« The Publishing Disruption | Main | The Carnival of Creative Destruction »




Jack Donovan

Impressive and comprehensive overview of the issues facing men and society in general.

The cultural portion is a bit iffy...I know what you were getting at but cable programming makes what looks like a loss of manliness in entertainment a bit muddier. Perhaps the difference is in how we "officially" respond to what feminists call "hyper-masculinity" in entertainment, in terms of reviews, education and public discourse.


Agreed. A very comprehensive summation. One part I thought you didn't cover as fully as needed (although I may have missed it) is the link between feminist enabled single motherhood, and the rise in violent crime and subsequent quadrupling of the level of incarceration since 1980 in your country. IMO they are very closely linked, and yet another way in which the fruits and cost of feminism and leftist values are crippling to even the largest of economies.


Extremely interesting! I have long thought the feminist agenda was counterproductive to the long term best interests of women....but their treatment of Sarah Palin in particular has exposed their agenda for what it really is: far left.

The Futurist

Jack, tspoon,

All good feedback. I am tweaking that content as suggestions arrive.


Brilliant and well worth the wait.

I second the comment regarding a request for expanding on the topic of feminist-enabled single motherhood.

Minor point 1: maybe you could point out (with a link) how women in very patriarchal societies are just as happy, if not more so, than women in Western societies.

Minor point 2: a reference to Longman's article in your text and in your required reading list is probably a propos given your characterization of the current situation as a bubble that cannot last

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy .

It's not strictly the same thing, given the current bubble popping largely due to technology (e.g., VR) and its derivatives (e.g., easy, cheap international travel and portable capital) as opposed to pure demographics. But the past is instructive nevertheless.

Once again, congratulations on a stellar job.

Natural One

Fantastic! You covered nearly every point I could think of...I am a bit afraid of what will happen when the bubble actually pops, but it's going to be an interesting time to be sure...


"Many women, and even a few pathetic men, condemn the Game, without even gaining a minimal comprehension for what it truly is, and how it benefits both men and women."

It benefits some men and some women, but not society as a whole. Gamists enable and encourage bad women (i.e. sluts and women who go around "testing" men) and their bad behavior, because that's all game is good for and used for. Game is deceptive and manipulative social engineering, and inherently unethical. Game does not work against the forces that are disintegrating Western civilization, it work WITH them. Game is an adaptive response to the bad behavior of women. Instead of leading by example and refusing to enable bad women, gamists work around the clock to satisfy their every whim and approve of their behavior. How is any of this good for society? For someone who's supposedly worried about society, you seem awfully quick to align yourself with forces that are seeking to destroy it.

"But, unimaginably, it gets even worse. Polls of men have shown that there is one thing men fear even more than being raped themselves, and that is being cuckolded."

The whole reason why these men claim they fear cuckoldry more than rape is because they seek to trivialize rape. The difference between cuckoldry and rape is like the difference between a small cut and an amputated limb. They're not even in the same league. So what happens when you claim cuckoldry is worse than rape? You communicate that rape isn't that big of a deal. This is perfectly consistent with the way so-called men's rights activists frequently downplay and even justify rape.

roissy's disciples also aren't a valid representation of men as a whole. You might as well determine that 100% of men are criminals because you polled prisoners.

"1) Game : Learning the truth about how the female mind works is a precious and transcendant body of knowledge for any man."

If you learn the truth according to gamists, is that supposed to be a cause for celebration? Gamists are burned out misogynists BECAUSE they discovered the "truth." What they didn't discover, however, were selection and confirmation bias. That's too bad, since gamists have the habit of scraping the bottom of the barrel and ignoring warning signs when looking for women.

"Thus, while 80% of men have no intellectual capacity to grasp and master the concept of Game--"

Being a womanizing douchebag is not some grand achievement requiring an exceptional mind, or even an above average mind. Try science and engineering if you want something that requires intelligence. If that isn't too "beta" for you.

"What of the 80% of men who cannot conceptualize Game? Won't they be condemned to live a life of frustration, humiliation, and occasional thoughts of suicide? Thankfully, these poor wretches--"

Do you have some particular reason for constantly attacking and insulting non-gamists, or is this just typical PUA hubris that is based on exactly nothing? Also, do you think that next time when you write a puff piece for game you could simply say so instead of wasting people's time by pretending to be concerned about society?

Al Fin

Impressive. Thanks for taking the time to put together the arguments, the links, and the graphics. Much food for thought.


I have a problem with at least one of your examples of 80s masculinity. An episode of The Cosby Show I saw was one of the worst examples of feminist claptrap I have ever seen, with Mrs Cosby humiliating a young man for expecting a traditional wife, and Cosby himself joining in - a total "mangina". Look at the picture above - he looks like a complete wimp.

And for modern examples, what about the lead male in the "Crank" films? His girlfriend is a very feminine, to the point of absurdity.

The new Star Trek is noteworthy for its lack of political correctness. All the main characters are men, presented positively. The only noteworthy female character is the black female (Uhura?), who is mainly notable for wearing a very short uniform and having nothing to do except look "hot". The actress herself is clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and was not chosen for her brains.

As to new characters, what about House MD? He is a total male chauvinist, regularly demeans and ignores his female boss, and averred at one point that, "if it were not for political correctness, no-one would choose a female doctor", or some such remark.

I don't doubt that times are tough for men, but cherrypicking bad examples does not prove a case. I could also point to the reported regular failure of movies with "strong female leads".

I know there are bad examples, and I'm an Australian so maybe things are different here, but in my observation it is still very much a "phallocentric" world and I have been amazed at the recent TV advertisements, in which women are very much back in the kitchen. I have no problem with that, just commenting.

Oh, and don't forget adult cartoons like Family Guy. The man behind that is supposed to be a left liberal, but the cartoon is full of very funny misogyny.


Great stuff. I'm gonna have to re-read this several times over the next week to let it all sink in.

The Futurist


On the Cosby Show, the father (of five) was still respected by all the children, who cared deeply about his approval. The wife, while bossy, still had a positive relationship with the husband, rather than one where the husband was inferior. Dr. Huxtable was a 'pillar of the community' by any measure. Given the state of African Americans today (which Bill Cosby himself is presently condemning), this is an extremely good example.

We can split hairs and say the Macho Man suffered from 'oneitis' and the A-Team from 'whiteknighting' too, but there is no comparison between the 80s and today.

The Futurist


What a shallow, dishonest, and lazy interpretation of the article.

You have proved my pre-emptive description of 'feminists' and 'whiteknights' superbly.

And trying to rationalize cuckoldry (which IS worse than rape for a man) shows that you are full of projection.


"What a shallow, dishonest, and lazy interpretation of the article."

This is ironic because it's *your* response that's shallow and lazy. You have nothing substantial to say.

"You have proved my pre-emptive description of 'feminists' and 'whiteknights' superbly."

How? I'm neither.

"And trying to rationalize cuckoldry (which IS worse than rape for a man) shows that you are full of projection."

You are imagining things. I did not rationalize or defend it in any way, I merely said that it isn't anywhere near as bad as rape. Any man who claims cuckoldry is worse than rape is either insane, ignorant or purposefully downplaying rape.

The Futurist


Are you a man or a woman?


