For Better or Worse

betterorworse

Before I dive in here today it’s going to be important to put things into perspective with respect to an Old Married Guy becoming Red Pill aware and then applying what he’s learned in his marriage. In the last few comment threads the discussion has veered to what exactly the state of “monogamy” (if it can be called that) will look like in the next few decades given Red Pill awareness, Open Hypergamy, the progression of technologies that conflict with (or exacerbate) our evolved capacity to reproduce, etc.

The conversation tends to be a back and forth between what a more feasible and pragmatic approach to long-term relationships might be. The Young Single Guys make a (rather convincing) case for some form of men reserving the option of non-exclusivity; to take on short term lovers should the opportunity present itself – even if for just protecting a man’s state of Frame. Dread, being what it is, would necessarily be a mutually understood cornerstone of this arrangement.

The OMGs who’ve had the benefit of experience with respect to living with women (and in some cases divorces), rearing children (for better or worse) then offer up the realities of what a pLTR might be limited by with respect to actually living in an arrangement like this and the legal ramifications it leaves men open to.

Hashing out what Marriage 3.0 will or should look like is a discussion I’ll reserve for the next essay. For now I think it’s going to be important for that debate to recognize that since Red Pill awareness, in the intersexual respect, is a relatively new social awareness there’s always going to be differing experiences with it.

For the young men who’ve had the benefit of being Red Pill aware and learning Game, courtesy of communication technology and the experiences of countless other older men, it may sound kind of mundane when an Old Married Guy (OMG) finally ‘gets it’ after being Blue Pill for so long. But while you may never consider getting married in the future, you will no doubt get older and hopefully wiser in a way that your elders never had the benefit of. The reason I wrote Preventive Medicine was to do just this; to teach men what to expect from women and their sexual strategies and prioritization at their various phases of maturity. However, I would be remiss not to take into consideration what YSGs relate about the realities of today’s sexual marketplace. I think between us we have a very powerful knowledge-base.

As I said, for YSGs, it may seem mundane for a formerly Blue Pill OMG to kick up his wife’s sexual interest with his new Red Pill awareness, but consider that to him the Red Pill is an exciting answer to a long struggle. Likewise, an older guy reeling from an ugly divorce and rebuilding an even better life and sex life with Red Pill awareness is a fantastic feeling that I think is hard for YSGs to empathize with.

Instant Gratification

In my Stalling for Time essay I quoted reader YaReally and his understandable frustration with dealing with women in what’s become the modern sexual marketplace. I won’t re-quote it here, but the gist of it was how women of this generation are so predisposed to the attentions that social media offers them. The immediacy of social affirmation is just an Instagram post away and Beta orbiters are now a utility women simply take for granted.

It’s important to understand this in the light of how women’s psyches interpret instantaneous affirmation, as well as instantaneous indignation, attention and emotional consolation from both Beta orbiters and ‘you go girl’ girlfriends. I should also point out that there’s an even uglier side to this equation for women and girls who find themselves social outcasts. The cruel venom from haters is equally as instantaneous and likewise women’s evolved psyches struggle to process this.

As is the theme of this series, we have a situation wherein technological advancement outpaces human capacity to adequately process how it is affecting us. In this case we have women’s solipsistic nature that prevents the insight necessary to self-govern themselves with regard to how instant gratification of their base needs for attention is affecting their personalities and the decisions they make because of it. Prior to the communication age women’s need for interpersonal affirmation was generally limited to a small social circle and the opportunities to satisfy it were precious and private. It used to require far more investment on the part of women to connect interpersonally. But in the space of just two generations the social media age has made this affirmation an expect part of a woman’s daily life.

On top of this, we find ourselves in a time when feminine-primacy in our social structure makes criticizing or even making casual, constructive, observations of this self-gratifying vanity on par with misogyny for men. Women cannot hear what men wont tell them, and women have far less incentive to self-examine the consequences of what this affirmation-satisfying attention is working in them.

The Open Hypergamy Future

I get what the Young Single Guys are saying, I really do. I linked this article in a recent comment and after reading through it and author’s blog I can’t help but sympathize with the YSG’s grasp of the modern dating scene and how utterly hopeless it is for men to expect anything less than complete, life altering despair from the prospect of marriage. There is no upside to monogamous commitment, but the real kicker is that this condition is what women plan for and would hope for their own daughters.

Now, I understand Emma Johnson is another click-bait outrage broker, but is the sentiment her reader relates in raising her daughter to expect to be a single mother as an ideal state all that difficult or shocking to believe from women in this era?

My dream for my daughter is that she be in a loving relationship, and have a good ex-husband who really does a great job with the kids, 50 percent of the time.

People forget the joys of divorce — sharing your kids without guilt and having alone/me time.

[…]I also have time to exercise, enjoy vacations that are relaxing and involve lots of book-reading, and I have had time to nurture a relationship with my new husband, with fewer of the stresses of blended families.

The idealized state is one in which I outlined in The Myth of the Good Guy:

The problem with this ‘Good Guy’ myth is not because men can’t or wouldn’t want to try to balance women’s Hypergamy for them, but simply because women neither want nor expect that balance in the same man to begin with.

This is a new step in Open Hypergamy, the acknowledgement and proud embrace of women’s Hypergamous sexual strategy is not enough. The open expectation that one man will father and support her children while another will satisfy her sexually and appreciatively is not enough. The plan is literally to raise a young woman to adulthood with the expectation of her raising another child without a father/husband in her life and the child’s. We’re left to presume that the preferred norm for raising boys will be in teaching them it’s their responsibility to accommodate this norm.

The plan is not simply to end the Sandbergian plan for Hypergamy with the “Equal partner, someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home.” The plan is to leave that well-providing Beta once he’s been locked into indefinite utility and take up with a sexier husband with fewer parental stresses.

Yet, despite the overtness of women’s Hypergamy, men still have an idealistic hope that the worst predations of women wont happen to them. Read this woman’s post, sift through her other posts; she’s despicable, calculating, duplicitous and would put the knife in your back she told you she would,…but she’s also honest.

Whether by our conditioning or some intrinsic idealism, we want to believe in the earnestness of the Old Set of Books in the face of New Book women openly telling us “You stupid men, this is what we plan to do to you from the outset. Naked, open Hypergamy and all its machinations is what I will teach my daughters and grand daughters to do to your sons and grandsons. And you will take it and accept your Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks roles in all of it because you’ll never get past your inherent idealism that we might not do all of this.”

We want to believe this woman is an outlier, but by order of degree, we know that whether it’s with softly spoken, loving words or a mommy blog that triumphantly yells these truths, women’s opportunistic concept of love will never align with our idealistic concept of love.

Primary LTRs

The arrangement this woman is hoping will be her daughter’s adult life is not too far different from what YaReally was suggesting about pLTRs; a primary long term relationship with a direct or indirect understanding that a man could take other lovers as fits him. He’s not the first to suggest the pLTR scheme as a workaround for marriage or raising a family sans marriage or binding commitment. And if Emma Johnson (or the reader she’s quoted) is to be believed this would be her own ideal relationship, albeit from the perspective of a woman retaining total Frame control.

Even a PUA like Mystery believed he could maintain a literal harem in some kind of live-in pLTR. And then there are the men who subscribe to the Charles Bukowski school of intersexual relations – in the right socioeconomic conditions this pLTR is realtively possible, but I think this is a poor substitute for what, as men we’d like to be an ideal, reciprocal marriage in which men can expect respect, desire, love, honor and all the other words no woman could ever hope to recite from their marriage vows.

