Firstly, I want to thank all the commentators to the previous posts, even those who disagreed with me I'm sorry I wasn't able to reply to everyone, but as usual, it's been a busy week.
My contention that the the success of women in contemporary society may be due to their superior character traits (at least when it comes to work and self organisation) seems to have struck a raw nerve with many commentators. Many commentators seem to want to explain away the phenomenon either as a product of affirmative action or as a result of deliberate discrimination against men.
Personally, I don't buy it.
One of the advantages of family medicine is that you get to see families dynamics in action over an extended period of time. Initial impressions are either refuted or strengthened by repeated observation and after a while you become a good judge of people's character.
Whilst I agree that the world has become progressively populated with feminist harridans, it has also become more populated with less masculine men. As far as I'm concerned, whilst many women may have unrealistic expectations of future mates, in my opinion, there is a degree of legitimacy to the claim that there is a dearth of good men.
Simon Grey disagreed with some bits of my previous post but I've got to agree with him when he says:
My contention that the the success of women in contemporary society may be due to their superior character traits (at least when it comes to work and self organisation) seems to have struck a raw nerve with many commentators. Many commentators seem to want to explain away the phenomenon either as a product of affirmative action or as a result of deliberate discrimination against men.
Personally, I don't buy it.
One of the advantages of family medicine is that you get to see families dynamics in action over an extended period of time. Initial impressions are either refuted or strengthened by repeated observation and after a while you become a good judge of people's character.
Whilst I agree that the world has become progressively populated with feminist harridans, it has also become more populated with less masculine men. As far as I'm concerned, whilst many women may have unrealistic expectations of future mates, in my opinion, there is a degree of legitimacy to the claim that there is a dearth of good men.
Simon Grey disagreed with some bits of my previous post but I've got to agree with him when he says:
Here, I think, is the most important part: most men simply do not deserve good wives, and thus good marriages. Most men are not attractive. And not simply in the looks department. Most of the men I have met are weak, back-biting, narrow-minded losers. Many of the young men I know have no goals or direction in life; they seem content with dead-end jobs, Xbox and porn. I sincerely hope they avoid marriage.Many of the older men I know are not much better. A good number of them are gossipy, narrow-minded old fools who would rather engage in petty power struggles than work together in the best interest of others. They seem like a bunch of bitter old bitches.Even a good number of middle-aged guys that I know can be characterized as losers. They are overly deferential to their wives, they don’t act as fathers to their children, they allow themselves to be disrespected by everyone. They are losers, through and through.And so, while I agree with the MRA crowd that most women would make for terrible wives, I also agree with Slumlord that most men make for terrible husbands. Quite simply, most people in this world are self-absorbed cowards, too afraid to live up to their potential, and too weak to suppress their self-destructive tendencies. No wonder their marriages and relationships turn cancerous.
Testify brother!
Simon is reporting from America what I see here in Australia.
Now, there seems to be this notion in the manosphere that women today are too choosy, and perhaps they are; but there never seems to be the recognition that a lot of men are no-damn-good. And perhaps, just perhaps, the reason why women are passing them over is simply because they are too repulsive to commit to.
The question I want to pose to the manosphere is, what constitutes a good man? I mean, is a man deficient in sex appeal a good man? Is a man with sex appeal but no work ethic a good man? Is a cultureless man a good man?
Now, there seems to be this notion in the manosphere that women today are too choosy, and perhaps they are; but there never seems to be the recognition that a lot of men are no-damn-good. And perhaps, just perhaps, the reason why women are passing them over is simply because they are too repulsive to commit to.
The question I want to pose to the manosphere is, what constitutes a good man? I mean, is a man deficient in sex appeal a good man? Is a man with sex appeal but no work ethic a good man? Is a cultureless man a good man?
Let's conduct an interesting thought experiment.
Take a look a Cigstache. (Hat tip Roissy)
Let us suppose that:
Cigstache is fertile.
She is committed to having a family.
She rejects feminism.
She goes to Church and believes in God.
She is a virgin.
She wants to be a stay at home mother.
She knows how to cook, clean and mend.
She is not a spendthrift.
She is happy to put out whenever.
She clearly possess all the moral virtues of a good wife. Would we consider any man that refuses to commit to her too choosy? Is Cigstache a good woman who has been passed over?
The problem is that many betas don't recognise that they are the male equivalent of Cigstache. Sure, they may posses many moral virtues and provider capability but what they lack is sex appeal. Is such a man a good man?
I suppose what I'm asking is what constitutes the minimum standard of masculinity; the point at which female rejection is justified. When does a man become a loser?
I suppose what I'm asking is what constitutes the minimum standard of masculinity; the point at which female rejection is justified. When does a man become a loser?
260 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 260 of 260„For all their smarts they ultimately got reality wrong--Therefore they are idiots. Not just your plain run of the mill idiot, but truly evil cunts.”
Intellect has a quality of its own, which has nothing to do with intentions. Sartre, Marx and their ilk certainly didn’t lack intellect or cognitive abilities. They were culture warriors who wanted to bend reality to their dogmas, not the other way around. Nobody really gives a damn about the truth anyway. Were the inquisitors of the Church any different? You can attack their intentions and question their intellect in any way you want, it’s your blog and it’s a supposedly free country. But you cannot draw conclusions about their intentions from their intellect, or vice versa. Then again, the issue here isn’t Sartre, Marx or any other ideologue. Let’s put that subject to rest.
