Saturday, September 22, 2012

Hypergamic Affirmative Action.

The aeroplane is like a woman. To get the best out of her you have to seduce, not rape her.
(Attributed to a Polish pilot in WW2)

Over at Alpha Game, Vox noted the recent developments in Iran on the subject of gender relations. The Ayatollahs have begun to implement a social policy designed to push women out of the engineering professions. Incidentally, it's a very similar approach that has been advocated by many traditionalist bloggers in the manosphere. Vox writes:
Of course, the Iranian action presents a potentially effective means of solving the hypergamy problem presently beginning to affect college-educated women in the West. Only one-third of women in college today can reasonably expect to marry a man who is as well-educated as they are. History and present marital trends indicate that most of the remaining two-thirds will not marry rather than marry down. So, by refusing to permit women to pursue higher education, Iran is ensuring that the genes of two-thirds of its most genetically gifted women will survive in its gene pool.

Now, I have quite a lot of respect for Vox but I think he is totally wrong on this one. Hypergamy simply can't be socially engineered away, and the approach taken by the Ayatollahs and advocated by many in the manosphere i.e handicapping women in order to make second rate men look better is simply an affirmative action program for beta males.

The social, sexual and economic liberation of women in the latter half of the 20th Century has meant that for the first time women were able to compete with men in society without restriction. The result has been spectacular if not particularly beneficial to the happiness of women. Whilst not all degrees are created equal (men still overwhelming dominate the "hard" fields of knowledge) the fact that there are now more degree credentialed women than men is simply astonishing. As income is broadly correlated with economic well being,  its safe to assume that women have been able to achieve a economic parity with men. The manosphere may not like this result but the fact is that women have been able to effectively compete with men when the shackles of social convention have been removed.

In my experience, women today seem to have more "balls" than men do.  They seem more driven, more ambitious and can make stuff happen. They seem to cope better with adversity than many of my male patients.  With most women, life goes on. The kids need to be fed, the uniforms washed and the bills paid. Many men flounder. My readers may not like this but they are my objective observations.

I'm not applauding this phenomenon or deriding it but simply stating the fact of it. The fact is that there are many women of great ability and intelligence. Now its true that this ability can impaired by failing to educate a woman or denying her a role in the economic system, but the innate ability and potential remains. All of us know individuals who, through the hardships of life, were denied an education but are yet wise, prudent and industrious. We also know others who have gone to the best schools but remain eternal morons. In the real world educated morons are no match for the street wise.

Now, suppose we take a bright girl and deliberately hamper her education and deny her economic liberty in order to make her dependent on a man. Now, suppose we introduce her to some buffoon who has finished at Harvard. Does his artificial status enhancement satisfy her hypergamic desires?
I mean, after getting to know him she recognises that he has some social status but in real life can't manage his own affairs, make a decision or have an opinion. Is such a man attractive to her? Ponder this last point.

Sure, she may marry such a man because of her limited options, economic necessity or social convention but she is doing it for other reasons besides being attracted to him. Any marriage where the partners are there for  mutual convenience instead of mutual attraction soon becomes a prison to one or both.  Modern divorce laws are perhaps the most destructive solvent in the West today but it would be a mistake to think all was well with the institution of marriage prior to their introduction. Traditionalists fail to explain the surge in divorce once it became liberalised. Happy marriages don't fail; its the unhappy ones that do, and its quite obvious that there were a lot of unhappy (and sexless) marriages in the good ol' days .

Happy marriages are marriages of mutual desire. It's not a prison when you want to be there it's only a prison when you don't.  In order for a woman to be attracted to her partner (and therefore want to have sex with)  he has to satisfy her hypergamic imperative. The problem with female hypergamy is that is is relative to the woman's own ability and status. A dumb woman has an deep ocean of suitable suitors, a smart woman a far smaller pond. Sure, some women may have an overinflated opinion of their own capability (they are easily cut down to size) but a naturally superior woman has a real problem. She may marry a man because of her economic disability, she may stay with him for the love of God but there is no way in hell that she'll want to screw her husband's brains out if she is not sexually attracted to him. Sexual attraction is an animal instinct not a rational calculation and it is conditional on the satisfaction of her hypergamic desires. He has to be smarter, wiser, and more challenging than the woman. Socially disadvantaging women in no way fixes this problem. For if a man hath no alpha then his woman hath no desire. Alpha here does not mean straight out sexual allure, but things such as masculine virtue and intelligence. Taking away a woman's rights in no way gives a man alpha qualities. There's the problem.

The manosphere rightly criticises women for their diminishing femininity, but what the manosphere does not do so well is criticise the increasing infantisation of men.  When Roosh and his followers point out that quality women are only to be found outside the U.S. he is giving the masculine version of the modern feminist lament that there are no good men at home. What many manosphere commentators fail to recognise is that the nice computer nerd is the male equivalent of the nice fat chick. The manosphere demands thinness  but criticises women for wanting its feminine equivalent. Mote, beam, eye. It's all a bit of hypocrisy.

Calls to take away the rights of women are really nothing more than an affirmative action program for weak and beta men. Desirable men don't have a problem getting married.

100 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is this remotely true? I think I need to flat out question a lot of premises.

I've known my fair share of unaccomplished trust fund dudes, and they clean up just fine with women. Status matters. Women do not care if it's unearned. And they do not care if a man is worthy but doesn't have the concurrent status. At the end of the day you need to, "show me the money."

Anonymous said...

So much wrong here.

Of course hypergamy, or at least the social effects of hypergamy, can be socially engineered away! The main institution by which hypergamy is socially engineered away is called marriage.

A society which respects marriage, restricts marriage to 1 man and woman, and where marriage lasts for life, does not have the hypergamy problems associated with polygyny. These problems include disaffection with society, stagnaton and constant violence. Plus, the women seem to be happier too. Opinion surveys repeatedly show that women has become increasingly unhappy as marriage has liberalized.

Finally, what's wrong with socalled affirmative action for beta males?

Beta males do all of the grunt work of civilization: clean the garbage, farm the food, manufacture the goods, man the armies, pave the roads, and literally build the civilization. Beta males, attempting to better their status invent pretty much all of the advances in technology (their alpha counterparts who by definition are much smaller in numbers don't do this work because they don't need to do this work to enjoy their lifestyles).

Look at somebody like Steve Wozniaki, engineer creator of the Apple computer, the guy is an omega ridiculed by Kathy Griffin, he's not even a beta. Should we set up society in a way that throws his efforts away? Of course not. Because even if it doesn't make sense to incentivize betas and omegas to participate in civilization (instead of participating in video games and pot), somebody else will, and that somebody else will have an army backed up by all of the efforts that you just threw away.

Betas don't have to contribute to societies that don't enforce slavery. The only reason that they do contribute is for sex, and even then not necessarily for women but for fatherhood.

Gunn said...

Your assumptions are wrong, consequently your conclusions are wrong too.

Men do not compete on a level playing field in the west. Two generations of affirmative action towards women have left the education system in a mess, with changes that are designed to promote women at the expense of men.

What the 'manosphere' advocates is a return to a level playing field, where merit is determined by ability. This includes the reintroduction of competition at all levels, and of teaching methods that suit the way that boys learn.

Further, there are huge issues with the promotion of women into professions that are not even mentioned in 'polite' discourse. For example, the cost to train a doctor is huge (several hundred thousand pounds at today's rates). In the past, that investment was repaid by doctors who worked 100+ hour weeks during training and who worked a full 40+ years after qualifying.

Today, doctors work far fewer hours during training (60 hours or so per week is probably around the reality) and once they qualify, the women tend to drop out at alarming rates in their mid- to late- 30s. Some do stay on of course, but most women opt for the softer specialisms where long hours and high stress are not so prevalent.

Now, factor in that medical schools have 60%+ female students (largely due to discrimation at all stages in education that favor women, allied to a strong political preference for universities to be seen to be admitting more women), and we've created a huge problem for society wherein we invest huge sums of money for a return that will simply not materialise.

Vox's article was pointing out that Iran appears to have recognised this mismatch between who is trained and who actually works in a field post-qualification, and has taken steps to minimise the waste of resources. Further, he points out that this could serve as a control test vs. the west's rush to promote women at the expense of men. His point being, lets see who's policy is the most beneficial to society at large, Iran's or the West's.

Ras Al Ghul said...

"My readers may not like this but they are my objective observations"

Ha ha ha. Objective.

The word you're looking for is subjective.

Look, take away the anti male attitude that permeates society and education and see who has "balls"

40 years ago they decried women being behind in school as a failing.

Now men fall behind and you see it as inherent that women are better.

You sir, are a sexist in the worst way and a white knight.

I find it disheartening that you can understand some of the fundamental problems an yet "crimethink" stops you from coming to the logical rational conclusions.

Cognitive Dissonance Writ large is your blog.

Rhino Tingley said...

Of course you are correct, handicapping women is not going to work, as well as being unjust. However, you seem to be implying that women are inherently superior to men.

The problem is, the education system is failing boys. The playing field is not level. What must be done is to rectify this situation fast. Boys after a certain age, say 10 years old, must be taken away from women and educated by men. All "primitive" societies do this, with no exception that I know of.

When this was the case in our Western societies, i.e. until the 1970s roughly, boys excelled. When I was at school, the best girl in any of my classes was around 5th or 6th. Strangely, this has all changed now that women have pretty much trusted the education system. Virtually all teachers are female these days. The results prove that they are not capable of motivating or controlling boys.

My own extreme point of view is to have separate schools for boys and girls from around 10 years old, with a strong majority of teachers of the same sex as the students. The problem being, to train those male teachers in the first place...

Thursday said...

This is an utterly foolish post.

Does his artificial status enhancement satisfy her hypergamic desires?

Yes, on the margin. Which can have a big impact.

Any marriage where the partners are there for mutual convenience instead of mutual attraction soon becomes a prison to one or both.

False dichotomy. His ability to provide for her when she actually needs it makes her attracted to him. There is considerable evidence that women were attracted to their beta male husbands in the past. See also Roosh's thoughts on EE women.

Traditionalists fail to explain the surge in divorce once it became liberalised.

It was the transition from a joint production to a joint consumption model of marriage. Women could now make their own money and wanted someone more compatible to share consumption with. Before it was about who could bring in the most resources.

Thursday said...

When Roosh and his followers point out that quality women are only to be found outside the U.S. he is giving the masculine version of the modern feminist lament that there are no good men at home.

No, Roosh is right. Women outside the West genuinely appreciate beta males.

mdavid said...

i.e handicapping women in order to make second rate men look better is simply an affirmative action program for beta males.

I guess I don't see this as "affirmative action" or "handicapping". That would be like saying that only men can be drafted for war, and that now "restricts" men. Or that men cannot wear dresses, or so on.

Men and women have forever held different roles in society. The only question is: which roles should be restricted, and which ones not?

I love the Darwinian nature of this debate. The bottom line: SP's social approach (and all the modern West) that men and women are interchangeable simply leads (as Vox points out) to women of genetic value not breeding. Methinks we will see the results over time as the West fades genetically. Basically, not being sexist is simply not an option for those cultures who will win the breeding war.

