Today, on the first day of the new decade of '201x' years, I am going to tell you why that is. I am hereby triggering the national dialog on what the foremost challenge for the United States will be in this decade, which is the ultimate root cause of most of the other problems we appear to be struggling with. What you are about to read is the equivalent of someone in 1997 describing the expected forces governing the War on Terror from 2001-2009 in profound detail.
This is a very long article, the longest ever written on The Futurist. As it is a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife, it is not meant to be read in one shot but rather digested slowly over an extended period, with all supporting links read as well (if those links are still active after years pass). As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.
Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that has tainted the interaction between men and women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to make extremely unwise life choices, destructive to both themselves and others. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020. The primary culprits in perpetuating this injustice are not average women, but radical 'feminists' and an assortment of sinister, dishonest men who variously describe themselves as 'male feminists' or 'social conservatives'.
Now, the basic premise of this article is that men and women are equally valuable, but have different strengths and weaknesses, and different priorities. A society is strongest when men and women have roles that are complementary to each other, rather than of an adverserial nature. Furthermore, when one gender (either one) is mistreated, the other ends up becoming disenfranchised as well. If you disagree with this premise, you may not wish to read further.
The Cultural Thesis
The Myth of Female Oppression : When you tell someone that they are oppressed, against all statistical and logical evidence, you harm them by generating discouragement and resentment. This pernicious effect is the basis of many forms of needlessly inflicted female unhappiness, as well as the basis for unjustified retaliation against men.
All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who did not face hardships as severe as what women endured. In reality, this narrative is entirely incorrect. The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.
Warfare has been a near constant feature of human society before the modern era, and whenever two tribes or kingdoms went to war with each other, the losing side saw many of its fighting-age men exterminated, while the women were assimilated into the invading society. Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes?
Most of this narrative stems from 'feminists' comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man. This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality. To approximate the conditions of the average woman to the average man (the key word being 'average') in the Western world of a century ago, simply observe the lives of the poorest peasants in poor countries today. Both men and women have to perform tedious work, have insufficient food and clothing, and limited opportunities for upliftment.
As far as selective anecdotes like voting rights go, in the vast majority of cases, men could not vote either. In fact, if one compares every nation state from every century, virtually all of them extended exactly the same voting rights (or lack thereof) to men and women. Even today, out of 200 sovereign states, there are exactly zero that have a different class of voting rights to men and women. Any claim that women were being denied rights that men were given in even 1% of historical instances, falls flat.
This is not to deny that genuine atrocities like genital mutilation have been perpetrated against women; they have and still are. But men also experienced atrocities of comparable horror at the same time, which is simply not mentioned. In fact, when a man is genitally mutilated by a woman, some other women actually find this humorous, and are proud to say so publicly.
It is already wrong when a contemporary group seeks reparations from an injustice that occurred over a century ago to people who are no longer alive. It is even worse when this oppression itself is a fabrication. The narrative of female oppression by men should be rejected and refuted as the highly selective and historically false narrative that it is. In fact, this myth is evidence not of historical oppression, but of the vastly different propensity to complain between the two genders.
The Masculinity Vacuum in Entertainment : Take a look at the collage of entertainers below (click to enlarge), which will be relevant if you are older than 30. All of them were prominent in the 1980s, some spilling over on either side of that decade. They are all certainly very different from one another. But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.
As diverse and imperfect as these characters were, they were all examples of masculinity. They represented different archetypes, from the father to the leader to the ladies man to the rugged outdoorsman to the protector. They were all more similar than dissimilar, as they all were role-models for young boys of the time, often the same young boys. Celebrities as disparate as Bill Cosby and Mr. T had majority overlap in their fan bases, as did characters as contrasting as Jean-Luc Picard and The Macho Man Randy Savage.
At this point, you might be feeling a deep inner emptiness lamenting a bygone age, as the paucity of proudly, inspiringly masculine characters in modern entertainment becomes clear. Before the 1980s, there were different masculine characters, but today, they are conspicuously absent. Men are shown either as thuggish degenerates, or as effete androgynes. Sure, there were remakes of Star Trek and The A-Team, and series finales of Rocky and Indiana Jones. But where are the new characters? Why is the vacuum being filled solely with nostalgia? A single example like Jack Bauer is not sufficient to dispute the much larger trend of masculinity purging.
Modern entertainment typically shows businessmen as villains, and husbands as bumbling dimwits that are always under the command of the all-powerful wife, who is never wrong. Oprah Winfrey's platform always grants a sympathetic portrayal to a wronged woman, but never to men who have suffered great injustices. Absurdly false feminist myths such as a belief that women are underpaid relative to men for the same output of work, or that adultery and domestic violence are actions committed exclusively by men, are embedded even within the dialog of sitcoms and legal dramas.
This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, and girls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leads to the normalization of single motherhood (obviously with taxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, but merely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon. This, in turn, leads to fatherless young men growing up being told that natural male behavior is wrong, and feminization is normal. It also leads to women being deceived outright about the realities of the sexual market, where media attempts to normalize single motherhood and attempted 'cougarhood' are glorified, rather than portrayed as the undesirable conditions that they are.
The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did. The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all. Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'. Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man. There is significant turnover in the ranks of alpha males, which women are acutely aware of.
As a result, women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This absurd double standard has invisible but major costs to society.
To provide 'beta' men an incentive to produce far more economic output than needed just to support themselves while simultaneously controlling the hypergamy of women that would deprive children of interaction with their biological fathers, all major religions constructed an institution to force constructive conduct out of both genders while penalizing the natural primate tendencies of each. This institution was known as 'marriage'. Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.
All societies that achieved great advances and lasted for multiple centuries followed this formula with very little deviation, and it is quite remarkable how similar the nature of monogamous marriage was across seemingly diverse cultures. Societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. This 'contract' between the sexes was advantageous to beta men, women over the age of 35, and children, but greatly curbed the activities of alpha men and women under 35 (together, a much smaller group than the former one). Conversely, the pre-civilized norm of alpha men monopolizing 3 or more young women each, replacing aging ones with new ones, while the masses of beta men fight over a tiny supply of surplus/aging women, was chaotic and unstable, leaving beta men violent and unproductive, and aging mothers discarded by their alpha mates now vulnerable to poverty. So what happens when the traditional controls of civilization are lifted from both men and women?
The Four Sirens : Four unrelated forces simultaneously combined to entirely distort the balance of civilization built on the biological realities of men and women. Others have presented versions of the Four Sirens concept in the past, but I am choosing a slightly different definition of the Four Sirens :
1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization. Contraception made it possible for females to act on their urges of hypergamy.
2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : In the past, a woman who wanted to leave her husband needed to prove misconduct on his part. Now, the law has changed to such a degree that a woman can leave her husband for no stated reason, yet is still entitled to payments from him for years to come. This incentivizes destruction because it enables women to transfer the costs of irresponsible behavior onto men and children.
3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce. These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less. There was never any organized male opposition to women entering the workforce (in China, taxes were collected in a way that mandated female productivity), as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers. However, one of the main reasons that women married - financial support - was no longer a necessity.
Female entry into the workforce is generally a positive development for society, and I would be the first to praise this, if it were solely on the basis of merit (as old-school feminists had genuinely intended). Unfortunately, too much of this is now due to corrupt political lobbying to forcibly transfer resources from men to women.
4) Female-Centric social engineering : Above and beyond the pro-woman divorce laws, further state interventions include the subsidization of single motherhood, laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women, which happens just as often), and 'sexual harassment' laws with definitions so nebulous that women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own.
These four forces in tandem handed an unprecedented level of power to women. The technology gave them freedom to pursue careers and the freedom to be promiscuous. Feminist laws have done a remarkable job of shielding women from the consequences of their own actions. Women now have as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed, where they can pursue alpha males while extracting subsidization from beta males without any reciprocal obligations to them. Despite all the new freedoms available to women that freed them from their traditional responsibilities, men were still expected to adhere to their traditional responsibilities.
Marriage 2.0 : From the West to the Middle East to Asia, marriage is considered a mandatory bedrock of any functioning society. If marriage is such a crucial ingredient of societal health, then the West is barreling ahead on a suicidal path.
We earlier discussed why marriage was created, but equally important were the factors that sustained the institution and kept it true to its objectives. The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were :
1) People married at the age of 20, and often died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. Her peak years were contained within marriage. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after her peak years are in the past and she has had 10 or more prior sexual relationships. Some such women have already underwent what can best be described as a fatocalypse.
2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.
3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.
4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.
Today, however, all of these factors have been removed. This is partly the result of good forces (economic progress and technology invented by beta men), but partly due to artificial schemes that are extremely damaging to society.
For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man. The wedding ring itself used to be a family heirloom passed down over generations, but now, the bride thumbs through a catalog that shows her rings that the man is expected to spend two months of his salary to buy. This presumption that somehow the woman is to be indulged for entering marriage is a complete reversal of centuries-old traditions grounded in biological realities (and evidence of how American men have become weak pushovers). In some Eastern cultures, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Eastern equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response). For those wondering why Eastern culture has such restrictions on women and not men, restrictions on men were tried in some communities, and those communities quickly vanished and were forgotten. There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive. Abuse and blackmail of women certainly occurred in some instances, but on balance, these customs existed through centuries of observing the realities of human behavior. Persian, Indian, and Chinese civilization has survived for over 5000 years and every challenge imaginable through enforcement of these customs, and, until recently, the Christian world also had comparable mechanisms to steer individual behavior away from destructive manifestations. However, if the wedding has mutated into a carnival of bridezilla narcissism, the mechanics of divorce are far more disastrous.
In an 'at will' employment arrangement between a corporation and an employee, either party can terminate the contract at any time. However, instead of a few weeks of severance, imagine what would happen if the employer was legally required to pay the employee half of his or her paycheck for 20 additional years, irrespective of anything the employee did or did not do, under penalty of imprisonment for the CEO. Suppose, additionally, that it is culturally encouraged for an employee to do this whenever even minor dissatisfaction arises. Would businesses be able to operate? Would anyone want to be a CEO? Would businesses even form, and thus would any wealth be created, given the risks associated with hiring an employee? Keep these questions in mind as you read further.
So why are 70-90% of divorces initiated by women? Women have always been hypergamous, and most were married to beta men that they felt no attraction towards, so what has changed to cause an increase in divorce rates?
Divorce lawyers, like any other professional group, will seek conditions that are good for business. What makes attorneys different from, say, engineers or salespeople, is that a) they know precisely how to lobby for changes to the legal system, bypassing voters and the US constitution, that guarantees more revenue for them, and b) what benefits them is directly harmful to the fabric of society in general, and to children in particular. When they collude with rage-filled 'feminists' who openly say that 90% of the male gender should be exterminated, the outcome is catastrophic.
The concept of 'no fault' divorce by itself may not be unfair. The concepts of asset division and alimony may also be fair in the event of serious wrongdoing by the husband. However, the combination of no-fault divorce plus asset division/alimony is incredibly unfair and prone to extortionary abuse. The notion that she can choose to leave the marriage, yet he is nonetheless required to pay her for years after that even if he did not want to destroy the union, is an injustice that should not occur in any advanced democracy. Indeed, the man has to pay even if the woman has an extramarital affair, possibly even being ordered to pay her psychiatric fees. Bogus claims by 'feminists' that women suffer under divorce are designed to obscure the fact that she is the one who filed for divorce. Defenders of alimony insist that a woman seeking a divorce should not see a drop in living standards, but it is somehow acceptable for the husband to see a drop even if he did not want a divorce. I would go further and declare that any belief that women deserve alimony on a no-fault basis in this day age is utterly contradictory to the belief that women are equals of men. How can women both deserve alimony while also claiming equality? In rare cases, high-earning women have had to pay alimony to ex-husbands, but that is only 4% of the time, vs. the man paying 96% of the time. But it gets worse; much worse, in fact.
Even if the woman chooses to leave on account of 'boredom', she is still given default custody of the children, which exposes the total hypocrisy of feminist claims that men and women should be treated equally. Furthermore, the man is required to pay 'child support' which is assessed at levels much higher than the direct costs of child care, with the woman facing no burden to prove the funds were spent on the child, and cannot be specified by any pre-nuptial agreement. The rationale is that 'the child should not see a drop in living standards due to divorce', but since the mother has custody of the child, this is a stealthy way in which feminists have ensured financial maintenence of the mother as well. So the man loses his children and most of his income even if he did not want divorce. But even that is not the worst-case scenario.
The Bradley Amendment, devised by Senator Bill Bradley in 1986, ruthlessly pursues men for the already high 'child support' percentages, and seizes their passports and imprisons them without due process for falling behind in payments, even if on account of job loss during a recession. Under a bogus 'deadbeat dads' media campaign, 'feminists' were able to obscure the fact that women were the ones ending their marriages and with them the benefit that children receive from a two-parent upbringing, and further demanding unusually high spousal maintenence, much of which does not even go to the child, from a dutiful ex-husband who did not want a divorce, under penalty of imprisonment. So the legal process uses children as pawns through which to extract an expanded alimony stream for the mother. The phony tactic of insisting that 'it is for the children' is used to shut down all questions about the use of children as pawns in the extortion process, while avoiding scrutiny of the fact that the parent who is choosing divorce is clearly placing the long-term well-being of the children at a very low priority.
So as it stands today, there are large numbers of middle-class men who were upstanding citizens, who were subjected to divorce against their will, had their children taken from them, pay alimony masked as child support that is so high that many of them have to live out of their cars or with their relatives, and after job loss from economic conditions, are imprisoned simply for running out of money. If 10-30% of American men are under conditions where 70% or more of their income is taken from them under threat of prison, these men have no incentive to start new businesses or invent new technologies or processes. Having 10-30% of men disincentivized this way cannot be good for the economy, and is definitely a contributor to current economic malaise, not to mention a 21st-century version of slavery. Sometimes, the children are not even biologically his.
This one-page site has more links about the brutal tyranny that a man can be subjected to once he enters the legal contract of marriage, and even more so after he has children. What was once the bedrock of society, and a solemn tradition that benefited both men and women equally, has quietly mutated under the evil tinkering of feminists, divorce lawyers, and leftists, into a shockingly unequal arrangement, where the man is officially a second-class citizen who is subjected to a myriad of sadistic risks. As a result, the word 'marriage' should not even be used, given the totality of changes that have made the arrangement all but unrecognizable compared to its intended ideals. Suicide rates of men undergoing divorce run as high as 20%, and all of us know a man who either committed suicide, or admits seriously considering it during the dehumanization he faced even though he wanted to preserve the union. Needless to say, this is a violation of the US Constitution on many levels, and is incompatible with the values of any supposedly advanced democracy that prides itself on freedom and liberty. There is effectively a tyrannical leftist shadow state operating within US borders but entirely outside the US constitution, which can subject a man to horrors more worthy of North Korea than the US, even if he did not want out of the marriage, did not want to be separated from his children, and did not want to lose his job. Any unsuspecting man can be sucked into this shadow state.
Anyone who believes that two-parent families are important to the continuance of an advanced civilization, should focus on the explosive growth in revenue earned by divorce lawyers, court supervisors, and 'feminist' organizations over the past quarter-century. If Western society is to survive, these revenues should be chopped down to a tenth of what they presently are, which is what they would be if the elements that violate the US Constitution were repealed.
Marriage is no longer a gateway to female 'companionship', as we shall discuss later. For this reason, I cannot recommend 'marriage', in its modern state, to any young man living in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia. There are just too many things outside of his control that can catastrophically ruin his finances, emotions, and quality of life.
At a minimum, he should make sure that having children is the most important goal of his life. If not, then he has insufficient reason to enter this contract. If this goal is affirmed, then he should conduct research by speaking to a few divorced men about the laws and mistreatment they were subjected to, and attend a few divorce court hearings at the local courthouse. After gaining this information, if he still wants to take the risk, he should only marry if he can meet the following three conditions, none of which can substitute either of the other two :
1) The woman earns the same as, or more than, he does.
2) He has a properly done pre-nuptial arrangement with lawyers on each side (even though a pre-nup will not affect the worst aspect of divorce law - 'child support' as a cloak for stealth alimony and possible imprisonment).
3) He is deeply competent in seduction practices (Game), and can manage his relationship with his wife effortlessly. Even this is a considerable workload, however. More on this later.
There are still substantial risks, but at least they are somewhat reduced under these conditions. If marriage is a very important goal for a young man, he should seriously consider expatriation to a developing country, where he ironically may have a higher living standard than in the US after adjusting for divorce risk.
So, to review, the differences between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0 are :
- a) No fault asset division and alimony, where the abandoned spouse has to pay if he earns more, even if he did not want a divorce, and even if he is a victim of abuse, cuckolding, or adultery. There are rare instances of high-earning women getting caught in this trap as well.
- b) Women marrying after having 5 or more sexual partners, compared to just 0-1 previously. This makes it harder for the woman to form a pair bond with her husband.
- c) Women marrying at an age when very few years of their peak beauty are remaining, compared to a decade or more remaining under Marriage 1.0.
- d) Child custody is almost never granted to the man, so he loses his children on a 'no fault' basis.
Traditional cultures marketed marriage with such punctilious alacrity that most people today dare not even question whether the traditional truths still apply. Hence, hostility often ensues from a mere attempt to even broach the topic of whether marriage is still the same concept as it once was. Everyone from women to sadistic social conservatives to a young man's own parents will pressure and shame him into marriage for reasons they cannot even articulate, and condemn his request for a pre-nup, without having any interest in even learning about the horrendously unequal and carefully concealed laws he would be subjected to in the event that his wife divorces him through no reasons he can discern. But some men with an eye on self-preservation are figuring this out, and are avoiding marriage. By many accounts, 22% of men have decided to avoid marriage. So what happens to a society that makes it unattractive for even just 20% of men to marry?
Women are far more interested in marriage than men. Simple logic of supply and demand tells us that the institution of monogamous marriage requires at least 80% male participation in order to be viable. When male participation drops below 80%, all women are in serious trouble, since there are now 100 women competing for every 80 men, compounded with the reality that women age out of fertility much quicker than men. This creates great stress among the single female population. In the past, the steady hand of a young woman's mother and grandmother knew that her beauty was temporary, and that the most seductive man was not the best husband, and they made sure that the girl was married off to a boy with long-term durability. Now that this guidance has been removed from the lives of young women, thanks to 'feminism', these women are proving to be poor pilots of their mating lives who pursue alpha males until the age of 34-36 when her desirability drops precipitously and not even beta males she used to reject are interested in her. This stunning plunge in her prospects with men is known as the Wile E. Coyote moment, and women of yesteryear had many safety nets that protected them from this fate. The 'feminist' media's attempt to normalize 'cougarhood' is evidence of gasping desperation to package failure as a desirable outcome, which will never become mainstream due to sheer biological realities. Women often protest that a high number of sexual partners should not be counted as a negative on them, as the same is not a negative for men, but this is merely a manifestation of solipism. A complex sexual past works against women even if the same works in favor of men, due to the natural sexual attraction triggers of each gender. A wise man once said, "A key that can open many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock."
The big irony is that 'feminism', rather than improving the lives of women, has stripped away the safety nets of mother/grandmother guidance that would have shielded her from ever having to face her Wile E. Coyote moment. 'Feminism' has thus put the average woman at risk in yet another area.
Game (Learned Attraction and Seduction) : The Four Sirens and the legal changes feminists have instituted to obstruct beta men have created a climate where men have invented techniques and strategies to adapt to the more challenging marketplace, only to exceed their aspirations. This is a disruptive technology in its own right. All of us know a man who is neither handsome nor wealthy, but consistently has amazing success with women. He seems to have natural instincts regarding women that to the layperson may be indistinguishable from magic. So how does he do it?
Detractors with a vested interest in the present status quo are eager to misrepresent what 'Game' is, and the presence of many snake-oil salesmen in the field does not help, but as a definition :
The traits that make a man attractive to women are learnable skills, that improve with practice. Once a man learns these skills, he is indistinguishable from a man who had natural talents in this area. Whether a man then chooses to use these skills to secure one solid relationship or multiple brief ones, is entirely up to him.
