Monogamous marriage not only masked the gap between 'alpha' and 'beta' men, but also masked the gap between attractiveness of women before and after their Wile E. By seducing women with the myth that a promiscuous single life after the age of 35 is a worthy goal, many women in their late 30s are left to find that they command far less male attention than women just a decade younger than them.
So how did the state of affairs manage to get so bad? Surely 'feminists' are not so powerful? It would be inaccurate to deduce that misandrists were capable of creating this state of affairs on their own, despite their vigor and skill in sidestepping both the US Constitution and voter scrutiny.
Chivalry has existed in most human cultures for many centuries, and is seen in literature from all major civilizations. Chivalry greatly increased a man's prospects of marriage, but the reasons for this have been forgotten. Prior to the modern era, securing a young woman's hand in marriage usually involved going through her parents.
The approval of the girl's father was a non-negotiable channel in the process. If a young man could show the girl's parents that he would place her on a pedestal, they could be convinced to sanction the union. Whether such men are religious and called 'social conservatives', or effete leftists and called 'girlie men', they are effectively the same , and the term 'White Knights' can apply to the entire group.
Their form of chivalry when exposed to 'feminist' histrionics results in these men harming other men at the behest of women who will never be attracted to them. This is why we see peculiar agreement between supposedly opposed 'social conservatives' and 'feminists' whenever the craving to punish men arises.
No woman feels attraction for a needy man. The average woman is not obsessively plotting new schemes to denigrate and swindle men, she merely wants to side with whoever is winning which presently is the side of misandry. But pedestalizing men actually carry out many dirty deeds against other men in the hopes of receiving a pat on the head from 'feminists'.
Hence, the hierarchy of misandric zeal is thus: For reasons described earlier, even a declaration that many men are bigger contributors to misandry than the average woman will not deter 'feminists' from their Pavlovian tendency to call articles such as this one 'misogynist'.
What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why. No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission. To be duped into believing that a side-issue like 'gay marriage' is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates by creating incentives for divorce divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays , is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon.
Aren't conservatives the people who are supposed to grasp that incentives drive behavior? At this point, readers may be wondering "If things are this bad, why don't we hear anything about it? Indeed, this is a valid question, and the answer lies within the fundamentals of male psychology. Most beta men would rather die than be called a 'loser' by women alpha men, of course, know better than to take this at face value.
White Knights also join in the chorus of shaming other men since they blunderously believe that this is a pathway to the satiation of their lust. So an unfairly ruined man is faced with the prospect of being shamed by women and a large cohort of men if he protests about the injustice, and this keeps him suffering in silence, leading to an early death. We have millions of fine young men willing to die on the battlefield to defend the values enshrined in the US Constitution, but we don't see protests of even divorced men against the shamefully unconstitutional treatment they have received.
Alpha men have no incentive beyond altruism to act as they benefit from the current climate, and thus my altruism will be limited to putting forth these ideas. In this age of Web 2. Instead, all that exists are Men's Rights Authors MRAs that run a few websites and exchange information on their blogs.
Hence, there will be no real Men's Rights Movement in the near future. The misandry bubble will instead be punctured through the sum of millions of individual market forces.
The Faultline of Civilization: These two legal areas are a the treatment of paternity rights, and b the treatment of due process in rape accusations. The human brain is wired to value the well-being of women far higher than that of men for reasons that were once valid, but no longer are today , which is why extending due process to a man falsely accused of rape is not of particular interest to people who otherwise value due process.
Similarly, there is little resistance to 'feminist' laws that have stripped away all types of paternity rights from fathers. The father is not seen as valuable nor as worthy of rights, as we have seen above. These two areas of law are precisely where our society will decide if it ascends or declines. All other political sideshows, like immigration, race relations, and even terrorism are simply not as important as none of those can destroy an entire society the way these laws can.
Ceilings and Floors of Glass: If these outcomes are the results of the actions or choices of men who suffer from them, then is that not the same reason that determines who rises above the 'glass ceiling'? The inability of misandrists to address these realities in good faith tells us something but not everything about the irrational sense of entitlement they have.
Let me dispense of this myth, in the process of which we will see why it is profitable and seductive for them to broadcast this bogus belief. It is true that women, on average, earn less per year than men do. It is also true that year-olds earn less, on average, than year-olds.
Why is the latter not an example of age discrimination, while the former is seized upon as an example of gender discrimination? That a nun congregation pays a recession-proof salary to someone as a 'Director of Corporate Social Responsibility' is itself an example of a pampered existence, and I was unaware that convents were now advancing secular Marxist beliefs. Market forces would correct such mispricings in female compensation, if they actually existed.
But they do not, and those who claim that they do are not just advertising an extreme economic illiteracy, but are quite happy to make similarly illiterate women angry about an injustice that does not exist. The 'Mancession' and the 'Sheconomy': I would be the first to be happy if the economic success of women were solely on the basis of pure merit.
