Summary: Respect is a key battleground in the gender wars. It has been stripped from husbands and fathers, one reason young men have less interest in joining the rat race. This dialog with Dalrock breaks new ground in understanding what is happening – and our future.
Dalrock’s comment: going to the heart of the gender wars
On the subject of men acting collectively (and your future post), one change that I think will be crucial will be for men to start respecting respectability, and specifically respecting married fathers.
Ironically the habit of despising married fathers will be the hardest to shake for modern Christians. A big part of this will be resisting the temptation to make ourselves “the only real man in the room”. This also ties in with my comments above (and my post that today’s discussion spawned: Why Game is a threat to our values.) about rejecting the belief that being sexy is the hallmark of virtue for a man.
A popular belief, but quite wrong.
My reply to Dalrock
I had not realized the importance of respect as a front in the gender wars – until you pointed it out. But feminists have well understood this, and made it a focus of their programs.
Respect begins with self-respect. I my 15 years as a Boy Scout leader I saw that many fathers don’t have it. Why should they? America teaches wives and daughters that Dads are secondary in the family (certainly not decision-makers) – and sometimes dolts. Hollywood re-enforces that lesson constantly. Here are two of the latest examples.
The Incredibles 2 trailer gives us a supermom and a Dad dolt. This was a fresh theme in the 1970s. To make it fresh for 2018, they made him a stay-at-home unable to fill his wife’s shoes.
In Netflix’s “Lost in Space” reboot, the wife takes the lead. Maureen Robinson is the “fearless and brilliant aerospace engineer who makes the decision to bring her family to space for a chance at a new life on a better world.”
As you have often written, we have buried in our awareness that wives can to blow up the family at will (e.g., about the holy threatpoint). This gives them the supreme power in a marriage, since the rules of divorce disproportionately benefit them). As Frank Herbert wrote in Dune
“The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.”
It has taken six decades of social evolution to take us from the 1950’s “traditional” gender roles to today’s very different. That included stripping away much of the respected given to husbands and fathers. Now the second phase begins – the meToo campaign, fighting the campus rape epidemic and toxic masculinity – all these erode away the self-respect and self-confidence of men.
First steps on the long road back to self-respect for men.
“We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world – right up to this moment.”
— 1 Corinthians 4:13.
Respect begins with self-respect. A man can build his self-respect by himself (just as a man can learn to use Game) — but in practice this is beyond the ability of most men. So men turn to groups to gain respect – both self-respect and respect from society. And sometimes even meaning to their members’ lives.
Examples of organizations successfully doing this abound from the past, the present, and the future. Such as the imperial British Army (recruiting the “scum of the earth,” making soldiers who were feared around the world), the US Marine Corps, the Boy Scouts, the Freikorps, the German Sturmabteilung (stormtroopers), and America’s inner city street gangs. This harsh process works, as seen how the Marines build self-respect in recruits, starting with “Welcome, worms” and ending with “Congratulations, Marines.”
As list shows, building respect is an amoral process. Groups can be socially destructive (barbarians), outright evil, socially constructive, or good. They can reflect our better natures or our dark sides.
Of course, most men young men can develop self-respect with less drastic methods than used by the military. Other organizations can accomplish this, such as civic, political, service, and (perhaps even) sports clubs. But today men have fewer such opportunities, often alienated from their true selves – isolated by the decades of decline in these organizations (as described in Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community
But that is only a temporary problem. Pack formation is hard-wired into men as a survival mechanism (part of our BIOS). It is already happening, at least on a small scale, with the rise of alt-right groups such as the Proud Boys and Identity Evropa – and radical leftist groups like Black Bloc. This shows another important fact: more extreme the pressure on young men from society, the more extreme the packs that form to push back. In my dark moments I fear that history will say that the Greatest Generation defeated fascists and the Baby Boomers created fascists.
This is somewhat true.
Dalrock’s comment: America’s lack of respect for moral men
This is an interesting way to look at respect. I agree that respect is often demanded, and that as such it depends on ability to demand – and not on morality. But if we want men to be moral, we need to respect moral men. If we want children to be raised in homes with married fathers, we need to respect married fathers. It does us no good if men gain respect by doing what is harmful to our society.
I believe that respect is a stronger motivator for men than sex, and obviously sex is a huge motivator. Moreover, our anti-married father family courts are, I would argue, the formal legal codification of lack of respect. I believe this is the most powerful message that we are sending young men, and is in turn driving the drift we discussed above.
The problem I see is that two parallel forces conspired to strip married fathers of respect, and both were due to envy. First, feminism is animated by envy of men, especially the status of men. Second and most importantly, there is the status of the “patriarchy”.
That feminism conspires to strip the patriarchy of respect is obvious. What is less obvious is the conspiracy of the patriarchy itself to rob married fathers of respect. This occurs when higher status men (pastors, fathers of adult daughters, etc.) envy the respect of married fathers who are lower in the chain (e.g., young fathers in the congregation). This envy is rooted in a desire to have all of the young women focusing on themselves, not on their worthless young husbands (or prospective husbands).
If men are to band together to make improvements, calling out this despicable envy and respecting respectability needs to be a priority.