I’ve locked horns with more than a few women who want to take me to task over my debating that human beings are not naturally monogamous. From a social perspective, loose monogamy and women’s inherent need for cuckoldry has always conflicted with our more or less successful human progress based on monogamous marriage. This is changing right along with the latest technologies that afford it to. As such, men are also forced to adapt and improvise with women’s inabilities to process these changes and the rapidity with which the next ones occur.

The old gals always like to tout that western society is the result of our agrarian roots and monogamous way of life. This is ironic since it’s women themselves who’ve fought tooth and nail to destroy exactly this ‘successful’ set up. Ruthless, open Hypergamy is now something to be proud of; something to instruct our daughters to utilize for their own solipsistic, selfish betterment at men’s expense – and to feel no shame for it, but rather expect it as the future norm.

It’s now time for men to either accept and adapt to this, or to form our own response to it in a way that not only benefits our interests, but the interests of women who can no longer process these changes without mens’ direct instruction. In Our Sisters’ Keeper I explored the notion that women of today are merely the women we deserve because men have kept their counsel about the affairs of women. We’ve got the women we deserve because our silence, and the silence of our forbearers, was the voice of complicity. Now we’ve come so far that women will send a man to jail or the unemployment office, or a paternity court rather than hear a man criticize her inability to process social changes that harm not only her but the larger social order.

There must come a point where men must unapologetically correct women for the betterment of society. Today this is a bold statement, one that could likely bring consequences to man’s life, but it’s only a bold thought because we’ve allowed women and their imperatives define the Frame of our social order for so long now. The socio-intersexual conditions we find ourselves in today are the direct result of women’s inability to process rapid social changes. As men we need to collectively recognize this. We need to recognize also that our social state is the result of allowing women to set a social framework that indentures men, that calls single motherhood and Hypergamous choices normative ideals.

We also need to recognize that we will be reviled for presuming some patriarchal control or male privilege, but we must have the confidence to set this aside in the knowledge that we now understand that women cannot cope with post-modern social and technological changes.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

1,155 comments on “For Better or Worse

  1. “Dem goalposts are frickin’ fast little buggers, ain’t dey doe?
    And why are you using tools of the misogynistic patriarchy anyway?”
    – kfg

    How did I move any goalposts? Neither party should be in control of the other.

  2. To guess the answer regarding goalposts: they need to move as the “uprights” are phallic reminders of centuries of males oppressing females. Not to mention “putting it through the uprights” implies a woman is in a sexually submissive posture passively awaiting male scoring action. Finally, sports analogies are right out because females do not comprise at least half the team. And if they did comprise half the team they’d still be paid less.

    tl;dr: v. feels the goal posts need to move

  3. “How did I move any goalposts?”

    Like this:

    “Neither party should be in control of the other.”

    Don’t worry about it, I know that you not understand the meaning of your sentences any better than you know the meaning of your words.

  4. “Might as well say that if the woman cedes “hand” to the man, he becomes dominant – therefore she never can and must always keep him in check.”

    That’s because your values are all fucked up. Your values are based on capitalist achievements, positions of “power”, and money so you can buy “stuff” because that is what society leads you to believe is what will make you happy. Guess what. None of that shit makes anyone happy. Man or woman.

    You know what would make you happy? Nursing your baby to sleep and taking care of your family. Hopefully you aren’t 55 and single before you figure that out. Tick Tock.

  5. ” If teaching men to be the dominant party so that they and the people around them can be happy and successful is “misogyny””
    – SW

    It is. Whatever your justification* for why it’s totes a good thing that men keep women under their heel – it’s still treating women as inferior things that must be controlled, still a mindset of contempt – if not hate – against women, still something that makes the man who seeks to do so, bloody monsters.

    It’s still misogyny in the true sense of the word.

    * which is even factually wrong – women have accomplished far more since they got out from men’s oppression – they are more successful now than ever – just not “successful” at keeping misogynist men happy (which is a good thing)

  6. “It’s still misogyny in the true sense of the word.”

    Of course the downside is that if you don’t understand your sentences you are liable to make confessions you didn’t intend.

  7. All right Vanir one more round since you want to crow about women’s success: who invented the pill? who invented the IUD?

  8. “That’s because your values are all fucked up.”
    – Andy

    My values does not stipulate control and domination of another human being as a good thing. It does not rely on keeping someone under my heel as part of my self-identification.

    My values involves respect of a person’s independence and freedom as long as he/she does not seek to attack or otherwise subvert someone else’s independence and freedom.

    So yeah. I’ll take my “fucked up” values over the fascist affront to the human spirit you consider “values”, any day.

    As for what makes me happy. What I wish to do with my life – that is for me to decide. It is for ALL women to decide for themselves: Not some misogynist yahoos who thinks women’s proper role is on their knees with their mouth around their dick (metaphorically AND literally).

  9. And there we have it. The feminist operating method is to hijack a word with negative connotations that meant one thing, redefine it to fit their narrative, then count on the ambiguity in their language to sway people to their side.

    That is how you move goalposts at the meta level.

    Gentlemen, there is no use debating with someone who selectively redefines words with well-defined roots and meaning to fit their narrative. Stop feeding the shitposter.

  10. “another human beings desire for autonomy, for freedom and right to own and control their own life”

    Do you support the legalisation of prostitution?

  11. @Andy – Who gives a shit what you can “buy”? You are not economically literate so consider that you don’t know what you don’t know.

    Hyperinflation could occur if we have a currency crisis first. But we also could have a deflationary event as asset prices fall. But a “recession”, lol, wake the fuck up, buddy. Just our monetary policies are a timebomb which will explode, there is no avoiding it.

    Until 10 years ago, the idea of buying our own debt as a regular policy was the monetary equivalent of eating your own poo. If you asked any economist in 2007 whether zero interest rates for 10 years while we monetized our own debt was possible for the U.S., they would have giggled. If you asked them how such a scenario would end, they would be saying what I’m saying today. Don’t listen to me, listen to say Carl Icahn, world class investor and capitalist.
    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iqaAEnttHY&w=560&h=315%5D

    Or Bill Gross, one of the most respected asset managers in the business
    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHdVFuMTwOg&w=560&h=315%5D

    Talk to any macro analyst, it’s a game of musical chairs. It’s not if, it’s a when question.

  12. “Neither party should be in control of the other.”
    – kfg

    And? I know you think words are hard.

    “That you can’t impose your will on someone, does not mean are imposing their will on you.”
    – kfg

    But neither of these statements are in conflict. Or involve moving the goalpost.

    Neither person should be in control of the other. That means neither can impose their will on the other. Not imposing your will on the other, does not mean they are imposing their will on you.

    Am I missing something i need the “redpill women-hater’s club decoder ring” to spot.

  13. “What I wish to do with my life – that is for me to decide. It is for ALL women to decide for themselves: ”

    And herein lies the problem. lol. YOU don’t know what is best for YOU. Just do us all a favor and tell younger women your decisions were the wrong ones when you’re old and lonely.

  14. “The feminist operating method is to hijack a word with negative connotations that meant one thing, redefine it to fit their narrative”
    – SW

    *sigh* nice try.

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/misogyny

    “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.”

    Many here dislike or hate women (maybe not their perfect idea of what a woman can be, but what women are and chose to be – what they want to be). *Everyone* here mistrusts and are prejudiced against women.