The Futurist:

"The wife, while bossy, still had a positive relationship with the husband, rather than one where the husband was inferior."

David: Yes, I see your point. But I remember the episode I refer to well, and I remember thinking that if anything was going to turn young black men off getting married, it was the message conveyed by the withering contempt for the young black man who had hoped to find a wife who would treat him with traditional respect, deference and kindness. No young black man with any balls would be attracted to the prospect held out by the attitudes of Dr and Mrs Huxtable. "Dr Huxtable" made it clear that any man who married his daughter would be expected to provide meals for her on demand when she got back from her day at her "career job". I think that was the single most offensive, feminist load of drivel I have ever seen.

BTW, rape is appalling, but cuckolding a man is very bad too, and also has lasting ill effects.


The Futurist, I am a man.

The Futurist


Yes, I know of that episode. There were times when the daughters were scolded for the equivalent too, however.

But that aside, the father was still a 'pillar of the community' in the show. The grandfather was treated well by the grandmother, etc. Other white 80s family sitcoms also had the father command some patriarchal authority, even if some jokes were at his expense.

Today, even the children do not respect the father, in television shows, while a single mother is glorified.


The Futurist,

I'm unclear on how your "Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation" are supposed to lead to a reversal in the trend towards misandry.

I grant you these trends exist. But I don't think you've demonstrated that A leads to B.

My reading of your four trends...

1) Game
2) VR porn
3) Globalization
4) Economic dissengagement

...would be that all these lead to a decline in the power and value assigned to western women. To the extent that men become enlightened about the situation they are facing, they will be less inclined to support women financially, less inclined to spend time with them and pursue them, less inclined to cede them power.

OK. But I fail to see how the bubble pops etc. Calling it a bubble suggests it is unsustainable. So point out the point of failure. What actually forces women to change their behaviour, bearing in mind their predigious powers of denial?

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result, and feminists are insane, won't they just try harder as they fail harder? If it doesn't work, do more.

So the response to disengagement by men will be to blame men for their fear of committment, selfishness, laziness, withdrawal from reality etc.
I can see a subculture of women who rediscover the joys of baking cookies in their quest to make themselves more appealing to the dwindling number of suitable husbands, but it this likely to impact the dominant culture?

The Futurist


Your behavior is already described in the section 'Socialcons, WhiteKnights, and Girlie-Men', as well as my observation about overuse of the word 'misogynist'. You are demonstrating that exactly, rather than disproving this. Hence, you are yet to refute anything in the article.

Claiming that cuckolding is not nearly as bad as rape is insane, particularly given that 80% of men take the opposite view, as the polls show.

Oh, I suppose you explain that by claiming those 80% of men have rape urges

I dare you to go to The Spearhead and make this claim about cuckoldry.

If you still haven't figured out that propagating anti-male hogwash in order to appease feminists is NOT going to get you laid, you are beyond hopeless.

The Futurist


There will be too few tax dollars to prop up feminism, and too few men willing to marry. Technologies will devalue what women have to offer, and hence their expectations have to come down greatly. Cultures that are more gender normative will outbreed the feminists.

The 'if it doesn't work, do more' can't continue when the tax revenue needed to do it is not forthcoming.


The Futurist said..
"There will be too few tax dollars to prop up feminism, and too few men willing to marry. Technologies will devalue what women have to offer, and hence their expectations have to come down greatly. Cultures that are more gender normative will outbreed the feminists.

The 'if it doesn't work, do more' can't continue when the tax revenue needed to do it is not forthcoming. "

I would suggest another article to spell this out. I hear this argument frequently - I'm not convinced. It assumes rational actors and a self-correcting system.

I'm particularly sceptical about the idea that there will be too few tax dollars to prop up feminism (the welfare state).

For example, I'm saving and investing as much as I can so I can expat. So in the medium term, I'm working harder and am more focused than I otherwise would be. I may be socially disengaged, but I'm not economically disengaged. So cynicism on my part had not led to any drop in tax revenue.

Besides, how much of government spending comes from tax vs borrowing or QE? When was the last time the USA balanced a budget?

I think you need to specifically point out how the lack of a tax base will lead to a CHANGE IN BEHAVOUR rather than assuming it will.


The Futurist,

Also, I don't think men lose the desire to make money if there isn't a woman in their life. The desire for money, power, success and status evolved in order to help men compete for women, but it is now a drive in its own right. There's a lot to be said for being wealthy even if you never touch another girl in your life - it lets you go places and do things.

At a more basic level, I was poor in my student days and would never want to go back to eating 2-minute noodles. Earning a decent income allows a level of comfort and independance that will be become ever more important as I get older. I have to think about providing for myself in retirement.

So I don't think it is accurate to say that men without the prospect of wives become demotivated. The threat of punitive taxation may do this - but if the goverment lets you keep most of your earnings, men will still be motivated to earn without women.

No money, no life.


The Futurist,

Another point. Women are only interested in the winners. They may settle for a Beta at 35, but that doesn't change the culture amongst women under 30 and the men who pursue them.

Do you forsee a change in the behaviour of Alpha men as a result of your four trends? Or will Alphas just keep playing the field as before?

Do you see the top 10% of men, those women are focused on, abandoning women for VR porn, or expating, or using surrogate mothers, or dropping out of the workforce? Or are these trends among men that aren't in the race anyway?

The Futurist


Your expatriation itself does a huge amount to starve the system, as described in the article. US wedding, real estate, divorce lawyer industries are all starved, so you are cutting off 3 parasites at once.

On the income issue, you are thinking in absolutes. Many men who work 80 hours a week for $300K will go down to 50 hours a week for $150K. Many men working very hard are doing so to prop up their mortgages, for homes larger than they ever wanted, but the wife insisted on. It is socially normal for the man to kill himself to buy an unusually large house.

but if the goverment lets you keep most of your earnings

But if the government does this, feminism is what gets thrown under the bus (subsidies for single mothers, public sector bogus jobs, etc.).

You are answering some of your own questions.


Thousandmile Margin,

The US already is in debt to the tune of 75 trillion. There is a recession. Taxes are already at the point where raising them further will result in a decrease in revenue, due to the fact of disencouraging further effort from taxpayers.
Your country has just signed up to expensive universal health care, further subsidising females at the cost to males. Your country does not educate or motivate males. Those males are worse than non productive, they become violent, costing huge amounts in increased policing and incarceration. This is further contributed to by single motherhood, which is tacitly encouraged, and costs even further. Your countries stimulus package was wasted on nonproductive sectors of employment.
although you are saving hard now, you will likely be ready to leave before ten years are out. (where to btw?) Many other men will be in the same boat.
This is only some of the things leading to massive inefficiency in the US economy, and even a country of the greatness and magnitude of the US can not continue like this for much longer...

Mcsmiley Smileyface

I'd say you've confused "manly" with "masculine"... half of those role models from the 80's are EMASCULATED MEN. Take Cosby for instance, his Feminist wife rules their home. This is a great shame to his masculinity which is almost non-existent.

For a more thorough treatise on masculinity, please check out: http://manhood101.com/principles101small.pdf

But much of our article has a lot of great information. I will try to look it over and post the relevant parts in our "Exposing Feminism" section on our forum over at manhood101.com

Thank you for your work!


