for you?

    Many or most of the cultural changes during the feminist era (arbitrarily, 50 years) were led or allowed by US governments, run by the folks we elected every few years.

    Not to mention unelected bureaucrats. Is that the “ours”? People not like me?

    Changes in the divorce laws, making marriage such a bad deal for guys (esp as administered by feminist-friendly family courts and CPS agencies). Allowing the massive drugging of boys (and in many schools, encouraging or even mandating it). The kangaroo courts run by schools, spreading to corporate HR departments. I could continue, but you know the list as well as I do.

    I do know the list, and I know men who opposed it unsuccessfully. Nevertheless, you choose to lump all men in with some men, that’s what “the responsibility is ours” means in plain, ordinary English.

    Now please answer my question? Explain how men who had zero authority are nevertheless responsible?

    We, men, allowed this through our apathy and negligence.

    Perhaps you were apathetic and negligent. Other men were not. Why do you hold other men responsible for your inaction?

    Where were you in 1994 during the Congressional debate over the “Crime bill” which included Joe Biden’s pet project, the “Violence Against Women Act”, Larry? Were you apathetic and negligent? Or did you oppose that lousy legislation with all possible lawful means, only to see it enacted anyway? Do you hold the men who tried, and failed, to stop VAWA as somehow responsible for its passage?

    Logic doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

    Democracy is, above all things, an assertion of responsibility for the city-state-nation’s fate. All else follows from that.

    Are you personally responsible for the actions of BIlly Jeff Clinton while he was in office, Larry? If so, the surviving Branch Davidians might want to have a word with you.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry
    “The end to World War G (the gender wars)”

    If I read correctly, your “solution” is … to invent the manosphere” some 10 – 20 or more years late.
    Ironic.

  58. feministhater,

    “Democracy is a failure.”

    Every one of the hundreds of posts I’ve written about ways to reform America gets that response: surrender and apathy. That’s why we’re losing. Perhaps that’s why so many women have lost confidence in America’s men. Doesn’t look like there are many men willing to stake their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor – against the odds.

    Get a grip! America has survived far worse challenges. Here’s a fun bit of inspiration.

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/03/10/ignore-superheroes-find-real-inspiration/

    “Who has the majority vote? Women. ”

    Women do not vote as a block, despite feminists’ dreams.

    “Are you advocating for taking up violence with the state?”

    I enjoy seeing people fantasize about bold violence on the Great Day In the Vague Future When the Righteous Rise Up from their Apathy and Grab Their Guns and Do Stuff. Meanwhile others will work for change in America. Time will tell which group shapes the future.

  59. Anonymous “Reader”,

    “If I read correctly, your “solution” is … to invent the manosphere”

    That’s hilarious. Try re-reading it, with your eyes open this time.

  60. Anonymous “Reader”,

    “Not to mention unelected bureaucrats.”

    Every unelected bureaucrat reports to an elected official.

    “Is that the ‘ours’? People not like me?”

    Yes, America consists of people not like you. If that keeps you on the sidelines, so be it.

    “Explain how men who had zero authority are nevertheless responsible?”

    Because we have collective responsibility, whether we execute it or not. That’s why the “I didn’t do it” means zip. We are all in the ship together, and we are strong only when we act together. That’s why every successful reform movement mobilized support among a broad array of groups. The Founders worked to gain support in London (that’s why we won). The Civil Rights Groups worked to gain support among white Americans (ditto).

    This is all grade school civics, which Americans seem to have forgotten. When we recall it, we will be strong again.

  61. feministhater says:

    Instead of pontificating, go and do. That is the best way to get others to follow you.

    Go and show us how.

    I enjoy seeing people fantasize about bold violence on the Great Day In the Vague Future When the Righteous Rise Up from their Apathy and Grab Their Guns and Do Stuff. Meanwhile others will work for change in America. Time will tell which group shapes the future.

    It was a question. It wasn’t a fantasy. I don’t believe democracy works unless you want to be ruled by those that take. The only feasible way to bring about what you advocate for is to take on the state. The state shapes how people vote, it does so by making them promises, by giving them welfare, by changing the laws and by taking from others. This is why I asked you.