    As for specifically seeking to dominate/control women “for their own good” (among other things) – that includes a HUGE amount of mistrust and prejudice – and oft quite of bit of disliking them as well.

    So yes. Misogyny. In the true sense of the word.

    And women are STILL more successful when NOT under men’s heel (just not at what misogynist men want them to be successful at – i.e. making sammiches, keeping their mouth shut and popping out babies).

  15. “My values involves respect of a person’s independence and freedom as long as he/she does not seek to attack or otherwise subvert someone else’s independence and freedom.”

    Does the sisterhood know that you’re a radical right wing libertarian?

    That sort of thing is generally filed in the set, “fascist shitlord.” It might affect your standing in the hive.

  16. “YOU don’t know what is best for YOU.”
    – Andy

    Said the slave owner to the slave.

    It’s the same line as always. Used a thousand times a thousand to justify subjugation and slavery and other atrocities.

    Hey – I’m sure YOU think it’s a valid excuse.

    Fascists always do.

  17. @Andy

    I know this isn’t an economics forum,

    since when has THAT ever stopped us from arguing about random shit?…lol…

    but why does everyone think this is going to happen?

    math…lol

    There’s still slack in the labor market.

    yes (but it’s not really ‘slack’)… why?…

    100% debt to gdp isn’t unmanageable.

    lol…

    we are currently at 105% (roughly…lol) and THAT gdp number includes shit like nail salons and youtube revenue…lol…AND paying for THAT debt is at basically 0% interest… what happens if the .gov has to actually start to pay ‘some’ interest to finance the debt?… bc nobody is willing/able to lend ‘money’ at 0%…

    AND is THAT debt amount getting bigger each year?…why?… will it stop?… what will THAT take?…

    how have .govs in the past ‘managed’ debt?… inflation (hyperinflation)… (or a collapse scenario… those are the options… and nature does not have much empathy for you…lol… so the lesser of the two is hyperinflation…)

    what happens when YOU have the same amount of currency available and the price goes up?… extrapolate those two curves across the economy… for all sectors… but most importantly for basic necessities…

    at some point on that demand curve, people get cranky…lol…

    Technology is deflationary.

    so, will we have more tech in the future?…lol…

    so, theoretically, that ‘money’ that you have is MORE valuable, right?… but only if it’s ‘savings’… if it’s debt, the ‘value’ needed to pay off the debt increases by the amount of the deflation…bc the same amount of currency is needed for each payment…regardless of that currency being worth ‘more’. conversely, if ‘money’ is worth less per unit, it is easier to pay off the debt… do you think that .govs are known for taking the ‘hard way’ out…lol… so, they inflate/hyperinflate to make it easier (for THEM) to pay off the debt, but currency is used for basic commerce, so it affects the average consumer in his/her buying shit…

    so, you are saying that less units of ‘money’ is going to pay off a greater than 100% debt?… according to the current models, only if we ‘get more taxpayers’… lol… those econ retards in .gov can’t see their way past all the econ models they studied in grad school… lol…

    If the economy picks up steam

    IF… why hasn’t it?…

    I don’t see why the Fed won’t be able to control inflation. It just doesn’t make sense to me why everyone thinks the hyperinflation boogedy man is always just around the corner.

    yes, it does… see above… that’s the ONLY way (given the current system in play) that the .gov/banks CAN pay off the current debt load. the only question is ‘when’… not ‘if’…

    I genuinely want to understand your position, so please don’t jump down my throat.

    no ‘jumping’…lol…

    the term is ‘pushing on a string’… banks make ‘money’ by lending ‘money’… if no one needs that money, they can’t lend it, right? why can’t they lend any?… they can just print that shit at will…lol… bc there is NO DEMAND for it… (except through .gov…)

    the only reason the US econ hasn’t collapsed is bc of its status as reserve currency…

    price is determined by seller ‘willing and ABLE to deliver’ at some price point meeting a buyer ‘willing and ABLE to pay’ at that price point… that’s the basic idea of a market…

    usually, you can get a good guess on potential inflation based on the actual amount of currency in the system… however, in the US’s case, a ton of currency is held by china, so it is not ‘seen’ by the system… yet… if/when china’s banking problems ‘go public’ all that currency (theoretically anyway) will end up on the market… chasing the same amount of goods/services… that’s hyperinflation right there… overnight… and not within control of the fed at ALL…lol…

    good luck!

  18. @V: Who would choose to be a misogynist? I mean, incur the wrath of the sisterhood? All men are born of a woman and the first word a male infant learns for god is “Mother”. Ergo, some men must be born that way; I mean it’s 2016 for crying out loud — how would a man learn misogyny? Where’s your tolerance?

    And the clock is ticking: who invented the pill? who invented the IUD?

  19. “Hey – I’m sure YOU think it’s a valid excuse.”

    The path your heading down only leads to loneliness and misery. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

  20. Veneer

    Not imposing your will on the other, does not mean they are imposing their will on you.

    For that to be true you must impose your will on men first, then when 90% have been eliminated as you desire, you can pretend to be “equal” with the survivors.

    You Marxists are a bloody-minded lot.

  21. Any time a woman decides that some man has “imposed his will” on her without her permission she can call up men with guns who will come and impose her will on that first man, no questions asked.

    This is the reality of the Duluth Wheel. This is the reality of what the Manbooby troll wants, to be “equal” and yet have a means to force that equality at gunpoint.

    Feminism is Fascism. It is totalitarianism.

    Venir is a Fascist who wants a totalitarian police state to enforce “equality” of a Procrustian sort.

  22. It’s the same line as always. Used a thousand times a thousand to justify subjugation and slavery and other atrocities.

    Yep. That’s how you “my way is the best way or else” Fascists are, Veneer.

  23. “Any time a woman decides that some man has “imposed his will” on her without her permission she can call up men with guns who will come and impose her will on that first man, no questions asked.”
    -Anon

    I realize you wished you lived in a society where men could beat women into submission, lock them up, etc. without outside interference.

    Suggesting protection by law, for both genders, is the same as fascism – however – is a bit of a stretch. I certainly think violent criminals should be restrained, at gunpoint if need be – how that makes those that would be their target, men OR women, unequal – i fail to see.

    Regardless. I suggest you move to some ISIS controlled area and have your fun there.

    Well, before the Yazidi comes and kicks your ass, at least.

  24. “Yep. That’s how you “my way is the best way or else” Fascists are, Veneer.”
    – Anon

    Yes. Working against fascists who want to dominate and control women, who think they know better than women how women should live their lives, who want to mold women in their own image and “tame” them to be more manageable – makes feminists the *true* fascists.

    Just like those who sought to end Hitler were the *true* Nazis, all along…

    Or not.

    Because that’s *insane*.

  25. Some manbooby troll:
    I realize you wished you lived in a society where men could beat women into submission, lock them up, etc. without outside interference.

    I do realize that, dearie, I just wish you realized that there is no equality beofre the law when it comes to men and women.

    Suggesting protection by law, for both genders, is the same as fascism – however – is a bit of a stretch.

    Not at all. Because women are more equal before the law than men are. That’s what “mandatory arrest” laws mean, dearie.

    I certainly think violent criminals should be restrained, at gunpoint if need be – how that makes those that would be their target, men OR women, unequal – i fail to see.

    Woman hits man on head with hammer. Man calls cops. Cops come and arrest…bleeding man. That’s your system, dearie, it’s what you want, and it’s Fascist.

    Regardless. I suggest you move to some ISIS controlled area and have your fun there.