The subject is too vast for any description over here to do it full justice, but in a nutshell, the Internet age enabled communities of men to share the various bits of knowledge they had field tested and refined (e.g. one man being an expert at meeting women during the daytime, another being an expert at step-by-step sexual escalation, yet another being a master of creating lasting love, etc.). The collective knowledge grew and evolved, and an entire industry to teach the various schools of 'Game' emerged. Men who comprehended the concepts (a minority) and those who could undertake the total reconstitution of their personalities and avalanche of rejections as part of the learning curve (a still smaller minority) stood to reap tremendous benefits from becoming more attractive than the vast majority of unaware men. While the 'pick-up artist' (PUA) implementation is the most media-covered, the principles are equally valuable for men in monogamous long-term relationships (LTRs). See Charlotte Allen's cover story for The Weekly Standard, devoted to 'Game'.
Among the most valuable learnings from the body of knowledge is the contrarian revelation that what women say a man should do is often quite the antithesis of what would actually bring him success. For example, being a needy, supplicative, eager-to-please man is precisely the opposite behavior that a man should employ, where being dominant, teasing, amused, yet assertive is the optimal persona. An equally valuable lesson is to realize when not to take a woman's words at face value. Many statements from her are 'tests' to see if the man can remain congruent in his 'alpha' personality, where the woman is actually hoping the man does not eagerly comply to her wishes. Similarly, the 'feminist' Pavlovian reaction to call any non-compliant man a 'misogynist' should also not be taken as though a rational adult assigned the label after fair consideration. Such shaming language is only meant to deflect scrutiny and accountability from the woman uttering it, and should be given no more importance than a 10-year-old throwing a tantrum to avoid responsibility or accountability. Far too many men actually take these slurs seriously, to the detriment of male rights and dignity.
Success in internalizing the core fundamentals of Game requires an outside-the-box thinker solidly in the very top of Maslow's Hierarchy, and in my experience, 80% of men and 99.9% of women are simply incapable of comprehending why the skills of Game are valuable and effective. Many women, and even a few pathetic men, condemn Game, without even gaining a minimal comprehension for what it truly is (which I have highlighted in red above), and how it benefits both men and women. Most of what they think they know about Game involves strawmen, a lack of basic research, and their own sheer insecurity.
For anyone seeking advice on learning the material, there is one rule you must never break. I believe it is of paramount importance that the knowledge be used ethically, and with the objective of creating mutually satisfying relationships with women. It is not moral to mistreat women, even if they have done the same to countless men. We, as men, have to take the high road even if women are not, and this is my firm belief. Nice guys can finish first if they have Game.
'Feminism' as Unrestrained Misandry and Projection : The golden rule of human interactions is to judge a person, or a group, by their actions rather than their words. The actions of 'feminists' reveal their ideology to be one that seeks to secure equality for women in the few areas where they lag, while distracting observers from the vast array of areas where women are in a more favorable position relative to men (the judicial system, hiring and admissions quotas, media portrayals, social settings, etc.). They will concoct any number of bogus statistics to maintain an increasingly ridiculous narrative of female oppression.
Feminists once had noble goals of securing voting rights, achieving educational parity, and opening employment channels for women. But once these goals were met and even exceeded, the activists did not want to lose relevance. Now, they tirelessly and ruthlessly lobby for changes in legislation that are blatantly discriminatory against men (not to mention unconstitutional and downright cruel). Not satisfied with that, they continue to lobby for social programs designed to devalue the roles of husbands and fathers, replacing them with taxpayer-funded handouts.
As it is profitable to claim victimhood in this age, a good indicator is whether any condemnation by the supposedly oppressed of their oppressor could be similarly uttered if the positions were reversed. We see an immense double standard regarding what women and men can say about each other in America today. This reveals one of the darkest depths of the human mind - when a group is utterly convinced that they are the 'victims' of another group, they can rationalize any level of evil against their perceived oppressors.
Go to any major 'feminist' website, such as feministing.com or Jezebel.com, and ask polite questions about the fairness of divorce laws, or the injustice of innocent men being jailed on false accusations of rape without due process. You will quickly be called a 'misogynist' and banned from commenting. The same is not true for any major men's site, where even heated arguments and blatant misandry are tolerated in the spirit of free speech and human dignity. When is the last time a doctrinaire 'feminist' actually had the courage to debate a fair woman like Camille Paglia, Tammy Bruce, or Christina Hoff Somers on television?
Ever-tightening groupthink that enforces an ever-escalating narrative of victimhood ensures that projection becomes the normal mode of misandrist thought. The word 'misogynist' has expanded to such an extreme that it is the Pavlovian response to anything a 'feminist' feels bad about, but cannot articulate in an adult-like manner. This reveals the projected gender bigotry of the 'feminist' in question, which in her case is misandry. For example, an older man dating women 10 years younger than him is also referred to as a 'misogynist' by the older bitterati. Not an ageist, mind you, but a misogynist. A man who refuses to find obese women attractive is also a 'misogynist', as are gay men who do not spend money on women. The male non-compliance labeled as 'misogyny' thus becomes a reaction to many years of unopposed misandry heaped on him first, when he initially harbored no such sentiments. Kick a friendly dog enough times, and you get a nasty dog.
There are laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), that blatantly declares that violence against women is far worse than violence against men. VAWA is very different from ordinary assault laws, because under VAWA, a man can be removed from his home at gunpoint if the woman makes a single phonecall. No due process is permitted, and the man's Constitutional rights are jettisoned. At the same time, half of all domestic violence is by the woman against the man. Tiger Woods' wife beat him with a blunt weapon and scratched his face, only to be applauded by 'feminists' in a 'you go girl' manner. Projection can normalize barbarism.
Rape legislation has also bypassed the US Constitution, leaving a man guilty until he proves himself innocent, while the accusing woman faces no penalty for falsely sending a man to prison for 15 years, where he himsef will get raped. The Duke Lacrosse case was a prominent example of such abuse, but hundreds of others occur in America each year. The laws have been changed so that a victim has 1 month to 'decide' if she has been raped, and such flexibility predicatably leads to instances of a woman reporting rape just so that she does not have to tell her husband that she cheated on him (until it becomes profitable to divorce him). 40-50% of all rape accusations are false, but 'feminists' would rather jail scores of innocent men than let one guilty man get away, which is the exact opposite of what US Constitutional jurisprudence requires.
But, unimaginably, it gets even worse. Polls of men have shown that there is one thing men fear even more than being raped themselves, and that is being cuckolded. Men see cuckolding as the ultimate violation and betrayal, yet there is an entire movement among 'feminists' to enshrine a woman's right to commit adultery and use the resources of her husband to dupe him into thinking the child is his. These misandrists even want to outlaw the right of a man to test the paternity of a child.
So, to review, if a woman has second thoughts about a tryst a few days later, she can, without penalty, ruin a man financially and send him to prison for 15 years. 'Feminists' consider this acceptable. At the same time, even though men consider being cuckolded a worse fate than being raped, 'feminists' want to make this easier for a woman to do, by preventing paternity testing. They already have rigged laws so that the man, upon 'no fault' divorce, has to pay alimony, to a woman who cuckolded him.
This is pure evil, ranking right up there with the worst tyrannies of the last century. Modern misandry masking itself as 'feminism' is, without equal, the most hypocritical ideology in the world today. The laws of a society are the DNA of that society. Once the laws are tainted, the DNA is effectively corrupted, and mutations to the society soon follow. Men have been killed due to 'feminism'. Children and fathers have been forcibly separated for financial gain via 'feminism'. Slavery has returned to the West via 'feminism'. With all these misandric laws, one can fairly say that misandry is the new Jim Crow.
Shaming Language and Projection as a Substitute for Rational Debate : As discussed previously, any legitimate and polite questions about the fairness of anti-male realities in the legal system and media are quickly met with Pavlovian retorts of 'misogynist' and 'loser'. Let us deconstruct these oft-used examples of shaming language, and why misandrists are so afraid of legitimate debate.
Contrary to their endless charges of 'misogyny' (a word that many 'feminists' still manage to misspell), in reality, most men instinctively treat women with chivalry and enshrine them on exalted pedestals. Every day, we see men willing to defend women or do favors for them. There is infinitely more chivalry than misogyny exhibited by the male population. On the other hand, we routinely see anti-male statements uttered by 'feminists', and a presumption that all men are monsters guilty of crimes committed by a small number of people of the same gender. When well-known 'feminists' openly state that 90% of the male population should be exterminated, the unsupported accusation of 'misogyny' is a very pure manifestion of their own misandric projection.
On the second charge of being a 'loser who cannot get laid', any observation of the real world quickly makes it obvious that men who have had little experience with women are the ones placing women on pedestals, while those men who have had substantial sexual experience with women are not. Having sex with a large number of women does not increase respect for women, which is the exact opposite of the claim that 'feminists' make. Again, this charge of 'loserdom' is merely the psychosexual frustration of 'feminists' projected outwards, who express surprise that unrelenting hatred by them towards men is not magically metabolized into love for these particular 'feminists'.
That misandrists are so unchallenged is the reason that they have had no reason to expand their arsenal of venom beyond these two types of projection. Despite my explanation of this predictable Pavlovian response, the comments section will feature misandrists use these same two slurs nonetheless, proving the very point that they seek to shout down, and the very exposure they seek to avoid. My pre-emption will not deter them from revealing their limitations by indulging in it anyway. They simply cannot help themselves, and are far from being capable of discussing actual points of disagreement in a rational manner.
Men, of course, have to be savvy about the real reason their debate skills are limited to these two paths of shaming language, and not be deterred. Once again, remember that this should be taken no more seriously than if uttered by a 10-year-old, and there is no reason to let a 'feminist' get away with anything you would not let a man get away with. They wanted equality, didn't they?
'Feminism' as Genuine Misogyny : The greatest real misogyny, of course, has been unwittingly done by the 'feminists' themselves. By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer. By incentivizing the dehumanization of their ex-husbands and the use of children as pawns, they set bad examples for children, and cause children to resent their mothers when they mature. By making baseless accusations of 'misogyny' without sufficient cause, they cause resentment among formerly friendly men where there previously was none. By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation.
One glaring example of misandry backfiring is in the destruction of marriage and corresponding push of the 'Sex in the City/cougar' fantasy. Monogamous marriage not only masked the gap between 'alpha' and 'beta' men, but also masked the gap between attractiveness of women before and after their Wile E. Coyote moment. By seducing women with the myth that a promiscuous single life after the age of 35 is a worthy goal, many women in their late 30s are left to find that they command far less male attention than women just a decade younger than them. 'Feminism' sold them a moral code entirely unsuited to their physical and mental realities, causing great sadness to these women.
But most importantly, 'feminists' devalued the traditional areas of female expertise (raising the next generation of citizens), while attaching value only to areas of male expertise (the boardroom, the military, sexual promiscuity) and told women to go duplicate male results under the premise that this was inherently better than traditional female functions. Telling women that emulating their mothers and grandmothers is less valuable than mimicking men sounds quite misogynistic to me, and unsurprisingly, despite all these 'freedoms', women are more unhappy than ever after being inflicted with such misogyny.
So how did the state of affairs manage to get so bad? Surely 'feminists' are not so powerful?
Social Conservatives, White Knights, and Girlie-Men : It would be inaccurate to deduce that misandrists were capable of creating this state of affairs on their own, despite their vigor and skill in sidestepping both the US Constitution and voter scrutiny. Equally culpable are men who ignorantly believe that acting as obsequious yes-men to 'feminists' by turning against other men in the hope that their posturing will earn them residual scraps of female affection.
Chivalry has existed in most human cultures for many centuries, and is seen in literature from all major civilizations. Chivalry greatly increased a man's prospects of marriage, but the reasons for this have been forgotten. Prior to the modern era, securing a young woman's hand in marriage usually involved going through her parents. The approval of the girl's father was a non-negotiable channel in the process. If a young man could show the girl's parents that he would place her on a pedestal, they could be convinced to sanction the union. The girl herself was not the primary audience of the chivalry, as the sexual attraction of the girl herself was rarely aroused by chivalry, as the principles of Game have shown.
Hence, many men are still stuck in the obsolete, inobservant, and self-loathing notion that chivalry and excess servility are the pathways to sex today, despite the modern reality that a woman's sexual decisions are no longer controlled by her parents, and are often casual rather than locked in matrimony. Whether such men are religious and called 'social conservatives', or effete leftists and called 'girlie men', they are effectively the same, and the term 'White Knights' can apply to the entire group. Their form of chivalry when exposed to 'feminist' histrionics results in these men harming other men at the behest of women who will never be attracted to them. This is why we see peculiar agreement between supposedly opposed 'social conservatives' and 'feminists' whenever the craving to punish men arises. A distressingly high number of men actually support the imprisonment of innocent men for false rape accusations or job loss causing 'child support' arrears merely because these 'men' don't want to risk female disapproval, incorrectly assuming that fanatically vocal 'feminists' represent the official opinion of all women. These men are the biggest suckers of all, as their pig-headed denial of the effectiveness of Game will prevent them from deducing that excess agreeability and willingness to do favors for the objects of their lust are exactly the opposite of what makes women sexually attracted to men. No woman feels attraction for a needy man.
For this reason, after lunatic 'feminists', these pedestalizing White Knights are the next most responsible party for the misandry in Western society today. The average woman is not obsessively plotting new schemes to denigrate and swindle men, she merely wants to side with whoever is winning (which presently is the side of misandry). But pedestalizing men actually carry out many dirty deeds against other men in the hopes of receiving a pat on the head from 'feminists'. Hence, the hierarchy of misandric zeal is thus :
Strident 'feminist' > pedestalizer/white knight > average woman.
For reasons described earlier, even a declaration that many men are bigger contributors to misandry than the average woman will not deter 'feminists' from their Pavlovian tendency to call articles such as this one 'misogynist'.
Lastly, the religious 'social conservatives' who continue their empty sermonizing about the 'sanctity of marriage' while doing absolutely nothing about the divorce-incentivizing turn that the laws have taken, have been exposed for their pseudo-moral posturing and willful blindness. What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why. No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission. To be duped into believing that a side-issue like 'gay marriage' is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates by creating incentives for divorce (divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays), is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon. Aren't conservatives the people who are supposed to grasp that incentives drive behavior? An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled 'Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda'.
Why There is No Men's Rights Movement : At this point, readers may be wondering "If things are this bad, why don't we hear anything about it?". Indeed, this is a valid question, and the answer lies within the fundamentals of male psychology. Most beta men would rather die than be called a 'loser' by women (alpha men, of course, know better than to take this at face value). White Knights also join in the chorus of shaming other men since they blunderously believe that this is a pathway to the satiation of their lust. So an unfairly ruined man is faced with the prospect of being shamed by women and a large cohort of men if he protests about the injustice, and this keeps him suffering in silence, leading to an early death. We have millions of fine young men willing to die on the battlefield to defend the values enshrined in the US Constitution, but we don't see protests of even 100 divorced men against the shamefully unconstitutional treatment they have received. The destruction of the two-parent family by incentivizing immoral behavior in women is at least as much of a threat to American safety and prosperity as anything that ever could have come out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Men being too afraid to be the 'squeaky wheel' even when they have lost their children and their present and future assets is a major contributor to the prevailing status quo. Alpha men have no incentive beyond altruism to act as they benefit from the current climate, and thus my altruism will be limited to putting forth these ideas.
Any serious movement has to start a think tank or two to produce research reports, symposiums, and specific policy recommendations, and the few divorce lawyers who were compelled by their conscience to leave the dark side have to be recruited as experts. Subsequently, televised panel discussions have to be conducted at top medical, business, and graduate engineering schools (where young men about to embark on lucrative careers are approaching marriage age, but know nothing about the law), documentary films have to be produced, prominent victims like Mel Gibson, Paul McCartney, Hulk Hogan, and Tiger Woods have to be recruited as spokesmen, and visibly powerful protests outside of divorce courts have to be organized. In this age of Web 2.0/social media/viral tools, all this should be easy, particularly given how quickly leftist groups can assemble a comparable apparatus for even obscure causes.
Instead, all that exists are Men's Rights Authors (MRAs) that run a few websites and exchange information on their blogs. 'Something is better than nothing' is the most generous praise I could possibly extend to their efforts, and this article I am presenting here on The Futurist is probably the single biggest analysis of this issue to date, even though this is not even a site devoted to the subject and I am not the primary author of this site. Hence, there will be no real Men's Rights Movement in the near future. The misandry bubble will instead be punctured through the sum of millions of individual market forces.
The Faultline of Civilization : After examining all the flaws in modern societies, and the laws that exacerbate them, it becomes apparent that there are two realms of legal/judicial thought that stand alone in determining whether our civilization is going to be ever-improving or merely cyclical. These two legal areas are a) the treatment of paternity rights, and b) the treatment of due process in rape accusations. The human brain is wired to value the well-being of women far higher than that of men (for reasons that were once valid, but no longer are today), which is why extending due process to a man falsely accused of rape is not of particular interest to people who otherwise value due process. Similarly, there is little resistance to 'feminist' laws that have stripped away all types of paternity rights from fathers. The father is not seen as valuable nor as worthy of rights, as we have seen above. These two areas of law are precisely where our society will decide if it ascends or declines. All other political sideshows, like immigration, race relations, and even terrorism are simply not as important as none of those can destroy an entire society the way these laws can.
The Economic Thesis
Ceilings and Floors of Glass : Misandrists shriek about a supposed 'glass ceiling' of pervasive sexism that explains why 50% of the CEOs of major corporations are not women. What is never mentioned is the equally valid 'glass floor', where we see that 90% of imprisonments, suicides, and crippling occupational injuries are of men. If these outcomes are the results of the actions or choices of men who suffer from them, then is that not the same reason that determines who rises above the 'glass ceiling'? The inability of misandrists to address these realities in good faith tells us something (but not everything) about the irrational sense of entitlement they have.
One of the most dishonest myths of all is the claim that 'women earn just 75% of men for the same job'. Let me dispense of this myth, in the process of which we will see why it is profitable and seductive for them to broadcast this bogus belief.
It is true that women, on average, earn less per year than men do. It is also true that 22-year-olds earn less, on average, than 40-year-olds. Why is the latter not an example of age discrimination, while the former is seized upon as an example of gender discrimination?
If women truly did earn less for doing exactly the same job as a man, any non-sexist CEO could thrash his competition by hiring only women, thus saving 25% on employee salaries relative to his competitors. Are we to believe that every major CEO and Board of Directors is so sexist as to sacrifice billions of dollars of profit? When the 'Director of Corporate Social Responsibility' of a nun congregation wrote to TJ Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, that his company should have more women in its Board of Directors, Rodgers replied with a letter explaining why the pursuit of profit could not accommodate such political correctness. That a nun congregation pays a recession-proof salary to someone as a 'Director of Corporate Social Responsibility' is itself an example of a pampered existence, and I was unaware that convents were now advancing secular Marxist beliefs.
Furthermore, women entrepreneurs could hire other women and out-compete any male-dominated business if such a pay gap existed, but we do not see this happening in any country in the world. Market forces would correct such mispricings in female compensation, if they actually existed. But they do not, and those who claim that they do are not just advertising an extreme economic illiteracy, but are quite happy to make similarly illiterate women angry about an injustice that does not exist. I notice that women who actually are/were CEOs of publicly traded companies never claim that there is a conspiracy to underpay women relative to their output.
I am willing to pass laws to ensure that 50% of all Fortune 500 CEOs are women, if we also legally mandate that 50% of all imprisonments are of women, and 50% of the jobs that involve working with heavy machinery, being outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals are also occupied by women. Fair is fair. Any takers?