In summary: if a culture uses up its women on being 3% more effective in engineering but loses the breeding war (as the West is certainly doing today), it is not a fair trade. But all it takes is a single cultural flaw to kill a culture off, and this view of the sexes being interchangeable is the failure of the modern West.

lodelia said...

Wow - mind blown (in a good way). I can see you are already getting a lot of crap for this post but I will jump into the fray and state my agreement.

I am a wannabe housewife who is currently pursuing an engineering PhD out of boredom (and it was free) because my few and far between marriage prospects struck out. I had a half baked notion that grad school might be a good place to meet men but I was wrong. I will gladly give it up to be home with kids but I'm already nearing my expiration date. And I'm not fat and ugly either if I do say so myself, perhaps a bit sarcastic but what can you do. Then there was that married guy that asked me out...

I agree that the manosphere does explain a lot about human nature that mainstream groupthink does not, but fails to explain some very big things going on, like what happened to men. Men like my grandfather have vanished. He was a well dressed Christian community-active doctor, which nowadays sounds like a recipe for an unattainable alpha but back then he wasn't, he was just a normal dude.

So I know I'm probably going to get called a hamster for agreeing with you but I just wanted to throw that out there. Other people do see things the way you do.

Will S. said...

The old ways worked better, if imperfectly, for society; most people were able to find someone to marry. Today's society is dysfunctional. The Iranians are right to realize that the problem lies with allowing higher education for women, and for many of them to work outside the home, and put their careers first. Society would be better served if young women returned to being housewives, not long after reaching adulthood.

It is precisely female empowerment that has diminished men; you can't have a group gain power in society not at the expense of another group. And so that has happened.

It has been shown that historically, empires, during their decadent phase, become overly concerned with promoting the rights of women; see the writings of Sir John Glubb, for instance.

You appear to have embraced liberal modernity's values, in this regard. Most disappointing.

Will S. said...

@ lodelia:

"I agree that the manosphere does explain a lot about human nature that mainstream groupthink does not, but fails to explain some very big things going on, like what happened to men. Men like my grandfather have vanished. He was a well dressed Christian community-active doctor, which nowadays sounds like a recipe for an unattainable alpha but back then he wasn't, he was just a normal dude."

So, why do you think such men are gone, or at least, not 'normal' any more? Did someone wave a magic wand, cast a magic spell, and poof! "All the good men are gone!" No; society makes and molds people, by how it is run / set up. A society that devalues men in the first place, leads to a society with less manly men; by the same token, the reason Slumlord sees women all full of self-confidence and as go-getters, is because society has chosen to promote women AT THE EXPENSE of men.

"I am a wannabe housewife who is currently pursuing an engineering PhD out of boredom (and it was free) because my few and far between marriage prospects struck out. I had a half baked notion that grad school might be a good place to meet men but I was wrong. I will gladly give it up to be home with kids but I'm already nearing my expiration date. And I'm not fat and ugly either if I do say so myself, perhaps a bit sarcastic but what can you do. Then there was that married guy that asked me out..."

The married guy is irrelevant and a red herring, though I can see your bringing him up flows out of your self-admitted sarcastic nature - which doesn't endear you to men, if you're wondering why you're still single at your age. Your notion of getting your MRS. by going to grad school was indeed half-baked, as men do not look for advanced higher education as a desirable characteristic in a prospective mate; pleasantness of personality, good looks, and shared values are most important, not female achievements.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt you'll be able to find someone eventually, as most women do. Whether you'll be happy with him, is up to you.

Will S. said...

"So I know I'm probably going to get called a hamster for agreeing with you but I just wanted to throw that out there. Other people do see things the way you do."

No, you're not going to get called a hamster; simply that your rationalization hamster will be recognized as doing what rationalization hamsters do best, rationalizing. You can't help yourself; you're a woman, after all; you were born with one...

Zorro said...

"What the 'manosphere' advocates is a return to a level playing field, where merit is determined by ability. This includes the reintroduction of competition at all levels, and of teaching methods that suit the way that boys learn."

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

What the West is suffering from is a perverted notion that outcomes are more important than the systemics of the playing field. If women and men are equally enabled to compete for certifications, etc., then you have a playing field where the best will rise to the top, and the best is what benefits societies.

That 52% of engineers are female, 8% are gays, 22% are African-Americans...is PURE BULLSHIT!

Why do we have fire stations? Is it to enable 130-lb Miss Affirmative Action a career, or is it for 44-lb Suzy who is screaming for her life on the 8th floor and the flames are licking their way up?

There are days I just want to strangle Democrats and feminists with my bare goddamned hands.

mnl said...

Affirmative action is a Trojan horse. It looks good on the outside. But once one realizes its true purpose and motivation, one can see it's not entirely what it was made out to be.

If affirmative action in the workplace was all about providing women with truly equal opportunities, you'd see women pressing for more jobs as garbage collectors, long haul truckers, and outdoor work on the Alaskan pipeline in zero-degree temperatures. You'd see women marching for equal participation in jobs where there's a risk of death or bodily dismemberment just as strongly as women are marching for equal representation on the corporate boards of directors (such as in Europe right now).

If the goal of affirmative action in education was about true equality, you'd see fewer programs to encourage women to enter law school (where female attendancein the U.S. is now roughly half) and more policies aimed at getting women to attend trade school and learn to, say, crawl through and weld underground sewer pipes or to work as journeymen carpenters on blazing rooftops in the Arizona summertime.

By its own historic record then, affirmative action doesn't seem to be about providing women with opportunities truly equal to those of men per se. Rather, the pattern of affirmative action seems more consistent with the goal of giving more women greater access to interact and mate with high status men--whether it be in high status occupations or high status education. ...which is 100% hypergamy.

We can't in the West go back to the Iranian model. In spite of hypergamy's reality, it's still morally repugnant to restrict one gender's options. But we do need to call-out affirmative action for what it truly us.

Zorro said...

One other detail.

That a woman finds a millionaire more attractive than a janitor is what a sociologist would call hypergamy.

Let's not forget that female giraffes, hippos and ground squirrels are also hypergamous. What a biologist or zoologist sees as hypergamy is quite different, and it is genetically encoded.

You ain't gonna fool Mother Nature and live to tell about it.

Will S. said...

@ Zorro: You bring up a good point, that on one level, female hypergamy will always favour the very best.

However, as we know, while women will never marry below their income level and socioeconomic class, and will always get the best they can, if they have more education and get higher-paying jobs, that automatically rules out a whole group of men that they otherwise might have been willing to consider, if all they'd ever worked at was as a secretary or a nurse or a schoolteacher or other traditional young unmarried female occupation; moreover, the higher they rise in socioeconomic status and income, the more likelier they are to throw themselves at the most alpha men they meet, who are likelier to be higher-up ones than they'd ever meet back in the days when they were just nurses / schoolteachers / secretaries; their expectations were more down to earth, and they were willing to 'settle'. Thus, ordinary men, those Slumlord is scorning here as all beta, had a much better shot at pairing off with a wife, than they do, under the current social situation.

It really was better in the old days, in most ways.

Today sucks. I'm sorry Slumlord is blinded by these go-getter, ugogirl types, to the reality of that.

Zorro said...

Point taken.

Who is Slumlord?

Will S. said...

The Social Pathologist's other name online is Slumlord.

van Rooinek said...

The manosphere may not like this result but the fact is that women have been able to effectively compete with men when the shackles of social convention have been removed.

Um, no. Men were shackled. Except in STEM, where our natural abilties are SOOO far ahead, that even shackling couldn't keep us down...so the Obamunists are now proposing using title 9 skulduggery to push men out of STEM fields.

Thursday said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thursday said...

What the 'manosphere' advocates is a return to a level playing field, where merit is determined by ability. This includes the reintroduction of competition at all levels, and of teaching methods that suit the way that boys learn.

This accepts the individualistic ethos that leads to feminism in the first place. Which is why the MRM has been such a failure. You can't outvictim women.

The Social Pathologist said...

Anon 12:19

Love is one thing, sex is another. The gold diggers always leave when the money dries out.

Anon at 12:39

Read carefully. I have not said that relative female out-performance has improved women's happiness. I'm saying that female out-performance makes mate selection far more difficult for a woman.

Finally, what's wrong with socalled affirmative action for beta males?

You miss the entire point of the post. Disabling a woman does not give a man alpha qualities.

Beta males do all of the grunt work of civilization:

Child rearing which is an unglamorous but essential part of civilization is still done by women. Any fat single mother who argued that she had a right to sex based upon the social benefit generated by her child rearing qualities would by laughed at by all and sundry.

Look at somebody like Steve Wozniaki

Precisely. The IT crowd are a prime of men who would have done well under the old system which crippled women but are seen as undesirable by them when women have a choice. Geeks with lots of money can get laid, but theyre getting laid for their money and not for their personal appeal. Bill Gates, despite all his wealth is not a sex symbol.

The only reason that they do contribute is for sex,

You are an elementary particle.

@Gunn.

I'm a doctor and I understand the female dynamics of medicine.

The reason why a majority of women opt of medicine is because having babies takes up a lot of their time. Secondly, a lot of these women marry high status men, so their imperative to work is limited. Lots of male doctors would not work so hard if in the same position. Btw, alcoholism and depression is rampant in the medical profession due to overwork.

@Ros Al Ghul

You sir, are a sexist in the worst way and a white knight.

Repeat after me. Men and women are not equal. Hypergamy is not a choice, it is an instinct. Women have long ago realised that if you want a man you have to look pretty or put out. Men seem to have a very hard time accepting the fact that being attractive to women is conditional to having certain qualities. A lot of the manosphere bleating against female hypergamy is a lot like fat women complaining against men's preference for thinness.

@Rhino.

Asian men seem to be doing quite well in the current educational system. I agree that school curriculums need to change and I also advocate a degree of separation of the sexes in school. Incidentally, separating the sexes seems to benefit women, especially in the STEM fields.

I'm not advocating that women are inherently superior to men, but recognising that at this current point in time they seem to possess more of the traditional manly qualities than men do at this moment. Their success is not so much a proof of their qualities as a failure of men to devote themselves to self improvement. The resistance of the concepts of "Game" amongst some men is simply staggering. So many men would rather stay sexless in front of a keyboard and moan about the world instead of putting some effort into self improvement.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Thursday.

The HBD stuff leaves me cold. Wealth is but one factor of attractiveness. If that were the case Cosmo and all the other women's magazines would have full page spreads on the IT crowd. They don't. Charisma matters more than money.

All women are attracted to beta traits. Every woman is quite truthful when she says that she want's a nice guy. What she fails to mention though is that she wants a nice guy with alpha traits. A loveable bastard.

I grew up around EE women. I know them very well. A man has to have a pair or they will crush you. If a man has the right combo of alpha an beta they will give you slavish adoration.

