Wednesday, March 17, 2010

So who is on the side of men?

Who best represents the interests of men? Certainly not Paul Greenberg, a columnist for the mainstream conservative Town Hall website. He believes that men are the weaker sex:

I've never been much of a believer in historical theories about the Indispensable Man. There may be some examples -- Washington, Lincoln, Moses -- but they are few. But the indispensable woman, I believe in. Call it Greenberg's Law: Women are the innately superior sex. My theory may not be backed by any scientific evidence, but it's something every man has surely felt. At least if he's got a lick of sense.

You might even call it a prejudice -- in the sense of Edmund Burke's definition of prejudice as the body of judgments passed on as received wisdom from generation to generation, and that need not be proven anew in every age ...

When it comes to great truths, each generation shouldn't have to work them out by itself. They don't have to be written down, any more than the English constitution is. Every boy soon learns that women seem to know intuitively what the weaker male sex may grasp only by effort and education. Which is why it requires marriage and family to civilize the male animal. He needs a woman's tutelage.

Brighter boys learn the lesson of female superiority early; dimmer ones may never catch on.

I'm starting to feel sorry for Edmund Burke. He seems to be the one that faux conservatives turn to, to add a little rhetorical depth to their featherweight theories.

Where has this Greenberg been living his whole life? Has he missed the advent of the binge drinking, swearing, coarsely natured, bad boy chasing modern girl?

And does this Greenberg really believe that women want men to adopt such a pathetic and inferior position toward them?

Greenberg's misandry has been picked up on by the "Gamist" websites, as proof that conservatives in general are the enemy of the modern male. Even Roissy, who runs one of the most influential of these sites, has picked up on this theme: he claims that conservatives sanctify women and that this leads to the,

laws, policies, and cultural beliefs that are anti-male, and which we in the West are soaking in today.

So is Roissy then someone who is better placed to lead a men's movement? A movement of solidarity between men to overcome such adversity?

That would be no.

Roissy, in the very same article, wants to illustrate just how lacking in moral superiority women are. So he reveals the fact that he has regularly bedded married women. He has bedded married women even when their husbands were attempting to contact them, trying to find out where they were.

Not a great basis for a men's movement, is it? Roissy believes that other men's wives are fair game for himself and his followers. It is a selfish hedonism that pits men against each other in more serious ways than feminism ever devised.

And nor is Roissy's view of men better than that of the misandrist Greenberg. Greenberg may think that women are superior, but Roissy believes the following of men:

Women are vile creatures at heart, just as men are. An ugly truth, Mr. Greenberg

So we get to be equally vile. Feminists think that men are vile and Roissy ends up agreeing.

Many of the comments run along similar lines:

Cultured ape: We are a bunch of selfish and violent apes.

Riff dog: I’m definitely accepting of the fact that women are as depraved as I am. In fact, I count on it. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve bedded some conservative’s straight and proper looking wife and started thinking, “Buddy, you have no idea.”

Lupo: It is the person who is married who is making the moral choice, not the person they’re sleeping with. When I [sleep with] a married woman, I break no vows: they do. You’re free to think me a bad person, and you’d be right in a way, but unlike married broads who cheat, I actually don’t cheat on anybody.

Vincent Ignatious: There’s nothing wrong with [sleeping with] a taken woman. It would only be wrong if you didn’t make sure the boyfriend/husband found out so he could drop her. 99% of married women in this country don’t deserve a husband. They don’t really deserve to be loved at all.

Str8up: I have no qualms about [sleeping with] women who are married or taken. The funny thing is, it is always the woman who initiates it. I don’t seek it out. I don’t need high fives from other guys. I am simply fulfilling my biological urge for sexual variety. I am not breaking a commitment to anyone.

Gamists are always criticising "beta" males for lacking self-confidence. And yet the thoughts expressed in the above comments are hardly likely to inspire men's sense of confidence in themselves. If men are vile, bad, depraved, selfish and violent apes, who are simply following biological urges, then on what basis do men positively assert their masculine character as fit for leadership in society or in a church or in a family?

Where is it that Roissy can take men? Are we to live as sexual predators, owing each other nothing, regarding women as vile conquests? Does that really match what men once achieved in the world, what men once were? Is it the basis of a self-respecting life, let alone a successful men's movement?

(Roissy's column is here but note that it's more explicit than I've described in this post.)

Update: Lawrence Auster has referenced this post at View from the Right. Auster has some knowledge of Greenberg's politics (I'd never heard of him before) and believes it incorrect to label him a conservative. He is more of a moderate liberal. So it's not even a case here of a mainstream social conservative making comments about female superiority. Therefore all the theories about Greenberg being a pedestalising socon are off the mark from the outset.

71 comments:

  1. Greenberg's column is a prime example of why conservatism does not have a political future. Any civilization that wants to survive and prosper must bridle its young women, constraining their instincts. But western conservatives are doubling down on the bet that today's problems are the result of unconstrained male behavior. What I'm wondering is how non-pedestalizing conservatives like Mark propose to separate themselves from the mainstream of conservatism, much less take back conservatism.

    One heartening thing is that the comments in the link are filled with vicious mockery of Greenberg's sentiments.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Does that really match what men once achieved in the world, what men once were? Is it the basis of a self-respecting life, let alone a successful men's movement?

    No, but sites like that, by laying out a few home truths about human nature, might have the salutary effect of shaking some young men out the PC-torpor they're mired in. Those with some brains and a spark of manhood left will take the lesson and move on, because, essentially, Roissy, and the type of individuals you quote, are not after all reactions to feminism and PC, but products - profoundly feminized, self-absorbed.

    So I think too much time is wasted among traditionalists fussing about these castrati. The pettish little degenerates you quote are irrelevant to the future (just like Greenberg). Younger men with brains and balls will enjoy the anti-PC adolescent thrill, probably pick up some useful info on attracting women, get bored with the silly, dead-end likes of "Lupo" and "Riff dog", grow up and move on. I think you underestimate just how boring nihilism is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not a great basis for a men's movement, is it? Roissy believes that other men's wives are fair game for himself and his followers. It is a selfish hedonism that pits men against each other in more serious ways than feminism ever devised.

    Not at all. He is not acting differently from what feminism prescribes; he is acting exactly as feminism prescribes. He is observing the world as it is, not as he wants it to be, and acting accordingly. He describes the problem here:

    "1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
    2. Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
    3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
    4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.

    As I have written, these changes are slowly, but powerfully, tectonically shifting the courtship playing field."

    He then says that the alpha (or PUA) is the natural consequence of this shift in the playing field. He does not believe this is a good thing:

    "Human nature does not offer us a bottomless chest of treasure. Few are exempt from trade-offs, and no society can have everything its heart desires. To restore American greatness and comity of its people, feminism and its cousin -isms will have to be rolled back. This will mean women will sacrifice their earning power and some career freedom. The alternative is what we have now — economically independent women, freed from shame and the restrictions of their biology by the pill and abortion, following their vaginas straight into soft polygamy, state-supported single motherhood, and grossly unjust payday divorce settlements."

    In short, selfish hedonism is not an insidious alternative to hedonism, it is the product of feminism. It pits men against each other in accordance with the system feminism devised.

    More on feminism as a sexual selection strategy here:

    "Why feminism? Why now? In a word: Beta males acquired too much power. The ascendance of the beta male (and, not coincidentally, the rise of American power) through the late 19th century to the mid-20th century, exemplified by the common man seeing his income and standard of living rise and his opportunities for marriage with quality women rise in response, resulted, as is necessary in the zero sum sexual market, in a lessening of female market leverage to satisfactorily satiate their hypergamous impulse. As I wrote back in this post:

    Roissy Maxim #15: Female cultural equality = male dating inequality. Female cultural inequality = male dating equality. You cannot have both. So sayeth human nature."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good comment by Rohan Swee.
    Roissy: Antidote? Poison? Both.
    But how many traditionalists would even be addressing the issues raised here were it not for the attention drawn to them by Roissy's pornographic treatment of them?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Came here from VFR. Good post!

    Expatriot comments: "Roissy: Antidote? Poison? Both."

    I say: "Poison."

    It's well and fine to observe that all humans are depraved; this is, after all, a first principle of Christianity (and therefore, conservatism). But it's what you DO with your insight that makes the difference.

    One who behaves as if "it is better to be the Devil's right hand than in his path" is a destroyer in his own right. Roissy is poison, only stating truths in order to give a veneer of justification to his evil. For all his alleged clarity of sight, what is he doing to make anything better? Does he even CARE?

    Would traditionalists be addressing these matters if not for Roissy? I submit that we always have. Roissy is not new; there are even words that describe males such as he that pre-date his existence (e.g., cad, libertine, adulterer, fornicator). Warnings against such men were once given to young women often. There is no new sin under the sun, you know; there are just a lot of truly ignorant people.

    ...And I'm done rambling. Have a pleasant day, gentlemen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "For all his alleged clarity of sight, what is he doing to make anything better? Does he even CARE?".........................

    So, you're asking - no, demanding -that roissy do something that all the Republican/Libertarian/Paleo-Whatevers, in all their power, influence and magnificence, are unable to do? So roissy and some of his followers are hedonists...Boo Freakin' Hoo. What are you, 5 years old, and unable to use your powers of discernment? Rohan Swee is correct - roissy offers a biting, thoughtful, well-written, often humorous and irreverent (to put the best spin on it) view to give the middle finger to and counter the prevailing worship of women/denigration of men that form the basis of both leftist and conservative (and Christian) thought. A young man with a functioning brain cell will not adopt his view completely, but take from it the lesson, incorporate it into his paradigm, improve his siutation wrt women, and move on, better equipped to deal with them.

    "Would traditionalists be addressing these matters if not for Roissy?"................

    Traditionalists? Hmmm, let me think about that. No. Some other good men on the fringe, such as Devlin and Amneus, would take up the banner, without roissy's edge.

    "I submit that we always have. Roissy is not new; there are even words that describe males such as he that pre-date his existence (e.g., cad, libertine, adulterer, fornicator). Warnings against such men were once given to young women often.".......................

    Known as the "Grandmother Effect", the operative phrase here is "WERE ONCE GIVEN". Such warnings are no longer given: young women are now celebrated when chasing and throwing themselves at the cad, libertine, adulterer and fornicator, rather known today as the thug, bad boy, asshole and player.

    emarel

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi, Mrs. Pilgrim, I think I recognize you from Vox's site too!

    Anyhow, you're absolutely right. The really telling thing about this particular revelation is that Roissy has just tossed out his own stated justification of his behavior. He talks bitterly of the injustice in how Western women treat their husbands, and cheat and leave and degrade them, and uses that as his excuse for why he takes advantage of their narcissism and fecklessness in the way that he does.

    But now we find that he is one of them, himself emasculated by feminism, and helping it in its ongoing attempt to humiliate, abuse, and emasculate the innocent men who build and sustain society.

    What's actually needed is a movement of men who employ the traits of confidence and dominance over women that Roissy teaches, but actually internalize them with an eye to restoring the patriarchy, rather than faking them in a snively, weasily act to dabble with other mens' wives on the side. The PUAs need to be outcompeted and beaten as the enemy (shouldn't be too hard, since most of them are feminized betas putting on an act), and not for the good of women (the PUA community is right that the women they bed are not worth defending), but for men.

