Consumer Confidence

url-1

After having worked in the liquor industry for over 8 years I can tell you that the most difficult demographic to appeal to is men. You might think that’s hard to believe but by comparison men are much more difficult to engage than women when it comes to introducing a new spirits brand. Men tend to lock in with a particular brand of liquor or beer (usually what’s cheap) and resist anything new, while women are much more experimentative with choice of intoxicants.

When introducing a spirit such as a bourbon or whiskey, one that is traditionally a male taste, the field is incredibly broad. There are literally thousands of craft brands all vying for the same male demographic, however, only a dozen of these brands are ever commercially successful. Not so with flavored vodkas or rums, which appeal to the much wider female drinking demo. The common mistake is to think men wont drink “froo froo” drinks with umbrellas in them for fear of seeming unmanly. This is the feminized marketing perspective; in actuality the female drinking demographic has much more depth and much more purchasing influence.

That may seem odd considering the aggressiveness with which the better known alcohol brands market to a male, drinking age demographic, but that aggressiveness is necessary to maintain brand awareness with men due to one simple fact: women are the primary consumers in westernized societies.

Alcohol is an easy illustration, not just because I’m intimately involved in the industry, but because it’s one of the few markets that actively tries to engage a male demographic. Most advertising since the rise of social feminization has simply written off male consumer involvement. Men don’t buy shit, women do. Even uniquely male necessities are purchased more often by women (wives  or LTR women) than men today, so rather than make attempts at inroads to male brand loyalty advertising and marketing directs its effort to the demographic that is doing the actual purchasing – women.

Feminist love to paint this patronization as some triumph of women becoming more economically equatable with men. The fem-logic being that women have more purchasing influence because they have more money from being more economically successful (only to bemoan the tired 77¢ on the male dollar trope 10 minutes later). Some of that may be true, but the greater influence is men’s general apathy about who’s making purchases in their names.

Men’s innate rationality is a tough obstacle for most marketers. The fact that most advertising is controlled by a female influence further exacerbates the difficulty of reaching men’s purchasing influence. And really, why bother? It’s much easier to induce women’s purchasing decisions with appeals to their predominantly emotional natures. Women buy from feeling good about buying something, while men buy from pragmatism – even when that pragmatism may only benefit themselves.

Means of Production

I was recently reading a forum thread I got a link back from and the topic was the timeless classic, “what make a man a man?” The predictable responses were all present: Confidence, Responsibility, Integrity, and all of the other subjectively definable esoteric attributes you’d expect. I thought about this question in terms of the difference in consumer influence of both men and women. I’m not an economist, but I am an ideas guy, and it occurred to me that the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.

To maintain a wife, children, even a dog, a man must produce more than his consumption. Once you’ve lost that capacity (or never developed it) you are less of a man – you are a burden. You must be provided either by charity or guile, but you’re not producing.

On a limbic level, women’s hypergamy filters for this. You see, while women have the societal option to provide for themselves, there is no onus on her to produce anything more than she herself consumes. For all the fem-centric male professions of how rewarding being a stay-at-home Dad is, what eats away at them is the hindbrain awareness that he is not producing more than he consumes. This is the same awareness etching into a woman’s psyche when she’s the one doing the provisioning.

Every complaint about men not Manning Up, every article bemoaning the End of Men or the dearth of datable / marriageable men of “equatable” socio-economic, educational levels as the women seeking them, finds the root of its discontent in the very simple formula that men must produce more than they consume. Women’s displeasure isn’t that a man might be less intellectual than they are so much as he can provide for himself, and her, and a child, and a dog, and a relative, etc.

70 comments

  1. When a gal comes to visit me for the first time, she’s generally shocked at how little I have. My place isn’t spartan, but it’s threadbare in many ways. When she visits the kitchen and sees I have 2 plates, 4 forks/knives/spoons, and only a few minor cooking utensils, she’ll usually ask why.

    And my answer has always been the same: a man produces, a woman spends.

    With almost 90% of my ecommerce online, our target audience is women. Even if we sell stuff for guys, our ads are directed to married women.

    That might be one of the reasons that “manosphere” blogs tend to leave the market so quickly — men just don’t spend money like women do.

  2. “the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.”

    Then my father was right when he said his biggest goal as a father was to have my brother and I be productive members of society. He achieved that goal.

  3. Regarding the question: “what make[s] a man a man?” … I would have instantly answered pragmatism, but your answer works better.