„By feminine virtues, I get it to mean that she is also sexually attractive?”
Of course not. You know that very well. Attractiveness isn’t a virtue, it’s a condition, largely defined by genetics. Feminine virtues are pleasantness, nurturing, agreeableness, charity, submission, loyalty and so on. I won’t have to list them for you, will I?
Let’s move on. My theoretical question is the following.
Let’s take a woman who has an MMP value of, say, 5. She displays feminine virtues, she tries her best to remain in shape etc. She wants to become a good wife and a mother. But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that not only does she fail to find a suitor who’s a 5 or a 6, but she gets labeled a bitter, whiny man hater and an entitled bitch whenever she dares to complain. She is told, in no uncertain terms, that it’s all her fault. What would you say to her? Would you tell her that she nevertheless has a moral obligation to adhere to those virtues and try to do more to attract a potential husband?
„There seems to be this whole line of thought amongst some of the commentators that beta males, who provide, manufacture and invent, are somehow wronged when women aren't compelled to mate with them. It's you guys who implicitly arguing that betas deserve mates.”
If we and our descendants are to live in technologically advanced, stable, relatively safe societies, then yes, all those abhorrent, lame beta males will need to be given some incentives to keep working. Sorry!
The idea that beta males deserve mates is not a bit more outrageous than the idea that single women deserve the tax dollars of beta males in the form of AA etc. so that they can have economic „independence”.
Höllenhund
"You can try to refute this, but no matter what you say, I'm not buying into it."
What an excellent debater.
Höllenhund
"I'm not saying anyone deserves anything. It seems to be you guys who have assumed that position, arguing that there is something wrong with women for not instinctively flocking to beta males. There seems to be this whole line of thought amongst some of the commentators that beta males, who provide, manufacture and invent, are somehow wronged when women aren't compelled to mate with them. It's you guys who implicitly arguing that betas deserve mates."
Definitions:
STM=short-term mating
LTM=long-term mating
PB=pairbond=LTM between two people
3 issues seem to be coming up in this argument.
1) With respect to lack of effort in socio-economic realms
As women have gained more financial independence they discount a man’s resource provisioning to the extent that it’s not greater than theirs.
i.e. if she can earn $50 000, a man earning $80 000 isn’t bringing $80 000 to the table for the purposes of a PB, he is brining only $30 000. If the man brings only $40 000 he isn’t bringing anything and she might as well pursue STM with a higher status/genetic quality male who won’t commit rather than commit to a man who will provide for her less than what she can provide for herself single.
Thus as result of this, if the woman is at the 50% income level, that de facto rules out the lower 50% of men being able to attribute mate value to themselves via economic provisioning. Ability to economically provision is one very major limb of male long-term mate value. Without it, there’s not much more reason for a woman to enter into a PB to begin with.
Now, while the ability for women to provide for themselves has changed, the effort required to achieve certain levels of economic provision hasn’t changed. So men are finding themselves in the situation that in order to pursue a LTM strategy/PB with a female they need to expend much more effort in order to bring more resource provisioning to her then she otherwise would be able to earn on her own. What has effectively happened is the mean level of economic provisioning men need to overcome to attract a woman for a LTM has increased. Furthermore, while the effort required to achieve the levels needed to have a PB has increased, the quality that men get in return for that effort hasn’t increased, in fact it has often decreased, as by being able to provision for themselves women are able to and often do slut around and thus decrease their long-term mate value.
So basically, not only do the structures of society de facto rule out large numbers of men for PB’s due to an increased mean for economic provisioning to contribute mate value to men, men as a whole are also expected to work harder for lower quality women for PB’s. In short, the effort required has increased but the value in return for that effort has decreased.
Finally, those men who are able to earn over the new increased mean are also disincentivised from feminist inspired family law which allows the female to breach the PB but still retain the incentive for having entered into the PB to begin with, that is, his resources. She often then uses these resources to supplement or subsidise her pursuit of a STM strategy. This is known in the manosphere as divorce-rape or divorce-theft and also as marriage=cuckoldry.
cont below...
2) With respect to the deservedness of socially proscribed higher status for men
So what’s the big deal with all this? We’re all social darwinists here. A shifting mean upwards for economic provision just means men should work harder, if not, then they are unfit and don’t deserve to mate.
That’s all well and fine, but realise this. Women’s current ability to economically provision themselves is dependent upon a high standard of living, a high standard of living of which is maintained and only capable of being maintained by male investment in society. Furthermore, property rights, that is the exclusive possession to economic goods is only capable of being enforced by men, this also requires male investment in society.
Thus what you have here is effectively a bubble. That is, women are able to economically provide for themselves, that ability to provide for themselves is dependent on male sexual enfranchisement, but by being able to provide for themselves women sexually disenfranchise most men. So by allowing women to economically provide for themselves you destroy the conditions of their ability to provide for themselves. This will basically mean lowered standards of living, increased crime, violence and instability in society and potential risks of territorial/military invasion by more patriarchal countries.
