The archetype of the Strong Independent Woman® has been culturally reinforced over the last half century in virtually every imaginable media. Whether it’s Disney’s capable Princesses ready to save themselves from certain doom – as well as their quirky, hapless but handsome male heroes – or the now clichéd ‘tough bitch’ of action movies and video game protagonists who measures herself by how well she can kick ass and /or swear as the culturally contextual equal of “any man”. Her template-crafted character is strong, confident, measuredly aggressive, decisive (but usually only when shit gets serious so as to prove to the audience she’s ‘digging deep within herself to discover her yet unrealized resolve), judicious, loving to those loyal or dependent on her (immediate family, children and female friends), capable of solving problems with little more than the feminine intuition men magically lack – but above all, she’s independent.
As this cultural archetype is broadcast to society at large, the want then is to find parallels of this Strong Independent Woman® in the ‘real’ world. The media character is only marginally believable now thanks to endless revisions and replications, so we look for the examples of independent women equalling and exceeding the, paltry-by-comparison, achievements of the unenlightened ignorance of their male “oppressors.” High ranking company CEOs are usually the first rock star independent women to nominally shine (often undeservedly) in such a role, but then, by order of degrees, we can move down the economic social strata and cherry-pick or conveniently create the match of any mediocre man. As most men are, or have been conditioned Betas it’s not too difficult.
It really is the End of Men you see. You’re no longer necessary because, well now, there is nothing men can collectively and uniformly do that women cannot find some individual example of matching and / or exceeding. Women don’t need men anymore, they’re independent.
The Branding
If there’s one thing I know, it’s branding. The Strong Independent Woman® caricature has generously earned it’s registered trademark. I sometimes use that ® to emphasize a particularly long-evolved meme; social conventions so embedded into our cultural fabric that they literally have become their own brand. The Strong Independent Woman® is actually one the best examples of this branding. However, to really understand the gravity of so long a cultural branding, you must go to the root of how the brand of the independent woman was originally intended to evolve by the 2nd wave cultural feminists who spawned it. In a way it’s succeeded far better than any feminist of the period really had the foresight to expect.
An Independent Woman was to be independent of men.
While a lot of feel-good aphorisms like confidence, determination, integrity, and the like became associated with this desire for independence, make no mistake, the original long-term feminist goal of fostering that independence in women was to break them off into individuated, autonomous entities from men. That individuation needed to be as positive and attractive to women as possible, so a social pairing of that independence from men, with a sense of strength and respectability, had to be nurtured over time.
Since the beginnings of the sexual revolution, women were acculturated to believe they could ‘have it all’, career, family, a husband (of her optimal hypergamous choosing) and, if she were influential enough, leave some indelible mark on society to be remembered by for posterity. To achieve this she’d need to be an autonomous agent, strong, and above all independent of men. Women would embody and perfect the maverick individualism that men seemed to enjoy throughout history. If she couldn’t manifest ‘having it all’ then she was still, by male force or by personal choice, not independent enough to realize it. Of course, the irony of all this can be found in the marriages of virtually every ‘high profile’ feminist luminary of the time (all the way up to our current time) to the very powerful and influential types of men their stated independence was to emancipate all women from in order to truly be independent.
The Case Against Male Self-Esteem
Matt Forney’s lightning rod post, The Case Against Female Self-Esteem drew a frenzy of internet hate, but at the core of that post was a question that Strong Independent Women® and their male identifiers don’t like be confronted with; do they truly want independence from men? Do the men they want to be independent from even exist, or are they conveniently useful archetypes; vaudevillian chauvinist cartoons from the 50’s, planted in their heads, courtesy of the feminine imperative?
While I can’t endorse a message that would diminish anyone’s self-esteem, male or female, Matt’s post, even so much as suggesting the idea of limiting female self-esteem, uncomfortably turns a cultural mirror back on over 50 years feminist and feminized social engineering. For over the past 50 years the case against male self-esteem, with the latent purpose of emancipating women from dependence on men, began in earnest — not with some anger inducing blog post, but as a progressive social engineering that would run the course of decades to effectively erase men’s inconvenient masculine identity, or even memory of what that identity ever meant to men. The case against male self-esteem has been the social undercurrent of popular culture since the early 1960’s.
I think it’s important for red pill men to internalize the popular idea of feminine independence. The true message that the Strong Independent Woman® brand embodies is independence from you, a man.
Its latent purpose isn’t the actual empowerment of women, or efforts to bolster self-esteem, strength (for whatever loose definition seems convenient), confidence or any other esoteric quality that might flatter a feminine ego. Its purpose isn’t to foster financial or economic independence (as evidenced by ever evolving fem-centric laws, educational and financial handicaps), or religious social parity, or even efforts to achieve its vaunted social equalism between the sexes. What feminine independence truly means is removing the man – independence from men. Feminine independence’s idealized state is one where women are autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient and self-perpetuating single-gender entities.
If that revelation seems aggrandized and over the top, it should. It’s extreme, because the purpose itself is extreme. When you consider that the sexes have coexisted in relative gender complementarity, to produce our very proliferate species, for a hundred thousand years, the idea and implementation of separating the sexes into independent and solitary entities is extreme. Obviously effecting this independence is an impossibility for a race of social animals like human beings. We’ve relied on cooperative efforts since our tribal beginnings and the species-beneficial psychological hardwiring of that cooperation is one trait that made us so successful in adapting to changing, dangerous, environments.
For most manosphere readers (especially MRAs) I don’t think I need to illustrate the many manifest ways that women are dependent upon the men; if not men’s generated resources and provisioning, then certainly their parental investment, companionship, emotional and sexual interest. We’re better together than we’ve ever been apart – even when the ugly mechanics of hypergamy, or male aggression, or any number of negatively perceived gender dynamics prove useful survival traits for us, there is no true independence between the sexes. There is interdependence.
This is what equalism makes a mockery of. In its striving for a homogenous goal-state of androgynous gender-parity it fails to account for where the species-success that the complementarity of the past 30,000 years has brought us. From a heroic male perspective we generally accept that no man is an island, but feminism and equalism disagree – a Strong Independent Woman® is an island,..or she will be just as soon as a man gives her her due to become so.
November 25th, 2013 at 5:57 pm
Good point, Tarzan. Questions though…
Why is there no male-pill?
Would any male take it if it were available, knowing that it is going to effect your hormone balance?
Could we trust you that you actually were taking it regularly enough to be effective if it were?
If you didn’t take it effectively, and accidentally got a girl knocked up, would assume full responsibility for it, or would you put 50% of that responsibility back on the baby-mamma who was fool enough to trust you?
November 25th, 2013 at 6:04 pm
And as well it should, New Yorker. Its 30 years overdue as a movement, in my opinion. I’ve always been confounded by how willy-nilly men give out their sperm to anyone who’ll have it. Do you really want to get into that much complication in your life with a woman you barely know, let alone let her raise your child. It seems like massively low self-worth to me.
November 25th, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Um, sort Cylux? What definition are you looking for exactly? Like are you referring back to my bi-fold definition, breaking it up into moralist and liberalist?
If between those two, I’d definitely be of the moralist variety, but I appreciate the importance of the freedom of self-definition, so the liberalist variety has my support. I just wish they were more responsible with it. But there are all sorts of sub- and sub-sub-divisions within feminism.
http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/womens/womens/section4.php
It is impossible to lump into one stereotype, because like every segmented description in our culture, the segments all disagree with each other about priorities.
If I had to define myself by this list alone (ugh), I’d fit best into the individualist/libertarian feminist category.
November 25th, 2013 at 6:25 pm
I’ll just leave this here:
http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/the-end-of-men
November 25th, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Ya thats true Emma, “garbageman” doesn’t come with status. It’s not so much the status I’m thinking about here though, its the economic value of the job.
Garbageman requires no education at all, not even high school, and gets paid usually around $45-50k a year, depending on location, which is a very decent living. Almost exclusively male terrain though, because it (used to) involve heavy lifting.
A woman with similar education would be lucky if she could get a job in customer service paying $10 an hour (= $21k). Maybe she could work construction or landscaping or drive truck, but that’s tough too because its a heavy lifting thing/mechanical again, and most companies will take that into account when hiring for those jobs. So that leaves waitressing. Or stripping I guess, but…
Which reinforces my point again. At every level of education, with status or without, “men’s jobs” pay better than “women’s jobs”. An engineering or economics prof has no difference in social status than an architecture or nursing prof, the workload is the same and the educational requirement for the position is the same, so why are they paid differently? If you’re uneducated and can lift heavy things, you’ll do fine. If you’re uneducated and can use your female attributes to earn a living, then you will starve on welfare. And its the same at every level in between.
November 25th, 2013 at 6:28 pm
@LivingTree
I think you need to read what the Great Pook wrote about the concept of men’s work and women’s work and how smart women make out like bandits by winning the traditional way:
WOMAN
Feminists (Very Stupid) – Believes men are the destroyers of Earthly Paradise and attack men to ‘restore’ it. Feminists are very stupid because they are attacking the ones who created paradise. Smart women join men in attacking feminists because feminists are a threat to THEIR paradise (of men working for women). Feminists believe if they expel the men, they can create a lesbian relationship which, since it does not involve men, will create paradise.
Slut (Stupid) – Sluts are women who act as if they are in Paradise and that is never going to change. They sleep with whoever, get drunk, and just waste their lives away. They might wisen up or they might become even stupider (and become a feminist).
Career Woman (Dumb) – Career women correlate to sluts and feminists quite well. But career women work because they lack the perception of how to manipulate men. If they did, they would not work. Many Career Women smarten up, find a sucker, and then ‘retire’ after a baby.
Wife (Norm) – By marrying, a woman now has a servant. She may still work but that will be seen as temporary until he is making enough money (where she will ‘retire’ for ‘love’). Normal women want to get married. Wife also includes mistresses.
Manipulator (Clever) – While all women manipulate, this woman lives for nothing else but to manipulate. She dresses, talks, and basically lives a lie. Whether it be a promotion or something else, she uses manipulation as a science. But she is not really smart, only clever. Her perception is at the level where she knows she can manipulate but she doesn’t fully understand how to get men TRULY enslaved.
Traditional (Smart) – Women remain virgins because it allows them to obtain a better husband. Also, it prevents them from becoming single moms which is smart. Religious women are not actually religious but use religion to manipulate the men. How often do you see her reading from the Bible or any serious work? She will do ‘volunteer work’ to make her FEEL all good but it is nothing more than a feeling.
Housewife (Smartest) – Women have effectively retired to live in a stress free suburban house, surrounded by modern technology (so she rarely has to do chores), and spend the time doing whatever she desires. Many women, such as feminists, attack the housewife but that often results from envy.
By the way LivingTree you fall into the meaty category of Career Woman = Dumb.
November 25th, 2013 at 6:35 pm
@Tam, this y-chromosome research is so old, I find it hilarious that its resurfaced again. Yes the y is diminishing (extremely slowly), its been proven many times over, but no men aren’t going extinct anytime soon. The x contributes 80% of the DNA that is passed on, and we both have those. The y has been stable for like 100,000 years.