For many of them, it is. But far too much has been the result of not market forces or meritocracy, but political graft and ideology-driven corruption. In the recent recession and ongoing jobless recovery, the male unemployment rate continues to be much higher than the female unemployment rate.
If this was simply due to market forces, that would be fine. The leftist Obama administration was more than eager to comply, and a forcible transfer of wealth was enacted, even though it may not have been the best deployment of money for the economy. Maria Shriver, a woman who has the most fortunate of lives from the vast wealth earned first by her grandfather and then by her husband, recently published 'A Woman's Nation: The Shriver Report', consisting of gloating about how women were now outperforming men economically.
The entire research report is full of all the standard bogus feminist myths and flawed statistics, as thoroughly debunked here , as well as the outright sexism of statements like 'women are better managers' imagine a man saying the reverse.
As of today, the male unemployment rate is worse than the female unemployment rate by an unprecedented chasm. The 'mancession' continues as the US transitions to a 'sheconomy', and among the millions of unemployed men, some owe prohibitive levels of 'child support' despite not being the ones wanting to deprive their children of a two-parent household, landing in prison for lack of funds. Beyond the tyranny of this, it also costs a lot of taxpayer money to jail a growing pool of unemployed men.
Clearly, moving more and more men out of a tax-generating capacity and into a tax-consuming capacity is certainly going to do two-fold damage to governmental budgets.
The next time you hear someone say that 'the US has the largest prison population in the world', be sure to mention that many of these men merely lost their jobs, and were divorced against their will. The women, in the meantime, are having a blast. While public sector vs. Has the productivity of the typical government employee risen so much more than that of the private worker, that the government employee is now paid twice as much?
Are taxpayers receiving value for their money? The vast majority of social security taxes are paid by men, but are collected by women due to women living 7 years longer than men on average. It may be 'natural' for women to require more healthcare, since they are the ones who give birth.
But it was also 'natural' for men to finance this for only their wives, not for the broader community of women. The healthcare profession also employs an immense number of women, and not just in value-added roles such as nursing, but even in administrative and bureaucratic positions. In fact, virtually all government spending except for defense and infrastructure, from Medicare to Obamacare to welfare to public sector jobs for women to the expansion of the prison population, is either a net transfer of wealth from men to women, or a byproduct of the destruction of Marriage 1.
In either case, 'feminism' is the culprit. This Cato Institute chart of Federal Government spending click to enlarge shows how non-defense expenditures have steadily risen since The decline in defense spending, far from being a 'peace dividend' repatriated back to taxpayers, was used to fund more social programs.
No one can seriously claim that the American public receives better non-defense governance in than in despite the higher price, and as discussed earlier, most of this increase is a direct or indirect result of 'feminism'. When men are severed from their children with no right to obstruct divorce, when they are excluded from the labor market not by market forces but rather by social engineering, and when they learn that the society they once believed in and in some cases joined the military to protect, has no respect for their aspirations, these men have no reason to sustain such a society.
The Contract Between the Sexes: A single man does not require much in order to survive. Most single men could eke out an adequate existence by working for two months out of the year. The reason that a man might work hard to earn much more than he needs for himself is to attract a wife amidst a competitive field, finance a home and a couple of children, and ultimately achieve status as a pillar of the community.
Young men who exhibited high economic potential and favorable compatibility with the social fabric would impress a girl's parents effectively enough to win her hand in marriage. The Four Sirens changed this, which enabled women to pursue alpha males despite the mathematical improbability of marrying one, while totally ignoring beta males.
Beta males who were told to follow a responsible, productive life of conformity found that they were swindled. Men who excelled under the societal rules of just two decades ago are often left totally betrayed by the rules of today, and results in them refusing to sustain a society heavily dependent on their productivity and ingenuity.
To see what happens when the role of the husband and father is devalued, and the state steps in as a replacement, look no further than the African American community.
The auto industry moved jobs out of Detroit long before , so the decline cannot be attributed to just industrial migration, and cities like Baltimore, Oakland, Cleveland, and Philadelphia are in scarcely better shape. For those who believe that this cannot happen in white communities, have a look at the white underclass in Britain. Additionally, people seem to have forgotten that the physical safety of society, particularly of women, is entirely dependent on ratio of 'aggressor' men to 'protector' men staying below a certain critical threshold.
As more men get shut out of the labor market, crime becomes an alternative. Even highly educated men who feel betrayed can lash out, and just about every shooting spree and every recent terrorist attempt in the West was by men who were educated and had good career prospects, but were unloved. More men will simply lose interest in being rescuers, and this includes policemen who may also feel mistreated by the prevailing misandry. Safety is like air - it is only noticed when it is gone.
Women have a tremendous amount to lose by creating a lot of indifferent men. Patriarchy works because it induces men and women to cooperate under their complementary strengths. It is no secret that single motherhood is heavily subsidized, but it is less understood that single spinsterhood is also heavily subsidized through a variety of unsustainable and unreciprocated means.
So exactly what has society received from this population of women who are the most privileged class of humans ever to have lived? Now, let me be clear; I believe a woman should get to decide how many children she bears, or even whether or not to have any children at all.
