Pre-Whipped

prewhipped

The 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 our resident feminist’s assertion that it “takes a village” to raise a child:

[...] 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.[...]

There is a strong contingent in the manosphere, and particularly MRAs, who’s primary goal is making society more aware of the inequitable redistribution of resources with regards to how the exchange unfairly affects men with respect to their parental investment and the influence they are allowed in participating in the lives of their (intended or unintended) children. Allegations of, and comparisons of feminism to Marxism or socialism are almost cliché amongst this set, and probably with good reason, however the constant repetition of such makes for an easy dismissal of the comparisons.

As most readers know, as a policy, I don’t delve into religion or politics on Rational Male unless an observable, gender related dynamic can be better explained in a religious or political context. I’ll probably be disappointing the feminism-is-socialism crowd (there’s no shortage of bloggers who’ll be happy to educate on this), but I must admit to a larger social dynamic I hadn’t considered before this comment exchange.

The Pre-Whipping

In finishing last week’s essay I wrote this:

The majority of men are varying degrees of Betas, pre-whipped by the feminine imperative for half a lifetime to eventually be the de facto cuckold for women’s sexual priorities at just the right time.

There are a few considerations we take as given in the manosphere. One of these has been the presumption that 80% of men, either by birth or by conditioning, are Beta. I actually think 80% is probably a bit conservative.

A lot of red pill mental effort revolves around defining just what makes a man Alpha, but when it comes to what makes a man Beta we tend to just accept that chump is a chump and we don’t want to be one. That’s really the whole point of unplugging; becoming aware of, and rejecting the influence the Feminine Imperative has had with regards to the direction of our lives. And that’s another basic of becoming Game-aware, we acknowledge a feminine-primary conditioning has had an undue influence not just on societal expectations of men, but literally how we think, and how we prioritize our thoughts, wants and goals to better accommodate a latent feminine purpose.

Since I began writing about Game-awareness and positive masculinity one of the most frequent frustration I have related to me is from a red pill reader with a friend who just wont be unplugged. They may know someone or be involved in a social set where just expressing observations of anything that might be interpreted as counter to this conditioning would risk their wrath. They see the behaviors, they hear the common and predictable reasonings their plugged in friends use within their unrealized feminine-primary context, and for all if it, it only confirms the extent of his own conditioning.

These are the men I call pre-whipped; men so thoroughly conditioned, men who’ve so internalized that conditioning, that they mentally prepare themselves for total surrender to the Feminine Imperative, that they already make the perfect Beta provider before they even meet the woman to whom they’ll make their sacrifice.

But why should there be a need for this conditioning? It hasn’t always been this way; only really within the past 60 or so years since the rise of feminism, the sexual revolution and the predominance of a feminine-primary social influence (fem-centrism, gynocentrism, et. al.)

It Takes a Village to Optimize Hypergamy

I hadn’t considered that in its efforts to eliminate masculine influence, fem-centrism would also seek to end men’s biological predispositions and personal reasons for parental investment with regard to raising and providing for his own genetic offspring. This is evidenced in the feminist belief that men would view their offspring as their ‘property’. Eliminate this male-owned preconception and replace it with the globalized “it takes a village to raise a child” model of parental investment, and not only is the masculine disenfranchised from the entire process, but it allows for an optimized condition of unfettered feminine hypergamy.

Since the latent purpose of feminism is optimizing hypergamy, it would stand to reason that promoting, reinforcing and affirming social and personal acceptance of essentially cuckolding a male provider into caring for her hypergamous breeding efforts (either proactively or retroactively) with better breeding (not necessarily provisioning) stock would need to be socialized into the majority of Beta men. Whether they sired them or not, the resulting children would be provided for, and the masses of conditioned Betas would be proud of themselves to do so thanks to a system of social rewards and positive affirmation. Those children would never be his property, irrespective of who’s genes they carried but rather they are wards of a system entirely devoted to the Feminine Imperative and hypergamous optimization.

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-identifying from an early age so as to better prepare them to accept that cuckoldry and support role for women’s pluralistic sexual strategy (alpha fucks / beta bucks) when they reach adulthood.

Initially this feminine conditioning might be couched in an effort to raise boys to be more considerate of the female experience, but either by design or by nature the conditioning effort was more successful than just simple consideration. Complete internalization of that feminine identification seeped into every facet of what had formerly been the male experience.

A lot of blue pill adherents believe that red pill Game-aware men, of whatever manosphere stripe despise Beta man. Let me be clear here, although I can’t really speak for anyone else, I don’t despise the Beta. I don’t really believe any unplugged guy does, but that want to release a Beta from this system is often perceived as Beta-hate (for lack of a better term) by guys still trapped in the Matrix. That’s part of the feminine conditioning; to despise any Man attempting to make him aware of his conditioning.


198 responses to “Pre-Whipped

  • Carlos

    I don’t really see how we can despise beta males since so many of us used to be beta ourselves before we took that red pill.

  • Sisyphus

    Dear Rollo,
    Why the obsession with liberating (unplugging) Betas from the Matrix? It seems to me that there would be absolute mayhem, akin to anarchy, if 85%+ of men unplugged.
    I do not know, whether you have read Robert Wright’s evol-bio book, from 1994, in it, he seems to articulate a very good reason for why monogamy is a reasonable (perhaps, evil) compromise for stability of a society.
    I am new to your blog, and have spent the past 7 days reading your essays/articles from mostly 2011 and 2012; perhaps, you have addressed this issue, (i.e. merits of promoting monogamy?), or not yet?
    My personal biggest qualm is that unplugging for a man causes a sort of cognitive dissonance, and the danger of ruining one’s reputation as being erstwhile a gentle Nice Guy; reputation has Robert Greene points out is precious, and ought to be guarded with one’s life (law #5). But to what end?!

  • Patrick

    Women are herd creatures. Of course they think it takes a village to raise a child. And that’s what they had before patriarchy, Stone Age villages and subsistence living. http://fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    Yep, everything around us – everything – emphasises the feminine directive. Advertising. Man-up articles. The news. Special laws. Biased laws and courts and incentives. It’s all about the women.

    Not children (there is plenty of mealy-mouthed BS about it being for the children – follow actions rather than words to see the lie).

    Not men (we are just slave-labor to gift her with a life of ease).

    All about the women.

  • pliw

    Sisyphus,

    You raise a great question. I enjoy this blog and I’ve learned quite a bit from it. But I could never really understand why it existed. The first rule of the red pill is don’t talk about the red pill, iirc.

    Once the the size and scope of the matrix is discovered it’s easy to see that it should not be fucked with. Poking at it from a distance (as we’re doing here) isn’t so bad; engaging it in combat (talking about it with friends/co-workers/facebook etc) is dangerous. This should be lesson one for unplugging.

  • chris

    @ Dr. Jeremy;

    “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.”

    I have often seen you make the argument that the manosphere complaint with feminism/hypergamy/feminine imperative is rooted in the concept of power and an imbalance in favour of women compared to men in modern society.

    I also often wonder if you believe in the existence of objective morality/natural law that itself would be rooted in an evolved set of psychological mechanisms made for determining what is moral, (i.e. cheating detection mechanisms and so forth), and if so, would it not be best for the manosphere to push for an elucidation, propagation and implementation of such an objective morality/natural law, rather than relating all our problems back to the concept of power and who has it and who doesn’t?

  • To.the.End

    @sisyphus. There would be a sort of anarchy in terms of males becoming more aware and taking back control. But remember that men wield considerable control of the female narrative, perhaps more so than females control their own narrative. This is because they depend entirely on men for their survival and can only go so far as we facilitate them. My take on the state of things is, men are largely unaware of the mindset and tricks of the opposite sex and that is why we are where we are today. A mass unplugging would swing the power shift back to the rightful control of men but to the extent that men view other men as the enemy is the extent to which we can expect anarchy. We as men must acknowledge our own power and not see other men as the enemy (which latent feminism has instilled in us). We are the smarter stronger sex (emphasis on smarter). Why should there be anarchy? With unplugging and awareness – which means recognizing women for how they truly are – we can seize back power without struggle. They were born to follow not lead

  • eris

    I suspect the social conditioning of men from youth was never especially difficult for them. Men in general harbor a greater capacity for empathy for others, which in part, comes from a greater tendency toward analytical reasoning – couple this with the constant message that boys have drilled into them throughout their childhood, that women’s and girls’ wellbeing and desires must be put first and most guys whole-heartedly assume the role of white-knight defender who simultaneously try to quash the beast of masculinity that lies within them.

    The problem of unplugging men is that when someone is so emotionally invested in their peer group and those around them, they tend to vanquish any sneaking beliefs that don’t comply with the group-think of everyone else. In the end, for many guys, it takes bearing the brunt of our fem-centric society and having to face, in some instance, the injustice of one’s own disposability. But even after that kind of disillusionment, a lot of guys have been so conditioned to idolize the feminine and to associate any kind of questioning of it as “misogyny”, that it becomes difficult for them move past that and are destined to wash, rinse and repeat. Many men view red-pill ideas as something radical and, as with the now-established atheist movement (not the “plus” type), only once red-pill awareness reaches a certain size, will most guys feel safe enough to begin to investigate it.