It is interesting, but it serves no good purpose except as fodder for angry diatribes.
November 25th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
But,..wait, I thought,..
Oh well, no maybe you are right,..
,..but then again,..
Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like “We don’t NEED men, we just WANT men.” But then again,..
Now do you understand why feminism is a self perpetuating cycle of victimhood? There is no achievable goal – even feminist contemporaries know that when women are no longer victims there is no feminism.
November 25th, 2013 at 6:52 pm
Ya thats true Emma, “garbageman” doesn’t come with status. It’s not so much the status I’m thinking about here though, its the economic value of the job.
Garbageman requires no education at all, not even high school, and gets paid usually around $45-50k a year, depending on location, which is a very decent living. Almost exclusively male terrain though, because it (used to) involve heavy lifting.
A woman with similar education would be lucky if she could get a job in customer service paying $10 an hour (= $21k). Maybe she could work construction or landscaping or drive truck, but that’s tough too because its a heavy lifting thing/mechanical again, and most companies will take that into account when hiring for those jobs. So that leaves waitressing. Or stripping I guess, but…
What do you think the average Hooter’s waitress with only a high school diploma makes? Keep in mind most if not all jobs with a lot of cash income are higher on a tax adjusted basis, because the workers rarely report their true income. I bet she out earns the garbage man. An uneducated oil rig worker is going to make a lot as well. Men will make good money in dirty, highly physical jobs that 99.99% of women wouldn’t want to do, and most men wouldn’t want to do either.
Which reinforces my point again. At every level of education, with status or without, “men’s jobs” pay better than “women’s jobs”
This is mostly bunk. There is evidence in some urban areas women actually outearn men. I work in white collar corporate job with a mix of men and women. We basically earn comparable salaries for the same title (senior analyst, lead analyst, manager, etc.) Here’s one thing that is highly relevant. Most professional jobs don’t have some set union scale salary. The incoming salary is negotiable. The problem for women is most tend to be more timid when it comes to this sort of thing whereas men are more bold, and willing to be confrontational. You see this dynamic in blog conversations. Whatever else, I do respect your tenacity to keep engaging. That’s rare and probably is why you have the career success you do. Many women shy away from the time of bold action and communication needed to make progress….although many are adept at gossip and passive-aggressiveness.
.
November 25th, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Of course, Tin Man, you’re absolutely correct – legislated equality isn’t the same as real equality. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along!
And feminists are all too aware of the difference, believe me! But until we have real social equality, which is probably never, I guess we’ll have to settle for legislated equality (so long as the male legislators will still permit us to have it…:) ) in the meantime.
November 25th, 2013 at 6:53 pm
@Gurney, that’s a pretty big chip you have on your shoulder.
I have addressed that point more than once, you’re just not paying attention. I don’t really know how you can say that the educational system is rigged in women’s favor either, I’ve proven already that it quite clearly is tilted in favor of getting more men to enroll by lowering the standard of acceptance.
Do you think that class curriculum is made easier to talk down to women, because we’re too silly to understand the hard stuff? If that were the case, men would be excelling academically, and they just aren’t.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/21/new-book-explains-why-women-outpace-men-education
Do you think that at the elementary and secondary school level, that men are being turned away from teaching and administrator jobs, so they can hire disproportionately in favor of women? Because there aren’t, and the number of men in the teaching field is going down Y-o-Y… in fact, most school systems are begging for more men to enter the field.
http://www.howtolearn.com/2012/05/fewer-men-teachers-widen-the-gender-gap-in-education/
I can’t wait for you to tell me that they don’t because it’s a female dominated arena which discourages men from wanting to take part in… go on…
November 25th, 2013 at 7:00 pm
@livingtree2013
What a nice way of saying we entirely disagree. I commend you on your silk tongue.
Kind of like, Genetics?
If you walked up to me, and told me that I’m flawed because I can’t run 100 yards in 10 seconds and other men can, I would laugh at you. Your statement about my lack of capability would be so patently true and similarly meaningless that it is as if you said nothing at all. I get by just fine without being the fastest man in the world. If I need speed, I’ll contract out for it.
As a society we seem to be capable of recognizing that significant genetic differences exist even within the sexes that determine capabilities and basic strengths/weaknesses. We recognize this almost to the point of saying non-PC things like, “Black men are larger where it counts,” or, “white men can’t jump.” We’re willing to acknowledge even these meaningless differences in genetics, even within the same sex yet different sub-species of human. However, I have, as I’ve stated before, much more in common genetically with black and asian men than I will ever have with white women. When compared to a white female, I’m missing an entire half of a chromosome. Whereas between other males of different races, I simply have different arrangement of some alleles. So I’m much closer biologically to men who we have no trouble acknowledging meaningless differences from, but we likewise pretend there’s no difference between man and woman.
Why is it easy to acknowledge such differences in genetics and how they may or may not affect capability, but completely unpalatable to females to acknowledge differences in capabilities with men? I would suggest it’s because of a latent desire by women to falsely pretend the womb has no power, to pretend to be weak. Why is multiculturalism celebrated to the point where we’re celebrating the differences of everyone, but the genetic differences between the sexes is written off as a problem in “societal structure”? It is nonsense.
To me, this says you are a coward, not stubborn. Now that is quite confrontational of me, it is meant to be so. I confront cowardice when I see it because nature destroys people not willing to accept the random cruelty of life. This exists in spades in the very religious, as they seek an imaginary higher power to explain random bad events.
I believe based on what you are saying, that you cannot fully trust another person because you are unable to deal with the fear that a meteorite might fall and leave you wanting. There’s nothing wrong with being confident in your capability to survive an apocalypse, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about not being able to trust someone else with your protection and provisioning. Without that trust you cannot fully commit to anyone, which means any male who commits to you is actually being subjected to fraud because his finances are wholly committed to you whether he likes it or not. You ladies have made sure of that with the distortions of family law. What we have now is a system where full commitment is required by law from the guys to the point of being thrown in jail, yet conditional commitment from the ladies is perfectly acceptable where even the results of paternity tests do not matter for removing financial obligations.
No, we wouldn’t be better off. Men are inspired by the positive response he gets when providing for a woman who is committed to him. Did you not know this? When a woman acts indifferent to the efforts of a man to provide for her, it’s actually bad for men and bad for society. You need us, and you need us to need you, but you’re unwilling to acknowledge that we need you, and we need you to need us.
It sounds like you have significant biology-denial going on. 18-24 is the ideal time for women to get pregnant, biologically speaking. Beyond that you get a falloff of pregnancy chances and increase of risk that is at first very slow and steady, and then quite abrupt when you hit 40.
Now, if your argument is that pregnancy at 18-24 screws women educationally, you’ll get no disagreement from me. The grand fault of opening up college for women is that women are educated at the same rate as men. Men do not mature as fast as women, so this is a horrifically bad idea on its face. Realistically, women could be finishing college before 18, but our K-12 system in the U.S. (and I would imagine Canada is similar) does not allow for this. The age 0-18yrs education in the developed world is mostly just government babysitting. Where useful things could be taught and college work could be completed before 18 (even for guys), we have people who are (quite normally) itching to become pregnant at 18 and yet stuck with 4-8 years of college because they’re told they need it. It’s backwards, but women did not ask for consideration of the maturation gap, and they did not ask to preserve their reproductive capability alongside an adapted educational system. Instead they simply wanted to “be one of the boys” in the college world with no biological considerations whatsoever. That was a fatal mistake that is now costing women their best reproductive years in misguided attempts at being valuable to a ever-more government-service-based economy.
I would counter with, nothing makes a woman feel more secure than knowing she can have her man do the things she can’t do for her. The complementary sub-species that we are, we’re stronger with an appropriate division of labor.
November 25th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
@livingtree2013
*heavy sigh*
Ok, it’s actually quite taxing when you contradict yourself…
Absolute nonsense, you have no idea what you’re talking about livingtree.
Garbageman pays well because it’s a tough job, has horrific health consequences (at least in the past it did), and no one wants to do it. The same goes for HVAC technicians who crawl through pipes, and those nice little home-inspectors who crawl through the black-widow spiders underneath your home to tell you that the foundation is worth buying. You don’t want to do that, do you? Well neither does anyone else. Men will, because men do crazy things to support women. Men are defined by what they accomplish, so if it’s worth something to someone, they’ll do it.
Engineering is a much tougher job than architect, or any private-sector social science position (those exist?). It should be paid more. Engineers with cred are people who come up with physical solutions to problems that no one else has solved. You want smartphones? Thank your local electrical engineer and shut up about the pay difference.
Economists are basically bankers, they justify their pay with their manipulation of money. Comparing what bankers earn to what your normal profession earns is just plain dumb. Everyone closest to the money supply will make more money than you, that’s just how things work.
Being a good lawyer is about as hard as being a good engineer, so the same explanation applies. Now, there’s a lot more lawyers than engineers though, I wonder why that is…
You seem to want to create this mythical scenario where women are paid less for the same effort, which is absolutely ridiculous. If women were paid less for the same effort, basic economics dictates that all the men would be fired in favor of women, especially in this day and age when health benefits are so damn expensive.
I am a professional engineer with advanced degrees, there are women younger than me who have been promoted over me, with greater pay, far less seniority at the company and less education than I have. The reasons this happen are simple, meritocracy is destroyed when young attractive women enter the employment of old-school men who instinctively try to protect women. The old guard promotes them because it protects them from the appearance of sexism, and their instincts tell them to not let the women be outshined by the guys. I probably STILL take more home per year than these women though, why is this?
Because I work overtime, and they’re not willing to.
So screw you if you honestly believe that women are somehow discriminated against in the workplace, because in my experience it’s exactly the opposite.
November 25th, 2013 at 8:02 pm
I am a professional engineer with advanced degrees, there are women younger than me who have been promoted over me, with greater pay, far less seniority at the company and less education than I have. The reasons this happen are simple, meritocracy is destroyed when young attractive women enter the employment of old-school men who instinctively try to protect women. The old guard promotes them because it protects them from the appearance of sexism, and their instincts tell them to not let the women be outshined by the guys. I probably STILL take more home per year than these women though, why is this?
I’m going to be careful on how I word this but here is some corporate realpolitik. At many large corporations, fostering an image of “diversity” is good business for the community image. If you are a woman and meet certain other demographic criteria you can get promoted WELL BEYOND your competence level because it looks good from a corporate diversity standpoint.
November 25th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Oh why thank you, LiveFearless, for graciously invalidating my argument by childishly reducing women’s economic contribution to “fashion”. You would make Aristotle proud!
How exciting to hear that teachers in LA are being so well paid compared to the national average! Does it make a difference to the quality of education? or the male-female representation in the field?
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary
Compared to other professions, nationally, public school teacher is not a good choice, with an elementary school teacher earning only slightly more than an admin assistant.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Country=United_States/Salary
Not too many jobs you NEED a degree for that pay that badly. None, in fact.The pay range may well have something to do with an over-supply of qualified applicants, but it could have as much to do with the disproportionate imbalance of women in the job. Who’s to say?