The problem with women in the West is that they have reduced love to sex. They're the ones who destroyed romance. Eastern European women still have a romantic streak and want to embrace their femininity.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Iodelia.

He was a well dressed Christian community-active doctor, which nowadays sounds like a recipe for an unattainable alpha

That's me! Preen.

Iodelia, I don't write for an echo chamber. I knew I was going to get some crap for the post. There's a lot wrong with the average woman today, but there is also a lot wrong with the average male. The manosphere seems to concentrate a lot on the former and not nearly enough of the latter.

@Will S

No; society makes and molds people,

As Chesterton said, Dead things are carried by the current, living things can swim against it.

My inner Nietzsche comes out and I will stand against the tide. The essence of masculinity is the ability to impose your will on events. Wisdom consists in knowing how to impose your will correctly.

I've got to go to work now and will reply to the rest later.

Thursday said...

Charisma matters more than money.

Depends on the society.

(Also, what does this have to do with HBD?)

ElectricAngel said...

SO, let's get back to roots. The University system in the West began as a way for Churchmen and scholars to pass on knowledge... to MEN. It was a male-only institution FOR YEARS, designed for the children of the wealthy to go and get a good education. Harvard, recall, used to require Greek, Latin, and Hebrew of all students, with the goal that a LOT of them were supposed to become ministers.

Now, add women to the mix. Why do you assume that an institution designed around the needs of wealthy young men would fit the world of the woman? College and grad school (think law school in the US) come from ages 18-25, exactly coinciding with the period of peak fertility for women. I'm going to white-knight for the girls here and ask WHY you want to force the square peg of a university system designed around the needs of wealthy young men into their, uh, round hole?

Will S. said...

Invoking Nietzsche's 'will to power' is an odd tack for a traditionalist Catholic to take...

Will S. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Starburst said...

A lot of people have made comments pointing out the flaws of this post. Normally I find your posts quite insightful, but this one does seem to be way off the mark.


In addition to the problems addressed by the other commentors, I would like to note a couple of things:

1) Academic education is not a great metric for intelligence or potential. The dumbing down of the academic world in order to "leave no child behind" and ensure equal access for all people groups (women and minorities, especially), means that even a college education offers very little for an intelligent person. As a high-IQ young man, I felt that my four years in college were a genuine waste of time and hampered my intellectual development because most of what was taught was overly simplistic. I learn far more by reading through a large array of books than I ever did in a classroom setting. Unfortunately, our culture has been brainwashed into thinking that education and intelligence/capacity are remotely related. So, you have dumb people with affirmative action degrees, and you have smart people who abandoned academic credentials because they are largely useless.

2) People respond to incentives. When a man has the option to pursue the American dream, marry a virgin wife and have a family to lead and provide for, he may work hard to attain his dream. However, when most women aren't worth marrying and divorce theft is a highly-likely outcome, the incentive to work hard simply isn't there. A man maximizes his happiness by working as little as possible and maximizing his leisure activities. A man who puts in no effort at his work isn't necessarily lazy--he may be entirely rational and pursuing the best option available to him.





Brian Whitney said...

I have too much of a problem getting married I am sorry to say,

Brian Whitney said...

And in reading your commet yes, a loveable bastard is without a doubt the best cocksman in the land.

To say otherwise is folly.

Johnycomelately said...

I wonder if the post industrial age service economy is breeding out white Alpha men, much like how blacks struggled in the industrial age. Definately explains why Asian men do well in the service economy age and Alpha black males struggle the most..

Long periods of sitting, repetitive clerical tasks, strict observance of rules, communication skills, group cohesion, process orientation and subservience to hierarchical management structure definately suits women more.

The cavalier Lord Byron type personality only seems to fit in the trades, military, sports and CEO type positions.

It seems to me robotization has done away with much of the need for the typical Alpha male, which may explain his lack of interest and apathy.

candide3 said...

I agree with most of the commenters here, but I see the Doctor's point about IT nerds. The occupation does not exactly require being a slack-twisted mealy-mouthed limpdick. And wearing shorts and mandals to boot. "Join me for a bagel?" Pfui.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Thursday.

My mistake. Instead of HBD it should have been

The evo-psyche leaves me cold.

@ElectricAngel.

Why do you assume that an institution designed around the needs of wealthy young men would fit the world of the woman?

Well they seem to be doing rather well by it, don't they? The fact that more women are credentialed than men now, in the U.S. would seem to suggest that women have adapted well to the system.

@Will S.

I'm not a traditionalist. Whilst I have lots of sympathy with traditionalists I feel that they are part of the problem. If you care, read my posts on Whittaker Chambers.

As for Nietzsche, the reference was rhetorical more than philosophical.

@mdavid The bottom line: SP's social approach (and all the modern West) that men and women are interchangeable simply leads (as Vox points out) to women of genetic value not breeding.

Where have I said men and women are interchangeable? Quotes please.

I'm all for restricting the roles of men and women. But where I draw the line is obviously different to you. Women make good doctors, accountants, teachers and so on. Meredith Whitney? Traditionalist society kept them at home and did not give them options outside the house.

The reason why women of high genetic value don't breed is because their options are limited. If I were given a choice of banging a porker or missing out, I'd choose the second option.

Thus, ordinary men, those Slumlord is scorning here as all beta,

Quotes please.

You are quite right that women won't marry down, but why aren't men educating up? Pulling a woman out of school so that some shlub can be assured of a mate, is the same as kicking out a competent white kid out of school so that some incompetent minority can take his place. It's a promotion of one at the expense of another.


@Mnl

I'm agree that affirmative action is wrong. It's wrong when applied to men and wrong when applied to women. The only just system is a meritocracy. The problem is that women today seem to be better in a meritocratic system in a lot of fields. The question I'm asking is why are men not performing so well?
What went wrong? Blaming women for acting according to their hypergamic instincts is like complaining about the snow being cold. It's a fact of nature. Any society that has women entering in large numbers into academic institutions is going to have to ensure that at least a similar number of men do in order for these men and women marry.

@Starburst

As I mentioned before, not all degrees are created equal. There a quite a few trades that are now degree credentialed. It does give the possessor a certain sense of self importance that is all out of proportion to their academic achievement. Nursing, for example, was for years an apprenticeship profession here in Australia. One way to help with the hypergamic problem is simply to strip these professions of their academic pretensions. A lot of the degree's earned particularly by women are such. I'm all for letting them go to school but only earn a degree when the academic standard is high enough.

candide3 said...

The problem is that women today seem to be better in a meritocratic system in a lot of fields.
Obviously the outcomes from a meritocratic system depend on the definition of merit, to say nothing of the social environment.
The question I'm asking is why are men not performing so well?
Possibly because being a man, not just biologically male, and behaving like one, is regarded as, shall I say, slightly offensive in the educated society these days? And has been for quite a while.
why aren't men educating up?
Partly because of how education has changed, see what Rhino Tingley and Starburst said above, and partly because the external incentive to excel (academically or otherwise) has been watered down, again Starburst said that. Games are cheap, food and liquor is abundant, porn is plentiful. Why bother?

mdavid said...

lodelia, I am a wannabe housewife who is currently pursuing an engineering PhD out of boredom (and it was free) because my few and far between marriage prospects struck out.

Actually, it is women like yourself who suffer most from SP's vision of the world.

What I mean is that your prospects of being a housewife and mother would have been way, way better had traditionalism in marriage been the rule. You would probably already have a half-dozen children, and those children would likely be smart and been good neighbors. The world would have been a better place.

In addition, you would likely been a better mother and wife - your formative years would have been spent experiencing the traits that are needed for that (very) skilled task.

mdavid said...

SP, Where have I said men and women are interchangeable? Quotes please.

Here: Calls to take away the rights of women are really nothing more than an affirmative action program for weak and beta men.

You are arguing (well, really just emoting more than arguing) that having differences in gender by law at a society level is taking "away the rights of women". You cannot say this unless the rights of men and women are interchangeable. Otherwise, who decides when society is taking away a woman's rights, or justly having a gender difference? Why can't she go topless? Enter military combat units? Play professional football? Are these rights? Men have them.


I'm all for restricting the roles of men and women.

This argument is not one of principle. Generally, that's not how rights are viewed these days in the West.

But where I draw the line is obviously different to you. Women make good doctors, accountants, teachers and so on. Meredith Whitney? Traditionalist society kept them at home and did not give them options outside the house.

I don't disagree with this. I merely chuckle at how this view won't last over time, because it defies natural selection. Vox is right on that point.


The reason why women of high genetic value don't breed is because their options are limited. If I were given a choice of banging a porker or missing out, I'd choose the second option.

Look, over time, women of high genetic value will maximize their brood...or they will go extinct. It's the law of natural selection. That's my only point. And the sooner a culture abides by this law, the better their culture will be in every way. It's natural law. Basically, I'm accepting an ideal culture is in the vision of the Creator, and this will make the majority happier. Your ideal culture is in the vision of SP, and over time will take its toll on the whole culture.


Btw. your blog is finally getting the comments and traffic it deserves. Keep up the posts!

David Foster said...

Johnycomelately..."Long periods of sitting, repetitive clerical tasks, strict observance of rules, communication skills, group cohesion, process orientation and subservience to hierarchical management structure definately suits women more.

It seems to me robotization has done away with much of the need for the typical Alpha male, which may explain his lack of interest and apathy."

Regarding roboticization in factories, I'm not sure that the typical assembly line job replaced by robots was really all that alpha...it was extremely repetitive and in many if not most factories involved considerable subservience both to management and to detailed "work rules" imposed by the union with management concurrence. (This is not to deny that many men found satisfaction in such jobs...probably more than the same men would have found in equally-routinized office jobs...but it's a real stretch to call them alpha.)

Regarding robots in office

David Foster said...

(continuing prior comment)

Regarding robots in offices (aka "computer")...in the pre-computer era, there were vast clerical forces, mainly female, doing things like insurance company billing, payroll calculations, physical sorting of checks, etc etc. These often involved hundreds or thousands of people in a location and were extremely routinized.

It's interesting that while the computer revolution largely eliminated the need for this kind of clerical work, basically-clerical activity has reincarnated itself in other forms, as in much of the activity of customer-service call centers and really, even some some aspects of the IT function.

Anonymous said...

I would agree that many women are very intense in terms of planning and achievement. That said, is this trained for or an inherent quality? I don't think we can really answer that.

I would say, though, that these gunner-women are extremely unattractive. I, for instance, would prefer to not marry any woman with a degree above a bachelors, or a degree in a hard science even. I have a friend whose wife is young, not overly educated, nice, low key, a non-complainer who is simply amazing because she is ok taking care of the kids.

A general rule is that the amount of complaining in a relationship is directly proportional to the girls amount of education.

Thursday said...

The evo-psyche leaves me cold.

Again, what does this have to do with evo-psych?

ElectricAngel said...

@SP,

Well they seem to be doing rather well by it, don't they? The fact that more women are credentialed than men now, in the U.S. would seem to suggest that women have adapted well to the system.

I don't know if you are serious, or are yanking my chain. I'll assume serious.