    This brings up another topic about economies and regulation. When you over-regulate, you effectively tell men to stop producing more than they consume. Worse, too much regulation often forces men into situations where they have to produce in insanely inefficient ways. This removes the value of men in society bit by bit, and society suffers for it.

  4. Your definition is in line with social psychologist Baumeister wrote in his book “Is There Anything Good About Men?”: “the core achievement that defines manhood in a culture is that a man produces more than he consumes.”

  5. as a never married, no kids guy I work part-time…

    I get sideway glances from the cubicle slaves who work 40+….

    they drive nice cars but some have declared BK, have divorces….

    on the alcohol note-I always hated hard liquor…..

    I love dark beer and IPA’s….

  6. You see this in the vast differences in how advertising has changed.

    Take for instance a television commercial for a car from the 50’s or 60’s when men generally controlled those buying decisions. The ad will talk about performance, suspension, braking… all practical considerations.

    Cut to a car ad today. Rarely do you ever hear about those practical considerations. It’s all about painting the consumer into this pretty picture where they feel good and the car just so happens to be there too.

    Apple’s advertising is a fantastic example of this. There is practically nothing about the details of the product. It’s all about feel and I’ve noticed that most of it is just trying to get you to feel something and make an impression on you while the commercial is on. It doesn’t even matter what the product is or does.

  7. “the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.”

    Form an evolutionary biology perspective, this is absolutely correct. Really, when you get down to it, women and men serve two very different roles that are both vital to the survival of the species.

    Women are breeders and lactaters.

    Men are meatshields and mules.

    All of our behaviors and attitudes flow from those roles, and from our socio-sexual strategies and preferences.

  8. so lets drill down further.

    Your physical fitness, social fitness, and creative intelligence set the stage for providing the capacity to generate net resources. ie. initial attractiveness.

    Your willingness to commit those resources and/or capacity long term and maintain them are the qualities that define a females non-negotiable desire to remain faithfull, around, etc.

    Notice that how you feel, or what she cares about dont play, only ability and the harsh reality of physical resources.

    Women then trade emotional connectiveness (and sex is ultimately self same for a man, unless procreation results) for that capacity or tangible resource.

    Everything else around us, civilization, technology, all of it, are merely abstractions and tangents of the paragraph above that allow a greater swath of the genetic sample to push their genes forward.

    Both the meaning of life and the cure for one-itis gentlemen, right there.

  9. I have phrased this as “overproduce or perish”.

    In modern American society, men cannot opt out of this reality. A woman can by having a child, whether or not she cares for it well.

  10. Not to echo the others too much, but, Yes. Goddamned genius, and no mistake. As Mr. Mintner says: Pop pop.

  11. Rollo, this is one of your finest (and I consider you the guy with the best posts in the manosphere).

    Esther Vilar said something similar: “A man is a human being who works. A woman is a human being who doesn’t work”. This was before feminism.

    But, after feminism, your definition is more accurate. “A man is a human being who produces more than he consumes” and “A woman is a human being who consumes more than she produces”.

    Or as a Dada said more succintly: “a man produces, a woman spends”.

  12. warriors are enablers for the tribe, destroying the evil so everyone else can live. unless they are destroying the tribe, in which case they are the evil themselves.

  13. After the first paragraph I thought I was going to read a lot of men lock in on one type of alcohol and stay with it because they are prone to oneitist.

  14. “the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.”

    I would add “and with a purpose”
    There is nothing wise or manly in a production for the sake of production itself. To produce more than is needed it’s just to waste resources, especially in times when fiat money rule the world.

  15. This also explains why women get irate at Captain Capitalism for going minimalist and producing only enough for himself.

  16. >>>>Cut to a car ad today. Rarely do you ever hear about those practical considerations.

    Cupholders, Hero. Cupholders. That is what car sales to women are all about. My truck? Two cupholders. One of them contains a leatherman tool.

    >>>>the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.”

    Sure, that and a pair of testicles. – Jeff Lebowski.

    Sorry, it was apt.

    But serious question for Rollo, relating to the liquor marketing – what is driving the over-the-top ironic ad campaigns for Dos Equis (the Most Interesting Man in the World) and for the Old Spice derivative. (Check out the Hawkridge and Foxcrest YouTube vids). They have similar over-the-top appeal, and they obviously aren’t appealing in a serious way to manhood. Yet based on how women react to those ads versus my male friends, particularly the Old Spice commercials, I’m not sure what they are aiming at. My male friends, and my young son all howl when they see the ads, There is something about them that communicates to men. My wife and her friends chuckle a little, then forget about the ads. Most of them, in contrast, cringe when they see the VW commercials with the dad who can’t throw, teaching his kid how not to throw; whereas the women all go, “Oh, it’s so cute, he’s such a good dad.”