However, a childless old woman should not then be able to extract resources from the children of other women. Fair is fair, and the obligation of working-age people to support the elderly should not be socialized in order to subsidize women who chose not to reproduce.
Let us take a hypothetical example of three year-old single women, one who is an urban lefto-'feminist', one who is a rural conservative, and one who is a devout Muslim. The following table charts the parallel timelines of their lives as their ages progress in tandem, with realistic estimates of typical life events.
When people talk about falling birth rates in the West, they often fail to account for the additional gap caused by having children at age 23 vs. As the table shows, a 1: Consider, also, that we are already 20 years into this year process, so each of these women are 40 years old today. This world map click to enlarge shows how many children under the age of 15 existed in the major countries of the world in i.
While developing countries are seeing their fertility rates converge to Western levels, the births already seal certain realities. Lefto-'feminists' will be outbred and replaced very quickly, not by the conservatives that they hate, but by other cultures antithetical to 'feminism'. If they thought having obligations to a husband was such an awful prospect, wait until they have obligations to the husband-substitute state. The Fabric of Humanity Will Tear. Humans like ourselves have been around for about , years, and earlier hominids similar to us for another million years before that.
For the first Females are the scarcer reproductive resource, since the number of babies that can be produced does not fall even if most men die, but it does fall for each woman that dies humans did not live much past age in the past, as mentioned earlier. For this reason, the human brain continued the evolutionary hardwiring of our ancestors, placing female well-being at a premium while males remain expendable.
Since funneling any and all resources to women closely correlated with the survival of children, both men and women evolved to see this status quo as normal. The Female Imperative FI was the human imperative. As human society progressed, priorities adjusted. Secondly, as humans moved away from agriculture into a knowledge-based economy, the number of children desired fell, and almost all high and middle-income countries have birth rates lower than 2 as of today, with many women producing zero children.
Thirdly, it has become evident that humans are now the first species to produce something more than just offspring; humans now produce technology. As a result, the former direct correlation between funneling resources to women and the survival of children, which was true for Yet, our hardwired brains have not adapted to this very recent transformation, and perhaps cannot adapt.
Women are programmed to extract resources endlessly, and most men are programmed to oblige. For this once-valid but now obsolete biological reason, society still unquestioningly funnels the vast majority of resources to women. But instead of reaching children, this money now finds its way into consumer products geared towards women, and a shadow state designed to transfer all costs and consequences away from women. Most people consider our existing society to be normal, but they have failed to observe how diverting money to women is now obsolete.
In the 21st century, there is no reason for any resource distribution, if there must be one at all, to be distributed in any manner other than Go to any department store or mall. Yet, they occupy valuable shelf space, which is evidence that those products do sell in volume.
Look around in any prosperous country, and we see products geared towards women, paid for by money that society diverted to women. From department store products, to the proliferation of take-out restaurants, to mortgage interest, to a court system rigged to subsidize female hypergamy, all represent the end product of resources funneled to women, for a function women have greatly scaled back.
This is the greatest resource misallocation ever, and such malinvestment always results in a correction as the bubble pops. This is not to suggest that we should go back to birth rates of 12, for that is neither desirable nor necessary. The bigger picture here is that a major aspect of the human psyche is quite obsolete, with men and women both culpable. When this situation corrects, it will be the most disruptive event humanity has ever faced.
Some call this a variant of the 'Technological Singularity', which will happen much later than more like , but even prominent thinkers steer clear of any mention of the obvious correction in gender-tilted resource flows that will occur.
The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation. We earlier examined how the Four Sirens of Feminism unexpectedly combined and provided women with choices they never could have dreamed of before. Some women made positive contributions to society, but quite a few let misandry and unrestrained greed consume them, and have caused the disastrous situation we presently see.
Technology always causes disruption in the status quo, always creating new winners and losers with each wave. It is 'The Misandry Bubble', because the forces that will ensure the demise of the present mistreatment of men are already on the horizon. So allow me to introduce the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation as a coalescence of many of the forces we have discussed, which will shred the present, unsustainable hierarchal order by Learning the truth about how the female mind works is a precious and transcendant body of knowledge for any man.
Won't they be condemned to live a life of frustration, humiliation, and near-slavery as second class citizens? For a number of reasons, Internet pornography is substantially more addictive to the male brain than the VHS cassette or 'Skinimax' content of the s. When yet another generation of technology diffuses into the market, the implications will be profound enough to tear the current sexual market asunder. This site has written in the past about how haptic, motion sensing, and graphical technologies would elevate video games to the premier form of entertainment by A substantial portion of the male population will drift into addiction to virtual sex without even realizing it.
The brains of these men will warp to the extent that they can no longer muster any libido for the majority of real women. This will cause a massive devaluation in the sexual market value of most women, resulting in 8s being treated like 5s, and year-old women unable to attract the interest of even year-old men. Coyote moment for women will move a few years ahead, and the alphas with Game competence will find an even easier field of desperate women to enjoy.
