The MGTOW Mystique‏

“The only way to win…is not to play.”
-WarGames

As 2013 comes to a close, it is customary to look back on the year’s events, the “big” stories that made the year what it was. For our purposes, and for my money, 2013 will be go down as the Year of the Manosphere.

For those of us in the know, this fact comes as no great shock or surprise – indeed, we’ve been aware of this fact for at least a year now. Toward the end of 2012, RooshV, a Washington, DC-area pickup blogger and self-proclaimed “sex tourist”, boldly predicted on his website Return of Kings, that the Manosphere would garner mainstream media attention; that the MSM could no longer “ignore” us. Given the coverage the Manosphere has gotten in this regard in the year that would follow – which would include both “exposes’” and discussion about some of the key ideas, concepts and concerns that are regularly heard in said Manosphere – I think it fair to say, that Roosh’s being accurate would be an understatement.

While the rest of the world now knew of the existence of the Manosphere, those in the know are well aware of the low-level running battles certain parts of the ‘sphere have been engaged in, largely with Feminists of varying stripe, and their faces-in-high-places allies in the Cathedral. But these “battles”, mostly in the form of Internet postings article-rants and social media drive-by campaigns, have largely involved two of the three “legs” of the ‘sphere: MRAs, an acronym for “Men’s Rights Activists”; and PUAs, short for Pickup Artists. The third and final leg on the Manosphere stool that gets outsized attention, are what is known as the MGTOWs – Men Going Their Own Way. In fact, when you really stop to think about it, in many ways, the latter cohort of the Manosphere, gets a lot more attention than the other two do – and for good reason.

That reason, is simple: unlike the former two cohorts, MGTOWs have “gone Galt”, after the titular character John Galt in the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (in the hood, we call it “going Ghost”; more on this below); a growing, and quiet, group of Men in early 21st century American life who have come to the conclusion that said society is increasingly hostile to them in myriad of ways, and as a response, they have decided to withdraw in varying ways. That includes pulling back from any social interaction that involves Women, first and foremost, and then decreasing any involvement with society that indirectly involves Women – so, for example, there is a growing cohort of Men who don’t even bother getting involved in the mating game anymore; and either the same or yet another cohort of Men who have deliberately limited their participation in “on the books” working arrangements, where they rightly surmise their tax payments will go to subsidize Women as a group in some way (a good example of this is the Obamacare program, and most notably the “Sandra Fluke” aspects of it, to say nothing of various welfare programs that subsidize unwed mothers and the like, etc.). Men’s Righters and Pickup Artists, say what you will about either, are at the very least, still “plugged in” to the system, i.e., they are still interacting in the World of Women, albeit in admittedly vastly different ways; whereas the Guys Going Their Own Way, are not – or at least, not anywhere near as much as the former two groups.

And (all the Single) ladies, are definitely taking notice.

Spend a bit of time Googling around using search terms like “MGTOW feminists” or “MGTOW women” or “MGTOW critiques” and see for yourself. Spend some time at some of the major Women’s sites, like Jezebel, Feministing, or Feministe, just to name a few (and please, do not let the shrill mocking tone fool you – it’s all a ploy to shame Men into “playing their role” in society – a tactic that, by all accounts, has failed miserably, I might add). You’ll quickly see a mountain of concern on their part over the growing cohort of Men in American life who are Dropping Out. Indeed, books have been written about it – “Manning Up” by Kay Hymowitz instantly comes to mind, as does Hanna Rosin’s “The End of Men”. Hill Harper has an entire chapter devoted to the topic in his “The Conversation”, and even arch-conservative Charles Murray’s excellent “Coming Apart” discusses the MGTOW phenomenon, although he doesn’t identify it as such, and gives his explanation for how and why it happens. Indeed, there are an entire shelf of books talking about the hows and whys of Men dropping out, and as far as I’m concerned the best of the lot is “Men on Strike” by Dr. Helen Smith. In it, she identifies four specific areas where increasing numbers of Men are “going on strike” in terms of involvement in American life. It’s an easy, quick yet powerful read, one that I highly recommend, and will revisit in future posts for further discussion, because it is just that important. (It is instructive – and telling – to consider the fact, that for all the yammering about “street harassment” and “creepers” in our time, there has yet to be one book written about it, let alone an entire shelf of same; compare and contrast to the above-mentioned works exhorting Men to “Man Up”…)

It has been estimated by various Manosphere insiders that the MGTOW arm of the ‘sphere is not only the largest segment, but its fastest growing – this, despite the fact that it is also its least organized of the three as well. This comes as no shock to this writer, for it is easy to see how relatively easy and simple it is to drop out, whereas both the MRA and PUA routes require a heck of a lot more work, time and effort, with payoffs not at all being as readily assured, or even worth it in the end. To be sure, I support both these efforts and for many reasons; but in pure cost/benefit terms, and on the individual level, which is where the MGTOW route makes the most sense, it truly does deliver more bang for the proverbial buck than the other two do, all things considered.

How and why do I say that?

Well, for one thing, I say all this as a Black Man, seeing all this from what I refer to as Ground Zero in the ongoing Sexual Politics Wars – Black America. For the past few decades, Black Men have been the shock troops in that war, arguably millions of them “going Ghost” in that time. As I’ve noted in a previous article, it is not at all unusual to pass through entire Black zones of a given city, and NOT see Black Men aged 30-49 in any appreciable numbers, if at all. Many will attempt to attribute this to mass incarceration of Black Men, or high homicide rates of same, and to be sure, they have played a role; but in a time when both are dropping, and, as we’ll see below, Black male cohorts outside of those commonly associated with jail and murder are “ghost” as well, something else has to account for the whys and wherefores as to why so many Brothas are MIA. MGTOWism, explains it very, very well. (Oh, and by the way, White Women’s efforts to get their Men to “Man Up” will fail, bigtime – I say this based on Black Women’s multi-decades long effort to shame Brothas into doing their bidding – even to the extent of having the Leader of the Free World upbraid them on the regular - all to no effect whatsoever. So y’all White Women might as well give it up right now. Won’t work.)

But perhaps the single biggest witness to the Brothas Going Their Own Way, are Sistas themselves; spend a bit of time around them, either live and in person, or perhaps better yet, in the Sistasphere online: Clutch, MadameNoire, Lipstick Alley and the like, and see for yourself. Not a day will go by where you won’t hear of at least one, and more often than not quite a few, Sistas bemoaning where all the “Good Black Men(TM)” have gone. Just this year alone, I’ve personally been witness to this – one Sista down in Baltimore lamented that the dance club she attended one Summer Friday night had a paltry handfull of Brothas with whom to dance on Black Facebook. And in real life, I attended a Labor Day Weekend backyard party of an early 40-something, singlemom-Sista – attractive, sociable, well-connected to the who’s-who’s of the area – where only one adult Black male showed up:

Me. All the other guys invited, didn’t bother to do so – this, after pleas on her part that she and her girlfriends would cook for them, etc. It was painful watching her ring up her guest list begging guys to come on through and get served by her and her girlfriends. Let me tell all the readers out there something about Black folks in general, and Black Men in particular, that they/we like to eat - especially if it’s free. Free grub at any event, be it a funeral, political rally, whatever, is guaranteed to get the Negroes out in force. But the fact that no other Brotha within shouting distance would dare approach this party, was truly a canary-in-the-mine moment for me – as I am sure it was a devastating blow to my hostess’ and her girlfriends’ egos to boot.

On the other hand, the food was delish.

In another example, earlier this Summer I wrote a piece at my personal blog The Obsidian Files, taking up the hysterical response of “living your best single life” expert Demetria Lucas to a documentary that’s made the rounds in Black American circles called “Frustrated: Black American Men in Brazil”. As the title suggests, it chronicles the lives of a group of Brothas who have decided to pull up stakes and head off to greener pastures elsewhere, and not always for the reasons one may assume (though being in the midst of a bevy of Brazilian chicas certainly doesn’t hurt). The documentary, which was a kind of “response” to a series of articles written in Essence magazine (who also employed Lucas at one time, I might add) – the Black Woman publication of record for some four decades running - on the supposed epidemic of craven sex-tourism run amok among Black Men, had Sistas from coast to coast up in arms and green with envy – how dare those Brothas not only Go Their Own Way, but to actually have an opinion about Black Women back home, and to make comparisons to the ladies they encountered in foreign lands to boot? What nerve! (Of course, Sistas who choose to try their hand at getting the “Boyfriend Experience” abroad is seen as empowering; Sex Tourism for me, but not for thee, dontcha know.)

All of this tallies well with the best “official” estimates and “studies” taken, where organized mating events, known as “meet markets” among upscale, college-educated, white-collar professional Black folks, reveals a Sista to Brotha ratio of as much as 7 to 1(!), with no end in sight. The reasons why such a state of affairs persists, is simple – but not easy to countenance, let alone directly and bluntly communicate to the Sistahood, especially if your bread and butter depends on keeping them happy. These events, and many others along these lines, have been afoot in Black America, for decades – once again confirming, that Black Men are the sharp end of the Manosphere spear.

Beckys of the world, are you taking notes?

Why it Matters

As I’ve noted elsewhere, human beings are extraordinarily sensitive to what scientists have referred to as the effective sex ratio of males to females in any given locality; both sexes have evolved “software” psychologically to fine tune their awareness of the abundance or dearth of available mates of the opposite sex in any given environment, and to tailor their mating tactics accordingly. I’ve also said, that in scenarios where there are markedly more of one sex than another, we can expect the more abundant sex to make more exaggerated displays that the opposite sex would find desirable. For example, one study was done in two cities in the state of Georgia, where it was found that the city with more Men than Women went into more debt buying homes, cars and credit card purchases – all signs of resources Women are drawn to in potential mates, especially long(er) term; whereas, in those environs where there are markedly more Women to Men (like NYC, or my hometown of Philly), as has long been the case in Black America, the Sistas there are more prone to show more skin, wear tighter clothing, offer sex quicker and get into catfights with other Women over Men. With more and more Brothas slowly but inexorably dropping out due to perverse incentives on offer to Sistas on the one hand, coupled with tremendous disincentives when it comes to Brothas on the other, we can safely predict these and related behaviors to continue unabated for the forseeable future.

MGTOWs – their very (non)existence matters greatly to Women, for precisely the aforementioned reasons – because they know and understand intuitively, that the more Men who dropout, the less likely they will be to pair off and find a mate. Even when most Women are primed to search for Mr. Big, the chances of that happening lessens with fewer Men overall on the mating grounds – and the harder it is to lock one down on the off chance said Mr. Big is in attendance, due to so many more Women also being in attendance. Add this to the other ways in which the “Men strike” impacts society for the everyday Woman – fewer “nice guys” around to hold doors open, let ladies in front of them in shops or on buses and trains; assist them with varying things over the course of a day; plummeting social capital in local communities (like the Black one, for example), to say nothing of an ongoing Mancession coupled with more Men voluntarily leaving the worlds of work and school as we’ve previously known it, and it all makes sense as to why we see so much insistence on Men “Manning Up” in our time, especially coming more and more, from Women themselves. With more and more Men now being documented as dropping out of just about every area of American life, it can be safely said that the MGTOW arm of the Manosphere, truly is the Silent Kill.

MGTOWs of The World, Unite!

For the diehard holdouts out there, deeply entrenched in their denial about these things, please allow me to disabuse you of said denial by informing you that what we’re talking about here ain’t local – it’s a global phenomenon. In fact, as faraway as Japan(!), MGTOWism has risen to the top of the social agenda, to such an extent that it is seen as a concern of national security. Checkout this documentary by the BBC, called “No Sex, Please; We’re Japanese” and see the cold- hard facts for yourself. Sure, we’re not Japanese, and all that – but the underlying themes are there, nonetheless – in one of the world’s most prosperous nations, the only non-White country in the original G7 lineup. Consider the fact that here too in the States, marital rates are at all time lows, along with birth rates, especially for the upwardly mobile crowd (indeed, we are now seeing dysgenic breeding/mating patterns in the lower depths of American life, Black, White, and Other, alike), and video games like the latest iteration of Grand Theft Auto made more money, and in a shorter amount of time no less, than Summer blockbusters like Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, the Twilight series or The Hunger Games.

Think on that for a moment. Yes, ladies, you can be replaced…not by a fleshlight, “sexbot” or even a blow-up doll - but a console. At least the Japanese guys are still interested in girls, albeit virtual ones. Dudes here in the USA? We’d rather play shoot em up.

What all of this comes down to, again, is incentives; and as any student of human behavior knows well, change the incentives, and you change the behavior. What Women in our time, of any color, need to be asking themselves, is what is it about our time that has so many Men heading for the proverbial exits? But to do that kind of deep soul-searching questioning of the status quo, one must first deeply question their assumptions about human nature in general, and Male nature in particular. Most Women wrongly assumed that their “Magical Hoo-Hoo’s” will make a Man do almost anything to get inside it – the MGTOWs are proving that assumption, wrong. Just as human beings are sensitive to things like sex ratios, so too are they sensitive to incentives, or the distinct lack thereof, and act/respond accordingly. Women in our time need to understand, that so long as Men rightly perceive themselves to receive increasingly diminishing returns on their “Manning Up”, more and more of them will say “no thanks” and simply Drop Out.

Be afraid, ladies. Be very, very afraid.

Now adjourn your arses…

The Obsidian

291 thoughts on “The MGTOW Mystique‏

  1. 1
    navian says:

    The “Manning Up” mantra is like adding a dose of steroids to a red pill world view, it’s transparent propaganda
    only strengthens a MGTOW philosophy and rejection of the incredible, expendable male role.

  2. 2
    pops3284 says:

    I feel like Im becoming one of those MGTOW everyday man. For me its just the desire to just do me and its not an anger or disgust of women or the system. Its just that I like having the freedom and also the low access to sex form previous generations has helped me not to have to make a big investment to get my needs met. I just rather focus on my own thing that building a family. Will I feel that way 10-15 years from now? I dont know, but I feeel that way today

  3. 3
    Jimmy says:

    Great stuff Obsidian. You’ve been on fire lately.

  4. 4

    That “conversation” on HUS about that documentary was both pathetic and revolting. The fact that they called those men MRAs without any evidence was proof of the ignorance and prejudice of HUS commenters – a disproportionate amount of them are single black women, of course – and another reason to have nothing but contempt for them.

    On another note, this comment on Novaseeker’s blog was telling:

    “Another reason why MGTOWs get less respect is that, while PUAs are looking for ways to work around or beat the messed-up system, MGTOWs are just walking away from it. And we, as human beings, have very little respect for men who avoid danger or who back away from challenges and trials. We understand why women might want to step away from bad, dangerous or difficult situations, but we have no respect or patience for men who do the same. People may acknowledge how unfair and rigged the game is against men, but they still expect men to play it to the best of their ability.

    And while women and tradcon men may find the PUA’s lifestyle choices to be morally repugnant, they do respect him on some level (even though they may not admit it) for trying to make the best of a bad situation instead of just walking away from it like the MGTOW does.”

    veritaslounge.com/2013/06/05/the-meaning-of-the-recent-mgtow-dust-up-for-the-manosphere-at-large/#comment-618

    Societal misandry is deep-rooted indeed.

  5. 5
    Spawny Get says:

    “Great stuff Obsidian.”
    Very definitely agreed.

    “You’ve been on fire lately.”
    Not yet, but if the fembots ever catch him…

    PUAs teach what female attraction triggers are, or can be. Not always pretty even if they are usually understandable from an evolutionary viewpoint. The male weaknesses to manipulation are also revealed. Not pretty either.

    MRAs teach what misandric the legal system enables and sometimes encourages. Outrageous.

    PUA + MRA knowledge => redpill

    MGTOW is the name for all the varieties of ways to live your life as a response to that information (other than PUA). I guess that I’d try to summarise it as non-aggressively putting yourself first and living a life that you as an individual find fulfilling and hopefully happy.

    Can’t stop that. No leaders to buy off. Less consumption to tax (starve the state).

    You go guys

  6. 6
    Candide says:

    Those aren’t three distinct groups with no cross over. I consider myself in all 3.

    I promote Men’s Rights when and where I can. I find myself mentoring younger men frequently, and also helping divorced or soon to be men find info or assistance.

    I study Game and practice it regularly. I don’t use PUA to describe myself, but for the purpose of this blog, I am one.

    I also have no plan to get married or even get into a serious LTR, have no mortgage, no debt, actively practice minimalism. I follow Captain Capitalism’s Enjoy The Decline program, IOW.

    I’m in great health and shape, make very good money (low 6 with no real effort, can do more but can’t be bothered), speak several languages and can live in many countries if I choose. Don’t play video games or watch TV, but have plenty of hobbies that I enjoy.

    Other than “paying” (more like a jack – Chris Rock) income tax, for all intents and purposes, I have dropped out of society. And I don’t care whether the women are afraid or not, or whether they should be. I’m loving life and freedom too much to give a toss.

  7. 7
    earl says:

    The thing about MGTOW….most don’t boast that they are this. They just do their thing in their lives that they enjoy…while knowing in the back of their mind introducing a lady into it would likely ruin the things they have. That’s why women can’t point the fingers at them like MRAs and PUAs. MRAs and PUAs talk about who they are…MGTOW are doing what they are.

    So when women have no idea where all the good men are…it is because men aren’t coming to them anymore. I know I’ve found things in my life more important than women. I still interact with them…but now I have other options to amuse me. I’ve discovered my mission in life is the most important thing…not a woman.

    And women will find out in too late of time…that finding a man, getting his commitment, and having children is their most important mission. Not their jobs, degrees, cats, or experiences.

  8. 8
    Tilikum says:

    delicious Taoist irony.

    go surf Plenty of Fish and look at the desperation of really cute girls, and it’s getting worse daily. by fighting Mother nature, they have assured their defeat (culturally).

    short sighted. hmm.

  9. 9
    Marellus says:

    Me. All the other guys invited, didn’t bother to do so – this, after pleas on her part that she and her girlfriends would cook for them, etc. It was painful watching her ring up her guest list begging guys to come on through and get served by her and her girlfriends.

    Schadenfreude.

  10. 10
    JT says:

    A phrase that sorely needs to make its way into the modern social lexicon is “Woman Up”. “Man Up” gets thrown around so often these days by women that nobody blinks an eye or questions the motives behind it.

    Here’s a tip guys. When faced with any kind of bitchy/pouty/domineering/loud/brash or other unfeminine behaviour from a girl – CALL THEM OUT ON IT. Call out the elephant in the room and watch the stunned speechlessness. When you calmly tell a girl her behaviour is “masculine”, “aggressive” and, “unfeminine” (my favourite) they become very taken aback. In all likelihood, NOBODY has ever said that to them before. Calling a woman “unfeminine” hits them on a very primal level. Along with “ugly” it can really devastate them emotionally.

    “Unfeminine” (or “ugly” depending on how much of a bitch she was to you and how much you want to hurt her) is the female equivalent of “creepy” or “loser” for guys.

    It’s time men collectively started shaming them by calling them out on it. No anger. No butthurtness. Just calmly call them out on their aggressive and unfeminine behaviour and watch them recoil in horror. Tell them they need to “Woman Up”. Perhaps then will they begin the painful introspection process and change how they act. Tough love.

  11. 11
    Jason says:

    Hey Obsidian,

    I like your writing quite a lot, but as an outsider to your world view, you’ve handwaved a few things which I’m sure are obvious to you. The two that immediately pop up:

    What the hell is Black Facebook?

    “Just this year alone, I’ve personally been witness to this – one Sista down in Baltimore lamented that the dance club she attended one Summer Friday night had a paltry handfull of Brothas with whom to dance on Black Facebook. ”

    If I’m reading this correctly, she was complaining about the club on Black Facebook. But the sentence is a bit weak so it could mean that Black Facebook is a place or time? I dunno.

    Second, you’re talking about this 40 something single moms party that no men showed up to. That seems really odd to me, but you seem to have an opinion about why that’s expected but don’t explain it. What is your opinion on the no-shows from black men?

  12. 12

    Roy Baumeister once wrote that, traditionally, a key aspect of respect or esteem in the concept of manhood was for an adult male to produce more than he personally consumed. The resulting surplus was made available to his wife and children first, and any above and beyond that was available to the local community.

    Society’s education and professional channels more or less supported this concept of manhood and male breadwinning, but at the cost of reduced independence and fewer economic opportunities for women.

    This is certainly a reductionist way of putting it, but the ascendancy of female schooling and work opportunities changes the role of the male surplus, and with this comes a change in how we construct our own narratives about masculinity itself. Let’s say that in the 1950s an average man would produce 10 units of economic output and consume only 5 units, leaving 5 available to his dependents. Even if he has approximately the safe opportunities to find good work (which certainly may not be true), today’s man is increasingly likely to look around and see that his surplus is less of a mission-essential product and more of a luxury. Women are no longer dependent on the male production/consumption function—they want to make their own money, etc.

    Two typical reactions:

    1. Slacker Bob decides that instead of working his ass off to produce 10 units, he will just produce 6. The soul-killing life of the cubicle farm drone is just not worth getting too invested if women want careers so badly.

    2. Rakish Rick decides that he’ll still produce 10 units, but he will consume 9 of them himself and invest in toys and lifestyle that he finds pleasing.

    With the later age at marriage, the Slacker Bob and Rakish Rick positions have years to become “baked in” to the social fabric. If Rick spends his 20s developing a taste for bespoke tailoring, adventure travel, high-end single-malts, and the occasional Ducati, he is perhaps unlikely to want to give these up later—these will have become lifestyle design essentials for Rick, parts of his self-concept.

    In addition, Rick may feel that he HAS to invest in these types of things because everyone in his Facebook social circle appears to be living a glamorous, high-octane life, and thus his ability to cultivate these exciting qualities in himself through personal development programs may be a requirement for him to have high-quality mating opportunities in the SMP. If you underconsume as per the 50s model and have to compete against a guy who is near-100% invested in his social presentation (and constantly revealing it in masterfully edited ways on FB), you may lose the girl even if over a multi-decade relationship timeframe you probably would have been the better partner for her.

    Bob may have found that materialism does not lead to happiness and that work-life balance is critical. Time in the office working on spreadsheets and attending staff meetings is really meant to pay for the basics, while allowing ample time to enjoy a stripped-down, minimalist, low-drama lifestyle that includes hanging with good friends, sports, grilling out, porn, low-cost coffee dates with occasional hookups, and Call of Duty Ghosts.

    Neither of these guys is being sinister; they are just reacting to what they see going on—60/40 on campus, women saying that they want to have it all and “lean in”, feminist pundits in the media, glorification of the bachelor, etc.

  13. 13

    Funny you should mention black women. I’ve heard that black women have the least number of responses on internet dating sites. Not necessarily a good metric for the real world, but it certainly says a lot about them when you consider that even black men don’t want anything to do with them.

  14. 14
    LTl (formerly LTlurker) says:

    BB @12: Insightful and dispassionate, as usual. Respect.

  15. 15
    M3 says:

    “he thing about MGTOW….most don’t boast that they are this. ”

    Earl is right. There is no ‘announcement’ from MGTOW (unless you’re like me and you own a blog).

    Most guys just hit that conclusion and act on it. They may get questioned from time to time but will shrug it off since they know arguing against bluepillers is fruitless.

    Anyways, great post Obs. I’ve written a ton of shit that mirrors and echos everything you said, but you wrapped it all nice and neatly into this post. Well done.

  16. 16
    Spawny Get says:

    If I’d been invited to the Schadenfreude party, I’d have gone…for the laughs.

  17. 17
    Joe Blow says:

    >>>40 something single moms party that no men showed up to

    What needs to be explained about that? I can think of some ways to describe women in a way that would make them seem less sexually attractive than that, but most of those descriptions involve things like “leprosy” or “off her meds” or “fleeing her jealous ex-husband who just got out of jail.”

  18. 18
    deti says:

    MGTOW is only going to grow in importance for all the reasons listed in O’s fine article. The way men used to live their lives was school, college/trade school, get a job, find a wife, have children, work until death or retirement. Nothing incentivizes that way of life anymore.

    Men of my generation (white men in their 40s) grew up listening to the promises of the churchians and the traditional conservatives: “Get a job, do well, be nice, be yourself, and you’ll find a wife who will love you to the ends of the earth and you’ll never ever ever have any problems.” It was wrong; it was always wrong; but our parents needed for it to be right to keep the façade going. They played the part of the Wizard of Oz, telling you to pay no attention to the goings-on behind the curtain where their daughters rode off into the sunset with Harley McBadboy and spread their legs for Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer and bore Alpha McGorgeous’ thugspawn.

    Society is just now beginning to understand the enormous costs feminism will exact. MGTOW is really just the beginning.

  19. 19
    earl says:

    My arguments about it are what blue pillers can swallow.

    “I just haven’t met the right one yet.”

    It’s the truth…of course the right one will probably be a unicorn…but they don’t need to know that.

  20. 20
    Tilikum says:

    @ Deti

    and that’s why the screeching will get louder and louder until all of a sudden……silence…… and a rapid realignment back to the mean.

    when you cut the fat, everybody screams, when you get to the bone there is silence, as the realities become apparent.

    it’s way close, i’m telling you. i see it and feel it everywhere. women are starting to become hypercompetative because they know they were lied to and actually need men but cant overtly act on it.

  21. 21
    earl says:

    If anything…all MGTOW is men realizing that since women want it all…go ahead and let them. Just don’t let those women bring their dysfunction into our lives. For we all have the trump card…our commitment. If women can’t get it…they can’t get it. Even if beta daddy government would get so vile as to force you at gunpoint to do it…you can’t get blood out of a turnip.

    My life for all intensive purposes is stable and the only chaos I bring into it…is the chaos I choose. With help from God I can handle most of my business. The only real chaos I know that would destroy me is if a woman with all of her baggage were to get involved.

    I would hate to be a woman in this day and age even with all her benefits.

  22. 22
    Morpheus says:

    This is certainly a reductionist way of putting it, but the ascendancy of female schooling and work opportunities changes the role of the male surplus, and with this comes a change in how we construct our own narratives about masculinity itself.

    Absolutely. Qualitatively speaking, since the 1950s and the female ascendancy in education and economic/income opportunities, you’ve seen a resurgence in the “warrior/muscle man”. I think it would be fascinating to see the participation rate amongst say 15-50 year old men in weight training, bodybuilding, and martial arts over the past 100 years. I’d bet we are at the highest point now with consistent growth over the past several decades. If a man cannot demonstrate his “manliness” through his providing capability and surplus production, then he will go alternative routes.

    As a practical matter, this is a no-brainer for men who want to boost their “masculinity”, their SMV, and improve prospects with women. It really was amazing to me back in the late 90s how much extra female attention I got when I picked up the weight training/bodybuilding habit as a core lifestyle feature.

    Over the last 15 years, you’ve really seen MMA participation/interest skyrocket. That is no accident that dovetails with the emphasis on the “you go grrlll” philosophy at the educational and career levels. It is in our natures to find something we can compete and excel at, and that makes us “feel like men”. I know for myself I literally cannot conceive of not lifting weights. I feel a greater sense of purpose and fulfillment when I am in the gym then anything in the workplace.

    This is an active choice many men have to make. Do you prioritize developing some of the shorter-term “sexy” attraction traits or do you prioritize developing the longer-term attraction traits like provisioning ability. Maximizing both is not possible.

  23. 23
    deti says:

    Tilikum:

    I disagree with you. The “end” is not close; we’re nowhere near it. What O is writing about in the black community had its genesis more that 50 years ago when businesses and good blue collar jobs started disappearing from the Rust Belt. And it hit the black community first and hardest. It will take a lot longer before the effects of the Sex Rev sink deep down into the mainstream of society.