    I don't live in DC, but I go down there sometimes. If I ever happen to see the guy, I'll do things the man's way and give him a good sock in the jaw on behalf of John Wayne and the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The trouble is that it's fine to be a traditionalist, but realism strongly suggests that turning back the clock is not going to happen.

    The purpose served by Roissy and his brand of PUAs is to up the ante socially -- to make the social situation so utterly undesirable and vile as to force something to be changed. Or, perhaps, take the whole edifice down with them and start over again -- probably the closest to turning back the clock that we'll realistically get.

    From conservatives we get stuff like Greenberg or even Auster, who once wrote that because per Genesis women were created *after* men, they are therefore superior to men, more perfect than men and so on.

    If that's the kind of junk spewing from the mouths of traditionalists and conservatives, it should not be surprising that many men involved in men's issues are disgusted with conservatives. And arguing "what other ideology are you going to follow, then" doesn't really cut it when nihilism is so appealing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Novaseeker,

    I think you're building too much on that quote by Auster.

    Auster was arguing against a Darwinian view that female characteristics are the result of random, chance accretions. He wrote:

    "Speaking of human female characteristics, could there be any idea more clueless about the nature of reality than the Darwinian belief that the female human form, the most beautiful thing in the universe, is the result of some kind of accretion of accidents chosen by survival advantage, rather than the expression of an essence, namely the female essence?"

    I've often been struck by the same truth, that the female human form is the most beautiful thing that exists and does express a feminine essence.

    Auster then argued that the Bible does not treat women as subordinate and he gave as an example that Genesis describes woman as being created last, meaning that woman is the 'crown of creation'.

    It should indeed be taken as a compliment by women that in Genesis God completes his creation with them. But, as I said, Auster took this as evidence that women were not considered a subordinate aspect of creation in the Bible. He did not pursue it as evidence of male inferiority to women.

    I've never read anything written by Auster, and I've read just about everything he's posted, that bears any resemblance to Greenberg's fawning attitude to women.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ""No, but sites like that, by laying out a few home truths about human nature, might have the salutary effect of shaking some young men out the PC-torpor they're mired in""

    Rohan Swee has got a great point here.

    The fact of the matter is that most "Gamists" define themselves totally by women. They define their egos totally in relation to the amount and quality of the women they bed.

    That does not really reflect much of an "Alpha" mentality. Why define yourselves in relation to the modern woman?

    Shouldn't a true Alpha male be able to get satisfaction sexually without basing his entire life around it?

    Sites like Roissy in DC help to strip away some of the brain garbage that most males under the age of 30 have had crammed into their heads since kindergarten, and they have value in this.

    Lets face it, men are not going to be able to take a role in society until they learn to harden the f*ck up.

    The amount of seriously nice guys i know who can't get a girl and spend their nights out watching the self confident few grab all the female flesh they can is truely depressing. And the same attitude of not going for what they want is shown in all other areas of their life as well. Work, social situations, everything really.

    We have been emasculated and a hell of a lot of us have no idea how to get back on track.

    You can be a nice guy without being a shy loser, but the shy losers out there may need to spend some time being pricks before they can strike a good balance.

    After all, it saddens me to say, most of the women out there right now do not deserve much better.

    Not a lot of room for Don Quixote out there. Then again if you read Cervantes masterwork it's sadly clear that there never really was.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ""The PUAs need to be outcompeted and beaten as the enemy (shouldn't be too hard, since most of them are feminized betas putting on an act), and not for the good of women (the PUA community is right that the women they bed are not worth defending), but for men.""

    Can someone find a way to tattoo that onto the eyelids of every bloke out there?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You can't cross the same river twice, there is no going back.

    Whats the point of "harden the f*ck up", when you can get your arse handed to you on a plate with one visit to a lawyer.

    Roissy is to the world what Nebuchadnezzar was to the Jews, righteous punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good post Mark,

    So Greenberg is stranded with a woman on a desert island. She turns to him and says "What do we do now?". He replies, "I don't know, you're the superior sex, I was hoping you'd know".

    Greenberg I think is a clown and not representative of all conservatism.

    To quote from the Rossiey site:

    "Cultured ape: We are a bunch of selfish and violent apes."

    I think someone has taken Darwinism a little too much to heart.

    Mrs Pilgrim said:

    "Would traditionalists be addressing these matters if not for Roissy? I submit that we always have. Roissy is not new;"

    Hear hear.

    The Duece said:

    "He talks bitterly of the injustice in how Western women treat their husbands, and cheat and leave and degrade them, and uses that as his excuse for why he takes advantage of their narcissism and fecklessness in the way that he does."

    Totally correct. Its awesome, you can sleep with however you want and the other party is the bad guy.

    Novaseeker said:

    "The purpose served by Roissy and his brand of PUAs is to up the ante socially -- to make the social situation so utterly undesirable and vile as to force something to be changed".

    Rubbish. The purpose is to do whatever they want and opportunistically advantage themselves from the social situation. The situation that would have to be changed would be to curb the very behavior that Roissy condones.

    Anonymous said:

    "In short, selfish hedonism is not an insidious alternative to hedonism, it is the product of feminism. It pits men against each other in accordance with the system feminism devised."

    Men have always been pitted against each other so what's new. Men have also always worked together. If women are being hedonists the issue is to get them to stop. Do you really think that by acting like a bigger jerk you'll demoralise women into acting in a more constrained way?

    The issue raised about beta males is that they play into hedonist women's hands by being subservient and letting them do whatever they want. Then don't be a beta male, as this is defined, rather than act like an alpha jerk. If men don't date hedonist women that will also influence dating behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Luke siad:

    "The fact of the matter is that most "Gamists" define themselves totally by women. They define their egos totally in relation to the amount and quality of the women they bed.

    That does not really reflect much of an "Alpha" mentality. Why define yourselves in relation to the modern woman?...

    You can be a nice guy without being a shy loser, but the shy losers out there may need to spend some time being pricks before they can strike a good balance."

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mrs. Pilgrim writes:
    “Would traditionalists be addressing these matters if not for Roissy? I submit that we always have. Roissy is not new; there are even words that describe males such as he that pre-date his existence (e.g., cad, libertine, adulterer, fornicator). Warnings against such men were once given to young women often.”

    Sorry, not buyin’ it. In the first place, at issue is not what warnings were given to women about men, but what warnings were given to men about women! (The fact that you can’t even see that tends to bear out the Gamers’ critique of social conservatives as clueless.) Growing up I was never exposed to the core truths of female psychology elucidated by Devlin and Roissy. I didn’t get them from family, I didn’t get them from school, I didn’t get them from the media and I certainly didn’t get them from the church. I learned the truth about women not from reading Roissy or anybody else, but in the school of hard knocks—very hard knocks. But men can feel a sense of camaraderie by reading other men who have come to the same realization. They are on our side and at least offer fellowship and understanding, which is more than you can say for the so-called so-cons.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Expatriot said"

    "They are on our side and at least offer fellowship and understanding".

    Join a sporting club.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If I ever happen to see the guy, I'll do things the man's way and give him a good sock in the jaw on behalf of John Wayne and the rest of us.

    Whenever I think of Jimmy Weidmann, this story comes to mind:

    http://snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/headless.asp

    If half of Jimmy's claims regarding his trysts with married women are true, I'd say it's just a matter of time before some angry husband, indifferent to Jimmy's philosophical musings, settles his destiny the Old Irish Way.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Suck it up, harden the f*k up, be a prick....

    Why? Where's the incentive?

    The systems broke, there's no point toiling while Rome burns.

    Why maintain cultural conservatism when when the state has stacked the cards against you.

    Reacting to feminism? Thats like saying slaying a Mongol is aiding Genghis.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Roissy serves as a cautionary example of the destructive tendencies of our age. He puts the lie to caricatures of oppressive traditionalism by revealing and exploiting the modern young man and woman's enslavement to desire and manipulation. If forced to choose between Roissy (as revealed on the internet) and a stuffy but caring and dominant patriarch, more people will reconsider the latter.

    But that choice likely can't be forced. The upcoming generation may have not acquired the capacity to be shocked, while older generations' remaining habits have been changed so slowly they do not recognize the cultural disaster of our times.

    Outside of Country songs, does the image of the patriarch even exist now in popular culture? Fictional male leads are usually unmarried, divorced or too young.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So is Roissy then someone who is better placed to lead a men's movement?

    I wasn't aware that Roissy was trying to lead a men's movement.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Im no Roissy acolyte, but Mark your criticism of him is wrong.

    Firstly, Roissy is not a traditionalist, he is a realist. He recognises that the Left wing principles that our society lives by will destroy it in the end. He is an opportunist who takes advantage of the sexual free for all that is modern society. He freely acknowledges that feminism and sexual liberation are his friends in the pursuit of sexual hedonism.

    Secondly, He admits to bedding married women, but the point that he was trying to make--and that you missed--were these women were willing accomplices in the act of infidelity, not panged by conscience even when in contact with their husbands over the phone.
    They were not manipulated into the acts but chose to cheat on their husbands freely. They were active accomplices. Conservatives, such as Greenberg, tend to think of women as "sugar and spice and all things nice" whereas in realty, many of them are evil.

    Mark, approximately 5-10% of childrens' blood groups do not match that of the parents. We all know 10 couples, think about it.

    Commentator Expatriot wrote what I think is the most indicting comment on Western society's understanding of the dark side of female sexuality:

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

    There are literally millions of "nice guys" who will back him up on this. Roissy's popularity is based on a writing style which expounds on this "truth" of female nature. Not all women are base, but a hell of a lot are. I don't like Roissy's morals but I can't fault his observations. Evil doesn't just triumph because good men do nothing, evil also triumphs when good men refuse to see the evil in their midst. The dark side of feminine nature has been the blind spot of conservatism.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Social Pathologist,

    I didn't miss that the women were willing accomplices. I'm aware, and have been from an early age, that women are capable of infidelity.

    Let me relate a story of my own here. When I was at uni I went on a camp with my class. One of the women was engaged and due to be married in a week or two. Anyway, she got tipsy one night and literally threw herself at me. It took me some effort to physically prise myself away.

    I went to bed alone. When I woke up I heard the news that she'd continued drinking, passed out and had been taken to hospital. The women at the camp treated me like a fiend, as if I'd committed some terrible sin against womankind by refusing her advances.

    I don't remember having an idyllic view of women shattered by the experience.

    I was naive about a lot of things as a young man, but I don't believe that Western culture ever raised me to believe that women were incapable of betrayal.

    Social Pathologist, where is the evidence that conservatives today look upon women as sugar and spice and all things nice?

    The Daily Mail is the paper of choice for English conservatives. It's full of stories criticising the behaviour of ladettes. It runs many stories about women making false accusations against men; about women who left marriage and family too late because they partied for too long in their twenties; about the rising tide of female violence; about the abandonment of working-class boys by a feminised system and so on.

    It's possible that a few evangelical types in the more religious parts of the US, having been insulated from aspects of modernity, have kept up an older style of deference to women, one that might be traced back to Victorian era notions of women as the guardians of morality in society.

