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



Could you clarify where you are getting the evidence for saying that 90 percent of divorces are initiated by women. The Roissy post does not seem to provide the evidence. Thanks.


bleh you are a mangina loser.

For many men being cuckolded is worse than death.

To raise some unrelated man's kid makes you the ultimate evolutionary loser which you seem to be.

If biological paternity doesn't matter then maybe hospitals should just switch around woman's babies randomly at delivery so no woman really knows if the kid is truly hers. See what reaction you will get from women.

Even doing that is not as bad as cuckoldry because at least the woman knows that someone else is most likely raising her biological kid whereas for a man who has been cuckolded there is no biological kid.

You are a disgusting scumbag, anyone who suggests that cuckoldry is fine or not psychologically damaging is a retard.


If I sound angry well it's because I am.

A few years ago it was found that the man who I knew as dad for 19 years was not my biological dad, he didn't know it either. The disgusting whore of a mother of mine knew but kept it secret for all that time.

My dad was devastated & later told me he contemplated suicide many times when he found out because of the humiliation & pain. He still considers me to be his son & I consider him my dad.

I haven't talked to the whore since all this came out. She has cancer & doesn't have much longer to live, i hope the evil bitch has a horrible death for what she did to my dad.

Our "justice" system would have forced him to pay CS for me even if he wasn't my biological dad in all the Anglo countries if this had been found out when I was still a kid. Feminists & many women support this obviously when they lobby for laws blocking paternity testing, that's what passes for justice in the US & many other Western countries if you are a man.

The Futurist


The Roissy article quotes a Devlin essay, where Devlin says 'nine tenths'.

There is a link to the Devlin essays in the roissy article, but they are .pdfs and not linkable by me here in the format I want to keep.

No one is seriously disputing the 70% number, but the gap between 70% and 90% needs to be analyzed, as women are the initiators of conditions leading to divorce. When the law overwhelmingly favors women in the vast majority of instances, this percentage is not surprising. 96% of alimony is paid by men and only 4% paid by women.

If you know any male divorce lawyer as a friend, ask him. He will corroborate the 90% estimation.


Have you read this blog? I think you would find it interesting.


Grumpy Old Man

You lost me at the premise:

Why does it seem that American society is in decline

For all of U.S. history, someone has been making this claim. You fail to provide evidence to support your assumption that we live in a time of unique decline. Perhaps most of your audience agrees with this assumption, but, still, evidence would be useful, one might even say required.

that fairness and decorum are receding

Ditto. What time period are you comparing to today, and what is your evidence? We live in a society less fair than when only land-owners could vote? Than when a black man could be killed for not demonstrating proper deference to a white person?

that socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant...

Wow! And I'm just supposed to go with you here? Re: tyranny, are you referring to Bush's contempt for the Geneva Conventions and habeus corpus, or Obama's Christmas ornaments? And...socialism? Lower marginal tax rates than during the Reagan or Eisenhower years, but socialism is becoming "malignant"?

Given your warped perception of present-day reality, it is difficult to take your future predictions seriously. Your essay is a solution in search of a problem.


Could you let me know where you got the evidence that 90 percent of marriages are ended by women. The Roissy link does not appear to provide it. Thanks.

The Futurist


It might be the typepad engine. I am not deleting anything.

Try again.

But see my reply ahead about where I saw the 90% number, quoted in the Roissy article from the Devlin essays (which themselves are not linkable).

Grumpy Old Man,

Please read the end of the article regarding US superpowerdom. I have been accused of being TOO optimistic about US dominance.

But by any account, the US is falling behind in many areas, and is a worse place than in the 1980s.

But I would submit to you that you may not be fully unaware how uncouth the younger generation of women have become.


The Futurist,

I am sure you know far more about India than I do, but having read about '498a abuse' and having watched this vile creature (an, until recently Indian govt. minister no less)...

...I am curious why you think that expat-ing to India would be a panacea.

The Futurist


The 498A is certainly abused, and is an example of India starting to make the same mistakes that the US made 25 years ago with laws like the Bradley Amendment. but under 0.1% of Indian marriages are victims of it. In the US, a sizable minority of men are victims of VAWA, The Bradley Amendment, alimony, etc.

In India, there is no alimony and child support. A single mother has no financial recourse, which prevents children from being used as pawns to extract money from men. In America, that strategy is the opening move in any divorce with kids.

India has problems for sure, but there are very few ways in which the woman can screw her husband like she can in the US. Ammoral, slutty, and child-damaging behavior is still shamed in India.

Remember that most of this blog has been very pro-US. It is only now when some serious negatives are reaching critical mass.


This very comprehensive, yet incisive article pretty much confirms the suspicions I have harbored for a long time about the sorry state of relations between men and women.

That is, men are simply going to bypass women entirely and unplug from the economy, with unimaginably huge social, economic and political consequences.

These consequences may well prove to be the undoing of the United States, and disprove the author's contention that it will be the only superpower in existence by 2030. In fact, I'm more inclined to think that the middle part of the 21st century (and beyond) will belong to China.

The good news in all this is that I can easily imagine a time, say, fifteen to twenty years from now, when divorce lawyers are unemployed, and all the other cockroaches who deliberately foment divorce and other forms of
female misbehavior in order to make money will be dead broke.

The Futurist


The thing is, China is likely to make many of the same mistakes. Their fertility rate is already lower than the US. But that is not a great way for the US to stay #1.

Men unplugging/expating is going to get easier, for reasons mentioned in the article. Islam will play a role in filling other vacuums.


Wow. Just came across your site.

Looks like I am in for some interesting reading.

The Futurist


Thanks. The 'Core Articles' section is where the deepest thoughts are.


I am very worried and also awed by what I have read today, I had an inkling of what was really occurring but you have spelled it out for me. Please keep up the good work.


In order to gain back some advantage, traditional, masculine men need to reorganize. I'm talking about the lost art of fraternal orders. Imagine an underground network, one in each major city, where all women and soft males have been excluded. We use this network to identify one another, share resources, hire each other, etc. This is exactly what feminists and homosexuals have been doing. They have an "in group" (you wouldn't want to go through the intiation ritual) through which they identify and promote one another. In Minneapolis, we even have an absurd situation in which the Fire Chief (lesbian) was accused of sexual harrassment by two of her lesbian subordinates. They manage to do this even in the "butch" world of fire fighters.

The contemporary age is remarkable in the almost complete lack of organized fraternities. This has been a feature of masculine life for most of recorded history. It's just another thing that's been beaten out of men. The few remaining ones such as the Masonic Lodge and Knights of Columbus are beginning to turn a corner and attracting younger, mostly traditional men. There is an entire legal structure that allows them to operate outside the standard EEOC guidelines in discriminating against applicants. Even if that were attacked and the loophole closed, these groups could easily move back underground, which might make them more effective. I have built a hobby of sorts out of understanding how fraternal orders function and would like to hear your comments about it.


I have noted a recent resurgence in televison manliness that is interesting. Deadliest catch. Dirty Jobs. Mythbusters. Ax men. Ice Road Truckers. Manly men doing manly jobs. All wildly popular.

Wrestling seems to be on every channel, and is more extreme than ever before. Boxing has given way to ultimate fighting.

I think the change is already happening. Note that the change is appearing first in "reality" TV - this suggests that the change is being driven from below rather than from above.

Someone soon will produce a fictional equivalent that is wildly popular. The Star Trek Movie might have been it, but there will be more.

Jim in Monroe

8 years late. This info was presented in November of 2003 by Kim Du Toit. And he used common sense and experience to write his shorter version.

The Pussification of the Western Male


Jim in Monroe

ok, maybe not 8 years late, but peruse his site and you'll be surprised how insightful Kim was.


Futurist,do you have any more detailed stats of 1) how much $ women collectively contribute to Social security vs. how much they extract 2) same for men 3) % of female employees in civilian govt jobs compared to men 4) the aggregate total of female contribution to govt revenues vs. aggregate total of recievership 5) same for males?

The Futurist

Jim in Monroe,

Go back further, Lord Byron said the same thing. The point is, this is now the biggest challenge to US safety and prosperity, which was not yet the case in 2003.

I like Kim du Toit's essay, but it is time to take it much further.


I am seeking those sources. Some, however, are obvious. The progressive tax system ensures that 75% of taxes are paid by 10% of taxpayers, who are disproportionately men (90% or so). I did provide sources of how women consume much more healthcare dollars then men.

Also, some are a matter of putting 2 and 2 together, such as the combo of female unemployment rate vs. male. and public vs; private sector jobs, with the link provided about how N.O.W. lobbied for stimulus funds to go to women.

If the dots are connected for the first time from 3 separate sources, there of course isn't a preexisting link that spells the new conclusion out.

I welcome good sources provided by others as well.


I got a vasectomy. I met a girl soon afterwards. She was nice and attractive but with a selfish streak that raised a big red flag. She was 32 at the time and I could practically HEAR her biological clock ticking. Regardless, she was a good lay, easy on the eyes, and reasonably good company.