My reply
These are deep waters, discussing complex social dynamics. You are exploring the depths of the gender wars.
(1) “I agree that respect is often demanded”
Demanding respect is one thing. Getting it is another. I believe the time in far away when men can demand and get respect from society. I believe that the steps that will bring that about will be difficult and harsh. But more on that another day.
(2) “But if we want men to be moral, we need to respect moral men.”
Yes, but I believe that will be a result of other changes. We need to assert values. That’s why I believe your new post, Why Game is a threat to our values, was among your best and most important you have ever written. Values are the battleground for the gender wars.
Values are a social construct, hence my emphasis on group action. They are a flag which one or men raise. They become significant if they attract others. We see that at work today with the rise of Islam in Europe and America. Muslims have compelled respect for values which are in opposition to those of the societies to they have migrated. This is what we must do as well.
(3) “{O}ur anti married father family courts are I would argue the formal legal codification of lack of respect.”
I agree. Operationally they are the effect that is caused by our society’s lack of respect for fathers. Until that respect is restored, reform of the family courts is a quixotic quest.
(4) “The problem I see is that two parallel forces conspired to strip married fathers of respect …Feminism conspires…”
As an analyst, I agree. But analytical insights are often poisonous. By portraying men as victims we are acting like girls. That will not help us. We would be better off looking in the mirror and saying “we’ve been weak, and that stops today.”
Of course, that is un-American (as least, in terms of today’s therapeutic value system). Which is why I believe that groups will emerge that allow men to join — admit that they are weak — and transform themselves to strong men.
(5) “If men are to band together to make improvements, calling out this despicable envy and respecting respectability needs to be a priority.”
Exactly! That will be one effect produced by something which causes men to regain their self-respect. But let us not assume that things will get better soon.
“Remember, night is always coming.”
— Said by the great god Ra in Gods Of Egypt.
Coming tomorrow: Dalrock explains that Game is toxic to feminism.
See the other posts in this series
- 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 sees wonders ahead!
- Part 4 – An expert: respect is a key battleground in the gender wars.
- Part 5 – An expert’s insight: Game is toxic to feminism.
- Part 5 – Rebuilding men’s self-respect is a solution to the gender wars.
- A counter-revolution in society.
More insights from Dalrock about respect
- Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable.
- We need to focus on respect instead of fairness.
- Tony Katz is too stingy to pay respect.
- No respect.
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 society and gender issues, about feminism, about marriage, and especially these about the counter-revolution…
- The feminist revolutionaries have won. Insurgents have arisen to challenge the new order. As always, they’re outlaws.
- The war of the sexes heats up: society changes as men learn the Dark Triad.
- As the Left’s social revolution wins victories, a revolt begins.
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- MeToo discovers that there is always a counterrevolution.
- The patriarchy built this city and will return after it dies — an article by Phillip Longman in Foreign Policy.
I think we need to turn our analysis and insights to include another great lie we are telling ourselves “Men are the ones who don’t commit.”
One of the binding requirements of the male packs is commitment to the cause. One of the social problems is that women are committing to serial monogamy and the “payoff.” We need to get both sexes committed to the same solution. Indeed why should a man marry if the payoff is bachelorhood, decrease in wealth and status. Why should women commit to anything less than “having it all?”
But not recognizing where the the commitment is failing won’t help us. The solution will need to encompass both men and women: how they are and not how we believe them to be. IMO, the solution will need to use the opportunity of the present to generationally increase capability of future generations. And that is because, I believe the evidence shows we are already in the exponential increase of the S curve of societal failure.
John,
That’s a provocative set of insights!
“Men are the ones who don’t commit.”
Do people say that? There is much complaining by women that men won’t commit, something they (daftly) consider to be their right.
Let’s briefly consider the reasons for this. Everybody believes weighing the cost vs. benefits is wise. But women believe themselves to be pearls of great price, and assert that marriage is evidence of a man’s maturity. Men obviously disagree with the former. The latter was true, but men are slowly recognizing that this is no longer true (while most women pretend not to notice.)
“One of the social problems is that women are committing to serial monogamy and the “payoff.”
Men are equally committed to the “Payoff”, in the sense of marriage’s risk-reward payoff. Women are divorcing because it is rational to do so under our current system, according to their values. Men are refusing to marry based on similar rational calculations.
“We need to get both sexes committed to the same solution.”
I don’t understand what that means. Marriage is a social transaction, whose terms vary over time and place. I think it is more useful to phrase the problem as changing the system of marriage — or replacing it.
“But not recognizing where the the commitment is failing won’t help us”
The idea of relying on “commitment” is a new idea and a symptom of a broken system. Allan Bloom has a deep discussion of this in Closing of the American Mind.
“The solution will need to encompass both men and women: how they are and not how we believe them to be.”
That’s true and important. On the other hand, social reform is like rewinding a ball of string. The necessary first step is finding one of the ends. That is, a system cannot be changed as a whole. Reformers must find the point at which there is leverage in the sense of our ability to change it — and that change sparking other changes.
