Oh yea, add the eXiled to that list as perhaps they best illustrate this juvenile abdication of adulthood and responsibility. In essence, all of these "man travel" bloggers lash out at society indiscriminately, bashing all women, everything about Amerika, and everyone who seeks value in middle-class responsibility and family. According to travel bloggers, these "boring" individuals are drones imposed upon by our horrible society, while a foreign land full of underage hookers, loads of drugs, and other uppity expats apparently has something better to offer. Basically, these people believe finding love and raising a family is less spiritually uplifting than whatever else is out there.A number of issues were raised in the comments. Ferd repeats the popular notion that Christian and pseudo-Christian shaming will force us to marry fat, entitled, bitchy, feminist American princesses:
Over the top at times, but a needed response to the willful naivete of "Christian" "conservatives" (in quotes because if Jesus were alive today, he'd be busy burning churches) who maliciously try to shame men into "manning up" and marrying some fat sow to save Christianity/the white race/insert cause of the month here.Stop slumming around the Capital District, Ferd. Fatness is almost exclusively a lower class phenomenon. And for all the Manosphere's talk about "being a man", they have a woefully ignorant notion of gender relations. Women fall in line when a man asserts himself. As Roissy consistently shows, an entitled bitch with a degree from Oberlin melts when imposed upon by a stern, strong male figure.
In his article, Ferd then presents his main argument - marriage spiritually enervates men. He points to a number of luminaries who eschewed marriage or "CONservative" monogamy, such as Feynman, Chopin, and Schrödinger.
No matter who you are, having a girlfriend, wife, fuck-buddy or any relationship with a woman requires mental exertion. Women are inherently uncreative and unimaginative creatures — having to listen to their nattering day in and day out kills brain cells.Note Ferdinand's predictable denunciation of all women as tiresome harpies. As I alluded to above, a viable patriarchy, both in a personal and societal sense, will undermine this unfortunate inclination of the Sex and the City generation. Donna Reed may not be coming back, but surely the insufferable caricature presented by the women-hating Manosphere needn't persist indefinitely. Further, and excuse my mawkishness here, many men do find genuine love offered by a kind, feminine woman. In sum, I simply do not agree with the Mansophere's (no doubt full of extreme nerds and in-the-closest homos) hysterical antipathy towards women nor their sterile conception of women as semen receptacles.
However, Ferd's argument does not fail primarily for this reason. Ferd's argument fails because he implicitly founds it upon nihilism. Now I won't begrudge Ferd's nihilism, as despite my blogging content, no one can outdo my own intellectual support of this basic philosophy. Yet, I have successfully compartmentalized nihilism from social pragmatism, understanding that we needn't always follow logic in our actions. By espousing a dubious argument based on an exceedingly small number of men's professional accomplishments, Ferd ignores the far more important societal level notion of marriage. While marriage may dampen intellectual output, a concern outweighed by the fact that long-term married people (not the shogun, lower-class version) are happier, we should not view it in the context of the personal.
Ferdinand appears to revel in his own brand of contrarian nihilism and refuses to understand that nihilism and egoism manifested as political and social policy leads to destruction. And that destruction leads to generally defined pain, a state of being that equally affects the materialist and the believer. In this context, we note the distinction between our two positions. Ferdinand takes nihilism too far, believing that a hedonistic lifestyle will have no ramifications down the line. While I agree with Ferd on the logical and intellectual justification of hedonism, as engaged in by male travel bloggers and anti-marriage supporters, I disagree with the premise that civilization can incorporate the radically autonomous.
For those now thoroughly lost - basically, I philosophically agree with Ferd that man should seek his own pleasure, yet I believe that Ferd carelessly overlooks the consequences of a society that condones such behavior. Further, I believe that the crusading conservatives who envision a cultural renaissance seek something far more valuable than hooker sex and getting high; they seek a healthy and just society that provides a collective, spiritual benefit to those that erected it.
Marriage and married men are ultimately the bedrock of any healthy society. A society that accepts Ferd's nihilism by not shaming men to "man up" welcomes its own suicide. By allowing men the complete freedom to seek their base desires, society undermines why it exists in the first place. By demanding that men find a woman to love and raise a family (oh the horror!), society ensures its survival and its leadership by a stable group. These married men raise their children in a loving home, coach their kids' friends in sports, pass down values and culture, engage in communal bonding, and act as social authority figures. Only married men, given the sanction of marriage and the genetic bond of fatherhood, can provide such stability. And from the nuclear family, everything else is built.
Ferd's ideological loyalty to nihilism also arises in his tacit support of soft-anarchy, a position famously championed by the nauseating folks at the eXiled. Ferd wants the same radical autonomy popular amongst liberals, even chiding us "CONservatives" for not going along with his plans. Logically, Ferd sees traditional organizations as the primary roadblock to a society that allows men total freedom. And chief among these traditional means of organization is marriage. By undermining marriage, Ferd can undermine the whole of society and seek pleasure without anyone or anything stopping him.
Now coming full circle, how will this naively individualistic conception of man and his social relations end? I confidently predict that a society without organization, without means to dampen man's carnality, without a fundamental social building block like the nuclear family will collapse. And when it collapses, this rundown, depressed society of the radical hedonist will offer him nothing. The pleasure he seeks will not outweigh the problems imposed by the wretched state of his society. He may "tan poolside", but what if there's no pool?
[Disclaimer: Ferd is still one of the only Manosphere blogger I actually really like. He often irks me, but he does scathing pessimism like very few others.]
118 comments:
" Ferdinand takes nihilism too far, believing that a hedonistic lifestyle admittedly consistent with this philosophy will have no ramifications down the line."
Ferd never says that. He says that Marriage turns men into pathetic sacks of shit, and men without marriage are often much better off because of it.
Ferd never says all bachelors should do is bang lots of girls.
In fact, he cites the examples of Great Men - men who are really the builders of civilization, not the pussy-whipped betas chained to an aging battleaxe.
Marriage has been common to every civilization; the real advantage western civilization has been it's geniuses and religion. A religion, which, you forgot to mention, advocates chastity from women as much as possible.
Jesus had some of his disciples leave their wives.
"A society that accepts Ferd's nihilism by not shaming men to "man up" welcomes its own suicide. By allowing men the complete freedom to seek their base desires, society undermines why it exists in the first place."
You have no sense of reality.
Men today have zero freedom to pursue their desires - otherwise they'd all be getting married at age 23, like they did 100 years ago, to women who were virgins.
The women would then accept them, AND BE UNABLE TO DIVORCE THEM, no matter how much money he made as long as he tried his best.
I mean, your argument is just completely off-base - how can you attack men? They're the more socially valuable members of society, things must be attractive for them before we start signing up to do anything.
If you were serious about half the shit you said, you'd advocate men to shun marriage until divorce laws were reformed. Because right now, the divorce laws are the biggest impediment to more marriages being formed today.
"And when it collapses, this rundown, depressed society of the radical hedonist will offer him nothing. The pleasure he seeks will not outweigh the problems imposed by the wretched state of his society."
Actually, when Russia collapsed, all the women became bigger whores than ever.
It will be a good time for us players. Hope you have some game to partake in the feast.
Oh, and, I appreciate you taking the time to raise your daughters. I really like them.
"Oh, and, I appreciate you taking the time to raise your daughters. I really like them."
The above comment isn't directed at STDV, who I have no idea if he has children or not, but to all the social conservatives who visit here.
I look forward to dancing with your daughter.
Ferd's rant was, at times, a tad over the top, but essentially it rang true. Your rebuttal, such as it is, does not.
No offense, but the previous long comment was dead-on. I'm 51 and would rather put a gun in my mouth than get married. This society needs dire marriage reform. Death to no-fault divorce! Death to the presumption of paternity! Death to alimony except in genuinely warranted causes.
This is the 21st century, and marriage reflects the day of Charles Fucking Dickens.
As it presently exists, marriage is a moral abomination. Change it, and I'd love to get married.
Until then, no way, baby!
A = B...
B = C...
So A = C.
Homosexuals, dykes, atheists, anarchists, nihilists = radical autonomists...
Radical autonomists = Self-annihilators...
Therefore, homosexuals, dykes, atheists, anarchists and nihilists = Self-annihilators.
Self-annihilators shall get no seat at the table of civilization.
Thus spaketh Thordaddy.
I am reminded of the old saw that a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
oneSTDV states that "Marriage and married men are ultimately the bedrock of any healthy society."
I actually agree with this. Unfortunately, times have changed, and as Athol Kay just pointed out, Marriage 1.0 is gone, and it isn't coming back.
http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/12/technology-created-marriage-20-not.html
So, maybe marriage-at-all-cost advocates just haven't experienced divorced-rape up close and personal yet.
En garde, OneSTDV. I'll see if I can write a more complete response later, but here are some quick notes:
Stop slumming around the Capital District, Ferd. Fatness is almost exclusively a lower class phenomenon.
First you claim that Roosh stays in hostels all the time and now this. How many times do I have to remind everyone that I moved away a year ago? Moreover, I live in one of the healthiest cities in America, with one of the lowest obesity rates in America.
