Reconciling old and new conservative views.

Stephen Green has a post up at Instapundit on the US Submarine force’s failure to meet the needs of women.  Not all women who want to serve on submarines are given slots, and thus the Submarine Community Can’t Meet Demand From Female Sailors.  Green half jokingly suggests that this means the US needs to build more attack submarines.  Commenter Chris Lutz responded with the old conservative position, that women shouldn’t be on ships:

Clearly, in order to address this iniquity, we need to build more attack subs.

No, we need to put women back into truly rear echelon support positions. Women on ships has been a disaster.

Commenter Southern Man wanted to agree that women shouldn’t be serving on ships, but pointed out that kickass conservative gals made him feel good:

Part of me agrees with this. But my daughter is in the US Navy and I’m pretty d*mn proud of her. Her second deployment was on the Harry S. Truman, CVN 75. I asked her “did you ever see the Bridge?” She rolled her eyes as only a daughter can do and said “Dad, my station was <redacted>, I was on the bridge all the time!”

Commenter evilsandmich reconciled the conflicting positions by pretending that the change we are witnessing isn’t due to feminists shoving their way in, but by men forcing women into harm’s way:

She’s great, the nation that would intentionally put its women in harms way, eh, not so much…

This is all of course very common, but this is the point.  This is how conservatives respond to feminism across our society, and is why conservatives are such reliable allies of feminism despite the widespread belief that the opposite is true.

Related:

This entry was posted in Chivalry, Feminist Territory Marking, Instapundit, Kickass Conservative Gals, Military, Stephen Green, Too traditional to be traditional, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

212 Responses to Reconciling old and new conservative views.

  1. tteclod says:

    It seems to me that the greater challenge is overcoming people who say they represent Americans, but instead represent others, such as Charlie Kirk at TPUSA.

    How can a man tell his daughter, “No,” if denying her desire to ruin her life is denounced as misogyny by his church, his employer, and his own family. He may disown her, and the community at large will shun him and support her.

  2. Askeladd says:

    I got to talk with Turd Flinging Monkey about the general conservative uselessness on the question of feminism recently.

    http://thechifiles.com/2019/11/06/men-going-their-own-way-with-turd-flinging-monkey-podcast/

    The guy’s not right about everything, but he’s sure got his finger on the right pulse here.

  3. swiftfoxmark2 says:

    Meanwhile, a bunch of stupid right-wingers complain about the changing demographics in our nation while at the same time refusing to tell fathers to ensure their daughters are married at 19 and having kids in their 20s.

  4. Time to wake up and smell the bacon: Women are winning the gender wars.

    Summary: In 2015, I said that a war between the genders had begun, and that women were winning. By now it is obvious that they are reaching for dominance in US society (4th wave feminism). They’re getting it, with the cooperation of men. The resulting changes have just begun. It will be a revolution like none other, ever.

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/11/13/women-are-winning/

  5. Askeladd says:

    Not to spam with links, but to share one more based on swiftfoxmark2’s comment:

    http://thechifiles.com/2019/07/13/conservative-christians-encourage-the-marriage-crisis/

    In brief, the position of “mother” is going unfilled, but instead of recognizing the economic disaster inherent in same, conservatives demand we “stop idolizing marriage and motherhood” (see Kylee Zempel in a recent Federalist piece) – i.e. get on board with women filling wage slave roles instead of motherhood ones.

  6. tteclod says:

    Is 23 soon enough for my daughter to marry, or have I failed?

  7. Lexet Blog says:

    I’m not sure you can say that conservatism really exists anymore. Sure, there are right wing/pro freedom and liberty beliefs. Holding them is not conservative, as we have never experienced an abundance of liberties, and it takes action and revolt to institute them.

    What we have is a reincarnation of the federalist/anti-federalist debate. Conservative inc is comprised of federalist clowns who are process oriented.

    The new activists (America first types) and libertarians are anti-federalists.

    Mixing the old with the new is impossible, as the old operate under the assumption that our current governing structure is good, and as long as you operate “constitutionally,” you may damn all values the founders had.

    Conservatives of old don’t hold to any values. That’s why the same
    People who once opposed women in the military are now ok with gays and women serving in combat. Meanwhile, only a few of us are willing to say that women shouldn’t be in the military at all (or at least bring back wacs) and for good reason.

  8. Lexet Blog says:

    She almost made it to old maid status. Jk

  9. white says:

    @Larry Kummer

    Women have been winning the gender wars all around the world since first wave feminism. In the West, this began when chivalry became mainstream. Feminism has always been about dominance over men. 4th wave only feels like a “Richter 10 earthquake” to you because you live in 2019 and are used to living in 3rd wave world.

    A boy born today would get used to living in a fourth wave world, then in the 2030s he will write about how “The first four waves of feminism were about the quest for equality” but THIS COMING wave! This one we’re about to face? No, this one is different. This 5th wave will hit us like an earthquake!

    Fourth wave will come and go as well. Such is society’s indifference to male suffering.

  10. locustsplease says:

    I constantly hear from people comments that make it seem like my daughter is wearing the pants in the relationship. She is currently 8. Now i have a stock response. Oh when she is teenager you watch out i tell them ill take this brat to the homeless shelter if i have to. Of course i will never have to and never even discipline my daughter besides the smallest corrections that come with learning.

    Its just a fact to the general public that i am my daughters beta orbiter. After developing my views on feminism if shes going to become a bossy bitchy feminist shes going to do it out of my sight. Definitely not with my cash, silence, support or praise.

  11. It seems to me that the conservative (not proper conservative, but stock conservative) anti-feminist response on many of the feminist assaults is that of Hogan’s enemy Sergeant Schultz. “I know nothink! No-think!”

    And so the “imprisoned” and “suppressed” and “put-upon” feminists thus get away with murder. Sometimes literally.

  12. White,

    “because you live in 2019 and are used to living in 3rd wave world.”

    I’m in my 60s, and grew up in an America with second wave feminism.

    “Feminism has always been about dominance over men.”

    That’s quite false. Blurring everything into a stew of tapioca – “it’s all the same” – is just ignoring the details that allow us to clearly see the world and how it is changing.

  13. virginia says:

    I wouldn’t say, “Women have been winning the gender wars.” Rather, I would say “Feminists have been winning the culture wars,” or maybe “Feminists have so thoroughly obliterated their opponents in the culture wars, and effaced even the memory of those opponents, that most people can’t even remember what opposition to feminism even looked like.”

    Alternately, you could say that we’ve reordered our culture and society in a way that benefits the top 25% of the population, give or take, at the expense of everyone else.

    I don’t think either side ever “wins” the gender wars. For every lonely and embittered man trying to decide whether to spend the evening fapping to porn or seeking an online match with an overweight ex-carousel rider with three kids by two different baby daddies, there’s a lonely and embittered woman trying to decide whether to spend the evening watching TV with her cats or rejecting a series of online suitors due to their failure to earn 58% more money than they actually earn.

  14. Spike says:

    Welcome back, Dalrock.
    You’ve got to love articles conservatives ones at that that say, “We’re leaving talent on the table!” like this Navy officer said.
    You have rightly drawn attention to the problem of the conservative father, who is feminism’s greatest ally.
    Conservative men are against feminism, and rightly so. But they make an exception when it comes to their daughters. When you then multiply those exceptions by statistical numbers, you get a feminist hell.
    I don’t have a daughter, but what’s wrong with raising a daughter with the notion that her priority will be to find a good man who will be her husband, they form a partnership and she raises the next generation of good people? No one is telling her that she is bound for eternity to children, because they grow up quickly, become adults and leave, leaving her to return to work if she wishes.
    Why do the overwhelming number of conservative men feel they have to live vicariously through their daughters doing things like the armed services, or worse as been mentioned on this blog – via a bunch of sexual exploits?
    Is it because they think that this life is all there is and aren’t focused on things eternal, so they feel they must mark out their lives this way? I can’t think of another reason.

  15. Bart says:

    Feminism is rebellion against God. It is a weapon of Satan. Feminists (along with Sodomites, Marxists, Globalists, Banksters, and other rebellious degenerates) are certainly winning the culture war at present. That doesn’t mean that women are winning. Feminism hates and works to destroy women (the feminine).

    Saying women are winning the culture war is like saying heroin addicts are winning the war on drugs.

    Women who want to make a difference, to serve, build, and protect their nation don’t waste time in the military.

    They get married, make babies, and care for their families. Homestead, homeschool, etc.

  16. locustsplease says:

    @ virginia why wouldnt you say women have been winning the gender wars? What are exactly men even fighting for in the gender war? Nothing. I think you wouldnt say women won the gender war because winning the gender war was supposed to make them happy and you too. And they are not and you either so the war must not b over yet we have not achieved victory!

    So keep mushing on soldier. One more wave of feminism and narcissistic demands should do it. I am personally kinda excited to see what the next wave of feminism is. They all blow the last one out of the water im on the edge of my seat.

  17. Pingback: Reconciling old and new conservative views. | Reaction Times

  18. feeriker says:

    Another article that makes me glad that I went ashore from Uncle Sap’s (then rapidly converging) Glorified Yacht Club 20 years ago. I cannot imagine being part of that toxic mess today. I only hope the complete implosion comes soon so that we can be spared any more of this sickening spectacle.

  19. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    Hear, hear!

    And this is why ‘conservatism’ is worthless / useless, and trad men of the right should embrace the label ‘reactionary’ and eschew the loser term ‘conservative’…

  20. Anon says:

    Too many uninformed people are still talking about ‘waves’ of feminism as if that is of any importance.

    The Female Imperative (FI) is as old as humanity itself. It was quite normal to send 50 men to die before a single woman faced harm, even centuries ago, and in all societies Western and Eastern.

    To think that ‘feminism’ only started by accident and that ‘waves’ of it have any importance is to grossly underestimate the deep biological hardwiring of humans that mandates the FI.

  21. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry “Boomer” Kummer
    Time to wake up and smell the bacon: Women are winning the gender wars.

    Lol.

  22. Anonymous Reader says:

    J. J. Griffing
    It seems to me that the conservative (not proper conservative, but stock conservative)
    https://infogalactic.com/info/No_true_scotsman

  23. Scott says:

    What we have is a reincarnation of the federalist/anti-federalist debate. Conservative inc is comprised of federalist clowns who are process oriented.

    As a recovering process oriented conservative, I can second this.

    I am what Jonathan Haigt calls a “natural conservative.”

    To get there I took this road:

    Standard conservative –> divorced against my will with no help from the “conservatives” and church leadership around me –> right leaning libertarian –> constantly living in fear of being called “racist” –> harder right leaning libertarian –> HBD –> where I am now.

    I am watching the movie “A Christmas Story” tonight and I no longer think that kind of America is possible if “people would just subscribe to [the constitution, or whatever “process” is needed]” The problem is demographic, too much freedom, too much “democracy” and a lot of other things. But its not a lack of Jefferson and Locke being read in Chicago inner city schools.

  24. Scott says:

    I would add to HBD “leaning about normal distributions in graduate school”

  25. Anon says:

    Larry Kummer,

    In 2015, I said that a war between the genders had begun, and that women were winning.

    You think the problem only began in 2015??

    LOL!

    World War 2 :

    US male casualties : 300,000+
    US female casualties : 8

    The Battle of Crecy (1346) :
    How many men die?
    How many women die? (almost zero)

    The Iliad and the Odyssey :
    How many men die?
    How many women die? (almost zero)

  26. Women are not valued for their strength, bravery and independence because if they were they would be shamed for lacking in those areas. When was the last time a woman was called a “coward” for shunning danger, or a “weakling” for her physical frailty? It never happens. Pushing women into martial arts, the military, and competitive sports is no different than dressing boys up in women’s clothing.

  27. Anon says:

    ttclod,

    Is 23 soon enough for my daughter to marry, or have I failed?

    It is certainly not too soon. It is the perfect age in fact. Another two years and she is drifting into the ‘late’ category.

    But will your daughter listen to you? And what is her N? I understand that you do not know that, but each pre-marital partner swiftly reduces her marriageability to anyone other than a cuckservative.

  28. BillyS says:

    You are wrong again Larry.

    Women will share the idiotic results of the feminist directions when it all comes home to roost. They seem to be doing great now, but that is only temporary and is living off the fumes of the past.

    Society may be like my car a few days ago, able to drive for quite a while with the yellow “empty” (or near empty) light on, but it is not a good direction and keeping on this path will eventually reap very bad consequences.

    You would do well to read about how prosperous Ancient Israel (the northern kingdom after the split) was just before they fell to the brutal Assyrians. It was the best of times, until it wasn’t.

  29. Anon says:

    ttclod,

    To answer your question in more detail, see this famous chart (and MAKE your daughter see it and accept it) :

    Clearly, the time for her to marry is now.

    Plus, peak female fertility is age 19-27. A woman should conceive her first two children before she turns 28. Whether she stops at two, or goes on to have five is a separate matter, but peak fertility is age 19-27. One can freeze eggs, etc., but that is already a form of perverse manipulation.

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    Standard conservatism is saturated with feminist blank-slate emotionalism. Women are just men with boobs who can haz baybees. Add to that a man with one or two or maybe, maybe three daughters and you get fools who want their strong, powerful, YouGoGrrls to act just like men. Ride the carousel until 29.999 years of age then marry one of those men just laying around on the ground waiting to be picked up…huh, what?

    Until they realize there ain’t any grandchildren. How did that happen? How?

    tl;dr
    Standard old late 20th century “conservatism” is just as much of a cargo-cult as its liberal opposite. Both are based on false premises. Just like feminism. Probably merely a coincidence.