Leftists’ success in changing our culture resulted from their recognition that the role of women was unstable (e.g., after the invention of the pill and following a century of women moving into the professions). I believe that now men are the fulcrum which we can change.
Larry, let me try to be clearer. Part of commitment includes our past discussions of respect, and yes love. This commitment is the opposite of a “choice in the void whose cause resides only in the will or the self.” Humans love to break items into categories such as respect or commitment, but I am envisioning something I learned from my parents, lived in my life, and see my children doing. This commitment occurs inclusive of love, respect, sex, actions, and honor. It is something we humans do.
Think of the bonding presented at least vocally and in writing of bonding by women. Include what we know about male pack and pact bonding. Think of the marines and loyalty. Think of how work is used by the male organizations as in your days with scouts. The commitment I am talking about is not a cause of will itself. That is not how the Marines, nor drug lords do it. Commitment is part of the answer, it may well be the glue, but it is not truly separable from the pathos of being human.The work and actions are the cornerstone that the Marines build their men with, as do the drug lords.
IMO, marriage can be more than a social transaction. I don’t see as necessary “changing the system of marriage — or replacing it.” I think you were correct when you talked about how marriage had to evolve; and would women and men trade places as the desirable sex. This is what I have seen. From tales my mother told me of her courtship, to my wife, and to my children, there are women who are evolving to take advantage of the new market. This should agree with what you know about markets. There is a bad market, bad goods. The rule is bad money chases out good. This new marriage economy is based on the old. It emphasizes commitment, respect, the chivalrous, love, and family. But it is a mutual planning and courtship where family and children become the center of respect, pride, and ownership that is shared. It is broad enough to include feminism and manliness, but as part of fidelity. The women and men work on respect, love, fidelity, and rewards, together. Though I do note that my experience it has been the women setting the work and agenda more often or not. And like the Marines and scouts, it also elevates honesty, and honest appraisal.
“Men are the ones who don’t commit.”
As if the Army and Marine Corps have never been able to find men willing to sign up for a four-year term.
PAT,
“As if the Army and Marine Corps have never been able to find men willing to sign up for a four-year term.”
First, I think Pittman was clearly talking about marriage. Not about joining the military or any of the thousand other decisions about commitments people must make.
Second, that is false. The Army and Marines often have difficulty finding “men willing to sign up for a four-year term.” They have to do so in two ways: getting new recruits (“accensions) and getting re-enlistments.
Getting recruitments is always difficult. That’s why they spend vas sums each year on publicity, including advertisements and fielding a large number of recruiters. Sometimes they have had to take extreme measures — such as large recruitment bonuses, lowering their entry standards to unsustainable levels (e.g., for intelligence, drug use, and criminal history), and signing up foreigners in exchange for citizenship. Sometimes even these don’t suffice, and they have shortfalls.
Getting re-enlistments is often difficult, esp for the people they most want to keep. Then they offer lucrative terms (e.g., re-enlistment bonuses, special education/training). Sometimes their inability to retain talent becomes a serious problem. The Army and Marines were losing company and field-grade officers at an unsustainable rate in the late 1990s.
For more about these problems, see the news stories and DoD reports listed in section three on this page.
Sorry if I did not make it clear I was talking of marriage in particular and ways to look at it in general.
John,
“Sorry if I did not make it clear I was talking of marriage”
No need to apologize. You were clearly talking about marriage.
Open homosexuality has been a disaster for male bonding. As if it is planned that way.
Dashue,
“Open homosexuality has been a disaster for male bonding”
In what way?
Homesexuality was common in the ancient world (bisexuality was even more so) — although different in some important ways (e.g., being on the “bottom” was disgraceful for an adult man, less so for a boy). Those cultures had male bonding as good as and probably even stronger than typical in the West today.
Some groups used it as a tool for bonding, if I correctly recall. Such as the Sacred Band of Thebes (150 pairs of male lovers, terrifying warriors). In the 1990s I used them as an example in my classes.
LOL. Thank you for that comic relief, Dashui.
PAT,
Please make at least an attempt to provide a reasoned rebuttal. Just saying that it is “comic” is schoolyard-level folly. It tells us more about you than Dasui.
Larry, there might be something to this. I came accross a reference a few years ago to a book by a Liberal who was discussing marriage and homosexuality in the context of histroy. I don’t recall the book, it would have been before SCOTUS said gays can marry, etc. But it was published in teh last 10 years. I was reading a review of the book.
Anyhow it made that point that while homosexuality occured in the ancient world, the view of marriage and of sex we have today is vastly different than it was in Greece in the 1st to 5th cent BC. On aspect was that true love could only be between equals, and the Greeks would have said “men and women are not equal/”
I’m trying to remember some fo the other things the book review mentioned. Mind you the point of the book was to show that 1. Our view of marriage was changing from what it had been, 2 homosexualy was normal to human race and there was a disconnect between the behavior and being, and lastly shouldn’t we just allow gay marraige? (again before SCOTUS agreed).
on #2, this is the observation that just because a person has sex with another of the same sex, doesn’t mean that they are gay. Just as a person who eats only salads for a week isn’t necessarily a vegetarian. >shrugg< I think more thought would have to go into analysis of the "open homosexulaity has been a disaster for male bonding"….. Also remember at teh time of the sacred band, the view for the Greeks on gay sex was different. Which could be why it is more of a problem today.
