Summary: Enough analysis of the gender revolution. How will this end? How can we create a better ending? Here is part one, describing a kind of solution many hope to see: a return to traditional values.
I was on the school swim team when I was 14. One evening I was doing laps at a friend’s pool. I was tired, swimming in poor lighting, pushing hard. I did a flip turn – and became disoriented. I did not know what was up. I began thrashing wildly. It is an easy way to drown by hitting my head or inhaling water. Not being a total fool, my friend was there. He pulled me out.
That is a metaphor for life during revolutionary times. Society’s values spin wildly, the rules change unexpectedly. We do not know which way is up. Cataclysmic failure becomes easy for individuals and societies.
In 1996, 27% of Americans supported legalization of marriage for gay couples. In 2009, 405. Now its legal, with 64% approving (details here). Ten years ago sexual harassment was seldom discussed as a public policy issue, and referred to serious infractions. Now morning after regret is considered “rape” and 48% of young women consider it sexual harassment for a man to place his hand on a woman’s lower back – if not in a romantic relationship (details here; look at old films; men routinely do it). Things casually done by JFK and Clinton (defended by feminists) are considered career-enders today for corporate executives, government officials, and academics.
It would take thousands of words to just list the changes in gender relations occurring during the past generation. Previous posts in this long series have described the drastic changes in the dynamics of dating and marriage.
More extreme changes lies ahead. CNN: “Cuckolding can be positive for some couples, study says”, January 2018. Gallup shows American’s support for polygamy (it is “morally acceptable”) was 7% 2006 and now 17% (roughly where support for gay marriage was in the 1980s). Cuckold porn is rising in popularity; some studies show it is the second most popular porn genre. Etc, etc.
Looking at the future
Identifying the causes of problems is usually essential to their solution. Lots of candidates. Women have won the gender revolution (with the support of Christian conservatives), so we are living in their age of their triumph. Perhaps American has become a nation of low testosterone men. Lots of tech changes. Everyone can make a list.
None of that matters. I believe we have moved beyond the point at which understanding of causes can help. The most we can do is clearly see what is happening and speculate about what comes next. There are three classes of solutions; I give examples of each.
- A return to traditional values.
- Men finding individual solutions.
- Part 1 – An expert discusses individual solutions.
- Part 2 – Discussing women’s responses to men’s solutions.
- Part 3 – An expert looks into the future and sees wonders ahead.
- Part 4 – An expert: respect is a key battleground in the gender wars.
- Part 5 – Rebuilding men’s self-respect is a solution to the gender wars.
- A counter-revolution in society.
(1) A return to traditional values
(a) Romance!
Our concept of romantic love is a re-purposing of courtly romantic love – ideally chaste (Platonic), often not (e.g., Lancelot and Guinevere). It was the largely the work of one man, Rousseau (1712-1778) – a philosopher and one of the chief architects of what we think of as “traditional” western life. Allan Bloom tells the tale in Closing of the American Mind
“More than two hundred years ago Rousseau saw with alarm the seeds of the breakdown of the family in liberal society, and he dedicated much of his genius to trying to correct it. He found that the critical connection between man and woman was being broken by individualism, and focused his efforts, theoretical and practical, on encouraging passionate romantic love in them. He wanted to rebuild and reinforce that connection, previously encumbered by now discredited religious and civil regulation, on modern grounds of desire and consent.
“Rousseau inspired a whole genre of novelistic and poetic literature that lived feverishly for over a century, coexisting with the writings of the Benthams and the Mills who were earnestly at work homogenizing the sexes. His undertaking had the heaviest significance because human community was at risk. In essence he was persuading women freely to be different from men and to take on the burden of entering a positive contract with the family, as opposed to a negative, individual, self-protective contract with the state.
“Tocqueville picked up this theme, described the absolute differentiation of husband’s and wife’s functions and ways of life in the American family, and attributed the success of American democracy to its women, who freely choose their lot. …
“This whole effort failed and now arouses either women’s anger, as an attempt to take from them rights guaranteed to all human beings, or their indifference, as irrelevant in a time when women do exactly the same things as men and face the same difficulties in ensuring their independence. Rousseau, Tocqueville and all the others {ed.: including the Bible} now have only historical significance and at most provide us with a serious alternative perspective for analyzing our situation. Romantic love is now as alien to us as knight errantry, and young men are no more likely to court a woman than to wear a suit of armor, not only because it is not fitting, but because it would be offensive to women.”