  31. tteclod says:

    I’m not fond of the argument, “These people don’t worry about heaven or hell, so they don’t do what’s right in the present.” Pray tell me: if this world we live in is all that there is or ever will be, why would a man choose to wreck his own life and the lives of his children and grandchildren – the only projection into eternity he acknowledges?

    Whatever may be awry with America, it’s not a lack of faith. More likely, it’s wishful thinking which convinces a man that the evil he does is good, and the good other men do is evil, and thus even men who claim Jesus as Lord teach that up is down and down is up.

  32. Lost Patrol says:

    Dear Navy,
    Make the submarine crews all women. If they fill those up, then it’s on to all the other ship types. Problem solved. You’re welcome.
    Respectfully submitted,
    A Concerned Conservative.

  33. tteclod says:

    I think Americans wrecked their country with suffrage for women. Everything since is just a natural consequence of that error.

    But perhaps I’m just repeating what my 70+ father says, and my nearly 5 decades experience isn’t relevant.

  34. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way,

    Part of me agrees with this. But my daughter is in the US Navy

    is just a more wordy way to say “It’s different when we do it”, for some definition of “we”.

  35. Opus says:

    Sunday, stood in for this year’s Armistice Day (the 11th) – this year I did not attend – though at eleven o’clock two thousand souls to whom it means something and who have not forgotten huddled, as I could see and learned from the front page of yesterday’s local paper, around the War Memorial. A little before eleven I heard some noises in the street and going to my window observed in the street below a group of girls in military uniform prancing around as if they were in Donizetti’s Daughter of the Regiment. The women in the military, I thought, give the impression of being in Operetta. I attended last year when I was regaled with the information from the Mayor that the country was being kept safe by our brave men and women of the military – as at Crecy and Agincourt, I suppose. No mention of your military bases on Airstrip 1. A curious oversight methinks.

    I have just returned from the polling booth – the local borough councillor for my ward a Dr Patel and I believe our only ethnic councilor sadly having died. Having battled my way through a gang of Liberal Democrats attempting to influence my vote I was given after complaining about the intimidation which did not seem to bother the female teller despite my protestations a form with six names including that of a woman whom I take to be a lesbian spinster standing for the Women’s Equality (read Supremacy) Party. It has always been the case you may be surprised to learn that in Borough elections women have always had the right to vote and so, I suppose, also to stand as a candidate. Clearly this needs to change. Dr Patel was a Conservative and in the event his proposed male and non-ethnic successor was to me the least objectionable of the six candidates on offer and so I gave him my cross. I however gave the Liberal lady who may have been the Party’s female leader and full of her own importance again haranguing me on exiting, a mouthful of four-letter words. It is of course a dry-run for next months general election and thus a bell-wether as to what might transpire next month (although the pro-Brexit party’s were conspicuous by their absence – obviously like Paul Revere keeping their powder and message dry – the first general election to be held in winter for just over one hundred years and that is why what would normally be a matter of indifference and far more sedate – for councillors have little power all real power residing with the local Commissar (formerly The Town Clerk) – becomes vocal and enthusiastic.

  36. JRob says:

    The absolute best cog dis comes from proud dads of “service women.” Conserving their daughters right into the USS Fitzgerald.

    Twenty plus years service here. You don’t want your daughter on any naval vessel.

  37. Bruce says:

    A daughter in the military should be a source of shame, not pride, for Christians and conservatives.

  38. Bruce says:

    @Scott,
    Christmas Story is the best movie ever made !

  39. TheOtherScott says:

    Welcome back Dalrock! I missed you bro.

    This is the same problem we see in politics… “Lets throw all the bums out…except for my bum…he´s the best.”

    “Feminism is killing us…but my strong, confident wife/daughter/slut rocks!”

    If you or they defend this behavior in your own, it’s worse than white knighting.

  40. 432 says:

    I’m not sure why any of you here are listening to Larry Kummer.
    He is a proponent of gun control:
    https://fabiusmaximus.com/?s=guns&orderby=relevance&order=DESC&post_type=post
    Nothing like taking away your guns to promote masculinity!

  41. purge187 says:

    “Twenty plus years service here. You don’t want your daughter on any naval vessel.”

    There’s an old saying – women on submarines get two things: pregnant or an STD.

  42. Frank K says:

    Hmmm … given that women are marching in lock step and accepting that men with gender dysphoria are actually women (and are even willing to let them beat them up in athletics) makes me wonder if the ladies are really winning the “gender war” or if they are just pawns in a bigger war.

  43. Prompt Critical says:

    Entertainingly, USS Harry S. Truman (which happens to be the ship I was on) had a prostitution ring running on board that was busted about eight years ago.

  44. anon says:

    Lost Patrol
    Dear Navy,
    Make the submarine crews all women.

    Plus, don’t forget to include the trans-women.

  45. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    Dear Navy,
    Make the submarine crews all women.

    Plus, don’t forget to include the trans-women.

  46. Asaph says:

    This.
    Can someone make a “Chad Reactionary vs. Virgin Conservative” meme.
    Conservatives are sore losers.

  47. Frank K says:

    Entertainingly, USS Harry S. Truman (which happens to be the ship I was on) had a prostitution ring running on board that was busted about eight years ago.

    Sounds like an easy way to make some quick money. And not at all unexpected. Is there a medal for that? The Golden Bunk?

  48. emery says:

    @Bart: “Feminism is rebellion against God. It is a weapon of Satan.”

    I agree with you here. I believe that ‘women are winning the gender war’ is taking the context all wrong. If you think women are winning the ‘gender war’ because they wrecked a patriarchal well functioning culture only to find it blow up in their face and make themselves miserable…well I have bad news for you because women ‘won the gender war’ all the way back when Eve disobeyed God and Adam refused to rebuke her. If human misery and suffering is your measure of women winning then Eve has been the winner since the starting line of the race.

    Satan has used the daughters of Eve to make suffering through disobedience and the sons of Adam have refused to rebuke her. That’s all. Even if an unbeliever reads this surely you can see that feminism is just a tool for certain powerful individuals and groups. The women don’t just march themselves out onto those streets after all.

    Let the corrupt society collapse on its own and protect yourself as best you can. It certainly sucks that the institutions built by generations of grandfathers have been converged but they maximize their harm when you trust in them, so don’t.

  49. The_Peter says:

    There are so many people that put themselves under the ethereal banner of conservatism without specifying in what way they are conservative. In some instances, there is a modifying word like “traditional” or “fiscal” which provides some context, but most of the time it’s really vague. Now that feminists have shifted the “Overton window”, conservatives don’t want to move it back, but rather their goal has become making sure it doesn’t move again. Once liberals have destroyed something, you can count on conservatives to prevent things from getting fixed. Conservatives are playing defense, but their offensive game is by definition, non existent.

    I think part of the reason that has happened is that conservatives have bought into the idea that there are feminists and then there are “radical” feminists. It’s like those people who make the mistake of buying a teacup pig thinking that it will stay cute and small only to find out later that it’s a big, ugly, pig. The difference between feminism and “radical” feminism isn’t an essential difference but rather a difference in how far along it has matured. Conservatives are able to put the things they like into the “feminist” category and things they don’t like into the “radical feminist” category. They may not use those exact terms, sometimes they refer to the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd waves of feminism but I’m not convinced that the distinction of those waves amounts to much more than “the stuff we like goes in 1st wave, the stuff we don’t like goes in 3rd wave, and the stuff we’re not sure about goes in 2nd wave”.

  50. Frank K says:

    Most “conservatives” would be horrified if their 19 year old daughter told them she is getting married. They would do everything they could to talk her out of it, maybe even threaten to disown her.

    Instead they send her off to college so she’ll be indoctrinated to be a Marxist and graduate with an N count once associated only with the world’s oldest profession. If she has a child out of wedlock with an absentee thug, it’s great and is celebrated, ’cause hey, she got promoted at work and got a raise and she’ll be a great single mom!

  51. Anonymous Reader says:

    Most “conservatives” would be horrified if their 19 year old daughter told them she is getting married.

    A young woman in my extended social circle got married earlier this year at the age of 20, Her husband is completing a technical degree and has a plan. The social, traditional conservatives in my social circle were bemused and confused. She was doing something that’s acceptable in their religious views, but it’s no longer the standard route, so…huh?

    The 20-something girls were almost all appalled. “She hasn’t lived yet!” is one common refrain.

    I congratulated both of them. Someone needed to do that besides her mother.

  52. Frank K says:

    The 20-something girls were almost all appalled. “She hasn’t lived yet!” is one common refrain.

    It shows what they think of marriage, doesn’t it? It is becoming painfully obvious that for most women all marriage represents is that she gets her “princess day”, and that she can hit the elect button whenever it suits her. But worst of all, riding the carousel is far, far more important to them. and well, you can’t do that if you marry young, can you? Of course, after the divorce they can try to hop back on the carousel, but many find that in the second round the Chads aren’t as hot as in round 1, thought they probably still generate more tingles than boring old hubby.

  53. Larry G says:

    I am exceedingly glad that I completed my military service without one single female on board. Women have ZERO place on submarines, ships, combat units of any type…their natural lot is to pop out replacement future taxpayers. Every single female that has forced their unwelcome presence into MALE territory needs to be removed…otherwise the US military as a whole is now a seriously weakened force

  54. Frank K says:

    The social, traditional conservatives in my social circle were bemused and confused. She was doing something that’s acceptable in their religious views, but it’s no longer the standard route, so…huh?

    I think it’s easy to parrot the religious line, even though one might not really believe it, because everyone, including tradcons, expects their little pumpkin to put career before family. And why wouldn’t they? Even at private religious schools they are taught to be career women and not wives and mothers.

    There is a Benedictine abbey in Northern Colorado, The abbey doesn’t have a problem attracting women to take the veil and become nuns (in fact, they turn many away), but what is interesting is that most of the postulants are in their late 20’s to early 30’s, went to college and have careers. The stereotype of the 18 year old girl who joins the convent is as outdated as an 18 year old girl marrying her high school sweetheart.

    Of course, once they take their vows they leave their careers, and pretty much everything else, behind.

  55. Larry G says:

    “Time to wake up and smell the bacon: Women are winning the gender wars.” LOL! Winning? Hardly. The females have destroyed what was once a great nation with their poison, but our enemies are not stupid, they can afford to wait as the feminist cancer weakens the US (and the rest of the so-called Progressive west). The weakening has been subtle over decades, all it will take to bring the west crashing down will be one more economic depression. The enemy has infiltrated at the liberals invitation, they are already here, waiting to destroy the remains. Then who has “won”?

  56. feeriker says:

    Entertainingly, USS Harry S. Truman (which happens to be the ship I was on) had a prostitution ring running on board that was busted about eight years ago.

    That tub has been such a failure on so many levels that it should be renamed the USS Three Stooges. A perfect symbol of this failed institution’s condition.

  57. Larry G says:

    ah well, Daniel 2: 20-21 – The US of A is done

    20 Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;
    wisdom and power are his.
    21 He changes times and seasons;
    he deposes kings and raises up others.
    He gives wisdom to the wise
    and knowledge to the discerning.

  58. Otto says:

    I think we should give up on the word conservative.

    It made sense during the Cold War as an umbrella term for groups that were opposed to Communism.

    Capitalists: Commissim is anti-capitalist

    Nationalists: Communists envisioned a one-world government under Communism.

    Westerner Philosophers: believe Western Culture should be promoted to counter Communism.

    Militarist: A strong, large military was required to counter Communism, and we needed to be engaged worldwide.

    Libertarians: Communists promote the group over individualism.

    Religious: Communist promote atheism

    Now that the Cold War is over there is nothing to hold these groups together. Heck, many now have conflicting goals.

    Capitalists (big corporations and banks) want to eliminate financial borders so they can take advantage of cheap labor in other countries and move product between countries easier. Small and medium sized businesses (Chamber of Commerce types) want to eliminate borders for people so they can import cheap labor.

    Nationalists want to strengthen borders and bring manufacturing back home.

    People who want to promote Western Culture have been relabeled white supremacist, and not only get no support for their former conservative allies, but are actually shunned.

    There is still a lobby for a big military, but also as many who no longer think we need to be involved in so many foreign wars.

    Libertarians have gone off the individualism deep end. Legal drugs, prostitution, and ulimited abortion.

    Religion is all over the map. Even the most liberal churches could be counted on to be anti-communist during the cold war. Today, even so called conservative churches are influenced by social justice.

    There is just no coalition left that makes sense under the word conservative. Many of those under the old banner were never really “conservative” as much as they were anti-communist or saw it as a way to promote their interests (militarists).

  59. Expat Philo says:

    The conceit that this is the first gender war in history that women are winning or have won is false. Maybe a war on this scale, but certainly not the first. The Sumerians come to mind: divorce laws similar to ours, a godless culture, etc. Then, mysteriously, the sumerian empire disappears for 50 years and the local populace that later occupied the area has a fresh set of laws so favorable to men that it’s almost unbelievable. Granted, the Sumerian Empire never recovered, of course, neither did Rome, the Byzantines, the French, and many others.

    We in the latter British Empire like to think we invented sin, but no. The US will collapse into its culturally and geographically distinct regions, like every other overreaching empire ever.

  60. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oto
    There is just no coalition left that makes sense under the word conservative.

    A good question to ask those who self-identify as “conservative” is: ‘What are you conserving?’
    When doing this in person, it is wise to ask as politely and mildly as possible, in order to reduce the chances of an angry response.

    But “What are you conserving?” is legit. Because it drives to the heart of the issue, IMO.

  61. Otto says:

    virginia says: I would say “Feminists have been winning the culture wars,”

    No, deconstructionists have been winning the culture wars.