For the ones who really want children, and spend their most fertile years avoiding children, no, they do not do well by it. I can think of one prominent 'sphere blogger who kept it zipped up until age 25, and found to her dismay that she was unable to conceive after marriage and paying off student debt delayed the effort to 27 or 28. That does not suggest that that one person did well. Anecdotally, I know three or four more women like that.

Of course, the delayed start to adult living, especially the requirement to study hard to SUCCEED all the time, places another huge burden. Hormones in men and women are high in late teens and especially early 20s for a reason: this is when women are most likely to conceive children without genetic defects. Ignoring those hormones is EXTREMELY hard for men AND women, especially for women for whom sex at that age is easily obtainable; thus the value of the virgin, reflecting her strength of will at resisting temptation. (Or, she's a prude, and as you once wrote, better a slut than a prude. Sadly, the non-prude normal women are left little avenue BESIDES sluthood by this organization of society.)

Since twice as many women as men have historically left descendants, having children is the NORM for women. Using a system designed for men for them is CRUEL, expecially for the ones who cannot catch up. Surely as a physician you have dealt with the after-effects of an older woman who thought she was doing the right thing in pursuing higher ed, and was now left childless after career and college absorbed her youthful, fertile years.

Cane Caldo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cane Caldo said...

I'm in agreement with your diagnosis, doctor, but your bedside manner will necessarily offend the patients most in need of your strong medicine.

Don't change.

Anonymous said...

Well they seem to be doing rather well by it, don't they? The fact that more women are credentialed than men now, in the U.S. would seem to suggest that women have adapted well to the system.

Whoa there nelly!

1 - The more women have become credentialed, the more meaningless those credentials have become. Bachelor's degrees have largely become worthless now, whereas one generation ago, it was the bottom rung of the career/success ladder.

2 - More women "succeed" now in the field of "crednetial-cation" because they've been encouraged by mass media propagandization that education and career are the only markers for a successful and fulfilling life.

3 - All this "success" has been achieved by debt financing - aka massive students loans to achieve credentials that don't end up being worth even close to the amount of debt they borrowed to achieve.

Women's present day "success" in credential-cation is just another fiat driven - debt bubble. It's getting ready to pop, too.

Anonymous said...

I agree with candide3 at 10:24 PM

All of the "tough" jobs and careers I know are still majority men. Especially after 30 when half the women drop out. If there is something I've learned it's that the hard part of work is slogging it out for 40 years, not the exciting first few years.

The men I know that are deadbeats are still getting laid and having fun. I think if your an attractive male there is almost no point in working hard unless you think you can get rich. You get laid either way. This ain't the end of the world, do we really need people buying more crap. I earn money only because I have to, because I'm ugly. Hence the vast majority of male STEM high earners.

Jason said...

As usual a good essay doctor, although I do think your critics have a point, namely that you seem to be diminishing the importance of society and its connection to Alphaness and female hypergamy. For instance, you seem to be implying that female hypergamy has always been the same, that although a wife might not have run off and divorced in the past in the manner that women do today, she still felt the exact sort of contempt for a beta that she would feel for one today. I’m not sure that is the case, or at least the matter needs to be qualified. I think a farmer of average intelligence one hundred years ago experienced more respect than your average office worker does today, simply because farmers were seen as more dignified then than your guy in the cubicle (Even if the farmer’s wife was more intelligent – Did Laura Ingalls Wilder look down on Alfonso even though she was probably smarter?). In other words, men experienced more alphaness in a de-facto sense, whereas today they have to earn it. Or consider all those working class, ethnic Catholic neighborhoods that used to exist in places like Pittsburgh or Detroit but are now dying out. There was a sense of community and hierarchy that gave men a certain dignity and that enabled women to look up to their husbands. With the decline of religion though much less of that exists.
Add to this explosion of media, especially over the last twenty or so years, which has created a female hypergamy that is literally stratospheric, as well as the fact that a lot of American men (I’m not so sure of the situation in other countries) just don’t have what it takes to compete in today’s world, and you have a real problem. There is significant portion of men that can’t be Alpha men in at least the professional sense, even if they wanted to be. Some of this is due to such things as credentialism, extreme feminism, single motherhood, and other problems which various commentators have mentioned. Yet as much as this might stick in the craw of some people, I can’t help thinking that Hanna Rosin (author of The End of Men) is at least partially right, that women are just better equipped to flourish in today’s post-industrial economy. If men cannot develop other corresponding Alpha traits, then are they simply screwed? Well maybe – like you suggest, reality is what it is, and educated women are going to want what they want. The problem is that expecting a lot of men to perform in a way that they perhaps haven’t had to for a while may be expecting too much.

Rhino Tingley said...

The SP :
Asian men seem to be doing quite well in the current educational system

Yes indeed. Why ? Because their culture incentivizes them to be good at school. This is no longer the case for boys in the mainsteream culture. Added to this, Asians tend to be submissive to authority and generally conformist in their outlook. Again, this is cultural. That attitude is near as dammit to that of the most successful girls in the education system. This explains the success of Asian boys in school : they are more "feminized" (no offense intended) than boys of other origins, so the system works for them. Of course, being boys, the will tend to be more successful in STEM fields.

It's all a question of role models and incentives. There are plenty of successful educated female role models out there, but the role models fed to boys by our (culture i.e. by big business) are largely talentless moronic thugs or even criminals.

I would like to see what happens in a couple of generations. My bet is, if the system does not change, the Asian boys will gradually fall back to mainstream levels of success - or rather failure - as their culturer of origin is progressively lost.

Anonymous said...

You do notice that despite the success of asian men in school, they are hardly western societies ideas of Alpha.

So criticizing men for not doing well in school when school seems to have no direct impact on whether you get chicks is cruel and counterproductive to say the least.

As for American society it wages a type of low-level warfare against its males what with its Title IX, affirmative action, "primary aggressor" DV statutes, as well as its ridiculously Orwellian "sexual harassment " laws and policies. Lets also mention the women only parts of government and private foundations that have nothing corresponding for men, as well as whole organizations and government entities focused on women's careers in "under represented" specialties. Lastly, lets not forget the differing standards that women are held to in firefighting and the military, as two prime examples.

This is how it is, at least in the US. People that claim women are succeeding on a level playing field seem like fools to me.

Clarence

Anonymous said...

"In my experience, women today seem to have more "balls" than men do. They seem more driven, more ambitious and can make stuff happen."


Then reality comes around, and she's defeated by a fat insect, a mouse, and strongly-positioned indoor toilet seats.

thewomanandthedragon said...

Gunn wrote: the cost to train a doctor is huge...In the past, that investment was repaid by doctors who worked 100+ hour weeks during training and who worked a full 40+ years after qualifying. Today, doctors work far fewer hours during training (60 hours or so per week is probably around the reality) and once they qualify, the women tend to drop out at alarming rates...

Indeed this is true, and whereas we might not wish to hold back any one particular woman by passing laws against women in medical school (or similar educational programs), if society is going to pay for their training, then society ought to be able to expect a return on the investment. I have written about a lady friend of mine who is a doctor but only works one day a week; of course, it's her right to do so, but was it in society's best interests to pay for her education? I think it wasn't.

-sunshinemary

mdavid said...

Cane, I'm in agreement with your diagnosis, doctor, but your bedside manner will necessarily offend the patients most in need of your strong medicine.

Don't change.


I wish to associate myself with the latter half of this comment. I would have written it myself had I been so clever...

chris said...

"In my experience, women today seem to have more "balls" than men do. They seem more driven, more ambitious and can make stuff happen."

Well duh, these days if a guy wants to be successful with women he is better of getting a six-pack than a Bachelor's.

He's better of spending three years at the gym than three years at university.

We are shifting from a dad society to a cad society. Patriarchy to Matriarchy. Long-term mating to short-term mating.

When women are economically self-sufficient they stop selecting for economic provision in their mates, as a result men stop putting mating effort into economic achievement as it doesn't increase their mating success and instead put their mating effort into other attributes, hence the popularity of 'Game' and Jersey Shore douchieness.

Women are out fucking badboys not accountants.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Candide3

Games are cheap, food and liquor is abundant, porn is plentiful. Why bother?

Ah, the seduction of the guided sty. Hedonism strikes at the very heart of masculinity and corrupts it. Men devoted to a life of pleasure become "soft", either psychologically or physically. Soft men are unattractive to women.

@mdavid.

Recognising the rights of women to be educated and to be economically self sufficient in no way equates to the sexes being interchangeable. Raw natural ability in a woman will assert itself education or not. A smart Eastern European cleaner will still find her clueless western husband contemptible. The sex drive will follow. Now she may decide to put up with his stupidity for other reasons, i.e. the ability to have a higher standard of living etc, but the she is going to have to perform her wifely duties in the bedroom instead of satisfying her innate desires. The difference is the difference between the woman who "has to" instead of the woman who "wants to."


What I mean is that your prospects of being a housewife and mother would have been way, way better had traditionalism in marriage been the rule.


Her opportunities to be an uneducated housewife and mother would have been greater. Excuse the crudity, but provided Iodelia is reasonably attractive, here is no problem in her finding a mate for utilitarian reasons alone. Find some reasonable schlub, exchange regular sex for commitment and presto! you've got a family. It's not like attractive women can't get a date. The problem is her that her natural intelligence and ambition, combined with her hypergamous instinct, restrict the pool of her suitable suitors. She can make herself sleep with anyone she wants to but the pool of men she wants to sleep with is limited.

Anon

A general rule is that the amount of complaining in a relationship is directly proportional to the girls amount of education.

I know a lot of men in such relationships, but then again I don't behave like those men. My wife can be quite a hard woman. She is also university educated. She hardly ever complains or nags. The cooking is very good at home, if you know what I mean.

@ElectricAngel

Your shifting the terms of the argument. I'm not saying women are happier today, what I'm saying is women seem to be able to knuckle down and do what needs to be done better than men do at the moment. The average woman is capable of better self discipline, industriousness and studiousness than the average man is. This fact has hypergamic implications and may go some way in explaining the "dearth of good men" complaint.

Jason

namely that you seem to be diminishing the importance of society and its connection to Alphaness and female hypergamy

I agree that women are more socially influenced than men are but it is a mistake to think that women in the past stayed with their husband because they "wanted" to be there. The only way you can tell if your partner want to be with you is if your partner has other options. In the past there were no options. In the past the choice may have been performing wifely duties to an obnoxious husband or living out on the street in social shame. What happened when women gained economic independence and divorce became socially acceptable is that many women left their husband because there was no attraction there. The historically fascinating thing about divorce, is just how many people took advantage of it when it was first liberalised. What this means is that a lot of these marriages were unhappy beforehand. Restricting a woman's choice does not make a husband alpha.

The Social Pathologist said...

Then reality comes around, and she's defeated by a fat insect, a mouse, and strongly-positioned indoor toilet seats.

You've got no idea how many educated men don't know how to nail two bits of wood together or use a spanner.