IDK, I'd have to think on it more myself.
To take comedy at face value, rather than understanding its premise (the natural order of the world, turned upside down) is absolutely absurd. That it has become a commonplace in polemics by both the right and by the left tells us how very far we’ve fallen. That we allow children to watch an endless number of comedies without providing them context tells me that we are failing to educate them properly.
It is hard to respect a man who tears off his own shirt, then complains he’s naked and cold.
SunVillage,
That is the most interesting idea I have seen in a long time. It’s worth some thought.
Have you seen anyone else write about this insight?
I wonder if this is one of the underlying reasons Trump was able to secure and enthuse his base. He provided context to the failing politics that resonated with his core supporters; that this is why they could ignore what was said versus what they thought he meant.
For both political parties: One who lies down with dogs should not complain of fleas. Or getting dry humped for that matter.
John,
“He provided context to the failing politics that resonated with his core supporters”
I believe many people — even Trump’s opponents — agree with you. Me, too (or rather, #meToo). When politics becomes dysfunctional, people make harsh choices between bad and worse — since there is no good option.
A sheriff explained that this is like life in prison. You must join a gang to survive. They are largely defined by race. If you are a white boy, your choices are the Nazi racist white nationalists — or being the cell block’s butt boy.
If we want better choices at the ballot box, we have to get our butts off the couch and become politically active.
“Demanding respect is one thing. Getting it is another. I believe the time in far away when men can demand and get respect from society. I believe that the steps that will bring that about will be difficult and harsh. But more on that another day.”
Demanding respect and getting it generally requires the ability to deploy coercive force, which will require that young men organize themselves in packs able to wield that force. That will take time, but above all, it will take a movement, which will require leadership. For the moment, so called moral men hold no ground, and the right sort of packs will take time to arrive. I heard someone say recently that porn and diabetes can keep a lot of men quiet for a long time, and that’s probably true. As to what form the movement might take…Islam is a possibility, but I think it will actually be something secular, at least in this country.
“Yes, but I believe that will be a result of other changes. We need to assert values. ”
That requires that the old order first lose all legitimacy, which is happening as we speak. Game accelerates this.
I think, Larry, that your fear that succeeding generations will recreate the threat that the Greatest generation defeated has some rational basis. But then, as Colonel Stok pointed out,in my favorite spy novel of all time, we never really defeated the fascists, we only defeated the Germans.
Closing thought: Many years ago my Roman history prof said that our society would eventually produce another Augustine, who would tell us what was dead and what was still living. Sometimes that comes back to me, I find.
The Man,
(1) “Demanding respect and getting it generally requires the ability to deploy coercive force”
Wow. I’m glad I don’t live in your neighborhood or work in your office. I’ll have to re-read Pride and Prejudice. I missed that part.
(2) “That requires that the old order first lose all legitimacy”
That’s quite false in history. Social change usually takes place — in functioning societies — as people’s values change. The suffragettes did not win because the US government lost all legitimacy, but because people thought that specific policy change was desirable. “Loss of all legitimacy” is, fortunately, rare in history. But it does happen, usually with bad results.
(3) “But then, as Colonel Stok pointed out,in my favorite spy novel of all time, we never really defeated the fascists, we only defeated the Germans.”
These things are, of course, subjective. I interpreted that passage in Funeral in Berlin to mean that core ideologies are part of the human condition. We can beat them back in our time, but they cannot be eliminated. Future generations will have to fight them again, forever. Or until the world changes.
(4) “that our society would eventually produce another Augustine, who would tell us what was dead and what was still living.”
Interesting observation. I agree on a more broad basis. My guess (guess!) is that the gender wars will end with the rise of new values. Hence the Nietzsche quote that appears throughout this series. That will be the subject of the last post in it.
Larry,
Dalrock has some insightful posts once in a while, but overall he is someone who believes that husbands should be in charge of wives because a woman bit an apple 6,000 years ago. Let’s not give him more attention than he deserves.
PAT,
That’s an fun caricature.
“Let’s not give him more attention than he deserves.”
That’s pretty much what I think about people who consider such statements meaningful.
But that’s America’s dysfunctional politics on display! As seen in most of the 51,000 comments here. Rather than grapple with what their political opponents say, they mock them. It’s politics for peons. We’re a different nation from that of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where vast numbers of average citizens sat for an afternoon listening to a debate on a level seen today only in political science classrooms.
PAT said:
Dalrock has some insightful posts once in a while, but overall he is someone who believes that husbands should be in charge of wives because a woman bit an apple 6,000 years ago.
Dalrock punctuates his polemics with an awful lot of graphs and statistics. He probably deserves more attention than most analysts.
Ray,
Thank you. That’s a better reply than I gave!
I too thought that this rot started in the 1970s, until my kids asked to see a cartoon of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. I found one that MGM made in 1939, fifty years before the debut of Homer Simpson.