I did NOT tell her about my vasectomy and I always used a condom with her to protect against STDs. She assumed, obviously, that the condom was only used for birth control. wacky girl.

We date for a few months. I never made any move towards commitment but she brought it up ocassionally. For me, this was a casual but pleasant relationship. For her - as I was to find out - it was part of life-changing series of events that she was planning very carefully.

Four months into dating, I get the “I’m pregnant” talk. She’s going on and on about how the condom must have broke and now we really need to think about getting married “for the baby”. She’s positively giddy. She has a baby in her and she thinks she’s gonna have a good meal ticket (me) to go along with her new 7lb annuity.

At this point, I’m just as giddy. I get to pull the reverse “oops” on her. I figured that she slept with some bad boy and got knocked up. Good thing I was using condoms! Better still that I have a serious mistrust of women who can’t think beyond their own uteri.

So I wait a couple of days to “think about all this.” I meet her again. I say I don’t want kids and that she should have an abortion. I know where this is going and sure enough it goes there. She goes completely batsh*t insane on me. There were the usual insults about my manhood. There were threats of legal action. It was all very ugly and I was loving every minute of it.

Well, I let her stew for a few days. She leaves me nasty messages on my phone. She sends awful emails. I’m laughing hysterically.

It was time to drop the hammer. While she was stewing I was busy. First I get a notarized copy from the urologist who performed the vasectomy. Next I get a notarized copy of the TWO test results indicating a “negative test result for sperm” to show I’m sterile and shooting blanks. Finally, I get a letter from a shark attorney stating he has seen the other documents and is prepared to litigate against this woman if she continues to communicate with me in such an unpleasant manner. Also, the letter states that we will insist on DNA testing to show that the baby is not mine. I’m ready.

I meet with this woman at her place. I bring flowers and a small bit of jewelry to show I am willing to reconcile and assume my responsibilities as a new father. I also have stuck in my pocket the documents I have prepared.

She’s all giddy again. Her plan is going perfectly - or so she thinks. We talk about our future. We have some pretty good sex. Then, as I am about to walk out the door, I ask her the $64,000 question. “Are you sure that this baby is mine?”

Well, she goes batsh*t insane again. Hell, she ought to. Her plan could completely unravel if there is ANY question about my paternity. Oh, she’s really screaming now. How dare I question her morals. Do I think she’s a slut. I’m just trying to weasel out of my responsibilities… blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I’m not really mad. I’m kind of embarrassed for her. But since she won’t shut up and the neighbors can hear all of this, I ask her to step back inside and sit down. She sits on the sofa and calms down a bit. She is glaring at me with all the moral self-righteousness that only a woman can muster up. She thinks she has me trapped. She is 100% convinced her plan has worked. Oh, the tangled web of lies and deceit she has wrought around herself and I am about to hack through them with a few pieces of paper.

I reach into my pocket slowly. I extract the three pieces of paper and unfold them slowly and deliberately.

I tell her simply, “You’re screwed”.

Her look doesn’t change. There is no way she can fathom what I have prepared.

I continue. “I am sterile”

Her look changes just a bit. Something is beginning to sink in. Naturally, she reverts to women’s logic. “You’re full of sh*t. You’re trapped and you know it.”

I hold up the letter and the test results. “Three months before we met, I had a vasectomy. Here is a notarized letter from him stating what I had done. Here are two test results showing that I tested negative for the presence of sperm. Blanks. I am shooting blanks. That baby inside you is simply not mine.”

This woman is not to be swayed by logic and clear documentation. “Bullsh*t, those are fakes.”

I was ready for that. “No, they are real. This last piece of paper is from my attorney. It’s a simple letter to you that states if you pursue any kind of legal action against me for child support that I will insist on a DNA test to prove paternity, that is, to prove that your baby is not mine.”

I give the woman all the documents. She reads them slowly, deliberately. With each passing second she can feel in her soul that she has made a very bad mistake. With denial swept away, she started to cry. It’s a small cry at first. Then it becomes deeper and more painful. By the time she gets to the letter from the lawyer she is sobbing.

I had no sympathy for her. I turned and walked out the door. Even after I closed the door I could still hear her sobbing.

Epilogue -

I never heard directly from this woman again. I did hear through my friends that she did indeed have the baby. I also heard that the real father was some guy in a band she had met. I assumed that after 30, women stopped going after musicians, bikers, criminals, and thugs. wacky me for thinking the best of American women.

The Moral of the Story -

Get a vasectomy but keep it a secret.


How come these days MRAs always mix the feminist question with those crazy cospiracy theories about "muslims taking over" and all that crapola ?

Im quite sure it is this lunacy that will prevent the Mens Movement to ever become mainstream. Men's stupidity keep blocking men from defeating feminists, because they cant confront a just cause (antifeminism) without leaving aside racism and islamophobia.


ps. LOL about you mentioning the crazy loony Michelle Malkin!


Wow. I suspected many of the things this article points out, but never saw them articulated quite so well. This blows the roof of so much feminist wrongdoing.

Far too many women just refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. They always say that the man is 'not paying alimony', never mind that SHE left the marriage!! Why should HE have to pay?

Feminism is ruining our society, and I agree that women will ultimately suffer on account of it.


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

Other 'personal autarky' enabling technologies are coming that will accelerate this trend as well. It will be interesting and I can't wait to flip the bird at the tax man and go Gault's Gulch on the government.

The Futurist

Zyndryl! There you are.

I was really hoping that my regular trio of jeffolie, Zyndryl, and Geoman joined in when I had the mass of male vs. female comments going.

But this is the issue of the '201x' series of 10 years. And I didn't even know about many of these subjects 12 months ago.


The Futurist, I eagerly read your blog but this particular post made me think you've had some problems with a woman and you've responded with this long, cathartic, polemic manifesto.

While I have to admit I agree with much of what you say here, I'm left with the impression that you think of women as less than your equal, that they are little more than irrational, unthinking, biological automatons to be dissected and analyzed at your whim, and put in a place where you can feel smug and superior.

Let me offer some advice for you: Somewhere out there is a very intelligent woman who is easily your equal...but she won't be interested in you with an attitude like that. If you have a true sense of adventure there is even a woman out there who is smarter than you. Go find her. You'll be happy you did.

I married an Indian girl. It doesn't matter to me that she's Indian, but what she has to say about Indian guys is enlightening...on numerous occasions she's told me that she would never marry an Indian guy because they're sexist - they expect their wives to behave in a subservient way. I've certainly seen this in her extended family...at get-togethers the guys sit around and drink and eat while their wives & girlfriends cook and clean up after them. I don't blame her for not wanting to be part of that. I married her because of her intelligence - that and she's stunningly beautiful (she stops people dead in their tracks). She's as beautiful after 10 years of marriage as she was the day I met her, but I have to say it's her intelligence and good nature that keeps our marriage interesting. We're best friends, and trust me, after a decade of marriage that's what's important. And there's no way you can have a good marriage if you think you're somehow superior to your wife. You hint at moving to India...maybe you're thinking that you go can get yourself a nice subservient wife-appliance who has no thoughts of her own and only wants to meet your needs. If that's what you want, go for it, but just remember that you'll be fitting the stereotype that my wife and I laugh about.

The Futurist


You haven't read the article in good faith, which is contrary to your usual dependability.

Let me point out just a few of the flaws in your assumptions.

a) As you know, this is the first time I have ever uttered a word about this subject in the 4 years of this blog. Most things here I became aware of just in the last 12 months. This is totally contrary to your ethnic stereotyping.

b) I am treating this as an economic and political crisis, much like the War on Terror or Real Estate bubble has been. That is why it fits into The Futurist's general theme, and why the article was scheduled precisely for 1/1/2010. This should be viewed as, 'Now that even The Futurist is talking about it, it really is a big problem'.

c) I have said India has a *better* set of morals than what the West has today, for detailed reasons. Also, I said that in the 1980s, the US had a more gender normative culture than now.

d) You know full well I am US born. You know how much I know about US politics, etc. You must not think much of US assimilation if you think I am still tied to a country I was not born in.

e) Surely you know that white women bash white men far more than Indian men/women bash each other.

f) You utterly ignored the multiple times I wrote 'this is unfair to women' and 'feminism does a disservice to women'.

g) You totally overlooked what I wrote about The Venusian Arts. You may not be familiar with it as a discipline of study just like Martial arts (and probably didn't read what I wrote about it in good faith), suffice it to say, my experience with women is about 10 times more extensive than the average man, and your assumptions regarding me couldn't be more off.

i) But the most important error of all in what you wrote is :

I am making PREDICTIONS, as I always do. I certainly have a track record at stake if I make a bad prediction, so how on earth can you claim emotions have biased by predictions? Why would I make a prediction for 2020 contrary to what I believe will happen?

That is the question you should be able to answer.

Plus, you totally ignored the majority of the article, and how this is a great threat to US safety and prosperity. As a commentator, I am treating this much the same way I would treat the War on Terror. I personally have a lot less to lose from this than someone who cannot easily relocate to another country.