The 'Mancession' and the 'Sheconomy' : I would be the first to be happy if the economic success of women were solely on the basis of pure merit. For many of them, it is. But far too much has been the result of not market forces or meritocracy, but political graft and ideology-driven corruption.
In the recent recession and ongoing jobless recovery, the male unemployment rate continues to be much higher than the female unemployment rate. If this was simply due to market forces, that would be fine. However, 'feminist' groups have lobbied hard to ensure that government stimulus funds were steered to boost female employment at the expense of assistance for men. The leftist Obama administration was more than eager to comply, and a forcible transfer of wealth was enacted, even though it may not have been the best deployment of money for the economy.
Maria Shriver, a woman who has the most fortunate of lives from the vast wealth earned first by her grandfather and then by her husband, recently published 'A Woman's Nation : The Shriver Report', consisting of gloating about how women were now outperforming men economically. The entire research report is full of all the standard bogus feminist myths and flawed statistics, as thoroughly debunked here, as well as the outright sexism of statements like 'women are better managers' (imagine a man saying the reverse). Furthermore, the report reveals the typical economic illiteracy (evidenced by, among other things, the ubiquitous 'women are underpaid' myth), as well as belief that businesses exist to act as vehicles of social engineering rather than to produce a profit.
All of this bogus research and organized anti-male lobbying has been successful. As of today, the male unemployment rate is worse than the female unemployment rate by an unprecedented chasm. The 'mancession' continues as the US transitions to a 'sheconomy', and among the millions of unemployed men, some owe prohibitive levels of 'child support' despite not being the ones wanting to deprive their children of a two-parent household, landing in prison for lack of funds. Furthermore, I emphasize again that having 10-30% of the US male workforce living under an effective 70% marginal tax rate will kill their incentives for inventing new technologies or starting new companies. It is petty to debate whether the top federal income tax bracket should be 35% or 39.6%, when a slice of the workforce is under a 70% tax on marginal income. Beyond the tyranny of this, it also costs a lot of taxpayer money to jail a growing pool of unemployed men. Clearly, moving more and more men out of a tax-generating capacity and into a tax-consuming capacity is certainly going to do two-fold damage to governmental budgets. The next time you hear someone say that 'the US has the largest prison population in the world', be sure to mention that many of these men merely lost their jobs, and were divorced against their will. The women, in the meantime, are having a blast.
The Government Bubble : While public sector vs. private sector workforce distribution is not highly correlated to gender, it is when the focus is on women earning over $100,000 or more. This next chart from the Cato Institute shows that when total compensation (wages + benefits) are taken into account, the public sector has totally outstripped the private sector this decade. Has the productivity of the typical government employee risen so much more than that of the private worker, that the government employee is now paid twice as much? Are taxpayers receiving value for their money?
It goes further. The vast majority of social security taxes are paid by men, but are collected by women (due to women living 7 years longer than men on average). That is not troubling by any means, but the fact that women consume two-thirds of all US healthcare, despite most of this $2.5 Trillion annual expenditure being paid by men, is certainly worthy of debate. It may be 'natural' for women to require more healthcare, since they are the ones who give birth. But it was also 'natural' for men to finance this for only their wives, not for the broader community of women. The healthcare profession also employs an immense number of women, and not just in value-added roles such as nursing, but even in administrative and bureaucratic positions. In fact, virtually all government spending except for defense and infrastructure, from Medicare to Obamacare to welfare to public sector jobs for women to the expansion of the prison population, is either a net transfer of wealth from men to women, or a byproduct of the destruction of Marriage 1.0. In either case, 'feminism' is the culprit.
This Cato Institute chart of Federal Government spending (click to enlarge) shows how non-defense expenditures have steadily risen since 1960. The decline in defense spending, far from being a 'peace dividend' repatriated back to taxpayers, was used to fund more social programs. No one can seriously claim that the American public receives better non-defense governance in 2010 than in 1960 despite the higher price, and as discussed earlier, most of this increase is a direct or indirect result of 'feminism'. When state and local government wastage is added to this, it would appear that 20% of GDP is being spent just to make the government a substitute for the institution of Marriage, and yet still has not managed to be an effective replacement. Remember again that the earnings of men pays 70%-80% of all taxes.
The left has finally found a perfect Trojan Horse through which to expand a tyrannical state. 'Feminists' can lobby for a transfer of wealth from men to women and from private industry to the government, while knowing that calling any questioner a 'misogynist' will silence him far more effectively than their military fifth columnist and plain socialist brethren could ever silence their respective opponents. Conservatives are particularly vulnerable to such shaming language, and most conservatives will abandon their stated principles to endlessly support any and all socialism if it can be packaged as 'chivalry', the opposition to which makes one a 'misogynist'. However, there is reason to believe that tax collection in many parts of the US, such as in states like CA, NY, NJ, and MA, has reached saturation. As the optimal point has already been crossed, a rise in tax rates will cause a decrease, rather than an increase in revenue, and the increase in Federal tax rates exactly one year from today on 1/1/2011 is likely to cause another recession, which will not be so easily transferred to already-impoverished men the next time.
When men are severed from their children with no right to obstruct divorce, when they are excluded from the labor market not by market forces but rather by social engineering, and when they learn that the society they once believed in and in some cases joined the military to protect, has no respect for their aspirations, these men have no reason to sustain such a society.
The Contract Between the Sexes : A single man does not require much in order to survive. Most single men could eke out an adequate existence by working for two months out of the year. The reason that a man might work hard to earn much more than he needs for himself is to attract a wife amidst a competitive field, finance a home and a couple of children, and ultimately achieve status as a pillar of the community. Young men who exhibited high economic potential and favorable compatibility with the social fabric would impress a girl's parents effectively enough to win her hand in marriage. The man would proceed to work very hard, with the fruits of his labor going to the state, the employer, and the family. 80-90% of a man's output went to people other than himself, but he got a family and high status in return, so he was happy with the arrangement.
The Four Sirens changed this, which enabled women to pursue alpha males despite the mathematical improbability of marrying one, while totally ignoring beta males. Beta males who were told to follow a responsible, productive life of conformity found that they were swindled.
Men who excelled under the societal rules of just two decades ago are often left totally betrayed by the rules of today, and results in them refusing to sustain a society heavily dependent on their productivity and ingenuity. Women believed that they could free themselves from all their traditional obligations (only to find, amusingly, that they are unhappier now than they were then), while men would still fulfill all of their traditional obligations, particularly as bankrollers of women and protectors of women. Needless to say, despite the chivalry ground into men, eventually, they will feel that chivalry requires a level of gratitude that is not forthcoming.
To see what happens when the role of the husband and father is devalued, and the state steps in as a replacement, look no further than the African American community. In Detroit, the average home price has fallen from $98,000 as recently as 2003 to just $14,000 today. The auto industry moved jobs out of Detroit long before 2003, so the decline cannot be attributed to just industrial migration, and cities like Baltimore, Oakland, Cleveland, and Philadelphia are in scarcely better shape. For those who believe that this cannot happen in white communities, have a look at the white underclass in Britain. The lower half of the US white population is vulnerable to the same fate as the black community, and cities like Los Angeles are perilously close to 'Detroitification'.
Additionally, people seem to have forgotten that the physical safety of society, particularly of women, is entirely dependent on ratio of 'aggressor' men to 'protector' men staying below a certain critical threshold. As more men get shut out of the labor market, crime becomes an alternative. Even highly educated men who feel betrayed can lash out, and just about every shooting spree and every recent terrorist attempt in the West was by men who were educated and had good career prospects, but were unloved.
While professional men will certainly never resort to crime, what they could resort to is an unwillingness to aid a damsel in distress. More men will simply lose interest in being rescuers, and this includes policemen who may also feel mistreated by the prevailing misandry. Safety is like air - it is only noticed when it is gone. Women have a tremendous amount to lose by creating a lot of indifferent men.
Patriarchy works because it induces men and women to cooperate under their complementary strengths. 'Feminism' does not work, because it encourages immoral behavior in women, which eventually wears down even the durable chivalry of beta men, making both genders worse off. It is no secret that single motherhood is heavily subsidized, but it is less understood that single spinsterhood is also heavily subsidized through a variety of unsustainable and unreciprocated means. The default natural solution is for the misandric society to be outcompeted and displaced.
Population Displacement : So we have arrived at a society where 'feminists' feel that they are 'empowered', 'independent', and 'confident', despite being heavily dependent on taxes paid mostly by men, an unconstitutional shadow state that extracts alimony and 'child support' from men, an infrastructure maintained by men, technologies invented by men, and a level of safety that men agree to maintain. So exactly what has society received from this population of women who are the most privileged class of humans ever to have lived?
Now, let me be clear; I believe a woman should get to decide how many children she bears, or even whether or not to have any children at all. However, a childless old woman should not then be able to extract resources from the children of other women. Fair is fair, and the obligation of working-age people to support the elderly should not be socialized in order to subsidize women who chose not to reproduce.
Let us take a hypothetical example of three 20-year-old single women, one who is an urban lefto-'feminist', one who is a rural conservative, and one who is a devout Muslim. The following table charts the parallel timelines of their lives as their ages progress in tandem, with realistic estimates of typical life events. When people talk about falling birth rates in the West, they often fail to account for the additional gap caused by having children at age 23 vs. at age 33. As the table shows, a 1:1:1 ratio of three young ladies takes only 40 years to yield a 12:4:0 ratio of grandchildren. Consider, also, that we are already 20 years into this 40-year process, so each of these women are 40 years old today.
So how do we estimate the value society will ultimately receive from organizing itself in a manner that young women could choose a life of bar-hopping, shopping for $300 purses, and working as government bureaucrats to make the government a more complete husband substitute? If the sight of a pitiful 60-year-old Code Pink harpy lecturing 12 Muslim adolescents that 'gender is a social construct' seems amusing, then let us move on to the macro chart. This world map(click to enlarge) shows how many children under the age of 15 existed in the major countries of the world in 2005 (i.e. born between 1990 and 2005), in proportion to the country with the most children. Notably, Mexico and the US have the same number of children, while Pakistan and Bangladesh each have about as many as all of Western Europe. While developing countries are seeing their fertility rates converge to Western levels, the 1990-2005 births already seal certain realities. Needless to say, if we move time forward just 15 years, the proportions in this chart reflect what the proportions of adults aged 20-35 (the female reproductive years) will be per nation in the year 2025. Even the near future belongs to those who show up.
Lefto-'feminists' will be outbred and replaced very quickly, not by the conservatives that they hate, but by other cultures antithetical to 'feminism'. The state that lefto-'feminists' so admire will quickly turn on them once the state calculates that these women are neither producing new taxpayers nor new technologies, and will find a way to demote them from their present 'empowered' position of entitlement. If they thought having obligations to a husband was such an awful prospect, wait until they have obligations to the husband-substitute state.
The Fabric of Humanity Will Tear
Humans like ourselves have been around for about 100,000 years, and earlier hominids similar to us for another 1-3 million years before that. For the first 99.99% of humanoid existence, the primary purpose of our species was the same as that of every other species that ever existed - to reproduce. Females are the scarcer reproductive resource, since the number of babies that can be produced does not fall even if most men die, but it does fall for each woman that dies (humans did not live much past age 40-45 in the past, as mentioned earlier). For this reason, the human brain continued the evolutionary hardwiring of our ancestors, placing female well-being at a premium while males remain expendable. Since funneling any and all resources to women closely correlated with the survival of children, both men and women evolved to see this status quo as normal. The Female Imperative (FI) was the human imperative.
As human society progressed, priorities adjusted. For one thing, advances in technology and prosperity ensured that child mortality fell from about 50% to very low levels, so 12 births were no longer needed to produce 6 children who reach adulthood. Secondly, as humans moved away from agriculture into a knowledge-based economy, the number of children desired fell, and almost all high and middle-income countries have birth rates lower than 2 as of today, with many women producing zero children. Thirdly, it has become evident that humans are now the first species to produce something more than just offspring; humans now produce technology. As a result, the former direct correlation between funneling resources to women and the survival of children, which was true for 99.99% of our existence, now no longer is.
Yet, our hardwired brains have not adapted to this very recent transformation, and perhaps cannot adapt. Women are programmed to extract resources endlessly, and most men are programmed to oblige. For this once-valid but now obsolete biological reason, society still unquestioningly funnels the vast majority of resources to women. But instead of reaching children, this money now finds its way into consumer products geared towards women, and a shadow state designed to transfer all costs and consequences away from women. Most people consider our existing society to be normal, but they have failed to observe how diverting money to women is now obsolete. In the 21st century, there is no reason for any resource distribution, if there must be one at all, to be distributed in any manner other than 50-50.
Go to any department store or mall. At least 90% of the products present there are ones no ordinary man would consider buying. Yet, they occupy valuable shelf space, which is evidence that those products do sell in volume. Who buys them? Look around in any prosperous country, and we see products geared towards women, paid for by money that society diverted to women. From department store products, to the proliferation of take-out restaurants, to mortgage interest, to a court system rigged to subsidize female hypergamy, all represent the end product of resources funneled to women, for a function women have greatly scaled back. This is the greatest resource misallocation ever, and such malinvestment always results in a correction as the bubble pops.
This is not to suggest that we should go back to birth rates of 12, for that is neither desirable nor necessary. The bigger picture here is that a major aspect of the human psyche is quite obsolete, with men and women both culpable. When this situation corrects, it will be the most disruptive event humanity has ever faced. Some call this a variant of the 'Technological Singularity', which will happen many decades later than 2020, but even prominent thinkers steer clear of any mention of the obvious correction in gender-tilted resource flows that will occur.
The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation
We earlier examined how the Four Sirens of Feminism unexpectedly combined and provided women with choices they never could have dreamed of before. Some women made positive contributions to society, but quite a few let misandry and unrestrained greed consume them, and have caused the disastrous situation we presently see. Technology always causes disruption in the status quo, always creating new winners and losers with each wave. In centuries past, Gloria Steinem would be a governess and Mystery would be a court jester.
The title of this article is not the 'Misandry Crisis' or even 'The War on Misandry'. It is 'The Misandry Bubble', because the forces that will ensure the demise of the present mistreatment of men are already on the horizon. So allow me to introduce the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation as a coalescence of many of the forces we have discussed, which will shred the present, unsustainable hierarchal order by 2020 :
1) Game : Learning the truth about how the female mind works is a precious and transcendant body of knowledge for any man. Whether he uses it to become a fully immersed pick-up artist, to create a soulmate bond in a lifelong monogamous marriage, or even to engage in only infrequent yet efficient trysts with women, a man is free from the crushing burdens that uninitiated beta men are capitulating under.
When a man learns that there is no reason for him to buy a $50,000 car, $20,000 ring, $50,000 bridezilla festival, overpriced house contrary to any logical financial analysis, or a divorce lawyer to save him from ruin even though he was the victim of spousal abuse, there is no greater feeling of liberation and jubilation, equating to a windfall of $2 Million for all objective and subjective purposes. When a man realizes that reducing his income by half will now have little detriment to his sexual prospects, he can downsize to an easier job with a shorter commute and lower stress. When a man learns that appeasing a woman is the exact opposite of what he should be doing during the process of romancing and seducing her, that entire humiliating gauntlet of rituals can be jettisoned.
The ecstasy of two or even three concurrent relationships with women of substantially above average beauty are quite attainable to a man who has scaled the summit, which further deprives the hapless betas (again, male attractiveness to women is zero-sum in a way that female attractiveness to men is not). Thus, while 80% of men have no intellectual capacity to grasp and master Game, if the number of solid practitioners even begins to approach 20%, multiple parasitic beasts, from female moochers to the tax-swilling state to the corrupt real-estate and divorce lawyer industries, can be effectively starved.
2) Adult Entertainment Technologies of 2020 : What of the 80% of men who cannot conceptualize or master the core skills of Game? Won't they be condemned to live a life of frustration, humiliation, and near-slavery as second class citizens? Thankfully, these poor souls will experience a satisfactory release through technology, just like women did through technologies such as contraceptive pills, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners.
For a number of reasons, Internet pornography is substantially more addictive to the male brain than the VHS cassette or 'Skinimax' content of the 1990s. When yet another generation of technology diffuses into the market, the implications will be profound enough to tear the current sexual market asunder.
This site has written in the past about how haptic, motion sensing, and graphical technologies would elevate video games to the premier form of entertainment by 2012. 3-D/holographic images with haptic interfaces and sufficient AI will make rudimentary 'virtual sex' a technology available to many men well before 2020, but by 2020 we will see this cross certain thresholds that lead to a dramatic market impact far greater than contraceptive pills and Internet pornography combined. A substantial portion of the male population will drift into addiction to virtual sex without even realizing it.
For those (mostly women) who claim that the VR sex of 2020 would not be a sufficient substitute for the real thing, that drawback is more than superceded by the inescapable fact that the virtual woman would be made to be a 10/10+ in appearance, while the real women that the typical beta male user has access to would be in the 4-7 range. Real 10 > VR 10 > Real 7, making irrelevant the claim that a virtual 10 is not as good as a real 10 (under 1% of all women), when the virtual 10 is really competing with the majority of women who are 7s and lower. Women are unaware how vastly different the male reaction is to a 10 relative to a 7, let alone to women of even lower scores. As single men arrive home from work on Friday evening, they will simply default into their VR immersion, giving a whole new meaning to the concept of 'beta testing'. These sequestered men will be conspicuously absent from the bars and nightclubs that were the former venues of expenditure and frustration, causing many establishments to go out of business. The brains of these men will warp to the extent that they can no longer muster any libido for the majority of real women. This will cause a massive devaluation in the sexual market value of most women, resulting in 8s being treated like 5s, and 35-year-old women unable to attract the interest of even 55-year-old men. The Wile E. Coyote moment for women will move a few years ahead, and the alphas with Game competence will find an even easier field of desperate women to enjoy.
Another technology making advancements in Japan is that of lifelike female robots. I do not believe that 'sexbots' will be practical or economical relative to software/gaming-derived solutions, simply because such a robot is not competitive with VR on cost, privacy, versatility, and upgradeability.
Some 'feminists' are not blind to the cataclysmic sexual devaluation that women will experience when such technologies reach the market, and are already moving to seek bans. Such bans will not be possible, of course, as VR sex technologies are inseparable from broader video game and home theater technologies. Their attempts to lobby for such bans will be instructive, however.
Another positive ramification of advanced adult entertainment technologies is that women will have to sharpen the sole remaining attribute which technology cannot substitute - the capacity to make a man feel loved. Modern women will be forced to reacquaint themselves with this ancient concept in order to generate a competitive advantage. This necessity could lead to a movement of pragmatic women conducting a wholesale repudiation of misandry masquerading as 'feminism' that has created this state of affairs, and thus will be the jolt that benefits both men and women.
3) Globalization : The Third Horseman is a vast subject that contains many subtopics. The common theme is that market forces across the world eventually find a way around legislative fences constructed in any one country :
a) Islam : Aside from the higher birthrates of Muslims living in the same Western cities that 'feminists' reside in, an Achilles heel of leftists in general and misandrists in particular is their unwillingess to confront other cultures that actually do place restrictions on women. In Britain, Islamic courts are now in operation, deciding cases through Sharia principles. British divorce laws are even more misandric than US divorce laws, and so many British men, in desperation, are turning to Sharia courts in order to avoid the ruin that British law would inflict on them. The Islamic courts are more than happy to accomodate these men, and 'feminists' dare not protest too loudly. By driving British men to Sharia courts, misandry is beautifully self-defeating. The irony is that the group that was our enemy in the crisis of the prior decade are now de-facto allies in the crisis of this decade. I do not say this simply because I am a Muslim myself.
b) Expatriation : While America continues to attract the greatest merit and volume of (legal) immigrants, almost every American man who relocates to Asia or Latin America gives a glowing testimonial about the quality of his new life. A man who leaves to a more male-friendly country and marries a local woman is effectively cutting off a total of three parasites in the US - the state that received his taxes, the potential wife who would take his livelihood, and the industries he is required to spend money on (wedding, diamond, real estate, divorce attorney). Furthermore, this action also shrinks the number of available men remaining in America. The misandrists who project their pathology outward by calling such men 'misogynists' are curiously troubled that these same men are leaving the US. Shouldn't 'feminists' be happy if 'misogynists' are leaving? We thus see yet another example of 'feminists' seeking to steal from men while not providing them any benefit in return.