    The Christian mainstream is still telling men to get married and be fathers because that’s men’s “highest and best use”. No kidding — the language from Christian/churchian writers borders on telling men they have a moral duty to marry; a moral duty to be fathers (even to children who aren’t theirs). To us that sounds ridiculous; but most men believe this, take heed to it and accept it.

    That’s just one example I can think of off the top of my head. So no, I don’t think we’re anywhere near critical mass on this. I think it’s going to limp along as is for a long time. I see no changes to divorce/family law on the horizon. I see average age at first marriage creeping up. I see only small, incremental changes. I see a lot more married men dissatisfied with their lots simply because they’re punished for having married; even if they manage to stay married. I see a lot more divorced men stating they’ll never, ever remarry, and not for religious reasons, but rather for practical reasons. That said, there are still many many more “blue pill” men simply continuing down the same path of school, work, marry, kids, continue working until death or retirement.

  24. 24
    Han Solo says:

    @Bastiat 12

    Good thoughts.

    I think that most men didn’t create surplus wealth because they enjoyed busting their ass to do so. Rather, they knew that was the price they had to pay to get a woman or a better woman and so they did it.

    As Dave Chappelle said, “If a man could fuck a woman in a cardboard box, he wouldn’t buy a house.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymNdfdQvdVc

    But if you take away the reward for having the “nice house” then men won’t get as nice of a house as they would otherwise. IOW, for most men, the economic surplus was not the reward itself but a means to the end they desired, namely having a better woman and the respect that society offered for being a stable provider and family man.

    Over at Dalrock, an MIT professor is quoted as not understanding why men aren’t responding to the labor market.

    I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not, and it’s very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It’s a fact in need of an explanation.

    – Michael Greenstone, M.I.T. economics professor

    It goes to show that many/most men aren’t motivated so much by earning extra money unless it provides the reward of getting one or many women.

    So you have to understand what incentives are most valued by most men. And just having money for its own sake isn’t as big of a motivator to most men.

  25. 25
    Han Solo says:

    It’s an interesting thought: how much consumption is driven by women, either directly by what they purchase or by men giving them gifts or acquiring status symbols in an attempt to marry or get laid.

    Without women’s desire for more and nicer stuff, I doubt that men would buy a lot of the stuff they do. Consumption-based economies really need to have money in the hands of women and also perpetuate the idea that men can get women by having lots of stuff (I’m not saying it’s not true to some extent).

    We credit men for creating the extra wealth and inventing technology to make more wealth and rightly so but we also should realize that it was likely done by most men in order to attract women and be a better candidate for satisfying their hypergamy than the next guy.

    To channel Dave Chappelle, without women’s materialistic hypergamy (as opposed to simply wanting the best genes for the tribal setting), we’d still be living in cardboard boxes or mud huts.

  26. 26
    earl says:

    @Morpheus….

    Just because I have so much more free time being single…I have time to go to the gym and lift. I can’t think of any real reason not to go unless it is to take a day off and rest. It gives me something tangible to improve upon and something to look forward to. Since then I’ve discovered the punching bag there and have really got into learning how to box and punch. There is something about unleashing power onto something…while at the same time gives me that fire to take into my job or life. Plus if I wasn’t doing it…I’d go insane from boredom. I also see quite a few guys at the gym regularly when I go in there…so I’m not the only one.

    Does it replace what I would get with a wife and kids….no. But at this point…what choice do I have.

    If I had a wife and kids along with my job…I doubt I could put anywhere near the time at the gym as I do now.

  27. 27
    dude says:

    This is a brilliant piece of writing. I am a disenfranchised American white male, and I’m truly beginning to understand how black America guys feel. Men in the West are being treated like second-class citizens and we are getting fed up with it. Although I’ll never know the exact extent of how black guys feel and how they are systematically discriminated against, I am certainly getting a taste of it. Men in the West need to unite in some way, regardless of race. Gender discrimination is a higher priority than race discrimination at this stage in the game. MGTOW is the best way for a large group of men to stick it to the system.

  28. 28
    earl says:

    “Without women’s desire for more and nicer stuff, I doubt that men would buy a lot of the stuff they do.”

    If it doesn’t serve any use…why would I buy it? Jewelry would definitely fall into this category.

    Women on the other hand have so much useless stuff…I can’t imagine how they aren’t in debt.

  29. 29
    PVW says:

    That “conversation” on HUS about that documentary was both pathetic and revolting. The fact that they called those men MRAs without any evidence was proof of the ignorance and prejudice of HUS commenters – a disproportionate amount of them are single black women, of course – and another reason to have nothing but contempt for them.

    Question: Mostly black women are commenting on HUS? The site always seemed to draw primarily white women and men…

  30. 30
    Escoffier says:

    Echoing what Han said at 24&25.

    I have been going back through Livy. Leave aside that most modern historians treat him as if he wrote only fairy tales. There are many interesting things to be noted, but apropos of the topic of women and consumption, it appears that early Rome—and for hundreds of years—was extremely rustic, the city itself was not that attractive or luxurious, nor was the standard of living very high. This is in contrast with Carthage and other ancient cities or empires, Capua above all in Livy, which was said to be both the richest and also the most corrupt and effeminate city in ancient Italy. For instance, Xenophon contrasts the luxury of the Medes with the austerity of the Persians (leave aside that these are Persians he invented) and attributes the former to some extent to women.

    Augustus famously said of Rome “I found it a city of wood and left it a city of marble.” The point is, Rome’s rusticity lasted until very, very late. What we know of as the gloried and riches of Roman antiquity came very late in the game, concomitant with the rise of the status of women. There’s a lot else going on but this is something to think about.

    I personally have come to believe that the post-collapse West will look a lot like Livy’s First Decade, it’s like reading about the past and the future at the same time in the same story.

  31. 31
    BuenaVista says:

    I took myself offline a couple of months ago, handed the business to my business partner to run, relocated to rural Iowa where I have a house and some farming relatives, and spent my time in reflection and reading. There are some broad outlines of MGTOW here. Incidentally, 12 months ago I had never heard of MGTOW, red pill, etc. I was just living the circumstances (divorce, litigation, parental kidnapping) that motivate the concept.

    Anyhow, I need to do a couple of favors for my favorite govies and thus returned to DC late, late last night. So back into the metro whirl, and social maw. These are direct quotes from an ex-girlfriend whom we’ll call Babs, who started texting me in the early hours after I landed. Following occurs at 1:30 a.m. She is a senior exec who is at the office by 8 a.m. So a rough night indeed, for Babs.

    She: “I can’t keep upgrading.”

    I: “But you’ll always try …”

    She: “It’s not possible.”

    I: “Actually, as a girl, hypergamy is natural for you.”

    She: “You don’t get me.”

    I: “I probably do. You’re texting me at 1:30 a.m. and I haven’t seen you in five months.”

    She: “Some men do it the old-fashioned way. What’s hypergamy?”

    I: “I think you’re soused. Charming, but soused. I’m headed out to find some food and milk for breakfast.”

    She: “Whatever happened to men who would know what I want?”

    I: “I think I know what you want. Headed out. Tomorrow’s a new day. GN.”

    She: “Very attracted to smart sexy men — very difficult to find.”

    I: “Headed out. Babs wants some lovin’. GN.”

    She: “It’s a basic need — to go without — is to be deprived. I’ve been deprived enough.”

    I: “GN, must close. We’re all hungry Babs. Every one of us.”

    She:

    She’s an interesting, successful, fit and attractive, utterly self-absorbed woman. By dropping out, but maintaining polite contact, the passel of women I was seeing last spring are all ready to go out, as is Babs, obviously. Two are dating other men and are ready to go out. I have dates each night of the remainder of the week — but I’m, in my head, close to MGTOW. I don’t see any of the women connecting the dots: they still think that someone who writes or drives a tractor 12 hours a day, 1200 miles away, is in the urban dating/mating game.

    Men: try this exercise with yourselves: predict when a woman will articulate something that you seek in a relationship, rather than (as in Babs’ case) obsessing over *her* desires. (You’re going to wait a long time.) While waiting, I counsel polite, diffident involvement: you’ll likely have more action than you have the energy to sustain. MGTOW is a function of women utterly objectifying male relationship value (Men: impregnate, sacrifice, love, titillate, entertain, fund) within a society that enforces the obliteration of those male activities and relationship virtues on female whim. Of the half-dozen women I have dated this year, *all* terminated their marriages, all are proud of it, and none is emotionally conflicted over their present romantic frustrations (which they do not think that they have created themselves): they all just think that they deserve to have romcom nirvana with “sexy intelligent guy”. So why don’t the men lean in and cooperate?

    “You don’t get me …”: this is the epigram for a generation of educated women.

  32. 32
    BuenaVista says:

    Correction: last line of texting dialogue.

    “She: [No response.]“

  33. 33
    Lon says:

    Thank you to the author for an interesting well written thread. However I do not mean to rain on anyone’s parade but as a lifelong bachelor in his 40′s who has pretty much done his own thing so far in my life, I have some issues with how pervasive and influential MGTOW really is at least here in America. What many of you MGTOW guys fail to realize that in Japan while there are many herbivore men who have eschewed marriage and family there are just as many women in Japan who do not want to partake in Japanese tradcon married life. That is a fact in Japan both young men and young women are apathetic towards marriage and having kids -not just young men. Hence, in Japan women do not care if men are not getting married.

    I see the similar pattern here in the USA. While a lot of commentators like Hanna Rosin and Bill Bennett have written books shaming men for not supposedly “manning up”, a lot of young women in their 20′s are avoiding marriage as well and hate the institution as much as men. I have perused some feminist sites and have read commentary that young women are now getting the “you go girl” message of having fun living life in their 20′s and screw being a subordinate housewife. In fact well known Feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte criticized Michael Kimmel for his book “Guyland” because Kimmel criticized young men in their 20′s for playing video games all day as opposed to getting a “real job” and getting ready for marriage. Marcotte felt both men and women should not be shamed for not conforming to societies pressure to get married and have kidshttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2008/09/29/pandagon-wherein_i_stop_in_the_middle_of_a_book_to_make_a_semi_ranting_point/

    So even many young women for the past few years have been getting messages to avoid marriage and live life and be all you can be baby. I write this to point out if their is a so called “marriage strike” by men- many women do not care as well. Also if you peruse any of the dating sites such as POF and MATCH.COM you will see many more men on there than women. In fact it has been statistically proven women on these dating sites receive tons of mlore emails than men. If men are avoiding romantic relationships/dating/marriage how do you explain this? Also I live in a fairly sizeable community and I had been to a dance club a few weeks back on a weekend and there were as many dudes there as women. If men are avoiding and going MGTOW how do you explain this?

    Lastly, although many men can say they are going MGTOW but you know how difficult it is to control a mans sex drive. I mean even highly conscious spiritual monks struggle with lust. It is very powerful. I’m not convinced it is so easy. I will say this , it doesn’t seem like women are panicking about the MGTOW or marriage strike as one hears about in the manosphere. I mean look over the archives of popular feminist blogs like feministe, jezebel, and feministing and you will rarely see an article/thread on MGTOW. I don’t buy the hype that MGTOW is some huge emerging pattern and women are panicking. In fact some feminists have pointed out that if men are truly “going their own way” as they state why do forums like MGTOW forums and happy bachelors still have men complaining and commenting about women?-that does not look like they have truly gone their own way. Again a great well written thread but I don’t buy it. I am sorry to rain on the parade.

  34. 34
    Han Solo says:

    I’ll add that once some men have children they will also earn extra money for their kids. That will be an additional motivation beyond trying to get or keep a woman, to leave a legacy. Sometimes this desire becomes corrupted and taken to excess, as in the case of that asshole (though often portrayed as a likeable asshole), Walter White, in Breaking Bad, or in season 6 of 24, where Philip Bauer wants his grandson, Josh, to have it all.

  35. 35
    Han Solo says:

    @Lon

    The fact of the matter is that postponed age of marriage is more likely due to women delaying than men. The men would like to get married younger but women are putting it off for college, work, fun, etc.

    Without the incentive of a wife or steady gf, many young men then decide to “underachieve.”

  36. 36
    Morpheus says:

    Of the half-dozen women I have dated this year, *all* terminated their marriages, all are proud of it, and none is emotionally conflicted over their present romantic frustrations (which they do not think that they have created themselves): they all just think that they deserve to have romcom nirvana with “sexy intelligent guy”. So why don’t the men lean in and cooperate?

    “You don’t get me …”: this is the epigram for a generation of educated women.

    LOL. One thing that boggles my mind, literally I can’t grasp it is how some women can be so intelligent in a book sense and successful in career yet apparently lack even a shred of introspection with regard to dating/mating life.

    I’ll tell you BV, you probably should start giving lessons. You sound like the Go to Guy for a number of different women. For all the talk of restricted vs unrestricted that takes place in certain circles, the situations you mention are consistent with my own personal experiences, and things I’ve heard from other guys. I think it is true that only a small minority of women are “sluts” in that they indiscriminately escalate their N with lots of men. But I think a fairly large percentage of women are open to “casual” (not within the confines of official exclusive relationship) with their respective “sex provider” guy. This is the guy who they have had sex with previously, enjoyed sex with, maybe had a relationship that ended, but stayed with some form of communication. In my experience, if the woman is not in a relationship, this guy can pretty much have sex with the woman no questions, no strings, just “service” her and be on your way. And very often the woman will be “dating” (auditioning) other men for the longer-term stable provisioning mate. Oh, and those guys usually are not having sex with her yet. They have to wait until they “commit” to an exclusive relationship.

  37. 37
    Morpheus says:

    Correction: last line of texting dialogue.

    “She: [No response.]“

    That happens when the hamster passes out from exhaustion, and needs to take a break to rest and recover. He’ll be back at it though working hard again. :)

  38. 38
    Gurney Halleck says:

    Hello gentlemen.

    I’ve been following the manosphere for a while and recall the Mark Minter episode. What that made clear to me is that despite the mgtow rhetoric, many so called mgtows are willing to sacrifice those convictions because of a deep, totally understandable hunger for lasting female companionship. However, the combination of the increasing difficulty for men of attaining enough social and economic status to be suitable for marriage with the risk of divorce gives men incentive to shirk the grunt work necessary to become suitably “established,” a choice which then renders them invisible as potential husbands. It is not the rhetoric that determines mgtow but the passive behavior of not becoming hauling ass to become Husband material.

  39. 39
    Han Solo says:

    @Morpheus

    That’s the refractory period to recover from hamsterbation.

  40. 40
    BuenaVista says:

    Lon, #33:

    I’ve not met a single woman over the age of 35 who is not desperate to marry a man, be taken care of by a man, and/or have exclusive control of a man. Sure, I’ve dated many who say they are “so over marriage”. And they’re all married. Just my experience in the 30-50 cohort, UMC & UC, educated. Sure, they lean in a lot verbally, but none of them are walking that talk.

  41. 41
    Escoffier says:

    Well, I’m not sure that women would have any particular incentive to be honest with me, but in professional circumstances I am around a lot of over 30 manhattan career wenches, and well over half seem not to be interested in marriage at all. It’s possible that’s just an act, but I think I’d be able to pick up on desperation at least some of the time. A lot of these women seem to enjoy their lives/money/apartments/partying, etc.

    Maybe the west truly has turned a corner. That is, souls are now so flat that women no longer are unhappy about being childless and alone. Well, women in Abeline, perhaps, but in Manhattan, there’s still so much fun to be had, so why grow up?

  42. 42
    BuenaVista says:

    Morpheus, I think your description of the soft harem and setting it up is quite accurate. Of course, I only learned this stuff in the last year, then had a total freakout about it last summer, as I do not wish to join the soft-harem, serial monogamy parade. So I’ve been going to bed with women since then, religiously and nightly: women like Annie Proulx and Lydia Davis and Edith Wharton and Jorie Graham and Marilynne Robinson …

    There are moral concerns here that the PUAs would reject, and neuroscience issues (habits are habits, and hard to abandon). In my case I know that each of these women in the soft orbit would marry me if I asked (and I also know that this is no compliment to me; it’s stark evidence of their confusion and contradiction, and desperation). Since I don’t have any desire to be a shitheel, and most of the women I know are average, uninspiring lovers, I keep things pretty loose. I think if I encounter a woman who is genuinely interested in my happiness, in addition to her own, and if she can love me long time with vigor and skill, and if she convinces me that she’s not a hypergamous nightmare, I’ll probably move in with her within the year. Odds? <20%, I'd say.

    I probably know a couple of women who understand that I'm pulling back a bit socially, but most just *ignore* my acadian enthusiasms because it just doesn't matter, to them; they are solely focused on their feminine imperatives, and that's that.

    Incidentally, Morpheus, Babs just reloaded and fired: this text just in:

    "Still hungry."

    So you're totally on the money there too. I have a business dinner so this evening's ethical dilemma is whether to pay a visit to hungry Babs afterwards.

  43. 43
    OffTheCuff says:

    PVW.

    HUS has never attracted 20′s SWF’s as commenters as a rule, for as long as I’ve read there. While they may be her target audience and readership, they never participated in any meaningful number. Aside from Jackie, all the participating women are either a) old, b) attached, or c) nonwhite, or some combination thereof. (For men, they were either a) old, b) attached, or c) a player, or some combination thereof.)

  44. 44
    Badpainter says:

    Howdy all!

    Three different blogs discussing the same topic from three different angles today. Most excellent

    I note that most comments are mostly focused on the marriage aspect. I don’t believe that’s what is causing the fear/concern on the part of the establishment. No, it’s the MGTOW’s diminished ambition to find value in making more money and thereby creating wealth that terrifies them. What would happen to our economy if men going Galt reduces GDP by as little one half percent in todays’s economic environment? How many homes don’t sell at current prices prices when single men decide to stay renters? How much tax revenue is lost when single men decide to only work 40 hours a week? Those are the questions to which possible answers keep our masters up at night.

    The tears of lonely women are just the establishment’s siren song to lure us back onto the rocks.

  45. 45
    Morpheus says:

    There are moral concerns here that the PUAs would reject, and neuroscience issues (habits are habits, and hard to abandon).

    On my honeymoon, about 3 days in a row we went to the buffett to eat. Great selection and options for reasonable price relative to what you were getting and other options. But I started to feel like a pig, and at some point the overeating wasn’t as enjoyable. At some point, grabbing that extra plate of food or dessert just feels like pure excess. Still, I don’t plan on avoiding buffetts the rest of my life. I think striking a balance is the key between enjoying what is available versus overindulging.

    Incidentally, Morpheus, Babs just reloaded and fired: this text just in:

    “Still hungry.”

    So you’re totally on the money there too. I have a business dinner so this evening’s ethical dilemma is whether to pay a visit to hungry Babs afterwards.

    What kind of man would you be if you let that poor woman go hungry? I think the ethical thing to is feed her :)

  46. 46
    Lon says:

    Escoffier wrote “Well, I’m not sure that women would have any particular incentive to be honest with me, but in professional circumstances I am around a lot of over 30 manhattan career wenches, and well over half seem not to be interested in marriage at all. It’s possible that’s just an act, but I think I’d be able to pick up on desperation at least some of the time. A lot of these women seem to enjoy their lives/money/apartments/partying, etc.

    Maybe the west truly has turned a corner. That is, souls are now so flat that women no longer are unhappy about being childless and alone. Well, women in Abeline, perhaps, but in Manhattan, there’s still so much fun to be had, so why grow up?”

    Thank you for echoing my previous sentiments. The fact is I do not think women in at least America give a darn about the whole MGTOW scenario. As a result of feminism, women especially in large urban metropolises have either abandoned marriage or a re putting it off to have their fun and careers. So women do not care if men go their own way. As I mentioned I peruse feminist blogs as well as manosphere blogs and there is rarely a thread on MGTOW in feminist blogs. Outside the internet MGTOW is just not well known. Could the so called MGTOW phenomenon be just a few thousand guys on the internet and be basically a small “movement”? Also I am curious so far on this thread by Obsidian on MGTOW , there have been more than 30 comments so far and not one has been by a woman. How do you explain that? I just think women at least in America.do not care if MGTOW. In reality as much as there can be a bunch of MGTOW websites in the manosphere, the reality is on many dating sites, in many dance clubs, and bars there is a whole bunch of single men still trying to connect with a woman. I do not buy that MGTOW is having such a big impact on women and society.

  47. 47
    Morpheus says:

    FWIW, I’ve known a few single women in that 35-40 age category and the desperation to land a guy for marriage is almost like a cloud that floats around them everywhere. I suspect we may have something that is a function of age and something like the 5 stages of grief. Beyond a certain point and age, acceptance replaces desperation and it manifests in no longer caring about marriage. Additionally, I think it makes sense that a certain percentage of women are NOT “wired” to be mothers, desire a husband and children. I think it also makes sense that those women would tend to congregate in very specific geographical locations (large urban cities) and in certain types of careers.

  48. 48
    Richard Cook says:

    Here you go my man. In a nutshell. A comment from Dalrock:

    Dalrock,

    The elite is deeply wedded to the idea of child support, both for children born out of wedlock and as a way to simultaneously free women from unwanted marriages and “improve” existing marriages (via the threatpoint). These are things both liberals and conservatives are deeply invested in.

    We just had our Christmas Party here at work (oh I’m sorry HOLIDAY party.) The Wednesday before, I’m having lunch in the cafeteria with a few of my coworkers, one of them a single woman in her early 40s. They started chatting about the party and this woman volunteers that she is not going to the party because it seems kind of silly to go without a husband and then (smiling in a feminine way) she asks her next question (of the two men at the table, both of us married) “… why can’t women find husbands anymore?”

    I turn to the other guy and he tells me “…why don’t you take this one…” so I do.

    (me) “I could tell you but I don’t want to turn that question into an HR issue for you or any woman at this table who go screaming to them because of what I said. I don’t need any crap in my life right now.”

    (her) “Oh no, I’m actually serious, I wouldn’t go screaming to HR, I am generally curious. None of us would.” They are all nodding now, I only half believe them.

    Now all the women are looking at me, one of them married, the rest not. Curious.

    (me) “With no-fault-divorce, there is a huge disincentive for men to marry. Why marry women if you can just divorce us at any moment and take half our earning and half our accumulated wealth for any reason, or no reason?”

    (her) “Well I support that because most men are abusive @ssholes. What if he hits me, I have to stay in that marriage? I could die!”

    (me) “That is fault based divorce. That existed long before no-fault. But more to the point, if most men are @ssholes, why do women want to marry us?”

    pindrop quiet

    ….

    nothing

    ….

    still quiet, all the women, ONLY the married one is smiling, the others frowning

    ….

    (me) “Moreover, no-fault-divorce allows women to divorce us and live with with their new boy friends in houses that we have to pay for. A woman can no-fault-divorce us and run to court and get a restraining order (fo rno reason) that separates us from our children whom we are forced to support so our former wives can have sex with their new boyfriends whom they now live with.”

    ….

    still quiet

    I turn back to my lunch. “That’s why you can’t find husbands.”

    The one who asked the question got all beat red in the face. “Well, look not all guys are @ssholes, just most of them. And I beleive in no-fault-divorce so… guys are just going to have to come around and marry us anyway or…”

    (me) “Or what?”

    (her) “Or…. I don’t know.”

    That is just it, they don’t know, and they don’t care. They are going to get theirs no matter what and it will happen somehow.

  49. 49
    Spawny Get says:

    Lack of noise from women without a man?

    I keep hearing about the incredible number of women taking medication for depression. Is there any data available about what age these illnesses tend to be diagnosed?

    I can’t help wondering if the reality gulf between feminist ideology and what women might actually want cause a dissonance which grows with age…

    Getting towards menopause without a man, realising that a career actually sucks as a raison d’etre and you would like kids…can’t be pleasant. Especially when you’re reminded by hearing “where have all the good men gone?” In the media.

    Also, a few years ago there was a rash of meedja stories about women ‘burning out’ of their fabulous careers around thirty (3-5 years after a master’s I guess). Not heard anything since. Is this quietly handled by medication, for those that suffer (nafcwalt).

    Just because they’re quiet doesn’t mean that they’re happy.

  50. 50

    i get looks of disbelief and sometimes out right hatred when i tell older women i refuse to get married. when i explain the stats and the family court system they call me bitter and misogynist. i’m a lost 40, 2 months from retiring from the navy, have a great paying job in health care, and know game. therefore, what reason do i have to sacrifice what i’ve worked for to have some entitlement princess decide she want’s half because she’s not haaaaaappeeeeee. knowing game, i have all the female attention i need.

  51. 51
    earl says:

    ” Is there any data available about what age these illnesses tend to be diagnosed?”

    30-32 is the median age for the depression disorders. More women than men.

    http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml#Intro

  52. 52
    Morpheus says:

    i get looks of disbelief and sometimes out right hatred when i tell older women i refuse to get married. when i explain the stats and the family court system they call me bitter and misogynist.

    Ha. This must be something like a reflex. It’s like a canned response like a politician exclaiming “what about the children”. It’s a way to deflect from any logical point or argument. Say anything to most women that doesn’t jibe with their desires, and the retort is “you are just a bitter misogynist”.

  53. 53
    Spawny Get says:

    Thanks Earl,

    That ties in with the five-ish years of the dream marketing job post master’s. Enough time to work out that it’s not all it was cracked up to be as a meaning of life.

    Obviously; Correlation vs causation etc.

    Also ties in with the anecdotal baby rabies cutting in. And enough time to maybe find out that the rich alpha is elusive, certainly as a marriage prospect.

    A great time to discover that you were sold a pup (or cat)

  54. 54
    Lon says:

    Is there any data available about what age these illnesses tend to be diagnosed?”

    30-32 is the median age for the depression disorders. More women than men.

    http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml#Intro

    Good info however fwiw I wonder how the rates of depression are in men in the same bracket. One important aspect that will skew it is that women report depression more and are more apt to seek professional therapy for it. While men as a result of cultural upbringing for men to “never let them see you sweat”, many men will not report or seek any type of professional help if they feel depressed.

  55. 55
    Escoffier says:

    The MCW sentiment seems to be, either land a Hedge Fund Guy Who Climbs Everest on Weekends, or stay single. Anything less than him would be “settling.”

  56. 56
    LTl says:

    Quoting Obsidian: “These events…have been afoot in Black America, for decades – once again confirming, that Black Men are the sharp end of the Manosphere spear.”

    O’s running case study is his evidence that American women, in general, do care about MGTOW–regardless of whether they identify the phenomenon as such. His reasonable assumption is that, at their core, women (of roughly the same SES status or aspiration) are women.

    Why would feminist blogs make a theme of the declining number of “good” men available for “commitment” due to MGTOW or contemporary hypergamy? Why would power-career women be the benchmark for what most women prefer? Of course there are still many single men somewhat desperately looking to connect with women: those are mostly the men who aren’t in much demand.

    The problem that MGTOW poses for women isn’t about men who wouldn’t have been in much demand, anyway: it’s about the increasing number of men who might have been attractive contenders for the husband/father/provider role but have opted instead to live more on their own terms, deprioritizing the goal of landing a woman for marriage [2.0].

  57. 57

    @Lon

    Reminds me of natural selection somehow. Childless women weeded out of the genepool. And the population returning to equilibrium.

  58. 58
    Lon says:

    LTl commented “Why would feminist blogs make a theme of the declining number of “good” men available for “commitment” due to MGTOW or contemporary hypergamy? Why would power-career women be the benchmark for what most women prefer? Of course there are still many single men somewhat desperately looking to connect with women: those are mostly the men who aren’t in much demand.

    The problem that MGTOW poses for women isn’t about men who wouldn’t have been in much demand, anyway: it’s about the increasing number of men who might have been attractive contenders for the husband/father/provider role but have opted instead to live more on their own terms, deprioritizing the goal of landing a woman for marriage [2.0].”