3) With respect to women being happy with a socially proscribed higher status for men
You have argued that by preventing women from providing for themselves or forcing women to marry beta men than women won’t be happy. But I put this to you, and I mentioned it in a previous comment on one of the earlier posts.
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.
Thus social equality between men and women, or the granting of equal if not greater social dominance to women over men, de facto makes men unattractive to women and de facto turns those men into beta men. If social dominance were granted by the sovereign to men over women, specifically, to husband over wife (the whole biblical “thy wife must submit to her husband” type deal), then women would find those husbands attractive and they would in their eyes be alpha.
cont below...
Addendum
One thing which I think is a problem for large complex societies is that we are able to separate and mask the appearances of causes and effects from each other for generations upon generations. For instance, if in a state of nature, a tribal chief tried to force social and economic equality between men and women, which would subsequently result in the sexual disenfranchisement of the majority of the men while also requiring them to maintain the safety and security of the tribe, such a form of social organisation would collapse immediately as all the men would say “fuck this” and either abandon or attack the tribe. But with a large civilisation such as ours, even though we are effectively doing the same thing, the realisation by the men of the tribe takes much longer to occur and the effects of their realisation take much longer to emerge. But they will.
On the whole women are going to have to decide what they want. A society built on (unsustainable) STM or a society built on (sustainable) LTM. One built on flings or husbands. Cads or Dads. Feminists will obviously pick STM, but that’s just cause they are high in traits that allow them success in a STM society and low in traits that allow them success in a LTM society. (i.e. mate success for a woman in STM society depends on her ambition, intelligence and hardwork, but mate success for a woman in LTM society depends on beauty and chastity, (There’s a reason all feminists are ugly and or slutty).
For an idea of what STM vs LTM societies are like, have a read of this summary of the book the 10 000 year explosion. It’s very enlightening.
http://the10000yearexplosion.com/human-cultural-diversity/
Whoops my bad, I should've put prescribed not proscribed for issues 2 and 3.
That is;
2) With respect to the deservedness of socially prescribed higher status for men
3) With respect to women being happy with a socially prescribed higher status for men
Slumlord:
Your argument seems to be that men need to improve themselves for the greater good, or because it is the right thing to do, or simply because they are men and that's what men do.
Well, no. Men in Western culture improved themselves for the promise of something better, not simply for its own sake or to create a better society or because the government expected it of them. Men were incentivized -- you improve yourself because if you do, there will be something in it for YOU. And most of the time, that meant your own property, your own wife and your own children.
This is one of the pillar foundations of Western capitalist thought -- the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. Many women have decided their pursuit of happiness is chasing alpha cock. Your Christian Vargas girl has decided her pursuit of happiness requires her to get a beta provider AND alpha sexual attractiveness, and she needs to get it in one man. That's fine. She's on a fool's errand, unfortunately.
The beta providers are not fit for her because in order to become providers and able to support a wife, they have to play by the rules, work their asses off and allow HR departments to neuter them. They don't have time for cool vacations or travel or work out or lift weights or going out to sarge because they are too busy doing all that self-improvement and playing by the rules and being affable and friendly and good, and earning money so they can be the providers like Vargas girl says she wants.
deti
cont'd.
The alpha arseholes are not fit for Vargas girl because in order to be the tingle producing men they are, they have to screw lots of women (or at least attempt to). In order to do that they have to have good. tight Game. That requires a lot of practice. They also have to work out, lift weights, and dress very, very well. They need to travel and live life a bit, so they have good stories to tell the women they meet so as to pique their interest and keep their hamsters entertained. They have to sarge consistently and constantly refine their Game. To get women for sex (which is mostly what the player wants), he doesn't have to put forth a lot of effort in being a provider. (In fact, being a provider works AGAINST the player, because providers are boring, predictable, and unexciting.) So if the player doesn't have to be a provider to get the desired result and in fact being a provider hinders him, he won't become that.
She loves the player because he's HAWT, but the player isn't going to stay with her. He'll be on to the next girl as soon as Vargas starts hassling him or bothering him or he just gets tired of her. And he can't or won't spend money on her. He won't commit to her.
So what she wants is for the alpha arsehole to commit, after which she'll lose the tingle. Or, Vargas wants the beta provider to get some alpha, after which he will refuse to invest and commit, seeing as how there's not much in commitment for him.
Fool's errand. She needs to pick one and learn to accept what she can get. Just like men have had to do over the past 60 years or so.
deti
And I would point this out too:
At least Vargas girl has a choice: sex up hot alphas; or marry an unattractive beta provider. Either way she benefits. If she goes with alpha, she gets hot sex, validation and affirmation of her beauty, but no commitment. If she goes with beta, she gets provision from a loyal, good man for the rest of her life (until she is done with him); but she just won't get tingles.
The most enterprising sluts sex it up until they are up against The Wall, then "find Jesus" and marry a beta. They get to have their cake and eat it too. Better yet, they get to have their cake, have a church going beta make and provide the cake, and then get paid to eat it.
Most men have no choice. They get nothing, no matter how hard they work, no matter what they do, no matter how good they are.
deti
GBFM [love him or hate him, he is brilliant] agrees that Game is antithetical to Christian principles.