  • To.the.End

    I think it takes a certain amount of discontent to warrant a change and quiet simply most men are a happy lot quite content to live out this aggandized femcentric reality. Ignorance is bliss. Do they really need to be changed. The ones who want change and are fed up will seek out the “manosphere” and present themselves for unplugging

  • eris

    I do wonder how happy most men really are nowadays. Thoreau wrote that “most men lead lives of quiet desperation” and certainly Hypergamy is such that men feel the pressure to relentlessly strive to be “better” or more aligned to the feminine tastes of the day in order to compete for access to reproductive resources – many go through life with the feint worry that they never quite achieved enough.
    Seeing Hypergamy and gender-relations for what they are, away from the rose-tinted haze of Hollywood, is definitely cathartic but perhaps, and I merely speculate, ever since word got around that some humans had started growing their own food on plots of land and raising their own animals and the women persuaded their hunter husbands that it would be a lot more stable the whole family if they gave up their autonomy and went and toiled day in and day out for one of those early landowners, men have never truly felt able to exercise the whole range of characteristics with which Nature endowed them – hence the reason a man should never neglect his hobbies.

  • Jibola

    “…There is a strong contingent in the manosphere, and particularly MRAs, who’s primary goal is making society…”

    *whose

    A lot of blue pill adherents believe that red pill Game-aware men, of whatever manosphere stripe despise Beta man. Let me be clear here, although I can’t really speak for anyone else, I don’t despise the Beta. I don’t really believe any unplugged guy does, but that want to release a Beta from this system is often perceived as Beta-hate (for lack of a better term) by guys still trapped in the Matrix. That’s part of the feminine conditioning; to despise any Man attempting to make him aware of his conditioning.

    I agree totally with this. It less of hate and more of pity for the costs that Betatized Male will go/has gone through and need to save one’s family, friends and a hapless nice guy. That need to save has been a major issue and a source of frustration for me. That is until I read and internalized the Matrix quote you added at the end of The Feminine Reality:

    Morpheus: The Matrix is a system. That system is our enemy… You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged…

  • Jibola

    @ Sisyphus

    Why the obsession with liberating (unplugging) Betas from the Matrix? It seems to me that there would be absolute mayhem, akin to anarchy, if 85%+ of men unplugged.

    While I have separate views as to the economic importance of the saturation of Red Pill Men, I (personally) think that the purpose RM and most other blogs of this ilk, is to bring some form of equilibrium (call it yin-yang balance, if you will) to the system because as of the moment, the scales are tipped in favor of the Feminine Imperative. And if the present trend is anything to go by, the prognosis for the entire human race, 50 to 100 years from now does not look very good.

    And if anything is to be said, Power in the hands of men pre-FI brought us thus far. It’s a matter of logic. Non?

    JL

  • Tam the Bam

    Sisyphus “It seems to me that there would be absolute mayhem, akin to anarchy, if 85%+ of men unplugged.”
    You say that. Like it’s a Bad Thing?

  • Tam the Bam

    ” our resident feminist’s assertion that it “takes a village” to raise a child”
    I had noticed that the Canadian Secretary became more than ordinarily exercised over such matters. Hence her all-encompassing insistence on “communal responsibility” or somesuch. And the village thing.
    Now to me that means like, mowing the front lawn now and again, not littering, not slaughtering people who annoy me on the spot, that sort of thing.

    Whereas it’s quite clear she dreads an old age in the poorhouse, and has extended her definition to enable her to freeride on the future efforts of other peoples’ children, since she finds bovine tasks such as reproduction quite, quite beneath her, and inconveniently lifestyle-limiting.

    Being an older man, I couldn’t give a monkey’s. Most of my male relatives never even lived long enough to “enjoy” more than a couple of years retirement, a lot never got that far. It’s completely off the radar. When you stop moving, you die, that’s it. Couldn’t countenance being a decades-long burden on my sons. Plus I can live on rainwater and straw, and not feel hard done by.

  • Jeremy

    I had honestly not stopped to consider LT’s words w.r.t. children as property. I don’t think I even addressed it directly. When she first began spouting this, I literally laughed. It was ridiculous. The original topic I was discussing with her was property rights in general, and how they spring from self-ownership. I also made the comment that because you own your own body, and should own the consequences of your actions, you absolutely must own the fruit of your own labor/body. As an example, I decided to reverse the taxation-and-social-program system we have now to one where women had the same claim to custody men have now, and women were taxed to pay for children they can’t raise. My point was entirely focused on someone else taking your hard earned money away from you, for the purpose of raising a child you have no DNA in, and no say in how it is raised. She took this to (what she thought was) a logical extreme by trying to say “children are not property”. She thus completely avoided the taxation-is-theft argument.

    Nowhere did I say that children should be “property”, she brought that into the discussion. That fact alone is interesting.

    A lot of blue pill adherents believe that red pill Game-aware men, of whatever manosphere stripe despise Beta man. Let me be clear here, although I can’t really speak for anyone else, I don’t despise the Beta. I don’t really believe any unplugged guy does, but that want to release a Beta from this system is often perceived as Beta-hate (for lack of a better term) by guys still trapped in the Matrix. That’s part of the feminine conditioning; to despise any Man attempting to make him aware of his conditioning.

    Absolutely. As many have said before, Beta and Alpha are mostly states of mind, not tiers in a ranking system. Hating on beta is like hating the self, and the manosphere/red-pill is entirely opposed to the hating of the self. I would imagine women would think this needs to be said more often, but the reality is that once men start unplugging it becomes very clear to them very quickly.

  • Gurney Halleck

    The promise of the Sexual Revolution was freedom for both genders from the way society repressed people’s sexuality for the good of society. The practical effect, however, has been that only the sexuality of women and top males have been given free reign at the expense of non-top males. In this system, top males, either biologically (in terms of physique) or socially (in terms of achievement, social status, etc) get to easily experience the male desire for sexual variety, and all women get a boost because top males being allowed to engage in hoarding of erotic capital necessarily creates a shortage of women for which betas must compete all the more harder and from which they must often settle for ones that are comparatively lower ranked in SMV. Do note that a simple male strategy for sexually experiencing a variety of women — prostitution — is illegal in the U.S, and is increasingly being criminalized in Europe as well. France recently instituted the “Swedish model” where only johns are criminalized, and prohibitionists are gaining traction in Germany. I believe 100% legal prostitution (government completely staying out) would have an effect that is very counter to the Feminine Imperative, and that would be one of the ways of freeing men from the simultaneous responsibilities of being providers/protectors and the newer responsibility of competing for women as if we are in a Darwinian jungle where top males eat other men’s lunches.

  • Martel

    Sometimes what seems like “beta-hate” isn’t that at all. Men know that often one of the best ways to get another dude in line is to mock or insult him.

    If we have to treat each other too “respectfully”, we’ll never bring out the best in each other.

  • D-Man

    “We as men must acknowledge our own power and not see other men as the enemy (which latent feminism has instilled in us).”

    Perfect example: most guys want to punch the guy who is flirting with his woman. When you realize the CAUSALITY of these events (up to and including the guy who wants to kill the stranger his wife went and fucked), you realize that the transgression almost always happens at the instigation and behest of the woman. It’s not him you should be angry with, it’s her. If that doesn’t make sense, the pedestal is too high. Remember, she wants to be treated as an EQUAL /s

    In general, men need to harness their righteous anger, and redirect it where it will have a constructive outcome for them. In many cases, this involves forcing the Modern Independent (TM) Woman to take responsibility for (or deal with the consequences of) her choices. After all, her sisters have argued so hard that she should have the right to make them, and the toothpaste is not going back into that particular tube.

  • kartagen

    It takes a village of castrated betas to raise the children of the alpha’s harem.

  • Aaron

    Some ridiculous values that I picked up in my youth from pop culture or relatives:

    1. Women are only concerned with obtaining relationships and commitment.
    2. Women are only tricked into having casual sex or one night stands by being lured into thinking that it will lead to a relationship.
    3. Women only ever want to exit a relationship with a man that abuses her or treats her badly in some way.
    4. If you want sex with a woman then she will see right through you and reject you on that basis.

  • ufd

    This is very similar to religion, once you step outside of your religious shackles, you look back and can’t believe people willingly stay plugged in. The vitriol that those still willingly wearing their shackles unleash at those who have been freed is emotional and hate filled.