    Perhaps you are onto something in that it could be conservative tradcon women possibly getting worried over MGTOW. I believe Dr. Helen Smith who wrote “Men on Strike” is conservative. I think Susan Walsh may also be from a more conservative bent. So any reaction to MGTOW from women may actually come from conservative traditional women.

    As far as MGTOW posing a problem because potential “attractive contenders” are off the market and what is mostly lleft is men who would not be in demand anyway. I am still not seeing that in evidence. I live in a sizable community and in my social network which includes both colleagues and friends, I still observe many men who have good incomes and own homes still spending a good amount of times on dating websites and going out socially to connect with a woman .Now whether you want to label these men as “beta providers” is a matter of perspective on what is Of course some here may have different observations. alpha or beta. Nevertheless, I still observe quite good amount of successful men looking for a relationship.

  59. 59
    earl says:

    “Nevertheless, I still observe quite good amount of successful men looking for a relationship.”

    And how many of them are getting married…

    All the stats I’ve seen have been trending down for marriage across all boards in America.

    That’s what women want…his commitment (or his freedom and options). Unless she is a die hard feminist who is all about the strength and independence.

    You can still be a MGTOW and have a relationship with a woman. They aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s doing the things you like with the people you like. You don’t cut women out entirely…just the ones you don’t want to associate with (and most feminists, single mothers, divorcees, or BPD chicks I would think most guys around here wouldn’t want to hang out with anyway). Marriage is certainly not in the cards unless the woman is one of the rare ones.

  60. 60

    Oh lord, the comments are almost as fun as the OP!

    Bringing it to the back, if just briefly:

    MGTOW is still a marginal phenemnon in the white community. There’s definitely a discrepancy in college education rates, that much is damn true, but it has not yet affected the overall employment rates significantly. Prime-age labor participation is off somewhat, but not dramatically, and it’s probably mostly because of Long-Term Unemployment.
    If you are unemployed for 6 months or more, you have to have a DECADE of experience in an industry to match a new hire.
    I see a marriage DELAY in the data, but not a marriage STRIKE per se. I think we’ll see some movement around the margins, but I am not foreseeing any colossal collapse. Most of the men in my age group still want to get marriage, they just aren’t really DOING anything about it. Because of that, they eventually will get married, once a woman deigns to bat her pretty eyes at him….I got one friend lost to a crap girl in this way already :/

    But the black community, and the stories, oh man….the movement around the margins, that’s a reallllll bitch because it becomes uncontrollable snowball after a while.

    BTW, re: “Mancession” the female unemployment rate is now above the male unemployment rate, due to governments slashing positions:
    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/womens-unemployment-surpasses-mens/?_r=0
    Whats more, male unemployment is trending down, female ain’t moving anywhere. There’s a budget deal today, more or less cementing a semi-austerity.

    Entitlement spending is now colliding with other government functions, including women make work programs. This includes in the corporate world.

    The economic miracle underlying women’s economic empowerment, at least for some women, is getting pinched. Probably not at the upper classes so much, but lower-class women who do not have a lot of social capital are going to start eating shit sandwiches in the coming years.

    We’ll see what happens….

  61. 61

    Re “you just don’t get me”
    It always amazes me when I have a discussion with the fiance, because she never tells me anything I don’t already know. My personal limit is not intelligence, it’s energy, particularly because the coy, cutesy communication is kinda draining for me.

  62. 62
    LTl says:

    Lon @58: I’m not disputing what you’re seeing on the street, as it were. But two points.

    1) Concern about MGTOW isn’t limited to conservative-oriented women–which O’s case study of Black America demonstrates.

    2) Of course there are still a fair number of “successful,” if not tingle inducing, men making a considerable effort to seek women. The trend, though, is that a growing number of men who could have been contenders are responding to disincentives in the SMP/MMP and going their own way (which doesn’t have to mean becoming a herbivore). This puts real stress on the post-feminist life script of upwardly mobile women, even if it remains a relatively lesser phenomenon in aggregate. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a growing “Where have all the good men gone?” lament and literature coming from Black and White women alike (albeit to different degrees).

  63. 63
    anon in CA says:

    I am in 100% agreement with Lon; I’m not buying the hype.

    I’m a woman and I’m new to the manosphere and I notice alot people on this blog refer to HUS. Question- is there something wrong with majority of there commenters being black or non-white? White people are so funny!

  64. 64
    Lon says:

    Ltl commented “Why would feminist blogs make a theme of the declining number of “good” men available for “commitment” due to MGTOW or contemporary hypergamy? Why would power-career women be the benchmark for what most women prefer? Of course there are still many single men somewhat desperately looking to connect with women: those are mostly the men who aren’t in much demand”

    Sure I understand what your saying by using “power driven career women” or feminist women be a benchmark. However feminism does have quite an impact on popular culture especially with young women. So the fact that feminism has virtually ignored the MGTOW “phenomenon” at least in terms of the internet does indicate that many women do not care about it or what is purportedly the so called marriage strike.

    “The trend, though, is that a growing number of men who could have been contenders are responding to disincentives in the SMP/MMP and going their own way (which doesn’t have to mean becoming a herbivore). This puts real stress on the post-feminist life script of upwardly mobile women, even if it remains a relatively lesser phenomenon in aggregate. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a growing “Where have all the good men gone?” lament and literature coming from Black and White women alike (albeit to different degrees).s on the post-feminist life script of upwardly mobile women, even if it remains a relatively lesser phenomenon in aggregate. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a growing “Where have all the good men gone?” lament and literature coming from Black and White women alike (albeit to different degrees).”

    I do agree with most of your comment on the trend having the ability to put real stress on post-feminist life. However as someone previously commented this may really pertain to the black community. As the commenter “definite beta guy” stated MGTOW is at really marginal at this point in the white community. Now maybe some of these white women may experience post feminist stress from their decisions but I do not think it will be tied to MGTOW or any marriage strike. It will just be a matter of people in this case women becoming more stressed both economically and emotionally. You may be correct in that there maybe more articles on womens forums in the future about problems in finding a mate. But any discussion of MGTOW or marriage strike will be most likely ignored by women. I remember vaguely on a blog I read that one female commenter thought of MGTOW as silly.

  65. 65
    Escoffier says:

    “White people are so funny!”

    Yes, we are!

  66. 66
    Sir Nemesis says:

    Rationalization hamster study courtesy of Amanda Marcotte (guess she is good for something):

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/12/18/_virgin_births_1_in_200_pregnant_women_claim_they_didn_t_have_sex.html

  67. 67
    LTl says:

    Lon @64: I’ll leave you with this. A woman–”anon in CA” @63–has now officially weighed in. You might consider whether her “100% agreement” with your perspective is a negative indicator.

    More substantively, consider HS’s comment @24 (referencing Dalrock) and the MIT economics professor he cites. MGTOW is not so easily dismissed or marginalized as a Black thing–to reiterate Obsidian’s major theme.

  68. 68

    anon in CA.
    Thing about HUS is that its original mission was to inform young single women of a higher than average SES, either in college or just afterwards, that they didn’t have to screw anybody who looked at them in order to be in with the in crowd.
    In fact, they could wait until the third date to let the guy into their pants. Major paradigm shift. Susan’s point was the hookup culture got so much ink, one way or another, that the fresh-faced freshmen girls were expecting to…well, you know. But the fallacy was that such promiscuity was grossly oversold as to frequency.
    Reason for talking about white girls is that these are overrepresented in Susan’s market, while black women are underrepresented, and guys are just kibitzing.
    IMO, certain of the threads did benefit from a guy’s perspective, but most of the guys have been banned.

  69. 69
    Lon says:

    @LTl
    I will leave you with this. I will say the comments to this thread have been quite a contrast. Some here think MGTOW is having a huge impact. Other’s are not buying all the hype. At this point in time I virtually see MGTOW as being predominately ignored by women. Yes there are exceptions especially with somewhat more conservative women such as Susan Walsh and Helen Smith. However in the feminist blogosphere MGTOW is basically discussed or even acknowledged. Even on such an interesting thread as this today there has been only one female commenter. You would think from some of the men saying how widespread MGTOW there would be a whole bunch of women commenting on this thread. In a way I personally hope for there to be more discussion/dialogue on various womens/feminist blogs about MGTOW. I as well as possibly other men may be interested in hearing the female perspective on MGTOW. I just don’t see any of it at this time.

  70. 70
    Candide says:

    “MGTOW is still a marginal phenemnon in the white community. There’s definitely a discrepancy in college education rates, that much is damn true, but it has not yet affected the overall employment rates significantly. ”

    ADBG, if the ratio in college is 40:60 M-F right now, give it 5 more years, you’ll see the significance. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I reckon the 2020 mark stated by TFH in his Misandry Bubble blog is spot on.

    And speaking of TFH…

    “You may be correct in that there maybe more articles on womens forums in the future about problems in finding a mate. But any discussion of MGTOW or marriage strike will be most likely ignored by women. I remember vaguely on a blog I read that one female commenter thought of MGTOW as silly.”

    TFH often repeats that “women don’t understand cause and effect very well”. This is Exhibit A.

  71. 71
    Morpheus says:

    I will leave you with this. I will say the comments to this thread have been quite a contrast. Some here think MGTOW is having a huge impact. Other’s are not buying all the hype. At this point in time I virtually see MGTOW as being predominately ignored by women. Yes there are exceptions especially with somewhat more conservative women such as Susan Walsh and Helen Smith. However in the feminist blogosphere MGTOW is basically discussed or even acknowledged. Even on such an interesting thread as this today there has been only one female commenter. You would think from some of the men saying how widespread MGTOW there would be a whole bunch of women commenting on this thread. In a way I personally hope for there to be more discussion/dialogue on various womens/feminist blogs about MGTOW. I as well as possibly other men may be interested in hearing the female perspective on MGTOW. I just don’t see any of it at this time.

    I don’t think you’ll see much discussion about MGTOW on women’s/feminist blogs beyond a general sentiment of “good riddance to losers”. One thing I’ve learned online is that many women, particularly feminists have a very difficult time connecting cause and effect, and economic arguments about things like marginal supply will be totally lost on them.

    At the end of the day, MGTOW essentially impacts the marginal supply for potential husbands. It is hard to say how meaningful that will be relative to perhaps some marginal drop in demand from women if in fact more women are becoming less interested in marrying. And it impossible to know the effect of MGTOW at the micro level for any individual woman’s chances of marrying.

  72. 72
    skilaki says:

    “Yes, ladies, you can be replaced…not by a fleshlight, “sexbot” or even a blow-up doll – but a console.”

    Quote of the year.

    Outstanding post!

  73. 73
    Sir Nemesis says:

    Like you allude to in this post, the overwhelming majority of MGTOW are not actually part of the organized MGTOW movement. Rather, they’re just men who find dropping out to be the path of least resistance.

    I think it’s going to keep increasing as long as older (especially Boomer) men keep giving blue pill advice to younger men, with predictable results. Remember that meme about Old Economy Steve? http://www.quickmeme.com/Old-Economy-Steven/ I think one could say the same thing about Old SMP Steve. The kind of guy who says stuff like “in my day we married good girls early in our life instead of chasing after sluts” and thinks that’s workable advice for younger guys.

  74. 74
    jack says:

    I agree with Lon that i see no evidence in nyc of young men leaving the dating market and “going their own way”. Almost all bars have more men than women. Online dating is a horrible ratio. Competition for mediocre, cunty, trashy women is high. Its a horrible situation.

    What men can do is call out and shame bitchy, mannish, unfeminine behavior by women. If youre with friends and dont want to look mad, make an insulting joke. If you can, just call them out sternly. Call out slutty outfits. Profanity. Gossip. Creepshaming. Etc. If we all do our part, we can make a difference.

  75. 75

    Re: 29

    I didn’t say they’re mostly black women, I said a disproportionate amount of them are. In fact, two of her most frequent commenters, also acting as moderators, fall into this camp – one is black, I’m not sure about the other one, but she’s neither white nor Asian. This, of course, is to be expected. Black and Hispanic women are at the bottom of the female sexual hierarchy, so they have the most problems attracting “eligible” mates. And sites like HUS mostly attract bitter, jaded women dissatisfied with their own love lives.

  76. 76

    Re: 33

    You see lots of strongly-worded complaints about women on MGTOW Forums and other sites for the simple reason that the media is censored. No criticism of women is allowed in the mainstream media, and a man is ridiculed, shamed and excommunicated from “polite society” if he makes any politically incorrect remark about women or pretty much anything connected to male-female relations in general. And when men are not allowed to speak their minds and make their legitimate complaints heard, they will seek out separate places where they can. The kind of sites you mentioned are literally the only virtual places in the West where men are not forced to kiss women’s asses whenever they say anything about male-female relations. There are a lot of men with such legitimate complaints and grievances, and since the only places where they can share them are such sites, there is a lot of concentrated anger and frustration there.

    Having said that, it’s not men’s fault. It’s the mainstream media’s fault. If it allowed rational, calm, moderate discussions about male-female relations where women can be criticized and called out on their BS, a lot fewer men would be driven to the sites you mentioned.

    I’ll quote Zed on this issue:

    “The forcefulness of the expressions you will see in the manosphere – including the roughness of the language – are a by-product of decades of denial of men’s issues. Years ago men spoke of the issues in much calmer, more measured, more rational terms – and ran headlong into a stone wall of denial that took the form, “There is no problem, and if there is it is all your fault.” No one who has any understanding of human nature should find it surprising at all the frustration these men felt resulted in escalation of the intensity of their message.

    Now, 40+ years on, even happily married men like Dalrock and a few female bloggers are finally getting around to conceding that “there is a problem.” For those of us who have been trying to point out that there was, indeed, not only a “problem”, but that the trend was toward it getting worse, not better, and met nothing but the stone wall of denial, this is a bit like having the neighbors finally admit that, maybe, your house really was on fire when you told them it was. Now that it has spread from a grease fire in the kitchen to the point where the whole house is in flames, wringing of hands and dithering “oh my, what to do, what to do?” doesn’t impress the people who have been affected very much.”

    dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/chivalry-on-the-titanic/#comment-4415

    As far as online dating is concerned, again, the argument isn’t that more women than men are doing it, the argument is that fewer and fewer men are bothering to engage in it. And as far as young women delaying marriage are concerned, yeah, I’m sure most in the ‘sphere are aware of it, and it doesn’t contradict this post.

  77. 77

    Re: 46

    You have to keep in mind that it in the current cultural milieu it’s not really acceptable for a single woman to openly advertise her desire for a reliable husband/boyfriend. It conflicts with feminist dogma and is therefore treated as a cause for ridicule and shaming. Moreover, MGTOW is not called as such in the mainstream media – we have to admit it’s a crappy acronym, too difficult to pronounce -, but the more and more shrill rhetoric coming from the Man Up Brigade, both 2nd wave feminists and Churchian tradcons, about “Peter Pans”, slackers, childish gamers etc. is basically about the same phenomenon. Again, the main cause of their anger isn’t that MGTOWs aren’t marrying, it’s that they refuse to create the surplus wealth that is necessary to divert to single women if they are to thrive.

  78. 78

    Re: 63

    HUS is specifically marketed as a site for single, college-educated, middle-class or upper-class white women seeking a heterosexual relationship and eventually marriage. That’s why it’s odd.

  79. 79

    Re: 74

    “It’s interesting to hear some people say that they’re seeing more and more guys checking out, while others say they are seeing more and more approach-machine wannabe PUAs trawling the nightclubs and bars. As I tried to point out in my Reciprocal Scarcity posts, economics and sociology are fields of paradox, where seemingly-contradictory things can coexist and be simultaneously true. We can be seeing an uptick in the prevalence of game among a thin but visible cohort, while at the same time seeing a large pocket of borderline men crossing the border and checking out of the game entirely.”

    badgerhut.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/guys-opting-out-of-the-game/

  80. 80

    We also need to keep in mind that women are much more passive than men when looking for mates. They send weak signals to indicate their interest, but most men don’t have the social skills and awareness to notice them. It happens all the time. Most women just expect “eligible” suitors to appear out of nowhere and ask them out on a date. Some women go further and develop skills that attract men, like learning how to cook, how to lose weight, how to dress well etc., but as far as they are concerned, that’s all the sacrifice they need to do. They don’t really put themselves out there and take risks in order to find a mate. Women aren’t predisposed to do that. I’m pretty sure the percent of women who do online dating is relatively small. They just don’t think it’s necessary. But all this doesn’t mean many women aren’t actually “looking” for a mate i.e. expecting him to appear out of nowhere. They want a boyfriend/husband, they just don’t want to make a serious effort to find one, because it comes across as needy and it’s plainly a PITA.

  81. 81
    Liz says:

    I think if women were truly worried about MGTOW, we’d see a corresponding correction in the market (with less bitchy, better-looking more feminine women). That isn’t the case. So the future is a whole lot of cat ranchers and a whole lot of men married to their consoles. And that has a cascading effect with lower birthrates, fewer conservative-minded families, worsening economic conditions and all that. Italy (and some other parts of Europe, though the women there do look a lot better) is ahead of us there…present and future is pretty dismal actually. Isn’t good for anyone, male of female.

    Yesterday I asked my 6th grade son if he had a lot of recess now that it’s midterm week. He said yes, but recess is boring. They aren’t even allowed to play with balls now because during soccer games/ball throwing games of any type the girls get into circles in the middle of the game and stand and talk. So instead of telling them to get out of the way, the principal has decided someone might get hit with a ball (any size, even a tennis ball), so she has banned balls on the field and will confiscate them. They also aren’t permitted to play on the playground equipment (money bars, ect) because them might get hurt. Sometimes I think there’s a conspiracy to actively produce a generation of pusillanimous feminine males. Perhaps our robotic overlords know what tends to happen to societies with a disproportionate number of disenfranchized men with few family or social connections, no progeny, and little to lose.

  82. 82
    Spawny Get says:

    @hoellenhund2 #79

    Thanks for the link, I had seen it before but it was fun to read some of the comments.

    Not saying that I necessarily agree with it 100%, but this one is great

    The Lone Planet
    August 1, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    Most men are starting to realize that Game is a band aid over a Columbian necktie. I’m not saying Game doesn’t work, it’s just not worth the aggravation, especially with these “modern” women. Uninspired is the perfect word for what’s happening.

    I always prefer a little humour with my insightful truth. As the ever profound M Poppins once orated, “A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, (in the most delightful way)”.

    (Also, lot of great comments from names familiar to JFG. There’s a great crowd gathering here)

  83. 83
    Starlight says:

    @ Liz

    So instead of telling them to get out of the way, the principal has decided someone might get hit with a ball (any size, even a tennis ball), so she has banned balls on the field and will confiscate them. They also aren’t permitted to play on the playground equipment (money bars, ect) because them might get hurt. Sometimes I think there’s a conspiracy to actively produce a generation of pusillanimous feminine males.

    Horrible, how they are emasculating men from a young age. Do we really need more Niles Crane in this society?

  84. 84
    Starlight says:

    @ Lon (58)

    Nevertheless, I still observe quite good amount of successful men looking for a relationship.

    That doesn’t necessarily mean they want to get married. This guy I know was in a relationship solely for the steady sex. He wasn’t looking to get married. For him having a steady sexual partner meant not having to look for a new on each time.

    I’m sure guys here can say more on the matter. :)

  85. 85
    deti says:

    Hoellenhund 80:

    Yes. The tragic thing is that feminism has now set up things such that an average woman now MUST go out there and take risks, MUST put herself out there to try to find decent men.

    She has to do things she’s not designed or wired to do. She has to risk rejection and invest time and resources specifically into finding a man suitable for marriage.

    I remember a couple of years ago on another blog, where another man and I were fielding questions from women about this very subject. Off the two of us went, literally choreographing how these women might position themselves to find eligible men; things they might say and do, places they might put themselves. And we said words to the effect of “if you want to find these men for lasting relationships, then you’ll have to put effort into finding them, you’ll have to risk a little; you’ll have to accept these men, date them, sleep with them and marry them.”

    The pushback was immediate: “Oh, we can’t RISK.” “But doing the pursuing and asking is what MEN are supposed to do.” “I’m not going to show a man I’m interested in him. He’ll think I’m a slut!” “Hmmm, but these guys are so…. BETA.”

    It’s a nearly insoluble problem, and I don’t think it’s going to change anytime soon.

  86. 86

    Liz, that regulated playground story is chilling. Notice how the net effect is to remove all of the balls from the playground; the once wild and free experience of recess—traditionally meant to provide mock battlegrounds in which physical prowess, daring, and team work can be developed—is quite literally being emasculated and replaced by the Ya-Ya Sisterhood.

    One of the things which both sociologists and anthropologists have found is that ambitious women appear to prefer competing with men (i.e., using relative out-performance on external “male” validation benchmarks or metrics as the yardstick for success), but men do not equivalently enjoy competing with women. So if a given activity attracts too many women, men will check out of it as it will start to loses its prestige value among the male fellowship. It will be seen as a “girls’ game” which quite literally “lacks balls.”

    I can say from first-hand experience that colleges fear going beyond about 65/35 because at that point the school becomes more or less known as a “girl’s school” and subsequent male applications plummet (which is interesting, because the scarcity advantages enjoyed by those males who did attend would obviously be very high).

    This may directly play into MGTOW on some level. Most MGTOW guys are obviously not throwing press conferences to announce to the world that they have lost interest in trying to pursue long-term relationships with women. I believe that it is a lot more subtle than that—what is happening is showing up in our testosterone levels and sperm counts,in our college attendance rates and falling aggressiveness about traditional markers of “provisioning capability”. The “marriage strike” could perhaps more accurately be described as a “growing apathy towards marriage, courtship, and marital compromise” phenomenon.

  87. 87
    Liz says:

    “It’s a nearly insoluble problem, and I don’t think it’s going to change anytime soon.”

    Agreed. And agreed on the no-fault divorce aspect before as well (of course this has come up before in other threads).

    There’s simply a paradox between biology and the current legal and social structure that’s nearly impossible to traverse. Women have to accept they will be in a position of submission to their spouse to make this work. And they have to accept that they like it (with the proper man). This isn’t a popular idea. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a partnership, but there as to be an ultimate authority in the relationship and if it’s the woman that relationship isn’t going to work because women do not like mating with supplicants. It’s a very visceral relationship dynamic. In the current trend the law is destabilizing to marriage because it empowers one party, and (more importantly) disempowers the other. And, let’s face it, the party it empowers tends to be a little cray cray. I think there’s a biological imperative there too…and men are programmed to not only overlook cray cray but even appreciate it. WITH THE PROPER INCENTIVES.

  88. 88
    Liz says:

    Thanks for the response, Bastiat. It is chilling indeed! :-(

  89. 89
    deti says:

    BV, 31:

    “She’s an interesting, successful, fit and attractive, utterly self-absorbed woman. *** I don’t see any of the women connecting the dots”

    This is a great point. I know so many women who are accomplished, intelligent, attractive, interesting and fit. They can work with the best and brightest of the men in my office. They can analyze thousands upon thousands of pages of documents. They can bring intelligence, hard work and insight to nearly any problem.

    But they cannot or will not apply any of that intelligence or work to their personal lives.

    They can’t bring even the simplest or faintest of insights to their dating/mating/marriage failures. As such, they are miserably unhappy and lonely. They either married the wrong men; married men they are hopelessly unattracted to, or haven’t married at all. Many of them have at least one failed marriage. Some have two failed marriages.

    And I’m convinced the reason they can’t connect the dots is because that analytical function just isn’t one that women believe needs to be applied to their personal lives. Even those women who pride themselves on analysis and reference to “science” routinely devolve into raw emotion, gossiping and backbiting. No, their sex and dating lives “just happen”. Women are so accustomed to being approached, receiving attention and being selected, that all they have to do is pick the best man who presents himself, and off they go. That’s changed. The problem now for most women is those “best men” present themselves , get their sexual needs/wants met, and move on. If those men can’t use those women to get their needs met because it’s too much of a hassle or because she won’t put out/give in, those men move on to a woman who will give them what they want.

  90. 90
    Liz says:

    #83: I agree Starlight. Not to disparage Niles, but we need “manly types” too.

  91. 91
    Morpheus says:

    Agreed. And agreed on the no-fault divorce aspect before as well (of course this has come up before in other threads).

    There’s simply a paradox between biology and the current legal and social structure that’s nearly impossible to traverse. Women have to accept they will be in a position of submission to their spouse to make this work. And they have to accept that they like it (with the proper man). This isn’t a popular idea. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a partnership, but there as to be an ultimate authority in the relationship and if it’s the woman that relationship isn’t going to work because women do not like mating with supplicants. It’s a very visceral relationship dynamic. In the current trend the law is destabilizing to marriage because it empowers one party, and (more importantly) disempowers the other. And, let’s face it, the party it empowers tends to be a little cray cray. I think there’s a biological imperative there too…and men are programmed to not only overlook cray cray but even appreciate it. WITH THE PROPER INCENTIVES.

    Game over. Liz for the win. Phenonemal comment. In this comment you basically encapsulate everything. I think many women live with a massive cognitive dissonance between instinctual programming and the overarching cultural message. Whether they can ever be realigned is the question.

  92. 92

    Re: 81

    There is a looming market correction, but it’s taking place in the opposite direction i.e. coercion instead of incentives. The Man Up Campaign is one sign. I’d say it’s designed as a propaganda tool to build popular support for even more anti-male laws and punitive measures against men who “refuse to do their duty towards society” and whatnot. Some things can be safely predicted. There will be laws passed to make paternity testing practically unavailable, and cohabitation will be redefined as a legal union where the man owes financial support to the woman. Whatever amount of welfare benefits that single men are still eligible for will be eliminated. We will see more demands from high-profile politicians to basically coerce single men into manning up. There will be a bachelor tax, although it won’t be called as such.

    On the other hand, I’m convinced a small cohort of women will start practicing a peculiar form of Girl Game: hiding “slut tells” and disguising their slutty past in elaborate ways from clueless men.

    All in all, it’s true that the hypergamy crunch, as Novaseeker called it, i.e. the growing dearth of “eligible” potential husbands, has not yet really hit the upper classes, so the common consensus in polite society is that there’s nothing wrong. However, the crunch is destined to hit them in 20-30 years due to the widely imbalanced sex ratio on college campuses.

  93. 93

    H2
    However, the crunch is destined to hit them in 20-30 years due to the widely imbalanced sex ratio on college campuses.

    You presume–you may be right–that the financial and signifier effect of a college degree will continue as currently. But, as the obvious becomes obvious, it may not.

  94. 94

    I presume that the large majority of college-educated middle-class and upper-class women are unwilling to marry men without college degrees.

  95. 95
    Heretic says:

    Obsidian :

    Another great post.
    I just recently discovered the Manosphere, and it reiterates what my friends and myself have been discussing for many years.
    I would have to say that I have been a MGTOW instinctively most of my life, and to see the content on the Manosphere is very satisfying.

    ” What Women in our time, of any color, need to be asking themselves, is what is it about our time that has so many Men heading for the proverbial exits? ”

    That, sir, is the absolute truth. Maybe a very,very few will have an epiphany, but I doubt that hardly any care about anything other than indulging themselves. I only think that things will get worse.
    The feminist programming, and reinforcement of it is absolutely staggering. I have seen it in my immediate family, it nauseates me, and after speaking out against it, the usual weak attempts at shaming made me decide to just ‘shake the dust from feet’, and walk away . No point in ‘casting pearls before swine’
    As for me, I try to spread the message to younger guys, and find that they definitely ‘get it’, and after experiencing the effects of the divorce courts, and especially the devastating impact on their lives, as well as their Fathers, they seem to naturally gravitate toward being MGTOW’s, IMHO. IOW, why get screwed over like Dad was? Why work yourself to death just to have it all stolen?
    As for me, another happy MGTOW, enjoying the fruits of his labor.

