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.
December 19th, 2013 at 4:15 am
Oh, LT’s back. space bar… space bar… space bar…
December 19th, 2013 at 6:50 am
Feminists accuse men of insecurity to try and portray them as weak and pathetic when it’s often the case that what feminists accuse men of being insecure for is the actions that only a strong, virile and masculine man would take, that is, the exact opposite of the image they try to portray.
That is they use the ambiguity of words (as they can have more than one meaning) to try and conflate entirely different things as if they’re the same.
December 19th, 2013 at 7:56 am
Very good Rollo! It’s important to notice that you call as the “feminine imperative” has been so widely socialized that even basic male instincts, sexual preferences and even thoughts are considered “bad” or “amoral” by default. Whereas whatever women do, think or say is considered “good”, “superior” and/or “moral”. If you go even deeper, you’ll notice that all of this have even gained a sort of religious connotation, in which all women are sort of born “immaculate” and deprived of all evil inclinations or moral responsibility, whereas men have to be “redeemed” from their “evil” inclinations and even sexuality. But as a matter of fact, the male instinct is very beautiful and good, and helps to promote social justice and order.
December 19th, 2013 at 8:06 am
I posted my comment on the wrong board. Let me correct that mis speak now: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/12/15/3462929/shaffer-fathers-join-forces-to.html
December 19th, 2013 at 8:11 am
What happens when men lose sight of :21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:21, KJV)
December 19th, 2013 at 9:35 am
@ livingtree2013
“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.”
What i mean is you have women by getting pregnant or forming certain relationships with others, putting children into bad situations.
Woman who shouldn’t get pregnant, do and mothers who shouldn’t distance themselves from fathers and grandparents, do.
You want to cut down the number of directionless children needing guidance and support, cut down the number of woman having directionless children.
“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.”
The point is these women exist and they’re adding to the number of lost and directionless children.
“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.”
I know adoption and fostering are different, but a child who could be adopted by a couple are instead being taken care of by people simply looking for a check. Again this isn’t rampant but it does exist.
December 19th, 2013 at 10:53 am
I think LT represents the archetype of a lot of women nowadays : Very headstrong, no humility, selfish mindset, obviously well read but with very little reasoning power of their own and above all – NO understanding at all of men
December 19th, 2013 at 11:01 am
Sure William, I 100% agree with every one of your points. There’s nothing that aggravates me more than people (yes, women) who should not be parents having children indiscriminately. It seems the worst sort of irresponsibility in the world.
And there is absolutely no reason, short of abusiveness, to deprive their children of loving relationships with their male role models. Hopefully they ARE actually role models worth modeling, but increasingly, there are fewer and fewer of those too. Though why any woman would bear the child of a man completely unworthy of being a father, is beyond me. Yes, it is for this reason that I support abortion. Sometimes its better than the alternative. Preferable would be if those really irresponsible ones would just get fixed… I know there’s a eugenics-type moral issue about sterilizing certain groups, but you know what? I’ve lost my ability to care about that. They aren’t contributing anyway.
There has to be some social penalty for that, and IMO, the real problem with this modern world is that there is no longer any penalty for bad behavior. At least in the 50’s, you knew if you violated the standards of social conduct, there would be a price to pay – ostracizing. In America (and probably most other western democracies), everyone is free to be as assholish as they want to be, and anyone who tells them otherwise is a tyrant. Scandal is de rigeur, its on every page of every tabloid, the internet is full of shock and awe, everything is acceptable now, it is how people get attention, and there’s a social group available to almost every sort of social deviance. So consequently, assholishness IS epidemic.
Anyway, thanks for your intelligent response William.
December 19th, 2013 at 11:15 am
Understand men?? Good one TTE. You say that as if it should be totally obvious…
Tell me the truth here, TTE – do men even WANT women to understand them, or you just want us to ooh and ahhhh at your awesomeness and let you do stuff for us and love you for it? Because from the conversations I’ve had here on this site, that’s how it seems. I have tried quite hard to understand men better, I really have, but at every turn, you just shut it down. And this is a fairly common male trait, actually.
It has nothing to do with my reasoning ability. I can find a reason for almost anything. Except this: If you are trying to be understood, why are you making it so hard?
December 19th, 2013 at 11:35 am
Chris:
“Feminists accuse men of insecurity to try and portray them as weak and pathetic when it’s often the case that what feminists accuse men of being insecure for is the actions that only a strong, virile and masculine man would take, that is, the exact opposite of the image they try to portray.”
First, insecurity is the driving force behind survival of all thinking life. Breeding instinct is the most primal of insecurities – the perpetuity of the species. It is what makes people want to excel, it is the impetus behind the fear of death, it is what motivates nearly all discovery and learning. But also, insecurity is the root cause of selfishness. Incidentally: http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolecol/selfishgene.html
Second, I never once said insecurity was a bad thing. You assumed that. I just acknowledged its influence on our behavior. I can do that, primarily, because unlike most scientists, I don’t have rose-colored glasses on when it comes to discussing humanity or evolution. I’m not of the school of thought that says “That’s just what we do, we’ve always done it this way.” I question, and I call things as I see them. And what I see is insecurity. Everywhere. If you choose to take what I say as some kind of personal attack, well… there’s not much I can do about that.
Third, my point about insecurity has next to nothing to do with men. However, I suppose I should have expected no less from this site, a forum dedicated to whining about men being made to look bad.
December 19th, 2013 at 11:40 am
@LT
Why does anyone want to breed, either male or female? It is insecurity
No, it’s not insecurity. It’s a biological imperative, as you recognize in your preceding sentence. It’s also the rather normal and simple desire to have a family and because a lot of people like children. In fact, I’d say your decision to not have children comes from insecurity, but it’s probably for the best, since you’d likely just foist them on society for their support.
Its just that I don’t think its a biologically necessity anymore…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.
Well, isn’t that precious. Society should change laws relating to procreation and parenting that have served for thousands of years because you don’t think that human “breeding” isn’t necessary anymore. Sorry, cupcake, it doesn’t work that way.
thats why I posted the link. Its full of good stuff.
“Good stuff” that essentially contradicts your points: males, whether animal or human, will raise another males offspring only so long as it is low effort and low risk to the preservation of their own biological heritage which is paramount.
The other link you posted only reaffirms what the manosphere has been saying all along: women instinctively recognize the bad-boy Alpha and the provider Beta, and act out their instinctive reproductive strategy accordingly. tl;dr: the ladies are just slaves to their biology.
I know there’s a eugenics-type moral issue about sterilizing certain groups, but you know what? I’ve lost my ability to care about that. They aren’t contributing anyway.
And finally, feminism’s fundamental totalitarian Marxism is revealed.
I have tried quite hard to understand men better, I really have, but at every turn, you just shut it down. And this is a fairly common male trait, actually.
No, you really haven’t, because you don’t really listen and prefer to argue and assert your opinion as fact. It’s a fairly common female trait, actually…
December 19th, 2013 at 11:53 am
That Dr. Bar-Yam paper was from 1999, meanwhile Dawkins was still seeing off Group-selection challengers to selfish gene theory as recently as 2009.
It should also be noted that Dr. Bar-Yam is not a biologist, nevermind an evolutionary biologist. Generally, the quantum physicist is a very good person to ask about quantum physics, but not a very good person to inquire with on matters pertaining to pharmacology, and so on and so forth.