The more unfair a place becomes, the more we see talented people go elsewhere. When word of US divorce laws becomes common in India and China, this might even deter some future taxpayers from immigrating to America, which is yet another reason the government is losing money to misandry.
c) Medical Tourism : The sum total of donor eggs + IVF + surrogacy costs $150,000 or more in the US, but can be done in some countries for just $20,000 at top-quality clinics that are building a strong track record. While most customers of foreign fertility clinics are couples, there have been quite a few single men opting to create their own biological babies this way. While this avenue is not for everyone, the ability to have a child for $20,000 (and even two children in parallel with two different surrogates in a two-for-one bundle deal for $35,000) now exists. The poor surrogate mother in India or the Philippines earns more than she could earn in 10 years in her prior vocation of construction or housecleaning. It is a win-win for everyone involved, except for the Western woman who was priced out of the market for marriage to this man.
Medical tourism also prices the US healthcare system out of contention for certain procedures, and the US healthcare system employs a large number of women, particularly in administrative and bureaucratic roles that pay them over twice what they could make in the private sector. Such women will experience what male manufacturing workers did a generation earlier, despite the increasinglly expensive government bubble that has kept these women's inflated salaries safe for so long.
So as we can see, the forces of globalization are far bigger than those propping up the current lop-sided status quo.
4) Male Economic Disengagement and Resultant Tax-Base Erosion : Earlier passages have highlighted how even the most stridently egomaniacal 'feminist' is heavily dependent on male endeavors. I will repeat again that there will never, ever be a successful human society where men have no incentive to aspire to the full maximum of their productive and entrepreneurial capabilities.
The contract between the sexes has been broken in urban America (although is still in some effect in rural America). The 'progressive' income tax scale in the US was levied under the assumption that men who could earn 10 times more than they needed for themselves would always do so, for their families. A man with no such familial aspirations may choose an easier job at lower pay, costing the state more than he costs himself. Less tax revenue not just means fewer subsidies for single mothers and government jobs for women, but less money for law enforcement. Less tax revenue also means fewer police officers, and fewer court resources through which to imprison men. The 'feminist' hypergamous utopia is not self-financing, but is precariously dependent on every beta man working at his full capacity, without which the government bubble, inseparable from the misandry bubble, collapses. Misandry is thus mathematically impossible to finance for any extended period of time. A state with a small government is far more sustainable than a state seeking an ever-expanding government, which then cannot be financed, and descends into a mass of contradictions that is the exact opposite of what the statists intended. See the gangster capitalism that dominates contemporary Russia.
These Four Horsemen will all converge at the end of this decade to transfer the costs of misandry from men onto women, and on 1/1/2020, we will assess how the misandry bubble popped and the fallout that women are suffering under for having made the mistake of letting 'feminists' control their destiny (update : 1/1/2020 article here). Note that I did not list the emergence of any Men's Rights Movement as one of the Four Horsemen, as this is unlikely to happen for aforementioned reasons.
For those who dispute the Four Horsemen (I'd like to see their track record of predictions to compare against my own), women had their Four Sirens, and now the pendulum has to swing at the same amplitude in the other direction. Keep the Four Horsemen in mind throughout this decade, and remember what you read here on the first day of 2010.
Who Should Care?
As we leave a decade where the prime threat to US safety and prosperity was Islamic terrorism and enter a decade where the prime threat is misandry, anyone concerned with any of the following topics should take heed :
- Anyone with a son, brother, nephew, or mentee entering marriage, particularly without the partial protection of a pre-nuptial agreement. As described earlier, he can be ruined, separated from his children, and jailed in a manner few would suspect could happen in any advanced democracy. The suicide rate of divorced men is shockingly high.
- Anyone who agrees that a civilization where most adults are part of two-parent families will always outcompete and displace a civilization where a large portion of adults are not leading two-parent families.
- Anyone with minor grandchildren, nieces and nephews, or great-grandchildren. The divorce laws incentivize using children as pawns during divorce, and no serious thinker can dispute the trouble that haunts the children of divorce for years thereafter. 'Feminists' concoct bogus research about the role of the father being superfluous, but observation of real-world examples proves otherwise.
- Anyone who owns an expensive home in a community of families. The growing aversion of men for marriage will create fewer new families, and thus fewer buyers for those homes. I remind everyone that if they have 20% equity in their home and an 80% mortgage, even a 20% decline in home prices is a 100% decline in your equity, which might be all of your net worth. Detroit, the first major US city to see a loss of beta male employment prospects, saw the average home price drop from $98,000 as recently as 2003 to just $14,000 today. A decline smaller than this would devastate the net worth of remaining home owners, and can happen in any community of single-family homes. If you own a home, your net worth is inseparably tied to the formation and preservation of two-parent families.
- Anyone concerned about rising crime. 72% of African American children are born to single mothers, and the number among white children is approaching 30%. Furthermore, the 'mancession' will eventually ensure that the only means of survival for many men is to form gangs and take valuables by force. Unloved men, who in the past would have been paired with wives, are easy for both gangs and terrorist organizations to recruit.
- Anyone concerned about the widening federal and state budget shortfalls and medicare/healthcare costs, for which the state continues to insist on raising taxes rather than cut spending. Fewer men choosing to work the long hours needed to earn high incomes will break the model of the top 10% paying 75% of taxes, and more men being jailed for alimony arrears, not being good enough in bed, or defending himself from spousal violence will drain tax coffers. It costs $60,000 a year to maintain a prisoner.
- Anyone who thinks the US Constitution is a valuable document. 'Innocent until proven guilty' does not apply in many areas of feminist-heavy law. The previously discussed shadow state is using 'feminism' to conduct all sorts of horrible tyranny against innocent men, which greatly compromises America's ability to claim that it is still the land of the free.
- Anyone concerned about national security. As more men feel that this society is betraying him, fewer will risk their lives in the military only to find that divorce lawyers have been persuading his wife to leave the marriage while he is deployed. Coming home from one battlefield only to be inserted in another is a shameful betrayal of our finest young men. Furthermore, I have already mentioned how British men are turning to Islamic courts in the hopes avoiding ruin at the hands of British misandrist laws. Quite a few men may conclude that Islam offers them more than their native society that has turned against their gender, and will act towards self-preservation.
- Any woman who is appalled by the treatment of any woman who deviates from 'feminist' doctrine, and who is troubled by the words and actions of self-proclaimed 'feminists' today. If you believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, you should worry about what 'feminists' are courting by kicking a friendly dog too many times.
- Lastly, anyone with a young daughter or sister, who is about to enter a world where it is much harder for all but the most beautiful women to marry, where the costs of crazed 'feminism' are soon going to be transferred away from men and onto women, even if she had no interest in this doctrine of hate. As stated in the Executive Summary at the start, 'feminists' are leading average women into the abyss.
I could list even more reasons to care, but the point is clear. The biggest challenge of the decade is summarized before us.
Update (7/1/2012) : On this day, July 1, 2012, exactly 25% of the decade described in this article has passed. I did not include a poll on the original launch date of 1/1/2010, as the concepts described here were too radical for the majority of readers. But now that these ideas have become more mainstream, I can include a simple poll on the subject of whether we are indeed in a Misandry Bubble (poll closed after 60 days).
Conclusion
I am just an observer, and will not become an activist of any sort, although, as described earlier, being an 'inactivist' is also powerful. As a Futurist, I have to predict things before they become obvious to everyone else. Regular readers know of this website's track record of predictions being accurate, and heed my words when I say that the further inflation and subsequent precipitous deflation of the misandry bubble will define the next American decade. So here, on the first day of the '201x' decade, I am unveiling the article that will spawn a thousand other articles.
As mentioned at the top, what you have just finished reading is the equivalent of someone in 1997 predicting the entire War on Terror in vivid detail. The level of detail I have provided about the collapse of the Misandry Bubble will unfold with comparable accuracy as when my co-blogger predicted the real estate bubble two years beforehand, and the exact level the stock market would bottom at, 6 months before the fact. Similarly, misandry is the premier cultural bubble of this age.
This website has predicted that the US will still be the only superpower in 2030, but I am not so sure, so I will introduce a caveat that US vitality by 2030 is contingent on a satisfactory and orderly unwinding of the Misandry Bubble. It remains to be seen which society can create economic prosperity while still making sure both genders are treated well, and the US is currently not on the right path in this regard. For this reason, I am less confident about a smooth deflation of the Misandry Bubble. Deflate it will, but it could be a turbulent hurricane. Only rural America can guide the rest of the nation into a more peaceful transition. Britain, however, may be beyond rescue.
I want to extend my thanks to Instapundit, Dr. Helen, Kim du Toit, The Spearhead, RooshV, and many others for their support of this article.
Required Reading :
Democrats and Republicans Unite to Form Misandry Party
The Sixteen Commandments of Game
The Medicalization of Maleness
The Feminist War on Everything Civilized
Feminist Gulag : No Prosecution Necessary
Decivilizing : Human Nature Unleashed
Note on Comments : As Typepad only allows 100 comments per page, here is a direct link to page nine, where you can comment.
Just because I linked to a particular blog does NOT mean that I endorse all of the other views of that author. Are 'feminists' all willing to be responsible for all of the extremism that any other feminist utters (note that I have provided links to 'feminists' openly calling for slavery, castration, and murder of men without proving him guilty of anything)? Also, you will see Pavlovian use of the word 'misogyny' dozens upon dozens of times, so remember what I wrote about the importance of not taking that at face value, as it is merely a manifestation of projected misandry, as well as a defense mechanism to avoid taking responsibility for genuine wrongdoings of 'feminists'.
cheetah, You had me worried there. I am not afraid of being alone because as I mentioned before, robogirls will be a reality by 2030 and trips will be done with virtual reality with virtual girls in 2020. Im not going to waste my time on picking up sluts, ive gone my way and will enjoy life single. America is a matriarchy and there's few good ladies. Many married men get screwed over in the divorce and end lonely. See my long reply to you on September 15, 2010 at 04:54 AM, I made some good points. Don't think youve had a chance to read my previous reply to you.
GK, if game can help improve a loving, monogameous relationship or marriage, then im all for it. But if you are already single, id still advise men to stay that way and be free.
Even with a prenup, marriage is still a good deal for women. Of course she will try to shame you out of a prenup, perhaps even refuse to marry you. If she does marry, she will find a judge that will not honor your prenup as she divorces you. Worst case, she still gets your children and lots of child support, something no prenup can legally protect you from. Hence, never marry in a matriarchy!
Ok, so maybe MGTOW isn't popular for alpha men with game, but for the other 80% who can't/won't game, it'll save them alot of trouble and failed relationships and false allegations. Virtual girls is the way to go for them. As to replacing real women, it will for most betas because a virtual 10 beats a real 7 and also because their minds will become warped and average women will simply be ignored. Most men will become too jaded to believe in "love" as they found out themselves or thru their friends. I don't believe in love myself and don't believe the majority of women are capable of unconditional love. Hence, virtual love will be the option for most men.
You still maintain that robogirls won't ever become popular. I mention that robogirls will get to the point they can do everything and more vs. a human woman. There will be all kinds of safety elements. What if you get a stroke or heart attack? Then your robogirl can administer medicine while wirelessly dialing 911. Your robogirl can act as a guard to protect you from robothugs. Your robogirl can do all kinds of chores around the house and be programmed to love you unconditionally.
Even when virtual reality becomes "real" by 2040(kurzweil says 2030) thanks to nanobots, robogirls won't go away as they will still be needed in the real world. Virtual reality isn't just an outlet to get beautiful women, anything goes and the only limitation is your imagination. I believe human male-female relationships will be a thing of the past by then. Robots will have taken almost all our jobs and humans will have fun all day in their virtual utopia. This will continue towards the tech. singularity and past that.
http://www.singularity.com/qanda.html
http://trace.wisc.edu/tech-overview/index0735.html?p=18
kurzweil, a famous futurist has lots of good points. You mentioned elsewhere that his predictions are too optimistic. Did you factor in the "double" exponential?
Posted by: Savethemales | September 27, 2010 at 08:34 AM
The Futurist, I have another question. I know that you have a very bullish outlook for America by 2030, but I’d like to ask how you envision this. As the West continues to collapse, why wouldn’t the government, or what’s left of it, simply continue with its self serving aims and continue with its present course of catering to women? Is the only way that America can turn things around be the restructuring of marriage so men find it beneficial again, or is the future America whether broke or rich simply going to be a dystopian nightmare?
Posted by: Max | September 27, 2010 at 09:25 AM
Max,
Note that in The Misandry Bubble, I introduced a caveat, stating that the US still being a superpower by 2030 was contingent on an orderly unwinding of The Misandry Bubble.
If the Misandry Bubble pops in a chaotic and destructive way, the US might no longer be a superpower. So yes, the only positive outcome is for marriage to be made attractive to MEN again. Catering to women is just not sustainable - it is the snake eating its own tail.
China is also vulnerable to misandry.
Posted by: The Futurist | September 27, 2010 at 09:58 AM
Do you consider the U.S. Government will make the right choice if utter collapse could be avoided with such restructuring? Will Islam force the hand of the developed nations or will Muslims too fall by the hand of Feminism? Also, I'd like to know about the level of feminism in Norway and Sweden. I have a friend who is convinced that Feminism is fairly balanced due to the state of their government there but I have seen a few articles stating otherwise.
Posted by: Max | September 28, 2010 at 02:37 PM
Savethemales,
You might just be the most pathetic male in the whole world.
You claim that you have 'evolved beyond thinking about women', yet you have a 'plan' to wait 20 years until 'robogirls' are available?
That puts whole new meaning to the word 'pathetic'.
If you were in the clergy, your claim of not needing women might be believable. But being so afraid of women (none of whom have any interest in you), while waiting 20 years for 'robogirls' is the most pathetic thing I have ever heard. That you think there are any other men in the world who would even want to live your life is even more pathetic.
Whatever MGTOW is, I don't want to know anything about it. Real men take charge of their situation. Learning Game is a better life to live.
Posted by: Jackson | September 29, 2010 at 09:47 PM
Your shaming language has been pre-emptied by his blog. I am living my life without being a white knight. There's so much more to life than pandering to the feminists who are full of misandry. Ill get VR girls in a decade and no biological woman will be able to compete. Lots of other men will grow tired of the shaming language and misandry and start flocking to VR of 2020 and robogirls of 2030. We haven't lost interest in decent women, there just aren't many left and VR/robots will be a trillion dollar market to fill in the demand.
All men should be afraid of women, they rule the country and created the laws to serve them. Millions of innocent men have their lives ruined by false allegations. We are protecting ourselves by staying away from the feminists. This is why The Futurist wrote the article pointing out how prevalent misandry is. Re-read his article, especially about "2) Adult Entertainment Technologies of 2020" and also read my previous comments in this blog.
Posted by: Savethemales | September 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Very thorough article. Most of the comments have added greatly to the page. Many of the comments from females have also added a different and constructive perspective.
Posted by: Gordon | September 30, 2010 at 08:39 PM
Savethemales,
No, I don't think this blog is siding with you at all.
You are extremely pathetic if your plan is to be a virgin for 20 more years while waiting for some creepy 'robogirls'. If you at least joined the clergy, you would have some excuse for wanting to be a sexual loser.
Another option you should consider is becoming gay. Then you won't have to worry about lawsuits.
Extremely pathetic. You actually think other men would want to be anything like you, but you are perhaps the most pathetic loser around.
As I said, real men take action. They learn Game, or find some other solution than being a loser waiting for 20 years for 'robogirls'.
Shaming language is what you deserve.
Posted by: Jackson | October 03, 2010 at 10:32 AM
Your arguments are deeply flawed and show you have a lack of understanding of technology and humans. There's nothing pathetic about virgins and everything to admire about them. Not every man wastes his life chasing pussy or obsessing about it every 7 seconds. Some men are wise to the fact celibacy avoids all kinds of crazy risks in your life, such as false rape, STDs, pregnancy, injuries, etc. False rape is men's biggest risk and there's no way around this except if you wait 10 years for virtual girls. Robogirls will then come 10 years after virtual girls. Im living my life right now(unlike those in prison for false rape) and will really be living it up starting in 2020. :)
There won't be anything creepy about robogirls because the uncanny valley will have been crossed. Ray Kurzweil has a $10,000 bet robots will pass the turing test by 2029. This means robots will look, think and act *exactly* like humans! I have mentioned previously the purposes of robogirls and they won't be just for mating, far from it. I bet the majority of men will be with robogirls because robogirls will be much hotter, smarter and nicer, not to mention safer than any slut you catch with game. Even the author of this blog understands a VR 10 beats a real 7 anyday! A robogirl 10 would beat a real 10, especially in the brain department.
It's much easier to go your way than turn gay. Life isn't about chasing women(or men) and obsessing about getting laid. I spend my time feeding my brain with useful facts and learning about technology and being a futurist myself. You should re-read this article and read every other article in his blog. Youll notice even he believes there will be a 50% chance of AEV(infinite lifespan) by 2040. Ray believes that chance will be 100% before 2040. Therefore 10 years for virtual girls and 20 years for robogirls is less than nothing in the face of infinite life.
You think like a white knight/mangina when you shame other men. This is exactly what the man hating feminists are counting on. Those feminists also shame me, especially when I mention robogirls. They say I must be a pathetic loser who can't handle a "real" woman. The choice is painfully obvious: be with an ugly, rude, illogical woman who expects you to serve her and do whatever she wants or be with a hot, nice, logical robogirl who will be programmed to do whatever you want? I couldn't care less about the feminists and white knights calling me pathetic while I couldn't be happier with the perfect robotic woman. They will be the miserable ones, not me.
Posted by: Savethemales | October 03, 2010 at 08:29 PM
savethemales,
You sound more and more pathetic with every comment.
A virgin is not to be 'cherished'. He is by definition a creature that nature has rejected.
Your insane belief that even the smallest interaction with women will lead you to jail is the reason you are so detached from reality. What percentage of the time is a man accused of rape after sex with a woman? I bet you think it is 50% or more.
Again, if you went into the clergy, you might have an excuse. But waiting 20 years for something creepy like 'robogirls', which may not even happen, is a pathetic approach to life. No wonder other men don't want to be like you.
The reason you are too afraid to learn Game is a) you are not smart enough, and b) you refuse to admit that other men lead better lives, even with all the feminism in society.
No one wants to make the 'choice' you have made - which is not really a choice but rather a resignation to defeat.
Posted by: Jackson | October 04, 2010 at 04:00 PM
Funny, everyone I know who's not a virgin has his or her health and life ruined. I don't care what others say, im proud to be a virgin. I do want to be with either robogirls or foreign women(if I expat), but want nothing to do with American feminists, not even if I learned and perfectly understood game. Ignoring those feminists will deflate the misandry bubble much faster. Virtual reality of 2020 will do exactly that when millions of beta men simply ignore women.
MGTOW simply means ignoring women in matriarchal countries. A third of rapes are false. Feminists believe all sex is rape and all men are rapists. Men can get their fix safely today with masturbation, then in a decade with virtual girls, then in two decades with robogirls. You still don't understand "uncanny valley" but you will by 2030 when it's crossed. You will never be a futurist when you think "it may not even happen"
Millions of mostly beta men will be flocking towards virtual reality girls in 2020, even The Futurist points this out. None of us will care in the least how many sluts you alpha men pick up when we are safely enjoying our "perfect" virtual girls, then robogirls. You will never find love from a feminist nor a slut. Even a robogirl can simulate love well enough to make nearly all men feel loved. You defeat yourself with your lack of knowlege.
