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



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


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

Taken into Custody by Stephen Baskerville


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.


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 ;)



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


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.


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.


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.


"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?


This may be the best thing I've ever taken this much time to read. Wow. My brain hurts.



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.


"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...


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.



No fault divorce is perfectly fine, as long as the possibility of alimony is permenantly excluded. The indivduals are free to start again, assets divided right down the middle. The children go to whomever wants them and can best support them.

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.

The Futurist

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,


The Futurist

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.


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.

The Futurist


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.


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.

Valkyrie Ice

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.


"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.)

The Futurist

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.

The Futurist


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.

Valkyrie Ice

@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.

The Futurist

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?

Valkyrie Ice

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.

The Futurist

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.

Valkyrie Ice

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?


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.

The Futurist

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.


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.



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.


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.

The Futurist


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.

The Futurist


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.


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.


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.

The Futurist


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.

Valkyrie Ice

Alright, Futurist. Here it is.


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.


Valkyrie Ice


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.

Valkyrie Ice


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.



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.

Valkyrie Ice


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.



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.

Valkyrie Ice


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?


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.


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"


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".

The Futurist


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.


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.


"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.


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.

The Futurist


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.


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.

The Futurist


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.


"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.


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.


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).


best option is to stop trying to impress women. just have a backnone and say "no" women respect man who says "no"



"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.

The Futurist


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.


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.


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.

The Futurist


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.


Thanks. You are absolutely correct. The article has struck a nerve, however, as traffic is still rather high, 19 days after posting.


"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.


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.


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.

The Futurist


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.


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?

The Futurist


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.

Xamuel Alexander

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.

The Futurist


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.


I replied to a comment you made at Obsidian's, here:

Psychology Bachelor

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.


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.


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".


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.

Vlad Tepes

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.


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.

The Futurist


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.


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.


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.


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.


"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.


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,

iceman commeth

"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.

The Futurist



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.

iceman commeth

"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.


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.)

The Futurist


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.)


Then you have done a lot more than me. I am an agnostic myself.


Mainstream awareness is rising:
The New Dating Game
Back to the New Paleolithic Age.


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...


"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.


"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.

The Futurist

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).

James Mintz

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.

Dante D'Anthony

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

Dante D'Anthony

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".


Rick Rostrom, what a horrid pictire of the past you paint for women.


Hardly the reality. My great grand mother-typical, really, of a turn of the century American woman.


Dante D'Anthony

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.

Dante D'Anthony

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.

Dante D'Anthony

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.

Wes M


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!

The comments to this entry are closed.