Your lack of mention of the detailed economic, constitutional, and judicial points is surprising (which you can't possibly think are not serious problems). The 'economic thesis' and 'who should care' sections alone should have led you to make many comments. Surely you can't dispute that feminism is just about the strongest pillar of the hard left in the US.

Now try again.

-The Futurist

Weary G


You have absolutely, positively blown my mind with this post.


I have read it twice, read all of the links, some of THEM twice.

My brain is still firing off random synapses as my worldview shifts. It's like the focus on a real fuzzy picture suddenly snapped into place. Talk about a paradigm shift.

Where the hell were you 20 years ago?

Thank you for this. This is something I am forwarding to all my male friends. Vive le resistance!

Any thoughts as the power is corrupting influence of both female ability to choose combined with added enforcement of the state/religion/political correctness?

The Futurist

Weary G,

Thanks, man. It is reactions like yours - paradigm shifts - which are the whole reason I write any article here, especially this one.

Where the hell were you 20 years ago?

In grade school.

Most of what I wrote here, I learned in the last 12 months. I never wrote single word on the subject in 4 years and 200 prior articles on this blog. But once I saw what was going on, the massive megatrends affecting society became clear.

This is the issue of the next decade (the 201x series of 10 years).

Soak it in. Don't get married unless stringent conditions can be met. Learn how to read between the lines on what women are saying. And learn the Venusian Arts, even if only used to dodge the bullets fired at men.

You really should go read, and comment on The Spearhead often (www.the-spearhead.com).


I was very much enjoying the article, until you constructed and then demolished your "social conservative" straw man. I thought I was a social conservative, but I bear little resemblance to the social conservative you describe. My church still refuses to ordain women, a policy for which your article could be the starting point for constructing an excellent defense. Your comment about feminism being misogynistic because it devalues what women are good and and overvalues what men are good at is spot on in this connection. Remember the Marxist nuns?

I am skeptical that the wider dissemination of pornography will be, on balance, a good thing. Marriage is not just a sexual outlet for men; it is as much a civilizing influence on them as it is on women, though in different ways, as you yourself pointed out early in the article. Pornography does not provide this civilizing influence and cannot serve as a substitute for marriage for beta males. Now, if you meant to discuss it as a marginal phenomenon (in the economics sense), and leaving aside my moral qualms, your argument is more sustainable; but I still feel sorry for the "losers" (non-alpha, non-beta males) who feel it is their only alternative.

A bit tangential, but since someone brought it up: Autism is a very real and very disabling condition. It is, however, grossly overdiagnosed, if I can believe what I was told by the medical professor leading the autism team at a nearby teaching hospital. I would hate to see genuinely autistic boys fail to receive the assistance they need because a great many boys being boys are being misdiagnosed.


It is amazing to me how Dave can put his analytical and logical skills to full use when addressing some issues (technology, economy, knowledge etc) and transform himself into a blubbering mass of knee-jerk, emotional insults and intellectually bankrupt shaming tactics when addressing issues of much greater social importance (the feminist vilification of men and their dismantling of functional male and female roles essential to the operation of an economically efficient and socially healthy society)

Some men like Dave are just too weak-minded to resist the "women are victims and patriarchy is evil" conditioning they've been exposed to since birth by trusted adults, the public educational system and the emasculated Western culture at large.


The fastest way for a man to destroy his life is to get a woman pregnant. The second fastest way to ruin his life in our tyrannical matriarchy is to get married.

The Futurist


Then you have to do something to confront the various men who continue to pressure and shame men into marriage, house buying, etc. while ignoring legal and judicial realities and also doing nothing to hold women accountable for THEIR actions.

Otherwise the word 'social conservative' will accumulate the same stigma that 'feminist' and 'environmentalist' have.

I explained why this was reasonable before 1970, but now is doing far more harm than good.

You could play a valuable role, through your church or elsewhere.

Porn is not 'good', but it does adjust power imbalances. It is my job to make accurate predictions, happy or sad.


I like Dave, but I would prefer that he discuss the economic, legal, and political aspects of the article in good faith, rather than generalize about an ethnicity of 1.2 billion people, including those who were born in the US (Ohio, in fact).

But yes, far too many men just can't do the paradigm shift. In fact, so many commenters on other blog said that they agreed with everything in the article, EXCEPT the Venusian Arts part. They not only refuse to understand what that really is, but can't see how that is an inextricable part of the whole set of issues.


The Futurist,

"Porn is not 'good', but it does adjust power imbalances. It is my job to make accurate predictions, happy or sad."

Fair enough.

"Then you have to do something to confront the various men who continue to pressure and shame men into marriage, house buying, etc. while ignoring legal and judicial realities and also doing nothing to hold women accountable for THEIR actions."

I can't hold them accountable if I can't find them.

Look, I don't doubt such "social conservatives" exist. I have occasionally met men with a pronounced "take it like a man" attitude who might well have believed that chivalry meant the woman is always right, though our conversation didn't go far enough for me to find out -- life is too short to waste on idiots. But the social conservatives I know expect fidelity from women just as much as they expect it from men, and they condemn divorce for all but the gravest reasons no matter which spouse is seeking it, and they have done so consistently for decades. They have particularly condemned no-fault divorce and called for reform in divorce law.

In other words, they've touted the same model for marriage that you seem to.

But your mileage may vary. It's a big world and it's entirely possible you've accurately described those calling themselves social conservatives in your corner of it. Not in my corner.


I am a fifty-one year married woman (25 years) with a 16 year old son. I am a successful network engineer who has been in the field for over 25 years. I was mentored into the field of computer science by a Jewish man who believe I had what it took to do the job. I have worked for the past 25 years in a field dominated by men. When I first attended computer conferences in the Silicon Valley there was me and about 5 other women there. I have enjoyed it immensely and I am grateful for the opportunity. Yes, I worked with men who were jerks. Just like I worked with women who were jerks. Bosses are no better because they are women or men or what the heck ever. It all depends on your soul and makeup.
My 16 year old son does have ADHD - just give him a six pack of Coke and watch him fall asleep. We had nothing but problems with him in school, whether it was public or private. The problem - too many women and not enough male teachers. What things my son did at school he never did at home - why - butt whoopings. He knew how far he could push mom and dad. But the women at school could never handle him and he knew it. We pulled him out of school in sixth grade and started home-schooling him. We also live on a ranch so he rides, ropes, rodeos, raises livestock for 4-H, he is a junior leader, teen leader, he has been president, vice president, secretary and treasure of his 4-h Club, pulls calves, fosters rescue dogs, rides quads, blows off illegal fireworks, fixes broken trucks, gates, trailers, mowers, has guns, knives, shoots pigeons and crows, was driving tractors, trucks and cars on the ranch at age 8, climbs trees, falls into canals, broke his arm and shoulder, plays baseball, football and basketball, steer wrestles, calf ropes, surfs the internet, has a cellphone, myspace and facebook page, is a regular volunteer in our community and church. Heis a 4.0 honors student with his sights set on Vet School.. He is mistaken to be anywhere from 20 to 22 years old on a regular basis (he is six feet three inches tall). He has a great deal of respect for women. His dad and I drummed it into him. He is always flanked at rodeos and events by at least 6 to 7 girls - why - because they feel safe with him. I have been told this by not only the girls, but the girls' parents. I have had girl's parents ask me to have my son date their daughter. He is a prize - I know it. I talk to him every day about marriage and who he needs to find as a wife. I fear that he may end up with some Jane Fonda loser. I pray for him daily. I think he is figuring it out though because he recently dropped a girl he was interested in because her parents were complete psycho cases. He was able to see it.
There is no doubt in my mind that the feminists in this country have been on a complete destruction derby for the past 40 years. It has done untold damage to society. The only hope out there is that the unhinged, lefty feminists are not reproducing and the conservative, morally upright women like Michelle Duggar (the mother with 19 children) are raising the future men and women of this country.

The Futurist


There were once equality-oriented feminists who had the word taken over by modern misandrists.

There were once classical liberals who had the word taken over by tyrannical leftists.

Socialcons who hold BOTH genders accountable may be at risk of having the brand damaged by those who hold only MEN accountable. This may be far more subtle than one may think, and is thus harder to notice..

I linked to articles where that assumption of 'socialcons' is already being made.

Calling for reform of divorce law is the right spirit. But if the vested interests cannot be swayed, there isn't real action. The direction things have gone in the last 40, or even the last 10 years, shows no real effect from such opposition, sadly.

Remember what I wrote about why there is no Men's Rights Movement. There are several ideas that *should* be done, but are not being done.


"Socialcons who hold BOTH genders accountable may be at risk of having the brand damaged by those who hold only MEN accountable. This may be far more subtle than one may think, and is thus harder to notice.."

I think we're in accord on that.

The Futurist


And I have to say, I think the woman-pedestalizing type may be a majority (particularly since it extends to men both Right and Left, religious and atheist). It is too subtle, and too much of an accepted norm, for many to notice, and you yourself said that you don't waste time with them (which could conceal how common they are).

Their actions empower the very feminists that tout values that all religious people are appalled by.


Damn. I got half-way and gave up in exhaustion. Where's a Kindle when I need one? LOL.