Posted by: Savethemales | October 04, 2010 at 06:32 PM
Hey Savethemales,
I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I think that the dates may have to be pushed back another decade or so. I just don't think that technology can advance that fast. I'd say 2060-70 sounds about right for mass market sales.
I too have been conscious of the fate of beta men in America who want children. I was the nice-guy 23 year old virgin that focused on his studies to the detriment of being shunned by the girls around me.
I'd say that in America my beta-ness makes me a 5. I went to Japan and worked there for three years and I was able to get a girl who's a 7.5 virgin and we're still together. The value of hard-working men from the US goes up dramatically in almost any other foreign country.
If you haven't already, take the time to learn a foreign language, get out of this misandric society and you can find yourself a flower out there. As of right now, a foreign girl is much better relationship material than a virtual girl. You won't regret expatting.
Posted by: forcho130 | October 04, 2010 at 09:42 PM
"This is pure evil, ranking right up there with the evil of Nazi Germany"
Way to prove Goodwin's law. Also, enthralling article, but it's unlikely those four horsemen will actually progress at the same rate,thereby skewing your prediction year.
Posted by: hoodrat-neph | October 05, 2010 at 08:48 AM
savethemales,
You are actually trying to claim that 'every man you know who is not a virgin had his life ruined, so remaining a virgin is better?'. So there is an actual cluster of virgin males trying to pass off their failure as success? That is even worse than women trying to push cougarhood.
No wonder no men want to have anything to do with MGTOW other than the most extreme losers. What is funny is that you think the strategy of men remaining virgins can gain popularity.
You should seriously consider becoming gay, for your sake and that of others. Waiting 20 years for robogirls might not pan out, plus is an unprecedented level of loserdom.
Posted by: Jackson | October 06, 2010 at 03:33 PM
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
Posted by: Kevin | October 10, 2010 at 06:54 PM
In response to Wacky Hermit,
As someone with Aspergers Syndrome, and baring in mind my own case differs significantly from traditional aspergers and autistic spectrum disorders, I see some correlation myself. We certainly see less children being told, and subsequently learning to, suck it up and deal. I, personally, got a fair amount of extra help in school, special education, etc etc, but had no-one to teach me how to deal, how to "shut up and nut up". I taught myself basic, and complex, social interaction. I taught myself how to deal with women. Where was my dad in all this? Pussy whipped by my mother. Sure, he gave me some good tidbits here and there when she wasn't around, taught me how to deal with other men, but my early lessons on dealing with women were "Whiteknighty" as fuck, and it wasn't until my last few years of highschool that I learned that shit doesn't work.
This has turned into a huge ramble-fest, tied into the fact I have not slept in over twenty four hours, so I will attempt to explain what I meant briefly. The de-masculinizing of modern men has stripped our young males of education on what it means to be a man, and all that comes along with it (basic decency, resolve, drive, the ability to cope, and all such things of that manner).
Posted by: ThePolarBear | October 10, 2010 at 11:29 PM
forcho130, read on Ray Kurzweil's predictions. You are thinking linearly, not exponentially. Good move expating, this is one of the horseman. Foreign women are way better than American women. In fact, any woman, even virtual women beat American women hands down. Ive done some reading on virtual reality and it will probably be done with TV glasses that beam an image directly to your retina. We will also have true 3-d holographic TVs by 2020. The author mentions "Adult Entertainment Technologies of 2020" as a horseman. Many men are greatly underestimating virtual reality because they think linearly. Kurzweil points out computers a decade from now will be a thousand times more powerful!
hoodrat-neph, I personally think feminism will begin to decline by 2020 and be completely gone by 2030. The virtual reality will be the most responsible for this among all the horsemen.
Jackson, not all men are interested in getting laid and they can't fail if they aren't interested in the first place. You think and act like an alpha man and you wouldn't understand how beta men live our lives. We are interested in knowlege and technology and think with our brains instead of penis. You don't have much interest in technology and the future so you wouldn't understand what we clearly know. We aren't worried about anything except gray goo and unfriendly AI.
ThePolarBear, Asperger's is normal and the future of how humans will think. We don't blindly follow the herd mentality and we aren't social. We think for ourselves and do what's best for us. I choose to deal with women by simply not taking them and their shaming language seriously and ignoring them as they are not fit to date, much less form long term relationships. They have "pussy power" that works on men who think with their penis. Those men become pussy whipped and live an unhappy, resentful life. Going my own way gives me a level of freedom envied by many men. We will get our own women with virtual reality of 2020 and robogirls of 2030 without any worries or risks. Men will relearn what it's like to be a man thanks to technology.
Posted by: Savethemales | October 11, 2010 at 03:05 PM
Fantastic article. I have linked to it on my blog because it really nails down a lot of the issues with women.
Posted by: The Truth About Women | October 16, 2010 at 05:34 AM
The reasons that Savethemales is a loser are :
1) He thinks that every man who ever has sex with a woman has gotten his life ruined.
2) He thinks that young men will actually find his doctrine of loserish celibacy while waiting until 2030 for 'robogirls' attractive. He clearly knows nothing about young men.
3) He is too cowardly to attempt to learn Game.
4) He is too dumb to understand why Game works.
5) He thinks a life without love (waiting 20 years for 'robogirls') is better than a life with love, having never felt love himself.
Dude, do yourself a favor and become gay. It will happen eventually anyway, so just save yourself some time.
Posted by: Jackson | October 18, 2010 at 06:53 AM
First of all, there's nothing wrong celibacy. Second, there is no law that makes it mandatory to lower themselves to dog shit and chase women who seek to ruin his life. Having sex is too damn easy, but celibacy is a challenge. An if you are the typical white knight wannabe or the groveling mangina who'll lie down in rush hour traffic for the sake of getting laid, it is you who is pathetic not the virgin!
Posted by: Zuberi | October 23, 2010 at 12:20 PM
@Jackson
Jackson you know you are a real peice of work you know that, I have played the *Game* both as an alpha and a beta and I can tell you that western women are shit, Savethemales has made his choice as to how he wants to live his life, so who in the hell do you think you are in judging him and others who virgins?
I say more power to then, thy know or at lest Savethemales knows how western women are and I can tell you from my own personal experances that western women are not worth the time or the risks involved in being with them, sexualy or otherwise.
So why don't you give it a rest and try to understand svaethemales and the others here points of view instead of acting like an overblown assface, well make our choices in life because we beileve that it is the best choice for us so how's to save that STM's choice is not the best chopice or who's to say your choice is not the best choice, it's all a matter of personal points of views and choices that make us diffrent from one another and given the way western women are and that more and more men are realizing that western women are not worth the time and risks invoilved in being with then that is their right and given this fact what does that tell you about western women?
Hell you should not be complaing about, the more men that opt out of being involed with western women means that there is more pussy for you and the other players.
Posted by: Kargan3033 | October 24, 2010 at 07:50 AM
GK, perhaps you are no longer checking comments on this article but it is still worth a try. I do agree with most of your points though I must state emphatically that I have never had and probably never will have an actual romantic encounter with a western female. I am from small-town eastern europe currently living in London and thus have no patience or stomach for the exploits of western women, in fact they positively horrify me. My last futile attempt at trying to form a loving bond with a western female (swedish in this instance) started ominously when she asked me out for a first date and suggested I cook for her... I am a decent cook, while she of course has never seen the inside of a kitchen. I grudgingly acquisced for I am polite with women like most men are, a major weakness if you ask me. I believe she listed her favourite dildos on the first date, but thought I was too rash for kissing her on the second. I lost my patience after a few dates and kicked her out. Then she started pursuing me like a maniac and the more I ignored her the more she came on. Of course I did not give in, I find such behaviour in women revolting to say the least. So I can corrobate most of what you had to say about the western female. If I ever chose to marry, I would probably convert to Islam and move to Malaysia or Indonesia or some other similarly male-friendly country where it is incomparably easier to find women either for short term romantic encounters or most definitely for marriage. I would never willingly inflict the sort of feminist-induced suffering western children have to endure these days on my own offspring. We (the West) are a wicked civilization made up of whores, pimps, transvestites and bastards and we deserve to be eclipsed by the more dynamic and family friendly cultures of the east. I used to live in both Singapore and India and have been shocked to realize that it is normal for women in the east to stay virgins until marriage. What surprised me even more is that professional girls were far less tarty and had probably far less mileage (eastern bargirls dont sleep with a different guy every day and often have relationships) than a lot of nympho western girls I knew.
Regards, Christian
Posted by: christian | October 24, 2010 at 04:20 PM
Jackson,
1. Sex is harmful for everyone, especially men. I have talked to people who get STDs, pregnant, injured or even been accused of false rape!
2. Zuberi, Kargan3033 and im sure millions of other men strongly disagree with you.
3. Id rather be a coward than an inmate.
4. I never said game doesn't work, just that I am not interested in learning game because I want nothing to do with western women. Neither do millions of men. Those men go their way, seek foreign women or are waiting for virtual and robogirls.
5. Western women, with few exceptions are not capable of (unconditional) love. Many will pretend to love you in order to trap you into marriage, child support, and use you and your money to support herself. Foreign women are alot more capable of love. Robogirls will be able to simulate love that is virtually identical to "true love" Ive explained how your robogirl will do everything(obeying the 3 laws of robotics) you want.
6. I am not gay and I won't pretend to be. I am not interested in the long process required to turn gay. Those who are born gay or wish to turn gay, I have respect for them. They will be happy with men. It's actually one of the horsemen(relationships with men) that will be up on my blog soon.
Christian, The Futurist is a big fan of gaming western women. But many of us don't want to be with western women ever, period. The fact she suggested you cook for her means she was just looking for a white knight that will do whatever she wants. You got lucky she did not accuse you of abuse or rape. More and more men are learning how horrible western women and feminists are. Those women shall be lonely. Feminism is going to hurt women big time, The Futurist is right about that one.
Be careful about converting to Islam, sharia law is harsh to men and even worse to women. It's the lesser of the evils vs. feminism but far from perfect. My plan is to be a MGTOW for the next 10 years till I can be with virtual reality girls(a horseman) then enjoy VR girls another 10 years till robogirls are viable. Read my previous comments to understand my reasoning on VR and robogirls.
Posted by: Savethemales | October 25, 2010 at 04:48 AM
I reckon you're all high...
I am female 35, naturally gorgeous and I've slept with way more men than my age. I am proud to be who I am and what I am. I have never shagged my way up the ladder and I've always worked exceptionally hard for what I have earned. I've had to, as my career has occasionally been sabotaged by more than a few jealous males who just couldn't compete with my abilities.
Look, I love men. They're my friends, my lovers and my confidantes. Basically, IMHO you're sprouting drivel that some poor, ignorant philistine will read and take as gospel. Yes, the world is a fucked up place, however do we really need any extremist views to make it worse? Just something to think about.
BTW, I'm single and very happy. I intend on staying that way. I have no need to marry as I am financially independent, have access to all the pediatric company I could ask for and love my freedom. It's my life and I will live it as I choose.
I have had long term relationships with men but have come to the decision that I prefer them as friends and lovers. I have found that men I know become like horses once they fall into the complacency of a long term relationship - they become high maintenance and cost HEAPS to feed.
Come on guys, get your heads back into the real world and face facts. Now that women have the power to decide their own destinies, there will be no turning back. I am merely a trailblazer.
Peace,
Female Muso With Many Many Options
Posted by: Female Muso With Many Many Options | November 01, 2010 at 05:16 AM
Female with No Remaining Options,
The more men a woman sleeps with, the less desirable to men she becomes. That, combined with your age, means you have passed the Wile E. Coyote moment, and have missed your chance to get a man. Your bitterness is oozing through every line you wrote.
Your entire post is pure projection, which was already predicted and pre-empted by the main article.
You have no understanding of how women think. Read the article, and learn something. Also, read Roissy and The Spearhead to further your education.
Posted by: The Futurist | November 01, 2010 at 07:51 AM
It doesn't seem like she's bitter at all, just blind. In fact, the spinster above seems to be quite happy for now. Her theory works for her at the moment. The problem with her idea is twofold.
1. The spinster is defying her very biological needs to marry and to be a mother. Very few women stay attractive past 35. Even if we assume she is still attractive (which is a fair assumption in her case), give her 5 years to realize that she is no longer sought by men. She will have to either settle for anyone or will have to live in the past.
2. Most women are not happy living the way the spinter lives - that is like a slut. Most might go through this stage of clubbing, partying, and then grow out of it. She seems to have stayed in it and hasn't even realized that the Wile E. Coyote moment has passed (or soon will).
And yes, with adequate protection, I would totally bang her. Probably wouldn't need much game to get her either. Whores like these are very good for sex but are trash when it comes to a relationship. Now don't get me wrong - I love whores. They make the world a better place. The best part is that the spinster doesn't even want a relationship. Women like her are a win-win situation for us all.
Posted by: cheetah | November 03, 2010 at 09:37 PM
Btw, Jackson. If you sat down and actually thought for a minute, you would see that intelligence is why humans have dominated the planet. And this intellect is why intelligent men (even if they don't look good) can achieve just about anything they put their mind to. This is where Game comes in. Game has been developed for luminaries in the field of applied female psychology like Mystery, DeAngelo, and a lot of other amazing PUA's. These guys really don't look like much but it is their skill and drive that makes them better at picking up chicks than any true alpha can ever be.
STM has chosen a different path and should not be ridiculed for it. Even though you might not agree with it, there is a decent way to say things and articulate your thoughts. In fact, I cannot imagine how any man can actually want to or have the ability to stay a virgin. I tend to lean towards the theory that many men who claim to want to stay virgins for whatever reason are some combination of extreme Beta males and have put up a psychological protective mechanism against failure. You can't fail at getting women if you don't want them in the first place. If this is the case, he is putting up a front and is actually a scared and sad person. However, if STM indeed doesn't care a shit about women, then hats off to him.
Personally, I find it easier getting women when I dont give a rat's ass about them. It's consistent with game theory as well. But the real test for STM will be to learn some game, use it, and then not have sex with them because of his convictions.
Posted by: cheetah | November 03, 2010 at 09:52 PM
tend to lean towards the theory that many men who claim to want to stay virgins for whatever reason are some combination of extreme Beta males and have put up a psychological protective mechanism against failure. If this is the case, he is putting up a front and is actually a scared and sad person.
cheetah,
What you described is exactly what STM is. What reveal him to be this are :
a) Wanting to wait until 2030 for 'robogirls', rather than risk interacting with real women today
b) Saying ALL men who have sex are ALWAYS worse off. He regrets his parents conceived him
c) He can't admit that Game works
There might be some form of dignified celibacy possible, but STM is not it. He is frightened and miserable, as you correctly say.
Posted by: Jackson | November 06, 2010 at 06:20 AM
While I cannot understand how any guy can actually think that the robogirl or 3-D girl stuff can substitute for the real thing, maybe he is so jaded by Western girls (rightly so), that he just doesn't want to deal with them any more. Personally, I just can't help but throw game wherever I go. It's always been a part of me even before I knew about game theory. But that's not to say that STM and others like him should be ridiculed for their decision to stay a virgin.
It's really not for us to say what is going through STM's mind but, in any case, it would be fair to give him the benefit of the doubt. Either way, what is the use of trying to put down another person? We're all in this together and that is one of our strongest points as guys. Women always fight with each other on even trivial matters and can't seem to agree on anything.
Posted by: cheetah | November 06, 2010 at 04:49 PM
The Futurist has written an eye-opening article. It is a must-read for all men and women. I am a very successful engineer and have been equally successful with women. However, I also read the news and have friends from whom I see a lot of evidence to support the points made in The Futurist's blog.
The Futurist is not saying that all or even most women are out to screw men; figuratively speaking, of course. In fact, most women I have met have a desire to be just in their dealings. However, since most of us (women included) equate the law with what is morally correct, women see no wrong is taking what is lawfully theirs. The system has failed men and women are just taking what they feel is being given to them by the justice system and the family courts.
He is, in no way, condoning violence against women and atrocities committed against them in many underdeveloped countries. He is saying that masculinity in the west is being put down while femininity is being celebrated. Any man living in the US can plainly see the obvious truth in his article.
To further my point that it is the system and not the woman at fault, take the example of an American marrying a girl from outside the US and bringing her to the US to live with him. After learning about her right in the US, she will have to be a saint to say no to his money if they split up. This actually gives her a reason to split up and undoubtedly influences her decision to stay in the marriage even after a small fight.
I have seen so many of my friends go through the family law courts and get screwed so badly that they cannot even think about remarrying. One buddy was taken to court by his ex-wife to stop him from taking their child GoKarting because she felt it was "reckless endangerment". The kid loves going racing with his dad every weekend and she almost took that from him just out of spite. The judge had sided with her for every one of her complaints until then but told her that her request was simply ridiculous and said that he would have liked to go GoKarting with his dad.
Seeing friends go through the dryer time and time again has made a lot of men like me jaded about marriage and question its very worth. I have since dated women and had great success and happiness without any of the risks of marriage. A lot of guys in my social circle of young professionals are doing the same. We are just doing what's best for us given the options that we have. Marriage has become a bad bet and men are logical beings.
Posted by: Peter Feller | November 08, 2010 at 07:42 PM
There are three kinds of women in their late 30s.
Cock-carousel riders
Divorced women
The occasional still-single woman who has not slutted around.
Carousel riders will likely end up alone.
Single mom divorcees can find another guy, but should focus mostly on character and stability, and forget about romance and status. And looks.
The still-single, if childless, has a good chance, but these are often the pickiest of women, and it seems they double down on their demands as time runs out.
There has been an amazing illusion of choice and options, and many, many women have totally blown their chances. As an early 40s guy in good financial shape and considered eligible by my friends, I’m off the market for anything other than dating.
The first generation of women who behaved this way are just starting to hit the point of no return. Soon, they will be as invisible to men as a little old lady.
Except little grammas are cute, and they sometimes bake me cookies.
Many of these women continued to bet on the wrong guys, and are going to look around at 40 and wonder where all the sweet, if average guys went – you know, the ones they always thought would be available if they couldn’t get Mr. Big to commit.
We are off the market.
Posted by: Rick | November 09, 2010 at 04:58 PM
http://www.rebelnews.org/opinion/genders/7938-feminism-refuted
See attatched highly informative article on the fallacies of feminism.
Posted by: john thames | November 10, 2010 at 06:09 PM
Jackson and cheetah, I don't have to keep repeating this virtual girl and robogirl deal. Ive said plenty in my previous comments. I also discuss this and the other horsemen plus the five sirens. Lots of men are falling for her pussy power and seduction. Check my blog: http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D847407&entry=10002&mode= Feel free to leave a comment in my blog.
Posted by: Savethemalesfuturist | November 26, 2010 at 08:39 PM
This is a joke, right? I really really hope so. Cause I am laughing my ass off.
Posted by: Kate McG | November 28, 2010 at 06:44 AM
Dear Author - You just lost ALL credibility and hope for the Future with this article. Please have an open dialogue about feminism with someone who has studied it before you start gender-normalizing feminism as "lunacy" and get a history lesson on what feminism is up to these days - it's called "Third Wave" and "Global" feminism to start. Unlike many of your claims, basic human rights for women has not been realized in much of the globe, and young women are still challenged with real opposition - just take a look at all the advertising directed at young women to look like the perfect sex object. Men should be allies to this cause, not reactionary, defensive, and offended or angry about it. This writing is all opinion, vitriolic fluff that merely reaffirms some men and women's discomfort with our own ability to empower each other through understanding and empathy to the other's cause. You merely wrote something with sensationalist writing (women who lie about rape? c'mon!!) in order to get eyeballs on your crap writing, and I suppose it was successful. But I can tell you, this is the last time I visit here. Yes - crap. And from what I understand, you will delete any posts like mine - so here's to the future (hooray censorship!)