December 19th, 2013 at 12:08 pm
See, no it doesn’t contradict my point at all, LostSailor, because you’re assuming my point is something that it isn’t. Being a biological imperative does not mean it is not founded in primal insecurity. They are not mutually exclusive.
Insecurity, in the sense I’m using it, is not some half-conscious fretting, nail-biting delusion that destroys your self-confidence. It is a limbic response to a perceived threat, whether real or not, which controls our behavior at a level which is below that of our consciousness.
– the state of being open to danger or threat; lack of protection.
– synonyms: unstable, rickety, rocky, wobbly, shaky, unsteady, precarious
The biological imperative to procreate is founded in a perceived threat of genetic extinction which, if you’ll permit me, I don’t believe is relevant anymore. I actually think we may (MAY!) have evolved to a point, socially, that we don’t need to be guided by limbic responses anymore. I could be wrong though, certainly there’s enough evidence to support that even if we were ready to evolve out of that type of behavior, we don’t really want to.
And, where ever did you see me say that we should change laws related to procreation or that breeding isn’t necessary????
December 19th, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Just saying, Cylux, a theory is just a theory. Because someone wrote books about it, even books that still hold weight, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t flaws in the theory. As is the case in Dawkins.
However, I’m not making a dispute with the theory. The supposition of existential insecurity does not in any way contradict Dawkins’ theory.
December 19th, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Pretty sure evolution doesn’t work like that. For it to do so it would require those ignoring their limbic responses to consistently out-breed those who are guided by them.
December 19th, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Exactly. And that’s probably exactly the opposite of what’s happening. Those most guided by limbic responses are having babies at alarming rates, and those most inclined to over-rule their limbic drive are opting out.
So goes the species… I’ve often lamented about the irony of this.
December 19th, 2013 at 1:06 pm
I understand LT’s grasp of existential insecurity, however I think as it applies to intersexual dynamics a more accurate term would be ‘genetic uncertainty’. Higher order animals of both sexes want assurances that their investments of resources and effort are genuinely being spent on their own genetic legacy.
The conflict arises between either sex’s genetic imperatives and the differing sexual strategy both use to achieve it. And as I’ve stated countless times, for one sex to achieve the ends of their sexual strategy, the other must surrender their own. For a man to achieve unlimited access to unlimited sexuality a woman must relinquish her strategy of hypergamic sexual pluralism.
Both sexes have psychologically-evolved and socialized contingencies to better insure against genetic uncertainty, but the dominant one is always the feminine. Granted, up until the sexual revolution, the social dynamics of the Feminine Imperative have been covert, but to ensure species survival the feminine sexual strategy (hypergamy) must be the dominant one.
December 19th, 2013 at 1:11 pm
The irony is that many ‘intellectuals’ would regard those “most inclined to over-rule their limbic drive” to be the smart ones, when very clearly the results indicate the opposite.
December 19th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Well I think you may be correct, Rollo. At least presently, the female strategy is at least well on its way to becoming the dominant strategy.
So, if I understand what you’re suggesting, you think that the male strategy is unlimited access to as many females as possible, while restricting those females as much as possible to only mating with one male. Female strategy is what you call “pluralism”, the seemingly conflicting desire to mate with a dominant male, but be supported by a submissive.
Anyway, whether this is, in fact, an accurate depiction of the female strategy (and I’m sure you’ll have nearly every woman alive telling you it isn’t), it certainly is not the dominant strategy in societies that are more oppressive of it, ie. those that are dictated by religious orthodoxy.
As it stands now though, the feminine strategy is being forcibly imposed upon a seemingly unwilling western society, men want things back in their control, and as such, it is generating an understandably high level of hostility.
Aside from the fact that males are obviously not the beneficiaries of said female strategy as you describe it, I’m not entirely sure that I think that it would be a poor strategy, for the overall good of the species I mean. If it weren’t suppressed by so many different forces (I’m entirely certain you’ll disagree with that statement!) it might prove to be quite effective. I’ll have to give it some more thought though, I can’t deny the possibility that I may well see it that way because I’m female and it makes sense to me.
December 19th, 2013 at 1:43 pm
LT,
I have a question.
If the female strategy were unrestricted, what exactly is my motivation to lawfully, and morally participate in a society wherein I and about 50% of men am not permitted to keep the fruits of our labor or see born the fruit or our loins?
December 19th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
“The biological imperative to procreate is founded in a perceived threat of genetic extinction which, if you’ll permit me, I don’t believe is relevant anymore. I actually think we may (MAY!) have evolved to a point, socially, that we don’t need to be guided by limbic responses anymore.”
The myopia of privilege. You fail to appreciate the aeons of struggle that have bequeathed you the luxury of entertaining such a smug attitude. Or the sacrifices going on right now that keep you so comfy. But that’s because you’re hypnotized. Any number of threatening circumstances – from which you take for granted that you should be continually spared – would be sufficient to awaken your baser instincts.
You don’t think people are struggling to stay alive, to keep their “own” children alive, every day around this planet? Where do you think that drive is coming from? These “limbic responses” aren’t simply going away with the wave of a self-proclaimed “socially evolved” hand, and for good reason: they’re why we’re here. We’re not “guided” by our core natures, we’re propelled by them.
Careful not to saw off the limb you’ve climbed out to the end of. You’re a passenger, and a lucky one at that.
Social evolution? According to whose prefrontal cortex? One person’s limbic-overriding “enlightened social code” is another’s neo-marxist nightmare. The prevailing narrative of which is designed to hypnotize and co-opt our drives at their core. You expect us to hand over the reigns of our hard-won instinct to tyranny, hysteria and wishthink without a fight?
We need our instincts as ballast to keep us upright in the water, and that’s why you get the reactions you get here. Something in our guts is calling bullshit. We’re not your lemmings.
December 19th, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Women have zero cause for concern with respect to genetic uncertainty because it hasn’t been possible throughout most of history for a woman to carry a baby that is not her own. And the license for duplicity has always been hers. So it’s understandable that you think like you do, LT.
What we bristle at is the hubris of a woman trying to tell us that we should really be like her. Trying to shame us – by framing the wiring that ultimately made her cushy, entitled life possible – as “insecurity”.
It’s not a bug, honey, it’s a feature.
If you try to take away the things that we are TELLING you are important to us, we will drop out, refuse to commit to you, devise systems to extract fucks from you (game), and stop working to keep this jalopy of a society rolling down the road.
December 19th, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Pre-whipped. Yes. Becuase the feminine imperative demands a steady supply of uneducated, ignorant males to be enlisted into its service.
The latest such pre-whipped male to be chewed up and shit out by the feminine imperative is the husband of one Jenny Erikson, who duped and defrauded her soon- to-be ex husband into marriage, and now blames everyone around her EXCEPT herself .
December 19th, 2013 at 5:30 pm
How is that clear, Cylux?
December 19th, 2013 at 5:35 pm
Badpainter,
“If the female strategy were unrestricted, what exactly is my motivation to lawfully, and morally participate in a society wherein I and about 50% of men am not permitted to keep the fruits of our labor or see born the fruit or our loins?”
I’m not sure I understand your question… Can you rephrase?
Why would you not be permitted to keep the fruits of your labour?
Why would you not be permitted to see born the fruit of your loins?
Why 50%?
