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.
I don’t really see how we can despise beta males since so many of us used to be beta ourselves before we took that red pill.
Dear Rollo, Why the obsession with liberating (unplugging) Betas from the Matrix? It seems to me that there would be absolute mayhem, akin to anarchy, if 85%+ of men unplugged. I do not know, whether you have read Robert Wright’s evol-bio book, from 1994, in it, he seems to articulate a very good reason for why monogamy is a reasonable (perhaps, evil) compromise for stability of a society. I am new to your blog, and have spent the past 7 days reading your essays/articles from mostly 2011 and 2012; perhaps, you have addressed this issue, (i.e. merits of promoting monogamy?),… Read more »
Women are herd creatures. Of course they think it takes a village to raise a child. And that’s what they had before patriarchy, Stone Age villages and subsistence living. http://fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html
Yep, everything around us – everything – emphasises the feminine directive. Advertising. Man-up articles. The news. Special laws. Biased laws and courts and incentives. It’s all about the women.
Not children (there is plenty of mealy-mouthed BS about it being for the children – follow actions rather than words to see the lie).
Not men (we are just slave-labor to gift her with a life of ease).
All about the women.
Sisyphus,
You raise a great question. I enjoy this blog and I’ve learned quite a bit from it. But I could never really understand why it existed. The first rule of the red pill is don’t talk about the red pill, iirc.
Once the the size and scope of the matrix is discovered it’s easy to see that it should not be fucked with. Poking at it from a distance (as we’re doing here) isn’t so bad; engaging it in combat (talking about it with friends/co-workers/facebook etc) is dangerous. This should be lesson one for unplugging.
@ Dr. Jeremy; “Personally, I don’t expect to dissuade you from seeking a system that prioritizes your own needs (and power). I’m not sure that is possible. I just hope others are intelligent enough to see the self-serving nature of your argument and not buy into the persuasion – sacrificing their own needs and the needs of the majority in the process. Frankly, we have already gone too far down that road…and the majority of society is suffering for the comfort of the few already.” I have often seen you make the argument that the manosphere complaint with feminism/hypergamy/feminine imperative… Read more »
@sisyphus. There would be a sort of anarchy in terms of males becoming more aware and taking back control. But remember that men wield considerable control of the female narrative, perhaps more so than females control their own narrative. This is because they depend entirely on men for their survival and can only go so far as we facilitate them. My take on the state of things is, men are largely unaware of the mindset and tricks of the opposite sex and that is why we are where we are today. A mass unplugging would swing the power shift back… Read more »
I suspect the social conditioning of men from youth was never especially difficult for them. Men in general harbor a greater capacity for empathy for others, which in part, comes from a greater tendency toward analytical reasoning – couple this with the constant message that boys have drilled into them throughout their childhood, that women’s and girls’ wellbeing and desires must be put first and most guys whole-heartedly assume the role of white-knight defender who simultaneously try to quash the beast of masculinity that lies within them. The problem of unplugging men is that when someone is so emotionally invested… Read more »
I think it takes a certain amount of discontent to warrant a change and quiet simply most men are a happy lot quite content to live out this aggandized femcentric reality. Ignorance is bliss. Do they really need to be changed. The ones who want change and are fed up will seek out the “manosphere” and present themselves for unplugging
I do wonder how happy most men really are nowadays. Thoreau wrote that “most men lead lives of quiet desperation” and certainly Hypergamy is such that men feel the pressure to relentlessly strive to be “better” or more aligned to the feminine tastes of the day in order to compete for access to reproductive resources – many go through life with the feint worry that they never quite achieved enough. Seeing Hypergamy and gender-relations for what they are, away from the rose-tinted haze of Hollywood, is definitely cathartic but perhaps, and I merely speculate, ever since word got around that… Read more »
“…There is a strong contingent in the manosphere, and particularly MRAs, who’s primary goal is making society…” *whose A lot of blue pill adherents believe that red pill Game-aware men, of whatever manosphere stripe despise Beta man. Let me be clear here, although I can’t really speak for anyone else, I don’t despise the Beta. I don’t really believe any unplugged guy does, but that want to release a Beta from this system is often perceived as Beta-hate (for lack of a better term) by guys still trapped in the Matrix. That’s part of the feminine conditioning; to despise any… Read more »
@ Sisyphus Why the obsession with liberating (unplugging) Betas from the Matrix? It seems to me that there would be absolute mayhem, akin to anarchy, if 85%+ of men unplugged. While I have separate views as to the economic importance of the saturation of Red Pill Men, I (personally) think that the purpose RM and most other blogs of this ilk, is to bring some form of equilibrium (call it yin-yang balance, if you will) to the system because as of the moment, the scales are tipped in favor of the Feminine Imperative. And if the present trend is anything… Read more »
Sisyphus “It seems to me that there would be absolute mayhem, akin to anarchy, if 85%+ of men unplugged.”
