Friday, January 10, 2014

Fops.



The manosphere, particularly its MRA component, likes to put the blame on our current sexual dysfunction squarely onto women. I've received a lot of criticism in the past for pointing out a lot of men are to blame for the current predicament as well. It's my contention that while feminism is a social poison, one of the other pathogens of the West is the failure of masculinity.

Augustina's touched upon this theme in her comment:
Our wedding night wasn’t horrible, but it wasn’t that great. As I said, neutral. I could work up a desire for him but it wasn’t there naturally. Immediately, our young marriage hit rocky shoals, because that’s just life. I immediately got pregnant and had difficult pregnancies which did nothing to help our sex life. He lost his job. We moved several times, across the country and in three different states. We ended up living with my parents. This did nothing to raise his sexual attractiveness to me. Hypergamy? What hypergamy?

Flash forward fifteen years or so. I had finally had it. I wanted to be the good Christian wife, and be submissive to my husband. But there was nothing to submit to. He didn’t lead. He drifted. It was like being on a ship, but with no captain to guide it. And the waters are full of icebergs, rocky shoals, submerged reefs, and vast stretches of the doldrums. It was terrifying to have my now large family on a ship with no one to navigate these waters.

He was passive, hesitant, didn’t lead as a father should, couldn’t discipline the children, and still couldn’t support his family. I was forced to make every decision, to consider our options with no input from him. I would wait for his input, request his input, but never got it. 
One of the reasons why Augustina's comment resonated with me is because I've heard it all before.  After you've worked in a GP (family physician) for a while and accumulated a group of steady patients, people relax with you and like to talk about more personal details. Women love to complain about their husbands, however, the most frequently complaint I get is the one Augustina articulated. I rarely get complaints about all the other stuff. Sure, some complain about their husbands bad habits, snoring or excessive weight but what they most complain about is him "acting like a child". What's become more worrying though, as time has passed, it's not just the married women that are complaining about their husbands but increasingly, girlfriends are complaining of this type of dissatisfaction of their boyfriends as well.

The manosphere nearly all agree that there has been a contemporary deterioration in the "quality" of women, particularly with regard to their femininity, however what the mansophere, particularly the MRA types turn a blind eye to is that there has been a deterioration in the quality of masculinity as well. Our men have become women and women, men.

Augustina's complaints about her husband revolve around what the the medical profession calls a loss of "executive function" and it appears to me that as women mature it is this characteristic that becomes very desirable in a man. Now, in her case, the loss of function seemed to have an underlying medical basis, and I see quite a bit of this amongst the seriously depressed, however, what I'm seeing is an increasing number of younger males who, despite being healthy, have very poor executive function. 

I grew up amongst men who were children and adolescents in the post-WW2 carnage of Eastern Europe. They literally had to have their wits about them in order to survive and it was apparent this "training" in their early lives did them well later on. They may not have had intellectual qualifications or social airs and graces but they had their shit together. They could do anything. Slaughtering an animal, fixing a car, disciplining children, home repairs, amateur metalwork, cooking if necessary and so on. They also loved a fair fight. Tough, resilient and "street smart" they had buckets of executive function and would look upon the younger men, raised in more comfortable times, as weak and unresourceful.

Executive function is one of the core attributes of masculinity. Unlike theoretical ability, executive function aims at the achievement of practical results. The ability to impose your will on circumstances is one of the marks of a successful man and one of the most attractive features mature women find in men and a man without it is profoundly unattractive.

Executive function is itself composed of a collection of other human attributes. There needs to be some practical knowledge i.e "street smarts" in how to achieve goals, there has to be industriousness and ability to stick at a task, tenacity in order to face opposition and prudence in know when to act appropriately. Clearly, there are genetic components to these domains of human behaviour; some men are born natural leaders but it's also clear that environment plays an role, and the current cultural-social-political environment is profoundly hostile to it's development. Genetics may set limits on "leadership expression"and executive function but it' s environment which fosters its growth.

Executive function needs a Darwinian environment in which to thrive and develop but our society has become less Darwinian with time.  For example, the social welfare state, protects men from the consequences of their action, so failures (Aspy's, I don't mean the genuinely sick or incapable) just limp along without needing to put any effort into their life. (Big problem in Europe with its massive social welfare state) Men end up being grown "mummy's boys" protected by the state instead of their family.

Prolonged prosperity and wealth also poison its development. Firstly, by wealth providing a buffer between stupid action and consequence and secondly, by providing a secure environment in which thinking about survival becomes unnecessary and executive function thus atrophies.  Witness the effect that loss of employment has on unionised workers who "expect a job" to be there, never ever considering the fact that their job is due to the consequence of some evil capitalist's executive function.

Thirdly, the socialist/egalitarian cultural undercurrent in the West, manifest in so many law's and day to day cultural habits, push away at the man who legitimately tries to assert himself. As Mencken said, the worst crime in Democracy is not to assert your superiority but to prove it.  Thus mediocrity thrives and excellence is quashed.

Fourthly our society's excessive love of comfort and morbid fear of violence contributes to this atrophy.  Executive function is primarily involved with handling of life's adversities. The school bully is proof that evil exists in the world. The question is how to tackle it? Our current system is so aghast at violence that it tends to blame both aggressor and victim when he justly fights back, teaching them that violence doesn't work. Yet history shows that violence does work and passive kids tend to remain passive in the hope that the "system" will protect them.   The state wants to assert a monopoly of violence but it would appear to be that the state needs to leave some room for "limited private violence" in order to encourage the development of masculinity and executive function. 

The bleating, by women, that there are "no good men left", should not be dismissed so easily by the manosphere or explained away by the "pickiness of women". Sexual attraction is a pre-wired response largely determined by genetics. If women are finding the average man repulsive it may be due to the fact that society has turned Joe Average into an aberration of nature.

78 comments:

Matthew W Cain said...

Agreed. Men and women deserve each other. I think regaining, or approximating your manliness, is an interesting side effect of swallowing the red pill. Our fathers and grandfathers have neglected teaching us how to be men. It is too bad that so many men in the sphere stop at attracting women and don't pursue the nourishment of their manliness for the sake of manliness. There was a time when men loved being men because they were men. The sphere loves acting like a man in order for the approval of women. Not the same thing at all.

Anonymous said...

That's what comes of single mothers raising boys (and the lack of strong, male role-models today in general): young men who never had anyone to teach them how to be a man. Ultimately, this is another one to lay at the feet of feminism.

MarcusD said...

I sometimes wonder if the anti-male tendencies of certain institutions in the Western world have been designed in such a way as to encourage men to accept the jettisoning of gender roles entirely.

I've seen a number of comments from feminists saying that they're "all about equality," and that they want to help men by doing away with gender stereotypes/identities (and that the aforementioned anti-male tendencies are a result of gender stereotypes).

Part of me wants to let them have their way in order to show them how wrong they are, rather than trudge on with constant complaints.

Zorro said...

"I've received a lot of criticism in the past for pointing out a lot of men are to blame for the current predicament as well. It's my contention that while feminism is a social poison, one of the other pathogens of the West is the failure of masculinity."

Hey, Peanut. The "failure of masculinity" was brought on by feminism.

Read No More Mr. Nice Guy, by Dr Robert Glover.

Then think HOW our school system got so feminized, and WHY the boys are failing.