    However, you have the solutions, you know what works, so do it.

    Do it. That is all. Every single moment you spend here means you are not doing what you know works, that you are a shill and not what you pretend to be. If what you say is true, you need not pontificate here but instead bring about the change you think so easily happens. Take the responsibility, since it’s that simple according to you.

  62. feministhater says:

    Get a grip! America has survived far worse challenges. Here’s a fun bit of inspiration.

    I literally do not give a shit about America. I’m not even American. Democracy, no matter where it is practiced is a failure. Everywhere it is practiced. The failure is baked into the cake.

    As soon as you can vote to take, that is what the majority will do, always will. No exceptions. Once this happens, it’s only a matter of time until the government needs to develop ways and means to keep the ship sailing for as long as possible. Leaving the gold standard for one, quantitative easing for another, on and on it goes until the bill is so large, no entity can hope to pay it….

    then failure, reset and it all begins again.. Democracy never works because the means to right the ship of society when it falters means goes against the voter’s wishes. To right the ship means to institute policies to limit expenditure, limit debt and a forced decrease in the standard of living; and no Politician will ever do so, for they know that will mean the end of their career. Better to extend and pretend.

  63. white says:

    hey Larry

    How’s Donald Trump working out for you guys?

  64. feministhater says:

    Women do not vote as a block, despite feminists’ dreams.

    Women side with whomever gives the most freebies.

    Single women vote for government welfare and married women don’t. The reason why is simple. The single woman gets welfare from the government, the married woman gets welfare from her husband.

    The single portion of women is growing, marriage rates are down, age of marriage is up, which all means more votes for governmental welfare. Your increase in immigration from south of the border means more of the same.

    The problem is baked into the cake. Feminism has made marriage a joke, thus less marriage, less marriage means more single women who have children out of wedlock, leading to further declines in the well being of society, leading to greater government intervention and more of the same.

    How do you right this ship?

  65. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry
    That’s hilarious. Try re-reading it, with your eyes open this time.

    Done. You advise men to “form packs”, that is to form groups. That’s the manosphere. You have no other action item.

    “Men standing shoulder to shoulder” — the British are not coming up Bunker Hill.

    When you learn what the word “responsibility” means, let me know.

  66. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry
    “Not to mention unelected bureaucrats.”

    Every unelected bureaucrat reports to an elected official.

    Not really. You don’t know much about the US government, that is obvious. For a person who writes a lot about defense issues, it is surprising how ignorant you are of how our government actually works.

    “Is that the ‘ours’? People not like me?”

    Yes, America consists of people not like you. If that keeps you on the sidelines, so be it.

    Larry, why do you write such passive-aggressive foolishness? It’s like something a 14 year old girl would come up with. Is this your idea of an adult discussion?

    From personal experience, some of he people who administer parts of my state government are very much not like me. For a start, some of them do not have a conscience; they are quite willing to accept bribes, commit election fraud and engage in nepotistic hiring. I am not responsible for their actions, either.

    “Explain how men who had zero authority are nevertheless responsible?”

    Because we have collective responsibility, whether we execute it or not.

    No. We don’t. You are ignorant. Educate yourself, starting with Aristotle’s “The Politics” and when you are prepared to discuss events in an adult fashion, perhaps we can proceed.

    Perhaps you do not understand the word “responsibility”? Or the word “authority”?
    Previously I asked you if men who worked hard via the pollitical process to stop VAWA from being enacted are still responsible for its passage. As usual, you ran away and hid from a substantial question.

    Larry: if a man worked via all his lawful means to resist the passage of VAWA -94, do you still hold him responsible for that law?

    Your answer will reveal much about your character. Especially if you run away and hide, yet again.

    PS: You have not produced anything actionable for men that wasn’t already thought of before you stumbled over the topic. Genuine problem solving includes a proper problem statement, which relies on a knowledge of the prior art.As far as I can tell, you have done no research into the “prior art” of men’s issues. Therefore all the actions of men in the 1980’s and 1990’s are unknown to you. Robert Bly and Warren Farrell apparently are two men you’ve never heard of, so you cannot have read their books, so you cannot know what has been tried in the past.