Anyway, agreed with most of what I've read so far. Concerning the state of marriage, I agree and therefore advocate privatizing marriage and rescuing it from the corrupting hands of the state:


And, yeah, the gay marriage thing is just a side-show. I sometimes wonder if it hasn't been specifically constructed to side-track us from the real issues.


Islam is the cure that's worse than the disease. Where Islam rules there is widespread abuse and rape of both boys and girls, general robbery/rape/murder on a scale not seen in the West outside active war zones, women are reduced to nothing more than walking wombs in sacks, non-Islamic culture, philosophy, and art is deemed worthless and systematically destroyed, and perhaps most importantly there is a permanent darkness of the mind. They invent nothing, author nothing, produce nothing. I can think of no greater betrayal of our children than to make Islam a significant power in the West.


wavescan, I'm glad it worked out for you, but I wanted to point out that walking out, even if you can't be the father, isn't good enough to protect you. In every state you have 30-90 (usually 30) days to respond to a paternity petition. If you do not, you are judged to be the father, and in every state except Georgia and 1 or 2 others are permanently without recourse to overturn that judgment. Courts have consisently ruled that service to the wrong address does not stop the clock from ticking, regardless of how that address was generated. Ergo, a woman need only name you as dad, give the court a wrong address, and wait the statutory period to hook you for the next 20+ years. I am surprised that wealthy and famous men are not the targets of enterprising mothers to be, since as family law currently stands there is no bar to the strategy I described.

The Futurist


So if misandry guised as 'feminism' is destroying civilization to the detriment of women, what are saner women doing about it?


Speaking as your basic semi-reactionary social and economic conservative, I'm with the Bay Area environmentalist Marxist on this one: boring tripe.

The Futurist


A social and/or economic conservative should care heavily about this. Just see the public sector salary chart.

The 'who should care?' section at the end may contain something that applies to you.

Anonymous Protagonist

The Futurist,

First off kudos on a very well written piece. Secondly I'd like to offer my own personal experiences as evidence that you what you have written corresponds to the reality of at least one person (ie. me).

I'm a 39 yo recovering "beta white knight" who is university educated (engineer), professional, self-employed, makes 6 figures, has never been married, from a divorced family where parental alienation and all of the other dirty tricks were used. I'm that statistic.

I have given up on marriage and western women in general (no I'm not fat or ugly). I've shrunk my expenses by simplifying my life (ie. not dating or trying to meet what many people classify as society's expectations of someone in my position). I'm incorporated and I use the available legal shelters to protect my wealth. In a typical year I may work for 6 months because I just don't have the expense pressures that I would if I had a family to support. And I'm generally a non-consumer. In other words I live a simple life, for myself.

I am doing what you predict will become more and more prevalent amongst men who have "bailed". I'm not spending my money to perpetuate a broken system. I am actively encouraging others who are in a similar situation as me, of which I know many, to look out for and educate themselves in the same way.

Since I have a mobile skillset if the government decides to create even more ridiculous anti-male rules to try to subsidize their broken social model I can simply move to another country. I don't have any ties to keep me here. The net effect of that would be not only a loss of a taxable resource, but a high-skilled one as well. As an example I designed one of my country's (Canada) most widely used loyalty systems. And I see more and more men like me opting out. You are exactly right - If enough people like me drop out what sort of country are you left with? The consequences are very easy to predict.

And to clarify. I don't hate women. I simply think that western women live in a culture of unaccountability that has been codified into law. I recognized the pitfalls of this and decided not to be part of it.

My question to you Futurist is what economies do you think will be insulated from the fall of western culture? What do you think of eastern europe and scandinavia?

The Futurist

Anon. Protagonist,

My question to you is what economies do you think will be insulated from the fall of western culture?

The rural US for starters. You may only have to drive 60 miles to escape tyranny, and even find a good woman.

Many countries in Asia will do well.

Scandinavia is NOT in good shape - they are even more misandric than the US. Go poke around The Spearhed (www.the-spearhead.com) for more.

Eastern Europe has a very low birth rate, so while they might be good now, the future is bleak.

So the rural US is the only Western region with a future, followed possibly by Australia, otherwise Asia is good.

I'm incorporated and I use the available legal shelters to protect my wealth.

Do tell me more. I am trying to learn more about the same.


It is males whom have let down and betrayed males for a private advantage that has brought about this ugly picture of misandry to society.


There was 190 comments when I checked this page a few hours ago and now there are 150. Have some comments have been deleted?

This book by Mark Nestmann (an asset protection and privacy expert) will help you protect your hard earned money:

The Lifeboat Strategy: Legally Protecting Wealth and Privacy in the 21st Century (3d Ed. 2007)(Interim Update 2009)

I found it at nestmann.com


Master Dogen "On game, you are just wrong. Game is a strategy for attracting a mate, just like wearing make-up is for women."

Everything I have ever seen of game has indicated that it's an inherently dishonest and deceptive method of social engineering, and that the general views and attitudes that gamists have are stupid and immature. The idea of using a "strategy" to "attract a mate" does nothing to alter that perception. And yes, I have actually visited your blog before, and it did not change my opinion at all.

This article would be pretty decent if it didn't have so much offensively stupid PUA agitprop. I'm not sure what kind of mind-altering substances The Futurist was on when he decided to tell 80% of all men to fuck off in an article concerning the misandry of feminism and the need for men to fight against it. So feminists hate almost all men, and he hates almost all men, but the difference between him and feminists is... uh... help me out here.


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. "

Rape is transitory, while a scar on your left forearm persist for a lifetime, ergo a scar on your left forearm is worse than rape! Makes perfect sense oh wait no it doesn't. Your premise is flawed anyway since rape is not any more transitory than cuckolding. It stays with you for the rest of your life. But hey, if you keep trivializing rape for long enough then maybe it'll be de-criminalized. That's what you want, right?

isaloser "For many men being cuckolded is worse than death."

Doesn't change the fact that cuckoldry is nowhere near as bad as rape.

"To raise some unrelated man's kid makes you the ultimate evolutionary loser which you seem to be."

I have not raised anybody's child, and being an "evolutionary loser" does not matter at all anyway. In case you haven't yet noticed, life is now about more than just pumping out hordes of babies (which, funnily enough, is something that PUAs/MRAs are not interested in, even though they're endlessly droning on and on about being an evolutionary winner and whatnot). A great inventor, for example, contributes far more to society than some PUA who accidentally gets a skank pregnant.

"If biological paternity doesn't matter then maybe hospitals should just switch around woman's babies randomly at delivery so no woman really knows if the kid is truly hers. See what reaction you will get from women."

Not caring about whether your child is biologically related to you has nothing to do with randomly switching around everyone else's babies in the hospital. Kind of like how not caring about what car you drive has nothing to do with randomly switching around everyone else's cars.

"You are a disgusting scumbag, anyone who suggests that cuckoldry is fine or not psychologically damaging is a retard."

Except I have not suggested such a thing. Interesting how the psychological damage of cuckoldry is absolutely dependent on the claim that it's more damaging than rape.

The Futurist "Way too many false strawmen in your whining, that were already debunked long ago (as usual). "

Pointing out that someone is utilizing strawmen is all fine and well, except when you don't specify what those strawmen are. That's kind of important.

"Why so insecure?"

Did you steal this line from a feminist? Are you also going to question the size of my penis or tell me I'm just intimidated by strong and independent bloggers?


Looks like bleh is getting OWNED.


Really, Vassago? What is this conclusion based on? You will no doubt regale me with a detailed explanation. I have full confidence in you.

Master Dogen

All right then, bleh. I can recognize when I'm at an impasse with someone. I'll admit to being a little miffed that reading my blog didn't soften your view of game. Though, I suppose, I have some harsh words there for a lot of the women I've known. I imagine some of them have got harsh words for me, too. The thing is, I'm not so fragile as to think that being at odds with someone makes me (or her) a bad person. Life is messy, and you do your best to muddle through without unduly hurting another person.

I'll reassert, though, simply for the sake of polite defiance and refutation of your point of view, that, again, I love women; I love my sisters, my mother, and my girlfriend; and learning female psychology and letting my actions be informed by what I've learned has led to more happiness for myself and the women I date than if I had either remained ignorant or learned female psychology but failed to act on it on some misguided concept of principle. If we are measuring objective good by happiness generated, I think you're flat-out wrong (about my own version of game, at least).

However, if we are measuring objective good on some secular (crypto-religious) grounds of the ever-unstained purity of your angelic soul, then I readily concede that game has some troublesome thorns to negotiate, and is not an unmitigated good.

Personally, I don't believe in the Holy Purity of the Soul. I do my honest best; I'm happy with myself, and I genuinely love the people around me. In fact, cheesy as it might sound, I'm smiling as I write this.

Anyway, I think you're flat out wrong, but thanks for the engagement.

(Incidentally, I think you're playing a little fast and loose with the terms "social engineering" and "agitprop." I don't think it really detracts from your main point (which I still disagree with), but it kinda makes you sound more hysterical than you probably are.)


