Charles Murray addresses critics of his book “Coming Apart: The State of a Politically Acceptable Bell Curve” who complain that he didn’t focus enough on economic factors driving the disintegration of lower class whites. He presents data in this Open Borders Journal article that shows working class men have been dropping out of the job market even during good times.
It is true that unionized jobs at the major manufacturers provided generous wages in 1960. But they didn’t drive the overall wage level in the working class. In the 1960 census, the mean annual earnings of white males ages 30 to 49 who were in working-class occupations (expressed in 2010 dollars) was $33,302. In 2010, the parallel figure from the Current Population Survey was $36,966—more than $3,000 higher than the 1960 mean, using the identical definition of working-class occupations.
This occurred despite the decline of private-sector unions, globalization, and all the other changes in the labor market. What’s more, this figure doesn’t include additional income from the Earned Income Tax Credit, a benefit now enjoyed by those making the low end of working-class wages.
If the pay level in 1960 represented a family wage, there was still a family wage in 2010. And yet, just 48% of working-class whites ages 30 to 49 were married in 2010, down from 84% in 1960.
I don’t have an argument with his economic numbers, although I think he probably understates the role automation, immigration and skill prerequisite inflation have had in the gutting of working class men’s job prospects and ability to merge seamlessly into functional family formation.
Murray is closer to the truth than a lot of his critics are when he blames cultural factors and bad policy for the dysfunction of the left side of the bell curve. Here he is on that:
If changes in the labor market don’t explain the development of the new lower class, what does? My own explanation is no secret. In my 1984 book “Losing Ground,” I put the blame on our growing welfare state and the perverse incentives that it created. I also have argued that the increasing economic independence of women, who flooded into the labor market in the 1970s and 1980s, played an important role.
Simplifying somewhat, here’s my reading of the relevant causes: Whether because of support from the state or earned income, women became much better able to support a child without a husband over the period of 1960 to 2010. As women needed men less, the social status that working-class men enjoyed if they supported families began to disappear. The sexual revolution exacerbated the situation, making it easy for [ed: alpha] men to get sex without bothering to get married. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that male fecklessness bloomed, especially in the working class.
Right-o! The Chateau has been beating a similar drum for quite a while now, so it’s nice to hear a quasi-mainstream pundit embrace the same sordid maxims bolted to the oaken doors, Luther-like, at Chez Heartiste. But then, just when you think the ugly truth has seeped into every corpuscle of the respectable class, a huge backpedal slams the brakes on enlightenment.
The prerequisite for any eventual policy solution consists of a simple cultural change: It must once again be taken for granted that a male in the prime of life who isn’t even looking for work is behaving badly. There can be exceptions for those who are genuinely unable to work or are house husbands. But reasonably healthy working-age males who aren’t working or even looking for work, who live off their girlfriends, families or the state, must once again be openly regarded by their fellow citizens as lazy, irresponsible and unmanly. Whatever their social class, they are, for want of a better word, bums.
To bring about this cultural change, we must change the language that we use whenever the topic of feckless men comes up. Don’t call them “demoralized.” Call them whatever derogatory word you prefer. Equally important: Start treating the men who aren’t feckless with respect. Recognize that the guy who works on your lawn every week is morally superior in this regard to your neighbor’s college-educated son who won’t take a “demeaning” job. Be willing to say so.
This sounds like a familiar refrain. Say it with me, folks. It’s time for men to…. wait for it…. hold…. hoooooold….. HOOOOOOOOLLD…..
Man up!
Bill Bennett would be proud.
How absolutely brave… brave, I say!… of Murray to apportion most of the blame for the current state of affairs to men. Or, in this case, white men. This will surely win him lots of enemies amongst the feminists and social elites whose cocktail party invitations he haughtily throws in the trash in righteous, principled fury.
Look, I have no problem with shaming men who don’t want to work, or who can’t muster the motivation to at least try to find work. It’s not like the existence of self-destructive male bums is unheard of. But Murray DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS his proposed shaming solution with his explanation for the bleak male employment scenario just a few paragraphs above in the very same article! Once more:
Simplifying somewhat, here’s my reading of the relevant causes: Whether because of support from the state or earned income, women became much better able to support a child without a husband over the period of 1960 to 2010. As women needed men less, the social status that working-class men enjoyed if they supported families began to disappear.
Where, pray tell, in that explanation does it follow that men are primarily to blame for their poor employment numbers? Doesn’t the exact opposite conclusion — that women’s mate choices are to blame for men dropping out — seem more obvious? Shouldn’t it be the case then, that single working women on the fast track to single motherhood and alpha cock carouseling are the ones deserving of shame?
Murray, like most pundits, is deathly afraid of confronting female hypergamy. For to confront it in full, with all the consequences that entails, would mean arousing the ire of every dim-witted, aggressively stupid feminist, mangina and talk show snarktard with a sympathetic media at its instant disposal. To confront female hypergamy would be to confront the very foundational rationale for the sexual revolution and the fifty year program to equalize social and economic outcomes between men and women.
I have spent time in SWPL-land and in proleville, and I can tell you the forces shaping our ongoing dysgenia are spearheaded by women’s sexual market choices. It isn’t a conscious campaign of male disenfranchisement; it’s an emergent one. Men, like men always do, are simply reacting to the conditions set on the ground by women.
Murray sees this, but doesn’t run with it. Women’s improved employment numbers, education and earning power (some of it contributed by government largesse) has had the effect of SHRINKING their acceptable dating pool. Material resources and occupational status are one way women judge men’s mate worthiness (not the only way, but the one way that viscerally matters to most beta males), and the innate female sexual disposition to be attracted — ANIMALISTICALLY ATTRACTED — to men with higher status and more resources than themselves necessarily means that financially independent women and government-assisted women are going to find fewer men in their social milieu attractive.
Result? Men slowly discover that the effort to win women’s attention via employment is not rewarding them the way it did for their dads and granddads, and that now only herculean efforts to make considerably more than women will give them an edge in the mating market. The male fecklessness that Murray lambasts is actually a rational male response to a changing sexual market where the rewards of female sexuality go disproportionately to charming, aloof jerks over meager beta providers.
And make no mistake, the jerks are exactly to whom women, particularly lower class women, are dispensing their favors. When earning power and employment as a male attractiveness criteria has been subconsciously debased by women who don’t need male provisions, then women will shift their sexual adaptation algorithm to sexy cads for their thrills and romantic chills.
Knowing this, it makes more sense to shame women equally as vigorously as one shames men for social and family breakdown. In fact, as I have argued, if a prosperous, civilized, self-reliant society is your goal it actually makes sense to shame women MORE than men, because women are the gatekeepers of sex, and as such their combined sexual marketplace decisions carry more import in the direction the culture takes.
So to Murray, I would say this: rewrite your program of shaming so that it better reflects reality, the VERY REALITY you yourself identified. In descending order of lethality, your death star powered shaming ray should designate the following targets:
Shame women who actively try to have bastard hellion spawn out of wedlock. “Oh, the child won’t have a father around?” BACKTURN
Shame women with kids from multiple fathers. “Half sister?” BACKTURN
Shame women who get fat and thus make themselves unattractive to men and artificially tighten the dating market. “Those jeans are a little small on you.” BACKTURN
Shame women who date jerks. “Oh, so the guy you’re seeing has no job and gave you Skittles for your birthday?” BACKTURN
Shame sluts. “Nice tramp stamp. Just the thing to make a guy want to marry you.” BACKTURN
Shame eat, pray, love SWPL divorcees. “Was it worth destroying your kids’ emotional health for a romp with Alfonso?” BACKTURN
Shame Samantha types whose weekly highlight is Sunday brunch mimosas. “In real life, Samantha dies alone with her cats nibbling on her flesh for sustenance.” BACKTURN
Shame aging single cougars. “You should really consider settling for a nice, reliable man. You’re not getting any younger, you know.” BACKTURN
Shame “empowered”, overeducated women who wave their degrees around men like it matters. “You’ve just made it harder on yourself to find love.” BACKTURN
Only after you’ve shamed the above basket cases should you move on to shaming jobless, video gaming and porn watching men.
Although it would go a long way toward fixing the problem with lower class men and women’s reluctance to marry them, I don’t see women being persuaded out of the job market any time soon. Never mind the feminists, the whole consumerist regime depends on women working and spending their discretionary cash on useless baubles. The culture will sooner devolve into a dystopian hellscape than women will quit their HR jobs en masse and give up a portion of their frivolous spendthrift ways.
Not to say something can’t be done. We can start with stopping the encouragement and advocacy of women’s economic advancement. There’s no need to kick women out of the cubicle. Just stop affirmative action for women, stop special programs for women (Title IX), stop pushing them down career paths, and stop making them feel like victims of an imaginary patriarchy. Little steps like this will add up in a big way.
Oh, and ruthlessly mock feminist ideology whenever you get the chance. Bonus: it’s fun for the whole family!
Murray ends on this note:
It is condescending to treat people who have less education or money as less morally accountable than we are. We should stop making excuses for them that we wouldn’t make for ourselves. Respect those who deserve respect, and look down on those who deserve looking down on.
I’m a big proponent of non-judgmentalism, but as a metaphysical riddle, isn’t disrespect going to necessarily disproportionately fall on the losers in life? Do these losers really “deserve” their disrespect? There is plenty of evidence that positive character traits like ambition, conscientiousness, diligence, future time orientation, lawfulness and yes, even morality, are genetically influenced and that some people have more of these beneficial genes than other people. The working class likely has a higher concentration of deleterious genes (deleterious in the context of a modern economy) than does the SWPL class.
As a practical matter, though, Murray is right. You can’t have a well-oiled, functioning, K-selected society if you’re not willing to call out the losers for their dumb choices because you think they can’t help themselves, they were born that way. This is really the grand bargain that the fortunate have to make with their moral worldview. “Do as I say, even if you can’t do it as easily as I do.”
It is an uphill battle, given the sheer level of denial in the population – after all every one wants to be nice to women.
On IWD our P.M. tweeted no less than a dozen times praising the possessors of a Vagina – as he usually only tweets a couple of times a day you can see he is desparate for the votes of feckless, fickle women – one of the reasons why extending the franchise to women is not desirable. I tweeted back each time – without repetition, pointing out, generally, that far from praising women they need some shaming. As a result of my efforts I was met with such responses by the proles as ‘sicko’ and ‘why don’t you crawl somewhere and die’ and this from people who seem to be of the anarchist persuasion and who regard themselves as enlightened.
Looking back, although I have dated a few divorcees, I have, perhaps instinctively, never dated aborters, divorce institutors or feckless single mums. I suspect it may be a while before the establishment, that is to say the militant wing of the Evangelical Church of Cultural Marxism catch on to the consequences of female pedestalisation. The rise of the player, the unwed mum, and the cougar going EPL is not unconnected. Good for the cad, but bad for children and bad for society.
LikeLike
That’s some pretty F’ed up logic. He says women don’t need men, but then blames men for lazing about, using women and impregnating them!
The obvious conclusion should be that women don’t need working men, but they want men who laze about, use them and impregnate them on someone else’s dime. Well, then let’s give them what they want!
This shame business is no good. It’s too uptight and male-centric because women have no shame. They only understand pleasure or pain. We should only attempt to curb women who are acting against our sexual needs, like fat women.
Let’s all bid goodbye to America while riding a wave of poon.
LikeLike
Women definitely respond to shame. Why do you think the word “slut” is so campaigned against by women, and similarly bastard, unwed mother, etc.?
LikeLike
Good observation, Doug1.
And I see that once more we must recognize that Rush Limbaugh remains at the leading edge of cultural evolution – evidenced by his recent slut-shaming of young Fluke SlutWalker.
LikeLike
Ever notice how women come to the defense of other women being shamed, even when they don’t know said women… and don’t particularly like the behavior, usually shaming it themselves?
LikeLike
Check out this analysis of the same article, and my rather acidic comments.
LikeLike
Acidic comments? Ooh, you rebel, you!
I hope they were dripping with scrumptious sarcasm.
Hey! You’d make a good mrm – by 2056, you’ll have “worked your way up to disdainful umbrage.”
I’m sure Chazz’s umpteen BOOKS will crumble after a few blog posts whittle him down to size.
LikeLike
Now THAT was an acidic comment.
Firepower schools again.
LikeLike
His comments actually were pretty great. You might do better to take on the white knights going after him who apparently think it’s still 1954 and women are innocent daisies.
LikeLike
Jeff Y: read your comments in the other blog.
*fist bump*
It’s always amusing to hit beta-tards, women and deluded individuals with limited critical thinking capacity with facts and watch them flounder with nothing in response but emotion and “nuh uh…it’s not like that…nuh uh”.
Beyond the scientific evidence of female hypergamy, any man that’s banging hot women consistently knows it exists merely because it’s what provides us the opportunity to do so.
When intelligent men refute it’s existence it’s really a defense mechanism; a rationalization. For others it’s above their capacity to understand- and what is not understood is feared and rejected in lieu of a more simple deluded answer.
Female hypergamy is a sound argument that helps explain the reasons of the growing lower class.
Sorry Murray, shaming Enrique for trimming the hedges and blowing the leaves around isn’t a solution. He won’t be able hear you anyway with the ear muffs…heh.
A much better tactic would be to shame his hot little 17yr old latina sister that’s ditching class to get stoned and gargle Julio the drug dealer’s balls.
Hypergamy! Sweet! bang bang bang bang your hot 19yr daughter bang bang bang her room mate bang bang bang give her skittles bang bang bang…
LikeLike
***In fact, as I have argued, if a prosperous, civilized, self-reliant society is your goal it actually makes sense to shame women MORE than men, because women are the gatekeepers of sex, and as such their combined sexual marketplace decisions carry more import in the direction the culture takes.***
But but but, The Handmaiden’s Tale…Dystopia…
Interesting take, I don’t know if telling slackers to man up and get a job is quite the reach to whatever the SWPL set is bitching about men manning up, which seems to be “find the bitches from S&tC pretty”.
It’s enough to make me vote for ron paul, end all this welfare shit and let people adjust to that reality.
LikeLike
Shaming men is useless. They are more rational and self-conscious about their flaws. Even a complete omega loser can turn into a shining alpha given the right circumstances and incentives. But he will gladly keep jerking off in his momma’s basement and will fiercely resist an international shaming coalition if he senses that there’s nothing for him to gain (ie love and complete devotion from a hot virginal young lady).
Women are the lemmings gender, herd creatures who comply more easily to social pressure. Shaming tends to work on them just fine.
LikeLike
“To bring about this cultural change, we must change the language that we use whenever the topic of feckless men comes up. Don’t call them “demoralized.” Call them whatever derogatory word you prefer. …”
The word Mr. Murry is looking for is:
NIGGERS.
(but he can’t use it cause it would destroy his entire foundation of white supremacy)
LikeLike
Yeah…30K doesnt get you as far today as it did in 1960. You and Murry ignore the rising cost of living and the vast increase in debt. Fail.
The problems of white working class men can be traced back to their rich white masters–even if you have to go through diversity/feminism/globalization to get there. The buck stops with the old rich white guys as it always does.
Think about it who is more of a threat to your power–who will gun for your job more–an under qualified woman/minority or a white guy?
LikeLike
Those were adjusted, 2010 constant dollars. 30k in 1960 was like making 300k now.
LikeLike
Exactly… my parents bought a decent house in Nassau Country for $14K back then. If a man was making $10K back then he was solid middle- to just-a-tad-below-upper-middle class.
LikeLike
Duh, Nassau County… Long Island.
LikeLike
Yes adjusted dollars. But 1) the official inflation rate understates it (oil, food and housing costs are exclused), and 2) housing prices and hence costs for those starting out have risen vastly higher than inflation, as has gasoline and heating oil, etc.
LikeLike
Ever heard of inflation adjustment?
LikeLike
Ever heard about differences between state adjusted CPI and realistic estimates? 30K (from official inflation estimates for 40 years) means rather 60K (or even more).
LikeLike
Nope, it means that in the 60s, they were making 10k or so 1960 dollars.
When adjusted, this 10k becomes 33k in 2010 dollars.
Someone can weigh in? I don’t know exactly who’s the dumbass in here.
LikeLike
Official onflation estimates do not reflect real situation. Take for example shadowstats.com .
I suppose Murray took official estimates. Try to recalculate the numbers with inflation 30-50 % higher than estimated and 50 years interval. Of course, it is wild estimate.
I was trying to say that 10k then does not mean 33k now.
LikeLike
Official inflation guesstimates are only useful when comparing one year with the next few years, they are horribly misleading when stretched across 50-year spans.
Tyrone gets it.