  • Water Cannon Boy

    I think Sisyphus should read the post about the man in the garage. If 85% of blue pills(estimated or not) were unplugged, you wouldn’t have anarchy. You’d have more men living and enjoying their own houses, instead of being regulated to the garage, of his own house.
    Regarding the term “it takes a village…” I might have a different point of view towards that, but I’ve felt that it kinda does. I’ve felt that kids who have turned out level headed have been influenced in some ways not just by their parents. Be it inside the family as brothers, through out a kids life they do need some other influence or watching out for that comes from some place else besides their parents. Sometimes it’s somebody known in the neighborhood who’s just known as a good guy. It plays a part in a kids development and how he learns how to treat people, how to take a stand in being treated.
    Sometimes, in my own experience, even a brief encounter can have an affect on kids self esteem, or his or her view of how things should be. Like a confirmation of the kind of people you’d like to be around really exist.
    But it taking a village may be another thing that’s been co-opted into a new meaning that I’m currently not aware of.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    The Men in the Garage:
    erationalmale.com/2012/12/03/the-men-in-the-garage/

  • tom

    Take a look at the picture of the demonstrators on the Chateau’s “wives should submit to their husbands” article and you’ll see a terminally whipped guy…

  • Wolfie

    “Red pill” is simply seeing things for what they are. Defend untruth at your peril.

  • Fred Flange, PsyChoD.

    A “village” in the sense of a neighborhood, or group of parents working together, folks looking out for each other, does not diminish parenting at all but enhances and augments it. That’s what it should mean. Tends to work best in smaller towns, cties and neighborhoods where such bonds can be formed. Rather a bit harder in two-acre lot Status Symbol Lands where nobody sees anybody.

    The raised eyebrows are proper when we substitute a real “village” with the concept of some kind of PTA/mommyblogger “village” as surrogate for the now-superfluous father. We don’t need to go there for this discussion. The whole denigration of fatherhood is more Dalrock’s side of the street, also the topic of many books on the subject. Conservatives like David Blankenhorn and therapists like Judith Wallerstein diagnosed the problem well in the 90′s, as did Patrick Moynihan in the 70′s, but the whole “let’s go back to the good old Fifties, the way Jesus wants it” prescription some so-cons are pushing isn’t going anywhere. Nor will The Return of the King, if I am reading correctly those who call themselves neo-reactionaries.

    Some of our present discussion here is an offshoot of the whole “single moms do best” meme, which is both a fem-centric anthem but also a “make lemonade from lemons” reaction to what appeared to be a trend of men abandoning child-rearing, being only sperm donors, being frozen out, or (and yes I’ve seen this) running away. Another type of “pre-whipping”, if you like. If you want to see the Hamster Indianapolis 500 read “The Complete Single Mother” (still in print). Especially the chapter on how to answer the “Where’s my Dad” question, after ten chapters on why Dads suck donkey dick at being parents.

    But the “property” notion gets misused there too: we re quick to tell men who have fathered a child it is his “duty” to pay because “it’s your child”, which would suggest the possessive, as in property. So a child is not to be considered property, unless the child is YOURS. Or if not property, then some property rights arise from it – i.e., being a meal ticket.

  • Just Saying

    “blue pill adherents believe that red pill Game-aware men, of whatever manosphere stripe despise Beta man”

    I certainly do not “despise” Beta men – but I do use their tendencies to my own benefit. So whereas they will believe a woman that comes to them and tells him “the condom must have broke” when she turns up preggos, I will, and have, used that to my benefit to ride women bareback knowing that their beta-boyfriend will pick up the tab if she gets knocked up. So, while I certainly don’t despise them – I do use the safety-net they provide to protect my assets. That is primarily because I’m so much older than the women I tend to prefer – they will do almost anything (other than give up the kick they get from doing it) to avoid the peer-stigma of being known to have unprotected sex with a man old enough to be their father. And that is fine with me.

    When I was younger (much) I used the opposite tendency to my benefit – that women wouldn’t want to admit that a kid of 15 fathered her kid, and hubby is raising it. One of the things I have always been grateful for is people’s lack of knowledge when it comes to simple genetics – in one case the mother and “father” both had blue eyes – the kid had brown. Doesn’t take a genius to know that child wasn’t fathered by that man – but a lot of men are oblivious to such obvious facts. I know for a fact that “father” never caught on. I am very thankful for that lack of knowledge and common sense. Personally, I would require a DNA test before I would let them put my name on anything associated with a child. But then, that’s because I KNOW the things women do all the time.

    I admit that I use everything at my disposal to enjoy life, and the women that I enjoy – if that is a blue pill guy – so be it. But I certainly, do not despise him – I’m thankful for the services he unwittingly provides to me.

  • anon

    “One of the things I have always been grateful for is people’s lack of knowledge when it comes to simple genetics – in one case the mother and “father” both had blue eyes – the kid had brown. Doesn’t take a genius to know that child wasn’t fathered by that man – but a lot of men are oblivious to such obvious facts.”

    Might want to study up and educate yourselfe there, slick.

    http://genetics.thetech.org/how-blue-eyed-parents-can-have-brown-eyed-children

  • M Simon

    Interestingly enough my first girlfriend (back in ’62) taught me how not to be a beta (well she got me started). I discuss that and a couple of other things at: Nature, Men, And Women

  • Ton

    I despise weak men. Betas are weak, if nothing else to weak to grapple with the ugly truth. Now a Beta in transition is another story same thing for a guy who otherwise has his shit together but is goofy in regards to women.

  • orion

    I dont think hate is the right word.

    Sometimes I see hardcore white knights and manginas and I feel a very visceral form of disgust.

    I know where it comes from, that was me.

    And there are of course those who will go apeshit when you mention anything red pill and then they go all girly on you…

    Suddenly the component of compassion is gone…

    Hint: Indignation does not even look good on women and go fuck yerselves.

    Nobody else will.

  • orion

    And to think that in hindsight some girls were begging me, BEGGING ME to stop my supplicating ways….

    They were as much on my side as a woman can be, they tried to tell me, they tried to warn me, they wanted it to work…

    Though I do have my misogynist swine badge, earned it the hard way, yeah,, to think that they were firmly in my corner and just wanted me to show the balls they knew I had….

    Cant hate women either.

  • newlyaloof

    I think I speak for millions of newly unplugged red-pill fathers. I will teach my son game and I don’t give a damn what anybody thinks about this. Millions of boys will become game aware and turn the tide, despite feminist influences and beta-male Game-trashing Cyphers.

  • livingtree2013

    Jeremy, I didn’t avoid the taxation-is-theft argument, I ignored it because it was a diversion from the discussion we were having, which was paternity. I asked you a question about why paternity was so important to you, you answered by talking about taxation-as-theft being equivalent to cuckoldry.

    If you’d like a formal response from me now, I’ll tell you that your answer as much as stated that community responsibility is anathema to a man’s pride of ownership. The idea of putting in any effort into the upbringing of another man’s child is humiliating to you, which says a lot about a lot of things.

    The reason for the “tragedy of the commons”? Because self-interest prevails. If you recall, the discussion we were having evolved further into a discussion of natural rights and self-interest. Natural rights are what was bestowed upon us at birth, and all other “rights” are legal fictions – including the right of property ownership, and the right of paternity – all of which were designed with the intention of civilizing what would otherwise be a constant anarchy of war, resulting from men stealing each other’s “possessions”.

    Marriage was created as a form of property ownership, that property being the vessel of reproduction that is the exclusive possession of one man. It is a system which evolved out of, as Rollo mentioned, the male insecurity of “mate guarding” – jealously protecting his means of reproduction.

    The only thing you have a natural right to ownership of is the effort of living. You can give your effort to whom you choose. By attaching yourselves to paternity, you effectively choose to only give your effort to those in your genetic descendancy, and you believe that the world would be a much better place if everyone did exactly the same thing. Which i think is fundamentally flawed as a belief system, it is the natural by-product of short-sighted self-interest.

    This is not the “feminine imperative” talking. This is the “WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SO FUCKING SELFISH AND SHORT-SIGHTED outrage” talking. Although, perhaps this is what your “feminine imperative” is, at its core.

  • orion

    @livingtree

    Well, call it what you want, but those self centered patriarchies first managed to harness the male sex drive and then the drive to see their offspring flourish to turn men into stakeholders of society.

    You dont like the underlying assumptions?

    They relegated reproductive matriarchies to the margins anyway.

    In the end, its amoral.

    You do or die.

  • orion

    Plus, I am self centered and shortsighted.

    I had excellent teachers.

  • Anonymous Reader

    lyingtree, the gift that keeps on giving. Female imperative in almost every posting. She wants what she wants, when she wants it, from whom she wants it, and calls this childishness “liberating”, when what she actually wants is enslavement of all men to her whims.

  • livingtree2013

    Can you feel me passively dismissing your hysteria, Anonymous Reader, a whipped “man” too scared to stand behind what he thinks by even giving his anonymous on-line persona a fake name?

  • orion

    Can you feel me yawn at what can be witnessed at Reddit every day of the week?

    Be like a spear woman, have a point.

  • LiveFearless

    I don’t despise the beta. I was one. It’s 2013. The beta is now without excuse since FREE resources like this blog cannot be avoided. Before, it was virtually impossible to have this education without spending the price of a few cars. Now, the knowledge is common and it is free. Then again, millions of men read Rollo’s posts (to learn), yet they haven’t purchased his book.

    That’s a similar mindset to the beta male: “Ok, ok I’ll listen, but I only want to know this and a little about that because I already know what I’m doing.” This blog = You’re learning to fly in the flight simulator. Rollo’s book = you’re learning to fly by flying the plane.

  • livingtree2013

    I had a point, Orion, and a solid point at that, which you already addressed competently.