    But in Australia? Most "conservative" men here are economic liberal types who are tremendously uninterested in these sorts of issues.

    Any discussion of gender issues here in the mainstream media is dominated by feminism. The few critics who get a look in tend to be somewhat more right-wing women such as Janet Albrechtsen or Bettina Arndt.

    I'm struggling to think of male pundits who write on these issues, let alone who resemble Greenberg in their attitudes.

    ReplyDelete
  23. One other quick point. Lawrence Auster has posted a link to this discussion at View from the Right. One thing he adds is that Greenberg himself ought not to be considered a social conservative but rather a moderate liberal.

    I hadn't heard of Greenberg before, so went along with the idea of him being a conservative, but it seems it isn't so.

    If Auster is right, then all the theories being put about that Greenberg is a pedestalising socon are off the mark anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I was naive about a lot of things as a young man, but I don't believe that Western culture ever raised me to believe that women were incapable of betrayal.

    Traditional views of womankind de-emphasised female sexuality, not her capacity for evil. Romance was the way to a girl's heart, the nice guy got the girl. Sex, when it was mentioned, was always in the context motherhood. Sure, the wanton woman was a theme in Western cultural meme but she was a rare aberration. The problem is that she is not that rare and there is a degree of wantonness in every woman. The good ones keep it in control, the bad ones run with it.

    In the golden age of Hollywood. Husbands and wives slept in separate beds, the idea that some intimacy could be displayed was widely considered an affront to morals. Good girls did not have sexual desires, or were ashamed to have to them. When you did do it, it was considered your wifely duty: a chore of marriage.

    Indeed the whole chivalrous code, demphasised the sexual nature of the relationship, stressing more the romantic side. And traditionalists love chivalry.

    If you wander over to a local medical bookshop, try and find Hamilton Baileys Text Book of Physical Signs. There you will see pictures of women with orange sized breast cancers; women who who would rather die than show a breast to a male physician. Some of the older doctors used to show us pictures of women with literal melon sized vaginal and rectal prolapses which festered for years, because the woman would not show herself to male doctor out of shame. Nudity and sexual feelings were considered shameful, especially by good women. Traditional society desexualised the good woman except only when it came to making babies, even then it was considered an embarrassing but necessary aberration. It was the radicals and not the conservatives who led the charge for this attitudinal change. Too bad, because they did not know where to stop.

    Mark, even you, in this post stated:

    There was also back in the 1970s and 80s the remnants of a chivalrous attitude to women, which made it more difficult to criticise women - the emphasis was on male respect for women, something that second wave feminists took advantage of even when they themselves no longer aimed to behave like ladies.

    So, yes, I think it's true to say that there was a lack of gender realism. I'll confess that I went into relationships entirely naively as a young man. I hadn't received a skerrick of advice from any quarter.

    So it's interesting for me, too, to read open discussions about the nature of women at gamist websites. And quite a bit of it accords well with my own experience.


    I don't think I've quoted you out of context. The traditional "high minded advice" that a young man was given with regard to women was wrong. The traditionalist understanding of the average female's nature was flawed. Auster and his acolytes are still promoting this vision. But it seems that maybe even he is beginning to see the picture.

    Just to make myself perfectly clear, I don't subscribe to Roissy's view of the world, but the "courtley" love understanding of romance is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous@5:17: Rohan Swee is correct - roissy offers a biting, thoughtful, well-written, often humorous and irreverent (to put the best spin on it) view to give the middle finger to and counter the prevailing worship of women/denigration of men that form the basis of both leftist and conservative (and Christian) thought.

    Please don't put words in my mouth - at the very least don't traduce my literary taste! I said that Roissy's site could function usefully as an eye-opener for non-stupid young men capable of pulling themselves out of the PC swamp. The home truths, however, are buried in purple writing from a banal mind. I admit I would have found it wonderful and absolutely hilarious when I was, say, 15-19.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Mark: I don't remember having an idyllic view of women shattered by the experience.

    This is what always rings false whenever I trundle over to check out this stuff - the obsessive, I'd even say hysterical, belaboring of the knowledge that "women aren't angels". I don't care how much PC crap one has been fed, how much feminist bilge, nobody of normal perceptiveness can't not understand, at least by the time they're leaving their first youth, that all human beings are flawed creatures, and that a lot of us are right bastards. Including even girls and women, as any reasonably astute young boy susses out. I'm just not buying that these men were such chivalric innocents, or have been so passively propagandized, that they didn't just thoughtlessly take on board some conventional dogma, but deeply and sincerely believed that "women are angels". No, not even Greenberg or his ilk believe that, no matter what booboisie clichés they use to fill up column space. The gentlemen do protest too much.

    But here we have a some fanboys to whom, apparently, the revelation of the quotidian truth that "women aren't angels" did such catastrophic and irremediable damage to their psyches, that well into adulthood they still haven't come to terms with it, and never will. Here we have their hero, entering middle-age, if I am not mistaken, and apparently still so helplessly spooked by hard truths about human nature that's he's submissively handed over his manhood to his trauma.

    Yeah, I know there are people like this. They're not evil, they want intelligence. The fanboys, who write the sort of retarded stuff Mark reproduces here, think it's all evil and badass, because they're retarded, in the strict sense, and think sophomoric nihilism is glamorous. Apparently some traditionalists must think so too, considering how freaked out they get by this stuff. Contrarily, it reminds me of the old aphorism about "a cynic is a disappointed romantic" (or something along those lines), to which I'd append "and a nihilist is the more dim-witted and infantilized sort of disappointed romantic." I mean, c'mon. It's a weak mind that falls irretrievably down the well of that most elementary of philosophic fallacies, that what is ugliest is the last word on what is true, simply because it is ugliest.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't live in Australia or the UK -- I have been to Australia a few times to visit family and to the UK many times for business and family visits, but I am not very familiar with how sex related issues play themselves out in either place.

    In the United States, the conservative movement has long been dominated by social conservatives, and social conservatives are in turn dominated by protestant evangelicals. These, in turn, are dominated by pedestalizers of women and critics of men, based on the idea that men are to lead women, per the Bible, and that therefore when women make mistakes, either as wives or collectively, this is due to the failure of men, either as husbands or collectively, to effectively lead women, either individually or as a group. Under this view, the problems of men are men's fault, and the problems of women are men's fault, too. In other words -- women are fine, if men are fine, and any problems with the way women are behaving either do not exist or only exist because of male behavior, and therefore are not worth directly addressing, or even mentioning. Men are the primary moral agents per this world view. And this is the world view that animates social conservatives, and which dominates the social conservative view on sex relations. In effect, it places all of the "blame" on men, seeing women as in effect acting out to the extent that male leadership is lacking.

    You really have to understand that background to understand the animus many of us have towards social conservatives and traditionalists. As the leftists have muscled through their social changes in sex relations in the last 50 years, all the conservative establishment has done is alternate between cooperation and light resistance. The entire regime of family law was changed, numerous laws on sexual harassment and DV were put in place without much criticism at all from the right and so on. And all the while the socon leaders, if they have addressed the issue at all, have simply told men to "man up". It's obvious that the traditional impulse to protect women per chivalry leads to a kind of tacit support for laws like the VAWA or the harassment laws or the child support regime and so on -- the sentiment to protect women is very, very strong in traditionalists and conservatives and has aided and abetted the social engineering of the left in its effort to undermine the standing of men in relationships and in society in general.

    As for "who is on the side of men", in the United States at least I can unequivocally say that it is NOT the traditionalists and social conservatives.

    As for Roissy, it's rather interesting how much attention he gets from conservatives. He isn't trying to run a social or political movement.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'll respond to the last few comments later when I have more time as they touch on significant issues.

    I'll just make one very brief comment in reply to Novaseeker now.

    In Australia, it makes no sense to use the term "conservative establishment". There is a liberal establishment, plus a few conservative leaning right liberals.

    So there is no point here in Australia blaming any social changes on social conservatives. Social policy here is entirely in the hands of an unchallenged liberal political class.

    The pressing task here is to try and break the near universal hold of this liberal orthodoxy.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Men cannot be blamed for the decisions made by women.

    Men do have the privilege of being the creators and leaders of civilization and with this comes the responsibility of preserving, defending and, if needed, restoring civilization. If civilization rises, it is because of the collective effort of men, ditto if civilization falls.

    Would Novaseeker agree with this brief outline?

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Rohan Swee.

    Methinks you have missed the point.

    No one, absolutely no one believes that women are incapable of evil, that's not the beef with Traditionalists. Characterising the arguments along these lines is wrong.

    No the argument concerns the nature of female sexual attraction. Traditional views of female sexuality have de-emphasised female carnality and over emphasised the platonic component of attraction. The central message being that the Nice Guy gets the girl. This is wrong. The thought that the Sweet Princess actually desires a good rogering sits uncomfortably with many conservatives.

    As for dismissing Roissy's posts as being pabulum fit for only the young, I think you're wrong. The Left's strategy of aiming at the young has been the cultural winner for the last 100 years or so. If conservatism is to successfully do battle against the Left it has to capture the hearts and minds of the young.

    @Novaseeker.

    Mark is right, there is really no Conservative establishment in Australia. We have inherited the British tradition of being intelligent rather than intellectual. Though, for a while, we actually had a good group of conservative intellectuals that centered around B.A. Santamaria. But him being a Catholic and of Italian background was off putting to many of the Anglo-Protestant ruling class, so whilst many of them were sympathetic to his ideas they never really gained traction.( In fact, many of the people who comment on Mark's blog had never even heard of the party he help found, The DLP, which effectively neutralised the Left in Australia during the 50's and 60's) Conservative intellectualism seems something of a Catholic hobby in Australia. Thank God for the Internet. Some times it does feel that you're so alone over here.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No, Andrew, because men do not act as a collective. We are not The Borg. Men have ravenously despoiled other men throughout history, and the current situation in our own civilization reflects that.

    Mark -- point taken, which is why I prefaced my post with my disclaimer about not being very familiar with the paradigm in Australia. We have a large social conservative movement in the US, however, and it hasn't done jack for men in the last 50 years. Not jack.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well then the whole alpha/beta generalization needs to go too.

    Besides, if what you say is true about the existence of male despoilers (and it is, trivially so) then some of our efforts need to focus on defeating those men who are anti-civilization, the despoilers of the productive. I would not hesitate to put Jim Weidmann (aka Roissy) in this group. And this is why real traditionalists like Auster, who are not the liberal caricatures you describe, spend the time discrediting him.

    ReplyDelete
  33. No, Andrew. People like Roissy have a minimal impact. The number of true "pick up artists" is tiny.

    The number of "conservative" male politicians who have sold men down the river in the last 40 years out of deference to women is large, and their political and social impact far outweighs anything Roissy has done.

    I often think the attacks on Roissy are an effort, based on shame, of how little the conservatives and traditionalists in the United States have done about men and issues pertaining to men, other than collaborate in hemming them in, during the last five decades.