    Originated by the philosopher Jacques Derrida, deconstruction is a metaplasm of Martin Heidegger’s Destruktion that refers to an event whereby a hierarchical binary opposition is overturned to create space for the emergence of a new concept.

    The early feminists weren’t trying to create anything as much as they were trying to destroy the family and traditional female roles.

    Deconstruction isn’t talked about much by general society, but I guarantee every liberal teacher is aware of it. It’s the philosophical foundation of the left’s drive to tear thing down: from family and morals to government.

    Like early feminists, they’re a little fuzzy about what should replace those institutions and traditions, but but they are sure that tearing them down is not only a good thing, but a “good work”, which is why they pursue their goal with such religious fevor.

    These are the people who believe they can create a utopia on Earth, but first they have to destroy (deconstruct) what exists. Feminists aren’t behind the recent transsexual movement, but the people behind the trans movement were also the people behind the feminist movement.

  62. c matt says:

    Now that the Cold War is over there is nothing to hold these groups together. Heck, many now have conflicting goals.

    Interesting. Seems the same fate awaits the Coalition of the Ascendant once they have disposed of the straight white male patriarchy.

  63. Prompt Critical says:

    > That tub has been such a failure on so many levels that it should be renamed the USS Three Stooges. A perfect symbol of this failed institution’s condition.

    I think you’re confusing Truman with another CVN, likely the USS Gerald R. Ford, or perhaps the USS George H. W. Bush, both of which had significant teething troubles because they’ve been used as testbed platforms for new equipment (particularly in the case of Ford). Truman is just a regular Nimitz and has a comparable operational and availability record to other ships in the class

  64. Has anyone else noticed that when conservative, Joe Sixpack middle American men defend the gender-bending career paths and behavior of their daughters, they use the same reasoning as the pro-transgender crowd? Example: a guy over at Ron Unz’s blog was trying to say that bravery and strength aren’t masculine attributes just to avoid saying that his marine corps bound daughter with a black belt in judo was on a deviant path. They do the same thing when they talk about competitive sports. When they talk about their sons playing soccer, they’ll emphasize its martial and competitive nature but when it comes to their daughters playing the exact same sport, all of a sudden soccer is this this gender-neutral activity that’s about physical fitness and cooperation.

    It doesn’t matter what the girl is doing. She could be a powerlifting, judo flipping, marine corps sergeant with 100 confirmed kills and it’s like masculinity doesn’t exist. If you say their daughters are masculine, they’ll deny it and say the girls are “good,” “hardworking” and “patriotic.”

  65. Otto says:

    Speaking of conservatives and their daughters: Tim Allen and the show “Last Man Standing”.

    Tim Allen, a conservative in real life and portrays one on his show.

    Three daughters on the show. When one of his daughters shows an interest in going in the military (and even attending West Point), his reaction is: you go girl!

    If he had wanted to throw a conservative twist on the show, the Dad could have told his daughter: sure, go into the military and be a career girl, I’ve got two other daughters that can give me grandchildren, It’s OK if you never have children.

  66. Anonymous Reader says:

    Speaking of conservatives and their daughters: Tim Allen and the show “Last Man Standing”.

    If an “entertainment” on commercial TV, it is almost certainly propaganda. Especially if it was created in the last 20 years. The last 10 years are even worse.

    “Doofus dad” is a staple character in all “entertainment” now. I’m sure that is a factor in the kind of confusion demonstrated in the original post – even “conservatives” at a “conservative” website are confused.

  67. Scott says:

    I would love to see an analysis of the descent through the “waves” of feminism. (I agree that the arc of history does not suggest that these waves are some kind of fluke movement that took hold of the west in the mid 20th century, but rather a sober look at the curse and what follows for the next 7,ooo years makes it easier to digest).

    Tim Allen would make an excellent case study for this analysis. I have tried on my older blog versions to chronicle it, but didn’t get much traction.

    Recall, Tim Allens first show “Home Improvement.”

    Premise: Tim “the tool man” Taylor is the host of a local infomercial/home improvement show. He is married, lives in the suburbs and has three sons. He brings formal masculinity to his parenting style and his wife sometimes disagrees with his approach. He gets advice from his neighbor, Wislon (from behind the fence) on how to navigate these challenges.

    Also recall: In the first few seasons of the show, SOMETIMES Jill (the wife) had a perspective that was better suited for the task. And SOMETIMES Tim’s more no-nonsense, manly approach worked better. It was truly about half and half. In each episode, the husband and wife had about a 50/50 chance of learning something from the other.

    But this could not stand. It was the 90s, and eventually, the show morphed into Jills perspective is ALWAYS right, and the faceless neighbor on the other side of the fence would spend the last minutes of the episode explaining the feminine imperative to dumbass Tim.

    I remember. I was watching it happen in real time.

    Now, just a few seasons ago, Tim Allens show “last man standing” is taken off the network and moved to Netfilx because it was too controversial. The show is as described up thread by Otto. Tim’s character is nothing but a retarded windbag who ALWAYS has something to learn from the smart ass daughters and wife in the story.

  68. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I’ve learned that the concepts we discuss have Wikipedia pages.

    Strong Female Character: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_female_character

    Girl Power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_power

    Girls With Guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girls_with_guns

    Women Warriors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_warriors_in_literature_and_culture

  69. Feminism began after coverture laws were repealed. Before that there were a few individual pamphleteets like Mary Wollstonecraft but nothing like a group of people organized around an idea.

  70. Anon says:

    Jesus H. Christ :

    Here is a mangina journalist trying to recruit other incels into ‘feminism’. He thinks this will reduce ‘misogyny’.
    In reality, the opposite will happen.

  71. Frank K says:

    If an “entertainment” on commercial TV, it is almost certainly propaganda.

    Which is why I cut the cord almost 10 years ago. Have also resisted any of the streaming channels, no Disney+ for me. Just an indoor antenna for occasionally watching sportsball.

  72. Lost Patrol says:

    If you say their daughters are masculine, they’ll deny it and say the girls are “good,” “hardworking” and “patriotic.”

    Naturally. Also for a man to even notice this indicates he is insecure in his own masculinity and intimidated by strong women. It’s a package deal.

    Recall, Tim Allens first show “Home Improvement.”

    I always thought the Jill character was endlessly snarky and off-putting.

  73. Scott says:

    I always thought the Jill character was endlessly snarky and off-putting.

    Thats “colonel” to you, buddy.

  74. Lost Patrol says:

    Anon

    https://msmagazine.com/2018/04/30/dear-incel-guys-try-feminism-change/

    Make virtue of necessity. Also known as capitulation.

  75. Lost Patrol says:

    Thats “colonel” to you, buddy.

    I stand reprimanded. Basically, I was just waiting for another scene featuring the Binford Tool Time Girl, though to this day I don’t know if she was a strong independent woman or simply a hot chick.

  76. Scott says:

    There was an episode where the oldest boy had a crush on the Tool Time Girl. Her name was Heidi.

  77. TheTraveler says:

    22 is too young to marry, let alone 19.

    Your (or should I say her, or anyone’s) brain isn’t fully formed yet, especially the judgment centers. I’ve seen a lot of very young marriages collapse, in all social strata, because the man and the woman truly grew apart as their minds became their final version.

    A woman SHOULD acquire a skill and education. That way, if something happens to her marriage, she isn’t helpless. Widows historically fare poorly, living on alms, because…wait for it…she can’t support herself.

    Well…well…she just needs to find another man, it’s simple! Oh yeah? Probably 30s or older, likely with kids (if you marry that young, probably a fair number of them. Lots of men recoil, especially if she can’t have at least 1 kid with the new husband.)

    Just because you know someone it worked for doesn’t mean it’s universal: historically, widows have been a group to be pitied and supported with some degree of resentment.

    Marry before 20, and your risk of lifelong poverty severely increases to be poor. It is one of THE defining factors.

    For women: learn the best job skill you are able. Prioritize getting married around 25.

  78. locustsplease says:

    Heidi is a fox since i dropped cable that show is on one of the channels so i see it all the time. Lots of women can do construction garbage unfortunately. Pst they cant its a feminist lie never seen a construction woman in my life. Tiny frail hands cannot swing a hammer for 40years.

  79. BillyS says:

    Traveller,

    22 is too young to marry, let alone 19.

    I am so glad we now know the truth that was lost for the rest of human history! Women should wait after their most fertile years to “mature enough” to be a good wife!

    Amazing that society didn’t die out before learning that.

    /sarc

  80. FatR says:

    @Anon
    “The Female Imperative (FI) is as old as humanity itself. It was quite normal to send 50 men to die before a single woman faced harm, even centuries ago, and in all societies Western and Eastern.

    To think that ‘feminism’ only started by accident and that ‘waves’ of it have any importance is to grossly underestimate the deep biological hardwiring of humans that mandates the FI.”

    Just no. That’s merely your feminist indoctrination talking.

    “As long as you’re alive, you can find more women in any tent or wagon,” was the argument that a mongol tale-teller put into the mouth of Hoelun, the future mother of Genghis Khan as she convinced her original husband to abandon her, despite what we today can call their mutual love, rather than fight alone against three. This encapsulates the actual attitude prevalent among pre-civilization humanity rather well.

  81. Hmm says:

    TheTraveler:

    Part of the reason to encourage both men and women to marry before their brains are fully formed is to allow the mind of each partner to form around the other and the relationship.

    Of course, this falls apart if the young woman marries Harley McBadboy, because that will shape her preferences in men for the rest of her life. I saw this in a sister-in-law. But that can happen to a woman at any age.

  82. Oscar says:

    @ TheTraveler

    22 is too young to marry, let alone 19.

    Americans used to marry younger, and their marriages lasted longer. Can you explain why?

  83. Opus says:

    Boilerplate Feminism from The Traveler. His third paragraph might have been straight out of the mouth of my late Father. My sister would marry (a given he assumed) and yet perhaps her husband would fall on hard times and so a degree in a serious subject was a necessity (the same reasoning did not by the way apply to myself or my brother who needed to get out to work at the minimum school leaving age). I am afraid that my Father was being both simplistic and naive but although had I suggested to him that he was a Feminist I have no doubt he would have spluttered that he was a true conservative – look at his voting record!. The trouble with standing up at a baseball game to get a better view is that when everyone else tries for the same advantage no one gains any advance and the same principal applies to life generally. In the event my sister did marry but not until her mid thirties and in his latter days my Father was complaining that he did not have enough Grandchildren! Colour me surprised. As for my sister she was a SAHM but when some extra money was needed – being out of work for so long her Degree was without meaning – such that she became for a while a check-out girl in Walmart. On balance therefore early marriage is and for many reasons the only rational option. There are some eventualities for which it is better not to try to account.

  84. K-Dog-One says:

    @Scott

    “divorced against my will with no help from the ‘conservatives’ and church leadership around me”

    This happened to me and one of my friends also (at the same church).

    If you are aware of any posts, videos, sites, articles, etc. that discuss this problem, please post the links here.

    Thanks.

  85. info says:

    Feminists in the 1880’s have Satan as their hero:

    “Satanic Feminism is based on Faxneld’s doctoral dissertation, which was awarded the Donner Institute Prize for Eminent Research on Religion. It discusses how prominent feminists—primarily between 1880 and 1930—used Satan as a symbol of their rejection of the so-called “patriarchal traits of Christianity”. It shows that these women were inspired by the period’s most influential new religion, Theosophy, and how the anti-Christian discourses of radical secularism affected
    feminism.

    Satanic Feminism sheds a new light on the early feminist movement. It discusses neglected or unknown aspects of the intellectual connections of early feminism with Satanism in a way that nobody before Faxneld has dared to do. In doing so, he richly illustrates how leading figures of the early feminist movement, such as the suffragette Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the actress Sarah Bernhardt and the poet Renée Vivien, viewed God as the precursor of patriarchy and Satan as an ally in the fight against it.

    This feminist view of Satan as the liberator of women, according to Faxneld, was “intertwined with prominent anticlerical, left-wing, and esoteric currents of its time”. Examples in his book include feminists employing Lucifer as a symbol of revolution and eulogising him as an anti-patriarchal figure. As Faxneld points out, Satanism and feminist politics were interwoven from the first appearance of the theme of Satan as a benevolent revolutionary figure and the liberator of womankind.”

    https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/10/women-under-the-spell/

  86. info says:

    @Traveller

    “Marry before 20, and your risk of lifelong poverty severely increases to be poor. It is one of THE defining factors.”

    Women with good fathers can help her secure a good man at this age. Although I think the stats you citied involves normally low women SES marrying at such an age to irresponsible and unsuitable husbands. Although there are plenty of marriages involving such an age in history that didn’t manage to fall apart.

    Today’s culture and social arrangement probably leads to this occurring where it otherwise wouldn’t have occurred.

    “A woman SHOULD acquire a skill and education. That way, if something happens to her marriage, she isn’t helpless. Widows historically fare poorly, living on alms, because…wait for it…she can’t support herself.

    Well…well…she just needs to find another man, it’s simple! Oh yeah? Probably 30s or older, likely with kids (if you marry that young, probably a fair number of them. Lots of men recoil, especially if she can’t have at least 1 kid with the new husband.)”

    In Israelite society such a woman returns to her Father’s House. Which prevents that situation you are talking about for the most part.

  87. TheTraveler says:

    Interesting reaction to an opinion with some facts about poverty and the terrible fate of many unattached women with no skills. I’m not talking about a degree, but a SKILL that can always be used, i.e., bookkeeping, secretarial, or anything else that is timeless and not necessarily credential dependent. And that you don’t necessarily have to go to Party U to get.

    Working class women have worked throughout history. It’s far from ideal. These are also the likeliest to marry very young, with no skills, who get hurt worst being left alone.