Here’s another example of systemic inflation guesstimate error: For instance, in 1960 only millionaires could afford to buy a computer and it was one with less than the power of the proverbial pocket calculator of today. Today, the ubiquitous desktop has vastly more power than all the computers of 1960 put together – so we’re all like mega-billionaires today, right? (Yeah, sure.)
LikeLike
Here’s some science on the matter of women’s choices that bolster the point of this post. It’s from Salon (!) and an article called “The Sexual Cost of Female Success,” which Murray must have seen and willfully ignored.
Here’s the money quote for anyone who doesn’t want to follow the link:
“Theoretically, if sex is valuable to her then she’s not going to trade it away to just some crummy man, and when we look at the data, we find that those sub-optimal men report a lot more partners than men who actually have a lot going for them.
http://www.salon.com/2011/01/19/young_women_romance/
LikeLike
Sub-optimal men according to the researcher’s criteria.
Unless those researchers were one of the women in the study I’d ignore their comments about “optimal” and “sub-optimal”.
The research is probably flawed along the lines of only telling us about the $ value of the sub-optimal men, not whether they had access to cool friends, cool experiences, cool hangouts or cool modes of transportation.
Oh yes,
and if other women wanted them.
LikeLike
Ah, the rational actor theory! I think behaviorism explains women’s…ahem…behavior considerably better.
LikeLike
Skittles-optimal, that is.
LikeLike
So optimal in terms of provider status. Not in terms of thrills and chills and drama and excitement and gina tingling.
LikeLike
Simplifying somewhat, here’s my reading of the relevant causes: Whether because of support from the state or earned income, women became much better able to support a child without a husband over the period of 1960 to 2010. As women needed men less, the social status that working-class men enjoyed if they supported families began to disappear.
……….
Result? Men slowly discover that the effort to win women’s attention via employment is not rewarding them the way it did for their dads and granddads, and that now only herculean efforts to make considerably more than women will give them an edge in the mating market. The male fecklessness that Murray lambasts is actually a rational male response to a changing sexual market where the rewards of female sexuality go disproportionately to charming, aloof jerks over meager beta providers.
Well really, men should find employment not for women’s attention but for himself (and to support himself of course). Men and women should do things for themselves and not center everything on attracting the opposite sex. At least ideally.
LikeLike
What you fail to see is you my dear is women demoralize men when they are busting ass and see women sucking up to thugs who are the scum of society. I should know, I’ve been there. Women have a responsibility to ensure that doesn’t happen but they are not told that.
Not only doesn’t demoralize them, it desensitizes them and causes them to despise women. Do you not get it?
LikeLike
Should say does it demoralize them in the second paragraph.
LikeLike
How is complaining to a woman on a random forum is supposed to fix things?
Suck it up, thug it up and bang bitches. That’s all we’re supposed to do.
LikeLike
Yes, for himself and ONLY for himself. But that would mean he couldn’t support the bastard spawn of today’s single mothers, or have anything left over confiscated by the state for that purpose.
LikeLike
Women are the nest builders, they work so hard and buy such useless shit. Then they want to marry a guy, quit working and spend his shit on stuff he didn’t know he needed.
Men don’t need lots of useless items, except maybe fags. I’ve got lots of buddies that just work long enough to pay the rent on a small apartment they share, get food, internet and play video games when they aren’t hitting the local bars on weekends. They aren’t Don Juans, but bring home attractive enough girls for sex on occasion. The responsibilities are few and far between. Some of those girls even hang out and party and spend money on them.
Now tell me, why would any guy want to bust his ass anymore if he is comfortable in this situation?
LikeLike
Men and women should do things for themselves and not center everything on attracting the opposite sex.
So in other words, humans should completely change their biological urges, leaving aside what’s most natural for every species on the Earth — attracting a mate so they can reproduce.
This is the problem with feminists and feminism. They think people should be able to cast aside biological imperatives and become sterile, intellectual economic units living only for themselves. Perhaps next you’ll suggest that there would be less waste if human just stopped going to the bathroom or less need for food production if only people stopped eating.
I’m not sure whether to call your statement modern day Victorianism or Marxism, but whatever it is, no society built on either of those ideas ever lasted long or worked successfully. The entire human race is built on girls wanting to strut their stuff and boys chasing them so they can create the next generation. If you think you can change that — or that ought to be changed — good luck. If you succeed, next try getting the sun to come up at 6 p.m. It’ll be about as natural — and as logical.
LikeLike
Agreed that women en masse aren’t going to quit the job market anytime soon. But what advice would you give to an individual young woman who isn’t afraid to follow politically-incorrect advice? How much education, and what kind? What kind of job, if any?
LikeLike
The kind of job where you don’t have to rely on your looks to survive.
Because that’s a pretty easy target for any thug-life person who wants to throw you in debt in a hurry if you try to put some salt in his game.
LikeLike
The kind of job where you don’t have to rely on your looks to make a living.
Because it makes it real easy for a thug-life person to put you in debt if you try to put salt in his game, if that’s the kind of job you want to earn from.
LikeLike
The kind of job where you don’t have to rely on your looks to make a living.
Because it makes it real easy for a thug-life person to put you in debt if you try to put salt in his game, if that’s the kind of job you want to earn from.
LikeLike
Get a job where you won’t be competing (or even be perceived as competing) with men: elementary school teacher, nurse, paralegal, etc.
All of those are traditionally women’s occupations that will provide you with sufficient wherewithal to support yourself while you look for Mr. Right.
LikeLike
Exactly. But paralegals are whores.
LikeLike
Women smart enough to read blogs like this should go to a four year college but not incur massive amounts of debt to do so. But otherwise girls should go to the best school that they can get into. For many that will mean state universities, unless daddy’s got bucks. It makes no sense at all to go to a non ivy or ivy equivalent private university (e.g. Stanford) if it requires big loans to do so.
She should go to work after college with a goal of getting married to a guy about ten years older than her by the time she’s 24-25, and then have kids with him right away. Examples of non threatening entry jobs to most college educated and reasonably successful guys are elementary or middle school teaching (but don’t even think of teaching in a mostly black and or Hispanic urban school), nursing, paralegal, pharmaceutical rep (salesgirl to doctors), working in an HR department (yeah pretty useless but non threatening), etc. She should be looking for Mr. right in college among e.g. grad students or young faculty and definitely as soon as she graduates and moves to a big city for a college necessary job. Focusing on older guys gives her a better shot of snagging a lesser alpha who’s finally ready to commit, and thus will help her stay off the cock carousel.
If she only has two or three years of work experience, then restarting her career after her youngest kid is in preschool won’t involve nearly so much loss of momentum as it would if e.g. she waited until 10 years into her career and then took say five years off work. As well she might go back to Uni to get an MA in some career oriented field, restarting fresh completely with no prolonged career interruption issues at all.
LikeLike
A guy getting married to a girl of 24-25, when the girl does not have sterling qualifications, is looking to have his earnings taken from him.
That’s 7 years’ time she’s had to play musical cocks. And those choices of occupation are essentially “public relations” … meaning she gains valuable experience in telling lies.
“Focusing on older guys gives her a better shot of snagging a lesser alpha who’s finally ready to commit”
Even betas know that most marriages where one party has had “loads” of relationship “experience” result in divorce and asset theft.
I’m not sure the situation can be “fixed” for most of these people looking for a stable marriage, if all they want is a fallback guy after they have had their fun.
LikeLike
What does that mean, “experience in telling lies?” 24-25 is not too old to get married. In fact, in my family, my grandparents established a rule that said they would not attend the wedding of any woman who married before the age of 25. There was a post a while back about how people who get married young have a higher chance of divorce because they have more options at a younger age. For example, let’s say a woman gets married at 18. Then after 5 years of marital difficulties, she gets divorced because she is still a 23 year old with options. A woman who gets married at 25 would be less likely to get divorced after 5 years because she would be 30, and have fewer options than the 23 year old. Whether this is true or not, I think it makes a lot of sense.
LikeLike
If you think all that public relations/customer service/HR people do is give you great news, you have some growing up to do.
It’s not whether a person is young or old that determines whether their marriages last.
For the women, it is whether they’ve seen more pricks than a cactus farmer.
If they have, no man will be good enough for their overstretched (ego?) …
It’s not always about options: a woman who had lots of sex before marriage with many different people …
is very likely going to move on quickly when she questions the value of marriage.
LikeLike
Sounds very reasonable. Well, maybe I’m biased because I’ve done most of the things you’ve mentioned! My biggest mistake was accruing a huge amount of student debt 😦
The biggest decision I have yet to make is if/when to have kids. I really have no idea how a woman is supposed to make a “correct” decision. There are so many downsides to every option. But my general feeling coincides with yours – that it is better to start earlier rather than later.
LikeLike
I was five years into my career when I had a child at 28 (was a little behind the curve since I spent a year on my master’s and a year getting my ideal job). My career was stable and I felt prepared emotionally to be a mom and not too old physically to have the energy for it. Make no mistake about it, the first couple of years will WEAR YOU OUT! Nursing and teething and diapers oh my:) I certainly would have wanted children earlier, but other circumstances intervened. Its a personal decision, but I’d definitely advise before thirty.
LikeLike
Thanks for the advice. I’m 23 so I feel like I have a little bit of time to think about it, but not too much longer. Don’t want to push it much closer to 30 if I’m going to do it.
LikeLike
One more thing:) I’m a teacher and I have roughly 130 students a year. I remember worrying, is one baby going to match the satisfaction I get from helping 130 people? The answer was YES.
[heartiste: kinship uber alles.]
LikeLike
my advice–get at least a few years of work under your belt, saving as much as possible outside of paying off your loans-you’ll need it let me tell you. don’t quit work until you have a baby. having eaten the opportunity cost of having a job, have your next baby within 2 years. you’re home anyway so it makes sense to have the children you plan to have close together in order to maximize your flexibility. then if some emergency arises and you need to go back to work, your kids are more likely to be old enough not to need expensive day care.
all this should be done while exercising maximum frugality. but you’re home so there’s no need to eat out, buy work clothes, have 2 cars, etc.
just some thoughts from this superannuated mom.
LikeLike
@Opus – but isn’t the disintegration of Western society the MO of the cultural marxist?
LikeLike
thats some pretty deep thoughts, chica – does your husband KNOW you post on CH
LikeLike
Si. Duh.
LikeLike
You are 100% right. The destruction of the authority of the father and its links to tradition and family structure has been a priority for Marxists for more than a century. It is all in their books.
Get rid of pater familias and put the State in its place. An isolated individual is an easy prey.
LikeLike
This issue needs more publicity and explanation. Are many people even familiar with the term “female hypergamy”? I’m pretty sure this is the first place I’ve seen it, but I’m also pretty sure I’ve felt the pull of it. I’m understanding it as sort of relationship social climbing: being attracted to the “upgrade.” Is this hard-wired in all women? Is there an equivalent for men? Like anything, awareness is key. If people can reflect upon and understand their behavior, they have a much better chance of changing it.
There is this idea in the dating/relationship advice circuit that each time we meet someone new we are drawing in a better potential mate based on having a better idea of what we want as a result of our previous experiences. This may be giving women mixed signals. Men too. Instead of thinking that “the next one” will be a better match based on personality, it may be getting confused with thinking “the next one” should be richer or more beautiful than the previous one. Just a thought. And in America, especially, as its practially in our DNA to be constantly seeking a better life (the American Dream).
LikeLike
You should read this blog, it’s been talking about female hypergamy for years. The problem with hypergamy is that it is a never ending death spiral for 99% of women. The true alpha that they desire is not obtainable, although they don’t ever come to grips with this fact. And the true alpha will probably not be a very good husband or father. And as a result of this dichotomy of women having an extreme urge to fuck alphas and alphas having no desire to marry, you have a sea of 30+ washed up women riding the cock carousel until their mid 30’s hoping and praying to land and tie down an alpha. And while this is happenign, the poor provider betas are scratching their heads wondering why this whores won’t give them the time of day despite the face they have a good job, a good moral compass and want a family.
Take a look around Washington DC. IT’s a proverbial waste land of 30 something cougars all chasing the same 38 year old law partner hoping and praying that it is their vagina that he chooses. The problem: he won’t choose any one vagina, because he doesn’t have to, they give the sex away for free without the commitment.
If you want a really insightful post on this whole social collapse you should google Darlock’s blog and look for his post on Female Choice Addiction. It’s masterful description of modern day society and the fucked up ways of women.
LikeLike
Yeah, dalrock is a good CH complement.
LikeLike
Thanks for the suggestion 🙂
LikeLike
The easiest form of female hypergamy to observe everywhere
(and to counter the idea that women are not superficial):
Go into a mall, observe the boyfriend-girlfriend/husband-wife couples.
Near 100% will have the man taller than the woman.
End of lesson.
LikeLike
“King: Head must not be higher than mine!…When I sit, you sit. When I kneel, you kneel. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!” 🙂
LikeLike
There’s a reason God made the average male six inches taller than the average female.
LikeLike
The questions that you’re asking are CH 101.
Get back to the archives.
LikeLike
It is unfortunate that the powers that be do not want these issues (truths) to be discussed.
I explained the term to my mom through the examples of my brothers and their webs of deception… With the sister-in-law’s first oopsie pregnancy and soon to be sister-in-law closing in (hard) on a younger, promising provider through sexual manipulation. Mom grew quiet, face contemplative. A stab at her thoughts…
1. Wow – an actual term exists for a strategy I used myself (she accepted my father’s womanizing in exchange for shelter, children, and lifelong alpha cock);
2. Yelling “hypergamy!” at the faces of these women I am now forced to deal with and fight for the attention of my sons; &
3. I should not have pushed my daughter to be independent, her track thrown and time.. uh.. ticking…
LikeLike
This post might interest you:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/the-hypergamy-conspiracy/
LikeLike
thanks sir rational; i caught it the other day. good discussion in the comments.
LikeLike
The quasi “equivalent” for men is to be most attracted to the prettiest and sexually hottest looking women. Men usually want women of similar or somewhat lower (but not tons lower) social status and income. Well if his is high her having a lot lower income is just fine. Both men and women want her to somewhat look up to him.
The traditional and dictionary definition of female hypergamy limits it to status and money. Factors such as game (or playful psycho-social-sexual dominance) and looks (mostly height and fitness and looking easily dominant) are also part of female hypergamy, those Heartiste is the first I’ve seen who’s used hypergamy with that meaning, and is the one who introduced the term hypergamy to game communities probably back 1n 2007 or maybe early 2008, though everyone rapidly adopted it from here.
LikeLike
Thanks, all!
LikeLike
Actually, the male equivalent to female hypergamy is polygamy. As E. O. Wilson wrote in his book “Human Nature”, hypergamy and polygamy are complementary mating strategies, and that’s why most human societies are polygamous. To put it in layman’s terms, men want quantity, whereas women want quality. Both desires are basically irrational – only a tiny number of men can have a large harem, and only a tiny number of women can monopolize an elite quality man.
LikeLike
It’s sociologist speak for “girls want to marry up.” The term is unfamiliar with most people but they are very familiar with the concept.
LikeLike
Darlock’s explanation of it seemed to be fear of committing to a man and cutting oneself off from better matches.
LikeLike
Does the dumb wife know he put this on youtube?
Or is she just too stupid to care?
LikeLike
how many dudes have jizzed on her face (maybe in a car going 80MPH?) before this dude married her?
LikeLike
The woman he married is a stupid whore and yet he laughs.
LikeLike
I want to know how she calculated 58 minutes.
LikeLike
That’s what’s mind-boggling: High IQ beta nerds being intimidated by vacuous airhead dumb whores.
Game should be taught in school, instead of stupid theoretical physics.
LikeLike
They’re intimidated by the relational aggression and “never-give-up-even-if-I’m-wrong” female haggling attitude of always having the last word.
Plus their parents probably told them “girls are always nice, if you are having difficulty with them you need to fix yourself”.
Guys need to regularly learn to tell her: “You give this a try if you’re so smart(as it relates to questions with a numerical answer), but if you’re wrong you buy me dinner”.
That’ll stop the attitude right quick.
LikeLike
Which sex explored the moon in person?
LikeLike
How is it that women can earn 77% of what a man does, when they only produce 1% of the useful output that men do?
Gee, what a deal! I wish I could earn 77% for doing just 1% of the work!
LikeLike
who cares if she can do math can she cook and is she good in the sack
LikeLike
Thwack, I had tears in my eyes when I caught the look on the dude’s face at the one minute mark. Priceless.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why he’s laughing and posting this on YouTube, it just makes him look bad for marrying a horse-faced idiot.
LikeLike
this is what happens when women try to do math.