And I’ve never heard of Mackelmore either, before I found those lyrics online while I was researching statistics on single dads. That’s the kind of shit you find when you look stuff up, my friend.
November 25th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Jeremy, if you want to take a go at me about economics, perhaps we should do it in a different forum. (I’m planning to begin a masters in it next year, just to give you fair warning). For now though, I content myself with public domain research!
November 25th, 2013 at 8:11 pm
I completely disagree with you about the concept of rights Jeremy, and i assume Martel will as well, given that he wrote the article (interesting how you directed your comment at me though and not him). Rights and privileges are totally different, as they are from contractual responsibility. Plus, you take into account risk and reward, and public domain. Rights are not something we have “naturally”, it is a construct of human law which we’ve learned to depend on like a crutch.
But it is off topic, even though its an important distinction to make here, so lets just agree to disagree and go back to the original unfinished argument.
November 25th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
By the way Jeremy, the conditions you just described in NO way constitute a right of ownership. It is territorial dominance by the strongest party, and plain and simple. Not a right.
Ants that do not allow other colonies to merge with theirs are doing so because there will be a war to decide who gets it (which there often is in animal communities, because they don’t have the safeguards of codified law, which is a safeguard at best, but still not a natural right), so for the protection of the species they don’t bother. Plus, they don’t need to because the land they built their tunnels in, there is a whole lot more of it so if the hill gets destroyed by flood, are the ants going to go “wahhhh, I want compensation because that hill was mine”. No, they are not as fundamentally dependent as we are, not as attached to belongings. They make tracks and build a new one somewhere else. Not a right.
November 25th, 2013 at 8:27 pm
My point was not about banning or codifying fairness into law, Martel. It is a matter of personal integrity that I’m more worried about, personal integrity (or lack of) is what creates social constructs that protect unfairness.
You value your mother more than the guy who sold you your mountain dew, but if you owned a company and hired your mom and Mountain Dew Guy both to do the same job, but you paid more money to your mom, you would in fact be infringing on MDG’s freedom by way of your partiality. This is what happens in our world every day, and in my opinion, it is tearing a rent in the moral fabric of our society. Freedom is talked about a whole lot, all the time in fact, but as a concept, as a matter of personal integrity, it is in no way given the respect it truly deserves.
Its like lying to about yourself to get a girlfriend. Sure its an effective strategy to get a woman to like you, and after you’re in it you can prove your worth (if you have any), but you deceived them to get the position, therefore you denied them their freedom to make an educated decision.
November 25th, 2013 at 8:43 pm
Morpheus, its a great point you make, and I’m sure that most quality women would define “quality women” quite differently than most men would. I don’t think I can do it in three, definitely not two.
What I consider a “high quality woman” is one who:
– is not desperate for attention, male or otherwise, but does not shy away from it when necessary
– stands by her beliefs and values, and will not be intimidated out of them
– is able to, while keeping these two priorities in mind, communicate in a meaningful and convincingly respectful way
– I would also include, if you will indulge me in a 4th attribute, the ability to humbly admit when she is wrong
Everything else is superficial.
And yes, to be clear, I did intend my statement to mean that yes, I do think men’s criteria is frequently bad for making mating decisions.
November 25th, 2013 at 8:50 pm
Well, sorry you feel that way Ferrett, I don’t know too many (any) men who’d agree with your interpretation of me, and I don’t think I’m being arrogant when I say that.
But y’know, do whatever makes you feel better about yourself, man.
November 25th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
Still the denial of biology… hence still requiring men to go against their biology to prove your point.
November 25th, 2013 at 9:03 pm
What I consider a “high quality woman” is one who:
– is not desperate for attention, male or otherwise, but does not shy away from it when necessary
– stands by her beliefs and values, and will not be intimidated out of them
– is able to, while keeping these two priorities in mind, communicate in a meaningful and convincingly respectful way
– I would also include, if you will indulge me in a 4th attribute, the ability to humbly admit when she is wrong
Everything else is superficial.
And yes, to be clear, I did intend my statement to mean that yes, I do think men’s criteria is frequently bad for making mating decisions.
I will say you have every right to your opinion. I will also say many women are frustrated with their results in the SMP because they don’t take one second to consider what men define as “quality”.
I assume you are new to these parts so you may be unfamiliar with jargon. Some of what you point out is projection…in other words they are the things that make a man attractive/quality to you therefore you assume men must value the same.
Frankly, your second criteria is a red flag to me. Often that is code for a difficult woman who is not pleasant to be around. Your addition of the third does alleviate that concern to some degree. It is interesting to me that nowhere on your list appears prioritizes physical appearance. My guess is that would be on the top 3 of 99% of guys.
November 25th, 2013 at 9:13 pm
“You value your mother more than the guy who sold you your mountain dew, but if you owned a company and hired your mom and Mountain Dew Guy both to do the same job, but you paid more money to your mom, you would in fact be infringing on MDG’s freedom by way of your partiality.”
Although you could make a case that I’m being immoral, I would NOT be infringing on his “freedom”, insofar as “freedom is defined as “liberty” (the 2nd link I posted).
My premise is basically that if somebody else has to do it for you, you don’t have a right to it. This doesn’t mean I have no power of volition. I have the right to do whatever I want so long as I’m not infringing on the rights of others by submitting them to force or fraud. In short, you leaving me alone isn’t something you have to do for me, so if I don’t need your help, I can do it.
If I offer him $10/hour and he takes it, we’re engaging in voluntary exchange, even if I’m offering somebody else $15 for the same service. It might hurt his feelings, it might be unfair, it might be wrong, but to say it’s not my “right” means that somebody else has the right to stop me. They don’t.
November 25th, 2013 at 9:19 pm
Sorry, I don’t get the point you’re trying to make with that rebuttal Rollo.
And again, the point I have repeatedly tried to make here, which, interestingly, the three quotes you included all reiterate, is that the old-school male-based power structures are in decline, even though you desperately cling to them. But that has nothing to do with what I’ve been saying about economic value. The value imbalance still exists, and nothing you’ve said on this article, or anything I’ve ever read or heard anywhere, has successfully debunked that, But this is not a matter of victimization, its just a minor obstacle now, but we are just calling it like it is.
But anyway, lets just recap for a sec.
So far I’ve been told here, that 1) men aren’t happy being wanted by women, they need to be needed, 2) that men’s need to be needed is supposed to supersede our need to have a fulfilling life, which 3) you think is dumb and not a valuable need at all, so 4) for everyone’s benefit, we should just let our husbands do all the work for us, 5) all we’d have to do is stay at home and look pretty and let you pay for everything, which would be smart, and 6) stop working and being successful because it is ruining the foundation of the country.
Can you, for even a second, grasp how inane that is?
November 25th, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Yes, its true what you say Morpheus, but that balancing happened because we have developed quite a long way since the 50’s. The jobs that USED to be well paid “men’s work” (which was all jobs really except nursing, teaching, and secretarial) of are now gender neutral, and that is really something to be proud of, I think we’ve all come a long way there.
The dirty jobs that you have to pay people higher than average to want to do – mining, forestry, oil rigs, heavy manufacturing – are paid more and rightly so, they are grueling and dangerous jobs in a lot of cases. No-one on earth would complain about them being paid well for that. I’m really mainly concerned with white-collar professions that are clearly male dominated being paid distinctly higher salaries.
But just can you guys all calm down? I’m not saying “ohh poor me, women are victims of horrible men’s oppression” I’m not saying that I want it to be corrected by legislation. I’m just stating the facts, they are obstacles an limitations that we have to work around. Why are these facts so very difficult for us to discuss? Why does it have to mean something more than what it is? If you want to rebut my with counterarguments, I’m right here, but I would appreciate it if you guys would stop making my arguments into something they aren’t based on some narcissistic phobia you have about not being the most important thing in the world anymore (I don’t necessarily mean you, Morpheus, but some of these rebuttals have been little more than “you’re an idiot” type reactions)
November 25th, 2013 at 10:06 pm
See Jeremy, I never said women get paid less to be engineers than men do. At least if I did, I didn’t intend to.
What I SAID was that male-dominated professions, such as engineering, economics and law, get paid more because they are deemed to be more important than the professions that are gender-neutral or female-dominated, and I don’t believe it’s a coincidence OR that it is merit-based in a lot of cases.
Which you then proved by saying that engineers and economists and lawyers are indeed more important than other professions and deserve to be paid more because its more difficult (but of course entirely coincidental that they happen to be male-dominated). I’d like to see you manage a hospital wing for a month, and tell me which one is more difficult.
We are not talking about working in a coal mine, Jeremy, we’re talking about doing calculations. I work all day every day with engineers Jeremy. It really isn’t rocket science, what they do most of the day, and they do it badly half the time, but they sure do act like they’re doing rocket science.
And that’s my point. Its the ego that’s the issue. Anyway, I don’t think any of us want to get into nit-picking about this job vs that job. Its silly. Lets stop.
Let me just say that I’ve talked to numerous people in HR professions, and they all tell me the same thing – men nearly always start out their salary negotiations way higher than they are actually “worth”. Women, more often than not, will ask for less than they’re “worth”.
Its not your fault, its just how it is. Its an established norm. We’ve gotten accustomed to thinking we are worth less. I do hope this is a trend that’s changing, it certainly was a problem last decade.
November 25th, 2013 at 10:45 pm
Well of course physical attraction is important to a sexual relationship Morpheus, I’m not denying that, its a universal law I think.
But its something that you want. Its not on the list of what makes a quality woman. They are two different lists, in my opinion, because there are two separate categories of needs to be dealt with when seeking a mate, using separate parts of the brain really which need to be kept separated in order to make a good decision, so that the limbic brain doesn’t take over the decision making process.
Because of “biology”, (there, Random Angeleno, are you happy now? I talked about biology) the sensual “physical attraction” part of the brain often takes the lead over the logical “quality assurance” part, resulting in bad decisions, Physical attractiveness easily overpowers the logical brain, because it feels good, and plus its ego-flattering.
I can’t even count the number of guys I’ve seen with women who are hot, but total scumbags, obviously awful, and they are so blinded by her looks that they don’t see that they’re being used and abused. Its astonishing to me.
Physical attraction should not even be on the list of what makes a quality human being, not at all, never ever, but most men adamantly believe that it should for some reason. This is why you’ll see you get a lot of negative feedback from women about being “shallow”. Not that we don’t do it too, but it is shallow, and women just don’t like to admit that we fall for it. Don’t tell the other girls I said that.
The very reason why relationships started out in clubs rarely ever work – 1) biologically driven needs 2) superficial presentation is being made to meet those biological needs in others, QA be damned and 3) you are usually drunk so unable to operate the QA part of your brain anyway, but it doesn’t really matter anyway because clubs are for getting sex, not for getting relationships.
November 25th, 2013 at 10:45 pm
And Jeremy, I gather you’ve had a very different experience than I have with unfairness, and I’m sorry for both of us, its not right either way it works out. I just haven’t noticed that much unfair advantage being given to women here in Canada in the workplace, I really haven’t, especially not in the old-school establishments, and not even when they’re hot (only when there’s nepotism or sexual relations in the mix, and that’s not gender specific really).