    But my second post was not directed at you, it was to “Anonymous Reader” who, since “Saving the Best” has weakly thrown barbs at me without the power of a spear attached to them. That is to say, my point is that I don’t address comments that make no contribution to the conversation.

  • Jeremy

    @livingtree2013

    Jeremy, I didn’t avoid the taxation-is-theft argument, I ignored it because it was a diversion from the discussion we were having, which was paternity. I asked you a question about why paternity was so important to you, you answered by talking about taxation-as-theft being equivalent to cuckoldry.

    That’s a flat out lie. Absolutely incorrect. You said that to make your own arguments seem better.

    The conversation sprang from “independent women” not “needing men”. To this I ventured into trying to explain to you why taxation is theft from men, to gift it to single mothers. The men who earned that money have no say, a gun is held to them and they are forced to surrender their income so that a woman they have no agreement with can spend it. That’s theft. It has nothing whatsoever to do with cuckoldry. It has everything to do with women justifying making babies as they will, and then using the power of the force of the state to stick random men with the bill for their slutty behavior.

    You entirely avoided the taxation as theft argument, and you continue to avoid it, because you can’t admit that taxing men for single women absolutely proves that women cannot be “strong and independent”.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    LT, I get what you’re saying, and while I may fundamentally disagree with it for any number of reasons, I do have some questions. Is it your assertion that men should abandon and or disenfranchise themselves from any notion of investing themselves (emotionally, financially, etc.) into the wellbeing of children they are not directly responsible for siring?

    The premise of your beliefs seem to stem from the notion that men want some form of progeny assurance (i.e. mate guarding), why do you believe men would want this ‘ownership’ in the first place? Do you believe it’s due to some learned, socialized, patriarchal need for status, or would it be due to a deeper rooted biological drive that compels men (and really all males of any higher order species) to want assurances of their genetic heritage being passed on to future generations?

    Should a man be responsible, directly or indirectly, for the provisioning of children he did not choose to produce? If, as you seem to hope, men would abandon the idea of genetic ownership, shouldn’t a man also be absolved of any accountability for the child he helped produced, but didn’t choose to have and doesn’t technically ‘own’ or have any investment in the wellbeing of?

    In an idealized, gender equal society, should not women also be expected to abandon and disenfranchise themselves of any sense of genetic ownership, and also be unburdened with the responsibility of provisioning for the children they create (if they so choose)?

  • Jeremy

    Jesus, why even bother Rollo? If someone is only willing to call people selfish for wanting to retain control of the very thing they created with their own hands, what possible chance can entertaining their distorted view of the natural world help?

    She believes that men should just be happy to support all women financially, and divest themselves of any interest in the next generation. In her world, men should be happy to be taxed and not be fathers. And of course, we’re all selfish pricks for thinking otherwise. It usually takes serious medication to be that shortsighted.

  • Dr. Jeremy

    @ chris

    I also often wonder if you believe in the existence of objective morality/natural law that itself would be rooted in an evolved set of psychological mechanisms made for determining what is moral, (i.e. cheating detection mechanisms and so forth), and if so, would it not be best for the manosphere to push for an elucidation, propagation and implementation of such an objective morality/natural law, rather than relating all our problems back to the concept of power and who has it and who doesn’t?

    I don’t believe this is an either/or question… Certainly, the Manosphere’s goals can be partially achieved by teaching objective standards for fairness and morality (as I discuss). Personally, I believe evolved psychological mechanisms are a good place to start to discover such standards.

    However, once adopted, those objective standards still have to be “enforced” somehow. That is why power is ALSO a necessary component. You can have all of the moral standards you want, but without the power to influence others to “play fair” by those standards, they are of little use. In fact, many of the men’s experiences on here show just how ineffectual they have been in achieving their clear moral outcomes, without having equal power and influence to ensure others were fair in their dealings with them.

    Given that, I believe both are necessary. For true fairness, everyone must BOTH understand objective moral standards AND be empowered to ensure those standards. Otherwise, people are just chattering about power with no clear direction to implement it… OR they spin their wheels discussing abstract notions of morality, while being too disempowered to influence real personal and social change toward those moral standards.

  • Johnycomelately

    LTs utopia already exists, the outback Aboriginies of Australia already exist in her prescribed shangri la, no ownership of children, no paternal lineages, a sex free for all, common goods and children raised collectively by the tribe.

    All it takes is one plane ticket and she can live her fantasy and leave us selfish brutes to the tyranny of civilization.

    Just make sure you bring a lifetime supply of toilet paper, bush sticks tend to be a little rough.

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    @LT @Jeremy -

    Not my blood, not blood of my family, not blood of my extended family.

    Not my responsibility to look after. Not my responsibility to give a “fair chance at life”.

    The responsibility rests solely with the father (if any) and mother.

    •any• payment to single mothers from government is tax-theft.

    I will take it further: the government subsidising women’s and children’s medicine is tax-theft. If it was not subsidised then the burden would fall on the shoulders of those involved, the real father and mother. It would not be the responsibility of random unrelated men to pay for her sick day off or the sickness of her (probably bastard*) child.

    * Note that in New Zealand the rate of unmarried motherhood is 45%. If we assume that married couples have two children while a single mommy has one child, then nearly one-third of the children in New Zealand are bastard spawn who are being looked after by the government – and my tax dollars.

    If we assume that 1 person in 4 is under 16 years old, then in our 4 million population we have 1 million children – of whom at least 300,000 will be bastards that I am forced to subsidise.

    Medicare and Medicaid in the USA is forced to deal with more.

    PS: I enjoyed those Medicare/Medicaid advertisements, they were so accurate to life that they made me laugh.

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    My apologies, I meant Obamacare.

  • Anonymous Reader

    lyingtree2013
    Can you feel me passively dismissing your hysteria, Anonymous Reader, a whipped “man” too scared to stand behind what he thinks by even giving his anonymous on-line persona a fake name?

    Nope. I feel nothing but your increasingly desperate demand for MOAR from men. Your slaves are restive, and it is bothering you. That is why you are here, to try to tamp down on the crimethink.

    Fail, toots. Epic fail, because on a regular basis you provide evidence of the Female Imperative, even as you deny it.

    Do carry on. The entertainment value alone is great.

  • Anonymous Reader

    lyingtree2013
    I don’t address comments that make no contribution to the conversation.

    Great! Then I’ll just carry on pointing out the truth, and you keep on pretending this isn’t happening, it’s win-win, right?

    Right.

  • New Yorker

    The reason that so many men fall prey to betadom is because they get scared of the unknown. They become complacent and weak, which of course is the ultimate turnoff for a woman. There is only one way to avoid it. Make every day about becoming a stronger, better man for YOURSELF.Then, the rest falls into place.

  • Anonymous Reader

    One more thing: careful readers will note that lyingtree2013 has not actually addressed the issues Rollo states in the section on It Takes a Village to Optimize Hypergamy.

    This is easy to explain. She cannot do so. Her feminist, gynocentrist view of men simply doesn’t allow for them to actually have a world view different from hers. Because, for the feminist, women are the default, the “normal”, and therefore men are simply defective women who must be whipped into shape one way or another.

    The notion of men as actual human beings who are biologically, physically, and mentally different? Does Not Compute.

    I’m mildly surprised that she hasn’t dragged old fraudsters like Margaret Mead and Marija Gimbutas into a thread, at least not yet.

  • livingtree2013

    Ah Jeremy. I said that because its true. And my argument was actually pretty solid, I don’t really need to prop it up with lies.

    If you go back and read through all 700 posts on “Saving the Best”, I think you’ll see that by the time we got to the topic of paternity, you had indeed referred back to some of the material we covered in our first conversation on “The Brand of Independence,” but that was not the point of our discussion in the “Saving the Best” thread, not at all. Our conversation on “Saving the Best” at no time ever was about women’s so-called “independence”. That was a different conversation that you were trying to link together.

    You did ask me if I would object to paying part of my income into a system where the state raised the children that I had borne. And I answered you, no I would not object to that at all. Whether by taxation or by ownership of the family, the ultimate outcome is the same – children need to be supported. Does it really matter by who? Does it really matter who raises them? Does it really matter who sired them? To me, ideologically anyway, it doesn’t. I have not had children though, I recognize that I might feel differently if I had. But I kind of doubt it. I have thought about this issue long, and hard, and with philosophical purpose.

    The originating purpose of patrilineage is the transfer of property rights. This is well documented social history. But property rights is an issue that is so deeply and emotionally invested in the very roots of western civilization, so much so that questioning the effects of property rights sends most Americans into a fury. I don’t think I’ll have any success with this line of thought, here or anywhere, given that most people believe Locke’s theory of natural law, whether consciously or unconsciously, that property rights are divinely granted natural rights uniquely bestowed upon humans simply because.

    I get what you’re saying about women’s independence being a myth, and I agree – although I believe (unlike many of you here, clearly) that women are CAPABLE of being independent, they opt not to be, for various reasons, most of which are total crap and which lead to very negative outcomes.