@Chris

He's better of spending three years at the gym than three years at university.


Chris, this is true for the short term lay, but when a woman is thinking of her longer term prospects the academic qualification triumphs but by this stage she is "spoiled". This sort of crap would finish immediately if men would insist on women with low n. But lots of guys are happy to go sloppy thirds, fourths, fifths.......

chris said...

"I agree that women are more socially influenced than men are but it is a mistake to think that women in the past stayed with their husband because they "wanted" to be there. The only way you can tell if your partner want to be with you is if your partner has other options. In the past there were no options. In the past the choice may have been performing wifely duties to an obnoxious husband or living out on the street in social shame. What happened when women gained economic independence and divorce became socially acceptable is that many women left their husband because there was no attraction there. The historically fascinating thing about divorce, is just how many people took advantage of it when it was first liberalised. What this means is that a lot of these marriages were unhappy beforehand. Restricting a woman's choice does not make a husband alpha."


(Playing the Devil's Advocate:)
But there's also the fact that women ARE attracted to social dominance, and social dominance relative to others is granted by the 'sovereign' of the social group (sovereign=society, tribal chief, king, parliament, etc), therefore by granting social dominance to women over men you reduce their attraction for the men but by granting it to the men over women you increase the women's attraction to the men.

chris said...

"Chris, this is true for the short term lay, but when a woman is thinking of her longer term prospects the academic qualification triumphs but by this stage she is "spoiled". This sort of crap would finish immediately if men would insist on women with low n. But lots of guys are happy to go sloppy thirds, fourths, fifths......."


I agree with you, it does leave them spoiled and unworthy of investment. No guy likes paying full price for left-overs. It's precisely the reason why after I finish my law degree I'm considering only ever working part-time.

But even if men started refusing to marry such women on mass, any changes that occurred in the sexual marketplace would only benefit those men who come after the men who made those changes, it wouldn't benefit the men who made the changes themselves.

Furthermore, there's an entire entrenched ideological establishment set-up to prevent such changes from being made in the first place from either disorganised or organised actors in the sexual marketplace.

Anonymous said...


"You've got no idea how many educated men don't know how to nail two bits of wood together or use a spanner."

Plenty, but for some inconceivable reason, it isn't likely that it's a woman coming to the rescue.

ElectricAngel said...

Your shifting the terms of the argument. I'm not saying women are happier today, what I'm saying is women seem to be able to knuckle down and do what needs to be done better than men do at the moment. The average woman is capable of better self discipline, industriousness and studiousness than the average man is. This fact has hypergamic implications and may go some way in explaining the "dearth of good men" complaint.

@SP,

You mentioned that women play a game very well, that game being school and college, where their "follow-the-rules" mentality works out well for them. You use that good performance at that activity to attack the Iranians for their "taking away" the "rights" of their women to go to University. I mentioned that I did not think that University is GOOD for women at age 18-25, the design that was made for men. I think we can each agree that we have fairly stated those positions.

I guess I am reflecting my reading of evolutionary biology and The Fourth Turning into my answer. First, let me give an absurd example, taken from Seinfeld. If I enrolled in a beginning karate class as an adult, and was placed in the same room as a bunch of 9-year-olds, I'd kick each and every one of their asses in combat, the same way women outperform men at the tasks that require sitting quietly and following a path set by others to its conclusion. But my playing at that game is not good for the 9-year-olds, who are up against an opponent of a different class, and, while it might give me a temporary sense of my own superiority, that sense is false. When I take my talents out of the classroom and go forth to the real world, I will be the one getting my ass kicked, because the institutional setup was wrong. Meanwhile, society might lose the efforts of a whole group of 9-year-olds who might have mastered martial arts and learned the proper use of those skills in the service of society.

I assume as a man of medicine and science you are familiar with evolution, and that as a Catholic you are not opposed to understanding natural selection as God's mechanism to add to the creatures on the Earth. So I assume you understand that natural selection, God's mechanism, doesn't care about the individual as much as it does about the species. Maladaptive genes, like maladaptive behaviors, are unemotionally removed from the gene/societal pool. Morality is a mechanism by which selfish individual-maximizing behavior that threatens the group is held in check; I wrote about this here. Properly structured moral codes are in accord with this principle, and a societal compromise that takes account of female AND male reproductive needs will outcompete one that does not; I think you agree with me that traditional Catholic morality does this best, which is why the size of the Church has grown from 12 men to over a billion people in 2000 years.

One other thought on conventional schooling. I think women DO do better at it, because it is an easily defined process with a defined end. But this does not create the innovation and growth that society NEEDS to advance. Wagner knew this; in the Prologue to Gotterdammerung, he puts the Norns onstage, reciting the history of what was, and predicting what will be. They are spinning a web from strands of thought that come from the Earth Mother, Erda, and fate is entirely predictable. Then they come to talk about the hero Siegfried: suddenly, the web of fate and predictable futures tears, as the hero takes the world away from the woman's foreseeable world to the future that is unpredictable.

A society that rewards women's "clairvoyance" and suppresses the heroic in men is a society headed towards stagnation and decline. Iran sees this, and is trying to prevent it. Do I need to acquaint you with David Stove?

ElectricAngel said...

@SP,

women seem to be able to knuckle down and do what needs to be done better than men do at the moment

And I guess my objection is that college at age 18-25 for women doesn't NEED to be done for a society or group to survive, but childbearing DOES. Iran is trying a different approach to this problem from us. I wish I could live 150 more years to see the end results of experiments like these.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ElectricAngel

Getting women to pump out the babies between 18-25 doesn't give a man hypergamic status. It may create a sense of necessary dependency in a woman for a man but it no way guarantees a desire in the woman for a man.

The solution advocated by the traditionalists is premised on the principle that desire doesn't matter. It's not a view I agree with but it is a view that many hold. But beware, the feminists can use the same logic. Suppose a young man is 25 and unmarried, can't the feminists argue that a man should marry whoever is allocated to him for the "good of the species". Practically, try convincing men of the manosphere that they should marry some fat sea cow for the "good of the species" and see how far that gets you.

Innovation is great thing. China was full of innovation but lacked the supporting cultural infrastructure to make ideas happen. There is a lot of boring "gruntwork" in making ideas happen and we all know men full of great ideas who can't implement them. It's not because of the system, it's because these same guys don't do the grunt work. Women may not be innovative, but a lot of the day to day success in life comes from self discipline rather than innovation.

@ Chris

Furthermore, there's an entire entrenched ideological establishment set-up to prevent such changes from being made in the first place from either disorganised or organised actors in the sexual marketplace.

God expects each man to do his duty.
He has matched us with this hour and therefore believes we are capable of greatness. (Even though we may not believe it ourselves.)

Brandon said...

"The solution advocated by the traditionalists is premised on the principle that desire doesn't matter. It's not a view I agree with but it is a view that many hold."

Yeah, but isn't the main premise of social modernity that untrammeled satisfaction of desire is the be all end all of life? Besides, women are flighty. Their "desires" change almost weekly. Using 'desire' as a principle of existence is a dangerous proposition.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Brandon.

Any successful human institution has to take into account human desire, channel it, and not work against it. Perhaps one of the reasons men have sexless marriages is because they are unsatisfying to their wives.

The whole restrict the rights of women approach to the sexes is premised on the assumption that female social constraint is an adequate substitute for male personal qualities. A doctor's wife eventually views her husband not as a doctor but as her husband. His personal qualities, and not his social status determines his desirability in the long run. Many a rich executive has found that wife is cold for him but gladly puts out for the pool boy.

Thursday said...

Getting women to pump out the babies between 18-25 doesn't give a man hypergamic status.

Actually, sleeping with a girl and/or having children with her does up your status in her eyes. The fact that you have slept with/impregnated her means that you have shown you are man enough to get the job done. It is a kind of pre-selection. Of course, you can lose that advantage by acting beta.

Thursday said...

It may create a sense of necessary dependency in a woman for a man but it no way guarantees a desire in the woman for a man.

Straw man. It won't "guarantee" anything; it just helps alot.

Thursday said...

Jason 10:08 has it.

The Social Pathologist said...


Actually, sleeping with a girl and/or having children with her does up your status in her eyes.


Not necessarily. A beta impregnator is valued for his services, not for himself. Especially in those women nearing the end of their reproductive lives and who have limited mate choice.



GK Chesterton said...

"Shackled"

I strongly disagree. Women are practically driven to school. They can not fail. I remember this trend all the way back in HS English. There we did a report on "Wuthering Heights". I did a presentation in character and answered questions from the class. The blonde upwardly mobile gal in my class read from a report and _got her facts wrong_. She got an "A" and I got a "B". Why? When I challenged the woman who taught the class I was told, "well she needs to go to a good school". This scenario repeated everywhere...until I entered STEM. Men still ran things there and they gave not a darn about where you were going if you got the answer wrong.

Nor, I am at pains to remind people, were women _banned_ from schools. Many did go and were considered accomplished all the way back to the middle ages. The myth of the shackled woman is exactly that, a myth. If they were so disadvantaged you would imagine that societies that didn't fall into the same trap would run the world.

"Many men flounder."

Because no social network exists _for men_. From where I am typing this there are social groups and email lists for women. None exist for men. A man succeeding is succeeding in a hostile world.

"balls"

And I say all of this while _strongly agreeing_ that men have lost any sense of the requirements of masculinity. Most men are ball-less. And I include men in the androsphere in that analysis. I think you just greatly underestimate what is happening with social networks and women.

GK Chesterton said...

"Well they seem to be doing rather well by it, don't they? The fact that more women are credentialed than men now, in the U.S. would seem to suggest that women have adapted well to the system."

No they aren't. My experience in school was they were advanced in an effort at fairness and where they achieved parity the discipline was destroyed. I remember my own failures here where we were group grading an English assignment. A girl did a terrible job and my friend and I were about to eviscerate her. Then she started crying. Our natural defense instincts kicked in and she was given a chance that no man would have gotten.

"Meredith Whitney?"

The implication here is that Meridith Whitney couldn't exist in the previous society. I'd agree that such is possible, but that if she desired such status it wouldn't be denied her. Famous women existed before 1960 and will exist after we are all dead.

@MDavid,
"What I mean is that your prospects of being a housewife and mother would have been way, way better had traditionalism in marriage been the rule. You would probably already have a half-dozen children, and those children would likely be smart and been good neighbors. The world would have been a better place."

I agree. There's an EE from Stanford at my daughters private school who (fairly) immediately left her field so that she could marry and teach kids. You should here her talk about it. If our society didn't value degrees so much and insist that women have one she would have _still_ taught kids (at school no less!) and been bright and not wasted years doing something she obviously didn't like.

@Cane,
"I'm in agreement with your diagnosis, doctor, but your bedside manner will necessarily offend the patients most in need of your strong medicine.

Don't change."

And we so often agree Cane! I agree he has a point but I think he is overstating current female achievements. He's making sort of the opposite error of what he is arguing for. Men should "man up". In fact, I hate that this is used as a ridicule in so many androsphere circles. We grow into men by being told to man up. And yes, WOMEN, should tell us this. It helps us grow. However, that does not mean that the current situation is through the genius of female merit.