The death of romance allowed the rise of its replacement: party-of-her-life, marriage, children, and divorce – followed by independence plus child support (vivid details here). Romance helps women get married. The high rate of divorce — most initiated by women — shows that it is often an illusion.
(b) What are our traditional values?
The West’s patterns of gender relations have been in flux for three centuries, as shown in this history by Tom Tomorrow (see his website). We consider the most recent pattern to be “traditional” – but that is just our myopia. Envisioning a better future for America requires us to see both where we have been and where we might go.
(c) Technology is the irresistible driver of change.
The invention of inexpensive and effective contraceptives is an inflection point in history. This was the most important liberator of women. This fully opened the universe of paid work to women, giving them economic independence. The effects of this still ripple through society.
Only a social revolution of immense size could reverse this.
The bottom line
We cannot turn back the clock, at least at any price most Americans are willing to pay (fundamentalist Islam has turned back the clock in some nations, but at a high price). I doubt we can even stop the forces of change that have been unleashed.
The next two posts in this series will look at one kind of change that those in the mainstream regard with contempt and one which they do not yet see.
Dalrock
Dalrock has some fascinating analysis and commentary about dating and marriage at his website.
- Why she isn’t getting enough dates.
- Marriage strike paradox.
- More bad news for marriage is baked in.
- Devouring a lifetime of courtship.
- Weak men are screwing her feminism up.
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women and gender issues, especially these about marriage…
- Women are freezing their eggs for feminism.
- Misadventures of a young woman in modern America.
- The disastrous results of trying to “have it all”.
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- Modern women say “follow the rules while we break them.”
Two books by Professor Regnerus about the revolution
Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying
Strongly recommended: Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy
I gotta ask – why is it always mra and alt-right types that bring up ‘cuckolding’? Like this isn’t a thing outside of these groups fixation and paranoia about it. As they say, whole lotta psychology going on here.
Because behaviors promoted in media have a habit of becoming social norms in the decades afterwards. Cuckolding may not be a thing today, but it very well may became much more accepted and practiced in the future.
Samara,
“Why is it always mra and alt-right types that bring up ‘cuckolding’?”
Let’s give you three answers. Remember, facts are your friends.
(1) If you read the post without blinders on, you would have seen this: CNN: “Cuckolding can be positive for some couples, study says”, January 2018. CNN is not an “alt-right” news media. Also, there are lots of articles out there about this. The concern is that while the rate of paternity fraud is low (i.e., millions of babies per year), it might be growing. Unfortunately, data is scarce. Increased use of ever-cheaper DNA testing will eventually provide reliable answers.
(2) A sample of not-alt-right folks that “bring up cuckolding”, using the first three links found in 20 seconds using Google.
At “The Conversation” (“Academic rigor, journalistic flair”): “What are the chances that your dad isn’t your father?“.
CNBC: “As at home DNA tests become more common, people must grapple with surprises about their parents.”
NYT: “How DNA Testing Is Changing Fatherhood“.
(3) A search for “paternity testing” returns scores of links to companies offering this service. I doubt all their customers are of the “alt-right.”
Vyasa, um yeah, that’s the question – why the paranoia that cuckolding will become a social norm? You realize this isn’t a concern of most adult human beings?
Samara,
Congrats on your nice blinders! Shown evidence that contradicts your views, you repeat them.
It is part of the risk-assessment process.
The unthinkable reality which was coupled with what you have called traditional romance:
Cane,
Long experience (50 thousand comments) has taught me that comments like yours and Samara’s are confirming evidence: people upset at statements of the obvious, but unable to provide sensible rebuttals. Samara closes her eyes and makes stuff up. You give fake evidence.
“The unthinkable reality which was coupled with what you have called traditional romance”
Wow. I see that you like your propaganda to be hard-core lies. I recognise several of those scenes. There are two kinds of scenes in there that do not match your claim.