So if misandry guised as 'feminism' is destroying civilization to the detriment of women, what are saner women doing about it?

Often, nothing. "Saner" women are frequently of the "savor the fruit while cursing the vine" sort.


Why did you delete my comment? Did you check out the entry I linked to?

Nicole Lasher

Excellent, excellent article. I'm going to read it to my daughter. It pretty much explains a good bit of what I tell her about the world she's growing up in. I don't want her to be caught unawares like I was.

Anonymous Protagonist

I'm incorporated and I use the available legal shelters to protect my wealth.

Do tell me more. I am trying to learn more about the same.

The simplest step to take in Canada is incorporation, getting a corporate credit card and then using it for pretty much everything you buy. This will produce an audit trail of your expenses which an accountant will be able to mine for business expenses. The trick is to being able to honestly justify that the things you claim as expenses are directly related to your business, and that's where the simplification of your life comes in. For example if you work from home normally and spend most of your time in your local area, when you do have to do something out of your routine it's most likely business related and thus a business expense. Another example would be grooming and clothing - again if your lifestyle is very simple, it's easy to justify that the clothes you buy are related to business, because they usually are. Finally, taking assets out of the banking system removes an asset that can be tracked. Physical gold works here.

By no means am I an expert on fancy techniques like offshore incorporation in Gibraltar or BVI, or other shelters. What I'm talking about is strictly by-the-books stuff - just things where you design your life so that the delineation between work and non-work activities is very very clear. It's not for everyone that's for sure. Becoming a non-consumer requires effort.


Counterpoint -
You and your amateurish misandrist shaming tactics. Here, the book for this has already been writen:


You are too late to the party dear.


Congratulations. A tour de force GK. Truly impressive and almost entirely dead on.

There's a few things I'd quibble with but that's what it would be.

As you know I know a fair bit about the divorce law situation (and perhaps schooled you in a number of things earlier on), and you've got that dead to rights. Even with little known (except by those hit or threatened by it) things like the Bradley law.


An ingaging essay! As a widower (who had a wonderful wife that left way too soon) I have avoided the 'meat market'. I was lucky once, and will stick with my memories. My son will graduate high school this year. He has shown almost no interest in dating girls and has avoided the ones who have chased him (noting that they were bad news to other fellows). His ambition is to become a video game designer. The future is sitting in my house, and I didn't realize it.


While I don't agree with all of it, your article is truly brilliant.

One critique: The Four Horseman should include a fifth - doing hookers, as Don51 has ably raised above. Indeed, the "guys' right to choose (willing sex partners)" is the central policy piece of guyinism, as set forth on my blog, "The Balls Monologues." I'm 47, and I regularly bang hot chicks less than half my age for $200 - no $50,000 car (actually, $9,000), no $20,000 ring (maybe an occasional thong I got free at Vic Secret), and no $50,000 bridezilla fest (I tend to offer my "date" little more than a cocktail and a couple of lines).


A well thought out article. Lots to digest.


I do take issue with the notion that men need to learn game (ie. the Venusian Arts). While it can be a stepping stone to becoming a more confident and self-aware man, it is not where you want to end up.

As someone already commented, learning game is simply a way of adapting to women's hedonistic and reckless behaviour, encouraged by society. It does not lead by example and does not encourage personal growth among women (something the article encourages). It is merely a coping strategy, kind of like blackhat SEO where you are gaming the search engines to get the hits, instead of focusing on real quality and content that people want.

The problem with game is the same as the problem with chivalry, in some respects. It elevates women and shifts the burden on men to do it right, instead of expecting the women to do their share. The justification for doing this is always the same; women are "more complex" and "evolutionary biology" dictates that men must do it. What a great way to deflect criticism for my reckless behaviour... I just pull out the evolution-card and I don't have to face any consequences for my actions. There's not one single court in the world that uses the evolution-card as a defense, but Gamers in the seduction community justify all manners of cr*ppy female behaviour this way.

You have to be blind not to see that game only encourages women to be more whimsical and more smug in their assertions that they are the "prize" to be sought after. If she's a b*tch, stuck-up, selfish, lousy in bed etc, that's okay because Game will somehow work around that.

Game is in many ways a video game fantasy for left-brainers who actually do play a lot of computer games and get an ego rush from it. Not surprising that this spawns a lot of hubris in the seduction community by men who think they are the sh*t just because they can get some action using various "blackhat" tactics. Yeah, they can work on some women, but the end result is usually nothing to crow about. Dysfunctional tactics get dysfunctional women. Funny how that works.

The Venusian Arts is simply a more advanced way of transferring excess power to women, which is the main problem pointed out in this article.

Self-improvement is certainly important, but if I have to do backflips and walk on water to impress a woman then I have lost my way as a man.

The solution is not game. The solution is to marginalize the bad women and screen for women with qualities that you do like, and encourage women to do their part (and believe me, they are certainly capable of it). If enough men do this, the situation will improve dramatically and game will become irrelevant.

Jay Hammers

Excellent article. More and more people are becoming enlightened through articles like these as well as men's rights blogs and news resources.

Also feel free to check out my blog, which includes a link to a daily e-mail on men's rights issues.

I'll also say that true progressive ideology is not in line with the radical feminism we face today. I hate to see how "the left" has been taken over by misandry and other ills, while the few progressives with their eyes open, those who see how most liberals in the Western world have been led astray, are caught in the mix. There are progressives, like me, who can see and fight the misandry bubble. The bubble won't pop without our buy-in. So don't count progressives out.



You misunderstand life expectancy statistics. In fairness I do think they're almost or often actually usually intentionally misleading, in a "feel good" or "feel alarmed" sort of manipulative way. The main thing lowering life expectancy in previous times was 1) infant mortality and 2) death during late adolescence and early adulthood in war or skirmishing, particularly in hunger gather societies where it's been fairly recently shown that death rates per capita were on average a lot higher than even in the terrifically bloody (in absolute numbers) 20th century. Much more infant morality though. Infant and childhood. Less than one in two newborns tended to survive and sometimes much worse than that.

If you made it to 16 your life expectancy in most of history wasn't hugely worse than today's. We have extended life expectancy even of those age 20 and above, but at a guess from about 60 to 78. Not 35 to 78. Just a lot more newborns survive.


The Futurist--

I sent a comment addressed to you saying what a great post this was several hours ago. After initial problems getting it to post for reasons I didn't understand, it did. I come back and not here. Puzzling.


Now I see the earlier one above. Before I wasn't seeing anything more recent that Jan 4. And yeah I did refresh and so on. Weird.


Perhaps I misunderstand the Venusian Arts and 'game', but then again, I succeeded in having a happy marriage. My approach to the Venusian Arts was focused on making my prospective woman happy. With that aim, I first learned how to be a very good cook. The way to a man's heart is through his stomach, it applies to many women as well. Next, I read books and took classes in massage, even 'apprenticing' myself to a licensed theraputic masseuse. Finally, I went to some strip clubs, and instead of buying lap dances, I bought information. I asked what they liked, what they hated, turn-ons and turn-offs. Did this make my marriage a happy one? It wasn't the only reason, but it sure didn't hurt! My wife admitted years later that she got interested in me when I made a cheese souffle, and much more so after her first foot massage.


I can't keep track of all these comments.

I wonder why there hasn't been made a ballot proposition in California to mandate paternity testing at birth or at least during any divorce proceeding involving child support and custody issues.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

Rich Rostrom

"The better diet...[of] 40 years ago..."

That would be 1969: Velveeta, Cap'n Crunch, Wonder Bread, Jell-O, Stouffers TV Dinners... Yeah, a true Golden Age of natural healthy food. Not. Try looking through James Lileks'

Gallery of Regrettable Food.

>>"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.

And your point is? You blame women for divorces initiated by men in response to women's misbehavior, but apparently also blame women for divorces they initiate in response to male misbehavior. Obvious double standard.

Let's run the arithmetic: women initiate slightly over 2/3 of divorces. We'll call that 70%. Of those, 60% (42% of the whole) are responses to male adultery; the other 40% (28% of the whole) are gratuitous. 30% are initiated by men, of which, according to you, 2/3 (20% of the whole) are in response to female misbehavior, and 1/3 (10% of the whole) are gratuitous.

So men initiate 10% of divorces gratuitously, and provoke 42% by adultery; women initiate 28% of divorces gratuitously, and provoke 20% by misbehavior. That adds up to 52% for men, and 48% for women. I'd say the dishonors are about even. Certainly there is no support for blaming women for 90% of divorces.

Note that this does not make any claims whatever about the relative incidence of male or female adultery; only about the proportions of divorces provoked by adultery.


Oh brave White Knight, save me, save me for these bad men!


Rick Rostrom, the one man pulling statistics out of his ass, white knight machine.


the difference, rich rostrom, is in the outcomes of adultery. when married women commit it, they are financially and socially rewarded for it with man's-fault divorce (ie. no fault divorce). The man ends up forced to subsidize the immoral harlot who betrayed him emotionally and financially. State cuckolds men into servitude even in cases where the marriage collapsed as a result of the woman's evil actions.