What a shock! Papa Bear was a complete dolt throughout, always stumbling around, breaking stuff, and being loudly scolded by Mama Bear, none of which was in the original story.
On June 22, 1941, Hollywood propaganda abruptly switched from anti-war to pro-war, and for this they glorified the American man as brave, strong, patriotic, etc. while recalling and destroying as much of their previous work as they could.
Dave,
Wow. That’s an eye-opener, and well worth some thought! Thanks for posting this!
Now that you mention it, I can of other examples.
So this is typical history. Dumb husbands and dads are part of life, and were in fiction as such. What’s new is the change in magnitude, as they have become a very frequent or majority of husbands and dads.
Don’t forget the Doris Day, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson movies after the war where the wily female laid traps to catch the stumbling man such that he stumbled across the marriage line. Remember this is what the women of the war brides thought was romantic and representative of their dreams, if not reality. My mother, a post war bride, loved them. Told me of the truth that there was lots of competition by the women for the returning warriors.
I think it interesting to look at the assumed happiness of the war brides, circa 1950, with the apparent unhappiness of GRR-L power motif movies of the last decade.
John,
“Don’t forget the Doris Day, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson movies after the war where the wily female laid traps to catch the stumbling man ”
In which ones are the men “stumbling?”
I have written about those films. They are women working to get men to marry them, which is the natural order of things. It’s not demeaning or derogatory to men, imo. Often in these films both the women and men appear foolish. This quite common in those films.
Dave said:
I too thought that this rot started in the 1970s
In the 60s we had Emma Peel of the Avengers. She could dress in a cat-suit and beat up thugs while looking sexy doing it. She worked with her partner John Steed, but it was clear who wore the pants in the relationship.
Some time ago, I ordered a Kindle edition of Milton Lesser’s “The Star Seekers”, which was a rather silly science-fiction novel about a multi-generational starship. The single female character was insufferable and would beat up one of the male characters with impunity. He was a young man who was of course not portrayed very sympathetically and deserving of a beating.
The book was originally published in the 1950s. It looks like the trope of the “strong, empowered woman” predates the 70s and that at least some men actively liked and encouraged them, no matter how poorly they mapped to reality.
It was on the naivety of the sexual seduction approach in these movies. Though I do agree that they were mostly comical. Perhaps I see the comedy as incompetence, and the wily part as dishonesty that the man falls for because of incompetence. Yes they do both often appear foolish. I also think that I could watch the movies today and might well come to different conclusions and opinions.
Though you might want to change “They are women working to get men to marry men” to “to marry women”.
John,
“It was on the naivety of the sexual seduction approach in these movies”
That was a different era. Like Jane Austen, much of the dynamics of mating were to be inferred.
Like the seduction scene of In Harms Way. John Wayne asks his roommate to sleep elsewhere that night. The girl takes her shoes off and the scene ends. They assume the audience knows what comes next, without showing the sweaty bodies together on the bed.
In Pillow Talk with Doris Day and Rock Hudson, in the last scene he brings her to his room and throws her on the bed. She uses the controls to turn off the lights and lock the front door. The scene ends. It’s left to the audience’s imagination what happens next.
In neither of these scenes are the couple married. The audience assumes that sex is the prelude to marriage for them. Not unreasonable for that time.
You’re more than welcome Larry.
Been reading this series with eagerness and have followed Dalrock for several years and well as Rollo and lots of RP sites. And, sorry, Larry but the premise was good, the interaction and quoting Dalrock was good, the discussion was good. But we … as men … are still left wondering … were does this all go, how does it end, and … as a man … how am I to behave in the current environment ? And we have no answers. From you or from Dalrock either. So far anyway.
I’ll offer my opinion based on what I believe is a pretty good understanding of how things work. And no … I don’t have a solution either. First … I believe women operate pretty much on instinct when it comes to dating/marriage/children/etc. The AF/BB/Divorce/Steal the kids/Make BB pay for them … is an unconscious instinct. Marriage/Patriarchy/Christianity was a way to rein this in and make sure that didn’t destroy society … but that’s been gone for decades now. So its been unleashed and only now is beginning to have its eventual effect be felt … the destruction of society. So how will it all roll out ??? Is there anything that can be done to prevent that ?
Let me throw a couple of concepts that most already know .. Pareto … women are ONLY attracted to the top 20% of the available men. Whatever the pool of available men is … their pussies get wet for ONLY the top 20%. Next, when BB kicks in … women will SETTLE for a provider … so the man HAS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE. As women take over society and men are forced out … men (on average) are earning less and less and women more and more. This makes less and less men for women to even SETTLE for. Do I need to re-iterate that women ALWAYS WANT TO MARRY UP … when they SETTLE … they SETTLE for marrying less upward or even worst case … marry an equal. Women will NEVER marry downward. They’d not marry at all, choose deliberately be a single mom, and yes … chose big daddy government versus a low value man.