Posted by: Kate McG | November 28, 2010 at 06:59 AM
You know, as a sexually well-adjusted and satisfied man, I'd have to say that this article made me laugh enough to forward it to my guy friends.
See, we like to refer to guys with asinine attitudes like this as either "yard apes" or "insecure dickheads who likely have mommy issues." Why? Because while we have evolved, YOU clearly haven't. It's 2010. Yes, women have access to contraceptives (thank god.) Yes, divorce is really common. That's not a failing of women (I'm having flashbacks to Adam blaming Eve, here) - it's an antique, patriarchal tool that is finally dying because it doesn't work anymore.
Let's use my life as a great example of how you can not believe conspiracy bullshit like this, respect women and still have great sex. I have a long-standing girlfriend, with whom I have a completely open relationship. We have all the emotional and life attachments of marriage, but we are both able to have sex with whoever else we want. We are not legally married. We have agreed to not have children. If she dumped me tomorrow, I would not lose a dime (although I would be heartbroken, because she is the light of my eyes.) We also have mandated that Saturdays are OUR time, so that we don't neglect our own sexual intimacy. We are not jealous, we communicate very well, and we respect each other as equal, intelligent human beings.
So, what I'm trying to say is: stop whining like a bitch and pretending these are social issues. They aren't. Unfortunately, monkey-brained, biological "essentialist" patriarchal thinking will be with us until people like you finally shut up or die out. So, instead of spouting this bullshit and lamenting the death of "Real Men", go out, find the right kind of relationship for you and just BE a man. Real men are completely secure in their sexual prospects and don't need to blame women for their own personal failings. Stop crying to the interwebz about "misandry" - you'll be happier and fewer people's eyes will be bleeding.
Posted by: Gutherie | November 28, 2010 at 04:57 PM
Kate,
This is a joke, right? I really really hope so. Cause I am laughing my ass off.
It is not a joke. This article is serious, and has been well received by a lot more people than small-minded parrots like you. Your unoriginal attempt to hide the fact that you have been intellectually outclassed is not even very adept.
Men should be allies to this cause,
As soundly proven in the article, men are being oppressed to prop up women, with very few women expressing awareness or concern. Your victim narrative is threadbare.
The article heavily pre-empts your rehearsed squawking, and none of your points have not already been rebutted in the article.
women who lie about rape? c'mon!!)
Yes, 41% of all rape accusations are false, which I have provided a source for. Facts don't seem to matter to you.
Dr. Helen is one woman who is writing about how the West has become anti-male.
Female Masculinist is another.
You could learn a lot about gender dynamics by reading the writings of these two women.
But I can tell you, this is the last time I visit here.
Unlikely. You are already getting turned on reading what I wrote. You don't really understand how women think (and no, being a woman does not mean you understand how women think. Quite the opposite, in fact).
Guthrie,
You are not a man, you are a woman (probably Kate above, who threatened 'not to return here') pretending to be a man (which is what 'feminism' is about, eh?). I can see right through your amateurish ruse.
Oh, and Game works, Kate. That is why more men are choosing to be pickup artists, rather than husbands.
Posted by: The Futurist | November 28, 2010 at 05:39 PM
Congrats on the great Straw Man! "I can't think of a response to Experience, Logic and Reality, so I'll just call him a girl. That'll work!" The fact that you didn't actually respond to anything I said is a testament to your amateurish thinking. See, what's hilarious about guys like you is that you actually believe this shit. You actually BELIEVE in the alpha/beta false dichotomy. And because you believe in it, you're insecure. You look up to guys who have it good and want them to accept you as a Fellow Alpha Dood and you're scared that they'll see you as just another "beta." So you overcompensate. That's all this paranoid tl;dr post is: overcompensation. Cheers and good luck, dude. (Seriously though, I recommend finding the right kind of woman. It helps!)
Posted by: Gutherie | November 28, 2010 at 06:05 PM
Guthrie,
Everything you wrote is pure projection (which the article already explains).
You haven't even addressed any of the well-supported points in the article, you just blather in your own insecurity, which you project outwards. That is why you are so threatened by Game.
If you actually are a 'man' that is even worse. See the section on 'Girlie-men'.
I dare you to go to Roissy's and make a case for your point of view. If you are a man, then you would not have trouble defending your position over there, now would you?
Oh, and I have it *much* better than you, for sure, both sexually and financially. That is why far more people see this article favorably than unfavorably. Your envy is palpable.
Debate specific points in the article, with supporting data, or get lost.
Posted by: The Futurist | November 28, 2010 at 06:17 PM
Hey! An actual response. Sweet.
1) I'm not going to play the "You're projecting." "No, YOU'RE projecting!" game. That's "my dick is bigger than yours" at it's finest. So, moving on to...
2) Yes, I read the section on "Girlie-Men." And I thought it was stupid. Back to, you can't argue with men who genuinely support feminism and don't suffer the trumped up, "dire" consequences you state here. So you just call use "girls" or "girly."
3) Envy? Dude, seriously? You seriously just made my day. Cheers, mate. I owe you a beer. That's the best laugh I've had all day. (Again with you taking this so personally. I'm not critiquing YOU, I'm critiquing your defeatist attitude. One would suspect that I'd hit a nerve, but I don't want to get too touchy-feely here.)
4) Roissy? What argument could I possibly be defending? My life choices? If anything, my very existence makes the point that we need to go WITH the trends and make them work instead of clinging stupidly to old-world ideals.
The fact is, you're never going to out-victim the feminist movement. You're just not. Women have been treated like shit for centuries and you're not going to gain sympathy for your cause by touting guys who have to pay child support for being too stupid to wait for the right situation to reproduce. Not when any n00b feminist with half a brain can come back at you with graphic pictures of female genital mutilation. Stop trying to play the woe-is-me microscopic fiddle and start BEING the kind of guy you wish you saw in the world. Teach your son to be a secure, educated gentleman. Teach other fathers how to BE fathers. Those are things that are going to actually change the world, not making a blog that can easily be surface-glanced and written off as a "hate blog." And if you REALLY cared about these issues, you'd do just that.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: Gutherie | November 28, 2010 at 06:41 PM
Guthrie,
Back to, you can't argue with men who genuinely support feminism and don't suffer the trumped up,
On the contrary, I have overwhelmingly demolished, and fully deconstructed the girlie-men 'third gender', as well as their motivations and gnawing inner shame. You can't refute the airtight logic, so throw a hissy fit. Next.
It is unlikely you will figure out that making yourself subservient to women will not get you laid. Women are actually repelled by men who announced that they support feminism.
The fact is, you're never going to out-victim the feminist movement
You have just explained exactly *why* the pendulum has swung to the other extreme without opposition.
You have not addressed a single statistic cited in the article, nor any of the core points. Thus, I will require that you spend 30 days commenting and asking questions at either Roissy's or The Spearhead before you would be prepared for a meaningful discussion here.
Women have been treated like shit for centuries
Not any worse than the bottom 90% of men.
for being too stupid to wait for the right situation to reproduce.
Oh, so women poking holes in condoms to gain 20 years of seizing his paycheck (not to mention providing a broken home to the kid) is OK? Just because you would never be in that situation, does not mean men aren't being terrorized in this way. You are ignoring the massive supporting evidence that I have provided. Plus, it is clear that if the genders were reversed, you would still blame the man.
not making a blog that can easily be surface-glanced and written off as a "hate blog."
Hogwash. Many major blogs (Instapundit, Kim du Toit, Dr. Helen) have linked to this article favorably, while none of any stature have done so unfavorably.
Your view is certainly not prevalent.
Posted by: The Futurist | November 28, 2010 at 09:57 PM
"Please have an open dialogue about feminism with someone who has studied it"
Funny. I get the distinct impression that The Futurist has studied feminism.
Posted by: Snark | November 29, 2010 at 01:54 PM
"you're not going to gain sympathy for your cause by touting guys who have to pay child support for being too stupid to wait for the right situation to reproduce."
And yet, women who are too stupid to wait for the right situation to reproduce can expect to be paid for their stupidity, naturally.
Posted by: Snark | November 29, 2010 at 01:57 PM
"And from what I understand, you will delete any posts like mine - so here's to the future (hooray censorship!)"
More projection. From my experience, the only blogs that practice censorship are owned by either leftists or feminists. Try posting anything pro-male on feministing, and see how long your posting privileges last.
Posted by: Reaver | November 29, 2010 at 03:43 PM
What a pathetic mangina this Guthrie faggot is.
A man who takes part in conception at the 'wrong time' should be enslaved, but the woman has no responsibility in the same conception, and should be rewarded for her stupidity????
Manginas like Guthrie are the most pathetic faggots in the world.
Posted by: Jackson | November 29, 2010 at 03:58 PM
Gutherie said...
Women have been treated like shit for centuries and you're not going to gain sympathy for your cause by touting guys who have to pay child support for being too stupid to wait for the right situation to reproduce. Not when any n00b feminist with half a brain can come back at you with graphic pictures of female genital mutilation.
That seems to be Gutherie's shortcoming. (S)he seems to have fallen hook line and sinker from the revised feminist history.
In fact women have been pedestalised in the west for some two centuries now and counting.
That western women claim the mantle of oppression in the face of the real oppressions that have beset classes and castes of people - men, women and children - through human history is a disgrace. It's insulting to the genuinely oppressed.
Suggest you peruse some of the case studies here for a slightly less varnished or blinkered view of human history.
In the meantime an historical footnote for you...
After the English fleet won a famous victory over the Spanish Armada on behalf of Elizabeth I she denied them permission to port. It seems she'd not expected many survivors so no allowance had been made for their pay. The bulk of the navy - many of whom had been press-ganged - spent more than a year circumnavigating the islands whilst thousands of men died from either the after effects of their "great victory" or from disease or starvation.
Today we can be more subtle. For example the tiny relative attention and expenditure paid to mens health and wellbeing today is actually a benefit in the future. That way we can spend less on pensions down the track. It's a great investment.
By the way, Gutherie, virtally the very first experience of my life was having bits of my genitals hacked off. I happen to have a video of a routine hospital circumcision I'd be willing to share with you. Interested?
Posted by: gwallan | November 29, 2010 at 06:52 PM
Posted by: Kate McG | November 28, 2010 at 06:59 AM
"Please have an open dialogue about feminism with someone who has studied it before you start gender-normalizing feminism as "lunacy" and get a history lesson on what feminism is up to these days"
Hey Stupid Kate? Feminism is a key part of the depopulation program developed by the Illuminati to cull back the number of people on THEIR planet using THEIR resources. Nothing more. Nothing less. You women are too stupid to know what it really is you are dealing with.
And in any case? I'm putting an end to wimminz privilege via the book written through me called 'living free in a fam-nazi world'. Here is the link. Have fun sending it to all your fem-nazi friends.
http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/58/scope/threads/Default.aspx
Posted by: Kate McG | November 28, 2010 at 06:59 AM
Posted by: Gutherie | November 28, 2010 at 04:
"Let's use my life as a great e xample of how you can not believe conspiracy bullshit like this, respect women and still have great sex. I have a long-standing girlfriend, with whom I have a completely open relationship. We have all the emotional and life attachments of marriage, but we are both able to have sex with whoever else we want. We are not legally married. We have agreed to not have children. If she dumped me tomorrow, I would not lose a dime"
In MANY countries you would lose 70%+ under these conditions you idiot. That you THINK you are not legally married makes no difference. For example, in Australia there is no longer even co-habitation for a woman to claim a mans property. There need only be the ALLEGATION of a relationship, not even substantial evidence of it. You, sir, are an idiot. You are also a man-hating, white knighting mangina apologist. You are beneath contempt.
"So, what I'm trying to say is: stop whining like a bitch and pretending these are social issues. They aren't."
So the estimated 4,000 men per year who kill themselves from the abuse of the FC in Australia should just "stop whining like a bitch and pretending these are social issues"? Men like you disgust me.
Posted by: Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) | November 30, 2010 at 05:28 AM
Posted by: Gutherie | November 28, 2010 at 06:41 PM
"Not when any n00b feminist with half a brain can come back at you with graphic pictures of female genital mutilation."
You are obviously too stupid to know about circumcision of males which is FAR more widely practiced in the western world than ANY female genital mutilation. Indeed, women have had FAR better lives than men for ALL recorded history due to the Illuminati invention of 'marriage' which was, quite simply, the welfare system for 'women and children' by enslaving men.
'Marriage' has always been about enslaving men so as to use their excess energy over their own needs to benefit 'women and children'. I know you are too stupid to understand such things...but here is my woolly mammoth story which might even be simple enough for an idiot like you to comprehend.
http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/58/threadid/577/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Posted by: Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) | November 30, 2010 at 05:41 AM
Wow! You, Guthrie, are a moron. If you read a few posts above, Peter Feller and I have provided examples which illustrate clearly how Western women are protected at the direct expense of men. The Futurist makes his point bulletproof by providing valid statistics and referencing articles and studies for pretty much every claim that he makes.
I have not been screwed thus far in any relationship or by any woman so you can't label me as a bitter guy. I pick and choose a woman to emotionally invest myself in very carefully. Not so much the ones I sleep with.
What you need to realize is that you will get screwed and only that will cause you to figure out that the system is messed up. I believe that it is better to prevent such loss rather than learn only after I get financially screwed. Guys like The Futurist are trying to help fellow men. You are either blind to the facts or pussy-whipped into submission.
Along the same lines, every friend that I have shown this article to relates to it and can point to events in their lives or in their friends' lives to show how valid The Futurist's points are. You really need to read it properly and open your eyes to the obvious.
Posted by: Cheetah | December 01, 2010 at 03:44 PM
I am at a coffee-shop right now and a guy just showed me this article after having a nice conversation with him. I have only read the executive summary but that is enough to know that the author is spot on. Feminism has gone too far. They have not just crossed the line, but are dancing on the other side. I am afraid that come war or famine or any other natural disaster, we girls are going to be in in big trouble. We are used to being handed everything on a silver platter. When men just cant take it any more, they will hit back hard and stop providing for us completely. Men are very logical too, and if they get together and tackle this feminism issue in a logical and scientific manner, it might be a bad time for us.
I, for one, think it's unfair how the Family court system works and how women not only get the child but also a large portion of the man's worth and future income. That is simply unfair and provides incentive for us to leave a marriage when the cards are not looking too good. And men who can see one step ahead realize very quickly that marrying in the US is a very bad bet. It's no wonder that so many of us girls are left alone in the cold by the men that we love.
Feminists should go to other countries and help women who really need it instead of continuing to oppress men in the west. Thanks for some of the work you did for us, feminism, but we have had enough of you for a while. Go where you're needed and leave us in peace.
Posted by: Tanya | December 01, 2010 at 03:56 PM
Jackson and cheetah, I don't have to keep repeating this virtual girl and robogirl deal. Ive said plenty in my previous comments. I also discuss this and the other horsemen plus the five sirens. Lots of men are falling for her pussy power and seduction. Check my blog: http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=D847407&entry=10002&mode= Feel free to leave a comment in my blog.
Guthrie is a mangina and has been brainwashed by feminism. I hope he gets used by women and gets his brains and balls back oneday.
Peter-Andrew, thanks so much for your facts. Let me quote this one: But what of the young men? Well? A strong young man does not need to kill a woolly mammoth to feed himself. He can go and catch a rabbit or two and do quite well. Why in hell would he risk his life to kill a woolly mammoth when he can feed himself quite easily with almost no effort on his part?
Well, the OLD MEN of the tribe know that in order for THEM, the women, AND the children to be fed the YOUNG MEN of the tribe have to do all the work of collecting food. So the OLD MEN of the tribe brainwash the YOUNG MEN of the tribe into the idea that THEIR SPECIFIC WOMAN is SOMEHOW SPECIAL and that the most honourable thing he can do is labour as best he can to feed HIS woman and children. Oh...and he has to pay 'taxes' of a little meat so the OLD MEN who are organising everything can be fed as well. Right?
So the OLD MEN invent 'love' and they brainwash the YOUNG MEN into 'love' and 'devotion' and 'dedication' and 'commitment' and 'honour' and 'integrity' all those nice words that we hear shoved downs men’s throats so often but which women know full well do not apply to THEM. After all, a woman can break her wedding vows and commit perjury with complete impunity, right? It is a woman’s prerogative to change her mind, right?
My comments: This is why I don't believe in love and will never marry nor have children. I made this choice when I was around 14. I totally agree with you that going your way and staying single makes you a freeman. Feel free to check my blog(link above)
I disagree with GK on several points, including this one: Another positive ramification of advanced adult entertainment technologies is that women will have to sharpen the sole remaining attribute which technology cannot substitute - the capacity to make a man feel loved.(I don't believe in love and Peter points out love was invented)
Tanya, feminism will backfire and hurt women. It's already happening and will get worse. You are a rare woman who understands what feminism really is and can see their lies.
Posted by: Savethemalesfuturist | December 01, 2010 at 10:19 PM
btw, I love banging feminists. Giving it to them really hard so they can't even walk properly the next day. Sometimes, I don't even know that I've been banging a feminist until they meet one of my quasi-feminist friends who wonders wtf she is doing "with" me. I love the look on my friends face. She is wondering how is the world is it possible for the girl not to know that I am the polar opposite of a mangina that they claim to put up so high. It's so obvious that the feminazis cannot even follow their own advice and go for a guy like me who keeps bashing their convictions and their pussies. I love my life!
Posted by: cheetah | December 04, 2010 at 05:12 AM
Depopulation is an awesome idea and one that I've had for quite some time. Although it is radical I believe that we should start depopulating the male gender. Nature tries to do this anyway for us, by giving men anger, aggression and stupidity in spades, many behave like morons and beat each other to death or go off to war and murder each other. Nature also selects men for early termination by making them biologically inferior. They are expendible. You only need one man to impregnate several women. I believe that the current population of men is a cancer and not natural. We have the technology now so that we don't have to keep repeating this mistake. We can rid the world of the cancer. For instance the sociopath peter-andrew:colan(c)on this here site who gives all of his power to women and can't stop talking about women ever could be eliminated. One man is good. One hundred men is a cancer.
Posted by: Valerie | December 05, 2010 at 06:53 PM
Valerie,
I believe that we should start depopulating the male gender.
Who is 'we'? Who will execute this? Women?
One man is good. One hundred men is a cancer.
Men have invented just about everything that has ever been invented. Women have invented just about nothing.
Anyway, you should present your idea as widely as possible, so it gets more exposure.
Posted by: The Futurist | December 05, 2010 at 07:34 PM
It's easy to find plenty of sources on complaint with any opinion. The article on evolution on conservapedia is filled with them, the research is presented competently, and adequate conclusions are drawn from these data.
Here's where the problem lies - the collective underlying premise of evolution being mythical is complete bullshit. Complete 100% unadulterated bullshit in its rawest form.
I've read here someone named "bleh" who pointed out plenty of illogical statements, and I've seen the author address one or two and utilize ad hominem to convince people (and I suppose himself) that he addressed all of them.
"You typify a white knight, show me any actual grievances within the article himself."
His status as a "white knight" is irrelevant, and he actually copied and pasted individual points from the article and refuted them. This is, in fact, how academic criticism works. Saying "because you're on the other side, your arguments hold no weight by default and you have much more work to do than anyone else in getting me to engage in a debate with you" is ad hominem and purely sophomoric.
You seem to betray men as more visceral than women, but any psychologist, especially criminologist will tell you this is simply false. This is a very simple premise. There is a very good reason as to why "men can't handle commitment" is heard everywhere. Believe it or not, it comes from actual human experience.
Who initiates the divorce does not even matter. It's a somewhat cunning tactic (although I'm positive you didn't do it purposefully) because people who aren't misogynists would have the first instinct to prove you wrong by proving the statistic wrong.
