Shackled for less than a penny.

Slumlord argues that prior to modern feminism what we had was affirmative action for men:

The thing is when you take the shackles away from some women they actually outperform men (in certain areas) and many of you simply can’t accept this fact blaming it on Feminist mind control, whatever. The cognitive neuroscientist have a name for this type of error; Magical thinking.

The traditional way of dealing with this natural superiority was to put disabilities on women while privileging men. When my parents came to Australia, my mother worked in a Tannery for half the wages of the man working next to her. (Brad A. Natural justice? Wondering why the feminists get an ear amongst otherwise normal women.) Turning the clock back will simply reset things to the preconditions that allowed feminism to thrive. So it’s not gonna work.

I’ve addressed a similar argument of his about feminism “unshackling women” previously, but his specific claim around legal discrimination by sex in wages had me curious what I could find on this.  Slumlord is referring to Australia with regard to his mother’s experience, but since I’m in the US and we are discussing the West in general I looked for information on the US.  Infoplease explains that until 1963 it was legal in the US to discriminate based on sex when it came to job positions and wages:

Help wanted—Separate and Unequal

Until the early 1960s, newspapers published separate job listings for men and women. Jobs were categorized according to sex, with the higher level jobs listed almost exclusively under “Help Wanted—Male.” In some cases the ads ran identical jobs under male and female listings—but with separate pay scales. Separate, of course, meant unequal: between 1950 and 1960, women with full time jobs earned on average between 59–64 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earned in the same job.

It wasn’t until the passage of the Equal Pay Act on June 10, 1963 (effective June 11, 1964) that it became illegal to pay women lower rates for the same job strictly on the basis of their sex. Demonstrable differences in seniority, merit, the quality or quantity of work, or other considerations might merit different pay, but gender could no longer be viewed as a drawback on one’s resumé.

This change in the law was then followed up by further actions by the legislature and the courts:

The Courts Nix the “Going Market Rate” for Women

The act was gradually expanded over the next decade to include a larger segment of the workforce, and between June 1964 and Jan. 1971 back wages totaling more than $26 million were paid to 71,000 women.

This explains the source of the belief that women were systematically paid less for the same value of work as men under the evil patriarchy, or as Slumlord likes to say, before we “unshackled women”.  But as we know, even today after decades of social engineering and ever expanding affirmative action programs for women (including it would seem in the near future the Army Rangers), women still earn less than men.  This raises the question;  how much of the previous difference was due to legal discrimination against women, and how much was due to women being paid less because of their different choices and productivity?

Infoplease tells us in The Wage Gap that in 1963 women earned 58 cents for every dollar earned by men.  What effect did the Equal Pay Act have on women’s wages after the law went into effect in 1964 and the and the courts took aggressive action through 1971?  Infoplease provides a timeline in The Wage Gap, by Gender and Race

whitewagegapNote that in 1975 after infoplease tells us that legal discrimination by sex was entirely abolished, the ratio of women’s earnings compared to men actually declined by half a penny to 57.5.  By 1980, a full 16 years after the law took effect and more than ten years after the courts had taken aggressive action, White women still earned only 58.9 cents for every dollar earned by men.  16 years after the law passed, White women’s relative wages were less than a penny greater than under the bad old days of legal wage discrimination.  Granted these aren’t apples to apples numbers, because the 1963 figure is for all women compared to all men.  However, there is no reason to believe that White women were more discriminated against because of their sex than women of other races were.  We can double check this as well by comparing the all races figure Infoplease gives for 2013 with the one for White women:

At the time of the EPA’s passage, women earned just 58 cents for every dollar earned by men. By 2013, that rate had increased to 78 cents.

Note that the 2013 ratio for all races (78) is the same ratio for White women in the chart above.

This early period after the change in the law matters because we know that aside from employers potentially helping men at the expense of women, women’s choices play a huge role in the differences in earnings.  Women choose easier lower paying majors in school, and they tend to choose lower paying lower stress and less dangerous jobs than men.  They also tend to take time off to have and raise children, lowering their peak earnings compared to men.  If women were truly “shackled” under the old system, we would expect an improvement to closely follow the change in the law and actions by the courts.  Likewise, changes due to affirmative action for women and changing priorities of women as feminists have radically reordered our culture would be expected to show up later.  As you can see, the big changes in women’s earnings relative to men came not immediately following the change in the law, and not even in the 16 years following the change.  The big changes we have seen have occurred after 1980.