And learn what etiology is all about.

Failure of masculinity. That's like shelling half the blame for murder on the corpse.

Kathy Farrelly said...

"The "failure of masculinity" was brought on by feminism."

Zorro? But who was responsible for the enablement of feminism?

Women make up roughly 50% of the population.. And, well, they are just not smart enough or resourceful enough to have gotten this far on their own.]

They certainly had a leg up , here.

Aquinas Dad said...

Being in the position I have chosen (Catholic theologian) one thing I repeatedly point out is that I receive roughly equal complaints of 'there are no good men/women left' from both sides. For every young man who tells me he 'can't find a good Catholic girl to marry anywhere!' I get a young woman coming to me claiming 'there are no good Catholic men left!'
When they approach me on the same day in the social hall of the same parish it descends into farce.
My current attitude is 'a pox on both houses' - there is blame enough for all involved. Poor ideas of what they want, poor ideas of what they have to offer, ridiculous standards for all involved, a refusal to communicate clearly, and a lurking fear of every step in the process - I see them on all sides.
Of course, it makes those who aren't playing that game stand out so much more starkly; the daughter of a friend who focused on cooking, sewing, and got a vocational certification in book keeping then married at 21 to a military man who was openly proud of remaining a virgin until his wedding night, for example. It is almost as if men and women are divided into two large camps, those who get it and those who don't, with little tribes (PUAs, Vegan feminists, etc.) scattered around the periphery.

candide3 said...

If you know lots of such stories, you might have a handle on the distribution of ages of these executive-impaired men. Are there, for example, many of such in their 50s or 60s, or is it much more prevalent in younger men?

MarcusD said...

Being in the position I have chosen (Catholic theologian) one thing I repeatedly point out is that I receive roughly equal complaints of 'there are no good men/women left' from both sides.

As Slumlord noted, "our men have become women and women, men." Should it be surprising that such statements would be made? Feminism set out to destroy gender identities. Welcome to the future. That said, there's more to it than that (and I'll have a post on it in the future).


openly proud of remaining a virgin until his wedding night

Was the "daughter of a friend" also a person who could claim the same? A good number of men are wary of divorce risk, and that's a major risk factor (e.g. N>0).

Anonymous said...

The state wants to assert a monopoly of violence but it would appear to be that the state needs to leave some room for "limited private violence" in order to encourage the development of masculinity and executive function.

The state seems to get all the "executive function" it needs in closed, carefully controlled, organizations like the army, police, and university and government bureaucracy. They don't seem to need it in the general population at all unless it is in those groups that informally help uphold their dominance such as nasty PC protesters who attack non-PC targets loathed by the system (e.g., militants like Femen disrupting church services).

MarcusD said...

I think this is worth linking: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/08/the-absence-of-masculine-influence.html

Zorro said...

"But who was responsible for the enablement of feminism?

Women make up roughly 50% of the population.. And, well, they are just not smart enough or resourceful enough to have gotten this far on their own.]

They certainly had a leg up , here."

Yeah, Sugar Tits. It's called The Vote, and you idiots should have never been granted it.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Candide3

I work with a very interesting demographic. Essentially, a large group of my elderly Eastern European patient's still carry with them the culture of pre 1960's Europe. Another large group of patients are elderly native Anglo Australians who are also stuck a "bit in the past" and my third demographic is contemporary Australians.

Are there, for example, many of such in their 50s or 60s, or is it much more prevalent in younger men?

Yes, these men exist in all age groups and cultures, but what's interesting is the response of these women to these men is generally dependent upon the age and cultural group of which they're from.

Despite their cultural differences, nearly all the women married to such men are unhappy in their relationships but the more traditional their culture, the less likely they are to leave their husbands.

Traditional culture kept people together literally by social pressure but it did nothing to ensure the "bonding" quality within the marriage.

The sphere loves acting like a man in order for the approval of women.

Most of the sphere is trying to get laid, so yes the approval of women is necessary--at least in this domain--unless you approve of rape. Acting in such a way to facilitate the biologically wired desire of women is simply to take account of reality. The Christian needs to understand that this mechanism was designed by God and therefore a Christian male who cannot elicit this desire a woman may have some faults with him.

The difference between the good Christian Girl and the town slut is not in the men that they desire but in the level of control over their desires. Both girls find the omega unattractive.

Brendan said...

Excellent post, Slumlord.

To me, what we're witnessing is the rise of "straight" faggotry in place of masculinity. It's everywhere: from the guy playing a video game, to the one masturbating to porn on his smart phone, to the one glued to the TV watching sports, to the one trying to emulate the promiscuity of the "gay" faggotry -- a lack of masculinity, an embrace of passivity, and the pursuit of one's own desires and pleasures, which is the essence of faggotry.

When most men are faggots, most women are not going to be attracted to them -- goes without saying. And most men are faggots because they have not been raised by men or male relatives to become men and not faggots -- and the responsibility for that lies with fathers, of course, but also with mothers who either interfere with or completely obstruct/decouple the father from children. Plenty of blame to go around both sexes for that, but the bottom line is that raising boys into men requires fathers and male relatives -- otherwise you will raise a faggot and not a man (*whether attracted to girls or not).

=====

Ultimately, it's men's fault for this mess. That's clear. Feminism would have gotten nowhere, either in the late 19th, early 20th, or late 20th, without support from many, many men, especially many powerful men -- because women had no institutional power at the time at all -- men did. So, yeah, men created this. Women whined and moaned and bitched, as they generally do about most things in life, and in this case the men in power gave in, and that's why we are in the mess we are in -- a lack of male leadership, a failure in vision, and giving in to what the women wanted (Sound familiar? See Genesis. It's been the key flaw of men since the very first one -- we have a weakness for women and tend to want to give in to what they want -- a flaw which led us into an even bigger mess than feminism, for sure).


The Social Pathologist said...

@Zorro, see Brendan's comment. Sometimes the murder victim is partially responsible for their own death.

@Brendan, Kathy, Aquinas Dad.

Feminism seems to have exerted its corrosive effect on masculinity principally through its effects on sexual mores and by the blurring of gender distinctions.

This is a big topic but I feel it had a huge leg up from traditional Christianity. Our sexual polarity is manifest in our "fleshiness" and Christianity's continual downplay of the flesh, could easily be interpreted as thinking that the body does not matter. Our "spiritual equality" as "brothers and sisters" in Christ downplays our fleshy limitations and thus opens the door to omnidimensional "equality" in real world society.

I think one of the big time bombs in Christian theology was the tradition of viewing the flesh as bad. Feminism and the sexual revolution were powered on the psychic reaction to this entrenched Christian tendency.

candide3 said...

@Slumlord

Sure, I don't doubt such men can be found in any age cohort. What I was asking was, is this phenomenon more-or-less uniformly distributed across the age cohorts or whether it is skewed somehow.

Zorro said...

"Sometimes the murder victim is partially responsible for their own death."

Then it isn't "murder."

When you pull your head out of your delusional religious ass, the world will make far more sense to you.

The Social Pathologist said...

When you pull your head out of your delusional religious ass, the world will make far more sense to you.

Hey, I ain't the guy with the conspiracy theory.

Toad said...

SNL: The Adventures of Miles Cowperthwaite

Miles Cowperthwaite: It having been determined by my benefactor that a term of service at sea would make a man, I accordingly left Pinckley Hall in the company of Captain Ned, and put out from Bristol aboard his ship The Raging Queen.