    “Love it or leave it”? You Fascists are all the same. LOL.

    Well, before the Yazidi comes and kicks your ass, at least.

    Your fascination with violence directed against men is duly noted.
    Mary Daly would be proud of your misandry.

  26. Working against fascists who want to dominate and control women, who think they know better than women how women should live their lives, who want to mold women in their own image and “tame” them to be more manageable – makes feminists the *true* fascists.

    Actions speak louder than words.

    The actual laws that you and your sisters have enacted to impement your alleged desires are Fascist. Therefore, your desires are Fascist, and your prattle about “equality” is merely another feminist lie. You don’t want equality, you want to control men “for their own good” of course.

    Fascist.

    Now run along for another tub of ice cream so you can relax tonight.

  27. @Rollo: thank you for your AMA on MRP.

    @HABD, @OMGs: I haven’t caught up with the latest iteration of the discussion, but let me try the following.

    All the OMGs and YSGs agree with Mystery Method and other Game basics, which include concepts such as pre-selection and social proof. Underlying these concepts is that women constantly ping off their (social) environment to decide things that are important to her.

    In a typical PUA context this will be whether she goes have a ONS or similar with a man.

    In a context where she is married (or not) and has kids, the same brain wiring that makes women ping off their (social environment, which is relatively easy to “game” to get her to have sex with you, will be very hard to constantly “game” for her not to follow what the 2016-and-onward environment will be pushing her to do.

    Do you OMGs really not accept this is a crucial difference?

    From what HABD writes, he seems to know and accept it.

    @KFG: I agree with your solution of “just don’t have kids”, but I think most men really do want not only to have offspring but also want to be involved in raising them.

  28. “I do realize that, dearie, I just wish you realized that there is no equality beofre the law when it comes to men and women.”
    – Anon

    There’s certainly a lot more “equality before law” than what you realize you want.

    “Your fascination with violence directed against men is duly noted.”
    – Anon

    People, including women, rising in arms against men who enslave and rape women? Oh noes! Goddess forbid men who treat women like cattle (i.e. treat them the way you want to be legal) – get what’s coming to them.

    “women are more equal before the law”
    – Anon

    Nope.

    “The actual laws that you and your sisters have enacted to impement your alleged desires are Fascist.”
    – Anon

    No. They are not. Try again.

    “you want to control men “for their own good” ”
    – Anon

    I don’t want to control men ‘for their own good’ – or for anything else. I simply don’t want men to control (or harm, harass, etc.) women.

  29. There is always a dominant person in every relationship you’ll have in life, regardless of the sexes involved or the nature of the relationship.

    Too late Sun, I already made this argument and asked the same question, but no answer.

    Even homosexuals in monogamous pairs establish a dom and a sub in exactly the same fashion as hetero couples do:

    https://therationalmale.com/2013/04/12/master-servant/

    Even sexually fluid, previously heterosexual women who conveniently discover they’re lesbians later in life when no man will have them STILL prefer dominant masculine butch lesbians to assume the the role of the men they would’ve preferred to have in their lives:

    https://therationalmale.com/2011/09/01/sexual-fluidity/

    No reply, because on some level of consciousness Vanir believes that the ought to be of egalitarianism can supersede the what is of evolved gender differences and sexually defined complementarity. She resists this because it would destroy her ego-investment in a conviction that she’s built her personality around. Challenging this is like telling someone they raised their child wrong.

  30. Obvious factual statement:
    “I do realize that, dearie, I just wish you realized that there is no equality beofre the law when it comes to men and women.”
    – Anon

    some manbooby troll
    There’s certainly a lot more “equality before law” than what you realize you want.

    Uh, what? Look, if you want to move the goalposts go ahead, but do try to write sentences that actually communicate in proper English. OK?

  31. @HABD, Scribblerg: How do you hedge against the “when” of hyperinflation? Invest in equities (through ETFs for example)?

    I saw the charts for hyperinflationary Germany (Weimar Republic) and it seems that having your money on equities would have worked back then.

    I really would like to be able to enjoy me retirement in 10 or 20 years… I don’t mind working during my retirement, but I wouldn’t like to be poor!

  32. Obvious fact:
    “Your fascination with violence directed against men is duly noted.”
    – Anon

    People, including women, rising in arms against men who enslave and rape women? Oh noes! Goddess forbid men who treat women like cattle (i.e. treat them the way you want to be legal) – get what’s coming to them.

    Oh, is that why you want some Middle Eastern gunmen to “kick my ass”, dearie?

    Nah. You have an obsession with violence directed toward men.

    “women are more equal before the law”
    – Anon

    Nope.

    Duluth Wheel. Next?

    “The actual laws that you and your sisters have enacted to impement your alleged desires are Fascist.”
    – Anon

    No. They are not. Try again.

    Duluth Wheel. Try again?

    “you want to control men “for their own good” ”
    – Anon

    I don’t want to control men ‘for their own good’ – or for anything else. I simply don’t want men to control (or harm, harass, etc.)

    Duluth Wheel. Mandatory arrest.

    If a woman physically harms a man that she’s in a relation ship with, and the police are called, he will be arrested because that’s what feminists like you put into the law over 30 years ago, and dug deeper into the law 22 years ago. It’s all about controlling men.

    That’s what your feminism coems down to, controlling men.

    Fascism.

    Reality. Deal with it, you Fascist dearie.

  33. Anon

    Vanir: “I realize you wished you lived in a society where men could beat women into submission […]”

    Anon: “I do realize that, dearie, I just wish you realized that there is no equality beofre the law”

    Vanir: “There’s certainly a lot more “equality before law” than what you realize you want.”

    i.e. there is more equality in our “feminist” law, than in the laws you admit you “realize your want”.

    what is it you don’t understand?

  34. @ vanir

    “They should never have any obligation or responsibility decided for them by some man – be he their boyfriend, husband of father of her children. True. What women can and cannot do is not for some wannabe-patriarch to decide.”

    Have you just woken from a half century coma? Women have the legal rights to tell men what they can and can’t do with their own bodies and lives. You describe being for equality, but your revealed preference is anything but equal. You have not once said anything like “men should never have any obligation or responsibility decided for them by some women”. I’m curious to understand your rational for stating you are about equality. It sounds like you may have a femdom fetish you are trying to rationalize.

  35. Rollo
    No reply, because on some level of consciousness Vanir believes that the ought to be of egalitarianism can supersede the what is of evolved gender differences and sexually defined complementarity. She resists this because it would destroy her ego-investment in a conviction that she’s built her personality around.

    Veneer obviously rejects basic science and even cause and effect. Probably too phallocentric.

    Prefers a fantasy world full of feminist delusions. That and a huge need for controlling others, it’s obvious.

    Probably Daddy issues…

  36. IAS
    I really would like to be able to enjoy me retirement in 10 or 20 years… I don’t mind working during my retirement, but I wouldn’t like to be poor!

    We are in totallly uncharted waters economically. No bubble has ever reached this size before, ever.

  37. “You have not once said anything like “men should never have any obligation or responsibility decided for them by some women”.”
    -Radium

    “That you can’t impose your will on someone, does not mean are imposing their will on you. All you have are two people where neither can dominate the other.

    […]

    No dominance from either part. No control from either part. No “correction” from either part. Just two autonomous, adult human beings.”

  38. No dominance from either part. No control from either part. No “correction” from either part. Just two autonomous, adult human beings.”

    Has nothing to do with the real world where a woman can have a man thrown out of college, or thrown into jail solely on her word.