Second, I don't believe that radical autonomy is the ideal condition for society, but the only path left for individual men, since traditionalism is unlikely to take hold. This is both because of the power of liberalism and because (if this section of the blogosphere is any proof) traditionalists are too deluded about reality to be of any use.
Third, you read your own meaning into my comments about the uncreative nature of women. That's not a "denunciation of all women as tiresome harpies," it's a statement of fact. Women, even the good ones, are trivial and dull. The dearth of their contributions to art, science, literature or culture is proof of this. Among so-called "patriarchs" or "traditionalists", this shouldn't be controversial at all, and anyone here who objects to my argument has revealed themselves to be a stealth feminist.
Finally, Samseau nailed it on the head in regards to how Russian women became even more degenerate when the USSR broke up. When the American Empire crumbles, all of your daughters will become whores, because getting fucked by strange men beats starving to death. You don't need to take my word for it - just read the news:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/seeking-arrangement-college-students_n_913373.html
http://flyfreshandyoung.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/i-think-an-amateur-tried-to-turn-a-trick-on-me/
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/unable_to_stop_grinding_at_sch.html
I particularly enjoy that last link because I grew up in that general area - all the schools mentioned in the story are either in wealthy suburbs (Skaneateles, Fayetteville-Manlius, Fabius-Pompey) or private schools (Christian Brothers Academy). Seems even the children of the elite can't resist decadence's siren song.
But nah, God is on our side. It can't happen here.
Responding to this from the previous post:
Even here in the blogosphere, the perennial bachelors (Roosh, Mangan, Roissy, even Auster etc.) are better writers and clearer thinkers then the men with wife and kids in tow.
Hmm...better writers maybe, but what about better thinkers? I give you Steve Sailer and Mencius Moldbug, two married men with children.
A society that accepts Ferd's nihilism by not shaming men to "man up" welcomes its own suicide.
A society that's reduced to trying to shame men into acting against their own long-term interests is well and truly fucked. Shame only works when there are penalties to exile from the group. If membership in the group is a net negative -- if the group exists only to extract resources from the individual -- then shame is completely ineffectual. This is particularly true for men, who are predisposed to peel off from the group and head off to the next valley over if they find themselves on the short end of their own group's status hierarchy.
If you want to know why some men hate you, look at what you just wrote. Men aren't doing what you want? Your suggestion is to shame them/force them to do what you prefer. The idea of making it worth their while apparently never occurs to you. Men aren't expatting, MGTOW, or PUAing because it's their first choice, but because it's (in their judgement) their best choice. You don't want to offer them better choices, you just want to force them to accept the shitty ones you prefer.
By allowing men the complete freedom to seek their base desires, society undermines why it exists in the first place. By demanding that men find a woman to love and raise a family (oh the horror!), society ensures its survival and its leadership by a stable group.
I note that you presuppose the existence of suitable women, and suggest no restrictions on their freedom of action.
"A society that's reduced to trying to shame men into acting against their own long-term interests is well and truly fucked. Shame only works when there are penalties to exile from the group. If membership in the group is a net negative -- if the group exists only to extract resources from the individual -- then shame is completely ineffectual."
This. Everything Twenty just said, but especially this. A+
The problem with men like Ferdinand, is not so much that they don't want to get married, but that they don't want any other man to, either. Frankly, a lot of these men who rail against marriage seem like they would be high maintenance husbands anyway. They would get angry if their wife put on a few pounds or didn't entertain them with witty conversation all the time.
I've also found that men like this become the most p-whipped, if and when they do finally meet a woman they like.
"Women, even the good ones, are trivial and dull."
My friend is married to an intellectual type. She was mowing the lawn and mulching all the gardens, while he was in the house, teaching himself Russian. He probably thinks she's dull now, because she can't speak in Russian to him.
-- "not so much that they don't want to get married, but that they don't want any other man to, either."
Great observation Lara, and true as far as some of the misery-wallowing, mirror-image-of-feminism MRAs go. But that's not what's going on here.
-- "They would get angry if their wife put on a few pounds"
Rightly so. My wife is as slim now as she had been before her pregnancies. Modest portions, pride in one's appearance, and gym does the magic.
-- "or didn't entertain them with witty conversation all the time."
Dovetailing into the notion that women are intellectually uninspiring... I once dated a doctoral lit student. Not my thing, it turns out. The dynamic was too incestual, with her interests overlapping so much with mine. She was smart, and very well-read, and fascinated by my rightieism. But the nonstop "witty" convos and endless allusions and intrusion of theory into our time together was... the exact opposite of intellectually stimulating for me.
I like to compartmentalize my brainier amateurisms to blog comments, and occasional real-life conversations. In everyday life, it feels healthier to just be a bit mentally lazy -- or maybe "balanced" is the better term -- as a normal frame of mind, but that state being punctuated by bursts of hardcore thinking.
What works for me is having a woman who is intelligent but girlie and practical, shares my values and sense of fun, and who is interested in the intellectual things I like, but doesn't co-own the subject with me. There is room for just one professor in any given household.
The intellectual women I've known tended to be happiest when married to professional but non-intellectual men.
There does exist actual right and wrong.
PA says,
"I like to compartmentalize my brainier amateurisms to blog comments, and occasional real-life conversations. In everyday life, it feels healthier to just be a bit mentally lazy -- or maybe "balanced" is the better term -- as a normal frame of mind, but that state being punctuated by bursts of hardcore thinking ..... What works for me is having a woman who is intelligent but girlie and practical, shares my values and sense of fun, and who is interested in the intellectual things I like, but doesn't co-own the subject with me ...."
Ha! Very, very true IMHO; in fact, you give precise definition to what I believe and sort-of have experienced but never quite articulated. It's funny though, in that, so often, when coming up with a composite of some hypothetical-mate ideal, those much-vaunted 'shared-interests' are assumed to be given requirements, when in fact they may not only not matter; they actually might even hinder the 'ideal' relationship.
"maybe 'balanced' is the better term"
Yep, though Perhaps even moreso 'complementary interests' are what we seek in mates.
@Twenty said:
"I note that you presuppose the existence of suitable women"
This has got to be dorkiest statement I have ever heard.
Judging by some of these commenters, the 'manosphere' is filled with the biggest bunch of thin-skinned sissies ever.
The real world isn't Pleasantville 100% of the time, so this current crop of babies retreats to their whine-o-sphere blogs and porn where there is no risk their fragile, tender egos.
If God forbid, something bad happens in the realm of love, are you so neurotic that you will just shatter into a million pieces? So you just run away because the risk is too great?
The divorce rate actually peaked thirty years ago and has been going down ever since. It's actually much less than 50% now, and for college educated middle class folks, its now quite low. But male sissiness continues to reach ever more stratosperic levels.
But male sissiness continues to reach ever more stratosperic levels.
Nice attempt at shaming language.
Full marks for effort.
Are you surprised, One?
Manosphere just shows its true colours. They are not the friends of the traditional Right and never will be. They are a mirror image of feminists; liberals, seeking empowerment, only this time for men.
They are not a part of the solution, they are a part of the problem.
These folks who imagine there are too few good women around seem to me like they are not really properly hetero or more likely asexual.
I am married and happily so I might add.
But personally I know a few dozen pretty, good quality young women I'd be willing to marry if I were still looking.
What planet are these comenters on?
A society that's reduced to trying to shame men into acting against their own long-term interests is well and truly fucked.
You couldn't be more wrong.
That's how civilized society works, for both men and women. There's a social contract that men and women do not seek all their base desires and get a working society as a result. When you instead allow men and women to do whatever they want, you get gay AIDS, Africa, the black ghettos, and the Colombia drug nation.
Yep. Hey, you're all a bunch of sissy faggot homos.
Yep, that'll work.
From my own perspective, one of the reasons why I have largely backed away from the manosphere is not because I am a "closet homo" or I think that manosphere people are sissy faggots, but rather that the more I see of men of all stripes on the internet (manosphere, tradosphere, HBD-o-sphere etc.), the far less I care for men in general. Most seem to be absolutely insufferable pricks who are simply not worth the effort. Since men are such assholes and refuse to support each other, why should I support them?
Nay, I decided some time ago that the best course is looking out for oneself and one's own (and yes, I have procreated -- passed Go, collected $200, got the T-shirt, yadda yadda -- and have relationships with women). Anything beyond that is a waste of effort, in my opinion.
I think calling people a sissy when they are one is support, man-style.
If someone is fat and they are surrounded by fatness enablers who only stroke their egos and tell them how good they look, how is that helping?
I can understand where both One and Ferd are coming from. I think they're both right.
I personally think Ferd is to loser men what fat enabler friends are for fat people.
You can't have a good woman? Don't worry, its not your fault. Good women don't exist.
Can't find a suitable career? Again, not your fault. There are no good jobs anywhere in the whole wide world.
Have another double fudge sunday, you beautiful thing!
Posted on Ferd's blog...
"Dear Ferdinand Bardamu,
Or should I say Isaac Newton…
Having broken free of the shackles that bind all men, as you march into the sunlit uplands of knowledge and discovery, surely the Nobel committee will be unable to restrain itself from conferring upon you several awards in multiple fields of endeavor.