OK jeez, I gotta get out of here!
November 25th, 2013 at 11:08 pm
Indeed, I don’t disagree at all Martel, it may not be a right but I still don’t think its right. lol, I’ve waited so long to be able to use that word play!
Anyway, I’m glad you understood the premise of my argument there. Its basically a negative right – none of us have rights or entitlements to anything other than to exist, but in keeping with that,
Permitting one person’s success at the expense of another’s is interfering with their liberty, and a fundamentally immoral act. Most things that people consider “rights”, are really just freedoms, basically getting unfair obstacles our of the way of their liberty. Not everything that people whinge about is actually an arbitrary obstacle, but a lot of them are.
And by that I mean, if you are going to pay your mom more than Mountain Dew Guy to do the same job, I think morally, you’d better have a pretty sound economic reason to do so, like maybe your mom has promised to work 10% more hours, or to do your laundry for you in addition to the job, or maybe you have personal experience with the two workers and you know that your mom is definitely going to do a better job of it. Or maybe the government will pay you a stipend to hire your mom over the Mountain Dew guy because they want to get more moms working.
If there is no such reason, then you are compromising the principles of MDG’s personal liberty. Liberty is compromised by arbitrary social barriers.
Not that I mean to say that MDG should be legally ‘entitled’ to do anything about it. This is entirely a moral issue that you and you alone have to account for. If more people took the time to take care of it as an essential matter of civic duty, I think you’d see that all of the social issues that we fight about daily WOULD in fact, cease to exist,
Pure free market capitalism only functions when there are no arbitrary barriers to entry, it is entirely about merit. And simply put Martel, that isn’t what you’ve described with your scenario – you DON’T have the right to pay your mom more, you have incorporated the arbitrariness of human nature into what should be perfectly mathematical.
Idealistic, I know.
November 25th, 2013 at 11:29 pm
Who decides that? Who can agree on a legal definition? Who decides just how far “permitting” can be taken? Someone once said that people cannot be legislated into prosperity by legislating other people out of it.
November 26th, 2013 at 1:30 am
LT, here in Lotus Land, about 50% of all landscaping companies “seem” to be o/o by women. This is just my opinion, being in the trades and seeing this almost everyday.
November 26th, 2013 at 2:07 am
Awww LT doesn’t have children. Awww LT refers to HuffPost as a source to prove a point. It’s like the public school systems she complains about – her rant about men forcing women to be teachers… honest men choose not to subject themselves to ‘teaching’ jobs that destroy generations of people by limiting truth, withholding knowledge while intentionally throttling down the processes that would otherwise lead to actual learning), it gets constant funding without havjng to earn profit. So, like the public school system, HuffPost is part of the culture creation industry. Public schools limit thought and create thought and action. Only the truly brainwashed can’t see this simple fact.
Nice work insulting the wonderful people of Pakistan. We’ve only employed a few thousand people there. They’ve been wonderful, they’re dedicated to family and they don’t have the ‘I’m Owed’ mentality. They actually work to master skill sets and utilize talent instead of trying to even some score. The ‘LT’ mentality is one of the reasons I’m thankful every day for concepts that’ve been expanded by the best talents in the world like Gary Swart.
I’ll even have an intelligent, talented person there paste her comments in a message to the kind, amazingly intelligent folks that’ve worked with us in Pakistan. They’ll find it hilarious since she’s in an America: The place where those Miley Cyrus and Ke$ha videos come from. LT generalized the humans of Pakistan, and the good people there now have more proof that what their children find on video from the Americas (is in their mind) every American woman. Nice work supporting that culture creation industry version of the American image, courtesy of the LT global influence trust.
November 26th, 2013 at 9:26 am
Why do you people care so much about what some feminist woman says?
It is obvious she gets off of all the male attention you shower her with, and it is also obvious that she is not going to learn.
It is already pointless to argue with *ordinary* women due to their crazy logic, endless reframing attempts and the fact that they never shut up, but trying to argue with a FEMINIST woman is downright ridiculous.
Feminazi trolls don’t deserve even the acknowledgement of their existence.
And besides of that, I love to dream of a scenario where all such feminists get thrown into an uninhabited piece of land without men, where they can celebrate their “INDEPENDENCE” while living in shit huts they could barely build on their own.
November 26th, 2013 at 9:35 am
@livingtree2013
I need no warning, I’m quite certain I’ve solved more complicated math than you’ve seen.
So you’re saying that no one owns their own body and what they make with their own body? Sounds VERY marxist.
And I say you’re full of shit. Economics dictates what a job is worth not some mythical patriarchy. Supply vs demand is the law of the land in this case. You’ll learn all about that next year though, so I’ll let you discover how wrong you are.
Just about anyone is willing to be a babysitter, there’s no health risk to keeping a baby fed, entertained, clean and warm, so babysitters make crap. (and yes, I include all K-12 teachers in with babysitters)
Not many people are willing to handle massive machinery that is not securely attached to high-pressure gasses beneath the earths crust, there’s tons of health risks, so oil-drill workers are paid a lot more.
As it happens, rocket science is my profession. I’ll try to ignore your baseless insults to the difficulty of real engineering.
This is meaningless for your argument, I hope you realize this. So men start negotiations higher? So what? Asking for more money is something all guys are motivated to do, because the pressure is always on them to provide more for their families. Most of that is attempting to please their wives/women, and statistics easily bear out the fact that women are responsible for 60-70% of all purchases made in the U.S., so complaining about men getting paid more is just more female selfishness because they already control most of the finances. That extra money men earn that you’re whining about? Lucky for you and other ungrateful women like you, we give 60% of it to you to spend.
November 26th, 2013 at 9:36 am
I should also mention that I love your work, RT. This is one of the top Red Pill sites in my book. And I appreciate the fact that you keep your writing away from politics.
November 26th, 2013 at 10:07 am
@livingtree2013
Here is the problem when you give attention to feminists. They ONLY respect victimization. They do not respect intelligence, or accomplishment, or value to society, they only respect that which has been “victimized”. Of all the other salient counter points I’ve made to LivingTree, she only offered any consideration when I painted myself the victim. This is classic female thinking and it is wholly destructive when applied to an entire society. Livingtree doesn’t understand how destructive it is, because in her mind, victimhood is currency. She has no understanding of the inversion of society that takes place when the downtrodden are elevated simply for being low rather than on merit.
November 26th, 2013 at 10:15 am
@livingtree2013
Answering a question with a question? very poor form.
You did not, by the way, answer my question, you are entirely dodging it.
What if, by government order, no women were allowed to carry a baby to term, all babies were instead government-mandated test-tube babies that only require eggs and sperm to create. In this hypothetical world, the government has dictated that men get first shot at custody, and are considered the “more important” caregiver. Now, imagine that men, being the “primary” caregivers and recognized by society as being “better at raising kids” demand child support from the women en masse, in the form of taxation.
Would you be willing to pay that tax?
Keep in mind, there is no government program guaranteeing you that your eggs will ever be used for the next generation of children, but you are paying for the raising of kids that are not yours. So, essentially, you have ZERO stake in the next generation, you are a dead-end, and 50% of your income is taken by the government, a large percentage of that is simply gifted to let the men raise the next generation. Would you really be so willing to participate in such a society?
November 26th, 2013 at 11:58 am
LiveFearless – “Awww LT doesn’t have children”
Which she should be congratulated for. She has made a decision to live her life the way she feels is most fulfilling to herself. She is not going to bring more mouths into this world, then depend upon others to feed them for her. At the least, she is showing that she abides by her convictions.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:59 am
LT, you do realize that engineers are the ones who take the theories, dreams, etc. of others and make them into reality. You do realize this, right?
November 26th, 2013 at 1:34 pm
The LT consortium writes, “That’s the kind of shit you find when you look stuff up, my friend.” Is ‘livingtree2013′ plagiarizing Victor Pride? That’s a statement he’d write in a joking way.
The LT consortium writes, “And I’ve never heard of Mackelmore either, before I found those lyrics online while I was researching statistics on single dads. That’s the kind of shit you find when you look stuff up, my friend.”
I’ve heard of and spent time with Macklemore. IF the LT consortium is a woman, 45, in one of the Americas, unawareness of the influence of brand Macklemore would partially explain the delusional meltdown. The brand Macklemore performs other creative works that would not make the LT consortium happy.
Knowledge is funded and selected for the LT consortium by the culture creation industry. There’s soooooo much real truth when searching online.
I was not reared with money, and my family had no connections. I spent years working medical school hours to get here. What have I continued to learn by choosing to reach out to and nurture relationships with some of the most successful people in the world? They do not do most of the work. It’s rewarding to give opportunity by outsourcing work to the most talented people in the world that have excitement for the kind of work they have chosen to master. Real research occurs when teams of such talented people do it. It is hilarious to see biased data posted here to prove some point.
Teachers are paid less in other parts of the U S for sure, and that’s sad because the most successful people I know consider themselves to be teachers though they are not employed by any school. Private funding for ‘common core’ will increase the need for teachers. It’s not based on women or men, it’s based on the ability to ‘stomach’ embedding impressionable minds with its curriculum and intents. Perhaps women have the ability to ‘stomach’ the funded messages.
Being reared in the Southern U S, I was taught that Los Angeles was an unsafe place to live with too much traffic, etc. When I chose to come here, it was to bring global reach to philanthropreneurial endeavors. This was impossible from other markets. For the LT consortium, this focus on paying teachers more money could be solved by each teaching professional CHOOSING to move to Los Angeles, CA. “Oh, but the teaching professional has a home and obligations back in _____ (city far away).” Wow, so did I. But, I knew that the expansion philanthropreneurial endeavors could only occur from this one area of the world that’s been designated to influence the whole world. It’s a long way from where I was most comfortable, and it required changes and sacrifices.
In other words, anyone can move to where the opportunities are. This focus on demanding more men teach (so women don’t have to) is insane. Perhaps the LT consortium should demand that all women in the teaching profession quit and move into STEM or construction management or research to cure Diabetes Type II. Wait, that was cured a long time ago… with food.
Traffic was not so wonderful in other markets either. In Los Angeles, I don’t drive as much since we have options like Uber which is often less costly than driving, and I get work done while someone else is driving. Nice! http://uber.com/invite/uberlive We make adjustments to be able to do what we are on earth to do. There is no ‘poor pitiful me’ about having to move. I’m thankful.
For the LT consortium, it’s a complaint about the imbalance pay wages, for me it’s about philanthropreneurial endeavors that affect the whole world in positive ways. I get it, some people are all about money for the sake of money, a title and the feeling of being a boss. It’s great if the LT consortium has more than 24 hours each day. I don’t, so I pay super intelligent, talented people to be in lots of roles that include ‘being a boss’ … More profit means more lives are affected around the world. It’s beautiful.
November 26th, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Slight tangent… I find I’m scrolling over one comment-er to get to the sensible/readable ones. My mouse likes the attention though. Haha.
November 26th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
LT writes, “Its the ego that’s the issue.” Exactly.