Australians may well have shackled their women, and if so I would welcome Slumlord or anyone else to present data on this.  But for the US at least, the idea that prior to the law changing in 1964 men received affirmative action in wages is to borrow a phrase, magical thinking.

Edit:  Fixed the chart to reflect the uneven time intervals of the data set.

Posted in Data, Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up | 249 Comments

Only if he finds a better woman than his mother and grandmother

Father’s Day predictably brings out diverse sentiments in our post marriage world.  For Christian leaders it brings out contempt for husbands and fathers, including the now traditional (if not obligatory) sermon tearing down men in front of their families.  Christians who need more contempt for fathers can of course always supplement the Father’s Day sermon by watching Christian movies like Courageous and Mom’s Night Out.

For women who either chose to have children without marrying, or chose to expel their children’s father from the home, Father’s Day brings out attempts to rationalize why children don’t really need fathers anyway.  As a sign of the times, Disney’s Babble brings us two pieces of rationalization by women who chose to be single mothers.  My Daughter Has a Father, but I Wish She Had a Daddy is standard for the single mother rationalization genre (albeit with an adoption twist).

More unusual is an article by Dresden Shumaker titled My Son Doesn’t Have a Dad, But We Still Celebrate Father’s Day.  Shumaker explains that she is a single mom by choice who was raised by a single mom, and refers to her son’s father as his donor.

His donor is not his parent. He knows this, I know this, and some days I need to remind others of this.

She explains that she and her fatherless son celebrate Father’s Day by pretending her son’s cat gave him Father’s Day presents.

In the past, W has been gifted small trinkets on Father’s Day from his stuffed animals. This year, his new kitty will be the gift-giver. W has been an amazing pet parent to his cat and I have been so proud watching him learn and embrace new responsibilities. Being honored on Father’s Day is a small way to remind W of this.

This is a family tradition that her grandmother started doing with Shumaker when she herself grew up without a father.  It is also, incredibly, a family tradition that she believes sets the stage for her son to one day celebrate Father’s Day with his own children:

…I can bet those of us raising sons hope that one day they will be fathers with a bookcase full of “Happy Father’s Day” gifts.

This year, my son is one step closer to filling up that shelf.

See Also: The normalization of the trashy single mother.

Posted in Father's Day, Fatherhood, Rationalization Hamster, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up | 109 Comments

New book by F. Roger Devlin

F. Roger Devlin contacted me and offered me a copy of his new book Sexual Utopia in Power: The Feminist Revolt Against Civilization.  Since it is only $3.49 for the Kindle version I’ll buy the ebook instead, but I appreciate his kind offer.  Either way I look forward to reading more of his work, having only read parts of Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers what seems like a lifetime ago.

Here is the Table of Contents from the Amazon page:

Introduction: The Facts of Life

1. Sexual Utopia in Power
2. Rotating Polyandry—& its Enforcers
3. The Female Sexual Counter-Revolution and its Limitations
4. Home Economics
5. The Family Way
6. Back to Africa: Sexual Atavism in the Modern West
7. The Question of Female Masochism

Posted in F. Roger Devlin, Feminists, Feral Females, Uncategorized | 29 Comments

Don’t blame Heartiste for the equation of Alpha with virtue.

One of the more common complaints about Game is that its proponents challenge our modern value structure by equating sexual attractiveness with virtue in men.  This is an especially common complaint when it comes to the classification of men into the categories Alpha, Beta, etc.  It certainly is true that Heartiste measures the value of a man by the man’s ability to attract and bed women, as he explains in Defining the Alpha Male (link NSFW, emphasis mine):

Many want to believe that getting girls is ancillary to being a true alpha male; that the real measure of an alpha lies in his ability to dominate other men, or his command of his environment, or his thirst for swashbuckling adventure.  While these are admirable alpha traits, they are nothing but a means to an end.  Make no mistake, at the most fundamental level the CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women, whether he chooses to play the game or not.  Pussy is the holy grail.  That is why the obese, socially maladroit nerdboy who manages to unlock the gate to the secret garden and bang a 10 regularly is an alpha male.  And that is also why the rich, charming entrepreneur who because of an emotional deficiency or mental sickness lives mired in parched celibacy is not an alpha male.