The Futurist "Your behavior is already described in the section 'Socialcons, WhiteKnights, and Girlie-Men', as well as my observation about overuse of the word 'misogynist'."

This is rather unlikely since I am neither a social conservative, a white knight nor a girly man. Perhaps you are just confused. And I say gamists are misogynists because that's just what they are.

"Claiming that cuckolding is not nearly as bad as rape is insane, particularly given that 80% of men take the opposite view, as the polls show."

I have already explained why they take the opposite view. It has nothing to do with cuckoldry truthfully being worse than rape, or even equal to it.

"Oh, I suppose you explain that by claiming those 80% of men have rape urges"

People in PUA and MRA sites often downplay and justify rape, and nobody minds.

"If you still haven't figured out that propagating anti-male hogwash in order to appease feminists is NOT going to get you laid, you are beyond hopeless. "

I'm not anti-male, I'm not appeasing feminists and I have no interest in getting laid. I'm also struggling to understand how I could possibly get laid by anonymously posting comments on a website. Could you explain how that's supposed to work?

Natural One


The amount of money and time and resources lost due to cuckoldry far outweighs anything lost due to rape. It's simple to do the equation. In most cases, women do not even become pregnant from rape, therefore very little is lost other than psychological damage. In cuckoldry, huge amounts of time, money as well as psychological damage is incurred. Cuckoldry could be compared to being raped at least 1000 times, over the course of 10-20 years, with the guarantee that you are going to have the rapists baby and raise it using your own time and money. That's the equivalent.


I agree that PUAs are scum and actually just as bad as the women they pursue. This is where I take issue with this article. Game is definitely not the answer - the answer is to ignore women completely. Do not give them attention, do not game them, do not pursue them in any way. Sex is worthless and should be treated as such.

Using game and PUA tactics is just adapting to women's current behavior instead of changing that behavior. If we want real lasting change in women's behavior, we must ignore them completely, similar to a strike. A woman's main goal in life is to achieve attention, and if you starve them of attention, they will do anything to get it - including changing their behavior in a direction that is more stable and in line with what the author has described - womanly behavior that will lead to a stable civilization.


Natural One "...therefore very little is lost other than psychological damage."

And it's that psychological damage that makes rape infinitely more devastating than cuckoldry. To equate rape with cuckoldry is nothing more than an attempt to trivialize and downplay it. That's all it is.

Natural One


Why do you say that rape is more psychologically damaging than cuckoldry? That doesn't make sense to me...


This "bleh" faggot seems to think that cuckoldry does not carry psychological damage. Sounds like a cuckold who is telling himself the feminist 'non-biological parenting is also important' tripe.

Sounds like someone Roissy should nominate as Beta of the Year.


Natural One "Why do you say that rape is more psychologically damaging than cuckoldry? That doesn't make sense to me..."

Then you are either dangerously ignorant or there is something seriously wrong with your brain.

Joshua "This "bleh" faggot seems to think that cuckoldry does not carry psychological damage."

Really? Please point out where I said that.

"Sounds like a cuckold who is telling himself the feminist 'non-biological parenting is also important' tripe."

Uh, I'm not married? And not everyone cares whether their child is biologically theirs, or even of the same ethnicity. I've never seen that as important or meaningful.

"Sounds like someone Roissy should nominate as Beta of the Year."

Yes, I am familiar with roissy's beta antics. Too bad the game community - or even just roissy's sector of it - has never managed to decide what beta actually means. There's no commonly accepted definition for it, so to say that someone is a beta is absolutely meaningless.



The threat of cuckholdry will keep men from committing to women or getting married. Think about it. Throughout history and across cultures there has been an obsession with FEMALE virginity and chastity. Not male virginity and chastity but female chastity. Many men practiced polygamy and had mistresses. Women didn't seem to mind. Even in today's Western feminist-dominated society the exact same thing goes on. A few PUA's get all the women and most rarely get laid. Women don't mind sharing. The reason for this is that women always know they're the mother of their children. Men never know if they're the biological father or not. "Bleh", and every feminist and "enlightened male" may say that paternity doesn't matter. But if they really believe that garbage then they are living in a fantasy world. Men will generally not want to commit to women if they can't guarantee their children's paternity. A normal decent, responsible man will break his back for his own children. He'll work a job he doesn't particularly like, buy a home he wouldn't otherwise buy, and pay taxes he wouldn't otherwise be paying. But he just won't do that for some other man's kids. Children are a huge investment that offer few rewards. You just can't expect men to start taking care of random children from other men. It won't happen.


is the article suggesting that i as a woman had an unfair advantage in life to achieve my current income level/job status?

i supported myself as a teen and put myself through school working with my hands for small contractors/companies, none of which could have afforded to have a non-productive woman around to satisfy "numbers" for sake of employment equity.

i agree that the laws asume the woman to be the victim in cases of domestic disputes. this puts innocent men at a terrible dissadvantage. my own mother accused my father of assault in a spat. the police did not allow her to retract her statements and pursued charges anyway. i strongly disagree with this. i think what she did was very low. i currently care for my aging father, who i respect for his principles regardless of our differences. these laws exist to protect the weak, and if women are typically lower income earners then it is very difficult for them to pursue another person legally for wrong-doing, if wrong is done to them.

i dissagree that women in north america have some special status as in the media we are still valued for our appearance/sexuality. this makes us objects for someones sexual gratification. how is a man's desire to bed me of anyadvantage for me. it's an impediment/terrifying to think i have no value after 29, since i couldn't possibly contribute to society in any other way. the dominant women in the tv programs described are only so because their husbands are so stupid. this is not an homage to women but a mockery of the north american man. i hope the average man is not as stupid a peter griffin/homer simpson. cant comment on oprah. never watched talk shows.

re: women being underpaid relative to men. this is true because we rarely have the opportunities to get the same job. if we are products of our environment and as women never develop certain skillsets because we are discouraged as children, how can we contribute as adults? my father involved me in everything he did so i could learn. i have better job opportunities as a result. some women i know were not so lucky. the learning curve as an adult- to learn everything a boy had the chance to -is far too great for a person who now needs to work for a living. also, many of them had children/are married and did so too early because it was socially more valuable that what i was doing with my life. at the time they were praised for their choices (marriage, children, not pursuing means to greater income). they now cannot for sake of time/money pursue these things. they regret it i assure you. their mid-class families would have been far better off financially if they could have returned to better payin jobs after their young children began attending school.

i look at the stats and information provided in this article and can only argue that statistics are not self explanatory. one could argue very different reasons for the same information. i dont dispute that assuming one group to be victims doesnt victimize some of the other group. but the same culd be said for landlord tennant laws etc. assuming one group has the advantage finacially/socially is based on STATS and their interpretation, likely the same that the article was based on.

i feel for those of you being victimized by the system. i have also been a victim, not as a woman, but as a poor white... as a tennant... a low wage employee. at the time i was these the system did nothing to protect me. i suffered and i tolerated constant loss of everything and starting over. and now that i am a landlord, an amployer, the laws ahve reversed again to my disadvantage. but i say to myself that i would never impose the same suffering on a weaker person(by this i mean low income/low opportunity...whatever the dissadvntage). i can afford to lose something now. i would not bend the laws to spare myself any discomfort from an abusive tennant for instance, because i know many other weaker people would be abused. i am strong enough to tolerate some abuse.