December 19th, 2013 at 5:37 pm
I see that we are still humouring the hamsterbation of LivingTree. She obviously enjoys the attention-cum-flagellation.
For a good insight into the mind of women, read The Predatory Female by Rev. Lawrence Shannon – online free: http://www.revolucionantifeminista.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/lawrence-shannon-the-predatory-female.pdf
@deti – is it a pre-whipped male, or simply someone clueless to the true machinations and deceits of women? I particularly like the Reverend’s description of women’s chameleon nature: we men are easily fooled. Thus the longer we spend getting to know her before marriage, the better to pick up her tell-tale signs.
December 19th, 2013 at 6:41 pm
D-Man, of course I see those things happening around us everywhere, but the point is, as a species, we have created every possible means of prevention and escape from existential insecurity, but these survival-drive issues persist though though because, collectively, we are are fully invested in our limbic existential insecurity, and for the very reasons that you outlined.
None of it needs to be happening, but it still does, because we don’t trust each other anymore.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/27/existential-security
I like to think that at one point in the very recent past, there was a somewhat idyllic moment in history when people trusted each other, when we didn’t interfere with each other’s lives, when we acted for altruistic reasons, when there was some semblance of order and peace and unity… but it was so fragile that it couldn’t last long. We had to fuck it up. And it IS fucked.
But in the confusion of all the drama of modern living, the social factors, the unknown power influences (ie. the material that Dain Bramage was referring to), the radical thought systems… we’ve all gotten ourselves scared up of each other, and are reverting back to trusting our limbic system, because we carry it with us everywhere, all the time, and it is guaranteed to keep us safe. Not exactly with ideal outcomes, but at least guaranteed minimum security.
Now, I know there are many who take a more “tyrannical” approach to ethics than I do, but personally, I don’t subscribe to an all-encompassing set of rules of higher-level social conduct that “should” apply to everyone. I just have my own personal code of ethics that I conduct my life by, and it serves me well. Even though I see that there is much value in it, and I’d like to think maybe I set a good example for others, I simply wouldn’t expect anyone else to follow it. In fact doing so would be in direct violation of my code. Which is why you will almost never see or hear me use the word “should”, and when I do its very reluctantly and with conditions. I’m simply not that conceited.
December 19th, 2013 at 6:47 pm
Pardon my ignorance, but who is this Jenny Erickson chick, and why do you all care about her life so much?
December 19th, 2013 at 7:04 pm
Pardon my ignorance, but who is this Jenny Erickson chick, and why do you all care about her life so much?
I don’t think any of the guys “care” about her life. It is very simple. She is the quintessential textbook example of many of the supposed false Red Pill memes.
December 19th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
False Red Pill memes… how so?
Sorry for changing the subject so abruptly, I just have never heard of her before this week, and all I can find on her online is her idiotic ultra-con mommyblog ranting, and all the irate mens forums ranting about what a bag she is.
I’m not sure I get why all you guys are writing hate posts about her – was she supposed to be some sort of archetypal female heroine guru representing women who weren’t a total let-down for you guys, and she let you down by getting divorced?
December 19th, 2013 at 7:15 pm
” .. personally, I don’t subscribe to an all-encompassing set of rules of higher-level social conduct that “should” apply to everyone. I just have my own personal code of ethics that I conduct my life by, and it serves me well.”
That .. is .. probably about as near as we’ll ever get to an honest confession.
Five Hail Murphys and a How’s yer Father.
A ‘personal’ code of ethics that don’t apply to anyone else.
Possibly even .. completely invisible to anyone else.
Except (of course) when it comes to enforcing commooniteh rasponsabiliteh on errant unmarried childless cock-draggers who won’t put their hands in their pockets on behalf of indigent senile women, or the provisioning of the offspring of their oppressors, the “leisured” classes.
C’mon, worker bees, the colony’s queens disapprove of your slackerdom. Be afraid ..
You’re dead right to encourage her oblivious vomiting, Mr T, th’oul’Tree is like trainer wheels for not-so-smart n00bs like what I are.
December 19th, 2013 at 7:25 pm
False Red Pill memes… how so?
Some women like Aunt Giggles (Hooking Up Smart) are highly invested in refuting red pill/manosphere concepts. She wrote 2 posts that Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks is a myth that doesn’t happen in real life. Women don’t marry their beta orbiters or men they are not attracted to.
Jenny Erikson did exactly that. She married her beta orbiter and admitted she had to be dragged down the aisle. Now I have no idea what percentage of women marry Mr. “Eh he is good enough” beta orbiter who will give them SAHM optionality and in their calculus decide is better than being alone once they realize they can’t snag the more alpha man, but I am absolutely certain it isn’t trivial. I can think of two guys at work who it seems obvious to me are walking wallets for their wives.
I’m not sure I get why all you guys are writing hate posts about her – was she supposed to be some sort of archetypal female heroine guru representing women who weren’t a total let-down for you guys, and she let you down by getting divorced?
LT, I don’t know anyone that was holding her up as heroine guru. FWIW, when you first showed up here I was inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. You struck me as decently sensible and rational. But more and more your comments are venturing into the land of typical female rhetoric which includes extensive use of arguing against numerous strawmen that no one has argued for. You are starting to paint way too broad a brush in mischaracterizing what all the “irate men” on the Internet are saying.
You can debate/discuss by constructing strawmen and cherrypicking minority views and comments or you can begin to address the very real, substantive points guys like myself, Rollo, and Dr. Jeremy bring to the discussion.
December 19th, 2013 at 8:34 pm
Hmm, funny, that’s what I thought I was doing. You guys don’t seem to like what I’m saying, and I find that odd because in most instances I agree with you. Very little of what I’ve said here has been antagonistic, illogically founded, or even particularly inflammatory.
“…arguing against numerous strawmen that no one has argued for”. No one? Surely you don’t really believe that. At least 70% of the posts directed back at me has contained straw men arguments (and ad hominem too, sometimes) which yes, I am calling them on, and when I do, I get told I’m not paying attention. Well, of course, it is quite hard to pay attention to you when the comments are being directed to someone who is not present in the conversation.
I use the term “hate posts” regarding this Jenny Erickson woman because:
http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/tag/jenny-erickson/
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/he-ruined-the-surprise/
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/trapped/
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-30406.html
https://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/category/feminism-in-the-church/
This is what I found in one single page of google hits on her, aside from her own talking. Would it not be reasonable to assume that there is a fair bit of animosity towards her? I don’t really care, she seems like a tool that likes to hear the sound of her own worthless thoughts a little too much, but you can’t deny that she’s got a following among MRA-esqe bloggers.
Anyway, what percent of women marry “good enough” rather than the man in their fantasy? Probably 95% of them. What percent of men marry “good enough” rather than the woman of their fantasy? Probably 95% of them.
Isn’t that what marriage is? (before you reply, remember – you are talking to someone who would rather die than marry a man for convenience)
December 19th, 2013 at 10:12 pm
[…] There was none while you were still blue pill, but you weren’t aware of it, being a good pre-whipped mangina nice guy knight of the white table. Once your eyes become opened, however, you see the […]
December 20th, 2013 at 12:22 am
How is it clear?
Well, if a group is engaging in behaviour that leads to its numbers dwindling, tending toward extinction or irrelevance, while another group engages in mass breeding swelling its numbers considerably, making it the dominant numerical group, then it’s not hard to see which group is doing better than the other, evolutionarily speaking.