November 26th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Absolutely, Random. Legislation limiting a person’s reach for the good of the rest of the nation is something that should really be agreed to by a significant majority…
As if you guys could agree on it though! Just imagine the battles!
Anyway, that’s why we have democratically elected governments though. We hire them to represent us in decision-making matters which, in theory, are intended to limit over-reach into another person’s liberty. Like it or not, that’s actually the job our governments are paid to do. Not that I’m saying they’re doing a stellar job of it, just that it IS their job to do in a republic/federation/moral democracy/whatever you call this.
The founders you admire so much understood it all too well that a “democratic” system of governance would need to implemented, because if left to their own devices, free individuals are not likely to operate within the bounds of a code of ethics. They will, almost all the time, act according to their own arbitrary selfish and poorly understood motivations, motivations which will (and do) infringe on others’ liberty and the true functioning of a free market. Legislation has taken the place of ethics.
Civic duty is essential to the functioning of freedom. Without a code of ethics at its foundation, a pure free market is little more than anarchy, it is selfish and one-sided. But civic duty is a lost concept now. Self-interest is the law of the land, and the Founders of your great nation must be rolling in their graves.
Yes, my American friends, you have created a monstrous system of capitalism in which personal ethics of liberty are considered undesirable, the only sensible motivation is purely self-interested liberty. The laws which regulate over-reach into others’ liberty will soon be a thing of the past. Economic anarchists are hard at work, gnawing holes in the fabric of your nation, and they will see to it eventually. And then it will spread to your unfortunate neighbors and economic allies to the north…
I honestly dread the next 20 years even more than I did the last 20, watching as America self-destructs.
November 26th, 2013 at 3:15 pm
Yes, Jeremy, that is precisely the point of my complete and total argument here with you guys.
In your hypothetical test-tube scenario, the ultimate conclusion of our discussion, I will unequivocally state that if men were the party better equipped to raise the children that both genders had contributed to the creation of, I would pay 50% of my post tax income to the healthy upbringing of those children, and I would do it without complaint.
Even though I don’t have any of my own, nor do I want them. I would, however, in exchange for the financing, insist on having input in how they are raised, specifically concerning the education system (given the chance, I’d vote for home-schooling, and also mandatory civil service and ethics and philosophy, as a bare minimum).
Thanks for asking!
Now, your turn.
November 26th, 2013 at 3:41 pm
Incidentally, Jeremy, the reason I take that stand is because I don’t view children as personal property that individuals (their parent-owners) have a “right” to do with whatever they see fit. A lot of the reason for opposition to discipline in schools is because parents believe that they can do whatever they want with their children, and that the education system should respect that, so eventually the education system becomes weaker and weaker as it tries to please everyone by becoming more neutral and value-less,
I did a bit of reading on it last night and found this article, which I’m sure you’ll find hilarious.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/04/feminism-communes-children
Anyway, I am quite interested in your response, Jeremy, but I’m just about fed up with the hare-brained insults and invalidation I’m getting here. I think I’ve treated you all with more respect than you deserve, I’ve acknowledged the merit in your arguments, but you guys just can’t give me the same courtesy. You get your wish, you’ve run me out of the clubhouse.
November 26th, 2013 at 4:51 pm
@ livingtree2013
You ask the question:
Then you answer for yourself:
For most people, who want kids, it does make a difference. It is not the same outcome because the motivation to acquire resources is to spend them for the betterment of THEIR OWN offspring. By and large, men would rather provision their own biological offspring. Although many women seem more willing to adopt, I imagine women who desire children prefer biological offspring over others as well. Essentially, most people want to pass their own unique genetics on to future generations – and take care of those children to give them an advantage.
For whatever reason, you are different. This is why you do not sympathize with parents who desire to influence their own children’s education and upbringing. You say:
Either unconsciously or intentionally, you frame parental concern and investment in a negative way as “ownership”. Nevertheless, your goal is to separate biological parents from the “right” to invest and influence the education of their children. Curiously, while you don’t believe biological parents, who are “financing” their children, have a right to influence their education – you do believe you would have a right to do so, if you were financing them. You say:
Thus, you seem to be arguing for a particular social structure – not because it is “fair”, or even benefits the most people – but because it favors your individual needs and wants. You don’t want children personally…yet you do want control and influence over the next generation. So, you advocate for the social system that “feels” right…for you. It fits your own, individual, “imperative”.
The desires of the majority (and the men on this site) are in opposition though… They care about having “their” kids. They care about paying for “their” kids and influencing their education. That leaves a problem… How to convince everyone else that what you want, is what is best for them? How do you persuade them to go against their own interest, for the benefit of yours? Hence these long arguments…and the general propaganda.
Personally, I don’t expect to dissuade you from seeking a system that prioritizes your own needs (and power). I’m not sure that is possible. I just hope others are intelligent enough to see the self-serving nature of your argument and not buy into the persuasion – sacrificing their own needs and the needs of the majority in the process. Frankly, we have already gone too far down that road…and the majority of society is suffering for the comfort of the few already.
November 26th, 2013 at 5:20 pm
Interesting, I hadn’t considered that in its efforts of eliminating masculine influence that feminism would also seek to end men’s personal reasons for parental investment with regard to raising and providing for his own offspring.
Since the latent purpose of feminism is optimizing hypergamy, it would stand to reason that promoting social and personal acceptance of cuckolding a male provider into caring for her hypergamous breeding efforts (either proactively or retroactively) with better breeding (not provisioning) stock would need to be socialized into beta men.
November 26th, 2013 at 5:44 pm
Since the latent purpose of feminism is optimizing hypergamy, it would stand to reason that promoting social and personal acceptance of cuckolding a male provider into caring for her hypergamous breeding efforts (either proactively or retroactively) with better breeding (not provisioning) stock would need to be socialized into beta men.
Rollo,
I can’t find the article now….think maybe I first saw it linked on Dalrock, but it was an article about “10 reasons to date a single Mom”, and basically playing up all the supposed “virtues” and “advantages” of dating a single Mom over a childless woman. Just in general, I think I’ve noticed more of a push to get men to accept the idea of dating/marrying a single Mom.
I know someone in this situation close to me….she actually is a good person who is likable, but I know I would never sign up for the deal in a million years if I were single. The kid will ALWAYS come before you, and a guy not being the biological father opens up a Pandora’s box of issues especially as the kid ages.
November 26th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Dr. Jeremy at 4:51 for the WIN, that is what you call a complete and total deconstruction.
November 26th, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Someone had to do this. I’m not sure where the pomp in LT’s posts come from, but i suspect it has to do with growing up comfortably middle-class. Alright, let’s get to it… [didn’t proofread, so i hope it reads okay]
“Wow, M3…. where do I begin?
I usually find it a chore communicating on this forum because the points of view are usually very one-sided, so I genuinely appreciate that you have at least acknowledged the value of “women’s work” in the education system at least.”
You begin your supposedly coercive diatribe with such a snooty attitude that it colors the entire experience of reading your condescending drivel. Even so, let’s do attend to your comments.
“indulge me please, if you will.”
ARGH it continues. I’ll point out every time you’re a rude dickbag, but only in this post of yours.
“Or should I say, the kids were happy and the men were happy. Women being happy didn’t matter, that wasn’t their designated function here on this planet. Making men and children happy was supposed to be their function.”
This is a very strange assertion. I wish you would include a source, or SOME KIND of argument. You knowing it to be true in your heart of hearts doesn’t count. I say woman’s happiness was of the UTMOST importance. See how I just declare it? Kind of empty there in terms of value and meaning. So it was when you did the same.
“who could blame you! If I were a man, I could see how that would be desirable!”
Men could say the same about a woman’s role, ironically.
“Most husbands in the early days of feminism had a great resentment against their wives for wanting more than they, their husbands, could provide. Again, understandable…You worked hard for your status, right?”
They worked hard for their status, as well as the privileged status afforded to the wealthy suffragettes– because they were obliged to by society.
“What rational man would willingly give up his right of superiority, his entitlement to happiness, regardless of who else suffered?”
His right of superiority? Over whom? You must be discussing a select privileged class of men and women. MOST pair-bonded couples for CENTURIES have been stuck wage-slaving AND caring for the children. The women didn’t have the opportunity to think about their unfortunate disposition because they were working.
“women went in search of more meaning in their lives than simply being a servant to their husband and children could ever provide, and assumed that their husbands would lovingly fill in the void in the home. But they didn’t…”
They don’t have breasts. LIFE-GIVING BREASTMILK IS ONLY PRODUCED BY ONE OF THE BIOLOGICAL SEXES
“[educational childcare] arose because you were too arrogant to accept any of that responsibility, because again, you didn’t value it enough. ”
Except that men continued, and continue, to pay for it financially. Which is what is universally accepted as value. You know, in the real world.
“I assure you, NO mature woman alive would disrespect a man who wanted to provide care for his children. Of that I am certain. But, sadly, only 16% of single parent homes are headed by men.”
Certain, eh? Perhaps you are unaware of how females are considered “mature” for DITCHIN’ THAT NO-JOB LOSER YOU GO GIRL! Perhaps you are applying convenient adjectives and implying definitions for those adjectives, like “mature,” to blur the lines of truth. Also staggering is the ability you have for ignoring how many more single-parent homes would be headed by men if the courts would not default custody of children to women regardless of who is the more able provider. I’d be interested to see whose income is supporting the single-parent homes “headed” by women versus whose income supports the single-parent homes headed by men.
“Consequently, hundreds of millions of children have grown up in this country not having any respect for their absentee fathers”
Since their mothers spend all that alimony on god knows what, definitely not trying to date any more men because they are the problem in the first place.
“Here are some stats which I’m sure you wont read.”
There’s that arrogance we’re talking about.
“Now don’t get me wrong here. I know that most women still want to have husbands that they look up to. It is true, absolutely. But what is also true is that there is few left to be found.”
You see how this is you being extremely selective in a sexist way in looking for a mate while generalizing about all males? This is what you decry in men. Why is it allowed for women to say how ‘no good mens is there for me,’ I wonder (I don’t really wonder. I know it’s because you haven’t thought it through).
” Without ‘taking care of a woman’ as mens’ driving reason for being, men have fallen into extreme irresponsibility, and that is very unattractive to a high quality woman.”
Here you are applying misogyny all by yourself! “high quality woman” indeed, who the fuck are you to say what is high quality. AN ARBITRARY VOICE, is who. Just like the other 7 billion other odd voices that don’t matter, who judge members of the sex they’re attracted to when looking for a mate/lover/partner/somewhere to rub their tingly genitals somewhere because they feel them tingle.
“if you valued women’s work so highly, you could very easily have replaced your supposedly diminished worth by nurturing your family, the same way women did for you when life was simpler and we had no choice.”
Again, you ignore that most women had to work as well. Before I dissected this contrivance of yours, I had forgotten how class-exclusionary the feminist rhetoric is. Oops, my bad. Thanks for the reminder.
“I assure you, few quality women would disrespect a man who wanted to perform the role of primary caregiver, of that I am certain.”
Trust me, I am certain it’s exactly the opposite. Most quality women would not respect a man who wants to be a stay-at-home-dad.