You say that. Like it’s a Bad Thing?
” our resident feminist’s assertion that it “takes a village” to raise a child” I had noticed that the Canadian Secretary became more than ordinarily exercised over such matters. Hence her all-encompassing insistence on “communal responsibility” or somesuch. And the village thing. Now to me that means like, mowing the front lawn now and again, not littering, not slaughtering people who annoy me on the spot, that sort of thing. Whereas it’s quite clear she dreads an old age in the poorhouse, and has extended her definition to enable her to freeride on the future efforts of other peoples’ children,… Read more »
I had honestly not stopped to consider LT’s words w.r.t. children as property. I don’t think I even addressed it directly. When she first began spouting this, I literally laughed. It was ridiculous. The original topic I was discussing with her was property rights in general, and how they spring from self-ownership. I also made the comment that because you own your own body, and should own the consequences of your actions, you absolutely must own the fruit of your own labor/body. As an example, I decided to reverse the taxation-and-social-program system we have now to one where women had… Read more »
The promise of the Sexual Revolution was freedom for both genders from the way society repressed people’s sexuality for the good of society. The practical effect, however, has been that only the sexuality of women and top males have been given free reign at the expense of non-top males. In this system, top males, either biologically (in terms of physique) or socially (in terms of achievement, social status, etc) get to easily experience the male desire for sexual variety, and all women get a boost because top males being allowed to engage in hoarding of erotic capital necessarily creates a… Read more »
Sometimes what seems like “beta-hate” isn’t that at all. Men know that often one of the best ways to get another dude in line is to mock or insult him.
If we have to treat each other too “respectfully”, we’ll never bring out the best in each other.
“We as men must acknowledge our own power and not see other men as the enemy (which latent feminism has instilled in us).” Perfect example: most guys want to punch the guy who is flirting with his woman. When you realize the CAUSALITY of these events (up to and including the guy who wants to kill the stranger his wife went and fucked), you realize that the transgression almost always happens at the instigation and behest of the woman. It’s not him you should be angry with, it’s her. If that doesn’t make sense, the pedestal is too high. Remember,… Read more »
It takes a village of castrated betas to raise the children of the alpha’s harem.
Some ridiculous values that I picked up in my youth from pop culture or relatives:
1. Women are only concerned with obtaining relationships and commitment.
2. Women are only tricked into having casual sex or one night stands by being lured into thinking that it will lead to a relationship.
3. Women only ever want to exit a relationship with a man that abuses her or treats her badly in some way.
4. If you want sex with a woman then she will see right through you and reject you on that basis.
This is very similar to religion, once you step outside of your religious shackles, you look back and can’t believe people willingly stay plugged in. The vitriol that those still willingly wearing their shackles unleash at those who have been freed is emotional and hate filled.
I think Sisyphus should read the post about the man in the garage. If 85% of blue pills(estimated or not) were unplugged, you wouldn’t have anarchy. You’d have more men living and enjoying their own houses, instead of being regulated to the garage, of his own house. Regarding the term “it takes a village…” I might have a different point of view towards that, but I’ve felt that it kinda does. I’ve felt that kids who have turned out level headed have been influenced in some ways not just by their parents. Be it inside the family as brothers, through… Read more »
The Men in the Garage:
erationalmale.com/2012/12/03/the-men-in-the-garage/
Take a look at the picture of the demonstrators on the Chateau’s “wives should submit to their husbands” article and you’ll see a terminally whipped guy…
“Red pill” is simply seeing things for what they are. Defend untruth at your peril.