He recently wrote a hilarious parody of the Beatitudes in which he took a shot at Dalrock and Vox Day for their Game leanings. Here it is:
The Beatitudes
Lk. 6.20-23
3 ¶ Blessed are those who fuck her good: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 ¶ Blessed are they that ignore her beauty: for they shall be comforted. Is. 61.2
5 ¶ Blessed are the irrationally self-confident: for they shall inherit the earth. Ps. 37.11
6 ¶ Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after two women in the kitty: for they shall be filled. Is. 55.1, 2
7 ¶ Blessed are the ones who never say “i love you” first: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 ¶ Blessed are they that keep her guessing and never marry her: for they shall see God. Ps. 24.4, 5
9 ¶ Blessed are they that make her jealous: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 ¶ Blessed are they which are persecuted for too much boldness: 1 Pet. 3.14 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for Game’s sake. 1 Pet. 4.14
Amen.
Nominally Christian bloggers who extol the virtues of Game need to get off their soapbox and recognize that in order for Christian civilization to thrive, we need to expose the grave error that is feminism and not put our faith in the Gospel of Game.
"It's not her being "too picky", its just that the man-quality out there is crap. She wants to find a morally good and sexy man. In our current dating environment they don't exist. For a woman, there seem to be a whole bunch of half-men either alpha arseholes or provider beta's. She'd prefer to go alone rather than go home to some beta provider whom she feels no attraction to. Years ago, when she lacked economic independence, she wouldn't have had that option, rather, to avoid starvation or the nunnery, she would have married some provider beta and lived in a sexless marriage performing her "marital duties" on demand. It wasn't this bleak but subtlety seems to elude a lot of the commentators.
I'm not saying anyone deserves anything. It seems to be you guys who have assumed that position, arguing that there is something wrong with women for not instinctively flocking to beta males. There seems to be this whole line of thought amongst some of the commentators that beta males, who provide, manufacture and invent, are somehow wronged when women aren't compelled to mate with them. It's you guys who implicitly arguing that betas deserve mates."
Let us be very very clear about something. Being a morally good man and being a sexy man are in contention with eachother.
Being rich is sexy. However, it is unchristian. And most of the ways to become rich (lying, cheating, stealing, etc) are especially unchristian.
Being a asshole is sexy. It is certainly not Christian.
Lying to a people is sexy. It is certainly not Christian.
Having lots of premarital sex (being pre-selected) is sexy. It is certainly not Christian.
I've practiced game and scene its effects. Sexy = being a bad person. No way around it. Being a good person will always lower your sexiness value.
As for betas deserving mates of course they do. Giving betas mates is why your sitting in a tempertature controlled room and typing on the internet. Without giving betas mates you'ld be living in a third world shithole. Betas build this world. And they built is largely because there were promised women if they did.
The kind of societies that don't give betas mates tend to become very bad very unchristian societies. This is what you are advocating for.
Beta = Loving your fellow man and serving God.
Alpha = Attempting to dominate your fellow man and all of creation
When you read about Satan he is positively Alpha.
I think you can mix alpha and beta. The problem is that it's a tightrope. If you're too alpha, the girl thinks you're an asshole. Plus if you're alpha, sex is more widely available and commitment is unnecessary. If you're an alpha who adds beta, she loses attraction.
If you're too beta, you are unattractive to all but unattractive women. If you're a beta trying to add alpha, women think it is inauthentic.
Women decided collectively on a wholesale rejection of assortative mating. Women have told us that they will not commit or marry unless there is physical, sexual attraction. Now it's tingle and alpha attractiveness uber alles. Women have made their collective beds and will have to lie in them now.
deti
Sexual attraction is not a justice issue-it's a force, like gravity that has to be accounted for in our daily affairs. Pretending like it doesn't or shouldn't matter is like ignoring gravity, with the same predictable consequences.
If female sexual drive is not "just" but simply exists why are we reordering all of society around satisfying it? Why should these desires, identified as amoral at best, be given more weight then things we know are just (marraige, family). Let us remember that women do no want marraige or family. They want sex with alphas first and foremost above all things. And since by mathematical principal only a tiny percentage could marry an alpha then by principal this means they prefer satiating their lust over marraige and family.
The good christian man loves God and operates with an understanding of reality. He caters to the reality of hypergamy within the context of God's laws.
But God doesn't like hypergamy. If he did he would have endorsed polygamy which is the natural system of hypergamy. Most of Christian tradition and advice is all about restricting hypergamy. It's mostly female sexuality that the Bible warns to control.
Morever, we know that women desire non-Christians. Dark Triad (read sinful) traits are sexy. Bad Boys are, get this, actually bad people. Women's physical attraction is to those who can reproduce the most, and being evil increases your chances of reproduction.
---
Also, how dare you quote C.S. Lewis when he constantly warned that "being in love" was a terrible thing to base Christian marraige on.
Women are, by and large, biologically unsuited for civilized life.
Höllenhund
@Höllenhund
"Women are, by and large, biologically unsuited for civilized life."
Civilization is an outcome of women's encouragements, and men's reason and actions. However, almost always behind every criminal-sort is a woman giving a thumbs-up, and sharing joyously the loot and all it brings. All that matters to women is happiness. They find it through men; how men provide it? Matters not.
Men desire happiness also. But more often than women, men gain this through logical thought and action. Philogynistic men, regardless of intelligence capability, unknowingly, value happiness for women over civilization, because this feeds their own egotistical happiness. They simply aren't masculine enough to recognize their ignorance and the subsequent effects.
