Feminists: Biting the Hand That Feeds Them

Feminists are known for reveling in the “end of men” and declaring that women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Little do they know how wrong they are.

Radical feminists are only able to prance around with their churlish man-hating behavior because of the wealthy and safe society we live in, and the foundation of this society was built by and maintained by men.

 

Cheap energy (in the form of oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro and even inefficient wind and solar) fuels the machines that make modern life so easy compared with centuries past. Without all this, the modern feminist lifestyle would simply not be possible.

But instead of gratitude to the inventors and laborers who made this possible, rabid feminists snarl with raging fangs, sinking their teeth into the hands and hearts of men collectively, accusing them of domineering behavior, abusive attitudes and all the ills the world has ever known. Men are called creeps and good men are derisively sneared at as entitled Nice Guys. Men collectively are responsible for all the ills of the world in feminists’ ungrateful eyes but get no credit for the great accomplishments in science, medicine, engineering and society that have created the very conditions that feminists (and women in general) enjoy so much today. And just ask yourselves, would feminists rather live today where they control their lives in so many ways or 5000 years ago where subsistence living and a hard, short live was what you could aspire to? To ask the question is to answer it.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds them.

Talk about ingratitude. 

Talk about shitting on the shoulders of giants and thinking they’re 12 feet tall.

With that said, let’s focus on some recent discussion on this topic and give credit to some women who do get it. I like to do this for 2 reasons: 1) They are intelligent, fair and articulate in the message they deliver; and 2) I hope that a new group of alpha mares can rise up to replace the current hateful, feminist-supremacy alpha mares that guide the female herd and the beta-male followers (of course, the apex alpha males are the ultimate controllers of the herd and will use feminists and beta males for their purposes).

In response to such short-sightedness, Camille Paglia takes on the end of men crowd,

A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment. Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with carelessly fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology.

History must be seen clearly and fairly: obstructive traditions arose not from men’s hatred or enslavement of women but from the natural division of labor that had developed over thousands of years during the agrarian period and that once immensely benefited and protected women, permitting them to remain at the hearth to care for helpless infants and children. Over the past century, it was labor-saving appliances, invented by men and spread by capitalism, that liberated women from daily drudgery.

What is troubling in too many books and articles by feminist journalists in the U.S. is, despite their putative leftism, an implicit privileging of bourgeois values and culture. The particular focused, clerical and managerial skills of the upper-middle-class elite are presented as the highest desideratum, the ultimate evolutionary point of humanity. Yes, there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive.

But the triumphalism among some — like Hanna Rosin in her book, The End of Men, about women’s gains — seems startlingly premature. For instance, Rosin says of the sagging fortunes of today’s working-class couples that they and we had “reached the end of a hundred thousand years of human history and the beginning of a new era, and there was no going back.” This sweeping appeal to history somehow overlooks history’s far darker lessons about the cyclic rise and fall of civilizations, which as they become more complex and interconnected also become more vulnerable to collapse. The earth is littered with the ruins of empires that believed they were eternal.

After the next inevitable apocalypse, men will be desperately needed again! Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock, but most women and children will be expecting men to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home turf. Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is to most feminists, who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of ….

Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!

Commenting on Paglia’s message, Suzanne Venker (founder of http://womenformen.org) explicitly points out this ungrateful biting of the hand:

The irony is that it’s because of the sweet life men created that these women even have time to ruminate over their place in the world — and demonize the very group to whom they should be indebted.

Venker again shows the ingratitude of the Hanna Rosins of the world and prophetically warns about the dangers of creating a nation of men who either check out or angrily rebel, or as I like to say, most men are like dogs, loyal and forgiving but kick them long enough and eventually they’ll bite back. Don’t poke the bear.

Hanna Rosin is helping to brainwash a nation into believing the tired notion that most men wanted to keep women in their place, as though America was once Iran. It is therefore justifiable, one supposes, for women to take over. It’s retribution.

But retribution for what? For providing women with the means to an easier life? For faithfully bringing home the bacon so mothers can take care of their babies without the pressure of employment? For building the roads and infrastructure that make our cushy lives possible? For tilling the fields and transporting the food to the grocery stores so women like Rosin can pick up their goodies and avoid slaving over a hot stove? Those damn men. Why did they ever have to exist?

In 2011 I wrote this statement: “It is a dangerous thing to create a society of frustrated young men. Feminists have no idea what a can of worms they’ve created — and what it’s about to do to our nation.”

So now I’ll say it again, with a twist. It is a dangerous thing to create a society of angry men. Feminists have no idea what a can of worms they’ve created — and what it’s about to do to our nation.

Men should be proud of being men and of the more prosperous world they have helped create. Women should be grateful. Of course, this isn’t to deny the great evil that some men have committed nor to minimize the role that women have played. Nor is it to say that women can’t do this or that. Nor is it ignoring that we were all given life by our mothers. Rather, it is to fight against the wicked notion that men have only caused oppression and are no longer needed. For a society to function optimally, men and women need each other and should treat each other with love, respect and fairness.

Men, feel proud of who you are.

Women, go tell a man today that you’re grateful for what most men have done throughout history.

For further reading, see this article that shows how men (who aren’t needed according to radfems) are mostly responsible for creating, maintaining and fueling the comfortable modern world we live in:

http://judgybitch.com/2014/01/07/hanna-rosin-says-we-are-witnessing-the-end-of-men-oh-yeah-how-about-we-look-at-the-facts/

104 thoughts on “Feminists: Biting the Hand That Feeds Them

  1. 1

    George Orwell said of the coal miner:

    “He is a sort of grimy caryatid upon whose shoulders nearly everything that is not grimy is supported”

    Orwell was both a socialist and an asthamatic, so he was probably keenly aware of the downsides of coal; nevertheless he understood that it was essential. It is difficult to imagine today’s “progressives” showing equal respect for the role of those working on offshore oil platforms or fracking in the Dakotas. More likely, they would avoid showing any form of appreciation or respect to these men by asserting that their work is merely done to enrich eeevil corporations while destroying the Planet.

  2. 2
    Han Solo says:

    Good point, David. They start with the assumption that it’s all to enrich evil corporations, destroy the planet, and foster patriarchal privilege. With such a world view, everything is interpreted in a negative fashion against men and no place for reason, balance or gratitude is possible.

  3. 3

    Every so often, reality intrudes. See Peggy Noonan’s post 9-11 column, “Welcome back, duke”.
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122451174798650085

    Couple of errors. She doesn’t know that John Wayne has been a figure of fun and contempt in the military for years beginning with WW II and up to the kids who never heard of him. Guess he’s a nobody now.
    Other than that, the rest of the column is spot on.

  4. 4
    Adonis says:

    Subbed

  5. 5
    Spawny Get says:

    Your last set of presidential campaign debates featured the endlessly debunked gender pay gap myth. Neither candidate dared counter the bullshit question. Both went along with it. It’s the same over here with mangina Cameron.

    In front of us we have borderline ideologues, behind us backstabbing manginas and white knights.

    Things will get better, but only after they get a lot worse. But things are speeding up. Avoiceformen did a couple of 2013 roundups. We came a long way, baby, in the last 14 months (since UoT, Vladek Filler, Mangum etc)

  6. 6
    Lowbrass says:

    Neat timing here. I was just reading this at The Blaze:

    http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/01/10/if-men-want-to-pursue-their-roles-as-providers-and-achievers-theyre-going-to-have-to-woman-up-a-forbes-contributor-throws-down-the-gauntlet-against-the-manliness-movement/

    Here’s the Forbe’s article:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/10/the-american-economy-not-feminism-is-whats-ruining-masculinity/

    All I can say – if the comparison is being drawn to the economy, then the modern feminists are the labor union gone awry. They fear the Right to Work state that is the manosphere.

    I had to clap for this entry just like I did when I watched part 1 of Atlas Shrugged.

  7. 7
    Han Solo says:

    Lowbrass

    Interesting Forbes article (haven’t read the other one yet) though I think it misses the point of how pro-feminine our society has become and the bias against men. But underlying all of this is the great irony that provider and inventor males basically invented themselves out of a job by making society too prosperous or by inventing machines and robots and computers to take their place.

    So far, this has impinged on the domain of men’s physical strength and so jobs that required physical labor have been replaced to a large extent by machines, but men still tend to be the ones operating and maintaining the machines. However, far less people are needed to produce the same amount.

    At some point, it may impinge upon the more cerebral forms of employment. In this video, Jeopardy winner Ken Jennings who then lost to the computer Watson talks about robots entering into certain areas. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/01/10/jeopardy_winner_ken_jennings_on_the_impact_of_robots_on_jobs.html

    In terms of reproductive technology, what has been developed so far has resulted in giving women even more power and independence (women have the pill and abortion, men have condoms). Women are the more valuable reproductive sex (with the exception of apex alpha sperm donors, however you want to define them).

    However, in the near future, male birth control will be available (so it seems) and in the distant future it will likely be possible to have artificial wombs or cloning or who knows what. In these future scenarios, assuming they happen, technology will finally make women “not needed.” This is not spoken with spiteful glee, just simple speculation on what will likely occur.

    So to sum up.

    1) Technology first replaced brawn, making male strength less important and elevating brain power, serves to disempower men to some extent in relation to women and makes raw physical strength less valuable

    2) Technology is now in the process of replacing some of the “brain” functions that both men and women perform. Articles about how computers are being used more and more to mine large data are being written. This of course is just the infancy. More intelligent computers may come along that will really give humans a run for their money in many fields and will displace both men and women from jobs.

    3) Reproductive technology (as in artificial wombs or cloning combined with some genetic engineering that removes the need for either sperm or egg) would be the one that really makes women less valuable. Men would not really be needed for sperm either but you don’t need that many men right now for sperm anyways.

    So the Hanna Rosins of the world may chortle in their joy about the end of men but the end of women could soon be at hand too (whether that be 50 or 500 years from now is besides the point) which raises the real issue, are we approaching the end of humanity (as we know it)?

  8. 8
    Lowbrass says:

    Sing it with me, Han Solo:

    “In the year 2525…”

  9. 9
    Spawny Get says:

    Fred on everything said it pretty well
    http://www.fredoneverything.net/Maureen2.shtml

    the web I find her at some feminist bitch-in, called Are Men Obsolete? She has this to say to men:
    ..
    “So now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is, ‘You know we need you in the way we need ice cream….you’ll be more ornamental.”

    I was delighted to think that I might be ornamental, no one having suggested the concept until now. I could have used it in high school. Maureen herself is beyond being ornamental, having that injection-molded look that follows the seventh face-lift, probably accomplished by the surgical use of a construction crane.

    But I will say this to her:

    Listen, Corn Flower. Let’s think over this business of obsolete men. Reflect. You live in New York, in which every building was designed and built by men. You perhaps use the subway, designed, built, and maintained by men. You travel at in a car, invented, designed, and built by men—a vehicle that you don’t understand (what is a cam lobe?) and couldn’t maintain (have you ever changed a tire? Could you even find the tires?), and you do this on roads designed, built, and maintained by men. You fly in aircraft designed, built, and maintained by men, which you do not understand (what, Moon Pie, is a high-bypass turbofan?)
    In short, as you run from convention to convention, peeing on hydrants, you depend utterly on men to keep you fed (via tractors designed by men, guided by GPS invented, designed, and launched by men, on farms run by men), and comfy (air conditioning invented…but need I repeat myself?)

    I do not want to be unjust. It is not in my nature. While men may be obsolete (unless you want to eat) I cannot say, Apple Cheeks, that feminists are obsolete. They are not. Obsoleteness implies having passed through a period of usefulness.

    I do get tired of your hissing and fizzing about the noble sex to which I belong. Mercy, I cry. It is not my fault that Michael Douglas didn’t marry you. He didn’t marry me either, but I don’t hate men because of it. (In fact I am grateful to him, and doubtless he to me).

    Don’t misunderstand me. I have nothing against ill-bred viragos—feminism has its place, though I’m not sure where. But let’ me be clear, Buttercup. I don’t want to seem rude—nothing could be more alien to my character—but I do think that you and your littermates might essay a civility exceeding that of menopausing catamounts. In fact, Sweet Potato, if it were not for my innate courtesy I might say that being at once useless and insupportable is stretching things.

    A jot—an iota, a tittle, a scintilla—of gratitude might be in order. Should you look around you, you will note that everything that keeps you and the sisterhood from squatting in caves and picking lice from each other’s hair was provided for you by—the horror—men.

    Is it not so, Rose Bud? Can you name one thing, with a moving part, that was invented by a feminist?

    It seems to me that you gals are like African bushmen, but without their dignity. A bushman looks at a television (Invented by Men: IBM) in astonishment, and says, “Wah! Bad juju! Spirits inside!” He knows he doesn’t understand it and does not presume. His degree of understanding, I suspect, is exactly yours.

    But I suppose the shrewery are so busy honking and blowing about socially-constructed this and gender-roles that and patriarchal the-other-thing that you don’t understand that there is anything to understand. Is it not so? When you sit at your computer spewing bile like a legged gall-bladder, are you aware of 2500 years of mathematics, chemistry, solid-state physics, engineering, information theory—all invented by men, the bastards—that go into the blinking screen? Your vituperative ingratitude, Sugar Britches, is undignified.

    But perhaps, you might say, I am being ungentlemanly—though I would hardly know how. Perhaps, as we said in Alabama, you ain’t got the sense God give a crabapple.

    Maybe, Petunia, you and your frothing friends could profitably come to terms with realty. Women make perfectly good dentists, surgeons, reporters, lawyers, musicians, editors, and all sorts of things. They can do some things better than men can. (Dentistry: smaller hands, better fine-muscle control) In Latin countries they do these things civilly (consult your dictionary). And I applaud anyone making headway in this world on his, her, or its merits.