(1) Actions by bad guys. Their slapping women as evidence that they are bad. That’s the exact opposite of your claim.
(2) The guy and the girl lightly slapping each other as a visual metaphor for long arguments, the prelude to romance. That clip from “Father Goose” (1964, Cary Grant and Leslie Caron) is the classic example. The very next scene is their wedding.
Larry,
You wrote this summary:
with which I agree. The age of slapping broads EVEN IN MOVIES is over. And films–as you may recall writing on this blog many times–tell us about ourselves at that time.
I did not post that montage as a rebuttal, but as evidence of totally different sensibilities from a time now gone and never to return. It’s also evidence that passions were higher then; a vital ingredient to a romantic society.
Some people may wish to rewrite history, but there was a time before the Duluth Model, when most people thought sometimes a slap was the appropriate response to some behavior by some women. My choice to reference old films was an attempt to appeal to your fondness for cinema. Regardless, after this comment,I leave you to it as this is the third time in a couple weeks that you have misread my support of your conclusions as an argument. You should be more diligent in your reading and thinking.
Cane,
(1) “The age of slapping broads EVEN IN MOVIES is over.”
I’ll bet that you are wrong. Bad guys will still hit women. It’s an easy way for filmmakers to show an evil boyfriend, co-worker, or relative.
(2) “I did not post that montage as a rebuttal,”
Readers don’t know your intent, only what you say. The title of the youtube video was false. It was obviously designed as propaganda. Your comment indicated agreement: “The unthinkable reality which was coupled with what you have called traditional romance.”
Most of clips in it were not scenes of “romance.” Those that were, showed the event out of context. E.g., in Father Goose the girl slapped him first (they were obviously symbolic slaps; neither attempting to injure the other). Also, in traditional values a woman who hit a man could be slapped back. He was not expected to take it like beta genuflecting before her grrl-power.
(3) “but as evidence of totally different sensibilities from a time now gone and never to return.”
Never say “never.” I doubt that anyone in the West predicted that Islamic fundamentalists would be able to quickly turn back the clock. But they have done so in nations from Egypt to Afghanistan (see before and after photos from Af).
(4) “when most people thought sometimes a slap was the appropriate response to some behavior”
Obviously many people still believe that, including many in Hollywood — since TV and films frequently show heroines casually hitting men (esp boyfriends). Here are a few examples.
(5) “You should be more diligent in your reading and thinking.”
I respond with focused replies to direct quotes. I try to avoid thematic replies, and focus on specific facts. Looking at this example, I don’t see that you have given a rebuttal to muy comments. Rather, your follow-up gave a more detailed explanation of your beliefs (always helpful) — and your interpretation of the video. I have a different interpretation of the video, which I explain here (with supporting evidence). In 2028 we will see who was right: you, me, both, or neither.
It’s a dialog. Miscommunication in comments is commonplace and IMO largely unavoidable.
(6) “It’s also evidence that passions were higher then; a vital ingredient to a romantic society.”
I agree with both points.
Due to a WordPress system problem, a batch of comments were lost in the trash, including this one.
Larry, this is the argument of prodromal schizophrenics – “you’re all sheep if you can’t see the cucks/cia/Illuminati/etc destroying everything!”. Like most delusional fixations, it says more about your brittle insecurities than it does about the state of society.
How other countries do things can often be interesting.
In the UK, if a man proves by DNA testing that he is not the biological parent, he has no child support obligations. The testing organization has to be approved by the Child Support Agency. The Agency has the right to assume parentage based on the usual evidence, but DNA is decisive.
I am not sure how this works when the couple divorce after having jointly adopted, presumably then there is continuing joint responsibility?
I recall reading a study some years ago, which claimed to have established the existence of sperm competition among humans. It is a thing among some animal species where the females are not monogamous. If this is correct, then for it to have evolved suggests a not entirely monogamous evolutionary history….
It would be interesting to know how the other European countries handle it. The US system, as described, seems quite dysfunctional. It acts to encourage behaviour whose effects on individual choices must add up to an overall result that makes life harder and less pleasant for everyone. Its a bit like going out to the theatre in the evening knowing that the state is paying random people to mug you on the way there!