  96. 96
    Lon says:

    Deti commented
    “This is a great point. I know so many women who are accomplished, intelligent, attractive, interesting and fit. They can work with the best and brightest of the men in my office. They can analyze thousands upon thousands of pages of documents. They can bring intelligence, hard work and insight to nearly any problem.

    But they cannot or will not apply any of that intelligence or work to their personal lives.

    They can’t bring even the simplest or faintest of insights to their dating/mating/marriage failures. As such, they are miserably unhappy and lonely. They either married the wrong men; married men they are hopelessly unattracted to, or haven’t married at all. Many of them have at least one failed marriage. Some have two failed marriages.

    Deti are you referring to just white women in this analogy. ?On the other hand it may seem like black women have been able to “connect the dots” . I mean it seems like in the black community from what obsidian intimated and from what I’ve read there has been a discussion of the lack of available men in many black womens publications for years. It is apparent that black women have been lamenting about the short supply of quality men for decades now. Now a lot of this is sue to social problems such as incarceration, drug addiction, and other social ills that have disproportionately affected black men. This may change as I have heard that incarceration rates in black males have declined and their economic situation for black men is getting better. But yes there has been some type of outcry in relation to black women. The question is though have black women changed their ways since they have been able to acknowledge a lack of available men?

    On the other hand your statement does seem to apply with women. With few exceptions, they have not been able to “connect the dots” so to speak and many women seem to blind to what is happening. Will this change in a few years if MGTOW all of a sudden got so popular and tons of men jumped on board? Right now as we are in 2013, MGTOW is still marginal at best in the white community and outside of bunch of websites on the internet is relatively unknown to the general public and does not appear to be making an impact. Only time will tell.

  97. 97
    LTl says:

    Liz @87: “Women have to accept they will be in a position of submission to their spouse to make this work. And they have to accept that they like it (with the proper man). This isn’t a popular idea. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a partnership, but there as to be an ultimate authority in the relationship, and if it’s the woman that relationship isn’t going to work because women do not like mating with supplicants.”

    Coming from a secular perspective, I don’t feel, understand, or experience this. Nor was this modeled in my two-parent household of roughly equal and very able (if not always congenial) partners in decision making.

    I’m not looking for anyone to generally “submit” to me, and certainly not on account of “biology.” A line does get drawn at open disrespect as well as female imperative unilateralism. For a man to reject “ultimate authority” status is not thereby to become a woman’s “supplicant.” That contrast, based on a dubious assumption, is exaggerated. I haven’t intimately known submissive women, since I’m not attracted to the type. I don’t think I’m so unusual among men of the lesser alpha or greater beta variety.

    People should feel free to do what works well for them (without hurting others)–including headship/submission. But that retro-traditional model doesn’t represent the ideal for all suitably feminine women and manly men.

  98. 98
    Liz says:

    Are you married, LTl?

  99. 99
    Liz says:

    The act of coitus itself is inherently submissive for one person, dominant for another. One partner is submitting to entry. Or is this inherent inequality distasteful idea as well?

  100. 100
    Lon says:

    @Liz “There’s simply a paradox between biology and the current legal and social structure that’s nearly impossible to traverse. Women have to accept they will be in a position of submission to their spouse to make this work. And they have to accept that they like it (with the proper man). This isn’t a popular idea. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a partnership, but there as to be an ultimate authority in the relationship and if it’s the woman that relationship isn’t going to work because women do not like mating with supplicants. ”

    That is a big generalization. What about some modern day relationships where the woman is dominant or she may make more money than her husband/boyfriend? Some progressive minded couples are cool with this situations. While some couples have tradcon gender roles where the is expected to be dominant some couples perhaps the husband is the more nurturing one.I Or how about shared gender roles and decision making?

    I think when I hear that women despise submissive or let’s say passive men it is a double standard. If a woman is dominant she gets “you go girl” “be all you can be”. If she is passive that is okay as well for she is being soft/feminine. However if a man is passive or even somewhat introverted he is lauded as weak or despised by women and society. Liz that is not right not all men want to dominate or be the dominant one in a relationship.

  101. 101
    Liz says:

    Just to add further, your point is interesting to me, Ltl (the reason I ask if you are married) because in about 9 out of every 10 marriages I’ve seen fail (a LOT over the course of our years together), the husband would have said exactly what you have stated above. The marriages disintegrated little by little…the woman wasn’t happy and didn’t know why. When I visited and watched them together it was always versions of the same thing. She lost respect for him, and they argued over all sorts of trivium for no reason. I’m watching another train wreck in progress now with another set of friends I’ve started to avoid, and it’s the same.

  102. 102
    Liz says:

    Lon: “What about some modern day relationships where the woman is dominant or she may make more money than her husband/boyfriend?”

    Making more money does not make one dominant. Money is not the only measure, but if the woman makes more (particularly if the husband stays home and watches the kids) it can lead to relationship issues. Statistically a man is more likely to cheat (apparently 5 times more likely, noted in one of these threads) if he makes less.

    “However if a man is passive or even somewhat introverted he is lauded as weak or despised by women and society. Liz that is not right not all men want to dominate or be the dominant one in a relationship.”

    I don’t despise men that I don’t defer to (that would be every man in the world besides my husband). What does one have to do with the other? I’m sure there are a lot of men who don’t like to be the dominant one. Casual observation shows exactly what happens to such relationships.

  103. 103
    Liz says:

    #102: Forgot to add, I’m not speaking of boyfriend relationships. That’s highschool compared to marriage.

  104. 104
    deti says:

    Lon:

    I was talking generally about women not being able to “connect the dots”, irrespective of race.

    What I meant by not “connecting the dots” is that most women don’t look inside themselves to see if maybe they themselves are one of the primary causes of their dating/mating/marriage failures. This is endemic to women of all races, and no one race has a monopoly or even a plurality of the problem with this. It’s not because she’s a white woman or a black woman, it’s because she’s a woman. Women aren’t all that good at self-reflection, particularly when it comes to assessing why they fail in love.

  105. 105
    Liz says:

    I’ll add a few things about myself, and my relationship. I can run faster than my husband and do more upside down pushups than he (he’s in phenomenal shape). We’re competitive at Axis and Allies, airhockey, and ping pong (I usually smoke him in the latter two, and it’s a draw for the first). I pay the bills, run our finances, do the income taxes. He doesn’t make financial decisions without my input…or basically any big decisions. We discuss. I’m a military wife, I’ve had to make do on my own quite a lot through a lot of difficulties and responsibilities. But he is still the head of the household, and I do defer to him ultimately.

  106. 106
    Liz says:

    #105 By “pay the bills” I mean I write the checks. Though I did pay all the bills a few times at different times throughout our life (a few years ago I was the sole provider while my husband wnet away to take some training, at home with kids alone and working nights…that did indeed suck, but it worked out well for us as a family)

    Sorry for so many posts.

  107. 107
    LTl says:

    @ Liz: I’m not married. I’ve been in a LTR, living together, for 10+ years. I highly doubt that the ex-husbands you know shared the perspective I stated above (recall, I reject female imperative unilateralism). Any serious issues my partner has with me run contrary to loss of respect due to “supplicant” character or behavior.

    No, I don’t think that coitus is “inherently submissive” for women and “dominant” for men–though I recognize that many people are still brought up to believe this, and experience sex accordingly per the old “entry”/”penetration” distinction (whereby females remain sexually passive, and disposed to be “pure,” in response to forceful male initiation). Women I’ve been intimately involved with aren’t sexually “yielding” to my power or allowing themselves to be “subjected to” my sexual treatment of them.

    While I appreciate your respectful tone, I do not appreciate leading and straw claims–e.g., “Or is this inherent inequality distasteful idea as well?” First, as should be clear by now, I reject the framing in terms of “this inherent inequality.” Second, I don’t find your retro-traditional idea “distasteful.” Although I find it conceptually dubious and happen not to share it, I’m for you conceiving of and engaging in sex in ways that work well for you and your husband. Third, I don’t find your retro-traditional idea of headship/submission distasteful, either. I merely reject it as a universal ideal for suitably feminine women and masculine men. I’d only add that as you describe your relationship with your husband, there’s no clear substantive sense in which you “defer to him ultimately.”

    I hope this clarifies my background and perspective.

  108. 108

    hoellenhund2 says:
    December 19, 2013 at 12:42 pm
    I presume that the large majority of college-educated middle-class and upper-class women are unwilling to marry men without college degrees.

    H2. That’s now. My point is that as time passes, the value of a college degree is going to–given current trends–drop as long as it’s not STEM. The obvious, clear, utility of a college degree will drop. We still have the sorority reunion issue, but even that can be overcome with sufficient money. Probably.
    So I am willing to wonder what is going to happen in twenty or thirty years as the current trend continues. If the current trend continues. One of the issues is the value, in terms of compensable education, networking, socialization skills, of a non-STEM degree. If it becomes more and more obvious that the value isn’t there, then having one will mean having something of leser value. If that continues to become more and more valid, something else will fill in.

  109. 109
    Spawny Get says:

    re. Value of degrees and grad women not marrying ‘down’.

    I think we’re approaching the point where some soft degrees might just be called barista degrees. Worthless in knowledge and perhaps negative as employment qualifications. Would you employ someone with a degree in victimhood/entitlement studies?

    I wonder how many unter-mens will want to mutualise her 100k debt for an employment deadweight/millstone master’s? When she might decide to stop work to pop out the kids and then maybe divorce you… none of which you have any say in at all.

  110. 110
    Obsidian says:

    @Hoellenhund:
    Just want to point out that the Black Women presiding at HUS are there for the same reasons the target demo White UMC Women are there: to attract a UMC White male for longterm commitment, preferably marriage. Of course, the chances of that happening, espeically given the rapiddly changing circumstances on the ground, raises real questions as to the feasibility of such a strategy.

    Anyway, don’t want this to devolve into an extended discussion about the comings and goings of HUS, but thought it necessary to offer the following clarification.

    O.

  111. 111
    Obsidian says:

    @Hoellenhund 92:
    If I may say so, the entire “concept” of “Girl Game” is laughable on its face, for precisely the reasons that EvoPsych has laid bare: there simply are fewer attraction triggers for Men, which greatly restricts a Woman’s latitude – (relative) Youth, (relative) Beuaty, and her Chastity. While the last factor is definitely within the control of every Woman, the former two arer not, even in our age of greatly enhanced improvements in medical science and nutrition. “Girl Game” is an emotive response to an immutable Truth about the vindication of age-old wisdom in this areas of life by the Life Sciences.

    As more such vindications come down the pike, we can expect even more “if you can’t beat em, join em” pablum being peddled by various associates of the Cathedral, with precious little to show for it over time. As Ms. Liz has so eloquently noted, and even Kay Hymowitz herself has said in her book “Manning Up”, Women simply cannot beat Biology – which is running headlong into Ideology.

    The latter will lose.

    Finally, on “slut tells” and so forth, Social Media has made it certain that precious few Women will be able to cover their tracks.

    The tide, is turning.

    O.

  112. 112

    @ Candide

    ADBG, if the ratio in college is 40:60 M-F right now, give it 5 more years, you’ll see the significance. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I reckon the 2020 mark stated by TFH in his Misandry Bubble blog is spot on.

    It’s not quite that bad among the white community and definitely not the case where I grew up, where 98% of the graduating seniors went to a degree-granting institution of SOME kind.

    If women are getting more crap-degrees, too, even by a relatively small fraction, it balances the ratio out a little more, too. Especially since we might be seeing the government start to clamp down on the women’s work programs, in particular education (and health care won’t be too far off).

    Now, a girl from Big State U might not want to marry a plumber. A girl from an auxiliary campus with some debt and a dead-end job might eventually want to marry a plumber with a reliable income, even if he is Beta.

  113. 113
    Liz says:

    #107: “I’d only add that as you describe your relationship with your husband, there’s no clear substantive sense in which you “defer to him ultimately.”

    But nothing I wrote runs counter to this statement, and I defer to him in every substantive sense.

    Unfortunately, I’m not sure the English language provides a better word than submission to represent what I am trying to describe. It’s the only word that comes to mind which fits best. At one time, the word feminine itself would probably serve as sufficient description.

    I can probably describe submission best by explaining what it isn’t (the reason I elaborated on my relationship above). Submission does not mean one isn’t capable of making decisions, nor does it indicate that the person doesn’t make decisions. It isn’t weakness, it isn’t lack of independence of thought nor does it mean one is witless or unspirited or helpless. It doesn’t mean being devoid of independent accomplishment/achievement. It isn’t being a catatonic doormat. It does not indicate a lack of confidence.

    Personal anecdote: The subject came up a couple of months ago, and at that time I didn’t view myself in those terms. I thought I was a relatively “alpha” female…and it happened that on the same day I was discussing this issue on Emma the Emo’s site I had a conversation with my husband.

    I went outside and asked my husband to tell the kids to get ready because we were going out on the boat, and they weren’t listening. My words: “They aren’t registering my voice, they need to hear the alpha male voice to respond, not the alpha female.” He looked at me curiously, and responded, “alpha female? There’s nothing whatsoever alpha about you.” Then he yelled for them to get ready and they scrambled, and I asked him, “how so?” and he said I like to be told what to do, and I’m very girlie and submissive and this permiates everything about my personality and our relationship. And then I said, “but I can do things just fine on my own and make big decisions, you’re not always here”. And he responded, “Yes, but you’re not happy then, it seems unnatural to you.” Upon very short personal reflection, I decided he was 100 percent right. I’d just never thought about it.

    “While I appreciate your respectful tone, I do not appreciate leading and straw claims–e.g., “Or is this inherent inequality distasteful idea as well?””

    My apologies. When I hear someone say they are “not attracted” to “that type” I interpret this to mean you find this to be an unattractive quality. And in the Queen’s argot unattractive is pretty close to distasteful. My bad.

    Per this bit:
    “No, I don’t think that coitus is “inherently submissive” for women and “dominant” for men–though I recognize that many people are still brought up to believe this, and experience sex accordingly per the old “entry”/”penetration” distinction (whereby females remain sexually passive, and disposed to be “pure,” in response to forceful male initiation). Women I’ve been intimately involved with aren’t sexually “yielding” to my power or allowing themselves to be “subjected to” my sexual treatment of them.”

    One person is receiving, the other is doing the penetrating. One person is submitting to penetration…that’s simply the nature of the act. This has nothing whatsoever to do with enjoyment for either. The person being penetrated might enjoy it more, but that doesn’t mean this person isn’t submitting to being penetrated. If your sweety has ever employed a strap on the roles in said case would be reversed, and then she would be penetrating and you might (perhaps) form a different opinion on the matter (no judgement…if you’ve been together for 10 years and haven’t tried almost everything you really should mix it up occasionally).

    “I hope this clarifies my background and perspective.
    It does, thankyou for the response!

  114. 114

    Relative beauty is within the control of women, since so many women go out of their ways to make themselves look like crap and unapproachable.
    Here’s a slight insight to that:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408384/From-fat-fit-just-15-MINUTES-Personal-trainer-reveals-tricks-used-fitness-industry-easy-fake-transformation.html

    We also went over the Ted Talk of the woman who “rigged” online dating. Women can absolutely practice a form of girl game, it’s called not shooting yourself in the foot and batting within your league. Home-runs every time. They might call it girl game, I call it common sense.

  115. 115
    The Lone Planet says:

    Men saw the ruined landscape of society and walked the other way. It’s as simple as that.

  116. 116
    LTl says:

    Liz @113: Minor addendum. I’m afraid you’re clever enough to play semantic games. One person “receiving” does not, simply by virtue of “the nature of the act,” equal “submission.” Clearly, “submission” is not merely a descriptive word. To use a somewhat graphic example: a woman who climbs on top of a stimulated but reluctant man and takes him inside her can hardly be said to be “submitting” to him. The more plausible interpretation is that he has “submitted” to her. You can appeal to “being penetrated,” but that can be equivalently described as “taking inside.” Perspective and underlying sensibilities matter.

    More broadly, if you’re working with an abstruse conception of “submission”–and you acknowledge that yours resists positive description in the English language–then we’re close to playing semantic tennis without a net.

  117. 117
    Jimmy says:

    @Bastiat

    The “marriage strike” could perhaps more accurately be described as a “growing apathy towards marriage, courtship, and marital compromise” phenomenon.

    Well said. Agree 100%, and find myself increasingly moving toward this philosophy.

  118. 118
    Jimmy says:

    @ADBG

    Women can absolutely practice a form of girl game, it’s called not shooting yourself in the foot and batting within your league. Home-runs every time. They might call it girl game, I call it common sense.

    Absolutely agree. In my circles, the vast majority of girls in their early to mid 20s are more than acceptable from a pure sexual attraction standpoint. Where most of them go wrong are with unremarkable, unfeminine personalities.

    Just slightly figuring out how to be supportive in a feminine way can make an average 6-7 girl stand out among her peers.

  119. 119
    Liz says:

    #116: “To use a somewhat graphic example: a woman who climbs on top of a stimulated but reluctant man and takes him inside her can hardly be said to be “submitting” to him. The more plausible interpretation is that he has “submitted” to her. You can appeal to “being penetrated,” but that can be equivalently described as “taking inside.” Perspective and underlying sensibilities matter.”

    The example fails because submission implies acceptance.
    Perhaps you are thinking of subjection or subjugation.

  120. 120
    Liz says:

    BTW, the dictionary does agree with me.

    I recognize that many people are brought up to believe that it is unacceptable to acknowledge any inherent inequalities between the sexes, and they experience sex accordingly per the “don’t fuck, make love” and the “different but equal” non-distinctions. Indeed, though it’s very un-cosmopolitan to object to perceptions that one sex is more instinctively submissive, it is quite common for those sorts to dismiss such beliefs as outdated fallacies.

  121. 121
    richardaubrey says:

    ADBG
    What makes a plumber a beta? Guy runs his own business, or maybe is in his father’s business which means he’ll be taking it over. There’s a hell of a lot to running a successful biz and none of it is beta.
    Now, it could be a guy can be an alpha in the business world and a beta at home, but that’s not what you said. If I got you right, a plumber is by nature a beta.
    As opposed to…?

  122. 122
    Lon says:

    @Liz “I don’t despise men that I don’t defer to (that would be every man in the world besides my husband). What does one have to do with the other? I’m sure there are a lot of men who don’t like to be the dominant one. Casual observation shows exactly what happens to such relationships.”

    Liz that is a of course a big generalization there could be couples t\where the man is submissive and the woman is dominant and they have a healthy marriage. On the other hand there could be couples where the husband is dominant and the wife submissive and they could have awful abusive marriages. How do we come up with a benchmark to study the healthiness and happiness of marriages? Usually it is by social scientists but the findings may not be accurate.

    Also Liz your point brought up an interesting possibility. In your opinion you say marriages/relationships where the wife is dominant and the husband submissive usually do not work. Hence men need to be the dominant one in your opinion. I think the fact that more and more men are shunning marriages or LTR could be that young men do not want the stressful responsibility of being the dominant one so it is easier to just shun marriage. I mean with tradcon gender roles it is a good deal for women. They could have a “rock” as a husband/partner who will be calm in the case of traumatic situations and stress. This needs to change before men imo will rethink marriage. Many young men do not want to take on the stress and responsibility of being the dominant one in a relationship and if they choose over a family. So possible many young men are saying the stress of being dominant, being the “rock” in a relationship/marriage and the tradcon gender roles is not worth it. It is easier and far less stressful to play video games, watch sports and work at a less demanding job eve if it less pay.

  123. 123
    Spawny Get says:

    @Lon

    “Many young men do not want to take on the stress and responsibility of being the dominant one in a relationship and if they choose over a family.”

    I think that many men understand that given legal realities, there is no dominance unless the female accepts it, effectively wants it. One phone call to the cops and he’s in gaol, or at least out of the house. To marry a woman who accepts dominance now is gambling that in no point in the reast of her life will she change her mind.

    That is in addition to your statement/claim

    “So possible many young men are saying the stress of being dominant, being the “rock” in a relationship/marriage and the tradcon gender roles is not worth it.”

    which I agree with.

    I have been a life long atheist, but over the last few years have come to the view that the bible (in my inexpert knowledge of it) seems to be pretty accurate regarding human nature. I suspect that Liz is correct that most marriages would work better if the man’s opinion ultimately decided matters that were in dispute. Work better because I believe that most women find that a more comfortable role; allow someone else to assume the ultimate burden of a tricky decision and so take responsibility if it fails to work out.

    I am very happy to stipulate that not all men/women/marriages are like that.

    I happen to believe that Liz is in better accord with the reality of most people than you are. That doesn’t make you entirely wrong (if that helps), but it might mean a trip around previous JFG posts and Dalrock and Heartiste’s blogs might be educational.

    There is no ultimate truth, but there are ideas that are more likely to lead to better conclusions than others.

  124. 124
    Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    … (relative) Youth, (relative) Beauty, and her Chastity. While the last factor is definitely within the control of every Woman, the former two are not …

    I disagree. A woman can’t control how young or how naturally beautiful she is, but she can control when she’s pursuing marriage. If she chooses to pursue marriage when she’s young, she’ll be younger and more beautiful than she’d be if she decides to put off marriage for when she’s old.

  125. 125
    Spawny Get says:

    From our friends at AVFM and MRE

    Great moments in MGTOW pt 3

  126. 126
  127. 127
    Spawny Get says:

    Friday 5pm here, I’m happy, sue me

  128. 128
    Spawny Get says:

    I think that most men would say that men marry for ‘guaranteed, dedicated’ sex supply and for kids.

    Surely we all know that the sex suppy usually declines after marriage? Even more so after kids

    So what about for kids?

    Philosopher Stefan Molyneux tells you “Why Men Don’t Want To Have Kids”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dujXV7D7RXo

    26% of German men say that the ideal number of kids is… 0
    The state of German sewage systems (not enough movings to keep things moving
    Japanese herbivores
    Italian couples having 1.1 – 1.2 kids (per couple!)
    The importance of your father’s life experience, because it affects your desire to be a daddy

    So…basically why Men Go Their Own Way

  129. 129
    Laurel says:

    I do think the female experience of sex is basically submissive, or maybe another way to say it is that for a woman to fully enjoy it she needs to give up control to a considerable extent and let herself be controlled by the man at least while the act is going on. (I didn’t conclude this from “socially accepted gender roles” or any such but from my own feelings & experiences.) And I think this is probably very hard for some women, those I see acting toward their husbands in a harsh & dominating fashion are not enjoying sex a lot, I would think. Which is cause and which is effect is hard to say.

  130. 130
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Richard,

    Most guys are Beta. Stating a guy is Beta is like stating water is wet. My point is that a lot of guys think a plumber or low status blue collar guy would need a lot of game and alphaing up to get a girl, because he’s lower status. I think that for girls with marginal degrees and jobs, they’ll take a non-college plumber, even if he IS Beta.

    Sound good?

  131. 131

    ADBG

    I get it. If a woman thinks an attorney who’s getting $15 an hour to review contracts–happened to a young friend of ours–has status, then of course he doesn’t need as much game as a plumber with two years of his own business behind him and going well. She’s an idiot.
    Problem is, they’re both beta, but the plumber is less so, because betas don’t run successful businesses.
    But the lawyer might max out his credit card to dress nicely and buy drinks in an upscale club. Which lasts…oh, until the second date.
    However, the sheer presence of a boss roughneck from Bakken or Eagle Ford–presuming he’s still young enough for this discussion and that means a little boss, not a big boss–will provide some game without effort. Maybe his college-educated sister can dress him or something.
    This guy is going to be in reality what the stubbled, leather-jacket wearing tuffguy wannabes try to fake. But he can be decent guy, too, which the fakes cannot allow.

    I will say my son graduated in one of the micro-sliced business majors and was the last class to get signign bonuses. He met his wife in college. Not sure where the various worlds would collide, but the guy with a lit major working as a temp in an office isn’t going to be showing much value for his degree.
    Around here, the various contractors and small businessmen–of whom we know a lot, unfortunately–have married college-educated women,although not from the Ivies. Most of the women have jobs with benefits, which is a handy arrangement for the family.

    So, anyway, do the Duck Dynasty guys show beta or alpha? Did the women marry down?
    I suggest beta is a continuum, and situation specific.
    Too complicated for simple application.

  132. 132
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Most Beta guys that do not graduate college do not own their businesses. As much as it sounds odd, taking the Duck Dynasty guys and comparing them to your average college guy is taking some rather exceptional folk and comparing them to diligent students. No real comparison there. Audi Murphy never finished school either, IIRC.

    Anyways, I don’t get to make a decision about what young women find attractive. A lot of them like the status of a college degree. If you don’t mind me asking, where did the women around your community go to school? My thought is that Big State U girls a lot less likely to dive down into the nether-worlds of ordinary folk than girls who went to smaller schools, but I am not sure.

    Overall, my point is that 60-40 isn’t quite the disaster it is made out to be. There’s a lot of women in soft majors, and a lot of women college jobs are starting to get cut back. That’s putting them an inferior economic position than 60-40 gives credit for.

  133. 133
    Liz says:

    #125: I loved that movie! Might need to watch it again.

    The wife in that movie would be what I’m referring to above.
    Friends of ours (whom we now avoid) have the similar dynamic going on (minus the husband grabbing his sack for the first time ever, when it’s too late to save the family). It isn’t the first time I’ve seen it, it’s about the fiftieth.
    We went to dinner at their house and the wife spent the entire time making underhanded swipes at his masculinity. They have sons also, and she mentioned she’s the one who gives them the “sex talk”. I wondered…really? WTF? And she turned to him and said, “he hates talking about sex, watch this….”sex, (his name)”…” He just sheepishly smirked. Jesus Christ. Those boys have no hope at all. This is what is going on in America. Satan needs to hand out testoterone patches.

  134. 134
    Liz says:

    Not satan, I meant Santa! LOL!

  135. 135

    ADBG
    It’s not that all betas run businesses. You referred to plumber, who would be running his own show, as a beta. Different category.
    My son and DIL–and her sisters–went Big Ten. Their friends, and ours, if college educated, went from small religious schools to Enormous State University.
    Couple got their credits incrementally between military duties.
    SIL is going part-time, moving from CC to State, having just finished biz calc. I have a problem with algebra.
    I guess my point is that the status conferred by a degree is dropping and that it’s becoming obvious as the actual, real-world benefits previously assumed to be associated with the degree drop off. Used to be you didn’t have to mention the benefits. Went without saying.
    No bennies, no value.
    Extended adolescence in pursuit of an albatross-like, non-dischargeable debt…? And what do you DO with that thing, dude?
    “My brother plays rugby with a hot guy who runs his own plumbing firm and went hiking in the Tetons last month. What have you got?”
    If nothing, then the presumed value which we never had to actually mention or even think about disappears.
    One of the guys doing contracting work for us–most of it done and paid for with a few exceptions–is booked into June. Which is more job stability than a lot of folks have. Another contractor who came within an early blizzard of finishing some outside work for us is thinking he needs a day and a half yet. Might find that by April, but in the meantime, he’s booked through the winter with inside work. He and his brother have big, new Ram pickups. Not bad.
    Nice vacations, too.

  136. 136
    Spawny Get says:

    @Liz
    I’ve never watched it, I now realise what a mistake that I might have made. Going to take a butcher’s.

  137. 137
    DME says:

    Additionally the value of skilled trades is only going up. More tradesmen retire every day, and no one is filling those spots.

  138. 138
    Obsidian says:

    @CP 124:
    I don’t necessarily disagree, but by all accounts the age of first marriage for Women has and continues to rise (in Black America that number is even higher). Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be much in the of evidence that suggests that Men overall, have too much of a problem with that, particularly among the upper middle classes. So it would seem that your point is moot.

    Also, please define by what you mean by “too old”?