“…you’re neglecting a very important component in your criticism: the education crisis stems in part from the lack of male role models in the junior level school system.”
See the feminist focus on how males fuck everything up? This is a poisonous place to start analyzing the situation. The education system is screwy for many reasons, why single out men? Because that’s your agenda. Nice.
“Men remind me constantly…”
Blah blah
“if men aren’t so much interested in being a full-time dad…”
…says you and the majority of women who do not take men seriously…
“stay at home dads are the subject of ridicule among alpha males, which I know bothers your egos immensely.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/macklemore/stayathomedad.html”
Your sources include a hack rapper’s lyrics. I really don’t want to start the personal attacks, but you’re making it easier.
“Now, I’m sure you’re about to remind me of the unfairness in the family court system, and in that I wholeheartedly agree with you. Its a toxic situation that needs immediate correction, and from what I understand from friends in the system, it is being corrected now.”
Please, let us in on these secrets those INSIDER FRIENDS of yours have revealed to you. I call bullshit. But at least we agree that the divorce courts are unfairly biased against men (or the attorneys have seen some cash cow that the rest of us are too honest to see), even if you have to lie about having some inside connection.
“looking back through history, you will see that it evolved that way because the courts knew that men would not do the job of raising the children well because they simply didn’t value it. They didn’t value the effort and character and humility that it takes to be a good parent.”
Can we at least get a wikipedia link for some of this nonsense? or even a jezebel link? You’re just making this shit up. It’s because women have the bits that make you a mommy, that’s why men have been given the short end of the stick. AND because men were undervalued as parents thanks to gender roles which affected EVERYONE.
“you still need to prove to the court that you actually know what the job entails before you get it, which I’m afraid most men don’t. ”
“The single and stay-at-home dads I know though, are doing an amazing job, some really great parenting.”
That condescension again. Jeez, you’re really good at it. Sorry, unless you actually know what really great parenting is– you probably do since men don’t automatically know what the job entails. You realize you contradict yourself by saying that women were forced to take the role of caregiver and then that women are naturally better caregivers, don’t you? You are proving the point that women and men have optimal roles to perform in society that are not much different (how could they be) from the evolutionary path.
“I have heard over and over again ..”
yeah, nice.
“[single moms] get paid less because our contribution is considered less valuable.”
Paid less than what? Single dads who do the same exact job? You can’t compare apples to oranges, have you heard that expression? The same exact job function deserves the same exact compensation, and the scale of compensation is (for jobs earned on merit) in sync with the qualifications, effort, and performance required of the job. Equal pay for equal work is something only fools and trolls argue against on purpose. Accidentally, you are arguing for it because you want single moms to be compensated more for less just because they pushed have kids. Nope. That is not a merit.
“You guys are taking extremist ideological statements intended merely to give women the confidence to succeed by her own measure at something other than what her husband gives her license to do, and making them into a rallying point to suppress feminism in its entirety. And that bothers me, a lot.
I actually find it quite tragic.”
I find it tragic when this is the case because a movement born out of something positive has been taken over by extremists and the other in the movement refuse to rebuke the extremists, rather rallying with them against the forces of logic that are poised to root out illogic and promote positivity for all.
“Can’t wait for your next assault!”
Here’s an example of a statement loaded with victim mentality AND patronizing tone. Great job!
November 26th, 2013 at 6:12 pm
We live in a country where a girl who makes $30,000/year at a nonprofit is more highly regarded than a tradesman who makes three times that. – Matt Forney
November 26th, 2013 at 6:34 pm
@ Rollo,
You have the first half… Eliminating “beta” men’s interest in individual parental investment allows for cuckolding a male provider without difficulty. In fact, it allows for the creation of a socialist system, as described by livingtree2013, that “cuckolds” all men by taxing them to support all women’s breeding efforts. Thus, all betas can have their resources “reallocated” to needy single mothers by the government, without those men having any genetic or parenting input in the process at all.
The second half… is that it is also important to remove the alpha male’s interest in individual parental investment. How can a woman optimize her “hypergamous breeding efforts”, if an individual alpha wants to influence who else she’s sleeping with…or how “his” kid is raised? It is better if he is just “happy that he got a piece” and has little concern for who else she is “seeing”, or what she does with “her” child. Thus, his “breeding resources” can also be extracted, without him having any desire to influence or interfere with her behavior.
November 26th, 2013 at 7:02 pm
I may have to work on a post about this dynamic now.
I followed up on your comment on Yesterday’s thread, but I’ll c&p the rest here too:
Obviously failing in this feminism needed social welfare programs to fill that provisioning gap, but it’s interesting to consider the feminine socialization efforts to make men more feminine from an early age so as to better prepare them to accept that cuckoldry and support role for their pluralistic sexual strategy (alpha fucks / beta bucks) when they reach adulthood.
This may explain the conditioned stimulation and rise in popularity of cuckolding porn.
November 26th, 2013 at 7:09 pm
@livingtree2013
Then you are a marxist, plain and simple. We disagree because you want to steal what I have rightfully created with my own hands, you want to steal it from me and tell me I have to give it to people who have no obligation to give me anything in return. You believe in theft. You believe in crippling the creative among us to further the aims of a controlling party, or the victims du jour.
The good news for you is, you’ve got a lot to learn.
November 26th, 2013 at 7:16 pm
@livingtree2013
hare-brained? I just stopped feeling bad about implying your math abilities are suspect. Your arguments are invalid because you haven’t thought them through. You are considering one perspective only, that of a single woman who does not desire children. You have zero empathy for men and how they are being cut out of society and society’s future by having their reproductive rights shit on.
November 26th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
@ Rollo
Thanks. I appreciate the food for thought as well.
I think it might have been lost in the shuffle, but I am also interested in your thoughts to my reaction about power, the Savior Schema, and derb labor:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/20/the-brand-of-independence/comment-page-2/#comment-25264
Actually…it might all tie together with the above. When men are convinced/brainwashed/forced to give up their resources/rewards to women (as we discuss above), women’s needs are satisfied without them having to perform reciprocal behavior to “earn” those resources/rewards. This makes women unmotivated to meet men’s needs in return (they no longer “desire” men). It also removes men’s power, because they cannot control when or how women are “rewarded”.
Thus, in that system, all men become “Captain Save a Ho’s” – giving their rewards first, sating women’s needs, reducing women’s desire for them…and leaving these men powerless to influence women’s behavior to get their own needs met in return. That makes all men’s buy-in to the “Savior Schema” pretty necessary, as it influences men’s own “voluntary” dis-empowerment.
I wonder whether the other piece is the “Player Schema” – which convinces men that it is in their best interest to give their sexual and reproductive resources quickly, without reciprocal behavioral influence over the woman? Do women still desire the player after she gets pregnant – obtaining his genetic (and monetary) resources? What I see in the behavior of women who mother babies from multiple fathers tends me to think not.
So, despite what seems like “genuine desire and intimacy”, perhaps the Biker Boyfriend does not make out any better in the long run. He may indeed get sex and the ability to procreate – but neither are on his terms or under his influence. So, once the woman gets his genetic resources without her reciprocal compliance, he has no more power…and his lot is no better than the “Captain”.
November 26th, 2013 at 8:03 pm
This aligns with my thinking that while game is a noble and necessary pursuit, the PUA/ONS lifestyle is anything but. I find Roosh and others to be absolutely correct that a significant chunk of mans power lies in his ability to get laid, but absolutely incorrect if they ever suggest that you *must* seek a string of ONS (serial monagamy) to make yourself a man. To me, real masculinity seeks to move a woman into a frame that is most productive for both parties involved, that means appropriate division of labor, child-rearing.
I’m unresolved as to how to theoretically accomplish that when no commitment means anything these days, it seems that there is simply no margin for error in maintaining attraction.
November 26th, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Empathy? Jeremy, are you trying to be funny? Your case against me is that my arguments are not valid because I haven’t thought about them from YOUR point of view? Is this forum actually satirical…?
My very first comment on this article started with:
“… I definitely can understand why you might feel like your importance in the world has been diminished since the advent of feminism. You SHOULD feel that way, if you’ve been paying attention, because it has been diminished. I even understand why you might be a little insecure or angry about that.”
And then the attack started.
I asked you questions you don’t answer, I gave you positive feedback which you didn’t acknowledge, I admitted you make good points which you threw in my face, I made good arguments which you twisted into distortions and assumptions about “women”.
You clearly have no idea what empathy even is.
Even if I were capable of knowing what its like to be a man, which I clearly don’t…. even though men rarely ever bother to try to empathize with women (because real men don’t empathize?) so making the effort to empathize with you seems really un-gratifying… and even though you have not bothered to empathize with a single thing I’ve said, nor do I expect you ever will… I still tried.
But I mean, besides all that, amid all the name-calling, projection, deflection and insults, you have barely presented a single statement in all this conversation of “how it is for men” for me to try to empathize with. How could I possibly empathize? And why would I bother, after how you’ve talked to me. Throughout this conversation, all you’ve given me is reason I shouldn’t bother trying, because you just want to win.
If its empathy you want, maybe you should learn how to communicate with others a little better, because no woman could (or would) empathize with your plight under these circumstances.
http://www.pellebilling.com/2013/03/empathy-for-men-in-a-post-feminist-world/
The end.
November 27th, 2013 at 3:01 am
The end
Thank god. Does this mean we don’t have to listen to your feminist marxist hamsterish blathering any more?
November 27th, 2013 at 4:29 am
I agree with lots said here, but please stop using the word Marxist and somehow equating it with feminism. That word doesn’t mean what many here and elsewhere think it means.
November 27th, 2013 at 5:55 am
“Thank god. Does this mean we don’t have to listen to your feminist marxist hamsterish blathering any more?”
Amusingly, no. Far from it.
If you check back through the epic page after page of comms, you’ll notice she signs off every handful or so of diarrhetic screeds with complaints of being driven away or shut up. Her bezzy mates are Vic&Tim.
November 27th, 2013 at 9:51 am
Livingtree, your own comments form the case against your perspective. The only people who can’t see that are people who honestly believe that property rights and self-ownership do not exist. I’ve already made the case that property rights exists within nature and should thusly be aligned with human civilization, instead of considering that point of view, you just tried to poke holes in it.
You’re now playing the victim card because it’s the only thing you have left. Have you ever taken a course in logical debate?
November 27th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
@Tom
The problem here is that you’re debating a person who has not yet realized how to make a cohesive argument. She will continue to “debate” like this because she is validated for it on her hug blogs and forums.
@livingtree
Dude. Do you not realize that you are acting hilariously superior for how shittily your arguments are crafted? Take these gems from your last comment:
“You clearly have no idea what empathy even is”
“men rarely ever bother to try to empathize with women (because real men don’t empathize?)”