    You are like an over aged undergraduate who has decided to build a perpetual motion machine, and doesn’t know what “friction” is. But in your arrogance, you are convinced you are right and every man who tries to explain the laws of physics to you is wrong.

    It’s sad. You could be of some use, if you knew how to do research and actually learn.

  67. Anonymous Reader says:

    Here’s a link that discusses the Toronto 2012 protests intended to prevent Warren Farrell from speaking, a couple of video links are embedded. One features some of the male and female feminists making sounds with their mouths. Note that the tactics / rants used in 2012 by radicals are pretty mainstream now. Only 7 years ago this was radical. Now it’s common on campuses.

    https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-warren-farrell-protest-at-the-university-of-toronto/

    Traditional conservatives have no answer for any of the protestors.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    Here is one of Farrell’s books. Written in 1993. Should be read by any man who wants to understand the current situation. Summary in this article:

    https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Myth_of_Male_Power

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry
    Women do not vote as a block, despite feminists’ dreams.

    Did you fail to pay attention to the 2016 election? It is well known that a majority of married, white women voted for Trump, while a majority of unmarried white women voted for Clinton. Part of the screeching by pink-hatted feminists in 2017 had to do with the “traitorous” white married women. Did you somehow fail to read about this? Did you miss the inauguration?

    It’s not even slightly controversial that unmarried women vote differently than married women; in fact, it’s been common knowledge for the last 5 Presidential election cycles if not longer.

    Yes, women vote as a bloc, depending on their marital status. This is high school civics. Is it news to you?

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ranger
    I think Dalrock refers to this phenomenon as “bargaining under the shadow of the law”, or something like that.

    Using the Search window at the top of the page this is the first result from 7.5 years ago.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/bargaining-in-the-shadow-of-the-law/

    It is still quite relevant.

  71. Gunner Q says:

    Larry Kummer, Editor @ 2:34 pm:
    “Democracy is, above all things, an assertion of responsibility for the city-state-nation’s fate.”

    Democracy is, above all things, mob rule. It has no honor, sees no future, feels nothing but the hunger of the moment. The leaders most likely to reach power are looters and deceivers because the lowest common denominator of human morality is greed and vanity. If allowed to borrow money, the future of Democracy is rule by the bank; if not, then rule by the military when there’s no money left to pay them and the people are feral from voting away all restraint.

    Why work when you can vote instead? Why pay taxes when you can tax your neighbor twice? Why speak the truth when lies bring power? Your new God will never tell you ‘no’! Until your turn comes to be crushed in the iron beast, greasing the gears of Democracy.

  72. BillyS says:

    Chip Heitzig (sp?) married a single mother and talks about it regularly on his radio show.

  73. BillyS says:

    Where is this pack I can form Larry? I have tried many times, but clearly I am just not finding the right places for that pack if your advice is correct!

    ======

    Anyone who thinks the current system is not utterly corrupt needs to explain how someone can have a career in “public service” and end up with millions of dollars (not from their parents or older relatives that already had money).

    ======

    We were supposed to be a Republic, but even that is likely not sustainable and will likely always degrade.

  74. Oscar says:

    Every form of government fails eventually, because every form of government is administered by humans, and humans are fatally flawed sinners. Democracy is not an exception to that rule. There is no exception to that rule.

    It was true when Nebuchadnezzar dreamed about a statue made of many materials, and it will continue to be true until Christ establishes His Kingdom on Earth.

    In the meantime, some forms of government work better with some cultures than with others, and we do our best with the form of government we have.

    But, to answer AR’s question; no, a man is not responsible for laws he opposed.

  75. Jon Patch says:

    The divorcing wives do not have to take a status hit if they successfully vilify the husband through lies and vague accusations to the other respected wives in the church or social group. Then the pastors and other white knights will join her and blackball the husband and show great care for her and call her things like “brave” and “strong” and then later the ultimate hero: “single mom”. None of the other husbands who knew him will dare stand up for him or question it, lest they receive the same fate.