    And related – Axe commercials are similarly over the top, but I don’t know that they resonate with women. While I chuckle at the ads my experience as a GI overseas made me partial to bodywash over hard soap, so I buy the stuff. But who are they really trying to reach with their ads? My wife swears it’s not the ads, but the great smell that makes her buy the stuff for me. Any thoughts?

  17. Second Yohami with a caveat. Warriors, at least the US kind, destroyed communism, National Socialism and slavery, among other things. And more freedom resulted. Not a bad result.

  18. “the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.”

    I wonder who it is that consumes the rest of what the man produces lol

    Seriously though, this reminds me of the “Wasp And Spider” concept that I read about in “The Predatory Female.” There’s a wasp that’s like a woman. A tarantula (i.e man) is bigger and stronger but the wasp can sting that tarantula until he’s in a coma.

    Then she’ll build her nest on his back. Then she’ll lay her eggs. She’s raise her young and feed from his living body. These are metaphors for a woman living off a man’s labor. If he tries to stop her, she’ll sting into being lethargic again. He’ll die later but not until she’s done with him. He can’t ever get her off his back.

    Then there’s a “Jaws” concept. The shark isn’t happy with just one piece. It comes back for more. More child support, more alimony, more, more, more… even after the relationship is over.

    If only I didn’t have such a “fuck you” attitude towards the idea of letting a woman who’s not doing the work I do live off the hard work I do…

  19. Ace, I think the concept of “more, more, more” does not arise from pure greed but sexual/resource competition between women. More for me and my children means less for other women and any children she may have. Sexual/resource competition does not end with divorce unfortunatel y

  20. “the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume”

    That’s is a very “manly” viewpoint. Very Promethean.

    But, sorry, it is an entirely Femcentric definition of what “manly” is.

    And a very convenient one if you happen to have a vagina to trade for that surplus the man produces.

    The reality, if you scape away all the social and cultural conditioning and break it down to the biological function of men, is that to be man you have have an orgasm and deliver sperm.

    Anything other than that is a social invention.

    And the Feminine Imperative, certainly, hunter gatherer version 1.0, Agricultural 2.0, and Industrial 3.0 bought into a that definition of a “Real Man”, and all evidence suggests that despite any social push for some other definition of what a “Real Man” would be allowed to entail, for most women, like 99%, it still involves production of surplus labor that the man, without question, hands over to women as the rent for association with them.

    So any other definition is a learned and imposed definition, yet it goes back for so long, at least back to the Toba eruption that it is burned into our genes.

    No, I would say the nuts and bolts of being a man is compete for status within the hierarchy of other men.

    And your position within that hierarchy, or more correctly, the women’s perception of your perception determines your sexual value and sexual access.

    In this society, the way the score of that competition is kept is by production of money.

    I am not so sure that over consumption is in the very nature of women. I think they might have been conditioned over the past 100 years to consume as they do. But whatever, they are damn good at it.

    But they reason they do is because they can. Men have been conditioned by the Feminine Imperative that the “Real Man” hands over his money to her and stands mutely as she spends it.

    And there is a remarkable difference in the spending patterns of women that has a man to subsidize her than those single women.

    “Every woman needs a man”.

    For his ATM card.

  21. @ Mark

    “The reality, if you scape away all the social and cultural conditioning and break it down to the biological function of men, is that to be man you have have an orgasm and deliver sperm.

    Anything other than that is a social invention.”

    Mark, you are failing to think this through.

    That sperm is useless if it doesn’t result in conception, and that fetus is born healthy, and the child lives long enough to reproduce. Sperm is cheap, yes. But that is only part of the story.

    Humans are a highly sexually dimorphic species for a reason. Men are larger, stronger, faster, tougher, more logical and more focused for a reason. We are meant to produce more than we consume.

    Why? Because men need to support not only themselves, but the female(s) they impregnate, and the children that result. A female might be able to support herself when is isn’t carrying, but a women in the 3rd trimester is very limited in her ability to provide for herself, especially given the huge drain on her body from the child within her. Even after she gives birth, she will need to focus much of her effort on feeding, nurturing and watching the child(ren). In order for the species to survive, men must produce not only for themselves, but for their females and children. At least, that is what was the case until very, very recently in human history.