    Yet as a matter of observable fact (a category apparently having no place in feminism), we men—patriarchal, capitalistic, macho, immature, savage, testosterone- poisoned, et cetera—seem to come up with everything important that comes up. (I won’t touch that one with a pole.) (Wait, I meant….) For example: The transistor, William Shockley and his group. Microsoft, Bill Gates. Intel, Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce. Apple, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Dell Computer, Michael Dell. Public-key encryption, James Ellis, Clifford Cookis, and Malcom Williamson at GCHQ in England and later Rivest, Shamir, and Adelman of RSA Security. The World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, a Brit at CERN. Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Yahoo, Jerry Yang and David Filo. Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg. The list could go on for another yard or so.

    It will stay that way, Lotus Blossom, for the same reason that women will never be offensive linemen in the NFL. They can’t. If they could, they would have. If you disagree, I suggest you apply to the Redskins. They need any talent they can get.

    Now, if I were left alone, I would say none of this, having no desire to make women feel bad. But you and yours will not leave me alone, Maureen. I am perfectly happy in a world of female doctors and techs and what have you. When women act like what used to be called “ladies,” I act like what used to be called “a gentleman.” It used to be that if at the airport I saw a woman struggling with too much suitcase, I would say, “May I give you a hand?,” and put the suitcase where it needed to be. The woman would say, “Thanks,” to which I would respond, “Happy to help.” And that would be that. It sould have nothing to do with machismo, and much to do with a suitcase. Now, I’m not sure I would do it.

    OK, I’m bluffing. I would do it. But, Sweet Pea, I hope you have mastered parthenogenesis. It is your only hope

  10. 10
    Jeremy says:

    Rachel Burger confuses type available jobs with motivation of men to use those jobs as a source of income. She presumes that men have job preferences that they will never violate when it comes to being a protector provider. She presumes that men have terms by which they will allow themselves to be a provider. This is pure projection. It is women who have terms by which they will work. It is women who refuse to work long hours, who refuse to work the dirtiest, hardest jobs. It is women who refuse specific industries based on the work required, not men. Men are whores to a buck and will work any job as long as it keeps them fed, clothed, and able to pursue individual freedom. When it comes to being a provider, it is men who have specific terms by which they expect their women to behave.

    She fails to recognize the minimalism threat in action.

  11. 11
    Spawny Get says:

    Sorry, Kindle cut n paste lost the top of Fred’s masterpiece. Best follow the link. Great writer, love his work.

  12. 12
    Spawny Get says:

    I’ve seen ‘someone’ ask how many secretarial jobs are going to go when Siri develops a little more. It isn’t just men’s jobs that are vulnerable.

    Maybe when the fembots die we can have an adult discussion about work in a world of permanent large-scale unemployment brought about by machines.

    Or we can give it a few years and see how the ‘fabulous forties career girls’ (paper jugglers) feel about footing the bill for their more maternal sisters entitlements. Currently men pay 72% of the taxes and receive under half of the payouts, happy to wait and see more equity there. Cheers gurlz.

  13. 13
    Badpainter says:

    Spawny Get,

    If you haven’t you should read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut, where he writes of the dystopic post labor future.

  14. 14
    Spawny Get says:

    @BadPainter
    Thanks very much for the suggestion, time to check what I’ve got hanging around in my collection, or maybe start investing.
    Ta

  15. 15
    Johnycomelately says:

    Radfems have no idea where economic output comes from.

    Dalrock’s recent post was a real eye opener as to how important the state views maximizing male economic output, to the point of threatening jail (imputed income) for underperformance.

    As individual male to female wealth transfer gets smaller (less marriages and underperforming men) the need for more collective male transfers (tax and government employment) becomes necessary despite a shrinking tax base.

    With a continually shrinking tax base the state is aditionally forcing the private sector to carry the collective female burden through coercive employment legislation (positive discrimination, sexual harassment laws, affirmative action etc.).

    There seems to be a lot of momentum in the system (debt) to continue this charade for a while longer but as male incentives to perform are continually eroded it will be interesting to see how his eventually pans out.

  16. 16
    Liz says:

    Very well said, Han! :-)

    To quote author Sarah Hoyt, “The trend to write women as improbably physically strong, with the morals of a bunny in heat, and the brains of a gnat makes most of us who are actually strong women froth at the mouth.”

    *snip*
    “What I see is women who were freed by tech advances and who THINK they were freed by marching shoulder to shoulder and taking permanent offense. These women live in a state of paranoia, dreaming up male privilege that is invisible to anyone but them, and taking offense at ever more ridiculous things – even things that have nothing to do with gender – because they’re so terrified of men taking the upper hand again.

    I look at them going to war with spelling: Womyn, Herstory. I look at them dancing around dressed as vaginas (!) because apparently the most important thing in these women’s lives is their sexual organs. I look at them acting as a pack and attacking whoever they’re told to attack because “so and so is anti-woman” and I think… these are humans? These are civilized people? Don’t they see they’re being tools of the Marxist divide-and-conquer strategy? Don’t they see the end of this is either societal destruction or TRUE backlash for the sake of saving civilization?

    Apparently not. So… carry on. Dance around in your little fabric vaginas. Think that all men are out to get you. Refuse to have children, because some of them might be male. And scream, scream, scream about made-up outrage.”

    Consider the vast number of women who got where they are by capitalizing on their victimhood status. They won’t give up sucking from that bountiful teet until it is removed from their mouths.

  17. 17
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Re: robots replacing us all and machine vs. labor

    False dichotomy. The general idea is that more advanced machines replace labor over time and that this means people skills and intellectual skills will become more valuable, with increasing income gaps.
    And people point to the Western world, especially the Anglo world, as an example.
    Entirely false.
    On a GLOBAL scale, income inequality is actually falling. The problem isn’t that American men are suddenly useless as laborers, the problem is that China has been opened up and this drives down wages and makes American men less scarce.
    On the LONG scale, capital is a component that increases the value of labor and therefore increases wages, in the long term. This is what happened with the first industrial revolution, the second industrial revolution, and actually is happening NOW, but on a GLOBAL scale.
    Also, this can easily affect women as well. See the Siri comment above. Women used to work in textile mills. Now Bangladeshi children do. One of the big jobs for single women used to be telephone operators. That’s been mostly automated. Even today in my crappy department I can run programs that automatically do 10x the work any individual human ever could, and a lot of our work has been outsourced to India, and that’s replacing a lot of women-jobs.

    Also for all the talk about “mancession,” men now have a lower unemployment rate than women, as many women were in a bloated government sector that is now getting shrunk. Go look it up.

    Women who gloat about the end of men have no understanding of the economy.

    Moving forward into the future, increasing automation should eliminate a lot of medical jobs, and outsourcing does as well. It won’t be too much longer before computer-assisted learning replaces teachers: see Tyler Cowen’s “average is over.” When I was tutoring, we relied heavily on the computer to create curriculums and it really is not that difficult to program the computer to educate the child, too. The issue is motivation, but that’s what Grandma is for, and if we want teachers to become motivational coaches, well, let’s hire motivational coaches.

    Richard and I were talking about military affairs in another thread, and as Richard said, the war isn’t won until there is a guy with a spear in a town and everyone surrenders to him. You will forever need boots on the ground and for the most part those boots are going to be men.
    Especially when it comes to high intensity combat operations, as opposed to the low-intensity wars that define Iraq and Afghanistan. Go look at the First Battle of Marne. The Germans were beating the shit out of the French in 1914, threatening to cut off entire armies, the British Expenediatory Force was nearly entirely destroyed. The Germans just happened to expose their flank.
    Yep. Go time. No excuses. There is no “base camp.” You need to go out and charge the machine gun nests and press them back as far as you possibly can or else millions of your fellow soldiers are going to be surrounded and starve to death. That’s a couple days of CONSTANT fighting, with essentially no supply lines, no sleep, no latrines, just charge the machine gun nests and hope for the best. A couple days later, the French units were experiencing casualty rates of 33, 40, 50 percent, but they had managed to push the Germans back something like 40-50 miles and prevent total defeat.
    Letting up for even a few hours might mean the difference between a stalemate and total defeat.
    Those are the kind of situations where you really want men on the front line.
    Question: did these men have inner game? Or confidence? Because WWI saw near total mobilization of the entire adult male population for these European nations.

  18. 18

    ADBG
    Could be a rifle, too. But the point is the same, as I’m sure you grok.
    As to ev psych: Prior to WW I, pix of English men looked like the old Arrow shirt ads. There went a million of the young men, half a million twenty years later and now the Brits look like Ringo Starr and Mick Jagger. Exceptions are so rare they’re in the movies–Daniel Craig and What’s his name in 300.
    So a culling of that savagery might have an effect on the hard-wired behavioral propensities of the population over represented by the descendants of those who didn’t go. Who wrote the Fall of Rome? Him, anyway, said war is dysgenic.
    I kind of said the same thing at HUS, talking about the high-T faces you could see in the pix of civil war soldiers. Not so many around now.

  19. 19
    Liz says:

    ADBG, I agree that the frontline battlefield require men but technology has culled those numbers as well. Far fewer troops were used in the second Gulf War than the first. The future is asymetrical warfare, not large forces meeting in the battlefield.

    Per global scale economy, I agree. It’s hard to argue our outsourcing hasn’t helped the Chinese economy. But it isn’t a free market, and the situation is more one of dependence than interdependence. As a historian, you can probably appreciate the problem this has the potential to create. During WWII the US almost brought German industrial production to a halt by bombing the ball bearing factories in Schweinfurt Germany.
    Today there are relatively few factories in the US capable of turning out simple parts for manufactured goods. This isnt’ limited to our industrial production and tech (and virtually the entire DOD uses computer hardware manufactured in China). Even some of our best and newest weapons systems depend on parts made overseas that could be simply cut off. Of course, this is not just an American problem.

  20. 20

    Great post by Han—I really like the Big Picture POV.

    The link to similarly excellent Captain Capitalism piece caused a few thoughts to spring to mind… In the past we have discussed how rising female economic independence logically affects male incentives to produce the traditional surplus (the difference between male economic production and male economic consumption that was freed up to be shared with the nuclear family). There are two obvious reactions for a man who realizes that women wish to emphasize education and career, thus liberating men from the traditional surplus-generator concept of manhood (in fact, the surplus-generator concept may be sharply criticized by feminists insofar as it is associated with male-biased hiring practices, compensation, etc.):

    1. “Increased Work-Life Balance”. This guy simply produces less and enjoys more free time, less student debt (debt in this case representing a claim on the future, a fixed-expense obligation which limits lifestyle optionality), and so on.

    2. “Increased Self-Indulgence.” This guy produces more but keeps it for himself, deploying it only at his personal discretion.

    When Captain Cap talks about male household consumption patterns in the absence of the nuclear family incentive package, I immediately thought of the two primary archetypes of the bachelor pad that I personally see amongst my single male friends and myself:

    A). The Eternal Frat House. This resembles a college dormitory and contains a patchwork collection of inexpensive furniture items and hand-me-downs. Maintenance and cleaning are typically “deferred” until such time as a female guest is expected. Pride of place in the home is the entertainment complex with its all-important gaming console. Local take-out menus are stuck all over the refrigerator. Art tends to be framed Tarantino movie posters, sports memorabilia, and buddy photos.

    B) The Zen/Pleistocene Batcave. This place looks like the meditation and personal development habitat of an international assassin. Sleek, minimalist furniture, usually involving steels, granite, dead animals, or hardwoods. Art tends to celebrate predatory animals or ancient battles. Kettlebells and heavy bag in a corner, overflowing bookshelves, decorative weapons displays on the wall, pornographic and/or violent imagery flickering on the 80″ flat screen. “GENGHIS”, the 150-pound pit bull, snores peacefully on the giant Restoration Hardware leather coach.

    Note that both man-pads feature shark-like efficiency in their own ways: in each case, expenditure on a consumer product tends to directly scale with its frequency-of-use.

    In contrast, my married male friends are often engaged in household consumption patterns that they themselves do not seem to fully understand. Many furniture and decor decisions seem highly transient, lasting only for a year or two before items that seem perfectly serviceable and attractive are thrown out, given away, or sold for a fraction of their original purchase prices. There is a sense of a constant, endless, neighbor-competitive “churn” going on. The men will frequently say that they would be ok with just such-and-such and using the money for more exciting vacations, but the tweaking and changing seems to keep their wives happy. On the bright side, the houses are clean and safe and well-organized, the pantries well-stocked, the bathrooms pathogen-free.

    I don’t think there is anything wrong with any of these lifestyle choices (there are pros and cons to all of them), but it is interesting to think about what happens when men from the three pools interact and compare lifestyles, as will be increasingly the case given underlying socioeconomic trends.

  21. 21
    Badpainter says:

    Liz- “This isnt’ limited to our industrial production and tech (and virtually the entire DOD uses computer hardware manufactured in China). Even some of our best and newest weapons systems depend on parts made overseas that could be simply cut off. Of course, this is not just an American problem.”

    Ford never built a B-24 before 1942, and yet built more B-24s at Willow Run than any other plant. The question to really to be considered is whether the USA still has the will and organizational/engineering genius to do the same sort of industrial turnaround today. I think the technology, and core of that base are still there but wonder at the mind power, especially on military/political side. Who is today”s George Marshall?

  22. 22
    Liz says:

    #20: As an aside (I didn’t read the Captain’s piece), the lifestyle change that takes place often has more to do with children than anything else.

    Before the kids, we lived a really Spartan existence (pretty much bachelor-pad style, to include large dog). When the kids are new, that type of lifestyle is fine (exception you have to be more worried about crime rates, so the better neighborhoods are a draw, and with them usually larger and better housing accommodations). Then they start to enter the school systems, and you have to be in a good school district. Next, you need nice things because the neighbors come over and you go over there, and kids are involved and so forth.