also, many people pick their partners for all the wrong reasons. if a man believes all women are low (childlike/petty) he may ignore all character flaws an choose a partner he finds very attractive. are you then surprised when things go sour? now the dumb princess he's tired of sleeping with and treats like dirt is upset because hes neglecting her. and the bull-sh-- starts,and they separate, and maybe she is petty, he picked her remember. he couldve been smarter than that. that is his decision. i know lots of guys that have done this. they complain about their situation, but admit the pussy was good...at the time. guess it was worth it to them. not to say that men necessarily put themselves in this position. but it happens. alot. they dont admit it in court/public. just at the pub after a few. sometimes to me on the phone in tears cause they know what the rest of the guys would say to them.

im sorry to the men that have been abused. im sorry that youve never known a good woman/person. dont think women are your problem or the cause of social problems. conicidental statistics are not proof.

please see this website for a neat graph of statistical evidence for global warming and you'll get my drift.



I'm going to read this, and the sources cited, a few more times before I comment more. Thanks for the work.


What you are describing and opposed to is COMMUNISM, not FEMINISM. I am a capitalist. I worked for what I have. There is no feeling of entitlement on my part because I am a woman, but an increase in my earnings because I am more capable. I have never received any special privilege, nor do I expect it be given to an unworthy person. If all she can do is cook and fuck, she should be compensated accordingly. You as well man.

What's for dinner?


Women shop more than men.

Women may not have disposable income if not for a man.

Majority of US GDP's are brands, few commodities.

Women are more likely to buy brands than things of actual value.

Welfare takes money from the middle class and gives it to Walmart shoppers.

Walmart's doing pretty well no?
Misandry is not the real problem.

Chuck Pelto

TO: The Futurist, et al.
RE: Heh

Good points.

However, I doubt if anything significant will happen until we, as a people, are knocked to our knees and have to rebuild from the ground up.


[The feminist movement died, one millisecond after the first impact. -- Niven and Pournelle, Lucifer's Hammer]

Chuck Pelto

TO: Whatsitmatter
RE: In a Word?

is the article suggesting that i as a woman had an unfair advantage in life to achieve my current income level/job status? -- Whatsitmatter


And your point here is?????


[Woman, n., The unfair sex. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary c. 19th Century]

P.S. The point being the problem has ALWAYS been with US.

Chuck Pelto

P.S. Where did you learn 'capitalization', anyway?

Al Fin

White women went along with affirmative action -- even though it hurt white men -- because they wanted the advantage in admissions, hiring, and contracting that affirmative action gave them.

Splitting white males from white females in that manner was a "divide and conquer" strategy that has paid off well for leftists and feminists.


I am a historiann who wrote two theses on women in history, one on the seventeenth and one on the nineteenth century. I admire your essay but I think you have left out the role of voluntary celibacy in the West, for women, and the effect of worship of the feminine archetype {the virgin Mary, the Courts of Love] on the idea of women Western men still have. This is in spite of the last 40 years, which have seen a vast revolution as you aptly describe. Many men and women in the past were servants and spent a lifetime unmarried but possibly not chaste. North America, Australia with the possibility of economic success even on a humble scale made it possible for almost everyone to marry. As a woman of 75 I see us going backward to the very divided class society of the late middle ages in Europe.
Very interesting!

Chuck Pelto

TO: Arabel
RE: Yeah?

.... I think you have left out the role of voluntary celibacy in the West, for women.... -- Arabel

Non sequitur. Unless you're thinking of 'the Pill'.

Or are you totally ignorant of modern 'feminine culture', a la Madonna, Britney Spears and the other literal 'f---ing idiots' out there?


[For a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit. -- Proverbs, c. 940 BC]

red pill

Wonderful and comprehensive, since it's everything I've come to believe having been rung out thru the system a time or two for no fault of my own.
Sometimes it does take a foreigner to see things clearly, and woe be unto a foreigner that entangles himself with secular marriage. Man and boy should be directed to read these revelations and if need be, tatooed on their privates so as to avoid being victimized by the gov't and officers of the court that must find the source of masculine productivity to first disparage and then exploit and ultimately destroy.


Excellent. Bravissimo.

I'm 52, divorced, no kids, and I've given up on the entire "racket," which is what marriage has become. I was fortunate, however, to get out of my marriage scot free, and I was the one who initiated it, so that puts me into two enviable minorities, I guess.

I meet so many profoundly miserable married men, and I used to be one of them, so I'll never go back. If we want to change this, the first step IMO would be to break the legal monopoly. Lawyers make the laws, lawyers judge the cases, lawyers prosecute the citizenry, and we're forced to hire one to defend ourselves. How is that not a racket? How is that not a monopoly? Why is it not illegal for lawyers to serve as judges and legislators? Isn't having lawyers as legislators a violation of the separation of powers between government branches since they are officers of the courts? If not, it ought to be, and we must, "make it so," as Picard would say.

Oh yeah, lawyers make the laws up to suit themselves, and at the expense of the citizenry. Lawyers create nothing, lawyers produce nothing, and lawyers provide no essential service that a man can't live without, and yet we give these deleterious parasites the keys to the kingdom.

That is insane and it is culturally suicidal.


why do you write "salespeople" instead of "salesmen" ? Aren't you taking a chapter right out of the politically correct playbook of leftist academia?

red pill

Also a small point of possible differing interpretation from another futurist (me) with a few established bonafides of my own.
Perhaps I over interpret or incorrectly interpret your passing mention of gay marriage. Perhaps I see more harm in redefinition of the family unit than you, but I see no appropriate self perpetuating mechanism within gay culture, there never having been a successful gay culture and a culture which seems at its base to seek conflict and undermine heterosexual culture if for no other reason than natural human competitiveness with the "other". It is in great degree the province of feminism to promote choice paid for by others and producing nothing, which, if one judges something by the company it keeps, should look for signs of social benefit from homosexual union legalization. In actuality gay unions are much more about demands of enforced access to benefits provided by otherw in spite of lifestyles which often are self serving or social destructive, and as such the very thing feminism demands, a responsibility-free party with someone else paying the bill and taking all responsibility.
Best Regards, I look forward to reading your other works, the degree of objectivity, integration and perception having become rare amongst internet offerings. Should you have interest in comparing observations and timeframes etc feel free to drop me a line.

Wacky Hermit

A wonderful article, Mr. Futurist! I would be interested to hear your views on the interaction between the denormalization of male behavior and the increase in ADHD and autism diagnoses (particularly Asperger's Syndrome diagnoses), and the trends appertaining thereto. Autism diagnoses are on the rise, though not entirely due to increased diagnostic detection of the milder Asperger's Syndrome. At the same time our schools' definition of what constitutes a "normal" child is shrinking and their flexibility to accommodate a normal but unusual child is calcifying, so that parents must seek a diagnosis in order to get their child any kind of accommodation at school, even ones as simple as allowing the child to sit on a special cushion or leave the classroom if he becomes enraged.