    Women look at us men as meat-shields and mules. And they are right to do so. That is what evolution turned us into. The problem arises when men point out the truth about them: that they are breeders and lactaters. Women want to abandon their biological roles, while still imposing upon men our biological roles. This is what we must resist.

  22. The image used is very apropos, for me what is interesting is how advertising has changed over the years…

    http://www.businessinsider.com/18-ads-that-changed-the-way-we-think-about-women-2012-10?op=1

    This was an unbelievable read on advertising to men and the trends…. “The End of Men, For Real.”
    http://www.aef.com/industry/news/data/2012/1235

    The later link and Rollo’s “man is to produce more than you consume” points to a blurring of this role. In which men can’t realistically make this claim anymore. Even looking at IRA contributions women contribute more than men, when given the opportunity by their company to do so.
    http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/men-better-at-saving-for-retirement-weston.aspx

    If its not apparent, I am leaning away from the idea that men and women differ regarding provisioning capabilities in todays modern society. As the advertising trend article infers, to define a man by provisioning, or economic terms, is to make the meaning of a men obsolete.

  23. Sounds good in theory, or generations past.
    In reality most hot women under 40 spent their 20s with bums who produced sweet fuck all. They gave (and still give) their youthful sexuality by hookup or serial monogamy to men are unemployed or not much more.
    I agree with MM, this is the femcentric postwall definition of “MAN”, and does, even for me, give a nice fuzzy warm feeling inside to be a producer, creator or things and wealth.
    But it is certainly not the definition of “man I want to fuck” for most hot women out there.
    Only the married ones.

  24. “the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume”

    I agree that it’s very convenient for this to be en vogue and not “to be a man is to produce for yourself and consume what you want”. Basically being self-interested which is what you see women doing when they come into good careers. They don’t want to support any man but nobody gives them shit for it because they’re strong and independent. Because if they’re queens and they only want kings (or Gods,) these men better drop out of the sky and magically in front of her door step. If they don’t, whatever. All other men can go fuck themselves.

    When it’s a man making good money, things are a little different. It’s easy to say “oh don’t support a family if you don’t want to then” but that misses the point. There are urges (sexual) and there are people who will be in your ear all the time. “Oh where are the kids?, haven’t you found yourself a good woman yet?,” etc. People eventually drop like dominoes. Giving up is easier when everyone else around is quitting too.

  25. I suspect “most men” would cheerfully and unselfishly struggle by on moonshine and homebrew, if it wasn’t such a hassle. Rather than waste a penny that could be better spent on vehicles, tools or gambling.

  26. Looking at advertising, a few years ago I was visiting a friend in Seattle. A huge billboard on the West Seattle Freeway — heavy traffic area — for Dodge Trucks read, “More reliable than most husbands.” I couldn’t believe it. It was up there for awhile until I wrote Dodge a letter saying that billboard is uncalled for, wrong, and just who in the hell do you think your clientle is? Not long it came down, not sure if my letter did the trick or not.

    My Seattle friend had a good comment: “If the billboard said, “More reliable than most wives” there would be protests all over Seattle.

  27. @Phero,

    Lover / Provider dichotomy operating there. Women 16-33 (roughly) are not looking for long term provisioning. They exhibit no long term time horizon in their decision making. Its all about now. As a result, the main values fueling hypergamy during these years are Charisma and psycho-sexual dominance (i.e. superior “frame”). So the cocky wise-ass who is unemployed or underemployed can sex up all the pretty young girls while the hard working betas end up with nothing or far less attractive women. Witness Roosh V. In a sane culture women would spit on him. But today he is an “alpha male.”

    Things change with the marriage market though. There, hypergamy still manifests itself with resource provisioning being the major value that women are selecting for, especially if they want children. Thus Rollo’s “Alpha fucks, Beta bucks.”

    I really hate that women can slut it up in their 20s and early 30s (mid and late 30s if they are hot enough) and still end up with beta providers. I really would love to see these women end up unmarried and childless until they die. Even a post 40s women can always get sex (Dalrock recently posted on women in their 60s and 70s slutting it up), but when they get bailed out by a hapless beta for marriage and children I get pissed. Stupid betas. The slut you married wouldn’t even have looked at you 10-15 years earlier. Let her get old childless and unmarried with her biology relentlessly reminding her that she was an evolutionary failure. Let her suffer for the last 40-50 years of her life. As punishment for her mindless hedonism for the first 30.

