 |
| Rebecca Holman |
Even at the tender age of 18...I was full of adolescent disdain for anyone who wanted to marry young. I imagined I’d spend my 20s having a string of dramatic, ill-advised love affairs and generally gallivanting, before settling down about three days after my 30th birthday. And living Happily Ever After.
Being oriented to "dramatic, ill-advised love affairs" changed the kind of men she selected. She ruled out decent men on trivial grounds:
The men I rejected when I was 26 because they were ‘too nice,’ ‘wore underpants rather than boxers’ or ‘had a really prominent Adam’s apple’
But on reaching 30 she encountered a problem. She now wanted a decent kind of guy to settle down with. But the top tier of these men were either already taken or were determined to date women under the age of 30. It is Rebecca Holman's experience that the top tier men were,
getting married to women much more proactive than me...These are the women who...had their eye on the prize. And fair play to them – they clearly possess the sort of vision, foresight and mad organizational skills that I’m incapable of.
Anyway – these women, who are arguably better at life than I am, are now marrying the top tier of men. I don’t mean the richest, or the most handsome. I mean the funny, nice, clever ones, with no family history of substance abuse and the ability to love another human being without expecting their soul in return.
I've written about this before. It's not sensible for women to opt out until they reach 30 and expect to have the same number of family oriented men waiting for them. The more proactive women will get first go.
So what is Rebecca Holman now to do? She could, of course, accept a second tier man. But this she refuses to do. So she claims to have a solution (how serious she is about this I'm not sure) which is to wait for some of the first tier men to divorce.
I doubt if this strategy will appeal to too many women. Better to learn from Rebecca Holman's mistakes and to give priority to something that is so important for our happiness, namely a good marriage and the opportunity to have a family.
This is the inevitable consequence in a society which does not make marriage a social duty and obligation but merely a relationship of the emotions to be entered into at will.
ReplyDeleteIn traditional societies, women do not hunt men. The idea of a "pro active woman" is a sign of a feminised liberal society.
The Biblical command regarding marriage is for a father to find a wife for his son and a woman's father to give her in marriage.
The concept of a pro- active woman hunting a man like a predator seeking prey (often how it turns out via the divorce courts) is neither traditional nor Christian.
And how can a man who has been hunted and caught then be dominant in the relationship and lead his family? The answer is that he cannot and he becomes one of the typical weak feminised males who passively submits to the authority of the woman who has chosen him.
So she claims to have a solution (how serious she is about this I'm not sure) which is to wait for some of the first tier men to divorce.
ReplyDeleteLMAO, why does she think these men will want to marry her? She will be even older, more unattractive and infertile than ever.
He’s matured and learnt a few things from his first marriage about what he wants from a relationship.
What reason do you have to believe you will have what he wants? Even if he is not emotionally bitter and financially destitute, most likely he will want FUN FUN FUN with a hot young thing in a commitment-free relationship.
Delusion reigns supreme.
Those "first tier" men are still going to want "first tier" woman. She isn't one, and from the looks of her picture she never was one even in her youth.
ReplyDeleteThis is the delusional side of the lifestyle she chose. She thinks because all of those "first tier" (alpha) men were happy have a roll in the sack with her, that she was in their league when it came to marriage. She never was and never will be.
A man at a party will be content with hamburger and beer, but for his wedding meal he'll insist on steak and champagne.
She has so overrated herself that she will never find a husband, and if she does she'll never be happy with him, because--like her--he'll be of the hamburger and beer variety.
First anon,
ReplyDeleteWe all have to be proactive when it comes to marriage in the sense that we give it priority as a life outcome and cultivate the qualities that we need to be an attractive and capable future spouse.
I don't think we can take it for granted that young women are being raised along these lines anymore. Instead, they are being raised to cultivate the qualities they need to be an attractive and successful corporate employee. The marriage stuff is just supposed to happen along the way by itself. It's taken for granted.