    Just speaking anecdotally, this is my experience. I don’t think the average childless spinster cat rancher lady has a large house and buys new furniture every other year. Though she probably has a very large closet full of shoes, perhaps some Prada purses and gets a weekly manicure/pedicure experience.

  23. 23
    Liz says:

    #21: That’s true, badpainter, but tech has reached a level today where we really can’t turn a sewing machine factory into an airplane producing factory virtually overnight as they could back then.

  24. 24
    jf12 says:

    It’s not just declared feminists. Most modern American wives are far too ungrateful and contemptuous of their husbands.

    My ex-wife does literary criticism, at a somewhat more rarefied level than Paglia. I happened to meet Paglia more than three decades ago. She had pronounced mannish (not to say boyish) mannerisms, and exclusively hung around men, shunning women, even beautiful women seeking her attention (such as my ex). Believe it or not she seemed to be covertly flirting with the few alpha males, about like a gay man would.

  25. 25

    Liz,

    Assymetric warfare is the future because our enemies, actual or potential, have seen or experienced high-intensity conventional warfare with us.
    We famously beat the hell out of the VC/NVA, even with famously restrictive ROE, but we were defeated by the left in the Congress, where not a shot was fired.
    The lesson is…you don’t even need to fight the US, just get the right guys on your side in Congress, the world’s largest body of betrayers. See how well we are keeping our promises to the terps in Astan and Iraq about getting them out.
    However, in order to make the case to the public, you do need some drama, hence the assymetric warfare.
    The point is, however, that we have sufficient combat power for conventional high-intensity warfare anyway, or somebody, noting the deficiency, might try it on us.
    With a population of 180 million in WW II, we had 15 million guys in the service. We could do better now.
    What we have in assymetric warfare is the intel and the other capacities to put our trigger-pullers where they need to be and the right munitions where they need to be first time every time. We don’t need large formations hanging around in case something big happens various places.
    But the trigger-pullers need to be badass. It’s worth an officer’s career to admit it, but having women in near-combat roles is sometimes a negative. MP–Infantry lite, or Infantry for Chicks–units still have to kick in doors, heave themselves through windows or over walls, or go hand to hand. Plus carry a metric shitload of stuff doing it. Women aren’t up to it.
    Having said that, look at Korea. If those nutcases try to come south, it’s going to be conventional war. In addition, since the fighting is going to be taking place over, around, and among civilians–see Seoul and the DMZ for example–the left in this country is going to have a lot of horrors to blame on us.
    There is an assertion about the first Korean war that various Pyongyang factions differed on the subject and one guy, with authority over certain military formations, started it anyway and the rest had to follow.
    Which leaves us looking at the inbred nutcase there now, thinking he’s keeping a lid on the ratfight of Nork politics.
    It’s still a man’s world in certain parts, and those are the parts where, if you don’t have a lot of the right kind of guys, everything goes to hell.
    The rest of the world–speaking both geographically and socially–is meaningless if the part needing men doesn’t work.

  26. 26
    Liz says:

    Though I will admit DARPA can field its ideas and bring them to the market freakishly fast.

  27. 27

    Badpainter…”Ford never built a B-24 before 1942, and yet built more B-24s at Willow Run than any other plant.” There is currently a project to save part of the Willow Run plant from demolition and turn it into a museum of aviation, manufacturing, and social history.

    http://savethebomberplant.org/

    The vision to produce B-24s assembly-line-style came from Ford production VP Charles Sorensen..he had been asked to quote on building components for the plane and instead bid on doing the whole thing…and was strongly supported by Edsel Ford, Henry Ford having pretty much zoned out as far as the defense projects went.

  28. 28

    Re the issue of whether we could rapidly do something like the Willow Run project in America today, see my post Like Swimming in Glue:

    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4435.html

    ..also, General Bernard Schriever and the USAF missile programs:

    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/24503.html

    A 1957 TIME cover story referred to Schriever and his crew as “tomorrow’s men.” In retrospect, this was true only if one defined “tomorrow” as the interval between the appearance of the article and, say, July 1969. Actually it could be argued that Schriever was a man of the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, the era of the Panama Canal and the Hoover Dam and the Empire State Building. In our current era, the execution of such projects has become difficult almost to the point of impossibility. Schreiver faced down General LeMay and AIr Force Secretary Talbott..would a modern-day Schriever be able to prevail against the lilliputian army of lawyers, “community activists,” and “public interest” nonprofits who obstruct every single project of any size? The answer is almost certainly “no.”

    Badpainter asked “Who is today”s George Marshall?” I don’t think Obama would tolerate a man like Marshall as Chief of Staff, nor would he tolerate the civilian equivalent in a civilian-equivalent job (like, for instance, running the Obamacare implementation), preferring instead to have yes-men who will tell him what he wants to hear.

  29. 29
    jf12 says:

    The sum of all examples. Our high school robotics team got a 3D printer, which I had envisioned using for our existing CAD software team (3 boys and a mechanical engineer) to create scale models of some parts like odd-shaped brackets. They made one item, basically a hotwheels sized car sculpture, and declared it useless for their purposes. But the public relations team (5 girls 1 boy and and acountant) found it useful to create bunnies (girls) and minions (boy) for a claymation advertisement.

  30. 30

    An *accountant* on a public relations team?

    Reminds me of the time I met a former Purchasing manager who some genius had decided to turn into a Marketing VP….

  31. 31
    Tasmin says:

    @Bastiat
    Unbridled female sexuality and consumerism. There used to be a number of constraints on the former, which seemed to make the latter a null issue. Now the gates are open – on both fronts. This is most certainly related. The modern women’s sexuality, how she comes to view and thus participate in the SMP, and her consumption of ‘things’ seems to share a common root system.

    There has been much of late around the sphere about male production, investment, etc. in which MGTOW gets a lot of attention, but what you have described above is more like what I see within my male social circle, both in terms of a more minimalist approach to “life” as well as how most of my married male friends seem to be unable to avoid the rising tide of consumerism – despite having rather simple ideas and requirements for their own satisfaction. GTOW is greatly oversimplified, reduced.

    Many single men in their late 30′s I know are actively adjusting (installing a governor, if not reducing) their professional output (production) based on the positive feedback loop of reducing their consumption. And I think this plays into their view on dating and marriage far more than the spoils of the perpetual-man-child, peter pan stuff the media likes to portray. These guys are full-grown, responsible men who are keenly aware of what it takes to procure a new puffy L-sectional because the new TV is too big for the “old” couch.

    Granted, I’m well aware that I’m hanging around the end of the curve in which ‘dialing back’ is still much more productive than the makework crowd or those licking the ball-bearing at the end of the government dole, but most of the ‘production’, let alone surplus potential has long since been replaced, exported, globalised, etc. Thats a not-so-secret little secret that continues out of the necessity to keep people from realising the futility. And I can see why those men dial back preemptively, for a whole host of reasons. As usual, I digress.

    The interaction you mention is interesting. I maintain a version of “B”, but no TV of any kind. My office, art studio, shelves of books, collected works on the walls, couple pieces of home-made furniture, a couple of well-selected kitchen wares, etc. needs no ‘feminine touch’, no bric-a-brac from a big box, no updating; the ‘style’ is timeless, my requirements are small. Married buddies love my place. But like most of these things, people don’t like to be reminded of options that are not really on the table anymore; they prefer to be surrounded by those in similar positions.

    Meanwhile, their wives maintain the party line of “you should find a nice girl” and the like, but I can tell they do this mostly out of an obligation to their own narrative – and with hope that her hubby would then have one less single male friend, which are almost always a ‘bad’ influence, if even that influence is limited to a simple, comfortable, but decidedly ‘male’ house.

    The other benefit(?): some women have commented, in varying forms, that they are ‘intimidated’ by how I keep and run my habitat. In essence, they can see and feel that I don’t ‘need’ a woman to improve my condition. Always interesting how some “traditional” assumptions survive – or rather resurface when women are “Ready”.

  32. 32
    Badpainter says:

    richardaubrey,

    I think we in for a world hurt come the next big war, and there will be one. The world today is in much the same position it was 100 years ago. Except this time the The USA is playing Great Britain, and China is playing Germany. Ironically Russia is still playing Russia.

    Asymmetric warfare is terrible blight on military thinking in the west. It makes use of force too easy politically, too clean, the home front is too far removed from the death and destruction. It puts strategic decision making in the bind of having to answer to political polls. The mission is not Victory in an objective knowable sense Americans understand but rather makes our foreign problems manageable for the duration of someone’s term of office. This solves nothing, It might actually be a better from a fiscal point of view to pay cash to the bad guys to not attack us. Certainly we wouldn’t be sacrificing the lives our servicemen in wars the nation has no intention of winning.

    This problem is a problem of will. The USA currently lacks the necessary will to win wars of any kind. Our military has no such problem and my statement is not about our armed forces, rather I accuse the American people of the weakness. Only when you have the will to kill every single one your enemies, including the women and children, can you show real mercy. In WWII we had that will, and we got the enemy to surrender in exchange for our mercy.

  33. 33
    jf12 says:

    Re: accountant. It’s not what you know it’s who you know: her husband is a newpaper editor. I had wanted her to lead a more active business team, one that would actually do inventory for a change, but she likes getting kids enthused about meeting people and fundraising etc.

  34. 34

    In WWII we had that will, and we got the enemy to surrender in exchange for our mercy.

    Badpainter.

    That was then. Today, that would be mean.

  35. 35
    jf12 says:

    Re: Big Projects. Who is today’s Leslie Groves?

  36. 36

    Jf12: Fascinating. May we press you for some additional color commentary and anecdotes regarding Paglia…? Your observations regarding her interest in alpha males would seem to be in keeping with her own stated preferences re: dominant male sexuality and so on.

    Liz: great insights.

    Tasmin: I hear you, my friend. It is my similar experience that, ceteris paribus, a woman might be more comfortable with a potential mate who lives in Bachelor Pad A. As much as she might complain about the filth and the stereotypical unwashed dishes and pizza boxes, at least this guy appears to “need” a domestic or civilizing element in his life. Meanwhile, the occupant of Pad B seems largely self-sufficient and pleased with his finished set-up, and less willing to compromise or defer domestic decisions to anyone else.

    Left to their own devices, I think that men of some taste and breeding will usually tend towards the Zen/Pleistocene Batcave habitat and towards purchases which, while possibly quite expensive, exemplify enduring style: the Randall knife, the Norton Commando, the Lobb brogues, the “Hedge Fund Gigolo” wardrobe, the classic Ford Bronco, etc. The typical guy may even name some of these possessions and think of them as friends or pets, be wary of “cheating” on them, etc. Exceptions of course are found in electronic gadgetry.

    My vignette did not even begin to address the impact that a bachelor with an STR/hookup-successful lifestyle has on a modern social circle that freely intermixes single- and married males. That can be really hard on those married guys who really are having some issues in the sex department at home; those poor men can develop that blown-out, Thousand-Yard-Stare type of look.

    Evolutionary psychologists have posited that increasingly the quality and quantity of sexual opportunities is probably the major adaptive point of status-striving by males. It may be that a source of energy for hypercompetitive Red Qeen-type consumerism wars among affluent married couples is a male who cannot or will not sexually monetize his ambitions and hard work via short-term sexual opportunities in the marketplace. With this traditional pathway blocked because of monogamy, perhaps the remaining justifications become A) pleasing the wife or B) “beating” the married friends and their children in some status-signal way that has become a consensus goal-post marking “success” in that community.

    Note how this whole incentive package might change if the married guy worked with a bachelor who had created a more “Shibui” lifestyle and habitat, but who also was more effectively monetizing his efforts when it came to sex opportunities. I can imagine that in some circles this single guy might be seen as almost subversive, perhaps even a form of terrorist or saboteur.

    I agree with you that the truly radicalized MGTOW element willing to go full-profile Herbivore is probably quite a small percentage of potentially eligible American males, at least today, but this other “Sovereign Man” concept—to borrow BV’s excellent term—is going to be more and more prevalent among a certain subset of the population.

    I’m not arguing that the declining incentives for males to produce a transferable surplus is necessarily bad news for women. It may just mean that both genders will have to be more independent and psychologically self-sufficient, as men and women both pursue more of an individualist, bespoke-tailoring type of self-interest in terms of overall lifestyle design.

    Thoughts…?

  37. 37

    It needs to be added that the lifestyle of a PUA or a MGHOW is just as dependent on cheap energy and a highly advanced infrastructure as the lifestyle of nasty feminist single women who belittle and disrespect men. It’s kind of distasteful to admit it in the ‘sphere, I suppose, but there’s no need here to deny the obvious truth. Economic life and social order can deteriorate to a point where PUAs, MGTOW, poor single mothers and carousel-riding single women all become dead meat. And it will happen, at least in some regions of Western countries, if men’s economic contribution continues to decline. PUAs and MGTOW can only flourish in advanced, relatively prosperious, atomized, non-traditionalist societies. You cannot “be poolside” if there are no pools. If you try to be a PUA or a MGHOW in South Sudan or Liberia, you’ll get mugged and killed. Hell, you’ll probably suffer a similar fate in the rural areas of poorer Eastern European countries as well, and those aren’t that far from the West.

    This will be the likely factor shaping the eventual outcome of current trends. When chaos ensues and alpha thugs are running wild in packs, betas will only have two options: get turned into dead meat or do the stuff that used to work centuries before – form tight-knit groups, mostly based on family ties, arm themselves and defend to the death their territory and the attractive women who agree to submit to them.

  38. 38

    Re: 36

    How many women can you count that are “independent and psychologically self-sufficient”?