  76. George Tasker says:

    I’m pretty sure that the author of the article must have read a lot of the manosphere that describes modern day marriage. Marriage 2.0 it is now called.

    https://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/

  77. Red Pill Christianity says:

    I read both of Fabius’ articles (and a 3rd that was linked to it) and they were excellent and on-point, except I disagree with his final premises, which essentially are: what will the future adult men of Gen Z do? Will they marry and keep stable society going or will they go MGTOW and/or never marry and live off Tinder forever? Will the Gen Z’s step-up to the plate (almost like the generation during King Josiah’s reign) and fix the mess their grandparents, the Boomers, put in motion?

    To me, the issue is not what will Gen Z ultimately do. That seems almost a certainty they will finish off the wrecking of America that the Boomers began decades ago and had to wait until the Millennials to keep the destruction going. While the Millennials are hugely a failed generation, whereas half of them are leftists, Gen Z seems to be even more left, which means, there is little hope for them.

    No, the real issue is whether we, the few good Boomers left and Gen X’ers, will be able to fix the legal, criminal, and financial risks of Marriage 2.0 that are solely borne by MEN, so that marriage can actually continue as a societal institution? That applies to marriage as a whole, whether religious or not.

    Unfortunately, I no longer believe that we will be able to fix the unbelievable threat that Marriage 2.0 represents to all heterosexual males in our lifetimes. It would take a miracle from God of the caliber of the parting of the Red Sea or a national Revival to the likes humanity has never seen to fix this mess.

    Short of that, there is literally zero legislative support to fix the legal, criminal, and financial punishments associated with marriage in America today. The courts are not better, since they are overwhelmingly staffed by leftist judges and most of the rest are simply cuckservatives, unwilling to Red Pill and use their powers for good.

    So no, the future of the Millennials and Gen Z does not look good.

    Ps. They are called “Generation Z” because they are “Generation ZERO”. That is what they will inherit from their former middle class parents – zero. They will also inherit a country that is very “diverse”, which means divided and angry. Jobs shipped overseas or staffed by low-paid immigrants.

    http://GenerationZeroMovie.com/

    This is a great documentary about this topic of Gen Z and it is financial but it also deals with Gen Z and the challenges they will face, whether prepared for it or not. I have this movie and watched it before, it is excellent.

  78. Red Pill Christianity says:

    Friday afternoon, I met with a guy who became a friend, a brilliant guy I know that is a web designer, CAD, App creator, he is a great marketing tool to my clients. Just a brilliant guy, 2 great kids (I met them before), the guy is not fat or weird or anything, he is a regular guy in looks, maybe a 5 or a soft 6 overall. Hard worker Christian guy too.

    He was venting to me about his wife, who, despite having this great husband and father to their kids, is constantly complaining. No matter what he does, she is always complaining. “I am lonely” and “we do not go out enough”.

    And of course, I reminded him that “It is not what you said, it is HOW you said it” and we laughed. I bet every man on this side of the planet has heard that one before.

    Long story short, I told him, his problem is doing too much for her. She knows she holds all the cards in the marriage due to divorce and child custody laws being biased only in her favor and she can abuse things like calling the cops falsely and all.

    My solution to him: take the Red Pill, learn Game concepts and understand hot to use Dread and hold Frame to get his marriage back under control. I gave him a couple website to start reading and understanding what TRP and the ManoSphere is all about.

    His texts started rolling all night Friday into the morning hours and well into the next day. he went from “this cannot be” to acceptance to feverish learning. he had been reading RP stuff on Heartiste, RoK, and Rollo all night and then all day Sat.

    On his latest text he said he is gonna start with the increasing Dread this week and he seemed both sad to see such truths to glad he can now try something new, no matter how much he did not want to start using Dread in his marriage. He is gonna start making himself suddenly unavailable and cut back on all he does for his wife. Going to show her what life will be without him around. Basic Dread, increasing intensity as time goes.

    It is a sad state of affairs when a good man has to learn Game just to keep his marriage together. But such is the nature of The Red Pill. The truth is hard to accept, but removes the scales from one’s eyes and that is priceless and may save his marriage from growing troubles.