    This is feminism. This is Fascism. This is reality.

  39. @vanir

    “That you can’t impose your will on someone, does not mean are imposing their will on you. All you have are two people where neither can dominate the other.”

    But that’s not the legal world which we live, and you’ve said nothing to acknowledge this fact or to denounce it as you have denounced what you perceive as the subjugation of women. And for the record, show me where you are on feminist websites denouncing their plans to subjugate men. For these reasons, it is very hard to take you as anything other than someone with a femdom fetish.

  40. @Rollo

    What amuses me is that despite making the statement (not even a question) sexless, it’s still misogyny. Even though I could be strictly referring to a military officer leading his men, or a CEO leading a company, or even a politician leading a nation. No, a dominant male is misogynist. And dominance always involves violence and negativity, not inspiration and positivity. Period. Talk about defining shit from a feminist perspective.

    They’re not speaking the English language. They’re subverting it to their own ends with no concern for the accuracy of their statements. All must serve the narrative.

    I may be disagreeing with a some of the guys here right now, but I know for a fact even the guys I vehemently disagree with do indeed want me successful and happy. Cunts like Veneer couldn’t care less what happens to me as long as they feel vindicated in their beliefs. That’s where feminism’s true colors are revealed: in the complete lack of understanding or concern for men who’ve been utterly ruined attempting to put feminist dogma in to practice.

  41. “Has nothing to do with the real world where a woman can have a man thrown out of college, or thrown into jail solely on her word. This is feminism. This is Fascism. This is reality.”
    – Anon

    No. This is some femdom fantasy world of yours. Enjoy it on your own, I have no interest in your masturbation fantasies.

  42. “show me where you are on feminist websites denouncing their plans to subjugate men.”
    – Radium

    That would be pointless, seeing that feminists aren’t doing that. At least on no fora I have stumbled across.

    I have never seen feminists discuss the kind of thing discussed here (gender swapped); how to isolate men from friends and family and try to mold them into something more “manageable”. I have never seen feminists debate how to best keep their boyfriends/husbands under control.

    The only feminist debates I have seen that touch these subjects, have been “defensive” – i.e. how to spot, avoid, get away from controlling abusers – or how to help friends to the same.

  43. Vanir likes plausible deniability. On the one hand, playing at “equality”, but on the other hand like having men with guns just a phone call away to enforce that “equality” on men.

    It’s the usual feminist Fascist self-contradiction we’ve been seeing for decades. Fits in well with a total denial of science.

  44. @Sun Wukong: That’s where feminism’s true colors are revealed: in the complete lack of understanding or concern for men who’ve been utterly ruined attempting to put feminist dogma in to practice.

    Getting one like V. to explore the origins of misogyny, much less misandry, is a fruitless task. As Rollo said there is an ego investment that is a significant barrier and the investment is probably a buffer against some level of personal culpability in the formative experiences that make up misandry.

    Or feminist dogma might be just total nutters.

  45. “On the one hand, playing at “equality”, but on the other hand like having men with guns just a phone call away to enforce that “equality” on men. It’s the usual feminist Fascist self-contradiction we’ve been seeing for decades”
    – Anon

    Are you actually trying to argue that wanting equal protection under the law, is somehow incompatible with wanting equality? Because if so, that’s a level of stupid that makes it amazing you can even type correctly.

  46. “Has nothing to do with the real world where a woman can have a man thrown out of college, or thrown into jail solely on her word. This is feminism. This is Fascism. This is reality.”
    – Anon

    No.

    Yep. The Duluth Power Wheel makes it all possible. VAWA in 1994 extended its reach.

    Feminist Fascists like Vanir pretend it isn’t true, of course, because the reality would interfere with their victim fantasies.

  47. “On the one hand, playing at “equality”, but on the other hand like having men with guns just a phone call away to enforce that “equality” on men. It’s the usual feminist Fascist self-contradiction we’ve been seeing for decades”
    – Anon

    Are you actually trying to argue that wanting equal protection under the law, is somehow incompatible with wanting equality?

    No. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of you Fascist feminists who like to play at “equality” with words, but who also enact laws that enforce inequality at the point of a gun.

    Woman hits man on head with hammer. Man calls police. Police arrest… injured man. Because of the Duluth Power Wheel enacted in law.

    Feminist “equality” in action; feminist Fascism at work.

  48. @vanir,

    “That would be pointless, seeing that feminists aren’t doing that. At least on no fora I have stumbled across.”

    lol

    I just checked out vanir’s twitter page, which is set up to imply vanir is male. He / she, of course, is playing a game as can be seen by the ridiculous statement above. I know that women have a very low biological impulse to understand or empathize with men or male suffering so that along with daddy issues is usually the root of female feminist rage. However, there are plenty of male feminists with this hatred of masculine energy, which I find hard to understand. Where drives the male feminist?

  49. “the complete lack of understanding or concern for men who’ve been utterly ruined attempting to put feminist dogma in to practice.”
    -SW

    Correct. Actually. If treating women like equals – not as inferior things to dominate and control – somehow *ruined* you. That gives me about as much concern as slave owners going bankrupt because they had to free their slaves.

    If you are dependent on grinding women under your foot for your life to function – then I hope you end up unsuccessful and miserable.

  50. manbooby troll
    That would be pointless, seeing that feminists aren’t doing that. At least on no fora I have stumbled across.

    On the old RadFemHub I routinely saw feminists discussing how to quietely kill 90% of boy babies at birth in order to maintain the “proper” ratio of male humans to female humans in their ideal, Mary Daly approved, feminist future world.

    Feminist Fascism at work, and not new at all, the idea of gendercide has been popular among feminists for well over 20 years.

  51. Radium
    Where drives the male feminist?

    Many things, often a misguided sense of fairness coupled with a blind belief in the “blank slate” (i.e. “Men and women are just the same except women can have babies”), often a low self esteem that manifests as self-hatred or self-loathing, often Daddy issues – can’t help but wonder how many male feminists were raised by women who frivorced their husbands.

    It’s not usually a position reached by reason. That’s why few male feminists can be reasoned out of it. It’s emotional, often all the way down.

  52. “women have a very low biological impulse to understand or empathize with men or male suffering”
    -Radium

    Only if that suffering is a result of those men not being able to make women suffer – i.e. if they “suffer” and feel “oppressed” – because they no longer can oppress women.

    “there are plenty of male feminists with this hatred of masculine energy”
    -Radium

    No. In my experience there are plenty of male feminists with hatred of some men’s need to treat women as lesser human beings; as inferior things to control.

  53. Vanir
    If you are dependent on grinding women under your foot for your life to function – then I hope you end up unsuccessful and miserable.

    Since you are dependent on men with guns being at your beck and call to grind any man under your foot at your slightest whim, I hope that you someday realize just what an ugly, hypocritical, Fascist monster you really are.

  54. “misguided sense of fairness”
    – Anon

    You thinking a sense of fairness that includes men AND women equally, is “misguided”, is pretty much why male feminists think you are scum, dude.

  55. Rollo, I did not look very far through the Vanir twtr feed, but it appears to be all retweets, is that correct?

    If so, a distinct lack of originality is shown. Not a surprise, really; blindly repeating talking poits with no attempt at communication is pretty standard for Fascist feminists.

  56. @ Vanir

    If treating men like equals – not as inferior things to dominate and control – somehow *ruined* you. That gives me about as much concern as slave owners going bankrupt because they had to free their slaves.