Rich Rostrum - your numbers are bogus.

Women list "drifted apart" and similar as their most common reason for initiating divorce.

As well, when it comes to adultery as well as a number of other things, a double standard is appropriate, because men and women are significantly different here.

Yes women feel jealousy as well, but a great deal of the intensification of that and rage etc. from male cheating was in fact created by feminism. THis goes back to first wave feminism, with roots in the changing of divorce law, before women got the vote.

I could go into that but for now I want to focus on this. When a man cheats he rarely wants to leave his wife for his affair, despite what he may have said or intimated to her. This is wisdom women often pass down mistresses of successful married men. Indeed he usually doesn't want to stop full having sexual relations with his wife, if she's kept herself up at all and has any sexual appetite herself, or can be induced to have it. Men are indeed polygamous or want to be, esp. men with strong or even only average male sexual drive. Success tends to make men want some sort of polygamous play that much more strongly.

Women in contrast often DO want to leave their husbands after and affair and usually have much less (or no) interest in full sexual relations with him during -- and often after the affair has ended if it does. Even when women can't or discovers she ultimately doesn't want to go off with the other man very often her sexual interest in her husband is destroyed. Women very frequently interpret this by back dating the time she "no longer felt "in love" with her husband to before she started her affair -- because what else could explain her interest in sex and passion w/another man. After all women aren't dogs the way men are -- he wasn't meeting her emotional needs or communicating enough.

Yet if she hadn't had the affair often her relationship with her husband could and would rekindle, not into the new love they first shared but into real sexual desire again. It's much less likely to happen if she's had an affair and fallen in love, even temporarily, with the other man, even if she can never have him (because he won't leave his wife and family, etc.)

Yes there is a percentage of men who leave their wives for a younger woman they were having an affair with, even when their marriages were fairly good and they were still getting some sex from their wife, who has keep herself up. But it's pretty infrequent. They just tend to often be from the ranks of the most successful or desirable men that women want to focus on.

As well even when it is the man who divorces his wife because of her affair it often isn't because he simply refuses to take her back if she'll stop it. It's often because she won't stop it, or even if she does, won't try hard and in time succeed in again having enthusiastic sex, and in general won't take all or most of the blame and do everything she can to win her husband back (they way most caught cheating husbands do with their wives.)

In sum, female adultery is much more inherently theatening to the marriage. Male adultery is often used more as an excuse by wives to end the marriage, rather than something that makes it impossible for them to make it good again.

Finally another way of putting it is that strong sexual relations and attraction between men and women usually involve some degree of male dominance in sexuality and female submission. It seems to be inherent in submission that the woman only wants to submit to one man at a time (measured in at least months but often years), emotionally at least. This is often or usually true even in edgie sex play when the man she's submitting to "orders" her to sex other men (but ONLY if he does). That's the dynamic of hookers in love with their pimps. But money doesn't have to change hands. Dominance on the other hand isn't necessarily exclusive at it's core at all. But dominance does always want at least emotional monogamy from the dominated for it to feel enhanced and special.

That's another way of putting the male polygamy / female hypergamy dichotomy.

As well when the gender roles of dominance and submission are flipped, not just on a temporary edginess basis but pervasively, the female dominant does often come to have a polygamous nature, and the male submissive an hypergamous one. Hence the open and consensual versions of cuckoldry it seems. Which given the pervasive emasculation and encouragement by many feminist messages for guys to be rather compliant and submissive towards women, I expect to see greatly increase over the next decade and beyond.

The Futurist


Comments are still disappearing, and I still have a ticket open with Typepad.

I am clearly NOT moderating comments, as many hostile comments are visible, and many friendly ones are disappearing.


Thanks. A learned much about the legal subject matter present here, from you.



And I say gamists are misogynists because that's just what they are.

Care to substantiate that or are we supposed to be satisfied with a bald assertion (in fact, a hasty generalization)? Sure, there are some of those out there, but you haven't even attempted, much less succeeded, in making the case that misogyny is an inherent characteristic of 'gaming'.



And I say gamists are misogynists because that's just what they are.

"Gamists" or PUA game players hardly hate women in general, which is what the word means. Instead they often hate or dislike and certainly sidestep feminism (except some of the core basics often, such as it being ok for women to be at any level in the workplace, if she's out competed for that place on a non AA for women basis).

Feminists do pervasively label any male opposed to any significant part of their agenda "misogynists".

No PUA gamers think men and women are the same except for "social constructs". Virtually all think men should generally lead, especially in relationships, as the natural order of things sexual politics wise, and what almost always makes both sexes happier.

So yeah to a feminist they fall within what they regularly call misogynists. Which is regularly hoseplot -- almost always in fact.

This idea that men should genuflect before women or give them everything they want is more horseplop.

The Futurist

Men with 'Game' are usually seen as willing to help other men improve their lot in life. They freely mentor and teach others.

I don't see any of the haters like 'bleh' doing that. Then again, he says cuckolding is no big deal, so his disapproval of Game is a good measure of the moral solidity of Game.


Isn't progressive income taxation a form of cuckholding? I mean, a select few are uses as cattle to provide for others so they don't have to be responsible for providing for themselves in the tax/government benefits arena.

So, it is quite understandable that the divorce laws reflect that attitude as well.


"progressive" policies of both right and left seem to be oppressive against particular groups of people whether it be men or the rich.


Doug1 ""Gamists" or PUA game players hardly hate women in general"

That's not my diagnosis.

The Futurist "Then again, he says cuckolding is no big deal, so his disapproval of Game is a good measure of the moral solidity of Game. "

Because rape is far worse than cuckoldry, it means that cuckoldry is no big deal? Care to explain this logic?

Alan Swann

"My exposure to India helped me see an alternative view, however flawed, of ancient societal structure..."

Yeah like arranged marriages, throwing acid on unwilling brides, and a racist society. This article was junk. And this coming from a anglo saxon canadian, divorced full time single father, with a yearly income of over $120,000. You cannot compare apples to oranges, and there was nothing macho about the 1980's.


bleh - Cuckoldry, especially when a man is forced by a court to pay for another man's children for 18-23 years, is far more damaging than rape. Both are bad, but Cuckoldry is meta-death for a man.

Not only has such man failed to sire his own kids, he is not left with any more resources to go on and sire any real kids of his own. He is done. His lineage is done. He has died a METADEATH even though he will still continue to breathe for a few more decades.

There are some paternity fraud links (from prominent Canadian and US news sources) on the WA site if anyone is interested:



"Cuckoldry, especially when a man is forced by a court to pay for another man's children for 18-23 years, is far more damaging than rape."

No it isn't. Why are you trivializing rape?

The Futurist

Alan Swann,

How can you comment on a country that you know nothing about? What you say about India is like saying that America = what is seen on Jerry Springer.

Clearly, you are offended by facts, but are unable to articulate an intelligent argument.


You are a projecting, self-loathing hatemonger (as most Omegas are) who tries to ignore that 80% of men have the opposite view as you. I dare you to go to The Spearhead (www.the-spearhead.com) and announce your views on cuckoldry there. You are too much of a coward to go there, aren't you?

Truth Seeker

What I don't understand is why countries who are regularly criticized by the West on their human rights records (China, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.) Why don't these countries throw that argument right back into hypocritical America's face by exposing the atrocious non-merit based gynocracy and record levels of male imprisonment practiced by almost all countries of the West.


I can't find my earlier reply here. :(
"I'm left with the impression that you think of women as less than your equal, that they are little more than irrational, unthinking, biological automatons to be dissected and analyzed at your whim, and put in a place where you can feel smug and superior. "
"You hint at moving to India...maybe you're thinking that you go can get yourself a nice subservient wife-appliance who has no thoughts of her own and only wants to meet your needs. If that's what you want, go for it, but just remember that you'll be fitting the stereotype that my wife and I laugh about."

I can assure you that viewpoint is long gone, at the very least in the intelligentsia.I am in an IIT, which are considered as the best institutes of engineering in India and none of my friends that I have ever talked to about the subject of marriage have had this notion of a subservient wife.They expect their wives to be as intelligent as them and to have a well-paying job and not to sit at home to obey their whims.My father is proud of his own wife, who has been working for three decades now, and I have not seen any of this subservience in the middle-class families around me, except for the TVs and newspapers which recount these horrors.
The boys from smaller towns are still in favour of arranged marriages which makes sure that their wives will be at least as educationally qualified as them. Educational qualifications and a job have become a major factor in a woman's marriageability resume, probably the biggest one after a family's background.

"on numerous occasions she's told me that she would never marry an Indian guy because they're sexist - they expect their wives to behave in a subservient way. I've certainly seen this in her extended family...at get-togethers the guys sit around and drink and eat while their wives & girlfriends cook and clean up after them. I don't blame her for not wanting to be part of that."