This, however, is the wrong approach. Who initiates the divorce doesn't matter. The problem arises with whose shortsightedness, whose unfaithfulness, whose incompetence, whose abuse drove the other to seek a divorce. Even if women are more likely to initiate a divorce, men are more likely to be abusive towards their wives. Doesn't this give the woman a very good reason to seek divorce? I'm sure you'll ignore this sentence completely due to your selective reading, but I'm not claiming that all divorces are a result from abuse. However, a fraction of them definitely are, and much more than a man seeking divorce because he is getting beaten by his wife.
In summary, women have more reasons in our society to seek a divorce, so, if they do have higher numbers of divorce initiation, it makes perfect sense. There is no malice present in this statistic and you are going far out of your way to vilify women. I don't even know if this statistic is important, and I have no interest because it is completely unimportant. It does not help the case of a misogynist as yourself or a feminist as myself.
As for something else, yes, men are expected to play a certain role in the sexual dynamic. Yes, there is plenty of peer pressure. This is more present for women, hence why more women suffer from eating disorders and the like. Just as Japan has higher suicide rates than in the US because of the more stringent expectations of people in Japan. It's very basic psychology. You seem to think that the psychology between men and women are somewhat interchangeable wherever it's convenient in your essay for you, but any psychologist can tell you this is complete bullshit. Yes, you can boil it down until the differences are removed, but at this state gorillas and other organisms belong in the same cauldron.
As I was saying, it's true that men are pressured into a role, but the reality is that they are pressured into the DOMINANT position. Now do you realize why people like myself have little sympathy for males subject to peer pressure? It would be something like me being pressured to accept a 10 million dollar reward for research I didn't do. Sure, I was pressured, but it is ludicrous to feel sorry for me. My quality of life simply did not go down at all by way of my acceptance of this role I was pressured in. You are being selectively empathetic, and any psychologist can tell you that this is a trait of immaturity; and I mean that literally, as in the trait of someone who possesses an immature brain. Children do this all of the time but adults should be beyond this because, if they were to utilize the lot of their fully developed brain, they would develop unbiased empathy.
I am a young man, and I am a feminist. I also have a loving girlfriend that I enjoy to spend time with and I'm getting along fairly well. I'm working towards a double major in physics and philosophy and I don't personally make very many enemies. I'm getting along fine socially and, so far, everything is on track. Care to use the same tactic you employed several times above and claim that "feminism" always leads someone to become a bumbling, dysfunctional retard?
There are plenty of radical feminists that do make logical leaps and thus have unfounded philosophical tenets. Of course there are radical feminists that make incompetent arguments - any ideology has radicals that don't make sense. Proving that these radical feminists exist does not mean that every feminist typifies the same incompetence. That being said, there are far, far more misogynists than misandrists in the world. Read any textbook on psychology, sociology, criminology, religion, world history - all of the data is there.
There are also far, far more radical misogynists than radical feminists. You single out the feminists because of your sexual frustration, but the numbers are not even comparable. Becoming a misogynist is now sadly a natural course of psychological evolution because of popular culture like the bullshit floating around in hollywood and all of the lecherous music being so commercialized. Hedonism is now a culture in itself, rather than a philosophy. Hedonism and misogyny always go hand in hand. Always. There is no other way for men to not feel bad about being hedonists, thus they adopt misogyny for justification. All because they're convinced restraint and discipline is something like burning acid.
Misogyny is much more mainstream, objectifying women is how ANY public commodity/company/business makes money. Anyone can tell you this. Even businessmen will tell you that showing a picture of a young woman on anything they are selling gives a larger profit. Misogyny and the objectification of women is much, much more common than the inverse. The difference is barely comparable.
Posted by: Passing reader | December 15, 2010 at 03:23 PM
Passing Reader,
There are major flaws in your statements.
The problem arises with whose shortsightedness, whose unfaithfulness, whose incompetence, whose abuse drove the other to seek a divorce. <
No it doesn't. Women divorce because it is profitable for them to do so. Your theory falls flat in light of the fact that divorce rates before 1970 were just 10%, while after that rose to 40%. What changed? The laws did.
There are also far, far more radical misogynists than radical feminists.
Wrong again. For each man who is really a misogynist, there are thousands upon thousands who do the opposite of misogyny - the pedestalization and pampering of women.
Misandry is vastly, vastly more common than misogyny in America, as the article already proves with support.
Now, if you expand the definition of 'misogyny' to 'not being attracted to ugly women' or 'not being willing to spend his own money on women', that is the bad-faith action you are taking in order to rationalize the existence of non-existent misogyny.
You single out the feminists because of your sexual frustration,
Nope, I actually have success with the best looking women, through my competence in seduction and pickup artistry. Your garden-variety shaming language is so threadbare that it is obvious that it is because of YOUR frustration projected outwards. This is also pre-empted in the article itself.
I am a young man, and I am a feminist.
You have little idea of what you support, and truly zero idea of what makes a man attractive to women. The way you identify yourself proves this.
Re-read the main article, because it already refutes all your statements. Particularly the section about pedestalizers and girlie-men - you need to read that often.
Posted by: The Futurist | December 15, 2010 at 05:58 PM
The Futurist, do you know how women are treated in third world countries? I suggest you read into it.
The contagion of supermasculinity is far more puissant than misandry. More people can define misogyny than misandry. Through out world history, there have been thousands times more misogynistic laws than misandristic laws. I've taken a course on anthropology this semester, and cultures are misogynistic far, far more often than they are misandristic. Matriarchal societies are, admittedly, more often than the average person thinks, but still fairly rare.
"Girlie men"? Are you a homophobe by chance? I go running every morning and I have a solid frame. I really hate to brag, but I do have above - average physique and I get treated accordingly. I don't get spoiled with the attention or lack of attention, though because I'm perfectly content with my girlfriend.
People train for reasons other than receiving sexual favors.
Posted by: Passing reader | December 16, 2010 at 03:16 PM
The Futurist, do you know how women are treated in third world countries?
I have LIVED in what you would arrogantly call a 'third world' country, and know infinitely more about it than you do. Men don't have it much better than women over there either, btw.
At any rate, the article is about Western misandry, and changing the subject to poorer countries is merely a tactic to avoid the direct questions I posed to you.
I've taken a course on anthropology this semester,
Wait, you are just a college kid, who receives feminist indoctrination masquerading as education? That alone tells me you are not qualified to discuss this subject. But the good news is that once you get older, you might see your current views for the utter fiction that they are.
The contagion of supermasculinity is far more puissant than misandry.
An androgyne like you would naturally consider the average man to be 'supermasculine'.
Misandry is vastly, vastly more common than misogyny in the US, for reasons explained both in the article and my first comment to you.
Appeasing women will not get you laid. You may or may not ever figure out how to attract and seduce women, but I just gave you invaluable advice.
Posted by: The Futurist | December 16, 2010 at 03:21 PM
Are you capable of anything besides ad hominem?
Objectifying women is a form is misogyny. Yes/no? I'm saying yes because it's valuing their bodies over everything else - minimizing their individuality, as you do, and reducing them to utilitarian uses.
I have family in the middle east and I've visited there several times. Don't pull this bullshit with me, women are treated like complete garbage in Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, all of the countries where being anything but Islamic will get you killed. They take their misogynistic religious doctrine much more seriously than we in America with Christianity. Even Pakistan is a tiny bit more tame when it comes to women than Iran, but it's still a thoroughly depressing scene.
My point is about misogyny worldwide. It also applies to America as well. Look at any porn site ever made. The sexuality isn't mutual, and far, far from misandristic. It's all misogynistic, violent sex with the women being physically and sexually degraded constantly. There's a reason as to why this exact mode of pornography is such a commercial mastadon. It's because the general misogynistic and lecherous attitude of the male viewers (which make up most of the clientele) demands it. Trends arise for reasons.
My academic status has no bearing on the validity of my points.
Calling me an androgyne isn't helping your case either. Ad hominem and blanket statements have no place in formal rhetoric.
And, again with sexuality? It may come as a surprise to you, but it's possible to be a healthy young man without being a lecher. It is, in fact, possible for a young man like me to be satisfied with the company of a single woman. I'm not interested in expanding my sexual horizons, so not only is your comment useless for your argument, it's not even offensive.
Posted by: A Passing Reader | December 17, 2010 at 01:50 PM
Passing Reader,
You have steered clear of my simple questions, and are merely parroting garbage that has already been debunked by the main article. Don't project your inability to see past your own indoctrination outward.
There are many, many laws in the US that are specifically anti-male, and none that are anti-female, as heavily documented, with sources, in the article. You cannot even admit this, so blind with brainwashing you are.
Your knowledge of the broader world is zero, and you are in no position to discuss it based on feminist indoctrination (masquerading as education) received at a university.
Look at any porn site ever made. The sexuality isn't mutual,
Yes it is. Every adult porn actress in the US is consenting. Thousands of women audition to become porn actresses all the time. How do you explain that?
I highly doubt you are actually a man, and if you are, you truly have no sexual experience with women. That much is extremely obvious. Once again, being a male feminist makes a man repulsive to women.
Go to The Spearhead and make your statements, and ask a lot of questions. You might learn something from the vast real-world experience of commenters there.
http://www.the-spearhead.com
Posted by: The Futurist | December 17, 2010 at 02:30 PM
Passing Reader:
You might want to take a look at this:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/stats-on-the-reasons-for-divorce/
Posted by: Clarence | December 17, 2010 at 02:55 PM
Passing reader wrote:
Objectifying women is a form is misogyny. Yes/no? I'm saying yes because it's valuing their bodies over everything else - minimizing their individuality, as you do, and reducing them to utilitarian uses.
If so, women are engaging in misogyny themselves.
My point is about misogyny worldwide. It also applies to America as well. Look at any porn site ever made. The sexuality isn't mutual,
Well, duh. The men who pay for it do it to meet their own needs, not someone else's. Why should it be any different?
It's all misogynistic, violent sex with the women being physically and sexually degraded constantly.
So is a dominatrix putting her high heel into some guy's crotch being sexually degraded? It's not my cup of tea personally, but apparently at least a few guys are willing to pay for it.
There's a reason as to why this exact mode of pornography is such a commercial mastadon. It's because the general misogynistic and lecherous attitude of the male viewers (which make up most of the clientele) demands it. Trends arise for reasons.
No, it's because of the normal heterosexual attraction of men towards women, something that hasn't changed much in the last 200,000 years. Do you also rail against grass being green or the sun shining?
Posted by: Ray Manta | December 17, 2010 at 03:00 PM
Valerie wrote:
Depopulation is an awesome idea and one that I've had for quite some time.
Is that so? Why? Please explain why your idea is superior to Gerard O'Neill's vision of humans breaking free of Earth and colonizing outer space.
Although it is radical I believe that we should start depopulating the male gender. Nature tries to do this anyway for us, by giving men anger, aggression and stupidity in spades, many behave like morons and beat each other to death or go off to war and murder each other. Nature also selects men for early termination by making them biologically inferior. They are expendible.
So are men such as Leibnitz, Newton, and Einstein expendable? How expendable do you think they are compared to a woman such as yourself?
You only need one man to impregnate several women. I believe that the current population of men is a cancer and not natural. We have the technology now so that we don't have to keep repeating this mistake. We can rid the world of the cancer. For instance the sociopath peter-andrew:colan(c)on this here site who gives all of his power to women and can't stop talking about women ever could be eliminated.
But who would bell the cat and carry out this program?
One man is good. One hundred men is a cancer.
So what would the ideal sex ratio be in your opinion?
Posted by: Ray Manta | December 17, 2010 at 03:21 PM
Passing reader,
Why did you come here? Did you think you'd get some kind of target practice at us 'woman haters'? Is this some kind of assignment for you anthropology class?
I've read thousands of papers written by students like you. The black/white thinking typical of someone under 22 just jumps off the page.
There's also a great deal that you do not know about the men's rights movement. It's tempting to recommend further reading, but I won't waste my time.
I will say this, however: This feminist thing that you've jumped into with both feet is nothing more than a hate movement that has no basis in science. If anything, it is more of a religion, depending on bizarre articles of faith that have no basis in reality.
A good example of that is domestic violence. What feminist researchers/activists say about it, is wildly different from what more objective researchers say.
Posted by: Roland3337 | December 17, 2010 at 03:44 PM
A Passing Reader if you think Iran objectifies women how they hell do you explain that women there make up the majority of university students; you need to hear this Iranian babe:
http://www.claymath.org/library/annual_report/ar2008/08Interview.pdf
"The sexuality isn't mutual, and far, far from misandristic. It's all misogynistic, violent sex with the women being physically and sexually degraded constantly."
lol never had a woman ask you to fuck her like a little bitch?
"I've taken a course on anthropology this semester, and cultures are misogynistic far, far more often than they are misandristic. Matriarchal societies are, admittedly, more often than the average person thinks, but still fairly rare"
haha, and misogyny is any less "women's rights" than what US of A provides? Keep on believing the shit you read.
"Even if women are more likely to initiate a divorce, men are more likely to be abusive towards their wives. "
What is abuse? And how do you claim this?
And look at the link by Clarence above.
Posted by: namae nanka | December 17, 2010 at 04:23 PM
Valerie (Solanas)
"Nature also selects men for early termination by making them biologically inferior. "
How early are we talking of? Maybe boyish childhood, not men. Funny that men's work has increased women's life expectancy, in nature you wouldn't expect women to live longer than men.
Even if you factor in childbirth.
Posted by: namae nanka | December 17, 2010 at 04:26 PM
Passing reader,
I have visited numerous "3rd world" countries and actually hail from a developing country in which women are, on the whole, without adequate rights and protection. However, this does not make them less happy than women in the west. Believe it or not, the women in the "3rd world", as you like to call it, are generally a lot happier than their counterparts in the west. http://themodernstory.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/young-women-in-india-how-free-how-equal/
In any case, feminists of the west are welcome to go over there and do some work instead of constantly pushing for the passage of draconian legislature against men in developed countries.
There are numerous problems with Western problem with most feminists is that they equate women roles with their rights. Just because you have the right to take a dump in your living room, it doesn't mean that you should do it. The family court systems in North America are extremely biased against men. Just look up any number of case law and you will see that the feminazi judges rule in favor of women almost every time. And assuming that most women are humans and not saints, they will and do make full use of their "right" to screw the man every time.
This is all well and good for women financially and in the short-term while they still have their looks. But once they lose their looks, it is damn near impossible to fool a semi-intelligent guy. Since men can't get forced into marriage, it serves their best interest not to get involved in such a bad bet. This holds especially true for wealthy and successful men because their value is so high that they can get girls very easily. And recently, with the development of advanced game, even the intelligent but not-so-successful men who employ game are having a lot of success with multiple women. The idea of marriage is looking more and more sour to these men. As these ideas gain momentum and men see that a lot of other men also see marriage in the same bad-bet light, they will realize that they are not alone and will be more open to the idea of no-marriage. This is already happening even before reading articles like this one.
This article and others like it have sparked discussions that are way beyond academic. They are changing the lives of men in western countries. Men are now understanding why they feared commitment in the first place.
Posted by: cheetah | December 17, 2010 at 07:04 PM
"The contagion of supermasculinity is far more puissant than misandry. More people can define misogyny than misandry. Through out world history, there have been thousands times more misogynistic laws than misandristic laws."
Uh huh. I will give you $10,000 if you can show me one picture of women who have been lynched in America because they're female, or one picture of concentration camps full of women in America who have been subjected to experiments and torture and back-breaking labor because they were born without a penis.Hell, one tin type, one daguerrotype, one woodcut of this "oppression".
On the other hand, I can show you pictures of about 100,000 men who have died this century alone because they were men.I can show you pictures of MEN,not women, who have been purposely infected with deadly diseases by the military,men who've been treated like fucking LAB RATS. What is misandry? Just the cultural norm in America since its fucking inception.
How much you wanna bet on your little theory,buddy? I'm confident enough you won't find one picture of LEGITIMATE state-sanctioned oppression of women in America that I'll put my money on the fuckin table.
Posted by: Bob | December 18, 2010 at 03:23 AM
A Passing Reader : "Objectifying women is a form is misogyny. Yes/no? I'm saying yes because it's valuing their bodies over everything else - minimizing their individuality, as you do, and reducing them to utilitarian uses.I have family in the middle east and I've visited there several times. Don't pull this bullshit with me, women are treated like complete garbage in Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, all of the countries where being anything but Islamic will get you killed. They take their misogynistic religious doctrine much more seriously than we in America with Christianity. Even Pakistan is a tiny bit more tame when it comes to women than Iran, but it's still a thoroughly depressing scene."
Strange. Very strange. If you feel that men sexually objectifying women, which according to your definition seems to be any kind of 'male gaze' towards an attractive women, surely you should see the women of Iran and Pakistan as amongst the most liberated on Earth?
Obviously feminists think that way, otherwise they wouldn't devote 100 times as much attention to issues such as anorexia in young American girls (trying to fatten their sexual rivals) as they do to 16 year old girls being beaten and whipped in the Islamic world for wearing sexy clothes.
Christ, you're even more irrational than a feminist.
You're really so naieve to think women only judge men by some mysterious non-utilitarian value?? Women objectify men as wallets, meal-tickets, disposable bodyguards who are expected to be willing to lay down their very life for them. And not much else. And increasingly as castrated erections : http://www.adameve.com/adult-sex-toys/dildo-sex-toys/realistic-dildos/sp-lexington-steeles-real-black-cock-3009.aspx
By demonising the very essence of men (our sexuality) you're degrading and dehumanizing half the population of the world.
http://theantifeminist.com/the-sexual-trade-union/
Posted by: theantifeminist | December 18, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Are you guys fucking kidding me? Do you have any ideas what rape statistics look like? DO you know how many young women are kidnapped vs. men as a whole?
A woman has at least a hundred times more predators than a man.
In short, plenty of women are kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery (apparently somewhat popular in Russia) - just because there are women.
Cheetah, I don't mean the Hindus in India. Hinduism is not nearly as misogynistic as the triad of Abrahamic religions.
Of course there are anti - male laws. It's because men are more often responsible for the abduction and sexual assault of women. It's a simple cause and effect. It's not a sign of misandary, it's a sign of protection. Quit pedastalizing your own gender and realize there are more than radical feminists and misogynists in legislature.
The influx of female porn actors is obviously due to the overemphasized female sexuality due to modern culture. This is always seen in Hollywood and the like; actresses are more of an image, while actors are more of a franchise.
They are naive to think being an adult actress is all glamor, but once they step in, it's too late. People are far too concerned with politics to let a former adult actress work at their restaurant or business, so finding work elsewhere would be exceptionally difficult. Inside the industry, almost no actress enjoys their job. This usually goes for the men as well - it's a job that looks good on camera but is horrendous in person. The suicide rates of porn actors are fairly high, much higher than any normal profession. This ends up being the only way they can make money after they get their reputation as an adult actress, so this is why they persist in films.
This is why pornstars are horrible actors. They never enjoy what they are doing.
"Once again, being a male feminist makes a man repulsive to women."
You seem fairly adamant in downsizing my sexuality. Are you perhaps insecure?
"Strange. Very strange. If you feel that men sexually objectifying women, which according to your definition seems to be any kind of 'male gaze' towards an attractive women, surely you should see the women of Iran and Pakistan as amongst the most liberated on Earth"
Do I really have to spell out how radical religion is misogynistic? Women are not allowed an identity because men only value their sexuality. Partly out of lechery, partly to get more males out of them. This is why they are not allowed any public expression; they have more rules on what is "modest" what isn't. It's more restrictions. This isn't liberation because liberation is the removal of restrictions.
Women can dress however the fuck they want.
"Women objectify men as wallets, meal-tickets, disposable bodyguards who are expected to be willing to lay down their very life for them."
Strawman. I suppose "women" is metonymical for "feminists". If so, with me being a feminist, shouldn't that mean I hate myself? I'm inclined to degrade and kill myself because of my worthlessness. I don't view myself as disposable and I trust my intellect.
You are all making far too many blanket statements in your arguments. Remember that gender is a coin flip. This is half of the human population you're talking about. "All women" means "3.5 billion people".