The Futurist

red pill,

I would agree, except that the laws governing marriage make it extremely tempting for a woman to destroy the union, and this is a more direct threat to traditional marriage than gay marriage. Gay marriage affects less than 0.1% of the population, but rampant divorce and unfair asset division affects ALL people. Therefore, pro-marriage people should tackle divorce laws as a priority higher than gay marriage, but I never see conservatives even uttering a single word about it (also for reasons I mention).

Wacky Hermit,

All true. When I was a kid (not that long ago, as per the picture of entertainers), words like ADHD and Aspergers were not even uttered.

In most of the world, boys are still allowed to be boys.


Kudos for picking up the baton that Kim du Toit passed in 2003 and running with it. Just because a truth isn't particularly palatable doesn't mean it shouldn't be examined.


Wack Hermit,

Autism is on the rise because of increased childhood vaccinations (a common preservative used in the vaccines contains mercury... clear negative effects on brain function)

- Woman

Scott W. Somerville

I'm a futurist, geek, and devout Christian homeschool dad. I have three grown sons and three grown daughters who have all adopted my value system and are ready and willing to outmultiply the Muslims.

The New Testament was radical stuff, in its day, when it first challenged the Greco-Roman paradigm of women and children as chattel. The idea that women were joint heirs of salvation with their husbands was brand new, back then, as was the idea that men related to their wives as Christ did to the Church. It made for committed men and devoted women, but also laid the foundations for the western ideal of romantic and heroic love.

Today, old-fashioned Christian teachings about the roles of men and women are still pretty radical--but they seem to work for an increasing number of high-tech 21st century families.


Scott W. Somerville, stop creating more male victims of divorce with your promotion of nonsensical la-la land delusion. Marriage is dead and buried, and feminism and social conservatives like you who encouraged obedience and deference to tyrannical women killed it.


ADHD and Aspergers have been on the rise since childhood vaccinations have increased (vaccines contain a preservative that is made with mercury... proven to cause such cognitive impairment) LOOK IT UP!

- Woman

Beth Donovan

You know, I'm not a feminist. Not.At.All.
However, so many parts of this essay are so crazy that I have a really hard time comprehending the mindset of the author.

First of all, I would love to know where your statistics come from in regards to which partner in a marriage initiates divorce. Secondly, I would love to know what the main reason for initiating divorce is.

I would agree that there are mean wives just as there are mean husbands, but I would like to know how many women are injuring their spouses as compared to men injuring their spouses.

I think my main disagreement with your essay is that you seem to believe that mankind is unable to rise above his animal ancestors. Your arguments appear to indicate that you believe that men are too weak to keep vows and other promises - I believe that humankind can transcend our animal ancestors, and that Western Civilization is the best proof of that.

I really disagree with your suggestion that women are happier in a strongly patriarchal society - that brings to my mind societies like the Taliban, in fact, any Islamic society - where women are forbidden to do much of anything. That is much more like slavery than Western Civilization.

I have a lot of other questions about your essay. I believe it is fundamentally incorrect. However, I have to go tend to the farm animals and get dinner started.

If I have time later tonight or tomorrow, I shall "Fisk" your essay point by point.

Only I will use verifiable statistics and fact, not just conjecture or game theory.

Anthropology, psychology and sociology are all soft sciences, and are all quite subjective.

I want facts, scientific facts, to back up your theories. I'm not seeing them in your links.


Female quips:
"I want facts, scientific facts, to back up your theories. I'm not seeing them in your links."

..while bringing none of your own FACTS to the table to support your visceral reactions. How apropos.


In response to Beth's common feminist argument *strongly patriarchal society bring to my mind societies like the Taliban*, I am posting a response made by the manhood101.com guy on his website:

And you're confusing the religious Islamic system with the principle of authority. They are apples and oranges. That's almost as bad as equating Islam with proper parenting. According to your failed logic, parents should have no authority over their children. They should just let them run wild and hope they raise themselves properly. There are too many current examples of men behind bars that testifies to the inept and impotent nature of this naive approach.

You, like many seduced by Feminism, erroneously equate submission to evil.. submission is not an inherently evil thing just as authority is not inherently evil. Sure there are examples of those who abuse authority just as there are examples of those who abuse submission and go to far in their obedience. E.g., if a parent in authority over a child asks the child to jump off a building, the person submitting should NOT obey, although the child definitely should maintain a proper attitude of submission, even when disobeying.

Submission is required in order for the person who is in charge to meet the needs of the one submitting to the governing authority. If the one in authority is not meeting the needs of those submitting to that authority, then they are not properly exercising authority to begin with... Proper authority ALWAYS serves the needs of those submitting to it. You're referencing a dysfunctional religious system (Islam) as an example of proper authority. That strawman has no legs to stand on.

Chuck Pelto

TO: All
RE: An 'Interesting' Juxtaposition


....here's what I propose.

[1] Read this article.
[2] Watch Star Trek II — The Wrath of Khan
[3] Watch Shrek II
[4] Watch The Spirit

See any correlation between the four items?

If so....



P.S. For the 'slow learners'....

....pay particular attention to:

[1] The self-female who wouldn't tell her son he was sired by Captain James Tiberious Kirk because she wanted him all to herself.

[2] Notice how in Shrek II, the killer musical number is how women are looking for a 'hero', because they can't figure out where all the 'good men' and 'gods' and 'street-wise fighters who stand against the rising odds' have gone.

[3] Notice how from the 1980s to the 2000s, women are STILL 'clueless' about what they REALLY want.....in public. But in the movies????? Three guesses.....

....first two don't count.

P.P.S. Standing here....as I am....I appreciate The Futurist's undertstanding. Probably more than most others here.

How so?

Probably something to do with something I did 30 years ago......

[God is alive.....and Airborne-Ranger qualified. And so am I.

The Futurist


The statistics are backed by the links provided.

I did not think people were seriously questioning that 70-90% of marriages were ended by women.

Your arguments appear to indicate that you believe that men are too weak to keep vows and other promises

I believe WOMEN have shown themselves to be this way.

I want facts, scientific facts, to back up your theories. I'm not seeing them in your links.

You are *choosing* not to see them...


Yeah "The threat of cuckholdry will keep men from committing to women or getting married. Think about it."

This is true, but also beside the point.

"Bleh, and every feminist and "enlightened male" may say that paternity doesn't matter. But if they really believe that garbage then they are living in a fantasy world."

It matters to most people, but not to everyone. I would gladly adopt (if I had any interest in children, that is).

The Blanque

Anyone who thinks that cuckoldry is "less damaging" than rape should have a talk with the victims of Cecil Jacobson.



futurist: does your definition of alpha male entail those men who have frequent trysts with a variety of attractive nubile women?


Great summation of the issues.

Even though bleh's points are contrarian to your thesis, I don't find them white knight-ish or feminist as you do. I think he makes an interesting argument, I just happen to lean more towards yours.


A minor opportunity has been presented to alter the course this all takes. With state governments in dire need of new revenue sources, one of the last remaining taboos available for taxation is presented as a weapon against the tide. Time to legalize and tax commercial sex. Skip the virtual.