So lets run some numbers and I’ll summarize in advance … women have become pickier and pickier over time when it comes to men and I believe this will continue. Some have argued that its not 20/80 anymore its more like 15/85 or even 10/90. Why ? Well lets say 10% of men give up competing for marriage and become morbidly obese. And another 10% go MGTOW. And as Dalrock pointed out … many men who have been divorced raped now realize how the incentives work or rather DIS-INCENTIVES. Or maybe its a brother or father or friend or co-worker. But a dude realizes what going on and just chooses to remain single … again as Dalrock pointed out that would be the vast majority of men … just choosing to not play the marriage game … a game that has the rules stacked against them. They haven’t deliberately chosen MGTOW but in a way have chosen it anyway … because they have chosen not to sacrifice themselves. To not put their life on the line for temporary access to pussy or maybe to have a family only to have it stolen from him in a few years anyway. So lets say that’s another 40% do this. This is 60% of men who have effectively taken themselves off the market.
Now … how many Alphas’s have taken themselves off the market … those in the top 20% ??? None. Nadda. Zilch. Did that change women’s instinct to ignore the bottom 80% ? Nope, not in the slightest. So some of the lower end Alphas don’t make the cut anymore. And then some more. And then some more. Why ? 80% of all men; versus 80% of 90% of men; versus 80% of 70% of men, versus 80% of 60% of men, etc. There are fewer and fewer men considered in the top 20.
How does this affect the remaining Alphas … when Alpha is now only the top 10% ? And those 10% awash in pussy and can say and do anything and STILL be awash in pussy ? How about the upper betas thinking that working hard can get them into Alpha status as the standards just get higher and higher ? And the lower Alpha’s that have dropped off … think there is an incentive to work harder and harder for standards that will just get raised once you achieve them ? Or is that an incentive to just give the hell up … because its a game you can’t win ?
But here is where it really turns ugly … while there are some lower Alphas who now are on the BB eligibility list … far, far, far more BB’s fall off the BB list. Why ? Well as women continue to earn more than men and fewer men go to college, enter stem fields, get a career at all … and as I said women NEVER MARRY DOWN. So if a BB provider earns the same as her or even worse … less … he might as well not exist. Women eliminate these men from the BB pool. So it shrinks even way more.
Where I think we are going to end up … and we are already most of they way there is this: 10% Alpha studs who can play on Tinder and pull pussy all day, 30% potential BB men, and 60% of men who might as well not exist. The real question is what this means for women.
So what we have is drastically reduced options for women on both parts of the scale that matter to them. Fewer and fewer Alphas to fuck and the Alphas themselves are less and less willing to engage low quality women. So the AF option is slowly removed for most women. But the bigger problem is the dramatically reduced pool of BB providers. Even when women are willing to SETTLE … there isn’t anyone to SETTLE with. And that isn’t just some women … its the majority of women.
That’s were I think we are heading and I think we get there within 10 yrs. The real question is what happens when women … the vast majority women … end up like MGTOW men today. They realize the deck is stacked against them. They ain’t getting AF. They ain’t getting BB either. They ain’t getting marriage. Ain’t getting a kid or two and even if they get knocked up in a ONS trying to stick it to a BB … she won’t have anyone to pay the bills for years to come because the dude doesn’t have anything for the state to steal. They are on their own and NOBODY CARES. What does their life mean when they don’t get AF they don’t get BB they don’t get marriage, and they don’t get kids. THEY GET CATS AND ANTI-DEPRESSANTS AND LIVE IN POVERTY.
Yeah. What happens then. That’s what everyone would like to know. Or even more pressing. How do I conduct my life in the hear and now … so I can avoid all the mess that’s going on. And, yeah, any answer you get has to be age dependent. The answer for a 20 yr old, will be different from a 35 yr old, will be different for a 50 yr old. We all want answers … and we can hardly even agree what path we (society) is on. Hope I was clear what I think that path is … and, yeah, I’m probably wrong, lol. Just trying to make sense of it all.
Mega
Mega,
“But we … as men … are still left wondering … were does this all go, how does it end, and … as a man ”
The series is still working to get to that point. This post has several notes (hints?0 about what comes next — and solutions.
A dialogue works according to its own rhythms. We’ll get to the end when we get to the end.
Mega,
I agree with you on the 80/20 rule becoming more and more skewed (more men AND women losing out). I don’t have a solution – but you did put in words the subtle madness I’ve detected – i.e. that it’s a never-ending game for men.
The manosphere used to be: learn game. Then it was: learn game, and be in shape. And then it was:
learn game, be in shape, have an active social life (Instagram pictures). And on and on it goes. Not only do more men drop out, but the men still trying (which includes myself) have to work harder and harder to get into and stay in the top 20%. Madness.
I recently read about J D Unwin’s book ‘Sex and Culture’ – apparently no culture has ever survived giving its women sexual freedom. They’ve all failed. Larry wouldn’t like the book I imagine, as it is defeatist in nature.
I’m not sure what the solution, though looking forward to Larry’s posts. Making groups/tribes of men is an interesting approach, although as a ~28-29 year old, not sure if I missed the boat on that one. On an individual level, I’m leaving the US in the summer (not an option for most American men) and have been digging deep into Joseph Campbell’s work on the Hero’s Journey. Correlating it with Jordan Peterson’s recent rise to fame, I may not be able to find a wife for myself (perhaps it’s too late for red-pill aware men of my generation), but maybe I can help revivify the Father as Peterson/Campbell like to say.