  28. “This also explains why women get irate at Captain Capitalism for going minimalist and producing only enough for himself.”

    I’ve resolved to do the exact same thing. I don’t want kids, so my free time is all mine and there’s no point in working any harder than I have to. In the dating market, women invariably want you to be career-oriented (they always mention something to this effect in their profile), even though they have their own careers and produce for themselves. If I can pay my own way, why care what I do or whether or not I’m passionate about my job? It’s innate of course, but they certainly can’t rationalize it or verbalize why they feel this way. It just is. Sometimes I just tell them I’m involuntarily employed and working towards gainful unemployment, or depending on how bad I want to get in her pants I’ll just make something up about how I’m working towards this goal or that goal blah blah, and then continue on to see if they are worth the time. Most of the time they are so self-absorbed that it tests my patience to just stay long enough to get the bang, let alone even consider a relationship.

    But the hidden truth is they want to know if you are successful or on your way to becoming successful so they can quit their job someday.

  29. hey rollo,
    I am a huge fan of your writing. regularly follow it first time writing to you.
    Thanks to intelligent posters like yourself, roissy and pook my concepts about men and women have been revolutionised.

    Here is a link of my latest activity while bored.
    thought I’d share it with you for some comic relief. My name is Mohsin

    check it out. you’d be amused

  30. Top post.

    The natural order of society is a positive feedback mechanism where pair bonded males create excess production that is invested in the family social unit which creates growth.

    So excess male production is purpose driven and is contingent on pair bonding and having a family. Take away those drivers and you get men who only produce enough to get by (No Ma’am provides an excellent example of prideless lions only working to 40% of capacity to survive).

    Given social planner’s Zero Growth mantra, lower percentage of total male employment, increased female employment and lower rates of pair bonding (marriage) you get a total male population not working to maximum capacity, which creates a negative feedback loop.

    That is why the West has negative population growth, immigration (faux growth) and inorganic Goverment deficit spending to hopelessly prop up a negative feedback loop.

    The funny thing is female employment will not save the system from a negative feedback loop as females virtually spend everything they produce. Even industry is aware of this phenomenon and charge women more than men, knowing they will spend their money. The whole boutique market segment is premised on this phenomenon and that is why certain ‘brands’ can charge $500 for a $10 handbag.

  31. “I’m not an economist, but I am an ideas guy, and it occurred to me that the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.

    To maintain a wife, children, even a dog, a man must produce more than his consumption. Once you’ve lost that capacity (or never developed it) you are less of a man – you are a burden. You must be provided either by charity or guile, but you’re not producing.

    On a limbic level, women’s hypergamy filters for this. You see, while women have the societal option to provide for themselves, there is no onus on her to produce anything more than she herself consumes. For all the fem-centric male professions of how rewarding being a stay-at-home Dad is, what eats away at them is the hindbrain awareness that he is not producing more than he consumes”

    I wonder how much of this is responsible for the ever increasing depression among women and their inability to account for why they are so unhappy in their day to day lives even though they have achieved equal (dare I say superior) status in western society.

  32. I came to the same realization a few months ago and have wondered since then why i couldn’t see it before.
    The articles on a man without wife and kids being a “man-child” made sense now.

    Thinking back there was never a time where a discussion on getting a job and moving out didn’t also include getting a girlfriend.

  33. I am not so sure that over consumption is in the very nature of women. I think they might have been conditioned over the past 100 years to consume as they do. But whatever, they are damn good at it.

    I think it would be more accurate to say that consumption is in the very nature of women, and that a healthy society keeps this nature in check. When everyone is relatively wealthy the societal constraints come off and you begin to see the “over” consumption we have now.

    Women are pragmatic, but only when they need to be.

    It is the same as any other female behavior- it is up to society to throttle it back. Is there any wonder why we are in the position we are in today?

  34. That’s not being a man, that’s being an adult. It’s children and seniors, not women, who aren’t expected to put in more than they take out. They are expected to still contribute age-appropriately, but they are not expected to be net producers because they are not adults.

    If women are not expected to be net producers, they are not adults.

    We need a label for this common misconflation of masculinity with maturity and femininity with immaturity. Any suggestions?