It's hardly struck a raw nerve, you've merely used tendentious arguments that most men would require some evidence-based reasoning for; hence the objections. They've seen this repeatedly from white-knighting bigots such as Glenn Stanton and Mark Driscoll and are surprised to see the same line of argument from you.
Your personal SUBJECTIVE interviews with women (which you insist on thinking as objective) are used to back up your own preconceived ideas; that modern men are feckless losers. Glenn Stanton and Mark Driscoll would undoubtedly agree, but that doesn't make them valid per se.
There has been widespread affirmative action in the public sector in favor of women. This is a matter of record. There has been direct and deliberate discrimination against men in fields as diverse as the military, fire-fighting and ANY public sector construction contract (just look at the physical requirements needed for men as opposed to women in the military and fire service. If women were held to the same standards as men, there would be almost no women).
Here's another experiment. If the women you're interviewing have superior character traits, ask them where they work. Is it in the public sector or private? If in the private sector, is it in a field entirely dependent on government largesse? If modern women are superior to men, why aren't they in the private sector proving it independent of the subsidized teat?
There will indeed be consequences to a world of men brought up by single mothers and a public education system that loathes them on sight, but that hardly speaks to innate superiority for either gender. If men seek to kick back and enjoy their 20's in clubbing, bong-hits and video-gaming (Ian Ironwood's Puerarchy), who can blame them? Women have been brought up to despise them whatever choices they make, so why not enjoy themselves? It's better that than being lined up for divorce and financial ruination. If I was under 30, I'd be doing the same thing.
Women complaining about men is hardly new. To use your anecdotal interviews as evidence of anything more than that places you firmly amongst the white-knighting hypocrites; desperately doubling-down on young men to resurrect a vision of the past that cannot possibly exist contemporaneously with modern feminism. Most young men are smart enough to see through that delusional lie.
Slumlord just hasn't lived it. He's a high status man from an older time that managed to marry a good woman.
Can we stop with this garbage? You don't have to be harmed directly by the current status quo to have not suffered indirect harm and want to do something about it. This is a form of what has been called in list "beta bleating".
Game and associated theories imply that women are more peer oriented. If they are then it would logically follow that the current norms would induce women to behave in patterns that would make them unhappy. Heck, I heard essentially that at a happy hour the other day. A normally good girl and solid girl friend to another guy I know tried to up her SMPV by talking up her sex life in front of her boyfriend when I ignored her. Part of the discussion was based on social expectations. It made my inner beta want to cry.
Women, if they think something is expected of them, will go to near suicidal lengths to squire it. See Elizabeth Duffy's latest slightly-pro-feminism article (another solid if deluded gal).
@Deti,
They say they want relationships. Why do you believe them? Because they SAY they want relationships?
Because anything else wouldn't make _any_ biological sense and because we know that historically they have had stable loving relationships with men that are less than Genghis Khan. Yes there are bad women and the current society feeds them and makes them grow but it also tilts those on the edge between good and bad, which is a sizable portion of the total society, into the bad category.
For the same reason I went after Darwin for being too lenient on women I think many here are being too lenient on men. And no, not all men do want to adjust. I have a cousin I love dearly who may have gone dark triad out of laziness (we don't talk about it much anymore) rather than going through the more arduous task of increasing his social standing from where it is.
There is a crisis, but its rather deep and wide. Dalrock has talked about the delay between when women indicate that they are interested in men and the time it takes men to rise to that interest. Men are so demoralized (which is in itself unmanly) at this point that it may be the gap of time is even expanding and that could indicate a very long recovery cycle.
Deti, Anon and ASDF
The hate is strong.
What else do I have to say. We fundamentally disagree on either the nature of women or female sexuality. You have your opinion, I have my clinical experience of thousands of women. I suppose they're equivalent.
Look, you're free not to come to my blog if you disagree with my opinions. Live and let live I say.
The intellectual position that this blog holds with regard to sexiness are those elaborated by Mike T earlier on in the thread.
The intellectual position that this blog holds with regard to women is that they are God's creation and therefore an overall good. Sure, the standard in the west has dropped abysmally, but I am a philogynist not a misogynist or a feminist. I. Like. Women.
Man love has never been my thing. If you get my drift.
@Pirran
My patient worked wholly in the private sector. Here in Australia there is very little affirmative action with regard to women.
GKC
Thanks for the support. A lot of the arguments are quite rightly "garbage". I don't mind fair criticism or logical argument, but comments that women are unsuited for cilization would betray a certain lack of objectivity. (Yeah, I know, I've been brainwashed).
Slumlord:
Disagreement isn't hate. I am interested in the truth and this is the way I tend to reach it. I am not interested in argument for its own sake.
I think women are God's creation and that they are good. Pointing out their flaws and their self-inflicted injuries, and gently suggesting how they can avoid inflicting injuries on themselves, is not hate.
I like women too. I don't want to see them suffer. Too many women are suffering too much now. I think most women's expectations are way too high. Vargas girl's expectations are completely unreasonable.
deti
"Sure, the standard in the west has dropped abysmally, but I am a philogynist not a misogynist or a feminist. I. Like. Women.