Anon, we don't have arranged marriages in the West today and are unlikely to have them in the future (the most I can see happening is more vetting by the fathers than happens today).
That means that women do have to make an effort in the way they present themselves to men. It helps if women show some feminine charisma.
But here is the most important thing. Women who think they can wait until their 30s generally reject the more decent men, assuming that such men will still be there for them later on. What they don't realise is that there will be other women willing to marry younger who will set their sights on these men (especially the top tier of these men).
So that's another sense in which women need to be proactive. There *is* a competition for the top tier of men. The women who are proactive in the sense of not delaying for a decade but presenting themselves to these men in a timely way will most likely win out.
That is what I've observed in my social circle.
J & second anon,
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
The selection of marriage partners in traditional societies is based upon a critical evaluation of suitability as a life partner and family member not upon superficial qualities such as charisma , a quality which can be dangerously deceptive.
ReplyDeleteYou comment upon the raising of young women but fail to comment on the raising of young men who are certainly not being raised to be strong leaders of families and societies.
ReplyDeleteMany young men are weak, morally degenerate, sexually promiscuous and perverted and dressed like children. Men also need to show sound qualities of husband material .
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThe charisma that I am referring to is an outflowing of our nature as men and women. If we are a man then we should exude masculine personality in a way that will appeal to the opposite sex, and vice versa for women. It is not a good thing to be so introverted or shy that no such personality is expressed. If charisma is too strong a word perhaps then 'charm' will do.
Men also need to show sound qualities of husband material.
ReplyDeleteYes. But I have to add something to this. You can't at the same time ask men to cultivate husband qualities *and* accept as normal a culture of deferral.
Why? If feminists win the "defer until you're 30" argument, then men won't be required as husbands until they are early to mid-30s. And 20-something men will experience women selecting against rather than for husband qualities.
We need therefore to protest vigorously against delayed family formation if we wish to be taken seriously in our promotion of husband qualities.
Delayed family formation is partly attributable to young men. In most cultures young men are obliged to work and hard and save money to ensure their eligibility to assume the social and financial burdens of marriage. A potential bride's father and male relatives will seek proof of this financial competency and work ethic.
ReplyDeleteIn the West young men are hedonistic and irresponsible and pursue sexual gratification instead of family values.
Charm similarly does not form a basis for marriage or child rearing. It's a superficial quality which can be deceptive.
ReplyDeletePeople have to focus on the qualities which are essential for stable family life : similarity of social background, ethnicity, religion, social class, education , values, world view and life goals.
Stable families and societies cannot be founded upon superficial qualities such as charm.
It is human nature to seek freedom and defer commitments, particularly in males and the young.
ReplyDeleteAccordingly in order to avoid delayed family formation, there must be social pressure on people to marry and remain in marriage. Without pressure marriages will not happen and will not last.
In traditional societies family pressure pushes the young men to marriage plus social pressure in the form of a refusal to appoint un married men to posts of social responsibility adds to that.
In a society in which cohabitation is common and family breakdown almost the norm, with the traditional extended family almost ceasing to exist, family pressure from parents , aunts and uncles no longer exists.
In a traditional society the father and male relatives of a young man will prepare him for the commitments and burdens of marriage and help him select a suitable bride. In the modern West many fathers have abrogated this role and left young men to ignorance and fecklessness.
Delayed family formation is partly attributable to young men.
ReplyDeleteNot when it first set in. I was part of a generation of men who expected to have a few years of relative irresponsibility at uni whilst then settling down soon after. It was our female peers who rejected this timeline. Marriage and family got pushed right down the list of priorities for these women - it was something to do at the very last minute, say late 30s.
This had a knock on effect. It changed what women selected for in men, which then changed the traditional masculine culture, which then changed what men selected for in women.
Deferral wasn't just about human nature (though that's no doubt part of it). It has been drummed into women that what matters is autonomy, that marriage and family will cramp them rather than fulfil them, that marriage and family are secondary aspects of life etc.