    Thinking of myself and my classmates (both sexes) in college, and how much we changed between 18 and 22, including friendships and other associations. All the serious “they’re totally getting married” relationships that blew up unexpectedly. I suppose it would have been better for them to get married and when they hit the disastrous patch that would have led to a courtship breakup, “worked it out,” because marriage is a hard work.

    Young marriages can work. They often don’t. I believe it’s a mistake to advocate for them.

    You’d think I was advocating for girls to go to Party U to ride the carousel.

  88. c matt says:

    Feminists in the 1880’s have Satan as their hero

    No doubt Satan knows where to attack.

  89. Jason Gosnell says:

    Check out spiral dynamics…..

    We are entering a new conservative phase….for the next 50 years or so.

  90. c matt says:

    Young marriages can work. They often don’t. I believe it’s a mistake to advocate for them.

    Later marriages don’t fare much better. Maybe the problem is something else?

  91. Oscar says:

    @ TheTraveler

    Interesting reaction to an opinion with some facts about poverty and the terrible fate of many unattached women with no skills.

    Completely predictable reaction (evasion) to facts about the changing median age of marriage. Let’s try this again. Americans used to marry younger, and their marriages lasted longer. Can you explain that?

  92. Scott says:

    Another data point often missed (on marriages lasting) is the seven year itch phenomenon, which apparently is verifiable.

    Couples that make it past the 5-7 year mark tend to be much better at dealing with challenges in the relationship and with each one they beat, they get better at staying together. “Staying married” becomes habit forming.

  93. John Miller says:

    Scott wrote: ““Staying married” becomes habit forming.”

    Several years ago, my wife was watching one of those daytime interview shows. Don’t remember the name of the interviewer, but she was having a conversation with Jeff Bridges. At one point, the interviewer praised Jeff for his long-lasting marriage. She asked him for his secret. His simple answer? “Just don’t divorce.” Lot’s of truth packed into three small words.

  94. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jason Gosnell
    We are entering a new conservative phase….for the next 50 years or so.

    What will be “conserved” in this phase?

  95. Anon says:

    FatR,

    You haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about, plus you failed to make any persuasive point against my statement that the FI is hardwired into our psychology for biological reasons, and is as old as humanity itself (and perhaps older).

  96. Anon says:

    Jason Gosnell,

    We are entering a new conservative phase….for the next 50 years or so.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Unless, of course, you keep defining ‘conservatism’ as the leftism of a few years prior.

    You sound like someone who gets excited whenever Republicans take control of the Senate, and believe this is the dawn of a new era.

  97. Anon says:

    TheTraveler,

    22 is too young to marry, let alone 19.

    You sound like a DODO.

    One of the may reasons for a woman to be 21-22 at marriage is so that she (hopefully) can marry as a virgin. If she marries at 25, as you state, is she celibate until then? Or do you think women should marry with Ns of 2, 3, 5, or 8?

  98. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    I would love to see an analysis of the descent through the “waves” of feminism.

    I prefer to discuss that in terms of “stages”. Like a disease.

    Stage 1 feminism in the 19th century stressed property, voting, and prohibition of alcohol. Also child custody after divorce – the ‘tender years” doctrine is a 19th century invention.

    Stage 2 feminism in the post WWII era stressed abortion, more economic issues and working for money. Working for money brought “sexual harassment” as an issue as well as mens-fault divorce. Mens-fault divorce brought the entire divorce industry into full flower, including the Duluth protocol.

    Stage 3 gets more confusing because it’s often ‘sex positive” in one way but all about “consent” as well. It’s also “strong, independent woman” friendly, actively hostile to boys and young men (IMO).

    Perhaps Stage 4 will feature open embrace of trans. Just a guess.

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tangentially to the OP, placing women on submarines apparently is more complicated than on surface vessels and a lot more complicated than on shore. Attack boats used to run on a ” hot bunk” system where sailors rotate off watch and then get whatever rack is available. Only missile boats had assigned bunks, deemed necessary because they “get lost” for 6 months at a time.

    Hot bunking with one or more girls on board has obvious issues. Ditto sanitation. That monthly cycle doesn’t go away.

    If a woman gets pregnant on board, I believe that she must be provided a more oxygen-rich atmosphere than the boats typically maintain, which means probably an oxygen mask or something similar. Reserved airtight chamber? I dunno.

    tl;dr
    The boats have to be modified internally to cater to the presence of women. Only so many girls can be assigned on a given boat because of that. Therefore the “needs of women” to be submariners isn’t met, lol. Used to be a man who signed up for subs contracted 8 years of his life. If that’s still true, sub-girls who go into the Navy at 18 will get out at 26. Just in time to not be married! Win-win!

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hit “post” too soon.
    Addendum:

    So the boats must have modifications made to them to cater to women’s desires to be where the boys are, “serve”, etc. What does the Navy get from all that? Does readiness improve? Doubtful. Efficiency gains? Doubtful.

    Political points? Yep. This is all about making women haaaaaapy at the national / political level as well as the individual level. Because the alternative – saying “no!” to women as a group, or even at the individual level – is unthinkable. As in “many men can not think that thought”.

    More glasses are needed. Many more.

  101. Lost Patrol says:

    Reconciling old and new conservative views.

    This is how a dyed in the wool modern day conservative handles it.

    “Get over it,” Maj. Gen. William Mullen, the head of Training and Education Command told Military.com on Thursday. “We’re still making Marines like we used to. That has not changed.”

    https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/11/14/marine-corps-training-chief-says-hes-open-ending-gender-segregated-boot-camp.html

    Get over it. Except for the part where integrating boot camp is totally different than “like we used to”; and is in fact a thing that has substantially changed about making Marines, he is right on. They don’t even hear themselves saying this stuff any more. It’s automatic.

  102. Lost Patrol says:

    Imagine that I only bolded the OP title instead of every freaking thing after that.

  103. FatR says:

    “You haven’t the slightest clue what you are talking about, plus you failed to make any persuasive point against my statement that the FI is hardwired into our psychology for biological reasons, and is as old as humanity itself (and perhaps older).”

    I do, it is most certainly not hardwired, and biological reasons you’re talking about are self-evident bunk, because the very idea that life a woman is worth more than life of a man does not appear until a civilization becomes highly advanced, cultured and at least somewhat prosperous. In fact, gender-selective infanticide, with bias against female chidren, of course, was far from uncommon as late as XX century.

  104. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Lost Patrol
    If he wants to keep his position in the USMC, he has to say stuff like that. Whether he believes it or not, he has to say that stuff. I wonder if he’s blinking his eyes in Morse code at the same time?

  105. TheTraveler says:

    Lots of wishful thinking going on.

    “Women should marry at 19. Because fertility!
    And virginity! Her only required skills — keep house and raise kids! Just like 100 years ago! Marriage was REAL then! And if her husband dies or leaves, she should just move back in with her parents! Because HOLY TRADITION!”

    It sounds like a parody by our enemies.

    What if her parents are dead? What if times are hard?

    Marriages endured because if you left (man OR woman) your social status plummeted; even the Hollywood Code (which enforced a lot of good traditional morality) treated divorced folk as tainted, and eligible only for other divorced people.

    Not a bad thing. But don’t kid yourselves that marriage back then was “better because younger.” Human nature never changes. It was convention, not happiness.

    There was a lot more domestic violence (both ways), and drinking was a huge problem–Prohibition passed as the (wrong) solution to a real social ill.

    Not to equate young marriage with those issues, but to illustrate that people endured horrible dysfunction. As for fidelity…prostitution was a far bigger and more open problem than today, yet another hint that maybe all was NOT as well as people like to think, in the era of teen marriage.

    In short, people stuck together even when it was awful because it was too costly not to. Again, just think of all the teen couples who look like a legitimate lock on “forever,” then break up and never look back. So much for “brains growing into maturity with the other.”

    Better acculturation, not younger marriages: teach kids to marry in their mid-20s, and stay a virgin till then. “Not possible–unrealistic!” That this crowd, especially, would even imply that–change the standards because it’s sooooo haaaaard to keep the real ones… Seriously?

    The lady blogger who wrote that men prefer virgins without debt or tattoos is 100% correct. Her own blog presents her home lufe as near-perfect. Then her husband guest-wrote. I was shocked how horrible things were for them because of HER for a long time. And her dear friends with a wonderful marriage–except for the extended dark period when he was “deeply addicted” to porn. It doesn’t diminish the core message, but it shows that behind the pretty facade can be real ugliness.

    Bravo for their perseverance. But marrying too young, means marrying a semi-formed person. If you attain happiness this way, Providence has smiled upon you. If you married when older than that think of yourself at 20. Then ask — who was that person, and could I have made such a smart choice?

  106. Anon says:

    FatR,

    because the very idea that life a woman is worth more than life of a man does not appear until a civilization becomes highly advanced, cultured and at least somewhat prosperous.

    Oh, really? Is that why only 40% of men reproduced, while 80% of women did?

    Is that why all mythology across all cultures Western and Eastern have numerous examples of a huge number of men being sent to die just to save ONE woman?

    Just upthread, I provided many examples that counter your baseless claim. How many women died in the US civil war? The US revolutionary war? The Crecy campaign? The Crusades?

    Get a clue. Your inability to understand basic psychology-biology linkages leads to the incorrect conclusion that ‘feminism would not have happened unless X historical event under 160 years ago happened’

  107. TheTraveler says:

    As for women in the military, I’ll be brief: they have no business being there, in any function.

    They destroy cohesion, especially in front line units, by introducing the elements of distraction and sexual tension.

    Logistically, almost everything has to be modified to suit their weaker physiques and FAR more demanding physiology.

    “Women are now indispensable because they’re an integral part of the armed forces,” is not truth. It’s socio-political propaganda, enabled by expending five times more to recruit a woman than a man.

  108. Nick M says:

    Dear Dalrock, I don’t even know what to say.

  109. Scott says:

    My whole string of successes since 2001 has been “dumped husbands revenge”

  110. cynthia says:

    @ Scott

    “I would love to see an analysis of the descent through the “waves” of feminism.”

    Anonymous Reader dates first wave feminism to the late Victorian. I would go a step further, and add a “Phase 0” that becomes cohesive in the 1840s. This period saw the rise in spiritualism (a precursor to the theosophy and Satanism that was later embraced as a cornerstone of suffragette-era feminism) and movements to “reform” women’s dress, etc. if we want to back it up even further, I think the Romantic period must take some of the blame for planting those philosophical seeds as well.

    What I find really interesting is the way your average woman in the 1800s must have looked at feminism. I have a bunch of old women’s magazines from the 1890s-1910s that have articles about feminism in them. Reading them, one gets the sense that the writers are trying to reassure their readers – the middle class housewives of the day – that the philosophy being pushed on them by the upper class ringleaders wasn’t going to destroy their world.

    Nothing new under the sun, I guess.

    I’ve ordered a copy of that Satanic Feminism book. I’m curious about the specifics. I would also recommend “In Search Of White Crows) for anyone curious about how feminism social movements spawned from the spiritualism of the early Victorian.

  111. Liz says:

    To answer your question in more detail, see this famous chart (and MAKE your daughter see it and accept it)

    It is a very famous chart. I’ve seen it countless times. Never seen the data from which is was derived though. Is there any? Or is it just a TLAR (that looks about right)?

  112. Liz says:

    22 is too young to marry, let alone 19.
    Your (or should I say her, or anyone’s) brain isn’t fully formed yet, especially the judgment centers. I’ve seen a lot of very young marriages collapse, in all social strata, because the man and the woman truly grew apart as their minds became their final version.

    I’m a big fan of early marriage. I was married so early I was still getting carded to go into R rated movies. And we’re still together and very happy. People change throughout life. People aren’t the same at 40 as they were at 30 either. When you’re married, you go through a lot and grow together.

  113. Anon says:

    Liz,

    Only the horizontal axis is real data. The vertical is just about relative value within the person’s life. Individual results vary, and it is beyond the scope of the chart to account for the fact that :

    i) 80% of men are lower SMV than the average woman.
    ii) Almost all women who are above average SMV relative to the entire adult female population are those between ages 18 and 32, and that too the subset of those who are not fat, ugly, etc. Extremely few women above 35 are competitive with the average 23 y/o woman, all else being equal.

  114. Liz says:

    Heh, thanks for the response Anon.

  115. locustsplease says:

    Anything less than a full nude photo shoot after her divorce and she is definitely not going to get the revenge she needs. Videos of your 3″ vertical leap wont do the job sadly.

  116. PokeSalad says:

    i really would like an explanation from Dalrock about why “Larry” has such a prominent presence here. He’s practically a co-sponsor of the site, based on the cross-posting and commentary.

    Even after he’s been shown as demonstrably wrong as several other commenters here, who have been banished to the outer regions.

    So say ye, Dal? Why does Larry get a pass? Is there an agenda?

  117. Jimbo88 says:

    Maybe you should realign your viewpoint and realize the bougie mentality is driving this. Conservatives have always been spineless cowards and well off people doubly so.

  118. American says:

    Marriage is a fool’s gambit, a scam to exploit you for the benefit of someone who’s going to leave you to have sex with other people or herd pets. Long after they’ve left they will continue to use the courts and law enforcement to rob you of the income you earn and screech to anyone who will listen, including social media, every bad thing they can think about you including false allegations and imagined nonsense.