Not good for the theatrical business.
Simon,
That is interesting to hear about Britain! Wikipedia has some info on the laws in various nations, although I’d not consider it reliable.
My guess is that reliable DNA testing will eventually force changes in the child support laws. The current system just adds to the inequity in our marriage laws.
The US model (which I am not defending, just explaining) is based on the idea that someone other than the state (i.e., taxpayers) has to pay for the kid, and it should either be the guy who had sex or the husband, but not the taxpayer. This is actually very popular with pretty much everyone in the US other than guys who have been cuckolded — there’s pretty much none/zero/zilch lobby in favor of making the laws more oriented towards guys avoiding paying by disproving paternity at some later date.
Basically if you’re close enough to a woman who has a baby such that you are “in loco parentis”, and you don’t disprove paternity within a very short period of time (matter of months in many states), you’re done, and pretty much everyone in the US is just fine with that. Nobody cares about this issue, really, as long as the taxpayer doesn’t end up paying for the kid.
Nova,
That pretty much nails it. Lots of horrific stories about men being nailed with child support for other guys’ kids.
In some states (e.g., Alaska, New Mexico) the mother’s husband pays child support not matter who is the father.
Larry, amazingly enough, in France, its actually a crime to commission a DNA paternity test as an individual! It is only lawful if done by court order to settle a paternity dispute. The possibility of a similar measure has been discussed in Germany, not sure of the status there.
The predictable result is that the English, Spanish and Swiss testing companies are doing a roaring trade with French men who are theoretically making themselves liable for prosecution and fines by engaging them.
France is, not coincidentally, a culture which is famously tolerant of adultery, and the rationale is that the ban helps preserve the tranquility of family life. Quite so, it would, wouldn’t it?
I doubt whether this has anything much to do with feminism however. Or at least not anything that Anglo Saxon countries would recognize as feminism.
Simon,
Wow! That’s amazing!
We can learn much from how other societies cope with the massive changes to gender relations brought about by tech and culture changes.
Women will never vote to abolish the welfare state or his-fault divorce, so the system cannot reform itself. Nor can it print money forever, so at some point, millions of women will lose their welfare benefits, and millions more will lose their cushy make-work government jobs.
When America becomes a third-world country, productive men will discover that “adopting” a tween girl from a starving single mother and having her cook, clean, and make babies is a pretty sweet deal. Any girls born of this union will be married off at the youngest possible age so they don’t become feminists.
If a cop looks at you and your “daughter” suspiciously, just smile and tuck a 100-trillion-dollar bill into his pocket so he can buy a little gift for his “daughter”.
Dave,
If we had a dollar for every bold confident prediction of doom for America, we could declare a tax holiday.
I have written several score posts giving rebuttals to doomsters (see them here). The most useful is We love scary stories. The reason why reveals a secret about America.
If my prediction’s wrong, what’s the problem? Women will mate like cats, forever, the government will print money and give it to them, forever, and men will withdraw from the productive economy, forever. Not a bad system at all, if it’s sustainable.
INB4 my previous comment is not a prediction, it’s what’s happening right now.
Surely the more likely outcome of such a transformation would be even more coercive government policies designed to ‘ensure social justice’.
Separately, why would the ‘productive men’ in the above ever want their ‘adoptees’ to get pregnant? Yet unless they did, it becomes a self extinguishing development.
That latter aspect, that social behavior which is not fruitful is inherently self adjusting, because these strategies don’t carry forward, should be better understood. It would be useful to understand what promotes these,behaviors, both beneficial as well as malign, but it might take a multi generational perspective to comprehend.
etudiant,
(1) “Surely the more likely outcome of such a transformation would be even more coercive government policies designed to ‘ensure social justice’.”
In my experience, such confident predictions have a failure rate of almost 100%. Expect the unexpected.
(2) “that social behavior which is not fruitful is inherently self adjusting”
The unstable chemical called nitroglycerine is also inherently self-adjusting. The outcome is not always pleasant. I hope we try for better outcomes.