Secondly the former group is usually the one that gets to wield to levers of power in our society, and yet they’ve somehow contrived to use said power to craft a society that encourages/allows the ‘guided by limbic responses’ group to swell and grow, while their own group is ever forced to put-off breeding until frequently too late. Ironically in an effort to ensure that power isn’t shared with the ‘breeding’ portion of society.
So again, who really comes out looking like the smarts ones here?
December 20th, 2013 at 12:59 am
You’ve got to give LT some credit, she introduced the semantic opposition of ‘ownership’ (as opposed to freedom) and everyone got sucked into her little dialectic.
The correct term is ‘ward’.
Women were never ‘owned’ by men (just look up Roman law and customs and common law), they were wards. And you can’t force guardianship, it is a voluntary institution by its very nature.
You must be making waves Rollo when you get the attention of cluey little Marxists.
December 20th, 2013 at 1:19 am
LT- “I’m not sure I understand your question… Can you rephrase?”
You said that you believe that the unrestricted female sexual strategy might be best for the species.
I want to know what are my incentives to participate in that society. My incentives in the current hybrid strategy society are pretty much crap.
LT- “Why would you not be permitted to keep the fruits of your labour?”
The chase for high value men being unrestricted will result in significant numbers of single moms (see current trends as female strategy becomes less restrictive). The men shut out of breeding opportunities will see their labor either increasingly taxed for the stated benefit of bastard children (already happening) or see themselves required to produce at levels in excess of what they might otherwise choose, again for the stated benefit of bastard children.
To ensure the that the highest value men play this game all alternatives will have to be limited or eliminated. That means taxes on activities that don’t favor women, banning pornography, increasing the penalties for engaging with sex workers, which will all but end the alternatives to SMP for the bottom half of men who are deemed undesirable.
Further because the unrestricted strategy is heavily reliant on the construct of “social responsibility” meeting the needs of this society will absolutely require the men shut out of the SMP to still produce as if they have a chance of being selected. The notion of “going Galt” , MGTOW or other forms economic minimalism will need to discouraged if not criminialized, and labor coerced as there is very little actual incentive to work beyond ones own individual needs in a society where the investment only pays off to someone else.
LT- “Why would you not be permitted to see born the fruit of your loins?”
In a world where the unrestricted female strategy were the operating model a significant number of men will be permanently shut out of the reproductive market as there is no incentive for women to do other than chase the highest value men. Some around the manosphere suggest currently 20% of the men are hooking up with 80% of the women. That’s already a lot of men with greatly diminished options. Additionally, current law in the US gives the man no say in reproductive decision making. A totally unrestricted female strategy would require that only women have access to birth control, and pregnancies carried to term would not require naming the father, and if named the father would not have any presumptive parental rights, even within marriage.
LT- “Why 50%?”
If the above stated 20/80 ratio is accurate we can safely assume some percentage of men in other 80% are getting the occasional women (beta provider). I assume 30% of total men for this second tier group. The remaining 50% are shut out of the market for multiple reasons like appearance, status, height, lack of game, lack of ambition to game due to high investment low reward, lack of resources, bad timing, dirty jobs.
In order for an unrestricted female model to to function the very top men and top women will have to participate and endorse it. Women who are reluctant to participate in this sexual market will need to be bought off and the easiest way to do that is three things:
1. Eliminate all responsibility for consequence of action/behavior on the part of women by making such consequences a situation of social need “children need to be supported” and by extension their single moms.
2. Require men to meet the needs of society to be considered as good citizens
3. Remove undesirable men from the sexual market by means of shaming, blaming and dismissing their needs while building up a model where male sacrifice for the common good is ultimate public virtue but seeking and demanding individual needs of happiness/satisfaction/opportunity, especially regarding sexual matters, as the ultimate sin.
Given the current situation is a barely restricted female sexual strategy and the society we live in today what are my incentives to participate in a society with an operating unrestricted Female sexual strategy?
December 20th, 2013 at 6:24 am
ROLLO!!!! I think your a legend! I read all your stuff! Help me get laid more! Im 27 Married working in family business studying a Batchelors Degree. I hit the gym 7 days a week n dress swarve to demonstrate Higher Value an I aint a pussy!
Problem I got is familiarity has set in as it’s my 3rd year with my wife n her sexual interest is zero! I try not to overtly communicate desire for a reciprical desire but it pisses me off knowing what I now know about why she ain’t putting out! I take her restaurants bowling KFC even anything 2 keep it fresh. I wanna max out competition anxiety n get back to being the man who gets it daily! I read this blog daily so any response is most appreciated!
Yours truly
The DanMEISTER
December 20th, 2013 at 8:54 am
The pre-whipping begins early and the Feminine Imperative demands the Good Men Fathers be active in their boys feminine-primary conditioning:
http://goodmenproject.com/families/the-healthy-sex-talk-teaching-kids-consent-ages-1-21/
December 20th, 2013 at 10:45 am
Solid point there Cylux. I think that’s unavoidable though, the elite intellectuals and extremely wealthy will more than likely be massively outnumbered by the peasants, and to be honest – though I am admittedly inclined towards conspiracy theories – I think it was part of “the plan”. What that plan is exactly, I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough, but I strongly suspect it has something to do with fiefdom.
December 20th, 2013 at 10:52 am
Hey Johnnycomelately, have you heard of the term “Coverture”?
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/coverture/
Once a woman became a wife, she no longer had a legal existence or rights.
Ward, right. I’ll try to remember that one.
?
December 20th, 2013 at 11:22 am
Men you will soon tire of her. Now if you have pleased your evil patriarch LT then some of us may take you seriously.
December 20th, 2013 at 11:31 am
OK, well Badpainter, you make solid points as well. But are you trying to tell me that you believe that currently, 50% of males are not getting ANY women? That would honestly shock me profoundly if it were even half that percentage. But anyway, I’ll indulge you in it for the sake of the argument.
I suppose if the theory you guys believe is women’s dualism strategy is actually accurate (which I’m not entirely sold on so far), and said strategy does indeed become truly unrestricted, the likely outcome would look something like this:
– the majority of weaker males would lose their breeding rights to the genetically superior males, and their weak genes will die off
– only genetically superior males of the species would remain, and they would be charged with impregnating more than one woman per breeding cycle
– women would soon outnumber men in this scenario
– women would have no option but to become the provisioners for their own offspring
– the decadence of our society would quickly disappear
– porn, prostitution,
– the breeding males would become supported by the women
– the breeding males would have roles in society that might look a little bit like what you claim you want now – hunting, staying fit and healthy, and fuck a lot of women.
– eventually, after several generations, as the breed stock becomes equally balanced again, and the male children become stronger stock, they will probably wind up regaining social dominance.
Trouble with the current breeding scenario is that with roughly 50% of the population being male, there is just too much competition among men for breeding rights, and too much protection of everyone’s right to breed. Since we have also trained ourselves to believe that we have a moral obligation to keep even the weakest members of our society alive (because its their riiiiiiiight, ugh!) this means that ever-lower quality males are impregnating women (yes, most often due to their own poor selection criteria) and the end result is the weakening of the species.
Basically, by repressing this alleged female mating strategy, by way of marriage (which, as I already stated is a system that was created to protect every male’s “right” to breed, regardless of his genetic standing), we have effectively weakened the stock. By reverting to the female strategy, provided that women were actually encouraged to make considerably better mating decisions than they currently are, the stock strength would improve considerably in a matter of two generations.