You genius, you. Imagine if you had gotten married. We never would been bles’t with you brilliance!"
marriage is a fool's endeavor for men for two reasons:
1. divorce theft
2. monogamy
now, it's true most (white/asian) men don't have that special something -- call it what you like, energy, balls, horndoggery, options, a distinct lack of desire to legitly sire -- to pursue a life of polygyny or its milder cousin serial monogamy. most men would rather exit the dating game as soon as they have their radar locked onto a sufficient chick for marital quasi-pwnage. reforming the divorce laws so that these kinds of men aren't royally screwed should the marriage fail will go a long way to reinvigorating the institution. this is an area where conservatives and traditionalists have failed men.
but even with a fully reformed marital legal landscape that doesn't treat men like chattel to be milked for indentured labor, the fact remains that lifelong hitchment caters to the female predilection for monogamous providership and protectorship and stifles the male predilection for variety. in short, marriage is inherently female. for those men whose urge to merge with multitudinous pussy is stronger than the checks and balances put into place to curb them, marriage is self-imprisonment. sure, it's a prison bedecked in loofahs and feathered bedding, but the bars are still there in full view.
luckily for civilization -- aka the west -- the majority of men can be successfully weaned off their incipient impulsion for female variety and conditioned without much fuss into societally beneficial marital bliss. these men -- most men, in fact -- don't lose much happiness having their already limited options formalized by law, and may, truth be told, have an increase in happiness brought on by possessing a partner ostensibly codified as his lone sexual pleasure model.
unluckily for civilization, an attack under the banner of anti-white male egalitarianism has been underway for decades to subvert the benefits that accrue to men who take upon the marital obligation, and to maximize the punishment that is delivered to married men who can't keep their wives emotionally satisfied. incentive matter, and the disincentives to marriage are so strong now that the age of first marriage is rising, and the rate of marriage declining ( which explains the leveling off of divorce rates).
this process is especially pronounced in the lower classes, for whom in-group shaming is weakened beyond the point of efficacy. (in fact, the opposite is occurring, as shitty behavior is celebrated.)
the benefits of marriage for men have never been less obvious than the time we live in now, though that doesn't preclude a small class of men with self-awareness and the talent to manage risk from extracting whatever benefits are left in it. if the present course doesn't change, expect marriage to continue withering on the vine. the system may ultimately be self-correcting, however, and the reign of singledom come to an end demographically at least, if not legally or culturally.
"I can understand where both One and Ferd are coming from. I think they're both right"
It's good when quality writers collide like this. It profits the rest of us to pay attention to both.
One thing I notice in my early manosphere comments is a slight tendency toward a philosophy of white-knighting and pedestalization, coming from a traditionalist point of view. I've moved away from that considerably. On the other hand, its not unreasonable to say that I've gotten some of the more libertine writers to give consideration to traditionalism-based arguments.
OneStdv, your attitude is perfectly healthy and needs no apology.
There is something bizarre about men who complain about women too much (and vice versa), or spend so much time and effort on such criticism. Over time, it starts to remind one of the feminists at Jezebel, who spend inordinate amounts of time complaining about the various convulated reasons why men don't find them attractive. Why can we not face the facts: normal men and women like and need eachother's company even if they have different interests/roles/personalities etc. It's nature. And men and women in everyday life don't resemble the charictatures you see repeated so often throughout the internet.
It's also odd thata some elements of the alt right desire to evangelize their hatred of women and turn others against the idea of marriage. As someone else has already stated, there is nothing conservative or pro-Western about that attitude at all.
I posted a comment to your post:
Anti-Family Attitude of the Manosphere
--------
A Proposal for defining the Feminist vs Anti-Feminist Problem
http://tiny.cc/fem-proposal
--------
Just wanted to confirm there has been no response; and that I can confirm there is no interest.
"A society that's reduced to trying to shame men into acting against their own long-term interests is well and truly fucked."
You couldn't be more wrong.
That's how civilized society works, for both men and women.
No, civilized society provides incentives for society-sustaining behavior. You can't take away the incentives, turn the shaming up to 11, and expect the society-sustaining behavior to continue. Well, you can expect it -- you just won't get it.
I honestly don't see why this idea is even controversial, or why you're so stuck on trying to sell men a bad deal. Why not (a.) admit it's a bad deal, (b.) work to improve it?
Anonymous:
Judging by some of these commenters, the 'manosphere' is filled with the biggest bunch of thin-skinned sissies ever.
And this is why traditionalists have no chance - they have no grasp of the facts and no desire to get one. Rationally appraising your likelihood of having a successful marriage is being a "sissy" and having a "fragile, tender ego" in the minds of these mental pygmies. Jump off that bridge, whiner! You're not a man if you don't take incredible risks for meager payoffs!
If God forbid, something bad happens in the realm of love, are you so neurotic that you will just shatter into a million pieces? So you just run away because the risk is too great?
Note the weasel words here, conflating two different concepts, love and marriage, that are not the same thing. Aside from the ghost wing of MGTOW (and only about a third of them, not counting the older men who went ghost because they were tired of getting burned their entire lives), no one in the manosphere is "running away" from love or women - indeed, many of them are trying to improve their love lives with game and whatnot.
The divorce rate actually peaked thirty years ago and has been going down ever since.
Because the marriage rate has dropped.
It's actually much less than 50% now, and for college educated middle class folks, its now quite low.
And being middle class is increasingly out of reach for young Americans thanks to the student loan scam and the worsening recession. Not all of us had the good fortune to be born with rich parents.
But male sissiness continues to reach ever more stratosperic levels.
What people who use shaming language forget is that in order for it work, you need to have some power over the person being shamed.
I'm healthy, skinny, I've got all the money I need and I'm satisfied with my love life. Why should I care about what some miserable, pot-bellied anonymous twerp thinks? What power does he have to make me conform to his vision of the world? He has nothing, aside from ranting on blogs, too cowardly to even sign his rants with a name.
This is in part why liberalism is triumphing - the stupidity and inadequacy of the people opposing it.
Lara said...
"Frankly, a lot of these men who rail against marriage seem like they would be high maintenance husbands anyway. They would get angry if their wife put on a few pounds or didn't entertain them with witty conversation all the time"
Translation: I don't respect my husband enough to even try to look good or be pleasant to him anymore. That's why I spend all my time posting comments on blogs instead of making a real home for him.
General comment: No one has called me it on this thread, but I find it hilarious being called a white-knight or a beta. Note that many MRAs even consider Roissy a white-knight!
I don't believe that radical autonomy is the ideal condition for society, but the only path left for individual men, since traditionalism is unlikely to take hold.
So basically, you're saying "we're all inevitably fucked, so let's have some fun." If that's the essential premise from which you build your argument, then I guess nothing I can say will matter. But you still did not respond directly to my argument - that society can not incorporate the radically autonomous. In essence, we're speaking past each other as you continue to focus on "individual men", while ignoring how those "individual men" comprise a society. I think it's clear that ultimately, the latter, the collective social and political phenomena, matter much more. (Though I am intellectually a rational egoist, hat tip to Rand).
Women, even the good ones, are trivial and dull.
Yea I agree. They are completely trivial and frivolous. But that can be very endearing; in fact, most hetero men do find that endearing.
Samseau nailed it on the head in regards to how Russian women became even more degenerate when the USSR broke up.
OK, in this hypothetical rundown society, you can nail a bunch of whores. You'll also be living in third-world squalor with crime, broken families, and children growing up without parents, becoming adults with all sorts of emotional problems as a result. That's what happens when society breaks down, starting with the nuclear family.
No, civilized society provides incentives for society-sustaining behavior. You can't take away the incentives, turn the shaming up to 11, and expect the society-sustaining behavior to continue. Well, you can expect it -- you just won't get it.
I honestly don't see why this idea is even controversial, or why you're so stuck on trying to sell men a bad deal. Why not (a.) admit it's a bad deal, (b.) work to improve it?
A large part of the "incentive" is avoiding social shame. The best example of this would be the terms "old maid" or "spinster". Women got married by age 25 primarily because they wanted to avoid this.
As for "divorce rape" (as in improving marriage), I actually fully agree. Divorce rape is absolutely sickening. It enrages me. (I'm being serious.) But once again, I think the benefits of family, marriage, and love outweigh the risks of divorce rape, especially if the risks are moderated by a man not acting like a whipped mangina. But if society abandons marriage and the family, far worse will happen than divorce rape. And how can we improve something if so many decide its wholly unworthy of fixing?
In response to the point that the divorce rate force middle class college educated people is much lower than 50%, Ferd responds:
"And being middle class is increasingly out of reach for young Americans thanks to the student loan scam and the worsening recession. Not all of us had the good fortune to be born with rich parents."
Okay, the cat is out of the bag. Ferd's audience is the guys who can't even make it to be middle class. Why he feels a need to provide bogus comfort to those low achieving guys is beyond me.
As has been said here, it is like fat people's 'friends' who affirm that fat is beautiful before offering another candybar. That's not manly advice at all.