A “village” in the sense of a neighborhood, or group of parents working together, folks looking out for each other, does not diminish parenting at all but enhances and augments it. That’s what it should mean. Tends to work best in smaller towns, cties and neighborhoods where such bonds can be formed. Rather a bit harder in two-acre lot Status Symbol Lands where nobody sees anybody. The raised eyebrows are proper when we substitute a real “village” with the concept of some kind of PTA/mommyblogger “village” as surrogate for the now-superfluous father. We don’t need to go there for this… Read more »
“blue pill adherents believe that red pill Game-aware men, of whatever manosphere stripe despise Beta man” I certainly do not “despise” Beta men – but I do use their tendencies to my own benefit. So whereas they will believe a woman that comes to them and tells him “the condom must have broke” when she turns up preggos, I will, and have, used that to my benefit to ride women bareback knowing that their beta-boyfriend will pick up the tab if she gets knocked up. So, while I certainly don’t despise them – I do use the safety-net they provide… Read more »
“One of the things I have always been grateful for is people’s lack of knowledge when it comes to simple genetics – in one case the mother and “father” both had blue eyes – the kid had brown. Doesn’t take a genius to know that child wasn’t fathered by that man – but a lot of men are oblivious to such obvious facts.”
Might want to study up and educate yourselfe there, slick.
http://genetics.thetech.org/how-blue-eyed-parents-can-have-brown-eyed-children
Interestingly enough my first girlfriend (back in ’62) taught me how not to be a beta (well she got me started). I discuss that and a couple of other things at: Nature, Men, And Women
I despise weak men. Betas are weak, if nothing else to weak to grapple with the ugly truth. Now a Beta in transition is another story same thing for a guy who otherwise has his shit together but is goofy in regards to women.
I dont think hate is the right word.
Sometimes I see hardcore white knights and manginas and I feel a very visceral form of disgust.
I know where it comes from, that was me.
And there are of course those who will go apeshit when you mention anything red pill and then they go all girly on you…
Suddenly the component of compassion is gone…
Hint: Indignation does not even look good on women and go fuck yerselves.
Nobody else will.
And to think that in hindsight some girls were begging me, BEGGING ME to stop my supplicating ways….
They were as much on my side as a woman can be, they tried to tell me, they tried to warn me, they wanted it to work…
Though I do have my misogynist swine badge, earned it the hard way, yeah,, to think that they were firmly in my corner and just wanted me to show the balls they knew I had….
Cant hate women either.
I think I speak for millions of newly unplugged red-pill fathers. I will teach my son game and I don’t give a damn what anybody thinks about this. Millions of boys will become game aware and turn the tide, despite feminist influences and beta-male Game-trashing Cyphers.
Jeremy, I didn’t avoid the taxation-is-theft argument, I ignored it because it was a diversion from the discussion we were having, which was paternity. I asked you a question about why paternity was so important to you, you answered by talking about taxation-as-theft being equivalent to cuckoldry. If you’d like a formal response from me now, I’ll tell you that your answer as much as stated that community responsibility is anathema to a man’s pride of ownership. The idea of putting in any effort into the upbringing of another man’s child is humiliating to you, which says a lot about… Read more »
@livingtree
Well, call it what you want, but those self centered patriarchies first managed to harness the male sex drive and then the drive to see their offspring flourish to turn men into stakeholders of society.
You dont like the underlying assumptions?
They relegated reproductive matriarchies to the margins anyway.
In the end, its amoral.
You do or die.
Plus, I am self centered and shortsighted.
I had excellent teachers.
lyingtree, the gift that keeps on giving. Female imperative in almost every posting. She wants what she wants, when she wants it, from whom she wants it, and calls this childishness “liberating”, when what she actually wants is enslavement of all men to her whims.
Can you feel me passively dismissing your hysteria, Anonymous Reader, a whipped “man” too scared to stand behind what he thinks by even giving his anonymous on-line persona a fake name?
Can you feel me yawn at what can be witnessed at Reddit every day of the week?
Be like a spear woman, have a point.
I had a point, Orion, and a solid point at that, which you already addressed competently.
But my second post was not directed at you, it was to “Anonymous Reader” who, since “Saving the Best” has weakly thrown barbs at me without the power of a spear attached to them. That is to say, my point is that I don’t address comments that make no contribution to the conversation.
LT, I get what you’re saying, and while I may fundamentally disagree with it for any number of reasons, I do have some questions. Is it your assertion that men should abandon and or disenfranchise themselves from any notion of investing themselves (emotionally, financially, etc.) into the wellbeing of children they are not directly responsible for siring? The premise of your beliefs seem to stem from the notion that men want some form of progeny assurance (i.e. mate guarding), why do you believe men would want this ‘ownership’ in the first place? Do you believe it’s due to some learned,… Read more »
Rollo, thank you for asking – I’m glad at least that you’re not dismissing me outright like, ahem, some of your readers – and great questions too! Unfortunately I’m about to head off to a business function, so I’ll have to think about it tonight and get back to you in the AM or when I get home later.