Captain Ned: Thank you, Mr. Spunk. Gentlemen, we have on board a young man whose name is Miles Cowperthwaite! And I have promised his guardian to teach him the man's life at sea! To show him man's ports, such as Key West and San Fransisco! I expect him to be treated manfully!

Captain Ned, I learned from my shipmates, was a very manly, virile, manful person, and a firm believer in strict discipline, corporal punishment, and nude apartment wrestling.

Captain Ned: Now, men, I run a mans' ship. I will run it in a manful and masculine way! I will tolerate no men under my command who act in such a way so as to discredit their manhood and manliness! Do I make myself clear?

Toad said...

They could do anything ... amateur metalwork

So if I learn blacksmithing and make replica armour for the Society of Creative Anacroism, I'll have something to impress the chicks with?

The Social Pathologist said...

So if I learn blacksmithing and make replica armour for the Society of Creative Anacroism, I'll have something to impress the chicks with?

It's a start.

Anonymous said...

Well it's a bit difficult to learn what authentic masculinity or what being a functional man is when one is raised in a broken home with a single parent, usually the single mother who victim blames everything on "deadbeat" or nonexistent fathers.

Nature abhors vacuums, thus most fatherless children substitute and adopt "masculine" virtue using modern media and contemporary role models. Both totally unsatisfactory in my experience.

I did try to find masculine role models, but it is difficult when most are Beta wimps or PUA alphas who are unavailable.

Just look at the African-American community. Do you really blame them for growing up in a community where its 70% out of wedlock?

The question is if God is holy and just, is he going to wait until Polygamy to be legal to dispense his Divine wrath? How much worse can the US be to Sodom & Gomorrah?

Toad said...

So if I learn blacksmithing and make replica armour for the Society of Creative Anacroism, I'll have something to impress the chicks with?

It's a start.


LARP'ers get all the chicks. Put on your robe and wizard hat.

Toad said...

I grew up amongst men who were children and adolescents in the post-WW2 carnage of Eastern Europe. They could do anything. Slaughtering an animal, fixing a car, disciplining children, home repairs, amateur metalwork, cooking if necessary and so on. They also loved a fair fight.

And the most popular job a girl wanted to be when she gets older is 'prostitute'. And mail-order-bride is synonomyous with 'eastearn-europe'. Sex slave in Bosnia is not beyond the pale to avoid being a wife to a peasant.

The Augustina lady complains about how unsexy it is to have a poor husband. By Eastern Europe standards they would be rich. Multiple families living in the same house? Par the course in a communist satellite. Would the wife of such a peasant be expected to share the chores? I can see it now. "Augustina hon, can you go into the forest and chop a chord of firewood and render it to coke? I need to fire up the forge to smith a new tea kettle, the old one rusted to oblivion. And when you're finished with that, I left a deer carcase on the front porch for you to dress." I don't think she would find much sexual attractiveness in that.

Or she could be a prostitute and not have to work and have luxuries and have hypergamous sex with rich men that don't need to do manual lobour.

Jason said...

Toad, I would echo what the doctor said above and say that being a welder or some similar position would be a start; indeed, much more than that. Where I live in the MidWest there are thousands of young Bosnian men who are welders, carpenters, etc., and they seem to be doing fine on the women front (although there are issues like infidelity and an at-times over the top chauvinism; it perhaps is also easier for them also to mate with 1st or 2nd generation fellow Bosnians for cultural reasons). I think if you have the sort of manliness described here as well as a secure job in a trade, you will do well with women, especially as we enter an increasingly insecure age as far as economics is concerned. (Not that there won't be landmines to ignore; I certainly would not deny the challenges involved in the current American dating scene.)

Anonymous said...

One reason is that women don't look for executive function when dating. The ability to earn thier own income (or receive govt. money) results in their looking for sexual attractiveness.
Nor are the trades a good choice; around 1970 studies indicated that two factors determining social staus were income and education, income positive, education negative (but income increased with education fast enough to make most educated people higher status). Recent information is that the higher income trade guys are dissed by women for the higher education guys (the New Aristocracy).

Toad said...

It's that other men are impressed with your abilities and are willing to pay you for them that is important. You can then use that money to buy a car house etc. that would impress a woman who expects to be financially dependent on you.

Aquinas Dad said...

SP,
I agree in general that the heresy of duality/Gnosticism is broadly corrosive. While core Catholic teaching on the concept of this is unchanged (which is, at its core, 'that's BS') it is so much a core idea of the culture around us that it is hard to kill off.
[If I had $5 for every time I had to correct someone on this I would have a paid assistant typing this....]
Hmmmm. there's a lot here. This cultural gnosticism that sees the material as evil and the spiritual as good probably underpins such ideas as 'women are more spiritual than men, ergo women are more moral than men' (a reversal of the original gnostic concept) and that you can engage in a lot of fornication and then be a 'born again virgin' because your *spirit* has been *renewed*....
What really gets to me, though, is that actual Catholic teaching cuts this stuff off at the knees - *IF* and *WHEN* it is actually taught and applied!

Aquinas Dad said...

MarcusD,
The young lady in question was of such character that the only women I am more confident were virgins on their wedding night were my wife and the BVM. She was careful to never be alone in private with a man until her wedding, as the Church teaches is proper.

Höllenhund said...

Re: Brendan

"a lack of masculinity, an embrace of passivity, and the pursuit of one's own desires and pleasures, which is the essence of faggotry"

To pursue anything is the opposite of passivity. Unless, of course, we define passivity as "not producing excess wealth for the benefit of women and children".

By the way, what is this "faggotry" talk? Does the word "faggot" have any other definition besides "male homosexual" that I'm not aware of?

"And most men are faggots because they have not been raised by men or male relatives to become men and not faggots"

You could have added that there is little or no benefit to being a non-faggot nowadays, so to speak. Does it serve a man's interests and mental health to try being an honest, rule-abiding, hard-working husband and father? No.

Höllenhund said...

" They may not have had intellectual qualifications or social airs and graces but they had their shit together. They could do anything. Slaughtering an animal, fixing a car, disciplining children, home repairs, amateur metalwork, cooking if necessary and so on. They also loved a fair fight. Tough, resilient and "street smart" they had buckets of executive function and would look upon the younger men, raised in more comfortable times, as weak and unresourceful."

Well, then, why did they work so heard creating that comfortable society? When you produce excess wealth, you will have more prosperity and more comfort, and you can hope that your sons won't have to perform the same crappy jobs that you had to all your life. Isn't this kind of the point in having a family? Of course men will become less resourceful in a wealthier society! How could they not? That's the whole point in striving for prosperity, isn't it?

Höllenhund said...

"If women are finding the average man repulsive it may be due to the fact that society has turned Joe Average into an aberration of nature."

He's an aberration in nature, but he's a perfectly predictable product of current societies. When family homes, schools, colleges and workplaces are all "reformed" in order to be female-friendly, this is how male behavior adapts. There are no patriarchs if there is no patriarchy.

Toad said...

Slaughtering an animal, fixing a car, disciplining children, home repairs, amateur metalwork, cooking if necessary and so on.

These are what manosphere would call 'beta provider' traits. Historically a well-to-do person would delegate these tasks to servants (slaves if available).

there has to be industriousness and ability to stick at a task, tenacity in order to face opposition and prudence in know when to act appropriately.

Manosphere would say hard-working beta schlub traits.

They also had a traditional religious society that extolled these beta/manly traits and would socialize women to seek it and penalize her if she didn't. Women were expected to be housewives with children and dependent on their husbands. Premarital sex with sexy men before settling down with your manly/'beta provider' husband wasn't allowed.

With such societal support hard-working beta and/or manly traits had a lot more pull.


Tough, resilient and "street smart" they had buckets of executive function and would look upon the younger men, raised in more comfortable times, as weak and unresourceful.

Let their 20 year old selfs come attend a contemporary college to hit on college girls (maybe Sandra Fluke). They can wear their suits and ties and fedora hats, or slacks and a dress shirt when casual. In the morning they can attend a traditional Latin mass, maybe the church Keven Costner has, to simulate 1940s church. They can invite the college girl to a swing dance at the old folks home. Tell her that she's dressed like a streetwalker and will need to wear a wool mid calf length skirt. Later he could bring her to meet his mother at a fancy restaurant. They would swoon being in the presence of such manliness and would drop out of college to become stay-at-home-moms and (after the wedding of course) have five kids.

In a society that doesn't support hard-working beta and/or manly traits they might not be as successful.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Candide 3

I'm seeing far more of it amongst the younger males.

Anon @9:56


One reason is that women don't look for executive function when dating. The ability to earn thier own income (or receive govt. money) results in their looking for sexual attractiveness

Very good comment, though I disagree with a bit of it.

Prior to sexual liberation, women were expected to stay chaste before marriage. In other words, society wanted women to have a low N. What this meant is that women, given a restricted choice, would try to find a man who had both.

Now we live in a society where any censure of a high N is seen as archaic. Women are still looking for executive function but they're also looking for sexual alpha. Hence they ride the carousel until the want to get off and only then seek a man with "executive function" Promiscuity permits, in GBFM terms, and alpha fux beta bux strategy.

@Aquinas Dad

This cultural gnosticism that sees the material as evil and the spiritual as good probably underpins such ideas as 'women are more spiritual than men, ergo women are more moral than men' (a reversal of the original gnostic concept) and that you can engage in a lot of fornication and then be a 'born again virgin' because your *spirit* has been *renewed*....

There is a lot here. I'm a bit less forgiving on Catholic teaching than you are. I think there has been anti-carnal tendency in the Church which has infected society.

I've had a brief look at Song of Songs recently. Interesting to find such a text, in the Bible. It has limited religious reference and is mainly erotic in nature. I know that there is a history of treating the book allegorically, but that tradition may have resulted more from the abhorrence of sexuality than a legitimate reading of the text.

Google up the Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on the subject.
I think this comment sums up the tone of traditional Catholic carnal understanding.

For the same expressions which, when referred allegorically to Christ and the Church, announce the strength of the love of God, are under ordinary conditions the utterances of a repellent passion.

MarcusD said...

The young lady in question was of such character that the only women I am more confident were virgins on their wedding night were my wife and the BVM. She was careful to never be alone in private with a man until her wedding, as the Church teaches is proper.

That's quite impressive. My congratulations to them for that.

Will S. said...

No response to Höllenhund's salient points?

Aquinas Dad said...

SP,
While it is your prerogative to blame whomever you wish, I would argue that the various Puritanical strains of Protestantism are much more 'anti-carnal' than the Church has ever dreamt of and that such groups have much more influence over the Anglosphere than does the Church. And while you may trot out a line of the Catholic Encyclopedia I can point to my current work, plowing through 600 years of arguments between Catholic theologians on how a man cannot refuse a wife intercourse without objective reasons x, y, and z nor a wife refuse her husband except for objective reasons a, b, and c (the argument was about making those lists smaller); how strong is the obligation of a husband to induce an orgasm in his wife and, if it is a strong one, how many orgasms are the minimum (pretty strong and at least one, and if he 'finishes' first it is no excuse). And, of course, matrimony is not valid without intercourse.

sunshinemaryandthedragon said...

Anonymous

One reason is that women don't look for executive function when dating. The ability to earn thier own income (or receive govt. money) results in their looking for sexual attractiveness.
Nor are the trades a good choice; around 1970 studies indicated that two factors determining social staus were income and education, income positive, education negative (but income increased with education fast enough to make most educated people higher status). Recent information is that the higher income trade guys are dissed by women for the higher education guys (the New Aristocracy).


Really? I wonder if this is starting to change, though. Several male bloggers have written about going into the skilled trades when they couldn't find decent jobs with their undergraduate degrees. I gather from what they have written that they are making quite a lot of money and have not had difficulty attracting decent women (I'm thinking of Doc Illusion and Leap of a Beta).

Anonymous said...

Incentives matter.

If you want masculine men, incentivize them; or at least remove the penalties for masculinity.

God told Abraham to do a lot of things. Some of it was to test Abraham's obedience. Some of it was to accomplish God's purposes. But God didn't tell Abraham to do those things only because he had to obey God and because they were the right things to do. He also promised Abraham that He would give Abraham the desires of his heart if he obeyed.

We have fops and fags because our society encourages and incentivizes fops and fags; and penalizes masculine men.

deti

Anonymous said...

Or, stated another way, if you don't want fops and fags, don't incentivize and encourage their creation and existence.

deti

Kathy Farrelly said...

@ Zorro:
"Yeah, Sugar Tits. It's called The Vote, and you idiots should have never been granted it."

Indeed, Zorro. But, who granted we idiots the vote? ;)

The Social Pathologist said...

@Will S

I'm pretty busy at the moment, that's why the posting (and commentary has been light)

@Hollenhund

Does it serve a man's interests and mental health to try being an honest, rule-abiding, hard-working husband and father? No.

I agree that incentives matter for some men. For some men, their masculinity is conditional, for others, it is innate. Whose interests did it serve when this guy sacrificed his life for his friends. Clearly self-interest wasn't an issue here and yet he is more a man than you or I. That's the thing about innate masculinity, it is the triumph over adversity, it is the triumph of the will.


These are what manosphere would call 'beta provider' traits.

Frameshift. Alpha and beta refer to sexual market value not economic value.

The Social Pathologist said...

@AquinasDad

I would argue that the various Puritanical strains of Protestantism are much more 'anti-carnal' than the Church has ever dreamt of

Agreed, but the Protestants swing about a Catholic mean, and that mean has been far too anti-carnal in the past.

600 years of arguments between Catholic theologians on how a man cannot refuse a wife intercourse without objective reasons x, y, and z nor a wife refuse her husband except for objective reasons a, b, and c

I'm being sincere here, I do look forward to your book and you can sign me up for one right now.

The right to refuse implies that refusal should be the exception and not the norm, and I agree, but one dimension that seems to be lacking in these debates are the "rights of desire". I mean, should a women be compelled under the pain of sin to have sex with a husband she has no desire for? Is lack of desire a legitimate reason to refuse sex?

Furthermore, is there any branch of Catholic theology that deals the fostering of sexual desire in marriage, or are there a list of sins against "marital lust" i.e.Getting too fat. Failing to maintain hygeine and so on. Perhaps the prohibition against gluttony may have had an aesthetic objective. Is there even a legitimate concept such as "marital lust"? Note, I'm using lust here in a non-instrumental context.

The whole debate seems to be structured in such a way as if Eros did not matter. The presumption seems to be that the spouses should be available to each other as a default, as if the sexual act is simply a mechanical action that can be rendered at will.

Prostitutes engage in this type of mechanical sexual activity but the average woman finds sex, when non desirous, repulsive and an impost.

You can see how the Church's position could be seen as inhumane, especially with regard to the treatment of women who would see themselves as having to render the marital debt through violence of their desires. You can now see how this state of affairs provides for a fertile breeding ground for the feminist heresy.

Furthermore, the neglect of this dimension of sexuality leads to bad advice--pray and be nice to her instead of go to the gym and cultivate social graces. In fact it exacerbates the problem.

Also note, the arguments of theologians matter less than the official Church position. For a long time the Church's approach to the subject was more akin to a contract law rather than erotic poetry.

You've ploughed through the studies better than I have, how often does discussion of seduction of one's partner or erotic clothing feature in the theological discussions?

I'm not being a smart arse here, just trying to point out what I see as a real problem.

Kathy Farrelly said...

"For some men, their masculinity is conditional, for others, it is innate"
So true SP.
My husband's masculinity was innate..

That's part of the reason I was attracted to him.. That, and his beautiful blue eyes. ;)

Seriously, though. He has been strong.. From the beginning.. My rock.. Never ever ever wanted anyone else.. Been nearly 18 years now.. He still rocks my world.. :D

Anonymous said...

I agree that incentives matter for some men. For some men, their masculinity is conditional, for others, it is innate. Whose interests did it serve when this guy sacrificed his life for his friends. Clearly self-interest wasn't an issue here and yet he is more a man than you or I. That's the thing about innate masculinity, it is the triumph over adversity, it is the triumph of the will.

Slumlord, you and Hollenhund are talking about two different things. Peter Badcoe, the man whose Wiki entry you linked to, did his job. It was his job as a military officer to put himself in harm’s way. That’s what he signed up for. He was paid to do it, and he paid with his life. He knew the risks and possible costs going in.

What HH is talking about (and he can correct me if I’m wrong) is that there aren’t incentives for a man to sign up for today’s version of marriage, at least not in the US. If you want men to marry, work soul-killing jobs and raise kids, you have to incentivize it. Society has to show men there’s a reasonable chance he can get a return on all that investment he’s being called on to make; else marriage, fatherhood and excess income production makes no rational sense.

What you seem to be saying is that men should sign up for marriage, work and fatherhood “just because” – just because it’s the right thing to do, or other people want him to do it, or others expect him to do it. The Bible doesn’t say that. In fact, the Bible says the default position for a man is NOT to marry unless he “burns” (with passion). So no, I don’t agree that men should march toward marriage because it’s the “right thing to do”.

deti

Will S. said...

Well said, deti.

Once again, we see masculinity being defined as something one must aspire towards, and only achieved if one crosses of boxes X, Y, and Z, otherwise you're not a real man, ostensibly, while femininity is purely innate. You have to serve someone else's agenda, their interests, in order to be considered a man; classic 'realmannspracht', as Anakin Niceguy called it.

Whereas according to Scripture, a man bears the Imago Dei simply by existing; Adam, when first created, was not a boy, but a man, merely by existing and bearing the Imago Dei.

Masculinity is innate. One should aspire towards certain things because they are worthy goals, not because masculinity is somehow wrapped up in them.

If you are an adult male, you're a man. If you've done great things, you're a great man. If you've been a layabout and/or a cad, you're a shitty man. But you're still a man, for all that.

lozozlo said...

If you want men to marry, work soul-killing jobs and raise kids, you have to incentivize it

Also - why do jobs have to be 'soul killing' - why do we, with massive amounts of modern technology, have to work so much harder than people did with far less technology?

do we *really* need to work so hard, do jobs really have to be as brutal and demanding as they are?

Everyone talks about incentivizing men to work themselves to death...no one ever talks about if, even in the best of times, men should actually be doing that in the first place.

What is the point of a great GDP if you don't have a life?

The real reason we work long hours is for corporate profit, not to meet the needs of our families and communities.

lozozlo said...

Also, on this very blog...

Is it really true that Arbeit macht sie frei?

lozozlo said...

@Deti

He also promised Abraham that He would give Abraham the desires of his heart if he obeyed

I don't recall a verse of Scripture saying that exactly, but I take it that you are referring to the promises to give Abraham many descendants, and those descendants much land and hegemony?

Standup Guy said...

There is less and less masculinity today because displaying masculinity lands you in jail or in the HR office for some perceived bit of un PC behavior.

When we criminalize manliness we get less of it. DUH.

Do women really have the gall to bitch about lack of manliness and then go back to work on Monday to complain about gender discrimination? WOmen deserve every bit of wimpery that they have created.

RobertW said...

Good article. So the big question is: how can a man raised in such a protective/protected society develop "executive function". Is it even possible?

David Foster said...

"why do we, with massive amounts of modern technology, have to work so much harder than people did with far less technology?"

Harder than people on a farm without mechanical equipment? Harder than sailors on a commercial sailing vessel, or stoker on a coal-fired steam vessel? Harder than windshield installers working on a pre-roboticized auto assembly line?

The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon

HH and I approach the topic from two different angles. If we start from the Biblical proposition that "it is not good for man to be alone", the implication is that a man is somehow "incomplete" by lack of being coupled.

HH, on the other hand, approaches this topic as if where "complete". For him the question of being of being married is justified by a cost benefit analysis. HH's position is that, given the right incentive, "a man should man up and marry those sluts". I agree that incentives have skewed heavily in favour of the woman and there his position is justified by an actuarial analysis.

But my position is that man possessed of Caritas will seek to redress his existential incompleteness by looking for a complementary woman. Now this doesn't mean that a man should marry any women, rather, the virtues of prudence comes into play here and a man needs to exercise discernment when choosing his mate. I'm looking for complementarity, he is looking for profit.

For HH, given enough of a an incentive "manning up and marrying those sluts" is justified, for me it is not. He approaches the subject from the perspective of "what's in it for me?" I approach the subject from the perspective of "what's in it for us?" HH is an elementary particle.

Due to a man's existential incompleteness he really does have an obligation to marry if possessed of Caritas. ((let's avoid the religious celibacy issue for the moment) However, it is clear that a bad woman can ruin a man and therefore Caritas, seeking to remedy any deficiency, obligates a man to find a "Good" woman.

For HH, "manning up and marrying those sluts" may be perfectly justified if there is enough profit, for the Caritas-possessed-man such an option is not on the table. He wants to get married but only to a good woman. In a world full of sluts, he believes in marriage but wanders on it alone.

The Social Pathologist said...

@David Foster

Harder than people on a farm without mechanical equipment?

Interesting. I've done both manual and cognitive work and the "hardness" in each type of work is different. I've known quite a few manual workers who have refused positions of authority because they couldn't handle the stress.

I also know that when I have done physical hard work the body has been tired but the head clear, and after a bit of rest had abundant energy. On the other hand, I've sat on bum in the office all day doing "nothing" and come home mentally exhausted. It's a type of exhaustion that stops you from even resting properly.

lozozlo said...

@David Foster

It isn't so much the physical/muscular difficulty of the work as the psychological effects (as our dear host mentioned above) and the sheer unnecessary hours.

We work longer hours with less time off than medieval peasants did.

They had about 1/3 of days dedicated to various feasts and such...the protestant 'reformation' put and end to that so we could work more for earthly lucre and neglect our families, enriching the (equivalent of) the big business elite.

In any event you did not address the great majority of my argument via the linked posts.

Shenpen said...

"Straight faggotry" is PRECISELY why the average Redditor honestly cannot understand why an atheist or not strongly religious person could have any problem with gays - because in their circles men and women are really alike, so it is really optional what gender your mate is. They have girls playing guitar and videogames, and boys knitting and loving My Little Pony.

For people who are used to strongly different gender roles, being gay is downright weird because we see a large difference between men and women, we are used to the opposites attracting each other.

So for us being straight = being attracted to someone really different, and being gay = being attracted to someone similar.

"Straight faggots" have no opposites, they are all alike.

Because for us attraction requires the opposite, the truly different person, we see attraction to the similar as weird as a vegetarian tiger, just doesn't make sense.

You need no Bible for this.

Shenpen said...



"I grew up amongst men who were children and adolescents in the post-WW2 carnage of Eastern Europe."

Where are you from? Rural Hungarians are still like this, even today.

But somehow this does not attract most young Hungarian women. Big muscles, sunbed tans, designer clothes and BMWs attract them. Basically many would love a Jersey Shore type.

Höllenhund said...

No man should man up and marry a slut. I never said anything like that. Such a marriage is destined to be a trainwreck unless he's an alpha, but for an alpha there's no point whatsoever in marrying a slut. Marriage to a slut only benefits the slut.

My point was that assuming the lifelong responsibility for a woman and her children is an act of sacrifice, and acts of sacrifice need to be incentivized if we are to make them common and ordinary instead of uncommon and extraordinary - which is clearly something all societies want to do with marriage.

As far as the Biblical rule against bachelorhood is concerned, well yeah, I suppose it makes perfect sense for a man who lives in Paradise completely alone. Otherwise, not necessarily. The truth is that every society has punished or disincentivized bachelorhood one way or another in order to benefit the community instead of the man in question, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this rule was in fact written by a man with this idea in mind.

Moreover, I cannot help but notice that there's no parallel Biblical rule against spinsterhood. Or is it? What do you make of that?

John Titor said...

Greetings, SP. I've posted a couple of times on this blog before, but never quite before have I disagreed with something you've written.

Before we get into what I had to say about the post, I'll have to first address the comments.

>HH and I approach the topic from two different angles. If we start from the Biblical proposition that "it is not good for man to be alone", the implication is that a man is somehow "incomplete" by lack of being coupled.<

Even though neither of you approach this concept, this is a false proposition to begin with. On one hand, God said that in Genesis 2:18, as well as in Proverbs 18:22, "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD."

However, Proverbs 12:4, "A wife of noble character is her husband's crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones." and 1 Corinthians 7:6-9 "I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Do note what Paul says, "It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am". He basically addressed the issue of 'It is not good for man to be alone' in 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 completely.

Calling 'It is not good for man to be alone' a Biblical proposition is to pick one verse out and ignore what the rest of the Bible says about it. Hardly Biblical, I should think.

Also, you did a lot of talking for HH, which he later refuted what you claimed he believed. Please don't try to put words into other people's mouths, it's very unbecoming, and a bad habit to boot.

My post ended up being too long, so I'll have to break it up into two here.

John Titor said...

As well, the topic of "innate" masculinity.

>For some men, their masculinity is conditional, for others, it is innate. [....] That's the thing about innate masculinity, it is the triumph over adversity, it is the triumph of the will.<

Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that some men are manly (masculine) "just because" (innate), whereas other men are manly when it suits them (conditional).

My first objection stems from the act of defining masculinity as purely acts, self-sacrificial acts if your link is any evidence towards it. By that token, the hypothetical perfect father who never is in a position to face worldly adversity is less masculine than a hypothetical craven shell of a man who, assuming everything else he has done was wrong, has enough sense of duty to fall on a bomb for his friends. Self-sacrifice is not the end-all, be-all of manliness. Rather, I argue that it's not manliness at all. I put forth that self-sacrifice is a mark of love, be it eros, agape, or philia - and love is not something that is unique to men. So it is not a good hallmark of determining what is masculine and what is not.

My second objection is with the term itself, "innate masculinity", because 'innate' is something inborn, and natural. Using those terms, you set up a dichotomy that men who are manly "just because" (and it's implied that it's far nobler and just, than the 'conditional' men) are that way because they have inborn, natural masculinity. They were just born with it, no one taught it to them, it just sprang up out of nowhere like some sort of masculine abiogenesis. It's what innate means - inborn, natural. If it were that way, that means masculinity cannot be taught, and cannot be learned. And the men who are taught, end up only being manly when it suits them according to that definition.

My third objection is separating "innate" and "conditional" in the first place. Is it really so hard to imagine that there are men who are manly "just because", yet still find themselves responding even subconsciously to incentives? Responding to incentives seems to be your very definition of a 'conditional man', yet everyone does it whether they realize it or not. Therefore, not responding to incentives would be innate masculinity, and that was implied to be superior. That, to me, leads to such absurd thoughts as, "Turn down that pay increase, lest you respond to incentives and somehow become less of a man." Separating 'innate' and 'conditional' like that is a bit baffling to me.

I think I'll end it there, lest I'll wind up typing for far too much. I didn't even get to what I was wanting to talk about on the main post itself, but I think there's more than enough here already.

Denise said...

The concept of "executive function" as applied to masculinity is very useful. I have noticed that while there are many women blogs explicitly dedicated to things like cooking, cleaning, and general domesticity, that there isn't really a corresponding push for men to know how to, say, change the oil in the car, fix simple plumbing issues, or build a treehouse for their kids.

Feminism is an ideology that was promoted primarily by women, but both genders can easily opt into it willingly. I'm not sure that I would underestimate the motives of some men who find relief in not having to live up to the pressure of providing for their family and having to take charge all the time.

MarcusD said...

Regarding what men have become:

Local 6 says Marucci’s mother was aware of what her son was doing and that he did so to support her financially.

“I think he’s the most awesome person in the world,” she said. “He stood up and he was the man of the house when I couldn’t be.”


http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2014/01/21/florida-teen-expelled-for-performing-in-porn-allowed-back-to-school/

MarcusD said...

And what they once were?:

http://kottke.org/14/01/peter-freuchen

The Social Pathologist said...

Apologies for the late replies but life's been a bit busy these days.

@Hollenhund

Or is it? What do you make of that?

The Bible makes several negative references to spinsterhood, describing it a s "shame" in some instances.

@Shenpen

But somehow this does not attract most young Hungarian women. Big muscles, sunbed tans, designer clothes and BMWs attract them. Basically many would love a Jersey Shore type.

I agree that women have lost the desire for the "quiet" virtues, at least until they grow up. GBFM's comment "alpha fux beta bux" is as much a life plan as it is a fact.


@John Titor

I haven't mistaken HH's position. He is looking for incentives otherwise he's out of the game. I think that is a fair summary of his opinion.

We can throw Biblical quotes at each other as much as we like but but the Bible taken in totality would suggest that marriage is a good thing.

That, to me, leads to such absurd thoughts as, "Turn down that pay increase, lest you respond to incentives and somehow become less of a man." Separating 'innate' and 'conditional' like that is a bit baffling to me.

Well lets look at it the other way. The conditional man argues that "without incentive I won't be a man." What do we say of such a man's masculinity?

@ Denise

but both genders can easily opt into it willingly.

True, some men want to buy in to it since it gives them many benefits. Easy sex, freedom from responsibility and command and so on. Some men like being beta.

@Marcus D

The rot has set into both sexes.

Höllenhund said...

So if a man decides not to marry, on grounds that the incentives for him simply aren't there, he's not masculine? Is that your view?

John Titor said...

>I haven't mistaken HH's position. He is looking for incentives otherwise he's out of the game. I think that is a fair summary of his opinion.<

Oh? You and I both know which posts we're referring to, but the action you made that I took objection to, is where you 'explained' HH's position to a third party, Anon, from a position of authority. That's putting words in people's mouths, especially when HH later said, "No man should man up and marry a slut. I never said anything like that." and then has to further clarify his position.

To reiterate, that's putting words in someone's mouth. At least use their actual words next time.

>We can throw Biblical quotes at each other as much as we like but but the Bible taken in totality would suggest that marriage is a good thing.<

Since you don't seem to like quotes from the Bible, I'll keep it simple. The Bible says that a *good marriage* is a blessing. The Bible also says, "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am." The Bible also says that a bad marriage is bad (paraphrasing). Claiming that the only thing the Bible says about marriage is that it's a good thing is cherry-picking. And if you cherry-pick when you're making a proposition, anything built on that is made of sand.

To rephrase, the Bible, on marriage, taken in totality doesn't reduce to only "marriage is a good thing". It's bordering dishonest to leave the other portions out as well.

Here's what you wrote earlier:
>If we start from the Biblical proposition that "it is not good for man to be alone", the implication is that a man is somehow "incomplete" by lack of being coupled.<

Do you see now, that when you don't cherry-pick verses, the implication is entirely changed? Is Paul then, incomplete due to lack of being coupled? You might be thinking of it as religious celibacy, but you mentioned, "(let's avoid the religious celibacy issue for the moment)". Why in particular should it be avoided? How are you to assume that what Paul wrote could only possibly apply to the priests?

I am not just mindlessly throwing Biblical quotes at you, I bring this up because it profoundly affects the rest of your position.

>Well lets look at it the other way. The conditional man argues that "without incentive I won't be a man." What do we say of such a man's masculinity?<
I think you picked poor terms to define these concepts. Instead of "innate" and "conditional", it appears you're thinking instead of concepts like "Inner Game" vs "Outer Game".

To make sure I'm not misunderstanding your position, could you give an example of what you mean by a conditional man? The nameless face and unfathomable argument paired with it doesn't quite paint a picture to me of the man you're talking about.

Either way, you didn't even answer the concerns I had about using 'innate' as a description. That term implies that masculinity and manliness can never be taught or learned. Ergo, only conditional masculinity can be taught or learned, which we both know isn't true.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Hollenhund

So if a man decides not to marry, on grounds that the incentives for him simply aren't there, he's not masculine?

Do you mean in a specific instance or with reference to the current state of marriage in the U.S.?

@JT

I've not censored any of HH's comments on this thread and they're clear for everyone to see. HH's clarification came after my comments. I wasn't speaking for HH, I was speaking of my understanding of his position.

Since you don't seem to like quotes from the Bible

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Do you see now, that when you don't cherry-pick verses, the implication is entirely changed?

Let me help you out. From my reply;

Due to a man's existential incompleteness he really does have an obligation to marry if possessed of Caritas. ((let's avoid the religious celibacy issue for the moment)

Right, who pulls greater rank, God or Paul? The deficient existential state of man is explicitly stated by God Himself. Paul's comment needs to be seen as an legitimate exception to the otherwise Divine Imperative.

To rephrase, the Bible, on marriage, taken in totality doesn't reduce to only "marriage is a good thing". It's bordering dishonest to leave the other portions out as well.

This is a combox discussion and not a formal dissertation. A thorough treatment of the subject would take volumes. The Bible is strongly supportive of Marriage, Christ started his Ministry by providing the booze for a wedding. Christ feels his loneliness as a man (i.e. foxes have dens and the birds have their nests...) Celibacy seems to be more a New Testament thing.

To make sure I'm not misunderstanding your position, could you give an example of what you mean by a conditional man?

Someone who views marriage as an exchange of sex for goods. Such a man only provides on the proviso he will get sex. They're happy, for example, to support the children as long as the wife is putting out, but when the wife stops and the couple divorce, the father refuses to provide for his children.

Second example. Men who have the capacity to work but do not want to unless punished in some way. I understand that men can be unemployed due to circumstance but the man hustles for a job, the conditional man sits around waiting for enough incentive to get off his arse.

Höllenhund said...

"Do you mean in a specific instance or with reference to the current state of marriage in the U.S.?
"

It makes no difference. A man can make such a decision whether he's from America or not. Just answer the question, please.

Höllenhund said...

"Men who have the capacity to work but do not want to unless punished in some way. I understand that men can be unemployed due to circumstance but the man hustles for a job, the conditional man sits around waiting for enough incentive to get off his arse."

So the expectation of incentives to work equals the lack of desire to work? Is that your point of view?

The Social Pathologist said...

So if a man decides not to marry, on grounds that the incentives for him simply aren't there, he's not masculine?

A man is not masculine if he is not seeking a mate (once again, exception here for the religious). Because I'm Catholic, the only context in which a man can do this is within marriage. Whom he chooses to marry is a matter for prudential consideration and not based on a calculation of profit.

So the expectation of incentives to work equals the lack of desire to work?

They are two separate things. Think of Naomi Campbell. "I won't get out of bed for less than 10,000 dollars a day." Something perverse in that attitude when a man takes it on board.

Being concerned about incentive matters but not wanting to work until a certain incentive point is reached is sponging off others. A man still needs resources to survive even if he doesn't work.

The masculine attitude toward work is firstly, that a man pulls his own weight in the world and is not a burden on others. Secondly, that a man uses his talents and labours to optimise the profit of his labours.

Höllenhund said...

"A man is not masculine if he is not seeking a mate (once again, exception here for the religious)."

Why the exception? Because you're a Catholic? Or other reasons? And what about the men that literally no woman wants today because a) female hypergamy is completely unrestricted b) some men occupy the bottom of the male socio-sexual hierarchy through no fault of their own? (they were born very short, or got disfigured in an accident etc.) It makes no sense for them to keep seeking mates if there's objectively no chance of them finding one. Is it your view that there's no possibility of them being or becoming masculine?

"Because I'm Catholic, the only context in which a man can do this is within marriage."

So marriage as it exists today in the US is legally compatible with the tenets of Catholicism? Is that you view?

"Think of Naomi Campbell. "I won't get out of bed for less than 10,000 dollars a day." Something perverse in that attitude when a man takes it on board."

So it's not perverse when a woman does it? I'm pretty sure the correct feminine path on Campbell's part would've been to get married, have children and be a SAHM instead of being a sperm bucket for the hottest men around.

"Secondly, that a man uses his talents and labours to optimise the profit of his labours."

What if he lives in a society where such profits are taken from him by a**holes? Does it make sense to keep optimising it? Is it moral to do so?

The Social Pathologist said...

Why the exception?

What's with the sperginess?

Because this is a combox discussion and vows of celibacy are a commitment to God not an avoidance of commitment to women. Many Priests are constantly tempted by the urge to fuck women and yet they maintain their celibacy by their commitment to God. They are the total opposite of the MGTOW crowd. Capish.

some men occupy the bottom of the male socio-sexual hierarchy through no fault of their own?

It's one thing to be unable its another not to want to. You've constantly advocated a strategy of giving up, not a strategy of doing the best that you can. Defeatism is not masculine.

So marriage as it exists today in the US is legally compatible with the tenets of Catholicism? Is that you view?

Since the Tard is strong in you let me help you out. A man can have a good Catholic marriage even in toxic marital environment in the U.S. but that does not mean that the Catholic Church endorses the current marital environment.

So it's not perverse when a woman does it?

Rainman, don't you understand context? The. reason. I. used. that. quote. is. because. it. illustrated. a. perverse. attitude. in. women. that. has. now. become. prevalent. in. Men. She. also. advocates. an. act. for. profit. only. philosophy. like. you. do.

RobertW said...

I did the white knight manning up thing when I got married many years ago. They have been the most unhappy, stress filled years of my life hands down. My warning to young men: listen to the voice of experience and ignore the calls to "man up" even if those calls are coming from church, your parents, or even your own head. You will thank me one day.

MarcusD said...

@SP

I'm curious as to what your views are on the Church's promotion of the "single life".

Also, unless I've missed something, how exactly is a man not masculine if he does not wish to get married? As others have mentioned, the current legal environment is not exactly friendly.

Beyond that, the minimum standards that some people set (e.g. no debt, no prior sexual partners) will almost entirely remove the possibility of them finding a mate. Is shifting one's focus (in light of their low chances) from marriage-seeking to, say, volunteering an example of defeatism/giving up? Why or why not?

The Social Pathologist said...

@MarcusD

I'm curious as to what your views are on the Church's promotion of the "single life".

The Church doesn't promote a "single" life, it promotes a consecrated life. The single man is actually "devoted" to God. It's almost a pseudo marriage.

Christian celibacy is not a escape from sexuality, rather, a subordination of it to God's will.

Also, unless I've missed something, how exactly is a man not masculine if he does not wish to get married?

Be fruitful and multiply is the divine imperative? As is, it is not good for man to be alone. These two commands and meant to be congruent with masculinity, hence the desire not to mate and procreate is contrary to masculine nature.

Beyond that, the minimum standards that some people set (e.g. no debt, no prior sexual partners) will almost entirely remove the possibility of them finding a mate.

I agree that there's not much quality out there. But it's one thing to be actively looking and not being able to find and another to give up all together.

HH is advocating the latter approach.


The Social Pathologist said...

Be fruitful and multiply is the divine imperative? As is, it is not good for man to be alone. These two commands and meant to be congruent with masculinity, hence the desire not to mate and procreate is contrary to masculine nature.

should be

"Be fruitful and multiply" is the divine imperative. As is, "it is not good for man to be alone". These two commands are congruent with masculinity, hence, the desire not to mate and procreate is contrary to masculine nature.

MarcusD said...

The Church doesn't promote a "single" life, it promotes a consecrated life.

The reason I ask is that [it seems] there is promotion of a single, unconsecrated life:

For example:

http://www.msf-america.org/about-single-life.html

http://www.nelsondiocese.org/our-catholic-faith/vocation/call-to-the-single-life.html

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1292/single_by_vocation.aspx

http://catholicexchange.com/a-vocation-to-the-single-life

http://www.catholicozvocations.org.au/Home/My-Vocation/Single-Life

"Along the same line the Second Vatican Council states: "This lay spirituality should take its particular character from the circumstances of one's state in life (married and familylife, celibacy, widowhood), from one's state of health and from one's professional and social activity. All should not cease to develop earnestly the qualities and talents bestowed on them in accord with these conditions of life and should make use of the gifts which they have received from the Holy Spirit"(208)." - http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

"The Mystery of Love for the Single: A guide for those who follow the single vocation in the world" - Fr. Dominic J. Unger, OFM Cap.

Further to that, a "single, unconsecrated life" was actually extensively promoted to me (and my contemporaries) in the diocese I grew up in. (Though, perhaps I've just conflated things.)



Be fruitful and multiply is the divine imperative? As is, it is not good for man to be alone.

I'm curious as to how you interpret Paul's comments on marriage (which essentially state that one should not marry (unless sin would result)).



These two commands and meant to be congruent with masculinity, hence the desire not to mate and procreate is contrary to masculine nature.

Are you distinguishing between "desire" and "intent"? Priests often have the desire to marry but decide against it. Are you saying that a man who desires marriage (which encompasses "the desire not to mate and procreate") but decides not to get married is not masculine?


I agree that there's not much quality out there. But it's one thing to be actively looking and not being able to find and another to give up all together.

The idea of "actively looking" brings to mind "searching cost." The cost of dating sites is around $150/year per site (if I'm marriageable for, say, 30 years, that's $5,000+). Obviously, the costs don't end there (but aren't exactly prohibitive either, but I suppose it's the issue of waste).

That being said, a common piece of advice that I've heard and read is (basically) to not "actively seek," but rather "just remain open to marriage" (with the expectation that a potential spouse will appear). What is it to "give up all together"?

MarcusD said...

which encompasses "the desire not to mate and procreate"

Should be (without "not"):

which encompasses "the desire to mate and procreate"

Höllenhund said...

„Because this is a combox discussion and vows of celibacy are a commitment to God not an avoidance of commitment to women.”
No. They are actually both of those. Marital commitment to a woman is incompatible with a vow of celibacy. Having said that, your point of view apparently is that a commitment to God is the only way a man can avoid commitment to a woman and still be considered biblically masculine, so to speak. Is that right?
„It's one thing to be unable its another not to want to.”
Indeed it is. The objective truth today is that a certain minority of men – those in the bottom of the male sexual hierarchy – are sexually unwanted by all women. It’s mainly due to unrestricted hypergamy as a current social norm, and many other things. These are men that cannot find mates even if they want to, or wanted to. There is another group of men, slightly different from the other one, that are unable to find mates they are sexually attracted to. These circumstances are beyond their control. In your view, what would be the correct masculine behavior on their part?
„You've constantly advocated a strategy of giving up, not a strategy of doing the best that you can.”
Of course I actually advocate doing the bast one can as a man. I just don’t think that it’s Marriage 2.0.
„that does not mean that the Catholic Church endorses the current marital environment.”
So is Marriage 2.0 legally compatible with the tenets of Catholicism or not? Is it fitting and acceptable for a Catholic man to sign up for it or not?
„„A man can have a good Catholic marriage even in toxic marital environment in the U.S.”
Yes – as long as both spouses agree to live by rules that aren’t enforced or even widely respected anymore. Indeed, theoretically it’s possible to have a good Muslim or Hindu marriage in the same way.
„Rainman, don't you understand context?”
Again, your words: „Something perverse in that attitude WHEN A MAN takes it on board.” It’s safe to conclude from that choice of words that you don’t have the same view when a woman takes it on board.