'You can't find a good girl? Here, cry on uncle Ferdie's shoulder, big boy. Don't feel bad. Good girls are a myth. They don't exist, so that's why you can't find them. Just forget about it and have another candy bar.'
Anonymous (12/20/2011 3:32 PM)
Translation of Lara's comment: I don't respect my husband enough to even try to look good or be pleasant to him anymore. That's why I spend all my time posting comments on blogs instead of making a real home for him.
How do you define 'respect'?
My husband and majority of the male friends in my culture define respect as: brutal honesty; not subservience.
In my culture the highest respect I can give to my husband is to tell him the brutal truth, whether that is passionate, sad, touching, anger, etc.
The greatest disrespect I can give my husband is to be two faced, pretend, lie, fake, polite and deceive him.
It sounds like what we consider to be respect in my culture (honesty) you consider disrespect; and your respect (subservience) we consider disrespect.
Perhaps women and men who love sincere honest relationships where they are respected with the truth 24/07; should join our culture; and men and women who prefer game, passive aggressive manipulation, two faced areskissing, deception and lies, can remain in your culture?
"Perhaps women and men who love sincere honest relationships where they are respected with the truth 24/07; should join our culture"
Dude: Hi. Because I respect you so much, I'm going to be sincerely honest with you, 24/7. Your tits and ass make me so horny I want to fuck you at our earliest convenience.
Chick: *walks off in fear*
too easy. you anti-gamers are a fukin joke.
uberanon --
What are you, 18 years old? If you think that's all there is to women, you are missing the point.
You probably scrape the frosting off cake into your mouth and then ask for another piece, leaving the actual cake just sitting there.
The whole MRA/PUA thing just smacks of being the refuge for guys who can't get laid and have intense bitterness towards women.
I just can't take any of it seriously.
Anonymouse:
Okay, the cat is out of the bag. Ferd's audience is the guys who can't even make it to be middle class. Why he feels a need to provide bogus comfort to those low achieving guys is beyond me.
More weasel words from the anonymous coward. The majority of my readers make $30,000 - $100,000+ a year, middle class by any estimation:
https://www.quantcast.com/inmalafide.com
As has been said here, it is like fat people's 'friends' who affirm that fat is beautiful before offering another candybar. That's not manly advice at all.
As much as you'd love to pretend we're losers, the reality just doesn't match. We're men who are learning to improve our relationships with women, to make money without being chained to a 9-to-5 job, to eat healthy and get strong. A cursory look at my blog or any other manosphere one proves this.
You, on the other hand, are such a gutless turd you can't even sign a blog comment with a name. Not even your real name, but just a name period, preferring to hide in the anonymous crowd. Real manly, pal.
But hey, if I was an office slave with a fat wife and high blood pressure, I'd be spending all my free time making anonymous remarks on the Internet too.*
* - Extrapolation. For all I know, you're fit, have a seven figure income, and your wife is svelte and submissive. But you're still a coward.
The comment I just made vanished.
To add to what Twenty said about incentives, here is a basic principle of economics:
When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
When you penalize something, you get less of it.
This should not be controversial. Men are abandoning marriage because the incentive and penalty balance has changed. If you want men to come back to marriage, then you have to make it a good deal again instead of trying to shame/force/trick them into accepting a shitty deal.
Andrea Muhrrteyn said...
"It sounds like what we consider to be respect in my culture (honesty) you consider disrespect; and your respect (subservience) we consider disrespect."
Translation: I've grown fat and naggy and I don't care because I'm bored with my beta husband.
Reposting the comment of mine that vanished earlier. If it reappears, just delete this one, One:
Anonymouse:
Okay, the cat is out of the bag. Ferd's audience is the guys who can't even make it to be middle class. Why he feels a need to provide bogus comfort to those low achieving guys is beyond me.
More weasel words from the anonymous coward. The majority of my readers make $30,000 - $100,000+ a year, middle class by any estimation:
https://www.quantcast.com/inmalafide.com
As has been said here, it is like fat people's 'friends' who affirm that fat is beautiful before offering another candybar. That's not manly advice at all.
As much as you'd love to pretend we're losers, the reality just doesn't match. We're men who are learning to improve our relationships with women (sans marriage), to make money without being chained to a 9-to-5 job, to eat healthy and get strong. A cursory look at my blog or any other manosphere one proves this.
You, on the other hand, are such a gutless turd you can't even sign a blog comment with a name. Not even your real name, but just a name period, preferring to hide in the anonymous crowd. Real manly, pal.
But hey, if I was an office slave with a fat wife and high blood pressure, I'd be spending all my free time making anonymous remarks on the Internet too.*
* - Extrapolation. For all I know, you're fit, have a seven figure income, and your wife is svelte and submissive. But you're still a coward.
OneSTDV:
But you still did not respond directly to my argument - that society can not incorporate the radically autonomous.
Why respond? I agree with that notion. I've made arguments to that effect in the past. I've even argued that America doesn't have a conservative tradition because of this - conservatives here are yesterday's liberals, worshipping individualism and individual rights. And since America and American capitalism dominate the world, everyone is becoming like us. I just don't see anyone being able to successfully restore a community-oriented, moral society in the face of such overwhelming opposition.
But that can be very endearing; in fact, most hetero men do find that endearing.
I never said it wasn't endearing, but that you can't be surrounded by it constantly and not be driven insane by it. It's the reason why I don't live with women anymore. In my entire life, I've known maybe two or three women who could match me intellectually, and I never dated any of them.
OK, in this hypothetical rundown society, you can nail a bunch of whores. You'll also be living in third-world squalor with crime, broken families, and children growing up without parents, becoming adults with all sorts of emotional problems as a result. That's what happens when society breaks down, starting with the nuclear family.
Samseau's point - and my own - is that praying that a collapse will restore traditional values is wishful thinking. Reading George Grant convinced me that technological progress negates traditionalism because new technology revolves around making life easier and more convenient - making individualism and liberalism less punishing and more appealing. Plus, human beings have never willingly renounced new technology. Would you give up computers, Internet access and air conditioning if it meant you could live in your Norman Rockwell America? I know I couldn't.
We need to face facts - outside of a few holdouts like the Amish, humanity's natural path is towards more individualism and more social atomization. Hedotopia is our future. No one has ever managed to halt this trend, let alone reverse it. We are living in Hesiod's Iron Age - each new generation puts their parents to shame.
The most we can do is try to be the best men (and women) we can be.
Why do my comments keep vanishing?
Put the bottle down dude.
Ferd clearly has delusions of grandeur. Why is he comparing himself to great authors, scientists, and leaders of the past. He's an internet blogger, too cowardly to even use his own name. If he thinks getting married is going to kill his drive and limit his creative genius then he should probably get married. He does nothing for civilization. Neither do most us, but at least we admit it.
Anonymous (12/20/2011 5:30 PM)
It appears clear that because you live in a society that functions based on lies, you read what I wrote assuming I am a member of your culture. I am not.
I understand that in your culture, because everyone lies, you have to reinterpret and translate everything everyone says to you. In my culture that is not necessary.
What did you not understand about in my culture: both men and women consider brutal honesty the highest form of respect. We are a small culture -- cult -- if you like; but honesty is our foundational value.
Do a google search for 'Radical Honesty'... two good article's about the Radical Honesty culture, you can read on Esquire:
* I Think You're Fat
* The Most Honest Conversation in the World
Perhaps next time you may wish to enquire; before assuming your culture is the only culture in the world; and everyone in all other cultures have the same values as you do.
Troll alert
*sigh* Yes, yes, Andrea we understand that you are "big boned". But that's your husband's problem, not ours.
I smell curry
Andrea,
What country are you from?
To paraphrase Reagan, we didn't leave marriage, marriage left us.
I don't believe that AWALT - some fraction of women are genuinely good. But it seems a small fraction. The rest of them will "tolerate" your "game" until they get the gina tingle for somebody else - and then Divorce 2.0 will claim another wretched victim.
SoCons are rightly condemned for the "manning up" nonsense - under feminism-inspired sytems of laws and family courts, there is no "up" for the married man whose wife has tired of him.
And the mass of men who aren't alphas - and who are actually quite, productive members of society - end up with the weathered leftovers of the feast of alphas after the "ladies" are spun off the cock-carousel.
Men are not blameless - I certainly am not - I held off committing in my youth - to some women who may well have been good ones - soi I could try to be the cock-carousel. But men are the ones to with the most to lose.
As for the the future - ppffftttt. The Banks and governments have made that concept too nebulous.
I agree that the old ways were best - they had been the old ways because they worked. But it's too late now.
Andrea,
Radical honesty is not a good idea. Do you really want everyone always pointing out your faults to you?
"In my culture the highest respect I can give to my husband is to tell him the brutal truth"
That sounds like a surefire way to ruin a perfectly good relationship.
There is a fundamental dishonesty about many of the "leaders" in the "man-o-sphere." They look out into the world and "tell it lke it is" even as they are completely dishonest about WHAT THEY ARE and what they really desire to be.