  39. 39
    jf12 says:

    Re: no additional. Never talked to her. Suffice to say MLA alpha males are a peculiarly jaw-jutting lot, vastly overcompensating for the uselessness of their chosen profession. If you envision Dudley DoRight with fists on hips, blinking pig-eyed stupidly at soiree attendants for giggling at a particular beta male’s (non-MLA nerd) impromptu real-time deconstruction of Toys In The Attic as it was playing, you will have envisioned her preference in males.

  40. 40

    jesus, that’s vivid imagery

  41. 41

    Certainly, being offput by the guy’s ordered and self-sufficient lifestyle is a filter which takes no effort, the effort already being sunk in the lifestyle.

  42. 42
    Tasmin says:

    @Hoellenhund2
    Yep. The “One minute After” kind of scenario = all bets are off. And without Elysium to retreat to there will indeed be a lot of dead meat in the 1%. I’m no “prepper” but I find myself involved in these types of discussions more often of late. They tend to originate from a rather antiseptic and academic place, i.e. I need to park some of my capital and don’t want equities and don’t trust paper gold, bitcoin, etc. Then we end up talking about things like the best rifle based on durability and ammunition cost; micro-grid power generation, clean water tech, etc. In the meantime, I’m improving my Spanish, run about 30% of my income/expenses via trade, and hold a couple of decent NRA shooting qualifications lol.

  43. 43
    Han Solo says:

    @LB 8 Interesting lyrics once I looked it up.

    @Spawny 9 Very fun writing. I imagined it more with an Irish accent as I was reading it. lol

    @Jeremy 10

    Interesting post at Captain Capitalism. The minimalist tendencies of most single men is evident. And often, any flair they may have beyond that is with getting laid in mind.

    As Dave Chappelle famously said, “If men could fuck women in a cardboard box, they wouldn’t buy a house.” We can probably thank women’s hypergamy in terms of material goods for driving many of the inventors and investors of the past that brought about our comfortable living standards today. Of course, that brings a lot of “useless crap” along with it too.

  44. 44
    Badpainter says:

    I have an idea. Thanks, to Bastiat Blogger for the inspiration.

    Adding to my previous comment on a national lack of will, it is masculine will that has been suppressed, repressed, and oppressed. It is the willful little boys who get the drugs foisted on them by teachers, willful older boys who are forced to endure our statist indoctrination centers to be “educated”, willful adolescent boys, and young men who taught to be subservient nice guys rather than potential rapists by politically correct feminist propaganda. It is willful men who are shut out of government, and hi-status jobs because they aren’t team players, and don’t toe the line. 

    When masculine will is beaten down or out of men the first obvious casualty is personal ambition. The second is masculine creativity. The final casualty is ultimately civilization. I don’t think the natural distribution of Alphas to Betas changes much over time, but I do believe in our current system that the masculine will is being/has been stripped from the Betas. It is the Betas who put in most of the man hours to make the economy work, build the infrastructure, grow the food. It was Beta men with will and creativity that were made obsolete by offshoring, automation, and “diversity hiring.”  There will always likley be an Alpha leading them, but a good leader cultivates the cooperative creativity of the lead for the benefit of the group. This is nature of teamwork. It is willingness of the followers that give the leader his power. If the followers are just going along to get along the team is weakened. If will is suppressed in men the leaders are reduced to mere managers.

    When the Betas have no will they have no stake, no goals, no ambition, and ultimately no purpose. Betas with will are the bulk of the good men women can’t find. Sadly, it’s women who killed the strong, reliable Beta provider by eliminating his will. Without a large number of willful Betas society has no internal defense against corruption or decadence. Betas who lack will do not fight unless it’s a matter of life or death. Too often it seams the last willful act of weakened Beta is his own suicide.

    Bastiat Blogger talks of differing extremes in bachelor habitat, the extremes demonstrate difference in the will of bachelor, as well as suggest differences in class, age, and income. The sort of zen space described is not the exclusive residential desire of an Alphas, but can equally be the retreat for a Beta that has personal will. Most men I know regardless of class have taste and discernment. What they lack is either focus, money, or the will to lives of material quality versus material quantity. 

    It is this aspect of men that has been forgotten and ignored that may be the source of an economic renaissance in Western Civilization. A rejection of meaningless material abundance and a desire for quality that brings back a visible viable artisan class. Perhaps homes will be built where the moldings look like they were installed be thinking men and not a mentally deficient monkeys. Imagine a world where quality really is job one, and it’s not just the motto of a big corporation. 

    Just because I’m a cynic doesn’t mean I entirely lack hope.

  45. 45

    Re: women & male ambition, here is an interesting and little-known poem by Kipling. The context is that the new German Kaiser had proposed expansions of social welfare programs, not limited to Germany but on at least a European-wide basis, and limiting “competitive warfare” in industry. Kipling’s response was:

    http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/imperial_rescript.html

    What Kipling seems to be saying, stated in modern and un-poetic language, is that female hypergamy drives male competitiveness, and you can’t level out the second unless you somehow eliminate the first.

  46. 46

    David Foster.

    I love Kipling. Here, I don’t see hypergamy, except amongst the German workers–”ve collars the girl from Schmidt”–and that only peripherally.
    No woman would want somebody who demonstrably can’t support her or his share of the enterprise. Avoiding the guys who can’t/won’t isn’t, imo, hypergamy.

    “And W. Hohenzollern, I guess I shall work ’til I drop.”

    And I didn’t have to open the link.

  47. 47
    Han Solo says:

    @johny 15 The ways that the imputed income demands can be manipulated to keep the male as a earnings-slave are disgusting. One example I read was how the family lives in a high-salary, high cost-of-living area, then the child support gets set there, then the mother gets primary custody and moves to a low cost-of-living area but the man has to continue earning at the high level. Of course you can have some men do the opposite and just decide not to work or pay what could hypothetically be reasonable child support but the gov’t is all over rooting that kind of thing out but not the female abuses.

    I think that the automatic presumption of giving the mother more custody should be removed and there should be no child support at all (in most cases, unless one of the parents doesn’t want to have the children then they pay). It should simply be that both have to work and support the children out of their own earnings when they have the kids 50% of the time, with some fair adjustment and allowance made for the parent (usually the mother) who stayed with the kids while they were young.

    @Liz 16 Thanks. And yes, that is the big irony and lie of feminism. In many regards it doesn’t make women more independent; it just subsidizes and enables their irresponsibility at the expense of men and responsible women.

    It’s an interesting divide in the voting patterns between single and married women. The married women vote less liberally than the single women who, on average, much more value their state-subsidized and enforced independence. I think that there is a lot of opportunity to split the feminist-dominated female herd and pull of a lot of women who were lied to and are dissatisfied by the outcome of feminist policies and goals, such as the delay marriage, work your ass off, don’t have kids til you’re 35 kind of mantras that I showed some examples of in the alpha mares post linked in the OP.

  48. 48
    Han Solo says:

    @Bastiat 20

    Thanks. With the high debt levels and even greater unfunded liabilities, it probably won’t take that many men “underproducing” to start putting pressure on the system. The responses of carrot (make marriage/divorce laws more favorable, end female affirmative action that discriminates against men, praise instead of castigate men, etc.) or stick (quasi-bachelor taxes, man-up shaming) will be interesting to see.

    Also, it will be interesting to see (as Spawny mentioned) the growing conflict between the single female surplus producers and the single female “takers” or whether the fem-surplussers will be perfectly happy with subsidizing their non-birth-control-using and less productive sisters.

  49. 49
    Han Solo says:

    @jf12

    “It’s not just declared feminists. Most modern American wives are far too ungrateful and contemptuous of their husbands.”

    I agree. The thing is that feminism’s rancid contempt and ingratitude has partially seeped into the hearts of fair too many women. (And by feminism, I’m not talking about the claimed desire for fairness and equality since we know that that’s not what most “feminist” policies actually bring about.)

    Feminism has been so successful in ingraining its misandrist claims into so many people, both men and women that wouldn’t identify as feminists, that it’s simply part of the cultural consciousness right now. It’s amazing to watch tv post red pill and see the misandrist and go-girl assumptions sprinkled throughout that are just presented as completely normal.

  50. 50

    Richard Aubrey…perhaps Hypergamy is too strong an interpretation for the Kipling poem (except as regards the Germans)…OTOH, remember the Kaiser is not proposing that men abandon their families or that they just kick back and go on welfare; he is “just” proposing less Competition and more Equality (at least among the working classes)…and the men are about to agree, just because they are so damn tired…until they realize their women will think the idea is silly.

    So whether it’s called hypergamy or called something else, I think Kipling is saying that male competitiveness in the workplace is at least substantially due to the expectations of same by women.

  51. 51

    David Foster.
    Sort of still in the life insurance business. In the old days of rate books on paper, we had values at years 10, 20, age 65. Presumably, everybody retired at 65 and would cash out the policy. You could, with some effort, get the yearbyyear figures, but the age 65 was always noted as some kind of end, even though the policy could continue to age 100. That was the orignal retirement age of SocSec.
    It was the Kaiser’s idea and it stuck.
    Go figure. Point is, a lot of our social pension program, old age pension as the Brits call it, is based not only on the Kaiser’s general view but some of the actual calculations. Finessed since then, of course.
    However, whatever the idea of hypergamy, I get the impression from Kipling’s poem that the guy has to be a good provider as opposed to a layabout. “Steam heat clear through to the top.” Yeah. I’ve been cold. You get tired of being cold. You get tired of layers and layers and still your hands…. Steam heat clear through to the top isn’t meaningless bling. Besides, she “works on the telephone”, iow an ambitious woman willing to get out and do.
    IMO, sounds like two kindred spirits, whose activities converge at making a comfortable home.
    There is a point at which being a layabout means a few personality issues which, even were they accompanied by inherited wealth or lottery winnings, would be offputting.
    In my reading of the poem, and looking at the world, you as a man have to reach a particular level to be acceptable–non layabout–and that solves most problems with attractiveness. More is better, of course, but the competition necessary beyond that level is reduced.
    My son and his friends are doing quite well by virtue of education and a savage work ethic. As far as I know, all of the couples went exclusive prior to stacking up the bank accounts.
    All of the wives work. Some, ex-teachers, tutor at $60/hr. One started a home biz which took off and is unbelievable. Some do fulltime work.
    Kindred spirits beyond the money.
    Oh, yeah, just for grins, they show assortative mating. Went to pick up my granddaughter at dance class. Upscale ‘burb. Of a dozen women there, maybe eleven would have been homecoming court qualified fifteen years earlier. None. Not a single one, is overweight. And none of these guys come from notably wealthy families. They looked good before the money started to flow.
    But that may be a small sample.

  52. 52
    Larry J says:

    Regarding the vital role men play in providing the critical infrastructure that enables modern civilization, I’m reminded of Arthur C. Clarke’s statement that “any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.”

    Some people, and by no means are all of them women, are either ignorant or oblivious as to what enables civilization. They flip a switch and a light comes on. Magic! They don’t give a moment’s thought to all of the people, almost all of them men, who make electricity possible. They want water and it’s there. They flush a toilet and their wastes disappear. Magic! They go to the grocery store or restaurant and food is there for a price. Magic!

    There are millions of people, overwhelmingly men, who make the magic possible. They mine the coal and drill for the gas that runs the power plants. They mine the ore and smelt the metals used to build all of the components in the infrastructure from the generators, transformers, and power lines that provide the electricity to the trucks and trains that carry, well, everything. They grow, harvest, transport, and process the food. They drive the trucks, build the dwellings and almost everything in them, repair everything, and keep the utilities operating. It isn’t that women are incapable of doing these jobs. It’s just a simple, undeniable fact that very few women choose to do them. These aren’t jobs that can be learned overnight, either.

    Should we ever reach “the end of men”, feminists will die thirsty, hungry and cold in the dark. And no doubt they’ll be blaming men with their dying breaths.

  53. 53

    Larry J.
    I think that statement about technology was from an anthropologist. Claude Levi-Strauss, perhaps.
    See my earlier link to “Welcome Back, Duke”. Or you can search for it and it works better if you remember the comma.
    Noonan talks about the intelligentisia of the city being useless, but she may as well have been talking about women. Sameoh sameoh.
    When men are necessary, it means NECESSSARY, and if they don’t prevail, everything else falls apart.
    See any number of losers in war.

  54. 54
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Regarding the “numbers” in a war: it’s all dependent on what a society can produce and what its peer competitors can produce. During the renaissance and the gunpowder era, think French Wars of Religion 1530s, Thirty Years War, etc, there were huge, huge, huge increases in defense spending and standing army size. Think tripling the relative size of the military, with the first STANDING militaries…before then, the “military” being a 40-day campaign mounted by the King with his feudal lords and knights.
    The 1700s was SUPPOSED to be the era of a limited military size, since you needed (it was thought at the time) a highly professionalized military. France damn near went bankrupt funding even THIS military, which caused the French Revolution, the Brits damn near went bankrupt, which caused them to raise taxes and led to a little something we call the Boston Tea Party and American Revolution.
    Those armies were promptly picked up and thrown aside like tinker-toys when France used levee en masse, IE, if you can hold a musket and you have a penis, bayonet charge the closest Austrian.
    By the end of the Napoleonic Wars, France was maintaining an army of 400,000 troops in Spain as a police keeping force. During the Seven Years War, Russia had an army of 75,000 thrown at the Prussians and that was a really big deal.

    The era of mass conscription armies only really comes to an end in the West relatively recently. But that’s in part because now we have no one really facing us and we are not mobilized for war. Iraq is a not peer competitor to the United States. The United States at the moment has no peer competitors. If we did, then we would really need all those Betas, especially if the ENEMY can mobilize, because whoever mobilizes more bodies and faster has a HUGE advantage.

    I would say numbers still matter.