Another technology making advancements in Japan is that of lifelike female robots. Such bans will not be possible, of course, as VR sex technologies are inseparable from broader video game and home theater technologies. Their attempts to lobby for such bans will be instructive, however. Another positive ramification of advanced adult entertainment technologies is that women will have to sharpen the sole remaining attribute which technology cannot substitute - the capacity to make a man feel loved.
Modern women will be forced to reacquaint themselves with this ancient concept in order to generate a competitive advantage. The common theme is that market forces across the world eventually find a way around legislative fences constructed in any one country: Aside from the higher birthrates of Muslims living in the same Western cities that 'feminists' reside in, an Achilles heel of leftists in general and misandrists in particular is their unwillingess to confront other cultures that actually do place restrictions on women.
In Britain, Islamic courts are now in operation, deciding cases through Sharia principles. British divorce laws are even more misandric than US divorce laws, and so many British men, in desperation, are turning to Sharia courts in order to avoid the ruin that British law would inflict on them. The Islamic courts are more than happy to accomodate these men, and 'feminists' dare not protest too loudly.
By driving British men to Sharia courts, misandry is beautifully self-defeating. The irony is that the group that was our enemy in the crisis of the prior decade are now de-facto allies in the crisis of this decade. I do not say this simply because I am a Muslim myself. While America continues to attract the greatest merit and volume of legal immigrants, almost every American man who relocates to Asia or Latin America gives a glowing testimonial about the quality of his new life.
A man who leaves to a more male-friendly country and marries a local woman is effectively cutting off a total of three parasites in the US - the state that received his taxes, the potential wife who would take his livelihood, and the industries he is required to spend money on wedding, diamond, real estate, divorce attorney.
The misandrists who project their pathology outward by calling such men 'misogynists' are curiously troubled that these same men are leaving the US. Shouldn't 'feminists' be happy if 'misogynists' are leaving? We thus see yet another example of 'feminists' seeking to steal from men while not providing them any benefit in return. The more unfair a place becomes, the more we see talented people go elsewhere. When word of US divorce laws becomes common in India and China, this might even deter some future taxpayers from immigrating to America, which is yet another reason the government is losing money to misandry.
While most customers of Indian fertility clinics are couples, there have been quite a few single men opting to create their own biological babies this way. The poor surrogate mother in India earns more than she could earn in 10 years in her prior vocation of construction or housecleaning.
It is a win-win for everyone involved, except for the Western woman who was priced out of the market for marriage to this man. Medical tourism also prices the US healthcare system out of contention for certain procedures , and the US healthcare system employs a large number of women, particularly in administrative and bureaucratic roles that pay them over twice what they could make in the private sector.
Such women will experience what male manufacturing workers did a generation earlier, despite the increasinglly expensive government bubble that has kept these women's inflated salaries safe for so long. So as we can see, the forces of globalization are far bigger than those propping up the current lop-sided status quo.
Earlier passages have highlighted how even the most stridently egomaniacal 'feminist' is heavily dependent on male endeavors. I will repeat again that there will never, ever be a successful human society where men have no incentive to aspire to the full maximum of their productive and entrepreneurial capabilities. The contract between the sexes has been broken in urban America although is still in some effect in rural America.
The 'progressive' income tax scale in the US was levied under the assumption that men who could earn 10 times more than they needed for themselves would always do so, for their families.
Less tax revenue not just means fewer subsidies for single mothers and government jobs for women, but less money for law enforcement.
Less tax revenue also means fewer police officers, and fewer court resources through which to imprison men. Misandry is thus mathematically impossible to finance for any extended period of time. See the gangster capitalism that dominates contemporary Russia. For those who dispute the Four Horsemen I'd like to see their track record of predictions to compare against my own , women had their Four Sirens, and now the pendulum has to swing at the same amplitude in the other direction.
Keep the Four Horsemen in mind throughout this decade, and remember what you read here on the first day of As we leave a decade where the prime threat to US safety and prosperity was Islamic terrorism and enter a decade where the prime threat is misandry, anyone concerned with any of the following topics should take heed: I could list even more reasons to care, but the point is clear.
But now that these ideas have become more mainstream, I can include a simple poll on the subject of whether we are indeed in a Misandry Bubble poll closed after 60 days. I am just an observer, and will not become an activist of any sort, although, as described earlier, being an 'inactivist' in the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi is also powerful.
As a Futurist, I have to predict things before they become obvious to everyone else. So here, on the first day of the 'x' decade, I am unveiling the article that will spawn a thousand other articles. As mentioned at the top, what you have just finished reading is the equivalent of someone in predicting the entire War on Terror in vivid detail.
I know a bubble when I see one, and misandry is the premier one of this age. Bet against my predictions at your own risk. It remains to be seen which society can create economic prosperity while still making sure both genders are treated well, and the US is currently not on the right path in this regard.
Deflate it will, but it could be a turbulent hurricane. Only rural America can guide the rest of the nation into a more peaceful transition. Britain, however, may be beyond rescue.