The lament is that these male liberationists REALLY want to fullly commit to something constructive and enduring, but there just isn't that opportunity. Or, there is "opportunity," but it is riddled with so many pitfalls as to render it NOT AN OPPORTUNITY at all. And it is here we see the male liberationist JUSTIFY his drive towards radical autonomy, i.e., de facto homo-ism. He treats "traditionalism" as some father that is supposed to hand out "tricks and treats" and because daddy does not do that, he can say daddy is irrelevant. But the fact remains that the male liberationist HAS NO DESIRE to see a traditional order re-emerge. He beats down "traditionalism" with his own acts of radical autonomy and then complains that "traditionalism" won't stand up again IN HIS LIFE.
It's a fraud. These "men" in the "man-o-sphere" ARE REALLY male liberationists. Decidely so. Their feigned desire for an emergent traditional order is a total con.
Lara:
Radical Honesty may not be a good idea for you; no problem. But for those of us who have chosen a life of radical honesty; it is and has been a great idea and decision.
Of course initially hearing people tell you your faults takes getting used to; but as in all things there are benefits and liabilities. In the case of hearing your faults, you not only have the ability to fix your faults, should you choose to do so; but build relationships founded on real trust; real friendship and real freedom. You have no idea how much I have learnt about myself from people pointing out my faults to me.
I totally understand its not for everyone, or even many; its kind of wierd; but for those of us who have done so. We luv it. I woulnd't go back to being two faced, lying, pretending if you put a gun to my head. In fact, I told a Magistrate my brutal truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and he sent me to prison for a year for contempt. Was a most interesting experience! If you can be free in a prison cell; then you learnt something about life! ;-)
I currently live in SAfrica, but joined Radical Honesty, while I lived in America, while backpacking around the world. Radical Honesty is headquartered in Virginia.
This could have been an important discussion, but instead it's been ruined by various trolls, nutcases and the usual horde of Anonymous posters. And poor Ferdinand can't even post. Too bad.
"Women fall in line when a man asserts himself. As Roissy consistently shows, an entitled bitch with a degree from Oberlin melts when imposed upon by a stern, strong male figure."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Roissy's nonsense is food for blogoshpere fantasizing nerds. The real world-- marriage and kids and grandparents and extended family and....well, these are the real world.
To say that women today, educated or not educated "fall in line when a man asserts himself" is laughable. A good, decent man who says what he is thinking is likely to be given respect by a good, decent woman...and that's it... and that's good enough.
OneSTDV
So my Saturday post criticizing male travel bloggers set off a little bit of a comment firestorm. Ferdinand Bardamu (Ferd), editor of the Manosphere's central hub chastised me in the comments then linked to my post at In Bona Fide under the title "Arguing with 'Christian' Conservative Manginas."
"Central Hub?" lmfao you give him too much credit. More like the Central Pimple.
The little cunt screeches hate Hate HATE for anybody
who "dares" disagree with him.
And thus, Internet Firestorms are hatched.
Kinda faggy...
Now YOU will learn what
I HAVE so learned
and warned of...
Can you imagine living under the delusion that "society" (read: other men) must provide the male liberationist "incentives" so that said liberationist won't self-annihilate?
I currently live in SAfrica, but joined Radical Honesty, while I lived in America, while backpacking around the world. Radical Honesty is headquartered in Virginia.
You, too, can join the cult. It's bliss. C'mon, what have you got to lose but your mind and your soul?
Relativists scream about relativism when they can't debate their opponent. Man-o-sphere denizens do the same, but they say shaming language instead.
Twenty said:
No, civilized society provides incentives for society-sustaining behavior. You can't take away the incentives, turn the shaming up to 11, and expect the society-sustaining behavior to continue. Well, you can expect it -- you just won't get it.
I agree. In the long run, the carrot is much more effective than the stick.
"A society that accepts Ferd's nihilism by not shaming men to "man up" welcomes its own suicide."
A society that shits all over men is one that cannot long survive, and doesn't deserve to.
just FYI (just so you see this,
I won't be unhappy if you don't
post it) here's part of a comment
by "Matt" at the PJMedia blog
the Belmont Club in the
fairly recent thread entitled
Twice Read Tale I know
nothing about Evangelicals but I
do know kids who have to compete
with school administrators' kids
and the like who get to do "projects" far away.
I happen to live in Denver, for what it’s worth, and I have to put up with the Tebow stuff on a more-than-usual basis. I am also a (recent) thirtysomething, and I can’t stand the guy, either. I think I can explain your friends’ viceral hatred as follows.
Tim Tebow is destroying the credibility of the NFL. He is not the only one, mind you. The NFL is rapidly becoming a sort of legacy league where old monied interests and old football families trade off the former glory of the gridiron. Professional and collegiate football has been “to big to fail” since before TBTF entered the American lexicon, and we are witnessing the effects of that. Tebow is neither a murderer like Ray Lewis nor a child molester like Sandusky — in many ways he is their polar opposite — but he is a different kind of disappointment.
This is only part of the comment.
A large part of the "incentive" is avoiding social shame. The best example of this would be the terms "old maid" or "spinster". Women got married by age 25 primarily because they wanted to avoid this.
This is sophistry. I claim that shame is no substitute for incentives, so you redefine the lack of shame as an incentive. Playing word games is not an argument.
I don't think your assertion is even true; surely women primarily tended to marry early because they would be unmarriagable (or less marriagable) later, and because marriage was a good deal for them.
To restate my position: If the only tool you've got to persuade men to sign up for a bad deal is "shame", then you've already lost.
"'Oh, and, I appreciate you taking the time to raise your daughters. I really like them.'
The above comment isn't directed at STDV, who I have no idea if he has children or not, but to all the social conservatives who visit here.
I look forward to dancing with your daughter."
Cool story, bro.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Roissy's nonsense is food for blogoshpere fantasizing nerds. The real world-- marriage and kids and grandparents and extended family and....well, these are the real world.
To say that women today, educated or not educated "fall in line when a man asserts himself" is laughable. A good, decent man who says what he is thinking is likely to be given respect by a good, decent woman...and that's it... and that's good enough.
In other words, you don't think Roissy's common sense advice can help you, but I doubt you've even tried it. You consider it "laughable", and then go and say that a man "who says what he is thinking" (and this is not quite the same as asserting himself in any case) "is likely to be given respect". "Likely to". It's likely that you don't know because you've never tried it.
The point is, if a man acts submissive around his wife, she will be much more likely to get bored with him and divorce him.
Refusing to get married, IMHO, if at least one sweet, yielding woman is available to him, is either 1) flat-out cowardice, because it amounts to fear that he wouldn't be able to keep a wife; or, 2) pure cynicism, as OneSTDV put it, "we're all inevitably fucked, so let's have some fun." Probably a combination of both in most cases.
Refusing to get married ... if at least one sweet, yielding woman is available to him, is ... flat-out cowardice
Oh noes! If the menz don't sign up for ludicrously unfair contracts, placing themselves at the mercy of some female's whims for the rest of their lives, corvinus will call them cowards! How will they ever bear up under that burden?!
See how ineffective shaming is?
It's obvious OneSTDV either fails to understand the definiton of 'incentive' or just pretends not to understand what Ferd and Twenty are actually saying.
Höllenhund
I'll have to disagree, Brendan. The only asshole pricks in this thread have been the socons.
Höllenhund
The so-called marriage strike, like any other strike, is a way for the leaders to bolster their positions of power, not to benefit the strikers. Workers stay home forgoing wages for extended periods for a 2.85% wage increase instead of 2.6%. In the end, they would have earned more working during that period of time at the smaller increase than they gained over the period of the contract with the extra .25%. Marriage strikers hold out for a better contract, forgoing raising children of their own - the most profound experience available to human beings.
I find that they are just as narcicistic as the women they criticize. Of course it seems as though there are no good women, because they're chasing the hottest most self-centred women out there.
Take a look at your SMV honestly and find a girl below it. You might not need or deserve that sultry, could-have-been-a-model-if-only, party-girl. They make lousy wives anyways. You'd be better off finding a slightly overweight semi-vegan and opening her eyes to the paleo diet - preferably after you tell her what a wonderful person she is on the inside.
Ferdinand Bardamu only argues by unhinged anger and profanity and making up characterizations of his opponents. That suggests his arguments aren't very strong. I have to admire his persistence, though.
There are several main points that he just cannot seem to answer.
(1) In our society high status men and successful men almost always seem to get married. Everywhere you look, from Hollywood to politics to business, the successful men are generally married. Being unmarried is one of the key markers of low social status and low education these days.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/18/marriage-income-gap_n_785246.html
Why would anyone aspire to have low status, unless you are a fool?
(2) Married people have more sex, and it is more readily available. All these anti marriage people are working so hard to get laid. Married people aren't 1/10 so desperate in the sex department. Doesn't that say something?
(3) Married people live longer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351287/Marriage-key-better-life-Study-finds-tying-knot-means-improved-health-longer-life-expectancy.html
(4) Married people are far happier that unmarried men according to most studies. Ferd blames this on divorced men, but since currently divorced men are such a small share of the population of men (most have already remarried) that cannot be it.