It is human nature to seek freedom and defer commitments, particularly in males and the young.
ReplyDeleteNo it isn't. People only do this now because modern society makes it possible and modern ideology asserts that it is desirable.
In traditional societies, people cannot do this and do not do this.
The Bible states that the human is the creation of God, made in the image of God, to live according to the plan of God and to have a relationship with God. Part of that plan is marriage between one man and one woman. However the history of human existence and indeed much of the Bible itself demonstrates constant human rebellion against God.
ReplyDeleteThe human condition is therefore a battle between worshipping God and submitting to his will and worshipping the human ego and overthrowing the will of God.
Human nature is therefore flawed, part evil and part good. Liberal societies are based upon a flawed understanding of human nature. In their belief in the goodness of human nature, they allow the individual to overthrow God and follow his own nature. In a liberal natural state, humans like to be free and rebel against God. It's no coincidence that liberal societies are not religious.
Traditional societies have a shrewder understanding of human nature. They understand its flaws and limitations and potential to create hell on earth. Traditional societies , based upon this understanding, constrain human nature and force the human to comply with religion and cultural tradition to subvert his own will , submit to the will of God and work to the common good.
Last anon,
ReplyDeleteNicely put, as long as it's emphasised that human nature is flawed rather than wholly corrupt.
It's not as if traditionalists want people to go entirely against their own natures. That, after all, would be a very hard ask.
Instead, we ask people to go with the best of their nature. For instance, if you are a 25 year old male you have a choice. You can go with the part of your nature which urges you to sleep around with many women. Or you can go with the part of your nature which wants to fulfil itself in a deeper, loving, complementary union with one woman, leading on to the experience of fatherhood.
Obviously, trads believe that the right option is the second one. This does involve constraining one aspect of our nature (the promiscuous one) but for the purpose of fulfilling a very powerful other aspect of our nature, the one which seeks completion of masculine identity through an exclusive and loving union with a wife.
Traditionalists have a sufficiently sound understanding to know that humans in the majority do not follow the good part of human nature voluntarily. The majority follow the path of least resistance, the easiest course, the popular will, the herd , social trends.
ReplyDeleteHumans are built for a relationship with God but where religion is voluntary , religious faith tends to fall by the wayside. The self sacrifice and often hardship of the Christian faith are too lofty an ideal and too hard for most people to follow on their own.
The other key component of human nature apart from its flawed nature is its weakness.
Traditional societies understand that asking humans to follow the good part of their nature will never work out in reality due to the perennial obstacle of human weakness.
Traditional societies therefore overcome these 2 realities of human nature by means of pressure and control of the individual at 2 levels - family and social. Enforcement of law, tradition , stigma and some degree of compulsion in religion are required.
In the young the flaws of human nature and weakness are compounded by immaturity, inexperience, lack of wisdom and impulsiveness. The young require guidance and control by their elders.
The majority of young men of 25 will not follow the good part of their nature into the harder path of life long marriage if the easier path of make and break relationships and sexual promiscuity is available unless there is family and social pressure to take the first path.
Society and that essentially means its male leaders, must therefore compell a young man to marry , marry appropriately and stay married.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI don't agree entirely. Most men will choose to marry, but only under certain conditions, some of these being:
i) The young women of their acquaintance being suitable and attractive
ii) The husband role being a respected role that connects to their masculine identity (e.g. the opportunity to provide and protect, to maintain a familial and ethnic lineage)
iii) The opportunity to become a father
iv) The opportunity to enjoy the physical relationship
If these are taken away, then I don't think pressure from family or society will be sufficient to maintain a culture of family life.
What, after all, can a family do to an independent 25-year-old man to force him to marry?
Marriage can be heaven or hell depending on the willingness of both husband and wife to stay closely connected. I don't think marriage would ever have become the institution that it rose to be if it were just a compulsion by family and society against our own nature.
I don't see your response as being valid or practical.