    O.

  139. 139

    IMO if you’re concerned whether or not women notice or care about MGTOW, you’re not MGTOW. Going _your own_ way implies that you don’t give a shit about others coming with you. There’s certainly entertainment value in watching wailing and rending, but it’s not core to the philosophy, and it’s certainly no justification for something which requires none.

    And a Ghost is a MGTOW who was (or fears being) burned by feminist capture of the legal system, and its economic consequences, or who just doesn’t give a shit any longer. Once raging hormones abate in a man, Ghosting becomes a whole lot easier, like a fog lifting and letting the world finally come into focus.

  140. 140
    Borepatch says:

    Obsidian, this is a very interesting post. At the risk of tipping over into the political (I’m not, but can see the risk) I’d be very interested in your thoughts on the impact of Great Society in the Black community. It seems linked, but perhaps weakly. But that may be because I had a white UMC upbringing, and so everyone was required to be a Good Progressive.

  141. 141
    Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    @O 138:

    My point is that women do have a choice to pursue marriage when young, or to pursue it when old. And if they choose to pursue it when young, they’re going to be younger and more beautiful than they will be when they’re old. I agree that they’re increasingly choosing to pursue marriage when old, but that doesn’t negate the fact that they have chosen to do so.

    And I didn’t use the phrase “too old”, just “old”. As in older than if they pursued marriage when they were younger. The stereotype being, “I’ll have fun/chase a career in my 20′s and then settle down in my 30′s.” Okay, that’s fine, but they are choosing to pursue marriage when they’re not as young or beautiful as they were when they were younger. They’re making a choice to do that, in the same way they’re making a choice to ditch or hold on to their chastity. They’re exercising control over how young and beautiful they are when pursuing marriage by choosing when to pursue it.

  142. 142
    Bell says:

    40 something single moms

    I think you mean empowered, independent women in charge of their own lives, or something like that:-) Makes me smile and have a tear in the corner of my eye at the delicious irony of idiot American women.

  143. 143
    Bell says:

    Jason at 11,

    you’re talking about this 40 something single moms party that no men showed up to. That seems really odd to me, but you seem to have an opinion about why that’s expected but don’t explain it.

    Seriously? You can’t figure this one out?

    First, you’re talking about 40 year old women. I know that 40 is supposed to be the new 30, but that’s just a pretty lie that used up women tell themselves in order to believe they are still sexually relevant. They aren’t. Who wants 40 year old pink when 20-25 pink is so readily available? That 20-25 pink is so readily available because those 40 somethings told lies like it’s totally fine to be complete sluts, then hilariously called it “female” empowerment. Women have a sell buy date, which around 35. If they can’t find someone to buy them by then, likely they’ll end up alone.

    Second, you’re talking about single moms. This is a red flag, for any woman below the age of 65, at which age being a widow is somewhat common. Being a single mom means two things: 1) this woman was so irresponsible that she spread her legs for someone who wouldn’t stick around, or she didn’t want to stick around, if she became pregnant and was so irresponsible with that man, that she did become pregnant. 2) She’s looking for a man to be responsible, in some way, for that kid, who isn’t yours. In a nutshell, being single mom embodies everything that is wrong with modern Western women: irresponsible combined with an outrageous sense of entitlement.

  144. 144
    OffTheCuff says:

    Anon in ca: “I’m a woman and I’m new to the manosphere and I notice alot people on this blog refer to HUS. Question- is there something wrong with majority of there commenters being black or non-white? White people are so funny!”

    Troll alert. If you were new to the manosphere, you wouldn’t even know that term – you’d just be “reading some blogs”.

  145. 145
    lepillrouge says:

    The economic miracle underlying women’s economic empowerment, at least for some women, is getting pinched. Probably not at the upper classes so much, but lower-class women who do not have a lot of social capital are going to start eating shit sandwiches in the coming years.

    Ding Ding Ding! I agree with Beta! (I would describe myself as an MGTOW who still goes out sarging once or twice a week. Or, rather, MGTOW unless I’m on the road for my business, then all bets are off, the latter happening once-twice a month of late.)

    Anyway, my story: the night The Hobbit premiered, I go see it. It might be a sell-out, so I go early for my ticket. Normally, if there’s any kind of a line, I’d just buy at the machine, but she’s all alone up there, so I flirt with the clerk a little, pay with my Platinum AmEx Card, say, “I hear there’s a lot of walking in this movie.” Titter. Giggle. Tingle. But she’s like a six, meh.

    Film’s a midnight premiere, it ain’t even 10 yet. Downtown was sold out, I’m in the burbs, so I go to the chain restaurant/bar, an Applebee’s. I haven’t been to an Applebee’s in like 15 years, but they had karaoke that night as part of their nightclub thing, and, TMI, when I sarge, I sing karaoke. You probably have an opinion of karaoke, but I’ve got a pretty good voice and a lot of passion, it works for me with the opposite sex, and I don’t have to use a lot of game, “Sing this song for me, I’m sure you’d be good.” “Nah, I got something I want to do…” etc., etc. “well, it’s getting late, line’s long, maybe I could play that one for you on my guitar.”

    As you’d expect, karaoke at Applebee’s sucks. There’s this old chick doing Ethyl Merman. I had no desire to get up on stage and was just reading my book unless Ethyl made that impossible. But the funniest part about the place was what they’d done to the waitstaff. All the chicks who work there as servers (saw no dudes), who’ve already had their hours cut to 29 a week because Obamacare, now have to deal with corporate policy mandating that every table has this tablet where customers can just press a button and, boom, somebody runs out with your beer or your appetizer. (Darden Restaurants owns the chain, and employs something like 200k people.)

    The server comes along eventually, and she explains that, “you can order appetizers and drinks with that”–also kid’s meals and desserts, and you can just swipe your card and leave–”but you have to place the order for the entree with me.” Chick has a rueful smile at that one. And something of a deer in the headlights look.

    I hadn’t eaten the whole day, so I get apps and some kind of chicken/shrimp thing, and another weird deal about Applebee’s is you can’t order just one beer, they’ll serve you 2-for-1 Blue Moon’s and charge you $8. Maybe that’s normal, again, I haven’t been to one in 15 years. Every time server comes back, she’s putting her tits in my face like it’s a Hooter’s or some other breasturant. Her other table is packed with these ghetto Asians, Hmong or something, I’m her last significant tip of the night.

    Understand, I worked in the service industry for a decade, off and on, also hitting Alaska, Korea, Japan for jobs 20 years ago before the dawn of Internet, I do tip well, even if it’s shitty service, and I am very sympathetic to things like “Oh, we’re changing shift, do you want to cash out, or should I just transfer you over?” Actually, the other server was almost an 8, from a distance, mine, I drew, again, a six (blonde, very well-endowed, but kind of a butterface, and likely to get real heavy soon.) Of course I cashed out with the 6, and in all likelihood I was a better table for her than the Hmong.

    Upshot to my Tolstoy: well, The Hobbit was great; since I can already torrent anything up for an Oscar next movie I’m likely to see in theaters is probably Captain America come April. And if I go back to this Applebee’s by then, it wouldn’t surprise me to see, not all the servers replaced, but instead, perhaps, 6 waitstaff doing the shift that previously required 9, ‘cuz after all, they can each work more tables. And it might suck for said waitstaff, if customers can just pay and go at the tablet without the opportunity for them to receive one last tits-to-the-face when it comes time to tip.

    The more I thought about it, the more I thought how many low-end service/retail jobs held by women can now be replaced by automation, with businesses very much incentivized to reduce headcount. Indeed, so many of women’s “careers,” even those requiring “Education!!!” are Zero-Marginal-Product jobs. Think HR Director (now being outsourced with a fury), nonprofit coordinator, DMV clerk, guidance counselor, etc., etc., etc., unnecessary overhead for a business, and you can’t keep paying her $70k a year unless you’re gonna cut grandma’s medicaid.

    By comparison, I don’t want to say the good times are back for men, but with North Dakota/Eagle Ford/Permian Basin/Marcellus Shale adding something like a million high-paying jobs in resource extraction since ’09, and three- or four-million not so good ones, while at the same time allowing for a reemergence in manufacturing given reliable energy sources not found in developing nations, “career” women are looking at a rough 40 years much as men did starting in the late ’60s.

    I’ve found among younger women, think 18-22, a few of whom I’ve discovered I could hook up with, and a couple of others I blew my chance ‘cuz I stupidly didn’t want to embarrass myself, the feminist rhetoric they peddle in schools is already starting to ring about as true as the old UK educational system did in the ’70s, when they were still talking about Rule Brittania in a country that by then had one of the lowest-standards of living in Western Europe.

    Women’s percentage of the workforce has already dropped to 1978 levels, and while Reagan did good things for much of the economy, he wasn’t that awesome for the lowest-skilled male portion. A Thatcher won’t save the ladies. Enjoy the ride, y’all.

  146. 146
    VESENG says:

    Remember that females respond to incentives too. The ready availability of support, both financial (from the government, e.g. your taxes) and social, incentivizes them to not respond positively to men. That’s why we do not see females trying to make themselves attractive to men but to be their bitchy selves. This is what the feminists and their statist allies wanted and it is what we have.

  147. 147
    Micha Elyi says:

    The act of coitus itself is inherently submissive for one person, dominant for another.
    Liz

    One partner is submitting to engulfment–i.e., to capture. Or is this inherent inequality distasteful idea as well?

  148. 148
  149. 149
    Marellus says:

    From #148

    I was walking down the street and passed a guy who didn’t look like anything special to me, but I got a whiff of him and whipped my head around so fast it almost fell off. Looked at him again, and still thought “not my type,” but his sweat smelled soooooooooooo wonderful. Sometimes my hubby smells like cayenne pepper & I am putty in his hands. I’ve always liked a man’s pit smell; glad I’m not the only one. Just reading this makes me want to go surreptiously sniff some skin!

  150. 150
    Spawny Get says:

    Tired of ‘deadbeat dad’ bullshit? That every absent dad is missing by his choice and not hers?

    How about ‘crummy mummy’ as backlash?

    Fury over new ‘crummy mummy’ attack ads: Tom Cruise’s ex-wife Katie Holmes angered by Fathers4Justice as Mail on Sunday reveals group’s new campaign targets

    Ms Holmes is being attacked alongside Halle Berry and Kim Basinger
    Pressure group accuses them of halting ex-husbands seeing their children
    Kate Winslet has threatened to sue the group over similar claims
    They say UK has 3.8 million fatherless children amid secretive court orders
    Katie Holmes’ lawyer: ‘The campaign is baseless and offensive’

    Actresses Katie Holmes, Halle Berry and Kim Basinger are being targeted in a new ‘crummy mummy’ campaign by Fathers4Justice, which accuses them of denying their children access to their fathers.

    The pressure group is using the Hollywood stars in a series of adverts criticising their childcare arrangements.

    The new controversy comes after actress Kate Winslet, who has three children by three fathers, last week threatened to sue for being singled out in a Christmas advert by Fathers4Justice.

    Undeterred, the group says it will continue to highlight high-profile mothers who, they say, deny their children access to their fathers for no good reason.

    The Katie Holmes poster features a large picture of the star and the headline: ‘Katie, do you believe in equal parents, equal love?’

    Text on the advert reads: ‘Katie Holmes demanded sole custody of her daughter Suri in her divorce from Tom Cruise, limiting the time the actor spends with her.’

    Last night Ms Holmes’s lawyer Jonathan Wolfe criticised Fathers4 Justice, saying: ‘The campaign is baseless and offensive. Katie will continue to have no comment on personal and private matters that affect her family.’

    The 38-year-old actress is believed to have divorced Cruise last year because of her long-held concerns over Cruise’s status as one of the leading figures in the Church of Scientology.

    She was said to be determined to shield her daughter from it.

    Another poster features a picture of Oscar-winning star Halle Berry with the headline: ‘Halle, a father is for life, not just conception.’ It reads: ‘Actress Halle Berry tried to take her daughter Nahla to live in France against her husband’s wishes.’

    In fact, a judge in Los Angeles refused her application to move to France after hearing objections from Nahla’s father, French-Canadian model Gabriel Aubry. Berry and Aubry then announced an amicable joint custody arrangement.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527713/Fury-new-crummy-mummy-attack-ads-Tom-Cruises-ex-wife-Katie-Holmes-angered-Fathers4Justice-Mail-Sunday-reveals-groups-new-campaign-targets.html

    Thanks to Marellus. I found this delightful stuff after following one of his links

  151. 151
    BuenaVista says:

    On “connecting the dots” and the failure of the modern, educated woman to examine her broken romantic model, and understand her own role in her isolation as the curtain comes down on her SMV:

    (A consistent failure of my comments is their anecdotal nature, but then I’m probably a poster child for the now-irrational structure of the traditional family, and perhaps they retain some value no matter the absence of social science.)

    One of the more helpful remarks in my life, in regard to personal insight, was a throwaway comment David Mamet once made in an interview. At the time it made zero sense to me but I couldn’t shake it, and now I think it explains much. He said, paraphrasing, that what he learned about himself, and what drives behavior in many of his plays, is that under pressure, he reverts unwittingly to his emotional and psychological state circa his eleven year-old self. So the dramatic tension in his life, and that of many of his characters, is the tension between the child-Mamet, and the man-Mamet. As it is for men and women who collide with each other in his stories.

    Accepting this commonplace premise of psychoanalysis, let’s observe its effect on women navigating the broken sexual marketplace. Who were they, and what did they model for themselves as her optimal end-state in her dream-marriage? Well, they were Cinderella at 11. At fifteen, a tattered copy of “Fear of Flying” was stuffed under their mattresses. So then they grew up, spent 15 years post-MBA post-JD, doing the sex-positive thing (think Julia Roberts in Notting Hill: essentially a promiscuous, self-indulgent victim of her own random impulses and those of the evil Alec Baldwin). When the lights come-up and it’s last call, they’re under pressure. Julia Roberts got the steady-eddie beta Hugh Grant, why can’t she? After all, Cinderella didn’t earn Prince Charming; Prince Charming earned her.

    I think this is why they don’t connect the dots. Under pressure, the only thing that makes sense to them is demanding that men Man UP!!! and perform their role as savior, supplicant, funding mechanism, retirement vehicle. When she is 38, occupying a senior position in a corporate pyramid in which feminist entitlements drive *all* career management strategies for women and men, and posting yet another photo essay in some social media venue of her latest foray to spiritual transformation in Macchu Picchu, Bali, a Greek island, St. Barth’s. These travel essays are her resume, in short, prior to announcing her availability to an appropriate prince. She has it all, except she has nothing at all that works emotionally.

    Want to be horrified? The woman who’s sleeping in the next room as I write this told me that her 13 year-old daughter, a student at one of the most exclusive schools in DC, is thrilled with one of her Christmas presents: a party for her and a gaggle of her friends, capped by an evening at the Verizon Center being entertained by … Mylie Cyrus. “You’ve got to be kidding me,” I said. “Oh, they all love her, there’s nothing you can do about it.” In high school these are the girls who achieve status by trumpeting their strumpetry: by bragging on their hookups while writing their applications to the poison Ivies. These are the next generation of girls who do not distinguish between ‘leaning in’ and alternately screwing and accusing their boys. It’s all of a piece. Sexual power meeting corporate and legal privilege.

    If Mylie Cyrus is the new Cinderella, we haven’t begun to reach bottom yet. If Cinderella now moonlights as Mylie, god help the younger men who would foster home, hearth and progeny. If the modern woman already knows now how to pull the strings of government preference in her inevitable disillusionment with the human, rather than princely, qualities of the man she weds, what happens when Cinderella is a stripper swinging on a wrecking ball?

    If someone can connect those dots, that someone is a special person. From a man’s perspective, one either submits to the broken model, pretending we can be our drafthorse fathers as we knew them when we were 11, or arbitrages it. From my perspective, this is the gravitational, lunar pull motivating MGTOW. Some guys just know enough not to swim against an undertow, though many have a few near-drowning episodes before they wise up.

  152. 152
    Liz says:

    #147: Never implied I find it distasteful. You should try it.
    Engulf aka be on the receiving end today and experience how dominant this position makes you feel.

  153. 153
    Liz says:

    BV, that story about the 13 year old reminds me of this episode of south park (clip):

  154. 154
    Liz says:

    #157: Further thoughts in response, before I go on my morning run…
    I’m inferring from your statement that you are under the impression I believe women are devoid of power somehow in this equation. Nothing could be further from the truth, and if that’s the impression I’ve offered I have expressed myself very poorly indeed.
    Women have a lot of power. Too much power, which is WHY the current situation is destablizing. They instinctively don’t want that type of power over their mates (though they might not realize it on a rational level).
    Anedotal example of imbalance of power in the work environment: A couple of months back, a Captain in a major airline made an incredibly poor decision (to the point of almost criminal negligence, it’s a stroke of luck no one died). She was fired, with a 2 million dollar severance package. A man would have been out on his ass with nothing. Women want men to lead (even when they say they don’t, it’s a rare bird who desires her man stay at home with the kids while she goes to work to make all the income) but the workforce now disproportionally benefits women (as does domestic law, and pretty much everything else).

  155. 155
    Liz says:

    One. More. Thing.

    It’s truly kind of perplexing to me that anyone would argue one person is not dominant during coitus. Watch a nature documentary…watch squirrels in the trees. Six feet under had an episode where the homosexual lead character hired a male prostitute, and what did he chant when he was sodomizing the prostitute? “Take that, faggot!” (and this is Alan Ball, a homosexual screenwriter and director I think he is an expert opinion on the matter. And Jean-Claude Van Damme was asked if he engaged in homosexual acts, and his response was, “I never received”.
    This whole very Cosmopolitan equality thing even fucks up the sexual dynamic…as though a woman can’t enjoy sex if she is dominated. “Jump on that dick! Dominate that man…You’re sexually free girlfriend!”

    Fighting against the natural dynamic might be what has lead to the current brand of kink. To quote Chris Rock about rap music, “fuck her in the eye! Blind the bitch!” to women smiling and twerking in ecstasy to that shit. And 50 shades, with just about the worse author known to humankind flying off the shelves.

  156. 156
    The 73rd Virgin says:

    In reference to the original article. Why does dropping out of male-female relationships mean dropping out of the job market? Wouldn’t the mislabeled “sex tourism” be easier if you had some serious money? Money and job are the freedom to say “fuck off” to everything else.

    And if you’re going to drop out of the mating market, please drop out of the fathering babies market. Everyone has freedom of movement and freedom from guilt, until they have children.

  157. 157
    Han Solo says:

    @Buena Vista

    Fascinating that these young girls of 13 (and proto-women), free of any material needs, have twerking Miley as their idol. Their hypergamy and fantasies have likely had few real negative encounters yet, though they probably have faced the tragedy of not being liked by the boy of their choice at some point.

    The Mileys of the world are both tapping into (and further creating, by herd dynamics and the desire for girls to be popular) a demand that exists for slut-expression music, videos and identity and the immense though fleeting sexual power of the slut.

    The hot-enough slut can turn most boys and men into a pool of directable desire and that must be intoxicating for many women, if even mostly in their imagination and never in actual action.

    The allure of being the irresistible Cinderella has now given way to being the irresistible Whore (though validation from a top man is the payment instead of money).

    Prosperity and safety lulls to sleep the female desire for the provider of hearth and home and awakens the slut.

    http://www.justfourguys.com/evolutionary-incentives-why-women-are-going-for-badboys-and-players-instead-of-stable-providers/

    And for new readers, here were my thoughts on how the Mileys of the world are tapping into the female desire to be sexually powerful and be able to draw the attention of the hot men:

    http://www.justfourguys.com/miley-cyrus-raunch-queens-deeper-truth/

  158. 158
    Han Solo says:

    #156 See comment 24.

  159. 159
    Spawny Get says:

    #156

    What an ugly mind you have, are you a feminist by any chance? or a tardcon?
    (the bottomlines of those are pretty similar; man as serf for woman. women are morally superior. ISYN).

    MGTOW is opting out. Once one opts out of the competition to attempt to satisfy female hypergamy, one’s need to work one’s bollocks off is removed. Pardon my French.

    Not likely to find any voluntarily absent fathers here, though I did share a link about Crummy Mummies above (currently #150). Best you find out about the realities of family court before you start casting stones at ‘deadbeat dads’.

  160. 160
    Spawny Get says:

    Just come across this (so, not read it yet), but it sounds germane to the topic up for discussion (though there’s much space between MGTOW and marriage)

    http://crowhill.net/blog/before-you-marry-50-politically-incorrect-thoughts-for-men/

    Worth a gander as it appear to list some very relevant issues

  161. 161
    Marellus says:

    @Spawny Get #150

    Glad to be of help. Would that Daily Mail article have gained any traction in the US ? Personally, I doubt it.

    Anyhow JustyX, enjoy your Christmas with this video – I loved it.

  162. 162
    Liz says:

    #160: Just read the first few pages so far. Very very good link.

  163. 163
    Spawny Get says:

    Hey Marellus!

    Almost a happy ending…almost.

    Obviously made in a civilised country, one that drives on the right side of the road, that is to say, the left. No Nappy worshippers there (an infamous lefty).

    Watched American Beauty last night (from the great moments in mgtow), not bad. No likeable characters, ending quasi-sucked (which is no spoiler). Some good lines though.

    Are you on hols this week? We’ll have to chat, drop us a line in the week(?)

    Listening, out, good buddy

  164. 164
    Spawny Get says:

    @Liz, you can call me Spawny, or Swithunus, or JustYX…comme tu veux.

    #160 is somewhat formal for my tastes. ;)

    Off to the (foreign) movies…bonsoir, tout le monde

  165. 165
    B says:

    Going Galt makes me sad I’ll probably never experience the love my grandparents and parents did. But this is also the case of modern dating…so I may as well drop out and save myself the pain.

  166. 166
    Badger says:

    “Under pressure, the only thing that makes sense to them is demanding that men Man UP!!! and perform their role as savior, supplicant, funding mechanism, retirement vehicle.”

    Morpheus and I have both noted in earlier comments how certain phrases just fly out of women’s mouths at the first sense of any criticism or pushback – ideas like “you must have a small penis,” “you can’t get laid,” “you live in your mother’s basement” and “creeeepppy!!!”

    These phrases are so universally and reflexively thrown out that Morph and I half-believe that all girls are pulled into an exclusive training in middle school where they are told these terms and when to use them.

    Continuing with your theme, it’s like girls are trained in empty rhetoric from a young age, and gain an instinctive tendency to lash out at the messenger that they revert to in times of cognitive crisis.

    Further related analysis: it seems to be more of a female than a male thing to place stock in someone’s ideas _based on the personal pedigree and profile of the person_ – i.e. the ideas of attractive people are taken more seriously than those of less attractive people. Despite “dumb horny men” marketing schemes, sex appeal seems a stronger force among women than men.

    The “you must not get laid” rhetoric seems to be a way of running the process in the reverse direction: if ideas are presented that are uncomfortable, the ideal solution is not to argue against the idea with other ideas, but instead to personally discredit the speaker, and if she’s talking about dating/social issues, discrediting the sexual market value of the speaker is a sure way to lessen the threat of the ideas in her eyes.

    Hence, for example, the progressive and continuing (totally unfounded) commentary and attacks from the HUSphere on Manosphere writers’ personal lives.

    The Fifth Horseman had a thesis that “women tend to believe whatever makes them feel good,” I’ve certainly seen elements of that in the great intergender experiment we’ve had around these parts the last few years.

    Maybe I’m putting too much weight on the rational rigors of the Manosphere, but while I see men disputing the credentials and standing of some speakers, I rarely see the sort of “he is not hawt, so we don’t need to listen to him.” Men who argue that way are typically dismissed as feminine.

    It’s been funny to see men respond to feminist trolls on comment threads with the same sort of tactics, such as responding to an invective comment with “you sound fat” or “how many cats do you have?”

  167. 167
    Jay Galt says:

    I’m doing a lot less charity donations, less service club work, and the like. Being hit with paying more for ACA, more taxes, et. al which being berated I am not doing enough. Well there are less pulling the wagon and far more in the wagon. I’ll just get my popcorn and watch.

  168. 168
    Liz says:

    #164: Spawny makes me giggle though. :-)

    Hope you see a good flick, St Swithunus!

  169. 169

    BV, #151: Great post. “Who imposes the terms of the battle, will impose the terms of the peace.” -David Mamet

  170. 170
    Spawny Get says:

    @Liz
    Just started a French classic (subtitled) starring the magnificent big nose himself…Gerald Deppy..Dippy…erm…DoopyDoo.

    Dark Portals: The chronicles of Vidocq

    Two minutes in and he’s already French toast.

  171. 171
    OffTheCuff says:

    156 is PJ. Back to HUS, vile shapeshifting wench!

  172. 172

    @Liz

    Submission is simply summed up as woman leaving final decision to the man. And the woman biting her tongue after that and trusting in his decision.

  173. 173
    David Leech says:

    Nice post, it was a pleasure to read.

  174. 174
    Liz says:

    #172: I’m trying to finesse it a bit.

  175. 175

    Great post. One comment, regarding:

    >That includes pulling back from any social interaction that involves Women, first and foremost, and then decreasing any involvement with society that indirectly involves Women.

    Want to point out that this is not necessarily a tenet of MGTOW. There is a sub-group within MGTOW called ‘ghosts’ who withdraw from interaction with women entirely and then more broadly from society. NOT all MGTOWs are ghosts, not by a longshot. If you check us out at MGTOW Forums, you’ll see some us are married, some have GFs, some have FWBs, some do p4p. Some of us just live our lives with red pill awareness. The common thread of MGTOW is men going their own way- not living by society’s burden that our life is about “manning up” and serving women in some capacity. We live for ourselves and on our own terms. We are realistic about the liklihood of finding a quality women in our present-day culture.

    Finally, I want to point out that MGTOW, PUA, and MRA are not necessarily discrete entities. There is a great deal of overlap between the three. You will find MGTOWs at MGTOW Forum who read Chateau Heartiste and use pickup as well as those who are willing to be activist about select causes.

  176. 176

    As I see it MGTOW isn’t about changing society. So it’s irrelevant whether it’s a major or minor social phenomenon.
    MGTOW is about making choices for yourself, for your own betterment. That’s all it needs to be. nothing more, nothing less.

  177. 177

    Re: 166

    It’s one of the simple rules of online interaction that any blog written specifically for women will eventually become misandrist and de facto feminist in tone. It doesn’t matter if it’s written by a woman or not.

  178. 178

    Re: 112

    “Now, a girl from Big State U might not want to marry a plumber. A girl from an auxiliary campus with some debt and a dead-end job might eventually want to marry a plumber with a reliable income, even if he is Beta.”

    Will the plumber want to marry her? In fact, will he even get into a position where they meet and build mutual attraction? Betas don’t tend to look for potential partners outside their social circle, and the people you mentioned probably don’t have overlapping social circles.

  179. 179
    BuenaVista says:

    #155: any guy who doesn’t understand a woman’s desire to be dominated is a spayed Pajama Boy. Even when she’s on top it’s because the man wants her there.

    Forget about that guy, Liz. He needs to go buy himself a new onesie, some sweet and fattening cocoa, and declaim the bitter history of male physical dominance and utility.

    Further, any guy who doesn’t understand that women who love well are enthralling and powerful, is a guy whose feminist impulses are projections of his fear and dislike of women. Rock the female world, and watch the female world make sense: Roissy #14.

  180. 180
    Morpheus says:

    #155: any guy who doesn’t understand a woman’s desire to be dominated is a spayed Pajama Boy.