    I’m sure that YOU’D disagree with me, as you seem to do with everything I say, but I can’t really do anything about that, so I’ll just have to suffice it to say that I am not disagreeing with YOU.

  • livingtree2013

    Rollo, thank you for asking – I’m glad at least that you’re not dismissing me outright like, ahem, some of your readers – and great questions too! Unfortunately I’m about to head off to a business function, so I’ll have to think about it tonight and get back to you in the AM or when I get home later.

  • D-Man

    Bullseye Rollo.

    If men are not supposed to care if the child in their family is their genetic offspring, and single men are not supposed to care that the fruits of their life’s efforts are being garnisheed and redistributed, it cannot be reasonably argued that if a man and woman conceive, and she chooses to have the child (as is her right, it’s her body), but the guy doesn’t want to be a “father”, that he should be held in any way PERSONALLY accountable.

    You can’t have it both ways.

  • infowarrior1

    @lt

    Such a naughty girl you are I am sure you will love being spanked.

  • Jeremy

    You’re a liar LT. Straight up liar. The whole conversation is back on the other thread, I’m surprised you’re even bothering to continue the facade of “no no, we weren’t talking about that.”

    You brought up cuckolding. You brought up children as property. I was trying to educate you as to why in a sexually dimorphic species, the contributions of both must be voluntarily exchanged or else you’re committing a crime. The contributions of either side belong to them until voluntarily committed to a family. You instead seem to think that I should just smile and write random women a check like a good little slave.

  • Jeremy

    Looking at things economically…

    In the exchange between the sexes equation, women do not provide any product. Children are not a product, because you cannot own a person. Women thus (ideally voluntarily) provide a service, reproduction.

    Men provide a product. Most of what you see in the world in terms of comfort, food, technology, industry, entertainment, etc… was created by men. Men offer (again, ideally voluntarily) their production to women and the next generation.

    Men produce products. Women provide services. The power grab from women will continue to work so long as society can continue to pretend that products belong to everyone, whereas services can be withheld and refused. This is probably rooted in the difference between services and products. Products when unused sit around, they have a visible, tangible existence. A product’s existence begs it’s use. Services are entirely the opposite, their presence in abundance is never noticed, rather their absence is felt, albeit almost never overtly.

  • David Carter

    Rollo, just received 3 copies of your book over here in the UK.

    Plan to give one to a long suffering friend who’s married to a shrew and another to a friend who’s due to marry an ex-carouseler next year.

    I’m already 2 thirds the way through my copy and almost ever chapter has blown my mind. I have absolutely no doubt that in time, many of these ideas and profound insights will become the accepted wisdom in the field of inter-gender dynamics.

    Thank you very much and good luck to you and yours.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Thanks Dave, you don’t know how much I appreciate your passing the book on to new readers.

  • LiveFearless

    @livingtree2013 has written Whether by taxation or by ownership of the family, the ultimate outcome is the same – children need to be supported. Does it really matter by who? Does it really matter who raises them? Does it really matter who sired them? To me, ideologically anyway, it doesn’t.
    Since she believes it doesn’t matter who rears* the children, she did mention Macklemore in other comments on TheRationalMale

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0

    She did say the ultimate outcome is the same, right?

    http://www.parentmap.com/blog/23142/9-tips-for-taking-your-kids-to-a-macklemore-video-shoot-or-grown-up-concert (random article that popped up on the first page of google, about doing your homework to prepare children for a Macklemore concert)

    *She used the word ‘raises’ in reference to children. Cattle and chickens are raised. Children are reared.

  • Tam the Bam

    “The only thing you have a natural right to ownership of is the effort of living. “
    So all the multifarious crap I’ve constructed out of, er, stuff, in my unnecessarily long life I should have just given to the first asker, rather than selling it to them? I’m sure your boss agrees.
    “You can give your effort to whom you choose.”

    “By attaching yourselves to paternity, you effectively choose to only give your effort to those in your genetic descendancy, and you believe that the world would be a much better place if everyone did exactly the same thing.”
    Right then, if I’m being given the heave-ho as a viable genetic entity by enlightened feminists, right out of the human race (except for my labor and its value, of course, let’s not get hasty here), well, two can play that game. If I don’t get to have the prospect of even some skin in the game, if I’m a dead end, and all my insanely ingenious and heroic (with like, real armour and stuff) foremothers and forefathers struggled and died pointlessly, if I’m no longer valid or even human, just a grunting serf .. well, winter is coming. I have crocks. And salt. You and those no-man’s children? Just food. Noisy, stupid food.

    Which i think is fundamentally flawed as a belief system, it is the natural by-product of short-sighted self-interest.
    Unlike acting the cricket all summer, and getting the wind up, now the Wall has clanked shut. Ooh yeh no fambly, no savingzez, can i haz teh “community responsibilty” plz? For the next 50 years. Or else.

    [At this point, the Mad Angry Voice in Ye Olde Tree's noggin reads the post for her, and she reacts in fizzing contempt. Ha! Take that, bitter angry man!
    Not really. Years ago I realized that all men's posts should be read not in a Microsoft Sam voice (my natural default), nor even a Forrest Gump voice (more likely), but a Rhod Sharp voice.
    And all women's? In a Mickey Mouse voice, naturally.

    Although I am getting a strong whiff of The 'Sperge offa the oul' Tree's evasive and contradictory ramblings. Could explain a lot. Cleverer than God, and Never Wrong, eh? Maybe I should feed her stuff thru Microsoft Mary. U go Grrl.]

  • Tam the Bam

    “Which i think is fundamentally flawed as a belief system, it is the natural by-product of short-sighted self-interest.” OK that’s a bolding Fail. It’s Treespeak. As if you couldn’t tell.

  • Alex

    “Whether by taxation or by ownership of the family, the ultimate outcome is the same – children need to be supported. Does it really matter by who?
    Does it really matter who raises them? Does it really matter who sired them? ”

    The unfiltered female mind on display… Like that welfare case that had 8 kids or so and was screaming on tv that someone needs to be held responsible for her kids, give her more money to support them. You can probably still find it on youtube. I’d say she was too dumb to consider the options of keeping her legs closed or using birth control, but it’s clear the kids were her ‘wallets’, and she felt she was entitled to support for herself and her bastards. But she’s only different in degree from other single mothers with fewer children who milk the system, or women like LT who want men to finance women’s lives. Luckily, the game ends when they run out of other people’s money…

  • William

    @ Alex

    Its gotten out of control and there’s no end in sight, no point where society says “OK this is ridiculous we can’t support you anymore”.

    The moms aren’t helpless victims and the people tired of supporting them, aren’t uncaring a-holes who want to hang on to their money.

    I don’t know how it was years ago but right now there are too many people being supported by the system. You have the woman who can’t keep her legs closed standing alongside the man who can’t spend his money wisely.

    I know people personally who have jobs but are looking to get support cause they think having the latest clothes and gadgets is more important then having food at home.
    One married couple with 4 kids actually have gotten food stamps. Wonder what new pair of Nike sneakers the husband will be wearing next time I see him.

  • Jeremy

    @Johnycomelately

    LTs utopia already exists, the outback Aboriginies of Australia already exist in her prescribed shangri la, no ownership of children, no paternal lineages, a sex free for all, common goods and children raised collectively by the tribe.
    All it takes is one plane ticket and she can live her fantasy and leave us selfish brutes to the tyranny of civilization.
    Just make sure you bring a lifetime supply of toilet paper, bush sticks tend to be a little rough.

    Gee, I wonder why the Aboriginies never advanced? Maybe, their men were never motivated by having a stake in society? Could it be? Nah, too simple and selfish an explanation, right?

  • Vektor

    “It takes a village…”

    This notion betrays the ultimate endgame of Feminism. Feminists hate men and hate the nuclear family. To them marriage is oppression and slavery (funny actually that they were right but confused over who was the slave). The Feminist utopia is a world where women all have ‘independence’, careers, and money, procreate with whomever they wish, retain exclusive ‘ownership’ of their offspring, and receive help from the ‘village’ in the form of subsidized daycare, subsidized housing, subsidized everything. There is no ‘marriage’ and there are no husbands or fathers. Every ‘family’ is a little matriarchy of the woman and her children. The world is a collective, totalitarian, matriarchy. Men are sidelined as worker drones, until the robot revolution arrives, then men won’t even be able to be worker drones. Men are kept in place with draconian laws and pervasive propaganda….except for the apex men at the top controlling everything, owning everything. A society of institutionalized and normalized AFBB.

    The desire of men to have ‘ownership’ of their children is genetically wired into our being. It isn’t even an exclusive human behavior. It was the foundation of marriage 1.0 that our species followed for 99% of our existance. To suggest that the desire to conceive and have custody of ones own offspring is learned behavior or some kind of social construct is fucking ridiculous. To suggest that this instinct and desire can be, or should be, socially engineered out of the human species is madness. However, this is exactly what marriage 2.0+ and modern gynocentric society is trying to suggest for men – that custody should always go to the mother because men don’t care about their children and that ‘good men’ should just ‘man up’ and marry those hordes of single moms because someone needs to take care of those kids and men don’t really care if it’s not their kid, etc. etc. Wrong.