(5) Desirable women usually expect, and get, marriage. Among the unmarried, you are increasingly swimming in a sea of less desireable women, whether they are physically unattractive or feminist or both. Smart men know when a good catch comes by and they marry them. As a married man who knew I had to marry my beautiful and nice wife from the minute I met her I am a contributer to this phenomenon.
(6) Unless someone is stuck in permanent adolescence or is missing a few screws, you start to think about your legacy, i.e. kids, eventually. And in terms of outcomes, the success of kids is somehow strongly related to the parents being married.
(7) Calling someone a social conservative is not an argument. Frankly, you don't know how someone came to hold their positions. I for one was a libertine and a nihilist but also a student of success. And as I got to know and learn about successful men in hopes of becoming one, I saw that getting married was a common thread.
(8) Ferdinand Bardamu calls people cowards for posting as 'anonymous'. Really? This from someone who hides behind a fake name? I therefore call on the brave Ferdinand Bardamu to stop hiding behind a fake name and tell us who he really is.
I generally agree with what "Dan H" just wrote.
In our society high status men and successful men almost always seem to get married. Everywhere you look, from Hollywood to politics to business, the successful men are generally married.
Well spotted. I've definitely noticed this, expecially in my community.
The successful guys (entrepreneurs, surgeons, business owners, corporate execs, etc.) are married to attractive women and have lots of kids.
That's what surprises me: the kids. There are so many little kids around here, it's almost irritating.
Still, if only we could replicate this pattern on a wider scale...
Marriage is dangerous today because our society has screwed it up with no-fault divorce and by taking away the traditional separation between the roles of husband and wife; not because marriage in itself is a bad thing.
Riffing on this a bit: there are people who still have the right ideas about marriage; you just have to look hard to find them. My social circle is mostly made up of traditional Catholics. The men tend to be men, reminiscent of my grandfathers. The best of them aren't bossy, but they're in charge, the "head of the household" in a real sense. They love and respect their wives and defer to them on many things, but they make the ultimate decisions for the family. The women are feminine, wearing dresses and skirts more often than not. They're "submissive" to their husbands, not in the sense that they're mousy or don't speak their minds, but in the sense that they expect their husbands to be responsible and in charge, and their job is to help him with that. A traditional Catholic wife submits to her husband, but she demands that he be worth submitting to.
These families are churning out babies like crazy, and divorce is nearly unheard of. Of course, since we live in the world, there's always a struggle to maintain these roles against society's pressure to abandon or subvert them. I don't want to imply that these marriages are perfect, but at least they're working from the right template. If you go into marriage thinking male and female are basically the same thing and that it doesn't matter who does what or how the decisions are made, you're probably doomed.
A saying you'll hear a lot from these people is, "The man is the head, the woman is the heart." The man is responsible for keeping the family fed, housed, clothed, and so on, and making the final decisions that'll make that happen. The woman is in charge of nurturing the children, making the home happy and welcoming, and so on. She's also responsible for her husband's spiritual well-being, just as he is responsible for her physical well-being.
So there's a seeming paradox in how traditional Catholics view women. On the one hand, Eve ate the apple and convinced Adam to do so, so there's a sense that women are weaker and more easily tempted by sin, and need a man to take care of them. On the other hand, Adam as the man was supposed to protect her better and not give in when she did, so he was ultimately at greater fault. Also, our salvation came through the submission of a woman, Mary, to God's will, and we 'pedestalize' her more than any other mortal person who ever lived. We also tend to think women are inherently more spiritual than men.
So we see women as weaker and under more threat, and yet as capable of being greater than men in the things that matter most. Sometimes that gets skewed too much in one direction or the other, so you get eras where women were locked up lest their sinful natures explode, and times when they're treated like angelic creatures that can do no wrong. Today we seem to have the worst of both: Girls Gone Wild combined with a divorce/custody system that says women are pure and noble.
"When the American Empire crumbles, all of your daughters will become whores, because getting fucked by strange men beats starving to death. You don't need to take my word for it - just read the news."
This is not only an American problem. It's happening in England as well:Students Turning to Prostitution to Fund Studies.
P.S: On a side note - To Bardamu: This "LIEberal" and "CONservative" thing that you use is embarrassing.
Nice post, One. The nuclear family is the basis of the polity. Healthy men and women become more conservative when they have children to rear and protect. The Left knows this--which is why they have sought its destruction for the last 100 years or do. By turning women into sluts, they satiate a young man's most base desires and in the process, effectively neuter him.
Thus, those who wish to play the Left's "Game", are playing into their game plan for the destruction of our civilization.
Samseu--
Dream on. What you will get are the daughters of men like yourself--products of broken homes and or absentee fathers, either physically or emotionally.
Studies have long shown this to be true.
What you will get are the daughters of men like yourself--products of broken homes and or absentee fathers, either physically or emotionally.
You mean like the damaged "bar skanks" you brag about banging in your high-school and college days? Weren't you then contributing to our social decline, Bobby?
Phallisies--
Russian women became more decadent? No, they were what they were. This is another example of seeing what you want to see. The Russian people had undergone 75 years of Leftist totalitarian social engineering. It was the Communists who came up with the whole "free love" doctrinaire so as to attract men like yourselves to the movement. Once in power, one of the first items on their agenda to implement was the destruction of the family. Almost everyone is aware of the policy of having children spy and report on their own parents.
By the time the Soviets realized how much damage they had done--rampant alcoholism being only one aspect of it, declining birth rate another, it was too late to turn it around in a single generation.
One might even say that the destruction of the nuclear family was one of the straws that broke the proverbial back.
One might even say that the destruction of the nuclear family was one of the straws that broke the proverbial [camel's] back.
One might indeed. What might Bobby say about the Rockefeller family's sponsorship of feminism? Hey, those Rockefellers, they're even eliter & posher than the great RobertB himself!
@ FB-
"The divorce rate actually peaked thirty years ago and has been going down ever since.
Because the marriage rate has dropped."
Wrong again, percentages are absolute, they are not referring to over all numbers, but percentages of those numbers. This tells me you either not very bright or poorly educated as this is elemental math.
"t's actually much less than 50% now, and for college educated middle class folks, its now quite low.
And being middle class is increasingly out of reach for young Americans thanks to the student loan scam and the worsening recession. Not all of us had the good fortune to be born with rich parents."
Poor excuse. One of my favorite people in this world I live in was born of very meager parents, socio-economically speaking. He rose above it--and at a time when the economy was far worse than now--18% unemployement, double digit inflation and 19% home mortgages.
Danny began saving for college as a child, saved most of his earnings as a young man, and with some help from his parents, worked his way through college. He is upper middle class--because he adhered to traditional values. He married his college sweetheart, had two children and today runs a foundation for one of America's most families.
He world we grew up in was full of nihilism--"live for today", "love the one you're with", "drugs, sex and rock-n-roll", "who wants to have children in a world like this?". Those who fell for that trap are the ones who lead the "lives of quiet desperation". Those of us who moved on, grew up and became adults, are the ones who live fruitful lives.
Do you really think you are something new? You aren't. There have always been men like you--and women. In the old days, when I was a child, there were seen as societal outcasts, A sexuals, or, at worst, homosexuals.
Bad women? Shakespeare had thoughts on that, nothing new here, nothing at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Taming_of_the_Shrew
My guess is, is those such as yourself were raised in daycare centers, had largely absentee fathers and never got the love they needed from their mothers at the critical juncture of early childhood-toddler stage. Mommy was bad, ergo all women are bad. Daddy's are abused, therefore marriage is bad.
Have you ever given thought that your whole view of life is one of death? Death of your genes, death of society? You are already dead, in a genetic-biological perspective. What kind of man--like your supporter here, thinks it's enough to have bred a child and not to rear it? How ghetto can you get?
Merry Christmas, to all of you still alive and kicking, to the so called "manosphere", welcome to what is probably the worst time of year for you.
"One might indeed. What might Bobby say about the Rockefeller family's sponsorship of feminism? Hey, those Rockefellers, they're even eliter & posher than the great RobertB himself!"
Oh my, and Rockefeller are even jewish. Imagine that--did David Rockefeller forget to put his tin hat on?
Rockefellers don't mean much here. When Mark Dayton married one, it was of passing novelty and most people yawned. In general, people here think very little of East coast types.
By the way, commenters such as you reek of jealousy, you know.
"You mean like the damaged "bar skanks" you brag about banging in your high-school and college days? Weren't you then contributing to our social decline, Bobby?"
Nope--
I was teaching middle class girls what to look hope for--that way they would look askance at your kind. Whoever got them after me, had a better woman. My wife is smiling about that thought.
:-)
RobertB said...
"The Russian people had undergone 75 years of Leftist totalitarian social engineering. It was the Communists who came up with the whole "free love" doctrinaire so as to attract men like yourselves to the movement. Once in power, one of the first items on their agenda to implement ... The Left knows this--which is why they have sought its destruction for the last 100 years or do. By turning women into sluts, they satiate a young man's most base desires and in the process, effectively neuter him."
There you go again, blaming the Left for people's lack of responsibility. To quote a great man named RobertB who commented on the "Jewish Attitudes in Politics and Culture" thread:
"If you are influenced, it is of your own choosing. Everyone needs to be real about that and accept it."