    In reality what has happened is that the left and the right have, together, squeezed men in a vise grip -- one coming from the perspective of traditional chivalry/male leadership/responsibility and the other coming from the left's social engineers/feminists and so on. The result is that both left and right run a squeeze play on men, blame them for society's ills (for different reasons, which is really irrelevant in terms of end result for men) and leave most men twisting in the wind -- garnering votes in the process.

    If there is to be a movement among men, Roissy is not the target. The proper target are those men in power, of left and right alike, who have treacherously sold men down the river politically, legally, and socially, in the revolutionary and post-revolutionary periods.

    ReplyDelete
  34. A couple things. First, you can't appeal to men as a collective when rightly discussing the ways in which society screws them over but deny their connectedness when referring to their primary role in building and maintaining civilization.

    Second, these so-cons/traditionalists as you call them are the same phony conservatives who have sold out white America when it comes to race relations and has sold out traditional America when it comes to mass non-Western immigration. These people are really liberals and they're the same liberals posing as conservatives that true traditionalists like Auster have spent an entire career criticizing and in some cases condemning from the right. And in that time devoted but a handful of blog posts to the 'inconsequential' Roissy.

    I'm still not sure what you think traditionalists should be telling young men today. What's your program? Would it sound anything like this?:

    http://mensaction.blogspot.com/2010/03/real-men-dont-demonstrate.html

    At a minimum, young men need to know that (1) the God of the Bible exists, (2) patriarchy is part of His plan, (3) women want Western patriarchy, and (4) men can have it within their marriages if they want, by choosing their mates wisely and grounding the marriage within a conservative church or community.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Andrew E. said:

    "Second, these so-cons/traditionalists as you call them are the same phony conservatives who have sold out white America when it comes to race relations and has sold out traditional America when it comes to mass non-Western immigration. These people are really liberals and they're the same liberals posing as conservatives that true traditionalists like Auster have spent an entire career criticizing"

    Agreed. If you're in power there's always a temptation to swicth sides if the going gets tough, or open the gates for the enemy thereby benefiting yourself under the new regieme, however, this kind of selling out also comes from a lack of commitment and an all too ready acceptance of the oppositions views.

    Just becuase some "conservative" leaders have felt it expedient to trim it doesn't mean that the values are unsound.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Asher said:

    ""what I'm wondering is how non-pedestalizing conservatives like Mark propose to separate themselves from the mainstream of conservatism,""

    The solution is to scorn the "conservative" parties we currently have as strongly as possible.

    It's short term, but it will do for a start.

    ReplyDelete
  37. While there are a fair amount of women do have relatively strong sex drives (especially, as Roissy points out, women with square jaws and big faces who matured early at High School, most of us know the type) it's important not to fall into the egalitarian trap of thinking women in general have the same sex drives as men. In many ways ladette culture is just a sub-branch of modern feminism.

    Today's women often talk dirty, but don't actually do a lot of what they talk about. Notice for example the continuing dominance of males in the use of internet dating and pornography.


    By far the greatest source of female immorality in relationships is their 5 year urge to dump their husband and head for the divorce courts.

    ReplyDelete
  38. No the argument concerns the nature of female sexual attraction.

    That isn't what I'd infer from your belaboring of the cheating-wife story.

    Traditional views of female sexuality have de-emphasised female carnality and over emphasised the platonic component of attraction. The central message being that the Nice Guy gets the girl. This is wrong. The thought that the Sweet Princess actually desires a good rogering sits uncomfortably with many conservatives.

    And I say that's bollox. Or, more charitably, that it may represent the beliefs of some minority of conservatives, who occupy some social stratum completely outside my pretty varied life experience.

    Look, I was raised very traditional, very old school - standing up when ladies enter rooms, the whole chivalric ball of wax. But absolutely none of the information or counsel on sex or women or right behavior that I got - not from father, not from mother, not from great uncles or second cousins or teachers (uptight reserved Northern European types for the most part) - was premised on the belief that women were constitutionally averse to a good rogering. None of it.

    Now, if you want to water that down to "some guys are fed b.s. about how to make women want to have sex with you", fine, but that's not the same claim. And I'm pretty skeptical about that claim, too, considering that I remember the same complaints in my high school classes and college newspaper decades and decades ago. I suspect the "nice guy" fail is a human constant.

    And I am absolutely not buying that anybody younger than I reading Roissy was instructed that women are subject only to the platonic affections, and never subject to the temptation of raw animal attraction. Or older than I, for that matter.

    You may well have been brought up this way yourself (I certainly don't doubt your honesty), and have patients who claim they were, too. But that's damned peculiar, if so. Hell, SP, I doubt very seriously that even most Victorians thought that, because I'm pretty sure our dunderheaded and literal-minded age, which doesn't comprehend reticence, and thinks tact, or a sense of the fitness of things, a form of dishonesty, doesn't understand them. (I think you here incline to that yourself - conflating modesty with asexuality or denial of sexual feelings. The modesty to the point of unreason that you describe isn't the product of desexualizing anyway, but hypersexualizing - consider the burka. But that's a whole other discussion.)

    I am, however, personally familiar with a large enough sample of people who claim (and are perhaps honestly persuaded), that certain experiences and teachings are the root of their long-term (usual sexual) problems. But, having been intimately familiar with either their upbringing or education, having shared it myself, I am aware that the psychological appeal of these explanations is very little dependent on actual experience. (E.g., - people who've been screwing around con gusto all of their adult lives, preaching and fighting the libertine good fight, who, surveying the damage from early middle-age, solemnly decide that their lives are all f***** up because "my Catholic upbringing was sexually repressive", lol. If repressed memories and alien anal probes had been in vogue in my cohort I'm sure they'd have been utilized as often.)

    ReplyDelete
  39. This discussion is taking place at a time when our culture and society is being threatened as it has never been before. It is an existential threat, and only men have what it takes against this enemy. If men continue to be marginalised, or go over to the other side, then the West is finished.

    From the traditional conservative PoV, I see no other institution but the church, under whose umbrella a sane and sensible re-construction of the family, community, and nation can take place. In this at least, America has the advantage.

    Roissy and his gang of merry men are too small in numbers to affect the larger issue.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And I say that's bollox. Or, more charitably, that it may represent the beliefs of some minority of conservatives, who occupy some social stratum completely outside my pretty varied life experience.

    Um......it really doesn't matter what you and I think, what matters is what is. You see, this whole Game "phenomena" does raise certain intellectual points. Firstly, why has it happened? Clearly if the schmucks who can't get laid have a problem, is it nature or nurture? Why is it then when these same guys are "reprogrammed" with Game, they become successful with women? Clearly if they had an innate inability to form bonds with women, Game would have had no effect on them. But as these men after being taught Game have their success rate improved dramatically, the problem then, as my simple mind see's it, is nurture.

    Now it is possible, that "my varied life experience", may be peculiar and my "issues" may introduce a cognitive bias with regard to my understanding of relationship dysfunction, but when people from around the whole world report the same life experiences and problems, you begin to think that maybe, just maybe, there is a common thread. And given the varied circumstances of each individual, the only common thread is a common culture.

    Now, if you want to water that down to "some guys are fed b.s. about how to make women want to have sex with you", fine, but that's not the same claim.

    I don't want to water it down. The Good middle class guy has been fed B.S. culturally for years pre feminism.

    You may well have been brought up this way yourself (I certainly don't doubt your honesty), and have patients who claim they were, too. But that's damned peculiar,.

    It's not peculiar it's common. Trawl around the internet for a few minutes and you'll find many other instances of the same.

    Here's a post at Austers from another "peculiar guy". Back in my student days, there were small pool of guys who made out with most of the women, the rest, middle class guys of varying faiths and circumstances weren't getting any action. Even if you want to make the assumption that there was something peculiar about me, then how do you explain the failure of other "good middle class boys"? What, everyone's a loser?

    Your dismissal is this phenomena is curiously like that of the Feminist approach to the problem: Denial and shame. Firstly you deny that there is a problem, and secondly you blame the relationship failure on some character flaw of the men.

    The modesty to the point of unreason that you describe isn't the product of desexualizing anyway, but hypersexualizing

    On that point I will agree with you. Christianity's battle against the flesh was too successful. The Church may never "officially" have intended to get rid of sexuality, especially female sexuality, but that's the way it came down practically.

    ReplyDelete
  41. But the thing is this.

    Yes, for a very long time men have been told that if they are good they will get the girl. In Edwardian times, for instance, there was a saying "Beauty in a woman is a reward for goodness in a man".

    It's clear now that this is not so. What sexually attracts a woman to a man is not goodness, but other markers of social dominance or self confidence.

    But for many years you could get away with believing the message. People believed it and still ended up married. So the message, as misleading as it was, didn't stop family formation.

    The reason being that the culture of relationships in a society can change. Prior to 1900, the culture of relationships was focused strongly on marriage. So there were plenty of respectable people around who didn't think "That person sexually attracts me right now so that's the one I'll have a relationship with".

    The flighty younger sisters in Jane Austen novels might have done this, but they were portrayed in negative terms as putting their own fortunes, and that of their families, at risk by their impulsive behaviour.

    More respectable people would have also considered the individual's social background, their character and respectability, their financial situation, the compatability of their personalities, the opinion of others in their family and so on.

    Austen herself railed at least a bit against this. She wanted more emphasis on the romantic connection.

    And that was the next phase. For much of the twentieth century what mattered was the romantic connection, though marriage was still also there as a goal.

    When romance is uppermost, it's still important to have a personal connection, a "meeting of souls and minds". So people tend to partner off within their own little social milieu. Therefore, if you are a good man, you still have a reasonable chance of meeting women within your own social network. An intellectual artsy left-wing man, for instance, might have a little pond of artsy intellectual left-wing women to seek romantic relationships with.

    But second and third wave feminism rejected all of the above. Marriage and romance were deemed patriarchal constructs designed to oppress women. What mattered was sexual liberation in which women could follow their sexual instincts freely.

    And what happens when marriage, whilst not really rejected, gets postponed to some very late period in a woman's life? And when the culture of romance is replaced with a culture of short-term sexual hook ups?

    In that case, many women really will select partners according to the crudest of sexual markers. Men who are physically dominant will have an advantage, as will men who are naturally egoistic, pushy and arrogant, as will men who appear edgy, dangerous and risk-taking, as will men who appear needy and unpredictable.

    The species of family guy, the loyal, stable, hard-working type will lose out big time. And men who are "nice" - laid back, friendly, concerned, conscientious - might well not only find themselves on the outer, but no longer liking what they see in womanhood anyway.

    Was it traditionalist men or socially conservative men who brought about the sexual revolution by telling women that marriage and romance were oppressive to women? Did they change the culture of relationships?

    No, it was very clearly feminist women aided and abetted by a liberal establishment. The small numbers of traditionalists who existed did campaign against the changes but did not have the influence to change much.

    ReplyDelete
  42. What's actually needed is a movement of men who employ the traits of confidence and dominance over women that Roissy teaches, but actually internalize them with an eye to restoring the patriarchy, rather than faking them in a snively, weasily act to dabble with other mens' wives on the side. The PUAs need to be outcompeted and beaten as the enemy (shouldn't be too hard, since most of them are feminized betas putting on an act), and not for the good of women (the PUA community is right that the women they bed are not worth defending), but for men.

    I don't exactly want to defend PUAs as such, since it's true that they usually focus on having non-marital sex with multiple women, but I seem to have taken up the banner of pointing out that Roissy is not typical of the seduction community. Because of the popularity of his blog among many HBD types, and the big discussion of him Lawrence Auster hosted last year, many conservatives have gotten the mistaken impression that he is a leader of or some kind of spokesman for the seduction community and that his view are an integral part of it. This is not true. He's just another amateur blogger, albeit one who has developed a large readership. While I don't know from personal experience, I'd venture to say that the vast majority of men who have ever dipped their toes in the waters of the seduction community have never heard of this Roissy guy. Most PUAs don't have anything to say one way or the other on the moral worth of the women they bed. Most of them don't even think about feminism, or patriarchy, or no-fault divorce, or the dissolution of civil society. And they're certainly not bitter nihilists--if you read the materials put out by the founders or developers of the seduction community, Mystery, Neil Strauss, David DeAngelo, Love Systems (Mystery's former company) or their competitor Real Social Dynamics--you'll be struck by how cheery, optimistic, power-of-positive-thinking they are. If anything, they tend to promote a kind of super-positive worldview in the style of New Age self-help gurus like Eckhart Tolle and Tony Robbins, 180 degrees opposite from the cynicial nihilism of Roissy.

    If half of Jimmy's claims regarding his trysts with married women are true, I'd say it's just a matter of time before some angry husband, indifferent to Jimmy's philosophical musings, settles his destiny the Old Irish Way.

    Indeed, that's the first thing I thought when I read that post of is. If he's running around with married Russian women, then assuming they have Russian husbands, he's really asking for it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Was it traditionalist men or socially conservative men who brought about the sexual revolution by telling women that marriage and romance were oppressive to women? Did they change the culture of relationships?

    Now we're getting some traction!

    No revolutionary movement succeeds without at least some element of truth to its claims. Feminism never would never had gained traction if women weren't in some way unhappy in their state of affairs. Now I'm not saying traditional marriage was the vile institution that the Feminists said it was but there certainly was room for improvement as Austen implied. So when the Feminists proposed an alternative to that status quo--something which women found attractive--what was the conservative response?

    Nothing. It tried to turn the clock back. Epic fail. Even now we have idiot conservative commentators arguing that women should not have the right to vote.

    From my point of view, traditional interpretations of marriage, whilst better than the modern ones, had it imperfections which needed sorting out and which were bought to a head by the conditions of modern society. Conservatism, which seemed to have stopped thinking in the Middle Ages and could not provide any improvements. The liberals had lots of new ideas, most of which were wrong, which filled the gap. The same went with regard to Human sexuality, the role of women, race relations, workers rights etc. The liberals with their poisonous ideas swept the field. Conservatives could only recite old arguments which failed to capture the public mind.

    Let me give you an example of how conservatism should have gone. At the turn of the Century, Capitalism and Socialism were the dominant economic ideas. They are still the dominant ideas of the Anglosphere. The conservatives, (capitalists) kept reciting old ideas about individual property rights without trivial acknowledgment to social obligation. The liberals(socialists) wanted to overturn the world. The great motive force of the socialism was the real injustice workers were subjected to by capitalists. The real argument of the capitalists were that socialist economic principles were flawed and unsustainable. That's were the argument remains; at least in the Anglosphere. On the other hand several quite conservative Europeans put their mind to the problem and developed social market capitalism. Something which acknowledge the rights of workers and the inherent superiority of capitalism. This theory was the basis of the Guallist, Erhard and even to a certain extent Menzies Government in Australia(Australia's Golden Age). De Gaul, Erhard and Menzies could in no way be considered radicals.

    An example of what I mean by this synthesis of thought, (where it pertains to sexuality) can be found over here at this blog. (Athol Key's, Married Man Sex Life) some NSWF features, and I don't agree with everything he says, but there is an active brain between his ears. The message he gives is reasonably consistent with conservatism and may provide clues as to how conservatism should go. Note the thought process. He does not deny the Roissyite insights into female sexuality, but strips them of their hedonistic imperative and incorporates them into a traditional marital concept.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This discussion reveals the one reason stopping any mens movement from achieving anything.

    It's old the old males ignorance. The only thing I can say is, listen to the younger male or try the new dating game yourself, else stfu.

    This is rhe most important matter to address, because our whole economy depends on the promise of getting married and having kids after being able to support a family.

    Think about it, who is paying for your streets, security or even tax collection. The taxpayers. Who are the most important tax payers ? - Thbose working in the productive part of the economy. Blue-collar workers, mostly beta-males, as females normally choose a job for fulfillment, not for earning money.

    What will happen, if those betas discover, that it is way easier to just stop working, or working part time and learning some game, than to become a moral, hard-working man ?

    They will do it. They will drop out of the workforce, leading to a total destruction of the economy. Surly you will say that the females can take the responsibility. But there is no need for childcare if there are no kids, no need for marketing if nothing is produced, no need for lawyers and no need for trading. And for engineering, garbage collection, math or computer science, the hard and/or dirty jobs, there are not enouhg females who have the credentials or are willing to work in such an environment.

    So, while attaking roissy, you are killing the messenger, not addressing the problem. You are digging your children's grave and, to make matters worse, you are smug about it, because it's the
    moral thing to do.

    You are not helping anyone and those you want to protect, woman and children, will suffer the most.

    Reality 0
    Illusion 1

    ReplyDelete
  45. I've often been struck by the same truth, that the female human form is the most beautiful thing that exists and does express a feminine essence.

    That was nauseating. Worse, it is untrue, and the part after "exists" is actually pernicious. There is no "beautiful female essence". Stop pedestaling!

    The fact of the matter is that most "Gamists" define themselves totally by women. They define their egos totally in relation to the amount and quality of the women they bed.

    That is not true. Roissy says: "You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority. Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out."

    Men have always been pitted against each other so what's new. Men have also always worked together. If women are being hedonists the issue is to get them to stop. Do you really think that by acting like a bigger jerk you'll demoralise women into acting in a more constrained way?

    Acting like a beta pedestaling doormat won't get them to stop, either.

    The issue raised about beta males is that they play into hedonist women's hands by being subservient and letting them do whatever they want. Then don't be a beta male, as this is defined, rather than act like an alpha jerk. If men don't date hedonist women that will also influence dating behaviour.

    LOL! Talk about unrealistic. There will always be many, many more men ready and willing to fill the holes of a hedonistic skank than even the skank is willing to accommodate. If you refuse to date a hedonist woman, she won't even notice, let alone change her behaviour, because a dozen men will eagerly step up to replace you.

    I wasn't aware that Roissy was trying to lead a men's movement.

    He isn't. He is describing the world that actually exists, and how to live in it, not pining for the irretrievably lost "ideal" world of the past like clueless conservatives.

    Social Pathologist, where is the evidence that conservatives today look upon women as sugar and spice and all things nice?

    What did you say? A beautiful female form "does express a feminine essence"? Blech!

    From the traditional conservative PoV, I see no other institution but the church, under whose umbrella a sane and sensible re-construction of the family, community, and nation can take place. In this at least, America has the advantage.

    Tragically, the Church in America is, for the most part, infected with liberal insanity and cannot be the agent of this reconstruction.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous (above),

    I'm not sure I get your comment.

    I asserted the existence of a feminine essence and also made the claim that female beauty is the highest form of beauty.

    You reacted with great contempt to these claims and quoted Roissy in your support.

    But even Roissy states much the same thing. You quote Roissy to the effect that it is in women's nature to want to subordinate themselves to help men complete their life's purpose.

    Feminists would criticise this on exactly the same grounds that you criticise me, namely that it assumes the existence of a feminine essence.

    And Roissy does not seem to deny the existence of physical female beauty. He focuses on it a lot, even providing scores along the way.

    Anonymous, I think you're coming here with preconceptions. You see that this is a conservative site, and your mind is already set against conservatives as pedestalisers who take the side of women against men.

    You're mistaken. I have never blamed men for what went wrong in relationships and family life over the past 30 years.

    Nor do I know of many social conservatives who are pedestalisers in the sense that you use the term. There may exist a few individuals in some out of the way parts of the US.

    But I suspect that it's mostly an ideological construct that you're bringing here.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Illness,

    a) I'm not so old that I haven't experienced the modern dating game. I got the full blast of it when in my 20s. Believe me, things were just as bad if not worse in the early 90s, at the height of third-wave feminism, than they are today.

    b) The strategy of a marriage strike or a work strike might succeed in a traditional society with closed borders.

    But the modern West has open borders. If you stop work you will be replaced with someone from overseas who is willing to work. If you don't want to marry the Western woman, there are plenty of non-Western men who will willingly step in to take your place.

    You write in your comment of wanting to help the children of the future. Well, the best way to do this is to make sure that in a decade's time, when fourth-wave feminism is about to launch itself, that there is some sort of political opposition.

    That means building up a non-liberal and non-feminist political movement, with at least some power in the alternative media to get its message across.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous said:

    " There is no "beautiful female essence". Stop pedestaling!"

    So what we're all creatures who live in the muck?

    "LOL! Talk about unrealistic. There will always be many, many more men ready and willing to fill the holes of a hedonistic skank than even the skank is willing to accommodate."

    Guys who do whatever a girl wants are not respected by other guys.

    "Acting like a beta pedestaling doormat won't get them to stop, either."

    Its so beta of me. Beta is after Alpha right? So Alpha's better?

    I think of relevance here is that in dating women we do need a bit of autonomy and personal strength. We need to be able to say that this is what I approve of and this is what I don't. We can't just say "oh the conservative establishment" or whatever gave me poor guidelines, left me unprepared and so I was eaten alive by women. Conservative norms give some guidance. In days gone past it was easier to "coast" to a degree on them so to speak to a relationship. Now we can't just line up and take a woman as easily. We have to show we're competent, this that and the other, and not just that we have a wage.

    Conservative "guidance" however is timeless. Live morally, respect others, don't just live for yourself or consider that doing so is "enlightened". Don't exploit others for personal convenience. Remember that you're a man an act accordingly.

    There is a lot of talk here about sexual attraction and the "true" woman coming out. However, women repeatedly say that they want to be treated well and that what they want is a guy who treats them nice. Is this lying? I'm sure Roissey has a sophisticated answer for this. If women want "hot" males its surely in the same way men want "hot" females. Its fun for a while and then more important things matter.

    Do women actually want to be treated poorly? Well they want confidence and strength. Having the courage to be "dominant" and overpowering is encouraging to a point. And that's it only to a point. Roissey wouldn't probably work so well on women your own age, because women your age have stronger personalities and will put up with less. They're not so easily "wowed". Ultimately its with these women that you're going to have to get on if you're going to have meaningful relations and not just be a distant bullying Daddy or fly by night merchant. Sorry is meaningful relations too much of a beta thing to say? They’re still important and one of the foundations of society.

    Under Roissey culture the “meaningful relations” take place with the other guys when you brag about your score. Why don’t you marry one of them?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Illness said:

    "What will happen, if those betas discover, that it is way easier to just stop working, or working part time and learning some game, than to become a moral, hard-working man?"

    Game works in opposition. "Oh wow you're so different to the hard working "beta" man"" or whatever. Sooner or latter, however, the bills have to be paid. If you drop out to "entertain" your woman while she works, who's the weaker party then?

    So by having sex with everyone you're helping society, securing the future? Wow, that's awesome. Sounds a bit familiar to something else. Act like a ruthless, self focused jerk in the marketplace and you'll also be helping society.

    "So, while attaking roissy, you are killing the messenger, not addressing the problem. You are digging your children's grave and, to make matters worse, you are smug about it, because it's the
    moral thing to do."

    Smuggness is awesome. The problem is that both men and women have to have to have a longer term foucs and not just do what suits them in the moment.

    If women respond to Roissy by marrying more "compliant" foreigners what will that mean for the children? They'll grow up in a sort of confused cultural limbo, also with a dominant mother. They'll then want to remake (of contintue to remake) society to be totally culturally ambivalent, with all the fun that entails, or else think that its manly to put women in all positions of power. Indeed they'll hardly know what being manly is. These things they'll feel required to do to maintain a sense of self esteem.

    Alternatively, they grow up with a Roissey Dad and a hard working Mum. They'll see Dad as irresponsible and Mum as the backbone. Also fatal for producing responsible men.

    So please tell me again how Roissy leads to a better future?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Oh and one more thing. The "pedestaling" goes both ways. Women pedestal men too.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Indeed they'll hardly know what being manly is.

    Jesse, good point.

    Isn't it better for those of us who have been through the whole feminist thing to take control by raising our sons (and daughters) to do things differently?

    If we deliberately opt out, then won't the feminist state just have more control over children? And what chance then will boys have to grow up to a self-confident manhood?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Mark said:

    "And what chance then will boys have to grow up to a self-confident manhood?"

    Agreed. If you look at things like gangs they're usually young guys who are confused or abandoned and grow up trying to figure out what being a man is. All they come up with is having strength makes you a man. Well its a little more than that. They also have bugger all impulse control. Parents (if they're present) who say life is about getting laid will hardly teach them good if any impulse control.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @Mark,

    I asserted the existence of a feminine essence and also made the claim that female beauty is the highest form of beauty.

    Not quite. You argued that the beautiful female form expresses - i.e. reflects - a (presumably beautiful) feminine essence.

    even Roissy states much the same thing.

    I am sure he would disagree that the "essence" of the female is beautiful (or at any rate, an unalloyed pure beauty), or that a beautiful external form necessarily reflects or expresses a beautiful internal essence.

    So, Roissy believes there is external female beauty, but does not believe there is a beautiful internal essence, or that external beauty reflects internal goodness.

    your mind is already set against conservatives as pedestalisers who take the side of women against men

    I'm calling it as I see it written here.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Jesse,

    So what we're all creatures who live in the muck?

    Females are no more innately inclined towards goodness or truth or civilization than are males. Females, like males, have to be taught to love these things.

    Guys who do whatever a girl wants are not respected by other guys.

    A hedonistic skank will find a beta to fulfill her material needs and an alpha to fulfill her physical needs. Your boycott will fail.

    Beta is after Alpha right? So Alpha's better?

    Depends what you want. If you want lots of women, alpha is better. Plenty of men are content with an asexual existence.

    women repeatedly say that they want to be treated well and that what they want is a guy who treats them nice. Is this lying?

    Of course!

    Roissey wouldn't probably work so well on women your own age, because women your age have stronger personalities and will put up with less.

    That's what you think.

    You're wrong.

    Under Roissey culture the “meaningful relations” take place with the other guys when you brag about your score.

    I can see that it's satisfying for you to attack an idiotic caricature.

    If you drop out to "entertain" your woman while she works, who's the weaker party then?

    Plenty of alphas make no money at all. The classic case is the penniless artist or musician who gets lots of tail.

    So by having sex with everyone you're helping society, securing the future?

    Society has abandoned the beta male - and especially the beta white male. So what does the beta white male owe society?

    Smuggness is awesome.

    I've kinda noticed you like being smug.

    So please tell me again how Roissy leads to a better future?

    Roissy is not the best guide to game and marriage. "Hawaiian Libertarian" is much better (he frequently posts comments at Roissy). Hawaiian Libertarian shows that it is not merely desirable but essential to keep "gaming" your woman after marriage (where game is properly understood - not the stupid caricature of game as mere deceit).

    Isn't it better for those of us who have been through the whole feminist thing to take control by raising our sons (and daughters) to do things differently?

    If we deliberately opt out, then won't the feminist state just have more control over children? And what chance then will boys have to grow up to a self-confident manhood?


    Opting out means not having children at all, so the point is moot.

    If you do have children, you have to understand that in the current system, they can be taken away from you at any time at your wife's whim. So how much "control" do you really have? How do you plan to "take control" if your wife disagrees and can have you arrested if you push your ideas too hard?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hi Anonymous,

    Phew I thought you'd "beta'd" out and weren't going to reply.

    Ok lets define the attack. If its "Game" as a way to improve your relations with women, keeping in mind that women don't want a doormat and you don't want to be shafted, I think that's fine and commendable. If its game as exploitation of women because they deserve it, not commendable not acceptable.

    "Plenty of alphas make no money at all. The classic case is the penniless artist or musician who gets lots of tail...

    Society has abandoned the beta male - and especially the beta white male. So what does the beta white male owe society?"

    These are worrying/unacceptable remarks. If the penniless artist gets lots of tail, so what? He's a goon. If he's penniless because his art doesn't pay much that's fine. If he's penniless because he can't be bothered to get a job, goon, idiot. Either he lives off welfare, off a women, or off someone else. By in large unacceptable. The bohemian waiting for his score adds a little "color" to society but usually isn't as good as he thinks he is, and when he does hit it, eg Marx or Hitler, is likely an intolerable personality.

    As for the beta male owing nothing to society? That's a recipe for social destruction. But society deserved to be destroyed right? The white male (beta male as you'd say) is all too often the whipping boy. If he packs up and leaves, boom crash. I'm not interested in that kind of victory and neither should you be. Who says destruction leads to something better? It could lead to something worse and cause lots of problems in the process. There are less drastic ways to change society.

    "A hedonistic skank will find a beta to fulfill her material needs and an alpha to fulfill her physical needs. Your boycott will fail."

    If she has children with the beta male society will at least go on. In that circumstance the beta will have to look at himself in the mirror and the skank will have to square it with her conscience, society and her creator. As the alpha will too. Presumably the alpha wouldn't put up with that from his partner, assuming he has one, and so the boycott, which takes the form of telling in so many words of telling your partner what kind of behavior is acceptable, succeeds. Its not unreasonable to expect your partner not to cheat on you. If you leave the realm of the reasonable too far behind you enter the realm of selfish wish fulfillment and as a general rule people aren’t inclined to put up with that.

    "If you do have children, you have to understand that in the current system, they can be taken away from you at any time at your wife's whim. So how much "control" do you really have?"

    To take a confronting example a knife can be picked up at any time and a partner can be stabbed in their sleep. Male or female. One difference between that and divorce is that the latter is legal. Both, however, are devastating (ok stabbing is worse). Relations require trust and confidence in each other rather than mere inability to do something. You have to know at the outset whether your wife would be likely to push that kind of button and under what circumstances. If she's the sort of woman who thinks that everything she does is justified/justifiable then you know you'll probably end up in the divorce courts if she doesn't get her way and then maybe even if she does.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jesse_7 said: "There is a lot of talk here about sexual attraction and the "true" woman coming out. However, women repeatedly say that they want to be treated well and that what they want is a guy who treats them nice.Is this lying?"

    Yes, Jesse. There is a world of difference between what women say they want and what women actually want. As the saying goes, don't listen to what women say, watch what they do." And scores of Beta men have watched as women passed them up for jerks.

    I suggest you read the writing of F. Roger Devlin. He writes at length about how women's words and actions do not match up -- and why.

    -- Days of Broken Arrows

    ReplyDelete
  57. Phew I thought you'd "beta'd" out and weren't going to reply.

    Heh, an alpha has better things to do than respond instantly to a stranger's comments on the internet. The most alpha thing of all would be to ignore you completely. =)

    If its "Game" as a way to improve your relations with women, keeping in mind that women don't want a doormat and you don't want to be shafted, I think that's fine and commendable. If its game as exploitation of women because they deserve it, not commendable not acceptable.

    My personal view is that game is the former. In particular, "game" is a catch-phrase for doing the opposite of what "they" (society in general, white-knighting betas, and women, including well-meaning female relatives) tell you to do with respect to your relations with women. I personally got no end of bad advice from women about women.

    These are worrying/unacceptable remarks. If the penniless artist gets lots of tail, so what? He's a goon. If he's penniless because his art doesn't pay much that's fine. If he's penniless because he can't be bothered to get a job, goon, idiot. Either he lives off welfare, off a women, or off someone else. By in large unacceptable. The bohemian waiting for his score adds a little "color" to society but usually isn't as good as he thinks he is, and when he does hit it, eg Marx or Hitler, is likely an intolerable personality.

    Unacceptable? To whom? Who decides what is acceptable and what is not? If someone chooses the penniless bohemian lifestyle, who are you to say this is "unacceptable"? They have freely chosen to accept it, so it is acceptable to them, and that should be enough, unless we're going to have Soviet-style laws against "parasitism" or something.

    The main groups who think it is "unacceptable" for men to opt out of the beta provider lifestyle are those who wish to exploit beta providers: alpha males and women. Apparently a lot of betas (cough, Jesse, cough) insist that no other men should be allowed to escape servitude on the beta treadmill.

    As for the beta male owing nothing to society? That's a recipe for social destruction. But society deserved to be destroyed right?

    If we, as a society, want men to participate, to opt in, and to build a better tomorrow, then we have to give them a reason to do so. Right now we, as a society, are providing every incentive for men to opt out, and they are increasingly doing so. Also, of course, men increasingly have no choice but to opt out, since the "mancession" has resulted in mass layoffs of men and socialist regimes increasingly hire women in preference to men.

    The white male (beta male as you'd say) is all too often the whipping boy. If he packs up and leaves, boom crash. I'm not interested in that kind of victory and neither should you be.

    I'm not. But I ask you, if the choice for white males is slavery or letting the system crash, which should he choose?

    To repeat: if you want white males to work for a better tomorrow, you have to give them a stake in that tomorrow. Right now, we are doing the opposite. If we give men every reason to opt out, and they do, then they cannot be blamed for doing so. A monkey will only take so many electric shocks before he quits reaching for the banana.

    If she has children with the beta male society will at least go on.

    No, it won't. You need more than skanks reproducing to have a society.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Phew I thought you'd "beta'd" out and weren't going to reply.

    Heh, an alpha has better things to do than respond instantly to a stranger's comments on the internet. The most alpha thing of all would be to ignore you completely. =)

    If its "Game" as a way to improve your relations with women, keeping in mind that women don't want a doormat and you don't want to be shafted, I think that's fine and commendable. If its game as exploitation of women because they deserve it, not commendable not acceptable.