(3) “it might take a multi generational perspective to comprehend.”
That’s probably right, since by them this phase will likely have ended – and the result be clear.
The trend towards more government coercion is well established. Think of how far we have come from Eisenhower’s stance that he could hardly imagine a topic less appropriate for federal government intervention than abortion. So a bit more in that direction is no stretch, but only a slight extrapolation imho.
Unfruitful social behavior is self limiting and unlike nitroglycerine, people become less vigorous as they get older.
I’d expect an ocean of regret, so abject atonement or suicidal behavior would be real possibilities. One could argue that the European refugee policy is a messy mixture of both these.
This society really needs to have some sociologists help evaluate our possible trend drivers, including birth control, TV, nuclear arms, computers/automation etc, to try to tease out a better understanding.
Right now, our society is flying blind, which seems dangerous as well as unnecessary, given the tools we now have.
Larry-
I am encouraged by this series and hope to see more of by way of solutions. I’ve been writing about (and trying to live out in the open on my own blog with my wife) some of them for a few years now. The aggregate response as it appears to me is not just women (although, obviously theirs matters most). And it is one of wanting to return to the mere aesthetic of “traditional” values, in whatever form they have dreamed up in their mind as it manifested at some make believe point in the past.
I came of age in the 80s. This meant I labored under what I might call the “three dates to sex and then you are a serious couple and she is your girlfriend rule but you don’t talk out loud about the three dates to sex” rule. (For lack of a shorter, more succinct description.
In those days (now 30 plus years ago) you were in close proximity to girls your age (high school or college). You did what you needed to do to distinguish yourself as sufficiently cool enough (played sports, got yourself invited to the right parties, whatever) and got the attention of a cute girl. You spoke on the phone, made plans to go out, etc. Then you went out a couple of times and started having sex around the third date. In order to get that sex your behavior had to thread a needle of aggressive and aloof. If you didn’t get clear signs that was going to happen, you “nexted” her, and moved on. Everyone understood this be the rules.
There are articles (by both male and female writers) that pine for that version of the good ole days. They write about that era as if it represented some romanticized previous order that was super old fashioned and “traditional.” I would have to go back and find them. Others still, who call themselves “conservatives” see an old Rockwellesque print of a boy standing on a porch, flowers behind his back and wail “oh my God why aren’t men like that anymore? What happened to courtship?”
Please. The answer to “why don’t you court” is simple. Because you aren’t your fathers property, you aren’t a virgin, and there is no dowry. (For starters).
What they want is a facade — a sort of outward moral cover for the end game which has to do with seemingly irreconcilable differences between preferred male and female sexual strategy (see Rollo Tomassis blog and books “The Rational Male” for in depth analysis. For the time being, women’s sexual strategy is in the driver seat.
IF (a big IF) you can find something like courtship that is not just the appearance of it but where the rituals are actually based on the fundamental principles that everyone just knew for thousands of years you have, in a sense found a magical place of unicorns and fairies. There is no going back without withdrawing into a collective community like the one in the film “The Village.” This of course would take unlimited funds and the space to do it. (Just like they had). And of course, in that film, the parents had to make up pretend monsters to keep the kids there. So, there’s that.
What will need to happen is a new set of traditions and institutions will have to rise up from the ashes of this destroyed civilizations carcass. My wife and I have been trying to figure out how to reach out to other parents to discuss and create what those might look like. It has been pretty grim.
Scott,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Also, you might find of interest “Some posts by Dalrock about the death of courtship” in this post. The dating game has changed since the 1970s (my era) and the 1980s (yours)!
A couple of errors in there, the worst of which should be “just knew”
Scott,
Speling and grammer are unimportant in comments! Content and clarity are everything.
Yes, my introduction into the manosphere was due to finding the Dalrock site back in 2011.
I’m a regular commenter there and we have collaborated on a couple of posts.
The funny thing about that cartoon (“This Modern Life”) is that people already marry animals and objects.
https://www.storypick.com/weird-weddings/
Pingback: List of recent posts Larry Kummer has created from our discussion. | Dalrock
Pingback: The Consequences of Feminism – V5K2C2