At our get togethers it's mostly the women who do the cooking but since our family comes from a background where men worked in the kitchen too, they chip in too.Some of the specialities are prepared exclusively by men who don't want the women to ruin them.
Yes, the elder males eat first when they are present, and the elder women eat the last, but there is nothing to imply that they are 'superior' by the virtue of sitting there and eating first unless you want to view it that way.You can as easily say that because it's the men who have to run for the ingredients that they are subservient to their women.
It's merely the fact that since the cooking in our households is not like "the turkey is cooked, now we sit,pray and and eat" Thanksgiving affair but a "make a chapati and toss it out" that women generally cook and serve and sit down to eat at last.However there is no distinction between me and my cousins.Only the eldest one used to eat after us since she helped the older women.

The young men who have recently found a job in cities like Bangalore,Hyderabad living together in groups learn how to cook, those who have been on interns in foreign lands,especially the vegetarian guys, learned how to cook, the research scholars in my mother's office cook their own food as well.And my mother keeps recounting me tales of sons of her colleagues who know even more recipes than her, but much to her chagrin, neither me nor my sister feel the need to compete.
About as many of my elder male cousins know about cooking food as my elder female cousins. I am kinda the inflexion point, the ones younger than me generally don't know much about cooking, and I gave it up after making a mockery of kneading dough and then standing below a fan for an hour to decrease the water content(yes it gets incredibly hot in summers in north India).
So if I don't find cheap places for hygienic food around me maybe I'll try again or marry and expect my wife to do it for me, unless she wants 'equality' and dinner at midnight.

Alan Swann-

I am not in favour of arranged marriage either, but after seeing my elder cousins getting married to grooms or brides of their parents' choices(not to imply that they don't get a say in the matter) and being happy and 50% divorce rates in the 'love-marriage' country, I am starting to have my own doubts.
Throwing acid on someone is a depravity of a sick mind, but how



"Cuckoldry, especially when a man is forced by a court to pay for another man's children for 18-23 years, is far more damaging than rape."

Absolutely right.


No it isn't. Why are you trivializing rape?

Clearly wrong. And why are you trivializing being deceived into believing a child or two (and sometimes more) is the husband's, who is thereby precluded from reproducing his own genetics in most cases, because the time has passed and he's already to many of his resources to children that aren't his to afford to do so?? Or is forced through incredibly unjust child support after tax percentage levels (which it's monstrously unjust to levy on him in these cases mere because he didn't uncover her fraud within a year or two depending on the state).

Cuckoldry resulting in fraudulent children prevents a man who wants to be a father and parent from having his own children. That's far more grave than a rape which doesn't result in a child - or even if it does because the mother still has the choice to 1) take a plan B pill (which is not abortion in the vast majority of cases but rather prevents fertilization just as the pill does - in fact it is about 4 bc pills in one dose), 2) abortion or 3) adoption. The defrauded father has no such choices.

By comparison with cuckold fraudulent childbearing, rape is relatively trivial today, particularly feminist gross expanded definitions of "date rape". Which can mean she just had quite a bit to drink, but could still walk and talk and say no. Just was just less inclined to do so, just as guys with "beer googles" on are less inclined to pass up the opportunity to get with a not so attractive pudgy or fat girl.

Even real rape has vastly less consequence that it used to. Very few men expect to wed virgins these days, and real rape is no longer regarded by the vast majority of men as shameful for it's victim. The deep psychological trauma is real for some but it's vastly exaggerated in both it's usual depth and how widespread that is, particularly among more sexually experienced girls. A lot of mileage is gained however by exaggerating the trauma. For one thing it tends to cement the total lack of blaiming the victime. For another exaggerating how serious rape always is is part of the radical feminist ploy of making all sex TOTALLY on the woman's terms and indeed even giving her an after the fact enormous cudgel to hold over him if she decides including because of how he treats her afterwords that it wasn't something she "really wanted" after all.

The change in laws and culture have in fact made even real rape (not to mention feminist date rape) a whole lot less necessarily devastating than it used to be, and as well the impact of cuckolded fraudulent children a whole lot more serious than it was. (Because a man can't just walk away when he finds out. Though learning you've been deceived as to being the father of children you've loved for many years in part because you thought you were has always been devastating
to men.)

For some it's only slightly traumatizing. For most it's more than that probably worse than


hankmoody, don't respond with respect to a feminist thought process such as Dave's which seeks to discredit functional male-dominated societies (currently China and India) which look after the interests of both men and women to be replaced by tyrannical female-dominated bureaucracies (the feminist West) which only look after women's interests at the expense and demonization of men.

I am witnessing India make the same disastrous social policy centered around the feminist red herring of equality as the West fell prey to beginning in the 1970s. Feminists and their hate movement will only gain mainstream acceptance in India because ordinary men like you have a protective instinct towards women, all women, even bitter women who wish to destroy your male dignity and identity.

Instead of responding to Dave's patronizing and ignorant feminist-brainwashed arguments you should be fighting against new anti-male sexist government policies being passed with frightening speed in increasingly prosperous India. Otherwise, your countrymen and women will be doomed to repeat the social and cultural disasters of the West.

Did you know India is proposing a law in which the government gives cash reward to women who make accusations of rape against men, even if their claims are proven false? Guess whose disgusting idea this was? Indian feminists. And guess who stays silent or while Indian men's civil rights are trampled even further? YOU (and men like you who respond meekly to evil women who want to strip your rights away).

Only dysfunctional women desire to hold authority over men. With great power comes great responsibility. Women are incapable of accepting accountability for their actions. By their very nature, women are unsuitable rulers of men. Most men in positions of authority (personal relationships, work bosses, other male leaders) look after the interests of women at the expense of their own gender. In contrast, very few women in power look after the interests of men (<5%)

http://www.manhood101.com (Manhood101) will enlighten you to the true nature of women and why women are unfit to hold any positions of authority over men. Spread the message of manhood101 in India where it is sorely needed to prepare men against the emerging feminist threat.


I've come to the conclusion that beh (beth?) is either a troll, or a fugly-chick, or quite possibly both.


Robert your comments about me have been spot on. I have been reading about misandry since the last three months because I had been one of those 'boys' who took feminism to be an equalling notion growing up and now I find myself cheated.
I replied to Dave's comment because I am an Indian who has been given an education to know what's right and wrong and that there are many others like me.
In my first post,which got lost, I linked to the "boy problem" in school which hasn't been mentioned in this article, but certainly makes for a good appendix read and which was my first point of introduction to the misandry that exists in western culture and yet is ignored.

A bit of history from my POV-
I have been reading this feminist propaganda before it truly exploded on the Indian scene in some scattered articles in newspapers and magazines, since reading and writing came naturally to me(thank God for making my brain more girl-like and my benevolent english school teacher).

I read about how women were subjugated in older days in the better nations so I thought it was true of us today, my sister never looked subjugated so I looked higher, my mother didn't look like it so I believed it was in the older days still, but even my aunts older than my mother by a decade didn't so I went farther still and settled on my grandmother and beyond.

When I heard her stories she told me of the difficulties my grandfather had to face in order to get proper schooling for his five kids, not that he was a lazy slob who ate the food and farted as movies depict these days and men are inclined to believe in it.

So I started looking for clues that showed this in my society, I started believing that more girls might have been in my school if there was true equality.Then I saw the disproportionate number of girls schools to boys schools in my city and the theory went out of the window.
Then I felt bad for looking at demeaning pictures of women, but often the same newspaper that carried the article showed a half-naked woman at the back and I had been living in two minds ever since.
I read an article about how every woman is beautiful because she can give birth, in other words 'performs the miracles of life'.Then my biology books taught me that I too had a role to play in that miracle and the aura diminished.

Infact my biology book told us that women were biologically superior(the exact terms) with a passing reference to the inherent complexity of their reproductive systems.I accepted that too, but my puberty lay those claims to rest.

I read about how girls get shafted at maths, and I saw it in my class how boys languishing at the bottom of the class suddenly got better at maths than me (I think that many of such bottom-rankers/backbenchers in the schools get into IITs which raises the question, how many more would be here if they were excelling at school and were motivated enough to try for the hardest entrance examination at the undergraduate level in India).
So I tried to pressurise my sister to take maths at the 10+ level thinking that she might be intimidated by her peers/teachers.Thank God that she was more headstrong than me and took what she likes(biology), now she is doing something that she really likes while I am still trying to look for what I like after dabbling in the western media for clues about my manhood.

Feminism, of the way of the so-called "gender" equal countries is arriving in India fast(the gender and sex debate is here) but fortunately the family ties are still strong and divorces are a rarity.But the rhetoric at the higher levels is growing, there's a bill for quota of women in the parliament, a quota system based on castes has been in place, girls have 20% reservation in my state engineering examinations, the inclusion of more girls at IITs is heralded as a historic phenomenon(the dilution of the credence of IITs is washed off altogether), reports of girls outscoring boys in the high school examinations are celebrated even though they have been fairly common for years now, the groin kicks in movies on TV, male rear nudity,BBC sponsored prime time serials that my sister and mother watch religiously...