OK Rollo, here goes: “Is it your assertion that men should abandon and or disenfranchise themselves from any notion of investing themselves (emotionally, financially, etc.) into the wellbeing of children they are not directly responsible for siring?” No it is not. “The premise of your beliefs seem to stem from the notion that men want some form of progeny assurance (i.e. mate guarding), why do you believe men would want this ‘ownership’ in the first place?” Insecurity. “Do you believe it’s due to some learned, socialized, patriarchal need for status, or would it be due to a deeper rooted biological… Read more »
I don’t despise the beta. I was one. It’s 2013. The beta is now without excuse since FREE resources like this blog cannot be avoided. Before, it was virtually impossible to have this education without spending the price of a few cars. Now, the knowledge is common and it is free. Then again, millions of men read Rollo’s posts (to learn), yet they haven’t purchased his book. That’s a similar mindset to the beta male: “Ok, ok I’ll listen, but I only want to know this and a little about that because I already know what I’m doing.” This blog… Read more »
@livingtree2013 Jeremy, I didn’t avoid the taxation-is-theft argument, I ignored it because it was a diversion from the discussion we were having, which was paternity. I asked you a question about why paternity was so important to you, you answered by talking about taxation-as-theft being equivalent to cuckoldry. That’s a flat out lie. Absolutely incorrect. You said that to make your own arguments seem better. The conversation sprang from “independent women” not “needing men”. To this I ventured into trying to explain to you why taxation is theft from men, to gift it to single mothers. The men who earned… Read more »
Ah Jeremy. I said that because its true. And my argument was actually pretty solid, I don’t really need to prop it up with lies. If you go back and read through all 700 posts on “Saving the Best”, I think you’ll see that by the time we got to the topic of paternity, you had indeed referred back to some of the material we covered in our first conversation on “The Brand of Independence,” but that was not the point of our discussion in the “Saving the Best” thread, not at all. Our conversation on “Saving the Best” at… Read more »
Jesus, why even bother Rollo? If someone is only willing to call people selfish for wanting to retain control of the very thing they created with their own hands, what possible chance can entertaining their distorted view of the natural world help?
She believes that men should just be happy to support all women financially, and divest themselves of any interest in the next generation. In her world, men should be happy to be taxed and not be fathers. And of course, we’re all selfish pricks for thinking otherwise. It usually takes serious medication to be that shortsighted.
@ chris I also often wonder if you believe in the existence of objective morality/natural law that itself would be rooted in an evolved set of psychological mechanisms made for determining what is moral, (i.e. cheating detection mechanisms and so forth), and if so, would it not be best for the manosphere to push for an elucidation, propagation and implementation of such an objective morality/natural law, rather than relating all our problems back to the concept of power and who has it and who doesn’t? I don’t believe this is an either/or question… Certainly, the Manosphere’s goals can be partially… Read more »
LTs utopia already exists, the outback Aboriginies of Australia already exist in her prescribed shangri la, no ownership of children, no paternal lineages, a sex free for all, common goods and children raised collectively by the tribe.
All it takes is one plane ticket and she can live her fantasy and leave us selfish brutes to the tyranny of civilization.
Just make sure you bring a lifetime supply of toilet paper, bush sticks tend to be a little rough.
@LT @Jeremy – Not my blood, not blood of my family, not blood of my extended family. Not my responsibility to look after. Not my responsibility to give a “fair chance at life”. The responsibility rests solely with the father (if any) and mother. •any• payment to single mothers from government is tax-theft. I will take it further: the government subsidising women’s and children’s medicine is tax-theft. If it was not subsidised then the burden would fall on the shoulders of those involved, the real father and mother. It would not be the responsibility of random unrelated men to pay… Read more »
My apologies, I meant Obamacare.
lyingtree2013
Can you feel me passively dismissing your hysteria, Anonymous Reader, a whipped “man” too scared to stand behind what he thinks by even giving his anonymous on-line persona a fake name?
Nope. I feel nothing but your increasingly desperate demand for MOAR from men. Your slaves are restive, and it is bothering you. That is why you are here, to try to tamp down on the crimethink.