  55. 55
    CaptDMO says:

    War? Really?
    The end of men.
    NSFPC-host delete if needed.

    Well, sweetie, when that 230# bull dyke discriminates against you and commits a hate crime of pulling your hair, scuffing your shoes, and smearing your make up, the police that EVENTUALLY arrive, you know…to fulfill you demand for satisfaction, will be a gub’mint uniformed person who was “excused” from a minimum of 3 chin-ups,
    and a stereotypical “history” of piss poor marks(wo)manship.
    But the antibullying lecture will SURELY resolve the conflict.

    The “men” will be the ones in the beach chairs watching as hilarity ensues, eating popcorn, lest they be imprisoned for interfering with an Officer, inappropriate sexual contact, assault against a female, interfering with “womans” issues.

    War? Start in the Home, then the neighborhood.
    Provided that’s where (actual) war ISN’T.

  56. 56
    Liz says:

    #32: Asymetric warfare is just a tactic, and I’d say it applies more to “them” than “us”. Placing a cardboard “tank” with a heat source inside is an asymetrical tactic too…we identify it as an enemy tank, fire a heat seeking missile at it and bam, we’re out a million dollars for the missile, they’re out 60 bucks for the carbboard. Wash, rinse, repeat a few times and it’s a war of attrition. 911 was an asymetrical warfare attack. Human shields are an asymetrical warfare tactic (placing weapons in areas with a lot of civilians increases the cost and law of armed conflict proportionality principle applies), and so forth.

    If the DPRK wanted to invade the ROK tomorrow it is unlikely the attack would be conventional. Hypothetically the DPRK could likely use special ops forces disguised as ROK Army personel and civilians to cause mass chaos on the areas in South Korea that are most populated, with the goal of clogging roads and shutting down systems of mass transport to prevent the escape of evacuees and hault the ROK military’s ability to quickly move armored forces and bring emergency vehicles in.There be a rash of friendly fire incidences and massive civilian casualties resulting from the havoc.

    Think of feminism as an asymetrical warfare tactic, because that’s essentially what it is.

    #54: I wouldn’t say numbers don’t matter at all, of course they matter. But it take very few people with the weapons of today to take out Attila’s entire army with the weapons of yesterday. We’d better hope it doesn’t matter much, because we’re in a huge drawdown and resource crunch. Example, the Total Force Initiative has combined Reserve and Active because they had to. On paper things look far better than they are. They’ve replaced a lot of A team with part-time B team and A team is being pulled at the seams. I’m betting it’s the same with other branches of the military outside of the Airforce. I know that the army is losing 10 brigades. The airforce has very few planes, and they’re getting old, old old. The tech that gives us an edge also requires a high skillset of people. Hypothetically, even if we could turn a sewing machine factory into an F22 factory and start spitting out planes we can’t take a 17-18 year old kid and put him in the cockpit of one of those planes. Training is extremely expensive and far more difficult than before. With the resource crunch even our current pilots aren’t very prepared.

    Pilots during the cold war averaged 300+ hours a year in the planes. After the cold war, they cut the hours down to about 170 average over time. Now, they’ve cut the currency even further (an attempt to make the old fleets last longer, they hit their service life expectancies long ago) it’s about 120 hours now. Flying three times a week is considered a pre-deployment “spinup”, just a little over ten years ago that would be considered a bare minimum for desk pilots who needed to keep their currencies. Training is seriously critical…..case in point during the Balkans conflict over 90 percent of the night sorties were flown by US military (which made up the vast majority of sorties). Reason being, they were trained to do night sorties. Pilots need training and experience in the jets, or they won’t be able to do their job effectively. Technology is not a panacea to inexperience…at a certain point there is diminishing returns.

    (This doesn’t even touch the fact that we’ve spent billions and billions of taxdollars on stealth technology and now we’re going to export it, wonder if the GAO has done any cost/benefits analysis on that one…the ROK for instance can buy a couple of JSFs and then copy and stay producing their own version).

  57. 57
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Right, our current military would be capable of crushing Attila’s entire army with the equivalent of a Stryker brigade. But that’s like saying Britain could resolve the Boer War without a full utilization of national resources or that it could crush all of Caesar’s legions with a single regiment.
    None of that mattered at all when they were facing Germany in WWI.
    Right now the US has no Germany, which is why we can afford to reduce certain military spending. It’s not a matter of technology, it’s a matter of geopolitical situation.

  58. 58

    I think the Korean War was an example to Ho Chi Minh. The Greek civil war depended on Yugoslavia for a sanctuary and Tito ended that. The invasion of the Norks looked like actual, you know, war and nobody could say different.
    So North Vietnam became its own sanctuary and pretended the VC and NVA were outraged uprised peasants tired of being oppressed, suppressed, repressed and depressed, a state of mind which spontaneously generates AK47 in every hooch.
    That allowed the left to pretend to buy it.

  59. 59
    Liz says:

    #57: “Right, our current military would be capable of crushing Attila’s entire army with the equivalent of a Stryker brigade. But that’s like saying Britain could resolve the Boer War without a full utilization of national resources or that it could crush all of Caesar’s legions with a single regiment.
    None of that mattered at all when they were facing Germany in WWI.”

    No, but two bombs did matter a whole lot when we faced the prospect of invading mainland Japan with hundreds of thousands of troops.

    #58: Of course.
    “All warfare is based on deception” -Sun Tzu

  60. 60
    Larry J says:

    @richardaubrey

    “Larry J.
    I think that statement about technology was from an anthropologist. Claude Levi-Strauss, perhaps.”

    I’ve read that quote attributed to Clark for decades. However, quotes are frequently misattributed and sometimes more than one person say essentially the same thing. For example, according to Peter’s Book of Quotations, the statement that “predictions are difficult, especially about the future” is attributed to, among others, Yogi Berra and Niels Bohr.

  61. 61
    Badpainter says:

    Liz- “asymmetric  warfare is just a tactic”

    Wrong! And yet the perfect illustration of what I said. A blight on military thinking. What you used as examples are indeed tactics. However, they are the applications of tactics in service of different strategies let’s call  it insurgency versus counter-insurgency. The counter- insurgency strategy certainly has tactics that are asymmetric in nature, but nether the strategy nor the tactics can win the war by themselves. They are tools that are outside of what would be considered traditional or conventional war fighting. But they are not truly asymmetric warfare. I think of asymmetric warfare the same way I think of TQM, Zen Buddhism, or game; as an internally consistent philosophical approach to understanding the world which allows one to achieve desired outcomes within it.

    Here’s the best recent example of asymmetric war I can come up with.

    In the early 1980s the USA colluded with the Saudis to collapse the global oil market which had the benefit of depriving the USSR of its primary source of hard currency. At the same time the USA announced SDI which had the effect of destabilizing the global balance of nuclear power. This put the USSR in the unenviable position of have to solve three different problems.

    1. Sustain a socialist command economy with reduced financial resources.
    2. Preemptively counter SDI regardless of whether or not it actually becomes a functional system by engaging in a vastly expensive arms race.
    3. Maintain or improve its relative military position vs. NATO and the USA, with the continuing and increasing difficulties of maintaining authority over the client states of the Warsaw Pact.

    Without the necessary financial resources none of those three are possible let alone all three. Ignoring any one of those three will result in collapse. 

    Results:  perestroika, START treaty, intermediate range missile ban, success of Solidarity in Poland, collapse of East Germany and its wall in 1989 ultimately dissolution of the USSR in 1991, dissolution of Warsaw Pact  1991, and collapse of CIS in 1993.

    No shots fired. Cold war effectively ended in less than ten years because the USA forces the USSR into an untenable  economic and geopolitical situation.

    Cost to USA; collapse of domestic oil industry, suspension of alternative fuel research, Gulf War I (which further contributes to Soviet collapse as USA/NATO get to field test 30 years of practical R&D against an adversary with similar material qualities to the Soviet Army and its clients)

    That is asymmetric thinking.

    Bringing it back to topic of the blog post we’re all responding too let’s talk about asymmetric warfare applied to the culture wars.

    Feminism is  not an internally consistent philosophy, but it is a great tool for anyone who subscribe to global-Marxist-socialist world view. The feminists are the clients of the Marxists, or more appropriately useful idiots. Feminism rather than confronting men directly goes after the institutions that traditionally bind men together in solidarity to serve a greater purpose. 

    These institutions would be government, the military, and the church. Further by invading ALL male spaces feminists get to poison civil society and the work place by making demands the reduce the effectiveness of male dominated organizations. By taking over education and academics feminists get to destroy the will of boys before they the have chance to be men and defend themselves and fight for a common purpose alongside other men. By taking over various government posts and engaging in non-stop political propaganda feminists get to destroy marriage, the family unit, and get to criminalize men for simply being not women. The methods of obtaining real power in religious and political institutions are asymmetric as they are by design both above board and entirely dishonest.

    Where feminism is weakest is in its mistaken belief in its own righteousness and anti-male rhetoric. As well it is here that the greatest weakness of the global Marxist is reveled.  That weakness is foolish belief that the material condition of the west can perpetuated in a totalitarian Marxist state.

    There are three asymmetric responses to feminism within the manosphere each have tactical and strategic value. But all come from the same basic goal and philosphical underpinning.

    1. PUAs- are sort of the scorched earth militants of the masculine response. By focusing on their own pleasure they contribute to the damage individual women are doing to themselves, and with  feminists endorsing sluts PUAs help sew the seeds of female discontent with the feminist movement. Truly subversive they are playing the feminists against women generally.

    2. MRAs – the political wing of the manosphere operating within the system to roll back feminism and assert fairness and legal equality among the sexes. In some ways these guys are suicide bombers who destroy themselves to call attention to injustice. Their best contributions are raising awareness and sounding he alarm by pointing out the violence inherent in the system.

    3. MGTOW- the true strength of the anti-feminist response. By simply doing nothing other than asserting their right to live peacefully on their own terms they take away most of the feminists power. It’s like ignoring the princess’s tantrum. If these guys decide to go Galt in large enough numbers they also place the whole system at risk of collapse both politically and economically.  I don’t believe we headed to Thunder Dome  but certainly an economy where what passes for women’s work will be shown to be a trivial luxury, while men’s work will be seen as an absolute necessity. 

  62. 62
    jf12 says:

    %59 Re: not all warfare is based on deception. Overwhelming displays of actual strength are even more effective when possible. Many of Napoleon’s most important and characteristic “battles”, for example, were won by getting there the quickest with the mostest and making sure the opposition could see his every move, leading to their unconditional surrender without any casualties. A more recent example was the Gulf War. The U.S. (nee Coalition) forces kept telling the Iraqi forces to surrender before it was too late, dropping leaflets etc *telling* the Iraqi troops where the US forces were and what equipment they had. Tens of thousands of Iraqis deserted because of correctly believing the US more than Saddam, and many thousands crossed miles during nights to surrender. And when the US ground forces did finally move, firing death and destruction over the horizon, it was all over, except the crying, in one morning.

  63. 63
    Liz says:

    #61: I enjoyed reading this post. Don’t have any real qualms with what you have said.

    #62: That’s true overwhelming strength can be seriously effective. All Ghengis Khan required were three tents. I don’t remember what each tent color meant, it was a while ago I read about his tactics, but one was up the first day, and it meant surrender or else we kill all males, the second meant ‘we’ll kill all males but not everyone’ and the third meant, ‘okay, you have been warned…we’re going to kill everyone now’. It was quite effective. My mother was born in a farmhouse in Italy that was the only house left standing after Attila came and burned everything to the ground.

    At any rate, the above not-withstanding subterfuge was indeed used during the first gulf war. Don’t you remember those unplugged baby incubators? Iraq was definitely barbaric when it invaded Kuwait, but many of the tales were incorrect and made for public consumption to promote outrage. Furthermore, a great many of the highest ranking Kuwaitis had escaped…the lower classes remained, and a large percentage of those weren’t Kuwaitis but foreigners.

  64. 64

    Liz,
    As I recall, the first iterations of the unplugged baby monitors were complete artifacts, in that the teller had no evidence, and no way of knowing.
    Coincidentally, after the liberation of Kuwait, unplugged baby monitors were found–on the Highway of Death, destined for Iraq, along with tons of loot not already stolen.
    And what witnesses said was done with the reliable Black and Decker drills you don’t want to hear.
    It appears to have been just fun for the boys, sort of like the Japs’ atrocities like the Rape of Nanking. The officers knew their troops and industrializing and organizing the stuff wasn’t necessary. Save all that time and ultimately incriminating paperwork.

  65. 65

    badpainter.
    Your history is good. Not sure the analogy is not too facile.
    As you imply, MGTOW will have to become unproductive, or only minimally productive or their surplus will be taken away to fund the princesses’ demands.
    Which means not a lot of fun and generic beer–you may not remember that–may replace Sam Adams. Which also means a lot of people not necessarily involved are going to be hurt. And, unlike the people under the bombs of WW II, they’re not going to be an ocean away, speaking a different language and supporting your enemies.

    Looking at the people I know or have known, sometimes for decades, I think the Really Big Deal is the right choice for a mate.
    Good people don’t turn rotten–as is either explicit or implicit in such discussions–because they got married.

    I sparked a lengthy discussion on some other thread about the daily and weekly blue-pilling that happens within married couples. If you think that’s a problem, which perhaps it may seem to be, then you have to be prepared–dogsquat’s condition yellow–to maintain your red pill frame.
    That ought to take care of that issue, which supposedly is a good woman seeing a guy turn blue and despising him.
    Other than that, presuming it’s true, careful choice would take care of most other issues. Or lucky choice, if you prefer.

    Fighting back includes, as is happening in one or two colleges, suing for wrongful termination or expulsion, thus putting the college between the DoJ/DoEd “dear colleague” promotion and actual justice in court. That should be expanded and perhaps a specific litigation organization might form and be supported by donations and settlements.