Man love has never been my thing. If you get my drift."
Yes, the implication is that if you are a man, and you don't find women superior to men, you're likely a gay man.
"A lot of the arguments are quite rightly "garbage". I don't mind fair criticism or logical argument, but comments that women are unsuited for cilization would betray a certain lack of objectivity. (Yeah, I know, I've been brainwashed)."
One poster made the one comment "Women are, by and large, biologically unsuited for civilized life". Do the self-serving exaggerations and distortions ever end?
The Social Pathologist,
"I've got a degree. I'm an authority dammit."
I've got a degree too dude. Plenty of em. And I'm actually in the sexual market and in the generation you think you know things about.
This stuff about hating women is a non-sequiter. I hate what women do. The actions they take. Including the kind of society that has been the result of women's actions.
If you choose not to see it that's your problem. Ignorance is bliss. But if a guy keeps telling me the sky is brown instead of blue I'm sure not going to believe him.
Awww yehhh, academic support for manosphere ideas.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-012-9596-y/fulltext.html
Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends
"Back in 1960, it was difficult to get sex without getting married or at least engaged, and so men married early. To be sure, this required more than being willing to bend the knee, declare love, and offer a ring. To qualify as marriage material, a man had to have a job or at least a strong prospect of one (such as based on an imminent college degree). The man’s overarching goal of getting sex thus motivated him to become a respectable stakeholder contributing to society.
The fact that men became useful members of society as a result of their efforts to obtain sex is not trivial, and it may contain important clues as to the basic relationship between men and culture (see Baumeister 2010). Although this may be considered an unflattering characterization, and it cannot at present be considered a proven fact, we have found no evidence to contradict the basic general principle that men will do whatever is required in order to obtain sex, and perhaps not a great deal more. (One of us characterized this in a previous work as, “If women would stop sleeping with jerks, men would stop being jerks.”) If in order to obtain sex men must become pillars of the community, or lie, or amass riches by fair means or foul, or be romantic or funny, then many men will do precisely that. This puts the current sexual free-for-all on today’s college campuses in a somewhat less appealing light than it may at first seem. Giving young men easy access to abundant sexual satisfaction deprives society of one of its ways to motivate them to contribute valuable achievements to the culture."
@SP,
And it's not like I even agree completely with you but I at least understand the position and agree with it a bit more strongly than Darlock's. I disagree with both of you when it comes to (t)radition which I see as _largely_ good.
Hollend's comments are just silly. Yes, civilization is largely male. It is true that without men civilization would collapse. It is just as true that without women civilization would _die_ of old age (and not be nearly as fun).
Again I turn back to the recent article I believe by Pierce about having daughters and the total and embarrassing level of vitriol that found its way to the comments. I became aware that as much as Roissy may be right about women, I'm not too keen on the men either. I'd gladly keep my daughter away from most of the men on that forum as they seem to have developed the manly virtues of an overripe cucumber.
I also despise this assault on the concept of men "manning up". That the androsphere has turned this into a phrase of hatred is flat out staggering. What, we are supposed to sink to the lowest common denominator? Women can't _ever_ point out improvement?
I belonged as a child to a very rigorist religious group. At a very young age (around puberty) I was expected to lead women if there weren't other men around. Even in that environment the women gave advice and I'd of been an idiot not to listen to it. Mind, because of the setting they were very polite. There was a lot of, "I think you meant to do this dear," but I have more than a little feeling some here would not of accepted such correction.
And note, after said advice civilization did not collapse.
Hollencunt is here just to bitch and argue. Not worth paying attention to.
It's funny how he thinks that he knows what he's talking about. It's cute when old farts get senile.
I swear, I haven't met a prissier man.
LOL. My old pal Svar has shown up. How's your crusade against godless sodomites and horrible anti-tradcon MRAs going, dear sir?
I stand by what I've said, and I didn't intend it to be hyperbole. The evidence is all around us. The more complex, prosperous and civilized a society becomes, the more dysfunctional and pathological the behavior of women in that society becomes. Look at Japan, Taiwan or South Korea, which have the lowest fertility rates on the planet and women are completely stressed out of their minds because their hypergamy is in overdrive. Or look at the USA, the most prosperous society we have ever known, where a record percent of women are hooked on antidepressants, stressed and burned out, their hypergamy endlessly frustrating them. Women simply cannot function well in any society that is more developed and complex than the African savannah.
Höllenhund
No one cares what you think. You know nothing about women because you've probably never been around one. And your silly movement, the MRA is doomed to failed because it's full of loser untermensch like you.
Keep deluding yourself.
@The Social Pathologist
"Here in Australia there is very little affirmative action with regard to women."
Ehhh?!?.....Ummm, well we can start with the following (hint: the clue is in the name)
"The Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act 1986"
I believe it's now referred to as the Equal Opportunity Act, but the intent can be seen at the outset. It's been adopted (with enthusiasm) by the public sector in Australia and particularly by the Universities (endless "Women in Leadership" programs) and through the adoption of EMILY'S lists programs to bully parties to accept more women (hence the ALP's affirmative action quota, boasted about on the link at the end).