LikeLike
Obama voter
LikeLike
Uhhh…I guess you haven’t spent much time in rural red-states. This is a classic conservative couple if I ever saw one. (And I’ve seen hundreds…having grown up with them in one of those middle-America states.) She was a high-school cheerleader, he was a track star, they go to a mega church…blah blah blah.
LikeLike
Let me guess… and you were one of those goth girls who didn’t quite fit in, but took comfort in how smart, how above all those lemmings, you were… and wrote a lot of dark poetry and stuff.
LikeLike
hey, give us a break. adopting a goth persona, or in my day being in arista and the chess club, were the only ways to react to the ridiculous, fatuous, football-team-and-cheerleader-worshipping high school culture we had the misfortune to find ourselves in.
LikeLike
Point taken.
It was merely a reply, in coin, to let her know how bitter she sounded.
LikeLike
Nice try. I was going to youth group, leading Bible studies, and singing in choir like a good little lemming myself. While internally growing to despise it all for the empty shell it was. And watching my friends get married off because they wanted to have sex so badly (but couldn’t, outside of marriage) that they took the first option that came along (guys AND girls). Or got knocked up by their first boyfriend, and then married. Or just had premarital sex, and THEN got married, out of pure guilt.
They’re all just super happy now, let me tell you…
You’re right about the poetry, though. Fun times.
LikeLike
Don’t think it was “dark poetry”, though. More like…extravagantly romanticized and sentimental. Always about boys, boys, boys. Still is. Ha.
LikeLike
Happiness is overrated, darlin’. Even in the fly-over states.
LikeLike
It also amused me how she was utterly clueless about calculating how many car wheel revolutions it took to travel a mile — and that she thought that might somehow be relevant.
Ummmm, measure the circumference of the tire in decimal feet and divide that into the 5280 feet there are in a mile. The easiest way of measuring the circumference is to measure the diameter and multiplying it by Pi. Not rocket science. Instead it’s about 4th or 5th grade word problem math.
She wasn’t so dumb that she couldn’t have figured out the right answer if she thought of it in the right way. It was clear that for her MPH is simply a speed readout on a car’s speed gage, without having thought about what it definitionally means for a damn long time. Also her method of reasoning was so damn solipsistic. Her first go to was how many minutes it took her to run a mile now or when she’s really in shape. Not exactly logically cogent.
LikeLike
It would be hard to believe that she wasn’t performing shtick… from how long it takes her to run, in shape or no, to tire revolutions, well… that can’t be serious… it just… can’t.
LikeLike
Yes, she can.
I asked the women I work with the same 80 MPH question. Two got it right away, one had to think about it before she got it, and one said she had no idea how to figure that out because it was, “a guy kind of thing”.
Spend the day asking people the 80MPH question. You’ll be surprised how many people don’t understand basic ratios.
LikeLike
I can believe that some women aren’t going to put 2+2 together…
What I can’t believe are the Byzantine mental gyrations this girl in the video is going through… she’s making a Rube Goldberg machine look like a slinky.
That sort of obtuseness of thought is either an extremely clever shtick… or, if her husband knows what’s good for him, he’ll immediately cut up her credit cards and take her name off all bank accounts.
LikeLike
I think even Tina Fey would have trouble doing that kind of comedy so naturally. I really do think she is that dumb.
LikeLike
The horror comes into play when these are the people teaching your children.
A Bachelor’s in Education is one of the easiest degrees to earn.
Some of those people don’t even know what fractions are.
LikeLike
When no women worked, a man could support a family. When most women worked, it takes a man and a woman both working to support a family.
Why? The cost of living, especially housing, just got bid up in price. I’ve been the sole breadwinner in a family and it’s tough when every other family on the block has the wife working too. A household with a non-working mother takes a big hit in economic status although one could argue that the net cash improvement is hardly worth it when marginal income tax rates and costs of commuting and clothing etc is subtracted from the female’s paycheck.
LikeLike
Many women are working just to cover the cost of getting out of the house to work… and maybe a second vacation each year.
LikeLike
The wife’s efforts are better spent on raising good kids, cooking good meals, and serving as the social capital of a community by helping with community activities and charities.
The Old Style Germans had a phrase for it: Kinder, Küche, Kirche – children, kitchen, and church.
Now, for some apple tart!
LikeLike
Aber genau!
LikeLike
Most women are happier staying at home, especially if they have children to raise.
LikeLike
they gotta work to give money to niggazz like me keep dem bitchez satisfy an shit!
LikeLike
An’ dat sho’ nuff be a full time job, yasssah!
Oops, I dun used da word job… didn’t mean ta scares y’all… my bad, bro.
LikeLike
In the kind of relationship where you are the only person working, the wife does not appreciate you enough to work too.
You are compensating her dissatisfaction for being with you, by being her slave.
LikeLike
And I’m guessing you’re about 15 right? Let’s see PRAY(ing for one good fuck in 2012), I’ve been married to the same woman for 16 years and with her for 24+. I and I alone work outside the home. She raises my child, cleans my home and feeds me when I get home at night. I guess her dissatisfaction with me was evident last night when after kiddo went to bed she blew me, kissed me and left the room. No cuddling, no talking about her day, nothing but a warm, moist BJ and the rest I need to get back up and kick ass the next day. Yeah, dissatisfaction with me. Sounds more like you know you’ll never have the skills to make enough dough to keep your woman at home raising the kid(s) and making a house a home like they can and should be doing. And, oh yeah, she’s the one with the BA. I’m not even a college grad. Get a clue junior!
LikeLike
Good luck keeping your job, I hear companies make more money when they outsource and pay workers overseas less.
Means more money on the balance sheet and higher shares.
And remember that while you work for somebody else …
you also have to deal with all the politics and psychopaths there too, along with a much-reduced chance of actually making anything of yourself.
How’s your MBA without a first degree going?
LikeLike
Luck’s got nothing to do with it. Constantly ensuring your worth in an organization is where longevity comes into play. Doesn’t matter if you work for others or yourself you’re always going to deal with dbags, dumbasses and crazies. Being the entirety of my self worth isn’t based totally on fiat recompense I don’t have any issue with “making something of myself”. MBA notwithstanding you avoid the simple premise of my post. A woman staying at home taking care of me and my progeny while behaving like an actual WOMAN does not mean she’s “dissatisfied”. On the contrary, it proves that in this age you can still find yourself with a classicly defined relationship.
LikeLike
Without a productive degree you’re always going to be hustling on someone elses’ work.
Meaning, you’re going to be a kind of parasite.
LikeLike
I have a similar arrangement. It works well for me. I prefer it to my wife not being home and having all those career distractions and false hopes.
LikeLike
Let us also not forget the effects of “assortative mating” in which two highly-paid, highly-educated individuals marry each other. Could it be this has a lot to do with bidding up the price of housing in such locales where this practice is prevalent? Could it be that the flood of women into the workforce since the 1960s has made unemployment the intractable problem it became right about then–both in good times as well as bad?
LikeLike
The taxes have also gone up in a major major way since I started working full-time in 1970. Other than that, agree with you strongly.
LikeLike
Good point.
There are women who would like to stay at home to run the household, take care of the kids, etc., but it is simply economically unfeasible for many. Two incomes are normally needed if a family with kids wants to adequately materially provide for everyone. Whether the kids are adequately emotionally provided for is another story.
However, another important thing is that, while I would think most of the men on this blog would praise a woman for staying at home and practicing the “domestic arts” full time, many men think of a woman who expresses the wish to stay at home as lazy or merely looking for a man to work hard for her so that she can take it easy at home. There is definitely a shame that becomes attached to women who don’t work. I do think a lot of the blame lays with feminism – while I would think most current feminists have come around to thinking that a woman should be able to choose between staying at home and working, it seems like many men don’t consider staying at home as an option anymore – probably as a result of hearing too much initial pro-work feminist rhetoric, mixed with tough economic times.
Unrelated, but still interesting (From the San Francisco Chronicle):
Sex-Deprived Male Fruit Flies Turn to Alcohol, Research Shows
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/03/15/bloomberg_articlesM0XIZ10UQVI901-M0XR6.DTL#ixzz1pfYnf4sh
LikeLike
“many men think of a woman who expresses the wish to stay at home as lazy or merely looking for a man to work hard for her so that she can take it easy at home”
I was raised with the usual feminist dogma which included a lot of hinting around the notion that housewives were as lowly as traitors or slaves.
I determined that what I wanted was an equal partner, financially, intellectually, etc.
Then I grew up and realized women are never intellectual equals, never best friends, never great conversationalists or philosophers. When they are financially equal or greater, they often come with baggage that precludes them from being good mothers, and due to hypergamy they aren’t likely to respect you anyway. Or they work just long enough to get you hitched, then quit their jobs and get fat.
It was all a lie.
There is a reason men instinctively have recoiled from the old deal of supporting their stay at home wife. It’s that women have dropped their side of the bargain. Not only can marriage and kids be financially disastrous for a man, he rarely receives the traditional considerations in return for his hard work to support the family.
No longer does the wife cheerfully throw herself into the job of creating a great home and family with the same gusto a man attacks his career. No longer does she consider staying slim and pretty to be an assumed duty of any good wife. No longer does she dedicate tireless hours to developing child-rearing, cooking, and nurturing skills. No longer does she engage with the community as a volunteer, helping the local schools or churches and raising the family status.
No, she sits on her ass and lets machines or hired help do all of that work, while she scans for useless trinkets to waste more of her husband’s money on.
LikeLike
Alas, too true… it’s the Roseanna Barr Syndrome of (with the whiniest voice possible): “Hey… as long as the kids are still alive when he gets home, I’ve done my job!”
LikeLike
And females were the big audience for Roseanne Barr’s shtick.
Pop quiz: The sex-role reversal of the Roseanne show, one that depicts men dissing their traditionally admirable sex role behaviors and is watched mostly by men, is?
(Everybody who named Two and a Half Men flunked. It’s watched mostly by females.)
LikeLike
I don’t watch much sitcom stuff anymore, but I’ll guess Curb Your Enthusiasm.
LikeLike
I think it is now impossible for American women to “cheerfully” throw themselves into creating great homes (maybe southern Evangelical women are the exception). If a woman attempts to do so, she will hear outside voices telling her that “she isn’t living up to her potential,” that “she’ll never know where here career may have taken her.” She may stick it out at home, but there will always be those nagging voices making her doubt the course she took in her life. She will never be 100% happy.
Also, the modern stay at home wife does not have an adequate community of support. She may very well be the only stay at home wife on her street or even in her entire community. She needs other women in her life that are pursuing the same path. If not, she will feel isolated and even more in doubt of whether she is doing the right thing.
Young American women are also lacking adequate examples of femininity to look up to. While some women may be able to make up for this environmental lack through a strong natural nurturing tendency, most need these examples to follow. Young American women mimic celebrity behavior and consumption habits instead of learning from their mothers and grandmothers how to be the anchor of a family.
So I don’t blame American men (who want a domestically-oriented nurturing wife) for going abroad. Though I would think that as time goes on men’s success abroad will continue to shrink as women throughout the world become more and more homogenized.
LikeLike
Good shit.
The bit about lacking examples of femininity is huge. Women are far too herd oriented to ever make the jump to a feminine disposition on their own.
If the sisterhood ain’t going, neither are they. Only a strong-willed man could bring it out of them and even then it is a struggle.
LikeLike
You’re also right about the isolation. It used to be the norm and women spent the day watcing each others kids, and preparing the days meal, etc. Its a big reason they were happier.
LikeLike
@ Kay: “She may stick it out at home, but there will always be those nagging voices making her doubt the course she took in her life. She will never be 100% happy. ”
Nonsense. I’m in the process of making this exact choice, with absolute clarity and surety. I have a degree from a top university, and spent a few years struggling through the motions of a career (not terribly successfully or enthusiastically) because I thought it was what I SHOULD do,…only to realize that I didn’t find it remotely fulfilling, and that *what I really want* is to pour my life into that of a worthy man’s life, and help HIM to pursue his goals and dreams.
So…that’s what I’m doing. Found myself a man who matches every criteria I’ve ever had for a partner: dominant, masterful, successful, vastly more intelligent than I am (thank God), but also deeply passionate, loving and family-minded. (And all you shrieking eels who want to say that the latter can’t possibly be “alpha” qualities…go tell it to the Marines. I KNOW what is alpha, because I KNOW what gives me the uncontrollable tingles…and my man does, unceasingly.)
Anyway, I was just telling a female friend that Western society DOES try to shame women into thinking “I’m not living up to my potential; I have to make something of myself”. There is that pressure. However, recognizing that this is NOT true for myself, I am making the very deliberate choice to do something differently, know that my true happiness lies with doing what makes me happy (to state the obvious). I’m quite confident in choosing this path. However, while I think that a lot of women are like myself (more than are admitting it in mainstream culture)…I also would say that the individual choice should remain. Some women are naturally asexual, or more masculine, and the choice that I’m making would not satisfy them. They should have their shot at happiness too…each to his/her own.
Very few people (men OR women) actually possess sufficient inner knowledge and self-awareness to discern true happiness for themselves, in any case.
LikeLike
I am happy for you that you are extremely confident in your choice to stay at home. Though I notice that you say that you are still “in the process” of making this decision. I would be curious to see if you are still so confident a few years down the line.
I do think that you are the exception. Most women are not able to block out societal pressure to the degree that you can (i.e. “herding.”)
On another slightly unrelated note – I find it interesting how similiar the language you use when describing how you feel for your husband/bf (not sure which) is to religious language. You capitalize HIM, like Christians capitalize Him. You talk of clarity and surety like the deeply faithful. And perhaps most interesting of all, you talk of emptying yourself into your husband in quite the same way that people talk of emptying themselves into God/Jesus, of not really having a “self” anymore (I guess that’s a similarity to Buddhism as well.) You are deriving your purpose in life from service to your husband/bf just as the religious do from their service to God. I think this is what the most discerning man wants from his woman – for the woman to lose her sense of self in service to him (think of empty “O”). Only through loss of self can a woman find “true happiness” (as you put it.)
It may be that women lost their senses of self more fully in the past through devotion to the community as a whole, but since communities in modern countries have largely disintegrated, a woman now has more hope of achieving this self-immolation through devotion to one man. Don’t know which is healthier, but it seems to be the state of things, nonetheless.
LikeLike
@crumpetess: This is awesome and exactly what I needed to read today to reinforce that I am making the right choices for me. Congrats on finding your happiness 🙂
LikeLike
lady crumpetess: i concur and thank you. transitioning myself.
at lunch a female co-worker (ten years my senior) said my desire to support a strong man is flawed… i will never be happy “stuck inside,” as men and women need to lead independent lives. i said i respected her view, but i am sick of taking care of myself. i want to support a strong man and care for our future children and home. she had nothing to say.
i have tried to talk to my “girlfriends” about this transition. most think i have gone insane. one told me she saw no point to our friendship after i described an experience i had feeding a bottle to my niece. truth is most of my friendships boiled down to bar tabs, trash talk, and an empty embrace. the two women that do matter, my mother and best friend (who has remained a friend since the age of three simply because we competed for men in different markets), are grateful to see this change in me.
someone mentioned in the comments that women who follow the natural path of nurturer no longer have access to the domestic female support systems communities used to be made of. i am hopeful this can be changed even by way of the blogosphere, but most importantly through action.
LikeLike
Forgot to add an important point – women have the option of losing themselves through obsessive devotion to their children as well. This seems to be much more common than devotion to a man.
LikeLike
hesaidhe: an online support group of like-minded women might be helpful. Not as good as real life, but something 🙂
LikeLike
Great posts, everyone. It’s encouraging to find like-minded women. Not everything I read here is uplifting, but this is!
Kay…interesting observation about the religious language. I was raised in a very religious, evangelical family. I don’t put that label on myself anymore (long story…and one for another blog, not this one) but it could be true that the early exposure to piety and unreserved religious devotion influences the way that I view relationships. Scratch that: it’s not most likely true, it’s very likely true.
My man knows this about me, and my background, and is highly appreciative of it, as well. He spent a lot of time in the UK, in the past, and found a correlation between the dissociative, dispassionate nature of many women there (on the whole, in his experience) and an areligious culture. He doesn’t subscribe to organized religion, but is a deeply spiritual person, as am I. When we first met, this was something that drew us together. He views relationships — including both emotional and physical intimacy — as being transcendent in nature, and he demands this of me, as well, in both theory and practice. Manifesting our roles — his dominant, and mine as submissive/receptive — is part of that ongoing intimacy. I’m not talking about BDSM; I’m talking about something much more primal and natural.
Anyway, when I talk about being “in the process”, I simply mean that this wasn’t a snap decision that I made, but one that has been slow but sure. It’s crept up on me, really, but I find that there is no going back.