@Brenden,
"Yeah, but isn't the main premise of social modernity that untrammeled satisfaction of desire is the be all end all of life? Besides, women are flighty. Their "desires" change almost weekly. Using 'desire' as a principle of existence is a dangerous proposition. "

Well yeah. It shouldn't be the focus of all things, but I think this is where his argument is the strongest. It is _reasonable_ that a certain amount of attractiveness exists. It is also reasonable to expect that both sexes perform their respective duties because they will both get old.

ElectricAngel said...

@SP,

Getting women to pump out the babies between 18-25 doesn't give a man hypergamic status. It may create a sense of necessary dependency in a woman for a man but it no way guarantees a desire in the woman for a man.
I had actually moved the goalposts there. I am focusing on Iran's actions AS A SOCIETY; I'm starting to understand the Fourth Turning and its focus on the society/group over the individual. I suspect that the authors of that book are correct, and the current crisis in the USA (and Anglosphere, probably) will either resolve in greater social cohesion and common action, or the society will blow apart. This was be hated by independent-minded men more than women; I expect the latter to go along with status quo/consensus. It would not hurt Iranian men to up the Alpha, of course.

Suppose a young man is 25 and unmarried, can't the feminists argue that a man should marry whoever is allocated to him for the "good of the species".
Well, until the artificial womb is perfected, WOMEN are the constraint on reproduction, not men. Your scenario would never happen in a world with sperm banks, like the one we live in.

Innovation is great thing. China was full of innovation but lacked the supporting cultural infrastructure to make ideas happen. There is a lot of boring "gruntwork" in making ideas happen and we all know men full of great ideas who can't implement them. It's not because of the system, it's because these same guys don't do the grunt work. Women may not be innovative, but a lot of the day to day success in life comes from self discipline rather than innovation.

Yes, persistence ought to count. I think the whole focus on "innovation" is part and parcel of the youth-worshipping culture, torn from its roots in time. When I think about the changes in my own field over 20 years, it's astounding to contemplate. Most of it has been useless, but the eternal drive for the new pushes it forward. I suspect the gay marriage and women in college thing is a part of this, and when societies that pursue this path collapse for lack of children to support their inverted pyramid welfare schemes, the places like Iran that took a different path will expand to take over.

FWIW, I think your main point can be stated as "For every complex problem, there's a simple solution, and it's wrong." I would bet, having met quite a few (and they are extraordinarily pretty [probably because I was meeting people from the upper echelon of society]) Persian women, that this won't work.

Mike T said...

SP,

A lot of the success of women has come in the US directly through affirmative action lowering the barriers to entry and staying in the game. Many women have excelled mainly because the state through regulations, programs, etc. has set aside many of the natural behaviors and restrictions that would hold women back. For example, it is flat out illegal in the US for an employer to fire a woman who leaves her job for maternity leave at a critical juncture in her company's plans. There has also been a concerted effort to build up girls in the education system that has at best never been done for boys and at worst sometimes even comes at their expense.

It also doesn't help things that many companies fall all over themselves to get qualified women in positions that are routine for women. Around here (metropolitan DC), it is very common for women to get pushed into good jobs because some diversity nut wants them; those same diversity nuts also tend to be willing to pay women a premium they wouldn't pay men.

In general, I think you are right when you say that taking women out (like the Iranians are doing) would be affirmative action for betas. It would be sufficient to simply smash the affirmative action programs and other things which reduce the natural barriers to women "having it all" to force a reality check on us.

It doesn't help things, though, that our young men frequently have no role models. Even ending affirmative action might not be enough if young men don't have successful male role models. Those are hard to come by when the system is geared toward liberating women from "unhappy marriages." It's hard for a father to be a good role model when his wife can legally nuke the relationship over him doing stuff that 50 years ago no one would consider abusive toward his wife.

kurt9 said...

I agree with the social pathologist on this one. I also think it speaks ill of much of the so-called MRA. I am sympathetic to the MRA on one level, but am contemptuous on another level. I think that men do get screwed by the courts and family law in divorce. I also think that many more fathers want to remain in their kid's lives following a divorce than what the ex-wife will allow. These are all legitimate issues and I think there must be a better balance brought to the family law and court system that is fair and reasonable to both the fathers and the mothers. It is in these issues that I think the MRA should be supported on.

However, much of MRA has to say about the larger picture of male-female relations is, quite honestly, rubbish. There seems to be an attitude, implicit and often explicitly stated, that any man is somehow entitled to "owning" a woman. That any man is somehow entitled to sexual access to any given woman, as though women are not fully human with independent volition. It is this attitude that I am not sympathetic at all. I think in this regard, what of what passes for the MRA/social conservative community is composed of nothing more than whinny losers. I have no respect for such people at all.

I am no more sympathetic towards "beta" males than I am towards women who have been promoted through the affirmative action "peter principle" into positions they have not earned on their own merits.

I think the MRA/social conservative blog community is better off sticking to the immediate cause of reforming the courts and family law system.

chris said...

"He's better of spending three years at the gym than three years at university.

We are shifting from a dad society to a cad society. Patriarchy to Matriarchy. Long-term mating to short-term mating."

http://brainblogger.com/2012/09/27/gentlemen-prefer-brains/

A write up on this study (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/08/29/0956797612441004) said:

" Men who want to find a wife should heed the advice of the study’s authors and step off the corporate ladder and into the gym."


Case in point, WE ARE shifting from a dad to a cad society.

kurt9 said...

step off the corporate ladder and into the gym

Who says you can't do both?

Physical training, both weight training and aerobics, increases mental vitality as well, which will benefit your career.

Anonymous said...

SP,

You seem to have this idea that men can somehow "raise their bid" and make themselves more attractive to women at will. This is nonsense and it was rightly identified as such by F. Roger Devlin in his magnum opus, still the urtext of the manosphere. You would do well to re-read it:

http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sexualutopia.pdf

Sure, men can learn game and lose weight at great cost in terms of time and effort, but, for many men, this still may not make them attractive to women.

So, if we are going to continue to let the feminist revolution run its course, we will have an ever decreasing fertility rate in the developed world, ever more single motherhood, ever more men dropping out because the cost of self-improvement war outweighs the meagre benefits that can be obtained by most men, resulting in eventual economic and social collapse. Unfortunately, you, like feminists, seem to be blaming men for not stepping up and being men. Well, the real game changer has been feminism and it's wreaked havoc on western civilization.

The fact of women's high standing in western civilization today is a sign of our civilization's decadence. Feminism is incompatible with civilizational vitality.

I challenge you or anyone to name me one successful, vital civilization in which there was full gender equality or in which women were superior to men. You can't because history hasn't produced any.

Anonymous said...

So basically what SP is saying here is men should "man up."

I think the Manosphere response to that view is well known and documented.

You're ignoring the most primal force and the force that is the greatest motivator for men, which is sexual access to an attractive woman. The way society used to function before was to guide this sexual impulse into what was good for society by ensuring men who achieved were the ones who were granted sexual access to women through marriage. Now marriage is not necessary to get sexual access to women. And again thanks to feminism, women have more power and status, many men have less power and status as a result. And women by nature are far more choosy and discriminating about status than are men. Women mate across and over the dominance hierachy. More status and power for women means a smaller pool of men who those women will find sexually attractive. Good luck trying to build and hold on to a civilization based on those odds. You have no idea what you've tampered with. Sex and sexual access to women are primal forces. What you have in the West,thanks to feminism and the sexual revolution, is a return to the "natural" Darwinian law of the jungle when it comes to sexual attraction and power.. and when it comes to who gets access to the women. and in such a scenario, there are very few "winners." Furtheremore, these "winners" - whether men or women - are not necessarily the kind of men and women who build a healthy and productive civilization. For more, read this excellent piece by F. Roger Devlin:

Sexual Utopia in Power:

http://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sexualutopia.pdf

And all of this is simply based on the premise that feminism is about granting equal opportunity rather than what seems more and more obvious, which is that it is about granting more and more advantages for women at the great expense of boys and men. But let's not get into that and let's just assume it is simply about granting equal opportunity for women and equal rights, although I want to emphasize there is no God-given or instrinsic "right" for a woman to abortion whatever feminists might say. It could very well be that despite it being the "moral" thing to do, feminism is a disaster for society and for men. Remember that feminism and the sexual revolution are relatively recent social experiments and the verdict is not in whether they are particularly good for society. Certainly, they have proven to be demographically barren, and not particularly good for creating strong, resilient families, marriages or a strong, resilient society.

You might want to then consider that yes, perhaps "affirmative action for beta males" is indeed necessary to ensure most males have the incentive and desire to achieve. Or you might think we should wait for "natural selection" to work and breed out those undesirable traits men have that have accumulated through the ages thanks to oppression of women which prevented them for selecting men they find sexually attractive. But how long is that going to take? How many beta males and "creep" i.e., males who aren't attractive to women, have to suffer in the mean time and be denied sexual access to women? How many generations will this selection process take? And do you think a civilization can survive during this process? Men - yes even beta males - would rather watch a civilization burn and help bring it down then suffer through sexual rejection, sexless lives, and emasculation.

Anonymous said...

Also you seem to be against female promiscuity and seem to recognize how damaging this is to marriage and society.

And yet you seem to agree women should be given freedom.

Well, here's news for you. The social experiment of granting women freedom and rights has played out in the West, and what you see are precisely what happens when you give women freedom. You can see clearly what women want, and what they want apparently is to have lots of sex with multiple men (mostly through their favoured mechanism for having sex which is serial monogamy but not always) during their 20s, to slut it up, to focus on their careers and pleasure, and then maybe once they hit 30, to settle down and look for someone to get married to. But more and more women are recognizing marriage isn't beneficial to them, and don't seem interested in it as much as men seem to.

So feminism and granting women freedom and rights is precisely what leads to promiscuity and all the other social ills you like to rail against on this blog. Again, you might want to consider that restricting female freedom and women's rights is what is required to create the kind of civilization you seem to want. Otherwise, stop whining about female promiscuity and lack of stable, healthy marriages and all the other stuff you write about here and be prepared to accept those as the necessary negative consequences of female emancipation.

Anonymous said...

Roissy/Heartiste does a good job demolishing this typical "man up" shaming of men that SP seems to be doing with this post:

Charles Murray’s One-Sided Shaming

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/charles-murrays-one-sided-shaming/


I suggest you read the above and ponder it carefully.

kurt9 said...

The entitlement complex on display.

Anonymous Reader said...

Slumlord
All women are attracted to beta traits.

No. This is false. There are tens of millions of beta-trait men who could explain this to you in great, personal detail. If memory serves, this has been explained to you before, too, more than once.

Every woman is quite truthful when she says that she want's a nice guy. What she fails to mention though is that she wants a nice guy with alpha traits. A loveable bastard.

You have confused attraction traits with security/comfort traits. The "nice guy" traits are desired in men that women find attractive, those traits are not attractive in and of themselves.