Fail, toots. Epic fail, because on a regular basis you provide evidence of the Female Imperative, even as you deny it.
Do carry on. The entertainment value alone is great.
lyingtree2013
I don’t address comments that make no contribution to the conversation.
Great! Then I’ll just carry on pointing out the truth, and you keep on pretending this isn’t happening, it’s win-win, right?
Right.
The reason that so many men fall prey to betadom is because they get scared of the unknown. They become complacent and weak, which of course is the ultimate turnoff for a woman. There is only one way to avoid it. Make every day about becoming a stronger, better man for YOURSELF.Then, the rest falls into place.
One more thing: careful readers will note that lyingtree2013 has not actually addressed the issues Rollo states in the section on It Takes a Village to Optimize Hypergamy. This is easy to explain. She cannot do so. Her feminist, gynocentrist view of men simply doesn’t allow for them to actually have a world view different from hers. Because, for the feminist, women are the default, the “normal”, and therefore men are simply defective women who must be whipped into shape one way or another. The notion of men as actual human beings who are biologically, physically, and mentally different? Does… Read more »
LT, shut up.
Bullseye Rollo.
If men are not supposed to care if the child in their family is their genetic offspring, and single men are not supposed to care that the fruits of their life’s efforts are being garnisheed and redistributed, it cannot be reasonably argued that if a man and woman conceive, and she chooses to have the child (as is her right, it’s her body), but the guy doesn’t want to be a “father”, that he should be held in any way PERSONALLY accountable.
You can’t have it both ways.
@lt
Such a naughty girl you are I am sure you will love being spanked.
You’re a liar LT. Straight up liar. The whole conversation is back on the other thread, I’m surprised you’re even bothering to continue the facade of “no no, we weren’t talking about that.” You brought up cuckolding. You brought up children as property. I was trying to educate you as to why in a sexually dimorphic species, the contributions of both must be voluntarily exchanged or else you’re committing a crime. The contributions of either side belong to them until voluntarily committed to a family. You instead seem to think that I should just smile and write random women a… Read more »
Looking at things economically… In the exchange between the sexes equation, women do not provide any product. Children are not a product, because you cannot own a person. Women thus (ideally voluntarily) provide a service, reproduction. Men provide a product. Most of what you see in the world in terms of comfort, food, technology, industry, entertainment, etc… was created by men. Men offer (again, ideally voluntarily) their production to women and the next generation. Men produce products. Women provide services. The power grab from women will continue to work so long as society can continue to pretend that products belong… Read more »
Rollo, just received 3 copies of your book over here in the UK.
Plan to give one to a long suffering friend who’s married to a shrew and another to a friend who’s due to marry an ex-carouseler next year.
I’m already 2 thirds the way through my copy and almost ever chapter has blown my mind. I have absolutely no doubt that in time, many of these ideas and profound insights will become the accepted wisdom in the field of inter-gender dynamics.
Thank you very much and good luck to you and yours.
Thanks Dave, you don’t know how much I appreciate your passing the book on to new readers.
@livingtree2013 has written Whether by taxation or by ownership of the family, the ultimate outcome is the same – children need to be supported. Does it really matter by who? Does it really matter who raises them? Does it really matter who sired them? To me, ideologically anyway, it doesn’t. Since she believes it doesn’t matter who rears* the children, she did mention Macklemore in other comments on TheRationalMale http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0 She did say the ultimate outcome is the same, right? http://www.parentmap.com/blog/23142/9-tips-for-taking-your-kids-to-a-macklemore-video-shoot-or-grown-up-concert (random article that popped up on the first page of google, about doing your homework to prepare children for… Read more »
“The only thing you have a natural right to ownership of is the effort of living. “ So all the multifarious crap I’ve constructed out of, er, stuff, in my unnecessarily long life I should have just given to the first asker, rather than selling it to them? I’m sure your boss agrees. “You can give your effort to whom you choose.” “By attaching yourselves to paternity, you effectively choose to only give your effort to those in your genetic descendancy, and you believe that the world would be a much better place if everyone did exactly the same thing.”… Read more »
“Which i think is fundamentally flawed as a belief system, it is the natural by-product of short-sighted self-interest.” OK that’s a bolding Fail. It’s Treespeak. As if you couldn’t tell.