@ hesaidshe: Thanks again for the encouragement; it really is great to know that other women are seeing the same things. I know it’s a common sentiment in mainstream thought, but I find it CRAZY that your coworker would think it “flawed” for you to want to support a strong man!!! I mean, honestly, I think that is what most of us women are made to do…as I said in my original post, I really do feel that it is my own personal calling. It’s the one thing that I’ve always really, truly wanted.
Interesting that your coworker is “ten years older”. I think that we, as a new generation of women in our 20s-30s, have much clearer vision than the women of the previous generation (who are now in their mid-40s to 60s).
GeishaKate: I agree about the online support group being a great idea…or at least, better than nothing!
@ Kay, again: Yes, about the devotion to children…it is my observation that a majority of women do take that route. Personally, though, I don’t think it’s the best…leads to bad boundaries, emotional suffocation, etc. I think the ideal is for a man and woman to always have their own relationship as the pinnacle and top priority in a family. Children should *not* come before spouses (with exceptions in the case of abuse or neglect). However, this is not a popular opinion, methinks…
LikeLike
Crumpetess-
I believe your religious upbringing and strong innate religious tendancies contribute much to the happiness you experience in your relationship. I think I mentioned somewhere in another comment or post that evangelical women may be the last remaining hope for men looking for unashamedly devoted housewives. The risk that men marrying such women run is that the woman’s devotion to God will divert attention and affection that otherwise would have been paid to her man. You seem like an ideal type – a woman with religious tendancies that channels almost all of herself into her man, instead of splitting herself into two.
However, the man who dates/marries an atheist chick has to realize that he is going to have a very hard time possessing such a girl to the extent that he can a religious girl. Not to say that a satisfying relationship is impossible – I’m a married atheist girl and I’d say that in general we’re happy with our relationship. However, there is a part of me that my husband will never have or see. I wish I could give myself totally and completely to him, but “emptying myself out” to him is not something that comes naturally to me (probably much for the same reason that I am an atheist – my over-active brain nips spiritual devotion at the bud). Not to say that I am not very affectionate and loving towards him – I am. And I have promised to remain faithful and be his partner for the rest of our lives, and I will keep that promise. But I don’t think we’ll ever have that sustained “spiritual commune” that some people (such as yourself and your man) are capable of having.
Also, regarding kids – any woman who places her children before her man is ruining the foundation for her family. I don’t know why so many men put up with that shit. A man and woman’s love for each other is the glue that holds a family together. If that love is missing then that family is a “family” in name only.
hesaidhe-
Your friend who freaked out over your bottle feeding sounds insane. Probably better that the friendship ended.
LikeLike
You’ve laid the problem out pretty clearly Kay. A western man is left with: learn game and be a cad, or seek a non-western wife and pray you can keep her that way.
Sorry state of affairs. Who exactly is this voice telling you to get out of the house and have careers like a man? I think anyone who cares enough to look carefully and trace all of the sources back to their origin, comes up with the same answer: An orchestrated program of Cultural Marxism, begun after WW2 by a “certain group” that has ulterior motives for the US.
So you are acting like a bunch of sheep, selling out your own men, children, and country, because People magazine made it look cool. Shame.
But you are a smart one Kay, and you should continue down the road you’re on, and help educate your friends. Be a leader, not a sheep.
Many of the ladies here sound like they get it, but always a little too late, with expensive degrees in tow, and way too many miles on the odometer. Ends up being a really bad deal for any man with options. That’s why we second guess the alpha of your man – what kind of guy wants to get into an LTR and pay off someone’s useless Master’s degree, after she’s slept with god knows how many randomizers in college?
Here’s your penance: Swallow your pride and tell your younger sisters loud and clear: Skip college, Skip the carousel, and learn to be a great homemaker and wife! Admit you made a mistake for once, and you’ll have earned my respect.
LikeLike
I would add that under the traditional Leave it to Beaver system I’ve endorsed, I think alimony for an aggrieved wife (victim of physical abuse, philandering, or abandonment) is totally justified. This knocks out the argument that women need to go to college as a plan B if their marriage doesn’t work out.
LikeLike
‘Skip college,’
i dunno, diamond eyes. to be sure, the debt incurred may not be worth it if one is attending some second or third tier but expensive school.
but what if she’s smart and state/city schools are within reach, (i live in nyc) denying a college education if the parents can afford it seems a sign of neglect given the chance of later divorce. hedging one’s bets seems the better strategy.
LikeLike
Just yesterday I read an article in Forbes about the Girl Scouts, and how Girl Scout leaders are trying to “transform” the organization to serve modern girls. I couldn’t find a link to the exact article that was in the magazine, but there are several online that are very similar:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/11/07/tough-cookies-girl-scouts-ceo-kathy-cloninger-selling-women-leadership/
The Girl Scouts have gotten rid of the “housekeeping” badge, because it is “not relevant” to today’s girls. Instead, they now promote graphic design, financial literacy, and business badges. Not saying those pursuits should be ignored, but to indoctrinate girls from such a young age that housekeeping is not “relevant” is ridiculous. We need young girls to earn a housekeeping badge alongside their math and leadership badges. They have kept some “old-fashioned” badges, but they now designate them as “legacy” badges. For example, they have a “dinner party” legacy badge (used to be the “cooking” badge.) They decided to keep the cooking badge (in the form of the dinner party badge) around because event planning can serve them very well in their professional lives.
Just one small example of a “voice.”
LikeLike
“I do think that you are the exception. Most women are not able to block out societal pressure to the degree that you can (i.e. “herding.”)”
Kay,
In order to not be able to “block out” societal pressure, one has to recognize that it even exists. Societal pressure is just a term users lose for trying to spread out the blame for being dissatisfied onto others or even onto fictitious entities. In order to cave into societal pressure, you’d actually have to recognize that the wisdom and opinion of others actually matters. And quite honestly, I rarely encounter anyone smart enough that I’d defer to for important life decisions. You’re really going to let the low collective intellect of marginal idiots guide your life choices?
If you’re on the fence about mothering in lieu of working, at least pick a minimum time frame where you don’t work. Personally, I think it takes a hardened female to gleefully pass off an infant to another caregiver for 10 hours a day, week after week. The majority of working moms who do so, do so out of perceived necessity, and it’s not an easy choice.
LikeLike
Kay,
Can’t respond directly to the appropriate post below, but I don’t think your hesitation about opening up is related to being atheist, as I am also atheist and have no problem with that. You might want to work on that. I don’t see a marriage being sustainable if you’ve knowingly guarded some part of yourself and don’t fully let go, as vulnerable as it might make you feel to do so. You need to fully open up.
LikeLike
Scratch that. Maybe it is related to your atheism, and I simply don’t carry that inhibition toward “faith” over into letting myself go in my relationship (even friendships). Let yourself go, though. It feels good, that’s why I do it. (although believing in God would feel good too, but I can’t bring myself to do that). So, I’ve got a weird line drawn there, probably for no good reason.
LikeLike
I personally prefer a stay at home wife and think its the best model for society and for most families. I praise you for your attitude.
LikeLike
One of the biggest motivation to my cynical worldview is that our elites realized that domestic labor in the home WAS NOT TAXED. Getting them into the labor pool lowered overall wages by increasing supply but allowed the marginal workforce to pay taxes on what had previously been ntaxed work.
The precursor to this realization was an early feminist effort to have housewives conpensated for their work in the home.
LikeLike
Why the either/or shaming?
Working age and fully functional men who don’t work are living off my tax dollars. That’s not acceptable, no matter what women are doing, even if you ignore all the very true arguments about how leeching off of me actually hurts the leeches as well as the taxpayers.
(Of course, the solution I’d advocate isn’t shaming but cutting welfare such that a 30 year old man who didn’t work would starve and thus it would not be a rational decision for him not to work.)
But that doesn’t mean there’s not plenty of shaming to go around for women who have bastard children. I haven’t read the full Murray yet but doesn’t he advocate as much (even if he doesn’t go for shaming fat women)? And obviously shaming is the only tool you have here, at least with many single moms who are not on welfare and don’t need the government check.
The other solution to female hypergamy is putting alphas on the hook financially. They’d still fuck a lot of women but at least they’d be careful about getting them pregnant and thus making them unmarriable.
The converse of this, which I’d also support, is not making betas who want to live together have any financial commitment to a woman who walks out on him. Money is probably a more effective tool than shaming because a single law makes it happen whereas shaming takes a big cultural transformation that would take decades. If you want the betas money, you’ve got to live with him and fuck him a few times a month — and no one else — or you get nothing.
LikeLike
1. I’d believe more of what you were saying if women made up 50% of the homeless.
They don’t.
2. “The other solution to female hypergamy is putting alphas on the hook financially.”
What if the women don’t want to tell you who the real father of the kid is? Women love to protect alphas.
“They’d still fuck a lot of women but at least they’d be careful about getting them pregnant and thus making them unmarriable.” A woman with STDs but no kids, is still someone that is going to cost the person she marries over her lifetime.
3. “not making betas who want to live together have any financial commitment to a woman who walks out on him. ” Who decides on financial commitment? Lawyers, the law, judges. Who elects the people who pass the laws? Voters. Are men or women the largest % of voters?
4. “If you want the betas money, you’ve got to live with him and fuck him a few times a month — and no one else — or you get nothing.” You didn’t say anything about being pleasant or supportive. Many men go to prostitutes even having women who do their “lie on back, think of England” act, simply because they are tired of a nagging starfish at home.
LikeLike
“The other solution to female hypergamy is putting alphas on the hook financially. They’d still fuck a lot of women but at least they’d be careful about getting them pregnant and thus making them unmarriable.”
Eh…won’t work. 1) the pill. 2) condoms. 3) I always pull out and cum on her face.
Blowing your load in a chic these days is so god damn risky. Besides there are plenty of articles even here at CH that show men are liable. One example is a slut that took cum in her mouth, spit it out, put it up her vagina, got pregnant than later sued the man (not married, or GF), and WON child support.
Shit…I better make sure she swallows…
LikeLike
RE: Larry Summers is owed an apology. (btw, the guy looks like Owen Wilson) http://t.co/Zu2IycNY
There is no question that there are people this dumb, but this video seems fake to me. The person who made it is a marketing professional plus the weird pausing in her answer.
LikeLike
It’s pretty damn funny.
LikeLike
The thing I don’t like about the numbers presented is that it doesn’t include benefits namely health care dollars. We’re an older society and government policies both have driven up the cost of health care. So people are making more money they just don’t have control of where it goes.
LikeLike
It’s condescending to treat people with vaginas as less morally accountable. But that’s just what we do.
The current dystopia has become the norm. Get used to it.
LikeLike
One of the things that could be done would be to shift the burden of taxation away from production and towards consumption. Men could demonstrate status by saving their money and investing and not just by obtaining useless degrees and playing office politics. Paul Ryan’s budget plan contained these ideas.
LikeLike
What a cunt. If I see this guy in person I’m going to punch his fucking nose in. The grass cutter is more respectable than the college graduate? Maybe if the grass cutter really deals hash to his customers (“We handle all types of grass!”) and gets to blast respect all over his customer’s bare chests, THAT makes sense. But a career lawyer chick gazing longingly at her CEOs balls isn’t doing the same for her gardening boy *cough cough hypergamy*. Charles: for being such a wise and intelligent Harvard graduate you sure are naive and hypocritical.
LikeLike
Think of it this way: Who actually accomplishes more, between the grass cutter, performing a task demanded by many
OR,
the Social Work grad taking a $79,494 yearly salary from taxpayer’s pockets.
LikeLike
I get your point, but the same government that worships equality and fairness hires the social worker grad to waste your money. For your argument the question becomes
Should a college student who won’t take a demeaning job be morally inferior than a college student who takes a herbly social work job?
which is also a great question. Murray would probably be glad to put all the white boys to work in a government job, but part of the problem is the ridiculous ball-less eunuch you have to be to survive there amongst all your female competition. Guys want girlfriends and wives, not coworkers or competition from women. Until Murray tackles that, fuck him for either his genuine naivety or his alpha ignorance of the issue.
Which I think is the real problem: older alpha guys love to ‘preach from the castle walls’ a type of hypocritical denial of how young guys act- even though they would have been the same way when they were young.
LikeLike
I see what you mean. Still, you presuppose a college student as being forced to take a job you’ve additionally prejudiced as already being demeaning.
Then, there is no valid reason to attend college at all to expend four/five/seven years of valuable time – if the ultimate result is being forced into said demeaning job.
All that does, is fill an evil Government’s coffers with seven years of your tuition.
Besides, the vast majority of Government hires are Affirmative Action Two-fers: Colored females. If she’s a lesbian tranny with one-leg, that’s a grand slam. Government, today, hires the least capable.
White males seek redress from a government – made up entirely of their polar enemies. That, is folly.
In relative terms, old alphas fail in their scholarly advice given to younger males because older men truly cannot comprehend the depths of degeneracy our government champions. They respond with endless application of statistical analysis (in repetitive books) of the shocking results, instead of interpreting the causes.
Like, Einstein or Feynman’s regretful horror at a nuclear bomb’s results (which they created) without their analysis of why it could truly be justified to unleash again – but instead, giving the secrets to the Soviet Union in some naive motive to restore parity.
The enemy needs to be named, defined – then eradicated. They have certainly done it to you and are no longer wasting their time.
LikeLike
Employment doesn’t reward men the way it once did? No kidding, if anything today it’s a detriment to your status as you rationalize your mediocre life.
In a recent convo with my parents who came of age in the 70s they talked about how they first met. My mom had dated a few guys, but wanted to settle down and get married. She was only 21. The first date consisted of my mom interviewing my dad, and my dad on his way to becoming a doctor, passed with flying colors. They married 10 months later.
That’s how men used to be rewarded. No more.
LikeLike
The more important question to ask is whether your mother respects your father.
The guy who gets picked last is usually walked over by the woman with “experience”.
LikeLike
Did you miss the part where I said she was 21? This wasn’t a 33yr old careerist who had ridden the carousel for 15 years before settling for a beta.
And I know I’m biased, but I’ve never seen a more loving marriage than the one my parents’ have. There’s never been a cross word or nagging once from my mother, honestly. She’s still in love.
LikeLike
Curious, did your mother ever work outside the home? Does she now?
LikeLike
She graduated college and worked in nursing full-time for a few years after marriage, then when the many kids started popping out she became a stay-at-home mom with very occasional part-time nursing work. Both parents are now currently retired.
LikeLike
Nice! Your mom is a prostitute and isn’t ashamed to admit it!
LikeLike
By that logic all men who married in the last few centuries were married to prostitutes. Get with it.
LikeLike
As you can see, my friend, relating personal life on a forum often leads to a pecking party… be that as it may, God bless you and your parents.
LikeLike
Yes, all women who have sex with you after you buy them dinner or flowers or whatever, marry them and support them, are prostitutes. But there is no reason why anyone should look down on prostitutes. It’s the natural order of things.
LikeLike
All women are prostitutes. The payments are just different.
LikeLike
And your mom had 50 very romantic experiences, and then … you. Dreamy.
LikeLike
Women fall into two groups. Whores and sluts. One gets paid, the other doesn’t. My LTR is my whore and happily so. She bangs or blows me with glee 6 or 7 nights a week (yes, you read that right) and pops off multiple o’s on a 90% plus basis. We’ve had this discussion and she agrees that she’s in the whore camp. Sure makes her smarter than the sluts who find themselves alone and sagging at 35. Game works gents, but real mastery means you have your LTR game on by the time you’re my age (40’s).
LikeLike
So you’re married, and cheating?
Come back to me with your stories of alimony.
LikeLike
LTR = wife. No need to go out for burger when you’ve got filet at home.
LikeLike
One thing to remember is not to confuse virtue with lack of opportunity.
After all, it isn’t virtue if you’ve never been tempted … tested.
LikeLike
He married a non-virgin in the fucking 70s?
Good thing that you’re not planning on doing the same mistake.
LikeLike
Actually your Mainstream Media are noticing hypergamy and its effects. Just not in the USA. Try China – where the cultural pressure to marry/copulate “up” is even more ingrained (centuries-old ingrained) than here. Same result though. But at least they’re not looking to grow their population. Add to that the woman shortage (in China and India)* and you have the makings of one hell of a dystopia, one they may well reach before we do.
*And no blaming the “girl abortion” policy on those governments. Sorry, that “I want a son” policy is even more ingrained culturally in both places, hell the women themselves enforce it, there’s no outlawing it, might as well try outawing porn. Won’t happen.
Hey guy who “won’t date aborters”: how do you know? You order up their medical histories pre-boff? You think they would all tell you that on the first date?