I want to extend my thanks to Instapundit, Dr. The Sixteen Commandments of Game. No Country for Burly Men. The Medicalization of Maleness. The Feminist War on Everything Civilized. F Roger Devlin articles. Just because I linked to a particular blog does NOT mean that I endorse all of the other views of that author. Are 'feminists' all willing to be responsible for all of the extremism that any other feminist utters note that I have provided links to 'feminists' openly calling for slavery, castration, and murder of men without proving him guilty of anything?
Eumaios January 01, at The cultural portion is a bit iffy I know what you were getting at but cable programming makes what looks like a loss of manliness in entertainment a bit muddier. Perhaps the difference is in how we "officially" respond to what feminists call "hyper-masculinity" in entertainment, in terms of reviews, education and public discourse.
Jack Donovan January 01, at A very comprehensive summation. One part I thought you didn't cover as fully as needed although I may have missed it is the link between feminist enabled single motherhood, and the rise in violent crime and subsequent quadrupling of the level of incarceration since in your country. IMO they are very closely linked, and yet another way in which the fruits and cost of feminism and leftist values are crippling to even the largest of economies.
I have long thought the feminist agenda was counterproductive to the long term best interests of women Jilly January 01, at The Futurist January 01, at I second the comment regarding a request for expanding on the topic of feminist-enabled single motherhood. It's not strictly the same thing, given the current bubble popping largely due to technology e.
But the past is instructive nevertheless. Thucydides January 01, at You covered nearly every point I could think of I am a bit afraid of what will happen when the bubble actually pops, but it's going to be an interesting time to be sure Natural One January 01, at It benefits some men and some women, but not society as a whole.
Gamists enable and encourage bad women i. Game is deceptive and manipulative social engineering, and inherently unethical. Game does not work against the forces that are disintegrating Western civilization, it work WITH them. Game is an adaptive response to the bad behavior of women. Instead of leading by example and refusing to enable bad women, gamists work around the clock to satisfy their every whim and approve of their behavior.
How is any of this good for society? For someone who's supposedly worried about society, you seem awfully quick to align yourself with forces that are seeking to destroy it. The whole reason why these men claim they fear cuckoldry more than rape is because they seek to trivialize rape.
The difference between cuckoldry and rape is like the difference between a small cut and an amputated limb. They're not even in the same league.
So what happens when you claim cuckoldry is worse than rape? You communicate that rape isn't that big of a deal. This is perfectly consistent with the way so-called men's rights activists frequently downplay and even justify rape.
If you learn the truth according to gamists, is that supposed to be a cause for celebration? That's too bad, since gamists have the habit of scraping the bottom of the barrel and ignoring warning signs when looking for women. Being a womanizing douchebag is not some grand achievement requiring an exceptional mind, or even an above average mind. Try science and engineering if you want something that requires intelligence.
If that isn't too "beta" for you. Won't they be condemned to live a life of frustration, humiliation, and occasional thoughts of suicide? Thankfully, these poor wretches--". Do you have some particular reason for constantly attacking and insulting non-gamists, or is this just typical PUA hubris that is based on exactly nothing? Also, do you think that next time when you write a puff piece for game you could simply say so instead of wasting people's time by pretending to be concerned about society?
Thanks for taking the time to put together the arguments, the links, and the graphics. Much food for thought. Al Fin January 01, at I have a problem with at least one of your examples of 80s masculinity.
An episode of The Cosby Show I saw was one of the worst examples of feminist claptrap I have ever seen, with Mrs Cosby humiliating a young man for expecting a traditional wife, and Cosby himself joining in - a total "mangina".
Look at the picture above - he looks like a complete wimp. And for modern examples, what about the lead male in the "Crank" films? His girlfriend is a very feminine, to the point of absurdity. The new Star Trek is noteworthy for its lack of political correctness.
All the main characters are men, presented positively. The only noteworthy female character is the black female Uhura? The actress herself is clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and was not chosen for her brains. As to new characters, what about House MD? He is a total male chauvinist, regularly demeans and ignores his female boss, and averred at one point that, "if it were not for political correctness, no-one would choose a female doctor", or some such remark.
I don't doubt that times are tough for men, but cherrypicking bad examples does not prove a case. I could also point to the reported regular failure of movies with "strong female leads". I know there are bad examples, and I'm an Australian so maybe things are different here, but in my observation it is still very much a "phallocentric" world and I have been amazed at the recent TV advertisements, in which women are very much back in the kitchen.
I have no problem with that, just commenting. Oh, and don't forget adult cartoons like Family Guy. The man behind that is supposed to be a left liberal, but the cartoon is full of very funny misogyny. David January 01, at I'm gonna have to re-read this several times over the next week to let it all sink in.
Krauser January 01, at On the Cosby Show, the father of five was still respected by all the children, who cared deeply about his approval. The wife, while bossy, still had a positive relationship with the husband, rather than one where the husband was inferior. Huxtable was a 'pillar of the community' by any measure.