Sorry guys, I hate to tell you this, but at the end of the day, if you are among the whatever percent of guys who aren’t getting any sex at all from women, maybe its because that’s not your job here on this little planet…in earlier times, you would probably have been the eunuchs that guarded the sultan’s harem.
What incentive do you have to participate in this system?… Badpainter, I can’t even bring myself to say that, its too heartless, even for me. Suffice it to say that you have every incentive to become more enticing to women (higher value). The species depends on it in fact.
December 20th, 2013 at 11:42 am
Oops missed finishing a line in my bullet points:
– Porn, prostitution, etc. might possibly become unnecessary, eventually, because there would be very little incentive for the remaining men to bother. They would all have plentiful opportunities for sex. However, I doubt that. And if it manifested like I envisioned, women would probably not have reason to care, so long as they got their “needs” met and there weren’t any diseases being introduced into the stock from the breeding males engaging with public sex workers.
That’s just a theory though, I’m not really confident about this last point.
December 20th, 2013 at 11:50 am
I mean, I’ll tell you the truth here, Badpainter – I can fully understand why lower-value males have EVERY POSSIBLE REASON to suppress that theoretical female mating strategy (if it were in fact real, which I’m still contemplating…).
There actually IS no direct incentive for you in it, if you want to remain low-value, aside from social obligation to perpetuate the species which you may never have a stake in.
December 20th, 2013 at 12:05 pm
LT,
Unless the number of men left without breeding rights is very very low, AND society agrees these men having no stake are exempt from collective provisioning responsibilities, then there is every reason for them to expect them to rebel and take what can’t be negotiated.
What your have argued for is a softer form of eugenics.
And still you provide no incentive for me to participate in this model society. I guess the best option for the individual’s left out is piracy, pillage ,and rape as society only needs suicide from the undesirable.
Over the course of several posts here I can only concluded that your underlying ideal philosophy is:
From each according to his ability to each according to her need.
December 20th, 2013 at 12:18 pm
And incidentally, Badpainter, I already AM in the same position as you – albeit voluntarily. I willfully opted out of the breeding cycle, for ethical reasons, and I am, like you, contributing to the perpetuation of the species without having a direct stake in it.
My lineage will die out with me, I will work until the end for the benefit of whatever supposed good there is left in this god-forsaken world full of imbeciles, and I am 100% ok with that. It hurts less for me though, I’d imagine, because my decision was voluntary, but I was able to do so because I do not let my existential insecurity rule my life (though it does come in handy sometimes).
I feel it still, but because of my philosophical position, I endure it much more as macrocosmic suffering (the perpetuation of the species as a whole), rather than microcosmic suffering (ie. the perpetuation of my own genes) that you are talking about here.
Anyway, I’m not trying to say you shouldn’t be distressed about your situation, I actually understand it better than you may realize, but maybe it really is what’s best. Our “forward progression” and attempts at civilizing the limbic nature hasn’t really worked out all that well for us. Maybe we really do need to just revert back to our base survival skills now.
December 20th, 2013 at 12:32 pm
LT, your sexual dystopia already exists in Japan:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/05/japan.herbivore.men/
December 20th, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Well, Badpainter, I suppose that is a considerably more one-sided and incredibly negative-sounding version of “survival of the fittest”, and if so, then yes, that is what I believe. I don’t think that, as a society, that we in any way benefit from protecting people from their own weakness and stupidity. There are far too many weak and stupid people around! Are you denying this?
Eugenics? I’m not about to kill anyone off, but I surely wouldn’t be enacting any laws requiring warning labels on electrical appliances telling people not to use them in the bath.
Just sayin’… I advocate for abortion and incentives for sterilization for the same reason.
I have no personal interest in having anyone support me, but seeing as there are so many who do, I know that I am obviously an anomaly, so with that established, I pay my dues until such time as I can completely extract myself from the ever-increasing stupidity, at which time I will leave the hoards to fight amongst themselves for limited resources and breeding rights.
You may have gathered by now that I am not a fan of the human race. What beauty we once had is lost.
December 20th, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Uh huh. And moreso here every year. Birth rates in affluent cultures are falling year by year, because more and more people see the truth in what I’m saying. The world is filling up with weak, stupid, violent, selfish people, and they don’t want to participate in it any more. There’s no incentive.
My brother and his wonderful wife have had two amazingly well rounded, beautiful healthy well adjusted children, one of my closest friends has done the same and created two of the smartest children I have ever met, and I’m super happy that they were able to find the magical key to make it work. But in my heart, I really feel bad for their kids, for having been brought into this future that there is no sane solution for. They might be among the fortunate few who are capable enough to rule the idiots instead of becoming them.
December 20th, 2013 at 1:05 pm
LT,
Survival of the fittest is fine unless you rig the game.
Unrestricted sexual strategies, male or female, are going to result in, dystopic, oppressive, and corrupt societies.
December 20th, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Of course, I could be entirely over-reacting. Perhaps the “weakening” of the species is actually a good thing, and I’m just annoyed with all the incessant fighting about whether or not change is beneficial, forcing us to compete and be strong and breed.
But at the end of the day, like Cylux said, those with the existential motive to breed will most definitely do so more than the less competitive types, and all of whatever social benefits are gained from being more happy/fulfilled/authentic/intelligent will be lost, eventually.
December 20th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Badpainter, the game has been rigged for millenniums, since the invention of civil law.
December 20th, 2013 at 1:31 pm
relevant: http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
The whole piece is good, but scroll down to the header “The Most Underappreciated Fact”.
Yep, today’s population is descended from twice as many women as men.
Another reason for “existential insecurity”.
December 20th, 2013 at 1:44 pm
“in earlier times, you would probably have been the eunuchs that guarded the sultan’s harem. “
OO-oo-oh, see that girl, watch that scene, diggin’ the Logic Queen … ding ding da ding ..
I’m creepily much like my patrilineal ancestors, even down to the peculiar hair, if the absurd be-ruffed portrait age 60, and the odd sketch of others are any guide. (Oddly enough, even the American branches share the slight physical peculiarities, I can pick them out as “one of our guys” in photos despite centuries of divergence. And we’ve really got a thang for beards too, it appears. So H. Ross Perot can take a hike).
But I’m a great deal larger than those guys, and incomparably healthier, especially in later life according to the accounts. And a hell of a lot more knowledgeable. Unfortunately my proclivity for racketing around the countryside blind drunk, balanced on the back of some sort of farmyard animal, poking people with pointy sticks, has limited utility in this phase of society.
Which no doubt classes me as a degenerate, to be weeded out in favour of I dunno, aforesaid Perot, and the likes of Mike Tyson, Gates and Zoidberg and ooh, Branson or Murdoch maybe?? Or that little fat bloke that boils his enemies alive, runs or used to run one of the ‘Stans.
It’s fantastic. A real Value Meal.
They’re all in there somewhere
e.g.
“Sorry guys, I hate to tell you this, but at the end of the day, if you are among the whatever percent of guys who aren’t getting any sex at all from women, maybe its because that’s not your job here on this little planet”
(Code Purple) – The Sour Grapes Charge. Nailed on.
“Suffice it to say that you have every incentive to become more enticing to women (higher value). The species depends on it in fact.”