    If you are dependent on grinding men under your foot for your life to function – then I hope you end up unsuccessful and miserable.

    You thinking a sense of fairness that includes women AND men equally, is “misguided,” is pretty much why everyone here thinks you are scum, dude.

  57. “Misguided sense of fairness” means that many men mistakenly believe in the blank slate, and they wind up believing that feminist Fascism is fair.

    Vanir, your thinking that using men with guns to subjugate any man who offends you is “fairness” is why more and more people are realizing that feminism IS Fascism.

    Feminists like your sisters at RadFemHub trying to figure out how to murder boy babies for the “crime” of maleness is another reason.

  58. Veneer
    Only if that suffering is a result of those men not being able to make women suffer – i.e. if they “suffer” and feel “oppressed” – because they no longer can oppress women.

    Science tells us that women are not empathetic towards male suffering at all, but since Fascist feminists routinely deny science I doubt that means much.

    Of course, the suffering of men thrown in jail at the whim of women would not interest any Fascist feminist at all, because feminists do not regard men as humans. Just read the gendercide discussions over the last 20 years where feminist Fascists casually discuss murdering 90% of men.

    That’s “equality” that a Fascist feminist like Venir supports.

  59. AR you havin fun?

    Vanir is being entertained by men,under a roof built by men,on a computer designed by men,plugged into electricity provided by men,with a first amendment designed by men,protected by men…In fact everything vanir takes for granted is the fruit of male labor,but save this poor person from patriarchal slavery!

    The sad part is Vanir has already won,the men are for the most part beaten down,with no hope left for ambition,say goodby to the garnish and amenities,initiative is gone,it is comply or die.

    There is a spark of hope on this blog,a possible future for masculinity Vanir must stomp this out before it grows.

    This will ensure the return to the basic cave man lifestyle.

  60. “I think most men really do want not only to have offspring but also want to be involved in raising them.”

    I agree.

    “I agree with your solution of “just don’t have kids” . . .”

    What? Where? When?

    The only solutions I have offered are to the marriage question, and I continue to be puzzled why that keeps coming up. It is not the OMGs who refuse to let it go.

    Things I have said (or at least intended to say):

    The solutions proposed to mitigate the risks of having and raising children do not do so. They amount to nothing more than “Be alpha 24/7, Bro.” Even if you can alpha a girl, you cannot alpha the system. The system thrives on grinding alphas to quivering, suicidal heaps.

    Not being named as the father mitigates risk, but at the cost of being acknowledged as the father. It also has a “Be alpha” component to it.

    “Be alpha” is not a solution for the 90%.

    The two fundamental approaches are to adapt or resist, but for a good many men the wisest move may be not to play, but in any case, do not play by the conventional rules if you do not want a conventional outcome.

  61. Vanir (@85) your a copper top battery you little energizer bunny . Fueling the matrix that keeps you a slave. Open your mind. In any relationship the person that needs the other the least is in control and has supremacy . Parent – child Student – teacher Boss- employee. Husband – wife. Doesn’t matter The one that needs the relationship least is in the driver seat. In sexual relationships this is fluid and changes take place over the course of decades As a young man need sex he gives control over to the female partner Then later after children she is the more needed and must give dominance over to the male. Then after children get to a surviving age of 6 or 7 she no longer needs the male. Then she can struggle to reclaim control of the relationship. And that is where it get fun for divorce lawyers

  62. “The sad part is Vanir has already won,the men are for the most part beaten down,with no hope left for ambition,say goodby to the garnish and amenities,initiative is gone,it is comply or die.”

    If I have a criticism of Blaximus’s last comments it is that there may be rather fewer men that are capable of resistance than he might think.

    “There is a spark of hope on this blog,a possible future for masculinity . . .”

    I do not, however, mean to imply that there may not be enough men.

  63. Back to the OP, which is surprisingly applicable considering Vanir’s appearance here:

    Very good lesson here in regards to correcting women.

    Negotiating desire = trying to inform Venir about TRP and thinking that anything will sink in. Negotiation includes logic.

    It’s literally impossible. IMPOSSIBLE. Desire can’t be negotiated.

    We can only truly correct women by taking independent action as men.

    How? Don’t give women what they’re not entitled to. Whether that’s sex, a committed relationship, a child, marriage, or any form of interaction that involves you (a man) at all.

    Women need to be corrected by understanding FIRSTHAND that men don’t owe them shit simply for being women.

    Just like PUA’s need to put in the hard work to learn what spikes attraction and arousal in women and get good at it to get laid, women need to learn what spikes attraction for LTR’s in men and get good at it if they want to have a man in their life beyond a pump and dump.

    Women will NEVER do this on their own, because it’s not in their nature. If they find a true Alpha male that they want to be with, THEN they will do it, or at least have the best chance they’ll ever have of doing it, because securing that Alpha male becomes a solipsistic desire for them. It becomes something that benefits them and if they desire it enough, they will modify their behavior to attain it.

    (Keeping in mind here that “Alpha” means being high value, and in this context bringing high value into a woman’s life, making it BETTER, not being physically abusive and sociopathic as Venir would have casual lurkers here think)

    Their nature is opportunistic. As long as the Beta Bucks are willing to get cucked by the Alpha fucks, and provide for women with absolutely zero regard for their own sense of masculinity and self-respect, women will take advantage of it.

    My question is: will this EVER happen on a large enough scale to make any difference? Will enough men EVER be on board with TRP to make any difference?

    And the answer? In your own life, yes. You are a man in your own life, and changing yourself will be a large enough scale to influence your own life.

    As well as the women in your life. None of us here has to save the whole world. We only have to save ourselves and do our best to, as scrib pointed out, leave women (and other people for that matter) better than when we found them.

    Women that you’re not in some form of active relationship with have nothing to do with your life whatsoever, so you don’t have to worry about them.

    How do we deal with the millions of Beta Orbiters and men who are supplicating to women, and perpetuating this cycle of debauchery and open Hypergamy? How do we deal with the male feminists and SJW’s and the rest?

    Simple. Don’t be one of them.

    Correct women by being a man that women desire and other men want to be. There is no other way. For women to correct their behavior they need a solipsistic motivation to correct it. That would be the true Alpha male.

  64. “I do not, however, mean to imply that there may not be enough men.”

    Definitely more than enough to get the job done.

    I have often wondered what happened to the young men,that used to enter the trades to become masters,and usualy came to the conclusion that the economy,tech,teaching priorities in schools,negative media propoganda…..this was the problem. I had never even really considered gender dynamics,feminism,fi primacy,I being the mysogenist that I am always dismissed them as a bunch of quacks,witch of coarse they are it just never crossed my mind that so many people by into their bullshit.

  65. @Anonymous Reader

    “Many things, often a misguided sense of fairness coupled with a blind belief in the “blank slate” (i.e. “Men and women are just the same except women can have babies”), often a low self esteem that manifests as self-hatred or self-loathing, often Daddy issues – can’t help but wonder how many male feminists were raised by women who frivorced their husbands.

    It’s not usually a position reached by reason. That’s why few male feminists can be reasoned out of it. It’s emotional, often all the way down.”

    Well said! I tend to think the misguided sense of fairness and belief in the blank slate are rationalizations more than reasons. I suspect that you are right that many male feminists are probably sons whose mother frivorced and then demonized and alienated them from their fathers. I think it takes a lot of psychological damage to create a male feminist. Everything single thing they believe is working against them, and yet they persist.