“you have not bothered to empathize with a single thing I’ve said”
“you should learn how to communicate with others a little better”
“no woman could (or would) empathize with your plight under these circumstance”
This is the (hopeful) end to your unsuccessful foray into attempt at debate on this particular thread. It ends with a throw-hands-in-the-air I-give-up-with-you people I’m-so-unable-to-communicate-the-way-I-normally-get-away-with-half-assing-arguments I’m-still-right-without-proving-it oh-by-the-way-you-called-me-names-and-hurt-my-feelings declaration of some sort of mature bowing out to the retards. Hm. It’s funny because your points have been so weak in the whole comment thread, that’s why I’m amused by it. Sweeping generalizations and declarations of truths without supporting data like those I quoted are present in most of your posts.That’s not a very good debating style on the internet, where debates are up for all to see how your logic fails.
From the haughtiness in your posts I can assume you are blog/interwebs famous so you continue with an attitude throughout your posts as if we should all recognize you from the blogosphere. We don’t. You need to present valid arguments, preferably using logic and point-by-point rebuttals, if you want to be taken seriously. You can’t rely on cred that you got from your peers, because you’re trying to participate in a higher level of philosophy here, where objective analysis is king. OR QUEEN, okay! jeez sorry. oh man this patriarchy is just AWFUL see how i defaulted to king there holy shit i must have raped my mom with that mindset
See how I was sarcastic at the end there and it seemed to invalidate anything useful I said? Yep, I’m taking a page from your book, livingtree. See that “(because real men don’t empathize?)” sarcastic note you included above? Same thing, except stupider because you’re hoping to imply that “real men” is a notion defined by men, therefore showing men to be brutes because they tell men who empathize, ‘real men don’t empathize.’ But you’re a retard because the pressure not to empathize comes mostly from females reacting negatively to empathy. Bitch.
November 27th, 2013 at 1:52 pm
This is a brilliant post. Well done.
November 27th, 2013 at 10:28 pm
” But you’re a retard because the pressure not to empathize comes mostly from females reacting negatively to empathy. Bitch.”
LMFAROTFP!
November 28th, 2013 at 6:19 am
Tree : ” I work all day every day with engineers Jeremy. It really isn’t rocket science, what they do most of the day, and they do it badly half the time, but they sure do act like they’re doing rocket science.”
Jeremy :- ” As it happens, rocket science is my profession.”
Classiest Retort on the Internet, Ever.
Platinum Award.
I realize it was deadly serious, but I laugh every time I recall it.
And it also handily encapsulates the problem that attempting to communicate with floating-world feminists always entails.
November 29th, 2013 at 4:38 pm
My god women love attention and love to blab. Fucking incessant. Men’s studies room indeed.
November 29th, 2013 at 6:57 pm
@LivingTree
The simplest way to look at male/female relationships is as a marketplace. Hence, if it is clear that many women can’t find partners that fit their parameters, then that simply means they are outside the market. It is not a fairness issue, but rather a simple fact. I don’t know how this is a cause for a movement. In my mind, to have a movement, there needs to be what I would call a “don’t give a fuck” test. That means, if a person thoroughly applies themselves, takes every chance to learn, get better, and allows no sloth in his life, will that person still be subject to some clear constraints due to discrimination. Hence, African Americans before the civil rights era clearly fit that definition. One could argue the same for women in the professions. However, today, it is hard to see the case. What I refer to as whining is the complaining of people who refuse to understand that success is the product of relentless effort and always taking responsibility for ones happiness. When men label women as whiny and crazy, it is because the evolutionarily evolved dependency mentality runs amok in a very large portion of the gender. It is not our lack of empathy….but rather lack of tolerance for unstable albatrosses who can’t dress themselves without questioning what the world thinks of them. There are wonderful, strong women who command respect through their deeds and dedication. They can be career women or stay at home moms. I would rather that we spent more time talking about becoming men who could attract such women rather than debating the clearly screwed up.
November 29th, 2013 at 7:38 pm
@New Yorker ~
Gold star. Best comment, ever.
November 29th, 2013 at 10:12 pm
” .. I would rather that we spent more time talking about becoming men who could attract such women.. “
What the .. whu .. why? What the hell for? They got their life, I got mine. Get on with it. Everybody’s happy.
They want to meet me? Fine. On my terms. Otherwise ..
What the fuck is this?
“.. becoming men ..”
“could attract ..”
dafuck?
Y’are or y’ain’t.
Gettouttahere…
November 30th, 2013 at 11:14 am
Be sexy and have lots of money. A full mane of hair doesn’t hurt either.
Since that about wraps up the discussion of ‘becoming men who could attract such women’, shall we return to the topic at hand?
December 1st, 2013 at 12:56 pm
LivingTree: You won’t get a fair hearing here. Its not personal; its their method. If they were to allow for exceptions or consider other points of view, it would be a crack in the dam of the deluge they are trying to contain. Kudos for being willing to listen to the other side and question and challenge your own ideas. Its far more than most women do.
December 1st, 2013 at 1:13 pm
LT has gotten what she came for, catharsis. She’s had a lot more fair of a hearing here than any male voice of dissent will ever receive on blogs and forums dedicated to perpetuating feminine primacy. And you know the ones I’m talking about.
BTW how go the wedding plans?
December 1st, 2013 at 3:08 pm
“Kudos for being willing to listen to the other side and question and challenge your own ideas. “
But that’s what’s exactly what she doesn’t do. That’s what’s so exasperating. Even when she pretends to be responding to a particular post it’s a complete non-sequitur, or a series of them. In my latest (and last) serious attempt I was “rebuffed and reproved” with whatever handy nonsense got scraped up by the first google-trawl. Top of the list as well.
As though she hadn’t either read, or if read, hadn’t understood what was being written down in front of her. Almost bot-like irrelevancies instead.
I have to warn you, I am now going to “investigate” my own posts. Be careful out there!
December 1st, 2013 at 3:54 pm
@Tam the Bam: I felt she was making some effort, and I see things differently. I also think its a good idea to use positive reinforcement and encourage attempts rather than discourage them.
@ Rollo: Just because she was possibly treated better here than a man would on a woman’s site doesn’t mean she was treated well. I don’t know though. Except for my own “missionary” work, I don’t read female writers.
But, be that as it may, there are no immediate plans. The relationship we built from a distance has translated incredibly well into our current co-hermitting status. It is NOT something I would recommend for the novice though. Only the fact that we had both met several people from a distance this way and had a predetermined commitment made it a success, imo. Mark is very clearly the head of the family and when he says “come here,” all three of us (myself, my daughter, and my dog) respond. lol He is reading Descartes right now. He’s been pulling books off my shelves for weeks :) The Christmas light to be seen from space are hung, the kitchen is recovering from being turned into a pumpkin and turkey factory, and I have never eaten so many good meals in my life. Hope you had a wonderful holiday as well!
ps: Hope you enjoy the photo you’ve been demanding ;) Even his toothbrush is alpha!
December 1st, 2013 at 4:52 pm
..and another thing, young madam.
“You won’t get a fair hearing here. Its not personal; its their method.”
(1) there is no “they”. When I bother to spew something out, it’s just me, saying my piece. I have no “method” (hope I don’t get the reds-under-the-beds fanatics from Dalrock’s joint piling in here, accusing me of being a Feyerabend fanboi. It’s a thing of theirs ATM).
(2) “fair hearing” is precisely what this prolix, snobbish poseur (well, poseuse, seeing as how she’s all maple-flavored) and perfervid scold has been given.
Couldn’t believe how the 2 Jeremys in partic. went the extra mile for her, even after it became obvious that her bony fridays with regard to scrutiny of the actual argument were decidedly suspect. Not unlike yer own, poppet.
Now buck your ideas up.
December 1st, 2013 at 7:23 pm
I might be tempted to accuse you of being a Feyerabend fanboi…if I had any idea what it meant :) My ideas are all backed up, thanks. I’m not looking for an argument. I’m just saying it wouldn’t kill anybody to admit a woman has a point once in a while, but mostly men of the manosphere don’t out of principle.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:57 am
Despite the dam’ trackpad abomination, I actually meant to write “buck”. Must be some retarded dialect thing I’ve slipped into. Again. Means “sharpen” or “improve”. Sorta.,
The fanboi thing is cross-contamination from flipping between here and D’s. Some folk have been going nuts accusing anyone who doesn’t share the exact same life-experience and cultural background as them of being bearded, gitane-smoking communistical secret agents, or something of the sort.
And it struck me just then that the closeness with which these maniacs parse one’s every loose or slack pronouncement for signs of deviation and clues as to one’s secret mission, I’d probably just dropped myself in it without thinking again. Talk about walking on eggshells ..
Rollo’s dead right about checking in the politics at the door.
December 2nd, 2013 at 9:15 am
Don’t worry, Tam etc. (lol), I’m a country girl. You wrote “buck” and I know what it means. I just enjoy fooling around with words.
I have never found the commenters at Dalrock to be particularly informed, although the author seems to have a grasp of reality and be the go to source for statistics.
Nuts and maniacs, you say? Ask the women there to post their “n”s. I imagine that would be very entertaining ;)
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:37 pm
@Tam etc. (you changed your name??) – You’re on the money. I did not question my assumptions (much) during this conversation, because you did not challenge the assumptions that I came with.
What you did was project other assumptions onto me that I do not hold, so you could challenge those instead.
I was prepared to be dissected for my assumptions, but no-one bothered. You just wanted to heap feminist cliches upon me, and mock me for anything I said that didn’t comply with those cliches (Marxist? Really? Wow. Just, wow.). That’s not a challenge, its a nuisance. This was completely disappointing as a discussion, actually.
@Rollo, that is amusing, catharsis. That’s a good one…
Catharsis is diametrically opposite of what I got from this forum. More accurately, I feel a bit sullied from having taken part in it. I wish I had gotten some catharsis.
I did get what I came for though, which was information.
The extremely candid comments from the followers here eventually gave me all the information I needed in order to write what I hope will be a very excellent article, which is in the works now.
I came to find out why men these days are so bothered with the practice of hypergamy. I get it now, and I actually agree with you, so thanks for that.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Thanks for backing me up Kate, I could have used the help a week ago! Where ya been??
I totally get that there’s a solidarity-brotherhood-alliance thing going on here, so to admit any on the part of a woman or contrary opinion would violate the terms of the manosphere brotherhood, so I don’t take it personally. I expected to be the enemy, I was prepared for worse.
I did expect more…(ahem)…rational criticism, though. Oh well, I tried.
December 2nd, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Catharsis is the reason you responded in great length to every challenge another commenter made to you.
It’s the reason you did so for the entirety of 2 days before and after Thanksgiving.
It’s the reason you keep coming back to see what others have written in this thread a week later. You enjoy the singular attention for sure, but what you really want is to affirm your ego-investments amongst challengers and critics. If you didn’t you’d be indifferent.
Your catharsis is in thinking these challengers are in some way orbiters for you.
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Well that would be a pretty reasonable assumption to make, Rollo, wouldn’t you think, since virtually every single comment has been directed either to me or at me since my first post? Because for every post I make there are 12 responses to follow it?
I couldn’t help notice the deafening lull in conversation after I stopped participating. Maybe that’s what you want?
Anyway, I have my settings on this forum directed to email me when there’s a new post on the article. I do that because I post on topics I want to engage in conversation about. I told you already I find this topic interesting. It’s a compliment, Rollo, I don’t understand why you keep trying to make me into a jerk.