    I know it is mostly semantics, but I think it is this word “dominated” or “dominant” which creates problems because it evokes negative things. There is too much of a pejorative connotation with the word. I know for certain concepts other languages have words that simply don’t translate to English. The best I can come up with is I think of it more like a woman wants a man who leads and takes charge. Like I said, I know this is semantics but I think many of the problems with Red Pill type concepts is the language used in communicating them, and then of course you have people who are intentionally dishonest in discussing them…which leads me to

    Even when she’s on top it’s because the man wants her there.

    Interestingly, I’m starting to read all sorts of “official” positions of “the Sphere” that are absurd especially from a “women’s locker room” environment. I recently read that the official position of the Sphere is women shouldn’t be on top because then they are in control. LOL. I must have misplaced my official Sphere rulebook that has that one listed. I guess I am going to get my Sphere card revoked as that is probably my favorite position:

    1. It is the most visually stimulating as you can see both her face and t*ts. A woman with a good body on top is a visual delight.
    2. In my experience, it is the easiest position for a woman to have an orgasm because she has direct control of her pelvis and can grind exactly how she wants. Watching a woman orgasm on top of you is a blast.
    3. It is a chance to relax and recharge since your energy expenditure is lower.

  181. 181
    BuenaVista says:

    Morpheus, no. By the time a politically-correct woman reaches 35, after two decades of PC rhetoric? She wants to be *dominated.* (That doesn’t mean disrespected, incidentally.) The more she is alpha? The more she wants to be dominated. Other people can figure that out. I just run with it. What was good enough for Gilgamesh is good enough for me.

    And fuck the “Sphere”, and it’s “official rules”. I’ll do what I want. As far as I can tell, half of the sphere is CoD thumb-knockers. I’m not taking advice from them.

  182. 182
    Spawny Get says:

    @Morpheus

    4. Two hands free man! How can you forget that?

    I enjoy starting in that position, after that? All bets off.

  183. 183
    Morpheus says:

    Morpheus, no. By the time a politically-correct woman reaches 35, after two decades of PC rhetoric? She wants to be *dominated.* (That doesn’t mean disrespected, incidentally.) The more she is alpha? The more she wants to be dominated. Other people can figure that out. I just run with it. What was good enough for Gilgamesh is good enough for me.

    No worries. In terms of practical reality “rubber hits the road” I suspect we are saying basically the same thing. For example, smack that ass in bed. FWIW, I’d pay $1000 just to know the accurate percentage of certain bedroom activities that I personally find uncomfortable and too extreme from a “being dominated” perspective. My sense is more women are into stuff that they would not admit publicly or even anonymously then one would ever fathom in a culture where the official position is women prefer “sensual lovemaking”. That said, for those of us who blog and actually want to influence, my point is choice of language matters. It matters a SHIT TON. There is certain language that opens yourself up for easy caricature. I personally try to avoid that. Frankly, I learned that lesson dealing with another blogger in terms of how what you say can be twisted and turned and deliberately misconstrued.

    Not sure if this is “tooting our horn” but JFG got mentioned somewhere as the “most balanced” “Sphere” blog. I think it is because all of us put some deliberate thought into phraseology. I don’t think I would ever put a post titled Women Want to be Dominated. That type of language is going to shut down brains to any sort of argument to follow.

    And fuck the “Sphere”, and it’s “official rules”. I’ll do what I want. As far as I can tell, half of the sphere is CoD thumb-knockers. I’m not taking advice from them.

    I think you missed my point here. My point is that people who talk about “the Sphere” especially women who like to gossip like it is some single monolithic hive like the Borg in Star Trek are morons. There is a diversity of viewpoints amongst those who talk about men’s issues and male-female dating/mating dynamics. There is no orthodox canon so if someone pretends there is either they are stupid or disingenuous. Take your pick. To your last point, yes, but you know what, about half the population are probably losers whose primary daily concerns are TV, Facebook, or video games.

  184. 184
    Badger says:

    BV,

    “And fuck the “Sphere”, and it’s “official rules”. I’ll do what I want. As far as I can tell, half of the sphere is CoD thumb-knockers. I’m not taking advice from them.”

    Based on Morph’s tone and reference to the “female locker room,” I don’t think it was a “Sphere” site pontificating on these so-called “Sphere rules” ;) It’s actually really funny how that “female locker room” insists that we are some kind of monolithic hive-mind collective when we are really a highly federated thought community with lots of different and not-always-congruent ideas being presented and debated.

    BTW the only problem I’ve found with woman on top is that it’s harder than other positions to keep the rubber from slipping off, or feeling when it does, esp if she really gets pumping, so there are annoying interruptions to ensure it’s in place.

    “The more she is alpha? The more she wants to be dominated.”

    I recently dated a high-powered attorney. I found out very early that she couldn’t be spanked, choked or scratched hard enough. Also loved to be picked up and carried around, thrown onto the bed and tied up in all sorts of ways. She didn’t identify in any way as into BDSM or anything like that, she just dug the dom act.

  185. 185
    Badger says:

    LOL, Morpheus and I independently posted on the “monolithic hive mind” at almost the exact same time.

  186. 186
    Morpheus says:

    LOL, Morpheus and I independently posted on the “monolithic hive mind” at almost the exact same time.

    Ha. Not the first time either. You and I are definitely cut from the same cloth. :)

  187. 187
    Badger says:

    On dom sex and feminism: I’ve noticed that mIllenial woman have generally done a better job than the second-wavers resolving the cognitive dissonance in their push for feminist values during the daytime and the desire for a “strong man” sexually and romantically. I think 3rd wave feminism or whatever you want to call it has actually derived itself from the millenial narcissism complex, so it bypasses the logical conundra that plagued lipstick feminists. In the modern young woman, she wants to be equal in the boardroom, but wants chivalry in the bedroom, but there’s no inconsistency because the organizing principle is not a logical argument for equality, but simply “I want it.”

    To be fair, a lot of young men have derived their life values from the same sensibility, but less so because they have been on the back side of a social and schooling system set up to “empower” women. Young women have been told that if they want it and they’re not getting it, that society and men specifically are to blame.

    BV has it totally right:

    ” In high school these are the girls who achieve status by trumpeting their strumpetry: by bragging on their hookups while writing their applications to the poison Ivies. These are the next generation of girls who do not distinguish between ‘leaning in’ and alternately screwing and accusing their boys. It’s all of a piece. Sexual power meeting corporate and legal privilege.”

    Also you have GOT to read this from Manosphere fellow traveler Delicious Tacos where in his inimitable verisimilitude style he notes and laments the sexual depravity of young women he’s meeting: http://delicioustacos.com/2013/12/10/these-kids-today/

  188. 188
    Morpheus says:

    It’s actually really funny how that “female locker room” insists that we are some kind of monolithic hive-mind collective when we are really a highly federated thought community with lots of different and not-always-congruent ideas being presented and debated.

    Right. And furthermore it is prima facie evidence of either one of two things. Either the person is being intentionally intellectually dishonest, or they simply are not intelligent enough to grasp the nuances of different positions and beliefs. With respect to the “locker room” for at least one I believe it is intentional intellectual dishonestly but for most of the sheep they simply are not smart enough.

    Just as an example, take someone like Zippy Catholic. Now he is NOT part of “the Sphere” but he is most definitely Sphere influenced through his interaction with Dalrock. Now take someone like Dalrock who clearly comes at this from a Biblical religious starting point against someone like Rollo who is secular. Many of us “involved” in these discussions all kind of have different agendas and end goals. The only really unifying factor is the understanding that the picture of women, relationships, sex, sexual attraction, what women REALLY want from men, etc. as painted by the mainstream conventional PC wisdom is complete total bullshit. The starting point is the realization that what most people believe and “know” on this subject is fantasy/fiction/delusion. Where you go from there leads in many different directions. There isn’t much in common between the guy who wants a traditional Biblical marriage, and the guy running Game on a stripper except the understanding that some evo psych principles are likely common to both.

  189. 189
    Morpheus says:

    Also you have GOT to read this from Manosphere fellow traveler Delicious Tacos where in his inimitable verisimilitude style he notes and laments the sexual depravity of young women he’s meeting: http://delicioustacos.com/2013/12/10/these-kids-today/

    Thanks. Going to check it out. You know though, it has to be the case that he is only meeting “bar skanks”.

  190. 190
    Badger says:

    “Just as an example, take someone like Zippy Catholic. Now he is NOT part of “the Sphere” but he is most definitely Sphere influenced through his interaction with Dalrock. Now take someone like Dalrock who clearly comes at this from a Biblical religious starting point against someone like Rollo who is secular. Many of us “involved” in these discussions all kind of have different agendas and end goals”

    What’s really funny about this pluralism is how there are regularly haters who insist on hammering us to give them some kind of strict definition of game, and then immediately try to post a counterexample to discredit the idea or to cry hypocrisy. They are really asking us to self-strawman. I don’t debate those people anymore because I know they don’t want to learn.

    In their eyes, the academic discussion of differing ideas in Manosphere blogs is itself prima facie evidence that the ideas are wrong. Logically, it’s totally fucked up, but it helps them sleep at night just like the chunky feminist can sleep convincing herself that only pasty neckbeards who never get laid are the people writing this stuff.

  191. 191
    Morpheus says:

    What’s really funny about this pluralism is how there are regularly haters who insist on hammering us to give them some kind of strict definition of game, and then immediately try to post a counterexample to discredit the idea or to cry hypocrisy. They are really asking us to self-strawman. I don’t debate those people anymore because I know they don’t want to learn.

    I’ve been debating whether I want to write a post on What is Game?. It is definitely interesting to read commentary from people who seem to think the totality of Game (or again are intentionally being intellectually dishonest) amounts to negs or clumsy insults delivered via text messages. Boiled down to its essence, in my opinion, Game is the entire suite of tools and tactics related to certain ways of communicating, displays of certain behavioral traits, and certain ways of displaying body language. For example, the guy who walks too fast and appears frantic, if he consciously starts to really slow down his gait, that is Game. It is about modifying and implementing all the stuff that generally speaking women find attractive in men. Another simple one is learning to lean towards playful teasing over politeness. I really could go on an on here.

    Recently I’ve seen a couple of themes. One is if you are not a “Natural” don’t bother trying to learn and incorporate any of this stuff. Accept who you are, “just be yourself”, and accept whatever results come with that which probably entails accepting a subpar relationship with a much lower SMV woman then you could get if you actually made a dedicated effort. The cynic in me could start to come up with a laundry list of reasons why a woman might push this message. One might be to support that a decent supply of beta chumps simply grateful to have any woman exist.

    I’m also seeing a lot of talk about “Inner Game/Self-Development” with ZERO explanation of what exactly that entails. The first thing that comes to mind is that old Saturday Night Live skit with Stuart Smalley:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY

    Absent specific, actionable items in terms of approach, behavior, communication advising guys simply to “develop Inner Game” is total BS. I think one very important thing is that for men, confidence flows from success and success flows from correct techniques. There is no way to short circuit that process and jump straight to confidence. I think most men are not capable of that amount of self-delusion to “feel confident” if there life experience provides no basis for it. In contrast, it appears to me many women are indeed able to induce false confidence in themselves simply by thinking hard enough which is why a fat, ugly woman who doesn’t get approached can still “feel beautiful”. Interestingly, I can see where this capacity for self-delusion could be quite useful although it can be counterproductive if actual behavioral and physical changes are necessary to achieve certain outcomes.

  192. 192
    Liz says:

    “In contrast, it appears to me many women are indeed able to induce false confidence in themselves simply by thinking hard enough which is why a fat, ugly woman who doesn’t get approached can still “feel beautiful”.

    Myeh, I don’t think so, Morpheus. Fat ugly women know they are fat and ugly, even if they state that they believe otherwise. There’s a lot of self delusion in the respect that, “tomorrow is another day! And then I’ll really start that diet and I’ll show them…”
    But if they really thought themselves to be beautiful, they’d be a lot happier and it would show. And the makers of anti-depressant pharmaceuticals would not be doing the swift business that they are. In the same vein, the women who claim to find sexual fulfillment in being a town pump really don’t either. People lie to themselves, and deep down they don’t really believe it either.

  193. 193

    Tom Reynolds #175: I really enjoyed your taxonomic schema overview re MGTOW; I had not considered all of the various types of guys who might self-identify with the concept.

  194. 194
    OffTheCuff says:

    Morph: “I know it is mostly semantics, but I think it is this word “dominated” or “dominant” which creates problems because it evokes negative things.”

    I’ve keenly watched over the years how women react to specific words. It’s a relatively simple exercise to use different words that mean the exact same thing. So, instead of female submission, talk about how men take the lead. You can’t lead without a follower.

    Morph: “Interestingly, I’m starting to read all sorts of “official” positions of “the Sphere” that are absurd especially from a “women’s locker room” environment. I recently read that the official position of the Sphere is women shouldn’t be on top because then they are in control.”

    Heh. The easiest way to dismiss a concept is to find the fringe elements, and insist that’s the whole view. Pick it, polarize it, personalize it… like a good radical. Essentially erecting strawmen. I really have no use for the radical men’s crowd (other than a curiosity, to study how women react) and it got tiresome to be lumped in with them. Given enough time, they will be fisking Athol Kay’s advice, because it is pro-male.

    Morph: “I must have misplaced my official Sphere rulebook that has that one listed. I guess I am going to get my Sphere card revoked as that is probably my favorite position”

    (TMI alert) While I like the position for my own reasons, my wife doesn’t as much. She has no trouble orgasming from pretty much any other position, to the point of being in an uncontrollable seizure. If I ever followed women’s typical advice on sex — usually, from a bunch of fussy women who seem to really struggle with orgasming easily — she’d be far worse off.

  195. 195
    Morpheus says:

    Pick it, polarize it, personalize it… like a good radical.

    I like the sound of that. :) Actually, this really is a great playbook for essentially smearing an opposing viewpoint. I would guess it is probably highly effective for most people who cannot distinguish between rhetorical and solid logical reasoning, but it does nothing to further honest intellectual dialogue.

    Essentially erecting strawmen. I really have no use for the radical men’s crowd (other than a curiosity, to study how women react) and it got tiresome to be lumped in with them. Given enough time, they will be fisking Athol Kay’s advice, because it is pro-male.

    I think you are absolutely right. What I am finding amazing to watch unfold is the sort of gradual walking back step by step by step by step until you’ll finally arrive back to orthodox mainstream blue-pill thinking. It really is something to behold. The key is the gradual nature. Another thing is you start with the most “extreme” position/guys and go after them. Once they have been exorcised than you take the next position and shift that to the most extreme position. Rinse, repeat, ad nauseum. You finally get to a point where someone like yourself is in fact lumped in. Only white knight manginas are acceptable.

  196. 196
    Han Solo says:

    @Badger 187

    Read the taco link and then M3′s post from the comments. Good stuff. I am left wondering about sampling biases and what % like it really rough and what % like it more emotionally-connected and what % like a mix. I imagine it’s on a spectrum and that’s what my fairly-large but not huge sample-size would say. Some just come right out and say they love it rough–as rough and dirty as you can be. Others like it more intimate. Others are in the middle. Others like to start out more intimate and then get rough as the excitement builds.

  197. 197

    “Will the plumber want to marry her? In fact, will he even get into a position where they meet and build mutual attraction? Betas don’t tend to look for potential partners outside their social circle, and the people you mentioned probably don’t have overlapping social circles.”"

    H2. Plumbers aren’t necessarily betas any more than a STEM guy is, or a salesman. Possibly less, if they’re running their own shop.
    Circles don’t have to overlap. Knew a cop with a degree in criminal justice who met his wife when she was managing a retail op and he went to pick up the week’s bad checks or something. No idea of her education.
    There’s church. The plumber might be getting some love there from the board because he’s fixing something free, and everybody knows it.
    There’s the female salesperson in an office who meets the, say, electrician coming in to save the day.
    Problem is, as I said earlier, the status of the degree depends on the presumed benefits which were so presumed nobody mentioned them, or even thought about them. But as the benefits begin to disappear, eventually the fact will begin to become obvious and the degree isn’t going to be the credential of status it used to be.
    Admittedly, you’re more likely to marry within your group and college is a group of somewhat alike folks, for all the differences there are.
    Still, as the degree declines in imputed status, women are going to notice the objective reduction in real-world benefits. It won’t make them open the Yellow Pages to “construction trades”, but it may make them somewhat more curious as to the details of some guy’s life besides, yes he’s a grad. And if the details don’t suit, she’s out of there. Which means the time she has not relationed increases to the extent that other opportunities present themselves, one being the blue-collar guy with money and a future.

  198. 198

    WRT playful teasing versus polite. Very little teasing. playful or otherwise, I ever heard ended well.
    Seen polite combined with VERY strict boundaries work like a charm. I suppose you could say the neg was when the woman ran into a boundary and got the cold eye or something.

  199. 199
    Morpheus says:

    WRT playful teasing versus polite. Very little teasing. playful or otherwise, I ever heard ended well.
    Seen polite combined with VERY strict boundaries work like a charm. I suppose you could say the neg was when the woman ran into a boundary and got the cold eye or something.

    IDK Richard. I can tell you unequivocally that my own personal field experience is 180 degrees away from what you are saying. I was raised to be the polite, well-mannered, well-behaved boy. Ironically, I’ve always had a sort of impish, mischievous, sarcastic side but it was repressed for a long time. Anyways, I can tell you being polite and earnest never got me anywhere with women romantically/sexually. Once I learned about cocky/funny and playful teasing and started to experiment and use it…I couldn’t believe just how well it worked. I think a lot of people get hung up here getting things mixed up. The point isn’t to be insulting, demeaning, or contemptuous although truth be told it is probably better to be that than supplicating, overly polite, and deferential. The point is light banter where it is clear you are joking. You know you are f’ing nailing it perfectly if she lightly punches you in the shoulder and says with a smile “You ass”. What helped me is I was able to observe behavior and outcomes day after day after day after day during a period of life. After awhile, it finally sank in.

  200. 200

    Morpheus.
    I’ve gotten the punch in the shoulder and the “you didn’t”, but I wasn’t aware I was doing it for effect.
    My point about being polite is not being deferential. That’s a different issue. Picture an upper-class Brit about 1920 dealing with someone he does not know. Among other things, the upper-class accent says, “I’m upper class and…you’re not.” The social signifiers of manners. If someone trespasses on the boundaries, the cold eye appears.
    Okay?
    Now, dial that back just a bit and bring it here and now. There are boundaries, perhaps unmarked. When trespassed, the response is…some version of the cold eye. IOW, you don’t get to do that. Don’t do it again.
    Which means I am not impressed.
    I’ve seen banter for years, decades. Which, imo, is different from teasing, even playful teasing.
    I dunno. My father taught me to never, ever, no way, under any circumstances, to remark on another’s inadequacy. Even if you have to make it up just for light grins, I don’t think I could do it. OTOH, he gave me the background to be an Infantry officer, although he wished I’d run to Canada. And taught me how to fight. Different combination.
    I can kid with the best, but there was never, could never be, any slightest hint of neg.
    But enough about me.
    Thing is, I’ve seen polite with strict boundaries work. Woman wonders, what have I run into? He’s not impressed. He thinks more of himself or his boundaries than he does me and my possibilities? What am I, chopped liver? And then, what do I have to do to move past the boundaries–just asking for a friend. A curious friend.

    You understand that’s my guess. No actual evidence why it worked, but I’ve seen it. I’m not talking about twitchy flinching. Dignity and self-possesion.
    And as I’ve said many times before, some of what I got may have been IOI but I was too dumb to notice, so perhaps my kidding around minus negs–sometimes I would be riffing on some subject not including the woman on scene and get the response–was working.

  201. 201
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Circles overlap more than you might think. Besides my uncle, I am the only male college graduate in the entire family, which means Doctor Fiancee and Doctor Sister regularly spend time with the Head Mechanic at a Mom and Pop bus company and the shift manager at Home Depot, plus the butcher at Local Retail Store. If I head over to the East Coast, I meet up with some steel workers in Pitt and then some veterans, and then an airline salesman alllllllll the way across the Atlantic.

    I do not find that women are automatically and forever opposed to marrying “down” per se. I have a hard time picturing Ivies dating the local auto mechanic, but that doesn’t mean the girl who graduated from Eastern Illinois is opposed to it. Doctor Sister does not really talk to women and wears Silverchair and Nirvana t shirts all day long, and really did not date any Big State U guys.

    Then again, my family is really odd. My Dad met my mom at 18. My Uncle met my aunt at 13. My sister married the first guy she dated. I married the first girl I seriously dated. My brother essentially asked a small Michigan town girl to move in with him after 3 dates and they are married with a kid. We do things a little differently.

    However, we all know I am secretly just a woman-hating cad that is just frustrated I can’t get laid and etc.

    Re: framing and describing things
    A fun game to play with the fiancee is to phrase things in a male way, and then right after a female way…or maybe a “female-friendly” way. Even explaining exactly how it works doesn’t change its effect. On the other hand, shaming and direct language is a lot more effective in making sure the point actually sticks.
    At least that’s my insight. I am only concerned about Game on one particular woman at the moment, anyways.

  202. 202
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    How does polite with strict boundaries work in practice?

  203. 203
    Morpheus says:

    ADBG,

    Congratulations! The big day must have been fairly recent.

    However, we all know I am secretly just a woman-hating cad that is just frustrated I can’t get laid and etc.

    We all are! Join the club. I have it on good authority that happily married men/ or men in happy relationships don’t discuss any of this stuff on the Internet. Of course, this leaves me scratching my head in bewilderment. If that is true, then I have to wonder why the analogue isn’t true either. Why would happily married post-menopausal overweight women be obsessed with cads? Somehow I doubt they are getting hit on nonstop by 20-30 something douchebag cads for casual sex.

  204. 204
    OffTheCuff says:

    The “pick it” quote (which I even goofed) isnt me, it’s from Saul Alinsky’s “rules for radicals”.

    Why, indeed? Well, it stands to reason they want to advise young women to avoid their mistakes, which is perfectly fine with. But they seem to really hate it when we do the same, yanno? That, of course, just bitterness.

    It amuses me that said commenters spend and order of magnitude time commenting on their own blogs, more than even the “Worst Offending” men. Count up Dalrock’s or Rollo’s, comments and compare that number… against their many thousands.

    I might hit one or two a day when I’m on vacation and have time to kill, not hundreds!

  205. 205

    @Liz

    If you are ugly or sexually unattractive. And there is nothing you can do about it why worry? It’s just a waste of energy if you have something bigger to live for.

  206. 206

    @Morpheus
    “Pick it, polarize it, personalize it… like a good radical.”

    Shall we not also use this effective tactic?

  207. 207
    Jimmy says:

    @Badger, Morpheus, OTC

    Good stuff, and it echoes my thoughts as well.

    The straw man hate tactics make me chuckle… It’s like using Neo-Nazis to classify all Germans or the KKK to classify all White Southerners.

    Like you said, it’s either intentional dishonesty, or true stupidity.

  208. 208
    Morpheus says:

    Shall we not also use this effective tactic?

    Rightly or wrongly, I take pride in my intellectual integrity, and that I genuinely try to make good faith arguments that include really trying to understand what someone is saying and not distorting their position for polemical purposes. I would not make a good agitator, advocate, or politician. Probably a weakness on my part.

  209. 209
    Morpheus says:

    Jimmy,

    What’s funny is a bunch of guys were booted because of the Red Pill/Sphere perspective they brought to discussions. OK, no prob. And what follows, post after post after post addressing Red Pill/Game concepts followed by a majority of comments discussing Red Pill concepts. Where are all the posts to actually give useful info to women looking for relationships?….. Crickets chirping

    Supposedly, there are 80% restricted looking for relationships. How about some stuff to counsel them what to do and how to act around guys they are actually interested. My sense is many of them are just as inept if not more so than the typical beta supplicating orbiter.

    For example, you are a girl, and a guy you think is kind cute approaches. What do you say, how do you act, to make it unmistakenly clear to this guy you are interested. How do you give a guy who maybe isn’t the best with women the green light to ask you out? My sense is that many of these “restricted” women who get no attention from men or claim to be “invisible” to men are just God awful at signaling any romantic interest. It is like they expect the guys they like to be mind readers.

    Another interesting topic might be how to have a conversation with a man. I’ll tell you this…when I was still out there, for all this talk that women are great conversationalists, I found that to be far from true. Most of the time, I definitely was carrying the burden of the conversation trying to be proactive in my mind where to lead the conversation next to avoid the dreaded awkward silence. I got the distinct sense that most women expected men to perform for them and really keep the conversation going. A woman who can actively engage the conversation, steer it for awhile, and ask questions of the guy that demonstrate interest has a leg up on 90% of the other women.

    Which makes me wonder…maybe a few female commenters will chime in. Would it be worthwhile to do any posts on any specific actionable advice for women?

  210. 210
    Ton says:

    The moral high ground is where ever you place your artillery.

    Do you want to feel good about your intellectual integrity or win?

    Our team worries about moral.high ground, intellectual integrity etc and has done nothing but lose ground. The other side on the other hand focuses on victory. We retreat damn near everyday, they move forward damn near everyday day.

    Victory with feelings of moral ambiguity beats the shit out of defeat with the feelings of moral superiority.

  211. 211
    Han Solo says:

    @Morpheus

    “Most of the time, I definitely was carrying the burden of the conversation trying to be proactive in my mind where to lead the conversation next to avoid the dreaded awkward silence. I got the distinct sense that most women expected men to perform for them and really keep the conversation going. A woman who can actively engage the conversation, steer it for awhile, and ask questions of the guy that demonstrate interest has a leg up on 90% of the other women.”

    I agree. I think part of this is that too many young women are so entitled and vapid that they don’t think they have to offer up any interesting conversation and they only put in an effort if the guy really strikes their hypergamous fancy, like a male 9 with a female 6.

  212. 212

    Okay. How are such tactics to be countered then?

  213. 213

    Han Solo
    Could be women are trained to let men talk. I used to see a physician who, when you said you had X symptom, would not sympathetically and not say a word. Filling the awkward silence, you’d talk yourself into the hospital. So the point about letting the guy talk, if exaggerated, could be…awkward. Not that she’s vapid but that she’s doing what she’s been told.

    ADBG. In practice? What I saw was polite but not deferential. Perhaps “correct” would be the better description. Women, encountering a boundary, would be set back on their heels. How many guys object to a woman trespassing when it’s in a bar or at a party or whatever? Maybe that’s a neg and you go from there.

    As to why it works, I speculate on it in comment #200.

    Could be it’s a demonstration of absolutely, completely, irrefutable unneediness. Maybe unneediness is a high-test tingle-inducer.

    Considering my failures back in the day to pick up on IOI, it occurs to me that the various things I did, dealing with women as people and not, you know, people with lady parts I might get a shot at, was a first-rate demonstration of non-neediness, which, if it were a tingle-inducer, was…high test.
    That’s my guess as to why polite with strict boundaries works. Might be some other reason altogether.

  214. 214
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Morph,

    I am a few months away ;)
    However, always helps to keep practicing and keep learning!

    It is funny you mention the Conversation topic: this is something that can occasionally become a sore spot with the fiance and I. As I describe to her, she has a cutesy and coy of communicating, which is fine enough when I am in a decent mood, but not after I am finished with work, and not when I want intellectual stimulation. Cause, though she has “Doctor” in her name, she does not have the intellectual curiosity that I do. She’d much rather knit a shawl for one of her cancer patients.
    Nothing wrong with that, but it does mean back up from ADBG once in a while and let him think.

    Here’s something I am on right now, economic convergence between different regions. See this graph:
    http://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/gross_domestic_product_gdp_per_inhabitant_in_purchasing_power_standard_pps_by_nuts_2-filled1.png
    Based on this, you would expect Poland and the Baltic Nations to have some of the fastest growth rates in the world. And while the big growth stories you hear about are always Asia, Turkey has been putting up some pretty impressive numbers, particularly since there mid-90s financial crisis, which involved a big showdown between the Prime Minister nd the Central Bank head.
    Anyways, I would like to see a decomposition of Turkey GDP growth figures. You know, labor force participation rate and unemployment, capital intensiveness, labor productivity and total factor productivity, education, etc, especially over time. I also would like to read more about the Italian divide, and possibly some more on big French MNCs.