    I’m going to have to make a mental note to remember be more supportive of the male feminist. Perhaps they need more hugs?

    1. Kfg
      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DDfK9pXIvrw
      You work as a team. We all figth are own battles. But sometimes help is more than warranted. What I have learned about myself. For one is that everyone is different. My experience has taught me that when I take care of myself. Others can come after in a heathy state that comes from love. But if “feelings” are forced and men keep gettin pounded with what we all see going on. The internal self. The hidden alpha breaks out and maybe builds a place such as this. Or perhaps a conversation that breaths the thumos back to life.

  66. “I’m going to have to make a mental note to remember be more supportive of the male feminist. Perhaps they need more hugs?”

    From my experience,,,,,the single mom with a resentment,will bad mouth the father at every opportunity while at the same time beating anything remotely masculine out of her sons.The bad mouthing of the father can cause damage to the son in the feeling that he comes from bad blood,also looking for bad male examples to ridicule like mom did.

    Strangely enough the out come of this treatment can go either way rad fem gay,or misogynist selfish objectification of women,attaching selfworth to pleasing women and being succesful at it.

  67. @Rollo
    Flip through the twitter feed. All you need to know:

    Wow. That’s quite the self-licking ice cream cone. Still, every bit as tedious as the vanir postings here.

  68. @rugby11

    hang tough, dude… and feel free to vent on here if you want to… it’s more effective than ‘therapy’… lol… cheaper too… lol

    good luck!

  69. Veineer should not have promoted her/himself to it’s rant level.

    #douchebag
    #what is the motivation to post here?
    #winning like charlie sheen
    #not very good at debate. At all.
    #What do women want? Who cares. They follow alpha men.
    #STFU because on this blog Spam is not OK
    #Lifeless, listing life form devoid of all femininity, and not getting the fact that men and woman need masculine/feminine polarity.
    #YGBFSM she’s asking for the world to be asexual. Reality does not bear that out.
    #31 y.o. post wall woman with no lovers besides her feminist Tweet followers.

    Good luck Woman.

    Congratulations to your promotion to frequent Twater and alleged posts here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRW-pMG1c2U

    Poor expression despite your fervor for SJW Feminism.

    You get nothing here. (except the old masculine vibe).

    One step divorced from being banned for Spam.

    Worthless Spam.

  70. Dominance, leadership and control are 3 different things. There are many examples of dominant controlling men who are lousy leaders. They make bad decisions and enforce them on their followers, leading all to ruin. Talking general here, not just about male female relationships. Also, none of these traits is inherently bad, but if applied wrongly will lead to disastrous results, and that does indeed include abuse. I think, if you have to recur to abuse as a man to establish your leadership, then it’s no longer leadership. Either you don’t know what you’re doing and change or you are investing in the wrong woman and need to let her go.

    I think vinar has never seen a positive example of male leadership and has experienced the controlling dictatorship type of dominance and now believes there can be no other type of dominance.

    What I try to achieve, and also in my professional career by the way, is dominance based on leadership based on respect based on competence. And this does require taking input from your base seriously but also correct individual members when their actions damage the integrity or mission if the group.

    What rinav is protesting is dominance based on control based on fear based on violence ( implicit or explicit). And she is not able to distinguish between the two.

  71. @KFG: didn’t mean to misrepresent, I thought you had been repeatedly suggesting that one of the solutions to the issue being debated between OMGs and YSGs is simply to not have kids.

    @Sentient: I was very interested in your recent “FR” of sorts:
    https://therationalmale.com/2016/09/25/for-better-or-worse/comment-page-9/#comment-171878
    Was “dick twitch” an euphemism for getting partially erect? Because if not, I don’t know what you are talking about there.

    Regardless of that detail, I recall ASDgamer mentioning being “addicted to a girl’s face” and I identify with that concept myself. In my case I believe it is for girls with similar faces, specifically the same kind of cheeks, that I probably “imprinted” on when I was younger.

    That may be what is happening with you, but maybe not as you gave the other example of the 9+ blue-eyed blonde.

    Have you seen the movie Jules et Jim (interesting with a Red Pill lens, if nothing else)? In the movie the two friends see a statue of a woman with a serene smile and then get smitten by a woman which reminds of the statue.

  72. “wind up believing that feminist Fascism is fair”
    – Anon

    Other way around. Misogynists believe fairness to both genders is feminist fascism.

    “a spark of hope on this blog,a possible future for masculinity”
    – stuffinbox

    A “masculinity” that consists of domination, and generally treating women as inferior things for men to control.

    Yeah. The world would be better off if that “masculinity” was destroyed and forgotten.

    “The sad part is Vanir has already won”
    – kfg

    No. It’s not over until misogyny is *gone* from society.

    “Then after children get to a surviving age of 6 or 7 she no longer needs the male. Then she can struggle to reclaim control of the relationship.”
    – Keith

    I don’t agree with you here. But according to *your own thought line*, this is just as natural as her having to give up control in the first place – so what are you complaining about?

  73. “The sad part is Vanir has already won”
    – kfg

    But what would it do without those windmills?
    It can never accept victory.

  74. @IAS: “I thought you had been repeatedly suggesting that one of the solutions to the issue being debated between OMGs and YSGs is simply to not have kids.”

    The question on the table is how to have and raise kids in a two parent household while mitigating the risk to the father.

    I have accepted that question at face value and “Don’t have kids” is not in the solution set (it is in the set of facetious responses to an unworkable solution).

    However, not being legally named as the father, is.

    If the solution set to the question results in an unpalatable outcome, I do not accept that it can “magic wanded” away.

    The YSGs seem to have gone down the path of magic wanding a wish fulfilment plan, rather than actually trying to solve the question. To have their poison cake, eat it too, and somehow either not be poisoned, or the poisoning being somehow OK because they knew it was poison.

    If the outcome of the solution set is held to be so unpalatable that the original question is modified or replaced, then elements of the solution set for the new question may be addressed.

  75. The west has a system that dispossesses a man of his children and hard earned wealth; the man is suffering, and demanding (or taking a position which demands) redress for this is not oppressive. Vanir please, just GTFO. You are a fanning a fire that will burn so ferociously that in the end, all that will be left for your daughters (if you are lucky to get any) is nothing but desolation.

  76. @anon:

    The Vanir critter is misattributing quotes, assigning them to people who were themselves quoting the OP.

    It doesn’t affect your own comment, but it is something to note going forward.

  77. Re: Charles Murray, author of Coming Apart, the best book on how the U.S. is becoming much more class divided is a brilliant thinker and analyst of our social order. As an aside, Coming Apart will shatter much of what you race realists believe about race and culture. At any rate, Murray as come over to my position on immigration. I know most of you don’t care about this but for those of you who may have taken note when I cited Murray’s work in the past, this shift in his POV is quite consequential.

    In Coming Apart, Murray groups people into two cohorts. One is Fishtown and the other is Belmont. Fishtown is where the working class lives. Belmont is where the UMC and better live. Turns out that Belmont is 78% Progressive, fyi. He also only included white people in his sample – a huge benefit. What you see very clearly is that white working class society has simply fallen apart. Civic engagement, hell, just having your kid in a little league forget things like church attendance or volunteering locally, things like work, marriage, education, wealth creation, business ownership, all went down dramatically. Out of wedlock births, single motherhood, welfare, criminality etc all went through the roof over the past 50 years.

    It was not always so, in fact the working class was going the other direction before this tsunami of immigration over the past 50 years, among other things.