Hmm...must be a different RobertB who said that.
Rockefellers don't mean much here. When Mark Dayton married one, it was of passing novelty and most people yawned. In general, people here think very little of East coast types.
Hear that, everyone? The Rockefellers are little nouveau-riche vulgarians next to RobertB and his rarefied lineage.
Until this moment I truly did not know I was in the presence of such greatness. May I touch the hem of your garment?
Current marriage "law" as an excuse not to marry is a canard. It doesn't cost much to have a prenup drawn up an attorney and will protect you and her from abusive behavior by attorneys should the marriage end. I had one with my first wife--no big deal. As bitter as she was for years afterward, she eventually got over it and we are friends, more or less, today.
"The divorce rate actually peaked thirty years ago and has been going down ever since.
Because the marriage rate has dropped."
Wrong again, percentages are absolute, they are not referring to over all numbers, but percentages of those numbers.
cite?
assuming your claim is an accurate reflection of the divorce percentages over time, you have forgotten that age of first marriage has been steadily rising for both sexes. later marriages mean older spouses, which, all else equal, mean fewer options on the free dating market.
and options equal instability.
a husband or wife with fewer options is less likely to initiate divorce on flimsy pretexts. thus, the lower divorce rate explained, at least partly.
Merry Christmas, to all of you still alive and kicking, to the so called "manosphere", welcome to what is probably the worst time of year for you.
another numbskull who never heard of loving, unmarried LTRs.
Current marriage "law" as an excuse not to marry is a canard.
it isn't bravery to stand in the path of a speeding train.
It doesn't cost much to have a prenup drawn up an attorney and will protect you and her from abusive behavior by attorneys should the marriage end.
a good lawyer will shred a prenup. and most aggrieved or dissatisfied wives will make sure to secure a good lawyer, especially if she has a lick of sense.
I had one with my first wife--no big deal. As bitter as she was for years afterward, she eventually got over it and we are friends, more or less, today.
congratulations, you dodged a bullet. most divorced men aren't that lucky.
"I had one with my first wife--no big deal. As bitter as she was for years afterward"
Ah! The plot thickens.
"Hmm...must be a different RobertB who said that."
You don't know much history, do you? To deny the State in the Soviet Union was to have a death sentence imposed upon you whether by the bullet or the gulag. Despite the crying and caterwauling as those such as yourself, the U.S. is nowhere near that bad as yet--not even close.
You, or whoever, doesn't read very well, now do you? Read it again, the East coast means very little to people here, period. Since the Rockefellers are East Coast, they have little or no meaning as well.
I have tried to explain this to Auster. Should the monetary system collapse, the Middle West will simply move on as a region on it's own. We feel no connection here to either coast. Your way of life, your way speaking, etc, are very alien to us here. It's been this way for a long time. I have asked my friends when it began, been so long the best we can put it at is the late 70's, early 80's. We have saying here whenever something in the news pertains to the coasts--"well, they really aren't America anymore, are they?". Y9ou hear that all through "America's Heartland". From here south to Oklahoma and west to the west side of the Rockies. When the time comes, we will simply carry on on our own. We have the oil, gas, iron ore, coal and waves of grain to survive. The Mississippi and Lake Superior give us access to the rest of the world via shipping. We are, as Sailer loves to point out, the highest IQ states in the country.
We don't need you, you need us.
We feel no connection here to either coast. Your way of life, your way speaking, etc, are very alien to us here. It's been this way for a long time. I have asked my friends when it began, been so long the best we can put it at is the late 70's, early 80's. We have saying here whenever something in the news pertains to the coasts--"well, they really aren't America anymore, are they?". Y9ou hear that all through "America's Heartland". From here south to Oklahoma and west to the west side of the Rockies. When the time comes, we will simply carry on on our own. We have the oil, gas, iron ore, coal and waves of grain to survive. The Mississippi and Lake Superior give us access to the rest of the world via shipping. We are, as Sailer loves to point out, the highest IQ states in the country.
We don't need you, you need us.
Translation: Fuck America and the non-upper-classes. We're taking our ball and going home.
uberanon--
Pre nups hold up. Most of the people I know get them. I think of a prenup as re-establishing what the marriage contract was originally.
Marrying young was not the norm historically except for extremely poor people anyway. I remember remarking on the age of my grandparents when they married and had children. It was explained to me that marrying young was largely a post WWII phenomenon made possible by the factories where the blue collar class went. It had been the custom before then for a man to establish himself. If you look back at 19th and early 20th century literature, this will bear out. So will census study. Men in their 30's typically married women in their early 20's. There was no push on men to marry young--just the opposite, the father of the would be bride wanted to know his daughter would be taken care of and would not assent to marriage of the man couldn't prove this ability.
Women, on the other hand, had the onus upon them to marry young while they were of suitable child bearing age.
None of this should be construed to mean that I think the present legal system is good--no fault divorce was first instituted in the Soviet Union, then spread to Western Europe and finally here. I believe NY still requires a valid reason to divorce, such as adultery or (my favorite) "spousal neglect"--which actually means/meant no sex.
To the other poster--yes, we have had money longer than the Rokcefellers--down one line, anyway. I am a Tilton on one side through my father and they came here with money in 1634. All Tiltons are descended from a Norman knight who invaded England with William. As a result of good service, this Knight was granted land and the right to build a castle. There is still a church where the castle was, but the Keep (all it was, really) is long gone. The Rockefellers have far more money than we do, but when everyone has money. it ceases to have the same meaning. At that point, it does come down to how long, method of making the money, education, etiquette, etc.
How very Tess of the D'Urbervilles, Bobby!
Now tell us why your first wife divorced you. And make it good.
"Translation: Fuck America and the non-upper-classes. We're taking our ball and going home."
Not at all. The heartland is not exclusively upper class people by any means--though the disparaties here are no where near as great as on the coasts. We have simply seen the change in predominate thinking as well as population demographics and it is very different from us here. Of course we have liberals here, but they are much more ethnocentric than East coast liberals. As I have said, no one here likes the Somalis and almost everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, resent them being settled here. Pawlenty referred to them and other third world immigrants as being an "unfunded government mandate".
Minnesota and other states in the area all tried to deny welfare to these people moving here via a 6 month state residency clause. East Coast liberal lawyers flew in to fight it in Federal Court. Of course, they won, but that doesn't mean anyone accepts it.
I am simply telling you the truth. Even Democrats here have begun to talk about the high cost of accepting Federal monies for programs and not taking it. That is the beginning of a movement to nullify Federal government mandates. That is a plus. We also want nothing to do with bailing out states like NY and California--nothing. In the end, this is a good thing, not bad. Leviathan must be broken, even if that means breaking up the country, for a time.
I forgot to add, we have a shitload of nuclear devices in the dakotas....
I have to go, if I didn't respond to a comment, it's not deliberate, I just have lots to do at this time of the year. Here, it's all about family and friends, parties and lunches, etc.
This doesn't just pertain to the well off. Everyone but the blacks are into it here--see, it still feels like "America" here and we love this time of year. It's unfortunate that we have no snow as yet, but it will come.
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR TO ALL OF YOU!!!
Pre nups hold up. Most of the people I know get them.
if a man is going to get married in this climate, a prenup is a smarter move than no prenup at all. but your personal experience with them does not match what i've observed -- men with prenups usually get taken to the cleaners in court regardless, to their surprise and dismay. they just might not get screwed as badly as they would without one, but they're still getting screwed.
I think of a prenup as re-establishing what the marriage contract was originally.
good luck selling that theory to most american women. how many women do you think won't balk at the idea of a prenup? will accept it graciously? i can count the number on one hand. and no wonder... women know when their interests are not being served.
fact is, most men, including your cherished heartland boys, neither have the stomach nor the skills to foist a prenup on their beloveds.
Marrying young was not the norm historically except for extremely poor people anyway.
marrying younger or older isn't the only social phenomenon that affects divorce rates. there is also the total rate of marriage, which has been going down precipitously in recent decades. this results in a selection bias where the few remaining spousal couples are the ones most eager to make a marriage work. thus, divorce among them goes down, because their less marriage-amenable cohorts are washed from the pool.
None of this should be construed to mean that I think the present legal system is good--no fault divorce was first instituted in the Soviet Union, then spread to Western Europe and finally here. I believe NY still requires a valid reason to divorce, such as adultery or (my favorite) "spousal neglect"--which actually means/meant no sex.
men who avoid marriage in the modern context are making a very sensible decision based on their interests, and yet you lambast them for not, essentially, manning up (a most odious riposte stolen straight from the feminists' entitlement and rationalization playbook).
instead of berating single men for wisely avoiding a diseased institution like the plague (heh), you should be hammering its flaws and the exponents of those flaws.
as for me, i'll continue getting all the benefits of marriage without actually signing the cursed contract that exposes half my assets to outright theft.
and this isn't even touching upon the male-hating clusterfuck that is child support and custody.
Ducking out when the heat gets turned up, eh, Bobby?
Yeah, your home state of Minnesota is a real hotbed of old-timey conservatism. That's why it elected Paul Wellstone and Al Franken as its Senators. Uh huh. Please come back soon and tell us some more fairy tales, Bob. See ya!