LikeLike
Yeah, there was a story several years ago about an Indian woman who was planning to kill her baby girl by feeding her unhulled rice grains to choke her to death. Something she wouldn’t have even considered to do to a male child. The story ended with her deciding against infanticide. Friggin’ “noble savages”
LikeLike
Brilliant. This whole post should be shouted from every rooftop in the land. I hope Murray hears of it. He seems worth educating.
LikeLike
Randy Rhoads RIP – March 1982.
Carry On.
LikeLike
Goddamnit. RIP!
LikeLike
Yah that guys playing got me interested in classical guitar back in the 80s. He was an interesting little guy.
LikeLike
Great post, but there’s far more to Murray’s cowardice and outright dishonesty.
In a recent podcast at the ‘Right of Center’ website Ricochet they had Chuckles Murray on the panel and for the all the salient points he made about American society dividing itself along the lines of class he just ruined it when he argued to Rob Long, (a Hollywood screenwriter/producer) to shame men in the television shows Long writes and produces.
Yep, you heard it right. He wanted to shame men via Hollywood media before even addressing women’s culpability in social decline.
You can listen to the podcast here, Murray is first up in the discussion: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ricochet-Podcast-110-I-m-A-13/%28page%29/3
What’s just as damning about social conservatives, perhaps even more so is that in subsequent discussion about the podast the overwhelming majority of commenters would rather discuss their test number from Murray’s ‘How does one define class test’. There was only once commenter, a woman by the pseudonym ‘SettlerMom’ who comes close to naming and shaming women.
She wrote;
“I agree. And while single mothers are more sympathetic than walk-away dads, portraying the difficulties of raising children alone, or the cluelessness of someone who has made some regrettable choices in romantic partners, might be more palatable. Why should the opprobrium be all one-sided? After all, this state of affairs is something many women argued for. Men are not the only ones to blame.”
Another blog post ( http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Isn-t-Charles-Murray-Saying-We-Need-The-Gospel/%28page%29/4 ) would NOT even touch the subject at all, going off into discussions about God, Christianity, and the way it relates to society.
Utterly amazing, out of all these well educated and religiously observant commenters(BTW, Ricochet is a pay to comment site) only one person, a mother comes close criticizing the source of the problem; women and the feminist imperative.
LikeLike
Jim—
I disagree. Women are FAR more culpable for the epidemic in single motherhood than men are. In every case the woman ended up wanting the baby, but by far most of the time the walk-way dads didn’t. She had the choice of a Plan B morning after pill, and abortion or giving the kid up for adoption. He none of those rights. What he should have is the right to timely notify the woman than he hopes she’ll either abort or give for adoption, but if not, he aborts all of his rights and also all of his obligations of fatherhood with respect to that baby.
It’s perfectly possible to have sex with a very low likelihood of getting truly accidentally pregnant these days. However all but one of the reversible forms of birth control are within the sole knowledge and control of the woman. The one that is under joint knowledge and control greatly diminishes the pleasure of the sex act such that most established couples don’t use condoms but rather some female method. I’ve long been convinced that by far most of so called “accidental” pregnancies are really oops ones where she forgot to take her pill or forgot that her IUD and slipped out, accidentally on purpose, consciously or probably more often subconsciously. When girls such as those doing well in elite colleges they very rarely get pregnant, and get abortions if they do.
LikeLike
I share your opinion that the great majority of oops babies were no accident.
I’ve had a great many accidents happen to me. Girls really want babies. They are masters of convincing you otherwise. Masters of convincing you that the decision will be mutual. They lie. They want babies.
Sometimes they’ll just agree to an abortifactant or abortion, but many times you’ll have to explain that you will leave the country and never contact them again if they keep it before they will realize that the baby gambit failed to snare you, and give up that plan.
More than men can know, and more than they will ever let us know, girls are baby crazy.
LikeLike
I generally agree with you. My point in reprinting that quote was to point out that out of all of these presumably well-educated and knowledgeable conservative posters at Ricochet only one person, the woman posting under the name ‘SettlerMom’ even makes a remote attempt at pointing the blame where it should be-at women. My point was highlighting the intellectual bankruptcy and moral cowardice among conservatives in failing to name the devil by name.
FWIW re: Murray urging Rob Long, a Hollywood screenwriter to shame men in the entertainment he creates. Clearly it has become commonplace in the entertainment that Hollywood produces to portray men as bumbling fools who need the strong hand of capable woman. Yet, it hasn’t always been so. Promiscuous women and single mothers weren’t always portrayed as the ideal. I think the last show that attempted to do this was the show Frasier that made one of the lead characters, Roz Doyle’s promiscuity as a ongoing joke, then made her life as a single mother less than ideal if not a source of tension especially with her subsequent relationships. I really can’t see tv shows dealing with women in similar negative fashion anymore. To the contrary, Hollywood, especially in the past decade or two, seems to be going out of its way to be sympathetic to promiscuity and single motherhood.
LikeLike
Well, now I know why Rob Long has completely ignored me since I met him at a Hollywood party two years ago and showed him my Balls Monologues/Guyinism stuff.
LikeLike
Well-player, sir.
LikeLike
“To confront female hypergamy would be to confront the very foundational rationale for the sexual revolution and the fifty year program to equalize social and economic outcomes between men and women.”
If a MSM outlet did this it’d be career suicide and a commercial nightmare for their employer. Clearly an indicator that the [female hypergamy] cancer has spread deep into the DNA of Western Civilization.
Ironically the female psyche in it’s emotionally driven, empathetic, fact averse, logically impaired yet communicatively adaptive modus operandi couldn’t be a better microcosm for the way society behaves.
LikeLike
“Ironically the female psyche in it’s emotionally driven, empathetic, fact averse, logically impaired yet communicatively adaptive modus operandi couldn’t be a better microcosm for the way society behaves.”
Money quote right here.
LikeLike
lzozozozozoz
LikeLike
lzozozozozozozzzozlzoz
LikeLike
“Do as I say, even if you can’t do it as easily as I do.”
This reminds me of some stuff on Stoic philosophy I read, once upon a time. The Stoics accepted that some people would have a harder time reaching the virtues than others because of their initial defaults, so to speak. They would just say that the path may be harder, but that only makes the achievement more glorious.
LikeLike
[…] Related: Charles Murray’s one-sided shaming. […]
LikeLike
The Infamous Tramp Stamp
I was researching this term, when I stumbled upon this article, which is a typical knee jerk reaction feminist rhetoric, to a real guy definition of a tramp stamp…succulent 🙂
http://tattoo.about.com/od/tattoosgeneralinfo/a/tramp_stamp.htm
LikeLike
She says women with tramp stamps are not necessarily more promiscuous… yet it’s a celebration of their sensuality and sexuality… ’cause, like, um… they’ve been oppressed. (Show me your O face, baby!)
Jeez… that acrobatic hamster of hers gets the wheel spinning in BOTH directions.
LikeLike
Superb post again. I wish I could write like you
LikeLike
The poetical turns of phrase are amazing. If someone had told me a few years ago that the most beautiful poetry I would ever read would be found on a game blog I would have laughed. 🙂
LikeLike
Points well taken. Still, there are actual decent women who’ve been let down by their spouses.
OK, OK, I’m making excuses. I’m romantic, that way.
Ten years into a second marriage, with a woman who’s a total emotional manipulator (Tony Robbins trained) and finance-sucking vampire, your remarks are even more well-taken. Right now I suspect I have breast cancer (men get it too, believe it or not) that’s metastasized into lung cancer. I’m praying for that to be true so I can die soon and deal no more with Democrats, Feminists, Wives, or Alinskyites. I am well and truly tired.
LikeLike
Being a romantic is nothing to be proud of. “Also, I like playing poker, though I’m not very good. Oh, and I always forget to cash my chips. Now let me tell you about Las Vegas.”
LikeLike
I hope you don’t have cancer and are improving health wise. Drink lemon juice mixed with water, about t tablespoons per day.
LikeLike
“Still, there are actual decent women who’ve been let down by their spouses.
OK, OK, I’m making excuses. I’m romantic, that way.”
Thank God somebody is. Good luck with your diagnosis. You deserve a rest and love from one of those decent women.
LikeLike
This video provides a glaring contrast between America as it once was and what it has become.
LikeLike
Sobering… well-done.
LikeLike
Damn near every woman begins with, and the rest all interject, “I feel.” Not as good as “I think,” or “I have seen,” but better than the “I want” that we get now.
LikeLike
@tanabear
send that link to flavia
http://revoltagainst.wordpress.com/
she’ll make good use of it
LikeLike
There are some great points on this thread and Charles Murray needs to get up to speed on them — but can I just say that Murray is a real scholar and intellectual, a courageous truth-teller, and a genuine patriot who doesn’t hate White America or its working class. If there’s anybody his age who can still learn, it’s him.
LikeLike
Everyone needs to read The Misandry Bubble. It is the premier anti-feminist article around (and links to Heartiste heavily).
LikeLike
while we’ve been told, ad nauseum, how women are victims, misandry has run rampant in our culture. turn on a television for an hour and you will learn. from both the programming and the advertising in particular that men are big, dumb, useless, filthy mugs while women are brilliant, enlightened, problem-solvers who can barely conceal their contempt for the idiot brutes to whom they must tend in order to keep the family operating, if not to keep the entire planet rotating on its axis. enough already !
LikeLike
Saw discovery channel “frozen planet”, who portrayed the male polar bear as total beta. ” He follows in her footsteps” “He fights other bears for chance to get with her” ” She is much smaller but makes him follow her” and on and on.
Its everywhere.
LikeLike
It’s no different when you become wise to the anti-white agenda in this country. Every TV sicko and criminal is a white businessman. Every noble misunderstood, falsely accused hero is a negro from the hood. In every TV scenario, when there is an opportunity to show life and racial behavior as it really is, the writers portray the polar opposite, in an attempt to confuse viewers by merely repeating “up is down, black is white”.
LikeLike
“Shame women who get fat and thus make themselves unattractive to men and artificially tighten the dating market.”
You guys kill me. You define your ideal mate in terms of her ability to maintain the BMI of a 20-something coed and then you recoil in surprise when she turns out to be a shallow bitch. Hey, if it’s that unappealing, she’s not going to get any action. There are no meat market externalities here.
I’m 54 years old. My husband of 20 years tossed me out, after I emptied out two retirement accounts and liquidated an inheritance to put him through law school and set him up at a DC BigLaw firm, in favor of a blonde honey with narrow hips and an interesting wardrobe. Funny thing is…once I was free of him, I was besieged with romantic offers. Turns out that an intelligent woman with a six figure income and a reasonably congenial attitude will attract a suitable male, even if she’s unfashionably shaped. The only thing standing in the way of matrimony is the idiotic AMT, which punishes assortive mating at the higher income categories. Oh well. I guess we’ll just live in sin and frustrate the IRS.
LikeLike
tf;dr
LikeLike
Your husband would have much rather you worked on staying slim than worked on giving him money. Staying slim shows him respect as a man. Giving him money does the opposite.
LikeLike
You define your ideal mate in terms of her ability to maintain the BMI of a 20-something coed and then you recoil in surprise when she turns out to be a shallow bitch.
we’re only surprised when a girl who maintains a bmi of jabba the hutt turns out to be a shallow bitch. no, scratch that….amused, not surprised.
I’m 54 years old.
female facebook profile pics are supposed to be from 20 years in the past.
this must be what they call female contrast game.
Turns out that an intelligent woman with a six figure income and a reasonably congenial attitude will attract a suitable male, even if she’s unfashionably shaped.
don’t you just love that word ‘suitable’? it’s got such flexibility.
LikeLike
Yeah, that interesting wardrobe gets ’em every time.
So you’re saying in those 20-minus-time-in-college years of his DC BigLaw job he never really supported you or paid you back somewhat for the tuition?
Why, that impertinent jackanapes!
Anyway… you go, grrl!
LikeLike
I laughed so, so hard at this. I know that others on here will probably say that I’m feeding your female ego or whatever, but I like the line “you recoil in suprise.” Now that your finances are drained, consider stand up comedy. You told a good story anyway. And I agree- readers of these blogs seem shocked when beautiful women aren’t up to their intellectual standards, but disgusted with less beautiful women who give as good as they get.
LikeLike
None of them really do “give as good as they get”… except in the eyes of their coterie of harpies bizarre… or peanut gallery racial comrades of the dark kind.
LikeLike
Call them whatever derogatory word you prefer.
Murray got singed after he wrote about race in “The Bell Curve”, now he’s a good little boy who reserves his criticisms for the white working and lower middle class, just like his neo-con and liberal massas want him to. He’s really out on a limb attacking the white working class. Here’s some derogatory words for you, Chuckie: you’re an ass-sucking, yellow-bellied coward and liar who caved like the little bitch that you are as soon as your masters started threatening you with a mild loss of livelihood because you told a little bit of the truth (won’t make that mistake again, eh Chas?) . And you’ve got the nerve to talk about shaming. Most of the working class have jobs, hard jobs, you, on the other hand, are a coward and a liar pretty much 100% of the time. There’s more than being jobless to be ashamed of, Chuckie, and selling out your nation and civilization for your thirty pieces of silver is one of them. Why is joblessness more shame worthy than cowardice and dishonesty? Man up, Chuckster.
A fish rots from the head down and virtually nothing that is destroying this country came from the working class. It all comes from the traitors at the top, starting with the upper middle class. You won’t find Murray suggesting “derogatory words” and shaming for them. Doesn’t pay. This is the bigger picture.
LikeLike
Take some people out with you in a blaze of glory.
J/k
But seriously, I don’t approve of murder/suicide but I understand it.
LikeLike
Incomes stop growing after 1973 which makes his choice of 1960 as a base misleading. See here for more detail:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101822/charles-murray-heres-why-i-ignore-economics
LikeLike
Excellent editorial; “What the working class will get from Murray is utter denial that the loss of relative economic standing has any significance at all.”
Murray obviously wants the vast majority of men and women to accept and even embrace de facto slavery, and he’s simply promoting a culture designed specifically to facilitate that. The fact that he says some true things here and there is incidental.
LikeLike
Building arguments based on people’s motives and interior thoughts and feelings is lazy and unconvincing.
LikeLike
All this has been said before by Camille Paglia. This blog could not exist without her.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia
LikeLike
Alt-Right, 21st century’s rising movement, can be described as a synthesis of Camille Paglia and Pat Buchanan.
LikeLike
[…] Related: Charles Murray’s one-sided shaming. Seems there’s lots of anti-Boomer pushback from the Pickup Artist community. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← The Battle is Joined: Sarah Hoyt chooses to defend Men […]
LikeLike
Been saving this one up for the right occasion. This is what happens when you attempt to discuss the concept of hypergamy.
Note that it is on a BUDDHIST chat page (and despite this, all that calm, mindfulness and serenity goes out the window):
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/4140/female-hypergamy-and-suffering
The guy brings it up in a calm, rational and logical manner. He isn’t accusing in tone either.
If you imagine this is the reaction on an obscure chat page, imgaine if this was MSM……
LikeLike
I didn’t realize that the sound of hamster wheels spinning in such unison produced “Om”.
LikeLike
blogster: thank you for posting that. 1) I enjoyed the article and 2) just goes to show that if you attempt to explain female (or male) mate selection, the irrational and illogical femcunts will immediately spazz out.
I wonder: are they scared of the explanation or do they really not understand their own inner psychology?
LikeLike
I think a key quote in it from the OP – “This poses some serious and very inconvenient questions about the nature of female sexuality.” – sums it up nicely.
The more I observe women, the more I seem them operating at an instinctive level in scenarios such as this. I think it is the facing of this reality that triggers a ‘fight’ response in the female, which is delivered through the mechanisms women are most skillful at – emotions, shaming, manipulation, distortion etc.
Kind of a parallel to the ‘flight or fight’ mechanism men predominantly exhibit in potentially physical situations.
It threatens a woman’s sense of being, almost their existence, to the extent of them being unable to deliver an articulate, coherent, logical position.
Hence the spazz-attacks and illogicality at the perceived threat of the veil being lifted, the curtain being drawn back and the little man running things being revealed.
Rollo Tomassi wrote about this recently – he sums it up better than me.
LikeLike
are they scared of the explanation or do they really not understand their own inner psychology?
yes.
LikeLike
Forget shaming, simply remove wealth transfer mechanisms.
Even non working men are a wealth transfer mechanism, a male basketballer forced to sit on the bench to make way for a female basketballer is forced into electing non participation.
Through government, NGOs and taxation, men are simply being forced to sit on the bench.
LikeLike
Are men *attracted* to women with high(er) income? No. Will men mooch off careerist women? Yes.