    My personal view is that game is the former. In particular, "game" is a catch-phrase for doing the opposite of what "they" (society in general, white-knighting betas, and women, including well-meaning female relatives) tell you to do with respect to your relations with women. I personally got no end of bad advice from women about women.

    These are worrying/unacceptable remarks. If the penniless artist gets lots of tail, so what? He's a goon. If he's penniless because his art doesn't pay much that's fine. If he's penniless because he can't be bothered to get a job, goon, idiot. Either he lives off welfare, off a women, or off someone else. By in large unacceptable. The bohemian waiting for his score adds a little "color" to society but usually isn't as good as he thinks he is, and when he does hit it, eg Marx or Hitler, is likely an intolerable personality.

    Unacceptable? To whom? Who decides what is acceptable and what is not? If someone chooses the penniless bohemian lifestyle, who are you to say this is "unacceptable"? They have freely chosen to accept it, so it is acceptable to them, and that should be enough, unless we're going to have Soviet-style laws against "parasitism" or something.

    The main groups who think it is "unacceptable" for men to opt out of the beta provider lifestyle are those who wish to exploit beta providers: alpha males and women. Apparently a lot of betas (cough, Jesse, cough) insist that no other men should be allowed to escape servitude on the beta treadmill.

    As for the beta male owing nothing to society? That's a recipe for social destruction. But society deserved to be destroyed right?

    If we, as a society, want men to participate, to opt in, and to build a better tomorrow, then we have to give them a reason to do so. Right now we, as a society, are providing every incentive for men to opt out, and they are increasingly doing so. Also, of course, men increasingly have no choice but to opt out, since the "mancession" has resulted in mass layoffs of men and socialist regimes increasingly hire women in preference to men.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sorry about the posting problem - things got messed up by the 4096 character limit.

    Its not unreasonable to expect your partner not to cheat on you.

    That is true, but in modern society, if a woman cheats on you there is nothing you can do about it. If you leave the marriage, she gets the house, the kids, and all your money regardless of the fact that she destroyed the marriage. What rational beta wants to sign up for a deal where she can cheat but he can't?

    To take a confronting example a knife can be picked up at any time and a partner can be stabbed in their sleep. Male or female. One difference between that and divorce is that the latter is legal. Both, however, are devastating (ok stabbing is worse).

    Is it? How many men kill themselves, or go on a homicidal rampage, as a result of divorce?

    You have to know at the outset whether your wife would be likely to push that kind of button and under what circumstances.

    Judging by the evidence, many, many men think they "know at the outset" what their wives are capable of, but these men are tragically mistaken. Can you blame men for not signing up for this deal in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous said:

    "Heh, an alpha has better things to do than respond instantly to a stranger's comments on the internet. The most alpha thing of all would be to ignore you completely. =)"

    Keep telling yourself that buddy lol. I’ll keep this short because I have stuff to do too ;).

    On the point about the bohemian and who are "you" to tell him how to live, that's a libertarian argument not a conservative one. According to libertarianism (I suppose) the individual’s choices are the key element. Under conservatism being part of society matters more. Why when in danger should you not run and leave your girlfriend stranded? Why should you not spend your life at the bottom of a bottle or chasing the dragon? Because you have expectations placed upon you and ignoring that is useless.

    “But I ask you, if the choice for white males is slavery or letting the system crash, which should he choose?”

    Slavery. But the choice is a false one. Its true that conservatives have obligations as well as rewards. The left have “tacked into” existing systems where it suited and attacked male rewards whilst keeping the obligations in place or adding to them, but the original roles of men were not designed to suit the left but society and men still have that responsibility. Letting the system crash is no option but a surrender in defeat.An awareness of what is required of men will allow them to fulfill their obligations without leaving them feeling like slaves, put upon, or acting for the left.

    “If we give men every reason to opt out, and they do, then they cannot be blamed for doing so. A monkey will only take so many electric shocks before he quits reaching for the banana.”

    Quit making excuses. Watch the play of the ball and act accordingly without acting like a bastard or a quitter. In the past men were expected to know everything in their dna. Perhaps that is not reasonable or achievable, however, the requirement of male responsibility remains.

    “Judging by the evidence, many, many men think they "know at the outset" what their wives are capable of, but these men are tragically mistaken. Can you blame men for not signing up for this deal in the first place?”

    Marriage is sold as “fun”. For this reason people get into unsuitable couples or base their relationships on the wrong grounds, eg looks or excitement. If you trust your girlfriend/wife there is no reason for you to leave each other or find it too difficult to sort out your problems.

    Any argument that says women are just waiting for the divorce from the outset so they can cash in is not realistic in the vast majority of cases.

    ReplyDelete
  61. On the point about the bohemian and who are "you" to tell him how to live, that's a libertarian argument not a conservative one.

    There is no room in a conservative world for a bohemian living modestly to pursue his art? I never knew that. I also was unaware that conservatism required forcing people to "work productively for the good of society", which is what your argument amounts to. Indeed, that sounds more radical Left than conservative Right.

    Under conservatism being part of society matters more.

    This is true if society is worth conserving. Is it "conservative" to argue that everyone must support a society in which liberalism has run rampant and reigns supreme? At what point does a conservative have an obligation not to support a society which reflects the antithesis of everything he believes in, but to oppose this society with all his power, and in particular to withhold his labor from it?

    Because you have expectations placed upon you and ignoring that is useless.

    If society expects you to be a slave, then you should not merely ignore that expectation but actively fight it.

    Slavery.

    Nonsense. White males should no more support the current system than black males should have supported the system in the antebellum South.

    Its true that conservatives have obligations as well as rewards.

    The obligations are to self and chosen friends and relatives, not to a depraved society that despises conservatives and spits in their face at every turn.

    the original roles of men were not designed to suit the left but society and men still have that responsibility.

    Nonsense. Responsibility can only come from free choice; it cannot be thrust upon you. Women have chosen to usurp the role of men and give the state power to intervene between men and their wives and children. The responsibility for the resulting negative outcomes lies entirely with women. Men have no responsibility to uphold a system over which they have no power and from which they derive no benefit.

    Letting the system crash is no option but a surrender in defeat.

    Au contraire, letting the system crash is the only path to victory. Women will not agree to change a system that functions to their great advantage unless and until that system is demonstrably unsustainable.

    An awareness of what is required of men will allow them to fulfill their obligations without leaving them feeling like slaves, put upon, or acting for the left.

    More rubbish. What is required of men in the current system is they submit to slavery, submit to the dictates of the Left, and supply unstinting resources. Men have no obligation to do any of this, period - though women would love us all to think so.

    Quit making excuses. Watch the play of the ball and act accordingly without acting like a bastard or a quitter. In the past men were expected to know everything in their dna. Perhaps that is not reasonable or achievable, however, the requirement of male responsibility remains.

    This is typical mangina shaming language, and it leaves me unmoved.

    If the game is rigged against you, the rational choice is not to play. If you want me to play, make the rules fair. I have no obligation or responsibility to play a game I can't win.

    Any argument that says women are just waiting for the divorce from the outset so they can cash in is not realistic in the vast majority of cases.

    Erm, it sounds like exactly the case in 40-50% of marriages.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous,

    Most of your post seems a disappointing projection of bogeyman status onto the state or women. This is not even vaguely the reality for most people.

    The state for most people is a slightly incompetent, slightly overreaching, duffer, that is nonetheless thought of fondly as a parent figure. Snarling and saying the state is like 1984 or Soviet Russia is ridiculous for most people's reality.

    Same again for women. They are seen as slightly short sighted, demanding, or self justifying, rather than as deliberately destructive and consistently deceitful as in the image you've used and portrayed.

    If marriage fails in 40-50% of cases, which is usually followed by remarriage (or its equivalent), it succeeds in 50-60% of cases. Very often happily. And this is not all because the men have succumbed to having their nuts in a vice.

    This all just sounds like sour grapes. Sorry to use shaming language.

    And pointless rebellion is useless. You don't bring down the system because you don't deem it to be "fair". There's always someone out there who thinks they're being hard done by. If they were allowed to storm the winter palace every two minutes because of that, humanity would have accomplished nothing

    ReplyDelete
  63. Most of your post seems a disappointing projection of bogeyman status onto the state or women. This is not even vaguely the reality for most people.

    If you do not believe the state and women are out of control in the Western world, then you're either blind, stupid, or deluded. I don't find your delusions or state of denial surprising or disappointing, since that is the normal mental state for most people.

    Auster puts it this way: "For the first time in my life, I feel that I am not a free person, and that we are not a free people. When I say that we are not free, I obviously do not mean that we cannot (at least for the moment) say what we want and do what we want and go where we want. I mean that we are no longer living under a constitutional representative government, flawed and overreaching and swollen to gargantuan size though it may be; we are living under a lawless regime of power holders who are hostile to us and ruthlessly seek greater and greater control over us. We've heard all our lives about other countries that were not free. Now for the first time, we Americans are learning what it feels like not to be free."

    He is correct. We live under a lawless regime in which those in power are hostile to us and seek greater and greater control over us. That is reality, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. A man who gets married can have his wealth confiscated, his children taken from him, and his freedom taken away at any moment according to the whims of a female. That is reality, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

    The state for most people is a slightly incompetent, slightly overreaching, duffer, that is nonetheless thought of fondly as a parent figure. Snarling and saying the state is like 1984 or Soviet Russia is ridiculous for most people's reality.

    Do you really expect to impress me with references to what "most people" supposedly believe? I have news for you, chief, if 100% of the people think something that is incorrect, that does not make it correct. In any case, the issue here is not what "most people" think, because "most people" includes Leftists, Feminists, and social parasites who benefit from the existing order. The issue is what the chief victims of the Leftist order should think about the state, and what they should do about it. Conservatives do not characterize the state as you have above. From this one can only conclude you are not a conservative. Why do you patronize Oz Conservative, anyway? Mark Richardson has provided abundant evidence of Leftist and Feminist excesses that manifestly resulted from deliberate evil intent, and one could not possibly read these stories and conclude that the state is an incompetent duffer but had basically good intentions, or that women were slightly short-sighted but had basically good intentions. How you read these stories and reach such deluded conclusions is baffling to me.

    Same again for women. They are seen as slightly short sighted, demanding, or self justifying, rather than as deliberately destructive and consistently deceitful as in the image you've used and portrayed.

    "They are seen"? By who? You? Some nebulous "most people" (see previous link)?

    That women are not merely "slightly short sighted" becomes clear if you point out the flaws and unfairness of the system to them. This always elicits a scream of rage followed by shaming language, which ought to make it clear even to the most obtuse white-knighting beta that they are not unaware that they have tilted the playing field in their favor, and they intend to keep it that way.

    Ultimately it does not matter if women are deliberately destructive or merely selfish and short-sighted. The effect is the same. Marriage is a game rigged against men, and they should refuse to play.

    ReplyDelete
  64. this is not all because the men have succumbed to having their nuts in a vice.

    Not every man has figured it out yet that marriage is a terrible deal for men. You yourself are proof of this. In time even the stupidest men will learn.

    This all just sounds like sour grapes. Sorry to use shaming language.

    I already knew you liked to white-knight women, now I see you are white-knighting liberal tyranny as well. Ah well, the Leftist / Feminist Dracula must have its Renfields...