  66. 66
    Liz says:

    #64: It’s the religion of peace, Richard. Nevermind that man behind the curtain. FWIW, a lot of the people who went into Afghanistan found closets full of human skin (Al Qaeda skinned people alive, but you aren’t likely to find that in headline news either). At any rate, the truth is incidental. What matters (especially in a democratic republic) is what people believe. Which brings us right back to the topic.

  67. 67

    Liz,
    Since Obama got elected, no Americans have been killed in Afghanistan. It’s true. I’ve been reading the papers.
    No traffic at Dover….

  68. 68
    Badpainter says:

    richardaubrey,

    Of course my analogy is facile. It’s the quick sketch of an idea that will be filled in and modified until such time as I render it poorly in color, except in this case it’s not my painting skills that lack but rather my writing.

    I do remember BEER; white label,black letters, 11oz. Brown bottles at $2.69 a half case. Ahhh college. But I wouldn’t worry about beer, after all MEN have been brewing or distilling longer than there have been nation states. I suspect that will continue even without the benefit of aluminum cans and clever TV ads.

    Economic disengagement doesn’t have to mean the end of the world. Rather it can be a refocusing on a life of quality rather than quantity. Less overtime, more home brewing. Less consumption more repair and recycling of goods, and learning the skills to accomplish that. After all isn’t there a push to get Americans to actually use all of their allotted vacation days? Aren’t we told that there’s more to life than money and stuff?

  69. 69

    badpainter.
    Yes, that would work, presuming that a lot of guys wanted to do it rather than do whatever was necessary to afford Sam Adams and Fonseca port instead of Taylor.
    And, if you’re looking for the Queen for A Day–and not a moment longer–you’re still going to have to have a bit of the ol’ surplus.
    Otherwise, you’ll be recycling thirty-year-old centerfolds, among other things.
    OTOH, if you find a woman who really likes that and wants to share it, you can safely make it into a LTR or marriage. Be a hell of a filter.
    The people who tell us there’s more to life than money and stuff usually are doing so in an article for which they are paid. Those living that dream seem to be desperately rationalizing their situation.
    Reducing one’s standard of living by grossly redefining it is going to be a hell of a jump, especially when, as so many tell us, hypergamy exists. OTOH, the more who do that, the fewer guys who can show a gold whosits card and get the tingles fired up, the better a chance they will have. So a certain cohort will be happy to see the other guys GTOW. “More for me.”
    How about the oil spot strategy: Go your own way and don’t worry about the culture wars. Eventually, the numbers will be high enough that coordination becomes possible and possibly effective.
    Mantime, as I say, are all the collaterally-damaged people who had nothing to do with it.
    A conundrum.

  70. 70
    Badpainter says:

    richardaubrey,

    Oil Spot strategy seems like the obvious course. The strength potential for MGTOW is the lack of formal leadership, organization, or hierarchy. There are no real faces to villainize as the enemy. No one crucial person to arrest and make an example. It’s no one and everyone. It’s a reply of silence. It’s powerful because it deprives the adversary of validation, drama and attention.

    As for hypergamous women, screw ‘em. They don’t want what I am offering, and have nothing to offer me in return. If I find a unicorn I’ll let you know. It’s been my experience that highly materialistic women often have noxious attitudes, no meaningful skills, and little of interest to say. They will be nothing but a burden come a zombie apocalypse. Quite few men fall into that same category. Best to just treat them as sexless beings, you know, with good cheer and civility, but not much more.

  71. 71

    badpainter.
    It’s not you who is going to be besieged by highly materialistic women, or women in general. It’s the guys who continue the conventional track. It will cost less for the remaining men to get the women into bed. So there are some guys who would be glad to find the competition reduced.
    It infuriates people who are trying to annoy you if you remain cheerful and unbothered. I like that.

  72. 72
    Han Solo says:

    I thought Return of Queens must be some feminist site parodying Return of Kings but it’s actually sincere.

    Here is one post that I loved, from a woman on what the manosphere has given her.

    http://returnofqueens.com/what-the-manosphere-has-given-me/

    In the first throes of discovery, alternately fascinated, horrified and delighted, I often visited the sites of Dalrock, The University of Man (now sadly defunct), Return of Kings, Heartiste, Rational Male, The Spearhead, etc. One thing was clear: amid all the dissoluteness and depravity on display, these wrathful, cynical, amoral (most of them) young men were taking down feminism, and I loved it.

    I still go back to their sites occasionally now because, (in no particular order of significance): I love their eviscerating rants against feminism; the insights they provide will help me, and have already helped me guide my growing boys and girls to adulthood; their posts frequently reinforce my love of and appreciation for my husband; and their observations about women constantly validate the choices I have made in my life.

    First: I abhor radical feminism and the pronouncements of prominent feminists often curdle my insides. I can’t abide how these women, combined with toxic leftist ideology, do their best to twist beautiful and worthy things – marriage, sex, devotion to family, pregnancy, raising children, and faith – into ugly, divisive, ‘oppressive,’ and sneer-worthy negatives. I am appalled at what their destructive ideology has done to our nation, our Western civilization. The wreckage is strewn about us; we all see it and are both horrified and saddened. Those kids, oh those kids: fatherless, overweight, tattooed, incoherent, wispy, dumbed-down, drugged-up, purposeless, feminized boys and termagant girls; they are prey for unpleasant people to make use of politically, sexually, and economically. A generation is lost partly because feminists tear down fatherhood and marriage, deliberately deny what is natural to men and women, and try to subvert everything good to cover up their own inadequacies and failures. So, when an intelligent and expressive writer in the Manosphere delivers a mighty, cruelly elegant screed of contempt against the women who helped wreck the West, I love every word and cry, “At last someone’s saying it!” (But you do have to go mining for the good stuff; there is a lot of junk in the Manosphere, too.)

    Second: my children will benefit from what the Manosphere has taught me. My oldest boy has just become a teenager. He’s a quietly confident and intelligent lad. I’ve been dropping a little “red pill” wisdom on him about girls already; just a few statements here and there when he has questions. He is not going to be beaten down by the man-hating and boy-squelching powers out there if I have anything to do with it. The example of his parents’ marriage will help shape his understanding of relationships but might also leave him bewildered when he meets today’s girls raised in leftist-and-feminist-dominated homes.

    So I’m carefully preparing him for the reality of hypergamy. I’m encouraging him to be realistic about ‘romantic love’ and not place any girl, even one he adores, onto a ‘do-no-wrong’ pedestal. I’m educating him about women’s use of emotions to manipulate people (his sisters certainly help open his eyes in that area!). When (if) he goes off to college, he will be well-informed about the dangers of false rape accusations and about how hyper-paranoid the girls around him will be in what is arguably one of the safest environments ever for the privileged western female.

    I’m also encouraging him not to fall for feminist “grrrl power” nonsense. You should have seen his smile, as if the light dawned, when I once quoted to him from one of my favorite conservative lady bloggers: “If women ran the world, we would all still be living in caves, but with really, really fancy curtains.” I think he’s safe, now, from being cowed by feminist harridans into hating his own masculinity. Both my boys and my girls will be reminded often about all the great things that the strength, power and minds of men have done and are doing for our civilization: art and music, inventions, construction, civil engineering of cities’ infrastructures, first-responders during disasters, law-and-order providers, heroism in war and hard times….

  73. 73

    *sigh* I’m not sure if men will ever bite back. They seem happy to support misandrists so they could throw other men under the bus. Even the so-called MRAs and some redpillers. Oh well, let them have it.

  74. 74
    Spawny Get says:

    ManWomanMyth is back! He has a lot of material on Youtube, all SFW unless you work with fembots (obviously). All reasonable in tone, fact filled, objective goodness
    (via http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/the-creator-of-manwomanmyth-returns/ )

  75. 75
    Retrenched says:

    The funny thing is that feminism only triumphed — politically anyway — in the west because its basic premise is completely false.

    If there really were a patriarchal conspiracy of men teaming up to oppress women and keep them down, feminism would have been crushed out of existence before it achieved even one legislative victory, let alone thousands.

  76. 76
    Han Solo says:

    @Retrenched

    Well said. Enough of the apex alphas (be it in politics, business or entertainment) wanted feminism and so it happened.

  77. 77
    Badpainter says:

    Retrenched,

    The basic premise you cite is the core of the propaganda.

    However, the basic premise of feminism is the idea that women are entitled to phyical resources and emotional security by right of existance and men are obligated to provide physical resources and emotional security by virtue of being men. From according to his ability to each according to her need.

  78. 78
  79. 79
    Han Solo says:

    Very nice, Nemesis.

  80. 80
    BuenaVista says:

    Regarding the ‘end of men’, and the inevitable moment when their value is rediscovered, as in when the shit hits the fan, or someone needs a glass of clean water to drink:

    V.D. Hanson, the classicist and military, is also the heir to his families Central Valley farm (recalling Hesiod, his column is titled Works and Days). So his perspective is at once that of a man from the frontier agrarian tradition, as well as a professor at Stanford. His column today is interesting in that he unwittingly serves our discussion here in his description of a nation at least halfway migrated to the feminist culture of consumption, entitlement and privilege, as though it matters not at all that if the water dries up, if the power grid collapses, and if the farms disappear, PajamaBoy (and really, doesn’t PajamaBoy’s smirk suggest that the End of Men is a fine thing for us all?) is going to be of very little utility.

    Hanson is speaking of his broader political perspective, not sexual and gender politics, so his column may annoy readers of the Democratic Party persuasion. I suggest they not bother with the link at the end and allow me simply to quote him. I do not wish to pollute this blog with conventional political bickering.

    ***

    First, we read Hanson, the farmer: he offers a laconic hint, probably too laconic for urbanites to quickly grasp, that, well, yeah — it may not rain in California for the third year in a row because, you know, he’s a farmer and his family has been in economic partnership with God for 150 years. And God has larger issues to manage than predictable weather. And because, you know, 39 million people who think that food is produced in the cellophane factory and water is delivered by progressive politicians; hmm, that could get ugly. It’s already ugly in the Central Valley, and there is no law enforcement or civil order after dark:

    “On the topic of keeping attuned with the physical world: if it does not rain (and the “rainy” season is about half over with nothing yet to show for it), the Bay Area and Los Angeles will see some strange things that even Apple, Google, and the new transgendered rest room law cannot fix. We have had two-year droughts, but never in my lifetime three years of no rain or much snow — much less in a California now of 39 million people. …

    “I do all the yard work on my three-acre home site and putter around the surrounding 40-acre vineyard. Mowing, chain-sawing, pruning, and hammering clear the head, and remind us that, even in the age of the knockout “game” and nightly TV ads for Trojan sex devices, we still live in a natural world. In the rural landscape, you are responsible for your own water. So you must know about what level resides the water table, and how deeply exactly your pump draws from, and the minutia of well depth, casing size, and type of pump. You know roughly how much sewage you’ve deposited in your cesspool and septic tank, and whether your propane tanks is half or a quarter full. There is no “they” who take care of such things, no department of this, or GS9 that to do it for you. Those who help you keep independent — the well drillers, pump mechanics, cesspool pumpers, asphalt layers, and assorted independent contractors — remind you that muscles and experience, not always degrees and techie know-how, are still important in extremis. …

    “Still, let us not be romantic. Rural Fresno County has reverted to circa 1870, when my great-great grandparents first arrived. It is sort of anything goes after dark. I’ve had the following people show up at my house after hours: a group of caballeros in full festive regalia (with wonderful embroidered sombreros) asking to pasture their show horses on my lawn, given they still had 12 miles to go to Raisin City and feared being run over riding down the road in the dark; two young girls stopped in front, cell-phoning gang bangers that the coast was clear (it wasn’t) to go after copper wire; some lost Dutch bicyclists for some reason trying to cross the valley to get to L.A. from Big Sur, hopelessly confused and hopelessly scared (they stayed overnight intramuros on a summer night); five inebriated punks throwing rocks at the upstairs windows; and an exasperated Iranian national salesman who pulled in the driveway, two weeks after 9/11, in a pouring rainstorm, lost, and in need of direction (everything he claimed about his sad unlikely plight that brought him to the house at 11 p.. turned out to be true).

    “When the sun goes down, you are on your own …”

    Here is Hanson’s money quote, for our discussion’s purposes, in which a social welfare state is described in terms strikingly familar to any of us who interact with the cognitive elite or transit the strip malls or campuses on the weekend:

    “I worry though not about the way we look or talk, but rather about the use of the land. It no longer grows people, or produces for the nation a 5% minority of self-reliant, cranky and autonomous citizens, who do not worry much about things like tanning booths, plastic surgery, Botox, male jewelry, tattoos, rap music, waxed-off body hair, or social media. I think our impoverished society reflects that fact of agrarian loss, in the sense that never have so many had so much and complained that they had so little while being so dependent on government — and yet they are so whiney and angry over their lack of independence. The entitlement state is the flame, the recipients the moths. The latter zero in on the glow and then, transfixed by the buzz, are consumed by acquiring what they were hypnotized by.”

    In short, one may assert, feminism and its discontented triumphalists are enabled and rewarded by the State — a polity that will do nothing for them if the rains don’t come, the cops are not paid, Safeway is not restocked, and the cops head to the Sierra Nevada. For what is Rosin whining about if she’s already won, what is she angry about if men remain are on a going out of business curve; isn’t it all a bit of projection, as it was when Lena Dunham lost her mind this week when a reporter asked her how her weekly nudity advanced her narratives?