    I cannot see the benefit of ceding away so much of one’s liberty and freedom to the government on behalf of another person who has the lever to pull which causes the government to harm you whenever she feels like it. Are you people stupid or something? Let’s ask Jeffrey if he would rather have not placed himself under the court system via marriage:

    P.S. I can’t imagine having some middle-aged radical leftist Democrat feminist “judge” sitting there lecturing me for hours on end while stealing my money to give to someone who left me, micromanaging my life while law enforcement stands by to imprison me if I speak without permission or fail to make to fork over enough money. It’s utterly insane and I’ll have nothing to do with it.

  119. TheTraveler says:

    @Liz

    For every marriage like yours I’ve seen, I’ve seen even more that DON’T work. Maybe it’s common in your circle, but from reading the “virgins with no tattoos” blogger, I’m guessing a significant percentage have huge problems behind a beautiful facade.

    Just about all the couples–we’re talking a dozen or more– I know who got married in college or right after, are divorced or estranged. You can argue that some of it is improper approach to marriage, giving up too easily, etc. But isn’t that part of maturity too? And some of them seemed as though they had been brought together by a particularly proficient matchmaker.

    That doesn’t even count the “WILL get married”…who didn’t. Some of them were also quite compatible. Splits of varying acrimony, stunning in their suddenness and brutal finality; being friends with both was a tightrope.

    At 18 or 20, you’re neither child nor adult, still forming your personality. At 24 or 25, you’re close to your “forever” self.

  120. FatR says:

    “Oh, really? Is that why only 40% of men reproduced, while 80% of women did?”

    What this can possibly have to do with the relative value of woman life? Are you seriously saying, that modern-day places where polygamy is official, much less places where women are traded for harems (using Web, by now), like Sudan – which is of course a situation logically resulting only in a subset of men reproducing – stand in the vanguard of feminism?

    “Is that why all mythology across all cultures Western and Eastern have numerous examples of a huge number of men being sent to die just to save ONE woman?”

    You can start by naming three of these examples. No, Trojan war absolutely doesn’t count. It was fought about a piece of property that Menelaus owned, and Paris took from him (and did so in a flagrant violation of rules of hospitality) by men, the key conflict between whom described in Iliad arose on the basis of treating captured women as property. Neither do European stories past invention of chivalry, as described by our host, count. They have taken old myths, whose moral lesson was along the lines of “if you allow your actions to be guided by lust, at best you’ll die horribly, at worst you’ll also destroy everything you cared about” and added “and this is a good thing!”

    “Just upthread, I provided many examples that counter your baseless claim. How many women died in the US civil war? The US revolutionary war? The Crecy campaign? The Crusades?”

    What is this even supposed to prove? Was Genghis Khan a proto-feminist because he thought that there are better uses women of his enemies than cutting them down along with men, and went in lurid details about these uses in a quote ascribed to him? Even though the idea that taking back your horses from the enemy who plundered your everything has a much higher priority than taking back your women was considered self-evident for his contemporaries, judging by the tales they told, at least?

  121. Horst Muhlmann says:

    @Lost Patrol November 15, 2019 at 1:13 pm

    William Mullen said, “We’re still making Marines like we used to. That has not changed.”

    Ole Horst asks Mullen: We used to make marines that won wars. What war did you ever win, Ace?

  122. Oscar says:

    @ The Traveler

    In short, people stuck together even when it was awful because it was too costly not to.

    What does that mean?

    You can argue that some of it is improper approach to marriage, giving up too easily, etc. But isn’t that part of maturity too?

    Yes. So, why did Americans marry younger and stay together in the past, but not now?

  123. Opus says:

    I think I can sum-up FatR’s above contribution as “everything is true except the facts”: Trojan War – irrelevant, Crecy – myth, Inability of men, prehistorically, to reproduce (even given male desire to shag everything) – just ignore and talk about Harems.

    Teen marriage: that was perfectly normal and there were schoolgirl mothers when I was a teen (such as the daughter of my parents next-door lawyer neighbour) – am I to believe that it is far better to marry someone in her seventh decade; sans teeth,sans eyes, sans everything, as The Bard put it – because of the lesser risk? Is that not what we call Special Snowflake or Nanny State culture?

  124. Liz says:

    Okay, Traveler,
    We’ll just have to disagree.
    There is no “forever self” we change throughout life.
    One can hold on to childhood forever…as many people seem to these days.
    Depends on one’s perspective I guess.

  125. BillyS says:

    “A woman SHOULD acquire a skill and education. That way, if something happens to her marriage, she isn’t helpless. Widows historically fare poorly, living on alms, because…wait for it…she can’t support herself.

    I would be happy to marry such a widow if society was more supportive of fathers. It is not though, which is why you have this problem. I could live with raising the children if society reinforced some gratefulness for such an effort, but it does not once again.

    Stop cutting men down so much is a much better solution than raising “strong independent women” that view a man as an accessory, not someone to build up and commit to.

  126. BillyS says:

    Young marriages can work. They often don’t. I believe it’s a mistake to advocate for them.

    You have yet to prove your assertion, nor really respond to the points. Why has it worked so well for so much of history if it is that horrible? You need to take your blinders off and look past the brief period of time you have personally experienced.

    You’d think I was advocating for girls to go to Party U to ride the carousel.

    You are. Where will all the sexual energy go without marriage as the proper (Biblical) outlet? It won’t just not exist.

  127. Liz says:

    Just to add, my husband works in an industry notorious for divorce.
    So…I’d say we have a good bead on what works.

  128. BillyS says:

    Young (and old) marriages would last longer if we stopped making it easy to bail out of them. Keeping young women from hooking up with Harley McBadBoy would also help.

    Churches could play a positive role as well if leaders would take their heads out of their rears and realize that women who are griping about “abusive” husbands were held to task for the harpies they usually are. Have compassion, but don’t allow the woman to act holy when she blew up her own marriage!

    That is a far better solution than delaying marriage.

  129. BillyS says:

    Traveller,

    You probably advocate for abortion too, because “reasons”.

  130. BillyS says:

    Traveler,

    Your core error is that you assume being “fully formed” (if really true) will make a woman more likely to really commit to her marriage. You have no proof for that of course, yet it is a key backing for your position.

    It is a huge error, but you keep ignoring the value of growing into the connection. You may be right more than you know, just taking the wrong lessons. A woman who is not “fully formed” can connect with her husband much easier and better. One who is cannot.

  131. FatR says:

    @Opus
    “I think I can sum-up FatR’s above contribution as “everything is true except the facts”: Trojan War – irrelevant,”

    On the contrary, Iliad is relevant and fully supports my argument.

    “Crecy – myth, Inability of men, prehistorically, to reproduce (even given male desire to shag everything) – just ignore and talk about Harems.”

    Crecy has nothing to do with anything, and prehistorically, the very idea that a tribe that lost even all of their women to the last is unable to reproduce was beyond ludicrous. Just kill the neighboring tribe and take their women (or die trying, but at least there is “or” here, unlike in the case of sacrificing yourself to protect women). As late as Herodotus’ times such practices were in living memory even in Europe. “As long as we have these [points at dong] we can get new wives and children,” the answer to “but think of your families!” also straight from Herodotus. Consequently while men could and did use theft of their women as a cause for war, and not only in myth, the very idea of a man sacrificing himsef to ensure safety of a woman, even his mother, much less his wife, was more incomprehensible than sexual fidelity to hell of a lot of pre-civilized men and early civilizations alike.

    The ridiculous evo-psycho-babble is ridiculous for this reason alone.

  132. Opus says:

    FatR is like a dog with a bone. Were I to assert that today the Sun was seen to rise in the east he would spin a word salad asserting that it either never rose, that if it did rise it rose in the west but if it did rise in the east that was merely an optical illusion.

  133. FatR says:

    And another illustration why evolutionary psychology is dumb. Again from Mongolian steppes, just because Mongols are an example of people who broke into the arena of recorded history before becoming in any way civilized, and shortly after their first attempt to build a society broke down into near-complete anarchy, and therefore give us an excellent insight at nature of uncultured man.

    Once upon a time, the man who achieved probably the greatest reproductive success in the entire history, at least according to modern geneticists, had to run from enemies far outnumbering his family, and it so happened that he had three women on his hands, including his mother, his beloved (unironically, as far as we can tell) first wife, and the mother of his half-brother, but only two horses (after he, his brothers, and his earliest retainers mounted, of course). How do you think he distributed these remaining horses? What are your first thoughts?

    If they were different than “give one to his mother, and leave a spare horse for himself”, you really have no idea how men without advanced cultural indoctrination treat women.

    Yes, feminism has ancient roots. But one thing from which it most definitely and certainly does not stem is any sort of “evolutionary” imperative.

  134. FatR says:

    Not an argument, Opus.

  135. Expat Philo says:

    Not to dogpile, but Traveler, you have presented anecdotes and assertions while claiming fact. Provide data that indisputably shows that early marriage does result in poverty, etc. rather than being caused by depressed wages due to immigration, drug use, divorce, and female education in general. Your detractors have here and at numerous times previously provided clear data in support of their description of female psychology, the onus is on you to over turn that data here. To say nothing of the readily verifiable facts that prior to our current golden age women not only married younger, but their marriages lasted longer. Surely, there exists some data in direct, clear support of your claim from CDC, FBI, or perhaps a university study or two. Let’s move this discussion to the effectiveness and quality of the available research. After all, our mutual goal is the pursuit of the truth, no?

  136. Expat Philo says:

    On evo psych: Heartiste put it best, sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Biologically speaking, the investment in energy to produce an egg is vastly greater than that required to produce sperm. To the point where hermaphroditic snails literally impale each other with spermicide before mating to avoid becoming snail-pregnant. The available strategies for truly sexually dysmorphic species are: one, female of the species is given deffedence; two, male is given the luxury; and three, the Christian solution. Insects and walruses, respectively. Men (and women) are to rise above nature, as God so commanded them, and drag the other kicking and screaming if necessary. He even gave clear instructions for both parties on the topic, explicitly using the natural predispositions of the sexes to accomplish it. I digress.

    Is evo-psych bunk? Perhaps, but it more accurately predicts objectively verifiable behavior far better than Freud et al. It is a theory which has more of a scientific bent than the other available options. I’d be interested to hear an alternative that makes recourse to observable reality, of course.

  137. TheTraveler says:

    As I said before, I’ll say again: lots of wishful thinking going on vis-a-vis rebuttals to my statements.

    Some time ago, an individual (not me) posted a graph from a wide-ranging study showing optimal age of marriage (in terms of lasting 10+ years, I believe). The age was 25. Everyone on this site then got to work condemning the data. That’s why I don’t bother anymore.

    I quote the finding that marrying before 20 makes it almost a lock that you’ll be poor. The response is “you need a godly father,” or something. I’m reading that as, you should marry young and have your parents support you, if necessary. Marriage is adults being able to make a go of it themselves. Since we’re discussing “the good old days,” it used to be frowned on for a young man to marry before having reasonable expectations of supporting a family–unless his girl was pregnant.

    “Too costly” for people to divorce in previous times means that the stigma of divorce, up and down the social scale, was enormous until fairly recently. I grew up in the 1970s and 80s in a social group where divorce was rare, and divorced people were tainted. (The very lowest and highest economic classes don’t count, with their all but indistinguishable barnyard mores.)

    Times change, too. Life expectancy has skyrocketed since the mid-20th century. Well into the 1970s, being 60ish was elderly, if not old. Today, it’s late middle age. Case in point: golden anniversaries used to be extremely uncommon; today, diamond anniversaries are becoming almost routine. People got married younger because they weren’t going to live as long.

    There’s a strange obsession with sex. According to some here, the solution to overcoming the peak sex-drive years: get married! I can’t think of a worse time or reason: a hormonally-driven teenager, making a lifetime choice. What could possibly go wrong? And saying, in effect, “It’s unfair to expect horny young people to wait till their mid-20s,” is absurd.

    The argument that I haven’t “proven my point,” is a matter of opinion. The “marry at 19” side hasn’t, either. In my opinion. If I’m not allowed to speak anecdotally, neither is anyone else.

    @BillyS
    I’m sorry you’re so bitter. No need for name calling; I am neither a feminist nor pro-abortion. We have a difference of opinion. Pax.

    @Liz
    We can agree to disagree. It seems our objective experiences are totally different.

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    It is kind of strange to see how “Support Our Troops” has mutated to “Support Our Girl Troops”. Perhaps that was there for a while, but really got going with the legend of Jessica Lynch in 2003?

    Whatever the basis, it’s a form of cognitive dissonance when a man claims to be culturally “conservative” and opposed to feminism, yet agrees with the feminist demand for women to be whatever they wannabe in the military. Perhaps that cog-dis accounts for how quick such men are to become angry when they are questioned or challenged on the topic.

  139. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anonymous Reader: It is kind of strange to see how “Support Our Troops” has mutated to “Support Our Girl Troops”

    Similar to how every Veterans Day, and Memorial Day, community leaders give speeches honoring “Our brave men and women who sacrificed their lives in are nation’s wars.”

  140. Expat Philo says:

    The point of posting data is to have others challenge the conclusions drawn from it.

    Are there mitigating factors for that finding? Such as, but not limited to, younger marriages being more common amongst the non-college-educated (which should obviously be linked to lower wealth in our present economy). Without that study, and the data so contained, such determinations cannot be made.

    The cost of divorce in social standing and changes in life expectancy have nothing to do with young marriage being a causation of reduced life outcomes. It does tie into your next point, though, tangentially.

    A strange obsession with the continuation of the species. The advice you malign is the advice from God Himself. Even if you dispute the presence of the Almighty, that advice had to have come from somewhere, probably our ancestors’ observations about what worked. It also did work over the time period from the first century to the 70s, as you point out, a period of time which did coincide with an increase in life expectancy and the general availability of wealth. Why does it not work now?