Regardless of the protest in Lawrence, consenting adult behavior is fundamentally the same. As Nevada has shown, it can be regulated sufficiently to remove the associated criminal element rationale utilized to stop its expansion. With the unwitting assistance of the radical gay community which has indoctrinated school children for two decades, it is no longer the old issue of men exploiting women. A visit to a NSFWP adult site will show that the ladies who advertise their services in Las Vegas offer their virtues to other ladies on a nearly 1 to 2 ratio that they offer them to males. It is now a non-gender specific recreation.

The real resistance to legalizing the profession is the same reason to obstruct the virtual alternative. It's the old game of monopoly. Those beta males will opt for the alternative. So those who have the monopoly, rather than improve the quality of their product or services, have always use their political influence to maintain the monopoly. That is where the moment now presents itself as the needs of the politicians in obtaining the basis of their own existence hangs by the thread of ever decreasing revenues.

If the politicians can be enticed with both new revenue and new powers of regulation, then the monopoly can be broken now. That means that real competition can open up sooner than later. With competition, its adapt or perish.


if you truly looked at culture with the "eyes of the other sex" and reversed the power dynamics in most of the media that is out there today, i believe that you would not come to the conclusion that it is centered around the empowerment of women. maybe you are noticing it because it happens to be a new (and, in cases like 'cougar town', jarring) method of the mainstream media to capture women's attention.

the creators of this media know that this particular audience is a powerful consumer group, and that is probably why they are targeted with shows that appeal to their sexuality. but i think the mistake you are making is that this is more directed to the collective imagination and fantasies of women rather than their daily choices and practices. its dangerous to look at culture and take it at face value. for example, it might be more instructive to look at who is producing the media, and why? maybe it is not created out of the very deepest and most earnest desires of women who are trying to fashion a new reality for themselves, maybe it is a form of escapism??

why are you letting yourself be victimized by the media? last time i checked, the media and the goals of 'feminism' (to generalize a movement that has had many goals and theories, not all leftist) were not perfectly aligned. also you have the choice to not watch.

regarding the 'venusian arts': this is exactly the kind of cynical 'instruction' that any woman can find in cosmopolitan magazine. maybe it contains some form of truth in the means of seduction, but it comes at the expense of dehumanizing your would be partner, and also objectifying yourself and dismantling your personality. is it wrong for women to object to this kind of gender programming? i think not, as it seems to promote the lowest possible expectations of the opposite sex. maybe in this case men have something to learn from feminism. (i had never heard of 'venusian arts' or 'game' before today)

but to get to the governmental aspect, of enforced child support and the legal favoritism of women and or minorities, that is a problem that both women and men SHARE, and it has less to do with feminism than a rampant government presence in all of our lives, redistributing wealth in ways that are STATED to help women and minorities, but actually are in place to benefit special interest and the powers that be in government. in fact, i believe that it was the bill clinton administration that really pushed the 'deadbeat dad' message to america, which served to create a whole new mass of bureaucracy to enforce the legislation and child support payments. so really this pandering is just a means to a political end, always. and everyone suffers as a result, including women, in the form of new tax burdens.


As a woman who watched her ex-husband (he wanted the divorce) go through hell during his subsequent marriage's divorce and custody battle, I have to say that I largely agree with what you have written. However, I'm not sure I buy your depiction of "social conservatives". While there has been a lot of focus in recent years of encouraging men to "live up" to their responsibilities, I have also seen more encouragement of women being supportive of their husbands and acknowledging them as being head of the household. (Then again, I live in Texas.) That being said, unfortunately, society has impacted the church more than the Church is impacting society, so there's still too much of the male-bashing we see everywhere else.

The Futurist


I have also seen more encouragement of women being supportive of their husbands and acknowledging them as being head of the household.

This is very good. But the lefto-feminist cohorts are very opposed to this, as evidenced how they put down women like Laura Bush, Cindy McCain, etc.

Texas has a stronger social fabric than Boston, New York, or San Francisco. I am not sure you are aware how uncouth urban women have become.

Annie Z

But why would women not also utilise 'computerised' sexual technology? If men are not supplying income, are not required for childbirth, and not required for access in social situations (either because of the greater acceptance of single females and/or the lesser need for interaction in public space) why would not the 'large majority' of women who you feel will fail socially not just - like your supposed Beta male - simply withdraw from the 'marketspace'?

Not that it will make much difference to me. ( Being masculine in all but genitallia and too old to worry about the details.)

The Crack Emcee

You are so late - I've been banging this drum, without mention, for years now. Which, BTW, is another fine example of of our point.



Then pendulum swings.

I can remember a time in the 70's when all the songs on the radio sounded like they were being sung by castratos or constantly in falsetto. Not today.

The Futurist

Annie Z,

Because that is not how female attraction works. Female attraction is very complex (necessitating a man's learning of Game), while male attraction is very visual.

The gap between the number of women who can earn a living based only on their looks vs. the number of men who can do the same is telling.


This has long needed to be said more openly.

I would disagree slightly with your take on the rise of monogamy.

It was not a case of humans following a simple gorilla-like alpha male takes all pattern, with monogamy somehow imposed later by organized religion. Apart from being not fully correct, that gives cover to those claiming that the various dysfunctions you cite really aren't such since they are natural.

My reading from evolutionary psychology (Matt Ridley's 'The Red Queen' etc) suggest that humans in the most primitive sorts of hunter gatherer societies were were already evolving socially toward a weakly monogamous state --in extremely primitive times, everyone suffered the 'equality' of poverty. Human babies and pregnant mothers needed the resources a man could supply, and very few men had the resources to support multiple women and their children (that came later in various despotisms). Of course there was the occasional cheating by/with the big hunters/warriors etc, but trend toward monogamy was established by evolution, and *not* something fabricated later.
Successful cultures all ended up institutionalizing it with some sort of formal marriage (or polygamy in certain cases, but they were usually not stable w/o females of conquered people to spread around to the local males).

I've had a bellyful of how feminist-influenced pop culture complains about men who are shirkers, slackers, afraid of commitment, etc, but who focus so strongly on mocking and denigrating the men who *do* act responsibly, the actual fathers and husbands.

M. Report

It is a good thing you guys and gals
are stitching this thread in CyberSpace;
If you were face-to-face, there would be blood. :)

It would be funny were it not so sad; Each half
of the human race blaming the other half for _all_
the race's problems, when the true cause is too much
prosperity, and the two choices are to go backward,
to a society of scarcity, which enforces the nuclear
family, or forward, to a society of plenty, where
each individual can live as they choose, and the only
ones who choose the difficult path of raising a family
are those who should.

A relevant, revealing example: Heinlein's novel
"Podkayne of Mars" which people today see as a
role model for teenage girls, but which was written
as a warning for parents too busy with their own
lives, and careers, properly to raise their children.
The happy ending was grafted on by the editor, to
improve sales; In the original, Poddie, who should
have been taught better by her parents, makes a
childish, emotional choice, and dies for it.

Paraphrasing another Heinlein observation on
Global thermonuclear War; The US, and the rest of
the world, are in for Hard Times, and the only good
news is that, for a change, intelligence will have
survival value; Choose sides, team up, and start
preparing to live the future, rather than discuss it.


What a load of beta twaddle. I hate it when folks call themselves conservative and then start taking on membership in supposed victim groups, particularly when it's supposedly due to social forces.