“Whether by taxation or by ownership of the family, the ultimate outcome is the same – children need to be supported. Does it really matter by who? Does it really matter who raises them? Does it really matter who sired them? ” The unfiltered female mind on display… Like that welfare case that had 8 kids or so and was screaming on tv that someone needs to be held responsible for her kids, give her more money to support them. You can probably still find it on youtube. I’d say she was too dumb to consider the options of keeping… Read more »
@ Alex Its gotten out of control and there’s no end in sight, no point where society says “OK this is ridiculous we can’t support you anymore”. The moms aren’t helpless victims and the people tired of supporting them, aren’t uncaring a-holes who want to hang on to their money. I don’t know how it was years ago but right now there are too many people being supported by the system. You have the woman who can’t keep her legs closed standing alongside the man who can’t spend his money wisely. I know people personally who have jobs but are… Read more »
@Johnycomelately LTs utopia already exists, the outback Aboriginies of Australia already exist in her prescribed shangri la, no ownership of children, no paternal lineages, a sex free for all, common goods and children raised collectively by the tribe. All it takes is one plane ticket and she can live her fantasy and leave us selfish brutes to the tyranny of civilization. Just make sure you bring a lifetime supply of toilet paper, bush sticks tend to be a little rough. Gee, I wonder why the Aboriginies never advanced? Maybe, their men were never motivated by having a stake in society?… Read more »
“It takes a village…” This notion betrays the ultimate endgame of Feminism. Feminists hate men and hate the nuclear family. To them marriage is oppression and slavery (funny actually that they were right but confused over who was the slave). The Feminist utopia is a world where women all have ‘independence’, careers, and money, procreate with whomever they wish, retain exclusive ‘ownership’ of their offspring, and receive help from the ‘village’ in the form of subsidized daycare, subsidized housing, subsidized everything. There is no ‘marriage’ and there are no husbands or fathers. Every ‘family’ is a little matriarchy of the… Read more »
“The desire of men to have ‘ownership’ of their children is genetically wired into our being. It isn’t even an exclusive human behavior. It was the foundation of marriage 1.0 that our species followed for 99% of our existance.” That is kind of my point Vektor. If you guys would stop trying to make my point for me you might see it more clearly. THE reason marriage was invented was to form an agreement to raise children. It isn’t that way anymore. Its about loooooove and happiness and compatibility and all that stupid shit. And status. And some children in… Read more »
This article gave me a spike in blood pressure..
http://www.today.com/moms/why-moms-should-get-postnup-quitting-their-jobs-stay-home-2D11763106
A postnup? Wow, lets just dispense with all pretense of commitment.
we should all understand how valuable it is to have Living Tree here.
at least a years worth of new article material per thread. a living example of Rollo’s point(s).
study, deconstruct, learn. understand to pick through the noise looking for the actual fading signal. its funny too, because as the signal fades, the noise gets louder to match amplitude.
the gasps of failed ideology laid bare like a video store in a Netflix world.
HaHaHAa. From the article linked by notalifeguard: “A woman’s child-rearing years are usually her highest-earning years.” … you mean, she could have made a lot of money as a stripper? The writer of the article assumes that every Modern Independent (TM) Woman who sets her sights on a career and chooses not to have kids is going to be successful and get the big paycheck. And concludes that women who CHOOSE to have children should be compensated after the fact, as though it’s a GIVEN they would have actually made it to the top of the corporate ladder. Again, all… Read more »
@livingtree community responsibility is anathema to a man’s pride of ownership. Incorrect. It is an anathema to his sense of heredity. By attaching yourselves to paternity, you effectively choose to only give your effort to those in your genetic descendancy, and you believe that the world would be a much better place if everyone did exactly the same thing. Which i think is fundamentally flawed as a belief system, it is the natural by-product of short-sighted self-interest. Of course you think it is a “fundamentally flawed” system because it’s a system where only some specific women benefit–women who are married… Read more »
@notalifeguard Postnup? What a completely horrible idea. But very feminist. As you draw up your postnup, both you and your husband can thoughtfully consider important factors, such as the amount of salary you’re sacrificing and the value (in dollars and cents) of the childcare you’re providing. Yes, your husband can thoughtfully consider the quality of the rope for the noose around his neck. ‘Cuz a girl’s gotta get paid. This is just a reflection on the fundamental feminist denigration of the notion of wives being homemakers because it’s not “paid” work. And if it’s not “paid” work, it has no… Read more »
Ya right LostSailor, being a housewife has a huge economic value that she’ll definitely receive payment for as soon as he leaves her for a younger hotter woman and she has no skills besides cleaning and cooking and prostituting.