    It is not an argument, it is an observation. If your statements are only true when hidden by the magic words “in my opinion”, then they are of no use outside of the space between your ears. The concern here is cold, hard fact.

  141. TheTraveler says:

    @ExpatPhilo

    So you disagree with everything I say. Fine.

    Ditto.

  142. it’s a form of cognitive dissonance when a man claims to be culturally “conservative” and opposed to feminism, yet agrees with the feminist demand for women to be whatever they wannabe in the military.

    Whenever one of these guys is taking pride in their daughter’s masculine pursuits, say, “I thought conservatives opposed transgenderism?” They’ll say it’s not masculine to serve in the military, or play competitive sports, or powerlift etc. Masculinity doesn’t exist when women do it.

  143. Hey Dalrock why are you deleting and banning my comments?
    At least if I’ve broken some forum rules, which I’m pretty sure I haven’t, at least have the decency to tell me why I’m suddenly been banned from your site

    [D: I found some in the trash bin and fished them out. I’m not sure why wordpress (or askimet) moved your comments there.]

  144. Thanks Dalrock
    Gee I hate the way WordPress operates sometimes. ….I apologize for getting angry at you

  145. Oscar says:

    @ FatR

    If they were different than “give one to his mother, and leave a spare horse for himself”, you really have no idea how men without advanced cultural indoctrination treat women.

    It’s not “advanced cultural indoctrination” that motivates men to see women as inherently valuable. It’s two Christian (and I do mean specifically Christian) doctrines.

    The first is that women reflect God’s image, because the first woman was made from the first man, who was made in God’s image.

    The second is that women are “the weaker vessel”.

    This is why a post-Christian culture is so easy for feminists to manipulate. A culture solidly rooted in Christian theology can both celebrate the inherent value of of God’s image as it is uniquely reflected in women, while simultaneously celebrating John MacArthur’s admonition to Beth Moore to “go home”, because she’s “the weaker vessel”.

    A stupid, post-Christian culture simultaneously holds incoherent, contradictory beliefs like, “women are strong, independent warriors who are at minimum the equal of any man” on the one hand, and “every man who doesn’t instantly leap to a random woman’s defense is a coward”.

    Which is where we are right now.

  146. Larry G says:

    “The Navy rescinded its males-only on submarines policy in 2010,
    The policy change is helping speed-up the Navy’s ability to transfer female personnel to submarine crews, but the process takes time, Perryman said.”

    The destruction of the once great US Navy is complete. Split-tails have no place in the military

  147. Otto says:

    New ad for Sprite in Argentina pushing trans (hope i embedded the tweet correctly). Another example that corporations are not conservative.

    #NoEstasSolx #Orgullo pic.twitter.com/GLdQE5ypjI— Sprite Argentina (@Sprite_Ar) November 1, 2019

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  148. Otto says:

    Found the sprite ad on YouTube. Hope I’ve got the embed correct this time.

  149. Opus says:

    Fat R is, I have to concede, observant: Not everything I write is an argument.

    We lads though, we were there at Crecy, up to our knees in it with the Black Prince – an away fixture for us – outnumbered we gave them Frenchies a seeing to. I was there also at Troy: as were Agamemnon, Menelaus, Paris and all for that trollop Helen not that we ever saw her or any of them, not the likes of us – ten years it took to get back home and then we was also hemmed in at Lucknow. No bints there on that occasion though; that was all over the greasing with pig fat of the barrels of our muskets. Funny chaps Indians.

  150. wodansthane says:

    @ Lost Patrol

    When I was in The Corps, we always had the ongoing discussion about “old breed” vs “new breed”. It would appear that Maj Gen Mullen represents the emerging 3rd archetype, the “I mean it, damn it!” breed. VERY SAD

  151. Anon says:

    FatR.

    If they were different than “give one to his mother, and leave a spare horse for himself”, you really have no idea how men without advanced cultural indoctrination treat women.

    Your own example destroys your point.

    Genghis Khan’s basic procedure was to go into a new area, kill the men, have the young women brought specifically to him, and he proceeded to impregnate them. GIven what we know about female hypergamy, and what was written about the situation, most women didn’t mind this at all.

    So this even more proof that human hardwiring is programmed to value female well-being above male well-being. This, of course, is because the female is the scarcer reproductive resource. If half the men die, the number of babies born can stay the same.

    The notion that the FI is only because of advancing cultural conditioning is beyond ludicrous. I hope you know how babies are made.

  152. Expat Philo says:

    @Traveler,

    Do not go putting words in my mouth, I do not disagree with everything you say: life expectancy increases, for example.

    Disagreeing with everything I say is a ridiculous position as it forces you to believe that a researcher’s natural biases do not influence the conclusions he might draw from a given set of data. Among others.

    I explicitly informed you how to change my mind, and the level of rigor your argument will be expected to meet in the attempt, while pointing out issues in your Logic. You have not extended this courtesy to me, nor provided any serious criticism of any position I purport to hold.

    You are welcome to try again.

  153. BillyS says:

    Traveler,

    I am so bitter? No, I follow facts, not your assertions. You are the pot claiming we are all black kettles. You cited no facts, just your assertion. You also ignore the fact that the dirt poor already are frequently the ones who marry young now. That doesn’t prove early marriage causes anything, since you completely ignore the socio-economic state of the partners upon marriage.

    Nor have you noted a single point about why things have suddenly changed so that all of history is overturned now to favor later marriage. People’s brains still formed just as quickly or slowly in the past.

    Why do you insist on holding to your position? What benefits do you see from it?

  154. Nick M says:

    Dalrock, You might find this read interesting.

    You might also like the reaction of some men, who, called out the double speak of women siding with strong women narrative when it suits them, and chivalry when it suits them.

    Men are getting tired of all you can pick buffet.

    https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/09/28/somebody-help-elk-attacks-woman-in-park-men-casually-walk-away-831806?fbclid=IwAR3v7Tuu0hjICSnZJmvPjNGm-Z3jXontX5_wV7UeG-Qa93KiYVFKayMPSA8

  155. Oscar says:

    @ TheTraveler

    “Too costly” for people to divorce in previous times means that the stigma of divorce, up and down the social scale, was enormous until fairly recently. I grew up in the 1970s and 80s in a social group where divorce was rare, and divorced people were tainted. (The very lowest and highest economic classes don’t count, with their all but indistinguishable barnyard mores.)

    So, then, could part of the answer be to join “a social group where divorce [is] rare, and divorced people [are] tainted”?

    There’s a strange obsession with sex. According to some here, the solution to overcoming the peak sex-drive years: get married! I can’t think of a worse time or reason: a hormonally-driven teenager, making a lifetime choice. What could possibly go wrong? And saying, in effect, “It’s unfair to expect horny young people to wait till their mid-20s,” is absurd.

    Two things:

    1. Was the Holy Spirit right, or wrong, when He inspired the Apostle Paul to write:

    1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

    2. How about, instead of hiding behind the “some here” cop-out, you address specific statements specifically, by name, with quotes?

  156. Opus says:

    The fate of the RMS Titanic is instructive. A greater proportion of men died, followed by children and last of all – and even though many would have been post-menopause – the women. In my observation, men – read revenge of the geeks – will do literally anything, including if not especially shafting their own sex, even for a female smile. It is that sort of attitude that leads to female suffrage .
    Look how unhappy feminists become when Trannies invade female changing rooms though I would not want them in mine either; Trannies (and I have never met one who was at all convincing though that may change should I ever visit Thailand) don’t care about women – unlike manginas who do – because Trannies think they are women. Here is a clip of a Tranny from an earlier less enlightened age circa 2005. Unthinkable these days.

  157. Liz says:

    People got married younger because they weren’t going to live as long.

    That might be a compelling argument if people typically divorced very late in life, after decades of marriage. But the average age of divorce is 30.

  158. Liz says:

    In my spouse’s profession (very high divorce rates, as mentioned) typically every time he flies with a new Captain they eventually talk about their personal lives. It goes something like this:
    Captain: “So, are you married? How long? Kids? Happy?”
    Him: “Yes, long time, yes, yes….”
    Captain: “Let me guess. You got married right out of college.”
    (in college, but pretty close)
    So longevity and early marriage seems to be a thing. In the aviation world of double, triple, quintuple divorce rates.

  159. vandicus says:

    The argument over whether men or women were more valued in general historically is missing context.

    The men of a conquered tribe are frequently a threat, and their property needs to be distributed to the warriors of the conquering tribe anyways. They aren’t being killed because male slaves are less valuable than female ones(the general rule is the opposite, with exceptions). Warriors, particularly professional soldiers are frequently among the most valuable members of a society historically, but for obvious reasons are also generally the most dangerous and have a high risk of death.

    The (suitable for war) horse population in Europe has been decimated repeatedly because of wars, this didn’t indicate people held horses as being of low value.

    The germanic tribes, which have had an outsized influence on the West, were much more matriarchal leaning than any other culture of substantial size and impact. That doesn’t make their culture the human default.

    A legislative push to pay women more is an ought question, regarding the moral values of our society. Men getting paid more due to providing more value is an is question, who is actually more economically valuable. In general cultures have associated the moral value of an individual with the economic value of that individual.

  160. Gunner Q says:

    TheTraveler @ November 16, 2019 at 3:38 pm:
    “I quote the finding that marrying before 20 makes it almost a lock that you’ll be poor. The response is “you need a godly father,” or something. I’m reading that as, you should marry young and have your parents support you, if necessary. …

    “There’s a strange obsession with sex. According to some here, the solution to overcoming the peak sex-drive years: get married!”

    You are SUCH a Baby Boomer, Traveler. “What’s the big deal about sex? The important part of life is maximizing economic potential! Don’t look to me for help if you have kids before you’re independently wealthy.”

  161. white says:

    Nice to see the Manosphere finally acknowledge the importance of the extended family. Ironically we have a Boomer “TheTraveler” to thank for mentioning this.

    Hopefully next we can come to discover who are responsible for destroying the extended patriarchal family (hint: who gains the most from families going nuclear?)

  162. feministhater says:

    Thank you to ‘The Traveler’ for once again affirming that women have no concept of why men get married and why it is currently a big, giant fuck up.

    Women’s peak fertile and youthful years are 16 to 24. Yet, for some unknown reason, The Traveler thinks that marrying after 25 is the bees knees. I wonder why that is?

    Oh shoot, silly me, of course, because that way women get everything they want and their husbands get their worst years paying full price for what other men got for free.

    Only feminists and idiots would think marrying a women after 25 is a good idea. They know why they do it. That way the woman has a full 8 years to get fully indoctrinated and used, so that she “gets to know herself” or some bullshit. Always the same, getting the man to accept used goods at full price.

  163. A Regular Guy says:

    The Traveler’s entire point for supporting the factors that have brought the institution of marriage to the point of near extinction is because reversing the damage would diminish women’s power and leverage over men.

    Women’s interests > God’s natural order and Civilization itself

    Imagine my shock.

  164. Kevin says:

    A study of isolated non religious sexually active childless modern people suggests that the optimal age to marry to minimize divorce is 25ish.

    Amazing. What about people who participate in a community, work on farms, are socially stigmatized by abandoning their duty?

    One of the disappointing realities of a modern world filled with studies is everyone cites them without so much as a thought beyond the blurb the author wanted to emphasize. It is impossible for the ideal marriage age to be 25 when the average age of marriage in our society is higher than this and divorce continues to rise. Divorce was rare when people got married at 18 so how can the optimal age be older In a divorce ridden culture.

    The vaunted study just suggests among disconnected individuals in a pro divorce world the people more likely to stay married got married at 25 but gives no reason to suggest age is the driving factor. Maybe education is. Religiosity has much much lower rates of divorce – if we would encourage people to wait until 25 than we should much more vigorously encourage them to be religious, be abstinate, and never live together before marriage. Glomming onto a studies simple arithmetic conclusion about marriage age plucked from the whole stream of human experience and other data is proto-typical internet discussion aka retarded.

  165. American says:

    “A Regular Guy: The Traveler’s entire point for supporting the factors that have brought the institution of marriage to the point of near extinction is because reversing the damage would diminish women’s power and leverage over men. Women’s interests > God’s natural order and Civilization itself. Imagine my shock.”

    ^ Eve KNEW when she reached out for the forbidden fruit that it was wrong and likely result in hideous consequence, but she did it ANYWAY. Unregenerate female nature has not changed. Unregenerate monkeys are now firmly in control of familial law and the family courts with the penal system standing by to incarcerate should you fall under their domain via marriage, cohabitation, or an iron-clad non-surrogate procreation with a female and not submit yourself to the feminist monkey’s management of your life. Steer clear.

    “Saudi Arabia, Japan, Denmark, America — there are scores of paths to new structures for the family. I recommend learning from the successes and failures of others, remaining open to new ideas, and ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶l̶o̶w̶l̶y̶ making changes to the legal structure of our core institutions. I predict that America will do none of these things. Rather we will act like monkeys in the control room of nuclear power plant — flipping switches and spinning dials. Armed with only ideology, we alter the core systems of our society without experimentation or testing.” – Larry Kummer (Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying).

  166. Höllenhund says:

    Is 23 soon enough for my daughter to marry, or have I failed?

    I’d say the relevant question is: is she already in a stable, long-term relationship with a man that is rather likely to propose to her?

  167. naturallyaspirated says:

    We’ve moved away from the idea that a marriage (or any long term committed relationship) will be stronger, the couple more united to overcome adversity over time, when the woman gives her youthful sexual energy and her prime fertile years to her husband. Moderns simply think it’s an old-fashioned idea, not pertinent to the modern sexual revolution. He shouldn’t care about her past. Do do so is sexist. Get married once you’ve “figured yourself out”, as if the self stops changing at some point.