How are the careerist cunts reconciling the larger amount of women getting educated/gaining wealth with all the bullshit divorce laws on the books? Divorce/alimony rape is no longer necessary. Thus, women should “woman up” and get that shit changed. . .even better, switch it to where men get alimony. How much harpie horse shit would that idea create?
LikeLike
By freeing themselves, women have also freed men and are now furious that men are making more of the newfound freedom than them.
The idea that the common man had it better in the past is just a myth. There has never been a better time to be a man than now. Lets enjoy it.
[heartiste: this is a valid point, but remember that the men who are benefiting from this freedom are the alpha males. beta males have it worse than ever.]
LikeLike
If your definition of free is being able to drink beer and play video games, then yes men are more free. The only problem is our brains are wired so that happiness is near impossible without sex and female companionship, which the average male no longer has access to.
LikeLike
PS. Wp seems to have run amuck. Byee gravatar.
LikeLike
Who are you to judge? Why do some humans think they are moral arbiters of society?
LikeLike
We are the speakers of the truth and smashers of pretty lies. Mother nature does not tolerate folly, and feminism is a crime against nature.
Plus you talk like a fag.
LikeLike
We are not their judge… we are their judgment.
LikeLike
What beloved Anglo-Saxon capitalism, economic libertarianism, and free-market religion hath wrought:
http://www.amazon.com/Richer-Sex-Majority-Breadwinners-Transforming/dp/1439197717
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Suckers!!!!!!
LikeLike
Anglo-Saxon capitalism was restrained by the Anglo Saxon sense of fairness and civic mindedness. This is not the case anymore, unfortunately.
LikeLike
Excellent point… the noble are only truly ennobled by how they handle their oblige,
LikeLike
People have forgotten how to depend on people in a way that doesn’t make them beta providers. That’s the difference between the morloks and the elites as far as I can see.
I think everyone secretly wishes they didn’t need to know this shit, that this whole system is the poison, not the people. Shaming them helps, hatred causes change.
LikeLike
Even Mr. Heartiste, fails to truly “get it” and the full devastation of the sexual revolution and female empowerment. There is a subtext you don’t see. The problem in 2012 is that there is a war of the sexes where men and women are COMPETITORS.
Freud was right with Penis Envy identifying female envy of men. That beta male is your rival. By trying to make men and women equal, we have now turned women, fundamentally creatures of envy, against men.
Women like feckless cads partially because they aren’t competitors. Beta males are the mortal adversary of females in the job market.
Try walking into a bar and telling women you are going to Harvard Law next fall or how you just got a great new job. Will you get vagina twitches? You really should be, and circa 1950 you did. Today you will get distance and edgy insecurity. Say you an “artist” a “poet” “drug dealer” or whatever bullshit and you’ll likely get a better response and cool her defenses. Haven’t you noticed the weirdness when the girl you are talking to makes less money than you, has a shittier job and is obviously jealous as fuck? Hypergamy is actually the best case scenario.. the reality is just seething envy. Millionaire alphas and thriving beta males underperform more than you’d think. Women secretly hate them because they are jealous in the same way men are.
Fathers helping mommy is just as bad, because now you enter competition for Junior’s affections. Better to step out and stay away from the kid, lest you piss off wifey and get her furious because the kid likes you more. Parenting lesson #1.
So, gentleman, the dystopian chaos is much darker than you could have ever theorized. You wonder why so many women hate beta male providers, have no kids, divorce or fail to marry in the first place?
LikeLike
I think you’re making the assumption that women biologically want to climb the corporate ladder and get high-paying jobs just like men do. Granted, many women say they do, and some may even believe they do. But they don’t actually. Perhaps this is why so many have become fat and crazy…
LikeLike
I am saying that women are sheep and easily manipulated… if not by an alpha, by society. Women are now fiendishly liberal. Modern liberalism is simply an ideology of envy. Divorce is the legal manifestation of “hell hath no fury.” The relations between the sexes is now widescale female envy and hatred of men. Hypergamy (which this site constantly harps on) is a secondary concern to the poisoning of relations between the sexes. The female adoration for cads and infantile behavior (see Heartiste’s post today about pranking) comes from their visceral hatred of betas (who they see as weak rivals in the same way an Alpha man would). “Alpha” behavior defined by this site disarms female envy, is hypermasculine or boyish and demonstrates status. It is trifecta, which is why it works so well with modern women.
LikeLike
Well-said.
LikeLike
As the feminists are fond of saying, they’ve “become the men they wanted to marry” LOL
LikeLike
I’ve seen financial jealousy before – I see it in the girl I live with now.
But I don’t see that dampening the arousing effect that money has. The two effects happen simultaneously. The jealousy doesn’t get in the way of or diminish the arousing effects of status or wealth.
Sure, she wants to drink your milkshake. She’s envious, and will try to copy or steal what you have. That works well with inciting lust.
LikeLike
Long-time reader, first-time poster.
What do you all make of this puff piece about “The Richer Sex,” which alleges that men will be the ones marrying up (that is, women will marry down in large numbers and love it), and that “changing ideas of masculinity” will make men attracted to high-earning women, and women attracted to beta males (though they never say “beta males.”)
I’m skeptical, since there is a slide show full of “predictions” in there that seem tailor-made to conform to upper middle class women’s fantasies.
My favorite one: “Women Will Have To Adjust What They Value In Men” (slide 10). They already have adjusted — from stable beta providers to caddish alpha jerks.
LikeLike
I suppose, given women’s current massive advantage in getting jobs, that they’ll be looking for sexual release, and in such a society, being a caddish alpha is far preferable for men than being a provider beta, where you won’t get anything unless you’ve been born into the right family.
LikeLike
WTF? My two comments here disappeared. Shit.
LikeLike
Yeah, a few of mine as well… and they were gems, if I do say so myself.
LikeLike
Everyone should provide links to this post in the comment sections of articles discussing Murray. It helps spread the word and maybe even Murray himself will check it out.
LikeLike
Re: The woman with papers
“You’re an M.D.? I can’t fuck your medical degree”
or if your mother is in earshot
“Your degree can’t give me a hug”
LikeLike
These days, women are never to blame for anything. Ever.
Ever. Ever.
ever ever ever ever ever
ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever
Evah E-fucking-vuh-er.
LikeLike
These days?
You are confusing biology for culture.
Women innately and cross culturally are incapable of negative introspection. They CANT be wrong. It is physically impossible.
LikeLike
Here’s an idea for another post: bring back violence. If a man sleeps with your wife you should be allowed to be violent towards them, if a guy knocks up your sister or daughter, you and your brothers, father, uncles should be allowed to kick the crap out of him, if a guy acts or dresses like a douche, you and your buddies should be able to beat him up.
LikeLike
Violence never left. Try the ghetto or Afghanistan. See how well they’re doing.
LikeLike
Still, a little bit of good ol’-fashioned ass whupping is sorely lacking in the West… especially among SWPL types.
One of Harold Covington’s best lines:
“The problem today is that there are no consequences for being an asshole.”
LikeLike
Winner of most moronic post in the whole thread.
LikeLike
I thought Chateau was channeling Nick in the movie Metropolitan when he was talking about females’ hypergamy and their need for alphas.
Here’s Nick (in Metropolitan): “It’s incredible the eagerness of girls like you to justify the worst bastards imaginable of being sensitive and shy.
Here’s the scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emNxGLPKmjA
The movie is packed with game strategy. Watch it. Study it. Learn it.
LikeLike
Men slowly discover that the effort to win women’s attention via employment is not rewarding them the way it did for their dads and granddads, and that now only herculean efforts to make considerably more than women will give them an edge in the mating market.
True. I am part of the transition generation, where I played by the old rules while women followed the new ones. Being an engineering/science major in the 1980s didn’t pay off romantically… not til a couple of decades later. And that’s a hell of a long time to be a Christian celibate..
The male fecklessness that Murray lambasts is actually a rational male response to a changing sexual market where the rewards of female sexuality go disproportionately to charming, aloof jerks over meager beta providers.
Indeed. With college both hopelessly unaffordable, and no longer effective as a mate-attractor, another path must be chosen. If I want grandchildren, I think I’d be better off buying my 3 boys Harleys, not BS degrees. If they actually need jobs, I’ll steer them to non-exportable skilled trades.
LikeLike
zlzloozozlzozozolozozl
lzlzozozlzzozozllzzlozozol
yes all the wall streeteetetet nitwit proetestors
are forgetting to
protest
the right people
the neoconc warmonhgering, debt-creating, honor-hating federal reserver private bankers who create moneyz
out of thin air by placing everyone in debt
who
privatievze protssics and socialize risk
who
fund
feminism and war (as feminism is war)
who fund
asscocking in spirit and in literal cockckass in assess zlzozolz
who finance
tucker max rhyme sitwh goldman sax secretive tapers of butthex (with your future wife who they need to desoul to make her loyal to the fita doallr and not god man family) to get the world used to being butthexed as once you are butthexed by the neoocn cockas you are more servile obedienet will die in tehir wars
who fund
the phahameecuatical companies who drug up all our boys
who funed fund the fmeinsit movement
to deconstruct the great books and classics on all our campuses
hollow them out and get rid of homer and dante and shakespeare an dthe bible
leave them with noting but femlit classes on entitlement and welath transfer lzozlzl
the federal resvere private banksters
implementing the ten planks of ths e communist manifesto
who created
the welath transferirng dot com bubble
the welath transferirng dot com bubble real estate bubble marriage bubble college studnet loan bubble funding professors who agree with the fiat dolalrz and degreess until the fiat degreees only funcion is to put the studnet in debt while dumbing them down teahcing them to obery horrid ugly evil dsoulles harpy womenz zlzozl
the welath transferirng dot com bubble
detsorying the family
butteheinxnxin
llzozozlzlzlzl
how the fatassed in the beltway neocon jonah goldber william benenetes operate lzozllzlzlzlzlzozo:
1. deconstruct the great books on univeristy campuses
2. tell men they need to man up
3. dumb down the entire schools system
4. tell men they need to man up
5. assrape men in divorce court
6. tell men they need to man up
7. send men to die on foreign shores in foreign neoocn wars
8. tell men they need to man up
9. drug boys with ritalin/adderoll for being boys
10. tell men they need to man up
11. encourage woem to giver thie aholes and ginaholes early and often to douchebags
12. tell men they need to man up
13. destroy the classical, heroic character in their neocon movies, replacing them with asscocking gay cowboys
14. tell men they need to man up
15. print money from thin air and inflate and dlate bubbes to seize a man’s home and property
16. tell men they need to man up
17. enocurage women to become fat, whiney bitches
18. tell men they need to man up
19. publish, promote, fund, and finance asscokers licke tucker max who film secrtive tap9ng of assockinhg session without the girl’s consent, tucker ma rhymes with goldam sax, repeating tucker’s lies that he is six fet tall inthe neocon weekly standadth .
20. tell men they need to man up
21. transofrm the church from an instititution where a man coul once go to meet a virginal, exalted wife, into a front for the divorce industry, where single mothers with three children from three asscockers go to rope in a betabmale to pay for the assocker’s spawn
22. tell men they need to man up
23. castigate, attack, and impugn men for acting like men
24. tell men they need to man up
25. transform the noble, exalted university into a nursery, ruled by neocon women exalting asscockers, asscokcing, and good grammar, exiling and deconstructing the great book and men, and rewading the servile future nannies of teh nanny state with fiat dollars delivered fresh from ben beranke’s helicopter
26. tell men they need to man up
27. remove all men from the publishing industry, so that priscialla painton of simon and schuster sodom and scheister can publish tucker max rhymes iwth godlman sax’s stories on how he asscoked a girl (somone’s future wife who will asscock her future huspband in divorce coutrt as revenge for having been assocked by a neocns) and taped it secrtly without her conthent lzozozlzoo. remove all men form the publishing industry and repalce deep, prodoufn real great books for men with twilight vampire asscocking female rape fanasty rape fanatsatsy “roamance” novels
28. tell men they need to man up
29. conceive of a hundred government programs to criminalzize men and force them o hand over their assetts to women
30. tell men they need to man up
31. financially incentivizee womem to file for divorce, promising them that their former husdband will have to pay for all their futrue assocking sessions, and that they get the kids/house/car/assetts
32. tell men they need to ma up
33. fill the law schools with fatm, embittered, burned-out, nasty (in looks an spirit) post-asscoked lawyeresses, an replace Moses’ and Zeus’s law with bernake’s banker laws whichexlats theft via the inflation tax
34. tell men they need to man up.
lzozoozozo
what aalalz am i mizssing here:???
feel free to addodoon ti oit! lzozlzl
LikeLike
from: http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/10/those-who-are-responsible.html
zlzozozozolzlzzoz
Those Who Are Responsible
Been awhile since I read a Heartiste comment thread and saw GBFM make another Adderall-inspired rant worthy of contemplation.
Many people skip right over his commentary as soon as they see his trademark lozlzolzolzol.
It can be hard to read his disjointed, scatological and downright bizarre syntax, but the overall points he makes and observations of our Brave New World Order certainly have merit.
So, to provide a public service to this corner of teh interwebz, I offer a translation of his latest work. It’s a masterpiece!
LMAO
Yes, all the wall street nitwit protestors are forgetting to protest the right people.
Who are these forgotten malefactors of our Brave New World Order?
They are the Neo-cons; those warmongering, debt-creating, honor-hating, federal reserve-owning, private bankers who create fiat currency out of thin-air by placing everyone in debt; who privatize profits and socialize risk.
Those who fund feminism and war (as feminism is war).
Those who fund moral degeneracy of the spirit and the permissive acceptance, celebration and normalization of homosexuality.
Those who finance the mass media popularization of promiscuity and the reduction of women to nothing more than sex objects and “empowered” career feminists dedicated to the pursuit of career success as Human Resources in Corporate America instead of preparing for marriage and family formation.
Those who fostered this society to create confused, dysfunctional individuals to make them servile and controllable through mass media and public school indoctrination.
Those who fund the pharmaceutical companies who profit off of treating young boys like their natural energy, curiosity and rambunctiousness as a disease that needs to be drugged into conformity.
Those who funded feminism and effected the long march through Western Civilization by disparaging and marginalizing the great works of Classic Western literature — like Homer, Dante, Shakespeare and the Bible — and replace them with Women’s Studies curriculum and liberal progressive doctrine promoting cultural Marxism to instill a mentality of entitlement to support class warfare and wealth redistribution ideals as the new morality.
Who are these people? The Federal Reserve private banksters who implemented the ten planks of the communist manifesto; who created all of the wealth transferring bubbles: the dot-com bubble, the real estate bubble, the marriage bubble, and the college student loan bubble.
By funding higher education, they ensure that the professors promote a curriculum that support Central Banking’s role in society, supporting their fiat dollar monetary policy, and the creation of meaningless, overpriced degrees that dumb down the students and trap them in debt in exchange for credentialis not worth the price of the parchment they’re printed on.
And it all goes back to the basic goals of these elite who promoted cultural Marxism to destroy the family to remake society for their benefit.
Thanks to these bastards, we are all screwed.
While the openly liberal, left-wing useful idiots play their role in advancing this agenda, the right wing media pundits and talking heads play there role as well. Here’s how they contribute to this agenda:
*By making the following section of his comment a list, I think the meaning is very easy to discern, so I only offer minor grammatical editing here:
1. deconstruct the great books on university campuses
2. tell men they need to man up
3. dumb down the entire schools system
4. tell men they need to man up
5. ass-rape men in divorce court
6. tell men they need to man up
7. send men to die on foreign shores in foreign neo-con wars
8. tell men they need to man up
9. drug boys with ritalin/adderoll for being boys
10. tell men they need to man up
11. encourage women to give their a-holes and ‘gina-holes early and often to douchebags
12. tell men they need to man up
13. destroy the classical, heroic character in their neo-con movies, replacing them with ass-cocking gay cowboys
14. tell men they need to man up
15. print money from thin air and inflate and deflate bubbles to seize a man’s home and property
16. tell men they need to man up
17. encourage women to become fat, whiny bitches
18. tell men they need to man up
19. publish, promote, fund, and finance ass-cockers like tucker max who film secretive taping of ass-cocking sessions without the girl’s consent (tucker max rhymes with goldman sachs), repeating tucker’s lies that he is six feet tall in the neo-con mag, the weekly standard.