    And pointless rebellion is useless. You don't bring down the system because you don't deem it to be "fair".

    You poor fool, that is exactly what the Left and women have done. They brought down the existing system because they deemed it "unfair". Well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    We are long past the point where the system is "somewhat unfair to white males but still worth preserving". Auster puts it this way: "how does a conservative relate to a social order that has already been radicalized? ... At a certain point, a society may change so much that it changes its very form. What is our relation to an America which is not just bad in numerous respects, but which has become bad at its core, an America which has become hostile and threatening to us--at its core? An America whose Constitution has not just been distorted in profound ways, but has ceased in the most fundamental way to be operative? An America in which the government can do whatever it likes to us, and this is ok with at least half the people?"

    I put it to you that not merely America, but also Australia, Canada, and Western Europe are in precisely the same place - they are bad at their core, as well as hostile and threatening to conservatives. Do you even consider yourself a conservative? If so, why do you consider rebellion or resistance against an evil Leftist system "pointless"? Even if it cannot succeed, such resistance and rebellion is far from pointless - it is noble. I think it can succeed, and your counsel of defeat and despair (or is it Vichyite collaboration?) is contemptible.

    ReplyDelete
  65. There's always someone out there who thinks they're being hard done by. If they were allowed to storm the winter palace every two minutes because of that, humanity would have accomplished nothing.

    Leftist revolutions should not be allowed to succeed? Hello, you poor fool, they have succeeded. The Left is in power now. Naturally they don't want us to fight, but that does not mean we should not fight. Humanity will certainly "accomplish nothing" if they are allowed to continue doing what they're doing, and they'll do it for longer if we don't resist.

    Has it not occurred to you that attitudes like yours are precisely the reason for the relentless Leftward drift in society and politics over past decades? The Left thinks something is "unfair", so they fight and fight and fight until things change. The instant that a Leftist change occurs, the Right grumbles that it is "unfair" but accepts, supports, and defends the new status quo. This is a recipe for a ratchet than only clicks Left, not a pendulum that swings Left-Right.

    By the way, nowhere have I argued for "storming the winter palace". What I argue for is non-cooperation. Men should not cooperate with the unjust order women have established; conservatives should not cooperate with the unjust order Leftists have established. It is eminently possible to do this without breaking any laws at all. Do not attend their schools; grow your own food; barter as much as possible; generate no wealth they can tax; do the minimum necessary to get by. If producers refuse to produce, then in due course an immoral system based on milking producers for the benefit of the non-productive must crash as it deserves to.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anonymous,

    "Do not attend their schools; grow your own food; barter as much as possible; generate no wealth they can tax; do the minimum necessary to get by. If producers refuse to produce, then in due course an immoral system based on milking producers for the benefit of the non-productive must crash as it deserves to."

    I thought you had a good argument up to this point. So this is what conservatism comes down to? Subsistence living? I really don't need to add too much to that aside from saying the "strong, noble, self sufficient and independent" Boers didn't stand a chance and neither will you with that attitude.

    "By the way, nowhere have I argued for "storming the winter palace". What I argue for is non-cooperation"

    Well I don't see why you should limit it. Clearly militant revolution is the only way to go against such an unjust order.

    "If so, why do you consider rebellion or resistance against an evil Leftist system "pointless"? "

    Pointless rebellion is rebellion without a point. Oh this and that is unfair so we're up in arms, rebel, rebel, rebel and when the new system comes in we can rebel against that too. Cause you know, its our right and its also fun.

    "The Left thinks something is "unfair", so they fight and fight and fight until things change. The instant that a Leftist change occurs, the Right grumbles that it is "unfair" but accepts, supports, and defends the new status quo. This is a recipe for a ratchet than only clicks Left, not a pendulum that swings Left-Right."

    The Left exists as a parasite in the social structure. Meaning that they live/bleed off of conservative society. The left hardly know what to do when they're actually in power and when there's no right figure to blame. Also as a parasite they're not actually in charge but living much more on the edge which is why they continue to see themselves as an “alternative” no matter how much power they get. Fully leftist policies are usually rejected or unpopular so instead they're restated in rightist or conservative language. How so? Economic redistribution takes on the form of Christian charity. Female rights are, "female equality", keeping in mind the universal equality of the individual, which is a Christian concept. Anti racism takes the form of "do unto your neighbor".

    The mere fact that these movements are cast in conservative language makes them vulnerable. Christianity is still Conservative right? The moment that they are seen to ignore their tenants or overreach they lose legitimacy and are consequently vulnerable to immediate overturning by those who have the nouse to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Cont.

    ""They are seen"? By who? You? Some nebulous "most people" (see previous link)?"

    You're in the colossal minority and there are reasons for that other than leftist indoctrination which can only go so far. Your views, however, would not have been in the minority in South Africa.

    Why are you in a minority position? Because large scale leftist notions, even liberal notions are not "unreasonable" in theory, though often different in application. Its true individuals and groups can find themselves horribly exposed, such as in the divorce courts and iff people lived their lives in the divorce courts, as opposed to not more than once or twice possibly (as serious as those occasions are), it would be much more of a scandal. Its unfortunate that people are not roused until a hammer hits them which is partly due to living in an excessively individualised society. However, that's different from saying that most, MOST, people are not generally quite content. Liberalism and leftism looks to their material and "emotional" security and these notions are not unpopular. It doesn’t look to all aspects of our security though and Liberalism/lefitsm is short sighted and often doesn't live up to its promise or is actually contrary to it. This means that those people who look to the future realise its flaws, which again makes it vulnerable to change from those willing and justified in doing so.

    Your arguments are also hardly a revolutionary break from leftism/liberalism. You replace the word “woman” with "man" in your previous post about unfairness and you've just made a leftist feminist argument. Congratulations.

    Austar said:

    ""For the first time in my life, I feel that I am not a free person, and that we are not a free people."

    Only now? According to the reasoning provided he probably should have felt that way a long time ago.

    "He is correct. We live under a lawless regime in which those in power are hostile to us and seek greater and greater control over us. That is reality, whether you care to acknowledge it or not."

    I suppose we're in a unique historical position where the state has more power/control than we do. Also it’s not quite lawless we live in a highly legalized state. No moral law perhaps? Then make that argument.

    "Conservatives do not characterize the state as you have above. From this one can only conclude you are not a conservative."

    Obviously most conservatives are conscientious objectors like you. No wait they should be conscientious objectors. Most conservatives I know are interested in social and state service and so consequently don’t see the state as a ruthless overlord rather than as often misguided, mistaken or unjustified.

    ReplyDelete
  68. So this is what conservatism comes down to? Subsistence living?

    Ultra-frugal living =/= subsistence living. The conservative should seek to generate NO surplus that the liberal state can tax. Indeed, if possible be a net tax recipient not a net tax donor.

    I have lived comfortably in a world-class city on US$1500/mo, and most of my earnings were cash. If I grew my own food I would have needed to make even less.

    I really don't need to add too much to that

    Except that as usual you don't understand what I'm saying.

    aside from saying the "strong, noble, self sufficient and independent" Boers didn't stand a chance and neither will you with that attitude.

    Why shouldn't I? What can they do to me if I do the minimal amount of work needed to support myself and don't generate any extra for them?

    If you are a conservative, you're not going to stand a chance either. But at least they won't get anything out of "defeating" me, whereas you will inexplicably work as hard as you can to slave for your liberal masters.

    Well I don't see why you should limit it. Clearly militant revolution is the only way to go against such an unjust order.

    Justified but not effective. Armed revolution did not and could not defeat the USSR. An entire nation of people who refused to do anything more than the state required of them until the system crashed did defeat the USSR.

    Pointless rebellion is rebellion without a point.

    You don't think there's any point to defeating the liberal state? (shrug) Again you reveal you're hopelessly not conservative. Why do you even come to this site?

    Oh this and that is unfair so we're up in arms, rebel, rebel, rebel and when the new system comes in we can rebel against that too. Cause you know, its our right and its also fun.

    The idea that it is just and necessary to defeat an immoral, oppressive, exploitative system should not be controversial. Put in place a fair system, and people won't resist it (duh).

    The Left exists as a parasite in the social structure.

    Wrong. Today, the Left IS the social structure. They ARE in power now - and they know exactly what to do, which is to keep milking people like you.

    as a parasite they're not actually in charge

    The Left is totally, 100% in charge now, in every country, in every way that matters.

    Apparently you have internalized liberal assumptions to such a degree that you cannot see this.

    Christianity is still Conservative right?

    The vast majority of sects are liberal. Don't get me started on the utterly loathsome Rowan Williams...

    You're in the colossal minority and there are reasons for that other than leftist indoctrination which can only go so far.

    Yes, the Left has indeed succeeded in brainwashing the majority of people, including quite obviously you. It remains a logical fallacy for you to argue that you are right because "most people think so".

    Why are you in a minority position?

    Because the Left controls education and the media, and relentlessly preaches its dogma.

    that's different from saying that most, MOST, people are not generally quite content.

    You cannot know this since the media cannot and would not report this accurately.

    Your arguments are also hardly a revolutionary break from leftism/liberalism. You replace the word “woman” with "man" in your previous post about unfairness and you've just made a leftist feminist argument. Congratulations.

    Indeed, I knowingly did so in order to illustrate, as I said, that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Only now? According to the reasoning provided he probably should have felt that way a long time ago.

    The way he explains it, previously he felt that there was much that was bad and unacceptable, but much that was still good. However, "at a certain point, a society may change so much that it changes its very form. What is our relation to an America which is not just bad in numerous respects, but which has become bad at its core, an America which has become hostile and threatening to us--at its core? An America whose Constitution has not just been distorted in profound ways, but has ceased in the most fundamental way to be operative? An America in which the government can do whatever it likes to us, and this is ok with at least half the people?"

    We have now reached that point.

    I suppose we're in a unique historical position where the state has more power/control than we do.

    Certainly unique for white, English-speaking nations.

    Also it’s not quite lawless we live in a highly legalized state.

    Oh please. (Rolls eyes.) They had "laws" in Nazi Germany and the USSR, too.

    Most conservatives I know are interested in social and state service and so consequently don’t see the state as a ruthless overlord rather than as often misguided, mistaken or unjustified.

    I guess they have to take that view in order to sleep at night.

    The state can certainly be a ruthless overlord and be misguided, mistaken and unjustified.

    ReplyDelete
  70. There are substantial differences between the US and Australian/British historical and cultural traditions. The day I go to an American Conservative site saying what is and what isn't Conservative is the day I give myself an uppercut.

    ReplyDelete
  71. There are substantial differences between the US and Australian/British historical and cultural traditions. The day I go to an American Conservative site saying what is and what isn't Conservative is the day I give myself an uppercut.

    Judging by you, an Australian "conservative" is no kind of conservative at all. Neither are the Brit "conservatives". The best they can do is a limp-wristed, impotent type like Gordon "I'm not quite as Left as Labour, and oh so sorry, I can't do anything to change anything that the Left has done" Brown.

    But as I said, if you flaccidly accept and support any change the Left has made as the new status quo, then it is no wonder the Left always wins and society keeps drifting forever Left.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.