ReplyDelete1: how do you consistently define a woman's suitability or attractiveness and how you maintain these over time? A man' s concept of his wife's suitability and attractiveness will vary over the course of a marriage and at times it is inevitable and universal that a husband and wife may not find each other sufficiently suitable or attractive all of their lives. It is a fact that human emotion and tastes are fickle.
If marriage is dependent upon a woman' suitability and attractiveness to a man and it is a fact of human nature that these qualities will fluctuate and change as human emotion and taste fluctuates then how do you propose to maintain the Christian command of lifelong marriage and the Commandment Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery?
Traditional Christian marriage is based upon commitment to a wife under God for life in the full understanding that one cannot love or be attracted to that wife or husband all of the time but mereley some of the time but despite these fluctuations of emotion and taste then the commitment endures.
Making marriage conditional upon attractiveness and suitability contradicts God' plan and traditional Christianity and legitimises divorce and the serial polygamy which follows or the Islamic form of polygamy both of which allow a man to change partners at will depending upon mood and taste and both of which lead to social collapse and failure.
Similarly the enjoyment of the physical relationship and procreation is not guaranteed in any marriage. Noone can prove ability to have children until after the safe delivery of an infant . The ability to have children can be curtailed by accident or illness as can the ability to enjoy a physical relationship.
If marriage is dependent upon the ability to have children and enjoy sex then divorce is the logical step when these are not fulfilled and that is neither traditional or Christian.
That the husband role requires that men maintain family and ethnic lineage is obvious. However in many Western men that role has been rejected and men have chosen to purposely destroy their family and ethnic lineage by marrying aliens . A large number of white men have married Asian and black women from Third World countries destroying not just their own ethnic and family lineage but the lineage of their societies creating a mixed race class of half breeds who will in future create major social problems.
ReplyDeleteIt is therefore evident that a large minority of men have embarked on a course of narcissistic social destruction.
Traditional societies do a great deal to force young men to marry. They deny them employment and the consequence of unemployment, poverty and social estrangement forces them to comply. Until the 1970s in Britain, men who were un married by age 30 were assumed to be homosexual and denied professional and senior management posts. A lawyer could spend years studying and working but by age 30 if not married then his chances of a partnership in a law firm were nil and he faced a future of low status and low paid jobs. This forced almost all men and even homosexuals to marry for cover.
ReplyDeleteThe Singapore Government arranges marriages for its elite civil servants. Failure to comply means the end of career.
Traditional families disinherit, socially estrange and deny employment via family connections and business to young men who fail to marry.
Estyram 1
Mark's understanding of marriage is that of a liberal as a "choice" and conditional upon certain requirements which are impossible to guarantee.
ReplyDeleteIn Traditional societies marriage is a duty and obligation, not a choice, and is not conditional upon good sex and physical attractiveness which are impossible to consistently fulfill.
Marriage is is not heaven or hell. It is, at various time, both heaven and hell. All marriages will face hard times and no human relationships can be harmonious all the time.
ReplyDelete. No one has said that marriage is a compulsion against human nature but the flaws of human nature and the fragility of human nature means that there has to be social pressure both to form and maintain marriages. A husband and wife cannot resolve all their tensions and disputes without the support of relatives and society. Therefore without some degree of social pressure the family structure will not survive.
Look, it's true that marriage requires a sense of masculine duty - in fact large amounts of it - to survive.
ReplyDeleteThat sense of duty doesn't just come externally from outside social pressure. It comes from an understanding of marriage as a sacrament; it comes from the innate reluctance men have to break seriously undertaken oaths and commitments; it comes from the instinct men have to protect and provide and therefore an unwillingness to abandon wife and children; it comes from a gratitude built up over time within men for wives who have borne them children, who have been loyal companions and who have met their physical needs; and it comes (hopefully) from a settled love that comes from a lifetime spent together.
So I don't entirely disagree with anon's comments that there needs to be a stabilising factor over and above issues of attraction.
Even so, anon is leaving out too much as well. He makes it sound as if marriage works simply as externally compelled, social duty as such.