    I will report back when I hear something next.

  79. locustsplease says:

    At RPC dread was every day in the pre modern world. No phone no clock your husband comes home whenever he walks thru the door. Almost all men did manual labor and normally do not talk until they sit down and wind down, that might even b after dinner. I did not believe how naturally fearful women are until my mother and sister told me about the extreme fear they have at home alone.

    It was a selling point of women in the workforce so they weren’t at home scared. Have you seen a mouse run across the floor infront of any city girl? They actually jump on the counter and scream like there is a gunman.

  80. Paul Kerr says:

    What do the girls receive from sex with the alphas?

    It’s implied that nothing – and since they do it for just for fun, ll decisions is hers, and power remains with the girl, the alpha is still powerless.
    And how often would a girl want sex anyway? In the end it can be so that the alphas are also left sexless most of the time.
    So maybe it’s never about sex in the first place?
    This could be a new manosphere “pill”.

  81. Red Pill Christianity says:

    **locustsplease says: Dread was every day in the pre modern world. No phone no clock your husband comes home whenever he walks thru the door. I did not believe how naturally fearful women are until my mother and sister told me about the extreme fear they have at home alone.

    That is a great point, but why would they be afraid to be home alone in a safe country like the US??
    How is being home more frightening than working in a coal mine or logging, for instance?

    I can understand fear if their husband died and the cash supply ended. Or what if he left her? She would need to work hard at being a good wife to care for her husband’s well-being and to ensure he is happy to be home. This created marital stability too. The man would make sacrifices for a reward (home, children, wife, etc).

    **Paul Kerr says: What do the girls receive from sex with the alphas? It’s implied that nothing – and since they do it for just for fun, ll decisions is hers, and power remains with the girl, the alpha is still powerless. So maybe it’s never about sex in the first place? This could be a new manosphere “pill”.

    If a woman bangs (free) an Alpha who has a Ferrari for instance and he dumps her the next morning, what does she get out of it? Nothing of tangible value.

    But she gets to brag to her friends that she banged a guy with a Ferrari. She gets to “feel good” that a rich guy who owns a Ferrari wnats to bang her. Like this girl here who banged an NFL player (free) and he dumped her a couple hours later. All she got was “bragging rights”.

    Given this picture she posted, she cannot try to sue for “rape” since clearly she willingly did it. So she will literally get $0 for this. No marriage, no date. Nothing.

    De-criminalize prostituti0n and see how fast that balance of power changes. Go to Ukraine, Thailand, or Philippines. The guys not only have more options with women to date/marry, but also the number of incels is close to zero. As long as the man has a decent job, he WILL get laid, by paying or running Game (free).

    The term “incel” is a Western cuck concept, this does not exist anywhere where pr0stitution is legal, so even the most pathetic dudes can get laid for cash. This takes the pressure off the “dating” market and demands women improve if they want marriage/relationships.

    The “sex drought” is a feminist creation by criminalizing sex (via bans or by creating a dangerous situation for men to have sex with false criminal accusations of rape or civil lawsuits to shakedown money). That is what gives them power and control. Take that away and it is game over. That is why feminists oppose de-criminalization like crazy, guys would chose that way too often.

    Shift the balance of power and we change society for good. Feminists got that years ago and employ the strategy to this very day.

    This is not a “new pill”. It is part of The Red Pill, Heartiste has been writing about this for years. Modern Carousel-riding Women get “value” from random sex because they want to be “strong and empowered” to do whatever they want, to brag about banging some famous, jacked, or rich guy, or just because they are self-destructive.

    So I see nothing new here, no “new pill” concept. Or am I missing something here?

  82. Paul Kerr says:

    @Red Pill Christianity
    My point is – girls can brag about simply being with alphas, without any sex or with as little sex as possible. Alphas contribute to this themselves by being too open, by approaching and dating all the women, by not demanding sex up front. Society gets to a point where sex is disappearing.