  35. @ doug
    Def agree with you. But many are unmarried (or LTR) with kids.

    The other point is the obvious resentment many show that i am never married, no kids and have done ok.
    Many a snide comment I have heard like “it’s ok for you, you’re made of money” and similar. Some very resentful and insulting from entitled princesses over 35 who fucked all those losers in their 20s and felt way to good for me at that time.
    Mostly I just reply with “we all made our choices” unless they piss me off or I want to fuck them first.
    but many act like I owe them something, or as if i have actually taken something away from them.
    And of course “You drive one of those so you can pickup chicks don’t
    you?” Yeah baby!
    “You thin just because you have money you can date young chicks?” Yeah baby, I fuck them too!
    Please remind me what exactly you would bring to the relationship table other than drama and expenses?
    BTW did i tell how tight 21yo are? Their bodies are so hot!

    As GBFM would say “lolzlolzlolzlolz”, but it’s kinda sad really try as we may some of us are still good guys deep down.

  36. I have kind of funny personal story.

    My mother came home from shopping. She was quite laden with bags of purchases. She began to explain all of the purchases. I had 4 brothers and sisters so a haul like this wasn’t uncommon.

    The form of her explanation was “I got these shoes for Kristal because they were 30% off and I saved you 20 dollars. I got this dress for Joette because it was on sale and I saved you 30 dollars and ……” and on and on she went through the list of purchases.

    My father said “Evelyn, if you don’t stop ‘saving me so much money’, I’m gonna go broke.”

  37. >>>>Cut to a car ad today. Rarely do you ever hear about those practical considerations.

    Cupholders, Hero. Cupholders. That is what car sales to women are all about. My truck? Two cupholders. One of them contains a leatherman tool.

    Ha. Reminds me of the time I observed my married buddy buy a car. Basically, his wife totally controlled the process. She vetoed one car he really liked because she didn’t like the cupholders. I didn’t say anything, but I remember thinking how pathetically whipped he was. At the end of it, he explained to me “she is going to pick this car, and she says I get to pick the next one we buy”. Of course I laughed in his face — “suuure, she will, dude, sure she will, you keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.”

    Women are pragmatic, but only when they need to be.

    Yeah, but like as not they are making pragmatic choices about how to expend YOUR resources, not theirs.

  38. my girlfriend buys me sweaters, exotic teas, and all Ive ever bought for her was a $7 water bottle because she loves running.

    call me a woman all you want at least im not Skittles guy and I get all the tang I want…..

  39. @Tarl

    When my parents got a look at the cars the couple next door had (two identical family vans) they knew the husband was whipped.

    The family seemed so perfect but my parents could see right through the image they were selling.

    So they had some laughs when the recently divorce man (they weren’t shocked by it nor the wife asking for it) traded in his identical family van for a new car.

  40. Was it Hitler that said something along the lines of;

    “First you get the women and the children and so follow the men.”

    The marketeers and corporations learnt this long ago.

  41. @ Jeremy

    This brings up another topic about economies and regulation. When you over-regulate, you effectively tell men to stop producing more than they consume. Worse, too much regulation often forces men into situations where they have to produce in insanely inefficient ways. This removes the value of men in society bit by bit, and society suffers for it.

    Yep. Essentially why produce 60k when you’re going to get taxed 20k of it when you can work a much easier 40k job and be taxed maybe 10k. A much harder job for an increase in 10k take home pay is not worth it for doing 1.5-2x more work.

  42. You betas are putting words into Rollo’s mouth. Notice how nowhere in this article did he talk about a man’s obligation to allow women to leech off him. A man produces more than he consumes, period.

  43. boxsterpaul: Even looking at IRA contributions women contribute more than men

    Phew! It’s some sort of US pensions thing then? That’s all right then.
    For a minute there I thought we were in Noraid country.

  44. >>A man produces more than he consumes, period.

    >^^^^ Disco.

    Again, no. That’s not being a man, that’s being an adult.

  45. Whether people like it or not women and children are net consumers and men are net producers.

    That’s why government intervention exists (welfare, Goverment employment, affirmative action) to bypass the basic social unit (families) and transfer wealth from men to women indirectly.

    Problem is where are the incentives for males to contribute to such a system?

    Japan is the prime example, massive government social spending, low marriage rates, high divorce rates, negative population growth and you get the herbivores.

    Remember these people use to be the hardest working ballsiest race on the planet who would rather die than surrender. What happened in the last 60 years to change all of this?