Can’t decide if that’s a Code Maroon or a Code Pink [a.k.a. The Pink Whip].
We’ve had Codes Brown and Black many times over too.
Pity ol’ Tree seems to have been tipped over the edge into a right tarpit of a downer, by the sound of it.
I suppose that’s what might happen when it all feels out of control and a bit too, well … difficult. And frightening.
It was such fun while it lasted.
December 20th, 2013 at 1:44 pm
LT,
The game is only rigged when no one can escape it.
And this particular game with you bores me as you still haven’t answered my original question. What are my incentives to lawfully and ethically participate?
December 20th, 2013 at 1:47 pm
not as relevant, but an amusing dose of the red pill:
http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/2013/12/17/experts-discover-whether-it%E2%80%99s-better-be-right-or-be-happy
Researchers do a study where they ask a guy to agree with his wife’s every opinion (without her knowledge). Study has to be stopped because she becomes overly critical of him.
December 20th, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Rollo,
I find the tiniest piece of Redpill stuck between tonsils that is hardest to dislodge is reconciling that my mother held the whip and father did nothing stop lashing.
December 20th, 2013 at 2:55 pm
Depends on how you’re defining “weakening” really, a common cause of short-sightedness (a physical weakness) is that the greedy bastard brain is using more oxygen for itself reducing the amount that reaches the eyes. The result of this is usually a smarter brain (hence the stereotypical scientist with glasses). Also our children are born significantly weaker in comparison to other animals because big brains (I mean Bambi has to stand the fuck up quick or get eaten, mum can’t pick him up and carry him to safety), staying in the womb longer than they already do would result in heads being too big to fit through vag.
Trade-offs is evolutions game.
Only to the extent that the environment they find themselves in allows them to do so. Get the environment, society, right and you’ll likely not notice much difference between the two groupings. For example it’s not hard to significantly reduce reckless breeding, you just need to remove any sort of child benefits (meaning the burden of rearing children falls entirely on the parents/guardians of them, plus whatever help they can get from their extended family), and use the money saved to provide as much free birth control and education toward using birth control to both men and women, while also ensuring that abortion is a legal option (as much as it would pain pro-lifers), then you just sit back and allow economic forces to do the rest for you.
Course that plan won’t come to pass, because it’s ‘misogynistic’. Or so it will be described, since you’ll notice that a women having a child without having a steady partner, or big enough extended family, having not previously availed herself of the various methods of birth control or abortion, will very quickly find herself up shit creek without a paddle, and the child ain’t exactly finding itself brought into the world in the most rosy of circumstances either.
But then again, Trade-offs is evolutions game…
December 20th, 2013 at 7:36 pm
Whoa, sea-change in meat market dynamics about to hit Canada:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-20/canada-supports-life-liberty-and-pursuit-prostitution
And note that this is a Supreme Court decision, so it is final. Toronto and other Canadian cities have been notorious for bitchy entitled women and feminists (but I repeat myself), so it will be interesting to watch how the dynamics change simply by having this option out there, even if most men do not use it.
Supply and demand, baby, and women just lost their officially sanctioned monopoly. Gee, maybe they are going to have to work on their sunny personalities lol.
December 20th, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Someone please put a collar on LT. I will pay you. Anyone who is willing to go 50 shades of grey on her will likewise get a bonus.
December 20th, 2013 at 8:26 pm
@Cylux
Why is it that many are geniuses without shortsightedness? Surely this physical weakness is not essential for genius.
December 20th, 2013 at 8:31 pm
I also googled Jenny Erikson.
Whoaahoooooooaaaaa Nelly!
But this graph, especially the “lacks talent”… funny as hell.
But the whole story is funny, but tragic, as well. Feel sorry for Leif. But in regards of the original topic of this thread, I wouldn’t feel contempt or despise him. But lost of frustration if for some reason we ended up discussing his situation and he couldn’t see what happened when you pointed it out to him.
December 20th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
okay, messed up the code for the graph. go here for the image I was talking about.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/trapped/
December 21st, 2013 at 4:26 am
@infowarrior – True, there’s more than one way to build a human, there is also plenty of glasses wearers who are thick as pig shit. I’m talking more general trends than focusing on individuals however.
December 21st, 2013 at 10:32 am
I’m one of the “socialism is feminism” bloggers, I suppose. Though that is not a fair statement of my contentions, for brevity, it does scoop wide enough to grab me up with the rest. Ive no desire to debate it here or really anywhere. It is only important to me in one application anyway, that being that those who over ran places like AVFM, militant in their leftism, they were doing harm. My opinion was born out as fact later as the dust up with the bumblebee babe illustrated. No matter.
I could not agree more with one thing you said. The constant drum beat about Marxism (and even leftism in more contemporary terms) is not helpful. Its inevitable, like the rule that says Hitler will be cited, that some self proclaimed philosopher will start an obscure argument based on historical texts. This particular manifestation is simply peacocking, nothing more, and harmless if within the group. But as you suggest, harmful, maybe, if part of the overall dialog.
I’m surrounded by men pre-whipped. Fish don’t know they are wet, these men are happy in the comfy chair of conventional wisdom, and painfully frustrating to talk to beyond weather or sports or work, where even then they can exude their supplication boldly.
Complete internalization of that feminine identification seeped into every facet of what had formerly been the male experience.
This is why i told the somewhat new C4C at Dalrock that his assertion that social media preceded exploding narcissism that no, (I failed to use the term but will here) The FI preceded and created the demand for social media as a way to fuel narcissism and my pet topic…..empathetic feelings, they crave them.
December 21st, 2013 at 10:37 am
I take her restaurants bowling KFC even anything 2 keep it fresh.
I nominate this comment for…..something
December 21st, 2013 at 11:18 am
It also occurs to me that there is a way to mitigate for the brain stealing oxygen away from the eyes, which is to get more oxygen into the bloodstream, or have the cardiovascular system work more efficiently. I suspect those geniuses who didn’t have any vision problems may well have also been noted to be quite restless and physically active throughout their lives, rather than be somewhat sedentary, doing a natural form of cardio, so to speak. But that is admittedly conjecture at this point.
December 21st, 2013 at 8:09 pm
GREAT article D-Man!! A few sweeping generalizations easily disproven, but not really significant enough to undermine the essential importance. Baumeister has such a good grasp on this!! Thanks for the lead, I really didn’t want the lecture to end!
December 21st, 2013 at 9:31 pm
She’s right though in one sense, we outsource parenting to others. As a teacher I understand this better than most, but I really can’t see a feasible alternative when most parents either don’t have the time, ability or will to teach their children themselves. So, in this sense, it does take a village to raise a child. You all should be very worried about the state of schools and teacher training programs. Teachers are overwhelmingly female, and there are many female teachers practicing and enforcing the notion that maculine energies and interests are against the norm, and instead that the ideal student is a female. Some of the garbage feminist-inspired literature we have to read in our teacher training courses is ridiculous, and if there were to be an equivalent from an MRA perspective it would be seen as blasphemous and perhaps even get you fired. To be clear, the subtext of a lot of our training was that masculinity needs to be deconstructed but that femininity does not. I read an article for the program that suggested that mathematics classes ought to be amended to better suit female interests and encourage more female students. Imagine if it were the other way around: that English classes, which male students have been doing worse in for many years now, were to be amended to be less female and more male – say, less Jane Austen and more philosophy and practical language skills and analysis. It would be considered misogynistic. The fact that males have fallen behind female students in almost every area of the secondary curriculum is almost never discussed, and if it is it is justified in a way that no feminist would ever be happy with if the roles were reversed.