There's a delusional mindset and then there's outright denial of reality. How, exactly, have you lived in Australia for the last 25 years and not noticed any of this? ALL of my Aussie relations have (not to mention countless commentators), but I admit that's merely anecdotal. As opposed to your objectivity, I suppose:
"You have your opinion, I have my clinical experience of thousands of women. I suppose they're equivalent."
Not at all testy and apparently immune from observer bias or hypocrisy (something you accuse your critics of endlessly).
Here's the link, BTW:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44746.html
Apparently some people care about what I think, Svar, because they keep responding to my comments or at least complain about me when I'm not around. That's just one difference between us. You're just a run-of-the-mill misandrist tradcon beta smartass. Why don't you go back to Alte's blog where you can endlessly commiserate with your fellow tradcon ilk about the evil, bitter MRAs? Oh wait, I forgot - you got banned even there. LOL
Höllenhund
"No one cares what you think. You know nothing about women because you've probably never been around one"
Indeed, Svar!
From the Lemming thread.
Hollenhund opines. "Um, no. Based on what I’ve read, "
It's all about what he has read..
No real life experience.
He has never related a single anecdote in all of his comments that I have seen.(on various blogs).. Which is quite unusual, because most people DO relate anecdotes from time to time..
That Otto Weininger is one of his favourite poster boys, says it all, really.
You're a dumbass, Kathy, as usual. Either your reading comprehension skills are nonexistent, or you're biased, or both. I was responding to Slumlord's claim about one common opinion in the Manosphere involving women's sexual choices. As you may know, the Manosphere is basically a loose collection of blogs and websites that, you know, people READ, because the only thing you can do with written material, besides ignoring it, is to read it. So unless one personally knows some Manosphere bloggers, which I don't, the only way to form a view about the commonly held opinions of the Manosphere is to READ what they write.
Why the hell are you hanging out on these blogs anyway? Don't you have obligations as a SAHM, or whatever else you are, besides trolling Manosphere blogs? Your husband should be sending me money because I sometimes temporarily free him of having to listen to your nonsense.
Höllenhund
Hahaha! Looks like the little bitch got butthurt! Just because I don't think some wanker who's "experience" with women involves watching porn and reading stupid shit means that he has anything important to say, I'm a beta misandrist. Yawn. I don't really care what some 50 year old loser-bitch says or thinks.
Btw, even though I'm soooooo beta, I actually get women, do you? Hahaha!
You actually think that I care about the MRA. It's full of useless losers like you. Not bound to succeed in the real world. Get over it, Hollencunt. You're irrelevant. Damn, you're such a prissy little number. Go put on a skirt and dance your ass out on to some MRA site where you can bitch all you want about the wimminz and the mean smartass tradcons and let the real men talk.
You tradcon useful idiots are rather predictable.
Höllenhund
"You're a dumbass, Kathy, as usual"
What do you expect when my husband keeps f**king my brains out Hollhoney? :D
@ Hollenhund
I'll let you have the last word. You need this more than I do.
Noticed that you couldn't answer my question, though. Figures.
@Pirran
Do you live in Australia?
@SP
"Do you live in Australia?"
Cornish Father, Aussie Mother, currently living in the UK although I've resided in Australia in the recent past.
What, exactly, does that have to do with it or any of the points I made?
Well, Pirran, I was born and bred in Oz and have lived here all my life and what you have related has not been my experience at all.
And it was obvious to me that you did not live in Australia from what you said.
SP is right when he says there is no real affirmative action for women in Australia..
Providing one link about ball busting viragos in parliament does not prove your argument at all.
There is just no affirmative action at the grass roots level for women.. Women are just not interested.. You have the odd few, who are careerists and want to match it with the guys, but by and large most women JUST want to marry and have a family..
Most women I know are married and most have part time jobs.
None are interested in high flying careers or want to enter parliament.
None gives a toss about Emily's list either.
@Pirran, Kathy
Kathy is on the ball about the situation here. Australia is a pretty sexist (in a good way) country. There is a small group of feminists trying to push their cause but most normal women want to keep a good distance from them. This inflames the feminists no end.
Years ago the Royal College of Gynaecologists had an active program promoting women into the field in order to redress a percieved gender imbalance. Guess what? They had to stop the program because not enough women wanted to join and the feedback from the patients was that they preferred the men.
Years ago the Labour party had a great song and dance with regard to have an equal number of men and women in politics in Australia. It hasn't been achieved an no one except the femmos gives a stuff. I'm afraid your knowledge of Australia is more theoretical than practical.
@Sp @Kathy
"And it was obvious to me that you did not live in Australia from what you said."
"I'm afraid your knowledge of Australia is more theoretical than practical."
You know, a part of me always expects the left, pseudo-right (and feminist white-knighters pretending to be social conservatives) to change their tune, to rise above the fray and actually engage people in debate, but sure enough you resort to puerile denial and sticking your fingers in your ears (plus ca change) because I'm now back in the UK.
What, exactly, did I say that made it obvious that I never lived in Australia, Kathy? (news to me, as I only returned 4 years ago). Ahhh yes; nothing of course. Hence the reason you didn't make the point before I stated I was now back in the UK. But never engage people when you can sit smugly in ad hom denial. Oh yes, I only included one link as an example, not to rest my case (or take up too much space). I think most took that for granted.