    Best part of Murray’s book is when he adds black people back in towards the end. What you see is that all of the same social/behavioral pathologies and devolution exist in the white working class as the black working class, they are just marginally worse. Look at the data yourselves all you alt-right race realists, it should put you back on your heels a bit if you are really being “data driven” about your racism…

    But Murray is a libertarian of sorts and of course, and as such was always pro-immigration. In conservative/libertarian intellectual circles for Charles Murray to come out publicly supporting a low-skilled immigration freeze is nothing short of tectonic plate shifting kind of shit on the right. Not only does it open the debate up more broadly, as the open borders wing of the right has been unassailable and dismissed those questioning them as radicals, but it also lends serious intellectual credibility to Trump

    Here’s the vid of Murray making his confession. For those who don’t care about this shit, sorry, just scroll by. But for us political junkies? This is a bit of a biggish deal.

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whIHxkrwI2o&w=560&h=315%5D

    And if you really are a junkie for this shit, check out Jason Richwine’s commentary too.
    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAt2R9rIoqw&w=560&h=315%5D

    Why do it post this here? It’s very relevant to our economic discussions, sure, but I also think that the class differences in divorce that I posted about a thread or two back are explained more by economics. The graphs I linked to in the last post were from Charles Murray’s work. For those who didn’t take note of all that, what you find is that UMC and upper class folks do not divorce in anywhere near the rates working class and increasingly middle class are. Children out of wedlock rates are also much lower.

    I think material conditions are a much bigger driver of what we are seeing intersexually than some want to believe. I think that as working class native Americans (not indians) were much less able to be providers, women were driven less to settle on a man. Consider that when women lane change or lock down betas, his ability to provide is crucial and isn’t abetted by attraction. The attraction follows the provider stance, so without the ability to provide many men simply have no at bats if they don’t alpha up. This rules out marriage for many working class men.

    I also think the argument OMGs are having with YaReally is really more about class. SJF, Sentient and Blax are all UMC men who live that much more traditional family structured life. They live in Belmont and as such see many people living as they do around them.

    YaReally does not. He’s strikes me as working class/middle class, and he likely doesn’t spend much time in Belmont. In fact, he may even live in Fishtown. So, there may be more social stratification in intersexual behavior than is being acknowledged in the discussion.

    Hence my bringing up Murray here. When we discuss sociological phenomena, we have to have a very wide lens and be careful to not fall into a biological reductionism.

    Otherwise lost track of this thread, sorry. Have a busy day today too, so will check in when I can – but another 150 comments may post before then….

  78. The current system is dependent upon our dependency on it. If we were to all become farmers and be able to feed and clothe ourselves as we once were, it would cease to exist. It is a man-made perversion of God’s intended life for us, which is further distorted by Eve’s greedy desire to have NOW what would normally take a lifetime to achieve.

  79. “The Vanir critter is misattributing quotes, assigning them to people who were themselves quoting the OP.”
    -kfg

    If so, not intentional. I will take more care with this in the future.

  80. “If we were to all become farmers and be able to feed and clothe ourselves as we once were”
    – Kate

    If we’re going back in time (and give up any hope of our specie’s survival beyond Earth), better to go full paleolithic – before patriarchy and men had any control over women and their reproduction, at all. Hunter/gatherer societies favor a certain egalitarianism – and would not be so bad 😀

  81. @Kate – Pastoral fetishism is as limiting as it is laughable. Can’t turn the cucumber back into a pickle, sweetie. And when we were mostly agrarian, life was much, much harder. People worked from dawn to dusk, they were often isolated and had little hope of advancing themselves materially. Droughts, frosts, bugs, anything could ruin a crop.

    In fact, we don’t see a cessation of famine in western societies until the after the industrial age begins, in the 19th century. It’s not a stretch to say that agrarian societies will have famines from time to time. As an aside, it was the lowly potato imported from the Americas that helped finally prevent famines but still it was the underlying wealth effects and improvement of shipping etc. that made the difference.

  82. “The west has a system that dispossesses a man of his children and hard earned wealth”
    – cheupez

    This is where we disagree. The children belongs just as much to mothers, and holding fathers economically responsible for their offspring, even if their relationship with the mother ends – is simply fair.

    An arrangement where 50-50 shared parenting is default after breaking up, is of course possible (and would end child support) – but I actually find many men think this arrangement undesirable – and do not actually want it and would even prefer to keep paying child support – when it is seriously discussed. Of course this may not apply to the men specifically on this site – but it’s something to keep in mind.

    As for alimony – I am uncertain. Society still put expectations on women in relationships w/children to be the ones who sacrifice their career. With that being true, compensation for career opportunities she lost because of relationship, if it ends, seems only fair to me.

    ” Vanir please, just GTFO.”
    – cheupez

    Sorry. There is no backing down as long as there are men who think dominating and controlling women is their masculine birthright.

  83. Sorry. There is no backing down as long as there are men who think dominating and controlling women is their masculine birthright.

    Piss off vainier. By your rules you have no right but to self-identify. Thus you have no right to assign an identity to another you mealy-mouthed hypocrite.

  84. Scribblerg’s discussion on Charles Murray’s Coming Apart is relevant. Charles Murray describes a situation in which the short term benefits of welfare for those with lower income is enough to destroy marriage, family, future job skills, and society. Those who were raised in higher income families require two incomes to maintain the standard of living in which they are accustomed. Therefore, their marriages are much stronger, and the outcome for their children is much better.

    It’s almost like we are living in two separate societies with very little interaction between the two. Those in the upper classes are liberal mainly because they have very little interaction or understanding of those in the lower classes. They see poverty as being deprived of goods and services, when the reality of poverty has little to do with deprivation. Poverty is simply a measurement of income earned, and intentionally leaves out government resources consumed.

    The word poverty has about as much meaning as the word purple when trying to understand social issues. It’s single moms that correlate all of the social problems we see, and single moms are the result of welfare.

    In one chapter, Charles Murray describes what Wikipedia calls “Murray’s Law”. This is the idea that any action taken by a government to reduce a behavior can only result in increasing the value of that behavior. He used the example of smoking. Any effort the government makes to incentive people not to smoke can only result in increasing the value of smoking because once you are a smoker, you will qualify for government aid. Poverty, low job skills, and single moms are all likewise incentivized.

  85. And when we were mostly agrarian, life was much, much harder. People worked from dawn to dusk, they were often isolated and had little hope of advancing themselves materially.

    Most ag work was done by slaves…the Romans used oodles of captured Slavs for this.

  86. @vanir
    “Sorry. There is no backing down as long as there are men who think dominating and controlling women is their masculine birthright.”

    And yet you still say nothing about women who use their children to dominate and control the fathers of their children. Drop the equalitarianism bs, and start having honest discussions about what you really believe or just shut the f up.

  87. @Radium

    They see poverty as being deprived of goods and services, when the reality of poverty has little to do with deprivation. Poverty is simply a measurement of income earned, and intentionally leaves out government resources consumed.

    Vagueness is used (by the left primarily) offensively, as in this case, to advocate for increasing govt. services for the privileged non-working lower class.

    Vagueness was used (by both left and right) defensively to redefine “unemployment” so that the incumbent could point to statistics or at least have most of the sting drawn from opponents’ attacks.

    Vagueness, of course, is simply a haziness or distortion in definitions. It’s a very effective tactic when attempting to propagandize the ignorant. Women, the young, and immigrants tend to be the most politically ignorant.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: