Fault Lines.

One of the great projects that needs to be tackled by the conservative movement is a thoroughgoing analysis of the movement's failure in the 20th Century. Many conservatives can point to the errors of liberalism with ease, but what many conservatives don't really tackle the subject of the Liberalism's appeal. The question to ask then is, why did Liberalism succeed? Indeed, its success has been so thorough that many of today's "Conservatives" would hardly of been considered conservatives by the Generation of 1880 at all. Chastity, which was part and parcel of bourgeoisie society, is now seen as a bit of an embarrassment. Divorce, which was seen negatively even in Victorian England, is a non-event. Mainstream conservatives seem to differ from liberals mainly on issues with regard to economic management and defense, otherwise they look remarkably similar. Part of the problem when voting now is that the mainstream parties are so alike that a voter has no real choice.

Every great heresy has some element of the truth in it, and it is my contention that Liberalism's success came about as a result from an exploitation of legitimate grievances in traditional society, grievances which conservatives would not, or intellectually not could address. These legitimate grievances were what I consider "weak points" in western society, areas of entrenched "structural" social injustice from which Liberalism earned its legitimacy.

Any reading of political history will show that a society's failure to deal with legitimate grievances, eventually leads to a radicalisation of the injured party. The Irish attempted for years to rid themselves of the British yoke through legitimate means, only to have the rules changed on them. The Irish civil war owed its birth as much to British intransigence as it did to Irish nationalism which was fueled by the former. The Czech and Slovak republic's separation was peaceful since the players were prepared to deal with each others grievances honourably, the Yugoslav separation was not, because the central government refused to ceded to the legitimate demands of the constituent republics. The problem with radicalisation though, is that the cause frequently attempts to do more than just right an injustice, it brings a whole new set of faults as well, faults which frequently are worse than the original injury.

The question then to ask is, what were these weak spots or fault lines?

In my view the main weak spots were:

1) The misunderstanding of women in society: This gave birth to Feminism.
2) The misunderstanding of relationship between capital and labor: This gave birth to Socialism.
3) The misunderstanding of race understanding of Race: This gave birth to Multiculturalism.
4) The misunderstanding of sexuality: This gave birth to modern promiscuity and familial destruction.
5) The misunderstanding of environmental responsibility: This gave birth to the environmental movement.
6) The misunderstanding of society privilege: This gave birth to egalitarianism.

There are other areas but these are the main ones that I can identify, and I hope to deal with these issues over the next few months and offer my thoughts as to where conservatism went wrong. The problem however is that many traditionalists can't even fathom that there was any problem with traditional society. They ignore the slums, the slavery, the economic and social injustice that were endemic to traditional society and that served as the wellsprings of radicalism.

Lately I've been following two discussions; one at Oz Conservative and another at Ferdinand's, both posts and their comments leave me cold. I for one, feel that women had legitimate grievances with traditional society, problems which conservatives failed to acknowledge or address, leaving the door open to Feminism and its poison. The question is what can we learn from this, or could things have been handled differently?

Staring at Breasts: A Reaffirmation of Conservatism.

By now I imagine that most of the conserve-o-sphere have heard about the moronic protest march in Portland, Maine. Despite the best intentions of its organisers the "Breast March" backfired:

Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on.

However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more "aggressive" in discouraging oglers.

Guess what Ty, your exercise in social engineering was a failure. Men will always stare at a woman's breasts for the same reason we will stare at an attractive womans bum, legs and walk, because that is what we are "hard wired" to do. It's got nothing to do with social conditioning: Gender is innate and not a social construct. You've got to force yourself not to look.

And that's the whole point of her exercise. She wants us to act contrary to our natures; to live a lie. Pretend that we don't find breasts attractive to appease the social program of Ms McDowell, a social program based upon lies with regard to human nature. Modesty stands on far more solid intellectual ground. The underlying assumption of modesty was that men are attracted to a woman's sexual markers and that she should cover up otherwise she was going to get a lot of attention, a theory congruent with human nature and so convincingly demonstrated at the march.

Interestingly the harridan's response to the abject falsification of her theory is not a change in her views but a demand to speak power to truth and the call for punitive action against displays natural human nature, typical Lefty response.

Conservatives have much to learn from this little debacle:

1) Trying to argue with these shrews is pointless. They are are not interested in logic or reason, all they are interested is in having things done their way.
2) Given power, these individuals will use it to enforce their vision. There is no benign exercise of it.
3) These individuals need to be fully exposed to the consequences of their folly. To paraphrase Mencken, you've got to give these people what they want, and you've got to give it to them good and hard. If these people won't listen to reason then they should fully suffer the consequences of their actions. Protecting them from their stupidity only serves to strengthen it.

Feminism's strongest odium has arisen not from conservative argument but the spectacle of feminists themselves. The horror of feminism will sear the collective conscience when the hordes of "sex and the city" spinsters, embittered by their ideology incarnate, stand as a collective witness to the Andrea Dworkin cat lady existence that is the natural end of these ideologues. In hoc signo vinces.

Tolerance is not Acceptance.

Readers of this blog will not be surprised by the fact that I don't support the concept of "Gay Marriage". In fact I don't support female ordination, polygamy and a lot of other social novelties which men of a more saner age would have instantly rejected. Of course the usual charge levied at me by "sensible people" who are horrified at my views is that I'm intolerant.
Homosexuals and other groups pushing a social agenda frequently bandy the term around to censure anyone who opposes the desire to fully legalise whatever social innovation they are seeking.

The virtue of tolerance is the virtue of living with people whom you don't like or disagree with. Tolerance isn't liking what you don't like or agreeing with that which you don't agree; that is acceptance. Of course, with the social innovators, these people aren't seeking tolerance, what they're wanting is full acceptance of their behaviour under the guise of tolerance. If a man wants me to be tolerant of his behaviour he wants me to leave him in peace even though I find his behaviour objectionable. What the liberal mob wants when it calls for tolerance is for me to accept without question their system of belief.

Take for example Homophobia. Whether you agree with homosexuality or not, does a man have a right to be homophobic? Or a Racist? The opinion may be disagreeable but provided a man leaves others in peace, should he be censured for holding that opinion?

Liberals of course would argue that every man has a right to an opinion, but when given legislative power they effectively nullify that right, and the way they do this is through anti-discrimination laws. Now let me be perfectly clear, society is divided into the public and private spheres, and tolerance is a virtue of the public sphere. What the anti-discrimination laws do is encroach on the private sphere. A private businessman may not like homosexuals but he is compelled to employ them. Catholics are compelled to hire and enroll Muslims into their schools under the name of anti-discrimination. Freedom of speech is effectively nullified by "Hate speech" laws, which are ostensibly designed to promote tolerance but in reality, legal mechanisms to enforce group think as Geert Wilders found out. Now I don't like Geert Wilders, but what I really hate is how any criticism of Islam is immediately characterised by the liberalised Dutch political class as hate speech and pretext for punishing Mr Wilders.

Of course, not all hate speech is hate speech. Criticism of white men(Racism) is perfectly acceptable, criticism of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church is not hate crime, but walk into any Government organisation or Media outlet and say Homosexuality is wrong or hold racist opinions and suddenly the call to punish is proclaimed far and wide. Young Carrie Prejean learned this the hard way. When asked what she thought about same sex marriages she gave this reply:

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

Note, she was not calling for the gassing of gays, or their beating or their imprisonment, what she was saying in a free country where people can live as they please and I, Carrie, don't agree with that lifestyle.

Well the predictable happened--and it's predictable because it has happened so many times before--Ms Prejean was pilloried from pillar to post for holding an unacceptable opinion; not for acting inappropriately or for infringing anyones rights. The parties that most openly talk about tolerance are those who cannot tolerate anyone having an opinion that differs from their own, the whole liberal/multicultural/diversity industry rose as one voice condemning Ms Prejean. Liberal hypocrisy in action.

Tolerance is a public virtue which allows people with differing beliefs to share a common public life. It however implies a private sphere in which the individual has a right to be intolerant. It acknowledges the right to hold and freely express an opinion without censure from another. More importantly it demands from others the obligation to publicly tolerate the disagreeable. This of course is precisely what the "enthusiastic" Lefties do not want, they don't tolerate anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Under the threat of punishment, they want all of us to think a certain way, or more importantly, not to think at all.

Traditionalism and Conservatism: Old vs Right.

I've been engaged in a bit of a debate over at Oz Conservative. As I have mentioned previously, I feel that the traditional views of female sexuality are wrong and the evo-bio approach to the subject is closer to the truth( I say this with caveats, because I thing the evo-bio crowd aren't completely right either). I think a variety of forces have combined to "beta-ize" the modern male; the law, the economic structure of society, feminism, etc. But one of the other forces has been cultural, and one of the major influences on culture is tradition. Now it's true that modern Western society is profoundly different now than say one hundred years ago, but we still are the products of a lot of traditional cultural baggage. And one of those factors is the traditional view of female sexuality.

Commentator Expatriot made the following comment:

Growing up I was never exposed to the core truths of female psychology elucidated by Devlin and Roissy. I didn’t get them from family, I didn’t get them from school, I didn’t get them from the media and I certainly didn’t get them from the church. I learned the truth about women not from reading Roissy or anybody else, but in the school of hard knocks—very hard knocks.

I think a lot of men have had a similar experience, and a lot of the sympathy for the Roissy/Devlin view comes not from a misogynous nature but practical experience. Frequently it's not the knockbacks, but the success with women that re-enforce this view.

The Traditionalists find this view of female nature disturbing and deny its existence in the much the same way liberals thought-filter away inconvenient truths. Although two mortal enemies; the traditionalist and the liberals share the same intellectual pathology:They are closed to facts which they find disagreeable. These are not the thought processes of Conservatism.

Conservatism, first and foremost is about living in the truth and about being open to the truth, closed minds are not conservative. Now the liberals may argue that they too have open minds, but difference between Liberals and Conservatives are:

1) Liberals are only open to facts which they find agreeable.
2) By rejecting pertinent yet--ideologically repulsive facts--their policy and responses are ineffective and bear no relation to reality.

Take for example a favourite liberal cause: Condoms in the battle against AIDS.

Uganda is one of the few African countries to have recorded a decline in the rate of AIDS. It's program ABC-Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms-- but with a big emphasis on the first and second points seems to have been remarkably successful despite the rest of Africa recording higher rates. Of course, to the liberal mind these results are "confusing" and "more research" needs to be done into the matter since this policy goes against the liberal shibboleth of sexual promiscuity. It's only confusing to a man who doesn't want to see. Screwing around with less people means less risk of infection. That's logic, not ideology. But in the presence of overriding ideology: Logic be damned.

Traditionalists likewise share a similar thought process. The old ways were the best the new ways are simply wrong, end of story. Facts which were inconvenient with the Traditionalist vision were simply ignored. It's this attitude which probably explains the inability to defeat liberalism culturally. Traditionalists prefer to live in the past rather than the real world: Life is lived in the real world. Traditionalistc share some of the views of Conservatives but do so with the thought processes of Liberals.

I'm not saying the Traditionalists are completely wrong. A lot of traditionalism is worth supporting because it's right, but what Traditionalists need to recognise is that our forefathers did not have all the answers and based the order of their societies on the information available, changing their minds according to changed facts; at the same time incorporating the knowledge of the past where it didn't contradict : They had intellectual flexibility and open minds, something traditionalists in general aren't known for.

It's my opinion that the conservative movement needs to treat Game as a serious phenomena. Game does not need to be anti-family or anti-Christian. Athol Key's site gives us a glimpse into how such a synthesis could be made.(He is not Christian and I don't agree with all his points, but hey, at least He's thinking).

It's my belief that Game and its insights will eventually be part of a Conservative revival, despite the opposition to the Traditionalists. Why? Because it remasculates men and provides a antidote to the poison of Feminism. Game is not the answer to all of Liberalism's ills, only part. Liberalism is a hydra and Game affective against only one of its heads.

Who Would Have Guessed.........

Turns out that Phil Jones(of shonky climate "science" fame) wasn't really that different after all........(Hat tip, Watts Up With That)

Reminds me of my previous post.

Beta Movie.

Ok, let's set the scene.

The guy carrying the tree is our nice guy.

The girl in the hospital bed has just had an abortion. Her bad-boy boyfriend, who knocked her up, left her when he found out she was pregnant. Nice Guy, who had secret crush on the girl, came to her aid and hocked his prize possessions--which he slaved to get in the first place--to pay for the abortion.......

It's like watching a train crash.




It was a cheesy movie, but it really deserves more commentary in the conserve-o-sphere.

"Alternative Lifestyles"

A great article in the New Republic. Read it here.
Dalrymple says pretty much the same thing.

Dalrymple speculates as to why people take drugs(do dumb things):

....In other words, whatever caused them to commit crimes in all probability caused them also to take heroin: perhaps an adversarial stance to the world caused by the emotional, spiritual, cultural and intellectual vacuity of their lives.

That last bit is probably pertinent to the previous post

Tupac?

In Case You're Wondering.................

On the charges frequently thrown at conservatives is that their choices in life are a product of preference or an inability to see another's point of view. Many of the liberal Left are convinced that we just "don't get it" and that deficiencies of intellect or character are what give a man a conservative point of view.

This may be the case for some conservatives, but not me. Whilst I've always found the intellectual underpinnings that form the foundation of the left wing view of the world pathetically weak, some of them do resonate. For instance, though I know it is wrong, atheism is attractive. Also, the allure of Hedonism is also quite compelling. If I were to describe my "natural default mode" it would be that a of highly cynical skeptical hedonist; someone perhaps "harder" are more opportunistic than Roissy.

When you combine "the faith" with that type of mindset what you get is a fair amount of questioning and doubt. In my early days of proper religion, I'd often wonder if I made the right choice, or if the people who lived the libertine care free existence were actually having more fun than I was. The pleasure of the libertines was self evident as the barrenness of my ascetic existence. Religion in University was not "joyous", in fact it was lack of joyous. A man who wants to live the Religion gives up a lot; and it's a lot to give up when the arguments at the time are purely intellectual, the pleasures of the flesh real. I'm convinced that God has a sense of humour. Giving a man religion whilst in an ocean of nubile females has more the quality of a comedic act rather than a serious test of character by a humorless examiner.

I think it was Blake who said "Oh Gallilean, the world has gone pale with thy breath". This snippet, which I picked up in Chesterton, resonated powerfully with me; especially in university. In the world of my young adulthood I often felt that I was a member of the boring team. The lefties were having more fun than I was. Being good was no fun.

This sentiment of mine gradually became dispelled as I practiced medicine and came into contact with people from different walks of life. Doing some back of envelope calculations, I imagine that I have had approximately one hundred thousand consultations with patients in my clinical career. That much contact certainly does leave impressions, impression which over time have strengthened my view of my religion and disabused me of any illusions of who was having more fun. It was the lefties who straightened my belief in God.

Some things I've observed in my clinical practice over the years:

1) For all their freedom from social constraints, lefties actually seem less happy than conservatives. This is not my opinion, this is something I have observed. It's something I continue to observe and one of the biggest proofs that their world view is wrong and personally unappealing. People who are miserable always hope that a change in circumstance will improve their lot, I imagine that's why liberals are Utopians.

2)Whilst lefties seem to have more sexual encounters with different people, if the hook up culture was giving them personal happiness, they certainly didn't show it. Their relationships with their partners were never "clean". There were always issues of some kind or another. Loneliness seemed to permeate the liberal's existence even when they were in a relationship.
With conservative couples you always got the impression that they were a "unit" even if they hated each other. With liberals, the parties always seemed separate event though they were officially a couple.

3)As a group they're were a miserable and hateful bunch. When conservative patients disagree with me, they tend to be polite. Liberals tended to become very aggressive. My most aggressive and intolerant patients tend to be liberals and New Age Spiritualists. Now the fact that people disagree with me is not the issue, it's how they disagree with me. Personal venom and invective seems to be a feature of the liberal character.

4)Children of liberal parents are badly behaved, the kids of right wing parents much better.

5)Proletarian lefties are generally happier than their better educated lefty overlords, who generally as a group, are miserable and boring. Amongst a group five conservatives you're likely to get five opinions, amongst a group of five liberals only one.

6)Liberal girls do it because they have to, conservative girls because they want to. Conservative girls tend to be prettier.

7)Conservative women generally were happier, more confident and had less "issues".

8)Conservative men are both physically and psychologically manly: the more liberal a man, the less manly he is.

9)Liberals are more artistic and dress better than conservatives.

10) Liberals are have better theoretical education than conservatives, but worse practical application of that education. They might be able to describe the workings of a locust liver but be unable to manage their day to day financial affairs.

11) Conservative people "lived" their lives better than liberals. What I mean here is that their lives seemed more fulfilling and less drama filled.

12)When liberals did "fun" things, they seemed to have less fun than conservatives. I can't explain why, it's an impression that's been formed.

Once again, these are things that I observed and they are impressions that firmed with experience and time. They are not the product of any statistical study. I do believe that I'm fairly objective about the matter.The one thing that contact with liberals has proven to me is that whatever makes up a liberal's "headspace" it certainly doesn't seem to lead to happiness in the real world. I don't worry any more about missing out on the "fun" by being religious. Just in case you were wondering.

(Note by Conservative, I mean Social Conservative not Social Liberal)

And as if on que..........

A young lady presented to my rooms for a consultation. She was concerned about a lump on her neck and wanted my opinion on the matter. The lady in question was young, very attractive and intelligent. A solid 8.

After examining the girl and reassuring her that the lump was most likely benign. The lump itself was trivial in size and suspected that the woman in question may be suffering from a small amount of anxiety. I questioned her about her life and circumstances and sure enough, there was a fair amount of anxiety. The main stressors in her life seem to center around her work (the issue had just resolved) and her relationship with her partner.

What became apparent when talking to her was that the main issue was her partner. She was troubled that whilst he was a good man she lacked desire for him. Her brain was in conflict with her emotions. Some choice comments made by the lady (from recollection)...

"I'm the one making all the decisions"
"He never makes one(decisions)"
"He always lets me have my own way"
"He's really good to me."
"Sometimes I feel like I'm looking after a child"
"He has no ambition"

Now I have known this lady since she was an adolescent. She works two jobs, not because she has to, but because she has ambition. She has put herself though university under extremely trying circumstances and I have a reasonable knowledge of her personal life to be able to safely claim she was not wanton. It was apparent when talking to her that she did not want to leave this man but she was finding him increasingly unattractive. She was smart enough to realise that he was a good man but perplexed as to why she increasingly did not like him. Astute readers will immediately recognise the character flaw in the man.

I spoke, "I imagine that what you want is a man who can sometimes make the decisions for you and sometimes disagree with you. I imagine that you're pushy and want to have your own way a lot and I imagine you can get pretty much get your own way......."

She: "You know I've got more balls than nearly all of the guys I meet"

Me: "I imagine you do, you'd put up quite a fight if challenged, I imagine you can be quite bitchy and immature at times. What you need is a man who every now and then can boss you around, put you in your place but still look after you best interest. Someone who leads the way. Your partner is acting more like a girlfriend and not a man and that's why there's diminishing sexual attraction."

She looked at me with combination of amazement and shock. I spoke to her a bit about Alpha and Beta theory, and stated that what she wanted was a Gamma male. Now the interesting thing about this young lady is that she studied quite a bit of Feminism in University. I once chided her for adopting the dress habits of the hairy armpit brigade and reminded her to dress like a lady. Indoctrinated in the concept of innate gender asexuality she was initially resistant to my opinion. For a while I thought I wasn't getting anywhere until she said;

"Can I bring my partner in to talk to you"?

Physicians dilemma. Game theory is not an accepted mainstream theory and its certainly a politically incorrect body of knowledge. If her relationship was to implode after taking my advice I could be censured for practicing unorthodox medicine. Still her relationship is doomed if things stay as they are, and nearly certainly doomed if she accepts mainstream psychological therapy.

(Details of the story are true but others have been changed to preserve patient anonymity)

Gamma Man.

One of the blogs I like most to frequent is Ferdinand's. His In Mala Fide blog is perhaps the best pop conservative sites out there. The term Pop Conservative is not meant as a slight, it's likely to be far more influential that a highbrow blog since it adopts a style that the average man can appreciate. I like his site not because he mentions my blog, but rather he promotes other blogs which are far more interesting than mine. One that has caught my eye and has impressed me no end is Athol Kay's, Married Man Sex Life. Really, although the blog title might be a bit off putting--he really should call it Wife Management 101--the blog is definitely worth the read. Why? Because Athol "gets" the big picture.

The Roissysphere tends to view relationships as purely sexual. A man status and happiness are measured by the quality of the lay. A man banging 10's is more Alpha and happier than a man banging 8's. While there is a great deal of truth to this in high school, in reality adult relationships need much more than simple sexual attraction. That's not to say that sexual attraction is not important--social conservatives please note--rather grown ups tend to want other things as well: stability, friendship, love etc. Neil Strauss, the populiser of Game realised this; his own relationship with Lisa Leveridge failed. He could pull in the hotties but it appears he couldn't keep them.

The curious paradox is that what seems to keep relationships going long term is a combination of both alpha and beta traits. A man has to possess characteristics which both turn a woman sexually on and turn her off. In Roissy's taxonomy of men, the males are divided into Alpha, Beta and Omega. But Roissy only measures by the ability to get laid. Instead Athol Kay--who is focusing on long term relationships-- builds on this and proposes the Gamma male:
(I've shamelessly borrowed this image and text from his site. It's brilliant)

The Omega Male is easiest to dispense with. He’s just devoid of positive qualities and only the most desperate of women would desire to mate with him. Even then he’ll likely need up being supported by her to some degree. Avoid him.

The pure Alpha Bad Boys certainly do pull the women, but the relationships tend to be short as eventually the women become uncomfortable with the lack of comfort building support. There’s plenty of excitement, and sizzling sex as the attraction is definitely there for her, but she knows from the beginning its not going to last, but she is drawn to him anyway.

The pure Beta Nice Guy also pull women, but they pull differently. They “make sense” on an intellectual level and they are very comfortable to live with. More than likely they are too comfortable, and the woman tends to want to see a display of dominance of some sort before she becomes fully attracted to him. Ultimately the nice guys are just too sexually boring to women to remain completely focused on one. Queue the “I love you, but I’m not in love with you speech”. What is often seen in young women is ping ponging between bad boys and nice guys – she gets a dose of crazy sexual attraction from the bad boy, but then she needs the comfort building and she seeks it from a nice guy, and then the cycle repeats over and over until the music stops around age 35 and she’s scrambling to find a chair anywhere.

The ideal is the Gamma Male. Not often talked about, but they are out there. Usually a Gamma is an Alpha Male that “grew up” and toned down the antics slightly and started being socially conscious and more of a team player. Or they started as a Beta Male that “grew a pair” and started bumping back on the rest of the world rather than just taking it lying down. Either way works as a route. Like Jean-Luc Picard, Gammas use diplomacy but when required to they will respond with adept force. Mostly they are consciously aware of both their own natures, and the needs of women. They adjust on the fly to the situation, sometimes hard, sometimes soft. Gamma’s are the true ideal, but I think the Alpha and Beta terms are so ingrained, that it is simply easier to broken record the idea that if you’re too Alpha the solution is to add Beta, and if you’re too Beta the solution is to add Alpha. You already know what your weak area is. Work on that for easy gains.

A couple of points. Firstly, these are pretty astute social observations and they square up with what I see in practice. Implicit in Mr Kay's observations are that women are sexual beings and that there is a sexual dimension to normal male female relationships. Secondly, for a male, being "nice" alone just doesn't cut the mustard as a woman needs a sexual dimension to the relationship for it to go anywhere; women are inherently sexual beings. Religious conservatives please note, sexual desire isn't something that "foreign" to the female ideal, it's part and parcel of the female package. The romantic meme, that the way to woman's virtue is via the path of "niceness", flaunts real world observation and is not congruent with reality. Finally, when women are asked what type of guy they like, a nice guy is usually the answer. What they of course mean is a nice guy who makes them hot and horny.

The Roissysphere has popularised the notion of the Alpha male. And really, if a life of Hedonism is your goal then that's all you need. Because it's quite apparent that women--when freed from social mores--are just as superficial judges of character as most men are. In our current bathhouse culture, women are more likely to be motivated by their loins than their heart in the choice of a bed mate, especially when drunk. So if your aim is to bed as men women as you can, being Alpha is all that matters. The Beta traits, the traits that are the foundation of lasting love, domestic awe, industry, prosperity are unnecessary. But if these things matter to you, then your going to have to cultivate both alpha and beta traits you're going to have to strive to be a gamma male.

Really, nice guys don't finish last. It's nice guys without alpha traits that finish last.

Read Athol Kay's blog. Its very very good.

(N.B. I don't agree with everything he says, I disagree with his pharmacological opinions i.e how the pill works and the use of anti-depressant medication, but his understanding of psychology in my opinion is spot on.)

But Honestly,.....I'm Not Like Those People.

Recently, the local paper ran an interesting article on a woman's regret on getting tattooed. Whilst the local paper is not of any real quality, (English readers, it mirrors itself on The Guardian) every now and then an insightful article slips past the censorious eyes of the liberal editors.

Now, like any person with half a brain I deplore tattoo's. Their widespread acceptance amongst people who should know better is proof of middle class prole drift.

I have always considered them declasse, no matter how artistic. The presence of one on a girl, no matter how small or discrete was immediate deal breaker. Not just because tattoos were the mark of the society's dregs but more so because it was character revealed in action. What a tattoo said about a man/woman was not only about what type of man he was, but of the type of man he had shown himself to be. Now it is true that people change over time, and that everyman is capable of all vices, but we presume a man of good character until he has proven otherwise. The tattoo is a permanent mark of bad judgement.

Milday's Tattoo Tells a Very Different Story

Initially, my partner at the time agreed that we should take the plunge together on my 30th birthday. In those days, tattoos were still mostly the preferred accessory of sailors, wharfies, prisoners and the like, but I figured that it was OK to get a tattoo as long as you didn't look like a person who would have one.

and

Fast forward again and I am picking my daughter up from school. At the school gate, the only other people with tattoos are fat and toothless and complaining about the price of fags.

I suddenly realise that I am a member of a club that I did not intend joining.

These days, my tattoo has faded, just like my desire to be as daring and alluring as Milady.

Like every other fashion choice you make, tattoos tell people at lot about you. But sometimes they tell people who you were, rather than who you are.

I found this article interesting on so many levels. Firstly, the author is at pains to ensure that while she adopts the mark of the declasse, she herself is not. Ummm....No. You see, from the vantage point of the unmarked there are only two types of people: Those tattooed and those not. Secondly, she sees a distinction between herself and the fat,toothless hags she clearly despises. I wonder if the other women sporting tattoos were slim, rich and well dressed whether she would complain about belonging to that same group. The problem with this woman is not that she has changed, rather it's the group that she now aspires to has. She's still the same person; an impulsive egotist still concerned about her social status.

Theodore Dalrymple does a wonderful demolition job on the tattoo culture, far better than I can. But in the end, he comes to the same conclusion I did when searching for a mate; the tattooed are best avoided as their self inflicted brand is an outward sign of character flaw.

Note: There are very limited exceptions to the above post. Certain traditional cultures made them part and parcel of group identity.

What Next?

Hollywood once had a modicum of class, even if most of it was manufactured. Grace Kelly, Audrey Hepburn, Eve Marie Saint, Gregory Peck and Jimmy Stewart had a certain degree of dignity and style. Today Hollywood has no class, more and more the "stars" resemble privileged rednecks and skanks. I don't think I could every imagine Audrey Hepburn getting herself vajazzled. On the other hand Jennifer Love Hewitt has. I suppose it's the perfect accompaniment to the "tramp stamp". The pornification of culture, especially female culture, continues. The prole models lead the way.

Prole Drift.

Every time someone argues that things are different now compared to the past, some wag will always argue that things have remained the same. The facts don't however don't support this view.

How British Life Has Changed Since 1997.

Traditionalism and Female Sexuality

Commentator Thursday wrote an article which I felt deserved far more discussion that what it received. How Social Conservatives and Traditionalists Got It Wrong About Female Sexuality dealt with an issue that I feel has been poorly handled by the conservative movement: Namely, female sexuality and its social implications. The traditionalist influence on the conservative movement is , I think, responsible for this. Its conception of womanhood is wrong and conservatism’s failure to rectify the issue goes a long way to explain feminism’s triumphant march through most of 20th century culture. We were fighting the wrong battles.

As a young man debating Socialists, I would be often appalled by the glib manner in which socialists would dismiss facts about Communist atrocities. I often wondered to myself, why did unjust salaries arouse indignation whilst horrific murders not? Why did some things get picked through with a fine tooth comb whilst more important things glossed over?

As I have gotten older, it has slowly dawned upon me that the difference between socialists and myself was at a more fundamental level than simple difference of opinion. What separated us lay in our relationship to the concept of the truth. To put it bluntly, I believed in the entirety of the truth whilst liberals are "selective” in their acceptance of it. For whatever reason, socialists, liberals--call them what you want--all seemed to have a habit of ignoring facts which would challenge their preferred view of thew world. Take for example the racial IQ debate. Now, I believe that there are differences in racial IQ, but the implications of this fact are complex and cannot be simplistically reduced. But when the facts are presented to a liberal they are cognitively ignored either through processes which attempt to render the fact irrelevant or denied outright. Ignoring facts did not bother them. It bothered me a lot.

Orwell, who was a great chronicler of the intellectual pathology that facilitated the rise of socialism, never as far as I’m aware got around to naming this intellectual pathology. Which is a shame since I think it is the core pathology of the authoritarian mind. Socialism would have been impossible without its operation. The term I propose is Thought-filter, the ability to reject inconvenient facts which are out of line with the desired state of affairs.

In the novel, 1984, a person with a good thought-filter--(as determined by the Thought Police)--accepted party orthodoxy without question, even when presented with self evident facts contrary to their beliefs. Perfection of this state was achieved when the individual was presented with a contradictory facts yet no incongruity was noted and hatred was generated towards the “inconvenient truth”. Thought-filtering is the triumph of ideology over the truth, a state where the mind prefers its own conception of reality rather than the real world. Debate at any member of Greenpeace or Feminist and you’ll get the picture. Facts which don’t support the cause are irrelevant. Raising them, bad manners worthy of censure. It is the motive force of Political Correctness.

Now it would be false to assume that this intellectual pathology was solely confined to the Left. The Right has had its own periods of successful thought-filtering and many so called conservatives operate within a similar mindset and frequently it is a quite widespread phenomena. A lot of conservatives have a problem with “Game” and despite overwhelming and scientific evidence, dismiss it. The case in point being Lawrence Auster and his rejection of “Game”. Now I’m going to pick on Auster not out of any particular reason, rather, he is typical and high profile social conservatives who rejects Game.

Now I presume that Auster rejects the concept of Game because of:

The hedonistic lifestyle that he assumes is part of it.
The assumption it makes with regard to female nature.

Firstly, there are plenty of bloggers who believe in Game yet don’t believe in Hedonism. If Game could be given a definition then it would be; the knowledge of how women think,what women find attractive and the capability to apply that knowledge effectively. If Auster’s objection to Game is that it is inherently Hedonistic he is quite simply wrong. However what I suspect is that what Auster really objects to--and I could be wrong--are the assumptions that Game makes with regard to female behaviour. To quote from Thursday’s article;

Traditionalists have done a fairly good job of recognizing female imperfectness in areas other than sexuality, and their critiques of feminism often had traction because of this. But traditionalists haven’t really come to terms with the dark side of female sexuality. Traditionalists never really addressed why women were attracted to rakes and bad boys in the first place, nor why they would leave good men for the same. It was all chalked up to some sort of “trickery” on the part of the rake or some moral inadequacy on the part of the nice guy husband.

Now, I think Thursday is far too charitable to the traditionalists, their error is far deeper. Not only have they failed to see the “Dark side” of female sexuality, I think many of them don’t see any female sexuality at all: except perhaps for the limited necessity of childbearing. The concept that a good woman actually aches for sexual pleasure seems to either escapes them or horrifies them. To the traditionalists, women being both “lofty and high” are devoid of the base instincts that are so ever present in the male. The thought that a good woman actually may desire a good hard shag is at odds with their conception of a good woman.

Now, I think that the most vigorous proponents of Game also get it wrong. Women are sexual, but not as sexual in the same way as men. Women who have slept with lots of men, don’t seem to see it as some achievement. In fact, many of the exploits of sexually promiscuous women seem to have a “put on” quality to them They seem to have multiple partners more to prove that they are “liberated” than out of natural desire. To quote Catherine Millet:(For the pedants out there, there are always outliers)

"Yes, I f..ked for the pleasure of it," she writes retrospectively, "but didn't I also f..k so that f..king wasn't a problem?"

Anecdotally, it would seem to square up with my observations at work. Sex and love seem to be more intermixed in women than in men; where they’re discrete. In fact, a lot of the female promiscuity that goes about today is probably more a response to social pressures placed on women than natural sexual desire. Roger Scruton’s sublime insight is on the money;

Women have been shamed into being shameful.

Social pressure and culture are very important determinants of female behaviour, including sexual behaviour. But these are not the only determinants, so is natural sexual desire. And it’s this natural sexual desire that traditionalists refuse to recognise. Or when they do recognise it, they see it as a defect rather than an intended design by the Creator. Their thought-filters are working in overdrive.

Personally, I think that this Western traditional aversion to female sexuality has it roots in a residual Gnosticism in Christianity, which tended to place the spiritual at war with the corporeal. The problem is though, that man is both spirit and flesh and each has a legitimate existence. The problem with a lot of "real world" Christianity is that it tended to want to deny the legitimacy of the flesh. The idea of Christianity was to tame our passions, not kill them; which with regard to sex it tended to encourage.

The other big problem with this view was the assumption that what was pleasing in God’s sight was also pleasing to the opposite sex. Hard work, prudence, self denial etc, whilst all are good for the well being of the community, don’t really turn a woman on. There seemed to be a failure to recognise that moral virtues have little if any sexual attributes: Virtue isn’t a turn on. Courtly love was all about kindness, grace, supplication and romance. It was never about the knights brooding presence, good looks and sexual assertiveness. The smarter approach would have been to combine the two, but in the war of the spirit against the flesh, the spirit won.

The net result was that what arose culturally over time was the idea that the good and relatively asexual woman and the excessively polite man would be drawn to each other by the strength of their virtue. Which is not the way it works in the real world as many a polite beta male has found out.

Now some people may think that I’m being hard on Christianity, but I bring this little anecdote to my defence. During a Papal Audience, the late Pope John Paul II, raised the issue of the female orgasm (how the husband should see that wife is satisfied) to the look of astonishment of many of the cardinals. The fact that a Pope, talking about normal marital sexual relations, should elicit such a response says a lot of what the “institutional” Church thought was appropriate to say in polite company. In other words the intimacies of sex were not appropriate. His “revolutionary” theology of the body was revolutionary in that he preached that sex, and hence our animal natures, were good. The revolution lay in affirming the goodness of our sexual natures. It could be only considered revolutionary if the previous teaching did not consider it that way. It would be fair to say that the Church had a problem with sex, especially female sex. Admittedly it is now trying to rectify the situation now but two thousand years of ascetic teaching are going to take a long while change.

Where traditionalists get it wrong is in their preference for their this fictional “pure noble woman” model of female sexuality to its real world counterpart: The fantasy is preferable to reality. Though the evidence of the truth of Game is overwhelming it is dismissed by the traditionalists. Game offends the traditionalists not so much in its assertions(which they deny) but in its results.(which they try to explain away). Their refusal to acknowledge Game is in many ways like the socialists’ refusal to acknowledge the superiority of Capitalism as a system for generating societal wealth; an exercise in reality evasion. It's in this way that the traditionalists resemble the feminists, both rejecting rejecting reality for their preferred ideals of womanhood. Thoughtfilters in overdrive, willed blindness is preferred to seeing the truth.

Female Narcissim. Stating the Obvious.

An interesting article in The Daily Mail. Note, narcissism seems to be increasing for both sexes but especially for the fairer sex.

Thoughts on the Beautiful and Sublime: A Reply to Thursday.

Commentator Thursday put up quite a good post on the subject of the beautiful and the sublime. I thought I'd offer him a reply.

Whilst I am a conservative, I've never been a big fan of Burke. Burke's meditations on beauty, as his meditations on politics, seem to display more description of the fact rather than an understanding of the subject. His describes conservatism more than he understands it; likewise on the subject of beauty.

To a certain degree, I subscribe to the Platonic idea of Forms, and the more perfectly a thing resembles the form from which it partakes, the less flawed it is. Everyone, I imagine, has seen the comedy skit of the beautiful woman who enchants the man until she smiles,revealing her rotten teeth, at which point the man becomes repulsed. The "flaw" in the woman quashing the sensation of beauty. In fact it's quite interesting to speculate as to why there even is such a thing as perfect teeth. Why does a certain arrangement and colour of teeth give us pleasure and deviation from that ideal lead to the sensation of progressive repulsion?

It would appear, at least to my mind, that the mind has pre-concieved notions of how things should be or if you believe in the supernatural, the mind the has the capacity to recognise things as they are meant to be.

This capacity to recognise "perfection" is a sense of the intellect. In the same way we can feel pleasure from our physical sense organs, stimulatating the intellect through sense data, i.e sight can cause pleasure to arise in the intellect. Beauty is the pleasurable sensation felt in intellect's apprehension of the perfection of form. Ugliness, it opposite.

Thinking of beauty this way explains things which a first would seem incompatible. A gargoyle, which is physically repulsive, has its beauty insofar as it conforms to the perfect form of a gargoyle. War, something so horrible and destructive, can also generate a sense of beauty insofar as it is a perfect example of war. This why we can speak of things as "terrible beauties", things that are bad but perfectly bad.

The appreciation of beauty is also contingent on the intellect, that's why we say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The ignorance or refinement of the intellect determines the conditional status of the perception of beauty. The cultivated man and the moron will disagree with regard to the nature of beauty as the dullard's intellect, through either deficiency or habituated neglect, is incapable of apprehending the perfection of form. To a dullard, beauty is reduced to its most primitive form; sexual. The refined man wants more because his intellect is habituated to demand more.

With regard to female beauty, I think its wrong to think that there is one type of female beauty, in the same way that one can err in thinking there is only one type of perfect colour. In order for a woman to be beautiful she must approach perfection as a woman and in the specific features that distinguish herself. Audrey Hepburn with a scar on her face does not equal Grace Kelly with a pimple on her nose. Rather each woman becomes more beautiful as she approaches the perfection of herself. The less flawed a woman is the more beautiful she becomes.

This of course leads us to the concept of the sublime. The sensation of the sublime become more apparent as the subject apprehended by the intellect approaches perfection. Then not only does the intellect percieve the subjects perfection of form but the subject in question is apprehended in its entirety. Mountains are meant to be thought of as dangerous, oceans and the night skies vast, the desert barren. A man standing on the beach alone infront of the vast sea is meant to be feel both beauty, awe and terror as the see is capable of inspiring all these things. As the the thing apprehended by the intellect approaches more perfectly it's form, it also becomes more efficient in transmitting to the intellect its nature. Marilyn Monroe "oozed sexuality" because she closely approached one of the forms of female sexuality. The intellect could apprehend her sexuality without effort. Thefore objects which are meant elicit fear become more efficient in eliciting the effect the more perfectly they approach the form of the thing they are meant to be. Tiger cubs progressively elicit more fear as they become adult tigers. It follows therefore that some of the fear associated with beauty arises from the nature of the thing considered beautiful.

However, there is another aspect of beauty that needs to be considered, and that is once beauty is apprehended, men seek to keep it in their gaze; they desire to posses it. Failure to achieve it is a cause of grief and pain. And just as beauty is a positive sensation arising from the sense of the intellect, fear is also a sensation of the intellect based upon the intellect's perception of potential loss. A fearful man is a man who percieves he is in a position where he can potentially lose something. Be it his material possessions, pscyhological well-being or his life. Once a thing lost, grief sets in. Grief is the intellect's sense of loss. It follows therefore the more beautiful a woman a man desires, the more fear their will be at his approach, since he wishes to gain what he finds beautiful. It is in the intellect's appreciation of the fear of rejection from whence the fear associated with beauty arises.

There fore the fear associate with beauty can arise from fear projected by the nature of the object apprehended by the intellect and by potential of pleasure that loss of that object.

The Bilble says that no man can see the face of God and live. For years I thought this meant that God would punish a man for looking at him, but I was wrong. Dante gave the first clue to my intellectual error. When Dante first gazes upon Beatrice she tells him to turn away from him, as her beauty will kill him. The film, Somewhere in Time deals with the same theme, of a man so capitvated by the beauty of the woman he loves that he simply wills himself to death.(Yes, I know its soppy) It think it is this mechanism that kills men when gazing upon God. Seeing him we will fall in love with him instantly and not wish to live on this earthly vale any more. The judgement of God will be in that moment where he decides whether to accept us or not. The terror for a moment will be horrifying since the potential loss will be everything. The damned will be those whom falling in love with God upon seeing him will be rejected. Their grief will be eternal. The terror of beauty is in its possible rejection of us.

Mencken on Democracy.

Next time you wondering why government sucks and why they can't do anything right, ponder these thoughts by H.L. Mencken:

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

In a democracy, the fools that govern us have earned their right by popular assent. The morons in government are the mirror of the people. The people stink.

Idiot.

More wisdom from the Fairfax Press.

What do Haitians need most? To get away from Haiti



Haiti is dysfunctional society because it is run by Haitians. And while the disaster is Haiti is truly terrible: it is terrible and yet utterly predictable. Professor Hale has commented on the disaster and its causes and quite simply, he's right. Poor building practices in a corrupt society mean that building codes(which no one even to bothered to propose ) don't get enforced. When the inevitable earthquake happens, the predictable disaster ensures. Tragedy.

But poor building practices are not the result of government fiat, but of a culture. A culture that values the short term over the long and culture that places little value on life itself. The War Nerd wrote an interesting article on the culture of Haiti. Bottom line; a corrupt society from the top to the bottom. Once again for my pea brained detractors, not all Haitians are corrupt; only most of them. Now this may be cruel thing to say to a nation which has suffered so much misfortune, but facts are facts, Haitian culture does not seem to be able to produce men capable of disinterested service even in the midst of so much foreign aid.

Now I can understanding that people are moved by the plight of Haitian individuals caught up in the earthquake, but feeling good about oneself and actually doing something useful are two different things. Now Chris Berg's article is full of errors which will compound the problem instead of making it better but the question I want to ask is, should we be importing people from a dysfunctional culture which is the product of those same people?

People who are pro-immigration tend to ignore this fact. The influx of Italian migrants into Australia and the U.S. was not a one sided thing. In importing Italians, America and Australia profited from both a better cuisine and worse a criminal element, the Mafia. And whilst on balance, I think Italian migration a good thing, it serves to illustrate the point that when a man brings in migrants he brings in more than just the man, but his ideas, his culture and the way he lives. Of course the dominant culture also makes its mark, so what happens in the end that a fusion occurs, the flavour of which is dependent on the elements of the mix. S

Now the question to ask is, are there cultures which are bad, which are incompatible with our way of life? Do we want more Haitian culture in our society? A culture that seems to glorify the thug, the bling king, self interest and opportunism. A cursory look would suggest not, and idiot would propose spreading the contagion around the world.

To a pro-immigrationist, multiculturalism means a different cuisine every night, retiring home to your uppity white suburb at night. The wogs are good to visit but you don't really want to live with them. The problem though is though, if you bring enough people from a bad culture into your country you also bring a bit of that bad country in as well. As many your own poorer people who--because of economic necessity--have to live next to the newly arrived immigrants will tell you, not all immigrants are fun to be around with. But that demographic does not make social policy. The world does not need more Haitis.

In fact the only time Haiti ever seemed to have a period of prosperity was when American culture was forcibly imported into Haiti. Some cultures seem to bring more benefit than others.
What Haiti needs is not exodus of its people but good governance, and if the local culture can't produce men that can govern humanely then perhaps humane men should force good governance on Haiti from the outside. This of course is true but politically incorrect.

The Ghost of Lionel Murphy.

I imagine most of my North American readers will not know who Lionel Murphy was. As part of the 1972 Whitlam Labour Government, Lionel Murphy was appointed as Attorney General of Australia. This government in my opinion was the most destructive and influential force to ever hit the social fabric of Australia.

To American readers, to get an idea of the effect of the 1972 Labour government on Australia, it was like being catapulted from 1950's America to 1972 America in the space of 3 years. It was a heady time that even I, in my childhood then, can remember

One of "Lionel's" most influential "achievements" was the introduction of "no fault" divorce. An idea whose malignity has corroded the core of the Australian family. I live the reality of the consequence of this socially progressive legislation every day. Impoverished and depressed single mothers, neglected and undisciplined children, lonely men and grandparents who have a new role in being the primary carers for their children. By and large the biggest losers of "no fault" divorce are women and children, and of course you can guess who were its strongest proponents; the "caring" Left and feminists.

It was this case (It's worth following the link)that got me thinking about Lionel. The good and well mannered father getting totally screwed over by the legal system. But the the real victims here are the children who will have his capricious wife's bad behaviour as example and who not have the example of their father. The other victims will be other women. What man in his right mind will want to marry on these terms? Through the mind of every young man that reads this story will run the thought that this too could happen to me. Just as each crime makes us a little more wary of strangers, so to does each unjust divorce make us wary of marriage.

The party that is premised on class war was never going to be a good planner of social cohesion.

The hundreds of thousands of kids who are going to bed tonight with one parent only, can thank Lionel. So can the single mums who are tired, alone and struggling to make ends meet. So are the men who are drinking themselves drunk out of loneliness. Lionel's ghost haunts them all.

For what its worth, Lionel Murphy died disgraced. Not that you would guess it from his fellow travellers. He was convicted of corruption but avoided jail because of prostate cancer. Still the Christian in me thinks that justice is being done. Pity the poor children.

Till Death Do Us Part................Sort of.

The HILDA Survey, run by the University of Melbourne, is a large survey into the demographics and opinions of approximately 19,000 Australians. Recently I was leafing through it searching for income distribution data when I came upon some data which some of my readers might find of interest. Considering that Australia is part of the Anglosphere, I think that it's findings could be considered as broadly applicable to rest of it.

The data in question concerned itself with attitudes towards marriage and relationships. The people surveyed were given specific questions and their answers are given below.
(click on the image for a clearer view)

1) That Marriage is an outdated institution.



Comment: It whilst the majority of people still believe in marriage, women are still its biggest supporters.

2) It is alright for an unmarried couple to live together.



Comment: I think this is a good measure of how de-Christianised the country has become. Practical Christianity as opposed to theoretical.

3) That Marriage is a lifetime relationship and should never be ended.



Comment: Whilst most people believe in marriage, it seems that serial monogamy is what they consider as "marriage".The majority of people do not believe that marriage is a permanent state. Curiously, that in this age where men are afraid to commit, except for the 20-24 age group, men seem more committed to the idea that marriage is permanent than women. Something that I wouldn't have expected given that women seem more preoccupied with getting married.

4)That it is alright to divorce even if you have children.



Comment: Once again, another surprising finding. It would appear that the majority of women, with the exception of the elderly, do not see the incentive in staying in the marriage for the sake of the children, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is detrimental to their well being. Sticking together for the sake of their children seems to be something men, especially younger ones, are prepared to do.

5) That it is alright for a woman to have a child as a lone parent.



Comment: Once again the "caring sex" shows that, especially in the child rearing years, self gratification overrides child well being. It must be admitted though, that the majority of both sexes see sole parenthood negatively.

6) That Children are happier living with both mum and dad.



Comment: I personally found these findings horrifying. Amongst the majority of women in their reproductive years, the ideal of a two person family had been abandoned. Please note that men did not share these views. It would appear that a majority of women have a more "flexible" idea of what constitutes and ideal family than men. It is then no surprise at what the results were when the following question was asked.

7) Homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.



Comment: Whilst the majority of women don't support gay marriage rights, it would appear that an uncomfortably significant minority would support such a measure.

Looking at these findings it is of no surprise that the majority of divorce is instituted by women. Whereas men seem to see marriage as a commitment, women seem to see it more as a relationship. More importantly, women seem to see it solipsistically; their conception of marriage being a state recognised relationship rather than a commitment of two people to each other, through thick and thin. I make that statement on the observation that the well being of the children is secondary to the quality of the relationship. The idea that a mother and father are necessary for a child seems to be a concept that has been abandoned by a majority of women as an ideal. Children, according to the majority of women, can thrive equally in any type of "committed" relationship. This my friends is Bullshit. Men and women it would seem have different conceptions of what marriage is.

Now it needs to be stated that not all women think this way, but it would appear that the majority do. I really do like women and am not naturally misogynistic, but when I see figures like those above........................it really makes you wonder.


(Note: The above tables were reproduced without permission from The Statistical Report of the Third Hilda Survey found here. I have reproduced them in good faith on fair use grounds.)