Hence the Beta’s yearning for economic collapse, cannibalism, civil war, and restoration of the patriarchy. Which *will* happen because African mating patterns inevitably lead to African politics and African economics. African women toil dawn to dusk producing food while men relax in the shade, but every morsel is eaten, given away, or stolen by the end of the day. One month of New England winter with no EBT or WFP would be an extinction event for such people.
Come the restoration, young ladies will be quickly married off and enjoy more security than today, not left at the mercy of PUAs and Muslim grooming gangs. But when the median female age of marriage snaps back from 32 to 16, women caught in between will have to settle fast, and settle hard.
Dave,
“inevitably”
As Lawrence of Arabia says in the film: “Nothing is written.” Which is why people’s predictions of the far future are almost always wrong, no matter how confidently made.
I watched the ‘Incredibles 2’ trailer and I will not be watching the full film. I thought it was ahem; incredible that anyone would make a film like that at a time when we (I thought) would be trying to establish positive models for men to encourage commitment in the home.
But the trail makes it clear that the film employs some fairly ghastly male stereotypes that just present a wall of despair for any budding man. Why even try with all that domestic shit? Clearly we’re not suited to it and are better employed out on the streets dealing with any super villains our superior and unappreciated wives haven’t multi-tasked into oblivion. Better just to forget it and stick to playstation, sports and booze.
Clearly it wasn’t enough for Bob to work at a job he hated and despised to support his family and allow Helen to be at home with the kids…
A view from the gallery.
http://philosopherspeashooter.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-brown-skirts.html
Thanks Larry … will be interesting to see what you come up with. Most guesses I’ve seen is that any response has to come from women. Like in my comment … things get so bad for women that they realize that fucking over men by the millions … really means fucking over themselves too. So they are willing to make changes. Will that make it safe again for men to marry or just lock in the gains women already have made ? Guess we shall see … but all the responses I’ve seen thus far have left it in the hands of women. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap … so when eggs are impacted … things can change. And women don’t have a good track record of making rationale decisions … just sayin.
Anyway, will be interested to see what you come up with. But if you think all men are going to band together in some co-coordinated group effort … I’d say you are wrong. Men don’t see women as the enemy. And men see other men as competition. Men acting together to enforce their will on women … just don’t see it happening, ever. Agree with others have said … if change is going to come to right the ship … its going to have to come from women, not men.
But don’t want to pre-judge. Really hope you got some insight that I’m not seeing and you got some good ideas and recommendations going forward..
And thanks for taking this on … not like you were trying to tackle something big or anything.
Mega
Mega,
(1) “Most guesses I’ve seen is that any response has to come from women”
That’s what I’ve seen. As usual, people assume what happened is what happens next, which is almost always wrong. There is always a counter-revolution.
(2) “But if you think all men are going to band together in some co-coordinated group effort …”
Such a thing has never happened. The USA did not result from “all Americans banding together” to fight the British (1/3 were loyal to the British). The suffragette movement did not get votes for women from “all women banding together.” The civil rights movement did not gain full legal rights for African Americans by “all Blacks banding together.”
(2) “Men don’t see women as the enemy.”
Nor do women see men as the enemy, but they still achieved a superior position to men in many aspects of American culture — and are adding to it.
Speaking of which, what’s your opinion of the fatherhood.gov commercials? They carry the slogan “It takes a moment to make a moment.” Personally I find these commercials abhorrent, mostly because even though perhaps fathers should be spending time with their children, they are still expected to work long and hard to provide for their families in order to make them happy. After all, those new IPhones, little Britney’s gymnastics classes, little Brian’s football gear, and wifey’s new Land Rover cost money. I am still waiting for the government to put out commercials “encouraging” moms to take time to be moms instead of going to brunch, yoga classes, updating their Tinder, or banging Chad.
And of course, all the dads in those commercials act like idiots. Watching them actually makes me not want to have children.
I don’t know about the US, but in the UK a high proportion of women return to work after their maternity leave is complete. For couples without kids, I’d be surprised if there are many where the woman isn’t at least working 3 days a week, the overwhelming majority working full time.
Men need to step up and show they can cook, do the housework and child care to at least the same standard as women. How else are we going to deal with the automatic assumption that a child will be better off with their mother.
We can grump about the bad things that the 3rd wave of feminism have wrought, or get stuck in and fix our own shortcomings. Then, when men criticise the hypocrisy exhibited by many feminists, we’ll be arguing from a position of strength where we can show that men are doing these things in numbers and doing them well.
Using an argument from feminism. Women in profession X? Ask the men in those professions, and they’d say ahhh, women aren’t interested, they’re not as dedicated, they’re not as innately talented.
Not that different for men when you talk about child care, nursing, teaching juniors…
Steve,
“Men need to step up and show they can cook”
Why must men do this? That is, why are the modern terms of marriage desirable for men.
“We can grump about the bad things that the 3rd wave of feminism have wrought, or get stuck in and fix our own shortcomings.”