I just don't think it's reasonable to expect marriage to be sustained on that basis.
Marriage has always demanded a lot from men. But in traditional societies there were a number of fulfilments that men gained from marriage to make it something that a man might voluntarily commit to.
First, it gave men fulfilment in the sense that their romantic sense of wanting completion with a woman - both emotionally and physically - was secured at a time in life when this instinct remained strong. The problem today is that middle-class men are being asked to wait until their 30s to marry, so marriage no longer has this relevance to them. We need to bring the average age of marriage back at least five years.
A second problem in this area is that many women are no longer cultivating themselves as lovely and feminine and oriented to love and family and so it is difficult for large numbers of men to find a woman who could uphold the female side of a complementary union.
Which raises another question, anon. How are you going to force men to marry when middle-class women have been brought up to refuse marriage (at least until the last moment)? Who are these men going to marry?
There are parents now who are highly critical of their daughters for contemplating marriage before 30.
Second, marriage in the past was based on differentiated social roles, meaning that men and women needed each other and had reason to be grateful to each other, for the work they contributed to a family unit. A combination of unisex family roles and the commercialisation of some of these roles means that this interdependence has been undercut. Again, a traditional society needs to maintain as much of this differentiation of social roles as possible.
Third, a traditional society gave men status and respect in the role of father. You can see this even in some of the earlier TV shows. It wasn't a case of formal command, but rather there was simply a status acknowledged as part of the role of father. Over time that role has been mocked and belittled - the idea of father has been turned into someone who does work and who is a bumbling, incapable, ineffectual nice guy who is tolerated within the family.
I could write more but that's sufficient to get the point across that I'm trying to make. Yes, it's important to urge men to do their duty, but we need at the same time to keep the institution itself in good repair. The institution is supposed to work in ways that at least some of the time brings a sense that we are fulfilling our nature within it in important ways.
I'm baffled by Anon's insistence that men are the problem. I'm now married, but I had to look long and hard to find a woman who was serious about marriage and family formation. Most of the single women I met were (a) single mothers and not interested in having more children or (b) perpetual singles. Yes, a lot of women out there want to remain single until their mid or late 30s.
ReplyDeleteI get the impression that Anon is an older man whose perception of male-female relationships was shaped by another age. Things are very different now.
Mark you misunderstood the points I made. I'ndid not say that marriage was not purely a social and religious duty which works on the basis of social pressure. Read the comments again.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that I said that the flaws of human nature combined with the weaknesses of that nature make marriage as a purely voluntary commitment dependent on the male sense of duty insufficient. My position is traditional. Yours is liberal and idealistic. You view the goodness of human nature and male honour as sufficient. Traditionalist know it is not. Despite the best of intentions, human frailty needs external support. And traditional societies always provided that in the form of exclusion of un married and divorced males from professional and senior positions, divorce made illegal or difficult and social discrimination against the divorced.
If male honour and duty to country were sufficient to compell men to defend their country there would be no need for the army to shoot and kill deserters and imprison draft dodgers and those who commit treason. Therefore human will and honour are insufficient alone to sustain major and vital commitments.
There are plenty of women who look feminine and possess feminine traits. Churches are full of women. Prisons and criminal courts are full of men. Men are the source of most of the crime and social disorder in society. Substance abuse is commoner in men as is serious mental illness .There are more marriagable and stable women in society than stable marriageable men. The average age of marriage is around 28 and the majority of hospital births to married women are in the age range of 26-37.
Traditional societies work by means of society's male leaders pressurising young males to conform to certain standards and hen pressurising young women to fall into line. If males seek marriage earlier and refuse cohabitation and other types of relationships, women will follow.
Marriage was not based upon differentiated sex roles. It was based upon the preservation if the social order and the hierarchical class system and preservation of wealth, business and professional connections. Working class women always worked and upper class women never did household chores. If a man has a serious accident or illness and is unable to work, or is made redundant his wife may be forced to become the breadwinner . Would you consider this grounds for divorce?