Well, LT, at least you admit that she’ll have workplace options…
lyingtree2013 I’m not here to pin blame on anyone, male or female, I think I’ve said that more than enough times. What you say with one set of words, and what you say with other sets of words, are not the same. You clearly want more choices for women, and more responsibility for men. This is the same deal the Female Imperative always offers. Your anti-scientific outlook on men and women is interesting. I expect more feminists will become increasingly opposed to science in the years to come, as one by one the feminist shibboliths are demolished by cruel facts.… Read more »
Anonymous, I still don’t understand how you reached those conclusions from what I’ve said here. Asking that you stop blaming me for views I do not hold is in no way contemptuous. Blaming me for views I do not hold, however, is. Name-calling also is, and I have never one time done either of those things to you – you have repeatedly done them to me. That I am choosing to answer you on this question is an olive branch, I extend it to you now because at least this time you had the decency to make a discussable point… Read more »
lyingtree2013 Ya right LostSailor, being a housewife has a huge economic value that she’ll definitely receive payment for as soon as he leaves her for a younger hotter woman and she has no skills besides cleaning and cooking and prostituting. Yet another example of the Female Imperative at work. It’s as if lyingtree has no idea who files the majority of divorce actions (women). Look, toots, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but making up stuff and pretending it’s “fact” isn’t going to fly. There is no epidemic of men dumping older wives for younger, hotter women. There is an… Read more »
I do object to that actually, Anonymous – not that anyone ever asked the question til now. But what I really object to is people getting married with unreasonable (and often unstated) illusions of perfection, or for the status it conveys. Its destined for failure. See entire thread on “Saving the Best.” Honestly, if I were a guy, I’d probably be coming to the same conclusions as you are now – marriage under our current definition is simply too risky. Oh, wait, interestingly I DID come to the same conclusion, only 25 years ago. It astonishes me regularly how cautious… Read more »
Anonymous, I still don’t understand how you reached those conclusions from what I’ve said here Oh, I don’t know, from your bullshit? …I’ll tell you that your answer as much as stated that community responsibility is anathema to a man’s pride of ownership. The idea of putting in any effort into the upbringing of another man’s child is humiliating to you, which says a lot about a lot of things. You chose the word ‘humiliating’ to cover up the truth, that community responsibility is pure slavery when forced upon someone unwillingly, with no associated rights of direction or authority in… Read more »
Jeremy, you’re perfectly entitled to believe whatever you like, and I’m not advocating forcing anyone to do anything that is against their values. Nor am I advocating for the few to carry the burden of the many. But if you are being made to feel ashamed for not wanting to undertake the burden of caring for the community at large without a direct benefit to you, that’s your issue to take up with your psychologist. Anyway, yes, I do think that there are some occasions when responsibility exists without a collateral right. I do. I do not believe that amounts… Read more »
LT another question to add to the list you haven’t answered yet: Infanticide amongst higher order animals is actually a lot more common dynamic than most people are comfortable admitting. It’s a well studied phenomenon in primates that an Alpha male who successfully challenges and either kills or outcasts the previous Alpha male from amongst a group will then systematically kill off all offspring of the previous Alpha that he can identify as being those of the prior Alpha. Similar incidents of Alpha offspring infanticide can also be found among many other animals; wolves, lions (even the lioness’s participate), birds… Read more »
OK, Rollo, first, please stop telling me that I believe that patriarchy is a learned set of rules not grounded in biology. I don’t. Nor do I subscribe to the belief that all things patriarchal are evil, which seems to be what some of you guys want me to believe so you can use it to make me look stupid. Except I don’t believe it, so your arguments are weak. Patriarchal systems have their place, many of them are very useful, or at least they were in their prime. I am merely bringing them to the discussion, because they exist.… Read more »
And #2: “Why do you suppose this dynamic exists in nature?” Population management. We don’t really approve of it in human culture, but animals are totally ok with it. Civilization was intended to quell our base instincts so that we might become advanced, which didn’t really work out so well did it? By doing this, we have bred weakness into our species. Advanced? Umm… “Is it due to a learned patriarchal social dynamic that emphasizes male ‘property’ ownership, or is it the result of an evolved psychology that manifests the same behaviors across a variety of species that’s been a… Read more »
Not sure where to put this, but a comment on this would be interesting:
http://www.upworthy.com/a-ted-talk-that-might-turn-every-man-who-watches-it-into-a-feminist-its-pretty-fantastic-7
@ livingtree2013 “All I’m saying is that in this state, the children are the ones that suffer most because of our unreasonable expectations of blissful union. So are we right to cast those children aside because of the malaise of their parents, or do something for them to give them what they lack, which, primarily, is direction? THIS is what I mean by community responsibility. Ignoring it doesn’t give those kids the direction they need. This IS a community responsibility, plain and simple.” You’re only laying the responsibility at one group’s feet which doesn’t solve the problem. Nothing to say… Read more »
Well, you do have a solid point there William, I can’t dispute it. Though I am most definitely not laying responsibility all at one groups feet, I don’t know why you think I ever said anything of the sort. I think quite the opposite actually, and I do not understand why you guys believe this is a male-only issue. Women pay taxes too you know… However, I will say to you (all) that most women who are raising their children solo are not on the dole. http://singleparents.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=singleparents&cdn=parenting&tm=8&f=00&tt=65&bt=4&bts=4&zu=http%3A//www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf According to census data from 2007: There were 13.7 million single parents, or… Read more »
Population management. We don’t really approve of it in human culture, but animals are totally ok with it. Population management? Really? Yeah, I’m sure animals are making a rational decision that the available resources are insufficient so they must cull the herd. And they do this by killing the offspring of a vanquished Alpha leader or others who are reproductive challengers. Sorry, but thanks for playing. It’s protecting their heredity and genetic line. In humans, a man will provide for his own offspring over another’s offspring, and may, if there are sufficient resources left over, provide for the immediate community.… Read more »
http://www.livescience.com/28191-why-cuckolded-males-stick-around.html
Just sayin’.
No I don’t see the contradiction because there isn’t one. Animal males mate-guard to protect their interests, human males marry to protect theirs. Its a legally sanctioned form of mate-guarding that gives all males the opportunity to have sexual relations, not just the alpha male, which they would likely not been so successful at if we had remained true to our biological imperatives. Why does anyone want to breed, either male or female? It is insecurity. Not to say that it isn’t wonderful and magical and all that great stuff too, but at its root, heredity is founded in primal… Read more »
But the males of many species actually stick around to raise offspring that aren’t their own, so long as the effort doesn’t cost them much…they did so as long as the likelihood of cuckoldry was low and providing care would not harm the males’ own future reproductive prospects.
From your link.
Just sayin’
Right, LostSailor, thats why I posted the link. Its full of good stuff.
Point here is that the intense dread that you guys seem to have about being cuckolded or raising other men’s children seems disproportionate to the risk and consequence. I really think its doing more harm than good.
But, whatever floats yer boat, man. I’m not here to judge, just here for some interesting debate.
Also, here’s a tidbit:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/face-facts-womens-instincts-are-right-mating-game/
Still skipping all your posts LT.
As I’m sure you do with anything said by a female that doesn’t immediately benefit your male imperative, Simo.
More of an indication of women being aware of physical features that are influenced by higher levels of testosterone. Since it said that they found no correlation between testosterone levels and liking children. So doesn’t seem like there are some instincts that the women had, like people falsely claim women have intuition. But the same old masculine looks that all people can say they see. Similar to the way a cartoon character that is more masculine has always been drawn with the same features. The jaw, the shoulder to waist ratio, the voice, basic shape of the head, etc… Didn’t… Read more »
“Why does anyone want to breed, male or female? It is insecurity.” What? Really? ‘So much for selfish gene theory then, just insecurity Mr Dawkins, a mere psychological quirk, can’t believe you didn’t see it, it’s obvious if you think about it.’ Why do I get the feeling that this ‘insecurity’ claim is a rationalisation and ego investment based on LT’s own decision to not have children of her own. In reality the reason people want to have kids is the same reason that they will jump on a grenade to defend a younger sister from harm. Because that’s what… Read more »
Oh, LT’s back. space bar… space bar… space bar…
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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
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)
@ 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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
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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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.
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.
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.
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
How is that clear, Cylux?
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?
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%?
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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 .
Pardon my ignorance, but who is this Jenny Erickson chick, and why do you all care about her life so much?
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.
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.
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?
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
” .. 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… Read more »
[…] 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 […]
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,… Read more »
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.
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.
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.
?
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
LT, your sexual dystopia already exists in Japan:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/05/japan.herbivore.men/
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… Read more »
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.