    1/2 of all modern marriages in our culture, with this new reality, fail.

    To think men who don’t get that from their wives, knowing (either explictly or implicitly) that it was given to other “boyfriends”, are (on average) still going to bond as tightly, feel the same connection, sleep soundly next to her,feeling at peace with the depth of the relationship and the bond shared during those formative years…… sigh.

  168. Random Angeleno says:

    @TheTraveler: Ok boomer!

    Speaking of marriage prior to modern times, another dose of reality from the 19th century: Every town not only had its church where the community went to worship on Sundays, it also had its brothel where the men went to drink and get their rocks off.

    I’m not saying brothels are morally licit, but I am saying it likely acted as a pressure relief valve and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that some wives were fine that they didn’t have to lay back and think of England.

  169. Sam says:

    @Traveler is right on age to marry success. It -DOES- fly in the face of people trying to get the 18s and 19s married. If you can’t be bothered to do a look on success rate based on age, why whine at him.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3QFZUGBaAGnpe4JxPSP83boRnGs-43Oa-A_-NpUv_mfeHsGWTvMh-WH2A
    Try this CDC data page 16. College educated women out perform non-overall
    25 and over out perform 24 and under for age at first marriage
    under 20 for marriage substantially worse at all levels
    See also living with bio or adoptive parents big difference

    But doesn’t fit the narrative of ‘just wife em’ up young you’ll be fine yolo’.
    Also see that not co-habitating had an improvement on survival as well but basically substantial at 15 and 20 years. Maybe just hitting that 20 year low in the marriage and ending? Dunno

    Argue about why this is the case, but he’s right on the stats.

  170. Anonymous Reader says:

    Try this CDC data page 16. College educated women out perform non-overall
    25 and over out perform 24 and under for age at first marriage
    under 20 for marriage substantially worse at all levels

    This sentence isn’t all that clear, but I’ll take the first clause regarding “college educated women”.

    Selection bias applies. Women who graduate from college, even with a bogus degree, have a more future-time orientation. In the current social climate that matters a lot, because the incentives are heavily weighted towards short term thinking. A woman aged 35 blowing up marriage to her Beta for ca$h and prize$ makes out OK until the youngest rolls off of child support, for example. Short term vs. long term thinking, leaving aside the religious issues.

    If you use the search tool at the top right hand corner of this page, you can read a number of previous essays Dalrock has written regarding marriage and divorce. It’s a pity very few people ever bother to do that.

    Of course, as fewer people marry each year and more women bear children outside of marriage, these debates will become moot. Marriage will be a social convention for the upper class, upper middle class and religious people.

  171. American says:

    With respect to women winning the gender war. What I’m observing is the pendulum beginning to slow and in the not distant future start it’s inevitable swing back picking up speed as it goes. The percentage of Western men who have had enough of feminism is rapidly growing.

  172. TheTraveler says:

    The volume of angry comments, avcusing me of saying the opposite of what I said, complete with name calling only serves to strengthen my points. I seem to be simultaneously the member of several different generations, lol.

    We even have someone arguing that whorehouses aren’t necessarily such a bad thing.

    There is a savage parody the enemies of traditional marriage have: a teen bride, chained to the stove in a negligee, with a kid on each arm. Some of you are advocating something not that far removed.

  173. Jacob says:

    @TheTraveler

    Your arguments, eloquent and well-reasoned though they may be, encourage people to view things differently to Biblical principles. They’re not going to get very far with Christian commenters, who are in the majority here.

    Your perspective is also somewhat lagging and responsive in character, like that of one who follows and is acted upon moreso than one who leads and acts. Those who are seeking to live intentionally, purposefully and responsibly according to God’s Word and conspicuously different to the world will probably find that approach too pliable and prone to conformation from the outside. It doesn’t matter how well your arguments are made or how accurate the data you provide in support of them if they’re just responding to the changing world. Christians don’t seek to live like that.

    You’ve made some valid points. Sound arguments from Scripture will be far more persuasive in support of them than statistics and data-based reasoning. Being obstinate and defensive won’t help, although that’s an understandable reaction in the open boxing ring. Your comments suggest a a reasonable and agile mind, it’d be good to see its full capabilities.

  174. feministhater says:

    Of course, as fewer people marry each year and more women bear children outside of marriage, these debates will become moot. Marriage will be a social convention for the upper class, upper middle class and religious people.

    Well this is it, isn’t it. Soon, we’ll have these same idiots promoting marriage after 30, and then 40 and then 50. A woman’s peak fertility and youthful years are 16 to 24, the rest is moot. Marriage is a joke the further away from that point it gets.

    There is no debate to be had. If you want an old wife, be my guest, there are so many now to wife up. Have at it but your world is crumbling and women are not having children because they waste their most fertile years. Case closed, fucking done. Keep bitching about stats but a women 25 or older is simply not an attractive option.

  175. feministhater says:

    There is a savage parody the enemies of traditional marriage have: a teen bride, chained to the stove in a negligee, with a kid on each arm. Some of you are advocating something not that far removed.

    You are a woman and a feminist. There is not much wrong with a young bride with children cooking food for her family. Only a feminist thinks that. Fuck off, cunt!

  176. TheTraveler says:

    Dalrock:
    I don’t mind back and forth. Even a certain amount of name-calling, of which I’ve absorbed a fair amount today.

    But feministhater’s venomous ad hominem above is over the top.

  177. TheTraveler says:

    People told me, “Show us the statistics.” So…someone popped up and posted a link. (Thanks, @Sam). Now it’s “You’re not Biblical.”

    On page 16 of @Sam’s link: if she marries younger than 20, her marriage has a 50/50 chance of reaching 10 years; 25+, it’s almost 80% — and her divorce rate is ALWAYS lower than the young one. Ages 20-24 are slightly less successful than 25+, far more than 20. Maturity matters.

    The ideal here seems to be 19-22, always lived at home, no post-secondary schooling, skilled in homemaking but not much else. “It’s Biblical!” you say — but then, so is the book of Leviticus. Times change. Consider a strong marriage of a woman who marries her mid-20s, than a difficult one of someone who marries at, say 19. Which is more pleasing to Providence?

    Not all female age-related change “rebellion”; it may just be maturation. Women (and men) are much different at 25 (heck, even at 20) than at 18. As people age, they know better what they want, become bolder and more confident. That includes women.

    Cultural pressures lead most women to rebel somehow. Marry someone very young, and chances are she’ll rebel inside the marriage. Or (if you can find one–they’re out there, but rare) who’s done that–and is done WITH it, but still young enough to be very fertile and have lots of kiddos. Let the Spirit lead.

  178. feministhater says:

    But feministhater’s venomous ad hominem above is over the top.

    You and I are at war, remember? Lol! Silly cunt!

  179. feministhater says:

    Not all female age-related change “rebellion”; it may just be maturation. Women (and men) are much different at 25 (heck, even at 20) than at 18. As people age, they know better what they want, become bolder and more confident. That includes women.

    Cultural pressures lead most women to rebel somehow. Marry someone very young, and chances are she’ll rebel inside the marriage. Or (if you can find one–they’re out there, but rare) who’s done that–and is done WITH it, but still young enough to be very fertile and have lots of kiddos. Let the Spirit lead.

    This is the same school of thought that says that women must sleep around whilst young to ‘get it out of their system’. You’re the enemy, now everyone can see it. You’re a feminist and believe that women should be entitled to sleep around whilst young and then men must man up and marry them once they want to come off the carousel.

    The sort of marriage you promote is not Biblical, it is a farce.

  180. feministhater says:

    People told me, “Show us the statistics.” So…someone popped up and posted a link. (Thanks, @Sam). Now it’s “You’re not Biblical.”

    Go and find some statistics on the percentage of virgin women left at age 25. I’ll be waiting.

  181. Micha Elyi says:

    She’s great, the nation that would intentionally put its women in harms way, eh, not so much…

    When females shun reproducing, why should a nation not “put its women in harms way”?

    “You’re a liberated woman. Learn to lose.”–Danny DeVito as Larry the Liquidator
    in Other People’s Money

  182. Micha Elyi says:

    …Traveler. “What’s the big deal about sex? The important part of life is maximizing economic potential! Don’t look to me for help if you have kids before you’re independently wealthy.”
    Gunner Q

    I can’t find the remark that you attributed to Traveler anywhere in this combox, Gunner Q. Are your mind-reading powers weak or are you putting words in Traveler’s mouth? Avoid the sins of divination and dishonesty, Gunner Q.

  183. Micha Elyi says:

    Some time ago, an individual (not me) posted a graph from a wide-ranging study showing optimal age of marriage (in terms of lasting 10+ years, I believe). The age was 25. Everyone on this site then got to work condemning the data. That’s why I don’t bother anymore.
    TheTraveler

    Then don’t bother mentioning that graph anymore. Cease making claims based on evidence you don’t produce. People who indulge in demonstrations of frantic hand-waving are boring.

  184. Micha Elyi says:

    …divorced against my will with no help from the “conservatives” and church leadership around me…
    Scott

    1.) Were you a help to the “conservatives” around you who preceded you in being “divorced against (their) will”, Scott?

    2.) Join the real Church. Accept no substitutes. To find it, study the writings of the early Christians. Accept no second millenium novelties invented by men–or females!

  185. TheTraveler says:

    Lots of:
    Ad hominem insults.
    Nit picking.
    “Mind-reading” that contradicts things I’ve actually written.
    Condescension, including religious references.

    All signs that you’ve lost the argument but cling to your cherished position.

    “Wife her up at 18,” seems to be most popular with those who want a 100% dependent incubator-maidservant.

  186. TheTraveler says:

    In my early 30s, I was a wholesome church going lad; fit, not bad looking, a military officer. Into my life, briefly, came another officer. (Strike 1, on my checklist). She had been enlisted, and enlisted women as a whole have a terrible reputation–deservedly, from what I’ve seen. (Strike 2). And she was already in her late 20s (Strike 3! I deserve someone younger and with less of a more unsullied past, to match mine!).

    Dummy.

    Providence moves in the oddest ways. Her looks, her personality, our seeming instinctive understanding of and powerful but subtle attraction (not raging lust, more like friendly deep seated desire–and no, nothing happened) for each other, is one of those rare confluences that happens just a few times in a lifetime.

    I should have pursued her. Marriage? I can’t say. Our intense but short-lived friendship may not have survived truly serious discussions of religious and personal values. Or perhaps grace would have rained down on a union of two imperfect, but eminently well-suited people who just “got” each other from the start.

    She made the running, I became skittish, clothed in what I thought righteousness. It ended, and I never saw her again. Maybe an indication that it wasn’t meant to be, or maybe I was ignoring my deep instincts (wherin resideth the Spirit) and “tempting God” by looking for something extra.

    It would have been worth pursuing, knowing marriage (and not just “dating”) was a distinct possibility. Even if it didn’t work out.

    Walking away is the biggest regret of my life. It was based upon a rigidity that I see here. Our own ideas are all very well, but the Almighty is a pitcher who loves curveballs. We may think we’ve got it wired, but Deus vincit omnia.

  187. Micha Elyi says:

    “It’s Biblical!” you say — but then, so is the book of Leviticus.
    TheTraveler

    Live it, if you’re a Levite. To Christians, it’s mostly of only historical interest.

    If you knew the Bible, then you’d be Catholic. It’s their book.

  188. feministhater says:

    You’ve full of it Traveler. What is the percentage of virgin women at age 25?

  189. feministhater says:

    “Wife her up at 18,” seems to be most popular with those who want a 100% dependent incubator-maidservant.

    More feminist nonsense. A woman’s peak fertile and youthful years are 16 to 24. No man need pay full price for a woman who wasted those years and is no longer a virgin.

    If a woman is not willing to give those to her husband, then she doesn’t deserve is full potential either. Case closed.

  190. Sam says:

    Yall complained about no stats so I gave CDC. Now yall complaining about needing to wife up the 18s so they’re a virgin still, in SPITE of me showing from CDC data that it’s a worse age to marry than 25 if you want the marriage to last.

    So let’s look at -more- data and see if these 18s are actually virgins
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf page 20
    18-19 y/o 82.9% already have had sexual contact (oral, vaginal, anal)
    At 20-24 it goes up to 91.3%
    And 25-29 97.5

    Marrying that 18/19 year old gives you a substantial improvement on chance of a virgin compared to 25-29, but obviously that’s not all that’s mattering for a marriage to survive. And even AT that age, 82.9% + or – if discounting oral, of not being a virgin. Hardly seems truthful to recommend people wife them up and get a virgin.

    Interestingly, bachelors degree has a higher chance of being a virgin than no GED, GED, or some college. This connects with time preferences and self control, again tying into older more mature folks.

  191. feministhater says:

    Women in the modern feminist age suffer from choice addiction. When they reach older ages, their choices suffer, thus they are more likely to stick around for longer.

    It doesn’t make them a better catch, it just makes you the sucker who pays for what other men got for free.

    Raise girls to be better women and to be virgins upon marriage and you will stand better chances than marrying aging 25+ year olds.

  192. TheTraveler says:

    @Sam

    Last summer, someone posted similar data in graphic format, from a study 30 years ago. (And as I said, the “wife up the teenies” crowd went to data-bash town.) The data are surprisingly consistent across 3 decades. Surprising to anyone who doesn’t understand human development. Or who has an agenda.

    It is the underclass that marries so young. If teen marriage were so great, it would be a net suppressor of dysfunction, but it’s the opposite. But hey–she’s married, with six kids by one husband–awesome! They’re dirty and unruly, parents can’t clothe or feed them, and they’ll continue the dysfunction. But that’s pleasing to the Almighty, or something. Because married at 18–yay!