By the way SP, how are the poor, diminished little women in medicine now? I seem to remember the percentage had been rising continuously for decades and is now heading up to 40%. Indeed it seems to have increased by nearly 10% in just the last few years. But that's just between me and the AIHW. Being currently resident in Australia, you would obviously know better. I suppose when members of Rad Fem Hub chose Australia to stage one of their vile conferences supporting Valerie Solanis (before A Voice For Men exposed them), they were expecting only beer-swilling blokes and demure damsels to attend.
Seriously? God, SP, I thought you were better than that. I'm afraid your denial of reality is more practical than theoretical.
"There's a delusional mindset and then there's outright denial of reality. How, exactly, have you lived in Australia for the last 25 years and not noticed any of this? ALL of my Aussie relations have (not to mention countless commentators), but I admit that's merely anecdotal."
That comment above made me doubt whether YOU had indeed lived in Australia, yourself for the past 25 years, because if you had, you would surely have noticed in your interactions with women that most of them don't give a hoot about affirmative action.
It is just as SP says, a small bunch of feminists pushing their barrow.. Most women are JUST not interested..
I had to laugh at this.
"I suppose when members of Rad Fem Hub chose Australia to stage one of their vile conferences supporting Valerie Solanis (before A Voice For Men exposed them), they were expecting only beer-swilling blokes and demure damsels to attend."
Most average women here, have never heard of the woman, let alone care about what she and other feminists think!
I remember columnist(and former solicitor) Janet Albrechtsen, sadly opining about a year ago,that at a Sydney girls' high school, the girls were asked whether they were feminists. Of 90 girls, 30 girls put their hands up.
Food for thought.
@Kathy
"That comment above made me doubt whether YOU had indeed lived in Australia, yourself for the past 25 years, because if you had, you would surely have noticed in your interactions with women that most of them don't give a hoot about affirmative action."
Curious, many of my relatives (and myself) had any number of experiences of women more than happy to push the affirmative action bandwagon when I was in Aus (and quite nakedly hostile about it to boot), but just keep those fingers in your ears. Only your experiences are valid. Or something.....
I know I'm late to the party...
But I can't agree with you enough on this post, Slumlord.
I'm one of those loser males.
What can I say, I just don't think society has anything to offer me at this point. I'm not enough of a hedonist.
I'm not interested in gaming women for casual sex. I want marriage 1.0 and family. But that's gone.
I'd rather enjoy myself with loser activities than work hard and only get marriage 2.0 with a used up older woman as my reward.
Oh my goodness! Amazing article dude! Many thanks, However I am encountering troubles with your RSS.
I don't understand why I can't join it. Is there anyone else having the same RSS
issues? Anyone who knows the answer will you
kindly respond? Thanx!!
Here is my page :: how to get rid of man breasts
Having read this I believed it was rather enlightening.
I appreciate you spending some time and effort to put this content together.
I once again find myself spending a significant
amount of time both reading and posting comments. But so what, it was still worth it!
Have a look at my web page : diablo 3 guide
Thanks for one's marvelous posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you could be a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will come back down the road. I want to encourage you to ultimately continue your great job, have a nice day!
My web-site ; skin brightening
This is a topic that is near to my heart... Thank you! Where are your contact details though?
Here is my website - songs to get her back
Hi, I do believe this is an excellent web
site. I stumbledupon it ;) I will revisit yet again since i have book-marked it.
Money and freedom is the greatest way to change, may you be rich and
continue to help other people.
Here is my homepage ... chamecon.com
whoah this weblog is excellent i like studying yοur articles.
Κeeр up the great woгk! You already know,
a lot of indіviduals are ѕeаrching rounԁ fог this informаtiοn, уou could help them greatlу.
www.tinnitus411.com/remedy-for-ringing-in-the-ears/
Also see my webpage - www.tinnitus411.com/remedy-for-ringing-in-the-ears/
Hі, its pleasant artiсle regarding media ρгint,
we all undеrstаnd media is a wonderful sоurce of facts.
Stop Ringing Ears
My page: Stop Ringing Ears
Ηaѵe you eveг thought аbout creating an еbook or guеst authοгing on othеr sitеs?
I have a blog based upon on the samе information you
disсuss аnd would rеallу likе to have you
ѕhare some ѕtorіеs/іnformаtion.
Ι knoω my readeгs woulԁ appreciate уour work.
If you're even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an e mail. visit the following web site
Why visitors still make use of to read news papers when in this technological world
everything is accessible on net?
Look into my webpage :: http://sisysis.com
This text is worth everyone’s attention. How can I find out more?
Also visit my website: http://youthaflame.net/
My website - website
This post is good and fruitful in support of all new Personal home
pages related web programmers; they must study it and perform the
practice.
my web page: website
Μagnificent goоds from уou, man.
I've understand your stuff previous to and you are just extremely wonderful. I actually like what you have acquired here, really like what you'rе ѕtating anԁ thе
wау in which уou saу it. You maκe it enjoyable and you still сare foг to keeρ it
smart. I cant wait to rеad fаг more from you.
This is really а trеmendous ѕitе.
just click the up coming internet site
Great artiсle! Wе will be lіnking to this pаrticularly great post on
our wеbsіte. Κeep up the gooԁ writing.
www.tinnitus411.com
my page - www.tinnitus411.com
Post a Comment