Society still gives respect to the role of father but many men deliberately avoid this role by failing to take their duties seriously. How many men allow their daughters to travel to potentially dangerous countries unescorted ? How many men fail to protect their daughters from sexual exploitation ? How many men abandon their wives and children ?
A father who performs his duties well is still respected.
Christian marriage is without preconditions .
The Book of Joshua describes the spiritual state of men as the ultimate barometer of the spiritual state of the nation. The social, economic and political collapse and financial and moral corruption of the West is entirely a consequence of the abandonment and corruption of the Christian faith by men .
Canadian. You must have been looking in some strange places. The majority of women are not single mothers and the average age of marriage is 28 . Very few women will reject a man who is an obvious good catch and your claim that most women reject or defer marriage is errant nonsense.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps you were not an attractive prospect.
You view the goodness of human nature and male honour as sufficient.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I can see how you might come to that conclusion given that I haven't spelled out in detail in this thread how marriage might be made to work in a traditionalist society. This wasn't part of our original discussion.
As it happens, I agree with you that a well-functioning traditionalist community would have a variety of measures in place to discourage divorce or spousal abandonment.
However, I have to say that I still think you're focusing too much on "do it as an externally compelled duty" and that this is leading you to neglect a close understanding of the health of the institution itself.
It was not feckless young men who damaged the culture of marriage. It was young women who had been raised by feminists to see femininity as a construct of the patriarchy and marriage as something unimportant that would happens by itself at the last possible moment. I observed (and experienced myself) the great changes this unleashed in the way that young men and women behaved and treated each other back in the 1990s.
Women made the changes, men were expected to follow(for a time it was amazing to observe just how much society was organised explicitly along the lines of "What do women want?" It was just assumed that men would fall into line with whatever maximised women's choices).
With the demise of third wave feminism things aren't as bad now as they were then and there are better opportunities for at least some men to find a suitable wife. But having lived through the 1990s, I just can't accept the claim that it was young men who mucked up.
Anon, you write that the average age of first marriage for women is 28. However, for university educated women the average age is a little over 30 and rising. Furthermore, 43% of university educated women are reaching the age of 45 without having had children.
The average age needs to be brought back to 25 or under.
Anon, you wrote to Canadian,
your claim that most women reject or defer marriage is errant nonsense.
Again, I've been out of the dating market for ten years so I don't know how things have changed. And I agree that amongst the younger generation of women there is a trend to partner earlier.
But don't be too dismissive of the problem of female deferral. There is a lot of pressure on upper middle-class women in particular to defer. It is a key battle line in the culture wars right now.
Mark your comments show an ignorance of how human society and political structures function. In the words of the famous British historian David Starkey, history is made top down and never bottom up. The male elites of society determine and enforce policies on the masses. Ordinary men and women have no effective power or control.
ReplyDeleteFeminists and blacks and all the other pressure groups have no effective power to dictate policy. They are the shills of elite men who use them to create a public perception of certain view points which they wish the masses to hold. It takes millions of dollars to get an act through parliament. These millions are needed for the PR campaigns, lobbying firms and bribes (!!) which are required as a minimum. Feminists and the other groups do not have this money or level of organisation. Thus to attribute policies such as no fault divorce, abortion and delayed marriage to feminists is to show a wilful ignorance of how politics and society work or to deliberately obscure these facts.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteAt all reproductive ages (20-40), there are now more single men than single women. The ratio is even more lopsided if we consider only childless singles.
I get the impression that you're a man who grew up at a time when men were the ones who tended to defer commitment. That is no longer the case.
Was I an unattractive prospect? Apparently so. But so are most single men nowadays. I personally know many single men who have stable employment and are psychologically stable. And they say the same thing. Below the late 20s, most women simply don't want to marry. Above that age, most single women are either single mothers or eternal singles who are addicted to singlehood.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteThe focus has now shifted from the idea of ordinary men being the problem to elite men.