Given the state of African Americans today which Bill Cosby himself is presently condemning , this is an extremely good example. We can split hairs and say the Macho Man suffered from 'oneitis' and the A-Team from 'whiteknighting' too, but there is no comparison between the 80s and today.
You have proved my pre-emptive description of 'feminists' and 'whiteknights' superbly. And trying to rationalize cuckoldry which IS worse than rape for a man shows that you are full of projection. You have nothing substantial to say. You are imagining things. I did not rationalize or defend it in any way, I merely said that it isn't anywhere near as bad as rape. Any man who claims cuckoldry is worse than rape is either insane, ignorant or purposefully downplaying rape.
Yes, I see your point. But I remember the episode I refer to well, and I remember thinking that if anything was going to turn young black men off getting married, it was the message conveyed by the withering contempt for the young black man who had hoped to find a wife who would treat him with traditional respect, deference and kindness. No young black man with any balls would be attracted to the prospect held out by the attitudes of Dr and Mrs Huxtable.
I think that was the single most offensive, feminist load of drivel I have ever seen. Yes, I know of that episode. There were times when the daughters were scolded for the equivalent too, however. But that aside, the father was still a 'pillar of the community' in the show. The grandfather was treated well by the grandmother, etc.
Other white 80s family sitcoms also had the father command some patriarchal authority, even if some jokes were at his expense.
Today, even the children do not respect the father, in television shows, while a single mother is glorified. I'm unclear on how your "Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation" are supposed to lead to a reversal in the trend towards misandry.
To the extent that men become enlightened about the situation they are facing, they will be less inclined to support women financially, less inclined to spend time with them and pursue them, less inclined to cede them power. But I fail to see how the bubble pops etc. Calling it a bubble suggests it is unsustainable.
So point out the point of failure. What actually forces women to change their behaviour, bearing in mind their predigious powers of denial? If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result, and feminists are insane, won't they just try harder as they fail harder? If it doesn't work, do more. So the response to disengagement by men will be to blame men for their fear of committment, selfishness, laziness, withdrawal from reality etc.
I can see a subculture of women who rediscover the joys of baking cookies in their quest to make themselves more appealing to the dwindling number of suitable husbands, but it this likely to impact the dominant culture? ThousandmileMargin January 01, at Your behavior is already described in the section 'Socialcons, WhiteKnights, and Girlie-Men', as well as my observation about overuse of the word 'misogynist'.
You are demonstrating that exactly, rather than disproving this. Hence, you are yet to refute anything in the article. I dare you to go to The Spearhead and make this claim about cuckoldry. If you still haven't figured out that propagating anti-male hogwash in order to appease feminists is NOT going to get you laid, you are beyond hopeless.
There will be too few tax dollars to prop up feminism, and too few men willing to marry. Technologies will devalue what women have to offer, and hence their expectations have to come down greatly.
Cultures that are more gender normative will outbreed the feminists. The 'if it doesn't work, do more' can't continue when the tax revenue needed to do it is not forthcoming. I would suggest another article to spell this out.
I hear this argument frequently - I'm not convinced. It assumes rational actors and a self-correcting system. I'm particularly sceptical about the idea that there will be too few tax dollars to prop up feminism the welfare state. For example, I'm saving and investing as much as I can so I can expat.
So in the medium term, I'm working harder and am more focused than I otherwise would be. I may be socially disengaged, but I'm not economically disengaged. So cynicism on my part had not led to any drop in tax revenue. Besides, how much of government spending comes from tax vs borrowing or QE? When was the last time the USA balanced a budget?
Also, I don't think men lose the desire to make money if there isn't a woman in their life. The desire for money, power, success and status evolved in order to help men compete for women, but it is now a drive in its own right. There's a lot to be said for being wealthy even if you never touch another girl in your life - it lets you go places and do things. At a more basic level, I was poor in my student days and would never want to go back to eating 2-minute noodles.
Earning a decent income allows a level of comfort and independance that will be become ever more important as I get older. I have to think about providing for myself in retirement. So I don't think it is accurate to say that men without the prospect of wives become demotivated.
The threat of punitive taxation may do this - but if the goverment lets you keep most of your earnings, men will still be motivated to earn without women.
Women are only interested in the winners. They may settle for a Beta at 35, but that doesn't change the culture amongst women under 30 and the men who pursue them. Do you forsee a change in the behaviour of Alpha men as a result of your four trends?
Or will Alphas just keep playing the field as before? Or are these trends among men that aren't in the race anyway? Your expatriation itself does a huge amount to starve the system, as described in the article. US wedding, real estate, divorce lawyer industries are all starved, so you are cutting off 3 parasites at once. On the income issue, you are thinking in absolutes.
Many men working very hard are doing so to prop up their mortgages, for homes larger than they ever wanted, but the wife insisted on. It is socially normal for the man to kill himself to buy an unusually large house.