    The fiance is not going to be able to talk about these issues. Period. She barely has the language to understand them, anymore than I can talk about the intricacies of HER field. She can answer THIS:
    http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=25657
    But that’s not on the same level.

    Anyways, enough of a distraction. This applies even to mundane daily issues, and I find that most women are simply not able to carry on a conversation with a man, even at work. Typically this gets spun off as “i’m introverted” and “I’m really fun but only after you get to know me.” It’s never her fault, you see?

    Oh, silly me, being a cad again. I only hope I can be a hero like Anne Hathaway in Princess Diaries or Rachel McAdams in the Notebook. When THEY cheat on their fiancees, the Universe absolves them of all sin and the men they cheat on even want to come back to see them. Women cheating on their men isn’t something to be admonished but celebrated in this culture. Yay! America, Fuck yeah!

  215. 215
    OffTheCuff says:

    Info: “Shall we not also use this effective tactic?”

    Depends on your goal. To effect some larger-scale opinion change? Maybe so. But that’s not my interest.

    I have no interest in rhetorically convincing people anyone of anything, but rather, being aware of rhetorical devices used against me or people like me, preventing us from forming our own opinions.

    I don’t pretend to be impartial or unbiased. I am biased in favor of me. However, I do insist of being no *less* biased than everyone else, to be otherwise is to be a chump.

  216. 216
    Jimmy says:

    @Morpheus

    I’ve been debating whether I want to write a post on What is Game?. It is definitely interesting to read commentary from people who seem to think the totality of Game (or again are intentionally being intellectually dishonest) amounts to negs or clumsy insults delivered via text messages. Boiled down to its essence, in my opinion, Game is the entire suite of tools and tactics related to certain ways of communicating, displays of certain behavioral traits, and certain ways of displaying body language.

    I think that really needs to happen. I personally hate that “game” and “PUA” have basically become synonymous, when the latter is clearly in a sub group of the former. Hell, the term and its understanding has been around a hell of a lot before anyone ever wore a fuzzy hat.

    I’ve always likened game to cooking… “Cooking” is a broad definition for ways to prepare food for consumption. There are tons of different schools and styles of cooking, all distinct from each other.

    Could you imagine hearing anyone say, “I don’t like Mexican cooking, therefore all cooking must be bad…” “Cooking can create unhealthy food, therefore it’s not moral. Therefore I don’t want anyone around me to practive cooking…”, “You don’t need to learn any cooking skills, the secret to being good is to just believe in yourself and your own cooking abilities” etc.,

    And yet you see equivalent arguments made all the time in regard to “game”.

  217. 217
    Jimmy says:

    @Morpheus

    I’m also seeing a lot of talk about “Inner Game/Self-Development” with ZERO explanation of what exactly that entails. The first thing that comes to mind is that old Saturday Night Live skit with Stuart Smalley

    Hilarious, I literally thought of the exact same skit when I’ve seen those arguments.

    Frankly, I don’t see how anyone who isn’t a narcicist can suddenly become self confident out of the blue without results to back it up. Especially when it’s something they previously haven’t been very good at.

  218. 218
    Starlight says:

    Definitely agree wholeheartedly with you Liz (@192)

    Those who are genuinely confident don’t care about what other people think. Those who lack confidence need constant self validation either by putting others down or telling themselves / others a lie.

    Blaming others for not accepting obesity shows only how lazy they are to do something about it.

  219. 219
    Morpheus says:

    ADBG,

    Best wishes to you on the upcoming nuptials

    The fiance is not going to be able to talk about these issues. Period. She barely has the language to understand them, anymore than I can talk about the intricacies of HER field. She can answer THIS:
    http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=25657
    But that’s not on the same level.

    Well, just my opinion, but I think you’ll need to learn to cut her some slack. I obviously don’t know the ins and outs of your relationship, and the things she does to bring happiness, and positivity to the relationship. But I think you’ll need to ponder just how valuable being able to have a quality exchange about Turkish GDP and the politics of the relationship between government leaders and central bankers. I’m not going to tell you how you should think, but in my opinion it just isn’t that important. I’m sure there are blogs you can go to in order to have those fulfilling discussions. The beauty of the Internet is you can find like-minded people with similar interests and aptitudes for most every subject. I think it really behooves a guy to think about what really matters in a spouse and realize you are not going to have one person fulfill all your needs. Hell, if you can find an emotionally stable, grounded woman who isn’t entitled and thinks the world revolves around her, AND puts some effort into looking good for you, you’ve already cut the percentage to a pretty small number. I remember the guy who wanted a wild party girl who could drink and socialize when they go out, and then in the spare time discuss Schopenhauer, and Austrian Economics. Good luck with that.

    Just something to think about. I don’t think you want to make her feel inadequate when it comes to discussing these topics.

  220. 220
    Morpheus says:

    I think that really needs to happen. I personally hate that “game” and “PUA” have basically become synonymous, when the latter is clearly in a sub group of the former. Hell, the term and its understanding has been around a hell of a lot before anyone ever wore a fuzzy hat.

    Agreed 110%. To me the defining characteristic of a PUA is that they have made approaching and getting girls their central mission in life, their raison d’etre. They might go out “sarging” 5-6 nights a week, run numerous sets each night. I can see why a guy might want to do something like that temporarily, kind of like trying to learn a foreign language in a month or two. In contrast, any guy can use Game and basically have a balanced life where meeting and interacting with women is just one part of his life with other things just as important if not more.

    My understanding is the term Game and what it represents really originated among black urban men long before a bunch of guys like Mystery started “codifying” this stuff back in the early 00s. They really just reinvented the wheel and used technology to communicate and spread ideas.

    I think what has happened is you now have a greater incidence of guys who really are just terribly calibrated and think insulting a woman is Game, and then critics with their own agendas latch on to those examples as “what Game is”.

    I’ve always likened game to cooking… “Cooking” is a broad definition for ways to prepare food for consumption. There are tons of different schools and styles of cooking, all distinct from each other.

    Could you imagine hearing anyone say, “I don’t like Mexican cooking, therefore all cooking must be bad…” “Cooking can create unhealthy food, therefore it’s not moral. Therefore I don’t want anyone around me to practive cooking…”, “You don’t need to learn any cooking skills, the secret to being good is to just believe in yourself and your own cooking abilities” etc.,

    And yet you see equivalent arguments made all the time in regard to “game”.

  221. 221
    Spawny Get says:

    From TooCoolToFool on D’s site

    Hitler and the MGTOW problem, most funny, most recommended
    http://www.articlesformen.com/?p=11687

  222. 222
    Spawny Get says:

    Sorry, wrong link above (link is to another interesting post)

  223. 223
    BuenaVista says:

    Morpheus, #183: I sound crankier than I would wish. I was just referencing the rote, internet-alpha-keyboard-Yeagers that one encounters at a place like Heartiste. I think it’s gets pretty obvious and stupid, but this observation itself could apply to just about anything on the ‘net. I don’t think J4G gets very obvious and stupid, very often, so my remark was unnecessary, and unnecessarily confrontational.

  224. 224
    a definite beta guy says:

    Morph,

    I don’t expect her to discuss Turkish gdp. Just that I like to talk about it and read about it and it is something that she is not going to be able to provide. How many people can casually talk about the Turkish economy?

  225. 225
    BuenaVista says:

    #199: The classic Game strategy of ‘negging’ is one that does not interest me, in part because I have a tough streak and I don’t think aggressive humor (on my part) is always very funny. Sometimes it’s just unpleasant.

    What I find, though, after a lifetime of being a reserved “Good Man”, carefully circumnavigating various female persons of interest, is that it’s actually very easy to be outrageous in a charming way, and in a way that also conveys sincere opinion. The reason is that within my dating cohort there are, by now, and under feminist and liberal doctrine, so many thoughts, observations, and behaviors that are non-PC, that are literally forbidden. Just being honest about things that PC-feminist culture systematically lies about is a form of negging, in the sense that sacrosanct cultural oxes are being gored, assumptions laughed at, social power memes discarded.

    A simple example is the one we’re discussing above: very, very few accomplished, assertive women are going to bed alone wishing that they had the amorous attentions of submissive, ironic Spayed Pajama Boy; they want a man with some aggressive intent. But of course, we’re not supposed to acknowledge that; oh noes; we are supposed to gently escalate in a fashion that reflects gender as a social construction, sexual needs as identical, and sexual style as “unthreatening.” (For more information, review advice by the celibate middle aged females on HUS.) Say anything to the contrary — ambiguously (“you need a man to act like a man, not a boy in a girls’ school) or vulgarly (you fill this one in) — and watch a woman blush, exclaim, and flutter.

    Another one would be the politically-incorrect age spreads between man and woman, of particular interest to me given that I am a ‘mature man.’ In DC or NYC, the educated woman proudly trolls for a man 10 years her junior and five her senior; maybe +8 and -8; we see her interest here in establishing her ‘you go grrl’ status with her girlfriends. So if I meet a woman like that online, instead of in-person where my age appears to be 10 years less than reality, she’s putting me in the ‘creepy’ or ‘has-been’ box. (Daddy Erotica enthusiasts excepted, of course.) I am taking a diplomat out on Thursday where this situation exists; she’s 17 years younger, so I introduced myself by suggesting that she was probably too old for me but it might be fun to have a drink sometime; then I pointed out that if she really did wish to date a 30 year-old, we shouldn’t bother even with a cocktail. She quickly apologized for the interest in 30 year-olds (something about casting a wide net) and asked me if I was actually serious about finding her perhaps too old?

    Negging with the indoctrinated girl: just challenge the conventional wisdom that she receives all day every day from friends and within her workplace. Do it nicely, without rancor, with a racy happy glee: it might just open a door.

    This aspect of demonstrating some happy culture warrior qualities is another form of MGTOW, I think: it’s being simultaneously of, and outside, the current cultural context. We are of the current, broken culture in that we know better, perhaps, what rote feminist behavior requires and delivers; we are outside if we capture and exploit that negative energy, much as an athlete exploits a predictable, ill-centered opponent.

  226. 226
    BuenaVista says:

    Morpheus, #209:

    “I got the distinct sense that most women expected men to perform for them and really keep the conversation going. A woman who can actively engage the conversation, steer it for awhile, and ask questions of the guy that demonstrate interest has a leg up on 90% of the other women.

    “Which makes me wonder…maybe a few female commenters will chime in. Would it be worthwhile to do any posts on any specific actionable advice for women?”

    I actually disagree with this, in part. (Though I find conversation of a high order erotic, and so select for conversationalists.) Then I agree with it.

    I know a lot of women, and this would include anyone I have a romantic interest in, who are able to carry on about life, art, and occasionally family and politics. And they do. And they believe that they are great conversation partners for me, when they do.

    What’s amusing, however, is when one notes that we’re really just discussing her thoughts of the day; she’s often just thinking out loud, and the guy is chiming in with HUS-style “so true!” “I think so too!” “that is so clever!!!”. I exaggerate, of course, but what I’m not exaggerating about is this: few women, after a lifetime of being schooled to make their personal development primary to any school or work environment, even realize that they are profoundly incurious about the men in their lives.

    Whenever I’m bored on a date these days, I usually steer the conversation to this anomaly, and boy, do the girls start to blush in confusion and denial (another form of negging, as far as I’m concerned). It can be quite hilarious. I was out a couple of times over the weekend with a senior strategy consultant (who’s walking around with both a Ph.D and MBA); this is not a woman who cannot think logically or abstractly; she’s also eastern European so she’s not an unwitting manhater like many of her domestic sisters. We’ve been flirting for 10 years now; she’s 11 years younger than I, and more attractive now, to me, than when I met her (new fitness/diet regime). Anyway, she assumes, basically, that she ‘knows’ me, and said so. So I laughed and said,

    “Oh rearry? So, Sveta, what do I want in a woman?”

    [Paragraphs after paragraphs about what she wants in a man ensues.]

    “No, that’s what you want from me. But what does any man want in a woman?”

    [Paragraphs ... Brilliant woman of a certain age: has never had a conversation with a man about what he would like in his romantic life. She wants to settle down: she has never once attempted to understand her target market. *It's not been necessary.*]

    Later, she brought me some Christmas gifts: one was wrapped, two were books. So she goes, apparently freaking at the last minute, about the wrapped one:

    “Do you drink tea?”

    “No, why?”

    “Oh. Here. It’s …. tea. Maybe you can give it to your daughter [second freakout] does she drink tea?”

    Then,

    “I thought you would enjoy this South American …”

    “Marquez? Read everything. But thank you. I don’t have a copy in this house. I could stand to re-read this (100 Years of Solitude).”

    “You’ve read Marquez?”

    “Sure. I read all the magical realistis. My favorite is Llosa.”

    (She: deer in headlights. I’m being a bit tough: I’m not pretending to be ignorant of Marquez, I’m not acting like I have been dying for a new teapot. I’m doing neither because I’m feeling pedagogical.)

    Then, poor girl, gives me the third gift:

    “Have you read Tolle?”

    “Sure, read him and listen to him in the truck when I’m out west.”

    [Stunned silence.]

    “I should find something you like or haven’t read.”

    BV: smile.

    Basically, I don’t think women are in the habit any longer of Emily Post-qualified conversation. In the old days, a classically-mannered woman learned about her conversation partner; to make the conversation about herself was simply rude, under Emily Post. In my anecdotes above we see that someone I’ve known and spent dozens and dozens of hours in conversation with about art and food doesn’t know the basics of my habits or library. And she is a gracious, fun person; she’s just self-centered, and despite her very strong desire to remarry, apparently had never, before Saturday, ever considered what a man would like in any exclusive relationship, much less me, whom she has previously proposed to.

    The reason for this is plain. We live in a culture in which female expression and development are primary; men are to be their social, sexual, and intellectual mirrors; our job, according to convention, is to nurture their self-expression and self-actualization. I have met one woman in the past 10 years who actually made a study of me: who engaged me and learned things about me and surprised me later with the knowledge she had acquired, with great subtlety. (Then she fucked my brains out. BV was an idiot, letting her go.) Meanwhile, any of us who seek intimacy with a woman (not PUA boffing, I mean emotional and sexual intimacy) must — MUST — know at least as much about that woman as she does herself. And therein, for the cynical man I guess, is the arbitrage. A man who tells a woman things about herself, that she cannot articulate herself, is a spellbinding man. Just don’t expect the favor to be returned.

  227. 227
    BuenaVista says:

    #222:

    “Krebs, aren’t you single?”

    Tears of laughter!

    Perhaps this is to one day be repeated, on the order of “Who is John Galt?”

  228. 228
    Julian says:

    Interesting and thought-provoking article; I enjoyed it. But it raises this question in my mind: if the “Manosphere” is a three-legged stool supported by MRAs, PUAs, and MGTOWs, then where do my sons, my friends, and I fit in?

    We’re in stable marriage relationships and participate in society in all the usual ways – working, helping others, volunteering our services to those in need, producing wealth, saving wealth, and we experience happiness, satisfaction and meaning in producing and raising our children.

    It seems likely to me that those like us far outnumber all the MRAs, PUAs, and MGTOWs put together. Are we not part of the Manosphere? Or is this term reserved for those who rail against conventionality?

  229. 229
    Spawny Get says:

    I hear Krebs immediately, eagerly signed up for a suicide squad on the Eastern Front (admittedly only a short stroll away from the Fuhrer Bunker at that point)

  230. 230

    ADBG
    Nobody knows about the Turks’ GDP. To expect your life partner to be the one in a bazillion who does is a bad idea. You will need to find the Turkish Economy Club in your town. Check the Yellow Pages.
    First thing you do is try to find out if Erdogan is cooking the books. Then check the birth rates in European Turkey versus the hillbillies to the south of the Strait.
    My wife is a retired Spanish teacher. During our marriage, I’ve learned to order a beer and ask for the bathroom. We have some friends in Mexico with whom we have, sort of, exchanged kids. One, going to school in Dallas, will be with us tomorrow. Wants to see snow, I expect. So I know about Mexico, some, but mostly because I like history and anthropology.
    Because I’ve helped my wife chaperone trips overseas, I can say, “Get lost” in every European language. Try me.
    Point is, that’s not my life, nor is current events with an emphasis on the military side, ditto history her life.
    Sometime back, when the Balkans were producing more history than usual, I quoted John Keegan. “once again, European countries are demanding criminals be turned over. Once again, foreign armies are operating in the valleys of the Sava and the Drina” Paraphrase for poor memory. The guy I quoted it to–we go back to jump school–laughed and said, “We’re the only two guys in town who know what this means.”
    Fortunately, we were wrong.
    My wife is Phi Beta Kappa. But her intellectual life goes in a different direction. We don’t demand either convergence or that the other go MY WAY.

  231. 231

    Julian.
    It would stand to reason that people who are dissatisfied are likely to be talking about it.
    You’re not and you’re not.
    I’m not, but I am an interested observer whose dog in the fight is the future, but with some resignation.

  232. 232
    Spawny Get says:

    @Julian #228
    The manosphere is a buffet. The three ‘legs’ are nebulous and overlapping, and they do not define the entirety of the manosphere. Manosphere is an extremely loose handle for anything that men find interesting, the emphasis is usually on the male perspective on whatever the subject is under discussion. The MSM fully delivers the gynocentric/traditional men are disposable one.

    MRAs might educate you on the legal realities of married life, or just interacting with the gynocentric society that we live in. Try http://www.avoiceformen.com/ for example. For those of a religious bent, try http://www.dalrock.com for the current marital reality. http://marriedmansexlife.com/ is a guy writing on how to keep an existing marriage working.

    PUAs are a source on game. They use it for pick up, but game is more than that, it is not just about pick up.

    MGTOWs (the one that haven’t just gone off on their own way) are a very diverse bunch. They’ll give you options on how to live your life. Some are married, some far from celibate, others do cry off of women.

    The blog roll on http://www.justfourguys.com/ is a great way to start. If you provide feedback on what ones were of greater interest, the guys here should be able to suggest other sources.

    One of my favourites is GirlWritesWhat aka Karen Straughn whose Youtube channel is great source of the red pill.

    Take the Red Pill brother and pass the word to your friends and family.

    Good luck.

  233. 233
    OffTheCuff says:

    A good question, Julian, it’s the Athol Kay paradox.

    We fit in everywhere, and nowhere. Use PUA tidbits to spice up your marriage. Use MRA knowledge defensively to keep your interests in line for yourself and sons. Use MGTOW to put yourself first, but not cut women or family out of your life.

    The women will hate it, naturally, and some men will focus on the differences rather than the commonality. Both are easily ignored.

  234. 234

    Morpheus- re: female-oriented posts. If you’re taking suggestions for the box, let me state an interest in Liz doing a guest post describing A) how she successfully identified her husband’s qualities and potential while they were still both quite young, and B) how she handled being married to a fighter pilot, uprooting and moving all over the world, etc.

    ADBG- congrats, man!

    BV- I honestly think the big takeaway for men in today’s environment is to invest most of their surplus back into themselves, but *intelligently*— relentlessly pursue high-quality, adventurous lifestyle design and related personal growth activities. Learn how to regulate your hormones and neurotransmitters. Embrace the wild. The ideal woman for such a “sovereign individual”-type man may well be someone he meets on that path, but the point is that he’ll enjoy the path regardless.

    As the saying goes: “If your life was a movie, would you pay to see it?” The poor fucker who follows the old pipeline is not only going to be bored, but he will be increasingly competing for female attention with photo-journals of a grinning, glamorous, hyperfit BuenaVista trekking and hunting Marco Polo rams in Central Asia.

    All- Happy Holidays, my friends. Thanks for making this such a great place to hang out—it’s like a virtual Rick’s Cafe from Casablanca, filled with fellowship and colorful, interesting characters from diverse backgrounds.

  235. 235
    Han Solo says:

    @Julian #228

    Interesting and thought-provoking article; I enjoyed it. But it raises this question in my mind: if the “Manosphere” is a three-legged stool supported by MRAs, PUAs, and MGTOWs, then where do my sons, my friends, and I fit in?

    We’re in stable marriage relationships and participate in society in all the usual ways – working, helping others, volunteering our services to those in need, producing wealth, saving wealth, and we experience happiness, satisfaction and meaning in producing and raising our children.

    It seems likely to me that those like us far outnumber all the MRAs, PUAs, and MGTOWs put together. Are we not part of the Manosphere? Or is this term reserved for those who rail against conventionality?

    The main feature and binding element of the various elements of the sphere is the quest for understanding the true nature of male/female nature and interactions and, on a broader level, society as a whole. Though not without its faults (e.g. sometimes focused excessively on the negative side of women while ignoring the positive; saying that all women are like that), the sphere tends to get much closer to the truth of men and women’s nature than PC and even traditional doctrine. The sometimes imbalanced focus on certain (negative) elements can at least serve the purpose of countering the vastly more imbalanced presentation from most other areas of society. It’s up to each individual to balance things out to see what % of people are really like what is talked about.

    For example, the talk about female hypergamy being out of control is something you’ll rarely hear outside the sphere and so even if only perhaps 1/3 or 1/2 of current Western women are too entitled and too hypergamous and so forth, talking about it serves the valuable purpose of removing the blinders from people’s eyes to suddenly see the world from a new and more accurate paradigm. But often the sphere will speak of the 1/3 or the 1/2 as if all women (or 93%) were hypergamous cock riding sluts who then change at 30 to want a provider. Of course, the stats and our own anecdotal experiences will show that that is not the case (meaning, NAWALT) so the realistic sphere participant will realize that things exist on a spectrum. But the sphere provides the valuable message of the side of the spectrum that is often denied or ignored, often the part that points out that female nature is not all virtue and awesomeness. The sphere would be more effective and believable if it remembered and praised the good side of women along with pointing out the bad, though it might lose some of its bombastic and rebellious appeal by doing so.

    As to MRA, PUA and MGTOW, these can be defined by the type of actions that one chooses to take in light of the redpill realizations. They are neither completely exhaustive nor mutually exclusive. There are also religious (usually Christian) spherists, such as Dalrock and Sunshinemary who include some elements of MRA (or at least desire more fair treatment for men in society and less female favoritism).

    And then there is the big body of more “normal” people that buy into some or all of the red pill but simply use it to live their lives better, or at least to understand the world better. They buy into the relatively more accurate portrayal of human nature (both male and female sides of it) and likely are in favor of reforms to make the legal and cultural environment fairer. However, they probably aren’t going to engage much in MRA activities. They’ll use some game and remove antigame to improve their chances with women (assuming they’re straight men) but aren’t going to be out “sarging” 5 nights a week for new pussy. And they will still want to have relationships and children and so forth, though they will try to do it a bit more in a way that is their own.

    So what unites the sphere is the search for and relative success in better understanding true human nature, and even though there’s probably broad agreement on many principles, there’s no canon of what is taught by the sphere or what is not.

    What then creates the various branches of the sphere seems to be how the knowledge is applied, what the desired outcome is.

  236. 236
    Han Solo says:

    @Bastiat 233

    All- Happy Holidays, my friends. Thanks for making this such a great place to hang out—it’s like a virtual Rick’s Cafe from Casablanca, filled with fellowship and colorful, interesting characters from diverse backgrounds.

    Good call my friend. I second your thoughts.

    Merry Christmas to all.

  237. 237
    Jimmy says:

    @Han
    I think that’s the most accurate and honest representation of the sphere that I’ve seen. Couldn’t agree more.

    Merry Christmas to everyone.

  238. 238
    Morpheus says:

    I don’t think J4G gets very obvious and stupid, very often, so my remark was unnecessary, and unnecessarily confrontational.

    BV,

    No worries. Happy New Year to you and I sincerely hope that 2014 brings to you some improvement in the situation you are dealing with.

  239. 239
    Morpheus says:

    How many people can casually talk about the Turkish economy?

    Ha. I can’t. About the only thing I *think* I know or remember is they have had a structural problem with inflation for I believe pretty much forever.

  240. 240
    Morpheus says:

    We fit in everywhere, and nowhere. Use PUA tidbits to spice up your marriage. Use MRA knowledge defensively to keep your interests in line for yourself and sons. Use MGTOW to put yourself first, but not cut women or family out of your life.

    The women will hate it, naturally, and some men will focus on the differences rather than the commonality. Both are easily ignored.

    + 1,000,000

  241. 241
    Morpheus says:

    Morpheus- re: female-oriented posts. If you’re taking suggestions for the box, let me state an interest in Liz doing a guest post describing A) how she successfully identified her husband’s qualities and potential while they were still both quite young, and B) how she handled being married to a fighter pilot, uprooting and moving all over the world, etc.

    I personally would LOVE to have Liz do a guest post. Liz, any interest?

    Learn how to regulate your hormones and neurotransmitters.

    Can you expand on this?

    All- Happy Holidays, my friends. Thanks for making this such a great place to hang out—it’s like a virtual Rick’s Cafe from Casablanca, filled with fellowship and colorful, interesting characters from diverse backgrounds.

    To you and the rest of the crew as well! And Thank You. Its the commenters that make this endeavor fund and interesting.

  242. 242

    So we have a picture of BV grinning in the Central Asian noon, standing next to a ram he’s shot, or a stuffed one the guide brings along in case they get skunked.
    Or we have a picture of a soldier grinning in the Afghan sunshine, draped in sixty pounds of fighting stuff next to his Humvee.
    Keeping in mind rams don’t shoot back.
    BV wins. I don’t get it.
    Maybe it’s because fighting is so SERIOUS, dude.

  243. 243
    Morpheus says:

    I just want to know who is going to win the epic battle between Bastiat and BV to replace this guy:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=the+most+interesting+man+in+the+world&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=D9i5UtDjGeX8yQGxs4HwCw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1632&bih=819

    Stay thirsty my friends :)

  244. 244
    Starlight says:

    Merry Christmas to all!

  245. 245

    Richard, I think that the soldier in your example would be celebrated, too. There is an elite professional MMA fighter named Tim Kennedy who also happens to wear a Green Beret—here is an interview with Tim in which he discusses some of the themes you have raised:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEvmpl37bCQ

    Morpheus: I immediately concede defeat—BV wins! Dos Equis needs to hire that guy and start a new series.

  246. 246
    Spawny Get says:

    Same to you Starlight, have fun in the sun

  247. 247
    Liz says:

    #241: That’s incredibly flattering! Thankyou.

    I’d love to, but it will take some thought…
    I’ll have to consider whether I can come up with anything that might be interesting enough and if so, I will submit it and see what you think.

    Happy holidays, everyone! :-)

  248. 248
    Liz says:

    BTW…where is Ted? Haven’t seen him around for a while.

  249. 249
    Liz says:

    #234: “B) how she handled being married to a fighter pilot, uprooting and moving all over the world, etc.”

    I was just reading through some of my personal notes from “Christmases past”.
    You might actually be sorry you asked, and at the moment I’m experiencing “eggnog courage” and might regret this (I hope it’s not a foul in this thread), but here’s a bit I wrote about three moves previous (around six or more years ago):

    “We are a family of nomads. Here we go again. Fourteenth move in sixteen years. I take a mental tally over the amount of money such frequent moves have cost us and feel the mad frenzy to cut expenses. I can hear the movers already. “Do you want to keep the potporri in this bowl?” Heck yes! I move too often to discard potporri with every move. Bag that stuff up and use it again at the next place. Babyshower decorations? Knicknacks? Curly accent ribbons around the house? Bag it! Take it! Garbage cans? Yes! Toilet brushes? Ye….Er, maybe not those.”