On the larger topic of welfare though, what is the solution? Abolish or severely limit all welfare programs? Some very alpha guys I know have been on welfare for a short period. It seems like a necessity and benefits everyone to some extent. I guess it can go to the extreme and we get overly feminist countries like Sweden too influenced by Marxism.
December 21st, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Over at Susan place she mocks bad PUAs and “nice guys.” I come into the thread and argue that perhaps these guys would benefit from legalized prostitution, the prohibition of which works in women’s favor. I politely counter their points, and in the end they collectively start saying (including Susan herself) “men are not entitled to sex!!!!!” and I get banned after a nasty comment from Susan directed at me. In several instances she flat out refused to publish my comments that rebutted hers as to give herself the last word.
Not sure what I expected but now that place is a ghetto of women agreeing amongst themselves.
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/12/20/hookinguprealities/looks-like-game-went-mainstream-2013/#comment-1173289808
December 22nd, 2013 at 5:37 am
Coveture?
Are you actually aware of what the word means or what it entails?
You are aware that you validated the initial premise?
Does a mother ‘own’ her child?
December 22nd, 2013 at 8:53 am
If you comment on HUS, you’re an idiot, plain and simple.
December 22nd, 2013 at 12:02 pm
I don’t bother with commenting at HUS for the same reason I don’t bother commenting at Manboobz.
December 22nd, 2013 at 2:30 pm
The bright side of civilizational decline, from the Zenpriest:
Social pressure and social acceptability used to be the primary means of keeping men trapped in their old roles. But, women blew this when they started with the wholesale man bashing. Men got clobbered just as bad, or worse, for being upstanding guys than they got clobbered for being cads. Given that they were going to get clobbered no matter what they did, men naturally chose to do what was the most fun…
It was confusing for a while, but now several distinct strategies have emerged for men which men choose based on their individual preferences. If a man wants sex, he learns Game. If he wants peace and quiet and freedom from nagging, ragging, bitching, complaining, whining pissing and moaning – he becomes a MGHOW or a Ghost. If we wants a family, marriage, and kids, he goes expat or imports a foreign wife.
Men have tons of options today and really don’t need the government to do squat. Meanwhile, the women who have “won” the gender war and now have “A Woman’s Nation” are left holding the bag of being the breadwinner and raising the kids by themselves, and some of them are still up for quick lays but not marriage – in other words, they are fine with being pumped and dumped.
Now, please explain to me what the hell men need a “movement” for?
Zenpriest #55 — Now, Please Explain to Me What the Hell Men Need a Movement For?
December 22nd, 2013 at 3:04 pm
I like Zenpriest, guy makes a lotta sense. Damn sight more than most MRAs and women/pussified men do. Even made several of the article-series on no-ma’am into ebooks, just in case the site is ever mysteriously trashed/censored.
December 22nd, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Are you guys not exhausted with the back-and-forth with this woman? The fact that she will never see things any other way and will argue incessantly no matter how many times the flaws get pointed out.
You reach a point of diminishing returns in these discussions, it becomes redundant and simply takes up unnecessary space.
If she’s a troll (which most are by default), she’s doing a great job.
December 23rd, 2013 at 2:54 am
Re: Rol
I pretty much stopped reading comments from women completely. It’s just a waste of time.
December 23rd, 2013 at 3:00 am
@Rol – you have just described every woman’s MO to a T. Her strategy is to wear down and browbeat and nag the opposition until they submit or give up from sheer exhaustion.
This is why a man’s only defence is to say “no No NO”, often and loudly. If she keeps pushing it, then push her out the door – shut it firmly behind her – never let her inside again.
Then once you’ve recovered somewhat from the overwhelming mass of utterly inane BS, you can decide if you want to pursue another or take a break for a time while you recover more.
December 23rd, 2013 at 5:58 am
“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.” Sisyphus
No.
We already have the answer to this question.
Go to countries, of comparable genetic stock, that are less contaminated with the feminist imperative and then compare the quality of the women.
I have never come across anyone on the manosphere who argues that women born in English speaking countries are more attractive than in Eastern Europe. Not one. And you can look at things like obesity rates if you want to get objective.
December 23rd, 2013 at 7:42 am
Liberating the Beta is the manosphere’s greatest act of kindness. It is how we the previously enslaved pay it forward, and by doing so how we honor those who showed us the world for what it is. Only when we can see things as they are can we make choices that are truly in our own best interest.
December 24th, 2013 at 10:17 am
I was going to indulge some of LT’s clearly delusional statements, but the urge to confront solipsism masked by poorly conceived rationalizations is just not that strong in me this morning.
Pre-whipped seems to be the consistent state of things these days, but how do we break it? Do we even want to break it (one hopes)? Clearly we’re becoming a non-breeding culture. What few kids we manage to father, women abort out of their wombs without breaking stride, at least enough times to put us in a negative population growth rate. I don’t think having the West circle the drain is such a good idea, given as we’re really the only culture in history to invest in individual freedom with any seriousness. Mankind simply will not profit well in a world of collectivist savages and nuclear bombs.
There is a guy here where I work who is the glowing cheerful poster boy for extreme beta/omega behaviors. Jokes nearly daily about how the wife is in charge and he is just some kind of humble servant (yes, he uses the word servant). Clucks at any sign of masculinity and cannot run fast enough to any group of girls who happen to form in order to debase himself and the entire male sex with what seems to amount to nearly orgasmic pleasure. He’s soft, flabby, pasty and doe eyed. It’s pathetic bordering on grotesque, and he couldn’t be happier doing it. There is no conversion for this man nor those like him, he’d fight it tooth and nail and likely rather slit his wrist than to even conceive of not being a servant to any passing person with tits and a vagina. To be frank, it’s hard not to hate on the guy, he makes it too easy, no in fact, he nearly demands it from any man in the room who still has a shred of masculinity in him.
Converting betas or guys who are innocently beta and don’t consciously try to betray their masculinity (it just happens through habit) I don’t hate though. But the willful idiots, a pox on them and their shameless selling of their balls to every passing feminist.
December 24th, 2013 at 10:20 am
I meant European descended Americans, not counting illegal immigrants in the “negative population growth” category. They’re breeding like rabbits.
December 25th, 2013 at 6:04 am
Rol:
because they’re too beta to walk away from a bitch.
December 25th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
“I don’t think having the West circle the drain is such a good idea, given as we’re really the only culture in history to invest in individual freedom with any seriousness.”
Investing in individual freedom – that is, women’s individual freedom – is precisely what got the West into its current calamity in the first place.
December 26th, 2013 at 11:05 am
livingtree2013, I do not possess a particularly strong instinct to breed. I do feel a strong urge to be a foster parent, and in fact have done so.
Please explain which insecurities I’m acting out on.
And, no, I won’t raise another man’s child and pretend it’s my own. I will, however, gladly nurture and raise another man and woman’s child–I’m just upfront and honest about it.
(Tales of my days as a foster dad are great for game too–I get the benefits of being a provider-dad, with none of the major negatives like the fact most women won’t date a guy who has a kid.)
December 27th, 2013 at 2:36 am
I have a question for rollo.