    The problem with this plan: men aren’t going to play along. Hell, more and more, men are so economically disenfranchised they aren’t even capable of playing along. If a man cannot actually ‘have’ his own children, then he will not have children at all. Without children there is no reason for marriage to exist. What do you get from all this dysfunction? Herbivore men, economic devastation, and plummeting birth rates. “The future belongs to those who show up”. Nature is a self-correcting system.

    The word is out and the backlash has begun. Even the most blue pill nice guys can sense it.

    “You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.” -Morpheus

  • Jeremy

    A postnup? Wow, lets just dispense with all pretense of commitment.

  • Tilikum

    we should all understand how valuable it is to have Living Tree here.

    at least a years worth of new article material per thread. a living example of Rollo’s point(s).

    study, deconstruct, learn. understand to pick through the noise looking for the actual fading signal. its funny too, because as the signal fades, the noise gets louder to match amplitude.

    the gasps of failed ideology laid bare like a video store in a Netflix world.

  • D-Man

    HaHaHAa. From the article linked by notalifeguard:

    “A woman’s child-rearing years are usually her highest-earning years.”

    … you mean, she could have made a lot of money as a stripper?

    The writer of the article assumes that every Modern Independent (TM) Woman who sets her sights on a career and chooses not to have kids is going to be successful and get the big paycheck. And concludes that women who CHOOSE to have children should be compensated after the fact, as though it’s a GIVEN they would have actually made it to the top of the corporate ladder.

    Again, all freedom of choice and benefit of doubt to women, all risk and consequence on men. I can’t believe that was even written by a guy.

  • LostSailor

    @livingtree

    community responsibility is anathema to a man’s pride of ownership.

    Incorrect. It is an anathema to his sense of heredity.

    By attaching yourselves to paternity, you effectively choose to only give your effort to those in your genetic descendancy, and you believe that the world would be a much better place if everyone did exactly the same thing. Which i think is fundamentally flawed as a belief system, it is the natural by-product of short-sighted self-interest.

    Of course you think it is a “fundamentally flawed” system because it’s a system where only some specific women benefit–women who are married to the men who are the father of their children. Now that women are “independent,” that system no longer benefits them or their self-interest, so they need a new “communal” system by which they can extract resources from men without any responsibility or effort. Your “community responsibility” is nothing more than trying to sugarcoat a system where women have rights, and men have responsibilities.

    That is indeed the feminine imperative talking, and it’s saying “WHY ARE YOU SO SELFISH AS TO ACT IN YOUR OWN BENEFIT INSTEAD OF ACTING FOR MY BENEFIT? WHAT’S IN IT FOR MEEEE?”

    Women, of course, are rarely “independent,” they’ve just substituted government for fathers in the form of welfare, demands for free daycare, child support, etc.

  • LostSailor

    @notalifeguard

    Postnup? What a completely horrible idea. But very feminist.

    As you draw up your postnup, both you and your husband can thoughtfully consider important factors, such as the amount of salary you’re sacrificing and the value (in dollars and cents) of the childcare you’re providing.

    Yes, your husband can thoughtfully consider the quality of the rope for the noose around his neck. ‘Cuz a girl’s gotta get paid. This is just a reflection on the fundamental feminist denigration of the notion of wives being homemakers because it’s not “paid” work. And if it’s not “paid” work, it has no value. I’m sure the “child-care” will be assessed at a “living wage” rate rather than the current minimum wage most child-care providers pay. Also note the double-dipping: she should be paid for the wages she “lost” as well as for services provided while not “working.”

    Note that no mention is made of the value of “free” food, lodging, transportation, healthcare, vacations, entertainment, etc. provided by the husband. Any man presented with this idea should also factor these in.

    A woman’s child-rearing years are usually her highest-earning years.

    Incorrect. Assuming a woman who never has children continues to succeed in her career, her highest-earning years would be long after her childbearing days are past. Perhaps in figuring out the “lost” salary she should just project what she would have been making in her 50s if she never left the workforce. Since we’re already fantasizing.

    Of course, the author runs a “divorce financial advisory firm” and writes books for women about fleecing their ex-husbands, so what would you expect.

  • livingtree2013

    “The desire of men to have ‘ownership’ of their children is genetically wired into our being. It isn’t even an exclusive human behavior. It was the foundation of marriage 1.0 that our species followed for 99% of our existance.”

    That is kind of my point Vektor. If you guys would stop trying to make my point for me you might see it more clearly.

    THE reason marriage was invented was to form an agreement to raise children.
    It isn’t that way anymore. Its about loooooove and happiness and compatibility and all that stupid shit. And status. And some children in there too, usually just as an aside, a tool to make us feel more fulfilled and important and loved.

    In earlier eras, before the Age of Enlightenment, love was actually thought to be a hindrance to a functioning marriage, it gets in the way of the job, which is rearing the children. The enlightenment philosophers changed all that when they started postulating that human existence should really be about the pursuit of happiness. Thus, Marriage 2.0, the quest for the mythical “perfect mate” that will magically make us perfectly happy, the belief in which most often leads to our most profound disappointment, and the unfortunate misdirection of many of our children.

    I’m not here to pin blame on anyone, male or female, I think I’ve said that more than enough times. All I’m saying is that in this state, the children are the ones that suffer most because of our unreasonable expectations of blissful union. So are we right to cast those children aside because of the malaise of their parents, or do something for them to give them what they lack, which, primarily, is direction? THIS is what I mean by community responsibility. Ignoring it doesn’t give those kids the direction they need. This IS a community responsibility, plain and simple.

    If marriage contracts were formed strictly for the purpose of collaborating on the raising of children, rather than for the purpose of love and happiness, I think you’d see a lot better parenting job being done in general. And truly, it would not matter if the children in question were the progeny of both parents. The job is the job. Do the kids from a previous relationship deserve to go untended because they aren’t the progeny of both parents? I sure bloody hope not. If you feel that way, you aren’t the right man for the job.

    I’m not going to go so far as to suggest that a lifelong monogamous union with the person you are raising children with is detrimental (even though I may be thinking it right now), but I’m not of the belief that a marriage should require it. Nor does it require dependency of the woman on the man’s generosity, or a lifetime of being used as a prostitute, or on her subservience to his will. Nor does it require paternity (or maternity, for that matter). All it requires is commitment to the raising of the children. That is the cake. Everything else is icing. Icing is great, but not essential.

    And this, in my humble opinion, is the only sound reason to be married. If you don’t wish to do a decent job of raising children with someone (whether your own, or from a previous marriage or adoption), then you have no reason to be married.

    I have never once in this thread said that I think irresponsible parenting should be supported by the taxpaying system, that bugs me as much as it does you and I really wish you’d stop foisting that belief on me.

    But at the same time, what can you do? Can’t really exterminate them. Although you could make tubal ligation and vasectomies seem like the more attractive option to parenting in poverty. There seems to be a lot of incentives being offered these days to people willing to undergo voluntary sterilization, and the moral ramifications aside, I can’t help think its a positive step.

  • livingtree2013

    Ya right LostSailor, being a housewife has a huge economic value that she’ll definitely receive payment for as soon as he leaves her for a younger hotter woman and she has no skills besides cleaning and cooking and prostituting.

  • LostSailor

    Well, LT, at least you admit that she’ll have workplace options…

  • Anonymous Reader

    lyingtree2013
    I’m not here to pin blame on anyone, male or female, I think I’ve said that more than enough times.

    What you say with one set of words, and what you say with other sets of words, are not the same. You clearly want more choices for women, and more responsibility for men. This is the same deal the Female Imperative always offers.

    Your anti-scientific outlook on men and women is interesting. I expect more feminists will become increasingly opposed to science in the years to come, as one by one the feminist shibboliths are demolished by cruel facts.

    Now here’s a question: why do you think children should be raised by two parents at all? Can’t one Strong, Independent, Empowered woman Do It All Herself, without a man? If not, why not?

    PS:
    Try answering some man, any man, without the usual condescending contempt some time. Perhaps you’ll get different results than you currently are?

  • Anonymous Reader

    lyingtree2013
    Ya right LostSailor, being a housewife has a huge economic value that she’ll definitely receive payment for as soon as he leaves her for a younger hotter woman and she has no skills besides cleaning and cooking and prostituting.

    Yet another example of the Female Imperative at work. It’s as if lyingtree has no idea who files the majority of divorce actions (women).

    Look, toots, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but making up stuff and pretending it’s “fact” isn’t going to fly. There is no epidemic of men dumping older wives for younger, hotter women. There is an epidemic of middle aged women kicking men out, but retaining the right to take money out of their bank account. And I don’t see you objecting to this.

    You are clearly not numerate, but I’ll try anyway. The divorce rate in the US is around 40%, and 60% or more of divorces are filed by women. Therefore, a 27 year old man marrying a 25 year old woman right now has a 24% chance of getting divorced against his will in the next 7 or so years.

    That is 1 in 4. If I offer you four different automobiles that you must keep for the next decade, and tell you that one of them will catch on fire and burn to the ground at some point in the next 10 years, would you buy any of them? Or would you back away, slowly?