    Then there are the personal effects. Face it, most of us military spouses have our marital aids (unless I’m completely depraved). It makes sense….we’re alone often and for extended periods of time during deployments. We also move a lot, which requires inviting strange movers into our homes to pack our stuff. I usually pitch my ‘aids’ prior to every move. I’m not attached to anything in particular, and I live in fear of being in some accident. Carrying such things on a cross-country trip is a bit like wearing underwear with holes. Truly…What if I wake up in the hospital?

    But the husband’s porn collection…This is a tough one. He absolutely will not part with the stuff. He thinks of his porn collection as I do our children’s momentos. “Ah, Jena…I remember you as though it were yesterday. The synthetic years were so good to me. Still the same after all this time…”

    Usually I make him box that all up and tote it in his own car. Having the movers pack it is simply too mortifying. But the stuff seems to have taken on a life of its own and grown and grown in the past many years. There’s probably forty-odd pounds of magazines, cds, ect. That he simply won’t part with, and this time we’re all traveling in one vehicle. There simply isn’t room to cross the country with fifty pounds of porn, plus toys, clothes, and the one hundred and seventy pounds of children most of those things are for. I consider covering up the entire tub of porn in black duct tape. But the movers have to inspect everything and repack. There’s no alternative. Okay, fine, we’ll make room for it in the car somehow. I tell myself that the kids can buy new toys along the way and we really don’t need too many clothes for a cross-country trip (and we could buy them along the way…they sell tee shirts at gas stations, don’t they?), as I prepare to pack only what I’d bring for them on a very short flight…something that has to fit in their laps or just on the tray in front.

    (six months later when we had to move AGAIN)
    “He spent two hours after the children were in bed every night for weeks going through his porn collection and ripping out the most preferred images to save, discarding the rest. I found myself feeling somewhat proud of his efficiency yet also mortified by his dedication.
    “That’s going to take a long, long time…”
    “I know. It isn’t easy work, but it’s important work. Think of the space we’ll save…”

    (Oh, dear…then we moved into a base house in the desert with an air conditioning unit that didn’t function and I pontificated further….)

    “Can you get used to being a nomad? I feel like the years go by in some sort of limbo. I’m looking for something, ever moving, the surroundings changing, never able to settle fully. I wonder if others feel the same. Some military families seem to collect things. The base house we currently occupy was filled to the brim when we first saw it. They must have had 25,000 pounds worth of stuff. I wonder if that’s part of the quest for stability manifesting itself in that way. The military dependent can’t stay anywhere, so they compensate by buying things and collecting them. Even if it makes the moving and unpacking all the more excruciating.”

    (and a bit later…)
    “No beds, no television, no internet, no coffee maker, no microwave oven….I did buy one pot to cook in (non-stick, so it can also function as a small frying pan), and a paring knife. Otherwise utensils, cups and plates are all exclusively disposable paper or plastic. We sleep on the floor in sleeping bags. I’ve discovered an appreciation for jiffy pop that was only known to man prior to the invention of the microwave. No washing machines, clothing must be toted to the coin up as in college (or more recently, South Korea). On the bright side, I’m quickly kicking the coffee habit. Instant coffee warmed from a kettle (bought that with the pot) isn’t exactly a treat a person wakes up for.”

    “Now that we haven’t had television or the internet for over two weeks, we’re finding there’s lots of time for family activities, like board games. I’m learning a lot about my children. My oldest, for instance, isn’t a very good winner. We’ll have to work on that. In fact, in the course of losing monopoly to my children, I’m finding out much about international relations and world governments. First, there’s the initial haughtiness with the accumulation of wealth, mostly generated by either actively screwing over the other players or luck or some combination of both. Later, there’s the bit of remorse that comes with watching the players go into bankruptcy by your hand. As I had to sell all of my houses in order to pay off the fee for landing on my oldest son’s property, he said, “Mommy, I’m like the United States, and Matthew is the Soviet Union, and you are Liberia.” And they’re now trying to give me money, not nearly anywhere near enough to made me competitive of course, just to keep me in the game. I expect they will ask for military basing rights soon….
    One more revelation from said game. When things are going badly enough, jail is, rather than something to be avoided, more like a safe-haven place to serenity.”

    With that, I bid adieu (I promise, keepers of JFG, I will never ever do that again).

    Wish you all a Merry Christmas! (again)
    :-)

  250. 250

    BB.
    I follow Ranger Up and Blackfive.
    My question is which pic would generate more tingles. If BV, I don’t get it and probably won’t.

    Just to cheer everybody the fuck up, herewith a reason to ask “Why is it always us?”

    http://nypost.com/2013/12/22/70-navy-sailors-left-sickened-by-radiation-after-japan-rescue/

  251. 251
    Liz says:

    “Just to cheer everybody the fuck up…”

    Eek…honestly, my post was a stab at levity. Just wanted to share anecdotes.

  252. 252

    Liz.
    Mine was an effusion of disgust and grief and anger.
    Sorry to be off the beam, so to speak.
    However, as somebody said, the Thais might have taken them in because they recall those haze-gray helicopters off Aceh, and the IJN may have shown up in Leyte Gulf–the second time–because they remember those haze-gray helicopters off Fukushima.

  253. 253
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Mmmmm, Christmas time. The perfect time of year for a wonderful Beta Crush:

    http://www.nerve.com/files/uploads/scanner/maryhatchbaileyjpg-48222586afb4f61d.jpg

  254. 254
    Spawny Get says:

    Is that cocoa that she’s holding ADBG? Very pretty.

  255. 255
    Liz says:

    #254: You all have ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ on your side of the pond, don’t you Swithy?

    Awesome movie.

  256. 256
    Spawny Get says:

    Dear Mrs number 255, or perhaps #255 seeing as we’re bestest mates,

    Downton Abbey and Dr Who as well. I mustardmit that the Dr Who writing raises a smile (the special is on now) but I’m not really a fan.
    There’s some tv series that is a sequel to Pride and Prejudice in the near future.
    Downtown Abbey and the Bedford Falls movie.

    Not great times for tv afaiac

    Bah Humbug!

  257. 257
    Liz says:

    You realize, Swithy, these are some very large numbers and it’s hard enough for me to keep them straight AND do small talk. I was trying to impress! :P

  258. 258
    Spawny Get says:

    I can forgive you as long as you multitasked the family’s domestic, festive fun today.

    Nearly done here, so Merry Christmas one last time…

  259. 259
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ # 250

    That seems like a load of bullshit. I would understand if it were an ordinary warship, but that’s a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. It should be able to detect any radiation on board the ship.

    Not to mention that 70 out of 5000 people getting cancer after over 2 years is hardly a sign of radiation exposure. That seems normal for a population that size.

  260. 260
    Spawny Get says:

    A Feminist’s Dream Date (prollyknot)

    funny though

    “We’ve chosen the path to equality; don’t let them turn us around” – Geraldine Ferraro

    “(more than) Fine by me; let’s go” – MGTOWs everywhere

  261. 261
    Valentin says:

    Reply to comment #2:

    I think most guys that are angry with the current SMP/MMP go mens rights movement (i.e. fedora redditors) or PUA douches that greatly exaggerate how well PUA works for them.
    Most regular guys that are dissapointed with todays women and accept it are MGTOW: basically pragmatic betas that turn their life efforts and goals on themselves rather than old-fashioned family values of self-sacrifice for a deserving woman.
    Unfortunately the most vocal MGTOW peeps are just fedora redditors in disguise, true MGTOW’s don’t give a damn about this rotten system to take a leading vocal role: which is why they’re acctual MGTOW’s. That’s the point of MGTOW: you stop caring about anything except your life.

  262. 262
    Liz says:

    #259: Here is one that is definitely real:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512412/Female-RAF-recruits-100-000-compensation–march-like-men.html

    Female RAF recruits awarded compensation for having to march like men.
    Swithy: That video was great! Lol!

  263. 263
    Spawny Get says:

    Fascinating study
    http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/04/antibiotic-protects-men-from-attractive-women.html

    Heterosexual men mentally melt in the presence of attractive women. As Tom Jacobs writes in Pacific Standard, even the very thought of possibly interacting with a woman is enough to “temporarily impede men’s mental abilities.”

    Of course, women know this, and some use it to their advantage. (Companies also know this, and they use it to their advantage, too: During my years in graduate school, many of the biotech sales reps were unusually attractive women.) Men feel more trusting toward women who cause them to be sexually aroused, even if there is no good justification for it — just like when Indiana Jones totally fell for that sexy Nazi chick in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

    Is there a way for men to avoid these devilish “honey traps”? (It’s unknown if the “honey trap” is named after CNBC’s anchor formerly known as the “Money Honey.”)

    Yes. They can take an antibiotic.

    Minocycline is typically used to treat acne, but it can also reduce symptoms associated with mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and depression, and it can improve decision-making. This latter effect was analyzed further in a study described in Scientific Reports.

    Japanese researchers recruited about 100 men to play a trust game using photographs of women. In the game, each man was given 1300 Yen (approx. $13) and asked to rate the attractiveness of each woman as well as how much money they would give them in the trust game. The men were told that the amount of money given would be tripled, and the woman could then choose how to split the money between herself and the man. Unbeknownst to the men, every woman had already chosen in advance to take all of the money, completely stiffing the man. In other words, every woman was a potential “honey trap.”

    Prior to the experiment, the men were given either placebo or minocycline. The men who took minocycline were immune to the seductive allure of the honey traps. (See graph.)

    honeytrap.jpgAs shown, men who were taking placebo offered about 50% of their money in the trust game to women of “low attractiveness,” while they gave 65% of their money to women of “high attractiveness.” Men receiving a regimen of minocycline gave about 50% to both groups of women.

    Let this be a lesson for all male businessmen: When engaged in negotiations with an attractive female, be sure to have a doctor’s prescription handy.

    Source: Motoki Watabe, Takahiro A. Kato, Sho Tsuboi, Katsuhiko Ishikawa, Kazuhide Hashiya, Akira Monji, Hideo Utsumi & Shigenobu Kanba. “Minocycline, a microglial inhibitor, reduces ‘honey trap’ risk in human economic exchange.” Scientific Reports 3, Article #: 1685. 18-Apr-2013. doi:10.1038/srep01685

  264. 264
    Spawny Get says:

    @Liz #262 (aka The Most Honorable Mrs Number Two Hundred and Sixty Two on JustFourGuys thread the mgtow mystique http://www.justfourguys.com/the-mgtow-mystique%e2%80%8f/comment-page-1/#comment-8487 )

    The RAF thing pisses me off, these women (temporary issues) got more compensation than some guys with limbs blown off.

    A few days later there was some young woman on the beeb stating that women could compete with men on a strength basis…she faced a military high-up who tried arguing reality (while she laughed at him). Too many men in every walk of life are too sackless to just tell the truth or (at the very least walk off the set in visible disgust).

    The video was cool because it made plain what women’s equality in dating would look like. The guy wasn’t an arsehole (objectively speaking) he just played out what would normally be regarded as the female role. The result was strikingly different to current reality.

    ;)

  265. 265

    Sir Nemesis.
    Checkk the symptoms. Preferably long before a meal. Not just cancer. Full-blown radiation poisoning.
    All USN ships have detectors for ambient or external radiation. I’d heard that many of them were equipped to flush their exteriors with sea water by means of pumps and spray heads without people needing to be exposed.
    For my money, the reports from the external rad detectors and their office didn’t reach the bridge.

  266. 266
    jimmy says:

    I think the beauty of MGTOW is that it requires neither approval nor acceptance to be effective. Once you’ve dropped out, the only way women can get you to contribute to their livelihoods is by violence. Anything short of that is useless as long as one practices MGTOW.

  267. 267
  268. 268

    So if a guy is going his own way, how does he look from the outside?
    Presume he likes being involved in commercial pursuits, wants enough money to follow expensive hobbies like travel or private flying or something. He’ll likely be in the standard culture’s business world, which means women will see him. Colleagues at work, clients, women in other offices whom he encounters in the hall or lobby, sales personnel, etc. If he likes civic activity, he may decide that there are no men-only groups doing what he likes. He has time for fitness and various adventurous activities.
    So. What does the Going Own Way thing look like to women?
    Man of Mystery? Unneedy? IOW, would he be more attractive by virtue of GOW?

  269. 269
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ jimmy

    I think the beauty of MGTOW is that it requires neither approval nor acceptance to be effective. Once you’ve dropped out, the only way women can get you to contribute to their livelihoods is by violence. Anything short of that is useless as long as one practices MGTOW.

    Exactly. It’s a powerful form of civil disobedience.

  270. 270
    Exfernal says:

    @ #242 & 250

    Perhaps because someone else decides for the soldier when, where, and how many times to shoot. Just sayin’…

  271. 271
    Tarnished says:

    @Liz

    I recently did a post about the idea of inherent submissiveness during male/female sex. Perhaps it would interest you? Unfortunately my phone is not allowing me to put a link here, but I’d love your (or anyone else’s) input.

    @Lon

    I agree with you that most women probably don’t care about the MGTOW movement. However, I believe this is due to the fact that the vast majority don’t even know about its existence…If they actually realized it was an actual thing they had to worry about, we would probably see at least a few women becoming more feminine or at least nicer toward their prospective partners.

    As for myself, I also don’t care what MGTOWs do, just as they don’t care what I do. I’m happily single, and enjoy my lack of marriage/children the same as they do. Freedom should only be given up after much introspection…

  272. 272
  273. 273
    Spawny Get says:

    Couldn’t do the link and quotation in one. So, here’s the quote from Yarn’s blog
    2. How much does your gender dysphoria affect you during sex (aka How do you deal with continuously being the passive partner)?

    Answer: I don’t. The idea that women are inherently submissive during sex with a man has always confused me to no end. Whether it has been claimed by Feminists or MRAs, it strikes me as being more than a bit “off”. Perhaps I’m just weird, but in all the years of my lover and I having sex, I’ve never felt like I was being the submissive one or that he was the dominant one.**

    Is he bigger and stronger than me? Yes, but he has never used that against me. Is he the one with the penis? Duh, but I don’t see what that has to do with anything in relation to dominance. After all, gay partners *both* have penises.The argument that I have heard the most often is that “female = the one getting penetrated” and “male = the one doing the penetration” which, when phrased this way, makes it sound like sex is something the man does to the woman.

    Which would be all well and good, except that it’s completely wrong.

    Sex is not (in my 8 years of experience) something that you give to another person or force on them…it’s something you both share. Personally, I feel anything but submissive during sex. He may be penetrating me, but I’m engulfing/enveloping him. In other words, I’m actively taking him into myself, and thinking ahead to better focus on both our pleasures. Why? Because sex isn’t a competition or a race. You don’t get a medal for being on top the most, or for delaying your gratification the longest. Power play *is* fun, but why inject it into every single encounter? Therein lies the path of boredom and unimaginative sex.

    This viewpoint also doesn’t take into account non-vaginal sex. Oral sex, mutual masturbation, female on male anal play, using a strap-on, and erotic massage are all ways for both partners to attain sexual satisfaction that don’t involve the man penetrating with his penis or the woman enveloping with her vagina. It’s not as though these are less legitimate types of sex…or more equal, for that matter. It’s all just sex!

    **(Obviously I’m not talking about our role-playing during BDSM sex. In those cases, we *do* fool around with dominance and submission, with the knowledge that it’s just for fun, is only every once in a while, and stays in the bedroom.)

  274. 274
    Tarnished says:

    @Spawny Get
    Hey, thanks for that! My cell really didn’t want to link…very odd. Hope your holiday was fun and relaxing, and as I have an impromptu day off tomorrow I should be able to answer emails. There are some that have been backed up for a while. ;)

    Cheers!

  275. 275
    Spawny Get says:

    No problem Tarn (‘Yarn’ – how did that happen? dohh). I was happy to patch the problem. I have similar issues when kindling, though not quite as bad.

    I thought that an interesting comparison of viewpoints would be possible. enveloping vs penetrated, equal partner vs submissive. Can’t believe the dumb questions that you get asked ;) I know I’d never say such things…

    Life more relaxed now that the xmas rush has died down? Hopefully your shop did well.

    I would complain about the temperatures here lately but you have the same numbers in Fahrenheit as we do in Centigrade (~10), while Starlight (Oz) has our temperatures in Fahrenheit but in Centigrade (40+). It’s raining a lot here though…

  276. 276
    Starlight says:

    @ Spawny Swithers,

    What is this 40 C business you are talking about? It’s 25 C around here. ;)

  277. 277
    Spawny Get says:

    @Starlight
    The Aussie tennis was mentioned on the news. > 40 degrees C (104 in old money)

    25 degrees? Great news for you! Catching up on the sleep are you? Must have been tricky sleeping in the fridge.

  278. 278
    Starlight says:

    You’re hilarious, mister! Me sleeping in the fridge…. though not a bad idea for when there’s a heat wave. Hmm, first I need to find some Alice in Wonderland pills for effective shrinkage and growth afterwards.

  279. 279
    Escoffier says:

    Absent specific, actionable items in terms of approach, behavior, communication advising guys simply to “develop Inner Game” is total BS. I think one very important thing is that for men, confidence flows from success and success flows from correct techniques. There is no way to short circuit that process and jump straight to confidence. I think most men are not capable of that amount of self-delusion to “feel confident” if there life experience provides no basis for it.
    Re: this, esp. the bolded part. What’s ironic or odd or whatever is that, those who make a moral dichotomy between “inner game”(good) and “outer game” (bad) are often the first to say that irrational or unjustified or misplaced self-confidence is also bad, that is morally bad, and also a turn-off.

    But what is “inner game” in the absence of genuine achievement if not “irrational self-confidence”? Roissy counsels “faking it til you make it.” Just act confident even if you have no outward reason to be. Women will love it, he promises men, and many men say that, indeed, it does work. But other women object. It’s fake, manipulative, etc.

    Yet sometimes those same women will advocate “inner game” in isolation from its more tangible manifestations. Curious and inconsistent.

  280. 280
    Obsidian says:

    @Esco:
    What kismet! My upcoming post on the morrow addresses precisely your points above; stay tuned, I think you’ll like it!

    O.

  281. 281
    Spawny Get says:

    @Starlight
    How tall are you?
    If we can’t find you a big enough fridge, perhaps we just need to plane you down a bit? We can use anaesthetic, it doesn’t have to hurt (much). Perhaps a vertebra or two? Simples!

    Just a thought.

  282. 282
    Morpheus says:

    Yet sometimes those same women will advocate “inner game” in isolation from its more tangible manifestations. Curious and inconsistent.

    If nothing else, some women, are consistently inconsistent. Best I can tell, some women must view “inner game” as some sort of “it” factor disconnected from any sort of specific behaviors.

    The thing is this. Some would argue that young men who are “unsuccessful” with women simply are losers who must have some sort of glaring social maladjustment. This isn’t true. Badger and I have discussed this at length, and I suspect both you and ADBG will agree with me here. There is a non-trivial percentage of men who are basically normal, decent-looking, “good guys” who socialize just fine with groups of men and have plenty of male friends, yet have little to no success in approaching women, getting dates, generating attraction, recognizing attraction, and getting past a 2nd or 3rd date. Why is that??? Is it because they LACK “Inner Game”? Or is it because they probably need to change some very specific outward behaviors and ways of communicating to women?

    What I find bizarre is that anyone who has a MBA would know the tremendous amount of practicing and rehearsal that goes into job interviews. In a sense, they are very scripted. You try to anticipate the questions and have canned answers that you can deliver yet sound free-flowing. No one in their right mind would suggest showing up to Booz Allen or McKinsey and just winging it based on your “Professional Inner Game”. Any school career office worth anything will have mock interview sessions where you are analyzed and suggestions are made to change outward behaviors and tactics and communication. Same in the corporate world. I’ve been part of training for meeting facilitation and we learned specific tactics and communication methods for effectively facilitating a meeting. It seems odd to me that anyone with presumably a high IQ couldn’t draw the connection between that type of preparation, scripting, and outward tactics and communication and the same concept applied to meeting and interacting with women.

    Now over time, that sort of conscious planning can be internalized to some degree. That can vary from guy to guy.

  283. 283

    […] The “Men Go Their Own Way” Mystique Well, for one thing, I say all this as a Black Man, seeing all this from what I refer to as Ground Zero in the ongoing Sexual Politics Wars – Black America. For the past few decades, Black Men have been the shock troops in that war, arguably millions of them “going Ghost” in that time. As I’ve noted in a previous article, it is not at all unusual to pass through entire Black zones of a given city, and NOT see Black Men aged 30-49 in any appreciable numbers, if at all. Many will attempt to attribute this to mass incarceration of Black Men, or high homicide rates of same, and to be sure, they have played a role; but in a time when both are dropping, and, as we’ll see below, Black male cohorts outside of those commonly associated with jail and murder are “ghost” as well, something else has to account for the whys and wherefores as to why so many Brothas are MIA. MGTOWism, explains it very, very well. […]

  284. 284
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    They are consistent to what they want to believe. Women and people in general do not always hold allegiance to the truth but to whatever they feel to be true.
    I see Mystery’s breakdown as a supposed example of the failures of focusing on Outer Game as opposed to Inner Game. There is no issue with that, unless you then jump from there to the assumption that Outer Game has no utility. Obviously Mystery was quite successful with women, despite having little Inner Game.
    This is not a difficult criticism to make. It is exceedingly obvious and I would expect anyone not ideologically motivated to notice that more or less immediately.

    You should always distrust people who are unable to separate ethics from utility, or make the assumption that what is beneficial almost always is ethical. Especially since such people are also prone to invent reasons to create moral justifications for obvious civilizational inequities. The beta guy who cannot get laid is not only bad with women, because of social defect, he is IMMORAL and men are in fact bad people for associating with him!

    The fear, of course, is that anyone with an active personality that is effective at manipulation, might succeed in manipulating you, so it becomes very uncomfortable. I can recall several points throughout my college career where I could tell the people in my fraternity exactly how they would react, exactly what they were feeling and thinking, and the reasons why. It freaked the hell out of them, especially since I was not a very attractive guy at the time (and still aint a looker tbh)

    Same story with my fiancé, although she has gotten to the point that she likes that I know more or less exactly what’s on her mind. Why not?

    Much better that you are only passive, that way you cannot test boundaries. For example, to relate to your job interviewing, if I just tell people to go to school and don’t teach them manipulation, why then they can’t manipulate me, and simply can only act by making themselves objectively superior to me, which is a win for me. And if it isn’t a win for them, who cares?

  285. 285
    Badpainter says:

    So would inner game be to women the analogue of what natural beauty is to men?

  286. 286
    Jimmy says:

    @Morpheus

    Badger and I have discussed this at length, and I suspect both you and ADBG will agree with me here. There is a non-trivial percentage of men who are basically normal, decent-looking, “good guys” who socialize just fine with groups of men and have plenty of male friends, yet have little to no success in approaching women, getting dates, generating attraction, recognizing attraction, and getting past a 2nd or 3rd date. Why is that??? Is it because they LACK “Inner Game”? Or is it because they probably need to change some very specific outward behaviors and ways of communicating to women?

    Amen, this is something I’ve been preaching for a long time.

    Now granted, there are guys out there who have serious physical, mental, & social issues, and no amount of game is going to help them until they get those problems in order first… but when you’re looking at the population of guys who aren’t successful with women, that group is a very small insignificent minority.

    I’ve always believed the illustration you painted above of the active, social, successful guy who just can’t seem to find the final piece of the puzzle (attracting women) is the silent majority of guys out there trying to learn game. Perfect illustration of me 5 years ago. And for a lot of these guys, “learning game” has nothing to do Mystery Method or PUA stuff (God knows that stuff isn’t my style at all), it’s just paying closer attention to what works in their social circles and referencing some stuff they’ve read online to get a better scouting report & playbook like how Peyton Manning or Tom Brady would approach a football game (that was how I did it, at least).

    Critics don’t wants to talk about those guys because they don’t fit into their agenda and world view. They’d rather focus on dudes in weird hats and sociopaths, because it makes it easier to make sweeping generalizations. Similar to how hardcore racists don’t want to recognize the large percentage of hard working, middle class minorities out there, because it doesn’t fit into their agenda and world view. They’d rather focus on the thugs & criminals and try to paint the entire group as being that way.

  287. 287
    Jimmy says:

    @Escoffier

    I think one very important thing is that for men, confidence flows from success and success flows from correct techniques. There is no way to short circuit that process and jump straight to confidence. I think most men are not capable of that amount of self-delusion to “feel confident” if there life experience provides no basis for it.

    Absolutely.

    One of my buddies from HS played football at Stanford when Jim Harbaugh took over as the coach there. At the time, that team was just godawful… but with those same players combined with Harbaugh’s good preparation, scouting, & playcalling, they started to get some big wins. Once they started winning consistently, you could clearly see how the team’s psyche had changed, and how much more confidence & swagger they had. Now they’re a national power.

    But could you imagine anyone saying “You didn’t need a good coach like Harbaugh… if you guys would’ve just believed in yourselves back then like you do now, you never would’ve been a bad team.”

  288. 288
    Jimmy says:

    Or for a more recent sports example, look at Auburn Football this year…

    A team that was godawful last year (last place and winless in its conference) and returned most of the same players…

    But this year Gus Malzahn comes in as head coach, completely scraps the old system, and implents a completely new one. They took some early lumps trying to figure things out (lost to LSU in September,& had a few ugly wins), but the more the team played in the new system, and as Malzahn continued make small tweaks to it, the team started improving exponentially every week.

    Eventually they were getting huge wins (Texas A&M, Alabama, Missouri), and now the team was playing with confidence & swagger, instead of just being a scrappy underdog. Now they expected to win. They were a “Team of Destiny.”

    But if you would’ve told them they were a team of destiny last year, or even back in September, they would’ve laughed at you. They didn’t expect to win back then, they knew they were going to have to work hard & play their best just to have a chance. They were successful because they built from the bottom up: They minimized their weaknesses, played to their strengths, experimented with new gameplans, continually learned, continually improved, and used their small successes to springboard to larger ones. And once they got to that point, the confidence grew and began to snowball.

    If they would’ve had just the confidence without the great coaching at the beginning, they wouldn’t have gone anywhere, and that fake confidence would’ve vanished pretty quick when they got knocked on their ass.

    In a nutshell, I think that’s a microcosm for the psyche of most guys. You could easily relate it to learning game, or taking on any other difficult task.

  289. 289
    Morpheus says:

    Great football examples, Jimmy.

  290. 290
    Flavius Walker says:

    MGTOW is not a behavior modification program for women–it is a way for men to maintain their piece of mind and regain their dignity in our gynocentrc society. Have said that, MGTOW WILL in fact have an impact on female behavior, just not an immediate impact. MGTOW is about ATTRITION, starving the system, on an interpersonal level and a broader societal level. With regard to the interpersonal, it’s easy for a woman in her 20′s or even 30′s to poo-poo MGTOW as a bunch of “losers” or “creepers.” However, as a woman ages, and her prospects for fun, adventure and advancement begin to fade, she becomes more reflective–this is an inevitable fact of life for women. Add to this reality that a good portion of the wealth that a woman in her later years is able to enjoy has its origins in her attachment to a productive male earlier in life–a male that will increasingly be nonexistent in many of these women’s lives. The societal dividends of MGTOW, a relatively new cultural phenomenon, require patience, but will inevitably manifest in time.

  291. 291

    The primary difference in PUAs you see on RooshV and MGTOW forums like GoingYourOwnWay is less about perception of how feminism is altering female behavior, but more what should the response be. PUAs see the confusion that feminism has brought to female mate selection criteria and seek to take advantage of it. MGTOWs think that dating in this toxic environment is about “stupid games, and stupid prizes”. Otherwise, both have taken the Red Pill and see the world as how it it’s become.

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>