I am 29 years old. I can do 50 pull-ups and about a thousand crunches and I don’t even bother trying to find out how much I could bench-press max. I think of myself as a man just short of being an alpha.
my parents have always had this seething hatred of me. my mother said to me that I look like a dog’s ass and my father said that he was feeding a snake (referring to me) while I was tearful after being beat-up by them, together. i was 12 and not strong and violent as i am now. my offense was that i had fallen asleep in the afternoon and my mother had to wait outside for me to wake up and open the door.
i related the above to illustrate that the hatred is real and not imagined.
now, i can comprehend that my father was trying to prove to himself and his wife and everyone else that he was a strong man by beating up his little boy.
but i think my mother’s hatred is due to the feminist imperative. a thick necked big jawed little boy is seen as threat and he must be beaten, ridiculed and bullied into submission pro-actively.
am i being delusional or is there a tinge of truth to what i think?
December 27th, 2013 at 8:31 am
Bobby,
Absolutely true. The phenomenon of mothers hating their own sons is a new one, and I have no explanation for it other than unchecked feminism.
December 27th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Bobby, nothing you can do about low-grade narcissistic people being that way. Been there seen it done it. they never change, don’t even bother getting yourself concerned about it. I suspect it’s congenital.
Just keep in shape, so you’ll fit the Very Expensive Dark Suit I hope you got in anticipation of the funerals.
Absolutely splendid places for “comforting” unaccountably distressed young females (that nobody knows how they even knew one’s parents to attend in the first place), after the wake, the ham etc., .. and drinkies.
December 27th, 2013 at 1:19 pm
“…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….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?!”
@Sisyphus, Who says they would all “unplug”, shouldn’t they at least know that they have a choice??? With divorce being so prevalent and most men getting screwed when it comes to custody, a lot of boys grow up with single moms, I’ll wager that some do OK but most don’t. Most men learn from their mom’s on how to be a a “good beta man” and we all know how well that works, Rollo’s site and the MRA movement probably wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for this type of upbringing.
I love my mom, trust me they don’t make angels like her anymore, very few women are like her but… she isn’t a man and having a good masculine male role to learn from while growing up would have been much better in my life, I would’ve have made quite a few different decisions instead of learning all of this goodness in my late 30’s/early 40’s – it’s like i’m going through a 2nd child development process now with my eyes open to the world as it really is around me.
ALL MEN deserve to know better and to be given a choice otherwise you’re denying them the freedom to live better lives. You place more importance in maintaining the image/facade/stereotype of the nice guy versus actual values that benefit all men.
Somewhere along the way, this masculine education was outlawed, frowned/looked down upon as if it was a bad thing – you have today’s version of society to blame for that missing education, I think if you want to fix things bringing this type of male education back is a requirement. Stop worrying about “absolute mayhem”, it hasn’t happened yet, worry about the real problems that exist today instead of being afraid of tomorrow’s boogeyman.
December 27th, 2013 at 2:30 pm
@hoellenhund2
“Investing in individual freedom – that is, women’s individual freedom – is precisely what got the West into its current calamity in the first place.”
Not so much, no, but that’s how it’s sold to the masses. We managed to get through several centuries without unnatural evil based feminism gumming up the works while being far, far freer as individuals than we are now.
Investing in allowing emotions to become the primary rhetorical tool is what allowed socialism power, socialism then cast its net at those with whom it communicates best e.g – emotionally, women, and now here we are today.
December 27th, 2013 at 8:02 pm
This is why:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/26/whats-your-problem/
December 27th, 2013 at 11:01 pm
What Rollo is doing is saving families. By helping the men unplug they become the Men that can lead their families to a better life. Although I unplugged mostly independently, I read this site all of the time because its insight crystallizes the thinking in a cogent way. I have bought 5 copies of the book and will be handing it out to any friends who need it. 1 special copy is saved for my little boy. Thank you Rollo for taking your time. God bless you.
December 30th, 2013 at 6:52 am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10513330/Vladimir-Putin-claims-Russia-is-moral-compass-of-the-world.html
Hopefully Russians will soon realize that feminism is an even greater evil than gay movement and ban it altogether as well.
Happy New Year!
December 30th, 2013 at 7:05 am
Rollo,
First I wish you a Happy New Year with many blessings and the protection of God.
Second I have a new year request for you: could you write something about what feminism has turned marriage into, for men? I mean, I think it penalized men who get into marriage in a number of indirect ways, by rendering it into a very risky and costly endeavor where the man assumes all the costs and risks, while having less value and earning less respect and love than a poodle madam dog. On the other hand, there is a great number of self-entitled, neurotic women which demand the “superman” as a husband, while claiming total independence, freedom, having little or no housework and child bearing and bringing skills.
I was thinking these days: if we could create a Pussy Price Index, which would be the value of this index in countries where feminism has reached supremacy? Could it be related to the dismal total birth rates in these countries. Of course, there are other factors such as technological development, female education, accessibility to birth control methods, women priorizing career (and animals) to family and children, etc. But overall, something went very wrong as these societies are not able to keep birth rates at replacement levels. Or could it be just the natural and historical up and down cycles of most civilizations such as Ancient Egypt, Roman Empire, etc.? How do you see all of this?
All the best.
December 30th, 2013 at 4:33 pm
A Jessica Lange interview on the Tavis Smiley show got me thinking about the role of grandparents. She made the comment about it’s a chance to do it again.
That got me thinking about how the economy makes more people have to work longer in life, those that are grandparent age now versus those that will be who were getting married/having kids back in the Oprah-ized hey day, and how the role of grandparents might be different.
January 3rd, 2014 at 12:26 pm
Further reading on the Marxist-Leninist roots of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism’s war on men, maleness, fatherhood and families. —
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-did-feminists-attack-family.html
January 21st, 2014 at 9:00 am
if you disregard modern biology and consider males and females as two different (but compatible) species with two different breeding strategies the picture changes somewhat…..
fish have the best strategy… they spawn thousands off offspring and leave the rest to chance, but fish are very simple animals with zero skill set to pass on…..
in more complex animals at least one parent is needed to pass on life skills……..polar bears for example are raised only by the female, but males are anything but betas….
in humans the man can pump a thousand women a year if he is skilled, he can mate like a fish, leaving spawn all over the place…. the only problem is he has no guarantee that any will survive… and none learn any of his life skills or benefit from his provisioning…
the female on the other hand must care for the young and raise them… she is invested in and has more guarantee of their survival, she also gets to pass on more traits…. but in the human realm needs the males assistance…. we are more like birds that have to nest together and work together…. than polar bears where one parent is enough….
allowing the females to take over the mating entirely moves us further towards insects, which are highly communal creatures with equality being the norm… there are no special ants….
but mammals are not hive minded… they are herd or pack minded – or just solitary…. so all efforts to create a hive type existence leads to thuggery and pack type behavior….and a few loners heading their own way….
plus very few human females (no matter how hard feminism tries) are capable of the logical male attitudes and approaches to create new technology, solve problems, fight aggressors etc.
fine if a woman can and genuinely wants to embrace the male world to some degree with the caveat that males cannot become females and give birth…. AND that a woman that wants to join the male world, should not have the opt out to take 10 years off to be a mother, AND must have the same standards and skill sets as equivalent males in her chosen field…
May 13th, 2014 at 11:49 pm
[…] I outline the origins of this hierarchy model in Pre-Whipped: […]