20. tell men they need to man up
21. transform the church from an institution where a man could once go to meet a virginal, exalted wife, into a front for the divorce industry, where single mothers with three children from three ass-cockers go to rope in a beta male to pay for the ass-cocker’s spawn
22. tell men they need to man up
23. castigate, attack, and impugn men for acting like men
24. tell men they need to man up
25. transform the noble, exalted university into a nursery, ruled by neo-con women exalting ass-cockers, asscocking, and good grammar, exiling and deconstructing the great books and men, and rewarding the servile future nannies of the nanny state with fiat dollars delivered fresh from ben beranke’s helicopter
26. tell men they need to man up
27. remove all men from the publishing industry, so that priscialla painton of simon and schuster sodom and scheister can publish tucker max rhymes iwth godlman sax’s stories on how he asscoked a girl (somone’s future wife who will asscock her future huspband in divorce coutrt as revenge for having been assocked by a neocon) and taped it secretly without her consent. Remove all men from the publishing industry and replace deep, profound, real great books for men, with twilight vampire asscocking female rape fanasty “romance” novels.
28. tell men they need to man up
29. conceive of a hundred government programs to criminalize men and force them to hand over their assets to women
30. tell men they need to man up
31. financially incentivize womem to file for divorce, promising them that their former husdband will have to pay for all their future assocking sessions, and that they get the kids/house/car/assets
32. tell men they need to ma up
33. fill the law schools with fat, embittered, burned-out, nasty (in looks and spirit) post-asscoked lawyeresses, and replace Moses’ and Zeus’s law with Bernake’s Banker laws which exlats theft via the inflation tax
34. tell men they need to man up.
lzozoozozol
what aalalz am i mizssing here:???
35. Tell men they need to man up?
Adderall is a helluva drug.
zlzozozozlzozozolozo
LikeLike
chalress murrayays needs to shame da headz of neoecnth publishinghouses who publish lying assockcing bullies and secrteive tapers of sosododmies lzozlzozoz
Why are Female Executives Publishing Tucker Max?
Saw this floating around. good question!
MCCOY MOUNTAIN
ART, FILM, & LITERATURE GUILD OF AMERICA
Ms. Priscilla Painton
Simon & Schuster Editor in Chief
RE: ASSHOLES FINISH FIRST, Secretive Tapings of Anal Sex without The Girl’s Consent, Corporate Douchebaggery, and the Epic Failure of I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell
Despite the fact that teenagers nationwide are going to hear gem pick-up lines like “get away from me or I’m going to carve another fuck hole in your torso”, what truly crowns this film as an epic fail is its apologetic attempt to masquerade gratuity as an Apatovian bromance. –http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/we-hope-you-can-still-get-alcohol-poisoning-in-hell/Content?oid=1291260
“Little Italy is fighting back against Tucker Max ‘s controversial ad campaign . Yeah, that poster on the right says, “Blind Girls Never See You Coming.” Va fan culo, indeed.” –http://gothamist.com/2009/09/21/tucker_max.php
Dear Ms. Painton,
I and my colleagues in the ART, FILM & LITERATURE GUILD have a couple questions regarding the direction you are taking Simon and Schuster in. Why are you guys/gals hating on art, literature, culture and America? It was recently brought to our attention that you are intent on publishing Tucker Max’s ASSHOLES FINISH FIRST, and that your company actually gave him a $300,000 advance for his fart art. As the editor in chief of Simon and Schuster, owned the CBS corporation, do you truly believe Assholes Finish First? It is oft said that girls like “bad boys.” Does Tucker’s fart art douchebag wit titillate and excite you? Is that why you are publishing and profiting from it? Did you laugh during Tucker’s recent film flop when what’s-his-name stated that overweight women aren’t real people? Do you smile smugly when your billion-dollar corporation profits from douchebaggery?
http://gawker.com/5363233/tucker-maxs-campaign-of-hate-against-chicagos-transit-system “The ads were poetic ditties of white text on a black background . Like: “Blind girls never see you coming” and “Strippers Will Not Tolerate Disrespect (Just Kidding).””
“Over at the Washington, D.C., premiere, Max’s video minion ridicules both Vietnamese and African-American women, the former for being employed as a pedicurist, and the latter for having a name he finds funny.”
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/10/spot-your-local-tucker-max-douchebag/
Do you enjoy profiting from making fun of Asians and overweight women? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220628/board/thread/148314040
http://tuckermaxdoucebag.blogspot.com
http://tuckermaxlies.blogspot.com
Does this make you laugh Ms. Painton? It is not too late to choose the right direction for Simon and Schuster and CBS and walk away from publishing Assholes Finish First . At most it will bring in a few pennies, which will lead everyone to conclude that you and CBS aren’t in it for the money, but just the debauchery and destruction of the culture. As Tucker Max pointed out, the feminist movement empowered women and gave them the right to choose the art they affiliated with and promote. So now, with all the power in your hands, what will you chose on behalf of women all over the world? Please do us proud and choose the right thing.
“The ad campaign for the new flick “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” includes slogans like “Deaf Girls Can’t Hear You Coming” and “Strippers Will Not Tolerate Disrespect (Just Kidding!).””
–http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/New-Movie-Ads-Take-Offensive-to-the-Max-59695522.html
Why is corporate America, under your direction Ms. Painton, forcing epic “Richard Kelly” fail fart art and film on the common public? Do you also find secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent to be entertaining and titillating art?
http://gawker.com/5363233/tucker-maxs-campaign-of-hate-against-chicagos-transit-system
Let’s talk for a sec about something Tucker glamorizes and pretends is funny in his ‘book’: filming a naked women in his bedroom without her consent. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that while he’s doing this he is coaxing the girl to have anal sex with him, an exploitative act that a guy like him probably especially enjoys.
–http://www.bitchmagazine.org/post/douchebag-decree-marketing-tucker-max
– http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/11/the-rapiest-quotes-from-i-hope-they-serve-beer-in-hell/
“OK, we can try anal sex , but I want it to be special and romantic. …. process: I was going to fuck her in the butt and film it without her consent ,” — http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/entries/date/tucker_tries_buttsex_hilarity_does_not_ensue.phtml
Do you and the CBS Corporation find this entertaining? As you know, sodomy is a sin in the Old Testament as is sex out of wedlock and fornication. What is your motivation in working with those who promote and profit from secretive tapings of anal sex?
Do you find such “literature” and “art” to be representative of Simon and Schuster and CBS?
“In one of his most notorious pieces, he convinces a girl to have anal sex and tapes it without her consent.” — http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/08/tucker_max/
Despite the fact that teenagers nationwide are going to hear gem pick-up lines like “get away from me or I’m going to carve another fuck hole in your torso”, what truly crowns this film as an epic fail is its apologetic attempt to masquerade gratuity as an Apatovian bromance. –http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/we-hope-you-can-still-get-alcohol-poisoning-in-hell/Content?oid=1291260
Ms. Painton–do you find that entertaining? Is it good literature? Do you consider demeaning stories about having sex with midgets good literature? Do you consider it good business to make fun of Asians, overweight women, and minorities so as to bolster your bottom line?
What is driving you to publish Assholes Finish First ? What are your motivations? Money? America does not want Tucker Max, as demonstrated this past weekend at the boxoffice. Do you find these signs to be entertaining/a good CBS investment?
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/15/tucker-max-fans-fight-rape-with-racism/
Is Tucker Max’s fan base the group that Simon & Schuster is seeking to serve under your leadership?
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/14/tucker-max-too-sexist-for-ad-space/
It seems that America believes otherwise as Richard Kelly and Tucker Max’s I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell has proven to be a colossal artistic and financial failure.
“Not faring so well, however, was the Tucker Max adaptation I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, which took in $369,000 from 120 theaters with a well-below-average $3,075 per-screen average.” — http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEdXykfeBDXwhe
So Priscilla, please tell us about your douchetastic love affair with Tucker Max and his fart art. Does it really titillate you as a woman and feminist? Say it isn’t so! Is this good Simon and Schuster/CBS branding? Why did your massive billion-dollar corporation reward Tucker with a $300,000 advance?
“Little Italy is fighting back against Tucker Max ‘s controversial ad campaign . Yeah, that poster on the right says, “Blind Girls Never See You Coming.” Va fan culo, indeed.” –http://gothamist.com/2009/09/21/tucker_max.php
Does CBS and Simon & Schuster approve of registering fake email accounts to promote stories regarding secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent?
” The lack of traditional plugs forced Max to promote his web site and book via the internet. He would create fake e-mail accounts and then bombard entertainment sites and news aggregators with links to his material.” — http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/11/tucker_max_sxsw/
For this, your billion-dollar corporation rewarded Tucker with a $300,000 advance.
“Max may have to concentrate on his agent style business moving forward because he’s running out of material. He’s received a $300,000 advance for a second version of his drunken, sexual exploits – a tome that will contain the stories not ripe enough for the first cut.” — http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/11/tucker_max_sxsw/
Are you proud of Simon & Schuster and your corporation? Funding and encouraging hype, failure, douchebaggery, debauchery, lies, secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent, and making fun of Asians, overweight women, and minorities. Is that what attracts you to Tucker Max, or is it the epic artistic and financial failure of his film?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_hope_they_serve_beer_in_hell/
“I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell fails in its attempts at raunchy humor, and Tucker Max comes across so unlikable and outrageous that the film’s inevitable story arc feels forced.”
It is not too late to choose the right direction for Simon and Schuster and walk away from publishing Assholes Finish First .
Best,
McCoy Mountain & The ART, FILM & LITERATURE GUILD
–http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220628/board/thread/148314040
Will Priscilla Painton at Simon & Shuster still Publish *beep* Finish First?
the title makes no sense. *beep* might finish first in some silly women’s eyes, but they epic fail in reality, as demonstrated by tucker’s epic fart art film fail, which priscilla painton is pretendning not to notice.
What’s up with women these days?
It seems the more they run things, the more they try to force douchebag fart art on everyone:
Former ‘Time’ Exec. Relieves Venerable Editor Mayhew At Simon & Schuster
http://gawker.com/5002333/former-time-exec-relieves-venerable-editor-mayhew-at-simon–schuster
Anywho, does Priscilla Painton at Simon & Shuster have a personal vendetta against asians, minorities, overweight women, and little people?
Does she think tucker’s ads are cute and humorous?
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/New-Movie-Ads-Take-Offensive-to-the-Max-59695522.html
Does she get off on this?
“The ad campaign for the new flick “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” includes slogans like “Deaf Girls Can’t Hear You Coming” and “Strippers Will Not Tolerate Disrespect (Just Kidding!).”
Is that supposed to be funny?” –http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/New-Movie-Ads-Take-Offensive-to-the-Max-59695522.html
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/10/spot-your-local-tucker-max-douchebag/
Is this the new face and culture of simon and schuster?
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/15/tucker-max-fans-fight-rape-with-racism/
Does Priscilla Painton at Simon and Schuster giggle at secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent and also this:
http://www.penguinblogs.ca/davidson/archives/00000079.html
http://tuckermaxlies.blogspot.com/2008/08/sillylittlefreak.html
http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/entries/date/the_absinthe_donuts_story.phtml
“11:17: The girl starts saying something about what a horrible person I am. I stare at her, but I am not listening. I am preparing myself. I am B-Rabbit. This is the final battle rap. I will win the hostile crowd:
[I interrupt the fat girl] “Ward, I think you’re being a little hard on the Beaver, [as I point to each in turn] so is Eddie Haskell, Wally, and Miss Cleaver.”
[To the fat guy with greasy hair in the camo vest] “Look out everyone! It’s the Pillsbury Commando! Hey Chunk, when was the last time you washed your hair? Does it give you more hit points to have that grease helmet? I hate to break the news, but +5 defense only counts in Dungeons and Dragons.”
[To the ugly Asian girl] “Why you no rike me? You want me frip over? You no piss me off! ME FIND YOU IN POCKING ROT!! YOU NO TAKE MING ARIVE!!”
[To the small frail dork–I notice he has a lazy eye] “Dude–Look at me when I’m talking to you–BOTH EYES AT ONCE. Are you really this ugly or are you just playing? EVERYONE, BE CAREFUL, THIS GUY LURKS UNDER THE STAIRS AND TRIES TO LICK YOUR SHOES WHEN YOU PASS BY!”
[To the original fatty, pause for effect] “Why do you do this to yourself? WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO YOURSELF? Look, I’m gonna give you some advice-leave the party, take the geek squad with you, go to Denny’s, order about 10 Grand Slam Breakfasts, and eat your pain away. Won’t be the first time will it?”
11:19: I am finished. The kitchen is quiet, except for Eddie and Rich laughing. The four freaks are completely speechless. Everyone is staring at me. I blurt out, “WHAT? I’m pretty sure it’s what Jesus would’ve done.” Eddie and Rich promptly remove me from the kitchen.”
Is Priscilla Painton publishing tucker’s next book for the love of literature, art, or money?
‘Cause it seems that those who work with tucker generally hate and lose literature, art, and money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Painton
http://www.theladyfinger.com/2009/09/tucker-max-brings-his-misogyny-to-big.html
“What ensues, according the film’s trailer, is alcohol-fueled misogynistic mayhem. Max has sex with several women, including, to his smug satisfaction, a dwarf.”
See? That is the clever banker ruse.
Have women such as Priscilla fund and promote it, while others protest it, enriching the bankers as marriage is destroyed and the state is grown.
http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/
“A Site about the Divorce Regime, Family Court Corruption,
and Government’s War on Fathers”
“The divorce regime is the most totalitarian institution ever to arise in the United States. Its operatives in the family courts and the social service agencies recognize no private sphere of life. “The power of family court judges is almost unlimited,” according to Judge Robert Page of the New Jersey family court. “Social workers are perceived to have nearly unlimited power,” a San Diego Grand Jury concludes. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Total immunity [enjoyed by social workers] is absolute power.”
The divorce regime is responsible for much more than “ugly divorces,” “nasty custody battles,” and other clichés. It is the most serious perpetrator of human and constitutional rights violations in America today. Because it strikes the most basic institution of any civilization – the family – the divorce regime is a threat not only to social order but to civil freedom. It is also almost completely unopposed. No political party and no politicians question it. No journalists investigate it in any depth. A few attorneys have spoken out, but they are eventually suspended or disbarred. Some academics have written about it, but they soon stop. No human rights or civil liberties groups challenge it, and some positively support it. Very few “pro-family” lobbies question it. This is because the divorce regime operates through money, political power, and fear.” — http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/
–http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220628/board/thread/148314040
Have you seen/read END THE FED by Ron Paul? “Everyone must read this book–Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans–all Americans.”
–Vince Vaughn
When you think about it, Tucker Max was the Fed’s ultimate creation–a soulless, debased douchebag:
“My name is Tucker Max, and I am an *beep*
Think about it–Tucker’s motto @ http://tuckermax.com could be the Fed’s motto:
“I get excessively drunk via inflating the currency at inappropriate times, disregard social norms (funding feminism/debauchery & debasement of the family/currency/culture/tucker max(educated at the Fed’s University of Chicago’s School of Economics (school of freakanomics) and Duke scholarship)), indulge every whim/war, ignore the consequences of my actions/bubbles/bailouts, fund idiots and posers and tucker-max-like CEOs, sleep with more women than is safe or reasonable/luring them with fiat currency & a fiat-funded bus, and just generally act like a raging darko/douchebag/dickhead.”
What do you think of Ron Paul’s new book–End the Fed?
http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193/
Review for End The Fed
“Rarely has a single book not only challenged, but decisively changed my mind. “
–Arlo Guthrie
“Everyone must read this book–Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans–all Americans.”
–Vince Vaughn
Vince Vaughn is a far, far better actor/director/writer than Tucker Max, so it makes sense that Tucker and his jealous friends at the Fed detest Arlo Guthrie and Vince Vaughan as well as art, film, and literature.
The book has much better reviews and is far-higher ranked than Tucker’s douchey books/film/trailer–Five solid stars!
Why do you donnie darko douchos/cbs haterz hate on art, the Constitution, morality, goodness, sound money, peace, prosperity, love, the family, kindness, and Ron Paul so much?
And like the Fed, tucker privatizes all the profits of his private jet while sharing all the risk with his volunteer employees, who work for free.
“Feminism which espoused “women’s rights” actually has driven femininity underground, torn the sexes asunder, and stripped woman of recognition for being wives and mothers, roles essential to their own fulfillment, to men, and to children and society.” –http://www.savethemales.ca/
– http://www.amazon.com/Save-Males-Matter-Women-Should/dp/1400065798
LikeLike
total fucking gold my friend
LikeLike
Vince Vaughn is the man by the way. No surprise that people can’t get enough of him as an actor. The performance in Swingers arguably was the first lightning rod to popular culture for GAME – for the first time in decades a film about what it means to be a man – Vaughn the unforgettable Alpha to wake men up “You’re so fucking money and you dont even know it
LikeLike
I think the OP and commenters underestimate the change in these attitudes across generations. I’m in my mid-50s and therefore right in the middle of Feminism 1.5 (if 1.0 was in the 60s). Part of one of the first coeducational classes at my university, law school class about 1/3 female. Most of the women were excited to be working in high visibility, high achievement, even high pressure jobs. Not a lot of anger.