    ***

    An anecdote (because that is what I do):

    On 9/11 I was at work in my office, adjacent to the approach end of runway 19 Right at Dulles. I have never seen reported what happened in the DC area that day. Multiple false reports of multiple bombings were broadcast after the Pentagon was hit: the Washington Monument had been dropped, the USA Today building had been bombed, the key executive and congressional leadership had been evacuated to Mt Weather (a facility on the Blue Ridge 60 miles west of town, constructed under the charming sentiment, post-WWII, that someone could bomb DC but that people would be safe a few feet underground a few miles outside of town). This was all broadcast on regular radio stations. Total and complete panic ensued and within 30 minutes every highway within a 15 mile radius of DC was gridlocked and unmoving. Panic seemed reasonable: why would someone bother attacking the Pentagon and not have a series of chemical or nuclear follow-ups to be rolled out sequentially while the country was decapitated?

    I earlier noted the location of my office because we were accustomed to the streams of airliners, gear and flaps out and engines to go-round RPM, blasting over our offices. As we all know, suddenly the sky was silent.

    My immediate problem was a simple one: my 13 year-old daughter, precocious, was a ninth-grader inside the 15 mile arc: she attended school in town, 50 miles from our home and 30 from my office. No one answered the phone at the school. The cell networks were jammed. My ex-wife was hysterical on the phone. My girlfriend, now my editor, was in her office in midtown Manhattan watching the towers burn and calling me, sobbing, to ask me what she should do. She lived downtown; I had no idea; I said she should start walking toward the GW Bridge, at least to escape the subsequent firebombing, maybe just have something to do, but to get down on the ground and start walking away from the Trade Center.

    So I couldn’t drive in to my daughter’s school: I had to get on the beltway to get there; the Beltway was a parking lot. I sent everyone in the company home. I neither expected to see my daughter again nor live myself, to be honest. (Perhaps it was apocalyptic thinking on my part but it was simply illogical to me (not understanding who or what had bombed the Pentagon) that any country or entity would bomb the Pentagon once … and leave it at that. (Different times.)) I did have a road bike that I kept in my office to ride during lunch. That seemed to be the only option: change clothes and get on my bike and start riding into something I couldn’t imagine and had never thought to imagine. So I did.

    Hanson discusses an all-too-easy final push in the long slow collapse of California: a mundane third year of draught in a state already decoupled from economic, social and agrarian verities.

    I had another glimpse of this fragility during Sandy last year, when I was at my house in Morristown NJ and the power and telecommunications systems failed — as did the delivery of gasoline. Police *did* show up for work, and they needed to, because within hours the stores were empty and the gas lines were hours long.

    When Hannah Rosin and Dowd prattle on about the pathetic inutility of men, and PajamaBoy is a calling card for half of the population, they are prattling from the perspective of the cosseted, pampered, privileged and profoundly naive — where meat is produced in the cellophane factory, men control the weather and only bad people own guns. The world I live in: I installed a 90 gallon aux tank in my SuperDuty last summer, so I have 2000-mile range now, and I keep a bullpup and a 1911 in my closet now, here in DC and there in NJ, though this is the first time (given my milieu, which laughs at prepping) I have ever admitted such publicly. I have two children in Manhattan now and I shrug at the unlikelihood of reaching them if things go south. But some day, some time, we’re all going to be lighting out for the territories again. As Liz noted, there are people out there who skin people alive for sport, and presumably the next bunch will be better at constructing an order of battle than OBL. Do I worry about them much? Not really. Do I keep the aux tank full? Yes I do. Who’s calling PajamaBoy then? No one, and he’ll be calling his mommie if they try.

    Back in the part of Iowa I otherwise inhabit, no one talks about the end of men because they’re still on every corner or transiting every field. What’s mystifying is the illogic of the very position Rosin et al take as our society, and its other anointed thought leaders, slowly direct (and commend) the suicide of our civilization.

    VDH link: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-rural-way/?singlepage=true

  81. 81
    BuenaVista says:

    Uggh. I’m obviously in need of an editor. Correction: What’s mystifying is the illogic of the very position Rosin et al take, as do our other anointed thought leaders, as they slowly direct (and commend) the suicide of our civilization.

  82. 82
    Morpheus says:

    An anecdote (because that is what I do):

    Please keep them coming….I find them interesting and enjoyable to read.

  83. 83
    Han Solo says:

    @BV 80

    Good stuff from both you and VDH.

  84. 84
    BuenaVista says:

    #32, Badpainter:

    “It makes use of force too easy politically, too clean, the home front is too far removed from the death and destruction. It puts strategic decision making in the bind of having to answer to political polls. The mission is not
    Victory in an objective knowable sense Americans understand but rather makes our foreign problems manageable for the duration of someone’s term of office. This solves nothing, It might actually be a better from a fiscal point of view to pay cash to the bad guys to not attack us. Certainly we wouldn’t be sacrificing the lives our servicemen in wars the nation has no intention of winning.”

    While I agree, I think the problem is worse yet, and worse in two ways:

    a. Even when a ‘small’ event of great brutality occurs, a high percentage, if not a majority percentage, of the country will dogmatically assert a complete illogicality to deny it. This isn’t cognitive dissonance per se, it’s the suspension of observation and thought, not to mention the considerations of experience and history, in order to sustain an idea that has achieved the status of faith. And of course “faith”, be it secular or theological, causes people to prefer death to the loss of faith. At this point the imperative you mention (making the story safe for the duration of someone’s term of office) takes over and it’s political bickering.

    b. Live humans who are caught up in such an event, who may have had his/her secular faith smashed by those events, are so far down the rabbit hole that they have no where to turn; they can’t turn on their faith, but they can’t assert its competing idea, either.

    So a) for me, could be Benghazi. b) for me could be someone who was in Benghazi that night.

    I’m trying to get b) into C.S. Peirce and William James and their philosophy of pragmatism: the truth is only what works. (I’m not succeeding.) But at the moment we have half the country operating as though the truth is only observable when it works for *some one* or *some thing*. I think that this catastrophic consequences, both for a society, and for the psychology of individuals. A speculation, for me, is that there are a lot of b)’s among the veteran community, but I’m not a military man and my sample size is questionable.

  85. 85
    Morpheus says:

    When Hannah Rosin and Dowd prattle on about the pathetic inutility of men, and PajamaBoy is a calling card for half of the population, they are prattling from the perspective of the cosseted, pampered, privileged and profoundly naive — where meat is produced in the cellophane factory, men control the weather and only bad people own guns. The world I live in: I installed a 90 gallon aux tank in my SuperDuty last summer, so I have 2000-mile range now, and I keep a bullpup and a 1911 in my closet now, here in DC and there in NJ, though this is the first time (given my milieu, which laughs at prepping) I have ever admitted such publicly. I have two children in Manhattan now and I shrug at the unlikelihood of reaching them if things go south. But some day, some time, we’re all going to be lighting out for the territories again. As Liz noted, there are people out there who skin people alive for sport, and presumably the next bunch will be better at constructing an order of battle than OBL. Do I worry about them much? Not really. Do I keep the aux tank full? Yes I do. Who’s calling PajamaBoy then? No one, and he’ll be calling his mommie if they try.

    Back in the part of Iowa I otherwise inhabit, no one talks about the end of men because they’re still on every corner or transiting every field. What’s mystifying is the illogic of the very position Rosin et al take as our society, and its other anointed thought leaders, slowly direct (and commend) the suicide of our civilization.

    I’m going to reveal my inner geek, and admit I am a Trekkie. There was an episode in the original series where they go to this planet inhabited by this primitive, backwards people who are basically supplied every single material need they require by advanced technology built by an ancient technologically sophisticated people who no longer exist on the planet. As I recall, like a previous commenter indicated, they basically think the technology is magic, and that all their material needs are basically provided by magic. The Hannah Rosin and “End of Men” types remind me of them with no understanding whatsoever of what goes into providing them what they utilize in daily life. Actually, the Rosin types are worse because they combine ignorance with an intellectual arrogance that is an absurd juxtaposition. Frankly, one of my biggest beefs with self-professed “smart girls” is embodied in the Rosin type.

    She goes to the gas station and fills up her tank completely oblivious to what it takes to make sure the gas is there for her vehicle. She likely thinks it is just “magically” there for her consumption. She is unaware of the MAN that drives the semi-truck that transports the gas to the local station. She is unaware of the MEN that built the refinery and operate the refinery daily to produce the gas. She is unaware of the MEN who discovered crude oil and that it could be refined into gasoline to power an internal combustion engine. She is unaware of the MAN who invented the internal combustion engine. She is unaware of the MEN who developed hydraulic fracturing technology to get at oil trapped inside rock formations deep inside the Earth. She is unaware of the MEN who work hard physical labor in the fields of North Dakota to produce that oil used for gas. She is unaware of the MEN who built the pipeline to transport the oil to the refinery to produce gas. She is unaware of the MEN who invented the technology to actually transport oil over pipelines hundreds of miles long. I’m probably missing much more in the supply chain. But to the Rosins of the world, that gas she puts in her car just magically appears while the women of the world like her do the important work of publishing nonsensical books.

    I think it was Camille Paglia who correctly stated without MEN, we’d all still be living in grass huts.

  86. 86
    BuenaVista says:

    BB’s and Tasmin’s comments on the sovereign man’s domestic style strike me as both amusing and rather too close for comfort (!). First, though, I’m compelled to mention that while I loved being married, until I didn’t know I was already divorced, I could not, ever, understand our domestic consumption. It followed, it seemed, a physical law: 107 percent of then-current W-2. For 20 years, and the W-2 was not static. My wife was operating on a spread, and it was 700 bp. In the end, it doesn’t really matter, per se: spending habits, like sex, I would say, are really just metaphors. Our domestic consumption reflected her simmering unhappiness, and her simmering restlessness, that I ignored by getting up earlier and ‘looking at the bright side’ and ‘it’s for the children, after all’ and all the other rationalizations that Domesticated Drafthorses practice. Her present husband has dough but he’s cheap, and she’s on a budget.

    In the end, this is what I understood: after I was divorced, paying for two lawyers, paying alimony and child support, and tuition — I had more money. I just had more. Of course, I bought a simple house; but turned out there was money for a garden. So I built a garden, I yet had money: time for a $10,000 pergola. I had more money: cleaning lady twice a week. I still had more money: ART! Disposable cash again: teutonic sports coupe. Bizarre. It was like I’d died and moved to post-WWII Paris: my money went twice as far. Of course, I’d just (sorta) died and moved into town and stopped paying for a smashed up Volvo once a year or hiring the wife’s girlfriend to “decorate.” (Can you say: $30,000 for curtains — on one wall of one room? That took an engineer 18 hours to install? I can. In my new place I bought white cotton duck, had a seamstress install grommets, and had a friend of mine machine aluminum rods.)

    So I’ve already revealed that I tend more to the BB/Tasmin zen refuge side. Probably out of nostalgia for my prior family life, I dove into the domestic arts with enthusiasm: cooking, furniture design, vintage mid-century modern, aforementioned art and roses. I know I wanted my children to like my home, and bring their friends there, but I don’t think they really cared if I had vintage Eames or new-manufactured Eames. Probably I just figured I’d have more girlfriends if I didn’t live in a frat house; I think all of us, in the current context of our view of the woman thing, would say … not exactly.

    Years later, here’s what I observe of the single women I interact with, and it’s been much on my mind lately: *they* live in the female version of the frat house. Unless they are recently divorced, *they* are eating takeout, *they* proudly deny ever doing housework (and it shows), *they* don’t wash their sheets often enough, *they* have some monstrous dog shitting on the living room floor, *they* are off gallivanting to Thailand and Macchu Picchu or Kilimanjaro like sorority girls on spring break, *they* reciprocate my cooking them dinner — by letting me buy them dinner. It’s pretty annoying. I entertain in my home; rarely reciprocated.

    I declined two dates over the weekend, in an experiment: I’d told both of them it was their turn to have *me* over and feed *me* dinner — all very ha-ha and light-hearted. Both proposed that “we go out.” Nix.

    The modern woman has sex in her dusty sheets, but she doesn’t serve tea in her dining room. I believe Mrs. Clinton referred to that as demeaning, Tammy Wynette stuff, and that appears to be the cue. I do believe (and it’s anecdotal, but that is what I do) that most women believe that they will construct a domestic zen refuge *upon getting married*, because that’s when someone else will pay for it. They’re in a holding pattern meanwhile.

    Therefore in my efforts at domestic success, and with my zen refuge bent, I’m self-selecting for women who want to leverage that enthusiasm for their own benefit, and I’d best be careful and start filtering for women who already have a domestic life and are angling to maybe share some of it. Wife #2 had no domestic existence (well, calling that a marriage is a bit like calling Benghazi advanced cinema studies) and whoa, I spent two years renovating a 6-story, 170 year-old townhouse.

    I was studying a recent date’s bizarre behavior — I was really working hard to keep the evening going and needed something to distract myself — and this is what I concluded:

    a. a man who wishes to be close to a woman studies the woman, attempts to please her through observation and recognition;

    b. a woman who wishes to be close to a man? She *allows* the man to study the woman, and attempt to please her blah blah blah. This is how the modern girl defines courtship. Courtship: guy pleases woman. Full stop. Also, you haven’t lived until you’ve paid a crew to tuckpoint an entire house.

    Strangely, b) in the post above about Benghazi and the suspension of disbelief, is very good about inviting me over and allowing me to relax with a newspaper and a cocktail, or helping her cook our dinner, or discussing with her what sort of pendant to put over the dining room table. We have fervent conversations about art, I get fed, then she starts to bite me. This, in the moment, is bliss. But she is the first woman who has done that in two years of active dating. And she has, to put it mildly, a few issues with being alone; it may have nothing to do with me. So back in the zen refuge, tonight, I wonder: should I get a dog that shits all over the dining room floor, and put the Chinese takeout place on speed-dial? Roissy would certainly say so.