Your life is your own to make of it what you will. To be happy, just stand up for yourself, and for the ones you love, for what you believe, and give your children a set of values - by actually living them - that they can build upon as they see fit, and don't worry about how the rest of the world sees you. Yes, you'll fight battles that you end up losing, you'll suffer for your decisions; well, life's just not fair. Just grow a pair, and be an example to your sons and daughters.


I'm reminded of that old Chinese saying/curse, "May you live in interesting times."

If this article is even half right the next ten years may indeed be those "interesting times".


HalifaxCB, your naive advice to men is as insulting and patronizing to men living under feminism, as it would have been to blacks living under slavery. We are battling an entire cultural, legal and societal feminist industrial complex that refuses to allow men to "live his own life to make of it what he will"

You sir, are a gullible fool.

The Futurist


Agreed. What I wrote in the 'Socialcons, Whiteknights' section is seen here.

No mention of how the laws are rigged unfairly against men, and the pervasive institutional structure to free women from the consequences of their own actions, cannot be countered merely by empty sermonizing.

Of course, HalifaxCB is partly right about taking charge of the situation. By this logic, he should be a strong supporter of the Venusian Arts, which are entirely about a man creating positive outcomes for himself without depending on anyone else.

Random Commentator

On the rape-cuckolding argument...

In and of itself, I'd be inclined to say that rape is worse. When there's no marriage or children involved, being cuckolded actually presents a simple response: Dump her, move on.

When one or the above is concerned, however...well, the main article has already spelled out what is likely to happen. If divorce laws showed true gender equity, the cuckolded husband would be able to simply move on, but in this day and age it can be a life sentence, while rape is something that can be recovered from (not to say that it's easy, but people can and have done so). It only takes a casual overview of how adultery tends to be treated in the media to see how attitudes aren't equal: A man who commits adultery is a scumbag, while if a woman commits adultery, it's often portrayed as being still the man's fault for not taking proper care of her wants and needs.

On the whole, I suspect Natural One's reverse-Lysistratan solution probably would be the fastest way to break the bubble, but I don't see many alphas being willing to maintain the strike, especially those that only see the short-term benefit to them of the situation.


Great post.

Rich Rostrom

"The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that."

This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen. Until very recently, a woman over thirty was middle-aged. If she had had children, her body was dumpy and shapeless. She was probably missing several teeth, and had wrinkles and was going gray. Her skin was probably damaged from smallpox, acne, or excessive exposure to sun and wind.

She was worn from the years of grueling labor housekeeping used to require. All laundry done by hand. All meals cooked from scratch. Hand sewing to repair and maintain the family's garments. (There's a reason why sewing machines became a billion-dollar industry.) Before 1800 or so, more grueling hours of spinning and weaving and sewing so that the family would have clothes to wear at all. The only reason women didn't get fat is because there was just enough food to eat and nothing over.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should take a look at the peasant women of countries like India, who still live that good old life style in many respect.

Which is not to say this post doesn't have some good points about the masculinity-hostile qualities of modern culture.

The Futurist

Rick Rostrom,

You are wrong. Even 40 years ago in the US, women with 4 children did not become fat. The better diet and household chores kept her thin. 40 years ago was not the 'working in the fields' era.

You haven't seen much of the world outside the modern US. The example of India proves my point, not yours. You are thinking only in extremes, which makes YOU the ignorant one.


Absolutely loved the article.
As someone with over $200K in child arrears and close to $4K a month in payments, it totally hits home.

Sublime Oblivion

Very long... and mostly, very boring tripe. As I said before, your writings on the singularity are far more interesting.

That said, given that I'm a Bay Area environmentalist Marxist, feel free to disregard that.


I was already reading this blog alongside Roissy, what an interesting development :-)

I'm going to print this tract, frame it, and hand it over to my son for his 16th birthday.

Mike Johnson

Nothing will change until men start striking back at an grossly unjust society and its justice system. African Americans learned that and men of all races need to use the same tactics.

Women know that they can safely send innocent men to prison, take their children away with a word and openly discriminate against them and yet pay no price. That has to change. It wasn't the civil rights movement itself that brought justice for black Americans. It should have been enough, but it wasn't. What gave authority to the civil rights movement and brought it to life was the direct evidence that life was going to be very dangerous and unpleasant for the oppressors if they tried to continue operating behind a blatantly discriminatory and bigotted system.

Watch out for male brothers, especially in the workplace. Women have been bragging openly about doing exactly that as part of their "sisterhood" for decades, but they will tell you it is wrong for men to do the same for each other. They are laughing behind our backs while we try to do the "right thing".
Eagerly and smartly take on jury duty and keep in mind how unjust the system is before you vote to convict yet another victim of that system. Jury nullification is a soothing balm for a frustrated victim. We know the justice system is designed to convict men. Vote accordingly when your conscience can allow it.
Strike back in whatever capacity you can without endangering yourself or other males. Make women pay a price for laughing at your desire for justice and equality. Only then will things change.

Support others who are doing the same.

The Futurist

Sublime Oblivion,

Perhaps you should question your Marxism through logical reasoning, rather than follow it as a religion.

No logical person can support Marxism at this point.

Master Dogen

I don't think you are a white knight or a feminist, bleh, so I'll skip past that and engage your actual point, which I'm sure you will appreciate.

On game, you are just wrong. Game is a strategy for attracting a mate, just like wearing make-up is for women. I'm not sure if you have maybe just watched one clip of Mystery on YouTube, or read a few of Roissy in DC's more provocative pieces (and he intends to provoke, you realize), but I assure you it's nuances and the differing styles men use are quite diverse.

Rather than try and prove the point to you here, I'll simply assert to you that I study game, that I use it effectively, that I love women, that my relations with women are far happier than before, and that the women I spend time with are far happier, too. I don't go club hopping or pick up floozies. I date intelligent, beautiful, educated, friendly, artistic women, and I let my interactions with them be informed by what I have learned about female psychology.

Go read my blog at http://alpha-status.blogspot.com/ (My posts are tagged "Master Dogen" ... my co-blogger "11minutes" has a slightly different set of topics he covers). Then comment there or back here that you what you assert is categorically true.

Best of luck...

And a big thank you to the writer for this article. Superb.

Master Dogen

Incidentally, I fully agree with The Futurist that this is a counter-strategy to the collapse of patriarchy, and I plead guilty to the charge of putting my own short-term interests ahead of that of the society at large. My only point to "bleh" was that it doesn't make me a misogynist.

Instead, all that exists are Men's Rights Advocates (MRAs) that run a few websites and exchange information on their blogs. 'Something is better than nothing' is the most generous praise I could possibly extend to the sum of their efforts, and this article I am presenting here on The Futurist is probably the single biggest analysis of this issue to date, even though this is not even a site devoted to the subject. Hence, there will be no real Men's Rights Movement in the near future. The misandry bubble will instead be punctured through the sum of millions of individual market forces.

The truth hurts, sometimes. Great article, even if it was only written for "altruism."

This took me an entire weekend to read (following the links and getting sidetracked and such) and will probably take me much longer to digest. I wish I had something constructive to offer, but I just wanted to extend my gratitude for this great piece.