But if the government does this, feminism is what gets thrown under the bus subsidies for single mothers, public sector bogus jobs, etc. The US already is in debt to the tune of 75 trillion. There is a recession. Taxes are already at the point where raising them further will result in a decrease in revenue, due to the fact of disencouraging further effort from taxpayers. Your country has just signed up to expensive universal health care, further subsidising females at the cost to males. Your country does not educate or motivate males.
Those males are worse than non productive, they become violent, costing huge amounts in increased policing and incarceration. This is further contributed to by single motherhood, which is tacitly encouraged, and costs even further. Your countries stimulus package was wasted on nonproductive sectors of employment. Many other men will be in the same boat. This is only some of the things leading to massive inefficiency in the US economy, and even a country of the greatness and magnitude of the US can not continue like this for much longer I'd say you've confused "manly" with "masculine" Take Cosby for instance, his Feminist wife rules their home.
This is a great shame to his masculinity which is almost non-existent. For a more thorough treatise on masculinity, please check out: But much of our article has a lot of great information. I will try to look it over and post the relevant parts in our "Exposing Feminism" section on our forum over at manhood Mcsmiley Smileyface January 01, at The Futurist "Your behavior is already described in the section 'Socialcons, WhiteKnights, and Girlie-Men', as well as my observation about overuse of the word 'misogynist'.
This is rather unlikely since I am neither a social conservative, a white knight nor a girly man. Perhaps you are just confused. And I say gamists are misogynists because that's just what they are.
I have already explained why they take the opposite view. It has nothing to do with cuckoldry truthfully being worse than rape, or even equal to it. I'm not anti-male, I'm not appeasing feminists and I have no interest in getting laid. I'm also struggling to understand how I could possibly get laid by anonymously posting comments on a website.
Could you explain how that's supposed to work? The amount of money and time and resources lost due to cuckoldry far outweighs anything lost due to rape. It's simple to do the equation. In most cases, women do not even become pregnant from rape, therefore very little is lost other than psychological damage.
In cuckoldry, huge amounts of time, money as well as psychological damage is incurred. Cuckoldry could be compared to being raped at least times, over the course of years, with the guarantee that you are going to have the rapists baby and raise it using your own time and money. I agree that PUAs are scum and actually just as bad as the women they pursue.
This is where I take issue with this article. Game is definitely not the answer - the answer is to ignore women completely. Do not give them attention, do not game them, do not pursue them in any way. Sex is worthless and should be treated as such.
Using game and PUA tactics is just adapting to women's current behavior instead of changing that behavior. If we want real lasting change in women's behavior, we must ignore them completely, similar to a strike. A woman's main goal in life is to achieve attention, and if you starve them of attention, they will do anything to get it - including changing their behavior in a direction that is more stable and in line with what the author has described - womanly behavior that will lead to a stable civilization.
Natural One January 02, at And it's that psychological damage that makes rape infinitely more devastating than cuckoldry. To equate rape with cuckoldry is nothing more than an attempt to trivialize and downplay it. That's all it is. Why do you say that rape is more psychologically damaging than cuckoldry? That doesn't make sense to me This "bleh" faggot seems to think that cuckoldry does not carry psychological damage. Sounds like a cuckold who is telling himself the feminist 'non-biological parenting is also important' tripe.
Joshua January 02, at Natural One "Why do you say that rape is more psychologically damaging than cuckoldry? Joshua "This "bleh" faggot seems to think that cuckoldry does not carry psychological damage. Uh, I'm not married? And not everyone cares whether their child is biologically theirs, or even of the same ethnicity.
I've never seen that as important or meaningful. Yes, I am familiar with roissy's beta antics. Too bad the game community - or even just roissy's sector of it - has never managed to decide what beta actually means.
There's no commonly accepted definition for it, so to say that someone is a beta is absolutely meaningless. The threat of cuckholdry will keep men from committing to women or getting married. Not male virginity and chastity but female chastity. Many men practiced polygamy and had mistresses. Women didn't seem to mind. Even in today's Western feminist-dominated society the exact same thing goes on.
A few PUA's get all the women and most rarely get laid. Women don't mind sharing. The reason for this is that women always know they're the mother of their children. Men never know if they're the biological father or not. But if they really believe that garbage then they are living in a fantasy world. Men will generally not want to commit to women if they can't guarantee their children's paternity. A normal decent, responsible man will break his back for his own children.
He'll work a job he doesn't particularly like, buy a home he wouldn't otherwise buy, and pay taxes he wouldn't otherwise be paying. But he just won't do that for some other man's kids.
Children are a huge investment that offer few rewards. You just can't expect men to start taking care of random children from other men. Yeah January 02, at January 02, at I'm going to read this, and the sources cited, a few more times before I comment more. Thanks for the work. Pat January 02, at I am a capitalist.
I worked for what I have. There is no feeling of entitlement on my part because I am a woman, but an increase in my earnings because I am more capable. I have never received any special privilege, nor do I expect it be given to an unworthy person.