    Because the chances of grave bodily harm or death would be too high. Now, what if the salesdroid started shaming you into buying, eh? Told you to “woman up” and buy a car. Called you names, etc.

    All that twaddle for the last 40 years from feminists about “male objectification” was clearly just another example of women projecting their own mindset onto men.

  • livingtree2013

    Anonymous, I still don’t understand how you reached those conclusions from what I’ve said here. Asking that you stop blaming me for views I do not hold is in no way contemptuous. Blaming me for views I do not hold, however, is. Name-calling also is, and I have never one time done either of those things to you – you have repeatedly done them to me. That I am choosing to answer you on this question is an olive branch, I extend it to you now because at least this time you had the decency to make a discussable point rather than just call me names.

    Anyway…

    Raising a child as a single parent isn’t a preferable option, for most, because the job is very difficult. Even men find it difficult! Unfortunately, for many, its a necessity. Your partner leaves you or is otherwise “absentee” in some fashion, what are you supposed to do, give your children up for adoption? No, you raise them anyway.

    There are some who think that doing it solo would be preferable to marrying the available options they have, and in many cases I think they’re probably right. However, thats not to say I think that these mothers are acting responsibly. In most cases where you have no good options, there is a reason, and its probably the same reason they should avoid being a parent.

    But again I say, what are we to do? Can’t really exterminate them, as much as it might seem like the logical response.

  • livingtree2013

    I do object to that actually, Anonymous – not that anyone ever asked the question til now. But what I really object to is people getting married with unreasonable (and often unstated) illusions of perfection, or for the status it conveys. Its destined for failure.

    See entire thread on “Saving the Best.”

    Honestly, if I were a guy, I’d probably be coming to the same conclusions as you are now – marriage under our current definition is simply too risky.

    Oh, wait, interestingly I DID come to the same conclusion, only 25 years ago.

    It astonishes me regularly how cautious people are about investing their money, but they just throw their hearts around indiscriminately, without even the slightest bit of caution.

  • Jeremy

    Anonymous, I still don’t understand how you reached those conclusions from what I’ve said here

    Oh, I don’t know, from your bullshit?

    …I’ll tell you that your answer as much as stated that community responsibility is anathema to a man’s pride of ownership. The idea of putting in any effort into the upbringing of another man’s child is humiliating to you, which says a lot about a lot of things.

    You chose the word ‘humiliating’ to cover up the truth, that community responsibility is pure slavery when forced upon someone unwillingly, with no associated rights of direction or authority in that effort. You might as well tell all political prisoners that it is their responsibility to maintain the roads and shame on them for not measuring up with good behavior, it would be the same thing. I never used the word humiliating, you did, and it’s bullshit. My point which you refuse to see, has remained the same. That point is that forcing anyone to sacrifice for that which they have no rights over is theft, it is slavery, it is a crime.

    You keep harping on “community responsibility” as if my rejection of enforced responsibility is a failing in me. This is a fundamental lie that all women want to perpetuate because it reinforces undeserved support from men. You entirely fail to see the inherent violence in your own words, which shame men for not measuring up to your standards of community responsibility. Your complete lack of vision and inability to see things from a male perspective could not be more apparent. You might as well admit you’re entirely blind to the feelings of the opposite sex, because it’s as plain as your words in every comment you make.

    I say the opposite of nearly all that you say. I say any refusal to grant me power and special rights over those to whose survival I am made responsible for is a violation equal to rape. You seem to think that responsibilities exist in a vacuum, with no associated rights. I reject this fundamental lie because responsibility is work, it is effort, and all effort must be rewarded or it is slavery.

  • livingtree2013

    Jeremy, you’re perfectly entitled to believe whatever you like, and I’m not advocating forcing anyone to do anything that is against their values. Nor am I advocating for the few to carry the burden of the many. But if you are being made to feel ashamed for not wanting to undertake the burden of caring for the community at large without a direct benefit to you, that’s your issue to take up with your psychologist.

    Anyway, yes, I do think that there are some occasions when responsibility exists without a collateral right. I do. I do not believe that amounts to slavery in any way, because it does have benefits that we do reap, just not directly. I don’t really understand anyone that disputes this, because the ramifications of it are colossal. And nothing you’ve said here has persuaded me that I’m wrong to think so. To the contrary.

    Sometimes it can become too much responsibility though. As more and more people shirk it, the few remaining wind up carrying too much of the load. There obviously is a limit where it no longer functions, and totally I get that you probably feel that you’ve reached the saturation point already.

    Look, I don’t know how it is for you in the US, we don’t have nearly as much widespread systemic abuse in Canada as you guys appear to in the US. But we also don’t have anywhere near as much poverty, teen pregnancy, crime, …. Its easy for us to observe and analyze and interpret the data on American social issues because they barely exist here. We don’t have the kind of resentment built up that you clearly do. Here, we still (mostly) respect our community responsibility to each other. It is fading too though, as more and more people think that the only responsibility they have is to what gives them direct benefit.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    LT another question to add to the list you haven’t answered yet:

    Infanticide amongst higher order animals is actually a lot more common dynamic than most people are comfortable admitting. It’s a well studied phenomenon in primates that an Alpha male who successfully challenges and either kills or outcasts the previous Alpha male from amongst a group will then systematically kill off all offspring of the previous Alpha that he can identify as being those of the prior Alpha. Similar incidents of Alpha offspring infanticide can also be found among many other animals; wolves, lions (even the lioness’s participate), birds and also, directly or indirectly humans (even women).

    Why do you suppose this dynamic exists in nature? Is it due to a learned patriarchal social dynamic that emphasizes male ‘property’ ownership, or is it the result of an evolved psychology that manifests the same behaviors across a variety of species that’s been a selected-for survival trait?

    I understand your aversion to acknowledging evolved biological and psychological dynamics, and how they influence and manifest themselves in humans, in your belief system, however it seems that a vested biological interest in patrilineage has been more about a species-benificial interest than any human defined idea of ‘ownership’.

    Similarly, Mate Guarding behaviors manifest themselves across many diverse species. Do you suppose male Sand Pipers on a beach are jealously guarding their mates because they possess some learned patriarchal sense of ownership of their mates, or is it due to an innate interest in protecting their genetic legacy?

  • livingtree2013

    OK, Rollo, first, please stop telling me that I believe that patriarchy is a learned set of rules not grounded in biology. I don’t.

    Nor do I subscribe to the belief that all things patriarchal are evil, which seems to be what some of you guys want me to believe so you can use it to make me look stupid. Except I don’t believe it, so your arguments are weak.

    Patriarchal systems have their place, many of them are very useful, or at least they were in their prime. I am merely bringing them to the discussion, because they exist. If we aren’t allowed to admit they exist, how can we have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of them?

    What I do believe is that patriarchal structures evolved out of male insecurity.

    The insecurity may indeed be biologically grounded, but that insecurity may also be “conditioned”, for lack of better word, out of you in a civilizing manner. Alpha supremacy, marriage, property ownership… all are patriarchal systems (and not necessarily bad ones!) which were established to civilize the brutishness that dictated human conduct prior to them. Over time, those biological insecurities were, in theory anyway, supposed to have been “civilized out” of us over time by careful application of civil law, which expands as we do as a society.

    What you guys are rebelling against is the over-reach of this civilizing influence, what you call the “feminine imperative”, which you believe to be attacking your masculinity. You are telling me that the male biological insecurity that led you to create and uphold these institutions, is very much not civilized out, it is merely suppressed, and you believe that allowing it to flourish again will improve our society as a whole.

    That is the part I’m struggling with. I’m not yet prepared to accept that the influence of civilization has been largely ineffective in modifying human nature, even though I know in my heart that it hasn’t. We are pretending to be civilized but really we are little more than trained monkeys.

    Anyway, I will answer your questions shortly, its been a pretty crazy day here at work, and the cocktail party last night didn’t do my brain any favors.

  • livingtree2013

    OK Rollo, here goes:

    “Is it your assertion that men should abandon and or disenfranchise themselves from any notion of investing themselves (emotionally, financially, etc.) into the wellbeing of children they are not directly responsible for siring?” No it is not.

    “The premise of your beliefs seem to stem from the notion that men want some form of progeny assurance (i.e. mate guarding), why do you believe men would want this ‘ownership’ in the first place?” Insecurity.

    “Do you believe it’s due to some learned, socialized, patriarchal need for status, or would it be due to a deeper rooted biological drive that compels men (and really all males of any higher order species) to want assurances of their genetic heritage being passed on to future generations?” Biological, but due to insecurity again.

    “Should a man be responsible, directly or indirectly, for the provisioning of children he did not choose to produce?” Of course. Why not? But I think women should also be provisioning for them, and women and men should also be provisioning, first and foremost, by their own parents. If their parents provisioned properly for their own children, the burden would not be as great for the community. And I also think that the term “provisioning” includes a whole lot more than simply money.