This is a basic truth of male/female relations. That you cannot seem to keep such a fundamental fact clear in your head is interesting. It may explain why this posting is so ridiculous.

Because you start with a false premise.

False premise -> no meaningful conclusion. It's not even wrong...

Anonymous Reader said...

GKC replies to SP on the success of women in school:

No they aren't. My experience in school was they were advanced in an effort at fairness and where they achieved parity the discipline was destroyed. I remember my own failures here where we were group grading an English assignment. A girl did a terrible job and my friend and I were about to eviscerate her. Then she started crying. Our natural defense instincts kicked in and she was given a chance that no man would have gotten.

So she got what she wanted, when she wanted it. That's not success? It is a very common definition of the term. The system was bent to meet her wants - success. You and your associates bent to her tears - success, and lesson learned for you, clearly: submit to women's tears, no matter what. A lesson you obviously carry to the present day.

Men should "man up".

This much abused term traditionally has been used by men who are on the same team. Be it football (either version), long distance running, development team, factory floor, under the car in the dark fixing the brakes, or squad mates in the military, only a man's comrade, buddy, mate, etc. had the right to say that.

The persons now using this term - Hannah Rosin, for example, or Bill Bennett - are doing so on behalf of women. They are ordering men to cause harm to themselves, for the benefit of women who have nothing but contempt for them. They are telling men "Take one for the team - no, not your team, but for the other team. And that is why the term is generating such a response from men. I do not expect you or SP to understand this, I merely lay it out for the benefit of others.

In fact, I hate that this is used as a ridicule in so many androsphere circles.

See the above explanation. Or reflect on the fact that it's mainly being trotted out in the mass media by feminists and their White Knight toadies, in order to shame men into marrying sluts. Perhaps your ire is not directed in the appropriate direction?

We grow into men by being told to man up.

Told that by men who are on our side, who have our interests in common with their interests. We do not grow into men by being told to "man up" by aging, feminist harpies or gambling-addicted men who cannot see any bad behavior by women as mattering at all.

And yes, WOMEN, should tell us this.


No. The only woman who has that right is a young man's mother, and even she loses that right at some point in his maturation. You once again reveal your worshipful pedestalization of women with this. You wish for Big Mommy to be pleased at your efforts. A woman who would demand of a man, "Man up" is a woman displaying her control over him, and her contempt of him. Such a woman is in competition with him in some sense or other. There is no way she can be his team mate, unless she's under his authority, and then to tell him to "man up" is rebellion.

Any woman who tells a man "man up" does not have his interests at heart. He should avoid her as much as possible, from then on, forever.

SP, you can cheer for Team Woman all you want. It won't change the facts, such as the difference between Var(g) for men vs. women. And that variance is the real reason for "under-representation" of women in science and engineering. Not dat debbil Patriarchy.

Anonymous said...

@ Slumlord:

"Women have long ago realised that if you want a man you have to look pretty or put out."

Well, half true. If she puts out or looks pretty, she can get a man for sex, but not much else. She IMAGINES she can get the man if she is pretty or puts out, but what she in fact gets is sex. She needs to bring more to the table.

Slumlord: "Men seem to have a very hard time accepting the fact that being attractive to women is conditional to having certain qualities. A lot of the manosphere bleating against female hypergamy is a lot like fat women complaining against men's preference for thinness."

There are a couple of reasons for this.

(1) Most of these men have spent their entire lives hearing from every woman within earshot that "all I want is a nice guy who will treat me right". When they learn this is not true, they have to learn to replace it with the truth. IN short, old habits and thought patterns die hard.

(2) A lot of the railing against hypergamy is not so much to eradicate it, but to get people to understand it. Female hypergamy is one of the least understood phenomena in modern society. Quite simply, the average man and woman know nothing about it because no one ever talks about it. Looking at the damage that completely unrestrained hypergamy has done to American society, it's easy to see why.

deti

Lad said...

What many manosphere commentators fail to recognise is that the nice computer nerd is the male equivalent of the nice fat chick.

Apart from other posters highlighting the social benefits of computer nerdery vs the no benefits of obesity, I don't think the manosphere fails to recognize the equivalency much at all. Game is all about helping the computer nerd lose that metaphorical weight.

The main frustration is the hypocrisy and denial-- the women who swear up and down that computer nerd should just be himself and he'll eventually find the right match for his unique and special personality. Precious few men, even outside the manosphere, would tell that kind of lie to a fat chick.

Furthermore, status is significantly determined by culture, perception, and social factors. You can join a fraternity and get more female attention. You can pretend to be a celebrity and get more female attention. You can't pretend to be thin when you're not (except on the internet).

Anonymous said...

What I'm hearing is that almost everyone here agree's with a wicked tyrant A hole in Iran. we should next have our women cover their entire bodies face and neck in a black shaw.
that is a world I would hate. I love looking at women in tight revealing clothes.

this is a world for not only beta men but omega mainly. never gonna happen man the f up d bags

Alpha 1
peace

Toad said...

for the first time women were able to compete with men in society without restriction.

It's all quotas.

========
http://www.chron.com/business/article/EEOC-sues-Home-Depot-over-women-s-job-status-2018975.php

EEOC sues Home Depot over women's job status

The company is currently under two consent decrees, ... that require it to hire and promote women fairly. Home Depot paid about $90 million to settle those two cases.
========

men still overwhelming dominate the "hard" fields of knowledge

ie: the real work.

the fact that there are now more degree credentialed women than men is simply astonishing.

Quotas, subsidized tuition programs for women, dumbing down, fluff degrees like psychotherapist etc.

Heres a woman who attended college and has a Bachelor of Music.

She earns her living as a writer. She recently wrote a book. It is titled "Selected Unpublished Blog Posts of a Mexican Panda Express Employee"

Here is an excerpt from that book:
“i want to delete everything from someone’s computer except a giant microsoft paint picture of a dick that takes forever to load”

Ceer said...

You refute the early part of your post by saying "hypergamy is that is is relative to the woman's own ability and status."

Women typically view education, degrees in particular as status symbols. That's a permanent validation for her whether or not her degree is useful. Such a woman can be "taken down a peg" but only temporarily, as the degree will always be there to help her boost it back up.

Also, your view of men in comparison to women seems to suffer from selection bias. Particularly in reference to the fact men will tend to develop coping mechanisms on their own, while women are much more eager to talk about their problems. Women would go to therapy as a way to use their therapist as a sounding board to make sure they're on the right track. Men would go because they lack proper coping skills in the first place.

& The Revolution said...

This is a very incoherent post.

First you say this:

"Hypergamy simply can't be socially engineered away"

Then you say this (IN BOLD):

"The problem with female hypergamy is that is is relative to the woman's own ability and status"

You're saying two different things here about the definition of hypergamy and the nature of woman and their conscious desires and decisions while blaming men for all of it.

First, by the definition of hypergamic character you provide in the second bolded text, hypergamy CAN be engineered away precisely the way it is done in Iran--by denying woman professional opportunity. If hypergamy is relative to a woman's own social status and ability than denying her the opportunity for said social status WILL curve her hypergamic tendency. She will necessarily be placed on a lower rung of society so--based on the definitions you provided--she will then find many more men suitably attractive to her as life-mates and be more likely to remain in that union. I'm not advocating for this--simply operating within the constructs you have provided.

Second, you can't seem to make up your mind what hypergamy is. Is it innate or is it a function of environment? Nature or nurture? Both? You've already contradicted yourself as I've pointed out above and you try to cover yourself by including the nebulous terms "intelligence" and "ability" as a catch-all. How is it a man's fault if a woman is born with a higher IQ than him?

Is hypergamy a function of the type of brain-power one is born with as measured on standard intelligence tests or the S.A.T., a function of how good a job some woman has or both?

If it's solely the former, than in any pairing where the female has a higher IQ than the male--thru NO FAULT of the male or the result of him not having any "balls" (whatever the fuck that means)--then that marriage is destined to fail. If it's the latter than steps can be taken to curb it (the Iran method) and produce a well-matched happy union.

If it's both, than in any situation where the male--again, through no fault of his own--either is born with a lower IQ or suffers some life-change like a job loss, personal injury etc that lowers his earning power regardless of his level of education or personal drive, than that union is destined to fail and/or that male is going to be seem as a ball-less loser by you and the woman. You have no standards here. TO you, hypergamy is anything and everything, a function of both nature and nurture but all outcomes are a man's fault. Absurd.

You seem to presume that the reason males are allegedly not achieving in the manner you and the females would prefer (a premise I don't accept at all) is solely due to the fact that he doesn't have the ability. Just as you assume that all these females with all these degrees in all these well-paying jobs got there solely because of their ability. To the extent that this occurs, that's not the case at all. The world is NOT a true meritocracy. In many cases, women get hired because they are women--by both other women and men who prefer the soft sexless harem of the office to compensate for the fact that his wife castrated him years ago at home. Got it? I can't believe you don't understand this.

You seem to presume that the silly paper pushing jobs most of these women hold--especially in government employment but also in marketing, pr, hr, and anything else non-value added--are just too challenging for males. Wrong. The truth is that the males have no problem doing these jobs and may have applied for these jobs. Most likely, they were passed over for the (not quite as smart or strong or physically stamia-ed) chicky chick cuz she smells better and everybody likes looking at her body, or in cases where a woman makes the hiring decision b/c that guy like all guys just reminds the woman of the husband she castrated long ago in her own home.

& The Revolution said...

"Now, suppose we take a bright girl and deliberately hamper her education and deny her economic liberty in order to make her dependent on a man. Now, suppose we introduce her to some buffoon who has finished at Harvard."

In truth, this DOES happen. But to the extent that is does happen the trend is in the reverse--woman are the buffoons with the artificial status and men are having done to them what is being done to the women in Iran. And you not only can't see it, but you seem to have no problem with it so long as men are being kept down.

Many men find other ways to achieve though. Not that you can see that.

"In my experience, women today seem to have more "balls" than men do. They seem more driven, more ambitious and can make stuff happen. They seem to cope better with adversity than many of my male patients. With most women, life goes on. The kids need to be fed, the uniforms washed and the bills paid. Many men flounder. My readers may not like this but they are my objective observations."

You DO understand that far more women than men are currently on high powered psychotropic medications for depression and generalized "anxiety" than men are, don't you?? Those are not my objective observations. Those are the facts.

"What many manosphere commentators fail to recognise is that the nice computer nerd is the male equivalent of the nice fat chick."

No. Not even close. The computer nerd has a great mind geared toward specific interests that the economic marketplace can capitalize on. His only fault is a little social awkwardness which can be cured with practice. And if it can't, who gives a fuck. That's the woman's loss.

The slothful fat chick is characterized by a total lack of self-control and most likely a totally toxic personality. She's also probably a entitled slut. No amount of social practice makes her attractive to men. See the difference? Of course not.

Look, if you hate men or hate yourself fine. Just come out and say it. But don't try to couch and camouflage this hatred in some dopey social science posting. Honestly, how did you get YOUR job??