I am disinclined to put much faith in someone who thinks that Jan 1st was the first day of the new decade. We have a year to go before that happens. Simple comprehension precedes complex ones.


This analysis should be read, taught, and discussed worldwide.
When a society rots from the inside out due to morality destrutction, it's dead. When society established 'victim groups', the end can't be far off.
The 'rot' started in the 60's, and has finally gained power, and more destruction is to come.
What the writer layed out here is principles, reason, and results captured in the Bible.
Unless society return to its roots, there is no happy ending.


Since you deleted my first comment, I'll try again. This time, I will just address one of your "statistics"

....despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women.
According to a study published in the American Law and Economics Review, women currently file slightly more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the US.[5] There is some variation among states, and the numbers have also varied over time, with about 60% of filings by women in most of the 19th century, and over 70% by women in some states just after no-fault divorce was introduced, according to the paper.
Source - http://www.bauerfamilylaw.com/divorce.html

And further research reveals that approximately 60% of women who file for divorce do so because the man has cheated on her.

I have no respect for an essay that uses made-up statistics.

And honestly, what is this? "The He-Man Wimmen Haters Club" from "Our Gang"???

red pill

regarding gay 'marriage'. Gays do not procreate, gay marriage especially among men is often not even an intentionally monogamous union as is at least initially the goal of traditional marriage. It's strictly a mechanism coopting social and financial benefit and donning a mantle of respectability and responsibility. THe officers of the court see this as a new avenue of income, understanding the turbulent nature of unions that have no real underpinnings other than 'play'

Master Dogen

"I am disinclined to put much faith in someone who thinks that Jan 1st was the first day of the new decade. We have a year to go before that happens. "


You know, all dates are just conventions. If people colloquially refer to the year that ends in a zero as the beginning of a decade, you might quibble, but to take that high and mighty tone is just silly.

Was 1990 the last year of the 80's?

HR Lincoln

As to the notion that rape is in any fashion as reprehensible as cuckoldry, consider this: rape is transitory, while cuckoldry persists for a lifetime.

I cannot imagine that anyone except a hardcore feminist could fail to grasp this.

Daedalus Mugged

The Futurist,
Thank you for an interesting and thought provoking read, albeit one that I largely agreed with before your solid formulation of the ideas and their implications. However, I lack your (relative) confidence that it will be fixed, particularly in the time frame discussed. Particularly with regard to the US legal structure, I cannot see how it would realistically be fixed. As you point out, there is no real man's rights movement, nor do you seem to expect one soon. Your view seems to be something along the lines of 'something that can't go on forever, won't'. It is economically unsustainable, but I cannot imagine any government official, or politician, saying, "We've got a serious revenue problem, let's fix the divorce laws!"

I fear an outcome more like the historical solution to unsustainable societies. They were not fixed, they were replaced...and your demographics seem to point that way as well. Or in more economic terms, more like classic example of NYC unionized brick layers...it is unsustainable, but the few are willing to sacrifice the building material of brick and all those possible new union construction jobs in order to hold (their) existing jobs at extortionary wages for maintaining the existing brick building inventory. I can't imagine the married woman voting block allowing anyone to challenge their current supreme position in the system.
No matter how broken, I can't see the people involved in the current travesty of the family court system (politicians, judges, governemnt attorneys, lawyers, bureacrats etc) fixing it...or even allowing it to be fixed by someone outside the system.

I fear 'western' civilization is quickly heading toward the fate of the Byzantines...another broken society, and it was not fixed. Can you share a little of the hope you seem to have that this can be fixed by elaborating on how you think it will be fixed? (perhaps next article?)

aND thank you again for the intelligent, interesting, and thought provoking essay.


Since you deleted my first comment, I'll try again. This time, I will just address one of your "statistics"

....despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women.

According to a study published in the American Law and Economics Review, women currently file slightly more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the US.[5] There is some variation among states, and the numbers have also varied over time, with about 60% of filings by women in most of the 19th century, and over 70% by women in some states just after no-fault divorce was introduced, according to the paper.

Source - http://www.bauerfamilylaw.com/divorce.html

And further research reveals that approximately 60% of women who file for divorce do so because the man has cheated on her.

I have no respect for an essay that uses made-up statistics.

And honestly, what is this? "The He-Man Wimmen Haters Club" from "Our Gang"???


Beth Donovan,

Your lack of reading comprehension skills and desire to mischaracterize a thoroughly researched article are showing. Not to also mention, you use the very same shaming tactic used by the feminists to project their own insecurities against men "what is this? "The He-Man Wimmen Haters Club"

Now that readers know how little credibility you hold through your own actions, I am going to respond to your facetious arguments.

Your own source states women filed for divorce 70% of the time after no-fault divorce was used. This is the percentage The Futurist used in his article, but to reach the 90% figure he added 20% for the time when she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman. This foresight on your part is a clear example of your poor reading comprehension skills.

"And further research reveals that approximately 60% of women who file for divorce do so because the man has cheated on her."

The gov't bureaucracy has a vested interest in portraying women as victims and vilifying good men in all major extortion rackets overseen by the feminist industrial complex including but not limited to the divorce industry, the child support industry, the sexual assault industry and the affirmative action industry. Many millions of lawyers, judges, legislators make their living off the backs of hard-working, but powerless men and the self-serving moral panic they spread throughout society, media and culture to demonize and denigrate traditional male identity.

Since you have demonstrated you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer I have created a short version of the explanation above:

You are a man hater who psychologically projects his/her bigotry onto men battling the trampling of their civil rights. You have exposed your hand and anyone with sight sees that you hold nothing but a JOKER card.


A very interesting piece, I do have some remarks:

Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one).

Up until a few centuries ago, the life expectancy wasn’t much longer than 35, so the under-35 population would outnumber the under-35 population. But that’s splitting hairs and if you merely changed the numbers, the point would apply.

Polls of men have shown that there is one thing men fear even more than being raped themselves, and that is being cuckolded.

You mean a poll, as in singular. And it was a unscientific internet "push poll" in which the author phrased the question in such a way as to achieve his desired result. A man as scientific as yourself should know that such a poll is worthless.

I loved your final point:

For those misandrists who say 'good riddance' with great haste, remember that blogging can still be done from overseas, and your policy of making the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes that your utopia requires depends on that top 1% agreeing to not take their brains and abscond from Western shores.

Read Atlas Shrugged for a great story about what happens to a society when its most productive members go on strike.

The Futurist

Beth Donovan,

90% are initiated by woman, for which I have provided sources as well as an explanation. 70% are filed by her, and in another 20% of instances she forces the man to file by either cheating or moving out.

And further research reveals that approximately 60% of women who file for divorce do so because the man has cheated on her.

Bogus. Female adultery is just as prevalent as male adultery.

No comment of yours was deleted. Your pathetic attempt to obscure feminist wrongdoings actually proves the point of the whole article.

Tatterhead (an appropriate handle),

I knew there would be some loser who whines about the 'decade' point. What part of 'the first decade of the 201x years' do you not comprehend?

One could argue that the third digit supercedes the fourth. Perhaps a matter known as Y2K occurred in the 90s?

What a lazy way to avoid facing the real points.

The comments to this entry are closed.