    The naysayers here have an agenda. No cogent arguments will work.

    For all the pious talk, there seems to be little faith in the Spirit to guide a non-virgin to become a good wife and mother–such a SCARLET WOMAN is, apparently, deserving of a forehead branding, being morally doomed until the end of her days.

  193. feministhater says:

    Lol. 97.5. Good luck but you sealed your own demise. What you are proposing are not Biblical marriages. They are marriages to whores and sluts. Enjoy!

  194. feministhater says:

    For all the pious talk, there seems to be little faith in the Spirit to guide a non-virgin to become a good wife and mother–such a SCARLET WOMAN is, apparently, deserving of a forehead branding, being morally doomed until the end of her days.

    Lol! Is this all you have. Apparently these women are mature, yet they require guiding after losing their virginity.

    Your promotion of later marriages proves two things. One, women are not mature enough and need to be under the authority of their fathers until age 25, according to you.

    And two, that even after maturing, require a man not only to forget their sordid past but to guide them and take on their baggage.

    Fuck you!

  195. feministhater says:

    For all the pious talk, there seems to be little faith in the Spirit to guide a homeless, poor men to become a good husbands and fathers–such a deadbeat MAN is, apparently, deserving of a forehead branding, being morally doomed until the end of his days.

    So yeah, perfect solution. Get these women to marry poor, homeless men, anything less makes you a hypocrite.

  196. TheTraveler says:

    The more someone attacks you, especially with acombi ation of religion and profanity, the weaker their own argument.

  197. info says:

    @TheTraveler

    “It is the underclass that marries so young. If teen marriage were so great, it would be a net suppressor of dysfunction, but it’s the opposite. But hey–she’s married, with six kids by one husband–awesome! They’re dirty and unruly, parents can’t clothe or feed them, and they’ll continue the dysfunction. But that’s pleasing to the Almighty, or something. Because married at 18–yay!”

    And this causes a self-selection bias towards dysfunction. I am not surprised. Its an inherently biased sample and couldn’t be representative of more functional persons being married.

    This comment proves that. And our cultural bias against marriage at a younger age by making it look low-status to do so ensures that this selection effect results in what you say.

    Of course its dysfunctional if dysfunctional people are involved.

  198. info says:

    @TheTraveler
    And marriage doesn’t cure dysfunction either inherently. As in the abuse that occurs in the family is often the result.

    I am aware of a family who is full of domestic violence and certain female members of the family committed suicide. So marriage isn’t a cure-all for dysfunction either.

  199. info says:

    @TheTraveler

    Mary the mother of Jesus and no doubt many Old Testament saints married at an age that is younger than your recommendation. However it doesn’t seem to be a hotbed of dysfunction as today’s biased sample.

    So certain social arrangements aside from just young marriage applied too that helped it work.

  200. Oscar says:

    @ info

    @TheTraveler

    “It is the underclass that marries so young. If teen marriage were so great, it would be a net suppressor of dysfunction, but it’s the opposite. But hey–she’s married, with six kids by one husband–awesome! They’re dirty and unruly, parents can’t clothe or feed them, and they’ll continue the dysfunction. But that’s pleasing to the Almighty, or something. Because married at 18–yay!”

    That comment by TheTraveler reminds me of a similarly solipsistic comment from a social worker who criticized my wife and me for having nine kids. Only low-IQ people have more than two kids, you see.

    My response was, “I have a Masters Degree in engineering, and my wife has a Bachelor’s Degree in speech and hearing sciences. What, exactly, does that have to do with us?”

  201. feministhater says:

    The more someone attacks you, especially with acombi ation of religion and profanity, the weaker their own argument.

    You are not going to incentivize men to get married by removing that which attracts them to women in the first place. Youth, fertility and innocence.

    You have removed all three. Well done. I don’t care. You are an enemy, I will treat you as such and the so called ‘attacks’, as you call them, will increase. I don’t care about you. I don’t care about your society or what you believe.

    The only reason you want marriage to be after age 25 is that it benefits women. All your arguments can literally be boiled down to ‘the women will be less likely to divorce you because you gave her everything she wanted.’

    This is akin to being a cuck. If you allow you wife to cheat on you with other men, she supposedly wouldn’t be likely of divorcing you. Stupid people, stupid arguments and they are vain and pathetic.

  202. feministhater says:

    The reason for the high divorce rate has been the absolute freedom given to women to do as they please and choice addiction they are under whilst they are young.

    The reason for the decease in divorce in the report is do to their declining options as they reach the age of 35, that’s if they married at 25, most don’t even do that, getting married more towards 30. If they marry at 18, in ten years, they are 28 and can still monkey branch to the next man quite easily. Since most women now get married after 27-29, their lack of profitable options takes a serious decline after 10 years of marriage. This does not take into account their options to cheat on you, cuck you and turn you into a sexless wage slave whilst still remaining married to you. A sucker’s life for sure.

    At the end of the day. It’s women. Their choices have been empowered by the government, society and through feminism. All the above ‘solutions’ are simply giving in to the demands of women to allow them to have their cake and eat it too, hoping they will give you some scraps.

    This is not a game to play, these women don’t love the men they marry. They are using them to settle with after their fun playing the field. If a woman is not willing to marry you in her peak fertile years and stick with you for life, she’s not worth the risk.

  203. feministhater says:

    It’s not even their maturity level. Women don’t mature much after age 17. They continue to act as children for life. It’s simply their lack of options. Just see what happens when you take that same woman who married post 25, now aged 30, who is a teacher in a room full of boys, aged 13 to 16. See what happens. We all know the answer, her maturity means shit, if given the options, most will cheat in complete disregard to their marriages, husbands and their own children.

  204. redpillboomer says:

    My first post ever on here…I can relate to what TheTraveler said earlier…Back-in-the-day, I was a 30 year old, single military officer, churchgoing–attended a small local church (50 members or so, no single women my age). However, there was a large Christian singles ministry that met on Saturday nights across town; large like in 200-300 in attendance. I was ‘Blue Pill’ and relatively clueless on female nature, had some experience with women (n=4), but as I grew through my 20s, I was really working on being more godly with my life. Had one-itis for a hometown Christian girl that ended up ‘Dear Johnning’ me to go what I now understand as ‘riding the Cock Carousel.’ Broke my heart at the time because I didn’t understand it. Why would my 25-year old, long distance Christian girlfriend dump me to chase after “Harley McBadboy?” I didn’t…no make that couldn’t, rap my head around it at that time because of my blue pill, chivalrous saturated mindset about women in general, and female nature in particular…Now, here’s where it gets interesting. To pull my self out of deep depression I hit the gym and started working out to deal with my self pity and self inflicted misery. I was already good looking and built nicely (5-11, 185 pounds), but the working out added 10 pounds of muscle and hard abs. I also traded my station wagon(!) in and bought a Pontiac Firebird, racing stripe, T-tops, all the whistles and bells. Got a pair of contact lenses and shades, tossed my military issued ‘BCG (birth control glasses)’ aside. Now mind you, I didn’t do this to get out there to go all PUA ‘pumping and dumping,’ didn’t really know what that was all was about because my Christianity (read God) was shielding me. My thoughts were on God most of the time, work, my career, working out, sports, deployments, etc, not so much on pursuing pussy all over town. I did it to counter my deep depression and feelings of worthlessness getting dumped by my Christian girlfriend. I still was immersed in Scripture, particularly the Psalms to help me with my misery. I could relate to David because he seemed many times in the Psalms to be as miserable as I was (lol–misery just loves company). Anyways, my Pastor’s wife encouraged me to go check the Christian singles group out. She said she heard there were ‘lot’s of singles there,’ and she thought it would help me to be around Christians my own age (It was good advise from an older woman–thought it would help with my depression over losing my Gf)….So I showed up one Saturday night, quite Alpha by now, and no real clue I was, other than I felt good about how I now presented out in the world–at work, church, etc. I felt really masculine, confidence was returning and rising. So, I attend and guess what guys, Pastor’s wife was right about the numbers of singles 250 or so, good service–music, preaching and a meal afterwards. That’s when the ‘fun’ started. Christian women starting to approach and flirt with me left and right, quite a few were good-to-very good looking, nice figures, looked like ‘good girls’ the way they were dressed–dresses, heels, make-up, etc…ready for this: all of the one’s approaching me were 29-39 years of age! Yep, wall and post-wall women. I felt like a rock star all of a sudden with my pick-of-the-litter. Started dating a few of them, actually ‘spinning plates’ as the manosphere calls it; and these Christian women were on fire sexually. How do I know, they’d come on to me at the end of a date. It was like ‘easy peasy’ and it did leave me wondering ‘what the hell had I being doing wrong all those years?’ The answer, NOTHING. I was working on myself and getter better while the women my age were chasing men 5-10 years older, men in their late twenties and thirties mostly. So, back to the 29 year olds now after me, I was still seeing them with my ‘blue pill, beta’ mindset even though I obviously was occurring to them as Alpha and checking off a lot, if not all, of their boxes for a mate. The attention got to the point of being almost suffocating (I believe they had ‘competition anxiety’ with the other females their age. I actually started to tire of it because it came with an undercurrent of tension and a sense of urgency on their part. I got asked a couple of times the infamous ‘Where do you see this relationship going?’ question–one of them on the first date in between the appetizers and the meal being delivered to the table (lol). I finally met a girl that was the antithesis of the 29+ year old plus women, what I now believe were former CC riding ‘Christian women,’ having shifter their sexual strategy into Beta Bux husband hunting. The new girl was 21, a virgin, beautiful, churchgoing, well-raised in a two-parent home, in college but not whoring around, actually a serious, pre-law student (no bs), not really in any hurry for anything relationally. We hit it off real well, started dating, she told me she would like to get married someday–her ‘someday’ was by 25 before she became as she said ‘an old maid.’ Rest of the story, we got married four months later and just celebrated our 30th anniversary, two grown kids now. She’s still a great woman to be married to, keeps herself in shape, creating a business and a middle school teacher now that we’re empty nesters. I guess the point I’m making is there is so much truth in the MORAL ‘Red Pill’ approach to sexual relationships and it is do-able guys, even in today’s ‘Relationshit infested, hook up culture.’ saturated culture we live in. I think there are NAWALTS, or near NAWALTs out there (low body count), but it will require a strategy to locate them. I was very fortunate because I believe God guided me by getting me Alpha (without me fully realizing it at the time), and navigating me through the Christian singles Sexual Market Place of reformed CC riders to land a NAWALT. I give God the credit because my 30 year old self couldn’t have because my mindset was so ‘Blue Pill, Beta minded,’ and really clueless of female nature. Yes, it was thirty years ago and times have changed overall for the worse I believe; however, you younger Christian men have one big advantage over me from back when I was your age, you have RED PILL INFORMATION available free to you on the Internet–Dalrock being one of the best for you. Many other good ones, just have to listen to them with your MORAL RP lense on (lots of PUA advise you need to take with a grain of salt) and get out there and navigate CAREFULLY with your eyes wide open. In my current, fairly large church (300-400 or so), there are quite a number of women 18-24 who are relationally oriented, marriage and family oriented. Are there sluts there, most certainly, but not all of them. And many of them are good looking, pretty, long hair, good hip-to-waist ratio, feminine dressing, some nice racks, 6s and 7’s with a few 8s and 9’s mixed in. Hope this supplies a little encouragement. Be careful, but don’t give up the search!

  205. info says:

    @Oscar
    “That comment by TheTraveler reminds me of a similarly solipsistic comment from a social worker who criticized my wife and me for having nine kids. Only low-IQ people have more than two kids, you see. ”

    Indeed. The future is for those who shows up. The low-IQ is wise enough to follow their instincts. Whilst mid-wits lack the wisdom of following healthy instincts.

    And if mutations over time can result in higher IQ the future selective environment can give rise to Hi-IQ again.

    “So low class” quips the snob.

  206. Luke says:

    The whores hitting the Wall should neither be staying on the cock carousel nor finding suckers to briefly marry for cash and prizes. Rather, they should be going to a modern equivalent of the nunnery. Essential would be useful but humble (low pay & status, NO control over any men), celibacy, and serving as object lessons to younger women.

  207. TheTraveler says:

    So much dishonesty!

    Was wondering when one of you would throw the teenage bride Mary at me. Different times, different standards.

    And the straw man being imputed to me that only lowlifes have lots of kids. Ummm…no. Have as many as you want, provided you can agford them. But it doesn’t ennoble you, because if teen brides with scads of kidskids with her were inherently good, all these hopelessly poor folk wouldn’t be poor from generation unto generation.

    Marriage is is intended for the man to be in charge–the wife an able, if deferential, second-in-command who can take over if need be.

    Women are different, and have distinct feminine strengths, which are not the masculine ones. A grown, mature woman is not the same as a man of a similar age, but ut is nonsense to compare her to a brainless teen.

  208. BillyS says:

    Traveler,

    You can never “afford kids” until you decide to do so. You definitely cannot if you pursue the modern consumerist lifestyle.

    Give up the bunk you have been sold. But go for whoever you want. Keep trying to pretend that a “grown mature women” exists and is more attractive and has plenty more to offer than a young woman who can bond with her husband instead of being an alpha widow due to all her “experience”.

    The idiocy you see in many teens today continues on. It does not role out, it just gets hidden. Completely different thing from what you are presenting.

    It is good odds you are one of those “grown mature women” that can’t find the hot guy you want now.

  209. james smith says:

    Arachnophobia- Fear of cold blooded Feminist woman now baiting and using their men to provide the fertilization to their seed and then tearing them to pieces for their personal consumption afterwards, compliments of the State Legislators.

Comments are closed.