But even here, Heartiste isn’t talking about virtue.  He isn’t saying that the ability to generate the tingle is what makes a man good morally.  To the contrary, Heartiste regularly reminds his readers that women are attracted to the worst sort of men.  From Chicks Dig Jerks: More Scientific Evidence (language warning):

So what is this study telling us? What Heartiste concepts are validated?

– Narcisisstic, irrational self-confidence is more attractive to women than modest, rational defeatism. (See: Poon Commandment XI)

– Being a rule breaker (a form of psychopathy) is attractive to women. (Playing by the rules will win you plaudits from polite society, but it won’t help you get pussy.)

– Using people for personal gain is attractive to women.

– The Dark Triad works best for short term sexual hookups (the kinds of mating opportunities most men would jump at if they were easy to get). LTRs require a small but significant infusion of beta provider game to remain healthy and satisfying for any woman.

– Being disagreeable (an asshole, that is) is attractive to women.

– Being power-hungry is attractive to women.

– Never sweating the small stuff is attractive to women.

– In other words, being an aloof, uncaring asshole — an amalgamation of all the above traits — makes you optimally attractive to the greatest number of hot chicks.

This is as he notes a long running theme for Heartiste.  See the related posts at the bottom of the page (here, here, and here) if you require more evidence that Heartiste isn’t confusing the ability to generate the tingle for virtue.

Ironically, when it comes to the equation of male sexual attractiveness with virtue, Heartiste is directly challenging conventional wisdom.  It isn’t pickup artists who are mistaken by thinking that men’s virtue is measured by their ability to generate the tingle;  it is everyone else.

This is probably easiest for most to see with feminists and their liberal allies, since they have been very open about replacing biblical sexual morality with a strict focus on romantic love and “consent”.  Both of these are really just code words for the tingle however.  Romantic love and the tingle are separate conceptually, but for practical purposes they are one and the same.  I would also challenge my readers to find a biblical distinction between romantic love and sexual desire.  Consent would at first sound like something different, but when feminists say consent they mean the woman is sexually attracted to the man.  This is why feminists call sex which the woman later regrets rape, and why a woman who trades sex for food and lodging is also said to have been raped.

But it isn’t just feminists who equate a man’s ability to generate sexual attraction with his virtue.  Modern Christians and other conservatives go even further in this direction.  Feminists are attempting to toss out what they see as an outdated value structure grounded in superstition, and replace it with a human derived code.  Christians have also thrown out biblical teaching on sexual morality.  The difference however is that Christians are now teaching that God designed women to only be attracted to good Christian men.  This new view is taught without controversy because it is so thoroughly accepted.

The clitoris as a divining rod for virtue.

In a post decrying the wickedness of sexual immorality, Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. (President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), explains that by God’s design a wife’s sexual attraction for her husband is a barometer of the man’s righteousness:

Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.

T is for tingle...

t is for tingle

And it isn’t just the most conservative modern Christians like the Southern Baptists who now teach that the hallmark of a man’s virtue is his ability to generate the tingle.  This view is ubiquitous throughout modern Christian culture.  Christians the world over (both Protestants and Catholics) delighted in the message of the movie Fireproof, where the proof that Caleb was finally a changed man came from his wife falling out of love with the doctor she was leaving him for and falling back in love with Caleb.  Only through the power of the tingle could Caleb redeem himself, save his marriage, and save his wife’s soul.  In this new view the symbol Christians have used as a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice for nearly two thousand years is now transformed into a “t” for “tingle”.  By the mysterious power of the tingle, Caleb, his marriage, and his wife were all saved.  Christians delighted in this spiritual message, and these thoroughly unbiblical ideas were not even recognized as such let alone debated outside of the manosphere.