If all she can do is cook and fuck, she should be compensated accordingly. You as well man. Nameis January 02, at WTF January 02, at However, I doubt if anything significant will happen until we, as a people, are knocked to our knees and have to rebuild from the ground up.
Chuck le [The feminist movement died, one millisecond after the first impact. Chuck Pelto January 02, at Chuck le [Woman, n. White women went along with affirmative action -- even though it hurt white men -- because they wanted the advantage in admissions, hiring, and contracting that affirmative action gave them.
Splitting white males from white females in that manner was a "divide and conquer" strategy that has paid off well for leftists and feminists. Al Fin January 02, at I am a historiann who wrote two theses on women in history, one on the seventeenth and one on the nineteenth century. This is in spite of the last 40 years, which have seen a vast revolution as you aptly describe. Many men and women in the past were servants and spent a lifetime unmarried but possibly not chaste.
North America, Australia with the possibility of economic success even on a humble scale made it possible for almost everyone to marry. As a woman of 75 I see us going backward to the very divided class society of the late middle ages in Europe. Arabel January 02, at Or are you totally ignorant of modern 'feminine culture', a la Madonna, Britney Spears and the other literal 'fing idiots' out there? Chuck le [For a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit. Wonderful and comprehensive, since it's everything I've come to believe having been rung out thru the system a time or two for no fault of my own.
Sometimes it does take a foreigner to see things clearly, and woe be unto a foreigner that entangles himself with secular marriage. Man and boy should be directed to read these revelations and if need be, tatooed on their privates so as to avoid being victimized by the gov't and officers of the court that must find the source of masculine productivity to first disparage and then exploit and ultimately destroy.
I'm 52, divorced, no kids, and I've given up on the entire "racket," which is what marriage has become. I was fortunate, however, to get out of my marriage scot free, and I was the one who initiated it, so that puts me into two enviable minorities, I guess.
I meet so many profoundly miserable married men, and I used to be one of them, so I'll never go back. If we want to change this, the first step IMO would be to break the legal monopoly. Lawyers make the laws, lawyers judge the cases, lawyers prosecute the citizenry, and we're forced to hire one to defend ourselves. How is that not a racket? How is that not a monopoly? The key difference between assent and inference is that assent is unconditional and inference is conditional, i.
For Newman, inference described a proposition that is intrinsically dependent on other propositions. For instance, the statement, "Therefore, the car is red," is clearly dependent on antecedent propositions for its meaning and those propositions would need to be disclosed before one could meaningfully assent. This is an inferential statement as opposed to "The car in front of the house is red," which is an assertion that can be assented to because it can stand on its own.
There are three types of inferences: Formal inference is logic in the deductive sense. For Newman, logic is indeed extremely useful especially in science and in society.
However, its real-world applicability is very limited in that its usefulness is circumscribed by its initial assumptions. For Newman, to make logic work, human thought has to be trimmed to very specific and narrow meanings such that logical statements then lose real world applicability.
Informal inference is akin to calculus. In informal inference one reaches a conclusion by considering the accumulation of converging antecedent probabilities. Natural inference is when the individual, in a simple and whole process, grasps the antecedent conditions and conclusions instantaneously.
For instance, if one sees smoke, one may instantly infer the presence of fire. Natural inference, in Newman's view, is related to experience or innate ability. The second part of the Grammar is where Newman introduces the concept of the Illative Sense, which is for Newman the intellectual counterpart of Aristotle 's phronesis.
It is the faculty of the human mind that closes the logic-gap in concrete situations and thus allowing for assent. However, Newman maintained that in concrete life formal incontrovertible proof in favour of a decision is not possible—the best one can achieve is converging probabilities in favour of a conclusion. For Newman it is impossible to attain the concrete existential equivalent of logical certainty.
Thus, to close that gap between converging probabilities and full assent, one needs the aid of the Illative Sense to attain certitude in specific situations. Newman recognised that there are dangers associated with using the Illative Sense.
In using it one may become vulnerable to superstition and eccentricity. But superstition is held in check, Newman suggests, by the moral element in the act of faith, that is, holiness, obedience, and the sense of duty will safeguard faith from becoming mere superstition.
Obedience means 'to do ones duty' and 'to obey the command of elders or superiors or authorities whose authority is normally not questioned'.
Men live together in society in harmony with each other. There are so many different types of men that want to live in peace. This means, each must give up something for the sake of others and for the sake of the common good.
Free obedience papers, essays, and research papers. The Perils of Obedience, by Stanley Milgram - If a person of authority ordered you inflict a 15 to volt electrical shock on another innocent human being, would you follow your direct orders. Free Essay: Obedience is the process by which individuals comply with the instructions given by an authority figure not to be confused with conformity. There.
Essay on Obedience Words | 4 Pages. Obedience is the process by which individuals comply with the instructions given by an authority figure not to . Obedience to Authority essaysA person obeys another person because he is influenced by a stronger power, whether it being wealth, intellect, experience, or a higher position. Human beings have been obeying and disobeying since the beginning. They have been thought that obedience is a virtue and diso.