Anonymous said...

brothers, No one will respond to my post, as assumed. I am a troll or whatever, that is my point.
It is weak that no body will "man up"
I can say that cause we are on the same team!

as in "football" Give me 5 reasons u guys support a woman Hating country such as iran NOW!

that is the exact weakness that a woman sees inside of you.

please release this hate u have inside for the opposite sex.

they cans sense the hate and contempt.

If you demonstrate character and the power to stand behind your words a woman will be attracted to that trait. you have basically just seen the reason u fail with females WEAKNESS.

The second u can adore her presence and be supporting without submission. she will share with you a piece of her pie.

this hate is only hurting yourself

I beg of you please don't undermine the free country (For men and Women) I know and love.

Now If there is A set of nuttz anywhere! let him post three reasons or Five
why Iran has got it figured out.

And I will stand down

Alpha 1


Martian Bachelor said...

Not being a regular reader, I should probably Man Up and be the strong, silent type... But when did the precious darlings go from being Germaine's Daughters (7/06) to the (now) strutting Masters of the Universe, declaring that men aren't good enough and need to improve themselves - like both "Game" and Feminism do?

Jacob Ian Stalk said...

This post, or rather the ideology behind it is close to the root of all evil - no offence Herr Doktor. Darwin, quite understandably, never intended his theories to be used prescriptively like this. In fact he went to great pains to point out after the publication of "On the Origin of Species..." that there was great moral danger in doing so. Yet, here you are, another Darwinist, declaring his theory fact and projecting it forward as a prescription for human behaviour, all the while neglecting the fact that stating the "fact" of hypergamy does not make it right.

Being a doctor gives you credibility, yet the idea you seem to be promoting by this is that because hypergamy is an instinct, it is therefore not to be considered wrong, knowing full well that a human person is much more than the sum of his parts.

Now, at the risk of casting yet another preciosu pearl before swine and also perhaps stating the bleeding obvious, I want to state that a human being is differentiated from his human animal counterpart by his greater desire to prosecute things as they ought to be than to be controlled by things as they 'are'. If indeed the 'facts' upheld by the the lowing pseudo-scientific herd could be said to 'be'. This ability and desire possessed in the higher thoughts of men is what we who prefer the being side of humanity like to call civilisation. On the civilised side, then, hypergamy is a conniving bitch that needs to be slapped down.

Clearly, men of stouter heart than the garden faeries of the "manosphere" - i.e. Roosh et al. will never understand the moral imperative behind this, but thankfully men of stouter heart do. These men, if they need a label, are the men who know in their hearts the problem is an eternal one and that they must devote their lives to its solution. This, for the preservation of the personhood of our sons and grandsons. Dalrock, Elam, Vox, Rollo, Price, Harlan, Berkimer, Zed are the saints among us, as are all the men and women they lead, support and sustain in this noblest of fights. They are the machete wielders holding back the choking feminine jungle.

It's interesting that even as the feminine jungle feeds on the stillborn carcases from that morally degenerate Darwin-Nietzschean union - otherwise known as Modern Science - its surviving but degenerate siblings are still staring hungrily at its rudimentary teat as though the milk of human kindness will flow from it. It conjures up a mental image that would be hysterically funny if it wasn't so utterly hopeless.

Dr. Jeremy said...

I would be inclined to agree with your statement:
"Calls to take away the rights of women are really nothing more than an affirmative action program for weak and beta men. Desirable men don't have a problem getting married."

However, your premise that women have merely been "liberated" to "compete with men without restriction" is incomplete. Women have not merely been freed on an equal playing field with men. Rather, they have been socially and legally encouraged, empowered, and supported. They have been forced and driven to succeed. Men, in contrast, have been mocked, held back, demotivated, and disempowered. Helping women up while holding men back is not an equal competition. It is a lot more than "liberation".

Being a social pathologist, I respectfully assume you know about the profound effect that these roles and norms can have on human behavior. Therefore, I ask you... Could this drastic change be the result of changing roles and norms for men and women? When women are now cast as heroes and CEOs, while men are rapists and losers, is it any wonder why most people just go with it? Most are just sheep following the shepherd of social influence. So, let us not make the fundamental attribution error...and blame men for their failures, or women their successes, when neither deserve them. Social change is driving this...both men and women are simply following the new roles.

Beyond that, I do agree with your assessment. There are tons of mewing beta men that want affirmative action because they can't get a women without it. Furthermore, the 1950's model of male/female roles was such a system, stacked in men's favor. That truly wasn't fair to the talented, powerful, and intelligent women of the time.

But again, what we have today is past "equal". It allows the below average women, with affirmative action, to outperform and subjugate men instead. It didn't balance the scales...it subjugated and invalidated men as women were previously subjugated. Is it any wonder then why men of today are acting and performing incompetently like women of the 1950s? They are in the same role/situation that made women perform badly and kept them down. So, why do we expect something different from men?

What we need is to have a fair set of rules. We need everyone to stop trying to "fix" those rules so they are sure to win. Once that happens, then the attractive will find each other...and the unappealing will be left to settle for each other.

Yes, there are some of us men who can excel even now. More could make it work if they learned and tried harder. But, it truly is not an equal playing field. So, for a true social change - both men and women have to be told they are equal, laws need to be equal, then we'll see who is really alpha/beta out of both genders.

Erano said...

" He has to be smarter, wiser, and more challenging than the woman. "

Why would a man date and marry someone like himself but a bit more stupid and bit less challenging? Where is the pleasure in that? Wouldn't a man want a complete opposite that would compliment things he lacks in himself and vice versa - fill the flaws of a woman, i.e., smart woman and strong man. They both can do more things together than a smart man and a bit less smart woman. This example, of course, is simplified, but I trust you got the idea.

Anonymous said...

Women don't have a right to 50% of the jobs in fields where half the qualification is being immune from being called a "creep"

"Taking away rights from women" = demanding that women not be permitted to lie, cheat, whore, and falsely accuse their way to "success." Giving rights to men means not letting a "white knights" pile onto the affirmative action system.

Just about everything critical in society requires the expertise of men. There is hardly any critical task that depends on the female, except motherhood.

Women don't have the right to be socially entitled whores. It's incredibly ironic to accuse those who want to get rid of affirmative action for women of actually supporting "affirmative action" for beta men.

The reason we will never have success is because of people like SP who can see so much of the problem but when push comes to shove the idea of a successful "daddy's little girl" charms them, the idea of a daughter subject to another man's son sickens them, so they sell out the male sex. This is a form of insanity.

Anonymous said...

"Desirable men don't have a problem getting married."

This is a very stupid comment. It's tantamount to blame unemployment on laziness. It doesn't take much to shift an "undesirable" man to being a desirable one. It doesn't take much to reduce the number of suitable women for men who in past societies could have married someone with something like their level of intelligence and sexual experience.

You would never say "desirable women have no trouble getting married" and expect anyone to take such a comment seriously.

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, there is an abundance of over-educated, unmarried spinsters in Iran. I should know, one of them is practically my best friend online. She's a chemistry PhD. She knows she should have married when she was young.

The Iranians recognize the grave social problems their little experiment with feminism has caused - demographic problems. They are trying to take some reasonable steps to deal with their excessive numbers of unnecessarily highly educated women.

J.M. said...

@alpha1

I don't know who suggested Iran would be a model to follow (of course that shithole cannot be an example to the West), but one thing is true: Since women started to vote, the welfare state started to grow, along with public UNSUSTAINABLE debt. If you don´t believe me you can look in Google for the scientific paper regarding this pattern in the U.S. and U.K. and that model can be easily extrapolated to the rest of the western world. By the way, alpha1, for an alpha, you sound like a beta, of course I like to look at women in skin-tight clothes, however worshipping them or qualifying them as strong and independent just for being women when just a few (1% at most) really are those things is really sickening.

"The reason we will never have success is because of people like SP who can see so much of the problem but when push comes to shove the idea of a successful "daddy's little girl" charms them, the idea of a daughter subject to another man's son sickens them, so they sell out the male sex. This is a form of insanity."

I might not agree completely with you anonymous but I can see that such a disease really exists, specially detectable amongst men who "train" their daughters to be almost as strong as they are, effectively ensuring their daughters will never be happy unless they are lucky enough to snatch a billionaire mercenary and those who shudder at the thought of their daughters being effectively dominated by a man (aka husband).

By the way SP, if you think in the past there was such a thing as affirmative action for beta males, just shows that you may know a lot about psychology but not much about history. If anything, BETA MALES IN THE PAST DIED EARLY DEATHS. This is confirmed by the fact that only those able to fight successully survived, and only 40% of all males in history ever get to reproduce. Nice guys is an aberration of the last 2 centuries.

Anonymous said...

slot games can of conditions, including screening the tax financial obligation, the companionship's representatives said they couldn't encounter the demands. [url=http://www.onlinecasinoburger.co.uk/]online casinos[/url] online casino It is not gorillas in the gold? http://www.onlinecasinotaste.co.uk/

Jack said...

SP, another digression. Sorry I can't help it.

"The aeroplane is like a woman. To get the best out of her you have to seduce, not rape her."

Great quote. On two occasions many years apart I flew with a pilot of the same generation of the man that this quote is attributed to.

The plane was a Bonanza V-tail 'Doctor Killer' as some call them. He connected with that plane as if it was an extension of himself. Subtle throttle adjustments as he put the plane through its paces, banking to show me the geologic characteristics of the terrain below.

AnonymousYouth said...

Hey S.P.

Your analysis of this situation is brilliant based on certain assumptions that hold true in the West, but not in Iran. Consequently your analysis falls short in my humble estimation.

In the East there are few "beta men" in the Western sense. Every man is brought up to believe that he is to lead a family and that is his proper place. His wife is to submit to him and raise children. Iranian women are notoriously independent minded and difficult and consequently throw a lot of weight in the marriage as compared to other Eastern cultures (e.g. Arabs and Pakistanis). However, overall the concept of marriage is still very traditional in Iran.

The part that you are missing is that becoming an engineer is not simply a social status boost, which may act as a crutch to satisfy female hypergamy but falls short in the actual marriage itself. The idea is that for a woman who is an engineer, it is insufficient to simply find a man who portrays alpha characteristics (which can be found in plenty in eastern societies.) The issue becomes that now that she is an engineer, it is socially looked down upon for her to marry someone with a lower income or of a lower social/educational class. In other words, it is not the alpha traits that are missing, but the difference in social status that is the problem. Add the heavy involvement of family in the marriage process and you have a problem.

If a man with alpha traits proposes to an Iranian female engineer, but he is not an engineer, his chances of being accepted by the woman's family is drastically decreased. If a man with alpha traits and an engineering job proposes, he will get accepted. If a man with alpha traits proposes to an Iranian girl but neither of them are engineers, his chances are not hurt. That is the proper calculus. The engineer thing acts as a preventative factor for women in upper IQ category, and this is more important than the promotionary benefits of a man being an engineer.