It isn’t just at the extremes that we see the worship of the tingle either.  It isn’t just radical feminists and conservative Christians.  Everyone in between now worships the tingle without a second thought.  As I showed recently, secular marriage counsellors also believe that a wife’s loss of attraction for her husband is a symptom of his loss of virtue.  Dr Harley’s approach to bored wives is the same as the approach in Fireproof, and is perfectly aligned with our new legal view of the family.  Men who can’t generate the tingle deserve to be not only punished, but crushed.  Men who can’t keep their wives tingling deserve to have their families destroyed, their children taken from them, and very often even deserve to be imprisoned.

We live in a world where a man who fails to generate tingles is seen as contemptible by both feminists and conservatives, by seculars and Christians alike.  Aside from a tiny minority, Christians range from outright rejecting biblical teaching on men and women to feeling ambivalent about what the Bible teaches.  In this world Heartiste’s greatest challenge to modern moral sensibilities isn’t his celebration of the tingle, but instead his (modern Christian and secular) heretical assertion that generating the tingle isn’t the ultimate sign of virtue in a man.

Cross graphic released to the public domain by Boris23.

Posted in Albert Mohler, Fireproof, Foolishness, Game, New Morality, Romantic Love | 591 Comments

Unhappy? Make your husband put a deposit into Dr. Harley’s Bank.

Commenter Trust asked if I would give my thoughts on a post by Willard F. Harley, Jr., Ph.D. titled When to call it quits (Part 1).   Dr. Harley explains that up to 80% of divorces are caused by what he calls “neglect”.  He states this in a gender neutral way, but he makes it clear that he is talking about wives losing attraction for their husbands:

On the subject of neglect, I’ve chosen to feature a marriage that isn’t all that bad from most people’s perspective, but isn’t good either. L.R.’s husband hasn’t abandoned her physically, leaving her to fend for herself. Instead, he’s only abandoned her emotionally. They probably even have a friendship of sorts. It’s cases like these that leave a wife struggling to know what to do.

As it turns out, most of these women divorce their husbands. In fact, research I’ve personally conducted in the archives of government statistics on the causes of divorce lead me to believe that as many as 80% of all divorces are caused by neglect. Women like L.R. suddenly call it quits with little warning, leaving her husband, family and friends scratching their heads wondering what’s wrong with her.

Harley explains here that his fundamental approach is to focus on restoring the wife’s feelings of romantic love and attraction to her husband:

The difference between my approach to saving marriages, and the approach of most other therapists, is that I focus on building romantic love (being “in love”) between spouses, rather than simply focusing on conflict resolution. As it turns out, I also address conflict resolution, but I do it in a way that builds love between spouses.

Aside from his deep hostility to marital commitment (more later), this isn’t a bad secular approach.  Feelings of attraction and romantic love are a sort of all purpose lubricant.  When the attraction is there it is easy to overlook other issues.  When it is gone the smallest issues often seem gigantic.

Correction:  This wouldn’t be a bad approach if Harley understood the mechanics of attraction.  The foundation of Harley’s work on marriage is a concept he has dubbed the Love Bank.  The Love Bank is a sort of ledger of warm fuzzies and cold pricklies.  Build up enough warm fuzzies while minimizing cold pricklies in the ledger, and sexual attraction suddenly appears:

We like those with positive Love Bank balances and dislike those with negative balances. But if an account reaches a certain threshold, a very special emotional reaction is triggered — romantic love. We no longer simply like the person — we are in love. It’s a feeling of incredible attraction to someone of the opposite sex.

Since he makes it clear that this is a problem of wives not feeling attraction to their husbands, what this really means is the key to men becoming sexually attractive to their wives is to do more nice things for them.  This is what Rollo calls negotiating desire, and not only does the approach not work when men try it, it makes the problem much worse.  Harley claims this approach is revolutionary, but it is simply (deeply flawed) modern conventional wisdom.  This kind of thinking is everywhere, which is the reason for the uncanny resemblance to the movie Fireproof with it’s accompanying Love Dare.