I agree that the liberal white elite, still mostly male, is ultimately responsible. I don't think I am ignorant of this fact, as this is the group I target and criticise most often at this site.
Still the conduit of change was that feminists brought up a generation of girls along modernist lines, whereas the boys were brought up more traditionally. There was a confusing mismatch and possibly still is to some degree.
Elite men created the sexual revolution as a form of bread and circuses to render white men, the real potential threat of opposition to them and their increasingly unaccountable power, weak and ineffective. The rationale being that men who are controlled by their lust and dedicated to the pursuit of sexual gratification are unable to organise to form a successful opposition and are similarly unable to form and lead sound families.
ReplyDeleteWomen were encouraged to become sluts and abandon traditional Christian morality and restraint and this was propagandised through the media.
A Roman Catholic Archbishop talking last year in London blamed ordinary men for their complicity with this revolution or scam as it would be more correctly named. These men hastily abandoned their Christian religion, morality and traditional culture to give into to their basest desires and sexual immorality. He made the observation that opposition costs nothing and if men refused to have anything to do with women who dressed and behaved like sluts then women would not behave and dress that way.
And so white men became complicit dupes in a scam which was purposely intended to appeal to their basest desires and destroy their society. And men have not been brought up traditionally. They have been brought up to pursue sexual gratification, use women as sex objects and engage in ever more deviant forms of sexual activity from the all pervasive pornography, increasing incidence of homosexuality and other forms of depravity.
With regard to marriage they have been brought up to view it as a means of sexual and emotional gratification rather than a means of preservation of the social order.
The lawyer and political blogger in London D Marchessini observed that large numbers of men rejected women of their own social class in pursuit of whores and alien women.
It is noteworthy that other ethnic groups living in the West have not succumbed to this scam and have managed to resist and retain their own cultures and traditions.
The moral sickness of Western men is apparent in their absence of reaction to the Asian sexual abuse gangs targeting young girls in England. Recent well publicised court cases have brought no significant reaction. If the situation was reversed Asian men would react violently to white men.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI share most of your concerns, and I suspect the same is true for Mark. I also agree that leftist rhetoric is being cynically manipulated by corporate interests to further their own ends, particularly in the current push for globalism.
Finally, I agree that we must personally accept some blame for the current situation. This being said, I don't see this as a problem that we can resolve solely or even mainly by individual action. We must get away from our keyboards and get organized with other people.
We must get away from our keyboards and get organized with other people.
ReplyDeleteWell said. It's not enough to be right on the internet, we need to organise in the real world.
I love seeing over 30 women trying to justify why that are old - and getting older and alone... Now I'm 50+ and male, and don't date any woman over 25 - why? They get the "baby rabies" at around 26 and get increasingly desperate till around 45 and menopause hits...
ReplyDeleteMen know this, and they know that women will grasp at anything that walks - and "accidentally" get preggos if you let them. Now as a man - this means if you 60 and want to get married - any woman from 26 till 35 is available to you. Of course, women take a while to catch on since they are used to having their selection - after all when they were 24 they could take their pick of men... Now they can't... That takes a while for them to get their head around...
If a woman is 25 and un-mjarried, she will probably end up that way unless she is married before 30 - after that, they are generally too old for the young men who haven't realized they hold all of the cards...
Now, I gave up on American women long ago. They are to have sex with, but that's it... This country is too hard on men - I'm not giving up 50% of what I own to anyone. So when I want kids, I'll hook up with some Asian women in Vietnam, or China on my terms, and I say "some" because having more than one is a man's birth-right.
You won the lottery gentlemen - never forget it... Enjoy every second of it - women are for you to enjoy, on your terms. It is as simple as that... Women will scream and yell about that - but it's the truth. So enjoy gentlemen... And thank women like the author of this piece - she was available for you to enjoy when she was younger, you want to encourage every woman to go through that - it's to your advantage... :)