    Semioticians think we undervalue the richness of signs, with which we signal our purpose, intent, desires. In the age of the online profile, and it’s structure of manicured, usually exaggerated personal attributes, I think domestic design says to a woman: “I will take care of you.” To me, of course, it just means my brain will function because clutter is noise. (I think.)

  87. 87
    BuenaVista says:

    #85: Morpheus on Rosin not understanding how the gas got into her car, or at minimum expressing contempt for the activities of men that produced it for her convenience (says a guy here who once roughnecked offshore):

    Friedman quotes Chesterton in “I, Pencil”: “We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders.”

    So in this context, Rosin is incapable of wonder at the incredible sequence of history and current activity that results in gasoline costing less than mineral water: she lacks wonder, and sees nothing around her (produced by others) to rise to the status of a wonder.

    (I suspect Rosin would also say that anything you or I might have done in the oil patch she could do to, if it weren’t a misogynist culture despoiling the future.)

    Anyway, it’s an interesting essay in regard to your supply chain trope:

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

    I think, if we accept your POV, we see here the marxist element of many feminists: “Tsk tsk, little man,” she would say, “do not bore me with allegories of pencils.”

    “Baby,” I would love to respond, “how’d you write your latest book?”

  88. 88
  89. 89
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Funny you mention the pencil story. It’s pretty much all I could think about reading the thread. Obviously in a modern economy we specialize in different aspects, and the Market Magic keeps things humming along more or less swimmingly. Inevitably we tend to overestimate our own impact on the world and underappreciate other aspects, even if they are more essential.
    I dare say it’s not important that women understand ALL the details involved in supplying her car with gasoline, only that, yes, men are essential to making it all happen.

    It reminds me of the good ol “war games” we would have roleplaying fictional nations, and always having to remind the newcomers about this thing called “logistics.” How are you tanks going to launch a thousand mile multi-prong offensive with no trucks again? Almost always some stupid 14 year old who spent a little too much playing Civilization, where “maintenance” was something you just instantly solved by spending more gold.
    Really, really childish.

    Same thing with the Hannah Rosin’s of the world.

    BV, your story about women’s domestic situation rings a church bill a mile high. I do not know men as a whole, only a small sub-group, and I do not know women as a whole, only a small sub-group, but wandering into the college-educated, 20-something woman’s abode is almost always a toxifying, soul-crushing experience. I am repeatedly struck by the dirty dishes, the lack of decent food, etc.
    Most of the 20-something, college-educated men I know, actually have their shit together. The apartments and condos are kept clean and usually upgraded with modern bathrooms and minimalist furniture and clean windows and made beds. And no dirty dishes.

  90. 90
    Badpainter says:

    ADBG- “I do not know men as a whole, only a small sub-group, and I do not know women as a whole, only a small sub-group, but wandering into the college-educated, 20-something woman’s abode is almost always a toxifying, soul-crushing experience. I am repeatedly struck by the dirty dishes, the lack of decent food, etc.
    Most of the 20-something, college-educated men I know, actually have their shit together. The apartments and condos are kept clean and usually upgraded with modern bathrooms and minimalist furniture and clean windows and made beds. And no dirty dishes.”

    Wow! I just figured it all out. Thanx for the inspiration.

    Feminism is cargo-cult masculinity. Adapting masculine roles and behaviors to mitigate their insecurities without first understanding how those roles and behaviors are understood by men themselves.

    Feminists want to eliminates their inate insecurity by obtaining not just resources but the power and esteem they see as attached to masculine attributes. So they do the following:

    1. Insist on voting because that’s how men exercise political power
    2. Insist on education because that’s a mark of status and refinement in a man
    3 Insist on working outside the home because that’s how men gain wealth
    4. Persue casual sex because that’s what men do ( the men women are attracted too most)
    5. Abandon traditional feminity because men aren’t feminine
    6. Strive to be strong and independent because that’s how they see men

    It’s all a giant game of dress up. We’ve fucked Western Civilization so immature adult women can play dress up with society.

  91. 91

    Actually, as Wretchard of The Belmont Club said, nobody knows how to make a pencil. Some harvest the wood, some get the graphite into that little cylinder, some put the thing together, but none of them could make a pencil from scratch.
    Any situation which would seriously inconvenience women in general or feminists in particular is going to seriously inconvenience guys, as well.
    Think of yourself knocking off deer for dinner, presuming there are any around you. Or shooting a squirrel so there’s enough left for soup. And keeping enough of it from the wandering tribes so you can live.
    You can make this case to women and their entirely logical response would be, “So? You going to cut off your nose to spite your face?”
    And we’re not. So it’s just words. Satisfying words, but words.

  92. 92
    jf12 says:

    #90, yes feminism is precisely cargo-cult masculinity “If we act like men {the men women are attracted to} then maybe we can get libido too.”

  93. 93
    Spawny Get says:

    @BadPainter
    How depressing is it that I think that your Cargo Cult comparison is the best piece of clear, simple, piercing insight that I’ve seen in a long time?

    Damn. I think you nailed it. I also think that most men are wandering along after the female cultists. Maybe not because they don’t see the difference between the cult and the reality, but because they see that as the way to fit in and get along with a sold out, souled out society ‘lead’ by the worthless political class leadership that caters for this cargo cult society of women (because that’s where the easy votes are)?

    What does it cost a man to get some pussy? Just your soul man, just your soul.

    Only 8am and the day’s joy just went way. Fuck.

  94. 94
    Spawny Get says:

    Also ( http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/rationally-irrational-feminists/ )

    Rational irrationality sounds like an oxymoron, but is actually a perfectly sensible concept. Roughly speaking, to be rationally irrational is to rationally choose to have certain irrational beliefs. People have preferences about which beliefs to hold—some beliefs are more comforting than others—so people may in some instances be happier holding irrational beliefs. Some false beliefs are very costly to hold—such as believing that cyanide is nutritious and water poisonous—but many generally are not, such as believing that Christopher Columbus discovered that the Earth was round.

    Feminists (and to a lesser degree most people in modern Western society) want to believe flattering things about women and they want to believe negative things about men. They also want to see men as patriarchal oppressors and women as their innocent victims. They are irrational insofar as they exaggerate the importance of evidence and arguments which support their prejudices (gender pay gap, low representation of women in parliaments and boardrooms, high beauty standards, unwanted male advances, “rape culture,” etc.), and ignore or downplay evidence and arguments which point in the opposite direction (lower male life expectancy, higher incidences of violent crime against men, harsher criminal sentences for men, biased education system, etc.).

    This conforms well with the rational irrationality model. Views about sex, gender, and gender relations are highly emotionally charged. Feeling like an innocent victim of unjust oppression who is finally fighting back against her abusers can be downright intoxicating. For male feminists, there could hardly be a higher calling or a more righteous task than to resist the patriarchy that is perpetuated by all those other, unenlightened men.

    Having these beliefs is not costly for feminists. Among many circles, espousing such views, especially in a moderate form, is socially rewarded.

    Given this high emotional benefit and low cost, it is hardly surprising that most feminists and feminist supporters drink long and deep from the heady wine of irrationality—or perhaps more accurately, they fail to apply their rational faculties in favour of keeping intact their comfortable prejudices.

    This irrationality manifests itself in most everything feminism does. Even if the goal of feminism would be solely to promote women’s welfare at the expense of everyone else, many of the means employed by feminists are unfit to attain this end. Take for instance maternal leave. Feminists favoured maternal leave because they irrationally believed it would help women. Laws forcing employers to grant their female employees maternal leave obviously help some women, so it is easy to see why an irrational or partially rational thinker could come to the conclusion that such a law helps women.

    But a dispassionate analysis of the economics involved shows a very different picture. Employers are not charities, so an employer hires an additional worker only if he believes that the added productivity of the worker will bring in greater revenue than her cost (primarily in the form of wages). If employers are punished for hiring female workers through a law forcing them to reserve a job for years on end whenever the worker becomes pregnant, this means that the cost goes up. Hence, the demand to hire women of child-bearing age will go down, leading to reduced wages. Moreover, employers will be less willing to promote women into leadership positions. After all, the higher up an employer is in a firm’s hierarchy, the more difficult it will be to find a temporary replacement for her during maternal leave.

    What happens in effect is a redistribution of wealth from childless women to mothers. Women who don’t have children and have no plans of having children are unfairly punished. Those who do have children and take advantage of maternal leave receive this privilege at a discounted cost. But even they do not necessarily benefit from this arrangement, because some of them would have actually preferred getting full wages even if it meant giving up a right to maternal leave. There is also a general loss of efficiency that always accompanies such governmental intervention in private contracts. Instead of being free to work out whatever contract is acceptable to both parties, the state limits the range of alternatives, which means that some mutually agreeable arrangements cannot be legally made. This also hurts employers and indirectly also male employees and older female employees.

    This childlike selection of irrational beliefs ties in well with BadPainter’s Cargo Cult concept, I think.
    There’s more available at avfm
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/rationally-irrational-feminists/

  95. 95
    Larry J says:

    @Morpheus @Badpainter

    “The Hannah Rosin and “End of Men” types remind me of them with no understanding whatsoever of what goes into providing them what they utilize in daily life.”

    “Feminism is cargo-cult masculinity. Adapting masculine roles and behaviors to mitigate their insecurities without first understanding how those roles and behaviors are understood by men themselves.”

    Should the feminists ever achieve their dream of the end of men, those few that survive the collapse of civilization will be like those poor peasants during the Dark Ages, seeing the ruins all around them with no understanding of how they were built or how to get things running again. No electricity, no running water, sewage system collapses, food stops appearing at the restaurants and grocery stores, no more modern medicine, no nothing but misery.

    Only, back then peasants were able to grow food, make clothing, and generally do the basic things needed for survival. Today, how many of us can say the same thing?

  96. 96
    Escoffier says:

    Here, to the best of my knowledge, is the origin of the “pencil” aphorism. Note it goes all the way back to 1958.

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

  97. 97
    jf12 says:

    #94 rationally irrational reminds me of Martie Haslelton’s research program in Error Management Theory, which has demonstrated that irrational biases can be an efficient adaptation to circumstances and contraints.

  98. 98
    Escoffier says:

    Regarding 9/11, I too was in DC. Actually, woke up in DC, drove to Northern VA for work, arrived in time to see what was happening, building I was in was evacuated and we were all told to go home. I managed to get back to the District, it took a long time but the roads did move. The only false report I recall hearing on WMAL was that the State Dept had been car bombed.

    Sorry for double-posting the pencil thing, I did not see the original link, I thought someone had attributed it to a blogger, when in fact it is much older than that.

  99. 99
    Escoffier says:

    Regarding CA, I am from there and my family has been there almost as long as Hanson’s (we survived 1906 in SF). I go back a lot and was just there. I have family all over the state, including the CV.

    The Valley is, indeed, basically a basket case today as he describes. The decline has been spectacular compared to, say, 1990 and even a bit later than that. Cities that were in fine shape when I was growing up, such as Stockton, are now appalling. There is still big money in ag, so the upper classes of Bakersfield and Fresno are doing fine (when there is water) but there is not much to be said in favor of the rest (no need to go into detail, I think). Sacramento is the one Valley town doing great across the board, much for the same reason that DC is booming.

    I am just old enough to remember kids of my generation attending central city public schools. Not to say ghetto schools. That is now unthinkable unless you have no option. I even had a professor who went to Hollywood High in the 60s. Today, that place is more or less a jail, with a higher crime rate. The only places where you can use the schools are the “private-publics” such as BH, San Marino, Palo Alto, Piedmont, etc, where the various local taxes, high values, and tight borders keep out the rabble.

    The neighborhood where I grew up was one of the 2-3 nicest in my home town and the schools were fine then—not great, but not dangerous. I was the only kid not in my immediate area not to use them but to go across town to a private HS. Today, absolutely no kid from my neighborhood goes to that school. And home values are MUCH higher, even adjusted for inflation, than they were back then.

    However, what I call “haute California” seems nicer than ever. It is certainly much more expensive. I spend most of my time, as Hanson describes, between Santa Cruz and SF, with the SV in between. It’s way more chic than it was when I was a kid. I can find all sorts of nice stuff there. However, it probably costs at least 2.5x where I live now, which is a not-very-affordable suburb of NYC, the global financial capital.

    It has all appeared quite unsustainable since I first started to notice the trend about 1998. However, here we are, 15 years later, and haute California is still humming along.

  100. 100

    […] I’ve written here, the current alpha mares are feminists and raunch queens that tell women to put off relationships and children for career and to slut it […]

  101. 101
    Jim says:

    “This problem is a problem of will. The USA currently lacks the necessary will to win wars of any kind. Our military has no such problem and my statement is not about our armed forces, rather I accuse the American people of the weakness. Only when you have the will to kill every single one your enemies, including the women and children, can you show real mercy. In WWII we had that will, and we got the enemy to surrender in exchange for our mercy.”

    This is pathetic and evil. Sorry pal but REAL problem is the US empire marching all over the Earth looking for monsters to destroy. What happens in Israel or Iraq is NOT our problem. This kind of neocon attitude is one of the primary reasons we’re in a world of shit today.

  102. 102
    NV says:

    Aw, this was an exceptionally nice post. Spending some time and actual effort to generate a superb article… but what can I say… I hesitate a whole lot and never manage to get nearly anything done.

  103. 103

    Hello mates, how is the whole thing, and what you would like
    to say regarding this paragraph, in my view its actually remarkable
    in support of me.

  104. 104
    Colette says:

    Just desire to ssay your aricle is as astonishing.
    The clearness to your submit is just excellent and that i can assume you
    are knowledgeable in this subject. Well together with your permission allow me to seize your feed
    to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks 1,000,000 and please carry on the rewarding
    work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>