Getting back to When to call it quits (Part 1), Harley’s advice to wives who don’t feel the tingle anymore is his own special flavor of the wake-up call.  He sets this up as a two part system.  In part A the wife does everything she thinks the husband wants for 30 days.  Before she does this however she secretly prepares for part B, where she ambushes her husband by either kicking him out of the house (if they have children) or moves to a new apartment.  Long time readers will see the strong resemblance between Harley’s “Plan B” and what Joel and Kathy Davisson call lowering the boom.  The strategy in both cases is to crush the husband with threats to destroy the family, in order to get the husband to buy the authors’ products and start doing what the wife demands.  In both schemes once the husband grovels enough the wife will regain her attraction for him.

Harley gives the example of a Christian woman named Ellen who had lost her tingle and found herself tempted to cheat on her husband:

Her husband, Ken, was not abusive, but didn’t meet her intimate emotional needs. She is a Christian, but told me that she was very tempted to have an affair or divorce her husband.

Harley’s advice on how Ellen should handle her strong temptation to cheat and/or divorce was to bring these temptations much closer.  Following his advice, she moved out of the marital home to a secret location:

Sometimes, especially when an unfaithful spouse refuses to end an affair, I recommend no contact at all for plan B. If he wants to contact her, he must talk through a designated mediator. But in this case, I didn’t feel that a mediator was necessary and that Ellen could talk with Ken by cell phone. He didn’t know her address, however.

Harley also suggested that Ellen offer a reward of sex if her husband went to a counselor and purchased one of Harley’s books:

I had explained to Ellen how her husband would probably react at first: He would throw a fit. And that’s precisely what happened. He told her that he was filing for divorce, and that she was now on her own. I also predicted what might happen next: After he had a chance to cool off, he’d want to have sex with her. That also happened right on schedule after two weeks had passed. My advice to her was that she should agree to it only after he saw a counselor with her that would take them through “His Needs, Her Needs.” Since her husband hated me after he learned that I was the architect of this plan, I suggested that she find a local counselor who was familiar with my books and methods, which she did.

This is how these systems almost always work.  The threatpoint of infidelity and the brutal family courts is subtly or not so subtly used to sell the author’s books & workbooks, DVDs, home study courses, coaching services, etc.

But wait, there’s more!

Harley closes by warning wives that they really need to lower the boom Plan B their husband to get him to buy and follow his products.  If they don’t they risk being stuck in a loveless marriage or forced to not honor their marriage vows.  In fact, by crushing their husband with the threats of the family courts they will be doing their husband a favor:

If you want to be among the 20% that are happily married, you may need to do something drastic-like follow my plan. Or you will become one of the 20% that live together unfulfilled (like you are now), the 20% that stay married, but eventually separate for the rest of their lives together (like you may end up), or the remaining 40% who throw in the towel and divorce.

I strongly encourage you to be among the 20% with a very fulfilling marriage. While your husband may not like my plan at first, especially if you separate from him, if it succeeds, he will be a much happier man. He will come to recognize, as you do, that a great marriage requires a mutual effort. Both spouses must take their marital responsibilities seriously by meeting each other’s intimate emotional needs.

Harley’s claim is that unhappy marriages only get better if wives take over and crush their husbands.  He tells us outirght that his plan often leads to infidelity and/or divorce, but he positions it as the only viable option (emphasis mine):

There’s the possibility that your husband will not want you to return. He may be happy that you’ve left. Separation is always a dangerous step to take because it often leads to an affair or divorce. But what are the alternatives?

Some people wait and hope for a change of heart. But as I mentioned earlier, time can go by very quickly. Before you know it, 20 more years will have passed without any improvement.

It’s sad to consider how many people put up with a loveless marriage and simply live independently. In fact, about 20% of all married couples die having been separated for many years. And while another 20% continue to live together, they don’t have much of a relationship — it’s like your marriage. Only about 20% have a romantic relationship throughout marriage-they meet each other’s intimate emotional needs.

This won’t help Harley or others like him sell their wares, but the reality is that simply sticking to it and honoring your marriage vows when times are rough is a very effective plan.  From Does Divorce Make People Happy? Findings from a Study of Unhappy Marriages:

Two out of three unhappily married adults who avoided divorce or separation ended up happily married five years later.

Posted in Book of Oprah, Divorce, Foolishness, Game, Lowering The Boom, Marriage, New Morality, Romantic Love, selling divorce, Threatpoint, Wake-up call | 677 Comments