    Incentives.

  46. “I’m not an economist, but I am an ideas guy, and it occurred to me that the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.”
    In bold letters and is the gist of the post. And obviously his role as a “man” as he sees it.

    “A man produces more than he consumes, period.”
    Why?
    Why can’t I enjoy and spend every dollar I make?
    To whom do I owe excess production?
    A man should produce/build what he wants, and consume as much of it he wants.
    He should be in charge and control of his and the household finances.

    More alpha/beta mental masturbation.

  47. What about Donavon’s distinction, producing more then you consume make a good man or someone who is good at being a man?

  48. The only alcohol I drink is foo foo drinks. Love Mai Tais. I can’t do scotch on the rocks, etc. I’d rather just not drink,

  49. ““You thin just because you have money you can date young chicks?” Yeah baby, I fuck them too!”

    I love when they say crap like that. It just confirms what Rollo has said many times on here about how women either misunderstand their own SMV, or try to prevent men from understanding their true market value.

    One of my cousin’s was a classic AFC when he was in his 20’s. Now he is 35, makes over 300,000 a year, lives in a 3 million dollar house, drives an expensive car etc, and dates women in their mid 20’s. The girls that didn’t want him 10 years ago always talk about how ‘shallow’ he is behind his back for dating younger women, but i just laugh. These women are just bitter losers. They had their chance, but they were too arrogant to date a man like that, now they think they are entitled to his attention.

    Anyway, this post is spot on. Men have to produce more than they consume to be regarded as ‘valuable’ members of society, particularly by women. If you haven’t got your career or finances sorted out by your mid 30’s, women don’t want to know you.

  50. “Why can’t I enjoy and spend every dollar I make?”

    Because as soon you as you’ve spent every dollar you make, you will immediately go out and produce more dollars.

    Because a man produces more than he consumes.

    That’s Rollo’s message. A man is self-sustaining. He’s not a burden. He’s no one else’s debt. He doesn’t spend frivolously like women.

    Many of you are mistaking the word ‘produce’ with ‘provide’.

  51. I thought women drink what they think that their man thinks is cool. Hence all the manosphere females blowing on about micro beer and “no fizzy yellow”. These are parroting words.

  52. Never considered the problem that most advertising is done by women, so of course its predictable they ‘think’ they know what we want, but dont have a clue.

  53. donalgraeme
    Humans are a highly sexually dimorphic species for a reason. Men are larger, stronger, faster, tougher, more logical and more focused for a reason. We are meant to produce more than we consume.

    Youve got that backwards. I see this a lot in discussions of evolutionary biology. Even professional academics do it. Humans are designed for…. intended to….meant to, etc.

    We aren’t intended or meant to do anything. The physiology, behaviors and character traits you see in modern humans all exist because they’re reproductively favorable, not because anyone/someone intended them to be or designed them that way.

    Men are sperm delivery machines. Our success in delivering the sperm on target is dependent on a whole slew of traits and behaviors that are constantly evaluated and weighted by women. The way in which women assess those traits is somewhat dependent on the environment and particularly on the relative availability of resources.

    But…the ability to deliver resources ranks high amongst those traits. Though we happen to live in a time when resource provisioning is ranked by women at a historically low level thanks to big husband government.

  54. Gawd, people are really tying themselves in knots over the men/production business.
    OK, how about “men are capable of consuming far less than they produce (and generally do so)”. For the female equation, substitute “more” for “less”.

  55. @ Chuck Hammer

    You are correct that my language was off. I should have said this:

    “Humans are a highly sexually dimorphic species for a reason. Men are larger, stronger, faster, tougher, more logical and more focused for a reason. We evolved to produce more than we consume.”

    However, you erred in your observation later:

    “Men are sperm delivery machines. Our success in delivering the sperm on target is dependent on a whole slew of traits and behaviors that are constantly evaluated and weighted by women. The way in which women assess those traits is somewhat dependent on the environment and particularly on the relative availability of resources.”

    Men are more than just sperm delivery machines. I don’t think that it was merely advantageous, but rather necessary for the survival of our species for men to be more than just that. My comments on the vulnerability of pregnant women and women with children stand. Such a woman cannot reasonably produce or acquire enough resources for her and the children to survive. Men evolved to fill the gap, to provide women and children with those resources. I would go so far as to argue that it was only the evolution of the human male to become a net positive producer of resources which enabled our species to survive.

Speak your mind

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