Posted by: A Passing Reader | December 18, 2010 at 12:54 PM
When we talk about women and feminists, we are referring to western women. Btw, have you been to the UK and experienced their women. Let me tell you, the girls there are among the most self-centered, men-hating, bitches I have ever met. At first, I thought it was just in the touristy area that I was in. But after visiting a lot of different places, I found that even when I was overly nice to the women in the UK, they were nasty to me. My cousins, who live there, said that British women are the worst ones in the world.
Believe it or not, a lot of British guys are going to other places in Europe (particularly Eastern Europe) and meeting great girls who are sweet and respectable. The trend is catching on like wild fire. After a week of experiencing their women, I missed my American girls. I did make some headway after a few weeks but even after I brought a girl home, I couldn't wait to get rid of her the next morning.
And this was all with some intermediate level of game and viewing it all as more of a social experiment. I can't imagine how bad it must be for the poor chumps who live in the UK and have to deal with these bitches daily.
Of course, the women in Pakistan and Iran are treated badly. That's why I support feminist movements in the countries where they're needed. But the feminists have overstayed their welcome here and are pushing for and passing draconian measures against men. It's time they stand up for the women that need it and not try to even it out but suppressing men's rights in the west.
Posted by: cheetah | December 18, 2010 at 01:34 PM
Posted by: A Passing Reader | December 17, 2010 at 01:50 PM
"My academic status has no bearing on the validity of my points."
True...you are spouting garbage and all intelligent men know it. I too have travelled extensively in middle eastern countries and I know MANY indian, pakistani, Saudi men, just as an example. NONE of them treat women like crap and NONE of them allow OTHER women to be treated like crap. NONE OF THEM.
As far as men being satisfied with one woman. Go ahead and do what you want. However, as a man who was faithful to one woman for 23 years and one of the best husbands possible I can tell you that in divorce you WILL be treated like crap no matter HOW good you were as a husband. The evidence for this is not refutable and can be found here:
http://www.peternolan.com/Divorce/ScannedDocuments/tabid/538/Default.aspx
Men like you disgust me. Why? Because you are too stupid to listen to the facts of the matter while spouting complete shit.
Posted by: Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) | December 20, 2010 at 02:36 AM
A Passing Reader wrote:
Are you guys fucking kidding me? Do you have any ideas what rape statistics look like?
Yeah, I also know that many of them are compiled by dykes, who have ulterior motives. It may shock and amaze you, but some of us are perceptive enough not to believe everything that happens to be written on a NOW pamphlet.
DO you know how many young women are kidnapped vs. men as a whole?
In the US at least, non-familial abductions are a very uncommon event.
A woman has at least a hundred times more predators than a man.
I think you've smoked crack 100 too many times. Men are much more likely as a group to be the victims of violent crime than women.
In short, plenty of women are kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery
(apparently somewhat popular in Russia) - just because there are women.
Why would a country with such a large surplus of women be a hotbed of sexual slavery?
Posted by: Ray Manta | December 20, 2010 at 04:30 PM
Peter,
I just read your letter and I am finding it really hard to digest that the judge awarded 95% to your ex-wife. Isn't the formula supposed to be 50-50? Please let me know what his line of reasoning was.
What's worse is that your letter states that the woman gets property rights after moving in or even claiming to have slept with you. This is insane. What is your government smoking? I will never ever move to Australia and tell all my guy friends to stay clear of that fuck-hole of country. How did congress pass such a retarded law? Or did this happen as a result of common-law (precedent)?
Here is the US, we have a lot of fun fucking and chucking the stupid bitches. Or, if you prefer, you can always...
Bone 'em and disown 'em
Toot and boot it
Sauce 'em and toss 'em
Nail them and bail them
Hit it and quit it
You get the idea. But it looks like if you do this in Australia, the woman takes half your stuff; or in your case, 95% of your stuff. I don't mean to make fun of what happened to you, it's just that I cannot understand how it came to this in Australia.
Posted by: cheetah | December 20, 2010 at 06:47 PM
Gutherie:
"We have all the emotional and life attachments of marriage, but we are both able to have sex with whoever else we want."
ROFL, yeah, it's definitely the guys here who have problems. Behold, my primitive neanderthal brothers, the modern, enlightened man! He who has absolutely no problem passionately kissing the love of his life mere hours after another man (or three) has ejaculated all over her face.
I would like to thank you on behalf of the human race for choosing not to reproduce, for you, my little simpleton friend, justify the need for eugenic breeding.
Posted by: Squared | December 23, 2010 at 08:10 AM
GAME? Like conning women into sex? Being a lothario is not an answer to the problem of misandry.
Posted by: phenom-anon | December 28, 2010 at 06:29 AM
phenom,
It is not 'conning' you fool. It is self improvement, and it benefits women too.
The article clearly explains this in language simple enough for even you to understand.
Posted by: The Futurist | December 28, 2010 at 11:21 AM
The Futurist,
Really? Ad hominem aside, Game seems like a used car salesman or a conman's tactic e.g. pretending to be something you're not. It is the only part of the article I disagree with.
Posted by: phenom-anon | December 29, 2010 at 07:35 AM
phenom,
The definition of Game is this, as clearly stated in the article :
The traits that make a man attractive to women are learnable skills, that improve with practice. Once a man learns these skills, he is indistinguishable from a man who had natural talents in this area. Whether a man then chooses to use these skills to secure one solid relationship or multiple brief ones, is entirely up to him.
That is easy enough to understand. Or at least it should be. You must not ignore the multiple mentions of Game for marriages and other long-term relationships.
It is not 'pretending' to be something you are not, any more than shaving, brushing your teeth, combing your hair are.
You should learn much more about the subject and re-assess your opinion. Go to Roissy's and ask lots of questions in the comments. Also go to Hawaii Libertarian, a practitioner of marriage Game. He is really good about answering questions.
That being said, note how in the article, I state that 80% of men just cannot comprehend Game. The number of snake-oil salesmen who act as 'Game instructors' does not help.
Also, the pickup artist is morally superior to the social conservative who sermonizes about marriage, but will never admit that they are holding men and women to very different standards of accountability. At least the PUA is honest about who he is.
Posted by: The Futurist | December 29, 2010 at 11:13 AM
I'd like to point out that Feminism, bad as it is, is just a subset of Equalitarianism. It is Equalitarianism that has laid us low. We'll never get rid of Feminism until we dump Equalitarianism.
Posted by: Quent | January 01, 2011 at 04:50 PM
(test post)
Posted by: Anony Mouse | January 04, 2011 at 12:37 AM
This is a very well written article that described the situation incredibly well. I'm glad I stumbled onto it a year after it was posted as it has opened my mind. In my opinion I see it as women being the symptoms of the disease. The disease is nature itself and the carrier of the disease is feminism. If you compare it to bird flu, feminism is the bird and the flu is hypergamy. Women are merely the symptoms of the bird flu, but not the root cause.
I'm going to try to look at it in a scientific manner. With primates we observe that the phenomena of female primates mating with the top the of male primates is very reminiscent of female human behavior. Why did nature make this happen? Because nature never intended for all males to mate with women in the first place! Only a small percentage of men are required for such a task, the rest of the men must of been there for other reasons during pre-civilization times. This strategy must of worked well 10,000 years ago or we wouldn’t be here today. Maybe there were primarily alpha males during pre-civilization times and beta males began to become numerous once civilization formed and protected their existence, one could only hypothesize our history at this point.
However, one needs to realize that nature is extremely outdated, it has made women attracted to men that would help them survive in an environment that is 10,000 years old. In today’s modern world, an entirely different kind of male would best support a woman and it would not be an alpha male. What kind of male would this be? My guess it would be the ultimate beta male. A male that is intelligent, hardworking and mature, which ironically is a lot of men being handed the short end of the stick today. Eventually, nature will evolve women to be attracted to this type of man, but unfortunately it may take centuries or even millenniums for nature to catch up.
So for all you angry men out there, instead of putting all your anger out at women. Realize that you are merely looking at the symptom. For the disease is nature’s incredibly slow evolutionary pace. It’s sad that feminism pretty much unleashed this disease because prior to feminism, this disease was controlled by society’s forces, with those forces removed, the disease has now run rampant. Feminism in a sense is the carrier of this disease and it has allowed it to spread like wildfire. My main point is that the reason this is happening is very complex and traces back to our evolutionary history and history of our civilization.
Thank you.
Posted by: Random | January 04, 2011 at 05:44 AM
Since you linked to this article in your new year's article for this year of 2011, I had the opportunity to read it for the first time. It is an amazing article, but I am forced to correct you that the first day of the 201x decade is actually 01/01/2011, not 01/01/2010.
[The Futurist : By definition, a 201x series can include just 10 numerals, none of which is 2020.
Was 2000 part of the 1990s?
Or would you preferred that I delayed the article by one year?]
Posted by: Leahn Novash | January 04, 2011 at 10:39 AM
Great article. Great idea on your new piece about posting notices/stickers/flyers above urinals about the Men's Movement. Another place to handout flyers in bulk to people is at the Tea Party Gatherings. I think they'll be receptive to the message.
Posted by: Aharon | January 05, 2011 at 08:38 PM
Everyone,
Note that The Misandry Bubble was mentioned in the New York Times :
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/education/09men-t.html?pagewanted=3&_r=4&ref=education
But the journalist was deceptive. He says that I am wrong to claim that many feminists want to send men to concentration camps, but neglects to note that I link to a feminist expressing such a wish.
So if someone reports feminist extremism, the reporter is called an extremist.
To email Charles McGrath about this oversight, please go here :
http://www.nytimes.com/membercenter/emailus.html
Posted by: The Futurist | January 08, 2011 at 02:09 PM
Great article! Allthough i've used Google translation i've understood 90 percent of it, because the situation as described is the same in other western countries.
In Germany i.e. we have the same situation as people in Switzerland or Austria. But other european Countries like Italy and Spain live this femininstic destroyed environment as well. It only has other wordings like "Gewaltschutzgesetz" or what ever.
It is shocking how similar (i assume 99%) the situation in all feministic and misandric "steared" countries is!
Or political incorrct:
"Men are the (new) Nigger of the World"
Greatings to the USA and take care,
you are not allone ;-)
Markus
Posted by: Markus | January 08, 2011 at 11:54 PM
*cough*Conservativedrivel*coughcough*
I should really get this cough looked at. And I better get a male doctor or I'm suing on the grounds that women just aren't competent.
Posted by: Jackson Hoffingdock | January 16, 2011 at 02:18 AM
Jackson Poppycock,
*cough*Conservativedrivel*coughcough*I should really get this cough looked at. And I better get a male doctor or I'm suing on the grounds that women just aren't competent.
Translation : You are not intelligent enough to make a counterargument, and merely behave in a manner that the article already predicts and pre-empts.
This article is critical of conservatives too. But you would only know that if you had minimal reading comprehension.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 16, 2011 at 01:07 PM
This article would be interesting and have a firm point if it were not for "IT IS ALL THE WOMAN'S FAULT ALL OF IT FUCK WOMEN FEMINISTS R DUMB"
hey how about women and men often have an equal part in the destruction of a relationship?
How about feminists are not ballbusting bitches out to get THE POOR MEEEEN and in fact are focusing on Rape Culture and the misogyny that's still ingrained deeply into our culture? Misogyny and misandry is like the earth's core and the layer of magma surrounding it.
In media even, hell, it's dominated by ~sexy~ girls that by the end of the movie only end up as extremely highly regarded trophies for the men to achieve. The more saucy and independent she is, the bigger the achievement!
Yes, you have explained the issue with misandry beautifully and I appreciate you addressing it so well, but then you were a misogynistic douchebag and then WELP. The rape trivialization was a really nice touch.
Posted by: CF | January 16, 2011 at 03:00 PM
That's awesome, Markus, that you were able to read the article with a translator.
It's not surprising that when a country is westernized, the same thing happens no matter who the inhabitants are. Groups of human beings are not that different, really, unless you're comparing women and men, who tend to be very different.
Posted by: Jay Hammers | January 16, 2011 at 04:10 PM
CF,
but then you were a misogynistic douchebag and then WELP.
Yawn...namecalling is evidence of you not having any real points, as the article pre-emptively explains.
Oh, and 41% of all rape accusations are false. You don't seem to mind sending an innocent man to jail.
There is no real misogyny in America (except by women against other women, like Sarah Palin). Misandry, on the other hand, is rampant.
it's dominated by ~sexy~ girls that by the end of the movie only end up as extremely highly regarded trophies for the men to achieve.
Ah..now you have revealed something about yourself - you are jealous of women who are attractive to men.
Men do not have an obligation to appease unattractive women. Sorry.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 17, 2011 at 12:52 AM
Hi Futurist,
I just wanted to say, having read the article for the first time last year, that you are a 100% right! I think future generations will look back at the Misandry Bubble as a great achievement. I think Western men, through game and foreign wives and international relocation and even the gradual collapse of the old egalitarian regime, are slowly winning this sick feminist caused war of the sexes. I also love how you deal with the leftist morons, women, and white knight faggots who write in to bagger you. Cheers!
Posted by: Stephen | January 18, 2011 at 09:02 PM
I blog about American women. I read tons of material like this each week, not excluding videos, blogs, books, etc.. THIS article details everything perfectly, but it's so long. I don't know who heard of the guy who got himself in the news recently for his- Boycott American Women blog. But MY blogs ended up in the news as well last week. You can write til you're blue in the face, mincing words, and being polite, but the message is missed by women. Men are high fiving around the planet.
Some years ago. After better acquainting myself with foreign women. I did some research on foreign girls. WOW! NEW world opened up. I started paying closer attention to who my friends and associates were--and who they had married. I was not shocked to learn half of them(literally)had parted ways with their domestic wife or girlfriend, and found a foreign replacement. And, happily ever after..
Long story short. Men have quietly shifted toward foreign females, to avoid all this article represents. Since around 2001 this became more prominent. By 2004, it had gone viral and they had a slogan that stuck like glue- American women suck.
Those whispered 3 little words have done more for shamed and scorned men than any other factor. Thus, the foreign bride service went through the roof, out of control, and unmanageable. In 1985 there was 1. Their numbers are so great now, no one can calculate how any. That's the truth. They are popping up like weeds--hourly. Foreigners learned the state of affairs here. Supply and demand. You do the math from there.
By 2005 the Fed steps in with a hard core feminist sponsored law called IMBRA. This was only meant as more control, as wised up men flocked to foreign girls by the 100's of thousands each quarter, and eventually millions. It what was dubbed "The global dating revolution". IMBRA imposes so many barriers to obtain a foreign wife that it's clearly insanity and control. It protects no one from anything.
Some nations had to impose moratoriums on bride services and exported women, because the shift was massive! It was truly unmanageable. No one saw this coming.
Why all the hush hush? American women are editors, too. I'm sure this hit the desks of many female reporters and editors who saw the content and said NO WAY! We are NOT reporting that. But it needed no publicity. The water cooler and the barber shop are as good as any internet source.
I figure it took American women about 4 decades of Gloria Steinem to get themselves in this mess. It'll take about 4 more decades to get out of it.
Bottom line: American women have zero humility. That's their #1 curse. They are horribly spoiled, and thoroughly brainwashed by women's magazines and the like.
As I say- "An American women demands respect before she earns it. A foreign woman earns it, and asks for nothing". Hence- American women suck.
American women think they deserve, because the exist. Oh..boy... THAT attitude. SO many of them now, lonely and single, up to age 50 now--never married. And you'll get 20 every 30 seconds who swear they aren't like that--but they are. Just marry her.
My two rules on relationships with modern American women:
1. Dating one is like playing Russian Roulette
2. Marrying one is suicide
And this article fully solidifies my every word. Thank you. But if no one believes me. Then feel free to Google lingo like "American women suck blog" "American women (any negative)"
Posted by: Joe Average | January 20, 2011 at 04:12 AM
Hahaha! Joe average. You are bang-on man. I love the Russian Roulette analogy. It is 100% true. Although American women (at least the young and hot ones) are good for one thing. And I just can't get enough of it. But always remember to wrap it up or you might just end up shooting yourself in the wallet.
Posted by: cheetah | January 21, 2011 at 04:30 PM
Hi Cheetah.
Thank you. I've been at this on a street level for years now. We don't need too many people from MIT, UCLA, or Harvard to know what our eye's show us each day. When you work international settings, no study needs to be conducted. Foreign women reign supreme. They so far outclass American women in every category.. I'm really surprised we don't see more in the news about it. But I know scores of men who have divorced their American wives and moved on to foreign girls. OR... never have and won't marry an American girl. While the article is lengthy, it's accurate. I don't suppose you've heard of the anti-misandry forum? Good stuff in there.
I wish American women would get on Google before they shot off their mouths in response to this stuff. Their reactions are childlike at best. To be blunt, they all look like perfect asses. NONE of them seems to realize this 10 year old shift toward setting western women aside, and opting in on foreign replacements.
Point being.. How long did they think all this feminist, rotten attitude of theirs would last before men took a stand? before American men would start saying- hey... wait a minute..? It's the modern time, internet and global business are REALLY opening the eyes of American men on American women, and just how duped American men have been. A guy goes to Mumbai, or Beijing for business. He comes back, and 3 weeks later his wife is on the street! THEN (this part is great) he goes into a totally different line of work, marketing foreign women to American men. He handles all the details and facilitates the entire romance, which almost always leads to marriage. It's happening EVERY day, right under the noses of American women. And literally an untold amount of people involved. It's the craziest business phenomena we've seen in ages, and it never reaches the news. I swear, I'd bet those foreign personals rival porn for most viewed by men. I know too many men who admit to it.
Posted by: Joe Average | January 22, 2011 at 12:56 PM
As a decidedly alpha male, I find the entire article a piece of blaming drivel and indicitive of the precise problem with the planet.
Instead of Men yanging the hell up, they sit with there head in their hands and blame the opposite sex for their woes. The fundamental issue with this entire planet is our lack of personal and self responsibility which can be clearly traced back to the infantile belief in some external daddy in the sky.
As humans we fail to inquire into the fundamental question of "Who am I". If we bothered to question this fundamental idea, instead of simply prescribing to the BS "Father knows best" obscenity of the last 2000 years then perhaps we could grow as men and as a society.
At which point we could drop the entire debate about the sexes and instead acknowledge that we all have gifts to offer life regardless of whether our sexual organs are inside or outside.
Posted by: Samyo | January 22, 2011 at 03:35 PM
Samyo,
As a decidedly alpha male,
Extremely unlikely.
Instead of Men yanging the hell up, they sit with there head in their hands and blame the opposite sex for their woes.
This proves it. You are most certainly not an alpha male. You fail to admit the basic reality of the judicial and legislative process being rigged against men.
An alpha male would worry about false rape accusations. This alone proves you are not one.
instead of simply prescribing to the BS "Father knows best" obscenity
Are you arguing that fathers are not necessary? Go see the film 'Boyz N the Hood'.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 22, 2011 at 03:45 PM
Perhaps you will find these articles of interest. We might be kind of on the same page.
http://www.singledudetravel.com/2011/01/the-diamond-ring-scam/
http://www.singledudetravel.com/2010/11/american-girls-suck/
Posted by: Boris | January 26, 2011 at 08:37 PM
I totally disagree with you, Samyo. I'm an alpha male, and probably to the extreme. Having women? Not a problem. But do you think I'm legally allowed as an American male to be one? Women have gone to the extreme, too. In the courts. Today's modern dame has every expectation that she will run a man's life and keep him under her thumb until death. There's nothing "mutual" about the relationship. It's all about her!
This isn't about men, because we haven't changed in the last 10,000 years. But WOMEN, from about 1967 sure did!
Posted by: Joe Average | January 27, 2011 at 01:44 AM
This was a great article! I learned so much that I didn't know before, and it truly has blown my mind about the reality of what is going on in society today!
Good job!
Posted by: Cogsdev | February 04, 2011 at 09:12 PM