At my first ragging session, we were shown porn to learn how to have intercourse(no sex education at our time, except telling girls how to pad up), our seniors told us the grim reality if we didn't.
"At your office you will have problems with your boss but an unsatisfied wife at home will be nastier."
One batchmate of mine who is a budding entrepreneur is worrying that his future wife might run away with a younger man if he is not able to fulfill her 'needs'.And I don't understand why he should, unless it's the Bollywood movies that have this recurring theme of a physically unsatisfied woman that have corrupted his thinking.But slowly I am realising that he might be more probabilistically correct than I am.

I don't know if I should feel cheated now for losing my time in these worthless pursuits and thoughts for a doctrine that seems to be doing the opposite of equality in the so-called developed nations but it has given me a very good lesson, to not to believe blindly in what the majority says, for the majority is generally the idiot who 'feels' rather than 'thinks'(thank you Ayn Rand).I find that so true on the men's rights and the feminist forums, one of them puts forth logic and numbers whilst the other puts emotions and history, not a difficult choice really.

So Robert you have pretty spot-on for I wrote this before I read your reply, but sadly I can't go on all this because my "male privilege" has to work on getting a job that pays well enough to pay off the loans of his parents and his sister's further studies.
And I hope that we'll probably learn a thing or two before going down the same lane and having the "equality" that countries like Sweden do.


My original post that got lost in the system-
One of the issues that you have left out(or prolly dealt with before) in your article is that of the declining aptitude or more accurately the motivation of boys in the education department.More and more girls are achieving academic excellence in schools and colleges which is partly due to their greater application in the classroom but mainly due to the increasing resentment of boys towards the educational system.

Addressing it concisely at the elementary school levels-

The gap between boys and girls in the reading and writing department in the lower classes leads to a growing disparity which never stops.It is merely shrugged off as a difference in the brain development between the sexes which gives the girls a learning advantage,while the same said of maths will lead you down the path of Lawrence Summers.


But use of phonics in some classroom experiments has shown that both boys and girls can actually learn reading faster than the 'whole language' system and boys are often faster than girls in these studies.




As of writing, boys generally go for the more violent stories that are termed as too destructive by their teachers,almost all of them women, and their natural creativity is curbed at quite an early age.Stories written about feelings of animals rather than a science fiction dealing with zombies and spaceships are appreciated and lauded.
Girls tend to develop fine motor skills far earlier than boys and as a result have better handwriting, which plays quite a major role in determing the 'goodness' of an essay and the praise heaped upon a student for finishing his homework.

And there has been nothing on the part of government to rectify the issue, on the contrary in 1990s when the girls has already caught up with the boys there was a great movement to increase their advantage even further.Chritina Hoff Sommers' and Judith Kleinsfeld's works are eyes openers.

There is much more that can be put forward on this issue but I find replying to Dave's post more obligatory since I am living in India currently and fed up of American family law system and the undertones of misandry in western media and the continuing rise of the same themes here.


Alan Swann:
Throwing acid on someone is a depravity of a sick mind, but how much better is the depravity of a few than a legal system and a society that can punish false rape victims and treat the fathers like they are 'junk' after a divorce.
Racist society? In what way? And how does it affect the case of gender dynamics that the author points out?


The world doesn't much care for the righteousness of our positions. It is not the meek that shall inherit the Earth, but those that reproduce and are economically successful. So...what system leads to many successful, productive citizens?

Feminism? Liberalism? Please. Neither is economically successful or reproductive. Fool around with them, argue over them. Who cares? From a Darwinian aspect they are entirely irrelevant. They will die out - it is a demographic certainty. The only question is whether they drag the rest of us down with them.

Societies have undoubtedly experimented with every concievable type of social structure over the past 3 million years or so. Most societies developed strong patriarchal structures not because they are just, or right, or correct, or fair, but because they produced economic growth and lots of citizens. They also developed religion for the same reasons. You might not like it, but I have news for you - reality doens't care what you think, not one bit.

Communism failed for the same reasons - atheistic liberal thinking produced neither citizens nor economic growth. And before someone says it - China is no longer communist. It is now fascist, or to use a less loaded word, corporatist. And it is heading for a demographic crises.

The Futurist should be beating this with a drum. Right and wrong is irrelevant here - what is going to make lots of successful citizens? The current legal system is an epic failure in that regard. You can argue till you have lost breath over whether cuckoldry or rape is worse - who the heck cares? This is like asking which hole in the boat leaks the most water. In the end you are still sunk.

The legal system should clearly and unequivocally encourage people to get married and stay married, if only because married people often produce more goods and services at lower cost than unmarried people. One household is much cheaper than two.

Children are the future of our society and economy - the enormous cost burden of bearing them should be reduced to the amount practicable for individuals gutsy enough to raise them.

No fault divorce is perfectly fine, as long as the possibility of alimony is permenantly excluded. The indivduals are free to start again, assets divided right down the middle. The children go to whomever wants them and can best support them. Any alimony should require automatic proof of parentage and extreme grounds for divorce (mental instability, etc.). A simple and elegant system.


By the way - I think I know why type pad is having trouble:

1) When you start typing in this box typepad assigns a number to the comment. When lots of people try to comment at the same time (for a very hot topic) typepad sometimes assigns the same number to two posts. One of the two gets deleted, or reassigned to a new number. It looks like The Futurist is screening ...but it is the system trying to keep up and correct.


I don't think socialism is that unpopular. Polls show that people like getting stuff from the government for free. As any monarchist/aristocrat from the 18th century would have told you, socialism is the inevitable result of democracy. I agree with Glen Tomkins:
If everyone voted, we'd get more socialist policies. That's why those Get Out/Rock the Vote campaigns are so dangerous and the Dems are most enthused by high turnouts (off-year elections are better for the GOP).

I've got family in Pittsburgh. It certainly has not been devastated. Just ask IOZ.

Anonymous Protagonist

This discussion on game and the natural predilections of women is really beyond me. It doesn't matter to me whether there is some inherent advantage one group has over another. I choose to live my life being respectful of all. This is the choice that I make and I stand by even if that means it is an intentional blindness. I think the lessons of humility and humanity are lost when we start to consider ourselves better than others. That's really what it comes down to, to me.

That said, I read these posts and I have to think that I'm watching people argue over the nuances of a broken system when we all recognize that it is broken. Feminism has gone off the rails. It doesn't work. It's gone from being about equality (which I support) to being about an agent of abuse (which I do not support). And we sit here and argue about strategies on how to navigate this broken world. While it's practical it seems like arranging deckchairs on the Titanic. The way I look at it is that the people who are being abused (men) have to get themselves out of this situation because nobody else is going to do it for them. That may seem like fantasy to everyone, but I don't see any other resolution. Talk about game, psychology and all this stuff - fair enough; to each his own. But this is secondary to a much bigger problem. If we accept the victimization that is thrust upon us then we lose, and everybody else loses too. Solving that problem is much more useful to me than any other discussion.

And regarding this rape Vs. 20 years of child support for someone who isn't your child debate. Well, rape's bad I think we all agree. But where the consequences of rape can last for years, and even decades, this is no guarantee that they do. When you are stuck with a financial lodestone for 20 years that absolutely has a known consequence. One is definitely worse than the other. And it's not rape. If you were to ask someone how they would prefer to be victimized - get raped or spend 20 years paying some godawful tithe to your victimizer - you can be damned sure they would almost universally choose the former. And if you don't think that's the truth you're an idiot.


Noticed a minor typo in the first paragraph: "Why does it seem that American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that that socialism..." Great article, by the way.


The Futurist "You are a projecting, self-loathing hatemonger (as most Omegas are) who tries to ignore that 80% of men have the opposite view as you."

Even assuming that omega has any widely accepted definition (it doesn't), what makes you think I am one? You are basing your accusation on nothing. Also, where have I expressed any self-loathing?

As for 80% of men supposedly having the opposite view, I have already clearly explained why this is utter nonsense.

"I dare you to go to The Spearhead (www.the-spearhead.com) and announce your views on cuckoldry there. You are too much of a coward to go there, aren't you?"

I've been to Spearhead. Since when did going to a website and posting a comment become some great act of courage?

Doug1 "Clearly wrong. And why are you trivializing being deceived into believing a child or two (and sometimes more) is the husband's, who is thereby precluded from reproducing his own genetics in most cases, because the time has passed and he's already to many of his resources to children that aren't his to afford to do so??"

Where have I trivialized cuckoldry?

"Cuckoldry resulting in fraudulent children prevents a man who wants to be a father and parent from having his own children. That's far more grave than a rape..."

No it isn't.

"feminism date rape blah blah"

Hey, guess what: this is totally irrelevant, and yet another ploy to trivialize rape.

Puma "I've come to the conclusion that beh (beth?) is either a troll, or a fugly-chick, or quite possibly both."

Oh look, the tinfoil hat brigade has arrived. To them, everyone is a feminist infiltrator or a troll (which is funny because their own posts always constitute trolling).

Epoxytocin No. 87

I don't want to perpetuate the "rape vs. cuckoldry" tangent, but someone needs to specify that "cuckoldry", as used in this argument, specifically refers to the wife's having another man's baby and passing it off as the husband's.

Some posters here are probably posting under the misconception that "cuckoldry" refers merely to female cheating.


The Futurist: Well done.

The comments to this entry are closed.