I forgot to add, we have a shitload of nuclear devices in the dakotas....
LOL. As if the Midwest was Ukraine trying to hold on to the Black Sea Fleet. I can just see Bobby B driving his Bentley up to the alert station, banging his shooting stick on the door of the LCC, and demanding, in the name of the Tiltons, that the cowering knaves inside turn over the launch keys forthwith!
Thanks, Twenty. That was by far the funniest thing I've read in weeks. I had tears in my eyes from laughing so hard.
I have to say that this RobertB character is the best trolling operation in quite some time. He's done his homework but leaves in just enough small errors of fact, logic, grammar, and rhetoric for you to pick at, all served up with just the right amount of abrasive haughtiness to generate the necessary antagonism without giving the whole game away. Well done, troll. Well done.
I don't think Robert is a troll, I get the impression that's really him.
"as for me, i'll continue getting all the benefits of marriage without actually signing the cursed contract that exposes half my assets to outright theft."
Cohabitating outside of marriage is low class behaviour. Any woman worth having as a wife would't agree to it anyway, which kinda proves the point made by those who oppose MRAs.
Cohabitating outside of marriage is low class behaviour.
It's true. Just ask any of RobertB's 4- or 5-member chick harem. They'll tell you there's nothing more degrading than being on standby booty call for the ersatz Secret Agent Flint. But they really need the money.
I find that they are just as narcicistic as the women they criticize. Of course it seems as though there are no good women, because they're chasing the hottest most self-centred women out there.
Exactly. For all the valid complaints they raise about women behaving like princesses and having gross overestimations of what they 'deserve' in a man, it seems some of these guys can't see the irony when it comes to their own thinly veiled belief that they're all deserving of a hot, head-turning sexual goddess as a matter of course. That any of them should be expected to slum with anything else is an insult, an injustice, proof of the evils of society! They just need to uh... get tighter game and then they'll have the kind of HB11++ women they deserve, right? Right guys!?
It's amazing how many of these armchair warriors have champagne tastes on a beer budget. They're every bit as much a bunch of whiny, entitled princesses as the women they delight in complaining about, and this, above all else, is the thing that strikes me as hilariously 'beta'. Makes for entertaining reading, though.
Cohabitating outside of marriage is low class behaviour.
Unless you're not low class.
Any woman worth having as a wife would't agree to it anyway, which kinda proves the point made by those who oppose MRAs.
You need to get out more.
Robert B:
"Dream on. What you will get are the daughters of men like yourself--products of broken homes and or absentee fathers, either physically or emotionally.
Studies have long shown this to be true."
This would be true, but you've trained your daughters to abort and sterilize themselves so effectively I don't even need to use condoms anymore.
One:
"OK, in this hypothetical rundown society, you can nail a bunch of whores. You'll also be living in third-world squalor with crime, broken families, and children growing up without parents, becoming adults with all sorts of emotional problems as a result. That's what happens when society breaks down, starting with the nuclear family. "
So what? The system is broken, we get that. But don't expect men like me to sacrifice ourselves just so you can "enjoy" civilization. You can go and get yourself fucked by the divorce laws. I'll pass.
@Aaron Baugher
Excellent comment, although I would argue with:
She's also responsible for her husband's spiritual well-being, just as he is responsible for her physical well-being.
The way it's seen in my neck of the woods is that both are responsible for the other one's spiritual and physical well-being. Each must help the other work through his or her salvation.
We also tend to think women are inherently more spiritual than men.
Rather, I'd say men and women take a different approach to spirituality. "More spiritual" can lead to a very slippery slope down which the novus ordo has already fallen.
I'd also add, that the Church recognizes three vocations in life: religious (priests, nuns), married and single. The Church does not see anything inherently evil about the single life.
@Nutmeg
For all the valid complaints they raise about women behaving like princesses and having gross overestimations of what they 'deserve' in a man, it seems some of these guys can't see the irony when it comes to their own thinly veiled belief that they're all deserving of a hot, head-turning sexual goddess as a matter of course.
But the question is why? What are men and women both missing? A repeat of a comment I made elsewhere:
We hear all the time about the nature of women, hypergamy, wanting sex with an alpha asshole, and the nature of men wanting a woman who is hot, etc. and then the discussion turns into how to manipulate women's nature via game.
What's left out is the following. This is our animal nature. But both men and women are rational beings; both men and women are above mere animals. In the 'good old days' religion and society instilled in both men and women the importance of controlling their urges and lower selves.
Women were taught to choose a man who is a good provider and nice because that would lead to a stable family and long term happiness. Parents also oversaw the choice of a husband and controlled their daughters before marriage. Women actually realized and understood that while an alpha asshole might give them temporary tingles, it was in their best interest to choose a solid, reliable man, even if he wasn't that handsome or alpha-like.
Same went for men. While sowing your oats was tolerated if not condoned, men were taught that you don't go looking for a decent wife in bars and clubs. They were also taught that settling for a woman who wasn't that hot, who maybe was a plain-Jane or a little chubby, but had a pleasant disposition and enjoyed pleasing him would be the best choice in the long run.
Today, neither of the above is happening. Fathers and mothers aren't teaching it to their sons and daughters, probably because they don't know it themselves and, for fathers, they aren't even allowed to have contact with their children because of the single mom explosion. In fact, I'd guess that teaching these concepts were probably more in the father's domain to begin with. Because of fatherless families, the teaching opportunity isn't there.
@uberanon --
No, actually cohabiting outside of marriage is one of the markers of being low class.
The well-off who do not feel bound by moral limits tend to practice serial monogamy, Gingrich-style with a new marriage when the old wife gets saggy.
Women understand the status game much better than us blokes and being the girlfriend/concubine/mistress of a high status man confers much less status on that woman as compared to being married to him.
As for men, having a lovely wife confers much more status on a man than having a girlfriend.
Gays also understand status very well which why they are gunning for marriage. Never mind that the very idea of marriage missing one of the genders doesn't even make sense or that every kid i ever heard of has a mom and a dad somewhere, they do understand the status part.
Women actually realized and understood that while an alpha asshole might give them temporary tingles, it was in their best interest to choose a solid, reliable man, even if he wasn't that handsome or alpha-like.
This was actually a very common theme in folktales, classic novels, and operas. Then came feminism and feel-good, do-your-own thing leftism, combined with crass commercial exploitation of the childish whims of the Me Generation, to push the idea that women could ride the cock carousel till their thirties, marry hastily, and then dump their beta hubbies if the little wifeys weren't haaaaaappy, blithely indifferent to the broken families in their wake. As I've said before, NEVER marry a woman who enjoys pop culture, especially Hollywood rom-coms and Harlequin romances (or their upscale equivalents like Bridges of Madison County).
OneSTDV,
Glanced through the comments and there is a glaring hole in your knowledge as well as everyone else's. And I have seen this constantly, for a couple years really, when I venture a little beyond Steve Sailer's place and come across stories about "how it used to be", and that it's totally hopeless now.
I'll keep it short and sweet. Before writing anymore about men, women, and culture regarding sex roles now and in the past, go order Paul Ewald's "Plague Time: A New Germ Theory". While you wait for it to arrive, watch the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJSJEjjfX-s&list=FLcDOtsNyqTFrieq07ywayQw&index=1&feature=plpp_video
Start at around the 15 minute mark and make sure to pay extra attention around the hour mark.
________
Greg Cochran is extremely well respected, and he and Ewald have worked as a team on issues of germs, evolution, and individual health and life outcomes. Yet, I see no impact made by these men upon the game boys AT ALL who supposedly are all about the science. There is no incorporation of the knowledge uncovered and theories espoused by these giants in the arena of pathogens and how they affect people.
-------------
Think you know most of what there is to know about STDs? Those game boys certainly don't. Don't take my word for it on how badly they have altered their life's course for the worse.
Listen to them yourselves.
What comes through loud and clear from Ferd, and from the "man bloggers" in general, is that they really can't stand women, period. Not only are they fat and ugly, they are all at about the same intellectual level as dogs.
If you take that view of women then clearly marrying one is an absurd idea. What's less obvious is why Ferd and Co have any sexual interest in these loathsome creatures. Surely they should follow their beliefs to their logical conclusion and adapt the mores of ancient Greece - homosexuality.
We need to face facts - outside of a few holdouts like the Amish, humanity's natural path is towards more individualism and more social atomization
Social atomization is the death of individualism, which is why Americans today are so much less individualistic than they used to be a hundred years ago.
You're not describing reality there, you're describing the world as you would like it to be. And the world as you would like it to be is a radically leftist one.
Lord Jesus Christ Almighty. I had no idea the rabbit hole went this deep. OneSTDV, you may have just killed the last self-seeking remnants of my youthful nihilism. Thank you, I think.
Lord Jesus Christ Almighty. I had no idea the rabbit hole went this deep. OneSTDV, you may have just killed the last self-seeking remnants of my youthful nihilism. Thank you, I think.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. If not, please elaborate, I'm very interested to hear what part of my argument stuck.
Post a Comment