Why is my interest in conversation an indication of arrogance on my part? Not arrogance on the part of the other fellows here who want to partake? Hmm. A one-sided argument, again. The hypocrisy is getting tiresome.
December 2nd, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Where’d I call you a jerk? I said this was your catharsis. Where’d I call you arrogant? I said you enjoyed the attention of orbiters.
I have however noticed you tend to see hypocrisy where it’s convenient for you. You and Kate like anyone else are always welcome and encouraged to post your input here. Just be prepared to be challenged. The only commenters in this thread that have take anything as a personal affront has been the both of you.
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:08 pm
Look, Rollo, here’s the thing:
It is the tendency to drop a bomb in a conversation and think that the topic is settled, so no-one should have any reason to refute it. Maybe you don’t recognize it, but its very condescending. In a professional or academic setting, this is not the style of communication that gets results. You have to ask yourself – what is the intended result here? I suspect that my intended result, and the result intended by your male readers, they are not the same.
I came here fully prepared to be challenged. Unfortunately, the good points made by your commenters were usually sandwiched in between false assumption, personal insult, and the occasionally filthy bit of slag. Perhaps I focused too much on defending my honor and not enough on defending the points made. I will not make that mistake again.
December 2nd, 2013 at 2:28 pm
I read through the comments again, start to finish. It seems the one assumption that keeps coming up over and over, which you all want to make sure that I’ve acknowledged, is that women are forcing their influence on the entire world, by way of “PC feminist claptrap” I believe it was said, to no good advantage.
Were you hoping that at some point I would say “Yes, Oh My God, I had never thought about it before, you are so right! Thank you for enlightening me, I will go about my life from this point forward with a completely healthy and objective outlook which recognizes just how oppressed men are by women’s unreasonable demands to be more important than they actually deserve”.
Was that it?
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:14 pm
” .. sandwiched in between false assumption, personal insult, and the occasionally filthy bit of slag.”
You’re new to the intertubes, aren’t you?
December 2nd, 2013 at 3:31 pm
Not new at all, I dislike that kind of talk here as much as I dislike it everywhere else. Its just not conducive to productive reasoning. You can see how the pitch escalates, I hope.
Usually why I prefer posting on Policymic in general, that belittling sort of conduct is just “not done” there, its generally a higher level, which is such a refreshing change, real conversation is had, even among people who passionately disagree!
I had high hopes that I’d find it here too, mainly because of the name of the site… :)
December 2nd, 2013 at 4:56 pm
@Living Tree: I don’t read here much anymore, but I encourage you to read and learn all you can. My vacation is over, so you’re on your own.
@Rollo: I am not personally affronted. I was merely pointing out that everyone is speaking at cross purposes and attempting detente.
December 3rd, 2013 at 1:56 pm
@LT
It’s biology, it’s why the young women are the most attractive to men. And has been throughout the evolution of man. It’s also why women are attracted to the strongest and/or most dominant men. Kinda hard to deny 100,000 to 1 million years of evolution just like that. In that bolded, you’re requiring men (and women) to forget certain behaviors encoded into our genes. So again, my statement stands: that you are requiring men to go against their biology in order to fulfill your viewpoints.
@LT again.
This is the core of socialistic thinking. History has given us numerous lessons from the 20th century regarding the madness of such delusionistic thinking.
The essential lesson of democracy is that once the people discover they can avail themselves of money from the public treasury, democracies won’t last that much longer (famous Thomas Jefferson quote slightly rephrased). For the point comes when special interests of all stripes, high and low, rule the legislative process as they do in DC. The high end exists to siphon off resources of government and the economy to the top 0.1% while the low end exists to buy votes. Hence the economic productive output of the nation-state will not keep up with the expanding demands of redistribution at both ends. In other words, socialism may work in the short term. But it never lasts beyond a few generations because the definition of redistribution eventually always expands too far to be supported by the existing economic surplus. That’s when the collapse happens. In short, socialism works until one runs out of other people’s money (famous Thatcher quote). We are already seeing this in Europe. Greece and Spain in particular, but not limited to them. In the US, we’re not there yet as there is still considerable wealth remaining to be taxed out of existence to support the entitlement state.
I’m not advocating a complete hands-off approach to commerce. But I am saying that legislating some out of prosperity so that others can be legislated into it is a recipe for the downfall of economies. If I get to keep too little surplus from my efforts, what makes me want to put in the work to generate that surplus if most of it is just going to be taken away from me? If I stop trying to generate so much surplus, the government loses tax revenue from me. If enough people feel that way, economic downturn and reduced tax receipts are not far away. But the redistribution demands haven’t decreased, they’ve increased. So taxes are raised to fill the gap, leading to less economic surplus being kept, leading to fewer people generating sufficient taxable income, …. and so on in the vicious downward spiral. Incentives matter on all sides.
December 3rd, 2013 at 5:43 pm
@RA…OK fine, you busted me. I am hereby making an academic statement about social anthropology, and it is one which applies equally well to women as it does to men…
Even the lower animals make more rational choices than humans do, because THEIR decisions ARE based on biology. Ours are not. An animal judges “attractiveness” on a need that is directly tied to their own survival. Humans do not. We justify our present needs by finding an excuse – “biology” – to blame for all of our irrational decisions, and the excuse, if you dissect it, is really weak. Biology-based reasoning, if we used it, would lead to much better choices, and to better outcomes, than we see now.
Lets just talk about boobs for a sec. What do boobs have to do with men’s survival? Shape, size, elasticity, none of these things exhibit any better ability to nurse a baby, so why are they such an endless source of wonder for men? They serve no physical function for men. Boobs are a straight-up luxury, you judge their attractiveness based on design proportions.
But, I digress.
I doubt that any man or woman, even a century ago, would have selected a mate by the same criteria as we do now, because their priorities were completely different then – their survival hinged upon good mate selection. Only the wealthy had the luxury of selecting mates based on something arbitrary like physical attractiveness.
Physical attractiveness is a criteria that comes with advanced decadence of a society. Physical attractiveness is a status symbol, nothing more, and it is judged exactly the same way as you would a piece of furniture. As an accessory.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’m just saying that the biology excuse, it’s a total line of crap that we’ve all bought into to help us believe that our behavior makes perfect sense, it allows us to not have to take responsibility for our actions, or be judged for them. Its pitiful and weak.
That is why I said, keep the attractiveness-seeking and the quality-seeking parts of your brain separate, because you’re thinking that its biology that’s making you do it, but its actually chemistry. Chemistry, as in, a drug.
Just my opinion.
December 4th, 2013 at 1:03 am
Peacocks are a very obvious example from nature that even animals sexually select on the basis of physical appearance. The more elaborate a peacock’s tail, the more peahens he will be able to mate with, but the more elaborate his tail the more likely he is to be caught and devoured by predators. In short a peacocks tail is often detrimental to his very survival, but because peahens have sexually selecting for them over centuries, if not longer, then that’s what he has to carry about if he wishes to reproduce successfully.
December 4th, 2013 at 10:03 am
“I doubt that any man or woman, even a century ago, would have selected a mate by the same criteria as we do now, because their priorities were completely different then – their survival hinged upon good mate selection. “
Now you’re just MSU.
Only true for the women, and that barely except in extreme circumstances, transportation to Australia and the like. Either a man had the means and prospects to get a wife, or he stayed on with his mam (dad frequently being deceased by 18, when the church&state permitted marriage (except by license) or lodged with extended family. Same for the girls, except they would have done just about anything to avoid the fate of a spinster, basically a slave to her parents in their dotage, the understanding being that she got the house if they had one, when they died. Whereas a man’s wage for say, hewing coals, tapping furnaces or ploughing and so on far outweighed womens’ pay, as the Owners found their work of far less value to them. So a single man’s wage made him a prize to the household, not a liability. He could afford to be choosy and bide his time.
tl;dr
Both sexes depended on their extended kin and various informal workarounds involving them. And ceteris paribus, men courted and chose the very prettiest and most sweet-natured young girls who weren’t ‘proud’ and worst of all, lazy, if they’d have them (massive social class constraints, like we can hardly believe. “Downton” is a parcel of chummy, fluffy, fraternalizing lies, a sitcom. Staff, servants and tenants were just unsightly objects, ambulatory furniture. The proles were simply unspeakable, and avoided at all costs).
Ordinary girls chose on “manliness” and that included “does he have a solid trade/acres to his name?”, as well as the ability to win streetfights, looks less crucial but you didn’t get songs about “The Bonny Ploughman Laddie” for no reason.
Of course you got the odd retired mariner or half-pay officer avidly seeking wealthy widows, but they had not had much truck with women prior to being on the beach anyway, I doubt sexual attraction was a deal-breaker for them, true.
I know this because this is what a number of people born well over a century ago have said to me, about how they came to be wed (or not), now and again (not now, obviously :( ).
December 10th, 2013 at 2:21 pm
Rollo;
“The question isn’t can we override the impulses nature has hardwired into us but why do we want to? What purpose and to what end does overriding them serve? …There is no achievable goal, because when that goal is met the impetus of feminism’s power ends.”
And the truth will set you free.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/09/the-househusbands-of-wall-street/
December 10th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
“We simply haven’t evolved to the point where a househusband is considered desirable, much less normal.”
And hypergamy will never let you.
I swear, after reading that article, i can only imagine how much disdain , loathing and utter contempt those power women must have for their house-husbands, amplified by a factor of a thousand having to work alongside the ultra high powerful men they long for during ovulation.
I would put down good money the amount of women cheating on their househusbands in the corporate boardrooms is 10 times the national average.
December 10th, 2013 at 2:49 pm
LT
“Physical attractiveness is a status symbol, nothing more”
Where is a Picard palmface when you need one..
– Physical attractiveness is a characteristic that suggests fertility and health.
http://www.canyons.edu/faculty/rafterm/0%200lli%20Social%20Psychology/Social%20Day%20Pages/Day%205%20Info%20Pages/1993%20-%20Adaptive%20significance%20of%20female%20physical%20attractiveness%20-%20The%20role%20of%20waist-to-hip%20ratio.pdf
– Sexy son theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis
You know what happens when ugly people mate?
They create uglier children. Like making copies of copies of VHS tapes (whoa, just aged myself there), the signal quality degrades until it’s unwatchable. These children will have harder and harder times trying to mate, and become further isolated and retreat from the cruel world and become omega’s who WoW or fat cankled feminists bitching in Jizzy forums.
Only the sexiest multiply. While selecting mates has nothing to do with a persons immediate survival.. his/her genetic survival long after they are dead will largely fall on the mating habits of their offspring.
Physical attractiveness matters for survival.
December 16th, 2013 at 3:24 am
[…] all want to portray the Strong Independent Woman persona. My ex wife made a point to make clear to me she was this way when we met up until she […]
December 16th, 2013 at 1:54 pm
http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/16/its-a-mans-world-and-it-always-will-be/print/
December 17th, 2013 at 12:21 am
[…] eminent Dr. J had a very insightful comment in The Brand of Independence. I’ll leave it to readers to read through the whole comment, but it was in reply to one of […]