    “If, as you seem to hope, men would abandon the idea of genetic ownership, shouldn’t a man also be absolved of any accountability for the child he helped produced, but didn’t choose to have and doesn’t technically ‘own’ or have any investment in the wellbeing of?” I never men should do anything of the sort. I said men (and women) should broaden their sense of responsibility again to include the community. It isn’t a one-or-the-other concept. We live in the world together. We are embedded in each other’s lives. The problem with the concept of property ownership, including paternity, is that it eliminates the need for social leadership, and it creates exclusivity.

    “In an idealized, gender equal society, should not women also be expected to abandon and disenfranchise themselves of any sense of genetic ownership, and also be unburdened with the responsibility of provisioning for the children they create (if they so choose)?” If that was in fact what I meant, then yes, the relinquishing of genetic ownership of children would necessarily extend to women. But since that isn’t what I said, I can’t answer this question.

  • William

    @ livingtree2013

    “All I’m saying is that in this state, the children are the ones that suffer most because of our unreasonable expectations of blissful union. So are we right to cast those children aside because of the malaise of their parents, or do something for them to give them what they lack, which, primarily, is direction? THIS is what I mean by community responsibility. Ignoring it doesn’t give those kids the direction they need. This IS a community responsibility, plain and simple.”

    You’re only laying the responsibility at one group’s feet which doesn’t solve the problem. Nothing to say to the women having children with questionable men or the mothers who make it difficult for people to be in the child’s life ?
    Mothers who dangle their children like carrots on a stick, using fathers as atms and grandmothers as babysitters.

    Telling women someone will be there to comfort and support them no matter how many children they have, just makes the problem bigger.
    Maybe these women are having children cause they know there’s no consequences only rewards.

    “And this, in my humble opinion, is the only sound reason to be married. If you don’t wish to do a decent job of raising children with someone (whether your own, or from a previous marriage or adoption), then you have no reason to be married.”

    Why would any sane man want to deal with the can of worms that is a single mother, their child and their ex.
    Funny thing you mention adoption cause some people actually get a check for taking in foster children. Just like single mothers who get a check, there’s no incentive to form a family.
    My mother had friends who’d rave about all the money they got taking in foster children, while some fool would look from afar and talk of how wonderful her friends were for taking them in.

  • livingtree2013

    And #2:

    “Why do you suppose this dynamic exists in nature?” Population management. We don’t really approve of it in human culture, but animals are totally ok with it. Civilization was intended to quell our base instincts so that we might become advanced, which didn’t really work out so well did it? By doing this, we have bred weakness into our species. Advanced? Umm…

    “Is it due to a learned patriarchal social dynamic that emphasizes male ‘property’ ownership, or is it the result of an evolved psychology that manifests the same behaviors across a variety of species that’s been a selected-for survival trait?” As I said previously, patriarchy is a human system designed to protect property rights for all males, not only the strong ones. Animals don’t need that, because they are Ok with killing off the weaker among them. I can’t help but wonder if where you’re going with this line of reasoning is that maybe we should start killing off the weak.

    “I understand your aversion to acknowledging evolved biological and psychological dynamics, and how they influence and manifest themselves in humans, in your belief system, however it seems that a vested biological interest in patrilineage has been more about a species-benificial interest than any human defined idea of ‘ownership’.” See above.

    “Similarly, Mate Guarding behaviors manifest themselves across many diverse species. Do you suppose male Sand Pipers on a beach are jealously guarding their mates because they possess some learned patriarchal sense of ownership of their mates, or is it due to an innate interest in protecting their genetic legacy?” No, the weaker males mate-guard to protect their right to procreate, and they do it because they don’t have law to back them up, to protect the sanctity of marriage (which is the protection of the right of ownership over a reproductive outlet committed to the interests of one male)

  • LostSailor

    Population management. We don’t really approve of it in human culture, but animals are totally ok with it.

    Population management? Really? Yeah, I’m sure animals are making a rational decision that the available resources are insufficient so they must cull the herd. And they do this by killing the offspring of a vanquished Alpha leader or others who are reproductive challengers. Sorry, but thanks for playing. It’s protecting their heredity and genetic line. In humans, a man will provide for his own offspring over another’s offspring, and may, if there are sufficient resources left over, provide for the immediate community. But family comes first.

    I can’t help but wonder if where you’re going with this line of reasoning is that maybe we should start killing off the weak.

    Because you can’t face the line of reasoning: the human drive to protect and provide for one’s genetic legacy is one that is shared across species and is rooted in biology. The so-called “patriarchy” is mirrored in nature and evolved in society as the most efficient means of achieving that goal.

    the weaker males mate-guard…because they don’t have law to back them up, to protect the sanctity of marriage (which is the protection of the right of ownership over a reproductive outlet committed to the interests of one male)

    So, animals do it because they don’t have law, but humans created law to enslave a “reproductive outlet”as a purely social convention. Riiight. You really don’t see the inherent contradiction, do you?

    The cognitive dissonance–it burns….

  • livingtree2013

    Well, you do have a solid point there William, I can’t dispute it. Though I am most definitely not laying responsibility all at one groups feet, I don’t know why you think I ever said anything of the sort. I think quite the opposite actually, and I do not understand why you guys believe this is a male-only issue. Women pay taxes too you know…

    However, I will say to you (all) that most women who are raising their children solo are not on the dole.

    http://singleparents.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=singleparents&cdn=parenting&tm=8&f=00&tt=65&bt=4&bts=4&zu=http%3A//www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf

    According to census data from 2007:
    There were 13.7 million single parents, or 26.3% of total parents
    82.6% of single parents were mothers
    24.6% of total single parents were on social assistance

    This works out to 5.3% of total are “single moms on welfare”, roughly 2,76 million of them. Out of a total population of 315 million, that is less than 1% of the total american population.

    Also, from this data it appears that only 57% of single parents are receiving support from their missing partner.

    So from this, I think you can ease up on the worrying about paying for other mens’ children. It appears that there are considerably more single parents paying their own way without any support at all, from either the government or their co-parent.

    Incidentally, I don’t really think you’d find too many women who think raising children alone on welfare is free of consequences and full of benefits. Those who do are a very, very rare form of asshole.

    By the way William, adoption and fostering are TOTALLY different things. Same concept, caring for someone else’s child, but fostering is temporary care system for wards of the court, whereas adoption is a permanent placement that has no financial benefits at all. In fact, adoptive family has to prove financial stability before being considered as a candidate.

  • LostSailor

    But the males of many species actually stick around to raise offspring that aren’t their own, so long as the effort doesn’t cost them much…they did so as long as the likelihood of cuckoldry was low and providing care would not harm the males’ own future reproductive prospects.

    From your link.

    Just sayin’

  • livingtree2013

    No I don’t see the contradiction because there isn’t one. Animal males mate-guard to protect their interests, human males marry to protect theirs. Its a legally sanctioned form of mate-guarding that gives all males the opportunity to have sexual relations, not just the alpha male, which they would likely not been so successful at if we had remained true to our biological imperatives.

    Why does anyone want to breed, either male or female? It is insecurity. Not to say that it isn’t wonderful and magical and all that great stuff too, but at its root, heredity is founded in primal insecurity. Nor am I saying its bad, insecurity is exactly what our instincts for survival are founded upon. Its just that I don’t think its a biologically necessity anymore. The species has very successfully populated.

    However, as Jeremy (I think it was) correctly pointed out ages ago, biological instincts take a very, very long time to change. And really, how could they evolve if we have a legal system in place to prevent it from doing so? Because you’d have to want them to change, and clearly you don’t.

  • livingtree2013

    Right, LostSailor, thats why I posted the link. Its full of good stuff.

    Point here is that the intense dread that you guys seem to have about being cuckolded or raising other men’s children seems disproportionate to the risk and consequence. I really think its doing more harm than good.

    But, whatever floats yer boat, man. I’m not here to judge, just here for some interesting debate.

  • Simo

    Still skipping all your posts LT.

  • livingtree2013

    As I’m sure you do with anything said by a female that doesn’t immediately benefit your male imperative, Simo.

  • Water Cannon Boy

    More of an indication of women being aware of physical features that are influenced by higher levels of testosterone. Since it said that they found no correlation between testosterone levels and liking children.
    So doesn’t seem like there are some instincts that the women had, like people falsely claim women have intuition. But the same old masculine looks that all people can say they see. Similar to the way a cartoon character that is more masculine has always been drawn with the same features. The jaw, the shoulder to waist ratio, the voice, basic shape of the head, etc…
    Didn’t really need a study for that. Just a Saturday morning in front of the tv.

  • Cylux

    “Why does anyone want to breed, male or female? It is insecurity.”

    What? Really?
    ‘So much for selfish gene theory then, just insecurity Mr Dawkins, a mere psychological quirk, can’t believe you didn’t see it, it’s obvious if you think about it.’

    Why do I get the feeling that this ‘insecurity’ claim is a rationalisation and ego investment based on LT’s own decision to not have children of her own.

    In reality the reason people want to have kids is the same reason that they will jump on a grenade to defend a younger sister from harm. Because that’s what their genes, their inherent biology, tell them to do. Presumably their ‘insecurity’ motives them to self sacrificial behaviour in such instances…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,614 other followers

%d bloggers like this: