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, and while we are not willing to rescind that prediction, 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'.
We have been changing in America. The last 10 years have seen zero real economic growth. Real wages are stagnate over the last ten years. The US military recruits come mostly from single moms. They also have a very high divorce rates. I don't know what the consequences of this are. I am here in California and it is defiantly getting worse here. The Freeways are much less crowded during the morning rush hour, like on a holiday. Most strip malls are half vacant and some have only a few tenets left. I believe these radical changes in our society outlined above will have very major changes in America. But these things take decades to play out fully and what will happen is always obvious. Like for instance among white women, the ones have many children are the most ghetto of the lot. Many of incentives of the family law are having unintended consequences. Guys who have nothing to loose have the most children. What I see now is the pooring of America, a growing class of poor, I think this will continue.
Men Are the ones who build wealth not women, so we will see what happens in the near future
Posted by: Tom | January 09, 2010 at 03:14 PM
Two books that the author should read and use for citing some of his claims regarding bogus research by devout feminists and how the divorce industry is encouraged to tear families apart on purpose to fill state coffers:
The war Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers
http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Feminism/dp/0684849569
Taken into Custody by Stephen Baskerville
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581825943/ref=oss_T15_product
Posted by: Nutz | January 09, 2010 at 03:36 PM
I am an American male. I have been divorced and was compelled to pay child support. That obligation MIGHT be ending with him turning 18. However, I am noticing that my state is beginning to alter legal contracts afterward by concluding that men have to extend their payments if the child in question enters college. So in effect they are saying that we have to pay the mother to keep the adult child in school?
This seems insane to me. The only effect my payments throughout the child's life have had is that he has went on a vacation out of state just about every year since he has lived with him mother and step father. It has also had the effect of making him constantly argue with his stepfather.
Regardless, my son values my friendship and would prefer to live with me had I not started a new family which would obligate him to assist in raising two smaller siblings.
I recently attempted to talk some sense into a co-worker who was getting divorced by telling him to hire a new lawyer and to fight his wife tooth and nail for every single thing possible including his children as the court would take his compliance and good will toward the situation as his negligence and would end up taking everything he had worked for away from him. This is indeed what happened and in the next few weeks his downward spiral was amazing. He is now unemployed and vaguely alcoholic.
I think your thoughts on chivalry and B males getting screwed is right on target. All of these guys getting divorced think they are doing everyone a favor by going along with getting screwed with the system. All they are really proving is what dupes they are, and by the time they realize it, its too late.
Posted by: Seism | January 09, 2010 at 04:39 PM
The Futurist,
Just wanted to thank you for the honest, frank, and thoughtful essay on the subject. While I'm not entirely comfortable with some of your conclusions and method, I don't really want to get into an argument. You're clearly much smarter than I, and I have no desire to diminish my position by you kicking my ass ;)
JM
Posted by: JM | January 09, 2010 at 09:35 PM
Fantastic article. So much to take in, I'll be reading these side-articles for weeks.
Have you seen The Crisis of Credit? http://crisisofcredit.com/
I've taken a whack at making similar presentations (for a school project). Here's some information: http://breefield.tumblr.com/post/111318932
Anyway, my point is, you should make an explanatory video about this. I'd love to help. Email me at dustin.hoffman@breefield.com
Posted by: Breefield | January 09, 2010 at 11:25 PM
Two very good books everyone needs to read:
Taken Into Custody by Stephen Baskerville
The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers
Combined they pretty much fill in all the statistics the above article discusses, as well as debunking much of the junk research claimed by feminists as the gospel truth.
Posted by: Joe | January 10, 2010 at 12:53 AM
I may have more time for a thorough comment later.
About the 90% of divorces are initiated by woman statistic:
1. I read the link and searched for 'divorce', 90%, ninety, 90, 70, and seventy and didn't find anything about divorce rates.
2. The first time I read this article you said the 90% came from: '70% of divorces were filed by women, and the 30% that were filed by men 2/3 were the wife's fault.' This is a deceptive use of statistics if not just wrong. Normally one assumes that if 90% are initiated by the wife's fault then only 10% are initiated by the husband. Using your method, 30% of divorces are filed by men, and 2/3 (as an example) of the 70% are filed by the wife, meaning 30%+47% or 77% of divorces are initiated by men.
Posted by: Aric | January 10, 2010 at 01:52 AM
Today, on the first day of the new decade of '201x' years, I am going to tell you why that is.
Sorry, you merely expounded on some of the symptoms. And badly. Your stats don't stand up to scrutiny.
If you truly believe "America is sufficiently in control that the War on Terror is no longer nearly the threat it was during the recently concluded decade," I don't think your self-proclaimed accuracy rate in predicting the future will stand up in the coming decade.
Posted by: BillT | January 11, 2010 at 03:11 AM
"And further research reveals that approximately 60% of women who file for divorce do so because the man has cheated on her."
Bogus. Female adultery is just as prevalent as male adultery.
Even if that's a fact, it does not negate Beth's statement.
No comment of yours was deleted.
How about my comment from shortly after 11:27am?
Posted by: BillT | January 11, 2010 at 05:26 AM
This may be the best thing I've ever taken this much time to read. Wow. My brain hurts.
Posted by: Ian | January 11, 2010 at 12:08 PM
Geoman--
No I don't want assets divided down the middle in the case of anything but a male fault divorce. (Controversially I would exclude male infidelity from male fault, but make male neglect of his wife, so long as she kept herself reasonably up to the standard she was at when he married her, aging by itself excluded. See a long comment of mine above for the different effects of male and female infidelity for why.)
Actually I favor some sort of understanding rather than cheating however.
Posted by: Doug1 | January 11, 2010 at 03:26 PM
"I am disinclined to put much faith in someone who thinks that Jan 1st was the first day of the new decade. We have a year to go before that happens. Simple comprehension precedes complex ones."
So you're saying that 2000 was part of the 1900s and 1990s? Yeah right...
Posted by: dude | January 11, 2010 at 04:07 PM
Doug1 - your preference is to spend $20,000 and several months on lawyers?
Define "understanding". You get to screw around and stay married? I wish you luck with that.
Dude - that is very funny. Yeah...RIGHT.
Posted by: Geoman | January 12, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Geoman--
I don't think it's fair for a high earning man to have to pay half plus (believe me it's always more than half since everything is tilted in her favor) of his wealth, or half of how much it has increased since he married if he married older (or had family money) to his divorcing wife when she leaves him. Maybe it's fair if he leaves her for no good reason. I.e. she's still willing to sex him on the regular and has keep herself up and not blown way way up, etc., and isn't really emotionally abusive.
Posted by: Doug1 | January 12, 2010 at 03:32 PM
BillT claimed :
Your stats don't stand up to scrutiny.
I see you could not give an actual example. Why am I not surprised?
If you can't provide specifices, then your opinions don't stand up against my solid facts.
JM, Breefield, Joe,
Thanks
Posted by: The Futurist | January 12, 2010 at 07:02 PM
So this 'bleh' creature's argument can be summarized as thus :
1) Rape is far worse than cuckolding. Even though 80% of men believe the opposite and many of them have explained why in these comments, those 80% are wrong and bleh is right, just because.....
2) bleh thinks making your case constitutes saying "I am right and you are wrong" and nothing more.
2) The 80% of men who think cuckolding is worse than rape are seeking to trivialize rape. 80% of men are thus rapists in blehworld.
3) bleh condemns Game, even though he cannot define Game.
4) Despite bleh being absolutely certain about the merit of his shockingly anti-male opinions, he lacks the courage to debate it at The Spearhead, despite commenting on a blog not being a particularly courageous thing to do.
bleh is one of the most complete examples of self-loathing projected outward that one may ever see.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 13, 2010 at 01:45 AM
I have enjoyed the cornucopia of information presented here, and I have blogged about this in order to direct more people to this valuable resource.
However. . . I did NOT enjoy the dismissive attitude exhibited toward MRAs. A lot of us have put heart and soul into our work, even during the darkest times when the chips were down and it all felt like futility. For years we have done this, and we have spread the word to a lot of people - although we'll never know the exact numbers - and I believe we merit a better recompense than the snide flippancy which the author has displayed here.
Posted by: fidelbogen | January 13, 2010 at 01:48 AM
fidelbogen,
MRAs have their hearts in the right place.
BUT, there are either too few MRAs, or the ones that are there aren't creative and energetic enough.
Every single obscure lefty cause can assemble protests, political pressure groups, funding for policy centers, etc. In LA last year, there was even a 200-person protest in front of the Federal Building about the rights of Tamil refugees in Sri Lanka, something that has no effect on the other 99.9% of the US population. But no protest of divorced men??
I can't say that MRA actions have had much effect on mainstream opinion, unfortunately.
Funny, so many other comments say the opposite, that I am an 'extremist MRA' myself.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 13, 2010 at 02:02 AM
Let me add myself to the list of Indians telling Dave to shut up about what he knows nothing about.
Dave is so utterly brainwashed by feminism and cultural bigotry that he does not see how silly he sounds, and how he is making the weirdest assumptions out of thin air, about a culture he has no real exposure to other than what his wife told him.
Dave's wife is probably an ABCD. Female ABCDs are known to be stuck in a sort of 'Willy Loman' complex, in which they think they are something special because they are born in the West, refusing to see that the India of today is not the India of 30 years ago. Hence, their arrogance and superiority complex are uninformed and pathetic.
Posted by: Tushar | January 13, 2010 at 02:09 AM
How is it that I can agree with your logic, find no fault with the facts you quote, agree with the fact that feministas have taken things way too far and rather than seeking to end injustice and secure equality have instead instituted a regime of terror against men in which they seek to become the ruling class instead of the subjugated, and basically agree with every single point you have about the bubble...
And still find you to be a bitter, female hating, objectifying Male Chauvinist Pig?
As a woman who has no goal beyond simply having the freedom to make my own choices about love, sex, lifestyle and everything else, I personally despise what the feministas have done to the woman's right's movement, I see them as exactly the same kind of bitchy, revenge driven, man hating, power mad, and bigoted individuals as you do. I agree with how badly they have fucked everything up for both men and women...
But the attitude you display towards women is no better. Your exhortation of the "Venusian Arts" is as cynical towards all women as the feministas "lead men by their dicks" BS. Your glamorization of female submission and male dominance in other parts of the world reinforces the very stereotypes that the feministas hold up as cause for their extremism. Your views objectify women into either being "feminist man hating hags" or forces them to conform to your extremely narrow definition of "female."
I don't dispute a single thing you predict, I don't dispute any of your facts, your views on the injustice of the war between the sexes, or the various groups parasiting off of it.
But I cannot condone your contempt towards women. That some women are every bit as guilty of being man haters as you accuse them of being does not justify your categorization of all women in America of being in the same boat. Any more than the fact that some men are exactly what the feministas claim them to be justifies them tossing every male into the grinder. Your hatred of each other has blinded you to the fact that your actions only feed the opposing side. You each use each other to justify your existences, and makes you feel that everyone who isn't FOR YOU is AGAINST YOU.
I've just spent a month dealing with this exact sort of hatred over at H+ magazine on the issue of sexbots, and dealing with numerous males who just like you seem to be slavering for a world of female submissiveness or even a world where women are extinct and only artificial sex slaves exist for the endless satisfaction of male sex urges. It's sad to see so many bright, intelligent and mostly decent guys suffering from this pathological hatred of all women because of the crimes of a few.
And regardless of your desire to "not be an activist" considering I was linked to this from both Imminst and Foresight.org, the simple fact that you even posted this has made you one. You've firmly declared for the "Women should be male playtoys" camp and who knows how many sincere, caring, future looking individuals are going to read this post, and do exactly what so many of your commenters have done, and swallow this meme hook line and sinker without examining the overgeneralizations you make about American women. This does nothing to make a plea for true equality, but instead simply exacerbates the issues by justifying the very stereotypes in men that have CAUSED the extremism of the feminist movement.
So... sad to say that your vision of the future is probably all too correct... because people like you are going to be so pigheadedly stubborn about refusing to take women as individuals and accepting them as equals that you will make this a self fulfilling prophecy. You could have made a case for true equality, used your influence to help solve this gender war... and instead you chose to throw gas on the fire in order to ignite the flames.
My sole consolation is that there are so many other technologies advancing that will make gender meaningless because it will be a personal choice, like which clothes to wear, and that will rob all sides of a leg to stand on.
So, feel free to twist my words around now to paint me as a man hating whore, when all I've done is plea for true equality where neither sex is subjugated to the other and everyone is free to simply be themselves without conformity to stereotypical gender roles. The polarizied world view you've displayed here makes me expect little else. Still, I hope you surprise me... a rational conversation would be much nicer than the typical response I've grown used to... from both males and females.
Posted by: Valkyrie Ice | January 13, 2010 at 03:43 AM
"Funny, so many other comments say the opposite, that I am an 'extremist MRA' myself."
Perhaps, by the celebrated duck test you ARE an MRA, even if you disown the label? MRA is a very broad umbrella.
But if you are adamantly not an MRA, maybe you are AMR (Advocate for Men's Rights)? Or possibly an ARM (Advocate for the Rights of Men)? Last I checked, those acronyms were still up for grabs.
Unlike Leftism, "MRA-ism" is not a deeply rooted, densely networked cultural infrastructure with a history stretching back for the better part of two centuries. Most of the people who currently travel under the 'MRA' appellative are rank amateurs who rode into town (so to speak) yesterday. They are not (yet) sophisticated operators. They don't know how certain things work. They don't know the ropes. They are scattered and isolated, generally too busy making a living, and rowing upstream against cultural inertia or even downright hostility. But the fact that they even showed up at all speaks tons in their favor. AND. . . some of them have indeed made a mark or a splash within some theatre of action or other. (Witness the recent cyber-blitz in connection with the ongoing Kevin Driscoll (alleged) rape trial.)
Posted by: fidelbogen | January 13, 2010 at 09:11 AM
Valkyrie Ice,
How is it that I can agree with your logic, find no fault with the facts you quote, ....And still find you to be a bitter, female hating, objectifying Male Chauvinist Pig?
Because your logical mind found the facts to be correct, but your emotional mind had a different reaction.
I don't dispute a single thing you predict, I don't dispute any of your facts, your views on the injustice of the war between the sexes, or the various groups parasiting off of it.
Then that is all that matters.
I have said that many good women will suffer, and that many good women are being incentivized to do things that harm themselves.
That is the main point. Your inability to get past your emotional reaction is hurting women, so stop doing that.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 13, 2010 at 12:52 PM
fidelbogen,
But that is just it. The efforts of MRAs have been far below the minimum necessary to start a real movement.
As I wrote in the article, the minimum necessary is :
1) A think tank/policy center
2) Ability to organize protests
3) Documentaries
4) Prominent spokesmen who have been screwed by the system
Every obscure lefty cause can create this much, and feminist easily have 1000 times this much.
It may happen someday, but it is not imminent. That is why I restate what I said in the article : something is better than nothing, but that is about it.
That is why Game is the most powerful (and at present, the only) real MRA weapon. It makes it fun to actually avoid complying with feminism.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 13, 2010 at 03:10 PM
@The Futurist
My pavlovian response... yeah right. Your excuse to actually dismiss all the rest of my post pointing out that you are simply a MALE VERSION of a Feminista.
And as badly as the feministas hurt regular women like me, Male supremists like yourself hurt regular men just as much.
All you succeed in doing is empowering the feministas. You give them all the fodder they need to continue to think their excesses are justifiable. You provide them with a reason to think their paranoid stereotyping of men is truth.
I'm not the one suffering from a pavlovian response Futurist. They have you well trained.
Posted by: Valkyrie Ice | January 13, 2010 at 10:27 PM
Valkyrie Ice,
You agree with everything, yet detest the article. Such total confusion...
It is absurd for you to call the very fair and balanced article (where you agree with all conclusions) a 'male supremacist' article. How is making predictions 'male supremacist'? Am I supposed to make wrong predictions just to appease the fringe?
Posted by: The Futurist | January 13, 2010 at 10:50 PM
You misunderstand me then. I never said I detested the *article.* I do detest your passing off *yourself* as a fair and balanced point of view when the hatred you possess towards women is exactly the same form of bigotry and prejudice that the feministas display. You justified it in your case since you're male, and condemned it in their case for being female.
And I explained that very precisely. Your evidence for the injustices and the results of the feministas attempts to invert the gender power structure are completely separate from the personal viewpoints you expressed and the over generalizations you made by classifying ALL American Women as in "the enemy camp" Your article has much factual truth, and your predictions are quite logical. Your personal views on womens's ROLES however are not facts, but your beliefs, which you justify by blaming their creation on evil women who are destroying masculinity. Then you more or less define masculinity as superiority over woman, and femininity as submission to men. You intermix your personal opinions in with the very solid facts, expressing those opinions with exact equal weight with the facts. Thus, your fair and balanced reporting of the facts becomes a hate filled rant against women, justified with very real truths and injustices that need to be addressed, but those are almost shoved into the background in order to promote your viewpoints about how men should treat women, how women should act, and how the male supremest mindset is "natural". All the facts you quote are simply evidence you present to justify your opinions.
In other words, rather than speak about the need for a real solution in which gender equality is achieved, your post simply sought to justify the very behavior which created the Womens Right's Movement to begin with. That's not neutrality, thats advocacy of another power structure inversion that will continue the problem rather than relieve it.
I am quite well aware that it is human nature for the underdog to seek to become the overlord, for the slave to become the master and inflict even more cruelty against the previous enslavers than they ever suffered. But that cycle cannot be condoned, or encouraged if true equality is to become a reality.
Now, stop trying to put words in my mouth and actually respond to the points I make. Seeking to derail the debate via dismissal, derision, and attempting to undermine my arguments with such spurious tactics as questioning my gender do nothing to strengthen your argument, they simply show how unwilling you are to debate honestly. Your attempts to bait me into anger are transparent and laughable. Derision is solely a refuge for those who cannot defend their arguments rationally.
People are people. Period. Whether I am male, female, animal, or alien makes no difference. My skin color has no bearing, nor my hair color, eye color or religious affiliation or lack thereof. Categorize me however you will, it does not lessen my statements validity. You are exactly what you are condemning, and as hateful and despising of women as the women you claim are the problem.
The fault lies on BOTH SIDES. Your prediction is a very plausible rebound to the extremism of the feministas. But your attitude is responsible for creating the situation which gave the feministas power to begin with. And until BOTH sides stop seeking to prove superiority over the other, and these petty bullshit powergames are over and done with, this cycle will simply repeat endlessly.
Which is why I am glad that technological innovations will remove the problem completely by making gender a personal choice.
You are a very bright and intelligent person, but sadly, in this post, you've failed to be either rational or original. You've simply repeated the same bullshit male supremist dogma over again, mixed it with very factual problems, and assumed no-one would be able to tell the garbage from the gold.
And sadly, too many people couldn't.
Posted by: Valkyrie Ice | January 14, 2010 at 01:08 AM
Valkyrie Ice,
You are using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
I reject the notion that you cannot confront misandry, which is effectively what you are saying by wrongly alleging 'male supremacy' where there is none. You are effectively saying any and all confrontations of misandry create more misandry. I suppose you cannot point to a single article that combats feminism in a manner you believe to not be creating feminism.
Not one single sentence in the article could be indicative of 'male supremacy'.
You totally ignore, in a dishonest manner, the various instances in the article where I say 'otherwise good women' and 'this is unfair to both genders' and 'feminists are leading average women into the abyss'. This makes your opinion a dishonest one.
So no, your points are neither logical nor rational.
And yes, for reasons I mentioned before, you are the only person who can agree with the facts and predictions, but still say 'the article is chauvinist'. No other person has such total simultaneous contradictions within their minds.
Which is why I am glad that technological innovations will remove the problem completely by making gender a personal choice.
It is absurd to wait for something that may be 40 years away, if it ever happens at all, as a solution to present problems.
Plus, you are grossly overestimating the number of people who have any wish to change their gender.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 14, 2010 at 01:33 AM
Shall I provide a line by line analysis of your post? Will that provide sufficient evidence for my case? Does the comment box here provide sufficient room to break it down in one shot, or should I simply link to the finished piece?
Posted by: Valkyrie Ice | January 14, 2010 at 03:28 AM
Valkyrie Ice, you prove women have zero ability to rationally debate a topic without infusing their emotionally-laced arguments of no relevance to the topic. You basically write 5 paragraphs of text to do nothing more than emote illogical nonsense. Thy name is woman.
Posted by: Tony | January 14, 2010 at 08:41 AM
Valkyrie Ice,
Link to the finished piece. It won't take more than a few sentences for me to expose the logical gaps within it.
Tony,
What is funny is that Valkyrie Ice is a transsexual (although I don't know if s/he was M to W or W to M). So VI 'agrees with all my predictions' while simulaneously calling the article 'male supremacist'. VI has not decided whether I should a) make bad predictions that are PC, or b) make accurate predictions that are not PC.
Funny.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 14, 2010 at 10:08 AM
You can't replace one extreme with another. Men have to be careful how far they take things in order to correct for feminism. As corrosive as feminist teachings can be, it can be just as corrosive among the more radical teachings of the MRA movement, where everything is reduced to evo-bio pseudo-science, where everything becomes a "test" you have to pass in order to succeed with women. This is commonly called the Venusian Arts which I strongly supported at one time and had a fair degree of success with, but ultimately it made me miserable. To defeat the enemy I had to become the enemy, and that eventually took its toll.
The thing about the Venusian Arts is that it sounds great on paper and makes a lot of sense, so it is only by way of my own experience that I take a stand against it. That is not to say that everything it teaches is bad. I think the most valuable part of VA is the insight it gives into the psychology of some women and how easy it can be to manipulate them using their insecurities against them (not that I encourage that, but it is informative nonetheless). It's basically like "The Rules" for men, but with more strategy.
The plus is that you learn about some female psychology. The bad part is that you are told what you have to become in order to get the "best women", which by VA standards are always the youngest (most naive, under 25) and hottest (most makeup on), which makes it seem like VA is ideal, but it's just that these women are the most vulnerable to the VA because of their youth and their obsessive desire to be attractive in the eyes of the world. So to get them you have to practically lower your intellect and become just as shallow. So, these women only have superficial (false) quality which by VA slight-of-hand is made out to be real quality.
This is the kind of bogus evo-bio argument the VA teaches: A girl spends a lot of money and time on looking good - she is called a "perfect 10". Therefore, the techniques work best on her for the reasons just mentioned. The VA reason is because she has higher value due to her "rare" beauty, meaning that due to her "better genes" (more makeup) she has to be more selective for a higher quality man. But for a girl who is pretty but not as shallow (she doesn't spend as much time in front of a mirror), the techniques don't work as well. Therefore, she has lower value since she is less selective for a high quality man. Therefore, using the VA techniques raises your value as a man.
It's totally absurd.
In reality, the VA does not screen for quality women, but the worst women that happen to be products of the worst aspects of feminism, and the culture of female narcissism and entitlement. Using VA, you are gaming the system, not seeking to improve it. And by doing so you become worthy of contempt from women, which only feeds the vicious cycle as Valkyrie Ice pointed out.
You want to win with women? Stop chasing them and expect them to do their part.
Seeking equality with women is (believe it or not) more powerful than game or trying to get them to be submissive. The reason for this is because you stop trying so hard, which is always the problem men have with women. If she's my equal I don't always have to be the one who calls first. I don't always have to be the one to ask out. I can expect her to approach me occasionally. I can expect her to reciprocate my interest quickly, the way I would if I was interested. I can stop trying to overcome any resistance on her part, and just move on if the effort becomes too much. Of course many women very much like the "traditional" roles where the man has to do all the work, but it is men who have reinforced this expectation.
Game might appear to be the answer but it will only further enslave men if they are not careful. It might appear to be powerful that by pressing certain buttons you can get someone to do something, but if button pushing goes too far then who is controlling who? If I were a woman all I would have to do is say something that a VA practitioner would interpret as a "test" and then watch him jump through hoops to say the "right thing" in response. He would be my bitch, and all the while he would think that he's some kind of superstar Gamer performing behavioural gymnastics in response to whatever whimsy I throw his way.
The answer is not game. The answer is not VA. The answer is equality, which means allowing for men and women equal opportunity to make their own choices and to be accountable for their actions. And it just so happens that this is the best way for gender roles to be established anyway because most men naturally want to be masculine and want feminine women, and most women naturally want to be feminine and want masculine men. We just have to stop interfering and let things happen.
Posted by: Jakob | January 14, 2010 at 10:47 AM
One of my friends posted a link to this rot on his facebook page. I thought I would say to you what I said to him...
----------------------------
I can see that there may be some truth in the idea that there are fewer decent male role models around in entertainment. Perhaps there is even a more widespread 'crisis of masculinity' in Western Society. But it's a very long way from that (rather perfunctory) observation to this crap... "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..."
This author is an idiot. It's hard to know where to start with this kind of nonsense, but I'll have a go. First, there is nothing 'absurd' about the idea that some people are paid more than others; it's a demonstrable fact in lots of instances (I'm not sure the author knows what the word 'absurd' actually means). Second, it's neither false nor a myth that women are underpaid relative to men. This is again, a demonstrable fact. The pay gap in the UK currently stands at about 12.8%. That's according to the Office for National Statistics, not 'feminists'. If you like graphs and facts and figures, why not start with the US Census Bureau report here... http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf which covers income inequality on page 7.
As for equal pay for equal work, this is a thornier issue, because current legislation allows companies to be less than transparent about who is paid what. However, unless this person is a conspiracy theorist, he will find it difficult to explain why or how the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act got passed into law last year ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act ) - nor why so many court cases still spring up when women discover they're earning less than their male peers (he'd probably say it was because women were genetically mean or something else suitably idiotic - someone needs to explain the naturalistic fallacy to the author, apparently it's one of his favourites). This author is an idiot.
No feminist in his or her right mind claims that adultery &/or domestic violence are actions committed 'exclusively' by men. Such a claim would be idiotic and would not serve any purpose (this is a good example of the 'straw man' fallacy, and I may use it for one of my critical thinking classes next year!). It is, again, a demonstrable fact that the majority of domestic violence is committed against women (try, for example, the American Bar Association's statistics on this... http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statistics.html ). Though undeniably there's still a depressing amount committed by women too. (Feminists tend to focus on the fact that it can be a lot more difficult for a woman to extract herself from situations of domestic violence, because she's often earning a lot less than her partner and is thus financially dependent upon him).
Two more points, then I must stop wasting my time with this idiot, whoever he is.
First, he goes from '90% of divorces are initiated by women' to this, frankly misogynist comment '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'. Has it not occurred to him that lots of those women are initiating divorce because their husbands beat them up, raped them or cheated on them? Good use of loaded verbs there ('destroys'), but lousy reasoning. (Generally speaking the reasoning with statistics in this article is risible).
Second, this author seems in thrall to the myth (this really is a myth) that when women divorce they all automatically get financial rewards from their husbands. Even just counting the women who've had children with those husbands (you would think they would do best right? What with having dependants...), the figure is something like 16% (I don't have the source for this to hand, but it's in my notes from a class I took recently. Why not look it up?).
In sum, the people who are expressing disbelief and anger in the comments thread are right to do so. This author is an idiot. His writing (horribly long, clunky sentences, lots of loaded verbs, etc.) and reasoning 'skills' remind me a lot of first-year undergraduates *before* they've taken a class in critical thinking. I suggest he read any introduction to critical thinking textbook, and then see how he gets on defending this appalling argument.
Can't believe I just expended that many pixels over such a pile of horse-shit.
Posted by: DH | January 14, 2010 at 01:01 PM
DH,
Your entire hissy fit is nothing more than ad hominems, evidencing your lack of points for a proper logical rebuttal.
The article clearly explains how women are not underpaid relative to men. The free market could not sustain it. Also, I see you steered clear of the 'glass floors/glass ceilings' point, because you don't have the capacity for an intelligent counterargument.
Your emotion-based whining about husbands being villains is bogus, with no sources cited by you, while I have provided supporting links to the contrary.
The article already explains how misandrists like yourself have only two argument points, which are calling someone an a) misogynist, or b) a loser. Beyond this, they have nothing. Thanks for proving the point so superbly.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 14, 2010 at 01:21 PM
Jakob,
Decent points. I will agree with what you said here :
The answer is equality, which means allowing for men and women equal opportunity to make their own choices and to be accountable for their actions.
The problem is, there is an entire legal and cultural apparatus that shields women from the consequences of their own actions. Until this gets corrected, men should not be expected to bear disproportionate burdens.
On the Venusian Arts, where I disagree with you is the apparent assumption that VA cannot be applied to LTRs. They can, and most practitioners do that. 'Pick Up' is not done by people over 30 except the few who are seeking to sell instructional services.
The fact that you think the Venusian Arts harms women, which it does not (quite the opposite in fact), certainly makes me doubt whether you really know enough about the practice of it.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 14, 2010 at 01:29 PM
dh, please demand a refund from your critical thinking class, you have been scammed as evidenced by your pile of feminist talking points and anti-male prejudices.
Posted by: Roger | January 14, 2010 at 01:51 PM
The Futurist,
I should clarify, I don't think the Venusian harms women entirely, just some of the tactics. I think it harms men more.
I've used the VA for years so it's not as if I never tried it and passed judgement on it. I did try it and honestly wanted to believe in it, and came up with all sorts of rationale as to why it should be used, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. But eventually, I could no longer deny what I was consistently finding to be true; which is, it's not the way to go about it. Sure, there's parts of it that are useful, but as a whole it's not a body of knowledge, or rather a way of thinking that I would encourage. There's a difference between giving up and just quitting what isn't working.
I think giving women great feelings is a good thing but not at the expense of your own identity. Why should men have to learn all these things to get women, which as you say, are "more complex". Why should the man have to shoulder the burden of making things work? Is it because I'm the man and that's the way nature intended? Says who? In this case the line between masculinity and stupidity has become blurred. The Venusian Arts much be taken with a grain of salt because if you're not careful it will make you a slave to women, or at least a slave to their reactions.
Some might say that men learning VA is the same as women wearing makeup to attract men, so it's justified. I totally disagree with that. Putting on makeup any fool can do, but applying VA is so much more work and effort. It's like the difference between writing a test and getting a phD.
The greatest weakness men have is that we like to complicate things, because when we overcome challenges we feel good about it. VA appeals to men's egos, pure and simple. It does address some problems yes, but it's the potential ego boost that lures men in for the most part. The way you go on about how 80% of men are not capable of abstracting the essentials of VA, only confirms this.
Posted by: Jakob | January 14, 2010 at 03:54 PM
Jakob,
It is true that it should not be so hard for the average man to pair up with an average woman, that he should have to learn something as challenging as the Venusian Arts. Any society that excludes the majority of men unless they master this tall order is a society doomed to failure.
That being said, it is definitely an adaptation to the conditions created by 'feminists', who want to be free to pursue the top men without consequence, but still seek to forcibly extract money from beta men in return for nothing. Such an adaptation as the VA is highly predictable, given this.
In India, there is little scope for VA other than the form that is useful in marriage, as very few women are unmarried past the age of 28, and very few unmarried women live separately from their parents. There isn't enough of a 'dating/nightlife' medium for the 'pick-up' variety of VA to even exist, outside of some very small circles. The same was true in America in the 1950s, particularly in smaller towns.
The Venusian Arts much be taken with a grain of salt because if you're not careful it will make you a slave to women, or at least a slave to their reactions.
I strongly disagree. Being a frustrated beta makes a man far more of a slave to female reactions. No matter how a man uses the VA, it is incredibly liberating.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 14, 2010 at 08:11 PM
Alright, Futurist. Here it is.
http://valkyrieice.blogspot.com/2010/01/this-is-in-response-to-post-made-on.html
I would have preferred to have it posted in a more public forum where I would not be forced to play moderator, but alas 22,000 words exceeded the limit at H+.
feel free to respond there if you wish, or here if your fear I will censor non-spam comments. Your choice. Just show me the respect I've given you of honestly pointing out exactly why I can both agree and disagree with you simultaneously by actually reading it.
All of it.
TTFN
Valkyrie Ice
Posted by: Valkyrie Ice | January 15, 2010 at 09:11 AM
All that feminists and other women do is yell "misogynist" when truthful statements about female behavior are said.
In this article, it is pretty clear that The Futurist is concerned about the well-being of average women. I mean, the whole article has things like :
"otherwise good women"
"feminists are leading average women in to the abyss"
"it is not moral to mistreat women"
"create mutually satisfying relationships with women"
That sounds pretty pro-woman to me.
The stupid feminists do exactly what the article states, which is say "misogynist" without justification, which ultimately will create anger among men who were slandered unjustly. It is those feminists who are the real sexist bigots, not the men they slander without basis.
More women need to speak out against this. Cassy Fiano is one who is doing it.
Feminists are the biggest enemies of real women.
Posted by: Janine | January 15, 2010 at 07:16 PM
@Janine
Way to cherry pick out the few lines from the mass of pro female domination.
Otherwise good women... defined between the lines as "women who would otherwise meekly submit to their submissive role to men." between lamenting how chivalry has failed because women are no longer sold by their parents to a man, praising how women are properly submissive in other lands, and defining a womans productivity solely as her use as a baby factory, the calls for a return to "the good old days when women were property" fairly scream.
Every Feminist is consistently portrayed as the small subset of the extremists.
"It's not moral" is in one section, while in a later one, The Futurist urges men to do exactly what he claims is "not moral"
And if you follow the whole post, you also find that "mutually satisfying" is pretty much defined as "woman properly submissive to the dominant man"
But since it's pretty obvious from your "real woman" comment, you share The Futurist's definitions, I'm not surprised the nuances escaped you. However, just as the power inversion of the feminista extremists is harmful to men, the return to the power structure of male domination is not a solution. Any woman who is truly wanting just plain equality, not domination, not revenge, not payback for getting hurt by some jerk male, but just plain old gender neutral equality, cannot let such bigotry masquerade itself as "caring about women."
And that is where my objections lie. I wouldn't have cared if The Futurist had posted a rant in which the misogyny was in plain sight, but it is hidden, denied, and subverted by his claims to simply want to let women return to their "natural" role... defined as properly submissive and dependent on a man.
He is quite right to point out how injust the current system is. He is quite wrong to gloss over how injust the old system was too. Neither system is equitable. Calling for a return to the past that has been proven not to work in the modern age is neither helping solve the problem, nor looking to the future.
Posted by: Valkyrie Ice | January 15, 2010 at 09:46 PM
V-Ice,
So Janine, as a woman, is not allowed to decide what is misogynistic and what isn't? She needs you, who cannot even decide what gender you want to be, to tell her?
Talk about arrogance. It seems you are the one who thinks women are inferior, and need to be told when they are being subjected to oppression. I bet you like to school black people about when they are experiencing racism too.
I read your long blathering both here and on your link. It is little more than your own confusion. You are hardly in a position to tell women when they are insufficiently aware of how they are being treated.
Posted by: Theo | January 15, 2010 at 11:52 PM
@Theo
What makes you think I have any doubts about my gender? I don't. I am however quite well aware of how people hide their prejudices in plain view. I am also quite well aware of how people will dismiss what they don't want to hear, and lie to themselves rather than face up to those parts of themselves they don't want examined too closely.
Now, if you want to logically refute anything I've said, feel free, but derision and prejudice isn't an argument. It's an evasion.
Posted by: Valkyrie Ice | January 16, 2010 at 01:36 AM
V-Ice,
Nice dodge.
The point is, you are lecturing Janine on what a woman should find offensive, arrogantly assuming that you know better than her. That makes you the misogynist who thinks that women are not capable of judging for themselves
You have exposed your belief that women are inferior, wide and clear. The main article has no such misogyny compared to you.
Posted by: Theo | January 16, 2010 at 11:43 AM
@Theo
Not a dodge, nor am I telling her to do anything. I pointed out the definitions The Futurist gave in his own post to the examples she tried to use to justify this not being a male supremacy rant that proved the opposite. I then pointed out the logical inference in her own post that indicated sympathy towards the stereotypes The Futurist had used, which shows that she is likely to ignore the subtext due to shared opinions.
I then re-iterated my point that gender stereotyping hurts everyone, men and women alike, and pointed out that any woman who shares my beliefs in gender neutrality would do as I have done. As Janine does NOT share my beliefs, why would I expect her to do anything but what she has done?
No-one is inferior or superior to another, Theo. But there are those who are willing to ignore problems because they don't want to have to face uncomfortable issues. Janine is obviously comfortable in her chosen role. That may or may not be the role that The Futurist seems to think is womans role, and she may or may not be happy in it. Her reply to me was to simply deny noticing the attacks against women The Futurist makes. I pointed out the reasons why I saw them as an attack, and restated my case for why I felt the need to confront The Futurist.
Now, care to try again, instead of projecting your assumptions on me?
Posted by: Valkyrie Ice | January 16, 2010 at 02:16 PM
I've come back multiple times to read this article. Very interesting. I hadn't ever seen the division of the sexes (polygamy, hypergamy) broken down that way for me before. It makes a whole lot of data from my teens and twenties fall instantly into place.
I've been a lurker at this blog for a long time. This is my first comment. I'm a 32 year old, happily married man, with 3 children.
Keep writing awesome articles.
Posted by: Jay | January 17, 2010 at 05:43 PM
The guy playing Jean Luc Piccard is an ACTUAL feminist. Like he actually goes to feminist meetings and organizations, lol, and a lot of the other "masculine" guys you have are really just ugly guys. Not being a pretty boy doesn't automatically make you "masculine", and a lot of the guys you have on there are not really all that masculine as much as they're not metrosexual-she-men...
As for your interpretation of game...
I don't know how to say this to you... in a way that it won't trip up some mental-filters. I have been involved with game (venusian arts) for 12 years now. I have gone through every phase of mastery and relationship to game, and my perspective on game today is the same as that of Bleh.
I know this seems inconceivable to you, since you're still in that idealization phase. I've been you GK, I've languaged things about game and VA in the exact same ways that you do, so I know how you feel about it.
If you talk to any of old game guys who are both MRAs and have over a decade in game, you'll see they've all reached the same conclusion ===> game is playing with the system, not against it. Game is itself supplication to a matriarchal system. I know this is making you go WTF, but trust me on this, or at least let it plant a seed in your mind. The very act of GAMING is no different than buying women.
The guy going around buying women flowers, trying to get a better job, better car, more status in order to "get women"
IS THE SAME as
The guy going around gaming women, perfecting his new gaming tactics, and working on his latest gaming arsenal to "get women".
They're BOTH deluded into investing energy, time, effort into DOING in order to GET pussy. Its the exact same system.
Unfortunately, you need to master, literally become a grandmaster of game before you can see this. You can only see this from the top down... Only once you climb the "game" mountain, do you see its just another system designed to enslave men, while insidiously making them feel superior over "betas".
Posted by: AlekNovy | January 18, 2010 at 07:36 AM
AlekNovy,
You clearly have no direct experience with VA, and are merely one of these dime-a-dozen people, much like those who pretend by saying 'I used to be a Republican but now I am not....' in order to feign credibility.
Go to any major site devoted to the subject, and you will quickly be exposed by people with the same level of real experience that you pretend to have.
To claim VA is also being a slave to the system is ignorant, because the man with VA is not spending money, and is not being forced to do things against his will, or subjecting himself to a set of unfair laws.
It also seems that the only alternative you suggest is to detach completely, and become a hermit that has no interaction with women, as a way to 'not be a slave to the system'. You are saying that no positive relationship with women is possible at all. It may surprise you that most men are not interested in that.
Nice try, kid.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 18, 2010 at 02:17 PM
As a lifelong feminist I have been disheartened over the years at how we've treated men, as a society. It was never my goal to better the lives of women by bringing others down. A rising tide was supposed to lift all boats.
I was struck by your "Four Sirens" and how two of them are systems which gain women's freedoms, and two are social engineering which have gone too far. To throw the baby out with the bathwater ... is not ideal. Moderation, in all things, no?
1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): These are not "easy" even now. Putting women on perpetual hormones is not the ideal form of birth control. Condoms and abortions have been around since time immemorial, but access (easy or otherwise) have not.
I come from a family where for generations couples often had 10 children. As we are no longer farmers, and live in cities, that kind of procreation is too expensive for our modest means. I support sex education, for both genders, and want women not to grow up simply to have children, but to also contribute to society, as they can, and men to have more leisure than work, if possible. Family planning is essential.
2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : I agree the first is a strange invention, and should be reserved for childless couples. Divorce should be difficult, but not impossible. Alimony should be negotiated on a case by case basis, but should not be assumed. Our courts have gone too far. Again, it is around the care of children....
3) Female economic freedom : again, surely the raising of one group or gender should not endanger another. It need not. Women, still, are struggling with how to have a family and a career, and if one excludes the other (as it often does for women). However, if for any reason a woman must work, than she should have equal protection, under the law, and in the eyes of society.
4) Pro-female social engineering : I'm sorry to say this is the classic pendulum swing - of idiotic government policy. In an attempt to prevent children from poverty, we've designed welfare benefits that help only children abandoned by fathers, thus discouraging poor men from staying with their children.
That's a feminist take, one which agrees with your comments about raising men up, but also believes women must be free, also. Thank you for your thoughtful writing, and great topics.
Posted by: Yvette | January 18, 2010 at 07:00 PM
"You clearly have no direct experience with VA"
Dude, I OWN THE BIGGEST VA FORUM IN EASTERN EUROPE and operate THIRTEEN sites on the subject. Lol. I personally arranged a reality show in 2 parts on national television covering the subject and have coached hundreds of guys personally. I've owned 3 workshop and 2 coaching companies over the years, and right now I'm one of the biggest affiliates in the industry. You can email me to verify all of this.
"It also seems that the only alternative you suggest is to detach completely, and become a hermit that has no interaction with women, as a way to 'not be a slave to the system'. You are saying that no positive relationship with women is possible at all. It may surprise you that most men are not interested in that. "
I have said this exact sentence to other guys back when I was in the VA phase. That's the thing with VA, when you're new to it, you're such an extremist that you see everything in black&white... You think the world is separated into PUAs and AFCs, not realizing that's a false dichotomy.
Let me give you the perfect analogy. The "pua vs. afc" dichotomy is the same false dichotomy as the left vs. right right paradigm. It exists there to keep you trapped from seeing there's a third option. If you're a leftist, whenever you hear Ron Paul you immediatelly go "oh, conservative gun loving kook". Same when you're in the afc/pua false-dichotomy, you assume everyone that's not VA is a hermit. There is a third level.
Again, you can spend 10 years in the industry like some of us before you escape the false dichotomy of the community, or you talk with some people who have walked the path before you.
Posted by: alek | January 18, 2010 at 07:52 PM
The VA is in many ways like a life raft. If you're sinking and don't know how to swim it can be of great value (at first). The problem is that one can develop a severe uncritical bias for it. It's the same way needy serially clingy women cling to "The Rules" like it is a godsend, when it is really just a badly written manipulation piece, with little real value. It's extreme overkill and uses a hatchet where you should be using a scalpel. It's human nature to overcompensate.
The VA is a stepping stone at best, to help you look at things differently and to help you overcome your biggest mistakes with women, but since it's a life raft only it can not be recommended as a long term strategy. At some point you have to progress and set your sites on solid land.
Posted by: Jakob | January 18, 2010 at 08:27 PM
alek,
Then why would you have such an extreme view? At any rate, the US is quite different from Eastern Europe. In the US, a man may need VA just to compete, whether he likes it or not.
I am not 'new' to VA either. 8 years for me. Don't erect false strawmen.
The "pua vs. afc" dichotomy is the same false dichotomy
I have never uttered such words. In fact, I have strenuously mentioned LTR Game, which you seem to want to avoid. It seems you are trying to convince yourself of something, since you are assigning things to me I have not said.
Lastly, the only alternative you seem to offer to a man is total disengagement from women, under the premise that there is not possible positive relationship with women. This is false, and makes it hard to believe you actually understood the material in any capacity beyond the narrow PUA paradigm.
Jakob,
I mostly agree. A society that makes a man require VA just to compete is a bad society, even if VA itself is a good thing. The adaptation of VA thus should not be blamed, but rather the conditions that created that adaptation.
That is why I keep citing the Indian system, where the average man DOES pair up with the average women without much trouble.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 18, 2010 at 09:07 PM
Yvette,
Thanks for your comments. You do have a valuable role to play.
I have clearly said in the article that the economic freedom of women is a positive. If everything was based on merit, I would be all for it. But when pressure groups like NOW force stimulus funds away from men and towards women, that is fundamentally wrong.
Otherwise, I agree with your points.
The thing is, the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation will happen, swinging the pendulum to the other side, maybe even to an extreme.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 18, 2010 at 09:10 PM
"Then why would you have such an extreme view?"
I don't. It just seems extreme to you since you're still stuck in the false dichotomy.
In that previous analogy of left/right, I would be the Libertarian, you would be the rightist calling me extreme for being a libertarian.
""I have never uttered such words"""
You immediately went to the extreme of labeling me a Hermit because I was pointing out that VA isn't the complete picture. That tells me you're operating on the same dichtomy we've all functioned on early on in the community.
In that analogy, that's like me (a libertarian for this analogy) going "prostitution should be legal", and you (in this analogy let's say you're a neocon) calling me "an extreme pothead that wants to regress to caveman times".
The only reason you would see me as extreme is if you're still viewing the world in that dichotomy.
Posted by: alek | January 18, 2010 at 09:18 PM
Let me make it absolutely clear, I meet and have many more and deeper relationships with far more and better women than I ever did when I was a "pua" or "doing game", or working with the "venusian arts".
"Lastly, the only alternative you seem to offer to a man is total disengagement from women, under the premise that there is not possible positive relationship with women. "
When have I said this? You ASS-umed this. Why did you assume this? There is a THIRD option (libertarian from the analogy). You ASSUMED I'm the opposite extreme from you without ever asking what alternative I have discovered or am suggesting.
""" A society that makes a man require VA just to compete is a bad society, even if VA itself is a good thing. The adaptation of VA thus should not be blamed, but rather the conditions that created that adaptation. """
Trying to fix matriarchy with VA... Is the same as trying to fix "crony capitalism" with socialism.
Trying to fix this society with "game", is like trying to fix goverment corruption by imposing fascim. Are you seeing where I'm getting at yet? Are the analogies starting to make a parallel?
There is a third option of which you still haven't asked me to elaborate. You just ASS-umed that I'm of the opposite extreme since you're still seeing things in that dichotomy.
Posted by: alek | January 18, 2010 at 09:23 PM
NOTE:::: I'm leaving for a trip, so I can't wait for your response right now, so I'll just explain the alternative instead. I'll do my best, and its your responsibility to read carefully (instead of skimming and assuming) as I won't be here to clarify any of your misreading or assumptions for a while. So its your responsibility to read the following explanation carefully, if you fail, its not my fault.
***********
The THIRD option (surpassing the dichtomy)
***********
AFC/Matriarchy Approach =
Go work and build status, money and things to impress women with. Be sure to be super nice to women, submit to them, beg them, plead them and ask them for dates hoping that you get lucky and they like you. When you get a chance, be sure to immediately impress them with flowers, dates, gifts and your job. ---> and if you fail at all this, just give up, become a hermit and don't even try to approach women if most of you reject you - just give up.
PUA (game) Option =
MAKE women attracted to you. Learn things to do, say and ways to act, what to say when, how to say it and how to come across so that you *trigger* attraction in women so that you can get sex from them. If you're getting rejected or not meeting the right women, there's a technique, trick or part of your game that's missing and needs polishing. The only way to get women attracted to you is if you proactively WORK on "building attraction" and making women go through certain steps and phases. Sex is work, and work is sex.
Let me quote mystery from you (from memory) from DYD's mastery series so you get the paradigm the VA is built on:
"And yes guys, this stuff is HARD WORK, and yes it is a lot of work, and sometimes I feel like its too much work and HATE IT, but it has to be done, this is the process and the process is hard work, but this is the reality"
Third Option =
You can BUILD you up to where you no longer have to **do** ANYTHING to attract women. You can change certain personal features to the level and point where you cause attraction merely by your presence. Just leaving your house on an average day causes dozens of women that are supremely attracted to you and are just waiting for you to say "go". No game required, no sarging required, no "skills" at "building attraction required.
Some people call this the "non-game, rockstar approach", some call it "natural status", and some call it "non-pursuing".
This involves men taking their power back, and women doing the pursuing, women doing the steps and actions.
YES - I do realize the above paragraphs sounds like a bunch of weird new-agey baloney that's just fluff and doesn't make sense. That's because its extremely hard to communicate, I didn't get it for months when I first encountered, thought it was just some new "method" or some new "gimmick". If you want to learn more about it, you can for example find stuff by Brent Smith from AttractHotterWomen, specifically his podcasts (and only his podcasts). Unfortunately his newsletter cater to the community right, coz he's doing a bait&switch, he's marketing "game" and "Va", but when you become a client he reveals the third level, so go straight for the podcasts (2 guy interviews).
Posted by: alek | January 18, 2010 at 09:58 PM
best option is to stop trying to impress women. just have a backnone and say "no" women respect man who says "no"
Posted by: dawg | January 18, 2010 at 11:23 PM
@alek
"This involves men taking their power back, and women doing the pursuing, women doing the steps and actions."
women don't do the pursuing... ever. That's asking them to go against their natural instincts. It will never happen in large enough numbers to become widespread because you are demanding the impossible like a child having a hissy fit.
Good luck with your social re-engineering bullshit. It only exist in your mind, not in reality. Your entire thought process is now clouded by your need to preserve self-esteem.
Posted by: dawg | January 18, 2010 at 11:30 PM
alek,
The many errors in your points are :
1) You assume being a PUA is the entirety of Game, despite my strenuous emphasis that it is not (LTR Game, etc.) This tells me your knowledge is incomplete.
2) I always consider VA to be 'who you become' rather than 'something you do'. It seems it took you a long time to come to this realization.
3) The reason I said you are not offering an alternative is that you say 'Game is not the answer', but it seems you also took many years to comprehend the LTR aspect of VA.
4) I never said that VA can 'save Western civ', but I am familiar with that oft-used strawman. Game is NOT meant to save Western Civ, BUT it can save an individual man from many pitfalls. Big difference.
5) This involves men taking their power back, and women doing the pursuing, women doing the steps and actions.
I think that *is* VA to begin with. So it seems that what I think is VA, is what you think is post-VA, and that what you think is Game, is what I consider to be novice 'pre-Game'.
So your 'third option' is what I already advocate, and consider to be VA.
I hope that makes things clear.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 18, 2010 at 11:48 PM
I agree that you can't compare eastern europe to the US, or Canada (where I live). VA developed based on the personality types of North American women (the worst kind). To use VA here means that you have to put in a tremendous amount of effort to get it to work, and that's not even the worse part. The worst part in my experience is that if women suspect you are gaming them they resist more. So imagine, you have to put in all this effort into game without looking like you're using game. Well, for me that was the straw that broke the camels back. I knew I was dealing with a broken system then and there and forcibly changed my ways. Now I do very little and am more or less direct, and I hook up less (admittedly) but when I do the women are of higher quality then they ever were before. No BS at all.
It would be nice if I can say that I have rockstar status now and that chicks pursue me yadda yadda, but that is hardly the case. I've heard Brent's material (as Alex mentioned) and do apply several of his principles but the fact is that when you live in a politically correct, overly-feminized, bordlerline repressed country like Canada there are limits to what even the best methods can do.
The system needs fixing, and the problems with ALL dating products is that they don't acknowledge this, and paint a very rosy picture that if only you do certain things all your problems with women will get better. And they always say that the guy has to change, while ignoring the fact that women need to change their ways too. Self-improvement has to happen on both sides. But the game will only get harder until we start demanding that women do their part as well, and not care if someone calls us "unmanly" or "AFC" for it.
Posted by: Jakob | January 19, 2010 at 07:07 AM
Brilliant essay. Nice job! You have an excellent command of the english language.
I read the responses. Here's my analysis:
Top 10 reasons folks disagree with this article:
1) Didn't read it, or follow the supporting links.
2) Incongruent with personal agenda.
3) Thoroughly marinated in the juices of feminist victimism.
4) Haven't lost to the legal system yet.
5) Don't want to agree with anything.
6) Doesn't understand authority and submission.
7) Thinks "my success = slavery of someone else".
8) Didn't come out of the canonized scripture.
9) Didn't understand misogyny, projection, or misandry.
10) Doesn't value children above all other accomplishments.
11) They are really bad at math.
Posted by: GS | January 19, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Jakob,
The worst part in my experience is that if women suspect you are gaming them they resist more.
Then it is not run properly. I have never had this problem.
The whole point is that VA becomes seamless with who you are. It is not 'something you do'.
But the game will only get harder until we start demanding that women do their part as well, and not care if someone calls us "unmanly" or "AFC" for it.
Successful execution of VA makes women eagerly want to comply. No 'demands' are needed.
It seems you still believe it is a set of routines, rather than a set of internalized beliefs and behaviors.
GS,
Thanks. You are absolutely correct. The article has struck a nerve, however, as traffic is still rather high, 19 days after posting.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 19, 2010 at 11:44 AM
"Successful execution of VA makes women eagerly want to comply. No 'demands' are needed."
Are you serious? The women have to already want to "comply", otherwise nothing works. If they like you, they go along with VA, if they don't then neither VA or anything else works.
Posted by: Jakob | January 19, 2010 at 04:14 PM
I think we are getting too lost on the finer points on what Game/VA is and isn't. Our main focus should be on the MISANDRY that exists in our modern day culture (and legal system) and on how to defeat it.
Posted by: Puma | January 20, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Okay. Hmm... Finally read the entire post.
About weddings: I thought that the father of the bride pays for the wedding and the rings? That's how we did it.
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).
I agree, but only in the cases where the women are conducting work that they wouldn't ordinarily do. Women washing each other's laundry, babysitting each other's kids, cooking each other's food, and selling each other worthless household cleaning products seems like a waste of time and resources. Especially since children are better off being cared for by their own parents.
So a female scientist, engineer, or musician makes sense but a nanny doesn't. I have a cousin who works full-time as a child-care provider and sends her kids to a neighbor during that time. Last year she barely earned enough to pay the neighbor. That's pure insanity, if you ask me.
laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women)
Hmm. Do we need dv laws if we have divorce? If they're not married, she can just leave. And if they are married, she can STILL just leave. What's the point of having the cops arrest your boyfriend, just for you to get back together when he gets out (yeah, I know a couple like that)?
If he beats your face in, it's simple assault, so why the extra laws?
There is no avoiding the reality that marriage has to be made attractive to men for the surrounding civilization to survive. I don't agree with this. True marriage is inherently attractive to men. It's just that modern civil marriage isn't true marriage.
Oh, okay. Just saw this. So, we agree:
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.
The concept of 'no fault' divorce by itself may not be unfair.It's not necessarily unfair but it's a perversion of contractual law. How can one party summarily dissolve a contract without cause?
The problem with divorce is that it's so easy to get and the split is so unfair. If divorce were rare and generally amicable, none of us would care very much what kind of divorce it was.
For what it's worth, I don't believe in true divorce. Civil divorce (in my eyes) is merely a legal separation.
The rationale is that 'the child should not see a drop in living standards due to divorce'
If they want to protect the child's living standard, they should make joint-custody default. No man who is intimately and regularly involved with his child is going to allow it to sink into poverty. He'll live in a cardboard box and eat Ramen 3 times a day first. I know a couple where they're divorced and she's received sole custody, child support, and alimony and he still runs over with a checkbook every time she calls. New car? Check. Kids need school clothes? Check. Groceries running low? Check.
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.
I wrote about that here: http://butterflysquash.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/what-about-the-children/. They've basically re-opened debtor's prisons.
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.
I know three who've tried, one "successfully".
By many accounts, 25% of men have decided to avoid marriage. So what happens to a society that makes it unattractive for even 25% of men to marry?
The real horror of the situation, that you don't mention here, is that marriage rates are lowest in the lower classes, where it is the most needed just to keep neighborhoods from turning into war zones.
I believe it is of paramount importance that the knowledge be used ethically, and with the objective of creating mutually satisfying relationships with women.
You earned cool points for that one.
Re: Sarah Palin. They hate her because she achieved all of those things and she's not one of them. The family minister in Germany (same type of woman) also received some flack.
Re: rape. Interestingly, the shame previously associated with rape kept women from falsely accusing. Now that rape is considered widespread and even commonplace, the shame is gone and women speak about being raped like they speak about eating steak for dinner.
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 (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.
Have you read my post on privatizing marriage? http://butterflysquash.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/get-rid-of-civil-marriage/
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?
This one really burns me, as my husband could earn twice as much pushing papers for the government.
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).
It's also inherently unfair to black men, who die so much younger than everyone else.
It may be 'natural' for women to require more healthcare, since they are the ones who give birth. Births are actually pretty cheap. It's the elective C-sections and epidurals that drive up costs.
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.
I haven't forgotten this and it's something I worry about regularly.
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.
Absolutely brilliant diagram. I tried to create something similar, but I'm easily stymied by basic arithmetic and kept getting confused. *sigh* I'm such a moron; can't even add.
Typo:Anyone concerned about about national security.
I'm wondering why you didn't mention the problem of "marriage creep"? Of cohabiting couples being re-labeled as married for alimony purposes.
Posted by: Black&German | January 20, 2010 at 07:59 PM
Black&German,
I thought that the father of the bride pays for the wedding and the rings? That's how we did it.
That is how ANY traditional society does it due to biological realities (see what I wrote about India). The thing is, you belong to a traditional community that is surrounded by a very feminized ocean.
Last year she barely earned enough to pay the neighbor. That's pure insanity, if you ask me.
That's true. In such circumstances, it really only makes sense if the woman earns $100K or more..
True marriage is inherently attractive to men. It's just that modern civil marriage isn't true marriage.
You are saying the same thing as me. Traditional marriage was attractive to men. Modern 'marriage' is not.
Civil divorce (in my eyes) is merely a legal separation.
But the laws, of course, do not conform. Asset division and alimony are realities that many men are unfairly ruined by, even if HE didn't want the marriage to end.
If they want to protect the child's living standard,
But the 'feminists' don't want that, see...
I know three who've tried, one "successfully".
Doesn't that tell us that something inhumane is going on here, even in 21st century America?
*sigh* I'm such a moron; can't even add.
Actually, what makes the chart a killer is *multiplication*, rather than addition.
You have a role to play, B&G, by shaming 'feminists' for conducting great evil under the cloak of a victimhood narrative.
This is the big civil rights issue of our era, and the biggest national crisis of the next decade.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 20, 2010 at 08:49 PM
That is how ANY traditional society does it due to biological realities (see what I wrote about India). The thing is, you belong to a traditional community that is surrounded by a very feminized ocean.
Yeah, I'm starting to face the reality of this. Took me a while to notice. Isn't it interesting how we all think that we are part of the normative group?
Doesn't that tell us that something inhumane is going on here, even in 21st century America?
Yeah. We're struggling with my cousin. He wouldn't eat for days; totally withdrew. He's just started speaking again. Of course, we're all indignant for him, but there's not much we can do other than hire a good lawyer and vote.
Actually, what makes the chart a killer is *multiplication*, rather than addition.
Oh, man! You see what I'm talking about? It's a strange affliction because I can do complicated math, but not simple arithmetic. I used to work with statistics and I could usually hide it. Isn't that funny?
This is the big civil rights issue of our era, and the biggest national crisis of the next decade.
It's sort of all wound up in moral relativity and decadence, isn't it?
Posted by: Black&German | January 21, 2010 at 02:19 PM
Black&German,
Yeah, I'm starting to face the reality of this. Took me a while to notice.
I, too, was unaware of a lot of this just a year ago. But this is the biggest issue of the coming decade. That is for sure.
Of course, we're all indignant for him, but there's not much we can do other than hire a good lawyer and vote.
Advise other younger men that value your opinion. Point them to this article, and to the other bloggers we read. Make sure any marriage he is considering meets the 3 criteria I listed above. Help them dodge the bullet. Guide him to learn Game.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 21, 2010 at 04:47 PM
Lots of great points... nothing particularly new or revolutionary in itself, but it's revolutionary the way you connected all the usual dots in one coherent article. This could be a prototypical article for introducing people to mens rights activism.
Posted by: Xamuel Alexander | January 24, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Xamuel,
Thanks. The whole point is to bring new people into some level of awareness. As this article has been read by several thousand people, some of them hopefully learned something.
Posted by: The Futurist | January 24, 2010 at 01:01 PM
I replied to a comment you made at Obsidian's, here:
http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/a-womans-nation-the-acid-test-part-two/#comment-3970
Posted by: Black&German | January 24, 2010 at 05:49 PM
the reason of gap between male vs female unemployment rate, which is man worked in the factory more than woman.However, more factories were shut down in these years, cause a lot of men lost their job.
Posted by: Psychology Bachelor | January 24, 2010 at 09:23 PM
Ok futurist, it seems our debate was based on a difference of definitions and we actually agree. What I call game you call pre-game and what I call post-game you call game.
Let me throw in something else. I believe MOST people have my definition of game. Most people when they see the word game think of "conciously doing things that get a woman to sleep with you". In fact the term "Venusian arts" is INVENTED by a guy who still believes that you need to work on convincing women you're attractive. Mystery is still to this day going out there and performing pre-memorized routines and doing and saying things NOT because he believes in them, but because they'll get him pussy.
You accuse people of ignorance any time they disagree with you. Is it theoretically possible for you to have ever formulated anything in a way that's less than perfect? Again you're fighting with the people here who convict you of supplication or misoginy, but you are using a term invented by supplicators and objectifiers. Most people associate the term VA with playing women, not "being attractive". You can spend all day trying to convince us how were stupid and uninformed or you can take responsibility for your message.
In NLP they say "it's the responsibility of the communicator to get the right message across". That means you need to use the words of your readership.
Posted by: AlekNovy | January 28, 2010 at 08:21 AM
Maybe more appropriate terms would be something like.... Understanding Sexual Attraction or Social Dynamics. As I said the term Venusian arts was invented and still means to most people a "concious act of doing and saying things to get laid". Whether you like it or not that's what both it's author and pretty much everyone else defines it as. The people who have moved past this level wouldn't be caught dead saying the term "Venusian arts", you have everything from "natural game" which is a kind of a transition term all the way to simply "attraction" where more and more guys are avoiding anything to do with the word game like Cory Skyy who simply teaches "effortless attraction".
Posted by: AlekNovy | January 28, 2010 at 08:35 AM
Found this by following a link from a commenter at American Thinker. I have only read about half of it so far, but I had to mention an article from somewhere that Rush Limbaugh read on his show the other day. It was a study that women how have not married by their 40's have almost no chance of ever getting married. This fits right in with your article.
Posted by: Paul | January 31, 2010 at 04:03 AM
Since ingrate and spoiled white western women ignore average men who would if given the chance be good husbands and fathers to them and their children, I got a chuckle from this article that correctly states that if the kitten doesn't want average men, average men do not want the cat. I am utterly indifferent or hostile to the ones who ignored me before, and I am contemptuous of younger women in general because I see how they're brat drama queens with an amazing sense of self-entitlement. They do nothing to earn my respect or trust, so why should I bother with them? They only approach when they want something of me, and not to even have a nice adult conversation or get to know me as a person. It's hell out there when white guys like me who are not ugly, slovenly, uneducated, violent, abusive or a substance abuser, lazy and irresponsible are ignored by white women. They want to sleep with blacks, drug addicts, thugs and anyone else who ruins them as people, then they have the gall to come to guys like me looking for rescue. I've only met a few women over the years who truly see me as a person and not as a target of opportunity, but as fate would have it, I didn't marry any of them because I wasn't ready for it or I wasn't the right one for them. The message here for men is if you meet a woman who demonstrates she is actually interested in you as a person and not a target of opportunity, and you wish to form a family despite the worsening social, political and economic environment out there, give her a chance and see how things progress. For average men, there are few choices out there for mates, and a loose, immoral, bad woman is a man's waking nightmare. The best thing white men can do is no longer be "Capt. save a whore" and let them suffer from their actions. Let their children hate them too for their bad behavior. Congratulations ladies, your misandry is going to be visited upon your daughters and grand-daughters, who will find white men regarding them as enemies, not potential wives and mothers. The future of white Americans is in jeopardy, because feminism is causing whites to breed themselves out of existence while non-whites who wish to kill us pour into our country. Feminists can thank themselves for the brutal race war that's ahead. Don't think I will step into the path of bullets to rescue misandrist women who regard me as less than nothing.
Posted by: Vlad Tepes | January 31, 2010 at 04:52 PM
Okay... I tried. I really tried. And then I got to this:
"When they collude with rage-filled 'feminists' who would gladly send innocent men to concentration camps if they could,"
and just couldn't do it any more. You poor, misunderstood, beta male who can't get a woman to love him and darn his socks.
You are a miserable piece of shit.
And before you call me a manhater and insist I'm trampling your civil rights, I am in a 7 year committed relationship with a wonderful man most might consider beta, but that I love dearly. There isn't a ring in sight and we're both just fine with that. Don't worry. If I ever "tire of him", he won't need to pay me a dime in alimony because this independent woman makes a salary all her own and can take care of her own damned self.
Welcome to 2010 you primate.
Posted by: Valerie | February 01, 2010 at 03:29 PM
Valerie,
And then I got to this:
There is a link where a misandrist actually says that. You do know how to click on links, don't you? Or do you endorse talk of slavery and murder of men?
Anyway, the article clearly states that when a gender bigot like you is intellectually outclassed, you have no proper arguments, and so resort to Pavlovian 'misogynist' and 'loser' ranting.
Thanks for proving the point of the article so cleanly, and effectively admitting the validity of it.
Proper blogs like Dr. Helen and Kim du Toit have heartily endorsed this article. No blog of any significance has denounced it. You, clearly, don't belong on the right side of this issue, and are embarassed at having been exposed.
Welcome to 2010 you primate.
Actually, this blog is about the future, and is far more forward-thinking than anything you have ever written.
You are so immersed in projection that you just can't help yourself.
Plus, you are bitter that you could never get top-flight guys such as myself. Some self-examination is in order for you.
Posted by: The Futurist | February 01, 2010 at 08:08 PM
Oh my god, the article preemptively predicted EXACTLY the type of hissy-fit response that Valerie posted here. She couldn't have done more to confirm those very facts that she hates if she tried.
Dr. Helen is right. These feminists are a danger to all women. What a terrible parody they have degenerated into. I am ashamed to have Valerie as a member of my sex.
Posted by: Teresa | February 01, 2010 at 10:00 PM
Oh for crying out loud.
If you honestly believe that most (if not all) modern women are radical feminists who hate men, then I can't be bothered to take the time to expand on why and how I believe you and your manifesto to be so thoroughly full of shit.
It makes me giggle that you attempt to negate my opinion of your piece, because I threw a "hissy-fit"(yeah, okay Teresa), but don't see the irony in then denouncing it by calling me names, insulting my intelligence and assuming I haven't ever composed a forward-thinking word. You have no idea who I am! Sheesh! I make no bones about the fact that your "article" pisses me off. You've got some ego to think that I should automatically believe it because you say it's true.
The thing is, I wouldn't typically call myself a feminist. You did. I consider myself a modern woman equal to my partner, but that's perhaps my undoing in your eyes? I should be ever-so-grateful that he keeps me around and supports me as I beat the dust out of the rugs each day? Your ramblings aren't forward-thinking, they are archaic.
If you are an example of a "top-flight man", I'm good. No really. More than fine.
Posted by: Valerie | February 02, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Earth to Valerie,
There are WOMEN, like me, Dr Helen, and Cassy Fiano, that totally agree with this article. People like YOU are the problem, since you can't actually see the damage that feminism is doing to normal women.
You think namecalling equals debate, which The Futurist already pre-emptively predicted and explained in the article. Somehow, you are dumb enough to think that proving the points of the article to be true is a way to debate the article.
You really are not smart enough to discuss this topic. Now, you are approaching Beth Donovan levels of idiocy, which is a pathetic level to sink to.
Posted by: Teresa | February 02, 2010 at 02:11 PM
"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)."
Oh please. Stop with the "old school feminists". The 1800s feminists would be a bra-burning man-hater too if she got the chance, and a number show threads of the blatant man-hater in their writings, but they did not do this because it was not POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT. It was POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT to play ignorant and innocent, to advance the cause of feminism in ways that appealed to men's logic and sense of fairness. As feminism accumulated weapons with which they could achieve their final aim (female dominated society) - including the female vote, economic power, contraception and so on - the true feelings and desires came to the surface. Why? Because now it was POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT. Enough weapons had been accumulated by women for use against men that playing ignorant was no longer necessary, and coming out straight with man-hating diatribes didn't have any negative political outcomes.
Basically the "old-school feminists" who are the "good ones" in some people's books were the weapon makers and procurers, but who used alot of Enlightenment, wishful and polite language to get those weapons. The "new-school feminists" the "modern, different" ones who are "bad" simply used the weapons that the old-schoolers used.
There is no such thing as a "good feminist", and this distinction between old- and new-schoolers is non-sensical and superficial.
There's nothing "genuine" about any feminist ever. By their fruits you shall know them.
Posted by: can | February 06, 2010 at 08:41 PM
Great stuff, Futurist.
Powerful, ambitious in scope, and unrelenting. Since first reading I've enjoyed getting some close women I know to read the piece in order to have a lively discussion; one a psychologist was diplomatic but evidenced cognitive dissonance, the other ended up shouting and raving at me/you, which was entertaining nonetheless.
I was probably one of the first to read - at least the first to bookmark in Delicious - but at the time, with the content still percolating through my mind, didn't have anything to say or contribute.
However, tonight I was reading University of Newcastle Psychologist Daniel Nettle's book "Personality: What makes you the way you are" and finished Chapter 6, which discusses the personality trait "Agreeableness". To cut a long story short it appears that women typically score much better than men in this trait, but that scoring highly on this trait is strongly negatively correlated with professional career success because it typically comes at the expense of social relationships. The author does make the connection that the measurable sex difference in Agreeableness puts feminism and sex discrimination in society into an interesting light.
In any case I thought that you - and others who appreciate this article - would enjoy the book and particularly that chapter as it relates directly to the topic of this article, should you and others have the time and inclination to seek it out.
All the best,
Mark
Posted by: Mark | February 09, 2010 at 03:30 AM
"Time to legalize and tax commercial sex. Skip the virtual.
Regardless of the protest in Lawrence, consenting adult behavior is fundamentally the same."
Not relevant. We have "escort" prostitution services everywhere now thanks to the Internet, and it has not chipped feminism's power one bit. Bear in mind that prostitution in feminist (matriarchal) society and prostitution in patriarchal society are two very different things. Many anti-feminists don't recognise this, when they say legalised prostitution will ease feminism, "because it was rampant in centuries past". Prostitutes in the patriarchal system were treated as chattel and were treated as the lowest of the low. In feminist society they are free agents and admired (they are "empowered"). This has a trickle down effect to the impact prostitution has on relations between the sexes: i.e. does it make men more powerful or women more powerful.
All the talk of free market and competition is nice; but it doesn't change reality on the ground. Legalised prostitution won't undermine feminism or matriarchy.
"Each half
of the human race blaming the other half for _all_
the race's problems, when the true cause is too much
prosperity, and the two choices are to go backward,
to a society of scarcity, which enforces the nuclear
family, or forward, to a society of plenty, where
each individual can live as they choose, and the only
ones who choose the difficult path of raising a family
are those who should."
BS idealism and double standards. Take feminism to task if you really care about fairness.
Posted by: iceman commeth | February 09, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Mark,
Thanks.
Note that far too many women have no debate tactics other than to call a man an a) misogynist, or b) loser. I have already pre-empted that in the article itself, with an explanation of each, but that didn't stop women (note Valerie above) from proving the article correct in this regard.
At any rate, the goal is to educate *men*, and if you learned something new, keep trying to bring other men into awareness. Some will be very resistant, but those who have observed 20% of these facts on their own will see the other 80% filled in very quickly.
And keep politely yet persistently hammering down the woman who shouted/raved. Counterattack her for her misandry and sense of entitlement. Be calm, confident, and slightly teasing. Then see what happens.
Posted by: The Futurist | February 09, 2010 at 12:57 PM
"I can see a subculture of women who rediscover the joys of baking cookies in their quest to make themselves more appealing to the dwindling number of suitable husbands, but it this likely to impact the dominant culture?"
"Do you see the top 10% of men, those women are focused on, abandoning women for VR porn, or expating, or using surrogate mothers, or dropping out of the workforce? Or are these trends among men that aren't in the race anyway?"
Excellent contributions, ThousandmileMargin.
Posted by: iceman commeth | February 09, 2010 at 12:58 PM
The Futurist,
I have had most of these thoughts for a very long time. My 1st child's mother was a feminazi Jew who screwed me out of access through Australia's family court over a 3 year period of heartbreaking bluff and lies. I spent 15 years single and recovering from that experience before marrying a very traditional Filipina who has no interest in leaving the Philippines. We have 1 daughter so far. There are huge cultural differences, sometimes full on clashes; but marriage is taken very seriously. There is no divorce in the Philippines. There is no family court. There is no real way to force alimoney payment. There is no 'single mother's benefit'.
I believe your article it pretty much spot on about the truth of what is happening in western countries today. I appreciate that as an Indian/ American you know a lot more about the real tradition of marriage than most westerners will ever understand. Marriage is a contract. Marriage has become null and void as a contract due to other legal instruments prevailing over and above what should be the most important contract society has ever had. Bravo to you for this article; I hope the debate continues until reality gets a hold once more. I found your article posted on peakoil.com in a thread about 'The breadwinners wear lipstick'. Generally we on that forum agree that the status quo is on the threashold of breaking down and that traditional roles are likely to re-emerge as the government is no longer able to afford such rubbish as has been afforded to support feminist extremes.
The most foolish thing anyone can do is believe that nothing will change, that the direction of society will continue. Traditional roles have existed for longer than history itself by an infinite factor. They will re-emerge in the west, just as they have largely held ground in the east. Westerners like to think of themselves as the most advanced societies. Yet ignoring the most obvious proverbs such as "He who fails to learn the lessons of history is condemned to repeat the mistakes of history," Indian culture is built around this extremely important principle. Indian culture is extremely respectfull generally towards women as well as men, to a level unimaginable to most western women.
(PS I was a Hindu monk for many years.)
Posted by: Chris | February 12, 2010 at 07:27 PM
Chris,
Thanks. Be sure to educate young guys, when the topic comes up. Save a young guy from the same injustice done to you. This also transfers the costs of misandry onto the perpetrators.
Point them to resources like this article, or the links I have provided. Given them at least the chance to dodge these bullets, which they may or may not choose to heed. If even one man's paradigm changes, you will have saved a life. He, in turn, may teach another and another.
This article is up to 60,000 vists and 87,000 views so far (43 days).
You ought to go frequent The Spearhead (www.the-spearhead.com) from time to time. A lot of great knowledge is being exchanged there.
(PS I was a Hindu monk for many years.)
Wha?
Then you have done a lot more than me. I am an agnostic myself.
Posted by: The Futurist | February 12, 2010 at 08:42 PM
Mainstream awareness is rising:
The New Dating Game
Back to the New Paleolithic Age.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/new-dating-game?page=12
Posted by: RobR | February 15, 2010 at 05:25 AM
Wow, what a superb article!
However, as others have stated I see a mathematical and statistical zero per cent chance that the lawyers, judges and politicians will right this disgusting state of affairs.
In summary, they simply all profit by stealing sweat from honest men's backs (and their children, respect, etc). They know that and couldn't care less. So how does the author of this excellent article see any real change coming?
I really would like to know...
Posted by: bshirt | February 15, 2010 at 06:11 AM
"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."
Maybe, and probably; but that's irrelevant in the Western context as it is the civil (i.e. feminist/misandrist) law that counts. Civil law has the final say.
Posted by: inca | February 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM
"You have a role to play, B&G, by shaming 'feminists' for conducting great evil under the cloak of a victimhood narrative."
What's with this 'feminists' (inverted commas) thing?
A man-hater and a misandrist is a genuine feminist. There's no incompatibility here.
In fact misandry is a necessity for feminism.
Posted by: inca | February 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM
So how does the author of this excellent article see any real change coming?
Did you read the latter part of the article, about the Four Horsemen?
The laws will not voluntarily change. No. Rather, men will adapt around them, causing the rotten system to collapse in on itself (it cannot exist without male compliance).
Posted by: The Futurist | February 15, 2010 at 03:27 PM
This is an awesome article, that says many things that need to be said.
It is nowhere near misogynist. As the author correctly points out and pre-empts, those women who simply use that 'misogynist' accusation rather than behave like actual adults and debate properly, are merely proving the points of the article.
Posted by: James Mintz | February 15, 2010 at 03:29 PM
In my novel "The Pandoran Age" there is nary a positive female role model to be found. None actually. This was easy-although it is a work of fiction, I constructed the characters from my life experience. Even the worst males were courageous after a fashion, self sacrificing to a fault. Even the best women were self serving and destructive in a mirror image.
Of course, it is a reflection of our era that one creates a metaphor with such results. Sixty years ago such would not have been the case and I am old enough to have met some of those women before they passed on. Far and away from being the "doormats" portrayed by the left, they were oaks. Lovely into old age, strong and kind and loving-the complete antithesis of the modern banshee.
There are exceptions of course, even among the banshee horde.
Obviously I chose the "Pandoran Age" as the metaphor for a reason. We are in dark times and I believe darker times are to come as Western civilization will most likely collapse or fall into an even deeper form of Totalitarianism and Cultural Marxism than is upon us now.
Chronos Productions
http://www.wix.com/winteroud/CHRONOS-PRODUCTIONS
Posted by: Dante D'Anthony | February 19, 2010 at 01:44 PM
Are these comments deleted or is there free speech on this issue? One can communicate the points in this essay with...an essay,or one might illsutrate them metaphorically in a novel as I did in "Tales from the Pandoran Age".
Posted by: Dante D'Anthony | February 19, 2010 at 01:56 PM
Rick Rostrom, what a horrid pictire of the past you paint for women.
LOL.
Hardly the reality. My great grand mother-typical, really, of a turn of the century American woman.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/photo.php?pid=1786742&id=717526818
Posted by: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=717526818 | February 19, 2010 at 02:03 PM
Read Moxy's "The Woman Racket"....
A agree with the futurist. The current social paradigm is unworkable, inorganic, and viscous. But I would add there is a genocidal quality too it, sort of a retro-active civilizational suicide culling the advance of Western man, trimming him back-but to where?
At this rate we will diffuse in a century or so, and then become like strange exotic rabbits or farm animals... vestigial populations overrun and buried by other peoples who will merely look at our self destruction with a kind of passing curiosity, quietly, or loudly as the case may be, glancing at us as they take possession of our niches and lands.
Posted by: Dante D'Anthony | February 19, 2010 at 02:37 PM
Anonymous wrote, " If you were to ask someone how they would prefer to be victimized - get raped or spend 20 years paying some godawful tithe to your victimizer - you can be damned sure they would almost universally choose the former. And if you don't think that's the truth you're an idiot. "
Absolutely. What's worse the victimizer (usually the woman) is free to abscond with the child-often for years-and the tithe merely banks while she is on her kidnapping adventure.
It accumulates creating a de facto massive saving account reward for depriving the man of his relationship with his progeny. This, along with the denial of person-hood subject against the unborn, is the kind of horror we haven't seen in America since the era of Slavery.
If the unfortunate father takes a job far from home, she is even more likely to play fast and loose with his relationship with his child.
It matters not if he is a teacher of the handicapped, an art instructor, a soldier-he is a man, and is NOTHING in the practical aspects of the family-court-industrial-complex except someone to extort money from.
Posted by: Dante D'Anthony | February 19, 2010 at 02:47 PM
You're full beans Halifax...grow a pair my petard. Try sitting behind an M60 with your kid a world away and you don't know where your x took off with them. Or driving into a ghetto where the police cars are shot up in front of your school for a few years of your adult life (again, not knowing where your kid is) and the fat feminist pig judge doesn't do SQUAT to your ex for violating every order the court ever gave. Ur a dick.
Posted by: Dante D'Anthony | February 19, 2010 at 08:02 PM
Amazing!
The questions we feel uncomfortable answering laid out.
There was a movie in which one of the characters said something like "If you stay so high, you will see what is going to happen".
People often see where they are heading to, yet only few change their path.
And a change usually begins with being aware of the need.
Nice work good sir!
Posted by: Wes M | February 20, 2010 at 01:04 AM