You make it sound like men apply to women for the job of husband and father, as if women are doing men a favor by hiring them. I suggest you ask yourself why that is a rational perspective. It’s not more so than telling young men that they have to “step up and show they can be good soldiers.” Man up and fix your shortcomings so that the Army will want you!
For more about modern marriage, see.
Steve Crook said:
Men need to step up and show they can cook, do the housework and child care to at least the same standard as women. How else are we going to deal with the automatic assumption that a child will be better off with their mother.
I am not optimistic about the effectiveness of that strategy: “Stay-At-Home Dads Still Get Short End Of Custody Stick.” Using an argument from feminism. Women in profession X? Ask the men in those professions, and they’d say ahhh, women aren’t interested, they’re not as dedicated, they’re not as innately talented.
It’s the simple truth, and I now usually hear it from those who were committed to giving women every chance to succeed, or at least weren’t hostile to it.
Not that different for men when you talk about child care, nursing,
In the past half century or so, there’s emerged a pretty clear picture of the type of work women do. Office drone jobs (probably better automated or done away with), work in daycare, legal/regulatory/public sector work, teaching, nursing/health care, entertainment. When you break it down, these amount to taking care of kids/sick people, minding other people’s business, or being a sex object. In terms of their representation in heavy lifting jobs that keep civilization running, their representation ranges between negligible and nonexistent.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. But apparently you believe that men can help fix this problem by taking on even more work than they already do. Have I got that right?
teaching juniors
I’d love to see more male teachers, although they’re best suited for somewhat older children. It must suck to be constantly looking over your shoulder for complaints that you’re a pedophile, or face the prospect of losing one’s job over disciplining a special snowflake.
Ray,
You are being far too nice to Steve’s weird comment. Getting married where there are high odds of divorce is considered (imo, correctly) irrational by most young men. Which is why it’s seldom mentioned in premarital counseling, or the usual “advice to men” gurus (unlike brides, many or most are aware of the ease and benefits of divorce). The exception is if the man wants children, and is prepared to have them raised by the mother. The odds of that are difficult to determine, but about 30% – 40% (details here).
For more about this, see:
You are being far too nice to Steve’s weird comment.
Thanks Larry, but I held back for the sake of trying to maintain civil discourse. Steve’s “fix” of becoming a kitchen bitch is a recipe for cuckoldry and divorce. Decades of real-world observation have borne this out. It also ignores the homely fact that it’s men who keep this traveling circus of a civilization going. Did anyone actually notice anything unusual on “A Day Without Women?” No, I didn’t either.
Getting married where there are high odds of divorce is considered (imo, correctly) irrational by most young men.
Of course. There’s no point in getting involved in such a one-sided relationship. Tradcuck social prescriptions are always an epic fail because they believe they can treat men as if they’re selfless shmoos who will happily throw themselves under the bus for the greater good.
Ray,
“but I held back for the sake of trying to maintain civil discourse.”
That’s an important point. My view (imperfectly executed here) is to give intense examination to what people say. Their values, beliefs about facts, and logic. There is no need to get personal (although most take criticism personally, as if saying their facts are wrong is an ad hominem attack).
This is how discussions are (in theory) conducted in academia and science. It’s a good model.
Here’s one example of what I’m talking about.
nice
DilliGirl,
Can you give us a more detailed reply? That’s too enigmatic to have meaning.
There is no respect without power. Husbands have no respect because they have no legal power within the marriage…or more precisely, the government has given wives power over their husbands. The power to falsely accuse any man gives women power over men in general. Men also have no reproductive rights/power, only legally bound obligations.
Some in the manosphere have suggested that having an ‘alpha’ mental framework and associated behaviors will make your wife/girlfriend defer to you as the dominant one. I’m sure some have had degrees of success, but this isn’t really power, it’s just pretending to have power. What happens when the relationship/marriage ends? Being ‘alpha’ won’t grant you custody of your kids or keep you from having the majority of your disposable income taken by force.
MGTOW is a strategy of maintaining power over oneself. Preventing or mitigating others (women) from having power over you. Controlling your time, money, behavior, etc. That is why it is so funny when people compare MGTOW to Feminism. MGTOW is inward, focused on the self. Feminism is like an invasive plant or virulent disease that tries to wield totalitarian control over everything BUT themselves.
IMO, men need to demand power (the restoration of power). Respect will follow. However, this is not likely to happen.
Vektor,
Game, MGTOW, etc — individual solutions are of little utility in changing social structures like marriage. See details in the second chapter of this series: Men finding individual solutions.
“However, this is not likely to happen.”
It is already happening, albeit in an early stage. As is briefly described in this post, and in more detail in the coming post about “solutions.”
https://www.respect.gov.au/
… a sexist joke is apparently precursor to domestic violence
Matrix,
We see the same here in the anti-drug campaigns. Their over-the-top claims make the not only ineffective — but often counter-productive. They make drugs seem a cool form of rebellion against the oppressive nanny state.
Pingback: “Saving the seeds of civilization while the fire rushes over the forest.” | Σ Frame
Pingback: Revisiting Vox’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy | Σ Frame