    The existing pills explain the relationships but can’t be applied to casual sex. If girls really wanted sex and sexual novelty, a small amount of alphas wouldn’t suffice them! If men truly wanted sex, there would not be such thing as a sexless marriage or at least not a sexless alpha. But sexless alphas are everywhere! Prime examples are E.Rodger (owning a BMW, he sure gave a ride to a few chicks but remained sexless), team England star Jamie Vardy (married a carousel rider with kids), and I began doubting even Cristiano Ronaldo, arguably the most charismatic man on planet (when he married a “5” and resorted to surrogacy when she did not want “that many” kids).

    So, general frigidity and asexuality of modern population is the new pill, let’s name it the Grey Pill.

    Status placates girls’ minds and leads to LTR but doesn’t make girls wet. Wetness is animalistic and animal females feel wet at any male (if not wet all the time).

  83. Anonymous Reader says:

    I missing something here?

    Probably.

  84. Red Pill Christianity says:

    @ Paul Kerr says: My point is – girls can brag about simply being with alphas, without any sex or with as little sex as possible. Alphas contribute to this themselves by being too open, by approaching and dating all the women, by not demanding sex up front. Society gets to a point where sex is disappearing. So, general frigidity and asexuality of modern population is the new pill, let’s name it the Grey Pill. Status placates girls’ minds and leads to LTR but doesn’t make girls wet. Wetness is animalistic and animal females feel wet at any male (if not wet all the time).

    I agree that Sex is disappearing in our society, but why? I say because of:

    1) Feminism, which makes women unbearable, either in looks or personality;

    2) Men have too many distractions (HD TVs, video games, free online porn, legal weed, alcohol, Dave & Busters, no motivation to self-improve, no expectation of getting married and having kids);

    3) We have a society that cucks young boys at a very young age and indoctrinates them for 12 years straight (K-12 grades), making them into depressed, weak, and fearful Betas. The damage can last a lifetime.

    I do not get the Cristiano Ronaldo thing, makes you wonder if the dude is really gay..? It is like the Liam Hemsworth thing. The guy is good looking, rich, and famous and yet he marries a disgusting, used up wh0re like Miley Cyrus. It is truly insane. That shows these guys may be rich and famous, but they are still Betas inside. Or they are just deep blue pillers, unable to see the truth about women and life and self-cuck themselves.

    So what would you propose to fix the sexlessness in society? Encourage young men to be more Alpha and hook-up with more girls? I encourage young guys in my group to be aggressive and assertive with women and understand RP Game. The results are success for the guys, but it definitely increases premarital sex. But it teaches them how to Game women and how to deal with women in LTRs.

    About the LTRs, many guys these days are opting for what Roosh called the “Rise of the Mini-Relationships”, which is an alternative to LTRs. It is a good prospect for many guys, since we understand the work involved in an LTR can be too much given what the woman is bringing into the relationship… and marriage is a self-destroying contract for men.

    The problem is that, you are right, wetness and “gina tingles” in women is animalistic in nature…. then the solution would be to encourage more hook-ups and fewer LTRs and marriages?

    That is the catch 22 of life. How do we find that balance you are talking about?

  85. Paul Kerr says:

    @Red Pill Christianity
    How about mass marketing of aphrodisiacs for women? After all, toothpaste, shampoos, birth pills were also novelties once.

    Humanity has been struggling with female frigidity since its historical dawn. Marriage, courtship, and recently feminism were invented by those scientists who believed the “princess-like treatment” will make women feminine and sexual. Nope, did not work. Prostitution and cock carousel were ad hoc additions to make it more direct. Still no effect. A “love-filled” girl rushes to sex with alpha – BUT only once, then regrets and retreats to the shell, leaving the alpha puzzled and angry.

    Relationships are not sought with the purpose of sex. Even casual hookups are more about companionship. Marriage entails the kids question, etc. But sex is a presupposed necessity for a healthy person. But if a girl does not want sex at all, neither with a hookup prospect nor a marriage prospect, that does not immediately prevent hookups and marriages per se, but leaves the parties frustrated, if only subconsciously. So, one man gets a fun hang-out night but no sex. Another man gets wife and kids but no sex. People may agree to this to remain social and reproduce the species, but such sexlessness is definitely a DISEASE and needs to be treated accordingly.

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.