When we all got to work, Fem 1.0 superiors were very tough on their young “sisters” but not generally out of line with the men. When my female contemporaries made partner most of them had great reputations as bosses (if perhaps less demanding than they should have been). I never saw or heard of a male employee reject or even complain about working for a woman qua woman.
My oldest son is going to college soon and I suspect that he and his female contemporaries will get along just fine. Most everyone will work if they can, and they won’t couch surf for longer than necessary. They think stay at home moms (of their generation, not their mothers’) have an alternative lifestyle (and probably lots of money), not traditional values. I think feminism is like gay rights in this regard: We think the fight is just so important. They know it’s just so over.
[heartiste: you’re missing the point of the post by a country mile. no one’s talking about working for female bosses.]
LikeLike
WTF are you talking about? Good female bosses are like logical thoughts at an Occupy rally. Very fucking rare.
LikeLike
I’ve had several female bosses and all of them were awful. I studiously avoid working for women.
LikeLike
I think an office full of men or a mixed office works reasonably well, but an office full of women only is ridiculous (I work in one). There are no male voices present to counter the petty complaining and man-hating that routinely takes place. Obviously men also participate in petty complaining and woman-hating, but it seems like it’s to a lesser extent (at least in a workplace setting).
I also think that every office (or group in general) needs at least a bit of intangible “male energy.” A group of women can be just as productive as men, but on average are missing that extra something that the male perspective brings. I suppose you could attribute it to men’s problem-solving skills and single-minded focus.
Maybe the ideal group would be about a 60/40 or 70/30 mix of men to women?
LikeLike
It’s true. My younger brother started work at a big-box store and was specifically put in the bakery because “they needed testosterone in there”. He found the women’s griping there to be really amusing. He mentioned a male manager who would cheerfully tell them to do things and walk off, then the women would complain about the manager amongst themselves.
As for female bosses: yes, there should be a law against that. Although, oddly enough, unless they’re lesbian, they tend to be easier on male underlings than the females.
LikeLike
I don’t like working with women at all. My preference is 100% male. Then you can start to demand more of people. Mixed offices are less productive because the men see how little the women do and that sets the standard. Women spend far too much time seeking unfair advantage and you’re not allowed to call them on it.
LikeLike
I had a female boss once.
Once.
LikeLike
How many mangina bosses?
Just because it’s a man, doesn’t mean he’s not brainwashed or doesn’t know how his bread is buttered.
LikeLike
True… but with a man, there’s always that point where you can tell him to go fuck himself… without having to take diversity sensitivity classes and/or having it follow you to the next job.
LikeLike
Atlas doesn’t need to go to Galt’s Gulch to shrug. He can now do it from the comfort of his living room. A Day Without White Men will be a little more significant than unmowed lawns and unbussed tables. Fuck off wildabeast slavers.
LikeLike
Murray is only adhering to what Marc Rudov brilliantly
identifies as America’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt
never criticize a female, and anyone who does is a women-hater.”
You can’t criticize them in the boardroom.
You can’t criticize them in politics.
You can’t criticize them on campus.
You can’t criticize them in the family.
You can’t criticize them in the armed forces.
The largely anonymous pounding they’re getting on the internet is
like the twelve hour artillery bombardment preceding an infantry
charge in WWI.
LikeLike
Omega of the Century?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2117319/Mothers-bid-fattest-human-115-stone—shes-marrying-chef-help-her.html
LikeLike
Rome is burning.
LikeLike
Rome, hell… Walhal.
LikeLike
He’s “helping” her? Maybe to a heart attack. That was horrifying.
LikeLike
lzozozozlzlz
charles murray need 2 think about it
when da cockas goes into da anuth to satisfy the female anuth tingle, and she wakes up with a sore anuth, is just da cocka’s fault, or also da anuthes fault for spreading istelf wide? lzozlzoz
and then why must da womenz, with sore, satiated anuthes, then legislate against all of men, some of who aren’t even buttcockers?
mr. murray relaly needs 2 get in touch with his male attributes classical greek exalted soul like logic and reaosn zlozlzlzozozozlzo and den shall the blind see! zlzozl
LikeLike
CH I love the fact that you post this stuff. It’s good insight on our current society.
I also laugh at all the proposals to change society. Why in the hell would you want to change society?
This blog is an instruction manual on how men can take advantage of the flaws in our CURRENT society. As long as the mainstream keeps refusing to believe that Game works, those of us that practice the underlying principles have a huge advantage. Not just in the Crimson Arts, but in business and in life as well.
[heartiste: i have a weak spot for national social cohesion and non-debt financed (nonbernankififieed) prosperity.]
LikeLike
All affirmative action and all disparate impact tests for women should end right now.
If anything men should be favored in jobs, as was the case after the end of WWII.
LikeLike
In reality, you’ll never get rid of these laws. they have become industries unto themselves. The next best hope lies in starving the beast by not paying for enforcement and eventually, the law goes dormant.
LikeLike
“
Yes—how Liza Mundy manages to twist this into “attraction” is a feat of mental malpractice so extreme it could only come from a feminist.
Men are attracted to hot women—whatever their income level.
LikeLike
More – men are attracted to women with exploitable weaknesses.
LikeLike
Excellent choice of topic. Everyone needs to read Coming Apart. What is really great about it is that he doesn’t spend a lot of time speculating as to the cause of the deterioration of the white working class. Rather he puts together very convincing statistics that make the observation, withholding judgment and withholding guesses as to any grand underlying cause.
In that vein, I don’t think there is a singular or even primary reason for this deterioration. Its not that men need to man up. And its not female hypergamy. I will agree that between those two, female sex selection is a more primary cause. But in reading his book, its apparent that this is a seismic sociological change, and its a deep one. Feminism, pornography, no-fault divorce, women in the workplace and the myriad effects it has on society…. It’s a comprehensive change.
The key point of the book however is not only how the working class is disintergrating, but also how the upper class has remained rather constant. And both Murray and Heartiste’s critique of the welfare state and affirmative action for women is right on. There are some women who work real jobs and truly want to focus on their careers. Good for them. But among the working classes, there are throngs of useless gov’t and/or grant funded jobs that amount to absolutely nothing except getting a woman out of the house (and away from her kids), for some nominal wage funded by the productive class. Drastically cutting gov’t spending and auditing state gov’t (particularly state higher education budgets) will eliminate a lot of these affirmative action positions for women.
Women will choose the alpha cad over the providing beta when the difference in lifestyle that the beta can provide is negligible. But if you strip away the welfare safety net, living in a trailer or low income house with a beta sure beats working the streets, and definitely beats seeing your own children starving. As a society we need to get comfortable with the concept of responsibility. That means that innocent children will die. Poor people with illnesses that are expensive to treat will die. Losers that don’t seek work need to be called losers. And lazy sluts that don’t care about anyone but themselves need to be called out.
LikeLike
It absolutely is female hypergamy. Most middle-manager types and other each have harem of young working-class girls, who they buy shit for etc.
That’s the whole point of feminism. All the middle-class girls joined the harems of the truly rich, so lower level professionals have turned to the working class.
LikeLike
off topic and old ! but I think you should write about this topic ( anti solidarity tactics )
from the spearhead
Men Have Spoken: Jessica Valenti More Attractive than Amanda Marcotte
by W.F. Price
Although many – perhaps most – regular readers refused to participate in yesterday’s poll (which I expected), enough people responded to conclusively demonstrate that Jessica Valenti is better looking than Amanda Marcotte. This also should have been expected, as Valenti looks more like a real woman than Marcotte, who is built like a boy. However, a few readers thought Marcotte would be better in bed (a plausible assumption), which may explain why she received at least 20% of the vote.
Several readers asked why on earth I would introduce such a poll. Opus, who suggested that women, including feminists, tend to see the world as a beauty pageant, was closest to the mark. Men respond to female attractiveness on a primal level, in much the same manner they respond to food. However, the social implications are far more profound for women. Being attractive is at least as important to women as being “respected” is to men. A woman who wins a beauty contest feels the same rush and euphoria that a man who wins a sports championship does. This is really what’s behind women’s anger about objectification paired with persistent attempts to make themselves the object of attention. It’s frustration about not being the only object of desire. One will never hear a beauty queen complain about objectification; she’s too busy basking in all the attention from her admirers.
If you think about it, feminism is a sort of female attempt to democratize female sexuality. Ironically, the goal is similar to Christian monogamy, which attempts to guarantee that every man can have a a wife, but it has a distinctly female twist: it attempts to create a sort of “hypergamy for all,” which is impossible in the long run, but does work to some extent for young women. Unfortunately, this subjects young men to intense competitive pressure, as their sexually liberated female counterparts can carry on with several higher-status men simultaneously. The real feminist rage over objectification, slut-shaming, foreign brides and the like is that it might advantage some women at the expense of others (feminists in particular). They really don’t want to have to compete for the desirable men — they want equal access.
However, in the spirit of fair play, I think as long as feminists demand that lower status men (many of whom are young and horny) face more intense selective pressure from potential mates, it’s only fair to turn the tables and subject feminists to the same scrutiny. If it’s fair to judge a man according to his status, why not a woman according to her beauty? Perhaps the most common feminist pejorative directed at men is “loser.” If that isn’t a status judgment, what is? Is it any worse for a man to call a woman a “dog” than it is for a feminist to call a man a “loser?” Not at all. The two are equally judgmental.
So, from here on out I’m going to have regular “pageants” comparing feminists to each other solely based on sex appeal, and I will publish the results. They will be noticed, because the results will be honest and to the point instead of the kind of feel-good “we’re all beautiful” garbage the feminists deceptively say to each other to create a sense of “solidarity and sisterhood.” When it comes to this kind of thing, women actually want to know the truth, and it’s now been fairly conclusively demonstrated that Jessica Valenti is more attractive than Amanda Marcotte. Sorry Amanda — you lose this round.
Readers should feel free to submit other feminists for future pageants. I’ll try to make them at least somewhat competitive, and let’s try to keep the real dogs like Dworkin out of it so as not to induce nausea. I think this will turn out to be a fun little feature, and it will make a nice little point.
LikeLike
Shaming doesn’t work that way.
In years gone by, men were shamed for being bums, and women were shamed for dating losers, having sex before marriage, etc, because these activities would lead to dire consequences _for the person themselves_. A person’s family and friends would shame them because they were desperately concerned for the future of that person, and not for the general improvement of society.
Exhortations to “man up” will fail because they are not intended to improve the lot of the person at whom they are directed. For this reason they do not even constitute shaming in my book, merely a variation of the game “ain’t it awful”.
In contrast, the shaming that you propose for certain women hits the mark. But who will do it? Most women do not have the interests of other women at heart, and will be saying “You go, grrl!” when their “friends” push the self-destruct button. When men do it, they are representatives of the evil repressive patriarchy, and are _presumed_ not to have the interests of the woman at heart. The only men who might get the message across are the alphas the woman wants to screw (BACKTURN). But even alphas will pump and dump these women when they don’t find someone better.
I think shaming is unlikely to succeed in this case.
LikeLike
Don’t be too heard on Murray; he’s trying to disseminate a very important message into wider circles.
Think of Roger Devlin: He’s a genius, and his writing were the Red Pill for me and thousands more, but his bluntness has ensured the confinement of his writings to the Occidental Quarterly and other “interesting” publications.
Hell, think of Heartiste: the message of the Chateau, a critical one, is heard by a small audience. Unless his promised novel wins a Pulitzer and single-handedly reverses 40 years of feminist brainwashing, it will be the case that some pandering to the conventional wisdom is required to spread the word
LikeLike
[…] the manosphere is lining up against Murray. For example, Heartiste believes that Murray is telling certain men to man up when Murray tells them to get a job. Is Murray’s […]
LikeLike
“Coming Apart: The State of White America”.
Progressives felt joy at the title alone. “Progressives”, “liberals”, whatever anti-whites are calling themselves these days, are overjoyed that lower class whites are “disintegrating.” Anti-white racism is the central tenet of their ideology. The Final Solution is to racially cleanse white people out of existence. The plan is moving along nicely.
LikeLike
Better read it before jumping to such conclusions. The author wrote “The Bell Curve” and “Losing Ground.” Anti-whites HATE this guy.
LikeLike
“Shame “empowered”, overeducated women who wave their degrees around men like it matters. “You’ve just made it harder on yourself to find love.” BACKTURN”
This point has been made numerous times of course but it still seems to have not sunk in.
I came across this clip on G+:
It begins with: “I just proposed a math question to my beautiful wife Chelsea.”
Then commences 4 minutes of hilarity as this cute blonde simply can’t wrap her head around the idea that traveling 80mph means that in one hour you will travel 80 miles.
Of course the comments are all about:
“Oh my, I can’t believe these people can breed.”
“What idiots.”
“This has to be fake.”
“But they can vote.”
“How could he do this to her?”
Nobody seemingly not understanding that he didn’t marry her for her math skills.
Idiots.
LikeLike
Agreed.
Who the fuck actually believes hot chicks are supposed to be smart.
Or honest – or nice.
Only mra’s…
LikeLike
I think this is fake.
LikeLike
This is relevant to single-motherhood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U5R4KzHHNA
LikeLike
hesaidhe-
“i have tried to talk to my “girlfriends” about this transition. most think i have gone insane. one told me she saw no point to our friendship after i described an experience i had feeding a bottle to my niece.”
That’s lovely and all that you got all warm and gushy feeding your niece, but whatever feminine transformation you’re undergoing won’t be complete until you recoil in horror and disgust at the site of a bottle (or at the very least a bottle that doesn’t contain breastmilk). In all seriousness, keep that in mind, so you’ve got it all sorted out before getting pregnant.
LikeLike
…i look forward to that moment of recoil.
there is darkness where there is light and i have already been to the blackest ever black.
LikeLike
And things always look darkest before they go totally black.
All seriousness aside, good on you, hesaidhe, for wanting motherhood and a truly feminine role. Just don’t forget the husband part, and all that nurturing him as well entails… lest that light at the end of the tunnel be an oncoming train.
LikeLike
a tightly wound ball of daughter, sister, wife and mother ;]
LikeLike
“I don’t have an argument with his economic numbers, although I think he probably understates the role automation, immigration and skill prerequisite inflation have had in the gutting of working class men’s job prospects and ability to merge seamlessly into functional family formation.”
He is ignoring women’s rising status, while men have stayed flat. Likewise the cost of a good neighborhood/school has skyrocketed(as have other things), so even though we have 1960s wages, we emphatically do not live in a 1960s world anymore.
LikeLike
Since we’re on the topic of shaming, check out this little gem…
http://storify.com/charlesarthur/oh-hai-sexism
LikeLike
A classic reply to the femcunts first twiitter would merely have been:
“gay”
LikeLike
I see the author has been reading AVfM articles again. The one about Bill Bennett. See the open letter?
LikeLike
Females will be the bigger losers when the government teat dries up. So, they will come looking for beta males to support, harder and sooner.
I think we are in the end stages of a highly dysfunctional society. Good riddance.
Speaking of dysfunctional, my daughter’s friend (now age 35), who slept with her professor in grad school (The women blamed the professor!), who traveled a lot in Europe for education in an artsy major, who shacked up alpha, dumped alpha while she stalked my son for chump provider, then went back to alpha when my son married someone else, has now left alpha again and may head overseas, looking for work, since she can’t find a job funded by state govt in this country. (Who else would hire a seriously artsy major?)
This is the future of many of these women. Not only unemployed or employed at low wages, but unmarriageable. Her only chance now is to marry a much older man. She could just stay single, and struggle with some pittance for an income after many years of education, and have a cat. Likely, she is getting too old for her alpha to bother with her.
Bad choices ===> bad outcomes.
Quote of the day: A woman turns to God when the Devil will have nothing more to do with her.
LikeLike
Not only do women subconsciously (or consciously) compare their material goods with the material wealth or status of the men around them , but they are comparing their future expected earnings or future potential earnings with the men around them. Throw in an inflated ego and not many men will reach the bar for the professional woman.
I will never forget the day I met an Aussie who had worked for a few years as an investment banker in NYC telling me how he had never met more embittered 30-something women than he did in New York. Sad really, but instructive to a young man like myself.
Never go for or stay with a woman who thinks she can have it all.
LikeLike
[…] Charles Murray’s One-Sided Shaming (heartiste.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike
[…] Charles Murray’s One-Sided Shaming (heartiste.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike
[…] Charles Murray’s One-Sided Shaming (heartiste.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike